5/28/2016 Numericalinvestigationofprogressivecollapseresistanceofreinforcedconcreteframessubjecttocolumnremovalsfromdifferentstories,Advancesin

HottestPapers
MyBlog
PostDocPosition
What'snew

NUMERICALINVESTIGATIONOFPROGRESSIVECOLLAPSERESISTANCEOFRCFRAMES
SUBJECTTOCOLUMNREMOVALSFROMDIFFERENTSTORIES
YiLi1,XinzhengLu2,HongGuan3,PeiqiRen2
1.KeyLaboratoryofUrbanSecurityandDisasterEngineeringofMinistryofEducation
BeijingUniversityofTechnology,Beijing100124,China
2.KeyLaboratoryofCivilEngineeringSafetyandDurabilityofMinistryofEducation
TsinghuaUniversity,Beijing100084,China
3.GriffithSchoolofEngineering,GriffithUniversityGoldCoastCampus,Queensland4222,Australia
AdvancesinStructuralEngineering,2016,19(2):314326.
DownloadFullTextPDFFile
Abstract:Thispaperpresentsanonlinearstaticpushdownanalysistoevaluatetheprogressivecollapseresistingcapacitycurvesof
typicalRCframesunderdifferentdeformation.Unlikethepreviousstudiesinwhichonlyafewtypicalcolumns,suchasacolumnon
thebottomstorey,areremoved,thisstudyexaminesthecolumnremovalscenariosforvarioustypicallocationsfromdifferentstories.

*May.14.2016,
Paperuploaded
"Parameter
determinationand
damage
assessmentfor
THAbasedregional
seismicdamage
predictionofmulti
storybuildings"
OurLab
CollapsePrevention
Committee

Theprimaryfindingsare:(1)theVierendeelactioncausesdifferentinternalforcesinthebeamsofdifferentstories,whichreducesthe
progressivecollapseresistanceunderthebeammechanismanddelaysthedevelopmentofthecatenarymechanism.Thismayresultin
thebeamsfailsuccessivelyfromonefloortoanotherinaframesystem,whichdiffersfromthetheoreticalassumptionthatthebeams
aredamagedsimultaneouslyondifferentfloors(2)seismicdesignssignificantlyimprovetheprogressivecollapseresistanceunderthe
beammechanism,especiallyforlowerstories.Howeversuchanimprovementislesssignificantforthecatenarymechanismandlittle
improvementisfoundforthetopregionsoftheframestructures.Further,anonlineardynamicanalysisisconductedtovalidatethe
predictedresistancesoftheRCframesinsatisfyingtherequirementofcollapseprevention.Thedesignparametersasspecifiedinthe
existingcodesarealsodiscussed.
Keywords:reinforcedconcreteframeprogressivecollapseresistancenumericalinvestigationnonlinearstaticpushdownanalysis
nonlineardynamicalternativeloadpathanalysis,Vierendeelaction.
DOI:10.1177/1369433215624515
IfyouneedthePDFversionofthispaper,pleaseemailtoluxinzheng@sina.com
1.Introduction
Progressivecollapseisadisproportionalcollapseofanentirestructurecausedbyinitiallocalfailureofafewstructuralelementsdueto
accidentalevents(ASCE,2005).Progressivecollapseofbuildingstructureshastwosignificantcharacteristics:(1)Itisamechanical
behavioroftheentirestructuralsystem,inwhichthecollapsespreadsthroughoutalargepartofortheentirestructure(Starossek,2007).
Inresistingaprogressivecollapse,ontheotherhand,theprimarycontributoristhealternativeloadpathswithinthestructuralsystem
(GSA,2003DoD,2010).(2)Itisamechanicalbehaviorofthestructureunderlargedeformations.Inconventionallaboratorytestsand
numericalstudies,whenastructuralmemberreachesacertainamountofdeformationafterthepeakload,thememberisconsideredto
havefailed,andtheresidualloadingcapacityisnotconsidered.Forexample,inthepublishedliteratureonfireresistance(ISO,1999)
andseismicresistance(ASCE,2007Jiangetal.,2014),whenthebeamdeflectionreached1/50~1/30thespanlength,thebeamwas
consideredtohavefailed.Thisishowevernotthecaseforprogressivecollapse,wherelargedeformation(deflectionapproaching1/5
thespanlength)characteristicsofthebeamsmustbecarefullyexamined(GSA,2003DoD,2010).Underlargedeformations,the
strengthofthebeamsmayhavedegeneratedsignificantly,andtheloadcarryingmechanismmayhavechanged(e.g.,fromabeam
http://www.luxinzheng.net/publication7/2016ASEProgressive_Collapse_Different_Stories.htm

1/13

5/28/2016 Numericalinvestigationofprogressivecollapseresistanceofreinforcedconcreteframessubjecttocolumnremovalsfromdifferentstories,Advancesin

mechanismtoacatenarymechanism)(Lietal.,20112014a2014b).Thesemechanicalbehaviorsofthebeamsareveryimportantto
theprogressivecollapseresistanceofthestructure.
Significantprogresshasbeenachievedinthepastdecadewiththedevelopmentofexperimentaltechnologiesandnumericalsimulation
methodswhichhavepromotedfundamentalresearchbeingconductedonprogressivecollapseofbuildingstructures.Forthe
experimentalstudies,bothstaticanddynamicmethodsareusedtoinvestigatethecollapsebehaviorofstructuralmembersandsub
structuralsystemsunderlargedeformations.Usingthestatictestmethod,researchershavestudiedtheseprogressivecollapsebehaviors
ofdifferenttypesofstructuresandcomponentssuchascontinuousconcretebeams(Suetal.,2009),reinforcedconcrete(RC)orsteel
beamcolumnsubassemblages(YapandLi,2011Sadeketal.,2011),threestorey,fourbaysmallscaleRCplaneframestructures(Yi
etal.,2008),singlestoreysmallscaleRCflatplatestructures(Yietal.,2011)andtwostoreyfullscaleRCflatplatestructures(Kokot
etal.,2012).Thedynamictestsarecommonlyconductedusingaspecialdeviceassubstitutesupportcomponents,sothatthelocally
failedstructuralmembercanbesimulatedbyinstantaneouslyreleasingthespecialdevice.QianandLi(2012a2012b)conductedstatic
anddynamicteststostudythecollapsebehaviorofacornersubstructureofaconcreteframeandcomparativelyanalyzedthedynamic
effectsofthecollapseprocess.Someresearcherstooktheopportunityofdemolishingabandonedbuildingstostudythedynamic
progressivecollapseresistanceoftheentirestructures(Sasanietal.,2007,2011SasaniandSagiroglu,2010Matthewsetal.,2007
SongandSezen,2009).
Asasupplementtotheexperimentaltechniques,numericalmethodshaveproventobeconvenientandefficientforanalyzingthe
progressivecollapsebehaviorofanentirestructuralsystem,eitherstaticallyordynamically.Specially,numericalmethodsaresuitable
forcomprehensiveanalysesofthevariousfactorsthatinfluencetheprogressivecollapsebehaviorandresistance.Typicalstudiesinthis
areainclude:compositeslabsusingrefinedfiniteelementanalysisapproachbyAlashkeretal.(2010)aconcretestructuresubjectedto
theimpactofanexplosionusingthesamemethodbyLuccionietal.(2004)amultistoreysteelframewithtwodifferenttypesofbrace
membersstudiedbyKhandelwalaetal.(2009),wherethejointsandthestructuralcomponentsweresimulatedusingthemacromodel
andfibermodel,respectivelya20storeysteelframestructurewithtwodifferentlateralresistantsystemsinvestigatedbyFu(2009)the
effectsofthenumberofstoriesandbaysontheprogressivecollapseresistanceofsteelframestructures,evaluatedbyKimetal.(2009)
steelframeswithdifferentstrengthsandstiffnessesstudiedbyGalalandElSawy(2010),whoconcludedthatthestrengthofframed
beamshasagreatimpactontheprogressivecollapseresistanceofasteelframetheprogressivecollapsemechanismsofsteelframes
exposedtofirestudiedbyJiangetal.(2014).Further,Kimetal.(2011)usedarandomizedmethodtogeneratedifferentvaluesforsuch
keyparametersastheliveload,theelasticmodulusandtheyieldstrengthofbeams,columnsandbraces.Thesensitivityofthe
progressivecollapseresistanceofthesteelframetotheseparameterswasanalyzed.SimilarreliabilityassessmentonthedamagedRC
framehasbeenconductedbyHuangetal.(2014).Kwasniewski(2010)alsodevelopedadetailed3Dmodeltoevaluatetheprogressive
collapseresistanceofan8storeysteelframeintheCardingtonFireTest.ThestructuralresponsesofRCstructuresunderinstantaneous
andgradualremovalofcolumnswerealsocomparedbyRahaietal.(2014).
Themajorityofthenumericalanalysisontheprogressivecollapseofoverallstructuralsystemsadoptedtheconventionalnonlinear
dynamicalternatepath(NDAP)methodtoobtainthedynamicresponsesofthestructures(e.g.,thetimehistoryresponsesofthe
displacementandtheinternalforceaftertheinitiallocalfailureoccurred).Inadditiontothedynamicresponses,theprogressivecollapse
resistanceofstructuralsystemsisalsohelpfulforunderstandingtheprogressivecollapsemechanism.However,thestructuralresistance
varieswiththestructuraldeformation.Toevaluatetheprogressivecollapseresistingcapacitycurvesofstructuresunderdifferent
deformation,theverticalloadappliedtothestructures(i.e.,thegravity),shouldbeincrementallychangedineachNDAPanalysis,
similarwiththeincrementaldynamicanalysis(IDA)intheseismicstudies(VamvatsikosandCornell,2002).Obviously,thatisvery
timeconsuming.Ontheotherhand,existingnumericalresearchmainlyfocusesonthecollapseresponseofentirestructuresafterthe
initialfailureofafewrepresentativestructuralmembers,primarilytheperimetercolumnsinthebottomfloor(GSA,2003DoD,2010).
http://www.luxinzheng.net/publication7/2016ASEProgressive_Collapse_Different_Stories.htm

2/13

5/28/2016 Numericalinvestigationofprogressivecollapseresistanceofreinforcedconcreteframessubjecttocolumnremovalsfromdifferentstories,Advancesin

However,accidentsmayoccuranywhereinthebuilding.Therefore,itisnecessarytocomprehensivelystudytheprogressivecollapse
resistanceofstructuresunderdifferentdeformationsubsequenttoinitialdamagesoccurringatallpossiblelocationsinastructure.This
willprovideavaluablereferenceforengineeringpractices,yetsuchresearchisstilllackingpresently.
InRCframestructureswithprecastslabs,theframesasthesubassembliesofbeamsandcolumnsarethemajorstructuralcomponents
resistingprogressivecollapse.Inthispaper,atypical8storeyRCframedesignedinaccordancewithlowseismicactionisfirstly
studied.AnonlinearstaticpushdownanalysisisperformedtoinvestigatetheprogressivecollapseresistanceoftheRCframewithinitial
localdamageattypicallocationsofdifferentstories.Inaddition,theRCframeisredesignedinaccordancewithhighseismicactionand
theeffectofseismicdesignontheprogressivecollapseresistanceisanalyzedbycomparingthetwoRCframeswithdifferentseismic
designintensities.TheresistanceoftheRCframesisalsovalidatedviathenonlineardynamicmethod,inwhichthedesignparameters
asspecifiedintheexistingcodesarediscussed.Theoutcomesoftheseanalysescanbeusedasreferencestofurtherdevelopthedesign
specificationsandmethodsspecifictoprogressivecollapse.
2.TheRCFrameModel
TheRCframestructurestudiedhereinhaseightstories.Theheightofthefirststoreyis4.2m,andthatoftheremainingstoriesis3.6m.
AplanviewoftheRCframeisshowninFigure1.Thebottomendsofthefirststoreycolumnsarefixedtotheground.Table1liststhe
sectionalsizesandmaterialparametersforthestructuralelements.TheframeisdesignedinaccordancewiththeChineseCodeforthe
DesignofConcreteStructures(GB500102010)(MOHURD,2010a)andtheCodeforSeismicDesignofBuildings(GB500112010)
(MOHURD,2010b).ThemaindesignparametersaregiveninTable2.Tostudytheinfluenceofseismicdesignontheprogressive
collapseresistance,reinforcementdetailsaredesignedaccordingtotwodifferentseismicdesignintensities,whiletheotherdesign
parameters(e.g.,plan,sectionalsize,materials,etc.)remainunchanged.Thisresultsintwoframemodels,namelyModelA,designed
foralowseismicintensityregionandModelB,designedforahighseismicintensityregion.

Figure1PlanviewoftheRCframe
Table1.ParametersofthestructuralmembersintheRCframe

Section

Longitudinal
beam(X
direction)
300mm
500mm

Concrete
Reinforcing
steel

Transverse
beam(Y
Column
Slab
direction)
300mm
550mm
120mm
550mm
550mm
(thickness)
C30(compressivestrength20.1MPa)
Longitudinalreinforcement:HRB335(yieldstrength335MPa)
Hoopreinforcement:HPB235(yieldstrength235MPa)
Table2.DesignloadsandactionontheRCframe

Seismicaction*
Deadload

ModelA

ModelB

50cm/s2

200cm/s2

Floor:5.0kN/m2,Roof:7.5kN/m2

Liveload

Floor:2.0kN/m2,Roof:0.5kN/m2

WindLoad

Windpressure:W00.45kN/m2

Gravityloadoffilled
wall

Floor:8.0kN/m,Roof:6.0kN/m

http://www.luxinzheng.net/publication7/2016ASEProgressive_Collapse_Different_Stories.htm

3/13

5/28/2016 Numericalinvestigationofprogressivecollapseresistanceofreinforcedconcreteframessubjecttocolumnremovalsfromdifferentstories,Advancesin

*PGA(peakgroundacceleration)ofthedesignearthquake(i.e.,a10%probabilityofexceedancein50years)
TheamountofreinforcementinModelBisabouttwicethatinModelA.TheadditionalreinforcementinthebeamsofModel Bis
mainly concentrated at the beam ends where the seismic action is large. However, there is no significant difference in the midspan
reinforcementinthebeamsbetweenthetwomodelsbecausesuchreinforcementismainlycontrolledbythegravityload,whichisthe
sameforthetwomodels.NotethattheRCframeisdesignedtohavearegularstructuralarrangementwhichispopularinengineering
practices.As such, the conclusions achieved can provide useful fundamental understandings for future analysis and design tasks for
progressive collapse prevention, although some of the conclusions may not be applicable for irregular structures (this should be
investigatedcasebycase).
3.AnalysisMethod
3.1Fiberbeamelementmodel
AfiberbeamelementmodelnamedTHUFIBER(Lietal.,2011Luetal.,2013)isusedtobuildthenumericalmodeloftheframe.
THUFIBERtakesintoaccountthecomplexinteractionmechanismsoftheinternalforcesinthebeamsectionsandhasrobustmaterial
modelscoveringbothunloadingandreloadingpaths.PublishedliteraturesshowthatRCframesexhibitingflexuralandaxialfailures
underlargedeformationscanbesatisfactorilysimulatedusingTHUFIBERwithaveryefficientcomputationalworkload(Lietal.,
2011Luetal.,2013Renetal.,2014).
3.2Nonlinearpushdownmethod
ThenonlinearstaticpushdownmethodproposedbyKhandelwalandElTawil(2008)isusedinthisstudytoanalyzethecollapse
mechanismsandtheprogressivecollapseresistanceoftheRCframes.First,theinitiallydamagedcolumnsareremovedfromtheRC
framemodels.Notethatonlyonecolumnisremovedineachanalysis.Then,anincreasingverticalloadqisimposedinthedamaged
regionwhilekeepingthedesignverticalloadgunchangedinotherregions(asshowninFigure2).Usingthismethod,therelationship
between the internal forces in the structural elements and the structural deformation during the collapse process, from small to large
deformationstages,canbeobtainedandanalyzed.Likewisetherelationshipbetweentheprogressivecollapseresistanceofthestructure,
i.e.theverticalloadq,andthestructuraldeformationcanalsobeestablished(seethefollowingdiscussion).Allrepresentativecolumns
on each floor, located at the shortedge, longedge, corner, and interior on the plan layout as shown in Figure 1, are considered
individuallyastheinitiallydamagedcolumns.

Figure2LoadpatternforpushdownanalysisoftheRCframes
3.3Nonlinearstaticanalysisalgorithmbasedonmultiplepointconstraints
AsofteningprocessoccurswhentheRCbeamstransformfromthecompressivearchmechanismorthebeammechanismtothe
catenarymechanism.Problemsmaybeencounteredwithnumericaldivergenceinthecomputationforthissofteningprocessifthe
modelisloadedbyaforcecontrolledalgorithm.Therefore,thenonlinearstaticanalysisalgorithmproposedbyHuang(2009)isusedin
thisstudy.Basedonmultiplepointconstraints,thisalgorithmcanshifttheloadingmodefromaforcecontrolledalgorithmtoa
displacementcontrolledonewhichisrobusttoobtainstructuralresponsesattheunstablesofteningstage.Thisallowsforanentire
structuralresistancecurveoftheRCframestobesuccessfullyestablished,asfacilitatedbythisalgorithm.
4.ProgressiveCollapseResistanceofMultiStoreyFrames

http://www.luxinzheng.net/publication7/2016ASEProgressive_Collapse_Different_Stories.htm

4/13

5/28/2016 Numericalinvestigationofprogressivecollapseresistanceofreinforcedconcreteframessubjecttocolumnremovalsfromdifferentstories,Advancesin

Inthissection,theprogressivecollapsemechanismsandresistanceofModelA(designedforalowerseismicdesignintensity) are
evaluatedthroughtheanalysisoftheresistancecurvesasaresultofremovingtypicalcolumnsondifferentstories.Theinternalforce
displacement relationships obtained for multistorey frames will facilitate examination of the collapse resistance influenced by the
interactioncharacteristicsofmultistoreyframes.
4.1Characteristicsoftheresistancecurve
Figure3showstheresistancecurvesofModelA,obtainedfromthenonlinearstaticpushdownanalysis,forvariouscolumnremoval
scenarios.Thedisplacementofthejointontopoftheremovedcolumnischosenastherepresentativedeformationparameter,andthe
relativeresistance(i.e.,q/g,whereqistheappliedverticalload,andgisthedesignverticalload)ischosenastheresistanceparameter.
Theanalysisresultsobtainedaftertheremovalofacolumnonthexthstoreyarerepresentedbythelegend"xth"inthefigure.Itcanbe
foundthatwithanincreaseinthejointdisplacementinthelongedge,shortedgeandinteriorareas,therelativeresistanceq/gdevelops
significantly at the initial stage and then declines significantly after the first peak. The value of q/g reaches its minimum when
=500~850mm.However,withfurtherincreaseofthejointdisplacement,q/gstartstoincreaseagainuntilthesecondpeak.Thefirst
peakresistanceisprovidedbythebendingmomentsatthebeamends(viz.,thebeammechanism),andthesecondisprovidedbythe
axialtensileforceinthebeams(viz.,thecatenarymechanism).Particularly,pushdownanalysisofthecornercolumnremovalscenario
showsthatthereisonlyonepeakintheresistancecurve,indicatingthatonlythebeammechanismworksinthisarea.Thisphenomenon
coincides with the results discussed by Li et al. (2011). Note in this study that, the first peak resistance is referred to as the beam
mechanisminsteadofthecompressivearchmechanismbecausenotallthebeamsareabletoprovidecompressivearchaction under
small deformations to resist progressive collapse, whereas all the beams can resist progressive collapse by the bending moments
developedatthebeamends.

(a)Shortedgearea

(b)Longedgearea

(c)Cornerarea

(d)Interiorarea

Figure3ProgressivecollapseresistancecurvesforModelA

4.2Resistanceunderthebeammechanism
Figure 3 also indicates that the progressive collapse resistance of Model A under the beam mechanism has the following two
characteristics:(1)Forthelongedge,shortedgeandinteriorareas,iftheremovedcolumnislocatedonthetoptwostories,therelative
resistances are generally higher than those of lower storey column removal scenarios at the corresponding locations. The highest
resistanceisachievedwhenthetopstoreycolumnsareremoved.Inaddition,nosignificantdifferenceexistsintherelativeresistanceif
theremovedcolumnislocatedonthelowersixstories.(2)Forthecornerarea,nosignificantdifferenceintherelativeresistancecanbe
observedregardlessofthestoreytheremovedcolumnislocatedon.
AgainforModelA,designedforalowerseismicdesignintensity,thegravityloaddominatesthedesign,andtheamountofreinforcingsteelinthebeamsismainlygovernedbythe
deadand live loads acting on the floor. Due to the same design loads applied to each floor, there is little difference in steel amount for different stories. Therefore, in theory, the
progressivecollapseresistanceshouldalsobesimilaramongdifferentstories.Toexplaintheunusuallyhighprogressivecollapseresistanceofthetopstorey,theinternalforcesofbeams
L1andL2(seeFigure1)obtainedunderdifferentcolumnremovalscenarios(i.e.,thelongedgemiddlecolumnofthexthstoreyisremoved,wherex=6,7,or8)areanalyzed,as
showninFigure4andFigure5,respectively.Inthefigures,FjiandMjirepresenttheaxialforceandthebendingmoment,respectively,ofbeamsL1andL2ontheithstoreyafter
thelongedgemiddlecolumnonthejthstoreyisremoved.

http://www.luxinzheng.net/publication7/2016ASEProgressive_Collapse_Different_Stories.htm

5/13

5/28/2016 Numericalinvestigationofprogressivecollapseresistanceofreinforcedconcreteframessubjecttocolumnremovalsfromdifferentstories,Advancesin

(a)Forcediagram(8thstoreycolumnremovalscenario)

(b)Forcediagram(6thstoreycolumnremovalscenario)

(c)Axialforce
(d)Bendingmoment
Figure4Combinedactionofbeamsondifferentstories(beamL1)
Consideringtheremovalofthe8thstoreycolumns,beforethejointdisplacementoftheedgeperimeterbeamL1reaches500mmtheinternalforce
inthisbeamendsisacombinationoftheflexuralandaxialactions(F88,M88),asshowninFigure4a.However,whencolumnsontheotherstoriesareremoved,theinternalforcesin
thebeamsondifferentstoriesarenotidentical:thoseinthebeamsjustabovetheremovedcolumn(e.g.,(F66,M66)and(F77,M77))arecloseto(F88,M88),whereas(F67,M
67),(F68,M68)and(F78,M78)aremuchsmaller,asshowninFigure4candFigure4d.ThisisduetotheexistenceoftheVierendeelactioninbeamswithinthemultistories.The
axialcompressiveforcesinthebeamsofdifferentstoriesformanewmomentMF toresisttheexternalloads,asshowninFigure4b.Thus,thesameforcesinthebeamsoftheupper
storiesaremuchsmaller.Forasinglebeam,theexistenceoftheaxialcompressiveforcecansignificantlyimproveitsflexuralcapacity.However,foramultistoreyframesubjecttothe
externalloadsasawhole,onlythebeamsclosertothelowerstoriesandthosehavinghigheraxialcompressiveforces(seeFigure4c)canbenefitfromimprovedflexuralcapacities.
Hence,withanincreaseinthenumberofstories,suchanincreased,residualflexuralcapacitywillcontinuouslyberedistributedordiluted,leadingtoaconvergedresistancecapacity.
This explains why, in Figure 3, the removal scenarios on the top two stories result in higher relative resistance, while there is little change in the relative resistance for the removal
scenariosonthebottomsixstories.Yietal.(2008)alsodiscoveredthisphenomenonofuneveninternalforcedevelopmentamongdifferentstoriesintheprogressivecollapsetestofa
threestoreyframe,wherethereinforcementstrainofthebottombeamswaslargerthanthatoftheupperbeams,whichagreeswiththeabovediscussion.

ForbeamL2perpendiculartotheedge,thedifferenceinaxialforcesinthebeamsofdifferentstoriesisnotobvious(Figure5c)
becausethereisnocompressivearchaction.Thedifferenceinbendingmomentsinthebeamsofdifferentstoriesisalsoinsignificant
(Figure5d).Therefore,theVierendeelactiondoesnot existinbeamL2,andtheprogressivecollapseresistancefordifferentcolumn
removalscenariosfromdifferentstoriesisalmostidentical.ThemechanismofbeamsC1andC2inthecornerarea(seeFigure1)is
similartothatofbeamL2,inthattherelativeresistanceofthetopstoreyisnothigherthanthoseofthebottomstories(Figure3c).

(a)Forcediagram(8thstoreycolumn
removalscenario)

(b)Forcediagram(6thstoreycolumn
removalscenario)

(c)Axialforce

(d)Bendingmoment

Figure5Combinedactionofbeamsondifferentstories(beamL2)

4.3Resistanceunderthecatenarymechanism
Figure 3 further illustrates that, in the catenary mechanism stage, the relative resistances of the removal scenarios on the upper
stories are higher than those on the lower stories, for corresponding locations of longedge, shortedge and interior areas. This
phenomenon is similar to that in the beam mechanism stage. It can be found from Figure 4 that the internal forces in the beams of
differentstoriesarenotevenlydevelopedwhenconsideringtheinteractionofdifferentstories.Iftheremovedcolumnislocatedonthe
jth storey, the internal forces in the beam on the (j+1)th storey rapidly convert from compression to tension (700 mm ~ 900 mm).
However,suchtransformationofinternalforcesisdelayedslightly(800mm~1000mm)onthe(j+2)thstoreybutsignificantly(800
mm~1200mm)onthe(j+3)thstorey.Therefore,thecatenaryactionofthebeamscannotbefullydeveloped at the same time.The
http://www.luxinzheng.net/publication7/2016ASEProgressive_Collapse_Different_Stories.htm

6/13

5/28/2016 Numericalinvestigationofprogressivecollapseresistanceofreinforcedconcreteframessubjecttocolumnremovalsfromdifferentstories,Advancesin

lower the storey on which the column is removed, the smaller resistance of the catenary action will be provided at the same
deformation,duetothedelayofthetransformationofinternalforcesinupperstoreybeams.
4.4Structuralvulnerabilityduetouneveninternalforcedevelopment
Regardingthetheoreticalmodelsintheexistingcodes(GSA,2003DoD,2010),e.g.thecatenarymodelinthetieforcemethod,
developmentoftheinternalforceinstructuralmembersisassumedtobeevenfromdifferentstorieswhenresistingprogressivecollapse.
Basedonthishypothesis,eachfloorsystemisconsideredtoindependentlycarrythecollapseloadactingonthecorrespondingfloor,and
inturn,thewholesubstructurewillsuccessfullyresistthetotalcollapseload,asshowninFigure6.However,asdiscussedinSection4.2
and Section 4.3, the internal force development amongdifferentstoriesisuneven in the frame system. More specifically, the forces
developedinthelowerstoreybeamsarelargerthanthoseintheupperstories.Hence,thelowerstoreybeamswillbedamagedpriorto
theothers.Afterthat,thesamemechanismwillbeappliedtotheremainingupperstoreybeams,andinturn,theyfailsuccessivelyfrom
onestoreytotheother.Asimilarmechanismalsopresentsinthe Vierendeelactionoftheframebeams.Hence,thecombinedactionof
themultistoreyfloorsmayreducetheprogressivecollapseresistanceofRCframes.

Figure6Structuralvulnerabilityduetouneveninternalforcedevelopment

5.EffectofSeismicDesignonProgressiveCollapseResistance
5.1Resistanceunderthebeammechanism
TheeffectofseismicdesignonprogressivecollapseresistanceisexaminedthroughModelB,designedforahighseismicintensity
region.Figure7showstheresistancecurvesforthismodelobtainedaftertheremovalofthetypicalcolumnsfromeachstorey.Itcanbe
found that in contrast to ModelA, for which the seismic design intensity is lower, the relative resistance of Model B in the beam
mechanismstageincreasessignificantlyatvariouslocationsfromthetoptothebottomstories(Figure7).Thisdifferenceisbecause,for
RC frames designed with high seismic design intensity, earthquake action is dominant in the design. The beam reinforcement is
governedbythehorizontalearthquakeactionthereforetheamountofaseismicreinforcementgraduallyincreasesfrom the top to the
bottomstories.Thisincreasedamountismainlylocatedinthebeamendstherebysignificantlyimprovingtheflexuralcapacityofthe
beam.This in turn increases the progressive collapse resistance of the RC frame underthebeammechanism.Figure8comparesthe
resistance curves of the model for two different column removal scenarios from the top and the bottom stories. It is evident that a
strongerseismicdesignimprovestheprogressivecollapseresistanceofthebottomfloorsmorethanthetoponesbecausetheincreasein
theamountofseismicreinforcementonthebottomstoriesismuchlarger.

(a)Shortedgearea

(b)Longedgearea

(c)Cornerarea
(d)Interiorarea
Figure7ProgressivecollapseresistancecurvesforModelB
5.2Resistanceunderthecatenarymechanism
Continuousreinforcementinthebeamcreatesanaxialtensionunderthecatenarymechanism.Thusmidspanreinforcementisthe
http://www.luxinzheng.net/publication7/2016ASEProgressive_Collapse_Different_Stories.htm

7/13

5/28/2016 Numericalinvestigationofprogressivecollapseresistanceofreinforcedconcreteframessubjecttocolumnremovalsfromdifferentstories,Advancesin

key factor influencing the progressive collapse resistance of RC frames under the catenary mechanism. Seismic design primarily
increasestheamountofbendingreinforcementatthebeamends,whereassuchanincreaseatthemidspanisfarless.FortheRCframes
presentedinthisstudy,theamountofmidspanreinforcementforModelBincreasesslightlyonthetopstoreyascomparedtoModelA.
Inaddition,theincreaseintheaxialstrengthofthetopstoreybeamisalsoverylimited.Therefore,forthetopstoreycolumnremoval
scenario,theprogressivecollapseresistanceofthesetwomodelsisbasicallythesameunderthecatenarymechanism(seeFigure8).For
thebottomframebeams, on the other hand, the amount of midspan reinforcement increases noticeably, and thereforetheresistance
clearlyincreasesforModelBunderthecatenarymechanism(seeFigure8).However,suchanincreaseisstilllesssignificantthanthat
under the beam mechanism, as shown in Figure 8. Considering delayed development of the catenary mechanism when multistorey
beamsworktogether,theinteractionoftheaboveaspectsleadstosuchachangeintheprogressivecollapseresistanceduetostronger
seismicdesignbeinglessobviousunderthecatenarymechanism.ThisisillustratedinFigure7forModelB.

(a)Shortedgearea

(b)Longedgearea

(c)Cornerarea

(d)Interiorarea

Figure8ComparisonbetweentheprogressivecollapseresistancesofModelAandModelB

6.AssessmentofTheDesignParametersinTheExistingCodesandValidationofTheCollapseResistanceofRCFrames
TheprogressivecollapseresistanceofRCframescanbeevaluatedviaanonlinearstaticpushdownanalysis.Giventhatthecollapse
processexhibitsastrongdynamiceffect,amaximumstructuralresistancethatislargerthanthedesignverticalloadmustbeattainedin
ordertopreventprogressivecollapsefromhappening.Inotherwords,themaximumrelativeresistanceqmax/gmustbelargerthan1.0.
Basedonthisconsideration,theresistanceoftheRCframesisfurthervalidatedusingthenonlineardynamicalternativeloadpath
method(DoD,2010Lietal.,2011).
Forthetwomodels,Figure9presentsthemaximumrelativeresistanceqmax/gversustheductilityratioforatotalof32column
removalscenarios.Fortheportionoftheframesundergoinglargedeformations,isdefinedastheratioofthejointdisplacement
correspondingtothemaximumrelativeresistancetotheyielddisplacement(PujolandSmithPardo,2009Tsai,2010).Theexpression
qmax/greferstoasthepeakvalueofeachresistancecurvepresentedinFigures3and7.InFigure9,thehollowandsolidmarksdemote
collapseandnoncollapsescenarios,respectively,basedontheoutcomeofthenonlineardynamicalternativeloadpathanalysis.Itis
evidentthatacollapsecanbepreventedwhenqmax/goftheRCframesislargerthan1.236.Inaddition,theminimumvaluesofqmax/g
topreventcollapseforthecorner,shortedge,longedgeandinternalcolumnremovalscenariosare1.296,1.327,1.236and1.280,
respectively.ThefactorsfordifferentcolumnremovalscenariosareveryclosebecausetheductilityratiosofRCbeamsdesignedbythe
Chinesecodes(MOHURD,2010a2010b)aresimilar(varyingfrom3to4).Thiscanalsobeconfirmedbytheexistingtheoretical

http://www.luxinzheng.net/publication7/2016ASEProgressive_Collapse_Different_Stories.htm

8/13

5/28/2016 Numericalinvestigationofprogressivecollapseresistanceofreinforcedconcreteframessubjecttocolumnremovalsfromdifferentstories,Advancesin

study(Lietal.,2014a)thatthedynamicamplificationfactor(i.e.therequiredvaluesofqmax/g,forregularRCframestructures)equals
1.33whenthestructuralductilityratioequals4.0.

Figure9Designparametersintheexistingcodes
Tofacilitatepracticaldesigns,thelinearstaticandnonlinearstaticmethodsarerecommendedbytheexistingcodesasthesimplified
approachestocalculatetheprogressivecollapseresistance.Inthesemethods,theresistancedirectlyobtainedfromthelinearstaticand
nonlinearstaticanalyses,whichisequivalenttotheappliedverticalloadginthisstudy,isfurthercorrectedusingthedynamic
amplificationfactor(DAF)andthedemandcapacityratio(DCR),respectively,toaccountforthedynamicandnonlineareffects.Inthe
GSAguideline(GSA,2003),therequiredequivalentvaluesofqmax/g,i.e.DAF/DCR,are1.0and1.33,respectively,fortypicaland
atypicalstructuralconfigurations(seeFigure9).TheanalysisresultspresentedinFigure9demonstratethattheGSArequirementfor
atypicalstructuresisadequatelymetwhilstthatfortypicalstructurescannotbemetwhichwouldleadtounsafedesigns.Thisisbecause
thedynamiceffectisconsistentlyneglected(qmax/g=1).
IntheDoD2005guideline(DoD,2005),aDAFof2.0,consideringthenonlineareffect,isusedforthelinearandnonlinearstatic
analysesinwhichtherequiredequivalentvalueofqmax/gisalso2.0.ThevalidationshowninFigure9demonstratesthatthedesign
parameterisoverconservativebecausethestructuressatisfyingsuchrequirementwillexhibitelasticbehaviorafterthecolumnremoval.
IntheDoD2010guideline(DoD,2005),differentvaluesofDAFsaregivenforthelinearandnonlinearstaticanalyses.Anexpression
oftheDAFfornonlinearstaticanalysesisregulatedbyEq.(1)whichispresentedbythesolidlineinFigure9.

(1)

ItcanbeseenthattheGSA2003requirementishigherthanthatfortypicalstructuresbutisstillunsafefortheRCframesdiscussed
herein.ModelAandModelBwillcollapseunderthreeandtwocolumnremovalscenarios,respectively.ThisisbecauseEq.(1)is
obtainedfromthenumericalanalysesoftypicalplanar3storeyand10storeyframes,fromwhichtheresultscannotaccuratelydescribe
thenonlineardynamiceffectofalltypesofframebuildings(Marchandetal.,2009).
Ontheotherhand,twoDAFsareregulatedforlinearstaticanalysesintheDoD2010guideline.TheforcecontrolledDAFis2.0for
fragilestructures(i.e.=1).Althoughrational,thisDAFisonlysuitablefortheelasticresponsewhennostructuralductilitycanbe
considered.ThedeformationcontrolledDAF,ontheotherhand,ismuchlargerthan2.0.Thisisbecauseitisobtainedbasedonthe
equaldeformationdemandinwhichthesamedeformationisappliedtotheRCframesinbothlinearstaticanddynamicanalyses
(Marchandetal.,2009).Thisishowevernotthefocusofthisstudyinwhichthenonlinearstaticmethodisusedandtheequal
deformationdemandisnotrequired.
7.DiscussionandConcludingRemarks

http://www.luxinzheng.net/publication7/2016ASEProgressive_Collapse_Different_Stories.htm

9/13

5/28/2016 Numericalinvestigationofprogressivecollapseresistanceofreinforcedconcreteframessubjecttocolumnremovalsfromdifferentstories,Advancesin

Inthisstudy,theprogressivecollapsebehaviorofanRCframewithtwodifferentseismicdesignintensitiesisanalyzedusingthe
nonlinearstaticpushdownmethod.Thefollowingconclusionsaredrawnandrecommendationsforfutureseismicdesignsagainst
progressivecollapsearegiven:
(1)Vierendeelactionleadstouneveninternalforcesinthebeamsofdifferentstories.Thismayresultinthebeamsfailsuccessively
fromonefloortotheotherinaframesystem,whichdiffersfromthetheoreticalassumptioninthatthebeamsaredamaged
simultaneouslyondifferentfloors.Thisactionalsoweakensthecompressivearchmechanismofthebeams,andthereforereducesthe
relativecollapseresistanceofRCframesunderthebeammechanism.Thisisparticularlytrueforframeswithmorestories.Inviewof
this,consideringonlythepureflexuralstrengthofthebeamsunderthebeammechanismisaconservativeandrationalapproachfor
designpurposes.Furthermore,thecatenaryactionistheprototypemodelofthetieforcemethodinexistingdesigncodesandisassumed
tobeabletodevelopfullyonallstories.However,Vierendeelactiondelaysthecatenaryactiononupperstoriestherebyreducingthe
progressivecollapseresistance.Neglectingthiseffectwillresultininsufficientresistancetopreventprogressivecollapse.Hence,this
phenomenonisrecommendedtobeconsideredinfutureimprovementofthetieforcemethod.
(2)SeismicdesignsignificantlyenhancestheprogressivecollapseresistanceofRCframesunderthebeammechanism.However,such
enhancementisnotassignificantunderthecatenarymechanism.Thisisbecausetheaxialtensionofthecatenarymechanismis
providedbycontinuousreinforcementinthebeam.Seismicdesignconsiderationsignificantlyincreasesthereinforcementamountinthe
beamendshoweversuchanincreaseatthemidspanissmall.Hence,itissuggestedthattheprogressivecollapseresistancecanbe
improvedbyextendingandconnectingaportionoftheseismicreinforcementwhichisprovenveryeffectiveandeconomicalforRC
framesconstructedintheseismicareas.Inaddition,seismicdesignsignificantlyenhancestheprogressivecollapseresistanceofthe
bottomstories.However,suchenhancementislimitedforthetopstories.Thus,thetopstoriesmaybecometheweakestlocationin
progressivecollapsedesigns.Thisisaveryimportantandusefulfinding,becausemoreattentionispaidtothebottomstoriesofa
structureintheexistingdesignspecifications.Itisthereforerecommendedtospecificallyexaminetheprogressivecollapseresistanceof
thetopstoriesofRCframestoensureasafedesignoftheentirestructure.
(3)BasedontheRCframespresentedinthisstudy,thevalidationdemonstratesthattheGSAsimplifiedstaticmethodforatypical
structuresprovidesadequateresistancetopreventprogressivecollapsewhereasthatfortypicalstructuresisinadequateduetothe
absenceofdynamiceffectswhichwouldresultinunsafedesigns.Furthermore,thenonlinearstaticanalysisspecifiedinDoD2010also
leadstounsafedesignsfortheRCframesconcernedandfurtherinvestigationsinthisareaareneeded.
Acknowledgement
TheauthorsaregratefulforthefinancialsupportreceivedfromtheNationalBasicResearchProgramofChina(No.2012CB719703),
theNationalScienceFoundationofChina(No.51578018,51208011)andtheAustralianResearchCouncilthroughanARCDiscovery
Project(DP150100606).
References
Alashker, Y., ElTawil, S. and Sadek, F. (2010). Progressive collapse resistance of steelconcrete composite floors, Journal of Structural
Engineering,ASCE,Vol.136,No.10,pp.11871196.
AmericanSocietyofCivilEngineers(ASCE)(2005).MinimumDesignLoadsforBuildingsandOtherStructures,StandardASCE/SEI705,Reston.
AmericanSocietyofCivilEngineers(ASCE)(2007).SeismicRehabilitationofExistingBuildings,StandardASCE/SEI4106.Reston.
DepartmentofDefense(DoD)(2005).UnifiedFacilitiesCriteria(UFC):DesignofBuildingstoResistProgressiveCollapse.Washington(DC).
DepartmentofDefense(DoD)(2010).UnifiedFacilitiesCriteria(UFC):DesignofBuildingstoResistProgressiveCollapse.Washington(DC).
Fu, F. (2009). Progressive collapse analysis of highrise building with 3D finite element modeling method, Journal of Constructional Steel
Research,Vol.65,No.6,pp.12691278.
Galal, K. and ElSawy, T. (2010). Effect of retrofit strategies on mitigating progressive collapse of steel frame structures, Journal of

http://www.luxinzheng.net/publication7/2016ASEProgressive_Collapse_Different_Stories.htm

10/13

5/28/2016 Numericalinvestigationofprogressivecollapseresistanceofreinforcedconcreteframessubjecttocolumnremovalsfromdifferentstories,Advancesin
ConstructionalSteelResearch,Vol.66,No.4,pp.520531.
General ServiceAdministration (GSA). (2003). Progressive CollapseAnalysis and Design Guidelines for New Federal Office Buildings and Major
ModernizationProjects,Washington(DC).
Huang, Y. (2009). Simulating the inelastic seismic behavior of steel braced frames including the effects of lowcycle fatigue, PhD thesis,
UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley,Berkeley.
Huang, Z., Li, B. and Sengupta, P. (2014) Reliability assessment of damaged RC momentresisting frame against progressive collapse under
dynamicloadingconditions,AdvancesinStructuralEngineering,Vol.17,No.2,pp.211232.
InternationalOrganizationforStandardization(ISO)(1999).FireResistanceTestsElementsofBuildingConstruction, Part 1: General Requirements
(ISO834),Geneva.
Jiang, J., Li, G.Q. and Usmani, A. (2014) Progressive Collapse Mechanisms of Steel Frames Exposed to Fire, Advances in Structural
Engineering,Vol.17,No.3,pp.381398.
Jiang, Q., Lu. X.Z., Guan, H. andYe, X. (2014). Shaking table model test and FE analysis of a reinforced concrete megaframe structure with
tunedmassdampers,TheStructuralDesignofTallandSpecialBuildings,doi:10.1002/tal.1150.
Kokot, S., Anthoine, A., Negro, P. and Solomos, G. (2012). Static and dynamic analysis of a reinforced concrete flat slab frame building for
progressivecollapse,EngineeringStructures,Vol.40,No.7,pp.205217.
Kwasniewski,J.(2010).Nonlineardynamicsimulationsofprogressivecollapseforamultistorybuilding.EngineeringStructures,Vol.32,No.5,
pp.12231235.
Khandelwal,K.andElTawil,S.(2008).Assessmentofprogressivecollapseresidualcapacityusingpushdownanalysis,Proceedingsofthe2008
ASCEStructuresCongress,ASCE.
Khandelwal, K., ElTawil, S. and Sadek, F. (2009). Progressive collapse analysis of seismically designed steel braced frames, Journal of
ConstructionalSteelResearch,Vol.65,No.3,pp.699708.
Kim,T.,Kim,J.andPark,J.(2009).Investigationofprogressivecollapseresistingcapabilityofsteelmomentframesusingpushdownanalysis,
JournalofPerformanceofConstructedFacilities,ASCE.Vol.23,No.9,pp.327335.
Kim,J.,Park,J.andLee,T.(2011).Sensitivityanalysisofsteelbuildingssubjectedtocolumnloss,EngineeringStructures, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp.
421432.
Luccioni,B.M.,Ambrosini,R.D.andDanesi,R.F.(2004).Analysisofbuildingcollapseunderblastloads,Engineering Structures, Vol. 26, No.
1,pp.6371.
Lu,X.,Lu,X.Z.,Guan,H.andYe,L.P.(2013).Collapsesimulationofreinforcedconcretehighrisebuilding induced by extreme earthquakes,
EarthquakeEngineering&StructuralDynamics,Vol.42,No.5,pp.705723.
Li,Y., Lu, X.Z., Guan, H. andYe, L.P. (2011). An improved tie force method for progressive collapse resistance design of reinforced concrete
framestructures,EngineeringStructures,Vol.33,No.10,pp.29312942.
Li, Y., Lu, X.Z., Guan, H. and Ye, L.P. (2014a). An energybased assessment on dynamic amplification factor for linear static analysis in
progressivecollapsedesignofductileRCframestructures,AdvancesinStructuralEngineering,Vol.17,No.8,pp.12171225.
Li, Y., Lu, X.Z., Guan, H. and Ye, L.P. (2014b). Progressive collapse resistance demand of RC frames under catenary mechanism, ACI
StructuralJournal,Vol.111,No.5,pp.12251234.
Matthews, T., Elwood, K.J. and Hwang, S. (2007). Explosive testing to evaluate dynamic amplification during gravity load redistribution for
reinforcedconcreteframes,Proceedingsofthe2007ASCEStructuresCongress,ASCE.
Marchand, K.A., McKay,A.E. and Stevens, D.J. (2009). Development and application of linear and nonlinear static approaches in UFC 4023
03,Proceedingsofthe2009ASCEStructuresCongress,ASCE.
Pujol,S.andSmithPardo,J.P.(2009).Anewperspective ontheeffectsofabruptcolumnremoval,EngineeringStructures,Vol. 31, No. 4, pp.
869874.
Qian,K.andLi,B.(2012a).Slabeffectsontheresponseofreinforcedconcretesubstructuresafterthelossofacornercolumn,ACI Structural
Jouranl,Vol.109,No.6,pp.845855.
Qian, K. and Li, B. (2012b). Dynamic performance of RC beamcolumn substructures under the scenario of the loss of a corner column
Experimentalresults,EngineeringStructures,Vol.34,No.9,pp.154167.
Rahai, A., Asghshahr, M.S., Banazedeh, M. and Kazem, H. (2013) Progressive collapse assessment of RC structures under instantaneous and

http://www.luxinzheng.net/publication7/2016ASEProgressive_Collapse_Different_Stories.htm

11/13

5/28/2016 Numericalinvestigationofprogressivecollapseresistanceofreinforcedconcreteframessubjecttocolumnremovalsfromdifferentstories,Advancesin
gradualremovalofcolumns,AdvancesinStructuralEngineering,Vol.16,No.10,pp.16711682.
Ren,P.Q.,Li,Y.,Guan,H.andLu,X.Z.(2014).ProgressivecollapseresistanceoftwotypicalhighriseRCframeshearwallstructures, Journal
ofPerformanceofConstructedFacilities,ASCE.doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CF.19435509.0000593
Sadek,F.,Main,J.A.,Lew,H.S.andBao,Y.(2011).Testingandanalysisofsteelandconcretebeamcolumnassembliesunderacolumnremoval
scenario,JournalofStructuralEngineering,ASCE.Vol.137,No.9,pp.881892.
Sasani, M., Bazan, M. and Sagiroglu, S. (2007). Experimental and analytical progressive collapse evaluation of actual reinforced concrete
structure,ACIStructuralJouranl,Vol.104,No.6,pp.731739.
Sasani, M. and Sagiroglu, S. (2010). Gravity load redistribution and progressive collapse resistance of 20story reinforced concrete structure
followinglossofinteriorcolumn,ACIStructuralJouranl,Vol.107,No.6,pp.636644.
Sasani, M., Kazemi,A., Sagiroglu, S. and Forest, S. (2011). Progressive collapse resistance of an actual 11story structure subjected to severe
initialdamage,JournalofStructuralEngineering,ASCE.Vol.137,No.9,pp.893902.
Starossek,U.(2007).Typologyofprogressivecollapse,EngineeringStructures,Vol.29,No.9,pp.23022307.
Song, B.I. and Sezen, H. (2009). Evaluation of an existing steel frame building against progressive collapse, Proceedings of the 2009 ASCE
StructuresCongress,ASCE.
Su,Y.,Tian,T.andSong,X.(2009).Progressivecollapseresistanceofaxiallyrestrainedframebeams,ACIStructuralJouranl,Vol.106, No. 5,
pp.600607.
The Ministry of Housing and UrbanRural Development of the Peoples Republic of China (MOHURD). (2010a). Code for Design of Concrete
Structures,GB500102010,Beijing.
The Ministry of Housing and UrbanRural Development of the Peoples Republic of China (MOHURD). (2010b). Code for Seismic Design of
Buildings,GB500112010,Beijing.
Tsai, M.H. (2010). An analytical methodology for the dynamic amplification factor in progressive collapse evaluation of building structures,
MechanicsResearchCommunications,Vol.37,No.1,pp.6166.
Vamvatsikos, D. and Cornell, C.A. (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp.
491514.
Yap, S.L. and Li, B. (2011). Experimental investigation of reinforced concrete exterior beamcolumn subassemblages for progressive collapse,
ACIStructuralJouranl,Vol.108,No.5,pp.542552.
Yi,W.J., He, Q.F., Xiao,Y. and Kunnath, S.K. (2008).Experimentalstudyonprogressivecollapseresistantbehaviorof reinforced concrete

framestructures,ACIStructuralJouranl,Vol.105,No.4,pp.433439.
Yi,W.J., Kunnath, S.K.,Zhang,F.Z.andXiao,Y.(2011).Largescale experimental evalua on of building system responseto sudden column

removal.Proceedingsofthe2011ASCEStructuresCongress

ListofTables
Table1.ParametersofthestructuralmembersintheRCframe
Table2.DesignloadsandactionontheRCframe
ListofFigures
Figure1.PlanviewoftheRCframe
Figure2.LoadpatternforpushdownanalysisoftheRCframes
Figure3.ProgressivecollapseresistancecurvesforModelA
Figure4.Combinedactionofbeamsondifferentstories(beamL1)
Figure5.Combinedactionofbeamsondifferentstories(beamL2)
Figure6.Structuralvulnerabilityduetouneveninternalforcedevelopment

http://www.luxinzheng.net/publication7/2016ASEProgressive_Collapse_Different_Stories.htm

12/13

5/28/2016 Numericalinvestigationofprogressivecollapseresistanceofreinforcedconcreteframessubjecttocolumnremovalsfromdifferentstories,Advancesin

Figure7.ProgressivecollapseresistancecurvesforModelB
Figure8.ComparisonbetweentheprogressivecollapseresistanceofModelAandModelB
Figure9.Designparametersintheexistingcodes

Correspondingauthor,Email:Luxz@tsinghua.edu.cn,Phone(Fax):+861062795364
Introduction

Research

Application

Teaching

Publications

Download

Issues

Others

Followingareadvertisements

Google

CustomSearch

http://www.luxinzheng.net/publication7/2016ASEProgressive_Collapse_Different_Stories.htm

13/13