Travelling Fires in Building Structural Design (Madrid 2011)

Travelling Fires in
Structural Design
Dr Guillermo Rein
University of Edinburgh
Contributions from J Stern-Gottfried, A Law,

A Jonsdottir, M Gillie and J Torero
6th Int Conf Fire Safety Eng

APICI Madrid, Feb 2011
Structural Design for Fire Safety

Fire is a source of heat that
weakens the structure
Assessment of structural
response to avoid collapse
In order to determine structural
detailing and fire protection
requirements
Enhancement of:
Integral safety
Robustness
Safe innovation
Cost savings
1
GI -> GO
Cold behaviour ≠ Hot behaviour
Fire dynamics and resulting environment

are the input and boundary condition to
subsequent Fire & Structures Analysis
If the input is incomplete, the

subsequent analysis cannot be
trusted
Traditional Methods
Standard Fire ~1917
Swedish Curves ~1972
Eurocode Parametric Curve ~1995
1400
1200
1000
Temperature (°C)
800
EC - Short
EC - Long
Standard
600
400
200
0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240
Time (minutes)
2
Buildings are Different
Architecture is always seeking out of bound
– higher, larger, new shapes
Then… …and Now
Traditions
Traditional methods assume uniform fires

that lead to uniform fire temperatures
Traditional methods are based on

experiments conducted in small
compartment experiments (~3 m3)
Traditional methods have been said to be

conservative (?)
Stern-Gottfried et al, Fire Risk Management 2009
3
Size Matters
Surface Area to Volume Ratio vs Floor Area for a 3m High Square Compartment
2.5
Fire Tests
Surface Area/Volume (1/m)
Real Buildings
1.5
0.5
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Floor Area (m²)
Limitations in Traditional Methods

For example, limitations according Eurocode:
Near rectangular enclosures

Floor areas < 500 m2
Heights < 4 m
No ceilings openings
No low or high thermal-inertia lining
4
Near rectangular?
Sydney Opera House
© KPF Architects
Pompidou Centre
< 500 m2 floor?

<4 m high?
Excel, London
Proposed WTC Transit Hub
5
Only insulating lining?
©
© Renzo Piano
London Bridge Tower The Gherkin Tower
No ceiling opening?
© Arup/Peter Cook/VIEW
©
Proposed WTC Memorial
Arup Campus
6
Edinburgh Survey: 3,080 compartments
19-20th Century buildings:
66% of volume within
limitations
2008 building: 8%
Suggests modern
architecture increasingly
produces buildings out of
range
Jonsdottir et al
Fire Risk Management 2009
Travelling Fires Methodology

Real fires have been observed to travel
WTC Towers 2001
Torre Windsor 2005
Delft Faculty 2008
Experimental data indicate fires travel

in large compartments
In larger compartments, the fire does

not burn uniformly but burns locally
and spreads
Rein et al, Interflam 2007, London
7
Travelling Fires
Fire environment split

into two:
Near-field ≈ 1000-1200 ºC
Far-field ≈ 200-1200 ºC
(Alper’s correlation)
Temperature
Distance
Travelling Fires
Fire environment split

into two:
Near-field ≈ 1000-1200 ºC
Far-field ≈ 200-1200 ºC
(Alper’s correlation)
Total burning
duration is a function
Temperature
of the area of the fire
Distance
8
Far Field Temperature
Maximum temperature at ceiling jet. Average
calculated over the correlation with the distance
from the fire (Alpert’s correlation)
rff
∫
4
Tmax dr
=
rnf
Tff4
rff − rnf
Tmax − T∞ =
& r 23
5.38 Q ( )
H
Conservation of Mass – burning time

Burning at average heat release per unit area
m′′∆H c
tb = & ′′
Q
50 MW fire on 200 m2 burns for 30 min
50 MW fire on 1000 m2 burns for 15 min
where tb is the burning time, m” is the fuel load density (kg/m2),

∆Hc is the effective heat of combustion and Q’’ is the heat release
rate per unit area (MW/m2)
9
Travelling Fires
Each structural element sees a combination
of Near Field and Far Field temperatures
as the fire travels
Stern-Gottfried et al, SPFE PBD, 2010, Lund
Example – 25% Floor Area fire in a 1000 m2

Near field temperature 1200ºC for 19 min
Far field temperature ~ 800ºC for 76 min
Structural
Element
Core
1400
Temperature (ºC)
1200 Point B, Rebar temperature

1000 Point B, Gas temperature
800
600
400
200
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Time (min)
10
Family of possible fires
Case Study:
Generic Multi-Storey Concrete Structure
Law et al, Engineering Structures 2011
11
Rebar Temperature
2.5% burn area

5% burn area
10% burn area
25% burn area
50% burn area
100% burn area
400ºC
Temperature
0ºC
600 minutes 1200 minutes
Time
Max Rebar Temperatures vs. Fire Size
1h 18 min
12
Max Deflection vs. Fire Size
1h 54 min
Structural Behaviour
1 0.06
0.9
0.8 0.05
Normalized strain_
Normalized stress_
0.7
0.04
0.6
0.5 0.03
0.4
0.02
0.3 Reb ar t emp erat ure Sag g ing s t rain
St and ard Fire Stand ard Fire
0.2 0.01
Paramet ric - Sho rt ho t Parametric - Sho rt ho t
0.1 Paramet ric - Lo ng co o l Parametric - Lo ng co o l
0 0
0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 100%
Fire area Fire area
0.2 1
0.18 0.9
Normalized deflection_
0.16 0.8
Normalized strain_
0.14 0.7
0.12 0.6
0.1 0.5
0.08 0.4
0.06 Ho g g ing s t rain 0.3 Deflect io n
St and ard Fire St and ard Fire
0.04 Paramet ric - Sho rt ho t
0.2 Paramet ric - Sho rt ho t
0.02 Paramet ric - Lo ng co o l 0.1 Paramet ric - Lo ng co o l
0 0
0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 100%
Fire area Fire area
13
Results for Insulated Steel:
Parametric vs. Travelling fires
Jonsdottir et al, Interflam 2010, Nottingham
Compared to parametric fire, 110% higher temperatures

for a protected steel with 39 mm-gypsum
Conclusions
In large compartments, a post flashover fire
is not likely to occur, but a travelling fire
Novel framework developed to compliment
traditional methods
Provides range of possible fire dynamics
Travelling fires give more onerous conditions
for the structure
Strengthens collaboration between fire and
structural fire engineers
14
Thanks
Sponsors: Collaborators:
J Stern-Gottfried
A Law
A Jonsdottir
M Gillie
J Torero
Jonsdottir et al, Interflam 2010, Nottingham

Jonsdottir et al, Fire Risk Management 2009

ARUP
15

Travelling Fires in Building Structural Design (Madrid 2011)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Travelling Fires in Building Structural Design (Madrid 2011)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Travelling Fires in

Contributions from J Stern-Gottfried, A Law,

6th Int Conf Fire Safety Eng

Structural Design for Fire Safety

Fire dynamics and resulting environment

If the input is incomplete, the

Then… …and Now

Traditional methods assume uniform fires

Traditional methods are based on

Traditional methods have been said to be

Stern-Gottfried et al, Fire Risk Management 2009

Stern-Gottfried et al, Fire Risk Management 2009

Limitations in Traditional Methods

Near rectangular enclosures

Sydney Opera House

< 500 m2 floor?

Proposed WTC Transit Hub

Travelling Fires Methodology

Experimental data indicate fires travel

In larger compartments, the fire does

Rein et al, Interflam 2007, London

Fire environment split

Fire environment split

of the area of the fire

Conservation of Mass – burning time

where tb is the burning time, m” is the fuel load density (kg/m2),

Rein et al, Interflam 2007, London

Stern-Gottfried et al, SPFE PBD, 2010, Lund

Example – 25% Floor Area fire in a 1000 m2

1200 Point B, Rebar temperature

Stern-Gottfried et al, SPFE PBD, 2010, Lund

Stern-Gottfried et al, SPFE PBD, 2010, Lund

Law et al, Engineering Structures 2011

2.5% burn area

Law et al, Engineering Structures 2011

Max Rebar Temperatures vs. Fire Size

Law et al, Engineering Structures 2011

Law et al, Engineering Structures 2011

Compared to parametric fire, 110% higher temperatures

Jonsdottir et al, Interflam 2010, Nottingham

Stern-Gottfried et al, SPFE PBD, 2010, Lund

Stern-Gottfried et al, Fire Risk Management 2009

Rein et al, Interflam 2007, London

You might also like