Progressive Collapse Analysis of Steel Braced Frames

Arash Naji1 and Mohamad Khodaverdi Zadeh2

Abstract: This paper studies the behavior of concentrically braced frames (CBFs) and eccentrically braced frames (EBFs) under a progres-
sive collapse scenario, by using the alternate load path method, recommended in progressive collapse guidelines. The model structure is a
10-story steel moment frame with five bays in each direction. The present study has investigated the CBF with two types of failure scenarios,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Louisiana Dept Trans & Dev on 06/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

each of which examines the effects of reducing the brace’s sections, and the EBF, including three types of failure scenarios, each of which
investigates the effects of link beam length on structural capacity. Failure scenarios include the sudden removal of a column with one or more
adjacent braces on the ground floor, which, for simplicity, is examined in a two-dimensional form in a perimeter bay of the building. The abil-
ity of the structure to absorb and withstand extra load after the sudden removal of the members in each of the states is examined, and their
capacity and ductility are compared. According to the results, both EBF and CBF systems can withstand the progressive collapse.
Moreover, in the CBF system, while the cross sections of braces decrease, the ductility of the CBF structure increases. DOI: 10.1061/
(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000414. © 2019 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Progressive collapse; Concentrically braced frames; Eccentrically braced frames; Capacity curves.

Introduction
The steel braced frame is one of the most popular structural systems
in high-rises and important buildings. The steel braced frame is
known as a seismic system with acceptable resistance and ductility
that is used in high seismic zone hazards.
During service life, buildings may face local damages that are
due to natural disasters (earthquakes, winds) or human mistakes,
including accidents, explosions, and terrorist attacks, which are not
considered in a routine design. Progressive collapse is the result of
these local damages.
Since the collapse of the World Trade Center towers in
2001 (NIST 2005), extensive studies, by means of experimental
approaches (Yi et al. 2008; Sasani and Sagiroglu 2008; Chen et al.
2012a) and numerical studies, (Khandelwal et al. 2009; Kim and
Kim 2009) have been conducted to investigate the progressive col-
lapse resistance of the steel frame building structure.
There are two types of brace system models: the concentrically
braced frame (CBF) presented in Fig. 1(a) and the eccentrically
braced frame (EBF) presented in Fig. 1(b). The former dissipates
energy by using the inelastic behavior of braces passing the yielding
stress limit, while the latter dissipates the energy through the inelas-
tic behavior of the link beam.
Many studies have been carried out on the performance of EBF
and CBF systems against lateral loads and gravity loads. In addi-
tion, some studies have been conducted on the progressive collapse
analysis of braced frames by removing a column or a brace. In this
paper, the progressive collapse behavior of steel braced frames is
investigated for different member-removal scenarios. Moreover,
the effect of reducing the cross section area of braces on structural
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Sadjad Univ. of
Technology, Mashhad, Iran (corresponding author). Email: a_naji@sadjad.ac.ir
2
Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Sadjad Univ. of
Technology, Mashhad, Iran. Email: m.khodaverdizadeh121@sadjad.ac.ir
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 6, 2018; approved on
October 24, 2018; published online on January 30, 2019. Discussion pe-
riod open until June 30, 2019; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Practice Periodical on
Structural Design and Construction, © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0680.
resistance is studied. In addition, the effect of the link beam length
on EBF resistance is investigated.
Related Works
Since the collapse of the World Trade Center, much research has
been done regarding the progressive collapse resistance of steel
moment frames (Kim and Kim 2009; Kim and An 2009; Xu and
Ellingwood 2011; Naji and Irani 2012; Naji 2018a), RC frames (Yi
et al. 2008; Sasani and Kropelnicki 2008; Asprone et al. 2010; Naji
2016; Naji and Rohani 2017; Naji 2018b), and truss structures
(Murtha-Smith 1988; Blandford 1996; Miyachi et al. 2012; Naji
2017). However, according to subsequent papers, little research has
been conducted on braced frames.
Asgarian and Rezvani (2012) investigated the effects of progres-
sive collapse on two types of CBF using the EPCA algorithm.
According to their results, the building with two braced bays has
better resistance against progressive collapse than a building with
three braced bays.
Khandelwal et al. (2009) modeled a 10-story steel frame with
two types of CBFs and EBFs by macroelements. The progressive
collapse analysis of this structure had good agreement with finite
element models.
Chen et al. (2012b) suggested retrofitting a steel moment frame
against progressive collapse with horizontal bracing. It was observed
that the horizontal braces could transfer the vertical loads originally
carried by the removed column to the adjacent columns.
Sun et al. (2012) investigated different fire condition effects on
the progressive collapse of 20 braced steel frame structures, using
static and dynamic procedures with different bracing systems and
analyzing the influences of stiffness and strength of bracing sys-
tems. The results show that the pull-in of columns is one of the sig-
nificant factors that develops progressive collapse, and horizontal
“hat truss” bracing systems increase resistance capacity of struc-
tures in order to reduce progressive collapse caused by the missing
column due to exposure to fire at the heated floor.
Faghihmaleki et al. (2017) investigated the progressive collapse
resistance of steel moment frames with various brace systems. In
this research, the buildings’ potential and capacity for seismic

© ASCE 04019004-1 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(2): 04019004

 progressive collapse as well as their damage modes were deter-
mined via incremental dynamic analysis (IDA). Therefore, the anal-
ysis can find the most probable damage modes for improvement
goals, which in turn lead to structures with higher reliability in seis-
mic regions.
Salmasi and Sheidaii (2017) showed that dual steel moment
frames equipped with eccentric bracings generally exhibited desira-
ble strength against progressive collapse. A change in the type of
bracing resulted in significant changes in the system capacity in the
progressive collapse.
Ebrahimi et al. (2018) studied progressive collapse related to
structures with relatively large spans. The two strengthening meth-
ods of braces and cables were employed by the removal of the col-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Louisiana Dept Trans & Dev on 06/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
umn. The results of the study indicate that the use of cables and bra-
ces can significantly reduce the displacement of the node over the
column by using an alternative load path (ALP) method.
Research Significance
As discussed in the previous section, few studies had been carried
out on the progressive collapse resistance of steel braced frames,
especially the effect of the increase in the area of brace cross section
and length of link beams on progressive collapse resistance.
In this regard, 10-story braced moment resisting frames, ana-
lyzed by Khandelwal et al. (2009), are studied in this paper. For
CBF, the effects of reduced bracing sections, and for EBF, the
effects of changes in the length of the shear link beam on progres-
sive collapse resistance is investigated.
Model Validation
To study the progressive collapse resistance of steel braced frames,
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) designed
two 10-story office buildings. The CBF system was designed for
seismic design category C, while the EBF system was designed for
seismic design category D. The latter addresses high seismic risk,
while the former represents the moderate seismic risk. Khandelwal
et al. (2009) selected the east–west frames in Fig. 1 for a collapse
study of the buildings, and their plan views are presented in Fig. 2.
In their study, seven types of member-removal scenarios were con-
sidered for column and column–brace, and the displacement of the
upper points of the removed members was calculated.
For typical floors, the dead load consists of the self-weight of the
slab of 2,202 N/m2 and a superimposed dead load of 1,436 N/m2;
while the design live load is assumed to be 4,788 N/m2. For the
roof, the self-weight of the slab is 2,202 N/m2, the superimposed
dead load is 479 N/m2, and the design live load is 958 N/m2.
Columns and beams are A992-type with a yielding stress of
317 MPa, and braces are A500-type with a yielding stress of
345 MPa.
This prototype structure is modeled in SAP 2000 for further
analysis. To ensure the accuracy of the developed model, extensive
validation studies have been conducted by comparing model
responses to responses from Khandelwal et al. (2009).
In this regard, four member-removal scenarios have been
selected and analyzed through a nonlinear dynamic procedure.
These scenarios are specified in General Service Administration
(2003). To consider material nonlinearity, plastic hinges are
assigned at both ends of all beams and columns. Axial plastic hinges
are used at the middle of braces as well. Table 1 compares the
member-removed point displacement obtained in Khandelwal et al.
(2009) and the model structure in this paper. The results are in good
© ASCE 04019004-2
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(2): 04019004
agreement with each other. It should be noted that according to the
General Service Administration (2003), the displacements are cal-
culated based on the load combination.
ðDL þ 0:25 LLÞ (1)
where DL is dead load and LL is live load applied to the structure.
Methodology
In the present study, the ALP method has been used to evaluate the
potential of progressive collapse, and one of its advantages is that
the results of the initial load (the primary factor of the failure of the
members) act independently; therefore, this method is stable for any
kind of hazard that leads to the removal of the member. For the ALP
method, the removal of a main member of the structure releases the
stored energy in the collapsed member and creates an overload on
other structural members. Also, it causes a change in the load trans-
mission paths. The ALP method is performed to evaluate the poten-
tial for progressive destruction by removing one or more bearing
structure elements (which introduces the initiator of damage), and
the rest of the structure is analyzed to see if the structure can bridge
over the collapse.
The research method is a nonlinear dynamical method (using
plastic hinges), in which the loading is applied dynamically, and the
ALP method is performed as a nonlinear analysis method using the
SAP 2000 software.
For capacity curve generation, for example, 5% of gravity loads,
that is, 0.05(DL þ 0.25LL) (load factor = 0.05), is applied to the
undamaged structure, and internal loads of the intended column are
calculated. Then, according to Fig. 3, these internal forces are sub-
stituted for the intended column, an incremental dynamic analysis is
performed, and the column removed-point displacement is calcu-
lated. Then, 10% of the gravity loads, that is, 0.1(DL þ 0.25LL)
(load factor = 0.1), is applied and the displacement is calculated.
Finally, after several increasing loads, the resistance of the structure
is obtained by plotting the load-displacement curve. This method is
time consuming in such a way that to investigate the effects of one
column removal, several nonlinear analyses should be performed;
however, it is the most accurate method.
The CBF system is modeled with two types of member-removal
scenarios for progressive collapse analysis, both of which are listed
in Table 2. Also, in each of these scenarios, the cross section areas
of the braces decreased three times, in such a way that the radius of
gyration of the section did not change significantly. The analyzed
sections are presented in Table 3.
The EBF system is modeled with three types of member-
removal scenarios for progressive collapse analysis. These three
types of removal scenarios are presented in Table 2. For each of
these member-removal scenarios, three types of link beams
(moment link, shear link, and moment-shear link beams) were also
investigated.
To consider the length of the link beam, e, the plastic moment
and shear of the cross section of beams that the braces are connected
to should be calculated according to Eqs. (2) and (3).
Mp ¼ Zfy (2)
Vp ¼ 0:55 fy dtw (3)
where Z, d, and tw = plastic modulus, depth, and thickness of the
web of beam section; and fy = yield stress of steel.
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Louisiana Dept Trans & Dev on 06/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Model structures: (a) concentrically braced frames; and (b) eccentrically braced frames. [Reprinted from Journal of Constructional Steel
Research, Vol. 65(3), K. Khandelwal, S. El-Tawil, and F. Sadek, “Progressive Collapse Analysis of Seismically Designed Steel Braced Frames,” pp.
699–708, © 2009, with permission from Elsevier.]

© ASCE 04019004-3 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(2): 04019004

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Louisiana Dept Trans & Dev on 06/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Structures plans: (a) concentrically braced model; and (b) eccentrically braced model.

© ASCE 04019004-4 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(2): 04019004

 Table 1. The values of displacement of member-removed point

Cross section area reduction 3

HSS- 5  1 2  51 2  0.188
HSS- 4  2  4 2  0.188
Khandelwal et al. Model structure
Removed members (2009) (cm) (cm)

HSS- 6  6 03250 

HSS- 7  7  0.250

1
Column B-1, Brace A 3.2 3.321
Column B-1, Braces A and B 5.2 4.371

1
Column B-1, Brace A 4 4.581
Column B-1, Braces A and B 4.9 4.792
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Louisiana Dept Trans & Dev on 06/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Cross section area reduction 2

HSS- 5  1 2  51 2  0.250

HSS- 4  1 2  41 2  0.250
HSS- 6  6 0.313
HSS- 7  7  0.313
Fig. 3. Applying loads for nonlinear dynamic analysis.

Table 2. Member-removal scenarios

Type of Removal
Removed members frame brace case number

HSS- 51 2 5 1 2  0.313

Cross section area reduction 1

HSS- 4 2  4 2  0.313
Column B-1, Brace A CBF 1

HSS- 7  7  0.375
 6  6  0.375
Column B-1, Braces A and B CBF 2
Column B-1, Brace A EBF 3


Column B-1, Braces A and B EBF 4

1
Column C-1, Braces B And C EBF 5
HSS-

If e  2:6Mp =Vp , the link beam acts as a moment link, and

moment plastic hinges are assigned at both ends of the link beam. If
e ≤ 1:6Mp =Vp , the link beam acts as a shear link, and shear plastic
hinges are assigned at both ends of the link beam. If 2:6Mp =Vp ≤
e ≤ 1:6Mp =Vp , the link beam acts as a shear-moment link, and both
moment and shear plastic hinges are assigned at the link beam ends.
Sections without cross section area reduction

According to the cross section of beam, the values of 1, 1.5, and

2.1 m are selected as the lengths of the link beam to represent
HSS- 51 2  51 2  0.375
HSS- 41 2  41 2  0.375

moment, shear, and shear-moment link, respectively.

HSS- 7  7  0.500
HSS-6  6  0.500

Results

Using the capacity curve, which includes the force applied to the
structure and the displacement of the structure, the ultimate dis-
placement and ultimate resistance of the structure are obtained. The
increase in the load factor continues until the dynamic analysis does
Table 3. Reduced sections of the CBF model

not converge, or, in other words, the collapse is so advanced that the
structure cannot balance internal and external forces. As mentioned
Note: HSS = hollow structural section.

in the previous section, the load factor is the ratio of the value of
applied load to the value of gravity load calculated by DL þ 0.25LL.
In each of these models, the first starting point of the nonlinear
state in the diagram corresponds to the load factor that the first plas-
Ground floor and 1st floor

tic hinge in the structure is created, and then by increasing the load
factor coefficient of loading, more hinges are created in the struc-
ture, which, by mapping the maximum displacement corresponding
6th and 7th floors
8th and 9th floors
2nd to 5th floors

to each load factor, the curve of the structural capacity under gravity
loads is plotted.
Location

The capacity curve for each structural model is plotted using the
displacement of the top of the removed member. The reason for
using this point is its criticality in progressive collapse analysis.

© ASCE 04019004-5 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(2): 04019004

 Concentrically Braced Frame Models
Figs. 4 and 5 demonstrate capacity curves for Type 1 (removal of
Column B-1 and Brace A), and Type 2 (removal of Column B-1
and Braces A and B), respectively.
According to Figs. 4 and 5, in all cases, the load factor is greater
than unity, and the structure can prevent progressive collapse.
Moreover, decreasing the cross section area of the braces leads to a
decrease in stiffness as well as a decrease in resistance of the struc-
ture. Nonetheless, the displacement demand and ductility are
increased. This phenomenon is more severe for the removal of a
column and two braces (Fig. 5).
Another important factor is the area under capacity curves.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Louisiana Dept Trans & Dev on 06/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
cross section area of braces, the ductility of the structure
increases.
Eccentrically Braced Frame Models
Capacity curves of EBF models are presented in Figs. 6–8 for dif-
ferent link beam lengths. According to Figs. 6–8, in all cases, the
load factor is greater than unity, and the structure is capable of pre-
venting progressive collapse. Moreover, increasing the link beam
length leads to a decrease in stiffness of the structure. Nonetheless,
the displacement demand and ductility are increased. This phenom-
enon is more severe for the case of the removal of a column and two
braces (Figs. 7 and 8). The values of capacity curve areas are dem-

This area represents the energy absorbed by the structure. The
values of the areas are demonstrated in Table 4. The area under
capacity curves (energy absorption of the structure) increases as
the cross section area of braces decreases. Moreover, the ductility
factor, which is the ratio of ultimate displacement to the yield dis-
placement, increases as well. It means that by decreasing the
onstrated in Table 5. The area under capacity curves (energy
absorption of the structure) is increased, as the link beam length is
increased. Moreover, the ductility factor, which is the ratio of ulti-
mate displacement to the yield displacement, is increased as well. It
means that by increasing the link beam length, the ductility of the
structure is increased.

Fig. 4. Capacity curve of Model 1 (removal of Column B1 and Brace A).

Fig. 5. Capacity curve of Model 2 (removal of Column B1 and Braces A and B).

© ASCE 04019004-6 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(2): 04019004

 Table 4. Parameters obtained from the capacity curve

Structural capacity Ductility factor The area under the curve

CBF model Sections without dimension without dimension (N·cm/N)
1 Without reduction in cross section area 2.1 3.512 13.72
Reduction in cross section area 1 1.9 3.872 13.76
Reduction in cross section area 2 1.8 4.748 16.12
Reduction in cross section area 3 1.6 5.800 17.28
2 Without reduction in cross section area 2 3.176 12.44
Reduction in cross section area 1 1.9 3.713 12.64
Reduction in cross section area 2 1.8 4.404 13.56
Reduction in cross section area 3 1.6 6.030 18.6
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Louisiana Dept Trans & Dev on 06/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Capacity curve of Model 3 (removal of Column B1 and Brace A).

Fig. 7. Capacity curve of Model 4 (removal of Column B1 and Braces A and B).

Conclusions
The behavior of CBFs and EBFs under the progressive collapse sce-
nario is investigated. A 10-story steel moment frame designed by
NIST is analyzed for different column removal actions. In the case
of the CBF system, two types of failure scenarios are chosen to
examine the effects of reducing the brace’s sections. On the hand,
the effects of link beam length on structural capacity are investi-
gated for EBF systems. According to the results, the following con-
clusions are obtained:

© ASCE 04019004-7 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(2): 04019004

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Louisiana Dept Trans & Dev on 06/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Capacity curve of Model 5 (removal of Column C1 and Braces B and C).

Table 5. Parameters obtained from the capacity curve Asprone, D., F. Jalayer, A. Prota, and G. Manfredi. 2010. “Proposal of a
probabilistic model for multi-hazard risk assessment of structures in
Structural seismic zones subjected to blast for the limit state of collapse.”
capacity Ductility The area under Struct. Saf. 32 (1): 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2009.04
EBF Link beam without factor without the curve .002.
model length (m) dimension dimension (N·cm/N) Blandford, G. E. 1996. “Progressive failure analysis of inelastic space truss
3 1 1.7 1.461 8.05 structures.” Comput. Struct. 58 (5): 981–990. https://doi.org/10.1016
1.5 2.2 4.802 63.36 /0045-7949(95)00217-5.
2.1 1.9 7.716 92.159 Chen, J., X. Huang, R. Ma, and M. He. 2012a. “Experimental study on
the progressive collapse resistance of a two-story steel moment
4 1 2 3.34 31.07
frame.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 26 (5): 567–575. https://doi.org/10
1.5 2.1 3.87 45.16
.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000287.
2.1 1.7 5.97 81 Chen, J., W. Peng, R. Ma, and M. He. 2012b. “Strengthening of horizontal
5 1 2.7 0.861 5.55 bracing on progressive collapse resistance of multistory steel moment
1.5 3 1.4 10.1 frame.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 26 (5): 720–724. https://doi.org/10
2.1 3.1 3.49 41.22 .1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000261.
Ebrahimi, A. H., M. Ebadi Jamkhaneh, and M. Shokri Amiri. 2018. “3D
finite-element analysis of steel moment frames including long-span
For the CBF model: entrance by strengthening steel cables and diagonal concentrically
1. The structure can prevent the progressive collapse in all column braced frames under progressive collapse.” Pract. Per. Struct. Des.
removal cases. Constr. 23 (4): 04018025. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943
2. Decreasing the cross section area of braces leads to a decrease -5576.0000388.
Faghihmaleki, H., F. Nejati, S. Zarkandy, and H. Masoumi. 2017.
in stiffness as well as a decrease in resistance of the structure.
“Evaluation of progressive collapse in steel moment frame with differ-
3. By decreasing the cross section area of the braces, the displace- ent braces.” Jordan J. Civ. Eng. 11 (2): 290–298.
ment demand and ductility increase. General Service Administration (GSA). 2003. Progressive collapse analy-
4. The area under capacity curves (energy absorption of the struc- sis and design guidelines for new federal office buildings and major
ture) and the ductility factor increase, as the cross section area modernization projects. Washington, DC: GSA.
of braces decreases. Khandelwal, K., S. El-Tawil, and F. Sadek. 2009. “Progressive collapse
For the EBF model: analysis of seismically designed steel braced frames.” J. Constr. Steel
1. The structure can prevent the progressive collapse in all column Res. 65 (3): 699–708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2008.02.007.
removal cases. Kim, J., and D. An. 2009. “Evaluation of progressive collapse potential of
2. Increasing the link beam length leads to a decrease in stiffness steel moment frames considering catenary action.” Struct. Des. Tall
Special Build. 18 (4): 455–465. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.448.
of the structure. Nonetheless, the displacement demand and
Kim, J., and T. Kim. 2009. “Assessment of progressive collapse-resisting
ductility increase. capacity of steel moment frames.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 65 (1): 169–179.
3. The area under capacity curves (energy absorption of the struc- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2008.03.020.
ture) and the ductility factor increase, as the link beam length Miyachi, K., S. Nakamura, and A. Manda. 2012. “Progressive collapse anal-
increases. ysis of steel truss bridges and evaluation of ductility.” J. Constr. Steel
Res. 78 (Nov): 192–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2012.06.015.
Murtha-Smith, E. 1988. “Alternate path analysis of space trusses for pro-
References gressive collapse.” J. Struct. Eng. 114 (9): 1978–1999. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1988)114:9(1978).
Asgarian, B., and F. H. Rezvani. 2012. “Progressive collapse analysis of Naji, A. 2016. “Modelling catenary effect in progressive collapse analysis
concentrically braced frames through EPCA algorithm.” J. Constr. Steel of concrete structures.” Struct. Concr. 17 (2): 145–151. https://doi.org
Res. 70 (Mar): 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2011.10.022. /10.1002/suco.201500065.

© ASCE 04019004-8 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(2): 04019004

 Naji, A. 2017. “Plastic limit analysis of truss structures subjected to progres-
sive collapse.” Eur. J. Eng. Res. Sci. 2 (9): 31–35. https://doi.org/10
.24018/ejers.2017.2.9.451.
Naji, A. 2018a. “Sensitivity and fragility analysis of steel moment frames
subjected to progressive collapse.” Asian J. Civ. Eng. 19 (5): 595–606.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-018-0045-0.
Naji, A. 2018b. “Improving the tie force method for progressive collapse
design of RC frames.” Int. J. Struct. Integr. 9 (4): 520–531. https://doi
.org/10.1108/IJSI-10-2017-0058.
Naji, A., and F. Irani. 2012. “Progressive collapse analysis of steel frames:
Simplified procedure and explicit expression for dynamic increase fac-
tor.” Int. J. Steel Struct. 12 (4): 537–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296
-012-4008-0.
Naji, A., and M. Rohani. 2017. “Progressive collapse analysis of reinforced
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Louisiana Dept Trans & Dev on 06/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
concrete structures: A simplified procedure.” Eur. J. Eng. Res. Sci. 2
(10): 7–12. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejers.2017.2.10.474.
NIST. 2005. “Final rep. of the national construction safety team on the collapse
of the World Trade Center twin towers.” In Proc., Federal Building and
Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster. Gaithersburg,
MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
© ASCE 04019004-9
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(2): 04019004
Salmasi, A. C., and M. R. Sheidaii. 2017. “Assessment of eccentri-
cally braced frames strength against progressive collapse.” Int. J.
Steel Struct. 17 (2): 543–551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13296-017
-6014-8.
Sasani, M., and J. Kropelnicki. 2008. “Progressive collapse analysis of an
RC structure.” Struct. Des. Tall Special Build. 17 (4): 757–771. https://
doi.org/10.1002/tal.375.
Sasani, M., and S. Sagiroglu. 2008. “Progressive collapse resistance of hotel
San Diego.” J. Struct. Eng. 134 (3): 478–488. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:3(478).
Sun, R., Z. Huang, and I. W. Burgess. 2012. “The collapse behaviour of
braced steel frames exposed to fire.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 72 (May): 130–
142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2011.11.008.
Xu, G., and B. R. Ellingwood. 2011. “An energy-based partial pushdown
analysis procedure for assessment of disproportionate collapse poten-
tial.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 67 (3): 547–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr
.2010.09.001.
Yi, W., Q. He, Y. Xiao, and S. K. Kunnath. 2008. “Experimental study on
progressive collapse-resistant behavior of reinforced concrete frame
structures.” ACI Struct. J. 105 (4): 433–439.
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.