You are on page 1of 246

The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire

Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated
Temperature

A thesis submitted to The University of Manchester for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Engineering
and Physical Sciences

2011

RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY

SCHOOL OF MECHANICAL, AEROSPACE AND CIVIL
ENGINEERING

The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature

Abstract
Intumescent coating fire protection on steel structures is becoming widely popular in
the UK and Europe. The current assessment for the fire protection performance
method using the standard fire resistance tests is not accurate, owing to the reactive
behaviour of intumescent coating at elevated temperature. Moreover, the available
intumescent coating temperature assessment method provided in the Eurocode for
structural steel at elevated temperature does not incorporate the steel beam’s
behaviour and/or assessment for partial protection and/or damaged protection. The
research work presented provides additional information on the assessment of
partial and/or damaged intumescent coating at elevated temperature. In the scope of
the investigation on the thermal conductivity of intumescent coating, it was found that
the computed average thermal conductivity was marginally sensitive to the density
and emissivity at elevated temperature. However, the thermal conductivity was found
to be reasonably sensitive to the differences in initial dft’s (dry film thicknesses).In
this research, a numerical model was developed using ABAQUS to mimic actual
indicative test scenarios to predict and establish the temperature distribution and the
structural fire resistance of partial and/or damaged intumescent coating at elevated
temperatures. Intumescent coating actively shields when the charring process
occurs when the surface temperature reaches approximately 250±C to 350±C.
Maximum deflection and deflection failure times for each damage scenario were
analyzed by applying specified loading conditions. It was also found that the
structural fire resistance failure mode of intumescent coating on protected steel
beams was particularly sensitive to the applied boundary conditions. Careful
selection of nodes in the element was necessary to avoid numerical instability and
unexpected numerical error during analysis. An assessment of various numerical
models subjected to a standard fire with partially protected 1mm intumescent coating
was analysed using ABAQUS. An available unprotected test result was used as a
benchmark. The outcome suggests that the fire resistances of the beams were found
to be sensitive to the location of the partial and/or damage protection. The overall fire
resistance behaviour of intumescent coating at elevated temperature was
summarized in a ‘typical deflection regression’ curve. An extensive parametric
analysis was performed on localized intumescent coating damage with various
intumescent coating thicknesses between 0.5mm to 2.0mm. It was found that the
average deflection was linear for the first 30 mins of exposure for all the variables,
damage locations and intumescent thicknesses. It was concluded that a thicker
layered intumescent coating may not be a better insulator or be compared to a much
less thick intumescent coating at elevated temperature. The use of passive fire
protection, however, does enhance the overall fire resistance of the steel beam, in
contrast to a naked steel structure. The research work investigated the intumescent
coating behaviour with different aspects of protection and damage and the outcome
of the assessment provided a robust guide and additional understanding of the
performance of intumescent coating at elevated temperature.
KEYWORDS: fire resistance, intumescent coating, damaged protection, steel
beams, assessment, ABAQUS

RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY

P. 2

The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature

Declaration
No portion of the work referred to in the thesis has been submitted in support of an
application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other
institute of learning.

Renga Rao Krishnamoorthy
(July, 2011)

RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY

P. 3

The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature

Copyright Statement
I. The author of this thesis (including any appendices and/or schedules to this
thesis) owns any copyright in it (the “Copyright”) and s/he has given The
University of Manchester the right to use such Copyright for any
administrative, promotional, educational and/or teaching purposes.
II. Copies of this thesis, either in full or in extracts and whether in hard or
electronic copy, may be made only in accordance with the Copyright, Designs
and Patents Act 1988 (as amended) and regulations issued under it or, where
appropriate, in accordance with licensing agreements which the University
has from time to time. This page must form part of any such copies made.
III. The ownership of any patents, designs, trade marks and any and all other
intellectual property rights except for the Copyright (the “Intellectual Property
Rights”) and any reproductions of copyright works, for example graphs and
tables (“Reproductions”), which may be described in this thesis, may not be
owned by the author and may be owned by third parties. Such Intellectual
Property Rights and Reproductions cannot and must not be made available
for use without the prior written permission of the owner(s) of the relevant
Intellectual Property Rights and/or Reproductions.
IV. Further information on the conditions under which disclosure, publication and
commercialisation of this thesis, the Copyright and any Intellectual Property
and/or Reproductions described in it may take place is available in the
University IP Policy
(see

http://www.campus.manchester.ac.uk/medialibrary/policies/intellectual-

property.pdf), in any relevant Thesis restriction declarations deposited in the
University

Library,

The

University

Library’s

http://www.manchester.ac.uk/library/aboutus/regulations)

regulations(see
and

in

The

University’s policy on presentation of Theses

RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY

P. 4

May God and Goddess rest their soul in peace. Their unconditional love. 5 . motivation and their undivided support and encouragement have been a drive towards my achievements. Mother (10-02-1955 to 23-10-2010) Father (05-06-1948 to 12-08-2011) RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Dedication This work is dedicated to my late mother Letchmy Mallanaidu and my late father Krishnamoorthy Appannan for all the sacrifices they have made to ensure I obtain the best education possible.

Denise. Thanks also go to all my colleagues and researchers of Extreme Loading and Design Group. encouragement and motivation. ideas. and I would like to offer my humble gratitude to them. Yaaqub. Last but not least. brother (Suba) and sisters (Dthuruga. 6 .The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Acknowledgements This work was only feasible due to several people's collaboration. suggestions of work and discussions. it is my pleasure to thank the Ministry of Higher Education. I appreciate his many useful comments on this work but even more so his advice and willingness to discuss any questions or ideas that I have had. taught and motivated me since the start of my research project. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. son (Rooven). my deepest appreciation and gratitude goes to my father (Krishnamoorthy). and Emmanuel for sharing their scientific knowledge. Tumadhir. Dai. Siamak. A special thanks to my Professor’s secretary. my supervisor. Ahmed.G. Ms Sue Neesham for her assistance in organizing meetings and her personal advice during my research. Bailey. I would like to thank Professor C. who has endlessly guided and diligently mentored. daughter (Sharisha). Khauselia and Nicklaane) for their undivided moral support. Firstly. Fabian. and for their friendship that has matured along the duration of the research period. Malaysia and MARA University of Technology(UiTM) for financially supporting this research project. wife (Sumathi).

... 27 1..4 Summary of chapters ................................... 27 1.... 25 1................ 33 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P......... 31 2..................4................ 26 1............................3 Chapter 4: Finite-element method (FEM) and ABAQUS models .....1 Fire behaviour ............4..........................................4................................. 27 1............... 28 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................................................................. 24 1........ 27 1....1 Background ..............................3 Prescriptive and performance based approach..... 23 1.................... 26 1. 23 1.....................4.................................................4... 26 ` 1.............. 29 2............................................. 27 1.................................................. 29 2.............7 Chapter 8: Analysis of parametric results for thickness variability of intumescent for steel beams........................... 7 ...........................................1 Chapter 2: Literature review ......4........................................The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature List of Contents CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION...............3 Research objective ........................4..............................4.................................................................2 Research aims.........3..........8 Chapter 9: Conclusions and future work................................... 30 2....5 Chapter 6: Analysis of results for structurally loaded and unprotected beams ....1 Introduction to fire engineering ........................................................6 Chapter 7: Analysis of parametric results for structurally loaded and partially protected intumescent for steel beams...2 Chapter 3: Properties of materials at elevated temperatures...................................................................................2 Steel at elevated temperature .........4 Chapter 5: Temperature distribution of protected composite beams ....................................

.................................. 62 2............................... 42 World Trade Centre Towers.....6.......................................2 Fundamentals of Intumescent flame retardants .......... Basingstoke.............1 Section factor Am/V ......................................3 Components of intumescent systems. United Kingdom...............1 Board protection .............................5...... 67 3.....1 Formation of protective layer ................................7................. 54 2..........3......................... 45 General fire protection systems.. United States ........3 Concrete encasement ......3........ 37 2............5 Historical overview of building fires.......... 39 Broadgate Phase Fire................... United Kingdom .......................... New York................2 Spray protection .......2....................4 Fire limit state ...... 35 2..............................................1 Mechanisms of Intumescence ..................7...........................................1 Introduction........... 57 2......................................................................................................6..7............................5.5.......................................................... 52 2....... Bedfordshire.........The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 2.....2 2............ 58 2......2 Shadow effect . 46 2.....6......................2 Steel ........7...................8 Overview of protected steel beams and columns in fire .......................1 2.......7.................... 51 2..................3..............................2 Heat transfer analysis...................................... 67 3..3 Structural analysis ......................................... 36 2.......... 48 2............ 8 ............................6 Churchill Plaza.......................... 34 2...................... 50 2.............................................3.......1 Introduction............... 66 CHAPTER 3 PROPERTIES OF MATERIALS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES ....7.......... 41 The Cardington Fire Tests...................................................................... London..........5...4 2............................. United Kingdom ................. 67 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P............. 60 2............................................2 Mathematical modelling of intumescences .................7 Intumescent fire protection system ........................................3............... 38 2......................... 47 2..3 2..................2..............................................2... ....................3.....9 Summary of chapter 2 .................... 51 2. 39 2........

.............. 78 Spray-on monokote MK-5..2...... 76 3...................6 Poisson’s ratio ....................... 72 3....................... 90 Concrete..... 73 3..................................................1 Density...2 Emissivity of Steel ........................... 72 3.......................................................................8 Stress-strain relationship and reduction factors...................................................4..............................2 Thermal conductivity.......................................3 Specific Heat .............................2 Thermal conductivity..4 Thermal elongation...............1 Density....................................... 68 3............. 92 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P................ 68 3. 78 3...3................................................................ 77 3...............5............... 76 3.........4................................................................................3 Specific heat................................................................................................................... Ca .........................................................................3.................................7 Isothermal and anisothermal creep strain...................1 Density.........................................................5 3.......... 72 3.......5.........................................................................................2..........3........... 9 ..............3 Specific heat...1 Density.......2.......2.......The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 3.................4 Thermal conductivity............................1 Temperature prediction for unprotected steel....................................5.........................................................................2.......................................................................... 88 3........................2 Thermal conductivity.......... 91 3....... 89 3.......3 3...............2...............................................2.. 73 3........................... 89 3....3 Specific heat (Cp)..........................2......................................................................................................... 92 Summary of chapter 3 ......... 91 3..........................3..........6 3.........4.....2 Emissivity of Intumescent . 90 3.......... 71 3................................... Cp ..... 71 3...........................................................................5 Thermal diffusivity.....2. 74 Intumescent coatings............................4 3...2.......................................

................3.............................................................................2 ABAQUS simulation methodology...1 Modelling with shell elements ... 102 4.2 Modelling with solid elements .... 96 4.......................................4..............1...........................................5 5..4 Temperature profile of headed shear stud for spray-on fire protected composite beams..................................................................... 108 5...1 ABAQUS CONTINUUM ELEMENTS ......................... 121 5.................................... .....2 Fundamentals of the finite-element method (FEM)........ 105 CHAPTER 5 TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION OF PROTECTED COMPOSITE BEAMS ...... 102 4.........................................6 Results and Discussion ................................................. 130 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.............................................3 Heat transfer.....3.3 Temperature analysis ....1 Overview.....................................................1.............................................4..... 93 4........3.......................The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature CHAPTER 4 FINITE-ELEMENT METHOD (FEM) AND ABAQUS MODELS.............2...... 107 5.1............................................... 120 5..........3..... 97 4....................................................4.....2 Plastic behaviour in ABAQUS.....................................5 Temperature distribution of spray-on protected steelwork................... 123 5..... 128 Summary of chapter 5 ...........1 Introduction ............................... 111 5.......... 103 4......1 Origins of the finite-element method (FEM).........................................................3 Heat transfer analysis.........................................................4 Numerical results for temperature distribution . 128 5. 100 4...........3........... 107 5................. 10 ........................ 120 5.....................................4........3 Modelling with ABAQUS.....3...................................................... 121 5.... 99 4.................................2....................2 ABAQUS SHELL ELEMENTS.....4................ 93 4........... 93 4......4.2 Composite model using ABAQUS ..........................3..............................1 ABAQUS INTEGRATION TECHNIQUE ..

...........3............ 11 .................................................4 Steel floor beam for Test 4 ............2...........2 Boundary condition ....................4 Discussion of analysis results............................................. 144 6. 163 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P............ 154 7.................................2 Steel floor beam for Test 2 ............4 Summary of chapter 7 ................................... 137 Modelling simply supported steel floor beam......................3 6............... 153 CHAPTER 7 PARAMETRIC STUDIES ON PARTIALLY PROTECTED INTUMESCENT COATING ON STEEL BEAMS .....3 Steel floor beam for Test 3 ....3............................. 139 6....... 136 6......................................................................................... 139 6..................................................... 154 7................................... 149 6...................................................................................... 155 7..........................1 Mesh Sensitivity......................3...............................................................2.....The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature CHAPTER 6 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS FOR LOADED AND UNPROTECTED SIMPLY SUPPORTED BEAM................................................................................................................................................................................................5 Summary of chapter 6 ...........................1 Introduction.............. 132 6...................................................................... 133 6..............................3 Loads.................. 157 7...................2.................. 152 6........3..............................................................5 Steel floor beam for Test 5 ............ 133 6. 147 6.................................................................................3...................................... 142 6..........1 Steel floor beam for Test 1 ..................................................2 Numerical model analysis...............3 Analysis results.......................1 Introduction.. 132 6..........................................................................2 Types of partial protection ...............

................ 198 REFERENCES.. 180 8.......................................... 211 SOURCES OF ERROR IN THE FEM ............................................................................ 12 ................................... 187 Summary of chapter 8 .........................................................4 Damage scenario 4 ......5 Structural analysis ..................1 Introduction.............................. 174 8..........3 Damage scenario 3 ............................................. 196 9.................................................. ..........1 Introduction............................................................................................... 194 CHAPTER 9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................... 201 APPENDIX A ................................... 164 8........3 Steel behaviour at elevated temperature with intumescent coating protection .. 195 9.................................................. 211 APPENDIX B .............................................The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature CHAPTER 8 ANALYSIS OF PARAMETRIC RESULTS FOR DAMAGED INTUMESCENT COAT WITH VARIOUS THICKNESSES..... 213 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P............................... 197 9................................................................................................... 165 8....................................4 8............................... 195 9............................................................................................................................. 166 8....................2 Thermal model analysis.................................................................................................................................................................................3.............................. 164 8......................................3 Heat transfer on damage scenarios.....3...........................................................3.................2 Damaged intumescent coating ............................................................2 Damage scenario 2 ..... 195 9......................................................................1 Damage scenario 1 ........3....4 Steel behaviour at elevated temperature with spray-on protection ... 164 8............

............... 214 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P............................................ 214 ABAQUS ANALYSIS INPUT DATA ...... 13 ................................................................... 213 APPENDIX C ....................................................................The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature NOMINAL TO TRUE STRESS-STRAIN CONVERSION ................

97] ________ 74 Figure 22: Reduction factors for steel at elevated temperatures ______________ 75 Figure 23: Stress-strain relationship for steel at elevated temperatures ________ 76 Figure 24: Time-temperature for SP1 for ambient and linearly reduced_________ 77 Figure 25: Partial intumescent coat application for steel frame _______________ 79 Figure 26: One dimensional heat flow __________________________________ 81 Figure 27: SP1 intumescent thermal conductivity__________________________ 82 Figure 28: SP2 intumescent thermal conductivity _________________________ 82 Figure 29: SP3 intumescent thermal conductivity _________________________ 82 Figure 30: SP4 intumescent thermal conductivity _________________________ 82 Figure 31: SP5 intumescent thermal conductivity _________________________ 82 Figure 32: SP6 intumescent thermal conductivity _________________________ 82 Figure 33: SP7 intumescent thermal conductivity _________________________ 83 Figure 34: SP9 intumescent thermal conductivity _________________________ 83 Figure 35: SP8 intumescent thermal conductivity _________________________ 83 Figure 36: SP10 intumescent thermal conductivity ________________________ 83 Figure 37: Average Intumescent thermal conductivity for SP1 to SP10 _________ 84 Figure 38: Thermal conductivity models calculated by the author and Dai [79] ___ 87 Figure 39: Effective thermal conductivity ________________________________ 88 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.UK (April 2010)]_______________ 49 Figure 12: Damage of spray-on fire protection at the beam’s flange ___________ 49 Figure 13: Exposed beam left untreated at Printworks. Manchester. 14 . Basingstoke following the fire [28] _________________ 40 Figure 6: Unprotected column buckled at Broadgate [29] ___________________ 41 Figure 7: Unprotected steel frame connection failure after full-scale test ________ 43 Figure 8: Partial column sprayed fire protection using CAFCO C300 [6] ________ 43 Figure 9: Full column and connection sprayed fire protection using CAFCO C300 [6] ________________________________________________________________ 44 Figure 10: Damaged fire protection on diagonal member of a bridging floor truss [25] ________________________________________________________________ 45 Figure 11: Utility pipes and support struts fixed along spray-on fire protected beam [Photographed inside Printworks.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature List of Figures Figure 1: Fire models with increase in complexity _________________________ 33 Figure 2: Nominal temperature time curves based on EN 1991-1-2 [14] and PD 7974-1[15] _______________________________________________________ 34 Figure 3: Fire exposure sections for unprotected and protected steel members __ 36 Figure 4: Imaginary perimeter ________________________________________ 37 Figure 5: Churchill Plaza. Manchester ___________ 50 Figure 14: Steel columns protected by concrete [40] _______________________ 51 Figure 15: Heat flux applied to intumescent coat using cone calorimeter [57] ____ 56 Figure 16: Intumescent ‘cake’ at elevated temperature[57] __________________ 56 Figure 17: Initial condition of intumescent coating applied to steel beam________ 59 Figure 18: Swelling process of intumescent coating _______________________ 60 Figure 19: Fully charred intumescent coating after fire______________________ 60 Figure 20: Steel temperature development for various emissivity values________ 70 Figure 21: Creep strain curves with a heating rate of 10±C/min [96.

28mm) __________ 118 Figure 55: Time-temperature for SP9 (Average beam dft =1. others protected ____________ 125 Figure 63: Shear stud temperature for unprotected upper flange_____________ 125 Figure 64: Both upper and bottom beam flange left unprotected _____________ 126 Figure 65: Shear stud temperature for unprotected upper and bottom flange ___ 126 Figure 66: Beam web. others fully protected ________ 124 Figure 61: Shear stud temperature for unprotected bottom flange____________ 124 Figure 62: Beam upper flange left unprotected. numerical against Test 1 ________________ 140 Figure 78: Beam lower flange time-temperature numerical against Test 1 _____ 141 Figure 79: Vertical deflection numerical analysis against Test 1 _____________ 141 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.22mm) __________ 118 Figure 54: Time-temperature for SP8 (Average beam dft =1.23mm) _________ 119 Figure 57: Shear studs modelled in ABAQUS ___________________________ 121 Figure 58: Beam fully protected ______________________________________ 123 Figure 59: Shear stud temperature for fully protected beam ________________ 123 Figure 60: Beam bottom flange left unprotected.5m long floor beam being removed from furnace following a fire test (reproduced from Wainman [3]) ______________________________________ 133 Figure 71: Mesh size sensitivity study for unprotected beam _______________ 135 Figure 72 : Mesh size sensitivity for protected beam ______________________ 135 Figure 73 : Typical numerical time-vertical deflection as probed from ABAQUS output _______________________________________________________________ 137 Figure 74: Application of vertical load which is spread around the nodes and inset figure shows the convergence due to application of vertical load at one single node _______________________________________________________________ 138 Figure 75: Vertical deflection (U2) for Test 1 ____________________________ 139 Figure 76: Beam upper flange time-temperature.25mm) __________ 119 Figure 56: Time-temperature for SP10 (Average beam dft =1.02mm) __________ 115 Figure 49: Time-temperature for SP3 (Average column dft = 0. both side left unprotected _________________________ 127 Figure 67: Shear stud temperature for unprotected web ___________________ 127 Figure 68: Temperature-time relationship for base of shear stud at elevated temperature for various fire protection damages _________________________ 129 Figure 69: Typical force–slip–temperature curves for shear stud connectors [128] 129 Figure 70: A 4.62mm) ________ 117 Figure 53: Time-temperature for SP7 (Average beam dft =1.60mm) ________ 116 Figure 50: Time-temperature for SP4 (Average beam dft =1.18mm) __________ 117 Figure 52: Time-temperature for SP6 (Average column dft = 0.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Figure 40: Linear and quadratic brick elements (reproduced from ABAQUS/Standard User’s Manual [38]) ________________________________________________ 98 Figure 41: Improper balance of the positive and negative regions _____________ 99 Figure 42: Good balance of the positive and negative regions_______________ 100 Figure 43: True stress and strain curve ________________________________ 106 Figure 44: Flowchart tree in ABAQUS finite-element analysis _______________ 108 Figure 45: Partially protected steel beam-to-column connection for furnace test _ 111 Figure 46: Temperature distribution for steel beam with partial intumescent coating protection at the beam _____________________________________________ 111 Figure 47: Time-temperature for SP1 (Average beam dft =1.28mm) __________ 116 Figure 51: Time-temperature for SP5 (Average beam dft =1. numerical against Test 1_____ 140 Figure 77: Web time-temperature.11mm) __________ 115 Figure 48: Time-temperature for SP2 (Average beam dft =1. 15 .

numerical against Test 2 ___________ 143 Figure 84 : Vertical deflection numerical analysis against Test 2 _____________ 144 Figure 85: Vertical deflection (U2) for Test 3 ____________________________ 145 Figure 86: Beam upper flange time-temperature. numerical against Test 5_____ 150 Figure 97: Beam web time-temperature.5mm intumescent thickness ___ 170 Figure 114: 30 mins temperature distribution for 10% damage at lower bottom flange ends for 2mm intumescent thickness __________________________________ 171 Figure 115: 60 mins temperature distribution and time-temperature-deflection for 10% damage at lower bottom flange ends for 2mm intumescent thickness _____ 171 Figure 116 : Fire resistance of intumescent for damage scenario 1___________ 172 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. numerical against Test 3_____ 145 Figure 87: Beam web time-temperature numerical against Test 3 ____________ 146 Figure 88: Beam lower flange time-temperature numerical against Test 3 _____ 146 Figure 89: Vertical deflection numerical analysis against Test 3 _____________ 146 Figure 90: Vertical deflection (U2) for Test 4 ____________________________ 147 Figure 91: Beam upper flange time-temperature. numerical against Test 5 _____ 151 Figure 99: Vertical deflection numerical analysis against Test 5 _____________ 151 Figure 100: Schematic diagram for location of steel beam protection _________ 155 Figure 101 : Numerical deflection for partially protected intumescent for Test 1 _ 157 Figure 102: Numerical deflection for partially protected intumescent for Test 2 __ 158 Figure 103: Numerical deflection for partially protected intumescent for Test 3 __ 159 Figure 104: Numerical deflection for partially protected intumescent for Test 4 __ 160 Figure 105: Numerical time-vertical deflection for intumescent coat left unprotected in Test 5 __________________________________________________________ 160 Figure 106: Typical deflection regression of intumescent protected and or left unprotected steel beam ____________________________________________ 162 Figure 107 : Schematic diagram of damage scenarios on steel beam _________ 165 Figure 108: 30 mins temperature distribution for 10% damage at lower bottom flange ends for 0. numerical against Test 4_____ 148 Figure 92: Beam web time-temperature.5mm intumescent thickness ________________________________ 169 Figure 113: 60 mins temperature distribution and time-temperature-deflection for 10% damage at lower bottom flange ends for 1. numerical against Test 4 _____ 148 Figure 94: Vertical deflection numerical analysis against Test 4 _____________ 149 Figure 95: Vertical deflection (U2) for Test 5 ____________________________ 150 Figure 96: Beam upper flange time-temperature.5mm intumescent thickness ___ 167 Figure 110: 30 min temperature distribution for 10% damage at lower bottom flange ends for 1mm intumescent thickness __________________________________ 168 Figure 111: 60 mins temperature distribution and time-temperature-deflection for 10% damage at lower bottom flange ends for 1mm intumescent thickness _____ 168 Figure 112: 30 mins temperature distribution for 10% damage at lower bottom flange ends for 1.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Figure 80: Vertical deflection (U2) for Test 2 ____________________________ 142 Figure 81 : Beam upper flange time-temperature numerical against Test 2_____ 142 Figure 82 : Beam lower flange time-temperature numerical against Test 2 _____ 143 Figure 83: Beam web time-temperature. numerical against Test 5 ___________ 150 Figure 98: Beam lower flange time-temperature. numerical against Test 4 ___________ 148 Figure 93: Beam lower flange time-temperature. 16 .5mm intumescent thickness ________________________________ 166 Figure 109: 60 mins temperature distribution and time-temperature-deflection for 10% damage at lower bottom flange ends for 0.

The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Figure 117: 30 mins temperature distribution for 10% damage at lower bottom flange centre region for 0.5mm intumescent thickness _ 189 Figure 137: 30 mins temperature distribution for 1mm intumescent thickness___ 189 Figure 138 : 60 mins temperature distribution for 1mm intumescent thickness __ 190 Figure 139: 30 mins temperature distribution for 1.5mm intumescent thickness ________ 185 Figure 132: 30 mins temperature distribution for 10% damage at centre of top flange for 2mm intumescent thickness ______________________________________ 185 Figure 133: 60 mins temperature distribution and time-temperature-deflection for 10% damage at centre of top flange for 2mm intumescent thickness _________ 186 Figure 134 : Fire resistance of intumescent damage steel beam in scenario 3 __ 186 Figure 135: 30 mins temperature distribution for 0.5mm intumescent thickness __________________________ 177 Figure 122: 60 mins temperature distribution and time-temperature-deflection for 10% damage at lower bottom flange centre region for 1.5mm intumescent thickness _ 191 Figure 141 : 30 mins temperature distribution for 2mm intumescent thickness __ 192 Figure 142: 60 mins temperature distribution for 2mm intumescent thicknes____ 192 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. 17 .5mm intumescent thickness _______________________________________________________________ 175 Figure 119: 30 mins temperature distribution for 10% damage at lower bottom flange centre region for 1mm intumescent thickness ___________________________ 176 Figure 120: 60 mins temperature distribution and time-temperature-deflection for 10% damage at lower bottom flange centre region for 1mm intumescent thickness _______________________________________________________________ 176 Figure 121: 30 mins temperature distribution for 10% damage at lower bottom flange centre region for 1.5mm intumescent thickness_____________________________________ 184 Figure 131: 60 mins temperature distribution and time-temperature-deflection for 10% damage at centre of top flange for 1.5mm intumescent thickness _______________________________________________________________ 177 Figure 123: 30 mins temperature distribution and time-temperature-deflection for 10% damage at lower bottom flange centre region for 2mm intumescent thickness _______________________________________________________________ 178 Figure 124: 60 mins temperature distribution and time-temperature-deflection for 10% damage at lower bottom flange centre region for 2mm intumescent thickness _______________________________________________________________ 179 Figure 125 : Fire resistance of intumescent damage steel beam in scenario 2 __ 179 Figure 126: 30 mins temperature distribution for 10% damage at centre of top flange for 0.5mm intumescent thickness_____________________________________ 181 Figure 127: 60 mins temperature distribution and time-temperature-deflection for 10% damage at centre of top flange for 0.5mm intumescent thickness _ 188 Figure 136: 60 mins temperature distribution for 0.5mm intumescent thickness _ 191 Figure 140: 60 mins temperature distribution for 1.5mm intumescent thickness ________ 182 Figure 128: 30 mins temperature distribution for 10% damage at centre of top flange for 1mm intumescent thickness ______________________________________ 183 Figure 129: 60 mins temperature distribution and time-temperature-deflection for 10% damage at centre of top flange for 1mm intumescent thickness _________ 183 Figure 130: 30 mins temperature distribution for 10% damage at centre of top flange for 1.5mm intumescent thickness __________________________ 174 Figure 118: 60 mins temperature distribution and time-temperature-deflection for 10% damage at lower bottom flange centre region for 0.

The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Figure 143: Fire resistance of intumescent damage steel beam in scenario 4___ Figure 144: Discretization error due to poor geometry representation _________ Figure 145: Discretization error effectively eliminated _____________________ Figure 146: Process Flow in a Typical FEM Analysis using ABAQUS _________ RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY 193 211 211 212 P. 18 .

............................ 121 Table 10: Average aspect ratio of mesh for unprotected beam in ABAQUS [2] .......................... 90 Table 7: Node and element definition.............................................................................................................. 89 Table 5: Thermal Conductivity of spray-on fire protection ............................................................................................ 163 Table 14: True yield stress and true plastic strain computed ............... 156 Table 13 : Zones of deflection regression for intumescent coating ........ 89 Table 6: Specific Heat of spray-on fire protection...... 213 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.......................... 65 Table 3: Variation of Poisson’s ratio of steel with temperature......................The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature List of Tables Table 1: Components of intumescent systems [59] ........... 57 Table 2: Experimental works for various fire protection schemes [79] ............................ 96 Table 8: Conventional versus continuum shell elements........... 73 Table 4: Density of spray-on fire protection..... 19 .................... 104 Table 9: W24 X 55 section properties .................................... 134 Table 12: Percentage of missing intumescent protection for steel beams............................. 134 Table 11 : Average aspect ratio of mesh for protected beam in ABAQUS [2] ..................................................

t steel temperature at time t [°C] t elapsed time(mins) Tf furnace temperature (ºC) Ts steel plate temperature β total heat transfer coefficient ε emissivity εm emissivity coefficients of steel RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. 20 .t increase of the ambient gas temperature during the time interval Dt [K] θm surface temperature of the member(ºC) θr effective radiation temperature of the fire(ºC) la thermal conductivity of steel lp thermal conductivity of the fire protection system [W/mK] ra unit mass of steel [kg/m3] rp unit mass of the fire protection material [kg/m3] dp thickness of fire protection ds thickness of steel plate Dt time interval [seconds] hnet net heat flux hnet.r net radiative heat flux Dqa.c net convective heat flux hnet.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Notations Φ configuration factor (generally taken as unity) Ap the appropriate area of fire protection material per unit length of the member [m²/m] Ap/V section factor of the protected section [ m −1 ] P/Pu shear force/ultimate shear force αc convective heat transfer coefficient cp specific heat of fire protection material ca specific heat of steel θg gas temperature in the furnace Dqg.

θ limiting strain for yield strength ε u .θ strain at the proportional limit ε y .The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature εf emissivity of fire εp emissivity of fire protection σ Stefan-Boltzman constant (= 5.θ proportional limit E a . ε sc the degree of blackness of the flame and the char surface C portion of the polymer that is converted into char G portion of the gaseous combustion products (C+G=1) RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.θ yield strain ε t .θ slope of the linear elastic range ε p .θ effective yield limit f p .θ ultimate strain m& mass burning rate Qf density of heat flux from the flame Cp effective thermal capacity of the polymer Ts surface temperature T0 initial temperature Ql heat expended on gasification of the polymer h heat transfer coefficient Tf flame temperature Tsc surface temperature of the char Tsp surface temperature of the polymer cc average thermal capacities of the char c pol average thermal capacities of the polymer cg average thermal capacities of the gas T0 initial temperature ε .67 x 10-8W/m2K4) f y . 21 .

22 .The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature q gas heat release due to chemical reactions of char gasification qtrans heat release due to chemical reactions of polymer gasification ksh correction factor of shadow factor dft dry film thickness odb output database RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.

claiming lives. to collapse in the event of fire. The fire protection concept has been adopted to explain the extended ability of structural steel to withstand the applied load at ambient temperature in an event of fire. and intumescent coatings. 23 . But since naked steel elements are very good thermal conductors. partial protection and damaged protection has not always been appreciated and properly taken into consideration during design. steel is widely used globally today for modern construction. Passive fire protection is widely used for steel within a building to protect and retard the flow of heat energy in the event of fire. causing personal injuries and much more. and once subjected to fire. due to its ductile nature. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. since fire protection systems (primarily spray-on boards and intumescents) are very fragile in nature upon application. However. Typical types of passive protection adopted are spray-on coating. In the context of buildings.1 Background Fire is so fiendish that it is one of nature’s worst calamities. Although fire protection is very common for structural steel.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Chapter 1 Introduction 1. resulting in loss of its load bearing capacity. damage to them could occur at any stage during construction and/or after commissioning of the building. this could lead to a rapid increase in steel temperature. destroying properties. it may be possible to reduce the use of passive fire protection costs by improving their effectiveness in economic terms [1]. boards. the behaviour of full fire protection. With the advances in fire protection engineering. It is very unlikely for steel.

This is particularly noted at wall corners. 24 . environmentally caused damage to fire protection is particularly noted in spray-on materials where material is exposed to a range of different weathering conditions. 1. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. bridges and other steel associated structural members where they are exposed to continuing wind and rain. on the corners of flanges and webs of exposed beams and on primary structural steelwork. The author’s work presented in this thesis will provide an useful assessment to be carried out by fire engineers if damage occurs to the regions of steel beams.2 Research aims The overall aim of this research project is to develop valuable assessment and response criteria of fire protection on steel beams at elevated temperature. using a digital meter around the vicinity of the damaged area. The performance of spray-on and intumescent passive fire protection under extreme loading actions at high temperatures gives an added guidance for existing building regulations. It should be repaired based on the outcome of a risk assessment explicit to the location and the severity of the coating’s damage. Damage to passive fire protection during periods of pre. remedial works to retrofit the fire protection must be done diligently to ensure the structural steel is once again safe and sound and ready to retard the heat flux once fire occurs. Generalizing repair procedures for particular damage types would be too prescriptive if the risks from fire attack are not fully defined. Since the damage will not impair the performance of the structural steel at ambient temperature. In addition.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Maintenance and service could lead to a high possibility of fire protection damage. steel frame factories.and post-construction should be identified by visual inspection and thickness readings. Typically these are exposed faces of the steel structures such as steel deck platforms.

2) To investigate and validate the thermal and structural model employing shell elements for unprotected. 1. building designers. simply supported floor beams. partial and damaged intumescent fire protection on steel beams will be assessed for its time-deflection during a fire by means of various damage scenarios using the non-linear finite-element analysis ABAQUS [2].3 Research objective The objectives of the research work are: 1) To investigate and validate the temperature profile for partially protected intumescent coating with various dry film thickness coatings for steel framed connections at elevated temperatures using finite-element models. 25 . Fire engineers. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. A number of suggestions are specified. designers and the property owners to minimise the risk caused by the fires. fire protection should be adopted by regulators. Intumescent coating. 3) To investigate the temperature distribution of shear studs at elevated temperature for partially protected sprayed-on fire protection using finiteelement models.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Full. ‘how much protection and at what cost’ will need to be understood profoundly in regard to the economics of fire protection. Fire calamities in buildings are inevitable and have been increasing annually. Ramachandran [1] suggested that. This research work disseminates valuable information for the use of fire protection material to minimise the repercussion effects of fire on steel structures. Once having happened. the ROI (return on investment) is at stake for both the owners and occupiers. clients and regulators could set a database of collective performance data for future reference regarding the application and knowledge of fire protection at elevated temperature. once subjected to fire will react and the chemical composition in the intumescent will excite to produce a reactive sandwich insulator. However. including the partial protection and damage effect of passive fire protection in real fires.

RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.1 Chapter 2: Literature review The chapter emphasizes the understanding of a performance based approach to fire design and fire behaviour. Temperature and deflection profiles provide useful and clear understanding of the performance of these fire protection materials at elevated temperatures. The outcome suggests important information for fire engineers and regulators assessing fire protection applications and the advantages of partial protection and the consequences of damage on structural steel elements. 1. Other scholarly reviews relevant to the research are briefly discussed. the effect of thickness and damage of intumescent fire protection on simply supported floor beams at elevated temperatures.4 Summary of chapters The overall chapters in this research are enumerated and summarized below. 1. which includes the thermal decomposition and combustion of the materials. It also highlights the non-reactive and reactive fire protection for steel members. Historical building fires and performance of unprotected and protected steel are addressed. non-linear finite-element package ABAQUS [2] was used.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 4) To evaluate the effect of partially protected intumescent fire protection on simply supported floor beams at elevated temperatures. In this research the. 5) To evaluate parametrically. 26 .2 Chapter 3: Properties of materials at elevated temperatures This chapter describes the associated material properties employed in non-linear finite-element ABAQUS [2] for thermal and structural analysis. 1.4.4.

4. 27 .The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 1.4.7 Chapter 8: Analysis of parametric results for thickness variability of intumescent for steel beams RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.5 Chapter 6: Analysis of results for structurally loaded and unprotected beams Data obtained from the compendium of UK [3] standard fire test data for loaded and unprotected structural steel are numerically analyzed using ABAQUS [2] and verified for its experimental time-deflection curves for a series of five independent tests. the integration technique and associated model behaviour in ABAQUS [2]. 1.4.3 Chapter 4: Finite-element method (FEM) and ABAQUS models This chapter explains the literature and fundamentals of FEM. 1. It also details the type of elements.6 Chapter 7: Analysis of parametric results for structurally loaded and partially protected intumescent for steel beams In this chapter.4.4.4 Chapter 5: Temperature distribution of protected composite beams This chapter describes graphically the temperature profile of intumescent coated steel beams at elevated temperature and validates the experimental results. an assessment of the response of a partially protected intumescent coating at elevated temperature is analyzed to determine its fire resistant capabilities. which was used in this study. 1. 1.

1. 28 .8 Chapter 9: Conclusions and future work Last of all.4. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. Different damage scenarios and thicknesses are analyzed to provide a combination of data for assessment. the conclusions of the author’s research are enumerated and recommendations are made for future work. additional assessment of the damage to an intumescent coating at elevated temperature is analyzed to determine its fire resistant capabilities.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature In this chapter.

However. Bukowski [4] indicated that the steer towards performance-based design took place in Japan in 1982. Over two decades ago. Building Regulations (1985): “A Building must be constructed so that in the case of a fire its stability will be maintained for a reasonable period of time and party walls will adequately resist the spread of fire.1 Introduction to fire engineering Fire engineering research is fast growing. This led to the birth of the performance-based approach for the assessment of structural fire design for improved safety and functionality. used by many engineers as a general rule of thumb served its intended purpose where individual building elements were assessed for their fire resistance. performance-based designs are already being used extensively.” RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. that is included in the U. In the United Kingdom and other European countries. This results in robust cost-effective design solutions.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Chapter 2 Literature Review 2. Advanced software programs for individual and global structural analyses are being adopted by consulting and design engineers. State-of-the-art findings and improved design methods are readily available for application in buildings and dwellings. Law [5] indicated a simple performance based statement. These analyses can be performed to predict the performance of both the individual and/or the global behaviour of structural steel in fire scenarios. complex and refined building design added the need for an enhanced method.K. commonly known as the deemed-to-satisfy method. Nevertheless. the prescriptive method. 29 .

30 . therefore. Structural fire engineering deals with specific aspects of passive fire protection in terms of analyzing the thermal effects of fires on buildings and designing structural members for adequate load bearing resistance. passive fire protection deals primarily with limiting the spread of fire within the members of structures and with providing a thermal barrier to structural members. flame retardant. the composite steel beam-column under elevated fire loading has become an important area of research in structural fire engineering. whereas. There are two methods of providing satisfactory fire protection for buildings and their contents. engineers could re-engineer to adapt to the performance based approach for an enhanced harmonization in fire design by accommodating fire behaviour. 2. which are active fire protection and passive fire protection. This intrinsic property is one of the key reasons why steel is largely used in modern construction. Steel on its own is high strength. thermal and structural analysis in structures. leading to loss of strength and stiffness. erection friendly and most imperative of all.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Although the author agrees that the prescriptive method could still be used in fire design. Many uncertainties arose RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. Bare steel temperature increases rapidly once exposed to fire due to its high thermal conductivity. Structural fire engineering and fire protection engineering are two main subsets in the multi-disciplines of fire safety engineering. nevertheless.2 Steel at elevated temperature The icon for avant-garde structural skyscrapers is steel. steel elements are eco-friendly because an entire steel building can be taken down and the steel materials recycled. Mechanical and electrical actions such as sprinkler systems and fire alarm detection systems are referred to as active fire protection. boards and finally reactive intumescent coatings [6]. concrete cover. Passive fire protection is a non-mechanical matter and it can be divided into non-reactive sprayon fire protection systems.

31 . Steel beams will fail in lateral and/or torsional buckling when the applied bending moment is equivalent to the plastic moment of resistance. New York came under terrorist attacks [7]. The aftermath alerted the engineering profession to investigate the many possibilities. However.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature regarding the robustness and serviceability of steel framed building in the aftermath of 11th September 2001 when the World Trade Centre (WTC). then the steel beam would survive longer. In addition. 2. the mechanical properties of steel deteriorate at elevated temperatures. 9]. linked to the collapse of the steel framed WTC building. In this instance. It is acknowledged that applied load on simply supported steel beams has a direct effect on the fire resistance period at elevated temperatures. The design resistance of steel in a fire situation depends on the thermal actions and the material properties at elevated temperatures. Columns and beams will be exposed to a standard ISO 834 [10] and/or BS 476 [11] curve in small scale (built for purpose) furnaces to determine their fire resistance. Lesser loads or massive beam sections will therefore result in an increased failure temperature. To determine the gas temperatures in the compartment. Moreover. reduced to account for temperature. engineers have practised the simple rule for fire resistance of building elements identified as the prescriptive design approach. up to 750oC. in common with other structural materials. Literature suggests that a simply supported beam with concrete topping and a load ratio of 0.60 would become plastic when the steel temperature reaches approximately 620oC [8. the increase of the temperature in the structural member can be obtained. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. the steel member design resistance can be determined with the temperature and the mechanical properties at high temperatures.3 Prescriptive and performance based approach For many years. By employing the simple and/or the advance calculation method. if a similar simply supported beam was subjected to a load ratio of 0.25. the appropriate temperature-time fire curve has to be defined first.

for probabilistically low occurrence events such as earthquakes. In the performance based code. dynamic and fire loading. it allows engineers to use the fire engineering concept to assess the fire safety of the global structure. with the suitable static. the minimum levels of fire resistance of structures over a period of specified exposure time are spelt out in the prescriptive codes. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. In addition. The performance based approach involves the assessment of three basic components comprising the likely fire behaviour. A performance based design approach is an alternative method that was developed over the last few years in various disciplines of engineering. repair or recovery cost and/or a combination of these criteria. The performance aim could meet criteria such as the environment. the performance based code would allow the user to identify the essential performance aims for a structural element. Nonetheless. heat transfer to the structure and the structural response. then the designer or engineer will design to the required level to ensure the robustness and reliability of the design is achieved [13].The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature the fire resistance provided by these elements are assumed to provide an adequate level of fire safety in an actual fire scenario [12]. The structural elements are protected from thermal effects inside the furnace to prevent a loss of strength and stiffness by ensuring sufficient level of insulation. cost saving and improvements on life safety could be considered. Once this is established. other possibilities may be considered such as methods of fire controls. In fire safety engineering. Prescriptive design codes are similar in nature compared to the traditional fire testing techniques. 32 . Moreover. the engineer or designer needs to first recognize the level of performance that will be expected. life safety. This could be achieved by adopting an approach that considers not only the life safety and environmental aspects but also other factors such as the cost of repair in the event of fire. containment. For an entire building system. structural integrity. however. and methods of reducing the impact of a fire attack.

fire density. because it assumes even gas heating and fire spread whilst not taking into consideration the smoke movement. distribution. whereas Figure 2 shows the nominal temperature time curves comprising standard fires. and density will never be the same from one to another. external fires.1 Fire behaviour The author believes that fire behaviour is rather analogous to the behaviour of snowflakes. pattern. this includes the time equivalent concept. snowflakes’ momentum. soot or smoke amount released and damage to internal and external structural elements in the event of fire. a RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. distribution. 33 .3. nominal fires Increase in complexity time-equivalent compartment fires zone models/CFD models Figure 1: Fire models with increase in complexity Each fire bears its own distinctive behaviour in terms of fire intensity. are considered simple in terms of application. It is not merely because the former is hot and the latter is cold. Figure 1 illustrates the fire models with an increase in complexity. which relate to the temperature-time relationship.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 2. This applies in the same manner for fire. and smouldering fires. Additionally. geometry. The fire models. but because of the idiosyncratic behaviour of each of them. hydrocarbon fires. For instance.

The convective heat transfer coefficient is a function of temperature. and although convection will occur at all stages of a fire.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature parametric fire provides a simple design method to approximate post-flashover compartment fire and takes into account the fuel load.2 Heat transfer analysis Heat transfer analysis is computed to determine the temperature development for unprotected and protected steel. 34 . it is particularly important at low temperatures where radiation levels are low. heat is transferred to the steel member through convection and radiation. The use of advanced models such as the zone models and CFD models will give detailed parameters of the fire behaviour that will simulate the heat and mass transfer. ventilation conditions and the thermal properties of compartment walls and ceilings. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.3. Generally. once subjected to fire. Temperature (°C) 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 10 20 30 50 60 Time (mins) Hydrocarbon fire (EN 1991-1-2) External fire (EN 1991-1-2) Standard fire curve (EN 1991-1-2) Smouldering curve (PD 7974-1) Large pool hydrocarbon (PD 7974-1) Figure 2: Nominal temperature time curves based on EN 1991-1-2 [14] and PD 7974-1[15] 2.

and will have a higher fire resistance than will a light. The full description can be found in Table 4. Macro-convection mainly occurs when air pores are open.1 Section factor Am/V The section factor Am/V reflects geometric aspects of the steel cross-section and the way it is exposed to fire. Section factor = Am V RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY Equation 1 P. If the pore sizes of gas spaces are similar in both samples then the kvalue of the polyurethane foam will always be lower.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature In practice. The section factor is defined as the ratio of the section’s circumference along which heat is subjected to the section’s surface area.3. slender section. A uniform temperature distribution is then mostly justified. Evidently.3 of EN 1993:1:2 [17].2. The mean free path is very small. in the order of 10-4 for air at atmospheric temperature. 35 . full convection takes place and an added increase in cavity dimension no longer affects its k-value [16]. and Figure 3 shows the fire exposure section for both unprotected and protected steel. Micro-convection occurs when gases are present in cavities that go beyond the mean free path of the free moving molecules. Some micro-convection therefore always occurs apart from in high void insulators where it is found that the air spaces are less than about 0. Cross-sections with a high section factor will respond faster to a thermal load and will warm up more quickly. An example of samples between closed pores of polyurethane and open pores of mineral wool can be compared to illustrate macroconvection. The concept of the section factor is illustrated in Equation 1. a heavier or very large section will heat up more slowly. Once air cavities exceed 10mm to 15mm in size.1micrometre. 2. convection for gases is divided between ‘micro-convection’ and ‘macroconvection’. The difference in temperature causes the gaseous molecules to move along the open passageway due to buoyancy differences.

The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Where. and it is clearly related to the shape of the steel section. while it is irrelevant for closed types of sections (e.2 Shadow effect The shadow coefficient (ksh) is a reduction factor.g.g.9[ Am / V ]box /[ Am / V ] Equation 2 In all other cases. It can be shown that for I-sections the shadow effect can be computed using Equations 2 and 3 respectively [17]: k sh = 0. It is only applicable to open types of sections (e. The shadow effect is caused by the fact that parts of the section are locally shielded from the heat source.3. the following relationship can be used to assess the value of ksh: k sh = [ Am / V ]box /[ Am / V ] RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY Equation 3 P. I-sections). 36 . hollow tubular sections). Am = the perimeter of the steel exposed to flames (m) 2 V = the cross sectional area of the section (m ) Bare steel Protected steel Figure 3: Fire exposure sections for unprotected and protected steel members exposed to fire 2.2. It can be included in the calculation of temperatures for unprotected steel sections exposed to a standard fire.

yield stress. and axially restrained. For the column tested at ambient temperature.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature [ Am / V ]box is defined as the ratio of the imaginary perimeter encompassing the I-steel section. 37 . whereas at ambient temperature it is possible to employ the linear elastic theory. Since the stress-strain relation at elevated temperature is non-linear the linear elastic theory cannot be used for fire design. Figure 4: Imaginary perimeter For some protected steel elements the shadow coefficient is relatively insignificant and may be taken as equal to unity [17]. the numerical analysis was found to closely replicate both the ascending and descending branches of the load-deflection curve. The end-support condition for the columns was unrestrained. to the I-steel section area shown in Figure 4. The columns were subjected to different heating rates and loads.3. The tests include one column tested at ambient temperature and the remaining 17 columns tested at elevated temperatures. The non-linear behaviour of a steel element or frame is affected by the variation of the modulus of elasticity. This indicates that the numerical analysis is capable of predicting column behaviour precisely at RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. 2.3 Structural analysis By determining the thermal properties of steel at elevated temperature it is then possible to calculate the mechanical behaviour of steel in similar conditions. rotationally restrained. and creep strain. thermal expansion coefficient. Poh [18] established a numerical model for predicting the critical temperature of steel columns based on the experimental results for elastic steel columns. The difference in computing the behaviour at ambient and elevated temperature is attributed to the use of the accurate stress-strain curve.

23]. The accuracy of the numerical results for columns at elevated temperatures did predict well and was largely dependent on the assumption that material properties change with temperature. one needs to utilize the realistic stress-strain temperature dependent data for structural materials and use lower partial safety factors than those normally used for the ultimate limit states because the likelihood of such accidental occurrence is very rare. The real behaviour of these structural elements can therefore be very different from that designated by the standard furnace tests [22. The adaptive fire curve used mainly by Eurocodes is that according to the standard ISO 834 timetemperature curve. In actual buildings. although other parametric curves are also used. and EN 1994-1-2 [21].4 Fire limit state The Eurocodes. For a similar load and exposure conditions. Gewain [19] concluded that the end restraint provided for a structural steel beam could significantly increase the structural response. it was suggested that the change in temperature along the cross-section of the steel column must be considered. which are: RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. EN 1993-1-2 [17]. A series of failure criteria can be identified from a furnace test. In addition. To achieve this. 38 .The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature ambient temperature. The main drawback of the Eurocode’s approach is that they are sometimes based on individual tests such as tests on an isolated simply supported member. EN 1992-1-2 [20]. have undisputedly moved towards a full performance-based design by permitting designers to treat fire as an accidental limit state. 2. it was found that a beam with rotational restraint at both ends exhibits less deflection and survives longer compared to a beam with free-rotations at the ends. the structural elements are made more redundant by forming part of a continuous assembly and more often than not building fires remain localized. with the fire-affected region of the structure being subjected to significant restraint from the cooler areas surrounding it.

from the famous Cardington frame fire tests [24] to the infamous terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre [25]. United Kingdom Three years upon completion in 1988. The initial fire started on the 8th floor and spread to the 10th floor as glazing failed [26]. c) No flame should be able to reach the unexposed face through any gaps during the test.5 Historical overview of building fires. Churchill Plaza. Basingstoke. a fire took place in the 12-storey building. The above failure criteria are identified simply as load-bearing capacity (a). insulation (b) and integrity (c). Sprayed on fire protection Mandolite CP2 (mix of vermiculite and portland cement) was used for the composite steel frame. 2.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature a) The structural element under test should have sufficient strength to resist the applied loading over the period of test time. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. Unfortunately integrity is not acquiescent to calculation and normally needs to be determined by physical testing.5. Basingstoke. and board protection [26] was used for the columns. The thickness varied between 8mm to 18mm depending on the Am/V ratio of the sections [27]. b) Temperatures on the unexposed side should be low so as not to cause initiation of combustion of materials stored against that face.1 Churchill Plaza. will be highlighted to understand how the fire disaster challenged current design practices and the tools that were used to evaluate the performance of structures in the event of a fire. 39 . Various case studies for building fires. 2.

the dovetailed steel decking showed some signs of composite debonding from the concrete floor slab. The fire growth started on the eighth floor and spread rapidly to the ninth and the tenth floors. In places. The structure was designed to have 90 mins fire resistance.carrying capacity and could be reused without repair [26]. Basingstoke following the fire [28] RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. The underside of the composite floor was not fire protected. A load test was conducted on the most badly affected area.5 times the total design load was applied.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature The Mandolite CP2 fire protection performed well and no permanent deformation of the connections or the steel frame was noticed. 40 . Fire between floors 8 and 10 Figure 5: Churchill Plaza. Fire protection performed well under fire and no permanent deformation was noted on the steel frame. The spread was attributed to the failed window glass. A load of 1. The test showed that the slab had adequate load.000 square metres in size. Floor plates are available up to almost 1. Churchill Plaza features office accommodation in two wings located off a central core.

41 .5. London.2 Broadgate Phase Fire. together with the effects of thermal RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. the composite floor endured gross deformations and it was found that the maximum and stable vertical displacement was 600mm. United Kingdom In mid 1990 a fire developed on the first floor of the 14-storey Broadgate building during construction. The structure of the building consisted of composite steel deck. Some of the steel structures were partially unprotected during the construction. Figure 6: Unprotected column locally buckled at Broadgate [29] Subsequent to the fire exposure. beams. steel trusses and concrete floors. In some areas.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 2. Flame temperatures were in excess of 1000°C. Although some of the columns deformed. Despite some large deflections (Figure 6). there was no collapse of any of the columns. the steel profiled decking had debonded from the concrete as observed after the fire in Churchill Plaza. This was considered to be caused mainly by steam release from the concrete. The severe period of fire lasted about two hours and burning continued at a slower rate for up to 5 hours. the structure showed no signs of collapse. It is believed that the lessaffected parts of the structure were able to carry the additional loads that were redistributed away from the weakened areas. Basingstoke. or floors.

researchers. Bedfordshire. Large deflections were not a sign of instability and local buckling of beams helped thermal strains to move directly into deflections rather than cause high stress states in the structure. Furthermore. Only near failure. England to mimic a real large-scale steel-framed structure under fire loading [24]. UK. 2. Computer modelling and simulation were worked on by a number of groups looking into models to understand the behaviour of composite structures in fire. This Broadgate fire led to the September 1996 Cardington frame fire tests at BRE Cardington laboratory. The wealth of available data during the periods of tests at Cardington in 1995 led to research progress in a number of areas.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature restraint and the degree of difference in expansion. United Kingdom Eight floors. 42 . In addition. Bailey [32] and Usmani [31] have investigated and recognized the behaviour of whole frame composite steel-concrete structures in response to fire. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.5. thermal increase and thermal bowing of the structural elements rather than material degradation or gravity loading governed the response to fire. Bailey [32] made some contributions to translate these analytical developments into design advice. with an approximate plan area of 945m2.3 The Cardington Fire Tests. Bedfordshire. gravity loads and strength will again become critical factors. steel composite structure was erected at the Cardington hangar. The fundamental mechanics of heated structures were researched by Rotter [30] and Usmani [31]. for most of the fire duration. Kirby [33]. The most important justification was that the composite framed structures possessed reserves of strength by adopting large displacement configurations with catenary action in beams and tensile membrane behaviour in the slabs.

The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Figure 7: Unprotected steel frame connection failure after full-scale test Figure 8: Partial column sprayed fire protection using CAFCO C300 [6] RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. 43 .

UK for unprotected. the actual behaviour is determined by a global response of beams and columns at elevated temperature. However. 34]. Non-linear finite-element analysis of composite structures has been used to assess the performance of structures in fire and has been validated against full-scale tests [35]. partial protected and fully protected steel [32. which incorporates non-linear geometry. Usmani [31] suggests that although non-linear analysis gives the most precise understanding of actual behaviour. Presently. structural global response behaviour can be computed most accurately in a complex situation by using a non-linear finite-element program. non-linear material constitutive properties with increasing temperature and thermal expansion coefficients.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Figure 9: Full column and connection sprayed fire protection using CAFCO C300 [6] Figures 7 to 9 show some details from a series of fire tests at Cardington. The standard furnace test does not consider the actual structural response in fire conditions because single elements of structure are tested in a controlled furnace. there are many sensitive parameters that can RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. 44 .

2. Figure 10: Damaged fire protection on diagonal member of a bridging floor truss [25] RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.4 World Trade Centre Towers. Further research and debate is needed to come to the same opinion in design methods and assumptions. New York. The author would also like to give a huge credit to those involved in the design and construction of the nearly 0. some imperative lessons were learned. The attack has destroyed an aesthetic building and left major implications for the public. Unfortunately. thousands of people have been killed. United States The infamous terrorist attack led to the collapse of the World Trade Centre (WTC) Tower 1.5. 2 and 7 in New York on 11 September 2001 [25]. While the event itself was severe. outlining its study into the collapse of the WTC. with the massive impact that led to the total collapse of the building.5million tonnes building that absorbed the massive impact from the commercial planes and remained robust enough to allow many occupants to flee before progressive collapse occurred. the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) published a report.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature affect results. This event has forced designers and regulators to question the approach to the fire-safety design of high risk buildings. In May 2002. The author’s thoughts are with the individuals and family members who lost their loved ones in the worst building tragedy. 45 .

46 . proprietary fire protection schemes.6 General fire protection systems Fire protection is presently seen by most regulators and designers as a necessary part of the construction process. These aforementioned changes will influence the global behaviour for structures in the event of fire. Design criteria and philosophies have evolved from elastic-to-plastic-to-limit state approaches. The term simple construction has now advanced to composite construction. buildings get versatile fire protection systems. The robustness of connections between beams and columns needs detailed understanding. from man made fibres. and human response. To have more redundant and diversified structural systems. Many aged buildings were retrofitted to cater for additional loading and domestic fittings. fire safety systems. 37]: i. In addition. and the type of structural members. Fire protection methods are dependent on the fire load. fire rating. To integrate the behaviour of structural systems under fire response. In addition. Fire protection materials need to adhere under their design exposure conditions. The report suggests that a universal solution is required to interact between structural fire behaviour. 2.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Some of the report’s main recommendations with respect to structural fire engineering were [36. iv. iii. and the active and passive fire protection that is applied in the building and structural elements. Over the last half-century. foams and boards. it states that the fire performance of the structure is determined by the combination of the natural (inherent) fire resistance of the structure. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. vast changes have occurred in the type and application of fire protection systems. ii.

Am/V. 2. There are two types of fire protection. during and after fire.1 W/m. It is also required to prevent fire from spreading to surrounding buildings and areas. rockwool.K range. large storage vessels.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature The fire protection philosophy is designed to cater for safe escape of the people inside the structure whilst safeguarding the structure and its contents. which fall in the nonreactive group and intumescent coating. such as steel. Fire protection can be considered as a means of slowing down the heat energy [16].2 W/m.6. and organic resin-based intumescent coatings are widely used to protect structural steel members such as beams and columns against fire. Exposed steel members heat more quickly compared to protected steel in the event of fire due to their high ratio of heated perimeter to cross sectional area. The required number and thickness of the boards is dependent on the fire rating required and the type of board material used. therefore it prolongs the structural resistance of steel. The use of these systems relies heavily on the ‘stickability’ and adhesion to the source. process plant and loading installations. and finally to the structural member. 47 . Thermal conductivity is often in the 0. Fire protection acts as an immediate barrier between the fire and structural steel. namely active and passive fire protection systems. The most commonly known systems are boards and sprays. ceramic fibres. or mineral fibreboard with resin or gypsum. Passive protection does not modify the intrinsic properties of the material being protected.1 Board protection Board protection systems are typically slab-type materials made from calcium silicate.K to 0. which falls in the reactive group. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. and may contain lightweight fillers including vermiculite. Active fire protection systems such as water sprinklers and spray systems are widely used in the process industries for protection of warehouses. Passive fire protection or passive fireproofing materials such as spray-on. . They attach to metal or wood framing.

Typical components are cement-based products or gypsum with a lightweight aggregate (vermiculite. or expanded polystyrene beads) that have some type of cellulosic or glass fibre reinforcement [38]. which is no longer allowed due to health issues.2 Spray protection This type of protective system is normally sprayed onto the surface following mixing of the required components. Some of the earliest spray applied fire protection materials contained asbestos. perlite. For two hours the thickness is 25 mm to 40 mm. Ap/V of 150m-1 and to achieve a one-hour fire rating is approximately 15 mm to 20 mm. Insulating board products are applied to columns more than beams due to aesthetic reasons and the fact that beams are not always visible in the finished building environment. Gypsum board’s insulating properties are better than calcium silicate because it contains more water.6. 48 . and thus the time needed to heat the gypsum boards up and evaporate the water is greater than that for calcium silicate boards. Spray applied fireproofing is typically one of the more inexpensive means to protect structural elements [39]. Other usage applications include protecting ducts and fire rated barriers. However.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature The thickness to protect an I-section with. loss of water also adversely influences the strength of the remaining gypsum board. 2. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.

UK (April 2010)] RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. but normally the manufacturer provides the thicknesses. 49 .UK (April 2010)] On a generic basis. Manchester.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Figure 11: Utility pipes and support struts fixed along spray-on fire protected beam [Photographed inside Printworks. spray protection steel beam board protection Figure 12: Exposed spray-on fire protection at the beam’s flange [Photographed inside Printworks. Test methods exist to assess the adhesion and cohesion characteristics of the material. Manchester. some publications specify the thicknesses required to achieve various fire-resistance ratings.

Since the late 1970’s.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature post construction fire protection damage left untreated Figure 13: Exposed beam left untreated at Printworks. however. (April 2010)] 2. proprietary systems such as boards. sprays and intumescents has seen a dramatic reduction in its use. the introduction of lightweight. Manchester.UK. 50 . RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. Manchester [Photographed inside Printworks. At present concrete encasement has only a small percentage of the fire protection market with other traditional methods such as blockwork encasement also used occasionally.6.3 Concrete encasement Concrete was by far the most used form of fire protection for structural steelwork.

Moreover. It means ‘swelling up’ and explicitly describes the behaviour of an intumescent material. and beyond a critical temperature.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature partial concrete encasement for steel protection Figure 14: Steel columns protected by concrete [40] The composite action of the steel and concrete can provide higher load resistance in addition to high fire resistance. Once subjected to elevated heat. 51 .1 Introduction The origin of the word ‘intumescence’ comes from Latin ‘intumescere’. carbonation of concrete aids in encouraging corrosion of steel and the presence of concrete effectively hides the steel in distress until it is too late.7. this method results in an increase in dead weight loading compared to a protected steel frame. 2. the material starts to RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. However.7 Intumescent fire protection system 2.

regarding its development and chemistry. 2. The usages of thin film intumescent coatings are increasing in the UK because they provide a high standard of finish. Although intumescent coatings offer great protection for steel. The thickness of the applied intumescent paint material is typically 0. The result of this swelling process is a void cellular charred layer on the surface which protects the underlying material from the action of the heat [41.5 mm to a few mm but can be as much as 5 mm. whereas. Being both aesthetic and fire-retardant. 52 . When heated. 90. Other existing models RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.2 Fundamentals of Intumescent flame retardants Intumescence is a complex process that can act chemically and/or physically in the solid. and reliability. Most models describe the intumescent behaviour with char forming polymers as a heat transfer problem. 60. liquid or gas phase. Camino’s work pioneered the development of intumescent in polymers[44. the chemical components of the thin coating react and swell to form an insulating layer at elevated temperature. The “guinea pig” in intumescent fundamentals were first expressed by Vandersall [41]. 45]. Since the first comprehensive paper about intumescent material. quality. intumescent coatings have won the approval of many architects and designers who now specify this type of protection to structural steel members. and 120 mins fire resistance.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature swell. Intumescent coatings have an attractive architectural appearance. lack of space between adjacent steel members hindering it’s expansion.7. Intumescent coating exhibits a different character in comparison to other proprietary fire protection materials. 42]. they are also susceptible to environmental influences such as mechanical impact during construction. most literature indicates that intumescent growth has been very positive and it is widely employed to make intumescent fire retardant paints and/or polymers [43]. They can be applied on or off-site and can be used on buildings requiring 30. was published four decades ago [41]. and gusty winds during a fire which blows away the charring intumescent leaving steel exposed to fire. and are very lightweight.

The intumescence was accounted for by considering the mass loss during the process. the most relevant being the consideration of one-dimensional heat transfer through material. This foamed layer. Anderson [52] presented an estimate for the effective char thermal conductivity. assuming the heat rate per unit mass generated by chemical reactions to be mainly at the pyrolysis zone and the heat due to the outgassing of volatile products. 51] developed a mathematical model which describes the mechanism of intumescence by considering the mass and energy conservation equations. protects the underlying material from the action of the heat flux. the models presented so far are based on several assumptions. Thermochemical processes of intumescence also occur without energy release or energy absorption [53]. The charred layer acts as a physical barrier that slows down heat and mass transfer between gas and RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. whose density decreases as a function of temperature. 53 . thermal and transport phenomenon [4649]. accounting for the complex sequence of chemical reactions. the virgin material and the char layers. The intumescence process results from a combination of charring and foaming at the surface of the burning polymer shown in Figures 15 and 16 respectively. Anderson [50. The result showed that the insulation efficiency of the char depends on the cell structure and the low thermal conductivity of intumescent chars result from the pockets of trapped gas within the porous char which acts as a blowing agent to the solid material. Due to the thermal decomposition complexity of intumescent coating systems.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature provide more meticulous explanations regarding the intumescence and char development using kinetic studies of thermal degradation. The model assumes that the transition to the intumescent state occurs at a very thin zone (or front) and is divided into two regions. temperature and space independent thermal properties and the assumption of a constant incident heat flux where the heat losses by radiation and convection are ignored [47]. This model is compared with experimental results performed on steel plates coated with intumescent paints.

The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature condensed phase. and ignition process. inorganic borates.7. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. which form a protective vitreous barrier. Flame retardants interfere with combustion during the heating. The same mechanism can be observed using boric acid based additives. The author’s intention here is to provide the general principles of the modes of action of intumescent flame retardants. Aluminium trihydroxide (ATH) or magnesium hydroxide (MDH) act partially under this principle (endothermic decomposition with water release and formation of an oxide protective coating) and its efficiency depends on the amount incorporated in the polymer [55]. decomposition. phosphorus fire retardant additives also act in a similar manner. The additive can degrade endothermally which cools down the substrate to a temperature below that required for sustaining the combustion process. A classic example is the principle of the intumescence phenomenon (formation of an expanded carbonaceous protective coating).1 Formation of protective layer Fire retardant additives could form a protective shield with low thermal conductivity under an external heat flux that in turn can reduce the heat transfer from the heat source to the material. The various ways in which a flame retardant can act are described in the following sections.7. silicon compounds or low melting glasses [54]. thermally stable.2 Cooling The degradation reactions of the additive can play a part in the energy balance of combustion. 54 .2. It then reduces the degradation rate of the polymer and decreases the pyrolysis gases issued from the degradation of the material which feeds the flame in flammable molecules [42]. The pyrolysis leads to polyphosphoric groups. 2.2. 2. In addition.

hence.7. its withdrawal from the sphere of influence of the flame which breaks away. The radical mechanism of the combustion process. the flame retardant can cause a layer of carbon (charring). (ii) Reaction in the gaseous phase.g. The exothermic process which occurs in the flame is thus stopped. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. Here two types of reaction can take place.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 2. halogens can act as flame inhibitors [56]. which evolve into inert gases on decomposition. a ceramic-like structure and/or a glass to be formed at the polymer surface [43].3 Dilution The incorporation of inert substances (e. Firstly. Secondly.2. fillers such as talc) and additives. The most significant chemical reactions interfering with the combustion process take place in the condensed and gaseous phases: (i) Reaction in the condensed phase. the system cools down. and the supply of flammable gases is reduced and eventually completely suppressed. dilutes the fuel in the condensed and gaseous phases so that the lower ignition limit of the gas mixture is not reached. breakdown of the polymer can be accelerated by the flame retardant causing pronounced flow of the polymer and. In particular. 55 . which takes place in the gas phase. is interrupted by the flame retardant or its degradation products.

56 .The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Figure 15: Heat flux applied to intumescent coat using cone calorimeter [57] Figure 16: Intumescent ‘cake’ at elevated temperature[57] RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.

carbonization agent and blowing agents which are bound together by a binder [58]. Table 1: Components of intumescent systems [59] . These components are detailed in Table 1. trimer (v) Phenol-formaldehyde resins (vi) Methynol melamine (vii) Char former polymers Blowing agents RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) Urea Urea-formaldehyde resins Dicyandiamide Melamine P. COMPONENTS Acid source COMPOUNDS Inorganic acid source (i) Phosphoric (ii) Sulphuric (iii) Boric Ammonium salts (i) Phosphates. 57 .7.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 2. polyborates (iii) Sulphates (iv) Halides Phosphates of amine or amide (i) Reaction of urea products (ii) Urea with phosphoric acids (iii) Melamine phosphate (iv) Reaction of ammonia with P2O5 Carbonization agent Organophosphorus compounds (i) Tricresyl phosphate (ii) Alkyl phosphates (iii) Haloalkyl phosphates (i) Starch (ii) Dextrins (iii) Sorbitol.3 Components of Intumescent Systems Intumescent coatings generally include three major components which are acid source. polyphosphates (ii) Borates. mannitol (iv) Pentaerythritol. dimmer. monomer.

which cause the carbonaceous char to foam and expand. 58 .1 Mechanisms of Intumescence First. The heat resistance mechanism of reactive intumescent coatings is based on the development of a charred layer which acts as a physical barrier and retards the heat and mass transfer between gas and solid phases. This regenerates the acid and forms water vapour and carbonaceous char. If the temperature gradient and heat energy are low. Temperature gradients and heat energy play a crucial role in intumescent behaviour because they are proportional to the charring rate of the intumescent. Thermal protection is the most important purpose of intumescent materials and the heat conduction is limited by the charring rate of the intumescent coat. Additionally. Charring is crucial to the fire protective capabilities. which results in the formation of a dehydrated acid. it is evident that intumescent coatings can provide the function of thermal insulation mainly by means of thermochemical decomposition.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 2.3. fundamental understanding of the mechanism that causes expansion is imperative. In general. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. so that the decomposition of the acid source must occur before the thermal decomposition of the carbonific in order to yield dehydration (see Figures 17 and 18). the acid source decomposes to release the acid. and thermo-chemical expansion [60].7. Finally. the binder resin softens and the spumific agent decomposes with the release of a large volume of gases. The nitrogen source can catalyze this reaction. the charring rate will be slow and the fire resistance period of the steel member will be increased. forming bubbles. In addition. as shown in Figure 19. the char will expand from 10 to 60 times the original volume of the material. as the char forms. From the above description. blowing agents with predetermined decomposition temperatures are employed to ensure sufficient gas liberation at the proper time during the intumescent reaction. the ester must decompose by dehydration. The anhydrous acid then reacts with the hydroxyl groups of the carbonic to esterify the carbonific. therefore.

thus losing its bondage and becoming brittle [64]. a proper selection of components is essential. The coatings were obtained from the UK. In addition. Figure 17: Initial condition of intumescent coating applied to steel beam RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. it is very important to select proper binder resins because the binder will react with the acid source. For some intumescent coatings with alkali-silicate components. Several research studies suggested some polymers can contribute to the overall intumescence process [61-63]. 59 . namely char formers. sulphur dioxide gas resistance tests and thawing tests.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature To make the intumescent flame-retardant efficient. carbon source or blowing agents. It was found that water is the principal environmental factor that affects the durability of the intumescent coatings. Research investigated by Duquesne [63] found that thermal resistance for insulation improved vastly when linear and cross linked copolymers are used as binder in intumescent coatings. The tests included water resistance tests. accelerated weathering tests. Sakumoto [65] conducted a research study on the durability of intumescent coating. causing the silicate coating to steadily lose its intumescence. carbonising. dehydrating substances and modifiers allowing it to obtain a maximum degree of carbonisation and thus an efficiency of the protective char. Germany and Japan and were subjected to a series of accelerated heat tests. high humidity resistance tests. brittleness at elevated temperature is a concern because most silicates react with CO2 in the atmosphere.

and gasification can be written as [66]. The suggested expression for the mass burning rate m& obtained from the thermal-balance equation under the assumption that the total heat absorbed by the polymer from the flame goes to heating. 60 . destruction. m& = RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY Qf C p (Ts − T0 ) + Ql Equation 4 P.3.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Figure 18: Swelling process of intumescent coating Figure 19: Fully charred intumescent coating after fire 2. Equations 4 and 5 gives an overall insight into the parameters involved for intumescents to char and the relationship between thermal and material properties.2 Mathematical modelling of intumescences The intumescence process is tedious and complex because not all the factors that influence the process can be included.7.

the combustion rate decreases. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. pyrolysis. c g = average thermal capacities of the char.67x10-8 Js-1m-2K-4) = the degree of blackness of the flame and the char surface = portion of the polymer that is converted into char = portion of the gaseous combustion products (C+G=1) = heat release due to chemical reactions of char gasification qtrans = heat release due to chemical reactions of polymer gasification T0 σ ε . When the combustion is steady. 61 .The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature m& Qf = mass burning rate = density of heat flux from the flame Cp = effective thermal capacity of the polymer Ts T0 = surface temperature = initial temperature Ql = heat expended on gasification of the polymer The combustion process can be divided into several stages. the mass rate can be written as follows [67]: m& = h(T f − Tsc ) + σεT f4 − σε scTsc4 Equation 5 C[cc (Tsc − Tsp ) + q gas ] + c pol (Tsp − T0 ) + qtrans + G[c g (Tsc − Tsp )] h Tf = heat transfer coefficient = flame temperature Tsc = surface temperature of the char = surface temperature of the polymer Tsp cc . polymer and gas q gas = initial temperature = Stefan-Boltzmann constant (5. c pol . ε sc C G Reshetnikov [68] suggested that the practical value of the given mass burning rate formula is questionable because of the large number of parameters that can only be obtained from experiments and that can vary during combustion. When the char has been created. The polymer then extinguishes or the combustion rate stabilizes. ignition and formation of a char on the polymer surface. heating to the decomposition temperature.

8mm thick solvent-based intumescent from manufacturer B and 2. 200mm2. and 5000mm2 were removed and analysed using ABAQUS [2]. the fire resistance reduction is almost linear between 67. Interestingly.5mins followed by the steel column with Ap/V of 211 m-1. with fire resistance plummeting from 62. the char is ‘pulled back’ from the edge of the hole. This was the reason for an increase in temperature recorded in cellular beams compared to solid beams.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 2. Knobloch [70] performed a parametric study for a range of Ap/V sections of 292m1 . The research concluded that even a small area of missing fire protection from a steel column will result in significant reduction. The steel columns had an applied thickness of intumescent of 0. 62 . the temperature at the web-post and flange were hotter for cellular beams.1mm thick intumescent the temperatures at the web-post were lower than the former.5 mins to 40 mins and finally for Ap/V of 102 m-1.8 Overview of protected steel beams and columns in fire Bailey [69] investigated the temperature rise in web-post cellular beams. For Ap/V of 292 m-1.5 mins to 25 mins.5mm. Intumescent coatings were chosen from manufacturers A and B which comprise 0. using 0. with a series of tests on unloaded. 3000mm2. 0. For the 2.5 mins to 57.211m-1 and 102m-1 which had missing intumescent fire protection on 3000mm length columns.8mm thick intumescent. The fire resistance is more RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. where the reduction is from 62. The reason to incorporate products from different manufacturers was to find out whether any increase in web post temperatures was generic or product specific. protected and unprotected. it is found that the fire resistance is not linear.1mm thick solventbased intumescent from manufacturer B. For the purpose of parametric analysis. The tests also pointed out that the difference between web-post temperatures and the bottom flange of the cellular beam is dependent on the type and thickness of intumescent coating used. indicative beams. 1000mm2. Both the solid and cellular beams were fabricated from the same tee section of a 406x178x60UB. squares of protection at the edge of the flange at mid height of columns with sizes of 100mm2.8mm water and solvent based intumescent coating.3mm and 3. in the solvent based 0. In both the tests.8mm thick water-based intumescent from manufacturer A.

In summary the fire resistance ratings varied with the size of column. Test 2 and Test 3 respectively. The limited scope of Milke’s model is that it is a twodimensional model. Based on a finite-element formulation. it considered the temperature dependence of thermal properties and the nonlinearities inherent in modelling the fire boundary condition. Milke [72] executed a numerical heat-transfer analysis for the loss of protection on steel columns of size W10x49 and W14x233 using two-dimensional FIRES-T3 [73]. This suggests that the conclusions from this study could be questionable. One of the results showed that with only 2% to 4% of mid-flange protection loss for one-hour fire rating could cause a loss of fire resistance of 10% to 15%. A small drawback is associated with the inappropriate assumption for the intumescent density of 10kg/m3 which is very low and does not fit within the bounds of most proprietary intumescent densities which fall within the region of 1000kg/m3 to 1900kg/m3 [70. The steel plates in the cone calorimeter were coated with intumescent paints and had a mean dry film thicknesses of 3. 63 . In addition. The thermal radiation prescribed was 75kW/m2.5%. 25kW/m2 and 25kW/m2 for Test 1. Therefore. the same column with a similar percentage of protection loss would suffer extensive fire resistance loss up to 30% for a three-hour fire rating. the mass of a column appears to be an important factor in assessing the rise in temperature for steel columns. The tests were exposed to the thermal radiation for 24 mins and the intumescent charring was recorded using digital camera.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature decisive for columns with higher slender cross-sections. The tests were performed in a cone calorimeter as prescribed by the ISO 5660 standard [11]. Heat storage capacity plays a vital role in ensuring a higher fire resistance for the columns at elevated temperature.01mm. Mesquita [74] investigated the performance of water-based intumescent paints for three different tests. The mass loss is almost linear in both cases. 71]. Test 2 and Test 3 respectively. The findings concluded that mass loss is almost linearly proportional to the time with Test 1 showing a higher reduction in mass loss at about 41.68mm and 2. 2.69mm for Test 1.5% whereas Test 2 and Test 3 showed a mass loss about 11. The final charred RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. the position of protection loss and the amount of protection loss.

12W/mK. the largest reduction of the moment capacity occurs on the centre of the protection loss. The standard ASTM E119 [76] fire resistant curve was used to specify the convective and radiative heat transfer. i. Kang [77] investigated the reduction in the relative cross-section moment capacity of protected steel beams exposed to the ISO 834 [10] standard fire due to partial loss of spray-on fire protection. Relative cross-section moment capacity for one-hour rating of W16x50 with 50cm2 protection loss on the bottom flange drops to 65% while 200cm2 protection loss drops to 39%. He assumed a constant thermal property for a spray-on material. 7. Ryder [75] investigated the loss of spray-applied fire protection on columns of size W6x16 and W14x233. The limitation on this assumption could compromise the numerical results. He also suggested that the missing fire protection area and the size of the column had substantial consequences on the fire resistance of the columns regardless of the thickness. He also noted that a beam of W16x40.9mm and 15. i. as at elevated temperature fire protection materials lose density and the thermal conductivity rises rapidly. With small areas of protection removed from the column flange.7mm for 1-hour and 2-hour fire exposure. The study provided an estimate of the impact of the temperature rise within the steel columns. The thickness of fire protection applied for a column of W6x16 was 22. exhibits a larger reduction in moment capacity with both beams having symmetric protection loss of 100cm2 at the bottom of the flange. The relative cross-section moment capacity is the ratio of the cross-section moment capacity at elevated temperatures to that at normal temperatures. This explains the heat capacity difference of the heavier and the lighter sections.7cm2 of missing protection area. which has a weight per unit area of 28% less than that of W16x50.74mm (Test 1). such as density of 300kg/m3 and conductivity of 0.7mm for 1-hour and 2-hour fire exposure. the reduction in fire resistance was 40% for 1-hour of fire exposure.e.9mm and 45.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature thickness of intumescent coating recorded was 41. 35. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.e. Protection loss along the length of the beam also contributes as a factor. whereas for a column of W14x233 the applied fire protection thickness was 7.36 (Test 2) and 29.50 (Test 3). 64 .

28 1. Pessiki [78] analysed the behaviour of steel-H columns in fires with damaged sprayapplied fire resistive material subjected to concentric axial compression.05 1. Dai [79] investigated the fire test for web cleat.16 1. providing realistic temperature-dependent data could improve the overall result and possibly revise the conclusions.29 1. as given in Table 2.22 1.77 0. He noted that protecting a segment of the connected beam for about 400mm from the joint appeared to be sufficient to achieve full protection for the joint.22 1.11 1.14 1.29 1.21 1.23 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.02 1.31 1.60 0. the unprotected bolt temperatures were higher than those with full bolt protection.16 1.67 1.35 1. 65 .19 1.15 1.25 1.19 1.75 0.24 1. In addition.86 1. fin plate.25 1.78 0.18 1.02 1.25 1.12 1.09 1. However.3 1.73 0.36 1.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Therefore.84 0.43 1. flush endplate and flexible endplate joints for unloaded steel-concrete composite with various fire-protection schemes.33 1. in a protected joint with unprotected bolts.95 0. The conclusions determined that the removal of even relatively small amounts of fire resistance material from the column flange causes dramatic decreases in column axial load capacity for a fire resistance duration in excess of 30 mins.62 0. Table 2: Experimental works for various fire protection schemes [79] Specimen (SP) Average intumescent coating thickness (dft) in mm Column Beam1 Beam2 Beam3 Beam4 SP 1 0. Ten experiments were conducted and these experiments were abbreviated as specimen (SP).08 1.19 1. the bolt temperatures were still very much lower than bolt temperatures in a completely unprotected joint.15 Average intumescent coating thickness in mm (1 to 4) 1.28 1.35 1.21 1.12 SP 2 SP 3 SP 4 SP 5 SP 6 SP 7 SP 8 SP 9 SP 10 0.16 1. Protecting bolts had little influence on the temperature distribution at connections.18 1.19 1.

RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. The temperature development and mechanical behaviour of steel at elevated temperature were discussed in detail. it highlights the non-reactive and reactive fire protection for steel members which includes the thermal decomposition and combustion of the materials. Passive intumescent coating components and its compounds are briefly explained together with the mechanisms of intumescent coating. historical building fires are also addressed.9 Summary of chapter 2 The chapter gives an overall introduction to fire engineering which include the performance of naked and protected steel structure at elevated temperature.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 2. Moreover. 66 . Articles relevant to the research were also discussed. In addition. It also summarizes the prescriptive and performance based approach for fire safety design.

1 Introduction Material properties of steel. Generally. Thermal conductivity. the section factor (area of exposed steel) and the amount and type of applied fire protection materials. thus resulting in the reduction of the strength and stiffness of the steel. and support conditions. Other physical properties are also included and elaborated below. The increase in steel temperatures depends on the severity of the fire. The strength to weight ratio of steel is high compared to concrete or other building materials. steel has the ability to resist fire up to 550ºC. the temperature profile. unprotected steel structures perform poorly in fires relative to other structural RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. thermal diffusivity. and the load effect. Limiting temperatures of structural steel are affected by two factors.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Chapter 3 Properties of materials at elevated temperatures 3. and specific heat are the three most important physical properties of materials. passive fire protection and concrete at elevated temperatures are discussed herein. Their fundamental thermal and mechanical character will be used for analysis purpose to predict the overall response of the structural system at elevated temperature. The thermal diffusivity is proportional to the thermal conductivity and is inversely proportional to the density and specific heat of material. The steel temperature rises rapidly once exposed to aggressive fires. This material response to fire can lead to possible deformations and failure.2 Steel The use of structural steel elements in multi-storey construction is fast growing. 67 . In general. depending on the applied loads. 3. temperature profile.

2.2 Emissivity of Steel Radiative heat transfer is controlled by resultant emissivity. fast temperature transformation or dissimilarity in thermal properties.2. but show substantial variation depending.02 to 0.t. the increase of steel temperature.23. In general. Dt. Steel is no exception. 3. The strength of every engineering material reduces. This poor performance is partly attributed to the high thermal conductivity and thermal expansion of steel. and timber. During a standard fire test. as their temperature increases. on the condition of the surface. whether it is fully protected. a major advantage of steel is that it is incombustible. the emissivity of a polished metallic surface is very low. h net the design value of the net heat flux per unit area.t = k sh Am / V . Tabulated emissivity for materials are widely available in literature [80. in particular. Normally an object will fail because of stresses induced by uneven heating. gypsum. ra the density of steel in kg/m3. in an unprotected steel member within a period of time. Dqa. Am/V . RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. h net ∆t ca ρ a Equation 6 where ca is the specific heat of steel in J/kg±C. and approaches unity for oxidised materials. between 0. is given by: ∆θ a . the section factor(heated perimeter/cross sectional area). 3.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature materials such as concrete. the unprotected steel and protected steel absorbs a significant amount of thermal energy and thus loses its strength and stiffness resulting in deflection. However. 68 . 81]. (W/m2) and ksh the correction factor for the shadow effect. The deflection depends on the exposure condition of the steel. unprotected or partially damaged.1 Temperature prediction for unprotected steel In accordance to EN 1993-1-2 [17].

Furthermore.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature To obtain a reasonable agreement with the test result. and the composition of the flames. for temperatures between 26°C to 355°C.6 to 0.9. It means that. Moreover.5 was needed to match the test results. Gilchrist [86] has reported that. the emissivity of dull oxidized mild steel remains at 0. oxidized steel has an emissivity of 0. An investigation by Lankford [90] shows that. and adopts emissivity coefficients of steel. size.85 at 500°C. is determined by its structure linings. the calculation rules suggested by the ‘voluntary’ version of ENV 1993-1-2 [82] are based on conventional assumptions.90 to 0. Gilchrist [86] and Pettersson [87] suggested that the furnace emissivity.95 but later reduces to 0. at room temperature. The temperature development of a specimen in a furnace depends on both the emissivity of the material εm and the emissivity of the fire (furnace) εf. Franssen [83] suggested that the increase in the emissivity increases the net heat flux per unit area (W/m2) of the steel member and the received energy will be the product between the net heat flux and the surface that is relevant for the heat exchange. and thus the relative sizes and position of the specimen in the furnace are also important [85].7. 260±C and 538°C. whereas Thor [88] indicated that furnace design and ambient atmosphere could effect the furnace emissivity values which he suggested varies between the value of 0. In particular. 121±C. 69 . which is commonly approximated as the product of the emissivity of the material εm and the emissivity of the fire εf.76 between temperatures of 740°C and 840°C. The newer version of EN 1993-1-2 [17] adopts a more realistic calculation rule for temperature development for naked steel members. Both of these features are incorporated into the resultant emissivity εr. ef. Fishenden [89] in his study reported an emissivity value of 0. the values for the radiative and the convective heat transfer are assumed to fit reasonably with the test results. literature from Franssen [83] and Wickstrom [84] pointed out that the introduction of shadow factor is because of the different resultant emissivity values spelled out in ENV 1993-1-2 [82] and EN 1993-1-2 [17]. From various literatures for steel RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.79 for oxidized steel at temperatures of 20±C.96. a low resultant emissivity value of 0. εm=0. Daws [91] has designated that the emissivity of mild steel plummets from 0.

fire emissivity(=1.80.0) steel emissivity(=0.8. as it shows the closest agreement with experimental results. and 0.0) 200 steel emissivity(=0.6.0) 400 steel emissivity(=0.9). This sensitivity study examines the suitability of the adopted emissivity for carbon steel employed in ABAQUS [2]. Emissivity values of 0. An emissivity value of 0.8).7). it can be concluded that between ambient temperature and up to 800±C. fire emissivity(=1. the steel emissivity was estimated around 0. the steel temperature obtained using various emissivity values are close to experimental values. As seen from Figure 20. fire emissivity(=1. 1200 Temperature(°C) 1000 800 Average Furnace Temperature Experimental steel temperature 600 ISO 834 steel emissivity(=0.7.8 was chosen and the chosen value will be used in the remainder of the research.6). 0.9 were employed for analysis. fire emissivity(=1. A sensitivity analysis was conducted by the author to determine the accurate radiant emissivity value on a 305x165x40UB [79] subjected to standard ISO 834 [10] fire using continuum elements. based on temperature development test results on bare steel by Dai [79]. 70 .0) 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Time(s) Figure 20: Steel temperature development for various emissivity values RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature emissivity investigation. 0.

convection + hnet . It has the same density the whole time. Carbon steel’s thermal conductivity is 54W/mK at ambient temperature and decreases linearly to 27W/mK at 800°C and this value stays constant up to 1200°C.2. 3. Temperature dependent carbon steel thermal conductivity from EN 1993-1-2 [17] was assigned in this research work.2 Thermal conductivity Steel materials are good heat conductors once subjected to fire. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. 71 . ac= coefficient of heat transfer by convection [W/m2K] qg = gas temperature in the vicinity of the fire exposed member [±C] qm= surface temperature of the member [±C] 3.convection = α c (θ g − θ m ) [W/m2] Equation 8 where. Steel can be classified as a homogeneous material.1 Density The standard value for the density (ρ) of structural steel proposed by EN 1993-1-2 [17] is 7850 kg/m3.radiation [W/m2] Equation 7 The net convective heat flux component should be determined by: hnet . In all the calculations and analysis in this research work the density is assumed to be constant with the increase in temperature.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature On fire exposed surfaces the net heat flux should be determined by considering heat transfer by convection and radiation as follows [14]: hnet = hnet .2.

Ca Heat capacity per unit mass or the specific heat is also a critical property of materials in high temperature applications. It is the ratio of thermal conductivity to heat capacity. which is relatively simple to determine for small and homogeneous samples. Thermal expansion is the ability of matter to change in volume in reaction to a change in temperature [92].5 Thermal diffusivity Thermal diffusivity is a measure of the speed of the heat dissemination through a material.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 3. It is found that for temperatures between 750°C and 860°C. 72 .K) r = bulk density (kg/m3) RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.011.4 Thermal elongation Thermal strain occurs when most materials are heated. Specific heat is an intensive property. a = thermal diffusivity (m2/s) k = thermal conductivity (W/m. thermal conductivity. which means that it is independent of the mass of a substance. 3. 93]. It is an important property in situations involving non-steady state heat conduction. Its values obtained are based on density. The related equations are suggested in EN 1993-1-2 [17] for the change of specific heat of steel with temperature. It is a thermodynamic quantity.2. This temporary constant situation is caused by a transformation of pearlite (microstructure in steel) to austenite (carbon-iron component of steel).3 Specific heat.2. 3. α= k ρC p Equation 9 where.2. and further re-crystallization of the atomic structure from the body-centred to face-centred cubic structure which causes a shrinkage in the steel of approximately 15% [17. the relative elongation is constant at 0. and specific heat data for a particular material and denoted as ‘a’.

8 95 30.2 11.9 Poisson’s ratio 20 Elastic modulus (N/mm2) 30.28% Si.3 for structural steel in this research.2 0. Clark [95] has reported values up to a temperature of 650±C for mild steel containing 0.1 9.75 0.15%C.2 0.46% Mn. and 0.2. because they conduct heat quickly in comparison to their thermal 'bulk'. its creep strain becomes large at temperatures greater than 400oC [96].300 595 24.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Cp = specific heat [J/ (kg. 3.288 With the above consideration. and the variation is not significant.2. Table 3: Variation of Poisson’s ratio of steel with temperature Shear modulus (N/mm2) 11.7 Isothermal and anisothermal creep strain Once the steel is exposed to constant stress and temperature. 3. 73 .7 10. the author adapted Poisson’s Ratio value of 0.7 0. as shown in Table 3.2 0. 0.3 11.306 650 22.8 8. thermal diffusivity of steel shows a linear relationship up to a temperature of 750°C. According to Malhotra [94].293 425 26.290 205 29. Kirby and Preston [97] RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.K)] Substances with high thermal diffusivity rapidly adjust their temperature to that of their surroundings.311 Temperature (±C) 0.6 Poisson’s ratio Reported values of Poisson’s Ratio do not appear to vary significantly with temperature.

Therefore.4 Strain(%) 1. creep deformations are significant when the steel members approach their collapse loads. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.6 0.2 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Temperature(ºC) Figure 21: Creep strain curves with a heating rate of 10±C/min [97. The EN 1993-1-2 [17] illustrates that the stress-strain relationships used for design implicitly include the likely deformations due to creep during the fire exposure.2 1 Steel stresses (MPa) 350 0. 74 .The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature revealed using data for British structural steels of Grade 43A (S275) and Grade 50B (S355) that creep is dependent on temperature and stress level of the steel.8 Stress-strain relationship and reduction factors At higher temperatures. with equations for the stress-strain relationship of various steels and a table of reduction factors for steel at elevated temperatures. 2 1.8 300 250 200 150 100 50 25 0.8 1.2. This is illustrated in Figure 21. the yield strength decreases in Figure 22 while the ultimate tensile strength increases slightly at moderate temperatures. 98] 3.6 1. The creep strains increase rapidly where the curve becomes nearly upright at higher temperatures. The EN 1993-1-2 [17] has more detailed expressions.4 0. before decreasing at higher temperatures.

When the temperature reaches 800±C. A summary review from literature showed other likely values for proof stress. it is found that the ambient-temperature strength has dipped from 275N/mm2 to 213N/mm2.400 0. used 0.2% proof stress for the effective yield strength at elevated temperature whereas Kirby [97] proposed the use of 1% proof stress as the effective yield strength for grades 43A and grade 50B with minimum yield stress values of 255N/mm2 and 355N/mm2 respectively.800 0.000 Proportional Limit Young's Modulus Reduction Factor 0. steel doesn’t have well-defined yield strength. 75 . 1. At 500±C.600 0.200 0. Outinen [100]. it has lost almost 88% of its ambient-temperature strength. As a result of increasing temperature. The EN 1993-1-2 [17] uses the 2% proof strength as the effective yield strength. the steel loses strength and stiffness gradually [99].The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Typical stress-strain relationships for S275 steel at elevated temperatures between ambient to 800±C are shown in Figure 23. At elevated temperatures.200 Yield Strength 1.000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Temperature [°C] Figure 22: Reduction factors for steel at elevated temperatures RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.

6 1.5% (min) to RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.4 0. A single density value of 10kg/m3 at 940±C was assumed for the charred intumescent coating. however. 76 . intumescent fire protection coatings were used.8 2 Strain [%] Figure 23: Stress-strain relationship for steel at elevated temperatures 3.3.4 1.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 300 20°C 200∞C 250 300∞C 400∞C Stress [N/mm 2] 200 500∞C 150 600∞C 100 700∞C 50 800∞C 0 0 0.2 1. as shown in Figure 24. the author conducted a simple thermal model sensitivity using ABAQUS [2] for linearly reduced intumescent coating density values at elevated temperature to minimise the compensated assumption error. It is estimated as 0.2 0. A sensitivity study for this assumption was carried out for SP1 for both the web and flange temperatures.3 Intumescent coatings For the purpose of thermal and mechanical analysis.6 0.8 1 1.1 Density Density at ambient temperature is taken as the value indicated by the manufacturer for the application of intumescent for the steel in the experimental work conducted by Dai [79] which was 1300kg/m3. 3. It is imperative that the overall behaviour of this material is fully understood at elevated temperature. No data was available for the reduction of density at elevated temperature.

This average value was chosen to accommodate intumescent coating behaviour between the virgin state and the fully charred condition.5% (max). In addition at high temperatures.95 which is 0.5% to 5.5% 700 Temperature(°C) 600 500 400 ABQ Average Flange (ambient density) ABQ Average Web(ambient density) Experiment Web Experiment Flange ABQ Average Web (temp-dependant density) ABQ Average Flange(temp-dependant density) 300 200 100 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Time(s) Figure 24: Time-temperature for SP1 for ambient and linearly reduced intumescent density 3. 102]. Moreover the reduction for intumescent density at elevated temperature was very minimal. In the author’s work. where the lower value is normally used for the virgin material state [101] whereas the higher values of 0. the surface emissivity was taken as an average value of 0.825.2 Emissivity of Intumescent The emissivity of intumescent ranges between 0.3.95 are used for the intumescence char surface [52. the heat storage capacity of the coating was assumed to be zero because there will be a considerable amount of mass loss with innumerable voids in the charred intumescent. Similarly intumescent emissivity sensitivity was performed and it was found that at elevated RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. 0. 101.7 and 0. 77 .8. the author did not consider the effect of temperature-dependent density for intumescent in this research.95.9 and 0.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 5. for this type of intumescent and therefore. 900 800 0.7 and 0.

The thermal conductivity for both models was restricted to a single type of intumescent coat that had material properties described in the previous sections in this chapter. Data from ten specimens (SP1 to SP10) tested by Dai [79] were used to calculate the average intumescent temperature and the average thermal conductivity. Figure 25 exemplifies the specimen protected with intumescent coat prior to the test.95. 79]. The experimental summary described by the author is based on the work tested by Dai [79]. The analysis and parametric studies in this research work will adopt the author’s computed values of the intumescent thermal conductivity at elevated temperature. The thermocouples were later connected to the data loggers that displayed the temperature readings to the RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. Other researchers. 3. Mesquita [57] adopted a value of 0.3. A total of 75 K-Type thermocouples (termed as ‘links’ in this research) were welded to the steel beams and columns at various locations for individual test specimens. 71.9 for intumescent emissivity. For analysis purposes.4 Thermal conductivity The author examined the thermal conductivity values for intumescent coated composite steel on ten different test specimens. no data was available for temperature dependent specific heat for intumescent from the material manufacturer. the author has used a value of 1000 Joule (J) as suggested in EN13381-8:2010 [103]. 70.70 and 0. 3. 78 .3 Specific heat (Cp) Similar to density. In the experimental work. This value was employed in most literature [57. Heat conductivity normally dominates during the heat transfer process.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature temperature the assumed emissivity value had negligible influence when compared with emissivity values of 0. all the test specimens were subjected to a standard 1-hour of fire exposure. An overview of the process to compute the thermal conductivity is spelled out in the following sections.3.

the intumescent mass will decompose and therefore it is unlikely that it will support the thermocouples attached to it. The average furnace and the average steel temperature was considered in the simplified approach. During swelling and charring. The temperature of the intumescent coat was not recorded in this instance directly because it was not possible to attach the links to the intumescent coat. 79 . a simplified approach suggested by EN 13381-8:10 [103] to determine the temperature was conducted. The thermocouples were calibrated against ambient temperature readings on the respective day of the experiment. Since it is impossible at this moment to measure the intumescent coat temperature using the links. both of which were measured during tests. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. This difference was negligible because the difference noted was at an average of ≤5±C from an initial ambient temperature of 20±C. Intumescent coating is a reactive material and will swell once it accumulates heat. This was accounted for because the surrounding temperature varied during different periods of testing. Bare steel Intumescent coated steel Figure 25: Partial intumescent coat application for steel frame It was found that the initial ambient temperature recorded by the links varied from test to test.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature computer.

t (t ) = d p ×   V 1 φ φ /3 × ca ρ a × (1 + ) ×  × ∆θ a .The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature The proposed Equation in EN 13381-8:10 [103] is as follows. ∆θ a .  λ p .t + (e − 1)∆θ t Ap 3 (θ t − θ a .t = λ p Ap / V (θ g . The surface radiation and the convection effects are ignored in Equation 12. 80 .t ) ∆t − (eφ / 10 − 1)∆θ g .t d p ca ρ a (1 + φ / 3) Equation 10 The thermal conductivity for intumescent coating was calculated by re-arranging Equation 10.t )∆t  [ ] Equation 11 The prevailing equation for a one dimensional heat transfer through a thin layer of fire protective material can be expressed by the following equation: Ap (θ f − θ a )δt δθ a = V (1 + φ 3) d  ca ρ a  p  λ   p −  e  θ 10 − 1δθ f  Equation 12 Where: φ= c p ρ p  Ap   d p ca ρ a  V  Equation 13 The term φ defines the heat stored in the protection layer relative to heat stored in the steel. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.t−θ a . The latter is important in unprotected sections. but it is small when compared to the insulating capacity of fire protection material.

81 . An illustration of one dimensional heat flow through the intumescent is shown in Figure 26. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. It was generally known that the thermal conductivity for fire protection materials increases at elevated temperature.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature θ steel Steel Fire Intumescent Figure 26: One dimensional heat flow Equations 10 to 13 were employed accordingly for calculation purpose. was not the case for intumescent coating where the thermal conductivity was found to vary at elevated temperature. as shown in Figures 27 to 36 for the respective test specimens. This however.

dft=1.7000 Intum esc ent Therm al C onduc tiv ity(l) 0.0 700.77mm) Link 14(column.10mm) Link 10(column.2500 0.dft=1.3000 0.5000 0.dft=1.74mm) Link 46(beam.4000 0.0000 0.16mm) Figure 30: SP4 intumescent thermal conductivity 0.1000 0.0 200.1000 0.0400 0.0400 0.dft=0.67mm) Average.0000 0.dft=0.0 400.00 0.5000 0.dft=0.0000 0.10mm) Link 32(beam.00mm) Link 22(dft=1.00 700.73) Link 24(beam.dft=0.00 800.0500 0.6000 0.dft=1.1000 0.0700 0.0000 100.00mm) Link 15(column.3000 0.Average SP3 Figure 29: SP3 intumescent thermal conductivity RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY 800.00 0 1000.3000 0.8000 0.3500 Intu m escent Th erm al Con ductivity(l) 0.SP1 Link 29(beam.1500 0.1500 0.77mm) Average. SP4 Figure 27: SP1 intumescent thermal conductivity 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Intumescent Temperature(°C) Intumescent Temperature(°C) Link 30(beam.00 500.0 500.36mm) Link 14(column.3000 0.dft=1.0500 0.0200 0.dft=1. dft=1.dft=0.0 100.2000 0.1000 0.00 400.60mm).24mm) Link 61(beam.1400 0.0 300.8000 0.0 600.00mm) Average SP2 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Link 30(beam.74mm) Average.0800 0.dft=0.0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Intumescent Temperature(°C) Link 14(column.0 900.00mm) Link 24(beam.dft=0. SP5 Figure 31: SP5 intumescent thermal conductivity Figure 28: SP2 intumescent thermal conductivity 0.dft=1.00 900.00mm) Link 1(column.dft=1.dft=0.1200 0. Average SP6 Figure 32: SP6 intumescent thermal conductivity P.2500 Intum escen t Therm al C onductivity(l) 400 Intumescent Temperature(°C) Intumescent Temperature(°C) 0.dft=0.0600 Intum escent Therm al C ond uctivity(l) 0.6000 0.36mm) Link 10(column.67mm) Link 1(column. 82 900 .10mm) Link 31(beam.dft=0.dft=1.7000 Intum escent Therm al C onductivity(l) Intum escent Therm al Con ductivity(l) 0.616mm).00 200.0500 0.1600 0.73) Link 23(beam.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 0.9000 0.4000 0.0600 0.dft=1.0100 0.00 600.0000 0.00 100 200 300 Link 22(beam.2000 0.2000 0.0 Intumescent Temperature(°C) Link 15(column.0200 0.dft=1.00mm) Link 15(column.0000 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 100 200 300 900 Link 23(beam.0300 0.2000 0.00 300.1000 0.

0700 0.dft=0.dft=0.dft=1.864mm) Average.0400 0.dft=1.14mm) Link 39(beam.2000 0.0000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 0. SP9 Figure 34: SP9 intumescent thermal conductivity RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY 0.0100 0.0000 1000 0 Intumescent Temperature(°C) Link 23 (beam.0300 0.dft=0. 83 .837mm) Figure 33: SP7 intumescent thermal conductivity Link 23(beam.209mm) Link 24(beam.1000 0.SP10 Link 19(column.19mm) Link 18(column.209mm) Link 19(column.837mm) Average.0300 0.0500 0.dft=1.3500 0.217mm) Link 26(beam. dft=0.0600 0.95mm) Link 22(beam.864mm) Figure 36: SP10 intumescent thermal conductivity P.0600 In tu m e s c e n t T h e r m a l C o n d u c tiv ity (l ) In tu m es ce n t T he rm al C o n d u ctivity (l) 0.0800 0.778mm) 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Intumescent Temperature(°C) Average.1500 0.0400 0.0000 0 Intumescent Temperature(°C) Link 23(beam.0100 0.dft=1.217mm) Link 60(column.19mm) Link 59(column.0400 0.0200 0.0000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Link 23(beam.dft=0.dft=1.0800 0.0900 0.837mm) Link 38(beam.dft=1.0500 0.0500 0.0300 0. dft=0.SP8 Figure 35: SP8 intumescent thermal conductivity 0.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 0.0200 0.0500 0.0200 0.dft=0.2500 0.0700 0.14mm) Link 1(column.3000 In t u m e s c e n t T h e rm a l C o n d u c t iv ity (l ) In tum escent Th erm al C ondu ctivity(l) 0.dft=0.0600 0.95mm) Link 60 (column.837mm) Link 60(column.29mm) Link 18 (column.0100 0.dft=0.95mm) Average SP7 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Intumescent Temperature(°C) Link 67 (column.dft=1.dft=1.dft=0.dft=1.

The most effective protection was found to be at 400±C to 800±C where the average conductivity was about 0. whereas the column was 0. moisture content in the intumescent and placement of the links.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 0.2000 0.3500 0. At 850±C.3000 Thermal Conductivity(λ) 0. the rise in thermal conductivity was associated with the loss of intumescent density.1500 average thermal conductivity 0. The difference in each curve was attributed to the rate of heating from the gas furnace. The average curve plotted shows that the intumescent started to protect the steel between temperatures 200±C to 400±C.01. This was anticipated because of the nature of intumescent itself being a reactive material.2500 0. Each thickness represented the identical behaviour of the intumescent coating over the burning period.67mm.1000 0. 84 .00mm. The dry film thickness (dft) for the beam was 1. The curves represented graphically clearly show that the thermal conductivity plummeted sharply during the initial stages of exposure because at the virgin state the intumescent started to react to the exposed temperature. the intumescent thermal conductivity shows a non-linear behaviour against temperature. Intumescent at this stage was considered fully charred and will no longer provide protection to the steel. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.0500 0.0000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Imtumescent Temperature (ºC) SP1 SP7 SP2 SP8 SP3 SP9 SP4 SP10 SP5 AVERAGE SP6 Figure 37: Average Intumescent thermal conductivity for SP1 to SP10 In Figure 27 for SP1.

The average thermal conductivity varied from 0. After this. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.73mm. Once again the thermal conductivity was low for temperatures from 400±C to 850±C.05 for SP5 in the first intumescent temperature of 500±C. it is widely accepted that errors do happen during experimental work and this type of error was considered very minor if compared to the total number of thermocouple links attached to the steel. This variation was considered an isolated case. In addition. it was found in this test that the temperature behaviour of thermocouple (link 15) in the steel column (see Figure 28) was strange after 550±C.03 for temperatures up to 400±C. the dft for the steel beam was 1.29mm and 0. The value of thermal conductivity stayed below 0. for SP7. SP8 and SP10 had shown similar graphical representation for intumescent temperature and for dft’s of the steel beam and the steel column ranging between 1.21mm to 1. The fluctuation of temperature and high thermal conductivity suggests that the link was reading the furnace temperature at this instance.01 from 450±C to 800±C.10 to 0.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature From Figure 28 for SP2.62 respectively. Intumescent thermal conductivity for SP3 and SP6 for the steel column shown in Figures 29 and 32 had an intumescent thickness of 0. thermocouple (link 23) attached to the steel beam had a similar situation as explained earlier for link 15 in SP2. Intumescent thermal conductivity for SP4 and SP5 has similar behaviour as seen in Figures 30 and 31. both have effective thermal conductivity at an average of 0. The reading from this link was wrong and will be ignored.00mm and the steel column was 0. Although it is not common for the link to detach from the steel. it was noted that the full protection provided by the intumescent lasted up to 800±C. 85 .78mm to 0.60 and 0. The thermal conductivity value for SP7.10 for SP4 and below 0.95mm respectively. and may once again be attributed to the burning rate and/or the moisture content evaporation of the intumescent coating. The possible reason could be attributed to the broken thermocouple link from the steel column. In Figure 33. In comparison. In both cases the initial temperatures up to 450±C varied at different rates.

19mm and the steel columns were 0. SP9 and SP10 respectively.209mm and column was 0. In Figure 35. At temperatures above 800±C. as seen in Figures 33. The thermal conductivity between ambient and 350±C was proposed using Equation 14 to cater for the initial virgin state thermal conductivity. 86 . most of the links have detached from the steel.217mm and the columns 0.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature In Figure 34.778mm. SP3 and SP8. An equation was proposed based on the average calculated thermal conductivity of each individual test specimen. as shown in Figure 37. then the thermal conductivity will be a little higher in the initial stages of the fire exposure as seen in SP1. If the coating was very much drier. for SP8. 35 and 36 for SP7. The initial thermal conductivity was found to be a little higher. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. which were 1.864. The thermal conductivity was almost similar to the trend seen in SP7. no protection was available from the intumescence process since all the mass of the intumescent was fully charred leaving massive voids and space allowing heat to infiltrate to the steel.84mm. Therefore. A steep rise in thermal conductivity was seen between temperatures 800±C to 950±C which suggest that at this phase. then more heat will be required to evaporate the moisture. for SP9. The author believes that the moisture does play a part in determining the thermal conductivity of intumescent. the thickness for the intumescent for the steel beams was in the range of 1. If the coating was “moister”. and at this juncture the values of temperature recorded by the links are ignored. Equation 15 was proposed between temperatures 350±C to 800±C (see Figure 37) which accommodates the full phase of intumescent protection which evidently suggests that the thermal conductivity in this region is very low.14mm to 1. Once again a similar trend was observed compared against SP7 and SP9. the thermal conductivity will be lower in the initial stages of fire exposure. A higher thickness was recorded in SP10 for the coatings. similar to SP1. it was found that the intumescent thickness for beam was 1.

The coating prevents the temperature rise in the steel by absorbing most of the heat energy.2 0.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Simplified polynomial equations below represent the thermal conductivity of the intumescent coat at elevated temperatures. as presented in the current research work. For 20±C § qp <350±C: l= -2x10-8 qp3 + 1x10-5 qp2 .05W/mK. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.0029qp + 0. 87 . The Equations 14 and 15 are restricted to one type of intumescent coat with similar material properties.1 full protection in this region 0.152 Equation 15 0.0004qp + 0.15 Dai's Model Rao's Model 0.2759 Equation 14 For 350±C § q <800±C: l= 3x10-10 qp3 + 5x10-8 qp2 . Intumescent thermal conductivity in this region is far below 0.05 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 Temperature Figure 38: Thermal conductivity models calculated by the author and Dai [79] The shaded region in Figure 38 resembles the full protection provided by intumescent coating at elevated temperature. Two temperature domains were selected by the author to take into consideration the initial virgin phase up to 350±C and the charring phase from 350±C to 800±C.25 Thermal Conductivity 0.0.0.

88 .4 Spray-on Monokote MK-5 An additional study on the spray-on fire protection was included in the research to fortify the understanding of passive fire protection systems on steel elements at elevated temperature. the effective thermal conductivity plummeted as seen in Figure 39. The findings suggest that at the initial phase of heating.35 350 0.68mm thick intumescent for a duration of 1200s inside the cone calorimeter.05 50 0. although many variables were different.15 150 0. until the intumescent surface temperature and the steel temperature were approximately constant. The author has chosen part of Mesquita’s work for comparison reasons.10 100 0.25 250 0. This fire protection was chosen because a wealth of data was RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. Mesquita employed a radiant heat flux of 25W/mK for 2.20 200 0. In this instance the intumescent began protecting the steel when it started to char at 200±C.45 500 0. The effective thermal conductivity trend had similarities with the author’s work.00 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 1400 Time(s) Effective thermal conductivity Temperature Figure 39: Effective thermal conductivity Mesquita [57] investigated the effective thermal conductivity of intumescent coating using a cone calorimeter. 3.30 300 0.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 0.40 450 400 Thermal Conductivity 0.

0919 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. thermal conductivity and specific heat of Monokote MK-5 are enumerated in Tables 4. Density (kg/m3) 292.2 230. and 6 respectively.0926 0.1 Density The density.4.5 233. the thermal conductivity.4 Temperature (∞C) 25 50 100 200 300 400 500 600 800 1000 1200 3. This study will be limited to the thermal response of shear studs welded to steel beams with full and partial spray-on protection.4.6 269.3 369.5 227. 5.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature available from NIST [104] and this type of protection was widely used in the WTC 7. specific heat capacity. 3. For the purpose of composite steel beam modelling in ABAQUS [2].5 283.1252 0. 89 .2 Thermal conductivity Table 5: Thermal Conductivity of spray-on fire protection Temperature (∞C) 25 50 100 200 Thermal Conductivity (W/m*K) 0.8 249. Table 4: Density of spray-on fire protection.1 238.0954 0. and density of the spray-on fire protection was taken as a function of temperature up to 1200°C as provided in the NIST [104] technical information data.4 290.5 229.

7 1205.1622 0.3 Specific Heat Table 6: Specific Heat of spray-on fire protection Temperature (∞C) 25 50 100 200 300 400 500 600 800 1000 Specific Heat (J/kg*K) 841. After that. This leads to stresses in the composite material and from 300±C onwards. 90 .8 1005.6 1400. the concrete surface could not resist the pressure of water and steam thus leading to concrete spalling. micro cracks will occur RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. and after about 150±C.9 1302.2 1520.0 1045. the chemically bound water in the hydrated calcium silicates starts releasing. the water in it evaporates. In some cases.5 Concrete In the author’s research the use of concrete has been limited for thermal analysis purposes only and as a topping cover for the steel beam subjected to fire in furnaces.4.8 3.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 300 400 500 600 800 1000 0. once subjected to prolonged heat deteriorates.8 1468.2618 3.1214 0.9 1331.1504 0.1352 0. Concrete.1895 0.5 1253. the release of water causes shrinkage of the hydrated cement paste. Firstly. while the aggregate and reinforcement is subjected to thermal expansion.

91 . At 710±C. density is assumed constant with the increase in temperature. Upper limit thermal conductivity was assumed and used for analysis purposes. and an unloaded specimen will experience an irreversible expansion [105]. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. Finally. The thermal conductivity for both siliceous (upper limit curve) and calcareous (lower limit curve) aggregate concrete types decreases with an increase in temperature. This section summarises the thermal properties of concrete assumed by ABAQUS. The thermal conductivity of siliceous aggregate concrete is higher than that of calcareous concrete in the temperature range of 200–800°C. above 1150±C. as recommended by EN 1992-1-2 [20]. Recent findings by Xing [111] shows that the crystallisation and microstructure of quartz play an important role in the thermal stability of siliceous aggregates. These cracks cause reduction of the tensile strength and modulus of elasticity.5. At temperatures about 400±C to 535±C the concrete starts weakening rapidly because the calcium hydroxide decomposes into calcium oxide and water. This is due to the higher crystalline of the siliceous aggregates as compared with that of the calcareous aggregate [110]. concrete containing feldspar (common silicate mineral) will melt [105109].The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature in the concrete.5. In addition.2 Thermal conductivity Thermal conductivity is dependent upon the aggregate type and the temperature of the concrete. Density values of 2240kg/m3 were chosen in this research work to mimic the value used for the Compendium of UK [3].1 Density The standard value for the density (ρ) of concrete proposed by EN 1992-1-2 [20] is 2300kg/m3. 3. the rate of decomposition of the remaining calcium silicates reaches its maximum and at about 900±C the volume of quartz aggregates becomes unstable. 3.

This may be associated to the furnace burner which may have different heating energy at different times. A total of ten different models were plotted for intumescent coating thermal conductivity against temperature. A sensitivity study on naked steel was investigated to determine the accurate radiant emissivity at elevated temperature.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 3. dehydration and decarbonisation. with peak values between 100±C and 115±C and linear decrease between values of 115±C and 200±C due to the water evaporation. Cp The moisture content within the concrete causes a peak between 100±C and 200±C. moisture content in the intumescent coating is another possible reason. A moisture content of 3% was assumed in the analysis. The surrounding humidity and ambient temperature before the test is also a factor for the different behaviour of intumescent coating thermal conductivity at elevated temperature.6 Summary of chapter 3 Material properties for steel. no significant spread of specific heat percentage of different concretes is to be expected [113]. 3. and concrete were discussed. Disparity may be caused by the latent heat of the different reactions during heating such as water release. According to Dulong-Petit's heat transfer law [112] . RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. In addition. A model representing the reactive behaviour of thermal conductivity for intumescent coating was discussed. In addition. It was found that the thermal conductivity differed between models. spray-on coating. 92 . intumescent coating.3 Specific heat.5. thermal conductivity at elevated temperature for intumescent coating was computed using the equations from Eurocode and compared against other researchers.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s. ADINA. that are normally not possible or economical to solve using analytical methods. LARSTRAN ‘80. The term ‘finite-element’ was first hallmarked by Clough in 1960. engineers used the method for the approximate solution of problems in stress analysis. ANSYS.2 Fundamentals of the finite-element method (FEM) The finite-element method is an estimated solution method. The first book on the FEM by Zienkiewicz and Chung was published in 1967 [115]. and other areas. and SESAM ’80. Therefore. fluid flow.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Chapter 4 Finite-element method (FEM) and ABAQUS models 4. 93 . namely FENRIS. Some commercially available software comprised ABAQUS. In the early 1960s. 4. the FEM was applied to a wide variety of engineering problems. In the 1980s. FEM software packages rolled on to the market actively in 1970’s. MARK. more FEM software was launched. The FEM is one of the most important developments in computational methods to occur in the 20th century because many complex problems are encountered in Engineering. numerical methods provide an extra edge to overcome this problem by providing fast and reliable results for engineers. heat transfer. and PAFEC. It is basically a numerical process for attaining solutions for numerous and complex engineering RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.1 Origins of the finite-element method (FEM) Development of the finite-element method (FEM) or better known in practical applications as the finite-element analysis (FEA) was initiated by Hrennikoff [114] in 1941.

It is not uncommon today to solve systems containing a million primary unknowns. Solution of these equations gives the estimated behaviour of the continuum or system. In the context of FEM. The first approach of employing the finite-element method is to breakdown a complex problem to simpler shapes called elements. computers and software has brought the FEM within reach of engineers working in small industries. Simply increasing the number of elements can achieve increasing precision. This helps to ease the solution of problems having very large numbers of nodal unknowns. and ready availability of. a set of linear or nonlinear algebraic equations is usually obtained. This is the origin of the name. Two features of the finite-element method are worth noting. The continuum has an infinite number of degrees-of-freedom (DOF). RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature tasks. (1) The piecewise estimate of the physical field (continuum) on finite-elements provides good accuracy even with simple approximating functions. Mathematical relationships are related to these elements which are connected by nodes. The number of equations is usually rather large for most real-world applications of the FEM. (2) The locality of the approximation leads to sparse equation systems for a discretized problem. to breakdown a wheel into simpler shapes. When the effects of loads and boundary conditions are considered. An assembly process is used to link the individual elements to the given system. finiteelement method. Advances in. while the discretized model has a finite number of DOF. For example. one could possibly choose to have a lesser number of elements or choose a denser finite number of elements. these finite and denser lines are called discretization. and even to students. and requires the computational power of the digital computer. 94 .

for structural analysis. [K] known as property such as stiffness. This post failure behaviour of the structure cannot be followed by the common Newton-Raphson algorithm as the structure must release strain energy to remain in equilibrium. which is predominantly displacement in structural analyses. conductivity. They are identified by the terms material. the following equation can be solved for the unknown value. Iteration refers to the cyclic process. viscosity and etc. force boundary condition and displacement boundary condition [118. velocity and etc. where the load-displacement response shows a negative stiffness. the latter also suggested that by reducing the integration order. In addition. The Riks method [120]. Zienkiewicz [117] suggested the use of element shape functions such as triangular elements to simulate variations within the element itself. [K]×{u} = {F} Equation 16 Where. Moreover.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Fagan [116] reported that the structure should be discretized into a number of nodes which are connected by elements. the over-stiffness of an element can be reduced. geometric. Increments and iterations solve the set of simultaneous algebraic equations. {F} known as action such as force. And increment refers to the quantifiable outcome of each iteration. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. the standard NewtonRaphson methods perform poorly for buckling problems. temperature. which is normally unknown and the external forces vector (F) (see Equation 16). By introducing the boundary conditions. iteration accounts for four sources of nonlinear behaviour. {u} known as behaviour such as displacement. Zienkiewicz [117] has derived the stiffness matrix of elements and has assembled the global stiffness matrix (K) which concludes a relationship between the nodal displacement vector (u). Geometrically nonlinear structures sometimes incur buckling or collapse behaviour. body source etc. Furthermore. heat source. in which activities are repeated in a structured manner. 119]. 95 .

3 Modelling with ABAQUS ABAQUS [2] is a commanding general-purpose finite-element software package. *nset. 96 . ABAQUS [2] performs static and/or dynamic analysis and simulation on structures. *nmap Element and element set definition RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY *element. ABAQUS [2] is developed and supported by Hibbitt. *elcopy P. as shown in Table 7. Table 7: Node and element definition Node and set definition *node. Used in many different engineering fields throughout the world. 4. A geometric model code should include the node and node set definitions. contacts. the Riks method is probing an equilibrium state condition at unstable states of response by decreasing the applied load gradually to compute the maximum load that the failed structure could sustain at each stage [124]. and the element and element set definitions. It can deal with bodies with various loads. A drawback and the only problem for all finite-element software could be associated with the disk usage and computational time if a denser shell or continuum elements were employed in models. ABAQUS [2] is written in FORTRAN language and it runs as a batch application. and Powell and Simons [123]. Inc. Ramm [122]. *ngen. Basically. *elset.*elgen. impacts. and other environmental conditions. temperatures. The drawback of using the Modified Riks method is that it cannot be used for structural analysis at elevated temperature. Karlsson & Sorensen.*ncopy.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature which was set up by Crisfield [121]. ABAQUS [2] finite-element analysis provides the utmost competence for thermal and structural analysis at elevated temperature. *nfill. is a representative technique among various post buckling analysis modules.

the number of nodes used in the element determines the interpolation order. The solid element library in ABAQUS [2] includes first order. However. quadratic interpolation elements. linear interpolation elements and second order. 97 . C3D8) RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 4. triangular prisms. For small deformations.1 ABAQUS Continuum elements Solid continuum elements are the building blocks of finite-element analysis. Solid continuum element theory makes the least number of assumptions on the deformation mechanics. Continuum elements come in the form of triangles and quadrilaterals in two dimensions or axisymmetry. Elements with mid-side nodes such as 20-noded bricks (C3D20). and hence are often called linear or first-order elements. (a) Linear element (8-node brick. The wide variety of elements available for solid continuum makes it important to tailor element selection to the problem at hand. element selection for solid continuum is no easier than element selection for more complicated model theories. shown in Figure 40(a). For example. use linear interpolation in each direction. and bricks in threedimensions. shown in Figure 40(b) use quadratic interpolation and are often called quadratic or second-order elements. For isoparametric elements. elements with only corner nodes such as an 8noded brick (C3D8). and tetrahedral. Displacements and other degrees of freedom calculated at the nodes of an element. the three-dimensional deformation mechanics are exact.3. Any of these elements’ stiffness matrices computed using either full or reduced integration methods.

First order triangles and tetrahedral elements are overly stiff. First-order elements typically provide better performance in contact situations. requiring extremely fine meshes to obtain accurate solutions. and the artificial stiffening due to Poisson’s effect in bending. Second-order meshes are able to capture geometric features such as curves with fewer elements than first-order meshes. which is a result of their ability to represent high stress gradients and curved geometries. which eradicates both the parasitic shear stresses that contribute to stiffness in bending. The effect of these modes is to add internal degrees of freedom. Bending behaviour in first-order elements can be improved by adding incompatible deformation modes to the standard displacement degrees of freedom. or severe distortion. Triangles and tetrahedral elements are used to deal with complex geometries. impact. or where kinematic discontinuities exist because they are less sensitive to distortion than second-order elements. a good mesh of quadrilaterals and bricks usually provides a more accurate RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature (b) Quadratic element (20-node brick. Perhaps the greatest benefit of utilizing second-order elements over firstorder elements is their effectiveness in bending dominated problems. and also outdo first-order meshes in several areas such as stress concentration and fracture mechanics problems. C3D20) Figure 40: Linear and quadratic brick elements (reproduced from ABAQUS/Standard User’s Manual [38]) Second-order elements usually provide higher accuracy than first-order elements for problems that do not involve complex situations such as contact. 98 . Typically. thus making them very uneconomical.

The main benefit of Gaussian quadrature is. very high-order accuracy with very few integration points. which facilitates ease of meshing [38. implements a strategy of positioning any two points on a curve to define a straight line that would balance the positive and negative errors. as illustrated in Figures 41 and 42 respectively.3.1 ABAQUS integration technique The Gauss integration rule with 5 integration points was employed in this research work on the surface of the shell element. 42]. although ABAQUS [2] allows up to a value of 15. well known as the Gauss quadrature or Gauss-Legendre. The Gaussian integration rule (Equation 17). 4. typically less than 10.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature solution at far less computational cost. 99 .1. Hence the area evaluated under this straight line provides an improved estimate of the integral. b ∫ f ( x)dx Equation 17 a f(x) a b x Figure 41: Improper balance of the positive and negative regions RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. Quadrilaterals and bricks have a better rate of convergence and are less sensitive to mesh orientation than triangular and tetrahedral elements.

2 Modelling with solid elements Numerical models. 100 . were developed in order to simulate the temperature development of the test specimens. and usually it errs by being too stiff. using the general-purpose finite-element package ABAQUS [2]. employing few Gauss integration points may be sometimes disastrous and may lead to instability due to zero strain at all Gauss points. In the modelling stages. The convection coefficient.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature f(x) a b x Figure 42: Good balance of the positive and negative regions A finite-element model regularly exhibits inaccurate results.1. for the gas furnace according to ISO was taken as 25 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. the values for the heat transfer coefficient and emissivity were taken as those recommended in EN 1991-1-2 [14] and EN 1993-1-2 [17]. Employing more integration points will increase the stiffness simply because additional points will confine higher order terms and this will deliberately resist some deformation modes.3. 4. Temperature from experimental results reported by Dai [79] were used in the analysis. Alternatively. hc. Thermal conductivity values were obtained from Figure 38 and the standard ISO 834 [10] was employed in ABAQUS [33] for the transient heat transfer analysis to determine the thermal response of intumescent protected steelwork.

The fire amplitude and radiation amplitude were carefully interacted with the steel and coating using the ABAQUS interaction manager. DC2D4 and 8-node linear heat transfer brick DC3D8 were engaged for the two models respectively. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. In a standard fire test. which were readily measured by thermocouples.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature W/m2. The maximum allowable temperature change per increment was 10±C. The two-dimensional numerical models were developed on the basis of the steel cross section for both fully protected and bare steels. The increment sizes were chosen because it leads to a better solution during numerical analysis in ABAQUS [33]. The type and response of simulation used was transient heat transfer analysis. and the three-dimension models were developed for partially protected steel members. The intumescent coating temperature is taken as the average value of its exposed surface temperature and the steel temperature.and three-dimensional finite-element models.K [17]. Film condition interaction used in ABAQUS is surface film condition because it defines the convection from model surfaces with the values of 9W/m2K and 25W/m2K for the air and fire side respectively [17]. The heat transfer analysis for both protected and bare steel was implemented using the two. the combustibles are well mixed and the burning is efficient compared to natural fires. where large amounts of soot give higher emissivity.001 and maximum of 10000. 101 . The minimum increment size used was 0. The time for the fire duration was set at one hour as per the experimental work. This was done to make sure the tabulated temperature and surface film conditions were assigned to the exact location to minimise duplication of interaction which leads to analysis errors. Film condition interactions define heating or cooling due to convection by surrounding fluids. A 4-node linear heat transfer quadrilateral. A concrete topping with a depth of 200mm together with corrugated steel plate were interacted using the ‘tie connector’ to the steel beam.

Mindlin’s approach was to adopt a steady transverse shear strain distribution through the plate thickness. bi-axial state of stress. Shells approximate a three-dimensional continuum with a two-dimensional. he introduced shear correction factors to adjust the shear forces. Structural elements can be very advantageous when used in proper applications. Steel or other building materials will weaken and fail if heated due to induced stresses and strains within the material. and other related thermal quantities in an object.3. Typically.1. Although Mindlin’s suggestion contravenes the stress-free boundary condition at both the top and bottom surfaces of the thick plate. Thick shell element developments in ABAQUS are RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. Many hypotheses for shear deformation in thick shell elements were proposed in the literature [125-127]. thin shell theory applies when the shell thickness is less than 1/20 of the typical global shell dimensions. Thick shell theory applies when the shell thickness is between 1/10 and 1/20 of the typical global shell dimensions. which has the capability to model both the thermal and structural response. thick and thin shells. The actual stress distribution in a thick plate is parabolic.3. The nodal temperatures at nodes are denoted as ‘NT11’ (nodal temperature) in ABAQUS. The most extensively used and essentially simpler theory for thick plates was suggested by Mindlin [128].2 ABAQUS shell elements Structural 3-D shell elements are employed in the author’s numerical analyses. A thermo-coupled analysis. convection and radiation. The principal heat transfer process that happens is conduction. heat accumulation or dissipation.3 Heat transfer Thermal analysis was used to determine the temperature distribution.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 4. ABAQUS [2] bases its thin shell elements on Kirchoff’s thin plate theory. Shells are divided into two main categories. 102 . can be efficient to determine the global response of structures. 4.

The thickness is determined from the element nodal geometry. but their kinematic and constitutive behaviour is similar to conventional shell elements [2].1 Modelling with shell elements Shell elements employed in ABAQUS standard are linear S4R. S8R) for 3-D thick shell applications [2]. continuum shell elements discretize an entire three-dimensional body.3. which includes transverse shear effects. The differences between continuum and shell elements are shown in Table 8. a 4-node doubly curved thin shell with reduced integration. and finite membrane strains for structural models. 4. In contrast. ABAQUS recommends the use of four and eight noded elements with reduced integration and finite membrane strains (S4R. hourglass control.2. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. From a modelling point of view continuum shell elements look like three-dimensional continuum solids. Conventional shell elements have six degrees of freedom. Continuum shell elements have only displacement degrees of freedom. which are three displacements and three rotational. 103 .The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature based on Mindlin plate theory.

R2. U2. U3. R3) RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY Displacement degrees of freedom only (U1. 104 . U2.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Table 8: Conventional versus continuum shell elements Conventional Shell Structural body Continuum Shell Structural body Finite-element model Finite-element model Geometry is specified at the reference surface Element thickness is defined by nodal geometry Displacement and rotation degrees of freedom (U1. R1. U3) P.

ABAQUS approximates the smooth stressstrain behaviour of the material with a series of straight lines joining the given data points. therefore. σ = σ no min al (1 + ε no min al ) RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY Equation 18 Equation 19 P.2 Plastic behaviour in ABAQUS The use of true stress and true strain must be accounted for in the definition of plasticity data in ABAQUS. ε = ln(1 + ε no min al ) True stress. The strains provided in material test data used to define the plastic behaviour are not likely to be the plastic strains in the material. Any number of points can be used to approximate the actual material behaviour. The plastic data defines the true yield stress of the material as a function of true plastic strain. it is possible to use a very close approximation of the actual material behaviour. should have a plastic strain value of zero. 105 . The first piece of data given defines the initial yield stress of the material and.3. defined as the value of true stress divided by the Young’s modulus. The author has calculated these total strain values into the elastic and plastic strain components. The plastic strain is obtained by subtracting the elastic strain.2. True stress and strain are computed using Equations 18 and 19 below and are illustrated in Figure 43. therefore.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 4. True strain. Instead. The classical metal plasticity model in ABAQUS defines the post-yield behaviour for most metals. they will probably be the total strains in the material. from the value of total strain.

ε εtotal Figure 43: True stress and strain curve RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.σ εplastic εelastic True strain.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature True stress. 106 .

Intumescent fire protection paint. is primarily used to validate the temperature distribution and to calculate the thermal conductivity of intumescent coatings.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Chapter 5 Temperature distribution of protected composite beams 5. (iv) heat the test specimen according to ISO 834 and record its timetemperature readings. The test specimens for both coated and unloaded steel are named as SP1 to SP10 accordingly. The thicknesses of the coating varied considerably from 1. (vi) analysis of recorded temperature for both steel and intumescent coating The specimens for the tests are abbreviated as SP. (i) assembly and/or attachment of thermocouple (links) to the test specimen. (iii) measurement of the intumescent coating thickness using digital meter. from a well-known UK manufacturer was applied to these composite joints. The involvement by the author is listed below. flush endplate. and flexible endplate.1 Introduction Test data from Dai [79]. (ii) connection of thermocouple to computer data logger. (v) Measurement of charred intumescent coating around test specimen one day after carrying out the test.43mm on the beams and RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. A total of ten tests were carried out by Dai [79] and the author was indirectly associated with some of the test series. fin plate. Dai’s [79] experimental work incorporated four types of steel-concrete composite joints which were web cleat. The intumescent material properties were discussed earlier in Chapter 3.02mm to 1. 107 .

108 .60mm to 0.2 ABAQUS simulation methodology Composite model Element geometry Element material Element sections Element assembly Analysis types Output variable selection Element interactions Element Interaction property Constrain between elements Load and boundary condition Element mesh Tabulated amplitudes Predefined Temperature Field Analysis execution Output visualization Probe values and discussion Figure 44: Flowchart tree in ABAQUS finite-element analysis RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. Tf = 345log10 (8t+1) + 20 Equation 20 5.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 0.95mm on the columns. Intumescent thickness was recorded manually using a digital meter and denoted as dry film thickness (dft). Thermocouples located within the specimen and inside the test furnace recorded temperature values for a one-hour standard fire curve derived from Equation 20.

vertical displacements (U) and reaction forces (RF) were preselected as defaults. The composite model’s physical constants of absolute zero temperature were set at -273K and Stefan-Boltzmann constant set at 5. The modelling space for the elements geometry was chosen as deformable 3-D and the associated geometry SI-units was used throughout the analysis. interaction property and finally the interaction constraint. for the heat transfer analysis. Once the element geometry. solid homogeneous materials for all the materials were assumed. heat flux vector (HFL) and reaction fluxes (RFL) were preselected as defaults meanwhile for the structural analysis. In the output variable selection. In the element sections. Interaction type was referred by the author as the fire-side and/or the air-side in the numerical model. Both the former were employed for the heat transfer analysis and the latter employed for the heat transfer and structural analysis. Interaction can be divided into three main categories. The next stage in modelling was the interaction. equivalent plastic strain (PEEQ). The interaction type values were obtained from EN 1991-1-2 [14]. materials and sections were clearly defined. Regenerating the amended model was an important task. the next step was to group these elements together to form a complete composite model. The static-general analysis was used for structural analysis at elevated temperature. namely interaction type. otherwise the changes that were made could not be visualised in the viewport. convection and conduction. ABAQUS viewport can be refreshed or regenerated to take into consideration the changes made intermittently between the model trees before executing analysis. 109 .The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature The author executed the finite-element analysis using the summarized methodology in Figure 44. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. Temperature dependent material up to 1200±C was employed for heat transfer analysis. nodal temperature (NT). the stresses (S). The type of analysis used by the author was limited to the transient heat transfer (w) involving radiation.6697 x 10-8.

Time and amplitude data plays a vital role in the temperature distribution and thus for the furnace temperature. Mesh selection for continuum and shell elements was carried out accordingly.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Load and boundary conditions for a simply supported steel beam are selected to prevent lateral torsional buckling during analysis. using the average thermal conductivity. The minimum increment size used was 0. followed by two symmetrical beam lengths of 1000mm and 600mm respectively. 110 . Mesh sensitivity analysis was performed to overcome divergence of iterative solution over time. The experimental model is shown in Figure 46. The maximum allowable temperature change per increment was 10±C.2. The respective material properties at elevated temperature for steel beam. whereas the numerical model is shown in Figure 45. intumescent coating. The columns used were UC 254 x 254 x 89 whilst the beams were UB 305 x 165 x 40.1. The details are presented in Section 6. The type and response of the simulation used was transient heat transfer analysis. Then. was obtained to illustrate the behaviour of the intumescent coating at elevated temperature.2. the mean value of the furnace gas temperature was used and these values were very close to the standard ISO 834 [10]. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. and concrete topping were employed accordingly in the ABAQUS material section manager. A time-temperature relationship between the test data and ABAQUS. steel column. The details of node selection for boundary condition are enumerated in Section 6. The time for fire duration was set at one hour as per the experiment.001 and maximum of 10000. the aforementioned temperature was carefully interacted with the steel and intumescent coating.2. The column height was 1000mm.

The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Figure 45: Partially protected steel beam-to-column connection for furnace test Concrete Topping Corrugated steel sheets Partial Intumescent Coating Figure 46: Temperature distribution for steel beam with partial intumescent coating protection at the beam 5. 111 .3 Temperature analysis The temperature distribution for intumescent protected steel from Figure 46 did provide meaningful results and a base to understand this proprietary fire protection RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.

Although careful attention was given to the thermal properties RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. Secondly. Intumescents are strongly dependent on the activation energy that defines the mass loss of the virgin paint. This difference in temperature was probably caused by a situation called the “shadow effect. The bottom soffit flange temperature for both the numerical results and test data is much lower than the webs of beam. as expected. Since it was impossible to measure the charring temperature. which may lead to the marginal difference in results. This may be associated with various factors as enumerated below. the thermal conductivity of intumescent computation is another possible reason for the difference in the numerical and test results.” Although it was mentioned earlier that the shadow coefficient for a steel beam or column with fire protection may be ignored. the loss of moisture during heating is another possibility. the shadow coefficient value of 1 was used. the shadowing process does occur minimally. Numerical analysis exhibited a gentle parabolic curve. The author has attributed these differences in temperature to the intumescence and pyrolisis process once it was subjected to fire. because of data unavailability could account for different trends in the curve. In most of the cases the numerical analyses overestimated the temperature values at elevated temperature after an average of 11 mins of fire exposure. it was found that the trend of the predicted temperature curves was different between the test and the numerical analysis.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature system behaviour at elevated temperature. whereas the test exhibited an arc-shaped curve (bump) for the initial phase of exposure. In this instance the soffit flange was shielded from furnace radiation by the column flanges. In addition. A change in the density pattern which was not included in the analysis. In the numerical steel temperature validation against test results. the location of the gas burner could also lead to these differences because the amount of heat received by steel web during experimental was possibly higher compared to the standard ISO 834 heat specified during numerical analysis. From Figures 47 to 56. An important judgment from the results shown in Figures 47 to 56 is the overall time-temperature curve for 1-hour fire exposure. 112 .

113 . which had fallen off the steel at this juncture allowing direct radiation heat energy on the steel. the sharp turn occurred much earlier. An analogous scenario can be seen in Figure 51. it can be seen that both the time-temperature obtained from the midlength of flange and web from the experiment started to ‘bump’ at average time of 5 mins. the experimental web and numerical values had similar temperatures up to 7 mins (420s). For numerical analysis.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature of the intumescent at elevated temperature. The web could have received less radiation energy compared to the flange. did not resemble the experimental results for the first 20 mins. Moreover. the numerical simulation could not resemble the actual test behaviour due to the factors elaborated earlier. the numerical analysis under-predicted the temperature by about 100±C and did not resemble the sharp turn. it could be assumed that a certain amount of shadowing might have occurred on the web. therefore. the flange temperature was below the web temperature with a difference of about 50±C. The test temperature for the flange and the web was almost similar after 17 mins (1020s) of exposure. In Figure 47. The experimental web for the very first time did not exhibit the sharp turn as expected. however. Between ambient and 5 mins. The average difference between the test data and numerical results was about 100±C after 17 mins (1020s). The numerical time-temperature obtained from the mid-flange. After 17 mins of exposure. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. but after this period the temperature rose rapidly and the possible reason may be attributed to the loss of intumescent. the author assumes that the intumescence process did not initiate actively and was considered to be in a virgin state. compared to Figure 47. in Figure 49 there seems to be good agreement between the experimental web and the numerical web temperatures up to 20 mins of exposure. In Figure 48. On this occasion. both test and numerical agreed well with both exhibiting different time-temperature gradient at an average difference of about 100±C. In this instance.

54 and 56. it was noted that the experimental web values were inconsistent during tests. the numerical analysis over predicted the temperature values at an average difference of 150±C. It can be acknowledged that the numerically predicted temperatures achieved a dissimilar response against experimental values by employing the effective thermal conductivity in the numerical analysis. The possible reason could be related to the low radiation energy received by the flange during the test. The temperature obtained from the mid-section of the web in Figure 55 had close agreement with the flange values. Both Figures 54 and 55 had similarities for the temperature obtained from the midsection of the experimental flange for the initial 8 mins of fire exposure. the temperature values obtained from the mid-section of the steel web for both the numerical and experimental data had close agreement whilst the temperature obtained in the mid-section of the numerical steel flange did not show good agreement with the experimental temperature. After this period. The difference in temperature range noted was between 50±C and 150±C. In Figure 51. the author believes that the temperature assessment of the intumescent coated steel beams and columns was numerically valid if observed as a whole and the dissimilar temperature difference can be ignored. 114 . the flange temperature value was lower than the web temperature. for numerical analysis.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature In Figure 50. This was attributed to the thermocouples (links) which detached from the original position leading to furnace temperature values being recorded rather than the actual steel web temperature values. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. the test and numerical analysis had very good agreement for the initial 8 mins of fire exposure. In Figures 53. Both the flange and the web for both experimental and numerical data had similar agreement. Although the numerical analysis failed to pick the ‘bump’ at the initial stages of exposure. Additionally.

The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature

900
800

ABQ Average Flange

ABQ Average Web

Experiment Web

Experiment Flange

Tem perature(°C )

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Time(s)

Figure 47: Time-temperature for SP1 (Average beam dft =1.11mm)
900
Experimetal Flange
ABQ Average Flange

800

Experimental Web
ABQ Average Web

700

T em p era tu re(C )

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Time(s)

Figure 48: Time-temperature for SP2 (Average beam dft =1.02mm)

RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY

P. 115

The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature

900
800

Experimental Flange

Experimental Web

Average Flange

Average Web

700

Temperature(C)

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Time(s)

Figure 49: Time-temperature for SP3 (Average column dft = 0.60mm)
900
800

Experimental Flange

Experimental Web

Average Flange

Average Web

700

Temperature(C)

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Time(s)

Figure 50: Time-temperature for SP4 (Average beam dft =1.28mm)

RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY

P. 116

The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature

900
800

Experimental Flange

Experimental Web

ABQ Average Web

ABQ Average Flange

700

Temperature(C)

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Time(s)

Figure 51: Time-temperature for SP5 (Average beam dft =1.18mm)

900
800

Experimental Flange

Experimental Web

ABQ Average Web

ABQ Average Flange

700

Temperature(C)

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Time(s)

Figure 52: Time-temperature for SP6 (Average column dft = 0.62mm)

RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY

P. 117

The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature

1200

1000

Experimental Flange

Experimental Web

Average Flange

Average Web

Tem perature(C)

800

600

400

200

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Time(s)

Figure 53: Time-temperature for SP7 (Average beam dft =1.22mm)
1000
Experimental Flange
ABQ Average Flange

900

Experimental Web
ABQ Average Web

800

Temperature(C)

700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Time(s)

Figure 54: Time-temperature for SP8 (Average beam dft =1.28mm)

RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY

P. 118

23mm) RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.25mm) 900 800 Experimental Flange Experimental Web ABQ Average Flange ABQ Average Web 700 Temperature(C0 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Time(s) Figure 56: Time-temperature for SP10 (Average beam dft =1. 119 .The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 900 800 Experimental Flange Experimental Web ABQ Average Flange ABQ Average Web 700 Temperature(C) 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Time(s) Figure 55: Time-temperature for SP9 (Average beam dft =1.

The tie is an intermediate connection between the steel beam and concrete topping. It depends on the overall protection condition of the steel beam in the composite deck and varies between solid slab and profiled steel sheeting slabs.1 Overview A supplementary numerical study on the temperature distribution of headed shear studs. Fire protection applied for structural steel could minimise the rise of temperature in shear studs. was investigated for its behaviour at elevated temperature for protected steel beams. This case study was carried out to consider the effects of well-known spray-on fire protection at elevated temperatures on the temperature distribution of the composite steel and concrete beams for profiled steel sheeting slabs used in the World Trade Centre (WTC 7). This investigation considers the rise of temperature at the base of the shear stud for various fire protection damage scenarios using the three-dimensional non-linear finite-element program ABAQUS. or commonly known as shear connectors. This tie could be at risk of failure if an unexpected rise in temperature is attained inside the shear stud.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 5. If this happens.4. 5. At elevated temperatures. it would lose its intended design purpose because the tie could slip thus losing its bonding shear force strength between the concrete and the steel. The motivation for this case study is to increase the awareness and the importance of fire protection in composite steel. This study was included in the author’s work to anchor the understanding of spray-on passive fire protection at elevated temperatures. the material properties change with temperature. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. 120 .4 Temperature Profile of Headed Shear Stud for SprayOn Fire Protected Composite Beams. The finite-element analysis showed that the temperature profile at the base of shear connector under fire exposure was susceptible. One of the prevention methods is to provide passive fire protection to the steel beam to retard the heat flux energy towards the shear stud.

0 10296. Figure 57: Shear studs modelled in ABAQUS 5. The sectional properties for the beam are listed in Table 9 whereas the material properties taken are as illustrated in Chapter 3. Table 9: W24 X 55 section properties Depth Flange width (mm) Nominal 599.4. 121 .The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 5.8 Actual 600 178 13 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY Web thickness (mm) 10 Area (mm2) 10 10368. The profiled steel deck forms part of the composite interaction between the slab.05 Flange thickness (mm) 12.4.44 178. the geometry and material properties are defined accordingly for concrete and structural steel.2 Composite model using ABAQUS Figure 57 shows the model in ABAQUS comprising the shear studs which were ‘tied’ at 250mm intervals.5 P. The corrugated slab was embedded on top of the shear studs for composite action.3 Heat transfer analysis To perform the heat transfer analysis. shear stud and the steel beam. along the mid length of the W24 X 44 steel beam.

partially protected steel beam refers to the type of protection where the whole section of the steel beam’s web and/or the flange length is not protected at all. and damaged protection have distinct meanings. the terms fully protected. The shear stud’s shank diameter specified at 20mm with a depth of 75mm. The minimum increment size used was 0.5. hc. 122 . the convection coefficient. Finally. partially damaged and bare steel was implemented using the three dimensional finite-element models. steel deck with thickness of 1mm. The heat transfer analysis for the fully protected. for the gas furnace fire according to ISO was taken as 25 W/m2K [82]. An 8-node linear heat transfer brick DC3D8 was engaged for the models respectively. damaged coating refers to areas of localised damage within the length of the steel beam’s web and/or flange. The surface exposed to the fire was carefully selected and interacted. The maximum allowable temperature change per increment was 10 ºC. American wide flange beam.001 and the maximum was 20. as shown in Figure 57. corrugated slab thickness of 130mm and associated spray-on fire protection were specified in the model construction.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature ABAQUS [2] was used for the heat transfer analysis. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. The shear studs were attached to the steel beam using a tie connection. For this work. The type and response of simulation used was transient heat transfer analysis. The time period for fire duration was set at one hour. W24 X 55 (600 x 178 x 82UB). The surface radiation emissivity was assumed to be 0. The author would like to emphasize that in this research work. Fully protected refers to the steel beam that is fully protected with spray-on and/or intumescent coating. whereas. whilst the shear stud cap diameter specified twice the diameter of shear stud shank with a depth of 15mm. partially protected.

The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 5. Details of shear stud temperature are shown in Figure 59. Figure 58: Beam fully protected Figure 59: Shear stud temperature for fully protected beam RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. The base of shear stud attained maximum temperature of 231ºC. 123 .4. all instances (referred from ABAQUS) in the model were partly hidden to expose the shear stud.4 Numerical results for temperature distribution Temperature assessments for 60 mins fire exposure are shown in Figure 58 for a fully protected steel beam. The assessment showed that the profiled steel deck and corrugated slab had the least temperature increment compared to the surface of fire protection and the steel member. To investigate the shear stud temperature within the composite model.

upperside and underside left unprotected Figure 60: Beam bottom flange left unprotected. as shown in Figure 60. others fully protected Figure 61: Shear stud temperature for unprotected bottom flange RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. It was found that there is a marginal increase of temperature at the base of the shear stud up to 259ºC. 124 . the upperside and underside of the steel beam’s bottom flange left unprotected for the whole length of the beam (this includes the edges which were left unprotected).The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature To investigate the partially protected steel beam. as seen in Figure 61. This increase was accounted for based on the heat energy from the furnace fire and the radiation that conducts directly through the unprotected section. However. the reduced protection in this area can be mimicked in the fully protected scenario because the temperature distribution within the shear stud was almost similar.

This could be attributed to the widely exposed upper flange section where the shear stud was tied along the length of the beam. the question arises of how other partially unprotected regions of the steel beam would increase and/or further decrease the shear stud temperature. as shown in Figure 63. On this occasion. others protected Figure 63: Shear stud temperature for unprotected upper flange RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Further to the similarities seen earlier between the fully protected and partially unprotected beam bottom flange. as shown in Figure 62. the author has chosen to partially unprotect the both the underside of the upper flange of the steel beam (this includes the upper flange edges which were left unprotected). underside of the beam’s upper flange left unprotected Figure 62: Beam upper flange left unprotected. 125 . and found that the base shear stud temperature increased sharply to 632±C.

as shown in Figure 64. further investigation on the removal of protection for both the upper and bottom flanges of the steel were carried out. as shown in Figure 65. Figure 64: Both upper and bottom beam flange left unprotected Figure 65: Shear stud temperature for unprotected upper and bottom flange RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Upon discovering the temperature impact for the unprotected upper flange of the steel beam. The findings conclude that the shear stud temperature has shown a marginal difference when compared to the earlier scenario when the upper flange was left unprotected. 126 . upperside of the beam’s upper flange and both upperside and underside of the beam’s bottom flange left unprotected.

as shown in Figure 66.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature The final analysis was performed by partially removing the protection on both sides of the web area. as shown in Figure 67. both sides of web left unprotected Figure 66: Beam web. 127 . The highest recorded temperature at the shear stud base was 526±C. both side left unprotected Figure 67: Shear stud temperature for unprotected web RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. The shear stud base temperature distribution did increase appreciably.

the shear stud may experience rapid increase in temperature and thus lose its intended design shear force. The case study was to investigate the shear stud base temperature. This happens to most of the fire protection systems. 128 . for unprotected steel beams. as shown in Figure 59.5 Temperature distribution of spray-on protected steelwork Unlike intumescent. The thickness of Monokote MK-5 varies between 15mm and 25mm. The maximum temperature attained at the base of the shear stud for a fully protected beam with shear studs at mid-length of the wide flange beam is about 232±C after 1-hour standard fire exposure. The beams were exposed to a period of 120 mins fire and it is now clear that. Although the structural RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. Interestingly. In addition. a 10% rise in temperature occurs if the bottom flange is left unprotected and the rest of the beam protected. 5. the shear stud temperature did not rise significantly until 47 mins for fully protected beams.4.4. as shown in Figure 61. At elevated temperature. using Monokote MK-5 as a means of fire protection. the shear stud will attain a temperature of 526±C and this is a rise of 125%.6 Results and Discussion Temperature profiles.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 5. from the temperature analysis. for most of the cases significantly show that the areas of reduced or partially protected steel beam do display a dissimilar temperature distribution at the base of the shear stud (at the tied connection). On the other hand. if both web sides are left unprotected. the thermal conductivity of spray-on Monokote MK-5 proprietary system increases when the temperature increases. The summary of time-temperature relationship for the shear stud base is shown in Figure 68. An abrupt temperature rise of 170% occurs to the base of the shear stud if the beam’s upper flange is left unprotected compared to a fully protected beam. it is apparent that if both the upper and bottom flanges are left unprotected. then the temperature variation is very much similar to the beam with the upper flange left unprotected. as shown in Figure 67. as shown in Figure 63.

0 0.0 2.6 500°C 600°C 0.2 1. 700 BARE STEEL 600 UFD UFD+BFD Temperature(°C) 500 WD 400 300 BFD 200 FP 100 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Time(s) Beam Fully Protected(FP) Beam Upper Flange Damage(UFD) Beam Web Damage(WD) Beam Bottom Flange Damage(BFD) Beam Bottom and Upper Flange Damage(BFD+UFD) Beam Bare Steel Figure 68: Temperature-time relationship for base of shear stud at elevated temperature for various fire protection damages 1.4 700°C 0.0 Slip (mm) Figure 69: Typical force–slip–temperature curves for shear stud connectors [129] RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.0 3.0 5.0 1.0 4. 129 .0 6.0 Normalised Force (P/Pu) 100°C 200°C 300°C 0.8 400°C 0. the author has included some literature from other research articles to demonstrate how shear stud slip could compromise the overall structural stability due to shear failure.2 800°C 0.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature instability due to the rise of temperature at the base of the shear stud was not analysed.

The reduction was significant at 68%. Choi [131] presented recent developments using shear stud connectors. and 50mm from the shear stud base. 30mm. From Figure 68.0mm. for a slip of 5mm. The contributing factors are attributed to the mass loss of virgin intumescent coating. 130] presented some test results for the force–slip–temperature characteristics of a 19x100 mm headed shear stud. 13]. significant reduction of strength was observed. the results for ten different specimens varied between experiment and numerical. These curves are shown in Figure 69 in terms of normalised force P/Pu (at 20°C) and slip in mm. two shear stud base temperatures of 500°C and 700°C are used for comparison with the force-slip diagram. this reduces the stud shear force to 50% of its original ultimate shear value for a temperature of 500°C. the moisture content which was not accounted RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.5 Summary of chapter 5 Data from experimental work was used to validate the temperature analyses using ABAQUS. Assuming the shear stud slips at 2. The respective steel column and steel beam used was UC 254X254X89 and UB 305X165X40.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Kruppa [129. and with a slip of 2mm. the test specimen consisted of 150x150x30UC connected to a C30 concrete slab with dimensions of 400mm width x 150mm depth and 500mm height. Secondly. 130 . the ultimate capacity of the shear stud measured was 38kN after 60 mins fire exposure compared to 120kN at ambient temperature. Furthermore. 5. It was concluded from the temperature analyses that for 1hour fire exposure. As the temperature rise at 10mm was over 600±C at 60 mins. The impact of reducing fire protection may result in higher temperatures being attained at the base of the shear stud and could lead to the loss of shear strength of the shear stud embedded inside the concrete. Whereas. Choi [131] segmented the shear stud into reference points to obtain the temperature development. the normalised force reduces further to 10% of the original ultimate shear force value. Using a similar shear stud geometry as Kruppa [12. The reference points for the shear stud were located at distances of 10mm. if the temperature is about 700°C.

The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature during numerical analyses did not pick the ‘bump’ as per experimental for tests SP1 to SP10. This scenario explains that the amount of fire protection damage had little impact on the rise of shear stud base temperature. it was found that both steel beam’s upper flange damage (UFD) and combination of steel beam’s upper flange damage (UFD) and steel beam’s bottom flange damage (BFD) had close time-temperature trend. It revealed that the numerical procedure closely reproduced for steel beam’s bottom flange damage (BFD) and fully protected beam (FP). 131 . In a similar fashion. This observable fact was seen at an average time interval between 5 mins to 8 mins. the ‘bump’ observed from the experimental timetemperature curve could be associated to the moisture loss from intumescent coating. The author believes that. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. This scenarion explains that the rise of shear stud temperature is critical in fire protection damage at these locations. An additional numerical temperature distribution was performed on shear studs for fully protected. partially protected and unprotected steel.

apart from Test 1 which was loaded at two points. The floor beams were loaded using hydraulic jacks located at four points. 5/8 and 7/8 of the span length. For the sizes of sections for all five tests. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. Loading was done using steel bearing plates and through the non-structural slab. 132 . which were 1/8. The two grades of steel used were Grades 43A and 50B respectively. the maximum permissible bending stresses at mid span were between 165 and 230N/mm2 for both grades respectively. 3/8. A nonstructural concrete panel topping (650mm wide and 135mm thick) with density of 2240kg/m3 was placed and restrained on the upper flange of the beam.1 Introduction Time-vertical deflection response for various boundaries and loading conditions for five sets of simply supported floor beams with available test results were investigated numerically using ABAQUS [2]. The test procedure and results data were obtained from Wainman [3] and Figure 70 shows the associated floor beam after fire test.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Chapter 6 Analysis of results for loaded and unprotected simply supported beam 6.

2 Numerical model analysis 6. The chosen mesh aspect ratio was 1.2. In the author’s research.1 Mesh Sensitivity To find the optimum S4R shell element mesh size. the sensitivity study was divided into two stages. 133 . In stage one. Usually the accuracy of the results decreases with an increase in the aspect ratio. Often the best results are achieved using an element with an aspect ratio of 1:1 or 1:2. a number of mesh sensitivity studies were carried out using various mesh element densities.5m long floor beam being removed from furnace following a fire test (reproduced from Wainman [3]) 6.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Figure 70: A 4. The outcome of the mesh sensitivity and aspect ratio are shown in Figure 71 and Table 10 respectively.63 for a total of 8000 shell elements. An increase in the mesh density helps resolve convergence problems. Increasing the number of elements (nodes and integration points) proved to be useful in overcoming the divergence of the solution due to occurrence of large displacements. sensitivity studies were carried out for three different beam elements with different mesh sizes on a UB 254 x 146 x 43 unprotected steel. The author would like RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.

63 in the beginning of the research proved to be very time-consuming but the output of the numerical validation against the experiment had good agreement.58 P. In the second stage. Table 10: Average aspect ratio of mesh for unprotected beam in ABAQUS [2] Shell elements 7200 8000 8800 Average aspect ratio 1. Four shell elements with various mesh sizes were employed and the outcome suggests that 650 shell elements with average aspect ratio of 2.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature to point out that the chosen average aspect ratio of 1.17 3. 134 .12 2.17 exhibited faster and economical results as represented in Figure 72 and Table 11.63 1.51 1.61 4. the objective was to minimise the computational time for a protected UB 256 X 146 X43.79 Table 11 : Average aspect ratio of mesh for protected beam in ABAQUS [2] Shell elements 120 275 650 1100 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY Average aspect ratio 2.

The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 16 Load per node (kN) 14 12 10 8 8000 shell elements 6 8800 shell elements 4 7200 shell elements 2 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Displacement(mm) Figure 71: Mesh size sensitivity study for unprotected beam 20 Load per node (kN) 18 16 14 12 10 8 650 shell elements 1100 shell elements 275 shell elements 120 shell elements 6 4 2 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Displacement(mm) Figure 72 : Mesh size sensitivity for protected beam RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. 135 .

The selection of nodes along the length of the beam (z-direction) in Figure 73 was important to prevent the beam from experiencing lateral torsional buckling (LTB). Careful selection of nodes was important to prevent local web buckling and lateral torsional buckling (LTB) during the analysis.UY prevented in the flange with 10nodes at end B 5) UX prevented along the beams mid section length Y 2 5 4 End B X Z 1 3 End A Figure 73(a): Sketch showing the boundary conditions for the beam RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.UY. the nodes were selected partially at the web.UZ prevented in the flange with 10 nodes at end A 4) UX. It was established that for simply supported beams modelled using a shell element in ABAQUS [2]. The overall selection of boundary condition completes the requirement for the simply-supported beam.UY.2.UY prevented in the web with 5 nodes at end B 3) UX. This selection provided the required stability while executing the model for the required step time. 136 .UZ prevented in the web with 5 nodes at end A 2) UX. boundary conditions are imposed on the beam’s displacement (U) which is: 1) UX. In the ABAQUS coordinate system (CSYS). the bottom flange and finally along the length of the beam.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 6.2 Boundary condition It was found that the boundary condition for simply supported beams using shell elements to achieve numerical stability was achieved by selecting appropriate nodes and positions along the beam.

The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature

Y
B
Z

X

A

Figure 74(b): Typical numerical time-vertical deflection as probed from ABAQUS
output

6.2.3 Loads
Loads are applied vertically to the steel beam through the concrete slab. Since the
applied force or load is to perform plastic analysis, therefore, applying this load to
one nodal point will cause convergence problem as the stress is infinite. Local
singularity of one node can destroy the global system convergence behaviour. The
author used nine nodal points as seen in Figure 74 to distribute the load in the
ABAQUS shell element. A concrete slab is modelled as a non-structural component
for analysis purpose as it is merely there to act as cover to the furnace, whilst the
vertical loads are applied directly to the beams at specified loading locations.

RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY

P. 137

The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature

Vertical
load, P

P

Figure 75: Application of vertical load which is spread around the nodes and inset
figure shows the convergence due to application of vertical load at one single node

RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY

P. 138

The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature

6.3 Modelling simply supported steel floor beam

The beam section for Test 1 to Test 4 is UB254X146X43, whereas for Test 5 it is UB
356X171X67. The respective load ratios are 0.49, 0.56, 0.62, 0.40 and 0.63 for Test
1 to Test 5 respectively. The ambient steel yield strength was taken as the average
yield strength of the flange and the web. During structural static analysis, the
temperature ‘odb’ file was predefined to the existing model in ABAQUS [2] and this
enabled the structural model to execute the temperature data whilst analysing the
loaded structure. Since the concrete was non-structural, and for the purpose of
numerical solution, the value of 1 was assumed for the initial loading in Step 1 and
the applied loading specified in Step 2.

6.3.1 Steel floor beam for Test 1
Section size
Grade
Average yield strength
Slab size
Effective span
Loads applied
Initial ambient temperature

: 254x146x43 UB
: 43A
: 295N/mm2
: 130mm thick x 650mm wide
: 4.5m
: 44.15kN + self weight (total load)
as two point loads@1.5m from supports
: 21±C

Figure 76: Vertical deflection (U2) for Test 1

RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY

P. 139

The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature

600

500

Temperature(°C)

400

300

200

100

0
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Time(min)
Test Upper Flange

ABAQUS Upper Flange

Figure 77: Beam upper flange time-temperature, numerical against Test 1
800
700

Temperature(°C)

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Time(min)
Test Web

ABQ Web

Figure 78: Web time-temperature, numerical against Test 1

RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY

P. 140

RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. 77 and 78 show the temperature assessment using numerical analysis for an unprotected simply supported beam against Test 1. 141 . Figure 79 shows the numerical vertical deflection against Test 1. The temperature for the beam’s lower flange and web exhibited some variance after 5 mins of exposure.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 800 700 Temperature(°C) 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Time(min) Test Lower Flange ABQ Lower Flange Figure 79: Beam lower flange time-temperature numerical against Test 1 160 140 Vertical Deflection(mm) 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time(min) Test Deflection ABQ Deflection Figure 80: Vertical deflection numerical analysis against Test 1 Figures 76. This variance was between 50±C and 100±C and may be attributed to the inconsistent heat energy absorbed by the naked steel during the test compared to consistent heat energy in the numerical analysis. The beam’s upper flange agreed well with the test results. which yielded a close deformation profile against the test result.

2 Steel floor beam for Test 2 Section size Grade Average yield strength Slab size Effective span Loads applied Initial ambient temperature : 254x146x43 UB : 50B : 405N/mm2 : 125mm thick x 650mm wide : 4.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 6. 142 .3.585m : 46.73kN (4-point load) : 13±C Figure 81: Vertical deflection (U2) for Test 2 500 450 400 Temperature(°C) 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Time(min) Test Upper Flange ABQ Upper Flange Figure 82 : Beam upper flange time-temperature numerical against Test 2 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.

143 . numerical against Test 2 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 700 600 Temperature(°C) 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Time(min) Test Lower Flange ABQ Lower Flange Figure 83 : Beam lower flange time-temperature numerical against Test 2 800 700 Temperature(°C) 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Time(min) Test Web ABQ Web Figure 84: Beam web time-temperature.

54kN (4-point load) : 16±C P. 82 and 83).The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 180 160 Vertical Deflection(mm) 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Time(min) Test Deflection Numerical Deflection Figure 85 : Vertical deflection numerical analysis against Test 2 The ABAQUS [2] numerical deflection for Test 2 is shown in Figure 80. the numerical analysis under-predicted the vertical deflection. For the vertical deflection in Test 2.5N/mm2 : 125mm thick x 650mm wide : 4.3. whereas. 144 .585m : 32. The temperature prediction for the beam upper flange. 6.3 Steel floor beam for Test 3 Section size Grade Average yield strength Slab size Effective span Loads applied Initial ambient temperature RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY : 254x146x43 UB : 43A : 263. the numerical prediction was lower than the test results between 7 mins and 20 mins. The test show linear relationship in this time region. web and beam lower flange was consistent with the test results (see Figures 81.

The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Figure 86: Vertical deflection (U2) for Test 3 450 400 350 Temperature(°C) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Time(min) Test Upper Flange ABQ Upper Flange Figure 87: Beam upper flange time-temperature. 145 . numerical against Test 3 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.

146 .The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 700 600 Temperature(°C) 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Time(min) Test Web ABQ Web Figure 88: Beam web time-temperature numerical against Test 3 700 600 Temperature(°C) 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Time(min) Test Lower Flange ABQ Lower Flange Figure 89: Beam lower flange time-temperature numerical against Test 3 160 140 Vertical Deflection(mm) 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Time(min) Test Deflection ABQ Deflection Figure 90: Vertical deflection numerical analysis against Test 3 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.

Furthermore the vertical deflection curve had a similar trend against the test results as seen from Figure 89. Numerical analysis for both the temperature development for the beam’s upper flange.3. web and lower flange predicted well against the test results (see Figures 86. 6.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature The numerical deflection for Test 3 is shown in Figure 85.4 Steel floor beam for Test 4 Section size Grade Average yield strength Slab size Effective span Loads applied Initial ambient temperature : 254x146x43 UB : 50B : 408.92 kN(4-point load) : 15±C Figure 91: Vertical deflection (U2) for Test 4 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. 147 . 87 and 88).465m : 33.5N/mm2 : 125mm thick x 650mm wide : 4.

The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 600 500 Temperature(°C) 400 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Time(min) Test Upper Flange ABQ Upper Flange Figure 92: Beam upper flange time-temperature. numerical against Test 4 800 700 Temperature(°C) 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Time(min) Test Lower Flange ABQ Lower Flange Figure 94: Beam lower flange time-temperature. numerical against Test 4 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. 148 . numerical against Test 4 800 700 Temperature(°C) 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time(min) Test Web ABQ Web Figure 93: Beam web time-temperature.

Similar agreement was obtained for the steel beam’s vertical deflection shown in Figure 94. 6. web and lower flange as seen in Figures 91. The temperature obtained from the numerical analysis for Test 4 had predicted well against test results for the steel beam’s upper flange. 92 and 93.5 Steel floor beam for Test 5 Section size Grade Average yield strength Slab size Effective span Loads applied Initial ambient temperature RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY : 356x171x67UB : 43A : 260N/mm2 : 125mm thick x 670mm wide : 4.465m : 72. 149 .3.90 kN(4-point load) : 14±C P.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 180 160 Vertical Deflection(mm) 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time(min) Test Deflection ABQ Deflection Figure 95: Vertical deflection numerical analysis against Test 4 The numerical deflection for Test 4 is shown in Figure 90.

150 .The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Figure 96: Vertical deflection (U2) for Test 5 450 400 350 Temperature(°C) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time(min) Test Upper Flange ABQ Upper Flange Figure 97: Beam upper flange time-temperature. numerical against Test 5 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. numerical against Test 5 800 700 Temperature(°C) 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time(min) Test Web ABQ Web Figure 98: Beam web time-temperature.

However. The vertical deflection for the steel RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. This was possibly related to an error recorded during the test which may have occurred from a false reading by the thermocouple in the furnace. the beam’s upper flange temperature had very good agreement against the test results. numerical against Test 5 160 140 Vertical Deflection(mm) 120 100 80 60 40 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time(min) Test Deflection ABQ deflection Figure 100: Vertical deflection numerical analysis against Test 5 The numerical deflection for Test 5 is shown in Figure 95. It was found that the beam’s upper flange had good agreement with the test result apart from a single temperature surge at 3 mins as seen in Figure 96. The variance was less than 5%. The beam’s web temperature analysis slightly overpredicted the temperature compared to the test results.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 700 600 Temperature(°C) 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time(min) Test Lower Flange ABQ Lower Flange Figure 99: Beam lower flange time-temperature. as shown in Figures 97 and 98. 151 .

and the small variance between 30 to 35 mins can be neglected. the deflection rate varied significantly when subjected to different loading conditions. Generally. the numerical and the test results have good agreement. In addition. applied loads.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature beam predicted well against the test result throughout the duration of the test.5 N/mm2 did achieve maximum deflection much earlier compared to Test 1 because the total imposed loading for Test 3 was higher at 130kN. grades. The section factor is 173. Tests 2.4m-1 for UB 254X146X43 and UB 356X171X67 respectively. it was found that. 3. Test 5 with a larger cross section exhibited much better resistance to fire at higher imposed loading of 292kN. Since the lower yield strength values for both the tests were almost similar.56 reached maximum deflection at 23 mins compared to 30 mins for Test 4 with a load ratio of 0. For Test 2 and Test 4. for the first 30 mins of the fire exposure. 4. Deflections in unprotected steel beams are governed by total imposed loading. and 5 have four loading points. 6. temperatures. as shown in Figure 99.40. 152 . The possible reason could be attributed to displacement sensor slip.6m-1 and 147. the rate by which the naked steel beam will heat up depends on the surface area exposed to the fire and mass of the section. Unlike Test 1.4 Discussion of analysis results The results for the unprotected steel beam for different section properties. The imposed loads were 187kN and 136kN for Test 2 and Test 4. The total loading for Test 1 was about 88kN with lower yield strength of 295 N/mm2. Test 2 with a load ratio of 0. and different average tensile properties are discussed. The maximum deflection attained was 150mm at 27 mins. For Test 1. Test 3 with average lower yield strength of 263. it is interesting to see how the numerical simulation responded for other tests. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.

153 . The author believe this could be associated to the heating rate for the steel which was uncharacteristically slow and which was spelled during the outcome of the test results in Compendium-UK unprotected steel data published by Wainman [3] for Test 1. and overall. In Test 2. However for Test 1. The results in all the tests have given a good insight into how unprotected steel beams with different loading conditions and geometric properties behave at elevated temperatures.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature A notably heavier cross section provides longer resistance to fire compared to the smaller cross section seen in Test 1 and in Test 3. The numerical structural validation at elevated temperature is important because this ensures minimal modelling error during further parametric studies. The prediction on time-vertical deflection varied between tests. it is assumed that the numerical time-temperature results for Test 1 is also valid alike other test results. whereas. In Test 1. a lower prediction were noticed. the steel was assumed to exhibit lower resistance to temperature exposure between 7 mins to 20 mins. in numerical analysis. 94 and 99). it had close deformation profile after 10 mins and this was predicted because of the slow heating rate of steel in the beginning stage as explained earlier. variance were noticed. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. It was found that the numerical time-temperature response for Test 2 to Test 5 had good agreement with the test results for steel beam’s upper flange. Therefore. web and lower flange. it showed higher resistance behaviour and deformed slower. the author believes that the numerical analysis has good agreement with the test results for Tests 1. 84. 89. it agreed well against test for steel beam’s upper flange.3.4 and 5 apart from Test 2(see Figures 79.5 Summary of chapter 6 Unprotected and protected simply supported steel floor beams were analysed using ABAQUS and compared against experimental values for its time-temperature and time-vertical deflection response. For all the other tests. 6. the numerical analysis showed good prediction against tests although some regions between 7 mins to 20 mins. and for web and lower flange.

154 .4. the floor plates are divided into a number of slab panels.6 and/or less and that the section factors do not exceed 90m-1.63 and the section factors were 147.40 to 0. In one of the methods provided in the BS5950-8 code [135]. it states that the steel fire resistance up to 30 mins can be achieved by ensuring the load ratio was 0. by utilizing membrane action in the composite slab. whereas. the load ratios varied from 0.4m-1 and 173. The early breakthrough on the performance of partially protected steel beam came from the full-scale tests carried out at Cardington in the UK. It shows how the steel structures can be designed to achieve 60 mins fire resistance without additional protection. it was possible to leave some of the steel beams unprotected.6m-1. In the author’s work. partially encased beams and columns and concrete filed columns. To achieve this.1 Introduction The parametric study in this section will focus on parts of the beam flange and web which will be left unprotected with missing intumescent coating protection for the whole length of the beam. The beams that form the perimeter of the panels are protected. Furthermore. In addition.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Chapter 7 Parametric studies on partially protected intumescent coating on steel beams 7. The Building Regulations in the UK [133] specify the fire resistance requirements for buildings but the regulations themselves was not adamant on the application of fire protection for steel structures. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. This type of protection produced what is referred to as a partially protected steel beam and it must not be confused with damaged intumescent coating as explained in Section 5.3. the beams within the panels are left unprotected. Practically. The investigation by Bailey [132] revealed that. Bailey [134] assisted in the scheme design of buildings incorporating slim floor beam. the concept of partial protection is being used widely in modern steel construction.

The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 7. Table 12 illustrates the amount of missing protection in percentage terms. No protection(NP) (i) Fully protected (FP) (iii) Top lower. The dotted lines resemble missing protection. as shown in Figure 100. Fully protected (FP) II. Top lower flange.2 Types of partial protection The types of parametric study that will be analysed are listed below together with their abbreviation. Both sides of the web not protected (BSWNP) V. Top lower flange and bottom lower flange not protected (TLFNP+BLFNP) III. bottom lower flange and bottom upper flange not protected (TLFNP+BLFNP+BUFNP) (ii) Top lower flange and bottom lower flange not protected (TLFNP+BLFNP) (iv) Both sides of the web not protected (BSWNP) (v) No protection (NP) Figure 101: Schematic diagram for location of steel beam protection RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. 155 . bottom lower flange and bottom upper flange not protected (TLFNP+BLFNP+BUFNP) IV. I.

In this occasion a fixed intumescent coating thickness of 1. it is denoted as 100% missing intumescent coating protection. whereas. Steel member protection UB254x146x43 UB356X171X67 Fully protected 0.26m2 flange not protected (45. UB 356X171X67 was employed for Test 5. Table 12: Percentage of missing intumescent coating protection for steel beams. For all the models.0mm was adopted for analysis purpose. which are. The author chose the existing Compendium-UK unprotected steel data published by Wainman [3] as this would provide fire resistance comparison against partial steel protection which has percentage of missing intumescent coating.9%) (54. Analysis for the percentage of missing intumescent coating was performed on two different universal beam section sizes.52m2 (30. no protection (NP). 156 . Steel section UB254X146X43 were employed for Test 1 to Test 4.92m 2.5%) 2 Top lower.53m2 (NP) (100%) (100%) RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.5m lengths of the steel beams.9% ) (TLFNP+BLFNP+BUFNP) Both side web not protected 2.0m2 (FP) (0%) (0%) Top lower and bottom lower flange not protected (TLFNP+BLFNP) 1. The time-vertical deflection obtained from the numerical results revealed essential information about the fire resistance concept for missing intumescent coating on protected steel beams.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature The percentages of missing intumescent coating protection for steel beams are computed along the full 4.1%) (40.2%) No protection 4.11m2 3. Fully protected (FP) beams are denoted as 0% of missing intumescent coating protection. The percentages of missing intumescent protection for steel beams are illustrated in Table 12.3%) (27.29m2 1.26 m2 5. bottom lower flange and bottom upper 1. intumescent coating was not provided in the area where the concrete’s soffit rests.0m2 0. whereas.00m2 (BSWNP) (49. UB254X146X43 and UB 356X171X67.

49 with steel Grade 43A. The load ratio for Test 2 was 0. the additional fire resistance provided by BSWNP. Similarly. The first 5 mins of exposure was linear and had good agreement with the entire type of steel member protection. It was found that for the FP beam.3 Analysis results In general.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 7. 157 . NP reached maximum deflection within 23 mins of RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. (TLFNP+BLFNP) and (TLFNP+BLFNP+BUFNP) was 18 mins. the steel provided an additional 30 mins fire resistance compared to the naked steel beam when both reached 150mm deflection. The time-vertical deflection results for Test 1 shown in Figure 101 exhibit clear fire resistance capabilities of a partially protected steel beam.56 with steel Grade 50B. 22 mins and 13 mins respectively. it is widely accepted and established through numerical simulation that fully protected (FP) beams will resist longer fire resistance before reaching maximum deformation at elevated temperature. The load ratio for Test 1 was 0. 250 NP TLFNP+BLFNP+BUFNP FP BSWNP TLFNP+BLFNP Vertical Deflection(mm) 200 150 100 50 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Time(min) Figure 102: Numerical deflection for partially protected intumescent coating for Test 1 Figure 102 for Test 2 showed a similar fashion in fire resistance capabilities when compared against Test 1. The entire steel member protection showed close linear agreements in the first 5 mins of fire exposure.

FP survived longer fire resistance period.62 compared to a much lower load ratio of 0.49 in Test 1. (TLFNP+BLFNP) and (TLFNP+BLFNP+BUFNP) provided and additional fire resistance of 19 mins. This was anticipated because for similar steel Grade 43A for both the tests. The fire resistance in Test 3 for BSWNP and (TLFNP+BLFNP+BUFNP) close behaviour and provided resistance up to 40 mins unlike Test 1 which provided longer fire resistance. Unlike the previous two tests. Test 3 had higher load ratio of 0. it was found that the first 5 mins of exposure was not linear. BSWNP. 21 mins and 14 mins respectively.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature exposure. 250 NP FP 200 Vertical Deflection(mm) BSWNP TLFNP+BLFNP TLFNP+BLFNP+BUFNP 150 100 50 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time(min) Figure 103: Numerical deflection for partially protected intumescent coating for Test 2 Figure 103 shows the fire resistance for steel protection in Test 3. The maximum vertical deflection attained for FP in Test 3 was 160mm and provided resistance for 62 mins. the first 5 mins of time-vertical deflection for steel member protection was not linear. Figure 104 shows the fire resistance for Test 4. providing an additional 32 mins. In this instance RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. Similar to Test 3. Test 1 had a much lower deflection rate and sustained maximum deflection up to 200mm at 65 mins fire resistance period. 158 .

the partially protected steel beam provided longer fire resistance and sustained higher vertical deflections. The average longitudinal yield strength(LYS) for Test 4 was 408. The outcome revealed that the FP steel beam provided resistance up to 200mm for 65 mins. 159 . and because the applied load ratio was low.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature the load ratio was 0.5 N/mm2. 160 140 NP FP TLFNP+BLFNP+BUFNP 120 Vertical Deflection(mm) TLFNP+BLFNP BSWNP 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Time(min) Figure 104: Numerical deflection for partially protected intumescent coating for Test 3 200 180 NP FP 160 Vertical Deflection(mm) TLFNP+BLFNP+BUFNP 140 TLFNP+BLFNP BSWNP 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Time(min) RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.40 and the steel was Grade 50B.

The beam was subjected to a load ratio of 0. BSWNP which had 54. The former behaved nearly similar to naked steel fire resistance behaviour. the steel beam in Test 5 would sustain a longer fire resistance in the absence of protection on both sides of the web.9% missing intumescent fire protection and other steel member missing protections. Interestingly.63.5% missing protection and FP showed linear behaviour up to 35 mins of fire exposure.2% missing protection together with (TLFNP+BLFNP) which had 27. 160 . It can be deduced that. 200 180 NP TLFNP+BLFNP+BUFNP 160 Vertical Deflection(mm) BSWNP 140 FP TLFNP+BLFNP 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time(min) Figure 106: Numerical deflection for intumescent coating left unprotected in Test 5 Interestingly. This is opposed to unprotected beams where the regression is more parabolic.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Figure 105: Numerical deflection for partially protected intumescent coating for Test 4 Figure 105 for Test 5 exhibit vast difference between (TLFNP+BLFNP+BUFNP) which had 40. The deflection for partially protected beam shows an obvious 3rd order polynomial regression. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. all the numerical results exhibit similar regression for different nonlinearities as seen from the plotted curves for time-vertical deflection.

thus actively initiating early stages of steel deflection due to a rise in the steel temperature. If left unattended. the thermal conductivity of intumescent starts to increase as the rate of decomposition of complex intumescent molecules by heat increases. the presence of active sprinklers and/or fire fighters would provide additional suppression on the spread of fire which otherwise may lead to other severity such as building collapse. which normally occurs between ambient to 200±C and 300±C. is the final battle of passive intumescent to provide resistance for the steel beam.5% respectively. For all the tests. Test 1 up to Test 5 exhibits maximum plastic RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. the heat’s conduction within the steel assists the deflection process further. the beam protected by an intumescent coating is explicitly said to be a ‘white elephant’. 161 . The dormant zone period depends on the types of partial protection. It allows the thermal energy from the furnace fire to pass through directly towards the steel. the pyrolisis process of intumescent retards the steel beam’s deflection with the deflection rate nearing zero. Moreover. The dynamic zone. also referred to as the transformation phase (between t2 and t3). it is acknowledged that an estimated time for this transformation phase to happen for fully protected steel beams is between 40 to 50 mins.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature The author has proposed the deflection regression of the partially protected steel beam into four zones (see Figure 106). Due to steel’s high thermal conductivity. At this juncture. Although at this stage all the building contents would have been burnt.3% and 27. The final unstable zone happens when the steel is no longer protected and behaves similar to naked steel exposed to extreme temperature. dynamic zone (t2-t3) and unstable zone (t3-t4). the active zone will continue until failure. thus leading to high plastic deformation. Partially exposed intumescent for top lower flange (TLFU) and bottom lower flange (BLFU) for both UB254x146x43 and UB356X171X67 are 30. In the dormant zone. This deflection begins to slow down in the dormant zone whereas for unprotected steel. then the transformation phase will lead continually to the unstable zone. dormant zone (t1-t2). It comprises of the active zone (t0-t1). In the active zone.

162 . Top lower. Deflection. This can be associated with the section factor. This gives additional information for engineers to assess the beam’s fire resistance capability if a partially exposed beam is found within this domain. and bottom upper intumescent coating left unprotected (TLFD+BLFD+BUFD) for a UB356X171X67 deforms much faster compared to a UB254X146X43. weakening its capability to withstand the load. It takes the former 25 mins for failure and the latter an additional 15 mins. It could be concluded that the reduced protection or partially exposed top lower flange and/or bottom lower flange could sustain a longer fire resistance period when compared to other partially exposed regions in the steel beam. therefore conducting heat within the steel quicker.t (min) Figure 107: Typical deflection regression of intumescent protected and or left unprotected steel beam RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. bottom lower.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature deformation at an average 50 mins of fire exposure for this type of exposure condition. The heated perimeter for UB356X171X67 is much greater than UB254X146X43. u (mm) u4 200mm 80mm u3 u2 u1 10mm u0 t0 t1 t2 5-40 t4 t3 40-50 50-70 Time.

The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature

Table 13 : Zones of deflection regression for intumescent coating

Zone
Active
Dormant
Dynamic
Unstable

Time
t0 - t1
t1- t2
t2- t3
t3- t4

Deflection
u0 - u1
u1 - u2
u2 - u3
u3 - u4

7.4 Summary of chapter 7
This chapter summarizes the performance of partially protected intumescent coating
on steel beams at elevated temperature. Types of partial protection analysed are FP,
(TLFNP+BLFNP), (TLFNP+BLFNP+BUFNP), (BSWNP) and NP. Two types of
UB254X146X43 and UB356X171X67 were analysed with missing intumescent
coating. Although the fully protected beam (FP) sustained longer fire resistance, the
remaining partial protection analysed in Test 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 exhibited longer fire
resistance in the first 20 mins compared to the naked steel beam. The deflection for
each test varied accordingly depending on the type of partial protection, however this
deflection trend was numerically averaged and the author proposed a standard
deflection regression curve for partially protected intumescent coating on steel beam.
The behaviour of partially protected steel beam can be categorized into four zones in
the proposed regression curve, namely active zone, dormant zone, dynamic zone
and unstable zone.

RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY

P. 163

The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature

Chapter 8
Analysis of parametric results
for damaged intumescent coat
with various thicknesses
8.1 Introduction
A total of four intumescent coating damage scenarios were studied and analysed for
a 4.5m length simply supported beam UB254x146x43 with various intumescent
coating thicknesses of 0.5, 1, 1.5 and 2mm. The thickness values were chosen to
cover the typical range of thicknesses used for intumescent coating on steel
structures. The analyses did not include concrete cover, whereas, similar applied
loads for UB254x146x43 naked steel beam were employed in this parametric
analyses.

8.2 Damaged intumescent coating
The intumescent coating damage scenarios on the steel beam, as shown in Figure
107, comprise:
i)

Scenario 1: 10% damage at bottom flange ends

ii)

Scenario 2: 10% mid span bottom flange damage

iii)

Scenario 3: 10% mid top flange damage

iv)

Scenario 4: 10% mid web damage both sides

RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY

P. 164

The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature

Scenario 3

Scenario 4

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 1

Figure 108 : Schematic diagram of damage scenarios on steel beam

8.3 Heat transfer on damage scenarios

The heat transfer analysis on the damaged intumescent coating is an important
assesment in the deflection analysis as it is the heat increment within the steel
member that weakens the steel beam’s load bearing capability. The heat increment
via conduction within the steel member is governed by the amount of damage that
occurs for the intumescent coating and the location where it happens.
The temperature developments against time are plotted for each case enumerated
below. The appropriate node chosen to represent this is at the middle section of the
lower flange of the steel beam as it represents the maximum deflection point for all
the cases. Different intumescent coating thicknesses and various fire damage
scenarios have yielded different behaviour namely in the temperature rise within the
steel member itself and the fire-resistant period for deflection. This directly shows the
impact of intumescent coating damage on structural steel at elevated temperature.

RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY

P. 165

The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature

8.3.1 Damage scenario 1
Figure 108 illustrates the temperature distribution for 10% damage at the lower
flange bottom ends with 0.5mm intumescent coating thickness. The maximum
temperature attained at the centre of the damaged area was 693±C. The protected
steel beam’s web had a temperature of 558±C. In the first 30 mins of exposure, the
exposed beam in the damaged area caused the heat from the furnace to conduct
within the steel section. Figure 109 shows the steel beam temperature for 60 mins
exposure and the steel beam’s deflection at mid-point illustrated in the time-vertical
deflection, as shown in Figure 109.. At this juncture, the steel’s lower bottom flange
and web have reached the furnace temperature because intumescent coating could
no longer resist the heat energy as most of the coating was fully charred at this point.

Figure 109: 30 mins temperature distribution for 10% damage at lower bottom flange
ends for 0.5mm intumescent coating thickness

RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY

P. 166

0 100.0 700.0 30.0 Temperature(°C) 800.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 140. a marginal reduction in steel temperature was recorded in the areas of damage after 30 mins of exposure (see Figure 110).0 200.5mm intumescent coating thickness When the thickness of the intumescent coating increased to 1mm.0 0.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 900.0 500. 167 Temperature(°C) Vertical Deflection(mm) Deflection(mm) 160.0 120. In Figure 111.0mm minimised the spread of heat in the protected regions of the steel.0 60.0 70.0 0. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.0 .0 20.0 40.0 100.0 10.0 600.0 180.0 0.0 300.0 Time(min) Figure 110: 60 mins temperature distribution and time-temperature-deflection for 10% damage at lower bottom flange ends for 0.5mm to 1. after 60 mins of exposure it was found that only a localised damaged area and part of the web had reached the furnace temperature.0 80.0 50.0 400. These findings indicated that an increase in intumescent coating thickness from 0.

0 70.0 400.0 Time(min) Figure 112: 60 mins temperature distribution and time-temperature-deflection for 10% damage at lower bottom flange ends for 1mm intumescent coating thickness RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.0 500.0 0.0 Temperature(°C) Vertical Deflection(mm) 140.0 120.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Figure 111: 30 min temperature distribution for 10% damage at lower bottom flange ends for 1mm intumescent coating thickness 180.0 100.0 80.0 700.0 0.0 800.0 Deflection(mm) Temperature(°C) 160.0 0.0 10.0 300.0 100.0 60.0 200.0 50.0 20.0 60.0 80. 168 .0 30.0 20.0 600.0 40.0 40.

The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature

Further investigation revealed that by increasing the intumescent coating thickness to
1.5mm, the increase in temperature for other regions of the steel beam was reduced.
Figures 112 and 113 show the temperature distribution and inset Figure 113 shows
that the rate of deflection was slower compared to the steel beam protected with
lesser intumescent coating thickness.

Figure 113: 30 mins temperature distribution for 10% damage at lower bottom flange
ends for 1.5mm intumescent coating thickness

RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY

P. 169

The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature

180.0

800.0
Deflection(mm)

Temperature(°C)

160.0

700.0
600.0

120.0
500.0
100.0
400.0
80.0
300.0
60.0

Temperature(°C)

Vertical Deflection(mm)

140.0

200.0

40.0

100.0

20.0
0.0
0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

0.0
80.0

Time(min)

Figure 114: 60 mins temperature distribution and time-temperature-deflection for
10% damage at lower bottom flange ends for 1.5mm intumescent coating thickness

It was found that the temperature distribution for a 2mm thick intumescent coating, as
shown in Figures 114 and 115, provided greater resistance compared to the lesser
intumescent coating thickness. In addition, the rate of deflection was further reduced.

RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY

P. 170

The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature

Figure 115: 30 mins temperature distribution for 10% damage at lower bottom flange
ends for 2mm intumescent coating thickness

800.0

180.0
Deflection(mm)

Temperature(°C)

160.0

700.0
600.0

120.0
500.0
100.0
400.0
80.0
300.0
60.0

Temperature(°C)

Vertical Deflection(mm)

140.0

200.0

40.0

100.0

20.0
0.0
0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

0.0
90.0

Time(min)

Figure 116: 60 mins temperature distribution and time-temperature-deflection for
10% damage at lower bottom flange ends for 2mm intumescent coating thickness

RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY

P. 171

The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature

180.0
160.0
140.0

Vertical Deflection (mm)

120.0
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

Time(min)
Bare Steel

0.5mm

1mm

1.5mm

2mm

Average deflection

Figure 117 : Fire resistance of intumescent coating for damage scenario 1

In the time-temperature-deflection curves shown in Figures 109,111,113 and 115,
which represent the thicknesses of 0.5mm, 1.0mm, 1.5mm and 2.0mm respectively,
a variation of vertical deflections and temperatures can be explained. At 15 mins
standard fire exposure, for 0.5mm thickness protection, the deflection recorded at the
mid-point node was 14mm and this took place at a temperature of 396±C. This was
followed by 1.0mm thickness protection, where the deflection reduced to 11.6mm at
328±C. For 1.5mm protection, a deflection of 9.4mm was recorded at 281±C and
finally for 2.0mm thickness protection the deflection reduced to 7.6mm at 245±C. The
maximum temperature attained for damage scenario 1 for 30 mins exposure was
693±C, 679±C, 671±C and 664±C for 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2mm respectively, whereas for
60 mins exposure it was 863±C, 858±C, 854±C and 851±C respectively. Although the
difference in temperature between thicknesses for a further 30 mins exposure
appears to be small, the outcome in the fire resistance for deflection shows the
opposite, as seen in Figure 115. This may be attributed to the internal heat flux
development which weakens the steel strength periodically. Naked steel members
with no protection reach 10mm deflection within 5 mins whereas in the same

RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY

P. 172

At 60 mins.6mm. A correction ratio for the intumescent coating thicknesses was included in the relationship to take into consideration the marginal difference shown by different thicknesses. for 30 mins it would deflect 9. It can be deduced that higher thickness provides longer resistance for the deflection to occur. if the assessed damage was 4% in this type of damage scenario and with intumescent coating thickness of 1. 173 . but t∫ 0 dp = intumescent coating thickness between 0. then the vertical deflection at 10 mins can be computed to be 4. Since the temperature increment was inverse to the intumescent coating thickness. Wider assessment could be performed using this simplified equation within the range specified. the author has proposed that the average linear relationship could be assumed to compensate a range of intumescent coating damages from 0% to 10% for a wider scope of assessment.25mm / intumescent thickness between 0.5mm to 2mm). Q= 0.7Rt + (1. whereas. the deflection recorded by 2mm intumescent coating on the steel member was 44mm. To accommodate this linear relationship. but at this instance. Q = steel beam mid-point deflection in mm R = percentage damage ratio (0%< damage ≤10%) / (10% damage) t = time between 0 to 30 mins.0mm RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. From the summary of time-vertical deflection seen in Figure 116.05mm.5mm protected steel member had reached an alarming deflection of 160mm. 2mm thickness intumescent coating in damage scenario 1 maintains zero deflection in the same period of fire exposure.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature situation. For instance.5mm and 2. it was found that the relationship for the first 30 mins of exposure for the various intumescent coating thicknesses was approximately linear. the author has proposed an average linear equation (Equation 21).0mm.25/dp) Equation 21 Where. a 0. therefore the proposed ratio was (average intumescent coating thickness =1. Since the analysis was performed on a fixed intumescent coating damage of 10%.

Figure 118: 30 mins temperature distribution for 10% damage at lower bottom flange centre region for 0.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 8. The intumescent coating thickness was 0.2 Damage scenario 2 Figure 117 shows the temperature increment for 10% damage at the lower bottom flange in the mid-section of the steel beam. Furnace temperature was reached by the lower bottom flange and web after 60 mins of fire exposure. as seen in Figure 118.3.5mm intumescent coating thickness RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. 174 .5mm.

0 50.0 40.0 200.0 10.5mm.0 100.0 140.0 120.0 500. further increase of intumescent coating thickness to 2mm have shown a longer fire RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.0 20.0 100.0 400.0 40.0 0.0 .0 200.0 80. The temperature in most of the regions apart from the exposed region was at an average of 450±C where in this temperature region. 175 0. as shown in Figure 119 for the initial 30 mins of exposure.0 0. as shown in Figure 120.0 Temperature(°C) Vertical Deflection(mm) 160.0 60.0 800.0 20.0 600.5mm intumescent coating thickness An increase of intumescent coating thickness resulted in an increase of protection for other regions of the steel beam. Similar to the behaviour of 1. It showed longer fire resistance. Figures 121 and 122 illustrate the temperature distribution for an intumescent coating thickness of 1.0 70. intumescent coating thermal conductivity was around 0.5mm thick intumescent coating.02W/mK (see Figure 39).0 Time(min) Figure 119: 60 mins temperature distribution and time-temperature-deflection for 10% damage at lower bottom flange centre region for 0.0 60.0 700.0 Deflection(mm) Temperature(°C) 180. it was found that the rise in temperature happened at the damaged area and part of the web.0 300.0 30.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 900. Similar to the thickness in damage scenario 1.

0 800.0 60.0 0.0 10.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature resistance period as seen in Figures 123 and 124. The vertical deflection was slower compared to cases with lesser intumescent coating thickness.0 140.0 200. Figure 120: 30 mins temperature distribution for 10% damage at lower bottom flange centre region for 1mm intumescent coating thickness 200.0 Time(min) Figure 121: 60 mins temperature distribution and time-temperature-deflection for 10% damage at lower bottom flange centre region for 1mm intumescent coating thickness RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.0 50.0 40.0 100.0 700.0 . 176 Temperature(°C) Vertical Deflection(mm) Deflection(mm) 180.0 500.0 20.0 30.0 300.0 Temperature(°C) 900.0 0.0 70.0 60.0 160.0 120.0 40.0 20.0 80.0 600.0 100.0 400.0 0.0 1000.

The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Figure 122: 30 mins temperature distribution for 10% damage at lower bottom flange centre region for 1.0 80.0 0.0 140.0 40.0 50.0 80.0 60.0 Tempera ture(°C) 900. 177 Temperature(°C) Vertical Deflection(mm) Deflection(mm) 180.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 20.0 10.5mm intumescent coating thickness 200.0 20.5mm intumescent coating thickness RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.0 40.0 60.0 Time(min) Figure 123: 60 mins temperature distribution and time-temperature-deflection for 10% damage at lower bottom flange centre region for 1.0 800.0 1000.0 300.0 200.0 100.0 500.0 700.0 120.0 400.0 600.0 160.0 70.0 100.0 .

178 .The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Figure 124: 30 mins temperature distribution and time-temperature-deflection for 10% damage at lower bottom flange centre region for 2mm intumescent coating thickness . RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.

0 Vertical Deflection (mm) 140.0 Temperature(°C) 900.0 40.0 Time(min) Bare Steel 0.0 1000.0 50.0 50.0 100.0 70.0 140.0 80.0 800.0 80.0 160.0 300.0 20.0 80.0 60.0 0.0 160.0 0.0 30.5mm 1mm 1.0 0.0 600.0 40.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 200.0 700.0 90.0 30.0 10.0 60.0 180.0 400.0 20.5mm 2mm Average Deflection Figure 126 : Fire resistance of intumescent coating damage on steel beam in scenario 2 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.0 100. 179 Temperature(°C) Vertical Deflection(mm) Deflection(mm) 180.0 0.0 120.0 Time(min) Figure 125: 60 mins temperature distribution and time-temperature-deflection for 10% damage at lower bottom flange centre region for 2mm intumescent coating thickness 200.0 40.0 500.0 100.0 120.0 .0 20.0 70.0 10.0 40.0 0.0 60.0 200.0 80.0 60.0 20.0 90.

A similar corresponding linear equation for average deflection was proposed. but t∫ 0 dp = intumescent coating thickness between 0.e. because it shows how thickness plays an imperative role in plummeting temperature increments in steel members in the occurrence of 10% damage at the lower bottom flange in the centre region. almost an entire region of the steel member apart from the damaged area only sustained a temperature domain within 334±C to 487±C.5mm intumescent coating. At 30 mins exposure. the protected web and flanges.25/dp) Equation 22 Where. Since the damage occurred in the vicinity where the top RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. i.5mm and 2.5mm intumescent coating thickness. the temperature domains increased to approximately 600±C to 800±C to regions that were protected by 0. Q = steel beam mid-point deflection in mm R = percentage damage ratio (0%< damage ≤10%) / (10% damage) t = time between 0 to 30 mins.8Rt + (1. Q= 0. At 60 mins exposure. whilst the other region in the steel member.5mm intumescent coating thickness was different compared to damage scenarios 1 and 2. the temperature development in the first 30 mins of exposure at the damage area reached almost 700±C. An overall difference in temperature distribution can be noticed if compared to a similar exposure of 0. reached a temperature domain within 300±C to 500±C (Figure 116). This is a positive sign. Additional thickness increases to 1.3 Damage scenario 3 The temperature distribution profile shown in Figure 126 for 10% damage at the centre top flange of 0.5mm and 2mm have resulted in further reductions in temperature across regions of undamaged intumescent coating between 300±C to 464±C and 279±C to 450±C respectively.3.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature In damage scenario 2.0mm 8. Figure 119 shows the temperature development for an increased intumescent coating thickness of 1mm. 180 . as shown in Equation 22.

an effect known as ‘heat sink’. Figure 127: 30 mins temperature distribution for 10% damage at centre of top flange for 0. as shown in Figure 128. With a further increase of intumescent coating thickness to 1mm. the vertical deflection was much lower.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature flange was in contact with concrete topping. seen in Figure 127. as anticipated. Furthermore. the regions nearer to the concrete had less increment in temperature. After 60 mins of exposure. most of the heat energy was absorbed by the concrete. as shown in Figure 129.5mm intumescent coating thickness RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. the temperature around the vicinity of the concrete reduced. 181 .

0 600. In addition.0 Time(min) Figure 128: 60 mins temperature distribution and time-temperature-deflection for 10% damage at centre of top flange for 0. the temperature assessment for 2mm thick intumescent coating in the first 30 mins of fire exposure did not drastically increase the temperature in the other regions of the steel.0 70.0 700.5mm not only provided longer fire resistance.0 20. 182 0.0 . the average temperature in most of the regions apart from the exposed area averaged about 350±C and this is the initial intumescent coating charring temperature in the author’s work.0 0.0 50.0 40.0 900. in fact. but it further reduced the web and bottom flange temperature simultaneously by absorbing most of the heat energy.0 150.0 60.0 500.0 100.0 50.5mm intumescent coating thickness Figures 130 and 131 have clearly indicated that an intumescent coating thickness of 1.0 400.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 250.0 0.0 Deflection(mm) Temperature(°C) 800.0 100. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.0 10.0 200.0 Temperature(°C) Vertical Deflection(mm) 200.0 300.0 30.

0 900.0 0.0 0.0 60.0 400.0 Time(min) Figure 130: 60 mins temperature distribution and time-temperature-deflection for 10% damage at centre of top flange for 1mm intumescent coating thickness RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.0 600.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Figure 129: 30 mins temperature distribution for 10% damage at centre of top flange for 1mm intumescent coating thickness 200.0 80.0 70.0 40.0 .0 Temperature(°C) Vertical Deflection(mm) 160.0 40.0 20.0 100.0 800.0 80.0 300.0 50.0 20.0 140.0 200.0 30.0 100.0 120.0 500.0 700.0 60.0 10. 183 0.0 Deflection(mm) Temperature 180.

5mm intumescent coating thickness RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.01W/mK at this point (see Figure 39). therefore providing the highest level of protection. the average steel temperature was about 550±C. 184 . Intumescent coating thermal conductivity was around 0.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Further exposure of fire up to 60 mins as seen in Figure 133 did not drastically increase the steel temperature because at 60 mins of exposure. Figure 131: 30 mins temperature distribution for 10% damage at centre of top flange for 1.

0 50.0 500.0 Time(min) Figure 132: 60 mins temperature distribution and time-temperature-deflection for 10% damage at centre of top flange for 1.0 40.0 20.0 300.0 400.0 0.0 100.5mm intumescent coating thickness Figure 133: 30 mins temperature distribution for 10% damage at centre of top flange for 2mm intumescent coating thickness RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 200.0 140.0 20.0 0.0 80.0 0.0 Deflection(mm) Temperature 180.0 30.0 10.0 800.0 60.0 120.0 60.0 700.0 100.0 160.0 90.0 70.0 .0 200. 185 Temperature(°C) Vertical Deflection(mm) 600.0 40.0 80.

5mm 2mm Average deflection Figure 135 : Fire resistance of intumescent coating damage on steel beam in scenario 3 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.0 0.0 800.0 400.0 100.0 30.0 200.0 80.0 120.0 60.0 0.0 60.0 Vertical Deflection (mm) 125.0 80.0 10.0 40.0 Time(min) Bare Steel 0.0 0.0 50.0 25.0 100.0 90.0 90.0 Deflection(mm) Temperature 180.0 .0 50.0 700.5mm 1mm 1.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 Time(min) Figure 134: 60 mins temperature distribution and time-temperature-deflection for 10% damage at centre of top flange for 2mm intumescent coating thickness 200.0 50.0 175.0 0.0 70.0 10.0 150.0 20.0 20.0 500.0 60.0 100.0 140.0 80.0 160.0 30.0 75.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 200.0 70.0 300.0 40. 186 Temperature(°C) Vertical Deflection(mm) 600.

5Rt + (1. For 1mm thickness. but t∫ 0 dp = intumescent coating thickness between 0. the temperature development in the first 30 mins of exposure at the damage area of 0. After 60 mins of exposure. Q= 0.0mm 8.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature In damage scenario 3.5mm and 2. The 2mm thickness protection shows a further drop of temperature to 466±C at 30 mins and just 5% of the web regions reach temperatures up to 723±C at 60 mins.4 Damage scenario 4 The temperature distribution in damage scenario 4 was higher among other types of intumescent coating damage scenarios. 187 . The thickness increase has shown how the heat flux in other regions apart from the damaged region can be suppressed.5mm. When the thickness was further increased to 1. only 10% of the web region temperature reached 730±C. Figure 135 shows the temperature distribution for the first 30 mins of exposure. This may be attributed to the heat sink effect provided by the normal weight concrete cover on the structural fire resistance of the steel beam. The corresponding linear relationship up to 30 mins for damage scenario 3 from Figure 134 is shown below. the temperature dropped slightly down to 473±C at 30 mins and after 60 mins. most of the steel beams were blanketed with temperatures in excess of 800±C.3. the temperature increased to 700±C and almost 75% of the web region recorded a temperature of 850±C (Figure 126). which is 185±C lesser than the temperature recorded in damage scenario 2. In 60 mins exposure. the heat sink effect reduced the first 30 mins of steel temperature to just below 495±C at the damaged area.5mm thickness protection was about 515±C.25/dp) Equation 23 Where. in Figure 136. whereas 75% of the web region recorded 744±C at 60 mins. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. Q = steel beam mid-point deflection in mm R = percentage damage ratio (0%< damage ≤10%) / (10% damage) t = time between 0 to 30 mins.

The temperature gradient reduced gradually from the bottom flange towards the top flange.5mm intumescent coating thickness RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature although a small portion of the top flange attained lower temperatures due to the heat sink effect. In Figures 137 and 138. 188 . the steel temperature reduction was seen along the web section of the beam. with 1mm thick intumescent coating. Figure 136: 30 mins temperature distribution for 0.

189 .The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 200 900 Deflection(mm) Temperature((°C) 180 800 700 140 600 120 500 100 400 80 300 60 Temperature(°C) Vertical Deflection(mm) 160 200 40 100 20 0 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time(min) Figure 137: 60 mins temperature distribution for 0.5mm intumescent coating thickness Figure 138: 30 mins temperature distribution for 1mm intumescent coating thickness RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.

as seen in Figures 141 and 142. Finally the increase of the intumescent coating thickness to 2mm showed further reduction in temperature increment.5mm thick intumescent coating. The rate of deflection was also reduced offering a higher resistance to the steel beam. 190 . 1000 1000 Temperature(°C) 900 800 800 700 700 600 600 500 500 400 400 300 300 200 200 100 100 0 Temperature(°C) Vertical deflection(mm) Deflection(mm) 900 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Time(min) Figure 139 : 60 mins temperature distribution for 1mm intumescent coating thickness RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. as shown in Figures 139 and 140. where the temperature gradually reduced similar to the case of 1mm thick intumescent coating.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature The gradual decrease in temperature for protected regions was confirmed using 1.

5mm intumescent coating thickness 1000 1000 Temperature(°C) 900 800 800 700 700 600 600 500 500 400 400 300 300 200 200 100 100 0 Temperature(°C) Vertical deflection Deflection(mm) 900 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Time(min) Figure 141: 60 mins temperature distribution for 1.5mm intumescent coating thickness RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. 191 .The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Figure 140: 30 mins temperature distribution for 1.

The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Figure 142 : 30 mins temperature distribution for 2mm intumescent coating thickness 1000 1000 Temperature (°C) 900 800 800 700 700 600 600 500 500 400 400 300 300 200 200 100 100 0 Temperature(°C) Vertical deflection(mm) Deflection(mm) 900 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Time(min) Figure 143: 60 mins temperature distribution for 2mm intumescent coating thickness RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. 192 .

5mm intumescent coating thickness protection and 10% both sides web damage protection.0 175. as shown in Equation 24. in the initial 30 mins of fire exposure. With an increase in thickness to 1mm.5mm 1mm 1.0 0.0 0. the temperature at the damaged area is similar to the former of 0.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 200. The average deflection gradient is high for the first 30 mins.0 10.0 40.0 Vertical Deflection (mm) 125.0 150.0 50. the temperature at almost 80% of the web region is about 870±C.0 25.0 100. 193 .0 50.5mm thickness. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. web damage coating proves to be more crucial in the presence of fire and has shown significance temperature rise in steel. This was followed by a temperature domain of between 500±C and 700±C at other regions around the steel. as proposed in Equation 26. for 0.0 20. and the web region has now suppressed to a further 25% of the web region attaining temperature of 870±C.0 Time(min) Bare Steel 0.5mm 2mm Average deflection(mm) Figure 144: Fire resistance of intumescent coating damage on steel beam in scenario 4 Among all damaged coating at a different set of locations in the steel beam.0 30.0 60. Additionally. The corresponding linear equation was proposed. the maximum temperature attained was about 730±C in the damaged region. At 60 mins.0 75.

results at 30 mins and 60 mins were compared to observe the vertical deflection and temperature against time.4 Summary of chapter 8 Parametric analysis was performed for various intumescent coating thickness with various intumescent coating damage scenarios. The intumescent coating damage was limited to single beam of UB254X146X43. Q = steel beam mid-point deflection in mm R = percentage damage ratio (0%< damage ≤10%) / (10% damage) t = time between 0 to 30 mins. The results provided an useful information on the assessment of intumescent damage at elevated temperature and the author have proposed that the damage assessment be based on the proposed equations according to the appropriate limitation. 194 . From the temperature analysis. but t∫ 0 dp = intumescent coating thickness between 0.5mm and 2.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Q= 1.6Rt + (1. The reason was to set a benchmark on the performance of intumescent thickness for it’s time-temperature-deflection.0mm 8.25/dp) Equation 24 Where. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.

195 . Additional passive spray-on fire protection was also included for additional awareness on the behaviour of steel beam at elevated temperature. Both the continuum and shell elements were adopted to simulate the unprotected and protected steel at high temperatures. The behaviour of the bare. The thermal model was validated against data from ten available tests.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Chapter 9 Conclusions and recommendations 9.2 Thermal model analysis ABAQUS finite-element software was used to analyse the temperature distribution at elevated temperature. 9.1 Introduction This chapter concludes the research work to develop an assessment criterion for partially and fully damaged intumescent coating at elevated temperature. Although investigation to determine the effective thermal conductivity was carried out by some researchers (using the thermographic technique) there seems to be no other independent means of measuring the accurate intumescent coating surface RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. fully protected. partially protected and damaged fire protection has been discussed. The validation and sensitivity study for both the thermal and structural analysis was carried out accordingly. The thermal models developed in the ABAQUS have taken into consideration the effective thermal conductivity of intumescent coating and temperature-dependant material properties. The continuum elements were used to simulate a non-linear heat flux distribution through the depth of the steel model for both fully and partially protected intumescent coating and spray-on coating.

For the RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. The author recommends that future research in regards to intumescent coating should include the temperature-dependent charring mechanism and the use of precise thermal energy at the surface of the intumescent coating. The numerical model underestimates the temperature attained by the web and flange for the protected steel beams dry film thicknesses (dft) and the protected steel columns dft. and importantly the intumescent coating thermal conductivity. is not an easy task. It can be concluded that six of the test results have an average difference of 100±C at the 5 mins period. Nevertheless. 9.3 Steel behaviour at elevated temperature with intumescent coating protection The predicted temperatures for unprotected steel compared well against experimental results. eight results were compared between the test and numerical results. apart from SP3 and SP6. The understanding of intumescent coating behaviour at elevated temperature is a collective task from researchers around the world. The suggested analytical method to determine the surface temperature and the thermal conductivity of intumescent coating in the Eurocodes could be improved further by incorporating the reactive kinetics of intumescent coating. The effects of heat sink from concrete slabs during the rise in intumescent coating temperature when subjected to heat must also be considered. For intumescent coating protected steel members. 196 . to develop a sophisticated precise model to determine the intumescent surface temperature. some variations of temperature distribution can be seen between the test and numerical model. For the steel beams. The variations are obvious between the numerical model and the tests for the first 8 mins region. A variety of research in intumescent coating for steel elements will provide fruitful information for future development of the precise model.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature temperature.

as the mass loss is most significant during the charring process. After 8 mins. Thirdly the loss of moisture is not accounted for in the numerical model. Although the work was limited to temperature distribution. it was found from literature that an increase in shear stud temperature could compromise the overall ‘tying’ capacity between the shear stud and the steel beam. there seemed to be a significant difference in the models compared to the test results.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature remaining two. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. SP4 have very good agreement with the test results. The author believes that the differences in the temperature may be attributed to several factors. Secondly. 197 . Intumescent coating principally is paint and it does contain moisture and the author believes that this could be the prime reason for the difference of temperature values in numerical analysis. intumescent coating protection is sensitive to the applied thickness and the slightest thickness difference yields different results for temperature. a minimal factor could be attributed to the use of average dft’s because all the test specimens had uneven intumescent coating application. The rise in temperature and applied load would eventually cause slip to the shear studs which leads to instability of the structural steel to maintain its strength.4 Steel behaviour at elevated temperature with spray-on protection The temperature profile at the base of a shear stud significantly demonstrates that partially sprayed-on fire protection on steel beams does exhibit varied temperature distribution depending on the location of protection. the model did not account for temperaturedependent density for intumescent coating at elevated temperature. 9. whilst the other SP5 have slightly overestimated the temperature in the 5 mins period. Unlike other proprietary fire protection materials. Firstly.

The time-vertical deflection behaviour from applied load. it was observed that some numerical models have shown local web buckling near end supports. (TLFD+BLFD) and BSWD.5m length beam to prevent lateral displacement. for Test 5 (UB 356X171X67) showed that for intumescent coating protection abbreviated as FP. The deflection at this stage was just over 20mm. In this research. 2. and the failure modes had good conformity with test results. Only (TLFD+BLFD+BUFD) was found to deflect earlier and closer to the behaviour of the naked steel beam. This outcome may suggest that a bigger and heavier steel beam cross section may sustain longer resistance for certain types of partial protections. A typical and general rule of thumb deflection regression curve was proposed to exhibit the behaviour of partially intumescent RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. for Test 1. In the parametric study for missing intumescent coating and/or partial protection. In this occasion.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature 9. The verification and calibration of these numerical unprotected models allowed further assessment and analysis for partially protected and damaged intumescent coating fire protection at elevated temperatures. 3 and 4 which had similar beam section size of UB 256 X 146 X 43. it was found that the validation for the numerical models for simply supported beams against test results was sensitive to the boundary conditions and the step time increment. the time-vertical deflection had polynomial relationship for all the types of partial protection. Unlike the latter. the test on partially protected UB 254X146X43 and UB 356X171X67 beams revealed that a fully protected beam provided resistance up to an average of 60 mins. it was acknowledged that the load bearing capacity and fire resistance was found to be significantly reduced if more beam components are not protected along the length of the beam. the fire resistance reductions (from left to right) for the steel beams are shown below. 198 . the time-vertical deflection relationship was found linear up to 38 mins.5 Structural analysis The numerical models developed using ABAQUS for unprotected simply supported beams at elevated temperature compared well with the test results. However. In addition. These phenomena could be attributed to the restraint that was provided at the top flange of the 4. Moreover.

The damage length or percentage has significant influence on the fire-resistance of the steel beams. FP > (TLFU+BLFU) > (BSWU) > (TLFU+BLFU+BUFU) > NP Parametric studies were conducted on different intumescent coating thicknesses on a similar beam size.5mm to 2. The intumescent coating thickness and type of damage scenarios plays a vital role in indicating the behaviour of simply supported steel members at elevated temperature. Fire resistance Case 3 > Case 1 > Case 2 > Case 4 The outcome suggests that the severity of intumescent coating for 10% damage in the web area is higher compared to 10% damage at the top flange below the concrete soffit. 199 . The assessment provides the user with a method to compute the steel resistance to fire. the higher the critical temperature of the steel beams. the overall fire resistance could be compromised based on the damage of the intumescent coating rather than the intumescent coating thickness itself.0mm intumescent coating thickness had much better resistance. Therefore. it was observed that for the first 5 mins of exposure.0mm was not a crucial factor if damage to intumescent coating occured in the steel beam. Likewise for 10% damage in the web area. The author based on the research work presented an assessment criterion for the fire resistance of a simply supported beam protected with intumescent coating. the intumescent coating thickness had little effect for all the types of damage scenarios. the smaller the damage. the steel surface heats up more quickly and weakens faster. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. It was found that an increase in intumescent coating thickness from 0. This may be attributed to the heat sink effect provided by the concrete for 10% damage at the top flange which reduces the steel’s temperature increment. This curve illustrates the different phases of protection provided by the intumescent coating once subjected to fire. at which point the beams fail or reach maximum deflection.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature coating on steel beam. Although the 2.

end restraint. loading.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature It was simplified. 200 . In addition. The research work presented here adopted the ISO 834 fire curve because most of the data obtained from experimental works were subjected to the similar fire curve. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. based on the author’s work which took into consideration the intumescent coating damage and the intumescent coating thickness. and the mass and size of the steel. and thickness. Future research could look into the possibility of incorporating localised fire in parts of the beam section in contrast to the current work where the whole beam was fully exposed to fire. the type of fire protection. primarily its thermal conductivity. It would be good to investigate the performance of identical beams alongside various fire protection damage scenarios alongside different fire conditions. moisture content. work on the damage assessment for a range of steel beams could be performed to gather a pool of information which could be used as an official guide in Eurocodes and/or regulators in regards to fire protection damage assessment. It can be concluded that the steel temperature rise and deflection depends on the fire exposure.

2004 [8] Corus. Karlsson. "General actions." Structural Engineer. Kirby. [14] EN1991-1-2:2002.ac.manchester.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/: University of Manchester. The Economics of Fire Protection: E&FN SPON. 1998." 2008. Australia. Actions on structures exposed to fire. pp. 175-180. 1996." 1999." 1990. P. Brussels.corusconstruction. "One stop in structural fire engineering " in http://www. Bailey. [2] Hibbit. Switzerland. "BS5950 Part 8: Code of Practice for Fire Resistant Design.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature References [1] G. 1991. 15. Tanaka. Geneva. 1992. Wainman and B. Y. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. "Performance based fire safety designof structures-A Multidimensional Integration. [13] R. 2004. Bukowski and T. Ramachandran. E. [6] C." [12] BSEN1363-1:1999.com/en/design_guidance/structural_design/fire/steelwo rk_fire_resistance/effect_of_load/.com/en/My-BSI/MySubscriptions/BSOL/Search/SearchResults/?src=s&s=c&snc=Y&bwc=F&q=BS%20476." [9] BSI. " General-Purpose Finite Element Package. "Design of steel framed buildings at risk from terrorist attack.London: British Standards Institution. [5] M. and Sorensen. [3] D. Byfield. Liew. [7] M." in AFPA/IFE International Fire Conference Hobart. Law. 201 . Compendium of UK Standard Fire Test Data Unprotected Structural Steel-1: British Steel Corporation(BSC) Swinden Laboratories." European Committee for Standardization. "Toward the Goal of a Performance Fire Code. [11] BSOL. R.8. "https://bsol.bsigroup. [4] R.mace. W. "Fire Down Under". 1988." Fire and Materials vol. G. "http://www. "Regulatory Developments in Britain and the European Community. ABAQUS 6. "Fire resistance tests-general requirements. [10] ISO834. J." Advances In Structural Engineering. "Fire Resistance Tests – Elements of Building Construction – Part 1." International Organization for Standardization. vol. 17.1:General Requirements for Fire Resistance Testing.

pdf.manchester. Kuldeep. M. [16] R.pdf. W.manchester. S. vol. John. 2005. Brussels.Technical report. "http://www. Poh and I. " Design of concrete structures. Nicholas. N. "Design of composite steel and concrete structures. "Behavior of steel columns at elevated temperatures. Burgess. J.pdf.ac. C. "Three-Dimensional Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Structures in Fire. [22] Z. [21] EN1994-1-2. 1201-1212.General rules-Structural fire design. 676-684. B.mace. G. . 202 . Bailey.com/Cafco%20Products/(Cafco)Mandolite%20CP2_R1_." in http://www. P. Diamant. [27] "http://www. E. Brussels. 121." 1993. 1995. [17] EN1993-1-2:2005. "Restrained fire resistance ratings in structural steel building. European Committee for Standardization. vol. "Application of fire safety engineering principles to the design of buildings. "Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster:Passive Fire Protection (Draft). 2009. 1986. I.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/: University of Manchester. Richard. Thermal and Acoustic Insulation: Butterworths. J. W. Brussels. pp. Troup." British Standard Institution. Ultimate limit state design of steel plated structures [24] P." European Committee for Standardization. Gewain and E.ac. "Design of steel structures. P. [20] EN1992-1-2:2004.mace. Huang. Brussels. 2001. [18] K. Vol. [23] K. K." European Committee for Standardization. 2003." AISC Engineering Journal.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-6ADraft. [28] "A New Approach to Multi-Storey Steel Framed Buildings Fire and Steel Construction RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. R.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/DataBase/Re ferences/MultistoreySteelFramedBuildings. T. Plank. Building Research Establishment. G. R." CAFCO International Passive Fire Protection. Scott.nist. [25] J." Journal of Struct Eng. G. R. Jiann." Journal of Structural Engineering. Monica. "Cardington large building test facility. D." http://wtc. Y. [26] C. Bravery. and R. [19] R. L. A. Anil. C. Bennetts. pp.sfsinfo. and W. W.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature [15] PD7974-1." European Committee for Standardization. Jeom and K. 135.

" Fire Flammability." 2002. and R. R. 2001. vol. vol." The Structural Engineer.htm: The Steel Construction Institute. 721-744. 2. New York. British Steel. vol." [39] G. Kirby "British Steel data on the Cardington fire tests. [31] A. and M. [30] J. [36] FEMA." National Institute of Standards and Technology NIST GCR 04-872.hse.wtc7. and R. Michael. [32] C. Rotter. FEMA Region II. [42] S. 1999. pp. pp. "Fire Protection of Structural Steel in High-Rise Buildings. Usmani.civl. NY. "The behavior of multi-storey composite steel framed structures in response to compartment fires.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature " in http://911research. M. 15-21. N. Rotter." Fire Safety Journal. S. Moore. [37] M.port.. Duquesne. Technical report. Eng. "The behaviour of full-scale steel framed buildings subject to compartment fires. Bailey and D. A. Lamont. San Francisco. M. Burgess. G. I. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. M. 2001. and Recommendations. A. Sanad. their development and chemistry. Sanad. "Structural performance of redundant structures under local fires. "World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection." University of Edinburgh. 2004. G. J. 289. 1971.. 203 . 1999. 499-511.htm. Preliminary Observations. "http://www." presented at SFPE International Conference on Engineered Fire Protection Design. Plank. "The Implications Of The World Trade Center Disaster. L. Gillie. Gillie." Macromolecular Mater. "Fundamental principles of structural behaviour under thermal effects.. 77. A." [38] HSE. W. J. [35] S. [40] "http://www. [29] Corus. Lamont." [34] A. Green. [33] B." presented at Proceedings of Interflam. Le Bras. 36.uk/britishsteel/media/Fire%20brochure/section4. 2004. M. 2002. "The Large-Deflection Behavior of Steel and Composite Frames in Fire." [41] H. Burgess. S. "Practical case studies in performance-based structural fire engineering design. Butterworth." presented at Fire and Structures Conference The Royal Society of Edinburgh.uk/comah/sragtech/techmeasfire. I. pp. vol. A. and M. and M. 2004. Allam.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI. S.htm. S. 97-140. . Plank. M. pp. "Recent advances for intumescent polymers.gov. Vandersall. Usmani. Vol.. B. "Intumescent coating systems. Bourbigot.ac. Rochery.

" Polym. Dziuk. Trossarelli." Mater. [44] G. R. "A Thermodynamic Heat Transfer model for Intumescent systems. 64. pp. Bourbigot. Acta. 7-16. J. K. vol. 2283-2300. "Pyrolysis kinetics of char forming polymers”. vol." Fire and Materials.. Costa. 1985. 1984. Stab. K. 6. D. 23. Galea. 1985. Kuznetsov and V. Bourbigot and S. "Fire retardant polymers:Recent developments and opportunities. 3. W. [54] M. and L. [50] C. vol." Applied Mechanics and Technical Physics. pp. E. Rudzinskii. 204 . and J. Duquesne. Novozhilov." Int Journal of Engineeering Science. "Thermal Conductivity of Intumescent Chars. Camino. Degrad. D. "Heat transfer in intumescent heat. "Intumescent fire protective coating: Toward a better understanding of their mechanism of action " Thermochim. V. [45] G." fire Sciences. 71-78. E. Bourbigot. and W. L. Shen. 40. S. Trossarelli. 12. [52] C. Stab. "Recent advances in the use of zinc borates in flame retardancy of EVA " Polym. vol. vol. E. V. 1988. pp. "A discussion of modelling idealised ablative materials with particular reference to fire testing. 419-425. Degrad. A. Ketchum. and L. 22. Anderson and D. 61. pp.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature [43] S. 1997. 1999. 47-66. vol. [46] J. Jia. P. pp. 2007. Degrad. vol. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. J. K. Costa. M. [51] C. E. Wauters." Fire and Materials. Staggs. 203-211. and D. Patel. [53] G. Anderson. E. "Study of the mechanism of intumescence in fire retardant polymers:Part V-Mechanism of formation of gaseous products in the thermal degradation of ammonium polyphosphate. vol. R. Le Bras. Stab. vol. P. Buckmaster. Duquesne. [49] F. "Numerical Simulation of the Mass Loss Process in Pyrolizing Char Materials. pp. pp. 25-31. Mallow. pp. 161-194. Lyon. E. L. 390. 1999. pp. Kent.and fireinsulating coatings. Mountain. vol." Journal of Fire Sciences. 21. [47] B. pp. Anderson. vol. 1999. Camino. and S. "An integral model for the transient pyrolysis of solid materials. "Intumescent Reaction Mechanisms. 7. and M. Polymer Degradation and Stability. 2006. vol." Polym. 1998. K. [48] R. 1984. Schubert. and J. pp. 17. 1997. Fletcher." Fire Safety Journal. [55] S. pp. Leeuwendal. "Study of the mechanism of intumescence in fire retardant polymers:Part II-Mechanism of action in polypropylene-ammonium polyphosphate-pentaerythritol mixtures." Polymer Degradation and Stability. E. Jimenez. 28. 16-26. vol. 201-210. H. Moghtaderi.Chem. 449. 881-889.

vol. pp. "Mathematical description of combustion of intumescent polymer systems. [66] R. [63] S. Model systems. "Linear pyrolysis of carbonized polymers. "Combustion of Polymer Materials. 13-19. vol. 1971. [59] G. and M." Polymer Degradation and Stability. 23. Bugajny. "Thermal behaviour of polyamide-6-based intumescent formulations--a kinetic study. S. 58. C. 2001. 1999.Germany. "Experimental Study Of Intumescent Fire Protection Coatings. 88. Moscow. 2005. P. Combustion of Heterogeneous and Gas Systems. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. Aseeva and G. D. A.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature [56] M.towards a better understanding of their effect on intumescence efficiency. Le Bras. Vaz." Polymer Degradation and Stability. Mesquita." Polymer Degradation and Stability." Polymer Degradation and Stability. 157163. Langille. pp. "Intumescent fire-retardant systems. "Inorganic Intumescent Coatings for Improved Fire Protection of GRP. [57] L. 2005. "Thermoplastic resins for thin film intumescent coatings . 88. Khalturinskii. 2004. A. 48-67. E. Schmidt. and N. "Thermal behaviour of ethylene-propylene rubber/polyurethane/ammonium polyphosphate intumescent formulations--a kinetic study. 1999." Fire Technology. Parker JA (eds) Ablative plastics." Fire and Materials. pp 1–39." Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. "Durability evaluation of intumescent coating for steel frames. 64. and R. M. Explosion and Shock Waves. 303-313.. 33-43. Reshetnikov. vol. pp. [62] M. Duquesne. 1989. Siat. and Y. [68] I. 1997. Camino." Chemical Physics of Combustion and Explosion Processes. [69] C. Berlin. 101-103. M. pp. pp. Veinot. vol. P. Nguyen. and M. Piloto. vol. 23. pp. Bailey. 35. A. pp. [58] M. pp. Magnet. Kozlowski. Saito. B. S. Costa. Antonov. 1999. V. Degrad. Kodaira. Jama." presented at European Coatings:Fire Retardant Coatings II. 2007. Bourbigot. Zaikov. New York. Wladyka-Przybylak and R. L. [65] Y. G. Gibov. 39. A." Combustion. and D. M. 99-110. 1981." presented at Nauka. A. vol. Lewin. M. "Unsolved problems and unanswered questions in flame retardance of polymers " Polym. R. 1986. Delobel. Marcel Dekker. and G. [67] T. E. 689-709. Stab. Delobel. 205 . L. Sakumoto. 1997. 33." Fire Safety Journal. vol. S. [60] D. "The thermal characteristics of different intumescent coatings. In: D’ Alelio GF. 359-376. pp. 63-69. G. vol. Le Bras. J. Zhubanov and K. Nagata. S. Martinasso. [61] C. vol. Bourbigot. "Indicative fire tests to investigate the behaviour of cellular beams protected with intumescent coatings. Ablative polymers in aerospace technology. pp. [64] K. and R.

Knobloch.. "Intumescent coating surface temperature measurement in a cone calorimeter using laser-induced phosphorescence..pdf.1 2009. Aveiro.V.." Fire Research Group.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature [70] M.. Paloposki and L. and C. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.G. 49:No. "Partial loss of fire protection and structural collapse of high-rise buildings. Kwon. Ng. Y." Fire Safety Journal. 1977... "Effect of Partial loss of Spray-on Protection on the Load Capacity of Steel Beams during a Standard Fire. "Analyses of the impact of loss of spray-applied fire protection on the fire resistance of steel columns. 2003." Fire Safety Journal. "Steel emissivity at high temperatures ": http://www. "Eurocode 3-Design of steel structures-Part 1. "Fire load behaviour of steel building columns with damaged spray-applied fire resistive material. 2006. Vaz..L. [72] Milke J. 2006. 376-386. 41-58. and M. Wang. [74] L. N." presented at Fourth International Workshop 'Structures in Fire'. Portugal. "Temperature development in structural stainless steel sections exposed to fire. Dai.. Philadephia:ASTM.E. Mesquita. C. Liedquist. G." 2008. Y. 41. "FIRES-T3..12. G.G. pp. 2009. Wang. [71] A. [81] T. Raveglia.. pp.. Z." International Congress. pp. "Effects of partial fire protection on temperature developments in steel joints protected by intumescent coating. Hadjisophocleous. vol. K." American society of testing and materials. UCB FRG 77-15.A.31 DOI: 10. Piloto. [79] X. Holmstedt. T.. J. "Journal of Fire protection Engineering 2002. Pinto.. Omrane.A. Lee. pp. M. University of California Report No. and Khoo H.2:General rulesStructural fire design.D. U. P.USA.A computer program for the fire response of structures-thermal. 42.M. Bailey. 2007. H. S.. vol. Pessiki." [76] "Standard test method for fire tests of building constructions and materials. 2000. vol.vtt. R. Worcester.A. 44. vol. "Decomposition of Intumescent Coatings:Comparison between a numerical method and experimental results. and Fontana.A. T.M. B. 2006. Aldén. G.1177/1042391502012001865. [82] ENV1993-1-2:1995.A. [80] L. J. 185-203." Fire Safety Journal.. [75] Ryder. Bresler. Wolin.. [78] S." Acta Polytechnical. and Milke." European Committee for Standardization. Y. Gardner and K. 206 .Nizamuddin. [77] Kang. Brussels. C. [73] Iding. Göransson. M. and B. Fire Safety in Tall Buildings.P. R." presented at Fire safety science-proceedings of the seventh international symposium. 68-74..fi/inf/pdf/tiedotteet/2005/T2299.

The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature [83] J. New York: Worth Publishers. Oxford. Wickstrom. and J. [87] O. R. 1963.fety Journal vol. N. UK. 191-192. 1976. Chapman and Hall. Preston. 1996. Preston. vol. " Bulletin 29. 1961. Physics for Scientists and Engineers. Design of Fire-Resisting Structures: N. Sultan. Furnaces: Pergamon Press. R. 141-79.." 10th Edn. Magnusson. British Steel Technical. B. [94] H." Fire Safety Journal. McGannon.S. 1988. Z. Gilchrist. and H. R. 13. Shaping and Testing of Steel. Tipler and G. 26. [98] B. "Modelling of steel behaviour. vol. Fishenden and O. 11. L. vol. 1982.: Clarendon Press. pp. 139-143. U. 2008. "Comparison of Severity of Exposure in ASTM E 119 and IS0 834 Fire Resistance Tests. "Comments on calculation of temperature in fireexposed bare steel structures in prEN 1993-1-2:Eurocode 3-design of steel structures-Part 1-2:general rules-structural fire design " Fire S. 40. "Calculation of temperature in fire-exposed bare steel structures: Comparison between ENV 1993-1-2 and EN 1993-1-2. S. A. R. An Introduction to Heat Transfer." Fire Safety Journal. UK. Steel. Clark. pp. Lund. High Temperature Alloys: Pitman. "Calculation of the heating rate of an unprotected steel member in a standard fire resistance test. Kirby. pp. Thor. Saunders. pp. and J. and R. Malhotra. L. 2006. UK. [95] C. A. D. [96] Y." 1978." Fire Safety Journal. [97] B. R. Anderberg. Lankford. " Fire Engineering Design of Steel Structures. Samways. "Recent developments and applications in structural fire engineering design. Harmathy. pp. Daws. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. Kay. Pettersson. T. [91] C." 1972. M. [84] U. W. 17-26. F. 2005. 41. "The Making.. 1953. vol. 6 ed. A. Thor. Craven." Fire Safety Journal. pp. Kirby and R. vol. Mosca. R. Franssen.Y. vol. [85] T. [90] W. 13. 327-350. R. 207 ." Swedish Institute of Steel Construction. [86] J. E. "Private Communication. 1985. [89] M." Fire Safety Journal. 1988. Institiutionen for Byggnadsstatik. MacLaurin. vol. L. E. Oxford. 1987. 1. Sweden." ASTM Journal of Testing and Evaluatio. "High temperature properties of hot rolled structural steels for use in fire engineeringdesign studies. 1986. 15. [92] P. Kirby. [93] T. 371-375. [88] J.-M.

" Cement and Concrete Research. Bartholmai. Dulong. Piasta. Ledesert. vol. Beaucour. Thesis.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature [99] I." Annals of Philosophy. [103] EN13381-8:2010." Phys." Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT). "Test methods for determining the contribution to the fire resistance of structural members . and B. [110] V. pp. Z. 10. pp. 157-164. "Effect of Temperature on Thermal Properties of High-Strength Concrete." Research Reports 452. Sarshar." European Committee for Standardization.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2003)15:2(101). 2003. 1986. " Recherches sur quelques points importants de la Théorie de la Chaleur. Schartel. 1989. pp. R. and B. Espoo.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-6ADraft. F. 1819." Cement and Concrete Research. Concrete at High Temperatures : Material Properties and Mathematical models. A. 34. [100] T. and K. [105] P. Ala-Outinen and J. 37. "Changes of Pore Structure of Cement Mortars Due to Temperature. 1984. pp. Concrete Design and Construction Series: Longman Group Limited. "Influence of external heat flux and coating thickness on thermal insulation properties of two different intumescent coatings using cone calorimeter and numerical analysis. T. R. Weiss. vol. [106] U. Bazant and M. 2002.. Schriever. Xing. 1998. vol. and G. Noumowe. Part 8: Applied reactive protection tosteel members. Rostásy.D. "The local buckling of RHS members at elevated temperatures.L. "Fire resistance of framed building. L. 390. [101] J. 27. "Effect of Elevated Temperatures on the Strength of Different Cement Pastes and Concretes." Materials and Structures: Research and Testing. Dieterichs. "Influence of the nature of aggregates on the behaviour of concrete subjected to elevated temperature. Kaplan. Hebert. 208 . [109] R. Brussels. 41. Sultan. Petit and P. 189-198. 17. R. [112] A. 151-162. Koo.nist. "Material Properties of FConcrete at High Temperatures. Jumppanen.Educ. Kodur and M. 415-420. vol. [102] M. W.pdf. [108] J. K. [107] F." Fire Technology. Hinrichsmeyer. pp. [111] Z. "Heat Deformations of Cement Paste Phases and the Microstructure of Cement Paste. pp. Burgess. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. Finland 1995. [104] http://wtc." Fire and Materials. vol." 10. 392-402. R. 1980." Ph. 2011. A. Wiedemann. University of London. U. Myllymäki. A. vol. UK. H. "Thermal characterization of a ceramic intumescent material.

G. pp. Hrennikoff. London. vol. "Strategies for tracing the nonlinear response near limit points. 47. vol. [127] E." Mech. The finite element method in structural and continuum mechanics." Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering. 13. Levinson. [120] E. "Solution of Problems of Elasticity by the Frame-Work Method " ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics 8. 307-317. Zienkiewicz and E. 1967. Wood. [126] J. "Concrete at High Temperatures .S. Schneider.Theory and practice." Comput Struct. Riks. pp. Reissner. 1981. 17. vol." Int J Numer Methods Eng. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. 1984. 209 . "Some computational aspects of the stability analysis of nonlinear structures.H. vol. 1988. K." Journal of Applied Mechanics. "Improved iterative strategy for nonlinear structures. 1981. 2006. [115] O. [125] M. "A simple higher-order theory for laminated composite plates. 219-259. pp. In: W. 1997. pp. "Material and geometrical nonlinearities FEM and BEM analyses: A bibliography (1998-2000). 74." Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis in Structural Mechanics. [117] O. A619-A715. "Reduced integration. Reddy.K.A General Review. J." Composite Structures. pp. vol. Powell and J. Bathe (Eds. Mackerle. 2002. C.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature [113] U. function smoothing and nonconformity in finite element analysis (with special reference to thick plates). and C. [124] S. E. [118] J. Comm. Bonet and R. A. 1976. Kim. Wunderlich. [114] A. 1980." Journal of Applied Mechanics. vol.. 1941. Nonlinear continuum mechanics for finite element analysis: Cambridge University Press. 19445. pp. 1455-1467. Cheung. "A fast incremental/iteration solution procedure that handles ‘snapthrough’. [122] E. [123] G. D. Simons. Zienkiewicz and Y. Res. 1981." Journal of the Franklin Institute. vol. pp. "Finite Element Analysis . [119] J.). 361-369. pp. Fagan. A69-A77. "An accurate simple theory of the statics and dynamics of elastic plates. vol." 1992. 745-752. "The effect of transverse shear deformation on the bending of elastic plates. pp. N. C. 1984. Stein and K. [116] M. 38. Hinton. Crisfield. J. pp. Kim. 55-62. pp. Ramm. Oh. 343-350. 13. 55-68." Fire Safety Journal. pp. London: McGraw-Hill publisher Co. 443-461. [121] M." Finite Elements in Analysis and Design. 51. "An efficient postbuckling analysis technique for composite stiffened curved panels. 63-89. 302.

Part 8: Code of practice for fire resistant design. Nadjai. 2009." presented at Applications of Structural Fire Engineering. vol. I. Huang. 2002. BS5950: The structural use of steelwork in buildings. Newman. 18. Choi. 1990. and J. London. [133] "Department of the Environment and The Welsh Office. "Performance of Shear Stud in Fire. "Structural Fire Design Of Unprotected Steel Beams Supporting Composite Floor Slabs. 210 .. 51. 1995. 76. Zhao. Brazil. 1031-1036. Plank. pp. UK (1992). SP. " Influence of rotary inertia and shear in flexural motion of isotropic. "The influence of shear connectors on the behaviour of composite steel-framed buildings in fire. S. [135] "British Standards Institution. 219-237. Prague. Ali." Journal of Constructional Steel Research. The Building Regulations 1991. 1999. "The design of steel framed buildings without applied fire protection. G. São Paulo. Choi. and R. Mindlin. Kruppa and B.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature [128] R. Bailey and G. 1998. [131] S. Burgess." presented at II International Conference on Steel Construction – II CICOM. 51-69. 1951. G.2. pp. S. D. [132] C." [134] C. Approved Document B. F. . pp. Han. A. J. elastic plates. [129] J. Bailey. [130] Z. M." The Structural Engineer. vol. "Fire resistance of composite beams to Eurucode 4 Part 1. vol. HMSO." Journal of Constructional Steel Research." RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. 77-81. pp. Kim." Journal of Applied Mechanics. W. Fire Safety.

formulation errors and discretization errors.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Appendix A Sources of error in the FEM Generally it is found that there are three main sources of error in a typical FEM. 211 . Large geometry Figure 145: Discretization error due to poor geometry representation Denser geometry Figure 146: Discretization error effectively eliminated RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. They comprise of numerical errors.

for example.) Stop Post-processor • Prints or plots contours of stress components or heat distribution.The Analysis Of Partial And Damaged Fire Protection On Structural Steel At Elevated Temperature Discretization error results from transforming the physical system (continuum) into a finite-element model. Numerical error is therefore a problem mainly concerning the FEM vendors and developers. Start Analysis and design decisions Problem Definition Pre-processor Processor • Reads or generates nodes and elements • • Reads or generates material property data. For example. • Evaluates and prints error bounds. but would create a significant formulation error if used to represent a quadratic or cubic varying displacement field. The user can also contribute to the numerical accuracy. Such an element will produce no formulation error when it is used to model a linearly varying physical problem (linear varying displacement field in this example). • Prints or plots contours of displacements. to an inadequate number of decimal places. and includes truncation errors and round-off errors. by specifying a physical quantity. a particular finite element might be formulated on the assumption that displacements vary in a linear manner over the domain. 212 . and can be related to modeling the boundary shape and the boundary conditions. Numerical error occurs as a result of numerical calculation procedures. • Figure 147: Process Flow in a Typical FEM Analysis using ABAQUS RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. E. Formulation error results from the use of elements that don't precisely describe the behaviour of the physical problem. Elements which are used to model physical problems for which they are not suited are sometimes referred to as ill-conditioned or mathematically unsuitable elements. Generates element shape functions • Calculates master element equations • Calculates transformation matrices • Maps element equations into global system • Assembles element equations • Reads or generates boundary conditions (loads and constraints. say Young’s modulus.

09 295000000 0.15 295000000 0.04859524 20 295 0.2 0 0.00049524 20 295 0.02 295000000 0. Appendix B Nominal to true stress-strain conversion A typical example of the true yield stress and the true plastic strain values used in ABAQUS are shown in Table 13 for ambient temperature.1794381 20 59 0.14859524 20 236 0.012 295000000 0.12859524 20 295 0.01859524 20 295 0.006 295000000 0. Values for elevated temperature are calculated and employed accordingly.00159524 20 295 0.03 295000000 0.11 295000000 0.2 20 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P.003 295000000 0.15887619 20 177 0.213 .018 295000000 0.0019 295000000 0.18971905 20 0 0. Table 14: True yield stress and true plastic strain computed from nominal stress-strain data for Test 1 at 20±C Nominal Nominal True Yield True Temperature Plastic Stress Strain stress (∞C) strain (N/mm2) (N/m2) 295 0.06859524 20 295 0.01059524 20 295 0.00759524 20 295 0.13 295000000 0.08859524 20 295 0.00459524 20 295 0.07 295000000 0.009 295000000 0.THE EFFECT OF FIRE PROTECTION DAMAGE ON THE FIRE RESISTANCE OF STRUCTURAL ST EEL BEAMS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES.01659524 20 295 0.00109524 20 295 0.18 118000000 0.01359524 20 295 0.0025 295000000 0.10859524 20 295 0.16915714 20 118 0.015 295000000 0.02859524 20 295 0.05 295000000 0.16 236000000 0.001405 295000000 0 20 295 0.17 177000000 0.19 59000000 0.

259600013. 0. 0.0736500025. 4.. 0. 4. 0. 0.5 9.0736500025. 0..93295455 26. 0.. 0.5 10. contact=NO ** ** PARTS ** *Part. 1.259600013.0250001 24. 2. USA Available for internal use at University of Manchester.259600013.259600013. 0. 2. 0.10454547 35.0736500025. 0. 17. 0. 0. history=NO.259600013. 0. 0..THE EFFECT OF FIRE PROTECTION DAMAGE ON THE FIRE RESISTANCE OF STRUCTURAL ST EEL BEAMS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES.4749999 6. 0. 0. 0.0736500025.. model=NO.. 0..920454562 37. 0.0736500025.0736500025. 0. 4. Appendix C ABAQUS analysis input data In this appendix section. 0.0736500025.259600013. 0. Rising Sun Mills 166 Valley Street Providence.0736500025.5 8. 0.276136369 P.0736500025. 0.. 1.01250005 36. 0. 0.. 2. 0. 1.65681815 29. 1. 0. 1.5 21. 0.. 0.0736500025. 0.147300005.259600013.. 0.0736500025. 4.74886358 28. 0. 0.368181825 43. 0. 1. 0.0736500025. name=Beam *Node 1.0250001 16. 1.. 0.1965909 34. 0. 0.147300005. 0.0736500025. 11. 2.0250001 2. 0.56477273 30. 0.0736500025.460227281 42.0736500025.. 0.. 0. 0. 0.0250001 23. 2. 0.. 2.. The Abaqus Software is a product of: Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp. 4.207680002...4749999 7. RI 02909-2499. 0. 1.0736500025.. 0. 0.0250001 18.259600013.259600013.259600013.. 13.. 0..0736500025. On machine mace-renga-rao you are authorized to run Abaqus/Standard until 30-Nov-2011 Your site id is: 12UMAN_X RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY STRUCTURAL-SCENARIO2-CASE2... 0.259600013.0736500025.84090912 27. 0.10-1 Date 14-Dec-2010 Time 11:15:59 For use at University of Manchester under license from Dassault Systemes or its subsidiary. 0. 0.828409076 38.0736500025. 0. 0. 0. 0.0736500025.0736500025. 0. Abaqus 6.. 0. 0.147300005.. 0... 0.0250001 3. 19.214 . 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.0736500025. 5. 0.155760005. 0.0519200005.10-1 *Preprint.5 15. 0. 0.0736500025.4749999 14. 0.4749999 20. 1. 0. 2. 4.0250001 25. 0. 0.38068187 32.103840001. 2.0736500025. 0. 0. 0.147300005. 0. 0. 0. 0.0736500025.0736500025.. 0. 0.644318163 40. 2. echo=NO.0250001 22. 0.0736500025. 4. 0. 0.5 12. 2. 0..0736500025. 0. 0.0736500025. 2.736363649 39. 1.4727273 31. 0. 2.. 0.inp *Heading ** Job name: STRUCTURAL-SCENARIO2-CASE2 Model name: STRUCTURAL-CASE2 ** Generated by: Abaqus/CAE 6. 1. 0.28863633 33.147300005.0736500025. 0.147300005. ABAQUS input file employed to perform the parametric analysis for Structural Damaged Scenario 2 (Case 2) are shown below.552272737 41...259600013. 0. 0.0736500025.

9477272 114.93877554 147. 4.147300005.551020384 173..367346942 175.259600013.259600013.259600013.207680002.58163261 140.. 0. 0.0736500025.0736500025. 4. 2.259600013.7511363 127. 0.0736500025.. 0.21136355 91.368181825 54.. 3. 0.. 2. 0.84693885 148. 3. 0. 0. 0. 3.0519200005. 0.3034091 121. 0. 0.0736500025. 0. 0.155760005. 0. 0. 2. 3. 0. 0...659091 128..01250005 61. 3.. 0.13265324 134. 0. 0.0736500025. 0. 1. 2.0736500025. 4. 0.0272727 89.0736500025.. 0. 0. 0. 0.0519200005. 0. 0.11500001 79.0736500025.. 0.01020408 168. 0.13181829 101.56704545 84. 0.65681815 68.40816307 181.. 2.40795469 109.. 0.103840001. 0. 0. 0. 3. 1. 0.0736500025. 0.40816307 131.0920454562 46.259600013. 0. 1. 0.147300005.0736500025. 3. 0. 3.. 0. 0.94897962 136...11931825 123.. 0. 0.259600013. 0.0736500025.0736500025.. 2.. 3.. 0. 0. 0.5 130.. 0.0736500025. 1.92857146 158.. 0. 4. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.0736500025. 2.0736500025.20499992 81. 0.259600013.. 0. 4. 0..0736500025. 0.. 1. 2.. 0.. 0.734693885 171.04081631 185. 0...02040815 157. 0..0736500025..0736500025. 0.259600013. 4.5 106. 2.0736500025. 2.0519200005.03977251 113.. 0.47959185 152.0736500025. 0.. 1. 0. 0. 0. 3.56122446 162.0736500025.259600013..5 180... 0. 0.57142854 151.38068187 65. 0. 2. 1. 0. 1.259600013.259600013.0736500025.259600013. 0. 3.3034091 92.0736500025. 0. 0. 0. 0..0736500025. 0. 4. 2.0736500025.13181829 112..0736500025..5 108. 0.0736500025.. 0. 0.0736500025.5795455 118. 0.0736500025.0736500025.155760005.29500008 82..12244892 145..76363635 116. 0. 49.20499992 78.. 3.. 0.147300005.. 0. 0.39795923 142.. 0. 0....259600013. 0.103840001. 3. 0. 0... 0. 0.259600013.48749995 94. 0. 2.207680002. 0. 0. 0.21136355 122. 0.275510192 176.259600013. 0. 4.. 0.0736500025. 0.259600013. 0.0736500025. 3. 0. 0. 1..0736500025.. 0. 2.0736500025.11500001 80.259600013. 0. 0. 0. 0.2238636 102.259600013. 0.. 0.. 0..0918367356 178.0736500025.67159081 96.. 2. 1. 1.0736500025. 0.0368250012.93522716 88. 0.0736500025. 0. 0.67159081 117.259600013.74489796 160.84318185 87. 0. 0. 0... 0.259600013...0736500025.259600013. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 3. 0. 4..4749999 74. 2. 0.. 4.84090912 70. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 44. 0.0736500025. 2..0736500025. 1.4749999 72. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0..0736500025.259600013.4727273 66.0736500025. 0. 0.259600013.31590891 110. 179. 3.259600013. 4. 0. 4. 4. 0. 3. 0. 0.21428561 144.215 . 2. 0.0736500025. 0. 3. 0..207680002. 0. 0.0736500025..29591846 154.9477272 99.552272737 56..642857134 172.259600013.259600013. 0.4749999 73. 1.. 0.0736500025. 0. 3. 0.828409076 59.0736500025.147300005.22448969 133.0736500025. 2. 1... 0. 0.0736500025. 0..918367326 169. 0.0736500025.56704545 129..38775516 153.. 0.183673471 177.0736500025. 0. 0.5 107. 0. 0.0736500025. 0.0736500025. 0..94897962 P. 1.0736500025. 0.184090912 52.4749999 75. 0.39545465 93. 2. 0.2238636 111.259600013..259600013.110475004. 4. 2. 0. 0. 0. 0..155760005.659091 85..259600013. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.83673465 159. 0..10454547 62. 0.0736500025..259600013. 0. 3. 0. 0.76363635 97.56477273 67.84318185 126. 0.1965909 63. 0.459183663 174. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.67346931 139.. 0.0736500025..0272727 124. 0. 0.0736500025.736363649 58. 0. 0.0736500025. 4. 0..0736500025... 0. 0.0736500025.0736500025. 0... 0.5795455 95. 0. 0.28571427 165.. 0. 0.. 0. 2.75510216 149.259600013. 0. 3. 0. 3.. 0. 0. 0.. 0. 0. 3. 0. 0... 2.259600013. 0.0736500025. 2.48749995 119.40795469 104.38499999 76.03977251 100..259600013.644318163 57. 0.66326523 150.38499999 83. 0..826530635 170. 3. 0.65306127 161..0736500025.276136369 53. 0.. 0.0736500025. 0.0736500025.147300005. 0....THE EFFECT OF FIRE PROTECTION DAMAGE ON THE FIRE RESISTANCE OF STRUCTURAL ST EEL BEAMS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES. 0. 2.8556819 98. 0. 0. 2.259600013.0736500025. 0. 3. 0. 0.0736500025... 0. 3. 0. 0.259600013. 0. 0. 2..19387758 166. 0.30612254 143.. 0. 0. 0. 4.11931825 90.259600013. 0. 0.259600013.184090912 45. 0. 0. 47.920454562 60.0736500025. 0. 2. 0. 0. 0.. 50. 4.. 4. 48. 1.0736500025. 4.0736500025.259600013.... 0. 4.0736500025. 0. 0.. 0. 0..259600013.0736500025. 3.85714293 137. 0.37755108 164. 0. 0. 0. 0.103840001.0736500025. 3..0368250012. 0.03061223 146. 0. 3. 0. 0. 0.0736500025. 0. 0.0736500025.259600013. 0. 0.. 0.28863633 64.259600013. 0. 1.8556819 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY 115. 0.. 0. 2.46938777 163.. 0. 0. 0...0736500025.. 0. 0.04081631 135. 3.. 0. 2.259600013. 0.13265324 184. 4.0736500025...460227281 55... 0.93522716 125. 0. 0.0736500025.10204077 167.5 105. 0. 1. 2. 0.76530623 138.0736500025.31632662 132. 0.0736500025. 4.39545465 120. 4. 0. 0..259600013.. 3.11224484 156.0736500025. 0. 0... 0.0736500025. 3.259600013. 0. 0. 0. 4.0736500025. 0.0920454562 51.259600013. 1.48979592 141. 0. 2. 0.0736500025.259600013. 0. 0. 0.147300005..0736500025.22448969 183.. 0. 3. 4.20408154 155. 2. 0.31590891 103. 0. 0.0736500025. 0. 0.31632662 182. 0.29500008 77.93295455 71.. 0.74886358 69. 4.. 0. 1. 0. 0.7511363 86. 0. 0. 0. 0. 3.

92857146 0. 0.734693885 0. 2.147300005. 0.5 0.259600013.259600013. 3. 3. 0.183673471 0. 2. 225. 2.28863633 295. 0.259600013. 0..147300005.0272727 0.147300005. 3.5795455 319. 0.259600013.276136369 284. 2.30612254 0.259600013. 200.259600013.. 2. 0. 3..259600013.259600013. 0.147300005. 0. 0. 0. 192. 0. 0. 0.216 . 0.THE EFFECT OF FIRE PROTECTION DAMAGE ON THE FIRE RESISTANCE OF STRUCTURAL ST EEL BEAMS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES.259600013. 0. 0.147300005.259600013. 0.259600013.644318163 261.147300005.110475004. 239. 0.. 0. 0.259600013.147300005.110475004. 0.259600013. 0. 252.259600013. 0. 3. 0. 4.259600013. 0... 0.918367326 0. 0.4727273 297.259600013. 2. 1. 2.21136355 0.. 231.259600013.. 2. 0. 0.259600013. 1.259600013. 2. 0.147300005.40795469 P. 0.. 0. 0.259600013. 0.. 0. 0.1965909 294.58163261 0. 1. 0..147300005. 0.147300005.826530635 0. 216. 2.11500001 276. 0. 0.368181825 258. 0. 0..259600013. 222.7511363 0.147300005.147300005.. 0.828409076 290. 1. 2.147300005. 4.259600013. 0.56122446 0..0368250012.0250001 0. 0. 1.147300005.. 1.259600013. 0. 242.. 227. 0. 3. 3.259600013. 4.147300005. 0. 1. 0. 1. 0. 0. 3. 0.. 0.259600013.147300005. 0. 0.644318163 288. 214.259600013.259600013.259600013. 0. 3..02040815 0. 3.642857134 0. 2.147300005. 0. 253.828409076 263. 1.147300005. 206.736363649 289. 0. 0. 3.259600013. 4. 1. 0..259600013. 0..8556819 322.147300005. 208.0368250012.147300005. 3.74489796 0.. 0. 240.01250005 292. 2. 0.38068187 296.. 0. 0. 0. 0.. 0. 0.147300005.147300005..276136369 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY 257. 250. 0. 0..147300005. 0. 241.147300005.147300005. 0. 2.67159081 320. 236. 0.9477272 0. 0. 245.67346931 0. 3..259600013. 0. 0.147300005.8556819 0. 0.. 1.147300005..259600013. 1. 0.47959185 0.147300005. 187. 0.259600013.147300005.. 215.147300005. 0. 228.9477272 323. 4. 0. 0. 0. 0.2238636 0. 0. 4.65306127 0.46938777 0. 0. 196.. 0.. 0.147300005. 1. 0. 1.147300005.259600013..147300005.259600013. 0.259600013.39545465 317. 0. 0.259600013.. 0.259600013.110475004. 4. 0. 0. 0.147300005. 1. 0.147300005. 0.10454547 293.147300005.259600013. 2.147300005. 0. 3.29591846 0. 0.147300005. 0.259600013.. 0. 0.38068187 269.147300005. 199. 0. 0.93295455 275. 2.147300005..147300005.. 0.74886358 300..93522716 312.84090912 301.259600013.48749995 318. 0.259600013.28863633 268.259600013. 0.. 2. 0. 0. 2. 0. 0. 0.259600013.147300005..259600013.11500001 304.38499999 307.74886358 273. 201.. 247. 0. 207.5795455 0. 1. 1..259600013. 4. 0. 0. 2. 0.259600013.147300005. 0.. 0. 256. 0.20499992 305.. 1.147300005.259600013. 2.147300005..147300005. 3. 0. 1.2238636 326. 1.37755108 0.7511363 310..147300005.20408154 0. 1.0272727 313.13181829 0. 0.259600013. 0. 0.920454562 264. 0. 0.. 0.31590891 327.259600013. 281. 2.147300005. 204. 1..147300005. 0. 0.... 198.259600013. 3. 0.259600013. 0. 193.4749999 303.259600013. 0... 189. 3.259600013. 0.147300005.. 223. 0. 0. 2..259600013. 0.184090912 283. 0. 0.147300005. 0.21136355 315. 0. 229. 0. 1. 1. 0.56704545 0. 3. 0.29500008 306.11224484 0. 0. 202.20499992 277.13181829 325.56704545 308..38775516 0. 0.184090912 0. 0. 0.39795923 0. 0.147300005. 0.259600013.736363649 262.259600013.11931825 0..39545465 0.259600013.259600013. 0. 0.259600013..0250001 280..147300005. 0. 205. 221.259600013. 0.147300005. 1. 0.147300005.. 0. 2.147300005. 0. 0.19387758 0. 1. 0. 220. 246.259600013.259600013.259600013. 0.4727273 270. 0. 188. 0.147300005. 0.. 0. 254. 255. 2.147300005.147300005. 237.259600013.147300005. 3. 3. 233. 3. 219.12244892 0..259600013.147300005.10204077 0.. 0.259600013. 3. 0..147300005. 244.259600013.259600013. 249. 0. 0.147300005. 3. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 2.93522716 0.10454547 266.. 0. 0. 234.3034091 316..259600013. 0.40795469 0. 0. 0. 3. 0.368181825 285. 3. 243. 2.03977251 0. 0.38499999 279.76363635 321. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.. 0. 0. 0..66326523 0. 3. 0... 3.147300005. 0. 209.147300005. 2.147300005. 0.147300005.147300005. 0. 3. 194..275510192 0. 0. 1..259600013.56477273 298.147300005.4749999 0..48749995 0. 3. 0.21428561 0. 230. 251.65681815 299. 0.84318185 311.147300005.67159081 0.659091 309.31590891 0. 0. 0. 0.56477273 271.147300005. 0. 0. 0. 0.659091 0..147300005.259600013.367346942 0. 0. 0. 0.1965909 267.259600013. 4. 2. 0.259600013.147300005. 0.84090912 274. 0. 0.259600013.76530623 0.84318185 0. 213.259600013.259600013. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.147300005.75510216 0. 1.259600013. 0.147300005. 0.259600013.76363635 0.259600013.259600013.. 0.110475004.552272737 260.93295455 302. 0. 186. 0.551020384 0.259600013. 195. 1. 211. 0..0920454562 282.48979592 0.57142854 0. 238.147300005.259600013.. 4.259600013.259600013. 2. 0.01250005 265. 226. 2.83673465 0.29500008 278. 0.0918367356 0.0920454562 0.84693885 0. 0. 1. 0.259600013. 0.460227281 286..03977251 324. 0.147300005.. 0. 203.65681815 272. 0. 0. 3. 217.. 218.147300005. 0.259600013.147300005.259600013.3034091 0. 0..259600013.. 191. 0.552272737 287.85714293 0. 0. 0.920454562 291.259600013. 0. 0.259600013.147300005. 0. 0. 0.259600013.259600013.147300005. 210. 0.147300005. 3.. 2.01020408 0. 0.93877554 0.460227281 259. 2. 0.259600013.110475004.. 3.28571427 0. 235.259600013.459183663 0. 0. 0..147300005.147300005..147300005. 224.147300005. 0. 4..259600013. 248.03061223 0. 197. 1.11931825 314.259600013. 212.. 0.259600013..147300005. 2.147300005.259600013. 232. 190.0368250012.. 0. 1.

0. 0. 0. 2. 0.10454547 1.0519200005. 0. 0. 362. 2.207680002. 0. 365. 0.0736500025. 0. 2. 0. 2.11931825 454. 393.207680002. 0. 0.207680002. 0.0736500025. 0.0519200005.644318163 0.21136355 458. 0.207680002.184090912 409. 0. 360. 0.0736500025.920454562 0.368181825 0. 380. 0.0736500025. 0. 0.0736500025. 2.0736500025. 0. 0.207680002.0736500025.39545465 467.0736500025.0736500025.207680002. 0.207680002.0736500025. 2. 0. 382.207680002.552272737 0. 363. 0.0736500025.0736500025.207680002. 0.0736500025.0736500025. 0.0736500025.56477273 1.552272737 0. 0. 328.0519200005. 0. 0. 0. 357. 3.0736500025. 0.0519200005.0736500025.56477273 1. 0. 0. 2.0736500025.0920454562 411.0736500025. 0.0736500025.0519200005. 0. 3.28863633 1. 0. 0.28863633 1.0736500025. 0.0736500025. 369.56704545 432.0736500025. 368. 0. 0.0736500025. 0.38068187 1.155760005. 0. 0. 0.11500001 426. 372. 342.217 . 0.0736500025. 0. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY 4.0736500025. 0.0736500025. 329.207680002.74886358 1. 0. 0. 0.0736500025.0519200005.103840001.207680002. 0.103840001.368181825 399.0736500025.20499992 424. 0. 0.736363649 0.29500008 418. 0. 0. 378.155760005.207680002. 0. 0. 0.155760005. 0. 0.0736500025.3034091 463.84318185 442. 0. 0. 0.10454547 1. 0.155760005. 3. 353. 0. 3.368181825 400.01250005 1.155760005. 0.39545465 466. 0.0736500025.38499999 415. 337. 335.0736500025. 0. 0. 0.0272727 451. 356.0736500025.0519200005. 330.103840001. 0.207680002.103840001.65681815 1.0736500025. 0. 0.0736500025. 2.0736500025. 0.0736500025. 0.7511363 440. 349.0736500025.0736500025.0519200005. 0. 0.3034091 464. 0. 3.0736500025.552272737 0. 0.0736500025. 3. 0.38068187 1.0736500025. 0. 0.0920454562 413.0519200005.0736500025.155760005.0736500025.48749995 P.0920454562 410.920454562 0. 2.659091 436. 0.155760005. 0.11931825 455. 346. 2. 0.56477273 1.0736500025. 0. 0.155760005. 0.0736500025. 381. 0. 392. 2.103840001. 0.0736500025. 0.0519200005. 0.0736500025. 0. 370. 0.28863633 1. 0.155760005.155760005.3034091 465.207680002.0736500025.0519200005.0736500025.460227281 0. 0.103840001. 0. 0. 0.155760005. 0. 0.0736500025.20499992 425.659091 435. 0. 0. 0. 0. 2. 0. 0.207680002.103840001. 0. 0. 0.207680002. 0.56477273 1. 0. 2. 371.38499999 414.28863633 1.0736500025.7511363 439. 0. 0.659091 437. 0. 0.103840001. 3.29500008 420.184090912 408. 0.0736500025. 0.0519200005.0736500025. 385. 0.0736500025.207680002.0519200005.103840001.103840001. 352. 0. 0. 0.0736500025.0736500025. 0. 0.155760005. 0. 0.736363649 0.0736500025.0736500025.0736500025.0736500025.0519200005. 331.207680002. 0. 0. 2. 0.207680002. 2. 3. 0.65681815 1. 0.155760005. 0. 0. 0. 396. 0.644318163 0.65681815 1.0736500025. 0.103840001. 0. 0.11500001 429. 366.0519200005.0736500025. 0. 0. 0.155760005.0736500025.0736500025. 0.4727273 1.103840001.155760005. 389. 0. 0.0519200005.0519200005. 388.155760005.0519200005. 0. 0. 358. 333. 343. 0. 351.103840001.828409076 0.29500008 419. 379. 0.0519200005.460227281 0.0272727 453. 0.207680002.0736500025.0736500025.155760005.0519200005.93295455 1. 0.103840001. 2.4727273 1. 0.155760005.0736500025.155760005.0736500025.84090912 1.11931825 457. 0. 2. 0.0736500025. 0. 2. 0. 0.38499999 416.207680002. 2. 0.155760005. 0. 375. 0. 367.84318185 443.207680002.0736500025. 350. 373.0736500025.0736500025. 0. 332.0519200005.155760005.0736500025.0736500025.276136369 404.0920454562 412. 3.93295455 1. 0.11931825 456. 3. 0. 3.259600013. 0. 0.155760005. 0.207680002. 0.0736500025.460227281 0.0736500025. 383.736363649 0. 355. 0. 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0.84318185 444. 0. 0. 0. 0.207680002.0519200005.0736500025.93522716 447.103840001.0736500025.0368250012. 0.0736500025.1965909 1.103840001.659091 434. 344.207680002.103840001. 347.0736500025. 0.155760005.3034091 462.0519200005.93295455 1. 0.103840001. 2. 0. 0. 3.276136369 405.5 1. 0.103840001. 3.65681815 1. 0. 0.0519200005. 0.0519200005. 0.29500008 421. 0.0519200005.0736500025. 2. 0. 0. 0. 0.207680002. 0.155760005.0519200005.0736500025. 2.84090912 1.552272737 0.0736500025.0736500025.0736500025.0736500025. 0. 345.21136355 461.0736500025. 0. 0.103840001. 0.155760005.01250005 1. 0.207680002.0736500025.828409076 0.93522716 446. 0. 340.0736500025. 0.0519200005. 0. 0.0736500025. 0.0519200005.207680002.84318185 445.0736500025. 0.103840001. 0. 2. 0. 0.103840001.644318163 0. 0.0736500025. 3.207680002.0736500025. 0.828409076 0. 2. 339.155760005.10454547 1.103840001.0736500025.103840001. 390.38068187 1.0736500025. 0.0736500025.38068187 1.0736500025. 2. 0.39545465 468. 0. 377. 361. 0.56704545 433. 2. 341. 0. 0.0736500025. 0. 0. 0. 0.0736500025.155760005. 0.0736500025.736363649 0.276136369 402. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 2. 0.0519200005. 0.0736500025.0736500025. 0.56704545 430.1965909 1. 0. 0.103840001. 0.368181825 401.0272727 452. 0.207680002.93522716 448.20499992 422. 0.0519200005.0736500025.155760005. 0. 0. 0.0736500025. 374.0519200005. 2.0736500025.0736500025.0736500025.1965909 1. 0.0519200005.0736500025.207680002. 354. 0.0736500025.207680002. 0. 0.0736500025. 0. 0. 395.828409076 0. 0.103840001. 0.276136369 403.0736500025. 2.155760005.0736500025. 0.103840001. 0. 2. 338. 0. 0.0736500025. 0. 0.0519200005.20499992 423. 0. 0.920454562 0.0736500025. 364.93522716 449.207680002.103840001.0736500025.0736500025.0736500025.0736500025. 359.01250005 0.155760005. 336.207680002.103840001. 0.0272727 450.155760005.0736500025.0736500025. 387. 397. 386.56704545 431. 391.0736500025. 3. 0. 348. 0. 0.11500001 428. 0.0736500025. 3. 0. 0.0736500025. 0.11500001 427. 2.103840001. 3.0736500025. 0.38499999 417. 0. 0.155760005.84090912 1.460227281 0.0736500025. 2. 0. 2.0736500025. 0.0736500025.103840001.0736500025. 0. 2. 334.155760005. 2.0736500025. 3. 2. 384. 3.84090912 1.103840001. 0. 0. 0.155760005.7511363 441. 0. 398.184090912 406.21136355 459.0519200005. 0. 0.1965909 1. 0.184090912 407. 0. 0.0736500025. 3. 0.0736500025. 0.74886358 1.THE EFFECT OF FIRE PROTECTION DAMAGE ON THE FIRE RESISTANCE OF STRUCTURAL ST EEL BEAMS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES.103840001.74886358 1. 0. 0.0736500025.0736500025. 0.920454562 0.0736500025.0736500025. 0. 0. 0.0519200005. 0.0736500025.21136355 460. 0.01250005 1. 0.103840001. 0.0736500025.103840001.39545465 469. 0.4727273 1.644318163 0. 376.0736500025.0736500025. 0. 0.7511363 438. 0. 0. 0. 394.93295455 1. 0.4727273 1.207680002.10454547 1. 0.0736500025. 0.74886358 1.155760005. 0. 0.

0. 0.. 0. 0.5795455 476.39670682 525..110475004. 0. 0. 0.22417688 564. 3. 3. 0. 0.919410944 600. 0. 0.0368250012.... 4. 0.48749995 473.83882189 542.110475004.0368250012.103840001. 0.84506035 579. 1.65493965 544. 3.0519200005. 0.0919410959 561. 0... 0.0736500025..10329318 550. 0. 0.103840001.0368250012.110475004. 0.47729588 535. 2. 0.0736500025. 0. 0. 0.48864794 524.. 470. 0. 0. 4.. 0. 0.. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. 1. 1. 1.67253017 522. 3. 2. 0. 3. 0.0368250012.31590891 508.110475004.. 0. 0. 0.0368250012.. 0.0368250012..48749995 471.02894258 577. 0.94835353 567.103840001. 0..0368250012.0368250012. 4. 3. 3. 0.5795455 475. 0. 0. 0.0368250012. 4.. 3. 0.3047657 526.0736500025.20454073 538.110475004. 0.76363635 484.85641241 520. 2..19523418 549.02270412 540. 2. 4. 0. 3..0736500025.110475004. 0.110475004. 1..0368250012.13181829 501.0736500025. 0. 0. 0..207680002..110475004.3047657 574. 1. 3. 0. 0.367764384 558. 2.110475004.827469826 553. 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0.110475004. 1. 4.207680002. 0.0736500025. 0. 0.0736500025. 0. 0..207680002. 0. 0. 3. 3. 4. 0. 0. 4.8556819 489.. 0.0736500025. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 2. 0.0736500025. 1. 0.259600013. 0.110475004.110475004....367764384 606.183882192 560. 4.9477272 491. 0.110475004. 0.0736500025. 0. 0. 0.110475004.29545927 537. 0.. 0.0736500025. 0.7511363 P.110475004.1208837 528.0519200005. 3. 3. 0. 0. 0.110475004.0519200005.155760005.. 0.03977251 495. 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0..67159081 479.85641241 568. 3. 4. 0.. 0.0519200005.110475004... 0.103840001.21282458 575.0368250012. 0. 0. 1. 0. 0. 0..0368250012.0736500025.0368250012.74688077 591.01135206 551.8556819 488. 0. 0. 0. 0.0736500025. 4..31590891 506.0368250012. 0.13223553 517. 0.110475004. 0. 2. 0. 1. 0. 0.0736500025. 0.93076301 589. 0.. 0. 0. 1.110475004. 0. 0. 0.. 2.110475004.110475004.110475004.56704545 610. 0. 0. 0.103840001.03977251 497. 0. 0.55164659 604.47105753 594.. 0. 3.110475004.67159081 480.40805912 562. 0.47105753 546. 3.110475004.0736500025. 0. 1.76363635 483. 0. 0..76447129 521.0736500025.207680002. 3. 0. 3.0736500025. 0. 0. 0.56299865 545. 0. 0. 0. 0.0736500025.55164659 556.67159081 478. 0. 0.8556819 486. 0. 0.459705472 605.. 0. 4.0368250012.67159081 481. 2. 1.31611776 563.0368250012. 0..110475004. 3.103840001..66117811 581.22417688 516. 0.0368250012.40795469 510.. 1.. 2.110475004.0368250012. 1.110475004. 0.8556819 487.0368250012.13223553 565.183882192 608.93700123 530.. 4. 0.0368250012. 0. 0. 0. 2. 1. 0. 0.. 2. 0.19523418 597.0368250012.207680002. 2.. 0. 0.110475004. 0.. 0. 0.0736500025.. 4. 0.0736500025.65493965 592. 1.110475004..155760005. 0. 0. 0.207680002.259600013. 0.0368250012. 0. 2.0736500025.13181829 500.0368250012. 0.40805912 514.48749995 472.0368250012..0368250012.0736500025.110475004. 0.0368250012.12088346 576.THE EFFECT OF FIRE PROTECTION DAMAGE ON THE FIRE RESISTANCE OF STRUCTURAL ST EEL BEAMS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES.110475004.0736500025.0736500025..40795469 513. 0.0368250012..56299865 593. 0. 0..207680002.0736500025..0368250012. 0. 0.0736500025. 4. 0. 0. 0. 0.0368250012.0368250012.155760005. 0.9477272 492.93076301 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY 541.0368250012. 4.110475004.0368250012..155760005. 3. 0. 0. 3.0736500025. 0.02894258 529. 0. 0. 0..76447129 569.39670682 573. 0. 2.9477272 493. 4. 0.38637757 536. 4.110475004.. 0. 3.0368250012.0368250012. 0. 0.04029465 518. 0. 0..0736500025.48864794 572. 0.155760005. 3.275823295 559.03977251 494.56923699 582. 3.0736500025.735528767 602. 3.0519200005.. 3.643587649 555.76363635 482. 0. 0.110475004..58058906 571.0736500025.103840001.. 0.66117811 533.275823295 607. 0. 0.67253017 570.103840001.103840001. 0.110475004. 0. 0.47729588 583. 2.10329318 598. 0.110475004.207680002.. 0. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0.0368250012. 0. 0. 0. 0.21282458 527. 4.31590891 509. 0.9477272 490. 0.20454073 586. 0. 0. 0.5795455 474..02270412 588. 0. 0.. 3.0519200005. 2..2238636 505.. 0. 0. 3.0368250012. 0. 0.110475004. 0. 0.. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.459705472 557. 0. 0.110475004. 0.. 0. 0. 0. 0.0368250012. 0. 1.110475004.218 . 3. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0.74688077 543. 0.155760005. 0.110475004. 4.31611776 515.. 0.5795455 477.207680002.919410944 552.0736500025.0736500025. 4.0368250012.29545927 585.75311923 532. 0.03977251 496.659091 611. 4.735528767 554.643587649 603. 0. 0. 0. 0. 2.. 0. 0.0368250012..0736500025.11362243 539.83882189 590.2871753 548.0919410959 609.. 0. 3.2871753 596. 0. 0.0736500025.110475004. 0. 4. 3. 0. 3.110475004. 2. 4. 0.259600013. 0. 0.40795469 512. 0.2238636 504. 4.. 0.103840001. 0. 0.84506035 531. 2... 0. 0.. 0.0519200005. 0.0368250012.. 0.110475004. 0.0368250012.110475004.0736500025.37911642 547. 0. 0. 0.155760005. 0.110475004.. 0..155760005. 1.110475004. 3. 1. 0. 0.13181829 498. 0.0519200005.2238636 503.76363635 485. 0. 0. 4.40795469 511.0736500025. 3. 0. 0.37911642 595.0736500025.11362243 587. 0. 0. 0.0736500025. 2.. 0.110475004. 0. 0. 0.38637757 584.110475004. 0. 1..01135206 599. 0.75311923 580. 0.0736500025.93700147 578..827469826 601. 0.31590891 507.0519200005. 2.103840001.0736500025..110475004. 3.0368250012.0368250012. 0. 4.110475004.. 3.. 4.. 3.155760005.0736500025. 3. 0.. 4.207680002.110475004. 0.. 0. 0.0368250012.0368250012. 0. 0.. 0.0368250012. 2. 0..0368250012. 4. 0. 1. 3.0519200005.155760005.94835329 519. 0.04029465 566.58058906 523.0368250012. 0. 2... 0.. 0.2238636 502.0736500025.13181829 499. 0.207680002.0736500025.155760005...56923699 534.. 2.

40795469 630.110475004. 362. 351 30.0368250012. 348.110475004.01250005 641. 352. 346.259600013. 0. 353 33. 342 19. 0. 0.0368250012.03977251 626. 3. 0. 0.276136369 674.259600013. 339 15.110475004. 349.259600013. 0. 350. 0.259600013. 3. 695. 362.0368250012.259600013.368181825 673.259600013. 368 P. 0. 332. 2.84090912 657.644318163 645. 0. 0.0368250012. 0. 3. 28.0368250012. 0.276136369 649.0368250012.259600013. 1.259600013.259600013. 337.0368250012.4727273 661. 0. 21. 0.10454547 640.01250005 666. 358 39.110475004.110475004. 348.48749995 3.110475004.7511363 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY 683. 0. 0. 336. 330 4.259600013. 63 37.3034091 618. 363 45. 0. 333.259600013. 26. 345. 342.1965909 639. 0.110475004. 2.0368250012. 360. 31.110475004. 30. 3.920454562 642. 0. 362 44. 0. 0.259600013.259600013. 0.259600013. 0. 347.259600013.259600013.13181829 627. 2.0368250012. 1.259600013. 0. 352. 0.0368250012. 329. 3. 339. 0.259600013. 25. 333. 0. 340.0368250012.259600013.84318185 2.259600013. 0. 358. 341 18. 350.0368250012. 4. 0. 0. 354. 70 2. 22. 0. 0. 0. 360 41.93522716 3. 0. 4. 357 38.259600013. 696. 1.38068187 662.5795455 621. 2.259600013.259600013. 69. 0. 366.110475004. 685. 4.259600013.8556819 624.0368250012.259600013. 0. 330. 26.110475004. 1.5795455 3. 2. 0. 1. 337. 0. 341. 0. 1.259600013. 364. 0. 0. 0. 331. 0. 344 21.259600013. 351.0368250012.93522716 614. 334. 340. 0. 349 28.67159081 3. 338.259600013. 338.259600013. 356.259600013. 0. 0.110475004.0368250012. 0. 1. 24. 0.0368250012. 0.11500001 655.0368250012. 356. 361. 0. 0.259600013. 348 26.259600013.259600013. 0. 333. 4.110475004. 346 24. 0. 0.93295455 631. 1. 0. 0.259600013.110475004.0368250012. 0. 0. 349. 1. 3.10454547 665. 351. 363.736363649 644. 0.0368250012. 352. 344.259600013.259600013. 351. 0. 349. 30.39545465 3. 29. 361 43. 0. 27. 0. 2. 0.13181829 4. 4. 64. 0. 337 13. 329. 0. 0. 0. 0.110475004.0368250012. 345 23.259600013. 331. 0. 355. 0. 0. 0.56477273 660.259600013.38068187 637. 0. 21.259600013.0368250012. 2.259600013. 0. 362. 353. 347.21136355 617. 0. 0.110475004.110475004.0272727 615. 31.0368250012. 0.39545465 619.67159081 622.38499999 652. 0. 0. 1. 341.110475004. 364.0368250012. 0.259600013.8556819 3.259600013.110475004. 354 34. 1. 0. 0. 0. 3. 0. 1. 0.THE EFFECT OF FIRE PROTECTION DAMAGE ON THE FIRE RESISTANCE OF STRUCTURAL ST EEL BEAMS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES. 368. 331. 0. 339. 2.1965909 664.259600013. 63. 0. 0. 0.20499992 679.259600013. 0.110475004. 340 16. 0.259600013. 0. 0. 360. 0. 343. 0.259600013.110475004.259600013.0920454562 651. 612. 0. 0. 0. 66 22.110475004. 33.920454562 667. 329 3. 340. 69 7. 343 20. 367 50. 0.56704545 681. 346.11931825 616. 359.110475004.259600013.65681815 659. 64 32. 0. 338 14. 0.110475004. 0. 1. 0. 0. 358.11931825 3.259600013. 367. 359.0368250012. 0. 0. 0. 339.110475004. 0.0368250012. 335 10.0368250012. 0. 32. 690. 692. 1.219 . 348. 347 25. 330. 352 31. 0.31590891 629.0272727 3.110475004. 0.20499992 654. 0. 62. 0. 355 35.21136355 3. 0. 0.736363649 669.110475004. 0.659091 682.48749995 620.259600013. 0. 357. 686. 3. 355.76363635 623.03977251 4. 1. 0.110475004.259600013. 3.110475004.259600013. 0. 700.259600013.0368250012. 0.259600013. 689. 0.110475004.74886358 658.11500001 680. 2. 0. 0.110475004. 0. 0.259600013.110475004. 0. 0. 0. 360. 350 29. 1. 687. 694. 0. 0. 0.259600013. 336 11. 0. 0. 691. 365 48.9477272 4. 0.259600013. 0.110475004.38499999 677.259600013.259600013. 1.0368250012. 335.259600013.40795469 *Element. 350. 0. 0.0368250012.259600013. 0. 67.259600013. 344. 0. 353. 0. 329. 0. 66.259600013. 0. 337. 0. 1. 335.84318185 613. 342. 0. 0.31590891 4. 356. 0. 62 42. 341. 338.644318163 670. 0. 0. 334. 0.259600013. 357.259600013. 364. 688. 332. 0.0368250012. 0.0368250012.259600013. 0. 346. 0. 0.259600013. 24.259600013. 65.552272737 646.0368250012.259600013.259600013. 1.259600013. 2. 0. 0.110475004. 68 12.0368250012. 23. 334.110475004. 0. 2. 363. 0. 354.110475004. 1.259600013. 0. 67 17.259600013.0368250012. 693. 0. 65 27. 336.0368250012.0920454562 676.29500008 678. 27. 698.552272737 671. 0. 330. 2.3034091 3. 1.110475004.84090912 632.74886358 633. 344.259600013.259600013. 0.0368250012. 0. 2.259600013. 0.110475004. 699. 359 40. 1. 0. 366 49. 0. 345. 336.56477273 635. 0. 361.110475004. 353.259600013. 22.29500008 653. 0. 0. 32.828409076 668. 25. 345. 0.110475004.460227281 647.0368250012. 0. 2. 0. 365.368181825 648.28863633 638. 347.259600013. 361. 331 5. 33. type=S4R 1. 28. 68. 0. 364 46. 0. 357. 358. 343.110475004. 0. 335. 0.110475004. 0.0368250012.259600013.2238636 4.259600013. 23. 332. 359. 70.76363635 3. 0. 0.0368250012.0368250012. 3. 0. 0.4727273 636.259600013.828409076 643. 354.0368250012. 697. 0.110475004.184090912 675. 29. 356 36.259600013. 0.9477272 625. 363.93295455 656. 343. 0. 1.110475004. 334 9. 332 6. 0. 355.0368250012. 61 47.0368250012. 0. 0.259600013. 2.259600013. 0.259600013.184090912 650.2238636 628. 0. 333 8. 0.65681815 634.0368250012. 684.460227281 672. 342.259600013. 0. 0. 3.28863633 663.259600013. 0. 0.0368250012. 0.0368250012.259600013. 0. 0.259600013. 0. 34.

463. 471 190. 417. 21 133. 466. 384. 75. 467 185. 442 154. 464 181. 445. 466. 418. 396 86. 442. 459. 437. 91. 406. 377. 455. 386. 459. 449. 55. 23 135. 452 166. 83. 402. 57. 435 145. 92. 54. 366. 383. 375. 409. 376. 383 70. 443 155. 42. 409. 58. 473. 428. 448. 422 124. 464. 432 141. 453. 48. 415. 441. 458 174. 410. 398. 394. 448 161. 464. 408. 448. 374. 370. 395. 73. 446. 365. 370 54. 384. 74. 454. 412. 434. 412. 404 96. 423. 440 151. 40. 438. 72. 44. 454. 463. 439. 121. 2. 389 78. 50 102. 391. 23. 420. 389. 53 87. 39. 455. 423 125. 378. 451 165. 466. 427. 60 52. 426. 416 116. 396. 127. 418. 379. 460. 436. 430. 399. 88. 414 114. 424. 74. 461 178. 385 73. 413. 34. 87. 405. 420. 372. 79. 47 110. 403 95. 404. 38. 440. 393 83. 4 107. 412. 407. 414. 24. 52 92. 89. 124. 372 56. 460 176. 385. 367. 459. 398. 427 130. 453. 438 149. 6. 418. 461. 433. 439. 71. 443. 381 68. 431 140. 471. 89. 382. 48 109. 444 156. 433 143. 448. 387. 382. 40. 80. 452. 74. 403. 51. 380. 406. 425. 393. 400. 47. 404. 413. 390. 391. 396. 465. 465. 85. 405 98. 398 89. 409 103. 75. 386. 376. 81 117. 403. 454. 88. 442. 428. 117 192. 394. 403. 425. 400. 76. 450 164. 431. 374. 368. 410. 22 134. 73. 440. 123. 467. 367. 415. 447. 443. 365. 402. 368. 82. 44. 453. 456 171. 376 61. 421. 49. 126 147. 458. 393. 461. 435. 422. 77. 390. 445 158. 421. 390. 399 90. 457 173. 86. 450. 413 113. 426. 382 69. 397. 121 172. 425 128. 71. 470. 5. 437. 123 162. 381. 73. 381. 439. 395. 416. 469 188. 411. 120. 124 157. 425. 55 77. 86. 430. 398. 405. 120 177. 430 139. 428 131. 407. 418 119. 378. 426 129. 57 67. 467. 410. 374. 441. 469. 389. 74. 118 187. 375.220 . 452. 377 63. 92. 371. 3. 38. 37. 35. 390 79. 462. 50. 446 159. 451. 387. 43. 455 170. 36. 72. 376. 452. 78. 444. 401. 380 66. 444. 415. 427. 464. 81. 468. 380. 404. 451. 397. 369. 466 184. 465 183. 428. 449. 422. 443. 409. 56. 42. 386. 382. 419. 474. 414. 373. 383. 90. 36. 460. 76. 379. 413. 377. 433. 118. 457. 388. 445. 85. 458. 49 108. 449. 377. 388 76. 22. 125. 90. 369 53. 388. 469. 397. 435. 84. 366. 421 123. 400. 56 72. 446. 119. 416. 400 91. 438. 122. 396. 386 74. 372. 465. 35. 61. 432. 433. 457. 379 65. 39. 407 100. 426. 462 179. 21. 6. 468. 1 132. 379. 457. 73. 392 81. 45. 462. 391 80. 397 88. 423. 450. 93. 380. 439 150. 468. 411. 447 160. 473 P. 378. 407. 442. 60. 393. 420 121.THE EFFECT OF FIRE PROTECTION DAMAGE ON THE FIRE RESISTANCE OF STRUCTURAL ST EEL BEAMS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES. 463 180. 59 57. 385. 417. 72. 369. 24 136. 399. 468 186. 421. 469. 419. 405. 412 106. 435. 440. 436. 378 64. 383. 374 59. 371. 52. 119 182. 375 60. 430. 402 94. 389. 422. 459 175. 385. 472. 384. 371. 83. 369. 441 153. 456. 431. 455. 419 120. 437. 373. 472 191. 87. 408. 456. 126. 417. 46. 423. 432. 446. 415 115. 431. 424. 427. 372. 456. 460. 437 148. 470. 429. 41. 122 167. 449 163. 394 84. 384 71. 434. 373 58. 436. 127 142. 402. 434 144. 429 138. 387. 43. 84. 420. 125 152. 388. 417 118. 408 101. 394. 51 97. 444. 58 62. 79 127. 445. 392. 78. 429. 370. 424 126. 401. 438. 51. 399. 434. 411. 467. 53. 373. 82 112. 463. 416. 371 55. 406 99. 408. 410 104. 80 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY 122. 91. 387 75. 54 82. 406. 401. 450. 461. 429. 447. 436 146. 41. 72. 447. 451. 381. 411 105. 453 168. 458. 414. 46 111. 392. 128 137. 71. 77. 391. 392. 370. 59. 71. 128. 375. 419. 462. 5. 401 93. 45. 395. 395 85. 424. 37. 441. 470 189. 454 169. 432.

76 293. 511. 487. 531. 477. 509. 522. 36. 8. 533. 474. 129. 101. 155. 491. 502. 36 323. 500. 481. 113. 128 287. 110. 484. 509. 492. 478. 75. 141. 515. 109. 545. 489. 491 215. 481 203. 133. 472. 525. 549. 519. 170. 488. 530 282. 102. 542. 499 225. 554 330. 145. 33 317. 510. 553. 475. 76. 108 237. 503. 532. 470. 96. 29. 528 278. 517. 483. 519 260. 132. 100. 490. 158. 523 268. 549. 511 240. 481. 552 326. 511. 516. 521. 495 220. 505. 479. 546. 485. 169. 139. 535. 530. 162. 493. 485. 507 235. 95. 124 279. 159. 39. 30 311. 151. 131. 491. 477. 528. 519. 540. 496. 532 286. 524. 147. 41 333. 116. 541 304. 488. 518. 517. 547. 115 202. 37. 523. 551 324. 487. 103. 545. 108 247. 502 229. 482. 476. 518 258. 476 196. 498. 116. 504. 108. 475 195. 555. 513. 121 273. 143. 520. 528. 512 241. 540. 505 233. 134. 160. 173. 534 290. 486. 147. 2. 38 327. 126 283. 139. 546 314. 486. 161. 104 246. 148. 514. 543. 490. 531. 535. 523. 130. 114. 488. 31. 537. 495. 485. 103. 511. 539. 538. 508. 471. 508. 150. 539 300. 493 218. 113. 480. 28 307. 145. 156. 163. 551. 544. 114 259. 28. 125. 113 212. 499. 524 270. 157. 471. 557. 489 213. 95. 521. 140. 40 331. 492. 547 316. 526. 101. 138. 110 227. 533. 9. 144. 516. 120. 542. 94. 556. 556. 501 228. 542. 31 313. 75 291. 35. 156. 499. 494 219. 514 250. 2 299. 534. 478 199. 535 292. 537. 151. 485 208. 488 211. 484. 548. 98. 509. 548. 137. 135. 123. 509 238. 503. 34 319. 93. 556 334. 119 269. 97. 549. 42 P. 521. 110. 77. 142. 41. 531 284. 496. 34. 489. 474 194. 94. 501. 539. 149. 506. 122 275. 153. 490. 520 262. 167. 111 222. 111. 506. 524. 29 309. 129. 96. 516 254. 529. 109. 112. 545. 26 303. 496. 480. 507. 507. 543 308. 497. 500. 553. 162. 483. 527. 154. 494. 160. 550 322. 25. 540 302. 501. 168. 515 252. 491. 544. 536 294. 547. 498. 514. 545 312. 472. 98. 514. 500. 152. 537 296. 529 280. 522. 144. 161. 537. 513 248. 158. 117. 535. 32. 127 285. 111. 505. 551. 518. 548 318. 546. 541. 106 244. 541. 517. 536. 496 221. 550. 106. 530. 133. 115. 525. 552. 164. 39 329. 35 321. 164. 116 263. 131. 25 301. 107. 492. 510. 554. 548. 501. 515. 529. 541. 494. 506. 512. 476. 165. 487. 108. 527. 498 224. 552. 120 271. 26. 504. 479 200. 163. 538. 40. 193. 555. 112 217. 473. 78 297. 544. 6 289. 152. 102. 480 201. 128. 483 205. 495. 170. 30.THE EFFECT OF FIRE PROTECTION DAMAGE ON THE FIRE RESISTANCE OF STRUCTURAL ST EEL BEAMS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES. 27 305. 490 214. 526 274. 521 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY 264. 157. 8 242. 150. 171. 146. 479. 497. 165. 484. 482. 172. 515. 127. 549 320. 478. 132. 553 328. 506 234. 141. 105 245. 480. 109 232. 503. 136. 503 230. 122. 113 257. 546. 507. 526. 500 226. 527 276. 492 216. 534. 487 210. 538. 159. 169. 529. 154. 475. 111 253. 555 332. 116 197. 119. 540. 166. 522 266. 493. 502. 510 239. 524. 543. 148. 499. 494. 123 277. 142. 149. 513. 534. 117 265. 114. 542 306. 99. 140. 484 206. 112. 517 256. 493. 508 236. 97. 100. 477. 482. 522. 130. 498. 531. 543. 136. 134. 532. 137. 528. 104.221 . 512. 167. 166. 117. 172. 527. 518. 478. 99. 153. 124. 171. 105. 138. 135. 533. 525. 502. 115 261. 497. 513. 510. 554. 112 255. 146. 553. 33. 495. 483. 505. 532. 497 223. 536. 516. 547. 554. 479. 78. 536. 555. 520. 550. 526. 550. 121. 475. 38. 539. 552. 77 295. 551. 107 243. 477 198. 486 209. 118 267. 27. 109 249. 538 298. 126. 530. 482 204. 115. 473. 520. 525 272. 32 315. 519. 504. 7. 168. 508. 37 325. 481. 6. 114 207. 486. 512. 155. 118. 504 231. 143. 533 288. 474. 523. 125 281. 476. 489. 544 310. 110 251.

571 366. 238. 621. 595. 127 383. 609. 586. 27 403. 613. 211. 615. 605. 99. 215. 218. 200. 620 466. 624. 585 394. 237. 575. 588. 591. 613. 569 362. 609 444. 182. 576. 600. 596. 175. 567 358. 94 465. 214. 120. 246. 78 395. 563. 561. 558 338. 625. 561. 624. 568. 566. 235. 616. 126. 194. 604 432. 617. 614. 77. 11. 580. 621. 197. 599. 609. 560. 612 450. 615. 178. 43. 86. 610. 244. 607. 207. 584. 559 340. 607 438. 190. 568 360. 110 349. 619 464. 196. 203. 576. 624. 616. 601. 614. 211. 583. 611. 43 337. 572. 239. 40 429. 36 421. 111. 28 405. 26. 98. 569. 572 368. 625. 235. 563. 558. 559. 97. 599. 603. 212. 224. 558. 573. 128 385. 240. 617 460. 92. 27. 90. 3 343. 210. 577. 217. 176. 121. 583. 180. 592. 113. 559. 603. 567. 588. 207. 605 434. 560 342. 174. 201. 30. 608 440. 188. 589. 591. 566 356. 220. 232. 615 456. 573. 574. 608. 604. 83. 606. 566. 574. 32 413. 241. 181. 91. 96 469. 219. 3 441. 223. 30 409. 115 359. 184. 610. 2 397. 75. 579. 570. 564. 610. 127. 570. 571. 561 346. 43 435. 244. 591 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY 406. 594. 202. 90 457. 197. 12. 115. 608. 95 467. 611 448. 206. 222. 587. 192. 26 401. 623. 100 P. 187. 85 447. 37 423. 575. 118 365. 561. 577. 234. 198. 241. 624 474. 194. 116 361. 588 400. 587 398. 39. 44 437. 606. 2. 187. 45. 584. 191. 204. 612. 113 355. 576. 123 375. 42 433. 597. 571. 230. 593. 29 407. 567. 188. 112 353. 174. 582. 579. 593. 578. 108 345. 579. 25 399. 36. 569. 76 391. 586. 562 348. 198. 209. 580. 210. 109. 212. 213. 95. 578 380. 195. 583 390. 201. 227. 601 426. 575 374. 602. 238. 34. 44. 606. 209. 39 427. 565 354. 208. 619. 99 475. 33 415. 615. 570. 586 396. 567. 242. 611. 577. 589. 114. 192. 89. 601. 582. 125. 193. 602 428. 200. 78. 598. 623 472. 5. 217. 186. 114 357. 216. 229. 41. 88. 243. 96. 116. 202. 179. 558. 601. 594 412. 205. 589. 42. 596. 578. 34 417. 236. 578. 33. 593 410. 222. 616 458. 581. 94. 583. 622. 111 351. 232. 572. 123. 565. 573. 84.THE EFFECT OF FIRE PROTECTION DAMAGE ON THE FIRE RESISTANCE OF STRUCTURAL ST EEL BEAMS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES. 618 462. 234. 574 372. 564. 176. 182. 191. 37. 242. 596 416. 226. 231. 590. 618. 598. 585. 590 404. 38 425. 562. 45 341. 183. 581. 108. 42. 574. 220. 617. 577 378. 605. 598 420. 587. 124. 581 386. 181. 117. 602. 582. 245. 613 452. 118. 240. 593. 40. 616. 575. 335. 206. 120 369. 199. 597 418. 218. 175. 44. 589 402. 230. 572. 621 468. 562. 581. 580 384. 225. 208. 83 443. 121 371. 564 352. 237. 594. 566. 38. 619. 178 344. 568. 117 363. 588. 592 408. 119. 204. 84 445. 608. 221. 586. 595 414. 617. 613. 10. 614 454. 620. 573 370. 122 373. 93 463. 576 376. 215. 580. 119 367. 611. 226. 584 392. 595. 606 436. 45 439. 8. 618. 75 389. 126 381. 88 453. 219. 603. 607. 570 364. 86 449. 557. 243. 592. 600. 183. 600. 98 473. 87 451. 560. 190. 621. 31. 623. 582 388. 43. 221. 622. 603 430. 122. 223. 44 339. 193. 32. 35. 89 455. 591. 604. 571. 87. 597. 227. 600 424. 124 377. 225. 177. 173. 186. 229. 6. 25. 594. 195. 569. 179. 76. 604. 233. 109 347. 196. 562. 97 471. 41 431. 565. 233. 626. 557. 587. 614. 189. 13. 29. 618. 556. 214. 560. 6 387. 568. 185. 185. 595. 91 459. 590. 189. 236. 31 411. 180. 592. 112. 596. 622 470. 177. 203. 239. 579 382. 128. 607. 563 350. 620. 85. 245. 610 446. 598. 231. 585. 184. 213. 590. 623. 620. 228. 564. 599 422. 563. 228 442. 625 476. 612. 199. 77 393. 224. 28. 45. 602. 557 336. 92 461. 35 419. 205. 110. 597. 605. 619. 585. 612. 216. 609. 565. 622. 584. 125 379.222 . 599. 559. 93.

54. 306 585. 309. 654. 317. 691. 257 521. 268. 646. 65. 648. 84 597. 53. 261. 690. 672. 638. 679. 276. 660. 676. 13. 68. 83 595. 664. 102. 665. 303. 637. 65. 642. 7 485. 88 605. 641 510. 61. 284 575. 631. 674. 50. 50. 303 591. 665. 666. 92. 643. 68. 287 569. 638. 687. 677. 93 615. 57. 282. 642. 58. 684. 634. 16 529. 637 502. 313. 58. 91. 93. 287. 661. 57. 273 489. 1. 664. 647. 269. 677 588. 59. 290. 674. 678. 59. 273. 673. 279. 249. 54. 276 535. 89 607. 302. 650. 255 525. 647. 65. 248. 640 508. 683. 638 504. 1. 279 594. 625. 689. 629. 629. 647 522. 654. 662. 660 552. 685. 651. 316. 644. 649. 685 606. 654 538. 56. 627. 688. 67. 67. 691 618. 666 564. 57. 310. 261 513. 254 527. 280 584. 671. 677. 667. 70. 54. 56. 62. 256. 259 517. 645. 653. 679. 307. 279. 648. 18 583. 632. 660. 229. 644 516. 641. 1. 648. 655. 1. 631 490. 634. 292. 284. 5. 664 560. 250. 282 579. 250. 672. 55. 92 613. 64. 265. 656. 681 598. 90 609. 667 566. 61. 61. 265 505. 664. 50. 633. 87 603. 267. 67. 263 509. 629. 275. 663 558. 646. 639. 81. 86 601. 658. 89. 636 500. 674 580. 82. 685. 61. 665. 665 562. 53. 655. 659 550. 658. 271 493. 633. 252. 651. 62. 666. 683 602. 285. 270. 70. 51. 655 542. 17. 279. 658. 296 551. 639. 649. 690. 82. 83. 253 530. 633. 54. 642 512. 86. 51. 645. 628. 684 604. 80. 283. 301 541. 640. 294 555. 299. 675. 59. 66. 304. 671. 60. 639. 68. 635. 634. 680. 661 554. 679. 313. 683. 661. 635. 62. 643 514. 653. 80. 95 P. 675. 640. 639 506. 651. 649 526. 660. 684. 679 592. 278. 668. 657. 85. 62. 66. 285 573. 312. 642. 14. 69. 680 596. 628. 690 616. 657. 689. 253. 52. 691. 81. 51. 686 608. 19. 663. 681. 652. 66. 79. 670. 652. 288. 280. 69. 669 570. 635. 646 520. 636. 268 499. 683. 81. 686. 248. 689 614. 669. 64. 60. 87. 302. 281 581. 63. 669. 247. 627 480. 259. 100. 304 589. 650. 55. 5. 630. 667. 673 578. 300. 641. 672. 628. 626. 678 590. 673. 57. 638. 289 565. 687. 630 488. 668. 684. 311. 640. 676. 302. 676 586. 266. 658 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY 548. 52. 90. 662. 294. 627. 103 483. 635 498. 318. 260 515. 688.THE EFFECT OF FIRE PROTECTION DAMAGE ON THE FIRE RESISTANCE OF STRUCTURAL ST EEL BEAMS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES. 316. 627. 270 495. 649. 306. 272 491. 64. 656 544. 286. 256 523. 68. 317. 661. 298. 277. 652. 288 567. 271. 67. 690. 637. 292 559. 101. 267 501. 645 518. 84. 647. 634 496. 56. 631. 60. 685. 290 563. 79. 680. 682. 633 494. 650. 646. 678. 274. 315. 643. 15. 648 524. 251 486. 91 611. 65. 626. 274 487. 629 484. 677. 55. 69. 688 612. 69. 262. 669. 682 600. 297 549. 682. 687. 626 478. 689. 650 528. 308. 58. 302. 85 599. 258. 651 532. 643. 662. 82. 630. 254. 666. 60. 631. 52. 656. 668. 315. 252. 641. 659.223 . 676. 64. 281. 275 537. 79. 260. 657. 312. 671. 672 576. 293 557. 659. 682. 632. 277 533. 63. 52. 53. 636. 266 503. 686. 255. 295 553. 82. 251. 644. 659. 58. 246. 81. 63. 652 534. 247. 263. 655. 630. 283 577. 688. 637. 102 481. 298 547. 80. 15 539. 305 587. 662 556. 101 479. 671 574. 667. 19. 66. 299 545. 663. 51. 229. 88. 687 610. 252. 249. 293. 252 540. 644. 686. 314. 311. 79. 653. 264 507. 670. 674. 258 519. 80. 50. 305. 628 482. 645. 310. 663. 657 546. 55. 272. 654. 670. 262 511. 63. 70. 300 543. 632 492. 477. 59. 297. 291 561. 673. 681. 314. 17 593. 653 536. 308. 692. 269 497. 264. 668 568. 307. 291. 670 572. 286 571. 656. 296. 632. 678. 289. 4. 53. 680. 636. 4. 309. 70. 278 531. 5. 103. 681. 56. 675 582. 301. 675. 295. 94 617. 94. 257.

422. 559. 117. 574. 474. 287. 695 626. 152. 26. 387. 674. 498. 697. 176 177. 486. 384. 519. 526. 472. 103. 693 622. 187. 53. 47. 697. 697 630. 92 93. 213. 555. 163. 668. 200. 116. 101 631. 328. 138. internal. 81. 624. 180. 230. 2. 696 628. 205. 45. 206. 142. 323. 70. 352. 523. 635. 689. 700 *Nset. 190. 25. 339. 60. 647. 268. 645. 331. 86.0127. 76 77. 699. 368. 262. 234. 652. 239. 308. 253. 688. 300. 196. 388 389. 312. 8. 509. 614. 483. 637. 678. 19. 663. 692. 50. 458. 657. 99 627. 246. 700. 174. 296. 168. 697. 49. 24. material=Steel 0. 149. 37. 484 485. 434. 204. 67. 539. 582. 642. 283. 491. 643. 55. 34. 52. 229. 136. 407. 325. 181. 88. 69. 14. 117. 394. 565. 571. 536 537. 58. 4. 119. 379. 112 113. 683. 548. 320 321. 328 585. 7. 41. 658. 166. 111. 609. elset=_PickedSet49. 699. 33. name="Coat Flange1" *Node P. 272 273. 66. 226. 134. 54. 328. 188. 219. 695. 661. 102. 374. 307. 59. 27. 186. 38. 700. 299. 406. 165. 627. 128 129. 67. 140. 626. 365. 143. 121. 130. 112. 431. 367. 335. 598. 103. 111. internal. 83. 505. 267. 330. 527. 20. 344. 632 633. 263. 648 649. 98. 366. 223. 694. 208 209. 380. 173. 107. 340 341. 675. 696. 460. 156. 638. 489. 575. generate 1. 34. 444. 43. 89. 573. 76 77. 110. 664 665. 221. 32. 277. 525. 87. 396. 275. 651. 243. 410. 580. 144 145. 319. 95. 244. 26. 35. 100. 589. 547. 349. 199. 123. 43. 423. 520 521. 507. 202. 466. 400. 101. 183. 362. 303. 566. 334. 694. 522. 478. 261. 12. 644. 197. 692 620. 137. 612. 619. 16 17. 584 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY *Elset. 39. 428. 316. 669. 7 637. 284. 435. 583.0073. 231. 101. 30. 54. 690. elset=_PickedSet48. 449. 546. 103 635. 65. 610. 369. 418. 207. 80. 578. 158. 447. 69. 506. 63. 132. 210. 108. 587. 414. 570. 222. 150. 172. 74. 464. 628. 327. 99. 530. 438. 298. 611. 413. 488. 96. 245. 698. 73. 81. 159. 342. 70. 579. 94. 249. 433. 457. 4. 337. 63. 256 257. 11. 323. 481. 504. 533. 676. 692. 83. 439. 470. 558. 57. 242. 429. 513. 291. 68. 126. 535. 171. 591. 599. 338. 618. 375. 321. 33. 41. 175. 477. 62. 5. 85. 92 93. 79. 557. 556. 698. 563. 568 569. 660. 254. 326. 490. 21. 102 633. 378. 212. 293. 456. 51. 636. 115. 58. 446. 699 634. 217. 288 289. 192 193. 84. 606. 317. 110. 326. 315. 164. 106. 84. 44. 531. 659. 46. 333. 35. 480. 114. 7. 100. 80. 592. 72. 97 623. 615. 314. 5 *End Part ** *Part.THE EFFECT OF FIRE PROTECTION DAMAGE ON THE FIRE RESISTANCE OF STRUCTURAL ST EEL BEAMS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES. 318. 325. 653. 278. 412. 686. 78. 96 621. 5 ** Section: Flange *Shell Section. 541. 348. 343. 100. 596. 419. 20. 304 305. 55. 31. 494. 87. 518. 274. 148. 52. 82. 693. 247. 327. 276. 572. 650. 153. 3. 5. 641. 514. 698 632. 377. 61. material=Steel 0. 99. 238. 78. 56 57. 39. 75. 639. 416. 637. 684. internal *Elset. 64. 139. 440. 18. 656. 191. 679. 590. 672. 693. 98. 281. 629. 350. 309. 68. 321. 613. 99. 510. 398. 124 125. 28. 320. 597. 96. 677. 493. 376. 325. 608. 310. 382. 324. 363. 127. 319. 694. 286. 116. 594. 215. 545. 53. 417. 381. 700 636. 427. 86. 189. 370. 3. 595. 371. 233. 65. 214. internal 1. generate 246. nset=_PickedSet48. 8. 252. 102. 399. 450. 157. 487. 631. 695. 467. 332. 346. 182. 124. 120. 203. 162. 502. 36. 97. 551. 441. 436 437. 682. 622. 461. 120. 201. 326. 621. 42. 44 45. 670. 694. 329. 155. 646. 42. 395. 211. 71. 25. 552 553. 88. 122. 235. 251. 667. 48. 408. 696 697. 324. 360. 680 681. 51. 605. 700. 397. 372 373. 90. 401. 351. 131. 476. 302. 6. 259. 147. 228. 385. elset=_PickedSet48. 463. 564. 492. 113. 666. 135. 452 453. 64. 154. 30. 294. 1 *Nset. 415. 698. 146. 517. 126. 306. 122. 97. 512 1. 691. 313. 265. 98 625. 549. 640. 292. 118. 290. 402. 500 501. 118. 95. 167. 692. 104. 38. 22. 495. 411. 459. 10. 655. 544. 696. 425. elset=_PickedSet49. 50. 160 161. 691. 630. 497. 89. 471. 103. 543. 318. nset=_PickedSet49. 390. 232. 451. 255. 443. 195. 32. 108 109. 515. 2. 31. 322. 695. 577. 698. 56. 270. 619. 198. 496. 386. 693. 528. 322. 323. 529. 301. 220. 40. 27. 473. 240 241. 102. 693. 445. 432. 561. 6. 75. 403. 699. 511. 60 61. 524. 695. 94. 581. 169. 1 ** Section: Web *Shell Section. 123. 311. 654. 462. 602. 426. 141. 634. 603. 542. 184. 620. 347. 105. 550. 685. 687. 23. 662. 121. 227. 79. 101. 361. 623. 327. 499. 15. 383. 319. 62. 616 617. 345. 194. 465. 36 37. 115. 125. 694 624. 224 225. 282. 359. 258. 588. 28 29. 454. 442. 600 601. 560. 295. 475. 567. 320. 554. 393. 250. 271. 354. 260. 355. 66. 364. 9. 96. 392. 593. 100 629. 586. 285. 353. 516. 297. 336. 269. 151. 358. 482. 248. 534. 216. 218. 236. 696. 237. 455. 128. 179. 264. 98. 562.224 . 279. 356 357. 324. 508. 430. 468 469. 266. 95. 90. 409. 185. 170. 85. 604. 133. 91. 424. 40. 97. 479. 91. 448. 245. 119. 404 405. 671. 322. 532. 538. 280. 127. 82. 391. 673. 540. 114. 503. 607. 109. 59. 178. 699. 420 421. 625. 13. 29. 576.

147300005. 41. 2.147300005.. 0. 44 29. 52. 38.270000011 P. 0. 2.38068187 0.28863633 0. 0.147300005. 35 23. 24. 2.147300005. 0... 0.. 0. 0. 56 37.84090912 0.. 0. name="Coat Flange2" *Node 1.. 3. 0.93295455 0. 4. 0. 0.. 0. 0. 36. 21. 1. generate 1.1965909 0. 32. 0. 1. 0.. 22.. 56..84090912 0. 47.. 63. 1. 14. 0. 33.65681815 0. 50. elset=_PickedSet2. 69. 0.0250001 0.. 0. 1.0736500025.THE EFFECT OF FIRE PROTECTION DAMAGE ON THE FIRE RESISTANCE OF STRUCTURAL ST EEL BEAMS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES..147300005. 9. 1. 62. 65.. 30. 0. 35.460227281 0. 0. 0. 0. 51. internal.93295455 0.644318163 0.0736500025.. 2.0736500025. 0. nset=_PickedSet2. 11. 26. 39. 18. 46. 36. 45.. 13 8. 1. 29. 1. 59 39. 1.552272737 0.0736500025. 49. 11.. 0. 0. 35.147300005. 0. 57.. 52 34... 1.0736500025. 0. 0. 11. 59. 12. 47 31. 11. 32.65681815 0. 57. 38.0368250012. 20 13. 0. 60. 1... 61. 1. 59..0736500025. 5 *End Part ** *Part. 68. 0. 55 36. 15.736363649 0. 54. 59. 1.449999988 0. 66. 49. 16. 16 10.. 65 43... 7 4... 10.147300005. 17. 0. 0. 62. 53. 8..38068187 0.. 5. 61 40. 4. 0. 1. 8. 0. 1. 37. *Element. 56.. 65. 26. 14. 5. 53. 39. 0. 0.. 56.. 0...0736500025. 65.4727273 0.. 2. 30.147300005..276136369 0. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0.. 62 41. 0. 0. 23. 23. 0. 59. 0. 0.0736500025. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.368181825 0. 0. 28. 20.. 0.0736500025.. 15. 41. 46 30. 0. 0. 7. 17 11.10454547 0.276136369 0...84090912 0.920454562 0. 6. 1... 5. 50 33. 12.. 8 5.184090912 0. 37 24.74886358 0.. 0. 51. 0. 61. 0. 21. 56.920454562 0. 31.. 58 38..147300005. 15. 63.4727273 0. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY 1.. 50. 0. 14. 11 7. 8. 1. 0... 23 15.0736500025. 20.0920454562 0. 1.460227281 0.147300005. 39. 0.1965909 0. 14.01250005 0.828409076 0. 38. 4. 1.147300005. 2.4727273 0. 33.. generate 1. 1 *Elset.. 60. 0. 0. 45.225 . 14 9. 0.0736500025.0736500025. 28. 38 25. 32 21.. 1.736363649 0. 40. 32. 0. 1.0736500025.147300005. 27....0250001 0. 16. 1. 48. 0. 0. 63. 0. 69. 18. 23. 1. 0.449999988 0.. 0.147300005.0736500025. 42.28863633 0. 44. 0.. 0. 1. 46. 57... 0. 1... 8. 6. 48. 40. 0.. 5 3. 45.. 9. 34. 69.56477273 0.184090912 0.. 0. 8. 25 16. 35.. 38. 22. 0. 43..828409076 0. 0. 52.. 0. 1. 0. 0.. 29. 0..449999988 0. 1. 0. 53. 0. 50.10454547 0. 0. 40 26.001. 26 17.. 0. 34. 20.0920454562 0. 0. 0. 0. 13.147300005..56477273 0.147300005. 17.. 53. 0.110475004.552272737 0. 0. material="Intumescent Coat" 0.0250001 0. 25.0736500025..0736500025.28863633 0. 0.. 0. 0. 17.10454547 0. 64. 0.0368250012. 0... 1. type=S4R 1. 5. 5. 34 22.147300005. 0.147300005. 10. 66.110475004. 0. 6. 58. internal.360000014 0. 44.. 10 6. 19.. 43 28. 22 14. 36. 44. 0. 48. 47.01250005 0. 17.. 0.147300005. 62. 0. 0. 6. 2.147300005. 42.74886358 0.0736500025. 1. 0. 55.. 64. 0.0736500025.65681815 0. 47.. 0. 33. 0. 27. 23.368181825 0. 3..93295455 0.920454562 0. 31. 27. 0.828409076 0.0736500025. 41 27. 54. 1. 67 44.. 19 12. 60. 19.147300005. 64 42.0736500025.449999988 0. 0. 1. 29.. 58. 0. 30..0920454562 0. 68 *Nset.38068187 0. 0. 0. 0.360000014 0.. 7..0736500025. 62. 0. 0. 0.. 54.0736500025. 9.0736500025. 44.. 44. 0. 0.. 0. 65.0736500025.147300005.. elset=_PickedSet2. 43.644318163 0.147300005. 66. 31 20. 47. 18. 41. 0.56477273 0. 0.147300005. 42.. 29 19.. 68. 26.. 51. 32. 0.360000014 0.276136369 0.. 0. 55. 20.. 25.0736500025. 29. 37.644318163 0.. 67. 1. 35. 49 32.460227281 0. 24. 0. 28 18. 50. 0. 1.01250005 0.1965909 0..74886358 0.449999988 0. 13..147300005. 0.368181825 0. 1 ** Section: Coat *Shell Section. 3.. 41.147300005. 21. 0. 0.552272737 0..736363649 0. 0. 4 2. 24. 7. 11.360000014 0. 1..147300005. 12.360000014 0. 53 35.184090912 0. 0. 26. 10.. 9.

17 11. 24.147300005. 11.0736500025... 12.30612254 0. 41.147300005. 0. 20..66326523 0.85714293 0. 2.147300005..11224484 0. 22. 2. 7. 2.. 4. 0..92857146 0. 19 13.. 0. 0. name="Coat Flange3" *Node 1.. 0. 3.. 0. 23. 11.67346931 0.. 0..147300005. 18. 14.. 4. 0. 0...... 3. 0.0736500025. 16.75510216 0. 42. 2.147300005. 0. 19. elset=_PickedSet2.0736500025.180000007 0.0736500025. 0. 10. 3.0900000036 0. 72.. 22. 3. 0.. 0. 0. 65. 1 *Elset. 16. 3.. 3. 15. 47.147300005. 0.39795923 0.0736500025.02040815 0.. 2. 28 20. 3. 0. 21 14. 21.75510216 0. 78. 4....0736500025. 2.180000007 0.66326523 0.. 3. 3. 7. 24. 5.110475004.84693885 0.THE EFFECT OF FIRE PROTECTION DAMAGE ON THE FIRE RESISTANCE OF STRUCTURAL ST EEL BEAMS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES. 20. 0...0368250012... 0. 28. 9..147300005. 0.. 0. 12 7. 17. 3. 3.0736500025. 0. 3. 0.. 54. 6. 3. 3.147300005.147300005. 2.147300005....147300005. 0. 2. 0. 0. 9 5.. 32.76530623 0. 0.0736500025... 52.0736500025. 27 19. 19. 0.48979592 0...58163261 0..76530623 0. 51. 2. 23.0900000036 0. 0. 75. 0. 66.. 0.0736500025. 4.57142854 0. 69.. 57.02040815 0.0736500025.11224484 0... 0.29591846 0.20408154 0. 8.. 3. 0.0736500025. 2.. 3. 2.0736500025.. 8.04081631 0. 0. 0. 7. 0. 27.. 0. 17.0900000036 0. 9.0736500025. 18. 1.20408154 0...270000011 0. 12. 46.. 16 10.0736500025. 0.39795923 0. 0. 0. 4. *Element. 33.0736500025. 13. 4.. 14..03061223 0. 12. 0. 0.0736500025..40816307 0. 0. 0.84693885 0. 0. 2. 0. 3.147300005.. 3.... 0.47959185 0. 0.30612254 0. 39.147300005. 0. 48. 23. 28.29591846 0. 27.40816307 0.93877554 0. 0. 3. 0.0736500025. 71. 0. 4. 0.. 49..0736500025.. 3. 22. 15. 58. 2. 10. 3. 4. 67. 43.04081631 0. 5.. 60. 25.. 40. 14 9. 8. 30. 26.21428561 0. 79. 36.94897962 0.75510216 0. 0... 2..93877554 0.0736500025. 3. 0. 0. 0. 0. 25. 23 16. 10. 81.94897962 0.5 0. 0. 0.180000007 0.. 76. 0. 4...... 2.04081631 0.. 3.. 0.38775516 0. 13. 4. 23. 29. 0. 0. 18. 19..180000007 0. 4. 22. 30.. 0. 0.. 0..0736500025.110475004.. 0.270000011 0.58163261 0. 19. 0. 3.. 3. 9.66326523 0.38775516 0. 0. 80. 0. 0. 35. 22..92857146 P. 31.147300005. 2. 0. 73.147300005. 2. 0. 23. 0.. 2...47959185 0.110475004..270000011 0. 85. 0. 37.0900000036 0.03061223 0. 7 3.0736500025.0736500025. 0.0368250012. nset=_PickedSet2..29591846 0.12244892 0. 29 *Nset. 4. 0.67346931 0.. 15.147300005.38775516 0. 0. 0. elset=_PickedSet2. 26 18. 25. 2..40816307 0. 86. 0. 0..85714293 0.58163261 0. 3.0736500025. 63. 0.. 0. 4. 30. 27.57142854 0. 0. 82. 0. 3. 6. 8. 0. 4..0368250012.. 17... 0. 3.48979592 0. 3.13265324 0. 0. 28.0900000036 0. type=S4R 1. 2. 2..84693885 0. generate 1. 70..147300005.31632662 0. 19.94897962 0.39795923 0. 2. 15. 0. 45. 77. 0.0736500025.13265324 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY 16. 53. 20. 8 4. 0.147300005. 56. 18 12. 0.22448969 0. 2. 0. 24.. 29.02040815 0.. 2.. 0. 2.. 2. 0. 3. 6 2.. material="Intumescent Coat" 0. 64. 5 *End Part ** *Part.. 84. 4..03061223 0.147300005.0736500025. 0. 4. 4.21428561 0. 0. 55. 18. 62. generate 1.31632662 0. 83.110475004. 26.. 0. 0.12244892 0.. 7. 0...5 0. 34. 17.. 2... 44...76530623 0.180000007 0. 20. 74..5 0. 13. 24.147300005. 0..270000011 0. 12.147300005.12244892 0. 0.31632662 0.147300005. 20. 21. 2. 38. 11 6. 59.. 2. 0. 0.. 0. 0..57142854 0. 0. 0. 2. 4.147300005. 14. 2. 0. 17. 4.. 0.85714293 0. 13. 0.0736500025. 0..0368250012..0736500025.. 0...11224484 0. 68.. 14. 12. 2.147300005. 0.147300005. 0.67346931 0... 0. 18.. 4.22448969 0.. 3. 1.147300005. 3. 0.0736500025.0736500025..147300005. 21. internal. 1.48979592 0.147300005.147300005. 4. 0.. 0. 2.13265324 0. 0.. 2. 0.147300005. 2. 13. 0.147300005..47959185 0.0736500025.. 0.22448969 0. 24 17. 50. 0.93877554 0. 3. 0. 2. 3.30612254 0.226 .21428561 0. 3. 0.147300005. 3. 1 ** Section: Coat *Shell Section. internal..0736500025. 0. 14.20408154 0.. 61. 22 15. 13 8. 29. 0. 9. 30. 25.. 0. 0.001. 24.0736500025.

101. 0.0736500025.0736500025. 87. 0. 150. 89.. 126. 15. 42.551020384 0. 1. 47.734693885 0. 0. 98. 30. 0. 0. 52 34. 16 10. 44. 122. 29 19. 86. 130. 18.. 0. 109. 5. 79. 0.. 144.0736500025. 0..0736500025. 14.83673465 0.275510192 0. 0.459183663 0.147300005.147300005.. 0. 74. 107. 104.147300005.56122446 0. 43 28. 109.. 95. 20 13.0736500025. 41 27. 109 72. 128. 93. 57.. 146. 149. 83 55. 64 42. 54.. 93. 32. 23. 49. 124. 66. 75.74489796 0. 80. 0. 89. 11. 1.147300005. 114. 147... 97. 95 63. 81. 35.92857146 0. 0.. 22 14. 82.0736500025. 33.918367326 0..83673465 0. 0. 33. 0.642857134 0. 17. 89. 125. 96.. 47 31.. 80 53. 0. 62.. 0. 0. 142. 31 20. 59. 112. 2. 59 39..367346942 0.28571427 0. 1.. 26 17.147300005. 1.. 0. 119.147300005.551020384 0.459183663 0.65306127 0. 71.147300005. 1.. 0. 35. 19. 38.0918367356 0. 0. 22.. 0.83673465 0.. 94. type=S4R 1. 37. 4.147300005.. 108. 0.0736500025. 111. 104 69. 112 74. 0.734693885 0.65306127 0.28571427 0. 1. 101. 38.19387758 0.. 0..183673471 0.. 25... 134. 127. 1.0918367356 0. 148. 104. 65.56122446 0. 110. 27. 11. 42. 13. 91 60..147300005.147300005. 121. 61 40. 0. 98 65. 0. 5.01020408 0. 26. 67 44. 72.0736500025. 27.37755108 0. 118. 29. 0. 92. 23.. 0. 68. 110 73. 15. 84. 14. 38. 1. 1. 90. 0. 76. 65 43.734693885 0. 41.0736500025.. 45. 0..0736500025. 2. 0. 8. 105.147300005.0736500025. 3. 111.147300005. 113.. 0. 0. 115. 0. 53. 107. 0. 0... 29. 0...01020408 0. 136. 43. 35. 1. 86. 0. 50.918367326 0. 32 21. 0. 10. 0. 0.. 0. 63. 143.74489796 0. 47. 108. 39.918367326 0. 58 38.. 53. 115 P. 140. 78. 44 29. 70 46. 87. 14 9.147300005. 48.367346942 0. 0. 77. 0.37755108 0.0736500025. 139. 59. 0. 0.. 0.0736500025. 116. 41.74489796 0. *Element. 0. 113. 51.. 101 67. 39. 48. 83. 102. 3.. 1. 0.. 95.. 91. 34 22. 0. 0. 82 54. 20. 77. 91. 77. 0. 111. 0. 135.. 102. 74. 131.. 19 12..826530635 0. 54. 0. 108.367346942 0. 90. 129. 1.147300005. 104. 7.. 65. 17 11. 80.551020384 0. 85.. 0. 76 50. 83. 4. 113 75. 100. 96. 92. 99. 40 26.56122446 0.. 138.275510192 0. 26..642857134 0. 110. 0.46938777 0. 77 51. 103. 96. 1. 1..0736500025. 105.. 0. 6. 0.. 120. 73 48.. 49 32.. 0. 68 45. 50 33.28571427 0. 18. 102. 23 15. 0. 85 56.147300005. 101. 86 57. 68. 63.. 74 49. 2. 0. 30...275510192 0.. 0. 1. 65. 12. 8..19387758 0. 71. 86. 47. 88. 68.. 1. 41. 28. 0. 57. 32.. 1. 1. 36. 1. 6. 97. 56. 71 47.. 0.37755108 0. 75. 0. 79 52. 110. 83. 25 16. 38 25. 78. 106 70. 0.. 32.0736500025. 0. 55 36. 62 41. 26. 1. 112. 44.0736500025. 133. 9. 53 35.459183663 0. 46... 0. 1. 137. 56. 132. 0. 21. 94 62. 141. 0. 103. 20. 0. 0. 24.. 100 66.. 0.. 69.19387758 0. 23. 11 7.10204077 0. 21. 107. 9.0736500025. 60. 73. 0. 88 58. 98. 12. 17. 69. 1. 16.147300005. 62. 1. 89. 95. 59.. 94. 0. 0. 64. 0. 66.. 35 23. 70. 106.. 106.. 37 24. 0.01020408 0.THE EFFECT OF FIRE PROTECTION DAMAGE ON THE FIRE RESISTANCE OF STRUCTURAL ST EEL BEAMS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES. 13 8. 117.. 110. 104. 0. 0. 14. 50. 116.10204077 0. 107. 113. 1. 20. 100. 46 30.147300005. 0. 29. 80. 0. 72. 55.65306127 0. 89 59.. 0. 1..147300005. 52. 90. 1. 31. 8. 53. 1.. 24.46938777 0. 1. 95.147300005. 84. 71. 145. 92. 62. 93.147300005. 0.10204077 0. 0.. 36. 1. 1. 105. 28 18. 0. 0. 17.826530635 0. 98.0736500025. 60. 103 68. 61. 45.183673471 0. 10 6. 97 64. 0.147300005. 87.826530635 0. 0. 88. 67.. 81.. 50.0736500025. 34. 99. 11. 51. 99. 44. 92.. 1. 58.. 92 61. 98. 0. 0..227 . 123. 56. 101.0736500025. 0. 0. 40. 0.. 1. 0.. 107 71.0736500025. 0. 114. 0. 0.46938777 0..183673471 0.0918367356 0. 0.642857134 0. 56 37. 0. 5. 74. 4 5 7 8 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY 5.

0519200005.259600013.155760005.. 1. 73. 83.. 0.0519200005. 120. 0.. 0.. 142 94.207680002.. 118.103840001.0250001 0.001.. 0.0250001 0.644318163 0.. 1.. 0. 0. 1. 142. 92.THE EFFECT OF FIRE PROTECTION DAMAGE ON THE FIRE RESISTANCE OF STRUCTURAL ST EEL BEAMS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES. 77. 0..259600013. 120. 1. 13. 1.155760005.. 0. 0. 52. 62.65681815 0.155760005. 55.736363649 0. 102.103840001. 75. 0.103840001. 86. 0.65681815 0. 0. 0. internal.84090912 0. 144.103840001.38068187 0.259600013.. 10.38068187 0. 0. 149 *Nset.. 5. 2.259600013. 140 93. 1. 0. 143 95.207680002. 0.207680002. 0.259600013. 136 90... 0. 0.644318163 0.4727273 0.0250001 0. 0. 0. 131 87.0519200005.01250005 0. 0.. 113.4727273 0. 137.828409076 0.103840001. 0. 117.4727273 0. 0.207680002. 3. 135. 1.84090912 0.103840001.28863633 0.552272737 0.103840001. 116. 1... 22...65681815 0. 150. 20. 104. 0. 26. 0... 0. 0. 0. 0.207680002.155760005. 0. 1. 1.28863633 0.207680002.84090912 0.644318163 0. 0.74886358 0. 0.93295455 0. 42.155760005. 99.920454562 0. 1. 0. 41. 0. 1.01250005 0. 0. 7. 2. 0. 121. 0. 132. 134. 6. 57. 103.. 36.155760005.. 1.259600013.38068187 0.259600013. 40. 1. 0. 82.. 1.. 146.0519200005. 0.. 0. 119. 30.103840001. 1. 1.736363649 0. 1. 9. 147.259600013. 74. 0. 125. 98.0519200005.01250005 0. 21. 76.. 137. 0. 0. 87. 33. 137...10454547 0. 0. 0. 118 78. 56. 44. 0.56477273 0.. 1. 0. 0. 0. 0. 76.207680002.. 0. 0.259600013.552272737 0.259600013.736363649 0. 0.56477273 0.56477273 0.. 140.28863633 0. 0. 0.74886358 0. 143.155760005.84090912 0..28863633 0. 133 88.259600013.0519200005.103840001. 0. 8. 16. 138. 88. 0. 136... 17. 119 79. 122. 148 98.1965909 0. 2. 0. 91. 0.259600013. 79..920454562 0.93295455 0.0250001 0...552272737 0. 122..736363649 0. nset=_PickedSet2. 96. 138. 123. 135.. 127 84. 1. 0. 0.38068187 0. 1. 145. 0. 1. 0.1965909 0.38068187 0. 0. 80.207680002.4727273 0. 0. 128. 134 89. 140..228 .460227281 0.. 0. 0.103840001.207680002. 60. 1. 126.736363649 0.. 50.207680002.. 0.155760005. 121 80. 0.. 0... 31. 2.. 0. 11..1965909 0. 0.. 0.. 119.155760005. 0. 1...155760005. 0.74886358 0. 0.103840001... 1.736363649 0. 53. elset=_PickedSet2. 14.10454547 0..74886358 0. 0. 0. 93. 0..920454562 0. 1.155760005.. 0. 1. 116 77. 128. 1.0519200005.93295455 0.103840001. generate 1. 90. 0. 1. 49.103840001..103840001. 0. 0..155760005. 0.207680002. 0. 1.259600013. 64. 72. 78..0250001 0. 0. internal. generate 1. 1.552272737 0. 0. 1.10454547 0.644318163 0..155760005. 0. 149. 117.259600013. 48. 0.0519200005.828409076 0. 130. 43. 131.920454562 0.4727273 0. 47. 132. 0. 124 82. 128. 89.74886358 0. elset=_PickedSet2.207680002. 145 96.10454547 0. 0. 0.. 67.. 101. 34. 0.01250005 0. 63.259600013.828409076 0.207680002. 127. 1.28863633 0. 125 83. 85. 0. 1. 0..828409076 0..93295455 0. 0. 133. 70. 0. 1...93295455 0. 1. 1.0519200005.155760005..460227281 0. 1.. 65.38068187 0. 1. 0. 0. 27.65681815 0. 131. 97. 0.. 1. 0. 61. 1.. 1. 1. name="Coat Web" *Node 1... 2.552272737 0.920454562 0.828409076 0. 0. 122 81. 123. 129. 125. 2. 69.0519200005. 1 ** Section: Coat *Shell Section. 1.207680002. 54. 124.65681815 0. 119. 66. 5 *End Part ** *Part.. 1.207680002. 1. 144. 1. 146. 0. 0.. 0.. 105. 0. 98.74886358 0... 143.207680002. 0. 150..0519200005.56477273 0. 0. 122. 0.93295455 0. 146.. 68.. 114.. 0. 94. 0. 0.155760005. 137 91. 29.. 1 *Elset..4727273 0. material="Intumescent Coat" 0.. 0.84090912 0. 95.28863633 0. 115. 1.. 0. 18.. 32. 0.. 0. 128 85.. 0.1965909 0.103840001...0519200005. 1.644318163 0.. 1. 141. 1. 140... 1.0519200005.. 0. 1. 25..103840001. 130 86. 0.155760005. 58..259600013.0519200005.460227281 P. 0. 15. 1. 146 97.828409076 0.... 139 92... 134. 46. 0.1965909 0.0519200005. 0.. 12. 0...56477273 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY 35.84090912 0. 129.. 28. 84. 126. 1.920454562 0. 139. 0.259600013. 0. 0.10454547 0... 0. 0.644318163 0. 1. 38. 37. 100.155760005. 71. 141.. 1. 1. 0. 0.1965909 0.. 59. 0. 1.... 45. 81. 0. 1. 143. 1... 23.155760005. 51. 1. 1. 147. 4. 0.10454547 0. 0.207680002. 131..01250005 0. 0. 1..0519200005.65681815 0..0519200005. 0.. 116. 134..0250001 0.103840001. 0. 2.01250005 0. 19.552272737 0. 0.. 1. 125. 0.259600013.56477273 0.207680002. 24. 1. 39.

0. 46. 49. 75. 0.. 47. 0. 93 74. 105.276136369 0. 0. 118. 119. 14. 36.. 108. 18. 112.460227281 0. 0. 125.. 0. 40 30. 112. 131. 130. 46. 107. 113. 34. 105. 67. 95. 53. 81. 47. 132. 32. 110 88. 57. 22. 98. 88. 92. 10.276136369 0. 94 75. 74. 14 8. 61 47. 126. 76 60. 39. 37. 23. 133.THE EFFECT OF FIRE PROTECTION DAMAGE ON THE FIRE RESISTANCE OF STRUCTURAL ST EEL BEAMS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES. 0. 122. 7. 127 102.259600013.368181825 0. 0. 77 61. 118. 0. 71 56. 105.0920454562 0. 116.0920454562 0. 0. 23. 97 77.. 107 86. 56. 71. 0. 99. 129.. 123 99. 45 34. 48. 0. 0.155760005. 0. 0. 106 85. 116 93. 81 64. 114. 101.368181825 0. 30. 94. 82. 115.. 118. 10. 95. 0.460227281 0. 0. 72... 34. 0. 33 24.184090912 0. 109. 121 97. 0. 71. 33. 69 54. 83. 35 26. 0. 59 46. 50 38. 85 67. 80.. 87. 63.. 128. 122.368181825 0. 101. 77. 32 23. 0. 122 98.259600013. 75 59.276136369 0. 54. 15 9. 0. 22 15. 16 10. 24.. 82. 84. 19..103840001. 106. 32. 54. 110. 41. 100 80. 11 6. 41. 4. 40. 44.103840001.. 108.368181825 0. 100. 87 69. 132.. 121. 62.207680002. 35. 8 3. 123. 63 49.. 12. 49 37.. 111. 0. 45.. 113. 33. 69. 89 71. 0. 110. 23. 4. 128.. 127. 28. 0. 117. 83. 0. 43 32. 137. 80 63. 13 7. 57 44. 0. 112.. 106. 65. 22. 13. 112 90. 53 41. 123.368181825 0.155760005.0920454562 0.207680002. 89. 107. 41 31. 99 79. 0. 98.103840001. 75. 79. 74.. 28. 44 33. 122. 83. 99. 83 66. 76. 63. 0. 60. 45. 51. 21. 48. 52. 24.0519200005. 116. 89. 47. 5. 53. 0. 127. type=S4R 1. 71.0920454562 0. 126. 66. 60. 88 70. 46. 93. 0. 0. 126. 122. 58. 123. 125 101. 12. 0. 21. 111. 74. 136. 59. 94. 129. 38 28. 26. 84. 67 52. 17.259600013. 58.. 39. 16. 124.276136369 0. 14. 41. 102. 53. 40. 0. 10. 0.. 9. 68. 97. 63. 78. 0. 27. 15. 21. 42.0519200005. 20.0920454562 0. 6. 59. 0. 87. 0. 18. 47 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY 36. 0. 38. 46 35. 56. 0. 62 48... 58. 89. 100. 99. 138. 92. 0. 119. 124. 86. 33. 103 82. 121. 9.. 31. 128.. 86 68. 118. 0. 77. 115. 125. 44. 2. 50. 9 4. 109 87. 94. 124. 0. 105 84. 15. 101 81. 57. 96. 64. 0. 50. 21 14. 38. 32. 22. 117. 55.276136369 0. 20.460227281 0. 106.0519200005. 65 51. 39 29. 0. 52. 70. 26. 111. 58 45. 0. 0. 29 21. 68 53. 17. 8. 81.276136369 0. 26. 37 27. 106. 0. 34. 65. 107. 124 100. 111 89. 79 62.. 23 16. 104. 98. 20 13. 0. 65. 134. 31 22. 72.. 116. 109.. 25 17. 45. 17. 0. 36. 90.. 107. 28 20. 51 39.. 3. 29. 64 50. 85.184090912 0. 30. 110.207680002. 43. 115 92. 19 12. 0. 78. 0. 29. 0. 69. 0. *Element. 35. 68.229 .155760005. 73.0519200005. 34 25. 25. 120. 130 105.207680002. 0.184090912 0. 92. 80.155760005. 90. 52 40. 95. 42. 52. 76. 101. 114. 68. 64. 11. 88.0519200005. 119 96. 2. 70 55. 27. 14. 0. 117 94. 57. 91 72. 87. 11. 74 58. 123. 98 78. 10 5. 3. 0.259600013. 11. 28. 0. 1. 73 57. 134. 125..207680002.0920454562 0. 0. 0. 129 104. 86. 118 95. 0. 133 P. 112. 108. 61... 51. 131. 96. 16. 64.155760005. 130. 55 42. 91. 8.103840001. 100. 113. 81. 70. 120. 9. 93. 0.. 69. 124. 56. 131 106. 120.. 70. 51. 117... 0. 35. 113. 104. 66. 40. 56 43. 119. 0. 77. 15. 0. 110.184090912 0.184090912 0. 113 91. 0. 59. 7 2. 114. 17 11. 0.184090912 0. 50. 88. 39. 27. 95 76. 102. 27 19. 119. 5. 116. 82 65. 111. 80. 26 18.. 103. 128 103. 0. 93. 117.103840001.0519200005. 92 73. 0. 62. 125. 86. 0. 8. 75. 38. 44. 0. 104 83. 16. 20.259600013. 29. 62.103840001.368181825 0. 104. 82. 0. 76. 135.

83673465 0.448920012. 2. 0.649999976. 0.398649991.. 86.84693885 0.459183663 0. 4. 0. 0. 131. 100.642857134 0. 0. 1.549459994.398649991. 0. 0. 0.92857146 0. 0..642857134 0.5 0. 1.398649991. 0.649999976. 3. 0.649999976. 0. 3. 0. 89. 48.0918367356 0. 71.398649991. 0.28571427 0. 0.324999988.65306127 0. 3. 0..398649991. 92.. 4.398649991. 0. 2.649999976. 9. 0. 0.57142854 0.46938777 0.398649991..398649991. 97.599730015. 2.. 0.918367326 P.. 0.324999988.56122446 0. 0.398649991.275510192 0....459183663 0... 0....649999976.324999988. 122.642857134 0.13265324 0.649999976. 0. 12. 0. material="Intumescent Coat" 0. 28.76530623 0. 0. 130. 0. 0. 0..04081631 0.. 137. 0.... name=Slab *Node 1. 47. 62. 0. 87. 35. 18..398649991. 0. 0.. 0. 73. 0. 66. 93. 0. 0. 99. 119. 4.398649991. 42.. 0. 4.649999976. 0. 4. 0... 0.. 13.5 0.10204077 0. 4. 0.. 1.649999976. 110.324999988. elset=_PickedSet2. 0. 3. 26. 4.. 17. 0. 0. 0. 69. 1. 136. 4.01020408 0. 0. 0. 0. 27.649999976. 2.. 0.. 129. 2.5 0.398649991.56122446 0.398649991. 88. 0.649999976. 0. 5 *End Part ** *Part. 0.649999976.. 110. 1.. 0.649999976. 0. 8.28571427 0. 0. internal. 0. 2. 0. 0. 0. 19. 138. 4. 74... 14. 136 110.183673471 0. 0. 3.398649991..649999976. 0. 0..93877554 0.67346931 0. elset=_PickedSet2. 115.398649991.649999976.5 0.. 70. 117.398649991. 2. 118.. 0.5 4.275510192 0.20408154 0. 0. 105.. 3.75510216 0.21428561 0. 1. 0.20408154 0.649999976. 0. 102. 3... 0... 0. 49.649999976. 0.398649991.74489796 0.. 1. 58. 3. 0. 68. 114. 0. 116. 0. 0.38775516 0. 1.. 45. 0.38775516 0. 0. 0.324999988.12244892 0. 4. 0. 65. 0. 0.499190003.398649991. 57.94897962 0. 56.. 20. 1.398649991. 95.649999976. 82.. 0. 33. 39. 6. 0.40816307 0.22448969 0. 0. 137 *Nset.398649991.324999988. 2. 0. 96..85714293 0. 0.30612254 0.398649991. 0... 23. 16. 4. 4. 0. 43. 0. 0.649999976. 0. 0. 0.03061223 0. 0. 85. 53. 0.22448969 0. 52.649999976. 0... 138. 31.183673471 0.. 0.. 4.37755108 0.398649991. 1 *Elset. 75. 0. 55. 1. 135 109..94897962 0.551020384 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY 54. 44. 113. 2.398649991. 30. 0.66326523 0. 4..39795923 0.. 3. 2. 4. 0.74489796 0..649999976.5 0. 10..47959185 0. 0.649999976. 0.826530635 0. generate 1. 0. 4.918367326 0.826530635 0. 101. 78.398649991.75510216 0.04081631 0..734693885 0.649999976.30612254 0.324999988.92857146 0.649999976. 0.47959185 0.398649991. 24. 1. 0.13265324 0.398649991. 1.. 1.398649991. 21. 34. 131. 0.58163261 0.398649991.649999976. 0. 0. 0. 81. 0.19387758 0. 1. nset=_PickedSet2.448920012.398649991.398649991. 3.918367326 0. 128..734693885 0.398649991. 2..02040815 0..324999988. 0. 0....76530623 0. 0. 107.649999976. 3.46938777 0. 104..48979592 0.649999976.649999976.649999976. 134 108. 0. 1. 15. 0..734693885 0.02040815 0. 1 ** Section: Coat *Shell Section.. 29. 51. 2.398649991. 0.03061223 0.398649991. 67..84693885 0.649999976.398649991. 7. 2. 0. 1.. 84.. 61.398649991.... 132.. 3.67346931 0. 63.39795923 0.10204077 0.58163261 0. 3. 1.66326523 0. 107.398649991.549459994.251349986.31632662 0. 0.398649991.. 0..649999976..57142854 0. 0.649999976.398649991.11224484 0.19387758 0. 0. 0.398649991. 60.459183663 0.. 0.11224484 0. 0. 0.251349986.649999976.649999976.... 1. 40. 3.. 98. 1. 0.0918367356 0. 2.649999976. 2. 2.. 64. 0.29591846 0.. 0. 121. 0.21428561 0. 3.649999976. 0.THE EFFECT OF FIRE PROTECTION DAMAGE ON THE FIRE RESISTANCE OF STRUCTURAL ST EEL BEAMS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES..01020408 0..48979592 0. 59. 2..275510192 0.499190003..5 0.. 0.551020384 0. 2.649999976.649999976.398649991.12244892 0. 0. 41.324999988. 0. 0. 0.649999976. 0. 0. 0..649999976.5 0.40816307 0. generate 1. 123.649999976.. 0.324999988.85714293 0. 46. 79.649999976. 77. 103.. 0. 0.398649991. 3. 3. 0.29591846 0.649999976.398649991..230 .0918367356 0. 0. 25. 0. 3. 0. 76..324999988. 1. 108.. 91.649999976.. 5. 32. 4. 3. 0. 0. 4..398649991.324999988..649999976.5 0. 0..183673471 0. 0.. 124. 106. 36. 1. 120... 0.649999976.. 0. 0.367346942 0.. 135. 0. 0. 0.551020384 0. 0. internal.. 83. 0. 22. 11. 3... 3. 0..649999976.. 0.65306127 0. 0... 80.398649991. 0. 130. 90.. 0. 0. 4. 0. 2. 0. 94.398649991...398649991. 37.93877554 0.001. 109... 0.398649991. 2..398649991.37755108 0.367346942 0.. 0. 2. 0. 50.649999976. 0.398649991.83673465 0.649999976. 112.826530635 0. 2. 3..649999976. 129. 0. 3.599730015..649999976..31632662 0. 0. 111. 72. 2. 0.. 0.398649991. 0. 1. 38. 0. 0..367346942 0.

.84693885 237.324999988.. 0... 164.31632662 4.251349986. 0.11224484 2. 158.. 0. 0.93877554 2.324999988.251349986. 0... 0. 0. 0.367346942 264. 0. 0.324999988.01020408 1. 0. 0. 142. 0.92857146 2.0918367356 P.. 0.. 0. 0.. 0.. 0. 185. 0. 0.. 4. 0..231 . 3. 0.... 0.324999988.324999988. 0.. 0. 4. 0. 138.. 0.. 163. 0.324999988. 0.324999988.11224484 2. 0.85714293 3. 0. 0.251349986.. 0. 0. 0. 1.02040815 1. 0... 0. 0...251349986..12244892 3.83673465 1.5 218. 0....642857134 261. 2. 0.30612254 3.21428561 3..367346942 209.100539997.31632662 4..02040815 2.251349986. 0. 0. 0.183673471 211.66326523 239.459183663 263.551020384 207..58163261 3.324999988. 3. 0. 172.. 0... 134.251349986. 1.324999988. 0.19387758 255. 133. 0. 0. 0. 0.48979592 230.65306127 250. 0. 0.67346931 228. 0.251349986. 0. 0. 0. 1. 4. 3. 3. 0. 0.. 0. 0. 0.74489796 1.288174987.251349986. 0. 0. 162. 0.. 188. 0. 1. 0. 0.251349986. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 168. 0.. 1. 0...46938777 197. 0. 4.40816307 220.. 192. 0.. 3.. 0. 151. 0. 0.324999988. 0.57142854 2..19387758 200. 0.... 0. 195. 153.. 171.. 156.67346931 3.. 1. 0.361824989. 0. 0.. 0.. 0.47959185 2.48979592 3.251349986. 0. 0...5 4....48979592 3. 0.5 216.58163261 229.. 0.. 148. 0. 146.324999988.. 0.324999988. 0. 0. 0. 0.. 0..30612254 3.251349986. 0.324999988. 127... 0. 0. 0..324999988.734693885 205.324999988.20408154 2.826530635 204. 0. 1.. 0. 2. 0. 159.93877554 236. 0. 2... 0. 0. 0.251349986. 0... 214.76530623 227. 0. 0. 1.. 2.251349986. 3.. 4. 193. 0.. 182. 0. 186. 0. 0. 161.. 1..39795923 231. 0.. 0. 0. 170. 4.0918367356 212. 150. 136.. 0..74489796 249.826530635 259. 0. 0. 0....29591846 2.. 0. 0...251349986...66326523 2. 0. 178.. 0. 0. 0.324999988.201079994..324999988. 1. 129. 0. 2. 189... 3. 0. 181.... 144. 0.361824989.. 0.....251349986. 177. 0.251349986.83673465 1.324999988.324999988.39795923 3. 0. 0.0502699986.83673465 248.251349986. 0...5 219. 0. 0. 0. 0.551020384 262. 0. 132... 0..30612254 232.. 0... 0. 0.. 0.22448969 222. 0. 184.38775516 242.13265324 223. 0.324999988. 0.. 190. 0. 125..324999988..251349986.37755108 253.03061223 2. 0. 0. 169. 0..37755108 198. 0..251349986.324999988. 0. 0.459183663 208. 0. 0.183673471 266.11224484 245. 0. 0..47959185 241.. 141. 137. 0....46938777 252.251349986. 0...03061223 3.10204077 256.324999988. 2.. 0..22448969 4.28571427 254. 0.57142854 2...251349986..5 215..03061223 235..251349986. 0. 0.21428561 3. 0. 0. 0.. 0.. 2. 0. 0.. 0. 0.. 0.. 0.251349986.251349986. 131.10204077 1. 0.04081631 224. 180. 0. 0.. 0. 0.20408154 2. 0. 0.38775516 2.58163261 3. 0.251349986.642857134 206. 0. 145.324999988. 0.251349986. 0.. 0.. 0. 0.. 0. 0.324999988. 0.251349986. 0. 0. 0. 0. 174.251349986..324999988.. 4. 0. 0.74489796 1. 0.324999988. 0.56122446 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY 196.. 0.94897962 225. 0.324999988.01020408 202. 0.. 0. 0..19387758 1.288174987.. 0. 0. 0.. 166.251349986.94897962 3.251349986...75510216 2. 154. 0. 0. 0.324999988. 173. 0.. 1. 0. 4. 0.324999988.57142854 240.. 0.22448969 4.324999988.47959185 2. 0. 0. 0. 187.92857146 247.40816307 4.275510192 210.251349986. 2. 0. 183.. 0.13265324 4..13265324 4. 0. 0. 126. 1. 1. 0. 165. 3.5 217. 0. 3..84693885 2. 1. 160. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.. 143. 0....76530623 3.20408154 244.THE EFFECT OF FIRE PROTECTION DAMAGE ON THE FIRE RESISTANCE OF STRUCTURAL ST EEL BEAMS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES. 0. 0.75510216 238. 0.324999988.56122446 251. 0.. 0.324999988. 147. 0.12244892 3.. 0. 0.324999988.65306127 1. 213. 3. 0. 3. 0.251349986.04081631 4.. 0. 0.251349986.. 0. 1.66326523 2.251349986. 0. 0.76530623 3..67346931 3. 0.40816307 4.85714293 3.. 0. 0. 0. 0...93877554 3.324999988.. 0. 0. 0. 0.251349986.251349986. 0.918367326 258..01020408 257.324999988.21428561 233. 0.92857146 1.. 0. 149.. 0. 0.150810003.75510216 2. 0. 0. 176.28571427 1. 0.251349986. 0.28571427 199. 0.39795923 3. 0..251349986. 1.251349986. 139.. 4.251349986... 0.38775516 2.04081631 3. 0. 194. 179.251349986. 175. 0... 191. 130. 1. 0.85714293 226.. 0.. 0.29591846 2..734693885 260. 0. 0.31632662 221.251349986.94897962 4. 0. 0.12244892 234.324999988.251349986. 155.. 0.84693885 2. 167. 140. 0. 0... 157.. 1. 0. 0. 2... 0.56122446 1.. 0. 0.. 0. 0. 0.37755108 1..65306127 1.. 0.29591846 243. 0. 0. 0..251349986. 0. 128. 0.46938777 1. 0. 4. 2. 0.251349986. 0. 0. 2. 0. 0.10204077 201...251349986. 0. 0. 0. 0.02040815 246.251349986.. 0.275510192 265.. 0. 152.324999988.251349986.. 135..918367326 203.

92857146 0. 0. 0.459183663 0.499190003. 0..549459994.448920012... 1. 0.. 0.448920012. 377. 0.40816307 0.. 347. 2.65306127 0. 337.. 3. 0.499190003. 1.. 334.499190003. 3.. 0.. 367.499190003. 305.38775516 0. 0. 0.31632662 0.. 372. 0. 282. 0.. 1.21428561 0. 276. 318. 3. 0. 0.549459994. 277.. 4.. 0. 0. 1. 321.. 3. 293.826530635 0. 2.448920012. 393.. 323. 0. 307.549459994. 304.. 0.37755108 0.499190003. 1... 1.03061223 0.448920012.THE EFFECT OF FIRE PROTECTION DAMAGE ON THE FIRE RESISTANCE OF STRUCTURAL ST EEL BEAMS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES. 1.. 0. 0.499190003...66326523 0.13265324 0.. 0.549459994. 371. 1. 0.48979592 0. 0.38775516 0. 351. 1.918367326 0.499190003. 0. 0.. 0. 0. 3.734693885 0. 348... 394. 0..549459994.13265324 0. 0. 405.. 275. 268. 2. 0. 2. 0.48979592 0.499190003. 2..93877554 0. 0... 349. 0. 312.549459994. 3.39795923 0. 344. 274.499190003. 4.549459994.83673465 0. 0.549459994.. 4. 3..56122446 0. 2.549459994.100539997. 2. 0.183673471 0. 0. 0.448920012.29591846 0. 0. 382...448920012. 0. 2. 329.22448969 0.. 4. 286.85714293 0...75510216 0.499190003... 366.0918367356 0. 1. 0. 3.39795923 0. 0. 355.84693885 0.499190003. 0. 290.. 2. 2. 3.65306127 0. 1. 3. 330.02040815 0. 0.39795923 0. 280. 368. 296. 0. 0.. 3.201079994.47959185 0. 4.. 342.499190003.549459994... 0.58163261 0.448920012..19387758 0. 0. 2.448920012.499190003. 0. 0. 289. 0. 3.448920012. 0.549459994. 300. 365.499190003.448920012. 0. 3.04081631 0.75510216 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY 338. 386.84693885 0.. 278. 328. 0. 4. 1. 0.. 0. 357. 0.46938777 0. 0. 281.448920012. 1.448920012.01020408 0.29591846 0. 388.38775516 0. 3. 2. 0.. 379. 0. 267.74489796 0.499190003. 294.48979592 0.. 1. 2. 361.. 283. 0.. 3.549459994..13265324 0. 0..549459994..448920012. 0.549459994.448920012.. 0. 4. 359.499190003.499190003..65306127 0.. 0. 0. 297. 313.499190003. 301.67346931 0.367346942 0. 0. 0...448920012. 4. 2. 1. 331.11224484 0.12244892 0. 0.499190003..448920012. 2.. 0. 0. 0. 4.448920012. 407.549459994. 0.448920012.01020408 0.549459994. 273.549459994. 4.549459994. 2.11224484 0.. 0.448920012.499190003.499190003. 2. 0. 0..499190003.76530623 0. 3. 0. 302. 1. 2..549459994. 0. 364.04081631 0. 0.74489796 0.94897962 0. 1. 343. 315. 339. 3.642857134 P..499190003. 354. 2.20408154 0. 279. 269. 3.499190003.448920012. 402. 345.275510192 0.. 1. 396.499190003..499190003. 0.448920012. 0...47959185 0. 270. 340. 0. 292.28571427 0. 0.232 . 1. 0. 398. 2. 0. 0. 0.66326523 0. 2.549459994.275510192 0. 0. 0.448920012.499190003.28571427 0. 362. 0... 2.19387758 0.. 2. 0. 3. 0. 346. 378. 324.28571427 0.448920012. 287.29591846 0. 0.. 0. 0. 0... 3..58163261 0. 375.150810003.. 0.30612254 0. 1.75510216 0. 4. 0.499190003. 3. 0..02040815 0. 0. 271. 1.499190003.12244892 0.549459994. 0. 311.. 0..85714293 0.37755108 0.448920012. 0... 308. 0. 0.549459994.. 288. 0.01020408 0. 0.93877554 0. 403..642857134 0. 1. 314. 399.448920012.499190003.448920012.826530635 0..499190003. 373.. 4.94897962 0...642857134 0. 0. 0. 320.448920012. 2.549459994. 0.31632662 0.549459994..448920012....46938777 0. 1.549459994. 325. 3. 2.499190003.448920012.0502699986... 0.549459994.92857146 0. 0. 395..0918367356 0.549459994..499190003. 332. 0. 4. 3.549459994.. 0. 333. 0. 0.02040815 0. 2..11224484 0.459183663 0. 2. 0. 272.66326523 0.499190003..57142854 0. 0. 1. 3. 285. 3. 317. 406. 4. 404. 0...92857146 0. 0.499190003. 3.21428561 0. 0. 385. 369.549459994.549459994.448920012.56122446 0.21428561 0. 0.551020384 0.74489796 0.20408154 0. 0. 0.448920012. 1. 3.67346931 0. 0. 0.448920012.499190003. 0.94897962 0.549459994.499190003. 0.22448969 0. 2. 381. 319. 383.448920012.. 2.549459994..448920012. 1. 350.04081631 0.. 0. 400.183673471 0. 0. 384.734693885 0.57142854 0..499190003. 0.03061223 0. 1. 0.56122446 0.58163261 0.499190003. 335..448920012. 0. 316. 0.. 299. 2. 0. 0.. 0. 0.. 0. 0..448920012.76530623 0..448920012.448920012.448920012.448920012.549459994. 306. 0.. 0.448920012.918367326 0.10204077 0.. 0.549459994.20408154 0. 327.. 2.499190003.83673465 0. 3. 0. 0.448920012.. 1. 0. 0.549459994. 0..918367326 0. 291. 374.549459994. 326. 0.. 0. 284.19387758 0. 0. 0. 0. 397.30612254 0.12244892 0.549459994. 0. 0..448920012.. 401.. 0.76530623 0. 4. 0. 392.549459994..499190003.448920012. 390.367346942 0.93877554 0.83673465 0. 3. 0.448920012. 0. 408.10204077 0. 353. 309.826530635 0.. 0. 1. 0.499190003.448920012. 1. 1.31632662 0.. 0. 3. 0.549459994.499190003.549459994..85714293 0.551020384 0. 2.30612254 0. 0.499190003. 0.40816307 0.22448969 0. 2. 370. 310. 0. 298.47959185 0. 0.57142854 0..549459994. 3...448920012... 0. 0. 0. 380. 387. 3.499190003.03061223 0...37755108 0. 322..448920012.. 391...499190003. 360. 356.734693885 0.. 341. 295. 376.. 0.46938777 0.549459994. 358. 336.. 363.. 0. 1.84693885 0..40816307 0.499190003.10204077 0. 0. 0. 1. 389. 3. 0. 0.499190003..67346931 0. 352. 0. 303..

19387758 0. 0. 0.288174987.13265324 4.67346931 3.47959185 2.288174987. 0.361824989. 434.02040815 2.599730015. 0.599730015. 0.288174987... 0. 471..361824989.361824989...0918367356 0.826530635 0..46938777 0. 460.13265324 0. 0.0918367356 0.361824989.599730015..85714293 0..83673465 1. 0. 0. 459. 0. 0. 0.599730015.57142854 0.58163261 3. 0.599730015.12244892 3. 508. 0. 481. 537. 438.459183663 0. 0. 3. 1... 414..12244892 0. 441.. 0.288174987. 0.288174987.183673471 0..39795923 3. 443.599730015. 0.599730015. 472. 4.21428561 0.361824989.599730015. 0.288174987. 428..288174987. 0.367346942 0.599730015. 549..75510216 0. 3. 0.. 0.. 0.. 514. 417.599730015.549459994.. 0.48979592 3. 0. 0. 0.599730015.599730015.288174987. 0.599730015. 3. 495.19387758 0.65306127 1. 0. 0. 0. 4. 0.28571427 0.29591846 0. 451.642857134 0. 525. 544.599730015. 0..599730015. 0. 4.599730015. 0. 507.183673471 0.288174987.599730015. 543. 494. 453.549459994.361824989.29591846 2. 540.93877554 2.20408154 2.361824989. 0. 0.11224484 2.74489796 0. 0. 0.361824989. 463.10204077 0. 0. 526. 0. 503. 413. 409.918367326 0.599730015. 0. 533. 1.361824989.40816307 4. 440. 0. 0.01020408 0. 0. 490. 2. 0. 0. 0.37755108 0.. 0. 457. 0.01020408 0.288174987.361824989.. 452.599730015. 411. 0. 500.21428561 3. 0. 426.599730015. 0.67346931 3.288174987.. 0.22448969 0.361824989...288174987. 0. 517. 496.361824989. 527.58163261 0. 0..28571427 0. 539.92857146 0..288174987. 0. 0..04081631 4. 520..361824989.. 548.918367326 0. 0. 423. 2. 0. 0.361824989..288174987.30612254 3. 0. 0. 416. 483.599730015.20408154 0..74489796 1.. 0. 509.. 0. 0. 0. 437.. 1. 538..361824989.288174987. 0.599730015.. 474.. 0.. 0.. 0.288174987. 0. 447.03061223 2. 482. 0. 0. 1. 0.599730015. 0. 0. 0. 1.288174987. 0. 2. 1. 0.31632662 4. 506. 0. 519.551020384 0. 0.288174987.30612254 3. 0. 0.. 0.288174987.. 1. 524.599730015. 505. 0. 0.288174987.. 0. 0.826530635 0.. 0.38775516 2. 0.56122446 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY 480.599730015. 536. 0. 0.. 0. 0.. 0. 1. 0..288174987. 0..37755108 0. 2. 532.. 3. 0. 0. 0. 439. 1. 0. 0.04081631 0.288174987.918367326 0. 499. 0. 432. 0.288174987.599730015.. 0. 0. 0. 0..83673465 1. 0.38775516 2.361824989.. 419.599730015.. 486.288174987.28571427 1..549459994. 0.0918367356 0. 0. 0.599730015. 468.. 0. 0. 1.29591846 2..734693885 0.288174987... 1. 0.288174987. 1. 502.288174987. 1. 0. 0. 1.19387758 1. 545.. 487.. 0. 0. 0.459183663 0.65306127 1..57142854 2. 0..599730015...11224484 2.85714293 3. 0. 0. 0..48979592 0.599730015.47959185 0.01020408 0.31632662 4.367346942 0... 0.599730015. 429.361824989. 0..83673465 0..76530623 3. 0.734693885 0. 510...549459994.03061223 0.288174987. 473. 0... 461.361824989. 0. 0.459183663 0.599730015. 445. 515. 0.94897962 4.92857146 2..183673471 0. 431. 1. 0.. 421.288174987. 0.46938777 0.. 0. 0.599730015..40816307 4.361824989.288174987. 0..56122446 1. 0. 2.. 497.361824989.12244892 3..47959185 2.94897962 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.599730015. 488.. 449.. 2. 0..361824989. 501... 542. 0.84693885 0.. 465. 0. 0.. 462.288174987.. 0..11224484 0. 521.. 0.... 410.46938777 1. 0.58163261 3.75510216 2.. 0. 415. 0. 3. 0. 427.599730015. 489. 0. 478. 492.. 0..75510216 2. 0. 550.599730015. 0.. 0.74489796 1. 0.288174987.. 3. 0.361824989..599730015. 0.361824989..20408154 2. 535.76530623 0.549459994.94897962 3. 0. 0.288174987. 0.361824989.288174987.. 0..93877554 0..10204077 0... 0. 0. 430. 0. 0.03061223 3.21428561 3. 0. 518.361824989..599730015..THE EFFECT OF FIRE PROTECTION DAMAGE ON THE FIRE RESISTANCE OF STRUCTURAL ST EEL BEAMS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES. 469.599730015.84693885 2.599730015. 0.361824989. 418. 511.288174987.37755108 1.288174987. 0.361824989. 504. 541.66326523 2... 0.599730015.. 464. 0. 0.56122446 0.361824989...361824989. 0.02040815 0. 0. 0. 0.599730015. 484. 0. 0.288174987. 0. 530.. 0.599730015. 422.. 0. 436. 0. 0.. 0. 531.288174987. 522.31632662 0..642857134 0. 0.361824989.. 0. 0.. 0. 0.. 528. 3.92857146 1.599730015..361824989. 0. 0. 477. 479.76530623 3. 0. 0.288174987. 0.38775516 0. 0. 0.. 513. 435. 0. 0. 448.288174987.361824989.361824989.361824989.39795923 3..04081631 3. 0. 498. 475. 0.10204077 1. 0.599730015.275510192 0.13265324 4. 0. 450. 3. 420.288174987. 547.22448969 4. 4. 4.. 493. 0. 466. 424.361824989.288174987..361824989.02040815 1. 412.48979592 3.361824989.. 0..233 . 2.599730015.. 0. 455. 3. 456.66326523 2. 1. 0. 458. 3. 0.275510192 0..361824989.84693885 2. 0. 491...275510192 0. 0. 546.57142854 2. 523. 0.30612254 0.22448969 4. 2. 485. 0. 0.65306127 0.361824989.599730015. 529. 0.826530635 P.. 0. 0. 0. 0.. 0.40816307 0. 0. 2..551020384 0.599730015... 0. 0. 0.367346942 0. 444.. 454. 1. 0.93877554 3..551020384 0. 0. 0. 1.288174987.288174987. 534.361824989. 0. 512.85714293 3.39795923 0. 0.288174987. 446. 516. 2.66326523 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0..67346931 0.. 0. 2. 0. 476. 0. 0.. 3. 470. 425. 467. 433.288174987.288174987.. 0. 1. 442.288174987.549459994..

1.150810003.459183663 0.150810003.100539997. 582. 0. 631.22448969 0.48979592 P. 663.. 0.183673471 0.361824989... 0. 625.100539997.65306127 0.19387758 0.47959185 0.201079994. 0. 668.150810003. 682. 3. 658.. 0.201079994..201079994.. 563. 606.57142854 0. 2.361824989. 587.918367326 0. 0.734693885 0. 0.150810003. 0.28571427 0. 0.551020384 0.150810003.11224484 0.918367326 0.19387758 0. 2. 2.201079994.100539997.201079994. 0.. 1.201079994. 0. 0.201079994. 2.56122446 0.. 0. 2. 0. 581. 0. 0. 615. 1.46938777 0. 0..65306127 0. 0. 3.150810003. 0. 617. 2. 0.28571427 0.150810003.. 0..01020408 0. 0. 0.04081631 0.66326523 0.100539997. 3.201079994. 644. 0. 0. 0.. 2. 0.100539997. 584. 3.. 0. 0. 0. 0.150810003.201079994.275510192 0..150810003.. 4.100539997. 0.48979592 0.30612254 0.38775516 0.150810003. 0. 2..201079994.46938777 0. 2. 651..03061223 0.642857134 0. 3. 589. 0. 0. 633. 0.13265324 0. 675....19387758 0. 0.. 677. 567. 2.83673465 0.201079994. 0.. 672.. 1.361824989.29591846 0.150810003. 0. 1. 0..100539997.75510216 0.100539997. 0. 0.56122446 0.201079994.201079994.31632662 0.THE EFFECT OF FIRE PROTECTION DAMAGE ON THE FIRE RESISTANCE OF STRUCTURAL ST EEL BEAMS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES. 0. 0. 678.100539997.10204077 0. 0. 0. 598. 0..150810003.85714293 0. 591.150810003. 0.. 595. 570... 607.150810003.275510192 0.20408154 0. 2. 2... 691.100539997.. 655.. 4.. 0. 0..47959185 0..100539997.361824989.201079994.150810003.201079994. 0.201079994.. 594. 0. 630.22448969 0. 0.201079994. 0.150810003. 0... 1. 0. 0. 0. 683.201079994. 555. 686. 0. 662. 0.361824989. 692. 0.150810003.01020408 0. 0.. 603.11224484 0. 593. 0.12244892 0.551020384 0.. 1..74489796 0. 0. 599.. 0. 553.150810003.. 1.. 0. 577. 632. 0...150810003.47959185 0. 0. 0...150810003.84693885 0. 4. 628.0918367356 0.367346942 0. 0. 0.100539997. 0. 0. 2..150810003. 0.39795923 0. 638.459183663 0. 0.100539997. 0.92857146 0. 0.100539997. 0.66326523 0.20408154 0.201079994. 0.150810003. 0. 4... 667..201079994. 2.. 0.03061223 0.. 2. 1.85714293 0. 556... 0...201079994..67346931 0. 0. 2.. 579.100539997.. 1.201079994. 0.. 568. 0. 0. 0. 1. 597. 1.201079994... 3. 687.100539997. 0. 585. 560. 566. 690.100539997. 3. 0.. 0.. 635.. 3. 645..201079994. 0.201079994. 0..74489796 0. 1.. 1. 0. 2. 1. 0.100539997. 0. 2.. 0. 0. 551. 0..201079994. 0...201079994.76530623 0.201079994. 0..918367326 0...39795923 0.100539997.. 0.275510192 0. 0. 3. 1.. 3.. 561.150810003.. 0...150810003. 2.. 578.. 618. 2..201079994. 0. 1.. 571. 0. 0.. 2. 1. 0. 0. 620. 0.. 4. 0. 0. 619. 0. 3. 2. 2.. 0.100539997.100539997.74489796 0. 0.30612254 0. 2. 1..100539997.84693885 0. 0.100539997.10204077 0. 626. 0. 656.201079994.551020384 0.. 688.02040815 0. 0.76530623 0. 565.28571427 0. 1..92857146 0. 0.. 590. 0.367346942 0.361824989....94897962 0.38775516 0. 0.201079994. 676. 669.. 0. 627. 0.150810003.39795923 0. 0.150810003. 2. 1.66326523 0.201079994.. 0.150810003.. 2.02040815 0. 0. 657. 0.. 3. 0. 0.. 2. 0.100539997. 641.. 0. 666.100539997. 2. 0. 605. 3.551020384 0. 640.03061223 0. 1. 0. 4.10204077 0.0918367356 0.. 559.201079994. 4.. 670..234 .100539997. 1. 654.. 3..21428561 0.150810003. 2.37755108 0.150810003.65306127 0. 0. 604. 0. 0...150810003.11224484 0. 639.150810003. 0..100539997. 636.. 674.361824989. 601. 4. 0.642857134 0.01020408 0.201079994.83673465 0.. 623. 616. 643. 1. 637. 621. 3. 569..150810003.. 558.826530635 0. 0.. 0. 1.92857146 0..100539997. 0.94897962 0... 3.. 0.150810003.642857134 0.826530635 0. 0..13265324 0.21428561 0.201079994.100539997.. 0.100539997. 1. 611. 665.100539997.201079994..150810003.31632662 0.46938777 0.100539997.. 0.201079994.21428561 0. 0...183673471 0.12244892 0.48979592 0... 0. 0. 0.37755108 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY 622.150810003. 0.. 0.29591846 0.201079994.150810003. 0.275510192 0. 1. 4.93877554 0.12244892 0. 680. 3.201079994.734693885 0. 3.459183663 0. 554. 1. 0. 664. 0. 673.734693885 0. 0.. 0.67346931 0. 0. 0..100539997. 624. 612. 0. 608. 648. 574. 0. 0. 0. 0. 685. 0..201079994. 3. 588. 562.30612254 0.29591846 0. 1. 0. 659. 671. 0. 583.100539997. 650. 586. 0. 572. 610.201079994.367346942 0.150810003. 661. 0. 3. 3.57142854 0.84693885 0. 0. 629. 652.150810003. 0.201079994. 1.826530635 0.150810003. 0.100539997.201079994. 0. 575. 0. 3.100539997.75510216 0. 557. 3.40816307 0.57142854 0. 3. 647.150810003. 3. 609.201079994. 596.20408154 0.367346942 0.183673471 0. 0. 1.150810003.. 564. 0. 660.75510216 0.. 3.04081631 0.83673465 0.183673471 0.. 3. 573.02040815 0.734693885 0.56122446 0.. 592. 684.. 679.201079994. 1. 681.201079994.150810003. 649.38775516 0.150810003.58163261 0. 2. 4. 600. 576.58163261 0.150810003. 2.361824989. 2..100539997. 0. 602. 634. 1.0918367356 0.. 0. 0. 0.150810003. 689. 552.40816307 0.0918367356 0. 614.201079994.37755108 0.150810003. 653.459183663 0. 613. 0.93877554 0. 0. 0. 0.150810003.642857134 0. 646..201079994.93877554 0. 2. 642.100539997.. 580. 3..150810003.

40816307 0. 0. 276. 310 42.66326523 0. 0. 285 17. 4. 30. 726.0502699986. 320 53. 28.. 331 64. 0.. 739. 296. 21.0502699986... 342. 283. 294.367346942 0. 1.0502699986. 2. 49. 271. 299. 0. 55. 14. 3.0502699986. 289. 282 14. 336. 2.85714293 0. 52. 734. 2. 293. 274.0502699986. 280. 294 26.01020408 0.THE EFFECT OF FIRE PROTECTION DAMAGE ON THE FIRE RESISTANCE OF STRUCTURAL ST EEL BEAMS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES. 283. 0. 344 77.. 0. 21.74489796 0. 337. 43. 20. 745.0502699986. 288.100539997.67346931 0.0502699986.0502699986. 32. 3. 4. 717. 312 44. 0. 281.0502699986.12244892 0. 30. 1.0502699986. 39. 322 55. 334. 282. 45..0502699986. 0. 0. 284 16.67346931 0. 301. 0. 58. 286 18.. 282. 276. 22. 706.. 1.0502699986.29591846 0. 53. 0.100539997. 291 23.0502699986. 46.. 316 48.. 318. 741. 114 2. 312. 0. 280.235 . 44. 329. 4. 735. 11. 2. 36. 0. 298 30.0502699986. 0. 334 67. 339 72. 346. 341 74..19387758 0. 273 5. 285. 313 45. 38. 4.0502699986.0502699986. 292. 293. 3. 0. 3.04081631 0. 44. 314 46. 345 78. 737.0502699986. 4. 58.03061223 0... 714. 13. 0.. 0..0502699986. 275. 280 12. 281. 335. 327 60. 24. 303.94897962 0. 114. 3.0502699986. 273. 308 40. 716.0918367356 0. 344. 297 29.83673465 0. 291. 319 52. 284. 271 3. 289. 693. 285. 721. 336 69. 723.. 12. 0. 0. 347. 292. 338 71.734693885 0.0502699986. 305. 348 81. 23. 113 51. 36. 320. 281 13. 348. type=S4R 1. 292. 59.85714293 0. 25.183673471 0. 3. 0. 300. 0. 1. 0.. 3.. 29. 3. 272. 0. 54.84693885 0. 730.93877554 0. 302 34. 742. 0. 1. 317.. 27. 26...0502699986. 35. 718. 295. 1. 0. 708.551020384 0.. 304 36. 56.100539997. 702. 40. 712. 333. 0. 278. 713. 733.0502699986.275510192 0. 328 61. 711. 3. 34. 326.47959185 0. 302. 3. 48. 0. 4. 319. 0. 0. 332. 349. 307.0502699986. 315 47. 275 7. 695. 299. 279 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY 11. 0.. 49.39795923 0.. 42.0502699986. 291. 274. 335 68.21428561 0. 31.100539997..22448969 0. 321. 57.100539997..0502699986. 2. 294.11224484 0. 276 8. 315. 330 63. 15. 0. 292 24.. 0.31632662 0. 329 62.58163261 0. 732. 0. 51. 0. 1.. 297.. 311 43. 295. 304. 22. 306 38. 18.. 343. 20. 318 50..0502699986. 0. 37. 0.. 301. 313.0502699986. 339. 271. 0..57142854 0.02040815 0. 274. 291. 290 22. 0. 272 4. 278. 274 6. 699. 273. 283 15.46938777 0. 0. 17..22448969 0. 346 79. 694.31632662 0. 743. 0. 341. 298. 41.58163261 0. 42.. 26.. 3. 324.65306127 0.. 317 49. 280.0502699986. 1. 288. 0. 284.0502699986.76530623 0.. 747. 41. 736.0502699986. 12. 738. 701. 307 39. 54.20408154 0. 38. 299. 696. 57. 2. 29. 302. 308. 338. 289. 296 28. 17. 18.100539997. 277 9. 331. 0. 283. 310. 309 41. 709. 0.0502699986.0502699986. 47. 279.0502699986. 4. 0.10204077 0. 294. 277. 704. 288. 277. 728. 290.. 1. 0. 45. 27.. 50. 286. 290.56122446 0. 2.. 305 37. 284. 24. 3. 293. 297. 3. 703.0502699986. 39. 0. 697. 279. 337 70.48979592 0. 0.0502699986. 715.0502699986. 328. 56. 51. 25. 349 P.28571427 0. 722.826530635 0. 13. 19. 293 25.0502699986. 272. 272. 0... 297. 2. 0. 731. 0. 301. 52. 698. 333 66. 0. 275. 345. 40. 300 32..04081631 0.642857134 0. 0. 0. 28. 289 21.. 749.. 285. 33. 286. 290.76530623 0. 311. 4. 271. 46.94897962 0. 3.75510216 0. 325 58.40816307 *Element.100539997. 0. 727.0502699986.. 705.0502699986. 347 80. 55. 2. 295. 0. 729. 707.38775516 0. 287. 327. 340. 342 75.. 278. 2. 276.. 11. 275. 724.13265324 0. 15. 710. 0. 309..100539997. 748. 43. 4. 4. 0. 296. 340 73.. 3. 298. 31. 296. 326 59.. 34. 323 56. 744. 287 19. 0. 33. 0. 279.100539997. 301 33. 1. 720. 0. 14.13265324 0. 2. 325. 3. 53. 316. 740. 282.92857146 0. 23.0502699986.0502699986.30612254 0. 37. 306. 332 65.918367326 0. 0. 32. 300. 278 10. 47. 281.0502699986. 286.0502699986. 0. 19. 350. 1. 700. 299 31.0502699986. 35. 323.0502699986. 2.459183663 0. 0. 322.. 750. 0. 324 57. 287. 725. 16. 0... 303 35. 719.0502699986. 288 20. 298.100539997. 330. 314. 0.0502699986. 321 54. 48.. 50.. 295 27. 0. 16. 300. 343 76. 0.. 746. 277. 287. 0. 1.0502699986.37755108 0. 273.

93. 419. 355. 417 152. 427. 314. 334. 313. 360 93. 371. 400 134. 388. 347. 456. 383. 402. 99 210. 357. 420. 104 205. 100. 433. 421. 379. 85. 437 172. 440. 426 161. 419. 436 171. 309. 413. 87 222. 438. 400. 460. 354. 407. 401. 405. 423. 423. 397. 429. 446. 421. 417. 308. 363. 331. 89. 382. 430. 317. 432. 460 195. 370 104. 396 130. 413. 310. 382. 359 92. 390. 368. 384. 352. 458. 440 175. 346. 370. 424. 418. 441. 415. 84. 431. 362. 387. 362. 312. 373. 320. 374 108. 364. 372 106. 90 219. 333. 316. 438. 314. 354. 316. 435. 439. 415. 382 116. 380 114. 459. 404 138. 437. 342. 344. 344. 318. 377. 425. 418. 427. 388. 368. 325. 438. 412 146. 98 211. 399. 366. 336. 373. 429 164. 433. 400. 439. 436. 367 101. 393 127. 364. 440. 405. 359. 389 123. 339. 362. 89 220. 92. 357. 416. 410. 462 197. 352. 323. 98. 339. 392 126. 445 180. 327. 113. 302. 110 199. 435 170. 462. 376. 396. 407 141. 376 110. 87. 375. 307. 324. 369 103. 442. 353 86. 303. 310. 423 158. 109 200. 372. 86. 384. 414 148. 379. 378. 428. 421. 391. 419 154. 457. 455. 369. 427 162. 449. 375. 441 176. 337. 353. 373 107. 401 135. 340. 319. 457 192. 403. 405. 358. 404. 376. 95. 101. 367. 353. 436. 430 165. 329. 400. 372. 360. 401. 390. 381. 461 196. 448 183. 449 184. 456 191. 365 98. 357. 350 83. 435. 431. 386. 411. 393. 448. 370. 413. 389. 315. 91 218. 396. 412. 439 174. 424 159. 338. 461. 385. 355. 421 156. 108 201. 60. 82. 433 168. 308. 453 188. 358. 428 163. 426. 437. 367. 323. 429. 61. 393. 358. 410. 349. 424. 338. 367. 105. 412. 446 181. 414. 346. 418 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY 153. 403 137. 453. 97. 366. 422 157. 112 100. 411. 107 202. 378. 437. 356. 386. 379 113. 315. 450 185. 395 129. 358 91. 311. 391. 348. 383 117. 398. 394. 334. 85 P. 426. 101 208. 102 207. 61. 368. 428. 375. 422. 369. 432 167. 394. 59. 422. 414. 414. 333. 107. 436. 371. 342. 392. 396. 62. 91. 371 105. 420. 420 155. 322. 377. 452 187. 398 132. 397. 329. 454 189. 430. 425 160. 351. 374. 419. 360. 429. 324. 303. 347. 416. 409. 455 190. 434 169. 361. 381 115. 431 166. 330. 402. 361. 397 131. 394. 368 102. 370. 390. 341. 365. 410. 365. 326. 359. 406 140. 454. 417. 369. 387. 410 144. 394 128. 422. 447 182. 415. 409. 415 150. 386 120. 92 217. 360. 306. 311. 404. 351. 357 90. 363 96. 443. 395. 380. 99. 354. 381. 353. 306. 364 97. 403. 399 133. 105 204. 397. 359. 434. 336. 88 221. 364. 352. 111. 354 87. 94. 405 139. 385. 97 212. 319. 395. 389. 361 94. 317. 439. 371. 335. 412. 331. 409. 4 198. 348. 366 99. 407. 378. 343. 332. 435. 442 177. 380. 330. 425. 356 89. 392. 86 223. 365. 387 121. 361. 355. 431. 395. 382. 337. 377. 383. 408. 320. 445. 340. 392.THE EFFECT OF FIRE PROTECTION DAMAGE ON THE FIRE RESISTANCE OF STRUCTURAL ST EEL BEAMS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES. 372. 418. 451 186. 305. 402. 103 206. 325. 335. 406. 444. 328. 378 112. 452. 399. 112. 440. 318. 433. 398. 351. 373. 432. 96. 388. 110. 313. 425. 90. 443 178. 93 216. 390 124. 399. 351 84. 406. 321. 350. 109. 322. 108. 430. 375 109. 458 193. 374. 381. 95 214. 420. 385. 94 215. 304. 450. 355 88. 349. 307. 408 142. 385 119. 377 111. 352 85. 451.236 . 402 136. 459 194. 312. 401. 111 149. 343. 411 145. 305. 379. 407. 326. 362 95. 387. 438 173. 384 118. 408. 304. 404. 393. 428. 345. 416. 363. 434. 389. 327. 88. 100 209. 408. 102. 398. 374. 424. 427. 363. 386. 432. 411. 60. 103. 328. 391 125. 403. 376. 309. 345. 332. 106. 350. 447. 406. 417. 416 151. 413 147. 388 122. 96 213. 409 143. 321. 391. 423. 106 203. 356. 356. 384. 441. 383. 366. 104. 444 179. 380. 434. 426. 341.

224. 211 297. 483 268. 210 298. 508 293. 149. 3. 497. 490. 486. 493. 64 245. 154. 164. 196 312. 482 267. 190 318. 508. 503. 484. 487 272. 142. 461. 471. 446. 526 361. 157. 181 327. 453. 444. 150. 485. 128. 126. 491. 175 333. 495. 128. 520 355. 476. 464. 76 233. 176. 504. 186 322. 492 277. 481. 495. 193 315. 472. 497. 474. 192. 207. 194 314. 145. 151. 211. 65. 530 365. 494. 528 363. 485. 139. 473 258. 496. 469. 471 256. 196. 153. 166. 482. 119. 68. 185 323. 474. 527. 485 270. 212. 75. 523 358. 494. 199. 71. 524. 452. 202 306. 496 281. 145. 481. 159. 122. 513. 507. 147. 184 324. 66 243. 492. 513 348. 470. 63 246. 463 248. 129. 500. 150. 477 262. 449. 135. 181. 148. 504. 478. 121. 5. 156. 531 P. 475. 157. 502 287. 471. 168 340. 492. 161. 193. 510 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY 295. 481. 62. 180 328. 127. 455. 123. 459. 506 291. 477. 474. 212 247. 511 346. 156. 514 349. 470. 464. 453. 157. 72 237. 192 316. 187 321. 443. 465. 462. 141. 499. 197 311. 172. 149. 442. 153. 468. 147. 84 225. 515. 195 313. 189 319. 468 253. 143. 465. 141. 472. 75 234. 136. 153. 522. 491. 167. 146. 139. 160. 530. 76. 507. 147. 169 339. 458. 483. 487. 512 347. 160. 469 254. 482. 475 260. 498. 499. 135. 178 330. 153. 489 274. 209 299. 64. 510. 509. 500. 162. 151. 173. 504. 158. 492. 500. 162. 462. 161. 157. 155. 70. 71 238. 483. 479 264. 202. 142. 458. 511. 141. 499 284. 509. 463. 503 288. 148. 82. 140. 467. 488 273. 476 261. 144. 174. 209. 489. 77 232. 180. 143. 122. 155. 159. 174 334. 204. 150. 454. 160. 480. 163. 488. 493. 519. 154. 498. 467 252. 121. 69. 514. 195. 131. 531. 200. 508. 479. 165. 203. 187. 444. 451. 80. 158. 201. 125. 185. 464. 142. 532. 205 303. 461. 502. 190. 182 326. 525. 454. 115. 138. 156. 442. 450. 177 331. 154. 455. 501. 179 329. 441. 78 231. 204 304. 478 263. 151. 188 320. 67. 170 338. 159. 505. 163. 123. 146. 134. 159. 116. 146. 460. 502. 63. 446. 482. 450. 147. 206. 526. 149. 491. 130. 516. 470 255. 201 307. 203 305. 118. 459. 471. 199 309. 66. 509 294. 481 266. 527 362. 161. 175. 465. 133. 495. 480. 519 354. 152. 485. 182. 145. 81 228. 158.THE EFFECT OF FIRE PROTECTION DAMAGE ON THE FIRE RESISTANCE OF STRUCTURAL ST EEL BEAMS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES. 172 336. 448. 171 337. 197. 518 353. 457. 191 317. 497 282. 494 279. 143. 490 275. 117. 484. 457. 469. 170. 8 296. 140. 129. 488. 463. 158. 83 226. 470. 476. 501. 118. 475. 497. 207 301. 496. 487. 131. 127. 200 308. 115. 472. 162. 150. 77. 156. 198. 126. 134. 502. 164 344. 498. 7. 475. 506. 478. 136. 173 335. 130. 499. 183. 528. 490. 494. 145. 117. 133. 505. 486 271. 464 249. 510. 495 280. 507 292. 120. 132. 447. 176 332. 463. 144. 518. 529. 445. 489. 81. 468. 477. 467. 169. 124. 493 278. 498 283. 73. 6. 162. 6. 466 251. 456. 515 350. 161. 473. 79. 521 356. 489. 177. 152. 183 325. 467. 142. 460. 516 351. 83. 500 285. 165 343. 144. 466. 469. 501. 521. 69 240. 168. 506. 472 257. 507. 466. 138. 452. 484. 70 239. 144. 506. 445. 451. 160. 504 289. 523. 473. 491 276. 510. 198 310. 152. 473. 137. 486. 468. 517. 208 300. 210. 496. 508. 476. 65 244. 149. 143. 125. 529 364.237 . 503. 477. 448. 447. 194. 520. 80 229. 72. 493. 487. 214 345. 480. 524 359. 479. 465 250. 466. 479. 484 269. 443. 512. 208. 74 235. 146. 68 241. 137. 73 236. 488. 171. 124. 67 242. 449. 132. 179. 148. 189. 525 360. 120. 191. 505 290. 206 302. 505. 166 342. 490. 456. 116. 480 265. 486. 186. 155. 474 259. 501 286. 205. 483. 155. 478. 178. 184. 152. 79 230. 509. 167 341. 119. 522 357. 188. 517 352. 151. 154. 82 227. 503. 74. 78. 148.

130. 178. 164. 592. 620. 622 P. 530. 529. 527. 26 410. 199. 546 381. 555 390. 566. 527. 37 421. 538. 523. 124. 32 416. 17 401. 132. 578 463. 133. 166. 534 369. 126. 543 378. 564. 35 419. 193. 524. 590 475. 545. 534. 207. 549. 16 400. 606 491. 535. 554. 167. 134. 120. 574. 537 372. 27 411. 40 424. 571. 53. 541. 176. 32. 621 507. 118. 56 440. 52 436. 27. 556. 188. 580 465. 186. 552. 551. 597 482. 539. 180. 205. 522. 585 470. 8. 174. 171. 214. 121. 596 481. 581. 29. 515. 25 409. 47 431. 549 384. 177. 18 402. 547 382. 30 414. 174. 33. 193. 57. 555. 185. 173. 542. 366. 593 478. 198. 571. 562. 545. 585. 619 505. 619. 615 501. 536. 557. 559 444. 523. 194. 577. 124. 200. 569. 556. 558. 190. 135. 517. 172. 580. 28 412. 532. 566. 211. 569. 516. 196. 23 407. 566. 40. 512. 587. 49. 536 371. 543. 618 504. 558. 563 448. 609 495. 141. 564. 2. 597. 589. 546. 50. 573 458. 1 394. 551. 584 469. 541. 49 433. 563. 37. 13 397. 559. 517. 192. 547. 209. 570 455. 544. 573. 565. 587 472. 12 396. 178. 548. 551 386. 558 393. 572. 604 489. 165. 613 499. 582 467. 54 438. 556. 511. 519. 184. 270. 48. 557. 567. 41. 213. 535. 200. 202. 573. 28. 529. 560. 12. 608. 165. 166. 127. 177. 43 427. 534. 578. 610. 593. 567 452. 41 425. 572. 575. 122. 537. 22 406. 125. 520. 548 383. 534. 115. 201. 48 432. 539. 533 368. 554 389. 581 466. 551. 536. 546. 569 454. 570. 138. 5. 610 496. 582. 20 404. 560. 512. 537. 183. 538. 195. 204. 562. 561. 576. 181. 131. 557. 132. 191. 584. 562 447. 572 457. 553 388. 119. 33 417. 514. 187. 186. 568 453. 116. 526. 549. 117. 595. 184. 169. 189. 535 370. 583. 196. 535. 536. 543. 204. 531. 550. 180. 569. 15. 563. 603. 575. 594 479. 609. 123. 14 398. 24. 39.238 . 199. 130. 555. 131. 21 405. 46. 164. 192. 53 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY 437. 552 387. 531. 575 460. 21. 52. 47. 189. 44 428. 548. 567. 598. 574. 564 449. 590. 43. 549. 553. 179. 568. 30. 198. 607. 600. 542 377. 39 423. 168. 207. 137. 544. 603 488. 45. 618. 210. 538 373. 121. 540. 170. 621. 139. 583 468. 591 476. 34 418. 542. 518. 548. 128. 558. 29 413. 55 439. 545 380. 269 492. 611 497. 513. 592 477. 203. 528. 26. 526. 211. 208. 576 461. 54. 543. 137. 554. 201. 613. 140. 623. 528. 570. 514. 56. 550 385. 140. 182. 539. 596. 579. 188. 135. 138. 532 367. 614 500. 194. 540 375. 604. 601 486. 205. 16. 136. 601. 203. 532. 561. 167. 525. 586 471. 13. 557 392. 565. 17. 31. 525. 567. 550. 579 464. 530. 139. 541 376. 553. 57 441. 574 459. 560 445. 612 498. 36. 191. 537. 568. 126. 572. 566 451. 617. 564. 206. 51 435. 560. 599 484. 38. 11. 123. 607 493. 616 502. 546. 559. 617 503. 620 506. 533. 521. 608 494. 571 456. 215. 129. 533. 176. 115. 168. 598 483. 544. 31 415. 35. 605 490. 190. 118. 588. 524. 616. 197. 545. 522. 45 429. 521. 14. 513. 565. 270 443. 554. 550. 19 403. 561 446. 520. 133. 556 391. 540. 116. 541. 615. 171. 595 480. 46 430. 614. 38 422. 25. 570. 591. 552. 606. 42. 206. 7. 568. 563. 169. 187. 179. 555. 122. 128. 55. 172. 577 462. 209. 561. 19. 117. 611. 600 485. 58 442. 175. 605. 553. 34. 136. 120. 571. 197. 594. 20. 42 426. 58. 213. 36 420. 181. 588 473.THE EFFECT OF FIRE PROTECTION DAMAGE ON THE FIRE RESISTANCE OF STRUCTURAL ST EEL BEAMS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES. 127. 119. 565 450. 134. 539 374. 547. 23. 547. 540. 173. 210. 533. 573. 22. 599. 195. 586. 518. 552. 129. 18. 208. 515. 44. 11 395. 15 399. 185. 511. 562. 51. 622. 170. 175. 574. 612. 519. 24 408. 559. 202. 589 474. 544 379. 50 434. 538. 542. 183. 602 487. 182. 516. 602. 125.

597. 632. 604. 687. 747. 626. 683. 216. 646 532. 659 546. 708. 741 629. 676. 737 625. 655 542. 631. 682 569. 619. 693. 748. 702. 603. 637. 629 515. 677. 681. 266 640. 666 553. 616. 718 606. 711. 736. 625. 638. 634. 680. 692. 701. 707. 726 614. 683 570. 701. 654 540. 674. 261 645. 685. 714 602. 635 521. 696. 719. 666. 603. 648. 260 646. 579. 708 596. 579. 627 513. 658 545. 729 617. 686. 693. 216. 673. 724 612. 688. 691. 263. 648. 637. 693. 683. 654. 674. 641 527. 646. 656. 698 585. 665. 598. 614. 710. 627. 690. 716 604. 642. 731. 586. 695. 665. 583. 653. 712 600. 720. 637 523. 712. 582. 668 555. 632. 607. 267. 723. 687. 658. 678. 746. 708. 749 637. 644. 264 642. 600. 659. 581. 261. 679. 697. 700. 750. 686 573. 727 615. 624. 667.239 . 268 541. 706. 746 634. 718. 632 518. 649. 637. 662. 595. 265. 648 534. 663. 721. 749. 733. 701 588. 259 647. 672. 652. 717. 599. 508. 684. 720 608. 706. 636 522. 622. 735 623. 733 621. 628. 742 630. 619. 655. 673. 694 581. 623 509. 683. 689. 685. 709. 715 603. 613. 256 P. 626. 697. 680 567. 593. 689. 623. 263 643. 681 568. 650. 712. 645. 658. 266. 726. 260. 617. 626. 706 594. 641. 687 574. 750 638. 608. 668. 695. 591. 625. 604. 736 624. 735. 675. 671. 693 580. 644. 677. 667. 700. 633. 671. 657. 670. 659. 618. 578. 692 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY 579. 576. 688. 650. 634. 642. 702 589. 665. 588. 707. 730. 598. 677. 705 593. 667 554. 631 517. 646. 684 571. 732. 695 582. 633 519. 256. 257. 708. 640. 585. 638. 662. 656. 645. 581. 660 547. 630. 694. 578. 602. 640. 704. 654. 580. 649. 691 578. 584. 713 601. 666. 617. 678. 583. 731 619. 587. 10 639. 661. 620. 597. 669. 647. 615. 650 536. 701. 642. 697. 671 558. 667. 645 531. 259. 734 622. 675. 641. 606. 630. 672 559. 678. 635. 696. 697 584. 647. 690. 691. 703. 691. 638. 635. 692. 676. 739. 659. 714. 640 526. 622. 744. 732 620. 704 592. 673. 636. 673 560. 600. 625. 670 557. 687. 595. 592. 699 586. 624. 215. 585. 657 544. 684. 711. 639. 627. 679. 599. 680. 688 575. 674. 721 609. 722. 711 599. 669. 628 514. 676 563. 643. 676. 664. 662. 602. 652. 655. 643 529. 606. 686. 685. 662 549. 626 512. 689 576. 702. 575. 612. 629. 734. 660. 695. 255. 643. 679 566. 682. 639 525. 639. 703. 596. 577. 627. 745 633. 580. 608. 710 598. 674 561. 644 530. 698. 649 535. 723 611. 663 550. 651 537. 652. 623. 725. 730 618. 638 524. 650. 680. 607. 668. 668. 741. 605. 707 595. 658. 218. 690. 589. 588. 681. 629.THE EFFECT OF FIRE PROTECTION DAMAGE ON THE FIRE RESISTANCE OF STRUCTURAL ST EEL BEAMS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES. 628. 635. 727. 664 551. 670. 675. 613. 699. 713. 649. 664. 661. 656 543. 710. 657. 702. 605. 654. 677 564. 633. 682. 705. 699. 590. 629. 620. 748 636. 657. 743. 688. 669. 611. 217. 618. 651. 709. 711. 698. 265 641. 663. 681. 593. 703. 678 565. 689. 699. 705. 610. 700 587. 724. 685 572. 624 510. 738 626. 217. 651. 696. 630 516. 704. 740 628. 656. 661. 655. 694. 612. 262 644. 663. 738. 709 597. 722 610. 646. 596. 682. 710. 639. 615. 614. 742. 675 562. 594. 631. 594. 647. 609. 690 577. 713. 630. 641. 713. 653. 705. 264. 664. 694. 698. 670. 257 649. 582. 267 590. 651. 671. 269. 686. 717 605. 706. 665 552. 737. 743 631. 644. 621. 633. 684. 632. 589. 628. 672. 577. 704. 601. 703 591. 666. 621. 679. 576. 652 538. 258. 719 607. 625 511. 739 627. 700. 740. 609. 669 556. 587. 268. 725 613. 645. 634. 744 632. 707. 696 583. 642 528. 648. 653 539. 262. 728 616. 586. 640. 709. 712. 636. 601. 591. 660. 661 548. 616. 643. 634 520. 258 648. 610. 747 635. 611. 590. 692. 728. 624. 716. 653. 584. 729. 715. 745. 631. 647 533. 714. 592. 660. 672. 636.

741. nset=_PickedSet301. 248 658. 248. 250 656. 225. 733. part="Coat Flange1" 0. internal. 1 *Elset.77555756156289e-17. 733. internal.. 730.. generate 1.. 229. part=Slab -0. 1 *Nset. 1 *Nset. name="Coat Flange3-2". 0. 0. part="Coat Web" 0. 90. 742. *End Instance ** *Nset. instance="Coat Flange2-1". 254 652. *End Instance ** *Instance. 0. 1 ** Section: Slab *Shell Section. 235. *End Instance ** *Instance. 720. generate 1. 744. 219 *Nset. name="Coat Flange1-1". 0. 232. 227 679. 737.. 246. 743.25135. 255 651. 732.073649976158142. 723. internal. 686. internal. 129. 731.. *End Instance ** *Instance. 9. 727. 715. 723. 219. 5. 720.. 251.. 717. 724. generate 1. 749. 244. 722. 0. 231 675. 253. 247 659.95910978948189e-10. elset=_PickedSet13. 700. 734.. 731. 2.95910978948189e-10. part="Coat Flange2" 0. 728. 718. 736.. name="Coat Flange3-1". nset=_PickedSet29. 225 681.55111512312578e-17. 727. name="Coat Web-4". 233 673. 747. 0. 0. instance="Coat Web-1". instance=Beam-1 7. 254. 224. 0. 715. part="Coat Flange3" 0.45501717732427e-09.95910978948189e-10. 750.. 747. 223. generate 1. 90. 718.55111512312578e-17. 5. 0. 237 669. 90. 636. 749. 484. 237. 2. 220 686. 2. 738. part="Coat Web" 0.073649976158142. 3. 0.259599976158142. -4. 242 664.2596. part="Coat Web" 0.55111512312578e-17. 1 *Nset. 0. part=Beam *End Instance ** *Instance.. -1. nset=_PickedSet301. 241. 179.475 *End Instance ** *Instance. 220. *End Instance ** *Instance. 236. 221 685.0736500024795532..125. *End Instance ** *Instance. internal. 5 *End Part ** ** ** ASSEMBLY ** *Assembly. 2. 743. 725. 1 *Nset. 0. instance="Coat Flange1-2". 9. 0. 328 *Elset. 245.1473. 0. generate 1..025 0. instance=Slab-1. generate 1. nset=_PickedSet301. 238 668. 1 *Nset. 224 682. 744.475 *End Instance ** *Instance.259599976158142. 3. 230. -1. 721. 0. 105.259599976158142. 721. 745. 104. part="Coat Flange3" 5. 11. 730. 0. 240 666. 0. instance="Coat Web-3".259599976158142. 734. 222 684.. -1.475. internal. name=Slab-1. 0. 223 683. 236 670. internal. 716. 221. *End Instance ** *Instance. 2.475. 242. nset=_PickedSet13. name="Coat Web-1". 234.. 745. 239 667. 246 660. 725. 726. 234 672. name="Coat Web-2". 229 677. 226. 240.1473. 724. 69. instance=Beam1.THE EFFECT OF FIRE PROTECTION DAMAGE ON THE FIRE RESISTANCE OF STRUCTURAL ST EEL BEAMS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES. 138. 252. internal. 742. 750.025. 90.259599976158142. name=Assembly ** *Instance. 244 662. 0. 1 P. 138. 138. 722. 0. 246. 740. 247.1473. name="Coat Web-3". 252 654. 750. 750. 243. 106. 233. internal. 239. 250. 0. nset=_PickedSet301. 0. instance="Coat Web-2". 739. 243. 253 653. 5. 241 665. material=Concrete(Siliceous) 0. 243 663. 218. 716. 230 676. nset=_PickedSet301. internal. generate 1. 732. 739. 736. elset=_PickedSet13. 232 674. name=Beam-1. 8. 14. 714. 231. elset=_PickedSet29. name="Coat Flange2-1".1473. 2. 226 680. 719. generate 1. 738. 1 *Nset. 735. instance=Beam-1 241. -4. 726. 2. 0. 0. 748.475 0. 245 661.77555756156289e-17 0. 737. 251 655. 0. generate 1. 740. 719. 2. 228. 729.073650001349449. 249 657.025. 717. 0. 650.2596. 244. *End Instance ** *Instance. 748. part="Coat Flange1" RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY 0.1473. part="Coat Web" 0.2596. 107.. internal. 247. 746. 227.259599976158142. 222. 0. 251. nset=_PickedSet301. 242. 345. 90. 30. -4. 238.240 . 746.2596. name="Coat Flange1-2". 485. 729. 245. 741. 637 *Nset. nset=_PickedSet301.. 20. 728. 249.1473. 235 671. 735. 344. 228 678. 0.

418. 527. elset=_PickedSet301. 16. 390. 93. *Nset. 27. 31. 78. 26. 1 *Nset. 634. 118. 56. 290. 108 109. 388. 110. 150. 205. 120. 245. nset=_PickedSet304. instance="Coat Flange1-1". 170. 537. 5. 75. 92. 68 69. 69. 55. 225. 636 *Nset. 1 *Elset. 686. 302. 342. internal. 618. 533. 127. 136. 430. 583. 360. 116. 4. 51. 310. 600. generate 1. 262. 25. 60. 622. 51. 436. nset=_PickedSet304. 521. instance="Coat Flange3-2". 130. 318. 102. 637. 408. 606. internal. elset=_PickedSet301. 585. 332. 336 338. 410. 101. internal. 565. instance="Coat Flange2-1". 616. 171. 470. 150. 32 33. nset=_PickedSet304. 517. 44. 254. 322. 551. 364. 110. elset=_PickedSet301. 456. 38. instance="Coat Flange1-1". 1 *Elset. 334. 112. nset=_PickedSet301. instance="Coat Flange3-1". 250. 146. instance="Coat Flange3-1". 6. 320. 571. 579. 260. 110. 1 *Nset. 555. 240 241. 76. 31. internal. instance=Beam-1 3. 450. 438. 248. 396. 1 *Elset. 40 41. 95. 28. 519. instance=Beam1. 11. 7. 1 *Nset. 386. internal. 535. elset=_PickedSet301. 256. 523. 98. 84. 366. 314. 632. 372. 286. 36. elset=_PickedSet301. generate 1. 138. 196. 316. 593 594. generate 1. elset=_PickedSet301. 166. 41. 95. 97. 103. nset=_PickedSet301. 1 *Nset. 282. generate 1. 25. 90. 587. 235. 591. 444. 501. instance="Coat Web-4". 596. 46. 37. instance="Coat Flange1-1". 392. 637. 458. 150. 608. instance=Beam-1 1. 180. 35. 34. 278. 569. 614. 258. elset=_PickedSet301. internal. nset=_PickedSet303. 294. 206. 221. 236. 525. generate 1. elset=_PickedSet301. 268. 156. nset=_PickedSet304. 348. 75. 3. 515. 48. 120 121. 328. 610. 138. 1 *Elset. 547. generate 1. nset=_PickedSet301. 577. 110. 452. 122. 65. 404. 549. 468. 589. internal. 39. 374. 346. 1 P. 40. generate 1. 119. 42. 604. 428. 190. 448. 30. 553. internal. 462. 115. generate 1. 340. 98. 186. 21. elset=_PickedSet301. 541. instance="Coat Flange1-2". 1 *Elset. 252. generate 106. 446. 298. 64. 138. 529 531. nset=_PickedSet304. 151. 358. 442. 100. internal. internal. 264. internal. 116. 57. 80. 1 *Nset. 378. 44. 83. 91. 511. internal. 416. 10. 284. 26. internal. internal. 110. 55. 400 402. 557. nset=_PickedSet304. 480. 426. 326. instance="Coat Web-3". 362. internal. 45. 191. internal. nset=_PickedSet302. internal. internal. generate 1. internal. 231. 124 125. instance="Coat Web-4". 46. 296. instance="Coat Web-2". 99. 573. 2. nset=_PickedSet304. 150. 432 434. 61. 35. instance="Coat Flange1-2". internal. 460. instance="Coat Flange2-1". 394. 308. 1 *Elset. 200 201. 101. 128 *Elset. 69. 86. 210. 312. 567. 539. 380. 181. 1 *Elset. 50. generate 1. 575. 62. 131. 414. 454. 195. internal. 111. 1 *Nset. 90. 96. 185. generate 1. 65. 276. 126. 114. nset=_PickedSet301. 491. generate 1. 100. 412. 125. generate 1. nset=_PickedSet304. 216. 79. 165. 602. 5. 59. internal.THE EFFECT OF FIRE PROTECTION DAMAGE ON THE FIRE RESISTANCE OF STRUCTURAL ST EEL BEAMS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES. 350. internal. 175. instance="Coat Web-2". elset=_PickedSet301. 376. 110. 1 *Elset. 30. 44. 270. 478. 47. 509. 598. 489. 117. instance=Slab-1. 70. 138. 155. 94.241 . 424. 50. 497 499. 1 *Elset. 344. 87. 36. 1 *Nset. 211. nset=_PickedSet304. 66. 304 306. instance="Coat Web-3". 330. 545. 81. 20. 420. 382. 384. instance="Coat Flange3-1". elset=_PickedSet303. 1 *Nset. 138. 141. 6. 1 *Nset. 628. internal. 176. 398. generate 1. internal. generate 1. generate 1. 272 274. instance="Coat Web-4". 91. nset=_PickedSet304. instance="Coat Flange3-2". 612. elset=_PickedSet304. 484. 700. 513. generate 1. 324. 226. generate 1. 56. 1 *Elset. 76. 581. 45. 482. 150. 561 563. internal. generate 1. 106. elset=_PickedSet302. 476. 63. 356. 105. 1 *Elset. 354. generate 1. internal. 98. instance=Slab-1. generate 1. 71. 624 626. 145. 80 81. 88 89. 86. 280. 69. 368 370. 1 *Nset. internal. 58. 140. generate 1. generate 1. 111. 505. 1 *Elset. 77. 352. generate 1. 96. 66. 1 *Nset. instance="Coat Flange3-2". internal. 230. 503. 43. 85. 472. 67. instance=Beam1. 507. 630. 464 466. 1 *Nset. generate 1. 54. 620. 126. 70. 29. 292. 113. 60. 4. elset=_PickedSet301. 1 *Nset. 110. 8. generate 1. instance="Coat Web-1". 559. 1 *Nset. 52 53. instance="Coat Web-1". 493. 474. 160 RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY 161. 750. 135. 115. 123. instance=Beam1 1. 300. 1 *Nset. 30. 82. 61. internal. 20. 246. 422. 121. internal. 215. 15. 543. 406. 487. 220. generate 1. 85. nset=_PickedSet304. 495. 49 *Elset. instance=Beam1. 288. 440. 266. instance=Beam1.

515. 1 *Surface. 553. elset=__PickedSurf47_SPOS. instance="Coat Flange1-1". 12. 1 *Surface. instance="Coat Web-2". internal __PickedSurf258_SPOS. instance=Slab-1. 343. internal. 540. 516. 1 *Elset. instance=Beam-1. generate 1. 146. nset=BC-4. 481. internal. 1 *Elset. generate 246. SPOS *Elset. 10. name=_PickedSurf259. internal. 157. 479 480. 505. internal. instance=Beam-1. generate 540. 44. internal __PickedSurf139_SPOS. name=_PickedSurf91. 492. instance="Coat Web-1". internal. instance=Beam-1. elset=_PickedSet304. name=_PickedSurf258. SNEG *Elset. instance="Coat Web-4". 539. internal __PickedSurf91_SNEG. internal. 228 *Nset. generate 442. internal __PickedSurf257_SPOS. type=ELEMENT. SNEG *Elset. 1 *Elset. name=_PickedSurf262. generate 246. 179 *Nset.242 . *Elset. elset=__PickedSurf62_SPOS. name=_PickedSurf46. 539. SNEG *Elset. internal. 110. instance="Coat Flange3-1". SNEG *Elset. 132. 1 *Surface. internal __PickedSurf262_SPOS. generate 1. 637. 107. type=ELEMENT. generate 1. 110. name=_PickedSurf256. type=ELEMENT. 343. internal. internal __PickedSurf156_SPOS. 178. instance="Coat Flange1-2". generate 46. 133. generate 104. name=_PickedSurf139. 110. 1 *Surface. type=ELEMENT. instance="Coat Web-1". elset=_PickedSet304. internal __PickedSurf157_SNEG. nset=BC-6. generate 1. type=ELEMENT. internal. internal __PickedSurf62_SPOS. 517. 98. generate 1. 110. internal. 1 *Elset. elset=__PickedSurf258_SPOS. internal. 494. 469. type=ELEMENT. 131. 1 *Elset. 552. elset=__PickedSurf48_SPOS. generate 540. 1 *Surface. SPOS *Elset. internal __PickedSurf47_SPOS. internal. generate 1. 637. 467. instance=Beam-1. elset=__PickedSurf139_SPOS. 110. 110. 129. generate 442. 145. instance="Coat Web-1". elset=_PickedSet304. 1 *Surface. instance=Beam-1. 1 *Nset. 1 *Elset. generate 1. instance=Slab-1. SPOS *Elset. name=_PickedSurf48. 120. 637. 528. generate 1. elset=_PickedSet304. elset=_PickedSet304. elset=__PickedSurf258_SNEG. 637. internal. type=ELEMENT. 529. 527. 441. internal. internal. elset=__PickedSurf62_SPOS. 504. internal. generate 540. 539. name=_PickedSurf156. instance=Beam-1. elset=__PickedSurf91_SNEG. 1 *Surface. 110. 49. type=ELEMENT. generate 1. 9. name=_PickedSurf89. 686. internal __PickedSurf89_SNEG. elset=_PickedSet304. 1 *Nset. elset=_PickedSet304. name=_PickedSurf47. generate 442. internal. generate 1. internal. 1 *Elset. generate 1. 1 *Surface. generate 1. instance=Beam-1. elset=__PickedSurf46_SNEG. elset=__PickedSurf257_SPOS. 468. 1 *Elset. SPOS *Elset. 493. elset=__PickedSurf89_SNEG. internal. elset=__PickedSurf262_SPOS. SNEG *Elset. 158. 1 *Elset. internal. SPOS RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY *Elset. 20. instance=Beam-1. name=_PickedSurf257. 1 *Elset. elset=_PickedSet304. instance="Coat Flange2-1". internal __PickedSurf48_SPOS. instance=Beam-1. type=ELEMENT. instance="Coat Web-1". 144. instance="Coat Web-2". generate 246. 541 542. 1 *Elset. 1 *Surface. 1 *Elset. SNEG *Elset. 44. generate 1. elset=__PickedSurf157_SNEG. 121. SPOS P. 110. instance=Beam-1. instance=Beam-1 3. type=ELEMENT. internal. 1 *Surface. elset=_PickedSet304. 1 *Elset. instance=Beam-1 8. generate 344. elset=__PickedSurf256_SNEG. 1 *Surface. generate 442. internal. internal __PickedSurf256_SPOS. 1 *Surface. type=ELEMENT. type=ELEMENT. instance=Beam-1. instance="Coat Flange1-1". generate 1. 44. internal. elset=__PickedSurf259_SNEG. elset=__PickedSurf156_SPOS. elset=__PickedSurf262_SNEG. 1 *Elset. instance="Coat Web-3". instance=Beam-1. 11. type=ELEMENT. internal __PickedSurf259_SNEG. name=_PickedSurf157. 1 *Surface. generate 540. internal. SPOS __PickedSurf258_SNEG. instance="Coat Web-1". elset=__PickedSurf256_SPOS. 1 *Surface. 506. name=_PickedSurf62. 110. SPOS __PickedSurf256_SNEG. 98. internal. nset=BC-5. elset=_PickedSet304. internal __PickedSurf46_SNEG. generate 1. generate 1. instance=Slab-1. instance=Slab-1 119.THE EFFECT OF FIRE PROTECTION DAMAGE ON THE FIRE RESISTANCE OF STRUCTURAL ST EEL BEAMS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES. 441. nset="vertical load". 539. instance="Coat Flange3-2". internal. 554 *Nset. internal. type=ELEMENT. SNEG *Elset. SPOS *Elset. 156. nset=BC-3. internal.

name=Constraint-5. generate 1. generate 136. type=ELEMENT. adjust=yes _PickedSurf271. SNEG *Elset. instance="Coat Web-3". 1 *Surface. SPOS *Elset. generate 1. name=_PickedSurf268. type=ELEMENT. type=ELEMENT. elset=__PickedSurf280_SPOS. type=ELEMENT. generate 1. internal __PickedSurf281_SPOS. _PickedSurf280 ** Constraint: Constraint-10 *Tie. internal __PickedSurf271_SNEG. *Elastic 1. 1 *Surface. internal. generate 1. name=_PickedSurf273. elset=__PickedSurf280_SNEG. name=Constraint-10. elset=__PickedSurf273_SPOS. instance=Beam-1. generate 442. 20. adjust=yes _PickedSurf281. 539. name=Constraint-9. _PickedSurf270 ** Constraint: Constraint-8 *Tie. name=_PickedSurf269. 1 *Elset. elset=__PickedSurf268_SNEG. internal. type=ELEMENT. generate 594. elset=__PickedSurf265_SPOS. type=ELEMENT.. instance=Beam-1. internal __PickedSurf264_SPOS. 245. name=_PickedSurf266. internal. name=_PickedSurf265. 441. internal __PickedSurf266_SPOS. 637. internal. 1 *Surface. 110. name=_PickedSurf280. elset=__PickedSurf270_SPOS. type=ELEMENT. instance=Beam-1. 1 *Elset. elset=__PickedSurf290_SNEG. instance="Coat Web-1". instance=Beam-1. adjust=yes _PickedSurf273. instance="Coat Flange2-1". generate 246. name=_PickedSurf272. name=_PickedSurf290. _PickedSurf272 ** Constraint: Constraint-9 *Tie. 110. name=_PickedSurf291. 1 *Surface. type=ELEMENT. name=Constraint-3. generate 1. instance="Coat Flange1-2". generate 584. name=Constraint-4. adjust=yes _PickedSurf265. name=_PickedSurf270. type=ELEMENT. internal __PickedSurf280_SPOS. SNEG *Elset. adjust=yes _PickedSurf257. 1 *Surface. _PickedSurf266 ** Constraint: Constraint-6 *Tie. SPOS *Elset. elset=__PickedSurf264_SPOS. internal __PickedSurf268_SNEG. 593. 1 *Surface. 98. 485. name=Constraint-2. 1 *Surface. name=_PickedSurf267. instance="Coat Web-2". internal. adjust=yes _PickedSurf267. internal __PickedSurf291_SPOS. internal. 1 *Surface. 110. SPOS *Elset. SPOS ** Constraint: Constraint-1 *Tie.THE EFFECT OF FIRE PROTECTION DAMAGE ON THE FIRE RESISTANCE OF STRUCTURAL ST EEL BEAMS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES. 110. 0. internal __PickedSurf263_SPOS. internal __PickedSurf269_SPOS. internal. SPOS __PickedSurf264_SNEG. generate 344. name=Constraint-6. 1 *Surface. elset=__PickedSurf290_SPOS. elset=__PickedSurf281_SPOS. internal __PickedSurf265_SPOS. instance=Beam-1. generate 136. SNEG *Elset. elset=__PickedSurf269_SPOS. instance="Coat Flange3-2". internal. adjust=yes _PickedSurf263. instance=Beam-1. instance=Beam-1. SNEG *Elset. internal. internal __PickedSurf272_SNEG. 110. generate 1. adjust=yes _PickedSurf269. 1 *Surface. adjust=yes _PickedSurf291. elset=__PickedSurf271_SNEG. name=Concrete(Siliceous) *Density 2240. generate 1. 1 *Surface. instance="Coat Flange3-1". type=ELEMENT. name=_PickedSurf263. 1 *Surface. name=Constraint-7. _PickedSurf268 ** Constraint: Constraint-7 *Tie. SPOS *Elset. internal. name=_PickedSurf264. 1 *Surface.. adjust=yes _PickedSurf259. type=ELEMENT. 1 *Surface. elset=__PickedSurf266_SPOS. internal __PickedSurf273_SPOS. internal. name=Constraint-1. elset=__PickedSurf291_SPOS.243 . elset=__PickedSurf263_SPOS. internal. SNEG *Elset. SNEG *Elset. internal __PickedSurf270_SPOS. SNEG *Elset. internal. generate 1. 44. elset=__PickedSurf272_SNEG. SPOS __PickedSurf280_SNEG. 343. SPOS *Elset. _PickedSurf256 ** Constraint: Constraint-2 *Tie. internal. 98. name=_PickedSurf281. internal. instance=Beam-1. internal __PickedSurf290_SPOS. __PickedSurf262_SNEG. _PickedSurf258 ** Constraint: Constraint-3 *Tie. SPOS RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY *Elset. internal. type=ELEMENT. instance=Beam-1. name=_PickedSurf271. instance="Coat Web-4". name=Constraint-8. generate 1. internal. instance=Beam-1. _PickedSurf290 *End Assembly ** ** MATERIALS ** *Material. SPOS __PickedSurf290_SNEG. SPOS *Elset. 1 *Elset. type=ELEMENT. internal __PickedSurf267_SNEG. 1 *Surface. type=ELEMENT. SNEG *Elset. 245. internal. elset=__PickedSurf267_SNEG. _PickedSurf262 ** Constraint: Constraint-5 *Tie. 110. generate 1. _PickedSurf264 ** Constraint: Constraint-4 *Tie. type=ELEMENT. elset=__PickedSurf264_SNEG. generate 530.2 P.

2. 0.00705476.085e+08. 0. 0. name=Steel *Density 7850.085e+08.0172211. 400. 4. 0. 20. 20. 300. 3.085e+08.2e+10. 4.085e+08.085e+08. 1.3. 2. 3.085e+08. 0. 3. 0. 1.79603e+08. 0. 4.02308e+08. 0. 1.085e+08. 200. 400.00105476. 0. 3. 200. 4. 4.0678386.085e+08.98e-06. 0..61735e+08.148055. 0. 3. 0.3e-05.57248e+08. 500.1100. 0. 4. 3. 0. 0.0675685.2 *Material. 4.17404e+08.085e+08. 4. 4.98129e+08.24e-05.085e+08.5e+09. 4. 0.000643754. 4.0680548.085e+08.0128549.000554762. 0..9221e+08.45e-05.05415e+08.085e+08. 1. 500.127221. 0. 100. 100. 200.085e+08. *Expansion 6e-06. 0. 750. 500. 3.31e-05. 4. 3.00102634.83972e+08.8e+10. 20.08014e+08. 0. 0. 9. 1. 4. 20.0872211. 1.107471. 4.0880548.92142e+08. 20. 0. 300..147471.085e+08. 0. *Elastic 1. 0. 0.1863e+08. 1. 0. 0.085e+08. 4.108055.0474712. 300. 3.50939e+08. 0. 100. 3. 0.147221.00403625.50411e+08. 200.75908e+08. 200.00655267. 300.1863e+08.00116642.3. 400. 0. 1.3. 3. 100.00405476. name="Intumescent Coat" *Density 1300. 100. 400. 4.000734963. 100.0672211.46332e+08. 0.085e+08.00676245. 2.0478386. 4. 0.085e+08. 0. 0. 0. 300.1200. 200. 100. 1.00082427.000566763.3. 500.00143021. 4. 4.085e+08. 1. 0.0875685.3.0480548.085e+08. 0. 0. 200.0180548. 20. 4.44e-05. 4.0272211. 300. 0. 500. 4. 0.0680548. 500.28e-05.000382675. 0. 0. 300. 4.1863e+08. 500.47e-05. 20. 600.99203e+08.. 20. 0.3.4e-05. 600.0155743. 400. 2. 0. 400. 0.7157e+08. 4.085e+08.23047e+08. 20.6e+10.085e+08. 4. 800. 400.1863e+08.085e+08. 4. 4. 400. 100. 0. 0. 900. 600.00405476.00399152. 1. 20. 400. 300. 4. 2.00692. 2.0178386. 100.0158412. 1. 100. 0. 1. 0.148055. 200.085e+08.0100548. 20. 0. 700. 4. 4. 0. 1. 300. 0. 20. 1. 200.0175685. 200. 500. 0.0880548. 9e+09. 500.127568.1100.. 0. 20. 3.085e+08. 1.07525e+08.1000.085e+08.0126053.085e+08.085e+08.0278386. 300. 0. 0.00705476. 900. 1.50411e+08. 20. 400. 0.. 0.0098818. 20.085e+08.00015577. 500.085e+08. 4. 1.085e+08. 1. 0. 200.14707e+08. 500.0180548. 100.085e+08.85681e+08. 0. 400. 0. 4. 800.. 3. 0. 3.22887e+08. 1.97793e+08.244 .. 400.0878386. 0. 300.0096339.085e+08. 2e+11. 0. 0.085e+08.1000.085e+08. 0.0152311. 4. 0. 400.3. 2. 4. 3.085e+08. 500.085e+08. 300. 0. 4. 0.16e-05. 700. 400. 4.00938795.00380349. 0.1863e+08. 870. 0.085e+08. 3. 0.0274712. *Plastic 4. 0.3.108055.147568.127839. 0. 0.0125329. 0. 0.085e+08.0100548.00105476. 0. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY 4. 4.0280548.1863e+08. 4.127471.00679398.3.0280548.085e+08.77958e+08. 0.0475685. 3. 300. 400. 1. 4.000409461. 300. 2.47432e+08.08042e+08. 0.1863e+08. 0.085e+08. 4.38e-05.085e+08.085e+08.07035e+08. *Expansion 0.085e+08.085e+08. 1.00966582.3.0472211. 0. 0.3. 4. 500.. 0. 4.. 0. 0.085e+08. 0.35e+10. 3. 4.1863e+08. 0.085e+08. 4.085e+08. 0. 0. 4. 2. 100. 1.085e+08. 4. 300. 0. 100.38e-05. 3. 0. 0. 200. 100. 400. 0.0674712. 100.59758e+08. 200. 0.00122. 500. 6. 0. 400. 0.6e+11. 300. 0. 0.3.085e+08. 100.8e+11.0174712.107568.0160548.0874712. 20. 4.128055. 4.107839.128055.29e-05. 0. 100.48e-05.THE EFFECT OF FIRE PROTECTION DAMAGE ON THE FIRE RESISTANCE OF STRUCTURAL ST EEL BEAMS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES. 200. 0. 200. 200. 4. 20. P.45591e+07.0154809.96526e+08.35e-05.085e+08. 0.085e+08. 3. 3. 0. 0. 3. 4.00341e+08. 0.085e+08. 0.085e+08.0160548. 500. 4.147839. 0.2966e+08..0011098. 200. 4. 300. *Material. 4. 400. 3. 0.67988e+08. 500. 3.2966e+08. 3.00391108. 200. 4. 0. 300. 500. 300. 0. 400. 0.0480548.0122843. 4.085e+08. 1.0275685.5083e+08. 4. 2. *Elastic 2e+11. 4. 20. 0. 4.107221.10853e+08.000554762.085e+08. 1. 4.0130548. 0.2e+11. 4. 100.0130548. 200. 0. 4.085e+08. 500. 500.4e+11. 860.

. 1. 1e+07. 0. 2.0670508. 600. 6. 4. 0.76133e+08. 4.148271.00797e+08.00184024. 800. 1000. 1. 0.94287e+07. 9. 3 ** Name: BC-3 Type: Displacement/Rotation *Boundary BC-3. 900. 1000. 700.0013923. 800. 1.0882709. 919125. 1000. 1. 4.00366938.634e+07. 0.107051. 900. type=TEMPERATURE _PickedSet301.64228e+06.91995e+08. 4. 900. 900. 1 BC-5. 1.4935e+07. 0.4935e+07. 2.24675e+06.67e-08 ** ** BOUNDARY CONDITIONS ** ** Name: BC-1 Type: Displacement/Rotation *Boundary _PickedSet302. 1. 3.245 . 9. 800.451e+07. 600. 900.0127044. 3.61069e+07. 1.451e+07. 600. 0. 1. 0. 2. 4.03189e+07. 900.85968e+08. 0. 9.0150654. 4.634e+07.634e+07. 0. 0. 0. 15. 3.57251e+07. 0.00213508.0165584. 900. 0.0133289.00479317. 1000.00145165. 900. 2.00929442. 4. 9.43801e+07. 1 ** Name: BC-2 Type: Displacement/Rotation *Boundary _PickedSet303. 0. name=Step-1.0162748. 1. 700. 1.0470508. 0.3955e+07. 1000.. 1. 2. 0.127051. 0. 700. 0.23473e+07. 0. 1000. 1. 0.0145779. 3 ** Name: BC-6 Type: Displacement/Rotation *Boundary BC-6.010336.634e+07. 9. 0. 800. 600. 800.6062e+08. 1000.THE EFFECT OF FIRE PROTECTION DAMAGE ON THE FIRE RESISTANCE OF STRUCTURAL ST EEL BEAMS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES. 800. 1.4935e+07.3955e+07. 0.0265584. 600. 2.3422e+07.0676225. 2. 700.0870508.. 600. 600. 1000.3955e+07. 0. 0. 0. 9.91995e+08. 4. 1.00757211. ** ** BOUNDARY CONDITIONS ** ** Name: BC-1 Type: Displacement/Rotation *Boundary. 1. 1. absolute zero=-273.0482709. 0. ** ** PHYSICAL CONSTANTS ** *Physical Constants. 700. name="Air side" 9. 1.00105572..22602e+07. 4.107622. 1. 0. 1 BC-3.00619979. 800. 0.127622.148271.0465584. 1000. 3. 2. 900. 700.0182709. 700. 1.00704735.00435894. 700.0270508. 0. 2 ** ** PREDEFINED FIELDS ** ** Name: Predefined Field-1 Type: Temperature *Initial Conditions.0482709.0867e+07. 9. 0. 0. 800. 1. 600.63033e+07.3955e+07. 0.50816e+07.91995e+08. 900.1016e+07. 0.0682709.634e+07.00740018. 0.108271. nlgeom=YES.451e+07. 700.000999575. 800. 700. 0. 7. 9.451e+07. 1.00888346.634e+07. 700.91995e+08. ** ---------------------------------------------------------------** ** STEP: Step-1 ** *Step. 3 ** Name: BC-4 Type: Displacement/Rotation *Boundary BC-4.00983772. 0. 3. 0. 9. 0..41953e+07. 1000. 0.4935e+07.00171284.00144951. 0. 1. 800.91995e+08. 0. 0.0182709. 700. 0.4935e+07.000666223. 2.0014418..0876225. 1000.0156354. 8. 600.98543e+07.00388952. 0. 2 BC-3.108271..451e+07.64458e+07. 0. 0.0882709.91044e+08.0170508.7018e+07.000841799. 0. 700. 800. 800.451e+07. 3.0282709. 800. 1e-05. 0. 0. 0. 700.00108265.33203e+07. 0. 0. 1 BC-6. 1000. 0. 1000.3955e+07. 700. 0. 1.51183e+07.0682709.4935e+07. 2.146558.19194e+07. 0.3955e+07. 2 BC-5.0132956. 9. 0. 1. 1.0019418.126558.128271. 1. 1. 0. 0. 1. 0.0665584.0865584. 9. 2. 0.38903e+07. 2.000679475. 0. 1. 1. 700. 1000.00653273.00449786.04663e+06.0116821. 1e+07.0162801. 800. 2 ** Name: BC-5 Type: Displacement/Rotation *Boundary BC-5.36874e+07.147051. op=NEW P. ** ** INTERACTION PROPERTIES ** *Film Property. 600.4935e+07. 800. 900. 9. 900. 8.0282709. 0. 2. 600. 600.71069e+07. 0. 1000.0104235. 600. 0. 0. 0. 2.69051e+07. 0.1158e+07. 0. 7.451e+07. *Film Property. 1. 800.0121434. 0. 800.128271.37392e+08.. inc=10000 Dummy Load *Static 1. 900. 0. 1.451e+07. 1.634e+07. 1. 0. 600.3955e+07.4935e+07.3955e+07. 900. 2.3626e+07. 600. 2. 0. 0. 3. 2. 1e+07.02403e+07. 0. 0. 1.91995e+08. 0. 900. name="Fire Side" 25. 2.00121977. 1. 1. 900.0176225. 1.05788e+07. 900. 0.33875e+07. 1e+07. 0. 600. 0. 0.0276225.147622. 1 BC-4.634e+07. 4. 4.22694e+07. 1000. RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY 1. 0. 0. 4.46907e+07.0476225. 1000. 700.91995e+08. 0.91995e+08.106558. stefan boltzmann=5. 0.

history *Energy Output ALLAE. SJDT. SJDA. op=NEW BC-6. op=NEW BC-4. TEMP *Contact Output CDISP. 1. SJDTA *End Step ** ---------------------------------------------------------------** ** STEP: Step-2 ** *Step. field *Node Output CF. directions=YES LE. ALLSD. ALLJD. ALLKE.246 . 5100. SJDTA ** ** HISTORY OUTPUT: H-Output-1 ** *Output. ALLWK. write. ETOTAL *Contact Output SJD. 3. 2. file=C:/Work/THERMAL-SCENARIO4CASE2. ALLKL. 2. ETOTAL *Contact Output SJD. SJDA. SJDT. write. op=NEW BC-5. ALLEE. ALLKL. 1 BC-3. SJDT. ALLDMD. 2 ** Name: BC-5 Type: Displacement/Rotation *Boundary. frequency=0 ** ** FIELD OUTPUT: F-Output-1 ** *Output. 1. ALLSD. U *Element Output. 1 BC-4. PE. PEMAG. ALLSE. ** ** OUTPUT REQUESTS ** *Restart. 1 BC-6. ALLPD. SJD. directions=YES LE. SJDA. PEMAG.9 ** ** PREDEFINED FIELDS ** ** Name: Predefined Field-2 Type: Temperature *Temperature. 2 ** Name: BC-4 Type: Displacement/Rotation *Boundary. ALLSE. ** ** LOADS ** ** Name: Load-1 Type: Concentrated force *Cload "vertical load". 2. SJDTA *End Step ---------------------------------END OF AUTHOR’S PhD THESIS ------------------------------ RENGA RAO KRISHNAMOORTHY P. SJDTA ** ** HISTORY OUTPUT: H-Output-1 ** *Output.. ALLVD. ALLKE. 3 ** Name: BC-3 Type: Displacement/Rotation *Boundary. ALLIE.. 2. ALLFD. inc=10000 Actual Load *Static 1. name=Step-2.THE EFFECT OF FIRE PROTECTION DAMAGE ON THE FIRE RESISTANCE OF STRUCTURAL ST EEL BEAMS AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES. SJDT. PE. 2. ALLJD. 2. CSTRESS. PEEQ. bstep=1. 1 BC-5. NT. ALLVD. U *Element Output. S. RF. history *Energy Output ALLAE. ALLPD. PEEQ. field *Node Output CF. TEMP *Contact Output CDISP. ALLQB. 1. CSTRESS. 10. ALLEE. 1 ** Name: BC-2 Type: Displacement/Rotation *Boundary. _PickedSet302. 1e-11. 2 ** Name: BC-6 Type: Displacement/Rotation *Boundary. binc=1 ** ** OUTPUT REQUESTS ** *Restart. 2 ** ** LOADS ** ** Name: Load-1 Type: Concentrated force *Cload "vertical load". RF. op=NEW BC-3. ALLIE.odb. ALLFD. SJD. op=NEW _PickedSet303. ALLWK. SJDA. ALLCD. 1. -1. ALLCD. ALLDMD. 1. S. -3769. nlgeom=YES. frequency=0 ** ** FIELD OUTPUT: F-Output-1 ** *Output. NT. ALLQB.