fire resistance of steel structures
TRANSCRIPT
Page 0
Aniket Gohil MSC STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING | 1431523 | SUPERVISOR: DR. ZHAOHUI HUANG
FIRE RESISTANCE OF STEEL STRUCTURES
Detailed research in acknowledging the purpose and use of Eurocode in regards to fire resistance design with aid of designing of a steel and truss frame and testing it under elevated temperatures and fire load respectively.
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 1
PROJECT SUMMARY
Materials and construction assemblies that include the use of fire resisting materials, measured in
terms of fire endurance time are known as fire resistance-rated-construction. These control the spread
of fire, preventing the loss of structural stability within the prescribed period, with use of fire
resistance. This is also based on occupancy of the building and fire safe objectives available.
In this project, use of finite elements software such as Vulcan and spreadsheet used to design and test
of steel and truss frames under fire and how they react under those circumstances. Spreadsheet is an
advance finite element computer programme used to develop and analyse structures and structural
elements. It is divided into different modules, each module representing an aspect of modelling, e.g.
geometry defining, adding material properties, loading, generating mesh, etc. With aid of these
modules, precise models and results are developed. Vulcan is a three-dimensional computer
programme developed at University of Sheffield. It is used for modelling steel, steel-framed
composites and reinforced concrete buildings in fire. The development of the model extends its
capability to model the dynamic and static behaviour of steel structural elements under fire. It is a
powerful tool to investigate the mechanism of the progressive collapse of an element due to local
failure.
For this particular dissertation, two programs will be used in order to understand and design for the
fire resistance of steel structures: spreadsheet and Vulcan. Various parametric analyses will be carried
out on the program Vulcan on steel members at elevated temperatures at different location within the
frame. Examining these members on Vulcan would mean that the members are analysed in holistic
manner. The tests will be carried out on both protected and unprotected steel members via both
Vulcan and the spreadsheet method. The parameters for the tests are based on fire regime and
characteristics of beam to column connectivity.
The dissertation is based on analysing 2D steel frame via Vulcan and spreadsheet. The building takes
a shape of a 2 storey non sway steel frame comprising of 5 bays, each at a distance of 9m. In the
transverse direction, there are 4 bays with a distance of 6m with a floor height of 4m. The sections for
the different elements used in the structure will be uniform. A number of five scenarios are designed
which include different fire regimes. As this analysis is not based on isolated members, different
characteristics of beam to column connectivity will be analysed including rigid and pinned
connections. For testing of isolated members, spreadsheet method will be used and cross examined on
Vulcan. The results achieved for the steel frame building for the scenarios will then be discussed in
relation to each other.
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 2
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my deepest gratitude and thankfulness to all those who helped me in all stages
to complete this dissertation. I appreciate their support and this would not have been possible without
them. I’d like to personally thank my supervisor Zhaohui Huang and for his help, motivation and
guidance. I would also like to thank my parents Rajesh Gohil and Jignasha Gohil, my sister Jagruti
Gohil and my friends Varad Gokhale, Manas Adhvaryu and Sulheman Khan for their unlimited
support.
I would also like express my deepest gratitude to my various course leaders whose knowledge in
various fields helped me to undertake a project which was not limited to a certain topic. To all my
relatives, friends and others who in a way or another shared their support, morally, financially and
physically.
Above all, thanking to the Great Almighty, the author of knowledge and wisdom, for his countless
love.
THANK YOU
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 3
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY
Author’s declaration
I declare that the work in this dissertation was carried out in accordance with the requirements of the
University’s Regulations and Code of Practice for Taught Programmes and that it has not been
submitted for any other academic award. Except where indicated by specific reference in the text, this
work is my own work. Work done in collaboration with, or with the assistance of others, is indicated
as such. I have identified all material in this dissertation which is not my own work through
appropriate referencing and acknowledgement. Where I have quoted or otherwise incorporated
material which is the work of others, I have included the source in the references. Any views
expressed in the dissertation, other than referenced material, are those of the author.
SIGNED: ……………………………………………………………. DATE: ……………..
(Signature of student)
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 1
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................................... 2
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY ........................................................................................................ 3
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................ 7
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................. 8
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 9
1.1. Background ............................................................................................................................. 9
1.2. Aims and Objectives ............................................................................................................. 10
LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 11
2.1. Fire and Testing .................................................................................................................... 11
2.1.1. Building Fires ................................................................................................................ 11
2.1.2. Compartment Fires ........................................................................................................ 12
2.1.3. Building Regulations..................................................................................................... 13
2.1.4. Standard Fire Curves and Furnace Testing ................................................................... 15
2.1.5. Parametric Fire Curves .................................................................................................. 16
2.1.6. Cardington Fire Test ..................................................................................................... 18
2.1.7. Broadgate Fire ............................................................................................................... 22
MATERIAL PROPERTIES ................................................................................................................. 24
3.1. Thermal Properties of Steel at Elevated Temperature .......................................................... 24
3.1.1. Thermal Expansion ....................................................................................................... 24
3.1.2. Volumetric Specific Heat .............................................................................................. 25
3.1.3. Thermal Conductivity ................................................................................................... 26
3.2. Mechanical Properties of Steel at Elevated Temperature ..................................................... 27
3.2.1. Stress-Strain Relationship ............................................................................................. 28
HEAT TRANSFER .............................................................................................................................. 29
4.1. Heat Transfer for Unprotected Steel Member ....................................................................... 29
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 5
4.2. Heat Transfer for Protected Steel Members .......................................................................... 31
4.3. Section Factor ....................................................................................................................... 32
4.4. Protection Mechanisms ......................................................................................................... 33
FIRE RESISTANCE ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................. 35
5.1. According to Eurocode 3 ...................................................................................................... 35
5.1.1. Calculations for Design Data ........................................................................................ 35
5.2. According to British Standard’s ............................................................................................ 37
5.2.1. Load Ratio Method ....................................................................................................... 37
5.2.2. Moment Capacity Method ............................................................................................ 37
BEHAVIOUR OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS ................................................................................ 38
6.1. Beam Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 38
6.2. Column Analysis ................................................................................................................... 39
METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 40
7.1. Spreadsheet Method .............................................................................................................. 40
7.2. Vulcan ................................................................................................................................... 41
7.2.1. Computer Modelling ..................................................................................................... 41
7.2.2. Capabilities and Limitations ......................................................................................... 41
PROCEDURE ....................................................................................................................................... 43
8.1. Proposed Plan ........................................................................................................................ 43
DESIGN OF STEEL FRAMED BUILDING ....................................................................................... 45
9.1. Primary Beam ....................................................................................................................... 46
9.2. Column .................................................................................................................................. 48
ANALYSIS OF 2D FRAME ................................................................................................................ 49
10.1. Scenario 1: FIRST FLOOR – Bay 1 – ISO Fire with Rigid and Pinned Connections ...... 50
10.2. Scenario 2: FIRST FLOOR – Bay 1 – Parametric Fire with Rigid and Pinned
Connections....................................................................................................................................... 53
10.3. Scenario 3: FIRST FLOOR – Bay 3 – ISO Fire with Rigid and Pinned Connections ...... 55
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 6
10.4. Scenario 4: FIRST FLOOR – Bay 3 – Parametric Fire with Rigid and Pinned
Connections....................................................................................................................................... 58
10.5. Scenario 5: FIRST FLOOR – Bay 1 – 3 – Simultaneous ISO Fire and Parametric Fire
with Rigid Connections ..................................................................................................................... 60
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................... 62
FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................... 64
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 65
APPENDIX I: Spreadsheet FiRE.xls for Determining Critical Temperature ....................................... 68
APPENDIX II: Scenario 1 of 6 (1 of 4 input models) .......................................................................... 70
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 7
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Schematic of Compartment Fire Growth............................................................................... 13
Figure 2: Building regulations approved document B (Volume 1 and 2) ............................................. 14
Figure 3: Time Temperature Curves according to Eurocode ................................................................ 15
Figure 4: ISO 834 Standard Fire Curve ................................................................................................ 16
Figure 5: Floor layout of Cardington test building ............................................................................... 19
Figure 6: Loading of Cardington steel framed building........................................................................ 19
Figure 7: Office layout for Cardington Fire Test .................................................................................. 21
Figure 8: Broadgate fire damages ......................................................................................................... 23
Figure 9: Thermal elongation of steel at elevated temperatures (European Committee for
Standardisation, 2005) .......................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 10: Specific heat of steel as a function of the temperature ........................................................ 26
Figure 11: Thermal conductivity of steel as a function of the temperature (European Committee for
Standardisation, 2005) .......................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 12: Reduction factor for stress-strain steel at elevated temperatures ......................................... 27
Figure 13: Stress-strain relationship for steel at elevated temperatures (European Committee for
Standardisation, 2005) .......................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 14: Stress-strain curve for strain illustrating yield and proof strength ...................................... 28
Figure 15: Heat transfer in an unprotected steel member ..................................................................... 29
Figure 16: Deformation (left) thermal stresses due to fire (right) ......................................................... 29
Figure 17: Heat transfer in protected steel ............................................................................................ 31
Figure 18: Section factor for protected and unprotected steel members (Haller & Cajot, 2006) ......... 32
Figure 19: Critical temperature for simple steel members based on standard fire test ......................... 36
Figure 20: Failure mechanism for simply supported beam (left) and continuous beam (right) ............ 38
Figure 21: Plan view of the building ..................................................................................................... 45
Figure 22: Side view of the building .................................................................................................... 46
Figure 23: Standard fire curves for protected and unprotected primary steel beams ............................ 47
Figure 24: Parametric fire curve for both protected and unprotected beam .......................................... 47
Figure 25: Simply supported beam model ............................................................................................ 49
Figure 26: Bay 1 exposed to ISO fire conditions .................................................................................. 50
Figure 27: Temperature deflection graph of bay 1 (node 82) with isolated member subjected to ISO
fire ......................................................................................................................................................... 50
Figure 28: Time deflection graph of bay 1 with isolated member subjected to ISO fire at node 82 .... 51
Figure 29: Temperature - axial force graph for beam to column connections at bay 1 ........................ 51
Figure 30: Time - axial force graph for beam to column connections at bay 1 .................................... 52
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 8
Figure 31: Temperature deflection relationship of bay 1 and an isolated member subjected to
parametric at node 82 ............................................................................................................................ 53
Figure 32: Time deflection graph of bay 1 with isolated member subjected to parametric fire at node
82 .......................................................................................................................................................... 53
Figure 33: Temperature - axial force graph for beam to column connections at bay 1 subjected to
parametric fire ....................................................................................................................................... 54
Figure 34: Time - axial force graph for beam to column connections at bay 1 subjected to parametric
fire ......................................................................................................................................................... 54
Figure 35: Bay 3 exposed to ISO fire ................................................................................................... 55
Figure 36: Temperature deflection relationship of bay 3 and an isolated member subjected to ISO fire
at node 132 ............................................................................................................................................ 55
Figure 37: Time deflection graph of bay 3 with isolated member subjected to ISO fire at node 132 .. 56
Figure 38: Temperature deflection graph of bay 3 with isolated member subjected to ISO fire at node
132 ........................................................................................................................................................ 56
Figure 39: Time deflection graph on bay 3 with isolated member subjected to ISO 834 fire .............. 56
Figure 40: Time deflection graph of bay 3 with isolated member subjected to parametric fire at node
132 ........................................................................................................................................................ 58
Figure 41: Temperature deflection graph of bay 3 with isolated member subjected to parametric fire
at node 132 ........................................................................................................................................... 58
Figure 42: Time deflection graph of bay 3 with isolated member subjected to parametric fire at node
132 ........................................................................................................................................................ 59
Figure 43: Bays 1-3 exposed to ISO fire ............................................................................................... 60
Figure 44: Temperature deflection graph of bay 1 0 3 and isolated member subjected to
ISO/parametric fire conditions ............................................................................................................. 60
Figure 45: Time deflection graph of bays 1 - 3 subjected to ISO and parametric fire .......................... 61
Figure 46: Temperature axial force graph of beam to column connection at bay 1-3 subjected to
ISO/parametric fire ............................................................................................................................... 61
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Fires by location and type, Great Britain, 2000/01 - 2013/14 [1] ........................................... 11 Table 2: Floor Loading Details ............................................................................................................. 19 Table 3: Thermal properties of common fire protection materials (ECCS Technical Committee 3,
1995) ..................................................................................................................................................... 33 Table 4: Load reduction factor based on partial safety factor according to EC3 .................................. 36 Table 5: Critical temperature values for primary beam members ......................................................... 46 Table 6: Fire resistance and protection steel column ............................................................................ 48
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 9
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
Construction of a structure consists of many stages and layers, one of which is fire protection. Fire
protection is a key element in all structures. Current fire protection strategy integrates a combination
of active and passive fire protection measures. Active fire measures considers the use of fire alarms,
sprinklers, fire extinguishers, etc. that require either human involvement or automatic activation,
which helps control the fire and its effects during fire. Passive fire measures are built into the
structural system by the use of materials in construction of a building, dimensions of building
components and fire compartmentation.
Materials and construction assemblies that include the use of fire resisting materials, measured in
terms of fire endurance time are known as fire resistance-rated-construction (Clayton, 2012). These
control the spread of fire, preventing the loss of structural stability within the prescribed period, with
use of fire resistance. This is also based on occupancy of the building and fire safe objectives
available.
It is now commonly known that to design fire resistance of a beam it is the period of time that it can
maintain a deflection less than span/20 under standard ISO 834 fire condition. If tested without
protection, a usual beam would result in a fire protection of 15 to 20 minutes with its deflection
reached when the temperature is around 550° to 700° C depending on the load.
When designing a building, design practice codes and standards such as Eurocodes and ISO standards
are considered. Recommendations and guidelines are also provided by the local government and
Secretary State of Committee, called “Building regulations”. This consists of regulation determination
for: internal and external fire spread (B3 and B4 respectively of building regulations) and, access and
facilities for the fire service (B5 of building regulation) (BBC, 2014). Eurocode is a structural design
code covering – basis of design, actions on structures, design of elements in structures (concrete, steel,
composite concrete and steel, timber, masonry and aluminium) along with seismic and geotechnical
design.
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 10
In this project, use of finite elements software such as Vulcan and Spreadsheet/CAE are used to
design and test of steel and truss frames under fire and how they react under those circumstances.
Spreadsheet/CAE is an advance finite element computer programme used to develop and analyse
structures and structural elements. It is divided into different modules, each module representing an
aspect of modelling, e.g. geometry defining, adding material properties, loading, generating mesh, etc.
With aid of these modules, precise models and results are developed. Vulcan is a three-dimensional
computer programme developed at University of Sheffield. It is used for modelling steel, steel-framed
composites and reinforced concrete buildings in fire. The development of the model extends its
capability to model the dynamic and static behaviour of steel structural elements under fire. It is a
powerful tool to investigate the mechanism of the progressive collapse of an element due to local
failure.
Fire resistance is an important part in building and structure design. With following Eurocodes and
building regulations, user safety is considered utmost. Along with that, structural life and fire spread
hazards are also considered (Collette, 2007). In case of fire, the ability of loaded structural material to
retain its strength can provide extra time for users in evacuation. It is a challenging task for fire
engineers in delivering structural element that is able to withstand high fire loads for a longer period.
1.2. Aims and Objectives
Aims: The main aim of this individual research project is to acknowledge the purpose and use of
Eurocode in regards to fire resistance design with aid of designing of a steel frame and testing it under
elevated temperatures and fire load respectively.
Objectives: In order to achieve the set aims to this individual research project and project, the
following objectives must be accomplished:
Clearly understand the use of Eurocode 3 and Eurocode 1 in relation to building fire design,
putting it in practice to design a steel and truss frame.
Calculating protected and unprotected steel under fire.
Involving the use of Vulcan programme to understand the behaviour of steel frame at elevated
temperatures and truss frames under fire, failure point for one and progressive column and
analysis of two dimensional steel frame structure in fire.
Comparing and analysing the achieved results to design fires, such as: Eurocode and ISO 834.
Presenting how to minimise the risk of fire and fire spread with use of passive fire protection
measures.
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 11
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
In increase of extreme fire disasters, growth of safety from fire and of life and the developments in
current design standards, the field of fire safety is expanding day by day. Codes and standards provide
guidelines, regulations and techniques to improve fire resistance. With a combination from technical
advances, increased research, and the necessity to predict behaviour of structures, analysation of both
thermal and structural behaviour under fire conditions must be evaluated.
2.1. Fire and Testing
2.1.1. Building Fires
Fire has always been a risk to human life. There have been many scenarios where human life has been
left in danger due to building fires. The aim of fire safety design is to lessen the chances of fire
occurring in buildings. According to data collected by the government, fire scenarios have been
recorded each year.
Table 1: Fires by location and type, Great Britain, 2000/01 - 2013/14 [1]
107.3
85.5 59.0 39.1
2.7
17.2
102.2 66.9
29.5
221.8
251.3
116.3
13.6 7.6 7.7 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Nu
mb
er o
f fi
res
(th
ou
san
ds)
Total Buildings Dwellings Other residential Non-residential
Outdoors Secondary fires Chimney fires
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 12
As seen above in Table 1, the total number of primary fires recorded in 2000/01 was 209,400. At
present the total number of primary fires was decreased by 42% and resulted in 88,500. Similarly,
following the trend, total secondary and chimney fires in 2000/01 was 221,800 and 13,600
respectively which was decreased by 52% and 57%, resulting in 116,300 and 7,700 fires respectively.
As seen throughout the chart, there is a strong decreasing trend in all three sectors: primary, secondary
and chimney fires.
2.1.2. Compartment Fires
Compartment fires relate to the essence of fire growth. In this situation, a “compartment” is any
confined space that has the ability to control the ultimate air supply and thermal environment of fire.
These factors control the spread and growth of fire, its duration and its burning rate (Quintiere, 2006).
During a compartment fire, a Flashover stage is introduced where a rapidly occurring transitional
event leads in the development of compartment fire. Building Research Establishment (BRE) (2005)
states that a factors affecting compartment fires are method of storage, size of the compartment and
ventilation for air supply in the compartment. A flashover is when there is a rapid increase of heat in a
compartment leading to drastic spread of developed fire. Compartment fires are divided into two
stages; pre and post flashover. A pre flashover phase has a bigger influence on human life safety
where the rapid growth of fire and the upper layer of gas is recorded. On the other hand post flashover
fires have influence on structural integrity where a high turbulent flow of gasses and high
temperatures are recorded.
Additionally, post flashover fires are also considered as fuel controlled fires. This scenario is similar
to that of fuel burning in open air with enhancement and from radiant feedback from hot upper layer
of gas. In a fuel controlled burning, all of the heat is released inside a room, avoiding the flames to
extend out the windows like ventilation controlled fire. Figure 1 describes the schematic of
compartment fire growth, defining the flashover stages and ignition, heating and cooling phases. For a
structural design, it is vital to consider both the growth and decay phase of fire.
According to Eurocode, the fire resistance determination in this work is related to ventilation
controlled fire. Ventilation controlled fire depend largely on the shape and the size of the ventilation
opening (International Standard Organization, 1999). According to Corbett (2009), the ventilation
controlled fire in compartment fires is limited by the volume of cool air that can enter and volume of
hot gases that can leave the room. While there is insufficient air flow inside the room, all the gases
tend to not burn out. However these gases extend outwards through the window mixing with outside
air and additional combustion takes place.
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 13
Using the data and the figure displayed above a computer model can be designed in order to provide
aid to fire analyst. This computer model will reveal information like the time of flashover, heat release
rate, fuel available for flashover, ventilation required to prevent flashover and temperature profiles of
the compartment. However it is also vital to understand that this is a computed result from fire
modelling and can be used as ‘reliable estimates’. Every fire is different in some way providing
different outcomes to one another.
2.1.3. Building Regulations
Building regulations are compulsory standards of design and construction that every building has to
achieve. In order to progress onto constructing a designed structure, one has to get an approval from
the Parliament. Laws and regulations which apply to design and construction are set out in Building
Act 1984[2]
.
Currently there are 14 sections to the building regulations, where each one is guided by an approved
document. The approved document provides guidance in meeting the legislations, not a set of rules to
follow. In an approved document, the legislation applied is described in detail followed by a number
of means which must be fulfilled to satisfy the regulations. It is important to comply with the Building
Regulations and there are many ways to do so. In order to comply with the legislation, “Deemed to
satisfy” provision (attached in the approval document) must be achieved.
Building Regulations Approved Document B (fire safety) complies with this particular dissertation.
Part B of the building regulations consists of five aspects of fire safety (HM Government, 2006):
Figure 1: Schematic of Compartment Fire Growth
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 14
B1 Means of warning and escape
Section B1 of the regulations ensures that in the event of fire in a building, it is easy for a person
inside the building to be notified with means of fire alarm and have a satisfactory standard of
means of escape.
B2 Internal fire spread (linings)
Section B2 ensures that the internal linings inside the building do not
support the rapid spread of fire.
B3 Internal fire spread (structure)
Section B3 ensures that in the event of fire, the spread of fire must be
slow and in cavities and voids with the provision of fire resisting
building materials and must include partitions where necessary. The
building must also ensure that no premature collapse should occur.
B4 External fire spread
Section B4 ensures that in the event of external fire, the spacing between buildings must
discourage the spread of fire. This can be controlled by the number and size of the opening on
boundaries.
B5 Access and facilities for the fire service
Section B5 ensures that the building should be designed in such a way that during the event of
fire, fire brigade can easily access the facility to control the fire and rescue anyone caught on fire.
For this particular project, Section B3 is highly related; stating that in the event of fire, the structure
should not easily lose its stability. In order to comply with the standard, load bearing must be added to
the structure so it maintains its ability for a reasonable amount of time.
According to British Standard 6336, there are three ways in which a structure can resist failing in the
event of fire:
Insulation – resisting heat transmission
Integrity – resisting plumes of flames and smoke
Stability – resisting structural failure
Stability is crucial for structural members while integrity and insulation are both important for walls,
flooring and ceiling/roof.
Figure 2: Building
regulations approved
document B (Volume 1 and
2)
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 15
2.1.4. Standard Fire Curves and Furnace Testing
ASTM E119 was one of the first tests to be published about establishing a fire resistance rating
system for steel members through prescribed method. It was called “Standard Test Methods for Fire
Tests of Building Construction and Materials”. Eurocode had since been developed from the basis of
ASTM E119 to develop fire resistance rating tests.
2.1.4.1. Eurocodes
Eurocode 1 Part 2 provides detailed information for design fire of both standard and parametric fire
used in calculations with Eurocode methods. Formulas are provided for three different types of fire
curves: standard, external and hydrocarbon.
Figure 3 shows the time temperature curve according to Eurocode. Using three of the formulas
(formula 01, 02 and 03) for fire curve where, “Θg” represents the gas temperature in degree Celsius
and “t” represents time in minutes.
It can be seen from figure 3 that data for hydrocarbon and external fire are similar in shape.
Hydrocarbon fire temperatures tend to be 75% higher than external fire. The standard fire curve is
similar in shape and values when compared to other standard curves like ISO.
Θg = 20 + 345 log10 (8t + 1) [°C] 01
The external curve is intended for the outside of the separating external walls. When this wall is
exposed to the external cloud of fire coming either from the inside or adjacent to the respective
external wall (Franssen, et al., 2006). Formula 2 defines about the external fire curve.
Figure 3: Time Temperature Curves according to Eurocode
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 16
Θg = 660 (1 – 0.687e-0.32t
– 0.313e-3.8t
) + 20 [°C] 02
In terms of hydrocarbon fire, the following formula is used for to understand the effects of
hydrocarbon fire.
Θg = 1080 (1 – 0.325e-0.167t
– 0.675e-2.5t
) +20 [°C] 03
2.1.4.2. ISO 834
The standard fire curve presented by the International Standard Organisation, ISO 834 is achieved by
using formula 04 producing chart showed in figure 4.
Tg = To + 345 log10 (1 + 8t) 04
2.1.5. Parametric Fire Curves
Along with the use of standard fire curves, many codes and standards are now making use of
parametric fire curves. Parametric fire method is used as a method to approximate post flashover
compartment fires. Parametric fire curve is similar to that of compartment fire with almost same
requirements; the size of compartment, fuel load, ventilation condition and thermal properties of
compartment wall and ceiling (University of Manchester, 2007). When compared to standard fire
curve, parametric fire curves provide a more realistic estimate of the temperature within a
compartment which is more advantageous in structural fire design of steel members. The analysed
results assume that the temperature in the fire compartment is uniform. According to BS EN 1991 – 1
Figure 4: ISO 834 Standard Fire Curve
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 17
– 2 (2002), the method in achieving natural fire model is divided into two categories: simplified fire
models and advanced fire models.
For simplified fire models, Annex A in BS EN 1991 – 1 – 2 contains guidelines in achieving
parametric fire curve in compartment fires. The equation used by the standard is given by Formula 05.
Θg = 20 + 1325 (1 – 0.324e-0.2t*
– 0.24e-1.7t*
– 0.472e-1.9t*
) [°C] 05
Where,
t* = t × Γ Γ = [O/b]2 / (0.04/1160)
2
t = time b = thermal absorptivity for total enclosure
O = opening factor of fire compartment.
Under Annex A of EN 1991 – 1 – 2, there are two restrictions given by;
1. The time-temperature curves are valid for compartment up to 500m2 without any roof openings and
a maximum floor size of up to 4m. It is also assumed that the fire load of the compartment is
completely burned out.
2. If the fire load densities are specified without any specific consideration to combustion behaviour
(see annex E), this approach will then only be applied to fire compartments with mainly cellulosic
type fire loads.
From the equation for parametric fir curve shown in formula 5, the most influential factor is its
opening factor, “O”. It is included in almost all parametric fire curve equations and is used to govern
the behaviour of fire. The opening factor represents the amount of ventilation depending on the
opening area in the compartment walls, on height of the openings and on the total area of enclosure
surface. The value of “b” is introduced in the parametric fire equation to account for the multiple
layers present in the enclosure surface. If however there are not multiple layers then the value of b can
be taken as 1. To calculate the value for b;
b = √(ρcλ)
With many variables and multiple equations needed to create the heating and the cooling phase of the
fire, parametric fire, as described by EN 1991, is said to be a challenging curve for use in design and
practice.
In case of advance fire models (BS EN 1993 – 1 – 2, 2005), the following of the three models should
be used:
1. One-zone models – a uniform time dependent temperature distribution in the compartment.
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 18
2. Two-zone models – upper layer with time dependent thickness and time dependent uniform
temperature and lower layer with time dependent uniform and lower temperature.
3. Computational Fluid Dynamics – CFD models give the temperature evolution in the compartment
in a time and space dependent manner.
2.1.6. Cardington Fire Test
It is vital to understand the behaviour of fire to steel structures, in order to attain information for its
behaviour; a full-scale fire test was carried out in a research facility in the UK. Between 1995 and
1997 a full-scale fire test was conducted on a constructed steel structure at BRE test facility at
Cardington, UK. The test was directed by British Steel Swinden Technology Centre. The aim of the
test was to understand and develop numerical calculation procedures that guide in predicting the
structural behaviour of steel framed building under fire.
The large scale test comprised of four fire tests which were carried out on different parts of the
building in order to understand various facets of structural behaviour. The building was designed as
per the use of an office building and was tested in an open plan.
2.1.6.1. Facility
Four tests were conducted on an eight storey composite frame building within the BRE facility at
Cardington, UK. The frame constructed was of composite steel and concrete to meet the national code
“British Standards”, BS 5950. The steel frame building was also checked for compliance with
provision of EC3 ENV 1993 – 1 – 1 (pre standard for Eurocode 3 during the test phase). One of the
most important things that needs to be considered is that the building was tested under normal
commercial pressure, which would mean that the data produced are realistic and can be applied/
compared to a real structure in order to understand the behaviour of steel in actual fire conditions.
Cardington fire test structure constructed is a braced frame including three core; one central elevator
shaft and two stair wells at either end of the building. Figure 5 defines the layout of the structure,
showing that it consists of five 9m bays along the elevation and 6m-9m-6m bays across the gables
(British Steel plc, Swinden Technology Centre, 1999). The total area of the layout is 45m x 21m.
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 19
For simplicity in design and the aim to reduce costs, only 4 types of beams were used (British Steel
plc, Swinden Technology Centre, 1999): 9m secondary beam of grade S275 with 305x165x40 UB,
9m primary beam of grade S275 with 610x229x101 UB, 6m primary beam of grade S355 with
356x171x51 UB and 9m perimeter beam with grade S355 with 356x171x51 UB.
Due to moderation in design load specification, only 1/3rd
of the definite imposed load was applied
during the tests. The imposed load was implemented using sandbags. On all floors except roof, a total
of 2.4 kN/m2 was used with use of 12 sandbags (demonstrated in Figure 6) around the area of 9mx6m,
each weighing around 1.1 ton. Full details of floor loading are described in Table 2.
Load Case Value (kN/m2)
Composite Slab 2.06
Steel Sections 0.25
Raised Floor 0.4
Services 0.25
Ceilings 0.15
Partitions 1.0
Imposed 0.83 (1/3rd
of design load)
Table 2: Floor Loading Details
2.1.6.2. Tests Conducted
During the time frame of 1993 – 1995, four full scale fire tests were conducted on Cardington test
steel frame building. Each fire test was designed to understand structural behaviour in different ways.
Figure 5: Floor layout of Cardington test building
Figure 6: Loading of Cardington steel framed building
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 20
Tests conducted with details about its objective, description, fire description and the measurement
needed are all defined below. The main focus of the test conducted was, after completion of the
project, the temperature data obtained will be used in understanding and designing of numerical
calculation procedures (British Steel plc, Swinden Technology Centre, 1999).
1D – Restrained Beam
The aim of this test was to understand the structural deformation when a beam is heated and restrained
by a composite slab spanning in two directions, with surrounding steel at ambient temperature.
The restrained beam test was carried out on the 7th floor of the building using a 305x165x40 UB
spanning 9m. In order to achieve a uniform temperature result, a gas fired furnace of 8mx3m was
incorporated in the design and built up to the underside of the composite floor. In order to minimise
heat losses, ceramic fibre collars were fitted at the ends of the beam as they passed through the
furnace wall.
Measurements which were conducted from the test are: temperature, strain gauge measurement,
vertical deflection and rotational measurements.
2D – Plane Frame
The aim of this test was to understand the behaviour of series of beams and columns supported by the
fourth floor by taking a 2D slice across the building. Fire protection also played a necessary role at the
connections.
Understanding the importance of fire protection, all columns of fourth floor were lightly protected up
to a height of 200mm below the connection. However the beams (beam to beam and beam to column)
remained totally exposed to fire. To heat up the structure, at fourth floor a gas fired furnace of
21mx4m was constructed to form a 2.5m corridor across the building.
Measurements which were conducted from the test are: temperature, strain gauge measurement,
vertical deflection, column displacements and rotational measurements.
3D – Corner
The aim of this test was to understand the behaviour of the complete composite floor system,
particularly the importance of membrane action under fire.
This test was conducted on first floor of the building; a compartment of 80m2 area was built in one
corner of the structure. To ensure no load bearing function was provided from gable end walls and
wind posts, all of the restrained ties were removed. In addition, the slots in wall construction were
also provided below the beams to ensure that no additional support to the floor slab was given. This
would prove that the walls of the first floor or the entire structure were nothing more than a non-
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 21
loadbearing for containing the fire. Ventilation with a 7m wide opening was also provided and
partially covered by insulated screen. Although the ventilation conditions were pre calculated,
opening factor of 0.031m1/2
, the screen allowed fractional support to the burning rate temperature
within the compartment. To test the structure with extreme temperature of around 1000°C, the fire
load was increased to 45kg with an increase in the opening factor of 0.034m1/2
.
Based on the structural behaviour to fire in 2D – plane frame test, 25mm of ceramic fibre blanket was
used on all columns and beam to column connections. However, fin plate connections and both
primary and secondary beams remained exposed to fire.
Measurements which were conducted from the test are: temperature, strain gauge measurement,
vertical deflection, column displacements and rotational measurements.
Office Fire (demonstration)
The aim of this test was to conclude the research from previous studies in a more realistic fire
scenario and at the same time assessing other structural behaviour not addressed previously.
A compartment of 18mx10m was constructed in the form of a realistic office. The compartment was
fitted with modern furniture that would be found in a real office along with placing (figure 7),
computers and filing system while making use of the same proportion of wood and plastic (this
information was achieved from a survey carried out in modern office accommodation). The fire
loading of 45.6kg was applied from the total of wood/m2 of floor area. Similarly to previous tests,
columns and beam to column connections were protected with 25mm of ceramic fibre and the beams
(primary and secondary) were left unexposed to fire.
Measurements which were conducted from the test are: temperature, strain gauge measurement and
vertical deflection.
Figure 7: Office layout for Cardington Fire Test
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 22
2.1.6.3. Effect on Fire Protection
The tests conducted on the steel framed building at Cardington, UK described above play a critical
step in structural fire protection of steel members in various ways. These ways were described by
Wang (2002):
1. It is important to examine the use of fire protection on steel members. It is imprtant to know that if
chosen to add fire protection to steel members, in a real construction, this would add labour costa and
extend the time in construction.
2. Research attained from Cardington fire test can be used as knowledge and can also be used as
comparison data to newley designed building for the performance of unprotected steel members.
The results attained from Cardington Fire tests display how structural steel members react under fire
conditions. This can aid engineers in using the data in creating design fires and conditions in
accurately depicting fire occurring in multi storey offices.
All of the data that was recorded at Cardington is now available online by British Steel. With easier
access, engineers can now progress in analysing and understanding of individual steel members along
with the entire steel structure under fire conditions.
2.1.7. Broadgate Fire
A fire was developed during the construction of a fourteen storey building called Broadgate Building
in 1990. During the fire, smoke detectors were not operational and sprinkler systems were not in
operation. It was till such extent that, protection of beams and connections were yet to be applied as
well as fire protective cladding had not been applied to the columns. The entire structure was covered
in plumes of fire causing over £25 million worth of damage, of which only £2 million worth of
damage was caused to the structural steel frame (Wang, et al., 2013).
2.1.7.1. Fire
The Broadgate Fire happened during the construction of a fourteen storey steel framed building. The
structure inhered of steel columns with composite beams, supporting a composite long-span lattice
truss. According to the design, fire protection of the building was to provide for standard fire of 90
minutes, however, with on-going construction, the protection to the structural elements was yet to be
applied. With lack of active measures, the developed fire spread quickly at very high temperatures
causing severe damages.
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 23
According to the reports published and articles provided by Wang, et al., the fire started on the first
floor. The temperatures recorded were over 1000°C in some parts of the floor and the maximum steel
temperature achieved was just below 600°C.
2.1.7.2. Implications
Observing the damages caused by fire at Broadgate building, two theories can be removed (Wang, et
al., 2013).
Theory 1: During the fire scenario, it is known that the fire load was very less as there was no
imposed load acting on the building; the temperatures experienced by the steelwork would have been
fairly lower than the critical temperature of steel which would mean that there would not have been
any structural element failure. However, in this case there was a massive structural element failure;
distortion and local buckling (bottom flanges and webs near the support) was suffered by steel beams.
Failures and damages were also suffered by structural columns (Figure 8a). Due to column failure, the
load bearing capacity was reduced, causing vertical deformation (Figure 8b).
Theory 2: Even after such damages caused on the first floor of the building, the structure was stable
and all the floors retained their durability, preventing the spread of fire to other floors of the building.
This could be because the structure redistributed its loads from the failed elements to other parts of the
structure.
(a) Buckled column and beam deformation
(b) Floor deformation
Figure 8: Broadgate fire damages
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 24
3 MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Properties of steel results from both its me chemical composition and its thermal condition, this could
relate to how the steel has been manufactured, including fabrication process. The standards for the
product define the limits for quality, composition and performance and these limits are used by
structural engineers in designing structures. This chapter evaluates the chemical and thermal
properties of structural steel relating to high temperature.
3.1. Thermal Properties of Steel at Elevated Temperature
3.1.1. Thermal Expansion
Thermal properties of steel define that steel expands at high temperature. High temperature in steel
can be experienced when there’s fire. With high temperature, steel loses its strength (load beating
capacity). Although steel temperatures vary according to the density, thermal conductivity and
specific heat, these differences still do not hold any effect on the strength of steel. Figure 9 define the
steel temperature vs thermal elongation, of how strength of steel is decreased with an increase in
temperature (EN 1993 – 1 – 2: 2005).
Figure 9: Thermal elongation of steel at elevated temperatures (European
Committee for Standardisation, 2005)
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 25
The coefficient of thermal expansion can be used in order to work out the expansion, using Formula
06:
Δl/l = α(T) ΔT 06
Where,
Δl = change in length α(T) = coefficient of thermal expansion
l = initial length ΔT = change in temperature
3.1.2. Volumetric Specific Heat
Specific heat relates to a materials capability to absorb heat. Specific heat for steel is a function of
temperature and is independent of the composition of steel (Farmahini, 2013). The specific heat, “cs”,
in terms of Eurocode (European Committee for Standardisation, 2005) can be achieved using the
Formula 07 given below.
cs = 425 + 7.73 (10-1
)T – 1.69 (10-3
)T2 + 2.22 (10
-6)T
3 [J/kg°C] for 20 ºC ≤ T ≤ 600 ºC 07a
cs = 666 + 13002 / (738 – T) [J/kg°C] for 600 ºC < T ≤ 735 ºC 07b
cs = 545 + 17820 / (T-731) [J/kg°C] for 735 ºC < T ≤ 900 ºC 07c
cs = 650 [J/kg°C] for 900 ºC < T ≤ 1200 ºC 07d
Where,
T = temperature of steel, °C
For simplicity in calculations, specific heat could be considered to be independent of temperature,
giving an average value for cs as 600 J/kg°C.
The variation of specific heat from the formula above when compared to the temperature of steel
provides with graph shown in Figure 10. As seen from the graph shown in Figure 10, it can be seen
that there is a sharp peak at 730°C. According to Eurocode 3, this is because of metallurgical change
in the steel crystal structure.
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 26
3.1.3. Thermal Conductivity
Thermal conductivity relates to the rate at which a material conducts heat. In terms of steel, it all
depends on the temperature and the composition. In comparison to other properties described above
(thermal expansion and volumetric specific heat), thermal conductivity is affected by the
microstructure of steel. According to Eurocode 3, structural steel’s thermal conductivity can be
approximated using the graph shown in Figure 11.
The accurate thermal conductivity of steel can be attained using Formula 8. However, for simpler
calculations, thermal conductivity, λa can be taken as 45 W/mK.
Figure 10: Specific heat of steel as a function of the temperature
Figure 11: Thermal conductivity of steel as a function of the temperature
(European Committee for Standardisation, 2005)
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 27
λa = 54 – 3.33 x10-2 θa [W/mK] for 20 ºC < θa ≤ 800 ºC 08a
λa = 27.3 [W/mK] for 800 ºC < θa ≤ 1200 ºC 08b
Where,
θa = steel temperature [°C]
As noted from Figure 11, there is linear decrease in thermal conductivity as the temperature increase
from 0°C to 800°C and remains constant afterwards.
Thermal conductivity of steel is higher to that of concrete. It is recorded that at room temperature,
thermal conductivity of steel is about 50 W/mK whereas for concrete it is 2 W/mK. Conductivity of
steel is uniform in normal sized sections, however, temperature differences can occur in large sections
or sections which are able to lose heat, e.g. top flange in contact with concrete slab.
3.2. Mechanical Properties of Steel at Elevated Temperature
Creep is the biggest concern in the mechanical properties of steel. If the steel temperature reaches
over 450°C, increase in both the stress and the temperature influences steel to deform. Mechanical
properties of steel change when strength and the stiffness is reduced in steel due to an increase in
temperature. Eurocode 3 defines the temperature dependence in detail using the chart shown in Figure
12. The reduction factor, kθ, is used to determine the resistance of steel to tension, compression,
moment and shear force.
Figure 12: Reduction factor for stress-strain steel at elevated temperatures
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 28
3.2.1. Stress-Strain Relationship
According to Eurocode 3, the stress-strain relationship chart shown in Figure 13 can be used to
determine the strength and the deformation properties of steel at elevated temperatures. This applies
when the steel heating rates are between 2 K/min and 50 K/min.
From the figure shown above, the elements which are unknown:
fy,θ = effective yield strength εy,θ = yield strain
fp,θ = proportional limit εt,θ = limiting strain for yield strength
Ea,θ = slope of the linear elastic range εu,θ = ultimate strain
εp,θ = strain at proportional limit
According to Kodur & Franssen (2010), proof strength can be used in place of yield strength of steel
at elevatd temperatures. The proof strength of steel can be taken as the point from the stress-strain
curve with a line intersecting at 1% strain. Thi is well defined in the chart shown in Figure 14.
Figure 13: Stress-strain relationship for steel at elevated temperatures (European
Committee for Standardisation, 2005)
Figure 14: Stress-strain curve for strain illustrating yield and proof strength
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 29
4 HEAT TRANSFER
4.1. Heat Transfer for Unprotected Steel Member
If a structure was to go under a transient temperature increase with unprotected members, it could
result in a structural member reducing strength. At this high temperature, steel tends to expand and
lose strength causing it to buckle or fail in some cases.
If steel were to have high diffusivity, uniform temperatures exist through the member, whereas steel
with low diffusivity can expect a gradient temperature. Thermal gradient in a structural member will
cause the member to expand unevenly with compression stresses in the hotter section and tension
stresses in the other parts of the section.
The uneven expansion of the member will cause deformation, making the material swell towards the
source of the heat. In scenarios where deformation is restrained or be able to move, the member will
generate additional stresses (as seen in Figure 16) and add those to the external loads (as seen in
Figure 17).
Figure 15: Heat transfer in an unprotected steel member
Figure 16: Deformation (left) thermal stresses due to fire (right)
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 30
During fire, the rise in temperature for steel members depend on the duration of heating,
thermophysical properties of fire and steel members. For this project, Vulcan and design spreadsheet
will be used to design for fire resistance of steel structures; in this program, three forms of heat
transfer are used to evaluate the steel temperature. For design spreadsheet, heat transfer can be
accounted with use of equations.
Formula 9 provides a method to work out the temperature increase in unprotected steel in time step t
(≤ 5 seconds):
a.t = (ksh/caa) × (Am/V) × hnet.d × t 09
Where,
ksh is the shadow effect caused by the local shielding of radiative heat transfer, due to shape of the
steel profile (“⌶” profiles have shadow effects and “◻” profiles don’t). ksh can be calculated using
Formula 10:
ksh = 0.9 × (Am/V)box / (Am/V) 10
According to Eurocode 1 (2002), thermal actions are achieved by net heat flux to surface member.
The net heat flux can be determined by heat transfer through convection and radiation and can be
achieved with Formula 11.
ḣnet = ḣnet,c + ḣnet,r [W/m2] 11
Convection, in terms of fire situation, relates to plume from fire moving past transferring heat to a
cool solid object. Convection is a complex problem to study in terms of fire spread and one can only
assume the flame spread parameters. The net convection can be predicted by using Formula 12:
ḣnet,c = αc × (g – m) [W/m2] 12
Radiation, in terms of fire situation, relates to transfer of heat energy via electromagnetic waves.
These waves can be absorbed by any object that is in the right sight of the heat source. The net
radiation per unit surface area can be predicted by using Formula 13:
ḣnet,r = 5.67 x10-8
× Φεres [(g + 273)4 – (m + 273)
4] [W/m
2] 13
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 31
4.2. Heat Transfer for Protected Steel Members
In order to calculate the heat stored in protective layer for the member, φ, Formula 14 should be used:
φ = [(cpp) / (caa)] × dp × (Ap/V) 14
According to Eurocode 3, the temperature rise in steel in time step t (≤ 30 seconds) can be calculated
using Formula 15:
a.t = (λp / dp)/(caa) × (Ap/V) × (1/(1 + φ/3)) × (g.t – a.t) t – (eφ/10
– 1) g.t 15
The relationship between heat stored in protective layer and the temperature rise in steel relies on
hypothesis that there is no thermal capacity in the insulation. This would mean that transfer of heat to
the member would take longer time. Protective layer generally used contains moisture which causes a
level of increase in heat rate at around 100°C.
In heat transfer for protected steel members, temperature dependent property consists of thermal
conductivity, specific heat and density of insulating materials; of these specific heat and the density
do not change significantly. Thermal conductivity, however, does increase when the temperature goes
from 100°C to 1000°C. The process is very complex and in order to achieve the final thermal
conductivity, calculations need to be run through computer program. For simpler calculations, average
value for conductivity can be used based on the mean temperature of insulation when steel member
reaches maximum safe temperature, or, safety factor can be introduced with maximum acceptable
temperature of around 600°C.
Figure 17: Heat transfer in protected steel
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 32
4.3. Section Factor
Section factor introduced in calculations for both protected and unprotected steel members, Am/V,
refers to the rise in temperature of steel section. The formula “Am/V” is where Am is the surface area
of a member through which heat is flowing to the steel section and V is mass of steel. During fire
scenarios, increase in Am would mean that there is rapid increase in temperature for the member,
inversely; increase in V would mean that there is slow increase in temperature. So, the lower the
section factor of a member, the lower the rate of increase in temperature.
In most cases, section factor for most members is somewhere between 10 and 300. If in cases where
the section factor is more than 300, then the temperature of the member is same as the furnace gases
and if lower than 10 then temperature is varied in the member. Figure 18a shown below displays the
section factors for selected types of unprotected members and Figure 18b displays the section factors
for selected type of protected members.
(a)
(b)
Figure 18: Section factor for protected and unprotected steel members (Haller & Cajot, 2006)
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 33
4.4. Protection Mechanisms
Fire protection mechanisms are used in structures to delay rise in temperature in members when
exposed to fire. In order to achieve the best protective mechanism, a designer must be aware of the
rating of the used factor, such as the properties of the protective materials and the temperature it can
withhold. This usually can be achieved via testing of the structural mechanism, thus validating if it
meets the set criteria by the client and the designer.
The protection mechanisms commonly used in structures are listed below:
Insulating – These are materials with low conductivity adding minimal weight to the
structural member. Usually consisting of SFRM (Sprayed Fire Resistive Material), mineral
fibreboard and ceramic wool.
Absorbing – These are materials that release water of crystallisation in order to reduce the
pace at which the material heats up. Usually gypsum or concrete based products.
Intumescent – These are materials that are applied in the form of coating. Different to
insulating materials, these protective materials tend to expand when exposed to high
temperatures and act as an insulation layer. Materials like this are expensive however provide
great results, such as reduced weight, durability and aesthetics.
The thermal properties of protective mechanisms described in Table 3 below:
Material Unit mass
[kg/m3]
Moisture
content
[%]
Thermal
conductivity
[W/mk]
Specific heat
[J/kgK]
Spray-on
- mineral fibre
- vermiculite cement
- perlite
300
350
350
1
15
15
0.12
0.12
0.12
1200
1200
1200
High density sprays
- vermiculite (or perlite) and cement
- vermiculite (or perlite) and gypsum
550
650
15
15
0.12
0.12
1100
1100
Boards
- vermiculite (or perlite) and cement
- fibre silicate or fibre calcium silicate
- fibre cement
- gypsum boards
800
600
800
800
15
3
5
20
0.20
0.15
0.15
0.20
1200
1200
1200
1700
Compressed fibre boards
- fibre silicate, mineral wool, stone wool
150
2
0.20
1200
Concrete
- lightweight concrete
- concrete bricks
- bricks with holes
- solid bricks
2300
1600
2200
1000
2000
4
5
8
-
-
1.60
0.80
1.00
0.40
1.20
1000
840
1200
1200
1200
Table 3: Thermal properties of common fire protection materials (ECCS Technical Committee 3, 1995)
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 34
Most SFRM protective layers make use of cementious or fibre materials to protect steel from heating.
Mineral fibre and vermiculite cement are most commonly used materials on steel columns, beams and
joists. Materials like these are commercially sold and have proprietary formulations; therefore, it is
crucial that designers must follow manufacture’s recommendations for application.
Protective mechanism like intumescent coatings is largely advantageous. Coatings used have an
appearance of thick film or paint and when these materials are exposed to fire, it chars, foams and
expands to form an insulating layer for the steel member. In order to retain this formed layer,
reinforcing is essential at sharp corners, e.g. flange tips.
Gypsum boards are largely used in protection of members too. These consist of non-combustible
cores and paper to form sheets which are available in range of sizes depending on the member or
recommendation. There are various types of gypsum boards available, special fire resistant types are
best for fire protection.
Mineral fibre products are generally more expensive than other SFRM products but are easy to install
and takes minimal maintenance. Unlike absorbing materials, these products do not consist of wet
process and are therefore easy to maintain too. Materials like these are generally used in projects
where speed and dry process is of important. These materials are supplied with outer sheathing of
either aluminium foil or similar products. Mineral fibre products are fixed to steel members in variety
of methods, such as wire ties, screws, bonding agent, etc.
Concrete protection is largely used in hollow steel members. The biggest advantage in using this
system is that no advance fire protection material is necessary and the load bearing for the member
will be increased (Steel Construction Institute, 2012), however, the member gets bulky and adds more
weight to the structure.
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 35
5 FIRE RESISTANCE ASSESSMENT
5.1. According to Eurocode 3
In order to meet the fire requirements, designers have to follow the given guidelines in Eurocode 3.
This is measured in terms of time. The value of time given via calculation mean that the fire resistance
will protect the structural member from standard fire until that time after which the member will fail.
The time requirements depend on the number of floors in the building, type of occupancy, the fire
load and the amount of active measures in the building.
Fire resistance assessment in terms of Eurocode 3 is based on either standard fire tests in a furnace or
calculations. For this particular dissertation, a graphical rendition of a member resistance is designed
as regards to the temperature; critical load temperature can then be worked out for the given load for
non-composite beams with lateral restraint and tension members.
5.1.1. Calculations for Design Data
The mechanical properties of steel and the protection mechanism change according to the
temperature. In fire scenarios, the effect of temperature on a structural member is constant. As
member temperature increases, the resistance will lose and on resistance failure, the member will fail.
This is called critical temperature, θa,cr. Critical temperature relies upon the member’s ability to
withstand high temperatures in fire conditions. It is independent to the size of the member or the rate
at which member heats up.
In order to achieve the critical temperature, utilisation factors of the member is involved and it is
calculated with measured yield stress. Utilisation factor is the ratio of design loading in fire to design
loading at ambient temperature. It can be calculated with Formula 16:
µ0 = Efi,d / Rfi,d,0 16
Where,
Efi,d = effects of action for fire design, Rfi,d,0 = resistance of isolated member for ambient temperature
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 36
For simpler calculation, to achieve µ0, Formula 17 can be used:
µ0 = ηfi × (γM,fi / γM,1) 17
Where,
ηfi = (γGA Gk + ψ1,1 Qk,1) / (γGA Gk + γQ,1 Qk,1)
The simpler formula (Formula 17) is said to be traditional formula, as ηfi is calculated as the amount
of design loading at ambient temperature. The partial safety factor for steel is 1,0.
At ambient temperature, permanent loads and combination factor or variable loads are: 1.35 and 1.5,
respectively. Whereas in fire design, permanent loads and combination factor or variable loads are 1.0
and 0.5, respectively. Table 4 shows the load reduction factor based on partial safety factor according
to EC3.
Qk,1 / Gk 1 2 3 4
ηfi 0.53 0.46 0.43 0.41
Table 4: Load reduction factor based on partial safety factor according to EC3
Shown below in Figure 19 is a graph of critical temperature vs degree of utilisation, µ0, for simple
steel members based on standard fire test.
The curve achieved in the graph is based off formula from EC3 (Eq 4.22), where the critical
temperature is expressed as a function of the degree of utilisation μ0, for class 1, 2 and 3 steel
sections:
Θa,cr = 39.19 × ln × [(1/(0.9674 (µ0)3.833
) – 1] + 482 18
The formula used can only be applied to non-composite members with section classification of class
1, 2 or 3 sections subjected to tension or bending that are restrained to prevent instability effects.
Figure 19: Critical temperature for simple steel members based on
standard fire test
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 37
5.2. According to British Standard’s
According to British Standards, in order to determine the fire resistance of a member, BS5950-8 shall
be used and worked out using the load ratio method. Load ratio method is independent in comparison
to other fire resistance methods as it only requires the temperature in the critical section of the
member with the strength reduction of the member in fire scenarios. The fire temperature in the
compartment or in the member is achieved from the fire test data or thermal model. Moment capacity
method is also provided by BS5950-8 but however is sophisticated than the load ratio method and is
generally used on complex structures where temperature data is available.
5.2.1. Load Ratio Method
The load ratio method describes all the combined effects acting on the structural member in fire
conditions. Load ratio for members in bending would be the applied moment on the member at fire
limit state divided by the moment capacity of the member. It is assumed that the member is not
subjected to second order effects resulting from deflection.
Load ratio provides the designer with stress in the member at the fire limit state relative to the design
strength of the member. The higher the load ratio, the higher the retention of strength in member
during fire. Therefore, the temperature of the critical element to resist the applied load will be lower.
5.2.2. Moment Capacity Method
Carrying out small scale fire test on a structural member of a complex structure to obtain thermal
profile has proven to be inexpensive. Using the data obtained from the test, its fire resistance can be
evaluated by considering its strength properties in the section at elevated temperatures. This is known
as the Moment Capacity method and can be applied to composite beams, shelf angles and slim floors.
It is the foundation of the method in determining the resistance of composite floors in fire.
Page 38
6 BEHAVIOUR OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS
A fire in a compartment can affect the entire structure, its members and its mechanical, physical,
chemical and thermal properties. A steel framed structure subjected to fire relies on a number of
properties: degradation of materials at high temperatures and restraint stiffness of the structure around
fire. Elevating temperatures in a structure are the reason for deflections and failures. Failure of a
member links to failure of a structure. Failure of the member relies upon the size and shape of the
member, the location of the member, the location of fire and the type of protective mechanism
applied.
6.1. Beam Analysis
The occurrence of beams with lateral buckling at elevated temperature is very rare as most beams are
braced by floor system (Bennetts & Thomas, 2002). Bennetts and Thomas’ research findings were
based off the data produced by Cardington Fire Test Building of eight storey steel framed building
subjected to full scale fire test. It was recorded by the group that, unprotected steel beams designed to
be composite linked with composite floor slab in fire perform better than an isolated beam subjected
to fire. With this research, it can be noted that protection for some structural members can be avoided
as they provide a better result overall, also saving time and cost of the project.
Lewinger, et al. (1999) designed and tested a three storey steel framed building under fire conditions
and reviewed the difference between design moment strength and ultimate moment strength and that
the moment capacity of the structure need to be evaluated as the reserve moment capacity. The results
for reverse moment strength were analysed and later discussed that after two hour of fire resistance,
the reverse moment strength with a yield stress of 250 MPa or 345 MPa is less than the temperature
moment strength. This measn that the higher the steel performance, the better its durability under fire
and ambient temperatures. Therefore the overall fire resistance of the structure can be improved with
the use of high performance steel. Shown below in figure is the failure mechanism of simply
supported beam and continuous beams.
Figure 20: Failure mechanism for simply supported beam (left) and continuous beam (right)
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 39
6.2. Column Analysis
According to Bailey (1999), the internal and external columns at Cardington Fire Test facility are
subjected to high moments which are caused by the expansion of connecting beams during fire test. It
was also sated in the report by Bailey that if the moments were included withihn the member in the
design process, then calcaulations would prove that the member was subjected to failure due to local
plasticity. The research further stated that the instability in column was affected by the heating rates in
beam to column, cross seciton and span of the beams, end rigidity of heated column and axial load at
the column. It was also proven that, cross section of column, connection rigidity of beam to column
and the horizontal restraint to the heated beams had shown to have nominal effect on behaviour of
column during fire.
Going back to Bennetts and Thomas (2002) research on Cardington Fire Test data, the reduction in
the failure temperature for steel column varies with its slenderness, for example the failure
temperature of a bulky column with slenderness ratio of 40 will be reduced by 100°C. Both Bennetts
and Thomas’ and Bailey’ research prove similar point of where columns are affected with expansion
of connecting beams in fire. The research further studies that due to the expansion of the beams
linking to expansion of floors, significant bending moments were established withi the columns. Other
factors to consider when analysing the failure of column is the end connection, size of column to
beam connection and the temperature of the column. It should also be noted that the presence of
thermal gradient in column reduces the failure temperature even more, while uniform distribution
proves beneficial.
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 40
7 METHODOLOGY
For this particular dissertation, two programs will be used in order to understand and design for the
fire resistance of steel structures: spreadsheet and Vulcan. This chapter will provide with brief
information about the test methods, its capabilities and limitations.
7.1. Spreadsheet Method
The results achieved form the finite element program, Vulcan will be used in comparison to Eurocode
3 calculation method. This will be done with aid of excel spreadsheet filed called FiRE.XLS which is
generally used to predict the temperature of a steel member using heat transfer theory to understand
and estimate the heat energy transferred to the member. The methods to achieve heat transfer to
protected and unprotected members are generally the same, with use of different formulas presented
in Chapter 4 to allow for the effect of protection on the rate of heating for steel member.
With use of the spreadsheet, the temperature of the beam can be calculated between intervals, by
considering the energy transferred to the beam during the previous time step. The duration of the time
step does not affect the calculated temperature however only defines the temperature of steel member
at a particular time.
The spreadsheet assumes that the structural steel member is of constant thickness and does not have
thermal gradient. This is governed by the section factor of the member. This is called a lumped mass
approach where no regard for the actual geometry of the cross section is given. Constant value for the
thermal properties of steel, such as specific heat and density are used in the spreadsheet to simplify
the method and number of variables.
Thermal properties and geometry of the steel member are averaged values and will not exactly be the
same when constructed in place. This would prove that accuracy is a must, if however, errors occur,
then other factors such as the temperature of the fire and the member interaction with fire may not
exactly be the same. This however is very rare to occur in a real design and construction of structure.
It is known that the spreadsheet data provides higher temperatures than other finite element programs,
such as Spreadsheet, the results achieved are acceptable to be used in design of a compartment or
when it is a four sided exposure and when analysing the temperature elevation of a simply supported
members.
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 41
7.2. Vulcan
7.2.1. Computer Modelling
It is highly expensive to perform structural fire test, in order for designers to understand and design
for fire, computer simulations are now highly used. The data achieved from the tests performed in
these programs are used in understanding and designing for structural members in elevated
temperatures. This type of method is becoming readily available over the recent years and engineers
are now using these programs to design structural members. For this project, Vulcan finite element
program will be used to design a for fire resistance.
Vulcan is a non-user friendly program which works from a textual input file. It precisely describes the
structure / compartment to be modelled as a series of node connected by beam to column, shell or
spring elements, each by its specific geometry and material property. A heating regime and
temperature increments are prescribed in the program. The file is then reformulated to make it more
user friendly and improve its flexibility for future enhancements.
Vulcan takes an input file, processes its nonlinear finite element analysis and creates an output file of
results. The input filed can be analysed in series of batch file, allowing parametric studies to be
performed easily. This output file can then be interrogates in spreadsheet program.
7.2.2. Capabilities and Limitations
With advantages in use of finite element programs to understand its capabilities, there are a few
limitations too. The beam to column elements in Vulcan are presented as two node line elements with
each note consisting of eight degrees of freedom. The degree of freedom for this element represents
the strain and displacement in each of the three dimensions together with three selected derivatives of
these degrees of freedom (which signifies either direct-strains or shear-strains) with twisting and
warping. The eight degrees of freedom are transformed into eleven global co-ordinates. In order for a
model to be solved it is therefore necessary that three degrees of freedom are constrained at each
node. This can be done either manually by applying external boundary conditions or via being
constrained by other elements.
Limitations in Vulcan are that, only I shaped section can be defined in the elements. The only way
other shaped elements can be approximated is by defining I section with similar cross section
properties similar to the ones of desired shape. Tapered elements can also be approximated by
dividing long element along its length into sub elements, which is in smaller cross sectional area.
Spring elements have the same degrees of freedom as beam-column elements (Huang, 2011),
however, spring elements ae normally used to represent semi rigid connections so their rotational
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 42
stiffness properties are modified in an analysis to simulate behaviour of moment connection with
temperature dependent stiffness and capacity. The author can then reformulate the input file to specify
each spring element as one of a choice of pre-defined types. Based off the results from Cardington
Test Fire, pinned, rigid and semi rigid elastic characteristics have been also been defined along with
two temperature dependent characteristics representing full and partial depth end plate connections.
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 43
8 PROCEDURE
In this dissertation various parametric analyses will be carried out on the program Vulcan on steel
members at elevated temperatures at different location within the frame. Examining these members on
Vulcan would mean that the members are analysed in holistic manner. The tests will be carried out on
both protected and unprotected steel members via both Vulcan and the spreadsheet method. The
parameters for the tests are based on fire regime and characteristics of beam to column connectivity.
The dissertation is based on analysing 2D steel frame via Vulcan and spreadsheet. The building takes
a shape of a 2 storey non sway steel frame comprising of 5 bays, each at a distance of 9m. In the
transverse direction, there are 4 bays with a distance of 6m with a floor height of 4m. The sections for
the different elements used in the structure will be uniform.
8.1. Proposed Plan
In order to design for fire resistance, the proposed plans are that before the testing begins, the section
size of the members will be selected prior to designing, the members will be analysed according to
Eurocode 3 via the spreadsheet. The fire resistance time for the elements will be evaluated and the
hand calculations will be proposed for both protected and unprotected steel members. Both types of
members will be tested against standard and parametric fires to observe how these members react to
various fire conditions.
Simply supported beams will then be tested in Vulcan at elevated temperatures. The analysis will only
be carried out on unprotected beams exposed to ISO and parametric fire. The entire frame will then be
tested on Vulcan; the frame will be divided into segments to allow variation of temperatures, stress
and strain.
A number of five scenarios are designed which include different fire regimes. As this analysis is not
based on isolated members, different characteristics of beam to column connectivity will be analysed
including rigid and pinned connections. For testing of isolated members, spreadsheet method will be
used and cross examined on Vulcan. The results achieved for the steel frame building for the
scenarios will then be discussed in relation to each other. The scenarios are mentioned on the next
page.
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 44
List of 5 scenarios for the proposed steel frame building:
Scenario 1: FIRST FLOOR – Bay 1 will be exposed to ISO 834 time-temperature fire regime with use
of rigid and pinned beam to column connection.
Scenario 2: FIRST FLOOR – Bay 1 will be exposed to parametric time-temperature fire regime with
use of rigid and pinned beam to column connection.
Scenario 3: FIRST FLOOR – Bay 3 will be exposed to ISO 834 time-temperature fire regime with use
of rigid and pinned beam to column connection.
Scenario 4: FIRST FLOOR – Bay 3 will be exposed to parametric time-temperature fire regime with
use of rigid and pinned beam to column connection.
Scenario 5: FIRST FLOOR – Bays 1-3 will simultaneously be exposed to ISO 834 time-temperature
fire regime with use of rigid beam to column connection.
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 45
9 DESIGN OF STEEL FRAMED BUILDING
In this chapter, steel frame building will be designed also evaluating elements and section sizes.
Spreadsheet program will be used to determine critical temperature of the elements according to
Eurocode 3. As mentioned in previous chapter, this is a non-sway building with 5 bays, each at 9m
and in the transverse direction, 4 bays, each with 6m and a floor height of 4m. Figure 21 shows the
side view of the building. As seen from the figure, line of symmetry has been added in the side view
of the building at half way point, this allows for a repetitive frame of the structure to be analysed in
Vulcan more manageably.
Secondary beams are attached to the building along the longitudinal axes, with them being placed
halfway between each transverse bay. With attachment of secondary beams, it is assumed that
primary beams are laterally restrained and in torsion at the mid span. The plan view of the building is
shown in Figure 22.
Figure 21: Plan view of the building
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 46
9.1. Primary Beam
A primary beam with a section size 610x305x179 UB has been selected and verified for the
calculation analysis. The member has been categorised as Class 1 section; cross-section that can form
a plastic hinge with rotational capacity from plastic analysis without reduction of the resistance. In
finite element analysis, this beam will be exposed to three sided heating to simulate the condition of a
concrete slab on top of the member. Fire resistance and protection of primary beam is shown in Table
5.
Fire resistance and protection of primary beam
(Class 1 Cross-Section)
fy = 355N/mm2 Design Bending Moment, Msd = 1548.2 kNm
Permanent action, Gk = 12.2 kN/m2 Resistance bending moment, MRd = 1630.9 kNm
Variable action, Qk = 23 kN/m2 Shear capacity, Vpl, Rd = 1613.7 kN
Combination factor, Ψ1.1 = 0.5 Design moment in fire, Mfi,sd = 719.9 kNm
Qk,1/Gk = 1.9 Adaptation factor, k1 = 0.85
Reduction factor, ηfi = 0.465 Adaptation factor, k2 = 1
Critical temperature, θcr = 629.7°C
Table 5: Critical temperature values for primary beam members
The critical temperature achieved for an unprotected beam exposed to ISO fire is calculated to be
658.659°C at a time of 9.33 minutes.
Standard fire curves calculated for protected and unprotected beams are shown in graph displayed in
Figure 23.
Figure 22: Side view of the building
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 47
In order to protect the structure from fire, fire resistance shall be applied to extend the time until
structural failure. This also saves lives of people inside the building. For primary beam to achieve 60
minutes of fire protection and as per Eurocode 3, sprayed mineral protection of 10mm was used. After
the application, the temperature of primary bean reduced to 628.06°C.
Comparing the temperature data achieved from both protected and unprotected beams, it is not an
improvement in terms of failure time for the beam. This could be due to the time temperature curve
provided by the spreadsheet. The failure of the beam at relatively low time is due to the design fire
quickly reaching high temperatures as shown in Figure 24.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600 4200 4800 5400 6000 6600 7200
Te
mp
era
ture
(o
C)
Time (sec)
Starndard Fire
Gas Temp Protected Unprotected
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600 4200 4800 5400 6000 6600 7200
Te
mp
era
ture
(o
C)
Time (sec)
Parametric Fire
Gas Temp Protected Unprotected
Figure 24: Parametric fire curve for both protected and unprotected beam
Figure 23: Standard fire curves for protected and unprotected primary steel beams
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 48
For parametric fire, primary beam’s temperature is nowhere close to the critical temperature and is
found to be at 133.3°C at the 60 minute mark. In fact, the highest temperature achieved by the
protected beam in parametric fire is 234.8°C at 32.25 minutes. Therefore it is vital to make use of
unprotected primary beams in Vulcan analysis and to keep columns protected in order to extend the
column failure time.
It is interesting to note the characteristics of fire interacting with protected and unprotected beams. At
45 minute mark the fire temperature of protected beam is higher (190.3°C) than that of unprotected
beam (114.1°C). This is because the application of protection layer to the beam increases its overall
heat capacity of the member and gradually dissipates the heat.
9.2. Column
A column with a section size of 203x203x71 UC has been selected and verified for calculation
analysis. According to Eurocode 3 the member is classes as Class 1 section; cross-section that can
form a plastic hinge with rotational capacity from plastic analysis without reduction of the resistance.
Throughout the testing the column will be exposed to a four sided fire exposure with one hour
duration during the Vulcan analysis process. Fire resistance and protection of the column is shown in
Table 6.
Fire resistance and protection of column
(Class 1 Cross-Section)
fy = 355N/mm2 Total design axial compression, Nsd = 1696.2 kN
Combination factor, Ψ1.1 = 0.8 Effective length factor = 0.7
Qk,1/Gk = 1.9 slenderness, λ = 52.9
Reduction factor, ηfi = 0.600 Normalised slenderness, λ/λ1 = 0.692
Buckling resistance, Nb,Rd = 1754.87 kN Normalised slenderness at θa, λθ = 0.785
Design loading in fire, Nfi,sd = 1018.3 kN
Buckling resistance at time t with
uniform θa, Nb,fi,t,Rd = 1932.8 kN
Table 6: Fire resistance and protection steel column
As mentioned above in primary steel analysis, all columns will be protected and as per column
analysis, it usually buckles at around 406°C. Temperature achieved from steel column at 60 minute
mark is 607.2°C for ISO fire and for parametric fire, the temperature achieved in steel column at 60
minute mark is 215°C. As seen from the temperatures, the column is sufficient to remain stable. Even
though the temperature achieved for column from ISO fire exceeds the limit, it would mean that the
beam would face higher temperature and is predicted that the beam will fail much earlier than the
column.
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 49
10 ANALYSIS OF 2D FRAME
When designing for fire, it is essential that critical members of the structure are evaluated for fire
resistance and these members should be tested for ISO 834 fire time temperature curve. It is not
economical to perform fire test for each member of the structure but with help from finite analysis
software, Vulcan, structural analysis simulation can be run under more realistic boundaries, providing
results faster and more accurate. This type of analysis also demonstrates the non-uniform temperature
distribution within the member section.
From the primary beam analysis, the section size chosen is a 610x305x179 UB with a span of 9m.
The beam is simply supported from both ends with one end of the beam free to move in longitudinal
direction. The beam will only be exposed to three sided heating and will be subjected to both standard
and parametric fire conditions.
For Vulcan, the beam is modelled as a 13 nodes, each spaced at a distance of 750mm. Three node
beam elements will be used for this analysis which means that the beam will result in six elements as
shown in Figure 25. The analysis will be followed for both protected and unprotected beams. The
permanent and variable actions for primary beams are 12.2 kN/m2 and 23 kN/m
2 respectively.
In order to understand the analysis thoroughly, deflections attained by the beams within a structure
will be compared to the deflection of the isolated beams for both ISO and parametric fire test. As
mentioned priorly, all beams will be unprotected and column protected. Beams will be exposed to
three sided heating whereas; columns will be to four sided heating. The fire duration during testing is
designed to for 60 minutes.
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Figure 25: Simply supported beam model
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 50
10.1. Scenario 1: FIRST FLOOR – Bay 1 – ISO Fire with Rigid and Pinned
Connections
The first scenario is based on ISO 834 fire with rigid and pinned beam to column connection for bay
1. This scenario focuses on achieving ISO 834 time temperature for two cases. Pinned beam to
column connections are only considered for scenario 2, 3, and 4 where individual compartments are
tested.
Critical temperature achieved for the beam in this structure is reached at the mid span of 450mm as
per the ‘span/20’ rule set by BS5950 – 8. Beams with same connection types have closely the same
temperature deflection curve whose results and data are relatively related. So, whether the beam is
exposed to ISO fire or parametric fire, the deflection temperature achieved will be the same; the only
difference will be between time temperature relationship. The deflection temperature for simply
supported beam is also plotted for comparison.
According to the results achieved, the pinned connection and simply supported beams reach their
critical temperature at 485°C whereas rigid connections reach their critical temperature at 660°and
628°C for ISO and parametric fire respectively. The simply supported beam reaches highest
deflection of 1065mm before failing. Simply supported and pinned connection starts to lose their
strength at 220°C after which the point increases dramatically. The transition for rigid connection is
not as gradual; the connection starts to lose its strength at 510°C onwards.
Figure 26: Bay 1 exposed to ISO fire conditions
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000
-1200
Temperature Deflection Relationship
Def
lect
ion
(m
m)
Temperature (°C)
Span/20
Rigid
Pinned
Simply Supported Beam (ISO)
Figure 27: Temperature deflection graph of bay 1 (node 82) with isolated member subjected to ISO fire
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 51
It should be noted that there can never be a perfect rigid or pinned connection. The data presented is
just a comparison between the two rather than predicting what will happen to the connection itself. It
should also be noted that rigid connections’ deformation process occurs in such a manner that the
stress occurring is distributed along the span of the beam and the cooler areas of the structure provides
restraint so that the beam does not fail before reaching its critical temperature.
It is evident that with use of ISO fire, structural elements heat much quicker than that of parametric
fire. There are various ways possible to model for parametric fire, so, reaching the temperature peak
could take much longer than that of ISO fire. It must be noted that data generated by ISO fire are not
realistic and therefore, a designer must pay enough research time in producing more realistic
parametric fire. Eurocode 3 mentions that with ISO fire, an unprotected beam can take between 6.52
minutes – 9.25 minutes to reach its critical temperature. According to the results achieved from the FE
analyses, an unprotected beam can take between 7 minutes – 11.9 minutes to reach its critical
temperature.
From Figure 29, it can be noted that the axial force gradually increases and then restores its force by
declining. The axial force for rigid connection is noted to be at 68 kN at 498°C. The beam then fails in
tension mode.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000
-1200
Time Deflection Relationship
Def
lect
ion
(m
m)
Time (sec)
Span/20
Rigid
Pinned
Simply Supported Beam (ISO)
Figure 28: Time deflection graph of bay 1 with isolated member subjected to ISO fire at node 82
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
80
20
0
-80
40
60
-20
-40
-60
Temperature – Axial Force Relationship
Axi
al F
orc
e (
kN)
Temperature (°C)
Rigid (ISO)
Pinned (ISO)
Figure 29: Temperature - axial force graph for beam to column connections at bay 1
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 52
There are various ways in modelling for beam to column connections. This is compared by Huang
(2011) where he has compared his achieved results with Block, et al.’s (2007). The results have been
compared for a compresive component based models where in Block et al.’s model, the connection
used is represented as assembly of springs which represents individaul components of the connection,
such as tension bolt rows, shear bolt rows and compression parts of beam and column’ web and
flange. In comparison form Huang and Block et al.’s work, for this analyses two noded spring
element is used in which the stiffness and the strength is determined based on each component of the
connection. Therefore, the results achieved for this connection is predicted to be better when
comparted to prediction by Block et al.’s model.
80
20
0
-80
40
60
-20
-40
-60
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time – Axial Force Relationship
Axi
al F
orc
e (
kN)
Time (sec)
Rigid (ISO)
Pinned (ISO)
Figure 30: Time - axial force graph for beam to column connections at bay 1
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 53
10.2. Scenario 2: FIRST FLOOR – Bay 1 – Parametric Fire with Rigid and Pinned
Connections
As stated above, the results achieved for temperature deflection relationship is the same as that for
scenario 1 for ISO fire due to the use of same connection. As also stated above, the stiffness of the
pinned column can be modelled in various ways. However, with pinned connection, it can be noted
from the results shown in Figure 31 that there is warning before the connection fails compared to
simply supported beam where the deflection is not as sudden.
Comparing the critical temperature achieved for the simply supported beam with results calculated
from Eurocode 3, the results are noted to be very close. However, this should not be used as a general
rule as this needs more results and data confirmation in order to be approved for the suggestion. Since
the utilisation factor achieved is only for isolated members, this can be modified in order and the
result can be based on the structures as part of the whole building.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000
-1200
Temperature Deflection Relationship
Def
lect
ion
(m
m)
Temperature (°C)
Span/20
Rigid (parametric)
Pinned (parametric)
Simply Supported Beam
(parametric)
Figure 31: Temperature deflection relationship of bay 1 and an isolated member subjected to parametric at node 82
0
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000
-1200
Time Deflection Relationship
Def
lect
ion
(m
m)
Time (sec)
Span/20
Rigid (parametric)
Pinned (parametric)
Simply Supported Beam
(parametric)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Figure 32: Time deflection graph of bay 1 with isolated member subjected to parametric fire at node 82
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 54
The data show in the graph in Figure 33 indicate that tensile axial force acting on the connection
behaviour develops more significant as the temperature increases. The curve achieved for the pinned
connect ion beam in Figure 31 follows the same pattern of rigid connection beam from scenario 1,
however, it only manages to reach an axial force of 29 kN. Beams with these connections tend to fail
at higher tensile force when compared to rigid connection.
As seen from the results, parametric fire scenario evaluates that internal connections take longer to
reach the maximum compressive value than ISO fire scenario (Scenario 1). If parametric fire was
modelled in a way that if the higher temperatures were to take longer time to reach the maximum
temperature then the diagram would be expected to elongate. It can be noted that rigid connections
take higher loads at elevated temperatures and do not fail as easily as pinned connections.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
80
20
0
-80
40
60
-20
-40
-60
Temperature – Axial Force Relationship
Axi
al F
orc
e (
kN)
Temperature (°C)
Rigid (parametric)
Pinned (parametric)
Figure 33: Temperature - axial force graph for beam to column connections at bay 1 subjected to parametric fire
80
20
0
-80
40
60
-20
-40
-60
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time – Axial Force Relationship
Axi
al F
orc
e (
kN)
Time (sec)
Rigid (ISO)
Pinned (ISO)
Figure 34: Time - axial force graph for beam to column connections at bay 1 subjected to parametric fire
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 55
10.3. Scenario 3: FIRST FLOOR – Bay 3 – ISO Fire with Rigid and Pinned
Connections
This scenario is designed to understand how beams respond to fire with more axially loaded columns.
Structural members tend to obtain a higher critical temperature with higher rotational restraint. It is
known that the cool adjoining members restrain the thermal elongation along with the end rotations of
a beam at elevated temperature. Therefore, there is significant restoring effect from rotational restrains
for beams at elevated temperatures.
According to the results achieved, it can be seen that for rigid connection beam, the critical
temperature achieved is 650°C. The beam shows longer deflection in comparison to scenarios 1 and 2.
The rigid connection beam fails at 730°C with maximum deflection of 1080 mm. On the other hand,
pinned connection beam has a critical temperature of 485°C and fails at 543°C which is improved in
comparison to pervious scenarios. The results also prove that the pinned connection beams fail at
lower temperature in comparison to rigid connection beams.
Figure 35: Bay 3 exposed to ISO fire
0
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000
-1200
Temperature Deflection Relationship
Def
lect
ion
(m
m)
Temperature (°C)
Span/20
Rigid (ISO)
Pinned (ISO)
Simply Supported Beam (ISO)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Figure 36: Temperature deflection relationship of bay 3 and an isolated member subjected to ISO fire at node 132
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 56
According to the results shown for temperature axial force relationship in Figure 38, both the
connections experience gradual increase in axial forces with sudden decline. This could be due to the
connections experiencing a greater tensile force as they are slowly deflected. The temperature axial
force relationship for rigid connection beam are almost four times greater than that of pinned
connection beam.
0
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000
-1200
Time Deflection Relationship
Def
lect
ion
(m
m)
Time (sec)
Span/20
Rigid (ISO)
Pinned (ISO)
Simply Supported Beam (ISO))
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Figure 37: Time deflection graph of bay 3 with isolated member subjected to ISO fire at node 132
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
280
70
0
-280
140
210
-70
-140
-210
Temperature – Axial Force Relationship
Axi
al F
orc
e (
kN)
Temperature (°C)
Rigid (ISO)
Pinned (ISO)
Figure 38: Temperature deflection graph of bay 3 with isolated member subjected to ISO fire at node 132
280
70
0
-280
140
210
-70
-140
-210
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time – Axial Force Relationship
Axi
al F
orc
e (
kN)
Time (sec)
Rigid (ISO)
Pinned (ISO)
Figure 39: Time deflection graph on bay 3 with isolated member subjected to ISO 834 fire
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 57
The connection in this scenario show more realistic restrained conditions due to the placement of two
protected columns at either end of the tested beam. The connections were subjected to axial
compression force due to thermal expansion of the beam at high temperature at the beginning of the
test which then concluded in reduction of axial compression force and changing to tensile axial force
as the beam had lack of stiffness at experienced high temperatures with catenary’s action resulting
from the large deflections. The tensile axial forces are expected to increase too if the test was run
during the cooling phase of the fire.
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 58
10.4. Scenario 4: FIRST FLOOR – Bay 3 – Parametric Fire with Rigid and Pinned
Connections
The compressive axial forces in the heated beams were generated at the first stage of fire due to the
restrain of columns. Therefore, the compressive axial forces at bay 3 are twice the forces recorded at
bay 1.The axial tensile force were developed in the later stages due to catenary action. It is clear from
the achieved results that the axial tensile forces at both the positions mirror their compressive axial
force counterparts.
The restraint provided by the columns has insignificant influence on the catenary action of the beams.
If however, the beam does not reach its critical temperature then the FE analysis to generate axial
forces which were generated during the cooling phase of fire. Tensile forces will be generated in
beams due to thermal shrinkage and this will be greater in magnitude than tensile forces generating in
beams with catenary position (Bailey, et al., 1996).
Looking at the graph drawn from the results achieved, the temperature at which the rigid connection
beam fails is at 730°C which is 100°C more than the failure temperature for the connection at bay 1.
Having experiencing these high temperatures with connections experiencing tensile forces, structural
0
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000
-1200
Time Deflection Relationship
Def
lect
ion
(m
m)
Time (sec)
Span/20
Rigid (parametric)
Pinned (parametric)
Simply Supported Beam
(parametric)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 16000
Figure 40: Time deflection graph of bay 3 with isolated member subjected to parametric fire at node 132
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
280
70
0
-280
140
210
-70
-140
-210
Temperature – Axial Force Relationship
Axi
al F
orc
e (
kN)
Temperature (°C)
Rigid (parametric)
Pinned (parametric)
Figure 41: Temperature deflection graph of bay 3 with isolated member subjected to parametric fire at node 132
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 59
members in bay 4 are less likely to fail. With constant heat acting towards the beam, catenary actions
are slowly developed, the tensile forces begin to decrease.
The pinned connection beams for both ISO and parametric fires reach their highest compressive
internal forces at time interval of 6 and 10 minutes with temperatures of 410°C and 415°C,
respectively. The tensile forces achieved in bay 4 are 115 kN and 120 kN at a temperature of 510C°
which is more than double in comparison to that of bay 1.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
280
70
0
-280
140
210
-70
-140
-210
Time – Axial Force Relationship
Axi
al F
orc
e (
kN)
Time (sec)
Rigid (parametric)
Pinned (parametric)
Figure 42: Time deflection graph of bay 3 with isolated member subjected to parametric fire at node 132
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 60
10.5. Scenario 5: FIRST FLOOR – Bay 1 – 3 – Simultaneous ISO Fire and
Parametric Fire with Rigid Connections
In this scenario, the entire floor will be subjected to ISO fire with only rigid connections. The analysis
that will be carried out will be compared to the results achieved in previous scenarios. It is expected
that the beams will reach their critical temperature and failure point at a lower temperature in
comparison to single compartment fires with lower mid span deflection at failure point, like previous
scenarios.
From the results achieved in FE analysis, the temperature achieved for bay 1 stands at 625°C with the
beam failing at temperature and deflection of 640C and 835 mm respectively. Simulation for bays 2
and 3 are shortened as it is expected that due to bay 1 failing first, critical temperatures for other bays
cannot be obtained. All beams show to fail at a temperature of 639°C due to the failure of beam at bay
1. Higher deflection is achieved for other bays in comparison to bay 1 and follow the same deflection
curve for bay 4.
The results achieved from the FE analysis show that connections reach a higher axial forces at low
temperatures compared to individual compartment fires. On average, the compressive force achieved
is 43 kN which is more than that of individual compartment fire, at an averaged reduction of strength
at 240°C. As following the pattern, there is a gradual increase in compressive force which is followed
by restoration of that force as it starts to experience tensile force.
Figure 43: Bays 1-3 exposed to ISO fire
0
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000
-1200
Temperature Deflection Relationship
Def
lect
ion
(m
m)
Temperature (°C)
Span/20
Bay 3
Bay 1
Simply Supported Beam
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Figure 44: Temperature deflection graph of bay 1 0 3 and isolated member subjected to ISO/parametric fire conditions
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 61
Understanding individual compartment fires for each bays, the connection for the bays fail with an
increase of tensile force. For bay 1 and 2, the failure of bay was occurred with internal tensile force of
-50 kN and -29 kN, respectively. On the other hand failure of bays due to internal compressive force
for bays 3 and 4 occurred at 28 kN and 70 kN, respectively. Therefore, for individual compartment
fire, the connections fail at a progressively compressive as opposed to tensile region. This is caused
by the elongation of beams due to thermal expansion.
Looking at the results demonstrated in Figure 45, the internal forces acting on the beam to column
connections depend on the fire characteristics in terms of temperature and time. So, whether the
connection is exposed to either of the fire regimes, same internal forces would give same
temperatures; the only difference would be when the temperature is reached. With the difference in
the characteristics for ISO and parametric fires, axial forces develop quicker in ISO fires than
parametric fire.
Looking at the generated graphs and the results projected from FE analysis, the end of the curves
remain identical for a short period of time, which is a very strange pattern. This could be due to the
fact that Vulcan runs numerous iterations at the failure temperature which is then plotted with a time
temperature fire produced via the spreadsheet. Therefore, time axial force and temperature axial
forces for bay 2 and 3 are incomplete due to the simulation stopping after the failure of beam at bay 1.
0
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000
-1200
Time Deflection Relationship
Def
lect
ion
(m
m)
Time (sec)
Span/20
Bay 3 (parametric)
Bay 1 (parametric)
Bay 1 (ISO)
Bay 3 (ISO)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Figure 45: Time deflection graph of bays 1 - 3 subjected to ISO and parametric fire
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
400
100
0
-400
200
300
-100
-200
-300
Temperature – Axial Force Relationship
Axi
al F
orc
e (
kN)
Time (sec)
Bay 3
Bay 1
Figure 46: Temperature axial force graph of beam to column connection at bay 1-3 subjected to ISO/parametric fire
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 62
11 CONCLUSION
It is vital to understand the importance of fire resistance of steel structures and it is still based on the
performance of isolated members in fire test. Procedures provided by the design codes do not capture
the true performance of the whole frame. The future of structural fire design needs to be evaluated in
terms of the whole structural performance during fire, including natural fire exposures, calculations
for heat transfer and structural behaviour for the entire frame; understanding how the interaction
between all elements from the heated parts to the cooler parts in the structure.
Various types of grading methods were used throughout this project, out of which standard fire
proved to be very useful for protection materials; however, one has to understand its limitations as
means of representing reality. The results achieved from the fire tests undertaken prove promising but
one must not rely just on computed data as there are other influences and interactions in a real
structure to expect a simple under presentative test to provide the answer.
Critical temperature in terms of Eurocode 3 relates to load utilisation factor at the start of the heating
process and boundary conditions for beams are same as the room temperature. While the utilisation
factor is computed at the very beginning, BS EN 1991 – 1 – 2 assumes that both axial forces and
moment contributions remain constant during the heating phase. On the other hand finite element
analysis shows that the internal forces change substantially with change in temperature. Therefore,
numerical approached provided by deign codes (BS5950 – 8 and BS EN 1991 – 1 – 2) are insufficient
as they are only provide results for simply supported members exposed to ISO 834 fire.
Making use of both ISO time-temperature curve and parametric fire curve, it is evident that the
elements heat up quicker in an ISO time-temperature curve than that of parametric curve. There are
various ways in modelling for fire resistance therefore; heating an element may take longer to peak. It
can be noted that results achieved from ISO fire are not realistic, so more research needs to be done in
creating more realistic parametric time-temperature curve.
Critical temperatures according to Eurocode 3 fall short of critical temperature achieved. However,
results achieved for the simply supported beam from finite element model was close to Eurocode 3
data. The results achieved from Vulcan prove that the beam can obtain high temperatures and yield in
subtle manner rather than failing right away.
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 63
Adding of internal forces and strains for a heated beam with moments acting on each end and axial
load added to the beam, it demonstrates that external moments can reduce the critical temperature of
beam to column connections. Rigid beam to column connection tend to have a higher critical
temperature value than that of pinned or isolated. Thus, calculation of load utilisation factor must
include the external moment for rotationally restrained beam, when calculating for beam critical
temperature.
As noted from the results, the compressive axial force at the very last internal bay is much higher than
that of force at edge bay. This was due to restraint of the columns with compressive axial force in the
early stages of fire. The tensile forces in the later stages were because of catenary action. Similarly to
compressive axial force, the axial tensile forces increase from edge bay down to internal bay. The
restraints provided from columns and types of connections used have a huge influence on catenary
action of beams.
The results achieved from finite element analyses prove promising with regards to structural response
and critical temperature of the beam. There is a strong interaction between structural members proven
by the analyses due to material deterioration and thermal expansion of members. Boundary conditions
must also be incorporated in the model as these affect the overall behaviour of members at high
temperatures.
There is a huge development of internal force within the building structure, the analyses has shown on
how the structure was able support its loads at elevated temperatures. The results achieved show that
the thermal effects and bowing are major issue. This was due to the thermal gradients that govern the
response of the structure for the range of temperature in fire. The internal forces developed exceed
that of imposed loads. The results also show that with part of the structure being subjected to
enormous thermally imposed loads causing loss of strength, the cooler parts of the structure
redistribute the stresses to maintain structural stability.
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 64
12 FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS
The main aim of this project was to understand structural behaviour to elevated temperatures.
However, if the project were to be done again, research into structural behaviour during the cooling
phase will also be considered as it is believed that the failures caused in Broadgate Fire occurred
during its cooling phase. Computer analyses provide evidence that during the cooling phase of the
structure, high axial tensile forces are developed which causes the structure to fail. Therefore,
structural integrity can be maintained when it’s under fire but lose it all during its cooling phase.
In terms of fire design, compartment fires are localised, however, there is a possibly of when fire
spread may develop where fire barriers have failed and the fire doors are left open. Modelling for
situations like this is more realistic when compared to simultaneous fire across a building floor. This
can be adopted in future study in order to compare the data that can be achieved for deflections of mid
span beam to the data achieved in this dissertation. Further studies can be done with use of different
time temperature curves and relationships between adjacent bays.
Investigating bays 2 and 3, similar mid-span displacement have been achieved, however, the axial
forces generated do not show similar results like prior. Further parametric study needs to be done on
different fire and structural scenarios in order to confirm that the similar results achieved for mid-span
displacement is not coincidental before concluding. Also, the 2D frame can be converted into a 3D
frame to generate more realistic results including continuous floor slabs which prove to have a
significant effect on the structural behaviour in fire.
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 65
13 REFERENCES
[1]
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/399294/FSGB_2013-
14_Time_Series_Tables_1a_-_16.xlsx
[2] http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/buildingregulations/
---
Bailey, C. G., Burges, I. W. & Plank, R. J., 1996. The Lateral-torsional Buckling of Unrestrained Steel
Beams in Fire. J. Constr. Steel Research, 36(2), pp. 101-119.
Bailey, C. J., 1999. The influence of the thermal expansion of beams on the structural behaviour of
columns in steel-framed structures during a fire. Engineering Structures, 22(7), pp. 755-768.
BBC, 2014. Building regulations approval. [Online]
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/building-regulations-approval/when-you-need-approval
[Accessed 11 02 2015].
Bennetts, I. D. & Thomas, I. R., 2002. Design of steel structures under fire conditions. Progress in
Structural Engineering and Materials, 4(1), pp. 6-17.
Block, F. M., Burgess, I. W., Davison, J. & Plank, R. J., 2007. The development of a component-based
connection element for endplate connections in fire. Fire Safety Journal, Volume 42, pp. 498-506.
BRE, n.d. Cardington Fire Data. [Online]
Available at: http://data.bre.co.uk/page.jsp?id=4
[Accessed 23 02 2015].
British Steel plc, Swinden Technology Centre, 1999. The Behaviour of Multi-Storey Steel Framed
Buildings in Fire, Rotherham: British Steel plc, Swinden Technology Centre.
BS EN 1991-1-2, 2002. Actions on Structures, Part 1-2: General Actions - Actins on structures exposed
to fire, ISBN: 0580428605: BSI.
BSI, n.d. Eurocode 1: Actions on structures. [Online]
Available at: http://shop.bsigroup.com/Browse-By-Subject/Eurocodes/Descriptions-of-
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 66
Eurocodes/Eurocode-1/
[Accessed 22 02 2015].
BSI, n.d. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures. [Online]
Available at: http://shop.bsigroup.com/Browse-By-Subject/Eurocodes/Descriptions-of-
Eurocodes/Eurocode-3/
[Accessed 21 02 2015].
Building Research Establishment, 2005. The integrity of Compartmentation in Buildings During a Fire,
s.l.: Building Research Establishment Ltd.
Clayton, W., 2012. Performance of unprotected steel and composite steel frames exposed,
Christchurch: University of Canterbury.
Collette, K. A., 2007. Comparisons of Structural Designs in Fire, Worcester: Worcester Polytechnic
Institute.
Corbett, G., 2009. Fire Engineering’s Handbook for Firefighter I and II. Tusla: PennWell Corporation.
ECCS Technical Committee 3, 1995. Fire Resistance of Steel Structures, Brussels: European
Convention for Constructional Steelwork.
European Committee for Standardisation, 2005. Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 1-2:
General rules - Structural fire design, s.l.: European Committee for Standardisation.
Farmahini, R., 2013. The Influence of Structure Continuity on the Fire Resistance of Steel Members,
Uxbridge: s.n.
Franssen, Jean, M. & Zaharia, R., 2006. Design of Steel Structures Subjected to Fire, background and
Design Guide to Eurocode 3. 2nd ed. Belgium: Les Editions De L'Universite De Leige.
Haller, M. & Cajot, G. L., 2006. FIRE RESISTANCE OF STEEL STRUCTURES, s.l.: Arcelor LCS Research
Centre.
HM Government, 2006. The Building Regulations 2010 - Approved Document B, s.l.: HM
Government.
Huang, Z., 2011. A Simplified Model for Analysis of End-plate Connections. Structural Fire
Engineering, 2(4), pp. 269-288.
Huang, Z., 2011. A Simplified Model for Analysis of End-plate Connections. Journal of Structural Fire
Engineering, 4(2), pp. 269-288.
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 67
International Standard Organization, 1999. ISO 834-1 Fire-resistance tests - Elements of building
construction - Part 1: General requirements, London: ISO.
Kodur, V. & Franssen, J. M., 2010. Structures in Fire: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference.
Lancaster: DEStech Publications, Inc.
Lewinger, C. V., Green, P. S., Sputo, T. & Nguyen, L. A., 1999. Improved fire resistant design of
structural steel buildings using high-performance steels. Toronto: DEStech Publications, Inc..
Playing With Fire, 2007. Standard ISO 834. [Online]
Available at: http://playingwithfires.weebly.com/standard-iso-834.html
[Accessed 19 02 2015].
Quintiere, J. G., 2006. Fundamentals of Fire Phenomena. Chinchester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Steel Construction Institute, 2012. Steel Designers’ Manual. 7th ed. s.l.:John Wiley & Sons.
University of Manchester, 2007. One-Stop Shop in Structural Engineering. [Online]
Available at: http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/
[Accessed 12 08 2015].
Wang, Y., Burgees, I., Wald, F. & Gillie, M., 2013. Performance-Based Fire Engineering of Structures.
Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Wang, Y. C., 2002. An Analysis of the Global Structural Behaviour of the Cardington Steel-Framed
Building During the Two BRE Fire Tests. Engineering Structures, 22(5), pp. 401-412.
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 68
APPENDIX I: Spreadsheet FiRE.xls for Determining Critical Temperature
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 69
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 70
APPENDIX II: Scenario 1 of 6 (1 of 4 input models)
<HEADER>
2D STEEL FRAME (Case 1 of 4 - BAY 1 - ISO FIRE w/ RIGID CONNECTION)
{HEADER}
<VERSION>
6
{VERSION}
<PROGRAM CONTROL>
0 0 0
1.000 1.000
1 0.000 0.000 0.0003 1.000
10 0
{PROGRAM CONTROL}
<STRUCTURE INFORMATION>
304 55 55 15 0 0
500 0.0 10 11
1 1 1 1
{STRUCTURE INFORMAITON}
<NODAL GEOMETRY>
1 0 0 0
2 9000 0 0
3 18000 0 0
4 0 0 1000
5 9000 0 1000
6 18000 0 1000
7 0 0 2000
8 9000 0 2000
9 18000 0 2000
10 0 0 3000
11 9000 0 3000
12 18000 0 3000
13 0 0 4000
14 1 0 4000
15 750 0 4000
16 1500 0 4000
17 2250 0 4000
18 3000 0 4000
19 3750 0 4000
20 4500 0 4000
21 5250 0 4000
22 6000 0 4000
23 6750 0 4000
24 7500 0 4000
25 8250 0 4000
26 8999 0 4000
27 9000 0 4000
28 9001 0 4000
29 9750 0 4000
30 10500 0 4000
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 71
31 11250 0 4000
32 12000 0 4000
33 12750 0 4000
34 13500 0 4000
35 14250 0 4000
36 15000 0 4000
37 15750 0 4000
38 16500 0 4000
39 17250 0 4000
40 17999 0 4000
41 18000 0 4000
42 18001 0 4000
43 18750 0 4000
44 19500 0 4000
45 20250 0 4000
46 21000 0 4000
47 21750 0 4000
48 22500 0 4000
49 23250 0 4000
50 24000 0 4000
51 0 0 5000
52 9000 0 5000
53 18000 0 5000
54 0 0 6000
55 9000 0 6000
56 18000 0 6000
57 0 0 7000
58 9000 0 7000
59 18000 0 7000
60 0 0 8000
61 1 0 8000
62 750 0 8000
63 1500 0 8000
64 2250 0 8000
65 3000 0 8000
66 3750 0 8000
67 4500 0 8000
68 5250 0 8000
69 6000 0 8000
70 6750 0 8000
71 7500 0 8000
72 8250 0 8000
73 8999 0 8000
74 9000 0 8000
75 9001 0 8000
76 9750 0 8000
77 10500 0 8000
78 11250 0 8000
79 12000 0 8000
80 12750 0 8000
81 13500 0 8000
82 14250 0 8000
83 15000 0 8000
84 15750 0 8000
85 16500 0 8000
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 72
86 17250 0 8000
87 17999 0 8000
88 18000 0 8000
89 18001 0 8000
90 18750 0 8000
91 19500 0 8000
92 20250 0 8000
93 21000 0 8000
94 21750 0 8000
95 22500 0 8000
96 23250 0 8000
97 24000 0 8000
98 0 0 9000
99 9000 0 9000
100 18000 0 9000
101 0 0 10000
102 9000 0 10000
103 18000 0 10000
104 0 0 11000
105 9000 0 11000
106 18000 0 11000
107 0 0 12000
108 1 0 12000
109 750 0 12000
110 1500 0 12000
111 2250 0 12000
112 3000 0 12000
113 3750 0 12000
114 4500 0 12000
115 5250 0 12000
116 6000 0 12000
117 6750 0 12000
118 7500 0 12000
119 8250 0 12000
120 8999 0 12000
121 9000 0 12000
122 9001 0 12000
123 9750 0 12000
124 10500 0 12000
125 11250 0 12000
126 12000 0 12000
127 12750 0 12000
128 13500 0 12000
129 14250 0 12000
130 15000 0 12000
131 15750 0 12000
132 16500 0 12000
133 17250 0 12000
134 17999 0 12000
135 18000 0 12000
136 18001 0 12000
137 18750 0 12000
138 19500 0 12000
139 20250 0 12000
140 21000 0 12000
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 73
141 21750 0 12000
142 22500 0 12000
143 23250 0 12000
144 24000 0 12000
145 0 0 13000
146 9000 0 13000
147 18000 0 13000
148 0 0 14000
149 9000 0 14000
150 18000 0 14000
151 0 0 15000
152 9000 0 15000
153 18000 0 15000
154 0 0 16000
155 1 0 16000
156 750 0 16000
157 1500 0 16000
158 2250 0 16000
159 3000 0 16000
160 3750 0 16000
171 4500 0 16000
172 5250 0 16000
173 6000 0 16000
174 6750 0 16000
175 7500 0 16000
176 8250 0 16000
177 8999 0 16000
178 9000 0 16000
179 9001 0 16000
180 9750 0 16000
181 10500 0 16000
182 11250 0 16000
183 12000 0 16000
184 12750 0 16000
185 13500 0 16000
186 14250 0 16000
187 15000 0 16000
188 15750 0 16000
189 16500 0 16000
190 17250 0 16000
191 17999 0 16000
192 18000 0 16000
193 18001 0 16000
194 18750 0 16000
195 19500 0 16000
196 20250 0 16000
197 21000 0 16000
198 21750 0 16000
199 22500 0 16000
200 23250 0 16000
201 24000 0 16000
202 0 0 17000
203 9000 0 17000
204 18000 0 17000
205 0 0 18000
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 74
206 9000 0 18000
207 18000 0 18000
208 0 0 19000
209 9000 0 19000
210 18000 0 19000
211 0 0 20000
212 1 0 20000
213 750 0 20000
214 1500 0 20000
215 2250 0 20000
216 3000 0 20000
217 3750 0 20000
218 4500 0 20000
219 5250 0 20000
220 6000 0 20000
221 6750 0 20000
222 7500 0 20000
223 8250 0 20000
224 8999 0 20000
225 9000 0 20000
226 9001 0 20000
227 9750 0 20000
228 10500 0 20000
229 11250 0 20000
230 12000 0 20000
231 12750 0 20000
232 13500 0 20000
233 14250 0 20000
234 15000 0 20000
235 15750 0 20000
236 16500 0 20000
237 17250 0 20000
238 17999 0 20000
239 18000 0 20000
240 18001 0 20000
241 18750 0 20000
242 19500 0 20000
243 20250 0 20000
244 21000 0 20000
245 21750 0 20000
246 22500 0 20000
247 23250 0 20000
248 24000 0 20000
249 0 0 21000
250 9000 0 21000
251 18000 0 21000
252 0 0 22000
253 9000 0 22000
254 18000 0 22000
255 0 0 23000
256 9000 0 23000
257 18000 0 23000
258 0 0 24000
259 1 0 24000
260 750 0 24000
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 75
261 1500 0 24000
262 2250 0 24000
263 3000 0 24000
264 3750 0 24000
265 4500 0 24000
266 5250 0 24000
267 6000 0 24000
268 6750 0 24000
269 7500 0 24000
270 8250 0 24000
271 8999 0 24000
272 9000 0 24000
273 9001 0 24000
274 9750 0 24000
275 10500 0 24000
276 11250 0 24000
277 12000 0 24000
278 12750 0 24000
279 13500 0 24000
280 14250 0 24000
281 15000 0 24000
282 15750 0 24000
283 16500 0 24000
284 17250 0 24000
285 17999 0 24000
286 18000 0 24000
287 18001 0 24000
288 18750 0 24000
289 19500 0 24000
290 20250 0 24000
300 21000 0 24000
301 21750 0 24000
302 22500 0 24000
303 23250 0 24000
304 24000 0 24000
{NODAL GEOMETRY}
<NEW BEAM SECTION>
2 1 1
3
3 3 3
2 2 2
3 1 1 1
355 210000 0.3
460 200000 1
-35 0.25 0.2
1 2 1 1 1
544.5 211.9 211.9 21.3 21.3 12.7 10 9 9
2 2 1 1 1
222.2 209.1 209.1 20.5 20.5 12.7 10 9 9
3 2 1 1 1
209.6 205.2 205.2 14.2 14.2 9.3 10 9 9
{NEW BEAM SECTINO}
<CONNECTION INFORMATION>
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 76
1
1
1
4 2 2 2 2
388.0 494.0 210000.0
412.0 545.0 195000.0
388.0 494.0 210000.0
412.0 545.0 195000.0
275.0 387.0 210000.0
412.0 545.0 195000.0
600.0 827.0 210000.0
780.0 1082.0 210000.0
1 2 1 1 1 1 1
290.0 300.0 8.5 14.0 27.0 11300.0 182600000.0 208.0
300.0 150.0 7.1 10.7 15.0 5380.0 83560000.0 557000.0 248.6 278.6
380.0 200.0 16.0
50.0 100.0 100.0 30.0 190.0 54.65 289.65
2 1 1
90.0 245.0 20.0 22.0 45.0 1
90.0 245.0 20.0 22.0 45.0 1
50.0 245.0 20.0 22.0 45.0 1
0.0 6.283
70.0 90.0
2 1 1 1 1 1 1
290.0 300.0 8.5 14.0 27.0 11300.0 182600000.0 208.0
300.0 150.0 7.1 10.7 15.0 5380.0 83560000.0 557000.0 248.6 278.6
380.0 200.0 10.0
50.0 100.0 100.0 70.0 180.0 54.65 234.65
1 1
50.0 245.0 20.0 22.0 45.0 1
50.0 245.0 20.0 22.0 45.0 1
0.0 6.0
3 1 1 1 1 1 2
290.0 300.0 8.5 14.0 27.0 11300.0 182600000.0 208.0
300.0 150.0 7.1 10.7 15.0 5380.0 83560000.0 557000.0 248.6 278.6
380.0 200.0 16.0
50.0 100.0 100.0 70.0 180.0 54.65 234.65
1 1
50.0 245.0 20.0 22.0 45.0 2
50.0 245.0 20.0 22.0 45.0 2
0.0 6.0
{CONNECTION INFORMATION}
<MEMBER DATA>
1 7 0 0
1 1 9 5 0 2 1 1 3 90 0
2 7 0 0
2 2 10 6 0 2 1 1 3 90 0
3 7 0 0
3 3 11 7 0 2 1 1 3 90 0
4 7 0 0
4 4 12 8 0 2 1 1 3 90 0
5 7 0 0
5 9 17 13 0 2 1 1 3 90 0
6 7 0 0
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 77
6 10 31 14 0 2 1 1 3 90 0
7 7 0 0
7 11 45 15 0 2 1 1 3 90 0
8 7 0 0
8 12 59 16 0 2 1 1 3 90 0
9 1 0 0
9 17 18 4 1 1 1 1 180
10 7 0 60.0
10 18 20 19 0 1 1 1 3 0 0
11 7 0 60.0
11 20 22 21 0 1 1 1 3 0 0
12 7 0 60.0
12 22 24 23 0 1 1 1 3 0 0
13 7 0 60.0
13 24 26 25 0 1 1 1 3 0 0
14 7 0 60.0
14 26 28 27 0 1 1 1 3 0 0
15 7 0 60.0
15 28 30 29 0 1 1 1 3 0 0
16 1 0 0
16 30 31 4 1 1 1 1 180
17 1 0 0
17 31 32 4 1 1 1 1 180
18 7 0 60.0
18 32 34 33 0 1 1 1 3 0 0
19 7 0 60.0
19 34 36 35 0 1 1 1 3 0 0
20 7 0 60.0
20 36 38 37 0 1 1 1 3 0 0
21 7 0 60.0
21 38 40 39 0 1 1 1 3 0 0
22 7 0 60.0
22 40 42 41 0 1 1 1 3 0 0
23 7 0 60.0
23 42 44 43 0 1 1 1 3 0 0
24 1 0 0
24 44 45 4 1 1 1 1 180
25 1 0 0
25 45 46 4 1 1 1 1 180
26 7 0 60.0
26 46 48 47 0 1 1 1 3 0 0
27 7 0 60.0
27 48 50 49 0 1 1 1 3 0 0
28 7 0 60.0
28 50 52 51 0 1 1 1 3 0 0
29 7 0 60.0
29 52 54 53 0 1 1 1 3 0 0
30 7 0 60.0
30 54 56 55 0 1 1 1 3 0 0
31 7 0 60.0
31 56 58 57 0 1 1 1 3 0 0
32 1 0 0
32 58 59 4 1 1 1 1 180
33 1 0 0
33 59 60 4 1 1 1 1 180
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 78
34 7 0 60.0
34 60 62 61 0 1 1 1 3 0 0
35 7 0 60.0
35 62 64 63 0 1 1 1 3 0 0
36 7 0 60.0
36 64 66 65 0 1 1 1 3 0 0
37 7 0 0
37 17 71 67 0 2 1 1 2 90 0
38 7 0 0
38 31 72 68 0 2 1 1 2 90 0
39 7 0 0
39 45 73 69 0 2 1 1 3 90 0
40 7 0 0
40 59 74 70 0 2 1 1 3 90 0
41 7 0 0
41 71 79 75 0 2 1 1 2 90 0
42 7 0 0
42 72 93 76 0 2 1 1 2 90 0
43 7 0 0
43 73 107 77 0 2 1 1 3 90 0
44 7 0 0
44 74 121 78 0 2 1 1 3 90 0
45 1 0 0
45 79 80 4 1 1 1 1 180
46 7 0 60.0
46 80 82 81 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
47 7 0 60.0
47 82 84 83 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
48 7 0 60.0
48 84 86 85 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
49 7 0 60.0
49 86 88 87 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
50 7 0 60.0
50 88 90 89 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
51 7 0 60.0
51 90 92 91 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
52 1 0 0
52 92 93 4 1 1 1 1 180
53 1 0 0
53 93 94 4 1 1 1 1 180
54 7 0 60.0
54 94 96 95 0 1 1 1 3 0 0
55 7 0 60.0
55 96 98 97 0 1 1 1 3 0 0
{MEMBER DATA}
<AXIAL STIFNESS>
1000000000000.0
{AXIAL STIFNESS}
<SPRING SLACKNESS>
10000
{SPRING SLACKNESS}
<BOUNDARY CONDITIONS>
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 79
1 111111
2 111111
3 111111
4 111111
5 10101
6 10101
7 10101
8 10101
9 10101
10 10101
11 10101
12 10101
13 10101
14 10101
15 10101
16 10101
17 10101
18 10101
19 10101
20 10101
21 10101
22 10101
23 10101
24 10101
25 10101
26 10101
27 10101
28 10101
29 10101
30 10101
31 10101
32 10101
33 10101
34 10101
35 10101
36 10101
37 10101
38 10101
39 10101
40 10101
41 10101
42 10101
43 10101
44 10101
45 10101
46 10101
47 10101
48 10101
49 10101
50 10101
51 10101
52 10101
53 10101
54 10101
55 10101
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 80
56 10101
57 10101
58 10101
59 10101
60 10101
61 10101
62 10101
63 10101
64 10101
65 110111
66 10101
67 10101
68 10101
69 10101
70 10101
71 10101
72 10101
73 10101
74 10101
75 10101
76 10101
77 10101
78 10101
79 10101
80 10101
81 10101
82 10101
83 10101
84 10101
85 10101
86 10101
87 10101
88 10101
89 10101
90 10101
91 10101
92 10101
93 10101
94 10101
95 10101
96 10101
97 10101
98 10101
99 10101
100 10101
101 10101
102 10101
103 10101
104 10101
105 10101
106 10101
107 10101
108 10101
109 10101
110 10101
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 81
111 10101
112 10101
113 10101
114 10101
115 10101
116 10101
117 10101
118 10101
119 10101
120 10101
121 10101
122 10101
123 10101
124 10101
125 10101
126 110111
127 10101
128 10101
129 10101
130 10101
131 10101
132 10101
133 10101
134 10101
135 10101
136 10101
137 10101
138 10101
139 10101
140 10101
151 10101
152 10101
153 10101
154 10101
155 10101
156 10101
157 10101
158 10101
159 10101
160 10101
161 10101
162 10101
163 10101
164 10101
165 10101
166 10101
167 10101
168 10101
169 10101
170 10101
171 10101
172 10101
173 10101
174 10101
175 10101
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 82
176 10101
177 10101
178 10101
179 10101
180 10101
181 10101
182 10101
183 10101
184 10101
185 10101
186 10101
187 110111
188 10101
189 10101
190 10101
191 10101
192 10101
193 10101
194 10101
195 10101
196 10101
197 10101
198 10101
199 10101
200 10101
201 10101
202 10101
203 10101
204 10101
205 10101
206 10101
207 10101
208 10101
209 10101
210 10101
211 10101
212 10101
213 10101
214 10101
215 10101
216 10101
217 10101
218 10101
219 10101
220 10101
221 10101
222 10101
223 10101
224 10101
225 10101
226 10101
227 10101
228 10101
229 10101
230 10101
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 83
231 10101
232 10101
233 10101
234 10101
235 10101
236 10101
237 10101
238 10101
239 10101
240 10101
241 10101
242 10101
243 10101
244 10101
245 10101
246 10101
247 10101
248 110111
249 10101
250 10101
251 10101
252 10101
253 10101
254 10101
255 10101
256 10101
257 10101
258 10101
259 10101
260 10101
261 10101
262 10101
263 10101
264 10101
265 10101
266 10101
267 10101
268 10101
269 10101
270 10101
271 10101
272 10101
273 10101
274 10101
275 10101
276 10101
277 10101
278 10101
279 10101
280 10101
281 10101
282 10101
283 10101
284 10101
285 10101
CE5516 Fire Resistance of Steel Structures 1431523
Page 84
286 10101
287 10101
288 10101
289 10101
290 10101
291 10101
292 10101
293 10101
294 10101
295 10101
296 10101
297 10101
298 10101
299 10101
300 10101
301 10101
302 10101
303 10101
304 110111
0 0
{BOUNDARY CONDITIONS}
<JOINT LOADS>
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
{JOINT LOADS}
<TEMPERATURE DATA>
1 1 22.2000 22.2000 22.2000
2 1 21.1000 21.1000 21.1000
3 1 20.0000 20.0000 20.0000
{TEMPERATURE DATA}
{END OF FILE}