## 1 Introduction  
Progressive collapse refers to the spread of primary local damages within the structure (also known as disproportionate collapse) is a high-impact, low-probability event. After the collapse of the Ronan Point Building in London in 1968, the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, and the World Trade Center Towers in New York City in 2001, the structural engineers and government organizations became concerned about progressive collapse [1; 2]. Because it is hard to describe a potentially hazardous load that causes localized damage to a building, it is common to use the decoupling technique to suppose whether the remaining structure can bridge over the removed components by removing a supporting column or wall. The remaining structures would be subjected to linear static, linear dynamic, non-linear static, and non-linear dynamic analysis [3]. Energy equilibrium [4] or equation of motion can connect dynamic and static performance [5]. Researchers have recently become interested in the effect of secondary components, such as bracing, on progressive collapse performance. The strengthening of reinforced concrete (RC) frame structures against progressive collapse have various challenges: (1) The application of typical strengthening methods for RC frame construction continues to be researched because progressive collapse is a significant deformation behavior; (2) The degree of strengthening against progressive collapse is significant, which could result in \"strong beams and weak columns\" and have an impact on seismic performance; (3) Anchorage is the primary issue in strengthening reinforced concrete structures against progressive collapse, and dependable and rapid construction anchorage solutions for minimizing progressive collapse strengthening are urgently needed [6]. Retrofitting is not a common practice to make an old system compliant with the new code's rules, as this option is not cost-effective. Alternatively, to ensure a set degree of collapse or to avoid the building collapsing entirely, it is advised that retrofit goals for a structure prone to progressive collapse be based on performance-based criteria. Steel braces are often employed to produce lateral stiffness and resist lateral loads in steel buildings [7; 8; 9]. Seismic retrofitting with steel bracing for existing RC frames has also received much interest due to the ease of installing steel braces [10; 11; 12]. In another study by [PERSON] et al. [13], which evaluated the performance of infill types, the results show that adding infill reduces vertical displacement and improves redistribution of forces against progressive collapse. Steel braces impact on the resilience of structures to progressive collapse has recently attracted researchers' attention through two-dimensional numerical models. In addition, they investigated the progressive collapse of 10-storey braced steel frames designed following different seismic intensities and found that the frame with concentric braces is more likely to collapse than the frame with eccentric braces [14]. The effective techniques of modern strengthening methods of RC frames against progressive failure are studied, and the results show that increasing the percentage of rebar reduced vertical displacement [15]. The structural behavior of three-dimensional (3d) 20-storey braced steel frames is investigated and discovered that removing a column at a higher story increases the likelihood of the frame collapsing [16; 17]. Another study experimentally investigated the progressive collapse resistance of five one-fourth scaled two-bay by three-story RC frames strengthened by four types of steel bracing [18]. They found that basically, all bracing can improve progressive collapse resistance, with eccentric X braces performing the best. Steel bracing is either designed for seismic design or lateral stability. The steel braces are only situated at one or several defined spans but are continuous in elevation from the first to the thirteenth floor. [PERSON] et al.