Comparing the Progressive Collapse Resistance Capacities of Steel Ordinary and Intermediate Moment Frames Considering Different Connection Details

Abstract

This study compares the progressive collapse resistance of Steel Ordinary Moment Frames (OMFs) and Intermediate Moment Frames (IMFs) under various connection details. Using nonlinear static and dynamic analyses, the performance of different frame types is evaluated following sudden column removal scenarios. Results show that IMFs generally exhibit greater resistance due to enhanced ductility and energy dissipation capacity. Connection detailing significantly influences collapse behavior, highlighting the critical role of connection design in improving structural resilience against progressive collapse.

Introduction

Progressive collapse is a failure mode where the sudden loss of a key load-bearing element causes partial or total structural collapse. This study compares the collapse resistance of two steel moment frame types—Ordinary Moment Frames (OMFs) and Intermediate Moment Frames (IMFs)—under different beam-column connection types.

Software used: ETABS, SAP2000, AutoCAD, Excel, and optionally MATLAB.

Methodology:

• Modeled multi-story steel frames (OMF and IMF) using nonlinear static and dynamic analyses.

• Evaluated three connection types:

  1. Fully rigid welded (Type A)

  2. Semi-rigid bolted end-plate (Type B)

  3. Reduced Beam Section (RBS or “Dog Bone”) (Type C)

• Applied the Alternate Path Method (APM) simulating sudden removal of a critical column.

• Material modeled as elasto-plastic steel with strain hardening.

Evaluation criteria: Vertical displacement above removed column, energy absorption, and plastic hinge formation.

Results:

• Vertical displacement: OMFs showed larger displacements than IMFs, indicating lower collapse resistance. Rigid connections (Type A) had least displacement, semi-rigid bolted (Type B) had highest, and RBS (Type C) performed moderately but better than Type B.

• Energy absorption: IMFs absorbed more energy than OMFs. RBS connections had highest energy absorption, rigid connections moderate, and semi-rigid the lowest.

• Plastic hinges: OMFs developed hinges prematurely at columns and beams causing localized failures. IMFs showed more distributed hinge formation, especially with RBS connections, enhancing ductility. RBS shifted hinges away from column faces, improving stability. Semi-rigid connections led to scattered hinge patterns but large joint deformations.

Key findings:

• IMFs are more resistant to progressive collapse than OMFs due to better detailing.

• RBS (Type C) connections balance stiffness and ductility best, offering superior collapse resistance.

• Rigid welded connections have high stiffness but risk brittle failure under extreme loads.

• Semi-rigid bolted connections are easier to construct but offer limited collapse resistance and are less suitable for critical load paths.

Conclusion

The methodology adopted in this study presents a robust and multi-faceted framework for investigating the progressive collapse resistance of steel frame systems, specifically Ordinary Moment Frames (OMFs) and Intermediate Moment Frames (IMFs). The use of advanced finite element tools—ETABS 2020 for global structural analysis and ABAQUS 2020 for detailed nonlinear modeling—ensures that both the overall structural behavior and localized connection responses are accurately captured. By designing the frames in accordance with the latest design standards (AISC 360-16 and ASCE 7-16), the study maintains code compliance and ensures practical relevance to real-world structural design. A major strength of the methodology lies in the detailed representation of beam-column connections. The inclusion of three distinct connection types—Fully Rigid Welded (Type A), Semi-Rigid Bolted End-Plate (Type B), and Reduced Beam Section (Type C)—allows for a comprehensive comparison of their influence on frame behavior under progressive collapse scenarios. By incorporating nonlinear material behavior and joint flexibility in accordance with FEMA 350 recommendations, the connection models are capable of simulating realistic deformation patterns, yielding, and potential failure mechanisms. The use of link elements and nonlinear springs enhances the fidelity of these models in capturing connection-specific responses. The progressive collapse analysis itself is executed using the Alternate Path Method (APM), following guidelines established by GSA 2003 and UFC 4-023-03. This method, which involves the sudden removal of a critical column, effectively simulates real-world accidental or malicious scenarios that can initiate progressive collapse. The combination of Static Pushdown Analysis and Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis provides a dual perspective on collapse behavior: the former assesses collapse resistance under gradually applied loads, while the latter captures the time-dependent and inertia-sensitive response of the structure. Material modeling further reinforces the reliability of the analysis. The use of an elasto-plastic model with isotropic hardening accurately reflects the post-yield behavior of structural steel, including large deformation effects and strain hardening, which are essential for capturing the ductility and energy absorption capacity of the system under collapse conditions. Finally, the evaluation criteria—vertical displacement, energy absorption, and plastic hinge formation—are well-chosen metrics that offer a multi-dimensional assessment of collapse performance. These parameters enable a detailed comparison of the structural resilience provided by different frame systems and connection types, supporting evidence-based conclusions on the most effective configurations for resisting progressive collapse. In summary, the detailed and comprehensive nature of this methodology ensures that the study will generate meaningful, accurate, and practically relevant insights into the collapse performance of steel moment-resisting frames. The approach balances theoretical rigor with practical applicability, making it a valuable contribution to the ongoing efforts to improve structural resilience against progressive collapse.

References

[1] Hamburger, R. O., J. D. Hooper, and C. A. Cornell. 2019. Seismic Design of Steel Moment Frames. FEMA P-1050. Washington, DC: FEMA. [2] Naji, A., and F. Roure. 2017. “Progressive Collapse Analysis of Steel Frames with Bolted Connections.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research 130: 190–200. [3] Dinu, F., I. Marginean, and D. Dubina. 2016. “Progressive Collapse Analysis of Steel Structures with Moment Connections.” Engineering Structures 123: 398–410. [4] GSA. 2016. Alternate Path Analysis and Design Guidelines for Progressive Collapse Resistance. Washington, DC: General Services Administration. [5] Li, H., B. Wang, and X. Liu. 2015. “Dynamic Analysis of Steel Frames under Progressive Collapse Scenarios.” Structures 3: 180–189. [6] Lew, H. S., J. A. Main, and F. Sadek. 2013. “Experimental Study of Intermediate Moment Frame Robustness.” Journal of Structural Engineering 139 (5): 767–777. [7] Chen, J., and W. Wang. 2012. “Finite Element Modeling of Steel Connections under Dynamic Loading.” Journal of Structural Engineering 138 (5): 623–632. [8] Main, J. A., and F. Sadek. 2012. “Robustness of Steel Structures against Progressive Collapse.” Journal of Structural Engineering 138 (3): 393–403. [9] Alashker, Y., and S. El-Tawil. 2011. “Progressive Collapse Resistance of Steel Frames with Different Connection Types.” Journal of Structural Engineering 137 (9): 921–930. [10] Khandelwal, K., and S. El-Tawil. 2011. “Collapse Behavior of Steel Special Moment Frames.” Journal of Structural Engineering 137 (5): 646–655. [11] Aviram, A., B. Stojadinovic, and A. Der Kiureghian. 2010. “Performance of Steel Moment Frames under Progressive Collapse Scenarios.” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 39 (6): 697–715. [12] Kodur, V. K. R., and M. M. S. Dwaikat. 2010. “Fire-Induced Collapse of Steel Structures.” Journal of Structural Engineering 136 (8): 903–912. [13] Liu, M., and L. Burns. 2010. “Finite Element Analysis of Steel Connections under Dynamic Loads.” Engineering Structures 32 (9): 2835–2844. [14] Park, J., and J. Kim. 2010. “Fragility Analysis of Steel Moment Frames under Column Loss.” Engineering Structures 32 (3): 704–713. [15] Sadek, F., J. A. Main, and H. S. Lew. 2010. “Progressive Collapse of Steel Frames: Experimental and Numerical Studies.” NIST Technical Note 1661. Gaithersburg, MD: NIST. [16] Kim, J., and T. Kim. 2009. “Progressive Collapse of Steel Frames under Sudden Column Loss.” Engineering Structures 31 (4): 912–920. [17] Izzuddin, B. A., A. G. Vlassis, and A. Y. Elghazouli. 2008. “Nonlinear Dynamic Collapse Analysis of Steel Structures.” Engineering Structures 30 (5): 1308–1318. [18] Newell, J. D., and C. M. Uang. 2008. “Cyclic Behavior of Steel Wide-Flange Beams.” Journal of Structural Engineering 134 (6): 933–941 [19] Lee, C. H., and J. H. Kim. 2007. “Seismic Performance of Welded Unreinforced Flange Connections.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (10): 1368–1377. [20] Packer, J. A., and L. J. Morris. 2007. “Design of Steel Moment Connections for Collapse Resistance.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research 63 (5): 623–632. [21] Mazzoni, S., F. McKenna, and M. H. Scott. 2006. “Finite Element Modeling for Structural Analysis.” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 35 (11): 1389–1403. [22] Astaneh-Asl, A. 2005. “Design of Bolted Connections for Seismic and Collapse Resistance.” Steel Structures 5 (4): 321–330. [23] Murray, T. M., and E. A. Sumner. 2004. “Design of End-Plate Moment Connections.” AISC Engineering Journal 41 (4): 135–144. [24] Jin, J., and S. El-Tawil. 2003. “Seismic Performance of Steel Frames with Reduced Beam Sections.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research 59 (8): 1035–1053. [25] Gilton, C. S., and C. M. Uang. 2002. “Cyclic Response of RBS Moment Connections.” Journal of Structural Engineering 128 (9): 1125–1133. [26] Jones, S. L., G. T. Fry, and M. D. Engelhardt. 2002. “Experimental Evaluation of RBS Connections.” AISC Engineering Journal 39 (1): 25–34. [27] Popov, E. P., and S. M. Takhirov. 2002. “Bolted Flange Plate Connections under Cyclic Loads.” AISC Engineering Journal 39 (3): 105–114. [28] Ricles, J. M., C. Mao, and L. W. Lu. 2002. “Seismic Behavior of Steel Connections with Reduced Sections.” Journal of Structural Engineering 128 (8): 1033–1042. [29] Engelhardt, M. D., T. A. Sabol, and V. V. Aboutaha. 2000. “Seismic Performance of Reduced Beam Section Connections.” AISC Engineering Journal 37 (2): 65–74. [30] FEMA. 2000. Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings (FEMA 350). Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Copyright

Copyright © 2025 Akshay Udaysingh Yadav, Sanjivkumar Harinkhede, Kshitij Thate. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.