Strengthening and retrofitting techniques to mitigate progressive collapse:

A critical review and future research agendaI

Foad Kiakojouria,b , Valerio De Biagia,b , Bernardino Chiaiaa,b , Mohammad Reza Sheidaiic

a Department of Structural, Geotechnical and Building Engineering (DISEG) - Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy
b SISCON-Safety of Infrastructures and Constructions, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy
c Department of Civil Engineering, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran

Abstract
Abnormal events, that are unforeseeable low-probability and high-impact events, cause local failure(s)
to structures that can lead to the collapse of other members and, eventually, to a disproportionate progres-
sive collapse. Ordinary design procedures, which are usually limited to gravity and seismic/wind loads, are
inadequate for preventing the progressive collapse. Therefore, a focus on strengthening and retrofitting tech-
niques to mitigate progressive collapse is necessary. Parameters such as topology of the structure, nature of
the triggering event, size of the initial failure, typology of the collapse and seismic design requirements affect
the strengthening and retrofitting strategy. A discussion on the impact of these parameters on strengthen-
ing strategy is first presented. Then, a comprehensive review on strengthening and retrofitting techniques
to mitigate progressive collapse is provided. The paper concludes with an ambitious comprehensive list of
issues covering different aspects of future research agenda.
Keywords:
Progressive collapse, Strengthening, Retrofitting, Extreme event, Local failure

1. Introduction

The GSA guideline defines progressive collapse as a situation where local failure of a primary structural
component leads to the collapse of adjoining members which, in turn, leads to additional collapse. Hence,
the total damage is disproportionate to the original cause [1]. While different definitions are suggested for
the phenomenon, the underlying characteristic is the disproportionate nature of the final collapse compared
with the initial local failure. A list of selected definitions of progressive collapse can be found in [2] and a
deeper discussion on the nomenclature is reported in [3].
Although the term “progressive collapse” was used few times to dissect the some types of structural
failure before 1968 [4, 5, 6], the first special focus on the phenomenon, as generally known until now, was
just after partial collapse of Ronan Point Tower in London [7, 8] in the mentioned year. After 9/11 events,
scientists and engineers have refocused on the phenomenon and related topics. The first research works were
case studies devoted to the failure of well-known structures [9, 10]. Thenceforth, different aspects of the
phenomenon have been investigated in different structural systems and initial failure scenarios. The results
have been reflected in modern buildings codes and newly developed dedicated guidelines [1, 11, 12, 13]. The
literature on progressive collapse and related topic has progressively increased and a well-accepted framework
for analysis and design under threat-independent scenarios is available now [14].

I Journal Pre-proof. To cite: Kiakojouri, F., De Biagi, V., Chiaia, B., Sheidaii, M.R., (2022) Strengthening and retrofitting

techniques to mitigate progressive collapse: A critical review and future research agenda, Engineering Structures 262:114274
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.114274
Email address: [email protected] (Valerio De Biagi)
 Progressive collapse is among the most relevant topics in structural engineering today. Heretofore, at
least four books [15, 16, 17, 18] and several wide-ranging review papers [2, 8, 14, 19, 20] are devoted to
the topic. However, as highlighted in [14], there is a real need to focus specifically on different aspects of
the topic, since such a approach can shed light on future needs more clearly. While several review papers
devoted to the specific aspect of the phenomenon, e.g., experimental investigation on reinforced concrete
(RC) structures [21, 22], fire-induced progressive collapse [23, 24], RC slabs subjected to punching shear
failure [25, 26], steel beam-to-column connections [27], robustness of timber buildings [28] and quantitative
measures of structural robustness [20], no comprehensive survey has been reported on strengthening and
retrofitting techniques to mitigate progressive collapse. This review paper focuses on this shortage. In this
regard, initially, discussions on affecting parameters on strengthening and retrofitting strategy, including
collapse typology, structural topology, seismic design requirements, nature of triggering event and initial
failure are presented. Then, a comprehensive review on strengthening and retrofitting techniques to mitigate
progressive collapse is provided. Finally, a future research agenda is outlined.

2. Factors affecting strengthening and retrofitting strategies

Affecting factors on strengthening and retrofitting strategy are neither well-understood nor even deeply
discussed. The majority of the available published literature, implicitly or explicitly, focuses on the redistribution-
type collapse under single member loss, i.e., static or dynamic column removal scenarios. The suggested
strengthening and retrofitting techniques, therefore, are usually effective only for such scenarios and gener-
alization should be avoided. Some recent studies reveal that collapse resisting mechanisms can be different
for different structural systems and initial damage regimes [3, 14]. In this regard, in this section, a review
of affecting factors on strengthening and retrofitting strategy is presented. First, the influences of collapse
typology, structural topology, type and size of the initial failure are discussed. Then, interaction between
seismic and progressive collapse design is highlighted. Finally, unwanted dual effects of some strengthening
and retrofitting techniques are outlined, since such simple issues can unleash major problems.

2.1. Collapse typology and structural topology

Interactions between collapse typologies (a widely accepted classification can be found in [17]) and
structural topology have been reflected in several publications [3, 17]. However, in the majority of the
present literature, as well as in code-based approaches, these interactions are neglected or oversimpli-
fied. Code-based design approach usually considers a member loss as triggering event, which can leads
to redistribution-type progressive collapse. The majority of strengthening techniques, explicitly or implic-
itly, focus on redistribution-type collapses, in which Alternate Load Paths (ALPs) have a determining role.
Therefore, measures that try to increase the structural robustness by adding new load paths (or strengthening
the exiting ones), namely add roof level truss, improving catenary behavior in beams or cable strengthen-
ing of beams, are usually useful mainly in the case of redistribution-type collapses. For other scenarios,
i.e., impact-type collapses, effectiveness of these techniques is under question and other techniques, namely
energy absorber devices [29] should be utilized instead [3, 14, 17].
The structural typology and members configuration can affect and determine the possible failure modes,
and therefore the strengthening strategy. The structural configuration conducts collapse propagation in
the system and affects the final collapse status [30]. Figure 1 compares two structural typologies: slender
tall building versus non-slender tall building subjected to large initial failure at the mid-height. While in
the former collapse mainly spreads in the vertical downward direction (due to topological limitations) and
pancaking is predominant mechanism, in the later collapse spreads in vertical and horizontal directions
via mix-type mechanism. As an example, collapse of WTC 1 and 2 (slender tall buildings, pancake-type
collapse) can be compared with WTC 7 (non-slender tall building, mix-type mechanism). Such issues are
very important in the strengthening and retrofitting schemes, e.g., configuration of the fuse elements or
compartmentalization pattern are highly dependent on collapse typology and structural topology. Figure 2
illustrates another example of the impact of structural topology on the final collapse status in two frame
systems under similar triggering event, i.e., single corner column removal at ground level. In Figure 2(a) short

2
 Slender tall building
Collapse spreads in vertical direction
Pancake-type mechanism is predominant

Non-slender tall building

Collapse spreads in vertical and horizontal directions
Mix-type mechanism is predominant

(a) (b)

Figure 1: Interaction between collapse typology and structural topology; (a) slender mega-structure and (b) non-slender mega
structure.

and stiff beams act as a mediating element transmitting the propagating action of the collapse and, therefore,
the initial partial failure leads to the total progressive collapse of the entire building. On the other hand, in
Figure 2(b) the plastic region formed in the long beams can act as fuse elements and mitigate the collapse
propagation; therefore, the final collapse is partial. It should be noted that, especial design requirements
are not considered in these examples. This means that, although such scenarios can occur in real structures,
they are not the most frequently occurred scenarios. Therefore, strengthening and retrofitting measures,
without careful consideration of collapse typology and structural topology, not only are ineffective, but can
also lead to more collapse potential.
Especial care should also be given to the system irregularities. The irregularities of the structure have
a meaningful impact on the vulnerability to progressive collapse. Several studies shed light to effects of
irregularities on the progressive collapse performance, e.g., plan irregularities [31, 32], vertical irregularity
[33], torsional irregularity [34]. Kim et al., in several studies focused on the tilted and twisted buildings
and highlighted the differences in progressive collapse response compared with common regular buildings
[35, 36, 37]. Based on the results, the formation of plastic regions and the increase in load can extend
to other bays in irregular buildings, compared with regular buildings in which plastic hinges and overload
are usually limited to the damaged bay(s). However, especial care should be given to threat-dependent
progressive collapse, namely fire-induced progressive collapse scenarios, since some inconsistent results are
reported in the literature, i.e., the local and global collapse of regular frames occur earlier than irregular
frames [38]. As reviewed, irregularities should be considered in strengthening and retrofitting schemes, since
the especial configuration of the structure can affect its progressive collapse response.

2.2. Triggering event and initial failure

While single member removal, namely column removal in building structures or cable removal in cable-
stayed bridges, is usually recommended as initial failure scenarios both in research and in current practice,

3
 (a)

(b)

Figure 2: Impact of building’s configuration on the final collapse status.

there is no such a limit in real structural failure. As highlighted in [3], the size of the initial failure can
affect the propagation of the local collapse and, by consequence, the design strategies. In other words,
while there is no natural limit for the size of the initial “local failure”, there are technical and economical
limitations for strengthening and retrofitting strategies. Moreover, the impact of the initial failure location,
i.e., positions of the column removal in the plan and height, on progressive collapse response of the frame
system is widely investigated and the results discussed in the term of the affected area, active alternate
load path, redundancy and structural reserve strength [39, 40, 41]. Not only the size and location, but also
the possible types should be carefully checked. While the body of the current literature is devoted to the
column failure as initial failure, few have focused on beam removal instead [42, 43, 44]. Such a phenomenon
is observed in several earthquake and fire scenarios, e.g., it suggested as the most probable cause of initial
local failure in the Plasco Building [45]. It should also be noted that, such special type of initial failure
can lead to different types of final collapse (pancaking, buckling of the column, etc.), based on the active
mechanisms and topology of the system. Different triggering events tend to produce different types and
sizes of initial failure, e,g., while the size of the damage is usually limited to a member (or few members) in
a vehicle collision, in fire scenarios an entire story or even several stories can be involved. Such a situations
were observed during a high-rise fire, namely Plasco Building [46] and Windsor Tower [47]. Obviously,
different strengthening and retrofitting philosophies (regardless the specific characteristics of the triggering
event, e.g., overload to other members, heat, etc.) should be utilized for each initial failure scenario.
Figure 3 compares two well-known strategies, i.e., ALP method and compartmentalization, referring to
the initial failure size. In ALP method, with the increase in the initial failure size, it becomes progressively
difficult to provide alternate paths for the remaining structure. In a frame system subjected to multiple
columns loss, strengthening measures to provide alternate paths can be very expensive, if technically possible.
With the increase in the number of the failed columns, the strengthening will be impossible, both technically
and economically. Long spans are very popular from serviceability and architectural point of view. In
this regard, special focus should be put on the special floor systems, e.g., prestressed or different novel
voided biaxial slabs. On the other hand, compartmentalization measures are very uneconomical for a small
initial failure, namely a column loss. With the increase in the size of the initial failure, the desirability of
the compartmentalization strategies increase both technically and economically. As suggested and deeply
discussed by Starossek [17], a hybrid methodology can also be adopted, since the size of the initial failure is
depends on the unknown threat.
Such comparisons can also be adopted for other strengthening and retrofitting techniques. For example,
member-level measures aimed to prevent or decrease initial damage are usually useful for limited small
triggering event e.g., car impact or small near-field blast. For a larger event, e.g., debris impact or large
far-field external blast, focus on the overall robustness and integrity of the structure is necessary and global
strengthening schemes should be adopted alternatively.

4
 Efficiency of strengthening techniques
Adding or improving ALPs Compartmentalization

Initial failure size

Figure 3: Impact of initial failure size on strengthening strategy.

2.3. Interaction between seismic and progressive collapse design

Mainstream seismic-resistant and progressive collapse-resistant design philosophies follow two different
philosophies, while in the former lateral loads are predominant, in the latter vertical loads are (usually)
uppermost. Recent studies reveal that specific design method for specific threats may have unwanted effects
on the structural resistance against other threats. Primary design of the majority of structures focuses on
seismic and occasionally wind loads, that are lateral. This approach leads to some well-established theories
such as “strong column-weak beam” and “strong joint–weak member” theories. However, such measures can
have unwanted effects on progressive collapse resistance. Effect of seismic resistance capacity on progressive
collapse response is discussed in [48]. Therefore, in strengthening and retrofitting measures, interactions
between seismic and progressive collapse design should be carefully considered.
Several proposals are suggested to exclude the progressive collapse resisting system from seismic perfor-
mance. These proposals can be categorized in two main groups; the first focuses on load bearing systems that
are not active under normal service and seismic load, and can be activated mainly under progressive collapse
scenarios at larger (usually vertical) displacements, namely relaxed cable and rope techniques [49, 50, 51].
In the second group, strengthening measures are applied in a way that have negligible interference to the
seismic performance, e.g., providing alternate load path in roof level by cap truss [52] or horizontal bracing
[53]. Another innovative technique using vertical cables parallel to columns connected at the ends of the
beams and hanged from a steel braced frame on the top of the structure is suggested in [54, 55](Figure 4).
Similar concept in which transfer girder located at the roof level used instead of braced frame is discussed
in detail in [56].
In RC structures, several especial techniques are suggested to improve the progressive collapse response
without interfering seismic performance. Extra non-flexural catenary reinforcements (Figure 5(b)), that are
installed at mid-height of the section, are suggested by several researchers [57, 58]. External relaxed cable
(Figure 5(a)) [50] and kinked rebar configuration (Figure 5(c)) [59, 60] are also reported.
Several strengthening techniques focus on modifying the steel connections or strengthening RC panel
zones. For example, beam-to-column connections strengthened with steel plates [61, 62] are suggested for
improving progressive collapse response. It should be noted that, if used in seismic areas, such measures can
change the size and location of the plastic zone, and therefore, affect the overall seismic performance of the
structure. These effects can be useful or harmful to the structure seismic performance. Therefore, especial
care should be given to such details in earthquake-prone areas.
In recent years, introducing the systems and strategies that simultaneously improve the seismic perfor-
mance and progressive collapse resistance has become very popular [63, 64, 65, 66, 67]. Such systems usually
have self-centering property that leads to low damage and easy repair compared with conventional frames.
Figure 6 illustrates the details of such a system as reported in [64]. Novel seismic–progressive collapse
resilient system for super-tall building system is also reported in [67].

5
Figure 4: Vertical cables parallel to columns connected at the ends of the beams and hanged from a steel braced frame seated
on the top of the building, as reported in [54]

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 5: Strengthening of RC structures without interfering seismic performance; (a) external relaxed cable, (b) extra catenary
reinforcement and (c) kinked rebar configuration.

6
Figure 6: Seismic and progressive collapse resistant composite frame (SPCRCF) as reported in [64]. Reprinted with permission.

2.4. Unwanted effects of strengthening and retrofitting strategy

Disturbing the seismic performance is not the only unwanted influence of adopted strengthening tech-
niques. Strengthening strategy can has unwanted effects on the overall performance of the structure in many
ways. However, these unwanted effects are neither well-understood nor deeply investigated. For example,
different strengthening measures can change the forces developed in the catenary and arching action. Such
forces drastically affect the connections capacity in steel frame structures, and therefore, ignoring or un-
derestimating such forces may lead to the connection failure [68, 69, 70]. When high-strength cables and
tendons are applied in a strengthening scheme, special care should be given, because such members can serve
as a mediating element transmitting the propagating action of the failure. In such cases, adding an extra
support system, i.e., fuse-type element [71], to control the strengthening device is necessary. Referring to
blast strengthening, increasing the strength and continuity may lead to wider loading surfaces, and conse-
quently more damages. Moreover, as illustrated in [72], damaged and connected members can transfer blast
loads to the remaining structure, resulting in larger displacements even compared with complete sudden
column loss. Such details can be complicated and have not been well investigated so far. Reinforcement
continuity is usually considered as a favorable structural property when the system is subjected to various
threats, namely earthquake and blast. Several studies reveal that continuity [73] can improve progressive
collapse performance. However, as deeply discussed in [17], structural continuity can act as double edged
sword based on the adopted design philosophy. More discussion is provided in the Section 3.3.2 in which
compartmentalization ideas are described.
In addition to the structural effects, some strengthening measures are undesirable from the architectural
point of view. Adding horizontal and vertical trusses, roof level modification and installing heavy energy
absorber devices disturb internal and external architectural design. Therefore, not only pure structural
issues but also architectural and serviceability aspects should be carefully considered.

3. Strengthening and retrofitting techniques

With strengthening and retrofitting techniques the Authors are herein referring to any especial measure
that is used to improve the progressive collapse performance of a structure. Such measures can be applied in
design and construction phase, or to an exiting structure. While in the seismic design of the buildings, almost
7
clear distinction between the terms strengthening, retrofitting, repair, rehabilitation, etc., can usually be
drawn, such distinctions are ignored in the current paper and the strengthening and retrofitting techniques
refer to any measure that specially (in addition or in combination to conventional gravity and lateral design)
aims to prevent the progressive collapse or alleviating its consequences.
The strengthening and retrofitting techniques are categorized based on the three criteria definition of
progressive collapse provided by the Authors in [3]. Each strengthening and retrofitting measure fundamen-
tally targets or mainly affects on one of the criteria (while can act on others positively or negatively) to
prevent the progressive collapse, i.e., (i) preventing initial failure, (ii) controlling collapse propagation and
(iii) controlling the final collapse status. While such a classification can be also performed based on the
structural type, triggering event, etc., the above mentioned rationale is more brightening and helpful.
Referring the categorization of the each applied method to the subsections of the paper, it should be noted
that the herein presented classification has been preferred by the Authors, although other categorization
approaches can also be adopted. It is not always possible to classify some strengthening and retrofitting
techniques into specific categories, since they have dual effects, or the performance depends on the acting
threat, the load level or the initial failure size. For example, some techniques that basically aim at preventing
initial damage can actually provide more strong alternate load path. Moreover, the distinctions between
techniques categorized as “adding new alternate load paths” and “improving the exiting ones” is not always
very clear, since the performance is related to the loading regime [74]; for some levels the added member
may act as a separated element, while for other levels it acts as single element with the exiting member.
Furthermore, measures like sagged cable and unbonded bar and strip contribute only in some resisting
mechanisms (mainly catenary action) and not in others (namely flexural action); therefore, considering
these measures either as “adding new alternate load paths” or as “improving the exiting ones” is debatable.
However, as long as the rationale is understood, there is no emphasis on the selected classification and some
techniques can actually be included in several categories.

3.1. Preventing or decreasing initial damage

The methods focusing on the preventing or decreasing the amount of initial failure are mainly member-
based and threat-based. While different threats can lead to initial failure and, consequently, progressive
collapse, in this section the main focus is put on the fire (Section 3.1.1), impact (Section 3.1.2) and blast
(Section 3.1.3), since the available published literature related to other triggering events is limited. Earth-
quake is also neglected, because excellent reviews on strengthening and retrofitting techniques are already
exist in this discipline, such as reported in [75, 76, 77, 78]. However, more focus on seismic progressive
collapse and its special characteristics, i.e., as partially discussed in [79, 80], is still needed. Threat-based
classification is preferred for measured aimed to prevent and decrease initial damage, since the triggering
event directly acts on the member at this level, while for the two other groups, namely controlling collapse
propagation (Section 3.2) and controlling the final collapse size (Section 3.3) performance-based classifica-
tion is adopted instead, since the overall response is much more important at those levels. It should be
noted that a very rich literature is available now and several review papers can exclusively devoted to each
mentioned triggering event. However, such a wide survey is out of the scopes of the present paper and
instead the focus is mainly put on the philosophy and concept for strengthening and retrofitting against
specific threat, and several examples from available literature are provided.

3.1.1. Fire
Fire effects on the structures are well-known phenomena and fire protection systems have a long history in
structural engineering. However, especial focus on fire-induced progressive collapse only emerged after major
fire-induced collapse disasters in the last decades. While some studies suggest that it might be possible,
through proper design, to eliminate fire protection for steel in the system [81], the body of the literature
emphasises on the fire protecting techniques. In RC structures, using suitable type and combination of
aggregates [82] and sufficient nominal cover [83] usually provide desirable fire resistance against large variety
of fire scenarios.
Concrete structures are inherently more fire-resistant compared to their steel equivalents. While nu-
merous research works on member-level fire response of RC members (e.g., fire-induced spalling [84] or
8
 Figure 7: Intumescent coatings thickness evolution against steel temperature as reported in [95]

Figure 8: Installation of three different reinforcing meshes in fibre-reinforced intumescent fire protection coatings as reported
in [94]

multi-hazard scenarios such as corrosion-fire [85, 86] and blast-fire [87] scenarios) as well as few studies on
fire-induced progressive collapse of precast or reinforced concrete structure [88] are reported in the literature,
the majority of the published literature is devoted to steel structures.
Intumescent coating is the most common fire protection system for steel structures. When exposed to
elevated temperature, intumescent material expands due to the formation of gaseous compounds developed
during the decomposition of organic matrix [89](see 7). The key factors in the intumescent formulations,
flame retardants, fillers, modifiers, nano-dimensional additives, and the weathering that affects the properties
and performance of intumescent coatings are reported and deeply discussed in [90]. The effects of partial
loss of fire protection on the column have been investigated in several studies [91, 92, 93]. Intumescent fire
protection coatings can also play a dual role; as reported in [94], fibre-reinforced intumescent fire protection
coatings can also provide effective confinement to RC column, achieving ultimate axial strength that are even
comparable to those of conventional fibre-reinforced polymer (FRP) wraps (see Figure 8). Such techniques
can potentially be used for other threats, namely blast and impact, however, to date, no study devoted to
this interesting topic.
Other member-based fire protection techniques are fire protection boards [96, 97], full or partial concrete
encasement [98, 99, 100], membrane protections using board products and thermal insulation blankets [101]
and plug-and-play fire protection system [102](see Figure 9).
In choosing the strengthening strategy, some newly discovered phenomena should be carefully considered,
namely cooling effect and fire-induced creep strains. Based on the findings, structures may collapse in the
cooling phase of compartment fires or under travelling fire scenarios [24]. Tension built-up in the fire-
exposed column due to heating-cooling sequence can lead to an overload in the adjacent columns, and
9
 Figure 9: Plug-and-play fire protection system for steel columns as reported in [102]. Reprinted with permission.

potentially to progressive collapse [103]. Temperature-induced creep strains affect the onset of instability
in frame structures under fire-induced progressive collapse scenarios. Neglecting these effects can lead to
underestimation of global failure times [104]. Such effects, also, may have unwanted effects similar to those
discussed in Section 2.3. For example, using strong-column weak-beam theory, in particular, and adding
excessive stiffness, in general, should be very carefully checked before incorporation into a final strengthening
strategy. In traveling fire, the travelling speed meaningfully affects the failure sequence of columns, damage
range and collapse mode [105]; while a slow travelling fire leads to a partial, the fast one may lead to global
collapse. Moreover, as discussed in [105], high fire protection may prevent collapse, but may still allow
collapse in the cooling phase.

3.1.2. Impact
A rich literature can be found on strengthening and retrofitting of structures against impact loads. The
majority of these research works are member-based and are not directly devoted to global collapse aspects,
however, the reported results are useful for progressive collapse design. Two main philosophies are used for
strengthening and retrofitting against impact loads: the first focuses on extra strength and stiffness for the
structural members by installing additional material, e.g., supplemental layer of RC or FRP material. The
second philosophy puts the emphasis on sacrificial elements to protect the main structural members. Similar
approaches can also be applied to the blast scenarios, as discussed in Section 3.1.3. It should be noted that
these philosophies can be used separately or simultaneously; sacrificial elements can be designed in a way
that increase the system stiffness and strength for some load levels, before final failure under extreme loads.
Impact-induced damage in structures can be categorized into two main groups:

• impacts due to the interaction between an external entity (say, vehicle, airplane, natural hazards, etc.)
and structural members;
• impacts of failed structural members when structure undergoes impact-type collapses, i.e., domino-
and pancake-type collapses.

The active mechanisms of these to groups can be completely different, therefore, different strengthening and
retrofitting techniques should be adopted for each one. In the former, columns are usually considered as
critical members. In the latter, floor system usually receives the impact loads.

10
Figure 10: Details of the impact tests on a RC column protected by aluminum foam as reported in [107]. Reprinted with
permission.

The retrofitting measures to protect from impacts account for the fact that kinetic energy can be dissi-
pated through large deformations. For example, foams are well-known for energy dissipation under extreme
loading conditions. Experimental studies on the performance of frame structure strengthened with foamed
aluminum under debris flow impact are reported in [106]. The installation of protective closed-cell aluminum
foam layer on the surfaces of RC columns as well as utilizing the combination of the closed-cell aluminum
foam layer and ultra-high-performance concrete for important structures is suggested in [107] (see Figure 10).
For small impact loads, foams usually act as energy absorbers, for larger impact loads hardened foam can
potentially restrain the concrete and enhances its performance [106].
A new protective structure based on ultra-high performance fiber reinforced concrete and energy-absorbing
member of corrugated steel tubes to protect bridge columns against vehicle collisions and to reduce vehi-
cle damage is suggested in [108]. The performance of ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete-
strengthened bridge columns subjected to vehicle collisions reported and discussed in [109]. Ultra-high
performance fiber reinforced concrete jacket is suggested for column subjected to low-velocity impacts [110].
Superior performances were observed for the strengthened column with two-end, i.e., plastic hinge zone
under lateral impacts [110].
The application of FRP composites has progressively gained popularity in rehabilitation and retrofitting
of structures against impact loading over the last two decades [111, 112, 113]. A review of concrete struc-
tures strengthened with FRP against impact loading is presented in [114]. The response of carbon FRP-
strengthened bridge piers struck with lightweight and medium-weight vehicles is investigated in [115]. Carbon
Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) strengthened full scale concrete filled steel tubular columns subjected
to vehicular impact is reported in [116]. In shear deficient columns, the use of CFRP wrapping with the
same scheme as in seismic application can change the damage mode from shear- to flexural-dominant [117].
The effect of CFRP-shear strengthening on existing circular RC columns under impact loads is reported in
[118] (see Figure 11). The assessment of FRP-strengthened full-scale circular-hollow-section steel columns
subjected to vehicle collisions is reported in [119]
Sandwich structures are also widely used for impact mitigation. A review of the recent trends on core
structures and impact response of sandwich panels is reported in [120]. Impact resistance of sandwich
structures with prismatic and foam cores is reviewed in [121]. A survey on foldcore sandwich structures and
their impact behaviours is reported in [122]. However, studies on real application of sandwich structures
as protective structure, e.g., to protect a structural column, is very limited. A vehicle collision impact
response of bridge pier strengthened with aluminum foam protection devices is reported in [123]. The
damage mitigation of a steel column subjected to automobile collision using a honeycomb sandwich panel
11
Figure 11: The effect of CFRP-shear strengthening on existing circular RC columns under impact loads as reported in [118].
Reprinted with permission.

is reported in [124]. Aluminium foam-filled circular-triangular nested tube energy absorber under impact
loading is proposed in [125].
In addition to the normal techniques to protect the main structural members against impact, innovative
methods that are widely diffused in other fields, e.g., defence science and marine structures can also be
considered. Reactive armour [126] can be applied in critical and exposed members of very important
structures in special conditions. In such cases, local strengthening may be necessary to decrease unwanted
structural damages.
The body of the literature adopts threat-independent approach (mainly dynamic column removal) for
study of impact-induced progressive collapse. The finding of these studies should be very carefully used
for strengthening and retrofitting purposes, since as highlighted in several studies [127, 128, 129, 130],
structural response in impact-induced progressive collapse can be very different compared with threat-
independent dynamic column removal. The structures that meet the code-based requirements may collapse
when subjected to impact of a vehicle. Similar consideration should be given to impact of failed structural
members, namely in pancake- and domino-type progressive collapse, since our knowledge is mainly limited
to simple concentrated drop tests and reckless generalization should be strongly avoided [14].

3.1.3. Blast
Blasts and explosions are usually considered as primary abnormal extreme events against civil structures.
A very rich and prolific literature developed in recent decades, especially after terrorist attacks in late 20th
century. An important potion of this literature devoted to strengthening against blast both at member and
at global level [131]. However, threat-dependent blast-induced progressive collapse study is still an ongoing
research field, and different aspects, including blast response in progressive collapse scenarios, requires more
research focus.
Considering the similar nature of blast and impact, that include rapid and usually local extreme loading
on structure, two basic strategies can also be perceived for blast scenarios, as previously explained for impact
in Section 3.1.2. The first one focuses on extra strength and stiffness for the structural members by installing
additional (usually high strength) material. The second philosophy puts the emphasis on sacrificial devices
to protect the main structure usually by energy dissipation mechanism. Obviously, the techniques focus on
the overall improvement and global strengthening and do not belong to the preventing or decreasing initial
damage strategies; they are discussed in the Section 3.2 as collapse propagation control techniques.
Steel jacketing is repeatedly used for retrofitting of RC members under blast loading scenarios [132,
133] that meaningfully leads to significant improvement both at the member and system level. Sandwich
structures are also widely used for blast protection. Different materials including metals and composites
are usually used for sandwich structures. Blast response and energy dissipation of sandwich structures
are studied and influences of different core, namely I-core [134, 135], Y-core [136, 137], honeycomb core
[138, 139], auxetic core [140, 141] etc., are investigated. Some of these forms are shown in Figure 12. These
types are sometimes used in foam filled or multilayered [142, 141] configurations. Sandwich structures are
well-known and usually suggested for blast protection. However, studies especially focusing on sandwich

12
 Honeycomb Corrugated Auxetics Concrete-filled Foam-filled Fluid-filled

Figure 12: Different sandwich panels that can be used for blast protection.

(a) (b)

Figure 13: Preventing the failure of RC members under close-in blast loadings; (a) reinforcement of polyurethane bricks and
(b) reinforced polyurethane bricks installed on the member as reported in [148]. Reprinted with permission.

structures as scarified element, namely to protect a structural column, are really limited and the majority of
experimental and numerical studies are devoted to member-level performance of separated sandwich panels.
FRP materials are commonly applied in retrofitting structures against blast loads due to the advantages
of high strength and light weight [143]. Several experimental and numerical studies are devoted to blast
response of FRP-retrofitted column [144]. Based on the results, retrofitting with FRP can effectively mitigate
the damage and deformation of the columns under blast scenarios [145, 146]. Blast protection of concrete
columns with thin strips of glass FRP overlay is investigated in [147]. Based on the results, retrofitting
improved the residual compressive strength of the columns. The overall fragmentation/spalling effects for
concrete were also reduced [147].
Sacrificial cladding consisting of reinforced resin panels with an insulation layer for the reduction of
blast damage in reinforced concrete structures is suggested in [149] (see Figure 13). 3D printed polylactic
acid sacrificial honeycomb cladding is also suggested and experimentally and numerically investigated in
[150]. Hybrid-multi cell tubes as sacrificial cladding for improving blast performance of reinforced concrete
structures is discussed in [151]. Circular–triangular nested tube as sacrificial cladding is proposed in [152],
which can reduce transmitted forces by 50.1%–74.3% by employing the energy absorber mechanism.
Dual effects of strengthening against blast should be carefully considered. Increasing the connectivity
between structural members, namely between frame and walls, may lead to larger area that accepting blast
pressure and eventually more blast induced damage. Inattentive increase in member strength, namely a
column, may lead to the transmission of the blast loads to other parts of the structure that can cause larger
failure even compared with complete column removal. Such dual effects should be attentively investigated
before implementation of any strengthening and retrofitting strategy (see Section 2).

3.2. Controlling collapse propagation

Strengthening and retrofitting techniques that especially focus on controlling collapse propagation can be
categorized into two main groups; either adding new alternate load paths or improving the exiting alternate
load paths. In the former, new alternate load paths are provided for the structure by installing new structural
13
members (brace, cable, etc). These new members can be similar (in form and application) to the original
members, or can be completely different to exiting ones. In the latter, structural members (beam, column
and slab, and occasionally non-structural elements like infill wall) improve to resist progressive collapse after
initial failure.
These methods are categorized here based on the added members type and performance, e.g., bracing,
adding cable, etc. Some strengthening techniques, namely bonded FRP are not listed as new load path
provider. While these techniques can modify the sequence and the importance of the collapse resisting
mechanism, i.e., flexural, arch action, catenary action, etc., they are actually improving the exiting alternate
load paths. On the other hand, unbonded devices, namely relaxed cables, are discussed as new alternate
load paths providing devices.
Techniques like fuse elements and energy absorber devices can be listed here, since these techniques
can be used for controlling collapse propagation. However, these techniques are discussed in the Section
3.3. In the Authors idea, it is better to categorize such measures in controlling the final collapse size, since
application of such measures to control collapse propagation is not easy from technical and economical points
of view.

3.2.1. Adding new alternate load paths

Adding new structural members to provide additional alternate load paths is a classic approach for
strengthening structural systems against progressive collapse. The added members are usually not similar
to the exiting members, e.g., adding bracing for moment-resisting frames. But also similar member can
be used, e.g., extra horizontal bracing for a braced frame. Adding a new column or wall can theoretically
improve the progressive collapse response, however, it is technically out of scope and financially expensive.
However, retrofit concepts like the ones suggested in [153] can potentially improve the progressive collapse
performance. Such external/perimeter additional columns not only can improve stiffness, ductility and
energy dissipation of the system, but also can act as protective structure against direct threat effects,
namely blast and impact loads.
The effectiveness of the potential new load paths must be assessed, since the same element can behave
differently depending on the loads acting on the structure. The possibility of adding new load paths essen-
tially depends on the type of loading it is expected following the initial failure. If it is necessary to provide
additional capacity towards horizontal forces, inserting bracing systems would target the need. Basically,
the load paths are driven by stiffness distribution. If an additional element does not provide stiffness, its
addition does not change the load paths resulting, thus, ineffective [154].
The mitigation measures aiming at new alternate load paths can be installed either in the critical regions,
namely first story beams, or far away from the potential damaged area, i.e., through roof level modifications.
A detailed discussion is herein provided.

Additional beams. Adding new beams, for obvious technical reasons, is not a suitable approach for progres-
sive collapse strengthening (an interesting exception can be found in [155]). One important exclusion is
RC flat slab buildings in which addition of perimeter beams as progressive collapse strengthening method
is suggested [156, 157, 158]. Based on the a case study, perimeter beams improve the progressive collapse
resistance of the studied structure by reducing demand-capacity ratio (DCR) of critical columns by up to
67.0% and reducing the vertical displacements at column removal point by up to 81.0% depending on the
different initial failure scenarios [156].

Bracing. Several progressive collapse studies are devoted to steel braced frames and the influences of dif-
ferent brace types are assessed. Among the different types of braces, eccentrically braces usually show
higher strength against progressive collapse [159, 160, 161]. However, the use of additional braces for pro-
gressive collapse mitigation is a recent idea. Considering successful experiences in seismic strengthening
and retrofitting, bracing is now also widely suggested for progressive collapse performance enhancement.
Horizontal [53, 162], vertical bracing [163] and combined horizontal/hat and vertical bracing [163, 164] are
suggested using different type of braces, including inverted-V bracing [165, 166] and X-bracing [167]. In
addition to conventional bracing, buckling restrained braces are also suggested to improve the progressive

14
 (a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 14: Improving progressive collapse behavior of RC Frames through steel bracings. Failure modes of specimens as
reported in [172]; (a) SF1, (b) SF2, (c) SF3 and (d) SF4. Photo by courtesy of Kai Qian (Guilin University of Technology).

collapse performance [168, 169, 170]. The results illustrated that buckling restrained braces can significantly
improve catenary action and progressive collapse behavior. While the majority of the literature is devoted to
the steel structures, a few one focuses on steel bracing in RC structures [171, 172] (see Figure 14). Although
these research works are mainly threat-independent, some studies are also devoted to bracing effects in
threat-dependent fire-induced progressive collapse [163, 164, 173]. In a travelling fire scenarios, application
of bracing, i.e., horizontal, vertical or combined bracing systems, can prevent collapse of structures under a
slow travelling fire, but not for a fast travelling fire [105].

Roof level modifications. Roof level modifications refer to adding extra structural members at top story
level, such as truss, girder and bracing. This technique is very efficient for short and mide-rise multi-story
building. For high-rise buildings, the impact of roof level modification on the damage occurred in the
ground level (or lower floors) is negligible. Repetition of similar modification at several levels can improve
the progressive collapse performance.
Horizontal top story bracing is one of the most widely suggested roof level modification [53, 162]. Cap
truss and steel strut to resist progressive collapse is also suggested in [52]. Steel truss system added at the
building rooftop level to define an alternative load path is suggested in [174]. Vierendeel truss is proposed
at the top floor level in a multi-storey building to redistribute the load due to sudden column loss [175]. Hat
truss is repeatedly suggested for fire-induced progressive collapse mitigation [176, 177]. However, hat truss
tends to constrain the thermal expansion of gravity columns and therefore, during fire events can lead to
premature buckling of gravity columns [178]. Roof level modifications can work with exiting frame member
to develop robust load path, or can work with additional members, namely cable [179] or additional vertical
and horizontal bracing [176].

15
 While roof-element usually allow a more uniform distribution of axial forces in the columns after after
initial local failure, as well as decrease in the dynamic amplification effects [174], the stiffness of the roof-
element should be be carefully calibrated in order to provide the redistribution capacity and also to control
the tension forces induced in columns above the removal region. A very stiff roof-element may generate a
significant increase in axial forces in some columns [174]. As discussed in [180] for roof-truss, this point
could potentially turn in a critical aspect of the roof level modification as retrofit measure.
Cable, strip and rope. Cables, strips and ropes, in different forms and configurations are repeatedly suggested
for progressive collapse strengthening. Relaxed cables can be used in both steel and RC structures without
interfering the seismic performance as shortly reported in the Section 2.3, and also in company of roof level
modifications as discussed earlier in this section.
Improving progressive collapse resistance of RC beam–column subassemblages using external relaxed
steel cables is reported in [50]. Cables are also successfully used for strengthening long-span entrance of
steel moment resisting frames [181]. In addition of steel cables, FRP strips are also suggested for retrofit of
RC frames. In the study reported in [182], by adding the external CFRP strip cables, the frame structure
sustained the applied gravity load without a transition to catenary action. To further demonstrate the effects,
the CFRP strip cables were released, causing the frame structure to deflect downward and eventually to
progressively collapse [182]. External unbounded FRP cables attached to the beam at anchorage locations
and deviators/saddle point(s) only, without being posttensioned is suggested and numerically investigated in
[183]. A straightforward method for progressive collapse design has been proposed using relaxed steel cables
underneath reinforced concrete frame rectangular [50] and T-beams [66] (see Figure 15). A modified catenary
model with application to the analysis and design of retrofit cables for progressive collapse is reported in
[184]. Progressive collapse strengthening of precast RC frame using externally anchored (different anchorage
techniques are tested) carbon fiber rope is suggested and discussed in [51].
Dampers. Dampers are well-accepted devices to control and improve the seismic response of structures.
A very wide literature is devoted to the application of dampers in earthquake engineering field [185, 186].
However, application of dampers for progressive collapse mitigation is limited to handful of papers. Dampers
can act as an energy absorber device, as well as load limiter for compartmentalization. In a more technical
way, the damper first provides a new load path (thus an additional alternate path is generated). Then,
its specific purpose is achieved. Different types of dampers, including rotational friction dampers [187],
cylindrical friction dampers [188], viscoelastic dampers [189], viscous dampers [190, 191] and magneto-
rheological dampers [192] are suggested for improving the progressive collapse performance. Based on
the results, different types of dampers can improve progressive collapse performance. However, current
knowledge on application of damper as progressive collapse mitigation devices is very limited and much
more research focus is necessary on different structural systems equipped with dampers under different
initial failure regimes.

3.2.2. Improving the exiting alternate load paths

Improving the exiting alternate load paths is usually preferred compared to adding new members and
devices, since this approach does not interfere with exiting architectural design. Moreover, from a structural
analysis point of view, this approach is usually simpler, focusing on the exiting members. Direct strength-
ening of columns is very rarely suggested for improving the overall progressive performance. However, in
especial condition, strengthening of column may necessary to help the main strengthening system works
properly. For example, cables spanning the damaged area may transfer high axial loads to the column.
Roof level modification, e.g., in fire scenarios, can lead to the failure of columns, especially when the sys-
tem designed for low seismic force or does not have seismic design at all. In such cases, strengthening of
column should be considered to ensure the efficiency of main strengthening system. Although in can be
considered as new design philosophy rather than a strengthening strategy, other structural system consid-
ering columns as energy absorbers, like multi-layered frame system with external energy absorber frame are
suggested in [193]. Special-shaped multi-partition concrete filled steel tubular column are also suggested for
improving the progressive collapse performance in high-rise buildings and skyscrapers [194]. The majority
of member-based column strengthening techniques are listed and discussed in Section 3.1.
16
Figure 15: Configuration of RC cable frame structure: (a) the whole structure, (b) C-axis facade view, (c) the first floor, and
(d) tested specimen as reported in [66]. Reprinted with permission.

17
Beam strengthening. Beam strengthening is a basic approach for mitigating progressive collapse potential
in frame systems, since beams, especially those directly located above failure region, are the first and usually
most important elements that control system collapse behavior. Beam strengthening can be performed at
different heights and locations, based on the height of the structure and purpose of the strengthening scheme.
Increasing strength of the beams, increasing the stiffness of the beams, and increasing both strength and
stiffness of the beams as retrofitting approaches are techniques suggested in [195].
Adding extra reinforcement bars is a classic technique in RC structures to improve the progressive
collapse behavior. A mitigation scheme involving the provision of additional reinforcement bars in the mid-
layer of reinforced concrete beams to increase resistance against progressive collapse is proposed in [49]. The
special detailing, say placing an additional reinforcement layer at the midheight of beam sections, partially
debonding bottom reinforcing bars in the joint region, and setting partial hinges at one beam depth away
from the adjacent joint interfaces is suggested in [196]. Interactions and connectivity between beam and
slab are also very important in progressive collapse behavior. Existence of a beam flange could meaningfully
enhance the progressive collapse resistance [197].
In RC structures, Textile-Reinforced Mortar (TRM) and Near-Surface-Mounted (NSM) reinforcement
techniques are suggested for the strengthening of existing reinforced concrete frames against progressive
collapse [198]. Strengthening of precast RC frame to mitigate progressive collapse by externally bonded
CFRP sheets anchored with hybrid fibre-reinforced polymer anchors is also reported in [199]. Steel-FRP
composite bar with controllable post-yield stiffness, and hybrid reinforcements including both steel bars and
FRP bars is suggested for progressive collapse capacity enhancement and the post-yield stiffness plus com-
pressive arch action is monitored [200]. The use of High-Performance Ferrocement Laminate and Bond Steel
Plate (HPFL-BSP) techniques is suggested for improving the progressive collapse resistance of multistory
RC frames [201]. While the method increases initial stiffness, crush of mortar and fracture of steel strands
happened at a relatively smaller displacement giving an earlier warning, and much time to escape [201].
However, unconditional beam strengthening, even directly on the local damage region, can be harmful
to the collapse behaviour, and such strengthening as a general recommendation should be avoided. As
highlighted in [202], when the governing collapse mode is triggered by a column buckling failure, beam
strengthening techniques are harmful for the progressive collapse capacity of the structures. When beam
strengthening and retrofitting measures are adopted, especial care should be given to height of the building
and active progressive collapse resisting mechanisms, since, the contribution of members and active mecha-
nism for each member can be different at different building heights [203]. Moreover, the obtained results on
strengthening and retrofitting of substructures (that include the majority of available literature) should be
very scrupulously generalized [204, 205].

Infill Walls. Focus on the infill walls contribution on the progressive collapse resistance of frame structures
has recently become very popular. Different types of infilled, i.e., concrete, masonry and 3D panel are
considered in these studies [206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213]. In some recent studies, more advanced
scenarios are considered including the influence of infill walls on fire-induced progressive collapse potential
[214, 215] and the effects of infilled wall opening on load resisting capacity [212, 216, 217]. The infill walls
not only changed the load resisting path, but also can effectively improve the load redistribution ability of
the frame [218].
However, in these studies no special measures are taken for strengthening the infills against progressive
collapse. On the other hand, a rich literature is available concerning the wall strengthening against blast
and seismic loads. The majority of the literature focuses on out-of-plane or horizontal loads, while some
documents refer to vertical loading due to loss of gravity support [219].
Although no exclusive research work is devoted to strengthening the infills against progressive collapse,
it can be assumed that techniques developed against blast and seismic loads, with some modifications, can
also be effective here. A review of different available techniques is reported in [220]. However, especial
care should be given to seismic design hypothesis and seismic performance of the structures. From the
progressive collapse point of view, continuity between the structural frame and infill panel can be favorable,
since the vertical loads are predominant. But, this configuration has large shortcomings for seismic design,
especially when disconnection of the infill panels from the frame and high ductility of the frame structure
18
Figure 16: Failure modes of a sheathed light-gauge steel wall specimen at different stages as reported in [221]. Reprinted with
permission.

were assumed in seismic design phase. In such a case, the overall seismic strengthening is also necessary,
that is obviously very expensive.
Developing an infill panel system that is seismically isolated under lateral loads and that can resist large
vertical displacement could solve the problem. In this regard, more experimental and numerical studies are
necessary, because the research is over-focused on masonry infills. Other infills, like sheathed light-gauge
steel walls [221], have not received adequate attention so far (see Figure 16). Infill steel panels technique
described in [222] as strengthening method can be merged with masonry or an innovative infill to provide
better performance. Such infills not only provide more reliable alternate load path, but hypothetically can
act as energy absorber device in impact-type collapses (see Section 3.3.1). Therefore, special focus should be
put on developing innovative infills that possibly improve both progressive collapse (different mechanisms)
and seismic performance.
Impact of the infills located on both sides of the local failure, i.e., removed column, is usually neglected
and the focus is put on the infills located in upper stories. Since it is assumed that the threats cause column
failure, they can also completely destroy the infills. This is completely true for threats like blast. However,
other threats like fire and corrosion can cause column failure without any major infill damage. Therefore,
some research focuses for this scenario are also needed.

Slab strengthening. Contribution of slabs in load distribution and collapse resistance is usually ignored in
the earlier progressive collapse studies in frame structures. However, recent studies have highlighted the huge
beneficial impact of the slabs in the progressive collapse scenarios [41, 223, 224]. A comprehensive review of
current research on the slab performance in RC and precast concrete structures to resist progressive collapse
is reported in [225]. Larger area compared to the beams provides the possibility of diverse and versatile
strengthening schemes. For some structural systems, namely RC flat slabs, strengthening the slabs is the only
rational way for improving the exiting alternate load paths, for the others, it is more acceptable technically
and economically. Slab strengthening can serve two purposes: first, to develop strong slab against impact
type collapses (this strategies is discussed in the Section 3.3.1); second, to improve the load distribution
capacity and provide more reliable load paths. Here, focus is put on the later.
Enhancing post-punching performance of flat plate-column joints by different reinforcement configura-
tions is discussed in [226] when two different reinforcement configurations to enhance flat plate-column joints
were proposed. A review on FRP strengthening of RC slabs against punching shear failure is reported in
[25]. Different types of FRPs, namely GFRP and CFRP, in different forms including strips, laminates and
bars are usually used in strengthening and retrofitting schemes. Externally Bonded CFRP laminates for
strengthening and retrofitting of RC flat slabs to mitigate progressive collapse is suggested in [227]. Strength-
ening of slab-column connections against punching shear failure with Near-Surface Mounted (NSM) carbon
fibre-reinforced polymer bars is suggested and experimentally investigated in [228]. Progressive collapse
strengthening of slab with NSM glass FRP bars and engineered cementitious composites (ECC) layer are
suggested in [229].
Strengthening of multi-bay reinforced concrete flat slabs to mitigate progressive collapse using GFRP
strips is suggested and discussed in [230]. Externally bonded GFRP strips for strengthening and retrofitting
19
Figure 17: GFRP-strengthened RC beam–slab subassemblages in a corner column–removal scenario as reported in [232]. Photo
by courtesy of Peng Feng (Tsinghua University).

precast concrete buildings to mitigate progressive collapse is suggested in [231] (see Figure 17). Two tech-
niques including externally bonded GFRP laminates and NSM GFRP bars to strengthen the RC subassem-
blages in column removal scenario is suggested in [232].
The majority of the published research works are devoted to conventional two-way RC slabs. More focus
on one-way slabs and possible strengthening techniques is necessary, especially because hinge boundary
conditions are usually adopted in the design phase, and some strengthening strategies can change this
assumption and, consequently, change the load transferring mechanisms. More emphasis is also needed for
special and less common floor systems, namely hollow-core slab and voided biaxial slab, such systems usually
span larger area, and possibly more pron to progressive collapse. The effect of opening should also receive
more attention, since openings in slabs are very common in the real constructions. Heretofore, very limited
studies focus on this issue [233]. Moreover, more focus is required on the details of floor system, e.g., in a
recent study the huge impact of transverse beam in progressive collapse performance is highlighted [234].

Connections and joints region strengthening. Connections and joint area have a major role in load distri-
bution after initial local failure. Several studies devoted to the performance of different steel connections
in progressive collapse scenarios [27, 70, 235, 236]. SidePlate connection is recommended in several litera-
ture [27, 237] to improve the progressive collapse performance. In this connection, separation between the
face of the column flange and the end of the beam mitigates the triaxial stress concentrations and reduces
local buckling [238]. Anti-collapse performance and catenary action of reduced web section connections in
progressive collapse scenarios was reported in several recent studies [239, 240]. Several strengthening and
retrofitting strategies are suggested to enhance the connections’ performance in progressive collapse scenar-
ios. Among them, increasing the joint rotation capacity, energy dissipation concepts and forming alternate
load paths within the connection region are the most effective approach in the current literature.
For improvement of progressive collapse resistance for steel frame systems, web opening is recommended
to enhance the rotation capacity, and kinked reinforced bars are suggested in the beam–column joint to
realize a second path [241]. Two retrofit strategies, aiming at increasing the collapse resistance of simple
steel connections by adding seat angles and steel plates with long-slotted holes, are proposed in [242] to
address the vulnerability of steel frames under column loss scenarios. Nominally-pinned steel joint equipped
with novel structural details for progressive collapse mitigation that can enhance both the tie force and the
rotational capacity of a vulnerable steel joint is reported in [243, 244] (see Figure 18). A modified steel frame
structure with corrugated steel plates based on the partially out-shift plastic zone principle is suggested in
[245] for improving progressive collapse performance. Full-scale tests of two different connection details
under the progressive collapse scenario is reported and discussed in [246], and a new connection with slotted
holes at the shear tab was developed. A passive connection concept, based on the moments which are created

20
Figure 18: Joint configuration for nominally-pinned joints: (a) individual components; (b) assembly for full depth end plates
joint; (c) assembly for fin plates joint as reported in [244]. Reprinted with permission.

after the column removal, is suggested in [247]. This connection enables the structure to tolerate the added
loads after failing of the vertical element, i.e., columns. Retrofitted moment-resisting connections with steel
strands is proposed and discussed in [248] to enhance the steel frame buildings robustness by providing a
second line of defense.
Self-centering techniques are also suggested for progressive collapse mitigation in steel frame structures
[249] as they are very effective and, as discussed in the Section 2.3, they can potentially improve both
progressive collapse and seismic performance [64]. Retrofitted simple connections by dampers and bracket-
tendon system, that are very effective in reduction of vertical displacement and enhances the performance,
are suggested in [250, 251]. A fully welded connection with energy dissipation cover-plates, which enhances
the catenary mechanism and delays the failure of the connection, was proposed in [252]. Novel retrofitting
schemes for strengthening the simple steel joints of existing tall steel frame structures, by changing the
partial-strength shear-resisting joints to the full-strength moment-resisting joints, ensuring the full devel-
opment of catenary action are suggested and discussed in [253, 254]. While the majority of strengthening
techniques for steel connections are focusing on the stiffness of the beam or the end plate to improve the
connection robustness, in a new approach reported in [255], the robustness is enhanced by improving the
contribution of the bolts to the rotational capacity of connections. For that purpose, steel sleeve with a
designated length, thickness, and wall curvature between the end plate and the washer is applied [255].
Such a concept can be utilized to increase the rotational capacity of the order of three times the standard
connection [256].
In RC structures, additional reinforcement bars in the mid-layer of beams is suggested for progressive
collapse improvement. Similar philosophy is also discussed for beam strengthening strategies in which
additional bars continue in the full length of the beam, that can be considered as a beam strengthening
strategy. Additional bars can also be limited to the joint region. Such a configuration usually enhances
catenary actions, as discussed for embedded locally debondeed rebars at the half-height of beams near beam
ends [58]. The test result of the specimen with steel side plates in beam-column joints showed that the
force–displacement curve increased without fracture of re-bars [257]. A novel and interesting approach for
enhancing the robustness and improving the progressive collapse performance of RC structures through
local debonding of tensile reinforcing bars at the joints, where significant cracking usually occurs after a
column removal, is reported and discussed in [258], in which, an significant improvement in the peak vertical
load-carrying capacity under a column loss scenario is observed [258].
Some strategies are devoted to the precast concrete frames, such as new moment-resisting beam-column
joints to increase progressive collapse resistance of precast concrete buildings [61, 62, 259] (see figure 19).
The adoption of innovative FRP/steel hybrid technique using near-surface mounted steel rebars along with
fiber reinforced polymer for progressive collapse prevention in precast RC beam-column joints is suggested
in [260]. The use of precast dry connections constructed away from beam–column junction under progressive
collapse scenario is suggested and discussed in [261]. It was concluded that building having precast elements
connected away from the beam–column junction with adequate connection detailing behaves similar to that

21
Figure 19: Precast concrete beam-to-column connections strengthened with steel plates as reported in [62]. Reprinted with
permission.

of monolithic construction and can be a sustainable alternative of cast-in-place construction [261]. Optimized
configurations for beam-column substructures with wet connection, in precast reinforced concrete frame are
suggested and discussed in [262]. These optimizations are applied to the arrangements of the mechanical
sleeves, levels of the unbonded prestressed strands, and strength of the cast-in-situ concrete, to improve
their performance in resisting progressive collapse [262].
FRP materials in different shapes, namely sheet and warp, are also widely suggested for retrofitting
and strengthening of reinforced concrete frames [263]. The applied approaches are usually very similar to
well-known techniques that are already used in seismic retrofitting. Progressive collapse performance of
shear strengthened RC frames by FRP material, i.e., nano CFRP retrofitting beam ends, is experimentally
investigated and reported in [264].
The majority of the discussed literature has threat-independent approach, i.e, focus on the structural
response after a static or dynamic column loss. However, connections behavior under specific threat is also
widely investigated. Nevertheless, limited numbers of these studies focus on the progressive collapse aspects.
Dynamic performance of retrofitted steel beam-column connections subjected to impact loadings is discussed
in [265] and the effect of retrofitted methods on transformation of catenary action under impact load are
revealed. A study on the structural performance of a ductile connection under fire conditions is reported in
[266]. The behavior of slide hinge joints with a symmetric friction damper under drop weight impact tests
is studied in [267]. Dynamic response of monolithic and precast concrete joints with wet connections (with
various wet joint configurations) under impact loads is numerically and experimentally studied in [268].

Post-tensioning. Post-tensioning is widely adopted in different engineering fields. However, progressive

collapse mechanisms of prestressed system in progressive collapse scenarios are not widely investigated and
still not fully understood [269]. Progressive collapse responses of prestressed concrete frames with bonded
and unbonded tendons are reported in [270, 271, 272] and active mechanisms are discussed. The research
works usually conclude that the ultimate collapse capacity of post-tensioned systems can be much larger
than that of the RC substructures, and the post-tensioned strands with a larger diameter can improve the
ultimate bearing capacity more than that with a small diameter [269]. Based on a recent study, compared
with RC specimens, post-tensioned concrete specimens achieved much higher load resistance and strand’s
shapes affect the behavior; the specimen with straight strand profile obtained the highest load resistance,
while the specimen with parabolic profile had higher deformation capacity [273].
Some recent researches showed that post-tensioned beam-column assemblies are able to enhance the
structural capacity against progressive collapse [275]. Unbonded post-tensioning strands for RC flat slab
substructures in progressive collapse scenario is suggested in [276]. The idea is also adopted for steel

22
Figure 20: Double-span beam-column structure with PT connections under a vertical load as reported in [274]. Reprinted with
permission.

structures, e.g., resilience of post-tensioned steel frames under column loss scenarios is investigated in [274]
(see Figure 20).

3.3. Controlling the final collapse size

When initial failure cannot be avoided and collapse propagation is difficult to control, the rational choice
is to limit the final collapse size; avoiding progressive collapse targeting the third proposed characteristic
[3]. In this strategy, initial failure and even partial collapse are allowed to prevent the final total (or
disproportionately large) collapse. This strategy is usually applicable for impact- or mixed-type collapses.
The best example of such a collapse is pancaking. Figure 21 shows two possible scenarios; in Figure 21(a)
impacted slab arrested the impact of upper part and prevented a continued progressive collapse. In the
Figure 21(b) total progressive collapse is observed [277]. The consequences, either in the form of (a) or (b)
depend on the capacity of the structure and the intensity of the impact, the former is usually related to the
seismic design criteria, the latter depends mainly on the weight of the falling part, i.e., represented by the
number of the story above the initial failure region [278]. However, our knowledge on the topic is very limited,
both for understanding the impact-type collapse mechanism and also for developing design/strengthening
measures. Based on [277], the current design standards, that are based on static loading considerations,
do not provide resilience to flat slab connections that are subjected to impact loading and therefore cannot
prevent progressive collapse scenarios. To understand the entire phenomenon, first, horizontal collapse
propagation of concrete slab should be monitored. Few studies specifically devoted to this topic [279].
As reviewed, measures focusing on the final collapse size well work with large initial failure, partial
collapse and extreme dynamic effects. The energy that is released in the impact of several falling stories is
usually far beyond the capacity of the normal structures [14, 17]. The applied impact forces can reach about
three to four times the total weight of the falling floors due to dynamic effects [280, 281]. Therefore, while
no comprehensive numerical or experimental study devoted to this issue are found, it seems that normal
strengthening techniques (see Section 3.2.1 and Section 3.2.2) are not usually very effective here. Instead,
for controlling the final collapse size, two main strategy can be adopted; either using energy absorber devices
or compartmentalization. The best outcome, however, occurs when combined strategies are adopted.

3.3.1. Energy absorber devices

As reviewed, measures focusing on improving the collapse performance by adding or strengthening ALPs
are not very effective in impact-type progressive collapses, namely domino and pancake mechanisms. Al-
though the use of energy-absorbing systems is well diffused in some special structures [283, 284], very limited
numerical and experimental studies are devoted to impact-type progressive collapses, hardly any of them is
related to strengthening and retrofitting techniques. An interesting exception can be found in [29], in which
a high-efficiency energy absorbing device to arrest progressive collapse is introduced. However, numerous

23
Figure 21: Progressive collapse punching shear failures; (a) partial collapse of the Pipers Row Car Park at Wolverhampton in
1997 and (b) Harbor Cay Condominium building collapse in Cocoa Beach Florida in 1981 as reported in [282]. Reprinted with
permission.

24
 (a) (b) (c)

Figure 22: Heavy energy absorber devices; (a) square honeycomb configuration [29], (b) telescoping tube configuration [17] and
(c) heavy floor sandwich panel.

(a) (b)

Figure 23: Blast-loaded concrete slab; (a) unstraightened and (b) aluminum foam straightened as reported in [293]. Reprinted
with permission.

studies on similar devices with different applications can be found in the literature. In these studies metallic
[285, 286], FRP [287, 288], foam-filled [289, 290] and hybrid [291, 292] tubes are used as energy absorber
devices (see Figure 22). The application of such devices in larger-scale multi-story buildings requires much
more research focuses. For example, the additional weight, interactions between device and frame, boundary
conditions of the device and the influences on seismic performance should be carefully considered. Moreover,
the distribution (which story and how many devices for each story, see Section 3.3.2) in the frame system
needs more investigations. To date, available literature is limited to conceptual and theoretical publications,
e.g., as reported in [17].
In the framework of energy absorber devices, a very rich literature on impact response of structures,
namely beams and slabs, is available. However, the majority of the current studies focused on concentrated
impact scenarios, i.e., a drop hammer. While the requirement of more realistic scenario are partially discussed
in [282, 294, 295, 296, 297], distributed impacts are almost completely ignored in the current practice.
Moreover, in a real collapse scenario, floor systems may undergo repeated impacts, strengthening strategies
for such loading regimes need more research focuses [298, 299]. Some strengthening techniques based on
the energy dissipation concepts initially developed for blast mitigation, can also be used for absorption
of impacts energy. An example of aluminum foam straightened RC slab that reported in [293] for blast
mitigation is shown in Figure 23.

3.3.2. Compartmentalization
Mother nature uses “compartmentalization” to let the species to survive. The sacrifice-for-survival
mechanisms can be observed in many living organisms. Examples can be found in [300] and [301], where

25
 Figure 24: Collapsed zone of Terminal 2E at Charles de Gaulle Airport [310]. Reprinted with permission.

the “triggering events” were pathogen ingression and chilling stress, respectively. Moreover, the concept of
structural compartmentalization is historically very well-known to the builders, e.g., it has been used in the
construction of long walls, and also was suggested for the structures under extreme loading conditions [302,
303]. Lin [302] in 1985 stated that “A lunar structure could be compartmentalized to prevent catastrophic
destruction in case of any local damage”. However, modern use of this idea for progressive collapse design is
related to the several works by Starossek that finally integrated in [17], in which, the term “segmentation”
is used for the concept.
Compartmentalization is originally a design philosophy and has been successfully used in real construc-
tions, especially for multi-span bridges [304]. The related literature is very limited and mainly consist of
theoretical studies. Compartmentalization techniques for bridges and skyscrapers are suggested and dis-
cussed in [17]. Zipper-stoppers as segmentation devices for long-span cable-supported bridge subjected to
sudden rupture of some of its cables are proposed in [305]. Analogy between redundancy and compart-
mentalization is discussed in [306]. Quantitative measures of compartmentalization, based on the stiffness
matrix nondimensionalization, is reported in [307]. A framework for designing for structural robustness in
tall timber buildings with especial focus on compartmentalization is discussed in [308].
Unintentional compartmentalization helped structures (without any on purpose robustness-oriented de-
sign) to survive total collapse in several incidents. This is discussed for Siemens Arena in Denmark in [309],
for the Pentagon headquarters building in [17] and for Charles de Gaulle Airport Terminal 2E (see Figure 24)
in [17]. This concept can also be used as a strengthening and retrofitting technique to mitigate progressive
collapse, but heretofore, no numerical and experimental research works are devoted to this field.
For vertical compartmentalization, combination of high strength materials and energy absorbers (devices
and/or materials) can be applied. It should be noted that, in these approaches, the structure is not physically
separated and segmented. Instead, the systems is compartmentalized via the boundaries with different
stiffness, strength and energy dissipation properties. These boundaries, in a building frame system, can
be the floor system or the story. The main concepts are suggested and discussed in [17]. The design
philosophy, originally developed based on the previous observed pancake-type progressive collapse incidents,
is to isolate collapsing section, and therefore, to limit the extent of final collapse, by means of a vertical
compartmentalization of the overall structure [17].
Two main concepts for vertical compartmentalization are strong story (floor) and giant sandwich story.
In the former, the floor plate is strengthen in a way that can survive the impact of the upper floor, that
can be achieved either via design of stronger slabs, or with additional protective materials, or even both of

26
 Figure 25: Strong slab concept; selected floor are also equipped with extra protective layers.

them. Steel plate, rubber, carbon FRP layer, and polyurea as protective layer for RC slab against impact
is proposed in [311]. In a recent study [281], the strong floor concept is further highlighted and a design
approach is proposed. It was shown that the intact lower section in a pancake collapse scenario could
potentially has survived in the presence of a strong floor [281]. In the later, i.e., giant sandwich story, energy
absorber devices are installed in the story, so the impact of the falling floor can be dissipated. Possible
energy absorber devices are shown in Figure 22. Obviously, these two concept can be used together at
different levels and configurations.
Figure 25 and Figure 26, show two possible configurations (hybrid approaches) for vertical compartmen-
talization. Selection of the story/floor to act as strong story can be a complicated issue. Special care should
be given to design purposes, interaction with seismic and architectural design, serviceability aspects and
also economy. Moreover, strong slab capacity and energy absorber devices distribution can not be equal for
each selected story/floor level, since its related to the falling floor sizes. For example, as shown in Figure 26,
three giant sandwich stories are considered in the system, but number of devices are not equal in all of them;
the energy dissipation capacity is highest for the lower floor. For the highest level, instead of arrangement
of heavy energy absorber devices, floor sandwich panels are utilized, since, the size of the possible falling
upper part, and consequently energy dissipation demand, are much smaller. Such a concept should also be
applied to strong floor method. However, very limited studies, specially numerical and experimental studies,
are devoted to the topic. More discussion is provided in [17].
For horizontal compartmentalization, a good placement of construction joints can serve both purposes,
and such availability can be considered in design and construction phase. However, when construction joints
can not be used for compartmentalization, problems raise, since compartmentalization of a structure that is
intentionally connected based on the primary design philosophy is difficult, and can lead to vulnerability with
respect of seismic performance and even serviceability of the building. However, unintentional discontinuity
in the rebars (e.g., in splices or due to construction errors) can save the structure from total collapse. A
famous example of such a scenario is shown in Figure 27 in which rebar discontinuity in the transfer girder
arrested the collapse propagation. More details and discussion is available in [17]. However, application of
such techniques as design strategy is not received sufficient research attentions and obviously, much more
27
 Figure 26: Giant sandwich story concept.

research focus should be devoted to this area.

Fuse elements that are mentioned in the previous sections can also be used for the control of the final
collapse size via horizontal compartmentalization. The location pattern in the structural assembly and the
strength of the fuse elements determine their application; either as collapse propagation control elements
or final collapse controllers. Several studies focus on structural fuses as collapse prevention devices via
energy dissipation technique. However, application of such elements in real structures, specially buildings,
is questionable, because, fuse elements are usually installed within the frame systems. In buildings with
slabs, the redistribution is also provided by slabs itself, thus fuses are less effective.
Figure 28 illustrates two concepts that hypothetically be used for horizontal compartmentalization in
RC beams and slabs. In Figure 28(a) flexural strength of the section is reduced by re-positioning the
reinforcement bars and in Figure 28(b), fuse-type element is installed in the steel rebar to control the
maximum load. Similar techniques can also be used for other structures, namely space structures, to control
the final collapse size. However, the impact of such measures on the shear strength and overall seismic
performance should be very carefully contemplated. Obviously, more experimental and numerical research
efforts should be devoted to this techniques before implementation in real constructions.

4. Conclusions and future research directions

This review paper deeply discusses strengthening and retrofitting techniques to prevent progressive col-
lapse. To provide a complete analysis of the available studies, some points are first detailed. Hence, the
parameters affecting strengthening and retrofitting approaches, i.e., the configuration of the structure, the
nature of the triggering event, the size of the initial failure, the typology of the collapse and the additional
seismic design requirements are deeply debated, since these parameters can control the overall strengthening
strategy. Then, based on a three-criterion definition of progressive collapse [3], a detailed list of strengthening
and retrofitting techniques is provided and critically discussed.

28
Figure 27: Exterior view of Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building after partial progressive collapse collapse [312]; the collapse
stopped at reinforcement bars’ discontinuity in the main transfer girder.

Figure 28: Ideas for horizontal compartmentalization in RC structures; (a) decreasing the flexural strength of the section by
re-positioning the reinforcement bars and (b) using fuse-type element in reinforcement bars.

29
 Progressive collapse field, in general, and strengthening and retrofitting techniques to mitigate progressive
collapse in particular, are young research fields in structural engineering discipline. Therefore, there are
points that need developments and more attention. These points for progressive collapse studies are listed in
the Authors previous review paper [14]. That list can be consulted first, since where the progressive collapse
studies are lacking, obviously, there is a gap in strengthening and retrofitting techniques too. However,
especial focus on future needs in collapse mitigation measures is also useful, therefore, this review paper
concludes with a reasoned list of open questions and issues that, in the opinion of the Authors, should be
addressed in the near future. For each point, a short discussion is provided.
• The majority of reported strengthening and retrofitting techniques focuses on redistribution-type
progressive collapses, only few studies are devoted to impact-type collapses, namely pancaking. In
this regard, more emphasis should be put on the possible techniques to overcome the impact-type
progressive collapses, namely, heavy energy absorbing devices. In particular, strong slab philosophy
is introduced theoretically [17, 281], however, no experimental or numerical research is reported on
strengthening exiting slabs to act as strong slabs in impact-type progressive collapse scenarios.
• Current strengthening techniques to mitigate the progressive collapse, implicitly or explicitly, focus on
specific collapse type (e.g., compare re-distributional collapse with impact-type collapses) and specific
collapse mechanism (e.g., catenary mechanism). The development of a new technique that is useful
and effective for wider range of mechanisms and more collapse types can improve the efficiency of
the strengthening techniques, since, the structures may undergo different threats and subsequently
different collapse types during the service time.
• In a multi-story building, all members above failure region contribute in load distribution after initial
failure. However, in the large number of research works on strengthening and retrofitting techniques
to mitigate progressive collapse, specially in experimental studies, single-story or substructure models
are adopted. The reliability of such models to study progressive collapse behaviour is under question.
As highlighted in [204, 205] the load transfer mechanism of each story is not identical. More research
works are needed to clarify such issues and throw light on the limitations of substructure models, that
can provide safer basis for the generalization of the results.
• Structures during structural retrofitting are very vulnerable to structural failure. Hitherto, very limited
research works, mainly case-studies, are consecrated to such a situation [313, 314]. In this regard, the
impact of different retrofitting scenarios in different structural systems (during structural retrofitting
phase) on possible progressive collapse response should be carefully checked. Such studies provide
valuable rules for practitioners in retrofitting and strengthening industry.
• It is well-known that infill walls can improve the progressive collapse resistance capacity of building
frame structures [207, 208, 209, 210]. However, for considering the infill walls as strengthening elements
in a collapse scenario much more research focus is necessary. The effects of retrofitting the infills,
namely by FRPs, on the collapse performance of frames are not well-understood. Moreover, infills can
reduce the ductility of system and can change the failure modes. In this regard, the affecting parameter,
i.e., type of the infill, connections between infill and the frame, techniques for strengthening the infill
and possible influence on seismic performance, should be addresses more clearly in the future research
works.
• Different type of timber structures are increasing in height, size and complexity. Recently, it has
become no wonder to see timber buildings with ten or more stories (for example see [315]). However,
the robustness and progressive collapse response of such systems has not received sufficient attention.
Some recent studies reveal that activating ALPs and collapse resistant mechanisms in timber buildings
is not the same as in steel and RC structures [308, 309, 316]. Therefore, especial strengthening and
retrofitting methods should be developed for these structures.
• Survey of contemporary practices, e.g., as reported in [317] for disproportionate collapse prevention in
buildings, can provide deeper insight to engineering practice in the real world and can shed light to the
30
 details and possible problems. Such surveys should focus on different materials, different structural
systems and different regions around the world, since the skill, workmanship, standards and common
practice for strengthening and retrofitting are different.
• In experimental studies, pseudo-static tests on substructures are predominant. The obtained results
are not necessarily applicable to dynamic column removal (and absolutely not for threat-dependent
progressive collapses) on multi-story multi-span models. Therefore, more emphasis should be put on
strengthening and retrofitting techniques in dynamic progressive collapse tests and multi-story models.
The results of such experimental programs may lead to a safer framework for design the strengthening
and retrofitting schemes.
• Drop and impact tests on RC slabs and beams are usually limited to single impact on a very concen-
trated region, such approach is not a good representative for falling floor impact. Only very limited
recent studies [282, 294, 295] have focused specially on falling floor impact and it’s special requirement.
However, the different aspects are not well-understood. Strengthening techniques for RC slabs under
impact loads are usually based on FRPs [318, 319], and cementitious materials [320, 321]. The effec-
tiveness of such techniques against real falling floor scenario is debatable. Therefore, more research
is vital; first to detailed assessment of distributed impact on floor system, and second to develop a
strengthening measure to improve floor systems performance to act as strong floor against impact-type
progressive collapses.
• Cladding and other façade elements may undergo progressive collapse [322]. Failure of façade elements
usually does not disturb structural integrity, but it is important from economical and human safety
points of view. Therefore, developing the methods to prevent the initial failure of façade elements or
stop the failure propagation to other elements can be important.
• Seismic strengthening and retrofitting discipline, being much older than progressive collapse field,
is richer and more mature. Therefore, concepts and methods can be adopted, modified and used
in progressive collapse strengthening and retrofitting fields. While several methods, namely using
different types and shapes of FRPs, are widely adopted as progressive collapse mitigation measures,
other methods received less attentions. For example, shape-memory alloy is widely suggested and used
in seismic strengthening and also performance enhancement in extreme loading conditions, namely
blast scenarios [323, 324], can potentially be useful for progressive collapse performance improvement.
However, more research emphasis is required to enlighten the details.
• Construction phase is one of the most critical as regards to structural safety. Several famous structural
failure occurred during construction, as recently observed in Lagos, Nigeria in the November 2021
[325]. However, limited studies are devoted to the collapse of buildings under construction [326, 327].
A deeper focus on the progressive collapse of structures under construction may lead to an upgrade to
the buildings code to reflect the real risk in their acceptance criteria. More focus on the damaged but
survived structures and techniques to retrofit such structures is also necessary.

• Progressive collapse of temporary structures, e.g., shoring and scaffolding, is a very common problem
in construction sites. However, research works on these structures and on techniques for strengthening
the temporary structures are very limited. The load limiter device and fuse-type element for temporary
shoring structures are reported in [328, 329]. Special research focus is still needed in this area, since
the collapse of temporary structures is not only expensive and time-consuming, but also can lead to
the partial or total collapse of the main structure.

• Seismic strengthening and retrofitting is very common in earthquake prone areas. However, the effects
of seismic retrofitting on progressive collapse potential neither well-understood nor deeply investigated,
and only very few studies dedicated attention to this important topic [330]. In this regard, more
emphasis should be put on the impact of the seismic strengthening and retrofitting on progressive
collapse resistance. It is predictable that majority of the methods that aim at increasing ductility

31
 and stiffness can be useful for both threats. However, special care should be given to the unwanted
effects and special cases in which seismic strengthening and retrofitting weaken the structure against
progressive collapse.
• The majority of the current strengthening and retrofitting measures (except for the methods focused
on preventing or decreasing initial damage) are based on the threat-independent design philosophy.
Only few research work devoted to specific threat, i.e., fire, and its especial requirements [177]. More
focus on threat-specific strengthening and retrofitting measure is completely necessary, since the initial
failure and collapse propagation can be different under various threats.
• The majority of threat-dependent progressive collapse studies, as well as strengthening and retrofitting
techniques, focus on extreme events such as blast, impact and fire. Other triggering events, namely
corrosion, are not deeply investigated. While rich literature on corrosion and aging effects on different
structures are available, very few studies are put emphasis on progressive collapse aspects of the
phenomenon [331, 332, 333, 334]. In this regard, much more efforts are needed to understand corrosion
effects on collapse resisting mechanisms and techniques to overcome this problem. Corrosion can
solely trigger a progressive collapse, or can act as a factor in a multi-hazard scenario. For the later,
our knowledge is mainly limited to member-based studies, therefore, more focus on the corrosion
effects on the global collapse response, especially in multi-hazard scenarios, is needed. Other simple
problem, such as inefficient hydraulic system as reported in [335], can lead to more problem and
finally to progressive collapse. While several techniques to overcome such problems can be found in
the literature, special focus on such phenomena as triggering event is still required.
• Current literature on strengthening of shell-type structural elements, namely walls and slabs, is limited
to idealized geometry and boundary conditions, i.e., rectangular element without any openings. In real
construction, on the other hand, these elements can be found in different geometries and including
openings in various sizes at different locations. However, floor openings impact on the response of
buildings against progressive collapse has received less attention [336]. Boundary conditions, also,
have decisive impact on the dynamics of such structures. As an example, freedom of one or more
edges, that is common in construction, can meaningfully change the structural response. To generalize
the current findings on strengthening techniques, more experimental and numerical studies on irregular
wall and slabs, to include opening and boundary effects, are necessary.
• Unwanted and unplanned structural failures are common during the deconstruction and demolition,
and usually lead to casualties, as recently observed in Didcot power stations [337] in UK and Saint
Petersburg Sports and Concert Complex [338] in Russia. In demolition and deconstruction programs,
temporary and partial strengthening measures may be necessary to ensure the safety of the plan. To
date, our knowledge in this field is limited to case studies and obviously more research work is needed.
• More emphasis should be put on progressive collapse strengthening of large public buildings. Such
structures not only are the primary target for terrorist attacks, but also are inherently more vulnerable
to local failure, since their span are larger than residential buildings. An example of long-span entrance
problem in a steel frame and suitable strengthening techniques including cable and diagonal braces
is discussed in [181]. Obviously, the problem can be more complicated in the case of long-spans in
the entire building. In such cases, it is economically very expensive to provide alternate paths in the
double span after local failure, even if technically possible. On the other hand, compartmentalization
techniques can not be easily adopted, since these buildings usually accommodate a large population,
and partial collapse is also unaccepted. Therefore, more research focus in these fields is vital to find
better strengthening strategies for large public buildings.
• Multi-hazard strengthening and retrofitting techniques are usually limited to the seismic and threat-
independent progressive collapse hazards. While some recent interesting researches are published on
multi-hazard mitigation techniques, the body of the literature is lacking in this area. Some new
material and techniques [94], have potential capability to be used as mitigation measure for several
32
 threats, namely fire, earthquake and blast, simultaneously. These finding are usually separated and
new focus is necessary to integrate these findings in a multi-hazard strengthening frameworks.
• Masonry structures are still very common around the world. While a very rich literature and code-
based recommendations on seismic strengthening and retrofitting techniques are available for these
structure, progressive collapse behavior does not received much attention [339, 340, 341, 342, 343] and
especial view on progressive collapse strengthening and retrofitting is really rare [344]. Since the load
bearing mechanisms and initial local failure possibility are completely different in masonry structures,
compared with steel and RC frame structure, more focus to strengthening and retrofitting techniques
especially developed for masonry is necessary.
• The majority of the published research works are devoted to conventional two-way RC slabs or flat
slabs. Other floor systems, namely one-way slab, hollow-core slab, voided biaxial slab, etc., received
almost no attention. Since the load bearing mechanisms and fracture modes in these systems are not
equal, more experimental and numerical research works are needed; first to shed light to these mecha-
nism, and then, to provided specific strengthening and retrofitting techniques to mitigate progressive
collapse. In these studies, several aspects should be taken into account; punching behavior, horizontal
spreading of the failure and impact response.

• Different types of irregularities have a meaningful impact on the vulnerability to progressive collapse
and corresponding structural response. While several studies shed light to effects of irregularities on
the progressive collapse performance, e.g., plan irregularities [31, 32], vertical irregularity [33], torsional
irregularity [34], the focus on strengthening and retrofitting techniques to mitigate progressive collapse
in irregular system is quit limited. In this regard, more focus on different types of irregular buildings
and specific mitigation measures is required. especial emphasis should also put on the strengthening
and retrofitting techniques for irregular structures in threat-dependent damage scenarios.
• Several recent studies are allocated to different types of space structures in progressive collapse sce-
narios [345, 346, 347, 348]. However, strengthening and retrofitting techniques that are exclusively
devoted to the space structures are rare [349]. Since techniques usually used in frame systems cannot
directly adopted in space structures, more research focus to develop a new method or modify the ex-
iting ones is necessary. Future studies should also focus on especial conditions and possible mitigation
techniques such as non-uniform snow loads and buckling of several members instead of single member
loss.
• The absolute majority of available literature on progressive collapse mitigation measures, adopts a
well-design model structure with satisfied gravity and seismic regulations based on the modern codes.
However, significant portion of the exiting structure are non-code conforming or based on the com-
pletely out of date regulations. Special focus for these types of structures and dedicated strengthening
and retrofitting techniques is required, since such systems are more prone to initial local failure.
• Additional members and devices used in strengthening and retrofitting schemes can also suffer failure,
either due to reaching their ultimate capacity, or design and construction errors or even direct impact
of a specific triggering event. The effect of such a failure on the overall performance of the system
should be carefully checked. However, the current literature is lacking in this area (an example of
damper failure impact on the seismic loss of retrofitted steel moment-resisting frames is reported in
[350]) and more research focus is necessary. The findings of such studies may lead to an update for
definition of the key element in threat-independent progressive collapse analysis, since such additional
members and devices can also act as critical members.
• Modular construction is a recent innovatory and game changing technology. In recent years, more
and more researchers have paid attention to the study on different aspects of modular construction.
However, our knowledge on the robustness and progressive collapse response of these structure is
limited to a handful of recent studies [351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358]. More emphasis should

33
 be put on different failure modes and its specific characteristics, namely inter-module connections and
possible strengthening techniques.
• The majority of available published literature focuses on single or few functionally similar (e.g., dif-
ferent types of braces) strengthening and retrofitting techniques for progressive collapse mitigation.
Therefore, our knowledge is lacking in comparison of different strengthening and retrofitting techniques
in different structural systems under different initial damage scenarios (an interesting exception is re-
ported in [191]). In addition to structural aspect, more emphasis should put on economic evaluation
[359, 360, 361] of different collapse mitigation measures. To date, very limited studies are devoted to
such important issues.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Foad Kiakojouri: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing.
Valerio De Biagi: Conceptualization, Writing - review & editing. Bernardino Chiaia: Writing - review
& editing. Mohammad Reza Sheidaii: Writing - review & editing.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that
could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References
[1] GSA, Progressive Collapse Analysis and Design Guidelines for New Federal Office Buildings and Major Modernization
Projects, U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), Washington, DC, 2003.
[2] J. M. Adam, F. Parisi, J. Sagaseta, X. Lu, Research and practice on progressive collapse and robustness of building
structures in the 21st century, Engineering Structures 173 (2018) 122–149.
[3] F. Kiakojouri, M. R. Sheidaii, V. De Biagi, B. Chiaia, Progressive collapse of structures: A discussion on annotated
nomenclature, Structures 29 (2021) 1417–1423.
[4] A. M. Freudenthal, Safety and the probability of structural failure, Transactions of the American Society of Civil
Engineers 121 (1956) 1337–1375.
[5] H. Edmunds, F. Beer, Notes on incremental collapse in pressure vessels, Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science 3
(1961) 187–199.
[6] R. McFarland Jr, Hexagonal cell structures under post-buckling axial load, AIAA journal 1 (1963) 1380–1385.
[7] C. Pearson, N. Delatte, Ronan point apartment tower collapse and its effect on building codes, Journal of Performance
of Constructed Facilities 19 (2005) 172–177.
[8] J. Russell, J. Sagaseta, D. Cormie, A. Jones, Historical review of prescriptive design rules for robustness after the collapse
of ronan point, Structures 20 (2019) 365–373.
[9] Z. P. Bažant, Y. Zhou, Why did the world trade center collapse?—simple analysis, Journal of Engineering Mechanics
128 (2002) 2–6.
[10] A. S. Usmani, Y. Chung, J. L. Torero, How did the wtc towers collapse: a new theory, Fire Safety Journal 38 (2003)
501–533.
[11] DoD, Design of buildings to resist progressive collapse, unified facilities criteria (ufc) 4-023-03, 2009.
[12] GSA, Alternate path analysis & design guidelines for progressive collapse resistance, 2013.
[13] A. Agrawal, M. Ettouney, X. Chen, H. Li, H. Wang, et al., Steel Truss Retrofits to Provide Alternate Load Paths
for Cut, Damaged, or Destroyed Members (FHWA-HRT-20-055), Technical Report, United States. Federal Highway
Administration, 2020.
[14] F. Kiakojouri, V. De Biagi, B. Chiaia, M. R. Sheidaii, Progressive collapse of framed building structures: Current
knowledge and future prospects, Engineering Structures 206 (2020) 110061.
[15] F. Fu, Structural analysis and design to prevent disproportionate collapse, CRC Press, 2016.
[16] D. Isobe, Progressive collapse analysis of structures: numerical codes and applications, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2017.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812975-3.01001-X.
[17] U. Starossek, Progressive Collapse of Structures, Second edition, ICE Publishing, 2017. doi:https://doi.org/10.1680/
pcos.61682.
[18] B. Yang, S.-B. Kang, K. Tan, X.-H. Zhou, Behaviour of Building Structures Subjected to Progressive Collapse 1st Edition,
Elsevier, 2022.
[19] F. Stochino, C. Bedon, J. Sagaseta, D. Honfi, Robustness and resilience of structures under extreme loads, Advances in
Civil Engineering 2019 (2019).

34
[20] J. Jiang, Q. Zhang, L. Li, W. Chen, J. Ye, G.-Q. Li, Review on quantitative measures of robustness for building structures
against disproportionate collapse, International Journal of High-Rise Buildings 9 (2020) 127–154.
[21] I. M. Alshaikh, B. A. Bakar, E. A. Alwesabi, H. M. Akil, Experimental investigation of the progressive collapse of
reinforced concrete structures: An overview, Structures 25 (2020) 881–900.
[22] W.-J. Yi, F. Yi, Y. Zhou, Experimental studies on progressive collapse behavior of rc frame structures: Advances and
future needs, International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials 15 (2021) 1–23.
[23] G.-L. F. Porcari, E. Zalok, W. Mekky, Fire induced progressive collapse of steel building structures: A review of the
mechanisms, Engineering structures 82 (2015) 261–267.
[24] J. Jiang, G.-Q. Li, Progressive collapse of steel high-rise buildings exposed to fire: Current state of research, International
Journal of High-Rise Buildings 7 (2018) 375–387.
[25] O. A. Mohamed, M. Kewalramani, R. Khattab, Fiber reinforced polymer laminates for strengthening of rc slabs against
punching shear: A review, Polymers 12 (2020) 685.
[26] I. Y. Sreevalli, et al., A review on progressive collapse of reinforced concrete flat slab structures, Civil Engineering
Infrastructures Journal 54 (2021) 181–194.
[27] I. Faridmehr, M. Hajmohammadian Baghban, An overview of progressive collapse behavior of steel beam-to-column
connections, Applied Sciences 10 (2020) 6003.
[28] J. A. Huber, M. Ekevad, U. A. Girhammar, S. Berg, Structural robustness and timber buildings–a review, Wood Material
Science & Engineering 14 (2019) 107–128.
[29] Q. Zhou, T. Yu, Use of high-efficiency energy absorbing device to arrest progressive collapse of tall building, Journal of
Engineering Mechanics 130 (2004) 1177–1187.
[30] V. De Biagi, Energy redistribution patterns in damaged elastic frames, International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 194
(2021) 106216.
[31] A. Homaioon Ebrahimi, P. Martinez-Vazquez, C. C. Baniotopoulos, Numerical studies on the effect of plan irregularities
in the progressive collapse of steel structures, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 13 (2017) 1576–1583.
[32] R. Rahnavard, F. F. Z. Fard, A. Hosseini, M. Suleiman, Nonlinear analysis on progressive collapse of tall steel composite
buildings, Case studies in construction materials 8 (2018) 359–379.
[33] S. Gerasimidis, Analytical assessment of steel frames progressive collapse vulnerability to corner column loss, Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 95 (2014) 1–9.
[34] H. Yavari, M. S. Ghobadi, M. Yakhchalian, Progressive collapse potential of different types of irregular buildings located
in diverse seismic sites, Heliyon 5 (2019) e01137.
[35] J. Kim, S. Hong, Progressive collapse performance of irregular buildings, The structural design of tall and special
buildings 20 (2011) 721–734.
[36] J. Kim, M.-K. Jung, Progressive collapse resisting capacity of tilted building structures, The Structural Design of Tall
and Special Buildings 22 (2013) 1359–1375.
[37] K. Kwon, J. Kim, Progressive collapse and seismic performance of twisted diagrid buildings, International Journal of
High-Rise Buildings 3 (2014) 223–230.
[38] M. Heshmati, A. A. Aghakouchak, Collapse analysis of regular and irregular tall steel moment frames under fire loading,
The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 29 (2020) e1696.
[39] H. Tavakoli, F. Kiakojouri, Progressive collapse of framed structures: Suggestions for robustness assessment, Scientia
Iranica 21 (2014) 329–338.
[40] F. Kiakojouri, M. Sheidaii, Effects of finite element modeling and analysis techniques on response of steel moment-resisting
frame in dynamic column removal scenarios, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering 19 (2018) 295–307.
[41] F. Kiakojouri, M. Sheidaii, V. De Biagi, B. Chiaia, Progressive collapse assessment of steel moment-resisting frames
using static-and dynamic-incremental analyses, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 34 (2020) 04020025.
[42] C. Fang, B. Izzuddin, A. Elghazouli, D. Nethercot, Simplified energy-based robustness assessment for steel-composite
car parks under vehicle fire, Engineering structures 49 (2013) 719–732.
[43] F. H. Rezvani, B. Behnam, H. R. Ronagh, M. S. Alam, Failure progression resistance of a generic steel moment-resisting
frame under beam-removal scenarios, International Journal of Structural Integrity (2017).
[44] B. Behnam, F. Shojaei, H. R. Ronagh, Seismic progressive-failure analysis of tall steel structures under beam-removal
scenarios, Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering 13 (2019) 904–917.
[45] T. Yarlagadda, H. Hajiloo, L. Jiang, M. Green, A. Usmani, Preliminary modelling of plasco tower collapse, International
Journal of High-Rise Buildings 7 (2018) 397–408.
[46] Wikipedia, Plasco building, 2022. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasco_Building, [accessed 10-March-2022].
[47] Wikipedia, Windsor tower (madrid), 2022. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Tower_(Madrid), [accessed
10-March-2022].
[48] M. Musavi-Z, M. R. Sheidaii, Effect of seismic resistance capacity of moment frames on progressive collapse response of
concentrically braced dual systems, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering 22 (2021) 23–31.
[49] K. Alogla, L. Weekes, L. Augusthus-Nelson, A new mitigation scheme to resist progressive collapse of rc structures,
Construction and Building Materials 125 (2016) 533–545.
[50] L. Qiu, F. Lin, K. Wu, Improving progressive collapse resistance of rc beam–column subassemblages using external steel
cables, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 34 (2020) 04019079.
[51] J. Pan, X. Wang, H. Dong, Strengthening of precast rc frame to mitigate progressive collapse by externally anchored
carbon fiber ropes, Polymers 13 (2021) 1306.
[52] S. M. Zahrai, A. Ezoddin, Cap truss and steel strut to resist progressive collapse in rc frame structures, Steel and
Composite Structures 26 (2018) 635–647.

35
[53] A. Naji, M. R. Ommetalab, Horizontal bracing to enhance progressive collapse resistance of steel moment frames, The
Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 28 (2019) e1563.
[54] M. N. Hadi, T. M. S. Alrudaini, A new cable system to prevent progressive collapse of reinforced concrete buildings,
in: Structures Congress 2012, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2012, pp. 257–267. doi:https://doi.org/10.1061/
9780784412367.024.
[55] M. N. Hadi, T. M. Saeed Alrudaini, New building scheme to resist progressive collapse, Journal of architectural
engineering 18 (2012) 324–331.
[56] M. Schachter Adaros, R. Smilowitz, Challenges and considerations for the retrofit of existing structures for progressive
collapse, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 29 (2015) B4014001.
[57] K. Lin, X. Lu, Y. Li, W. Zhuo, H. Guan, A novel structural detailing for the improvement of seismic and progressive
collapse performances of rc frames, Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 48 (2019) 1451–1470.
[58] X.-J. Yang, F. Lin, X.-L. Gu, Experimental study on a novel method to improve progressive collapse resistance of rc
frames using locally debonded rebars, Journal of Building Engineering (2021) 102428.
[59] P. Feng, H. Qiang, W. Qin, M. Gao, A novel kinked rebar configuration for simultaneously improving the seismic
performance and progressive collapse resistance of rc frame structures, Engineering Structures 147 (2017) 752–767.
[60] H. Qiang, J. Yang, P. Feng, W. Qin, Kinked rebar configurations for improving the progressive collapse behaviours of rc
frames under middle column removal scenarios, Engineering Structures 211 (2020) 110425.
[61] Y. A. Al-Salloum, M. A. Alrubaidi, H. M. Elsanadedy, T. H. Almusallam, R. A. Iqbal, Strengthening of precast rc
beam-column connections for progressive collapse mitigation using bolted steel plates, Engineering Structures 161 (2018)
146–160.
[62] H. M. Elsanadedy, Y. A. Al-Salloum, M. A. Alrubaidi, T. H. Almusallam, H. Abbas, Finite element analysis for progressive
collapse potential of precast concrete beam-to-column connections strengthened with steel plates, Journal of Building
Engineering 34 (2021) 101875.
[63] K. Lin, X. Lu, Y. Li, H. Guan, Experimental study of a novel multi-hazard resistant prefabricated concrete frame
structure, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 119 (2019) 390–407.
[64] X. Lu, L. Zhang, K. Lin, Y. Li, Improvement to composite frame systems for seismic and progressive collapse resistance,
Engineering Structures 186 (2019) 227–242.
[65] Y. Tian, K. Lin, X. Lu, L. Zhang, Y. Li, H. Guan, Experimental and theoretical study of seismic and progressive collapse
resilient composite frames, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 139 (2020) 106370.
[66] L. Qiu, F. Lin, K. Wu, X. Gu, Progressive collapse resistance of rc t-beam cable subassemblages under a middle-column-
removal scenario, Journal of Building Engineering (2021) 102814.
[67] Y. Tian, K. Lin, L. Zhang, X. Lu, H. Xue, Novel seismic–progressive collapse resilient super-tall building system, Journal
of Building Engineering (2021) 102790.
[68] M. A. Galal, M. Bandyopadhyay, A. K. Banik, Dual effect of axial tension force developed in catenary action during
progressive collapse of 3d composite semi-rigid jointed frames, Structures 19 (2019) 507–519.
[69] H. Daneshvar, S. A. Oosterhof, R. G. Driver, Arching followed by catenary response of steel shear connections in
disproportionate collapse, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 47 (2020) 908–920.
[70] A. Salmasi, M. R. Sheidaii, S. Tariverdilo, Performance of fully restrained welded beam-column connections subjected
to column loss, International Journal of Steel Structures (2021) 1–13.
[71] F. Sarti, A. Palermo, S. Pampanin, Fuse-type external replaceable dissipaters: Experimental program and numerical
modeling, Journal of Structural Engineering 142 (2016) 04016134.
[72] F. Kiakojouri, M. R. Sheidaii, V. De Biagi, B. Chiaia, Blast-induced progressive collapse of steel moment-resisting frames:
Numerical studies and a framework for updating the alternate load path method, Engineering Structures 242 (2021)
112541.
[73] H. N. Trung, T. N. Truong, D. P. Xuan, Effects of reinforcement discontinuity on the collapse behavior of reinforced
concrete beam-slab structures subjected to column removal, Journal of Structural Engineering 145 (2019) 04019132.
[74] V. De Biagi, B. Chiaia, Complexity and robustness of frame structures, International Journal of Solids and Structures
50 (2013) 3723–3741.
[75] R. DesRoches, B. Smith, Shape memory alloys in seismic resistant design and retrofit: a critical review of their potential
and limitations, Journal of earthquake engineering 8 (2004) 415–429.
[76] L. Di Sarno, A. Elnashai, Innovative strategies for seismic retrofitting of steel and composite structures, Progress in
Structural Engineering and Materials 7 (2005) 115–135.
[77] C. Wang, V. Sarhosis, N. Nikitas, Strengthening/retrofitting techniques on unreinforced masonry structure/element
subjected to seismic loads: A literature review, The Open Construction and Building Technology Journal 12 (2018).
[78] P. Gkournelos, T. Triantafillou, D. Bournas, Seismic upgrading of existing reinforced concrete buildings: A state-of-the-
art review, Engineering Structures 240 (2021) 112273.
[79] H. R. Tavakoli, A. H. Hasani, Effect of earthquake characteristics on seismic progressive collapse potential in steel
moment resisting frame, Earthq. Struct 12 (2017) 529–541.
[80] F. Maghroon, M. Izadinia, N. Solhjoei, E. I. Z. Abadi, Effects of earthquake components on seismic progressive collapse
potential of steel frames, Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering (2022) 1–15.
[81] Y. Wang, V. Kodur, Research toward use of unprotected steel structures, Journal of structural engineering 126 (2000)
1442–1450.
[82] B. A. Gedam, Fire resistance design method for reinforced concrete beams to evaluate fire-resistance rating, Structures
33 (2021) 855–877.
[83] V. Murugan, S. K. Srinivasan, Influence of cover thickness in structural frames exposed to fire and service loads,

36
 Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2021) 1–14.
[84] V. Kodur, S. Banerji, Modeling the fire-induced spalling in concrete structures incorporating hydro-thermo-mechanical
stresses, Cement and Concrete Composites 117 (2021) 103902.
[85] F. Tariq, M. Gaikwad, P. Bhargava, Analysis of behaviour of corroded rc beams exposed to elevated temperatures,
Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102508.
[86] J. Liu, J. Miao, G. Ba, J. Xiao, D. Hou, Effect of stirrup corrosion and fire on shear behavior of reinforced concrete
beams, KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (2021) 1–13.
[87] T. Roy, V. Matsagar, Mechanics of damage in reinforced concrete member under post-blast fire scenario, Structures 31
(2021) 740–760.
[88] Y. Zhou, J. Yang, Z. Wang, H.-J. Hwang, Y. Huang, L. Deng, W. Yi, Static load test on the progressive collapse
resistance of precast concrete frame substructure during and after high temperature, Journal of Structural Engineering
147 (2021) 04021110.
[89] H. Vandersall, Intumescent coating system, their development and chemistry, J Fire Flamm 2 (1971) 97–140.
[90] T. Mariappan, Recent developments of intumescent fire protection coatings for structural steel: A review, Journal of fire
sciences 34 (2016) 120–163.
[91] N. L. Ryder, S. D. Wolin, J. A. Milke, An investigation of the reduction in fire resistance of steel columns caused by loss
of spray-applied fire protection, Journal of fire protection engineering 12 (2002) 31–44.
[92] W.-Y. Wang, G.-Q. Li, Behavior of steel columns in a fire with partial damage to fire protection, Journal of constructional
steel research 65 (2009) 1392–1400.
[93] H. Jin, Q. Chun, Research on fire-resistance capacities of steel columns with partial-damaged fire protection coating,
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 24 (2020) 1893–1902.
[94] Z. Triantafyllidis, L. A. Bisby, Fibre-reinforced intumescent fire protection coatings as a confining material for concrete
columns, Construction and Building Materials 231 (2020) 117085.
[95] D. de Silva, A. Bilotta, E. Nigro, Experimental investigation on steel elements protected with intumescent coating,
Construction and Building Materials 205 (2019) 232–244.
[96] S. L. Manzello, R. G. Gann, S. R. Kukuck, D. B. Lenhert, Influence of gypsum board type (x or c) on real fire performance
of partition assemblies, Fire and Materials: An International Journal 31 (2007) 425–442.
[97] Z. Peng, H. Mostafaei, Fire resistance of gypsum board protected steel columns with high load ratios, Journal of
Structural Engineering 144 (2018) 04018208.
[98] P. Moss, R. Dhakal, M. Bong, A. Buchanan, Design of steel portal frame buildings for fire safety, Journal of Constructional
Steel Research 65 (2009) 1216–1224.
[99] A. Piquer, D. Hernández-Figueirido, Protected steel columns vs partially encased columns: Fire resistance and economic
considerations, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 124 (2016) 47–56.
[100] A. Fellouh, A. Bougara, P. A. Piloto, N. Benlakehal, Non-linear buckling analysis of composite columns made from high
and normal strength concrete under fire, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering 21 (2020) 17–27.
[101] X. Zhang, L. Peng, Z.-p. Ni, T.-x. Ni, Y.-l. Huang, Y. Zhou, Experimental study on the fire performance of tubular steel
columns with membrane protections for prefabricated and modular steel construction, Materials 11 (2018) 437.
[102] J. Randaxhe, N. Popa, O. Vassart, N. Tondini, Development of a plug-and-play fire protection system for steel columns,
Fire Safety Journal (2021) 103272.
[103] T. Gernay, A. Gamba, Progressive collapse triggered by fire induced column loss: Detrimental effect of thermal forces,
Engineering Structures 172 (2018) 483–496.
[104] S. Venkatachari, V. Kodur, Effect of transient creep on fire induced instability in steel framed structures, Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 181 (2021) 106618.
[105] J. Jiang, Y. Lu, X. Dai, G.-Q. Li, W. Chen, J. Ye, Disproportionate collapse of steel-framed gravity buildings under
travelling fires, Engineering Structures 245 (2021) 112799.
[106] Z. Lu, K. Rong, Z. Zhou, J. Du, Experimental study on performance of frame structure strengthened with foamed
aluminum under debris flow impact, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 34 (2020) 04020011.
[107] S. Xu, Z. Liu, J. Li, Y. Yang, C. Wu, Dynamic behaviors of reinforced nsc and uhpc columns protected by aluminum
foam layer against low-velocity impact, Journal of Building Engineering 34 (2021) 101910.
[108] W. Fan, D. Shen, Z. Zhang, X. Huang, X. Shao, A novel uhpfrc-based protective structure for bridge columns against
vehicle collisions: Experiment, simulation, and optimization, Engineering Structures 207 (2020) 110247.
[109] W. Fan, X. Xu, Z. Zhang, X. Shao, Performance and sensitivity analysis of uhpfrc-strengthened bridge columns subjected
to vehicle collisions, Engineering Structures 173 (2018) 251–268.
[110] W. Fan, D. Shen, T. Yang, X. Shao, Experimental and numerical study on low-velocity lateral impact behaviors of rc,
uhpfrc and uhpfrc-strengthened columns, Engineering Structures 191 (2019) 509–525.
[111] M. M. Kadhim, Z. Wu, L. S. Cunningham, Loading rate effects on cfrp strengthened steel square hollow sections under
lateral impact, Engineering Structures 171 (2018) 874–882.
[112] M. I. Alam, S. Fawzia, Numerical studies on cfrp strengthened steel columns under transverse impact, Composite
Structures 120 (2015) 428–441.
[113] M. M. Kadhim, Z. Wu, L. S. Cunningham, Numerical study of full-scale cfrp strengthened open-section steel columns
under transverse impact, Thin-Walled Structures 140 (2019) 99–113.
[114] T. M. Pham, H. Hao, Review of concrete structures strengthened with frp against impact loading, Structures 7 (2016)
59–70.
[115] T. A. Mohammed, A. Parvin, Vehicle collision impact response of bridge pier strengthened with composites, Practice
Periodical on Structural Design and Construction 25 (2020) 04020027.

37
[116] M. I. Alam, S. Fawzia, X.-L. Zhao, Numerical investigation of cfrp strengthened full scale cfst columns subjected to
vehicular impact, Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 292–310.
[117] J. Xu, C. Demartino, B. Shan, Y. Heo, Y. Xiao, Experimental investigation on performance of cantilever cfrp-wrapped
circular rc columns under lateral low-velocity impact, Composite Structures 242 (2020) 112143.
[118] Y. Liu, A. Dong, S. Zhao, Y. Zeng, Z. Wang, The effect of cfrp-shear strengthening on existing circular rc columns under
impact loads, Construction and Building Materials 302 (2021) 124185.
[119] M. I. Alam, S. Fawzia, X.-L. Zhao, A. M. Remennikov, Numerical modeling and performance assessment of frp-
strengthened full-scale circular-hollow-section steel columns subjected to vehicle collisions, Journal of Composites for
Construction 24 (2020) 04020011.
[120] Q. Ma, M. Rejab, J. Siregar, Z. Guan, A review of the recent trends on core structures and impact response of sandwich
panels, Journal of Composite Materials 55 (2021) 2513–2555.
[121] J. Xiong, Y. Du, D. Mousanezhad, M. Eydani Asl, J. Norato, A. Vaziri, Sandwich structures with prismatic and foam
cores: a review, Advanced Engineering Materials 21 (2019) 1800036.
[122] S. Heimbs, Foldcore sandwich structures and their impact behaviour: an overview, Dynamic failure of composite and
sandwich structures (2013) 491–544.
[123] Y. Zhang, R. Pan, F. Xiao, Numerical research on impact performance of bridge columns with aluminum foam protection
devices, International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 16 (2020) 1550147720974538.
[124] H. Kang, J. Kim, Damage mitigation of a steel column subjected to automobile collision using a honeycomb panel,
Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 34 (2020) 04019107.
[125] Y. Wang, R. Zhang, S. Liu, X. Zhai, X. Zhi, Energy absorption behaviour of an aluminium foam-filled circular-triangular
nested tube energy absorber under impact loading, Structures 34 (2021) 95–104.
[126] H. Yadav, B. Bohra, G. Joshi, S. Sundaram, P. Kamat, Study on basic mechanism of reactive armour., Defence Science
Journal 45 (1995) 207.
[127] H. Kang, J. Kim, Progressive collapse of steel moment frames subjected to vehicle impact, Journal of Performance of
Constructed Facilities 29 (2015) 04014172.
[128] M. M. Javidan, H. Kang, D. Isobe, J. Kim, Computationally efficient framework for probabilistic collapse analysis of
structures under extreme actions, Engineering Structures 172 (2018) 440–452.
[129] A. F. Santos, A. Santiago, M. Latour, G. Rizzano, Robustness analysis of steel frames subjected to vehicle collisions,
Structures 25 (2020) 930–942.
[130] A. Sadeghi, H. Kazemi, K. Mehdizadeh, F. Jadali, Fragility analysis of steel moment-resisting frames subjected to impact
actions, Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation 7 (2022) 1–14.
[131] H. Draganić, G. Gazić, D. Varevac, Experimental investigation of design and retrofit methods for blast load mitigation–a
state-of-the-art review, Engineering Structures 190 (2019) 189–209.
[132] D.-K. Thai, T.-H. Pham, D.-L. Nguyen, Damage assessment of reinforced concrete columns retrofitted by steel jacket
under blast loading, The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 29 (2020) e1676.
[133] M. Hanifehzadeh, H. Aryan, B. Gencturk, D. Akyniyazov, Structural response of steel jacket-uhpc retrofitted reinforced
concrete columns under blast loading, Materials 14 (2021) 1521.
[134] A. Vatani Oskouei, F. Kiakojouri, Non-linear dynamic analysis of steel hollow i-core sandwich panel under air blast
loading, Civil Engineering Infrastructures Journal 48 (2015) 323–344.
[135] F. Kiakojouri, M. Sheidaii, Numerical analysis of steel i-core sandwich panels subjected to multiple consecutive blast
scenarios, Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering 43 (2019) 371–382.
[136] V. Rubino, V. Deshpande, N. Fleck, The dynamic response of clamped rectangular y-frame and corrugated core sandwich
plates, European Journal of Mechanics-A/Solids 28 (2009) 14–24.
[137] L. St-Pierre, N. Fleck, V. Deshpande, The dynamic indentation response of sandwich panels with a corrugated or y-frame
core, International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 92 (2015) 279–289.
[138] H. Ebrahimi, L. K. Someh, J. Norato, A. Vaziri, Blast-resilience of honeycomb sandwich panels, International Journal
of Mechanical Sciences 144 (2018) 1–9.
[139] X. Ma, X. Li, S. Li, R. Li, Z. Wang, G. Wu, Blast response of gradient honeycomb sandwich panels with basalt fiber
metal laminates as skins, International Journal of Impact Engineering 123 (2019) 126–139.
[140] Y. Wang, W. Zhao, G. Zhou, C. Wang, Analysis and parametric optimization of a novel sandwich panel with double-v
auxetic structure core under air blast loading, International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 142 (2018) 245–254.
[141] G. Chen, Y. Cheng, P. Zhang, S. Cai, J. Liu, Blast resistance of metallic double arrowhead honeycomb sandwich panels
with different core configurations under the paper tube-guided air blast loading, International Journal of Mechanical
Sciences 201 (2021) 106457.
[142] L. Yang, L. Sui, Y. Dong, X. Li, F. Zi, Z. Zhang, S. Yang, J. Yang, L. Wu, Quasi-static and dynamic behavior of sandwich
panels with multilayer gradient lattice cores, Composite Structures 255 (2021) 112970.
[143] P. Buchan, J. F. Chen, Blast resistance of frp composites and polymer strengthened concrete and masonry structures–a
state-of-the-art review, Composites Part B: Engineering 38 (2007) 509–522.
[144] Y. Hu, L. Chen, Q. Fang, X. Kong, Y. Shi, J. Cui, Study of cfrp retrofitted rc column under close-in explosion, Engineering
structures 227 (2021) 111431.
[145] J. Dong, J. Zhao, D. Zhang, Numerical evaluation of reinforced concrete columns retrofitted with frp for blast mitigation,
Advances in Civil Engineering 2020 (2020).
[146] M. Abedini, C. Zhang, Dynamic performance of concrete columns retrofitted with frp using segment pressure technique,
Composite Structures 260 (2021) 113473.
[147] M. Vapper, K. Lasn, Blast protection of concrete columns with thin strips of gfrp overlay, Structures 25 (2020) 491–499.

38
[148] R. Codina, D. Ambrosini, F. de Borbón, Alternatives to prevent the failure of rc members under close-in blast loadings,
Engineering Failure Analysis 60 (2016) 96–106.
[149] R. Codina, D. Ambrosini, F. de Borbón, New sacrificial cladding system for the reduction of blast damage in reinforced
concrete structures, International Journal of Protective Structures 8 (2017) 221–236.
[150] H. Rebelo, D. Lecompte, C. Cismasiu, A. Jonet, B. Belkassem, A. Maazoun, Experimental and numerical investigation
on 3d printed pla sacrificial honeycomb cladding, International Journal of Impact Engineering 131 (2019) 162–173.
[151] M. Abada, A. Ibrahim, S. Jung, Improving blast performance of reinforced concrete panels using sacrificial cladding with
hybrid-multi cell tubes, Modelling 2 (2021) 149–165.
[152] Y. Wang, X. Zhai, S. Liu, J. Lu, H. Zhou, Energy absorption performance of a new circular–triangular nested tube and
its application as sacrificial cladding, Thin-Walled Structures 157 (2020) 106992.
[153] A. Ezoddin, A. Kheyroddin, M. Gholhaki, Experimental and numerical investigation on the seismic retrofit of rc frames
with linked column frame systems, Journal of Building Engineering 44 (2021) 102956.
[154] V. De Biagi, B. M. Chiaia, Damage tolerance in parallel systems, International Journal of Damage Mechanics 25 (2016)
1040–1059.
[155] D. Naderi, M. S. Adaros, S. Wood, Use of ring beams for progressive collapse retrofit, in: Structures Congress 2015,
2015, pp. 1183–1194. doi:https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784479117.101.
[156] S. Garg, V. Agrawal, R. Nagar, Case study on strengthening methods for progressive collapse resistance of rc flat slab
buildings, Structures 29 (2021) 1709–1722.
[157] S. Garg, V. Agrawal, R. Nagar, Sustainability assessment of methods to prevent progressive collapse of rc flat slab
buildings, Procedia CIRP 98 (2021) 25–30.
[158] S. Garg, V. Agrawal, R. Nagar, Progressive collapse behaviour of reinforced concrete flat slab buildings subject to column
failures in different storeys, Materials Today: Proceedings 43 (2021) 1031–1037.
[159] K. Khandelwal, S. El-Tawil, F. Sadek, Progressive collapse analysis of seismically designed steel braced frames, Journal
of Constructional Steel Research 65 (2009) 699–708.
[160] A. C. Salmasi, M. R. Sheidaii, Assessment of eccentrically braced frames strength against progressive collapse, Interna-
tional Journal of Steel Structures 17 (2017) 543–551.
[161] A. Naji, M. Khodaverdi Zadeh, Progressive collapse analysis of steel braced frames, Practice Periodical on Structural
Design and Construction 24 (2019) 04019004.
[162] J. Chen, W. Peng, R. Ma, M. He, Strengthening of horizontal bracing on progressive collapse resistance of multistory
steel moment frame, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 26 (2012) 720–724.
[163] J. Jiang, G.-Q. Li, A. Usmani, Effect of bracing systems on fire-induced progressive collapse of steel structures using
opensees, Fire Technology 51 (2015) 1249–1273.
[164] J. Jiang, G.-q. Li, Mitigation of fire-induced progressive collapse of steel framed structures using bracing systems,
Advanced Steel Construction 15 (2019) 192–202.
[165] F. H. Rezvani, M. A. M. Taghizadeh, H. R. Ronagh, Effect of inverted-v bracing on retrofitting against progressive
collapse of steel moment resisting frames, International Journal of Steel Structures 17 (2017) 1103–1113.
[166] F. Hashemi Rezvani, M. A. M. Taghizadeh, H. Reza Ronagh, Estimating the cross-sectional area of inverted-v braces
required for mitigating the progressive collapse of steel intermediate moment resisting frames, Structure and Infrastructure
Engineering 15 (2019) 1075–1086.
[167] M. Bandyopadhyay, A. K. Banik, Improvement of progressive collapse resistance potential of semi-rigid jointed steel
frames through bracings, International Journal of protective structures 7 (2016) 518–546.
[168] N. Mashhadiali, A. Kheyroddin, Progressive collapse assessment of new hexagrid structural system for tall buildings,
The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 23 (2014) 947–961.
[169] H. Eletrabi, J. D. Marshall, Catenary action in steel framed buildings with buckling restrained braces, Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 113 (2015) 221–233.
[170] K. Qian, X. Lan, Z. Li, F. Fu, Effects of steel braces on robustness of steel frames against progressive collapse, Journal
of Structural Engineering 147 (2021) 04021180.
[171] J. Yu, Y.-P. Gan, J. Ji, Behavior and design of reinforced concrete frames retrofitted with steel bracing against progressive
collapse, The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings 29 (2020) e1771.
[172] K. Qian, Y.-H. Weng, B. Li, Improving behavior of reinforced concrete frames to resist progressive collapse through steel
bracings, Journal of Structural Engineering 145 (2019) 04018248.
[173] R. Suwondo, L. Cunningham, M. Gillie, M. Suangga, I. Hidayat, Improving the robustness of steel frame structures
under localised fire conditions, Journal of Structural Fire Engineering (2021).
[174] F. Freddi, L. Ciman, N. Tondini, Retrofit of existing steel structures against progressive collapse through roof-truss,
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 188 (2022) 107037.
[175] S. Jeyarajan, J. R. Liew, C. Koh, Progressive collapse mitigation approaches for steel-concrete composite buildings,
International Journal of Steel Structures 15 (2015) 175–191.
[176] R. Sun, Z. Huang, I. W. Burgess, The collapse behaviour of braced steel frames exposed to fire, Journal of Constructional
Steel Research 72 (2012) 130–142.
[177] G. Abdollahzadeh, R. Shalikar, Retrofitting of steel moment-resisting frames under fire loading against progressive
collapse, International Journal of Steel Structures 17 (2017) 1597–1611.
[178] A. Agarwal, A. H. Varma, Fire induced progressive collapse of steel building structures: The role of interior gravity
columns, Engineering Structures 58 (2014) 129–140.
[179] I. T. Izadi, A. Ranjbaran, Investigation on a mitigation scheme to resist the progressive collapse of reinforced concrete
buildings, Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering 6 (2012) 421–430.

39
[180] L. Ciman, F. Freddi, N. Tondini, A retrofit method to mitigate progressive collapse in steel structures, ce/papers 4
(2021) 1246–1254.
[181] A. Homaioon Ebrahimi, M. Ebadi Jamkhaneh, M. Shokri Amiri, 3d finite-element analysis of steel moment frames
including long-span entrance by strengthening steel cables and diagonal concentrically braced frames under progressive
collapse, Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction 23 (2018) 04018025.
[182] T. Liu, Y. Xiao, J. Yang, B. Chen, Cfrp strip cable retrofit of rc frame for collapse resistance, Journal of Composites for
Construction 21 (2017) 04016067.
[183] S. Elkoly, B. El-Ariss, Progressive collapse evaluation of externally mitigated reinforced concrete beams, Engineering
Failure Analysis 40 (2014) 33–47.
[184] L. T. Deputy, Y. Zeinali, B. A. Story, A modified catenary model with application to the analysis and design of retrofit
cables for progressive collapse, Infrastructures 3 (2018) 26.
[185] D. De Domenico, G. Ricciardi, I. Takewaki, Design strategies of viscous dampers for seismic protection of building
structures: a review, Soil dynamics and earthquake engineering 118 (2019) 144–165.
[186] S. Jaisee, F. Yue, Y. H. Ooi, A state-of-the-art review on passive friction dampers and their applications, Engineering
Structures 235 (2021) 112022.
[187] J. Kim, H. Choi, K.-W. Min, Use of rotational friction dampers to enhance seismic and progressive collapse resisting
capacity of structures, The structural design of tall and special buildings 20 (2011) 515–537.
[188] M. Mirtaheri, Z. Omidi, M. Salkhordeh, H. Mirzaeefard, Seismic progressive collapse mitigation of buildings using
cylindrical friction damper, Earthquakes and Structures 20 (2021) 1.
[189] A. Shahriari, M. S. Birzhandi, M. M. Zafarani, Seismic behavior, blast response and progressive collapse of rc structures
equipped with viscoelastic dampers, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 143 (2021) 106643.
[190] J. Kim, S. Lee, H. Choi, Progressive collapse resisting capacity of moment frames with viscous dampers, The Structural
Design of Tall and Special Buildings 22 (2013) 399–414.
[191] B. H. Ali, E. Mete Güneyisi, M. Bigonah, Assessment of different retrofitting methods on structural performance of rc
buildings against progressive collapse, Applied Sciences 12 (2022) 1045.
[192] J. Kim, S. Lee, K.-W. Min, Design of mr dampers to prevent progressive collapse of moment frames, Structural
Engineering and Mechanics 52 (2014) 291–306.
[193] A. Horr, M. Safi, Multi-layered energy absorber frames for tall buildings under high-speed impact, The Structural Design
of Tall and Special Buildings 12 (2003) 423–450.
[194] S. Gao, L. Guo, Z. Zhang, Anti-collapse performance of composite frame with special-shaped mcfst columns, Engineering
Structures 245 (2021) 112917.
[195] K. Galal, T. El-Sawy, Effect of retrofit strategies on mitigating progressive collapse of steel frame structures, Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 520–531.
[196] J. Yu, K. H. Tan, Special detailing techniques to improve structural resistance against progressive collapse, Journal of
Structural Engineering 140 (2014) 04013077.
[197] X.-L. Gu, B. Zhang, Y. Wang, X.-L. Wang, Experimental investigation and numerical simulation on progressive collapse
resistance of rc frame structures considering beam flange effects, Journal of Building Engineering (2021) 102797.
[198] A. d. A. Vieira, S. Triantafyllou, D. Bournas, Strengthening of rc frame subassemblies against progressive collapse using
trm and nsm reinforcement, Engineering Structures 207 (2020) 110002.
[199] J. Pan, X. Wang, F. Wu, Strengthening of precast rc frame to mitigate progressive collapse by externally bonded cfrp
sheets anchored with hfrp anchors, Advances in Civil Engineering 2018 (2018).
[200] W. Qin, X. Liu, Z. Xi, Z. Huang, A. Al-Mansour, M. Fernand, Experimental research on the progressive collapse
resistance of concrete beam-column sub-assemblages reinforced with steel-frp composite bar, Engineering Structures 233
(2021) 111776.
[201] H. Huang, M. Huang, W. Zhang, M. Guo, Z. Chen, M. Li, Progressive collapse resistance of multistory rc frame
strengthened with hpfl-bsp, Journal of Building Engineering (2021) 103123.
[202] S. Gerasimidis, C. Baniotopoulos, Progressive collapse mitigation of 2d steel moment frames: assessing the effect of
different strengthening schemes, Stahlbau 84 (2015) 324–331.
[203] L. Shan, F. Petrone, S. Kunnath, Robustness of rc buildings to progressive collapse: Influence of building height,
Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 690–701.
[204] K. Qian, Y.-L. Huang, D.-Q. Lan, X.-F. Deng, Reliability of single-storey substructures to equivalently investigate
behavior of multi-storey frames, in: Structures Congress 2020, American Society of Civil Engineers Reston, VA, 2020,
pp. 63–71. doi:https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784482896.007.
[205] K. Qian, Y.-H. Weng, F. Fu, X.-F. Deng, Numerical evaluation of the reliability of using single-story substructures to
study progressive collapse behaviour of multi-story rc frames, Journal of Building Engineering 33 (2021) 101636.
[206] M. A. Zoghi, M. Mirtaheri, Progressive collapse analysis of steel building considering effects of infill panels, Structural
engineering and mechanics: An international journal 59 (2016) 59–82.
[207] S. Shan, S. Li, S. Xu, L. Xie, Experimental study on the progressive collapse performance of rc frames with infill walls,
Engineering Structures 111 (2016) 80–92.
[208] S. Li, S. Shan, C. Zhai, L. Xie, Experimental and numerical study on progressive collapse process of rc frames with
full-height infill walls, Engineering Failure Analysis 59 (2016) 57–68.
[209] S. Shan, S. Li, S. Wang, Effect of infill walls on mechanisms of steel frames against progressive collapse, Journal of
Constructional Steel Research 162 (2019) 105720.
[210] M. Buitrago, E. Bertolesi, J. Sagaseta, P. A. Calderón, J. M. Adam, Robustness of rc building structures with infill
masonry walls: Tests on a purpose-built structure, Engineering Structures 226 (2021) 111384.

40
[211] M. Bigonah, H. Soltani, M. Zabihi-Samani, M. A. Shyanfar, Performance evaluation on effects of all types of infill against
the progressive collapse of reinforced concrete frames, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering 21 (2020) 395–409.
[212] F. Wang, J. Yang, S. Nyunn, I. Azim, Effect of concrete infill walls on the progressive collapse performance of precast
concrete framed substructures, Journal of Building Engineering 32 (2020) 101461.
[213] S. Shan, S. Li, Progressive collapse mechanisms of post-tensioned reinforced concrete frames considering effect of infill
walls, Engineering Structures 250 (2022) 113451.
[214] S. Shan, S. Li, Fire-induced progressive collapse mechanisms of steel frames with partial infill walls, Structures 25 (2020)
347–359.
[215] S. Shan, S. Li, Collapse performances of steel frames against fire considering effect of infill walls, Journal of Constructional
Steel Research 182 (2021) 106691.
[216] K. Qian, D.-Q. Lan, F. Fu, B. Li, Effects of infilled wall opening on load resisting capacity of rc frames to mitigate
progressive collapse risk, Engineering Structures 223 (2020) 111196.
[217] M. Alrubaidi, S. Alhammadi, Effectiveness of masonry infill walls on steel frames with different beam-column connections
under progressive collapse, in: Structures, volume 38, Elsevier, 2022, pp. 202–224. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
istruc.2022.02.002.
[218] K. Qian, D.-Q. Lan, S.-K. Li, F. Fu, Effects of infill walls on load resistance of multi-story rc frames to mitigate progressive
collapse, Structures 33 (2021) 2534–2545.
[219] A. Brodsky, D. Z. Yankelevsky, O. Rabinovitch, Shearing of infill masonry walls under lateral and vertical loading,
Journal of Building Engineering 38 (2021) 102147.
[220] A. Furtado, H. Rodrigues, A. Arêde, H. Varum, Experimental tests on strengthening strategies for masonry infill walls:
A literature review, Construction and Building Materials 263 (2020) 120520.
[221] F. Wang, J. Yang, X.-e. Wang, A. Iftikhar, Study on progressive collapse behaviour of steel-framed substructures with
sheathed cfs stud infill walls, Journal of Building Engineering (2021) 102720.
[222] J. Kim, H. Lee, Progressive collapse-resisting capacity of framed structures with infill steel panels, Journal of Construc-
tional Steel Research 89 (2013) 145–152.
[223] L. Bredean, M. Botez, The influence of beams design and the slabs effect on the progressive collapse resisting mechanisms
development for rc framed structures, Engineering Failure Analysis 91 (2018) 527–542.
[224] M. A. Galal, M. Bandyopadhyay, A. K. Banik, Vulnerability of three-dimensional semirigid composite frame subjected
to progressive collapse, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 33 (2019) 04019030.
[225] B. Pang, F. Wang, J. Yang, S. Nyunn, I. Azim, Performance of slabs in reinforced concrete structures to resist progressive
collapse, Structures 33 (2021) 4843–4856.
[226] Y. Yang, Y. Li, H. Guan, M. Diao, X. Lu, Enhancing post-punching performance of flat plate-column joints by different
reinforcement configurations, Journal of Building Engineering (2021) 102855.
[227] K. Qian, B. Li, Strengthening and retrofitting of rc flat slabs to mitigate progressive collapse by externally bonded cfrp
laminates, Journal of Composites for Construction 17 (2013) 554–565.
[228] H. Akhundzada, T. Donchev, D. Petkova, Punching shear resistance of flat slabs strengthened with near surface–mounted
cfrp bars, Journal of Composites for Construction 25 (2021) 04021035.
[229] W. Qin, Z. Xi, X. Liu, P. Feng, X. Ou, J. Yang, Experimental and theoretical analyses of the progressive collapse
resistance of nsm strengthening rc frames after the failure of a corner column, Journal of Building Engineering 47 (2022)
103805.
[230] K. Qian, B. Li, Strengthening of multibay reinforced concrete flat slabs to mitigate progressive collapse, Journal of
Structural Engineering 141 (2015) 04014154.
[231] K. Qian, B. Li, Strengthening and retrofitting precast concrete buildings to mitigate progressive collapse using externally
bonded gfrp strips, Journal of Composites for Construction 23 (2019) 04019018.
[232] P. Feng, H. Qiang, X. Ou, W. Qin, J. Yang, Progressive collapse resistance of gfrp-strengthened rc beam–slab subassem-
blages in a corner column–removal scenario, Journal of Composites for Construction 23 (2019) 04018076.
[233] A. Shokoohfar, P. Kaafi Siyahestalkhi, Retrofitting and rehabilitation in steel moment-resisting frame with prestressed
concrete slab against progressive collapse potential, International Journal of Engineering, Transactions B: Applications
35 (2022).
[234] Y. Wang, B. Zhang, X.-L. Gu, F. Lin, Experimental and numerical investigation on progressive collapse resistance of rc
frame structures considering transverse beam and slab effects, Journal of Building Engineering 47 (2022) 103908.
[235] S.-Y. Lee, S.-Y. Noh, D. Lee, Comparison of progressive collapse resistance capacities of steel ordinary and intermediate
moment frames considering different connection details, Engineering Structures 231 (2021) 111753.
[236] L. Zheng, W.-D. Wang, W. Xian, Experimental and numerical investigation on the anti-progressive collapse performance
of fabricated connection with cfst column and composite beam, Engineering Structures 256 (2022) 114061.
[237] I. Faridmehr, M. H. Osman, M. B. M. Tahir, A. F. Nejad, R. Hodjati, Seismic and progressive collapse assessment of
sideplate moment connection system, Struct. Eng. Mech 54 (2015) 35–54.
[238] M. Mirtaheri, M. A. Zoghi, Design guides to resist progressive collapse for steel structures, Steel and Composite Structures
20 (2016) 357–378.
[239] S. Lin, H. Qiao, J. Wang, J. Shi, Y. Chen, Anti-collapse performance of steel frames with rws connections under a column
removal scenario, Engineering Structures 227 (2021) 111495.
[240] S. Lin, X. Xue, H. Qiao, Y. Chen, Prediction model for catenary action of welded rws connections using pvm link element,
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 191 (2022) 107207.
[241] H. Qiao, X. Xie, Y. Chen, Improvement of progressive collapse resistance for a steel frame system with beam–web
opening, Engineering Structures 256 (2022) 113995.

41
[242] L. Zhang, H. Li, W. Wang, Retrofit strategies against progressive collapse of steel gravity frames, Applied Sciences 10
(2020) 4600.
[243] B. Ghorbanzadeh, G. Bregoli, G. Vasdravellis, T. L. Karavasilis, Pilot experimental and numerical studies on a novel
retrofit scheme for steel joints against progressive collapse, Engineering Structures 200 (2019) 109667.
[244] G. Bregoli, G. Vasdravellis, T. L. Karavasilis, D. M. Cotsovos, Static and dynamic tests on steel joints equipped with
novel structural details for progressive collapse mitigation, Engineering Structures 232 (2021) 111829.
[245] J.-p. Wei, L.-m. Tian, J.-p. Hao, W. Li, C.-b. Zhang, T.-j. Li, Novel principle for improving performance of steel frame
structures in column-loss scenario, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 163 (2019) 105768.
[246] X. Rong, X. Xu, Y. Du, Research on the resistance of modified bolted connection under progressive collapse scenario,
Advances in Structural Engineering 24 (2021) 2555–2571.
[247] M. Mirtaheri, F. Emami, M. A. Zoghi, M. Salkhordeh, Mitigation of progressive collapse in steel structures using a new
passive connection, Structural Engineering and Mechanics 70 (2019) 381–394.
[248] J. Wang, W. Wang, Macromodeling approach and robustness enhancement strategies for steel frame buildings with
composite slabs against column loss, Journal of Structural Engineering 148 (2022) 04021238.
[249] C. A. Dimopoulos, F. Freddi, T. L. Karavasilis, G. Vasdravellis, Progressive collapse resistance of steel self-centering
mrfs including the effects of the composite floor, Engineering Structures 208 (2020) 109923.
[250] M. Shirinzadeh, A. Haghollahi, H. Gomar, Simple connections retrofitted by dampers and bracket-tendon system against
progressive collapse, Australian Journal of Structural Engineering (2021) 1–10.
[251] M. Shirinzadeh, A. Haghollahi, Retrofit of simple welded connections against progressive collapse, Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers-Structures and Buildings 173 (2020) 458–468.
[252] B. Meng, L. Li, W. Zhong, Z. Tan, Q. Du, Improving anti-progressive collapse capacity of welded connection based on
energy dissipation cover-plates, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 188 (2022) 107051.
[253] J. Liu, Preventing progressive collapse through strengthening beam-to-column connection, part 1: Theoretical analysis,
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 229–237.
[254] J. Liu, Preventing progressive collapse through strengthening beam-to-column connection, part 2: Finite element analysis,
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 238–247.
[255] M. A. Shaheen, M. A. Galal, L. S. Cunningham, A. S. Foster, New technique to improve the ductility of steel beam to
column bolted connections: A numerical investigation, CivilEng 2 (2021) 929–942.
[256] M. A. Shaheen, A. S. Foster, L. S. Cunningham, A novel device to improve robustness of end plate beam–column
connections: Analytical model development, Thin-Walled Structures 172 (2022) 108878.
[257] J. Kim, H. Choi, Monotonic loading tests of rc beam-column subassemblage strengthened to prevent progressive collapse,
International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials 9 (2015) 401–413.
[258] F. Sadek, Y. Bao, J. A. Main, H. Lew, Evaluation and enhancement of robustness for reinforced concrete buildings,
Journal of Structural Engineering 148 (2022) 04021248.
[259] H. M. Elsanadedy, New moment-resisting beam-column joints to increase progressive collapse resistance of precast
concrete buildings, Journal of Building Engineering (2021) 102884.
[260] H. M. Elsanadedy, Y. A. Al-Salloum, M. A. Alrubaidi, T. H. Almusallam, N. A. Siddiqui, H. Abbas, Upgrading of precast
rc beam-column joints using innovative frp/steel hybrid technique for progressive collapse prevention, Construction and
Building Materials 268 (2021) 121130.
[261] D. D. Joshi, P. V. Patel, Experimental study of precast dry connections constructed away from beam–column junction
under progressive collapse scenario, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering 20 (2019) 209–222.
[262] Y. Liu, Z. Zhao, X. Cheng, Y. Li, M. Diao, H. Sun, Experimental and numerical investigation of the progressive collapse
of precast reinforced concrete frame substructures with wet connections, Engineering Structures 256 (2022) 114010.
[263] S. Li, S. Shan, H. Zhang, Y. Li, Rapid retrofit of reinforced concrete frames after progressive collapse to increase
sustainability, Sustainability 11 (2019) 4195.
[264] W. Chen, B. Lin, D. Li, J. Zhang, S. Cui, Progressive collapse performance of shear strengthened rc frames by nano cfrp,
Nanotechnology Reviews 11 (2022) 811–823.
[265] H. Wang, J. Huo, M. Elchalakani, Y. Liu, S. Zhang, Dynamic performance of retrofitted steel beam-column connections
subjected to impact loadings, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 183 (2021) 106732.
[266] Y. Liu, S.-S. Huang, I. Burgess, A numerical study on the structural performance of a ductile connection under fire
conditions, ce/papers 4 (2021) 1196–1202.
[267] M. D’Antimo, M. Latour, J.-F. Demonceau, Dissipative joints under impact loadings, ce/papers 4 (2021) 1377–1385.
[268] H. Li, W. Chen, Z. Huang, H. Hao, T. T. Ngo, T. M. Pham, K. J. Yeoh, Dynamic response of monolithic and precast
concrete joint with wet connections under impact loads, Engineering Structures 250 (2022) 113434.
[269] W. Zhang, Progressive collapse of post-tensioned subframes following the removal of an interior column, Engineering
Structures 254 (2022) 113841.
[270] K. Qian, Y. Liu, T. Yang, B. Li, Progressive collapse resistance of posttensioned concrete beam-column subassemblages
with unbonded posttensioning strands, Journal of Structural Engineering 144 (2018) 04017182.
[271] K. Qian, X.-D. Zhang, F. Fu, B. Li, Progressive collapse resisting mechanisms of planar prestressed concrete frame, ACI
Structural Journal 116 (2019) 77–90.
[272] Y. Huang, Y. Tao, W. Yi, Y. Zhou, L. Deng, Numerical investigation on compressive arch action of prestressed concrete
beam-column assemblies against progressive collapse, Journal of Building Engineering 44 (2021) 102991.
[273] K. Qian, D.-Q. Lan, L. Zhang, F. Fu, Q. Fang, Robustness of post-tensioned concrete beam-column subassemblies under
various column removal scenarios, Journal of Structural Engineering 148 (2022) 04022032.
[274] Y. F. Zhu, C. H. Chen, L. M. Keer, Y. Huang, Y. Yao, Structural response and resilience of posttensioned steel frames

42
 under column loss, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 158 (2019) 107–119.
[275] M. Husain, J. Yu, B. H. Osman, J. Ji, Progressive collapse resistance of post-tensioned concrete beam-column assemblies
under a middle column removal scenario, Journal of Building Engineering 34 (2021) 101945.
[276] T. Yang, Z. Liu, J. Lian, Progressive collapse of rc flat slab substructures with unbonded posttensioning strands after
the loss of an exterior column, Engineering Structures 234 (2021) 111989.
[277] D. Z. Yankelevsky, Y. S. Karinski, A. Brodsky, V. R. Feldgun, Evaluation of punching shear design criteria to prevent
progressive collapse of rc flat slabs, International Journal of Protective Structures 12 (2021) 174–205.
[278] H. Tavakoli, F. Kiakojouri, Threat-independent column removal and fire-induced progressive collapse: Numerical study
and comparison, Civil engineering infrastructures journal 48 (2015) 121–131.
[279] N. Ulaeto, J. Sagaseta, M. Chryssanthopoulos, Horizontal collapse propagation of concrete flat slabs supported on
columns, Journal of Structural Engineering 148 (2022) 04021266.
[280] N. Lalkovski, U. Starossek, Pancake-type collapse—preventing downward progression, in: IABSE Symposium Report,
International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, 2014, pp. 1642–1649. doi:https://doi.org/10.2749/
222137814814068148.
[281] N. Lalkovski, U. Starossek, The total collapse of the twin towers: What it would have taken to prevent it once collapse
was initiated, Journal of Structural Engineering 148 (2022) 04021276.
[282] D. Yankelevsky, Y. Karinski, V. Feldgun, Dynamic punching shear failure of a rc flat slab-column connection under a
collapsing slab impact, International Journal of Impact Engineering 135 (2020) 103401.
[283] V. De Biagi, M. Marchelli, D. Peila, Reliability analysis and partial safety factors approach for rockfall protection
structures, Engineering Structures 213 (2020) 110553.
[284] M. Marchelli, V. De Biagi, D. Peila, Reliability-based design of rockfall passive systems height, International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 139 (2021) 104664.
[285] J. Yan, S. Yao, P. Xu, Y. Peng, H. Shao, S. Zhao, Theoretical prediction and numerical studies of expanding circular
tubes as energy absorbers, International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 105 (2016) 206–214.
[286] W. Guan, G. Gao, Y. Yu, T. Zhuo, Theoretical, experimental and numerical investigations on the energy absorption of
splitting multiple circular tubes under impact loading, Thin-Walled Structures 155 (2020) 106916.
[287] G. Zhu, Q. Yu, X. Zhao, L. Wei, H. Chen, Energy-absorbing mechanisms and crashworthiness design of cfrp multi-cell
structures, Composite Structures 233 (2020) 111631.
[288] Q. Liu, J. Fu, Y. Ma, Y. Zhang, Q. Li, Crushing responses and energy absorption behaviors of multi-cell cfrp tubes,
Thin-walled Structures 155 (2020) 106930.
[289] D. Hu, Y. Wang, B. Song, Y. Wang, Energy absorption characteristics of a foam-filled tri-tube under axial quasi-static
loading: experiment and numerical simulation, International Journal of Crashworthiness 23 (2018) 417–432.
[290] F. Djamaluddin, S. Abdullah, A. K. Ariffin, Z. M. Nopiah, Optimisation and validation of full and half foam filled double
circular tube under multiple load cases, International Journal of Crashworthiness 24 (2019).
[291] G. Sun, Z. Wang, H. Yu, Z. Gong, Q. Li, Experimental and numerical investigation into the crashworthiness of metal-
foam-composite hybrid structures, Composite Structures 209 (2019) 535–547.
[292] Z. Wang, X. Jin, Q. Li, G. Sun, On crashworthiness design of hybrid metal-composite structures, International Journal
of Mechanical Sciences 171 (2020) 105380.
[293] C. Wu, J. Li, Structural protective design with innovative concrete material and retrofitting technology, Procedia
Engineering 173 (2017) 49–56.
[294] H. Wang, B. Yang, K. Chen, M. Elchalakani, Parametric analysis and simplified approach for steel-framed subassemblies
with reverse channel connection under falling-debris impact, Engineering Structures 225 (2020) 111263.
[295] H. Wang, K. H. Tan, B. Yang, Impact resistance of steel frames with different beam–column connections subject to
falling-floor impact on various locations, Journal of Structural Engineering 147 (2021) 04021017.
[296] R. Rithanyaa, G. Murali, M. Salaimanimagudam, R. Fediuk, H. S. Abdelgader, A. Siva, Impact response of novel layered
two stage fibrous composite slabs with different support type, in: Structures, volume 29, Elsevier, 2021, pp. 1–13.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.11.004.
[297] D. Yankelevsky, Y. Karinski, A. Brodsky, V. R. Feldgun, Dynamic punching shear of impacting rc flat slabs with drop
panels, Engineering Failure Analysis (2021) 105682.
[298] B. Batarlar, M. Hering, F. Bracklow, T. Kühn, B. Beckmann, M. Curbach, Experimental investigation on reinforced
concrete slabs strengthened with carbon textiles under repeated impact loads, Structural Concrete 22 (2021) 120–131.
[299] N. Prasad, G. Murali, R. Fediuk, N. Vatin, M. Karelina, Response of novel functionally-graded prepacked aggregate
fibrous concrete against low velocity repeated projectile impacts, Materials 14 (2021) 280.
[300] A. Noman, M. Aqeel, S. H. Qari, A. A. Al Surhanee, G. Yasin, S. Alamri, M. Hashem, A. M. Al-Saadi, Plant hypersensitive
response vs pathogen ingression: Death of few gives life to others, Microbial pathogenesis 145 (2020) 104224.
[301] J. H. Hong, M. Savina, J. Du, A. Devendran, K. K. Ramakanth, X. Tian, W. S. Sim, V. V. Mironova, J. Xu, A
sacrifice-for-survival mechanism protects root stem cell niche from chilling stress, Cell 170 (2017) 102–113.
[302] T. Lin, Concrete for lunar base construction, in: Lunar bases and space activities of the 21st century, 1985, p. 381.
[303] W. G. Corley, P. F. M. Sr, M. A. Sozen, C. H. Thornton, The oklahoma city bombing: Summary and recommendations
for multihazard mitigation, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 12 (1998) 100–112.
[304] U. Starossek, Progressive collapse study of a multi-span bridge, Structural Engineering International 9 (1999) 121–125.
[305] M. Shoghijavan, U. Starossek, Structural robustness of long-span cable-supported bridges segmented by zipper-stoppers
to prevent progressive collapse, in: IABSE Conference, Kuala Lumpur 2018: Engineering the Developing World, 2018,
pp. 593–600. doi:https://doi.org/10.2749/kualalumpur.2018.0593.
[306] C. Cennamo, G. M. Cennamo, B. M. Chiaia, Robustness-oriented design of a panel-based shelter system in critical sites,

43
 Journal of architectural engineering 18 (2012) 123–139.
[307] C. Cennamo, B. Chiaia, V. De Biagi, L. Placidi, Monitoring and compartmentalized structures, ZAMM-Journal of
Applied Mathematics and Mechanics/Zeitschrift für Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik 95 (2015) 638–648.
[308] K. Voulpiotis, J. Köhler, R. Jockwer, A. Frangi, A holistic framework for designing for structural robustness in tall
timber buildings, Engineering Structures 227 (2021) 111432.
[309] K. Voulpiotis, A. Frangi, Robustness design for tall timber buildings, International Journal of High-Rise Buildings 9
(2020) 245–253.
[310] H. Daou, W. Abou Salha, W. Raphael, A. Chateauneuf, Explanation of the collapse of terminal 2e at roissy–cdg airport
by nonlinear deterministic and reliability analyses, Case Studies in Construction Materials 10 (2019) e00222.
[311] R. Yang, J. Zhang, Numerical simulation of various materials for the impact protection of a reinforced concrete slab,
Strength of Materials 53 (2021) 145–153.
[312] FEMA, Primer for design of commercial buildings to mitigate terrorist attacks, 2003.
[313] M. Scalvenzi, F. Parisi, Progressive collapse capacity of a gravity-load designed rc building partially collapsed during
structural retrofitting, Engineering Failure Analysis 121 (2021) 105164.
[314] M. Scalvenzi, F. Parisi, Disproportionate collapse resistance of buildings during retrofitting, in: Life-Cycle Civil Engi-
neering: Innovation, Theory and Practice, CRC Press, 2021, pp. 1618–1623.
[315] H. E. Ilgın, M. Karjalainen, Preliminary design proposals for dovetail wood board elements in multi-story building
construction, Architecture 1 (2021) 56–68.
[316] J. A. Huber, H. M. Bita, T. Tannert, S. Berg, Finite element analysis of alternative load paths to prevent disproportionate
collapse in platform-type clt floor systems, Engineering Structures 240 (2021) 112362.
[317] H. M. Bita, J. A. Huber, K. Voulpiotis, T. Tannert, Survey of contemporary practices for disproportionate collapse
prevention, Engineering Structures 199 (2019) 109578.
[318] T. Almusallam, Y. Al-Salloum, S. Alsayed, R. Iqbal, H. Abbas, Effect of cfrp strengthening on the response of rc slabs
to hard projectile impact, Nuclear Engineering and Design 286 (2015) 211–226.
[319] M. Loganaganandan, G. Murali, M. P. Salaimanimagudam, M. K. Haridharan, K. Karthikeyan, Experimental study on
gfrp strips strengthened new two stage concrete slabs under falling mass collisions, KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
25 (2021) 235–244.
[320] A. B. Elnagar, H. M. Afefy, A. T. Baraghith, M. H. Mahmoud, Experimental and numerical investigations on the impact
resistance of shcc-strengthened rc slabs subjected to drop weight loading, Construction and Building Materials 229 (2019)
116866.
[321] S.-J. Yoo, T.-F. Yuan, S.-H. Hong, Y.-S. Yoon, Effect of strengthening methods on two-way slab under low-velocity
impact loading, Materials 13 (2020) 5603.
[322] S. Ivorra, J. Garcia-Barba, M. Mateo, C. Pérez-Carramiñana, A. Maciá, Partial collapse of a ventilated stone façade:
Diagnosis and analysis of the anchorage system, Engineering Failure Analysis 31 (2013) 290–301.
[323] S. S. Weli, L. G. Vigh, Blast performance evaluation of steel moment-resisting frame equipped with smart bolted
connection, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 35 (2021) 04021050.
[324] S. S. Weli, L. G. Vigh, Blast performance of steel frames equipped with niti sma bolts: Design procedure and numerical
evaluation, Journal of Structural Engineering 148 (2022) 04022029.
[325] Wikipedia, 2021 lagos high-rise collapse, 2021. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Lagos_high-rise_
collapse, [accessed 08-November-2021].
[326] M. Buitrago, J. J. Moragues, P. A. Calderón, J. M. Adam, Structural failures in cast-in-place reinforced concrete building
structures under construction, in: Handbook of Materials Failure Analysis, Elsevier, 2018, pp. 153–170. doi:https:
//doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-101928-3.00008-2.
[327] C. Cho, K. Kim, J. Park, Y. K. Cho, Data-driven monitoring system for preventing the collapse of scaffolding structures,
Journal of construction engineering and management 144 (2018) 04018077.
[328] M. Buitrago, J. Sagaseta, J. M. Adam, Avoiding failures during building construction using structural fuses as load
limiters on temporary shoring structures, Engineering Structures 204 (2020) 109906.
[329] M. Buitrago, P. A. Calderón, J. J. Moragues, Y. A. Alvarado, J. M. Adam, Load limiters on temporary shoring structures:
tests on a full-scale building structure under construction, Journal of Structural Engineering 147 (2021) 04020345.
[330] M. Scalvenzi, S. Gargiulo, F. Freddi, F. Parisi, Impact of seismic retrofitting on progressive collapse resistance of rc
frame structures, Engineering Failure Analysis (2021) 105840.
[331] X.-H. Yu, K. Qian, D.-G. Lu, B. Li, Progressive collapse behavior of aging reinforced concrete structures considering
corrosion effects, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 31 (2017) 04017009.
[332] 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, Structural Safety 89 (2021) 102061.
[333] L. Zhang, T. Wei, H. Li, J. Zeng, X. Deng, Effects of corrosion on compressive arch action and catenary action of rc
frames to resist progressive collapse based on numerical analysis, Materials 14 (2021) 2662.
[334] S. Wang, L. Zhang, H. Su, J. Du, Time-dependent robustness-based condition assessment of rc bridges subjected to
corrosion, in: Structures, volume 34, Elsevier, 2021, pp. 4500–4510. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.10.
061.
[335] R. A. de Souza, M. J. de Souza Araújo, The progressive failure of 15 balconies and the engineering techniques for their
reconstruction, Engineering Failure Analysis 18 (2011) 895–906.
[336] A. Shokoohfar, P. Kaafi, Retrofitting and rehabilitation in steel moment-resisting frame with prestressed concrete slab
against progressive collapse potential, International Journal of Engineering 35 (2022) 53–72.
[337] Wikipedia, Didcot power stations, 2016. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didcot_power_stations, [accessed 08-

44
 September-2021].
[338] Wikipedia, Saint petersburg sports and concert complex, 2019. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_
Petersburg_Sports_and_Concert_Complex, [accessed 08-September-2021].
[339] T. FELIPE, V. HAACH, Discussion about progressive collapse of masonry buildings, Revista IBRACON de Estruturas
e Materiais 12 (2019) 479–485.
[340] D. N. Grant, J. Dennis, R. Sturt, G. Milan, D. McLennan, P. Negrette, R. da Costa, M. Palmieri, Explicit modelling of
collapse for dutch unreinforced masonry building typology fragility functions, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering (2020)
1–23.
[341] G. Vallero, V. De Biagi, M. Barbero, M. Castelli, M. L. Napoli, A method to quantitatively assess the vulnerability of
masonry structures subjected to rockfalls, Natural Hazards 103 (2020) 1307–1325.
[342] N. Makoond, L. Pelà, C. Molins, A risk index for the structural diagnosis of masonry heritage (risdimah), Construction
and Building Materials 284 (2021) 122433.
[343] E.-G. S. Kouris, L.-A. S. Kouris, A. A. Konstantinidis, S. K. Kourkoulis, C. G. Karayannis, E. C. Aifantis, Stochastic
dynamic analysis of cultural heritage towers up to collapse, Buildings 11 (2021) 296.
[344] E. Fathalla, H. Salem, Parametric study on seismic rehabilitation of masonry buildings using frp based upon 3d non-linear
dynamic analysis, Buildings 8 (2018) 124.
[345] X. Zhao, S. Yan, Y. Chen, Comparison of progressive collapse resistance of single-layer latticed domes under different
loadings, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 129 (2017) 204–214.
[346] F. Fu, G. Parke, Assessment of the progressive collapse resistance of double-layer grid space structures using implicit
and explicit methods, International Journal of Steel Structures 18 (2018) 831–842.
[347] L.-m. Tian, D.-y. Li, W. Li, Y.-f. Kou, Progressive collapse resistance of single-layer latticed domes under different failure
conditions at the same joint, Journal of Building Engineering 36 (2021) 102132.
[348] G.-b. Nie, C.-x. Zhang, D.-f. Li, Q. Chen, Z.-y. Wang, Collapse of the spatial double-layer cylinder shell by experimental
study, Engineering Structures 245 (2021) 112862.
[349] S. Rashidyan, M.-R. Sheidaii, Improving double-layer space trusses collapse behavior by strengthening compression layer
and weakening tension layer members, Advances in Structural Engineering 20 (2017) 1757–1767.
[350] Z. Zhai, W. Guo, W. Chen, Z. Yu, C. Zeng, S. Li, Effect of damper failure on the seismic loss assessment of retrofitted
steel moment-resisting frames, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 150 (2021) 106903.
[351] F. J. Luo, Y. Bai, J. Hou, Y. Huang, Progressive collapse analysis and structural robustness of steel-framed modular
buildings, Engineering Failure Analysis 104 (2019) 643–656.
[352] M. Alembagheri, P. Sharafi, R. Hajirezaei, B. Samali, Collapse capacity of modular steel buildings subject to module
loss scenarios: The role of inter-module connections, Engineering Structures 210 (2020) 110373.
[353] M. Alembagheri, P. Sharafi, R. Hajirezaei, Z. Tao, Anti-collapse resistance mechanisms in corner-supported modular
steel buildings, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 170 (2020) 106083.
[354] T.-M. Chan, K.-F. Chung, et al., Effect of inter-module connections on progressive collapse behaviour of mic structures,
Journal of Constructional Steel Research 185 (2021) 106823.
[355] H.-T. Thai, Q. V. Ho, W. Li, T. Ngo, Progressive collapse and robustness of modular high-rise buildings, Structure and
Infrastructure Engineering (2021) 1–13.
[356] P. Sharafi, M. Alembagheri, K. Kildashti, H. T. Ganji, Gravity-induced progressive collapse response of precast corner-
supported modular buildings, Journal of Architectural Engineering 27 (2021) 04021031.
[357] Y. S. Chua, S. Dai Pang, J. R. Liew, Z. Dai, Robustness of inter-module connections and steel modular buildings under
column loss scenarios, Journal of Building Engineering 47 (2022) 103888.
[358] J. Peng, C. Hou, L. Shen, Progressive collapse analysis of corner-supported composite modular buildings, Journal of
Building Engineering (2022) 103977.
[359] A. T. Beck, L. da Rosa Ribeiro, M. Valdebenito, Risk-based cost-benefit analysis of frame structures considering
progressive collapse under column removal scenarios, Engineering Structures 225 (2020) 111295.
[360] M. G. Stewart, Terrorism risks and economic assessment of infrastructure protection against progressive collapse, Journal
of Structural Engineering 147 (2021) 04021165.
[361] A. T. Beck, L. d. R. Ribeiro, M. Valdebenito, Cost-benefit analysis of design for progressive collapse under accidental or
malevolent extreme events, in: Engineering for Extremes, Springer, 2022, pp. 313–334. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-030-85018-0_15.

45