Journal of Building Engineering 45 (2022) 103554

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

Dynamic response of RC beam-slab substructures following instantaneous

removal of columns
Kai Qian a, b, Xin-Yi Chen a, Ting Huang b, ∗
a College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Guangxi University, Nanning, 530000, China
b College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Guilin University of Technology, Guilin, 541004, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: High fidelity solid-element-based numerical modeling is employed in this paper to study the dynamic response of
Progressive collapse reinforced concrete (RC) beam-slab substructures following instantaneous removal of columns. After validation
RC beam-Slab substructures of the numerical model against experimental results, incremental dynamic analysis is conducted to obtain the dy-
Sudden column removal
namic structural resistance to progressive collapse. The numerical results for development of internal forces and
Dynamic response
distribution of stress and strain are used to illustrate the load redistribution and load transfer mechanisms of RC
Multi-column removal
Numerical simulation beam-slab substructures subjected to sudden loss of columns. The numerical model is further employed to ex-
plore parameters affecting the dynamic response and structural resistance of beam-slab substructures under sud-
den column removal scenario. The parameters studied include damping ratio, slab thickness, location of re-
moved columns, multi-column removal sequence and interval. The numerical result shows that the dynamic pro-
gressive collapse resistance of the beam-slab substructure is much smaller than the quasi-static test result due to
a dynamic increase factor (DIF) of 1.14. Moreover, a minimum slab thickness of 1/45 of span length is found vi-
tal for the improvement of progressive collapse resistance of RC beam-slab substructures through developing
compressive membrane action (CMA) and tensile membrane action (TMA) as well as enhancing the development
of compressive arch action (CAA) and tensile centenary action (TCA) of beams. When the damping ratio is
smaller than 5%, the increase of damping ratio can significantly benefit the structural resistance against progres-
sive collapse by producing smaller deflection and milder vibration. The additional loss of the corner column be-
sides the penultimate perimeter column is found to form the most hazardous situation among the double-column
removal scenarios. In contrast to the location of removed columns, the column removal sequence and interval
tend to little affect the maximum deflection developed and consequently the progressive collapse resistance of
substructures.

1. Introduction
The failure of a few columns due to accidental loading such as blast
and impact may result in progressive collapse. The progressive collapse
refers to “the spread of an initial local failure from element to element,
eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure or a dispropor-
tionately large part of it” [1,2]. Some well-known incidents of progres-
sive collapse include the partial collapse of Ronan Point apartment in
London [3], the collapse of Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Okla-
homa City [4] and twin towers of the World Trade Centre in New York
City [5]. In the event of progressive collapse, the collapse extent and se-
vere casualties far exceed the expected consequences of local failures.
Thus, over the past few decades, existing building design codes [6,7]
have been increasingly supplemented with provisions of design against
progressive collapse and special design guidelines [8,9] have also been
proposed. So far, the most recommended method to analyze the resis-
tance of structures against progressive collapse is the alternate load
path analysis (ALPA) due to its straightforwardness and effectiveness.
The ALPA essentially evaluates the competence of the remaining build-
ing in providing sufficient alternate load paths for load redistribution
after notional loss of one or several vertical load bearing elements, such
as columns. In practice, the ALPA can be implemented either experi-
mentally or numerically.
Extensive experimental studies have been conducted to investigate
the structural performance of reinforced concrete (RC) structures
against progressive collapse based on the ALPA. Especially, many fo-
cused on the progressive collapse resistance of RC substructures under
various column removal scenarios based on the quasi-static tests

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: tingingh@glut.edu.cn (T. Huang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103554
Received 3 August 2021; Received in revised form 20 October 2021; Accepted 30 October 2021
Available online 3 November 2021
2352-7102/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K. Qian et al.
[10–16] and pushdown analysis [15,17–19]. In contrast to beam-
column substructures reliant solely on compressive arch action and ten-
sile catenary action (CAA and TCA) [20–23], the presence of slabs not
only significantly enhances the progressive collapse resistance of beam-
slab substructures through the additional development of compressive
and tensile membrane action (CMA and TMA) [24–29], but also makes
the structural resistance to progressive collapse dependent on loading
scheme, i.e., uniformly distributed load (UDL) or concentrated load
(CL). The results show that, although CL is feasible to demonstrate the
essential load transfer mechanisms against progressive collapse, UDL is
a more representative loading scheme to explore the structural resis-
tance of beam-slab substructures [30,31].
Since accidental loss of columns usually occurs in an instant and
progressive collapse is in nature a dynamic response, the quasi-static
approaches may result in inappropriate design since the damping and
inertial effects caused by the dynamic response are not taken into ac-
count. Previous studies indicate that the failure patterns in the quasi-
static tests are similar to those in dynamic tests, however, it is necessary
to relate the static response to dynamic response by using the dynamic
increase factor (DIF) approach [32,33], energy-based approaches
[34,35] or equivalent single-degree-of-freedom model approaches
[36,37]. To calibrate the DIF for RC structures, a few dynamic tests
have been carried out on RC substructures under sudden column re-
moval caused by contact detonation [32] or rapid release of the support
force via various devices [38–43]. While an DIF less than 1.4 has been
generally reported for RC beam-column substructures [38,39,42], a
much larger DIF of 1.86 was determined when introducing initial dam-
age to the remaining structural members by the explosion [32]. To date,
few studies have been reported about the dynamic response of beam-
slab structures. While Adam et al. [44] tested a full-scale two-story RC
flat-slab building structure with loads reflecting design conditions sub-
jected to sudden removal of a corner column and found that the slab
membrane action was not a significant load redistributing mechanism
for the case they investigated, Qian and Li [37] showed that the TCA
and TMA, since they were slightly activated by the dynamic response to
sudden removal of a column and thus little weakened by the associated
damage, made a major contribution to the residual strength of the
beam-slab substructures as compared to the CAA and CMA. Nyunn et al.
[45] deduced that the DIF values for a multi-story RC beam-slab build-
ing subjected to the loss of an edge column or a corner column were
close to 1.6, regardless of infill walls, based on structural analysis using
SAP2000. However, the remaining structures in these studies have re-
sponded almost within the elastic range or limited to early plastic stage,
providing little demonstration on the dynamic load-carrying capacity
and value of DIF for beam-slab structures under large deformation
stage.
In short, the study of RC beam-column structures against progres-
sive collapse is still limited in the realm of dynamic response into plas-
tic range. As an alternative to expensive and technically demanding dy-
namic tests, this paper aims to investigate the robustness of RC beam-
slab substructures subjected to sudden column removal under incre-
mental load and provide insights into the load transfer mechanisms
against progressive collapse by adopting high-fidelity finite element
(FE) numerical modeling. After validation of the numerical modeling
against the experimental dynamic response of beam-slab substructures
following sudden removal of the penultimate perimeter column, the FE
model is further used to explore the dynamic load redistribution behav-
ior, load transfer mechanisms, progressive collapse resistance and the
value of DIF for beam-slab substructures. The FE model is also used to
illustrate the contributions of beams and slabs to the progressive col-
lapse resistance of beam-slab substructures, the effects of slab thickness
and damping ratio on the dynamic response of the substructure follow-
ing sudden removal of columns. Finally, the numerical modeling is em-
ployed to explore the robustness of RC beam-slab substructures sub-
jected to removal of multiple columns in case of extreme events, includ-
2
Journal of Building Engineering 45 (2022) 103554
ing corner, perimeter and/or interior column, and the effects of column
removal sequence and interval on the dynamic response.
2. Numerical model of RC beam-slab substructures
2.1. Overview of the reference test
The numerical study is carried out on the basis of the tests con-
ducted by Qian and Li [37] on RC beam-slab substructures subjected to
instantaneous removal of the penultimate perimeter column. They
tested two 1/4 scaled RC beam-slab substructures, namely D-0.91 and
D-1.16, subjected to sudden column removal by using a specially de-
signed Instantaneous Column Removal Device (ICRD). It was shown
that the duration of column removal was fast enough to simulate acci-
dental impact or terrorist attack with the ICRD. The two specimens, the
prototype of which was a four-story RC building designed in accor-
dance with Singapore Code CP65 [46], had identical dimensions, rein-
forcement details and boundary conditions, except that different UDL of
10.5 kPa and 11.6 kPa had been applied on the slab before column re-
moval which amounted to 0.91 and 1.16 times the design load
(DL + LL), respectively. Each specimen consisted of two bays in the
longitudinal direction and one bay in the transverse direction, and the
beam span was 2250 mm in both directions as shown in Fig. 1. The
beams and slabs were extended by 563 mm at two adjacent sides and
imposed with distributed design load (see cross-hatch area in Fig. 1) to
account for the rotational constraints from interior bays. The cross-
sectional dimensions and reinforcement details of the beams and slabs
are also summarized in Table 1. The concrete cover was 10 mm and
7 mm, respectively, for the beams and slabs. While the compressive
strength of concrete was measured as 24.4 MPa and 25.1 MPa for D-
0.91 and D-1.16, respectively, the properties of steel reinforcement are
listed in Table 2. The test set-up is shown in Fig. 2. The specimen was
supported by five remaining columns with cross-sectional area of
170 mm × 170 mm which were bolted to steel supports (Item 7 in Fig.
2), while the column stub of the notionally removed column with cross-
sectional area of 125 mm × 125 mm was supported by the ICRD (Item
5 in Fig. 2) which would be knocked down later to simulate dynamic
column removal. Note that the cross-sectional area of five remaining
columns were enlarged to prevent them from being crushed upon re-
moval of the target column. The loading scheme of UDL was repro-
duced by placing weights (Item 1 in Fig. 2) on top of the slab. The total
mass of the weights on D-0.91 and D-1.16 were 9000 kg and 12,000 kg,
respectively. Both specimens could survive after the sudden removal of
the penultimate perimeter column. More details about the specimen de-
sign and test setup of the reference experiment can refer to the paper
[37].
2.2. Specifications of the numerical model
To further study the dynamic response of RC beam-slab substruc-
tures following instantaneous removal of a column, the numerical
model built using commercial software LS-DYNA [47] as shown in Fig.
3 was employed. The numerical model was validated by the abovemen-
tioned tests on D-0.91 and D-1.16.
2.2.1. Element types
The concrete was modelled by 8-node solid elements with reduced
integration scheme. As each solid element adopts only one integration
point, this scheme can decrease the computational time effectively with
reasonable calculation accuracy. All the reinforcement was simulated
by 2-node Hughes-Liu beam elements with 2 × 2 Gauss quadrature in-
tegration at the cross section, which can model the behavior of tension,
transverse shear and bi-axial bending well [48]. Besides, the beam for-
mulation is based on the degenerated 8-node solid element so that the
reinforcement elements can be fully compatible with the concrete ele-
K. Qian et al. Journal of Building Engineering 45 (2022) 103554

Fig. 1. Dimensions and reinforcement details of the specimen (unit: mm) [30].

Table 1
The dimensions and reinforcement details for the beams and slabs [30].
Section dimensions (mm) Top reinforcement Bottom
reinforcement

Width Depth Thickness End Middle

Interior Beam 80 138 N.A. 2T13+1T10 3R6 2T10

Perimeter 80 112 NA 2T13+1T10 3R6 2R8
Beam
Slab N.A. N.A. 64 R3@80 R3@50 R3@50

Note: R and T represent plain round bar and deformed bar, respectively.

Table 2
The properties of steel reinforcement [30].
Reinforcement Diameter Yield Ultimate Yield Ratio of
(mm) strength strength (MPa) strain elongation
(MPa) (10−6)

R3 3 358 439 2014 10.9%

R6 6 445 561 2190 17.5%
R8 8 450 556 2474 16.1%
Fig. 2. Test setup of the dynamic test [30].
T10 10 503 635 2609 15.1%
T13 13 473 592 2343 16.9%
control meshing and actual element sizes may be adjusted depending
on the dimensions.
ments. Based on the mesh sensitivity analysis as shown in Fig. 4, the el-
The perfect bond and bond-slip behavior between the reinforcement
ement size was decided as 35 mm for both concrete and reinforcement,
and surrounding concrete were both considered in this numerical study.
since a finer mesh could not provide a more accurate solution but sig-
The perfect bond was defined by using the keyword *CONSTRAINED_L
nificantly increased the computational time. It should be noted that LS-
AGRANGE_IN_SOLID. In a more refined modeling, the bond-slip behav-
DYNA uses the defined element size as the maximum element size to
ior was considered in the beam-column connections where severe

3
K. Qian et al.
Fig. 3. Numerical model of test specimen.
Fig. 4. Mesh sensitivity analysis.
cracking occurred, and the following bond stress-slip relationship as
recommended by the FIB Model Code 2010 [49] for deformed bar in
concrete was defined by using the keyword *DEFINE_FUCTION once
the reinforcement elements had been connected to the concrete ele-
ments via the keyword *CONSTRAINED_BEAM_IN_SOLID.
(1)
where τbmax is the maximum bond stress with fc indicating compres-
sive strength of concrete; τbf is the residual bond stress; s1 is the slip cor-
responding to maximum bond stress; s2 is the slip corresponding to pull-
out failure; and s3 equals to half the bar rib spacing. Based on the sug-
gestions from FIB Model Code 2010 [49], the values of parameters α, s1,
s2 and s3 are selected as 0.4, 1 mm, 2 mm, and 10 mm, respectively.
2.2.2. External load, boundary conditions and column removal
All nodes at the base of the steel supports and ICRD were restrained
with no translational and rotational degree of freedoms, as indicated in
4
Journal of Building Engineering 45 (2022) 103554
Fig. 3. The five intact columns bolted to the strong steel supports in the
test were connected to the steel supports in the numerical model by us-
ing the keyword *CONTACT_TIED_NODES_TO_SURFACE, while the no-
tionally removed column was connected to the dummy ICRD with con-
tact surface defined by keyword ∗CONTACT_AUTOMATIC_SURFACE_T
O_SURFACE. To completely reproduce the tests, the weights in the test,
as shown in Fig. 2, were modelled. They were modelled as rigid bodies
placed on the top surface of slabs with contact surfaces defined by the
keyword ∗CONTACT_AUTOMATIC_SURFACE_TO_SURFACE. Besides,
adequate static and dynamic coefficients of friction were provided at
the contact surfaces to prevent any sliding of the weights. The gravity
load generated by the weight of the specimen itself and the additional
weights was applied by using keyword *LOAD_BODY and special care
was taken to eliminate unintended dynamic vibration caused by the ap-
plication of the gravity load with keyword *CONTROL_DYNAMIC_RE-
LAXATION. The weights placed on the slab extensions to account for ro-
tational constraints from adjacent slab panels was simulated using uni-
form pressure.
During the test, the ICRD was knocked over with a high speed. The
measurement of the vertical force in the ICRD indicated that the dura-
tion of column removal in D-0.91 and D-1.16 were 0.012 s and 0.008 s,
respectively, less than 1/10 of the natural period of the free vibration of
the specimens, which is fast enough to simulate instantaneous column
removal. In the numerical modeling, the instantaneous column removal
was achieved by defining the erosion of the dummy ICRD using key-
word *MAT_ADD_EROSION. Fig. 5 compared the variation of the verti-
cal reaction force in ICRD for both Specimen D-0.91 and D-1.16, con-
firming that the erosion of the dummy ICRD can simulate instantaneous
column removal accurately. Finally, for the dynamic modeling, the
damping ratio of 5% was defined.
2.2.3. Material models and strain rate effects
For the simulation of RC structures subjected to dynamic effect, the
three material models in LS-DYNA, including Karagozian and Case Con-
crete (K&C) model, continuous surface cap model (CSCM) and Riedel-
Hiermaier-Thoma (RHT) model, are frequently used [47,48]. All of
these three models can model post-damage softening, shear dilation,
confinement effect as well as strain rate effects for normal strength con-
crete with unconfined compressive strength ranging from 28 MPa to
58 MPa [47]. In this study, the simplified version of CSCM with the key-
K. Qian et al.
Fig. 5. Comparison of numerical and experimental support force underneath
the stub of the notionally removed column.
word *MAT_CSCM_CONCRETE was chosen for the concrete material
due to its numerical stability. The constitutive model consists of a linear
pre-peak part and a softening post-peak part. This simplified version
only requires input parameters of unconfined compressive strength fc′,
maximum aggregate size Ag, erosion criterion and units [48]. The other
default model parameters will be generated automatically as functions
of fc′ and Ag through the use of the FIB Model Code 2010 [49]. In the
tests, fc′ was measured as 24.4 MPa and 25.1 MPa for D-0.91 and D-
1.16, respectively. Ag was taken as 19 mm considering the thickness of
the slab was 64 mm. The element erosion was defined for concrete ele-
ment for the sake of graphical representation of separation of concrete
caused by severe cracking and spalling. The maximum principal strain
has been shown to be a proper erosion algorithm for concrete material
[50,51]. By this criterion, the concrete element will be deleted if the
maximum principal strain εmax exceeds the principal strain at failure εf.
Since the erosion limits are dependent on mesh size, the appropriate
value of εf was carefully selected based on the specific mesh size by trial
and error. The value of 0.1 was found to give the best fit with test re-
sults in terms of concrete cracking and spalling.
To account for the dynamic effect due to the instantaneous removal
of column, the rate effect option of the CSCM_CONCRETE model is
turned on by setting the model parameter “IRATE” to 1 [48]. By this op-
tion, the CSCM model becomes a rate-dependent model since the
strength of the material increases with an increasing rate for compli-
ance with published experimental results [52]. This strength enhance-
ment due to high strain rate is usually expressed by a strength enhance-
ment factor which is the ratio of dynamic strength to static strength
with regard to a specific strain rate. The rate effect formulations imple-
mented in the CSCM_CONCRETE model is based on Simo et al. [53] ex-
tension of the commonly used Duvaut-Lions formulation to cap models
[48]. These default formulations were also applied in this study to con-
sider the effect of strain rate on concrete material.
A symmetric piecewise elastic-plastic model was used for steel rein-
forcement by using keyword *MAT_PIECEWISE_LINEAR_PLASTIC. This
model is featured by multi-linear relationship after yielding. For this
model, the mass density, Poisson's ratio, elastic modulus, yield strength
and ultimate strength should be provided. Besides, the erosion of rein-
forcement element was also applied to represent fracture of rebars
when the strain exceeds the ultimate elongation ratio of steel. The de-
tailed properties of reinforcing bars with different diameters can refer
to Table 2. For reinforcing steel, the rate effect formulations proposed
by Cowper and Symonds [47] is implemented and the strength en-
hancement is applied to both yield strength and ultimate strength [47].
5
Journal of Building Engineering 45 (2022) 103554
2.3. Validation of the numerical model
Before validating against the reference dynamic tests, the static
structural resistance of the studied beam-slab substructure missing a
column and the failure pattens at the ultimate state were predicted us-
ing the model with quasi-static uniformly distributed loading. The re-
sults were compared to the experimental data, aiming to validate the
model in terms of full-range structural behavior and damage patterns at
large deformation stage. Fig. 6 compares the load-displacement curves
of FEM and experimental results. It can be seen that they are in good
agreement in terms of first peak and ultimate resistance, as well as de-
velopment trend during the entire loading stage. Moreover, a compari-
son of FEM results with and without consideration of bond-slip behav-
ior suggested that the bond-slip effect was insignificant and the model
with perfect bond agreed even better with the experimental result. Sim-
ilar findings were also reported by other numerical studies on various
RC structures resisting progressive collapse [54–56]. Fig. 7 compares
the failure modes at the beam ends. The numerical model can effec-
tively show the severe concrete spalling and rebar fracture with the ero-
sion of concrete elements and reinforcement elements. Particularly, the
numerical prediction of concrete separation agreed reasonably well
with the actual damage pattern, confirming the validity of the selected
erosion limit for the concrete element. Again, the model with and with-
out consideration of bond-slip behavior developed similar damage pat-
terns. Therefore, the model with perfect bond was adopted for the dy-
namic simulation to reduce the computational time.
For dynamic behavior, the column stub of the notionally removed
column will move downward due to the gravity load after the column
removal. The numerical and experimental results of the vertical dis-
placement time-history are compared in Fig. 8. It is seen that the verti-
cal displacement response including the first peak and corresponding
time as well as the permanent displacement after stabilization can be
closely predicted for both D-0.91 and D-1.16. Fig. 9 compares the devel-
opment of reinforcement strain at various points. Although the peak
strains tended to be underestimated, the permanent strains were rea-
sonably predicted. In particular, the yield strains were reached at all the
designated points in the tests with the exception of G3 in D-0.91, which
was well reproduced in the simulations.
The crack pattern and damage mode of D-0.91 and D-1.16 as shown
by effective plastic strains were also compared with the experimental
ones in Fig. 10. It is seen that the area with the distribution of extensive
Fig. 6. Comparison of quasi-static load-displacement curves between FEM and
experiment.
K. Qian et al.
Fig. 7. Comparison of damage patterns at failure under quasi-static loading.
Fig. 8. Comparison of numerical and experimental vertical displacement.
cracks and the direction of cracks agree well with the experimental
ones. Basically, wide flexural cracks concentrated around the perimeter
of the slab near the interior beams, and concrete spalling and crushing
associated with formation of plastic hinges were observed at the longi-
tudinal and transverse beam ends as well as along the slab diagonals.
Furthermore, the edge transverse beam A3-A4 was subjected to com-
bined bending and torsion originated from the downward deformation
of the slab. Obvious spiral cracks developed in the edge beam of Speci-
men D-1.16 due to the heavier load (Fig. 10(c)). This is also well indi-
cated by the strain distribution of the numerical result (Fig. 10(d)).
In summary, the good agreement in terms of vertical displacement
response, reinforcement strain and crack pattern confirmed the validity
6
Journal of Building Engineering 45 (2022) 103554
of the numerical model. The model was then utilized to investigate the
load transfer paths and progressive collapse resistance of beam-slab
substructures following sudden removal of a penultimate perimeter col-
umn. Moreover, the effects of pertinent parameters, such as damping
ratio, slab thickness and column removal scenarios, were evaluated sys-
tematically.
3. Dynamic structural behavior against progressive collapse
The investigation on the variation of axial forces of columns as well
as the development and distribution of internal forces or stresses in the
slabs and beams helps shed light on the structural behavior of beam-
slab substructures against progressive collapse. Moreover, the dynamic
progressive collapse resistance of beam-slab substructures is evaluated
by using incremental dynamic analysis, the result of which is employed
to assess the reliability of the dynamic increase factor method and en-
ergy-based method for estimating the structural resistance under sud-
den column removal scenarios.
3.1. Gravity load redistribution
Fig. 11 (a) and (b) plot the numerical results of axial forces of
columns before and after the sudden loss of the penultimate column,
i.e., B4, for Specimen D-0.91 and D-1.16, respectively. It is obvious
that the gravity load originally carried by B4 should be redistributed to
the adjacent columns. As can be seen from Fig. 11, both D-0.91 and D-
1.16 experience increases in the axial compressive forces of columns
A4, C4 and B3 but slight decreases in the axial compressive forces of
columns A3 and C3. In particular, column B3 normally exhibits the
largest increase in the axial compressive force. For D-0.91, the axial
compressive force of column B3 increases from 40.2 kN to 61.1 kN at
K. Qian et al. Journal of Building Engineering 45 (2022) 103554

Fig. 9. Comparison of development of reinforcement strain at: (a) G1; (b) G2; (b) G3.

7
K. Qian et al.
Fig. 10. Comparison of numerical and experimental crack pattern: (a) Test of D-0.91; (b) FEM of D-0.91; (c) Test of D-1.16; (d) FEM of D-1.16.
the instant of collapse of B4 and eventually stabilizes at 56.2 kN at the
end of disturbance, which undertakes up to 44% of the load shifted
from unloaded columns including A3 and C3. At the meanwhile,
columns A4 and C4 take over 26% and 30%, respectively, of the reallo-
cated load. Similarly, the columns B3, A4 and C4 gain 39%, 29% and
32%, respectively, of the shifted load in the case of Specimen D-1.16.
Details about the variation of axial forces in the remaining columns are
listed in Table 3. It is clear that the tributary load of B4 has been redis-
tributed primarily through the longitudinal and transverse beams to
the adjacent columns, while columns A3 and C3 with no beams con-
necting to B4 suffer from uplift action as a result of the deformation of
the slab. It is also worth noting that the transient increases in the axial
forces of relevant columns at sudden loss of B4 are much more signifi-
cant than the permanent changes due to dynamic effect, reaching
37.9% and 10.8% more for the D-0.91 and D-1.16, respectively. The
dynamic effect has actually made the substructure more vulnerable to
progressive collapse. The dynamic effect on the progressive collapse re-
8
Journal of Building Engineering 45 (2022) 103554
sistance of RC beam-slab substructures will be discussed in next sec-
tion.
3.2. Dynamic progressive collapse resistance
Given the tested beam-slab substructure specimen subjected to sud-
den removal of the penultimate perimeter column did not fail under the
UDL up to 11.9 kPa [37], the dynamic progressive collapse resistance of
the specimen was determined by means of incremental dynamic analy-
sis based on the validated numerical model. The obtained vertical dis-
placement time-histories at the column stub of B4 with increasing UDL
are shown in Fig. 12. As the UDL increased from 6.9 kPa to 20.6 kPa,
i.e., 0.73(DL + LL) to 1.82(DL + LL), the stabilized vertical displace-
ment after removal of B4 increased from 13 mm to 258 mm. The speci-
men would be unable to survive from the loss of the penultimate
perimeter column once the UDL further increased to 21.5 kPa, since the
substructure could not find a new balanced position with the vertical
K. Qian et al. Journal of Building Engineering 45 (2022) 103554

Fig. 11. The change of axial forces in columns:(a) Specimen D-0.91; (b) Specimen D-1.16.

Table 3
The change of axial forces in columns after load distribution of Specimen D-0.91 and D-1.16.
Specimen A3 B3 C3 A4 B4 C4

ΔP(kN) ΔR(kN) ΔP(kN) ΔR(kN) ΔP(kN) ΔR(kN) ΔP(kN) ΔR(kN) ΔP(kN) ΔR(kN) ΔP(kN) ΔR(kN)

D-0.91 −4.2 −3.4 20.9 16.0 −5.2 −4.9 12.8 9.5 −27.7 13.9 10.8
D-1.16 −5.8 −4.3 19.4 16.9 −6.4 −4.9 14.9 12.7 −34.4 16.0 14.1

Note:ΔPandΔRdenote the transient peak and residual axial force relative to the origin value, respectively.

Fig. 12. Vertical displacement time-histories based on dynamic incremental

analysis.

displacement steadily increasing with the running time. The dynamic

progressive collapse resistance of the substructure subjected to sudden
removal of the penultimate perimeter column is thus determined as
20.6 kPa. The load-displacement capacity curve in terms of the magni-
tude of UDL versus the stabilized vertical displacement after sudden
loss of the column based on the incremental dynamic analysis is plotted
in Fig. 13. The curve exhibits three phases as identified by the structural
stiffness. Substantial reduction in the stiffness is found with the dis-
placement between around 50 mm and 120 mm, which is attributable
to the crushing of concrete destroying the function of CAA and CMA,
whereas the subsequent partial recover of the stiffness is owing to the
development of TCA and TMA. This will be discussed in section 3.3.
For comparison purpose, the progressive collapse resistance of the
RC beam-slab substructure under penultimate perimeter column re-
moval scenario was also evaluated using quasi-static and pseudo-static
Fig. 13. Load-displacement capacity curves obtained from different ap-
proaches.
approaches. The quasi-static load-displacement curve as shown in Fig.
13 was obtained from the quasi-static pushdown test on an identical
specimen under the UDL loading scheme [28]. In this manner, the static
progressive collapse resistance of the specimen is obtained as 23.5 kPa.
The dynamic increase factor (DIF), defined as the ratio of the static pro-
gressive collapse resistance to dynamic progressive collapse resistance,
is thus obtained as 1.14 for the beam-slab substructure. The value of the
DIF obtained in this work is smaller than the value of 1.6 reported by
Nyunn et al. [45] for RC beam-slab building subjected to the loss of an
edge column or a corner column, and is much smaller than the recom-

9
K. Qian et al.
mended value of 2.0 according to DoD [8]. The smaller DIF of the load
in this work can be attributed to the structural resistance at failure in-
volving significant development of plasticity, whereas the structural re-
sponse covered in the prior study was limited to the elastic range under
typical design load. This is consistent with the knowledge that the DIF
depends on the ductility of structures, with structures with greater duc-
tility having lower DIFs as discussed in DoD [8] Annex C. On the other
hand, the ultimate deflection of the specimen under quasi-static loading
is almost double the maximum dynamic displacement that could be sus-
tained before eventual collapse, indicating that the dynamic effect is
even more detrimental to the deformation capacity of the structure.
For the pseudo-static approach, the pseudo-static response as shown
in Fig. 13 is derived by employing the Izzuddin's energy method [34] as
follows
(2)
where PPS(ud) denotes the pseudo-static load resisting capacity at
the displacement demand ud; and PQS(u) represents the load-
displacement capacity curve under quasi-static loading. The progres-
sive collapse resistance determined in this way is found to be 20.2 kPa,
which is very close to the estimation of 20.6 kPa based on the incre-
mental dynamic analysis. It is thus suggested that the pseudo-static
analysis essentially relying on energy equilibrium is competent to pre-
dict the dynamic progressive collapse resistance on the basis of mea-
sured quasi-static load-displacement curve. However, the deformation
capacity of the substructure is still tremendously overestimated with
this approach as inherited from the quasi-static response.
3.3. Load transfer mechanisms
The development and distribution of internal forces and stresses will
be explored to help illustrate the load transfer mechanisms of RC beam-
slab substructures against progressive collapse. Fig. 14 shows the axial
forces developed at the beam sections as labeled for model D-1.82,
where D-1.82 indicates the application of the UDL equal to 1.82 times
the design load of the prototype frame and corresponds to the case
where the specimen will eventually collapse after loss of the penulti-
mate perimeter column as discussed above. As can be seen, the axial
force development at beam cross-sections L1, R1 and T1 near the re-
maining columns show similar characteristics. These axial forces are
initially compression and then turn into tension, indicating the sequen-
tial mobilization of CAA of beams at relatively small vertical displace-
Fig. 14. Development of beam axial force in D-1.82 against progressive col-
lapse.
10
Journal of Building Engineering 45 (2022) 103554
ment and TCA at large vertical displacement. The maximum axial com-
pression force is largely dependent on the lateral constraint stiffness at
the beam ends, while the maximum axial tension force depends on the
lateral constraint stiffness as well as reinforcement ratio and reliable
anchoring [31]. This explains the diverse axial forces developed at the
cross-sections L1 and R1 of the longitudinal beam near the corner col-
umn and intermediate perimeter column. This also explains the weak
CAA and TCA of the transverse beam at the cross-section T2 near the
column stub as indicated by the slight internal force, since the rota-
tional stiffness of the longitudinal beam can provide limited constraint
for the transverse beam.
On the other hand, the development of CMA and TMA of slabs is
most simply illustrated by the horizontal movement seen at the oppo-
site sides of slab as shown in Fig. 15. The movement is first outward
(negative) and then in gradual transition into inward movement (posi-
tive), indicating the development of CMA and TMA of slabs at the small
and large deflection, respectively.
Fig. 16 shows the reinforcement stress of the RC beam-slab sub-
structure at two different deformed states against the progressive col-
lapse, i.e., at the vertical displacement of 35 mm and 400 mm. At the
small deflection as shown in Fig. 16(a), the large stress mainly concen-
trates at the beam and slab reinforcement around the column stub and
the beam ends. Besides, the development of sagging moment can be
clearly identified at the column stub region of the longitudinal beam
with the top and bottom reinforcement in compression and tension,
whereas the hogging moment is identified at both far ends of longitu-
dinal beam. This confirms the CAA mechanism is dominant in the lon-
gitudinal beam at the small deflection. At the large deflection as
shown in Fig. 16(b), while near the beam end the tension stress of top
reinforcement has greatly exceeded the compression stress of bottom
reinforcement, the bottom reinforcement outside the hogging moment
region of longitudinal beam is largely mobilized into considerable ten-
sion, confirming the dominant development of TCA. On the contrary,
the transverse beam shows the dominant development of CAA in the
overall process. This can be attributed to the composite effect between
the slab and beam working compatibly as the T-section beam, making
the flexural mechanism of the transverse beam prevail even at very
large deflection. This has enhanced the contribution of transverse
beam to the progressive collapse resistance of the specimen at the
small deflection. However, after quick reduction of axial compression
at the cross-section T1 due to the concrete crushing, the transverse
beam is still slow in evolving into TCA as shown by Fig. 14, resulting
in far less contribution at the large deflection. Most slab reinforcement
(both at the top and bottom) except those near the interior longitudi-
Fig. 15. Horizontal movements developed at opposite sides of slab for D-1.82.
K. Qian et al.
Fig. 16. Reinforcement stress of D-1.82: (a) at deflection of 35 mm; (b) at deflection of 400 mm.
nal beam are in remarkable tension at the large deflection, confirming
the mobilization of TMA of slabs.
3.4. Contribution of beams and slabs
To better demonstrate the relative contribution of the beams and
slabs to the dynamic progressive collapse resistance of the substructure,
the beam-column model (denoted as B-D hereafter) built by removing
the slab of the beam-slab model was studied and the ratio of the beam-
column substructure resistance to the corresponding beam-slab sub-
11
Journal of Building Engineering 45 (2022) 103554
structure resistance was used for the demonstration. In the B-D model,
the UDL was applied in terms of the tributary loads to the respective
beams and attention was paid to ensure the vertical reaction force at the
base of the column stub was the same as that in the beam-slab model.
Similar to the beam-slab substructure, the dynamic progressive collapse
resistance of the bare frame under sudden removal of penultimate
perimeter column was determined by conducting incremental dynamic
analysis with the B-D model. The obtained load-displacement capacity
curve of B-D is plotted in Fig. 17, along with that of the beam-slab
model (denoted as BS-D). As can be seen, the dynamic progressive col-
K. Qian et al.
Fig. 17. Comparison of the load-displacement capacity curve between B-D and
BS-D.
lapse resistance of the bare frame was found to be 15.9 kPa, only 77%
of the beam-slab substructure resistance, whereas the corresponding
vertical displacement significantly increased from 258 mm to 459 mm
as a result of elimination of the slabs. It is obvious that the presence of
slabs contributes to both the structural resistance and stiffness of the
beam-slab substructures. Furthermore, the contribution of slabs is esti-
mated by subtracting the load-displacement curve of B-D from that of
BS-D as shown in Fig. 17. It is seen that the slabs yield at around 7 kPa,
which agrees well with the predicted yield load of the slabs using yield-
line theory [28]. Overall, the slabs are mobilized prior to beams and
make dominant contribution to the structural resistance at deflections
smaller than 200 mm which is approximately three times the slab
depth.
4. Effect of structural parameters and column removal scenarios
4.1. Effect of damping ratio
Fig. 18 shows the structural responses of beam-slab substructures
with different damping ratios subjected to sudden column removal. As
the damping ratio increases from 0% to 5%, smaller deformation can
develop in the substructure following the sudden loss of the column
since the resulted vertical displacement is found to decrease from
Fig. 18. Effect of damping ratio on structural deformation capacity.
12
Journal of Building Engineering 45 (2022) 103554
55 mm to 40 mm, while the vibration lasts for a shorter period as can
be seen in Fig. 18. With the damping ratio further increasing to 8%, no
noticeable changes in the structural response are observed.
4.2. Effect of slab thickness
On the basis of the model D-0.91, the effect of slab thickness on the
dynamic response of RC beam-slab substructures under column re-
moval is investigated by gradually reducing the slab thickness from
64 mm in the reference test to 35 mm while maintaining same rein-
forcement details. Note that the reinforcement ratios of the slab with
different slab thicknesses all satisfied the requirement of the minimum
and maximum reinforcement ratio. Considering the beam depth of
112 mm, the studied slab thickness of 64 mm, 57 mm, 50 mm, 42 mm
and 35 mm correspond to a slab thickness-to-beam depth ratio of 0.57,
0.51, 0.45, 0.38 and 0.31, respectively. The comparison of the dynamic
response as shown in Fig. 19 suggests that the effect becomes very evi-
dent once the slabs are thinner than 50 mm, which is about 1/45 of the
span. While the change of the resulted vertical displacement is within
37% when the slab thickness varies between 64 mm and 50 mm, the
maximum vertical displacement rises to 95.49 mm and 147.01 mm
when the slab thickness is reduced to 42 mm and 35 mm, respectively,
which are 121% and 241% larger than that with slabs of 64 mm thick.
It is apparent that thinner slabs are weaker in developing CMA. How-
ever, thin slabs are also unfavorable for development of CAA and TCA
of beams. Fig. 20 shows that slabs, as the thickness reducing from
Fig. 19. Effect of slab thickness on the dynamic response of substructures.
Fig. 20. Effect of slab thickness on axial force of A4-B4 beam left end section.
K. Qian et al. Journal of Building Engineering 45 (2022) 103554

64 mm to 35 mm, not only leads to 34% reduction in the maximum ax-

ial compression force in the left end of A4-B4 beam, but also make the
beam evolve into axial tension at a smaller deflection and develop 37%
less ultimate axial tension.

4.3. Effect of column removal scenarios

4.3.1. Effect of lost column(s)

Apart from the loss of a single bearing column, the accidental loss of
multiple columns is also likely to take place. The different scenarios of
removing one more column adjacent to B4 are investigated, such as re-
moval of the corner column A4, interior column B3 and another
perimeter column C4. Fig. 21, showing the dynamic displacement re-
sponse of substructure under the different column removal scenarios,
suggests that the progressive collapse resistance of beam-slab substruc-
tures is strongly associated with the lost columns. Obviously, the loss of
more bearing columns would make the substructures more prone to
progressive collapse. It can be seen that the loss of one more adjacent
column besides the penultimate perimeter column would incur at least
3 times larger deflection. Furthermore, among the double-column re-
moval scenarios, the loss of the corner column with the penultimate col-
umn represents the most hazardous situation to the progressive collapse
resistance of the substructure. As is seen, the substructure imposed with
0.91 times the design load will undergo considerable deflection shortly
after the removal of columns A4 and B4, and the deflection keeps in-
creasing slowly afterwards until leading to collapse. This indicates a dy-
namic progressive collapse resistance of 0.91 times the design load,
which is only 50% of the resistance to progressive collapse under re-
moval of only B4. Similar findings were reported in the experimental
study by Qian et al. [28]. The main reason for this is that no reliable
secondary load-carrying mechanisms, including CAA, TCA, CMA and
TMA, can be developed after the loss of both corner and penultimate
columns.

4.3.2. Effect of column removal sequence and interval

Fig. 22 shows the vertical displacement time-histories at the col-
umn stub of A4, assuming columns A4 and B4 are removed simultane-
ously, or one after another with very short, short and long interval to
have increasingly less overlap between dynamic response of substruc-
ture after sudden removal of each column. The results indicated that
the multi-column removal sequence and interval has little effect on the
maximum vertical displacement developed. Besides, the final changes
of the axial forces in the columns are also identical to those in the si-
multaneous removal scenario as shown in Fig. 23, despite the fact that Fig. 22. Vertical displacement of A4 for: (a) sequential removal of A4 and B4;
(b) sequential removal of B4 and A4.
the gravity load is redistributed twice for the sequential removal of the
two columns. However, the various multi-column removal sequences
produce slightly different damage patterns in the substructure as
shown in Fig. 24. The beams and slabs in span B–C exhibit wider
cracks when columns A4 and B4 are removed at the same time,
whereas the extreme damage can spread to span A-B especially at the
top of beam end adjoining B4 when B4 is removed some time after the
removal of A4 and at the bottom of beam ends when B4 is removed
prior to A4.

5. Conclusions

In this paper, a series of high fidelity solid-element-based numerical

models of RC beam-slab substructures are calibrated based on the test
data from Qian and Li [37], and then are utilized to investigate the dy-
namic progressive collapse resistance and load transfer mechanisms un-
der the penultimate perimeter column removal scenario. The pertinent
geometric and structural parameters affecting the progressive collapse
resistance of beam-slab substructures, as well as diverse column re-
moval scenarios, are explored. The main conclusions are drawn as fol-
lows:
Fig. 21. Dynamic response with loss of different column(s).

13
K. Qian et al. Journal of Building Engineering 45 (2022) 103554

Fig. 23. Reaction forces for: (a) simultaneous and (b) sequential removal of A4 and B4.

Fig. 24. Crack pattern for: (a) simultaneous; (b) sequential removal of A4 and B4; (c) sequential removal of B4 and A4.

1. After loss of a bearing column, the gravity load is redistributed
primarily through the transverse and longitudinal beams to the
adjoining columns, and axial forces of these columns can be
increased by as much as 30%–60%. Moreover, with the column
suddenly removed, the transient increases in the axial forces of
remaining columns are much more significant than the permanent
changes due to the dynamic effect, making the substructure more
vulnerable to progressive collapse.
2. Based on the dynamic progressive collapse resistance
determined via the incremental dynamic analysis, a dynamic
increase factor (DIF) of 1.14 is obtained by dividing the
experimental quasi-static progressive collapse resistance by the
dynamic resistance, which is significantly less than the value of
2.0 as advised by the DoD design guidelines for design of
buildings to resist progressive collapse. On the other hand, the
energy equilibrium-based pseudo-static analysis can provide very
precise estimation of the structure's progressive collapse

14
K. Qian et al.
resistance, implying a simple alternative tool to the dynamic
analysis. However, both quasi-static and pseudo-static
approaches significantly overestimate the deformation capacity
of substructures.
3. The progressive collapse resistance of the RC beam-slab
substructures is mainly provided by the compressive arch action
(CAA) of the longitudinal beam and especially the flexural
mechanism of the transverse beam, owing to the significant
“composite effects” between the slab and beam, at the small
deflection, and by the tensile membrane action (TMA) of the
slabs and the catenary action (TCA) of the longitudinal beam at
the large deflection.
4. The presence of slabs can improve the progressive collapse
resistance of the RC beam-column counterpart by as much as
30%. Especially, the slabs are mobilized prior to beams and make
dominant contribution to the structural resistance against
progressive collapse at deflections smaller than three times the
slab depth. However, a minimum slab thickness about 1/45 of
span length is vital to the development of CMA of slabs as well as
to improve the development of CAA and TCA of beams.
5. A large damping ratio helps dissipate energy, enabling smaller
deflection and milder vibration. But excessive damping with the
damping ratio greater than 5% hardly bring about further
improvement.
6. The loss of one more column dramatically increases the risk of
progressive collapse. The location of the removed columns is
found to have greater impact on the structural resistance against
progressive collapse than the column removal sequence and
interval. The loss of the corner column in addition to the
penultimate perimeter column represents the most hazardous
situation among the double-column removal scenarios, which can
reduce the progressive collapse resistance of the substructure by
50%. The maximum deflection developed is hardly affected
whether these two columns are removed simultaneously or one
after another with very short, short and long interval.
Author statements
Kai Qian: Conceptualization. Xin-yi Chen: Methodology and Formal
Analysis. Ting Huang: Conceptualization and Writing- Original Draft
Preparation.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the
publication of this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support by the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 52022024,
51778153), the Natural Science Foundation of Guangxi Province
(No.2021GXNSFFA196001) and the Research Foundation of Guilin
University of Technology (No. GUTQDJJ 2019124).
References
[1] ASCE/SEI 7, Recommendations for Designing Collapse-Resistant Structures,
Structural Engineering Institute-American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA,
2010.
[2] F. Kiakojouri, V.D. Biagi, B. Chiaia, M.R. Sheidaii, Progressive collapse of framed
building structures: current knowledge and future prospects, Eng. Struct. 206
(2020) 110061.
[3] H. Griffiths, A. Pugsley, O.A. Saunders, Report of the Inquiry into the Collapse of
Flats at Ronan Point, presented to the Minister of Housing and Local Government,
HMSO, Canning Town, 1968, pp. 58–66.
[4] W.G. Corley, P.E.M. Sr, M.A. Sozen, C.H. Thornton, The Oklahoma City bombing:
summary and recommendations for multihazard mitigation, J. Perform. Constr.
15
Journal of Building Engineering 45 (2022) 103554
Facil. 12 (3) (1998) 110–112.
[5] K.A. Seffen, Progressive collapse of the World trade center: simple analysis, J.
Eng. Mech. 134 (2) (2008) 125–132.
[6] American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Minimum Design Loads for
Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE7-05, Reston, VA, 2005.
[7] B.S. Institution, National Annex to Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures - Part 1-7,
Accidental Actions, 2006.
[8] Department of Defense (DoD), Design of buildings to resist progressive collapse,
ufc 4-023-03, Change (1-27 January 2010).
[9] General Services Administration (GSA), Progressive collapse analysis and design
guidelines for new federal office buildings and major modernization projects, 2003.
[10] J. Yu, K.H. Tan, Structural behavior of RC beam-column subassemblages under a
middle column removal scenario, J. Struct. Eng. 139 (2) (2012) 233–250.
[11] Y. Su, Y. Tian, X. Song, Progressive collapse resistance of axially-restrained frame
beams, ACI Struct. J. 106 (5) (2009) 600–607.
[12] J. Yu, K.H. Tan, Experimental and numerical investigation on progressive
collapse resistance of reinforced concrete beam column sub-assemblages, Eng.
Struct. 55 (1) (2013) 90–106.
[13] W.J. Yi, Q.F. He, Y. Xiao, S.K. Kunnath, Experimental study on progressive
collapse resistant behavior of reinforced concrete frame structures, ACI Struct. J.
105 (4) (2008) 433–439.
[14] F. Sadek, J.A. Main, H.S. Lew, Y. Bao, Testing and analysis of steel and concrete
beam-column assemblies under a column removal scenario, J. Struct. Eng. 137 (9)
(2011) 881–892.
[15] F.L. Wang, J. Yang, Sandeep. Shah, effect of horizontal restraints on progressive
collapse resistance of precast concrete beam-column framed substructures, J. Civ.
Eng. 24 (3) (2020) 879–889.
[16] Y. Zhou, T. Chen, Y. Pei, H.J. Hwang, X. Hu, W. Yi, L. Deng, Static load test on
progressive collapse resistance of fully assembled precast concrete frame structure,
Eng. Struct. 200 (2019) 109719.
[17] M. Sasani, J. Kropelnicki, Progressive collapse analysis of an RC structure, Struct.
Des. Tall. 17 (4) (2010) 757–771.
[18] D.C. Feng, S.C. Xie, Y. Li, L. Jin, Time-dependent reliability-based redundancy
assessment of deteriorated RC structures against progressive collapse considering
corrosion effect, Struct. Saf. 89 (2021), 102061.
[19] D.C. Feng, S.C. Jun, Y. Li, K. Qian, Robustness quantification of reinforced
concrete structures subjected to progressive collapse via the probability density
evolution method, Eng. Struct. 202 (2020) 109877.
[20] A.t. Pham, K.H. Tan, Experimental study on dynamic responses of reinforced
concrete frames under sudden column removal applying concentrated loading,
Eng. Struct. 139 (2017) 31–45.
[21] J. Yu, K.H. Tan, Experimental and numerical investigation on progressive
collapse resistance of reinforced concrete beam column sub-assemblages, Eng.
Struct. 55 (2013) 90–106.
[22] D.C. Feng, S.C. Jun, W.N. Deng, Z.D. Ding, Probabilistic failure analysis of
reinforced concrete beam-column sub-assemblage under column removal scenario,
Eng. Fail. Anal. 100 (2019) 381–392.
[23] D.C. Feng, S.C. Xie, C.L. Ning, S.X. Liang, Investigation of modeling strategies for
progressive collapse analysis of RC frame structures, J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 33
(6) (2019) 04019063.
[24] P.X. Dat, K.H. Tan, Experimental study of beam-slab substructures subjected to a
penultimate-internal column loss, Eng. Struct. 55 (2013) 2–15.
[25] K. Qian, B. Li, Slab effects on response of reinforced concrete substructures after
loss of corner column, ACI Struct. J. 109 (2012) 845–855.
[26] P.X. Dat, K.H. Tan, Experimental response of beam-slab substructures subject to
penultimate-external column removal, J. Struct. Eng. 141 (2015) 014170.
[27] X.Z. Lu, K.Q. Lin, Y. Li, H. Guan, P.Q. Ren, Y.L. Zhou, Experimental investigation
of RC beam-slab substructures against progressive collapse subject to an edge-
column-removal scenario, Eng. Struct. 149 (2017) 91–103.
[28] K. Qian, B. Li, Z.W. Zhang, Influence of multicolumn removal on the behavior of
RC substructures, J. Struct. Eng. 142 (5) (2016) 04016006.
[29] Z. Tan, W.H. Zhong, L.M. Tian, Y.H. Zheng, B. M, S.C. Duan, Numerical study on
collapse-resistant performance of multi-story composite frames under a column
removal scenario, J. Build. Eng. 44 (2021) 102957.
[30] K. Qian, B. Li, Resilience of flat slab structures in different phases of progressive
collapse, ACI Struct. J. 113 (3) (2016) 537–548.
[31] J. Yu, L.Z. Luo, Y. L, Numerical study of progressive collapse resistance of RC
beam-slab substructures under perimeter column removal scenarios, Eng. Struct.
159 (2018) 14–27.
[32] J. Yu, T. Rinder, A. Stolz, K.H. Tan, W. Riedel, Dynamic progressive collapse of
an RC assemblage induced by contact detonation, J. Struct. Eng. 140 (6) (2014)
04014014.
[33] M. Liu, A new dynamic increase factor for nonlinear static alternate path analysis
of building frames against progressive collapse, Eng. Struct. 48 (2013) 666–673.
[34] B.A. Izzuddin, A.G. Vlassis, A.Y. Elghazouli, D.A. Nethercot, Progressive collapse
of multistorey buildings due to sudden column loss-part 1: simplified assessment
framework, Eng. Struct. 30 (2008) 1308–1318.
[35] A.T. Pham, K.H. Tan, J. Yu, Numerical investigations on static and dynamic
responses of reinforced concrete sub-assemblages under progressive collapse, Eng.
Struct. 149 (2017) 2–20.
[36] K. Qian, B. Li, Quantification of slab influences on the dynamic performance of
RC frames against progressive collapse, J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 29 (1) (2015)
04014029.
[37] K. Qian, B. Li, Dynamic and residual behavior of reinforced concrete
substructures following instantaneous removal of a column, Eng. Struct. 148
(2017) 175–184.
K. Qian et al.
[38] K. Qian, B. Li, Dynamic performance of RC beam-column substructures under the
scenario of the loss of a corner column—experimental results, Eng. Struct. 42
(2012) 154–167.
[39] Y. Tian, Y. Su, Dynamic response of reinforced concrete beams following
instantaneous removal of a bearing column, Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 5 (1)
(2011) 19–28.
[40] Z.H. Peng, S.L. Orton, J.R. Liu, Y. Tian, Experimental study of dynamic
progressive collapse in flat-plate buildings subjected to an interior column removal,
J. Struct. Eng. 144 (8) (2018) 04018094.
[41] Z.H. Peng, S.L. Orton, J.R. Liu, Y. Tian, Experimental study of dynamic
progressive collapse in flat-plate buildings subjected to exterior column removal, J.
Struct. Eng. 143 (9) (2017) 04017125.
[42] S.L. Orton, J.E. Kirby, Dynamic response of a RC frame under column removal, J.
Perform. Constr. Facil. 28 (9) (2014) 04014010.
[43] Y. Zhou, X. Hu, Y. Pei, H.J. Hwang, T. Chen, W.J. Yi, L. Deng, Dynamic load test
on progressive collapse resistance of fully assembled precast concrete frame
structures, Eng. Struct. 214 (2020) 110675.
[44] J.M. Adam, M. Buitrago, E. Bertolesi, J. Sagasete, J.J. Moragues, Dynamic
performance of a real-scale reinforced concrete building test under a corner-column
failure scenario, Eng. Struct. 210 (2020) 110414.
[45] S. Nyunn, F. Wang, J. Yang, Q.F. Liu, I. Azim, S. Bhatta, Numerical studies on the
progressive collapse resistance of multi-story RC buildings with and without
exterior masonry walls, Struct 28 (2020) 1050–1059.
[46] CP 65, Structural Use of Concrete, Part1. Code of Practice for Design and
Construction, 1999, Singapore Standard.
[47] Livermore Software Technology Corporation (LSTC), LSDYNA: Keyword User’s
16
Journal of Building Engineering 45 (2022) 103554
Manual – Volume II, Material Models, California, 2020.
[48] Y.D. Murray, User’s Manual for LS-DYNA Concrete Material Model 159, APTEK,
Inc., Colorado, 2007, p. 92.
[49] CEB-FIP Model Code, Design of Concrete Structures, Fédération Internationale
du Béton fib/International Federation for Structural Concrete, 2010.
[50] J. Yu, L.Z. Luo, Y. Li, Numerical study of progressive collapse resistance of RC
beam-slab substructures under perimeter column removal scenarios, Eng. Struct.
159 (2018) 14–27.
[51] A.T. Pham, K.H. Tan, J. Yu, Numerical investigations on static and dynamic
responses of reinforced concrete sub-assemblages under progressive collapse, Eng.
Struct. 149 (2017) 2–20.
[52] D.L. Grote, S.W. Park, M. Zhou, Dynamic behavior of concrete at high strain rates
and pressures: I. experimental characterization, Int. J. Impact Eng. 25 (2001)
869–886.
[53] J.C. Simo, J.G. Kennedy, S. Govindjee, Non-smooth multisurface plasticity and
viscoplasticity. Loading/unloading conditions and numerical algorithms, Int. J.
Numer. Methods Eng. 26 (10) (2010) 2161–2185.
[54] J. Yu, Y.P. Gan, J. Wu, H. Wu, Effect of concrete masonry infill walls on
progressive collapse performance of reinforced concrete infilled frames, Eng.
Struct. 191 (2019) 179–193.
[55] Y.H. Weng, K. Qian, F. Fu, Q. Fang, Numerical investigation on load
redistribution capacity of flat slab substructures to resist progressive collapse, J.
Build. Eng. 29 (2020) 101109.
[56] J. Yu, Y.P. Gan, J. Liu, Numerical study of dynamic responses of reinforced
concrete infilled frames subjected to progressive collapse, Adv. Struct. Eng. 24 (4)
(2020).