Journal of Building Engineering 41 (2021) 102790

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

Novel seismic–progressive collapse resilient super-tall building system

Yuan Tian a, Kaiqi Lin b, Lei Zhang a, c, Xinzheng Lu a, *, Hongjing Xue a, d
a
Key Laboratory of Civil Engineering Safety and Durability of China Education Ministry, Department of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China
b
College of Civil Engineering, Fuzhou University, China
c
Business Management Center, Sunac China Holdings Limited, China
d
Beijing Institute of Architectural Design Co., Ltd., Beijing 100045, China

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

Keywords: Accidental events that may lead to a progressive collapse (e.g., explosions and collisions) and earthquakes are
Resilience two types of destructive hazards for super-tall buildings. The study of the resilience of super-tall buildings against
Multi-hazard these hazards has become a crucial issue. Corresponding research outcomes have important social, political, and
Earthquake
economic value for damage/loss assessment and the post-disaster recovery plans for important buildings. A
Progressive collapse
Super-tall building
resilient structural system usually exhibits significantly reduced consequences and recovery time after hazards.
Therefore, based on the resilience concept and the widely adopted “frame–truss–core tube” system, a novel
seismic–progressive collapse resilient super-tall (SPCRST) building system and the corresponding design method
are proposed in this paper. Detailed case study results indicate that, compared with the conventional system, the
proposed system has significant advantages in controlling the dynamic responses of super-tall buildings during
accidental events and earthquakes (e.g., vertical displacement after local column failure, and floor accelerations
and inter-story drifts under earthquakes) and in improving the seismic–progressive collapse resilience of the
structure.

1. Introduction
A super-tall building usually provides very important social, politi­
cal, and economic functions for a city. Therefore, the multi-hazard
resilience of super-tall buildings has received widespread attention in
the field of civil engineering [1–4]. Studies on this topic can provide
valuable outcomes for the damage/loss assessment and post-disaster
recovery plans for important buildings. Currently, there are various
definitions of “resilience” [5–7]. However, the basic ideas of these def­
initions are similar: “resilience” is the ability to adapt to changing
conditions and withstand and rapidly recover from disruption caused by
emergencies or hazards [5]. Generally, a resilient system exhibits
reduced failure probabilities, reduced consequences from failures (in
terms of life loss, damage, and negative economic and social conse­
quences), and reduced time to recovery after the occurrence of hazards
[6]. Therefore, to improve the multi-hazard resilience of super-tall
buildings, critical hazards should first be identified. Then, further
studies can be performed to deal with the challenges of multi-hazard
resilience.
According to relevant studies, there are mainly two types of
destructive hazards for super-tall buildings: (1) earthquakes [8–12] and
(2) accidental events that can induce a progressive collapse, such as
explosions and collisions [13,14]. Although the wind load is also a factor
that should be carefully considered during the design of super-tall
buildings [15–17], wind-induced collapse of super-tall buildings has
rarely been reported. Thus, the wind load was not considered in this
study. After a long period of scientific research and engineering practice,
relatively mature standards have been individually developed for
seismic and progressive collapse resistance design [18–21]. However,
significant differences exist between seismic design and progressive
collapse resistance design. In brief, seismic design is primarily con­
cerned with the lateral loading, while progressive collapse resistance
design aims to ensure that the remaining structure has a sufficient in­
ternal force redistribution capacity after localized damage caused by
accidental events. Currently, seismic design and progressive collapse
resistance design for a real structure are usually performed individually.
This may lead to a redundant design workload. In addition, contradic­
tions between these design methods are ignored [22,23]. For example,
Lin et al. [24] reported that, for frame structures, the progressive
collapse resistance design following the specifications of the existing
codes may reduce seismic resistance. This is because such a design will
increase the strength of the beams, leading to the unfavorable

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: luxz@tsinghua.edu.cn (X. Lu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102790
Received 24 December 2020; Received in revised form 27 March 2021; Accepted 25 May 2021
Available online 29 May 2021
2352-7102/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Tian et al.
Fig. 1. SPCRST building system.
“strong-beam-weak-column” failure mode. Therefore, it is necessary to
consider the seismic–progressive collapse resistance synthetically.
However, few such structural systems or design methods have been
reported.
Furthermore, available seismic and progressive collapse resistance
design studies mainly focus on collapse prevention and life safety
problems, which can help achieve “reduced failure probabilities”. How­
ever, they cannot satisfy the objectives of “resilience”, because “reduced
consequences from failures and reduced time to recovery” are not ensured
[3,4,25]. One of the outcomes is that the structures following the
existing design codes might have to be demolished after the hazard
although no collapse occurred, because it would be too difficult and
expensive to repair the severely damaged buildings. For example, after
the 2011 Christchurch earthquake in New Zealand, none of the 50 tallest
buildings in the city collapsed because of the rigorous seismic standards.
Nonetheless, more than 70% of these tall buildings had to be demolished
due to the severe damage and potentially high costs to repair, leading to
an enormous economic loss and negative social impact [26]. In terms of
earthquake hazards, it has been found that the acceleration-sensitive
non-structural components on the roof contribute in the largest pro­
portion to the total economic loss caused by service level earthquakes
(SLEs) and design-based earthquakes (DBEs) [3]. Therefore, based on
the findings and research outcomes, the following problems should be
solved to achieve a seismic–progressive collapse resilient super-tall
(SPCRST) building system: (1) peak floor accelerations and floor spec­
tral accelerations, especially those on the roof, should be controlled
during SLEs and DBEs. This would significantly reduce the economic loss
and repair workload caused by damage to the non-structural compo­
nents; (2) the key structural elements should be restricted to slight or no
damage during DBEs and maximum considered earthquakes (MCEs).
This can ensure the rapid recovery of the structure through a small
repair workload; (3) after the localized damage, a sufficient internal
force redistribution capacity of the remaining structure should be
ensured. This would help control the deformation at failure positions
and further ensure the rapid repair of the failed components.
Based on the abovementioned background and the widely used
“frame–truss–core tube” system, a novel SPCRST building system was
proposed, using newly developed high-performance components. The
proposed system mainly contains: a vibration reduction substructure
(VRS), seismic–progressive collapse resilient composite frames
(SPCRCFs), a composite braced tube with self-centering energy dissi­
pation (SCED) braces, and truss systems with outriggers and belt trusses.
The proposed system has the following characteristics and advantages:
2
Journal of Building Engineering 41 (2021) 102790
(1) The VRS can reduce the floor accelerations on the top of the
building and further control damage to high-cost acceleration-
sensitive non-structural components;
(2) For earthquake hazard and single column failure cases, the
SPCRCF and the braced tube with SCED braces can provide suf­
ficient resistance and ensure rapid recovery of the structure;
(3) For severe localized damage cases (i.e., multiple columns failure
cases), the truss systems can control the structural deformation
and further resist progressive collapse through effective internal
force redistributions.
Based on the proposed system, the corresponding design method is
provided. A case study will illustrate the efficiency of the SPCRST
building system in dynamic response control and multi-hazard
resilience.
2. The novel SPCRST building system
2.1. Structural system
According to relevant inventories from the Council on Tall Buildings
and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), the “frame–truss–core tube” system has
become a widely accepted and adopted super-tall building system.
Therefore, the proposed system is based on this structural system. Fig. 1
shows the proposed system and the basic component types.
2.2. VRS
For the floor acceleration control of super-tall buildings during SLEs
and DBEs, it is not efficient to use base isolation devices, energy dissi­
pation devices, or tuned mass dampers (TMDs) for the following reasons:
(1) base isolation devices will encounter the overturning problem due to
the large aspect ratios of super-tall buildings. In addition, base isolation
devices in tall buildings are not as effective as in low-rise buildings
because tall buildings have already a very long period of vibration and
the spectral acceleration is not easy to reduce; (2) most energy dissi­
pation devices start to work when the structure enters an inelastic stage
[27,28]. However, super-tall buildings are usually at the elastic stage
during SLEs and DBEs; (3) TMDs are usually adopted for wind-induced
vibration control problems [17,29,30]. However, they are not fully
effective for earthquake-induced acceleration control due to the small
mass ratios [31]. Zhang et al. [31] successfully achieved efficient floor
acceleration control for super-tall buildings through a VRS designed on
the top and provided the optimal design method of the VRS. Therefore,
the proposed system will use the VRS to control floor accelerations on
Y. Tian et al. Journal of Building Engineering 41 (2021) 102790

with shearing bolts, and connect the SASs and the column with friction-
type high-strength bolts; (4) install PT tendons crossing the column to
ensure a self-centering capacity.

2.4. Composite braced tube with SCED braces

The steel-concrete composite braced tube usually has a better

ductility and compatibility with steel-concrete composite perimeter
frames than with the conventional reinforced concrete core tube.
Buckling-restrained braces (BRBs) have been widely used in recent years
as the structural elements of the braced tube because of their high
Fig. 2. Connections between the VRS and the main structure. strength and energy dissipation capabilities. However, BRBs will have
large residual deformations after a strong earthquake [34–36]. To date,
the top of the building during SLEs and DBEs. SCED braces have received much attention [37,38]. Xu et al. [36] pro­
The VRS and the main structure are connected with dampers and posed a pre-pressed disc springs self-centering energy dissipation
isolators, as shown in Fig. 2. The vibration reduction effect can be (PS-SCED) brace. The stiffness, ductility, and strength requirements can
optimized by adjusting the stiffness and damping coefficient of the be satisfied by adjusting the configurations of the disc springs. The en­
connections. The fundamental working principle of the VRS: during ergy dissipation capacity and ductility of the PS-SCED braces were
SLEs and DBEs, unlock the VRS to control floor accelerations; during validated by Xu et al. [36]. Therefore, the proposed system will adopt
MCEs, lock the VRS to avoid complicated influences on the nonlinear the PS-SCED braces in the braced tube.
dynamic responses of the main structure.
2.5. Truss systems
2.3. SPCRCFs
The stories strengthened by the truss systems are located on the top
Steel-concrete composite frames can make full use of the advantages and middle of the proposed system. They can efficiently control the
of steel and concrete materials and they generally have a better struc­ structural deformation mode and further reduce the dynamic responses.
tural performance and construction efficiency than conventional rein­ When multiple columns fail, the truss systems can timely redistribute the
forced concrete frames. Steel-concrete composite frames have been internal force and improve the progressive collapse resistance. Given
widely used in super-tall buildings; however, the contradictions between that the use of outrigger trusses will lead to significant non-uniform
seismic design and progressive collapse resistance design may affect distribution of lateral stiffness along the height of the building, the
their efficiency. To overcome these contradictions, Tian et al. [32] truss system in the middle of the building only contains belt trusses. The
proposed a second-generation SPCRCF (denoted as SPCRCF-2) and its truss system on top contains both outriggers and belt trusses, with the
design method. The efficiency of the SPCRCF-2 has been validated outriggers being used to support and rationally distribute the weight of
through experiments. Therefore, the proposed system will adopt the VRS. Yang et al. [39] proposed a truss system with high strength
SPCRCF-2 as the perimeter frames. steel–reduced beam section–buckling restrained braces
The SPCRCF-2 consists of square concrete-filled steel tube (CFST) (HSS-RBS-BRBs). The strength, stiffness, and ductility of the truss system
columns, H-shaped steel beams, post-tensioning (PT) tendons, stiffening were experimentally validated. This truss system will be adopted in the
angle steel (SAS), and shear panels. Fig. 3(a) shows the typical beam- proposed system.
column joint connection. Here, the dual-functional replaceable SAS
component proposed by Lu et al. [33] is adopted. In seismic load cases, Table 1
the SPCRCF-2 will concentrate the seismic damage on the SASs and Seismic performance objectives for critical components.
ensure its self-centering capacity using PT tendons. In terms of resisting SLE DBE MCE
progressive collapse, the shear panels at the beam-column joints are
VRS In use In use Locked
designed to accommodate large beam-to-column rotations, and the SASs Perimeter frame beams and Elastic Elastic Elastic
and PT tendons are designed to provide sufficient resistance and alter­ columns
nate load paths. Through the above design, the spread of the localized SASs in the perimeter frame Elastic Partially inelastic Inelastic
damage will be controlled to avoid progressive collapse. Braced tube beams and Elastic Elastic Elastic
columns
Fig. 3(b) illustrates the details of the typical beam-column joint. The PS-SCED braces in braced Elastic Partially dissipating Dissipating
whole assembly process contains four steps: (1) combine angle steel and tube energy energy
rib stiffeners to form SASs; (2) connect SASs and beams with friction- Outriggers and belt trusses Elastic Elastic Elastic
type high-strength bolts; (3) connect the beam web and shear panels

Fig. 3. The typical beam-column joint connection of the SPCRCF-2.

3
Y. Tian et al.
Fig. 4. Mechanism of resisting a progressive collapse.
3. Performance objectives
3.1. Seismic performance objectives
Table 1 illustrates the seismic performance objectives for the critical
components under different earthquake hazard levels. During SLEs, all
critical components are elastic. During DBEs, parts of the PS-SCED
braces in the braced tube begin to dissipate energy and some SASs in
the perimeter frame are allowed to enter the plastic stage to dissipate
energy. During MCEs, all PS-SCED braces and SASs will enter the energy
dissipation stage. To achieve the seismic resilience, the maximum re­
sidual drift ratio threshold is set at 0.005 rad [40]. To estimate the
maximum residual drift ratio, a nonlinear time-history analysis is
4
Journal of Building Engineering 41 (2021) 102790
necessary. The residual drifts can be obtained when the structure stops
free vibration after the excitation of ground motions.
3.2. Performance objectives of resisting progressive collapse
Fig. 4 illustrates the working mechanism of the proposed system in
resisting a progressive collapse. For single column failure cases in the
perimeter frame (Fig. 4(a)), the SPCRCF-2 will provide resistance and
ensure resilience. For single column failure cases in the braced tube
(Fig. 4(b)), the braced tube will provide resistance and redistribute the
internal force to avoid a possible progressive collapse. For multiple
column failure cases (Fig. 4(c) and (d)), the truss system will stably
redistribute the internal force to resist a progressive collapse.
Y. Tian et al. Journal of Building Engineering 41 (2021) 102790

Table 2
Performance objectives of resisting a progressive collapse for critical components.
Failure in the perimeter frame Failure in the braced tube

Single column Multiple columns Single column Multiple columns

VRS In use In use In use In use

Perimeter frame beams and columns Elastic (Provide resistance) Elastic (Provide resistance) Elastic Elastic
SASs in perimeter frame Inelastic (Provide resistance) Inelastic (Provide resistance) Elastic Elastic
Braced tube beams and columns Elastic Elastic Elastic (Provide resistance) Elastic (Provide resistance)
PS-SCED braces in braced tube Elastic Elastic Self-centering (Provide resistance) Self-centering (Provide resistance)
Outriggers and belt trusses Elastic Elastic (Redistribute load) Elastic Elastic (Redistribute load)

Table 2 illustrates the performance objectives of resisting a pro­ The detailed design process is as follows:
gressive collapse for critical components. To ensure the resilience of the
structure, the beam-to-column rotation threshold of the SPCRCF-2 is set (1) Determine the basic information of the structure (e.g., height,
at 0.2 rad [32]. The axial deformation of the PS-SCED braces should also number of stories, aspect ratio and earthquake hazard level) and
satisfy the self-centering capacity of the adopted components. perform the conventional structural design.
(2) Design the high-performance components, including:
4. Design method (2.1) SPCRCF-2
(a) Determine the initial stiffness k0 and yield moment My
Fig. 5 shows the recommended design process for the proposed of conventional beam-column joints.
system, which is suitable for “frame–truss–core tube” super-tall build­ (b) Based on the method proposed by Tian et al. [32],
ings with heights of 200–400 m. It should be noted that, there are design SASs (initial stiffness kθ,SAS and yield moment
different definitions for super-tall buildings. This work follows the def­ MSAS) and PT tendons (initial stiffness kθ,s and yield
initions in the Chinese standard “Uniform standard for design of civil moment Ms). The designed SASs and PT tendons should
buildings (GB 50352-2019)” [47], which defines super-tall buildings as satisfy the following requirements:
the buildings with a height larger than 100 m. It is also worth noting that (b.1) Seismic resistance requirement
the height restriction (i.e., 200–400 m) is made based on the following Initial stiffness: kθ,SAS + kθ,s ≥ k0;
reasons: Yield moment: MSAS + Ms ≥ My;
Energy dissipation requirement: MSAS = κMs (κ is
(1) The effects of VRS were validated for buildings with a height of recommended as 1.0).
200–400 m [31]. For buildings with other heights, the validation (b.2) Progressive resistance requirement
of VRS was not performed. To be strict, the restriction is given. When a large deformation occurs, i.e.,
(2) According to the Skyscraper Center [41], the number of buildings beam-to-column rotation θ = 0.2 rad, the resistance
with a height between 200 and 400 m has been greatly increased provided by the PT tendons should be no less than the
in recent years. The increasing trend keeps going. Thus, it is peak resistance provided by the beam-column joints.
believed that the demand for new systems and design methods for (b.3) Self-centering capacity requirement The
buildings with a height between 200 and 400 m is wide. moment provided by the initial pre-stressed force of the

Fig. 5. Flowchart of the design method for the proposed system.

5
Y. Tian et al. Journal of Building Engineering 41 (2021) 102790

Fig. 6. Three-dimensional view and typical layout of Building Y.

Table 3
Material properties and dimensions for the main structural components.
Floor Specified strength (MPa) Dimension (mm)

Perimeter frame columns 1–16 Concrete: fck = 38.5; ftk = 2.85 CFST 1200 × 1200 × 60
Steel: fyk = 345
17–32 Concrete: fck = 35.5; ftk = 2.74 CFST 1000 × 1000 × 50
Steel: fyk = 345
33–48 Concrete: fck = 32.4; ftk = 2.64 CFST 800 × 800 × 40
Steel: fyk = 345
Perimeter frame beams All Steel: fyk = 345 H 900 × 450 × 20 × 30
Braced tube columns 1–16 Concrete: fck = 38.5; ftk = 2.85 CFST 1400 × 1400 × 80
Steel: fyk = 345 CFST 1200 × 1200 × 60
17–32 Concrete: fck = 35.5; ftk = 2.74 CFST 1100 × 1100 × 60
Steel: fyk = 345 CFST 1000 × 1000 × 50
33–48 Concrete: fck = 32.4; ftk = 2.64 CFST 800 × 800 × 40
Steel: fyk = 345
Braced tube beams All Steel: fyk = 345 H 800 × 400 × 20 × 20
Connecting beams All Steel: fyk = 345 H 700 × 400 × 20 × 20
Braces in braced tube 1–16 Steel: fyk = 345 600 × 600 × 40
17–32 Steel: fyk = 345 500 × 500 × 30
33–48 Steel: fyk = 345 400 × 400 × 25
Braces in outrigger 48 Steel: fyk = 345 H 300 × 300 × 30 × 30
Braces in belt trusses 48 Steel: fyk = 345 H 250 × 250 × 25 × 25
Slab 1–16 Concrete: fck = 26.8; ftk = 2.39 100
17–32 Concrete: fck = 23.4; ftk = 2.20 100
33–48 Concrete: fck = 20.1; ftk = 2.01 100

*fyk: Yield strength of steel; fck: Compressive strength of concrete; ftk: Tensile strength of concrete.

PT tendons should be larger than the residual moment
of the energy dissipation components under the
required beam-to-column rotation by the design code.
Columns and beams should remain elastic.
(c) Design the shear panels, including the strength and
size. A large deformation capacity (θ ≥ 0.2 rad) should
be ensured.
(2.2) PS-SCED braces
(a) Determine the backbone curve of conventional braces
in the braced tube.
(b) Based on the method proposed by Xu et al. [36], design
the PS-SCED braces, the strength of which should be no
less than that of conventional braces.
(2.3) Truss systems
(a) Determine the strength of the truss systems.
(b) Based on the method proposed by Yang [42], design the
HSS-RBS-BRB truss systems, the strength of which
should be no less than that of conventional truss
systems.
(2.4) VRS
(a) Based on the research by Zhang et al. [31], determine
the mass of the VRS (MVRS), the connection stiffness
(KVRS), and connection damping coefficient (CVRS).
Then, select several stories on the top as the VRS. Note
that the aspect ratio of the VRS should be controlled
(usually less than four according to GB50011-2010
[43]) to prevent the VRS from overturning due to the
limited tensile strength of the isolators.
(b) Determine the type and number of the isolators and
dampers used for connections between the VRS and the
main structure. The strength of the isolators under
gravity loads should be ensured.
(c) Determine the arrangement of the isolators and
dampers.

6
Y. Tian et al. Journal of Building Engineering 41 (2021) 102790

Table 4 horizontal size of 48 m × 48 m, and the braced tube has a horizontal size
Dead loads and live loads at each floor of Building Y. of 24 m × 24 m. Outriggers and belt trusses are adopted on the top of the
Floor Dead loads (N) Live loads (N) building.
7 Table 3 shows the material properties and dimensions for the main
1–16 2.46 × 10 2.74 × 106
17–32 2.23 × 107 structural components. The design of Building Y is validated through
33–46 2.05 × 107 structural design software and will be used for further comparison.
47 2.09 × 107 The detailed dead loads and live loads are shown in Table 4. The
48 2.12 × 107 fundamental period of Building Y is shown in Table 5.
Conventional structural design software is not able to handle the
simulation of the high-performance components and the VRS model
Table 5 introduced in Section 2. Therefore, the general-purpose finite element
Fundamental period of Building Y. software MSC. Marc [44] is used to establish the refined finite element
Period (s) model for Building Y, denoted as Model Y.
T1 (1st-order translation in X direction) 5.69
To illustrate the performance advantages of the proposed system,
T2 (1st-order translation in Y direction) 5.49 Model M-V, shown in Fig. 7, is established based on Model Y as follows:
T3 (1st-order torsion) 4.43 First, the perimeter frames and braced tube braces of Model Y are
T4 (2nd-order translation in X direction) 1.83 replaced with SPCRCF-2 and PS-SCED braces, respectively, and belt
T5 (2nd-order translation in Y direction) 1.75
trusses are added in the middle height of the building. Then, the VRS is
T6 (2nd-order torsion) 1.48
designed to replace the top two stories. According to the research by
Zhang et al. [31], the mass ratio μ and the damping ratio ζ are set at 0.05
(3) Replace the conventional components with the abovementioned and 0.3, respectively, and the optimal frequency f opt can be obtained as
high-performance components and install the VRS. 1.86 Hz (= 0.386 μ-0.415 ζ-0.275). Then, the basic parameters of the VRS, i.
(4) Install belt trusses in the middle of the building. e., MVRS (= μMMS, where MMS is the mass of the main structure), KVRS (=
(5) Check the new super-tall building model with the performance (2πf opt)2MVRS), and CVRS (= 4πf optζMVRS), can be obtained. The VRS
objectives in Tables 1 and 2 and revise the design of improper and the main structure are connected with isolators and dampers. In this
components until the performance objectives are totally satisfied. study, 24 isolators and 24 dampers are installed symmetrically in the
horizontal plane. The total lateral stiffness of the connection is 8.12 ×
5. Case study 108 N/m, and the total damping coefficient of the connection is 4.16 ×
107 N⋅s/m.
5.1. Basic information of the case study building It is worth noting that, during MCEs, the connection stiffness be­
tween the VRS and the main structure in Model M-V will be enlarged to
A regular steel-concrete composite frame–truss–braced tube super- infinity to simulate the lock state of the VRS.
tall building named Building Y is designed, as shown in Fig. 6. The
peak ground acceleration (PGA) used for seismic design is 0.35 m/s2,
1.00 m/s2, and 2.20 m/s2 for SLE, DBE, and MCE, respectively. Building
Y has 48 stories, with a total height of 192 m. Each typical story has a

Fig. 7. Comparison between Model Y and Model M-V.

7
Y. Tian et al. Journal of Building Engineering 41 (2021) 102790

of the selected motions will be set at 0.35 m/s2, 1.00 m/s2, and 2.20
m/s2 and input to the models along the X-axis to perform nonlinear
time-history analyses.

5.2.2. Column failure cases caused by accidental events

The failure of the columns on the bottom story usually has the
greatest effect on structural safety. Therefore, in the progressive collapse
analysis, only the failure of the columns on the bottom story is consid­
ered. Fig. 8 shows the arrangement of the columns and braces on Floor 1.
The possible failed columns considered are denoted as Y1–Y10 for Model
Y and M1–M10 for Model M-V. Table 6 provides the detailed load cases.
A damping ratio of 2.5% is adopted considering the material of the
structural components.

5.3. Analysis results

Fig. 8. Arrangement of the columns and braces on Floor 1.
5.3.1. Seismic responses

(1) Floor accelerations during SLEs and DBEs

Table 6
Column failure cases.
Fig. 9 shows the maximum absolute floor accelerations of Models Y
ID Type Number Failure column ID
and M-V under each ground motion input, the median floor accelera­
1 Perimeter frame 1 Y3/M3 tions, and the median acceleration reduction effect of Model M-V
2 columns 2 Y3/M3, Y4/M4
compared with Model Y.
3 3 Y2/M2, Y3/M3, Y4/M4
4 4 Y2/M2, Y3/M3, Y4/M4, Y5/M5
Fig. 9 illustrates that the VRS can reduce floor accelerations on the
5 5 Y1/M1, Y2/M2, Y3/M3, Y4/M4, Y5/M5 top by approximately 20% on average for tall buildings during SLEs and
6 6 Y1/M1, Y2/M2, Y3/M3, Y4/M4, Y5/ DBEs. Tian et al. [3] found that the HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air
M5, Y6/M6 conditioning) system, a type of acceleration-sensitive non-structural
7 Braced tube columns 1 Y8/M8
component, contributes the most to the repair costs during SLEs and
8 2 Y8/M8, Y9/M9
9 3 Y7/M7, Y8/M8, Y9/M9 DBEs. Therefore, to illustrate the advantages of the proposed system, the
10 4 Y7/M7, Y8/M8, Y9/M9, Y10/M10
Table 7
Component fragility specifications and quantities.
5.2. Load cases
Non-structural component Fragility specification Quantity
name
5.2.1. Seismic load cases Floors 1–47 Floor 48
According to the requirement in the “Code for seismic design of HVAC Chiller D3031.011c None 7
buildings” [43], five natural earthquake records from the PEER ground Cooling tower D3031.021c None 7
motion database [45] and two artificially simulated acceleration HVAC ducting D3041.021c 1.24 1.24
HVAC drop D3041.032c 19.84 19.84
time-history curves are adopted. The normalized response spectra of the
VAV box D3041.041b 9.92 9.92
adopted motions agree well with the code, especially for long periods. Air handling unit D3052.011c None 42
More details can be found in Appendix A. In this section, the intensities

Fig. 9. Floor acceleration comparison.

8
Y. Tian et al.
Fig. 10. Repair costs of the HVAC system.
Fig. 11. Displacement of the VRS relative to the main structure.
repair costs of the HVAC system of Models Y and M-V are analyzed.
Table 7 shows the component fragility specifications and quantities. The
quantities are estimated using the Normative Quantity Estimation Tool
provided by FEMA P-58.
Fig. 12. Maximum drift comparison between Models Y and M-V.
9
Journal of Building Engineering 41 (2021) 102790
Fig. 10 shows the repair costs of the HVAC system calculated using
the fragility curves of FEMA P-58 [40]. The results show that, although
the floor accelerations of 80–120 m and 150–180 m in Model M-V are
larger than those in Model Y, the total repair costs for Model M-V are
generally smaller in most cases. The average repair costs of Model M-V is
42.9% and 24.6% smaller than Model Y. This phenomenon can be
explained by the following reasons: (1) In the HVAC system, the chiller,
cooling tower, and air handling unit have larger average unit repair cost
and a higher fragility (i.e., smaller median accelerations of fragility
curves) than those of other components. For example, the median ac­
celeration of fragility curves and average unit repair cost for the chiller
are 0.2 g and US$229,680–280,720, while those values for the HVAC
drop are 1.5 g and US$2,400–3,000, respectively. (2) The high-cost and
fragile components, i.e., the chiller, cooling tower, and air handling unit,
are all located on the top of the building. This means that the key to
controlling the repair costs of these acceleration-sensitive non-structural
components is to reduce the floor accelerations of the building’s top
stories. It would be not efficient to control the floor accelerations in the
middle of the tall building. (3) Model M-V can efficiently reduce the
floor accelerations on top. Therefore, the repair costs for the HVAC
Y. Tian et al. Journal of Building Engineering 41 (2021) 102790

Table 8
Maximum vertical displacement at failure positions and maximum beam-to-
column rotation of perimeter frame beams.
Case Model Y Model M-V
ID
Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum
vertical beam-to- vertical beam-to-
displacement column displacement column
(mm) rotation (rad) (mm) rotation (rad)

1 39.8 0.006 31.0 0.004

2 69.8 0.010 51.9 0.007
3 179.6 0.020 107.4 0.012
4 385.2 0.032 175.2 0.015
5 638.8 0.052 224.2 0.018
6 1277.9 0.103 278.6 0.019

requirements in the “Code for seismic design of buildings” [43] (i.e.,

elastic inter-story drift limit of 1/300 for SLEs, and inelastic inter-story
drift limit of 1/50 for MCEs). Under earthquakes of different intensities,
the median of the maximum inter-story drifts of Model M-V is approx­
imately 22.4% (SLEs), 22.2% (DBEs) and 15.2% (MCEs) smaller than
Model Y. This means that the proposed system can significantly reduce
the structural deformation and further control the structural damage
and corresponding repair costs.
In addition, the installation of the belt trusses in the middle height of
the building can change the internal force distributions. A further
analysis of this case shows that Model M-V can naturally satisfy the code
requirements during SLEs. Compared with Model Y, the existence of belt
trusses will increase the moment at the end of those columns located at
the upper story of the belt trusses. However, the columns and the
components of the truss systems still satisfy the performance objectives
during MCEs.
The residual drift ratios of both models under SLEs, DBEs and MCEs
are much smaller than the criterion. This means that, for the seven
selected motions, the inelastic deformations of both models are not
significant. But considering the uncertainty of earthquakes, the pro­
posed self-centering system still has a chance to help reduce the residual
drifts and repair time.

5.3.2. Responses under column failure cases

Fig. 13. Vertical displacement comparison between Models Y and M-V.
system can be significantly reduced. It is also worth noting that, Model Y
shows smaller repair costs than Model M-V under the No. 2 and No. 7
ground motions, which is because Model Y shows smaller floor accel­
erations at the top.
In addition, during SLEs and DBEs, the relative displacement of the
VRS to the main structure is smaller than 15 mm (Fig. 11). This means
that the possible impact between the VRS and the main structure can be
prevented through pre-installed gaps and the proposed system is
feasible.
(2) Maximum inter-story drifts and residual drifts
Fig. 12 shows the comparison of the maximum inter-story drifts between
Model Y and Model M-V during SLEs, DBEs, and MCEs. The results
illustrate that both Model Y and Model M-V satisfy the inter-story drift
Fig. 13 shows the time-history curves of the vertical displacement at
the failure positions in Models Y and M-V. In cases 1–6, column failure
occurs in the perimeter frames. For such cases, the vertical displacement
results at different failure positions are similar, because no braces are
directly connected to the failure positions. Model M-V tends to have
smaller vertical displacements than Model Y. This is mainly caused by
the existence of belt trusses, which will be further discussed. Another
reason is that the initial pre-stressed force in the perimeter frames can
increase the vertical stiffness of Model M-V.
Table 8 shows the maximum vertical displacement at failure posi­
tions and maximum beam-to-column rotations of perimeter frame
beams for Models Y and M-V under cases 1–6. According to the test
results by Lu et al. [46] and Tian et al. [32] (Specimen B–C is used for the
perimeter frames in Model Y; Specimen M-P140-C2 is used for the
perimeter frames in Model M-V), the perimeter frame performance
under different beam-to-column rotations can be determined using
Fig. 14. The results illustrate that:
(1) For Model Y, in cases 1–3, nearly no damage occurs to the beams
and columns, and the structure can rapidly recover; in cases 4–5,
buckling may occur in the frame beams, and the structure is not
resilient; in case 6, a fracture might occur in the frame beams, and
the collapse of the structure is possible.
(2) For Model M-V, no damage occurs in the frame beams and col­
umns in all cases, ensuring the resilience of the structure.
In cases 7–10, the column failure occurs in the braced tube. The

10
Y. Tian et al. Journal of Building Engineering 41 (2021) 102790

Fig. 14. Perimeter frame performance under different beam-to-column rotations.

Table 9
Standard deviation of the column axial force increment (unit: 106 N).
Case ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Model Y 2.72 5.54 8.43 11.08 15.45 20.53 2.72 4.67 5.61 9.22
Model M-V 2.47 4.67 5.98 6.45 9.36 11.30 2.51 4.19 5.88 7.96
Reduction 9.1% 15.8% 29.1% 41.8% 39.4% 45.0% 7.7% 10.3% − 4.8% 13.7%

Fig. 15. Axial force increment in columns of case 6.

vertical displacement at positions directly connected to the braces is
significantly smaller than at other positions. Results show that in cases
7–10, the maximum vertical displacement at all failure positions in
Models Y and M-V is smaller than 102 mm. No damage occurs in either
of the two models. The resilience requirement is satisfied.
The progressive collapse resistance mechanisms of the proposed
structural system can be analyzed from the perspective of two parts: (1)
system-level resistance mechanism and (2) component-level resistance
mechanism.
In terms of the system-level resistance mechanism, the contribution
of the belt trusses in Model M-V is very important. First of all, the belt
trusses can increase the vertical stiffness. This is especially significant
when the perimeter frame columns fail (cases 1–6), because the
unbalanced load can be transferred directly to the belt trusses through
the remained perimeter frame columns above the failed columns. When
the braced tube columns fail (cases 7–10), the unbalanced load is
resisted by the adjacent frames and braced tubes. The contribution of the
belt trusses is provided through the load distribution of the strengthened
stories, but not in a direct way. So the vertical displacement reduction is
not as significant as in cases 1–6.
In addition, the belt truss system can redistribute the unbalanced
load to the whole story more effectively. This can be evaluated through
investigating the changes in the axial force of columns at the bottom.
Table 9 summarizes the standard deviation of the axial force increment
of all remained columns in each case. Taking case 6 as an example, as
shown in Fig. 15, it can be found that, the axial force increment

11
Y. Tian et al. Journal of Building Engineering 41 (2021) 102790

distribution is more uniform in Model M-V than Model Y. The cumula­
tive axial force increment of all columns is similar in both models, i.e.
approximately 1.9 × 108 N, indicating similar unbalanced load caused
by the column failure. This phenomenon is more significant when col­
umn failure occurs in perimeter frames (i.e. load cases 1 to 6), because
the unbalanced load is directly transferred to the belt truss system
through perimeter columns.
In terms of the component-level resistance mechanism, the catenary
actions in beams are activated. In this case study, the slabs are not
explicitly modeled in the finite element model. The mass of the slab is
assigned to the adjacent beams according to the load distribution rela­
tionship. Therefore, membrane actions are not considered. Published
literature [48–50] indicates that the complicated interaction between
the slabs and the beams in resisting progressive collapse is still on-going.
For this reason, the slab effect is conservatively not considered in this
study to simplify the analysis. Nevertheless, further in-depth studies are
needed to investigate the slab effect on the multi-hazard-oriented design
of structures.
The above analysis results demonstrate that Model M-V has a better
performance and resilience in resisting a progressive collapse.
6. Conclusions
The seismic–progressive collapse resilience of super-tall buildings
has crucial social, political, and economic value for damage/loss
assessment and post-disaster recovery plans of important buildings.
Therefore, based on the widely adopted “frame–truss–core tube” super-
tall building system, a novel SPCRST building system and corresponding
design method are proposed in this work. Through a detailed case study
on the performance of the proposed system, the following conclusions
can be drawn:
(1) In terms of seismic responses, the proposed system can efficiently
reduce the floor accelerations during SLEs and DBEs and the
maximum inter-story drifts during DBEs and MCEs. The repair
costs and time can be further controlled, which can help achieve
seismic resilience of the structure.
(2) In terms of progressive collapse cases, the proposed system can
effectively redistribute internal forces and further reduce the
vertical displacement at the failure positions and the residual
deformation of the structure, which can help achieve the rapid
recovery of the structure.
(3) Compared with conventional super-tall building systems, the
proposed system can make full use of newly developed high-
performance components and have great advantages in seismi­
c–progressive collapse resilience improvement.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial supports of the
National Key R&D Program (No. 2019YFE0112800), the National Nat­
ural Science Foundation of China (No. 51778341), and the Tencent
Foundation through the XPLORER PRIZE.

Appendix A. Details of selected ground motions

In Section 5.2.1, five actual earthquake records and two artificially simulated acceleration time-history curves are adopted. Table A.1 shows the
basic parameters of the actual earthquake records. Fig. A.1 shows the artificially simulated acceleration time-history curves. Fig. A.2 illustrates the
comparison of the response spectra normalized to the SLE intensity level between the selected motions and the design code.

Table A.1
Parameters of the selected ground motion records

ID Record Seq. No. M Year Component selected PGA (g)

1 2900 6.2 1999 CHICHI04_TCU145-W 0.050

2 1830 7.13 1999 HECTOR_0292c090 0.034
3 1630 5.63 1990 UPLAND_UP90S–H2 0.015
4 891 7.28 1992 LANDERS_SIL090 0.040
5 1158 7.51 1999 KOCAELI_DZC180 0.312

Fig. A.1. Artificially simulated acceleration time-history curves

12
Y. Tian et al. Journal of Building Engineering 41 (2021) 102790

Fig. A.2. Response spectra comparison of the selected ground motions

Author statement

Yuan Tian: Methodology, Formal analysis, Data Curation, Writing - Original Draft. Kaiqi Lin: Formal analysis, Data Curation, Writing - Original
Draft. Lei Zhang: Formal analysis, Data Curation. Xinzheng Lu: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing - Review & Editing, Funding acquisition.
Hongjing Xue: Resources, Writing - Review & Editing.

References [16] P.A. Irwin, Wind engineering challenges of the new generation of super-tall
buildings, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 97 (7–8) (2009) 328–334, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jweia.2009.05.001.
[1] X.L. Lu, Y.J. Mao, Y. Chen, Y. Zhou, Earthquake resilience of tall buildings using
[17] A.M. Aly, Proposed robust tuned mass damper for response mitigation in buildings
replaceable energy dissipation members, in: 10th US National Conference on
exposed to multidirectional wind, Struct. Des. Tall Special Build. 23 (9) (2014)
Earthquake Engineering, 2014. Anchorage, Alaska, US.
664–691, https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1068.
[2] D.R. Pant, M. Montgomery, F. Berahman, R.P. Baxter, C. Christopoulos, Resilient
[18] CEN. EN 1991-1-7, Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures. Part 1-7: General Actions -
seismic design of tall coupled shear wall buildings using viscoelastic coupling
Accidental Actions, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, 2006.
dampers, in: 11th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2015.
[19] ASCE/Structural Engineering Institute (SEI), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
and Other Structures, SEI 7, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784412916.
[3] Y. Tian, X. Lu, X.Z. Lu, M.K. Li, H. Guan, Quantifying the seismic resilience of two
Reston, VA.
tall buildings designed using Chinese and US codes, Earthquakes Struct. 11 (6)
[20] JGJ3-2010, Technical Specification for Concrete Structures of Tall Building, China
(2016) 925–942, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2016.11.6.925.
Architecture & Building Press, Beijing, 2010, 1511220216.
[4] A.Q. Li, C.T. Yang, L.L. Xie, L.D. Liu, D.M. Zeng, Research on the rational yield ratio
[21] General Services Administration (GSA), GSA Alternate Path Analysis and Design
of isolation system and its application to the design of seismically isolated
Guidelines for Progressive Collapse Resistance, Washington, D.C, 2016.
reinforced concrete frame-core tube tall buildings, Appl. Sci. 7 (11) (2017) 1191,
[22] M. Li, M. Sasani, Integrity and progressive collapse resistance of RC structures with
https://doi.org/10.3390/app7111191.
ordinary and special moment frames, Eng. Struct. 95 (2015) 71–79, https://doi.
[5] PPD-8, Presidential Policy Directive/PPD-8: National Preparedness, the White
org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.03.050.
House, Washington, DC, USA, 2011. http://www.dhs.gov/presidential-policy-dire
[23] E. Livingston, M. Sasani, M. Bazan, S. Sagiroglu, Progressive collapse resistance of
ctive-8-national-preparedness. March 20.
RC beams, Eng. Struct. 95 (2015) 61–70, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[6] M. Bruneau, S.E. Chang, R.T. Eguchi, G.C. Lee, T.D. O’Rourke, A.M. Reinhorn,
engstruct.2015.03.044.
M. Shinozuka, K. Tierney, W.A. Wallace, D. von Winterfeldt, A framework to
[24] K.Q. Lin, Y. Li, X.Z. Lu, H. Guan, Effects of seismic and progressive collapse designs
quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities, Earthq.
on the vulnerability of RC frame structures, J. Perf. Construct. Facilities-ASCE 31
Spectra 19 (4) (2003) 733–752, https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1623497.
(1) (2016), 04016079, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000942.
[7] PPD-21, Presidential Policy Directive/PPD-21, the White House, Washington, DC,
[25] K.Q. Lin, X.Z. Lu, Y. Li, H. Guan, Experimental study of a novel multi-hazard
USA, February 12, 2013. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/
resistant prefabricated concrete frame structure, Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 119
12/presidential-policy-directive-critical-infrastructure-security-and-resil. Accessed
(2019) 390–407, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.04.011.
on August 10, 2020.
[26] Wikipedia, List of tallest buildings in Christchurch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
[8] C.M. Chang, Z.H. Wang, B.F. Spencer, Z.Q. Chen, Semi-active damped outriggers
/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Christchurch, 2019. Accessed on August 10, 2020.
for seismic protection of high-rise buildings, Smart Struct. Syst. 11 (5) (2013)
[27] D. Piedrafita, X. Cahis, E. Simon, J. Comas, A new perforated core buckling
435–451, https://doi.org/10.12989/sss.2013.11.5.435.
restrained brace, Eng. Struct. 85 (2015) 118–126, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[9] X. Lu, X.Z. Lu, H. Guan, L.P. Ye, Collapse simulation of reinforced concrete high-
engstruct.2014.12.020.
rise building induced by extreme earthquakes, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam. 42 (5)
[28] D. Vafaei, R. Eskandari, Seismic response of mega buckling-restrained braces
(2013) 705–723, https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2240.
subjected to fling-step and forward-directivity near-fault ground motions, Struct.
[10] X.Z. Lu, Y. Tian, S. Cen, H. Guan, L.L. Xie, L.S. Wang, A high-performance
Des. Tall Special Build. 24 (9) (2015) 672–686, https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1205.
quadrilateral flat shell element for seismic collapse simulation of tall buildings and
[29] M.Y. Liu, W.L. Chiang, J.H. Hwang, C.R. Chu, Wind-induced vibration of high-rise
its implementation in OpenSees, J. Earthq. Eng. 22 (9) (2018) 1662–1682, https://
building with tuned mass damper including soil-structure interaction, J. Wind Eng.
doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2017.1297269.
Ind. Aerod. 96 (6) (2008) 1092–1102, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[11] E. Brunesi, R. Nascimbene, L. Casagrande, Seismic analysis of high-rise mega-
jweia.2007.06.034.
braced frame-core buildings, Eng. Struct. 115 (2016) 1–17, https://doi.org/
[30] X. Zhou, Y. Lin, M. Gu, Optimization of multiple tuned mass dampers for large-span
10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.02.019.
roof structures subjected to wind loads, Wind Struct. 20 (3) (2015) 363–388,
[12] H. Fan, Q.S. Li, A.Y. Tuan, L.H. Xu, Seismic analysis of the world’s tallest building,
https://doi.org/10.12989/was.2015.20.3.363.
J. Constr. Steel Res. 65 (2009) 1206–1215, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[31] L. Zhang, X.Z. Lu, H. Guan, L.L. Xie, X. Lu, Floor acceleration control of super-tall
jcsr.2008.10.005.
buildings with vibration reduction substructures, Struct. Des. Tall Special Build. 26
[13] X.Z. Lu, Y. Li, H. Guan, M.J. Ying, Progressive collapse analysis of a typical super-
(16) (2017) e1343, https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.1343.
tall reinforced concrete frame-core tube building exposed to extreme fires, Fire
[32] Y. Tian, K.Q. Lin, X.Z. Lu, L. Zhang, Y. Li, H. Guan, Experimental and theoretical
Technol. 53 (1) (2017) 107–133, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-016-0566-6.
study of seismic and progressive collapse resilient composite frames, Soil Dynam.
[14] J.M. Adam, F. Parisi, J. Sagaseta, X.Z. Lu, Research and practice on progressive
Earthq. Eng. 139 (2020) 106370, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106370,
collapse and robustness of building structures in the 21st century, Eng. Struct. 173
2020.
(2018) 122–149, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.06.082.
[33] X.Z. Lu, L. Zhang, Y. Cui, Y. Li, L.P. Ye, Experimental and theoretical study on a
[15] Q.S. Li, J.Y. Fu, Y.Q. Xiao, Z.N. Li, Z.H. Ni, Z.N. Xie, et al., Wind tunnel and full-
novel dual-functional replaceable stiffening angle steel component, Soil Dynam.
scale study of wind effects on China’s tallest building, Eng. Struct. 28 (2006)
Earthq. Eng. 114 (2018) 378–391, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.07.040.
1745–1758, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.02.017.

13
Y. Tian et al.
[34] J. Erochko, C. Christopoulos, R. Tremblay, H. Choi, Residual drift response of
SMRFs and BRB frames in steel buildings designed according to ASCE 7-05,
J. Struct. Eng. 137 (5) (2010) 589–599, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-
541X.0000296.
[35] J.D. Marshall, F.A. Charney, Seismic response of steel frame structures with hybrid
passive control systems, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam. 41 (4) (2012) 715–733,
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.1153.
[36] L.H. Xu, X.W. Fan, Z.X. Li, Development and experimental verification of a pre-
pressed spring self-centering energy dissipation brace, Eng. Struct. 127 (2016)
49–61, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.08.043.
[37] C. Christopoulos, R. Tremblay, H.J. Kim, M. Lacerte, Self-centering energy
dissipative bracing system for the seismic resistance of structures: development and
validation, J. Struct. Eng. 134 (1) (2008) 96–107, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9445(2008)134:1(96).
[38] D.J. Miller, L.A. Fahnestock, M.R. Eatherton, Development and experimental
validation of a nickel-titanium shape memory alloy self-centering buckling-
restrained brace, Eng. Struct. 40 (2012) 288–298, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2012.02.037.
[39] Q.S. Yang, X.Z. Lu, C. Yu, D.L. Gu, Experimental study and finite element analysis
of energy dissipating outriggers, Adv. Struct. Eng. 20 (8) (2017) 1196–1209,
https://doi.org/10.1177/1369433216677122.
[40] FEMA, Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings: Volume 1 - Methodology
(FEMA P-58-1), Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, USA,
2012.
14
Journal of Building Engineering 41 (2021) 102790
[41] Council on Tall Buildings, Urban Habitat, The skyscraper center (global tall
building database of the CTBUH). https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/buildings.
2020.
[42] Q.S. Yang, Experimental and Design Method Study of Energy Dissipating
Outriggers,, Doctoral dissertation, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 2017.
[43] GB50011-2010, Code for Seismic Design of Buildings, China Architecture &
Building Press, Beijing, 2010, ISBN 1511217898.
[44] MSC Software, Marc 2007 R1 User’s Guide, MSC Software, Santa Ana, CA, 2007.
[45] B. Chiou, R. Darragh, N. Gregor, W. Silva, NGA project strong-motion database,
Earthq. Spectra 24 (1) (2008) 23–44, https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2894831.
[46] X.Z. Lu, L. Zhang, K.Q. Lin, Y. Li, Improvement to composite frame systems for
seismic and progressive collapse resistance, Eng. Struct. 186 (2019) 227–242,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.02.006.
[47] GB 50352, Uniform Standard for Design of Civil Buildings, China Architecture &
Building Press; 2019, Beijing, 2019, 1511232540.
[48] J.Z. Zhang, G.Q. Li, J. Jiang, W.J. Zhang, Collapse resistance of composite framed-
structures considering effects of slab boundary restraints, J. Constr. Steel Res. 158
(2019) 171–181, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.03.020.
[49] M. Hadjioannou, S. Donahue, E.B. Williamson, M.D. Engelhardt, Large-scale
experimental tests of composite steel floor systems subjected to column loss
scenarios, J. Struct. Eng. 144 (2) (2018), 04017184, https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001929.
[50] Q.N. Fu, K.H. Tan, X.L. Zhou, B. Yang, A mechanical model of composite floor
systems under an internal column removal scenario, Eng. Struct. 175 (2018)
50–62, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.07.095.