EFFECT OF SPAN LENGTH IN PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE OF MULTI-STOREY RC BUILDING UNDER CORNER AND MIDDLE COLUMN REMOVAL SCENARIO

Transcription

1 International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) Volume 9, Issue 3, March 2018, pp , Article ID: IJCIET_09_03_045 Available online at ISSN Print: and ISSN Online: IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed EFFECT OF SPAN LENGTH IN PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE OF MULTI-STOREY RC BUILDING UNDER CORNER AND MIDDLE COLUMN REMOVAL SCENARIO Dipika Kumari M.Tech-Structural Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, SRM University, Kattankulathur, Kanchipuram District, Tamil Nadu, India ABSTRACT Progressive collapse is the phenomenon which occurs when there is a failure in the primary structural elements of the building which cause global failure of the structure. It means that a small failure can cause tremendous damage. The present study deals with the effect of span length in progressive collapse of the multistorey building. In this study a 2D 5 story bare frame having aspect ratio(b/h) equal to 1 (b=15m, h=15m) is analysed using finite element software. In this study three different cases having different bay lengths are analysed under corner and middle column removal scenario in order to explain the behaviour of the structural elements. Linear static analysis and Non-linear dynamic analysis are done as per the GSA and UFC guidelines. Keywords: Progressive collapse, GSA guidelines, Linear static analysis, Non-linear dynamic analysis, Demand capacity ratio, Vertical deflection. Cite this Article: Dipika Kumari, Effect of Span Length in Progressive Collapse of Multi-Storey RC Building under Corner and Middle Column Removal Scenario, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 9(3), 2018, pp INTRODUCTION After the failure of Ronan Point in UK (1968) research of progressive collapse came into existence. Most of the studies are done analytically for progressive collapse assessment of multi-storey buildings using sudden column loss from different locations. Progressive collapse is the phenomenon which occurs, when there is a failure in the primary structural element of the RC building, which causes failure of the adjoining structural elements and ultimately causes the global failure of the RC building. It means local failure cause global failure in the RC building due to improper redistribution of moments to the adjacent members. Events like vehicle impacts, foundation failures, gas explosions, bombs, failure due to construction etc are not normally taken into account for normal design practices. By editor@iaeme.com

2 Effect of Span Length in Progressive Collapse of Multi-Storey RC Building under Corner and Middle Column Removal Scenario considering all these factors certain government authorities and researchers have worked on these causes and developed some guidelines to prevent progressive collapse. Out of all the guidelines the Department of Defence guidelines by United Facilities Criteria (UFC) [2] and US General Services Administration [1] (GSA) has given step wise procedure to overcome the progressive collapse which is issued in 2000 and revised in Three analysis are given by GSA document are linear static analysis, non-linear static analysis and non-linear dynamic analysis. Demand capacity ratios and member acceptance criteria are taken into account as the failure criteria in the linear static analysis. Vertical load bearing members should be designed adequately as they are the most critical structural members in the structure in order to increase the sustainability of the structure. Sanjay Kumar Sadh and Dr.UmeshPendharkar [4] investigated the effect of aspect ratio and plan configuration of multi-storeyed R.C.C buildings under seismic effect. They have focused on the vertical as well as horizontal aspect ratio of the building which decides the geometry, strength and stiffness of the building. Linear static analysis is done for four building models having different aspect ratios. Karuna. S and Yashaswini. [5] S has done a case study on a ten storey symmetrical R.C building by removing the column from three different locations by using GSA guidelines and analysed for linear static analysis. The demand capacity ratio and inter-storey drift has been calculated. Dileshwar Rana and Prof. Juned Raheem [6] has done their study to check the performance of a multi-storey framed building under earthquake motions. In this study the five types of building geometry are taken into consideration: one regular frame and four irregular frames. A comparative study is done between all these buiding configurations height wise and bay wise using software Staad. Pro V8i. Different seismic response parameters are taken into consideration as per IS 1893:2002 part(1). Philip Mckeen and Alan S.Fung [7] has done their study on effect of aspect ratio in the energy efficiency of the multi-storey RC residential buildings. A 10 storey multi-unit residential buildings in Canada is analysed. Geometry of the structure is focused in this study to see the energy efficient designs. Bhavik R.Patel [8] has done his study on 15 storey 3D moment resistant RC building by removing columns at different locations using GSA guidelines and analysed for non-linear static and Non-linear dynamic analysis. Huda Helmy, Hamed Salem and Sherif Mourad [9] has done their case study on 3D 10 multi-story bare frame by removing corner column, edge column, an edge shear wall, internal columns, internal shear wall as per UFC and GSA guidelines by using finite element software SAP2000 for analysis of progressive collapse. Most of the studies have been done analytically for different 2D and 3D bare frames and multi-storeyed RCC buildings. Few studies have been done for the effect of aspect ratio for multi-storeyed RCC buildings for progressive collapse. 2. OBJECTIVE The objective of this present study is to analyse the effect of the span length of beam in progressive collapse of multi-story RC buildings. It also includes the behaviour of the building under critical member loss. To design the buildings as per the GSA [1] and UFC [2] guidelines in order to reduce the effect of progressive collapse editor@iaeme.com

3 Dipika Kumari 3. BUILDING CONFIGURATION A typical five-storey 2D reinforced concrete bare frame is analysed for progressive collapse assessment. The fig.1, 2 and 3 is showing the elevation and geometry of the 2D bare frame having different span lengths. The aspect ratio (b/h) for every case is taken as 1. The total height (h) of the bare frame is 15m and total breadth (b) is taken as 15m. For every case there is change in the bay length along X-direction. In case I the span lengths along X-direction are taken as 3m, 4.5m, 4.5m and 3m shown in fig.1. In case II the span lengths along X-direction are taken as 4.5m, 3m, 3m and 4.5m shown in fig.2. In case III the span lengths are taken as 5m, 5m and 5m shown in fig. 3. The bay length is taken as 3m along Z-direction shown in fig.1, 2 and 3. Figure 1 Elevation for 2D bare frame having Figure 2 Elevation for 2D bare frame having each bay length is 3m, 4.5m, 4.5m and 3m. each bay length is 4.5m, 3m, 3m and 4.5 along X-direction along X-direction. Figure 3 Elevation for 2D bare frame having each bay length is 5m, 5m, and 5m along X-direction. 4. GENERATION OF MODEL PROPERTIES 4.1. Loading data A beam-column 2D bare frame has been modeled for the analysis. Various loads effects has considered for the analysis. Live load is taken 3kN/m 2 as per IS 875 part 2 (1987) for analysis and applied on beams as UDL. Dead load of beams and columns are taken by software as a self-weight during analysis. The other dead load like the slab load, wall load, parapet load and floor finish are calculated manually and applied as uniformly distributed load to the bare frame on beams. The dead load of slab, wall, parapet and floor finish are taken as 2.5kN/m, 14.7kN/m, 1kN/m and 1kN/m editor@iaeme.com

4 Effect of Span Length in Progressive Collapse of Multi-Storey RC Building under Corner and Middle Column Removal Scenario Load combinations Load combinations are used as per GSA [1] guidelines: 2(1.2DL+0.5LL) floors above the column removal (4.1) (1.2DL+0.5LL)-floors adjacent to the column removal (4.2) 4.2. Structural Model The beams and columns are proposed in R.C.C of M30 and Fe 415 grade of steel. The crosssection of beam and column are taken as 250mmX250mm and 250mmX250mm. The thickness of the wall is taken as 230mm. The reinforcement detailing is done manually based on the preliminary analysis for the above dimensions. The reinforcement detailing of beams are 4#10mm provided as the main bars and centre to centre is the size of the stirrups used. For column the 4#20mm used as the main bars and size of the stirrups used is centre to centre. Building Design Dimensions of the structural elements have been decided after doing various trials of different sections. 5. COLUMN REMOVAL SCENARIOS Analysis is done by removing the corner and middle column in order to check the limiting criteria, acceptance member strength criteria and effect of span length in progressive collapse of RC buildings. Fig. 4 and 5 shows the location of column removal scenarios for three different cases of span length. Aspect ratio is equal to 1, (b/h) =1 Behaviour of the 2D bare frame is checked for every case under corner and middle column removal at specified nodes shown in the fig. 4 and 5. Figure 4 Location of corner column removal for aspect ratio (b/h) =1 having different span lengths along X direction. Figure 5 Location of middle column removal for aspect ratio (b/h) =1 having different span lengths along X direction editor@iaeme.com

5 Dipika Kumari 6. PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE ANALYSIS 6.1. Linear static analysis Linear static analysis deals with the behaviour of the structure under the elastic limit. It is done only for the small deformation in the structural elements. Limiting criteria for member failure As per GSA [1] guidelines the DCR, the member force and member strength is checked in order to know about the failure in the structural members by using the linear static analysis. DCR= (6.1) Where, Q UD = Acting force determined in member (Bending moment, Axial load, Shear force) Q CE = Expected ultimate capacity of the member (Bending moment, Axial load, Shear force) As per GSA guidelines the permissible values of DCR are given below: DCR<2 for typical structural configurations DCR<1.5 for atypical structural configurations Acceptance criteria for member failure As per UFC [2] guidelines,the acceptance criteria for an structural element to avoid the failure is given below: ØmQ CE >= Q UD (6.2) For beam, the predominant force is bending moment for its failure and in case of column the axial load is the predominant force for its failure. The various formulas are used in order to satisfy the acceptance criteria are given below: For beam, Ø m Q CE = 0.9 x m x M u,lim (6.3) For column, Ø m Q CE = 0.7 x m x M u,lim (6.4) Where Ø => Strength reduction factor taken from the specific material code (As per ACI 318 [3] ) m=> (m-factor=1) Element demand modifier. Q CE =>Expected strength of the element Q UD => Internal force taken from the SAP 2000 M u,lim =Ultimate moment. In these analysis two cases of column removal is taken into consideration as per GSA guidelines. By using these guidelines we are calculating the demand capacity ratio of the member. If DCR value of the member exceeds the acceptance criteria then it is considered as failed. Load combinations are used as per GSA guidelines. By using the linear static method we are observing the structure s potential for progressive collapse. The member failure is checked by using the equations 6.1 & editor@iaeme.com

6 Effect of Span Length in Progressive Collapse of Multi-Storey RC Building under Corner and Middle Column Removal Scenario 6.2. Non-Linear Dynamic Analysis This analysis is also known as time-history analysis. This approach is the most rigorous, and is required by some building codes for buildings of unusual configuration or of special importance to analyse the response of the buildings. According to UFC [2], in time history analysis, the inertial effects, material and geometric non-linearities are included. This is a time integration method used to analyse the structural response as function of time. Load combinations are taken as used in the linear static analysis as per GSA guidelines given in equation 4.1 and RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS 7.1. Linear static analysis LSA is done for 2D bare frame under the action of dead load and live load using equation 6.1 & 6.2. Load combinations are taken as per equation 4.1 & 4.2 according to GSA guidelines. Member forces are taken from SAP 2000 after doing the analysis of bare frame. a) Demand capacity ratio for corner column removal scenario Case I Bay lengths are 3m, 4.5m, 4.5m, 3m along X-direction The maximum value of demand value ratio for axial force, shear force and bending are 2.02, 3.09 and 4.25 shown in fig.6, 7 and 8. The bending is more dominant in beams due to the cantilever action after removing the corner column in 2D bare frame. Figure 6 DCR Axial load in 2D bare frame under corner column removal scenario Figure 7 DCR shear force in 2D bare frame under corner column removal scenario Figure 8 DCR Bending moment in 2D bare frame under corner column removal scenario editor@iaeme.com

7 Dipika Kumari Demand capacity ratio is calculated as per GSA guidelines, by removing the corner column at node 1 for different span length in order to see the effect of span length in progressive collapse of 2D bare frame. As per IS 456:2000 the capacity of the member at any section and reinforcement detailing are calculated. Out of all different cases of span length in case III, the demand capacity ratio under axial force(4.25), shear force(6.77) and bending(14.7) is more dominant which are shown in fig.12, 13 and 14. Case II Bay lengths are 4.5m, 3m, 3m, 4.5m along X-direction The maximum value of demand capacity ratio for axial force, shear force and bending is 2.64, 4.25 and 8.37 shown in fig.9, 10 and 11. The bending is more dominant in beams due to the point load action and heavy load distribution to adjacent members through beams. Figure 9 DCR Axial load in 2D bare frame under corner column removal scenario Figure 10 DCR Shear force in 2D bare frame under corner column removal scenario. Figure 11 DCR BENDINGMOMENT in 2D bare frame under corner column removal scenario Case III Bay lengths are 5m, 5m, 5m along X-direction The maximum value of demand capacity ratio for axial force, shear force and bending is 4.33, 6.77 and 14.7 shown in fig.12, 13 and 14. The heavy bending moment occurred due to large span editor@iaeme.com

8 Effect of Span Length in Progressive Collapse of Multi-Storey RC Building under Corner and Middle Column Removal Scenario Figure 12 DCR AXIALLOAD in 2D bare frame under corner column removal scenario Figure 13 DCR SHEARFORCE in 2D bare frame under corner column removal scenario Figure 14 DCR BENDINGMOMENT in 2D bare frame under corner column removal scenario In case III we are getting the maximum value of demand capacity ratio under corner column removal. Span length proved to be inadequate and uneconomical. b) Demand capacity ratio for middle column removal scenario Demand capacity ratio is calculated as per GSA guidelines, by removing the middle column at node 13, 13 and 7 for different span length in order to see the effect of span length in progressive collapse of 2D bare frame. In case III, the DCR value for axial force(3.67), shear force(6.35) and bending moment(13.05) are more dominant which are shown in fig.21, 22, and 23. Case I Bay lengths are 3m, 4.5m, 4.5m, 3m along X-direction The maximum value of demand capacity ratio for axial load, shear force and bending moment are 2.14, 3.84 and 6.95 shown in fig.15, 16 and 17. The bending moment is more dominant in beams as compared to axial load and shear force editor@iaeme.com

9 Dipika Kumari Figure 15 DCR Axial load in 2D bare frame under middle column removal scenario Fig. 16 DCR Shear force in 2D bare frame under middle column removal scenario Figure 17 DCR Bending moment in 2D bare frame under middle column removal scenario Case II Bay lengths are 4.5m, 3m, 3m, 4.5m along X-direction The maximum value of demand capacity ratio for axial load, shear force and bending moment is 1.81, 2.78 and 3.48 shown in fig.18, 19 and 20. Fig. 18 DCR axial load in 2D bare frame under middle column removal scenario Figure 19 DCR Shear force in 2D bare frame under middle column removal scenario

10 Effect of Span Length in Progressive Collapse of Multi-Storey RC Building under Corner and Middle Column Removal Scenario Figure 20 DCR Bending moment in 2D bare frame under middle column removal scenario Case III Bay lengths are 5m, 5m and 5m along X-direction The maximum value of demand capacity ratio for axial force, shear force and bending is 3.67, 6.35 and13.05 shown in fig.21, 22 and 23. The bending moment is more dominant due to heavy load distribution to the adjacent members through beams. Figure 21 DCR axial load in 2D bare frame Figure 22 DCR Shear force in 2D bare frame under middle column removal scenario under middle column removal scenario Figure 23 DCR Bending moment in 2D bare frame under middle column removal scenario In case III we are getting the maximum value of demand capacity ratio under middle column removal. Span length proved to be inadequate and uneconomical

11 DEMAND CAPACITY RATIO Dipika Kumari Case I Case II Case III TYPE OF 2D BARE FRAME Axial load under corner column removal Shear force under corner column removal Bending moment under corner column removal Axial load under middle column removal Shear force under middle column removal Bending moment under middle column removal Figure 24 Maximumvalue of demand capacity ratio for axial load, shear force and bending moment under corner and middle column removal for all the cases. Bending in the beams in more dominant in all cases under corner and middle column removal shown in fig.24. a) Member failure Under corner column removal In case III shown in fig.27, there is maximum number of failures in beams and columns. Figure 25 Failed elements in 2D bare frame having each bay length is 3m, 4.5m, 4.5m and 3m along X- direction. Figure 26 Failed elements in 2D bare frame having each bay length is 4.5m, 3m, 3m and 4.5m along X- direction. Figure 27 Failed elements in 2D bare frame having each bay length is 5m, 5m, and 5m along X-direction. It is analysed by considering the acceptance criteria as per equation 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 given in the GSAand UFC guidelines. Failed elements for all cases under axial load and bending moment in columns and beams under corner and middle column removal scenario are shown in fig.25,26,27,28,29and editor@iaeme.com

12 DEFLECTION(mm) Effect of Span Length in Progressive Collapse of Multi-Storey RC Building under Corner and Middle Column Removal Scenario Under middle column removal In case III shown in fig.30, there is maximum number of failures in beams and columns. Figure 28 Failed elements in 2D bare frame having each bay length is 3m, 4.5m, 4.5m and 3m along X-direction. Figure 29 Failed elements in 2D bare frame having each bay length is 4.5m, 3m, 3m and 4.5m along X-direction. Figure 30 Failed elements in 2D bare frame having each bay length is 5m, 5m, and 5m along X-direction. b) Graphical representation of Vertical deflection In case III we got the maximum value of vertical deflection having span length 5m along X- direction shown by the graph given in fig Corner colum Middle column CASE I CASE II CASE III Figure 31 Maximum value of vertical deflection under corner and middle column removal for all cases having different span length Non-Linear dynamic analysis Non-linear dynamic analysis is done in order to see the behaviour of the structure under dynamic loading. This type of method is used to check the in-elastic behaviour of the structure.load combinations are taken as per equation 3.1 & 3.2 according to GSA guidelines. a) Corner column removal The location of corner column removal for three different cases of span length is shown in fig editor@iaeme.com

13 Dipika Kumari Case I Bay lengths are 3m, 4.5m, 4.5m, 3m along X-direction Maximum value of joint displacement, axial force and bending moment found out at Joint2, Frame 2 and Frame 27 are shown in fig.32, 33 and 34 in the 2D bare frame in time history analysis. Figure 32 Maximum displacement obtained at Joint 2 after removing corner column Figure 33 Maximum axial force obtained at frame 2 after removing corner column. Figure 34 Maximum bending moment obtained at frame 27 after removing corner column. Case II Bay lengths are 4.5m, 3m, 3m, 4.5m along X-direction Maximum value of joint displacement, axial force and bending moment found out at Joint 2, Frame 5 and Frame 30 are shown in fig.35, 36 and 37 in the 2D bare frame in time history analysis. Figure 35 Maximum displacement obtained at Joint 2 after removing corner column Figure 36 Maximum axial force obtained at frame 5 after removing corner column editor@iaeme.com

14 Effect of Span Length in Progressive Collapse of Multi-Storey RC Building under Corner and Middle Column Removal Scenario Figure 37 Maximum bending moment obtained at frame 30 after removing corner column. Case III Bay lengths are 5m, 5m, 5m along X-direction Maximum value of joint displacement, axial force and bending moment found out at Joint 2, Frame 11 and Frame 22 areshown in fig.38, 39 and 40 in the 2D bare frame in time history analysis. Figure 38 Maximum displacement obtained at Joint 2 after removing corner column Figure 39 Maximum axial force obtained at frame 11 after removing corner column. Figure 40 Maximum bending moment obtained at frame 22 after removing corner column. b) Middle column removal The location of middle column removal for three different cases of span length is shown in fig editor@iaeme.com

15 Dipika Kumari Case I Bay lengths are 3m, 4.5m, 4.5m, 3m along X-direction Maximum value of joint displacement, axial force and bending moment found out at Joint 14, Frame 12 and Frame 31 are shown in fig.41, 42 and 43 in the 2D bare frame in time history analysis. Figure 41 Maximum displacement obtained at Joint 14 after removing middle column Figure 42 Maximum axial force obtained at frame 12after removing middle column. Figure 43 Maximum bending moment obtained at frame 31 after removing middle column. Case II Bay lengths are 4.5m, 3m, 3m, 4.5m along X-direction Maximum value of joint displacement, axial force and bending moment found out at Joint 14, Frame 6 and Frame 26 are shown in fig.44, 45 and 46 in the 2D bare frame under time history analysis. Figure 44 Maximum displacement obtained at Joint 14after removing middle column Figure 45 Maximum axial force obtained at frame 6 after removing middle column editor@iaeme.com

16 Effect of Span Length in Progressive Collapse of Multi-Storey RC Building under Corner and Middle Column Removal Scenario Figure 46 Maximum bending moment obtained at frame 26 after removing middle column. Case III Bay lengths are 5m, 5m, 5m along X-direction Maximum value of joint displacement, axial force and bending moment found out at Joint 8, Frame 7 and Frame 24 are shown in fig.47, 48 and 49 in the 2D bare frame in time history analysis. Figure 47 Maximum displacement obtained at Joint 8 after removing middle column Figure 48 Maximum axial force obtained at frame 7 after removing middle column. Figure 49 Maximum bending moment obtained at frame 24 after removing middle column. c) Graphical representation of Vertical deflection The maximum value of vertical deflection under load case time history is shown by graph in fig editor@iaeme.com

17 DEFLECTION(mm) Dipika Kumari CASE I CASE II CASE III Corner column Middle column Figure 50 Maximum value of vertical deflection under corner and middle column removal for all cases having different span length. 8. CONCLUSION Linear static analysis and time history analysis is done for 2D RC bare frame under the dead load and live load action.it is observed that in corner and middle column removal, we got DCR>2 under axial load, bending and shear at all the floors above the removal location in all cases of span lengths, which shows the limiting criteria of member failure. In case of span length 5m, 5m,5m we got heavy axial load,bending moment and shear force in the adjacent members as compared to the other two cases. Out of three cases in case I we got less DCR values. As per member acceptance criteria we also checked the member failure under axial loading and bending moment. Corner column removal is severe because it is causing cantilever action due to weight from above floors which is acting as the point load to the adjacent members and due to indequate redistribution of moments it is causing Progressive Collpase. As per the member acceptance criteria the number of failure of beams and columns are more in case III;i.e span length 5m, 5m and 5m under corner and middle column removal.deflection value is high in case III and less in case I. If load get exceeded the permissible demand of the member,then it leads to thefailure of adjacent members which leads to Progressive collapse. In case III we got maximum value of vertical deflection according to LSA and time history analysis. In order to decrease the failure we can either increase the rigidity of the structural members, providing adequate joints and adequate reinforcement detailing. Span of the structural elements should be adequate as per the guidelines given by the standard codes. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The author acknowledges the co-authors for their extremely useful guidance and valuable presence in my work. The special acknowledgement is due to the head of department of civil engineering and SRM University for enabling to carry out this project. REFERENCES [1] U.S General Service Administration, Progressive collapse analysis and design guidelines for newfederal office buidlings and major modernization projects [2] Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC), Design of buildings to resist progressive collapse UFC June editor@iaeme.com

18 Effect of Span Length in Progressive Collapse of Multi-Storey RC Building under Corner and Middle Column Removal Scenario [3] ACI 318R-95, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary [4] Sanjay Kumar Sadh and Dr.Umesh Pendharkar, Effect of Aspect ratio & Plan configuration on seismic Performance of Multi-storeyed Regular R.C.C Buildings: An Evaluation by Static Analysis, International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, Volume 6, Issue 1, January (2016). [5] Karuna S, Yashaswini. S Assessment of Progressive Collapse on a Reinforced Concrete Framed Building, International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, Volume 5,Issue 6,June(2015). [6] Dileshwar Rana and Prof. Juned Raheem, Seismic Analysis of Regular & Vertical Geometric Irregular RCC Framed Building, International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, Volume 2, Issue 2, July (2015). [7] Philip Mckeen and Alan S. Fung, The Effect of Building Aspect ratio on Energy Efficiency: A case study for Multi-unit Residential Buildings in Canada, ISSN , PP ,July(2014) [8] Bhavik R.Patel, Progressive Collapse Analysis of RC buildings using Non-Linear Static and Non-Linear Dynamic Method, International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, Volume 4,Issue 9, September(2014). [9] Huda Helmy,Hamed Salem and Sherif Mourad, Progressive Collapse Assessment of Framed Reinforced Concrete Structures According to UFC guidelines for Alternative Path Method Elsevier, PP (2012). [10] Steven M. Baldridge and Francis K. Humay, Preventive Progressive Collapse in Concrete International, November [11] H.S. Lew, Best pratices guidelines for mitigation of building progressive collapse, May [12] R.Shankar Nair, Preventing Disproportionate Collapse, Basics, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE, Vol.20, November [13] Usman Ilyas, S H Farooq, I. Shahid and M. Ilyas, Progressive Collapse of reinforced Concrete Frame Structure under Column damage consideration, Pak J. Engg. & Appl. Sci. Vol. 16, Jan, [14] Pearson C, Delatte N. Ronan point apartment tower collapse and its effect on buiding codes. J Perform Constr Facil, ASCE 2005; 19(5). [15] Miss. Preeti K.Morey and Prof S.R. Satone, Progressive Collapse Analysis of Building, International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA) Vol. 2, Issue 4, June-July [16] Raghavendra C and Pradeep AR, Progressive Collapse Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Framed Structure, International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering Research, Vol. 2, Issue 1, pp: ( ), Month: April 2014-September [17] Joginder Singh and Dr. M R Tyagi, Analysis of Stresses and Deflections In Spur Gear, International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology, 8(4), 2017, pp [18] Prakash Jadhav, Damage Assessment In A Wall Structure Using Resonant Frequencies and Operating Deflection Shapes, International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET) Volume 8, Issue 3, March 2017, pp editor@iaeme.com