Fire Safety Journal 27 (1996) 91-112

~) 1997 Elsevier Science Limited

Printed in Northern Ireland. All rights reserved
0379-7112/96/$15.00
ELSEVIER Pll: S0379-7112(96)00054-9

Towards Harmonized Standard Fire Resistance Testing

G. T h o m s o n a & R. R. P r e s t o n b

~British Steel plc, Swinden Technology Centre, Moorgate, Rotherham,

South Yorkshire $60 3AR, UK
bEglinton Scientific Services, 10 Eglinton Avenue, Guisborough,
Cleveland TS14 7BE, UK

(Received 30 October 1995; revised version received 27 May 1996; accepted 5 July 1996)

ABSTRACT
All fire resistance test furnaces in the EU will shortly be operated in
accordance with E N 1363-1 (ISO 834-1), which specifies the
temperature-time characteristic of the furnace gases 100 mm from the
test specimen. However, even though a test centre complies with this
standard, differences in furnace construction, fuel used and mode of
operation can significantly change the effective heat flux at the surface of
the test specimen. This in turn influences the heating rate and hence the
assigned fire resistance time o f the test specimen. For example, a
comparison between valid fire resistance tests on identical samples of
two J~,ypes of steel beam carried out during 1989 in furnaces at TNO,
Delft, and WRFC, Warrington (both gas-fired furnaces), indicated a
30% difference in the assigned fire resistance times even though the
observed limiting temperatures of the steel beams were similar in each
instance. There is evidence that the specimens tested at TNO were
subjected to significantly higher incident heat fluxes during the early
stages of the test. To achieve harmonized fire resistance testing it is
nece.~:sary to subject all test specimens to the same incident heat
flux-time characteristic. This will involve furnace standardization and
the development of methods for the measurement and control o f the
incident heat flux at the surface of the test specimen. Some indication is
given: concerning the form of the incident heat flux-time characteristic
envisaged for an improved test procedure. ~) 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd.
All rights reserved.

1 INTRODUCTION

One significant factor hindering the free movement of constructional

materials across the borders of m e m b e r states within the E U is the lack of
a harmonized standard fire resistance test. In every case the specimen is
91
92 G. Thomson, R. R. Preston

subjected to heating in a furnace where the temperature of the gases is

controlled according to the standard t e m p e r a t u r e - t i m e relation specified
in EN 1363-1 (ISO 834-1). However, as will be shown below, differences
in furnace construction, fuel used and m o d e of operation lead to
significant variations in the heating rate of the test specimen and hence its
assigned fire rating. Consequently, harmonized testing must be established
before a fire rating assigned to an element of construction in any one
m e m b e r state will be readily accepted by regulatory authorities through-
out the EU. However, the establishment of harmonized testing is likely to
be expensive, so the Commission is reluctant to provide the necessary
development funding until adequate documentary evidence is made
available concerning variations in the fire ratings assigned by different
testing laboratories.
Cooke I recently conducted a series of 11 standard fire resistance tests
using the three full-size floor furnaces at IBMB (Braunschweig), W F R C
(Warrington) and LPC (Borehamwood). He compared the t e m p e r a t u r e -
time responses of unprotected steel calibration elements and concluded
that the oil-fired IBMB furnace was thermally more severe than its U K
gas-fired counterparts at W F R C and LPC. This conclusion was confirmed
by measurements of the heat flux in the furnace gases adjacent to the
centreline of the furnace.
The present paper provides evidence of significantly different fire
ratings assigned to two elements of building construction when tested in
accordance with the 1985 a m e n d m e n t of BS.476:Part 8:1972 at labora-
tories in the Netherlands and the UK. In each case the test members and
loading frames were assembled by the sponsor, British Steel plc, so as to
be as nearly identical as possible so that any differences in performance
could be ascribed to the furnace or its m o d e of operation.

2 D E T A I L S OF T E S T S P E C I M E N S

2.1 Unprotected steel beams

Ouring the past decade, British Steel plc has sponsored the standard fire
resistance testing of more than 100 steel beams or columns, and the results
of these tests :~ have been made freely available to the public. In
particular, both loaded and unloaded tests have been carried out on
254 x 146 m m x 43 k g / m beams at W F R C and it therefore seemed per-
tinent to undertake a duplicate loaded test on this size of beam at the
IBBC laboratory of T N O in Delft.
 ] 1125 mm ] 1125 mm

i i I i

'Chicken' wire mesh

approximately I0 mm
~ beloj surface
Brickwork
Load Load
Linin¢
• • m • •
II- ~ - - r ]I ......
',~

Steel Beam:
/
Roller Bearing
254 x 146 mm x 43 kg/m
Specimen Support Frame
A O~
Fire
Furnace Wall
Segmented Concrete
Topping Slab:
630 mm x 130 mm thick \
\
,x _
4000 mm Furnace Width

4500 mm Span

Fig. 1. Longitudinal section showing the general arrangement for a simply supported floor beam test assembly.

%0
L~
94 G. Thomson, R. R. Preston

Concrete Topping
Slab Nominally
630 mm x 130 mm thick

'Chicken' wire mesh~

\ Steel Bearing Plate

a~pzoximately i0 mm
i
~ T J Thin Gauge Steel
\ "1 / Rein~rrcing Tang

II • II
II II 4,
I/ II
Ii ~'P II
p..... II
I I

~Furnace
Thermocouple

i_lO0 mm J
I- -i
Steel Beam:
254 x 146 rnm x 43 kg/m

Fig. 2. Vertical section through a floor beam test assembly.

The test specimens, as shown in Figs 1 and 2, were simply supported on

the furnace walls with one end resting on a roller bar and the other on a
steel flat. Loading of the beams was arranged so as to develop a m a x i m u m
bending stress of 165 N / m m 2 at the mid-span position. This was made up
of a dead load (arising from the concrete cover slabs, the test specimen
itself and the short steel sections used in the loading system) and an active
load which was applied by means of two hydraulic jacks at the four points
shown in Fig. 1.
 Fire resistance testing 95

The furnace gas temperatures were measured by means of six thermo-

couples positioned at distances of 100 m m from the lower flange of the
steel test beam, Fig. 2, and they were controlled to follow the standard
t e m p e r a t u r e - t i m e relation specified in BS 476: Part 8 (ISO 834-1). The
temperatures of the steel beams were measured by means of 20
thermocouples, Fig. 3.
During the tests, the vertical deflection at the mid-span position of the
beam was measured both with a linear transducer and with a theodolite.

2.2 Shelf angle floor beam

In this case the concrete cover slabs rested on 125 x 75 x 12 m m steel

angles fa,;tened on each side of the web of the 254 x 146 m m x 43 k g / m
test beam. The test arrangement was as shown in Figs 4 and 5, from which
it can be seen that much of the web and all of the upper flange of the
beam were shielded from direct contact with the hot furnace gases.
As in the test with the unprotected beams, the dead and hydraulically
applied loads were adjusted so that the m a x i m u m bending stress at the
mid-span of the test beam was 165 N / r a m 2. In this case the hydraulic load
was applied through eight load-spreading sections as shown in Figs 4 and
5.
The temperature of the furnace gases was again measured by six
thermocouples, but in this case the temperatures of the test specimens
were measured by 29 thermocouples located as shown in Fig. 6.
The ve:rtical deflection at the mid-span of the beam was measured as in
the test with the unprotected beams.

3 RESULTS

3.1 Unprotected steel beams

The mean temperature (F1 + F2 + F6 + F4 + F7 + 5) of the steel in the

central portion of the b o t t o m flange of the beam is plotted as a function of
time in F'ig. 7. This plot is based on the results of one test at T N O and
three at WFRC, the data from the latter tests being almost identical.
Inspection of Fig. 7 shows that the temperature of the beam tested at
T N O was. always higher at any given time than those evaluated at WFRC.
The mid-span deflection is plotted as a function of time, Fig. 8, for both
sets of te,~ts and it can be seen that in the T N O test the beam began to fail
significantly earlier than in the W F R C tests.
In Fig. 9, the mid-span deflection is plotted as a function of the
96 G. Thomson, R. R. Preston

~, 30 ~
A3, 50 I

A4' 118

169 I
A6 189 1 /

Distance from end of b e a m to thermocouples:- Wl 3.35 m

F3, FI 3.05 m
W2, F6 2.73 m
F2, F8 2.43 m
AI-A7 2.43 m
W3, F7 2.11 m
F4, F5 1.81 m
W4, F9 1.50 m
End of beam 4.84 m

Fig. 3. Position of thermocouples on test beam.

t e m p e r a t u r e of the steel at this position, and it can be seen that the

behaviour of the beams in the two furnaces was m o r e similar than in Fig.
8. It can therefore be assumed that the limiting t e m p e r a t u r e of the beam,
at this particular load ratio, was similar for both test centres and the
principal difference b e t w e e n the tests was the faster heating rate ex-
perienced by the steel in the test at TNO.

3.2 Shelf angle floor beam

The m e a n t e m p e r a t u r e of the steel in the central portion of the b o t t o m

flange of the b e a m is plotted as a function of time in Fig. 10. This plot is
based on one test at T N O and one at WFRC. Inspection of Fig. 10 shows
 Im 500 am 50o _1
r--- - i
Load Load
Four load s p r e a d e r s
each s i d e o f beam:
152 x 152 am x 3 0 k g / m ' Nominal 25 mm
Nominal
I0 mm g a p . ~ _ ~ ..I .
i. ,. C sand t°pp£ng
-ll'
! !

~ D r y sand 150 mm
• ' ' t . . . . --
• . " 75 mm~

/ Angle s i z e : I/~=.~" \ 3
/
Reinforced concrete
125 x 75 x 12 t a m /
floor units:
'ti
'75 am'
(mtnb
• |
Nut and b o l t f i x i n g s
M20 s i z e a t 600 mm c e n t r e s
I
1550 x 550 am x 150 am t h i c k \
(Shown w i t h s q u a r e e n d s )
Beam s i z e :
254 x 146 mm x 43 kg/m

Fig. 4. Vertical section through a shelf angle floor beam.

98 G. Thomson, R. R. Preston

I. 1500am -I
Load
spreader
F
/
Hydraulicloading jacks,
4 each side
]
~ '[.~ ~Concrete floor traits
500 am _,
_
500 Im
~ r and spreader beams = i
I~- 38 mm 26.5 k_q each s i d e -'1 52-
, ' Furnace

floor unit 408 m m : 1052 mm

S _ Bearing p o i n t s
for the concrete
units

Fig. 5. Design details for loading a shelf angle floor beam assembly.

that the temperature of the shelf angle floor beam tested at T N O was
always higher at any given time than that evaluated at WFRC. The
heating rates in both tests were lower than those observed in the
respective test series on the unprotected beams. This reflects the lower
value of the section factor, A m / V , of the shelf angle floor beam, where Am
is the surface area per unit length exposed to fire (mZ/m) and V is the
volume of the test m e m b e r per unit length (m3/m).
The mid-span deflection is plotted as a function of time, Fig. 11, for
both tests and it can be seen that in the T N O test the beam began to fail
significantly earlier than in the W F R C test.
In Fig. 12 the mid-span deflection is plotted as a function of the temper-
ature of the steel at this position and it can be seen that the behaviour of
the beams was similar in both furnaces. This reinforces the point that
the limiting temperature of the shelf angle floor beam, at this particular
load ratio, was similar for both test centres, the principal difference
between the tests being the faster heating rate of the steel in the T N O
furnace.

4 DISCUSSION

The fire resistance tests currently under discussion were carried out in
accordance with the 1985 a m e n d m e n t of BS 476: Part 8: 1972. In testing of
 Fire resistancetesting 99
Fg, I#9, W4, W5 1.57 •
WI0, F7, W3, g6 2.17 m
F6, I#2, W7, W11 2.80 •
181, 1188 3.42 •
FIt, F2, FS, F17 2.50 •
AI-A4 2.50 •
F4, FI0, F5, F16 1.88 •
F1, F12, F3 3.12 •

F6 FI
F2

Fig. 6. Thermocouple locations used in test arrangement.

beams, the failure criteria allow deflection to proceed to beyond L/30

until it exceeds either (a) a rate of deflection greater than L2/9000d, or (b)
a deflection of L/20, where L is the clear span (4.5 m in these tests) and d
is the distance from the top of the structural section to the b o t t o m of the
design tension zone.
In the tests on the unprotected steel beams, the limiting rate of
deflection was already exceeded at a deflection of L/30 (i.e. 150 mm),
making the latter the operative failure criterion. In the case of the shelf
angle floor beams, the limiting rate of deflection was not exceeded during
the test at W F R C and so L/20 became the operative failure criterion. At
TNO, L2/9000d was exceeded after 59 min and L/20 after 60-5 min, so
the former became the operative criterion. The assigned fire resistance
times (and limiting temperatures) could then be summarized as shown in
Table 1.
 900

800

700

600'

o
l~ 500
¢1 TNO
== -.m--VVFRC
¢3
400
E

30O

200

,oo
0 = I I I

0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (min.)
Fig. 7. Temperature of a 254 x 146 mm × 43 kg/m steel beam during a standard fire resistance test.
 166 , _. - _m

140

120

i 100
i=
o

--.e.-.TNO /
~, so
WFRC~

8o

40

20

_ J

5 10 15 20 25
Time (rain.)
Fig. 8. Vertical deflection of steel beams during, standard fire resistance tests.
102 G. Thomson, R. R. Preston

v~
E
QJ

• o

I
, n F
. • , , ......... ~
I

. . . . . . ,-
i I t t
........... m ) F ~ -~"
i ! u.

I I :: • : I
. . . . I : I I I I I .....

db .~

:: )
. . . . 2 I: [ ,o,:::

. . . . . . . . ~!. . . . . . !- ~i~i' ~b ! ~i i

r4

~ m
I •
I o

c=

0
I

0
o o o o 0

('ww) uoRxtUtq] Itt~JeA

 I JUU

1000

(J 800

-e-- TNO
i 600 -m-WFRC

400

2O0

I t I. I ! I

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time (rain.)
Fig. 10. Steel temperatures of shelf angle beams during standard fire resistance tests.
 250

200

E
E 150
c
O
---e-- TNO
0
WFRC

loo

50

I i I I I I

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time (rain.)
Fig. 11. Vertical deflections of shelf angle beams during standard fire resistance tests.
 250

200
, , $ •
, , ]
M
4 •
E I "
E oil
150
0
• . . , , ~j,~ f
i i
0
W: i

omen
~o 100 ,:m m
O N ~

• []

• mm .
50 ' m
' ' '0

• •

i ,r
0 R

0 I O0 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 I000

Steel Temperature (°C)
Fig. 12. Vertical deflection as a function of steel t e m p e r a t u r e during standard fire resistance tests on shelf angle floor beams.
106 G. Thomson, R. R. Preston

TABLE 1
Fire Resistance Times and Limiting Temperatures

WFRC TNO Difference

Unprotected beam 22 min (659°C) 15.5 min (627°C) 29-5% (4.9%)

Shelf angle beam 91 min (970°C) 59 min (913°C) 35.2% (5.9%)

The standard fire resistance tests on unprotected steel beams were

carried out under a load ratio of 0.54, for which BS 5950: Part 8
recommends a limiting temperature of 632°C. This compares favourably
with the values of 659°C (WFRC) and 627°C (TNO) observed in the
present tests.
It is clearly necessary to explain the differences of - 3 0 % in the fire
ratings assigned by the two test centres. Both laboratories followed the
standard procedure, which specifies the temperature-time characteristic
for the furnace gases 100 mm away from the bottom flange of the beam.
However, it is clear that in the TNO furnace the temperature of the steel
beam rose at a faster rate than that of identical beams in the WFRC
furnace. Now the temperature, 0m, of the steel at any time t at the
mid-span position in the bottom (tensile) flange of the beam is given 5 by:

A0 m h 1 Am
. . . . . . (1)
At Cm Pm g

where Cm is the specific heat capacity of the steel, Pm is the density of the
steel, A m / V is the section factor of the beam and h is the effective heat
flux at the position in the beam under investigation.
NOW Cm, ~m and A m / V would be identical for the steel beams at both
test centres and therefore any differences in steel heating rate must be
ascribed to the value of h experienced by each sample. Evidently h at
TNO was greater than at WFRC, probably due to differences in furnace
construction, luminosity of the flame and mode of operation.
The observed steel temperatures can be used to derive an equation of
the form:
0m ~ A 0 "~-A l . t + A2.t 2 + A3.t 3 + . . . A , . I n

where t is the time. From this equation it is possible to derive

instantaneous values of AOm/At from which h can be calculated using eqn
(1). Curves of h / t are shown in Fig. 13 for the tests on the unprotected
steel beams. The TNO test was characterized by a periodic, high heat flux
 2s I

20 ¸

i 15
,'r
• -~o 1
-,-W~Re I

i °
W

0£ I I I I I

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (m|n.)
Fig. 13. Effective heat flux, h, observed during standard fire resistance tests on steel beams.

-,.3
108 G. Thomson, R. R. Preston

during the first 10 min; thereafter the heat flux was maintained at a similar
level to that at WFRC, but by this time the steel sample at T N O was
already at a temperature of 461°C, compared with 376°C at WFRC. This
t e m p e r a t u r e difference (85 K) was maintained up to the failure point
(15.5 min), when the T N O beam was at a temperature of 627°C whereas
the specimen in the W F R C furnace was only at 547°C and the latter
continued to be load-bearing until it reached a temperature of 659°C after
22 min.
The above discussion indicates that harmonization of standard fire
resistance testing will be achieved only when all furnaces develop the
same effective heat flux, h, at the surface of a given test specimen. This
will be possible when reliable methods have been developed for the
measurement and control of the total heat flux at specified points in the
furnace. It will then be necessary to agree on a single incident heat
flux-time characteristic for all test furnaces. A n indication of the form of
this characteristic can be estimated from the data observed during the
present tests on unprotected steel beams.
The effective heat flux, h, is the difference between the incident heat
flux, hi, and that re-emitted by the test specimen, hm, thus:
h=hi-hm or h i = h + h m (2)
It has been shown earlier that h can be calculated from the slope of the
Om/t c u r v e observed during the standard fire resistance test. The value of
hm c a n be estimated from:

hm = E m . O ' ( 0 r n -t- 273) 4

where Era, the emissivity of hot steel, is 0.8 and o-, the Stefan-Boltzmann
constant, is 5.67 x 10-sW/(m2K4). This assumption is considered valid,
since the only concern here is with the passage of heat at the surface of
the test specimen, and the complication of transmission through the
furnace gases is not involved. Using the above assumptions, the values of
h, hm and hence hi have been calculated at regular intervals and plotted as
shown in Fig. 14. Clearly the incident heat flux at T N O was very high
during the early stages of the test and thereafter it increased at a similar
rate to that at WFRC.
It has been suggested that one factor contributing to the high initial heat
flux developed in the T N O furnace could have been the use of
heavy-gauge thermocouples (long response time) to control the tempera-
ture of the furnace gases. The tests described above were carried out in
1989, at which time the temperature of the hot gases in the T N O furnace
was controlled by means of 6 . 0 m m dia. sheathed, mineral-insulated
thermocouples having an insulated hot junction. On the other hand, the
 70 I I

60

~ 50
w
I<

~. 40
| • TNO l
---~-WFRC]
3oi
20

10

] i I

5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (min.)

Fig. 14. Total incident heat flux observed during standard fire resistance tests on steel beams.
110 G. Thomson, R. R. Preston

TABLE 2
Responses of Thermocouples of Different Diameter

Time (rain) 1SO Recorded temp. (°C)

standard
temp. (°C) Furnace 1 Furnace 6

1.5mm 3"Omm 8.0mm 1.5mm 3"Omm 8.0mm

5 576 586 550 450 594 617 392

10 678 672 658 633 678 717 597

gas temperature in the W F R C furnace was controlled by means of 1.5 m m

dia. probes having an exposed hot junction. For such thermocouples,
Pyrotenax has reported response times, after introduction into a hot water
bath at 90°C, of 3.90 s (17.9 K/s) and 0.24 s (292 K/s) respectively. During
the first minute of a standard fire resistance test, the furnace gas
temperature is required to rise from 20 to 349°C (i.e. at a rate of 5.5 K/s).
The data given above suggest that both the 1.5 and 6 . 0 m m dia.
thermocouples should be sufficiently sensitive to respond at this heating
rate.
However, more recent tests, on insulated steel samples, have been
carried out in one-metre-cube furnaces in several laboratories in the U K . 6
In two of these tests it was possible to record the response of thermo-
couples of different diameter. This is shown in Table 2.
In both tests, the 8.0 m m dia. thermocouple indicated significantly lower
temperatures than the 1.5 and 3.0 m m probes, and if it had been used as
the control thermocouple, then it would have been necessary to increase
the heat flux in the furnace to raise the temperature of the 8.0 m m dia.
p r o b e to that required by ISO 834-1. After considering this and other
data, the authors of the report concluded: 'The failure times for the
specimens occurred earlier when using heavier, slower thermocouples
including the "plate t h e r m o m e t e r " and A S T M types. This trend was as
expected with an increasing furnace heating rate n e e d e d to bring the
heavier control probes up to the standard curve temperature'. Such
evidence supports the theory that temperature control of the T N O furnace
in 1989 was more sluggish than that at WFRC. The present authors have
been informed that the temperature control of the T N O furnace has
subsequently been modified to a form similar to that used at WFRC.
No doubt other factors such as differences in furnace design and
variation in combustion pattern also contributed to the magnitude of the
incident heat flux observed during the two tests. If these factors caused
 Fire resistance testing 111

differences; in the ratio of convective to radiative heat flux, then they

would also affect the gas temperature recorded at any instant by the
control thermocouples, as the latter have different sensitivities to the two
forms of heat flux.
Two significant projects are currently in hand. In the first one (Dr P.
Rubini, Cranfield University, personal communication), computational
fluid dynamics is being used to provide a detailed description of the heat
transfer regime experienced by a specimen in a standard fire resistance
test furnace. Once fully operational, this model will allow comparisons to
be made between different test furnaces. At the same time, other workers
(Dr D. J. O'Connor, University of Ulster, personal communication) are
developing reliable instruments for the continuous monitoring of heat flux
at various positions in a test furnace. Recent tests at WFRC, using two
types of flux meter, indicated incident heat flux-time characteristics
similar to that shown in Fig. 14. If successful, knowledge gained from the
first of these projects could be used to modify the design and mode of
operation of existing test furnaces to achieve harmonization, while the
availability of reliable flux meters could ensure that in future all samples
are subjected to the same incident heat flux-time characteristic.
There may be a case for European furnaces to adopt the WFRC heating
characteri,;tic, because:
(a) it is already well documented;
(b) the heating rates of steel members in this furnace are already
known 7 as a function of size and shape, which allows substantial time
saving during fire engineering calculations;
(c) structural members assigned fire classifications at WFRC are known
to provide satisfactory performance in service, even though these are
less con~servative than fire ratings assigned by some other European test
centres.

5 CONCLUSIONS

1. All standard fire resistance test furnaces within the EU are to be

operated in compliance with EN 1363-1 (ISO 834-1), which specifies the
temperature of the furnace gases, 100 mm from the specimen, at any
instant during the test.
2. However, a given specimen can currently be heated at significantly
different rates depending on the test furnace used. This is considered to
be due to differences in furnace design, type of fuel used and mode of
operation, changing the effective heat flux at the surface of the test
specimen.
112 G. Thomson, R. R. Preston

3. A comparison between standard fire resistance tests carried out in

1989 on identical specimens at TNO, Delft, and WFRC, Warrington,
has shown a 30% difference in the assigned fire resistance times even
though the limiting temperatures were very similar. Part of the above
difference may be attributed to the long response time of the thermo-
couples used to control the temperature of the hot gases in the T N O
furnace at that time.
4. It is concluded that harmonized fire resistance testing will be achieved
only when all furnaces subject the test piece to the same incident heat
flux-time characteristic. The attainment of this objective will d e p e n d on
the continued support and success of current projects involving techni-
cal developments in furnace design and the measurement and control of
heat flux at the surface of the test specimen.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank Mr A.T. Sheridan, Acting Manager, Swinden

Technology Centre, British Steel plc, for permission to publish this paper.
They also acknowledge the support of Mr J.T. Robinson, M a n a g e r - -
Market Development, British Steel plc, during the experimental
programme.

REFERENCES

1. Cooke, G. M. E., Use of plate thermometers for standardizing fire resistance

furnaces. B.R.E. Occasional Paper No. 58, Building Research Establishment,
1994.
2. Wainman, D. E. & Kirby, B. R., Compendium of UK standard fire test data
on unprotected structural steel--No. 1. British Steel Technical, 1987.
3. Wainman, D. E. & Kirby, B. R., Compendium of UK standard fire test data
on unprotected structural steel--No. 2. British Steel Technical, 1989.
4. Wainman, D. E. & Preston, R. R., Compendium of UK standard fire test data
on unprotected structural steel--No.3. British Steel Technical, 1990.
5. Malhotra, H. L., Design of Fire Resisting Structures. Surrey University Press,
1982, p. 135.
6. Evaluation of methods of temperature measurement for the control of fire
resistance furnaces by the Fire Test Study Group, part sponsored by the
Department of the Environment, DoE Research Contract PECD 7•6•292.
1995.
7. Wainman, D. E., Kirby, B. R., Tomlinson, L. N., Kay, T. R. & Preston, R. R.,
The behaviour of unprotected steel floor beams in the standard fire resistance
test--compendium of predicted temperature profiles. British Steel Technical,
1990.