## 3 Results and Discussion
### Force Distribution Due to Column Loss in Beams Next to Column Removal  
Bending moment and shear generated by sudden column loss were greater for story one beams than for frames with CFRP (Case 8). This is due to the higher flexural stiffness of the CFRP-framed structure, which captivates more forces. Figures 18 and 19 depict the bending moment and shear on the beam caused by column loss for the first and sixth stories. Bending moments for the bare frame and various retrofitting frames are less than for CFRP framed first and sixth stories, as demonstrated in Figure 19. This is because the joint stiffness of CFRP frames attracts more force. Apart from Case 8, forces are dispersed evenly throughout all levels in all other situations. As a result, having a CFRP framed structure reduces the bending moment demands in a simple jointed beam, increasing the CFRP frame's progressive collapse resistance owing to column loss. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**ST1**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**ST6**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**ST13**} \\ \cline{2-7}
**Type** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Displacement (mm)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Displacement (mm)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Displacement (mm)**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Max** & **Constant** & **Max** & **Constant** & **Max** & **Constant** \\ \hline Case 1 & Fail & Fail & Fail & Fail & Fail & Fail & Fail \\ Case 2 & \(-49.94\) & \(-43.38\) & \(-44.20\) & \(-37.99\) & \(-28.77\) & \(-22.18\) \\ Case 3 & \(-8.68\) & \(-7.73\) & \(-9.72\) & \(-8.63\) & \(-13.10\) & \(-11.50\) \\ Case 4 & \(-50.19\) & \(-44.05\) & \(-47.08\) & \(-41.33\) & \(-37.32\) & \(-30.38\) \\ Case 5 & \(-76.75\) & \(-76.75\) & \(-66.65\) & \(-66.65\) & \(-76.48\) & \(-76.48\) \\ Case 6 & \(-55.15\) & \(-55.15\) & \(-56.81\) & \(-56.81\) & \(-77.93\) & \(-77.93\) \\ Case 7 & \(-116.87\) & \(-116.87\) & \(-168.79\) & \(-168.79\) & Fail & Fail \\ Case 8 & \(-78.35\) & \(-50.45\) & \(-78.64\) & \(-51.37\) & \(-71.40\) & \(-47.77\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Vertical displacement after removing a column in the stories. Figure 18: Beam behavior after column removal in story one: (**a**) shear and (**b**) moment. In the first and sixth stories, the beam shear force for the bare frame (Case 1) is less than the other cases (see Figures 18 and 19). This is because the joint stiffness of CFRP frames attracts more force. In other circumstances, pressures are evenly dispersed overall plot levels. As a result, having a CFRP framed structure minimizes the axial force demands in a simple jointed beam, enhancing the CFRP frame's progressive collapse resistance due to column loss. The bending moment value for the viscously damped frame in two inner bays on floor thirteen is more than the bending moment for CFRP framed, as shown in Figure 20. Because of the stiffness, Case 8 performs well against progressive collapse, although there are many moments in the column adjacent to the brace, necessitating the employment of a less rigid brace. Viscous dampers were able to lower bending moment forces and provide effective energy absorption in the circumstances where they were applied. As shown in Table 3, which was compared with the removal of the column on the first floor in case 8, in beam number 118, the highest shear force is related to case 8, and the lowest is related to case 1; however, in the bending moment model is the highest force in case 8 and the lowest is related to case 3. As Figure 19 shows and values are illustrated in Table 4, after removing the column on the 6 th floor, the highest shear force is created in case 8. Figure 19: Beam behavior after column removal in story one: (**a**) shear and (**b**) moment. Figure 20: Beam behavior after column removal in story thirteen: (**a**) shear and (**b**) moment. 8, while the lowest is related to case 3. Therefore, the bending moment force is related to case 3.