Anda di halaman 1dari 207

PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING FOR

STEEL FRAMED STRUCTURES: A PROBABILISTIC


METHODOLOGY
A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
AND THE COMMITTEE ON GRADUATE STUDIES
OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
i
Scott Reed Hamilton
June 2003
Copyright 2003 by Scott Reed Hamilton
All Rights Reserved
I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it is fully
adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy.
__________________________________
Dr. Gregory D. Deierlein, Principal
Advisor
I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it is fully
adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy.
__________________________________
Dr. Helmut Krawinkler
I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it is fully
adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy.
__________________________________
Dr. Charles Menun
I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it is fully
adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy.
__________________________________
Approved for the University Committee on Graduate Studies.
Abstract
Severe earthquakes and fires are both low-probability high-consequence events
characterized by large uncertainties. Current design methodologies for both are fairly
prescriptive and based on indirect empirical evidence to link design requirements and
building performance. As such, they do not permit risk-consistent evaluation of
different facilities under multiple hazards, and over-reliance on past practice tends to
inhibit innovation. Research underway at the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
center aims to develop a more scientific performance-based engineering approach for
earthquake resistant design one which enables the evaluation of performance metrics
that are relevant to decision makers. Owing to the large uncertainties inherent in
earthquakes and their effects, the methodology framework has a probabilistic basis.
Comparisons between the earthquake and fire hazard, suggest that the methodology
framework for earthquake engineering can be adapted to fire protection engineering.
Ideas for such a framework, with an emphasis on structural fire engineering, are
proposed.
Acknowledgments
An endeavor of this nature and magnitude cannot be attempted without the support of a
wide cast of family and friends.
I will forever be indebted to my advisor, Professor Greg Deierlein, for helping me find
an area of intellectual pursuit that fit my abilities and interests perfectly. Having learned
under his tutelage helped me to grow both intellectually and as a person. His patience
and support made this effort doable for me.
Having an opportunity, while at Stanford University, to work with some of the best
researchers in the world has been a real treat. Many thanks are owed to Professor Chuck
Menun for unselfishly sharing ...Krawlinker, Williamson, Cornel, Frank McKenna,
Cecil Grant, Karen Greig and the others who work at the Engineering Library Reference
Desk
Some of my fondest memories of Stanford will be of my time spent at the John A.
Blume Earthquake Engineering Center. The intellectual and social interactions with all
of the students in the Blume Center made many late nights enjoyable. Team Deierlein
Amit, Arash, Rohit, Paul Cordova, also Jerry Lynch, LeRoy Fitzwalter, Racquel Hagen.

Table of Contents
Abstract..............................................................................................................................iv
Acknowledgments...............................................................................................................v
Table of Contents..............................................................................................................vi
List of Tables......................................................................................................................ix
List of Figures....................................................................................................................xi
Introduction.........................................................................................................................1
1.1 Performance-Based Fire Engineering Design Philosophy .......................................... 2
1.2 Current Requirements and Codes ................................................................................. 5
1.3 Research Objectives and Rationale .............................................................................. 5
1.4 Organization of the Thesis ......................................................................................... 10
Syntheses and Review of Past Practice and Work........................................................11
2.1 Fire, Modeling, and Scenario Development .............................................................. 11
2.2 Heat Transfer Modeling ............................................................................................. 57
2.3 Structural Performance and Mechanical Modeling ................................................... 61
2.4 Experimental Observations ........................................................................................ 85
2.5 Real world fire studies ................................................................................................ 92
2.6 Probabilistic Aspects of Fire Engineering ................................................................. 96
2.7 Relationship to Code Provisions ................................................................................ 99
2.8 Summary ............................................................................................................... 109
Development of Performance Based Fire Engineering Methodology Framework. 113
3.1 Comparison to Earthquake Model. .......................................................................... 114
3.2 Performance Based Fire Engineering Methodology. ............................................... 121
3.3 Resistance factor for fire .......................................................................................... 140
3.4 Discussion of Fire Load Probability. ....................................................................... 156
3.5 Fire Load to Performance ......................................................................................... 157
3.6 Design Variable/Performance Criteria ..................................................................... 159
3.7 Summary ................................................................................................................... 159
Simulation of Steel Structures to Fire Conditions......................................................160
4.1 Realistic Fire Input ................................................................................................... 162
4.2 Non-Linear Analysis of Beams and Columns ......................................................... 162
4.3 Summary ............................................................................................................... 162
Validation Problems and Case Studies........................................................................163
5.1 Campus Building ...................................................................................................... 163
5.2 General Case Implications ........................................................................................ 164
5.3 Summary ............................................................................................................... 164
Implications and Recommendations for Design and Code........................................165
6.1 Prescriptive methods ................................................................................................ 166
6.2 Performance Based Methods .................................................................................... 166
Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Work...............................................172
Summary of Fuel Load Data.........................................................................................186
Computational Computer Source Code.......................................................................188
Virtual work derivation for elastic beam code..............................................................188
COMPF2 Recommended Use........................................................................................191
Procedure to Run COMPF2..........................................................................................191
Worked Example COMPF2 Run...................................................................................193
Bibliography....................................................................................................................193
List of Tables
Table 2-1 ASTM E-119 Standard Fire Curve, used in North America (American
Society of Testing Materials 1998)....................................................................................20
Table 2-2 ISO 834 Standard Fire Curve(International Organization for
Standardization 1999)........................................................................................................22
Table 2-3 Ingbergs fuel loadfire-severity relationship (Drysdale 1998).................28
Table 2-4 Equation Values for C.....................................................................................31
Table 2-5 Eclosure Boundary Conversion Factors.........................................................33
Table 2-6 Correction Factors............................................................................................33
Table 2-7 Conversion to Equivalent Fire Load Density and Equivalent Opening
Factor (Karlsson and Quintiere 2000)..............................................................................45
Table 2-8 Factors q1, q2 (European Committee for Standardization 2001)..........55
Table 2-9 ni Factors, Function of Active Fire Fighting Measures (European
Committee for Standardization 2001)..............................................................................55
Table 2-10 Stress-strain of steel equations at elevated temperatures...........................79
Table 2-11 Retention factors of steel at elevated temperatures.....................................79
ix
Table 2-12 Thermal Conductivity of Insulating Materials (Lie 1992)..........................83
Table 3-13 Attributes of PEER PBEE Methodology....................................................118
Table 3-14 Attributes of Probabilistic PBFE Methodology.........................................124
Table 3-15 Fire Occurrence Statistics(Ellingwood and Corotis 1991).......................127
Table 3-16 Examples of Random variables and Distributions....................................134
Table 3-17 Random Variables and Distribution for Monte Carlo Fire Simulation. 149
Table 3-18 Fire Occurrence Probabilities from (Ellingwood and Corotis 1991)......150
Table 6-19 Structral Fire Design Code Methods..........................................................166
Table A-20 Variable Fuel Loads in Residential Occupancies.....................................186
Table A-21 Variable Fuel Loads in Hospital Occupancies .........................................187
Table A-22 Variable Fuel Loads in Hotel Occupancies ..............................................187
Table C-23 COMPF2 Initial Pyrolysis Rate Ratio as a function of Fire Load and
Opening Factor (Feasey and Buchanan 2002)...............................................................193
1.
List of Figures
Figure 2-1 Generalized Stages of a Compartment Fire .................................................14
Figure 2-2 Ventilation-control fire....................................................................................15
Figure 2-3 ASTM E-119 Curve and Analytical Equation for Curve ...........................21
Figure 2-4 Standard Fire Curves, ASTM E-119 vs. ISO 834........................................24
Figure 2-5 Standard fire temperature-time relations used in various countries for
testing building elements (Lie 1992).................................................................................24
Figure 2-6 ISO 834 Curve and Analytical Equation for Curve.....................................25
Figure 2-7 Ingbergs Concept of Equal Area Fire Severity...........................................28
Figure 2-8 Time Equivalent Concept...............................................................................30
Figure 2-9 Minimum Load Capacity Concept................................................................35
Figure 2-10 Fully developed enclosure fire, with heat generation and loss.................36
Figure 2-11 Calculated (dashed lines) and Experimental (solid lines) Gas
Temperature-Time Curves. Experimental results from full-scale tests using
furniture as fire load. Opening factor AwH1/2/AT = 0.068 [m1/2]. Smaller figure
show the normalized energy release rate, by maximum energy release rate.
(Pettersson et al. 1976)........................................................................................................42
Figure 2-12 Theoretical Calculated Temperature-Time Curves (Swedish Curves)
(Pettersson et al. 1976)........................................................................................................44
Figure 2-13 Temperature Deflection Responses for Combinations of T and
(Usmani and Rotter 2000)..................................................................................................63
Figure 2-14 Uniform Heating of a Simply Supported Beam.........................................65
Figure 2-15 Axially Restrained Beam Subjected to Uniform Heating.........................66
Figure 2-16 Buckling of an Axially Restrained Beam Subjected to Uniform Heating
...............................................................................................................................................67
Figure 2-17 Simply Supported Beam Subjected to Uniform Thermal Gradient........68
Figure 2-18 Laterally Restrained Beam Subjected to Uniform Thermal Gradient....69
Figure 2-19Fixed End Beam Subjected to a Uniform Thermal Gradient....................69
Figure 2-20 Retention factors of steel at elevated temperatures (Eurocode 3 - Wang)
...............................................................................................................................................81
Figure 2-21 Retention factors of yield strength of steel at elevated temperatures
(Buchanan)..........................................................................................................................81
Figure 2-22 Typical Standard Fire Resistance Test set up, for beams and slabs
(above) and columns (below).............................................................................................86
Figure 2-23 Cardington Test Facility...............................................................................91
Figure 2-24 One Meridian Plaza Fire in Philadelphia...................................................94
Figure 2-25 Broadgate Fire Photos (The Steel Construction Institute 1991)..............95
Figure 2-26 Method Comparison (Barry 2002)...............................................................98
Figure 2-27 Standard vs. realistic Compartment Fire Time-Temperature Curve
(Boring et al. 1981)............................................................................................................103
Figure 3-28 Time Temperature Curves.........................................................................129
Figure 3-29 Monte Carlo Simulation Flow Chart ........................................................133
Figure 3-30 Tornado Chart, Unprotected Steel............................................................135
Figure 3-31 Tornado Chart, Insulated Steel..................................................................135
Figure 3-32 Effect of Opening Factor [O] on Temperature.......................................137
Figure 3-33 Comparison of IM Hazard Curve for Earthquake Risk in Western US
.............................................................................................................................................139
Chapter 1
Introduction
In June of 2000, over a year before the events of September 11, 2001 the idea of looking
at fire engineering and researching smarter ways of doing fire engineering was proposed
by my advisor as a topic for my dissertation and research efforts toward a Ph.D. At that
time the initial idea was to examine stability limit states assessment of steel framed
structures under fire loading. The original objective was to develop a methodology and
supported technologies to simulate and assess the performance of steel buildings
subjected to fires. This was motivated by several key facts that included:
US practice for fire protection is very empirical and lags behind several other
countries.
There are economic and practical benefits of more rational fireproofing and
sprinkler requirements (economic first cost, in-service inspections, innovative
structures, more consistent risk and reliability).
1
There is a body if related work to investigate other extreme loads (blast,
earthquake).
There is significant previous knowledge to build on, often from outside the
this country, but it is still rather new area of research in US, or at least one
somewhat ignored.
Of course there were recognized potential conflicts, obstacles and problems that could be
associated with recommending a new approach to fire engineering. First among these
were political aspects of fire protection business, both from stake holders in the current
technologies and code and jurisdiction officials. We were also faced with the fact
significant work has been done in other countries. On September 5, 2001 a seminar was
presented outlining the initial ideas for this research, some initial findings and a general
road map for future work on my part. Afterwards a discussion was held where the
question was raised what would happen if a significant, rare event ever were to occur?
Less than one week later that event sadly occurred. As a result of the September 11,
2001 terrorist attack on the US and the World Trade Center in particular, all at once it
seemed everyone was aware of fires, their effect on steel bulging, and the concept of idea
of fire engineering. A topic that was largely ignored in this country quickly came to the
forefront.
1.1 Performance-Based Fire Engineering Design
Philosophy
There has been much written about Performance-Based Engineering, both in general and
also on Performance-Based Fire Engineering [PBFE] in particular. As a result there are
many ideas out there about what exactly PBFE is and what it is not. It sprang up as a
reaction to more traditional and prescriptive codes. The simple difference between
performance-based and the traditional prescriptive approach to fire engineering can be
put simply: In the prescriptive based method the designer is concerned that individual
members of a structure not reach a critical temperature, usually around 550
o
C. If the
member remains below that temperature, it is considered safe, if it exceeds it, unsafe.
The steel temperature is therefore an end condition in this approach. The specific
structural system used, interaction of members, the likelihood of fire and type of fire
occurring, specific loading, and the use of the structure are not considered. In
performance based fire engineering, these factors, as well as the temperature reached in
members, is taken into account (Wang 2002). The definition form the National Institute
of Standards and Technologys [NIST] Fire Resistance Determination & Performance
Prediction Research Needs Workshop, takes a slightly more general approach is more
philosophical in nature focusing on what PBFE should be in terms of design. It states
that it is a Scientifically-based performance predictions for the design and operation of
buildings, accepted by regulators and major stakeholder, that enable a rational balance of
competing demands for fire safety, function, economy, aesthetics, and environmental
stewardship (Grosshandler 2002). Of course any work in this area of PBFE must strive
to provide guidance based upon validated models for effective design of steel structures
to prevent a collapse in a fire as well as contribute towards the development of an
integrated natural fire safety philosophy for steel-framed structures(Martin 1996).
Today the trend in structural engineering is to move towards performance-based codes.
Brannigan cites three social movements that have pushed us towards performance-based
codes: 1) Regulatory reform, urging replacement of political with technological
decisions; 2) Emphasis on life safety as a social issue, which is distinct from property
protection; and 3) The claim that prescriptive codes contain inefficient redundancies.
One can summarize the overall goal of performance-based engineering methods as
enabling the design and construction of better and more economical facilities (Brannigan
1999).
At its heart performance-based engineering, whether seismic, fire, or any other type is
based on achieving desired performance objectives or targets. In doing this it uses
scientifically defined loads, direct design approaches, and defined outcomes with
associated probabilities of achieving them. It can provide multiple limit states or
performance targetsfor example, from a limit state, the ability to resist collapse, to a
service limit state, based on maximum allowed deflections, with an eye towards post-
event repair of the structure. It can also provide more transparent design criteria based
on improved knowledge of the structural behavior and the increased use of nonlinear
analysis. Finally, a more explicitly stated reliability basis of design is also possible,
where uncertainties in loads and response can be modeled and cost benefit analysis can
be more easily seen. Among the key common characteristics of performance-based
codes is the definition of a set of clear quantifiable objectives and a means to establish
whether they have been met. Therefore performance-based codes offer advantages over
the more prescriptive codes by allowing more flexibility in design, allowing for the use
of new materials and types of elements, giving the ability to provide the same safety level
for people in various types of buildings, and allowing optimization of safety measures
(Kruppa 2000).
1.2 Current Requirements and Codes
It needs to be recognized that fire safety is best accomplished by prevention of fire
ignition and early suppression of a fire. If a fire can be suppressed during its early
growth the event usually lasts only a matter of minutes, and structural damage will be
nonexistent.
1.3 Research Objectives and Rationale
The design professional is faced with two objectives: provide structural fire safety,
reducing the risk of structural failure due to a fire and provide this level of safety at a
reasonable cost.(Bresler 1985) There are arguments that the prescriptive codes have
largely done this, especially in term s of life safety, but there has been growing criticism
that the standard tests may not be relevant based on current construction practices and
materials and teat they do not accurately reflect what goes on in a real fire scenario.
In the wake of the 9-11 attack on the World trade center and the pentagon The national
Research Council of the Nation Academies published Making the Nation Safer: The Role
of Science and Technology in Counter Terrorism. In this report they recommend the
following:
Recommendation 8.18 Study the more advanced fire-rating practices in
Europe, Australia, and New Zealand to assess their applicability to the
United States.
Recommendation 8.19: Research should be done to determine the most
expeditious mean for integrating performance standards with building
codes to cover technologies that resist blasts, impacts, and the
consequences of fire. This could take a similar form to what was recently
employed by the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
(NEHRP) in its guidelines for seismic design.
Recommendation 8.20: Universities and the national laboratories should
conduct research on the applicability of PRA [probabilistic risk
assessment] risk-modeling approach for quantifying the expected
performance of blast- and fire-resistant designs.
The report does recognize the lack of data from significant events, but also notes that in
the 1960s when PRA was applied to earthquakes there was a similar lack of event data,
which has since been greatly increased (National Research Council of the National
Academies 2002).
In their book, Custer and Meacham acknowledge the wide variety of methodologies
around the world for PBFE. However, they also note the lack of a single, generally
accepted framework for undertaking a performance-based approach to fire engineering.
The go on to cite the complexity or simplicity of methodologies, the lack of data, both
probabilistic and deterministic, the lack of credible design and analysis tools, and the tie
between certain methodologies and specific regulations as chief reasons that a single
methodology or framework has not sprung froth. In their view there is a need for clear
specification and agreement on objectives and design criteria, understanding of fire
initiation, development and spread, the effect of fire safety measures on reducing
likelihood of fires and preventing losses, a need for credibly tool for design and analysis,
a need to consider risks in terms of financial and societal impact and acceptability levels,
and the need to address uncertainties involved tin the fire engineering methods and
design (Custer and Meacham 1997).
With those definitions of what PBFE is in mind, the general objective of this work is to
develop methodology and supported technologies to simulate and assess the performance
of steel buildings subjected to fires in the context of performance based fire engineering.
The current US practice for fire protection is largely empirical and lags behind that of
other countries, notably Britain, Australia and the rest of Europe. Although a great deal
has been written on the subject, there still exists a need for improvement and more
concrete methods to implement PBFE, especially in the US. Most codes and practice are
based on a test fire of individual structural members. The objective should be a fire
engineering approach to predict the behavior of the whole structure to more realistic
fire based on the available fuel load for the particular building (Ioannides and Sandeep
1997). It appears that there are two ways of viewing this problem, either from the
point of view of the firewhat temperature will be generated in a fire and what
temperature will the structure reach?or from the point of view of the structurehow
will the structure perform and what temperature will it withstand? (Robinson and Latham
1986)

Both views are of importance and are largely ignored by current practice. As put
by Petterson (Pettersson 1986) in the 1980s, Design according to the combination [of a
real fire and a complete structure] generally demands access to a computer. This
combination is of central importance in the research context. With the availability of
computers and advances in their use, there is generally a consensus that there are better
ways available to us to design for fire loads. Thus the goal is to find workable engineer
approaches to the problem, rather than reliance purely on codes, which is the current
practice particularly in the US.
It ought to be noted from the outset that these empirical standards, as embodied by the
prescriptive codes, have served the public well, at least in terms of fire safety. As Hall
states we have been very successful in reducing the worst that happens in terms of
deadly fire ((Hall 2002). It is almost an absolute fact that steel buildings do not collapse
as a result of fires. The September 11 2001 World Trade center structures are an
exception to this rule, but in each buildings case there were special circumstances that
involved, in addition to a more normal building fire. However, reasons to change from
current methods still exist. From the purely design perspective they include that there is
little flexibility for design, requirements are prescriptive; there exists a difficulty in
dealing with new types of materials, structures; there is no homogeneous safety level
for people in various kinds of buildings; there is no possibility for an accurate
optimization of fire safety measures; lack of fair competition between building
materials; great variance between different countries requirements for same type
activities (Kruppa 2000). Other reason for change include the fact that in the standard
furnace test the failure criteria usually does not describe the intended real use, the
boundary conditions are usually limited to simply supported, or a limited range of
support conditions, the fire is not realistic, and there are limited and specific objectives in
testing (Wang 2002).
Rationale for looking into this problem can be found in practical (economic) benefits as
well as advance the science of design. It is suspected that the practical benefits of more
rational fire proofing and sprinkler requirements would include the initial construction
cost savings in fireproofing (which can be up to 30% of the cost of the structural frame of
a building (Bailey 1998; Lawson 2001)), reduced floor thickness and story heights
(resulting in savings), and more consistent risk assessment and reliability. A central
question looking at it from the view of structural performance, as one British study
asked: is it possible to design in steel using high temperature properties, rather than
ambient temperature properties, and thus reduce the need for insulation? If it is possible,
is it economic?the answer to both questions is yes and that a Fire Resistant Design
approach could be developed which would minimize the need for protective
insulation(Robinson and Latham 1986). Custer and Meacham argue that although
performance-based fire engineering would likely require more design cost, due to
increased analysis and calculation time as well as the need for increased documentation,
as compared to using a prescriptive code, savings many times those design costs could be
realized over the life of the project through construction and operational reductions
(Custer and Meacham 1997). Besides the economic benefits PBFE offers us the chance
to have a more rational, and transparent method for making design decisions.
Currently the deterministic factor of safety and it corresponding reliability index for
probabilistic limit states are simply unknown for elements, assemblies and construction
based on fire ratings from the standard fire curve and test standards. While there is no
issue that these methods have served us well in the past, there is no sense of how well, or
a quantitative solution of how safe our structures are. Because the test fire conditions are
so far removed from actual fire characteristics and conditions and buildings components
are tested in isolation, it is impossible to determine the margin of safety a building posses
for ordinary or routine fire events, let alone special event like the September 11, 2001
occurrences. Performance based approaches will offer us the opportunity to have a
sound technical basis for the margin of safety or time return period (rate of non-
exceedance) both in routine and specialized construction that are exposed to unusual
conditions (Gerwain et al. 2003).
As the move toward performance-based fire engineering moves forward it is essential
that proper tools be made available to the engineering design profession in order that that
may take full advantage of these new codes. As mentioned much has been written on the
topic, but unfortunately most of this knowledge is scattered throughout various technical
journals from a variety of different countries, societies, and organizations and is not
easily accessible to the practicing engineer.
Conventional fire protection can cost up to 30% of cost of bare steel (Lawson 2001).
1.4 Organization of the Thesis
This thesis will look at previous work in a broad spectrum, looking at fire modeling, heat
transfer models, structural modeling, previous case studies and tests and computer
modeling. It will then suggest a probabilistic PBFE methodology frame work, based on
an PB Earthquake engineering framework.. It will present a method for providing
realistic foire simulation, heat transfer and structural analysis. It will then provide an
example case study as a way of validating this technique. Finally this these will
comment on implication and recommendations for desin and codes as well as make
recommendation for futre work in this area.
Chapter 2
Syntheses and Review of Past Practice and
Work
The current method of fire safety for buildings is based on a standardized time-
temperature fire curve and the strength of the building is based on individual elements
ability to handle the temperature imposed by the curve (Liu 1999). This of course has no
resemblance to reality, as fires neither behave like a standardized fire curve and buildings
act as whole structures, not just individual parts. The current approach, however, is
generally so conservative that we have not seen buildings collapse due to fires, or those
that have are an extremely rare case.
2.1 Fire, Modeling, and Scenario Development
Most fires in residential, commercial or institutional buildings start in a single room or
compartment. Usually these compartments have doors, whether or not they have
windows, so there is a source of ventilation. Fire modeling tries to capture this
compartment fire. The goal of fire modeling is simple enough to express, model the
11
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
effects of a real compartment fire. The problem with fire modeling is that while the
model may be good, there are many variables which must be assumed, or if known define
one very special problem. There is a great deal of aleatory uncertainty concerning,
among other things, the fire load, ventilation, suppression devices and whether they
work (Brannigan 1999). It should be noted here that fire load is being used in the
Eurocode context here, and throughout this work. It can be defined the heat energy that
could be released per square meter of floor area of a compartment by the burning of the
contents or any combustible parts of the structure itself. It can be calculated as:
2
Fire Load [kJ/m ]
MC
A


where M = mass of combustible materials in the compartment [kg], C = caloric value of
the materials [kJ/kg], and A = floor area in meters [m
2
]. In the US it is often described in
terms of a wood equivalent weight of combustible contents per unit area, such as kg/m
2
(Gerwain et al. 2003; Shields and Silcock 1987). Ventilation is usually expressed in
terms of an opening factor, which models the vertical openings in a compartment.
1/2
or [m ]
V eq
V
T
A h
F O
A

where A
V
= area of vertical openings

[m
2
], A
t
= the total surface area of the boundaries of
the compartment (including openings) [m
2
], h
eq
= the weighted average height of the
vertical openings [m].
To determine an accurate fire load a detailed inventory of all the combustible components
would have to be taken and then summed up. While a room by room inventory of
12
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
combustible material and detaining its mass would be very cumbersome, there have been
extensive surveys conducted and summarized to give fuel loading for various
occupancies (CIB W14 1986). These are of course average values are highly uncertain,
but they provide a usable method to determine the fuel load
2.1.1 Fire Science
2.1.1.1 Stages of a Fire
Fires have three distinct stages or time periods (see Figure 2-1), each of which has
implications for a structure (Babrauskas 1976; Buchanan 2001; Drysdale 1998; Feasey
and Buchanan 2002; Lie 1992; Shields and Silcock 1987; Wang 2002). The first is the
growth period, followed by the fully developed stage, and then a decay stage. In the
growth period heat produced by burning materials in an enclosure accumulates and often
this heat ignites other materials. The gas temperatures rise very rapidly during the
development stage. At this point all the contents and surfaces of the room start to
undergo thermal decomposition and the fuel (combustible solids) begins to produce
volatile gasses, a process known as pyrolysis. The burning rate in this phase depends on
the type of fuel and the geometry of the items burning. Two-zone temperature models
often are used to characterize temperatures. Due to the low temperatures of the fire, this
period is usually discounted in fire engineering.
13
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
Figure 2-1 Generalized Stages of a Compartment Fire
The fully developed stage, or flashover (also sometimes referred to as full room
involvement), represents a significant change in the fire behavior. This phase change
occurs when there is a sudden ignition of gases, produced as a result of pyrolysis, and
materials in all parts of an enclosure, after a critical heat flux is reached. The airflow and
combustion gases become very turbulent. At this point the fire enters the fully developed
stage, which is of critical importance to fire engineering. During this period temperatures
can reach over 1000
o
C or higher and heat transferred to the structure members can reduce
their strength. The temperatures reached depend on the heat release rate, which depends
on the pyrolysis (evaporation) of the fuel as well as the supply of oxygen available to the
fire for combustion. The rate of burning and the heat release are characterized as either
ventilation-controlled or fuel-controlled.
14
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
In ventilation-controlled fires the rate of combustion is dependent on the airflow, and
thus the size and shape of openings that allow air in. The normal assumption is that all
window glass is broken and will fall out during the transition to flashover (fire resistant
glass being an exception). Even if this is not the case, it will still be ventilation
controlled, although less air would indicate that it will burner at lower temperatures but
for a longer period. In the ventilation-controlled fire, the rate of combustion is limited by
the amount of cool air that can enter and the hot gas that can escape. . Because there is
insufficient air inside the compartment for all the combustible gases to burn, flames
extend outside the room (thought windows) and additional combustion will take place
outside the compartment, where the heated unburned gas fuel will mix with the air, see
Figure 2-2.
Figure 2-2 Ventilation-control fire
Fuel-controlled fires indicate that the surface area of the fuel controls the rate of burning.
This usually is the case in well-ventilated large areas that have fuel sources with limited
combustible surfaces. At some point in a fire, a opening size will be reached where
further enlargement will have no effect on the burning rate. In these cases the burning
rate can be thought of as similar to that of the fuel being burned in the open. Another
15
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
characteristic of fuel-controlled burning is that all the heat is released totally inside the
compartment, without flames projecting through windows. Depending on the location of
the fuel most fires become fuel-controlled during the decay period. Because of the
excess amount of air available during fuel controlled fires, which tends to have a cooling
effect, ventilation controlled fires are normally the most sever in single compartments
(Pettersson et al. 1976).
The decay phase starts and the fuel is depleted. During the decay period all combustibles
have been burned and temperatures start to decrease, but risk of fire spreading, due to of
heat transfer to other areas or adjacent compartments, is still significant. The rate of
decay is subject to the shape and material of the fuel, size of ventilation openings and
thermal properties of the boundary enclosure; as such it is difficult to predict. At the
extremes a pool of liquid fuel will end suddenly when expended; solids will tend to burn
at a predictable rate leading to a long decay time. As long as the burning surface area
remains large the fire will be ventilation controlled during the decay period, but will
likely switch to fuel controlled after the burring surface reaches a certain level. Of
course large opening will allow for greater heat loss, and thus a quicker decay. The
effect of the thermal inertia of the boundary enclosure is complicated. On the one had a
low thermal inertia will tend to store less heat, so less heat is available to be transferred
into the compartment as it cools, leading to a quicker decay rate. Conversely a low
thermal inertia will tend to insulate the compartment and result in higher temperature in
the compartment if there is some residual burning. It is thought that the first effect
would be the dominate one, however (Buchanan 2001).
16
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
2.1.2 Time and Temperature Compartment Models
The objective for any fire model is to accurately portray the conditions encountered
during a likely fire. The specific goal is to determine the thermal stress elements in a
structure would be subjected during a fire event, mainly for design purposes.
Temperature is a critical input into structural design to determine the thermal stress for
fire safety. To date a completely accurate way to predict it is not available and likely
never will be. But several models do exist and all to varying degrees model the
temperature achieved in a fire. Naturally many assumptions must be made and a good
deal of judgment applied. Of the parameters that determine fire temperature there are
several that can be quantified and predicted, but also several that cannot accurately be
predicted or measured. Some key parameters we can calculate are the rate at which heat
is lost from an enclosure and the rate at which it is produced. Factors like enclosure size,
materials properties, wall constructions, window area, and the emissivity of flames and
exposed materials can be accurately determined. Others like amount of gasses that burn
outside an enclosure, loss of unburned particles through windows, and temperature
differences in the room can be approximated. However, several other factors cannot be
accurately predicted. Examples of these include the amount, arrangement, exposed
surface area of combustibles, wind direction and velocity, and outside temperature. This
makes it impossible to predict accurately the exact temperature to which a structure will
be exposed during its life. It is possible however to develop a characteristic temperature
curve, which will in all likelihood not be exceeded during the lifetime of the structure.
Fires are based on the amount of combustibles present, the fuel for the fire, the size of the
fire compartment, the opening to allow ventilation, and the make up of surfaces
17
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
separating the compartment. Both passive and active suppression systems must be taken
into account as well. The evolution of fire modeling has gone in several different
directions. The concept of a standard curve was developed long ago and continues in use
today. It has been recognized that it in fact is not related to how an actual fire occurs.
Much work was initially done to relate this standard curve to reality. Initially there was
an emphasis on fire severity, followed by looking at maximum temperature models.
Later models tried to replicate furnace test results. Currently the state of the art tend to
be parametric fie models, which provide a natural or real fire curve, which is much closer
to a real fire than the standard curve, but it is beneficial to trace the history and
development of these various curves and discuss their application and practicality.
2.1.2.1 Standard Fire Curve
The American Society for Testing Materials [ASTM] published a standard test method in
1908 to develop a common approach to determining the fire safety of building
components. The standard fire curve, ASTM E-119, was adopted in the US in 1917.
This curve was created to provide a standard for furnace tests. Early on it was realized
that it was not just adequate to prescribe a temperature that on average must be exceeded.
This curve would also account for the heating of the furnace; it was not realistic to expect
instantaneous heating. A conference with representatives from American Society for
Testing Materials (ASTM), American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA), Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the Bureau of
Standards, National Board of Fire Underwriters (NBFU), Factory Mutual, American
Institute of Architects, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Canadian Society of
Civil Engineers, and the American Concrete Institute came up with this curve. The curve
was based on earlier time temperature curves, although this curve was given a more rapid
18
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
rise to account for the more modern gas fired furnaces that had come into use, it is
basically and idealized form of previous curves. All previous tests, however, had used
wood fires that were manually stoked. This standard curve was taken out to 8 hours, in
order to leave room for future testing. After the first two hours, the curve was continued
at a constant increase of 4.17
o
C, 75
o
F, per hour. It is interesting to note that this curve
was developed and prescribed for use in 1917, despite the fact there was no knowledge of
actual temperature that could be achieved in a building fire. This curve has continued in
use to this day with little modification (Babrauskas 1976). The ASTM E-119 standard
curve is given in tabular form (see Table 2-1) but a series of analytical equations have
also been developed. A common expression is (British Standards Institution 1987)
( )
o o
0
345log 0.133 1 [ C or K] T T t +
where T = temperature in
o
C or
o
K at time t, T
0
= temperature at t = 0 and t = time in
seconds.
Time Temperature Temperature Time Temperature Temperature
h:min
o
F
o
C h:min
o
F
o
C
19
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
Table 2-1 ASTM E-119 Standard Fire Curve, used in North America (American Society
of Testing Materials 1998)
Another can be described by the following (Williams-Leir 1973):
5 6 4
0 1 2 3
(1 ) (1 ) (1 )
a t a t a t
T T a e a e a e + +
where a
1
= 532 for
o
C, 957 for
o
F; a
2
= -186 for
o
C, -334 for
o
F, a
3
= 820 for
o
C, 1476 for
o
F, a
4
= -0.6, a
5
= -3; a
6
= -12 and t = time in hours.. While there are some differences
between this equation and the ASTM curve (48
o
C at 3.5 hours and +78
o
C at 8 hours) it
is still reasonable accurate (see Figure 2-1).
20
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
50
150
250
350
450
550
650
750
850
950
1050
1150
1250
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (hours)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
o
C
)
ASTM E119
Eqn. (2.3)
Eqn. (2.4)
Figure 2-3 ASTM E-119 Curve and Analytical Equation for Curve
An alternative method for calculating temperature is based on the International
Organization of Standardization (ISO) 834 fire curve, the ISO version of the curve. Like
the ASTM E-119 curve it too is described in tabular form, Table 2-2. You can see in
Figure 2-3 that the differences between the ISO and ASTM standard fire curves are very
minor, and in fact differences used in curves around the world are similarly minor, Figure
2-4.
The ISO 834 fire curve can also be described by several analytical equation variations
developed through the years:
( )
o o
0 10
345log 8 1 [ C or K] T T t +
21
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
where t = time in minutes, T = fire temperature in
o
C, and T
0
= initial temperature in
o
C or
o
K (European Committee for Standardization 2001; Lie 1992). A version that more
accurately follows the ISO curve is given in the following:
0 1 4 2 5 3 6
o
0
o
0
tanh tanh tanh , for 2
906.7 41.67 , for 2 for C and
1632 75 , for 2 for F
T T a a t a a t a a t t
T T t t
T T t t
+ + <
+
+
where a
1
= 580 for
o
C, 1044 for
o
F; a
2
= -276.8 for
o
C, -498.2 for
o
F, a
3
=714.4 for
o
C,
1286 for
o
F, a
4
= 0.8429, a
5
= 0.9736; a
6
= 8.910 and t is time in hours (Lie 2002).
Time in Minutes Temperature [
o
C]
Table 2-2 ISO 834 Standard Fire Curve(International Organization for Standardization
1999)
22
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
Standard Fire Curves ASTM E-119 vs. ISO 834
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (hours)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

o
C
ASTM E119
ISO 832
23
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
Figure 2-4 Standard Fire Curves, ASTM E-119 vs. ISO 834
Figure 2-5 Standard fire temperature-time relations used in various countries for testing
building elements (Lie 1992)
J. P. Fackler developed another form in 1959 that is commonly used and follows closely
to ISO 834:
( ) 0
1 exp 3.79553 T T a t b t
1
+
]
24
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
where a = 750 for oC, 1350 for oF; b = 170.41 for oC, 306.74 for oF, and t = time in
hours(Lie 2002). All of these equations strive to closely follow the standard fire cure and
their similarity can be seen in Figure 2-5.
50
150
250
350
450
550
650
750
850
950
1050
1150
1250
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time (hours)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
o
C
)
ISO 832
Eqn. (2.4)
Eqn. (2.5)
Eqn. (2.6)
Figure 2-6 ISO 834 Curve and Analytical Equation for Curve
From these curves and the test methods they prescribed the time to failure of construction
members or sub assemblies can be determined, but it does not address the issue of
building failure due to a fire, the real item of interest to building code officials and
stakeholders.
25
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
2.1.2.2 Equivalent Fire Severity
Fire severity has been defined as the destructive potential of a fire to damage structural
and non-structural elements of a building (Shields and Silcock 1987). The concept of an
equivalent fire severity was developed to try to relate standard fire curves and test
methods to real fires. There have been many attempts to relate fire severity to structural
performance and the standard test curve and several different concepts or approaches
have tried to relate real fires to standard test fires based on equivalent fire severity..
2.1.2.2.1 Ingbergs Equal Area Concept
One of the earlier efforts at relating a standard fire curve to what really occurs in a fire
was done by S. H. Ingberg in the 1920s. Ingberg related fire severity to fire load. He
reduced the two-dimension time temperature curve to one, called fire severity, the area
under the curve. The concept was that you could take an area under a standard fire curve
and relate it to an equal area under a natural or real fire curve (see Figure 2-6). The area
under a natural curve represented the time for all combustibles in a compartment to be
consumed. His work involved conducting furnace tests, and then creating a relationship
of a curve based on a fire load to fire resistance ratings for members. From this, if you
knew a fire load or potential fire load, often based on a type of occupancy, you could then
determine a specified fire resistance. This is the basis for US fire resistance codes, and
nearly every other prescriptive code. The problem with this concept is that the area
under the curve, or severity thus defined, has no theoretical significance and really does
not demonstrate an accurate or realistic measure of fire severity. Although Ingberg did
realize this weakness, it was still used as a crude approximation of fire severity for many
years, and in limited cases is still permitted by some codes today. Another obvious
26
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
shortcoming of using this concept this concept was that it completely ignores the impact
of radiation, which is considered the dominate mode of heat transfer in a furnace
(Paulsen and Hadvig 1977). Radiation heat transfer is based on T
4
, so that a fire with a
higher temperature and shorter duration would produce a much greater heat transfer than
a cooler long duration fire, despite both have equal area under a time temperature curve
(Babrauskas and Williamson 1978a; Babrauskas and Williamson 1978b). This theory
also ignores the fact that in some cases a maximum temperature could cause a change in
material, i.e. melting, which is not captured by equal area assumptions (Babrauskas
1976). All these problems were basically ignored and fire load became an accepted
surrogate for fire severity. The fact that there were no building failures showed this
method to be safe, despite its lack of technical or scientific defense. It is a part of codes
and an accept part of the practice, through the standard fire test.
27
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
Figure 2-7 Ingbergs Concept of Equal Area Fire Severity
Combustible content
a
(Wood equivalent)
Fuel Load
a,b
Standard Fire
duration
kg/m
2
lb/ft
2
MJ/m
2
hours
49 10 900 1
73 15 1340 1.5
98 20 1800 2
146 30 2690 3
195 40 3590 4.5
244 50 4490 6
293 60 5390 7.5
a1
Calculated on basis of floor area.
b
Heat combustion of wood taken as 18.4 MJ/kg.
Table 2-3 Ingbergs fuel loadfire-severity relationship (Drysdale 1998)
2.1.2.2.2 Maximum Temperature-Time Equivalent Formulas
A more complete analysis finds fire severity is based on factors of fire duration, fire gas
temperature profile (average temperature of gasses in a compartment) and heat
penetration flux over time (heat flux imposed upon the inside surfaces of a compartment).
These in turn are based on the processes of the fuel degradation, the ventilation rate, and
the heat transfer process. Fuel degradation has components of the type of fuel, amount of
fuel, distribution of fuel, geometry of compartment, ventilation area and shape, and the
thermal characteristics of the compartment boundaries. Similarly ventilation rate has
components of the amount of fuel, distribution of fuel, geometry of compartment,
ventilation area and shape, and the thermal characteristics of the compartment
boundaries. Finally the components of heat transfer are geometry of compartment,
28
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
ventilation area and shape, and the thermal characteristics of the compartment boundaries
(Shields and Silcock 1987).
The ASCE manual on fire protection (Lie 1992) takes the basic definition of fire severity,
the destructive potential of a fire, and notes five significant factors that determine a fires
severity:
1. Total fire load (total mass of combustibles),
2. Ventilation parameter (characterizing the rate of inflow of air into the
room)
3. Total area of the rooms internal surfaces
4. Thermal inertia of the rooms boundaries (low for insulating materials,
high for conductors)
5. Fraction of energy of volatile combustibles released within the room per
unit of time.
With the goal of providing a more realistic model than Ingbergs equal area concept,
several have developed formulas to provide time equivalence. The idea of these formulas
is to relate the time to provide an equivalent maximum temperature effect on a member,
usually a protected member, due to a realistic or natural fire, to the equivalent time that
would obtain the same effect from a standard fire test. Figure 2-8 shows an illustration
of this, the effect being demonstrated is the maximum temperature in the steel member.
These formulas have been developed by fitting empirical curves to the results of
calculations.
29
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
Figure 2-8 Time Equivalent Concept
In the 1970s Margaret Law proposed such a relationship by analyzing insulated columns
exposed to both real fire curves and standard fire test curves. he used a temperature of
550oC as his critical temperature. Law modeled a real fire as equal to a peak temperature
that he sustained as constant for a period of
/ [min]
f
M m &
, where M
f
= total fuel
load in kg wood equivalent, and m&
= mean burning rate in kg/min. From this Law came
up with an equivalent fire resistance time (Law 1970).
'
[min]
f
eqv
V T
M
t K
A A

where K = a constant close to unity, A


V
= area of vertical openings [m
2
], and A
T
=
surface area of the enclosure (including openings) [m
2
]. This model is only for insulated
columns, and while recognizing the importance of ventilation to fire severity; it does not
take into account enclosure boundary properties.
Pettersson, Magnuson, and Thor gave the following formula for time equivalence:
( )
1/ 2
0.31 [hours]
f
eqv
V V V
M
t C
A A h

30
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
C is taken from Table 2-, based on thermal inertia of boundary enclosure; A
t
= surface
area of boundary enclosure (not including openings) [m
2
]; and h
V
= the height of vertical
opening [m] (Pettersson et al. 1976).
k c
[J/m
2
s
1/2
K]
C
[hm
3/4
/kg]
720 0.09
720 - 2520 0.07
2520 0.05
Table 2-4 Equation Values for C
Harmathy introduced the idea of a normalized heat load, in an attempt to address the
impact of different enclosure boundaries on the compartment fires destructive capacity.
He developed a normalized heat load:
( )
6
3
11 1.6
10
935
min 0.79 / , 1
[kg/s]
f
T f
C
V V
M
H
A k c M
h
A gh

+


where accounts for the fuel energy released in the compartment, is a ventilation
parameter, g = gravitational constant [m/s], h
V
= height of vertical opening [m], k =
thermal conductivity [W/m
2
K], = density of enclosure boundary [kg/m
3
], c = specific
heat of boundary enclosure [J/kg K], and h
C
= height of the compartment [m] (Harmathy
and Mehaffey 1982). As can be seen the normalized heat load has the fuel load and
ventilation as its variable, while the pother factors are more deterministic based on
31
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
geometry and material of the boundary enclosure. .The equation he developed for a time
equivalent is.
4 9 2
0.11 0.16 10 0.13 10 [hours]
eqv
t H H

+ +
In this equation and concept of a normalized heat load Harmathy incorporates the
duration of fully developed fire, the heat-flux incident on inside surfaces, and the average
temperature of the compartment gases. A drawback, however, is that is not directly
applicable to materials with high thermal inertia, i.e. unprotected steel (Harmathy 1987).
Another form of a time equivalent equation comes from Eurocode 1, Annex F (European
Committee for Standardization 2001). Equivalent time of fire exposure to an ISO
standard fire is,
( )
( )
,
,
or
[min]
eqv f d b f c
t d b f c
t q k w k
q k w k

where:
q
d
is the design fire density taken from Annex E [MJ/m
2
]
k
b
is the conversion factor, k
b
= 0.07 [min m
2
/MJ] when q
d
is given in [MJ/m
2
]
otherwise it is based on ( ) b c [J/m
2
s

K]
b
[J/m
2
s

K]
k
b
[min m
2
/MJ]
b > 2500 0.04
720 b 0.055
b < 720 0.07
32
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
Table 2-5 Eclosure Boundary Conversion Factors
w is the ventilation factor, w
t
= w
f
A
T
/A
f
and
0.3 4
(6.0/ ) [0.62 90(0.4 ) /(1 )] 0.5 [-]
f v v h
w H b + +
where:

v
= A
v
/A
f
is the area of the vertical opening A
v
in the facade related to the floor area
of the compartment where the limit 0.025
v
0.25 should be observed.

h
= A
h
/A
f
is the area of horizontal openings A
h
in the roof related to the floor
area of the compartment.
b
v
= 12.5 (1 + 10
v
-
v
2
) 10.0
H is the height of the fire compartment
For small compartments [A
f
< 100 m
2
] without openings in the roof, the factor w
f
may
also be calculated as : w
f
= O

A
f
/A
t
where:
O = opening factor Equation from the Eurocode parametric equation, Annex A
k
c
is the correction factor function of the material composing the structural cross-
sections and defined in:
Cross-section material Correction factor k
c
Reinforced concrete 1.0
Protected steel 1.0
Unprotected steel 13.7 O
Table 2-6 Correction Factors
Law had an equivalent equation as well
33
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
[ ]
1/ 2
V
f
eqv
t
M
t
A A

Petterssons is very similar


1/ 2
V
1.21
f
eqv
V T
M
t
A h A

1
]
All of these formulas are based on maximum temperature in that they strive to define the
equivalent fire severity as the time of exposure to the standard fire that would result in
the same maximum temperature in unprotected steel as would occur in a complete
burnout of the fire compartment. As such they could provide misleading results if the
maximum temperature used in much lower or higher than that which would cause failure.
In addition they are limited in use to protected steel works, for which they were designed,
and tend to be compartment and member specific. They also seem to provide only a
crude approximation of real fire behavior (Buchanan 2001).
2.1.2.2.3 Minimum Load Capacity Concept
The minimum load capacity concept is based on the same idea as the time equivalent
concept. The difference being that it is based on load capacity instead of maximum
temperature, see Figure 2-9. Again the equivalent fire severity is the time of exposure to
a standard fire test curve that would result in the same load bearing capacity as the
minimum load bearing capacity obtained in a complete compartment burn out of a
compartment. Note that while the load capacity of the member under the standard fire
test continues to decrease, under a realistic or natural fire, it decreases to a minimum
value and then increases again during the fires decay period. This is probably the most
34
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
realistic concept for the design of load bearing members, however it is very hard to use
for materials without well-defined minimum load capacities. An example of this would
be wood members where charring can continue to effect the load bearing capacity, even
after fire temperatures start to decrease again (Buchanan 2001).
Figure 2-9 Minimum Load Capacity Concept
2.1.2.3 Post Flashover Time-Temperature Parametric Curves
In post-flashover fires maximum temperatures can often be in excess of 1000
o
C, which
can have a significant effect on members if the temperature is sustained for any length of
time. The actual temperature in a compartment at any given time depends on the heat
balance in the room, the amount of heat loss and that generated. Recently there have
been efforts to develop expressions for time-temperature curves that model post-
flashover behavior (this being the stage of fires that have the greatest effect on structural
performance). All of the post-flashover time-temperature models are based on energy
and mass balance. Energy balance equation is based on the First Law of
35
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
Thermodynamics
1
(the law of conservation of energy) (Incropera and DeWitt 2002),
often called the heat balance equation, states :
c w l r b
q q q q q + + +
g g g g g
Figure 2-10 Fully developed enclosure fire, with heat generation and loss
where:
,
0.09 [MW]
C ui V V eff wood
q mH A h H & &
rate of heat release due to combustion, m&
= the mass flow rate [kg/s] H
ui
= the
caloric value of combustibles [MJ/kg] and H
eff,wood
= the heat of combustion of
wood fuel 17 [MJ/kg].
( ) 0.5 ( ) [kW]
L p g O V V p g O
q mc T T A h c T T & &

rate of heat loss due to convection through the openings
1
The amount of thermal and mechanical energy that enters a control volume, plus the
amount of thermal energy that is generated with in the control volume, minus the
amount of thermal and mechanical energy that leaves the control volume must equal
the increase in the amount of energy stored in the control volume.
36
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
( )
4 4
4
when
R V g O
R V g g O
q A T T
q A T T T

&
& ?
rate of heat release due to radiation through the openings, = emissivity, =
Stefan-Boltzmann constant and T
O
= Temperature outside (ambient) (See section
2. )
( )
1
1
1
2
w t g
i
i
q A T T
x
k
1
1
1

1
+
1
]
&
rate of heat loss through the walls, floor and ceiling
B
q
g
rate of heat storage in the gas volume (neglect)
Mass balance is simply given by
g a b
m m m + & & &
g
m&
= mass flow rate out of hot gases,
a
m&
= the mass flow rate in of air, and
b
m&
= the
fuel burning rate. These equations and models are all single zone (constant temperature
throughout the compartment) models. While the use of two zone models are possible for
modeling post-flashover fires, many of the assumptions of pre-flashover fires are not
longer true so their use would be questionable (Buchanan 1997). All the models
discussed in the following sections are single zone models.
Kawagoe working in Japan was the first to make systematic studies of the behavior of
fully developed compartment fires in the late 1940s. In his work, first published in
English in 1958 he measured the burning rate of wood cribs inside the compartments
37
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
with varying ventilation openings from that he developed the mass loss rate of burning
(or simply the burning rate) of wood fuel, m&
, for a compartment with one vertical
opening is approximately:
0.92 [kg/s] or 5.5 [kg/min]
V V V V
m A h m A h & &
where AV is the area of ventilation opening [m2] and hV is the height of the opening
[m]. This is the rate at which the fuel in the compartment is releasing gases into the
compartment, which then burn as fuel during the fire. It has been noted that Equation
has a rather ill-defined constant and that seems to be only applicable over a limited range
of Error! Objects cannot be created from editing field codes. Several others have
noted the dependence on this
V V
A h
value, however. It is most often given in terms of
an opening factor FV (O in the Eurocode) , see Equation . Equation while not always
accurate or applicable has been widely used. In cases where there is more than a single
opening for example, AV is taken as the total vertical opening area and HV as the
weighted height of windows
1 1
/ [m]
i i i
n n
eq V V V
i i
h h A A

_


,

The calculation of heat release rate can never be completely accurate as the proportion of
the pyrolysis products that burn outside the compartment, for example, is an unknown.
Other uncertainties, like the proportion of fuel that does not burn and if the fire changes
to fuel-controlled also exist. In ventilation-controlled fires the complexity of the
interactions between radiant heat flux, rate of pyrolysis of the fuel, combustion rates,
inflow of air, outflow of hot gases all combined with the shape of the compartment, shape
38
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
of the fuel, the fuel itself, and the ventilation openings which also affect the interactions,
make it difficult to accurately calculate heat release rates. However Equation is a useful
approximation and is the basis of many other computational models of post flashover
fires. Kawagoe is also credited with being the first to introduce the idea of a ventilation
factor, which is now present in all flashover ventilation-controlled fire models
(Babrauskas 1976; Buchanan 2001; Drysdale 1998; Feasey and Buchanan 2002; Karlsson
and Quintiere 2000).
2.1.2.3.1 Swedish Curves
This method was developed by Magnunsson and Thelandersson and is often referenced,
by some accounts the most often referred to method for calculating timetemperature
curves. Based on the heat balance, Equation , they made the following assumptions:
The fire was ventilation controlled during the fully developed stage; the growth and
decay stages were based on data gathered from full-scale experiments.
Complete combustion and totally within the enclosure compartment.
Uniform temperature within the compartment, T
g
is the same everywhere.
Enclosure boundary inner surface is the same throughout the compartment.
One-dimensional heat flow through the boundary enclosure; corners and edges were
ignored and boundaries were considered infinite slabs.
In their work the fire itself is not modeled, but the heat release rate. The peak heat
release is taken from Equation , although they assumed a caloric value of 10.8 MJ/kg for
39
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
wood, which is lower than most others use.
2
They determined the shape of the curve
from experimental data with the above assumptions. They then used a computer to
calculate the energy balance and calculate the curves, assuming different shapes of the
energy release rate. Calculated temperatures were compared with experimental results
and the energy release rate curves were varied until agreement was achieved. Figure 2-
11 is an example of the experimental data used to prescribe the shape of the energy
release rate. Once they had a number of these curves representing a wide range of values
for fuel load, ventilation factor, total enclosure surface area, and enclosure boundary
thermal properties, they developed a method for postulating the general shape of the
temperature time curve based on this variable. Magnusson and Thelandersson then used
the computer to derive curves for a wide range of these factors. To simplify their results
they reduced the number of input factors to allow a simple and systematic presentation.
the divided the fire load by the total enclosure surface area as well as ventilation and they
defined 8 separate types of compartments based on enclosure boundary type and
developed conversion factors (see Table 2-) to derive all other types from type A, for
which they presented the curves, Figure 2-12. They are produced in a series of curves for
varying ventilation rates with different fuel loads. it is interesting to note that their fuel
loads are based on MJ per m
2
of total surface area in the compartment, not floor area.
These curves clearly show the effect of varying ventilation on the time and duration of a
fire, large ventilations producing quicker hotter fires and lower ventilation fires burning
cooler but for longer periods. In creating their curve the Swedes manipulated the heat
release rate to achieve temperatures that were similar to those obtained in short duration
fire tests. Magnunsson and Thelandersson then extrapolated their data to generate curves
2
Eurocode 1 uses a rate of 17.5 MJ/kg, Kawagoe uses 18.8 MJ/kg and Babrauskas uses 15.1 MJ/kg.
40
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
for higher fuel loads and longer duration fires than were available from test data. They
used the following equation, solving it by numeric integration.
( ) ( )
( )
( )
1
1/ 2
0 1
1
1/ 2
0
4 4 2
4
1
0.09
2
1
0.09
2
where:
0.023 [kW/m K]
[kW]
C p W V t W g R
i
g
p W V t W
i
i g i
g i
R W g
x
q c A H T A A T T q
k
T
x
c A H T A A
k
T T
T T
q A T

1
+ + +
1
]

1
+ +
1
]
+

& &
&
T
i
is the internal surface temperature of boundary layer i,
C
q&
= Equation times the heat
of combustion of wood [kW] It should be noted that
R
q&
, c
p
and
i
all are dependent on
T
g
. Results presented as tables and figures, because of equation complexity, early on
considered an advantage as it eliminated the need for computer simulation They
expressed heat release rate as a function of time with only fuel load density , opening
factor and thermal properties of the enclosure boundary as inputs. . All done for a
standard fire compartment with a enclosure boundaries having the a thermal conductivity,
k = 0.8 [W/m K] and thermal capacity c
p
= 1700 [kj/m3 K] (Buchanan 2001; Drysdale
1998; Karlsson and Quintiere 2000; Walton and Thomas 1995; Wang 2002)
41
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
.
Figure 2-11 Calculated (dashed lines) and Experimental (solid lines) Gas Temperature-
Time Curves. Experimental results from full-scale tests using furniture as fire load.
Opening factor A
w
H
1/2
/A
T
= 0.068 [m
1/2
]. Smaller figure show the normalized energy
release rate, by maximum energy release rate. (Pettersson et al. 1976)
42
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
43
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
Figure 2-12 Theoretical Calculated Temperature-Time Curves (Swedish Curves)
(Pettersson et al. 1976)
44
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
Table 2-7 Conversion to Equivalent Fire Load Density and Equivalent Opening Factor
(Karlsson and Quintiere 2000)
2.1.2.3.2 COMPF2
COMPF2 (Babrauskas 1979; Feasey and Buchanan 2002) is computer program to
calculate the time temperature relationship in a compartment based on work by
Babrauskas and Williamson in the later 1970s. It is another single zone model that solves
the heat balance equation and uses the same assumptions as in the Swedish method, listed
above (Babrauskas and Williamson 1978a). It takes into account ventilation, though a
single vertical opening, compartment thermal properties, assumed to be uniform
throughout, although they can vary with temperature as appropriate. One of the more
unique features of this program is that it calculates both fuel and ventilation controlled
45
Factor Kf
Fire Compartment Actual Opening Factor [m
1/2
]
Type Description of Enclosing Construction 0.02 0.04 `0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
A
Thermal properties taken as average values for
concrete, brick, and lightweight concrete (standard
fire compartment)
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
B Concrete 0.85 .85 .85 .85 .85 .85
C Lightweight concrete 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5
D 50% lightweight concrete, 50% concrete 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.5 1.55 1.65
E
50% lightweight concrete, 33% concrete, and 17%
(13mm gypsum plasterboard, 100mm mineral wool
and brickwork [from the inside outward])
1.65 1.5 1.35 1.5 1.75 2.0
F
80% un-insulated sheeting, 20% concrete (typically
a warehouse with un-insulated ceiling and walls of
steel sheeting and a concrete floor)
1.0-
0.5
1.0-
0.5
0.8-
0.5
0.7-
0.5
0.7-
0.5
0.7-
0.5
G
20 % concrete, 80% (2 13 mm gypsum
plasterboard, 100 mm air gap and 2 13 mm
gypsum plasterboard
1.5 1.45 1.35 1.25 1.15 1.05
H
100% (steel sheeting, 100 mm mineral wool, steel
sheeting)
3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5
Note: Equivalent fire load density = Kf actual fire load density; equivalent opening factor = Kf actual
opening factor
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
burning rates, using the lesser of the two, to solve for the heat release rate. COMPF2
offers three different fuels, wood cribs, wood sticks, and liquid pools. Through a
variation of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, and hydrogen ratios for fuel in the program,
however, theoretically anything could be burned. Studies have been done (Feasey and
Buchanan 2002) which show that the model can come produce results with excellent
agreement to real tests, provided certain fuel characteristics are used. There are two
mechanisms to burn wood in COMPF2, as mentioned above, sticks or wood cribs. With
sticks a shape factor is used to represent the diameter to length ratio of the sticks, in the
case of cribs stick diameter and crib spacing to height ratio are imputed. With both wood
types an initial pyrolysis rate is set and the program goes from there, calculating the
change from ventilation control to fuel control and progressing until all the fuel is
burned.
Feasey and Buchanan looked at a set of fire tests and calibrated COMPF2 to get realistic
results. Their instructions and recommended values to use to get accurate data from
COMPF2 can be found in Appendix C.
Babrauskas also developed a closed form approximation for COMPF2. It involves
modifying a reference temperature through five factors which take into account burning
rate stoichiometry
3
, enclosure steady state losses, enclosure transient losses, opening
height effect, and combustion efficiency (Babrauskas 1981; Walton and Thomas 1995).
This equation is fairly complex and would probably not be that suitable for most design
purposes.
3
A balanced chemical equation defines the stoichiometry of a reaction; stoichiometry gives the exact
proportions of the reactants for complete conversion to products, where no reactants are remaining. The
stoichiometric ratio is the ideal reaction mass fuel to oxygen (or air).
46
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
Some problems with COMPF2 have been noted. Chief among them is that COMPF2
starts with the fire in post flashover stage, thus all fuel consumption to get to that point is
ignored. It is also a relatively complex too and as it is fairly old lack the user interface
and is rather awkward in it presentation of data. It is probably as such more suited as a
research tool than as a design tool (Feasey and Buchanan 2002).
The problem with both of these pervious methods is that the calculations are very tedious
and complex and require many assumptions. In fact due to the number of assumptions
required and uncertainties that exist, such a sophisticated model may have little value
outside of research.. The following methods strive to simply the equations and provide
fire temperature-time curves whose effects are reasonably accurate and will present a
case that will not be reasonably exceeded in the life of the structure.
2.1.2.3.3 Lies curve
Lie set about to define a characteristic time-temperature curve that would not, with a
reasonable likelihood, be exceeded during the structures lifetime. He was concerned
that the heat balance approach required the designer to define too many parameters which
wee difficult to define, such as the quantity of gases that burn outside the compartment,
the degree of temperature difference in the compartment, the arrangement and quantity of
the fuel in the compartment, wind velocity and direction at the time of a fire and outside
air temperature. Of course the very involved mathematical computations required to
solve the balance equations proposed by the Swedish method and others did not lend
themselves to use in practical design. Lies approach eliminated the need to define some
of these parameters and came up with a cure that is not so much a representation of a fire
scenario but a curve that will not be exceeded, with a reasonable probability. He
47
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
proposed the following method for calculating the temperature course, based on work by.
Kawagoe in 1967:
( ) ( ) ( )
0.3
0.5
0.1/ 2 0.6 3 12
600
250(10 ) 3 1 1 4 1
V V
F F t t t t
V
V
T F e e e e c
F

_
1
+ +

]
,
where T = fire temperature in
o
C, t = time in hours, F
V
= opening factor Equation [m
1/2
].
The expression is valid for
1
08 . 0
+
F
t
and 15 . 0 01 . 0 F . If t > (0.08/F)+1, a value of t
= (0.08/F)+1 should be used. If F > 0.15, a value of F = 0.15 should be used. The rate of
decay is more complex to calculate; however, if the temperature variations are not large it
can be approximated by a decrease in temperature-time relation. It can be approximated
as

T
t
T + ) 1 ( 600

with the condition T = 20 if T < 20
o
C, where T = fire temperature, = time at which the
decay starts as given by
F
Q
330

where Q = fire load per unit area of the surfaces
bounding the enclosure, t = time under consideration (t > ) and T

= temperature at t =
(Lie 1974; Lie 1992; Lie 2002). Although this curve provides good agreement with
experimental data, some have expressed concerns that that it is not realistic in rooms with
small openings (Buchanan 2001).
48
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
2.1.2.3.4 Eurocode 1 Curve
A more realistic representation of a fire curve, or a natural fire, is given by the
parametric model found in Annex A Eurocode 1 (European Committee for
Standardization 2001).
Fires have often treated as having a uniform effect on all structural members. This is
clearly not the case in reality. A fire is a function of the size of the compartment,
ventilation, the type of surface area exposed and combustibles in the compartment. Fires
rarely, if ever, occur as they would in a furnace throughout and entire structure. In
addition, standard fire curves used in codes grow rapidly and then continue to increase
over time as previously discussed. In reality fire curves do grow rapidly, but having
reached a peak they then decay (O'Conner 1995). It is clear that there is a need to take
into account the true nature and behavior of natural fires in real multi-story steel-framed
structures, and need to assess the effects of those types of fires upon the structural steel
frames and floors. In reality, fires tend to be compartmentalized (localized) and provide
non-uniform heating throughout the structure. This is largely ignored in current practice,
although the use of parametric fire curves does address the issue and provides a much
better representation of a true fire. A more realistic representation of a fire curve, or a
natural fire, is given by the parametric model found in Annex A Eurocode 1 (European
Committee for Standardization 2001). As written in the European Convention for
Constructional Steelwork this equation is:
0.2 * 1.7 * 19 *
20 1325(1 0.324 0.204 0.472 )
t t t
gas
T e e e

+
where
49
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
T
gas
= temperature in the fire compartment [
o
C]
t
*
= t [h], a fictitious time
t = time [h]
[ ] ( ) [ ] ( )
2
2 2 2
/ / / / / 0.04/1160 [-]
ref ref
O b O b O b
NOTE: when = 1, you get approximately ISO 834 curve in the heating phase.
b
( ) c

[J/m
2
s
1/2
K], thermal inertia, with the following limits: 100 b 2200
NOTE: there is a method for calculating b for enclosure boundaries made up of
different layers, as well as for different b factors for walls, floors and ceilings.
=density of boundary of enclosure [kg/m]
c = specific heat of boundary of enclosure [J/kgK]
= thermal conductivity of boundary of enclosure [W/mK]
O =
t eq v
A h A /
[m
1/2
], (Equation ) 0.02 O 0.2
A
v
= total area of vertical openings on all walls [m
2
]
h
eq
= weighted average of window heights on walls [m], see Equation
A
T
= total area of enclosure (walls, ceiling, and floor, including openings [m
2
]
The maximum T
g
in the heating phase occurs when
* *
max
t t
where
( )
*
max max
3
max , lim
[h]
with max 0.2 10 / ;
t d
t t
t q O t



50
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
q
t,d
= q
f,d
Af/A
T
[MJ/m
2
], the design value for the fire load density related to total
surface area A
T
of the enclosure, with the following limits 50 q
t,d
1000
[MJ/m
2
].
q
f,d
= design value of the fire load density related to the floor area A
f
taken from
Annex E of Eurocode 1 [MJ/m
2
].
t
lim
= 25 [min] for a slow fire growth rate, 20 [min] for a medium fire growth rate, and
15 [min] for a fast fire growth rate, in [hours].
when t
max
= t
lim
, t
*
= t
lim
[h]
with [ ] ( )
2 2
lim lim
/ / 0.04/1160 O b
where O
lim
= 0.1 10
-3
q
t,d
/ t
lim
NOTE: if O > 0.04 and q
t,d
< 75 and b < 1160 then
lim
must be multiplied by k,
,
75
0.04 1160
1
0.04 75 1160
t d
q
O b
k
_ _ _
+

, ,
,

This factor attempts to account for the effect larger openings have in that a higher
mass exchange occurs with more burning taking place outside the compartment.
This factor will diminish the duration of the fire as well as lower the temprature.
When
* *
max
t t >
the time temperature curve is in the decay or cool phase and is defined by
( )
( ) ( )
( )
* * o *
max max max
* * * o *
max max max max
* * o *
max max max
625 [ C] for 0.5
250 3 [ C] for 0.5 2
250 [ C] for 2
g
g
g
T T t t x t
T T t t t x t
T T t t x t

< <

where
51
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
( )
* 3
max ,
0.2 10 /
t d
t q O


x = 1 if t
max
> t
lim
or
x = t
lim
/t
max
if t
max
= t
lim
It is also worthwhile to look at the fuel load as it plays a significant role in the
temperatures achieved during a fire event. There is also a great deal of uncertainty
surround this design value of the fire load, q
t,d
. This value, q
t,d
, is based on the ratio of
floor area to total compartment area times the design value of the fire load density, based
on floor area, q
f,d
.
2
, ,
/ [MJ/m ]
t d f d f T
q q A A
The q
f,d
design value is taken from Annex E of Eurocode 1, and should be discussed in
some detail, as the fire load, or fuel load, has a large impact on our parametric equation
and thus the maximum temperature reached in the steel member
2
, , 1 2
[MJ/m ]
f d f k q q n
q q m
where m is the combustion factor,
q1
is a factor taking into account the fire activation
risk due to the size of the compartment ,
q2
is a factor taking into account the fire
activation risk due to the type of occupancy,
10
1
n ni
i

is a factor taking into account


the different active firefighting measure (i.e. sprinkler, detection, automatic alarm
transmission, firefighter access and location, etc.); and q
f,k
is the characteristic fire load
density per unit floor area [MJ/m
2
]. Obviously this value for fire load density is the key
part of Equation . It is nothing more than the fire load, the total energy able to be
52
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
released in a compartment, divided by the floor area. This total energy or fire load is
derived from the choleric values of the of the compartments combustible components
(wall and ceiling linings, finishings, etc.) and contents (furniture, supplies, storage items,
etc.). There are tables that give values for individual content items, by unit mass, as well
as typical values for contents of standard occupancies (living space, school classrooms,
theaters, office, hotel rooms, hospital rooms, library, shopping centers), to these would be
added values for the combustible components.
The combustion factor, m, is a function of the spatial properties of the fuel and location
of the fuel in relation to the ignition source. It is a measure of the burnability of the fuel
source based on the compartment. The most conservative value for m = 1, however
Eurocode 1 suggests m = .8 for cellulosic material and seems to be a conservative and
often used value (CIB W14 1986). However, some data does suggest a value of m = 0.7
could be used (Babrauskas and Williamson 1978a).
The
q1
,
q2
, and
n
factors (See Tables 2-8, and 2-9) may seem to be more related to the
probability of a fire occurring and/or reaching flashover, but close examination shows
their relation to the growth of a post flashover fire. They each contribute to the q
t,d
term,
which determines the time to the maximum temperature in the room, T
gas
, in a ventilation
controlled fire, given by Equation . As such, we can see that the fire fighting factors that
go into the differentiation factor,
n
, would have an effect on the size of the fire that could
be achieved. These various fire safety and fire fighting measures would tend to limit a
fires size, thus requiring a reduction in the fire load density, even in a post flashover
phase. Looking at sprinklers alone, this seems quite reasonable. When sprinklers are
activated in addition to extinguishing or controlling a fire, they also serve as a level of
53
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
structural protection by cooling off the temperature in the compartment (Schulte 2002a).
This would be the effect of reducing the fuel load, which would reduce the maximum
possible temperature that could be achieved in a fire. As to the reliability of sprinklers,
with the exception of the World Trade Center towers and WTC 7, it is a fact that there
have been no major fire disasters in high rise building since sprinklers became mandatory
in code provisions in the US in the 1980s (Schulte 2003a), in fact the FEMA report goes
further in stating that prior to these events, no protected steel-framed structure, the most
common form of large commercial construction in the United States, has ever
experienced a fire related collapse (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2002). Of
course these same factors would also likely contribute to the probability of ignition and
reaching flashover as well. Similarly, the size of the compartment and the type of
occupancy (or use) can also affect the ultimate size of the fire. The larger the space, the
more likely that the post flashover fire will not be able to be controlled, hence requiring a
boosting of the calculated load density. Similarly, for certain extreme occupancies, the
likelihood of effective fire fighting measures should be increased or reduced through
q2
.
Compartment floor area
Af [m
2
]
Danger of Fire
Activation
q1
Danger of Fire
Activation
q2
Examples of Occupancies
25 1.10 0.78
Art gallery, museum,
swimming pool
250 1.50 1.00
Offices, residence, hotel,
paper industry
2500 1.90 1.22
Manufactory for machinery
& engines
5000 2.00 1.44
Chemical laboratory, painting
workshop
10000 2.13 1.66
Manufactory of fireworks or
paints
54
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
Table 2-8 Factors
q1
,
q2
(European Committee for Standardization 2001)
Automatic Fire Suppression Automatic Fire Detection Manual Fire Suppression
Automatic
Water
Extinguishing
System
Independent
Water
Supplies
Automatic
Fire
Detection &
Alarm
Automatic
Alarm
Transmission
to Fire
Fighters
Work
Fire
Fighter
s
Off Site
Fire
Fighter
s
Safe
Access
Routes
Fire
Fighting
Devices
Smoke
Exhaust
System
0 1 2
By
Heat
By
Smoke
n1 n2 n3 n4 n5 n6 n7 n8 n9 n10
0.61
1.
0
0.8
7
0.
7
.87 or .73 .87 .0.61 or 0.78
0.9 or
1.0 or
1.5
1.0 or 1.5 1.0 or 1.5
Table 2-9
ni
Factors, Function of Active Fire Fighting Measures (European Committee
for Standardization 2001)
This model produces a time-temperature relationship for any combination of fuel loads,
ventilation openings and enclosure boundaries. It was developed to give a close
approximation of the Swedish curves and takes the ISO 834 curve as basis is it also
heavily based on the work of the Swedish Curves, with some simplifying modifications
to make the calculations easier(Technical Committee 3 2001; Wickstrom 1984;
Wickstrom 1989). It is applicable for compartments less than 500 [m
2
] and with only
vertical openings.
In a study looking at the results of Eurocode 1s time temperature curves verses
COMPF2, Feasey and Buchanan found that the results for the Eurocode 1 model
consistently predicted temperatures lower than COMPF2. In an attempt to make a simple
modification they suggested using the reference value of 1900 [J/s
1/2
m
2
K], in stead of
1160 in Equation , which gives results of the heating phase closer to the ISO 834 curve.
55
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
The also felt that the decay phase of the Eurocode model was unrealistic. Through trial
and error they suggest that Equation be modified so that in the decay phase be taken as
/ / 0.04/1900
decay
O b
These changes were proposed based on the 1992 version of the Eurocode, however.
Since that time the temperature in the growth period has been increased by 20 [
o
C]
(ambient temperature) and the constant of 0.2 10
-3
in Equations and was increased
from 0.13 10
-3
. The maximum function in Equation is also a guard against too short a
duration fire in the case of a very small ratio between the fire load and the opening factor.
There was also a check placed against having fires with large openings with small fuel
loads, which is the function of Equation . These changes and modifications to the curves
point to the fact that these curves are being calibrated and adjusted to produce more
accurate representations of realistic natural compartment fires all the time. In all
likelihood this trend will continue, but the general shape and characteristics of the curve
is not likely to change significantly, yet they still maintain a strong connection to the
much earlier equations.
The other fact of fires deals with their probability of occurrence. Structural fires are rare
events and thus, the low probability of fire warrants lower load factors (Ioannides and
Sandeep 1997). This would be more consistent with the way other load factors are
treated.
The minimum ventilation factor give the greatest destructive potential and its selection
would not be overly conservative (Mehaffey and Harmathy 1984).
56
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
SHOW CURVES FOR PARAMETRIC FIRE, SHOW VARYING OPENING, VARY
FUEL LOAD
2.1.3 Summary
The various parametric models do a good job in modeling post flashover fires in rooms
of standard configurations with vertical openings. While some work has been done with
handling horizontal openings (Buchanan 2001; Feasey and Buchanan 2002), most of
these models cannot adequate handle them and are not designed to do so. Also areas
such as long narrow corridors are not adequately modeled. However, most standard
compartments where a fire will occur can be handled by these parametric models.
2.1.4 Computer Models
Three areas of computer modeling, computational fluid dynamics to model the fire,
thermal behavior of the structure and structural response at elevated temperature.
2.2 Heat Transfer Modeling
While the temperature in a compartment is critical, it is only necessary as a step to
determining the heat that a structural member obtains, through the transfer of heat from
the fire and compartment to the member. It is the increased heat of the member that will
result in any structural failure, permanent deformation or structural damage to the
building. At its most basic heat transfer is the thermal energy in transit due to a
temperature difference. There are three different types of physical mechanism that
describe heat transfer: conduction, convection and radiation. Conduction heat transfer
occurs through the random molecular activity in a medium due to a temperature gradient,
57
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
or more simply, heat is transferred through a solid, or stationary fluid, due to a difference
in temperature between parts of the medium. Heat flux, the heat transfer rate in the x
direction per unit of area of the medium perpendicular to the direction of flux, for
conduction is given by Fouriers law:
'' 2 1 2
[W/m ]
x
T T
q k
L

where k = thermal conductivity of the medium [W/m K], T = temperature of a point in


the medium [
o
K or
o
C], and L = distance between the points in the x direction [m].
Convection involves energy transferred through random molecular activity and through
bulk motion of a fluid, for example from a moving fluid to a surface. The equation for
convection heat flux, Newtons law of cooling, is given by:
( )
'' 2
[W/m ]
S
q h T T


where h = convection heat transfer coefficient [W/m
2
K] and T = temperature at the
surface and surrounding fluid [
o
K or
o
C]. The third type of heat transfer is radiation, heat
energy emitted by matter at a finite temperature. Energy of radiation is physically
transported through electromagnetic waves or photons. Net radiation heat exchange
between two surfaces, radiation heat flux form one matter to another is described by the
Steffan-Boltzman Law
'' 4 4 2
( ) [W/m ]
rad S sur
q T T
58
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
where = the emissivity, a radiative property
4
, = 5.67 10
-6
, Steffan-Boltzmann
constant, [W/m
2
K
4
], and T
S
= temperature at the surface of a (relatively) small surface
and T
sur
= temperature of the (relatively) larger surroundings [
o
K]. (Incropera and DeWitt
2002)
For the purposes of fire, members in a compartment, heat transfer for protected or
insulated members is mainly through convection, while for unprotected members it is a
combination of convection and radiation. Radiation is also the primary mechanism for
igniting new fuel surfaces and other nearby area to the fire. Although it should also be
noted that building fires spread mostly through convection, escape of flames or hot gases
though cracks or openings in a compartment, rather than by destruction of a compartment
boundary (Mehaffey and Harmathy 1984).
Heat transfer by convection and radiation to a member is an area of high uncertainty
(Morris and Kirby 1997).
The temperature rise in steel members is a function of the thermal conductivity of steel.
While this number may vary for various chemical compositions of steel at room
temperature, it is almost identical at elevated temperatures for most structural steel.
Because of steels relatively high conductivity, the assumption that steel is a perfect
conductor, implying uniform temperatures in the section is widely used. In reality
temperature gradients do exist and are affected by heat sinks that adjoining members
provide. The thermal conductivity of steel can be expressed as:
4
Emissivity is the amount of radiation emitted by a surface, with 0 1 (1 for a blackbody). Typical
values are 0.6 to 0.9, with 0.7 being typically used.
59
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
C k
C T k
o
o
900 T for 2 . 28
900 T 0 for 48 022 . 0
>
+
, where k = thermal conductivity (W/m
o
K) and T =
steel temperature (
o
C) (Lie 1992). Due to the high thermal conductivity of steel, it is
usually assumed that the steel will be heated uniformly. If the temperature in a room is
uniform, based on the discussion above in a post flashover fire, it can be then deduced
that the steel temperature in a member will also be uniform (Lie 1992).
The temperature in the steel can be calculated, once we the compartment gas
temperature, T
gas
, is determined. Based on convection and radiation we know that the
heat absorbed by a steel member is Equations and multiplied by F = exposed surface
area [m
2
] and t = time step [s]:
( ) [J]
c gas steel
q Fh T T t
4 4
( ) [J]
gas steel
q F T T t
We can also calculate the amount of heat need to raise temperature by the amount T
s
using the heat capacity equation, based on the volumetric heat capacity of the steel,
defined as its ability to store thermal energy (Incropera and DeWitt 2002)
_
[J]
p steel steel steel steel
q c V T
By adding the convective (Equation ) and radiative (Equation ) heat and equating it to
Equation yields the a way to calculate the steel temperature using an iterative time step
method based on
4 4
_
1
{ ( ) ( )}
steel
steel c gas steel gas steel
steel steel p steel
F
T h T T T T t
V c

+
60
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
for unprotected stee,l where V
steel
=is the volume the steel member [m
3
], h
c
is the
convection coefficient [W/m
2
K], is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (56.7x10
-12
[kW/m
2
K
4
]), is emissivity, t is the time step [seconds], c
p
is specific heat [J/kg K], is the
density [kg/m
3
].
For protected or insulated steel the equation is similar, except that it is assumed that the
external surface of the insulation is at the same temperature as the compartment, T
gas
.
This eliminates the heat transfer coefficients from the equation and the resulting heat
transfer is based on conduction (Equation ) through the insulation. In a similar manner
we can get
_
_
_
( )
(
2
steel p steel
steel insul
steel gas steel
insul insul p insul
steel insul steel p steel
steel psteel
c
F k
T T T t
d c
F V d c
c
V





' ;

+


where d is thickness of insulation [m] and k is thermal conductivity [W/m K]. Equations
and are taken from Buchanans text (Buchanan 2001) and are also found in the European
Convention for Constructional Steelworks Model Code for Fire Engineering (Technical
Committee 3 2001).
2.3 Structural Performance and Mechanical Modeling
2.3.1 Structural Behavior
The structural performance of structural steel frames during a fire can be related to what
happens to the steel during the fire. Simply put, the steels temperature increases, this
increase of temperature leads to the thermal expansion of the steel, bowing of the steel
and the deterioration of its mechanical properties. The magnitude and presence of these
61
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
three effects is of course based on many factors, the duration and intensity of the fire,
whether the steel is uniformly heated, or there is a temperature gradient, the type of steel,
and whether it was protected in any way. It is worthwhile to look at the basics of thermal
effects on a beam to understand these phenomena.
At its most basic the fundamental relationship that governs thermal effects on structural
behavior is
with and
total mechanical thermal
mechanical total


+

In this relationship total strains (
total
) govern the deformed shape, while mechanical
strains (
mechanical
) alone are responsible for the stress state (), elastic or plastic. If there
are no restraints on the structural member, i.e. thermal strains are free to develop without
limit, and there are no external forces are applied then axial expansion or bowing is from
and
total thermal total

If the member is fully restrained, without any external loads, then the thermal stresses
and any plasticization comes from
0 with
mechanical thermal mechanical
+
These thermal strains take the form of thermal expasnsion by increased length, when an
average centrodial tmneprerature load is applied, and curvature when a temrpeature
graditent through the depth is applied. If the members ends are free to tanslate the
thermal expansion is taken up by displacement, similarly if the ends are free to rotate
bowing of the member occurs. If the members are restrained against translation, then
62
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
mechanical strains are produced and compressive stress developed in the member. In the
sma emamnenr if the ends are restrained atainst rotation and a temperature gradient is
applied, large negative moment will develop throughout the member with no bowing. If
a member is rotationally unrestrained and restrained for translational and undergoes
curvature tension is produced in the member. This means that for similar deflections a
large number of stress states can exist. Figure 2-13 show that for many deflections, all
downward, there can be a variety of stress states.

Post-buckling
Tensile forces
in the beam
T

T (

= 0)
T >

(or y0 >0)

T =

(zero stress)

T <


Tcr
Tcr (

)
Compressive
forces in the beam
Pre-buckling
Figure 2-13 Temperature Deflection Responses for Combinations of
T
and

(Usmani
and Rotter 2000)
In real structures undergoing a fire event it is easy to imagine this large variety of strees
conditions. In members that undergo a large restrained thermal exapansions, large
compressive stresses will develop. In member undergoing a combination of expansion
and bowing, stresses will be low as they effefects tender to coneract each other. Where
63
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
thermal bowing occurs in laterally restrained and rotationally unrestrained members large
negative moments will develop and tension stresses. However, most real structures
undergo a combination of these mechanical strains. These combined strains often far
exceed yield values resulting in plastification. Deflections however, as seem in
Equation , deflections are based on total strains. This means they might be quite small
where there is a high degree of restraint. The other extreme is also possible, with little
restraint large deflections are possible with little plastic straining, and less destruction to
stiffness properties of the material. This can be quite the opposite of the normal
conventional (ambient temperatures) structural engineering perspective (large deflections
lead to higher stiffness and smaller deflections leading to smaller stiffness) (Lamont
2000; Rotter et al. 1999; Usmani and Rotter 2000).
Thermal expansion strains,
T
, are the result of heating most structural materials and can
be defined by
thermal
T
where = coefficient of thermal expansion [mm/
o
C] and T = mean temperature increase
[
o
C] over the length L [mm]. If a simply supported beam, free to translate, were
uniformly heated by an amount T it would then expand by L
thermal
, as seen in Figure 2-
14.
64
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
Figure 2-14 Uniform Heating of a Simply Supported Beam
In most structures beams or columns are not free to expand but are restrained. In such a
case the total strain is zero,
total
= 0, therefore
mechanical
= -
thermal
. This mechanical strain is
the result of an equal and opposite force
mechanical thermal
P EA EA EA T
and a uniform stress in the member = E
mechanical
, as seen in Figure 2-15. If the
temperature continues to increase there are two responses, yielding or buckling, based on
the slenderness of the member. If the member is relatively stocky, the axial stress will
reach yield stress. At this point, depending on the elastic-plastic relationship the beam
will continue to deform without any increase in stress or will go into strain hardening, but
will store an increasing plastic strain.
65
L
L
thermal
Uniform Temperature Rise
T
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
Figure 2-15 Axially Restrained Beam Subjected to Uniform Heating
If however, the member is slender, then buckling will occur prior to the member yielding.
This is the case shown in Figure 2-16. The Euler buckling load is
2
2 cr
EI
P
L

which can be equated to the resisting force and give a buckling temperature increase
2
2 2
o
2
[ C]
cr
r
T
L


_


,
where
I
r
A
the radius of gyration and
L
r

the slenderness ratio (NOTE: this is
valid for other end condition if L = effective length). If we neglect the effects of material
property degradation and the member stays elastic, then the axial force will stay constant
and a further increase in the temperature will result in increased deflection, , of the
beam.
66
Uniform Temperature Rise
T
P P
Uniform Temperature Rise
T
P
cr
P
cr

2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK


Figure 2-16 Buckling of an Axially Restrained Beam Subjected to Uniform Heating
These two fundamental responses, yielding and buckling, can occur on their own,
depending on the slenderness of the beam, or in combination.
Another phenomenon of heating is thermal bowing which results from non-uniform
temperature in a member, or a temperature gradient. When the inner surfaces for
example are heted more than the outer surfaces of a beam in a compartment, the inner
surfaces will expand more and the result is thermal bowing. This is often seen in
combosite beam slabs, where the concrete slab can act as a heat sink and the top of the
beam will be cooler than the exposed bottom. In a similar manner as was described
above for thermal expansion the relationship for Thermal bowing can be derived. The
average temperature gradient through the depth is simply
o 2 1
,
[ C/mm]
y
T T
T
d

Thermal bowing curvature is thus


, y
T
Figure 2-17 shows this, if the ends of the beam are feel to move laterally the horizontal
distance will then be reduced due to the curvature and the thermal strain, , can be
thought of a contraction strain (similar to T is the thermal expansion strain). From the
figure the contracting stain is calculated as
sin
2
1
2
l
l


67
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
Figure 2-17 Simply Supported Beam Subjected to Uniform Thermal Gradient
If the beam is restrained against lateral translation, and apply the thermal gradient,
without any average temperature increase in the beam (T = 0), then the beam will still
bow, but tension forces will develop as the beam tries to contract due to the contraction
strain,

, induced by the temperature gradient. Figure 2-18 shows this.


68

T
2
> T
1
T
1
T
2
d
R
NA
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
Figure 2-18 Laterally Restrained Beam Subjected to Uniform Thermal Gradient
Fixing the ends of the beam and applying the temperature gradient through the depth
without and increase in average temperature in the beam results in the conditions shown
in Figure 2-19. The beam being rotationally fixed, moments M develop that are equal
and opposite to the curvature that is induced by the thermal gradient, thus resulting in no
bowing, but having uniform negative moments throughout the beam.
Figure 2-19Fixed End Beam Subjected to a Uniform Thermal Gradient
Large deflections in restrained structures are caused entirely by thermal expansion at
lower temperatures and the same even at higher temperatures causes the majority of
deflections. Loads have little influence on structural response in fire, until just before
runaway failure. The temperature at runaway is sensitive to magnitude of the load
(Usmani and Rotter 2001).
Effect of boundary restraints is critical in determining response (Usmani and Rotter
2001).
69
Uniform Temperature
Gradient T
,y
P
P

Uniform Temperature
Gradient T
,y
M
M
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
...thermal strains will be manifested as displacements if they are unrestrained or as
stresses if they are restrained through counteracting mechanical strains generated by
restraining forces (Usmani and Rotter 2001).
The chief reason for large deflections is that the structural member tries to
accommodate the additional length generated by thermal expansion, given that it is
not possible to expand longitudinally due to end restraints (Usmani and Rotter
2001).
Slender beam, midspan deflection, uniform temperature increase
T
l
T
T
T
+

,
2
2
2
(Usmani and Rotter 2001)
Slender beam, midspan deflection, temperature gradient
EA
P l
T
T
T
+

,
2
2
2
(Usmani and Rotter 2001)
Column buckling
2.3.2 Structural Analysis and Design
Main differences for fire design from normal design are: applied loads are less, internal
forces may be induced from thermal expansion, strengths of materials may be reduced by
elevated temperatures, smaller factors of safety [FOS] can be used due to low likelihood
of event, deflections are not important, unless they affect strength, different failure
mechanisms need to be considered (Buchanan 2001).
Three possible ways of checking fire resistance of a structure: global structural analysis
taking into account relevant failure modes and thermal expansion; analysis of part of the
70
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
structure, considering only the thermal expansion of members within part of the
structure, boundary loadings and restraints remain constant; and a member analysis,
thermal expansion is ignored (Kruppa 2000).
2.3.2.1 Other Contributing Factors
In the US recently there has been a trend to classify many [steel-framed] structures as
unrestrained. [The UBC, BOCA SBC have put the onus on engineers to prove structures
are restrained and provide confusing information on the subject], and the additional cost
of fire proofing a steel structure that is considered unrestrained can be substantial. It is
the authors opinion that most welded, bolted or riveted steel frame construction can be
considered restrained (Ioannides and Sandeep 1997). There is also a direct economic
consequence of this practice, Certainly, considerably more money is being spent on fire
proofing due to the new interpretations (Ioannides and Sandeep 1997) While the codes
do not yet recognize it as such, There is now an acceptance that the fire resistance (in
terms of structural response) of whole structures under natural fire loading is
significantly better than that of single elements on which fire resistance is universally
assessed (Martin 1996). In recent British design codes designers are encourage to treat
fire as one of the basic limit states, which may incorporate non-uniform heating due to
partial protection either inherent in the framing system used or deliberately added, the
level of the load at fire limit state, and realistic stress-strain characteristics of steel at
elevated temperatures. This approach to structural behaviour can greatly reduce the
amount of fire protection required and can, in many cases, show that no retrospective
protection is needed (Bailey et al. 1996).
71
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
It is abundantly clear that members of a structure do not act alone or are not subjected to
a fire as a single member put in a furnace, as in most tests. Other structural elements and
non structural elements effect how a structural member will react when heated by a fire.
In fact, Results of standard fire tests on partially exposed members show that
unprotected steelwork can be designed to withstand high temperatures and that
significant levels of fire resistance can be achieved without protection by partially
shielding structural elements with walls and floors (Robinson and Latham 1986).
Composite floors have also been shown to have a decidedly positive effect on steel floor
beams. It is clear that composite floors have a great influence on the performance of a
building in fire (Newman 1996). Fire resistance periods of up to at least an hour have
been demonstrated in tests on steel through floors with concrete topping but with no
reinforcement. Presumably their survival depends on the rate at which heat is conducted
away from the steel but it is difficult to get solid information (Sutherland 1986).
There are clear economic benefits to taking these other elements into account. The
ability to design frames without costly protection using existing elements of the structure,
such as walls and floors, to provide the necessary fire resistance is likely to reduce the
cost directly especially in lower fire rated classes of buildings. In addition it will
improve scheduling and cut construction time (Robinson and Latham 1986). Again,
realizing the true nature of a fire and designing for such can create savings. In any fire
engineering design procedure the maintenance of compartmentation is important. It is
generally accepted that the spread of fire must be controlled and that structural stability
will not always be the design criterion for all elements (Newman 1996). This also
implies that not all elements will be subjected to a fire load. Adjoining parts of the
72
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
structure will likely be shielded from a fire and remain unaffected. This combined with
the low probability of fire occurrence has significant implications in design. Practically
designed structures have reserve strength capacity which can be utilized for resisting
loads resulting from extraordinary events, such as fire (Ioannides and Sandeep 1997).
Also the effect of active fire abatement devices needs to be taken into account. For
example, sprinklers basically out the fire in a building in Philadelphia, resulting in no
structural damage due to the fire on floors where sprinklers were installed. The fire
burned for 18 hours on 9 floors below where sprinklers were currently installed, when
the fire reach the floors with sprinklers it was extinguished (Dexter and Lu 2000).
As noted previously fires rarely affect every member of a structure in the same way.
Thus there will be members that are unaffected by a fire that may be in close proximity to
those affected. It is crucial that in the future the development of design methods for fire
safety of structures needs to be steered away from its traditional emphasis on isolated
member behaviour, and towards concepts based on local and overall survival of the
structure when the interaction of the heated zone and the cooler surrounding structure is
taken into account (Bailey et al. 1996). The strength of other elements needs to be taken
into account as does the possibility of non-uniform heating of an individual element.
This has significant implications to the idea of a critical temperature. The member will
retain stability until the load transferred into the cool flange is sufficiently high to cause it
too to yield plastically.If we accept this concept, that failure temperature is a variable,
then a new failure criterion must be introduced to replace the fixed assumption of critical
temperature (Robinson and Latham 1986). Likewise the idea that a connection is
critical for moments is not always true. Since the connection is generally not subjected
73
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
to very high temperatures, the critical condition for computing moments is in the beam at
a small distance from the connection (Ioannides and Sandeep 1997).
Restrained unprotected steel beams under load develop significant axial forces. Axial
restrains may be the most important factor affecting beam behavior. Beams will initially
expand and push columns outward and deflect themselves (bowing due to temperature
difference between top and bottom flanges). The axial force increases as a result of
thermal expansion. However, at some point the temperatures become so high and the
material will loose strength to a degree that runaway deflections will start to occur. The
restrains will then act to hold back the beam, by going from compression to tension
forming a catenary (show fig). (Liu and Davies 2001). The initial rise in axial
compression is gotten from:
1
1
R
R
B
P K L T
K
K

+
where K
B
and K
R
are the stiffness of the beam and the restraint (due to axial force),
respectively. L is the length of the beam, is the coefficient of thermal expansion; T is
the mean temperature change in the beam (Liu and Davies 2001). Upon greater
temperature increase the forces change to tension due to the loss of strength (E). Once
the axial force changes into tension the run-away is slowed as tension rises. Catenary
action occurs with large deflections and can prevent the beam deflections from running
away. Usually plastic hinges form and the load is supported by the remaining shear
moment capacity and the vertical component of tension.
74
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
Support conditions have a large effect on a buildings ability to support loads during a
fire. Rotational stiffness of beam to column connections and interaction between
members provides restraint which is normally beneficial to building survival under
exposure to fire (El Rimawi et al. 1995).
Performance criteria associated with these traditional descriptions for fire resistant
assemblies include [Ellingwood 1999]: Load carrying > applied loads; Radiant flux
needed for ignition of combustibles on unexposed side > radiation heat transfer
provided from unexposed side; Passage of flame prevented through
cracks/openings in assembly...in performance based design, at the request of the
owner, an analyst may elect to include additional performance criteria for a fire
resistance analysis, such as: maximum allowable deflection > deflection resulting
fro fire exposure; minimal permanent damage should be induced as a result of the
fire(Milke 2001).
Beam moment capacity. If assume a temperature gradient in the depth of a beam, can
treat as composite, dividing the beam into several smaller quasi-isothermal sections
(Milke 2001). yT
y
yT
f
f
M
T M

20 20
) ( *
, where M*(T) is the bending moment at
temperature T, M
20
is the moment capacity at room temperature, f
yT
and f
y20
are the yield
stresses. M*(T)=M*
L
+M*
T
, where M*
L
is derived from static loading for uniform E.
M*
T
is from thermal loading, determined by P
T
for each member with a cross section A
and a coefficient of Thermal expansion , where
T T
A E P
20

, where
T
=
ET
(T-20)
and
20
E
E
T
ET

. This is elastic method from Wong, it neglects the axial forces induced by
thermal expansion against restrained ends. If you assume all members have the same
temperature rise, M*
T
=
T
M*
e
, where M*e is taken from the thermal load of E
20
A in all
members. Thus for the limiting case our first equation becomes
T
M*
e
+M*
L
-
yT
M
20
=0.
75
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
This equation can only be solved for a limiting T, by use of simplified equations for
T
.

T

=-32.4+1.252T-.00107T
2
for T<550
o
C , = 718.5-.716T for T 550
o
C. (Wong 2001).
Steel is a reversible material; shape of stress/strain relationship not affected by heating or
cooling; Youngs modulus is totally reversible. Studies by Kirby (1986) show that
residual yield strength of steel is unaffected at temps below 600
o
C, and decreased
between .1 and .5 MPA/
o
C when over that temperature. The lowest residual yield
strength after 4 hours was no worse that 10% below the minimum specified value
(Franssen and Kodur 2001).
2.3.3 Material Properties at Elevated Temperatures
All commonly used construction grades of steel have shown they have the same
mechanical and thermal property degradation at elevated temperatures. The empirical
scatter in steel property variations are relatively minor compared to other uncertainties
encountered in fire engineering, so the retention factors discussed below can be applied
to all grades of steel (Gerwain et al. 2003).
When looking at strain we can write
( ) ( ) ( ) , , ,
total mechanical thermal creep
T T T t + +
For thermal strain, usually coefficient of thermal expansion is taken as 11.7 x 10
-6
/
o
C at
room temperature, coefficient increases with temperature and discontinuity occurs
between 700 and 800
o
C. Eurocode 3 recommends 14.0 x 10
-6
for normal design
(Buchanan 2001). Creep strain is insignificant until temperatures over 400 or 500
o
C are
reached. Creep is usually not included in calculation, it is assumed that normal stress-
76
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
strain relationship will account for it during exposure to fire (Saito et al. 1988). Poh and
Bennetts (1995), Anderberg (1986), Srpcic 1(1995) all show ways to include it in a
computer model, finding its effects and the nature of strain hardening of the material can
have a significant influence on the predicted behavior of the system(Buchanan 2001).
Thus the strain is often simplified to
total
=
mechanical
+
thermal
(Buchanan 2001).

thermal
= T = (10.8 +0.00675T) T x 10
-6
(Saito et al. 1988).
Thermal coefficient of expansion for steel can be thought of as constant, so the thermal
expansion strain is often simply expressed as:
5
14 10
th
T


Although a more exact representation is given by the following from Eurocode 3 (Wang
2002), the region between 750
o
C and 860
o
C, which corresponds to the phase change in
steel.
4 5 8 2
5
2.416 10 1.2 10 0.4 10 for 750
0.011 for 750 860
0.0062 2 10 for 860
th
th
th
T T T
T
T T

+ +
<
+ >
o
o o
o
From Eurocode 3 (Buchanan 2001) reduction factor for f
y
:
1/ 3.833
,
[0.9674(1 exp[( 482) / 39.19])]
y t
k T

+
From AS4100 and NZS 3404:
, ,
(905 ) / 690 for 1
y t y t
k T k <
77
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
Creep strain at elevated temperatures occurs when the steel is simultaneously subjected to
high temperatures and high stress over time. During fires steel members are exposed for
only a relatively short period of time, and for all practical considerations creep strain is
so low that it is negligible. Even in the most extreme cases creep strain is small, so that
in more realistic combinations of stress and high temperatures it can safely be neglected,
even in detailed analyses (Wang 2002).
Yield strength of steel :
C T f
T
T
f
C T f
T
T
f
yo yT
yo yT
o
o
1000 0 60 for
240
34 . 0 340
600 0 for
1750
ln 900
0 . 1
<

<
1
1
1
1
]
1

,
_

+
Modulus of elasticity AS 4100 and NZS 3404: (Buchanan 2001; Lie 1992)
C T E
T
T
E
C T E
T
T
E
o T
o T
o
o
1000 0 60 for
5 . 53
69 . 0 690
600 0 for
1100
ln 2000
0 . 1
<

<
1
1
1
1
]
1

,
_

+
Stress-strain at elevated temperatures from Eurocode 3:
Strain Range stress
p,T ET
p,T < < y,T 2 2
, ,
[ ( ) ]
p T y T
b
p c a
a
+
78
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
y,T t,T
, p T
p
Parameters
,
, , ,
, 0.02, 0.15
p T
p T y T t T
T
p
E

Functions
( )
2
, , , , y T p T y T p T
T
c
a
E

_
+

,
( )
2 2
, , y T p T T
b c E c +
( )
( ) ( )
2
, ,
, , , ,
2
y T p T
y T p T T y T p T
p p
c
E p p


Table 2-10 Stress-strain of steel equations at elevated temperatures
Steel
Temperature
T [
o
C]
Effective yield strength
(relative to py at 20
o
C)
ky,T = py,T/py
Proportional limit
(relative to py at 20
o
C)
kpT = pp,T/py
Slope of the linear elastic
range (relative to Ea at
20
o
C)
kE,T = ET/Ea
20 1 1 1
100 1 1 1
200 1 0.807 0.9
300 1 0.613 0.8
400 1 0.42 0.7
500 0.78 0.36 0.6
600 0.47 0.18 0.31
700 0.23 0.075 0.13
800 0.11 0.050 0.09
900 0.06 0.0375 0.0675
1000 0.04 0.025 0.045
1100 0.02 0.0125 0.0225
1200 0 0 0
Table 2-11 Retention factors of steel at elevated temperatures
NOTE: The effective yield strength is defined at 2% strain
79
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
Add stress strain figure (5.3 page 111, Wangs text)
Thermal capacity of steel is defined by

s
c
ps
. The density of steel,
s
, remains essentially
unchanged at high temperatures, however the specific heat of steel, c
ps
is dependent upon
temperature.
( )
( )
( )
3 2 6 3
425 0.733 1.69 10 2.22 10 [J/kg K] for 20 600
666 13002/ 738 [J/kg K] for 600 735
545 17820/ 731
o o
ps s s s s
o o
ps s s
ps s
c T T T C T C
c T C T C
c T

+ + <
+ <
+ [J/kg K] for 735 900
650 [J/kg K] for 900 1200
o o
s
o o
ps s
C T C
c C T C
<

80
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
Figure 2-20 Retention factors of steel at elevated temperatures (Eurocode 3 - Wang)
Figure 2-21 Retention factors of yield strength of steel at elevated temperatures
(Buchanan)
2.3.4 Applied Fire Protection
While many materials and products can be used to protect steel from the effects of fire,
all have the same objective, to insulate the structural member from the heat of the fire
81
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
Temperature [ degrees C]
Eurocode 3
AS4100 NZS3404

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Steel Temperature [ degrees C]
ky,T
kE,T
kp,T

2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
and gases in the fire compartment. Modern materials are generally lighter and thus offer
considerable economy over older materials, such as concrete, brick, clay tile, gypsum and
concrete block. In a general sense fire protection is achieved by having a lower thermal
conductivity than steel, a higher effective heat capacity, heat absorbing properties (either
physical or chemical), intumescence (formation of a thicker foam upon heating), or
radiation reflection. There are three basic categories of fire resistance materials:
insulating, energy absorbing and intumescent. Examples of commonly used insulating
materials include vermiculite and perlite. Both of these are spray applied mineral fiber or
expanded aggregates. Gypsum and concrete are examples of energy absorbing material.
Both release water from crystallization when heated. Increasing the amount of water
entrapped will naturally increase the energy absorbing capabilities of the material. As
mentioned above intumescent materials are coating materials that are applied as a pint
and expand when exposed to elevated temperatures, thus providing a layer of foam
insulation. While being expensive, they do offer advantages of being light and providing
durable surfaces and good adhesion (Gerwain et al. 2003).
Material Thermal Conductivity k
Sprayed Mineral Fiber 0.10
Cementitious Mixture 0.10
Perlite or Vermiculate Plates 0.15
Fiber Silicate Sheets 0.15
Wood 0.20
Gypsum Wall Board 0.20
Mineral Wool Slabs 0.25
Cellular Concrete (600 [kg/m
2
]) 0.30
Cellular Concrete (1000 [kg/m
2
]) 0.45
Cellular Concrete (1300 [kg/m
2
]) 0.65
Light Weight Concrete 0.80
Clay Brick and Lime Brick 1.20
Normal Weight Concrete 1.3 -1.7
82
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
Steel 35
Table 2-12 Thermal Conductivity of Insulating Materials (Lie 1992)
Ryder, Wolin and Milke in recent tests looked at the reduction of fire protection caused
by loss of spray applied fire protection. They conducted 3D finite element analysis of
columns with varying amounts of fire protection missing under the conditions of ASTM-
E119, the standard fire resistance test. With this test there was no loading and they
looked at failure being a temperature end point of 649
o
C for a single point or 538
o
C
average temperature. They found that even a small portion of protection is missing the
fire resistance time of the column is reduced. Their work found the reduction is
proportional to the area of exposure and is independent of the initial amount of protection
applied. More massive columns are better able to withstand the removal of material, due
to their increased thermal capacity. Their results show that fire resistance for columns is
primarily affected by the area of missing protection and can be very sensitive to even
small changes in the covering of protection. Their work seems to clearly indicate that the
risk of removal of fire protection material, the likelihood of damage to it, imperfections
caused by application process need to be accounted for and that full protection cannot be
assumed, due to the sensitivity of the fire resistance ratings to loss of even small amounts
of protection (Ryder et al. 2002). Their work does not however assess the local or global
impact of the increased temperature in the performance of the column.
2.3.5 Computer Models
The term model generally refers to any representation off real life phenomena. Any
computational process that predicts quantifiable physical aspects of real life may be
called a computer model (Morris and Kirby 1997).
83
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
Thermal expansion is not part of the stress-strain curve (Idling and Bresler 1982)
When temperatures exceed 450
o
C there is a large degradation of material properties thus
must change from temperature control to displacement control (Liu 1998).
It has been recognized that on a day to day basis it would be impractical to use
complicated computer programs to analyze entire structures for fire safety design. The
goal should there fore be to keep the analytical work to a minimum when possible. This
has been recognized with the design of non-sway structures in the UK at ambient
temperature. Here sub assemblies are allowed to be used to calculate member forces in
frames. Through tests based on the Cardington structure and parametric studies this is a
reasonable simplification. A plane frame of the entire 8 story structure was studies.
Uniform loads were treated as point loads on columns and mid spans. Internal beams
were assumed to be fixed horizontally, representing the bracing to prevent sideway and
all connections assumed to be rigid. The study found that the behavior of the heated
compartment as a part of the whole frame was similar to that of the sub-frame behavior.
This showed that remote boundary conditions influence is insignificant on each
subframe. It was found that moments initially are developed in columns, but as
temperatures increase they decrease, meaning the column acts as a virtual pinned
connection. This is significant as in fire-resistant design of a steel column only axial
loads need to be considered. In multi-story frames with composite beams and slab
construction the concrete will provide full lateral restraint to the beams to allow full in-
plane plastic moment capacity to be developed. Therefore as mechanical strains increase
with temperature due to the degradation of material properties, the effect of temperature
gradients become less important. This was also seen in the work at University of
84
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
Edinburgh in their analysis of the Cardington tests (Lamont 2000; Usmani and Rotter
2000). For steel frames subjected to vertical loads, subframes analysis may be used as
the influence of boundary conditions is small. If a column is designed to reach its
limiting temperature in a fire, the fire safety design of a connected beam may be
performed assuming pinned support from the column, neglecting bending moments in the
column. Restraint to column thermal expansion is important and can be calculated by
( )
1
col thermal mechanical col
P k L

_


+
,
2.4 Experimental Observations
2.4.1 Test Procedures
There are two types of generic methods of testing transient state or steady state testing.
In transient state testing, loads are applied to the structure first and held constant. At that
point the structure is exposed to the fire load. The test ends when a specific failure
criterion is reached. With steady state testing, the temperature of the structure is raised to
a predetermined level and help constant. Loads are then applied until structural failure,
similar to testing at ambient temperature. Both methods would yield the same results if
the structure was independent of heating rate or load history, which is rarely the case.
Most tests are conducted using transient state testing (Wang 2002).
The basic fire test is the standard fire resistance test of a statically determinate, simply
supported structural element. It is conducted to determine a fire resistance rating of a
85
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
construction element in order to determine code compliance. These tests are conducted
according to a specified standard (each country tends to have their ownASTM E119 in
the USAbut all are very similar) the international standard is ISO 834 (Wang 2002).
The test is carried out in a gas or oil fueled furnace. It is assumed that the gas
temperature in the furnace is uniform. The average temperature increase is determined by
a standard fire curve. It can be either a horizontal furnace for testing beams or a vertical
one for testing columns. (show picture pg 31 Wang)
FIRE
No
Rotational
or Lateral
Restraint
No
Rotational
or Lateral
Restraint
FIRE
FIRE
No
Rotational
or
Longitudinal
Restraint
Rotational
and Lateral
Restraint
Figure 2-22 Typical Standard Fire Resistance Test set up, for beams and slabs (above)
and columns (below)
Performance criteria are based on load bearing, insulation and integrity. A load bearing
failure is when a member fails to carry the load or for beams when they have an
86
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
excessive deflection or rate of deflection. Insulation failure is due to an extensive
increase in temperature on the unexposed surface. Integrity failure is when gaps are
created that fire may spread through.
There are several deficiencies and critiques possible for standard fire tests. Wang (Wang
2002) lists some of the significant ones as:
The standard fire exposure is only one of numerous fires possible.
Standard fire resistance test are carried out on individual members or
elements, not structural assemblies, so no interactions can be observed or
assessed.
Standard fire test furnaces are limited in size and therefore can only test a
narrow range of structure.
Boundary conditions are usually simply supported, thus neglecting and
stiffness or restrains that is likely present in a real structural element.
Failure criteria dont adequately describe intended real use.
The Load ratio, LR, is defined as the ratio between the applied loading at the Fire Limit
State and the load capacity at 20
o
C. By reducing the effective load ratio at the mid-span,
the limiting temperature could be raised. According to extensive tests [in the UK] on
various types of steel beams, an increase of 30
o
C in the limiting temperature implies an
extension of 5 min in the fire resistance period (Liu 1998).
87
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
2.4.2 Connections
Unprotected connections are able to benefit the fire resistance of connected beams.
Design does not usually consider all the strength available in the connection. Extended
end plate connections can provide up to 70% of the moment capacity of the beam at full
strength. Floor beams supporting concrete slabs have temperatures near the top flange
40% less than at bottom. If the bolts of an extended endplate connection are embedded
into a slab temperature in bolts can be 350
o
C cooler than that of beam. From experiments
for endplate connections, the increase in limiting temperature for a beam would be:
o
o
End Extended Endplate: 160 [ C]
End Flush Endplate: 135 [ C]
c
p
c
p
M
T
M
M
T
M


where M
c
is the moment capacity of the connection and M
p
is the capacity of the
beam(The Steel Construction Institute 1990).
Data suggests that current design guidelines may have underestimated the contribution of
bolts at high temperatures (Liu 1998).
Temperatures increase at the connection much slower than in the center of a beam, an
slower at the top of beam supporting a concrete slab (Liu 1998).
At fire limit state with extended end plate connections the effective load ratio of a beam
can be taken as half the applied load ratio, for a flush endplate connection it can be taken
as two-thirds. Details such as bolt size, endplate thickness, etc. do not substantially
affect the overall performance of the beam in a fire. This applies when axial restraints
88
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
due to the column are ignored, if the effects from the column are included the tension
capacity of the bolt group is not fully utilized and there is a reduction of the moment
capacity of the beams due to co-existent direct axial stress (Liu 1998).
2.4.3 Field & Test Results
In tests on connections conducted at SCI Lawson (Lawson 1990) reported that the
temperature in exposed bolts were 100-150
o
C lower than in concrete slabs and 300-350
o
C lower than at the bottom flange of the beams. These tests were conducted on 8
different connections, each isolated. The failure was due to plastic deformations in the
plates, not the bolts.
Only very limited testing on connections has been done (Wang 2002).
Tests conducted on partial frames and assemblies have shown that interactions between
members can alter the loading of any member, therefore restrained thermal expansion
and changes in stiffness must be considered. Local buckling does not seem to affect the
strength of the member in a fire and is a transitional state. Only a few test results are
available that provide detailed information on the variations of forces in members during
the course of a fire (Wang 2002).
Test on beams have indicated that if the beam is simply supported it will fail by tensile
yielding, with concentrated loads, just as at ambient temperature bearing failure and web
buckling must be checked. In composite beams it was fond that shear connectors usually
did not fail, but more tests need to be conducted to establish the load slip relationship at
elevated temperatures. Lateral tensional buckling may occur near supports. More tests
are needed on restrained beams (Wang 2002).
89
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
Tests on isolated columns have shown that for hot rolled sections failures are the same in
fires as those at ambient temperatures, support conditions are critical as are non-uniform
temperature distribution in the columns. With cold-formed thin-walled columns
temperature gradients can be high on the sides exposed to fires, which could cause
thermal bowing and or a change in the centroid. Further service holes and nonstructural
component contributions need to be taken in account. There is limited testing on local
buckling with uniform temperature and none with temperature gradients and very little
information on different buckling modes interactions in a fire. When a column is
restrained axially it will increase the compressive load while the column is expanding
and stabilize it after buckling once it starts to contract.
2.4.4 Cardington Fire Tests
As the results of the Broadgate fire more controlled and detailed test were conducted in
the UK at the Cardington test facility in the 1990s. These tests were conducted by the
Building research Establishment (BRE) and Corus (formerly British Steel). A complete
series of tests were conducted over several years and the results were then analyzed in
cooperation with researchers at the University of Edinburgh, Imperial College in London,
and Sheffield University.
2.4.4.1 The test building
A full eight-storey steel framed building was constructed in a former airship hanger. The
building was designed and constructed according to the British design standards for and
office building and checked to ensure compliance with Eurocodes. The test building is a
steel-framed composite construction using in situ concrete slabs on steel decking with
steel beams supporting the slabs (see Figure 2-23). The storey height was 4.285 m and
90
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
the structure is 45 m (five bays at 9 m each) by 21 m (3 bays at 6m, 9m, and 6m). The
building has a central elevator shaft and end stairways providing wind resistance. The
main steel frame was designed for gravity load and the connections were designed to
transmit only vertical shear forces. The building was designed for a dead load of 3.65
kN/m
2
(but during testing only had an actual dead load of 2.85 kN/m
2
) and a live load of
(1 picture of hanger from outside, 2 pictures of facility inside, place side by side)
Figure 2-23 Cardington Test Facility
3.5 kN/m
2
(but only about 2/3s of the live load was present for the tests, provided by 1.1
ton sandbags). The floor slab is lightweight concrete with 130 mm in depth, the steel
deck having a trough depth of 60 mm. Anti-cracking mesh was used but was mistakenly
placed directly on the steel deck and was not effective. The following were used for the
steel members: columns of 305 x 108 UC, 305 x 137 UC and 254 x 98 UC and 356 x
171 x 51 UB as edge beams and 6-m primary beams, 305 x 165 x 40 UB as interior
secondary beams, 610x 229 x 101 UB as the 9-m main beams.
2.4.4.2 Compartment Fire Tests
2.4.4.3 Field and Test Observations and Results
Cardington Fire test showed that significant induced column moments were recorded.
These moments were caused by thermal expansion of beams displacing the columns
(Bailey 1999).
91
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
The tests as well as other accidental fire studies of redundant multi-story buildings
showed that thermal expansion is the primary cause of large deflections, thermal
gradients play a supporting role. Further thermal expansion can only produce large
deflections if the ends are restrained from expanding and similarly thermal gradients can
only produce deflections if the ends are free to rotate. It was found that material
degradation and gravity loading were secondary in their influence on the deflections
(Lamont 2000).
2.5 Real world fire studies
2.5.1 One Meridian Plaza, Philadelphia
In Philadelphia a building at One Meridian Plaza undergoing renovations, to include
upgrading its fire protection systems, caught fire on the 22
nd
floor when oil-soaked rags
spontaneously ignited and burned 9 stories near the top of the building, 23-24 February
1991 (Kanaley 1999). The fire burned for 18 hours as it went traveled up floor by floor,
burning for about 2 hours per floor, until it encountered the floors where the sprinklers
had been installed. At this point the fire was extinguished. Later the decision was made
to take down the building and samples of the beams and columns were tested at Leigh
University for any reduction in yield strengths. Many of the lessons learned from this
structure are of great importance to the idea of fire engineering design.
First it was clear that the building had experienced inelastic deformations during the fire
(Dexter and Lu 2000). Deflections in main support beams of up to 18 inches were
92
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
recorded and one area on the 22
nd
floor deformed by 4-5 feet. It was thus noted that some
embers were severely affected by the fire and other not so.
Beam members are partially constrained by neighboring parts of the frame that
prevent free expansion or contraction of the members during and after the fire. The
beam members buckle at high temperatures when the modulus of elasticity and
yield strength are very low. After buckling, the members eventually cool and want
to contract, but at this point yield strength is restored. The contraction is resisted by
the constraints and therefore, locked in forces develop (Dexter and Lu 2000).
It is important to note that all buildings may have locked-in forces, and this building no
doubt had some locked in forces before the fire(Dexter and Lu 2000). In addition the
following was noted:
it can be concluded that the yield strength of the columns was not reduced significantly
by the fire (Dexter and Lu 2000).
the columns on the fire floors show somewhat greater compression, and much greater
values of tension (Dexter and Lu 2000).
most of the steel members of the floor system were unaffected or could be straightened
relatively easily. The columns remained in good condition.(Dexter and Lu 2000)
The fire-affected floor systems of this building could have been reinstated relatively
quickly. After reinstatement, the safety and performance of the building would have
been expected to be as good as it was originally (Dexter and Lu 2000).
It is concluded that the residual stresses in the beams are slightly greater than would be
expected for beams that had not been affected by fire, but this is not surprising
considering the level of damage to the beams (Dexter and Lu 2000).
93
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
the stability and lateral load carrying capacity of the frames were unaffected by large
residual moments, as would be expected from the principles of plastic analysis.
Therefore, the existence of residual stress in this building is not detrimental to the gravity
or lateral load-carrying capacity (Dexter and Lu 2000).
The fact that the building was demolished seemed to have had little to do with the fact a
fire had occurred. It is noted that in practice if the heavily damaged girders in the
building are repaired or replaced, the structure should perform satisfactorily in resisting
severe wind storms in the future (Dexter and Lu 2000). In fact there are examples that
other steel-framed buildings that experienced fires of greater severity were reinstated
relatively quickly. In fact, it is considered standard practice to replace only members
which cannot be straightened and quickly reinstate steel-framed buildings after a fire
(Dexter and Lu 2000).

Thus it was concluded that damage to the structural integrity of
the building was not responsible for the decision to demolish it.
ADD PICTURES HERE
Figure 2-24 One Meridian Plaza Fire in Philadelphia
2.5.2 Broadgate
The Broadgate fire occurred in June 1990 in a partly completed 14-storey office block
development in central London. Many similar findings to the building in Philadelphia
were noted. The fire was severe and lasted 4 hours, started in a contractors trailer on
the first floor, and was actually constructed around columns. At this point in construction
no fireproofing had been done to structural members. It was found that fire temperature
reached 1000
o
C during a substantial period of the fire. Despite this, the steel frames
94
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
survived in tact, they did not fail. Heavier columns remained undamaged, while lighter
columns were deformed and had contracted as much as 100 mm. From the investigation
it was determined that the continuity of the structure affected the behavior of the steel
frame. As plastic deformations occurred in columns experiencing local buckling, their
loads were redistributed to other cooler members. As a whole the structure survived
without collapseand was able to be repaired. The structural frame repairs were
accomplished in less than 30 days and were less than 8% of the total repair costs (The
Steel Construction Institute 1991). It is clear that composite floors have a great
influence on the performance of a building in fire. The experience of Broadgate has been
shown to be repeatable (Newman 1996). The investigation after the fire showed
extensive evidence that real steel or composite structures behave differently from isolated
structural members tested in standard furnaces (Bailey and Newman 1998).
5 pictures of inside Broadgate showing damage
Figure 2-25 Broadgate Fire Photos (The Steel Construction Institute 1991)
2.5.3 Basingstoke
Another fire in England brings to question the proper amount of fire protection needed on
top of steel in a structure. One engineer asked after viewing the fire damage, Was it
possible to reduce the amount of fire protection that currently applied to steel frames and
still have acceptable behavior in fire? Indeed what is acceptable behavior (Newman
1996)? It was observed that On the scene of the Basingstoke fire where the contents of
one floor were almost totally burned out, whilst the fire hardly scratched the structure, it
seemed that the protected steel frame had been over protected (Newman 1996).
95
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
The Basingstoke building was a modern structure. It had only recently been built, and it
had been designed to be more or less fireproof on the inside. They had designed it using
passive fire prevention means, so they had good insulation on all the walls, they had
pressurized stair cases, the whole structure was fire blocked, which meant that if a fire
started on a floor it would be contained on that floor and it would not spread to the rest of
the structure. However, on the evening that they had the fire, the fire started on one of the
upper floors, rapidly developed, and engulfed the entire floor. Eventually the exterior
glass panels broke, and flames emerged from the fire compartment. What the designers
had forgotten to take into account in designing the structure was that it was possible for
fire to spread to higher floors via the exterior portion of the building. So when the fire
broke the glass, flames emerged from the side of the building and spread fire to the
higher floors.
2.6 Probabilistic Aspects of Fire Engineering
One of the advantages of performancebased codes has been their reliance on a technical
foundation and the move towards scientifically based requirements. This has resulted in
codes that seek to have quantitative standards, and has involved deterministic modeling.
The Society of Fire Protection Engineers developed a performance-based approach,
based on deterministic calculations. One criticism all these first generation codes is
found in the following quotation.
Although the use of deterministic calculation provides a picture of what
the conditions in a room may be at a given time, or what the performance
of individual structural components is, it has limited ability in considering
the entire building with its fire protection systems, functions and
occupants as a system. This limitation is significant as it does not allow
96
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
the quantification of the overall safety level in a building. A comparison
of alternative designs is limited only to specific elements. To obtain an
overall assessment of the building, deterministic computations must be
combined with probabilistic analysis.
In contrast to the deterministic calculations, probabilistic methods may be
able to consider the whole building (not element by element evaluation)
and to provide risk estimates. In probabilistic evaluations, there are many
factors that could affect the occurrence of fire, its development and the
egress of the occupants. The objective is to estimate risk levels using the
likelihood of a fire incident occurring and its potential consequences
(injury, death, etc.). The risk criteria can be established through statistical
data, however, in order to gain societys acceptance, such an approach
must be widely used. The risk levels, calculated using probabilistic risk
assessment methods, are then compared to the risk criteria to determine
whether the proposed designs are acceptable. Presently, the probabilistic
approach is rarely used because of the lack of appropriate risk assessment
tools and the unavailability of specific risk levels acceptable to society.
However, with the introduction of performance-based codes, the
availability of risk assessment models and the establishment of risk levels
acceptable to society, the probabilistic approach will be the preferred
method in performance-based design as it quantifies the risk levels and
allows the identification of designs that will have acceptable risk levels at
minimum cost (Hadjisophocleous et al. 1998).
Barry suggest such a probabilistic approach in his book Risk-Informed, Performance-
Based Industrial Fire Protection (Barry 2002). In his proposed method he has added
defining risk tolerance levels, evaluating event likelihood, risk estimation and
comparison and cost-benefit analysis to the SFPE Performance-Based Fire Protection
Approach (Society of Fire Protection Engineers 2000), see Table 2-26 for comparison.
SFPE Performance-Based Fire Protection
Approach
Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Fire Protection
Method
Define Project Scope Define Project Objectives
Identify Goals Define Risk Tolerance Levels
**
97
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
Define Objectives Develop Loss Scenarios
Develop Performance Criteria Evaluate Likelihood
**
Develop Fiore Scenario Evaluate Exposures
Develop Candidate Designs Evaluate Performance
Evaluate Candidate Designs Risk Estimation & Comparison
**
Select Final Design Cost Benefit Analysis
**
Prepare Design Documentation
**
Not presently developed in SPFE Aproach
Figure 2-26 Method Comparison (Barry 2002)
In fire engineering community risk is often quantified as the sum of all the risks
associated with a scenarios i or the sum of the loss times its frequency (Custer and
Meacham 1997)
( ) Risk Risk Loss
i i
F

In the US most methods seem to rely on event tree analysis. In this method a sequence of
events leading to a certain outcome, i.e. some sort of physical phenomena, progress of the
fire, some initiating event or consequence of the fire event, are presented. Here various
events are assigned probabilities and outcomes are then evaluated. often based on cost
benefit analysis. This analysis can be qualitative, based on empirical judgment, expert
judgment, statistical data or a probabilistic analysis. It is often thought of as a common
sense approach to deal with complex situations, especially in qualitative analyses
(Kersken-Bradley 1986). When this methodology is used for a cost benefit analysis an
initiating event is then followed through to its various possible outcomes. Probabilities
are then assigned to each path on the event tree and final probabilities are assigned to
some consequence (Pate-Cornell 1984). Often this technique is used to determine an
annual expected loss rate for example. Barrys Risk-Informed, Performance-Based
Industrial Fire Protection uses this technique and it is cited by SPFE in their design guide
in an appendix on risk analysis (Society of Fire Protection Engineers 2000). This
98
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
technique is basic and easy to understand and has been well documented in risk analysis
study.
The standard most used for code development, however, is probabilistic risk analysis
(PRA) methods based on Bayesian probabilities(Benjamin and Cornell 1970). In the
simplest form PRA can be done to obtain the distribution of the probabilities of various
outcomes based on estimates of the models and parameter values. This would involve
aleatory uncertainty only. PRA can also represent risk as more than a single point
estimate of an outcome, but as a complete distribution of the potential losses and include
both epistemic and aleatory uncertainties. This is accomplished by identifying initiating
events are and sequences towards a specified outcome. Computation of the probability
reaching the different outcomes is done and evaluation is made of the consequences on
different degrees of system outcome. To include the epistemic uncertainties, risk
scenarios are constructed based on a set of all known hypotheses regarding the basic
event to be modeled. These hypotheses then have probability distributions assigned to
them based on scientific evidence and reasoned expert opinion. The result of a PRA is a
risk curve, normally given as the probability of exceedance of some outcome level per
some unit of time (Pate-Cornell 1996).
2.7 Relationship to Code Provisions
2.7.1 Present Code
It is worthwhile to briefly discuss the current philosophy of fire engineering, especially as
it pertains to the US. Simply put, we rely on prescriptive codes to provide fire protection
to buildings. These codes usually specify both a specific requirement and the means for
99
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
compliance in a single code. In the simplest terms fire protection becomes a function of
occupancy, structural height, and area with adjustments for sprinklers. Currently codes
and regulations are the primary driving force in fire engineering. The codes themselves
rely on limited scientifically based analytical methods and depend heavily on consensus
judgment, as is the case in the US. In the International Building Code [IBC]
(International Code Council 2000)and the BOCA National Building Code (Building
Officials & Code Administrators International Inc. 1996) there is really no requirement to
take an engineering approach to structural fire safety. All the required fire resistance
ratings are prescribed and all the materials or assemblies are determined though standard
tests. IBC provides five types of construction that buildings fall under. Based on these
types, buildings are limited in floor area and height and individual construction embers
are given prescribed fire resistance ratings [FRR]. It should be noted that this
prescriptive nature of codes is also the case in other areas of civil engineering as well, as
noted by Popov in his discussion of Earthquake Engineering (Popov 1991). The codes
tend to be a rigid set of requirements and regulations. This has made it difficult to adopt
new materials and technologies into the practice. In the 1980s it could be said of the
codes:
The internationally most prevalent structural fire design is characterized
by the combination [of an ISO 834 heating curve and a structural
element]. The design is usually related to the results of the standard fire
resistance test according to the ISO Standard 834 or some equivalent
national standard [ASTM 119 in the US, for example, or NFPA 251].
These standards have been the fundamental basis behind fire resistance
ratings since the 1920s. The fire resistance may also be derived
analytically and this alternative is now officially being permitted in more
and more countries. A few countries allow the application of the
combination [of an ISO 834 heating curve and a substructure], normally
100
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
by analytical methods. The combination [of an ISO 834 heating curve and
a complete structure] involves a too great difference in accuracy of
simulation between thermal exposure and structural models to be
acceptable in practice (Pettersson 1986).
While this is starting to change, somewhat, it is still largely true, especially in the US.
As stated above, the traditional approach to fire engineering is still based on codes.
Specifically in the US the codes dictate a required time of survival in a standard fire and
stability has generally been measured on fully exposed single elements subject to the
maximum permissible load to simulate the worst possible case (Robinson and Latham
1986). Whether or not this is a realistic requirement is very doubtful. Similarly 550 C
[1022 F] (with slight variations in other countries) has become widely known as the
Critical Temperature (Robinson and Latham 1986). This is the temperature where it is
assumed steel will lose its ability to support loads and material strength. It is based on
the temperature where steel beams are able to carry 50% of their total load. Of course
this does not take into account the likely possibility that when beams are designed often
they are not fully loaded, and therefore they can perform satisfactorily at higher
temperatures.
Prescriptive codes, even with adoption of performance-based codes will not go away. It
has been noted that even in countries that have performance-based codes, Japan, the UK,
and New Zealand; they still allow a prescriptive approach, usually offered an
acceptable method or solution. As of the late 1990s it was noted that in these 3
countries 95% of designs wee done using the prescriptive approach as an acceptable
method of performance-based code compliance (Custer and Meacham 1997).
101
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
It is argued that one advantage of the prescriptive codes is they provide designers with a
high degree of confidence. However, the confidence is usually in regard to liability, less
so in the in the performance of the structure. Certainly in the realm of their potential
liability, following the prescriptive codes can provide confidence for designers. After all
the designers have followed the code and done what is required of them, they have
done the right thing. Of course even doing this does not necessarily shield them from
civil liability as Brannigan and Kilpatrick point out (Brannigan and Kilpatrick 1996).
2.7.1.1 Weakness of Current design Approach
In the US, and Canada as well, the construction industry relies on fire resistance ratings,
such as those catalogued by Underwriters Laboratories and similar institutions. Building
codes also have often referenced these standard tests for use when selecting various
building components all that must meet a prescribed fire resistance rating. As such, this
places a huge significance of test results. In this system designers merely need to select
components from a catalogue that have listed fire resistance ratings that are equal to or
greater than that required in the code. In theory this ensures fire safety.
Probably the first and most glaring thing to note in the current reliance on standard fire
curve is the fact they bear little resemblance to reality. As has been noted by many
authors, the standard curve assumes a continual increasing time temperature curve, where
as in reality a natural fire curve has growth, fully developed and decay phases (see Figure
2-). Further test data have exhibited significant scatter, due to variations in testing
methods and characteristics of different furnaces used. Also as individual members are
tested they do not correctly predict the behavior of the same members as part of frames
102
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
and assemblies, the factors of continuity, interaction between members, and moment
redistribution not be taken into account in such tests.
Figure 2-27 Standard vs. realistic Compartment Fire Time-Temperature Curve (Boring et
al. 1981)
The fire resistance rating of a member is defined by the time it takes to achieve a certain
temperature criteria, while exposed to a standard fire curve, as discussed previously.
This type of test relies heavily on the gas temperature in the test furnace to accomplish
the heat transfer to the test specimen. As such there are two components of the heat
transfer, convective heat from temperature in the furnace, generated from a heat source
(in early days due to wood crib fires, now usually gas fires) and radiant heat from the
furnace walls. This radiant heat energy is the dominant component in furnace tests
103
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
(Paulsen and Hadvig 1977). Since the magnitude of the radiant heat is proportional to the
temperature raised to the fourth power, see Equation , its impact can be very significant.
The type of furnace wall construction directly impacts the magnitude of radiant heat, due
to its emissivity, therefore as the wall construction can vary from one test furnace to
another, so too can the impact of radiant heat in a standard test (Buchanan 2001;
Drysdale 1998; Nwosu and Kodur 1999).
There is another implicit assumption of fire codes that is also likely not true. That
assumption is that members are fully stressed at ambient temperature and uniformly
heated during a fire and that steel stress-strain curves at elevated temperatures may be
represented by a bilinear model similar to the engineers assumption at ambient
temperature. In reality, stress-strain curves become highly curvilinear at elevated
temperatures, and the concept of an elevated-temperature yield strength has little
meaning (Bailey et al. 1996). Testing procedures require that load bearing members be
loaded to correspond to their maximum permissible stress. This allowable maximum
stress is a combination of dead and live loads that could be expected during the service
life of a building. Current design philosophy dictates that members be larger than
required for service loads. Thus the actual load on a member, especially during a fire, is
likely much less than the load during a standard test, and due to different loading may
perform in way other than the standard test results would predict (Ellingwood and
Corotis 1991; Glivery and Dexter 1997). Put simply this test requirement is unrealistic.
Most structural members are typically not designed to carry a load at maximum possible
stress, nor would a building load be evenly distributed throughout the members
(Pettersson and Wittenveen 1979/1980). The current prescriptive building codes also
require all members to have the same fire resistance rating regardless of the service load.
104
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
Further, building codes, relying on the standard test of individual structural members, do
not account for load redistribution, in the event of a member failure.
Another facet of the standard test is the structural member is required to be restrained at
the ends or sides in a manner similar to the actual restraint condition. This is a
reasonable requirement, for more restraint against rotation and displacement leads to
greater fire resistance (Buchanan 2001). Clearly the restraint a member has plays a key
role in its fire resistance rating, it is very hard to control in a test furnace and the criticism
tends to be that few laboratories have the ability to truly define the degree of end restraint
(Pettersson and Wittenveen 1979/1980). This of course combines with the fact that
actual constructed conditions almost certainly will not match the test conditions, even if it
is just in the type of welding and bolts used, let alone their impact on fire resistance
rating of a member.
It is informative to note that even in ASTM E-119 (American Society of Testing
Materials 1998), the standard for standard fire tests in the US, states the following:
This standard should be used to measure and describe the response of
materials or products, or assemblies to heat and flame under controlled
conditions and should not be used to describe or appraise the fire-hazard
or fire-risk of material, products, or assemblies under actual fire
conditions. However, results of the test may be used as elements of a
fire-hazard assessment or a fire-risk assessment which takes into account
all of the factors which are pertinent to an assessment of the fire-hazard or
fire-risk of a particular end use. (Note: emphasis added)
The basic intent of mandatory code provisions is to protect life safety. However, they
also have the effect of reducing future economic lossesat the cost of additional
involuntary investment on the part of the developer at the time of construction. Just how
105
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
much additional protection is to be providedand at what costis a question that has
never directly been addressed by the codes. (Hamburger et al. 2002)
2.7.2 Performance-Based Codes.
While Performance-Based Engineering is not new, in fact, a great amount has been
written already on the subject and some countries have adopted performance-based
codes, the US has not. In the US performance based design has been used only rarely,
and generally for high profile, specialized or critical projects or as a special purpose
design alternative. It is only in the past few years that British and European Structural
Design Codes have offered a different option to these old practicesstandard fire tests
and fire resistance ratings. As of today in the US performance based fire engineering can
be said to be a potentially attractive, more accurate, special purpose design alternative
(Gerwain et al. 2003) rather than a commonly used method of design. Prescriptive
design codes are still relied on for the majority of building construction.
Usually a performance-based code has three separate components, unlike a single
prescriptive code. There is a section to define goals and objectives and performance
requirementswhat is required; a section to address acceptable methods and solutions
how to do what is required; and a section to address evaluation and design toolshow
to verify it. The first section is often comprised of goals, the general societal
expectations form the building and then functional objectives, which provide more detail
than the goals and finally performance requirements, the most detailed requirements in a
performance-based code. By their very nature, performance-based codes, such as the
International Code Council Performance Based Code for Buildings and Facilities
(International Code Council 2001), tend to be more philosophical in nature, than
106
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
practical. As would be expected they simply prescribe performance standards, without
too much detail or specificity. The ICC code is less than 70 pages in length and is
comprised simply of a series of general functional statements. As an example,.
Functional Statement 1701.2.1 states Fire Impact. Facilities and contents shall be
designed, constructed and maintained to limit the fire impact to people and property and
1701.3.15 says Magnitude of fire event. Design fire events shall realistically reflect the
ignition, growth, and spread potential of fires and fire effluents that could occur in the
fire load that may be presented in the facility by its design and operational controls.
These performance based functional statements are hard to argue with, but they are also
hard to get a handle on in design. Being so broad and open ended, truly strength of them
on the one had, they are also hard to express in terms a code official, or possibly even a
design engineer, can readily use. Thus, a methodology or approach to performance-
based engineering needs to be proposed that will make the challenge somewhat more
manageable, or provide a starting point from which to launch.
In the US there are two performance-based documents that being written or used as first
generation documents. They are the ICC Performance Code for Buildings and Facilities
(International Code Council 2001), mentioned above, and The SPFE Guide to Performance
Based Fire Protection Analysis and Design (Society of Fire Protection Engineers 2000).
The ICC code covers all aspects of buildings while the SPFE guide is limited to fire safety
design. All performance based codes have some common aspects. All start with
identifying broad design principles; they then provide functional objectives, specific design
philosophies, for specific aspects of a building; and finally a more specific, and
quantifiable performance objective or requirement. All performance-based design strives
to relate design decisions to quantifiable risk assessment of life safety and economic
factors. As far as fire safety goals the two goals that are present in all performance based
107
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
odes are to ensure the structure maintains its integrity to allow occupant to escape in the
event of a fire and that first responders and emergency personnel can perform their duties
and exit. It can be argued that in terms of life safety the prescriptive codes have met these
goals, but as mentioned above, not always in a rational way.
One purpose of utilizing a performance-based code is that the engineers design can stand
on its technical merit in solving a technical problem, rather than on historical past
practice. There are several challenges to this approach of course. First is the fact that the
public safety has been served well by the prescriptive code, even if we are not exactly
sure why. The challenge is, can we then back away from requirements that we know
work, based on economy and analysis that says new methods would be just as safe? At
their heart performance based codes rely on engineering judgment, and it a litigious
society this is dangerous to the design professional. To overcome this performance-
based regulation requires several key technical inputs:
There must be a clear-cut method for engineers to specify the range of available levels of
safety in a form that can be transformed into useable social policy. Inputs to models must
be specified in a form that lends itself to the regulatory process, rather than being
specified by the requirements of the models.
Engineers cannot expect to specify the form in which public policy must be made.
Society must be free to protect property, vulnerable populations or insist on redundancy
or margins of safety.
Social safety levels and technical requirements have to be developed in tandem. At all
stages engineers should avoid concealing social decisions in technical models.
108
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
There must be clear technical measures adequate for regulating the compliance of a
building with the assumptions in a fire safety analysis. (Brannigan 1999)
2.8 Summary
Bresler (Bresler 1985) pointed out the major deficiencies of the current methodology of
fire protection, essentially those developed by Ingberg in the 1920s are:
Standard fire curve is not representative of actual fires with respect to rate of
heating, peak intensity, duration of exposure and fire decay.
Results of tests in different standard furnaces vary due to inconsistencies in
furnace convection and radiation characteristics.
Test specimens in a standard fire test are limited in size, due to limitations of
furnace size. In addition members are tested in isolation not as part of the
structural systems of which they are members.
If fire design is going to keep pace with modern trends in other engineering design
disciplines, we must keep pace with modern structural fire safety by an analytical
structural fire engineering design method based on structural behavior of the composite
steel frames in fire (Nakamura et al. 1986). This seems to sum up the challenge in fire
engineering quite well. It is clear that members do no act in isolation, but as part of an
entire structure. Simply put, the performance of a structure is better than the expected
performance of individual elements.(Newman 1996)

This is especially true during a
fire, the structure surrounding a fire zone has a major influence on the directly heated
members(Bailey et al. 1996).
109
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
However, the codes and practice have not recognized this basic fact that members act in
conjunction with other members in the entire structure.
Mosttests have, however, been limited to evaluating performances of individual
structural members in compartments with carefully controlled gas fire atmospheres.
Tests of this type are useful for establishing the behaviour of steel members in a
standard test but they cannot represent natural fire scenarios since they do not allow
for the restraining effects of other structural members present in the building, nor
do they adequately represent the thermal environment of a natural fire. This is
particularly true in assessing he fire resistance of modern multi-story steel-framed
buildings where the general load redistribution, floor membrane action and
connection behaviour significantly improve structural fire performance over the
achieved testing by single elements (Martin 1996).
While there have been some advances, they have not fully taken into account the
interaction of the entire structure. In some cases this is beneficial, in other the entire
structure might not add to the building strength. British codes allowing for fire to be a
basic limit state
represent a major advance in designing steel frames for fire, their main limitation
lies in a concentration on isolated member design, for which the limiting
temperatures are based on standard tests ad computer simulations. In reality,
buildings are very often subject to fires which remain localized due to
compartmentation, and this has a two-fold effect on the heated members. Firstly,
the restraint to thermal expansion provided by the surrounding cold structure
increases the axial forces in the heated members, which in the case of columns can
cause instability at lower temperatures than would occur in isolated members.
However, the second effect, which is beneficial, consists of support provided by the
cooler structure around and above the heated area which can divert load paths from
the weakening members (Bailey et al. 1996).
This idea that structures have inherent redundancies is not new and is used in design for
other catastrophic events. It would seem obvious that multi-storey building structures
possess a significant degree of structural redundancy and so they are able to safely
110
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
redistribute loads when individual elements suffer local losses in stiffness or strength
(Martin 1996). This has tremendous implication in fire engineering design. In highly
redundant structures loss of overall stability rarely occurs. In statically determinate
structures, however, the combination of loss of secondary structural members coupled
with high movements in primary members lead to unacceptable eccentricities of loading
and eventual collapse (Forrest 1986).
The exact type of structural element and its interaction with others is very important in
determining its behavior, this is true during a fire as well.
In the case of a beam with end restraint, the formation of the plastic hinge at the
point of maximum positive moment does not lead to a failure because the moment
is redistributed to the ends at which there is available unutilized capacity.
However, in case of an unrestrained beam, the first plastic hinge leads to the
ultimate failure. Therefore, restrained structures can sustain higher temperatures
than unrestrained structures without collapse (Ioannides and Sandeep 1997).
Thus the entire structure must be analyzed.
The experience gained from actual fires shows that many structures under fire
attack are capable of re-distribution of load from that provided in the original
design. Such re-distribution is normally noted in horizontal planes where heat
effects are the greatest. Where load re-distribution is not possible under prolonged
fire attack, local collapse of the structure has occurred (Forrest 1986).
The interaction of the surrounding structure with members can either increase or decrease
the buildings ability to avoid collapse. Clearly looking at and designing individual
members against fire in isolation is not the best approach.
111
2 - SYNTHESES AND REVIEW OF PAST PRACTICE AND WORK
112
Chapter 3
Development of Performance Based Fire
Engineering Methodology Framework
Seven Steps(Meacham 1997):
1. Identify Site or Project Information
2. Identify Fire Safety Goals, Functional Objective and Performance
Requirements.
a. Protection of life.
b. Protection of property.
c. Protection of Mission.
d. Protection of Environment
3. Develop Performance Criteria and Design Criteria (Design Objectives).
4. Develop fire scenarios.
5. Develop design fires.
6. Develop and Evaluate Design Alternatives
7. Documentation and Specifications.
May in a Pacific Earthquake Engineer Research [PEER] report asked a fundamental
question about risk and safety.
113
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
The framing is whether we should be talking about acceptance of risks at
all, versus talking about desired levels of safety. While it may seem like a
mater of semantics as to whether one discusses risk or safetysince they
are mirror images of each otherthe value of discussing safety versus risk
lies in the framing of the problem. Consideration of the risk leads to the
following questions: How much risk is too much? What does it cost to
bring the risk to an acceptable level? Consideration of safety leads to the
following questions: What level of safety can we afford to choose? What
are the constraints that such levels of safety impose on the ability to build
a structure or carry out activities within that structure? Is this safe
enough?(May 2001)
3.1 Comparison to Earthquake Model.
In reviewing the historical development of modern building code requirements for
seismic design, Popov (Popov 1991) describes a number of key design provisions which
are largely based on consensus opinions drawn from observed building performance and
past practice, as opposed to methodical scientific investigations. This is most evident in
the basic equation used in equivalent earthquake lateral force procedures, which are the
mainstay of current seismic design codes. Current seismic design methods can be
generally categorized by three basic steps: (1) determination of seismic design hazard at
the building site, (2) determination of effective seismic design forces or response
quantities based on the structural system type and configuration, and (3) prescriptive
design and detailing requirements of structural components to provide toughness and
ductility for inelastic energy dissipation. Each step is briefly reviewed.
Seismic Design Hazard Until quite recently, U.S. seismic codes described the
earthquake hazard in terms of seismic zones (1 to 4), which were loosely related to the
expected peak ground accelerations (0.1g to 0.4g). Within about the last ten years, codes
have adopted more scientific measures of ground motion intensity, described by hazard
114
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
maps which are determined from probabilistic seismic hazard analyses. These analyses
take into account the risk of fault ruptures on earthquake source zones, considering the
distance from the fault ruptures to the building site, local geologic and soil conditions at
the site, and frequency content of the ground motions relative to the natural vibration
period of the building. The standard design earthquake hazard for the western U.S.
roughly translates to spectral accelerations with a 10% chance of exceedence in 50 years
(or a mean annual probability of exceedence of 0.002). While the underlying
probabilistic seismic hazard analysis procedures are scientifically based, there is
considerable room for judgment, interpretation, and calibration in setting the final design
hazard level.
Effective Design Forces - The second step in the seismic design process is perhaps the
most subjective and ripe for improvement. In this step, the equivalent lateral earthquake
loads are first estimated assuming elastic response of the structure. These elastic forces
are then reduced by a seismic design coefficient (or so-called R value) to account for
inelastic energy dissipation anticipated under the design earthquake. The magnitude of
the response reduction is based on the likely inelastic energy dissipation capacity of the
system, which is determined by consensus judgments of committees, consisting of
researchers, design professionals, building code officials, and industry representatives.
For structural steel and reinforced concrete structures, inelastic design force reduction
factors range from R = 3 to 8, which reduce the earthquake design forces down to
between 12% to 33% of values corresponding to the imposed forces were the structure to
respond elastically to the earthquake. Considering that the design forces directly impact
the strength and stiffness of the structure, it is remarkable that such large force reductions
are accepted by the profession with little direct scientific basis. Popov (Popov 1991) and
115
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
others suggest how the current force reduction values have largely been calibrated back
to past practice, beginning with provisions first introduced into building codes after the
1933 Long Beach earthquake. In spite of the many refinements to design codes and
seismic hazard analyses, net lateral strength requirements (equal to about 10% to 15% of
the building weight in high seismic zones) have remained largely unchanged for many
years.
Design and Detailing Requirements Once the minimum required component strengths
are determined based on the seismic design loads, several prescriptive requirements are
imposed to help insure inelastic energy dissipation capacity consistent with the seismic
force reduction. These include additional limits on minimum member and connection
strengths, limits on member slenderness, and local detailing requirements. An example
of one such requirement is the strong-column weak-beam provision, intended to limit
the formation of story mechanisms and concentration of plastic hinging in columns.
While the basic concepts behind the prescriptive design and detailing requirements are
based on scientific reasoning, their implementation though code specifications is fairly
subjective, involving many simplifications and generalizations about structural response.
Similar issues related to the judgment-based building code requirements for fire resistant
design are well known among fire protection engineers and have been voiced in
conferences and professional journals. Traditional prescriptive codes base fire protection
on occupancy types, a standardized test fire curve (which does not resemble a real fires
behavior), and furnace tests which attempt to equate individual member endurance (in the
furnace) to global system response. Overall, the prescriptive fire protection requirements
are not based on current engineering and scientific principles and data (Bailey et al.
1996; Bukowski and Babrauskas 1996; Kruppa 2000; Martin 1996; O'Conner 1995;
116
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
Robinson and Latham 1986). While these prescriptive codes have served us well,
maintaining structural integrity of buildings during fires, they have not always done so in
an economical or rational way. They often require over design of certain features, they
exclude certain fire protection products, which are not specifically referenced in the code,
and there is not a process to check for the weakest link, which could reveal other over
designed portions (Bukowski and Babrauskas 1996). Moreover, like their earthquake
counterparts, prescriptive fire codes are not transparent in the sense of relating the
prescriptive requirements to clear objectives and design results. As Hamburger, et al.
recently stated, The basic intent of mandatory code provisions is to protect life safety.
However, they also have the effect of reducing future economic lossesat the cost of
additional involuntary investment on the part of the developer at the time of construction.
Just how much additional protection is to be providedand at what costis a question
that has never directly been addressed by the codes (Hamburger et al. 2002).
The PEER Center has developed an approach to performance-based earthquake
engineering (PBEE) that provides a rigorous procedure for performance asessment that
takes into account seismological, engineering, financial and societal considerations. As
outlined in Table 3-1, the framework characterizes the performance assessment process
into four steps, each of which emphasizes a different discipline focus (Deierlein et al.
2003; Krawinkler 2002). Data between each step is organized into four generalized
variables, defined as Intensity Measure, Engineering Demand Parameters, Damage
Measures, and Decision Variables. Unambiguous articulation of these variables is key
to the framework organization.
PROCES
S
VARIABLE DISCIPLINE PARAMETERS EXAMPLES
117
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
S
e
i
s
m
i
c

H
a
z
a
r
d

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
IM seismology &
geotechnical
engineering
fault location
type and length of rupture
(magnitude of event)
site/soil conditions
Sa(T1)
PGA, PGV
Aires intensity

S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
IMEDP structural &
geotechnical
engineering
foundation and structural
system
dynamic mass & damping

story drift
floor accelerations
component forces
& deformations

D
a
m
a
g
e

A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
EDPDM structural, mech. &
elec. engrg.;
construction;
architecture;
loss modeling
deformation sensitive
component fragilities
(walls, beams, columns)
acceleration sensitive
component fragilities
(equipment, contents)
component
strength/deformation
limits
damage (repair)
states
hazards (falling,
blocked egress,
chemical release, etc.)
collapse
L
o
s
s

&

R
i
s
k

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
DMDV construction & cost
estimating; loss
modeling
occupancy
time of earthquake
post-eq recovery
resources
fatalities
direct $ losses
repair
time/downtime
Table 3-13 Attributes of PEER PBEE Methodology
The Intensity Measure describes the seismic hazard at the building site in terms of a
seismic hazard determined from a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis considering the
seismologic parameters summarized in Table 3-1. Current practice is to define IM in
terms of spectral acceleration for the first mode period of the structure, Sa(T
1
), which
relects important aspects of the ground motion amplitude and frequency content.
However, alternative IMs are sometimes used, such as peak ground ground velocity
(PGV). The best IM is one that best reflects the damaging features of earthquake ground
motions, i.e., those aspects of the ground motion which correlate best to the resulting
building response and damage.
Given the ground motion intensity, the next step is to conduct structural analyses (static
or dynamic inelastic analyses (Vamvatsikos and Cornell 2002)) to simulate the building
118
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
response and determine the Engineering Demand Parameters, EDPs. The EDPs are
response measures that can later be related to Damage Measures (DMs), which describe
the consequences of the response. Two common EDPs are peak interstory drift ratios
and floor accelerations; other more localized EDPs include element forces, hinge
rotations and generalized strains. The DMs quantify the damage and consequences of the
damage as they affect cost of repairs, safety, and other considerations. For example,
DMs for architectural wall partitions include relationships between peak interstorey drifts
(the EDP) and damage states ranging from minor (hairline cracking, requiring spackling
and painting of walls), moderate (replacement of some wallboards, taping, spackling and
painting) to severe (demolition and full wall replacement). DMs for structural elements
may describe similar damage states, in addition to the impact of the damage on the
performance of the overall structural frame. DMs for building contents and equipment
may relate to damage and the consequences of damage, such as hazards posed by
toppling heavy equipment or hazardous chemical release.
Given a full description of the damage state through the DMs, the final step is to quantify
Decision Variables (DVs), which express the performance in terms relevant to the owner
and other stakeholders. The DVs include risk of casualties (deaths and serious injuries),
direct dollar loss (repair costs and lost inventory), and downtime (duration of repairs).
Recognizing the large uncertainties in each step of the performance evaluation, the DVs
are described in a probabilistic sense, as an annual mean rate of exceedence or alternative
metric that describes the uncertainties. For example, the direct dollar losses could be
described as the mean annual probability that the direct dollar loss exceeds a percentage
of the replacement cost of the facility; mathematically, this can be expressed as (DV) =
(dollar loss > X% replacement cost). An alternative would be to express the DV in
119
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
terms of a scenario, e.g., given the occurrence of an earthquake of magnitude M on a
nearby fault, there is a Y% confidence the direct dollar loss will not exceed X% of the
replacement cost.
Based on the total probability theorem, uncertainties in the assessment process are
tracked through the following framework equation:
( )

) (IM d IM EDP dG EDP DM dG DM DV G DV
where the term G[DV |DM] represents the conditional probability that DV exceeds a
given value, conditioned on DM, dG[DM |EDP] is the derivative of the conditional
probability for DM with respect to EDP, and similarly for dG[EDP|IM]. The last term
on the right, d(IM), is the derivative of the seismic hazard curve, which defines the
mean annual frequency (MAF) of exceeding a specified IM, e.g., a 0.002 MAF (or 10%
in 50 year chance) of exceeding a spectral acceleration of 1% g.
The form of Equation implies that the intermediate variables (DMs and EDPs) are
chosen such that the conditional probabilities are independent of one another and
conditioning information need not be carried forward. This implies, for example, that
given the structural response described by EDP, the damage measures (DMs) are
conditionally independent of the ground motion intensity (IM), i.e., there are no
significant effects of ground motion that influence damage and are not reflected in the
calculated EDPs. The same can be said about the conditional independence of the
decision variables (DV) from ground motion IM or structural EDP, given G(DV|DM).
Likewise, the intensity measure (IM) should be chosen such that the structural response
(EDP) is not also further influenced by, say, magnitude or distance, which have already
120
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
been integrated into the determination of d(IM). Apart from facilitating the probability
calculation, this independence of parameters serves to compartmentalize discipline-
specific knowledge necessary to evaluate relationships between the key variables.
3.2 Performance Based Fire Engineering Methodology.
Much like performance-based earthquake engineering, performance-based fire
engineering is based on the premise of achieving performance goals set by various
interested partiesowners, regulators, code officials, society, etc. As noted by Custer
and Meacham (Custer and Meacham 1997) is that despite the various efforts and huge
volume of research world wide, to date there is not a single, generally accepted
framework, for performance-based fire engineering. We believe that the PEER PBEE
methodology provides a generic framework to model the various aspects and
complexities of performance-based fire engineering as well. The overall goals would be
the same as in performance-based earthquake engineering, i.e., the ability to relate design
decisions to quantifiable risk assessment of life safety and economic factors. Note that
the framework itself does not dictate specific target risk levels, rather the focus is only on
a methodology to evaluate the risks in a scientifically quantifiable way.
Summarized in Table 3-2 is a framework for performance-based fire engineering, which
is analogous to the earthquake-engineering framework in Table 3-1. Note we have
focused mainly on the structural engineering aspects of fire engineering, a small subset of
the whole challenge of fire safety to be sure. A key feature of this framework is
separation of the performance-assessment into four unique processes, where information
between the processes is described unambiguously in terms of the four general variables,
IM, EDP, DM and DV. As with the earthquake framework, one of the motivations of this
121
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
approach is to clearly articulate the role of the various professional disciplines and the
handoff of information from one discipline to another. Referring to Table 3-2, the first
step is a probabilistic fire hazard analysis, which culminates in the probabilistic definition
of a fire intensity measure, IM. For fire engineering of steel structures, we would
propose the IM to be the maximum temperature in the steel framework. However,
alternative measures such as maximum compartment temperature or normalized heat
load (Mehaffey and Harmathy 1984) are other candidate IMs. To the extent possible, the
assessment is greatly simplified if the IM is limited to a scalar variable (e.g., maximum
temperature), as opposed to a vector of multiple variables (e.g., maximum temperature
plus time to maximum temperature). As summarized in Table 3-3, calculation of the
steel temperature depends on the likelihood of a flashover fire and characterization of the
compartment gas temperature (compartment geometry and boundary materials, fuel load,
and ventilation) and heat transfer into the steel (thermal insulation and structural
configuration).
Given the maximum steel temperature (IM) and guidance on likely fire scenarios (e.g.,
distributions of the steel temperatures among various compartments, various steel
members, and gradients through members), structural engineers can then perform
analyses to determine appropriate EDPs demand measures, such as induced member
forces, deflections, and inelastic component deformations. The EDPs are next related to
DMs, such as the impact of structural deformations and induced forces on the structural
elements and fire/smoke barriers. Note it should be emphasized that the present
discussion and parameters in Table 3-2 are limited to structural fire protection - a subset
of the broader issues related to fire endurance of the barriers themselves and other fire
protection and egress systems in the building. Finally, information from the DMs is next
122
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
used in loss modeling and risk analyses to determine the DVs. In terms of life safety
(casualty) risks, this would include the risk to building occupants from (a) smoke/fire,
associated with breaches in the fire barriers and blocked egress, and (b) injuries from
local or global structural collapse. Risks to emergency responders relate more to risks
from structural collapse, although sudden breach of major barriers also presents a life
safety risk to emergency responders. The two other DVs related to economic
consequences (repair costs and associated downtime) can likewise be determined from
the DMs.
PROCESS VARIABLE DISCIPLINE PARAMETERS EXAMPLES
F
i
r
e

H
a
z
a
r
d

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
IM fire protection
engineering
- likelihood of flashover
fire
compartment geometry
and thermal properties
- ventilation
- fuel load & burning rate
- fire insulation
- structural configuration
and fire exposure
maximum steel
temperature
compartment gas
time-temperature
curve
normalized heat
load
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
IMEDP structural
engineering
- structural model
- fire scenario & steel
temperature distribution
- steel mechanical and
thermal properties
- applied gravity loads
-
component forces
inelastic
deformations
deflections

D
a
m
a
g
e

A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
EDPDM Structural and fire
prot. engineering;
construction;
architecture;
loss modeling
- damage fragility curves
of smoke and thermal
barriers
- damage fragility curves
of structural components
strength limit
states
structural damage
(repair) states
barrier breach
local or global
collapse
L
o
s
s

&

R
i
s
k

A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
DMDV construction & cost
estimating; risk
assessment; loss
modeling
- occupancy
- alarms and egress
efficiency
- fire duration/endurance
casualties
(occupants, first
responders)
direct $ losses
repair
time/downtime
123
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
Table 3-14 Attributes of Probabilistic PBFE Methodology
Implementation of the proposed methodology will require models and data to calculate
the necessary parameters. Further, since the intent is to rigorously account for the many
uncertainties in the process, the models and data should be formulated so as to provide
the conditional probabilities required for Equation . These conditional probabilities
should account for both intrinsic variability in the underlying data and phenomena
(aleatory variability) and those associated with lack of data or modeling simplifications
(epistemic uncertainties). What follows is a look at modeling the IM (maximum steel
temperature) hazard curve, followed by some additional discussion on carrying the
analysis forward to EDP, DM, and DV.
Originally the term scenario was used to include a comprehensive statement of the
overall fire safety, the scenario would represent a technical description of the social
expectation of safety. Scenarios would include all the potential elements of the fires, the
building and the human response. However, scenarios stopped including the entire
hazard, and became instead just a specified design fire. Buildings only have to handle a
fire scenario to satisfy the code, rather than a scenario fire, that represents all the real
world conditions under which a fire may occur (Brannigan 1999).
Fire scenarios describe the specifications needed for a fire test or the input for a fire
modeling run. (Puchovsky 1997)
Fire scenarios provide the load from which you can determine if the performance
criteria are met. Fire models and other calculation methods can be used to determine
whether the building design will achieve the performance criteria, given each scenario.
124
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
Event tree analysis is a way to build up reasonable picture of the likelihood of fire
scenarios using knowledge of how fires occur, spread, and are controlled. SHOW
EVENT TREE EXAMPLE
Code compliance means meeting fire scenario demands, not validation of fire scenario to
real world fire situations.
Fire risk assessment requires a scenario or group of scenarios that can represent all the
various scenarios that a structure may face or will put a stress the structural system. All
scenarios identified must be represented by detailed analysis of the scenario and become
a part of he overall scenario based on its representative probability or is deemed to have
insignificant effects n the structure. Often only a small number of scenarios are used and
chosen to vary some of the key characteristics of the scenarios. The danger of this
simplification is that the risk associated with a design may arise in scenarios that are low
probability and unlike the more common scenarios in the way that they stress a designs
fire protection features.(Hall 2002a)
Key question, how do you choose the design fire that is the most important to the
structure, i.e. causes the most significant fire stresses?
3.2.1 Quantification of IM
Worldwide experience has shown that the thermal model is the most critical stage in the
calculation because, provided the heating rate of the steel member is accurately known,
most mechanical models will predict similar deformation/time characteristics. (Kay et
al. 1996). In order to create a thermal model a fire scenario must be developed and
modeled. While many fire models exist, as discussed in Chapter 2, they can be largely
125
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
grouped into two general classifications, simplistic hand calculations that assume uniform
temperature throughout a compartment and more complicated programs that take
advantage of computational fluid dynamics. Arguments can be made about the validity
of either approach, but as this work proposes a methodology for use by design engineers,
a more simplified model is desired. Computational fluid models will remain a viable
research tool and perhaps some day could be easily used, providing they are developed
with more user friendly interfaces.
For the purposes of performance-based fire engineering of steel structures, it is proposed
to define the IM or fire load in terms of the maximum steel temperature. In terms of
Equation (the total probability equation), we need to define (IM), i.e., a fire hazard
curve which describes the mean annual probability of exceeding a specified steel
temperature. Calculation of (IM) can be broken down into the following equation,
which is another application of the total probability equation:
( ) | ) | ( ) IM dG IM FO dG FO F F

where, (F), is the probability of ignition, dG[FO |F] is the conditional probability of
flashover, given ignition, and dG[IM |FO] is the conditional probability of the steel
reaching a certain temperature, given flashover. The integrations of Equation imply
taking account of all possible fire event scenarios and the uncertainties in all aspects of
the problem. Data for the last two terms of Equation are available from a number of
sources (Burros 1975; CIB W14 1983; Ellingwood and Corotis 1991), and for the present
discussion will be assumed given by the data in Table 3-3 (from (Ellingwood and Corotis
1991)). In this example we used P(FO|F) = 1 10
-2
and P(F) = 8.1 10
-4
(based on 5 10
-
6
times our floor area). As ignition and flashover are discrete (binary) events, the
126
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
integrations involving F and FO turn out to be simple multiplications of their respective
probabilities in Table 3-3. The remaining discussion treats the conditional probability of
the steel temperature, given that flashover has occurred, i.e., dG[IM |FO].
Occupancy
MAP[Ignition]
per meter
2
(x 10
-6
)
P[Flashover|Ignition]
Office 1-5 >10
-2
10
-3 (note 1)
Dwelling 0.05-1 10
-1 (note 2)
Hotel 0.5 2 x 10
-2 (note 3)
School 0.5 2 x 10
-2 (note 3)
Commercial 1.0 2 x 10
-2 (note 3)
1. Assumes office with alarm system and trained fire
personnel in residence; may reduce to > 10
-4
if
sprinkler system is in operation
2. Assumes public fire company as only response.
3. Assumes sprinkler system.
Table 3-15 Fire Occurrence Statistics(Ellingwood and Corotis 1991)
Assuming flashover has occurred, calculation of the resulting steel temperature (IM) is
based on fire duration, fire gas temperature in a compartment, heat flux imposed upon the
inside surfaces of a compartment, or enclosure boundary, and heat transfer into the steel
member. These in turn are based on the processes of the fuel consumption, the
ventilation rate, and the heat transfer process. Fuel consumption is based on the type of
fuel, amount of fuel, distribution of fuel, geometry of compartment, ventilation area and
shape, and the thermal characteristics of the compartment boundaries. Similarly,
ventilation rate has components of the amount of fuel, distribution of fuel, geometry of
compartment, ventilation area and shape, and the thermal characteristics of the
compartment boundaries. Finally the components of heat transfer are geometry of
compartment, ventilation area and shape, and the thermal characteristics of the
127
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
compartment boundaries (Shields and Silcock 1987). Clearly, it is difficult, if not
impossible to precisely quantify all of the variables involved in calculating the steel
temperature hence, the motivation to describe the outcome in a probabilistic sense.
As show in Figure 3-1, we will use the standard assumption of calculating steel
temperature through a two step process the first involving calculation of gas
temperature in a compartment, and the second the steel temperature, either unprotected or
insulated steel, from the gas temperature. Given the time dependency of both processes,
the calculations are interconnected. This interconnection is the primary reason why we
choose the steel temperature, rather than gas temperature, as the IM. Otherwise, had gas
temperature been chosen for the scalar IM, we would have been faced with the need to
estimate the maximum steel temperature with only information about the peak gas
temperature (as opposed to the full time versus gas temperature relationship).
We will assume that the compartment gas temperature can be modeled using a parametric
fire equation, such as the following equation from Appendix A of Eurocode 1 (European
Committee for Standardization 2001).
0.2 * 1.7 * 19 *
20 1325(1 0.324 0.204 0.472 )
t t t
gas
T e e e

+
(Equation )
where T
gas
is the gas temperature in degrees C, and t* value is a time variable that
accounts for ventilation, enclosure properties, and fuel load through equations A.2 to
A.12 of Eurocode 1. Assuming the format of Equation is exact, insofar as the equation
is a reasonable model for simplifying the calculation of gas temperature in a
compartment, we could assume uncertainties exist in both the coefficients of Equation
and the variables used to determine t*. It should be noted that this equation describes the
128
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
rise in the fire curve up to the maximum temperature. The linear cooling phase of the
time temperature curve is based on the fire load density and ventilation factor, given in
equation A.11 in the Eurocode 1, Annex A (European Committee for Standardization
2001).
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Time [min]
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

[
C
]
Gas
Unportected Steel
Insulated Steel

Figure 3-28 Time Temperature Curves
An obvious area of great uncertainty as mentioned in Chapter 2 is the design value of the
fire load, q
t,d
(energy per unit of total enclosure surface area). This value is based on the
ratio of floor area to total compartment area times the design value of the fire load
density based on floor area, q
f,d
. This design value is taken from Annex E of Eurocode 1,
129
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
and should be discussed in some detail, as the fire load, or fuel load, has a large impact
on our parametric equation and thus the maximum temperature reached in the steel
member, as seen in Figures 3 and 4 and mentioned in the discussion above..
2
, , 1 2
[MJ/m ]
f d f k q q n
q q m
where m is the combustion factor,
q1
is a factor taking into account the fire activation
risk due to the size of the compartment ,
q2
is a factor taking into account the fire
activation risk due to the type of occupancy,
10
1
n ni
i

is a factor taking into account


the different active firefighting measure (i.e. sprinkler, detection, automatic alarm
transmission, firefighter access and location, etc.); and q
f,k
is the characteristic fire load
density per unit floor area [MJ/m
2
]. Obviously this value for fire load density is the key
part of Equation . It is nothing more than the fire load, the total energy able to be
released in a compartment, divided by the floor area. This total energy or fire load is
derived from the choleric values of the of the compartments combustible components
(wall and ceiling linings, finishings, etc.) and contents (furniture, supplies, storage items,
etc.). There are tables that give values for individual content items, by unit mass, as well
as typical values for contents of standard occupancies (living space, school classrooms,
theaters, office, hotel rooms, hospital rooms, library, shopping centers), to these would be
added values for the combustible components. The
q1
,
q2
, and
n
factors may seem to
be more related to the probability of a fire occurring and/or reaching flashover, but close
examination shows their relation to the growth of a post flashover fire. They each
contribute to the q
t,d
term, which determines the time to the maximum temperature in the
room, T
gas
, in a ventilation controlled fire given by:
130
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
3
max ,
0.2 10 /
t d
t q O


where O is the opening factor,
1/2
/ [m ]
v eq t
A h A
(A
v
is the area of vertical openings in
the compartment, h
eq
is the weighted average of window heights on the walls, and A
t
is
the total area of the enclosure, including openings). As such, we can see that the fire
fighting factors that go into the differentiation factor,
n
, would have an effect on the size
of the fire that could be achieved. These various fire safety and fire fighting measures
would tend to limit a fires size, thus requiring a reduction in the fire load density, even
in a post flashover phase. Of course these same factors would also likely contribute to
the probability of ignition and reaching flashover as well. Similarly, the size of the
compartment and the type of occupancy (or use) can also affect the ultimate size of the
fire. The larger the space, the more likely that the post flashover fire will not be able to
be controlled, hence requiring a boosting of the calculated load density. Similarly, for
certain extreme occupancies, the likelihood of effective fire fighting measures show be
increased or reduced through
q2
.
Once we calculate T
gas
, we next assume the steel temperature to be calculated using an
iterative time step method based on the priciples of heat trans fere discussed in Section 2.
using Equations () and ()
Aleatory variability deals with the quality or variations of the data we are using in our
equations, where epistemic uncertainty refers to the process and rules for applying the
data in the model. For example, the fuel load itself is highly variable. The contents of
the compartment will vary, with differing fuel loads, and will not be fixed in place over
time. Similar compartments with the same occupancy will often have very different
contents and arrangement of contents. These intrinsic uncertainties contribute to the
131
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
aleatory variability. Often the fuel load density is modified in the parametric equations
by factors affecting the activation risk, based on size and use of the compartment, as well
as factors taking into account different fire fighting measures (sprinklers, detection,
alarms, water sources, relative location of firefighters, etc.), as discussed previously. As
various factors are used to modify the fuel load in Equation , these would tend to
contribute to epistemic uncertainty.
Other variables that contribute to the room gas temperature include such things as
ventilation, boundary enclosure properties, and geometry of the compartment. While
many of these are often treated as deterministic, there is significant aleatory variability in
these parameters. Ventilation, for example, is based mostly on area, height and geometry
of openings, but are fire doors left opened or closed? Are holes in walls or windows
created by the fire? Boundary enclosure propertiesdensity, specific heat, and thermal
conductivityall offer degrees of uncertainty. Additionally, if one has the goal of
obtaining a maximum steel temperature for typical steel members, e.g., beams in an
office building, then there are epistemic uncertainties in the estimation of the exposed
surface area to volume ratio (F/V) in Equations and . For steel members with fire
insulation (Equation), there are uncertainties in the thickness and thermal properties of
the insulation.
3.2.2 Monte Carlo Simulation
Monte Carol simulation is a method of obtaining data about a whole system from the
known data of various components. A Monte Carlo simulation analysis requires that the
variable distribution of components be known and their relation ship to system
performance. Knowing these two things a high speed computer can evaluate
132
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
performance through many iterations of the experiment. Accuracy is based on the
accuracy of the distributions of of the variables and the correctness of their relation to
each other and the systems performance as a whole, as well as the number of iterations
performed (Bender et al. 1985).
REPEAT
DISTRIBUTIONS FOR
EACH RANDOM
VARIABLE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
COMPONENST VARIABLE AND
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
CALCULATE SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE FOR A
SYSTEM WITH VALUSE
OBTAINED IN PREVIOUS
STEP
VALUES OF SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE, PROVIDING
APPROXIMATE DISTRBUTION
OF SYSTEM PERFROMANCE
SELECT RANDOM
VALUE FROM EACH
DISTRIBUTION
Figure 3-29 Monte Carlo Simulation Flow Chart
To demonstrate the process of quantifying the uncertainty in steel temperature (IM) from
the parametric Equation and heat transfer Equations and , we have conducted Monte
Carlo simulations. We considered the fuel load as the primary source of uncertainty in
parametric equations, but initially treated ventilation, material properties of steel, the
boundary enclosure, and the insulation, as well as the thickness of insulation as random
variables. A more comprehensive analysis would consider other variables (such
compartment geometry, size of steel members, and area of members exposed) as random,
but for this exercise we are assuming these as deterministic. Based on previous work by
Ellingwood, material properties were given a normal distribution with a coefficient of
variance of 0.06 (Ellingwood 1983), other distributions used are as listed in Table 3-4.
133
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
The tornado charts, Figures 3-2 and 3-3, depict the effects of the 16% and 84% fractiles
of each random variable used (with all other random variables being set to their mean
value) on the maximum steel temperature. As can be seen and as expected, the effect of
the randomness in the material properties is minimal on the distribution of temperatures
achieved in both protected and unprotected steel. The larger variances can be seen in
both the protected and unprotected temperatures of steel, based on the values for fire load
density (q
f,k
), the factors that modify that value, (
q1
,
q2
, all the
ni
s, and m) and the
thickness of the insulation (d
insulation
) for the protected case. The ventilation, as expressed
in the opening factor (O) is seen to have a greater effect on the protected case than the
unprotected, due to the different heat transfer equation used. Based on these results,
material properties of the steel, enclosure boundary, and insulation were not varied in
subsequent simulations.
Variable Mean ()
Coefficient of
Variation
Distribution
Fuel Load Density
(qfk)
Table E-4,
Eurocode 1
Table E-4, Eurocode
1
Gumble (per
Eurocode 1)
Combustion Factor
(m)
.8 .18 Beta
Fire Activation
Factors, (
q1,

q2
)
Table E-1,
Eurocode 1
.15 Lognormal
Active Fire
Fighting Factors
(
ni
)
Table E-2,
Eurocode 1
.15 Lognormal
Table 3-16 Examples of Random variables and Distributions
134
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
600 650 700 750 800 850
Temperature [
o
C]
Mean values Temperature 694
o
C
All
Specific heat boundary
Density boundary
Thermal conductivity boundary
Density steel
Convection coefficient
Opening factor
Fire activation risk size
Fire safety measures
Fire activation risk occupancy
Combustion factor
Fuel Load
Unprotected Steel

Figure 3-30 Tornado Chart, Unprotected Steel
300 350 400 450 500 550
Temperature [
o
C]
Mean values Temperature 382
o
C
All
Specific heat boundary
Density boundary
Thermal conductivity boundary
Specific heat insulation
Density insulation
Density Steel
Thermal conductivity insulation
Fire activation risk size
Fire safety measures
Fire activation risk occupancy
Thickness insulation
Combustion factor
Opening factor
Fuel Load
Insulated Steel
Figure 3-31 Tornado Chart, Insulated Steel
135
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
As an example, we used the following fire scenario. We assumed a 18 m by 9 m, office
building. Our choice of an open factor, the ventilation in the problem, was based on
choosing the range of values to cover the worst case scenarios, values between .02
and .04. We ran simple tests with varying Os, all other variables held at mean values
resulted in the curves in Figure 4. The boundary enclosure was assumed as gypsum
plaster. For active fire safety measures, we assumed the following:
Automatic water extinguishing system did not function or was in poor
repair.
No independent water source.
Automatic fire detection and alarm activated by heat.
Automatic alarm transmission to the firefighters.
Firefighters are off site.
Safe access route, but staircases not pressurized.
Firefighting devices working.
Smoke exhaust systems were working.
136
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
Opening Factors vs. Max temps
0.020
0.040
0.060
0.080
0.100
0.120
0.140
0.160
0.180
0.200
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Temperature [
o
C]
O
p
e
n
i
n
g

F
a
c
t
o
r
Gas Temp
Unprotected Steel
Insulated Steel
Figure 3-32 Effect of Opening Factor [O] on Temperature
We used the appropriate values from Eurocode 1 in Appendix D for the Fire Load
Density values, taken as means for our random variables. We computed the temperatures
for a steel floor beam exposed to fire on three sides with the following dimensions: depth
= 602 [mm], flange = 301 [mm], flange thickness = 14.8 [mm], web thickness = 10.6
[mm]. We used h
c
= 25 [W/m
2
K] and = 0.5. For steel we used
s
= 7880 [kg/m
3
] and
used a temperature varying specific heat of steel taken from Buchanan (Buchanan 2001)
(similar to one from the ECCSs Model Code for Fire Engineering (Technical Committee
3 2001)). We looked at both an unprotected and protected steel beam, where for the
latter we assumed 50 mm of sprayed on perlite or vermiculite plaster with
i
= 350
[kg/m
3
], k
i
= .12 [W/mK] and c
i
= 1200 [J/kg K]. If none of these values were varied,
the maximum temperature in the steel beam was calculated as 694
o
C for the unprotected
member and 382
o
C for the insulated member. We then ran 5000 iterations of a Monte
137
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
Carlo simulation (yielding ~4300 valid combinations based on the Eurocode limits for
various part of the equation), using assumed variables and distributions summarized in
Table 3-4 as input to Equation and the underlying equations from Eurocode 1. Some of
the assumptions indicated in Table 3-4 were taken directly from Eurocode 1, and others
we based on our own (albeit arbitrary) judgment.
The result of the Monte Carlo analysis is used to determine the conditional probability,
dG[IM |FO], which is the probability of reaching a specified maximum steel
temperature (T
steel
= IM) given flashover, FO. If we complete the fire hazard analysis by
integrating (or in this instance multiplying) dG[IM |FO] with the probabilities of ignition
and flashover, per Equation , the resulting hazard curves (for an unprotected and
protected beam) are plotted in Figure 3-5. For comparison purposes, an earthquake
hazard plot is superimposed on this figure, where the earthquake IM is Spectral
Acceleration. The earthquake hazard spectrum is for a site in California for a building
with a fundamental vibration period of 1 second (representative of a six or seven story
steel-framed building). The earthquake hazard axis is scaled to show the portion of the
curve relevant to design, where the code design hazard probability is on the order of 4 x
10
-4
to 2 x 10
-3
.
138
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
Spectral Acceleration (g)
1.0E-08
1.0E-07
1.0E-06
1.0E-05
1.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-02
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
Max Steel Temperature (
o
C)
M
e
a
n

A
n
n
u
a
l

P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

E
x
c
e
e
d
e
n
c
e
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2
Earthquake
Spectral Accel.
Unprotected
Steel Temp.
Insulated
Steel Temp.
Figure 3-33 Comparison of IM Hazard Curve for Earthquake Risk in Western US
There are a number of interesting observations to note from Figure 5 with regard to the
fire hazard alone, and the fire relative to earthquake hazard. First, the combined
probabilities of ignition and flashover result in a probability of a flashover fire of 8.1 10
-
6
, which is in itself quite low relative to the earthquake risk and other common hazards.
The change in probabilities below this point (i.e., the sloping of the hazard curves)
reflects the results of variations of assumed fire load in the Monte Carlo analyses.
Second, assuming critical design values of about 540
o
C (when the strength and
stiffness of steel drops to about half its original value) we see that the likelihood of the
unprotected beam reaching this is about the same as the likelihood of achieving
flashover, whereas for the protected beam, the insulation reduces the probability by a
little less tan an order of magnitude. An additional factor not apparent in these numbers
139
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
is that the protected beam reaches this high temperature in about 35 minutes for the
unprotected beam and about 100 minutes for the protected beam. to chek to insure that
extremely severe long duration fires were not skewing our results we ran simulations e to
calculate them based on the probability of reaching the specified maximum temperature
within a specified time interval (e.g., 2 hours). We found that the hazard curves were
nearly identical for the scenario we used. Finally, comparing the earthquake hazard for
Sa = 1 g (which is somewhat representative to a design value) to the probabilities of
reaching 540
o
C (assumed representative of a critical design condition), the earthquake
design hazard is about 2 orders of magnitude more likely than the design fire. How
one reconciles this large difference is a question beyond the scope of this paper, but one
worthy of discussion.
Certain stakeholders, such as first responders, are likely to view performance not in terms
of the total probability, but rather, from the standpoint that a flashover fire has already
occurred. This would imply disaggregating the (IM) hazard into the pre- and post-
flashover components, and processing the downstream calculations for EDP, DM and DV
independently of the IM probability. Referring back to Equation , this can be handled by
setting P(FO|F)P(F) = 1, which essentially would shift the vertical intercept of the fire
hazard curve in Figure 3-5 to be 1.
3.3 Resistance factor for fire
In the Canadian Wood design manual R. O. Foschi sets out a reliability design plan
which is used here (Foschi 1990). Using standard reliability design he sets up an initial G
function equation, which is a function of several random variables used in design, which
140
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
attempts to capture the uncertainty associated with any design. The basic equation can be
written as
G Capacity Demand
where G > 0 is success and G < 0 is failure, G = 0 is the limit state. From this equation a
reliability index, , or probability of failure can be computed, usually using a computer
algorithm. Foschi used a resistance factor, , which he varies to achieve different s or
probabilities of failure.
3.3.1 Simply Supported Beam
For the basic case of a simply supported beam (pin roller supports), we can use the
calibration technique to find a
b,fire
to give us a target probability of failure. As a
structurally significant fire is a rare event, Ellingwood has suggest a probability of failure
of 0.1 (Ellingwood and Corotis 1991), which is a conditional probability base don
ignition and the probability of a flashover fire given ignition. This would then yield a
structural probability of failure in the order of 10
-6
or 10
-7
. Using a calibration technique
suggested by Foschi, for
b,fire
, which is similar to the following, has the objective of
taking the effects of a fire loads into account through the degradation of material
properties. For simple bending we can say
( )
2
2
8 8
y
Capacity f Z
D L l
wl
Demand

+

141
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
where f
y
= variable yield stress [MPa], Z = Plastic section modulus [mm
3
], w = uniform
distributed load [N/mm], l = length [mm], D = variable dead load, and L = variable live
load. Rewriting Equation as
( )
2
8
y
D L l
G f
Z
+

From the LRFD Metric Manual of Steel Construction (American Institute of Steel
Construction Inc. 1999)
( )
2
0 0
where and
8
b n u
D L
b n b y u
M M
D L l
M F Z M

+

where = performance factor, F
y
= characteristic yield stress [MPa],
D
= dead load
factor,
L
= live load factor, D
0
= characteristic dead load [N/mm] and L
0
= characteristic
live load [N/mm]; and can be rewritten as in the limit state as
( )
2
0 0
8
D L
b y
D L l
F
Z

then rearranged as
( )
2
0
8
b y
D L
F
l
L
Z

+
where
0
0
D
L

Rewriting Equation as
142
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
2
0
0 0
8
y
l D L
G f L
Z L L
1
+
1
]
and then Equation can be used to insert the in Equation giving
( )
( )
b y
y
D L
F
G f d q


+
+
where
0 0
and
D L
d q
D L

This equation and derivation has the advantage of having eliminated all the member
specific geometric properties, thus making it more universal. The objected would be to
account for the fire load effects only. This is done through the yield stress, which is a
function of temperature.
Ellingwood has suggested that using the following load equation provides the 0.10
probability of failure (Ellingwood and Corotis 1991).
1.0 0.5
n n n
U D L F + +
F represents the structural action due to fire. Based on this we could expect that without
varying yield stress in Equation , only varying D and L, and using
b,fire
would result in a
probability of failure of 0.10. Using a Monte Carlo Simulation and using the
recommended distributions for sustained live loading for an office and a dead load
(American Society of Civil Engineers 2002; Ellingwood 1983; Ellingwood and Corotis
1991), this was verified with 4000 iterations yielding a COV of .04. However, as
mentioned this totally discounts the variability of the temperature and yield stress, as a
function of temperature.
143
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
It was then investigated what effect temperature and varying yield stress would have.
Using the parametric fire equation from Eurocode 1 and the heat transfer equations for
insulted and unprotected steel as mentioned in Section X.XX, and then taking the g
fuction in Equation , using again a Monte carlo simulation it was found that to get a 0.10
probability of failure, conditional on having a flashover fire, the resistance factor,
b,fire
,
must be .60.
Temperatur
e
phi
3.3.2 Restrained Beams
The other way would be to account for the P- effect and increase the moment in demand
to be
2

8
wl
Demand P +
where
2
2
,
EI
P
l

E = Youngs modulus [MPa] and I = moment of inertia [mm


4
], which
assumes that the beam will buckle before it yields. The P load is a result of the thermal
expansion,. P = EA
th
, and assuming it reaches a critical load for buckling and then
144
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
remain at that level and all further strain is taken up in member elongation causing
deflection. The deflection is equal to (Usmani and Rotter 2000)
2
2
2
th
th
l

+
where
th
= thermal strain = T, = coefficient of thermal expansion [strain/
o
C], and
T = change in temperature [
o
C]; thus
( )
2 2
2
8 2
th
th
D L l EI
Demand
l

+
+ +
This equation for demand is not as easy to work with and the results will be a member
specific G function.
( )
2 2
2
8 2
th
y th
D L l
EI
G f
Z lZ

+
+
In the form of bending from the steel code we get
( )
0
0
2 2
0 0
2
8 2
th D L
y th
D L l
EI
F Z
l



+
+
and
( )
0
0
2 2
0 0
1
2
8 2
y
th D L
th
F
Z
D L l
EI
l

+
+
Using Equation and substitution into Equation results in a G function as follows:
145
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
( )
( )
0
0
2 2
2 2
0 0
2
8 2
2
8 2
y
th
y th
th D L
th
F D L l
EI
G f
l
D L l
EI
l

1
+
+ + 1
1 +
]
+
A similar process cn be done for columns with axial loading. In fires it can be assumed
that pins will form so no moments will be transferred and the columns can be treated as
simply supported (Wang et al. 1995).
( )
y
th
Capacity Af
Demand D L EA

+ +
th
y
D L EA
G f
A
+ +

where A = cross sectional area [mm
2
]. From the code, section E, (American Institute of
Steel Construction Inc. 1999)
( )
2
2
,
where 0.658 for 1.5
0.877
for 1.5

c
cr D L th
cr y c
cr y c
c
y
c
AF D L EA
F F
F F
F
kl
r E

+ +

1
>
1
]

1
cr
D L th
F
D L EA A



+ +
( )
0 0
cr
y th
D L th
F
G f D L EA
D L EA


+ +
+ +
146
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
This G function like Equation is again member specific based on the area of the member
as well as length and radius of gyration.
3.3.3 Evaluation of EDP-DM-DV
Given the maximum steel temperature hazard, as described by the (IM) fire hazard
curve of the type shown in Figure 3-5, the next step would be to calculate the effect of the
increased temperature, together with other simultaneous loads, on the structure. This step
entails structural analysis, the output of which would be EDPs (see Table 3-2), including
deflections, forces and inelastic deformations in member and connections, and indices for
local and/or global collapse. Following the probabilistic framework equation, Equation ,
the analyses should be conducted to describe the demand parameters (response
quantities), conditioned on the maximum steel temperature, resulting in the conditional
probability relationship dG(EDP|IM). The variability in this step results from
assumptions regarding member temperature distributions, structural modeling
assumptions, gravity load magnitudes and distributions, and material properties at
elevated temperatures. The variability introduced by uncertainties in the temperature
distributions is similar in many respects to uncertainty introduced into the earthquake
engineering analysis by assumptions in choice of earthquake ground motions. In the
earthquake assessment the scalar intensity measure, such as spectral acceleration, only
describes some of the damaging features of the ground motion hazard. Therefore, other
damaging attributes, such as the duration of strong motion shaking, are included through
the choice of ground motion records for analysis. In a similar way, given the maximum
steel temperature (scalar fire IM), one must still make choices regarding the distribution
147
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
of temperatures through the member, the distribution throughout a compartment, and the
distributions in adjacent compartments. Thus, the temperature intensity has a spatial
and temporal history attribute much like earthquake ground motions.
Fire Risk Assessment, most descriptions of risk are qualitative not quantitative, but they
can give a sense of proportion. We can show the difference in risk that are big enough to
worry about and which ones are trivial and can be ignored. To do this we must quantify,
measure and get approximate numbers, such as the probabilities of fires occurring. If we
can get these numbers so that they are relevant and accurate, we can predict with
accuracy and make good assessments of risk. Even if the figures are not accurate but are
relevant we can still make useful comparisons of the fire safety methods used.(Watts
2002)
Fire Hazard Analysis (ASTM E1546)
Variable Range/Given Value

Distributio
n
qfk (Office) 420 .420 126 Gumbel

n
.07-3.375 1.6525 .9945 Uniform

q1
1.1-2.13 1.615 .2733 Uniform

q2
.78-1.66 1.22 .2540 Uniform
(Gypsum
plaster)
1440 (1440) .06 (86.4)
Normal
c (Gypsum plaster) 840 c (840) .06c (50.4) Normal
k (Gypsum plaster)
.48 k (.48)
.06k
(0.0288)
Normal

s
(structural steel) 7850
s
(7850) .06
s
(471) Normal
148
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
h
c
(air) 25 h
c
(25) .06h
c
(1.5) Normal
m 0-1 .8 Beta
t
lim
15-25 20 2.8868 Uniform
c
p
(Steel) temp based c
p
.06c
p
Normal
Table 3-17 Random Variables and Distribution for Monte Carlo Fire Simulation
3.3.3.1 Probability of Ignition
Probability of an existence of a source of ignition, i.e. thrown cigarette, a heat source,
spark from a vehicle, malfunction of a power control box, electrical cable being cut,
portable heater, etc.; in general a source of heat or flame. The location of a source of
ignition, spark, and the distance to a potential fire hazard from the source of ignition.
Sources of fire, both permanent and transient. Permanent could be fuel storage tank,
library, room with combustible materials. Transient could be vehicles that go through a
compartment, powered cleaning equipment, workers walking by with a cigarette.
Ignition can be modeled as a Poisson Event (Ellingwood and Corotis 1991).
Assumption of Poisson is the simplest stochastic process to generate point event over a
long period. Simplicity, minus other strong evidence justifies the assumption (Burros
1975).
Occupancy Type
Annual P[ignition]
per sq. meter
(x 10
-6
)
P[flashover|ignition]
Office 1-5 >10
-2
10
-3 1
Dwelling 0.05-1 10
-1 2
Hotel 0.5 2 x 10
-2 3
School 0.5 2 x 10
-2 3
149
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
Commercial 1.0 2 x 10
-2 3
4. Assumes office will have alarm system and trained fire personnel
in residence; the figure could be reduced to > 10
-4
if sprinkler
system is in operation
5. Assumes public fire company as only response.
6. Assumes sprinkler system.
Table 3-18 Fire Occurrence Probabilities from (Ellingwood and Corotis 1991)
3.3.3.2 Probability of Flashover, given Ignition.
Presence of active fire controls and suppression systems. Location of fire fighters to
structure, ability to react quickly. Once on site do they have the ability to get at and
fight the firedoes heavy or toxic smoke keep them away, structural impediments? Are
there automatic suppression systems, i.e. sprinklers; fire doors, installed and do they
function during the fire event?
3.3.3.3 Gas Temperature, given Flashover.
Fuel controlled or ventilation controlled. In most rooms fires are ventilation controlled,
i.e. the rate of burning depends of the ventilation openings both size and shape. The rate
of burning may sometimes be controlled by the surface area of the fuel, especially in
large well-ventilated rooms containing fuel items which have a limited area of
combustible surfaces(Buchanan 2001). This is similar to an item burning in the open
air. Often typical of fires in the decay period. One or two zone model approximations.
3.3.3.3.1Opening in walls and roof
Total area of enclosure, walls, ceiling, floors to include openings. Area of vertical
openings, window height on walls. Largely deterministic, assume windows and opening
blow out in post flashover fire.
150
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
3.3.3.3.2Type and nature of walls of compartment
Thermal conductivity of boundary of enclosure i.e. walls, specific heat of boundary
enclosure, density of boundary enclosure, time.
3.3.3.3.3Design Fire Load
Combustion Factor, based on type of material, i.e. cellulose, the burning characteristics
of materials. Size of compartment. Type of occupancy, type of active firefighting
measures. These include automatic extinguisher systems, independent water supplies,
automatic detection and alarm, automatic transmission of alarm, location of manual
suppression systems, equipment, personnel. Characteristic fire load density per floor
area. Fire load, based on fire test data. Must be conservative estimate, uncertainty of
layout of combustibles and amount present at time of fire, usually based on standard
tables.
3.3.3.3.4Other Factors
Automatic sprinklers have an effect on the fire load through the active fire fighting
factors (
n
). They tend to decrease the fire load. It should be noted that research has
show that automatic sprinklers are extremely reliable and have an excellent safety record
with respect to life safety. In the US there are strict regulations on the standard practices
for sprinkler inspections and maintenance. The historical record, as noted by the
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) in a recent annual report (Gerwain et al.
2003) is : The NFPA has no record of a multiple fatality fire in a building equipped
with a properly designed sprinkler system.
151
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
3.3.3.4 Maximum Temperature in Steel Member
Babrauskas and Williamson proposed the idea of a pessimized fire design. Their idea
was proposed as an alternative to a deterministic approach, where they calculated the
worst case under certain conditions. They pessimized certain variables in a computer
simulation, taking the values from a range that would give the highest fire temperature.
Their idea of pessimization is the inverse of optimization, but is strictly speaking not a
worst-case solution. Instead of taking each variable for the worst case, they only varied
certain variables, and kept them within reasonable ranges of expected values based on
design and the specific scenario.(Babrauskas and Williamson 1979)
3.3.4 Evaluation of EDP-DM-DV
Given the maximum steel temperature hazard, as described by the (IM) fire hazard
curve of the type shown in Fig. 3-5, the next step would be to calculate the effect of the
increased temperature, together with other simultaneous loads, on the structure. This step
entails structural analysis, the output of which would be EDPs (see Table 3-2), including
deflections, forces and inelastic deformations in member and connections, and indices for
local and/or global collapse. Following the probabilistic framework equation, Equation ,
the analyses should be conducted to describe the demand parameters (response
quantities), conditioned on the maximum steel temperature, resulting in the conditional
probability relationship dG(EDP|IM). The variability in this step results from
assumptions regarding member temperature distributions, structural modeling
assumptions, gravity load magnitudes and distributions, and material properties at
elevated temperatures. The variability introduced by uncertainties in the temperature
152
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
distributions is similar in many respects to uncertainty introduced into the earthquake
engineering analysis by assumptions in choice of earthquake ground motions. In the
earthquake assessment the scalar intensity measure, such as spectral acceleration, only
describes some of the damaging features of the ground motion hazard. Therefore, other
damaging attributes, such as the duration of strong motion shaking, are included through
the choice of ground motion records for analysis. In a similar way, given the maximum
steel temperature (scalar fire IM), one must still make choices regarding the distribution
of temperatures through the member, the distribution throughout a compartment, and the
distributions in adjacent compartments. Thus, the temperature intensity has a spatial
and temporal history attribute much like earthquake ground motions.
Analyses relating IM (steel temperature) to EDP (response), can either be simplified
component based analyses or comprehensive nonlinear analyses. The type of analysis
will affect the choice of EDPs. A simplified component analysis would consist of
calculating the member forces and deflections (the EDPs) for the specified temperature
and mechanical loading. These would then be related to performance criteria, described
in terms of discrete damage measures (DM). For example, do the imposed member
forces exceed the strength calculated at the elevated temperature, thereby suggesting the
onset of local collapse? What are the deflections, which may cause damage to adjacent
fire barriers? If warranted, a more detailed and in depth nonlinear analysis of the entire
structure could be performed, which explicitly models nonlinear temperature effects
(thermal strains and degradation of material properties). For comprehensive analyses,
emphasis would be to track performance via the deflections and inelastic deformations,
e.g., permanent sag, or displacement of beams, local buckling of members, or runaway
deflections the latter signifying the onset of local or global collapse.
153
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
Once the EDPs are determined, DMs can be calculated, reflecting damage to structural
elements and thermal barriers, and the life safety and economic implications of this
damage. A significant difference between earthquake and fire damage concerns the
relationship of nonstructural to structural damage. In earthquakes, essentially all damage
to structural and non-structural components (and building contents) can be related to the
structural motion (deformations and accelerations). This is not the case for fires, where
most of the nonstructural and content damage is due to heat and other fire load effects,
which are related to but distinct from the heat induced structural deformations. Thus,
only a small amount of the total nonstructural and contents losses will be captured in the
structural fire assessment. The most important aspects of the structural DM evaluation
(DMs caused by structural EDPs) are likely to be the life safety implications of forces
and deformations imposed on nonstructural heat/smoke barriers from the structural
frame, together with permanent inelastic damage to structural components and systems
including the possibility of local or global collapse.
Assume EDP is either a member force ratio or a deformation. Steels proximity to fire.
Temperature load is based on increase in temperature of steel. This is based on the
convective heat transfer coefficient, emissivity, density and specific heat of steel.
Exposed surface area of a member per unit length and volume per unit length. Protective
covering of steel. Temperature distribution in steel.
3.3.4.1 Design Loads
(Ellingwood and Corotis 1991) Loads carried by structure, both sustained and
extraordinary or transient live loads. Sustained are loads normally present for the
duration of a particular type of occupancy, modeled as a constant loads. Magnitude of a
154
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
sustained live load is a random variable, usually modeled with a gamma probability
distribution (Chalk and Corotis 1980). Extraordinary or transient loads occur relatively
infrequently, for a short duration, but are considerable in magnitude. Need to have both
for design live load.
3.3.4.2 Material Properties
At elevated temperatures material properties of steel vary to include coefficient of
thermal expansion, yield strength, Youngs modulus, and specific heat.
3.3.4.3 Geometric Nonlinearity
Must account for geometric non-linearities, the deflections caused by heat, in any
analysis. Bowing and expansion effects.
3.3.5 Quantification of DM:
DM might take three distinct limits: no damage, member replacement, collapse. No
damage indicating member show no plastic deformations, local buckling, etc after fire.
Member replacement indicating member has permanent deformations, due to local
buckling, distortion, or deflections. Collapse, either local or global.
Tide has suggested that fire-damaged structures be categorized as the following:
Category 1: Straight members that appear unaffected by the fire, including those that
have slight distortions which are not easily visually observable (up to 4 to 5 times
the ASTM A6 standard rolling tolerances).
Category 2: Members that are noticeably deformed but that could be heat
straightened, if economically justified.
155
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
Category 3: Members that are so severely deformed that they would be considered
beyond the reasonable repair realm.
His recommendation is that members with Category 1 or 2 damage be straightened or
repaired and remain in place, as they are likely not to have exceeded temperatures above
650
o
C for any length of time. This would indicate they did not have any permanent
adverse changes in their properties. Due to high cost of repair and the adverse material
properties damage that members in Category 3 have experienced, it is usually
recommended to replace them. The severe external damage indicates the likelihood of
internal damage as well to the members. Tide give a general rule of thumb, If it is still
straight after exposure to firethe steel is OK (Tide 1998) Steel which has been
through a fire but which can be made dimensionally re-usable by straightening with the
methods that are available may be continued in use with full expectance of performance
in accordance with its specified mechanical properties.(Dill 1960) Heat straightening
can also serve as an additional test of the steels strength and ductility.
3.4 Discussion of Fire Load Probability.
Fire risk vs. fire hazard.
Key question is which model for fire to use. Must understand the assumptions and
limitations of various models or calculation methods.
Input data must be relevant and must represent the actual conditions present. Design
fires must actually challenge the structures design.
From spark to ignition to suppression
156
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
Three ideas: Probabilistic, scenario approach or look at scenario and determine if it
matters.
, / ) 1 ( 6000
1 . 0
max


e T in
o
C, where
,
v v
v t
H A
A A

H
v
is the weighted average
height,
v v
A H A H A H / ...) (
2 2 1 1
+ +
, and A
v
is the total area of openings.
...). (
2 1
+ + A A A
v
This max temperature may be reduced if there is a low fuel load to
) 1 (
05 . 0
max

e T T
, where
) (
v t v
A A A
L


, At is the total room surface area an L is
the fire load (kg, wood equivalent) (Buchanan 2001).
fire resistance is the measure of ability of a structure to resist collapse, fire spread or
other failure during exposure to a fire of a specified severity, an fire severity is a measure
of the destructive impact of a fire, or a measure of the forces or temperatures which could
cause collapse for other failure as a result of the fire (Buchanan 2001). Three methods
of measuring: time, temperature or strength.
3.5 Fire Load to Performance
Method between simple calculations and full finite element method tat is base on elastic
and plastic hinge methods. The method strives to find a failure temperature. In the
elastic method a load ratio for each member is calculated and then limiting temperature is
found for each member. This results in finding a critical member reaching its limiting
temperature first.
T L
M M T M * * ) ( * +
, where M*T is the bending moment at T, M*
L
is the moment due to static loading and M*
T
is determined from the thermal loading
157
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
vector P
T
.
T T
EA P
, where
) 20 ( T
ET T

and
20
E
E
T
ET

. When all members
have the same rise in temperature, M*
T
=
T
*M*
e
, where M*
e
is taken from the thermal
load in each member (E
20
A). The limiting condition for T becomes
20
* *
M M M
yT L e T
+
, where
20 y
yT
yT
f
f

.
T
can be simplified as
C T T
C T T T
o
o
T
550 for 716 . 0 718
, 550 for 00107 . 0 252 . 1 4 . 32
2

< +

The method assumes that all members are the same material and have the same
temperature rise. Probably this is not a bad assumption for low-rise buildings and sub
assemblies of bigger buildings. Non-linear geometric and material effects are not
considered (Wong 2001).
A plastic analysis can be conducted using an upper bound approach to obtain a critical
temperature, due to the fact that thermal loads induce a set of self-equilibrating loads. By
virtual work we know that
( ) ( )


j T j i i
j
M P
, where is a common temperature
multiplier. In this plastic analysis static loads remain constant. We can express
j
jyT

as a
liner function of T
j
, j jyT
bT a
j
+
, where a and b are constants. Further for an increase
in temperature by a common factor,
1
, in all members, the collapse load factor,
1
can be
expressed as
2 1 1 1
K K +
, where K1 and K2 are constants. We can also say for an
increase in temperature by a factor
2,
2 2 1 2
K K +
, therefore
1 2
1 2
2

K
. Because
static loads remain constant at collapse, =
c
, =1, so that
2
1
1
1
K
c



+
. This
158
3 - DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE BASED FIRE ENGINEERING
METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK
equation is for a particular collapse mechanism. The change in temperature could create
different critical collapse mechanisms. To detect the change in critical mechanism
d
is
calculated which is the temperature when a mechanism becomes non critical. For a
common temperature increase in all members by , for mechanisms A and B,
2 1 2 1
and ,
B B B A A A
K K K K + +
. Therefore,
B A
A B
K K
K K
2 2
1 1


, for mechanism B
to be critical, i.e.
A

B
(NOTE: if both numerator and denominator are negative,
inequality is reversed) (Wong 2001).
3.5.1 Structural Steel Behavior
Structural effects of fire, increased temperature in members, are caused by changes in the
mechanical properties of steel (generally it becomes weaker and more flexible) and there
are temperature induced strains.
Most grades of structural steel do not suffer significant loss of strength when cooled after
being heated to temperatures of 600
o
C. Heating it beyond that point can result in a
strength loss of up to about 10%.(Buchanan 2001).
3.6 Design Variable/Performance Criteria
3.6.1 Collapse (time variableegress, suppression)
3.7 Summary
159
Chapter 4
Simulation of Steel Structures to Fire
Conditions
A review of 13 programs by Sullivan et. Al. (1994) concluded that none of them is
sufficiently user friendly or well documented for routine use as a design tool(Buchanan
2001).
If a significant portion of the steel is buried in concrete, large temperature gradients will
be formed and calculations of temperature will need to be computed with heat transfer
programs. Eurocode 4 provides guidance for composite assemblies(Buchanan 2001).
There are several works that deal with this subject, among them:
Klingsch and Wittbecker whose work provides a numerical method that accounts for
physical and geometrical nonlinearities. It renders possible a realistic structural fire
engineering design that is accurate with ISO-fire tests (Klingsch and Wittbecker 1989).
160
4- SIMULATION OF STEEL STRUCTURES TO FIRE CONDITIONS
Burgess, et al. devised a secant-stiffness method approach for beams in fire. Theirs is an
interative approach to handle both statically determinate and indeterminate beams with a
uniform cross-sectional temperature distribution (Burgess et al. 1988).
Anderberg, et al. used the computer program Steelfire and compared their results to tests
conducted in the 70s and early 80s on structural elements (Anderberg et al. 1986).
Migita, et al, looked at steel frames that were plastically designed in a multi-story
building using a simplified temperature model of heated members. They applied a one-
dimensional finite element method to simulate elasto-plastic creep thermal deformation
in steel frames subjected to high temperatures (Migita et al. 1989).
Saito, et al. present a method for calculating stress and deformation in a high rise steel
exposed to a compartment fire, based on location (local substructure directly exposed to
fire, adjacent substructures, and the remaining parts of the building (Saito et al. 1988).
Cheng developed a general theory and algorithm to investigate the thermo-creep
deformation and thermo-buckling behavior of steel structures at elevated temperatures.
Although a great deal of experimental work has been done on fire endurance tests of
structural components such as beams, columns, and slabs, very little information is
available to investigate creep deformation behavior of such frame structures at elevated
temperatures(Cheng 1983). His is an attempt to remedy this.
Jain and Rao developed a numerical technique using an implicit time marching scheme to
study the deformation history of steel frames in a fire. Their method considered the
change in material properties, effect of creep and large deformations. Using a computer
161
4- SIMULATION OF STEEL STRUCTURES TO FIRE CONDITIONS
model based on this method they can predict the time that either a local or overall failure
will occur (Jain and Rao 1983).
None of these methods, however, bring together all the elements needed for a complete,
rational, scientifically based fire engineering analysis or design.
4.1 Realistic Fire Input
Fuel loads [kg/m
2
] describe the length of time a fire will burn before the fuel is expended.
Types of fires, show graphs, General Fire Curve, steady state (with plateauliquid pool
fire) and vapor flash fire (spike).
4.2 Non-Linear Analysis of Beams and Columns
can you capture local effects (buckling)? creep?
how does fundamental behavior change when at elevated temps and material prop have
changed?
do we model just frame or local effects?
4.3 Summary
162
Chapter 5
Validation Problems and Case Studies
The difficulty of case studies is that exact scientific data is rarely available. The
infrequency of fires further adds to lack of usable data. For example, it is very hard to
monitor the temperatures reached during a fire and to what extent structural members
were heated. Unlike earthquakes, monitoring a fire would require measuring devices to
be installed in almost every room of a structure, and even on each member of a structure
in order to determine what happened, in an accurate sense. However, some sense of what
happened can be determined and in some cases enough tests of members were done to
provide useful data. Therefore case studies to add to our sense of what occurred and
provide further support to several theories of fire engineering design.
5.1 Campus Building
Plan: Current prescriptive method
Ruddy modifications
Simulation Member based (American Institute of Steel Construction Inc. 2003)
163
5- VALIDATION PROBLEMS AND CASE STUDIES
Simulation system based (American Institute of Steel Construction Inc. 2003)
Test with Temperature gradients to show difference, if significant.
Do variety of office laods
5.2 General Case Implications
5.2.1 Role of the Structural Engineer vs. Fire Protection Engineer
5.3 Summary
Chapter 6
Implications and Recommendations for
Design and Code
Talk through Open sees modules, challenges with Object Oriented Code
Issue of Depth
Transferring temperature to fibers
It is expected that any new code will have to accommodate and incorporate the
prescriptive codes of the past as well and. provide practical design methods short of a
complete nonlinear natural fire analysis. Table 6-1 shows a brief out line of the various
tracks that could be followed in a new code design.
Prescriptive
Methods
Performance-Based Methods
Member Design
System Simulation

fire T
u n
M M
Case
Specific
Generic
Test Based, ASTM Specific Range of Computer Anaysis, i.e.
165
6 IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CODE
E119 Beam Beams ABAQUS, Open Sees, etc.
Test plus Analysis
(Scaling)
Exact
Fire
Typical Fire
by type

fire

lim
Table 6-19 Structral Fire Design Code Methods
6.1 Prescriptive methods
Prescriptive methods have been talked about in previous Chapters in some detail. It is
likely based on their historic use, simplicity to apply, designers and practitioners
familiarity with them, and their unquestioned performance record that they will remain
with us for the foreseeable future. It is also expected that new methods of using them and
applying them will continue to be developed and their use refined over time. One such
new method proposes scaling members that have been tested to apply to other member
sized which have not been tested (Ruddy and Ioannides 2002).
6.2 Performance Based Methods
As has also been discussed performance-based measures means many different things
and can be viewed at many levels. Here the proposal is for acceptable methods for the
application of performance-based codes. As such there seems to be a need to a simplified
method and a more involved or exact method.
6.2.1 Simplified Member Design
This would be a step away from the prescriptive codes based on realistic fire input as
well as material properties that are a function of temperature.
166
6 IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CODE
6.2.1.1 Proposed Code Methodology for Specific Simple Beam Bending
Design
As a step towards codification of the design of member for fire the following outline of
steps is proposed.
1. Define Fire Scenario
2. Define Gravity Loading
3. Select member size
4. Determine fire proofing requirements based on Natural fire for fire scenario.
5. Check member adequacy using
b,fire
.
6. Go to step 3 and repeat if necessary.
6.2.1.2 Define Fire Scenario
This step is a specific set of parameters that are based on the fire scenario that is unique
for each member in a structure. It is based on the location of the member, specifically
what fire compartment the member belongs. Once this is know the parameters are the
geometry of the compartment, the type of occupancy, which determines the fuel load, the
ventilation geometry of the compartment, which should be pessimized, and the boundary
enclosure properties. The fire scenario is essentially all the parameters that are required
to define a natural fire model. Most of these values are based on design decisions and are
generally known (geometry, boundary enclosure type, etc.) or can be gotten from tables
and previous work (fuel load, see Appendix A). While many models are available, as
discussed in Chapter 2, it is recommended that the Eurocode 1 parametric fire equation
167
6 IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CODE
be used. Use of this model allows the designer to use a basic model that is based on the
geometry of the compartment, ventilation, enclosure boundary and fuel load. The fuel
load can be calculated through a site survey or taken from various table. It can further be
modified by Active fire safety factors and fire activation factors, as discussed in section
2.X.X, based on the designers level of knowledge about the structure. Taking these all
these modification factors as 1 is a conservative assumption.
6.2.1.3 Define Gravity Loading and Select Initial Member Size
Gravity loading is selected based on design loads for various construction materials and
types as well as types of occupancies. Both dead and live loads must be accounted for
and load factors should be used in accordance with an approved code, such as the ASCE
Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (American Society of Civil
Engineers 2002). Once loading is determined, an initial member should be selected
based on the LRFD approach as specified in Section F of the Steel Manual (American
Institute of Steel Construction Inc. 1999).
6.2.1.4 Determine Insulating Requirements Based on Natural Fire
Once the fire scenario has been selected and the member size determined, the heat
transfer to the member must be calculated. The goal for a simplified design would be to
limit the temperature to 540
o
C, which is seen as the critical temperature. To do this a
level of insulation is selected. The surface area of the member exposed to fire is
calculated and the ration of this area to volume computed. Using a parametric fire model
(section 2.X.X) and a step by step heat transfer method (section 2.X.X) the maximum
temperature in the steel member can be calculated. If this is far below 540
o
C the
168
6 IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CODE
insulation depth can be reduced, if it is over 540
o
C the depth of insulation increased and
then the temperature in the member recalculated.
6.2.1.5 Check Member Adequacy Using
b,fire
.
The design equation for a bending beam subjected to fire would be:
( )
2
,
8
D L
b fire n
D L l
M

Ellingwood has suggest that the load factors for fire scenarios be
D
=1.0 and
L
= 0.5 for
dead and live loads respectively. Through Monte Carlo simulation
b,fire
was calibrated as
discussed in Section 3.X.X. If the beam selected is adequate then the design is
successful, if not then a new size is selected and the procedure from step 3 is repeated.
6.2.1.6 Example Problem
As an example looking at a simple supported interior beam that is 9 [m] in length and
supports a tributary area of 6 [m] in width.
6.2.1.6.1 Fire Scenario
Looking at an 18 [m] x 9 [m] floor area, with 4.825 [m] high walls compartment in an
office building, having vertical openings of 14.34 [m
2
], with a weighted average vertical
opening height of 1.5 [m], for an opening factor of 0.3 [m
1/2
]. The boundary enclosure is
gypsum plaster with . The office fire load is taken at 420 [MJ/m
2
], all load
modification factors were taken as 1.
169
6 IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CODE
6.2.1.6.2 Gravity Loads
The live load is taken from the ASCE load manual and for an office is 50 [psf], which is
0.002394[N/mm
2
]. The dead load was estimated at 80 [psf] or 0.003830 [N/mm
2
]. As
load per unit length this work out to a dead load of 11.5 [N/mm] and a live load of 7.2
[N/mm].
6.2.1.6.3 Initial Member Size
From ASCE Load Manual and the Steel Manual the load factors of 1.2D + 1.6 L are
used. The maximum moment in the member is defined by
2
8
wl
, substituting in the
factored loads results in a maximum moment of 256 [kN m]. Using the Load Factor
Design Selection Tables from the Steel Manual for F
y
= 345 [MPa] steel a W410 46.1
[W16 31] member is selected. This is assuming plastic design (M
n
= F
y
Z) and a
b
=
0.90.
6.2.1.6.4 Initial Fire Insulation
For insulation a sprayed on perlite or vermiculite plaster with
i
= 350 [kg/m
3
], k
i
= .12
[W/mK] and c
i
= 1200 [J/kg K] is selected. An initial estimate of insulation depth of 20
[mm] is made. It is assumed for this example that the beam is exposed on 3 sides to the
fire, i.e. the top of the top flange is in contact with the slab floor and not exposed directly
to heat. For our beam this means we have an exposed surface area of 1.19 [m
2
per m
length] and a volume of .00589 [m
3
per m length] (both of these values taken from the
Steel Manual). Based on our fire scenario, using Eurocode 1 parametirc fire model
Equation ( ) and the heat transfer equation ( ) we find the maximum temperature in the
member is 541
o
C. This is judged close enough to our 540
o
C target.
170
6 IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CODE
6.2.1.6.5 Check member adequacy using
b,fire
.
Based on test (see Section 3.X.X),
b,fire
= 0.55. Design equation, based on Equation is
( )
2
1.0 .5
0.55
8
y
D L l
F Z
+

thus for our example


( )
2 2
,
1.0 0.5 (1.0 11.5 0.5 7.2)9000
152703964.4 [N mm]
8 8
0.55 345 885000 167928750 [N mm]
, design is OK
b fire y
D L l
F Z
Capacity Demand

+ +


>
6.2.2 System Design
171
Chapter 7
Conclusions and Recommendations for
Future Work
Conclusions
7.1.1Choice of Fire Scenario
Studies and previous work clearly show that the selection of a fire scenario is the key to
performing a realistic fire engineering analysis and design. The choice of the fire
scenario determines the fire input to the structure. Selection of a scenario that does not
adequately or realistically represent the conditions, or neglects key factors will not result
in a credible fire load on the structure, even with the best model available. The great
challenge here is that there is no way to accurately predict the exact fire scenario that will
occur. Changes in use during the life of the building, unknown arrangement of contents
of various compartments, undetermined ventilation during a fire, to name a few, make
determining a fire scenario a highly uncertain.
172
It is also not possible or even desirable to design for every possible scenario or even the
workst imaginable scenario. While the events of the September 11, 2001 resulted in
several groups, mainly victims families and firefirghters calling for a severe revison of
building codes, implicitly sating that buildings should be designed to withstand a terror
ist attack, this was a more of an understandable emotional response rather than one based
on realistic and reasonable desires (Schulte 2002b). Simply put we cannot design for
every scenario, if for example a terrorist wants to take down a structure, they will likely
be able to do it, no matter how hardened we make the structure (Schulte 2002a; Schulte
2002c). The question then becomes what scenario should be designed for?
The selection of the scenario must be based on the occupancy of the structure and the
projected use of it during its life time, this will be tied directly to fuel loads, the
geometry, possible ventilation openings, enclosure boundary conditions, as well as the
structural system (size and fire protection of members) must all be taken into account.
Care must be taken that the scenario development does nto become too restrictive or tied
up with an exact solution. The goal is to come up fwith a fire scenario that is
representative of the load that will creat the affects on the structure that it is likely to
experience in its lifetime.
7.1.1.1 Fire Load
The most accurate way to determine a fire load would entail determining the
combustibles in a compartment, their arrangement, and then perform a caloric value
analysis and sum up the results piece by piece. Of course, this is normally very
impractical and would only be accurate if nothing moved from the designed location, a
highly unlikely occurrence. However, there have been studies done that have surveyed
173
and cataloged design fuel load for various occupancies, as in Appendix A. While these
are or course not exact, they are really no different than the live and dead loads we use
for design. There are various ways to handle the uncertainty of these loads. This work
suggests treating the fire load as a random variable using a distribution of the load, the
Eurocode 1 gives a type of distribution along with mean and standard deviation for a
limited number of generalized occupancies.
Given the data available from surveys it is reasonable to select a fire load from the survey
data available. If necessary this load could be modified to meet any special
circumstances of the expected occupancy. By using this in a probabilistic methodology,
the uncertainty that will exist can be accounted for. As suggested in this work, a Monte
Carlo simulation, using fire load density as one of the variable in the fire scenario would
be one way to accomplish this.
7.1.1.2 Ventilation
Ventilation as has been shown is a significant factor in a fires growth and burning. In
most models it is accounted for in the opening factor, which is a factor based on opening
height, area and total area of the compartment. All compartments have ventilation, even
if only through doors. There is of course no way to be certain whether the doors or other
openings will in fact be open or closed during a fire, even if they are fire door for
example which should automatically shut. A normal assumption is that normal glass
windows will be blown out at flashover. Based on the design and layout of the
compartment, a maximum opening should be able to be calculated. Due to the
uncertainty that does exist base on whether they are open or not, the ventilation should be
included in the variable that are randomized in the Monte Carlo simulation. From the
174
research it is important to remember that in most cases the smaller opening produces the
greatest temperature in the steel members. While a greater amount of ventilation will
increase the compartment temperature, the fire will burn out quicker. In most cases a
lower temperature longer duration fire will allow greater heat transfer to a member.
7.1.1.3 Boundary Enclosure Properties
Early on the effect of the boundary enclosure was recognized on a compartment fire.
This factor is based solely on the material properties of the enclosure boundary,
specifically the density, specific heat and the thermal conductivity. While the values of
these material properties can never be exact, there is a high degree of certainty about hem
and this research showed that their variance had little effect on the ultimate temperature
in a member. As such it is reasonable to use the properties of the enclosure boundary as
deterministic and exact.
7.1.1.4 Compartment Geometry
The geometry of the compartment comes into play in the opening factor, ventilation, as
well as in determining the fuel load. All opening factor equations, which as noted above,
are present in most compartment time-temperature models, are based on the area and
height of the openings, but also the total surface area of the compartment. Fire loads, the
fuel available to burn are as densities, either per surface area or floor area of the
compartment, as such the total fuel load is based on the geometry of the compartment.
Simply put more fuel lead to higher temperatures and longer duration fires. While exact
geometry may be some what uncertain, the variance should not be great and it is
reasonable to treat compartment geometry as deterministic.
175
7.1.2 Choice of a Fire Model
The research and common sense all point to the fact that our current reliance on standard
fire test curves, such as ASTM E119 or ISO 834, to model fire behavior does not make
sense. While these curves have served us well in a practical sense in the past, there
seems to be little justification for their continued use as models of fire behavior. Clearly
they fail to replicate the conditions of a real or natural fire. Further today there are
numerous alternatives, all of which more closely resemble real fire conditions. History
alone and past practice seems to be the main justifications for continued reliance on these
standard fire curves.
Many models have been looked at in this work for better modeling real fires. Some are
very complex models that rely on extensive computations, such as COMPF2 (Babrauskas
1979; Babrauskas and Williamson 1978a), others are more simplified like Lies curve
(Lie 1974; Lie 1992; Lie 2002), still others have been in use for a long period of time and
continue to serve as models for current work, like the Swedish Curves (Pettersson et al.
1976). While there are models that strive to capture all aspects and phases of a fire, it
seems clear that the stage of the fire of interest is post flashover. With an eye towards
design, this is when the structure will be stressed the most and as such should be the stage
of greatest interest in steel design. The Eurocode 1 parametric fire curve (European
Committee for Standardization 2001) equation has been shown to have good agreement
with actual full scale fire tests and has evolved over time, with modifications, to make it
have even better agreement. It closely follows the Swedish Curves, which is the most
referenced work in the area. The fact that it has been adopted by the European
Committee for Standardization also speaks towards its growing acceptance. While it is
likely that it will continue to be updated and modified in the future, these modifications
176
will continue to be minor in all likelihood. The fact that continued work on these curves
takes place should not detract form the validity of the model in its current form. There
will never be a perfect model, which can totally and absolutely predict fire conditions.
However, the Eurocode model as has been shown can be used with a reasonable degree
of certainty.
One advantage of the Eurocode curve is that is does model all the major components of a
post flashover compartment fireventilation, fuel load, enclosure boundary conditions,
and geometry. It also does so in a way that is simple enough for any design engineer to
program on a spreadsheet or with a simple math computation software package, such as
Matlab. As seen in the Eurocode it is also simple enough to be easily codified. There is
also allowance, mostly through the selection of the fire load density to do more extensive
and exact calculation of the fuel available to be burned in the compartment, if the
criticality of the project dictates that. For most cases the use of simplified tabular fire
load densities based on occupancy could be used, as presented in the code itself or as
seen in Appendix A.
Obviously the thermal model is the key to producing a reasonable fire design. It is
recognized that there is a degree of uncertainty in the fire model both in developing the
time temperature curve in the compartment and in the heat transfer to members. The use
of a Monte Carlo simulation of various variables is one way to handle the uncertainty and
also lends itself to a probabilistic approach. This especially appropriate as it attempts to
hand the high uncertainty that is associated with the fuel load especially. By varying the
fuel load, and associated parameters or modifying factors, we can see the effects of the
varying of this key input into the fire curve model. makes sense considering the
177
Obviously care must go into the fire scenario determination, as mentioned above. As
future research and study provides more accurate and representative data we can expect
that the models will continue to be tweaked and adjusted to more close resemble field
tests. We can also expect less uncertainty as we gain a better understanding of each of
the inputs into these models. The result will be fire models that we can easily use and
have a high confidence that that will accurately portray the fire events a structure will
likely encounter during its lifetime.
7.1.3 Whole Structure Analysis
In addition to the need to use a real or natural fire model, the need to do more than
element by element analysis of members is a strikingly obvious conclusion from my
research. It is quite clear that structural members behave differently when part of an
entire building system or frame than they do as individual members. This has been born
out by large scale tests, such as those at Cardington, by case studies, like Broadgate and
One Meridian Plaza, and in numerous reports and articles. In addition there seem to be
little reason no to do a nonlinear analysis taking into account the degradation of steel
properties. Including the degradation of steel properties adds an element of uncertainty
to the problem, as far as to what extent each property degrades, but not including
degradation would also lead to uncertainty. There seems little reason to not do an
analysis the entire structure, sub assembly, not just the elements. Try to capture behavior
from the interaction of members. In the past doing a whole frame or building nonlinear
analysis was not practical, but with the computing power of most PCs today this is no
longer the case. As seen in this work thermal properties can be added to normal
structural analysis computer programs and many analysis programs, such as ABAQUS,
already can handle thermal loads and properties.
178
7.1.4 Proposed Methodology
I feel the proposed probabilistic assessment methodology meets the four primary
objectives of performance-based engineering multi-level performance objectives; a
more scientific approach; more transparent decisions; and insights on the uncertainties
involved in risk assessment. In addition, this performance approach provides a more
consistent way of categorizing various scenario fires that should be considered in design.
Use of Monte Carlo simulation takes into account a wide range of variability and better
represents the full range of real world conditions that might occur in the structure. While
the choice of random variables is critical, enough information exits today to make a
reasonable first approximation, as show in Chapter 3. This does not mean that future
study wont determine a better choice of data and factors to treat as random variables in
the simulation. As with any simulation involving uncertainty, the question of the validity
of the random variables distributions arises. This is especially true with epistemic
random variables. While arguments can always be made about the validity of each
specific distribution, their use in general does provide a way of capturing the uncertainty
present in evaluating fire situations. There can always be improvements to the choice
and characterization of random variables and their distributions, but this does not take
away from the usefulness of this approach.
Specifically looking at the PEER equation this work has pointed to several conclusions.
7.1.4.1 Selection of Intensity Measure (IM), Maximum Steel Temperature
When this research was initially undertaken the choice of an IM was not intuitively clear.
While the objective of having a single variable for an IM was desirable, it was not certain
that this would be possible. Intuition pointed to selecting an IM that was limited to the
179
fire input, essentially the compartment temperature based on a fire scenario. The
difficulties of trying to select a sing variable became apparent when looking down
stream. A high maximum compartment temperature does not necessarily directly to a
maximum steel temperature. The heat transfer is bad on temperature and time, the
duration of the fire. Similarly fire duration alone could not satisfy the requirements of a
single IM. In the process of this study it became apparent that the compartment
temperature, while an important and necessary step was not what was in the end
important, in and of itself, but rather the effect the compartment time temperature curve
had on the members. Once that mental hurdle had been crossed, it seemed obvious that
the maximum temperature in the steel was what should be the IM. The maximum
temperature in the steel would determine the thermal elongation as well as the
degradation of material properties of the steel, from which the performance analysis can
be performed. What seems obvious now was not so initially.
7.1.4.2 Engineering Decision Parameter (EDP) Strength, as opposed to
deformation as well
When looking at a structure that has been subjected to a fire event the choice of an EDP
comes down to strength or deflections in the member. Obviously the two are related, but
strength is the more important. Members can deflect a great deal during a fire and if they
do not buckle or yield will return to their initial state. If they do have a permanent
deflection they will be repaired (heat straightened) or they will be replaced, as was done
in the Broadgate building. What we are then really concerned with is the loss of strength,
which could lead to a local or global collapse.
180
7.1.4.3 Decision Variable (DV)-Lives (Occupant/Firefighters)
why not $ and down time
7.1.5 Code Implications
There is no useful unit of measure for fire safety. Combustibles to do not come marked
and labeled with fuel load, so it is difficult to regulate. This is a critical difference
between fire safety analysis as a useful scientific tool for analysis and as a regulatory
tool. Unless and until fire safety science can express the social requirements for fire
safety in technical terms, it will be difficult to integrate the scientific knowledge into
performance based codes. The key question is how good is the connection between Fire
Safety and Fire Science (Brannigan 1999)? Research has shown that this connection is
continually improving and probabilistic performance based codes are a solution to this
issue.
In fire engineering, as in all structural engineering there will be uncertainty. This
uncertainty is to be expected. There is no such thing as a risk free structure and getting
the risk to approach zero is, simply put, cost prohibitive. The goal should be to
determine what is reasonable risk and what it means (Schulte 2003b). History would
indicate that our buildings are safe and that as a society we have been served well by the
current code provisions, regardless of there lack of scientific or technical merit. Based
on this many would argue that there is no need to change them, the excellent safety
record of buildings in fire speaks for itself (Schulte 2003a). In fact, between 1985 and
1998 there were only 7 fatalities in the US in high rise office building fires both those
181
with and without sprinklers. Further they reported that there were 589 deaths in the US
associated with fires in high rise apartment buildings between 1985 and 1995, but this
included both sprinklered and non sprinklered structures (Schulte 2001; Schulte 2002b).
However, as we probe deeper knowing what level of safety the codes provide and
providing a technical foundation to them is a worthwhile goal. In fact it is this
recommendation that is found in the FEMA WTC study, specifically that the current
reliance on ASTM E119 fire resistance rating does not provide sufficient information to
determine how long a building component in a structural system can be expected to
perform in a n actual fire. They go on to state the need for understanding the behavior
of the structural system as an integral part of structural design, recommending that tools
be developed to aid in design that predict heating conditions produced by fires (Federal
Emergency Management Agency 2002).
Many recommendations have come from the WTC tragedy. Many seem to be based on
the logic that if a system failed in the WTC tragedy, it should be modified in the code
provisions. One such recommendation, by way of example, was to ensure that all
sprinkler systems have a reliable and redundant water supply. While on the surface this
does seem logical, it would be hard to image any piping system that would have
withstood the impact of a large aircraft hitting multiple floors of a structure at high speed.
Similarly it seems hard to conceive of a system that could handle large liquid fuel load
fires on multiple floors simultaneously as well (Schulte 2002c). A probabilistic
methodology, however, could quantitatively state what design of such a system would do
in terms of probability of failure. It could provide a measure of improved safety, when
compared with probabilities of failure of similar structures without redundant sprinkler
systems. It would also be easy to see the cost benefit implications for such a design as
182
well. It could be shown just what such a system would do, not what in theory it might do
as far as building safety. This could focus public debate on what level of safety we want
and at what cost, as opposed to an emotional debate based on a single catastrophic event.
In a larger prospective such a probabilistic performance based code would help answer
the question what are the sots, the benefits and what is the risk associated with any
design.
Recommendations for Future Work
The last question that needs to be answered in this work is what needs to be done next?
The purpose of the research was to find out what exists on the subject and to propose a
methodology that could be an initial step in moving towards performance based fire
engineering codes. Clearly there is much still to do, especially in the US. All work must
take into account certain given goals or objectives in fire engineering design. From
structural engineers point of view, the most important aspect of the problem is that the
structure must preserve its load carrying integrity and avoid the possibility of total
collapse in a relatively short-term, elevated temperature environment (Cheng 1983).
The design of the whole structure against fire entails more than just compliance with
building regulations for individual elements of the structure. An understanding of the
expected behaviour of the entire structure exposed to fire is needed to ensure that the
objectives of safety of life and property are met (Forrest 1986).
Several authors have expressed their ideas for further research, which include:
In particular, the clear implication is that research into structural fire
engineering should concentrate on fire scenarios in structures rather than
183
members, with the objective of setting criteria for avoidance of
disproportionate collapse (Bailey et al. 1996)
Research is needed towards quantifying structural performance and the
temperature that the structure can withstand (Robinson and Latham
1986).
Further work is necessary to realize the full potential of the findings but
over the latter half of this decade [1980s] increased understanding of high
temperature behaviour could enable assessment of stability in fire to
become an integral part of the design process (Robinson and Latham
1986).
there is a needabove all to discuss the problem in real terms rather than
in relation to existing regulations (Sutherland 1986).
There are of course factors that weigh in against any change to the current practice. The
fact that fires do occur so infrequently tends to put the matter on the back shelf from the
start. Also economic benefits can be sensitive to several factors, and may not be the
same at all times. The cost of protecting steel is much lower than it was a few years ago
owing to strong competition within the fire protection industry. This gives less
opportunity for economies because it must be accepted that most innovation is led by
financial considerations (Newman 1996). Despite this, it does seem that there should be
a better way to realistically design structures for fire loads. This is not to say current
code based methods need to be completely abandoned. As G. M. Newman noted, it is
clear that any changes will be introduced very slowly, and then it is not expected that
184
designers will use advanced non-linear thermal structural modeling techniques on each
and every building, although for prestige projects this might be warranted (Newman
1996). There is however an opportunity to advance the science and engineering in
structural design with respect to fire loads. The technology at hand, recent testing, and
the work of other nations makes it clear that the US can benefit from increased study and
research in this area. However, the primary goal of the structural design with respect to
fires remains unchanged as G. M. Newman reminds us. He states, Any new design
philosophy must include measures to ensure that the overall stability of the building is
maintained, that the necessary compartmentation is maintained and that the building is
safe for fire fighters (Newman 1996).
Improve the data base on material burning behavior. (Federal Emergency Management
Agency 2002)
improve existing models that simulate fire and spread in structures, as well as the impact
of smoke on structure and people. (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2002)
cost benefit analysis. Will probabilistic performance based engineering really provide a
benefit economically? Will there be a savings.
185
Appendix A
Summary of Fuel Load Data
Fuel Load [MJ/m
2
] per unit floor area
Standard Percentil
Description Average Deviation 80 90% 95 Comments
Swedish Data
3 rooms 750 104 770
2 rooms 780 128 870
European Data
6 rooms 550 180
5 rooms 540 125
3 rooms 670 133 760 780 830
2 rooms 780 129 870 1020 950
1 room 720 104 760 780 890
Swiss Risk 330
USA Data
Living Room 350 104
Family Room 250 58
Bedroom 390 104
Dining Room 330 92
Kitchen 290 71
All Rooms 320 88
USA Data Total fuel load
including permanent
fuel load
Residence 750
Max. for Linen 4440
Range of Max. 730-
Table A-20 Variable Fuel Loads in Residential Occupancies
186
ERROR: REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND -
Fuel Load [MJ/m
2
] per unit floor area
Standard Percentil
Description Average Deviation 80 90% 95 Comments
Swedish Data
Patient room 80 104 770
European Data
Hospitals 230 350 670
Swiss Risk Evaluation
Hospitals 330
USA Data
Patient room 108 33
USA Data Total fuel
Hospitals 250
Max. for Service Store 1720
Max. for laundry 2090
Range of Max values for 270-
Table A-21 Variable Fuel Loads in Hospital Occupancies
Fuel Load [MJ/m
2
] per unit floor area
Standard Percentil
Description Average Deviation 80 90% 95 Comments
Swedish Data
Hotels 310 92 380
Bedrooms 420
European Data
Bedrooms 310 104 400 470 510
Bedrooms 182
Single value
bathroom
included
Swiss Risk Evaluation
Hotels 330
Table A-22 Variable Fuel Loads in Hotel Occupancies
187
Appendix B
Computational Computer Source Code
Virtual work derivation for elastic beam code
( ) ( )
1 1 2 2
1 1 1
bot top bot top
bot top
T T T T dT
T T dT


188
T
top2,
T
bot2
T
top1
, T
bot1
7.1.5 - COMPUTATIONAL COMPUTER SOURCE CODE
]
6 2
[ 1
|
3 2 2
[ 1
) ( ) 1 ( 1
) (

) 1 (

1
1
1
0 2
3 2 2
1
1 2
2
0
1
1 1
0
1 1
1
1
1
0
1
dT dT
aL
L
dTx
L
dTx
L
x dT
dTx a dx
L
dTx
L
dTx
L
x dT
dT a
dx dT
L
x
dT a
L
x
dT
L
x
dT a
h
a
l
x
m
h
dT
L
x
dT
dx m
T
L
L
T
L
t
T
L
T

+ + + +
+ +
+

,
_

,
_


,
_

3 2 3 2
1
|
3 2
[ ) ( 1
) ( ) ( 1

) (

1
1 1
2
0
2
3 2
1
0
2
2
1
2
0
1 2
2
0
2 2
dT dT
aL
dTL L dT
a
L
dTx
L
x dT
a dx
L
dTx
L
x dT
a
dx dT
L
x
dT a
L
x
L
x
m
dx m
T
L
L
T
L
t
T
L
t T

189
7.1.5 - COMPUTATIONAL COMPUTER SOURCE CODE

,
_

,
_

+ +

,
_

,
_

+ + +

,
_

+
,
_


,
_

+ +

+ +
+

+
+ +


3
4
2 2
3
6
5
2
3
5
3 2 12 4 4
0
3 2 3 12 4 12
0
3 2 3 6
0
]
2 2
3
[
2
]
6 2
[
6 3
0 ]
6 2
[
6 3
0
3

6
6

3
1 1
1 1
1
1 2
1 1 2
1 2 1 2
1 2 1
2 22 21
1 2
1
1 2 1
1 2 1
1 12 11
2
22
2
21
1
21
1
11
dT
dT aEI M
dT dT dT dT
aEI M
dT
dT aEI M
dT dT dT dT
a
EI
M
dT dT
aL
EI
L M dT dT
aL
EI
L M
dT dT
aL
EI
L M
EI
L M
dT dT
aEI
M
M
dT dT
aL
EI
L M
EI
L M
dT dT
aL
EI
L M
EI
L M
EI
L M
EI
L M
EI
L M
EI
L M
T
T




190
M
1
M
2
Appendix C
COMPF2 Recommended Use
Procedure to Run COMPF2
Feasey and Buchanan developed the follwing instruction for running COMPF2 (Feasey
and Buchanan 2002):
1. Define geometry and thermal properties.
2. Enter ventilation properties (area [m2] of vertical opening, A
V
, and height [m] of
vertical opening, H
V
)
3. Enter the fuel load [kg/m
2
], based on floor area. This parameter when multiplied
by the total floor area becomes the initial fuel load M
0
[MJ/m
2
].
4. Set the fuel shape factor to F = 3.
5. Select stick burning mode by specifying the fuel surface regression rate V
p
to be
greater than zero (typical value is V
p
= 1 10
-6
[m/s].
6. Using the known fire load energy density ( wood equivalent = 15.1 [MJ/kg]) and
the opening factor, determine the initial pyrolysis rate ration from Table C-1.
7. Calculate the ventilation controlled pyrolysis rate using:
191
7.1.5- COMPF2 RECOMMENDED USE
0.12 [kg/s]
V V
m A h &
8. Calculate the initial fuel pyrolysis rate m&
by multiplying the initial rate ratio from
Table C-1 with the ventilation limited pyrolysis rate from Equation .
9. Solve
(1 1/ ) (1/ )
0
2 ( / ) [kg/s]
F F
p
m V F D m M

&

for D [m], the diameter of the sticks. Note, m = mass of fuel at any time [kg].
10. Set the ventilation discharge coefficient to C
d
= 0.68. Use this value for all fires
except those where the opening is the full width or near the full width of the wall,
in which case reduce the the coefficient to C
d
= 0.34-0.40.
11. Set the combustion efficiency factor to 0.98, unless the opening factor F
V
is less
than 0.03, in which case set it to 0.80.
12. Run CCOMPF2.
Opening Factor
/
V V V t
F A h A Fire Load [MJ/m
2
] (of floor area)
200 400 800 1200
0.02 0.99 1.07 1.53 1.57
0.04 0.62 1.00 1.16 1.20
0.08 0.23 0.61 0.77 0.81
0.12 0.18 0.45 0.62 0.66
192
7.1.5- COMPF2 RECOMMENDED USE
Table C-23 COMPF2 Initial Pyrolysis Rate Ratio as a function of Fire Load and Opening
Factor (Feasey and Buchanan 2002)
Worked Example COMPF2 Run
Bibliography
Bailey, C. G. (1998). "Development of computer software to simulate the structural
behaviour of steel-framed buildings in fire." Computers and Structures, 67(6),
421-438.
Brannigan, V. M. "Fire Scenarios or Scenario Fires? Can Fire Safety Science Provide the
Critical Inputs for Performance Based Fire Safety Analyses?" Sixth (6th)
International Symposium. International Association for Fire Safety Science.,
Poitiers France, 207-218.
Bresler, B. (1985). "Analytical Prediction of Structural response to Fire." Fire Safety
Journal, 9(1985), 103-117.
Custer, R. L. P., and Meacham, B. J. (1997). Introduction to Performance-Based Fire
Safety, Society of Fire Protection Engineers.
Gerwain, R. G., Iwankiw, N. R., and Alfawakhiri, F. (2003). "Fire Facts for Steel
Buildings." American Institute of Steel Construction.
Grosshandler, W. "Workshop Organization and Objectives." Fire Resistance
Determination & Performance Prediction Research Needs Workshop,
Gaithersburg, MD, 2.
193
7.1.5- COMPF2 RECOMMENDED USE
Hall, J. R., Jr. "The Most Costly Fires in the Last Quarter Century." Issues in Fire Risk
Assessment and management: Addressing the Spectrum from Expected to
Extreme Events, New Orleans, LA, 61-72.
Ioannides, S. A., and Sandeep, M. (1997). "Restrained vs. Unrestrained Fire Ratings: A
Practical Approach." Modern Steel Construction, 37(5), 52-64.
Kruppa, J. (2000). "Recent Developments in Fire Design." Progress in Structural
Engineering and Materials, 2(1), 6-15.
Lawson, R. M. (2001). "Fire engineering design of steel and composite buildings."
Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 57(12), 1233-1247.
Martin, D. M. "A Natural Fire Safety Concept for Buildings--2." Second Cardington
Conference, Cardington, England, 105-110.
National Research Council of the National Academies, C. o. S. a. T. f. C. T. (2002).
"Making the Nation Safer: The Role of Science and Technology In Countering
Terrorism." The National Academies Press, Washington D.C.
Pettersson, O. "Structural Fire Behaviour - Development Trends." First International
Symposium Fire Safety Science, Berkeley, California, 229-247.
Robinson, J. T., and Latham, D. J. "Fire Resistant Steel Design--The Future Challenge."
Second International Conference Design of Structures Against Fire, Birmingham,
England, 225-236.
Wang, Y. C. (2002). Steel and Composite Structures: Behaviour and design for fire
safety, Spoon Press, New York.
194