IPENZ Transactions, Vol. 25, No.

1/CE, 1998

Design fires for structural engineers

C R Barnett1, BE (Civil), FIPENZ, MICE, MSFPE.
Design earthquakes, design winds, and design floods are all in common use
by civil and structural engineers, but less is known about design fires because
fire engineering is a relatively new technology. To determine whether a structural
member frame can carry a load during a fire, depends on what design fire the
structural engineer selects for the analysis. This paper demonstrates how design
fires can be used by engineers to determine a structural members temperature
response.
Keywords: design fires fire engineering structural mambers
1

Director, Macdonald Barnett Partners Ltd, Consulting Engineers, Auckland, New

Zealand; President, Society of Fire Protection Engineers, NZ Chapter.
This paper, which is a revised version of one presented at the 1996 IPENZ
Conference, was received for publication on 7 October 1998.

1.

Introduction

Design earthquakes, winds, and floods are based on risk and probability factors. These factors have
been developed and refined over the years from major disasters which have occurred. As hazard =
risk x probability, then values for risk and probability for design earthquake, winds, and floods can be
readily identified in the national design codes.
Not so for fire. Statistics are as yet not gathered in a readily convenient form to enable fire risk
or probability to be quantified. Human risk would include death or injury of building occupants or
firemen. The NZ Fire Service collects data which show that 99% of all fire deaths occur in residential
properties. Although only 1% occur in non-residential buildings, a huge amount of national effort goes
into making non-residential buildings fire safe. Property risk would involve damage to the owners
building, the building contents, and the neighbours building. The NZ insurance industry collects this
information in dollar terms, but does not publish it in a convenient statistical form for fire design
purposes. The probability of each of the property risks would need to be defined for each type of
property, in various firecell sizes, and in terms of, say, 1 in 10, 20 or 50 year risk.
Fire safety design is a new engineering discipline which is growing at a very rapid rate. No doubt
for fire design, appropriate risk and probability factors will slowly develop, as they have done for
earthquakes in New Zealand from those very elementary design approaches used in the 1930s and
1940s. Suitable risk/probability factors for use in New Zealand fire designs are not at present available
to structural engineers, though Narayanan (1) provides a close approach. Reliance has therefore to be
placed on other means which can be used to develop design fires from which the likely behaviour of
structural members in a fire can be assessed.
Design fires can be classified in two forms:
(a)

intensity

(MW versus time)

(b)

severity

(temperature versus time).

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how both forms of design fire can be developed.
Though this paper deals mainly with steel design, the methods illustrated can be used for concrete
design and modified in various ways for timber design.

2. Fire tests
Fire tests are typically carried out in three main forms, as a standard temperature/time tests, actual
burn tests, or calorimeter tests.
Under a standard temperature/time test, a structural member is installed in a 3 m cube furnace and
subjected to a rising temperature/time curve such as that stipulated in BS 476 or ISO 834. The furnace
fuel is generally oil or gas. The members temperature response is recorded up to the point of failure,
after which the test is usually stopped and the fuel turned off. As a general rule, measurements are
taken only during the heat-up phase and not during the cool-down phase.
47

In an actual burn test, the fuel is typically wooden cribs and the test room may vary in size, type of
construction, and degree of openings. As the experiment progresses, a range of measurements are
taken such as time, weight loss, temperature, radiation, gas properties, etc. Both heat-up and cooldown phases can be measured.
In a calorimeter test, one or more full sized products such as a chairs, sofas, or even motor vehicles
are ignited beneath a hood which collects all the fire gases from which the heat release rate with time
is determined. Weight loss, temperature, etc., can also be measured.

2.1 Rate of pyrolysis

Around 1966 an important series of actual burn tests were carried out on an international basis and the
results were coordinated and reported (2, 3). These benchmark tests are referred to as the CIB Tests.
Over 400 experiments were carried out by eight laboratories, the test rooms ranging from 1 to 36 m in
floor area. The key items of interest are the time, weight and ceiling temperature, a typical test set
being graphed in Fig.1.

FIGURE 1: Mass loss, rate of burning, and temperature results for CIB Test No. 205.
Also of note are the references to the rate of weight loss shown on a typical data form as R80/55, R55/30
and the time to reach 80% of the original crib weight. One of the CIB test conclusions was that
burning averaged over the 80% to 30% crib weight region could be expressed as a rate of pyrolysis
formula:
R80/30 = kp.(AV.hV) = kp.FV

kg/s

(1)

where: R80/30 = rate of pyrolysis between 80% and 30% of the original crib weight in kg/s; kp =
pyrolysis coefficient as per Eq. 3; AV = area of openings in m; hV = height of openings in m; FV =
ventilation factor (= AV.hV) in m5/2.
In its most simple form and in minute units, the pyrolysis coefficient becomes 5.5, that is:
R80/30 = 5.5 (AV.hV ) = 5.5 Fv

kg/min

(2)

This simplistic formula appears time and time again throughout fire engineering literature, but
should be used with some caution, as the pyrolysis coefficient kp does in fact vary with the geometry of
the fire test compartment. It may be as low as 3 for small spaces, to 10 or more for large spaces.
A curve fit from Fig. 5 of Ref. 3 can give the pyrolysis coefficient kp as:
kp =

1
106. FO3 + 5

(3)

where: FO3 = opening factor = FV in m3/2; FV = ventilation factor (= Av.hv1/2) in m5/2; AT3 = total

A T3

internal surface area of the fire compartment (not including floor area AF or the vertical openings AV)
in m, and hv = height of vertical opening in m.
Once R80/30 has been derived from kp and if the nett calorific value of the fuel Hn is known in
MJ/kg, then the total energy E in the firecell and the fire intensity Q80/30 can be derived from:
E = Hn.B.
MJ
(4)
Q80/30 = Hn.R80/30
MW
(5)
48

If the original total mass of fuel B in kg and the total duration of the fire td in seconds are known,
the average rate of pyrolysis R100/0 and average energy release rate Q100/0 can be derived as follows:
R 100 / 0 =
Q 100 / 0 =

B
td
E

kg/s

(6)

MW

(7)

td

The comparisons between R actual, R80/30 and R100/0 for Test No. 205 are illustrated in Fig. 2. A
similar comparison applies to Q actual, Q80/30 and Q100/0 as illustrated in Fig. 7. It will be obvious from
Figs. 2 and 7, one cannot apply the 80/30 rate for the whole duration of the fire. The 80/30 rate applies
only to the burning of half the fuel. Rates of 100/80 and 30/0 apply before and after the time period
that the 80/30 rate covers.

FIGURE 2: R Actual, R 80/30 and R 100/0 curves for CIB test No. 205.
If the rate of pyrolysis and energy release rates can thus be derived from the original fire test data, a
series of graphs can be put together which will give a useful indication of the fires performance. Fig.
3 shows such expanded data for CIB Test 205.

FIGURE 3: Expanded data for CIB Test No. 205

49

2.2 Energy release rate

The term heat release rate or HRR is frequently used in fire engineering. However not all the energy
of a pyrolysing fuel is released as heat within the firecell. The energy lost as convection via the
openings consists of both burnt fuel and unburnt fuel. Sometimes as much as 30% of the fuels energy
is released as unburnt fuel which travels out the openings before it burns and therefore contributes
nothing towards the temperature rise in the firecell. Fig. 4 shows typical values for the different
destinations where the energy goes to (5). Some fire engineering formula take no account of the
unburnt fuel and assume it is all burnt inside the compartment, thus producing calculated temperatures

on the high side.

FIGURE 4 - Typical energy loss paths for firecells. Convection loss includes burnt and unburnt fuel.

2.3 Design temperature/time curves (severity curves)

NZ structural engineers wishing to learn in a general way about fire engineering should start with the
New Zealand publication - Fire Engineering Design Guide (5).
For fire engineering design purposes, temperature/time curves can be adopted from a number of
sources. The most commonly used curve is the standard ISO 834 Curve as shown in Fig. 10. Another
alternative is to use the widely published Swedish Curves (6). A third alternative is to use the formula
set out in the Eurocode Part 10 (7).
In 1993 a series of natural fire tests in large scale fire compartments was carried out at Cardington
(8). Nine tests were conducted in a compartment 23 m long x 6 m wide x 3 m high, having a floor
area of 138 m. From these tests a new method was developed which models the large scale fires very
closely, and is termed BFD Curve (9). This fourth alternative is based on the following equation:

(logt - logt p ) 2
+ T1
f

T2 = T3 . e

(8)

where: T1 = ambient temperature (C); T2 = temperature at any time t (C); T3 = maximum temperature
generated (C); t = time from start of fire (min); tp = time at which T3 is reached (min); and f = growth
factor fg, or decay factor fd.
50

To illustrate the potential of BFD Curves as a design tool, two of the nine temperature time tests
carried out in the Cardington large-scale fire tests are reproduced as Fig 5, along with the BFD Curves
modelling the test results. As can be seen the calculated fit is very close to the test data and certainly
sufficient for most structural engineering design purposes. Examples of BFD Curves used as design
curves are illustrated in Fig. 10 (a), (b) and (c).

FIGURE 5: Samples of Cardington large-scale fire tests

3. Member temperature response

Once a design temperature/time curve has been selected, the member temperature response curve can
be generated. For insulated steel members, Gamble (10) provides a useful design method. For
concrete members (11-13) provide design methods.
Member temperature responses (MTR) for both BFD and ISO Curves are shown for one typical
beam size in Fig. 10 (a), (b) and (c).

3.1 Applied loads

In a building, a primary structural member needs to be considered for three load conditions: (a) before,
(b) during, and (c) after the fire.
The before the fire load will be the greatest of the design applied loads set out in NZS 4203 Loadings Code. During the fire the design applied load will generally only consist of dead load plus
a reduced live load. For after the fire the design applied load to walls would be the lesser of 0.5 kPa
or the serviceability wind load.
During a fire, the load capacity of a member reduces due to temperature rise. A common average
critical temperature limit is 550C, but the limit can rise as high as 800C, or fall as low as 400C,
depending on the length, fixity, eccentricity and loads on the beam or column. For illustrative
purposes, a critical temperature of 550C is used in Fig. 10 (a), (b) and (c).

4. Typical design approach

To fully understand a design fire, the structural designer will find it helpful if the following time
graphs can be prepared: (a) mass loss or energy loss, (b) pyrolysis rate, (c) intensity, (d) severity, and
(e) load capacity
Fig. 6 illustrates two columns of typical graphs which each include examples of (a) to (e).(14) The
column on the left is for a collapse or F-rating situation, while the column on the right shows a noncollapse or S-rating situation. (F and S ratings are used in the NZ Building Code.) The only difference
between the two columns is in the load carrying capacities. The structural member used in the column
(b) has more mass or insulation than the one used in the column (a).
Generally the designer starts by first adopting a fire intensity graph as will be discussed in the next
section. From this the designer can easily work upwards to produce a pyrolysis rate graph and then a
mass loss graph.
51

Working downwards from the intensity graph, the designer can then produce a severity graph. One
method is to introduce the fire intensity data into the FIRE SIMULATOR computer program in
FPETOOL (15). From this program temperature/time data can be produced. Another is to use the
BFD Curve method (9). From the severity graph, the designer can then derive the temperature
response of the selected structural member and compare it with the arbitrary 550C limit to determine
the time of collapse tc. By changing the structural member size and thickness of fire insulation, the
designer can modify the design to produce the most economic result to meet the F or S ratings.
As a further step, the designer can also determine the member temperature response curve to an
ISO 834 severity fire and hence determine an equivalent time te. The time of collapse tc and the
equivalent time te can then be compared directly.
For a more sophisticated design, the designer can determine the actual critical temperature (if it
differs from 550C) and produce the load capacity versus applied load graph. Methods for doing this
are covered in Refs 16 and 17.

FIGURE 6: Typical fire design approach for a structural steel member (15).

4.1 Design fires (intensity curves)

As previously stated, when designing a new building, data on actual fires is generally not available
and fire safety engineers have to resort to the use of approximations in the form of design fires. Figs
7, 8, and 9 show a range of design fires (18).
Fig. 7 compares the differences between (a) an actual fire, (b) a 100/80, 80/30, 30/0 fire, and (c) a
100/0 fire. In all three cases the duration time td is the same. In all three cases the area under each
curve is the same and is equal to the original total fire load E in MJ.
Fig. 8 shows a range of shapes ranging from rectangles to double t2 fires. The area under each
graph is the same in each case and equals the total fire load E in MJ. These can all be referred to as
energy release rate (ERR) curves, as distinct from heat release rate (HRR) curves.
52

FIGURE 7: Comparison between an actual fire and 80/30 and 100/0 design fires.

FIGURE 8: Various types of design fires. The area under each curve represents the total fuel
energy released in MJ (18).

FIGURE 9: Comparison between FLED and HRR Design Fires.

53

The t2 fires use a growth coefficient (a1) and a decay coefficient (a2). These are chosen by the
designer from experience. The arithmetic for the t2 curves is easy as it is based on the algebra for
parabolas. All the design fires illustrated in Fig. 8 can be readily modelled on a computer spreadsheet
Once the design fires have been determined they can be readily introduced into FPETOOL (15) or
FIRECALC (19) as desired. FPETOOL and FIRECALC are in regular daily use in New Zealand.

4.2 NZ Building Code design fire

The Acceptable Solutions to the NZBC uses a FLED (fire load energy density) equivalent time
design method as per Acceptable Solution C3/Table 1. This uses a rectangular design fire and
produces not the duration time td, but an equivalent time te. Fig. 9 illustrates the difference between a
FLED design fire and an HRR design fire. As will be noted te and td are quite different. C3/Table 1 is
based on the formula te = c.w.q minutes, where c = 0.067; w = Af /(F01.Fv)1/2 ; and q = FLED in MJ/m.
The NZ Building Code uses a fixed stud height of 3 m.

5. Equivalent time and critical time

Equivalent time te is generally defined as the time taken for a member to reach 550C under an ISO
Curve. The equivalent time design method assumes a steady-state burn rate and then calculates the
equivalent time using the firecells geometry. Eurocode Part 10 is a typical equivalent time design
method which includes refinements of the time depending on what the walls, floor and ceiling of the
firecell are made from. In the Eurocode formula the equivalent time also varies with the stud height.
What the equivalent time method does not give is the critical time at which the member might
collapse in an actual fire, in other words, is tc less than or greater than te. This could be important with
F-ratings. For example, Fire Service reliance on say an F-30 rating based on te, might be jeopardised if
actual collapse tc occurs in only 20 minutes. By combining the BFD Curve and the ISO Curve
methods, direct comparisons of tc and te can be made.
Fig. 10(a), (b) and (c) illustrate the final results of a typical design fire method. In all cases the
same total fire load of 720 kg and the same insulated structural steel beam size have been used. The
same values for the growth a1 and decay a2 have been used in all cases. The difference between the
three sets of graphs is in the degree of ventilation. Fig. 10(a) represents high, Fig. 10(b) moderate, and
Fig. 10(c) low ventilation. The areas under all three burn rate curves is the same, ie. 720 kg. The
areas under all three energy release rate curves is also the same, ie. 12,000 MJ. The degree of
ventilation determines what the steady-state level of pyrolysis will be, hence the flat zones in the burn
rate curves of 10(b) and 10(c). Where there is more than enough ventilation there is no steady state
and the fire burns similar to an open air fire as illustrated in the burn rate curve of 10(a). Similarly in
the intensity graphs, the fire reduces from 19, to 13, then to 6 MW as the size of the openings is
reduced.
The degree of ventilation determines the value of the peak temperature T3. These values have been
estimated using Laws method (21). The time tp at which the peak temperature occurs is taken as the
right hand end of the steady state periods. The growth and decay factors fg and fd are estimated from
both fire test data and the design experience of the fire engineer.
As can be seen from the black dots marked on the graphs, the equivalent time te from the ISO
curves is in all three cases 67 minutes, but from the BFD curves the actual critical times tc are different,
being 120, 80 and 65 minutes respectively for Fig. 10(a), (b) and (c). If any tc value was substantially
less than te this could be of concern to the Fire Service.
All three diagrams (a), (b) and (c) have been produced on the same spreadsheet which can be used to
carry out the calculations in a very short time and produce instant graphs as well.

6. Conclusions
To structural engineers, the benefit of using design fires based on the BFD Curve and ISO Curve
methods is considerable. With suitable computer spreadsheets able to produce instant graphs, a
designer can not only explore a wide range of structural sizes and insulation thicknesses very quickly,
but can also carry out a sensitivity analysis on the selected design values of the peak temperatures and
the growth and decay coefficients.

54

FIGURE 10(a) Typical design approach to determine critical time tc and equivalent time te for a high
ventilation fire. Note that the peak temperature occurs at the same time as the peak burn rate period.
occurs.

55

FIGURE 10(b): Typical design approach to determine critical time tc and equivalent time te for a
medium ventilation fire. Note that the peak temperature occurs at the end of the steady state burning
period.

56

FIGURE 10(c): Typical design approach to determine critical time tc and equivalent time te for a low
ventilation fire. Note that the peak temperature occurs at the end of the steady state burning period.

57

7. References
1. Narayanan, P (1995) New Zealand Fire Risk Data, BRANZ Study Report No. 64, Building Research
Association of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.
2. Thomas, P H (1974) Fires in Model Rooms - CIB Research Programmes, Building Research Establishment,
Fire Research Station, Borehamwood, CP 32/74.
3. Thomas, P H and Heselden A J M (1972) Fully Developed Fires in Single Compartments CIB Report No. 20),
Building Research Establishment, Fire Research Station, Borehamwood, UK.
4. Harmathy, T Z (1972) A New Look at Compartment Fires Part 1 Fire Technology, 8(3).
5. Buchanan, A H (Editor) (1994) Fire Engineering Design Guide, Centre for Advanced Engineering, University
of Canterbury, New Zealand.
6. Pettersson, O, Magnusson, S E and Thor, J (1976) Fire Engineering Design of Steel Structures, Publication
50, Swedish Institute of Steel Construction, Stockholm 1976.
7. Eurocode (1993) - Actions on Structures Exposed to Fire, Eurocode Actions on Structures, Part 10, Feb 1993
Draft.
8. Kirby, B R, et al (1994) - Natural Fires in Large Scale Compartments- A British Steel Technical, Fire
Research Station Collaborative Report, British Steel Technical, Swinden Laboratories, UK, 1994.
9. Barnett, C R (in press) BFD Curves Theory to be published.
10. Gamble, W L (1989) Predicting Protected Steel Member Fire Endurance Using Spread-sheet Programs,
Technical Note, Fire Technology, 25(3): 256-273).
11. Wade, C A (1991a) Method for Fire Engineering Design of Structural Concrete Beams and Floor Systems,
BRANZ Technical Recommendation No. 8, Building Research Association of New Zealand, Wellington, New
Zealand..
12. Wade, C A (1991b) Fire Engineering Design of Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete Elements, BRANZ
Technical Recommendation No. 8, Building Research Association of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.
13. Fleishmann, C (1988) Analytical Methods for Determining Fire Resistance of Concrete Members. Section 3,
Chapter 7, SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, Society of Fire Protection Engineers, Quincy,
MA, USA.
14. Barnett, C R (1992) Macbar Fire Design Code - Code of Practice for Structural Fire Design of Buildings,
Training Manual No. 1, New Zealand Fire Protection Association Auckland, New Zealand.
15. Center for Fire Research (1994) FPETOOL - Fire Engineering Computer Programs, Center for Fire
Research, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
16. European Convention for Constructional Steelwork (1985)
Design Method on the European
Recommendations for the Fire Safety of Steel Structures. Report R35, European Convention for
Constructional Steelwork, Brussels, 1985.
17. Milke J (1988) Analytical Methods for Determining Fire Resistance of Steel Members, Section 3, Chapter 6,
SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, Society of Fire Protection Engineers, Quincy, MA, USA.
18. Barnett, C R and Simpson M R (1995) Fire Code Review - New Zealands Performance Based Fire Code,
Proceedings, Asiaflam, Hong Kong, Mar 1995, pp 27 - 40.
19. CSIRO Division of Building Construction and Engineering. (1991) FIRECALC - Fire Engineering Computer
Programs, CSIRO Division of Building Construction and Engineering, North Ryde, NSW, Australia.
20. Law, M and OBrien, T (1983) Fire Safe Structural Steel A Design Guide. American Iron and Steel
Institute, Washington DC, USA.

58