Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Experimental study of a novel multi-hazard resistant prefabricated concrete

frame structure
⁎
Kaiqi Lina, Xinzheng Lub, , Yi Lic, Hong Guand
a
Beijing Engineering Research Center of Steel and Concrete Composite Structures, Tsinghua University, China
b
Key Laboratory of Civil Engineering Safety and Durability of Ministry of Education, Tsinghua University, China
c
Key Laboratory of Urban Security and Disaster Engineering of Ministry of Education, Beijing University of Technology, China
d
Griffith School of Engineering, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, Queensland 4222, Australia

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Reinforced concrete (RC) frames are one of the most commonly used structural systems worldwide. Earthquake
Multi-hazard actions and progressive collapse caused by accidental local damage are two critical hazards increasing collapse
Prefabricated concrete frame risks of multi-story RC frames. A significant difference is well recognized between the structural seismic design
Earthquake and progressive collapse design. Whilst the seismic design focuses on resisting the lateral forces due to earth-
Progressive collapse
quake, the progressive collapse design deals with resisting the unbalanced vertical load induced by a localized
Experimental study
failure. Existing research has revealed that considering the two different designs individually for a structure may
Resilient
lead to an undesirable overall structural performance and unnecessary waste of construction materials. In this
study, a novel Multi-Hazard Resistant, Prefabricated Concrete (MHRPC) frame system is proposed to satisfy the
demands of both structural seismic and progressive collapse designs. Cyclic and progressive collapse tests are
conducted to validate the performance of this newly proposed structural system. The mechanisms of the MHRPC
frame system under both cyclic loads and a middle column removal scenario are analyzed based on the ex-
perimental results and numerical simulations using OpenSees. The results indicate that the proposed fame
system exhibits such characteristics as large rotation, low damage, self-centering, and ease of repair. The system
is also proven to be able to meet the multi-hazard design requirements of RC frames against both earthquake
actions and progressive collapse.

1. Introduction
Multiple hazards, such as earthquake, wind, fire and progressive
collapse triggered by accidental local failure, impose enormous tech-
nical challenges to building structures throughout their service lives.
Constructing multi-hazard resistant structures has become one of the
most-concerned research focuses worldwide. For commonly con-
structed multi-story reinforced concrete (RC) frames, a number of ex-
isting studies have revealed that earthquake actions and progressive
collapse are the two critical hazards affecting their structural perfor-
mance and safety [1,2]. Progressive collapse refers to as the dis-
proportionate chain collapse action of a structure initiated by a small
and localized failure which may be caused by fire, explosion or over-
loading [3]. Typical examples of structural progressive collapse can be
found in many existing literature, such as the 1968 collapse of Ronan
Point apartment [3], the 1995 explosion of the Murrah Federal Building
in Oklahoma City [2] and the 2001 fire induced progressive collapse of
World Trade Center [4]. Progressive collapse of buildings can cause
substantial loss of life and property, thereby leading to significant so-
cial, psychological and economic consequences.
According to the findings of the recent literature, a design method
targeting for one particular hazard often unfavorably affects the
structural performance against other hazards [5,6]. For example, Li and
Sasani [7] and Livingston et al. [8] compared the progressive collapse
resistance of frame beams in an ordinary frame and a special frame
designed according to ACI 318-11 [9]. They discovered that the special
frame is more ductile in terms of the structural seismic performance. On
the other hand, the ordinary frame demonstrated a higher progressive
collapse resistance under a column removal scenario. Lin et al. [10]
discussed the interactions between seismic and progressive collapse
designs using a vulnerability-based evaluation method. Their results
indicated that using the current progressive collapse design method
would result in an unfavorable “strong beam-weak column” failure
mode in RC frames, caused by the increased reinforcement ratios in the
frame beams. This implies that the structural seismic performance
might be weakened after implementing the current progressive collapse

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: luxz@tsinghua.edu.cn (X. Lu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.04.011
Received 10 November 2017; Received in revised form 14 March 2018; Accepted 6 April 2018
0267-7261/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Lin, K., Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.04.011
K. Lin et al.
Fig. 1. Schematic of the MHRPC frame.
design separately. Note that in the current provision of the progressive
collapse design guidelines [11–13], the requirement for the seismic
performance re-evaluation or re-design after performing the progressive
collapse design is still absent. As a result, the conventional single-ha-
zard oriented design methods cannot satisfy the performance require-
ments of the seismic and progressive collapse designs simultaneously. It
is therefore urgently needed to propose a comprehensive multi-hazard
design solution for RC frames considering both seismic actions and
progressive collapse.
In recent years, an increasing attention has also been paid to de-
velop earthquake resilient structures. To date, seismic resilient RC
structures are designed primarily by incorporating high performance
components (i.e., prestressed tendons, energy dissipating devices and
replaceable structural members) to control the damage distribution,
residual deformation and to improve the structural post-earthquake
reparability [14–18]. Specifically, in order to improve the seismic
performance and resilience of RC structures, Wolski et al. [15] and Song
Fig. 2. Layout of the six-story RC frame (unit: m).
2
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
et al. [16] tested the energy dissipating and self-centering capacities of
a series of RC beam-column joints with post-tensioning (PT) tendons
and energy dissipating devices. Their experimental results indicated
that such frame joints underwent small residual deformations and dis-
played minor damage under a seismic action. Lu et al. [17] conducted a
shaking table test of a half-scale two-story self-centering RC frame
which further validated the seismic performance of such a structural
system. Despite these considerable efforts, researchers have mainly
focused on evaluating the seismic performance of such high-perfor-
mance structures either on the system or component level. Limited
studies have been reported on the evaluation of progressive collapse
resistance of this type of structures.
In this study, a novel multi-hazard resistant prefabricated concrete
frame (i.e., MHRPC frame) system, incorporating PT tendons, energy
dissipating steel angles and shear plates, is proposed to meet the de-
mands of both seismic and progressive collapse designs. Such a MHRPC
frame system also takes great advantage of prefabricated structures.
The use of steel angles, steel plates and jackets facilitate easily bolted
connections between the beams and columns, without resorting to the
traditional onsite welding. All the components can be prefabricated in
the factory, accelerating the construction speed and improving the
quality and safety of the structures.
Cyclic and progressive collapse tests are conducted to evaluate the
multi-hazard resistant performance of this newly proposed frame
system. Three design schemes are considered, i.e., a conventional RC
frame (RC6), an RC frame after implementing the progressive collapse
design (RD1) and a newly proposed MHRPC frame (PC6). Based on the
experimental results, special efforts are paid to: (1) evaluate the influ-
ence of the current progressive collapse design on the structural seismic
and progressive collapse performances; (2) compare the seismic and
progressive collapse resistances between the conventional RC frame
and the newly proposed MHRPC frame; (3) develop a numerical model
to simulate the cyclic and progressive collapse behaviors of the tested
MHRPC frame in OpenSees.
2. Experimental program
2.1. The proposed MHRPC frame
In this study, we intend to introduce the MHRPC frame system for
improving both seismic and progressive collapse performances of RC
frames. A schematic of the proposed MHRPC frame is shown in Fig. 1,
in which Fig. 1b depicts the details of the beam-column joint region.
The structure is assembled using precast RC beams and columns, un-
bonded PT tendons, energy dissipating steel angles and large rotational
shear plates. It should be noted that when the structure is exposed to a
specific hazard, one or more of the components may not play a major
K. Lin et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 3. Collapse modes of RC6 under column removal scenarios on 1st floor (Gravity load: 1.0 g) [10].

Fig. 4. Details of the seismic cyclic test RC specimens (unit: mm). Note: Plain round bars were used in all the specimens.

role. However, these components will become critically important to
improve the structural resistance against other hazardous events. With
respect to the seismic action, published experimental studies indicated
that the proposed structure has a favorable self-centering capacity,
minor post-earthquake damage and is easy to repair after the earth-
quake [14–17]. Under an earthquake scenario, the prestressing ten-
dons, steel angles and shear plates work together to resist the seismic
action. More specifically, adequate flexural strengths can be provided
by the steel angles and PT tendons while sufficient shear strengths can
be provided by the shear plates and PT tendons. In addition, the steel
angles also serve as the energy dissipating devices, which are designed
to be replaceable after the earthquake. The PT tendons also provide the
self-centering capacity to the structure. When considering the pro-
gressive collapse resistance, the structure is expected to deform as
shown in Fig. 1a. At small deformations, the progressive collapse re-
sistance is also provided by the flexural capacities of the beams and the
compressive arch action. While at large deformations, both the steel
angles and PT tendons are under tension and provide the catenary

3
K. Lin et al.
Fig. 5. Details of the seismic cyclic test PC specimen (unit: mm). Note: Plain round bars were used in all the specimens.
resistance to redistribute the unbalanced gravity load. The shear plates
at the joint region are designed with a slotted hole to accommodate
large rotation between the precast columns and beams and help to re-
distribute the unbalanced load. Hence, the proposed MHRPC system
could provide sufficient progressive collapse resistance and alternate
load paths, thereby preventing propagation of the initial failure and
disproportionate collapse of the entire structural system.
2.2. Experimental design
2.2.1. Design of the prototype building
In order to verify the seismic and progressive collapse performance
4
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
of the proposed MHRPC frame, a six-story RC frame with a seismic
design intensity of VI (i.e., the design peak ground acceleration (PGA)
with a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years is equal to 0.05 g) is
taken as the prototype building. Note that this prototype building has
been thoroughly studied experimentally and analytically by Lin et al.
[10], Ren et al. [19], and Lu et al. [20]. Three different frame structures
are derived from the design, i.e., a conventional RC frame, an RC frame
after implementing the progressive collapse design and a newly pro-
posed MHRPC frame, designated as RC6, RD1, and PC6, respectively.
Both cyclic tests and progressive collapse tests are conducted to com-
pare the seismic resistance, residual deformation and progressive col-
lapse resistance of these frames.
K. Lin et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

i.e., RC6.

2.2.2. Progressive collapse design of RD1

Fig. 6. Formwork of the prefabricated components.
Detailed dimensions of the six-story RC frame are shown in Fig. 2.
The span lengths in both longitudinal and transverse directions are 6 m.
The structure is considered to be fully fixed to the ground. The dead
load considered on each story is 5.0 kN/m2, whereas the live load is
2.0 kN/m2. More detailed information about this prototype building
have been reported by Lin et al. [9], Ren et al. [19], and Lu et al. [20].
Initially the structure is designed following the Chinese design codes
(i.e., the Code for Design of Concrete Structures [21] and the Code for
Seismic Design of Buildings [22]) to create the conventional RC frame,
In the previous work of Lin et al. [10], nonlinear dynamic analyses
of RC6 were conducted to evaluate the structural progressive collapse
responses. The numerical results indicated that the prototype building
would collapse under gravity load by removing any one of the columns
on the first to the fifth story. Some of the typical collapse scenarios are
provided in Fig. 3 [10]. The outcome of this previous study suggests
that RC6 does not satisfy the progressive collapse resistance require-
ment that is specified in DoD 2010 [11], GSA 2013 [12] and the Chi-
nese code (i.e. the Code for Anti-collapse Design of Building Structures
[13]) and should be strengthened to prevent progressive collapse from
happening. Note that many existing studies have proved that increasing
the seismic design could also enhance the progressive collapse re-
sistance of RC frames [10,23]. However, the influence of the higher
intensity seismic design on the improvement of the progressive collapse
resistance cannot be quantified, making it hard to determine the re-
quired amount of improvement for a seismic design in order to meet the
demand of progressive collapse resistance. In contrast, when the design
method specified in the progressive collapse design codes is used, the
improved progressive collapse resistance of a structure can be de-
termined in a more quantitative way. For the reasons given above, RC6
is redesigned according to the tie force method provided in DoD 2010
[11] and the new structure is named as RD1.

100
80
Constant force 60
F = 486 kN
Displacement / mm

Hinge support 40
Cyclic load: 20
+: Downward 0
Specimen h=1.9 m -: Upward
S-C
-20 0 5 10 15 20 25
S-A S-B

lF = 1.5 m
-40
lB = 1.65 m
S-D
Cyclic load:
+: Upward Hydraulic -60
-: Downward jack -80
-100
Loading cycle
South North

(a) Setup for seismic cyclic test

Constant force Constant force

F = 500 kN F = 500 kN
Hydraulic
Column stub
jack
(200×200 mm2)
P-A P-B P-C P-D P-E P-F

ln = 2.8 m Boundary
Rotational
column
restraint
ltotal = 7.0 m
Foundation
Z beam
Y
East West
X

(b) Setup for progressive collapse test

Fig. 7. Experimental setup.

5
K. Lin et al.
Fig. 8. Details of the progressive collapse test specimens (unit: mm). Note: Plain round bars were used in all the specimens.
A successful progressive collapse design includes improvements in
both load carrying and deformation capacities. For RC frames, the load
carrying mechanisms are represented by the flexural action and com-
pressive arch action at small deformations (beam mechanism) and the
catenary action at large deformations (catenary mechanism). All the
above actions help to provide alternate paths to redistribute the un-
balanced load when a localized failure occurs. The deformation capa-
city, on the other hand, demands the structure to accommodate large
deformations without losing its integrity, by which progressive collapse
can be prevented. For example, a 0.20 rad of chord rotational capacity
6
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
is required for RC frames as specified in DoD 2010 [11].
RD1 is designed according to the tie force method specified in DoD
2010 [11] and the required tie strength is:
Ru = 3WF L1 (1)
in which, WF is the floor load, which can be derived from Eq. (2); L1
= 6 m is the distance between the centers of the columns.
WF = 1.2D + 0.5L = 1.2 × 5 + 0.5 × 2 = 7 kN/m2 (2)
The design tie strength is calculated as:
K. Lin et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 1 progressive collapse tests on RC substructures. Furthermore, the 1/2-

Material properties. scale has been very commonly used in many published cyclic tests of
Reinforcementa beam-column joints [34–36]. Abrams [25] and Yu et al. [37] also in-
Diameter/mm Yield strength fy/MPa Ultimate Elongation ratio/% dicated that the size effects on the collapse mechanism and resistance
strength fu/MPa could be neglected when testing 1/2 scaled specimens. This provides a
Φ4 720 720 4 rationale for undertaking 1/2-scale tests in the present study.
Φ8 300 460 38
Φ10 360 535 34
Φ12 369 520 39 2.3. Experimental setup
Φ14 370 515 31
Steel components 2.3.1. Seismic cyclic tests
Thickness/mm Yield strength fy/MPa Ultimate Elongation ratio/%
There are many successful engineering realization of slab con-
strength fu/MPa
8 (Steel jacket) 449 518 39 struction in prefabricated structures which can be used as references for
8 (Steel angle) 305 454 41 the proposed MHRPC system [38]. For the purpose of not further
10 (Shear 313 537 40 complicating the present development work, this study does not take
plate) the slabs into consideration. Nevertheless, further studies will be con-
Concreteb
ducted to investigate how the slab construction will affect the perfor-
Specimen Compressive strength Specimen Compressive strength
fcu,150 mm/MPa fcu,150 mm/MPa mance of the proposed MHRPC frame.
S-RC6 28.3 P-RC6 32.5 The reinforcing details of the three seismic cyclic test specimens are
S-RD1 28.3 P-RD1 32.5 shown in Figs. 4 and 5. In addition to the reinforcement of S-RC6
S-PC6 51.9 P-PC6 51.9
(Fig. 4a), two pairs of 8 mm rebars are added to the top and bottom of
Note:.
the frame beams in S-RD1 after performing the progressive collapse
a
Plain round bars were used in all the specimens. design specified in DoD 2010 [11]. The typical sectional details of S-
b
The concrete compressive strength is determined by testing the standard RD1 are given in Fig. 4b, which reflects the major differences between
cubes with a size of 150 mm × 150 mm × 150 mm, the mean value of three Specimens S-RC6 and S-RD1. Details of the proposed MHRPC frame
cubes is taken as the compressive strength. specimen (i.e., S-PC6) are shown in Fig. 5. The primary design princi-
ples of this specimen are:

ϕRn = 0.75 × fy × As × 1.25
in which, ϕ = 0.75 is the strength reduction factor as specified in DoD
2010; 1.25 is the over-strength factor for the rebar, as per ASCE 41
[24]. According to DoD 2010, the design tie strength must be greater
than or equal to the required tie strength:
ϕRn ≥ Ru
0.75 × fy × As × 1.25 ≥ 3WF L1 = 3 × 7 × 6 kN/m
For the prototype building considered in this study, HRB 335 (fy
= 300 MPa) rebar is used. The calculated As = 448 mm2/m. Hence, the
resulting reinforcement area within a single span is
448 × 6 = 2688 mm2. After calculating the original longitudinal re-
inforcement within the span, the required reinforcement would become
678 mm2 (HRB 335). After scaling, the required reinforcement in the
specimens of RD1 would be 189 mm2 (HPB 300, fy = 270 MPa). Hence,
four 8 mm-diameter bars (As = 201 mm2) in total are added to
Specimens of RD1. Note that the progressive collapse resistance of RD1
is also re-evaluated to be safe under different column removal scenarios
[10].
Furthermore, PC6 is designed by changing the frame beams and
columns in RC6 to precast members and keeping the reinforcing details
unchanged. These precast beams and columns are then assembled with
PT tendons, energy dissipating steel angles and shear plates.
To compare the seismic and progressive collapse performances of
the abovementioned three frames, two substructures enclosed by the
red dash lines in Fig. 2 are extracted from the building for seismic cyclic
and progressive collapse tests. For the seismic cyclic tests, the speci-
mens representing the three frames are designated as S-RC6, S-RD1, and
S-PC6, respectively. For the progressive collapse tests, the specimens
are named as P-RC6, P-RD1, and P-PC6, respectively.
For both the seismic cyclic tests and the progressive collapse tests, a
1/2-scale ratio is adopted for the specimens. Published research con-
firmed that the critical scaling factor for RC specimens not damaging in
shear is 1/4, which can well represent the resistance mechanisms and
load-displacement relations of large scaled structures [25]. Hence, 1/4
[26–28], 1/3 [29,30] and 1/2 [31–33] scales were adopted in many
(1) Keeping the reinforcing details of the precast beams and columns
(3) identical to those of Specimen S-RC6.
(2) Following the structural detailing adopted by Song et al. [16] and
Lu et al. [17], the beam-column joint region is covered by 8 mm-
thick steel jackets to prevent local compression failure as shown in
Figs. 5 and 6. The steel jackets are welded using steel plates and cast
together with the beams. The main functions of the steel jackets are:
(4) (i) preventing the local compressive failure of the concrete at the
beam-column interface; (ii) providing connections between the
(5) prefabricated beams and columns; (iii) serving as formwork during
the construction of the beams (Fig. 6).
(3) According to the Chinese design code (i.e., the Technical
Specification for Concrete Structures Prestressed with Unbonded
Tendons) [39], two 12.7 mm PT tendons with a design tensile
strength of 1860 MPa are inserted in the specimens as shown in
Fig. 5. The minimum prestressing force is determined following ACI
550.3-13 to provide a required level of self-centering capacity,
which requires the flexural strength provided by the tendons being
larger than that provided by the steel angles [40].
(4) According to the design principle specified in ACI 550.3-13 [40],
the ratio of the moment provided by the energy dissipating devices
to the total flexural strength shall not exceed 0.5 for both positive
and negative moments. Consequently, steel angles L100 × 100 × 8
with a thickness of 8 mm are selected as the top and seat angles and
bolted to the precast beams and columns with M16 grade 8.8 bolts.
(5) The shear plate is 10 mm in thickness. The slotted hole on the shear
plate allowing large deformations of the frame beams has a dia-
meter of 18 mm and a length of 53 mm, which meets the de-
formation demands (i.e., chord rotation is equal to 0.20 rad) in the
progressive collapse tests. The steel shear plates were welded to the
steel jackets of the prefabricated columns, as shown in Figs. 5b and
6. Note that since the beam ends are covered by the steel jackets
and the shape of which are adjustable, it is not necessary for the
beams to be narrower than the respective column sides.
The experimental setup for the seismic cyclic test is depicted in
Fig. 7a. The specimens are pinned at both ends of the column. The
distance between the hinge supports is 1.9 m.
For the seismic cyclic tests, the applied axial force is calculated

7
K. Lin et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 9. Comparison of the seismic cyclic test results.

according to the design axial force ratio of the column. The design axial prototype building with a seismic design intensity of VI is 0.9).
force ratio of the middle column on the first floor is 0.85 according to Therefore, the calculated axial load is:
the design software (the maximum axial force ratio limit for the

8
K. Lin et al.
Fig. 10. Crack distribution of Specimens S-RC6 and S-RD1.
Fig. 11. Cyclic test result of Specimen S-PC6 (no residual deformation after the test).
0.85 × fc × A/ SL2 = 0.85 × 14.3 × 0.4 × 0.4/22 = 486.2 kN (6)
in which, fc = 14.3 MPa is the design strength of grade C30 concrete; A
= 0.4 m × 0.4 m is the area of the frame column in the prototype
building; SL= 2 is the scaling factor. Note that in order to keep identical
boundary conditions for all the S-series specimens, this axial load was
used in all the seismic cyclic tests.
During seismic cyclic tests, a constant vertical force of 486 kN,
corresponding to the design axial force ratio of 0.85, is firstly applied to
the top of the column to simulate the load transferred from the upper
stories. After that, the seismic forces are simulated by gradually in-
creasing the cyclic loads at the beam ends. The loading points on the
beams are 1.5 m away from the joint center. Displacement-based
loading method is adopted in the tests and each level of displacement
after the third cycle is cycled twice to assess the deterioration effect.
9
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
The loading protocol of the seismic cyclic tests is provided in Fig. 7a,
which depicts the displacements at the south loading point of the S-
series specimens (i.e., S-RC6, S-RD1 and S-PC6).
The relative rotation between the beam and column is calculated by
measuring the displacements at the beam ends. The moments (i.e. M)
and the joint rotations (i.e. θ) of the specimens are calculated following
Eqs. (7) and (8), respectively:
M = FS × lF + FN × lF (7)
θ = (δS + δN )/2lF (8)
in which FS and FN are the forces recorded at the south and north
loading points, respectively; δS and δN are the corresponding displace-
ments; lF is the distance between the loading point and the joint center
as shown in Fig. 7a. For the convenience of describing the experimental
K. Lin et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 12. Variation of resultant tendon force during the seismic cyclic tests of S-PC6.

Fig. 13. Rebar strains of Specimens S-RC6 and S-RD1.

results, four typical sections (Sections S-A to S-D) are defined on the
joint specimen as shown in Fig. 7a.
2.3.2. Progressive collapse tests
A two-span substructure on the first floor of the prototype building,
which is enveloped by the red rectangle in Fig. 2a, is chosen as the
research object in the progressive collapse tests (Fig. 6b). The reinfor-
cing details of the tested specimens are shown in Fig. 8, of which Fig. 8a
depicts the reinforcing details of Specimens P-RC6 and P-RD1. Fig. 8b
presents the details of the MHRPC specimen P-PC6. In order to ensure
the strength of the boundary column, H-shaped steel is embedded in the
boundary column of the specimens, as shown in Fig. 8a. Note that for
Specimen P-PC6, two 8 mm steel plates were cast together with the
boundary columns as shown in Fig. 8b. Their main function is to pre-
vent the concrete compressive failure of the boundary columns. In a
real case of the proposed MHRPC frame construction, the beam ends
and the columns are also in contact with the steel jackets. Therefore, we
use the steel plates at the interface area between the beams and the
boundary columns to ensure the boundary conditions of the experi-
mental tests being similar to the real situation.
The experiments are conducted following the alternate path (AP)
method as specified in the progressive collapse design guidelines

10
K. Lin et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

simplicity, one directional specimens were used in the progressive

collapse tests. Some researchers have conducted experiments to eval-
uate the bi-directional effects of beam specimens on the structural
progressive collapse resistance [27]. Their results indicated that the
progressive collapse resistance of the bi-directional specimen equals the
summation of the individual beams lying in the perpendicular direc-
tions. Note that when considering the bi-direction effects, the external
unbalanced load increases as well. It is therefore reasonable to conduct
the experiments of one-directional beams to evaluate structural pro-
gressive collapse resistances [31,32,41].
The tested two-span substructure is fixed to the strong boundary
columns. In order to ensure the boundary fixities, H-shaped steel is
embedded in the boundary column and two constant forces of 500 kN
are applied to the top of the boundary columns. A monotonic con-
centrated load is then applied to the stub of the removed column to
simulate the progressive collapse of the substructure subject to the
middle-column removal. The loading process is displacement-con-
trolled. At the same time, rotational restraints are installed in place of
the removed column to prevent rotation of the column stub along the X
and Z axes as shown in Fig. 7b. Similar to the seismic cyclic test, six
typical sections (Sections P-A to P-F) are defined on the specimens to
better describe the experimental results as shown in Fig. 7b.

2.4. Material properties

The material properties of the specimens are provided in Table 1.

Specimens S-RC6, S-RD1, P-RC6, and P-RD1 are cast with C30-grade
concrete. Note that it is regulated in the Chinese code [39] that the
concrete strength used in the prestressed concrete structures should not
be below C40-grade (i.e., the compressive strength determined from the
Fig. 14. Strains of the steel angle and shear plate in Specimen S-PC6.
standard cube tests is 40 MPa). Therefore, the C40-grade concrete is
used for Specimens S-PC6 and P-PC6 while the reinforcing details of the
two specimens remain the same as those of S-RC6 and P-RC6, respec-
tively. Note that concrete with the same strength is used for the RC
specimens (i.e., S-RC6 and S-RD1), and hence it is rational to demon-
strate the influence of the progressive collapse design on the seismic
responses based on the test results of RC specimens. Plain round rebars
are used for both the longitudinal and stirrup reinforcement in all the
specimens. The PT tendons in Specimens S-PC6 and P-PC6 have an
equivalent diameter of 12.7 mm. The experimentally measured tensile
strength of the PT tendon is 1993 MPa. The prestressing forces in
Specimens S-PC6 and P-PC6 are determined referring to the existing
studies of self-centering prefabricated concrete frames [16,17]. The
measured initial stress ratios of the PT tendons (i.e., the ratio between
the initial stress and the tensile strength of the PT tendon) in Specimens
S-PC6 and P-PC6 are 42% and 34%, respectively.
Fig. 15. Comparison of the progressive collapse test results.
3. Experimental results
Table 2
3.1. Seismic cyclic tests
Comparison of progressive collapse resistance of different specimens.
Specimen Db/mm Fb/kN Percentage F0.20/kN Percentage 3.1.1. Experimental observations
increase/% increase/%
The moment-rotation relationships of the seismic cyclic test speci-
P-RC6 97 35 / 80 / mens are presented in Fig. 9a–d. Their backbone curves are compared
P-RD1 98 50 43% 105 31% in Fig. 9e. Correspondingly, their experimental observations are pre-
P-PC6 145 72 105% 192 140% sented in Figs. 10 and 11, of which, Fig. 10 depicts the failure modes of
the RC specimens (i.e., S-RC6 and S-RD1) and Fig. 11 displays the ex-
perimental observations of the PC specimen (i.e., S-PC6).
[11–13]. In the AP method, column removal scenarios are assumed to
The final failure mode of S-RC6 was a typical “strong column-weak
study the progressive collapse responses of the remaining structures. A
beam” failure as shown in Fig. 10a. Damage of the specimen was mainly
typical testing procedure is composed of the removal of a column and
found at the joint area between the beam and column while there was
the subsequent monotonic loading, which aims to quantify the load
no damage to the joint itself or in the columns. In contrast, for Specimen
carrying capacity of the remaining structures. Such testing protocol has
S-RD1, at the joint rotation θ = ± 1.74% (i.e., beam end displacement
been commonly used in many existing studies [27,31,41].
δ = 30 mm), diagonal cracks appeared in the joint region of S-RD1.
A middle column removal scenario is considered in the progressive
After that, concrete crushed at Sections S-A and S-B at θ = ± 2.28%
collapse tests and the experimental setup is shown in Fig. 7b. For
(δ = 40 mm). At the same time, flexural cracks were found near

11
K. Lin et al.
Fig. 16. Final failure mode of Specimen P-RC6.
Sections S-C and S-D on the column.
The final crack distribution of Specimen S-RD1 is shown in Fig. 10b,
demonstrating a severe damage at the frame column and joint area due
to the strengthening of the frame beams after progressive collapse de-
sign is implemented. Such a failure mode of S-RD1 indicates that the
column and joint may fail before beams in RD1 under seismic action,
suggesting that S-RD1 could no longer meet the seismic design re-
quirement of “strong column-weak beam”. Note that according to the
previous study of Lin et al. [10], a seismic re-design following a pro-
gressive collapse design (i.e., increasing the strength of corresponding
columns) can indeed improve the seismic performance of the structure.
Nevertheless, such a design process based on different design codes will
result in more than 50% material consumption in form of increased
amount of longitudinal reinforcement, which obviously is not a cost-
effective solution.
Shown in Fig. 11 is the crack distribution of the MHRPC specimen S-
PC6. Different from the RC specimens, Specimen S-PC6 deformed
elastically in the initial stage of the cyclic loading. At θ = ± 1.70%
(δ = 30 mm), gaps opened at the interface area between the beam and
column and some flexural cracks formed near Sections S-A and S-B.
However, after unloading at the end of each cycle, the abovementioned
flexural cracks and gaps were closed due to the re-centering forces
provided by the PT tendons (Fig. 11). Note that a larger beam end
displacement would result in a wider gap. Upon completion of the
cyclic tests, the beams of S-PC6 returned to their original positions. In
addition, the cracks on the beams eventually closed and the residual
deformation of this specimen was very small, demonstrating an ex-
cellent resilient performance. Note that since the joint area of Specimen
S-PC6 was protected with 8 mm-thick steel jacket, the joint shear
failure, which was found during the test of Specimen S-RD1, was
avoided.
As the residual deformation of Specimen S-PC6 was small and the
concrete components were free from damage, this specimen was re-
tested after the first cyclic test. In the second test of Specimen S-PC6,
the initial stress ratio of the PT tendons was reduced from 42% to 20%
and the energy dissipating steel angles were replaced. It was found that
the experimental observations of the second test were similar to those
of the first one. Also, the specimen was re-centered after the test, which
satisfied the demand of resilience. For the two tests of Specimen S-PC6,
the relationships between the resultant PT tendon force (i.e., Ttotal) and
the joint rotation are depicted in Fig. 12. Note that Ttotal is calculated by
the following equation:
Ttotal = Tup + Tdown (9)
12
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
in which Tup and Tdown are the internal forces in the upper and lower PT
tendons, respectively. Fig. 12 indicates that the initial stress ratio of the
PT tendon has little or no effect on the variation of the resultant tendon
force during the loading process. Moreover, when the initial stress ratio
is relatively low (i.e., 20%), the loss of prestressing after the cyclic
loading is also smaller than that with the high initial stress ratio (i.e.,
42%).
By comparing the moment-rotational relationship of the RC and PC
specimens, the results indicate that: (1) For the RC specimens, after
implementing the progressive collapse design, the flexural capacities of
the frame beams in S-RD1 are increased by approximately 30%, com-
pared to that of S-RC6. (2) For the PC specimens, the initial stress ratio
of the PT tendons has significant effects on their initial stiffness and
flexural yield strength. It is worth noting that S-PC6 has a stable post-
yielding stiffness and a small residual deformation, which are critical to
control the failure modes [42] and resilient performance.
3.1.2. Failure mechanism analyses
(A) RC specimens (S-RC6 and S-RD1)
The rebar strains of Specimens S-RC6 and S-RD1 are compared in
Fig. 13, of which Figs. 13a and 13b are for the beam and column re-
inforcement, respectively. After implementing the progressive collapse
design, the maximum strain of the beam reinforcement of Specimen S-
RD1 decreases to approximately 46% compared to that of Specimen S-
RC6. In contrast, the maximum strain of the column reinforcement
increases to approximately 40%. In addition, because the joint region of
S-RD1 was severely damaged under the cyclic load, the strains of the
column reinforcement in S-RD1 were not as symmetric as those in S-
RC6. The failure mode of S-RC6 can be regarded as the favorable
“strong column-weak beam” failure while that of S-RD1 is more like the
unfavorable “strong beam-weak column” failure, which may potentially
weaken the structural seismic performance. This finding is consistent
with the results of the structural system-level performance evaluation
conducted by Lin et al. [10].
(B) MHRPC specimen (S-PC6)
The strains of the steel angle and shear plate of Specimen S-PC6 are
shown in Fig. 14. In Fig. 14a, the blue color is used to indicate the pre-
yielding stage of the steel angle while the red color denotes the post-
yielding stage of the steel angle. When the joint rotation reached 1.6%,
K. Lin et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 17. Progressive collapse test results of P-PC6.

the steel angle was found to have yielded and started to dissipate en-
ergy (Fig. 14a). Compared with the steel angle, the shear plate re-
mained elastic under the seismic cyclic load (Fig. 14b).
3.2. Progressive collapse tests
3.2.1. Experimental observations
The load-displacement curves derived from the progressive collapse
tests are compared in Fig. 15. The loading process of all the specimens
can be divided into two stages, i.e., beam mechanism and catenary
mechanism, which are two key resisting mechanisms to balance the
applied load under the column removal scenarios. During the pro-
gressive collapse test of an RC beam, the unbalanced load is resisted by
the beam mechanism at small deformations. At this stage, the flexural
strengths of the beams, in conjunction with the compressive arch action
in the specimen, provide the resistance to progressive collapse. More-
over, the catenary action at the large deformation stage serves as the
last resisting mechanism in progressive collapse scenarios, which uti-
lizes the tensile forces from the rebars to balance the applied load.
According to DoD 2010 [11], 0.20 rad of chord rotation is used to de-
fine the deformation limit of the specimens. As such, two key points can
be identified on the load-displacement curves shown in Fig. 15: (1) the
peak point of the beam mechanism (Db, Fb) and (2) the point corre-
sponding to the chord rotation of 0.20 rad (D0.20, F0.20), where D and F
denote the displacement and force, respectively. Note that the dis-
placement at the 0.20 rad chord rotation (i.e., D0.20) is 560 mm. The

13
K. Lin et al.
Fig. 18. Strains of the bottom beam rebars at Section P-A of Specimens P-RC6
and P-RD1.
Fig. 19. Strains of the steel angles in Specimen P-PC6.
corresponding values of the two key points are compared in Table 2 for
all the specimens.
The final failure mode of Specimen P-RC6 under the middle-column
removal scenario is shown in Fig. 16. Referring to Figs. 15 and 16, at
displacements of 68 mm and 80 mm, concrete crushing occurred at
Fig. 20. Strains of the shear plates in Specimen P-PC6.
14
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Sections P-A and P-F of P-RC6, respectively (Fig. 16). The specimen
reached its peak resistance of the beam mechanism (i.e., Fb = 35 kN) at
displacement of 97 mm. Afterwards, concrete crushing were also found
at Sections P-C and P-D when the displacement reached 100 mm
(Fig. 16). The transition stage from the beam mechanism to the ca-
tenary mechanism is between 200 mm and 350 mm. After that, the
vertical load was resisted through the catenary mechanism. The beams
were under tension and the tensile cracks were distributed along the
full length of the beams. At the required chord rotation, the resistance
of the specimen reached F0.20 = 80 kN. At displacement of 756 mm, a
rebar near the column stub ruptured, which results in a sudden drop of
the external load from 112 kN to 45 kN. With further increase in dis-
placement, all of the continuous rebars near the column stub ruptured
(at Section P-D) and rebar sliding was clearly noticed (Section P-F),
correspondingly the load dropped to zero.
The loading process and the final failure mode of Specimen P-RD1
were quite similar to those of P-RC6. The Fb and F0.20 were 50 kN and
105 kN, respectively. By comparing the load-displacement curves of P-
RC6 and P-RD1, it can be found that the characteristic bearing capa-
cities of P-RD1 (i.e., Fb and F0.20) was higher than that of P-RC6: Fb
increased by 43% while F0.20 increased by 31%. Therefore, including
the progressive collapse design can significantly improve the resistances
at both beam mechanism and catenary mechanism.
The final failure mode of the MHRPC specimen P-PC6 in the pro-
gressive collapse test is shown in Fig. 17a. The variation of the PT
tendon forces is displayed in Fig. 17b. When the displacement reached
25 mm, gaps opened at the interface area between the precast beam and
the boundary column (Section P-A). The applied load reached the peak
resistance of the beam mechanism (i.e., Fb = 72 kN) at displacement of
145 mm. After that, the external load remained a relatively stable value
until the displacement reached 250 mm. Then concrete crushing and
reinforcement buckling were identified at Section P-F of the specimen
as shown in Fig. 17a. At the same time, the load dropped slightly and so
did the tensile forces of the upper and lower PT tendons (Fig. 17b). As
the displacement increased further, the loading process entered the
stage of catenary mechanism and the resistance continued to increase as
well. When the displacement reached 545 mm, a relative slippage oc-
curred between the lower PT tendon and its anchor, which also resulted
in a sudden drop of the PT tendon force. Note that no rupture was found
in the PT tendon and the tensile force continued to increase again after
the drop. Corresponding to this PT tendon anchor slippage, there was a
small oscillation on the load-displacement curve, after which the load
increased again. At displacement of 712 mm, the slippage between the
upper PT tendon and its anchor occurred, which also led to a drop of
the PT tendon force and a minor oscillation on the load-displacement
curve. After the displacement of P-PC6 reached 800 mm, we intended to
continue the test to a complete failure of the specimen. However, a
sudden and alarming failure of the PT tendons in this specimen was not
permitted to happen in the laboratory due to the health and safety
concerns. In addition, the displacement of P-PC6 had notably exceeded
K. Lin et al.
Fig. 21. FE models of the MHRPC specimens (unit: mm).
the required displacement of 560 mm (i.e., 0.20 rad chord rotation).
Consequently, the loading process was terminated at displacement of
800 mm. It is worth noting that the external load remained a growing
trend as the displacement increased when the test was terminated. The
load-displacement relationship corresponding to the unloading phrase
is also presented in Fig. 15.
By comparing the load-displacement curves of the progressive col-
lapse test specimens in Fig. 15, the results indicate that P-PC6 can
provide sufficient progressive collapse resistance under the column
removal scenario. The Fb and F0.20 of Specimen P-PC6 were 72 kN and
192 kN, respectively. The Fb increased by 105% and F0.20 increased by
140% compared to Specimen P-RC6, which were also much greater
than those of Specimen P-RD1. It can be concluded that the MHRPC
specimen can provide a stably growing resistance as the displacement
increases and meet the code requirement of the chord rotational ca-
pacity at the stage of large deformation.
3.2.2. Failure mechanism analyses
(A) RC specimens (P-RC6 and P-RD1)
The strains of the bottom beam reinforcement at Section P-A of
Specimens P-RC6 and P-RD1 are compared in Fig. 18. The load-dis-
placement curves are also included to match the strain development.
The bottom reinforcement was under compression at the beam me-
chanism stage. By contrast, during the catenary mechanism, the re-
inforcement strain changed from compression to tension. The pro-
gressive collapse resistances at this stage were mainly contributed by
15
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
the tensile forces of the longitudinal rebars. The reinforcement strains
experienced a sudden drop at the point of rebar rupture as shown in
Fig. 18.
(B) MHRPC specimen (P-PC6)
During the progressive collapse test, the strain gauge readings on
the top steel angles at Sections P-A, P-D, and P-F of P-PC6 are shown in
Fig. 19. Under the concentrated vertical load, the top steel angles at
Sections P-A and P-F were under tension, while the top steel angle at
Section P-D was under compression. The strain curves indicate that the
steel angles have already yielded at the beam mechanism stage. There
was a sudden drop in the strain curve of Gauge F at Section P-F, which
was triggered by concrete crushing at Section P-F due to the compres-
sive arch action.
The strain-displacement relationships of the gauges along the height
of the shear plate at Section P-D are provided in Fig. 20. The results
indicate that the shear plate acted as a cantilever beam and resisted the
load transferred from the bolt during the progressive collapse test.
According to the measuring values from Gauge S-1, it is evident that the
shear plate yielded at the catenary mechanism stage of the loading
process.
4. Numerical simulation of MHRPC specimens based on OpenSees
Many successfully numerical studies simulating the seismic and
progressive collapse responses of RC structures using various finite
element (FE) codes have been reported in the literature [34,43–45]. In
K. Lin et al.
Fig. 22. Numerical results of seismic cyclic tests of Specimen S-PC6.
Fig. 23. Numerical results of progressive collapse test of P-PC6.
this study, the abovementioned seismic cyclic and progressive collapse
tests of the MHRPC substructures are simulated using the open source
FE software package OpenSees [46]. To simulate the seismic response
of post-tensioned precast concrete frames, El-Sheikh et al. [47] pro-
posed to use the fiber beam elements, accompanied by a series of spring
models. Existing studies [18,48,49] have also proved that OpenSees can
simulate the cyclic behavior of similar types of self-centering structures.
Furthermore, OpenSees has been used by many other researchers to
simulate the progressive collapse response of RC frame beams under
column removal scenarios [50–52]. In consequence, the use of Open-
Sees in simulating the cyclic and progressive collapse tests can be jus-
tified.
4.1. Simulation of seismic cyclic tests
The FE model for simulating the seismic cyclic tests is shown in
Fig. 21a. Each structural component of the MHRPC specimen is
16
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
modeled by various types of elements with different material properties
in OpenSees. The precast beam and column are modeled by the dis-
placement-based beam-column elements in OpenSees. In order to
model the steel jacket at the beam ends and the joint region, elastic
beam elements are used in these parts of the FE model. A series of zero-
length spring elements are used to simulate the gap opening and closing
behaviors at the interface areas between the beams and columns. Ac-
cording to the experimental results, when the gap opened at the joint
area, it was found that the precast beam rotated along the contact point
of the steel jackets (Fig. 21a). Therefore, the corresponding zero-length
elements are also arranged at the contact points. The Elastic-No Tension
(ENT) material is adopted for these zero-length elements. When the
ENT material is under compression, a relatively large elastic modulus
(i.e., 2 × 1011 Pa) is assigned to simulate the contact between the steel
jackets. The PT tendons in the specimen are simulated using truss ele-
ments with Steel02 material in OpenSees. The initial stress is modeled
by setting the parameter $sigInit of Steel02 material. The variation of
the PT tendon force during the test is modeled according to Guo et al.
[48]. At the ends of the frame beam, the PT tendon elements are con-
nected to the precast beam elements with rigid links at the points where
the PT tendons are anchored. The energy dissipating steel angles are
also modeled with displacement-based beam-column elements. These
elements are connected to the beams and columns where the high
strength bolts are located. A series of rigid links are used for the con-
nection to ensure that the geometric configurations of the steel angles in
the FE model are exactly identical to the tested specimen (Fig. 21a).
Moreover, the shear plates are modeled as shear links in the FE model.
Using the proposed FE model, two seismic cyclic tests of Specimen
S-PC6 are simulated. The numerical predictions are compared with the
experimental results in Fig. 22. The comparison indicates that the
proposed FE model can accurately predict the seismic cyclic responses
K. Lin et al.
of the MHRPC specimens with different initial stress ratios. In addition,
the simulated variations of the resultant PT tendon forces are also
consistent with the experimental results.
4.2. Simulation of progressive collapse test
The FE model in OpenSees for the progressive collapse test is shown
in Fig. 21b. Most components in this model follow the similar modeling
strategies as the FE model for the seismic cyclic test (Fig. 21a). The
major difference between the two FE models is the element type used
for simulating the PT tendons. In the progressive collapse test, the
dowel effects of the PT tendons play a significant role during the test,
which cannot be simulated by using the truss element. As a result, the
displacement-based beam-column elements are adopted to model the
PT tendons.
Based on the proposed FE model, the progressive collapse test of
Specimen P-PC6 is simulated and compared with the experimental re-
sults in Fig. 23. The comparison indicates that the proposed model is
able to predict, in good agreement, the progressive collapse behavior of
Specimen P-PC6 at both stages of the beam and catenary mechanisms.
5. Conclusion
Building multi-hazard resistant structures has become the future
development trend of civil engineering research. In order to improve
the multi-hazard resistance of multi-story RC frame structures, a novel
prefabricated frame system (i.e., MHRPC frame) is proposed in this
study. Three different frames, i.e., a conventional RC frame, an RC
frame after implementing the progressive collapse design and a newly
proposed MHRPC frame are tested. Their structural seismic and pro-
gressive collapse performances are compared in some detail.
Subsequently, the seismic cyclic tests and the progressive collapse test
of the MHRPC specimens are simulated based on the open source FE
software OpenSees. Following are the main conclusions of this study:
(1) The influence of progressive collapse design on the seismic per-
formance of RC frames was experimentally studied for the first
time. The experimental results of Specimens S-RD1 and P-SD1 show
that implementing the progressive collapse design can effectively
enhance the progressive collapse resistance of RC frames. However,
the frame beam could be over-strengthened when designed for
progressive collapse, which may lead to severe damage to the joint
area and the frame column, resulting in a potential unfavorable
“strong beam-weak column” failure mode.
(2) The seismic cyclic tests reveal that the MHRPC specimen S-PC6 has
much smaller residual deformations and less component damage
compared to the RC specimens. Moreover, Specimen S-PC6 remains
a stable post-yielding stiffness, which is beneficial to the control of
structural deformation and energy dissipating mode. Following a
simple repair, the MHRPC specimen can recover and maintain a
stable seismic performance, which satisfies the demand of resi-
lience.
(3) The progressive collapse test of a MHRPC substructure, which is not
found in the existing literature, was successfully conducted. Under
the middle column removal scenario, the MHRPC specimen P-PC6
has a much higher progressive collapse resistance than the RC
specimens, which demonstrates a superior load redistribution ca-
pacity of this newly proposed structural system. In addition, the
MHRPC specimen also meets the requirement of the chord rota-
tional capacity as regulated in DoD 2010 [11].
(4) A numerical method suitable for simulating both seismic and pro-
gressive collapse responses of the MHRPC frame specimens was
proposed and validated against the experimental results.
To sum up, the proposed MHRPC frame system has the character-
istics of large rotation, low damage, self-centering and ease of repair,
17
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
thereby meeting the requirement of multi-hazard resilience of RC frame
structures against both earthquake actions and progressive collapse.
The outcome of this study can serve to provide an initial reference for
the future multi-hazard resistant design of building structures.
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful for the financial support received from the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51778341), the
National Key Research and Development Program of China (No.
2016YFC0701400), and the European Community's Seventh
Framework Program (Marie Curie International Research Staff
Exchange Scheme, Grant no. 612607).
References
[1] Zhao B, Taucer F, Rossetto T. Field investigation on the performance of building
structures during the 12 May 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in China. Eng Struct
2009;31(8):1707–23.
[2] Sozen M, Thornton C, Corley W, Sr P. The Oklahoma City bombing: structure and
mechanisms of the Murrah Building. J Perform Constr Facil 1998;12(3):120–36.
[3] Ellingwood BR. Mitigating risk from abnormal loads and progressive collapse. J
Perform Constr Facil 2006;20(4):315–23.
[4] Kotsovinos P, Usmani A. The World Trade Center 9/11 disaster and progressive
collapse of tall buildings. Fire Technol 2013;49(3):741–65.
[5] Li Y, Ahuja A, Padgett JE. Review of methods to assess, design for, and mitigate
multiple hazards. J Perform Constr Facil 2011;26(1):104–17.
[6] Fascetti A, Kunnath SK, Nisticò N. Robustness evaluation of RC frame buildings to
progressive collapse. Eng Struct 2015;86:242–9.
[7] Li M, Sasani M. Integrity and progressive collapse resistance of RC structures with
ordinary and special moment frames. Eng Struct 2015;95:71–9.
[8] Livingston E, Sasani M, Bazan M, Sagiroglu S. Progressive collapse resistance of RC
beams. Eng Struct 2015;95:61–70.
[9] American Concrete Institute (ACI). Building code requirements for structural con-
crete (ACI 318-11) and commentary (318R-11). Detroit, MI; 2011.
[10] Lin KQ, Li Y, Lu XZ, Guan H. Effects of seismic and progressive collapse designs on
the vulnerability of RC frame structures. J Perform Constr Facil
2017;31(1):04016079.
[11] Department of Defense (DoD). Design of structures to resist progressive collapse.
Unified facility criteria, UFC 4-023-03. Washington, DC; 2010.
[12] General Services Administration (GSA). Alternate path analysis and design guide-
lines for progressive collapse resistance. Washington, DC; 2013.
[13] China Association for Engineering Construction Standardization (CECS). Code for
anti-collapse design of building structures. CECS 392: 2014, Beijing; 2015. [in
Chinese].
[14] Priestley MN, Tao JR. Seismic response of precast prestressed concrete frames with
partially debonded tendons. PCI J 1993;38(1):58–69.
[15] Wolski M, Ricles JM, Sause R. Experimental study of a self-centering beam-column
connection with bottom flange friction device. J Struct Eng 2009;135(5):479–88.
[16] Song LL, Guo T, Chen C. Experimental and numerical study of a self‐centering
prestressed concrete moment resisting frame connection with bolted web friction
devices. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2014;43(4):529–45.
[17] Lu XL, Cui Y, Liu JJ, Gao WJ. Shaking table test and numerical simulation of a 1/
2‐scale self‐centering reinforced concrete frame. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2015;44(12):1899–917.
[18] Song LL, Guo T, Cao ZL. Seismic response of self-centering prestressed concrete
moment resisting frames with web friction devices. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
2015;71:151–62.
[19] Ren PQ, Li Y, Lu XZ, Guan H, Zhou YL. Experimental investigation of progressive
collapse resistance of one-way reinforced concrete beam-slab substructures under a
middle-column-removal scenario. Eng Struct 2016;118:28–40.
[20] Lu XZ, Lin KQ, Li Y, Guan H, Ren PQ, Zhou YL. Experimental investigation of RC
beam-slab substructures against progressive collapse subject to an edge-column-
removal scenario. Eng Struct 2017;149(15):91–103.
[21] Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of
China (MOHURD). Code for design of concrete structures. GB50010-2010. Beijing,
China; 2010. [in Chinese].
[22] Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of
China (MOHURD). Code for seismic design of buildings. GB50011-2010. Beijing,
China; 2010. [in Chinese].
[23] Hayes Jr JR, Woodson SC, Pekelnicky RG, Poland CD, Corley WG, Sozen M. Can
strengthening for earthquake improve blast and progressive collapse resistance? J
Struct Eng 2005;131(8):1157–77.
[24] ASCE/SEI Standard 41-17, Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings.
Structural Engineering Institute, American Society of Civil Engineers. Reston,
Virginia; 2017.
[25] Abrams DP. Scale relations for reinforced concrete beam-column joints. ACI Struct J
1987;84:502–12.
[26] Pham XD, Tan KH. Experimental study of beam-slab substructures subjected to a
penultimate-internal column loss. Eng Struct 2013;55:2–15.
[27] Qian K, Li B, Ma JX. Load-carrying mechanism to resist progressive collapse of RC
K. Lin et al.
buildings. J Struct Eng 2015;141(2):04014107.
[28] Qian K, Li B. Load-resisting mechanism to mitigate progressive collapse of flat slab
structures. Mag Concr Res 2015;67(7):349–63.
[29] Qian K, Li B. Quantification of slab influences on the dynamic performance of RC
frames against progressive collapse. J Perform Constr Facil 2015;29(1):04014029.
[30] Yi WJ, He QF, Xiao Y, Kunnath SK. Experimental study on progressive collapse-
resistant behavior of reinforced concrete frame structures. ACI Struct J
2008;105(4):433–9.
[31] Yu J, Tan KH. Structural behavior of RC beam-column sub-assemblages under a
middle column removal scenario. J Struct Eng 2013;139(2):233–50.
[32] Alogla K, Weekes L, Augusthus-Nelson L. A new mitigation scheme to resist pro-
gressive collapse of RC structures. Constr Build Mater 2016;125:533–45.
[33] Xiao Y, Kunnath S, Li FW, Zhao YB, Lew HS. Collapse test of three-story half-scale
reinforced concrete frame building. ACI Struct J 2015;112(4):429–38.
[34] Xie LL, Lu XZ, Guan H, Lu X. Experimental study and numerical model calibration
for earthquake-induced collapse of RC frames with emphasis on key columns, joints,
and the overall structure. J Earthq Eng 2015;19(8):1320–44.
[35] Tsonos AG. Cyclic load behavior of reinforced concrete beam-column sub-assem-
blages of modern structures. ACI Struct J 2007;104(4):468–78.
[36] Mirzabagheri S, Tasnimi AA, Mohammadi MS. Behavior of interior RC wide and
conventional beam-column roof joints under cyclic load. Eng Struct
2016;111:333–44.
[37] Yu J, Tan KH. Experimental and numerical investigation on progressive collapse
resistance of reinforced concrete beam column sub-assemblages. Eng Struct
2013;55:90–106.
[38] Kurama YC, Sritharan S, Fleischman RB, Restrepo JI, Henry RS, Cleland NM, et al.
Seismic-resistant precast concrete structures: state of the art. J Struct Eng
2018;144(4):03118001.
[39] Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of
China (MOHURD). Technical specification for concrete structures prestressed with
unbonded tendons. JGJ 92-2004. Beijing, China; 2005. [in Chinese].
[40] American Concrete Institute (ACI). 550.3-13. Design specification for unbonded
18
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
post tensioned precast concrete special moment frames satisfying ACI 374.1 and
commentary. MI: Farmington Hills; 2013.
[41] Su YP, Tian Y, Song X. Progressive collapse resistance of axially-restrained frame
beams. ACI Struct J 2009;106(5):600–7.
[42] Ye LP, Lu XZ, Ma QL, Cheng GY, Song SY, Miao ZW, et al. Study on the influence of
post-yielding stiffness to the seismic response of building structures. In: Proceedings
of the 14th world conference on earthquake engineering. Beijing, China: CDROM;
2008.
[43] Sasani M, Werner A, Kazemi A. Bar fracture modeling in progressive collapse
analysis of reinforced concrete structures. Eng Struct 2011;33(2):401–9.
[44] Kim Y, Kabeyasawa T, Matsumori T, Kabeyasawa T. Numerical study of a full‐scale
six‐story reinforced concrete wall‐frame structure tested at E-defense. Earthq Eng
Struct Dyn 2012;41(8):1217–39.
[45] Karimzadeh S, Askan A, Yakut A, Ameri G. Assessment of alternative simulation
techniques in nonlinear time history analyses of multi-story frame buildings: a case
study. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2017;98:38–53.
[46] Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH, Fenves GL. The open system for earthquake
engineering simulation (OpenSees) user command-language manual. 2006.
[47] El-Sheikh MT, Sause R, Pessiki S, Lu LW. Seismic behavior and design of unbonded
post-tensioned precast concrete frames. PCI J 1999;44(3):54–71.
[48] Guo T, Song LL, Zhang G. Numerical simulation of the seismic behavior of self-
centering steel beam-column connections with bottom flange friction devices.
Earthq Eng Eng Vib 2011;10(2):229–38.
[49] Mirzaie M, Bahaari MR, Emam SH. Numerical simulation of the new post tensioned
column base with bolted T-stubs. ISIJ Int 2014;54(1):179–87.
[50] Bao Y, Kunnath SK, El-Tawil S, Lew H. Macromodel-based simulation of progressive
collapse: RC frame structures. J Struct Eng 2008;134(7):1079–91.
[51] Talaat M, Mosalam KM. Modeling progressive collapse in reinforced concrete
buildings using direct element removal. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2009;38(5):609–34.
[52] Kazemi-Moghaddam A, Sasani M. Progressive collapse evaluation of Murrah
Federal building following sudden loss of column G20. Eng Struct 2015;89:162–71.