This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.

The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues. Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding Elseviers archiving and manuscript policies are encouraged to visit: http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

Author's personal copy

Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 33413350

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Toward an economic design of reinforced concrete structures against progressive collapse

H.M. Salem a , A.K. El-Fouly b, , H.S. Tagel-Din b
a b

Department of Structural Engineering, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt Applied Science Int., 2012 TW Alexander Drive, Durham, NC 27709, USA

article

info

abstract
A three-dimensional discrete crack model based on the Applied Element Method is used to perform economic design for reinforced concrete structures against progressive collapse. The model adopts fully nonlinear path-dependent constitutive models for concrete and reinforcing bars. The model applies a dynamic solver in which post-failure behavior, element separation, falling and collision are predicted. First, the model is used to study the behavior of multi-story reinforced concrete buildings designed in a traditional manner according to the ACI 318-08 and subjected to accidental removal of one or two central columns at the ground level. In an iterative way, the model is then used to investigate a safe design against progressive collapse for such extreme loading case. Based on the analytical results of the AEM, it can be concluded that the collapse of only one column would not lead to any progressive collapse of the studied reinforced concrete structure. However, the collapse of more than one column may lead to a progressive collapse of a considerable part of it. It is concluded also that the AEM could be successfully used as an analytical tool to suggest economical designs that are safe against progressive collapse of reinforced concrete structures. 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 22 December 2009 Received in revised form 21 June 2011 Accepted 22 June 2011 Available online 28 July 2011 Keywords: Applied Element Method Numerical analysis Progressive collapse GSA UFC ASCE

1. Introduction The spread of an initial local failure from element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it has been known as progressive collapse [1]. Progressive collapse of a structure takes place when the structure has its loading pattern or boundary conditions changed such that structural elements are loaded beyond their ultimate capacities and fail. When any element fails, the remaining elements of the structure seek alternative load paths to redistribute the load applied to it. As a result, other elements may fail, causing failure mechanism. It first drew the attention of structural engineers after the accidental collapse of the 22-story Ronan Point tower in Canning Town, UK on May 1968. The cause of the collapse was a human-error gas explosion that knocked out the precast concrete panels near the 18th floor causing the floors above to collapse [2]. The Oklahoma City Murrah Fedral Building was not designed to resist progressive collapse. Half the building was collapsed in 1995 due to the destruction of only one column by the blast.

Even though the structure met all code provisions, research conducted after the disastrous event showed that alternatives to the building design, such as different reinforcement detailing and addition of some reinforcement, would have prevented the collapse without a significant increase in construction costs [3]. Structural progressive collapse has been the focus of extensive research during the past few years because of the increasing rate of victims resulting from natural disasters (e.g., earthquakes and hurricanes) or human-made disasters (e.g., bomb blasts, fires and vehicular impacts) [48]. Structural designers have traditionally focused on optimizing the cost of constructed facilities while meeting code requirements. Unfortunately, most of the structures have been designed to resist gravity loads and lateral loads resulting from wind or moderate earthquakes. The structural behavior of a constructed facility when subjected to loads beyond conventional design is not typically addressed. 1.1. Progressive collapse design in current codes and standards The cause of the initiating damage to the primary load-bearing element is unimportant; the resulting sudden changes to the structures geometry and load-path are what matter. This means that the analysis is threat independent. Design codes, therefore, incorporates a threat independent approach to progressive collapse analysis.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 9196454090; fax: +1 9196454085. E-mail address: elfouly@appliedscienceint.com (A.K. El-Fouly).

0141-0296/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.06.020

Author's personal copy

3342

H.M. Salem et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 33413350

Fig. 1. Progressive collapse analysis by Kaewkulchai and Williamson [14].

The ACI Code 318-08 [9] rely on structural integrity requirements to prevent progressive collapse of structures. This is based on the assumption that improving redundancy and ductility by good detailing of reinforcement can help to localize the damage and prevent it from propagating to other members and thus, the overall stability of the structure can be satisfied. The ASCE code for minimum design loads for buildings and other structures [1] specifies two alternative design approaches for increasing resistance against progressive collapse: direct design and indirect design. The direct design approach basically considers resistance to progressive collapse, explicitly during the design process, by either the alternative load-path method or the specific local resistance method. The alternative load-path method allows local failure to occur but the progressive collapse mechanism is averted or bridged over with alternate load paths to distribute the load from the missing member to other redundant members so that the effect of the damage can be absorbed. The specific local resistance method does not allow local failure to occur by providing sufficient strength on the key element to resist the failure of a structural member. While the direct design approach offers a more explicit design solution, the indirect design method takes a different methodology approach. It considers resistance to progressive collapse, implicitly during the design process, through the provisions of minimum levels of strength, continuity, and ductility. It is also stated that structures can be designed to sustain or minimize the occurrence of progressive collapse by limiting the effects of a local collapse from spreading out to other members except for special protective structures where extra protection is needed. General Services Administration (GSA) Guidelines [10] states that redundancy, detailing to provide structural integrity and ductility, and capacity for resisting load reversal need to be considered in the design process to make the structure more robust and thus enhance its resistance against progressive collapse. It stipulates an analysis procedure of removing vertical load-bearing elements to assess the potential of progressive collapse to occur in a structure. The guideline also gives requirement on maximum allowable collapse area that can occur if one vertical member collapses. Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) [11] provides the detail for structural design against progressive collapse. The indirect design approach is applied with the tie forces method. Minimum tie force capacity requirements must be satisfied in the horizontal, vertical, or horizontal and vertical directions of the building. Similar to GSA requirements, the direct design approach is applied with the alternate-path method for buildings assigned to medium and high levels of protection. 1.2. Progressive collapse analysis Although the FEM is a robust and well established structural analysis method, it is not the optimum solution for the scope of progressive collapse analysis. Many drawbacks are associated with the FEM progressive collapse analysis. The element damage,

separation, falling and collision with other elements are very difficult. The GSA and UFC specifications tried to approximate and simplify the progressive collapse analysis procedure so as to be able to be carried out by FEM; however, the process became so complicated and need many trials of analysis. Hartmann et al. [12] showed that the computations associated with the simulation of collapses of real world structures based on conventional FEM are very costly, and therefore followed another approach based on multibody models. Researchers have used the FEM for progressive collapse analysis of frame structures [1315]. As an example, Fig. 1 shows a model for progressive collapse analysis of frames by Kaewkulchai and Williamson [14]. To represent the initial deformations before column removal, forces equal and opposite to the member forces of the failed column are applied to the node connecting to the failed column. In this case, both the uniform load w and the applied forces (P , V , and M) are slowly applied to the frame so that static deformations are obtained. At a time step where all loads reach their peak value, the applied forces (P , V , and M) are removed to simulate an initiating collapse event. However, the analysis does not follow the behavior to the complete collapse. On the other hand, the Applied Element Method (AEM), adopted in the current study, proved to be capable of incorporating these features and following the structure to its total collapse [1624]. In the current study, the AEM is used to investigate the behavior of RC structures under the removal of one or two central columns of the ground floor. Suggestions to prevent the entire progressive collapse in an economic way are numerically investigated. 2. Research significance The significance of the current study arises from the need for a reliable analytical tool and a methodology that can be used for design of RC structures against progressive collapse. Such a tool should be able to analyze a dynamic problem, to allow different parts of a structure to separate and fall, to predict collision of different parts of a structure, and to account for the collision forces between different parts. According to the available literature, all these capabilities do not exist in the current numerical methods based on the FEM. On the other hand, the AEM was proved to have such capabilities. In fact, progressive collapse analysis is a big challenge because, for trustable results and for simulating such high nonlinearity, fully detailed nonlinear structural modeling is crucial. The current study introduces three-dimensional numerical simulation, based on the AEM, for progressive collapse analysis of reinforced concrete structures subjected to accidental removal of ground columns. Based on an iterative-analysis, an optimum design against progressive collapse is suggested. 3. The Applied Element Method (AEM) The Applied Element Method [16,17,2123] is an innovative modeling method adopting the concept of discrete cracking. In the Applied Element Method (AEM), the structures are modeled as an assembly of relatively small elements, made by dividing the

Author's personal copy

H.M. Salem et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 33413350

3343

Fig. 2. Modeling of a structure with the AEM.

Contact normal spring

Contact Shear springs

Shear spring in y

Shear spring in X

Normal Spring
(b) Edge-to-edge contact.

(a) Corner-to-face or corner-to-ground contact.

Fig. 3. Different types of element contact.

structure virtually, as shown in Fig. 2. The elements are connected together along their surfaces through a set of normal and shear springs. Each adjacent element is assumed to be connected by normal and shear springs located at contact points, which are distributed on the element faces. Normal and shear springs are responsible for transfer of normal and shear stresses. Springs represent stresses and deformations of a certain volume as shown in Fig. 2. Two adjacent elements can be separated once the springs connecting them are ruptured. Fully nonlinear path-dependent constitutive models are adopted in the AEM as shown in Fig. 2. For concrete in compression, an elasto-plastic and fracture model is adopted [25]. When concrete is subjected to tension, linear stressstrain relationship is adopted till the cracking of concrete springs occurs, where the stresses drop to zero. Since the method adopts discrete crack approach, the reinforcing bars are modeled as bare bars for the envelope while the model of Ristic et al. [26] is used for the interior loops. The AEM is a stiffness-based method, in which an overall stiffness matrix is formulated and the equilibrium equations including each of stiffness, mass and damping matrices are nonlinearly solved for the structural deformations (displacements and rotations). The solution for equilibrium equations is an implicit one that adopts a dynamic step-by-step integration (Newmark-beta time integration procedure [27,28]. One of the main valuable features in the AEM is the automatic detection of element separation and contact. Two neighboring elements can separate from each other if the matrix springs connecting them are ruptured. Elements may automatically separate, re-contact again or contact other elements. Fig. 3 illustrates the different types of element contact, where contact springs are generated at contact points. In this

study, the Extreme Loading for Structures (ELS) software [29], that is based on the AEM, is used. The Applied Element Method (AEM) was proven to be capable of analyzing the structure to its total collapse [1624]. For validating the AEM ability to analyze the progressive collapse-resistance of structures, the authors performed a structural analysis to the experimental study carried out by Wei et al. [30]. In this experiment, Wei et al. [30] investigated progressive failure of a reinforced concrete frame due to the loss of a lower story column. A four-bay and three-story one-third scale model representing a segment of a larger planar frame structure was tested. A constant vertical load of 109 kN was applied to the top of the middle column by a servo-hydraulic actuator to simulate the gravity load of the upper floors and the failure of the middle column of the first story was simulated by unloading a mechanical jacking system. Fig. 4 shows the layout of the experiment, while Fig. 5 shows concrete dimensions and reinforcement details for both beams and columns. Fig. 6 shows the ELS model for the structure, where all the reinforcement details have been taken into consideration. Fig. 7 shows the force versus downward displacement of the lower middle column obtained from the experimental results compared to the AEM analytical results, where, the AEM results are validated. Fig. 8 shows the collapse limit state of the frame predicted by AEM compared to the experimental results, which also verifies the AEM results. 4. Progressive collapse analysis of a multistory RC building A five-story reinforced concrete building, with a total height of 15 m and footprint dimensions of 27 17.6 m, is considered

Author's personal copy

3344 Table 1 Material properties used in analysis. Material Concrete Reinforcing bars Youngs modulus 22,135 210,000

H.M. Salem et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 33413350

Yield stress 360 MPa

Tensile strength (MPa) 2 540

Compressive strength (MPa) 25 540

Fig. 4. One-third scale progressive collapse experiment for a reinforced concrete frame [30].

Fig. 5. Concrete dimensions and reinforcement details for beams and columns [30].

Fig. 7. Middle column load versus unloading displacement of failed column predicted by AEM compared to the experimental results of Wei et al. [30].

were obtained. Thereafter, a complete design of the building using ACI [9] was performed. Typical reinforcement details are shown in Fig. 10. With this design, the building was analyzed using the AEM. The AEM model is shown in Fig. 11, where all the reinforcement details of the slabs, beams and columns are explicitly introduced into the analysis. The reinforcing bars are not modeled as independent elements, however, they represent a portion of the connecting springs. The total number of elements in the analysis was 10,885. The material properties used in analysis are shown in Table 1.
Fig. 6. ELS model for the experiment of Wei et al. [30].

4.1. Case #1: removal of one central column in this study as shown in Fig. 9(a). Two different cases of loading are considered. The first one incorporates a sudden removal of one central column (C1), while the other incorporates a sudden removal of two central columns (C1 and C2) as shown in Fig. 9(b). At first, a Linear Elastic Finite Element Analysis (LEFEM) was carried out under gravity loads (dead loads and live loads) using the SAP 2000 package [31], and the internal forces of all members In this case, the building was subjected to an accidental removal of one central column (C1) at the ground floor level. The analysis consisted of two stages. The first stage was a static stage before the removal of the column, where the structure experiences the original deformations due to gravity loads before removing any elements. The second stage was a dynamic one in which the column was suddenly removed. The time step of analysis was

Author's personal copy

H.M. Salem et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 33413350

3345

(a) Experiment [30].

(b) AEM.

Fig. 8. Collapse limit state of the frame predicted by AEM compared to the experimental results of Wei et al. [30].

(a) Perspective view.

(b) Removed columns. Fig. 9. Studied multi-story RC building.

Fig. 10. Typical reinforcement details of the multi-story building.

0.001 s. This case did not show any progressive collapse. It was observed that the structure was capable of redistributing the internal forces after the removal of the column and was then able to resist progressive collapse. Fig. 12 shows the history of the deflection of the floor just above the removed column. As seen, the floor exhibited a sudden deflection of 43 mm but then vibrates up and down around a residual deflection of 38 mm, which represents a final stable state for the floor. Fig. 13 shows

the evolution of normal forces in the columns in a longitudinal frame passing through the removed column. The normal forces are shown for three stages; just before column removal, at 0.04 s, and at 0.2 s after column removal. As shown, the normal forces in the columns above the removed one suddenly reduced almost to zero and their loads are conveyed to the surrounding columns by flexure, where the two bays above the removed column behave like a Vierendeel girder.

Author's personal copy

3346

H.M. Salem et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 33413350

Fig. 11. AEM mesh for the concrete and reinforcing bars.

Fig. 12. Floor vibration after a sudden removal of column C1.

4.2. Case #2: removal of two central columns This case was similar to case #1 except that two neighboring columns (C1 and C2) were simultaneously removed. In this case, a progressive collapse of about one-third of the building was observed as shown in Fig. 14. The removal of these columns caused excessive deformations of the supported slabs and beams, and finally led to a partial collapse. The collapsed area represents an answer to the requirements of GSA and UFC codes. In this case, the maximum allowable area is 142 m2 (the smaller of 334 m2 and the area directly associated with the instantaneously removed columns). The collapsed area is 142 m2 which lies within the allowable limits. Fig. 15 shows a close-up view (inside view) for the two removed columns and the supported floors, where the major principal strain contours are drawn. These strains are a good indicator of concrete cracking and plastic hinge visualization. The damage, which initiated the progressive collapse, was localized in the middle sections of the floor beams above the removed columns as shown in Fig. 15. The locations of the plastic hinges are shown at time = 0.4 s. With further deformations, strains in reinforcing bars at the location of plastic hinges increase and eventually the

bars are ruptured as shown at time = 0.8 s. Thus, propagating in a disproportionate way, the excessive deformations and their accompanied damage lead, finally, to the collapse of a huge part of the structure (one-third). Fig. 16 shows the stress evolution in both the upper and lower bars of one of the beams above one of the removed columns as shown in Fig. 16(a). Just above the removed column, and before its removal, the stresses were tensile for the upper bars and compressive for the lower ones. Once the column was removed, and due to the downward deformations at this location, the tensile stresses in the upper bars started to decrease and became compressive, while the compressive stresses in the lower bars decreased and changed into tension at t = 0.04 s. With further deformations, stresses in the lower bars kept increasing, while those in the upper bars changed again into tension. Meanwhile, the compressed concrete was tensioned again and does not fail in compression. This is attributed to the catenary action of the beam. The tensile stresses in both the upper and lower bars then kept increasing with further deformations and eventually they were ruptured at t = 0.8 s at four locations for the upper bars and two locations for the lower bars, where the stresses in the bars dropped to zero. Fig. 17 shows the stress history of the upper and lower bars in the beam section adjacent to column just above a removed column. As seen, before column removal, the upper bars were subjected to tension, while the lower ones were subjected to compression. After removal of the column, the stresses in the upper bars changed into compression, while that in the lower ones changed into tension. At t = 0.05 s, the stresses in the upper one were tensioned again, revealing the activation of the catenary action, where both bars were tensioned with the lower one having higher tensile stresses due to bending action. The catenary action was proved by integrating the normal stresses in the beam and the center-tocenter part of the slab as shown in Fig. 18. The normal force history showed clearly a transformation of a compressive force of 50 kN into a tensile one of 600 kN at t = 0.4 s. At t = 0.7 s, the catenary action started to drop due to collapse of beams as shown in Fig. 18.

Author's personal copy

H.M. Salem et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 33413350

3347

(a) Time = 0.0 s (Before column removal).

(b) Time = 0.04 s.

(c) Time = 0.2 s. Fig. 13. Normal force evolution in columns due to column removal in case # 1 (in kN).

5. Can we prevent progressive collapse? In this section, a proposed design to prevent progressive collapse of the multi-story RC structures due to removal of ground columns in an optimum and economic way is introduced. The proposed method has an iterative design, in which, additional bottom reinforcement is used above removed columns as shown in Fig. 19. The steps of the design procedures are shown in a flow chart in Fig. 20, where AEM analysis is carried out several times till getting the minimum amount of additional reinforcement that help preventing the progressive collapse. The minimum amount of additional reinforcement was decided from those trials as shown in Fig. 21. In Fig. 21, the history of floor deflection above removed columns is drawn for different amounts of additional reinforcement. The non-collapsing structures are those, whose floor deflection is eventually stabilizing without excessive increase. The amount of additional reinforcement in Fig. 21 is expressed as a percentage of the required additional reinforcement calculated based on a static linear FEM analysis in which the two ground columns are missing. As can be seen, the static LFEM overestimates the required reinforcement. Using the AEM, a proper economic amount of reinforcement is obtained (about 50% less than the amount of reinforcement calculated using

LFEM). With this additional bottom reinforcement, progressive collapse was prevented with a floor deflection of about 240 mm (span/20). This deflection may be considered reasonable for such an extreme loading case knowing that the beam span is 5.4 m and hence retrofitting process would not be so difficult. 6. Conclusion Based on the analytical results of the AEM, the following conclusions are obtained. 1. The AEM is an efficient, accurate, and simple tool for progressive collapse analysis compared to FEM. In one analysis, the collapse area can be obtained by taking into consideration material nonlinearity, large deformations, element failure and separation, and collision between different parts of the structure. 2. For the studied RC structure, the collapse of only one central ground column would not lead to any progressive collapse. However, the collapse of two central ground columns would lead to a progressive collapse of one-third of the studied structure. 3. The AEM can be successfully used as an analytical tool to suggest economical designs that are safe against progressive collapse

Author's personal copy

3348

H.M. Salem et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 33413350

(a) Time = 0.0 s.

(b) Time = 0.5 s.

(c) Time = 1.5 s.

(d) Time = 2.5 s. Fig. 14. Progressive collapse of the five-story reinforced concrete building in case #2.

(a) Time = 0.0 s.

(b)Time = 0.4 s.

(c) Time = 0.8 s.

(d) Time = 1.2 s.

(e) Principal contours scale. Fig. 15. Inside view for the deformations and principal strain contours in case #2.

Author's personal copy

H.M. Salem et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 33413350

3349

(a) Position of bars rupture.

(b) Stresses along upper bars.

(c) Stresses along lower bars.

Fig. 16. Stress distribution along bars in a beam above removed column.

Fig. 17. Stresses in the upper and lower bars in the section adjacent to column in the beam above a removed column.

Fig. 18. Normal force in a slab strip and a beam above a removed column.

Fig. 19. Additional bottom reinforcement above removed columns.

of reinforced concrete structures. For the studied case, it was proved that using the AEM can bring about 50% reduction of the amount of additional reinforcement compared to LEFEM.

Acknowledgment The authors would like to express their gratitude to Applied Science International, LLC, for the financial support to the current research.

Author's personal copy

3350

H.M. Salem et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 33413350 [7] Ghali A, Tadros G. Bridge progressive collapse vulnerability. J Struct Eng 1997; 123(2):22731. [8] Tan S, Astaneh-Asl A. Testing a retrofit concept to prevent progressive collapse. Report number UCB/CEE-Steel-2003/02. Berkeley: Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering. University of California; 2003. [9] ACI 318-08. Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary. Detroit; 2008. [10] General Service Administration. GSA. Progressive collapse analysis and design guidelines for new federal office buildings and major modernization projects. 2003. [11] Department of Defense. DoD. Design of buildings to resist progressive collapse. Unified facilities criteria (UFC, 4-023-03). USA: 2005. [12] Hartmann D, Breidt M, Nguyen V, Stangenberg F, Hhler S, Schweizerhof K, et al. Structural collapse simulation under consideration of uncertainty fundamental concept and results. Comput Struct 2008;86:206478. [13] Angew E, Marjanishvili S. Dynamic analysis procedure for progressive collapse. Struct Mag 2006;246. [14] Kaewkulchai G, Williamson E. Dynamic behavior of planar frames during progressive collapse. In: 16th ASCE engineering mechanics conference. 2003. [15] Miao Z, Lu L, Ma Q. Simulation for the collapse of RC frame tall buildings under earthquake disaster. In: Computational mechanics ISCM2007. 2007. [16] Meguro K, Tagel-Din H. Applied element simulation of RC structures under cyclic loading. ASCE 2001;127(11):1295305. [17] Meguro K, Tagel-Din H. Applied Element Method used for large displacement structure analysis. J Natural Disaster Sci 2002;24(1):2534. [18] Park H, Suk C, Kim S. Collapse modeling of model RC structure using applied element method. Tunnel & Underground Space, J Korean Soc Rock Mech 2009; 19(1):4351. [19] Sasani M, Sagiroglu S. Progressive collapse resistance of hotel San Diego. J Struct Eng 2008;134(3):47888. [20] Sasani M. Response of a reinforced concrete infilled-frame structure to removal of two adjacent columns. Eng Struct 2008;30:247891. [21] Tagel-Din H, Meguro K. Applied element method for dynamic large deformation analysis of structures. Struct Eng/Earthq Eng, Int J Jpn Soc Civ Eng, JSCE 2000;17(2):215s24. [22] Tagel-Din H. Collision of structures during earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the 12th European conference on earthquake engineering. 2002. [23] Tagel-Din H, Rahman N. Extreme loading: breaks through finite element barriers. Struct Eng 2004;5(6):324. [24] Wibowo H, Reshotkina S, Lau D. Modelling progressive collapse of RC bridges during earthquakes. In: CSCE annual general conference. GC-176-1-11. 2009. [25] Maekawa K, Okamura H. The deformational behavior and constitutive equation of concrete using the elasto-plastic and fracture model. J Fac Eng Univ Tokyo Ser B 1983;37(2):253328. [26] Ristic D, Yamada Y, Iemura H. Stressstrain based modeling of hysteretic structures under earthquake induced bending and varying axial loads. Research report no. 86-ST-01. Kyoto (Japan): School of Civil Engineering. Kyoto University; 1986. [27] Bathe K. Solution of equilibrium equations in dynamic analysis. Englewoods Cliffs (NJ): Prentice Hall; 1982. [28] Chopra A. Dynamics of structures: theory and applications to earthquake engineering. Englewoods Cliffs (NJ): Prentice Hall; 1995. [29] Applied Science International. LLC. www.appliedscienceint.com. [30] Yi Wei-Jian, He Qing-Feng, Xiao Yan, Kunnath SashiK. Experimental study on progressive collapse-resistant behavior of reinforced concrete frame structures. ACI Struct J 2008;105(4):4339. [31] SAP2000. Version 8. Analysis reference manual. Berkeley (CA): Computers and Structures, Inc.; 2002.

Fig. 20. Flow chart for the proposed design procedure.

Fig. 21. Floor deflection history for different additional RFT ratios.

References
[1] ASCE/SEI 7-05. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. NY: American Society of Civil Engineers; 2005. [2] Pearson C, Delatte N. Ronan point apartment tower collapse and its effect on building codes. J Perform Constr Facil, ASCE 2005;19(5):1727. [3] Hinman E, Hammond D. Lessons from the Oklahoma city bombing: defensive design techniques. ASCE; 1997. [4] Astaneh-Asl A, Jones B, Zhao Y, Hwa R. Progressive collapse resistance of steel building floors. Report number UCB/CEE-Steel-2001. Berkeley: Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering. University of California; 2001. [5] Astaneh-Asl A. Progressive collapse prevention in new and existing buildings. In: Proc. of the 9th Arab structural engineering conf. 2003. p. 10018. [6] Carino N, Lew H. Summary of NIST/GSA workshop on application of seismic rehabilitation technologies to mitigate blast-induced progressive collapse. Oakland (CA): National Institute for Standards and Technology; 2001.