International Journal of Steel Structures 16(3): 857-875 (2016)

DOI 10.1007/s13296-015-0056-6
ISSN 1598-2351 (Print)
ISSN 2093-6311 (Online)

www.springer.com/journal/13296

Dynamic Increase Factor for Pushdown analysis of Seismically

Designed Steel Moment-resisting Frames
Massimiliano Ferraioli*
Department of Civil Engineering, Design, Building and Environment, Second University of Naples,
via Roma 29, 81031, Aversa (CE), Italy

Abstract

The independent threat scenario of sudden column loss under localised damage is usually considered in progressive collapse
assessment. The effect of the sudden removal of a column is like the sudden application of the gravity load on the structure when
significant deformations occur. This conventional approach is based on the simplifying but realistic hypothesis that the peak
dynamic response can be assessed with reasonable accuracy using the nonlinear static response. In this approach, amplified gravity
loads are applied to the bays that are affected by the removed column to compensate for the dynamic effects corresponding to
the real load redistribution. The paper investigates the dynamic increase factor to be considered in the nonlinear pushdown
analysis of seismically designed steel moment-resisting frames. The influence of the fundamental parameters involved in
progressive collapse analysis was highlighted. The effect of various design variables, such as the number of stories, the number
of bays, the location of the removed column and the level of seismic design load was investigated. The dynamic increase factor
was estimated in a way to generate the best match of the peak dynamic responses through the nonlinear static analysis. Finally,
the values obtained were expressed as a function of the vertical displacement at the location of the removed column and then
compared with the GSA formulation based on the ductility factor.

Keywords: progressive collapse, nonlinear pushdown analysis, dynamic increase factor

1. Introduction lateral loads) and progressive collapse design (that is

Recent developments in the efficient use of building
materials, innovative framing systems, as well as refine-
ments in analysis techniques resulted in structures having
sometimes a considerably smaller margin of safety and
little reserve capacity to accommodate abnormal loading
conditions. Thus, the seismically designed buildings do
not necessarily have enough capacity to redistribute loads
upon the sudden loss of certain critical load-bearing
elements. This is because buildings behave very differently
when surviving a progressive collapse and when with-
standing an earthquake. In fact, the progressive collapse
is characterized by a relatively localized damage and a
delay of the evolution time to the global collapse. These
two characteristics may enable one to minimize the extent
of final damage. Moreover, significant differences occur
between seismic design (that is primarily concerned with
Received April 9, 2015; accepted June 26, 2016;
published online September 30, 2016
© KSSC and Springer 2016
*Corresponding author
Tel: +39 081 50 10216, Fax: +39 081 50 37370
E-mail: massimiliano.ferraioli@unina2.it
more focused with gravity loads). The seismic design
procedures generally focus on plastic mechanism control
(Mazzolani and Piluso, 1997). The progressive collapse
design employs an approach where the local damage
scenarios are simply postulated and the applied loads
cannot be specified explicitly. Furthermore, the progressive
collapse design requires structural strength at large
deformations, and acceptability is usually based on the
comparison of the maximum ductility demand against the
available ductility capacity. Finally, it is unsafe to assume
that a structure designed for seismic loads can withstand
accidental or abnormal load conditions. Generally, the
buildings designed for seismic loads have a good capacity
to avoid the global collapse in case of column removal,
when compared to buildings designed for gravity loads
only. This is because the seismic design criteria aim to
provide ductility and redundancy in the structure. Particularly,
the capacity design of columns as key elements may have
a beneficial effect on the robustness by delaying or
preventing the progressive collapse, especially for high-
rise buildings designed for high seismic zones. On the
contrary, in the case of low-rise structures in low or
moderate seismic zone, the beams may have very little
overstrength also for the gravity action, since overstrength
858 Massimiliano Ferraioli / International Journal of Steel Structures, 16(3), 857-875, 2016
should be avoided in such elements. Thus, the seismic
design is not always leading to an adequate robustness,
and a specific robustness assessment of building structures
is required. In fact, in damaged state structural members
are loaded in different ways than they were designed for
originally. Moreover, large deformations are allowed. Thus,
the structural behaviour will be quite different from
considered in the original design. Thus, structural reserves
can be mobilized to find alternate load paths: (a) vertical
load bearing elements acting as suspension; (b)Vierendeel
action of moment-resisting frames; (c) catenary or
membrane action of floor systems. The Vierendeel action
can be characterized by the relative vertical displacement
between beam ends and the double-curvature deformations
of beams. Such a deformed shape (Fig. 1a) provides shear
forces in beams to redistribute the vertical loads after the
column removal. The catenary action depends on the
geometrical nonlinear behaviour of the structure (Fig.
1b). This effect can be developed only when the inelastic
deformations of the structure are large enough to make
possible a transition from the flexural resistance to the
tensile catenary resistance. The following options are
explicitly defined in the Design Guidelines for Progressive
Collapse Resistance: (1) Indirect Design Approach; (2)
Specific Local Resistance Approach; (3) Alternate Path
Direct Design Approach. The Indirect Design Approach
is used to develop resistance to progressive collapse by
specifying a minimum level of strength, continuity, and
ductility. The Specific Local Resistance method requires
all critical gravity load-bearing members to be designed
and detailed to resist the abnormal loads. The Alternate
Path Method requires that the building structure has
enough strength and ductility to resist the removal of a
critical element, such as a column. This approach was
most widely used due to its connection to the response of
a structure during an abnormal event. These current
requirements may suffer some major deficiencies. First of
all, the tying force requirements - considered enough to
avoid disproportionate collapse - are unrelated to real
structural performance and, particularly, to the corresponding
ductility demands. Thus, for some specific structural
configurations, the tying force provisions may be unsafe
because the resistance to gravity loading by means of
catenary action after column removal requires unrealis-
Figure 1. (a) Vierendeel action, (b) Catenary action.
tically large ductility demands. Furthermore, the notional
member removal provisions are applied with conventional
design checks, and hence, they ignore the favourable
effects of nonlinear phenomena such as the compressive
arching and catenary actions. Finally, these provisions are
based on static analysis, while the failure of vertical
members under extreme events is a dynamic phenomenon.
The Alternate Path Method is a threat-independent
method generally applied to assess the potential for
progressive collapse. This method is generally applied in
the context of a “missing column” scenario whereby a
column is destroyed and it is checked whether the
building can successfully absorb the loss of this critical
member. For such a scenario, the recent design guidelines
(UFC 2009, GSA 2013) allow the structural analysis to
be performed using linear or nonlinear static or nonlinear
dynamic analysis. When a static procedure (linear or
nonlinear) is used, a dynamic increase factor (DIF) is
considered to increase the gravity loads acting on the
bays that are affected by the removed column. This factor
approximately compensates for the dynamic effects
corresponding to the real load redistribution. Over the last
few years, a number of papers covering this subject were
proposed in the scientific literature. A nonlinear quasi-
static computational procedure to predict the failure
sequence of the disproportionate collapse was developed
by Grierson et al. (2005). Dusenberry et al. (2006) and
Izzuddin et al. (2008) developed improved nonlinear
static analysis approaches based on energy balance in the
damaged structural system between the work done by the
external loads and the strain energy stored in structural
members. Ruth et al. (2006) illustrated that using a load
factor of 2 may be too much conservative since using a
load factor of 1.5 better represents the dynamic effect
when static analyses are performed. More recently,
Kwasniewski (2010) described high-resolution dynamic
simulations of progressive collapse following a sudden
column removal. Kim et al. (2009a, 2009b, 2011) studied
the sensitivity of the design parameters of steel buildings
subjected to progressive collapse. Gerasimidis et al.
(2011) studied the influence of time step size of the
computational algorithm on the accuracy of dynamic
response. Xu et al. (2011) evaluated the vulnerability of
three steel frames to disproportionate actions using an
 Dynamic Increase Factor for Pushdown analysis of Seismically Designed Steel Moment-resisting Frames
energy-based nonlinear static pushdown analysis. Ferraioli
et al. (2012, 2014a) studied the progressive collapse
potential and the seismic collapse-resistant capacity of
steel moment-resisting frames designed according to
current seismic codes. Mohamed et al. (2015) studied the
effects of ductility on the load increase factor needed for
progressive collapse resistant design of steel building
structures. In this paper, the dynamic increase factor
(DIF) needed to account for dynamic effects in static
computations was investigated. Earthquake-resistant steel
moment resisting frames were considered in the analysis.
Different column removal scenarios were studied. In
order to obtain a systematic estimate of the dynamic load
factors, an equivalent static pushover procedure was
identified for steel structures. To this aim, the vertical
loads were increased up to collapse. At each increment
step, the most appropriate value for DIF was adjusted so
to match the dynamic response. The effect of the number
of stories, the number of bays, the location of the
removed column and the level of seismic design load was
investigated. The results were finally compared with the
GSA (2013) formulation of the dynamic increase factor.
2. Dynamic Increase Factor for Nonlinear
Static Procedure
Most of the current design codes generally consider the
sudden removal of critical structural elements such as
columns as a standard test of structural robustness. Thus,
this scenario is the typical situation considered in the
existing design guidelines for progressive collapse assessment
and structural robustness design. In order to investigate
the load redistribution behaviour of the structure upon the
sudden removal of a column, three different analysis
procedures are available: linear static, nonlinear static,
nonlinear dynamic. The linear static analysis is unable to
account for the dynamic effects and the geometric and
material nonlinearities. On the contrary, the nonlinear
dynamic analysis is able to give accurate solutions.
However, sophisticated finite element modelling may be
required, and computationally intensive time-history analyses
may be necessary to simulate the dynamic behaviour of
the damaged structure. Even though the accuracy of the
nonlinear dynamic results is incontestable, the static
analysis is generally used to take into account the
geometrical nonlinearities induced by large deflections
without requiring the calculation of the dynamic response
time-history. In this case, in order to take into account the
dynamic effects due to the sudden column removal, two
different approaches were proposed in the literature. The
first one is based on a balance between strain energy and
external work (Dusenberry et al. (2006), Izzuddin et al.
(2008), Xu et al. (2011)). The second one is based on the
use of a prescribed Dynamic Increase Factor (DIF) to
amplify the vertical loads within the bays that are
immediately affected by the suddenly removed element
859
(McKay et al. (2012), Liu (2013), Mohamed (2015)). It
should be observed that in the GSA Guidelines for
progressive collapse (2013) two distinct factors addressing
different phenomena are named “Dynamic Increase
Factor” (DIF). The first one is typically used in the
nonlinear dynamic analysis of components for blast loads
and is related to strain rate effects. The second one, that
is also named “Load Increase Factor” (LIF), accounts for
inertial and nonlinear effects when static procedures are
used and, practically, it considers the real nature of
progressive collapse that is a nonlinear and dynamic
event. For this factor, the GSA (2003) and the UFC
(2009) progressive collapse design guidelines recommended
the application of a load multiplier of 2.0 to the gravity
loads. This value is based on the fact that the maximum
dynamic deflection is twice the static deflection when a
structure behaves in a perfectly linear elastic manner.
However, various problems with the use of this fixed
factor of 2 were documented in the literature. First, in
order to deal with the effects of large deformations while
retaining the simplicity of equivalent static design, the
use of nonlinear static analysis with amplified gravity
loads is generally allowed, and the same load factor is
applied to both linear and nonlinear static analysis.
However, an amplification factor of 2.0 is correct only if
the structural response following the sudden column loss
remains linear elastic. Conversely, during extreme loading
events such as losing a critical element, the structure
almost always respond in the nonlinear range, because the
load initially sustained by the removed column is then
transferred to the remaining part involving inelastic
behaviour. Thus, the load increase factor that permits the
nonlinear static solution to approximate a nonlinear
dynamic solution is usually less than 2.0. This implicates
an excessively conservative estimation of progressive
collapse resistance for a column-removed building. In
fact, the DIF (that may be expressed as the ratio of the
static force response to the dynamic force response under
an equal displacement demand) decreases as the flexural
ductility is developed. In particular, as indicated by Ruth
et al. (2006), the DIF may decrease to 1.16 for the
displacement corresponding to the ultimate load. This
means that the dynamic effect of the gravity loads on
progressive collapse responses may be much less than
what is predicted by the nonlinear static analysis using a
DIF of 2.0. Finally, an increase factor of 2.0 is not
appropriate for the majority of limit states. In fact, the
DIF should vary with the structural performance level
and, generally, it decreases with increasing displacement
of the joint from which the column was removed. Based
on these considerations and recognizing the drawback of
using a constant value of 2.0 for DIF, variations to the
load increase factor were made in the recent years. In
particular, empirically derived expressions of DIF were
adopted to account for the dynamic effects when using
nonlinear static analysis in order to emulate the peak
860 Massimiliano Ferraioli / International Journal of Steel Structures, 16(3), 857-875, 2016
dynamic responses (McKay (2012)). In the latest version
of both UFC (2009) and GSA (2013), the value of DIF
depends on the structure type and the classification of the
structural actions. According to ASCE 41 (2007), the
GSA Guidelines classify all actions (moment, shear and
axial forces) as either deformation-controlled or force-
controlled using the component force versus deformation
curve shown in Fig. 3.7 (GSA, 2013). A dynamic
increase factor (named ΩN) is provided for deformation-
controlled actions in the nonlinear static analysis. In
particular, the following expression for the DIF in terms
of ductility was proposed for steel structures:
0.76
DIF = 1.08 + --------------------
m + 0.83
where m is a non-dimensional factor of ductility supply,
defined as the ratio of allowable plastic hinge rotation θpra
to yield rotation θy. This factor is calculated for each of
the structural components (columns excluded) that contribute
to progressive collapse resistance and are within the
immediately affected bays. The plastic rotation angle θpra
is given in the acceptance criteria tables in ASCE 41
(2007) for the appropriate structural response level (Life
Safety or Collapse Prevention) while the yield rotation θy
for steel is given in Equation 5-1 in ASCE 41 (2007). It
can be observed that the value of the dynamic increase
factor specified in both UFC (2009) and GSA (2013)
depends only on the structure type and plastic rotation
limit. Other parameters, such structural configuration and
axial forces in beams (i.e. catenary effect), which may
play an important role in the nonlinear dynamic response,
are not considered. Furthermore, even though this formulation
for DIF is an upgrading over the standard load factor
approach in which a constant DIF is assumed, the mono-
tonic decreasing of DIF with ductility is not generally
correct and is currently under discussion. Izzuddin et al.
(2009) showed that a monotonic reduction of DIF with
ductility is realistic if the floor response under gravity
loading is elastic-perfectly plastic, but it can be strongly
inaccurate for other nonlinear static responses including
hardening and catenary action. Moreover, Eq. (1) depends
only on the mechanical properties of the structural
members and it gives the same DIF value regardless of
the specific gravity loading. Conversely, the dynamic
structural responses should be influenced by the level of
gravity loading, since the damaged structure that is subjected
to greater gravity loads would be more susceptible to
progressive collapse.
3. Pushdown Analysis and Nonlinear
Response-history Analysis
3.1. Analysis techniques
The progressive collapse response can be estimated
either from detailed nonlinear finite element analysis or
from simple two-dimensional static procedures. In either
case since the real behaviour following the sudden column
loss is likely to be inelastic and possibly implicate arching/
catenary effects, it is essential to consider both geometric
and material nonlinearity. The more detailed finite element
modelling should allow for geometric and material non-
linearity of beam-column elements, consider the nonlinear
connection and two-dimensional membrane effects within
the floor slab and include the influence of partial/full
shear connection on the composite action between the
steel beam and the floor slab. Moreover, the structural
response to abnormal loading conditions is most expected
to be dynamic since it takes place in a very short time and
may involve strain rate effects. These effects can change
(1) the failure mechanism of joints and influence the collapse
capacity. In fact, although steel is not expected to be very
sensitive to strain rate effects, as compared to concrete,
serious strain rate effects in the structural steel connections
at high rates of strain were observed in the literature.
Typically, the yield and ultimate strength of connection
components increase while the ductility decreases. In the
column removal scenario, the downward movement of
the beams can cause the axial forces and bending
moments acting on the adjacent connections to increase
very quickly and may eventually lead to their failure. The
effects of strain rate are generally approximated using
suitable Dynamic Increase Factors on the static strain
rate. In the GSA Guidelines, the strain rate enhancement
is modelled using a dynamic increase factor. This factor
is typically used to amplify the strength of materials in
the nonlinear dynamic analysis of components for blast
loads. Málaga et al. (2016) proposed a component-based
mechanical model of connections that incorporates possible
strain-rate effects. Stoddart et al. (2013) introduced the
use of rate dependent springs to component-based joint
models for inclusion in the nonlinear dynamic analysis
when the effects of strain rate need to be taken into
account. This allowed strain rate hardening as well as
strain rate induced reductions in ductility to be included
in component spring models. The present study is conducted
on seismically designed steel moment-resisting frames by
applying the alternate path method. In this approach, a
critical column is suddenly removed and the ability of the
model to successfully absorb the member loss is investi-
gated. Although such a scenario is not same in dynamic
effect to column damage resulting from blast or impact,
it is intended to represent a situation where an abnormal
load or extreme event taking place over a relatively short
duration destroys the column. Subsequent analysis is
carried out under the hypothesis that the strain rates are in
the seismic loading range, i.e. rather low, which justifies
not accounting for strain rate effects in the analysis
model. Thus, the strain rate effects are neglected in this
study and should be investigated in the future. The
nonlinear response-history analysis (NRHA) is believed
to be the most realistic method to get the forces and
deformation demands that develop in the system from its
 Dynamic Increase Factor for Pushdown analysis of Seismically Designed Steel Moment-resisting Frames
first damage. However, its application requires much
skill. The computational effort in the case of large and
complex structural systems can be excessive. Potential
numerical convergence problems may be faced during the
execution. Furthermore, the information necessary to
perform the analysis correctly might not be available. For
example, the structural behaviour data especially related
to beam to column connections are still lacking. Finally,
it is difficult to check the results also due to the sensitivity
to assumptions on geometry, boundary conditions, material
models, and so on. In fact, the variation of the structural
response with respect to a given parameter is generally
greater in the case of nonlinear response-history analysis
than in the case of nonlinear static analysis. As a result,
the nonlinear dynamic analysis is scarcely used in routine
analysis of low- and mid-rise buildings in favour of the
more affordable nonlinear static methods.
3.2. Structural model and acceptance criteria
In this paper, the robustness analysis of the structure
was carried out with reference to an internal two-dimen-
sional moment resisting frame (MRF) instead of more
complex three-dimensional schemes of the entire building.
Indeed, the real structures are three-dimensional and
added stiffening is provided by the orthogonal frames and
horizontal floor slabs. However, the orthogonal beams are
expected to withstand only their self-weight since the slab
is unidirectional. Therefore, the cross-section of the ortho-
gonal beams is governed by the minimum requirements.
Thus, the small positive influence of the orthogonal frames
was neglected, and this should provide conservative estimates
of the progressive collapse resistance. On the other side,
the higher redundancy provided by the floor slabs
(combined with high levels of ductility that are typical of
seismically designed steel frames) influences the vertical-
horizontal wide propagation of collapse. Conversely, the
collapse initiation is related to the mechanisms of bending
and pancake, which may be accurately predicted by the
two-dimensional analysis. Thus, a 2D analysis was used
to study the collapse initiation. In this way, the corres-
ponding collapse load was underestimated when compared
to 3D analysis due to neglecting the load redistributions
through the floor slabs. Therefore, the structure was
modelled as a planar moment resistant frame. Beams and
columns were modelled using a concentrated plastic
hinge model. The connections were considered stronger
than the beams. The beam-to-column connections and the
panel zones were not modelled. The beam-to-column
joints were assumed to be rigid and full-strength. Thus,
the model allowed plastic hinges to form in beams and
columns, not in connections. The effects of the tensile
loads transfers to the beam-column connections and their
conservative nature were not investigated in the present
paper. The secondary members, such as transverse joist
beams and braces, were considered only for the trans-
ferring of the gravity loads while they did not directly
861
contribute to the progressive collapse resistance. The
model was based on the assumption that the foundation
can accommodate the redistributed loads following any
column removal, and that connections at the foundations
may be modelled as restrained connections. The program
code SAP2000 (2014) was used to create a planar
analytical model. This structural model incorporates material
and geometric nonlinearities. Both P-delta and large
displacements were considered in the analysis. The small
displacement analysis was often used in literature for
simplification purposes. However, it may be questionable
whether neglecting catenary effects is undoubtedly conser-
vative. Certainly, the tensile loads transmitted to the beam-
column connections and to the rest of the structure would
not be detected by a small displacement analysis. This is
the reason because large displacements were considered
in the analysis. Theoretically, concentrated plastic hinges
can occur anywhere along the beam. However, the hinges
were allowed to occur at the ends of each member. This
simplifies the model by placing flexural plastic hinges in
the most probable locations. The plastic hinges were
represented by nonlinear moment-curvature and P-M
interaction relationships for beams and beam-columns.
The parameters of the plastic hinges were defined based
on FEMA-356 (Chapter 5). The sudden strength degradation
was neglected since the acceptable plastic rotation angle
of the steel members, as defined in FEMA-356 (2000), is
always within the first post-yield linear branch of the
moment-rotation curve (preceding the strength degradation).
In this paper, the nonlinear buckling response was evaluated
using the nonlinear static analysis. This procedure takes
an iterative approach while implementing P-Delta and
large-displacement effects. The total load was applied
incrementally. Stiffness was evaluated at each increment.
Between each displacement step, stiffness may change
due to P-Delta effect, Large-Displacement effect and
nonlinear material behaviour. The P-Delta effect was
integrated along the length of the frame element, taking
into account the deflection within the element. The
transverse deflected shape was assumed to be cubic for
bending. The assumed cubic shape is usually a good
approximation to the true deflected shape. However, the
accuracy of the results depends on the discretization of
the frame objects. Thus, the structural members, both
columns and beams, were subdivided into at least 20
frame elements with lengths small enough to capture the
geometric nonlinearity. As this discretization is refined,
the solution was expected to be accurate. The geometric
imperfections of columns usually affect the capacity of
the column in axial compression. However, for the case
of progressive collapse, the load eccentricity caused to an
adjacent-to-the-removal column gives a great destabilizing
load. This effect is expected to be more important due to
the moment affecting the compression capacity of the
column. Thus, the imperfections of the members were not
explicitly modelled. The revision of this assumption will
862 Massimiliano Ferraioli / International Journal of Steel Structures, 16(3), 857-875, 2016
be considered in the future developments. In the nonlinear
buckling analysis, the applied loading was incrementally
increased until a small change in load level causes a large
change in displacement. This condition indicates that the
structure has become unstable. Together with this condition
of instability, the structural performance of all structural
components was checked at every stage of the analysis.
The acceptance criteria suggested by FEMA-356 (2000)
and GSA (2003) were considered in the analysis. The
FEMA acceptance criteria of columns includes deformation-
controlled and force-controlled actions. The controlling
actions to be considered to check failure of the columns
depend on the level of axial load. Columns with low axial
load (P/PCL ≤ 0.5, where PCL is the lower-bound axial
load capacity) are classified as deformation-controlled for
flexural behaviour and force controlled for compressive
behaviour. The interaction between bending moment
capacity and axial load capacity of the column was
determined using Eq. (5-10)-(5-11) in FEMA 356. Columns
under high axial load (P/PCL>0.5) were classified as
force-controlled for both axial loads and flexure and were
evaluated using Eq. (5-12) of FEMA 356. In this case, the
column was assumed as failed if the P-M interaction
equation exceeds unity. Thus, the column plastic hinging
becomes a non-ductile failure mode. The GSA acceptance
criteria for the nonlinear static analysis are based on the
maximum plastic hinge rotation and ductility (Tab.2.1,
GSA (2003)). In particular, the values recommended of
maximum ductility and rotation angle are, respectively,
μ=20 and θ=0.21 rad for both steel beams and tension
controlled columns, while μ=1 for compression controlled
columns. The ductility ratio is the ratio of the ultimate
deflection at the location where the column is removed to
the yield deflection. The rotation angle is obtained by
dividing the maximum deflection with the length of the
beam (Fig. 2.2-2.3; GSA (2003)).
Figure 2. Imposed gravity loads for static and dynamic analysis.
3.3. Nonlinear static analysis (pushdown)
The sudden removal of a structural member has the
same effect as the sudden application of the structural
forces in those members in the opposite direction. The
conventional nonlinear equivalent static approach (also
termed “pushdown analysis”) attempts to reproduce this
effect examining the structure which has suffered the loss
of one or more critical members under increasing gravity
loads. In particular, the load combination DIF×LF×(DL+
0.25LL) is applied in the span where the column was
removed. The load combination LF×(DL+0.25LL) is
applied to the remaining spans. LF is the load factor, that
is the ratio of the applied load and the GSA-specified load
of DL+0.25LL (DL and LL being dead loads and live
loads, respectively) (Fig. 2). The advantage of this proce-
dure is its ability to account for nonlinear effects without
complex material modelling and time-consuming dynamic
analysis. The disadvantage is the inability to accurately
account for dynamic effects following sudden element
removal: (1) transient dynamic response of the structure;
(2) force redistribution in the system; (3) further develop-
ment of collapse process. The pushdown analysis may be
carried out using different approaches: (1) Load Controlled
Pushdown Analysis; (2) Displacement Controlled Pushdown
Analysis; (3) Staged Construction Pushdown Analysis.
The Load Controlled Pushdown Analysis suggested in
GSA Guidelines (2003) is an equivalent approach based
on the incremental application of the gravity loads on the
damaged structure consequent to a given column removal
scenario. The Displacement Controlled Pushdown Analysis
is unlike in the control criterion since it is carried out by
increasing deflections to an arbitrary level in the location
where the column was removed. Since the original
loading pattern remained unchanged at every step, the
results of the load controlled and displacement controlled
pushdown analysis are the same until the ultimate load is
 Dynamic Increase Factor for Pushdown analysis of Seismically Designed Steel Moment-resisting Frames
reached. In these approaches, the gravity loads, amplified
within the affected bays, are increased incrementally after
the column removal. Unlike these traditional pushdown
analyses, the Staged Construction Pushdown Analysis
(Ferraioli et al. 2014a) tries to replicate the timing of
progressive collapse. For this reason, at first, the gravity
loads are applied to the undamaged structure, and then
the column is abruptly removed while the gravity loads
remain unchanged. In this paper, the Displacement
Controlled Pushdown Analysis was used to calculate the
response of seismically designed steel frames under a
sudden column collapse. To this aim, the large displace-
ment analysis was carried out. This allowed to account
for the development of catenary (axial) forces in steel
beams that play a big role in the resistance of progressive
collapse. However, it should be observed that the structure
may develop these catenary effects only if adequate tying
between horizontal and vertical building components is
ensured. Moreover, only the large displacement analysis
can show if the structural ductility is enough to develop
the catenary effects. To highlight this aspect, Fig. 3 shows
the comparison of pushdown curves (load factor versus
vertical displacement in the location of the removed
column) with and without considering large displacements.
Figure 3(a) shows an example where the catenary stage is
activated enhancing the resistance to the progressive
collapse of the frame. The catenary stage and the corres-
ponding hardening behaviour are revealed only from
large displacement analysis while the conventional small
displacement analysis exposes a simple plastic stage
without hardening. Figure 3(b) shows an example where
the catenary stage isn’t developed because the ductility
limit is very low. Typically, this situation is due to the
brittle failure of one of the next to the removal columns.
3.4. Nonlinear response-history analysis
The sudden removal of a column inevitably results in a
dynamic transient response, with probably cyclic loading
and plastic deformation demand. Although the dynamic
analysis generally requires more effort to characterize the
geometric and material nonlinearity, only this approach
Figure 3. Nonlinear static response under gravity loads after column removal.
863
can give a complete understanding of the progressive
collapse resistance. In this paper, the nonlinear response-
history analysis (NRHA) was carried out with the Incre-
mental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) technique. This is the
method commonly used in the seismic performance
assessment of structures. In earthquake engineering, the
IDA approach involves performing the nonlinear dynamic
analysis of the structural system under a suite of ground
motion records, each scaled to several levels of seismic
intensity. In progressive collapse analysis, the IDA is
performed with increasing gravity loads applied to the
column-removed building. The corresponding vertical
deflections in the location of the removed column are
calculated. This approach is carried out increasing the
magnitude of the load factor (LF) in the load combination
LF×(DL+0.25LL) uniformly applied as a vertical load in
the entire span (Fig. 2). The magnitude of LF is increased
gradually till extremely large deflection occurs at the
column-removed point. It can be observed that, when
applied to the assessment of progressive collapse-resisting
capacity, the IDA is more simple and less time-consuming,
since it does not need modelling of complicated hysteretic
behaviour under reversed cyclic loading. Thus, it may be
used as a more precise tool for the progressive collapse
assessment of multi-storey buildings. In this paper, the
NRHA was carried out following a threat-independent
approach and using an ‘initial conditions’ methodology.
This involves finding the deformed shape of the undamaged
structure under normal loading conditions and then
applying those displacements as initial conditions for the
dynamic analysis of the damaged model. The process that
dynamically simulates the sudden loss of a column is
based on the steps listed below.
(1) The vertical loads are statically applied on the
complete undamaged model (i.e. no removed column)
under normal service loads. The end forces of the to-be-
removed target column are determined (i.e. axial force N,
shear force V and bending moment M).
(2) The model with the removed column is analysed
statically. The column is replaced by the corresponding
reaction forces at the proper node in order to get the
864 Massimiliano Ferraioli / International Journal of Steel Structures, 16(3), 857-875, 2016
displacement configuration at the onset of the column
removal. Practically, the dead and live loads (DL+0.25LL)
and the calculated end forces in inverted directions (i.e.
-N, -V, -M) are statically applied to the damaged frame
(i.e. with removed column). This application takes 1s
(during which loads are amplified linearly until they
reach their full amounts) and then kept unchanged for 9s,
so that the structure can reach a stable condition that
replicates the state of the structure before the column loss.
In other words, all the loads are applied to the structure
in a sufficiently large time to be considered static.
(3) The reaction forces are simultaneously and abruptly
brought to zero. Practically, at 10s, once the damaged
frame reaches a static equilibrium, the recorded end
forces in original directions (i.e. N, V, M) are applied
rapidly to the damaged frame to simulate the sudden
removal of the column. The speed at which an element is
removed during the dynamic analysis may have a
noteworthy influence on the response of the structure.
Because of this, the GSA Guidelines (2013) recommend
that the column is removed over a time period not higher
than 1/10 of the period associated with the structural
response mode for the vertical element removal. The
simulations used the Rayleigh damping model that considers
a mass-proportional and a stiffness-proportional damping
coefficient to achieve the real critical damping ratio of
2% for both the first and second mode shapes. A
nonlinear direct-integration time-history analysis including
Figure 4. Steel moment resisting frames considered in the analysis.
P-delta effects and large displacements was performed.
The sudden removal of a column origins the residual
damaged structure to vibrate vertically. Its behaviour was
analysed to control if enough residual capacity or alternate
load paths occur to prevent the further propagation of
failure. The entire process was then repeated for increasing
values of the vertical load, up to the collapse. The peak
displacement response of each time-history was collected
to plot the load-displacement envelopes representative of
the incremental dynamic analysis.
4. Analysis Results
The main purpose of this paper is to investigate the
dynamic increase factor to be considered in the nonlinear
pushdown analysis of seismically designed steel moment-
resisting frames. To this aim, two-dimensional three-bay
and five-bay regular steel moment frames were considered
in the analysis (Fig. 4, Tabs. 1-3): 3S3B (3-storey, 3-bay);
5S3B (5-storey, 3-bay); 7S5B (7-storey, 5-bay); 7S3B (7-
storey, 3-bay); 9S3B (9-storey, 3-bay); 9S5B (9-storey, 5-
bay). Each frame is considered one of the internal lateral
force-resisting moment frames of the building. Thus, each
frame resists half of the total seismic loads applied to the
building along the transverse direction. The frames were
designed according to the Italian Code (NTC 2008). The
interstorey height is 3.5 m for the first floor and 3.0 m for
the other floors. The bay length is 5.00 m in both
 Dynamic Increase Factor for Pushdown analysis of Seismically Designed Steel Moment-resisting Frames 865

Table 1. Dimensions of structural members in steel frames designed for PGA=0.35 g

Frame Member Storey Section Storey Section Storey Section Storey Section Storey Section
Column Ext. 1 HE180B 2-3 HE160B
3S3B Column Int 1 HE240B 2-3 HE200B
Beam 1 IPE270 2-3 IPE270
Column Ext. 1-2 HE200B 3 HE160B 4-5 HE160B
5S3B Column Int 1-2 HE260B 3 HE220B 4-5 HE200B
Beam 1 IPE300 2-3 IPE270 4-5 IPE270
Column Ext. 1-2 HE200B 3-4 HE180B 5 HE160B 6-7 HE160B
7S3B Column Int 1-2 HE260B 3-4 HE240B 5 HE220B 6-7 HE200B
Beam 1-2 IPE300 3 IPE300 4-5 IPE270 6-7 IPE270
Column Ext. 1-2-3 HE220B 4-5-6 HE200B 7 HE160B 8-9 HE160B
9S3B Column Int 1-2-3 HE280B 4-5-6 HE260B 7 HE220B 8-9 HE200B
Beam 1-2-3 IPE330 4-5-6 IPE300 7 IPE270 8-9 IPE270
Column Ext. 1-2 HE200B 3-4 HE180B 5 HE160B 6-7 HE160B
7S5B Column Int 1-2 HE260B 3-4 HE240B 5 HE220B 6-7 HE200B
Beam 1-2 IPE270 3-4 IPE270 5 IPE270 6-7 IPE270
Column Ext. 1-2 HE220B 3-4 HE200B 5 HE180B 6-7 HE160B 8-9 HE160B
9S5B Column Int 1-2 HE280B 3-4 HE240B 5 HE240B 6-7 HE220B 8-9 HE200B
Beam 1 IPE330 2-3 IPE300 4-5 IPE270 6-7 IPE270 8-9 IPE270

orthogonal directions. The steel material used for all
beams and columns is S275, with a lower-bound yield
and tensile strength values equal to 275 and 410 MPa,
respectively. The steel frames were designed for soil class
A, damping ratio 5% and behaviour factor q=6.5. Three
values of the design Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) for
Life-Safety Limit State were considered in the analysis:
(1) PGA=0.15 g; (2) PGA=0.25 g; (3) PGA=0.35 g. According
to NTC 2008, two drift criteria were applied for the
seismic design. The first one is associated with the
Serviceability Limit State (interstorey drift ratio ≤ 0.01).
The second one is related to the Ultimate Limit State
(stability coefficient θ ≤ 0.30) (EC8: § 4.4.2; NTC 2008:
§ 7.3.1). More details about the seismic design and
behaviour of the steel frames considered in this paper
may be available in Ferraioli et al. (2014b, 2014c). At

Table 2. Dimensions of structural members in steel frames designed for PGA=0.25 g

Frame Member Storey Section Storey Section Storey Section Storey Section Storey Section
Column Ext. 1 HE160B 2-3 HE160B
3S3B Column Int 1 HE220B 2-3 HE200B
Beam 1 IPE270 2-3 IPE270
Column Ext. 1-2 HE200B 3-4 HE160B 5 HE160B
5S3B Column Int 1-2 HE240B 3-4 HE220B 5 HE200B
Beam 1 IPE300 2-4 IPE270 5 IPE270
Column Ext. 1-2 HE200B 3 HE180B 4 HE180B 5 HE160B 6-7 HE160B
7S3B Column Int 1-2 HE260B 3 HE240B 4 HE220B 5 HE220B 6-7 HE200B
Beam 1-2 IPE300 3 IPE270 4 IPE270 5 IPE270 6-7 IPE270
Column Ext. 1-2 HE220B 3-4 HE200B 5 HE180B 6-7 HE160B 8-9 HE160B
9S3B Column Int 1-2 HE280B 3-4 HE260B 5 HE220B 6-7 HE220B 8-9 HE200B
Beam 1-2 IPE300 3-4 IPE300 5 IPE270 6-7 IPE270 8-9 IPE270
Column Ext. 1-2 HE200B 3-4 HE180B 5 HE160B 6-7 HE160B
7S5B Column Int 1-2 HE260B 3-4 HE240B 5 HE220B 6-7 HE200B
Beam 1-2 IPE270 3-4 IPE270 5 IPE270 6-7 IPE270
Column Ext. 1-2 HE200B 3-4 HE200B 5 HE180B 6-7 HE160B 8-9 HE160B
9S5B Column Int 1-2 HE280B 3-4 HE240B 5 HE220B 6-7 HE220B 8-9 HE200B
Beam 1-2 IPE300 3 IPE300 4-5 IPE270 6-7 IPE270 8-9 IPE270
866 Massimiliano Ferraioli / International Journal of Steel Structures, 16(3), 857-875, 2016

Table 3. Dimensions of structural members in steel frames designed for PGA=0.15 g

Frame Member Storey Section Storey Section Storey Section Storey Section Storey Section
Column Ext. 1 HE160B 2-3 HE160B
3S3B Column Int 1 HE220B 2-3 HE200B
Beam 1 IPE270 2-3 IPE270
Column Ext. 1-2 HE180B 3 HE160B 4-5 HE160B
5S3B Column Int 1-2 HE240B 3 HE220B 4-5 HE220B
Beam 1 IPE300 2-3 IPE270 4-5 IPE270
Column Ext. 1 HE200B 2 HE200B 3 HE180B 4-5 HE180B 6-7 HE160B
7S3B Column Int 1 HE260B 2 HE240B 3 HE240B 4-5 HE220B 6-7 HE200B
Beam 1 IPE300 2 IPE300 3 IPE270 4-5 IPE270 6-7 IPE270
Column Ext. 1-2 HE200B 3 HE180B 4-5 HE180B 6-7 HE160B 8-9 HE160B
9S3B Column Int 1-2 HE260B 3 HE240B 4-5 HE220B 6-7 HE220B 8-9 HE200B
Beam 1-2 IPE300 3 IPE270 4-5 IPE270 6-7 IPE270 8-9 IPE270
Column Ext. 1 HE200B 2 HE200B 3 HE180B 4-5 HE160B 6-7 HE160B
7S5B Column Int 1 HE260B 2 HE240B 3 HE240B 4-5 HE220B 6-7 HE200B
Beam 1 IPE300 2 IPE300 3 IPE270 4-5 IPE270 6-7 IPE270
Column Ext. 1-2 HE200B 3 HE180B 4-5 HE180B 6-7 HE160B 8-9 HE160B
9S5B Column Int 1-2 HE260B 3 HE240B 4-5 HE220B 6-7 HE220B 8-9 HE200B
Beam 1-2 IPE300 3 IPE270 4-5 IPE270 6-7 IPE270 8-9 IPE270

every step of the pushdown analysis, the amount of
equivalent load corresponding to each displacement level
was expressed by means of the “Load Factor” LF, that is
the ratio of the vertical load to the full gravity load. This
allows the load-displacement curve to be plotted. Figure
5-10 show the pushdown curves corresponding to a
Dynamic Increase Factor (DIF) varied in the range
[1.0÷2.0]. The entire framed structure was assessed for
progressive collapse potential when a first-storey column
was removed. Figure 5-7 show the effect of the internal
column removal scenarios. Figure 8-10 show the effect of
the external column removal scenarios. It should be
observed that the dynamic increase factor (DIF) is
considered in pushdown analysis to increase the gravity
loads acting on the bays that are immediately affected by
the removed column. No increase factor is applied to the
gravity loads acting on the other bays. This is the reason
why in the case of three bays frames the pushdown
curves tend to have the same shape since the values of
DIFxLF are similar for a given displacement level. On
the contrary, the difference between the shapes of the
pushover curves corresponding to a DIF varied in the

Figure 5. Pushdown curves and load-displacement envelopes from incremental dynamic analysis. Internal column removal
(Design acceleration level for Life-Safety Limit State: PGA=0.35 g)
 Dynamic Increase Factor for Pushdown analysis of Seismically Designed Steel Moment-resisting Frames 867

Figure 6. Pushdown curves and load-displacement envelopes from incremental dynamic analysis. Internal column removal
(Design acceleration level for Life-Safety Limit State: PGA=0.25 g)

range [1.0÷2.0] increases with the number of bays. Only
in the case of two bays frames the values of DIFxLF
would be exactly the same for a given displacement level.
In fact, in this case the DIF would be applied to increase
the gravity loads on all the bays. The vertical displace-
ment in the location of the removed column corres-
ponding to a fixed Load Factor (LF) increases with the
Dynamic Increase Factor (DIF). In general, the hardening
associated with the catenary stage is fully developed in
low-rise frames. On the contrary, in the case of high-rise
frames the ductility limit may be very low because
conditioned by the restrictive acceptance criteria for
columns. Thus, the ultimate limit state may be reached
when the overall capacity of the structure is still increasing,
and the hardening of the catenary stage is not developed.
This dissimilar behaviour is due to the different collapse
mechanism that is greatly affected by the number of the
floors of the frame. In general, the steel moment-resisting
frames respond to a column removal in two major failure
modes. The first one is the yielding-type collapse mode
and the second one is column-buckling collapse mode.
The yielding-type collapse mode is a more ductile collapse
because it is associated with extensive yielding in the
beams leading to the formation of plastic hinges. The
failure occurs when the rotations exceed the limits of the
maximum rotation of the beams depending on the
acceptance criteria. The resulting collapse mechanism is
most often vertical and restricted to only a part of the

Figure 7. Pushdown curves and load-displacement envelopes from incremental dynamic analysis. Internal column removal
(Design acceleration level for Life-Safety Limit State: PGA=0.15 g)
868 Massimiliano Ferraioli / International Journal of Steel Structures, 16(3), 857-875, 2016

Figure 8. Pushdown curves and load-displacement envelopes from incremental dynamic analysis. External column removal
(Design acceleration level for Life-Safety Limit State: PGA=0.35 g)

structure. The column-buckling collapse mode involves
brittle phenomena in the column elements. After the
column removal, the increased axial load in the remaining
columns may result in a buckling failure that, in general,
can appear as elastic buckling or inelastic buckling
depending on the geometric properties of the column.
Inelastic buckling refers to columns for which the
yielding load is lower than the Euler’s critical load. This
situation occurs in all the case studies. The collapse mode
is brittle and can lead to the complete collapse of the
structure. In the above-mentioned Fig. 5-10, the results of
the incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) are also shown.
In particular, the load factor of each response-history
analysis and the corresponding peak displacement response
are plotted as load-displacement envelopes for comparison
with the pushdown curve. It can be observed that the
results of the nonlinear dynamic analysis vary appreciably
depending on the number of stories and, particularly, the
maximum vertical displacement decreases when the number
of stories increases. As it happens for the pushover curve,
a bilinear representation of the pushdown curve could be
constructed to estimate the effective vertical stiffness and
the yield strength of the structure after the column
removal. Likewise, the vertical stiffness and strength may
be estimated using the load-displacement envelope from
IDA. This allows a comparison between IDA and
pushdown analysis in terms of stiffness and strength. In
all the structures examined, when a DIF of 2 is considered

Figure 9. Pushdown curves and load-displacement envelopes from incremental dynamic analysis. External column removal
(Design acceleration level for Life-Safety Limit State: PGA=0.25 g)
 Dynamic Increase Factor for Pushdown analysis of Seismically Designed Steel Moment-resisting Frames
Figure 10. Pushdown curves and load-displacement envelopes from incremental dynamic analysis. External column
removal (Design acceleration level for Life-Safety Limit State: PGA=0.15 g)
both vertical stiffness and strength of the load-displace-
ment envelope from IDA are higher than those obtained
from the pushdown analysis. This means that the non-
linear static analysis approach leads to an overconser-
vative estimation of progressive collapse resistance. This
observation is in accord with the growing consensus that
using DIF=2.0 is too conservative. According to the
analysis results, both the pushdown curve and the IDA
envelope vary significantly depending on the location of
the removed column. In fact, in the case of external
column removal, the vertical stiffness is lower than in the
case internal column removal. Moreover, the hardening
of the catenary stage is activated for lower values of the
vertical displacement. This implies that also in the case of
high-rise frames the hardening associated with the
catenary stage may be developed before the acceptance
criterion in a column is exceeded. The effect of the design
Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA=0.15 g; PGA=0.25 g;
PGA=0.35 g) is greater when the column-buckling collapse
mode occurs. In this case, the column cross-section have
a large impact on the structural behaviour in the near-
collapse condition and this parameter is strongly influenced
by the value of the design PGA. In this study, the
comparison between the pushdown curves and the IDA
envelopes was used to find the Dynamic Increase Factor
DIF that gives the best match of the dynamic response.
The value of DIF was estimated by minimizing the error
between the load factors obtained from static and
dynamic analysis. The load factors were calculated for
the same vertical displacement at the location of the
removed column. This implies that the same acceptance
criteria were used for both pushdown analysis and IDA
while, in general, different acceptance criteria should be
used for nonlinear static and dynamic methods. This
would suggest assuming, in a prudential way, a slightly
869
higher DIF value. In Fig. 11-16 the DIF is plotted as a
function of the deflection at the location of the removed
column divided by the bay length (d/L). In order to verify
the effectiveness of the expression proposed by GSA
(2013), the graphic of the DIF generating the best match
of the dynamic response is compared with the values
obtained from Eq. (1). Il can be observed that the DIF
proposed by the GSA Guidelines (2013) is independent
from the level of gravity loading. In fact, Eq. (1) depends
only on the maximum acceptable plastic hinge rotation
angle of the structural members. Therefore, it is represented
by two horizontal dotted lines in Figs. 11-16 corresponding,
respectively, to the Life Safety (LS) and Collapse
Prevention (CP) Limit States. On the contrary, the dynamic
structural response is influenced by the level of gravity
loading. Thus, the DIF that generates the best match of the
peak dynamic responses through a nonlinear static analysis
depends on the level of vertical deflection. In particular,
it can be observed that in cases where the hardening of
the catenary stage is not activated, a monotonic reduction
of DIF with vertical deflection is observed. Moreover, the
DIF corresponding to the failure condition tends to be
similar to the values proposed in the GSA Guidelines
(2013). This situation typically occurs when the acceptance
criterion for columns is exceeded before the catenary
stage is activated. In this case, the GSA formulation of
DIF allows an accurate estimation of the nonlinear
dynamic effects. On the contrary, in the cases when
hardening and catenary action are fully developed, the
curve of DIF first decreases and then increases with the
vertical deflection. The cause for this difference is the
beginning of the hardening phenomenon associated with
the catenary action. In fact, the curve of DIF decreases
with the vertical deflection in the plastic stage before
hardening. On the contrary, when the hardening of the
870 Massimiliano Ferraioli / International Journal of Steel Structures, 16(3), 857-875, 2016

Figure 11. Variation of the Dynamic Increase Factor (DIF) with the vertical displacement. Internal column removal
(Design acceleration level for Life-Safety Limit State: PGA=0.35 g)

Figure 12. Variation of the Dynamic Increase Factor (DIF) with the vertical displacement. Internal column removal
(Design acceleration level for Life-Safety Limit State: PGA=0.25 g)

catenary stage is developed, the curve of DIF increases
with the vertical deflection. This means that a monotonic
reduction of DIF with ductility is not realistic and it
becomes inaccurate for nonlinear static responses involving
the hardening phenomenon associated with the catenary
action. Moreover, the DIF corresponding to the failure
condition is sensibly greater than the values specified by
the GSA Guidelines (2013) for the LS and CP limit
states. This result means that the pushdown analysis using
the DIF from the GSA Guidelines (2013) underestimates
the vertical displacement in the location of removed
column when compared to the nonlinear response-history
analysis. Thus, a greater load factor is required to obtain
the vertical displacement corresponding to the collapse
mechanism, which implicates a non-conservative estimation
of the progressive collapse resistance. In Figs. 17-18, the
failure modes obtained from the dynamic and static
analysis are compared. The pushdown analysis is carried
out using the DIF that is selected to give the best match
between static and dynamic response. It can be observed
that the collapse mechanism is greatly affected by the
number of the floors of the frame. If the frame has many
floors, the collapse mechanism is a column-buckling
mechanism. On the contrary, the yielding-type mechanism
generally occurs in low-rise frames. This outcome leads
to the conclusion that the column-buckling mechanism
appears only when the frame has many floors. In Fig. 19,
the vertical displacement time-history at the joint where
 Dynamic Increase Factor for Pushdown analysis of Seismically Designed Steel Moment-resisting Frames 871

Figure 13. Variation of the Dynamic Increase Factor (DIF) with the vertical displacement. Internal column removal
(Design acceleration level for Life-Safety Limit State: PGA=0.15 g)

Figure 14. Variation of the Dynamic Increase Factor (DIF) with the vertical displacement. External column removal
(Design acceleration level for Life-Safety Limit State: PGA=0.35 g)

the column is removed is plotted. The starting time of the
time-history plot begins when the column is removed.
The results were chosen to give evidence to the effect of
(a) the number of floors, (b) the number of bays, (c) the
seismic design level, (d) the nonlinear analysis method
(small or large displacement analysis). The effect of the
number of floors is evidenced by the comparison between
3S3B and 9S3B structures designed for PGA=0.35 g and
subjected to the failure vertical load (Fig. 19(a)). The
9S3B frame shows a smaller vertical displacement response
when compared to the 3S3B frame. This is due to the
different collapse modes (column-buckling mechanism
for the 9S3B frame; yielding-type mechanism for the
3S3B frame). The effect of the number of bays is shown
in Fig. 19(b), where the vertical displacement responses
of the 7S3B and 7S5B frames subjected to the failure
vertical load are compared. It was found that the number
of bays has a very small impact on the behaviour of a
structure subjected to column removal. Fig. 19(c) shows
the effect of the design acceleration level for the Life-
Safety Limit State. The displacement time-histories are
plotted with reference to the 9S3B frame under the failure
vertical loads. The frames designed for PGA=0.15 g and
PGA=0.35 g show very similar vertical displacement
time-histories. However, it should be observed that this
outcome occurs for different values of the failure load
872 Massimiliano Ferraioli / International Journal of Steel Structures, 16(3), 857-875, 2016

Figure 15. Variation of the Dynamic Increase Factor (DIF) with the vertical displacement. External column removal
(Design acceleration level for Life-Safety Limit State: PGA=0.25 g)

Figure 16. Variation of the Dynamic Increase Factor (DIF) with the vertical displacement. External column removal
(Design acceleration level for Life-Safety Limit State: PGA=0.15 g)

Figure 17. Failure modes of the structure from dynamic and pushdown analysis. 3S3B frame (PGA=0.35 g)

factor. In fact, LF=1.37 for PGA=0.35 g while LF=1.10 that is very similar to the value found in the frame
for PGA=0.15 g. On the other side, the frame designed designed for PGA=0.35 g. However, the vertical deflection
for PGA=0.25 g exhibits a failure load factor LF=1.40 is much higher even if, also in this case, a column-
 Dynamic Increase Factor for Pushdown analysis of Seismically Designed Steel Moment-resisting Frames
Figure 18. Failure modes of the structure from dynamic
and pushdown analysis. 9S3B frame (PGA=0.35 g)
buckling collapse mode occurs. Finally, Fig. 19(d) shows
the effect of large displacement analysis. To this aim, in
this figure is plotted the nonlinear dynamic response of
the 5S3B frame under the failure vertical loads
(corresponding to LF=1.2). The displacement response
from large displacement analysis is sensibly lower than
the corresponding response from conventional small
displacement analysis with P-delta effects. In fact, the
hardening behaviour of the catenary stage is revealed
Figure 19. Displacement time-histories for the failure Load Factor.
873
only from the large displacement analysis, while the
conventional small displacement analysis exhibits a
simple plastic stage without hardening.
5. Conclusions
The results obtained from the static and dynamic
analysis showed that a dynamic increase factor of 2 is too
conservative. In fact, the real dynamic effect of the
gravity loads on the progressive collapse response may be
much less than what is predicted by the nonlinear static
analysis using a DIF of 2.0. On the other side, the GSA
formulation based on the ductility factor may give a non-
conservative estimation of progressive collapse resistance
in many cases. In fact, this formulation tends to undere-
stimate the vertical displacements when compared to the
nonlinear response-history analysis. This specific outcome
especially occurred when the catenary action stage and
the corresponding hardening were fully developed. In
cases where this happens, the curve of DIF giving the
best match between static and dynamic analysis first
decreases and then increases with the vertical deflection.
Instead, the empirically derived expressions of DIF are
generally based on the hypothesis that the DIF decreases
with increasing the deflection at the column-removed
point. This means that a monotonic reduction of DIF
becomes inaccurate for nonlinear static responses involving
the hardening phenomenon associated with the catenary
action. This effect is more evident in the external column
874 Massimiliano Ferraioli / International Journal of Steel Structures, 16(3), 857-875, 2016
removal scenario. In fact, in this case, the catenary stage
was activated for lower values of the vertical displace-
ment, and thus it may be fully developed also for high-
rise frames. On the contrary, a monotonic reduction of
DIF with the vertical deflection was evidenced when the
hardening of the catenary stage was not developed. In this
cases, a more acceptable agreement between the GSA
formulation and the DIF generating the best match of the
dynamic response in the failure condition was found. A
good agreement between the failure modes obtained from
the dynamic and static analysis was observed. The
collapse mechanism showed to be greatly affected by the
number of the floors of the frame. The yielding-type
mechanism occurred only for low-rise frames while the
column-buckling collapse mode appeared when the frame
has many floors. On the contrary, the number of bays has
a very small impact on the behaviour of a structure
subjected to column removal scenarios. The effect of the
design acceleration level is small for low-rise frames
exhibiting a yielding-type mechanism while is greater for
high-rise frames showing a column-buckling collapse
mode. In this case, the dynamic response under the failure
vertical load is very sensitive to the cross sections of the
columns that vary considerably with the design acceleration
level. The effect of the location of the removed column
was also investigated. In the case of external column
removal, often the hardening associated with the catenary
stage may be fully developed before the failure of the
adjacent columns. The conventional small displacement
analysis proved to give considerably smaller responses if
compared to the large displacement analysis. This means
that to withstand the effect of the sudden column removal
the structure may count on further improvements of the
plastic bending resistance due to due to large deformations
and catenary response. Finally, it must be observed that
for this analysis some simplifying assumptions were made.
First, a 2D modelling approach instead of a more realistic
3D modelling was used. Then, fully rigid beam-to-column
joints were assumed. Finally, the foundations were assumed
capable of withstanding the redistribution of forces that
occurs when individual columns are removed. These effects
are also being investigated further. In spite of the afore-
mentioned simplifying assumptions, the results observed
are expected to be reproduced in a complete approach.
Acknowledgements
The subject dealt with in this paper is a part of the
research project RELUIS 2014-2018 “Steel and composite
steel-concrete structures” (Coordinators Prof. R. Zandonini,
Prof. R. Landolfo), issued by the Italian “Dipartimento
della Protezione Civile”. The activity described in the
paper was carried out by the Research Unit of the Second
University of Naples, coordinated by Prof. A. Mandara.
References
ASCE 41-06 (2007). Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing
Buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1801
Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, VA 20191-4400.
Dusenberry, D. O. and Hamburger, R. O. (2006). “Practical
means for energy-based analyses of disproportionate
collapse potential”, Journal of Performance of Constructed
Facilities, ASCE, 20(4), pp. 336-48.
FEMA-356 (2000). Prestandard and Commentary for the
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Prepared by the
American Society of Civil Engineers for the Federal
Emergency Management Agency. Washington.
Ferraioli, M. and Avossa, A. M. (2012). “Progressive
collapse of seismic resistant multistory frame buildings”,
Proc. of 3rd International Symposium on Life-Cycle Civil
Engineering, IALCCE 2012.
Ferraioli, M., Avossa, A. M., and Mandara, A. (2014a).
“Assessment of Progressive Collapse Capacity of
Earthquake-Resistant Steel Moment Frames Using
Pushdown Analysis”, The Open Construction and
Building Technology Journal, 8, pp. 324-336.
Ferraioli, M., Lavino, A., and Mandara, A. (2014b).
“Behaviour factor of code-designed steel moment-
resisting frames”, International Journal of Steel
Structures, 14(2), pp. 243-254.
Ferraioli, M., Avossa, A. M., Lavino, A., and Mandara, A.
(2014c). “Accuracy of Advanced Methods for Nonlinear
Static Analysis of Steel Moment-Resisting Frames”, The
Open Construction and Building Technology Journal, 8,
pp. 310-323.
Gerasimidis, S. and Baniotopoulos, C. C. (2011). “Steel
moment frames column loss analysis: the influence of
time step size”, Journal of Construction Steel Research,
Elsevier, 67, pp. 557-564.
Grierson, D. E., Xu, L., and Liu, Y. (2005). “Progressive-
Failure Analysis of Buildings Subjected to Abnormal
Loading”, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure
Engineering, 20(3), pp. 155-171.
GSA (2003). Progressive Collapse Analysis and Design
Guidelines for New Federal Office Buildings and Major
Modernization Projects, General Services Administration,
Washington, DC, USA.
GSA (2013). Alternate Path Analysis and Design Guidelines
for Progressive Collapse Resistance, General Services
Administration, Washington, DC, USA.
Italian Code-NTC08 (2008). Norme tecniche per le
costruzioni in zone sismiche, Ministerial Decree D.M.
14.01.08, G.U. No. 9-04.02.08 (in Italian).
Izzuddin, B. A., Vlassis A. G., Elghazouli A. Y., and
Nethercot D. A. (2008). “Progressive collapse of multi-
storey buildings due to sudden column loss-Part I:
Simplified assessment framework”, Engineering Structures,
30(5), pp. 1308-18.
Izzuddin, B. A. and Nethercot, D. A. (2009). “Design-
Oriented Approaches for Progressive Collapse Assessment:
Load-Factor vs Ductility-Centred Methods”, Proc. of
Structures Congress’09, Austin, Texas.
 Dynamic Increase Factor for Pushdown analysis of Seismically Designed Steel Moment-resisting Frames
Kim, T., Kim J., and Park, J. (2009a). “Investigation of
progressive collapse-resisting capability of steel moment
frames using push-down analysis”, Journal of Performance
of Construction Facilities, ASCE, 23(5), pp. 327-335.
Kim, J. and Kim, T. (2009b). “Assessment of progressive
collapse-resisting capacity of steel moment frames”,
Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Elsevier, 65(1),
pp. 169-179.
Kim, J., Park J. H., and Lee, T. H. (2011). “Sensitivity
analysis of steel buildings subjected to column loss”,
Engineering Structures, Elsevier, 33, pp. 421-432.
Kwasniewski, L. (2010) “Nonlinear dynamic simulations of
progressive collapse for a multistory building”, Engineering
Structures, Elsevier, 32, pp. 1223-1235.
Liu, M. (2013). “A new dynamic increase factor for
nonlinear static alternate path analysis of building frames
against progressive collapse”, Engineering Structures, 48,
pp. 666-673.
Málaga-Chuquitaype, C., Elghazouli, A., and Enache. R.
(2016), “Contribution of secondary frames to the
mitigation of collapse in steel buildings subjected to
extreme loads”, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering,
12, pp. 45-60.
Mazzolani, F. M. and Piluso, V. (1997). “Plastic design of
seismic resistant steel frames”, Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics, 26(2), pp. 167-191.
McKay, A., Marchand, K., and Diaz, M. (2012) “Alternate
path method in progressive collapse analysis: variation of
875
dynamic and nonlinear load increase factors”, Practice
Periodical on Structural Design and Construction,
ASCE, 17(4), pp. 152-60.
Mohamed, O. A. (2015). “Calculation of load increase
factors for assessment of progressive collapse potential in
framed steel structures”, Case Studies in Structural
Engineering, 3, pp. 11-18.
Ruth, P., Marchand, K. A., and Williamson, E. B. (2006).
“Static equivalency in progressive collapse alternative
path analysis reducing conservatism while retaining
structural integrity”, Journal of Performance of Construction
Facilities, ASCE, 20(4), pp. 349-364.
SAP2000, Linear and nonlinear static and dynamic analysis
of three-dimensional structures, Advanced Version 17.0,
Analysis Ref. Manual, Computer and Structures, Berkeley,
CA, 2014.
Stoddart E. P., Byfield, M. P. Davison, J. B., and Tyas, A.
(2013). “Strain rate dependent component based
connection modelling for use in non-linear dynamic
progressive collapse analysis”, Engineering Structures,
55, pp. 35-43.
UFC (2009). Design of Buildings to Resist Progressive
Collapse, Department of Defence: Unified Facilities
Criteria, UFC 4-023-03, Washington, DC, USA.
Xu, G. and Ellingwood, B. R. (2011). “An energy-based
partial pushdown analysis procedure for assessment of
disproportionate collapse potential”, Journal of Constructional
Steel Research, 67, pp. 547-55.