You are on page 1of 173

Heat Transfer Analysis In Steel Structures

by
Vikas Adarsh Narang
A Thesis
Submitted to the Faculty
of the
WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of Master of Science
in
Civil Engineering
May 2005

APPROVED:

Professor Leonard D. Albano, Major Advisor
Civil and Environmental Engineering

Professor Robert W. Fitzgerald, Co-Advisor
Civil and Environmental Engineering

Professor Fredrick L. Hart, Head of Department
Civil and Environmental Engineering

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank my advisor Professor Leonard D. Albano for giving me
the opportunity to carry out research work related to the field of structural
engineering and fire protection. I am highly indebted to him for his valuable
thoughts and contributions towards the development of my thesis and also
for providing me with an ample amount of knowledge about the field of Fire
Protection Engineering.

I would also like to thank Professor Robert W. Fitzgerald for his guidelines
and support as a senior to help me carry out appropriate research strategies
for facilitating this thesis project.

I would like to thank the people at Harvard Thermal, specially, Mr. Dave
Rosato. Also, the contributions and support provided by NIST, Shundler
Company Inc. have been highly significant without which this project would
not have been possible.
My special thanks to Professor Fredrick Hart and all the other staff members
at the Civil & Environmental Engineering Department of Worcester
Polytechnic Institute whose contributions and support have been invaluable.

i

ABSTRACT
The potential hazard of fire is one of the major concerning issues after the recent
events of 9/11 and others. A lot of studies and research work is being carried out
presently, to ensure the safety of buildings. But, there is no accurate method to estimate
the fire endurance/resistance for a building due to the variability of fire characteristics,
material properties of construction material, and other characteristics of a building. One
can only provide guidelines and can adopt from the lessons learnt in the past to ensure
better quality to make the buildings more fire proof, so that they can withstand high
temperatures and stresses for a longer time, before collapse mechanism occurs. From a
long time, live laboratory tests have been conducted to study the performance of
assemblies by subjecting them to appropriate time-temperature histories that are derived
from standardized fire curves. The performance-based approach is very time consuming
and also involves high costs. In recent times, due to the advances in technology,
computer models have been developed, that aid towards the simulations of assemblies
and other components of a building that are subjected to a fire event. This approach helps
in attaining reasonable results, thereby providing an alternative to the prescriptive and
performance-based approaches.
This project deals with the study of heat transfer mechanism that takes place in
steel structures in case of a fire event. For proper and accurate simulation process, the use
of software is a must along with the support of technical resources. Due to high thermal
conductivity of steel the heat gets transferred rather fast in the steel section which creates
non-uniform temperature distributions because of variable thermal properties, like
thermal conductivity and specific heat. 3-D finite element software TAS (Thermal
Analysis Software) was used to study the non-uniform temperature distributions in case
of a W 12x27 beam protected with vermiculite coating. The results were compared with
the studies done by Professor Bletzacker, which involved the furnace testing of a W
12x27 beam by subjecting it to ASTM E-119 curve time-temperature history. In addition
to this, the sensitivity of results was evaluated based on the variation of thermal
properties for concrete, vermiculite, and gypsum board. Different beam models for
ii

Also. iii . conclusions and recommendations were made to ensure further development and understanding in the field of Structural and Fire Protection Engineering. Analytical analysis was also carried out using the method of Lumped mass parameter method to provide a comparison of results from different models. simulations were performed for analyzing the behavior of the beam when subjected to different fire curves like ASTM E-119 and ENV.W12x27 section protected with vermiculite and gypsum board coatings were simulated to justify their performance based on temperature rise within the assembly. Finally.

....................................4 Finite Element Software........................................25 4..3...................................................................................................3...................................25 4..................................1 Density (ρ) ..............2...............6 2.....3 Bletzacker’s Experiments...1 1.......................3 Thermal Properties of Steel............ .17 3......4................................ ......... ... .............................................3.......13 3......................3..........19 - 4 MATERIAL PROPERTIES AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES……….......................... . ...........................19 3...............................3. ...........3 Fully developed fire .................22 4.... ..1 Introduction........ ..23 4.......................................................................................................3.................. ... ...2 Growth.....4...........5 Specific Heat.......... ................1 General .......................................................................................3 Drawbacks of Fire Tests................................1 General ................................2.......3 - 2 LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………………………...................................... ........................... .........5 Thermal Diffusivity................... ..........................................2 Aim ................................ ................................................................................3 Coefficient of Thermal Expansion .............................22 4....2...................................6 2..........................................26 - iv .... .2..........................3 1.....3 Objectives.......2 1..........2 Time-Temperature Curves................3................................6 Thermal diffusivity.................................8 2. ............. ............................9 - 3 FIRE TESTS……………………………………………………………………......3.......................6 2......24 4....2............ ... ..1 1........................................23 4.....1 Introduction ......... .............TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………..............................13 3...........................................................................3.... .................. ..............18 3.......3 Specific Heat (Cp) ...........................5 Parametric Curves........22 4.....2..............19 3...................................... ......6 Emissivitty .........................................2 Definitions ..................................................2 ASTM E-119 ...... .......4 Coefficient of Thermal Expansion ( ε th ) ............................................................................................ ....22 4.........22 4........................2 Density.........................................................14 3................13 3. .......4 Thermal Conductivity.. ...................................15 3.......................22 4...............................................................23 4.....................................................................................4 Decay phase ...........................22 4.................................................4.......................2 1........ ......... ...1 General ............................4..............................................................................................................2 Research Studies ...................2 Thermal Conductivity (k) .....................................4 Scope of work...............................4 Behavior of actual fire............................................ ........................................................... ..............................................................................5 Related activities..1 General ..................3 Lab Tests ................................24 4............................. .................................................18 3............. .......23 4.................................14 3.1 Background......................19 3............................................... ..............

.............. ............................................................ ................................. ...........................................30 4.. ............3.................50 6...........................35 5 HEAT TRANSFER MECHANISMS……………………………………….........5..............2 Density......................3 Comparison of TAS model with Bletzacker’s Experiments ........................5.............. ....6.............4................................. .......... ..............................................................................................4. ............................2 TAS model results....................................5......4 Results summary ....................40 5..................5 Bare steel model with concrete slab..............................46 6............................ .7...........6 Different values for Thermal conductivity................................4........................................................4 Thermal Properties of Gypsum........50 6....................2 TAS model results.31 4.....................................59 6......................................38 5...........1 Introduction....................4..................1 TAS Models......3 Results summary .............................................................................................28 4.. .........4 Radiation . .................... ..53 6..........................3....1 Definition of Insulation ..............54 6....61 - v .........5 Thermal Diffusivity....................4..................................................41 5.............................5............................5..... ..38 5..................42 5......................7...... ...... ... ...................................................................3 Model Development............44 5..................2 Heat Transfer Coefficients for Natural Convection ......1 View Factor....... ...... ............6........1 Introduction...................................26 4....4.....58 6....1 Heat Transfer Coefficients for Forced Convection.....................................................................................2 TAS model results........................................4 Bare steel model ..........................57 6..................5 Insulations and their Thermal Properties ............. ................. ..............55 6.......47 6.......1 General ...............5..........7...3 Thermal Conductivity.................. ....................................................................... ..3 Results summary ...........7 Different values for Specific Heat .....................................39 5.....31 4........................29 4................................32 4................................1 Boundary Conditions for one-dimensional heat conduction ....2............. ............. ........51 6....................................53 6................................. ..............2 Types of Insulations .................... ..............................58 6..46 6...........2 Conduction ...................................... .........28 4......................4 Thermal Properties of Concrete.............4.....2 Objectives of TAS models .........................................................31 4............................. .......................3 Convection....................... ............................28 4......................5......................3 Thermal Properties of Vermiculite...1 Introduction.......1 General .............7 Emissivity ..............6..........................................................................60 6...........5.....4................3 Results summary ........ ..4.....4 Specific Heat.....2 TAS model results...................................... ................. .............................................. .....59 6...................................58 6........................ ................28 4...................46 6.........3......................... ........................... .......... ............45 - 6 TAS SIMULATIONS…………………………………………………………...................... .......1 Introduction........................ ................................38 5..................................53 6..................4.............59 6.... ............................................

...............9 W12x27 steel beam with 5/8″ thick gypsum board coating ...............61 6...........61 6......84 7.........................83 7 LUMPED MASS PARAMETER METHOD………………………………....... ........................3 Vermiculite Model..2 TAS model results........2 TAS model results......................................................................1 Introduction..................................9....................2 Mechanical properties of steel from gypsum model ........................................ ..................1 Introduction.............................................................. ...................................................71 6.11 W12x27 steel beam with 5/8″ thick gypsum board enclosure subjected to ENV fire curve..................5.................... . ...............93 - 8 CONCLUSIONS………………………………………………………………..90 7........................ .........10.............................1 Mechanical properties of steel from vermiculite model.........11...84 7.............10........92 7...................88 7............................................................... .88 7......................70 6.4............6...............2 W12x27 steel beam with 0..1 Introduction................8................................... ...1 Introduction..........5″ thick vermiculite coating (variable thermal properties)..90 7....................................... . ................1 Introduction.....................................3 Comparison of temperature results for different fire intensities............3 W12x27 steel beam with 5/8″ thick gypsum board enclosure (variable thermal properties )......................... .....................4....5″ thick vermiculite coating (constant thermal properties) ........2 W12 x 27 Steel beam with 5/8″ thick Gypsum Board Enclosure (constant thermal properties) ......................2 Comparison between results from different models ..................64 6............11...8...........3....................................9.....80 6..2 Comparison between results from different models ...........2 ECCS method ........................................................................... .................1 Introduction .........8 W12x27 steel beam with 0.................... ...............10. ............78 6....................................79 6.... .......................................................... ......... ........69 6........1 Introduction...........10................... ......10 W12x27 steel beam with 0..... ..............5........88 7...84 7................61 6........................... ...........................10...... ...........................80 6...90 7..........................75 6......3 W12x27 steel beam with 0...76 6......3 Results summary ........4 Results summary ..........94 - vi ....3..................69 6.....91 7............................. .....................................77 6....................................................................3 Comparison between results obtained for different locations from ENV curve and ASTM E-119 ................. .75 6......... .... .....81 6....................................82 6......... ... .........1 Results summary .......9...........................4 Gypsum Board Model. ........ ..............5″ thick vermiculite coating subjected to ..........82 6...4 Comparison of results from ENV curve and ASTM E-119 ..................91 7.......................80 6.11....................................... ..8.5.... ...........................12 Comparison of results between Vermiculite and Gypsum models subjected to ENV fire curve ........... .5″ thick vermiculite coating ...........................12.............5 Mechanical Properties of Steel ....................11............5 Results summary ................................................... ...........................

.98 - 10 BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………….9 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK………………………….99 - 11 APPENDIX…………………………………………………………………….123 D W 12x27 beam with 5/8″ thick gypsum board……………………....127 F Lumped mass parameter method…………………………………......130 - vii .…………………………………………..5″ thick vermiculite coating………………....125 E W 12x27 beam with 0..101 A Bletzacker’s data………………………………………………… ..109 C W 12x27 beam with 0..5″ vermiculite coating subjected to ENV fire curve…….101 B Bare steel model with 4″ concrete slab………………………...

.....6 Specific Heat Vs Temperature for concrete.......45 Figure 6......................32 Figure 4...................................51 Figure 6......... .15 Figure 3.. ................2 Thermal Conductivity Vs Temperature for steel.....2 Cross-sectional view of 2-D W 12x27 steel beam ..2 ASTM E-119 Time-temperature curve.. ........5 Different phases in a fully developed fire...52 Figure 6................30 Figure 4................................................ .......................1 Locations in the beam..............4 Temperature Vs Time graph for Locations 4 & 3 .....52 Figure 6.................1 Assembly setup for a furnace test.............3 Heat flux Vs Time for different furnaces.....11 Thermal Conductivity Vs Temperature for gypsum ......List of Figures Figure 1.........................4 Figure 3.. ................................. .... ..............................3 Radiant heat exchange between a finite and infinitesimal area . .......16 Figure 3....................................4 Effect of furnace characteristics on fire test results.. ..............................................1 Temperature distribution with constant thermal conductivity .......................... ..3 Ismoetric view of 3-D Steel beam(W 12x27) developed using TAS ...10 Percentage composition of different materials in case of gypsum .........................51 Figure 6........37 Figure 4....................... .............1 Thermal Expansion Vs Time ........................... ...5 Temperature Vs Time graph for Locations 2 & 1 .... ...............................................................29 Figure 4........53 viii ....21 Figure 4................. .... ...............36 Figure 4...7 Thermal diffusivity Vs Temperature for concrete..1 Related activities .....12 Specific Heat Vs Time for gypsum . ..14 Figure 3... ..................8 Percentage composition of different materials in case of vermiculite.............. ............................. ......................... ...............................17 Figure 3..........24 Figure 4..........................................................9 Comparison of graph of Specific heat Vs Temperature ... ............................49 Figure 6....... .....................26 Figure 4............. .................................25 Figure 4.18 Figure 3......... .......39 Figure 5.30 Figure 4....35 Figure 4.......4 Temperature prediction within a steel column due to the variation of resultant emissivity ......................6 Temperature Vs Time graph for all Locations .... ............................................38 Figure 5.................6 Temperature-Time response curves for compartment fire based on ENV approach ........................................................................... ... ..................2 Boundary conditions for one-dimensional heat conduction .......27 Figure 4...........3 Specific Heat Vs Temperature for steel........ ...........5 Thermal Conductivity Vs Temperature for concrete...37 Figure 5............

........13 Temperature Vs Time for Location 4 due to different constant values for the thermal conductivity of concrete......... . .................................63 Figure 6......................59 Figure 6.................................................. . ..............62 Figure 6................... .............12 Temperature Vs Time graph for Locations 2 & 1 ............54 Figure 6...........22 Comparison of Temperature Vs Time data from different models for Location 4...................................................21 Temperature Vs Time for Locations 2 & 1...........................15 Isometric view of W 12x27 steel beam with vermiculite coating .........10 Temperature Vs Time graph for Location 4 ...57 Figure 6. .............14 Temperature Vs Time at Location 4 due to different constant values for the specific heat of concrete ...... ....................................23 Comparison of Temperature Vs Time data from different models for Location 3..................28 Temperature Vs Time for Locations 2 & 1....................67 Figure 6.......... .............70 Figure 6...... .......................................................... ..56 Figure 6.....................................................55 Figure 6.. ......7 Isometric view of 3-D W 12x27 beam with 4″thick concrete slab... ...................19 Comparison of Temperature Vs Time data from different models for Locations 2 & 1.... ............................................... ...27 Temperature Vs Time for Locations 4 & 3................. ..........16 Temperature Vs Time graph for Locations 4 & 3 .........62 Figure 6...............25 Comparison of Temperature Vs Time data from different models for Location 1.29 Temperature Vs Time for Locations 4 & 3.................. .......72 - ix ............57 Figure 6.. ..65 Figure 6....... ............8 Temperature Vs Time graph for Locations 4 & 3 ......................Figure 6.....67 Figure 6....68 Figure 6......... .72 Figure 6................................................................................... ..66 Figure 6........... ..........................69 Figure 6..............................................................64 Figure 6....................9 Temperature Vs Time graph for Locations 2 & 1 .....26 Isometric view of W 12x27 steel beam with 5/8″ thick gypsum board..................71 Figure 6...24 Comparison of Temperature Vs Time data from different models for Location 2...........................................11 Temperature Vs Time graph for Locations 4 & 3 ........60 Figure 6............55 Figure 6...20 Temperature Vs Time for Locations 4 & 3...............66 Figure 6............................................................................................. .17 Temperature Vs Time graph for Locations 2 & 1 ... ..30 Temperature Vs Time for Locations 2 & 1.................

.................................44 Comparison of Temperature Vs Time data from different models for Locations 2 & 1.....................89 Figure 7.......... ...............5″ thick vermiculite model....................37 Temperature Vs Time for Locations 4 & 3.....35 Temperature Vs Time for Locations 4 & 3..3 Temperature Vs Time comparison between results from analytical method and Bletzacker’s data ......74 Figure 6...........40 Temperature Vs Time for Locations 2 & 1 .......................92 Figure 7...............................................77 Figure 6....... .91 Figure 7............................................ ..........................................80 Figure 6......... ............. ..........................91 Figure 7.............73 Figure 6..................................................2 Temperature Vs Time comparison between results from analytical method and TAS modeling ...........................................................41 Temperature Vs Time data for Locations 4 & 3 ................... .......................38 Temperature Vs Time for Locations 2 & 1........................................................ ........... .................4 Temperature Vs Time comparison between analytical methods and TAS models ...........74 Figure 6................. ...78 Figure 6..................... .... ............. ..............................77 Figure 6............................................................................90 Figure 7..Figure 6...................................................5″ thick vermiculite model.36 Temperature Vs Time for Locations 2 & 1................ ............................. .43 Comparison of Temperature Vs Time data from different models for Locations 4 & 3................33 Comparison of Temperature Vs Time data from different models for Location 2....................... ........................................73 Figure 6................5 Yield Strength Vs Time for 0..81 Figure 6... .......... ....83 Figure 7...................................79 Figure 6.78 Figure 6........ ................................................................82 Figure 6........ .......................76 Figure 6......................34 Comparison of Temperature Vs Time data from different models for Location 1..........7 Yield Strength Vs Time for 5/8″ thick gypsum board model .......................................42 Temperature Vs Time data for Locations 2 & 1 .......32 Comparison of Temperature Vs Time data from different models for Location 3.......31 Comparison of Temperature Vs Time data from different models for Location 4.......45 Temperature Vs Time graph for Location 4 .89 Figure 7.................... ...................6 Modulus of Elasticity Vs Time for 0..92 - x ............... .......1 Temperature Vs Time comparison from different models ...... ..........................81 Figure 6..39 Temperature Vs Time for Locations 4 & 3.........

............117 Figure B...120 Figure B.....122 Figure B.117 Figure B..........................8 Temperature Vs Time for Location 2 and Location 1 .....1 Comparison of graph of Specific heat Vs Temperature .................113 Figure B......9 Temperature Vs Time for Location 4 and Location 3 .........................113 Figure B......................122 - xi ........... .111 Figure B......... ..115 Figure B..........12 Temperature Vs Time for Location 4 and Location 3 ..8 Modulus of Elasticity Vs Time for 5/8″ thick gypsum board model ...................115 Figure B................... ..... ........ ...1 Temperature Vs Time for Location 4 and Location 3 ...............Figure 7...............4 Temperature Vs Time for Location 2 and Location 1 ... .................2 Temperature Vs Time for Location 2 and Location 1 ..6 Temperature Vs Time for Location 4 and Location 3 ........... .7 Temperature Vs Time for Location 4 and Location 3 .... ...93 Figure A.. ............. .3 Temperature Vs Time for Location 4 and Location 3 ............120 Figure B...11 Temperature Vs Time for Location 4 and Location 3 ................111 Figure B.............5 Temperature Vs Time for Location 4 and Location 3 ...............106 Figure B............. ..10 Temperature Vs Time for Location 4 and Location 3 .......... .. ....... ..

......................................104 Table A-IV Thermal conductivity at different temperatures......... ...........116 Table B-VI Time-Temperature data for specific heat....................... ..............................109 Table B-II Time-Temperature data for thermal conductivity.......... kc = 1........107 Table A-VII Specific heat data at different temperatures...........103 Table A-III Thermal Resistivity data from test done by Schundler Company Inc......... Cpc =1200J/kgK ....................... kc = 1........... ....105 Table A-V Specific heat Vs Temperature data.........6 W/mK ..................... ..................7 W/mK...... .112 Table B-IV Time-Temperature data for thermal conductivity................ ......... ............... Cpc =1023J/kgK.... ............ .................121 Table C-I Time-Temperature data for vermiculite model with constant values of thermal conductivity and specific heat ..34 Table 5-1 Convective heat transfer coefficients for forced convection ................. .....50 Table 6-2 Properties of Concrete ............... .......54 Table 6-3 Temperature data for different Locations .5 W/mK ........95 W/mK ........... .................................... ..................56 Table 6-4 Different values of Thermal conductivity for concrete ...... Cpc =1260J/kgK ......... ..... .......... ...... .................. Cpc =1085J/kgK.124 - xii .......... ......41 Table 5-2 Property values of air at atmospheric pressure ... kc = 1........60 Table 7-1 Perimeter expressions for some particular cases of steel...58 Table 6-5 Different values of Specific heat for concrete ............123 Table C-II Time-Temperature data for vermiculite model with variable values of thermal conductivity and specific heat....114 Table B-V Time-Temperature data for specific heat..108 Table B-I Time-Temperature data for thermal conductivity............. ...List of Tables Table 4-1 Thermal Resistance data from tests done by Shundler Company.101 Table A-II Thermal Properties of Steel ...................119 Table B-VIII Time-Temperature data for specific heat.....................................86 Table A-I Temperature results for different locations from Bletzacker's studies ........ .......106 Table A-VI Thermal Conductivity data at different temperatures..................................118 Table B-VII Time-Temperature data for specific heat.......................................110 Table B-III Time-Temperature data for thermal conductivity.......... . ....................................... ...........43 Table 6-1 Sectional properties for W 12x27.. kc = 1........................ ............... ........ .............................. .......

............. ...................................128 Table E-III ENV Curve formulation-Maximum intensity of fire at 102 minutes............... .136 Table F-III Variable thermal properties for steel and vermiculite ........................................................... ............. .....................140 Table F-IV Constant thermal properties for steel and gypsum.......... ......................146 Table F-V Variable thermal properties for steel and constant thermal properties for gypsum ......150 Table F-VI Variable thermal properties for steel and gypsum ..........35 minutes .............................................132 Table F-II Variable thermal properties for steel and constant thermal properties for vermiculite............ ................................................ ....................126 Table E-I ENV Curve formulation-Maximum intensity of fire at 56 minutes ............129 Table F-I Constant thermal properties for steel and vermiculite ........................154 - xiii .................................................... .... ......127 Table E-II ENV Curve formulation-Maximum intensity of fire at 35.... .....Table D-I Time-temperature data for gypsum model with constant values of thermal conductivity and specific heat ..........125 Table D-II Time-temperature data for gypsum model with variable values of thermal conductivity and specific heat .......................... ...

d = design fire load per unit area of compartment boundary xiv .Notations A = surface are for heat transfer A p = area of steel protection per unit length exposed to fire c p = specific heat of gases C = specific heat of air C pc = specific heat of concrete C ps = specific heat of steel d p = insulation thickness dT = temperature difference e = emissivity of steel E b1 is the thermal radiation per unit surface of A1 E 0 = initial Young’s modulus at 20°C ET = Young’s modulus at time T F = opening factor F y 0 = initial Yield strength at 20°C F yT = Yield strength at time T g = acceleration due to gravity Gr = Grashof number ha are the overall heat exchange coefficients hc = convective heat transfer coefficient ks = thermal conductivity of steel k c = thermal conductivity of concrete k = thermal conductivity of material L = length of solid surface Nu = Nusselt number Pr = Prandtl number q t .

67 x10 −8 W m 2 K 4 Φ = configuration factor for radiation.• Q = rate of heat transfer across material thickness of dx q = heat transferred per unit time (W) Rd = Reynold’s number Ra = Raleigh number t = time (minutes) t ∗ = parametric time for determining compartment temperature-time response t d∗ = parametric fire duration Ts = temperature of steel T fi = fire temperature Ta = air temperature T = absolute temperature in K. Uo = flow velocity α = absorptivity β = coefficient of thermal expansion for the fluid τ = transmissivity Γ = parameter to calculate parametric compartment temperature-time response ε th = free thermal strain θ a = structural steel temperature λ p = thermal conductivity of protection material µ = absolute viscosity of fluid ρcλ = thermal inertia of the compartment boundary ρ = density. reflectivity ρ p = density of insulation ρ a = density of structural steel σ = Stefan-Boltzmann constant = 5. insulation heat capacity factor ν = relative viscosity of the fluid ∆θ t = incremental increase in steel temperature xv .

Introduction

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Fire hazard is one of the biggest challenges that any building could face during its
service life. If not properly designed and managed, a fire could lead to a large amount of
destruction in terms of property, loss of life, money. Historically a prescriptive approach
to structural fire safety in the form of codes has been utilized which helps to solve the
problem to a certain extent by regulating design and construction quality. The validity of
prescriptive approach and its level of safety is now a concern [8] due to the development
of performance-based approaches. A performance-based approach is a representation of
the actual stages and developments that may occur in a structure during a fire event.
During the early stages, building codes were the only source to provide
specifications for a building in case of a fire event. Building codes provided measures on
how to curb a fire event after a fire had occurred in a building. The codes served as
guidelines for the number of sprinklers required, the location and design of exits and
other issues rather than emphasizing more on protection of a building even before a fire
event occurred. The awareness was really not there and it was only after incidents like
September 11, 2001, and others that the real importance of fire protection was
recognized. The awareness led to more concrete research and testing which observed the
evolution of performance-based approach in the form of live laboratory testing.
Specifications have been provided by ASTM, NIST, and UL directory from the lab tests
that are conducted by these associations. The results pertaining to the thickness
requirements and hourly ratings of assemblies have been incorporated into building
codes. Architects and structural engineers have been following these specifications
without actually analyzing and studying the behavior of the building in a fire event. But,
there have been fingers raised to the fact that how reliable these laboratory tests are, and
whether it is possible to reproduce these results. In the late 1990’s the and early 2000’s
the technique of finite element software caught the eye of researchers, and since then
various tools have been developed to provide simulations of fire environments and
structural performance thereby reducing the cost of expensive performance-based tests.

-1-

Introduction
With so much research going on for steel design and its thermal properties [14] such as
thermal conductivity and specific heat of how it would behave with respect to the change
in temperature, it has become very important to use tools such as finite element software
[3] which aid in facilitating the design procedure for the building. Simultaneously, to
make steel more effective and protect it from fire hazards the insulating materials have
gained significance importance in the market which leads to more and more research on
their properties and behavior when exposed to fire conditions [14]. The variation in
thermal characteristics of insulating materials such as vermiculite spray-on, and gypsum
board play a major role in the heat transfer process that occurs through the insulation and
then within the steel. This leads to research and development of new and improved fire
protection materials. The use of different finite element tool such as SAFIR [3], [21]
presents a reasonable picture of how the building component or structure would behave
with the increase in temperature. The recognition of important characteristics such as
elongation, thermal stresses, fire endurance points, boundary conditions and deflections
[1] would help the engineer to better understand the key points of design and thus to
make the building more sound in terms of fire exposure.

1.2 Aim
The purpose of this thesis is to study the heat transfer analysis in case of steel structures
with the aid of finite element software. The main purpose is to study the processes of
conduction, convection and radiation occurring in a member and then to analyze the
sensitivity of the thermal analysis to the properties of steel and insulating materials. It is
also intended to correlate the analytical results with Professor Bletzacker’s experimental
studies [1] and to extend his work with the help of modern tools like TAS [25].

1.3 Objectives
The main objective of this study is to understand the concept of heat transfer through the
section of a steel beam and gain experience with finite element software and analytical
techniques. A second objective is to investigate the sensitivity of heat transfer analyses to
thermal properties, such as thermal conductivity and specific heat.

-2-

Introduction

1.4 Scope of work
The scope of activities included the following: 
Background research and understanding of the field of Fire Protection
Engineering 
Analysis of heat transfer in steel structures by use of 3-D finite element software
TAS (Thermal Analysis Software) 
Exploration of the effect of boundary conditions on the thermal behavior of a
member 
Sensitivity analysis of the parameters that play an important role in heat transfer
mechanism towards the assemblies in the form of convection and radiation and
within the assemblies in the form of conductivity 
Investigation of the different types of coatings used for fire protection and their
impact on the temperature profile of the steel during exposure to various time –
temperature curves 
Study of the effects of different fire curves and to compare these results with
those obtained from a simple, analytical methodology

1.5 Related activities
The project was carried out in a step-by-step manner by modeling different components
of a structural assembly and studying the associated thermal properties and effects.
Figure 1.1 presents the activities that were identified for achieving the goals for this
project.

-3-

AISC SFPE. NFPA Geometrical Properties UL Directory UBC Thermal Properties Manual Of Steel Construction Insulation Materials CODES & LITERATURE PROPERTIES & MATERIALS Figure 1.1 Related activities For the TAS model development and simulations.  The insulation materials that were studied were gypsum board and spray-on vermiculite with different thicknesses and variation in their respective thermal properties. and other thermal properties vary with temperature and thus were modeled as temperature-dependent parameters in the numerical analyses.Introduction MODES OF HEAT TRANSFER COMPUTER MODELING TAS Conduction 2-D & 3-D Modeling Convection Radiation Structural Properties ACTIVITIES RELATED TO STEEL DESIGN FOR FIRE CONDITIONS ASCE. These equations are presented in Chapter IV.  Equations have been suggested for the variation of thermal conductivity and specific heat with respect to time.  Information and data for the model were gathered from the experimental studies done by Professor Bletzacker [1]. different areas were explored which resulted in the study of various parameters. Some of the activities related to this project are explained below:  Thermal conductivity. -4- . specific heat.

-5- .Introduction  Influencing parameters like emissivity.  A comparison would be made with the data obtained from Bletzacker’s experiments [1] and that obtained by TAS so as to study the effectiveness of computer modeling as an alternative to the high cost furnace test. conductivity were studied. The data for these varying parameters was taken from the formulation provided by sources such as Eurocode [22].

2.2. 22. -6- . The results of these studies indicated the effectiveness of different grades of steel as a strategy to reduce the loss of strength and stiffness at elevated temperatures. For insulations having high thermal characteristic values. Firstly. it has been suggested that the results due to the Eurocode 3 formulation and the exact solution may differ significantly. The parameters of thermal conductivity.2 m x 3. and emissivity were evaluated to determine the change in temperature of steel when subjected to a fire event. Secondly.I. Sakumoto [14] conducted a fire test on an office building to identify the critical parameters and the necessity of research on new fire protection materials.2 Research Studies 2. The results suggested that larger opening area resulted in a higher temperature rise but shorter fire duration. due to the inflow of fresh air.0 m x 12.2 Sakumoto Y. This data was used to study the high temperature performance for different grades of steel by varying their chemical composition.B. Different sources were reviewed in order to understand the techniques and key studies that have been conducted. and Ghojel J. specific heat.1 Wong M.1 General This section provides an overview of previous studies that have been conducted by researchers in the fields of Structural Engineering and Fire Protection. A four-story office building with floor dimensions. 2. coated with 12.Literature Review 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2. Wong and Ghojel [23] conducted a sensitivity analysis in order to determine the appropriateness of the guidelines provided by Eurocode 3. temperature data was gathered from a fire test that was conducted on a steel column with intumescent coating. analysis was done on a one layer model was analyzed to define the effect of openings and fire load on the overall rise of temperature in a structural member.5 mm thick plaster board was considered for the tests.2.5 m. An equation for thermal conductivity variation for concrete was also proposed.

T. Temperature assumptions for different locations in the buildings were made based on observations and data collected. Equations were proposed for determining fire load and temperature of steel section for different conditions. Experimental data was used in conjunction with the technique of curve fitting to replicate the curve.T.2. The authors conclude and draw attention to the variability and difficulty in modeling different parameters that are associated with fire design.Literature Review 2.5 Poh K. and Foster J.A.4 Ioannides S. and CRISP were used to study the thermal response of a school building and a residential tower block. 2. The proposed equations are highly versatile and can be easily incorporated into computer models for analyzing behavior of steel at higher temperatures. [11] presented a mathematical relationship to represent the stress-strain behavior of steel at elevated temperature. Two examples were also been presented to illustrate the use of -7- . It addresses the standard test of ASTM E-119 and proposes equations based on steel temperatures for calculating required thickness of insulation. A comparison of results obtained from the different software was also presented. The paper [13] addresses a method to determine the thickness of spray – applied fire resistive material based on the prescriptive code approach. CFAST. [3] used the technique of computer modeling to evaluate the thermal response of structures that had undergone a real fire event. 2. Different stress-strain relationships and their drawbacks have also been discussed. Lie T. Poh K. The computer tools JASMINE. These equations are supplemented with two examples that also identify the strategy for reducing high costs by avoiding unnecessary thickness of insulation.2. and Foster J. Chitty R. 2.6 Lie T.2.W. et al.W.3 Chitty R.2. The paper summarizes the significance of finite element modeling by proceeding from simpler to complex methods in order to study thermal responses of a building. [9] suggested an analytical formulation for calculating steel temperature in a fire event.

Further.7 Summary of studies From the previous studies. 2. According to these studies.Literature Review the equations. This report presented the findings from Professor Bletzacker’s experiments based on physical tests that were carried out on twelve separate beams with different restraining conditions and different compositions such as composite and non-composite slabs. Strategies and formulations have been developed to boost the ease and significance of analytical techniques. the best understanding was provided by the study of sensitivity issues and parameters that are necessary to be modeled properly for accurate and reliable results. Efforts are being made to develop a software that can handle both thermal and structural responses. Studies and modifications are still being done for existing formulations and ASTM E-119. This was indicated by the studies conducted by Wong et al. Finite element analysis has gained significant importance as a possible alternative to fire testing in order to save high costs. 2. 2. The research was sponsored by “American Iron and Steel Institute”. -8- . these equations were justified by comparing the analytical results with data from other experimental studies. [23] who conducted an in depth study to provide a foundation for future researchers.2. 3. some points of interest can be drawn to create an awareness of the trends that exist in the fields of Structural and Fire Engineering. The studies suggest that the current practice of furnace testing may be significantly different from an actual room fire due to factors such as opening factor and fire load which have not been studied with greatly. These points are summarized as below: 1.3 Bletzacker’s Experiments In September 1966 a report titled “Effect of Structural Restraint on the Fire Resistance of Protected Steel Beam Floor and Roof Assemblies” [1] was submitted by Professor Richard Bletzacker.

Once the setup was established.1 General Building codes by far have been the most accepted solution to structural and fire design.Literature Review The type of beam used for Bletzacker’s experiments was a W12x27 which was also used in this project so as to create a benchmark for the obtained results. which was gathered from thermocouples.4 Finite Element Software 2. 2. In all cases Professor Bletzacker used the ASTM E-119 time-temperature curve [24] to control the temperature of the furnace during the course of the experiment. and research has been ongoing to establish an alternative to -9- . The data obtained from these readings thus helped in developing plots to determine the pattern for the increase in steel temperature over the period of time. The beam was subjected to loads and moments with the help of hydraulic jacks and other mechanical devices. it was not possible to evaluate the stress. member restraints and material composition were varied to provide a detailed analysis and comparison of the twelve members that were subjected to fire. The temperature profile for the steel beam was extracted at different locations within the cross-section by the use of thermocouples. finite element models have gained significant importance. The physical testing process was conducted at Ohio State University. Similarly. However. Due to this reason. The data was used to estimate fire endurance time which was the time to when the beam could not carry the loads any longer and ultimately resulted in a failure or collapse. and deformation results by the use of TAS [25]. These studies were significant from the view point of determining endurance times by modeling the beam as expected in the real world. The performance demonstrated by physical tests is incorporated within the building codes for designing purposes. Timetemperature data. and this data was used in this project for comparison between his findings and the capabilities of the TAS models. it was not possible to represent an actual loading condition by the use of finite element software. plots for deflection and stress were also developed from this data. Over the course of time. was presented in his report. The entire setup for the mechanical systems was possible due to the valuable help of agencies and different people. strain.4.

Researchers prefer finite element modeling to fire testing because the simulations can be used to target sensitive parameters that affect the overall fire event.3 Limitations Presently. 2.3 SAFIR 2. Unlike FEAST. SAFIR has the capabilities of simulating structural as well as thermal problems. .2.C.2. The program in itself is very versatile and has a detailed library for shell.4. 2.Literature Review expensive and highly time consuming fire tests. 2. 2. Computer models have been developed to provide timely and economical simulations for results of a fire test. FEAST is not capable of simulating buckling behavior in a steel member. The arc length method (Crisfield 1991) is included in the program to analyze post-buckling behavior but only for simple structures at present.4.2.3. truss. This software was developed at the University of Manchester by Dr. Also.1 General FEAST stands for “Finite Element Analysis of Structures at Temperatures”.4. shell elements and 3-D solid elements are used for structural modeling and analysis. Beam. 2000 [22]. Therefore.4.2 FEAST 2. Lui [22].4.4. it can be utilized to analyze the local behavior of steel beams and columns. bolt.2 Applications The program is mainly used to study the behavior of steel framed connections and the effect of connections on the performance of steel beams exposed to fire conditions.10 - .H. It cannot be used to simulate composite structural behavior.1 General SAFIR [26] was developed at the University of Leige. gap. solid. SAFIR does not have the capability to simulate connection behavior. and contact elements. Belgium by Franssen et al. it is not capable of analyzing the non-linear behavior of large scale steel frames with many members. T. Results from FEAST have shown a good correlation with laboratory tests.

specific heat. The generation of brick elements and full use of boundary conditions helps in developing the model more precisely in order to achieve reasonable results. stresses.Literature Review 2. 2003. integrated. This offers the versatility to easily create complex models involving many of the nonlinear cases often encountered. TAS uses a finite element technique to model and solve the governing equations. and deformations. such as thermal conductivity. and then prepare a library of temperature files to be used as an input for a subsequent structural analysis to evaluate forces. graphical and interactive environment for model generation.4. The results of numerous models have been compared to classical solutions and the results of other . and it was developed at Harvard Thermal Inc. located in Boston. The version was compiled on June 30. 2. The version of TAS which was used for this thesis project was Version 7. These include radiation. temperature difference. and heat transfer coefficients that can be a function of temperature difference.11 - . The accuracy of the software has been proven over the past years. Arrays for different properties and parameters. The provision of dialog boxes to facilitate data input and prompts for avoiding common input errors makes TAS a user friendly software. time and time cyclic dependent.8. locations or regions in the form of nodal or surface loads..4.1 General TAS [25] is a general purpose tool used to computer-simulate thermal problems.4. The user has to conduct a thermal analysis for each part of the structure. and temperature can be provided in the form of temperature.3. TAS is designed on the basis of Windows platform that provides the user with a single. Three-dimensional geometry can be created using two-dimensional plate and three-dimensional brick and tetrahedron elements. Massachusetts.4 TAS (Thermal Analysis Software) 2. Heat loads can be supplied at specified points. temperature-dependent thermal conductivity.4.2 Limitations Thermal analysis features are not very well-developed. execution and post-processing of the results.0. The addition of heat sources in the form of radiation and convection sources facilitates the process of modeling heat transfer.

Steps are being taken at Harvard Thermal to incorporate features that would make TAS efficient enough to solve structural-related problems and give more detailed results in terms of stress. strain.4. and thereby the structural failure due to the effect of temperature could not be evaluated. ANSYS and SINDA. It does not have a feature to add general point loads or uniformly distributed loads to the analysis of thermal stresses. . Due to this reason it was not possible to obtain stress. and deformations. and deformation results.Literature Review programs such as MSC/NASTRAN. The program was written entirely in the C++ language.12 - . The program dynamically and efficiently allocates PC memory sufficient for the particular model being investigated. 2.2 Limitations One of the drawbacks of TAS is that it is not appropriate for combined thermal-structural analysis. it is limited to gravity loads only.4. strain. This ensures speed in the graphics and the solution.

such as fuel load. The first edition was published in 1918 [8]. and this standard is revised as technology and understanding changes. The test does not cover flame spread. thermal radiation. [9]. fuel contribution. ventilation factor. There are different types of fire curves that have been established by researchers. In USA. [24] is the widely recognized standard for fire testing in the United States. One has to understand that ASTM E-119 is a guideline for fire safe design of buildings and not a predictor of behavior in an actual fire. Floors and roofs 4. with the most recent published in 2000. and design. the temperature profile and duration of a standard fire for designing and testing purposes is based on the provisions of ASTM E-119 [8]. viz. heat flux. and area of openings [8]. Non-bearing walls and partitions 3.1 General Most countries around the world rely on fire resistance tests to determine the performance of building materials and structural elements. building occupancy. The main purpose of using the ASTM E-119 protocol is to establish and document the fire rating of different elements of a building. ASTM E-119 describes different strategies for conducting fire tests on the following structural assemblies and elements: 1. 3.Fire Tests 3 FIRE TESTS 3. There has been significant debate on the validity of ASTM E-119 data and methodology [8] due to the recent events of 9/11. Technical committees help in setting up a standard. [24]. ASTM E-119 [24].2 ASTM E-119 ASTM E-119 [8]. Real fires are a function of many variables. Loaded restrained beams 5. The time-temperature curve used for a test is called a fire curve. Columns . [23] which are related to the type of construction. or smoke density.13 - . and Eurocode [8]. Bearing walls and partitions 2.

The main reason for conducting lab tests is essentially to test a structural element in a furnace from the viewpoint of critical temperature and fire endurance time or collapse mechanism [8].1 Assembly setup for a furnace test:(a)beam. The heating process is continued until failure of the element occurs so that specific data can be taken regarding the deflections.1 General Lab testing is a very common method for determining the performance of a structural member from the view point of fire resistance.1 presents a traditional setup of a lab conducted fire test. [14].14 - . Figure 3. etc.(b)column [12]. and only the critical values are published in the codes. The element is then heated according to a standard time-temperature profile such as the ASTM E-119 curve [24].3 Lab Tests 3. Chapter 3 . stresses.3. This data however is not available to public.Fire Tests 3. Figure 3. strains.

research is ongoing and it will take some time to arrive at a clear conclusion. UK that the actual temperature of an element when tested separately in a furnace is quite different from the temperature of the same element when exposed to a fire within a building. based on the standard equations. This is observed due to the various connections and differences in boundary conditions that occur when the beam or an element acts as a part of a frame. . 3. 1998 [8]. there are studies being done and revisions are being made for the standard fire test procedure [8].Fire Tests Currently. It is suggested by British Steel and the Building research development. However.2 ASTM E-119 Time-temperature curve However.15 - .2 Time-Temperature Curves ASTM E-119 is the most common time-temperature curve that is used for the purpose of testing and simulations.3. The current version of ISO 834. on the basis of full scale fire test results at Cardington. [12] suggests that the time-temperature curve for the furnace tests is controlled by the following equation. Figure 3. different curves can be formulated for fire tests.2 presents the time-temperature profile for ASTM E119. Temperature Vs Time 1400 Temperature (°C) 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 48 0 44 0 40 0 36 0 32 0 28 0 24 0 20 0 16 0 12 0 10 0 80 60 40 20 0 0 Time (min) ASTM E-119 Figure 3.

Fire Tests

θ g = 20 + 345 log (8t + 1)

- [3-1]

where, θ g = furnace temperature (°C )

t = temperature (minutes)
There are various other mathematical equations that have been suggested. Some of them
are given below.

Equation proposed by Williams – Leir (1973)

(

θ g = θ o + a1 1 − e − a

4

t

)+ a (1 − e ) + a (1 − e )
2

−a t
5

3

−a 6 t

- [3-2]

where, a1 = 532, a 2 = -186, a3 = 820, a 4 = 0.01, a5 = 0.05 and a6 = 0.20 and θ 0 is the
ambient temperature.
Equation proposed by Fackler (1959)

(

θ g = θ o + 774 1 − e −0.49

t

)+ 22.2

- [3-3]

t

In these equations above, the base temperature or ambient temperature θ o is not
considered to be 20°C which usually is the current practice.

Figure 3.3 Heat flux Vs Time for different furnaces [Castle, 1974], [12]

- 16 -

Fire Tests

Figure 3.4 Effect of furnace characteristics on fire test results
[Witteveen and Twilt, 1981/2], [12]

3.3.3 Drawbacks of Fire Tests
Fire tests may present variable results depending on the furnace conditions and other
parameters. Some of the drawbacks of fire tests are listed below, 
Cost of specimen preparation and actual test procedure is very expensive 
The test results are applicable only to a particular set of parameters that are

already set and may not be true for an actual building construction 
It is difficult to test large assemblies due to the space limitations of a furnace 
It may not be possible in every case to supply the necessary loadings, restraints

and moments to which a member would be subjected in actual construction 
Redistribution effects cannot be studied in detail because of the limitations of

testing one member at a time 
The results obtained from a fire test are highly confidential from a manufacturer’s

point of view and cannot be applied for the purpose of research or further studies

- 17 -

Fire Tests 
The thermal characteristics of a furnace play an important role in fire performance

of elements and these parameters may vary from a furnace to furnace. Figure 3.3
presents the variability in heat flux for three different furnaces A, B, and C 
Reproducibility of results is not possible because of the variable thermal

characteristics of a furnace. Harmanthy, 1969, suggested that the temperature rise
in a furnace is a function of the thermal characteristics of furnace. Figure 3.4
illustrates the variability of results from a series of tests conducted by Witteveen
and Twilt, 1981/2, [12] on similar beams within different furnaces

3.4 Behavior of actual fire
3.4.1 General
Compartment condition in an actual fire is an important study in the field of fire
protection. Numerous curves have been suggested to explain the relation between
temperature and time once a fire event takes place. It is important to note that factors
such as thermal inertia, heat release rate, the presence of combustible materials, and the
ventilation factor [8] play a critical role in the development of these fire curves. The
behavior of compartment fire is described by three main phases, namely,
1. Growth
2. Fully developed fire
3. Decay period
Figure 3.5 represents the different phases that develop in the case of a compartment fire.

Figure 3.5 Different phases in a fully developed fire [12], Chapter 4

- 18 -

The duration of this phase depends on the volatile matter that is present in a compartment. Combustion is complete and occurs totally within the boundaries of the compartment. after the initial stages of fire. the phase begins to cease gradually.19 - . 3. limited availability of air supply. As the rate of generation of volatile material decreases. There are. during this stage there is a large increase in the temperature of the compartment with temperatures reaching to about 1000°C. 3. As the name clearly suggests. or human intervention.3 Fully developed fire The rate of increase in temperature is directly proportional to the heat release rate. combustion is restricted to certain areas of the compartment that may however result in significant localized rises in temperature.5 Parametric Curves Time-temperature curves other than ASTM E-119 [24] are formulated on the basis of standardized equations and these curves are known as parametric curves. or when there is insufficient heat available to generate such volatiles. certain assumptions that need to be made for analyzing the response [12]. however. 1.4 Decay phase The word “decay” means decrease.4. No temperature gradient exists in the compartment. It may happen that many fires may not surpass this initial stage of fire development.4. The approach is based on compartment fire response whereby certain parameters need to be established before the temperature response is calculated. This phase occurs when the quantity of volatile matter continues to decrease and is consumed. 3. Therefore. due to insufficient fuel loads. During this stage.Fire Tests 3. there is a decrease in the fire intensity during this phase due to the decrease in the available fuel and the rate of fuel combustion. .2 Growth Growth is the initial phase of fire development.4. 2.

thermal conductivity and specific heat. F = opening factor ρcλ = thermal inertia of the compartment boundary. In general.[3-6] for 0. is a critical parameter for the determination of fire response.04 m and a thermal inertia of 1160 Ws/m 2 °C were assumed as reference values for a typical room for an office building to establish the standard furnace curve. This parameter depends on several quantities including material density. [12] that the compartment fire is dependent on the ratio of opening factor to the thermal inertia. “b”. For the heating phase.[3-4] t ∗ = parametric time for determining compartment temperature-time response. [ ∗ ∗ θ g = 1325 1 − 0.5 ≤ t d∗ ≤ 2 hours . It was suggested by Wickstrom (1981/2.[3-5] where.7 t − 0. 1985 a). t ∗ is given by.472e −19t ∗ ] . the temperature-time relations are expressed by the following equations.2t − 0. Heat flow through compartment walls is assumed to be unidirectional.20 - .Fire Tests 3.04     1160  . 4. Heat transfer characteristic known as thermal inertia. Γ is defined as. tΓ Here. A ventilation factor of 0.324e −0. t = time Γ = parameter to calculate parametric compartment temperature-time response. For the cooling phase: for t d∗ < 0. 2  F     ρcλ    Γ= 2  0.5 hours θ g = θ max − 625(t ∗ − t d∗ ) .204e −1.

[3-8] θ max is the maximum temperature that is reached during the heating phase.13 x10 −3 qt .6 Comparison of time-temperature response using the theory of Wickstrom. . d . and t d∗ is given by. Also.and Lie [12] From this chapter it was observed that there exists a significant amount of variability in the results that are obtained from furnace tests.[3-9] FΓ q t . from the theories of Wickstrom. t d∗ = 0. d = design fire load per unit area of compartment boundary. Figure 3.6 illustrates the sensitivity of the time .[3-7] for t d∗ > 2 hours θ g = θ max − 250(t ∗ − t d∗ ) . Figure 3. the behavior of fire curves from different formulations becomes an important area of study.temperature response for ENV 1991-2-2. and Lie.Fire Tests θ g = θ max − 250(3 − t d∗ )(t ∗ − t d∗ ) .21 - .

Thermal conductivity plays an important role in many heat and mass transport phenomena as it is a function of Prandtl number.22 - .2 Thermal Conductivity (k) Thermal conductivity is defined as the amount of heat flux that would pass through a certain material depending on the temperature gradient over that material. concrete.cm .2 Definitions 4. 4. 4. 4. In a qualitative manner density is defined as the heaviness of objects with a constant volume.3 Specific Heat (Cp) Specific heat is an intensive property which means that it is independent of the mass of a substance Specific heat is defined as the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one gram of a substance by one degree celcius.2.4 Coefficient of Thermal Expansion ( ε th ) The coefficient of thermal expansion is defined as the increase or elongation in .2.2. 4. These properties were studied to facilitate the process of understanding and developing the models.2.Material properties at elevated temperatures 4 MATERIAL PROPERTIES AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES 4. It is denoted as Cp. vermiculite and gypsum board.°C .1 Introduction This section provides an overview of the thermal properties of interest for typical construction materials such as steel. Common units for specific heat are J/kgK and J/kg°C.It is denoted as k. Common unit of density is kg/m 3 . It is denoted as ρ .1 Density (ρ) Density is a physical property of matter. Commonly used units are W/mK and cal/sec .

3 Thermal Properties of Steel 4. α= k ρC p . 4. cm2/sec. k = thermal conductivity in W/mK ρC p = volumetric heat capacity measured in J/m3K Substances with high thermal diffusivity rapidly adjust their temperature to that of their surroundings. with carbon being the primary alloying material.[4-1] where.5 Thermal Diffusivity Thermal diffusivity is defined as the ratio of thermal conductivity to heat capacity. because they conduct heat quickly in comparison to their thermal 'bulk'.3. It is denoted as ″ α ″. It is denoted as ε th . mm2/sec. thermal conductivity and specific heat data for a particular material. It is denoted as ″e″. 4. Commonly used units are in/in/°C.Material properties at elevated temperatures length occurring in a member per unit increase in temperature.23 - . The behavior of steel when exposed to high temperatures is of critical importance for the safety and stability of the building. 4. cm/cm/°C. Its values are obtained on the basis of density.6 Emissivitty Emissivity of a material is defined as the ratio of energy radiated to energy radiated by a black body at the same temperature. The temperature rise for a steel member is a function of the materials. Thermal conductivity tends to decrease with the increase in temperature while specific heat tends to increase with the increase in . Fire resistant steel is manufactured by adding molybdenum (Mo) and other alloying materials [14]. Different quality/grades of steel can be manufactured by varying the amount of carbon and its distribution in the alloy [14].2. Common units are m2/sec. It is a dimensionless quantity. thermal conductivity and specific heat [23].2.1 Introduction Steel is a metal alloy whose major component is iron.

Part 1.[4-2] ε th = 0. Hence. 78 59 8. 11 53 7. 11 29 8. [1] . 33 72 6.2 [22] is 7850 kg/m3.0120000 0.2 [22]. For most calculations and research work density is assumed to be constant with the increase in temperature.[4-3] ε th = −0.4 x10 −8 xT 2 ) for T ≤ 750°C . Part 1.0040000 0.1 presents the plot for thermal expansion Vs temperature from Bletzacker’s data.2 Density The standard value for the density of structural steel proposed by Eurocode 3. 78 19 6. Figure 4.3. 67 0.0020000 21 .[4-4] Thermal Expansion Vs Temperature Thermal Expansion 0.0140000 0.1 Thermal Expansion Vs Time based on Bletzacker’s Experimental Data. The properties are discussed in the following sections with the help of graphs from different sources. a constant value was adopted for the modeling of the beam.416 x10 −4 ) + (1.3 Coefficient of Thermal Expansion The coefficient of thermal expansion for steel is denoted as ε th . 89 69 3.Material properties at elevated temperatures temperature.1 1 68 . 89 64 8. 4.011 for 750°C < T ≤ 860°C . 78 47 1.3 3 11 2.0080000 0.0060000 0.2 x10 −5 T ) + (0. ε th = (−2.0000000 Temperature (°C) Figure 4.24 - .3.062 + (2 x10 −5 T ) for T > 860°C . 4. 89 38 7. Thermal expansion is temperature dependent and can be evaluated based on the equations proposed in Eurocode 3.0100000 0.

Units for specific heat are J/lbs°C and J/kg K.25 - .5 Specific Heat Specific heat for steel is denoted as C ps .2 represents thermal conductivity values based on Equations 4-5 and 4-6.2 [22]. However. [22] 4.  T  k s = 54 −  s   300  k s = 27. The equations suggested by Eurocode 3. Part 1. Part 1.2 [22] for change of specific heat of steel with temperature are presented below. Part 1.[4-5] for Ts > 800°C . The results of these equations are graphically represented in Figure 4.3.Material properties at elevated temperatures 4. .2 [22] is 54 W/mK at 20°C.[4-6] Figure 4.3. The standard value for thermal conductivity of steel as suggested by Eurocode 3.2 Thermal Conductivity Vs Temperature for Steel (CEN 2001).3 for 20°C < Ts ≤ 800°C .3. Figure 4.4 Thermal Conductivity Units for thermal conductivity are W/mK and W/cm°C. thermal conductivity (ks) of steel varies with the change in temperature based on the relations established by Eurocode 3.

[4-7] for 20°C ≤ Ts ≤ 600°C  13002   C ps = 666  Ts − 738  -[4-8] for 600°C < Ts ≤ 735°C  17820   C ps = 545 −   Ts − 731  .B.26 - .3.87 − (0. [12]. α a = 0.3. thermal diffusivity of steel shows a linear relationship up to a temperature of 750°C.733Ts + 0. due to the lack of research work most researchers assume constant values.3 Specific Heat Vs Temperature for steel (CEN 2001).84 x10 −3 θ a ) . [12] 4.[4-8] for 735°C < Ts ≤ 900°C C p = 650 for Ts > 900°C -[4-9] Figure 4. Eurocode 3 recommends a . et al [23] confirmed through use of a heat transfer model that the resultant emissivity depends on temperature and is not a constant.[4-10] 4.Material properties at elevated temperatures C ps = 425 + 0. However.000169Ts2 + 2.22 x10 −6 Ts3 .6 Thermal diffusivity According to Malhotra.7 Emissivity Wong M.

These tests prove that the results from a furnace test depend significantly on the thermal characteristics of a furnace and the geometry of the test element. proved the significance of varying resultant emissivity to predict temperatures within a steel column. These studies were significant from the view point of adopting constant values for emissivity to generate analytical solutions. 1992.Material properties at elevated temperatures constant value of 0. Figure 4. Chitty et al. constant values are adopted for the purpose of simulations. However.. Figure 4.4 presents the results obtained from their tests. Chapter 5.625 for steel. p 77 .27 - . due to the limitations of finite element analyses. Chapter 5.4 Temperature prediction within a steel column due to the variation of resultant emissivity [12]. [12].

B. The most common form of concrete is Portland cement concrete. θ  θ  k c = 2.3 Thermal Conductivity The equation suggested by ENV 1994-1-2 for change of thermal conductivity of concrete is presented below. Therefore. portland cement. Due to the properties of concrete it can absorb a large amount of heat. the cement hydrates and hardens into a stonelike material. In most methods.0 − 0. After mixing. concrete is a composite building material made from a combination of aggregate. 4.4. Wong M.24 c  + 0.4. As suggested by Eurocode [22]. which consists of mineral aggregate (generally gravel and sand).012 c   120   120  2 where.2 Density The loss or change in density of concrete is not significant with the change in temperature. the heat transfer process is affected by the migration of water.4 Thermal Properties of Concrete 4. The results from this equation are graphically represented in Figure 4.4.28 - . θ c = temperature of concrete (°C) k c = thermal conductivity of concrete (W/mK) .Material properties at elevated temperatures 4.5.[4-11] . cement binder and water. 2200 kg/m3 was assumed for all the models.2 W/mK may be assumed for modeling purposes. The equation below is a general equation which maybe applied to different grades of concrete. [23] conducted a sensitivity analysis and suggested that a constant value of 1. and water.1 General In construction. et al. constant thermal values are assumed for design purposes [23]. Since concrete is a hygroscopic material. 4. constant density is assumed for design or modeling purposes.

6 As we can observe from the graph. For this project.5 Thermal Conductivity Vs Temperature for soncrete (Schneider. Chapter 6.4. The results of this equation and the values obtained from tests are graphically represented in Figure 4. p 90 4.Material properties at elevated temperatures Figure 4.29 - . the type of aggregate plays a critical role in the values. .[4-12] where.4 Specific Heat Specific heat directly varies with temperature. θ c = temperature of concrete (°C) C pc = specific heat of concrete (J/kgK) A constant value of 840 J/kg°C has been suggested by ENV 1994-1-2 for lightweight concrete. C pc θ  θ  = 900 + 80 c  − 4 c   120   120  2 . 1986a). [12]. The equation suggested by ENV 1994-1-2 [12] for changes in the thermal conductivity of concrete is presented below. normal weight concrete was used for analyses.

Chapter 6.30 - . Figure 4.5 Thermal Diffusivity The thermal diffusivity of concrete decreases with an increase in temperature. Figure 4. p 89 4. 1986a).4. p 91 .7 shows the nature of thermal diffusivity for normal and lightweight concretes. [12].6 Specific Heat Vs Temperature for concrete (Schneider. 1986a).7 Thermal diffusivity Vs Temperature for concrete(Schneider. Chapter 6. [12].Material properties at elevated temperatures Figure 4.

It is not considered a true cellular material since gas can be transferred between the individual spaces. Prevent or reduce damage to equipment from exposure to fire or corrosive atmospheres.5. expanded vermiculite. Prevent vapor flow and water condensation on cold surfaces.2. 4. The most widely used insulators of this type are glass fiber and mineral wool. and polyisocyanurate.3 Granular Insulation Granular insulation is composed of small nodules that contain voids or hollow spaces. 3. 4.2. perlite.5. 4. diatomaceous earth.1 Definition of Insulation Insulation is a material or combinations of materials that retard the flow of heat energy. and expanded polystyrene. 2. Control surface temperatures for personnel protection and comfort. Conserve energy by reducing heat loss or gain.2 Types of Insulations 4.2 Cellular Insulation Cellular insulation is composed of small individual cells separated from one another.31 - .Material properties at elevated temperatures 4. polyurethane. cellulose.5. The fibers may be perpendicular or parallel to the surface being insulated. Examples include calcium silicate. Some of the functions of insulations are: 1. The cellular material may be glass or foamed plastic such as polystyrene (closed cell).5 Insulations and their Thermal Properties 4.5.2. or combined with a binder and fibers to make a rigid insulation. and they may or may not be bonded together.5. 4. Facilitate temperature control of a process. 5. . This type may be produced as a loose or pourable material.1 Fibrous Insulation Fibrous insulation is composed of small diameter fibers that finely divide the air space.

The information presented below was obtained from a website for vermiculite [27] Chemical Formula: (Mg.19 gm Percentage composition of different components for Vermiculite 9% 23% 50% 10 % 2% Magnesium Silicon Aluminum Hydrogen 6% Iron Oxygen Figure 4.Fe++. Molecular Weight = 504.3 Thermal Properties of Vermiculite 4.Material properties at elevated temperatures 4.3. mold resistant.5. odorless and sterile due to the high temperatures to which it is subjected in production.8 represents the percentage composition of different elements that are present in vermiculite.Si)4O10(OH)2·4(H2O) Composition: Figure 4.5. Vermiculite can be used for fire protection in the form of boards or as sprayapplied plaster.1 General The name Vermiculite is derived from the Latin word “Vermiculare” which means to breed worms. Vermiculite resembles mica in appearance. It is clean to handle.Al)3(Al.32 - .8 Percentage composition of different materials in case of vermiculite . Vermiculite exfoliates due to the presence of water which gets converted to steam.

5.3. • It is an excellent fire resistance material.33 - . a leading professional engineering firm in England [7] has suggested that the thermal conductivity of vermiculite varies between 0. these values of thermal resistance can be used to obtain thermal conductivity values and incorporate them in the model.3 Thermal Conductivity The thermal conductivity of vermiculite increases with temperature.5.9Al4. . Since thermal conductivity is inversely proportional to thermal resistance.3.2 Advantages of Vermiculite • Vermiculite has reduced thermal conductivity.8Fe2+0.062 W/mK to 0. • It has improved adhesion properties. 4. but after reaching a temperature in the range of about 1050°C to 1200°C the value decreases again. has also published test data for thermal resistance at specific temperature points. • It possesses improved workability.065 W/mK based on their laboratory tests.3SiO10(OH)2·4(H2O) 4. • It is easy to install or apply. • It is light in weight. “SHUNDLER Company” [16]. Table 4-1 represents the values obtained from the lab tests conducted by Schundler Company for one cubic meter of vermiculite. “Hoben International”. a US firm based in New Jersey. These tests also indicated that the melting point of vermiculite is around 1330°C.Material properties at elevated temperatures Empirical Formula: Mg1. • It has increased resistance to cracking and shrinkage.

3. Ch 6.15 0. Figure 4. it is an area of ongoing research with many unanswered questions. data points were read from the graph and were then adjusted according to the technique of curve fitting. al [20] based on their laboratory experiments.28 0.17 0.4 Specific heat The specific heat of vermiculite has not been studied very deeply. suggests a constant value of 1800 J/kg K. Eurocode suggests a value of 1200 J/kg K. A specific heat profile in accordance with temperature was suggested by Toman Jan et.4 0.Material properties at elevated temperatures Table 4-1 Thermal Resistance data from tests done by Shundler Company.25 0.32 0.5. [12]. .34 - . Due to non-availability of established equations. [16] Temperature (° C) Thermal Resistance (Km2/W) 20 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 0. “Hoben International”. There is a large variation between these two values.19 0. Alternatively. of England [7].22 0.9 presents a comparison between the two data sets.13 4. However.

4. Also. depend upon the type of building and code compliance regulations. The powder is heated and treated through a chemical process called calcining which is a process for removing chemically combined components.4 Thermal Properties of Gypsum 4.Material properties at elevated temperatures Specific Heat Vs Temperature 1400 Spe cific H ea t (J/kg K ) 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 20 10 0 20 0 30 0 40 0 50 0 60 0 70 0 80 0 90 0 10 00 10 60 0 Temperature (°C) Figure 4.5.1 General Gypsum is a mineral found in sedimentary rock formations in a crystalline form known as calcium sulfate dehydrate.5. gypsum may be used in a single layer or multiple layers. depending on the type of building and its significance. Chemical formula: CaS04-2(H20) .9 Comparison of graph of Specific heat Vs Temperature obtained from test data. Gypsum rock is mined or quarried and then crushed into fine powder.[16] and from the technique of curve fitting(Interpolation) 4. Gypsum boards are rigid sheets of building material made from gypsum and other materials. It is also known as drywall construction.35 - . The common type of gypsum board that is used for construction purposes is designated as Type X based on its composition and fire ratings. The determination of the number of layers required.

90% 32.2 Advantages of gypsum board • Gypsum is easily available • Gypsum boards provide a durable surface for interior ceilings and walls • They can be easily produced in the factory so there are no issues regarding moisture content • Gypsum has a high melting point • Gypsum panels are easy to install 4.Material properties at elevated temperatures Composition: Figure 4.4.36 - . Cooper L.11 thermal conductivity rises after a temperature limit of 400°C and also there is a steep increase beyond 800°C.10 represents the percentage composition of different components that comprise gypsum. [4] conducted lab tests on gypsum board to provide some understanding of how temperature influences properties of gypsum.3 Thermal Conductivity Much research has been conducted at the National Institute of Standards and Technology also known as NIST.5.50% CaO SO3 H20 Figure 4.5.4. The change in thermal conductivity values . As shown in Figure 4. Percentage composition of different components for gypsum 20.Y.10 Percentage composition of different materials in case of gypsum 4.60% 46.

37 - .4 Specific heat The specific heat of gypsum varies significantly with temperature increase [4]. Figure 4. [4] 4.5. the reason for the spike was not known.11 Thermal Conductivity Vs Temperature for gypsum.12 represents the behavior of specific heat for gypsum board when subjected to high temperatures. The relationship is not linear and there is a large spike in the values during the initial heating period for temperatures in the range of 120°C to 200°C.12 Specific Heat Vs Time for gypsum [4] .Material properties at elevated temperatures over a temperature limit of 400°C depends upon the presence of shrinkage cracks in the gypsum board and also the intensity of the fire [4].4. Figure 4. Unfortunately. Figure 4.

Convection 3. Conduction 2. Figure 5. Figure 5. Chapter 6.1 Temperature distribution with constant thermal conductivity [22].2 Conduction Conduction occurs within solids on a molecular scale without any motion of solid matter relative to one another. k.1 General The science of heat transfer is an important aspect in the study of structural performance during a fire event. p 171 . The mechanisms of heat transfer are: 1.1 represents the conduction process occurring through an element of thickness ∆x having constant thermal conductivity.Heat Transfer Mechanisms 5 HEAT TRANSFER MECHANISMS 5. Radiation 5.38 - . Heat transfer mechanisms involve numerous mathematical equations that describe the temperature distribution through a structure/material.

Chapter 6. dT = temperature difference across a thickness of dx • Q = rate of heat transfer across material thickness of dx k = thermal conductivity of material So. These fluid temperatures are used as boundary conditions for determining the temperature distribution in construction element. •  dT  Q = −k    dx  .2 Boundary conditions for one-dimensional heat conduction [22]. Figure 5.[5-1] where.Heat Transfer Mechanisms The basic equation for conductive heat transfer is given by Fourier’s law.[5-2] ∆x Boundary Conditions for one-dimensional heat conduction The exposed surfaces are in contact with fluids at elevated temperatures. as shown in Figure 5. p 174 . for a material of thickness ∆x with different temperatures T1 and T2 at its two faces. • Q = −k 5.1 (T2 − T1 ) . The negative sign in the equation indicates that the heat flows from the higher temperature side to the lower temperature side.2.39 - .2.

The study of convective heat transfer involves dimensionless numbers such as Nusselt.3 Convection Convection is defined as the transfer of heat by motion of or within a fluid.2. It may arise from temperature differences either within the fluid or between the fluid and its boundary. • Q = ha (Tn+1 − Ta ) . In this case the heat transfer process occurs through the medium of air.Heat Transfer Mechanisms Referring to Figure 5. Nu = hc L k . and one can only make the best effort to assume certain parameters to achieve the goal of safety from the view point of flame spread [22].[5-5] Here. Convection heat transfer is one of the very complex problem types in engineering science.[5-3] On the ambient air side. L = length of solid surface hc = convective heat transfer coefficient k = thermal conductivity of fluid . and ha are the overall surface heat exchange coefficients on the fire and air side respectively which depend on convective and radiative heat transfer. or from the application of an external motive force.[5-4] T fi = fire temperature. Ta = air temperature. h fi .40 - . • Q = h fi (T fi − T1 ) . Convection is difficult to study because it is highly unpredictable in nature. 5. There are two types of flows: 1) Laminar 2) Turbulent The type of flow would be an important area of study when the heat transfer process occurs through a fluid medium. the rate of heat transfer at the interface between the temperature Tfi and the material surface Ti is given by.

ρ = fluid density Uo = flow velocity µ = absolute viscosity of fluid Prandtl Number is given by. Natural Convection The following two sections explain in detail the different convection processes.[5-6] where.3.[5-7] k here. k = thermal conductivity. 5. Pr = µC .Heat Transfer Mechanisms There are primarily two types of convection processes. Re = ρLU o µ . C = specific heat of air. Forced Convection 2. p 176 .41 - . Chapter 6. 1. Reynolds number is given by.1 Heat Transfer Coefficients for Forced Convection Formulations as described below in Table 5-1 can be implemented to find the heat transfer coefficients for different types of flow conditions. Table 5-1 Convective heat transfer coefficients for forced convection [22].

[5-8] where. The heat transfer per unit surface through convection was first described by Newton. The equation for convection can be expressed as: q = kAdT . and the relation is known as the Newton's Law of Cooling. Boiling or condensing processes are also referred to as convective heat transfer processes.Heat Transfer Mechanisms 5.42 - .2 Heat Transfer Coefficients for Natural Convection Natural convection is caused by buoyancy forces due to density differences arising from temperature variations in the fluid. Air acts as a thermal barrier and thus provides protection to the main component or material. . q = heat transferred per unit time (W) A = surface are for heat transfer (m²) k = convective heat transfer coefficient for the process (W/m²-K or W/m²-°C) dT = temperature difference between the exposed surface and the bulk fluid (K or °C) Table 5-2 presents the variation in property values for air with increasing temperature. By modeling the thermal properties of air the process of precise model building in case of finite element techniques can be facilitated.3. This phenomenon is called natural or free convection. At heating the density change in the boundary layer will cause the fluid to rise and be replaced by a cooler fluid that also will heat and rise.

Thomas (1980) [22]. p 176 The general equation for Nusselt number for the case of natural convection is given by.Heat Transfer Mechanisms Table 5-2 Property values of air at atmospheric pressure. surface configuration. flow type and dimensions. . Ra is the Raleigh number and is given by the following equation.43 - . N u = BRa m . and Gr is known as the “Grashof number which is given by. Chapter 6.[5-9] The values of unknowns “B” and “m” depend upon the type of flow.[5-10] where. Ra = Gr Pr . Pr is the Prandtl number (Equation 5-7).

5.3.67 x10 −8 W m2K4 T = absolute temperature in K. σ = Stefan-Boltzmann constant = 5. E b1 is the thermal radiation per unit surface of A1 r is the distance between the two surfaces. reflectivity ρ and transmissivity τ that represent the fractions of incident thermal radiation that a body absorbs.44 - .[5-12] A blackbody is a perfect emitter of heat. The total amount of thermal radiation emitted by a blackbody is given by. g = acceleration due to gravity β = coefficient of thermal expansion for the fluid ∆T = temperature difference between fluid and solid surface ν = relative viscosity of the fluid In the case of TAS models. dA1 and dA2 are areas of radiating and receiving surfaces respectively. reflects and transmits. • d Q dA1→dA2 = E b1 cos θ 1 cos θ 2 dA1 dA2 πr 2 where.Heat Transfer Mechanisms gL3 β∆T Gr = v2 . α + ρ +τ = 1 . For analytical purposes. the radiant thermal exchange between two blackbodies as shown in Figure 5.[5-14] where. can be calculated on the basis of the following equation. the simulations were conducted for natural convection whereby arrays were modeled for the thermal properties of air.4 Radiation In the case of radiative heat transfer there exists the phenomena of absorptivity α . θ 1 and θ 2 are the respective angles. E b = σT 4 .[5-11] Here. respectively. .

3. For the case of a complex structure.Heat Transfer Mechanisms Figure 5. The factor “Ф” plays an important role in numerical modeling of heat transfer as it determines the overall thermal response of structure.  E cosθ 1 cos θ 2  Q A1− dA2 = ∫  b1 d A1 d A2 2 = Ф E b1 dA2 ∏r2   . The resultant view or configuration factor can then be obtained by summation of all the corresponding factors.3 Radiant heat exchange between a finite and infinitesimal area [22].0. Radiation plays a key role as the amount of heat that is emitted from a surface contributes towards the overall fire event. The configuration or view factor has a maximum value of 1. consider two surfaces A1 and dA2 where A1 is the emitting surface.[5-15] The configuration factor or view factor. Chapter 6.45 - . and thus the temperature rise within supporting members. The total thermal radiation from A1 to dA2 is given by. individual view or configuration factors can be found for different elements broken down into smaller parts.1 View Factor As shown in Figure 5. and it is additive in nature. . p 181 5.4. Ф represents the fraction of thermal radiation from A1 to dA2.

TAS Simulations 6 TAS SIMULATIONS 6. The objectives can be elaborated as below. and gypsum board insulation. convection.  To investigate and understand the nature of thermal properties of materials at elevated temperatures. and gypsum board insulation.  Study analytical methods to determine their significance and evaluate the sensitivity of results in comparison with TAS models. The first step was to develop a steel model for a W 12x27 section by using TAS. Different fire curves (eg. and radiation by providing a comparison with Bletzacker’s experimental results [1].  To proceed in a step by step manner from simpler models to more complex configurations by the introduction of additional elements such as concrete slab.46 - . ASTM E-119 and ENV) were also considered to study their important characteristics and contribution from the view point of modeling and designing. Time dependent properties for steel were modeled as arrays for systematic simulations which helped in generating the results. 6. The next step was to increase the complexity of the models by introducing additional elements such as concrete slab. . vermiculite spray-applied insulation.  To understand the techniques of finite element software and the features associated with TAS. which served as a benchmark for this thesis. Time-temperature data predicted by the models was compared with Professor Bletzacker’s experimental results. vermiculite. A model was developed for a W 12x27 steel beam which was the same as considered by Professor Bletzacker [1] for his experiments.1 TAS Models This section provides an introduction to TAS modeling and the methodology behind the model development process.2 Objectives of TAS models The objective of TAS modeling was to understand the finite element techniques and then to analyze the sensitivity of the model in terms of conduction.

that boundary nodes are very different from boundary conditions which essentially mean displacement conditions. then the maximum temperature would be achieved at the first time-step without any iterative process. TAS has a built-in capability for checking the model. 6. and also on the time .3 Model Development 6.2 Run Time Before executing the TAS model it is very necessary that the user checks the model and corrects any errors that are identified. For all the models heat was supplied at five different locations which are described in the following section. strain. and bare steel model with concrete whereby the boundary nodes were defined at the underside face of the bottom flange of unprotected steel. Thus. The run time for the model depends on the number of elements and nodes. and to get a sense of the stress. For the case of steel beam protected with fire proofing material. Some of the important aspects to consider for designing a model are also described below. In this case the values were modeled as arrays based on the information obtained from standardized time-temperature curves like ASTM E-119 and ENV.3. the boundary nodes were defined at the underside face of the insulating material located in the bottom flange. Heat was supplied to the beam through external sources in the form of convection and radiation. which is simply initiated done by clicking on the “Check Model” option.47 - . and displacement picture in the form of color plots. Bletzacker’s results [1] were implemented for the cases of bare steel model. Boundary nodes are important in a model from the view point of heat conduction through the cross-section of the beam. 6. For the case of a steel beam model. The reason for this is that the model behaves as if the radiative and convective heating effects occur in space with no connectivity to the steel beam. if a constant value is used. Alternatively.TAS Simulations TAS is a user friendly and versatile model which allows the user to facilitate the design process by specifying the initial layout of nodes and then developing the brick elements. Note.3. if no boundary nodes are specified then no heat conduction occurs and as a result the entire beam remains at a constant ambient temperature of 20°C.1 Boundary nodes Specifying boundary nodes is a very important aspect of a model in TAS.

3 Output TAS has a post-processor that compiles the results for a particular model. The only loads that can be defined for a model are those related to gravity in three respective directions.3. As far as generating stress. TAS has the capability of generating these results through a unique solver known as GCG solver. other software such as SCINDIA or ABAQUS may help in generating fairly accurate stress results that would aid in the development of appropriate plots for the required parameters. For instance. 6. . the results are then plotted. and heat supplied from a total of five directions. strain and deformation results. As an alternative use. This output file contains temperature data of all the nodes in the model at each time step. a 4-inch thick concrete slab. and so it is very difficult to use TAS as an explicit tool for predicting and evaluating structural behavior at elevated temperatures.3. Only color diagrams can be obtained for stress.out” extension. 6. the region of the model or nodes of interest are first selected. approximately 6 to 8 hours were required for the simulation of a steel I-beam with vermiculite coating.TAS Simulations step interval that has been adopted for the model through analytical calculations.3. By double clicking the graph line. TAS can only provide a range of minimum and maximum values for a particular time interval. This data similarly can be copied to different software tools for further data analyses and comparisons. Large numbers of elements and nodes in a model increase the simulation time. The results are generated in the format of a text file with an “.5 Limitations TAS has significant limitations in terms of modeling imposed or distributed loads. 6.48 - . TAS was the only low-cost tool that was available for exploring the problem of thermal analyses. strain and deformation results. The models were run on a Pentium IV processor with 512 MB RAM and 333 MHz processor speed. all the data points that were used for plotting can be accessed.4 Plotting results In order to plot the results of temperature changes over time.

25″ to 0. Location 4 was the depth of the top flange.30″.49 - . Figure 6. The thickness of the region was around 0. .1 presents these different locations.24″. which was 0. which has a width of 6.5″.TAS Simulations 6. The region consisted of a thickness of 0.1 Locations in the beam Location 1 was the region within the middle portion of the bottom flange. Location 3 was referenced to the mid-height of the web from the bottom flange. The thickness of location 4 was the same as the depth of the top flange.6 Important Locations for study Throughout the thesis four locations were considered for analyzing time-temperature relationships within the steel beam. Therefore.24″.5″. the thickness of this location was the same as the thickness of flange. Location 4 Location 3 Location 2 Location 1 Figure 6.3. Location 2 encompassed the outer face of the flange depth. which in this case was 0.

locations 1. 3. The size and the dimensions for the model (Table 6-1) were the same as used by Professor Bletzacker for his experiments.3.2 18. As previously described in section 6. The important parameters that were considered include the thermal conductivity and specific heat of steel. 4. which have been discussed earlier in the background literature section.30 5.4. This initial model was analyzed solely for the purpose of observing and understanding the conduction phenomenon occurring through the section of the beam. and these were modeled on the basis of the Eurocode equations (section 4.3 present different views for the bare steel model developed by using TAS. The model was subjected to a time-temperature history directly from Professor Bletzacker’s results [1] for temperatures within the bottom flange for the steel section. Table 6-1 Sectional properties for W 12x27 BEAM PROPERTIES FOR W 12x27 SECTION A (in2) d (in) bf (in) tf (in) tw (in) Ixx (in4) Sxx (in3) Iyy (in4) Syy (in3) 7.50 - .237 204 34. Figures 6.3.4).63 .95 11.1 Introduction A bare steel model was developed using finite element software TAS. in all TAS models.6. (Figure 6.TAS Simulations 6.497 0. 2.4 0.96 6.4 Bare steel model 6.1) were the focal points for comparing the finite element results with Bletzacker’s experimental results.2 and 6.

4. . Figure 6.5 present temperature Vs time graphs for different locations through the beam.2 TAS model results Figures 6.4 and 6. These results were obtained by varying the thermal conductivity and specific heat of the steel in accordance with temperature.3 Ismoetric view of 3-D Steel beam(W 12x27) developed using TAS 6.TAS Simulations Figure 6.6 presents the results for all four locations on a single graph.51 - .2 Cross-sectional view of 2-D Steel beam(W 12x27) developed using TAS Figure 6.

TAS Simulations Temperature Vs Time 1200 1200 1000 1000 T e m p e ra t u re ( *C ) 800 600 400 200 600 400 200 00 00 66 00 60 48 54 00 00 00 42 00 Time (sec) Time (sec) Location 4 36 00 30 00 24 18 0 60 00 66 00 00 54 60 00 00 48 42 00 00 36 00 30 00 24 00 18 12 0 60 0 00 0 0 0 800 12 T e m p e r a t u re ( * C ) Temperature Vs Time Location 3 ASTM E-119 ASTM E-119 Figure 6.5 Temperature Vs Time graph for Locations 2 & 1 .52 - 00 66 00 00 Time (sec) Time (sec) 60 54 00 48 00 42 00 36 00 00 30 00 24 18 12 0 00 66 00 60 00 54 00 48 00 42 00 00 36 30 00 00 24 00 18 12 0 0 60 0 00 0 0 60 T e m p e ra t u re ( *C ) Temperature Vs Time .4 Temperature Vs Time graph for Locations 4 & 3 Temperture Vs Time 1200 1000 1000 T e m p e ra t u re ( *C ) 1200 800 600 400 800 600 400 200 200 Location 2 Location 1 ASTM E-119 ASTM E-119 Figure 6.

the previous model of bare steel was extended to include a 4″ thick concrete slab over the top flange. The temperature of the top flange was expected to reduce drastically compared to the bare steel model.7 presents an isometric view of the model with a 4″ thick concrete slab.1 Introduction In this case.5 Bare steel model with concrete slab 6. It was observed that there was a temperature lag between location 4 and other locations due to the fact that conduction that takes to transfer the heat from the bottom flange (location 1) towards the top flange (location 4). Concrete.TAS Simulations Temperature Vs Time 800 Temperature (°C) 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 66 00 60 00 54 00 48 00 42 00 36 00 30 00 24 00 18 00 12 00 60 0 0 0 Time (sec) Location 4 Location 3 Location 2 Location 1 Figure 6. For this reason concrete slab is also known as a “Heat Sink”. High temperature results were obtained for all locations.4 and 6.6 presents the results for all four locations.3 Results summary From Figures 6. it can be concluded that the model showed pretty good temperature distribution results throughout the beam when compared to the trend for ASTM E-119 curve. Figure 6. as expected due to the case of a bare steel model without any fire protection insulations. due to .4. due to its thermal characteristics has the capability of absorbing a significant amount of heat that is directed towards the top flange of the steel section.6 Temperature Vs Time graph for all Locations (Bare Steel Model) 6. 6.53 - .5.5. Figure 6.

[1]. [22] Width (ft) Thickness (in) 3 4 Thermal Conductivity W/mK 1. Thermal conductivity and specific heat of concrete were treated as constants for each model.54 - . . The data for the time-temperature history and change of thermal conductivity and specific heat for steel remained the same as for the bare steel model.9 present the plots for a specific case.95 Specific Heat J/kgK 1000 -1260 Density Kg/m3 2200 Concrete slab Figure 6.5.2 TAS model results Figures 6. The properties of concrete that were adopted for the model are shown in Table 6-2 Table 6-2 Properties of Concrete.7 Isometric view of 3-D Steel beam(W 12x27)model with 4″thick concrete slab developed using TAS 6.8 and 6. where the values for thermal conductivity and specific heat of concrete are 1.5 – 1.95W/mK and 1260J/kgK respectively. The reduction in the temperature of steel section reduces the thermal stresses and also improves the structural rigidity and strength of the material.TAS Simulations the provision of the concrete slab.

9 Temperature Vs Time graph for Locations 2 & 1 with 4″ thick concrete slab 6.TAS Simulations Temperature Vs Time 1200 1200 1000 1000 T e m p e r a t u re ( °C ) 800 600 400 200 600 400 200 00 00 66 60 00 00 54 48 00 00 42 Time (sec) Time (sec) Location 4 36 00 00 30 24 12 18 0 60 0 12 00 18 00 24 00 30 00 36 00 42 00 48 00 54 00 60 00 66 00 60 00 0 0 0 800 0 00 T e m p e r a t u re ( °C ) Temperature Vs Time Location 3 ASTM E-119 ASTM E-119 Figure 6.10 presents a comparison of the results obtained from different models while Figures 6.55 - .3 Comparison of TAS model with Bletzacker’s Experiments Table 6-3 provides a comparison between the results from Bletzacker’s experiments [1] and those from the bare steel model with a 4″ thick concrete slab. Figure 6.12 .11 and 6.5.8 Temperature Vs Time graph for Locations 4 & 3 with 4″ thick concrete slab Temperature Vs Time 1200 1200 1000 1000 T e m p e r a t u re ( °C ) 800 600 400 200 600 400 200 Time (sec) Location 2 00 66 00 60 00 54 00 48 00 42 00 36 00 00 30 24 00 18 0 00 0 60 00 00 66 00 60 00 54 00 48 00 42 00 36 00 30 00 24 18 12 0 00 0 60 0 0 800 12 T e m p e r a t u re ( °C ) Temperature Vs Time Time (sec) ASTM E-119 Location 1 ASTM E-119 Figure 6.

53 Location 3 698.55 443.56 - .44 729. restrained Bletzacker's data Bare steel with concrete.88 727. Table 6-3 Temperature data for different Locations Location Bletzacker’s data TAS model temperature (°C) (°C) Location 4 465.88 724.64 Location 1 729.44 Temperature Vs Time 1000 800 600 400 200 66 60 60 00 54 00 48 00 42 00 36 00 30 00 24 00 18 00 60 0 12 00 0 0 Temperature (°C) 1200 Time (sec) Bare steel.TAS Simulations present a comparison between Bletzacker’s experimental results [1] and the results from bare steel with 4″ concrete slab model.05 Location 2 748.10 Temperature Vs Time graph for Location 4 . restrained ASTM E-119 Figure 6.

shown in Figure 6.5.11 Temperature Vs Time graph for Locations 4 (left) & 3 (right) Temperature Vs Time 1200 1000 1000 Time (sec) TAS Model Bletzacker's Data 00 00 66 60 00 00 54 00 48 42 00 00 36 30 24 0 60 00 00 66 60 00 00 54 48 00 00 42 36 30 24 18 12 60 00 0 00 00 0 00 200 0 200 00 400 00 400 600 18 600 800 0 00 800 12 T e m p e r a tu r e (°C ) 1200 0 T e m p e r a tu r e (°C ) Temperature Vs Time Time (sec) ASTM E-119 TAS Model Bletzacker's Data ASTM E-119 Figure 6. A large amount of heat that is conducted towards the top flange of the beam gets absorbed mainly due to the thermal properties of concrete. .12 Temperature Vs Time graph for Locations 2 (left) & 1 (right) 6.TAS Simulations Temperature Vs Time 1200 1000 1000 TAS Model 00 00 66 00 60 00 54 00 48 00 42 00 Time (sec) 36 00 30 24 0 60 00 00 66 00 60 54 00 00 48 00 42 00 36 30 24 18 12 60 00 0 00 0 00 200 0 200 00 400 18 400 600 0 600 800 00 800 12 T e m p e r a tu r e (°C ) 1200 0 T e m p e r a tu r e (°C ) Temperature Vs Time Time (sec) Bletzacker's Data ASTM E-119 TAS Model Bletzacker's Data ASTM E-119 Figure 6. the temperature for the top flange (location 4) reduces about 240°C due to the 4″ thick concrete slab.57 - .4 Results summary As.10.

13 presents the temperature Vs time plot for location 4 due to different constant values for the thermal conductivity of concrete.54 Case 6. 6. Figures 6.11 and 6. .7 455. These constant values were selected on the basis of articles and journals that have been published and also by engineering judgment. Table 6-4 Different values of Thermal conductivity for concrete Thermal Conductivity Location 4 temperature (°C) (W/mK) from TAS model Case A 1.6 460. At all locations.5 466. each case dealt with a constant value of thermal conductivity for the concrete.56 Case B 1.61 Case C 1. convection and radiation within the steel beam and concrete slab were adequately modeled and suitable for further study.2 TAS model results Figure 6.1 Introduction Models were developed and simulated for different values of thermal conductivity for concrete to study the sensitivity of the temperature in the steel. the model showed good agreement with Professor Bletzacker’s experimental results [1].58 - .12 present the time-temperature relationship for all locations.6.92 Case D 1.95 443. As shown in Table 6-4. the data obtained for location 4 shows a good correlation with Bletzacker’s data [1]. These results suggest that the overall conduction.6 Different values for Thermal conductivity 6.6.TAS Simulations Also.

7 Different values for Specific Heat 6. there is not much change in the top flange temperature due to different values of thermal conductivity of concrete.13 Temperature Vs Time for Location 4 due to different constant values for the thermal conductivity of concrete 6. From these results.5 to 1. Again.TAS Simulations T emperature Vs T ime 500 450 Temperature(° C) 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 66 00 60 00 54 00 48 00 42 00 36 00 30 00 24 00 18 00 12 00 60 0 0 0 Time (sec) Case A Case B Case C Case D Figure 6. the changes in the value of temperature for location 4 were studied.3 Results summary As shown in Figure 6.6.95 W/mK. it can be concluded that the temperature profile is not that sensitive due to the variation of thermal conductivity of concrete in the range of 1. The results were only analyzed for location 4 as the top flange was in direct contact with the slab. The results obtained for location 4 due to the changes made in specific heat are tabulated in Table 6-5.1 Introduction The model was further exposed to study the effect of different constant values of specific heat of concrete.1% to 2.8% change in the temperature results at location 4.8% to 13% for the values of thermal conductivity of concrete resulted in a 1. .59 - . 6.7.13. It was observed that a percentage change of 5.

30 Case B 1085 450.14 Temperature Vs Time at Location 4 due to different constant values for the specific heat of concrete .92 6.TAS Simulations Table 6-5 Different values of Specific heat for concrete Case Location 4 temperature (°C) Specific heat (J/kgK) from TAS model Case A 1023 454. T emperature Vs Time 500 450 Temperature (°C) 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 66 00 60 00 54 00 48 00 42 00 36 00 30 00 24 00 18 00 12 00 60 0 0 0 Time (sec) Case A Case B Case C Case D Figure 6.14 presents the temperature Vs time plot for location 4 due to different constant values for the specific heat of concrete.7.45 Case C 1200 443.60 - .55 Case D 1260 460.2 TAS model results Figure 6.

More details of the model development are listed in parts A and C of the Appendix. Figure 6.3 Results summary As shown in Figure 6.2.7.8 W12x27 steel beam with 0.2 W12x27 steel beam with 0.95 W/mK and 1023 J/kg K were used for thermal conductivity and specific heat respectively. It was observed that a percentage change of 5. The first step towards simulating the performance was to use values for thermal properties of vermiculite. 6. The thermal properties of steel were the same as for the previous models while for concrete constant values of 1. The next step was to conduct simulations with variable properties to investigate the sensitivity of the results and to provide a comparison with the results obtained from Bletzacker’s experiments [1]. . 6.5″ thick protective layer of spray-applied vermiculite coating.15 presents an aerial view of the model developed in TAS.5% for the values of specific heat resulted in a 1% to 4% change for the temperature results for location 4.8. It can thus be concluded that the temperature profile is not that sensitive when subjected to a change in specific heat change of concrete over the range of 1023 to 1260 J/kgK.8.5″ thick vermiculite coating 6.14 there is not much change in the temperature range for location 4 due to the different values of specific heat.TAS Simulations 6.1 Introduction The first step was to analyze the model with constant thermal properties for the vermiculite and to provide a comparison with Bletzacker’s data [1] to estimate the lag between the two temperature.8.61 - .time curves.1 Introduction The model of the W12x27 steel section with a 4″ concrete slab was extended to include a 0. This study would aid to understand the influence of variable thermal properties which are discussed in the next section.5″ thick vermiculite coating (constant thermal properties) 6.7% to 9.

15 Isometric view of W 12x27 steel beam with 0.TAS Simulations Vermiculite coating Concrete slab Figure 6.8.16 Temperature Vs Time graph for Locations 4 (left) & 3 (right) .62 - .16 and 6.2.17 present the temperature Vs time plots for W12x27 steel beam protected with 0.5″ thick vermiculite coating and 4″ thick concrete slab 6.5″ thick vermiculite coating having constant thermal properties.2 TAS model results Figures 6. Temperature Vs Time 1200 1000 1000 800 600 400 800 600 400 200 200 0 0 0 60 0 Time (sec) 12 00 18 00 24 00 30 00 36 00 42 00 48 00 54 00 60 00 66 00 Tem pera ture (°C ) 1200 0 60 0 12 00 18 00 24 00 30 00 36 00 42 00 48 00 54 00 60 00 66 00 Tem pera ture (°C ) Temperature Vs Time Time (sec) LOCATION 4 LOCATION 3 Figure 6.

18 and 6.17 Temperature Vs Time graph for Locations 2 (left) & 1 (right) 6.TAS Simulations Temperature Vs Time 1200 1200 1000 1000 Te m pe ra ture (°C ) 800 600 400 800 600 400 200 200 0 0 0 60 0 12 00 18 00 24 00 30 00 36 00 42 00 48 00 54 00 60 00 66 00 0 60 0 12 00 18 00 24 00 30 00 36 00 42 00 48 00 54 00 60 00 66 00 Te m pe ra ture (°C ) Temperature Vs Time Time (sec) Time (sec) LOCATION 2 LOCATION 1 Figure 6.8. Temperature Vs Time 1200 1000 1000 800 800 0 0 60 0 12 00 18 00 24 00 30 00 36 00 42 00 48 00 54 00 60 00 66 00 Time (sec) Time (sec) Bletzacker's Data TAS Model 36 00 42 00 48 00 54 00 60 00 66 00 200 0 200 30 00 400 24 00 400 600 18 00 600 60 0 12 00 Tem perature (°C) 1200 0 Tem pe ra ture (°C ) Temperature Vs Time Bletzacker's Data ASTM E-119 TAS Model ASTM E-119 Figure 6.19 present the comparison of results from Bletzacker’s data [1] and TAS model for vermiculite coating.63 - .2.18 Comparison of Temperature Vs Time data from different models for Locations 4 (left) & 3 (right) .3 Comparison of results obtained from TAS model and Bletzacker’s Data Figures 6.

8.TAS Simulations Temperature Vs Time 1200 1000 1000 Te m pe r a ture (°C ) 1200 800 600 400 800 600 400 200 0 0 0 60 0 12 00 18 00 24 00 30 00 36 00 42 00 48 00 54 00 60 00 66 00 200 0 60 0 12 00 18 00 24 00 30 00 36 00 42 00 48 00 54 00 60 00 66 00 Te m pe r a tur e (°C ) Temperature Vs Time Time (sec) Time (sec) Bletzacker's Data TAS Model Bletzacker's Data ASTM E-119 TAS Model ASTM E-119 Figure 6. the only difference being that the thermal properties of vermiculite were input as a temperature-dependent.8.3 W12x27 steel beam with 0.18 and 6.19 it was observed that there was a temperature lag between the results from TAS model with constant thermal properties for vermiculite and Bletzacker’s results [1]. 6.8.5″ thick vermiculite coating (variable thermal properties) 6.64 - .3.2.19 Comparison of Temperature Vs Time data from different models for Locations 2 (left) & 1 (right) 6. It can be mentioned at this point that it becomes very important to model thermal properties of vermiculite as an array in order to achieve reasonable results. This was mainly due to the constant thermal properties for vermiculite which is not the case in real life.1 Introduction The basic model was the same as for the previous case involving constant thermal properties of vermiculite.4 Results summary From Figures 6.95 . The thermal properties of steel were the same as for the initial model of bare steel while for concrete constant values of 1.

section 4. For further assessment of thermal properties beyond this temperature limit.20 Temperature Vs Time for Locations 4 (left) & 3 (right) .3. The thermal properties data for vermiculite have been discussed and presented in parts A and C of the Appendix.5″ thick vermiculite coating having variable thermal properties.5.65 - .20 and 6.TAS Simulations W/mK and 1023 J/kg K were used for thermal conductivity and specific heat respectively. for vermiculite the results from the tests were only available up to a temperature limit of 400°C to 450°C.3. 6. the technique of curve fitting was adopted. Temperature Vs Time 1200 1000 1000 T e m pe ra ture (°C ) 1200 800 600 400 800 600 400 200 200 0 0 0 0 60 0 12 00 18 00 24 00 30 00 36 00 42 00 48 00 54 00 60 00 66 00 Te m pe ra ture (°C ) Temperature Vs Time 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 20 1 80 2 40 3 00 360 4 20 4 80 5 40 6 00 6 60 Time (sec) Time (sec) LOCATION 4 LOCATION 3 Figure 6.2 TAS model results Figures 6.8.21 present the results for a W 12x27 steel beam with 0. Different arrays were modeled to have a sense of the impact that would occur due to the changes in thermal characteristics for vermiculite.3. As previously described in Chapter IV.

21 Temperature Vs Time for Locations 2 (left) & 1 (right) 6.22 Comparison of Temperature Vs Time data from different models for Location 4 .3 Comparison of results from different models Temperature Vs Time 600 Tem perature(° C) 500 400 300 200 100 66 00 60 0 0 54 0 0 48 00 4 20 0 36 00 30 0 0 24 0 0 18 00 1 20 0 60 0 0 0 Time (sec) TAS Model Variable Values Bletzacker's Data TAS Model Cons tant Values Figure 6.66 - .8.TAS Simulations Temperature Vs Time 1200 1000 1000 Te m pe ra tur e (°C ) 1200 800 600 400 800 600 400 200 0 0 0 60 0 12 00 18 00 24 00 30 00 36 00 42 00 48 00 54 00 60 00 66 00 200 0 60 0 12 00 18 00 24 00 30 00 36 00 42 00 48 00 54 00 60 00 66 00 Te m pe ra tur e (°C ) Temperature Vs Time Time (sec) Time (sec) LOCATION 2 LOCATION 1 Figure 6.3.

TAS Simulations Temperature Vs Time 900 800 Tem perature(° C) 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 0 60 0 20 1 0 80 1 0 40 2 0 00 3 0 60 3 0 20 4 0 80 4 0 40 5 0 00 6 0 60 6 Time (sec) TAS Model Variable Values Bletzacker's Data TAS Model Cons tant Values Figure 6.23 Comparison of Temperature Vs Time data from different models for Location 3 Temperature Vs Time 1000 900 Temperature(° C) 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 66 0 0 60 00 54 0 0 4 80 0 42 0 0 3 60 0 30 0 0 2 40 0 18 0 0 1 20 0 60 0 0 0 Time (sec) TAS Model Variable Values Bletzacker's Data TAS Model Cons tant Values Figure 6.24 Comparison of Temperature Vs Time data from different models for Location 2 .67 - .

If the thermal properties for vermiculite are established for higher temperatures then the results might be different from those that were obtained for this model.25 which present a comparison with Bletzacker’s data [1].TAS Simulations Temperature Vs Time 1000 900 Temperature(° C) 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 66 00 60 0 0 54 00 4 80 0 42 00 36 00 30 0 0 24 00 1 80 0 12 00 60 0 0 0 Time (sec) TAS Model Variable Values Bletzacker's Data TAS Model Cons tant Values Figure 6. .3. Thermal characteristics might show a non-linear behavior above 450°C unlike the assumption of linear interpolation above 450° C. It can also be suggested at this point that more research is needed on thermal properties of vermiculite due to its variable composition of cementitious material which makes it more difficult to estimate concrete results for the purpose of finite element modeling. These results may show a lot of variation due to the fact of quality standards and mix that are used by a particular manufacturer.68 - .25. it can be concluded that for locations 1 and 2 the temperature rise in steel was pretty high as compared to Bletzacker’s data [1] which could be attributed to the non-availability of thermal properties data above 450°C.21 present the time-temperature plots for the rise in steel temperature for different locations.8.4 Results summary Figures 6.24 and 6.20 and 6. A better understanding can be obtained from Figures 6.25 Comparison of Temperature Vs Time data from different models for Location 1 6. From Figures 6.22 to 6.

1 Introduction The W12x27 steel section was modeled along with a 5/8″ thick protective enclosure of gypsum board. Figure 6.69 - . The thermal properties of steel were the same as for the initial model of bare steel while for concrete constant values of 1.26 Isometric view of W 12x27 steel beam with 5/8″ thick gypsum board enclosure and 4″ thick concrete slab . More details of the model development are listed in parts A and D of the Appendix. to investigate the sensitivity of the results and to provide a comparison with the results obtained from Bletzacker’s experiments [1].95 W/mK and 1023 J/kg K were used for thermal conductivity and specific heat respectively.9 W12x27 steel beam with 5/8″ thick gypsum board coating 6.TAS Simulations 6.9. The next step was to simulate the model with variable thermal properties for gypsum. The first step towards modeling a W12x27 beam with gypsum enclosure was to simulate the TAS model with constant thermal values for gypsum through out the entire run time of the simulation.

6.9. Temperature Vs Time 1200 1000 1000 T e m p e r a tu e (°C ) 1200 800 600 400 800 600 400 200 200 0 0 0 60 0 12 00 18 00 24 00 30 00 36 00 42 00 48 00 54 00 60 00 66 00 0 60 0 12 00 18 00 24 00 30 00 36 00 42 00 48 00 54 00 60 00 66 00 T e m p e r a tu e (°C ) Temperature Vs Time Time (sec) Location 4 Time (sec) ASTM E-119 Location 3 ASTM E-119 Figure 6. This study would aid to provide a comparison between models with constant against variable properties which is discussed in the next section.27 Temperature Vs Time for Locations 4 (left) & 3 (right) .2.9.2.1 Introduction The first step was to analyze the model with constant thermal properties for the gypsum insulation.27 and 6.2 TAS model results Figures 6.2 W12x27 Steel beam with 5/8″ thick Gypsum Board Enclosure (constant thermal properties) 6.70 - .9.TAS Simulations 6.28 present the results from TAS model for gypsum with constant thermal properties.

9.95 W/mK and 1023 J/kg K were used for thermal conductivity and specific heat respectively. 6.3.2 TAS model results Figures 6.30 present the temperature Vs time plots for the case of W12x27 steel beam protected with a 5/8″ thick gypsum board enclosure having constant thermal properties.71 - . the only difference being that the thermal properties of the insulated board were temperature dependent.TAS Simulations Temperature Vs Time 1200 1000 1000 800 600 400 800 600 400 0 0 0 200 60 12 00 18 00 24 00 30 00 36 00 42 00 48 00 54 00 60 00 66 00 60 0 200 Time (sec) Location 2 0 12 00 18 00 24 00 30 00 36 00 42 00 48 00 54 00 60 00 66 00 T e m p e r a t u e (°C ) 1200 0 T e m p e r a t u e (°C ) Temperature Vs Time Time (sec) ASTM E-119 Location 1 ASTM E-119 Figure 6. The thermal properties of steel were the same as for the initial model of bare steel while for concrete constant values of 1.9.3 W12x27 steel beam with 5/8″ thick gypsum board enclosure (variable thermal properties ) 6. .28 Temperature Vs Time for Locations 2 (left) & 1 (right) 6.1 Introduction The basic model was the same as for the previous case of constant properties of gypsum. The thermal properties that were used for gypsum board are contained in parts A and D of the Appendix.29 and 6.9.3.

30 Temperature Vs Time for Locations 2 (left) & 1 (right) .29 Temperature Vs Time for Locations 4 (left) & 3 (right) Temperature Vs Time 1200 1000 1000 Time (sec) Time (sec) LOCATION LOCATION Figure 6.TAS Simulations Temperature Vs Time 1200 1000 1000 00 00 66 00 60 00 54 00 48 00 42 00 Time (sec) 36 00 30 24 60 0 00 66 00 00 60 54 00 00 48 42 00 00 36 30 24 18 12 60 00 0 00 0 0 200 00 200 00 400 00 400 600 18 600 800 12 800 0 T e m p e ra tu r e (°C ) 1200 0 T e m p e r a tu re (°C ) Temperature Vs Time Time (sec) LOCATION LOCATION 3 Figure 6.72 - 00 00 66 60 00 54 00 48 00 42 00 36 00 30 00 24 0 60 00 66 00 00 60 54 00 48 00 42 00 36 00 30 00 24 18 12 00 0 0 0 00 200 0 200 00 400 00 400 600 18 600 800 12 800 0 T em p eratu re (°C ) 1200 60 T em p eratu re (°C ) Temperature Vs Time .

TAS Simulations 6.9.34 present the comparison of results from vermiculite coating and gypsum board enclosure for a W 12x27 beam and their significance in comparison with Bletzacker’s data.73 - .31 to 6.31 Comparison of Temperature Vs Time data from different models for Location 4 66 00 60 00 54 00 48 00 42 00 36 00 30 00 24 00 18 00 12 00 60 0 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 Temperature (°C) Temperature Vs Time Time (sec) TAS Model for Gypsum Board Bletzacker's data TAS Model for Vermiculite Figure 6.32 Comparison of Temperature Vs Time data from different models for Location 3 .3.3 Comparison of results from different models Figures 6. Temperature Vs Time Temperature(°C) 600 500 400 300 200 100 66 00 60 00 54 00 48 00 42 00 36 00 30 00 24 00 18 00 12 00 60 0 0 0 Time (sec) TAS Model for Gypsum Board TAS Model for Vermiculite coating Bletzacker's data Figure 6.

34 Comparison of Temperature Vs Time data from different models for Location 1 .TAS Simulations 66 00 60 00 54 00 48 00 42 00 36 00 30 00 24 00 18 00 12 00 60 0 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 Temperature (°C) Temperature Vs Time Time (sec) TAS Model for Gypsum Board TAS Model for Vermiculite Bletzacker's data Figure 6.74 - .33 Comparison of Temperature Vs Time data from different models for Location 2 66 00 60 00 54 00 48 00 42 00 36 00 30 00 24 00 18 00 12 00 60 0 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 Temperature (°C) Temperature Vs Time Time (sec) TAS Model for Gypsum Board TAS Model for Vermiculite Bletzacker's data Figure 6.

35 minutes Case 3: Maximum fire temperature of 947.31 to 6.30.95°C occurring at 35. The temperature profile in the steel for gypsum board is about 20% to 30% lower as compared to the steel temperature when vermiculite coating is used.75 - .29 and 6. As listed below. while the ENV curve illustrates both a growth and a decay period for the fire. In an actual fire the time-temperature curve is defined mainly by two phases. it is readily seen that there is a decrease in temperature of steel when gypsum board is used as a fire protective material. the TAS models were analyzed through application of the ENV time-temperature history. It is thus essential to study the behavior of steel when subjected to different fire curves in order to determine the sensitivity of the thermal response to the temperature profile for the environment. Further. one should understand that the thermal properties of gypsum board have been defined for temperatures upto the range of 1300°C to 1500°C [4].5″ thick vermiculite coating was subjected to ASTM E-119 fire curve.5″ thick vermiculite coating subjected to ENV fire curve 6.10 W12x27 steel beam with 0.4 Results summary From Figures 6. Case 1: Maximum fire temperature of 892°C occurring at 56 minutes Case 2: Maximum fire temperature of 850. 6.TAS Simulations 6. which makes it easier to model the high temperature performance of gypsum board as compared to vermiculite.3. For this reason.84°C occurring at 102 minutes . The ASTM E119 curve shows a steep increase in temperature with time. vermiculite model and Bletazacker’s data [1]. Also. three different scenarios were studied with the ENV curve.1 Introduction The model developed previously for the case of 0. Figures 6.34 present a comparison between results obtained from the gypsum model. known as growth phase and decay phase. These comparisons help in concluding that gypsum board gives a better performance as compared to vermiculite.9.10.

35 Temperature Vs Time for Locations 4 (left) & 3 (right) . The formulas that were used for determining the necessary parameters have been described in Chapter 3. where the maximum fire temperature of 892° C occurred at 56 minutes. 6.36 present the results for Case 1.76 - 00 00 99 00 Time (sec) 90 00 00 00 81 72 63 00 00 00 54 45 36 27 0 00 18 0 90 00 00 00 00 99 90 81 00 00 72 63 00 00 54 45 36 00 00 27 0 0 18 0 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 90 T e m p e r a tu r e (°C ) Temperature Vs Time . Temperature Vs Time 800 T e m p e r a tu r e (°C ) 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 Time (sec) Location 4 Location 3 Figure 6.055 to 0. A detailed time-temperature history has been presented in part E of the Appendix.5. section 3.35 and 6.068.10.TAS Simulations The three cases for fire curves were established by varying the opening factor “F” within the range of 0.2 TAS model results Figures 6.

38 present the comparison of temperature results for the major locations of study when subjected to different fire intensities. Due to very lengthy simulation times.77 - 00 00 Time (sec) 66 00 60 54 00 48 00 42 00 36 00 00 30 00 24 00 18 12 60 0 400 300 200 100 0 0 T e m p e r a t u r e ( °C ) 00 66 00 00 60 00 54 00 48 42 00 36 00 30 00 24 00 18 0 00 12 0 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 60 T e m p e r a t u r e ( °C ) Temperature Vs Time . which took 60 hours.37 Temperature Vs Time for Locations 4 (left) & 3 (right) from different cases . the analyses for cases 2 and 3 were restricted to a time limit of 6900 seconds.37 and 6.36 Temperature Vs Time for Locations 2 (left) & 1 (right) 6. Temperature Vs Time 900 800 700 600 500 Time (sec) Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Figure 6.3 Comparison of temperature results for different fire intensities Figures 6.10.TAS Simulations Temperature Vs Time 800 700 700 600 600 300 00 00 99 90 81 00 00 00 72 63 00 00 54 00 45 0 90 00 00 90 99 00 00 81 00 72 63 00 00 54 00 45 00 36 27 18 90 00 0 0 100 0 00 200 100 36 200 400 27 300 0 400 500 00 500 18 T e m p e ra tu re (°C ) 800 0 T e m p e ra tu re (°C ) Temperature Vs Time Time (sec) Time (sec) Location 1 Location 2 Figure 6.

Temperature Vs Time Temperature Vs Time ENV Curve ASTM E-119 Curve ENV Curve ASTM E-119 Curve Figure 6.TAS Simulations Temperature Vs Time 00 00 66 60 00 00 54 00 48 42 00 00 Time (sec) Time (sec) Case 1 36 00 30 00 24 18 60 00 00 66 00 60 00 54 00 48 00 42 00 36 30 00 00 24 18 0 12 60 00 0 200 100 0 0 00 600 500 400 300 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 12 T e m p e ra t u re ( °C ) 900 800 700 0 T e m p e r a t u r e (°C ) Temperature Vs Time Case 2 Case 1 Case 3 Case 2 Case 3 Figure 6.10.39 Temperature Vs Time for Locations 4(left) & 3(right) .38 Temperature Vs Time for Locations 2 (left) & 1 (right) from different cases 6.78 - 00 99 00 00 Time (sec) 90 00 81 72 00 00 00 63 54 45 00 90 Time (sec) 36 0 00 99 00 90 00 81 00 72 00 63 00 54 00 00 45 36 00 0 00 27 18 0 0 00 100 27 200 00 300 18 T e m p e r a tu r e (°C ) 400 90 T e m p e r a tu r e (°C ) 500 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 600 .4 Comparison of results from ENV curve and ASTM E-119 Figures 6.39 and 6.40 present a comparison of the temperature profile for different locations from ENV and ASTM E-119 fire curves.

there is a rise in temperature for sometime. From these three cases. The ASTM E-119 curve continues to grow. .5 Results summary As shown in Figures 6.37 and 6.39 and 6. Figures 6.38 present a comparison for different cases due to the different fire scenarios and fire intensities. As seen from the graphs the temperature in steel for all the location varies significantly with the change in fire intensities and the respective heating and cooling periods. while the period for temperature decrease is known as Cooling Phase.79 - . while the ENV curve shows a decrease in temperature due to the fire load properties and the room conditions. the temperature profile for all locations was found to vary in the range of 100° to 200° C.10.40 provide a comparison of the temperature profiles obtained for different locations due to the formulations from ASTM E-119 curve and the ENV curve. the temperature drops down. Further.40 Temperature Vs Time for Locations 2(left) & 1(right) 6. one can observe that there is good agreement between both responses for the initial fire growth period but after a time of 4200 seconds the curves follow a different trajectory. From comparison of the steel temperatures resulting from the two different curves.36 for the case of W12x27 beam subjected to ENV fire curve. The period for the temperature rise is known as Heating Phase. and after a peak temperature is reached.35 and 6. Figures 6.TAS Simulations Temperature Vs Time 00 00 00 99 90 00 81 00 00 72 63 00 00 Time (sec) Time (sec) ENV Curve 54 45 00 36 27 0 00 18 0 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 90 00 00 99 00 90 00 81 00 72 63 00 00 54 00 45 0 00 36 27 18 90 00 T e m p e r a tu r e (°C ) 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 T e m p e r a tu r e (°C ) Temperature Vs Time ENV Curve ASTM E-119 ASTM E-119 Figure 6. It becomes very essential to study the sensitivity of results due to variation of opening factors and thus the fire intensity for a room.

Temperature Vs Time Temperature Vs Time 300 400 350 T e m p e r a tu r e (°C ) 300 200 250 150 200 150 100 100 50 50 Time (sec) Time (sec) Location 3 Location 4 Figure 6.11.2 TAS model results Figures 6. The model was subsequently subjected to the ENV time-temperature history formulated in the Eurocode.80 - 00 00 99 00 90 00 81 00 72 00 63 00 54 00 45 36 00 00 27 18 0 00 99 00 00 90 00 81 00 72 00 63 00 54 00 45 00 36 00 27 0 90 18 0 0 0 0 90 T e m p e r a tu r e (°C ) 250 .2) was previously subjected to the ASTM E-119 fire curve.1 Introduction The model which was earlier developed to investigate 5/8″ thick gypsum board (section section 6.5″ thick gypsum board protection.42 present the results obtained for the model of W 12x27 beam with 0.11.1).41 Temperature Vs Time data for Locations 4 (left) & 3 (right) .TAS Simulations 6.11 W12x27 steel beam with 5/8″ thick gypsum board enclosure subjected to ENV fire curve 6. 6. All the properties and basic modeling remained the same as for the previous model of gypsum board which was subjected to a timetemperature profile based on ASTM E-119 curve.41 and 6.10. section 6.16.10.9. The gypsum board simulation was studied for the case when the maximum fire intensity occurred at 55 minutes (Case 1.

44 present a comparison of the temperature profile for different locations from ENV and ASTM E-119 fire curves.42 Temperature Vs Time data for Locations 2 (left) & 1 (right) 6.43 and 6.81 - .43 Comparison of Temperature Vs Time data from different models for Locations 4 (left) & 3 (right) .11. Temperature Vs Time 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 T e m p e r a tu r e (°C ) 600 500 400 300 200 100 00 99 00 00 00 00 90 81 72 00 00 63 54 45 00 36 00 00 27 0 18 0 Time (sec) Time (sec) ENV Curve 90 00 00 00 00 99 90 81 00 00 72 63 00 00 54 45 00 36 00 27 18 0 0 90 0 T e m p e r a tu r e (°C ) Temperature Vs Time ENV Curve ASTM E-119 Curve ASTM E-119 Curve Figure 6.TAS Simulations Temperature Vs Time Temperature Vs Time Time (sec) 00 00 99 00 00 90 81 00 63 72 00 00 54 18 00 0 90 00 00 99 00 90 81 00 00 72 00 63 00 54 00 45 00 36 0 00 27 18 90 0 0 45 100 00 200 36 300 00 400 27 T e m p e r a tu r e (°C ) T e m p e r a tu r e (°C ) 500 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 600 Time (sec) Location 2 Location 1 Figure 6.3 Comparison between results obtained for different locations from ENV curve and ASTM E-119 Figures 6.

after a time of 4200 seconds. Comparison was made for Case 1. where the maximum fire temperature of 892°C occurred at 56 minutes. the responses follow a different trajectory. 6.TAS Simulations Temperature Vs Time Temperature Vs Time 800 800 700 700 T e m p e r a tu r e (°C ) T e m p e r a tu r e (°C ) 600 600 500 500 400 400 300 300 00 00 99 00 90 00 81 00 72 00 63 00 54 00 45 00 36 00 27 18 0 Time (sec) Time (sec) ENV Curve 90 00 00 99 00 90 00 81 00 72 00 63 00 54 00 45 36 27 18 90 00 0 0 0 00 100 0 100 0 200 200 ENV Curve ASTM E-119 Curve ASTM E-119 Curve Figure 6.43 and 6.11. The ASTM E-119 curve continues to grow. one can conclude that there is a good agreement between both the curves for the fire growth period. .12 Comparison of results between Vermiculite and Gypsum models subjected to ENV fire curve Figure 6.4 Results summary As shown in Figures 6. But.44.44 Comparison of Temperature Vs Time data from different models for Locations 2 (left) & 1 (right) 6.82 - . while the ENV curve shows a decrease in temperature due to the fire load properties and the room conditions. comparison of the steel temperatures resulting from the ASTM E-119 and the ENV curves.45 presents a comparison between results obtained by subjecting the vermiculite and gypsum model to the time-temperature profile based on ENV fire curve.

45 Temperature Vs Time graph for location 4 6.1 Results summary As observed from Figure 6.89 269. . and the maximum temperature was 269.14°C at 6600 seconds. Thus there is a time lag (∆t) of 600 seconds when the maximum temperature in steel was reached. when the steel beam was protected with vermiculite coating. the maximum temperature was 392. for location 4.62°C at 6000 seconds when gypsum board was the fire resistance material.83 - .246 00 99 00 90 00 81 00 72 00 63 00 54 00 45 00 36 00 27 00 18 90 0 200 150 100 50 0 0 Temperature (°C) Temperature Vs Time Time (sec) Gypsum Model Vermiculite Model Figure 6.45.12.TAS Simulations 450 400 350 300 250 392. This indicates that gypsum proved to be a better fire resistive material when the steel beam was subjected to a natural fire as described by the ENV fire curve.

Analytical method

7 LUMPED MASS PARAMETER METHOD
7.1 Introduction
Depending on the type of building and its importance, it may not be always feasible to
adopt a rigorous numerical modeling or finite element modeling technique to assess
structural performance during a fire event. In many cases it may happen that an
approximate analytical method would suffice for design and decision making. Analytical
calculations are much simpler as compared to the complex finite element models due to
the omission of temperature gradients that may occur across a steel section. There are
many methods to predict temperature rise in case of insulated steel members, viz. ECCS
method, ENV 1993-1-2 approach, etc. The method that was adopted in this thesis project
was the Lumped Parameter Method based on the ECCS method [12]. The method suffers
the limitation of not taking into consideration the thermal or temperature gradients that
exist through the steel section. Thus, it would tend to predict a higher range of
temperature for the entire steel section. Also, the analytical method cannot handle the
effects and interaction between two different materials, viz. steel and concrete. The
analysis was done to represent the effectiveness and the limitations of an analytical
approach. All the analyses were conducted through application of the ASTM E-119 timetemperature curve.

7.2 ECCS method
The ECCS formulations [12] provide closed-form equations to predict the temperature of
steel at different time intervals. The first step in this method is to predict the heat capacity
of the insulation. In order to determine this value for the insulating material, the
parameter “Ф” is calculated from the following equation,
 c p ρp
Φ=
 C ps ρ s

  Ap
d p 
  Vi
 




-[8-1]

where, Φ = insulation heat capacity factor
c p = specific heat of gases
C ps = specific heat of steel

- 84 -

Analytical method
ρ p = density of insulation

ρ a = density of structural steel
A p = area of steel protection per unit length exposed to fire

Vi = volume of steel per unit length
d p = insulation thickness

In the equation above if, the value of Ф exceeds 0.5 then the insulation is considered to
have substantial heat capacity and the heat flow for the enclosed steel is given by
equation 8-2, while for insulating members with negligible heat capacity, the heat flow is
given by equation 8-3.
 A
 p
 V
 i

 (θ a − θ a ,t )∆t
∆θ t


 (1 + )
2

2
1+
Φ

-[8-2]

∆θ a, t

 λp
 dp
=
 C ps ρ s

 A
 p
 V
 i


(θ t − θ a, t )∆t

-[8-3]

Φ

∆θ a ,t

 λp
 dp
=
 C ps ρ s

where, λ p = thermal conductivity of protection material

θ a = structural steel temperature
θ a, t = structural steel temperature at time t
∆θ t = incremental increase in steel temperature
To determine the time step, the following equation has been suggested by ECCS,
∆t ≤

25000

-[8-4]

Ap
Vi

Here, “V” is the cross sectional area of the steel section that is used for design purposes,
and this value can be directly obtained from the AISC Manual of Steel Construction. Ap is
the heated perimeter of the steel section, which would depend upon the type and
layout of the insulating material. Usually, the value for Ap can be calculated based on the
expressions that have been established for different configurations. Table 7-1 presents the
perimeter expressions

Ap
Vi

for some common cases.

- 85 -

Analytical method

Table 7-1 Perimeter expressions for some particular cases of steel, [21], Ch 6, p 191

- 86 -

87 - . [22] Yield Stress:     T  F = 1+ y0  T   900 ln     1750    For 0 ≤ T ≤ 600 °C FyT For 600° C < T ≤ 1000° C  340 − 0.69T  ET =   E0  T − 53. based on the values of the steel temperature at each time interval.Analytical method Once the time step is determined. Also. the temperature of steel is calculated at each interval for the duration of the proposed fire event. corresponding values for the reduced Young’s modulus and yield strength can be calculated from the following relationships suggested by Eurocode [12]. Fy 0 = initial Yield strength at 20°C FyT = Yield strength at time T T = temperature Young’s Modulus: For 0 ≤ T ≤ 600 °C     T E  ET = 1 + 0   T    2000 ln   1100    -[8-7] For 600°C < T ≤ 1000° C  690 − 0. and a curve of steel temperature Vs time is plotted. E 0 = initial Young’s modulus at 20°C ET = Young’s modulus at time T T = temperature .34T  FyT =   Fy 0  T − 240  -[8-5] -[8-6] where.5  -[8-8] where.

Further.3.2 Comparison between results from different models Figure 7. and then developing an array of temperaturedependent values to explore the sensitivity of the results. Location 4 data from TAS model was not included for comparison purposes due to the fact that the concrete slab and its respective properties could not be incorporated within the analytical methods. Also.Analytical method 7.3.1 presents a comparison between the results obtained from the ECCS method for variable and constant thermal properties of steel and vermiculite.2 and 7.1 Introduction Analytical analysis using the ECCS method applied to the model configuration that was developed using TAS for the study of vermiculite insulation. as described in section 6. . 7.3 enable a comparison between the results obtained from analytical modeling and those obtained from TAS modeling and Bletzacker’s experiments [1]. The purpose of the study was to analyze the effectiveness of the analytical method. Figures 7.3 Vermiculite Model 7. The analysis was conducted in a step-by-step manner.8. a temperature increase was observed which accounted for 3% to 8% hike in temperature results that were obtained from analytical method.88 - . The results suggest that the analytical techniques are highly conservative in comparison to finite element models. starting with constant thermal properties for steel and vermiculite.

Location 1 TAS model. Location 3 Figure 7.2 Temperature Vs Time comparison between results from analytical method and TAS modeling .89 - . Location 2 TAS model.Analytical method Temperature Vs Time 1200 Temperature (C) 1000 800 600 400 200 65 00 60 00 55 00 50 00 45 00 40 00 35 00 30 00 25 00 20 00 15 00 0 50 0 10 00 0 Time (sec) Variable properties of steel and vermiculite Constant properties Variable properties of steel Figure 7.1 Temperature Vs Time comparison between results from different analytical models Temperature Vs Time 1200 Temperature (C) 1000 800 600 400 200 66 00 60 00 54 00 48 00 42 00 36 00 30 00 24 00 18 00 12 00 60 0 0 0 Time (sec) Lumped mass parameter method TAS model.

and then developing an array of temperature-dependent thermal properties to explore the sensitivity of the results.4. Location 2 Bletzacker's data.1 Introduction Analytical analysis was performed using the ECCS method applied to the model configuration that was developed using TAS for the study of gypsum board insulation as described in section 7. .4 Gypsum Board Model 7. starting with constant thermal properties for steel and gypsum board. Location 3 Figure 7. 7.9.90 - . The purpose of the study was to analyze the effectiveness of the ECCS method for modeling the contribution of gypsum board insulation. Location 1 Bletzacker's data. The analysis was carried out in a step-by-step manner.3 Temperature Vs Time comparison between results from analytical method and Bletzacker’s data 7.4 presents a comparison between the results obtained from ECCS method for variable thermal properties of steel and vermiculite and those obtained from TAS modeling.Analytical method Temperature Vs Time 1200 Temperature (C) 1000 800 600 400 200 66 00 60 00 54 00 48 00 42 00 36 00 30 00 24 00 18 00 12 00 60 0 0 0 Time (sec) Lumped mass parameter method Bletzacker's data.4.2 Comparison between results from different models Figure 7.

Analytical method Temperature Vs Time 1200 Temperature (°C) 1000 800 600 400 200 66 00 60 00 54 00 48 00 42 00 36 00 30 00 24 00 18 00 12 00 60 0 0 0 Time (sec) Lumped mass parameter method TAS model.5 Yield Strength Vs Time for 0.4 Temperature Vs Time comparison analytical methods and TAS models 7.5″ thick vermiculite model .1 Mechanical properties of steel from vermiculite model Yield Strength Vs Time 40 35 25 20 15 10 5 66 00 60 00 54 00 48 00 42 00 36 00 30 00 24 00 18 00 12 00 60 0 0 0 Fy (ksi) 30 Time (sec) Figure 7.5 Mechanical Properties of Steel 7. Location 3 Figure 7.91 - . Location 1 TAS model.5. Location 2 TAS Model.

7 Yield Strength Vs Time for 5/8″ thick gypsum board model .2 Mechanical properties of steel from gypsum model Yield Strength Vs Time 40 35 25 20 15 10 5 66 00 60 00 54 00 48 00 42 00 36 00 30 00 24 00 18 00 12 00 60 0 0 0 Fy (ksi) 30 Time (sec) Figure 7.92 - .Analytical method Modulus of Elasticity Vs Time 35000 30000 Es (ksi) 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 60 0 12 00 18 00 24 00 30 00 36 00 42 00 48 00 54 00 60 00 66 00 0 0 Time (sec) Figure 7.6 Modulus of Elasticity Vs Time for 0.5.5″ thick vermiculite model 7.

It was observed that the yield strength. and a stage is reached when the carrying capacity of the beam is nearly zero which results to a failure of the beam.8 Modulus of Elasticity Vs Time for 5/8″ thick gypsum board model 7.3 Results summary From Figures 7.5. and modulus of elasticity for steel decrease with an increase in temperature. . Further.5 to 7.1 to 7. Figures 7.93 - .Analytical method Modulus of Elasticity Vs Time 35000 30000 Es (ksi) 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 66 00 60 00 54 00 48 00 42 00 30 00 36 00 24 00 18 00 12 00 60 0 0 0 Time (sec) Figure 7. and 3 only. The results from analytical models were compared with temperature profiles for locations 1.2.8 represent the profile for the mechanical properties of steel. due to the fact that it is not possible to incorporate the effect of the concrete slab interaction with the steel beam at location 4.4 it can be concluded that the analytical model showed a steep increase in temperature when compared to TAS model results and Bletzacker’s experimental results. The method is not that accurate due to the fact that analytical techniques cannot consider the effect of non-uniform temperature gradients that occur through the beam section.

Conclusions 8 CONCLUSIONS In this thesis. W 12x27 Bare Steel Model with 4″ Thick Concrete Slab: The simulations for this model showed that the temperature for the top flange. The simulations for constant thermal properties resulted in a lag in the predicted temperature profile when compared with Bletzacker’s data [1]. resulted in a significant decrease in the temperature. the technique of curve . TAS. W 12x27 Steel Beam with 4″ thick Concrete slab and 1/2″ thick Vermiculite Coating: This model was a replica of the beam that was tested in a lab by Professor Bletzacker [1] in 1966. The results suggested that there was not a significant change in temperature profile for the top flange when thermal conductivity and specific heat for concrete were varied within the range of 1. it was observed that the temperature rise was very high for the entire beam section with all the locations in the temperature range of 700° to 800°C. Different constant thermal properties for concrete were considered in order to test the sensitivity.95 W/mK and 1023 to 1260 J/kgK. The study of thermal properties and their variation with temperature helped to establish a model for conduction within the steel beam. The scope of work included comparisons of the numerical results with published test data and results obtained from simpler analytical models.94 - . For this reason. respectively. simulations were conducted for the cases of constant and variable thermal properties of vermiculite. W 12x27 Bare Steel Model: From the analysis of bare steel model. compared to the bare steel model. different aspects related to heat transfer mechanism for a W 12x27 steel beam section were studied in a comprehensive manner by the use of the finite element software. The conclusions for different models and overall observations are discussed below. The difference was in the range of 300° to 350°C. which is directly in contact with the slab. In order to test the sensitivity of the model. The thermal properties of vermiculite are not well defined for temperatures above the limit of 450°C.5 to 1.

Conclusions

fitting was adopted. The properties are highly variable due to the presence of
cementitious materials and other components. The results suggested that the temperature
profile for location 4 showed good agreement with the experimental results from
Professor Bletzacker’s studies [1]. But, for locations 1, 2, and 3 the results obtained from
the simulations showed a steep increase in temperature profile when compared with
Bletzacker’s experimental results [1]. According to the literature review, it was observed
that the non-availability of thermal properties at high temperatures played a critical role
towards the high temperature profile that was observed for this model. From the
simulations it was observed that TAS modeling results were conservative with the margin
of error in the range of 14% to 17%.

W 12x27 Steel Beam with 4″ thick Concrete slab and 5/8″ thick Gypsum Board
Insulation:

This model was developed with a 5/8″ thick gypsum board insulation which provided fire
resistance. Simulations were conducted for the cases of constant and variable thermal
properties for gypsum in order to explore the sensitivity of results. Thermal properties for
gypsum are pretty well defined at high temperatures, and the use of test data from NIST
helped the modeling and analysis. The simulation results indicated that gypsum proved to
be a better fire protection material in comparison to vermiculite due to the fact that the
temperature for all the locations within the steel section showed a drop of about 100° to
200°C.

W 12x27 Bare Steel Model with 4″ thick Concrete slab and 1/2″ thick Vermiculite
Coating subjected to ENV fire curve:

The model for 1/2″ thick vermiculite model, as mentioned before, was subjected to a
parametric design fire curve, known as the ENV fire curve. Simulations were carried out
for different fire intensities viz. 55 minutes, 35.35 minutes, and 102 minutes durations
with corresponding maximum fire temperatures of 891°C, 800°C, and 900°C,
respectively. From the simulations, it was observed that a fire curve consists of two
different phases, namely heating and cooling phases which depend up on the
characteristics of the room. Characteristics such as opening factor and fire load play a

- 95 -

Conclusions

critical role for the peak temperature that occurs during a fire event. The opening factors
for these simulations were varied in the range of 0.058 to 0.068. The resultant fire
intensity and duration were dependent on opening factor. The resulting maximum
temperature for location 4 from the ENV fire curve was in the range of 325° to 370°C as
compared to 485° to 500°C from ASTM E-119 simulations.

W 12x27 Bare Steel Model with 4″ thick Concrete slab and 5/8″ thick Gypsum Board
Insulation subjected to ENV fire curve:

The gypsum board model was subjected to the ENV fire curve with a fire intensity of
892°C occurring at 56 minutes. The results suggested that the highest temperature for
location 4 when gypsum board was used was 269.24°C in comparison to a temperature of
392.89°C when vermiculite was used as a fire resistant material. It was also observed that

there was a time lag of 600 seconds between the occurrence of these peak temperatures in
the gypsum board and vermiculite models. This 10 minutes time difference may be of
critical importance for the safety of the occupants and the responders in case of a fire
event.

Lumped Mass Parameter Method for W 12x27 Beam Model with 1/2″ thick
Vermiculite Coating:

Analytical analysis was done using the Lumped Mass Parameter Method. Analysis of the
W 12x27 beam protected with 1/2″ vermiculite coating subjected to ASTM E-119 timetemperature profile was performed. The results showed a maximum temperature of 972°
C for the steel section as compared to 886°C and 748.88°C from TAS modeling results

and Blezacker’s experimental results [1]. Analytical techniques suffer from the drawback
of not taking into consideration the effect of temperature gradients that occur throughout
the cross-section of the beam. Also, the contribution of the concrete slab could not be
modeled as there has not been much advances in analytical techniques that can handle
different materials to determine their interrelationships.

- 96 -

Conclusions

Lumped Mass Parameter Method for W 12x27 Beam Model with 5/8″ thick Gypsum
Board Insulation:

Analytical analysis of a configuration with gypsum board insulation was done using the
Lumped Mass Parameter Method. Analysis of W 12x27 beam protected with 5/8″
gypsum board subjected to ASTM E-119 time-temperature profile was carried out. The
results showed a maximum temperature of 952.85° C for the steel section as compared to
734°C from TAS modeling results. The analytical results again proved that gypsum gave

a better performance when compared to vermiculite with the temperature difference
being about 20°C between the two materials.

Overall Observations:

The overall observation that could be made from this project was that TAS proved to be a
very sophisticated yet user friendly tool to analyze time-temperature relationships for an
assembly. It was also seen that TAS model results showed good agreement with physical
test results from Professor Bletzcaker’s results [1]. The only drawback to the use of TAS
at this time is that it does not have good capabilities for analyzing stress results. The
results suggest that TAS or similar finite element analyses could provide a cost-effective
supplement or alternative to physical tests by combining its results with other stress
analysis tools in the field of Fire Protection.

- 97 -

The analyses would provide a more clear understanding to structural engineers regarding the concept of critical failure.  What is the behavior of concrete when subjected to high temperatures? This issue becomes very important when buildings have a significant volume of concrete as the basic construction material and less steel is involved. the sensitivity of failure with regard to the location of fire within a room could be explored.Recommendations 9 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK A number of questions arised from this project.98 - . The timetemperature results from these simulations could be used for analyzing stress results through application of finite element tools such as SCINDIA. Explicit equations need to be developed for modeling thermal characteristics in order to determine the key areas contributing towards high temperatures and failures within concrete.  What would be the stress behavior of steel at high temperatures? The effects of restrained Vs partially restrained end conditions could be analyzed. when vermiculite and gypsum are used separately as fire protective materials? This study would help in determining the structural performance of vermiculite and gypsum and thereby the performance of entire beam section. Further.  What is the significance of using different fire curves for the purpose of fire testing and fire modeling? A sensitivity analysis of fire curves could be done in order to understand their significance from the view point of design and critical condition.  How critical is the time difference when the maximum temperature is reached in steel.  What would be the behavior of a steel frame or bay when modeled and subjected to high temperatures using TAS? This would lead to an understanding for the behavior of connections when subjected to a fire event.  How critical were fire loads and opening factors with respect to the temperature rise in steel?  What is the behavior of vermiculite beyond the temperature limit of 450°C? This would help in a more accurate comparison of results with regard to Bletzacker’s data. . ABAQUS. and others. Some of them are.

Czech Republic. pp 219-228. “Stress-Strain-Temperature Relationship for Structural Steel. Czech Technical University. Fire Safety Engineering – Design of Structures.. 38. Virginia Tech. Vol.. No.T.htm) [8] Lane B. 2003. and Bhargava A. Department of Structural Mechanics.” Engineering Journal.Y.5... “The Thermal Response of Gypsum-Panel/Steel Stud Wall Systems Exposed to Fire Environments – A Simulation for use in Zone – Type Fire Models. NIST. ″Performance Based Design for Fire Resistance″ Modern Steel Construction. [2] Bryant R. Edinburgh. Scotland. Case S. June 1997. Johnsson E. “Radiative Heat Flux Measurement Uncertainty”.co.99 - . Toman J.” Journal of Fire Safety. [4] Cooper L. Journal of Fire and Materials. Simulation of Structural Response of Composite Structures under Fire Exposure. 209222.” Department of Engineering Science & Mechanics at Blacksburg. .. [3] Chitty R. September/October 2001. England (http://www. [12] Purkiss J.W. Vol.hoben. Fourth Quarter. 38. “Effect of Structural Restraint on the Fire Resistance of Protected Steel Beam Floor and Roof Assemblies”. [9] Lie T. Bausano J. ButterworthHeinemann.Bibliography 10 BIBLIOGRAPHY [1] Bletzacker R.W. and Foster J. [10] Podebradska J. [11] Poh K. 1978. September 2001.A.. 1996..” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. “Flammability Properties for Charring Materials.”. [5] Delichatsios M. Pavlik J. Vol. Paroz B. Womeldorf C. December 2000. and Lesko J. [6] Halverson H.. 2003.... 371-379.” Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Interflam. pp. “Application of Computer Modeling To Real Fire Incidents. and Cerny R. Specific Heat Capacity of Cementitious Composites in High-Temperature Range. [7] Hoben International. Ohio State University. and Ohlemiller T. pp.uk/vermiculite/specs. “Fire Resistance of Structural Steel. 27. 1966.

L. “Integrity of Structural Steel after Exposure to Fire. April 2001.C.” The 6th ASME-JSME Thermal Engineering Joint Conference. Lopes N.” Engineering Journal.American Institute of Standards and Materials.H.” Proceedings of the NASCC.TAS (Thermal Analysis Software) [26] www. Spon Press.schundler. 187-201. pp. [20] Toman Jan.R.. al. 2002.. and Ioannides S.″ Modern Steel Construction. [15] ″The Future of Fire Engineering.htm . and Ghojel J.A. Cerny Robert. Vol.Bibliography [13] Ruddy J. Vol. [18] Tide R.com/data/Vermiculite.astm. 2003. Steel And Composite Structures – Behavior and Design for Fire Safety. [22] Wang Y. “Sensitivity Analysis of Heat Transfer Formulations for Insulated Structural Steel Components. 38.” Journal of Structural Engineering.-M.” Journal of Fire Safety. No. 26. 127.100 - . March 16-20. Simoes da Silva L. 37-45. 39...W. ″ “Numerical modeling of steel beam-columns in case of fire-comparison with Eurocode 3.webmineral. pp.sirtrade. 461-469.. and Franseen J. pp. “Thickness Determination for Spray-Applied Fire Resistive Materials. Piloto P.S. Vol. [19] Toh W. July 1998. [16] The Schundler Company.SAFIR [27] www..shtml – Vermiculite Information [28] Yuen W. [24] www. “Strength And Stability of Steel Frames in Fire: Rankine Approach. et. Vol. . [23] Wong M.M. Tan K. 1415-1422.com) [17] Thomas G.” Journal of Fire and Materials.B. 4. 23-29. First Quarter. 26-38. “Specific Heat Capacity of Cementitious Composites in High Temperature Range”.org .I.” Journal of Structural Engineering. 2002 [14] Sakumoto Y. 12. “Thermal Properties of Gypsum Plasterboard at High Temperatures. Czech Technical University. Vol. 2003. December 1999. 1998.” Fire Safety Journal.P. pp. USA (www.H. pp. [21] Vila Real P. “Research on New Fire-Protection Materials and Fire-Safe Design. No. 2002.harvardthermal. 125.com . “The Effect of Thermal Radiation on the Dynamics of Flashover in a Compartment Fire.com/default0.C. 2004. pp. and Fung T. New Jersey. [25] www.

44 880 471.444 715 379.56 1340 726.444 1365 740.89 Temperature °F °C 70 21.67 1345 729.89 790 421.44 1000 537.78 575 301.44 480 248. This data was recorded by the use of thermocouples placed within the steel section.44 205 96.111 165 73.89 385 196.89 1190 643. the data from Professor Bletzacker’s study was used as a benchmark for all the TAS models.56 370 187.333 1315 712.89 1280 693.89 330 165.33 200 93.00 445 229.67 1200 648.89 520 271.000 925 496.44 200 93.11 100 37.22 830 443.78 805 429.33 1230 665.889 210 98.00 830 443.33 875 468.11 480 248.333 1150 621.11 115 46.889 1240 671.78 175 79. Table A-I presents the temperature data at different locations for W12x24 section.89 570 298.111 115 46.101 - Temperature °F °C 70 21.111 860 460.00 1290 698.22 750 398.33 220 104.89 655 346.56 505 262.111 1280 693.222 625 329.78 155 68.556 1380 748.889 280 137.33 145 62.44 1030 554.11 810 432.778 1100 593.56 .22 870 465.44 110 43.778 360 182.89 1245 673.1 Time-Temperature Data In this thesis.222 450 232.78 300 148.67 645 340.56 585 307.11 940 504.89 285 140.Appendix 11 APPENDIX A BLETZACKER’S DATA A.56 300 148.44 1070 576.78 1055 568.444 1045 562.111 1200 648. Table A-I Temperature results for different locations from Bletzacker’s experiments Bletzacker's Data ( Temperature results when heat is applied at mid-span ) Location Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Location 4 Time min 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 114 Time sec 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6840 Temperature °F °C 70 21.33 855 457.44 Temperature °F °C 70 21.889 .44 770 410.44 1155 623.33 235 112.67 985 529.56 715 379.89 1160 626.11 730 387.56 420 215.444 790 421.67 1120 604.33 935 501.11 85 29.11 175 79.111 985 529.89 330 165.78 410 210.56 1265 685.33 1320 715.44 255 123.11 255 123.778 1345 729.222 540 282.33 1110 598.11 555 290.

Temperature dependant properties like thermal conductivity and specific heat were calculated based on the equations given below.733Ts + 0.3 for Ts > 800°C -[A-2] Specific Heat C s = 425 + 0. For all the models. and their values were 7850 kg/m3 and 0. .Appendix A.2 Properties of Materials A.2. These values were eventually used as arrays for the TAS models. temperature data for Location 1 was taken into consideration for evaluating thermal properties of steel. Thermal conductivity  T  k s = 54 −  s   300  for 20°C < T ≤ 800°C -[A-1] k s = 27.22 x10 −6 Ts3 -[A-3] for 20°C ≤ Ts ≤ 600°C  13002   C s = 666 T − 738  s  -[A-4] for 600°C < Ts ≤ 735°C  17820   C s = 545 −   Ts − 731  -[A-5] for 735°C < Ts ≤ 900°C Cs = 650 for Ts > 900°C -[A-6] Thermal properties of steel were calculated based on the temperature results from Bletzacker’s data.102 - .8 respectively. were constant.000169Ts2 + 2.1 Steel Properties Properties like density and emissivity. for steel. Table A-II summarizes the thermal properties that were calculated based on Bletzacker’s experimental data [1].

206 669.203 52.867 509.708 52.653 782.869 53.139 600.89 196.109 646.955 528.687 51.33 598.78 429.857 697.622 53.686 53.89 346.342 53.089 1245.998 52.580 51.074 621.78 68.44 537.44 471.89 693.639 484.170 52.67 648.910 470.612 51.342 582.979 758.56 726.341 546.44 Thermal Conductivity (ks) W/mK Specific Heat (Cs) J/kgK 53.33 112.Appendix Table A-II Thermal Properties of Steel Steel Properties Time min Time sec 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 114 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 Temperature °F °C 70 100 155 200 235 300 385 480 570 655 730 805 880 940 1000 1055 1110 1160 1200 1245 1280 1320 1340 1345 21.230 493.33 93.569 52.752 51.11 37.297 1813.715 .103 - .78 148.218 725.838 51.429 52.772 53.504 53.106 51.321 52.78 568.999 51.930 564.11 387.67 729.913 51.587 451.11 504.908 868.934 53.11 248.804 957.235 2185.89 626.89 298.569 440.89 673.848 52.33 715.784 811.

which is a local company based in New Jersey.73 (0.4 (0.1 (0.7 (0.0 (0..8 (0.15) 850 (454) 0.84 (0.m2/W) 3.2.94 (0. USA.25) 1. Table A-III Thermal Resistivity data from test done by Schundler Company Inc.13) Thermal Conductivity Thermal conductivity is defined as the inverse of thermal resistivity.ft2/Btu (K. .52) 2. The values presented in Table A-III were used along with the techniques of interpolation and curve fitting to estimate a reasonable performance of vermiculite at temperatures higher than 454°C as specified in the table above.h.2 Properties of Vermiculite Table A-III summarizes the values obtained from the tests conducted by Schundler Company.2 (0.40) 1.19) 0.104 - . Mean Temp. Inc.32) 1. Table A-IV presents the values for thermal conductivity that were used for the TAS models.59) 3.6 (0.17) 0.Appendix A.48) 2.3 (0. The test was carried out for one meter thickness of vermiculite.4 (0. 0 F (0C) -199 (-84) -58 (-50) -13 (-25) 75 (24) 212 (100) 302 (150) 392 (200) 482 (250) 572 (300) 662 (350) 752 (400) 4-Super Fine (Vermiculite) 0 F .22) 1.28) 1.

091 0.129 0.105 - .400 0.Appendix Table A-IV Thermal Conductivity at different temperatures based on data from experimental tests & interpolations Temperature Thermal Resistance Thermal Conductivity (°C) 2 (Km /W) (W/mK) 20 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1060 0.129 0.129 0.220 0.150 0.102 0.129 0.129 .198 0.198 0.250 0.129 0.198 0.198 0.198 0.064 0.115 0.149 0.198 0.129 0.134 0.170 0.129 0.198 0.320 0.130 0.129 0.280 0.190 0.129 0.195 0.198 0.169 0.198 0.129 0.079 0.198 0.129 0.198 0.198 0.

Specific Heat Vs Temperature 1400 Spe cific H ea t (J/kg K ) 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 20 10 0 20 0 30 0 40 0 50 0 60 0 70 0 80 0 90 0 10 00 10 60 0 Temperature (°C) Figure A.106 - .1 presents the results obtained from the tests conducted by Toman Jan et.1 Comparison of graph of Specific heat Vs Temperature obtained from test data. Figure A. al [20] and those from the technique of curve fitting. Table A-V presents the values that were used for the purpose of modeling specific heat for vermiculite.Appendix Specific Heat The technique of curve fitting was implemented to establish the properties for specific heat of vermiculite.[16] and from the technique of curve fitting(Interpolation) Table A-V Specific heat Vs Temperature data Temperature (°C) Specific heat (J/kgK) 20 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1060 1200 1180 1100 1010 980 950 925 910 800 780 770 755 .

25 0.12 0.2.12 0. NIST [4] Temperature (°C) Thermal Conductivity (W/mK) 20 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1060 0.5 .12 0.3 Thermal Properties of Gypsum The thermal properties of gypsum board are well established up to temperatures of 1200°C [4].27 0.107 - . Thermal Conductivity Table A-VI presents the data for thermal conductivity from the tests done by NIST.17 0.Appendix A.4 0.22 0.27 0. Table A-VI Thermal Conductivity data at different temperatures.12 0. Tests were conducted by NIST to establish the behavior of thermal properties of gypsum at high temperatures.

Table A-VII Specific heat data at different temperatures.108 - .Appendix Specific Heat Table A-VII presents the data for specific heat from the tests done by NIST. NIST [4] Temperature (°C) Specific heat (J/kgK) 20 100 125 200 300 400 500 600 650 700 800 900 1060 1500 10000 18479 1500 700 650 625 550 3000 550 525 525 525 .

139 385.067 63. Table B-I Time-Temperature data for bare steel model with constant thermal characteristics of concrete kc = 1.062 241.789 427.556 .95 W/mK.706 247.6777 108.505 497.099 713.166 297. This data was used to plot the graphs for different locations which have been presented in the thesis report.344 141.013 463.108 719.887 673.546 380.87 194.641 343.59 320.051 364.44 537.969 189.437 471.867 502.703 671.575 624.208 666.568 297.7754 68.44 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 20 37.Appendix B BARE STEEL MODEL WITH 4″ CONCRETE SLAB Table B-I to B-VIII present the time-temperature data for the case of bare steel model with concrete slab simulated for different values of thermal conductivity and specific heat of concrete.496 222.2042 70.4896 67.494 384.642 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 20 35.373 403.55 726.88 298.663 729.662 708.301 535.557 561.578 642.6651 91.546 443.6947 112.3716 88.319 530.569 273.733 195.1 504.232 291.331 715.556 691.661 648.774 568.887 693.026 344.273 432.1111 37.9902 25.58 142.873 346.331 468.971 724.881 686.881 196.062 419.327 598.663 619.695 168.3235 93.7168 92.385 727.099 596.3263 112.055 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 20 20.8731 43.275 338.882 626.218 591.105 387.365 646.773 429.194 248.104 248.481 422.773 148.011 724. and Cpc =1200J/kgK Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Location 4 Time (sec) Temperature °C Time (sec) Temperature °C Time (sec) Temperature °C Time (sec) Temperature °C 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 21.551 566.4532 33.162 147.8988 55.109 - .03 115.

987 595.488 426.1647 111.094 708.664 648.7772 93.Appendix Table B-II Time-Temperature data for bare steel model with constant thermal characteristics of concrete kc = 1.775 568.785 384. and Cpc =1200J/kgK Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Location 4 Time Temperature (sec) °C Time Temperature (sec) °C Time Temperature (sec) °C Time Temperature (sec) °C 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 21.604 530.744 380.756 20 21.7 W/mK.862 561.574 667.585 395.699 422.327 598.121 229.664 729.1111 37.0786 63.485 623.751 724.149 723.233 444.878 346.105 387.0249 25.832 414.7075 72.651 147.9293 119.822 282.684 342.164 146.7345 108.705 720.773 148.278 687.777 353.436 471.876 196.9364 56.102 504.05 193.744 727.61 245.773 670.874 298.468 202.651 143.556 501.872 295.2514 67.168 330.254 463.2083 92.110 - 20 35.335 645.383 564.615 690.693 375.933 642.7721 68.443 20 37.771 497.33 715.252 712.3252 93.885 693.382 291.3289 112.022 467.437 537.542 592.6759 34.55 726.599 455.449 338.098 248.657 256.067 189.521 307.186 241.769 429.887 673.4682 44.007 619.619 .164 .4123 88.821 431.481 174.883 626.113 534.

7 W/mK] .1 and B. Temperature Vs Time 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 800 T e m p e r a tu r e ( °C ) 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 60 0 12 00 18 00 24 00 30 00 36 00 42 00 48 00 54 00 60 00 66 00 0 60 0 12 00 18 00 24 00 30 00 36 00 42 00 48 00 54 00 60 00 66 00 T e m p e r a t u r e ( °C ) Temperature Vs Time Time (sec) Location 4 Time (sec) Bletzacker's Data Location 3 Bletzacker's Data Figure B.7 W/mK] Temperature Vs Time 800 700 700 T e m p e r a tu r e (°C ) 800 600 500 400 300 200 600 500 400 300 200 0 0 12 00 18 00 24 00 30 00 36 00 42 00 48 00 54 00 60 00 66 00 0 60 0 12 00 18 00 24 00 30 00 36 00 42 00 48 00 54 00 60 00 66 00 100 0 0 100 60 T e m p e r a tu r e (°C ) Temperature Vs Time Time (sec) Location 2 Time (sec) Bletzacker's Data Location 1 Bletzacker's Data Figure B.1 Temperature Vs Time for Location 4 (left) and Location 3 (right) [k=1.Appendix Figures B.2 present the comparison of time-temperature results from TAS model with a thermal conductivity value of 1.7 W/mK and the results from Bletzacker’s experiments [1].2 Temperature Vs Time for Location 2 (left) and Location 1 (right) [k=1.111 - .

799 380.192 708.0398 25. kc = 1.299 712.354 380.887 295.855 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 20 21.105 504.528 623.3252 93.748 108.097 620.322 463.7729 34.886 626.6 W/mK.845 497.422 291.59 501.1111 37.925 .093 189.374 687.361 335.58 176.2517 67.981 436.661 648.7721 68.097 248.3684 73.112 - .945 561.Appendix Table B-III Time-Temperature data for bare steel model with constant thermal characteristics of concrete.856 419.3289 112.682 530.7291 45.663 729.2096 92.847 724.215 358.023 232.772 568.212 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 20 35.671 143.621 245.802 720.876 346.925 260.422 565.026 642.629 592.379 645.44 471.885 693.818 670.896 460.102 387.761 422.885 673.766 429.496 338.329 598.79 727.661 690.4189 88.515 426.445 400.3925 57.434 286.669 667.84 148.656 147.773 148.444 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 20 37.808 384.552 726.1678 111.439 311.218 241.885 196. and Cpc =1200J/kgK Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Location 4 Time (sec) Temperature °C Time (sec) Temperature °C Time (sec) Temperature °C Time (sec) Temperature °C 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 21.029 595.872 298.15 534.058 193.2015 120.331 715.485 449.0802 63.439 537.195 723.053 467.7047 95.982 205.703 342.

4 present the comparison for the time-temperature results from TAS model with a thermal conductivity value of 1.4 Temperature Vs Time for Location 2 (left) and Location 1 (right) [k=1.6 W/mK] Temperature Vs Time 800 800 700 700 300 Location 2 00 00 66 00 60 00 54 00 48 00 42 00 36 0 60 Time (sec) 30 0 24 100 0 00 200 100 00 200 400 00 300 500 18 400 600 12 500 0 T e m p e r a tu r e ( °C ) 600 0 60 0 12 00 18 00 24 00 30 00 36 00 42 00 48 00 54 00 60 00 66 00 T e m p e r a tu r e ( °C ) Temperature Vs Time Time (sec) Bletzacker's Data Location 1 Bletzacker's Data Figure B.Appendix Figures B.113 - .3 and B.6 W/mK and the results from Bletzacker’s experiments [1].6 W/mK] . Temperature Vs Time 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 800 T e m p e r a tu r e (°C ) 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 60 0 12 00 18 00 24 00 30 00 36 00 42 00 48 00 54 00 60 00 66 00 0 60 0 12 00 18 00 24 00 30 00 36 00 42 00 48 00 54 00 60 00 66 00 0 0 T e m p e r a tu r e (°C ) Temperature Vs Time Time (sec) Location 4 Time (sec) Bletzacker's Data Location 3 Bletzacker's Data Figure B.3 Temperature Vs Time for Location 4 (left) and Location 3 (right) [k=1.

958 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 20 21.661 147.501 466.191 620.085 467.12 189.426 645.664 729.613 150.7622 108.252 67.277 385.884 196.799 179.464 291.866 670.6869 96.771 429.947 724.463 565.573 623.871 298.189 534.774 568.393 463.Appendix Table B-IV Time-Temperature data for bare steel model with constant thermal characteristics of concrete kc = 1.544 426.436 471.5479 122.579 315.546 338.329 715.0049 45.0818 63.543 .551 726. and Cpc =1200J/kgK Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Location 4 Time (sec) Temperature °C Time (sec) Temperature °C Time (sec) Temperature °C Time (sec) Temperature °C 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 21.114 - .327 598.79 339.838 727.211 92.885 693.875 35.903 720.348 712.0688 74.887 673.922 497.826 422.857 380.032 561.261 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 20 35.72 592.041 455.902 295.099 387.066 193.072 595.873 346.329 112.723 342.8758 58.626 501.1111 37.0553 25.692 143.122 642.437 442.251 290.475 687.64 208.832 384.171 111.102 504.903 363.436 537.4257 88.5 W/mK.096 248.294 708.765 531.773 148.244 723.252 241.166 425.379 264.091 236.709 690.443 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 20 37.3253 93.58 406.768 667.7721 68.632 245.663 648.883 626.

Temperature Vs Time 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 800 T e m p e r a tu r e ( °C ) 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 60 0 12 00 18 00 24 00 30 00 36 00 42 00 48 00 54 00 60 00 66 00 0 60 0 12 00 18 00 24 00 30 00 36 00 42 00 48 00 54 00 60 00 66 00 T e m p e r a t u r e ( °C ) Temperature Vs Time Time (sec) Location 4 Time (sec) Bletzacker's Data Location 3 Bletzacker's Data Figure B.6 present the comparison for the time-temperature results from TAS model with a thermal conductivity value of 1.5 Temperature Vs Time for Location 4 (left) and Location 3 (right) [k=1.5 W/mK] .6 W/mK and the results from Bletzacker’s experiments [1].5 W/mK] Temperature Vs Time 800 700 700 T e m p e r a tu r e (°C ) 800 600 500 400 300 200 600 500 400 300 200 0 0 12 00 18 00 24 00 30 00 36 00 42 00 48 00 54 00 60 00 66 00 0 60 0 12 00 18 00 24 00 30 00 36 00 42 00 48 00 54 00 60 00 66 00 100 0 0 100 60 T e m p e r a tu r e (°C ) Temperature Vs Time Time (sec) Location 2 Time (sec) Bletzacker's Data Location 1 Bletzacker's Data Figure B.5 and B.115 - .Appendix Figures B.6 Temperature Vs Time for Location 4 (left) and Location 3 (right) [k=1.

187 348.69 224.879 298.882 390.836 251.517 422.439 537.7721 68.475 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 20 20.557 497.121 596.77 429.887 693.49 67.877 196.263 291.343 468.9732 44.4737 33. and Cpc =1260 J/kgK Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Location 4 Time (sec) Temperature °C Time (sec) Temperature °C Time (sec) Temperature °C Time (sec) Temperature °C 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 21.908 428.623 561.71 247.088 241.329 598.Appendix Table B-V Time-Temperature data for bare steel model with constant thermal characteristics of concrete kc = 1.3251 93.6918 108.924 .103 369.0728 63.1794 91.817 708.63 143.59 325.9322 116.147 385.265 409.956 460.103 387.1111 37.581 380.783 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 20 35.437 471.172 297.393 646.104 504.429 720.668 642.657 277.601 624.989 189.309 170.3289 112.95 W/mK.307 338.331 715.1 248.15 713.116 - .734 671.798 427.885 673.038 55.885 626.551 726.003 686.118 724.873 194.318 535.376 530.478 724.7186 92.595 691.75 619.874 346.772 568.055 463.392 445.163 147.663 648.304 667.882 502.083 301.59 142.3904 88.665 729.571 566.622 197.293 591.033 344.444 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 20 37.773 148.4461 71.9795 25.556 727.6963 112.

8 present the comparison for the time-temperature results from TAS model with a specific heat value of 1260 J/kgK and the results from Bletzacker’s experiments [1].8 Temperature Vs Time for Location 2 (left) and Location 1 (right) [Cpc = 1260 J/kgK] .7 Temperature Vs Time for Location 4 (left) and Location 3 (right) [Cpc = 1260 J/kgK] Temperature Vs Time 800 700 700 Te m pe ra tur e (°C ) 800 600 500 400 300 200 600 500 400 300 200 12 00 18 00 24 00 30 00 36 00 42 00 48 00 54 00 60 00 66 00 0 60 0 12 00 18 00 24 00 30 00 36 00 42 00 48 00 54 00 60 00 66 00 0 0 100 0 0 100 60 Te m p e r a tu re (°C ) Temperature Vs Time Time (sec) Location 2 Time (sec) Bletzacker's Data Location 1 Bletzacker's Data Figure B.117 - .7 and B. Temperature Vs Time 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 800 T e m p e r a tu re (°C ) 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 60 0 12 00 18 00 24 00 30 00 36 00 42 00 48 00 54 00 60 00 66 00 0 60 0 12 00 18 00 24 00 30 00 36 00 42 00 48 00 54 00 60 00 66 00 T e m p e r a t ur e (°C ) Temperature Vs Time Time (sec) Location 4 Time (sec) Bletzacker's Data Location 3 Bletzacker's Data Figure B.Appendix Figures B.

331 715.366 667.733 195.62 624.896 502.568 297.494 384.8731 43.115 241.435 471.9902 25.Appendix Table B-VI Time-Temperature data for bare steel model with constant thermal characteristics of concrete kc = 1.77 568.881 708.194 248.609 497.623 380.73 642.4532 33.587 566.295 291.884 693.8988 55.273 432.373 403.7047 108.59 320.546 443.062 419.695 168.883 626.0752 63.767 429.4902 67.412 646.887 673.104 463.3252 93.139 724.345 338.051 364.352 591.607 143.118 - .179 297.805 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 20 35.139 596.493 720.876 194.541 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 20 20. and Cpc =1200J/kgK Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Location 4 Time (sec) Temperature °C Time (sec) Temperature °C Time (sec) Temperature °C Time (sec) Temperature °C 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 21.877 298.563 422.7193 92.556 .95 W/mK.81 619.641 343.3289 112.68 561.01 189.577 727.166 147.43 530.569 273.067 686.496 222.6651 91.6978 112.876 196.171 713.101 387.773 148.7721 68.327 598.2042 70.099 248.157 385.3978 88.041 344.542 724.616 691.883 346.102 504.356 468.661 648.753 671.444 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 20 37.03 115.81 427.551 726.1111 37.437 537.715 247.663 729.333 535.344 141.

052 189.381 468.847 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 20 35.18 724.329 598.4906 67.885 626.007 370.416 338.176 385.0794 63.885 673.618 727.3289 112.119 - .1111 37.666 724.95W/mK.875 298.789 561.7007 112.374 278.011 326.792 671.513 226.655 691.449 646.191 687.724 247.665 729.3797 44.465 591.879 346.775 172.832 427.655 624.924 502.17 147.641 143.849 642.357 291.387 450.926 619.488 667.55 726.623 253.308 199.662 648.695 303.454 .7296 108.438 471.692 390.199 463.884 693.2782 72.7208 92.1451 93.773 148.7721 68.619 566.098 248.876 196.882 194.667 426.444 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 20 37.3252 93.007 708.6845 34.772 568.536 530.167 241.363 535.619 720. and Cpc =1085 J/kgK Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Location 4 Time (sec) Temperature °C Time (sec) Temperature °C Time (sec) Temperature °C Time (sec) Temperature °C 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 21.057 344.704 380.Appendix Table B-VII Time-Temperature data for bare steel model with constant thermal characteristics of concrete kc = 1.771 429.439 537.67 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 20 21.097 387.191 297.021 439.172 596.334 349.33 715.6785 56.885 144.0175 117.104 504.412 88.71 497.783 409.651 422.0429 25.211 713.

9 and B. Temperature Vs Time 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 800 T e m p e r a tu r e (°C ) 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 60 0 12 00 18 00 24 00 30 00 36 00 42 00 48 00 54 00 60 00 66 00 0 60 0 12 00 18 00 24 00 30 00 36 00 42 00 48 00 54 00 60 00 66 00 0 0 T e m p e r a tu r e (°C ) Temperature Vs Time Time (sec) Location 4 Time (sec) Bletzacker's Data Location 3 Bletzacker's Data Figure B.Appendix Figures B.10 present the comparison for the time-temperature results from TAS model with a specific heat value of 1085 J/kgK and the results from Bletzacker’s experiments [1].10 Temperature Vs Time for Location 4 (left) and Location 3 (right) [Cpc =1085 J/kgK] .9 Temperature Vs Time for Location 4 (left) and Location 3 (right) [Cpc =1085 J/kgK] Temperature Vs Time 800 800 700 700 300 Location 2 00 00 66 00 60 00 54 00 48 00 42 00 36 0 60 Time (sec) 30 0 24 100 0 00 200 100 00 200 400 00 300 500 18 400 600 12 500 0 T e m p e r a tu r e ( °C ) 600 0 60 0 12 00 18 00 24 00 30 00 36 00 42 00 48 00 54 00 60 00 66 00 T e m p e r a tu r e ( °C ) Temperature Vs Time Time (sec) Bletzacker's Data Location 1 Bletzacker's Data Figure B.120 - .

9629 94.172 147.066 344.775 568.665 729.28 201.394 468.191 596.026 281.072 25.736 724.4197 88.674 624.198 297.594 530.347 413.7216 92.391 291.887 673.203 724.85 561.7 422.773 148.4908 67.885 194.729 247.133 394.637 566.Appendix Table B-VIII Time-Temperature data for bare steel model with constant thermal characteristics of concrete kc = 1.195 241.884 626.528 306.104 387.102 504.659 143.1111 37.379 535.437 537.769 429.871 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 20 35.884 693. and Cpc =1023 J/kgK Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Location 4 Time (sec) Temperature °C Time (sec) Temperature °C Time (sec) Temperature °C Time (sec) Temperature °C 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 21.444 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 20 37.456 338.729 229.436 471.876 196.8124 34.748 380.202 454.187 385.076 708.233 713.7721 68.915 642.329 715.7023 112.075 189.469 646.677 691.3253 93.8724 72.115 119.475 174.1103 56.0817 63.551 726.251 463.067 256.844 427.487 352.813 671.309 374.7432 108.878 346.287 146.527 591.641 727.343 429.688 720.121 - .95W/mK.742 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 20 21.874 298.098 248.6602 45.3289 112.939 502.259 687.009 329.782 443.327 598.99 619.765 497.305 .555 667.664 648.

11 and B.122 - .12 present the comparison for the time-temperature results from TAS model with a specific heat value of 1023 J/kgK and the results from Bletzacker’s experiments Temperature Vs Time 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 800 T e m p e r a tu re (°C ) 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 60 0 12 00 18 00 24 00 30 00 36 00 42 00 48 00 54 00 60 00 66 00 0 60 0 12 00 18 00 24 00 30 00 36 00 42 00 48 00 54 00 60 00 66 00 T e m p e r a t ur e (°C ) Temperature Vs Time Time (sec) Location 4 Time (sec) Bletzacker's Data Location 3 Bletzacker's Data Figure B.Appendix Figures B.11 Temperature Vs Time for Location 4 (left) and Location 3 (right) [Cpc =1023 J/kgK ] Temperature Vs Time 800 800 700 700 300 Location 2 00 00 66 00 60 00 54 00 48 00 42 00 36 0 60 Time (sec) 00 0 30 100 0 00 200 100 24 200 400 18 300 500 0 400 00 500 600 12 T e m p e r a tu r e ( °C ) 600 0 60 0 12 00 18 00 24 00 30 00 36 00 42 00 48 00 54 00 60 00 66 00 T e m p e r a tu r e ( °C ) Temperature Vs Time Time (sec) Bletzacker's Data Location 1 Bletzacker's Data Figure B.12 Temperature Vs Time for Location 4 (left) and Location 3 (right) [Cpc =1023 J/kgK] .

0196 22.052 658.317 465. The data obtained from TAS simulations and was used to plot the graphs for different locations which were presented in the thesis report.837 781.3594 90.229 601.388 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 20 23.197 380.279 215.822 648.49 816.074 681. Table C-I Time-Temperature data for vermiculite model with constant values of thermal conductivity and specific heat Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Location 4 Time (sec) Temperature °C Time (sec) Temperature °C Time (sec) Temperature °C Time (sec) Temperature °C 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 20 27.182 398.69 730.563 732.768 592.8885 118.968 696.93 558.123 - .061 393.9342 57.485 426.772 151.024 486.151 476.219 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 20 20.811 184.678 783.118 816.294 851.615 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 20 30.179 838.561 627. while Table C-II presents the data for the case of variable thermal properties for vermiculite.972 546.272 299.903 740.169 304.9247 109.338 746.9571 86.692 723.048 277.126 756.425 329.419 686. Table C-I presents the time-temperature data for the case of constant thermal properties for vermiculite.896 715.268 412.2 760.26 793.516 755.349 875.042 743.392 774.815 811.304 478.553 788.945 505.2791 94.828 797.335 805.469 552.71 352.645 825.866 448.5″ THICK VERMICULITE COATING The model was simulated for constant and variable values of thermal conductivity and specific heat of vermiculite.861 701.1362 199.189 248.446 855.437 827.132 657.895 217.171 886.6201 201.018 863.253 613.089 878.852 319.2456 34.005 867.926 374.175 829.292 769.252 716.689 304.Appendix C W 12x27 WITH 0.117 768.069 .58 802.377 453.506 842.345 491.191 410.155 440.

317 465.252 716.563 732.294 851.689 304.822 648.048 277.024 486.377 453.117 768.042 743.191 410.124 - 20 30.179 838.253 613.089 878.49 816.6201 201.772 151.69 730.469 552.972 546.968 696.345 491.2456 34.26 793.516 755.219 .268 412.126 756.815 811.9342 57.2 760.279 215.069 20 23.58 802.828 797.615 .Appendix Table C-II Time-Temperature data for vermiculite model with variable values of thermal conductivity and specific heat Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Location 4 Time Temperature (sec) °C Time Temperature (sec) °C Time Temperature (sec) °C Time Temperature (sec) °C 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 20 20.272 299.171 886.2791 94.0196 22.896 715.811 184.388 20 27.3594 90.861 701.229 601.506 842.335 805.118 816.553 788.837 781.005 867.1362 199.8885 118.155 440.074 681.852 319.061 393.895 217.692 723.866 448.338 746.052 658.9571 86.304 478.645 825.132 657.93 558.945 505.197 380.018 863.419 686.182 398.392 774.349 875.437 827.446 855.189 248.169 304.151 476.425 329.768 592.485 426.561 627.678 783.926 374.903 740.71 352.292 769.175 829.9247 109.

316 598.112 499.046 699.776 576.001 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 20 31.295 685.157 657.827 672. Table D-I Time-temperature data for gypsum model with constant values of thermal conductivity and specific heat Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Location 4 Time (sec) Temperature °C Time (sec) Temperature °C Time (sec) Temperature °C Time (sec) Temperature °C 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 20 28.692 135.034 654.793 369. The data obtained from TAS simulations was used to plot the graphs for different locations which were presented in the thesis report.842 .088 343.917 469.64 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 20 24.497 435.244 642.758 356.95 323.189 637.636 670.8693 41. while Table D-II presents the data for the case of variable thermal properties for gypsum board.629 315.055 235.1684 151.3097 68.874 494.597 203.118 722.846 527.3064 68.217 179.994 232.045 279.168 431.34 483.079 138.382 315.043 618.101 625.035 265.453 266.01 160.97 369.849 200.125 - .97 686.202 301.867 320.433 286.063 394.439 412.983 254.325 520.1695 24.665 345.043 587.518 544.Appendix D W 12x27 BEAM WITH 5/8″ THICK GYPSUM BOARD The model was simulated for constant and variable values of thermal conductivity and specific heat of gypsum.5406 56. Table D-I presents the time-temperature data for the case of constant thermal properties for gypsum board.053 405.479 219.725 499.718 382.084 434.902 212.349 391.75 607.854 712.985 330.2059 100.0733 87.585 124.457 399.424 697.739 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 20 20.055 270.455 527.648 450.11 180.211 513.367 359.694 567.65 416.33 293.232 552.88 465.7198 86.187 401.004 467.148 236.899 364.3807 114.146 169.

982 231.212 135.199 619.939 720.647 597.126 - .209 304.944 591.362 667.866 349.67 407.737 153.226 526.7738 67.574 701.332 289.6905 38.383 346.672 126.888 679.063 185.Appendix Table D-II Time-temperature data for gypsum model with variable values of thermal conductivity and specific heat Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Location 4 Time (sec) Temperature °C Time (sec) Temperature °C Time (sec) Temperature °C Time (sec) Temperature °C 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 20 22.0601 20.9491 23.101 374.94 345.157 390.4237 106.576 734.081 444.039 273.943 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 20 21.468 285.252 150.414 377.336 .676 256.514 627.3794 65.0267 118.338 644.7005 30.029 240.153 316.958 426.321 363.0624 38.444 491.537 471.412 184.141 487.6002 47.6913 51.048 704.755 289.6316 119.475 403.29 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 20 20.106 526.98 654.747 166.684 204.3424 49.675 145.8617 29.5588 90.477 688.882 563.702 397.298 218.315 400.351 67.91 510.0616 87.757 319.248 360.4812 43.4 201.86 176.283 310.4264 86.9478 35.3939 100.504 489.118 559.022 27.006 449.605 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 20 22.963 223.1107 59.639 252.283 257.047 449.998 334.

Case 1: Opening Factor F = 0.083 1.250 1.062 Table E-I ENV Curve formulation-Maximum intensity of fire at 56 minutes Time (sec) Time (min) Time (hrs) t* (hrs) Temperature (°C) 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3360 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 7200 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 56 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 0.731 0.242 1.000 0.000 0.750 0.667 1.917 2.667 0.417 0. Tables E-I.389 1.439 0.512 0.169 1.950 1.068 in order to test the sensitivity of the temperature results within the steel beam.917 0.833 0.365 0.127 - .462 1.333 1.658 0.583 1.250 0.585 0. and E-III present the time-temperature histories that were formulated for the three cases of maximum fire intensities.583 0.608 1.833 1.500 0.219 0.083 0.877 0.681 1.819 0. Opening factor was modified in the range of 0.754 0 506 657 717 752 779 802 823 842 859 875 890 892 863 823 783 743 704 664 624 584 544 504 465 425 385 .750 1.316 1.096 1.167 0.167 1. E-II.023 1.933 1.146 0.073 0.333 0.417 1.000 1.804 0.535 1.292 0.000 0.055 to 0.500 1.5″ VERMICULITE COATING SUBJECTED TO ENV FIRE CURVE The model for vermiculite was simulated for three different cases of peak fire intensities.Appendix E W 12x27 BEAM WITH 0.

536 .670 165.667 0.846 1.582 1.750 0.589 0.237 269.521 322.833 1.791 0.954 217.500 1.143 1.500 0.264 0.804 374.967 1.917 2.022 2.494 1.000 0.878 739.250 0.352 0.417 0.088 0.583 1.660 827.917 1.407 1.788 740.250 1.758 1.221 635.35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 0.167 1.088 426.820 8.055 1.879 0.931 774.110 Temperature (°C) 0.176 0.000 .072 792.505 688.103 60.440 0.938 583.417 1.833 0.000 0.622 0.498 850.527 0.128 - t* (hrs) (hrs) 0.35 minutes Time (sec) Time (min) Time (hrs) 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2121 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6300 6600 6900 7200 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 35.387 113.934 2.333 0.615 0.Appendix Case 2: Opening Factor F = 0.395 802.750 1.667 1.083 1.167 0.638 686.231 1.703 0.000 551.000 1.068 Table E-II ENV Curve formulation-Maximum intensity of fire at 35.319 1.955 845.583 0.083 0.421 849.371 479.333 1.670 1.654 531.

833 1.920 0.917 2.588 936.451 906.856 900.750 1.667 1.035 1.208 1.417 0.058 0.115 0.897 0.633 0.000 0.712 824.922 944.833 0.806 947.550 866.583 0.256 750.000 1.500 0.089 791.667 0.265 1.583 1.300 1.401 919.805 0.000 0.167 1.055 Table E-III ENV Curve formulation-Maximum intensity of fire at 102 minutes Time (sec) Time (min) Time (hrs) t* (hrs) Temperature (°C) 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600 3900 4200 4500 4680 4800 5100 5400 5700 6000 6120 6300 6600 6900 7200 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 78 80 85 90 95 100 102 105 110 115 120 0.403 0.554 889.698 611.750 0.700 1.323 1.333 0.417 1.275 808.129 - .333 1.690 0.789 684.049 723.093 1.694 495.843 595.485 .764 928.917 1.460 0.000 444.783 839.863 0.686 853.518 0.113 561.083 1.478 878.748 0.230 0.173 0.288 0.495 910.575 0.150 1.380 0.250 1.083 0.250 0.173 1.978 1.904 528.167 0.000 0.345 0.239 772.500 1.Appendix Case 3: Opening Factor F = 0.

Appendix F LUMPED MASS PARAMETER METHOD The models for vermiculite and gypsum board were analyzed analytically by the method of lumped mass parameter analysis.95 11.497 0.130 - . the case of steel beam which is exposed to fire from three sides the ratio is given by the following equation. we have the following properties BEAM PROPERTIES FOR W 12 X 27 SECTION 2 A (in ) d (in) bf (in) tf (in) tw (in) Ixx (in4) Sxx (in3) Iyy (in4) Syy (in3) 7. Ai Vs = 2(B − t w ) + B + 2 D Here.237 204 34.63 Vermiculite Properties: k i = 0.4 0.15W / mK ρ i = 800kg / m 3 C pi = 1700 J / kgK Step 2: Calculation of Ai V s : For. B = breadth of the flange D = depth of the entire beam As = Area of steel . For the case of variable thermal properties.1 Analytical analysis for vermiculite model The steps for analyzing the vermiculite model analytically have been presented below. The steps for the case of constant thermal properties for insulating materials have been described below.30 5.96 6. values were used from the tables that have been presented previously for the thermal properties of vermiculite and gypsum board. Step 1: Properties: From LRFD manual for a W 12x27 section. 10.2 18.1 F.

375 Step 4: Calculation of constant co-efficient:  ki  t Co − efficient =  i  ρ s Cs      Ai  Vs    1   1 + ζ    Using the values mentioned above we get.497 − 0.96 )  Ai Vs =   7.278 x10 −4 Similar calculations were performed for variable thermal properties for steel and vermiculite. ζ = 0.4 / inch Step 3: Calculation of ζ  ρ i c pi t i   A Vs ζ =  2 ρ s c ps    Using the values mentioned earlier with the appropriate units. Constant thermal properties for steel and vermiculite 2. Variable thermal properties for steel and constant 3. The tables below present the results for the following cases 1. Co − efficient = 5.95   Ai Vs = 5.497 + (2 x11.131 - .237 )) + 6. we get.Appendix  (2 x(6. Variable thermal properties for steel and vermiculite .

665 3.830 1.667 7.835 1.63 24.80977 29.165 5.333 23.756 9.227 28.500 1.333 23.26 824.997 700 86.63 23.85798 32.993 290.660 803.875 538.989 20.500 30.52 25830.667 27.195 149.545 -18.000 1400 263.660 207.333 86.14 776.330 366.663 722.000 500 800 23.330 236.24 764.42 26320.665 1.830 9.8534 816.80 28486.34 798.545 21.000 35.84 4.46 807.545 -0.132 - .22 28219.333 620.62 24755.000 812.044 316.82 28927.170 2.56 28817.333 Ts (°C) 4.30686 33.835 1.63 20 35.82 28927.81 676.50156 32.500 1600 7.47313 26.81644 30.546 20 35.87 27576.44 .330 900 Fy (ksi) -9.227 26.500 1500 27.660 600 704.000 24.356 770.254832 35.590 29.000 200 300 400 451.27928 31.500 4.58 25308.63 89.801 749.000 1200 27.995 3.670 7.Appendix Table F-I Constant Thermal Properties for Steel and Vermiculite Time Gas Temp (sec) (°C) 0 100 Avg Gas Temp (°C) ∆t (°C) Tg / (1/(1+ζ)) (°C) ∆ Ts (°C) 106.421 788.165 1000 Et (ksi) 41.227 26.309061 35.28 26772.93 178.000 23.333 648.67 5.054 759.500 1.545 740.440 731.99748 27.000 192.571 828.22 28671.667 86.63 25.591 27.495 5.665 1.165 2.62 24165.144 821.537 782.667 279.065162 34.10 27191.000 20 119.000 341.82 28927.762 565.830 1100 20 64.500 1.495 9.501 29.82 28927.255 593.59 713.545 365.591 28.57 27915.500 29.47 794.50561 34.165 2.330 1300 35.476 831.

830 0.768 2.660 2600 3100 0.51 22208.000 917.078 925.499 921.330 Avg Gas Temp (°C) ∆t (°C) Tg / (1/(1+ζ)) (°C) ∆ Ts (°C) 839.835 0.830 2.590 15.634 923.170 878.165 2900 22.26 19965.04382 25.69 15601.91 515.44 21492.88861 7.727 19.90544 11.330 892.170 0.184 872.001 22.74 551.165 2100 862.330 894.665 2.08506 16.9528 864.500 12.660 858.07 2.660 928.000 0.548 919.165 0.670 1.75624 24.675 533.01 706.637 16.36 10679.635 17.495 3500 20.165 1.660 1800 843.830 2300 3.454 .68 8976.25 670.165 1.665 0.399 875.583 629.62816 9.92 17438.995 2800 3.665 3400 0.660 2700 3300 3.499 14.94 2.02243 10.25438 8.000 887.835 0.500 13.000 600.52 12.330 3200 21.62 12847.835 0.500 13.665 0.590 15.335 0.09 695.59 14635.500 11.19 846.5864 11.728 18.000 2200 867.660 3000 905.165 476.17638 8.80 16535.995 2500 22.835 0.76 902.863 855.012 455.32 2.330 3.78 12062.41008 18.165 0.987 568.712 412.04 11342.12045 20.47 889.40887 14.637 16.665 2400 0.495 2000 Ts Fy Et (°C) (ksi) (ksi) 390.830 3600 2.830 1.73 2.35211 21.863 496.57 22894.133 - 10.495 1.495 1.04 18313.07201 15.758 896.32262 12.564 914.830 0.75 10068.337 584.155 615.330 0.76837 23.43 884.15 19154.39 910.68 683.330 2.14 1.19 9502.89 906.16734 13.251 .12673 19.665 657.000 1900 849.36 20746.042 912.117 908.88 869.330 900.330 916.592 14.006 0.61 23545.59 852.330 927.55 13700.670 898.Appendix Time Gas Temp (sec) (°C) 1700 835.000 1.727 19.335 0.660 644.283 880.865 882.165 434.

41 858.851 980.665 0.455 940.66 839.94 3688.50805 7.409 965.348 1.65 4520.67219 5.647 .833 935.273 6.79 3505.995 969.165 1.26 786.335 1.88639 4.724 949.330 4600 5100 0.134 - 759.330 4400 4500 4700 960.500 0.500 8028.409 0.500 4000 4100 943.000 957.06 6143.665 1.072 963.000 5200 1.24121 3.660 5000 968.81 818.29 5263.28 4084.68721 2.500 5400 1.13988 5.30 810.318 6.000 944.40913 8.97306 9.000 4900 5600 1.36 846.409 Fy (ksi) 7.165 0.69058 4.92037 2.000 976.065 981.22 10.495 1.00 777.335 0.000 749.83 10.85 825.53 5538.319 7602.551 972.01 864.60163 5.364 8.665 1.670 Ts (°C) 718.68 6826.02 7.411 1.363 6.58905 3.46 4296.85 4755.36 6475.21 7.28 852.500 4300 1.364 974.98545 2.5539 3.318 983.409 954.660 955.70 794.500 Et (ksi) 8485.335 0.500 5300 1.409 0.78 9.071 0.19 6.369 1.335 961.10 3881.000 Avg Gas Temp (°C) ∆t (°C) Tg / (1/(1+ζ)) (°C) ∆ Ts (°C) 931.000 941.2323 5.06 5002.500 0.Appendix Time Gas Temp (sec) (°C) 3700 930.83597 2.000 8.830 739.099 951.500 1.000 0.000 982.000 4200 946.500 0.51 3162.099 0.731 952.49 802.363 0.4033 4.330 5500 0.454 10.660 3900 937.995 1.8145 4.364 0.78 5831.82 9.165 0.64 3329.170 6.330 3800 933.804 971.000 1.61 768.273 5.330 0.364 964.16 832.452 973.409 728.000 1.273 7201.68837 3.233 978.500 947.660 979.25 870.23539 3.000 0.39 7.436 948.330 975.330 938.000 0.500 4800 1.56 6.866 6.330 1.330 966.000 .681 1.995 958.000 6.

181 0.66 4.670 0.39 897.665 1003.08 932.15 924.62 2067.000 992.318 991.330 0.830 6000 6100 993.000 2.165 6800 1.34 4.660 Avg Gas Temp (°C) ∆t (°C) Tg / (1/(1+ζ)) (°C) ∆ Ts (°C) 985.41 911.000 .830 0.319 Fy (ksi) 2.80 902.665 0.53 892.000 5800 986.835 0.665 0.992 997.165 Ts (°C) 876.20 1545.834 0.228 881.62 920.25 4.273 0.029 1004.28 1641.418 987.71 2186.000 6200 995.000 1.44 1846.330 2852.14369 1.02 2570.000 996.22995 1.273 0.Appendix Time Gas Temp (sec) (°C) 5700 984.660 1005.53 1954.995 0.000 6300 1.13 2708.495 0.330 5900 988.684 1000.34688 1.580 999.15724 2.000 1001.25721 2.835 Et (ksi) 3003.24891 1.228 4.48326 3.25859 1.425 1002.279 4.000 994.255 997.91 915.273 6700 1003.165 0.91 2436.36 1741.181 0.660 6600 6900 0.90175 4.495 989.77161 1.18 5.885 .226 4.000 1.318 5.25 928.76693 1.08271 1.94 906.135 - 887.05095 1.179 4.330 1002.38 5.000 6400 6500 1.183 1006.830 0.170 0.165 1.000 0.81 2308.100 998.

27 300 538 0.005 0.750854 0.65 12.45 28771.804554 0.08 28608.7 73.781972 0.33 0.22 111.84 28040.56 27909.005 0.005 0.35 0.34 1200 794 0.26 700 800 704 722.79 0.66 0.47 20.37 200 365.37 23.772 0.38 2.90 12.11 20.63 12.07 34.732040 0.005 0.07 35.32 0.36 124.77 28906.34 0.27 28693.32 0.37 0.882 35.66 0.745 0.005 1000 770.847296 0.33 0.97 0.73 137.005 1400 1500 1600 812 821 828.33 0.35 Fy -17.41 23.34 1.61 33.11 28167.810 Et -13.82 28927.63 13.83 61.48 (ksi) 4.63 24.64 0.33 1.57 33.738 0.26 27766.00 12.82 12.005 1100 782.01 0.21 99.820566 0.85 28509.96 36.10 0.71 2.41 600 ∆ Ts (°C) 12.48 (ksi) 5.87 34.005 400 593.34 1.00 35.842 35.59 0.33 740.62 28403.22 35.25 35.09 12.17 30.70 28877.19 34.94 33.67 0.63 20.863 1.Appendix Table F-II Variable Thermal Properties for Steel and Constant Thermal Properties for Vermiculite Time Gas Temp (sec) (°C) 0 20 ks Cps (W/in°C) (J/lbs°C) 0.005 0.136 - 20.6667 0.59 35.38 23.37 7.789 Ts (°C) -21.005 0.37 12.761 0.31 .06 1.005 ζ Tg / (1/(1+ζ)) (°C) 0.36 500 648.88 0.3333 0.62 0.005 0.87 28927.04 162.37 28290.15 0.66 12.005 0.91 35.005 1300 803 0.62 28842.005 0.13 28927.66 0.815 2.97 35.797 900 759 0.00 35.53 149.005 0.56 100 192.34 7.82 28927.82 12.35 1.18 .33 48.67 0.36 7.18 86.005 0.88 34.00 6.68 0.3333 0.

28 0.62 11.004904 0.66 0.005 0.12 0.72 0.75 11.33 855.004963 0.66 0.28 0.33 0.26 .997031 0.54 40111.22 0.02 0.15 38436 .888 0.50 0.82 53731.79 32.12 3500 3600 923.31 0.66 0.004931 0.51 912.29 26248.33 927 9.61 2400 878 2500 882.005 0.29 0.046 1.20 0.69 46035.005 0.11 0.38 0.86 29.01 27147.39 0.94 0.26 359.68 26978.31 199.74 2100 2200 2300 862 867.48 2900 11.66 Cps (J/lbs°C) 0.005 0.26 0.977 267.99 26622.005 1.95 0.45 50936.90 32.948 2700 2800 892 896.07 0.80 0.928 222.Appendix Time Gas Temp ks (sec) (°C) (W/in°C) 1700 835.14 3000 3100 900.86 0.004947 0.52 29.31 31.28 289.31 0.66 27471.38 9.99 30.005 0.060 9.957 0.004891 1.52 887.31 0.42 0.009 320.005 0.020 340.073680 0.004878 1.937662 0.898 186.23 0.56 25855.61 11.27 330.28 300.02 29.33 28.30 26.87 377.91 0.005 1.12 0.66 9.87 12.004917 0.33 11.89 0.30 0.48 10.93 26053.98 32.31 43893.15 0.66 256.03 0.38 919.68 0.07 48372.01 0.39 3400 10.30 245.30 234.55 26.31 210.39 3200 10.75 12.66 905 908.66 0.005 1.34 26802.918 0.97 27622.08 0.38 9.987 278.43 0.27 0.005 0.005 0.53 2600 11.64 26438.27 349.33 872.27 27.69 31.877846 0.52 26.29 0.41 0.62 0.61 0.137 - Ts Fy Et (°C) (ksi) (ksi) 174.92 30.93 0.47 10.72 30.46 28.21 368.34 27311.69 0.05 32.46 28.94 0.031980 0.19 25651.92 41925.880 ζ Tg / (1/(1+ζ)) (°C) ∆ Ts (°C) 0.33 3300 916 310.40 10.52 10.005 0.29 0.87 27.96731 0.005 1800 1900 2000 843 849.908731 0.

85 6.9 480.40 0.28 4800 8.33 0.22 5000 968.20 6.05 28490.33 975.25 0.63 6.88 20611.087 0.58 22.004857 1.27 963 4900 965.67 24.65 0.004823 1.004838 1.25 0.112976 0.99 0.40 0.348995 0.44 29472.30 940 Et 8.004848 1.66 3900 937 0.83 0.15 20.17 1.1 513.45 19.09 0.75 0.25 933.52 25103.05 0.100 1.005 1.242 0.2 7.23 0.83 30517.28 473.190 436.27 0.287 0.24 0.98 6.21 493.76 23664.34 3800 Ts (°C) 6.21 5200 5300 973.25 21167.24 487.53 0.18 0.14 24366.52 0.66 32809.005 1.004830 458.24 0.74 0.24 5100 7.20 6.66 0.005 1.33 954 428.25 7.005 (ksi) 395.70 0.07 24.33 4000 Fy 386.22 451.34 23.005 0.9 8.22 21.91 0.23 4600 957 0.005 Cps (J/lbs°C) ζ Tg / (1/(1+ζ)) ∆ Ts (°C) (°C) 0.32 21.17 .66 0.005 466.20 5400 26698.33 0.29 21.38 35427.53 20.28 0.77 36876.333 978 5500 980 6.39 6.83 0.29 24.224 0.14 25.005 1.174 1.09 0.33 0.20 0.05 19.128 403.005 0.22 0.21 500.Appendix Time Gas Temp ks (sec) (°C) (W/in°C) 3700 930.30 1.38 22996.22 4700 960 0.99 34076.24 0.88 1.24 971 7.60 420.23 444.25 948.138 - 21748.76 0.67 27566.58 0.005 1.22 0.25 23.00 22357.274 0.12 .206224 0.90 7.21 31626.68 943 4200 946 0.004868 1.46 0.00 23.260512 0.30 0.143 412.83 0.25 7.005 1.23 0.21 507.005 1.34 8.74 18.158436 0.43 25.381 25879.20 519.29 4300 8.08 4400 4500 951.27 0.88 20.98 22.316 1.63 0.005 1.29 4100 (ksi) 8.87 0.

58 17.005 2.10 4.005 0.16 0.55 0.13 562.58 570.88 16873.87 18.19 1.19 0.425 2.89 3.08 1003.004809 1.14 0.004799 3.51 16.99 15.09 576.90 16.14 0.49 .82 18.12 6500 1000.22 16192.005 Cps (J/lbs°C) 1.15 17169.04 16006.65 15.03 0.39 0.66 6900 1006 0.38 991 6100 993 543.07 558.412 ζ Tg / (1/(1+ζ)) ∆ Ts (°C) (°C) 0.005 3.9 5.012 0.17 0.33 0.09 18250.13 6300 6400 997 998.005 Ts Fy Et (°C) (ksi) (ksi) 525.37 0.36 15.631592 0.91 14.19 0.219 1004.004802 0.16 5700 984 5800 986.78 19114.08 .19 573.52 17.54 0.33 4.18 6000 5.71 0.590216 0.13 4.75 17851.14 995 2.05 0.44 17493.66 0.56 0.541 537.005 3.139 - 18669.005 1.43 0.77 0.77 0.909 2.06 0.74 16.08 579.18 0.99 0.95 0.09 0.64 16618.383 553.069 2.Appendix Time Gas Temp ks (sec) (°C) (W/in°C) 5600 982 0.91 2.09 566.22 0.18 0.15 17.57 15.18 5900 5.15 6200 5.42 16393.33 531.66 0.89 0.005 1.19 0.86 15832.55 581.005 1.09 6700 5.492 988.698 0.14 19586.43 0.004815 1.004798 3.51 20084.750 548.76 15.10 6600 1002 0.05 6800 3.443529 0.

23 500 ∆ Ts (°C) 30.04 32.005005 Ts (°C) 21.00501 0.62 0.00 300 0.91 42.00 20 95.54 0.63 231.52 1.8824 1.15 1.83 28039.36 6.7117 20.44 526.7055 33.0709 18.005018 0.96 24366.97 -12.7383 0.95 .00 35.17 1100 Et (ksi) 1.004993 0.93 48.66 22305.7970 0.005013 0.49 1.750854 0.46 35.00 0.004991 0.45 0.63 20.48 0.00 20 38.69 27484.7895 0.69 28435.46 1.63 21.7612 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.51 0.57 -21.00 0.87 1400 45.82 28927.00 30.32 318.004995 0.34 23377.16 1300 20 185.53 1.00 0.14985 35.3687 26.05 1.7446 ki Cpi Tg / (1/(1+ζ)) (W/in°C) (J/lbs°C) (°C) 0.09 1.63 137.49 18658.3291 28.53 25277.73 0.99 23.24865 34.36 0.004989 0.005008 0.42 31.85 1600 40.00 1.15 1.02 0.8099 0.004973 37.28 19982.47 35.70 431.63 35.004978 0.781972 0.88 0.48 275.732040 0.90 800 Fy (ksi) 56.804554 0.18 42.86 464.34 28725.36 1.8420 0.03 26108.00 900 1000 0.00 1.98 21182.46 0.95 1.39 6.004998 0.00 44.21 0.8008 31.82 28927.54 600 700 0.005003 0.83 1.13 0.8633 1500 0.004982 0.70 0.140 - 27.89 0.004985 35.7716 0.820566 5.849 1.0827 25.Appendix Table F-III Variable Thermal Properties for Steel and Vermiculite Time ks (sec) (W/in°C) 0 100 200 Cps (J/lbs°C) 0.48 1.71 396.50 1.005 0.49 0.005017 0.8152 1200 0.58 1.81 28922.00 0.00 1.29914 35.41 26841.6379 21.00 1.07 495.8403 32.58 400 0.82 28927.55 1.00 0.67 .7793 23.847296 358.04 1.96 1.

64 26.9574 0.35 0.14 5098.62 807.9155 6.79 14.00 1.57 0.96 3704.789 4.004887 0.98 15.311 19.33 652.39 0.00 1.60 4461.42 0.41 0.004942 2300 2400 2500 0.94 15817.00 1.8801 0.406 844.39 0.35 0.004904 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600 0.47 0.9871 0.783 743.9772 0.301 758.23 10548.81 8.004913 2900 0.9616 4.731 14.39 0.28 1.1957 13.7996 4.45 8.1513 2.29 1.46 606.141 - ∆ Ts (°C) Ts (°C) 554.38 0.31 9617.00 1.32 11615.8984 0.42 0.533 772.47 5470.83 11.004882 0.40 0.999 784.39 0.70 7.81 692.343 710.0309 11.8881 0.004958 2000 0.00497 1800 0.004936 0.71 25.51 8798.38 0.7563 8.38 0.38 0.47 0.0598 0.24 6343.004952 2100 0.031980 0.0203 0.9475 0.25 .00 1.1562 5.9184 0.00 1.0087 0.95 20.38 0.004895 0.0459 0.18 16.84 630.00 1.072 852.004926 2600 0.00 1.004908 3000 0.44 23.00 1.23 7430.16 14257.004878 Cps ki Cpi Tg / (1/(1+ζ)) (J/lbs°C) (W/in°C) (J/lbs°C) (°C) 0.Appendix Time ks (sec) (W/in°C) 1700 0.004891 0.38 0.39 0.83 8072.29 1.40 0.91 673.29 1.908731 0.2711 9.28 1.004963 1900 0.00 1.4546 3.675 817.18 9.073680 0.36 4186.3584 10.00 1.4 580.00 1.00 1.43 0.00 1.36 0.2388 3.00 1.242 827.57 0.004922 2700 0.00 1.29 1.937662 0.631 796.4201 5.96731 0.74 22.85 4764.24 .02 Fy (ksi) 16.43 0.9280 0.49 18.00 1.7062 6.40 0.9361 7.00 1.58 0.40 0.46 0.41 0.877846 0.41 0.004947 2200 0.01 10.9821 3.81 11.689 836.38 0.22 7.0049 0.00 1.072 727.74 12.004931 0.67 0.15 3935.004917 2800 0.83 5882.61 12840.73 Et (ksi) 17287.997031 0.4337 3.70 6857.71 13.00 1.

9152 1.203 2.00 1.495 932.8893 1.1281 4100 0.30 5200 0.12 3.7034 2.00 1.004857 1.00 1.37 0.924 889.777 904.1903 4500 0.004861 1.00 1.142 - Ts (°C) 859.94 0.37 0.62 3294.004838 1.883 928.22 6.004841 1.004854 1.32 2941.004848 1.37 0.00 1.36 0.348995 5500 0.2737 5000 0.00482 1.004828 1.004825 1.396 Fy Et (ksi) (ksi) 2.242 942.37 0.37 0.00 1.57 0.17 3.6459 1.86 2366.07 1379.792 917.00 1.20 1543.27 1631.3805 5600 0.28 872.25 6.00 1.206224 4600 0.36 .129 895.15 3.004851 1.20 4.6556 1.00 1.58 2021.2424 4800 0.1433 4200 0.260512 4900 0.73 0.37 0.063 945.21 0.00 1.127 866.0999 3900 0.17 3.004833 1.5159 1.158436 4300 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.865 921.00 1.9658 1.112976 4000 0.4362 2.267 884.15 3.004830 1.004835 1.37 0.23 0.67 2130.004823 1.37 0.31 0.95 1229.004875 1.8593 2.37 0.38 0.36 0.668 913.3327 5400 0.2216 0.2199 1.675 878.00 1.38 0.00 1.25 6.2243 4700 0.4120 ki Cpi Tg / (1/(1+ζ)) ∆ Ts (W/in°C) (J/lbs°C) (°C) (°C) 0.78 3491.01 1302.42 0.12 3.6217 2.Appendix Time ks Cps (sec) (W/in°C) (J/lbs°C) 3700 0.38 0.19 2782.1425 1.40 0.07 2635.18 4.21 5.1744 4400 0.68 0.0868 3800 0.81 0.004818 1.37 0.16 0.2168 1.00 1.20 4.46 3111.22 5.179 924.214 .44 0.004845 1.07 0.14 3.00 1.471 935.37 0.004868 1.1612 1.9669 1.19 5.37 0.42 1818.76 2245.004864 1.96 2496.529 938.17 3.08 0.402 899.37 0.0146 1.19 4.00 1.34 1722.42 0.87 0.00 1.3163 5300 0.37 0.13 1459.20 4.80 0.50 1917.124 908.05 0.63 0.00487 1.1735 1.2868 5100 0.

03 1.07 1.3833 0.80 1032.36 0.00 1.004799 3.631592 0.00 1.2996 968.13 2.00 1.17 950.9004 0.0048 2.31 0.5841 0.00 1.2969 960.1489 0.12 2.Appendix ki Cpi Tg / (1/(1+ζ)) ∆ Ts (W/in°C) (J/lbs°C) (°C) (°C) 0.06 1.2969 .91 0.36 0.577 0.25 0.04 1.13 2.36 0.09 2.9737 0.004815 1.00 1.63 814.004799 3.004798 3.9094 0.36 0.00 1.35 0.443529 0.36 0.36 0.57 0.4924 0.590216 0.36 0.2237 962.0819 0.47 609.66 862.85 1094.00 1.609 953.7768 0.4251 0.094 958.00 1.10 2.1298 0.909 0.00 1.90 1160.4639 0.93 0.004807 1.05 1.56 732.36 0.67 0.07 0.54 698.0311 0.7498 0.78 0.36 0.5413 0.49 637.012 0.11 2.70 914.38 0.00481 1.04 956.6977 0.26 0.069 0.004801 2.75 972.0876 970.36 0.004813 1.5661 966.00 1.59 770.6424 964.143 - Ts (°C) Fy (ksi) Et (ksi) 948.04 1.2185 0.51 667.004802 2.00 1.4911 972.6422 0.9027 0.49 0.50 0.34 0.004798 3.004804 1.00 1.00 1.3313 969.004809 1.13 2.68 0.32 Time ks (sec) (W/in°C) 5700 5800 5900 6000 6100 6200 6300 6400 6500 6600 6700 6800 6900 Cps (J/lbs°C) .

4 0.144 - .497 0.Appendix 10. the case of steel beam which is exposed to fire from three sides the ratio is given by the following equation.95 11.237 204 34.96 6.2 F.25W / mK ρ i = 800kg / m 3 C i = 1500 J / kgK Step 2: Calculation of Ai V s : For.30 5.2 Analytical analysis for gypsum model Step 1: Properties: From LRFD manual for a W 12x27 section.2 18.63 Gypsum Properties: k i = 0. we have the following properties BEAM PROPERTIES FOR W 12 X 27 SECTION A (in2) d (in) bf (in) tf (in) tw (in) Ixx (in4) Sxx (in3) Iyy (in4) Syy (in3) 7. B = breadth of the flange D = depth of the entire beam As = Area of steel . Ai V s = 2D + B As Here.

414 Step 4: Calculation of constant co-efficient:  ki  t Co − efficient =  i  ρ s Cs      Ai  Vs    1   1 + ζ    Using the values mentioned above we get.5  Ai Vs =   7.96 ) + 6. 2.Appendix  (2x11.85 x10 −4 Similar calculations were performed by varying the necessary parameters depending on the following cases: 1. we get. ζ = 0.95   Ai Vs = 3. Co − efficient = 4.826 / inch Step 3: Calculation of ζ  ρ i c pi t i   A Vs ζ =   2 ρ c s ps   Using the values mentioned earlier with the appropriate units. Variable thermal properties of steel and gypsum . Variable thermal properties of steel and constant thermal properties for gypsum.145 - .

21 27739.500 1.51 27399.68 5.63 22.639 9.610 740.667 23.000 86.333 538.500 9.75 816.70 831.24 807.08375 34.501 27.500 35.667 600 704.670 7.000 .41512 32.63 110.000 20 137.500 812.20 26199.835 1.830 798.82 28927.31 5.358 279.591 26.57152 29.72265 33.48 25250.660 1200 35.000 700 722.000 20 28.83 28038.506 164.667 300 800 Tg / (1/(1+ζ)) (°C) 20.712 .500 4.59 28831.000 451.330 20 -2.000 1500 35.227 25.997 900 ∆ Ts (°C) 192.495 794.165 2.737 219.545 -19.610 270.54 776.545 648.333 23.98 4.165 1300 27.830 1.44 824.333 86.665 1600 7.28 731.545 -10.60928 28.605582 35.93 28542.545 27.970352 34.330 343.038 319.000 20 20.006 245.804 295.660 676.82 28927.35 25738.665 1.82 28927.58 24729.41 28306.660 1100 Et (ksi) 81.000 400 593.Appendix Table F-IV Constant Thermal Properties for Steel and Gypsum Time Gas Temp (sec) (°C) 0 100 200 Avg Gas Temp (°C) 106.333 Ts (°C) 38.186 764.984 365.94 192.365 749.663 7.500 1.330 27.29 28703.546 9.330 1000 86.63 18.76725 30.500 1.919 759.10494 27.90895 33.665 1.919379 35.227 24.12 620.000 23.667 500 ∆t (°C) 3.500 821.146 - 22.82 28927.91 788.165 2.01 26631.495 4.686 770.170 2.54 713.590 27.995 3.545 Fy (ksi) 59.15741 31.333 565.830 5.113 803.227 24.78 27030.000 782.835 1.591 26.333 23.63 27.165 1400 35.496 828.15163 31.

59 12822.15 2.81656 26.835 0.524 523.46 15409.165 1900 849.800 1.639 409.695 1.944 449.72 20299.330 852.830 3100 908.863 21.835 0.863 20.660 858.000 917.14949 24.995 2300 872.665 0.81 12084.35 616.03 2.500 13.72 487.71 23607.670 1.87 10186.715 469.56 17150.397 2.330 869.330 1800 843.147 - 656.368 3.Appendix Time Gas Temp Avg Gas Temp (sec) (°C) (°C) 1700 835.830 0.77873 9.665 0.93 680.000 864.830 2100 862.05 3.04 2.75 21017.495 3500 923.590 15.753 630.12994 21.660 910.592 14.330 2400 878.000 880.165 0.637 16.165 0.330 889.665 2200 867.65 18780.43 14498.63853 16.73 668.165 2800 896.330 0.65 24181.306 2.46 10771.64238 14.335 0.04 1.964 Ts Fy Et (°C) (ksi) (ksi) 365.660 884.335 0.500 13.000 894.33273 17.499 14.43383 18.61 17978.780 556.269 602.170 0.92 2.4232 10.830 0.67 3.065 505.165 0.90991 19.330 925.660 875.08 1.78857 23.728 18.76 21709.74 23001.224 587.637 16.500 12.26 429.69 19555.165 3300 916.665 2700 892.499 12.727 19.19 2.865 19.165 3600 927.78105 25.830 3000 905.995 2600 887.000 846.35914 11.934 .670 0.000 ∆t (°C) Tg / (1/(1+ζ)) (°C) ∆ Ts (°C) 3.330 914.660 921.000 906.76 22368.264 643.330 2500 882.835 0.41811 15.001 21.727 18.899 540.495 2000 855.10 11402.495 2900 900.51 16293.39 2.33716 13.660 902.330 898.22 .93 1.356 1.835 0.62327 10.635 17.60597 12.830 3400 919.53 572.495 3200 912.71301 8.165 0.73253 22.590 15.84507 20.46 13623.70 2.170 0.96 387.660 839.500 11.

519 7.000 947.000 955.23 744.645 1.790 1.500 4200 946.363 0.72 7.45645 10.86 7025.500 1.330 969.7285 4.000 5600 982.23247 3.500 7.94 3690.830 5400 978.13 811.000 961.273 6.409 0.500 Et (ksi) 9639.62 4495.330 4900 965.13 763.455 0.000 7.148 - 724.24687 8.760 1.172 1.000 981.000 979.660 949.475 1.20 7395.71 804.62 754.363 8.970 7.38 8.98477 4.165 0.471 0.56 7788.44 4279.318 6.500 1.995 5000 968.98 772.28459 6.273 6.500 4100 943.330 4300 948.24 5210.000 958.283 0.335 0.318 0.25 6349.75 852.13 819.319 714.35256 3.70 839.665 4500 954.22 10.Appendix Time Gas Temp Avg Gas Temp (sec) (°C) (°C) 3700 930.409 0.273 8653.02 4960.665 5100 971.50 833.47 5473.000 964.867 6.97 6041.46622 4.454 11.490 1.330 3900 937.500 4000 940.000 938.258 .57951 6.18 780.665 0.64 826.69 7.50483 4.660 935.364 0.495 5300 975.409 Fy (ksi) 8.825 1.364 6.18942 5.165 1.27 4074.83 9.335 0.43 846.95 8206.995 4400 951.05019 5.71405 7.81908 6.409 703.500 Ts (°C) 692.330 1.330 0.165 5200 973.36594 3.335 1.97 796.54 6676.660 966.000 944.500 4800 963.36 788.000 0.139 1.170 9129.330 931.000 972.409 0.051 .335 1.82 4722.71 5749.01489 5.000 ∆t (°C) Tg / (1/(1+ζ)) (°C) ∆ Ts (°C) 1.500 1.33 10.500 4600 957.61023 2.364 1.59 9.670 1.10 3877.500 4700 960.87786 3.105 9.467 0.224 0.330 952.000 0.000 5500 980.409 0.767 1.26817 3.364 0.000 983.098 1.995 3800 933.660 976.69883 4.330 974.73 734.000 941.

165 0.55 1987.181 4.4791 2.000 0.1305 1.02 918.83 870.273 5.52 3182.649 986.371 1004.98611 2.61 896.318 5.495 1.222 .665 0.40 3027.000 997.57 864.486 995.17 905.50157 1.80 3512.19456 2.000 1003.660 992.319 993.Appendix Time Gas Temp Avg Gas Temp (sec) (°C) (°C) 5700 5800 5900 6100 6200 1.318 5.783 0.94 2465.000 .19029 1.27 2877.000 6700 1.660 997.053 1000.16 2734.00 900.835 0.830 6000 ∆t (°C) 4.330 858.943 1001.835 0.67 4.000 1.183 1006.830 999.149 - 2.97284 1.330 988.495 0.670 0.000 6300 6600 ∆ Ts (°C) 985.226 0.79 891.170 991.165 0.660 1005.60443 1.830 0.69 910.273 0.330 0.61412 2.665 0.526 1002.47 1879.74 2216.181 Et (ksi) 4.000 1.372 994.04 2597.000 0.51 880.000 6400 6800 0.632 1002.000 6500 Tg / (1/(1+ζ)) (°C) 984.995 6900 1.66 3343.24739 2.72402 1.208 998.273 5.165 996.330 1003.12765 2.000 Ts (°C) 5.228 4.228 0.64 2099.165 0.000 989.26 914.66141 4.818 987.83 2338.665 Fy (ksi) 5.29 875.96 886.

60 28836.385 1.005000 0.92 301.89 26034.02 0.33 740.56 700 800 900 722.Appendix Table F-V Variable Thermal Properties for Steel and Constant Thermal Properties for Gypsum Time Gas Temp (sec) (°C) 0 100 20.05 0.005013 0.08 0.17 256.82 28927.58 24.59 .381 1300 35.60 1000 Et (ksi) 19.745 0.55 26.89 21.00 35.378 0.24 0.150 - 57.66 759.47 32.60 0.00 0.761 0.93 0.74 0.804554 0.00 0.005008 Ts (°C) 20.82 28927.59 25.005017 0.33 0.00 0.02 232.004985 35.01 -4.004991 0.394 7.415 0.22 0.004978 0.62 0.004989 0.75 27516.781972 0.863 0.89 500 648.810 0.64 26437.16 1.97 1600 38.408 25.68 0.388 2.82 28927.00 183.00 593.17 821.82 Fy (ksi) -12.789 0.797 1100 1200 770.00 192.71 34.91 31.62 24.67 1400 812.815 2.005005 0.344 323.399 7.882 35.71 33.67 28.32 -21.54 0.96 28100.63 25.58 1.004993 20.63 208.33 25163.50 28347.005018 0.00 105.352 1.00 0.94 .49 34.19 1500 20.361 35.58 21.38 26824.58 1.16 200 300 400 365.90 29.004995 0.68 78.004982 0.44 828.00 21.96 30.004998 0.32 28716.38 33.411 25.53 25.732040 0.33 7.00 157.37 0.842 20.63 26.820566 0.97 18.85 0.66 782.847296 0.370 0.375 803.33 538.21 2.004973 35.13 0.82 28927.738 0.82 29.358 0.65 1.33 794.66 0.772 600 704.750854 0.005010 0.63 131.08 27182.94 279.98 28567.67 ks Cps (W/in°C) (J/lbs°C) ζ Tg / (1/(1+ζ)) (°C) ∆ Ts (°C) 25.79 0.373 0.00 20.13 25615.31 32.33 0.005003 0.405 0.39 27826.28 22.

32 12.56 0.26 0.63 0.80 2400 2500 878.51 3100 14.33 0.76 2100 862.928 438.66 19.51 0.25 421.290 609.71 24219.66 0.004922 0.05 10.004968 0.14 0.81 518.74 3200 3300 912.81 0.96731 0.308 0.42 3400 13.004963 0.51 0.67 0.48 .97 0.66 0.57 20897.33 17.87 23.14 11.004900 0.08 18342.43 14.338 0.004917 0.283 631.57 15.00 0.046 1.004952 0.96 14077.48 16263.41 455.33 0.346 1900 849.880 ζ Tg / (1/(1+ζ)) (°C) ∆ Ts (°C) 0.22 13403.97 0.66 872.70 20281.060 11.05 0.57 2800 17.877846 0.004931 0.37 .324 0.33 927.25 27.80 18.314 488.00 0.004895 1.93 22.301 572.94 20.95 19005.004882 1.52 0.898 383.67 2300 18.17 24.97 16.06 0.49 0.987 14.004887 0.004958 364.331 0.031980 0.33 0.61 15540.997031 0.073680 0.36 503.918 19.327 0.66 923.66 13.42 12.58 0.11 12.908731 0.81 0.94 0.44 0.31 20.32 26.004947 0.06 0.00 0.99 0.287 620.61 0.004878 1.80 0.957 0.31 22074.81 2000 0.298 585.004908 3000 905.94 15.37 21.33 916.03 23182.83 0.33 0.004913 15.00 882.004942 402.82 19650.342 0.66 0.66 18.41 11.004891 1.937662 0.66 0.47 18.21 0.94 0.305 532.48 13.151 - Ts Fy Et (°C) (ksi) (ksi) 344.009 1.020 3500 3600 919.00 12.44 21493.98 25.45 0.63 17.82 0.888 855.004936 0.35 559.42 12.334 2200 867.92 25.948 472.004926 0.21 17665.34 16974.54 12777.56 896.17 22638.43 908.00 0.33 0.41 10.81 546.317 2700 892.004904 0.53 24703.66 16.81 0.345 1800 843.977 2900 900.04 0.76 14805.84 0.294 597.87 23709.Appendix Time Gas Temp ks Cps (sec) (°C) (W/in°C) (J/lbs°C) 1700 835.311 0.70 0.00 0.321 2600 887.

34 7.32 6428.22 9.53 6663.63 10.00 0.50 0.12 0.26 671.00 11138.238 5000 968.004838 1.17 787.004875 1.56 729.00 0.96 7.32 0.28 4400 4500 948.11 6203.36 0.206224 0.333 5400 5500 5600 978.89 7.99 7168.36 5.07 8333.100 ζ Tg / (1/(1+ζ)) (°C) ∆ Ts (°C) 0.143 943.004871 0.174 1.00 4900 965.Appendix Time Gas Temp ks Cps (sec) (°C) (W/in°C) (J/lbs°C) 3700 930.98 743.66 0.215 .00 982.51 6.18 680.86 0.112976 0.287 0.01 5.18 5.004833 1.004848 1.004845 1.279 3800 933.004818 1.381 1.79 0.75 4.004868 1.33 0.231 0.33 954.02 776.316 1.30 1.03 5.92 12193.45 763.228 6.004820 10659.30 0.004825 1.38 769.35 11648.259 0.00 0.98 7.33 0.00 980.52 0.99 0.75 0.00 0.255 4600 9.66 951.004828 0.27 8.27 8.55 7.60 0.004864 1.61 697.225 0.74 5784.50 7721.22 0.66 0.412 10210.00 973.17 0.274 0.86 6.66 0.004851 1.67 6.158436 0.39 8665.02 0.99 4.004857 1.12 0.92 5988.03 8.30 0.24 7438.54 .224 0.244 0.37 721.00 0.241 0.242 0.266 0.348995 0.276 3900 937.25 0.42 6.98 705.83 9.260512 0.190 0.220 0.248 4700 960.48 0.84 689.55 5.20 7.273 651.12 757.262 0.13 0.09 9391.75 10.71 7.87 5.236 0.252 957.004823 1.11 5.54 9.004841 1.004835 1.128 0.31 4300 9.29 4800 963.004854 0.60 736.32 4000 940.06 0.20 6.087 1.26 0.004830 0.45 6.004861 4200 946.32 1.48 9789.36 10.73 0.25 5100 5200 5300 971.60 8.53 781.75 6910.72 9017.06 8.18 5.234 0.00 0.33 975.95 713.269 4100 Ts Fy Et (°C) (ksi) (ksi) 641.00 0.28 750.78 8019.22 6.66 8.152 - 8.30 661.

00 0.45 3.004799 3.61 835.37 4194.15 6200 995.004800 2.06 6800 1004.66 4536.219 0.425 0.00 0.99 4918.00 0.05 6900 1006.05 3.66 0.004811 1.59 3.08 3.26 5236.12 5073.14 6300 997.41 5408.08 6600 1002.76 4652.210 0.87 4.46 813.56 4.50 4347.00 0.75 821.004802 2.30 798.19 3.Appendix Time Gas Temp ks Cps ζ Tg / (1/(1+ζ)) (sec) (°C) (W/in°C) (J/lbs°C) (°C) 5700 984.492 0.004798 3.17 2.68 4.60 4.57 Et (ksi) 5591.909 0.127 0.101 0.81 2.30 5.66 0.26 3.20 831.012 0.631592 0.11 6400 998.00 0.45 808.70 4.089 0.91 3.590216 0.57 4436.004804 1.23 .004815 1.37 2.204 0.004813 1.383 0.443529 0.004799 3.069 0.87 4778.99 838.19 6000 991.09 6500 1000.004801 2.004807 1.87 833.75 803.31 4126.15 817.20 5900 988.50 828.33 0.147 0.43 4268.27 3.20 5800 986.698 0.53 3.24 3.54 2.113 0.191 0.197 0.66 0.750 0.33 0.153 - ∆ Ts (°C) Ts (°C) 793.00 0.00 0.541 0.29 Fy (ksi) 4.004809 1.96 3.31 5.06 6700 1003.094 0.004798 3.63 3.09 4.33 0.084 .16 6100 993.159 0.44 825.174 0.

51E-05 35.84 26.7612 0.82 28927.8723 309.8859 1100 0.41 0.9138 1.02 27.05 0.4923 25.8810 1300 1400 0.0384 12.32 100 0.97 3.61 28840.004991 0.48 23466.91 26043.51E-05 0.89 25.17 200 ∆ Ts (°C) 392.14 Ts (°C) -21.49 1500 20.005 Et (ksi) -1.00 17.732040 2.804554 2.8633 2.51E-05 0.82 28927.50 28.004993 35.004985 0.40 28300.8099 2.24 28.18 0.19 9.82 28927.154 - 35.0800 0.005013 300 0.69 0.99 400 500 600 0.00501 0.87 0.59 72.12E-05 0.29 0.39 26.77 0.63 37.39 29.52 29.51E-05 0.28E-05 0.13 2.7716 2.004982 0.63 215.00 33.9061 800 0.4923 25.86 25466.58E-05 1.25 35.83E-05 37.004989 0.94 1.12E-05 1.004998 0.8152 2.Appendix Table F-VI Variable Thermal Properties for Steel and Gypsum Time ks (sec) (W/in°C) 0 Cps (J/lbs°C) ki Cpi Tg / (1/(1+ζ)) (W/in°C) (J/lbs°C) (°C) 0.005017 0.24 28678.78 27533.89 1.08 28609.005003 0.005005 0.23 27.004995 0.847296 2.51E-05 0.63 36.44 31.53 0.73 0.25 0.06 279.44 63.004973 0.781972 2.004978 0.8723 364.10 4.69 1200 20.81 24864.9845 700 Fy (ksi) -19.820566 2.7970 2.91 26580.96 32.93 32.89 31.7446 1.51E-05 2.68 0.750854 1.00 147.63E-05 1600 0.61 0.69 0.82 28927.53 26.51E-05 35.41 28.8761 0.63 27940.8985 3.00 248.34 30.51E-05 0.11 0.87 27077.46 0.7383 1.33E-05 2.60 0.005018 0.12 900 20.85 0.8723 .04 12.63 110.7895 2.8824 2.98 35.96 33.92 34.8420 0.05E-05 2.73E-05 0.71 34.63 .45 0.005008 0.9138 0.00 181.8908 1000 20.8723 337.29 35.69 24206.00 0.

60 18.8723 0.05 14.16 15.8723 0.44 522.8723 0.66 20.73 18841.19 17.66 24.81 10.34 3.0087 1.92E-05 0.8723 0.0459 1.28 7490.75 648.62 17.61 12838.8723 0.40 12.9280 0.89E-05 0.17 3.67 630.82 728.15 .51 11804.17 3.004904 0.8801 1800 0.19E-05 0.997031 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600 0.79E-05 0.36 8638.31 15281.54 778.86 5.82E-05 0.9475 2600 0.66E-05 0.8723 0.17 19902.004878 1.28 3.8723 0.34 3.073680 ki Cpi Tg / (1/(1+ζ)) (W/in°C) (J/lbs°C) (°C) 2.21 3.004895 0.8723 0.004958 2000 0.78 754.47E-05 0.41E-05 0.004922 0.031980 0.56 10878.72 20.55 446.59 7.9871 1.88 19.75E-05 0.8723 0.21 3.004887 0.24 22685.8723 0.155 - ∆ Ts (°C) Ts Fy Et (°C) (ksi) (ksi) 419.004947 0.63 742.85 766.90 15.85E-05 0.28 3.908731 2200 0.6E-05 0.03 23.877846 1900 0.32 16.004968 0.40 12.8723 0.17 3.8984 2100 0.64 8.8723 0.05 6125.19 13.8723 0.85 666.21 3.004931 0.004942 2300 2400 2500 0.8723 0.8723 0.27 17716.8723 0.40 3.07 11.004952 0.93E-05 0.Appendix Time ks Cps (sec) (W/in°C) (J/lbs°C) 1700 0.24 3.94 21829.27 3.17 5.42 6540.45 25.74 .02 683.02E-05 0.21 22.18 3.72E-05 0.78 6.80 16530.17 3.937662 0.29 714.72E-05 0.67 9.27E-05 0.004926 0.40 21.64 610.84 5.004917 0.51 545.03 24.8723 0.34E-05 0.8723 0.34 3.75 14.33 10.004913 0.19 6.60 589.97 11.23 3.10 18.00 699.44 22.95E-05 0.004936 0.15 472.17 3.36 21.0598 0.54 8.54E-05 0.96731 2800 0.87 13998.00 9306.83 6993.0049 0.79 8036.004882 1.54 568.67 11.24 3.004908 3000 0.9184 0.004963 0.30 497.29 26.8723 0.57 20897.8881 0.73 10046.9772 2900 0.25 26.97 15.004891 1.11E-05 0.9574 2700 0.0203 0.8723 0.

39E-05 0.68 4.0868 3800 0.50 .77 3.11 7.33E-05 0.8723 863.17E-05 0.38 4.98E-05 0.004841 1.01E-05 0.13 8.8723 898.8723 907.2868 5100 0.8723 882.8723 876.81 4.004825 1.1281 4100 0.2E-05 0.18 2.004868 1.3E-05 0.12 6.13 9.62 4231.004845 1.004848 1.45E-05 0.2243 4700 0.71 0.43E-05 0.91 4.11 7.85 4.25E-05 0.69 0.83 3768.98 3.07 4.83 2036.07 4.72 4.84 0.1433 4200 0.40 4.8723 903.13 8.2737 5000 0.20 0.58 3.004871 1.98 1.03 3366.07 4767.62 3183.8723 808.8723 842.97 4.88 3.22 4.15 9.68 0.09 5.004833 1.37E-05 0.3163 5300 0.11 7.8723 817.8723 849.00482 1.004857 1.004823 1.25 0.12E-05 0.8723 916.004851 1.22 .89 0.13 2154.09 4.41E-05 0.03 2410.30 5200 0.69 2.15E-05 0.004835 1.57 4.004830 1.156 - Et (ksi) 5743.30 2279.8723 857.3805 5600 0.8723 799.8723 912.004854 1.56 1.158436 4300 0.67 4.01 0.8723 826.68 2849.4120 ki Cpi Tg / (1/(1+ζ)) ∆ Ts Ts Fy (W/in°C) (J/lbs°C) (°C) (°C) (°C) (ksi) 3.206224 4600 0.11 4.3327 5400 0.10 5.04E-05 0.81 1926.10 5.16 4.05 2549.348995 5500 0.004818 1.12 6.2424 4800 0.09 4.8723 788.23E-05 0.22 1.35E-05 0.15 10.004875 1.50 5068.8723 887.0999 3900 0.20 4.004828 1.05 2.55 3.07 4.90 3011.Appendix Time ks Cps (sec) (W/in°C) (J/lbs°C) 3700 0.77 4.40 0.87 3561.38 0.00 0.00 2695.79 0.89 1.52 0.65 4.1903 4500 0.07E-05 0.12 0.40 4.56 4489.86 0.004861 1.25 1.004864 1.65 2.1744 4400 0.62 0.07 2.12 0.1E-05 0.260512 4900 0.10 5.28E-05 0.8723 893.12 6.59 0.17 4.8723 834.112976 4000 0.02 4.01 2.03 2.74 3991.74 5392.40 0.004838 1.62 4.8723 870.33 4.

57E-05 0.08 1388.27 1631.8723 0.60 1.631592 4.63E-05 0.68 952.4924 4.004799 3.6E-05 0.8723 Time ks (sec) (W/in°C) 5700 5800 5900 6000 6100 6200 6300 6400 6500 6600 6700 6800 6900 Cps (J/lbs°C) .03 1.04 0.02 1321.004811 1.8723 0.76 0.8723 0.99 0.18 946.20 1544.65E-05 0.63 1.004807 1.17 941.47E-05 0.18 0.012 4.76 943.06 3.16 928.33 0.92 0.004813 1.66 951.61 0.65E-05 0.4251 4.73 0.64E-05 0.04 2.7498 4.08 3.004815 1.54 0.49E-05 0.93 0.81 1049.39 0.18 1.91 1.8723 0.8723 0.61E-05 0.8723 0.58E-05 0.84 1084.6977 4.069 4.87 1122.00 1.0048 2.52 0.83 932.443529 4.06 0.04 2.42 1822.02 1.56 1.11 0.9094 4.88 0.80 938.004802 2.004799 3.08 3.53E-05 0.004798 3.98 1261.05 2.590216 4.8723 0.55E-05 0.Appendix ki Cpi Tg / (1/(1+ζ)) ∆ Ts (W/in°C) (J/lbs°C) (°C) (°C) 0.72 0.07 4.004804 1.06 3.35 1.157 - Ts (°C) Fy (ksi) Et (ksi) 921.8723 0.02 1.90 1163.5413 4.004801 2.72 0.51E-05 0.004798 3.56 935.94 1209.3833 4.34 1724.49 949.8723 0.13 1461.004809 1.25 924.8723 0.18 947.2185 4.14 .53 0.8723 0.08 3.02 1.85 0.8723 0.