CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
Unwanted fire is a destructive force that causes many thousands of deaths
and billions of dollars of property loss each year. Unfortunately fires can occur in
almost any kind of building, often when least expected. The safety of the
occupants depends on many factors in the design and construction of buildings,
including the expectation that certain buildings and parts of building will not
collapse in a fire or allow the fire to spread. Fire deaths and property losses could
be eliminated if all fires were prevented, or if all fires were extinguished at the
size of a match flame. Much can be done to reduce the probability of occurrence,
but it is impossible to prevent all major fires. Given that some fires will always
occur, there are many strategies for reducing their impact, and some combination
of these will generally be used. The proper selection and design of building
materials is very important. Structural members are to be designed to satisfy the
requirements of serviceability and safety limit states for various environmental
conditions. Fire represents one of the most severe conditions and hence the
provision of appropriate fire safety measures for RC (Reinforced Concrete) beams
is a major safety requirement in building design. The basis for this requirement
can be attributed to the fact that, when other measures for containing the fire fail,
structural integrity is the last line of defence. The primary goal of fire protection is
to limit to acceptable levels the probability of death, injury and property loss in an
unwanted fire. The balance between life safety and property protection varies in
different countries, depending on the type of building and its occupancy. The
earliest fire brigades and fire codes were promoted by insurance companies who
were more interested in property protection than life safety.
Fire resistance is a measurement of the ability of the structure to resist
collapse, fire spread or other failure during exposure to a fire of specified severity
2
or in other words it is the duration a structural member (system) exhibits
resistance with respect to structural integrity, stability and temperature
transmission under fire conditions. The fundamental step in designing structures
for fire safety is to verify that the fire resistance of the structure or each part of the
structure is greater than the severity of the fire to which the structure is exposed.
As per IS456:2000 a structure or structural element required to have fire
resistance should be designed to possess an appropriate degree of resistance to
flame penetration, heat transmission and failure. The fire resistance of a structural
element is expressed in terms of time in accordance with IS1641. The current
method of evaluating fire resistance of reinforced concrete columns and beams are
based on prescriptive approaches, and is usually a function of concrete cover
thickness, size of the member and aggregate type. The tabulated fire resistance
ratings specified in current standards are derived from data obtained from standard
fire resistance tests and do not account for many of the important parameters such
as load level, fire scenario and concrete strength.
Typical fire resistance requirements for specific building members are
specified in building codes. Fire resistance can play a crucial role in the
performance of buildings and infrastructure in the event of fire, as seen in the
collapse of the World Trade Centre twin towers and the damage to the Eurotunnel.
Building codes are different in every country. In a prescriptive code environment,
designers have little choice but to follow a book of rules. Current Indian building
codes are prescriptive in nature. With more modern performancebased codes,
designers have unlimited freedom to design innovative solutions to fire safety
problems, provided that the required levels of safety and performance can be
demonstrated to the satisfaction of the approving authorities.
Until recently, most design for fire has been based on prescriptive building
codes, with little or no opportunity for designers to take a rational engineering
approach to the provision of fire safety. Many countries adopted performance
based building codes which allow designers to use any fire safety strategy they
wish, provided that adequate safety can be demonstrated. In general terms, a
3
prescriptive code states how a building is to be constructed whereas a performance
based code states how a building is to perform under a wide range of conditions.
Performancebased design is not totally new. Even within some
prescriptive codes, there has been the opportunity for performancebased selection
of structural assemblies. For example, if a code specifies a floor with a fire
resistance rating of two hours, the designer has had the freedom to select from a
wide range of listed systems which have sufficient fire resistance.
In the development of new codes, many countries have adopted a multi
level code format. At the highest levels, there is legislation specifying the overall
goals, functional objectives and required performance which must be achieved in
all buildings. At a lower level, there is a selection of alternative means of
achieving those goals. The three most common options are to comply with a
prescriptive Acceptable Solution, to comply with an approved standard
calculation method, or to perform a performancebased fire engineering design
from first principles.
The code environment in New Zealand (described by Buchanan
[1]
,
1994(a), 1999) is similar to that in England, Australia and some Scandinavian
Countries. Moves towards performancebased codes are being taken in the United
States (IFCI, 2000, SFPE, 2000). Codes are different around the world but the
objectives are similar; that is to protect life and property from the effects of fire
(SFPE, 1996, 1998). It is not easy to produce or use performancebased fire codes
for many reason: fire safety is part of a complex system of many interacting
variables, there are so many possible strategies that is not simple to assess
performance in quantitative terms, and there is a lack of information on the
behaviour of fires and the performance of people and buildings exposed to fires.
Generally, concrete structural members (made from Normal Strength
Concrete) exhibit good performance under fire situations. The fire resistance of
RC structural members is evaluated using a prescriptive based approach. While
the Eurocode specifications provide some options for performance based fire
resistance design, the specifications in American standards are highly prescriptive.
There are many drawbacks to the prescriptivebased approach of evaluating the
4
fire resistance, since this approach is based on standard conditions and does not
account for realistic scenarios. Therefore, the current design approaches may not
be fully applicable for use under the recently introduced performancebased codes
that facilitate innovative, costeffective and rational designs.
Whatever type of code is used, design for fire safety will include a
combination of reducing the probability of ignition, controlling the spread of fire
and smoke, allowing for occupant escape and fire fighter access and preventing
structural collapse. It is difficult to visualize or demonstrate safety without a
conceptual frame work because of the large number of interacting variables.
1.1.1. Process of fire development
Fig 1.1 shows a typical time temperature curve for the complete process of
fire development inside a typical room, assuming no fire suppression by sprinklers
or fire fighters. Not all fires follow this development because some fires go out
prematurely and others do not reach flashover, especially if the fuel item is small
and isolated or if there is not enough air to support continued combustion. If a
room has very large window openings, too much heat may flow out the windows
for flash over to occur.
Fig 1.1 Temperature development stages in a real fire
5
1.2 OBJECTIVES
Following are the main objectives of this project.
To compare available design recommendations for fire design of typical
reinforced concrete structural elements in various design codes namely
IS456:2000, EN199212:2004 and ACI216197.
To suggest improved recommendations for Indian conditions.
1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS
The thesis is organized into seven chapters.
Chapter 1 presents an introduction and objectives of the present study.
Chapter 2 presents a review of the literature relevant to the topic. Comments on
literature review outline the salient findings of the survey that are relevant to the
thesis. Need for the present study is also included in this chapter.
Chapter 3 covers the fire resistant design of reinforced cement concrete slabs.
Fire resistant design of beams is covered in Chapter 4.
Chapter 5 includes the fire resistant design of RCC columns.
Chapter 6 deals with the thermostructural analysis of beams and columns using
ANSYS13 and comparison of results with experimental data available.
Chapter7 gives the summary of the work conclusions arrived in this thesis and
also the scope of further work. A list of references is given at the end
6
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 GENERAL
Many investigators have carried out studies to understand the behaviour of
reinforced concrete structures in fire conditions. Few fullscale fire tests have been
performed on structural systems to understand their real behaviour under fire. The
most comprehensive full scale testing was carried out at BRE laboratory in 1995
96 in Cardington, England. As an outgrowth of the Cardington test, many
numerical and theoretical models have been developed to stimulate the
performance of the structures.
2.2 PRESENT STATE OF THE ART
Lie (1989)
carried out experimental and theoretical studies to develop
general methods for the prediction of the fire resistance of reinforced concrete
columns. In these studies, which were carried out jointly between the National
Research Council of Canada and the Portland Cement Association, 41 columns
were tested. The parameters studied included load level, amount of steel
reinforcement, effective length of column, concrete strength, moisture content,
area and shape of cross section, aggregate type, axial restraint of thermal
expansion and load eccentricity. The experimentally discovered effects of these
parameters are discussed in this paper.
In order to examine the influence of the circular shape on behaviour under
fire conditions, an experimental research study has been performed at the
University of Liege Franssen et al. (2003)
describes the test procedure, the
observations made, and the values obtained for the fire resistance. Theoretical
methods have been developed for a quick, safe and efficient design of concrete
columns under fire conditions. Observations made during experiments show that
7
surface spalling was noticed between 20 and 60 minutes of fire test. The circular
shape of the crosssection does not prevent the occurrence of this phenomenon.
A numerical model in the form of a computer program for tracing the
behaviour of high performance concrete columns exposed to fire is presented by
Kodur et al. (2004). The three stages associated with the thermal and structural
analysis for the calculation of fire resistance of columns are explained. A
simplified approach is proposed to account for spalling under fire conditions. The
use of computer for tracing the response of an HPC column from the initial
preloading stage to collapse due to fire is demonstrated. The validity of the
numerical model used in the program is established by comparing the predictions
from the computer program with result from fullscale fire resistance tests. The
numerical procedure described above was incorporated into a computer program
written in the FORTRAN language.
In the paper by Bratina et al. (2005)
describes a twostep finite element
formulation for the thermomechanical nonlinear analysis of the behaviour of the
reinforced concrete columns in fire. In the first step, the distributions of the
temperature over the crosssection during fire are determined. In the next step, the
mechanical analysis is made in which these distributions are used as the
temperature loads. The analysis employs our new strainbased planar
geometrically exact and materially nonlinear beam finite elements to model the
column. The results are compared with the measurements of the fullscale test on
columns in fire and with the results of the European building code EC 2. The
resistance times of the present method and the test were close. It is also noted that
the building code EC 2 might be nonconservative in the estimation of the
resistance time.
An experimental study on the spalling resistance high performance
concrete with polypropylene (PP) fibres and fabric or sheet material for lateral
confinement subjected to fire is presented by Hana et al. (2005).
According to the
test results, spalling occurred on all specimens that did not contain PP fibres in the
concrete mixture. However, spalling did not occur on specimens containing PP
fibres above 0.05% by volume. A metal fabric showed beneficial effect on
spalling resistance but glass or carbon fibre fabrics do not show the same effect on
8
the spalling resistance due to reduction of bond strength at high temperatures.
Spalling did not occur on all specimens in which PP fibres and metal fabric were
applied at the same time and hence spalling resistance performance was
significantly improved. The residual compressive strength was maintained at
about 90% of its original strength, and this can be considered as an improved
performance against fire damage.
A numerical model, in the form of a computer program for tracing the
behaviour of reinforced concrete (RC) beams exposed to fire is presented by
Kodur et al. (2008). The three stages associated with the numerical procedure for
evaluating fire resistance of RC beams; namely, fire temperature calculation,
thermal analysis and strength analysis, are explained. A simplified approach to
account for spalling under fire conditions is incorporated into the model. The use
of the computer program for tracing the response of RC beams from the initial
preloading stage to collapse stage, due to the combined effect of the fire and
loading is demonstrated. The validity of the numerical model is established by
comparing the predictions from the computer program with results from fullscale
fire resistance tests. Through the results of numerical study, it is shown that the
type of failure criterion has significant influence on predicting the fire resistance
of RC beams.
A macroscopic finite element mode, capable of tracing the behaviour of
RC beams form the pre stage to collapse in fire is used in the analysis by Kodur et
al. (2008). The model includes the three stages associated with the fire resistance
analysis, namely establishing the fire temperaturetime development, calculating
the heat transfer through the fire temperaturetime development, calculating the
heat transfer through the structure from fire and the structural analysis. The model
is applied to investigate the effect of six parameters, namely fire scenario, load
level, concrete cover thickness, failure criteria, aggregate type and span length on
the fire response of RC beams. It is shown that while the span length has
significant influence on the overall fire behaviour, it has a minor effect on the fire
resistance of RC beams.
9
In Kodur et al. (2009) data from a large set of experimental studies are
analysed to study the influence of various parameters on the fire resistance of RC
columns. The fire test data are utilised to develop a simplified equation for
expressing the fire resistance of RC columns as a function of influencing
parameters. The validity of the equation is established by comparing the
predictions from the empirical equation with data obtained from fire resistance
experiments and analytical studies. Predictions from the proposed equation are in
good agreement with the test results and computer models and provide better
estimates of fire resistance than those predicted from current codes of practice.
The proposed equation also incorporates parameters such as load eccentricity,
which is not included in the current equations available in the literature. The
proposed expression for evaluating fire resistance utilises the same parameters as
those that determine the structural resistance of the column and thus fire resistance
calculations can be integrated into the normal design process.
A finite element program RCSSCF is applied in the study of behaviour of
axially and rotationally restrained concrete columns with + shaped cross section
and subjected to fire by Wu et al. (2009). Fig 2.1 shows a typical concrete column
with + ve shaped cross section. The development of column internal forces as well
as deflections at the midheight of concrete column is discussed. Comparing to
concrete columns with rectangular cross section, the columns with +ve shaped
cross section have thinner sectional thickness and larger surface area. Hence the
temperatures in columns with +shaped cross section during a fire rise more
quickly than those in columns with rectangular cross section. Simulation results
show that :( 1) axial restraint can induce significant additional axial forces in
concrete columns with +shaped cross section and subjected to fire and the
additional axial forces in strongly restrained concrete columns during a fire can
reach approximately 6570% of the axial forces in columns at room temperature.
(2) the fire resistance of concrete columns without rotational restraint decreases
significantly with an increase of load eccentricity ratio and (3) for columns with
different non zero rotational restraint ratios, the internal axial forces, and the
internal moments and deflections at the midheight of these columns appear to
follow common trends.
10
Fig 2.1 A typical concrete column with + ve shaped cross section.
A macroscopic finite element model for tracing the fire response of
reinforced concrete (RC) structural members is presented by Kodur et al. (2009).
The model accounts for critical factors that are to be considered for performance
based fire resistance assessment of RC structural members. Fire induced spalling
various strain components, high temperature material properties, restraint effects,
different fire scenarios and failure criteria are incorporated in the model. The
validity of the numerical model is established by comparing the predictions from
the computer program with result from fullscale fire resistance tests and
microscopic FE based model. Case studies are conducted to demonstrate the use
of the computer program for tracing the response of RC members under standard
and design fire exposures. Through the results of the case studies, it is shown that
the fire scenario has a significant effect on the fire resistance of RC columns and
beams. It is also shown that macroscopic finite element models are capable of
predicting the fire response of RC structural members with an adequate accuracy
for practical applications. The numerical model proposed here uses moment
A A
11
curvature relationship to trace the response of an RC structural member in the
entire range of loading up to collapse under fire. In this model, the RC structural
member is divided into a number of segments along its length and the midsection
of the segment is assumed to represent the behaviour of the whole segment. The
cross section representing each segment is subdivided into elements forming a two
dimensional meshes. The fire resistance analysis carried out by incrementing time
in steps. Various strain components fire induced spalling and restraint effects can
be accounted for in such models.
A one dimensional numerical model to predict fire induced spalling in
concrete structures is presented by Dwaikat et al. (2009). This spalling model is
capable of predicting fire induced spalling with an accuracy that is sufficient for
practical purposes. It is based on pore pressure calculations in concrete as a
function of time. Principles of mechanics and thermodynamics are applied to
predict pore pressure in concrete structures exposed to fire. An assessment of the
possibility of tensile fracture is made by comparing the computed pore pressure
with temperature dependent tensile strength. The pore pressure calculations are
coupled with heat transfer analysis to ensure that the loss of concrete section
resulting from spalling is accounted for in subsequent heat transfer analysis. The
validity of the numerical model is established by comparing temperature, pore
pressure, and concrete spalling predictions with results from fire tests. Through
these case studies it is shown that permeability tensile strength of concrete and
heating rate has a significant influence on fire induced spalling in concrete. It is
also shown that relative humidity has a marginal influence on fire induced
spalling in concrete.
A robust nonlinear finite element procedure is developed for three
dimensional modelling of reinforced concrete beamcolumn structures in fire
conditions by Huang et al. (2009). Because of the changes in material properties
and the large deflections experienced in fire, both geometric and material
nonlinearities are taken into account in this formulation. The cross section of the
beam column is divided into a matrix of segments and each segment may have
different material, temperature and mechanical properties. The more complicated
aspects of structural behaviour in fire conditions such as thermal expansion,
12
transient state strains in the concrete, cracking or crushing of concrete, yielding of
steel and change in material properties with temperature are modelled. A void
segment is developed to effectively model the effect of concrete spalling on the
fire resistance of concrete beamcolumn members. The impact of concrete
spalling on both the thermal and structural behaviours of reinforced concrete
members is very significant. It is vitally important to consider the prospect of
concrete spalling in fire safety design for reinforced concrete buildings.
Fibre Heat Transfer Element for Modelling the Thermal Response of
Structures in Fire by Jeffers et al. (2009) introduces a novel type of heat transfer
finite element that can be used to model the three dimensional thermal response of
structural beams and columns subjected to elevated temperatures associated with
fire. The element is a three node heat transfer element that uses a fibre
discretization to account for both transverse and longitudinal temperature
variations in a structural member. This fibre heat transfer element is purposely
formulated to be compatible with any fibre beamcolumn finite element in a
sequentially coupled thermalmechanical analysis of a structural frame subjected
to fire. The element is implemented in ABAQUS using a user defined element
subroutine. To demonstrate the capabilities of the fibre heat transfer element,
analyses are performed on members with various types of thermal boundary
conditions. Results indicate that the fibre heat transfer element offers excellent
accuracy with minimal computational expense, making the fibre heat transfer
element a valuable tool for modelling the behaviour of frame structures in fire.
Tavares (2009) in his paper discussed the acceptance of performance based
methods in Brazil. Here the fire safety codes are based on a prescriptive approach.
However a considerable number of fire accidents have shown that these codes
might not have been providing the fire safety as they should have. The
performancebased codes attempt to provide clearer guidance than the prescriptive
codes taking in to consideration the actual growing complexity of the architectural
designs, which introduces more fire risks. Nevertheless in the Brazilian context,
many difficulties are found for the implementation and development of such types
of fire safety codes. Some of these difficulties that could be mentioned are: the
perception of the fire risks and the law. Both of them are considered crucial
13
barriers for the development and implementation of the performance based codes.
He has made an analysis of the fire safety codes for buildings in Brazil. It has
concluded that the most adequate fire safety code in Brazil at the current moment
is the prescriptive code.
Four full scale reinforced concrete (RC) columns with Lshaped cross
sections, four full scale RC columns with Tshaped cross section, three fullscale
RC columns with + shaped cross sections and one full scale RC column with a
square cross section were experimentally investigated for fire resistance following
the ISO 834 standard heating process by Xu (2009). The effects of axial load ratio
and fire exposure condition on failure mode, axial deformation and fire resistance
of the columns were analysed. A computer program RCSSCF was developed to
calculate temperature, deformation and fire resistance of the loaded columns with
L, T and + ve shaped cross sections. The results of the numerical simulation were
compared with those of the fullscale fire resistance tests. The transient thermal
fields in the columns with L, T and + shaped cross sections subjected to fire were
calculated by the finite element method which enables the effective prediction of
thermal fields in concrete structure. Axial loads were applied to the columns
approximately 20 min prior to fire tests, and were maintained until maximum
axial deformation occurred.
Kodur (2010)
presents an energy based time equivalency method for
evaluating the fire resistance of reinforced concrete beams under design fire
scenarios. The proposed method is based on the principle of equivalent energy,
and estimates fire resistance based on the equivalency between standard and
design fire exposures. The validity of the method is established by comparing the
predictions from the proposed approach with those from existing methods and
with nonlinear finite element analysis. The applicability of the proposed approach
to design situations is illustrated through a numerical example. It is shown that the
proposed energy based method is capable of predicting equivalent fire resistance
under design fire scenarios with an accuracy that is sufficient for practical
purposes.
14
The development of a reliable time equivalent approach for RC beams
requires large set of data under standard and design fire exposures. Such data can
be generated through numerical simulations on RC beams under various fire
scenarios. For the analysis, a macroscopic finite element (FE) based computer
program was selected. Different type of RC beams were analysed under 18 fire
scenarios and four different fire conditions resulting in 72 beamfire
combinations. Results from FE analysis were used to establish time equivalent of
each beam under a given design fire exposures.
In the paper by Huang (2010),
a robust model is presented which focuses
particularly on the effect of spalling on the structural performance rather than
attempting to develop a model for predicting the extent of spalling under specific
conditions. For modelling reinforced concrete floor slabs a nonlinear layered
finite element procedure has been developed for predicting the structural response
of reinforced concrete slabs subjected to fire. Using a layering procedure and
allowing some concrete layers to be void the effect of concrete spalling on the
thermal and structural behaviours of reinforced concrete slabs can be
quantitatively modelled.
In the paper Reliability analysis of prestressed concrete beams exposed to
fire by Christopher Eamon (2012) presents a procedure for conducting reliability
analysis of prestressed concrete beams subjected to fire load. This involves
identifying relevant load combinations, specifying critical load and resistance
random variables, and establishing a hightemperature performance model for
beam capacity. Using the procedure, an initial analysis for various prestressed
concrete beams designed according to ACI 318 that are exposed to fire. A semi
empirical model is used to estimate beam moment capacity as a function of fire
exposure time, which is calibrated to experimental data available in the literature.
The effect of various beam parameters were considered, including cover,
aggregate type, concrete compressive strength, dead to live load ratio,
reinforcement ratio, end restraints, fire exposure, and proportion of end strands to
total strands. Using the suggested procedure, reliability was estimated from zero
to four hours of fire exposure using Monte Carlo simulation. It was found that
reliability decreased nonlinearly as a function of time, while the most significant
15
parameters were concrete cover, load ratio, fire type, end restraints, and
proportion of end strands to total strands. Based on the load and resistance models
used, it was found that most beams had a coldstrength reliability index of
approximately 5.2 while exposed to dead load and sustained live load. Reliability
rapidly decreased as a function of time soon after fire exposure, and continued to
decrease at a slower rate, to become asymptotic to a minimum reliability index
that ranges between 0 and 1 for most cases. The most significant parameters on
reliability were concrete cover; end restraints, fire type, proportion of end strands
to total strands, and D/ (D + L) ratio. Aggregate type, concrete compressive
strength, reinforcement ratio, and presence of nonprestressing steel or
compression steel generally had minor effects on reliability.
2.3 COMMENTS ON LITERATURE REVIEW
The findings from the literature reviews are
 The current prescriptive approaches for evaluating fire resistance of
reinforced concrete structures under standard fire exposure have a number
of drawbacks.
 Although standard fire resistance tests are helpful in assessing comparative
performance of structural members, they do not take in to account
important factors such as realistic fire scenario, loading ratio and failure
criteria.
 Thus current prescriptive based fire resistance approaches may not be
applicable for evaluating fire resistance under performance based codes.
 Numerical modelling and finite element modelling is necessary to find the
fire resistance of reinforced concrete columns, beams and slabs under real
fire scenarios.
 Detailed fire response of structural members can be assessed through the
use of finite element based computer models such as ANSYS, ABAQUS
and SAFIR.
16
 Modelling in ANSYS and ABAQUS are capable of accounting for
complex structural geometry to find fire resistance.
2.4 NEED FOR THE PRESENT STUDY
Load bearing structural members are easily affected by fire. Therefore a
proper structural fire design is certainly necessary. IS code provides only
minimum recommendations as fire ratings. The Eurocode EN 199212:2004(E)
provides a number of procedures in order to design concrete structures for the fire
situation, both prescriptive and performance based which seems to be more
realistic. Structural behaviour of concrete exposed to fire still remains to be
resolved in the Indian context. Numerical modelling and finite element modelling
is necessary to find the fire resistance of reinforced concrete columns, beams and
slabs under real fire scenarios. Therefore ANSYS13 is used for the detailed fire
response of structural members like slabs, beams and columns.
17
CHAPTER 3
FIRE RESISTANT DESIGN OF SLABS
3.1GENERAL
In this chapter, the fire resistant design methods and recommendations
specified in various codes namely IS456:2000
[15]
, EN199212:2004(Eurocode2),
ACI216197 and are compared. All the slab thicknesses specified in Eurocode2
temperature profiles are analysed. Fire ratings are determined for both carbonate
and siliceous aggregate concrete slabs using finite element software ANSYS13
and are compared with IS456:2000 and Eurocode2 fire ratings. Design charts are
prepared for 175mm thick carbonate and siliceous aggregate concrete slab. A
simply supported slab of known geometry and material properties are then
analysed using two methods specified in Eurocode2.
3.2 BRIEF REVIEW OF CODE PROVISIONS
As per IS456:2000, a structure or structural element required to have fire
resistance should be designed to possess an appropriate degree of resistance to
flame penetration, heat transmission and failure. The fire resistance of a structural
element is expressed in terms of time in hours in accordance with IS1641
[14]
. Fire
resistance of concrete elements depends upon detailing and type of aggregate used
in concrete. IS456:2000 provides minimum requirements of concrete cover and
member dimensions for normalweight aggregate concrete members to meet
required fire resistance. IS456:2000 specified minimum member dimension and
cover to meet required fire resistance is shown in Table3.1. Code also specifies
(Cl.21.3.1) that additional measures such as application of fire resistant finishes,
provision of fire resistant false ceilings should be adopted in case of the nominal
cover required exceeds 35 mm for slabs, to give protection against spalling.
18
Table 3.1 Minimum Dimensions and Nominal Cover to Meet Specified Period of
Fire Resistance for RCC slabs (IS456:2000)
Fire Resistance
(min)
Minimum thickness
of floors D (mm)
Nominal cover(mm)
Simply supported Continuous
30 75 20 20
60 95 20 20
90 110 25 20
120 125 35 25
180 150 45 35
240 170 55 45
The fire resistance of concrete members and assemblies designed in
accordance with ACI 216 for reinforced and plain structural concrete shall be
determined based on the provisions of Chapter 2 in ACI216. ACI216 specifies
minimum thickness requirements of concrete walls, floors, and roofs for purposes
of barrier fire resistance. As per this code specification, concrete containing steel
reinforcement shall additionally meet cover protection requirements for purposes
of maintaining structural fire resistance. ACI216 provides separate fire resistance
requirements for carbonaceous, siliceous, normal weight and light weight
aggregate concrete slabs (shown in Table3.2) and specifies to use the greatest
required member thickness or cover to the reinforcement if the type of aggregate
is not known.
19
Table 3.2 ACI216 Recommended Minimum Dimensions of Concrete Slabs for
Desired Fire Resistance
Aggregate type
Minimum equivalent thickness for fire resistance rating
(mm)
60 min 90 min 120 min 180 min 240 min
Siliceous 88 109 127 157 177
Carbonate 81 101 116 144 167
Semi
lightweight
68 83 96 116 137
Lightweight 63 78 91 111 129
In ACI216 Chapter2.4 calculation methods for determining fire resistance
and the adequacy of cover protection in concrete flexural members based on the
ASTM E 119 timetemperature fire exposure are provided. These provisions do
not explicitly account for the effects of restraint of thermallyinduced expansion;
however, the use of comprehensive analysis and design procedures that take into
account the effects of moment redistribution and the restraint of thermallyinduced
member expansion is permitted.
Eurocode 2, Part 12: Structural fire design, gives a choice of advanced,
simplified or tabular methods for determining the fire resistance. Using tables is
the fastest method for determining the minimum dimensions and cover for slabs,
beams and columns. There are, however, some restrictions which should be
adhered to. Rather than giving a minimum cover, the tabular method is based on
nominal axis distance, a. This is the distance from the centre of the main
reinforcing bar to the surface of the member. Eurocode 199212(Eurocode2)
provides mainly 3 methods for the fire resistant design of reinforced concrete
structural elements namely tabulated data, simplified calculation methods and
advanced calculation methods. A summary of various alternative methods are
given in the Table3.3.
20
Table 3.3 Summary of Alternative Verification Methods Given in EN 199212
Recommended
minimum dimensions
Simplified
calculation
methods
Advanced
calculation
methods
Member
analysis
YES
Data given for
Standard fire
only
YES
 Standard fire
and parametric fire.
 Temperature curves gives
for standard fire only
YES
Only the
principles are
given
Analysis of
part
of the
structure
NO
Global
structural
analysis
NO
NO
3.2.1 Recommended Minimum Dimensions
In this method, minimum dimensions of concrete cross section and axis
distance to steel are checked. Axis distance is nominal value, no need to add
tolerance. Axis distance is given for reinforcing steel (
cr
= 500C), to be
increased for pre stressing steel (bars 10 mm, strands and wires 15 mm). This
section gives recognised design solutions for the standard fire exposure up to 240
minutes. The tables have been developed on an empirical basis confirmed by
experience and theoretical evaluation of tests. The data is derived from
approximate conservative assumptions for the more common structural elements.
For beams and slabs degree of utilisation may be taken into account by following
simple rule:
a) Calculate the actual steel stress.
21
b) Evaluate the critical temperature using reference curve for steel
strength.
c) Adjust the minimum axis distance by 1 mm for every 10C difference in
temperature.
Eurocode 2 recommended minimum dimensions and axis distances for reinforced
and pre  stressed concrete solid slabs to meet desired fire resistance is shown in
Table3.4.
Table 3.4 Eurocode2 recommended minimum dimensions and axis distances for
reinforced and prestressed concrete slabs
Fire resistance(min)
Minimum dimensions (mm)
Slab thicknesses Axis distance(a)
30 150 10
60 180 15
90 200 25
120 200 35
180 200 45
240 200 50
3.2.2 Simplified Calculation Methods
Simplified calculation methods are of two kinds i.e., 500C isotherm
method and zone method. Brief reviews of both methods are given below.
3.2.2.1500C Isotherm Method
This method is applicable to a standard fire exposure and any other time
heat regimes, which cause similar temperature fields in the fire exposed member.
Time heat regimes which do not comply with this criterion require a separate
comprehensive analysis which accounts for the relative strength of the concrete as
a function of the temperature. This method assumes that concrete with
temperature below 500C retains full strength and the rest is disregarded. The
basic design procedure as per 500
0
C isotherm method is given below.
22
1. Determine the isotherm of 500C for the specified fire exposure, standard
fire or parametric fire.
2. Determine a new width b
f
and a new effective depth d
f
of the cross section
by excluding the concrete outside the 500
0
C isotherm. The rounded
corners of isotherm can be regarded by approximating the real form of the
isotherm to a rectangle or square as shown in Fig 3.1.
Fig 3.1Reduced cross section of reinforced concrete beam exposed to fire on three
sides.
3. Determine the temperature of reinforcing bars in the tension and
compression zones. The temperature of the individual reinforcing bars can
be evaluated from the temperature profiles in Annex A of Eurocode2
which provide temperature profile for different cross sections for various
fire exposures. As an illustration Eurocode2 temperature profile for
200mm thick slab for 30, 60, 90,120,180,240 minutes fire exposures for
the design of slabs is shown in figure 3.2. Some of the reinforcing bars
may fall outside the reduced cross section as shown in the Fig 3.1. Despite
this; they may be included in the calculation of the ultimate load bearing
capacity of the fire exposed cross section.
23
Fig 3.2. Temperature profile for 200 mm thick slab for 30 to 240 minute fire
exposure
4. Determine the reduced strength of the reinforcement due to the
temperature according to Cl. 4.2.4.3 of EN 1992122004.
5. Use conventional calculation methods for the reduced crosssection for
the determination of the ultimate load bearing capacity with strength of the
reinforcing bars as obtained in step 4 and
6. Compare the ultimate loadbearing capacity with the design load effect
or, alternatively, the estimated fire resistance with the required resistance.
x is the distance from the exposed surface
x(mm)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
24
3.2.2.2 Zone Method
In this method, the cross section is divided into a number of parallel zones
of equal thickness (rectangular elements) where the mean temperature and the
corresponding mean compressive strength and modulus of elasticity (if applicable)
of each zone is assessed. This method although more laborious, provides a more
accurate method than the 500C isotherm method. The method is applicable to the
standard temperature curve only.
The reduction of the crosssection is based on a damaged zone of thickness
a
z
(Fig3.3) at the fire exposed surfaces which is calculated as follows:
Fig 3.3 Reduction of cross section of slab exposed to fire
1 The half thickness of the wall is divided into n parallel zones of equal
thickness as shown in Fig 3.4, where n 3 for slabs exposed to two side
fire.
2. The temperature is calculated for the middle of each zone.
3. The corresponding reduction factor for compressive strength, k
c
(
i
) is
determined.
4. The mean reduction coefficient for a particular section, incorporating a
factor (1 0.2/n) which allows for the variation in temperature within each
zone, may be calculated by expression
=
n
i
i c m c
k
n
n
k
1
,
) (
)
2 . 0
1 (
u
(3.1)
where
n is the number of parallel zones in width w
25
w is half the total width
m is the zone number
5. The width of the damaged zone for beams, slabs or members in plane
shear is calculated using Expression
]
) (
1 [
,
m c
m c
Z
k
k
w a
u
=
(3.2)
Where k
c
(
m
) denotes the reduction coefficient for concrete at point M.
6. After the determination of reduced cross section, the fire design follows
the normal temperature design procedure.
Fig 3.4 Division of slab with both sides exposed to fire, into zones for use in
calculation of strength reduction and a
z
value
3.2.3 Advanced Calculation Methods
This method simulating the behaviour of structural members, parts of the
structure or the entire structure. In the code, only principles are given and no
detailed design rules are provided.
From the review of code provisions, it is observed that IS456:2000 provides
only minimum dimensions and clear cover thickness for fire resistant design of
RC slabs. Minimum recommendations are specified in 3 codes. IS456:2000 and
Eurocode2 provide minimum recommendations for normal weight aggregate
26
concrete only. But in ACI216 separate recommendations are specified for various
kinds of aggregate concrete slabs. Eurocode 2 and ACI216 give design charts and
analysis methods for fire resistant design of slabs in addition to minimum
recommendations.
3.3 THERMAL ANALYSIS USING FINITE ELEMENT SOFTWARE
3.3.1 General
ANSYS13 software is used for the development of finite element model. It is
general purpose finite element analysis software having many finite element
analysis capabilities ranging from simple linear static analysis to very complex
nonlinear dynamic analysis. In general, a finite element solution may be broken
into the following three stages.
(a) Preprocessing
In preprocessing the problem is defined using 3 steps. First key
points/lines/areas or volumes are defined, then element type and
material/geometric properties. As a third step mesh lines/areas/volumes as
required are given. The amount of detail required will depend on the
dimensionality of the analysis (i.e. 1D, 2D, axisymmetric, 3D).
(b) Solution
Here the loads (point or pressure), constraints (translational and rotational) are
specifies and finally solve the resulting set of equations.
(c) Post processing
Post processing means further processing and viewing the results. Results may
include lists of nodal displacements, element forces and moments, deflection plots
and stress contour diagrams.
3.3.2 Material behaviour at elevated temperatures
Thermal properties, mechanical properties and deformation properties are the
input material properties of concrete and steel in ANSYS13 for thermal analysis.
27
In order to make calculations of temperatures in fire exposed structures, it is
necessary to know the thermal properties of the material. Specific heat, thermal
conductivity and density are the thermal properties needed for ANSYS13 analysis.
Thermal properties
Thermal conductivity is the quantity of heat transmitted through a unit
thickness in a direction normal to a surface of unit area, due to a unit temperature
gradient under steady state conditions. The thermal conductivity of concrete (
c
) is
temperature dependent and varies in a broad range depending on the type of
aggregate. As per Eurocode 2 the thermal conductivity of concrete may be
determined between lower and upper limit values. The variation of upper limit and
lower limit of thermal conductivity with temperature is as shown in Fig 3.5.
Eurocode2 provision for thermal conductivity is used for ANSYS13 analysis.
Fig 3.5 Thermal conductivity of concrete as a function of temperature
For steel, thermal conductivity varies according to temperature reducing
linearly from 54W/mK at 0
0
C to 27.3W/mK at 800
0
C as shown in Fig3.6.For
simple calculations, the thermal conductivity can be taken as 45W/mK but it is
more accurate to use the equations given below.
28
s
= 540.0333T 20
0
CT<800
0
C
s
= 27.3 800
0
CT1200
0
C (3.3)
Where,
c
is the thermal conductivity in W/mK and T is the steel temperature.
Fig 3.6 Thermal conductivity of steel as a function of temperature
The specific heat(C
p
) is the amount of heat required to heat a unit mass of the
material by one degree(J/kg/K).The specific heat of concrete varies in a broad
range depending on the moisture content as shown in Fig 3.7.(Eurocode2). The
peak between 100
0
C and 200
0
C allows for water being driven off during the
heating process. Approximate design values are 1000J/kgK for siliceous and
calcareous aggregate concrete and 840J/kgK for light weight concrete.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 500 1000 1500
T
h
e
r
m
a
l
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
(
W
/
m
K
)
Temperature(
0
C)
29
Fig 3.7 Specific heat C
p
() as function of temperature at 3 different moisture
contents u of 0,1.5 and 3% by weight for siliceous concrete
For steel, specific heat varies according to temperature. For simple
calculation the specific heat can be taken as 600J/kgK.But it is more accurate to
use the following equation.
C
p
=425+0.773T1.6910
3
T
2
+2.2210
6
T
3
20
0
CT<600
0
C
=
) 738 (
13002
666
T
+ 600
0
CT<735
0
C
=
) 731 (
17820
545
+
T
735
0
CT<900
0
C
=650 735
0
CT<1200
0
C (3.4)
The density of concrete depends on the aggregate and the mix design.
Typical dense concrete has a density of about 2300kg/m
3
. When heated to 1000
0
C
the density of most concretes will be reduced by up to 100kg/m
3
due to the
evaporation of free water, which has a minor effect on thermal response. Other
than moisture change, the density of concrete does not change much at elevated
temperature, except for lime stone (calcareous) aggregate concrete which
decomposes above 800
0
C with a corresponding decrease in density.
30
Mechanical Properties
The stress strain curves for concrete with a compressive strength of f
c
at
various temperatures are shown in Fig 3.8. For mechanical properties, as a
conservative estimate, concrete is assumed not to recover any strength in the
cooling phase. Thus its stress strain diagram is determined based on the maximum
temperature the concrete attains.
Fig3.8 Stressstrain curves for concrete at various temperatures
It can be seen from the figures that the properties of concrete vary
significantly with temperature, with large decrease in strength (stress) once the
temperature exceeds 500
0
C. The equations that describe these curves are as
follows:
Stressstrain relationship
>


.

\

'
s


.

\

'
=
max
2
max,
max,
,
max
2
max,
max,
,
,
3
1
, 1
c c
c
c c
c c
c
c c
o
T
T
T c
T
T
T c
c
f
f
(3.5)
T C
C T C
T
f
C T C f
f
c
c
T c
<
s <
(

.

\

'
s s '
= '
0
0 0
0 0
,
874 0
874 450
1000
20
353 . 2 011 . 2
450 20
(3.6)
S
t
r
e
s
s
Strain
200
0
C
400
0
C
600
0
C
800
0
C
20
0
C
31
Where T = temperature (
0
C), f
c
and f
c,T
= concrete compressive strength at room
temperature and high temperature, respectively,
c
stress in concrete, = strain in
concrete, and
max,T
= strain at peak stress in the stressstrain curve of concrete.
Modulus of elasticity of steel decreases with increase in temperature.
Eurocode2 provide values for the parameters (ratio of modulus of elasticity at
elevated temperature, E
S
to that at room temperature, E
S
) of the stressstrain
relationship of hot rolled and cold worked reinforcing steel at elevated
temperature in Cl.3.2.3. These parameters are given in Table3.5. These relations
include the effect of creep at elevated temperatures and were obtained at heating
rates approximately the same as those that occur in a fire in actual practice.
Table 3.5 Values for the Parameters of the StressStrain Relationship of
Reinforcing Steel at Elevated Temperature
Steel Temperature(
0
C)
E
s,
/E
s
Hot rolled steel Cold worked steel
20 1.0 1.0
100 1.0 1.0
200 0.9 0.87
300 0.8 0.72
400 0.7 0.56
500 0.6 0.4
600 0.31 0.24
700 0.13 0.08
800 0.09 0.06
900 0.07 0.05
1000 0.04 0.03
1100 0.02 0.02
1200 0 0
32
The relations have been generalized for other structural steels by assuming
that, for a given temperature, the stressstrainncurves are same for all steels, but
the stress below which the stressstrain relation is linear, is proportional to the
yield strength of steel. The equations that describe the relations between the stress
in steel (f
y
), the strain (
s
) and the temperature of the steel (T) are as follows:
For
p s
c c s
S y
T f
f c
001 . 0
) 001 . 0 , (
=
(3.7)
Where
p
= 4 x 10
6
f
yo
and
( ) { } 9 . 6 ) 001 . 0 ( ) 03 . 0 30 ( exp ) 04 . 0 50 ( ) 001 . 0 , ( + = T T T f
(3.8)
For
p s
c c >
( ) ) 001 . 0 , ( ) 001 . 0 ( ,
001 . 0
) 001 . 0 , (
T f T f
T
f
p s p y
+ + = c c c
(3.9)
Where
Deformation Properties
The thermal expansion of material can be related to its temperature by a
coefficient of expansion (), which can be defined as the expansion of a unit
length of the steel when it is raised one degree in temperature.
  ( ) { } 9 . 6 001 . 0 ) 03 . 0 30 ( exp 1 ) 047 . 0 50 ( ) 001 . 0 ( , + + = +
p s p s
T T T f c c c c
33
For siliceous and carbonate aggregate concrete coefficient of thermal expansion is
=(0.008T+6)10
6
/
0
C
and =1610
6
/
0
C for expanded shale aggregate concrete.
Coeffient of thermal expansion of steel is
=(0.004T+12)10
6
/
0
C T1000
0
C
=1610
6
/
0
C T1000
0
C (3.10)
3.3.3 ANSYS13 Finite Element Model
To create the finite element model in ANSYS13, there are multiple tasks
that have to be completed for the model to run properly. Models can be created
using command prompt line input or the Graphical User Interface (GUI). For this
model GUI was used to create the model.
Element type
In thermal analysis PLANE 55 element is used for concrete. PLANE55
can be used as a plane element or as an axisymmetric ring element with a 2D
thermal conduction capability. The element has four nodes with a single degree of
freedom i.e. temperature, at each node. The element is applicable to a 2D, steady
state or transient thermal analysis. The geometry, node locations, and the
coordinate system for this element are shown in Fig 3.9. The element is defined by
four nodes and the orthotropic material properties. Orthotropic material directions
correspond to the element coordinate directions. The element coordinate system
orientation is as described in Coordinate Systems. Specific heat and density are
ignored for steadystate solutions. Element loads are described in node.
Convection or heat flux (but not both) and radiation may be input as surface loads
at the element faces as shown by the circled numbers on Fig 3.9. Heat generation
rates may be input as element body loads at the nodes. If the node I heat
generation rate HG (I) is input, and all others are unspecified, they default to
HG(I). If the model containing the temperature element is also to be analysed
34
structurally, the element should be replaced by an equivalent structural element
(such as PLANE182).
Fig 3.9 Geometry of PLANE 55 element
Modelling and meshing
Finite element slabs having the same dimensions as the Eurocode2
temperature profiles was modelled in ANSYS13. Slab thickness 100 mm slab is
modelled. A convergence study is carried out to find the optimum mesh size and
10 5 mm mesh size is used for further analysis. As an illustration finite element
mesh for 90mm thick slab is shown below in Fig 3.10.
35
Fig 3.10 Finite element mesh for 90mm thick slab
Loads and boundary conditions
At time zero minute, uniform temperature of 20
0
C is applied. The slabs
were analysed by exposing the bottom side to the standard time temperature curve
specified in ISO834.Table 3.6 shows the ISO834 fire loading curve (Equation of
curve is =20+345 log
10
(8t+1)) used for the analysis. Heat transfer from fire to
element is by convection on sides with a convection film coefficient of 25W/m
2
K.
36
Table 3.6 ISO834 FireTemperature Relation
Time (min) Temperature(
0
C)
0 20
5 576
10 678
30 842
60 945
120 1050
150 1082
240 1153
480 1257
Analysis type
Transient thermal analysis was carried out. Fire curve is divided in to a
number of sub steps. The solution control command dictates the use of a linear or
nonlinear solution for the finite element model. The time at the end of the load
step refers to the ending load per load step. The sub steps are set to indicate load
increments used for this analysis.
3.3.4 Development of Temperature Profile
Slabs are analyzed by exposing the bottom side to the standard time
temperature curve specified in ISO834.Slab thickness 100 mm slab is analysed.
Some of the obtained temperature profiles are shown below in Fig 3.11 to Fig
3.13.
37
(a) after 0.5 hour fire exposure (b) after 1 hour fire exposure
(c)after 1.5 hour fire exposure
(d) after 2 hour fire exposure
(e) after 2.5 hour fire exposure (f) after 3 hour fire exposure
Fig 3.11 Temperature profile of 90mm thick slab for various time exposures
38
(a) after 0.5 hour fire exposure (b) after 1 hour fire exposure
(c) after 1.5 hour fire exposure
(d) after 2 hour fire exposure
(e) after 2.5 hour fire exposure
(f) after 3 hour fire exposure
Fig 3.12 Temperature profile of 120 mm thick slab for various time exposures
39
(a) after 0.5 hour fire exposure
(b) after 1 hour fire exposure
(c) after 1.5 hour fire exposure
(d) after 2 hour fire exposure
(e) after hour fire exposure
(f) after 3 hour fire exposure
Fig 3.13 Temperature profile of 175 mm thick slab for various time exposures
40
3.3.5 Development of Design Chart
Transient thermal analysis was carried out for various thickness of slab
cast with carbonaceous and siliceous aggregate concrete. Fig 3.14 shows the
temperature versus time plot of a 175mm carbonate aggregate and siliceous
aggregate concrete slab at various thicknesses obtained from ANSYS13 analysis.
This plot can be used for the determination of temperature in slab in different
thicknesses at any given fire exposure time.
Fig 3.14 Comparison of temperature history of Carbonate and Siliceous aggregate
concrete slab of 175mm thickness at different depth
Results from the thermal analysis study of carbonate aggregate and
siliceous aggregate concrete slab using ANSYS model were used to obtain the
design chart shown in Fig 3.15 and Fig 3.16. The design chart gives time
dependent temperature of a slab at different thickness.Temperature variation at
any point in a slab for the particular time can be obtained from this design chart.
The curves are generated with an interval of 30 minutes with the last curve drawn
for 4hours. It can be seen that initially the rate of increase in temperature is more
and subsequently it reduces with time. The design chart is useful to design a
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
(
0
C
)
Time in min
5mm
20mm
25mm
50mm
75mm
100mm
5mm
20mm
25mm
50mm
75mm
100mm
Carbonaceous
Siliceous
41
structural element for fire resistance applying performance based approach and by
using simple calculation methods.
Fig 3.15 Temperature profile in 175mm thick carbonate aggregate concrete slab
Fig 3.16 Temperature profile in 175mm thick siliceous aggregate concrete slab
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
(
0
C
)
Distance from exposed surface in mm
30 min
60 min
90 min
120min
150min
180min
210min
240min
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
(
0
C
)
Distance from exposed surface in mm
30min
60min
90min
150min
180min
210min
240min
42
3.3.6 Determination of Fire Ratings
For the nonexposed surface temperatures, the average heat transmission
criterion of temperature rise of 140
0
C above ambient(insulation criteria) was used
as the end point condition that determines slab fire resistance ratings. Variation of
top surface temperature of slabs (thickness 180mm and 200mm) with time is
shown in Fig 3.17. The fire rating is the time when the the top surface temperature
reaches 160
0
C. So for 180 mm thick slab, fire rating is 228 minute. In this way
fire rating can be determined for slabs of any thickness based on this insulation
criteria.
Fig 3.17 Temperature profile of 180mm and 200mm thick slab
IS456:2000 and Eurocode2 specifies minimum thickness and nominal
cover of slab to meet different period of fire exposure which is shown in
Table3.7.All the thickness specified in IS456:2000 and Eurocode2 are analysed
and results has been used to validate available minimum dimensions specified in
codes. Results obtained from ANSYS13 analysis are compared with IS456:2000
fire rating in Table3.7.
228
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
(
0
C
)
Time (min)
200 mm thick slab
180 mm thick slab
43
Table 3.7 Comparison of ANSYS13 Results with IS456:2000 Fire Ratings
Thickness
(mm)
Concrete
Cover
(mm)
IS456:2000
fire rating
(min)
ANSYS result
Carbonaceous
aggregate
concrete
Siliceous
aggregate
concrete
75 15 30 56 50
95 20 60 78 70
110 25 90 98 87
125 35 120 119 105
150 45 180 158 139
170 55 240 206 180
Fire rating predicted from numerical analysis is more than IS456:2000 fire rating
for slabs of thickness up to 125mm. For slabs of thickness 150 and 170mm
thickness fire rating predicted from numerical analysis is less than that of
IS456:2000. As per ANSYS13 analysis 150 mm thick slab is not sufficient to
withstand 1.5hour fire exposure. But in IS456:2000,Cl.21.3.1 specifies that
additional measures such as application of fire resistant finishes, provision of fire
resistant false ceilings should be adopted in case of the nominal cover required
exceeds 35 mm for slabs, to give protection against spalling. This may be the
reason for discrepancy in result for that two slab thicknesses.
Results obtained from ANSYS analysis is compared with Eurocode2 fire rating in
Table3.8.
44
Table 3.8 Comparison of ANSYS13 Result with Eurocode2 Fire ratings
Thickness
(mm)
Eurocode2
fire rating
(min)
ANSYS fire rating (min) Factor
Carbonaceous Siliceous Carbonaceous Siliceous
90 60 70 63 1.17 1.06
120 90 111 98 1.2 1.0
160 120 175 153 1.46 1.27
200 180 251 218 1.39 1.2
280 240 308 308 1.28 1.28
Average Factor 1.3 1.16
Fire rating predicted from numerical analysis is more than Eurocode2 fire rating
for all slab thickness. Fire rating is more for carbonaceous aggregate than
siliceous aggregate. Fire rating predicted from numerical analysis to Eurocode2
fire rating ratio varies from 1.0 to 1.3 for siliceous aggregate and from1.2 to 1.46
for carbonaceous aggregate. The average fire rating factor is 1.3 for carbonate
aggregate and 1.16 for siliceous aggregate concrete.
3.4. DETERMINATION OF MOMENT CAPACITY USING EUROCODE2
The two simplified methods i.e., 500
0
C isotherm method and zone method
specified in Eurocode2 are compared by analysing a 2.5m span simply supported
slab of 200mm thickness. The details of slab are given below.
Slab Details
Slab span L=2.5m, Slab thickness h=100mm, Concrete density =25kN/m
3
,
Concrete strength f
ck
=30 MPa, Yield stress f
y
=300 MPa, Bar diameter D
b
=10mm,
Bottom cover C
v
=15mm, bars are spaced at 125mm distance.
Analyse a 1m wide strip b=1000mm
Selfweight w
sw
= hb=2.5kN/m
45
Live load w
LL
=2.5 kN/m
Total dead load w
DL
=0.5+2.5=3kN/m
Steel area A
s
=393mm
2
d=hC
v
D
b
/2=80mm
C
e
=C
v
+D
b
/2=20mm
Fire calculation
Reduction in steel strength calculation is same for both the methods, which
is determined as follows.
Design Load, w
f
=w
DL
+0.5w
LL
=3+0.52.5=4.25kN/m
Bending moment M
*
fire
=
8
2
l w
f
=
8
5 . 2 25 . 4
2
=3.32kNm
After 60 min of standard fire exposure
t=60 min
t
h
=1 hr
Fire temperature ) 1 8 log( 345 20 + + = t T
f
(3.11)
=945
0
C
Surface temperature
f h W
T t T ] 0616 . 0 1 [
88 . 0
=
(3.12)
= 945 ] 0 . 1 0616 . 0 1 [
88 . 0
=887
0
C
Concrete temperature
W
e
h
C
T
C
t
T ] 81 . 0 ) ln( 18 . 0 [
2
=
(3.13)
46
887 ] 81 . 0 )
02 . 0
0 . 1
ln( 18 . 0 [
2
=
C
T
=530.7
0
C
Steel temperature T
s
=T
c
=530.7
0
C
Reduced yield stress
470
) 720 (
,
S y
T y
T f
f
=
(3.14)
470
) 7 . 530 720 ( 300
=
=121 N/mm
2
500
0
C Isotherm Method
Position of neutral axis,
f ck
T y t S
u
b f
f A
x
55 . 0
,
=
(3.15)
1000 30 55 . 0
121 393
=
=2.882 mm
Moment of resistance, ) 42 . 0 (
, u T y St nf
x d f A M =
(3.16)
) 882 . 2 42 . 0 80 ( 121 393 =
= 3.75 kNm
Zone Method
The slab is exposed to one side fire exposure only. So the thickness is assumed as
100 mm as per Annex B.2.3 of Eurocode2. The half thickness slab is divided into
4 parallel zones of equal thickness as shown in Fig 3.18.
47
Fig 3.18 Division of slab into four equal zones
Calculation of strength reduction factor for the middle of each zone.
(a)Zone1@ x=12.5mm
Temperature, T=635
0
C (from figure A2 EN1992122004)
Strength reduction factor k
c
(
1
) for temperature 635
0
C is 0.3975 (from Table3.1
EN1992122004).
Similarly,
(b) Zone2@ x=37.5mm
Temperature, T=330
0
C (from figure A2 :EN1992122004)
Strength reduction factor k
c
(
2
) =0.82
(c) Zone3@ x=62.5mm
Temperature, T=170
0
C (from figure A2: EN1992122004)
Strength reduction factor k
c
(
3
) =0.965
(d) Zone4@ x=87.5mm
100 mm
k
c
(
M
)
k
c
(
1
)
k
c
(
2
)
k
c
(
4
)
k
c
(
3
)
48
Temperature, T=80
0
C (from figure A2 :EN1992122004)
Strength reduction factor k
c
(
4
) =1.0
The mean reduction factor k
c,m
for a particular section is
n=4
+ + +
= ) 0 . 1 965 . 0 82 . 0 3975 . 0 (
4
)
4
2 . 0
1 (
,m c
k
=0.75584.
The width of the damaged zone (a
z
) for slab is determined using the equation 3.2.
k
c
(
m
),the strength reduction factor at midpoint is obtained as 0.97 from figure B.5
of EN199212:2004.
]
97 . 0
75584 . 0
1 [ 100 =
Z
a
=22.1 mm.
So the effective depth d=10022.1 =77.99mm.
Position of neutral axis,
f ck
T y t S
u
b f
f A
x
55 . 0
,
=
1000 30 55 . 0
121 393
=
=2.882 mm
Moment of resistance, ) 42 . 0 (
, u T y S nf
x d f A M =
) 882 . 2 42 . 0 99 . 77 ( 121 393 =
=3.65 kNm
49
By assuming zone method is more accurate than 500
0
C Isotherm method,
the zone method underestimates the bending strength of slab by 2.7%.
3.5 DESIGN OF A ONE WAY SLAB
Design a oneway slab, with a clear span of 3.0 m, simply supported on 230 mm
thick masonry walls, and subjected to a live load of 4 kN/m
2
and a surface finish
of 1 kN/m
2
for
(a) 1 hour IS0834 fire exposure
(b) 1.5 hour IS0834 fire exposure, Assume Fe 415 steel and f
ck
=25 MPa
Calculation of M
n
Assume an effective depth, mm d 120
25
3000
= =
and an overall depth, D = 120 + 30 = 150mm
Effective span
= +
= +
=
mm
mm
l
3120 120 3000
3230 230 3000
Taking the lesser values (IS456:2000), m l 12 . 3 =
Distributed load due to selfweight,
2
/ 75 . 3 15 . 0 25 m kN w
sw
= = A
2
/ 75 . 4 0 . 1 75 . 3 m kN w
DL
= + =
2
/ 0 . 4 m kN w
LL
=
Factored load (IS456:2000): ) ( 5 . 1
LL DL u
w w w + =
2
/ 125 . 13 ) 0 . 4 75 . 4 ( 5 . 1 m kN = + =
Factored moment (maximum at mid span)
m kNm wl M
n
/ 97 . 15 8 / 12 . 3 125 . 13 8 /
2 2
= = =
50
Calculation of A
st
(main bars)
( )
u u ck n
x d bx f M 42 . 0 36 . 0 =
(3.17)
Rearranging this equation
0
36 . 0
42 . 0
2
2
= + 
.

\


.

\

bd f
Mn
d
x
d
x
ck
u u
(3.18)
which is a quadratic equation, whose solution gives;
13 . 0 =
d
x
u
6 . 15 =
u
x mm
( )

.

\

=
d
x
d f
M
A
u
y
n
reqd st
42 . 0 1 87 . 0
(3.19)
=389 mm
2
/mm
Spacing of bars s=
st
b
A
A 1000
(3.20)
Assuming 10mm diameter bars,
2
2
5 . 78
4
10
mm A
b
=
=
t
Spacing of main reinforcement mm S
reqd
202
389
5 . 78 1000
=
=
Maximum spacing limits (as per IS456:2000 Cl.26.3.3),
3d=3120=360 mm or 300mm (whichever is less)
Provide 10 at 200mm c/c for main reinforcement.
51
Calculation of A
st
(Distribution bars)
(A
st
)
dist
=0.0012bD (as per Cl.26.5.2.1  IS456:2000)
=0.00121000150
= 180 mm
2
/m
Assuming 8mm diameter bars,
2
2
3 . 50
4
8
mm A
b
=
=
t
Spacing of distribution bard, mm S
reqd
277
180
50 1000
=
=
Maximum spacing limits
5d=5120=600 mm or 450mm (whichever is less)
Provide 8 at 250mm c/c for distribution bars.
Strength check
Providing a clear cover of 25mm
Therefore effective depth, d =1502510/2=120mm
m mm A
st
/ 5 . 392
200
5 . 78 1000
2
=
=
32 . 0
120 1000
5 . 392 100
=
=
t
P < P
t,lim
=1.2.
(a)For 1 hour fire exposure
Design fire load,
) 5 . 0 ( 5 . 1
LL DL f
w w w + =
2
/ 125 . 10 ) 0 . 4 5 . 0 75 . 4 ( 5 . 1 m kN = + =
Bending moment M
*
fire
=
8
2
l w
f
=
8
12 . 3 125 . 10
2
=12.32kNm
52
After 60 min of standard fire exposure
t=60 min
t
h
=1 hr
Fire temperature ) 1 8 log( 345 20 + + = t T
f
=945
0
C
Surface temperature
f h W
T t T ] 0616 . 0 1 [
88 . 0
=
= 945 ] 0 . 1 0616 . 0 1 [
88 . 0
=887
0
C
Concrete temperature
W
e
h
C
T
C
t
T ] 81 . 0 ) ln( 18 . 0 [
2
=
887 ] 81 . 0 )
03 . 0
0 . 1
ln( 18 . 0 [
2
=
C
T
=401
0
C
Steel temperature T
s
=T
c
=401
0
C
Reduced yield stress
470
) 720 (
,
S y
T y
T f
f
=
470
) 401 720 ( 415
=
=281.67 N/mm
2
Position of neutral axis,
f ck
T y t S
u
b f
f A
x
55 . 0
,
=
1000 25 55 . 0
67 . 281 5 . 392
=
=8.04 mm
Moment of resistance, ) 42 . 0 (
, u T y St nf
x d f A M =
53
) 04 . 8 42 . 0 120 ( 67 . 281 5 . 392 =
=12.9 kNm. > M
n
=12.32 kNm, design is safe.
Therefore for 1 hour fire exposure, provide a 150mm thick slab with 25mm
nominal cover to reinforcement. Provide 10mm bars at 200mmc/c for main
reinforcement and 8mm bars at 250mm c/c as distribuion bars. Alternate bars of
the main reinforcement are bent up(cranked) near the supports at a distance of 0.1l
from the support in order to resist any flexural tension that may possibly arise on
account of partial fixity at the support(Fig 3.19).
Fig 3.19 Details of one way slab1 hour fire exposure
(b)For 1.5 hour fire exposure
Design fire load,
) 5 . 0 ( 5 . 1
LL DL f
w w w + =
2
/ 125 . 10 ) 0 . 4 5 . 0 75 . 4 ( 5 . 1 m kN = + =
Bending moment M
*
fire
=
8
2
l w
f
=
8
12 . 3 125 . 10
2
=12.32kNm
After 90 min of standard fire exposure
t=90 min
150 mm
8 bars at 250mm c/c(distributors)
10 bars at 200mmc/c (alternate
bars bent up)
10 bars at 400mm c/c
S/2=125mm
230mm
310
54
t
h
=1.5 hr
Fire temperature ) 1 8 log( 345 20 + + = t T
f
=1006
0
C
Surface temperature
f h W
T t T ] 0616 . 0 1 [
88 . 0
=
= 1006 ] 5 . 1 0616 . 0 1 [
88 . 0
=962.6
0
C
Concrete temperature
W
e
h
C
T
C
t
T ] 81 . 0 ) ln( 18 . 0 [
2
=
6 . 962 ] 81 . 0 )
03 . 0
5 . 1
ln( 18 . 0 [
2
=
C
T
=505.69
0
C
Steel temperature T
s
=T
c
=505.69
0
C
Reduced yield stress
470
) 720 (
,
S y
T y
T f
f
=
470
) 69 . 505 720 ( 415
=
=189.23 N/mm
2
Position of neutral axis,
1000 25 55 . 0
23 . 189 5 . 392
=
u
x
=5.4 mm
Moment of resistance, ) 4 . 5 42 . 0 120 ( 23 . 189 5 . 392 =
nf
M
=8.7 kNm. < M
n
=12.32 kNm, so redesign.
Main reinforcement are provided at 150mm c/c spacing.
Now, m mm A
st
/ 33 . 523
150
5 . 78 1000
2
=
=
55
1000 25 55 . 0
23 . 189 33 . 523
=
u
x
=7.2 mm
) 2 . 7 42 . 0 120 ( 23 . 189 33 . 523 =
nf
M
=11.58 kNm. < M
n
=12.32 kNm, not safe.
clear cover is increased to 30 mm and provide main reinforcement bars at
150mmc/c.
Now,
6 . 962 ] 81 . 0 )
035 . 0
5 . 1
ln( 18 . 0 [
2
=
C
T
= 452.27
0
C
Steel temperature T
s
=T
c
=452.27
0
C
470
) 27 . 452 720 ( 415
,
=
T y
f
=236.39 N/mm
2
Position of neutral axis,
1000 25 55 . 0
39 . 236 33 . 523
=
u
x
=8.99 mm
Moment of resistance, ) 99 . 8 42 . 0 115 ( 39 . 236 33 . 523 =
nf
M
=13.75kNm. > M
n
=12.32 kNm, so design is safe.
Therefore for 1.5 hour fire exposure, provide a 150mm thick slab with 30mm
nominal cover to reinforcement. Provide 10mm bars at 150mmc/c for main
reinforcement and 8mm bars at 250mm c/c as distribuion bars. Alternate bars of
the main reinforcement are bent up(cranked) near the supports at a distance of
0.1l=320mm from the support in order to resist any flexural tension that may
possibly arise on account of partial fixity at the support. Details ofslab is shown in
Fig3.20.
56
Fig 3.20 Details of one way slab1.5 hour fire exposure
3.6 SUMMARY
Recommendations and various design methods for the fire resistant design
of slabs specified in various codes namely IS456:2000, ACI216197 and
EN199212:2004(Eurocode2) are compared. It is observed that, the thermal and
mechanical properties of concrete and steel vary significantly with temperature
with large decrease in strength of concrete once the temperature exceeds 500
0
C.
Temperature profiles generated for slabs of various thickness show good
agreement with the Eurocode2 temperature profiles. The design charts prepared
for carbonaceous and siliceous aggregate concrete slab is useful to design a
structural element for fire resistance applying performance based approach and by
using simple calculation methods. Fire rating of slabs of various thickness are
determined using ANSYS13 and is compared with IS456:2000 and Eurocode2
fire ratings. From the comparison it is inferred that, fire rating predicted from
numerical analysis is more than IS456:2000 fire rating for slabs of thickness up to
125mm and ANSYS fire rating is more than Eurocode2 fire rating for all slab
thickness. It is also observed that fire rating is more for carbonaceous aggregate
concrete slabs than siliceous aggregate concrete slabs. Fire rating predicted from
numerical analysis to Eurocode2 fire rating ratio varies from 1.0 to 1.3 for
siliceous aggregate concrete slab and from1.2 to 1.46 for carbonaceous aggregate
concrete slab. Moment capacity of a typical simply supported slab of known
150 mm
8 bars at 250mm c/c(distributors)
10 bars at 150mmc/c (alternate
bars bent up)
10 bars at 300mm c/c
S/2=125
230mm
310
57
dimension and detailing is determined using zone method and 500
0
C isotherm
method specified in Eurocode2. It is observed that zone method is more accurate.
The zone method underestimates the bending strength of slab by 2.7%. A simply
supported slab is designed for 1 hour and 1.5 hour fire exposure.
.
58
CHAPTER 4
FIRE RESISTANT DESIGN OF BEAMS
4.1GENERAL
All the beam dimensions specified in Eurocode2 temperature profiles are
prepared. Fire ratings are determined for beam dimensions specified in
IS456:2000. A simply supported beam of known geometry and material properties
are then analysed using two methods specified in Eurocode2.
4.2 BRIEF REVIEW OF CODE PROVISIONS
IS456:2000 provides minimum width of beam and separate nominal cover
requirement for simply supported and continuous beams required for different fire
resistance which is shown in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 Minimum dimension and nominal cover to meet specified period of fire
resistance for RCC beam (IS456:2000)
Fire
Resistance
(min)
Minimum
beam width
(mm)
Nominal cover(mm)
Simply
supported
Continuous
30 200 20 20
60 200 20 20
90 200 20 20
120 200 40 30
180 240 60 40
240 280 70 50
59
Eurocode 2, Part 12: Structural fire design also gives a choice of
advanced, simplified or tabular methods for determining the fire resistance of
beam similar to slabs. The tables have been developed on an empirical basis and
are confirmed by experience and theoretical evaluation of tests and which gives
recognised design solutions for the standard fire exposure up to 240 minutes. The
values given in the tables can be apply to normal weight concrete (2000 to 2600
kg/m
3
), made with siliceous aggregates. Code specifies to reduce the minimum
dimension of the crosssection of beams and slabs by 10% for calcareous
aggregates or lightweight aggregates concrete. No further checks are required
concerning shear, torsion capacity, anchorage details and spalling, except for
surface reinforcement.
Calculated temperature profiles are provided in Annex A of Eurocode2 for
the fire resistant design of beams. Temperature profile gives temperature
distribution across quarter cross section of beam by taking symmetry into account.
Fig 4.1 shows how the temperature profiles represent the temperature in the cross
section of beams and columns by taking symmetry into account. In figure, area 2
represents full cross section of beam and area1 represents area for which
temperature profiles provided in Eurocode2. As an illustration temperature profile
of 160mm 300mm beam for 30 and 60minute fire exposure is given in Fig 4.2.
Fig 4.1 Area of crosssection for which the temperature profiles presented
in Eurocode2
60
(a) For 30 minute fire exposure (b)For60 minute fire exposure
Fig4.2 Temperature profile of 160mm 300mm beam(AnnexA of Eurocode2)
4.3 THERMAL ANALYSIS USING FINITE ELEMENT SOFTWARE
The ANSYS13 finite element model and material properties used for the
analysis of beams are same as that of slabs.
4.3.1Development of Temperature Profile
Temperature profiles for all beam cross sections provided in Eurocode2
are developed. Beams are meshed into 10 mm 10mm grid. Finite element mesh
for 280 560 mm beam is shown below in Fig 4.3. Some of the resulting
temperature profiles are shown below in Fig 4.4, Fig 4.5 and Fig 4.6.
61
Fig 4.3 Finite element mesh for 240 560mm beam
62
(a)after 0.5 hour fire exposure (b)after 1 hour fire exposure
(c)after 2 hour fire exposure (d)after 3 hour fire exposure
Fig 4.4 Temperature profile of 200 400 mm beam for various time exposures
63
(a)after 0.5 hour fire exposure (b)after 1 hour fire exposure
(c)after 2 hour fire exposure (d)after 3 hour fire exposure
Fig 4.5 Temperature profile of 240 480 mm beam for various time exposures
64
(a)after 0.5 hour fire exposure (b)after 1 hour fire exposure
(c)after 2 hour fire exposure
(d)after 3 hour fire exposure
Fig 4.6 Temperature profile of 280 560 mm beam for various time exposures
65
4.3.2Determination of Fire Rating
The developed model generates temperature at each node at various fire
exposures as one of the output parameter. This output parameter is used to check
against predefined failure criteria. The temperature in tension reinforcement bars
exceeds the critical temperature; 593
0
C is used as the failure criteria. At every
time step, this failure criteria is checked to determine the fire rating.
In IS456:2000, only minimum width (B) required and minimum nominal
cover of reinforcement to withstand different period of fire exposure is specified.
IS456:2000 fire rating is shown in Table4.1. There is no mention about depth (D)
of beam required. Therefore B/D ratio is varied from 1 to 3 and corresponding fire
resistance rating is determined for each IS456:2000 specified minimum width.
Results are shown in Table 4.2. It is evident that there is no difference in fire
rating with depth increase for a particular beam width. Therefore a B/D ratio of 2
is used for further calculation. All the width specified in IS456:2000 is analysed
and results are shown in Table 4.3.
Table 4.2 Fire rating of beam with different B/D ratio
Width(mm) Depth(mm) Cover(mm) Fire
rating(min)
200
200
40
124
400 123
600 124
240
240
60
177
480 178
720 177
66
Table 4.3 Comparison of beam fire ratings ANSYS result with IS456:2000 fire
rating
Beam
dimension
Cover in mm ANSYS fire
rating(min)
IS456:2000 fire
rating(min)
200 400
20 80
120
30 102
40 124
240 480
40 129
180
50 153
60 178
280 560 70 212 240
80 238
For 90 minute time exposure IS456:2000 specified minimum width of beam is
200mm and minimum cover required is 20mm.but results obtained from
numerical analysis shows that 20mm cover is not sufficient to withstand 90
minute fire exposure. Minimum 30 mm nominal cover is required. For 240 minute
fire exposure 280mm wide beam and 40 mm nominal cover to reinforcement is
sufficient.
4.4. DETERMINATION OF MOMENT CAPACITY USING EUROCODE2
For a simply supported reinforced concrete beam with known span, load,
geometry and reinforcement, moment resistance after 90 minutes exposure to the
standard fire is determined using two methods specified in EN19921:2004.
67
Fig 4.7Details of beam
Known details of slabs are
Beam span, L = 10.0 m, Beam width, b = 400 mm, Beam depth, h = 800 mm,
Bottom cover, C
v
= 25 mm, Bar diameter, D
b
= 32 mm, Number of bars, n = 8 (2
rows of four bars), Area of one bar, A
S1
= 804 mm
2
, Total steel area, A
st
=6434
mm
2
, Concrete density = 24 kN/m
3
, Concrete compressive strength f
ck
= 30 MPa,
Steel yield stress, f
y
= 300 MPa
Effective depth, 1.5D  C  h = d
b v
= 8002548 = 727 mm
Dead load, w
DL
= 6.0 kN/m (excluding selfweight)
Live load, w
LL
= 10 kN/m
Selfweight, w
SW
= bh = 240.40.8 = 7.7 kN/m.
Total dead load, = 6.0 + 7.7 = 13.7 kN/m
68
Room temperature calculations
Depth of neutral axis,
b f
A f
x
ck
st y
u
=
36 . 0
87 . 0
400 30 36 . 0
6434 300 87 . 0
= =388.72 mm.
Bending strength, ) 42 . 0 ( 87 . 0
u st y n
X d A f M =
= ) 72 . 42388 . 0 727 ( 6434 300 87 . 0
=947kNm.
Design load, w
u
= 1.5(w
DL
)+ w
LL
= 1.5(6+7.7)+10
= 30.55 kN/m
Bending moment, M*
rt
=
8
2
l w
u
= 381.8kNm.
Fire calculations
Design load (fire), w
f
= w
DL
+ 0.5w
LL
= 6.0 + 7.7 + 0.5 10
= 18.7 kN/m
Bending moment, M*
fire
=
8
2
l w
f
=
8
10 18.7
2
= 234kNm
Fire duration, t = 90 minutes
69
500
0
C Isotherm Method
Depth of 500
0
C isotherm C
f
=33 mm
Reduced width, b
f
= b 2C
f
= 400233
= 334 mm
500
0
C isotherm method assumes that the concrete with temperature above 500
0
C
has no compressive strength and concrete below 500
0
C has full compressive
strength.
Steel temperature from the isotherm provided in EN 199212:2004 fig A.9.
Bar group (1) 450
0
C (C
x
=147 mm C
y
=41 mm)
Bar group (2) < 200
0
C (C
x
=147 mm C
y
=105 mm)
Bar group (3) 580
0
C (C
x
=41 mm C
y
=41 mm)
Reduced yield strength of reinforcing bars at elevated temperatures is (using
equation 3.14)
470
) 450 720 ( 300
1
,
=
T y
f = 172 MPa
MPa f
T y
300
2
,
=
470
) 580 720 ( 300
3
,
=
T y
f =89 MPa
) f A 2 + f A 2 + f A 4 (
3 1
T y, s1 2 T y, s1 T y, s1 .
=
T y ST
f A
= 804 ( 4172 + 2300 + 289)/1000
= 1179 kN
70
Fig4.8 Stress distribution
From figure 4.8
Position of neutral axis,
f ck
T y t S
u
b f
f A
x
55 . 0
,
=
=
334 30 55 . 0
1000 1179
=213.93mm
Reduced depth, d
f
= dC
f
=80033
=767mm
Moment of resistance, ( )
u T y t S nf
x d f A M 42 . 0
,
=
( ) 93 . 213 42 . 0 767 1000 1179 =
=798 kNm.
M*
fire
< M
nf
.so design is safe
The beam is exposed to three side fire exposure. Therefore width of damaged zone
for depth and width is determined separately and modified cross section is used
C
0.55 f
ck
x
u
b
T
S
=f
y
A
st
71
for further calculation. Therefore depth 800mm is divided into n=8 zones (Fig 4.9)
and half width 200mm is divided into n=4 parallel zones (Fig 4.10).
Fig 4.9 Division of beam width into four equal zones
Calculation of strength reduction factor for the middle of each zone.
(a)Zone1@ x=25mm
Temperature, T=600
0
C (from figure A9 EN1992122004)
Strength reduction factor k
c
(
1
) for temperature 600
0
C is 0.45 (from Table3.1
EN1992122004).
Similarly,
(b) Zone2@ x=75mm
Temperature, T=220
0
C (from figure A9 :EN1992122004)
Strength reduction factor k
c
(
2
) =0.93
(c) Zone3@ x=125mm
Temperature, T=100
0
C (from figure A9: EN1992122004)
Strength reduction factor k
c
(
3
) =1.0
(d) Zone4@ x=175mm
Temperature, T=70
0
C (from figure A9 :EN1992122004)
Strength reduction factor k
c
(
4
) =1.0
k
c
(
1
)
k
c
(
2
)
k
c
(
M
)
k
c
(
4
)
k
c
(
3
)
200 mm 200 mm
72
The mean reduction factor k
c,m
for a particular section is
n=4
+ + +
= ) 0 . 1 0 . 1 93 . 0 45 . 0 (
4
)
4
2 . 0
1 (
,m c
k
=0.803
The width of the damaged zone (a
z
) for beam width is determined using the
equation 3.4
k
c
(
m
),the strength reduction factor at midpoint is obtained as 1.0 from figure B.5
of EN199212:2004.
]
0 . 1
803 . 0
1 [ 200 =
Z
a
=39.4 mm.
So the effective width = (400239.4) =321.2mm.
Fig 4.10 Division of beam depth into eight equal zones
Calculation of strength reduction factor for the middle of each zone.
(a)Zone1@ x=50mm
Temperature, T=350
0
C (from figure A9 EN1992122004)
k
c
(
1
)
k
c
(
2
)
k
c
(
4
)
k
c
(
3
)
k
c
(
6
)
k
c
(
8
)
k
c
(
7
) k
c
(
5
)
73
Strength reduction factor k
c
(
1
) for temperature 350
0
C is 0.8 (from Table3.1
EN1992122004).
For all other zones temperature at midsection is less than 100
0
C. so strength
reduction factor is 1.0
The mean reduction factor k
c,m
for a particular section is
n=8
= ) 7 0 . 1 8 .. 0 (
8
)
8
2 . 0
1 (
,m c
k
=0.95
The width of the damaged zone (a
z
) for beam depth is determined using the
equation 3.2.
k
c
(
m
),the strength reduction factor at midpoint is obtained as 1.0 from figure B.5
of EN199212:2004.
]
0 . 1
95 . 0
1 [ 800 =
Z
a
=39.5 mm.
So the reduced depth = (80039.5) =760.5mm.
The remaining design procedure is similar to the normal temperature
design procedure.
Position of neutral axis,
f ck
T y t S
u
b f
f A
x
55 . 0
,
=
=
2 . 321 30 55 . 0
1000 1179
=222.46mm
Moment of resistance, ( )
u T y t S nf
x d f A M 42 . 0
,
=
( ) 46 . 222 42 . 0 5 . 760 1000 1179 =
74
=786.5 kNm.
By assuming zone method is more accurate than 500
0
C Isotherm method,
the zone method overestimates the bending strength of beam by 1.46%.
4.4.1Parametric Study
Effect of concrete cover thickness on the fire resistant design is studied by varying
the concrete cover thickness from 25mm to 30, 40, 50 and 60mm for various time
exposures. Reinforcement bar temperature and corresponding bending strength are
calculated using 500
0
C isotherm method which is graphically represented below
in Fig 4.11 and Fig 4.12. It is observed that for 90 min time exposure increase in
clear cover thickness has significant effect on the bending strength (fire
calculation). However for 120 minute fire exposure, there is not such effect. It is
also observed that, for 180 minute fire exposure there is an adverse effect of
increase in concrete cover thickness on bending strength. Beyond 30 mm clear
cover thickness bending strength has decreased for this time exposure. Table 4.4
shows the variation of bending strength with concrete cover thickness for different
time of exposure. This is the observed trend for this particular beam. This trend
will vary with width of beam.
75
Table 4.4 Variation of bending strength with increase in concrete cover thickness
for different time of exposure
Time of
exposure
in min
Clear
cover
in mm
Room temperature
calculation (kNm)
Fire calculation(kNm)
BM(M*
rt
) Bending
Strength(M
n
)
BM(M*
fire
) Bending
Strength(M
nf
)
90 min
25 413 947 249 776
30 413 938 249 864
40 413 921 249 984
50 413 905 249 1075
60 413 888 249 1088
120 min
25 413 947 249 543
30 413 938 249 563
40 413 921 249 604
50 413 905 249 622
60 413 888 249 610
180 min
25 413 947 249 237
30 413 938 249 261
40 413 921 249 228
50 413 905 249 201
60 413 888 249 34
76
Fig 4.11 Concrete clear cover thickness versus M
nf
/M
n
Fig 4.12 Concrete clear cover thickness versus M
nf
4.5 SUMMARY
From the brief review of code provision, it is observed that IS456:2000
provides only minimum width and minimum clear cover required for different fire
exposures. Eurocode2 provide detailed design methods in addition to minimum
recommendations. Temperature profiles developed for beams of different cross
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
15 25 35 45 55 65
M
n
f
/
M
n
Concrete cover thickness in mm
90 min
120 min
180 min
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
15 25 35 45 55 65
M
n
f
(
k
N
m
)
Clear cover in mm
90 min
120 min
180 min
77
sections using ANSYS13 shows good agreement with the Eurocode2 temperature
profiles. It is observed that there is no difference in fire rating with depth increase
for a particular beam width. From the comparison of ANSYS13 result with
IS456:2000fire rating, it is observed that 200mm wide beam with 20mm nominal
cover to reinforcement is not sufficient to withstand 90 minute fire exposure.
Minimum 30 mm nominal cover is required. Moment capacity of a typical simply
supported beam of known dimension and detailing is determined using zone
method and 500
0
C isotherm method specified in Eurocode2. It is observed that
zone method is more accurate. The zone method overestimates the bending
strength of beam by 1.46%. A parametric study is carried out on this beam by
varying clear cover. It is observed that beyond 120 minute fire exposure there is
no favourable variation in flexural strength for the studied beam.
78
CHAPTER 5
FIRE RESISTANT DESIGN OF COLUMNS
5.1GENERAL
All the column dimensions specified in Eurocode2 temperature profiles are
analysed. Fire ratings are determined for column dimensions specified in IS456:2000.
A column of known geometry and material properties are then analysed using two
methods specified in Eurocode2.
5.2 BRIEF REVIEW OF CODE PROVISIONS
IS456:2000 provides minimum column dimensions and nominal cover to
reinforcement to meet desired fire resistance for one side, 50% and four side fire
exposed conditions as shown in Table5.1
Table 5.1 IS456:2000 specified minimum dimension and nominal cover to meet
specified period of fire resistance for RCC column
Fire Resistance
(min)
Column dimension B or D(mm)
Nominal
cover(mm)
Fully
exposed
50%
exposed
One face
exposed
30 150 125 100 40
60 200 160 120 40
90 250 200 140 40
120 300 200 160 40
180 400 300 200 40
240 450 350 240 40
79
Eurocode2 provides minimum dimensions and recommendations for columns
similar to slabs and beams. Tabulated data is given only for braced structures. The
minimum values of the column dimensions specified in Eurocode2 are valid under the
following conditions only.
a) Effective length of the column under fire condition is less than or equal to 3m.
(The effective length of a column under fire conditions l
o,fi
may be assumed to
be equal to l
o,
at normal temperature in all cases. For braced building structures
where the required Standard fire exposure is higher than 30 minutes, the
effective length l
o,fi
may be taken as 0.5 l for intermediate floors and 0.5 l l
o,fi
0.7l for the upper floor, where l is the actual centre to centre length of the
column).
b) First order eccentricity under fire conditions in less than maximum column
eccentricity (specified in National Annex)
c) Amount of reinforcement is less than 4% of total column area.
Eurocode 2(Cl.5.3.2) introduces a reduction factor,
fi,
(ratio of design axial
load in the fire situation to the design fire resistance of column at normal temperature
conditions)
for the design load level in the fire situation, for accounts the load
combinations, compressive strength of the column and bending including second order
effects.Eurocode2 provides minimum column dimensions and axis distances for
columns with rectangular or circular section for different design load level in the fire
situation which is shown in Table5.2.
80
Table 5.2 Eurocode2 recommended minimum column dimensions and axis distances
for columns with rectangular or circular section
Standard fire
resistance(min)
Minimum dimensions (mm)
Column width b
min
and axis distance a of the main bars
Column exposed on more than one side
Exposed on
one side
fi
= 0.7
fi
= 0.5
fi
= 0.7
fi
= 0.7
30
200
25
200
25
200
300
32
27
155
25
60 200 25
200
300
36
31
250
350
46
40
155 25
90
200
300
31
25
300
400
45
38
350
450
53
40
155 25
120
250
350
40
35
350
450
45
40
350
450
57
51
175 35
180 350 45 350 63 450 70 230 55
240 350 61 450 75   295 70
Eurocode 2 also provides temperature profile for 300mm 300mm rectangular
and circular columns for fire exposures of 30,60,90 and 120 minutes. As an illustration
temperature profile for 120 minute fire exposure is shown in Fig.5.1
81
Fig 5.1 Eurocode2 Temperature profile for 300 300mm column for 120 minute fire
exposure
5.3 THERMAL ANALYSIS USING ANSYS SOFTWARE AND RESULTS
The ANSYS finite element model and material properties used for the analysis
of columns are same as that of slabs.
5.3.1 Development of Temperature Profile
Eurocode 2 provides temperature profile for 300mm 300mm size column for
four different fire exposures. 300 mm 300mm size column is modelled in ANSYS
and is then meshed into 10 mm 10mm grid. All the four temperature profiles
provided in Eurocode2 is developed which is shown below in Fig 5.2, 5.3, 5.4and 5.5.
82
Fig 5.2 Temperature profile of 300 300mm column for 30 min time exposure
Fig 5.3 Temperature profile of 300 300mm column for 60 min time exposure
83
Fig 5.4 Temperature profile of 300 300 mm column for 90 min time exposure
Fig 5.5 Temperature profile of 300 300 mm column for 120 min time exposure
84
(a)after 0.5 hour fire exposure (b)after 1 hour fire exposure
(c)after 2 hour fire exposure (d)after 3 hour fire exposure
Fig 5.6 Temperature profile of 150 150 mm column for various time exposures
85
(a)after 0.5 hour fire exposure (b)after1 hour fire exposure
(c)after 2 hour fire exposure (d)after 3 hour fire exposure
Fig 5.7 Temperature profile of 400 400mm column for various time exposures
86
5.3.2Determination of Fire Rating
The model generates temperature at each node at various fire exposures as one
of the output parameter. This output parameter is used to check against predefined
failure criteria. The temperature in tension reinforcement bars exceeds the critical
temperature; 593
0
C is used as the failure criteria. At every time step this failure criteria
is checked to determine the fire rating.
IS456:2000 provides fire rating for, one side, 50% and four side fire exposed
conditions as shown in Table5.1. Fire rating for both four sides and 50% fire exposed
condition is found out using numerical analysis and is compared with IS456:2000 fire
rating as shown in Table5.3 and Table5.4.
Table 5.3 Comparison of ANSYS13 result with IS456:2000 fire rating for fully
exposed fire condition
Column
Dimension(mm)
Concrete cover
(mm)
ANSYS result
(min)
IS456:2000 fire
rating (min)
150
20 73
30
30 89
40 101
200
20 79
60
30 100
40 118
250
30 102
90 40 127
300 40 125 120
400
40 131
180 60 192
87
Table 5.4 Comparison of ANSYS13 result with IS456:2000 fire rating for
50%exposed fire condition
Column
Dimension(mm)
Concrete cover
(mm)
ANSYS
result(min)
IS456:2000 fire
rating(min)
160
20 150
60
30 168
40 183
200
20 171
120
30 197
40 219
300 40 258 180
350 40 294 240
40mm minimum cover is specified in IS456:2000 for all fire exposure
condition. But from numerical analysis it is found that for 30 minute and 60 minute
fire exposure, for the minimum specified column dimension, a 20 mm nominal
concrete cover is sufficient. For 90 minute fire exposure a 30 mm nominal cover is
sufficient. But for 240 minute fire exposure 40mm nominal cover is not sufficient for
the specified column dimension. 60mm cover is the minimum requirement as per
numerical analysis result.
Column of dimension 300mm is analyzed for different fire exposure i.e., for
one side,50% and four side exposure conditions. In 50% exposed condition, two cases
are analyzed by exposing two opposite sides and two adjacent sides of the column to
88
standard fire. The resulting temperature profile is shown in Fig 5.8 and Fig 5.9.
Obtained fire rating results are shown in Table5.5.
Fig 5.8 Temperature profile of 300300 mm column for one side and fourside fire
exposure
Fig 5.9 Temperature profile of 300300 mm column for two oppositet side and two
adjacent side fire exposure
Table 5.5 Comparison of column fire rating for different fire exposure condition
4 side fire
exposure
2 side fire exposure 1 side fire
exposure
Adjacent side Opposite side
125 131 258 308
89
5.4. DETERMINATION OF AXIAL LOAD CAPACITY USING EUROCODE2
Axial load capacity of a reinforced concrete column with known geometry,
material properties and reinforcement details after 60 minutes exposure to the standard
fire is calculated using two simplified methods specified in Eurocode2.
Fig 5.10 Column details
Known details are
Cover, C
v
= 40 mm, Bar diameter, D
b
= 20 mm, Number of bars, n =4 (on all corners),
Column width, B = 300 mm, Column depth = 300 mm, Area of one bar, A
s1
= 314
mm
2
, Total steel area, A
s
=1256 mm
2
, Concrete compressive strength f
c
= 25 MPa,
Steel yield stress, f
y
= 415 MPa
Room temperature calculations
Axial load capacity,P
u
sc y C ck u
A f A f P 67 . 0 4 . 0 + =
(5.1)
1256 415 67 . 0 300 300 25 4 . 0 + =
u
P
=1250kN
300mm
300mm
20 mm dia bar
90
Fire calculations
Time of fire exposure is 60 minute.
Determination of reduced yield strength of steel is same for both methods. Since
column is subjected to four side fire exposure and reinforcement bars are placed on the
four corners, temperature in each bar and reduced yield strength of 4 bars would be the
same.
Steel temperature from the isotherm provided in EN 199212:2004 fig A.12.
T=390
0
C
Reduced yield strength of reinforcing bars at elevated temperatures is
470
) 390 720 ( 415
,
=
T y
f = 291.38 MPa
1. Isotherm method
Depth of 500
0
C isotherm C
f
=39 mm (from EN 199212:2004 fig A.15).
Reduced dimension of column=300239
=222mm.
Axial load capacity after 60 minute fire exposure is
sc y C ck u
A f A f P 8 . 0 6 . 0 + =
(5.2)
1256 38 . 291 8 . 0 222 222 25 6 . 0 + =
u
P
=1032kN
2. Zone method
Since column is subjected to four side exposure half width is divided into n parallel
zones of equal thickness. Since it is of square cross section and subjected to four side
91
fire exposure, depth of damaged zone would be same for width and depth. Here
therefore 150mm is divided into 3 parallel zones as shown in Fig5.11.
Fig 5.11 Division of column into three equal zones
Calculation of strength reduction factor for the middle of each zone.
(a)Zone1@ x=25mm
Temperature, T=450
0
C (from figure A12 EN1992122004)
Strength reduction factor k
c
(
1
) for temperature 450
0
C is 0.675 (from Table3.1
EN1992122004).
Similarly,
(b) Zone2@ x=75mm
Temperature, T=120
0
C (from figure A12 :EN1992122004)
Strength reduction factor k
c
(
2
) =0.94
(c) Zone3@ x=125mm
Temperature, T=80
0
C (from figure A12: EN1992122004)
Strength reduction factor k
c
(
3
) =1.0
k
c
(
1
)
k
c
(
2
)
k
c
(
M
)
k
c
(
3
)
150mm
92
The mean reduction factor k
c,m
for a particular section is
n=3
+ +
= ) 0 . 1 94 . 0 675 . 0 (
3
)
3
2 . 0
1 (
,m c
k
=0.813.
The width of the damaged zone (a
z
) for column is determined using the equation 5.3
k
c
(
m
),the strength reduction factor at midpoint is obtained as 1.0 from figure B.5 of
EN199212:2004.
(
(

.

\

=
3 . 1
0 . 1
813 . 0
1 150
Z
a
(5.3)
=35.39 mm.
Reduced dimension of column=300235.39
=229.21mm.
Axial load capacity after 60 minute fire exposure is
1256 38 . 291 8 . 0 21 . 229 21 . 229 25 6 . 0 + =
u
P
=1081kN
By assuming zone method is more accurate than 500
0
C Isotherm method, the
zone method overestimates the axial load capacity of column by 4.5%. Therefore it can
conclude that zone method gives more accurate results for columns.
5.5 SUMMARY
IS456:2000 provides only minimum column dimensions and clear cover
required to meet fire resistance for different fire exposure conditions whereas
Eurocode2 provides analytical methods and temperature profiles in addition to
minimum recommendations. These are discussed in this chapter. Temperature profiles
93
generated using ANSYS13 shows good agreement with Eurocode2 temperature profile
in shape. 40mm minimum cover is specified in IS456:2000 for all fire exposure
condition. But from numerical analysis it is found that for 30 minute and 60 minute
fire exposure for the minimum specified column dimension, a 20 mm nominal
concrete cover is sufficient. For 90 minute fire exposure a 30 mm nominal cover is
sufficient. But for 240 minute fire exposure, a minimum of 60mm cover is required as
per numerical analysis result. Axial load capacity of a column of known dimension and
detailing is determined using zone method and 500
0
C isotherm method specified in
Eurocode2. It is observed that zone method is more accurate for columns and beams
than slabs. The zone method overestimates the axial load capacity of column by 4.5%.
94
CHAPTER 6
THERMOSTRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
6.1GENERAL
This chapter discusses the use of ANSYS to create three dimensional finite
element modelling of RCC structural elements and thermo structural analysis of
the same.
6.2ANSYS FINITE ELEMENT MODEL
To create the finite element model in ANSYS there are multiple tasks that
have to be completed for the model to run properly. Models can be created using
command prompt line input or the Graphical User Interface (GUI). For this model
GUI was used to create the model.
6.2.1Element types
ANSYS recommended using element suitable for structural and thermal
analysis. In thermal model solid 70 is used for concrete and link 33 for steel and in
structural model solid 65 for concrete and link 8 for steel. These elements are
available in the element library of ANSYS software.
SOLID 70 Element Description
SOLID 70 have a 3D thermal conduction capability. The element has
eight nodes with a single degree of freedom i.e. temperature, at each node. The
element is applicable to a 3D, steady state or transient thermal analysis. If the
model containing the conducting solid element is also to be analyzed structurally,
the element should be replaced by an equivalent structural element.
95
LINK 33 Element Description
LINK 33 is a uniaxial element with the ability to conduct heat between its
nodes. The element has a single degree of freedom, temperature, at each node
point. The conducting bar is applicable to steadystate or transient thermal
analysis. If the model containing the conducting bar element is also to be analyzed
structurally, the bar element should be replaced by an equivalent structural
element. Geometry of LINK 33 element is shown in Fig 6.2.
Fig6.1 Geometry of SOLID70element
Fig6.2 Geometry of LINK33 element
SOLID 65 Element Description
SOILD 65 is used for the 3D modeling of solids with or without
reinforcing bars (rebar). The solid is capable of cracking in tension and crushing
in compression. In concrete applications, for example, the solid capability of the
96
element may be used to model the concrete while the rebar capability is available
for modeling reinforcement behaviour. The element is defined by eight nodes
having three degree of freedom at each node: translations in nodal x, y and z
directions. Up to three different rebar specifications may be defined. The most
important aspect of this element is the treatment of nonlinear material properties.
The concrete is capable of cracking (in the three orthogonal directions), crushing,
plastic deformation and creep. The reinforcement bars are capable of tension and
compression, but not shear. They are also capable of plastic deformation and
creep. Reinforcements are modeled using discrete link element connected to the
solid. Geometry of SOLID 65 element is shown in Fig 6.1.
6.2.2 Real Constants
Individual elements contain different real constants. Since the
reinforcement bar capability of solid 65 is not used in the analysis, the real
constants are zero. Mass transport effects of solid 70 not used in the analysis. So
the real constant is zero. Link 33 and link 8 element are used as reinforcement
bars and stirrups. So the real constants for this element are the cross sectional area.
6.2.3 Modeling and Meshing
The beam properties and material properties of modelled beam in
ANSYS13 is shown in Table6.1.After creating the thermal model switched the
element type to structural. But ANSYS switching of element type is automatic,
solid 70 switches to solid 45. But we need solid 65 for concrete to do the
structural analysis. So, in this work, created the structural environment, and
switched the element type from structure to thermal where solid 65 switches
to solid 70. A coupled analysis was performed. Results from the thermal
analysis (temperature on all nodes) are the input load to structural model.
Concrete is created as volume option and meshed with solid 65 using
mesh tool, volume sweep command. To obtain good results from the solid 65
element, the use of a rectangular mesh is recommended. Therefore, the mesh was
set up such that square or rectangular elements were created. The command
between steel reinforcement and concrete is assumed as perfect and no loss of
97
bond between them is considered. The nodes for main steel, stirrups and concrete
are made common thus ensured the connectivity of nodes. The meshed finite
element beam is shown in figure6.3. Fig 6.4 shows the lines showing main beam,
stirrups and concrete.
6.2.4 Loads and Boundary Conditions
Displacement boundary conditions are needed to constrain the model to
get a unique solution. Simple supports were created for beams. No need to give
support condition in thermal analysis. In thermal analysis, temperature is applied
as convention on area. In structural analysis, the central concentrated load is to be
applied on the nodes along the central line of the beam. Load on each node is total
divided by number of nodes.
6.2.5 Analysis Type
Thermal analysis is small displacement transient. Fire curve is divided into
a number of load steps and each load step is divided into a number of sub steps.
The solution controls command dictates the use of a linear or nonlinear solution
for the finite element model. The time at the end of the load step refers to the
ending load per load step. The sub steps are set to indicate load increments used
for this analysis. Structural analysis is static nonlinear type.
Fig6.3 Finite element mesh for modeled beam
98
Fig6.4 Lines showing modeled main beam, stirrups and concrete
6.2.6 Failure Criteria
The model generates various critical parameters, such as temperatures,
stresses, strains, internal forces, and deformations at various fire exposure times.
These output parameters are used to check against predefined failure criteria. At
every time step, each segment of the structural member is checked against
thermal, strength and deflection failure criteria. The analysis is continued until
strength failure of the structural member is reached. The different failure limit
states (both prescriptive and performance based criteria) incorporated into the
model for RC beams and RC columns are as follows.
Failure criteria for reinforced concrete beams
Four sets of limiting criterion are used to evaluate the failure of an RC beam under
fire conditions.
1) The temperature in the longitudinal steel reinforcement bars (tension
reinforcement) exceeds the critical temperature which is 593
0
C for
reinforcing steel,
99
2) The beam is unable to resist the specified applied service load.
3) The maximum deflection of the beam exceeds l/20 at any fire exposure
time, where l is span length,
4) The rate of deflection exceeds the limit given by the following expression:
l
2
/9000d, mm/min
Where l = span length of the beam (mm)
d = effective depth of the beam (mm)
Failure criteria 3 and 4 are taken from British Standard BS476
[3]
specifications. Theses (deflection and rate of deflection) limits are included to
minimize catastrophic failure during fire tests and possible damage to test
equipment. Large deflections or a very high rate of deflections in beams indicate
imminent failure that will endanger the occupants or fire fighters.
Failure criteria for reinforced concrete columns
The failure of the RC column is assumed to occur when:
1) The temperature in steel rebar exceeds the critical temperature which is
593
0
C for reinforcing steel.
2) The applied load exceeds the load carrying capacity of the column
6.3 VALIDATION OF THE MODEL
The ANSYS model has been validated for RC beams and RC columns by
comparing predictions from the model with measured data from fire tests.
6.3.1Thermal Analysis
The beams were analyzed by exposing two sides and bottom to the
standard timetemperature curve and column was analyzed by exposing all four
sides to the standard timetemperature curve specified in ISO 834 standard fire.
Heat transfer from fire to element is by convection on area with a convection film
coefficient of 25W/m
2
K. Load is applied in a number of load steps and each load
100
step is again divided into number of sub steps. At time zero minute, uniform
temperature of 20
0
C is applied.
RC beams
The validity of the ANSYS model for RC beams were established by
comparing predicted results from the model with the measured values from fire
tests conducted by Lin et al
[24]
and Dotereppe and Franseen
[5]
. Fire exposure time
for two beams is 150 minutes as in the experiment. The geometric and material
properties of the tested beams used in the analysis are taken from the literature and
are given in Table6.1. Temperature distribution in beam 1 after a fire exposure of
150 minutes is shown in Fig 6.5
Table6.1 Properties for RC beams used in the validation study
Property
Beam1
Beam2
Description Tested by Lin et al. Tested by Dotreppe and
Franssen
Cross Section 305mm x 355mm 200mm x 600mm
Length(m) 6.1 6.5
Reinforcement 219mm top bars
419mm bottom bars
212mm top bars
322mm bottom bars
f
c
(MPa) 30 15
f
y
(MPa) 435.8 300
Applied load(kN) 80 65
Concrete cover
thickness(mm)
25(bottom)
38(side)
40
Support conditions Simply supported Simply supported
Aggregate type Carbonate Siliceous
101
Fig 6.5 Temperature distribution in beam 1 for a fire exposure of 150 minutes
Predicted results from the analysis are compared to measured values from
fire tests. Fig 6.6 and Fig 6.7 shows the comparison of test result with thermal
criteria obtained from ANSYS13 for beam 1 and beam2 respectively.
Fig 6.6 Comparison of test result with thermal criteria obtained from ANSYS for
Beam1
593
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 30 60 90 120 150
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
(
0
C
)
Time(min)
Corner
reinforcement bar
Test data
102
Fig 6.7 Comparison of test result with thermal criteria obtained from ANSYS for
test Beam2
A comparison of reinforcement bar temperature for Beam 2 indicates good
agreement between ANSYS and those measured in the test. The difference
between measured temperature and those obtained from ANSYS analysis for
Beam 1 can be attributed to variation in the material properties incorporated in the
model from those of the actual beam. For Beam 1 calcareous aggregate is used.
High temperature property of calcareous aggregate is not well defined.
Fig 6.8 Timetemperature curve at various location of the cross section in test
beam1
593
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
(
0
C
)
Time(min)
test data
Corner reinforcement
bar
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 30 60 90 120 150
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
(
0
C
)
Time(min)
Bottom concrete corner
Bottom concrete centre
Corner reinforcement bar
Central reinforcement bar
Unexposed concrete side
middle
103
A study of temperature in concrete at various depths obtained from
ANSYS13 model indicated that the model predictions follow the expected trend
with lower temperatures at larger depths from a fire exposed surface. However the
ANSYS13 model concrete temperatures could not be compared with test data
since the measured temperatures were not reported by Lin et al.
The temperature at various depths of concrete as well as reinforcement
bars increases with increasing distance from the fire exposed side. It can be seen
from Fig 6.8 that the unexposed side of the beam stays unaffected. This is due to
the low thermal conductivity and high thermal capacity of concrete which slows
down heat penetration to the inner layers of concrete. Also it can be seen in the
figure that the temperature in the corner reinforcement bar is higher than that for
central reinforcement bar throughout fire exposure time. This trend is on expected
lines and can be attributed to the fact that corner reinforcement bars are exposed to
fire from two sides while the central reinforcement bar is exposed to fire from
bottom side only.
As per deflection criteria, failure occurs when the deflection is greater than
span/20. For beam1, deflection of beam after 4 hour fire exposure is 5.44mm
which is less than (l/20). Therefore thermal criteria is used to define the fire
resistance of beam. As per thermal criteria, fire resistance of beam1 is 108
minutes and that of beam 2 is 126 minutes. The measured value of fire resistance
of beam1 in real fire is 80 minutes. So the structural results in ANSYS are
conservative.
RC column
The validity of the ANSYS13 model for RC column is established by
comparing the results with the fire test data reported by Lie and Woolerton
[24]
. The
geometric and materiel properties of the tested column are taken from the
literature and are summarized in Table6.2.
104
Table6.2 Properties for RC column used in the validation study
Property
Column
Description Tested by Lie and Woolerton
Cross Section 305mm x 305mm
Length(m) 3.8
Reinforcement 425mm bars
f
c
(MPa) 30
f
y
(MPa) 444
Applied load(kN) 800
Concrete cover thickness(mm) 48
Support conditions Fixedfixed
Aggregate type siliceous
The column were analysed by exposing all four sides to the standard time
temperature curve specified in IS0834. The temperature distribution in column
after 195 minutes of fire exposure is shown in figure6.9. In test thermocouples are
placed at different location of cross section of column to record the temperature.
Thermocouple location 1(TCL1) is at the position of reinforcement and
Thermocouple location 2(TCL2) is at the middle of column cross section. Results
obtained from ANSYS13 analysis of column is compared with this test results and
are shown in Fig 6.10.
105
Fig 6.9 Temperature distribution in column for a fire exposure of 195 minutes
Fig 6.10 Comparison of Temperatures at various points (ANSYS result) for
column with test data
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
(
0
C
)
Time(min)
ANSYS TCL1
ANSYS TCL2
Test data TCL1
Test data TCL2
106
The fire resistance of column is evaluated using thermal criteria. A lower
value of fire resistance, 162 minute (Fig 6.11) was obtained based on
reinforcement bar temperature failure criteria where measured value of fire
resistance is 218 minutes. This can be attributed to the fact that reinforcement bar
temperature failure criteria is based on 50% loss of strength in steel reinforcement
and does not consider important factors such as load level, mechanical properties
of the constituent material and the support conditions of the column.
Fig 6.11 Thermal criteria for column
6.4 SUMMARY
This chapter discusses the use of 3 dimensional modeling of RC beams
and columns and validation of the model with the experimental data reported. It is
observed that ANSYS results compares reasonably well with the test data results.
Thermal analysis is carried out and fire resistance is determined using thermal
criteria. Thermostructural analysis is carried out on beam1 and results are
discussed. It is observed that structural analysis in ANSYS is time consuming and
conservative. But thermal analysis is simple and can be done for any of the fire
exposure.
593
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
(
0
C
)
Time(min)
Reinforcement bar temp
107
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS AND SCOPE FOR FURTHER WORK
7.1 CONCLUSIONS
The ANSYS model presented here is able to found the real behaviour of
structural elements under fire exposures. This model is used for the development
of temperature profile and determination of fire rating for slabs, beams and
columns.
The fire resistant study of slabs leads to the following conclusions
 Temperature profiles generated for slabs exposed to one side fire exposure
shows good agreement with the Eurocode2 temperature profile in shape.
 IS 456:2000 provides only minimum recommendations for fire resistant
design of slabs whereas Eurocode2 and ACI216 provides analysis
procedures and design charts in addition to minimum recommendations.
 Fire rating is more for carbonaceous aggregate concrete slab than siliceous
aggregate concrete slab.
 Fire rating predicted from finite element analysis is more than IS456:2000
fire rating for slabs of thickness up to 125mm.
 For slabs of thickness 150 and 170mm thickness fire rating predicted from
finite element analysis for the IS456:2000 specified concrete cover is less
than that of IS456:2000.
 Fire rating predicted from numerical analysis to Eurocode2 fire rating ratio
varies from 1.0 to 1.3 for siliceous aggregate and from1.2 to 1.46 for
carbonaceous aggregate.
 The design charts prepared for carbonaceous and siliceous aggregate
concrete slabs are useful to design a structural element for fire resistance
applying performance based approach and by using simple calculation
methods.
108
The fire resistant study of beams leads to the following conclusions
 For 90 minute time exposure IS456:2000 specifies a minimum 200mm
wide beam and 20mm nominal cover. But 20mm cover is not sufficient to
withstand 90 minute fire exposure. Minimum 30 mm nominal cover is
required.
 Similarly as per ANSYS analysis, for 240 minute fire exposure 280mm
wide beam is not sufficient.
 500
0
C isotherm method is easier than zone method. Zone method gives
good results for beams.
 From the current parametric study of beam, it is evident that beyond a time
exposure of 120 minute, concrete clear cover thickness alone has no
significant effect on the bending strength of above studied beam.
 From the design of RC beam using EN199212:2004 and the parametric
study it is found that fire resistant design depends on concrete cover
thickness, time of exposure, strength and position of reinforcing steel,
cross sectional dimension of beam, compressive strength of concrete.
The fire resistant study of beams leads to the following conclusions
 For column, 40mm minimum cover is specified in IS456:2000 for all fire
exposure condition .But it is found that for 30 minute and 60 minute fire
exposure for the minimum specified column dimension a 20 mm nominal
concrete cover is sufficient and for 90 minute fire exposure a 30 mm
nominal cover is sufficient.
 But for 240 minute fire exposure 40mm nominal cover is not sufficient for
the specified column dimension. 60mm cover is the minimum
requirement.
 Zone method gives good results for columns also.
109
The thermo structural analysis of beams and columns using ANSYS13 gives the
following conclusions
 The thermal response of concrete beams and column modelled in ANSYS
compares reasonably well with available experimental results
 It is observed that structural analysis in ANSYS is time consuming and
conservative. But thermal analysis is simple and can be done for any of the
fire exposure.
 The deflection and rate of deflection criteria is not important for ANSYS
thermal model. Thermal criteria are sufficient for the determination of fire
rating.
7.2 SCOPE FOR FURTHER WORK
This thesis work can be extended to further studies and these can be summarized
as follows.
1) Extension of code comparison.
2) Development of design chart for beams and columns.
3) Fire resistance of circular columns
4) Study on the fire performance of structural elements fabricated with high
performance concrete.
110
REFERENCES
1. Buchanan A H, Structural design for fire Safety, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
2. Bratina S, Bojan C , Saje M and Planinc I, Numerical modelling of
behaviour of reinforced concrete columns in fire and comparison with
Eurocode2 ,International Journal of Solids and Structures ,Vol.42,2005, pp
57155733.
3. BS 47620:1987: Fire tests on building materials and structurespart20,
Methods for determination of the fire resistance of elements of
construction, BSI (UK):1987.
4. Hana C G, Hwanga Y ,Yangb S H and Gowripalanc, Performance of
spalling resistance of high performance concrete with polypropylene fiber
contents and lateral confinement, Cement and Concrete Research,
Vol.35,2005, pp 17471753.
5. Dotreppe J C and Franssen J M, The use of numerical models for the fire
analysis of reinforced concrete and composite structures, Journal of
Structural Engineering, Vol.2,1985, pp6774.
6. Dwaikat M B and Kodur V K R, Comparisons of fire resistance of RC
beams from different codes of practice, ACI journals.
7. Dwaikat M B and Kodur V K R, Hydrothermal model for predicting fire
induced spalling in concrete structural systems, Fire Safety Journal, Vol.
44, 2009, pp 425434.
8. Dwaikat M B and Kodur V K R, Design equation for predicting fire
resistance of reinforced concrete beams, Engineering Structures Vol.33,
2011, pp 602614.
9. Eamon D C and Jensen E, Reliability analysis of prestressed concrete
Beams exposed to Fire,,Engineering Structures, Vol.43, 2012, pp 6977.
10. Eurocode 2: (EN 199212:2004) Design of concrete structures, European
Committee for Standardization, Brussels.
111
11. Harmathy T Z, Sultan M A and MacLaurin J W,Comparison of severity of
exposure in ASTM E 119 and IS0 834 fire resistance Tests, Journal of
Testing and Evaluation,JTEVA, Vol.15,Nov 1987,pp 371375.
12. Hawileh R A ,Naser M and Rasheed H A, ThermalStress finite element
analysis of CFR strengthened concrete beam exposed to top surface fire
loading, Mechanics of Advanced Materials and Structures,
Vol.18,2011,pp172180.
13. Huang Z, The behavior of reinforced concrete slabs in fire, Fire Safety
Journal, Vol. 45, 2010, pp 271282.
14. IS1641:1988 Code of practice for fire safety of buildings (general):
General principles of fire grading and classification.
15. IS 456:2000: Plain and reinforced concrete, Code of Practice.
16. James H P and Gamal A N, Validation and application of a computer
model for predicting the thermal response of concrete slabs subjected to
fire, ACI Journal, SeptemberOctober 1998, vol.95,pp480487.
17. Jeffers A E and Sotelino E D, Fiber heat transfer element for modelling the
thermal response of structures in fire, Journal of Structural Engineering,
2009, pp11911200.
18. Khandekar V R and Sharda Bai H,Study on fire performance of oneway
reinforced concrete slabs using finite element method, the Indian concrete
journal, February 2011,pp3542.
19. Kodur V K R and Dwaikat M B, A numerical model for predicting the fire
resistance of reinforced concrete beams, Cement and Concrete Composite,
Vol.30,2008,pp 431443.
20. Kodur V K R, Wang T C and Cheng F P, Predicting the fire resistance
behavior of high strength concrete column, Cement and Concrete
Composites, Vol.26, 2004,pp 141153.
21. Kodur V K R and Dwaikat M B and Fike R S, An approach for evaluating
the residual strength of fireexposed RC beams, Magazines of Concrete
Research,Vol. 62, 2010, pp479488.
22. Kodur V K R and Dwaikat M B, High temperature properties of concrete
for fire resistance modeling of structures, ACI Journals, 2008, pp 517527.
112
23. Lie T T, Fire resistance of reinforced concrete column: A parametric
study, Journal of Fire Protection Engineering, Vol.1,1989 pp 121129
24. Lie TT, Woolerton JL, Fire resistance of reinforced concrete columnsTest
results. Internal report no.569. National Research Council Canada, 1988.
25. Lin T D, Gusaferoo A H and Abrams M S, Fire endurance of continuous
reinforced concrete beams.P C A R&D Bulletin 1981;RD072.01B.
26. Ranganathan R, Reliablity Analysis and design of structures.
27. Tavares R M, An analysis of the fire safety codes in Brazil: Is the
performancebased approach the best practice? Fire Safety Journal,
Vol.44, 2009, pp749755.
28. Wu B and Xu Y, Behavior of axially and rotationally restrained concrete
columns with +ve shaped cross section and subjected to fire, Fire Safety
Journal, Vol.44, 2009, pp 212221.
29. Xu Y, Fire resistance of reinforced concrete columns with L, T and +
shaped cross sections, Fire Safety Journal, Vol.44, 2009, pp 869880.
Bien plus que des documents.
Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.
Annulez à tout moment.