On the Effect of Exposed Timber on the Severity of Structural Fires in a Compartment and Required Firefighting Resources

Fire Technology - Estimation of design fires and thermal exposure conditions is an important step in structural fire engineering procedures. Mass timber, as a combustible material, may contribute...     

Effect of Transient Creep Strain Model on the Behavior of Concrete Columns Subjected to Heating and Cooling

In the numerical analysis of structures in fire, the material models that are used have important implications on the global behavior of the structure. In concrete, a particular phenomenon appears when subjected to high temperatures: the transient creep strain. Models integrating explicitly a term for transient creep strain have been proposed in the literature but, in the current Eurocode 2 model, there is no explicit term for transient creep strain. This phenomenon is included in the Eurocode 2 model, but it is implicitly considered in the mechanical strain term. A series of experimental fire tests on axially restrained concrete columns subjected to heating and cooling has been recently performed at South China University of Technology and described by Wu et al. (Fire Technol 46:231–249). In the original paper, it was shown that using the implicit model of Eurocode 2, the behavior of the columns cannot be simulated properly, especially during the cooling phase. The objective of the present paper is to perform again the fire tests simulations using a new formulation of the Eurocode 2 model that contains an explicit term for transient creep. In the first part of the paper, the explicit formulation of the Eurocode 2 model is presented. In the second part, the fire tests are modeled with the software SAFIR using, on the one hand, the implicit Eurocode model and, on the other hand, the new explicit model. It is shown that the transient creep model has significant implications on the global behavior of structural concrete members, as the residual axial load sustained by the columns at the end of the fire can differ by up to 25% of the initial applied load depending on the transient creep strain model that is used for the calculation. The experimental behavior is better matched with the new explicit model than with the current Eurocode model. Particularly, the results given by the Eurocode model during the cooling phase are unconservative as the residual axial load is overestimated. Finally, it is explained why, on the basis of an example, in a performance-based approach, these results can have important implications on the global fire resistance of a structure.     

Potential of Surrogate Modelling for Probabilistic Fire Analysis of Structures

Fire Technology - The interest in probabilistic methodologies to demonstrate structural fire safety has increased significantly in recent times. However, the evaluation of the structural behavior...     

Rectification of “restrained vs unrestrained”

For furnace testing of fire-resistant floor and roof assemblies in the United States, the ASTM E 119 standard (and similarly the UL 263 standard) permits two classifications for boundary conditions: “restrained” and “unrestrained.” When incorporating tested assemblies into an actual structural system, the designer, oftentimes a fire protection or structural engineer, must judge whether a “restrained” or “unrestrained” classification is appropriate for the application. It is critical that this assumption be carefully considered and understood, as many qualified listings permit a lesser thickness of applied fire protection for steel structures (or less concrete cover for concrete structures) to achieve a certain fire resistance rating if a “restrained” classification is confirmed, as compared with an “unrestrained” classification. The emerging standardization of structural fire engineering practice in the United States will disrupt century-long norms in the manner to which structural behavior in fire is addressed. For instance, the current edition of the ASCE/SEI 7 standard will greatly impact how designers consider restraint. Accordingly, this paper serves as an exposé of the “restrained vs unrestrained” paradigm in terms of its paradoxical nature and its controversial impact on the industry. More importantly, potential solutions toward industry rectification are provided for the first time in a contemporary study of this paradigm.