Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 3341–3350

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

article info abstract

Article history: A three-dimensional discrete crack model based on the Applied Element Method is used to perform
Received 22 December 2009 economic design for reinforced concrete structures against progressive collapse. The model adopts fully
Received in revised form nonlinear path-dependent constitutive models for concrete and reinforcing bars. The model applies a
21 June 2011
dynamic solver in which post-failure behavior, element separation, falling and collision are predicted.
Accepted 22 June 2011
Available online 28 July 2011
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
Keywords:
columns at the ground level. In an iterative way, the model is then used to investigate a safe design
Applied Element Method against progressive collapse for such extreme loading case. Based on the analytical results of the AEM,
Numerical analysis it can be concluded that the collapse of only one column would not lead to any progressive collapse of
Progressive collapse the studied reinforced concrete structure. However, the collapse of more than one column may lead to a
GSA progressive collapse of a considerable part of it. It is concluded also that the AEM could be successfully used
UFC as an analytical tool to suggest economical designs that are safe against progressive collapse of reinforced
ASCE concrete structures.
© 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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.
∗ 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
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) [4–8]. 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 struc-
ture’s geometry and load-path are what matter. This means that
the analysis is threat independent. Design codes, therefore, in-
corporates a threat independent approach to progressive collapse
analysis.
3342 H.M. Salem et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 3341–3350
Fig. 1. Progressive collapse analysis by Kaewkulchai and Williamson [14].
The ACI Code 318-08 [9] rely on structural integrity require-
ments 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 [13–15]. 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 [16–24].
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 [16,17,21–23] 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
 H.M. Salem et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 3341–3350
Fig. 2. Modeling of a structure with the AEM.
Shear spring in y Shear spring in X
(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 compres-
sion, an elasto-plastic and fracture model is adopted [25]. When
concrete is subjected to tension, linear stress–strain relationship
is adopted till the cracking of concrete springs occurs, where the
stresses drop to zero. Since the method adopts discrete crack ap-
proach, the reinforcing bars are modeled as bare bars for the en-
velope 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 stiff-
ness matrix is formulated and the equilibrium equations includ-
ing each of stiffness, mass and damping matrices are nonlinearly
solved for the structural deformations (displacements and rota-
tions). 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 fea-
tures in the AEM is the automatic detection of element separa-
tion and contact. Two neighboring elements can separate from
each other if the matrix springs connecting them are ruptured. El-
ements may automatically separate, re-contact again or contact
other elements. Fig. 3 illustrates the different types of element con-
tact, where contact springs are generated at contact points. In this
3343
Contact normal spring
Contact
Shear
springs
Normal Spring
(b) Edge-to-edge contact.
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 [16–24]. 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
3344 H.M. Salem et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 3341–3350

Table 1
Material properties used in analysis.
Material Young’s modulus Yield stress Tensile strength (MPa) Compressive strength (MPa)

Concrete 22,135 – 2 25
Reinforcing bars 210,000 360 MPa 540 540

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
 H.M. Salem et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 3341–3350 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.
3346 H.M. Salem et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 3341–3350
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-to-
center 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.
 H.M. Salem et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 3341–3350
(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
3347
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 con-
clusions 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
3348 H.M. Salem et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 3341–3350

(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.
 H.M. Salem et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 3341–3350 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.

Acknowledgment
of reinforced concrete structures. For the studied case, it was
proved that using the AEM can bring about 50% reduction The authors would like to express their gratitude to Applied
of the amount of additional reinforcement compared to Science International, LLC, for the financial support to the current
LEFEM. research.
3350 H.M. Salem et al. / Engineering Structures 33 (2011) 3341–3350
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):172–7.
[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. 1001–8.
[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.
[7] Ghali A, Tadros G. Bridge progressive collapse vulnerability. J Struct Eng 1997;
123(2):227–31.
[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 commen-
tary. 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, Höhler S, Schweizerhof K,
et al. Structural collapse simulation under consideration of uncertainty—
fundamental concept and results. Comput Struct 2008;86:2064–78.
[13] Angew E, Marjanishvili S. Dynamic analysis procedure for progressive collapse.
Struct Mag 2006;24–6.
[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):1295–305.
[17] Meguro K, Tagel-Din H. Applied Element Method used for large displacement
structure analysis. J Natural Disaster Sci 2002;24(1):25–34.
[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):43–51.
[19] Sasani M, Sagiroglu S. Progressive collapse resistance of hotel San Diego.
J Struct Eng 2008;134(3):478–88.
[20] Sasani M. Response of a reinforced concrete infilled-frame structure to
removal of two adjacent columns. Eng Struct 2008;30:2478–91.
[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):215s–24.
[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):32–4.
[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):253–328.
[26] Ristic D, Yamada Y, Iemura H. Stress–strain 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):433–9.
[31] SAP2000. Version 8. Analysis reference manual. Berkeley (CA): Computers and
Structures, Inc.; 2002.