AARHUS
UNIVERSITET
Eurocode 3 Methodology, Principal
Approaches and Algorithms
ADVANCED METHODS FOR CALCULATION
OF STEEL STRUCTURES IN FIRE
CONDITIONS
METHODOLOGIES IN EUROCODE 3
FOR ESTABLISHING FIRE RESISTANCE
KULDEEP VIRDI
EUROCODE STRATEGIES
Eurocode 3 allows three strategies for establishing fire
resistance:
Time:
e
tfi,d
fi d > tf
Load resistance:
Rfi,d,t > Efi,d
Temperature:
cr,d > d
Usually only directly
feasible using
advanced calculation
models.
TIME DURATIONS
Feasible by hand
calculation. Aim is to
find reduced resistance
at design temperature
Simplest EC3 method.
Find critical
temperature for loading
and compare with
design temperature
MINIMUM FIRE RESISTANCE PERIODS
Whatever the strategy for checking the fire resistance,
the fire resistance has to be provided for a certain
duration.
This
s du
duration
at o needs
eeds to be sufficient
su c e t for
o
allowing occupants to escape, and for
allowing fire authorities to try and extinguish the
fire
The requirements for minimum duration of fire
resistance are specified in local building regulations.
MINIMUM FIRE RESISTANCE PERIODS
For example, UK Building Regulations have the
following requirements.
Basements
Above Ground
> 10m < 10m < 5m < 20m < 30m > 30m
Offices:
Nonsprinkler
Sprinkler
Shops,
Commercial:
Nonsprinkler
Sprinkler
Car Parks:
Open-sided
Other
90
60
30
60
90
NO!
60
60
30
30
60
120
90
60
60
60
90
NO!
60
60
30
60
60
120
90
60
15
30
15
60
15
90
60
120
To storey floor
level
Times
given in
min
ACTIONS
S
ACTIONS
Actions for temperature analysis
A
C
T
I
O
N
S
FIRE
Actions for structural analysis
Mechanical Action
Dead Load
Imposed Load
Snow
Wind
G
Q
S
W
Fire
EC3 PARTIAL SAFETY FACTORS
Ambient temperature strength design
G
= 1.35
Permanent loads;
Q,1 = 1.50
Variable loads
PARTIAL SAFETY FACTORS
FOR
LOAD RESISTANCE UNDER FIRE
In Fire limit state
GA = 1.00
1,1
= 0.50
Permanent loads; accidental design
situations
Combination factor; variable loads
FIRE ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS
The key factor in calculating the resistance to loads
under fire is the degradation of the strength of the
materials at high temperature.
MATERIAL PROPERTIES IN FIRE
Both steel and concrete undergo degradation of
strength.
Experimentally obtained material stress-strain curves
are used for this purpose. Eurocodes offer simplified
models for stress-strain curves.
EC3 STEEL STRESS-STRAIN CURVES
Parameters used to
define the idealised
steel stress-strain
characteristics at
high temperatures
STEEL
fy yield stress
E elastic modulus
fp proportionality
limit stress
t limiting yield
strain
f
I
II
IV
III
EC3 STEEL STRESS-STRAIN CURVES
Reduction in yield
strength and stiffness
are very similar for
various grades of
structural
st
uctu a stee
steel a
and
d
hot-rolled reinforcing
bars (SS).
Cold-worked
reinforcing bars S500
deteriorate more
rapidly (Rft).
% of normal value
100
Effective yield strength
(at 2% strain)
Rft
80
SS
CONCRETE
60
40
20
Rft
SS
Elastic modulus
300
600
900
Temperature (C)
1200
CONCRETE STRESS-STRAIN CURVES
Concrete also loses
strength and stiffness
from 100C upwards.
It does not regain
strength
t
th on cooling.
li
High temperature
properties depend
mainly on aggregate
type used.
CONCRETE STRESS-STRAIN CURVES
Normalised stress
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
06
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Concrete strength
reduction factors are:
20C
Accurate for normal
density concrete with
siliceous
ili
aggregates.
t
200C
400C
Strength (% of normal)
Strain (%)
6
100
Strain at maximum
strength
50
600C
Normal-weight
Concrete
800C
1000C
1
4
3
2
1
Strain (%)
200
400
600
800 1000 1200
Temperature (C)
THERMAL EXPANSION
Thermal expansion is of concern only in Advanced
Calculation Models
The basic effect of heating is thermal expansion.
THERMAL EXPANSION
Where, due to geometry or other factors, the
expansion is constrained in some way, additional
stresses are set up, which need to be added to
mechanical stresses.
THERMAL EXPANSION DATA
Eurocode 3 specifies
an accurate curve,
with phase shift
around 800C.
Expansion Coefficient /C (x 10-6)
4.5
4.0
3.5
30
3.0
2.5
Steel
2.0
SIMPLE METHOD 1
CRITICAL TEMPERATURE METHOD
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Temperature (C)
EUROCODE STRATEGIES
EUROCODE STRATEGIES
Eurocode 3 allows three strategies for establishing fire
resistance:
Time:
e
tfi,d
fi d > tf
Load resistance:
Rfi,d,t > Efi,d
Temperature:
cr,d > d
Usually only directly
feasible using
advanced calculation
models.
Feasible by hand
calculation. Aim is to
find reduced resistance
at design temperature
Temperature:
cr,d > d
Find critical
temperature for
loading and
compare with
design
temperature
Simplest EC3 method.
Find critical
temperature for loading
and compare with
design temperature
CRITICAL TEMPERATURE METHOD
[1] Calculate the loading on the structure at the fire limit
state.
Analyse the structure to find moments and forces
Efi,d,t
critical
t ca locations
ocat o s in tthe
e st
structure
uctu e
fi d t at c
This determines the Actions on members
MEMBER CLASSIFICATION
For the following cases, the section classification used
is the same as for ambient temperature.
-
Compression members
Si
Simple
l beams
b
supporting
i a concrete slab
l b on the
h
top flange
All Class 3 and Class 4 sections
[2] Classify the section. The criterion is local buckling,
which is characterised by the width/thickness ratio
of elements
MEMBER CLASSIFICATION
MEMBER CLASSIFICATION
The width/thickness ratios of flange and web elements
should be less than the values shown in the table.
Element
Class 1 Class 2
Flange
c/tf=10 c/tf=11 c/tf=15
Class 3
235
fy
For the following cases, the section classification used
for the fire limit state is different from that at ambient
temperature.
Tension members
Beams with exposure on all four sides
Compressed d/tw=72 d/tw=83 d/tw=124
web
Web in
bending
d/tw=33 d/tw=38 d/tw=42
MEMBER CLASSIFICATION
For these members, the width/thickness ratios of the
flange and the web elements should be less than the
values shown in the same table but with:
=
235 kE,
f y ky
0.85
0 85
235
fy
(Approximately)
kE, = elastic modulus reduction factor for steel at
temperature .
ky = yield strength reduction factor for steel at
temperature .
SIMPLE METHOD (1) - RESISTANCE
[3] Calculate the resistance of the cross-section at
ambient temperature, but using the partial safety
factors for the fire limit state, Rfi,d,20
[4] Calculate Utilisation Factor
Efi,
fi d,t
dt
Rfi,d,20
Efi,d,t is the design loading of the member in fire,
calculated in Step 1.
SIMPLE METHOD (1) - RESISTANCE
SIMPLE METHOD (1)
FIRE RESISTANCE
[5] Determine the Critical Temperature cr,d using the
Utilisation Factor
Action in fire limit state Efi,,d,t
Critical Temperature (C)
Non-slender sections
(Classes 1, 2, 3) treated
th same.
the
cr 39.19 ln
0.9674 0
3.833
1 482
Slender (Class 4)
sections treated
conservatively (350C).
STEEL TEMPERATURE
800
Classify member
700
Class 1, 2, 3 sections
600
Resistance Rfi,d,20 at 20C
with fire load factors
500
400
300
Class 4 sections
200
Degree of utilisation
100
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Degree of Utilisation 0
Critical temperature
cr,d
SIMPLE METHOD (1) - TEMPERATURE
[6] Determine the Section Factor Am/V ( = Hp/A) needed
for the calculation of the steel temperature
Am = exposed surface area of member per unit length
= pe
perimeter
ete ((Hp)
INCREASE OF TEMPERATURE IN
UNPROTECTED MEMBERS
SIMPLE METHOD (1) - TEMPERATURE
= volume of member per unit length
= cross-section area (A)
SIMPLE METHOD (1) - TEMPERATURE
Definition of Section Factor Am/V for unprotected
members
b
[ 7] The temperature increase in steel is calculated for a
small time step, assuming that all steel is at the
same temperature
h
Temperature
p
increase
in time step t:
a,t
perimeter
area of cross section
exposed perimeter
area of cross section
2(b+h)
area of cross section
1
ca a
Fire
temperature
Am
hnet,d t
V
Steel
temperature
Steel
hnet,d = Heat flux
ca, a = specific heat and density of steel
HEAT FLUX
The heat flux has two parts - one due to radiation and
the other due to convection.
Heat flux
hnet,d = hnet,r + hnet,c
HEAT FLUX - RADIATION
Heat flux due to radiation
hnet,r 5.67 x10 8 res r 273 m 273
= configuration factor
(can be set to 1.0 in the absence of data)
r, m = environment and member surface temperatures
EMISSIVITY
res
= resultant emissivity
= f m
(can be taken as 0.5 in the absence of data)
=e
emissivity
ss ty o
of tthe
e fire
e co
compartment
pa t e t
(can be taken as 0.8 in the absence of data)
= emissivity of the steel surface
(can be taken as 0.625 in the absence of data)
SIMPLE METHOD (1) - TEMPERATURE
[8]
In the initial time steps, clearly r is less than the
critical temperature cr,d
The time required tfi,d for the steel temperature to
exceed the critical temperature is evaluated by
repeating step [7]
The time tfi,d is compared with time tfi,req
specified in building regulations for fire safety. For
safety, time tfi,d should, naturally, be greater than
the time tfi,req
HEAT FLUX - CONVECTION
Heat flux due to convection
hnet,c = c ( r - m
c
= convective heat transfer coefficient
(NA value)
al e)
25W/m2K for Standard or External Fire
50W/m2K for Hydrocarbon Fire
SIMPLE METHOD (1) - SUMMARY
FIRE RESISTANCE
Action in fire limit state Efi,,d,t
Classify member
Resistance Rfi,d,20 at 20C
with fire load factors
Degree of utilisation
Critical temperature cr,d
STEEL TEMPERATURE
Find Section Factor Am/V
Calculate
in time t
Repeat temperature/time until
d (=) > cr.d at tfi,d (=t)
Ensure
tfi,d > tfi,requ
Building regulations - tfi,requ
PROTECTED STEEL
Definition of Section Factor Ap/V for protected members
b
INCREASE OF TEMPERATURE IN
PROTECTED MEMBERS
Steel perimeter
steel area
TEMPERATURE - PROTECTED STEEL
cp p
ca a
dp
Fire
temperature
Ap
Steel
temperature
Steel
Temperature increase in time
step t:
a,t
2(b+h)
steel area
OTHER PARAMETERS
The temperature increase in steel is affected by the heat
stored in the protection layer
Heat stored in protection layer
board perimeter
steel area
g, a = environment and member surface temperatures
cp, p = specific heat and density of protection material
dp
= thickness of p
protection material
= thermal conductivity of protection material
Protection
dp
p / d p Ap
1
/ 10
1 g,t
g,t a,t t e
ca a V 1 / 3
WORKED EXAMPLE - TIE MEMBER
Fire resistance of a structural
tie in a building frame
(Required time is 60min)
EXAMPLE
UNPROTECTED TENSION MEMBER
Ties - steel
Gk+Q K.1
D
Major Beam (composite)
E
Tie
3.5m
G +Q
k k,1
G +Q
k k,1
B
Minor Beam (steel)
G +Q
k k,1
G +Q
k k,1
G +Q
k k,1
G +Q
k K.1
Column (steel
or composite)
3.5m
3.5m
G
3.5m
H
5m
5m
TIE MEMBER - FIRE LIMIT STATE
TIE MEMBER STEP 1
Utilisation factor:
(4.2.4)
Summary of First Step of Calculations
= Nfi,d,t / Nfi,20,Rd
= 114.0 / 283.25
= 0.40
Critical temperature (Class 1 element):
(Table 4.1)
= 619C
Critical Temperature (C)
800
700
= 20.00 C
for steel, initially
= 96.54 C
for the room after 5 sec
Increase in temperature
= 0.92 C
New Steel Temperature, m
= 20.00+0.92
= 20.92 C
Class 1, 2, 3 sections
600
500
(Graph alongside)
400
300
Class 4 sections
200
100
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Degree of Utilisation 0
TIE MEMBER STEP 2
TIE MEMBER - FIRE LIMIT STATE
The calculations are repeated for
each t = 5 sec period.
Summary of Second Step of Calculations
m
r
= 20.92 C
= 146.95 C
for steel
for the room after 10 sec
Increase in temperature
= 1.57 C
New Steel Temperature, m
= 20.92+1.57
It can be shown that the time
required for the steel tie to reach
the critical temperature of 619C is
9min 40 sec
Temp (C)
800
ISO834
700
600
619 C
Steel member
500
400
300
= 22.49 C
200
Clearly, this is less than the
required duration of 60 min.
100
(Not OK)
500
1000 1500
Time (sec)
The tie will have to be protected.
TIE MEMBER - FIRE PROTECTION
It is given that 60 minutes' fire protection required.
Protection against fire will be assessed for encasing it with 20mm
thick Gypsum board.
EXAMPLE
PROTECTED TENSION MEMBER
Thermal properties of Gypsum are:
Density
Specific heat
Thermal conductivity
Section factor
cp
Ap/V
= 800 kg/m3
= 1700 J/kgK
=
0.2 W/mK
= 300.97 m-1
TIE MEMBER - FIRE PROTECTION
Steel temperature is again
calculated for increments of
time of t = 5 sec.
At 60 min, the steel
temperature obtained is 613oC,
which is just below the critical
temperature of 619oC.
Thus, 20mm gypsum boarding
provides the required 60 min
fire protection.
Temp (C)
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
(OK)
ISO834
Bare steel member
619 C
SUMMARY
613 C
With 20mm board
1000
2000
3000 4000
Time (sec)
SUMMARY SO FAR
Eurocode 3 allows three strategies for establishing fire
safety of protected and unprotected steel structures.
The simple method, based on critical temperatures, has
b
been
described
d
ib d in
i detail.
d t il
METHOD 2
STRENGTH UNDER FIRE
EUROCODE STRATEGIES
Load resistance:
Rfi,d,t > Efi,d
Feasible by hand
calculation. Aim
is to find reduced
resistance at
design
temperature
UNRESTRAINED BEAMS
10
UNRESTRAINED BEAMS
UNRESTRAINED BEAMS
LT,fi is the lateral-torsional buckling strength reduction
factor in fire design situation.
The lateral-torsional buckling moment capacity is
checked for the maximum temperature a,com at the
compression flange:
Mb,fi,t,Rd W pl,y k y , ,com fy LT.fi
The strength reduction factor LT.fi for flexural buckling
is calculated using normalised slenderness :
M.fi
Wpl,y is the plastic section modulus of the cross-section
(assuming Class 1 or Class 2 section).
LT, ,com LT k y, ,com / k E, ,com
Lateral-torsional buckling need not be considered if:
The reduced yield strength of the compression flange
is defined as ky,,com fy at a,com
LT, ,com
< 0.4
EC3 STEEL STRESS-STRAIN CURVES
Graphs to be used for
kE, and ky
% of normal value
100
Rft
Effective yield strength
(at 2% strain)
80
SS
RESTRAINED BEAMS
60
40
20
Rft
SS
Elastic modulus
300
600
900
Temperature (C)
1200
RESTRAINED BEAMS
Restrained beams do not exhibit lateral-torsional
buckling. Moment capacity is found by using:
LT.fi = 1
COLUMNS
11
COMPRESSION MEMBERS
This information applies to Class 1, 2 or 3 sections. The
axial buckling resistance is checked for the maximum
temperature a,com in the steel:
N b, fi, t, Rd A ky, ,max f
fi
M.fi
fi is the axial buckling strength reduction factor in fire
design situation, obtained from curve c.
The reduced yield strength of the compression flange
is defined as ky,,com fy at a,com . The correction factor of
1.2 simply allows for uncertainties.
COMPRESSION MEMBERS
The strength reduction factor LT.fi for axial buckling is
calculated using normalised slenderness :
,max k y, ,max / k E, ,max
Bracing system
lfi=0.7L
0.7L
The effective length
for buckling in the
fire design
situation may be
adopted as shown
in the diagram
lfi=0.5L
SUMMARY SO FAR
Eurocode 3 allows three strategies for establishing fire
safety of protected and unprotected steel structures.
SUMMARY
Formulae to be used for the simple method based on
calculation
l l ti off strength
t
th for
f a given
i
temperatures
t
t
have
h
been briefly mentioned.
COMPOSITE FLOORS
A composite slab comprises three main components
EXAMPLE COMPOSITE FLOOR
Profiled steel
decking
Reinforcement
in-situ concrete slab
Some
reinforcement
Support beam
Metal decking
Cast-in-situ
concrete
Support beam
12
COMPOSITE FLOORS
Composite floor slabs offer advantages over other
systems
-
speed and simplicity of construction
safe
f working
ki platform
l f
protecting
i workers
k
below
b l
lighter than traditional concrete flooring
often used with lightweight concrete, which further
reduces the dead load
STRENGTH CRITERION R
MOMENT CAPACITY METHOD
STEEL TEMPERATURE
The temperature distribution through the beam at the
appropriate fire resistance period is required.
In EC4, the effective distance parameter z is
calculated from the formula:
Using the temperature data, the modified strength
properties of the materials in the section at these
elevated temperatures are determined. Use is made of
strength reduction factors.
1= 1 + 1 + 1
z
u1 u 2 u3
The reduced strengths of the materials are then used to
determine the moment capacity of the member at critical
sections.
STEEL STRENGTH
The strength of the
steel reinforcement is
determined using the
appropriate material
strength
st
e gt reduction
educt o
factor ky
(Rft for reinforcement)
Slab
Rebar
u1
u3
u2
Steel sheet
u2
u1
u3
SAGGING MOMENT RESISTANCE
% of normal value
100
Rft
Effective yield strength
(at 2% strain)
80
SS
The sagging moment
capacity is determined
using stress blocks, just as
for reinforced concrete
beam or
bea
o slab
s ab sections
sect o s
60
40
20
Rft
SS
Elastic modulus
300
600
900
Temperature (C)
1200
13
NEGATIVE MOMENT OF RESISTANCE
HOGGING MOMENT RESISTANCE
This is calculated by Numerical Integration
The ribbed zone is divided into thin slices.
The temperature is determined at the centroid of each
trapezium.
i
[mm]
100
Moment capacity is calculated
by taking moments about the
steel reinforcement
0
100
705 [C]
MOMENT CHECK INTERNAL SPAN
For an internal span it
may be assumed that
the span is continuous
over beams.
Thus MH + MS M0
The hogging moment capacity
is determined using stress
blocks, just as for reinforced
concrete beam or slab
sections,
sect
o s, e
except
cept that
t at in tthis
s
case there exist a number of
thin stress blocks with varying
concrete strength.
MOMENT CHECK EXTERNAL SPAN
For an external span it
may be assumed that
the span is continuous
over the internal beam
only.
o
y Thus
us
Where, M0 is the free
bending moment
(factored for the fire
limit state).
M
1
MH 1 H MS M0
2
8M0
Where, M0 is the free
bending moment
(factored for the fire
limit state).
ADVANCED CALCULATION MODELS
Eurocode 3 has one page and a half on this method,
with no equations or formulae.
METHOD 3
ADVANCED CALCULATION MODELS
The principles to be followed are specified.
Th user can choose
The
h
their
h i own method,
h d as long
l
as the
h
fundamental behaviour is modelled leading to a reliable
approximation of the expected behaviour under fire
conditions.
Separate calculations for thermal and mechanical
response are necessary.
14
ADVANCED CALCULATION MODELS
Any heating curve (fire) may be used.
Variation of thermal properties should be as given in the
standard.
Thermall response should
Th
h ld follow
f ll
established
bli h d theory
h
off
heat transfer.
ADVANCED CALCULATION MODELS
Effect of mechanical actions, geometrical imperfections
and thermal actions should all be combined.
Verification of calculation should be made on the basis
of relevant test results.
Mechanical response should follow established theory
of structural mechanics.
OUTLINE
Advanced Calculation Models for
Analysis for Temperature Distribution
Analysis for Strength
Computer Modelling for Temperature Distribution
Program TASEFplus
ADVANCED CALCULATION MODELS
HEAT FLOW ANALYSIS
Computer Modelling for Strength
Program COMPSEFplus
Conclusion
HEAT FLOW ANALYSIS
Consideration of heat conduction, convection and
radiation
Use of accurate material properties
Appropriate modelling of boundary conditions
HEAT FLOW ANALYSIS
The basic heat conduction equation in two
dimensions is:
2T 2T c T
x 2 y 2
k t
The equation can be solved by the Finite Element
Method or by the Finite Difference Method
15
HEAT FLOW ANALYSIS
The finite difference form of the Heat Flow equation at
a typical point:
Txp, y1
p
x 1, y
4t p
Txp1, y Txp, y 1 Txp, y 1 1
T
2 x, y
x
(Explicit form)
(Depends upon
Critical Time Increment t)
HEAT FLOW ANALYSIS
Several Computer programs are available for doing
this task.
SAFIR
VULCAN
ANSYS
ABAQUS
Plus many others
PROGRAM TASEF
TASEF is a program written in FORTRAN and has a
line-by-line data input. It was developed by Ulf
Wickstrm from Sweden.
PROGRAM TASEF
Program TASEF was first published in 1979 and was
later enhanced in 1990.
It handles heat flow in two-dimensional and axisymmetric cross-sections exposed to fire
temperatures.
PROGRAM TASEF
A variety of boundary conditions can be applied to
surfaces of the section. These include not only
surfaces subjected to heat flux as in a fire but also
those in which there is no gain or loss of heat and
tthere
e e is
s no
oc
change
a ge in e
entropy
t opy (Adiabatic).
( d abat c)
PROGRAM TASEF
Material properties required are specific heat
conductivity and specific heat capacity of the
material.
Latent heat of water is used to handle problems
involving moist materials such as concrete.
Surfaces can also be without exposure to external
heat.
TASEF can also handle multiple fires in the same
problem.
16
PROGRAM TASEFplus
TASEFplus, written in Visual Basic, is a pre-processor
and a post-processor for TASEF. It was developed
by the author while at City University London.
PROGRAM TASEFplus
p
TASEFplus includes material properties as specified
in Eurocodes.
The next few slides show the key features of
TASEFplus. All the input can be completed with
visual interface for data integrity.
PROGRAM TASEFplus
PROGRAM TASEFplus
The Geometry is defined by specifying:
Outer dimensions,
Sub-regions, which can be voids, and
A few grid-lines for making the Finite Element mesh.
PROGRAM TASEFplus
PROGRAM TASEFplus
The Boundary Conditions are defined by specifying:
Internal voids can be specified.
Node groups
For example, Hat Sections used in Scandinavia can
be modelled.
For each Node Group:
The type of boundary condition that applies
Fire with Heat Flux,
Adiabatic (Fire without Heat Flux), and
Ambient (No Fire).
17
PROGRAM TASEFplus
PROGRAM TASEFplus
The temperature-time history specifies the times at
which the calculations are output.
In fact, the time domain has an explicit idealisation, so
the calculations are carried out for a critical time
step for accuracy and convergence.
PROGRAM TASEFplus
PROGRAM TASEFplus
All the instructions required are given on the front
page of the program.
(The program also comes with a user manual)
PROGRAM TASEFplus
PROGRAM TASEFplus
The output is in the form of a fully annotated ext file.
In addition, colour contours of temperature
distribution can be plotted.
18
PROGRAM TASEFplus
The temperature history of one or more selected
nodes can be plotted.
ADVANCED CALCULATION MODELS
STRENGTH ANALYSIS FOR FIRE
STRENGTH ANALYSIS FOR FIRE
Use of accurate material properties, including thermal
expansion, at high temperatures
For columns, second-order effects and imperfections
need to be included
STRENGTH ANALYSIS FOR FIRE
Advanced Calculation Models allow proper modelling
of cross-section geometry, including benefits from
concrete in floor slab acting as heat sink
Numerical analysis can be done by using the Finite
Element Method or the Finite Difference Method
Requires computer software for any practical
calculations.
Permitted by Eurocodes
FINITE ELEMENT METHOD
Most general-purpose Finite Element Programs are
not directly useable for strength analysis of
structures exposed to fire.
FINITE ELEMENT METHOD
There is a very small number of Finite Element
programs specifically developed for fire analysis.
19
FINITE ELEMENT METHOD
Most Finite Element programs have a steep learning
curve.
Practising engineers find the time required to create
the data model for such programs unacceptably
long.
FINITE DIFFERENCE METHOD
FINITE DIFFERENCE METHOD
Finite Difference based computer programs are only
able to solve specific types of problems, for
example, columns or plates.
For their specific application,
application such programs are fast
and the learning curve is very short, principally
because the amount of data required is not large.
FINITE DIFFERENCE METHOD
Finite Difference based computer programs are only
able to solve specific types of problems, for
example, columns or plates.
For their specific application,
application such programs are fast
and the learning curve is very short, principally
because the amount of data required is not large.
COLUMN ANALYSIS FOR FIRE
COLUMN MODEL
Non-uniform profile
along the length
Temperature
dependent
material
properties
Lateral loading
Initial imperfections.
20
COLUMN MODEL
CALCULATION MODEL
Column Equilibrium
equation
Solution of two sub-problems
Internal Equilibrium
Evaluation of stress resultants using numerical
integration
(finding P and M)
Mx = P (ex + u)
This is a non-linear
equation.
External Equilibrium
Calculation of deflections using finite differences
and second-order iteration (finding u)
[Mx = P (ex + u)]
INTERNAL EQUILIBRIUM
EXTERNAL EQUILIBRIUM
Stresses need to be
integrated over
appropriate areas, using
non-linear temperature
dependent
depe
de t stress-strain
st ess st a
relations, to satisfy
internal equilibrium
The equilibrium deflected shape is determined by the
finite difference method combined with the NewtonRaphson method of iteration.
Thus, starting with an approximate solution { u k } for
Thus
the deflections at the finite difference stations, a
better solution is obtained by:
Numerical Methods such
as Gauss Integration are
used
{ u k+1 } = { u k } - [ I K ] -1 { u k U k }
[K] is determined numerically
STABILITY ANALYSIS
The method described is
applied repeatedly,
starting with a small
applied load and solving
for
o the
t e deflected
de ected shape,
s ape,
and then increasing the
load until no convergence
for the deflected shape is
obtainable.
Load
Ultimate Load
PROGRAM COMPSEFplus
p
Deflection
The maximum load for which convergence is obtained
is taken as the ultimate strength of the column.
21
PROGRAM COMPSEFplus
COMPSEF is a program written also in FORTRAN.
COMPSEFplus, written in Visual Basic, is a preprocessor for COMPSEF.
PROGRAM COMPSEFplus
As for TASEFplus, all the instructions necessary to
analyse a problem appear on the first screen.
Both programs were developed by the author while at
City University London.
The next few slides show the key features of the
program. All the input can be completed in a very
short time.
PROGRAM COMPSEFplus
The next screen defines what kind of analysis is being
performed, whether it is uniaxial or biaxial bending.
PROGRAM COMPSEFplus
The subsequent screen defines the column length and
few other parameters, which are often default values.
A beam is a column with zero axial load.
PROGRAM COMPSEFplus
Geometry is mapped by defining quadrilaterals and the
applicable material.
PROGRAM COMPSEFplus
Temperature output file from TASEF is read directly.
22
PROGRAM COMPSEFplus
PROGRAM COMPSEFplus
Even though the geometry may be defined in different
ways, full mapping of TASEF geometry to COMPSEF
geometry is automatic.
The output is fully annotated text file with deflections of
the structure.
Axial load
Time
Time increment
Axial displacement
X convergence norm
Y convergence norm
= -587000.000000
=
49.050000
=
0.050000
=
1.378246
=
0.000000
=
-1536.013848
---------------------------------------Station
X-Deflection
Y-Deflection
----------------------------1
0.000000
0.00
2
0.000000
-1.19
15
0.000000
-101.19
16
0.000000
-102.22
17
0.000000
-101.09
----------------------------------------FAILURE TIME
=
49.05
-----------------------------------------
APPLICATIONS
If one looks at Eurocode 4, the design method for
concrete filled tubes in Annex H is less than
satisfactory.
APPLICATION TO
CONCRETE FILLED STEEL TUBES
This has been demonstrated by running COMPSEFplus.
COMPSEFplus
Results from Annex H are higher than those given by
Advanced Calculation Models. While this can mean
economical designs using Annex U, it could also
mean unsafe designs
APPLICATIONS
REFERENCE
1.2
1
Buckling curve c
140x5 - Annex H
0.8
140x5 - COM PSEF
0.6
270x6 - Annex H
Nyman, S and Virdi, K S
Fire Response Of Concrete Filled Hollow Steel Sections
EUROSTEEL 2011, August 31 - September 2, 2011,
Budapest, Hungary
270x6 - COM PSEF
0.4
400x8 - Annex H
400x8 - COM PSEF
0.2
0
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1.25
1.5
1.75
2.25
23
SHADOW EFFECT
In fire engineering, it is recognised that the radiative
heat exchange in unprotected steel I-sections is
reduced due to geometric effects.
APPLICATION
SHADOW EFFECT
Most computations are based on the assumption that an
I-section receives heat from convection and radiation
uniformly over the entire surface area.
Since radiation is directional, the reduction in the heat
transferred actually occurs because flanges cast a
shadow on the rest of the section.
SHADOW EFFECT
Ignoring the shadow effect leads to conservative
results.
However, one consequence is that a given design may
thus become uneconomic.
uneconomic
Based on some of the work of co-author Ulf Wickstrm,
a much simplified approach appears in the fire
engineering part of Eurocode 3 for steel structures.
MODELLING SHADOW EFFECT
SHADOW EFFECT
As an example of the Advanced Calculation Model,
temperature distributions in steel beams with or
without considering the shadow effect are evaluated
in a more rigorous manner.
The effect of reduced temperatures obtained on the fire
duration from TASEF is later evaluated using the
finite difference based program COMPSEF.
MODELLING SHADOW EFFECT
The shadow effect is considered by introducing an
artificial boundary on the open sides of the I section,
that is, in the space between the flanges
The key parameter of this artificial boundary is that it is
specified to be adiabatic.
The introduced
boundaries follow
the same fire curve
as the rest of the
section.
Thus,
Thus while following the
fire curve, it does not
cause radiation to pass
through, thus
introducing a shadow.
24
TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTIONS AT 30 min
Points selected for comparison of temperatures
TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTIONS AT 30 min
No Shadow Effect
With Shadow Effect
MODELLING SHADOW EFFECT
Position Eurocode 3
A
B
C
827`
827`
827
No
Shadow
Effect
709
544
714
With
Shadow
Effect
661
510
666
MODELLING SHADOW EFFECT
The span of the beam is taken as 3m. The beam is
subjected to a uniformly distributed gravity load of
300kN/m.
As there is no composite action between the beam and
the concrete above, this analysis considers the steel
section alone.
Rigorous analysis gives lower temperatures than
EC3.
Consideration of Shadow effect gives further
reduction in temperatures.
MODELLING SHADOW EFFECT
Results from COMPSEF are given below.
No Shadow Effect
30.0min
With Shadow Effect
35.4min
CONCLUSIONS
This is a significant gain in fire duration for a bare steel
section.
25
CONCLUSIONS
Eurocode 3 methodologies have been described.
The basis of Advanced Calculation Models as
permitted in Eurocodes was covered.
Use of Advanced Calculation Models requires computer
programs.
CONCLUSIONS
The programs can be used for design, research, and
for teaching.
These programs have indeed been used in Fire
Engineering modules for Masters programmes at
City University and at Lule University of
Technology in Sweden.
CONCLUSIONS
Two programs - one for heat transfer and one for
mechanical response - have been described.
These programs are not general purpose, but
dedicated to solving specific range of problems
problems.
Consequenly, what they can do, can be done with
limited input, results are fast to obtain, and the
learning curve is not too steep.
CONCLUSIONS
One application has described how the shadow effect
can be taken into account in determining the
temperature distributions in a steel beam exposed
to fire.
The reduction in temperatures obtained by an
advanced calculation method, using the program
TASEF, is first due to the transmission of heat into
the concrete slab supported by the beam, a feature
not taken into account in Eurocode 3.
CONCLUSIONS
Further significant reductions in temperatures are
obtained by considering the shadow effect.
The resulting improved structural performance,
calculated by the finite difference based program
COMPSEF, is reflected in the increase in time to
failure.
THANK YOU
This difference could be significant in many practical
situations.
26
