Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1641–1652

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Structural responses of restrained steel columns at elevated temperatures.

Part 1: Experiments
Kang-Hai Tan, Wee-Siang Toh, Zhan-Fei Huang ∗ , Guan-Hwee Phng
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639798, Singapore

Received 8 March 2006; received in revised form 1 December 2006; accepted 4 December 2006
Available online 10 January 2007

Abstract

This paper outlines a research program on an experimental investigation to determine the failure time of unprotected steel columns subjected
to various axial restraint ratios. Axial restraints were applied to simulate the thermal restraint effects due to adjacent cooler parts of a steel
framed structure in fire. All columns had an effective length of 1.74 m, and were divided into 4 groups according to their minor-axis slenderness
ratios of 45, 55, 81 and 97, respectively. The columns were axially loaded and exposed to a monotonically increasing heating condition. Initial
imperfections such as column crookedness and load eccentricity were measured by a specially designed facility. The test results show that axial
restraints, as well as initial imperfections, significantly reduce the failure times of axially-loaded steel columns. By contrast, bearing friction
substantially retards column failure times. These effects are represented by flexural springs at both ends of a column specimen. Besides, a simple
but reliable Rankine approach is used to compute the column failure times. The Rankine predictions agree well with experimental results.
c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Axial restraint; Buckling; Failure time; Elevated temperature test; Steel columns

1. Introduction fires, gas temperature developed at a mean rate of around 5 to

Steel is a widely-used construction material due to its high
strength, speed of erection as well as aesthetic appeal. However,
traditional hot-rolled steel is vulnerable in fires as that would
degrade steel strength and stability markedly. Thus, in practice
to reduce the risk of injury, death and loss of property, almost
every main steel member within a building is insulated with fire
protection materials whether or not they are actually required.
Traditionally, fire resistances of steel columns are obtained
through tests conduced on a simply supported column subjected
to standard fires such as ISO834. There are two main limitations
of these tests.
Firstly, in most building fires, gas temperatures develop
much more slowly compared to ‘standard’ fires. The
Cardington series of fire tests showed that during compartment
∗ Corresponding address: Nanyang Technological University, Department of
Structures and Mechanics, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 50
Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798, Singapore. Tel.: +65 67904851; fax: +65
67916697.
E-mail address: czfhuang@ntu.edu.sg (Z.-F. Huang).
15 ◦ C/min before flash-over took place [1,2].
Secondly, boundary restraints experienced by an actual
heated column within a building have not been considered. The
Broadgate development fire [6] and the series of Cardington
fire tests [1–5] have shown that strong interactions exist among
slabs, columns and beams. For columns in a compartment
fire, they are likely to be axially and rotationally restrained
by their adjoining unheated members. Nevertheless, traditional
fire resistance tests for columns are over-conservative and do
not take into account the true building behaviour. Although
rotational restraint has a beneficial effect on steel columns, axial
restraint has a detrimental impact on the columns in the pre-
buckling stage. Therefore, there is a need to study the effect of
axial restraint on the behaviour of steel columns under elevated
temperatures.
There are three main objectives of our test programme, viz.
• Investigating the effect of column initial imperfections on
failure times. For each test, the column initial crookedness
and load eccentricity are measured, while flexural springs
are proposed for simulating the bearing friction in the FE
models.

c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0141-0296/$ - see front matter

doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.12.005
1642 K.-H. Tan et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1641–1652
Nomenclature
B Breadth of an I-section (m);
e Load eccentricity (m);
E 020 Young’s modulus at ambient temperature (MPa);
H Height of an I-section (m);
kc Column axial stiffness at ambient temperature
(N/m);
kl Axial spring stiffness (N/m);
lc Column length (m);
N External axial load (N);
P Column internal axial force (N);
Po Column internal axial force at the beginning of
heating (N);
Pu20 Column axial load capacity at ambient tempera-
ture (N);
R Load ratio;
tw Web thickness of an I-section (m);
tcr Column failure time (min);
tf Flange thickness of an I-section (m);
u Longitudinal movement at column top end (m);
u slk Mechanical slack (m);
βl Axial restraint ratio;
δmid Column mid-height deflection (m);
λ Column slenderness ratio.
• Examining the axial restraint effect on the column failure
time or temperature. To the authors’ best knowledge of the
published technical literature, the reviewed two series of
tests [7] and [9] are the only two experimental studies for
such an examination on the axial restraint effect. To acquire
a better understanding of axial restraint effect on the fire
resistance of axially loaded steel columns, it is necessary to
conduct more experimental tests on real-size columns under
axially restrained conditions.
• Proposing a simple and direct approach for calculating the
column failure time at elevated temperature.
Similar tests have been conducted on restrained steel
columns in the past. In 1998, Ali et al. [7] reported a series of
test on 37 axially restrained steel columns subjected to quasi-
standard fires. Different slenderness ratios, axial load levels
and restraint levels were investigated. It was found that axial
restraint reduced column fire resistance. Besides, the onset of
failure in stocky columns was more gradual than in slender
columns, which showed sudden failure due to instability.
However, numerical comparisons with test results show that
there is room for improvement: (1) initial imperfections
such as specimen initial crookedness and load eccentricity
were not measured; for concentrically-loaded columns at
elevated temperature, these imperfections will significantly
reduce the column failure temperature. (2) There existed
marked differences between the finite element (hereafter: FE)
predictions and the experimental data when comparing the
column internal axial forces, displacements as well as critical
temperatures. This, in the authors’ point of view, is due to
the lack of measurement of (i) initial imperfections and (ii)
actual restraint level on the heated columns; (3) In their ensuing
FE analyses [8], it was claimed that end friction had limited
effect on the column buckling temperature. It is felt that this
conclusion is worthy of re-investigation.
The series of tests will focus on the investigation of
these secondary effects on the structural behaviour of axially-
restrained steel columns at elevated temperature. Specimen
initial crookedness will be measured by a specially designed
rig, while load eccentricity will be measured in situ (details
are included in Section 2.3). Besides, the tests will show
that friction significantly retards column buckling at elevated
temperature. By adopting a relatively accurate mechanical
model for simulating friction effects, the FE model is able to
model closely the whole collapse process of a heated column.
In 2000, Rodrigues et al. [9] conducted an experimental
programme on small-scale compressed steel rectangular bars
of 460 mm length with restrained thermal elongation. The
gas temperature rose at a mean rate of 5 ◦ C/min. The
slenderness ratios studied were 80, 133, 199 and 319. A
total of 168 columns were tested to failure to investigate
parameters such as slenderness ratios, load eccentricities and
restraint ratios. The tests showed that axial restraint had a
significant adverse effect on the fire resistance of axially loaded
columns, but not on eccentrically loaded ones. Nevertheless,
neither the specimen sizes nor the slenderness ratios greater
than 133 could realistically represent practical column sizes
and slenderness ratios used in actual construction. Moreover,
the FE predictions of column internal axial forces using the
FINEFIRE program did not agree very well with experimental
results. In the authors’ opinion, this mainly resulted from a
lack of measurement of actual axial restraint on heated bars.
In comparison, the test programme in this paper used only
I-section hot-rolled steel columns with practical slenderness
ratios ranging from 45 to 97. Although deliberate introduction
of large load eccentricity can diminish the secondary effects in
the column behaviour, considering the objectives of our study,
only axial loads are applied in the tests.
Our investigation is composed of two parts. This paper,
Part 1 of the study, presents the experimental results of 19
steel columns conducted recently at Nanyang Technological
University. These axially loaded columns are of practical
sizes with intermediate to high slenderness ratios. They were
subjected to a realistic mean heating rate of 8 ◦ C/min which
is within the practical range of 5–15 ◦ C [1,2]. Different axial
restraint ratios were investigated. A companion paper [10], Part
2 of the study, will present the FE simulations incorporating
secondary effects, viz. end friction and mechanical slack.
2. Experimental investigation
2.1. Test set-up
This paper outlines an experimental programme of
restrained column tests under elevated temperature. The test
set-up is shown in Fig. 1. A horizontal self-reaction test rig of
ultra high stiffness was designed to minimise rig movement.
The rig has a testing capacity of 5000 kN, an overall dimension
 K.-H. Tan et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1641–1652
Fig. 1. Experimental set-up.
of 9.2 m×3 m×3 m (height), with a movable bulkhead that can
be adjusted to accommodate columns up to 4.2 m long. Loading
was applied horizontally. Knuckle bearings were used at both
ends of a specimen to provide pinned end conditions. Columns
were orientated such that they bent about the weak axis.
2.2. Test specimens
Four series of bare steel columns were tested to failure
in this study, namely, RS45, RS55, RS81 and RS97; the
numerals refer to their slenderness ratios. Four different hot-
rolled sections were selected, namely, UC152 × 152 × 37,
UB203 × 133 × 25, UB152 × 89 × 16 and UB127 × 76 × 13,
corresponding to minor axis slenderness ratios λ of 45, 55,
81 and 97, respectively. In each series, a column was tested
to failure at ambient temperature to obtain the column load
capacity Pu20 . For elevated temperature tests, these four series
of pinned–pinned steel columns were subjected to four working
axial loads P0 , which were fixed at 50% of the respective Pu20 .
1643
The magnitudes of P0 are shown in Table 2. It is observed
that P0 of RS55 4, RS81 2, RS97 1, RS97 2 and RS97 4 are
less than their peers in the same series. This is because (1)
another pair of bearings, being ground and greased to minimise
the end friction effect, were used for these 5 specimens; and
(2) the imposed working load P0 took 50% of Pu20 predicted
numerically which excluded end friction effects. However, it is
felt that exclusion of friction effects on the calculation of Pu20
for these five columns somewhat underestimated actual load
capacities. Through numerical study the authors were aware
that for the ground knuckle bearings, friction effects werr still
significant albeit every effort has not been spared to reduce
it. This is confirmed by the FE models incorporating friction
effects, which agree better with test results compared with the
same FE models without friction effects.
Although the physical dimension of columns is 1.5 m long,
they have an effective length of 1.74 m when measured from
the knuckle bearings at both ends. A summary of the end plate
1644 K.-H. Tan et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1641–1652

Table 1
Test specimen data

Column Section/slender. ratio λ e H B tf tw i1 i2 i3 E 020 f y20 (MPa)

no. (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (GPa)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
RS45 1 1.74 161.5 155.8 10.9 7.6 −0.7 −0.8 −1.0 201 326
RS45 2 UC152 × 152 × 37/(45) 2.94 161.5 155.7 11.0 7.6 −0.8 −0.4 0.1 201 326
RS45 3 6.49 162.0 155.7 11.0 7.6 −0.1 −0.5 −0.4 201 326

RS55 1 3.19 203.3 135.4 7.7 5.41 0.8 1.0 0.9 205 357
RS55 2 3.43 203.1 135.5 7.6 5.41 −0.1 −0.3 −0.7 205 357
UB203 × 133 × 25/(55)
RS55 3 5.05 203.2 135.5 7.7 5.41 −0.7 −0.5 −1.1 205 357
RS55 4 3.67 204.4 133.7 7.46 5.40 0.3 0.0 −0.3 221 344

RS81 1 2.38 152.4 88.9 8.1 4.78 0.1 −0.4 −0.8 200 312
RS81 2 0.65 154.0 90.1 7.0 5.16 −0.3 0.2 0.2 215 295
UB152 × 89 × 16/(81)
RS81 3 1.99 154.7 90.5 7.9 4.54 −0.5 −0.6 −0.8 208 332
RS81 4 6.29 154.1 89.9 7.1 5.16 −0.9 0.2 0.1 215 305

RS97 1 4.08 127.9 76.2 7.09 4.54 −0.4 −0.6 −0.1 200 320
RS97 2 4.16 128.3 76.8 7.2 4.36 −0.3 0.0 0.0 200 320
UB127 × 76 × 13/(97)
RS97 3 1.54 127.8 76.0 7.10 4.54 −0.2 −0.2 −0.8 200 316
RS97 4 1.65 129.9 76.4 7.94 4.54 −0.2 −1.0 −0.8 200 316

Table 2
Column test results
Slender. ratio λ Column no. P0 (kN) kc (kN/mm) kl (kN/mm) βl test (min)
tcr RK (min)
tcr eTRK

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

RS45 1 708.5 0.00 0.000 78.4 105.5 0.346
45 RS45 2 708.5 520.5 33.38 0.064 78.1 95.3 0.198
RS45 3 702.7 41.02 0.079 59.9 89.9 0.485

RS55 1 444.3 0.00 0.000 68.9 98.8 0.433

RS55 2 439.9 22.07 0.060 62.4 81.2 0.289
55 369.8
RS55 3 440.0 31.42 0.085 54.9 74.9 0.349
RS55 4 387.0 39.67 0.107 49.6 72.0 0.418

RS81 1 260.6 0.00 0.000 59.9 83.2 0.388

RS81 2 195.0 18.34 0.074 61.2 77.6 0.267
81 246.5
RS81 3 260.0 25.39 0.103 44.8 37.3 −0.114
RS81 4 260.4 31.40 0.127 36.6 33.3 −0.118

RS97 1 134.0 0.00 0.000 73.2 77.6 0.060

RS97 2 133.9 14.70 0.076 47.4 30.7 −0.331
97 194.6
RS97 3 179.0 21.62 0.111 34.0 29.2 −0.135
RS97 4 136.1 30.11 0.155 38.7 28.0 −0.261

Mean 0.152

eccentricities e, section dimensions (width b, height H , flange
thickness t f and web thickness tw ) and initial crookedness
along the column length measured prior to testing (i 1 , i 2 and
i 3 denote imperfections at L/4, L/2 and 3L/4, respectively)
are shown in Table 1. In the nomenclature, the 2-digit number
following RS (for restraint steel) denotes the respective column
slenderness ratio about the minor axis. The 1-digit number
following the underscore refers to columns subjected to an axial
restraint ratio βl which is defined in Eq. (1). With the number
increasing from 1 to 4, βl increases from zero to around 0.16
(see Table 2).
βl = kl /kc
where kc = E 020 A/lc denotes the column axial stiffness at
room temperature and kl is the axial restraint stiffness. In the
computation of kc , the parameters E 020 , A and lc denote elastic
modulus at room temperature, measured cross-sectional area
and column effective length, respectively.
Column RS45 4 was not tested because it was not feasible
to achieve the required restraint level for the stocky column
based on the existing test rig. Material tests were conducted on
coupons at ambient temperature and measured values of elastic
modulus and yield strength are shown in Table 1.
2.3. Initial crookedness and load eccentricity measurement
Initial out-of-plane deflections of specimens were measured
(1) by the scanning system as shown in Fig. 2(a), which consisted
 K.-H. Tan et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1641–1652 1645

Fig. 2. (a) Out-of-plane crookedness measurement set-up. (b) Initial crookedness of RS97 1.

of one measuring frame, adjustable sitting table, vertical line

LVDT, transverse LVDT and automatic hoisting system. A
transverse LVDT was connected to a line LVDT which recorded
the hoisting distance as the former traversed up and down the
column set up in the rig. The reference line was inscribed
on the mid-depth of the column web. Measurement started
from a point on the reference line which was 50 mm above
the specimen bottom to allow clearance for the LVDT roller.
The procedure consisted of three stages: (a) crane a specimen
vertically onto a base plate; (b) calibrate initial positions of
both line and transverse LVDTs; (c) measure out-of-plane
crookedness along the height of specimen.
Fig. 2(b) shows the initial crookedness of specimen RS97 1,
which resembles a half sine curve with a magnitude of 1.1 mm
at about mid-height.
Load eccentricities were measured in situ. The specimens Fig. 3. L-shaped electric furnace.
were lowered vertically into the test rig through the top face
of the furnace, by removing the top cover of the furnace. A and configured to provide various heating schemes, such
laser-emitting device was horizontally mounted onto the center as three-face or four-face heating for different specimen
of the actuator rod (see Fig. 4), and was aligned in the same lengths. Each furnace had four units of heating modules
direction as the column web. Since the knuckle bearings were made of metallic spiral heating elements embedded in foamed
only allowed to rotate in the vertical plane, only vertical load ceramic fibre insulation. The L-shape module consisted of 2
eccentricity was important. The vertical distance between the heating surfaces with areas of 575 × 1200 mm2 and 800 ×
beam of light emitted and the center of the web, which was 1200 mm2 . The furnace rating was 22 kW/400 V/2 phase,
pre-marked by a sharp metal inscriber, was measured at two with a maximum operating temperature of 1050 ◦ C and a
ends of a specimen using a digital calliper with a tolerance of maximum heating rate of 12 ◦ C/min. For the column tests
0.01 mm. The eccentricities e in mm shown in Table 1 with 2 in this study, two L-shaped electrical furnaces were used
decimal place accuracy were the mean values of two measured to provide a uniform heating condition all round the cross-
load eccentricities at each end of a specimen. section. A constant heating rate of 8 ◦ C/min was chosen for all
elevated temperature tests to achieve more uniform temperature
2.4. Heating facility
distribution across the specimen section and along the member
Steel specimens were uniformly heated by electrical length. This rate is within the range of practical heating
furnaces. L-shaped electrical furnaces (Fig. 3) were fabricated rates between 2 and 50 ◦ C/min for the material properties
1646 K.-H. Tan et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1641–1652
Fig. 4. Axial restraint system.
of carbon steel at elevated temperatures in accordance with
EC3 Pt.1.2 [11]. Furnace temperatures were monitored by
thermocouples located at the centre of each heating surface.
2.5. Loading facility and axial restraint system
Applied loads were controlled and recorded by a 5000 kN
INSTRON servo-hydraulic actuator. Thermal expansion of the
steel column was restrained by a transverse steel beam, simply
supported on a set of reaction A-frames, as shown in (Fig. 4).
This was to simulate axial restraint from adjoining unheated
structures. By using transverse beams with different cross-
sections, different axial restraint stiffnesses kl could be applied.
Two load cells placed at the supports of the transverse beam
measured the restrained force. Mid-span deflection of the
restraint beam was measured. The stiffness of the restraint
system was calculated from the ratio of total restrained force
to total measured deflection at the beam mid span. Table 2
shows the external load P0 , measured axial restraint stiffnesses
kl , column stiffnesses kc , and axial restraint ratio βl (cf. Eq.
(1)).
2.6. Deflection acquisition instrumentation
Nine Linear Variable Displacement Transducers (LVDT1
to LVDT9) were used to measure the column displacements.
For measurements of lateral deflection, specially fabricated
probes were used to transfer readings from the column inside
the furnace to external LVDTs (Fig. 5). The displacement
measurement probe was made of an aluminium alloy support
and a highly refractory Alsint 99.7 rod (Fig. 5). The Alsint 99.7
rod has good thermal expansion shock resistance, high flexible
strength of 300 MPa, and low coefficient of thermal expansion
with a value of 7.8 × 10−6 K−1 . The thermal expansion of the
Fig. 5. Displacement measurement probe.
Fig. 6. Location of LVDTs on column specimen.
rod was calibrated and measured during elevated temperature
tests, and subsequently subtracted from the column lateral
deflections. The locations of LVDTs in the test set-up are shown
in Fig. 6.
2.7. Temperature acquisition
Temperatures of the inner atmosphere of the furnace as
well as the specimen were closely monitored by 19 K-type
thermocouples. All thermocouples were connected to a Fluke
HYDRA temperature acquisition system and temperatures
were recorded at fifteen-second intervals. The temperature
distribution across the column section was measured at three
locations, namely, at 150 mm from both ends and at mid-
height (Fig. 7(a)). Across each section, five thermocouples
were installed onto the flanges and web, marked as T1 to T5
(Fig. 7(b)). There were also four thermocouples installed along
the web (marked as W1 to W4 in Fig. 7(a)), so as to monitor the
temperature distribution along the column length. Test results
showed that the temperature distribution across the section
was quite uniform. The mean temperature was calculated from
thermocouples T1 to T5 (Fig. 7(b)) to represent the mean steel
temperature at each cross section.
3. Ambient temperature test results
As mentioned in Section 2.2, one column was tested to
failure at ambient temperature for each series. In total, there
were 4 columns tested to obtain their load capacity Pu20 . Fig. 8
 K.-H. Tan et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1641–1652 1647

Fig. 7. Location of thermocouples on column specimen.

shows the development of mid-height deflection δ up to column

failure. Obviously, with column slenderness λ increasing from
45 to 97, the column load capacity Pu20 decreased markedly
due to P–δ effects. It is also observed that before buckling,
specimens RS81 and RS97 did not show as much unloading
behaviour as RS45 and RS55. The reasons are:
• The load capacity Pu20 of a more slender column is
dominated by stability rather than strength. Once a pin–pin
supported column begins to lose its stability, its lateral
displacements will increase rapidly under external load.
• The actuator was in the load-control model, and was not able
to unload sufficiently quickly prior to column buckling.

4. Elevated temperature test results

Transient-state tests were conducted on columns, simulating

rising temperature in real fires. The objective of this study was
to investigate the effect of axial restraint on the failure time of
a steel column. A certain predetermined working load N was
applied to each specimen before the fire test began and was held
constant during the test. The working load was taken as 50% of
Pu20 , the column buckling load at ambient temperature. Axial
restraint was applied to the column before the commencement
of heating. Thereafter, the temperature was increased until the Fig. 8. Column load capacity test at ambient temperature.
column buckled.
1648 K.-H. Tan et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1641–1652
Fig. 9. Temperature–time relationship for RS55 2.
Fig. 10. Temperature profile along column length for RS55 2.
Results of temperature distributions, mid-height lateral
deflections, axial displacements, collapse temperature and axial
restraint effect are discussed in the following sections.
Fig. 11. Mid-height displacement–temperature relationship.
4.1. Temperature distribution
Fig. 9 shows typical temperature variations for the column
tests. The temperature history of Column RS55 2 is used for
illustration. The temperature histories measured at different
sections along the column are plotted in the same figure for
comparison. The temperature at the column middle section was
consistently higher than those at both ends throughout heating.
This was due to the heat loss at both ends of the column through
the steel knuckle bearings located outside the furnace although
both column ends had been wrapped with insulation material
before connecting to the end knuckle-bearings. The column
end, around 250 mm long, was cooler than the middle portion,
where the temperature was much more uniformly distributed
(Fig. 10). Therefore, the cross-sectional mean temperature
at column mid-height was used to represent the specimen
temperature in the discussion of buckling temperature.
4.2. Mid-height displacement
Fig. 11(a) to (d) show the mid-height displacement δmid
versus time relationships for elevated temperature tests. The
initial displacements (before heating was applied) depend on
the values of load eccentricities from fabrication and initial
crookedness. The greater the initial imperfections, the greater
are the initial lateral deflection when subjected to a load ratio
R = 0.50. Fig. 11(a) and (b) show that for stockier columns
with λ = 45 and 55, lateral deflection develops more gradually
than for slender columns with λ = 81 and 97 as shown in
Fig. 11(c) and (d), respectively. A runaway lateral deflection
is noted prior to column failure. Obviously, this is owing to
 K.-H. Tan et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1641–1652
Fig. 12. Axial deformation–temperature relationship.
the significant P–δ effect on the columns before buckling.
However, there are a few unexpected test results.
The behaviour of Column RS81 2 is a departure from the
norm. From Fig. 11(c), RS81 2 with βl = 0.074 survived
longer than RS81 1 without restraint. Here the column failure
time tcr is defined as the moment when the column internal
axial force P decreases to its beginning value P0 . This is
because compared to the other columns in the RS81 series,
the actual external force N applied on RS81 2 was lower.
Moreover, the end friction has greater effect on this column by
delaying the time to collapse. Fig. 12(c) shows that beyond 57
min of heating, the rapidly growing u was retarded at the end of
heating on RS81 2. This can explain why in Fig. 13(c) there is
a noticeable plateau for the column internal actual force P on
RS81 2. It should be noted that the difference between P and N
(external loading) was contributed by the transverse steel beam
and was proportional to the column end movement u. That is,
P − N = kl (u − u slk )
where kl is the transverse beam stiffness, u is the longitudinal
expansion of the heated column (Fig. 16), and u slk the
mechanical slack (constant). Clearly, Eq. (2) illustrates that if u
does not change, the beam reaction P − N will be kept constant.
4.3. Axial deformation
Fig. 12(a) to (d) show the column axial displacement-versus-
time relationships for all specimens. Generally, with an increase
in axial restraint, the maximum axial displacement attained
decreases. This indicates an inverse relationship between
maximum axial deformation and axial restraint. This is because
1649
for a higher axial restraint, the build-up of induced column
internal force P becomes faster. This in turn leads to a lower
buckling time and lower associated thermal expansion.
As discussed in Section 4.2, the test result of Column
RS81 2 is outside expectation. At the end of heating, the
displacement at the column end was retarded due to the
presence of end friction and lower force N exerted on the
column. In contrast, other columns in the same series contacted
abruptly (Fig. 12(c)).
A general trend between the axial restraint ratio and column
failure time tcr can be observed from the curves plotted in
Figs. 11 and 12 and Table 2 (detailed values of tcr ). That is,
for columns of the same slenderness ratio λ, an increase in
axial restraint ratio reduces their tcr . For RS97 series columns,
Table 2 shows that their failure time tcr reduces from 73.2 to
38.7 min when βl increases from zero to 0.155.
4.4. Effect of axial restraint
(2)
The development of column internal axial force P will be
examined in this section to study the axial restraint effect.
Fig. 13(a) to (d) show the relationships between P/P0 and time
for all columns, where P0 denotes the measured value of P at
the beginning of heating (the subscript ‘0’ denotes t = 0).
The axial compressive force from the transverse restraint
beam built up in the columns when they are heated up. At the
beginning of every elevated temperature test, P/P0 started from
unity. As temperature increased, the restraint force developed
and P/P0 increased in value. After some time, P/P0 reached
a maximum as the restraint force approached a peak value.
This was followed by an abrupt drop of P/P0 , implying
1650 K.-H. Tan et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1641–1652
Fig. 13. P/Po –temperature relationship.
Fig. 14. Global buckling of a steel column.
that the column had buckled. Fig. 13(a) to (d) show that for
columns with similar slenderness ratios, generally one with a
higher axial restraint would experience a higher rate of increase
in P/P0 with increasing temperature. This can be observed
from the increasing gradient of the P/P0 graphs at the pre-
buckling stage. The graphs also show that stocky columns
would experience gradual shortening prior to buckling, whereas
slender columns would buckle abruptly. For instance, Fig. 13(a)
shows that the stockiest columns at λ = 45 experienced a gentle
peak before buckling occurred. On the other hand, the most
slender columns at λ = 97 in Fig. 13(d) buckled immediately
after reaching their maximum load ratio P/P0 . Fig. 14 shows a
typical steel column that failed in the global buckling mode.
It should be pointed out that in reality, a heated axially-
restrained column normally will experience post-buckling
behaviour during contraction stages. This has been investigated
theoretically by Franssen [12] and Wang [13]. However, due
to the limitation of the test set-up, the post-buckling responses
were not examined in this study.
4.5. Effect of slenderness ratio
Besides the axial restraint ratio βl , the column slenderness
ratio λ is another prime factor affecting the failure time of a
steel column [14–17]. The developments of P/Po on columns
RS45 2, RS55 2, RS81 2 and RS97 2 are shown in Fig. 15(a),
while Fig. 15(b) is for RS45 3, RS55 3, RS81 3 and RS97 3.
The four columns in Fig. 15(a) were subjected to approximately
the same range of βl (ranging between 0.060 to 0.076, cf.
Table 2), while βl of the other four columns in Fig. 15(b)
ranges from 0.079 to 0.111. Clearly, Fig. 15 illustrates that
increasing slenderness ratio significantly decreased the column
failure time, which is referred to the intersection of a curve to
the reference line. Again, the fact that Column RS81 2 failed
after RS55 2 is due to the presence of end friction and the lower
force N exerted on RS81 2.
In general, slender columns failed at lower temperature due
to more significant P–δ effects. The difference in gradients to
the four curves demonstrates that these columns were axially
restrained to different levels.
5. Analytical prediction vs experimental results
In design practice, engineers normally use either a FE
approach or simplified design equations/charts to compute the
column failure temperature/time [11]. Nevertheless, non-linear
programs such as FEMFAN2D may not always be handy for
analysis and simple equations/charts suggested by design codes
may not be applicable to axially restrained columns where the
internal axial force keeps on varying during heating. Under such
conditions, a reliable analytical approach such as the modified
 K.-H. Tan et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1641–1652 1651

Fig. 16. An isolated column with linear elastic spring.

Fig. 15. Effect of slenderness ratio on P/Po development.

Rankine equation proposed by Huang and Tan [18] comes in

handy. The equation is expressed as:
!n !n !n
1 1 1 1
= + T + (3)
PRT PtT PE PPT

where PRT denotes column Rankine load at elevated RK and t test .

Fig. 17. Comparison of tcr cr
temperature T ; PtT is column creep load, PET column Euler
load without creep effect and PPT denotes column squashing computed first and then translated to the failure time tcr in
load. Superscript n represents the imperfection index that minutes based on the respective experimental temperature–time
considers the effects of residual stress, load eccentricity and curves. The structural model for an axially-restrained column
initial crookedness [19]. In practical applications, the value of is shown in Fig. 16 where an elastic spring of stiffness kl is
n varies from 1.0 to 3.0 [19]. In terms of the column buckling adopted to represent the transverse beam.
curve at room temperature, EC3 Pt.1.1 [20] categorises steel Table 2 compares the column failure times predicted by
columns into four groups, namely, ‘a’, ‘b’, ‘c’ and ‘d’. It should the Rankine approach and from experimental results, which
are denoted as tcrRK and t test , respectively. For computing the
be noted that all tested columns belong to group ‘c’, which are cr
RK and t test , index eRK is included
associated with n = 1.1 (see Fig. 1 in [19]). relative difference between tcr cr T
This paper adopts the EC3 Pt.1.2 material model in the in Table 2 where:
computation of PRT . Thus, creep effects are not considered RK − t test
tcr
explicitly, and Eq. (3) is simplified as: eTRK = test
cr
. (5)
tcr
!1.1 !1.1 !1.1
1 1 1 For clarity, comparisons of the failure time are also shown in
= + . (4) Fig. 17.
PRT PET PPT
Clearly, from Table 2, all results demonstrate that the
Clearly, Eq. (4) takes both strength and stability into account in stronger the axial restraint, the lower is the failure time.
the computation of column critical load. Generally speaking, Rankine predictions are reasonably close
The actual values of yield strength f y20 , elastic modulus E 020 , to tcrtest for slender columns, i.e. Series RS81 and RS97. In

spring stiffness kl and mechanical slack are considered in the
analyses. Nevertheless, the friction effect is not accounted for
and the temperature distribution along and across a column
section is assumed to be uniform. The failure temperatures are
contrast, for more stocky columns, i.e., Series RS45 and RS55,
Fig. 17 shows that tcrRK is greater than t test . This can be due to the
cr
fact that EC3 model significantly over-predicts the steel yield
f yT at the range 400–500 ◦ C (see Fig. 14 in [12]), where Series
1652 K.-H. Tan et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1641–1652
RS45 and RS55 columns failed. According to the Rankine
formula Eq. (4), these column failures are dominated by
strength instead of stability. For instance, at 448 ◦ C, RS45 3’s
failure temperature predicted by the Rankine approach, the
associated PET is equal to 3152 kN while PPT = 1382 kN. This
infers that PET controls the value of PRT (=1015 kN).
6. Conclusions
A detailed experimental study has been carried out to
investigate axial restraint effect on buckling time of unprotected
steel columns subjected to monotonically rising temperature.
During the test, axial loads were maintained constant
throughout the heating. Totally, four different slenderness ratios
were studied; for one slenderness ratio, four different axial
restraint ratios were considered. Besides, for each slenderness
ratio, one extra column was tested to failure at ambient
temperature to obtain the associated column load capacity.
This study focuses on the quantification of secondary
effects in the experiments. These secondary effects, such
as initial crookedness and load eccentricity, significantly
affect the column behaviour at elevated temperature. These
initial imperfections were measured in the tests. In brief, the
experimental results show that
• Column initial crookedness and load eccentricity, which are
traditionally treated as secondary effects on steel column
buckling, markedly reduce column failure time. They
deserve accurate measurement in experiments.
• Axial restraints significantly reduce the column failure time.
Increasing the axial restraint markedly increases the column
internal axial force. In the context of a whole structure,
significant internal force distribution is deemed to occur in a
restrained column subjected to heating.
• Bearing friction significantly retards the column failure
time and affects the structural behaviour during heating.
Generally, friction effects are more noticeable in stocky
columns than slender ones.
At the end of paper, a simple but reliable Rankine approach
is used to compute the column failure times. It is found that
the Rankine predictions agree well with test results. Thus, the
Rankine approach can be used in the computation of steel
column failure times/temperatures.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Nanyang Technological
University for the research account RGM 28/03 as well as
the Ministry of Education grant ARC 5/03, without which this
work would not be possible.
References
[1] Bailey CG. The influence of the thermal expansion of beams on the
structural behaviour of columns in steel-framed structures during a fire.
Engng Struct 2000;22:755–68.
[2] Wang YC. Full scale testing of multi-storey buildings in the large building
test facility, Cardington. In: Dubina D, Vayas I, Ungureanu I, editors.
New technologies and structures in civil engineering: Case studies on
remarkable constructions. Timisoara: Editura Orizonturi Universitare;
1998. p. 219–35.
[3] Gillei M, Usmani AS, Rotter JM. A structural analysis of the first
Cardington test. J Construct Steel Res 2001;581–601.
[4] Elghazouli AY, Izzuddin BA, Richardson AJ. Numerical modelling of
the structural fire behaviour of composite buildings. Fire Saf J 2000;35:
279–97.
[5] Huang ZH, Burgess IW, Plank RJ. Non-linear structural modelling of a
fire test subject to high restraint. Fire Saf J 2001;36:795–814.
[6] Steel Construction Industry Forum (SCIF). Investigation of broadgate
phase 8 fire. Ascot (UK): Steel Construction Institute; 1991.
[7] Ali F, Shepherd P, Randall M, Simms IW, O’Connor DJ, Burgess IW. The
effect of axial restraint on the fire resistance of steel columns. J Construct
Steel Res 1998;46(1–3): Paper 177.
[8] Shepherd PG, Burgess IW, Plank RJ, O’Connor DJ. The performance in
fire of restrained steel columns in multi-storey construction. In: Proc. of
4th Kerensky international conference. 1997. p. 333–41.
[9] Rodrigues JPC, Neves IC, Valente JC. Experimental research on the
critical temperature of compressed steel columns with restrained thermal
elongation. Fire Saf J 2000;35:77–98.
[10] Huang ZF, Tan KH. Structural responses of restrained steel
columns at elevated temperatures. Part 2: FE simulations on
experimental secondary effects. Engng Struct (2006), in press
[doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.09.012].
[11] European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Design of steel
structures: Part 1.2. General rules. Structural fire design, EC3-1.2, Draft
ENV 1993-1-2, Eurocode 3. London: British Standards Institution; 2000.
[12] Franssen JM. Failure temperature of a system comprising a restrained
column submitted to fire. Fire Saf J 2000;34:191–207.
[13] Wang YC. Postbuckling behaviour of axially restrained and axially loaded
steel columns under fire conditions. J Struct Engng, ASCE 2004;130(3):
371–80.
[14] Huang ZF, Tan KT, Ting SK. Heating rate and boundary restraint effects
on fire resistance of steel columns with creep. Engng Struct 2006;28(6):
805–17.
[15] Huang ZF, Tan KH. Effects of external bending moments and heating
schemes on the responses of thermally-restrained steel columns. Engng
Struct 2004;26(6):769–80.
[16] Culver CG. Steel column buckling under thermal gradients. J Struct Div
ASCE 1972;98(8):1853–65.
[17] Burgess IW, Najjar SR. A simple approach to the behaviour of steel
columns in fire. J Construct Steel Res 1994;31:115–34.
[18] Huang ZF, Tan KH. Analytical fire resistance of axially-restrained steel
columns. J Struct Engng, ASCE 2003;129(11):1531–7.
[19] Allen D. Merchant–Rankine approach to member stability. J Struct Div,
ASCE 1978;104(12):1909–14.
[20] European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Design of steel
structures: Part 1.1. General rules and rules for buildings. Structural fire
design, EC3-Pt.1.1, Eurocode 3. London: British Standards Institution;
1992.