See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/301346219

Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures

Subjected to Column Loss

Article in Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities · February 2017

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000930

CITATIONS READS

33 1,277

4 authors:

Xiaohui Yu Da-Gang Lu
Harbin Institute of Technology Harbin Institute of Technology
77 PUBLICATIONS 401 CITATIONS 206 PUBLICATIONS 1,106 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Qian Kai Bing Li

Guilin Institute of Technology Nanyang Technological University
87 PUBLICATIONS 1,644 CITATIONS 194 PUBLICATIONS 4,406 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Life-cycle performance, reliability and design of structures View project

Seismic Fragility, Vulnerability and Risk of Civil Engineering Structures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Qian Kai on 30 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis of Reinforced
Concrete Frame Structures Subjected to Column Loss
Xiao Hui Yu, Ph.D. 1; Da Gang Lu, Ph.D. 2; Kai Qian, Ph.D., M.ASCE 3; and Bing Li, Ph.D., M.ASCE 4

Abstract: In this study, the variability inherent in the performance of RC frame structures to bridge over a column loss was investigated,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GUANGXI UNIVERSITY on 01/05/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

considering the uncertainties existing in gravity loads, material properties, and construction geometries. Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis
were conducted in tandem to provide the influence and significance of the uncertain parameters on RC frames to resist progressive collapse.
Quasi-static pushdown analysis was used to assess the residual load-resisting capacity of structures with an initialized damage. A set of
structural models were generated for uncertainty analysis by using the correlation-reduced Latin hypercube sampling method. Sensitivity
analysis was performed by independently varying parameters with one standard deviation away from their means. Two typical RC frame
structures with different span aspect ratios were taken as the study cases. The macromodeling technique, which was validated by the test
results, was used for analysis. The study results indicated that structural uncertainties have significant effects on the behavior of RC frame
buildings for mitigating progressive collapse caused by the loss of a ground column. Among the studied uncertain parameters, the gravity
loads and the properties of reinforcement have the most effects on the residual load-resisting capacities of damaged frames. DOI: 10.1061/
(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000930. © 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Progressive collapse; Pushdown analysis; Uncertainty analysis; Sensitivity analysis; Column loss; RC frame building.

Introduction occurs, as illustrated by the past events, such as the collapse of

Progressive collapse is defined by ASCE/SEI 7 (ASCE/SEI 2010)
as “the spread of an initial local failure from element to element,
which eventually results in the collapse of an entire structure or a
disproportionately large part of it.” Generally, the initial damages
that could trigger disproportionate collapse are often caused by an
abnormal load (accident event), such as gas explosions, blast,
vehicular collisions, tornados, or other extreme loads (Ellingwood
et al. 2007). These extreme loads, however, are not routinely con-
sidered in normal design. Thus, the buildings may suffer severe
damages or even progressive collapse when they are unfortunately
subjected to such abnormal loads. Progressive collapse is a low-
probability event as it requires both the occurrence of an abnormal
load to trigger initial damages, and the structure lacks of robustness
to absorb the energy released because of the initial damage (DoD
2013). For instance, the full-scale test results showed that two
ground columns can be successfully removed from the steel frame
buildings without causing progressive collapse (Song and Sezen
2013; Morone and Sezen 2014; Song et al. 2014). However, cata-
strophic consequences can be triggered once progressive collapse
1
Assistant Professor, Key Lab of Structural Dynamic Behavior and
Control of the Ministry of Education, Harbin Institute of Technology,
Harbin 150090, China. E-mail: xiaohui.yu@hit.edu.cn
2
Professor, Key Lab of Structural Dynamic Behavior and Control of the
Ministry of Education, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150090,
China. E-mail: ludagang@hit.edu.cn
3
Professor, College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Guangxi
Univ., Nanning 530004, China. E-mail: qiankai@gxu.edu.cn
4
Associate Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Nanyang Technological Univ., Singapore 639798 (corresponding author).
E-mail: cbli@ntu.edu.sg
Note. This manuscript was submitted on July 23, 2015; approved on
April 13, 2016; published online on July 5, 2016. Discussion period open
until December 5, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted for indi-
vidual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Performance of Con-
structed Facilities, © ASCE, ISSN 0887-3828.
Murrah Federal Building in 1995 and World Trade Centers in 2001.
With increasing prevalence of terrorism, the probability of struc-
tures attacked with explosives or other violent means are increas-
ing, and designing buildings to resist progressive collapse became a
pressing and urgent need in engineering community.
During the building design process, there are numerous sources
of uncertainties, such as environment loads, structural strength,
the approximations in finite-element models, and limitations in
supporting databases (Ellingwood et al. 2007). These unavoidable
uncertainties do affect the progressive collapse resistance of build-
ings and should be dealt with in a probabilistic manner (Ellingwood
and Dusenberry 2005; Ellingwood 2006; Ellingwood et al. 2007).
Recently, the importance of investigating the probabilistic behavior
of buildings against progressive collapse has been emphasized
by several researchers (Park and Kim 2010; Szyniszewski 2010;
Xu and Ellingwood 2011; Kim et al. 2011; Le and Xue 2014).
However, to date, the studies regarding progressive collapse are
overwhelmingly deterministic (El-Tawil et al. 2013). Without an
elaborate probabilistic analysis of progressive collapse, a reliable
judgment cannot be made on whether the existing deterministic
studies would really capture the collapse extent. This merits further
studies to fill the gap between the growing demand of suitable man-
agement of the risk of progressive collapse and the available lack
of information about the inherent probabilistic characteristic in the
performance of the buildings to mitigate progressive collapse. To
do this, it is important to understand the influence and significance
of the uncertain parameters on the performance of structures sub-
jected to column loss. Unfortunately, there is no related information
readily for RC buildings.
The objective of this study is to investigate the variability inher-
ent in the behavior of RC frame buildings to resist progressive
collapse. To achieve this objective, uncertainty and sensitivity anal-
ysis are run in tandem, in which the former has a great focus on
uncertainty quantification and propagation and the latter is used to
identify the important uncertain parameters. The quasi-static push-
down analysis (Khandelwal and El-Tawil 2011; Qian et al. 2015b)

© ASCE 04016069-1 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., -1--1

 α ×(1.2DL+0.5LL) α ×(1.2DL+0.5LL)
1.2DL+0.5LL 1.2DL+0.5LL

Δ Δ

removed removed
(a) (b)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GUANGXI UNIVERSITY on 01/05/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Displacement-controlled pushdown procedure: (a) removal of an exterior column; (b) removal of an interior column

is adopted to analyze the residual capacity of RC frame buildings 3.0

Linear Nonlinear Losing capacity
subjected to a column loss. As an effective tool, the conventional
(deterministic) quasi-static pushdown method (called “pushdown” 2.5
hereafter) has been applied to RC frame buildings by numerical
2.0

Load factor, α
simulation (Lu et al. 2011; Fascetti et al. 2015) and experimental
testing (Sasani et al. 2007; Yi et al. 2008; Qian and Li 2012b, a,
1.5
2013; Qian et al. 2015a). However, the deterministic approach is
not suitable for a probabilistic analysis. Thus, it is extended by cou- 1.0
pling a set of structural models with the random parameters that are
Pushdown curve
generated with a correlation-controlled Latin hypercube sampling 0.5 DC-I
(CLHS) technique. Seventeen parameters including gravity loads, DC-II
material properties, and construction geometries are selected for 0.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
uncertainty analysis in this paper.
Displacement, Δ /mm

Fig. 2. Typical pushdown curve and the considered damage criteria

Analysis Methodology
identified on it

Pushdown Analysis and Damage Criteria

Pushdown analysis starts by removing the critical members and
then investigates the complete behavior of the damaged structure
by increasing the gravity loads proportionally until system collapse.
Only the gravity loads on the damaged bays are raised, whereas
the remaining parts of the damaged structure are subjected to nomi-
nal gravity loads. The gravity load is the combination of dead
load (DL) and live load (LL), and the nominal combination is
determined as 1.2 × DL þ 0.5 × LL (GSA 2013; DoD 2013). A
displacement-controlled procedure is used by applying an incre-
mental vertical displacement Δ downward of the node, in which the
column is removed at first and the corresponding applied gravity
load in the bays that suffered damages is recorded, as shown
in Fig. 1.
The recorded gravity load is represented as α × ð1.2 × DL þ
0.5 × LLÞ, where α = load factor calculated as the ratio between
the recorded gravity load corresponding to Δ and the nominal grav-
ity load. As suggested in DoD (2013), in normal service condition,
the pressure applied should be 1.2 × DL þ 0.5 × LL, and the value
of α equals 1.0. However, as a quasi-static pushdown loading re-
gime (no dynamic effects are included) is used in this study, the
load-resisting capacity is varied with increasing the vertical dis-
placement at the lost column. Thus, α is varied with Δ, and the
load-displacement relationship in coordinates of Δ versus α is used
as the “pushdown curve.” Using α to represent the load-resisting
capacity could help judge whether the building can bridge over the
column loss more easily. In particular, the load factor α equal to the
dynamic increase factor (DIF) Ωn corresponds to the state in which
the applied vertical load reaches the load specified in the nonlinear
static procedure (NSP) of the alternative path method (APM); Ωn ×
ð1.2 × DL þ 0.5 × LLÞ (GSA 2013; DoD 2013). A maximum load
factor that is less than Ωn implies that the structure may collapse as
a result of a column loss.
From the pushdown curve, two damage criteria (DC) are defined
to describe the failure states of the frames. DC-I is defined as first
yielding of steel rebar in RC beams, whereas DC-II is defined as
reaching the ultimate load-resisting capacity. Fig. 2 illustrates a typ-
ical pushdown curve with the aforementioned two damage criteria.
DC-I marks the first plastic-hinge formulation in beams. Beyond
DC-II, further increasing the displacement will decrease the load-
resisting capacity.
Uncertainty Analysis Method
For the uncertainty analysis, a total of N var ¼ 17 uncertain param-
eters including gravity loads, material properties, and reinforce-
ment details and dimensions are selected on the basis of the
available literature (Ellingwood et al. 1980; Mirza et al. 1979;
Mirza and MacGregor 1979b, a). To deal with the parameter un-
certainties, the Latin hypercube sampling (LHS) technique is used.
The LHS technique uses stratification of the probability distribution
functions of random variables and requires much less of simula-
tions compared with the original type of Monte Carlo simulation
(MCS). However, the standard LHS may bring undesired spurious
correlation into the sample scheme and result in unfavorable effects
on the statistical results. To avoid this, the CLHS technique is used.

© ASCE 04016069-2 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., -1--1

 For details on CLHS, please refer to Olsson and Sandberg (2002).
It was demonstrated that the CLHS with 100 samples could provide
better estimation than the standard LHS with 1,000 samples
(Olsson and Sandberg 2002). Therefore, the CLHS with N sam ¼
100 samples is used in this study. By varying the structural param-
eters with the random samples, a population of N sam possible in-
stances of the structure is created. Then, the random pushdown
curves are collected by conducting pushdown analysis for each of
the structural samples. The load factors corresponding to DC-I and
DC-II are identified on these curves. The random pushdown curves,
together with the identified load factors, eventually form the data
pool for statistics. Through summarizing the random pushdown
curves, the variation of α-capacity with the growing Δ is calcu-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GUANGXI UNIVERSITY on 01/05/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
variables are represented by three levels: the base value and the
upper and lower bounds corresponding to the means and 1 SD
beyond and below the means, respectively. Pushdown analyses are
performed for the structural samples by solely varying each param-
eter at its lower and upper bounds, whereas the other variables are
held constant at their base values. The absolute difference between
the responses corresponding to the parameter at its upper and
lower bounds are used to measure the sensitivity of the parameter.
A special bar chart widely known as “tornado diagram” (Kim et al.
2011) is used to demonstrate the importance of each parameter.
The importance of the parameter is determined by the width of
the bar (swing). For each bar, the ends of the bar are calculated
according to the lower and upper bounds of the parameter. Thus,

lated, which is valuable to provide insight on the variability of the
whole pushdown process. The identified α-capacity samples cor-
responding to different DC are fitted with suitable distributions to
depict their probabilistic properties. The probabilistic performance
of the structure with a column removed can be reliably estimated,
assuming that a large enough number of structures have been
sampled.
Sensitivity Analysis Method
The objective of the sensitivity analysis is to investigate the per-
formance variability of the damaged structure caused by varying
uncertain parameters. To achieve this goal, a simple method based
on the probability theory is adopted. In this method, the random
a total of 2 × N var þ 1 structural samples are generated for sensi-
tivity analysis, where 2 × N var are conducted at the lower and
upper bounds of parameters, whereas the additional 1 is conducted
at their means.
Analysis Procedures
Fig. 3 illustrates the methodologies and main steps in this study.
As shown in the figure, structural modeling and definition of
uncertainty parameters are the basic and first steps. For each case
with a specific initial damage, a group of N sam þ 2 × N var þ 1 ¼
135 structural models must be generated. As two RC frame struc-
tures with two different initial damages are examined, a total of
4 × 135 ¼ 540 of pushdown analyses were carried out.

Sampling of random variables for

uncertainty analysis
(Nsam samples) Development of
Selection of Nvar deterministic
random variables Sampling of random variables for Structural model
sensitivity analysis
(2×Nvar+1 samples)

Development of random
structural models
(Nsam+2×Nvar+1 models)

Pushdown analysis
(Nsam+2×Nvar+1 cycles)

Uncertainty analysis Sensitivity analysis

(Using Nsam pushdown curves) (Using 2×Nvar+1 pushdown curves)

Pushdown uncertainty Pushdown sensitivity

DC uncertainty DC sensitivity

Fig. 3. Analysis steps of uncertainty and sensitivity evaluation under pushdown analysis

© ASCE 04016069-3 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., -1--1

 Subassembly for test
(Specimen P2)
Subassembly for test

7@3300

7@3300
(Specimen P1)

3600

3600
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GUANGXI UNIVERSITY on 01/05/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

4@8400 4@6000

(a) (b)

4#9

2#10
4#9 4#10

2#10
#4 hoops@140
720

#4 hoops@140
560

600
#4 hoops@120
4#9 4#9
4#10
400 600
Section A-A Section B-B Section C-C
(c)

Fig. 4. Frame elevation and the typical reinforcement details of the case study frame buildings (also shown is frame subassembly used in validation
study) (mm): (a) elevation of LF; (b) elevation of TF; (c) reinforcement arrangement

Case Study Buildings and Analytical Modeling compressive strength of concrete (f c ¼ 27.6 MPa); Young modu-
lus of concrete (Ec ¼ 24.3 GPa); yield strength of reinforcement
Characteristics of the Case Study Buildings (fy ¼ 413.8 MPa); and Young modulus of reinforcement (Es ¼
200 GPa). All the design characteristics of the case buildings are
Two RC moment-resisting frames with different span aspect ratios summarized in Table 1.
were selected as the case study buildings designed according to
ACI 318-08 (ACI 2008). The design dead loads distributed on the
floor and superimposed because of the ceiling were assumed as 5.2
and 1.0 kN=m2 , respectively. The design live load was assumed to Table 1. Design Characteristics of the Case Buildings
be 3.0 kN=m2 . Seismic forces were also considered in the design Characteristics Descriptions
with an assumption of a low-seismicity zone having a D-class site
Dead loads distributed on 5.2 kN=m2
and a stiff soil profile. The design spectral response acceleration the floor
parameter at 1 s is 0.34 g. Dead loads superimposed 1.0 kN=m2
Fig. 4 shows the frame elevation and the typical reinforcement due to ceiling
in beams and columns, in which TF and LF are used to represent Live load 1.0 kN=m2
the frames with span length of 6,000 and 8,400 mm, respectively. Site condition D-class site stiff soil profile
An identical elevation is used for both TF and LF. The height of Spectral response 0.34 g at 1 s
the first floor is 3,600 mm, and that of floors above is 3,300 mm. acceleration parameter
The frames have the same column section (see section C-C), Bay width 6,000 mm for TF
8,400 mm for LF
whereas LF has a larger beam section (see section A-A) than TF Story height 3,600 mm for the first floor
(see section B-B) because of its larger beam span. Two substruc- 3,300 mm for the floors above
tures taken from TF and LF have been tested at a quarter scale by Dimensions and reinforcement Section C-C for the columns
Qian et al. (2015a) to examine the load-carrying mechanism of details (Fig. 4) Section A-A for the beams of LF
RC buildings in resisting progressive collapse. The test data pro- Section B-B for the beams of TF
vide the opportunity to validate the structural modeling. The sub- Concrete properties f c ¼ 27.6 MPa (4 ksi)
structures from LF and TF are labeled as P1 and P2 (also shown Ec ¼ 24.3 GPa (3,600 ksi)
in Fig. 4), respectively, to be consistent with Qian et al. (2015a). Steel properties f y ¼ 413.8 MPa (60 ksi)
Es ¼ 200 GPa (29,000 ksi)
The nominal properties of the materials used in design are

© ASCE 04016069-4 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., -1--1

 Analytical Modeling
As mentioned previously, 540 cycles of pushdown analyses are
conducted in this study. It is considerably computation intensive;
therefore, it is not feasible to generate models on the basis of a high-
fidelity finite-element (FE) modeling approach. Recently, a macro-
model strategy based on the open-source software OpenSees had
been proven to achieve similar accuracy to the high-fidelity FE
models (Bao et al. 2008; Kazemi-Moghaddam and Sasani 2015;
Li and Sasani 2015; Fascetti et al. 2015). Compared with the con-
tinuum FE model, the macromodel could cut down the computation
burden significantly. Thus, the macromodel approach based on
OpenSees, which is similar to that used in Fascetti et al. (2015),
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GUANGXI UNIVERSITY on 01/05/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
was adopted to develop the structural model.
In the macromodel, several displacement-based fiber elements
were used to discretize the beams and columns, each of which
includes five integration points. The corotational transformation
(Felippa 2000) was used to exactly account for the second-order
effect (P − δ effect). Each RC section was discretized into the
fibers of the steel reinforcement bars and the confined and uncon-
fined concrete. The well-known nonlinear constitutive law by Kent
and Park (1971) was used to define the uniaxial nonlinear behav-
ior of concrete material (it is the “Concrete02 Material” on the
OpenSees library). The stress-strain envelop properties of the con-
fined concrete was determined by Mander’s model (Mander et al.
1988). The material used to define the steel reinforcing bars is “hys-
teretic material,” which allows the definition of trilinear behavior.
The first branch is the elastic stage, the second one is the hardening
stage with a hardening ratio of 0.01, and the final branch is defined
with a negative slope to account for bar fracture. A displacement-
controlled integrator scheme was used to perform pushdown
analysis until the structure loses stability, whereas the nonlinear
equations involved in the solution of the problems were dealt with
the Krylov-Newton algorithm (Scott and Fenves 2010).
For initiation of progressive collapse, one ground exterior col-
umn or interior column was notionally removed, as shown in Fig. 5.
For simplicity, TF-E, TF-I, LF-E, and LF-I are used hereafter to
represent the cases of removing exterior and interior columns for
TF and LF, respectively. In this model, only catenary and compres-
sive arch actions are included, whereas the effects of slab are not
considered. The available test data have shown that the tensile
α×(1.2DL+0.5LL) 1.2DL+0.5LL
1.2DL+0.5LL
(a)
Fig. 5. Location of a removed column: (a) removal of an exterior column; (b) removal of an interior column
© ASCE 04016069-5
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., -1--1
membrane action developed in slabs could significantly reduce
the likelihood of progressive collapse (Qian and Li 2012b; Qian
et al. 2015a).
Validation of Analytical Modeling
The critical responses of the beam-column subassemblies (P1 and
P2) measured from the quarter-scale test models were used for
validation. In these tests, the middle column beneath the beam
was preremoved, and a pushdown test was carried out by impos-
ing an increasing displacement at the top of the middle column.
The edge columns of the specimen were designed to fix on the
strong legs to equivalently simulate the fixed boundary conditions.
To create a symmetric failure mode for the test specimens, a steel
assembly was installed below the hydraulic jack to ensure concen-
tric loading. The center-to-center spans of specimens P1 and P2
are 2,100 and 1,500 mm, respectively. Moreover, the cross-
sectional dimensions of specimens P1 and P2 are 180 × 9 and
140 × 90 mm, respectively. Fig. 6 shows the dimensions and
reinforcement details of the test specimens, in which R6 denotes
the plain round bar with a 6-mm diameter, and T10 denotes the
deformed bar with a 10-mm diameter. Because of space limitation,
the details of the tests are not provided. However, it can be found
in Qian et al. (2015a). Fig. 7 shows the macromodel scheme of the
substructures with the pin supports at the outer sides. The simu-
lated force versus displacement responses are compared with those
from the experiments, as shown in Fig. 8. It can be seen that the
simulation results agree well with the test results, proving the reli-
ability of the adopted macromodeling technique. The sharp drops
shown in the load-displacement curves of the test results are attrib-
uted to the fracture of rebars at the interfaces between the mid-
column and beams. As the fracture of the rebar is not always
simultaneous, the drop of the resistance in P1 and P2 has some
kind of differences.
Uncertainty Consideration
Seventeen uncertain parameters were selected as random variables,
which can be categorized into four groups: (1) gravity loads, in-
cluding dead loads of DLf and DLr on floor and roof, respectively,
α×(1.2DL+0.5LL)
1.2DL+0.5LL
(b)
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GUANGXI UNIVERSITY on 01/05/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Dimensions and reinforcement details of the test substructures (mm): (a) construction geometry of P1; (b) reinforcement arrangement of P1;
(c) construction geometry of P2; (d) reinforcement arrangement of P2

Displa cement-based fiber element 80

Nodes to joint adjuncct elements 70
Load 60

Force/kN
50
Column removal
40
Stress

Ultimate 30
height
Yield 20
Strain
width

y 10
Fracture Experiment
Simulation
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Compression Steel bar
z Fiber section (a) Displacement/mm

80
Stress

Tension
70
Maximum
60
Strain
Force/kN

Crushing 50

40
Maximum Concrete
30

Fig. 7. Macromodeling schemes used in OpenSees and the application 20

to the simulation of the tested substructures 10 Experiment
Simulation
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
and live load on the floor LL; (2) properties of concrete material, (b) Displacement/mm
including compressive strength fc , tensile strength ft , and elastic
Fig. 8. Comparison of experiment and simulation results: (a) P1; (b) P2
modulus Ec ; (3) properties of reinforcement materials, including
yield strengths f y and fyt for longitudinal reinforcement and trans-
verse stirrups, respectively, ultimate strength f u for longitudinal
reinforcement, and elastic modulus Es ; and (4) construction geom- live load (Ellingwood et al. 1980). The sustained live load, also
etries, including span length L, beam width Bb , beam height Hb , called “arbitrary-point-in-time live load,” remains relatively con-
concrete cover t, longitudinal reinforcement areas As;Beam and stant within a particular occupancy containing, for example, the
As;Column in beams and columns, respectively, and transverse stirrup weight of furniture and heavy equipment, whereas the extraordi-
area Ast . The size of the column section was not included, as col- nary live load, also called “intermittent live load” (JCSS 2001),
umns contribute less than beams to the performance to resist commonly has small duration, arising from gathering of people,
progressive collapse. Table 2 summarizes the statistical properties for example, a crowded room during special events. In this study,
of the considered variables and the references used to quantify each only the variability in the sustained live load is accounted for be-
of the variables. The total live loads on a floor area can be divided cause the loss of a column can occur anytime during the life of the
into two components: the sustained live load and the extraordinary structure.

© ASCE 04016069-6 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., -1--1

 Table 2. Summary of the Considered Uncertainty Parameters
Uncertainty Coefficient of
Category parameters Mean (or mediana) variation (or SD) Distributions References
Gravity loads DLf 1.05 × designed ¼ 5.50 kN=m2 0.10 Normal Ellingwood et al. (1980)
DLr 1.05 × designed ¼ 1.05 kN=m2
LL 12 psf ¼ 0.575 kN=m2 0.4 Beta Ellingwood et al. (1980)
Concrete fc 3,390 psi = 23.4 MPa 0.18 Normal Ellingwood et al. (1980)
properties ft 339 psi = 2.34 MPa 0.18 Normal
Ec 1.0 × designed ¼ 24,264 MPa 0.077 Normal Mirza et al. (1979)
Reinforcement fy 71.0 ksi = 490 MPa 0.093 Beta Mirza and
properties f y;t 48.8 ksi = 337 MPa 0.107 Beta MacGregor (1979b)
fu 110.8 ksi = 764.1 MPa 0.08 Beta
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GUANGXI UNIVERSITY on 01/05/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Es 29,000 ksi = 200,000 MPa 0.033 Normal

Construction Bb Bb þ 0.11 in: ¼ 323b or 403 mmc 0.144 in: ≈ 4 mmd Normal Mirza and
geometries Hb H b − 1=8 in: ¼ 557b or 717 mmc 1=4in: ≈ 7 mmd Normal MacGregor (1979a)
L 1.0 × designed ¼ 6,000 mmb or 8,400 mmc 11=16 in: ≈ 18 mmd Normal
As;beam 1.01 × designed ¼ 647.70 mm2 0.04 Modified lognormale
As;Column 1.01 × designed ¼ 799.6 mm2
As;t 1.01 × designed ¼ 128.0 mm2
t 0.8 in. = 21 mm 0.145 × 21 ≈ 3 mmd Normal Lee and Mosalam (2004)
a
Lognormal variables.
b
Dimensions in TF.
c
Dimensions in LF.
d
SD.
e
The accepted modification constant is 0.91, which indicates that logðAs =designed − 0.91Þ is normally distributed.

Generally, it is not easy to obtain accurate and complete corre-
lation relationships among different random variables because of
the lack of knowledge and data. Therefore, only the correlation be-
tween f c and Ec was considered by a coefficient of 0.8 (Lee and
Mosalam 2004), and the other parameters were assumed as inde-
pendent of each other. This partial correlation was involved into the
samples by Nataf transformation (Liu and Der Kiureghian 1986).
The spatial variability of material and dimensional properties is not
accounted for during random sampling with an implicit assumption
that all the random parameters are spatially fully correlated over the
same structure.
Uncertainty Analysis
Pushdown Uncertainty
By using 100 samples from the parameter distributions, the struc-
tural model set is developed. Random pushdown curves are then
generated by performing analyses for each structural model from
the model set, as shown in Fig. 9. For pushdown analysis, a unified
target displacement, i.e., Δ ¼ 1,800 mm, is applied to the node
beyond the miss column for random structural models. Because of
the variability of structural models, some structural models lose
their load-resisting capacity before reaching the target displace-
ment, whereas others survive. Moreover, a significant variation in
the α-capacity conditioned on a given Δ is apparent. For example,
as shown in Fig. 9(d), the maximum values of α-capacity are vary-
ing within the interval between 1.5 and 3.0. Similar observations
are also made in the other cases. These observations reveal the
significant effects of structural uncertainties on the load-resisting
capacity. Thus, it is very important to examine the random nature
in pushdown curves and bring in the probabilistic view in pro-
gressive collapse studies.
The 16, 50, and 84% fractile pushdown curves are derived (also
plotted in Fig. 9) by sorting the conditioned α-capacity on a given
Δ and assigning them with the percentiles of 100 × ð0.5=N sam Þ;
100 × ð1.0=N sam Þ; : : : ; and 100 × ½ðN sam − 0.5Þ=N sam . The dis-
persion, β αjΔ , of the conditional α-capacity on a given Δ is then
determined by ðα84% 16%
Δ − αΔ Þ=2 and shown in Fig. 10, in which
16% 84%
αΔ and αΔ are 16 and 84% fractile α-capacities, respectively.
The aforementioned method to summarize random pushdown
curves is inspired by that used in incremental dynamic analysis
(IDA) for statistical analysis of IDA curves (Vamvatsikos and
Cornell 2002). It can be seen that the variation of pushdown re-
sponse is very small initially, whereas it is promoted quickly with
the increase of the vertical displacement. At a large displacement
stage, the value of β αjΔ can even go beyond 0.4. Such a large level
of variability reveals that it is unreasonable and unsafe to neglect
the effect of structural uncertainties for progressive collapse analy-
sis because it will underestimate the failure potential conditioned
on large deformation. At the descending part of the pushdown
curves, some structural samples have lost their load-resisting capac-
ity. As a consequence, the fractile curves in this stage could include
reasonable error because of reduction of available data for statistics.
This is the main reason why β αjΔ does not increase significantly
after the peak resistance.
To draw more reliable conclusions from the random pushdown
curves, the statistical pushdown curves in terms of the mean and 1
SD above and below the mean are also estimated and compared
with the fractile pushdown curves as shown in Fig. 11. The 16,
50, and 84% fractile curves are practically coincident with the
mean - SD, mean and mean þ SD curves, respectively. It is illus-
trated that structural uncertainty does not cause a biased predic-
tion of mean response. Thus, a normal distribution becomes a
natural option to depict the probabilistic property of pushdown
performance.
DC Uncertainty
After the pushdown curves are studied, the next step is to
confirm the effects of structural uncertainty on the specific DC.

© ASCE 04016069-7 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., -1--1

 3.5 3.5
3 3
2.5 2.5

Load factor, α

Load factor, α
2 2

1.5 1.5

1 1
Random pushdown curves Random pushdown curves
0.5 16% and 84% fractile curves 0.5 16% and 84% fractile curves
50% fractile curve 50% fractile curve
0 0
0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800
(a) Displacement, Δ/mm (b) Displacement, Δ/mm
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GUANGXI UNIVERSITY on 01/05/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

3 4

2.5
3
Load factor, α

Load factor, α
2

1.5 2

1
Random pushdown curves 1 Random pushdown curves
0.5 16% and 84% fractile curves 16% and 84% fractile curves
50% fractile curve 50% fractile curve
0 0
0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800
(c) Displacement, Δ/mm (d) Displacement, Δ/mm

Fig. 9. Random pushdown curves shown against the 16, 50, and 84% fractile curves of α given Δ: (a) TF-E; (b) TF-I; (c) LF-E; (d) LF-I

0.5 capacity; thus, it is unreasonable to ignore the effects of the

TF-E structural uncertainties for design buildings to resist progressive
TF-I collapse.
0.4
LF-E On the basis of the probability distributions of the α-capacity
LF-I corresponding to DC-II, a further step is taken to re-examine the
βα | Δ

0.3 DIF under a probabilistic perspective. For RC frame structures,

the DIF is determined by Ωn ¼ 1.04 þ 0.45=ðθpra =θy þ 0.48Þ,
0.2 where θpra and θy = plastic and elastic rotation angles of the
elements, components, and connections (GSA 2013; DoD 2013).
0.1 According to this equation, the DIFs are calculated as 1.41 and 1.43
for TF and LF, respectively. According to the fitted normal distri-
butions of DC-II, the failure probabilities are then calculated as 3.0,
0.0
0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 3.0, 16, and 1% for the cases of TF-E, TF-I, LF-E, and LF-I, re-
Displacement, Δ/mm spectively. Except for LF-E, the remaining three cases achieved
very limited failure probabilities. Thus, it can be concluded that the
Fig. 10. Comparison of β αjΔ for different scenarios of column removal TF-E, TF-I, and LF-I are very likely to survive from a sudden re-
moval of a first-story column. For the case of LF-E, the failure
probability is not within the accepted level.

The α-capacities for DC-I and DC-II are determined from each of
the random pushdown curves, as shown in Fig. 12. The correspond-
ing empirical failure probabilities are then calculated and idealized
by a continuous normal distribution, as shown in Fig. 13. It is ap-
parent that the idealized normal distributions fit the empirical prob-
abilities well. Table 3 provides the fitted distribution parameters.
It is found that the median (50%) α-capacities from statistics are
almost identical with the means from fitting. This is expected be-
cause the mean and 50% fractile pushdown curves are quite close
to each other (Fig. 11). As indicated in Table 3, DC–II has a mean
α-capacity that is approximately 1.5–2.0 times larger than that of
DC-I. As DC-I and DC-II are defined as the elastic limit and the
plastic limit, respectively, the observation implies that the mean of
the safety margin ratio ranges from 1.5 to 2.0 for the studied frames.
The SDs for DC-I and DC-II are approximately 0.2 and 0.4, respec-
tively. This illustrates the significant variability in load-resisting
Sensitivity Analysis
Pushdown Sensitivity
Pushdown sensitivity analyses are performed by testing each un-
certainty parameter independently with 1 SD above or below its
mean. The sensitivity is then evaluated from the pushdown curves,
as shown in Fig. 14. The curve with the mean parameters (base-case
curve) always appears as a solid line, whereas the curves corre-
sponding to upgraded and degraded parameter are distributed
around its sides. Because of limitation in paper length, only the
results of case TF-I are presented. Similar observations were ob-
tained for remaining cases.
As shown in the figure, the parameters of DLf , LL, f y , fu , Hb ,
and As;Beam have relatively large effects, whereas the rest of the

© ASCE 04016069-8 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., -1--1

 3 3

2.5 2.5

Load factor, α

Load factor, α
2 2

1.5 1.5

1 Mean curve 1 Mean curve

50% fractile curve 50% fractile curve
0.5 Mean±SD 0.5 Mean±SD
16% and 84% fractile curves 16% and 84% fractile curves
0 0
0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800
Displacement, Δ/mm Displacement, Δ/mm
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GUANGXI UNIVERSITY on 01/05/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

3 3.5

2.5 3

2.5
Load factor, α

Load factor, α
2
2
1.5
1.5
1 Mean curve Mean curve
50% fractile curve 1 50% fractile curve
0.5 Mean±SD 0.5 Mean±SD
16% and 84% fractile curves 16% and 84% fractile curves
0 0
0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800
(c) Displacement, Δ/mm (d) Displacement, Δ/mm

Fig. 11. Comparison of statistical pushdown curves based on the lognormal assumption and the normal assumption: (a) TF-E; (b) TF-I; (c) LF-E;
(d) LF-I

3.5 3.5
3 3

2.5 2.5
Load factor, α
Load factor, α

2 2

1.5 1.5
1 1
Random pushdown curve Random pushdown curve
0.5 DC-I 0.5 DC-I
DC-II DC-II
0 0
0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800
(a) Displacement, Δ/mm (b) Displacement, Δ/mm

3 4

2.5
3
Load factor, α
Load factor, α

1.5 2

1
Random pushdown curve 1 Random pushdown curve
0.5 DC-I DC-I
DC-II DC-II
0 0
0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800
(c) Displacement, Δ/mm (d) Displacement, Δ/mm

Fig. 12. Random pushdown curves conditioned on different scenarios of column removal together with the identified DC: (a) TF-E; (b) TF-I;
(c) LF-E; (d) LF-I

© ASCE 04016069-9 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., -1--1

 1 1

0.8 0.8

Failure probability
Failure probability
0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4
DC-I: Empirical DC-I: Empirical
0.2 DC-II: Empirical 0.2 DC-II: Empirical
DC-I: Fitted DC-I: Fitted
DC-II: Fitted DC-II: Fitted
0 0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GUANGXI UNIVERSITY on 01/05/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) Load factor, α (b) Load factor, α

1 1

0.8 0.8

Failure probability
Failure probability

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4
DC-I: Empirical DC-I: Empirical
DC-II: Empirical DC-II: Empirical
0.2 0.2
DC-I: Fitted DC-I: Fitted
DC-II: Fitted DC-II: Fitted
0 0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
(c) Load factor, α (d) Load factor, α

Fig. 13. Empirical probability function of DS and the fitted normal distributions: (a) TF-E; (b) TF-I; (c) LF-E; (d) LF-I

parameters show very limited influences as these three curves are the means could increase the ultimate deformation of structure
almost identical. As expected, the gravity loads have impressive significantly, which agrees with the results from Bao et al. (2008)
effects on pushdown results as shown in Figs. 14(a and c). The dead and Qian and Li (2013) well. In their studies, increasing the amount
load on the roof, DLr , shows negligible influence [Fig. 14(b)] as it of beam transverse reinforcement ratio will considerably increase
accounts for a very limited percentage of the total dead loads. the ultimate deformation capacity of the RC frames to resist pro-
Compared with DLf , the live load on the floor, LL, shows less gressive collapse.
influence [Fig. 14(b)] because only the variation in the sustained
load component is considered. It is predictable that f y has signifi-
cant effects initially. However, its effects decrease with increasing DC Sensitivity
displacement at the stage until peak α-capacity, in which catenary The sensitivity of each uncertain parameter on specific DC is
action becomes the main load-resisting mechanism, and are con- investigated by the tornado diagrams, as shown in Figs. 15 and 16.
trolled by the ultimate strength of the reinforcement fu . As shown As illustrated in the figures, the parameters of DLf and f y dem-
in Fig. 14(j), the effects of f u further confirmed the prediction. onstrated their importance on DC-I, whereas DLf and f u have the
Moreover, the height H b and the reinforcement area As;Beam of most influences for DC-II. Furthermore, the effect of As;Beam
beams also show considerable influences. on both DC is also considerable. It is expected that DLf is the
Some of the remaining parameters apart from the aforemen- most influential parameter because of its close association with
tioned show significant clear effects on the ultimate deformation α-capacity. Because DLr and LL only account for a small part of
capacity of the frames. For instance, as shown in Figs. 14(h and q), the total gravity loads, they show less significance than DLf . As
increasing the stirrup-related parameters fyt and Ast to 1 SD above DC-I is defined by the first yielding of steel bars in beams, fy
shows significant effect. f u becomes significantly influential for
DC-II because it contributes largely to the peak load-resisting
Table 3. Moments from Fitting the Empirical Probabilistic Distributions of capacity. fc shows considerable effect on DC-I placed in line to
DC-I and DC-II As;Beam because f c is a key factor for the compressive arch action
DC-I DC-II that is the main load-carrying mechanism corresponding to DC-I.
When it comes to DC-II, however, fc has a narrow swing because
Scenarios Median Mean SD Median Mean SD
the catenary action becomes the dominant load-carrying mecha-
TF-E 1.30 1.30 0.22 2.09 2.07 0.36 nism where concrete plays a negligible role.
TF-I 1.05 1.06 0.16 2.17 2.13 0.37 The tornado diagrams corresponding to different DC and differ-
LF-E 1.25 1.24 0.18 1.87 1.81 0.40 ent studied frames also appear different. In particular, the tornado
LF-I 1.39 1.40 0.21 2.59 2.55 0.46
diagrams seem more symmetric for DC-I compared with that for

© ASCE 04016069-10 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., -1--1

 3 2.5 2.5
2 2

Load factor, α
Load factor, α

Load factor, α
2
1.5 1.5

Mean-std 1 Mean-std 1 Mean-std

1
Mean 0.5 Mean 0.5 Mean
Mean+std Mean+std Mean+std
0 0 0
0 300 600 900 1200 0 300 600 900 1200 0 300 600 900 1200
(a) Displacement, Δ/mm (b) Displacement, Δ/mm (c) Displacement, Δ/mm

2.5 2.5 2.5

2 2 2
Load factor, α

Load factor, α

Load factor, α
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GUANGXI UNIVERSITY on 01/05/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1.5 1.5 1.5

1 Mean-std 1 Mean-std 1 Mean-std
0.5 Mean 0.5 Mean 0.5 Mean
Mean+std Mean+std Mean+std
0 0 0
0 300 600 900 1200 0 300 600 900 1200 0 300 600 900 1200
(d) Displacement, Δ/mm (e) Displacement, Δ/mm (f) Displacement, Δ/mm

2.5 2.5 2.5

2 2 2

Load factor, α
Load factor, α

Load factor, α

1.5 1.5 1.5

1 Mean-std 1 Mean-std 1 Mean-std
0.5 Mean 0.5 Mean 0.5 Mean
Mean+std Mean+std Mean+std
0 0 0
0 300 600 900 1200 0 300 600 900 1200 0 300 600 900 1200
(g) Displacement, Δ/mm (h) Displacement, Δ/mm (i) Displacement, Δ/mm

2.5 2.5 2.5

2 2 2
Load factor, α

Load factor, α
Load factor, α

1.5 1.5 1.5

1 Mean-std 1 Mean-std 1 Mean-std
0.5 Mean 0.5 Mean 0.5 Mean
Mean+std Mean+std Mean+std
0 0 0
0 300 600 900 1200 0 300 600 900 1200 0 300 600 900 1200
(j) Displacement, Δ/mm (k) Displacement, Δ/mm (l) Displacement, Δ/mm

2.5 2.5 2.5

2 2 2
Load factor, α

Load factor, α
Load factor, α

1.5 1.5 1.5

1 Mean-std 1 Mean-std 1 Mean-std
0.5 Mean Mean Mean
0.5 0.5
Mean+std Mean+std Mean+std
0 0 0
0 300 600 900 1200 0 300 600 900 1200 0 300 600 900 1200
(m) Displacement, Δ/mm (n) Displacement, Δ/mm (o) Displacement, Δ/mm

2.5 2.5
2 2
Load factor, α
Load factor, α

1.5 1.5
1 Mean-std 1 Mean-std
0.5 Mean 0.5 Mean
Mean+std Mean+std
0 0
0 300 600 900 1200 0 300 600 900 1200
(p) Displacement, Δ/mm (q) Displacement, Δ/mm

Fig. 14. Sensitivity of the pushdown curves to the considered uncertain parameters: (a) DLf ; (b) DLrf ; (c) LL; (d) f c ; (e) f t ; (f) Ec ; (g) f y ; (h) f yt ;
(i) Es ; (j) f u ; (k) Bb ; (l) Hb ; (m) L; (n) t; (o) As;Beam ; (p) As;Column ; (q) Ast

© ASCE 04016069-11 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., -1--1

 DLf DLf
fy fy
As,Beam As,Beam
LL fc
Hb LL
fc t
t Hb
Ec L
L Bb
Es DLr
Ast As,Col
fyt Es
Bb fyt
DL Ast
As,Colr Mean variables ft Mean variables
ft Ec
fu fu

1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GUANGXI UNIVERSITY on 01/05/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Load factor, α Load factor, α

(a) (b)

DLf DLf
fy fy
As,Beam As,Beam
LL fc
fc t
t LL
Hb Hb
Ec Ec
L L
fyt fyt
Es Es
As,Col As,Col
DLr DLr
Bb Bb
ft
Mean variables
Mean variables ft
fu fu
Ast Ast
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7
Load factor, α Load factor, α
(c) (d)

Fig. 15. Tornado diagrams for DC-I: (a) TF-E; (b) TF-I; (c) LF-E; (d) LF-I

DC-II. Moreover, especially for DC-II, the bars in the tornado
diagrams for LF are more skewed compared with that for TF.
The skewness of bars does not affect the significance of the uncer-
tain parameters because the significance is only decided by the
length of bars. Nevertheless, the skewness of bars reflects different
influences of the uncertain parameters on the performance of the
studied frames under different missing-column scenarios. On the
basis of the obtained probabilistic distributions for DC-I and
DC-II (Table 3), for the same studied frame, the variability inherent
in DC-I is smaller than that existing in DC-II, thereby leading to a
more symmetric tornado diagram. LF is found to be more signifi-
cantly influenced by uncertainties than TF because, conditioned on
the same DC, the fitted SD values for LF are larger than that for TF
(Table 3). This may partially contribute to the asymmetry observed
in the tornado diagrams for LF. To sum up, in addition to the un-
certainty parameters, the damage state, the structural design, and
the missing-column scenarios totally impose influence on the re-
sults of sensitivity analysis. The exact relationship between them
deserves further studies and is beyond the scope of this study.
Conclusions
The influence and significance of the inherent randomness of grav-
ity loads, material properties, and construction geometries on the
performance of RC frame structures subjected to a column loss
have been examined by means of uncertainty and sensitivity anal-
ysis, respectively. The following general conclusions have been
drawn:
1. The dispersion of random pushdown curves could go beyond
0.4. The standard deviations of α-capacity corresponding to
DC-I and DC-II were approximately 0.2 and 0.4, respectively.
The considerable variability on their responses reveals the sig-
nificant effects of structural uncertainty on the performance of
RC frame structures against progressive collapse. A normal dis-
tribution was proven suitable to depict the probabilistic charac-
teristics of the behavior of the damaged structure with an initial
loss of column.
2. The DIF defined for the case study frames according to the
guidelines (GSA 2013; DoD 2013) were less than the mean
α-capacities of DC-II. Moreover, from the fitted normal distri-
bution of DC-II, the conditional failure probability are com-
puted as 3.0, 3.0, 16, and 1% for the cases of TF-E, TF-I,
LF-E, and LF-I, respectively. The limited failure probabilities
imply that the studied frames could survive the sudden loss of
a column with high likelihood.
3. The parameters of dead load in floor (DLf ), yield and ultimate
strengths of steel bars (f y and f u ), and reinforcement area of
beams (As;Beam ) show apparent effects on the residual capacity
of structures in resisting progressive collapse.

© ASCE 04016069-12 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., -1--1

 DLf DLf
fu fu
As,Beam As,Beam
fy fy
Hb LL
LL Hb
t t
L L
fc fc
DLr DLr
fyt fyt
As,Col Es
Ast Ast
Bb Bb Mean variables
Es As,Col
Mean variables
Ec ft
ft Ec
2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GUANGXI UNIVERSITY on 01/05/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Load factor, α Load factor, α

(a) (b)

DLf DLf
fu fu
Bb L
As,Beam Bb
As,Beam
LL
L fy
fy t
Es DLr
t fyt
Hb LL
fc Hb
Ast fc
DLr Ec
As,Col Es
fyt
Mean variables
Ast
Ec Mean variables As,Col
ft ft
1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Load factor, α Load factor, α
(c) (d)

Fig. 16. Tornado diagrams for DC-II: (a) TF-E; (b) TF-I; (c) LF-E; (d) LF-I

Acknowledgments Ellingwood, B. R. (2006). “Mitigating risk from abnormal loads and

The financial support received from the Scientific Research
Foundation for the Returned Overseas Chinese Scholars, State
Education Ministry, the National Science Foundation of China
(Grant Nos. 51408155, 51378162, 51568004), the China Post-
doctoral Science Foundation (2014M551251), the Heilongjiang
Postdoctoral Science Foundation (LBH-Z14114), and the Funda-
mental Research Funds for the Central Universities (HIT. NSRIF.
2015099) are gratefully appreciated.
References
ACI (American Concrete Institute). (2008). “Building code requirements
for structural concrete and commentary.” ACI 318-08, Farmington
Hills, MI.
ASCE/SEI (Structural Engineering Institute). (2010). “Minimum design
loads for buildings and other structures.” ASCE/SEI 7, Reston, VA.
Bao, Y., Kunnath, S. K., El-Tawil, S., and Lew, H. S. (2008). “Macromodel-
based simulation of progressive collapse: RC frame structures.” J. Struct.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:7(1079), 1079–1091.
DoD (Department of Defense). (2013). “Design of building to resist
progressive collapse.” UFC 4-023-03, Washington, DC.
Ellingwood, B., Galambos, T. V., MacGregor, J. G., and Cornell, C. A.
(1980). “Development of a probability based load criterion for
American National Standard A58—Building code requirement for
minimum design loads in buildings and other structures.” National
Bureau of Standards, Dept. of Commerce, Washington, DC.
progressive collapse.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 10.1061/(ASCE)0887
-3828(2006)20:4(315), 315–323.
Ellingwood, B. R., and Dusenberry, D. O. (2005). “Building design
for abnormal loads and progressive collapse.” Comput.-Aided Civ.
Infrastruct. Eng., 20(3), 194–205.
Ellingwood, B. R., Smilowitz, R., Dusenberry, D. O., Duthinh, D., Lew,
H. S., and Carino, N. J. (2007). “Best practices for reducing the
potential for progressive collapse in buildings.” NISTIR 7396, U.S.
Dept. of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Gaithersburg, MD.
El-Tawil, S., Li, H., and Kunnath, S. (2013). “Computational simulation of
gravity-induced progressive collapse of steel-frame buildings: Current
trends and future research needs.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ST
.1943-541X.0000897, A2513001.
Fascetti, A., Kunnath, S. K., and Nisticò, N. (2015). “Robustness evalu-
ation of RC frame buildings to progressive collapse.” Eng. Struct., 86,
242–249.
Felippa, C. A. (2000). “A systematic approach to the element-independent
corotational dynamics of finite elements.” Center for Aerospace
Structures, College of Engineering, Univ. of Colorado, Boulder, CO.
GSA (General Services Administration). (2013). “Alternate path analysis &
design guidelines for progressive collapse resistance.” Washington, DC.
JCSS (Joint Committee on Structural Safety). (2001). “Probabilistic model
code. Part 2: Live load.” 〈http://www.jcss.byg.dtu.dk/Publications/
Probabilistic_Model_Code〉 (May 2011).
Kazemi-Moghaddam, A., and Sasani, M. (2015). “Progressive collapse
evaluation of Murrah Federal Building following sudden loss of column
G20.” Eng. Struct., 89, 162–171.

© ASCE 04016069-13 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., -1--1

 Kent, D. C., and Park, R. (1971). “Flexural members with confined
concrete.” J. Struct. Div., 97(7), 1969–1990.
Khandelwal, K., and El-Tawil, S. (2011). “Pushdown resistance as a
measure of robustness in progressive collapse analysis.” Eng. Struct.,
33(9), 2653–2661.
Kim, J., Park, J. H., and Lee, T. H. (2011). “Sensitivity analysis of steel
buildings subjected to column loss.” Eng. Struct., 33(2), 421–432.
Le, J. L., and Xue, B. (2014). “Probabilistic analysis of reinforced con-
crete frame structures against progressive collapse.” Eng. Struct., 76,
313–323.
Lee, T. H., and Mosalam, K. M. (2004). “Probabilistic fiber element
modeling of reinforced concrete structures.” Comput. Struct., 82(27),
2285–2299.
Li, M., and Sasani, M. (2015). “Integrity and progressive collapse resis-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by GUANGXI UNIVERSITY on 01/05/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
tance of RC structures with ordinary and special moment frames.”
Eng. Struct., 95, 71–79.
Liu, P. L., and Der Kiureghian, A. (1986). “Multivariate distribution models
with prescribed marginals and covariances.” Probab. Eng. Mech., 1(2),
105–112.
Lu, D. G., Cui, S. S., Song, P. Y., and Chen, Z. H. (2011). “Robustness
assessment for progressive collapse of framed structures using push-
down analysis methods.” Int. J. Reliab. Saf., 6(1–3), 15–37.
Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., and Park, R. (1988). “Theoretical stress-
strain model for confined concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804), 1804–1826.
Mirza, S. A., Hatzinikolas, M., and MacGregor, J. G. (1979). “Statistical
descriptions of strength of concrete.” J. Struct. Div., 105(ST6),
1021–1037.
Mirza, S. A., and MacGregor, J. G. (1979a). “Variability in dimensions
of reinforced concrete members.” J. Struct. Div., 105(ST4),
751–766.
Mirza, S. A., and MacGregor, J. G. (1979b). “Variability of mechanical
properties of reinforcing bars.” J. Struct. Div., 105(ST5),
921–937.
Morone, D. J., and Sezen, H. (2014). “Simplified collapse analysis
using data from building experiment.” ACI Struct. J., 111(4),
925–934.
Olsson, A. M. J., and Sandberg, G. E. (2002). “Latin hypercube sampling
for stochastic finite element analysis.” J. Eng. Mech., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9399(2002)128:1(121), 121–125.
OpenSees [Computer software]. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA.
© ASCE 04016069-14
View publication stats J. Perform. Constr. Facil., -1--1
Park, J., and Kim, J. K. (2010). “Fragility analysis of steel moment frames
with various seismic connection subjected to sudden loss of a column.”
Eng. Struct., 32(6), 1547–1555.
Qian, K., and Li, B. (2012a). “Dynamic performance of RC beam-column
substructures under the scenario of the loss of a corner column-
experimental results.” Eng. Struct., 42, 154–167.
Qian, K., and Li, B. (2012b). “Slab effects on response of reinforced
concrete substructures after loss of corner column.” ACI Struct. J.,
109(6), 845–856.
Qian, K., and Li, B. (2013). “Performance of three-dimensional reinforced
concrete beam-column substructures under loss of a corner column
scenario.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000630,
584–594.
Qian, K., Li, B., and Ma, J. X. (2015a). “Load-carrying mechanism to resist
progressive collapse of RC buildings.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
ST.1943-541X.0001046, 04014107.
Qian, K., Li, B., and Zhang, Z. W. (2015b). “Testing and simulation of
3D effects on progressive collapse resistance of RC buildings.” Mag.
Concr. Res., 67(4), 163–178.
Sasani, M., Bazan, M., and Sagiroglu, S. (2007). “Experimental and ana-
lytical progressive collapse evaluation of actual reinforced concrete
structure.” ACI Struct. J., 104(6), 731–739.
Scott, M. H., and Fenves, G. L. (2010). “Krylov subspace accelerated
Newton algorithm: Application to dynamic progressive collapse simu-
lation of frames.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X
.0000143, 473–480.
Song, B. I., Giriunas, K. A., and Sezen, H. (2014). “Progressive collapse
testing and analysis of a steel frame building.” J. Constr. Steel Res., 94,
76–83.
Song, B. I., and Sezen, H. (2013). “Experimental and analytical progres-
sive collapse assessment of a steel frame building.” Eng. Struct., 56,
664–672.
Szyniszewski, S. (2010). “Effects of random imperfections on progressive
collapse propagation.” ASCE Structures Congress, ASCE, Reston, VA,
3572–3577.
Vamvatsikos, D., and Cornell, C. A. (2002). “Incremental dynamic
analysis.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 31(3), 491–514.
Xu, G., and Ellingwood, B. R. (2011). “Probabilistic robustness assess-
ment of pre-Northridge steel moment resisting frames.” J. Struct. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000403, 925–934.
Yi, W. J., He, Q. F., Xiao, Y., and Kunnath, K. (2008). “Experimental study
on progressive collapse-resistant behavior of reinforced concrete frame
structures.” ACI Struct. J., 105(4), 433–439.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.