Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 98 (2021) 25–30
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

28th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering

Sustainability assessment of methods to prevent progressive collapse of RC

flat slab buildings
Suyash Garga *, Vinay Agrawalb, Ravindra Nagarc
a
PhD Scholar, Civil Engineering Department, Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India - 302017
b
Associate Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India - 302017
c
Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India - 302017

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-9799534155. E-mail address: suyash.garg512@gmail.com

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that RC flat slab buildings are highly vulnerable to progressive collapse because no beams could help redistribute
the loads previously carried by the lost columns. The necessary strengthening methods should, therefore, be adapted to reduce the occurrence of
progressive collapse. In this paper, the progressive collapse behaviour of five-storey R.C flat slab building is assessed by removing columns from
the first-storey and dynamic analysis is conducted in compliance with GSA guidelines (2016). The results are analyzed in terms of vertical
displacement and chord rotation at the location of removed columns and compared with the allowable limits as specified in DoD guidelines
(2009). Different sized perimeter beams are used as strengthening methods to increase the progressive collapse resistance of the studied flat slab
building. Since building strengthening uses structural elements that consume natural resources, sustainability criteria should be explicitly included
in the strengthening requirements. These performance enhancement methods are then evaluated from structural, cost and environmental aspects
and the results are examined. A strengthening alternative is then proposed which not only satisfy the progressive collapse code requirements but
also requires less cost and emits less CO2 gas.
© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 28th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering.
Keywords: Sustainability; Progressive collapse; Flat slab; Perimeter beam; Cost calculation; CO2 emission.

1. Introduction approaches currently used to assess the effectiveness of the

Progressive collapse is a scenario in which a local failure
causes a chain of events spreading across the entire structure
and leading to a global catastrophe. The Ronan Point apartment
building in London and Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma
City are examples of such structural failures during recent
decades. Due to the catastrophic implications, the progressive
collapse in the civil engineering research community has
gained increased interest, especially in developing design
guidelines. The alternative load path technique, according to
the guidelines General Service Administration (GSA) 2016 [1]
and Department of Defense (DoD) 2009 [2], is one of the
structure against the progressive collapse by evaluating the
response from the structure undergoing the instantaneous
removal of the column. The building is first designed in
accordance with the respective country codes such as IS
456:2000 for India, ACI 318-M05-2005 for the USA, BS
8110:1995 for the UK, EN 1992 Eurocode 2:2003 for Europe,
CSA A.23.3-2004 for Canada, etc. The designed building is
then checked for progressive collapse under the GSA
guidelines. If the analysis indicates that any element or
connection does not meet the acceptance criteria, the building
does not satisfy the progressive collapse requirements and must
be re-designed or strengthened to eliminate the non-compliant

2212-8271 © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 28th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering.
10.1016/j.procir.2020.12.003

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 26 Suyash Garg et al. / Procedia CIRP 98 (2021) 25–30
Notations
C-1 Corner Column
E-1 Edge Column - 1
E-2 Edge Column - 2
ΔC-1 Vertical Displacement at the location of the
removed corner column
ΔE-1 Vertical Displacement at the location of the
removed edge column - 1
ΔE-2 Vertical Displacement at the location of the
removed edge column - 2
θC-1 Chord Rotation at the location of the removed
corner column
θE-1 Chord Rotation at the location of the removed
edge column - 1
θE-2 Chord Rotation at the location of the removed
edge column - 2
element. The acceptance criteria for beams, two-way slabs and
slab column connections (flat slabs) of different material types
(reinforced concrete, steel, masonry, wood, cold-formed steel)
are presented in the DoD guidelines in terms of plastic rotation
angles in radians.
Flat slab structures are more vulnerable to progressive
collapse because there are no beams to help redistribute the
loads [3-7]. Several researchers have therefore attempted to
investigate the behaviour of RC flat slab structures in resisting
progressive collapse. On the basis of validated numerical
analyses, Keyvani et al. [8] evaluated the impact of
compressive membrane action on the progressive collapse
capacity of flat plate structures. Qian and Li [9,10] assessed the
behaviour of RC flat slab structures under corner or interior
column removals. Peng et al. [11] examined the dynamic
behaviour of flat plate substructure under the instantaneous
removal of the exterior column.
In these conditions, there is a considerable need to carry out
an effective performance evaluation of RC flat slab buildings
and to evaluate potential strengthening schemes to meet the
criteria of the progressive collapse code [1, 2]. Perimeter beams
are strongly recommended to allow frame action to redistribute
vertical loads and improve the shear connection of floors to
columns, and can, therefore, be used as an effective
strengthening tool [12].
In this study, the progressive collapse behaviour of a five-
storey RC flat slab building subjected to instantaneous removal
of first storey columns is assessed using dynamic analysis and
various strengthening alternatives to meet the current
progressive collapse code requirements are presented. These
alternatives, in the form of different sized perimeter beams, are
then examined from the chord rotation at the location of the
removed column, the cost and CO2 gas generation perspectives
and the results are demonstrated for comparison.
2. Sustainability Criteria
One of the most important problems for developing
countries is the optimal usage of scarce natural resources.
Therefore, the proper use of these resources has become
increasingly important. Consequently, the researchers seek to
apply the sustainability viewpoint in several ways [13-15].
Sustainability means the most effective way of using available
resources. Buildings need large quantities of financial
investment and capital.
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
Table 1. CO2 emission factor and unit cost by the strength of materials used in
strengthening alternatives.
Material
Strength CO2 emission
Unit cost
(MPa) factor
Concrete
25 236.8 kg-CO2/m3 ₹ 9400.85/m3
(M25)
Rebar (Fe 500) 500 424.2 kg-CO2/ton ₹ 83500.0/ton
In civil engineering, structures are at risk of a local failure
which can cause repeated failures leading to complete collapse.
Consequently, numerous strengthening alternatives are
required to be implemented to achieve adequate protection.
Strengthening, however, like constructing new houses, often
requires forms of energy and creates harmful gases.
Sustainability issues should therefore be studied from an
engineering point of view. The CO2 emission factors and unit
costs are adjusted according to the material quality. Therefore,
proper strengthening system to save money and protect the
environment must be determined. Table 1 [14] indicates the
CO2 emission factors and unit costs of concrete and rebar based
on their strength.
3. Detail of Building Models
The studied RC flat slab building consists of five storeys
with 3x4 bays having a span of 8.0 m in each direction with a
height of 3.6 m in all storeys. ETABS software [16] is used to
replicate the flat slab building. A plan and 3-D view of the
building under study can be seen in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively.
For modelling flat slabs, the Equivalent Frame Method (EFM)
[17-19] is used. For each storey, the size of column taken as
450 x 450 mm, the thickness of the flat slab is taken as 200 mm,
and size of the inner and outer flat slab beams are taken as 1780
x 200 mm and 890 x 200 mm, respectively. In each building
layout, a Live Load (LL) of 4.0 kN/m2 and a superimposed
Dead Load (DL) 2.0 kN/m2 is applied to all floors. The grade
of concrete and steel is taken as M25 and Fe500, respectively.
Buildings are designed for gravity loads in accordance with IS
456:2000 [20].
The size and reinforcement details of the seven
strengthening alternatives, examined in this study, in the form
of different perimeter beams are shown in Table 2. The
building model without any strengthening measure, B-PB, is
compared with building models B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6 and
B7 having different sized perimeter beams.
Fig. 1. Plan of studied flat slab building model.
 Suyash Garg et al. / Procedia CIRP 98 (2021) 25–30 27

Table 2. Details of seven strengthening alternatives.

Reinforcement
Total
Total quantity of
Longitudinal Top Longitudinal Transverse (bar quantity of
Building Detail of strengthening alternatives reinforcement
(number @ bar Bottom (number dia in mm @ concrete
(Ton)
dia in mm) @ bar dia in mm) spacing in mm) (m3)
B-1 Perimeter beam 450x450 mm at all storeys 2#25 + 2#20 2#25 + 2#20 10@175 113.40 17.71
B-2 Perimeter beam 450x500 mm at all storeys 3#25 + 1#20 3#25 + 1#20 10@162.5 126.00 19.76
B-3 Perimeter beam 450x550 mm at all storeys 4#25 4#25 10@150 138.60 21.88
B-4 Perimeter beam 450x600 mm at all storeys 4#25 + 1#20 4#25 + 1#20 10@137.5 151.20 25.31
B-5 Perimeter beam 450x650 mm at all storeys 5#25 5#25 10@125 163.80 27.67
Perimeter beam 450x450 mm at 1 st storey 2#25 + 2#20 2#25 + 2#20 10@175
Perimeter beam 450x500 mm at 2 nd storey 3#25 + 1#20 3#25 + 1#20 10@162.5
B-6 Perimeter beam 450x550 mm at 3 rd storey 4#25 4#25 10@150 138.60 22.46
Perimeter beam 450x600 mm at 4 th storey 4#25 + 1#20 4#25 + 1#20 10@137.5
Perimeter beam 450x650 mm at 5 th storey 5#25 5#25 10@125
Perimeter beam 450x650 mm at 1 st storey 5#25 5#25 10@125
Perimeter beam 450x600 mm at 2 nd storey 4#25 + 1#20 4#25 + 1#20 10@137.5
B-7 Perimeter beam 450x550 mm at 3 rd storey 4#25 4#25 10@150 138.60 22.46
Perimeter beam 450x500 mm at 4 th storey 3#25 + 1#20 3#25 + 1#20 10@162.5
Perimeter beam 450x450 mm at 5 th storey 2#25 + 2#20 2#25 + 2#20 10@175

stable equilibrium and eventually the force is immediately

removed in 0.005 sec. The total dynamic analysis time is
estimated to be 3.0 sec, which is sufficient to determine the
maximum response and achieve a stable state under 5 per cent
of the damping ratio. The results are measured in terms of
vertical displacements at the location of the removed column,
where displacements are taken as peak values (absolute
maximum) of the time-history responses determined.
The typical columns C-1, E-1 and E-2 are alternately
removed from the first storey and the vertical joint
displacement at the removed column location is determined to
evaluate the impact of seven strengthening alternatives on the
progressive collapse resistance of the studied flat slab building.
Fig. 2. 3-D view of studied flat slab building model.
In addition, the chord rotation (in radians) at each column
removal position is measured as the ratio of vertical joint
displacement and length of the member. The determined chord
rotation values at the corresponding joint for flat slab structures
are then compared with the allowed plastic rotation angle of
0.05 radians, as per the DoD guidelines [2].

5. Results and Discussion

This section addresses the findings of the study of the

modelled buildings. Section 5.1 examines the behaviour of
progressive collapse under various column removals, while
Section 5.2 and Section 5.3 evaluate strengthening alternatives
from a structural and sustainability point of view, respectively.
Fig. 3. Load time history – simulation of instantaneous column removal.
5.1. Assessment of progressive collapse behaviour under
different column removals
4. Method of Analysis
The progressive collapse resistance is evaluated when the
columns C-1, E-1, and E-2 are removed one at a time from the
In the dynamic progressive collapse analysis, gravity
first storey. From Table 3, for building model B-PB, the
loading of 1.2 DL+0.5 LL is uniformly applied across the entire
findings indicate that the removal of C-1 results in a maximum
frame as per GSA guidelines [1]. The column is then removed
displacement of 850.2 mm, while the removal of E-2 results in
and replaced by a force (F) equal and opposite to its reaction
a minimum displacement of 725.3 mm. This may be related to
force. For dynamic column removal, the member force (F) is
the fact that the C-1 is only connected to two edge columns,
suddenly removed using a time-history function as shown in
Fig. 3. The member force is applied up to 1.5 sec to achieve a

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 28 Suyash Garg et al. / Procedia CIRP 98 (2021) 25–30

Table 3. Vertical displacement and chord rotation at location of removed

0
columns for different buildings.
-100
Vertical displacements at -200
Chord rotation at location of
location of the removed
the removed column (rad) -300

ΔE-1 (mm)
Building column (mm)
-400
ΔC-1 ΔE-1 ΔE-2 θC-1 θE-1 θE-2
-500
B-NB 850.2 749.7 725.3 0.106 0.094 0.091 -600
B-1 449.6 540.1 515.1 0.056 0.068 0.064
-700
B-2 400.2 501.3 474.9 0.050 0.063 0.059
B-3 366.1 460.5 435.5 0.046 0.058 0.054 -800
B-4 295.3 369.8 348.8 0.037 0.046 0.044 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3
B-5 250.5 352.1 325.6 0.031 0.044 0.041 Time (sec)
B-6 341.4 420.6 405.2 0.043 0.053 0.051
B-7 315.5 380.2 369.4 0.039 0.048 0.046
B-NB B-1 B-5 B-7

200 Fig. 5. Time history of vertical displacement when E-1 is instantaneously

0 removed at t = 1.5 sec.

-200 0
ΔC-1 (mm)

-100
-400
-200
-600 -300

ΔE-2 (mm)
-800 -400
-500
-1000
-600
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3
-700
Time (sec) -800
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3
B-NB B-1 B-5 B-7
Time (sec)

Fig. 4. Time history of vertical displacement when C-1 is instantaneously B-NB B-1 B-5 B-7
removed at t = 1.5 sec.

Fig. 6. Time history of vertical displacement when E-2 is instantaneously

while the E-2 is connected to three columns. Further, it is
observed that ΔE-1 is marginally higher than ΔE-2 which could
be due to the fact that the E-1 column is removed from the short
edge of the building, while the E-2 column is removed from the
long edge of the building. It is also noted from Table 3 that the
results obtained in terms of joint displacement (ΔC-1, ΔE-1 and
ΔE-2) display similar trends when the resistance to progressive
collapse is compared in form of chord rotation (θC-1, θE-1 and
θE-2).
For the buildings B-NB, B-1, B-5 and B-7, the time history
of vertical displacements at location of removed columns C-1,
E-1, and E-2 is shown in Figs. 4, 5 and 6, respectively. From t
= 0.0 sec to t = 1.5 sec, building reaches static equilibrium; at t
= 1.5 sec, the columns C-1, E-1, and E-2 are suddenly removed
in 0.005 sec; from t = 1.5 sec to t = 2.75 sec, building shows
dynamic response; from t = 2.75 sec to t = 3.0 sec, stabilization
of vibration in the building.
5.2. Assessment of strengthening from a structural perspective
The seven flat slab building models B-1 to B-7 are
strengthened by different sized perimeter beams and their
progressive collapse resistance is compared to the B-NB
model. The findings of the progressive collapse analysis as
shown in Table 3, for model B-NB, clearly show the
development of progressive collapse as the values of chord
rotation exceeds the limit of 0.05 in all the column removal
scenarios. Inclusion of the perimeter beams in the studied flat
slab building has significantly decreased the values of joint
removed at t = 1.5 sec.
displacement and chord rotation in all column removal
situations as seen from Figs. 7, 8 and 9.
By comparing the joint displacements of model B-1 with model
B-NB, it is found that adding perimeter beams has decreased
ΔC-1 by 47.1 %, ΔE-1 by 27.9 % and ΔC-1 by 29.0 %. It may be
attributed to the fact that the perimeter beams strengthen all the
associated slab beams in the event of C-1 removal, while they
strengthen only two out of three associated slab beams in the
event of E-1 and E-2 removal. As the size of the perimeter
beam subsequently increases in B-2, B-3, B-4 and B-5, its
effect on improvement in progressive collapse also increases.
The addition of perimeter beams reduced ΔC-1 by 70.5 %, ΔE-1
by 53.0 % and ΔC-1 by 55.1 % when model B-5 is compared
with model B-NB. Further, it can be seen from the Figs. 7, 8
and 9 that, among the models B-1 to B-5, where the same sized
perimeter beams are incorporated on each storey, the chord
rotation is kept below the 0.05 limit for the building models B-
4 and B-5. However, in cases where different sized perimeter
beams are added to different storeys, as in B-6 (beam size
decreasing from top) and B-7 (beam size increasing from top),
the results showed that the chord rotation values are held below
0.05 for the building model B-7. This means that if perimeter
beams of different sizes are to be added to strengthen different
storeys, it is desirable to provide a heavier section of the
perimeter beam on the first storey rather than on the top storey,
in order to effectively transfer the loads to the adjacent
columns.

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 Suyash Garg et al. / Procedia CIRP 98 (2021) 25–30 29

0.060 0.070

0.060
0.050

0.050
0.040

0.040
θC-1 (rad)

θE-2 (rad)
0.030

Beam size decreasing from top

Beam size decreasing from top

Beam size increasing from top

Beam size increasing from top

0.030

0.020
Beam 450x500 mm

Beam 450x600 mm
Beam 450x550 mm

Beam 450x550 mm
Beam 450x650 mm

Beam 450x650 mm
Beam 450x600 mm
Beam 450x450 mm

Beam 450x500 mm
Beam 450x450 mm
0.020

0.010
0.010

0.000 0.000
B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7
Strengthening alternatives Strengthening alternatives

Fig. 7. Chord rotation when C-1 removed. Fig. 8. Chord rotation when E-2 removed.

0.070 4000000.00

0.060 3500000.00

3000000.00
0.050
2500000.00
COST (₹)

0.040
θE-1 (rad)

2000000.00
Beam size inccreasing from top
Beam size decreasing from top

Beam size decreasing from top

Beam size increasing from top

0.030
1500000.00
Beam 450x650 mm
Beam 450x500 mm

Beam 450x450 mm

Beam 450x500 mm

Beam 450x550 mm

Beam 450x600 mm

Beam 450x650 mm
Beam 450x450 mm

Beam 450x550 mm

Beam 450x600 mm

0.020
1000000.00

0.010 500000.00

0.000 0.00
B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7
Strengthening alternatives Strengthening alternatives

Fig. 9. Chord rotation when E-1 removed. Fig. 10. Cost of strengthening alternatives.

5.3. Assessment of strengthening from a sustainability of CO2 decreases as the perimeter beam size decreases. But the
perspective reduction in perimeter beam size results in a higher chord
rotation at the location of the removed column. Thus, in order
Strengthening of the studied flat slab building is assessed to balance the chord rotation with the perimeter beam size, the
from a sustainability perspective, taking into account costs and strengthening methods B6 and B7 used approximately the same
CO2 emissions. Consumption of concrete and steel materials in quantity of concrete and reinforcement as used in alternative B-
the system is used in the measurements with a view to assessing 3. Alternative B-7 judiciously used different sized perimeter
the environmental effect of strengthening. The total cost and beams on different storeys (beam size increasing from the top
CO2 emissions of strengthening methods are shown in Figs. 10 storey having largest size on the first storey) and achieved
and 11, respectively. Alternative B-5 has the least chord chord rotation values within the limit of 0.05 which is not
rotation, but it is the most expensive and reveals the most CO2 achieved in the case of B-3 where same sized perimeter beams
gas among all alternatives. Alternative B-1, on the other hand, are incorporated on each storey. Thus, strengthening alternative
is the cheapest and emits the least CO2 gas, but has the highest B-7 not only requires low cost and emits less CO2 but also
chord rotation than any other alternative. In strengthening meets the structural requirements of the GSA and DoD
alternatives B-1 to B-5, it is noted that the cost and emission guidelines.

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 30
60000.00
50000.00
40000.00
CO2 emission (Kg)
30000.00
20000.00
Beam 450x500 mm
Beam 450x450 mm
10000.00
0.00
B-1 B-2
Strengthening alternatives
Fig. 11. CO2 emission for strengthening alternatives.
6. Conclusion
RC flat slab buildings are at risk of progressive collapse if
they are unable to meet the requirements of the current
progressive collapse code. Hence, these buildings ought to be
strengthened using different strengthening methods.
Strengthening improves the building's efficiency and helps
buildings meet their service lives. Consequently, economic and
sustainable methods of strengthening attract engineers and
society's attention.
In the study, an RC flat slab building is strengthened to meet
progressive collapse code requirements taking into account
various strengthening techniques. The joint displacement and
chord rotation at column removal locations are evaluated when
the building is exposed to three cases of sudden removal of
columns at the first storey. The findings indicate that the
studied flat slab building is more vulnerable to progressive
collapse in the case of corner column removal than in the case
of edge column removal.
To order to track the strengthening efficiency of the addition
of perimeter beams to the studied building, alternate perimeter
beam sizes are examined. The results show that the inclusion
of perimeter beams in the building dramatically increases the
progressive collapse resistance by providing adequate stiffness
and a proper transfer of loads. It is also recognized that an
increase in the size of perimeter beams increases the
progressive collapse resistance, but at the same time increases
the cost and CO2 emissions. It is essential that the economic
and environmental implications must be held to a minimum,
while structural safety is also necessary and cannot be ignored.
The strengthening alternative is hence proposed in such a way
that it wisely uses different sized perimeter beams on different
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
Suyash Garg et al. / Procedia CIRP 98 (2021) 25–30
storeys (beam size increasing from the top storey having largest
size on the first storey) and satisfy the progressive collapse
code requirements with a limited cost and CO2 emission.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the Malaviya
National Institute of Technology, Jaipur, for their aid in
licensing and providing technical assistance for the use of
ETABS software.
Beam size decreasing from top
Beam size increasing from top
References
Beam 450x650 mm
Beam 450x550 mm
Beam 450x600 mm
[1] GSA 2016, Progressive collapse analysis and design guidelines for new
federal office buildings and major modernizations projects. The US
General Services Administration.
[2] UFC 4-023-03 2009, Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC), Design of buildings
to resist progressive collapse. The USA Department of Defense.
B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 [3] Foraboschi P. Structural layout that takes full advantage of the capabilities
and opportunities afforded by two-way RC floors, coupled with the
selection of the best technique, to avoid serviceability failures. Eng. Failure
Anal. 70 (2016) 387–418.
[4] Shear P. Strength computation of reinforced concrete beams strengthened
with composite materials. Compos: Mech. Compu.t Appl. 3 (3) (2012)
227–52.
[5] Foraboschi P. Modeling of collapse mechanisms of thin reinforced concrete
shells. J. Struct. Eng. ASCE. 121 (1) (1995) 15–27.
[6] King S, Delatte NJ. Collapse of 2000 commonwealth avenue: punching
shear case study. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. ASCE. 18 (1) (2004) 54–61.
[7] Park TW. Inspection of collapse cause of sampoong department store.
Forensic Sci. Int. 217 (1) (2012) 119–26.
[8] Keyvani L, Sasani M, Mirzaei Y. Compressive membrane action in
progressive collapse resistance of RC flat plates. Eng. Struct. 59 (2014)
554–64.
[9] Qian K, Li B. Experimental study of drop-panel effects on response of
reinforced concrete flat slabs after loss of corner column. ACI Struct. J. 110
(2) (2013) 319–329.
[10] Qian K, Li B. Resilience of flat slab structures in different phases of
progressive collapse. ACI Struct. J. 113 (3) (2015) 537–48.
[11] Peng ZH, Orton SL, Liu JR, Tian Y. Experimental study of dynamic
progressive collapse in flat-plate buildings subjected to exterior column
removal. J. Struct. Eng. 143 (9) (2017) 04017125.
[12] Ellingwood BR, Smilovitz R, Dusenberry DO, Duthinh D, Carino NJ. Best
practices for reducing the potential for progressive collapse in buildings.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), US Department of
commerce, NITIR 7396, 2007.
[13] Adelberth K. Energy use during the life cycle of buildings: a method.
Build. and Env. 32 (4) (1997) 317-320.
[14] Ji C., Hong T. and Park H.S. Comparative analysis of decision-making
methods for integrating cost and CO2 emission-focus on building structural
design. Ener. and Build. 72 (2014) 186-194.
[15] Mora E.P. Life cycle, sustainability and the transcendent quality of
building materials. Build. and Env. 42 (2007) 1329-1334.
[16] User’s guide ETABS 2016, Integrated building design software.
Computers & Structures Inc, Berkeley 2016.
[17] Cano M.T. and Klingner R.E. Comparison of Analysis Procedure for Two
Way Slabs. ACI Struct. J. 85 (6) (1988) 597-608.
[18] Sen S. and Singh Y. Seismic Performance of Flat Slab Buildings. Adv. in
Struct. Eng. Springer New Delhi, 2 (2015) 897-907.
[19] Hwang S.J. and Moehle J.P. Models for Laterally Loaded Slab-Column
Frames. ACI Struct. J. 97 (2) (2000) 345-353.
[20] IS 456:2000, Plain and Reinforced Concrete - Code of Practice. Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi 2000.