AUT Journal of Civil Engineering

AUT Journal of Civil Engineering

Progressive Collapse Assessment of Steel Moment Frames with the RBS Connections by Considering Different Seismicity and Ductility Levels

Document Type : Research Article

Authors
Behzad Rezaie
payam tehrani
Behrouz Behnam
Department of Civil Engineering, Amirkabir university of technology, Tehran, Iran
10.22060/ajce.2026.24128.5919
Abstract
Extreme events such as earthquakes can damage vertical load-bearing elements, particularly columns, potentially triggering progressive collapse in building systems. This vulnerability is more pronounced in steel moment-resisting frames due to their relatively limited redundancy. Although previous studies have investigated the progressive collapse behavior of moment frames under different seismicity and ductility levels, the influence of key seismic design parameters—such as reduced beam section (RBS) connections, ductility level, and the strong column–weak beam (SC–WB) principle—remains insufficiently understood, with conflicting findings reported in the literature. This study aims to systematically evaluate the role of these seismic design parameters in the progressive collapse response of steel moment frames. To this end, 5-, 10-, and 15-story buildings were designed for low, medium, and high seismicity levels, considering both intermediate and special moment frames with RBS connections. A total of 340 column removal scenarios were analyzed using nonlinear dynamic analysis in OpenSees, employing a lumped plasticity modeling approach. Structural performance was assessed in terms of damage percentage index (DPI), ductility demand, and vertical nodal displacement. The results indicate that ductility demands in all cases remained within code-prescribed performance limits, suggesting that RBS connections provide adequate robustness against progressive collapse under column removal scenarios. However, neglecting the SC–WB principle significantly increases ductility demand and vertical displacement, by up to 1.83 and 1.56 times, respectively, in critical cases. Furthermore, the ductility level of the lateral-resisting system strongly influences structural response, particularly in medium seismicity conditions, where weaker member sizes lead to reduced robustness and amplified deformation demands.
Keywords
Progressive Collapse
The RBS Connection
Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis
Special Moment Frames
Strong Column-Weak Beam
Subjects
[1] V. Gioncu, and Mazzolani, F., Seismic Design of Steel Structures,Boca Raton,FL: CRC Press., 2013.
[2] M. Bruneau, Chi-Ming Uang, Sabelli, R., Ductile Design of Steel Structures, 2 ed., McGraw Hill, 2011.
[3] E. Brunesi, R. Nascimbene, G. Rassati, Seismic response of MRFs with partially-restrained bolted beam-to-column connections through FE analyses, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 107 (2015) 37-49.
[4] T. Kim, J. Kim, Collapse analysis of steel moment frames with various seismic connections, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 65(6) (2009) 1316-1322.
[5] E.P. Popov, T.-S. Yang, S.-P. Chang, Design of steel MRF connections before and after 1994 Northridge earthquake, Engineering Structures, 20(12) (1998) 1030-1038.
[6] C. Sofias, C. Kalfas, D. Pachoumis, Experimental and FEM analysis of reduced beam section moment endplate connections under cyclic loading, Engineering Structures, 59 (2014) 320-329.
[7] 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.
[8] F. Hashemi Rezvani, B. Behnam, H. Reza Ronagh, M.S. Alam, Failure progression resistance of a generic steel moment-resisting frame under beam-removal scenarios, International Journal of Structural Integrity, 8(3) (2017) 308-325.
[9] B. Behnam, F.H. Rezvani, Structural Evaluation of Tall Steel Moment-Resisting Structures in Simulated Horizontally Traveling Postearthquake Fire, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 30(2) (2016) 04014207.
[10] GSA, Progressive collapse analysis and design guidelines for new federal office buildings and major modernization projects, in, General Services Administration, Washington (DC), 2003.
[11] UFC, Design of buildings to resist progressive collapse, in, Unified Facilities Criteria, Washington (DC), 2009.
[12] J. Park, J. Kim, Fragility analysis of steel moment frames with various seismic connections subjected to sudden loss of a column, Engineering Structures, 32(6) (2010) 1547-1555.
[13] F. McKenna, OpenSees: a framework for earthquake engineering simulation, Computing in Science & Engineering, 13(4) (2011) 58-66.
[14] K. Khandelwal, S. El-Tawil, Pushdown resistance as a measure of robustness in progressive collapse analysis, Engineering Structures, 33(9) (2011) 2653-2661.
[15] A. Hadidi, R. Jasour, A. Rafiee, On the progressive collapse resistant optimal seismic design of steel frames, Structural engineering and mechanics: An international journal, 60(5) (2016) 761-779.
[16] I. Faridmehr, M.H. Osman, M.B.M. Tahir, A.F. Nejad, R. Hodjati, Seismic and progressive collapse assessment of SidePlate moment connection system, Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 54(1) (2015) 35-54.
[17] S.-Y. Lee, S.-Y. Noh, D. Lee, Evaluation of progressive collapse resistance of steel moment frames designed with different connection details using energy-based approximate analysis, Sustainability, 10(10) (2018) 3797.
[18] 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.
[19] C. Chen, H. Qiao, J. Wang, Y. Chen, Progressive collapse behavior of joints in steel moment frames involving reduced beam section, Engineering Structures, 225 (2020) 111297.
[20] F. Dinu, I. Marginean, D. Dubina, Experimental testing and numerical modelling of steel moment-frame connections under column loss, Engineering Structures, 151 (2017) 861-878.
[21] K. Qian, X. Lan, Z. Li, Y. Li, F. Fu, Progressive collapse resistance of two-storey seismic configured steel sub-frames using welded connections, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 170 (2020) 106117.
[22] B. Meng, W. Zhong, J. Hao, X. Song, Improving anti-collapse performance of steel frame with RBS connection, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 170 (2020) 106119.
[23] H. Semsarha, P. Tehrani, B. Behnam, A Comparative Study on Pre-and Post-Earthquake Progressive Collapse Resistance of 2D and 3D Steel Structures, International Journal of Civil Engineering, 21(7) (2023) 1141-1157.
[24] H. Semsarha, P. Tehrani, B. Behnam, Post-earthquake progressive failure resistance of steel frames under column-removal scenarios, in:  Structures, Elsevier, 2021, pp. 1544-1560.
[25] W. Zhang, Z. Xu, H. Xu, W. Zhang, Z. Wang, Y. Chen, Post-fire progressive collapse resistance of beam-column substructures with RBS connections, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 224 (2025) 109137.
[26] I. Faridmehr, M.H. Osman, M.M. Tahir, A.F. Nejad, M. Azimi, Seismic and progressive collapse assessment of new proposed steel connection, Advances in Structural Engineering, 18(3) (2015) 439-452.
[27] 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.
[28] F. Wang, J. Yang, Z. Pan, Progressive collapse behaviour of steel framed substructures with various beam-column connections, Engineering Failure Analysis, 109 (2020) 104399.
[29] B. Rezaee, P. Tehrani, B. Behnam, Post-earthquake progressive collapse behavior of steel frames with reduced beam section connections, Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 97 (2026) 505-533.
[30] ASCE, Minimum design loads, and associated criteria for buildings and other structures, ASCE/SEI Standrad 7-16, in, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, 2016.
[31] AISC, Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, Standard ANSI/AISC 360-16, in, American Institute of Steel Construction,Chicago, Illinois, 2016.
[32] AISC, Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, ANSI/AISC Standard 341-16, in, American Institute of Steel Construction Chicago, Illinois 2016.
[33] AISC, Prequalified Connections for Special and Intermediate Steel Moment Frames for Seismic Applications, Standard  ANSI/AISC 358-16, in, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois, 2016.
[34] J. Kim, T. Kim, Assessment of progressive collapse-resisting capacity of steel moment frames, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 65(1) (2009) 169-179.
[35] ASCE, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, ASCE/SEI Standard 41-23, in, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, 2023.
[36] D.G. Lignos, H. Krawinkler, Deterioration Modeling of Steel Components in Support of Collapse Prediction of Steel Moment Frames under Earthquake Loading, Journal of Structural Engineering, 137(11) (2011) 1291-1302.
[37] NIST, Guidelines for Nonlinear Structural Analysis for Design of Buildings: Part IIa – Steel Moment Frames, GCR 17-917-46v2, Applied Technology Council, Redwood, California, 2017.
[38] F. Zareian, R.A. Medina, A practical method for proper modeling of structural damping in inelastic plane structural systems, Computers & structures, 88(1-2) (2010) 45-53.
[39] A.K. Chopra, Dynamics of structures, Pearson Education India, 2007.
[40] D.G. Lignos, J. Cravero, A. Elkady, Experimental Investigation of the Hysteretic Behavior of Wide-Flange Steel Columns under High Axial Load and Lateral Drift Demands, in, 2016.
[41] D. Lignos, A.R. Hartloper, A.M.A. Elkady, R. Hamburger, G. Deierlein, Revised ASCE-41 modeling recommendations for moment-resisting frame systems, in:  Proceedings of the 11th US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering (11NCEE), 2018.
AUT Journal of Civil Engineering
Volume 10, Issue 3
Summer 2026
Pages 227-248