FACTORS AFFECTIING THE BEHAVIOR OF

STEEL STRUCTURES IN FIRE

XIAO JIE YANG RI GAO
College of Civil & Architecture Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing, 100044, China

Ri GAO is a professor of Civil and Architecture Engineering at Beijing

Jiaotong University (Northern Jiaotong University), People’s Republic of China.
His major is structure engineering and he has engaged in the research of steel
structure for over 20 years.

Ri GAO

Xiao Jie YANG is a postgraduate student of structure engineering at Beijing

Jiaotong University, People’s Republic of China. Before her further study in
the University, she had been an engineer in steel structure design area for
four years.

Xiao Jie YANG

ABSTRACT
Recent experimental and theoretical researches on the composite steel framed structure show that it is the thermal
expansion and thermal bowing induced forces and displacements and not material degradation that governs the
structural response in fire until just before failure. The paper attempts to lay down some of the most important
and fundamental principles that govern the behavior of steel structures like beams in fire in a simple and
comprehensible manner. During the analysis, the factors such as mechanical properties of steel, thermal expansion, thermal
bowing and geometrical non-linearity as well as the non-uniform profile of temperature across member sections are taken into
account. Among these factors, thermal expansion and thermal bowing are put on more emphasis. This is based upon the
analysis of response of single beam under a combination of thermal action and end restrains representing the
surrounding structure. The analysis shows that composite steel framed structures possess a much larger inherent
fire resistance. It is also accepted that the current prescriptive approaches of designing such structures are
overly conservative and not based on rational principles. It is therefore possible to construct these structures
much more economically. However, to fully exploit the considerable reserves of strength, it is imperative that the
mechanics of whole steel frame structure behaviors in fire is well understood. The ideas presented in this paper
are a step in this direction.

1
 FACTORS AFFECTIING THE BEHAVIOR OF
STEEL STRUCTURES IN FIRE

INTRODUCTION
Behavior of steel structure in fire has long been understood to be dominated by the effects of strength loss caused
by thermal degradation, and that large deflections and runaway resulting from the action of imposed loading on a
‘weakened’ structure. Thus ‘strength’ and ‘load’ are quite generally believed to be the key factors determining
structural response. The assessment of the adequacy of composite steel frame structures in fire continues to be
based upon the performance of isolated elements in standard furnace tests. This is despite the widespread
acceptance among structural engineers that such an approach is over-conservative and even more importantly
unscientific (Wang and Moore, 1995). This view has gained considerable strength in the Broad gate fire (SCI, 1991)
and has been reinforced by the Cardington tests. The advances in understanding structural behavior in fire have
been achieved in the last few years (Franssen at al., 1996) (Bailey, 2000). Using the numerical modeling tools that
have been instrumental in developing this understanding can only do this. However, the use of such tools,
which are indispensable for research, is not practical in the design office. Exploitation of the new knowledge can
only become feasible in practice if the understanding generated is further developed into simpler analytical
expressions. Because of these, establishing analytical approach for predicting the behavior of steel construction
in fires has been the effort of many researchers.

HEATING REGIME
In real fires, the temperature distribution in a steel member is not uniform, especially when part of it is contacted
to heat sink material. For instance, within a beam supporting concrete slab in the top of flange, the temperature of
top flange is much lower than that of its bottom flange. Fig. 1 illustrates the temperature regime in a beam
heated from underneath. The temperature distribution through the depth of the beam can be split into two

components consisting a uniform mean temperature rise ( ∆T ) and a gradient ( T , y ) and their expression are

also shown in the figure.

Fig. 1 uniform mean temperature and through depth thermal gradient over the cross-section of a beam

2
 PROPERTIES OF BEAM CROSS SECTION
For convenience of calculating cross section properties, the cross section with no uniform temperature profile
may be converted to equivalent section with uniform temperature distribution as shown in Fig. 2 on the basis of
the same geometrical and physical property. Only “I”-shape cross-section is considered. Noticing that the web of
the “I”-shape cross section contributes very little to the inertia moment and the moment resistance of the section
(Li and Jiang, 1999), it is practically reasonable to assume that the width of the web in the equivalent section varies
linearly. Then, the following formula can be derived to calculate the geometrical and physical properties of the

elemental cross section on the base of uniform temperature distribution T2 .

Fig.2 Equivalent cross section in elastic state

Fig, 3 Dimension and temperature profile of element cross-section

Location of neutral axis in elastic state:

1 1 1
u e A f h + (1 − u e ) A f t + (1 + u e ) Aw + (1 + 2u e ) Aw h0
ye = 2 2 6 (1)
1
(1 + u e )(2 A f + Aw )
2
ET 1
Where ue = (2)
ET 2

with ET 1 being the modulus of elasticity of steel at temperature T1 and ET 2 the modulus of elasticity of

3
steel at temperature T2 . The meaning of other symbols is shown in Fig.2 and Fig.3.

Equivalent axial stiffness:

(EA)eq = ET 2 Aeq (3)

Where Aeq is the equivalent area of the cross section

1
Aeq =
(1 + u e )(2 A f + Aw ) (4)
2
Equivalent bending stiffness in elastic state:
(EI )eq = ET 2 I eq (5)

where I eq is the equivalent moment of inertia,

1 t t2
I eq = (1 + u e ) A f t 2 + A f ( y e − ) 2 + A f u e (h − y e − ) 2 +
12 2 2
2 2 (6)
(u e + 4u e + 1) 2 1  2u e + 1 
t w h0 + (1 + u e ) Aw  y e − t − 
36(1 + u e ) 2  3(1 + u e ) 

FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURAL MECHANICS

There are two main effects of heating on structural members, thermal expansion caused by an increase in mean
temperature and thermal bowing caused by a non-uniform distribution of temperature over the depth of the
member. In real structure in fire these two effects act together. Both effects result in thermal strains. If these
thermal strains are restrained strains develop, the most fundamental relationship that governs this behavior in
structure is:

ε total = ε mechanical + ε thermal (7)

With

σ = f (ε mechanicla ) δ = f (ε total ) (8)

The total strain governs the deformed shape of the structure δ . The stress state in the structure σ (elastic or
plastic) depends only on the mechanical strains. Where the thermal strains are free to develop in an unrestrained
manner and there are no external loads, axial expansion of thermal bowing results from,

ε total = ε thermal And

ε total → δ (9)
By contrast, when thermal expansion strains are fully restrained without external loads, thermal stresses and
plasticity results from,

0 = ε mechanical + ε thermal And ε mechanicla → σ

4
 THERMAL EXPANSION
The response of beam with different support conditions, such as simple supported, axially restrained and fully
fixed to a uniform mean temperature rise with zero thermal gradient through the depth can be very different
(Zhang, 1998). The compressive axial stress can be derived from the most common case, that is, the ends are

restrained with stiffness k t against axial translation. The process is as follows,

σ 1 = Eε 1 (10)

σ 1 + σ T = ET ⋅ ε T (11)

δ = αT − ε T + ε 1 (12)

kt ⋅ l ⋅ δ
σT = = K ⋅δ (13)
A

k t ⋅l
Where K= (14)
A
Therefore

ET  E 
σ1 +σT = 1 +  ⋅ ε 1 + α ⋅ T  (15)
1 + (ET K )  K  

1   E  
δ = α ⋅ ∆T −  − 1 ⋅ ε 1  (16)
1 +  K    ET  
 ET 

σ1 initial stress in beam before the temperature rise

ε1 initial strain in beam before the temperature rise

σT thermal stress when the mean temperature rise ∆T

εT thermal strains caused by σ1 and σT when the mean temperature rise ∆T

δ total strain of beam

ET modulus of elastic of beam when the mean temperature rise ∆T

E modulus of elastic of beam at ambient temperature

α the coefficient of thermal expansion
A section area of beam

It is summarized in the following cases (without considering initial stress and strain).

1. k t = 0 This is the case that a uniform temperature raise, ∆T , is applied to a simply supported beam

5
without axial restraint. The result will simply be an expansion or increase in length of l ⋅ δ = l ⋅ α ⋅ ∆T as

shown in Fig. 4. Therefore, the total strain (say ε total ) is equal to the thermal strain and there is no mechanical

strain (say ε machenicla ) which means that no stresses develop in the beam.

Fig. 4 uniform heating of a simply supported beam

2. k t = ∞ Beams in real structure do not have the freedom to elongate in the manner describe above.

Therefore, a more realistic case is to consider an axially restrained beam subjected to a uniform temperature rise,
∆T (as shown in Fig, 5). It is clear to see from the equation (15) and (16) that in this case
σ T = ET ⋅ α ⋅ ∆T (17)

δ =0 (18)

Fig. 5 axially restrained beam subjected to uniform heating

It is not difficult to understand that thermal expansion is cancelled out by equal and opposite contraction caused

by the restraining force P . ( δ = ε total = ε thermal + ε mechenical = 0 , therefore, ε machenical = −ε thermal ). The

magnitude of the restraining force P is ,

P = A ⋅ σ T = ET ⋅ A ⋅ α ⋅ ∆T (19)

3. 0 < k t < ∞ In real structures the level of restrained against axial translation will be between pinned and

fully fixed. The stress and total strain in this case are

ET ⋅ α ⋅ ∆T ET ⋅ α ⋅ ∆T
σT = = (20)
ET E ⋅A
1+ 1+ T
K kt ⋅ l

α ⋅ ∆T
δ = (21)
k ⋅l
1+ t
ET ⋅ A
respectively.

6
 RESPONSES OF BEAM SUBJECTED TO MEAN TEMPERATURE RISE
If the temperature is allowed to rise indefinitely, then there will be two basic responses, depending upon the
slenderness of the beam.

1. If the beam is sufficiently stocky, then the axial stress will sooner or later reach the yield stress σ y of the

material. The yield temperature increment ∆T y is

σ yT 1 + ET ⋅ A k ⋅ l 
∆T y =  t  (22)
ET ⋅ α

Assuming a steel beam with rigid lateral restraint ( k t = ∞ ) has 300 N / mm 2 of constant yield stress,

1.4 × 10 −5 of thermal expansion coefficient and 2.1 × 10 5 N / mm 2 constant E , its ∆T y can be calculated

ET ⋅ A
approximately 100℃. If the restraint stiffness of beam is equal to that of its axial stiffness itself( k t = ),
l

its ∆T y will reach to about 200℃. It can be seen from the above two case that the use of constant σ y and E is

reasonable because the properties of material has not decreased a lot when temperature reaches to about 200℃(as
shown in Fig.6).

1.20

1.00

0.80

fy(T)/fy(20 )
0.60 E(T)/E(20 )
fp(T)/fy(20 )

0.40

0.20

0.00
20 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
T( )

Fig.6 variation of the parameters of the structural steel law in Euro code 3 9

2. If the beam is slender that it will buckle before the material reached its yield stress. The Euler buckling stress

σ cr for a beam is described by Equation (23).

7
 π 2 ET I
σ cr = (23)
l2

By equating this stress to the restraint stress, the critical buckling temperature ∆Tcr can be derived.

π 2 ET I ET ⋅ α ⋅ ∆Tcr
= (24)
l 2
E ⋅A
(1 + T )
kt ⋅ l

π2 E ⋅A
∆Tcr = (1 + T ) (25)
αλ 2
kt ⋅ l
I second moment of area of the beam cross section
λ slenderness ratio of the beam

For a beam with k t = ∞ , it will experience buckling before the stress reach to material yield stress if

π2
slenderness ratio greater that ≈ 84 (100 is the yielding temperature analyzed above).
1.4 × 10 −5 × 100

ET ⋅ A
That is to say, a beam with slenderness less than 84 belongs to stocky beam. For the case of kt = , the
l

critical buckling temperature will be double of the case of k t = ∞ approximately.

From above theoretical analysis, it can be seen that no matter what kind of failure occur, the temperature rise is
not much. So it is safe to draw the conclusion that the thermal induced force determinates the response of such
beams, not the properties of material degradation with increasing temperature.

THERMAL BOWING
Fig. 7 shows a beam subjected to a uniform temperature gradient through its depth ( d ) along its whole length ( l )
with zero mean temperature rise. The relationship can be derived for thermal bowing analogous to the one
derived earlier for thermal expansion.

A uniform curvature ( φ ) is induced along the length as a result of the thermal gradient

φ = α ⋅T,y (26)

Due to the curvature of the beam, the horizontal distance between the ends of the beam will reduce. If this

reduction is interpreted as a contraction strain ε φ (analogous to the thermal expansion strain ε T , earlier) then the
value of this strain can be calculated from analyzing Fig. 7

sin (lφ 2 )
εφ = 1 − (27)
lφ 2

8
When the ends pinned (axially restrained but rotationally free) the contraction strain ε φ generates a tensile force
P causing a P − ∆ moment along the length of the beam. (Fig.8).

Fig. 7 simply supported beam subjected to a uniform thermal gradient

Fig 8 laterally restrained beam subjected to a uniform thermal gradient

In the fully fixed case rotations cannot happen therefore a uniform moment M = (EI )eq φ = (EI )eq ⋅ α ⋅ T , y ,

develops along the length of the beam (Fig.9)

Fig. 9 fixed end beam subjected to a uniform thermal gradient

9
In many real structures the rotational stiffness ( k r ) will fall between fully fixed and pinned conditions (Fig. 10).

The restraining moment in the rotational springs can be described by equation (28)

Fig.10 Beam with finite rotational restraint with a uniform thermal gradient

( EI ) eq αT , y
M = (28)
 2( EI ) eq 
1 + 
 kr l 

This equation implies that if the rotational restraint stiffness is equal to the rotational stiffness of the beam

( (EI )eq / l ) then the moment it attracts will be about a third of a fixed support moment.

COMBINED THERMAL EXPANSION AND THERMAL BOWING

In this discussion so far, thermal bowing and thermal expansion effects have been treated separately but in reality
they are together. The concept of effective strain described by Equation (29) allows the combined effects
ofthermal expansion and thermal bowing to be analyzed.

ε eff = ε T − ε φ (29)

Many variations of mean temperature and thermal gradient exist in structural elements under different heating
regimes thus many displacement and force patterns will also exist. Axially unrestrained thermal expansion causes
a longitudinal extension that is partially or totally absorbed by thermal curvature pulling the beam ends back. In a
pin ended beam axial tension or compression may exist depending on the relative magnitude of the gradient and
mean temperature. If the expansion strain and contraction strain canceled each other out a zero stress state could
exist. In a fixed ended member the mean temperature rise (as shown in Fig. 11) leads to compression and the
uniform gradient caused a uniform moment over the length of the beam. The combined compression induced by
restrained thermal expansion and moment result in high compression on the exposed face of the beam and
tensions (or small compressions) on the unexposed side. This scenario is common one in composite frame
structures such as Cardington. The composite action of a steel joist, framing into an interior column, with a
continuous slab over it, produces conditions similar to a fully fixed support (as in Fig.11) The high compression
resulting from the combined effects of thermal actions as described above almost invariable produced local
buckling in the lower flange of the steel joist very early in a fire. This is why local buckling of the lower flange is
such a common occurrence in fires, as seen in all Cardington tests (STCBS,1999) and others (Eurocode 3, 1995).

10
 Fig.11 combined thermal expansion and bowing in a fix ended beam

CONSLUSION
It is now well recognized that contrary to popular belief, composite steel framed structures possess a much larger
inherent fire resistance that is apparent from testing single steel members in fire furnaces. It is also accepted that
the current prescriptive approaches of designing such structures are overly conservative and not based on rational
principles. It is therefore possible to construct these structures much more economically. However, to fully
exploit the considerable reserves of strength, it is imperative that the mechanics of whole steel frame structure
behaviors in fire is well understood. The ideas presented in this paper are a step in this direction.
The fundamental principles presented in this paper provide a means of estimating and analyzing the behavior of
steel beam in composite frame structures. The material and geometrical non-linearity as well as the
non-uniform profile of temperature across section member are taken into account. Considerable effort is required
to take to develop a complete set of principles, such as the estimation both of the restraint stiffness and rotational
stiffness acting on the beam ended in real structures in real fires. Further work should be carried out to put the
ideas presented here to more rigorous testing.

REFERENCE
1 Wang, Y.C. Moore D.B. (1995). Steel Frames in Fire: analysis. Engineering Structure. Vol 17, No.6 (pp. 462-472)
2 S.C.I. (1991). Investigation of Broadgate Phase 8 Fire. Structural Fire Engineering. Steel Construction Institute.
Ascot, Berkshire.
3 Franssen JM. Schleich JB.Cajot LG. Azpiazu W (1996). “A Simple Model for the Fire Resistance of Axially Loaded
Members—Comparison with Experimental Results ”. J Construct Steel Res 37(pp. 175-204)
4 Bailey,C.G. (2000). “The Influence of the Thermal Expansion of Beams on the Structural Behavior of Columns in
Steel-Framed Structures During a Fire”. Engineering Structure. 22(pp. 755-768)
5 Wang,Y.C. ,Lennon ,T.,Moore,D.B.(1995) “The Behavior of Steel Frames Subjected to Fire”. J. Construct Steel
Research. 35(pp. 291-322)
6 Li,G.Q.,Jiang, S.C.(1999). “Prediction to Nonlinear Behavior of Steel Frames Subjected to Fire”, Fire Safety
Journal. 32(pp. 347-368)
7 Zhang,S.P. (1998) Fire Safety Design and Construction for Modern Multi-Storey Building. Engineering and
Industry Publishing Company, China (in Chinese)
8 Swinden Technology Centre British Steel plc. (1999) The Behavior of Multi-Story Steel Frame Buildings in Fire.
Technical report, European Joint Research Program Report. British Steel plc
9 Eurocode 3:Design of steel structures Part 1.2:Fire Resistance, 1995

11