Structural integrity of buildings under exceptional fire

F. Wald
Czech Technical University in Prague, Czech Republic
V. Bosiljkov
Slovenian National Building and Civil Engineering Institute, Slovenia
G. De Matteis
University of Naples Federico II, Italy
P. Haller
TU Dresden, Germany
A. Santiago
Univ. of Coimbra, Portugal
L. Simões da Silva,
Univ. of Coimbra, Portugal
P. Vila Real
University of Aveiro, Portugal

ABSTRACT: The paper is summarizing the European knowledge in the field of the behaviour of the structures made
of the main structural materials under fire action. The new findings are stressed to prepare background for studying of
the exceptional fire conditions. The exceptional fire is the commonly observed problem of the fire acting after or to-
gether with other accidental loading as earthquakes, windstorms, heavy snow loading, gas explosions, bomb blasts,
impact of vehicles, rapidly changing loading situations (temperature) or ice loads. The exceptional cases include also
the situations not taken account during the design or in fire the unexceptional conditions due to the different fire sce-
nario and burning materials (different to expected cellulose or hydrocarbon fires). The structural integrity is the major
goal of the designers to ensure the resistance of the structure under accidental actions and enlarge the safety under ex-
ceptional condition. It is guaranteed by the robust of structural elements and its joints, which is described by its bal-
anced stiffness, strength and ductility between its members, connections and supports.

1. INTRODUCTION including of course the Eurocodes, where specific allow-

The existing European findings, models, and regulations
about the structural safety are generally, with few excep-
tions, concerned with rules aimed to ensure an adequate
safety level of constructions under, normal loading con-
ditions. The overall structural safety is investigated sim-
ply by assuming an increase of the multipliers of the ser-
vice loads up to reach the collapse value. This approach
has led to a satisfying degree of accuracy in the predic-
tion of the safety margins under serviceability load con-
ditions. Agreater accuracy in the evaluation of struc-
tural safety is possible when a probabilistic or semi-
probabilistic approach is followed in the determination of
both actions and structural resistance. In this way is
possible to get a good investigation of structures sub-
jected to random actions. These approaches form the
basis of most recent developments in the field of regula-
tions and are now part of any relevant structural code,
ance for accidental loading conditions is made.
Fire resistance is used to characterize the perform-
ance of elements of structure in fire. The fire resistance is
the time for which elements performs its functions under
specified conditions. These functions may include the
ability: not to collapse, to limit the spread of fire, to sup-
port other elements. All materials progressively lose
their ability to support a load when they are heated. If
components of a structure are heated sufficiently, they
may collapse. The consequences of such a collapse
may vary, depending on how critical the component is in
controlling the overall behaviour of the structure. In or-
der to limit the threat that a fire poses to people in a
building and to reduce the amount of damage that a fire
may inflict, large buildings are divided up into smaller fire
compartments using fire resisting walls and floors. Parts
of a fire compartment may be divided up by fire resisting
construction to protect particular hazard within them.
The performance of fire separating elements may rely
heavily on the ability of the structure that supports them
to continue to provide that support under fire conditions
(Lennon, 1997). The criticality is the degree to which the
collapse of an individual structural element affects the
performance of the structure as a whole. All main com-
ponents of a structure are generally expected to exhibit
fire resistance proportionate to the nature of the per-
ceived risk. The nature of the risk is usually assessed on
the basis of the size and proposed use of the building in
which the structural element occurs, which is an impor-
tant part of a fire safety risk analysis.
The definition of the fire resistance is the ability of
construction or its element to satisfy for a stated period
of time load bearing capacity, integrity and insulation
(same or all of the criteria. As a consequence of Euro-
pean harmonization, fire resistance is increasingly being
expressed in terms of R, E and I. R means the resistance
to collapse, i.e. the ability to maintain load-bearing ca-
pacity. E is the resistance to fire penetration, i.e. an abil-
ity to maintain the integrity of the element against the
penetration of flames and hot gases. I is the resistance to
the transfer of excessive heat, i.e. the ability to provide
insulation from high temperatures.
The term the elements of structure is in fire engineer-
ing applied to main structural elements such as structural
frames, floors and walls. Compartment walls are treated
as elements of structure although they are not necessarily
load-bearing. External walls such as curtain walls or
other forms of cladding that transmit only self weight and
wind loads, and that do not transmit floor loads, are not
regarded as load bearing, although such walls may need
fire resistance to satisfy other requirements in connection
with a need to restrict fire spread between buildings.
Load bearing elements may or may not have a fire-
separating function. Fire-separating elements may or
may not be load bearing.
A fire safety engineering approach takes into account
the total fire safety provides a fundamental and eco-
nomical solution than the prescriptive approaches to fire
safety. The modelling of a structure involves three
stages. The first stage is to model the fire scenario to de-
termine the heat energy released from the fire and the re-
sulting atmospheric temperatures within the building. The
second stage is to model the heat transfer between the
atmosphere and the structure. Heat transfer involves
three phenomena (conduction, convection and radiation)
all contribute to the rise in temperature of the structural
materials during the fire event. The third stage is the de-
termination of the response of the structure – basic sim-
ple checks, engineering advanced models and sophisti-
cated discrete models based on all data available.
The requirements for the codes contain simple
checks, which provide an economic and accessible
method in the majority of buildings. For complex prob-
lems considerable progress has been made in recent
years in understanding how structures behave when
heated in fires and in developing mathematical tech-
niques to model this behaviour. It is now possible to
predict the behaviour of certain types of structure with a
reasonable degree of accuracy. The most common form
of analysis is the finite element method (Newman at al.
2000). It may predict thermal and structural perform-
ance. In fire, the behaviour of a structure is more com-
plex than at ambient temperatures. Changes in the mate-
rial properties and thermal movements cause the
structural behaviour to become non-linear and inelastic.
In the fire resistance tests the gas temperature is in-
creased to follow a predefined time/temperature curve.
This heating regime is very different from that occurring
in real fires. The maximum temperature attained in a real
fire and the rate at which temperatures increase depend
on a number of factors relating lo the fuel available, the
geometric and thermal properties of the compartment
and the availability of openings through which oxygen
can be supplied to the fire. Techniques have been devel-
oped to mathematically describe a natural fire. The
analysis determines the rate at which heat is released
from the available fuel, see Schleich at al, (1999). This is
a function of the amount of ventilation available and the
density and distribution of the fuel itself. Heal loss from
the compartment via convection and radiation from the
openings, and conduction through the other solid
boundaries is calculated before the resulting atmospheric
temperatures may be determined. There are the two
forms of fire used in standard fire resistance tests. They
are timber fires or hydrocarbon fire in petrochemical in-
dustry.
The periods of fire resistance specified in regulations
attempt to relate the damaging effect of a real fire to an
equivalent period of exposure in a standard fire resis-
tance test. Safety factors are introduced to account for
building use and height. The modelling of the fire de-
pends upon several factors such as the fire load density,
the size and shape of the ventilation openings, and the
thermal characteristics of the enclosing compartment.
Time equivalence is useful when comparing the perform-
ance of an element in a natural fire with the known per-
formance of the same element in a fire resistance test,
see Schleich at al, (2001). It is useful for researchers
and fire investigators to know that the natural fire was
approximately equivalent to so many minutes of standard
test.
The fire load is the amount of combustibles available
to burn. It is expressed in terms of the equivalent weight
of timber (kg/m2) or in terms of energy released
(MJ/m2). The reference area is normally the floor area
only sometimes the total internal surface area of the
compartment is used.
The ventilation relates the size of openings, such as
windows and doors, to the size of a fire compartment or
room.
The heating of element depends on the incident heat
flux. This is the amount of heat, which an element re-
ceives in a fire. The heat flux is made up from radiation
and convection. In fully developed fires the radiation is
the dominant flux. A parametric fire is a mathematical
idealisation of a natural fire in a compartment. The gas
increases to a maximum and then declines, as it would in
a real fire. The fire temperature is a function of the venti-
lation factor, the fire load and the thermal properties of
the wall linings. Advanced computer programs use a
technique of computational fluid dynamics.
The structural response and its modelling under fire
condition depend on the applied structural materials. The
difference may be found by modelling of the whole
structure, in the modelling of the elements as well as
joints (Allam at al 1999). The resistance under fire con-
dition does not guide the difference. The aluminium and
steel are transferring the heat. The timber, masonry,
concrete and lightweight concrete has insulate itself. The
added insulation may be economical for the aluminium,
steel and timber structures. The design models are
based on previous check under ambient temperature, if
possible. The advanced model of global analysis as well
as element and connection check may be applied taking
into account large deformation, the changes of structural
properties and models during heating simulating the real
fire.
2. MASONARY STRUCTURES
2.1 Introduction
Following the Great Fire of London in 1666, Charles II
insisted on brick and stone buildings instead of the
wooden ones that have been previously used. Further-
more during the bombings of the Second World War,
brick structures suffered less damage than steel or con-
crete buildings. This actually proves the fact that the ma-
sonry is not only the high fire resistance but also it has a
large capacity to resist accidental damage due to the
some forms of exceptional loading.
In general, brick and block masonry materials are in-
combustible and cannot start or spread a fire. Further-
more masonry is rarely seriously damaged by fire in the
sense like other materials can be - it does not buckle like
steel, spall like reinforced concrete or burn like timber.
On the other hand, the high temperatures can influence
the strength of the units their deformations and can de-
stroy the mortar-brick junction and thus can provoke
some further reduction in residual compressive strength
and sharp drop in flexural and shear strength of the ma-
sonry elements exposed to the fire.
2.2 Materials for use in masonry walls
The masonry is strongly composite material consisting of
unit, mortar, and concrete infill and reinforcing steel.
From that point of view, the fire behaviour of a masonry
wall depends on:
− masonry unit material – clay (C), calcium silicate
(CS), autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) or
dense/lightweight aggregate concrete (LC);
− type of unit - solid or hollow (type and pattern of
holes, percentage of holes), shell and web thickness;
− characteristics of the units – strength, density, poros-
ity;
− type of mortar - general purpose, thin layer or light-
weight mortar;
− type of the execution of the pretend (head) and bed
joints (fully filled, stripes, unfilled, tongue and groove
systems etc.);
− with or without renders (plasters) on one or both
sides;
− relationship of the applied load to the resistance of
the wall and
− slenderness of the wall.
2.3 General requirements related to masonry walls
From the point of view of fire protection, a distinction is
made between non-load-bearing walls and load-bearing
walls and between separating walls (walls along escape
ways, walls of stair wells, or compartment walls) and
non-separating walls (within single fire compartment).
It is assumed that walls span or extend from one floor
to the next floor or to the roof, and that those floors or
the roof provide lateral support to the top and bottom of
the wall, unless its stability under normal function is
achieved by other means, for example buttresses or
special ties. Since masonry walls can be either single or
multiple leaf elements, a general attention is also focused
on the number of leaf, their thickness and if they are
load-bearing or not. Also perforated masonry units
should not be laid so that the perforations are at right
angles to the face of the wall, i.e. the wall should not be
penetrated by the perforations.
Special attention has to be paid in designing the joints
as well as recesses and chases for fixtures, pipes and
cables in the walls.
2.4 Design Practice
Masonry walls themselves do not contribute fuel to the
fire, are not subject to flame spread, and do not produce
smoke or toxic gases in the presence of fire. They do
provide solid non-combustible barriers to the spread of
fire from the original fire area and can be equally useful
in creating safe compartments or escape routes from the
building. Therefore, masonry construction is ideally
suited to minimizing the potential for ignition of fires and
the consequences of fires.
The main fire resistance aspects (Drysdale et al.
1994) of the design of masonry walls relate to the fol-
lowing:
− ability to maintain sufficient load-carrying capacity to
support floors and roofs in load-bearing construction
− ability of nonload-bearing firewalls to maintain suffi-
cient strength during and after specified duration of
fire to avoid collapse
− thermal characteristics of the wall so as to prevent
temperature rise that could possibly cause new igni-
tion
− impact of the failure of other structural elements on
the stability of the masonry
− impact of the use of other materials as part of the wall
system
2.5 Assessment by testing and tables
While most building codes for other materials relate to
both fire prevention and fire protection design proce-
dures, for the masonry this is not a case. Due to the gen-
eral belief that the masonry is incombustible material little
or no investigation were made on development of ana-
lytical procedures for assessment of fire resistance of the
masonry structures or its components in a real building
fire.
All of the current building codes for masonry
(EC 6, BS 5628, DIN 4102, UBC, NBC etc.) relate to
the fire design of the masonry structures by:
− avoiding premature collapse of the structure (load-
bearing function) and
− limiting fire spread (flames, hot gases, excessive heat)
and temperature rise beyond designated areas (sepa-
ration failure).
The requirements for masonry materials for achieving
those goals are stipulated by means of numerous tables,
which are derived mainly from fire resistance tests of
masonry walls with standard temperature-time curve.
The tables are drawn up in a standardized form to give
consistent information for all masonry material and the
standard renderings. Building code requirements for fire
resistance typically vary from ½ hours up, depending on
type of building, occupancy and criteria of failure (R –
load bearing, E – failure due to cracks, holes, etc, and I
– insulation failure). Having in mind all variety of materi-
als that can be used in masonry walls it is worth to men-
tion that the values presented in Table 1 reflect only the
small portion of those requirements stated in different
codes.
Table 1: Ultimate fire Resistance Periods for Load-bearing Clay
and Shale Walls in the United States ?(Drysdale1994)
_______________________________________________
Ultimate Fire Resistance Period (h)
_______________________________
No-Combustible Combustible
Members Framed Members
Into Wall Framed Into W.
_______________________________________________
Wall Wall No Plast. Plast. No Plaster on
Thickness Type pl. on one on two pl. exposed
(mm) side sides* side*
_______________________________________________
100 Solid 1¼ 1¾ 2½ - -
200 Solid 5 6 7 2 2½
300 Solid** 10 10 12 8 9
300 Solid† 12 13 15 - -
230 – 250 Cavity 5 6 7 2 2½
_______________________________________________
* To achieve these ratings, each plastered wall face must have
at least 13 mm 1:3 gypsum-sand plasters.
** Based on load failure (for load-bearing walls)
† Based on temperature rise (for nonload-bearing walls)
As it concern Eurocodes for masonry structures
(ENV1996-1) it is worth to mention that for the moment
in the latest version there are no input values in the tables
for minimal thickness for fire resistance for different
types of masonry (ENV 1996-1, 1995). In the previous
version of the EC 6 (ENV 1996-1, 1990) there were
some provisional values that were based largely on BS
and DIN standards, but with the comment that the
method of test according to BS and DIN were not ex-
actly the same. In general the values for given periods of
fire resistance are sometimes higher according to the
German results while there is some British data that gives
a lower thickness that has often been used.
2.6 Assessment by calculation
It has been only recently (Hahn 2001) that first attempts
were made to assess the fire resistance of masonry walls
by taking into account the relevant failure mode in fire
exposure, the temperature dependent material properties
and effects of thermal expansions and deformations.
In general the calculation methods may be:
− a simplified calculation model for specific types of
walls (analytical solution) and
− global structure analysis for simulating the behaviour
of structural masonry elements and the entire struc-
ture (FEM solution).
Although there are lack of data for other numerous
types of masonry materials, some good results were ob-
tained through simplified calculation procedure both for
pillar and wall elements, where in comparison to the ex-
perimental results, the results of simplified calculations
were a little bit too conservative. Most of the problems
that are limiting the usage of both analytical and FEM
solution of fire resistance of masonry structures are large
variety of materials that have been used in masonry and
lack of experimental data for verification of those mod-
els. Moreover, it will be quite demanding to prepare a
general solution for all types of the masonry. As it can be
seen from Figure 1, different types of the units have dif-
ferent behaviour due to thermal actions. Furthermore
some types of the units like AAC and CS are even gain-
ing on the strength at some elevated temperatures, while
LC and C units are having constant declination of the
strength with increasing the temperatures.
 14
Autoclaved areated concrete
12 Calcium silicate
10 Lightweight concrete
Clay
8
Strain [‰]

6
4
2

0
-2
-4

-6
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
Temperature [°C]
Figure 1: Shrinkage and expansion under changes of tempera-
ture for different types of the units (Hahn 2001)

3. TIMBER STRUCTURES
3.1 Behaviour of wooden constructions
The protection of buildings against fire is an important
topic, which puts constructions made of combustible
materials such as wood, and wood based material at a
disadvantage (Kollman and Coté 1968). Experiences
Figure 2: Fire behaviour of NLT uncovered
with devastating fire in the history of our cities led to
regulations that forbade the use of wood first as a roof-
ing material and on the ground floor. Afterwards when
alternative building materials and design were available
wood was more and more replaced especially in urban
areas. Today, there is again a tendency to construct
multi-storey buildings in wood where the risk of fire
plays a key role, see STEP (1995). These buildings re-
quire a careful planning with respect to fire protection,
which focuses on an organizational, conceptual, con-
structive and technical approach. Due to the complexity
of this topic, the following concentrates on constructive
fire protection. Combustibility is an m i portant material
property. Fire resistance, however, characterizes a con-
Figure 3: NLT covered (according table 2, Nr 2) after testing
struction element and indicates the period of time it can
maintain the load bearing capacity and tightness. Both
properties have to be taken into account. Wood and 3.2 Experimental results on floor elements made of
steel are diametrically opposed with respect to these solid wood and wood-concrete composite
two definitions. Wood burns, however, since charcoal is Combustibility and fire resistance determine the fire be-
produced at a constant rate so that the time to failure of
wooden construction elements can be easily predicted. haviour of wood and wooden elements. Instinctively
Steel is incombustible, however, it has to be protected most people are susceptible to attach a high risk to the
against heat in order not to loose strength and stiffness. combustibility of a construction, see Tab. 2. However, if
The design of multi-story wood buildings requires good one consider that fire resistance of masonry and wooden
fire resistance, which is in general, achieved by cladding building are equivalent, it becomes obvious that the
wood structures with incombustible components or, by course of a fire depends decisively on the resistance of
the use of construction elements especially floors made
of solid wood. Floors with a long span have been de- the wall and floor. Elements from solid wood have a
signed as timber concrete composite, which successfully good fire behaviour since there is no heat conduction
resisted significantly more than 90 minutes in case of fire. through hollow spaces. The tightness of the element is
crucial and can be achieved by gluing or cladding with
other materials. In the past, the fire behaviour of different
solid construction elements and whole buildings has been
tested. The test results encourage to a further use of
wood in the multi-story sector. The following summa-
rizes experimental findings on nailed laminated timber
floors (NLT) that can alternatively be provided with a
thick layer of concrete, which guarantees tightness and
makes the floor work as a structural composite where
the wood is subjected to tension and the concrete to
compression. Nailed laminated wood is to be distin-
guished from glued laminated wood with its tight bond
line.
Table 2: Fire resistance of selected solid floor elements and
composites
No. Floor and layers Fire resistance
1 NLT (thickness: 110 mm) 23 min
uncovered
2 NLT (thickness: 110 mm) 35 min
+ insulation (mineral: 4 cm)
+ particle board (16 mm)
3 Wood concrete composite > 90 min
NLT (thickness:140 mm)
+ concrete (thickness: 80 mm)
Figure 4: Wood concrete section on the basis of NLT
4. STEEL STRUCTURES
4.1 Reached Stage
The design methods are used in practice to increase
safety of steel structures under fire conditions. New
studies have been made in the area of material proper-
ties, complex as well simple design models of elements
and joints, and fire modelling in last ten years. Very
complex and progressive was the research in fire model-
ling and its application into the design. Among the work
done in this field there are two topics design that will be
presented here: the lateral torsional buckling of steel I-
beams at elevated temperatures and the component
model for the behaviour of steel joints in case of fire.
4.2 Lateral-Torsional Buckling of Steel I-Beams
The problem of lateral-torsional buckling of steel I-
beams at room temperature is well recognised by prac-
tice. The same problem at elevated temperature was
studied by Bailey et al., 1996, who uses a three dimen-
sional computer model to investigate the ultimate behav-
iour of uniformly heated unrestrained beams.
The behaviour of steel I-beams at elevated tempera-
ture has been analysed numerically (Vila Real &
Franssen, 1999, 2001) leading to a new proposal for
the evaluation of its lateral-torsional buckling resistance.
This proposal was based on the numerical results from
the SAFIR program, a geometrical and materially non-
linear code specially established for the analysis of struc-
tures submitted to fire (Franssen, 1995). The capability
of this code to model the lateral-torsional buckling of
beams has been shown (Vila Real & Franssen, 1999) at
room temperature by comparisons against the formulas
of ENV 1993-1-1, 1993.
It must be emphasized that the simple model pre-
sented here (Vila Real et al. 1999, 2001), was estab-
lished on the base of numerical simulations using charac-
teristic values for initial out-of-straightness (L/1000) and
residual stresses ( 0 ,3 × 235 MPa ), which are unlikely to
be simultaneously present in a test or in a real fire. In the
experimental work we have done, the geometrical im-
perfections and the residual stresses were measured as
well as the nominal yield strength of the material and the
Young Modulus. These measured values were used in
the numerical calculations.
A set of 120 full-scale tests based on a reaction
frame and on a hydraulic system has been carried out for
beams of the European series IPE 100 with lengths
varying from 0.5 to 6.5 meters. Three tests have been
done for each beam length and for each temperature
level. The beams were electrically heated by means of
ceramic mat elements, heated by a power unit of 70
kVA. To increase the thermal efficiency a ceramic fibre
mat has been used around the beam and the heating
elements. According to the proposal the design buckling
resistance moment of a laterally unrestrained beam, with
a class 1 or 2 cross section type, can be calculated by
1
M b , fi, t , Rd = χ LT , fiW pl, y k y , θ, com f y (1)
γ M , fi
where χ LT , fi , is given by
1
χ LT , fi = (2)
φ LT , θ,com + [φ LT , θ,com ] 2 − [ λ LT , θ,com ] 2
with
φ LT , θ, com =
1
2
[
1 + α λLT , θ, com + ( λLT , θ, com ) 2 ] (3)
and
α = 0.65 235 f y (4)
where f y is the nominal yield strength of the material, Wpl
is the section modulus, k y.θ,com the reduction factor for
yield strength, relative slenderness λLT ,θ ,com , and γM,fi is
the partial safety factor for steel. The lateral-torsional
buckling curve now depends on the steel grade as it can
be seen in Figure 5.
 1.2
Mb , fi,t , Rd / M fi, θ, Rd
1.2 1

EC3, S235 or S355

1 New Proposal - S235 0.8

Eurocode 3
New Proposal - S355

0.8 0.6

0.6 0.4

0.2
0.4
SAFE
0
0.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Numeric
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
a)
λ LT ,θ ,com
1.2

Figure 5: Presented design buckling curve compare to the

1
ENV 1993-1-2 predictions
0.8

New proposal
Both experimental and numerical results have been
compared with the simple formulas from ENV 1993-1- 0.6

2 and the new proposal. The results of these compari- 0.4

sons are shown respectively in Figure 6 and Figure 7. In
these figure the regression line is much more close to the 0.2
SAFE
ideal continuous line in the case of numerical calculation 0
than for the experimental results. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
1.2 Numeric

1 b)
Figure 7: Numerical behaviour, for elevated temperatures (above
0.8
400 ºC).
Eurocode 3

0.6

0.4
4.3 A component model for the behaviour of steel
0.2
joints at elevated temperature
SAFE
0 Recent experimental evidence have highlighted the need
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
to evaluate the behaviour of steel joints at elevated tem-
Experimental
peratures, since they exhibit a distinct change of its mo-
a) ment-rotation response under increasing temperature,
1.2 that affects the global response of the structure. In terms
1
of cold design, the ‘component method’ constitutes to-
day the widely accepted procedure for the evaluation of
0.8 the various design values (EN 1993-1-1/A2).
New proposal

It was purposed an analytical procedure capable

0.6
of predicting the moment-rotation response under fire
0.4
conditions (Simões da Silva et al., 2001). This proce-
dure is based in the ‘component method’, that consists
0.2 of modelling a joint as a extensional springs and rigid
SAFE links, whereby the springs represent a specific part of a
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 joint make an identified contribution to one or more of
Experimental its structural properties (component). Each component
b) exhibits a non-linear force deformation response (here
Figure 6: Experimental behaviour, for elevated temperatures taken as a bi-linear approximation), characterised by
(above 400 ºC). four properties: elastic stiffness, post-limit stiffness, limit
load, yield displacement and limit displacement.
The evaluation of the fire response of steel joints
requires the continuous change of mechanical properties
of steel (yield stress and Young’s modulus) as tempera-
ture increase. In the context of the component method
this is implemented at the component level:
Fi;θ = k y ,θ Fi ; 20º C ; (5)
 K i ;θ = k E ,θ K i ;20º C ; (6) 5. ALUMINIUM STRUCTURES
5.1 General
F k
δ i ;θ = i ;θ = y ;θ δ i ;20 º C ,
The demand of aluminium structures has increased al-
(7) most continuously in the last 100 years, the main fields of
K i ;θ k E ;θ
application being aeronautic, shipping and automotive
where F is force in component, K is stiffness of the industries. Attention to aluminium is also paid by building
component, k E;θ is reduction factor relative to E, k y; θ is and construction markets, especially with regard to off-
reductionfactor relative to f y, and δ is deformation of shore structures, bridge, reticular space structures, wall
component. Introducing these equations in any evalua- panels, scaffolding and windows. Attraction is essentially
tion of moment-rotation response of steel joints at room due to lightness, versatility of product shapes (allowed
temperature yields the required fire response: by the extrusion fabrication process) corrosion high re-
sistance, ease maintenance, good appearance and low-
M i ;θ = k y ;θ M i;20 º C ; (8) cycle costs, but also high structural efficiency (large
strength to specific weight ratio) (Mazzolani 1995).
M i;θ k y ;θ On the other hand, in the field of structural engineering,
φ i;θ = = φ i; 20º C ; (9)
Si ;θ k E ;θ full utilisation of special features of aluminium has not
been always possible, due to lack of technical data and
2 difficulty of application of special calculation methods
Eθ z
S i;θ = = k E ;θ Si ; 20 º C ; (10) required by the peculiar features of the material. This is
1
i ki ;θ
∑ the case of structural fire design, which is presently car-
ried out by adopting simplified material schematisation
and calculation procedures. In fact, while design rules
where φ is rotation of joint, M is bending moment mo- for steel structures subjected to fire are based on com-
ment, and Sj is the joint stuffiness. This procedure may prehensive research activities and laboratory tests as
be applied to a fire event, characterised by any fire-load well as on long experience, in case of aluminium struc-
curve: anisothermal, isothermal or transient situation. An tures it has to be revealed a poorness of available data
application to a cruciform flush end-plate beam-to- and a weakness of existing design rules (Forsén 1995,
column steel joint is presented and compared to the ex- Lundberg 1995).
perimental results obtained under various loading condi- Traditionally, the behaviour of aluminium alloy in fire is
tions (Al-Jabri et al. 1997). Comparison with experi- thought to be a critical task for the structural design. This
mental results has shown good agreement with the is due to the rapid decrease of material resistance at ele-
proposed methodology, as represented in Figure 8. vated temperatures, as respect to other traditional mate-
The fire response of steel joints involves additional com- rials like steel and reinforced concrete. In particular,
plexity to the corresponding cold analysis. This analytical aluminium alloys melt between 600 and 650 °C, the ex-
methodology greatly simplifies this problem, allowing a act value being dependent on the type of alloy under
direct solution from the knowledge of the response at consideration, but at 200-250 °C, most of the alloys
ambient temperature. have already lost approximately 50 % of their original
strength at room temperature. For this reason, when for
Beam Flange Temperature (ºC)

800.0
aluminium structural components resistance to fire is re-
700.0 quired, the adoption of reliable prediction models would
be compulsory, allowing accurate design calculations
600.0 and safety assessment to be carried out.
500.0
5.2 Thermal and mechanical properties of
400.0 aluminium
FB 11: 4 kNm
300.0 FB12: 8 kNm
FB13: 12.8 kNm
Features of aluminium alloys are changing under expo-
FB14: 17 kNm
EXPERIM. RESULTS
sure at high temperatures. Relevant values of both physi-
200.0
ANALIT. RESULTS cal and mechanical properties are given in the European
Component 4.1
100.0 Component 5.1 Prestandard ENV 1999-1-2 (1998). The first ones al-
Component 4.2
Component 2 low the temperature distribution in the cross-section to
0.0 φ (rad)
0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050 0.060 0.070 0.080 0.090 0.100
be determined by thermal analysis, while the second
ones allow the bearing capacity of the structure at ele-
Figure 8: Anisothermal temperature–rotation response vated temperature to be evaluated by means of struc-
tural analysis. In general, it has to be emphasised that
almost all the material properties are dependent on the
type of alloy, but some common features may be identi-
fied, allowing some general trends to be recognised.
In particular, it has to remarked that: (1) thermal elon-
gation of aluminium is about 2,5⋅10-5 °C-1, therefore,
more than twice that of steel; (2) specific heat of alumin- Initial modulus of elasticity in % of normal
ium alloys ranges from 0,9 kJ/kg °C (at room tempera- value at ambient temperature
ture) to 1,1 kJ/kg °C (at 500 °C), therefore about two 100%
times the one of steel (nevertheless due to the ratio of
specific weight between steel and aluminium, for a given 80%
cross section and fire exposure, the former has an higher
60%

E T /E 0
volumetric heat capacity than the latter, resulting in more
rapidly heat up of aluminium structures than steel struc- 40%
tures); (3) unlike steel, thermal conductivity of aluminium
is increasing with increasing temperatures and ranges 20%
from 140-190 W/m°C at room temperature to 180-220 0%
W/m°C at 400 °C, it being therefore more than three 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
times higher than for steel; (4) the emissivity of aluminium Temperature (°C)
surface is dependent on the surface finish, making it diffi-
cult to be determined accurately (suggested values are 0.2% proof strength in % of normal value at
0,3 and 0,7 for clean uncovered surfaces and for ambient temperature
painted and covered surfaces, respectively, while for 1.00 5052-O
5052-H34
steel the suggested value is 0,625). 5083-O
5083-H113
From the structural design point of view, the most im- 0.80 5454-O
5454-H32
portant difference between aluminium and carbon steel is

the shape of the stress-strain curve. In fact, in case of
aluminium, the stress-strain curve is non-linear and there
is no well-defined yield stress due to continuous harden-
ing. Besides, it has to be considered that as a function of
both the chemical composition of the alloy and of the
possible type of applied heat-treatment, there is a great
variety of aluminium alloys having mechanical features
substantially different from each other in terms of limit
strength, ductility and shape of the stress-strain curve.
On the other hand, the mechanical properties of alumin-
ium at transient high temperatures are complex and can-
not be easily generalised. A wide preventive determina-
tion of experimental data and accurate material models is
therefore necessary for an accurate and reliable determi-
nation of load-bearing capacity of aluminium structures
under fire conditions.
The main parameters for characterising the mechanical
behaviour of aluminium alloys in the elastic range are
Young’s modulus (E) and 0.2% proof strength (f 0.2), the
latter being used as conventional elastic limit of the mate-
rial. The former is practically independent from the
adopted alloy, while the latter is related to the type of al-
loy under consideration. In Figure 1, values suggested
by Eurocode 9 for typical aluminium alloys and tempers
at elevated temperatures are depicted. It can be ob-
served the remarkable variation of the conventional elas-
tic limit with temperature (f 0.2,T) due to type of alloy and
temper. For instance, relative strength values at 200 °C
are 90 and 40 percent for 5052-O and 7075-T6 alloy,
respectively. Even though there is any possibility to
gather typical common trend among different groups of
alloy, it can be noted that the beneficial effects of heat
treatment and work hardening, used to improve the me-
chanical properties at normal temperatures, diminishes at
high temperatures.
f 0.2,T / f0.2
6061-T6
0.60 6063-T6
6082-T6
3003-O
3003-H14
0.40 5086-O
5086-H112
7075-T6
0.20
Temperature (°C)
0.00
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Figure 9: Main mechanical properties of aluminium at elevated
temperatures as suggested by EC9.
On the other hand Eurocode 9 (ENV 1999-1-1) does
not supply any further information regarding the material
behaviour in the plastic range, not allowing for taking
into account at elevated temperatures the rather impor-
tant contribution provided by the hardening features of
aluminium alloys.
Several additional data gathered by test results, includ-
ing ultimate strength (f u) and ductility (ε u) of typical alu-
minium alloys are provided in ASM (1994). From the
analysis of relevant results, the following remarks may be
drawn: (1) for heat treated alloys (T) and work hard-
ened alloys (H) the variation of hardening ratio (f u/f 0.2)
with temperature is slight, while it is considerable for al-
loys in the annealed stage (O); (2) the inelastic behaviour
of the alloy is independent from the adopted treatment
for temperatures higher than 200 °C; (3) there is a re-
markable increase of uniform strain with increasing tem-
perature for all types of alloys; (4) Inelastic features of
aluminium alloys are strongly affected by the time of ex-
posure at elevated temperature, showing higher ductility
and lower ultimate strength as far as the exposure time
increases, see Conserva et al. (1992). Characteristic
temperature dependence curves of the above parame-
ters for some typical alloys are shown in Figure 10,
permitting some of the above conclusions to be stressed.
 2.5 5052-O rectangular hollow cross-section columns made of 6082
5052-H34 aluminium alloy (both temper T4 and T6) subjected to
2.0 6063-T6 fire has been recently investigated by Langhelle and
6063-T1 Amdahl (1998) by means of both experimental tests and
1.5 complex numerical analyses. Several interesting conclu-
(fu /f0.2 )

sions are drawn in the above study, emphasizing the ne-

1.0 cessity to undertake further research activities to obtain
more comprehensive database and a better understand-
0.5 ing of some fundamental phenomenological aspects
which have been evidenced by tested aluminium alloys
Temperature (°C)
0.0 contrarily to the simplified schematisation suggested by
0 100 200 300 400 the present design code. In particular, some of the im-
portant issues arisen are: (1) creep effects are irrelevant
150.0 5052-O when constant heating rate is applied, while they are im-
5052-H34 portant in case of tests carried out under constant tem-
125.0 6063-T6 perature; (2) EC9 yields reasonable capacities for tested
6063-T1
100.0 columns, except for those tested with constant heating
rates, due to the fact that creep effects are not correctly
u)

75.0 taken into account in such a condition; the difference be-

(

tween experimental and design capacities depends on

50.0
25.0
Temperature (°C)
0.0
0 100 200 300
Figure 10: Typical inelastic behaviour of aluminium alloys at
elevated temperatures (exposure time at testing temperature up
to 10000 h).
5.3 Ongoing research projects in Europe
Many issues related to the structural behaviour of
aluminium exposed to fire have to be still solved in order
to allow the designer to apply accurate and rational
procedure for the safety assessment of members and
structures. Such aspects are concerned with both more
realistic material modelling to be used for global
structural analysis and the actual response of aluminium
members at elevated temperatures.
The behaviour of aluminium in fire is presently under
investigation at University of Naples Federico II. The
general scope of the research activity is the definition of
reliable rational methods for structural fire design. There-
fore, mechanical models able to account for the material
behaviour at elevated temperature in both elastic and
inelastic ranges have been proposed. Such models are
based on the well known Ramberg-Osgood law (Maz-
zolani 1995), whose parameters are given in a closed-
form as a function of the corresponding values at room
temperatures and specific temperature-dependent rela-
tionships, which have been calibrated on the basis of ex-
isting test results (Ponticelli, 1999). In cooperation with
University of Liege, the above material model has been
introduced into the well know computer program
SAFIR (Franssen et al. 1995), allowing the behaviour of
complex aluminium structures exposed to standard fires
to be predicted up to plastic collapse by means of an
accurate but direct and quite simple approach.
Wide research activities are also carried out at the
NTNU of Thondheim. In particular the behaviour of
both the type of temper and the fabrication process, it
being larger in case of welded columns and temper T6;
(4) reduction of yield strength of AA 6082 at elevated
temperatures is different for temper T4 and T6, while
400 design codes give similar reduction values for both tem-
pers (in particular T4 exhibited a less pronounced loss of
capacity due to the artificial ageing caused by the ap-
plied heating); (5) The strength of the alloy is invariant
with respect to temper at 285 °C, and the detrimental
effect of welding completely vanishes at this tempera-
ture.
6 CONCLUSION
The European knowledge of fire design brings good en-
gineering tools for modelling of the structural behaviour
under fire conditions. Three steps of procedure may be
separated: the model of fire scenario in the compart-
ment, the heat transfer to the structure, and the response
of the structure. For all steps are ready for use the de-
sign models. The simplest design models are supported
by design charts and design rules. The engineering mod-
els are based on natural fires scenario, refined transfer of
the heat between the atmosphere and the structure and
non-linear global analyses. The complex models, based
on the FE modelling of fire scenario and 3D non-linear
behaviour of structure, are ready to be applied for pre-
diction of the structural behaviour under exceptional fire
loading. All design and knowledge steps are under de-
velopment by the experimental, numerical and analytical
modelling to address and to reach the tomorrow asked
level of safety.
7 REFERENCES
Allam, A. M., Fahad, M. K., Liu, T.C.H, Burgess, I. W., Plank, R.
J. & Davies, J.M.(1999): Effects of Restraint on the Be-
 haviour of Steel Frames in Fire. In: "Proceedings of the Newman, G.M., Robinson, J.T., Bailey, C.G.: (2000) A New Ap-
Conference Eurosteel ’99, Praha, pp. 279-282. proach to Multi-Storey Steel-Framed Buildings (SCI-
ASM (1994). Aluminium and Aluminium Alloys. ASM Special- P288). Ascot, The Steel Construction Institute.
ity Handbook, J.R. Davis Ed., The material Information Soci- O’Connor, M. A. & Martin, M. D. (1998) Behaviour of a Multi-
ety. storey Steel Framed Building Subjected to Fire Attack, J.
Bailey, C. G., Burgess, I. W. & Plank, R. J. (1996) Computer Construct. Steel Research, 46 (1-3), Paper No. 169.
Simulation of a Full-scale Structural Fire Test, The Ponticelli, L. (1999). Methods for fire safety assessment of alu-
Structural Engineer, 74 (6), pp. 93-100. minium Structures (in Italian). Graduation thesis, University
of Naples Federico II (Supervisors: F.M. Mazzolani, R. Lan-
Conserva, M., Donzelli, G., Trippodo, R., (1992). Aluminium and dolfo, G. De Matteis).
its applications. EDIMET, Brescia.
Schleich J.B., Krupa J., Newman G., Twilt L. (2001) Model Code
Drysdale, D. D. (1999) An Introduction to Fire Dynamics, 2nd ed, on Fire Engineering, ECCS No. 111, Brussels, p. 165, ISBN
West Sussex, England, John Wiley & Sons. 92-9147-000-65.
Drysdale, R.G., Hamid, A.A. & Baker, L.R. (1994) Masonry Schleich, J.B. at al (1999) Competitive Steel Buildings through
structures: behavior and design. Prentice-Hall. Inc. New Natural Fire Safety Concept, CEC 7210-SA / 125, 126,
Jersey. 213, 323, 423, 522, 623, 839, 937, Brussels.
ENV 1991-2-2 (1995) Eurocode 1, Basis of design and actions on Simões da Silva, L.A.P., Santiago, A. & Vila Real, P. (2001) A
structures – Part 2-2: Actions on structures – Actions on component model for the behaviour of steel joint at ele-
structures exposed to fire, Brussels . vated temperatures, Journal Constructional Steel Research
ENV 1993-1-1 (1992) Eurocode 3, Design of Steel Structures – 57(11), 1169-1195.
Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings, Brussels. STEP (1995) Timber Engineering, Centrum Hout, Amsterodam.
ENV 1993-1-2 (1995) Eurocode 3 – Design of steel structures – Vila Real, P. M. M. & Franssen, J.M. (1999) Lateral buckling of
Part 1-2: General Rules – Structural fire design, Brussels. steel I beams at room temperature - Comparison between the
ENV 1996-2 (1990) Design of Masonry Structures. Part 10: EUROCODE 3 and the SAFIR code considering or not the
Structural Fire Design, Brussels. residual stresses”, internal report No. 99/01, University of
ENV 1996-1-2 (1995) Design of masonry structures – Part 1-2: Liege.
General rules – Structural fire design, Brussels. Vila Real, P. M. M. & Franssen, J.M. (2001) Numerical Model-
ling of Lateral Buckling of Steel I Beams Under Fire Con-
ENV 1999-1-2 (1998) Eurocode 9: Design of Aluminium Struc-
ditions – Comparison with Eurocode 3”, Vol. 11, No. 2,
tures – Part 1-2: General rules -Structural Fire Design.
Journal of Fire Protection Engineering, USA.
CEN, Brussels.
Forsén N.E. (1995) Fire resistance, in F. M. Mazzolani “Alumin-
ium Alloy Structures”, 2nd Edition. E&FN Spon, London.
Franssen, J.-M.; Schleich, J. B. & Cajot, L.-G., (1995) A simple
model for fire resistance of axially-loaded members accord-
ing to Eurocode 3 ; J. Construc. Steel Research, Vol. 35; pp.
49-69.
Hahn C. (2001) Alternative Wege zur Ermittlung der
Feuerwiderstandsdauer von Mauerwerk. Mauerwerk
Kalendar 2001.: pp.353-377. Verlag Ernst & Sohn, Berlin.
Kirby B.R. (1995) The Behaviour of High-strength Grade 8.8
Bolts in Fire. J. Construct. Steel Res., 33, 1995, 3-38.
Kollman F.F.I, Coté W.A. (1968) Principles of wood science
and technology, Springer Berlin , p. 592, ISBN 03-
87042970.
Langhelle N.K. and Amdahl, J. (2001) Experimental and Nu-
merical Analysis of Aluminium Columns Subjected to
Fire. In Proc. Eleventh International Offshore and Po-
lar Engineering Conference, Stavanger, Norway, 17-22
June, 406-413.
Lennon T. (1997) Cardington Fire Tests: Survey of Damage to
the Eight Storey Building, BRE internal Report
GD1286/86.
Lundberg, S. (1995) Design for fire resistance. In Training in
Aluminium Application Technology (TALAT) EU-
COMETT Program, F. Ostermann Ed., Aluminim Train-
ing Partnership, Brussels: Section 2500.
Mazzolani, F.M. (1995) Aluminium Alloy Structures - 2nd Edi-
tion. E&FN Spon, London.