Structures 45 (2022) 1902–1919

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Evaluation of progressive collapse behavior in reinforced

concrete buildings
M. Vinay *, P. Kodanda Rama Rao, Subhashish Dey, A.H.L. Swaroop, Anduri Sreenivasulu,
K. Venkateswara Rao
Department of Civil Engineering, Gudlavalleru Engineering College, Gudlavalleru, Andhra Pradesh, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Progressive collapse is a catastrophic chain reaction of failure of a structure that is caused due to loss of vertical
Progressive collapse analysis load bearing element of the structure, resulting damage of a part of the structure or entire structure. In our
General Services Administration research work 10 storey regular Reinforced Concrete framed structure is considered and is seismically designed
Column removal scenarios
with IS 1893:2016 in SAP2000 version 20 modeling. The different column removal scenarios both in plan and
Alternate load path method
Demand capacity ratio
elevation suggested by guidelines were examined by alternate load path method using nonlinear staged con­
Nonlinear staged construction struction available in the software and then identify the potential of the structure to withstand progressive
Catastrophic failure collapse. Numerical results were compared by analyzing columns and beams separately by calculating demand
capacity ratios and the requirement of percentage of steel for failed structural elements are predicted both in
flexure and shear stresses. Our objective is to provide clear conceptual step-by-step descriptions of various
procedures for progressive collapse analysis 3D (three-dimensional) Finite Element Methods (FEM) and non-
linear static push-down analysis in SAP2000 software was used to assess the progressive collapse potential of
a typical gravity-load designed mid-rise reinforced concrete building with open ground floor. The beam is
actually designed to resist the shear force up to 39.84 kN. So in order to resist the shear failure we need to
provide enough vertical reinforcement. The failed structural elements were re-designed to resist progressive
collapse in order to satisfy the acceptance criteria recommended by the guidelines. It’s showed that the incor­
poration of perimeter beams in buildings improved the progressive collapse resistance as it reduces joint
displacement and chord rotation at column removal locations by providing sufficient stiffness and load paths for
increased gravity loads. The study results can be used to develop and calibrate the nonlinear numerical model for
analyzing high-rise building progressive collapse behavior and can help provide information that may improve
new and existing reinforced concrete core-wall building robustness against progressive collapse.

1. Introduction
“Progressive collapse” was first come up into light on July 14, 1902
in Venice, Italy. The 323 foot St Mark’s Campanile tower which was
made by stone masonry, was collapsed after its northern load-bearing
wall began to separate from the main structure due to the stress redis­
tribution caused by back and forth swaying of huge bells. Later in 1966
the 7 storey steel framed structure, university of Aberdeen Zoology
Department building in Scotland was collapsed due to metal fatigue
created by poor welding and even more worsened due to lateral force
[1–3]. The crucial events involved in progressive collapse, the dates
when international codes were developed and published, and the
guidelines for the analysis and design of structures to resist progressive
collapse. The potential risks for reinforced concrete (RC) structures
include different types of abnormal loads, such as accidental overload,
design or construction error, foundation failure, vehicular collision, and
explosions (National Institute of Standards and Technology). A blast
inside or near a building could lead to disastrous damage to structural
frame systems as a result of huge dynamic loads that may be larger than
the design loads of most structures. These loads may lead to main
element failure, which causes loads to be redistributed to the neigh­
boring supporting elements that are usually columns. Tables 1-6.
When these loads exceed the column strength capacity, failure oc­
curs, and a sequential reaction may result in massive portion failure or
even progressive collapse of the entire structure, but the actual research
was commenced on 1968 after the incident of 22 storey Ronan point

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mathevinay1995@gmail.com (M. Vinay).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2022.10.001
Received 31 May 2022; Received in revised form 30 September 2022; Accepted 1 October 2022
Available online 13 October 2022
2352-0124/© 2022 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Vinay et al. Structures 45 (2022) 1902–1919

Table 1 one of it. The collapse was initiated by a truck bomb explosion outside
Building Model Dimensions. the southern façade of ground floor, eventually making more than half of
Description Units the building collapse. Total 168 were decreased and 680 other injured.
The collapse of 47 storey’s World Trade Center building in New York
Total no. of Floors 10
Total building height 30 m City was another famous terrorist initiated PC in which two hijacked
Each storey height 3m airplanes were planned to strike the building. Actually the collision fair
Plan dimension 36×24 m craft was happened in 13th floor but the entire building progressively got
Column dimensions 0.55×0.55 m collapsed therefore total 2752 members were deceased [3–5]. Progres­
Beam dimensions 0.3×0.55 m
Slab thickness 0.15 m
sive collapse was not only initiated by lateral loads, fire accidents and
explosions but also due to the removal of structural elements. In 1995,
the 5 storey departmental store in Seoul, South Korea, witnessed
collapse due to removal of vertical bearing element in ground floor to
Table 2
make room for escalators. This made the nearby columns bear the excess
Material Grades.
load which lead to complete failure of the building. The 501 people were
Concrete Grade Fck 30 N/mm2 deceased and several injured. So by the above incidents it is clear that
Steel Grade FY 500 N/mm2
the initiating cause of progressive collapse was different in different
incidents.
The basic motive of this paper is to examine a reinforced concrete
Table 3 structure by removing vertical load bearing elements in different zones
Seismic Details. in different elevations and find how bending moment, shear force and
Seismic Zone Factor Z 0.36 axial forces of the neighboring beams and columns reacts to the loss of
Soil Type II the structural element using General Services Administration (GSA)
Importance Factor I 1
Response Reduction RF 5
guidelines [6–8]. Previously, the reinforced concrete shear wall was
modeled and validated using Abaqus software with concrete damaged
plasticity parameters. Later, using same parameters, the modeling and
analysis of coupled shear wall was carried out as it is most commonly
Table 4
executed wall in construction. Also, very less research is involved
No. of Structural Elements.
specially in nonlinear state. Displacement based method is used as the
No of bays in x-axis 6 focus of study to observe the plastic hinge formation in coupling beams
No of bays in y-axis 4
No. of Columns 350
and wall. Digesh, D. et al. (2010) conducted nonlinear static analysis on
No. of Beams 580 4 and 10 story RC framed buildings and studied the effects and increased
No. of Slab panels 240 stresses on the neighboring elements. The focus is limited to three zones
No. of Joints 385 namely left end of the column loss, right end of column loss and column
No. of Supports 35
loss region rather than considering the entire framed structure. Demand
capacity ratios were calculated at those regions [1,35,36]. Structural
model of building has been created with the help of ETABS software and
Table 5 loads are applied as per the General Service Administration (GSA)
Loads on Structural Elements. guidelines. As per GSA guidelines three column (corner column, exterior
Dead Load Default by Software column and interior column) removal case one at a time has studied. For
Live Load on Roof 1.5 kN/m2 all three cases nonlinear analysis is done and it is observed that columns
Live Load on Floor 3.0 kN/m2 are not critical in any case but beams are going to fail in flexure of
Masonry Load 6.9 kN/m progressive collapse [37,38].
Floor Finish 1.5 kN/m2 Sagiroglu and Sasani (2014) considered 7 storey RC structure and
Masonry Load(Parapet) 3 kN/m
investigated 15 column removal scenarios and concluded that the gov­
erning load resisting. This mechanism is a combination of Vierendeel
frame action, and axial compression flexure response of a beam. On
Table 6 average 70–75 % of load is distributed by beams that are connected to
Seismic Load combinations for Designing. the joints which are above the removed column. Approximately 20 % of
Seismic Load Combinations: IS:456–2000 load is distributed by the joints area surrounding the damaged region.
1.5(DL) 1.5(DL -EQX) Remaining 5–10 % of load is conveyed by the floor slabs. In our present
1.5(DL + LL) 1.5(DL + EQY) study we are considering the slab contribution onto the structure and
1.2(DL + LL + EQX) 1.5(DL -EQY) examine how they affect the progressive collapse [2,37]. According to
1.2(DL + LL -EQX) 0.9(DL) + 1.5EQX
Ahmed Elshaer et al. (2016) performed progressive collapse analysis for
1.2(DL + LL + EQY) 0.9(DL)-1.5EQX
1.2(DL + LL -EQY) 0.9(DL) + 1.5EQY gravity and seismic load cases separately and concluded that seismic
1.5(DL + EQX 0.9(DL)-1.5EQY action gives nearly double the maximum deflection of the same case
under gravity action [3,38]. Ehab and Maxi, (2020) applied experi­
Where DL = Dead Load, LL = Live Load, EQ = Earth Quake load.
mental research approaches are conducted to study the structural
behavior under different column loss scenarios, mostly for steel frames
tower collapse in West Ham, London, and the collapse was initiated due
and connections. Few experimental kinds of research are performed for
to an accidental gas explosion in 18th floor resulting in the collapse of
reinforced concrete frame connections due to the limitations that face
one entire corner of the tower. Total 4 persons were killed and several
the experimental testing such as; the specimen size, column removal
others injured. Eventually many terrorist initiated progressive collapse
scenario simulation and finally the accuracy of the results measured
incidents were took place in between 1995 and 2001. Damages can be
from the failed specimen [41]. The numerical analysis took place and
classified as that caused by explosion pressure pulse and that caused by
validated by experimental testing to find the most suitable way to
redistribution and accumulation of loads from the upper floors. The
investigate the structural behavior due to progressive collapse without
collapse of 9 storey’s Alfred P. Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma is
the experimental limitations. In buildings, the lateral mechanisms that

1903
M. Vinay et al.
are most commonly used are RC-coupled walls with a set of inter­
connected coupling beams. Beams are mainly reinforced conventionally
or diagonally for coupling with the walls. While designing mid-to high-
rise buildings, managing the lateral displacement of a building subjected
to earthquake loading is a prevailing issue [40–42].
Performance criteria are generally displacement-based in the
performance-based design approach. Quality requirements in the
approach to performance-based design are typically based on displace­
ment. Firstly, keeping this displacement within an acceptable limit en­
sures the main purpose of planning to have sufficient strength and
stiffness. In multi-storey commercial and residential structures, coupled
walls are a typical type of shear wall. Through a fusion of the coupling
beam’s frame action and the wall pier’s flexural action, a coupled shear
wall system resists lateral forces. By the shear accumulation in the
coupling beam, an axial force coupled is formed. The coupling beams are
critical part to the earthquake response of coupled walls, which has an
immense effect on the demands of shear and axial force in the coupled
walls [4]. Linear analysis was widely used in current practice to achieve
sectional demands in favors of the design, and with either analogous
static or modal response spectrum. It is well recognized that in the wall
piers, the demands of shear force are undervalued by the demands that
are determined from linear analysis [22,42].
One approach to evaluate progressive collapse of structures is to
study the effects of instantaneous removal of a load-bearing element
such as a column. Development of Vierendeel action is identified as the
dominant mechanism in redistribution of loads in this structure. The
concrete modulus of rupture is identified as an important parameter in
limiting the maximum recorded vertical deformation of the system to
only 0.25 in. (6.4 mm). The changes in the directions of bending mo­
ments in the vicinity of the removed column and their effects such as
potential reinforcing bar pullout (bond failure) are studied. The dynamic
response at critical locations after the imposed failure of the respective
columns was observed. The removal of the corner column followed by
the adjacent column resulted in only an essentially elastic response of
the structure. The removal of an interior column resulted in only small
deflections. The removal of the two first-story exterior columns resulted
in significant vertical deflections of the middle exterior columns and
significant yielding at adjacent beams that framed into the two middle
exterior columns. Floor systems composed of beams and slabs are critical
structural elements of frame structures to resist progressive collapse
[59–61]. The effects of various structural parameters, including
sectional dimensions (beam height, slab width, and slab thickness) and
seismic reinforcement, on the progressive collapse resistance were
studied by analyzing material strains and load–displacement curves.
Under small deformations, the progressive collapse resistance was
largely affected by the beam height, slab width and seismic reinforce­
ment in the beams. However, the effect of the slab width, upon
exceeding the effective flange width, became insignificant. This article
presents a nonlinear static pushdown analysis to evaluate the progres­
sive collapse-resisting capacity curves of typical reinforced concrete
frames under different deformations [61–63]. The seismic designs
highly improve the progressive collapse resistance under the beam
mechanism, especially for lower stories. However such an improvement
is less significant for the catenary mechanism and little improvement is
found for the top regions of the frame structures. Furthermore, a
nonlinear dynamic analysis is conducted to validate the predicted re­
sistances of the reinforced concrete frames in satisfying the requirement
of collapse prevention. Existing research studies have primarily exam­
ined the progressive collapse of frame structures under an inner column
removal scenario. However, progressive collapse risk is much higher
when penultimate columns close to the structural periphery are
damaged due to weaker horizontal constraints [64,65].
The effectiveness of the types of relations in the protective RC walls
and column RC detailing on more improving blast resistance of multi­
story RC building. These effects of RC slabs could be studied from two
aspects. On the one hand, slabs act as compressive/tensile membranes.
1904
Structures 45 (2022) 1902–1919
On the other hand, the existence of slabs alters the structural capacity of
beams because its flexural and torsion stiffness will be increased, which
is known as the flange effect, in which the effective flange width is
determined by beam span and by the relative thickness of the slab in ACI
318–14. Future needs are emphasized on research targets, correlations
between experiments and design, dynamic effects, threat-dependent is­
sues, and retrofitting [42,43].
Load combinations: According to the guidelines two types of load
combinations were given.
1. G = 1.2DL + 0.5LL
2. GLD = 2(1.2DL + 0.5LL)
Where DL = Dead Load.
LL = Live Load.
GLD is the increased gravity load combination applied to those bays
which were immediately adjacent to the removed column and the floors
above removed column. The G is the load combination applied to those
bays and floors which are not loaded with GLD load combination [9,10].
Demand Capacity Ratio (DCR): “It is the ratio of the force or
moment carried by the member (after column loss) to its ultimate ca­
pacity. Acceptance value according to the guidelines is given as” [4].
DCR < 2 for regular configuration building plans.
DCR < 1.5 for irregular configuration building plans.
Key Parameters of Progressive Collapse Structures of the
Buildings.
• Offers in-depth analysis and numerical modeling for building struc­
tures against progressive collapse
• Provides analysis of the force-transfer mechanisms of composite and
reinforced concrete structures
• Gives detailed numerical models that shed light on the effects of
critical parameters on progressive resistances
• Includes direct design methods that take into the account various
collapse resisting mechanisms
• Offers a comprehensive reference for progressive collapse analysis
and the design of building structures
This paper investigates the behavior of a reinforced concrete beam
under a support removal. A detailed parametric analysis is carried out,
covering the effect of support removal rate on dynamic response. The
linear elastic and nonlinear inelastic responses are computed and stud­
ied in detail. Critical parameters during the structural response are
identified. In order to determine the ultimate load, the vertical pushover
analysis is performed. The key parameters driving the beam response are
assumed as random variables, and respective reliability study makes it
possible to check the overall uncertainty of the dynamic response. In
particular, the response spectrum measuring the effect of support
removal rate has been computed. Finally, the reliability-based sensi­
tivity analysis indicates the geometric cross-section cover and height are
the most sensitive parameters of the beam response [42–46]. In order to
perform progressive collapse analyses effectively (in reasonable time
and computer memory usage, preferably on personal computers), the
modeling simplifications are inevitable; however, the degree of simpli­
fication must be controlled. The vertical pushover analysis enables the
assessment of the ultimate load and understanding the failure mecha­
nism. A parametric analysis of the effects of a sudden support removal of
a two-span reinforced concrete beam has been presented. Linear and
nonlinear dynamic responses are analyzed in detail and supported by
vertical pushover computations and reliability-based sensitivity studies.
In the linear dynamic analysis, from the study of the influence of support
removal rate, it can be concluded that the time of support removal has
an important role when it is up to 30 % of the first time of the beam
without the inner support [47,48]. In this case, the support removal can
be regarded as “sudden”, and it still generates substantial dynamic ef­
fects (dynamic factor of about 1.8). Moreover, the plot of the maximum
M. Vinay et al.
vertical displacement versus the time of the support removal (response
spectrum) presents a characteristic pattern where the value of maximum
vertical displacement is equal to the static vertical displacement when
the time of support removal is the multiple of the first natural period
[49,50].
According to Garg et al., (2021) Progressive collapse is characterized
as the propagation of an initial local collapse from part to part, ulti­
mately resulting in the collapse of a whole structure or a dispropor­
tionately large portion of it. Static methods are used for the research
studies to explore the progressive collapse behavior of structural mem­
bers and sub-structural structures under severe deformations [13].
Ibrahim et al. explored the factors that influence the onset and spread of
progressive collapse in flat plate structures. However, more attention
was paid in their study to flat slab failure due to punching failure rather
than spread failure after removal of one or more columns. A research
was conducted to recognize the susceptibility of flat slab structures to
progressive collapse caused by the loss of a corner column [51]. Lu et al.
[52] introduced a particular scheme for increasing the resistance of a
progressive collapse by using reinforcement detailing. It has been uti­
lized for addressing the discrepancy between the progressive collapse
and seismic designs in RC frames. Similarly, Zhi Li et al. [53] proposed
the use of the positive moment development length compared to a
minimum length of 150 mm, as per ACI 318–14 [54]. After a 2-h fire
exposure, the minimum development length was unable to prevent
progressive collapse. In the same vein, Qian et al. [55] proposed a new
strategy to increase the RC frames’ progressive collapse resistance by
using steel bracing, which led to a significant increase in the initial
stiffness and the first peak load. When a structural element fails, loads
are redistributed to the remaining elements to maintain equilibrium
[56,57]. Moreover, a validation experimental test would be of interest;
however, depending on the number of analyzed support/column
removal durations, it can face challenging, prohibitive costs or alter­
natively only selected representative cases could be validated [58,59].
2. Column removal scenarios
“As per the guidelines given by the General Services Administration,
Unified Facilities Criteria and American Society of Civil Engineering, to
analyze a structure for progressive collapse, predominantly-four column
removal locations were recommended in plan and also four column
removal locations in elevation were suggested [5,6].
Recommended column removal locations in plan:
• Exterior column located in long side middle of the structure
• Exterior column located in short side middle of the structure.
• Corner of the structure
• Interior column adjacent to the external columns
Suggested column removal locations in elevation:
I. First story above grade
II. Story directly below roof
III. Story at mid-height
IV. Story above the location of a column splice or change in column
size” [4].
For our study we have considered four column loss scenarios at
ground and fifth storey (mid-height), as follows.
Case I (a) Long side middle column at ground storey Case I (b) Long
side middle column at fifth storey.
Case II (a) Short side middle column at ground storey Case II (b)
Short side middle column at fifth storey.
Case III (a) Corner column at ground storey Case III (b) Corner col­
umn at fifth storey.
Case IV (a) Interior column at ground storey Case IV (b) Interior
column at fifth storey.
1905
Structures 45 (2022) 1902–1919
The column removal locations in plan that are considered and dis­
played in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2.
3. Structural model details
3.1. Progressive collapse analysis
First the building model is seismically designed without considering
column loss scenarios. By using the area of steel obtained from the
design results, moment of resistance of corresponding structural ele­
ments was calculated. Before beginning progressive collapse analysis we
need to consider three locations on the frame (Joshi 2003), namely C:
column removal region where there is maximum positive moment; L:
Left end of column removal region and R: Right end of column removal
region where there is maximum negative moment. Based on these three
locations Demand Capacity Ratios are calculated [7,8]. An example
figure for case I (a) BM is shown Fig. 3.
Here BM means Bending Moment. In this study to performing the
progressive collapse analysis we have focused on three regions. These
are the neighbor structural elements which were highly effected due to
column loss as we can see that the maximum bending moment occurred
in those regions (observe in Fig. 3). C represents Column removal region.
L represents Left end of the beam (Which is left side to the column
removal region) R represents Right end of the beam (Which is Right side
to the Column removal region).
After the building is seismically designed, selected column is
removed from the structure and load combinations are assigned onto the
structure by Nonlinear Staged Construction option obtained in SAP2000
software [60]. Assigning load combinations is a tricky process, in which
two different load combinations should be assigned for a single building
model at same time for each case. Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 shows how load
combinations are applied for case i.e. Long side middle column loss
[9,10].
GLD = 2(1.2DL + 0.5LL) is the increased gravity load combination
applied on the red colored portion, which consists of bays immediately
adjacent to the column loss and all the floors above the column loss,
where as G = 1.2DL + 0.5LL another gravity load combination applied
on green portion of the structure. Rests of the cases are shown in Fig. 5,
Fig. 6 and Fig. 7.
Every analysis cases in nonlinear staged construction option consist
of 2 stages. Which are as follows:-.
Stage 1: Add all the structure.
Stage 2–1: Remove the desired column depending on the case from
the added structure.
Stage 2–2: Assign load combination on desired group of bays and
Fig. 1. Plan view of Model with column removal locations.
M. Vinay et al.
Fig. 2. 3D view of RC framed building model.
Fig. 3. L C R locations for case I (a) B.M.
Fig. 4. Case I External Long side middle column loss at ground and 5th sto­
rey level.
floors.
For illustration purpose consider external long side middle loss sce­
nario. A screen shot of load case data for case I (a) is displayed in Fig. 8.
The moments obtained from progressive collapse analysis are
1906
Structures 45 (2022) 1902–1919
Fig. 5. Case II External Short side middle column loss at ground and
5thstorey level.
Fig. 6. Case III Corner column loss at ground and 5th storey level.
Fig. 7. Case IV Internal column loss at ground and 5th storey level.
considered as the demands. Whereas the capacities are calculated from
the reinforcing % obtained from seismic design, from which demand
capacity ratios were calculated. DCR values are calculated for flexure,
axial forces. Shear capacity to be provided is also calculated in terms of
shear resistance of stirrups [11,12]. Capacity of the member or moment
of resistance is calculated by referring IS-456:2000 clause 38.1.
During analysis we must check that the analysis must converge
before and after column loss, if it does not converge there must be a
problem that needs to be fixed.
3.2. DCR for flexural
After the analysis, bending moment (Demands) obtained for case I
(a) is shown in Fig. 9.
As the column is removed, we can observe that positive moment is
developed just above the point of column loss and negative moment is
developed at the ends of the beams which are adjoining to the column
removed. That is the reason calculating demand capacity ratios mainly
at those three locations (LCR). Some international standards like Gen­
eral Services Administration proposed guidelines and restrictions to
M. Vinay et al.
Fig. 8. Screen shot of load case data for case I (a).
Fig. 9. Demand Bending moments obtained for case I (a).
design and analyze the structure to decrease the probability of pro­
gressive collapse while facing abnormal loading conditions [67,68].
) According to GSA and UFC guidelines from the Fig. 10 and Fig. 11
Ast fy
Mu = 0.87fy Ast d(1−
bdfy
Where
fy = Yield strength of reinforcing steel (N/mm2)
fck = Compressive strength of concrete (N/mm2)
Ast = Area of steel in tensile zone(mm2)
b = Breadth of beam (mm)
d = Depth of the beam (mm)
Before calculating moment capacity, compressive strength of con­
crete and yield strength of reinforcing steel should be multiplied by
strength increase factors given by ASCE guidelines. For our study the
strength increase factor is 1.25 which should be multiplied to fy and fck.
Demand capacity ratios for all column loss cases at both ground storey
and 5th storey level are shown in Fig. 10 and Fig. 11.
Lets us consider the beam of case i(a) at 10th storey level at location
‘L’. The moment obtained after column loss is about 439.14kN-m. The
moment of resistance obtained by the beam is 145.37kN-m.
Demand capacity of that beam is calculated by
1907
Structures 45 (2022) 1902–1919
Fig. 10. Case I (a) Demand capacity ratio values of longitudinal and transverse
beams due to ground storey column loss.
Fig. 11. Case I (b) DCR values of longitudinal and transverse beams due to 5th
storey column loss.
DCR = Demand moment/Capacity
= 439.14/145.37
= 3.02 > 2.
So according to the guidelines the beam having DCR value above 2
have high tendency to be collapsed.
the DCR values which are displayed in red colour shows failure of
structural elements, as they surpassed the acceptable value 2. Nearly
eleven beams of both longitudinal and transverse direction were failed
when column is removed from ground storey level, while ten beams
were failed when column is removed from 5th storey level. Remaining
beams of DCR < 2 are less potential to the progressive collapse [13,14].
A DCR value for remaining cases is shown in Fig. 12, Fig. 13 and Fig. 14.
In order to prevent progressive collapse, reinforcement should be
increased for those beams whose DCR values are above 2. Reinforcement
should be provided according to the additional moment obtained by
subtracting demand moment Mua obtained by column loss and limiting
moment Mu lim. Calculations are done by referring IS 456:2000 Annex G
clause 38 [15,16].
Let’s consider a failed beam which has high DCR value.
From case i(a) the demand moment obtained on this beam after
column loss is − 439.17kN-m. Now to find the ultimate limiting moment
we have the formula
M. Vinay et al. Structures 45 (2022) 1902–1919

Fig. 12. Case II (a) & (b) DCR values of longitudinal and transverse beams obtained due to ground storey and 5th storey level column loss.

Fig. 13. Case III (a) & (b) DCR values obtained due to ground storey and 5th storey column loss scenarios.

Fig. 14. Case IV (a) & (b) DCR values obtained due to ground and 5th storey column loss scenarios.

1908
M. Vinay et al. Structures 45 (2022) 1902–1919

is calculated as
439.14
DCR = = 1.68 < 2
260.72
Hence the DCR value of that beam obtained is less than the accept­
able value so it is safe against collapse or in other words the beam can
resist the load transferred from the failed system [17,18].
By redesigning the beam we have increased the capacity from 145.37
to 260.72 which is 79.35 %.
In Fig. 15, Fig. 16, Fig. 17 and Fig. 18 shows that the demand ca­
pacity ratio values after re-design of failed structural elements with
increased in force meant both in compression and tension zones. Figs. 19
and 20.
All the DCR values obtained after redesign with increased rein­
forcement are lower than the acceptance value (DCR < 2) suggested by
the guidelines. The beams which are failed in previous design (DCR > 2)
were passed after redesign (DCR < 2) which are represented in green
colour. According to the guidelines load transformation is effectively
taken by the adjacent bays of the removed column and remaining
portion of the structure remains less potential to collapse. This can be
observed through contour deformation of the structure with offset top
We need to provide reinforcement in tension and compression zones view [19,20].
to resist this additional moment of 115.42 kN-m. Additional area of steel So it is clear from the above contour deformation pictures, that the
in tension zone Ast2 to resist the additional moment is given by-. bays which are immediately adjacent to the removed column and the
floors above the removed column are only affected due to column loss,
Muq − Mulim while the remaining portion of floor surrounding the affected area is
Ast2 =
0.87f (d − d′ ) resisted to collapse by slab action up to some extent. So consideration of
slabs is a most significant factor when it comes to progressive collapse
115.42 × 106 analysis [21,22].
Ast2 =
0.87 × 625 × (520 − − 30)
4. Demand capacity ratios of columns
Ast2 = 433.19 mm2.
Area of steel in compression zone Asc to resist the additional moment
The Fig. 21 and Fig. 22 are represents the demand capacity ratios of
in including loss of concrete is given by-
the columns obtained by performing progressive collapse analysis. The
Mua − Mu.lim DCR of columns are calculated as-the demand axial force obtained due
Ase =
(fsa − 4.446fck )(d − d′ ) to column loss to its column capacity. According to the GSA and UFC
guidelines, the acceptance value for column DCR should be less than one
Stress in compression reinforcement fsc for doubly reinforced beam is
(DCR < 1). Surprisingly there are no column failure seen when column is
calculated from this Table 7.
removed at 5th storey level.
Interpolation is needed if required.
The capacity of column is calculated by referring IS 456:2000 code
By interpolating we get the value of fsc as 422.6 N/mm2.
115.42X106
book.
ASC =.(422.6− 0.446X37.5)(520− 30) Puz = 0.45 fck Ac + 0.75 fy Asc
and compression zones to resist this additional moment of 115.42 The demands are the axial force obtained after column loss. Then
kN-m. demands dividing the capacity give the DCR values for columns.
Asc ¼ 580.68. The Fig. 23 and Fig. 24 are shows that the DCR values of columns for
Ultimate moment carrying capacity Mu or moment of resistance Mr all the cases of ground storey column removal scenarios. As the
of the section with increased reinforcement in both tension and increased gravity load combination is assigned onto the bays which are
compression zone is calculated by expression- immediately adjacent to the removed column and the floors above DCR
Mu = 0.36fxcku (d − 0.446x)u + (Afssc − 0.446fcksc)(d− d′ ) values for those bays which are adjacent to the removed column are also
In above formula xu (depth of neutral axis) should be less than xu lim calculated and showed below.
(limiting depth of neutral axis). From the analysis we have observed that there are no column failures
To calculate the depth of neutral axis – For this study xu lim ¼ 239.2 seen at fifth storey column loss scenarios. From this observation we can
mm. conclude that columns have the ability to redistribute the load from the
After calculating all the values, Moment of resistance of that beam is failed column to the nearby adjacent columns at mid height of the
obtained as structure. The DCR obtained by removing ground storey column doesn’t
M u = 260.72 kN-m. need to increase the area of steel to resist progressive collapse, because
To check whether the capacity of the beam is enough to resist the the DCR.
collapse or not we need to calculate demand capacity ratio of the beam. Values obtained are slightly (in decimals) above the acceptance
After considering the additional reinforcement the DCR of the beam value suggested by guidelines (DCR < 1).The axial load on the columns
above the removed column is gradually decreases and this force is
transferred to the adjacent neighboring columns. Hence we have taken
Table 7
enough column cross section and grade there is no need to redesign the
Stress in compression reinforcement.
columns to resist the progressive collapse [23,24].
fy N/mm2 0.05 d-d’ 0.100.15 0.20

415 355 353 342 329

500 424 412 395 370

1909
M. Vinay et al. Structures 45 (2022) 1902–1919

Fig. 15. Case I (a) & (b) satisfied DCR values of longitudinal and transverse beams obtained after re-design at ground storey and 5th storey column loss scenarios.

Fig. 16. Case II (a) & (b) satisfied DCR values of longitudinal and transverse beams obtained after re-design at ground storey and 5th storey column loss scenarios.

Fig. 17. Case III (a) & (b) satisfied DCR values of beams obtained after re-design at ground storey and 5th storey column loss scenario both in xz and yz planes.

5. Shear behavior in progressive collapse analysis
The Fig. 25 and Fig. 26 show that the shear force obtained after
ground and fifth storey column loss for case I. The shear forces obtained
after column loss were compared with the shear forces obtained in
seismic design. Obviously the building model is designed for the shear
which is less than the shear forces obtained due to column loss. To satisfy
the additional shear obtained due to column loss we need to calculate
the shear resisted by concrete and as well as shear resisted by stirrups.
In present study we won’t change the dimensions of the beam during
redesigning, so shear resisted by concrete section doesn’t change, only
the factor which changes is shear resisted by stirrups and should be
increased to those beams which fail in shear. The Fig. 27 and Fig. 28
show that the beams (red in color) which are failed in shear resistance by

1910
M. Vinay et al. Structures 45 (2022) 1902–1919

Fig. 18. Case IV (a) & (b) satisfied DCR values of beams obtained after re-design at ground storey and 5th storey column loss scenario both in xz and yz planes.

Fig. 19. Case I, II, III, IV 3D fig represents the plan views of deformation occurred due to ground storey column loss Yellow colour around the blue colour indicates
the slab action which restricts the collapse to the bays which are immediately adjacent to the removed column and all the floors above the removed column while
protecting the remaining portion.

stirrups [25,26]. Figs. 29-32. b) Shear to be resisted by stirrups is calculated by.

To calculate shear resistance of concrete and stirrups first we need to
calculate some factors like permissible shear stress τc nominal shear Vus ¼ Vu – τc bd
stress τv. Permissible shear stress is calculating based on percentage of
steel, where as nominal shear stress is calculated based on shear force c) τc ¼ Design shear strength of concrete (N/mm2) calculated based on
obtained by seismic analysis. All the calculations were done by referring % of reinforcement.
IS-456:2000. d) Nominal shear stress τv ¼ Vu/bd.
The total design shear force VU is resisted by the beam in to two e) Percentage of steel is calculated as
portions: one is by the concrete section itself and rest of the shear force is
resisted by the vertical stirrups (shear reinforcement) shown in below Pt ¼ (Ast/bd)*100.
picture [27,28].
f) Permissible stress of concrete section is calculated based on per­
centage of steel from IS 456:2000 code in Table 8.
g) ASV is the area of one stirrup and is given by.
Π
Asv = 2 × (8)2 = 100.53mm2
4

h) Spacing of stirrups is calculated by formula.

S = (0.87 × f y × Asv × d)/V m

For explanation lets we consider ground storey beam of case I (a)

which is subjected to shear force of 318.22kN after column loss. Table 8
show that the shear resistance of the beam before and after column loss.
a) Shear capacity of concrete is calculated as. After column loss shear force in the beam has increased from
127.207 kN to 318.22 kN. Hence we are not changing the concrete cross
Vc ¼ τc bd section the shear resisted by concrete VC doesn’t change. The beam is

1911
M. Vinay et al. Structures 45 (2022) 1902–1919

Fig. 20. Case I, II, III, IV 3D and plan views of deformation occurred due to fifth storey column loss.

Fig. 21. Case I(a) Demand Capacity Ratio values of columns obtained after column loss and its adjacent bay.

actually designed to resist the shear force up to 39.84kN. But after the
0.87X625X100.53X520
column loss the beam needs to resist 230.86kN which is more that S=
230.86
191.02 kN which has been actually designed to. So in order to resist the
shear failure we need to provide enough vertical reinforcement [29,30]. S = 140.16 < 300 mm.
So provide 2-legged stirrups of 8 mm ø @ 150 mm spacing.
0.87fy Asy
S= d After calculating and comparing all the shear force values, beams
Vs
failed in shear resistance by stirrups are identified and shear reinforce­
ment to resist the increases or additional shear force is calculated.

1912
M. Vinay et al. Structures 45 (2022) 1902–1919

Fig. 22. Case II(a)Demand Capacity Ratio values of columns obtained after column loss and its adjacent bay.

Fig. 23. Case III (a) Demand Capacity Ratio values of columns obtained after column loss and its adjacent bay.

Fig. 24. Case IV (a) Demand Capacity Ratio values of columns obtained after column loss (middle) and its adjacent bays.

1913
M. Vinay et al.
Fig. 25. Case I (a): Shear force obtained due to ground storey column loss.
Fig. 26. Case I (b): Shear force obtained due to fifth storey column loss.
Provided spacing should be below 300 mm. Generally in most of the
cases 8 mm diameter stirrups are used [31,32]. By considering Table 9
the provided Shear reinforcement for all cases increased longitudinal
reinforcement to resist additional moment, provided shear reinforce­
ment to resist the additional shear force for all cases are calculated and
displayed in Table 9.
From the Table 9, case IV consists of two different shear reinforce­
ment at both ends while rest of the cases have same shear reinforcement
at both the ends. Because for case I and case II area of reinforcement Ast
and shear force Vu is same at both the ends of beams. For case IV, beam
ends have different area of reinforcement Ast and shear force Vu [33,34].
Fig. 27. CASE I (a) & (b): Longitudinal and transverse beams failed in sheared due to ground and fifth storey column loss scenarios.
1914
Structures 45 (2022) 1902–1919
5.1. Predictions obtained by progressive collapse analysis
By performing progressive collapse analysis before constructing a
structure we can predict the following
I. Worst column loss scenario that causes maximum failure can be
predicted
II. Collapse initiating element, which fails first can be predicted by
identifying the structural element which has the maximum de­
mand capacity ratio value.
III. Path of collapse can also be predicted by the various
IV. Underlying mechanism of collapse.
V. Assuming that the structural element which has maximum DCR
value fails first following the next.
VI. Taking into account of type of collapse the damage that is going
to cause to the nearby structures can be predicted.
VII. Failed beams can be identified and percentage of reinforcement
can be predicted to resist or withstand the collapse in flexure,
axial and shear.
VIII. We can check whether the chosen grade of concrete and steel is
capable to resist progressive collapse or not.
IX. Shear reinforcement to resists collapse can also be predicted. For
already constructed building we can provide diagonal bracings to
resist the collapse.
X. Due to column loss the additional moment and shear force ob­
tained can be predicted by observing the values before and after
column loss.
XI. Percentage of steel provided in tension zone and compression
zone can be predicted
6. Limitation of the study
1. High performance can be justified if it can be shown that collapse
does not initiate, either because individual members have been
hardened to the level that they survive the initial hazard or that
collapse does not propagate beyond the initially damaged elements.
2. The acceptable performance can be justified if the propagation of
damage can be shown to be limited to the bay where initial damage is
assumed to occur and does not extend more than one floor above or
below the location of initial damage.
3. The amount of deformation that occurs as collapse is arrested in
limited such that the life safety of individuals outside the immediate
damage location is not compromised. One might consider, therefore,
that deformation should be limited to a fraction of the story height.
4. Additionally, inability of the current Finite Element Methods soft­
ware to incorporate flexural in shell elements used for modeling
beams and columns. These limitations tend to accentuate the
contribution of slab towards progressive collapse capacity, as the
shell elements are not capable of exhibiting true non-linear behavior.
M. Vinay et al. Structures 45 (2022) 1902–1919

Fig. 28. CASE II (a) & (b): Longitudinal and transverse beams failed in shear due to ground and fifth storey column loss scenarios.

Fig. 29. CASE III (a) & (b): Beams failed in shear in both XZ and YZ planes due to ground and fifth storey column loss scenarios.

Fig. 30. CASE IV (a) & (b): Beams failed in shear in both XZ and YZ planes due to ground and fifth storey column loss scenarios.

7. Conclusions paper is to summarize these diverse works to facilitate future

i. Progressive collapse analysis of a mid-rise gravity-load designed
reinforced concrete building is presented using the SAP2000
method. From the historical event so progressive collapse we can
conclude that the initiating factor causing progressive collapse is
not always due to blasts and explosions. Most experimental
studies on RC structures were reported in the last decade, in
which profound findings have been revealed on resisting mech­
anisms, dynamic characteristics, and influencing factors of RC
structures subjected to progressive collapse. The goal of this
research.
ii. We compare four methods for progressive collapse analysis by
analyzing a nine-story steel moment-resistant frame building,
employing increasingly complex analytical procedures: linear-
elastic static, nonlinear static, linear-elastic dynamic and
nonlinear dynamic methodologies.
iii. Our objective is to provide clear conceptual step-by-step de­
scriptions of various procedures for progressive collapse analysis
3D (three dimensional) Finite Element Methods modeling and
non-linear static push-down analysis in SAP2000 software was
used to assess the progressive collapse potential of a typical

1915
M. Vinay et al. Structures 45 (2022) 1902–1919

observed that the results of dynamic analysis are more accurate

than those of static analysis because they include the dynamic
nature of the progressive collapse. A sudden drop is observed in
the axial force of the columns which are above the column loss
storey. After performing progressive collapse analysis the de­
mand moment on that beam is Mu = 669.09 kN-m. The beam can
only resist the moment up to 319.78 kNm, but the demand on that
beam due to column loss is about 669.09 kN-m which are twice of
its capacity so that the demand raised is about 109 % to its ca­
pacity. From the calculated results it was found that the beams
having percentage of demand moments >100 are the same beams
having Demand Capacity Ratio values (DCR) more than two.
vi. For model two and three the load from the failed column is shared
by five columns which are immediately adjacent to the failed
column at ground storey level. For model four, only three col­
umns shares the load from the failed column. For model V eight
columns will share the load from the failed column. But when we
observe the fifth storey column loss scenarios the load from the
Fig. 31. Graph 1 showing no. of beams failed after ground storey and fifth
failed column is shared by the adjacent columns at fifth storey
storey column loss for all cases.
level and the columns of bottom stories as well.
vii. Columns at mid height have more ability to share the load from
the failed column compared to the column loss at ground storey.
The demand capacity of that beam is more than three. The beam
having Demand Capacity Ratio values more than 2 have high
tendency to be collapsed. The capacity of a beam is dependent on
the percentage of steel. The average area of one stirrup is 100.53
mm2 and spacing of stirrups is 140 mm and subjected to shear
force of 318 kN after column loss. The moment obtained after
column loss is about 439 kN-m and moment of resistance ob­
tained by the beam is 145 kN-m.
viii. Due to the worst column loss scenario case which creates most
damage to the building model is the interior column loss scenario
in which 28 beams were failed in flexure another case is the
external short side middle column loss scenario in which 32
beams were failed. The total reinforcement provided in the ten­
Fig. 32. Graph 2 showing no. of beams that has DCR above 3 after ground sion compression zones to resist this additional moment of
storey and fifth storey column loss for all cases. 115.42 kN-m. This tension moment resist the worst column loss.
ix. The major variables in the study were the amounts of flexural and
shear reinforcement. The flexural steel varied from 0.5 to 1 % and
Table 8 the shear reinforcement varied from 0 to 110 psi. Nearly all the
Shear Capacity of a beam before and after column loss. beams failed in shears which are immediately adjoined to the
Description Before column loss After column loss column removed and the beams above the removed column. This
Shear force VU 127.207 kN 318.22 kN
paper reports on some experimental investigations on the shear
Shear resisted by concrete 87.36 kN 87.36 kN strength and shear ductility of reinforced concrete deep beams.
VC
Shear resisted by stirrups Actually Designed for To be designed for 8. Future research directions of study
VS 39.84 kN 230.86kN

The progressive collapse field, in general, and strengthening and

gravity-load designed mid-rise reinforced concrete building with
open ground floor. It was found that potential of progressive
collapse in this type of buildings was high based on Global sys­
tems analysis guidelines.
iv. In the failure of Fifth storey building the Demand Capacity Ratio
values value more than three observed in the case I total four
beams are failed in the ground storey and Fifth storey buildings.
In case II ground storey building losses second beams and Fifth
storey building also losses five beams. In case III observed that the
ground storey building total third beams are failure and Fifth
storey total five beams are failure. In case IV observed that the no
beams are failure in the ground storey buildings and only two
beams are failed in the Fifth storey buildings.
v. From the analysis we can conclude that the columns which are
adjacent to the failed column having demand capacity ratio
(DCR) more than one are considered as highly exposed to dam­
age. By applying linear and nonlinear dynamic analysis, it was
retrofitting techniques to mitigate progressive collapse in particular, are
young research fields in structural engineering discipline. Therefore,
there are points that need developments and more attention. In the
future study consulted first, since where the progressive collapse studies
are lacking, obviously, there is a gap in strengthening and retrofitting
techniques too. The majority of reported strengthening and retrofitting
techniques focuses on redistribution-type progressive collapses, only
few studies are devoted to impact-type collapses. In this regard, more
emphasis should be put on the possible techniques to overcome the
impact-type progressive collapses, namely, heavy energy absorbing de­
vices. In particular, strong slab philosophy is introduced theoretically.
However, no experimental or numerical research is reported on
strengthening exiting slabs to act as strong slabs in impact-type pro­
gressive collapse scenarios. However, especial focus on future needs in
collapse mitigation measures is also useful, therefore, this research
paper concludes with a reasoned list of issues that, in the opinion of the
Authors, should be addressed in the near future. For each point, a short
discussion is provided.

1916
M. Vinay et al. Structures 45 (2022) 1902–1919

Table 9
Provided shear reinforcement for all cases.
CASE I

BEAM ENDS (a) GROUND STOREY COLUMN LOSS (b) FIFTH STOREY COLUMN LOSS

LONGITUDINAL BEAMS TRANSVERSE BEAMS LONGITUDINAL BEAMS TRANSVERSE BEAMS

b1 8mmD 2-lgd @140 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @130 mm c/c – –

b2 8mmD 2-lgd @130 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @120 mm c/c – –
b3 8mmD 2-lgd @140 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @140 mm c/c – –
b4 8mmD 2-lgd @150 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @155 mm c/c – –
b5 8mmD 2-lgd @150 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @145 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @140 mm c/c 8mmD 4-lgd @120 mm c/c
b6 8mmD 2-lgd @170 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @138 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @140 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @135 mm c/c
b7 8mmD 2-lgd @150 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @160 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @140 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @140 mm c/c
b8 8mmD 2-lgd @170 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @160 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @160 mm c/c 8mmD 4-lgd @160 mm c/c
b9 8mmD 2-lgd @165 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @150 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @150 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @160 mm c/c
b 10 8mmD 2-lgd @205 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @140 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @190 mm c/c 8mmD 4-lgd @155 mm c/c

CASE II
BEAM ENDS (a) GROUND STOREY COLUMN LOSS (b) FIFTH STOREY COLUMN LOSS
LONGITUDINAL BEAMS TRANSVERSE BEAMS LONGITUDINAL BEAMS TRANSVERSE BEAMS
b1 8mmD 2-lgd @140 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @150 mm c/c – –
b2 8mmD 2-lgd @130 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @160 mm c/c – –
b3 8mmD 2-lgd @130 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @165 mm c/c – –
b4 8mmD 2-lgd @140 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @140 mm c/c – –
b5 8mmD 2-lgd @140 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @140 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @140 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @150 mm c/c
b6 8mmD 2-lgd @140 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @150 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @140 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @150 mm c/c
b7 8mmD 2-lgd @140 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @155 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @140 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @150 mm c/c
b8 8mmD 2-lgd @160 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @160 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @150 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @160 mm c/c
b9 8mmD 2-lgd @155 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @170 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @150 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @175 mm c/c
b 10 8mmD 2-lgd @190 mm c/c 8mmD 4-lgd @200 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @180 mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @190 mm c/c

CASE III

BEAM ENDS (a) GROUND STOREY COLUMN LOSS (b) FIFTH STOREY COLUMN LOSS

X-Z PLANE Y-Z PLANE X-Z PLANE Y-Z PLANE

b1 8mm D 2-lgd @130mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @135mm c/c – –

b2 8mm D 2-lgd @130mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @140mm c/c – –
b3 8mm D 2-lgd @140mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @140mm c/c – –
b4 8mm D 2-lgd @140mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @150mm c/c – –
b5 8mm D 2-lgd @145mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @150mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @145mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @150mm c/c
b6 8mm D 2-lgd @150mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @155mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @155mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @145mm c/c
b7 8mm D 2-lgd @165mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @155mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @155mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @160mm c/c
b8 8mm D 2-lgd @160mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @170mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @150mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @155mm c/c
b9 8mm D 2-lgd @160mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @160mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @150mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @160mm c/c
b 10 8mm D 2-lgd @205mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @210mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @200mm c/c 8mmD 2-lgd @210mm c/c

CASE IV
BEAM ENDS (a) GROUND STOREY COLUMN LOSS (b) FIFTH STOREY COLUMN LOSS
X-Z PLANE Y-Z PLANE X-Z PLANE Y-Z PLANE
b 1a 8mm D 2-lgd @ 130mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 130mm c/c – –
b 2a 8mm D 2-lgd @ 120mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 120mm c/c – –
b 3a 8mm D 2-lgd @ 130mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 130mm c/c – –
b 4a 8mm D 2-lgd @ 130mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 130mm c/c – –
b 5a 8mm D 2-lgd @ 135mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 135mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 130mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 130mm c/c
b 6a 8mm D 2-lgd @ 140mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 140mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 130mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 130mm c/c
b 7a 8mm D 2-lgd @ 140mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 140mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 130mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 130mm c/c
b 8a 8mm D 2-lgd @ 140mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 140mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 145mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 145mm c/c
b 9a 8mm D 2-lgd @ 150mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 150mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 140mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 140mm c/c
b 10a 8mm D 2-lgd @ 175mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 175mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 165mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 165mm c/c

CASE V
BEAM ENDS (a) GROUND STOREY COLUMN LOSS (b) FIFTH STOREY COLUMN LOSS
X-Z PLANE Y-Z PLANE X-Z PLANE Y-Z PLANE
b 1b 8mm D 2-lgd @ 135mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 135mm c/c – –
b 2b 8mm D 2-lgd @ 130mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 130mm c/c – –
b 3b 8mm D 2-lgd @ 135mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 135mm c/c – –
b 4b 8mm D 2-lgd @ 140mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 145mm c/c – –
b 5b 8mm D 2-lgd @ 145mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 150mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 140mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 140mm c/c
b 6b 8mm D 2-lgd @ 150mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 150mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 140mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 140mm c/c
b 7b 8mm D 2-lgd @ 155mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 155mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 160mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 155mm c/c
b 8b 8mm D 2-lgd @ 170mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 170mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 160mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 156mm c/c
b 9b 8mm D 2-lgd @ 165mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 165mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 155mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 150mm c/c
b 10b 8mm D 2-lgd @ 185mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 190mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 175mm c/c 8mm D 2-lgd @ 180mm c/c

1917
M. Vinay et al. Structures 45 (2022) 1902–1919

Compliance with Ethical Standards. [27] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Best practices for reducing
the potential for progressive collapse in buildings. Washington, DC: US Department
The Authors are thankful for the support from all the faculty mem­
of Commerce; 2007. p. 2007.
bers and lab in charge of Civil Engineering Department, Gudlavalleru [28] Department of Defense (DoD). 2013. Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC): design of
Engineering College, Gudlavalleru, Andhra Pradesh, India. structures to resist progressive collapse. Washington, DC.
[29] Vishal M, Satyanarayanan KS, Thirumurugan V. Analytical investigation on
behavior of three-dimensional reinforced concrete frames under thermal effect.
Mater Today: Proc 2021;45:100924.
Declaration of Competing Interest [30] Gkournelos PD, Triantafillou TC, Bournas DA. Seismic upgrading of existing
reinforced concrete buildings: A state-of-the-art review. Eng Struct 2021;240:
112273.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial [31] Shahriari A, Birzhandi MS, Zafarani MM. Seismic behavior, blast response and
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence progressive collapse of RC structures equipped with viscoelastic dampers. Soil Dyn
the work reported in this paper. Earthquake Eng 2021;143:106643.
[32] Scalvenzi M, Parisi F. Progressive collapse capacity of a gravity-load designed RC
building partially collapsed during structural retrofitting. Eng Fail Anal 2021;121:
References 105164.
[33] Seismosoft. Seismo struct a computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear
analysis of framed structures. Engineering Dynamics and Vibrations 2019;2:
[1] Digesh D, Joshi PV, Patel and Saumil, J. Tank. Linear and non-linear static analysis
268–301.
for assessment of progressive collapse potential of multi-storeyed building. ASCE
[34] Brunesi E, Parisi F. Progressive collapse fragility models of European reinforced
Structures Congress 2010;2:16–24.
concrete framed buildings based on pushdown analysis. Eng Struct 2017;152:
[2] Sagiroglu S, Sasani M. Progressive collapse-resisting mechanisms of reinforced
579–96.
concrete structures and effects of initial damage locations. J Struct Eng 2014;140
[35] Mucedero G, Brunesi E, Parisi F. Nonlinear material modelling for fibre-based
(3):04013073.
progressive collapse analysis of RC framed buildings. Eng Fail Anal 2020;118:
[3] Elshaer A, Mostafa H, Salem H. Progressive collapse assessment of multistory
104901.
reinforced concrete structures subjected to seismic actions. KSCE J Civ Eng 2016;
[36] Yu J, Gan YP, Wu J, Wu H. Effect of concrete masonry infill walls on progressive
21(1):184–94.
collapse performance of reinforced concrete in-filled frames. Eng Struct 2019;191:
[4] GSA, 2016. “General Service administration alternate path analysis and design
179–93.
guidelines for progressive collapse resistance”, Washington D.C., 1-203.
[37] Wang F, Yang J, Nyunn S, Azim I. Effect of concrete infill walls on the progressive
[5] Baldridge, S. and Humay, F. 2005. “Multi hazard approach to progressive collapse
collapse performance of precast concrete framed substructures. Journal of Building
mitigation”. Honolulu: Structures Congress, ASCE2005, 10.1061/40753(171) 222.
Engineering 2020;32:101461.
[6] ASCE/SEI41, 2006. “Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings” (ASCE/
[38] Elsanadedy HM, Al-Salloum YA, Alrubaidi MA, Almusallam TH, Abbas H. Finite
SEI41-06), American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, 1-10.
element analysis for progressive collapse potential of precast concrete beam-to-
[7] IS 456:2000 “Plain and reinforced concrete code of Practice”, Bureau of Indian
column connections strengthened with steel plates. Journal of Building
Standards, New Delhi, India, 1-114.
Engineering 2021;34:101875.
[8] IS 1893 (Part. “Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures”.5th Revision.
[40] Huang H, Huang M, Zhang W, Guo M, Chen Z, Li M. Progressive collapse resistance
3rd Reprint,. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards; 1):2016.. p. 1–120.
of multistory RC frame strengthened with HPFL-BSP. Journal of Building
[9] SAP 2000. Version 20, analysis reference manual, Computers and Structures, Inc.,
Engineering 2021;43:103123.
Berkeley, 1-556.
[41] Ehab M, Maxi M. Assessment of SMC frames under different column removal
[10] Ellingwood BR. Mitigating risk from abnormal loads and progressive collapse.
scenarios. Civil Engineering Journal 2020;6(2):285–303.
J Perform Constr Facil 2006;20(4):315–23.
[42] Singh V, Sangle K. Analysis of vertically oriented coupled shear wall
[11] Wood C, Malti L, Amp HS. Progressive collapse experiments, modeling and analysis
interconnected with coupling beams. High Tech and Innovation Journal 2022;3(2):
of existing frame buildings. ASCE Structures Congress 2014:909–18.
230–43.
[12] Rezaie F, et al. Numerical evaluation of progressive collapse potential in reinforced
[43] Fouad M, Fayed MN, Hamdy GA, Abdelrahman A. Effect of blast loading on
concrete buildings with various floor plans due to single column removal. Civil
seismically detailed RC columns and buildings. Civil Engineering Journal 2021;7
Engineering Infrastructures Journal 2018;51(2):405–24.
(8):1406–25.
[13] Garg S, Agrawal V, Nagar R. Progressive collapse behaviour of reinforced concrete
[44] Kokot S, Anthoine A, Negro P, Solomos G. Static and dynamic analysis of a
flat slab buildings subject to column failures in different storeys. Mater Today: Proc
reinforced concrete flat slab frame building for progressive collapse. Eng Struct
2021;43:1031–7.
2012;40:205–17.
[14] Sen S, Singh Y. “Seismic performance of flat slab buildings”. Adv. in Struct. Eng
[45] Grierson DE, Xu L, Liu Y. “Progressive-failure analysis of buildings subjected to
Springer New Delhi 2015;2:897–907.
abnormal loading”, Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct Eng 2005;20:155–71.
[15] IS 456:2000, Plain and reinforced concrete – code of practice. Bureau of Indian
[46] Zhang L, Wei T, Li H, Zeng J, Deng X. Effects of corrosion on compressive arch
Standards, New Delhi 2000.
action and catenary action of RC Frames to resist progressive collapse based on
[16] Pang B, Wang F, Yang J, Nyunn S, Azim I. Performance of slabs in reinforced
numerical analysis. Materials 2021;14:2662.
concrete structures to resist progressive collapse. Structures 2021;33:4843–56.
[47] Filiatrault A, Holleran M. Stress-strain behavior of reinforcing steel and concrete
[17] Ibrahim MH, Alshaikha BHA, Bakara E, A.H., Alwesabia and Hazizan Md A.
under seismic strain rates and low temperatures. Mater Struct 2001;34:235–9.
Experimental investigation of the progressive collapse of reinforced concrete
[48] Galeota, D., Giammatteo, M.M. and Marino, R. 1992. Strength and ductility of
structures: An overview. Structures 2020;25:881–900.
confined high strength concrete. In Proceedings of the Earthquake Engineering,
[18] Qing-Feng, H.W.J., Yi, Y., Xiao K.S. 2009, “Experimental study of progressive
Tenth World Conference, Madrid, Spain, 19–24 July 1992. 2609–2613.
collapse due to sudden column removal”, in The First International Conference on
[49] Fu HC, Erki MA, Seckin M. Review of effects of loading rate on concrete in
Computational Technologies in Concrete Structures (CTCS’09). Jeju, Korea.
compression. J Struct Eng 1991;117:3645–59.
188–194.
[50] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stress-strain model for confined
[19] Crowder, B., Stevens, D. and Marchand, K. 2004. “Design of buildings to resist
concrete. J Struct Eng 1988;114:1804–26.
progressive collapse in Virginia Society of Professional Engineers Tidewater
[51] Ibrahim MHA, Abubakar BH, Alwesabi EAH, Abadel AA, Alghamdi H, Altheeb A,
Chapter & DoD Security Engineering Working Group”, Short course proceedings of
et al. Progressive collapse behavior of steel fiber-reinforced rubberized concrete
Security Engineering Workshop.
frames. Journal of Building Engineering 2022;57:104920.
[20] Alanani M, Ehab M, Salem H. Progressive collapse assessment of precast
[52] Lu, et al. Experimental study of novel concrete frames considering earthquake and
prestressed reinforced concrete beams using applied element method. Case Stud
progressive collapse. Concrete Structures in Earthquake 2019;2:29–45.
Constr Mater 2020;13:e00457.
[53] Li, et al. Experimental assessment of fire-exposed RC beam-column connections
[21] Qin W, Liu X, Xi Z, Huang Z, Al-Mansour A, Fernand M. Experimental research on
with varying reinforcement development lengths subjected to column removal.
the progressive collapse resistance of concrete beam-column sub-assemblages
Fire Saf J 2018;99:38–48.
reinforced with steel-FRP composite bar. Eng Struct 2021;233:111776.
[54] ACI, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14), American
[22] Elsanadedy HM. New moment-resisting beam-column joints to increase progressive
Concrete Institute. 2014.
collapse resistance of precast concrete buildings. Journal of Building Engineering
[55] Qian K, Weng YH, Li B. Improving behavior of reinforced concrete frames to resist
2021;44:102884.
progressive collapse through steel bracings. J Struct Eng 2019;145(2):04018248.
[23] Esfandiari MJ, Urgessa GS. Progressive collapse design of reinforced concrete
[56] Braga F, Gigliotti R, Laterza M. Analytical stress–strain relationship for concrete
frames using structural optimization and machine learning. Structures 2020;28:
confined by steel stirrups and/or FRP jackets. J Struct Eng 2006;132:1402–16.
1252–64.
[57] Martinez-Rueda JE, Elnashai AS. Confined concrete model under cyclic load. Mater
[24] Alshaikh IMH, Abu Bakar BH, Alwesabi EAH, Akil HM. Progressive collapse of
Struct 1997;30:139–47.
reinforced rubberised concrete: Experimental study. Constr Build Mater 2019;226:
[58] Kokot S. Reinforced concrete beam under support removal parametric analysis.
307–16.
Materials 2021;14:5917.
[25] Youse AM, El-Mandouh MA. Dynamic analysis of high-strength concrete frame
[59] Fang C, Linzell DG. Examining progressive collapse robustness of a high-rise
buildings for progressive collapse. Case Stud Constr Mater 2020;13:e00470.
reinforced concrete building. Eng Struct 2021;248:113274.
[26] Eren N, Brunesi E, Nascimbene R. Influence of masonry infills on the progressive
collapse resistance of reinforced concrete framed buildings. Eng Struct 2019;178:
375–94.

1918
M. Vinay et al.
[60] Dey S, Praveen Kumar VV, Phani Manoj AV. An experimental study on strength and
durability characteristics of self-curing self-compacting concrete. Structural
Concrete 2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco. 202100446, 1-30.
[61] Dinh-Cong D, Nguyen-Thoi T, Nguyen DT. A FE model updating technique based
on SAP2000-OAPI and enhanced SOS algorithm for damage assessment of full-scale
structures. Applied Soft Computing Journal 2020;89:106100.
[62] Sasani M, Bazan M, Sagiroglu S. Experimental and analytical progressive collapse
evaluation of actual reinforced concrete structure. ACI Struct J 2007;104(6):731.
[63] Xiao Y, Kunnath S, Li FW, Zhao YB, Lew HS, Bao Y. Collapse test of three-story half-
scale reinforced concrete frame building. ACI Struct J 2015;112(4):429.
[64] Ren P, Li Y, Lu X, Guan H, Zhou Y. Experimental investigation of progressive
collapse resistance of one-way reinforced concrete beam-slab substructures under a
middle-column-removal scenario. Eng Struct 2016;118:28–40.
[65] Li Y, Lu X, Guan H, Ren P. Numerical investigation of progressive collapse
resistance of reinforced concrete frames subject to column removals from different
stories. Adv Struct Eng 2016;19(2):314–26.
[67] Feng DC, Xie SC, Deng WN, Ding ZD. Probabilistic failure analysis of reinforced
concrete beam-column sub-assemblage under column removal scenario. Eng Fail
Anal 2019;100:381–92.
1919
Structures 45 (2022) 1902–1919
[68] Qian L, Li Y, Diao M, Guan H, Lu X. Experimental and computational assessments
of progressive collapse resistance of reinforced concrete planar frames subjected to
penultimate column removal scenario. J Perform Constr Facil 2020;34(3):
04020019.
Further reading
[39] Nyunn S, Wang F, Yang J, Liu QF, Azim I, Bhatta S. Numerical studies on the
progressive collapse resistance of multi-story RC buildings with and without
exterior masonry walls. Structures 2020;28:1050–9.
[66] Arshian AH, Morgenthal G. Three-dimensional progressive collapse analysis of
reinforced concrete frame structures subjected to sequential column removal. Eng
Struct 2017;132:87–97.
[69] Zhao Z, Liu Y, Li Y, Guan H, Yang Z, Ren P, et al. Experimental and numerical
investigation of dynamic progressive collapse of reinforced concrete beam-column
assemblies under a middle-column removal scenario. Structures 2022;38:
979–1922.