Design Guide

Structural Fire Safety

Workshop CIB W14

 77

Preface

In most countries there are detailed technical specifications for struc-

tural fire p r o t e c t i o n in building laws or regulations but only limited
options for compliance according to codes and standards. This design
guide* for structural fire safety, prepared on behalf of the Fire Commis-
sion of the Conseil International du B~timent (CIB W14), aims to cover
both aspects in an integrated manner.

It is intended as an aid in the assessment and design o f buildings with

respect to an adequate structural fire p r o t e c t i o n and the devel opm ent
of corresponding national regulations or recommendations. At the same
time it may serve as a c o m m o n basis for international material-related
r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s to be prepared by technical or scientific organizations.

Although mainly directed at regulatory bodies and code and standard

committees, the d o c u m e n t is written in a partially operational manner,
allowing practical application to some extent. The purpose is to illustrate
the practical application of the suggested m et hods and thus facilitate its
appraisal. Numerical values, in particular safety-related values as for safety
factors, are consequently given only in an indicative manner and are to be
considered as examples; t hey need to be adjusted according to differing
national approaches which will involve calibration to certain design solu-
tions which are broadly acceptable in current national practice.

Despite these reservations and the limited scope of the d o c u m e n t , it is

hope d t hat this first international step towards rationalizing the design
m e t h o d o l o g y for structural fire p r o t e c t i o n will provide a basis for fruitful
debate and c o m m e n t for all those concerned with this subject, so
encouraging f u r t h e r devel opm ent in the future.

P. H. THOMAS
Coordinator CIB W14

*Within Europe this type of document is generally referred to as a "Model Code"

which, however, has a different implication in other countries; thus the more general
notion of a "Design Guide" was adopted.

1. Introduction
1.1. OBJECT AND SCOPE
This design guide provides a basis for the
assessment of buildings with respect to struc-
tural fire p r o tection. It provides functional
requirements for an adequate load bearing
capacity of the structure and an adequate
separating function of the structural com-
ponents in case of a fire severe enough to
cause structural damage. It proposes opera-
tional m e t h o d s o f assessment for deriving
specific requirements and proving compliance,
as far as t h e y can be f or m ul a t e d i n d e p e n d e n t
of the t y p e o f material and construction.
The basic principles apply to all types of
buildings and use; the m e t h o d s o f assessment
principally refer to c o m m o n buildings and
uses such as dwellings, office buildings,
d e p a r t m e n t stores, schools and industrial
buildings.
This d o c u m e n t does n o t deal with m or e
general aspects o f fire safety such as smoke
control, facilities for fire fighting, providing
for an efficient evacuation or special protec-
tion for people remaining within the building,
b e y o n d th at c o n t e m p l a t e d in the design.
1.2. ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS
Apart from basic quality assurance proce-
dures relating to the design, cons t r uct i on and
use o f building structures in general, this
d o c u m e n t assumes in particular that, during
its intended life:
(a) the designated use o f buildings and
category of o c c u p a n c y of the fire compart-
ments and their design will n o t be changed
unfavourably (from a fire engineering poi nt of
view} unless reassessment is carried out;
(b) fire p r o t e c t i o n features considered in
the design are adequately maintained;
(c) if considered in the assessment
• alarm and sprinkler systems are adequately
inspected and maintained;
81
• the force of fire brigades (in terms of their
fire-fighting efficiency) is n o t reduced below
the level considered in the design;
• the prescribed water supply is available.
At the present time, there are limitations
in our knowledge base which have to be con-
sidered when adopting a probability based
design guide for structural fire safety.
Increased i nform at i on by data collection and
research may gradually improve the scientific
basis of the d o c u m e n t ; this applies to the
following, for example:
1. Statistical data on fire occurrence which
vary considerably according to specific uses
within the broad occupancy types used for
aggregating data.
2. The functional relationship between
occurrence of fires and the building area at
risk.
3. The effectiveness of active p r o t e c t i o n
measures, bot h manual and automatic.
4. Scientifically-based target failure proba-
bilities and corresponding safety factors
which are difficult to establish w i t h o u t
extensive data, analysis and rationale asso-
ciated with generalized risk perceptions; thus,
pragmatic agreements based on calibration to
broadly acknowledged design solutions will be
necessary for some time to come.
5. Current heat exposure models normally
used in design which are based on ventilation-
controlled burning and uniform c o m p a r t m e n t
t em perat ure; the effects of c o m p a r t m e n t size,
wind, non-uniform temperatures, etc., are not
taken into account.
1.3. TERMINOLOGY
A structural member ( c o m p o n e n t or ele-
ment) comprises a column, beam, horizontal
floor, or vertical wall or partition which serves
a major load bearing or separating funct i on in
a building. A subassembly consists of a c o m -
82
bination of interacting structural members
which may be isolated and analyzed separate-
ly. A (building) assembly comprises the com-
plete set of structural members combined to
perform all load bearing and separating
functions.
Fire resistance is the ability of a structural
member, subassembly or assembly to perform
its load bearing and separating functions when
subjected to a prescribed fire exposure. Fire
endurance (sometimes fire resistance) is a
measure of the elapsed time during which the
member, subassembly or assembly continues
to perform its functions under specified con-
ditions of fire test exposure.
A severe fire is a fully developed fire (in a
building compartment, zone or bay) of con-
siderable intensity and duration which
threatens the structural stability of the
building or part of a building.

2. Requirements
2.1. RISK AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
T h e g e n e r a l o b j e c t i v e o f f i r e p r o t e c t i o n is
t o m i n i m i z e t h e c o m b i n e d loss a n d c o s t o f
f i r e . I n t e r m s o f r i s k , t h e o b j e c t i v e is t o l i m i t :
- - individual life risk and societal risk;
-- neighbouring property risk;
and generally also
-- directly exposed property risk.
Commentary : A reasonable design level for risk to life
and risk to neighbouring property may be determined
by the risk levels contemplated in current codes or
other specific requirements. A design level for the
directly exposed property risk is based on economic
considerations and should thus be the clients' deci-
sion. Economic considerations will also guide the
allocation of effort between the various measures for
fire risk control.
Control of fire risks comprises the fol-
lowing strategies:
-- reducing the frequency of fire occurrence;
-- control of fire (smoke and flames) at an
early stage;
-- ensuring a safe evacuation of people;
--providing for safe and efficient operation
conditions for the fire brigades;
--preventing fire spread (smoke and flames)
to other building areas or buildings;
-- avoiding structural failure or limiting struc-
tural damage.
Commentary: Structural fire design is concerned
mainly with the prevention of fire spread through
separating vertical and horizontal partitions (com-
partmentation) and the avoidance or limitation of
structural failure or damage -- referring to fires which
fail to be controlled at an early stage. The basic unit
for structural fire design is the fire compartment or
fire zone.
The level of structural fire safety to be
provided by design should thus be governed
by:
( a l ) t h e r i s k s i n v o l v e d in t h e c a s e o f a se-
v e r e f i r e c o n s i d e r e d as a n a c c i d e n t a l s i t u a t i o n ;
83
(a2) the risk-reducing effect of structural
measures depending on the following:
-- type {height) of the building and (possibly)
its u s e ,
-- occupancy of the fire compartment,
--function of the various structural com-
ponents.
These {safety) considerations may be
accounted for by introducing fire safety
classes reflecting an adequate risk differentia-
tion. In addition
(b) t h e r i s k - r e d u c i n g e f f e c t o f n o n - s t r u c t u r -
al m e a s u r e s f o r f i r e r i s k c o n t r o l s h o u l d b e
c o n s i d e r e d , in p a r t i c u l a r in t e r m s o f t h e r e d u -
ced frequency of severe fires that may result.
Commentary: This refers to detection and alarm
systems, sprinkler systems and fire brigades and
presumes that the cost-effectiveness of the various
measures is checked in terms of their construction/
installation costs, operation and maintenance costs,
reliability and long-term efficiency and availability.
These (frequency) considerations may be
accounted for by introducing the option for a
reduced structural fire safety on account of
non-structural measures. Alternatively, non-
structural measures can be set against an
i n c r e a s e o f a d m i s s i b l e f i r e c o m p a r t m e n t sizes.
Commentary : It follows that, for particular types of
buildings and occupancies or particular projects,
structural design requirements may be dispensable,
because the associated risks are sufficiently small (e.g.
certain single-storey buildings). Certain requirements
may also be dispensable, because the risk-reducing
effect of structural measures may be extremely low
(e.g., for some structural components or particular
occupancies). Finally, structural design requirements
may be eased to zero or a specified minimum in view
of the non-structural measures employed.
2.2. STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS
Generally, building structures should be
designed, constructed and maintained so that
84
t h e y display an a c c e p t a b l e p e r f o r m a n c e and
fulfil specified f u n c t i o n s in t h e case o f fire.
2.2.1. Load bearing capacity
The load bearing s t r u c t u r e should ade-
q u a t e l y w i t h s t a n d all actions -- including tem-
peratures, loads and i m p o s e d d e f o r m a t i o n s - -
during the relevant fire exposure. This implies
t h a t the individual m e m b e r s have sufficient
resistance c a p a c i t y (strength) and t h a t local
failure will n o t necessarily entail collapse or
instability o f t h e entire s t r u c t u r e or a n y m a j o r
subassembly. Moreover, t h e t o t a l s t r u c t u r e
should have sufficient stability and ductility.
2.2.2. Separating function
Commentary: Larger buildings are generally sub-
divided into fire compartments;for smaller buildings,
the building itself may be considered as the fire com-
partment.
A fire c o m p a r t m e n t should a d e q u a t e l y
c o n f i n e a fire to a limited area. Thus, all verti-
cal and h o r i z o n t a l partitions c o n s t i t u t i n g /
s u r r o u n d i n g a fire c o m p a r t m e n t should fulfil
a specified separating f u n c t i o n in terms o f
providing f o r sufficient t h e r m a l insulation and
displaying sufficient integrity during the
relevant fire exposure. C o n s e q u e n t l y , load
bearing structural m e m b e r s c o n s t i t u t i n g /
s u r r o u n d i n g a fire c o m p a r t m e n t have to have
sufficient load bearing capacity. The same
applies t o structural m e m b e r s s u p p o r t i n g or
stabilizing the fire c o m p a r t m e n t .
Commentary: Providing for compartmentation is
generally acknowledged as one of the most important
features of structural fire protection. If executed pro-
perly, an efficient limitation of losses may be
expected. However, rational criteria for determining
the optimal size of fire compartments are not yet
available. For the time being, the various size-
depending features, e.g., flashover probability, con-
trolability of fire by fire brigades, effect of fire on the
neighbourhood and occupancy constraints can only
be managed in an empirical1 manner.
2.2.3. Limitation o f structural damage
If limitation o f the directly e x p o s e d
p r o p e r t y risk in terms o f p r o t e c t i n g the
building is clearly specified as a fire safety
objective, t h e n a d d i t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t s with
regard to repairability or reserviceability m a y
be i m p o s e d .
Commentary: It should be noted that, apart from
buildings of special cultural/societal significance,
these requirements should be set forth by the client.
(a) Repairability
Whilst designing f o r sufficient load bearing
c a p a c i t y generally ensures t h a t the s t r u c t u r e is
n o t likely to collapse in t h e case o f fire, it
m a y be d a m a g e d t o an e x t e n t requiring s o m e
degree o f d e m o l i t i o n and r e c o n s t r u c t i o n .
Hence, repairability o f the s t r u c t u r e at
reasonable cost m a y be required.
(b ) Reserviceability
In certain cases reserviceability o f the struc-
ture after fire m a y be required. Reserviceabili-
t y implies a limitation o f damages to an
e x t e n t necessitating o n l y a s h o r t (or no) inter-
r u p t i o n o f use o f the building f o r repair.
Commentary : These requirements cannot, as yet, be
expressed in a strictly functional manner. Often
higher requirements with regard to the load bearing
capacity are intended to implicitly ensure repairabili-
ty of the structure. This involves, for example, higher
loads or higher fire loads to be considered in the
design or is expressed directly by higher fire resis-
tance requirements. More consistently, structures and
their members can also be allocated to higher safety
classes. Requirements in this respect are also specified
by reference to design criteria concerning, for
example, the choice of materials which retain their
original characteristics after exposure, limitations on
irreversible deformations, etc.
2.3. PRINCIPLES OF STRUCTURAL FIRE DESIGN
S t r u c t u r a l fire design c o m p r i s e s :
-- assessment o f the h e a t e x p o s u r e and struc-
tural response, a c c o r d i n g to m e t h o d s w h i c h
are given in this d o c u m e n t as far as t h e y can
be f o r m u l a t e d i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f the t y p e o f
material or c o n s t r u c t i o n ;
-- s t r u c t u r a l detailing, i.e., an a d e q u a t e choice
o f the structural s y s t e m , the g e o m e t r y o f the
s t r u c t u r e and its various c o m p o n e n t s
including s u p p o r t s , joints, etc., a c c o r d i n g to
rules given in the relevant material-related
d o c u m e n t s (structural specifications);
- - m a t e r i a l detailing, i.e., an a d e q u a t e c h o i c e
o f materials with specified t h e r m a l and
m e c h a n i c a l properties, a c c o r d i n g to rules
given in the relevant material-related d o c u -
m e n t s ( p r o d u c t specifications).
 85

Fire design should be in accordance with T A B L E 2.1

the state of engineering knowledge in this Heat m o d e l s and structural response m o d e l s ; tfd =
field. Design should be based on the fire standard fire duration required b y regulations or
codes; ted = equivalent time o f fire e x p o s u r e (for a
exposure to be expected under the condi- discussion cf. S e c t i o n 4 . 1 )
tions, either
-- representative for certain types of buildings
Structural S1 $2 $3
Response Elements Sub-assemblies Structures
Model
and occupancy, or
-- relevant for a particular application or use
(project).
The level of sophistication in design verifi-
IS0-834
cation should likewise depend on the afore- T test or calculation difference in
calculation occasional test schematization
mentioned risk considerations. It is recom- Hm becomes too
large
mended to introduce different methods of
tf~
assessment corresponding to different levels
IS0-834
of sophistication in modelling. The current
test or calculation calculation
possibilities are given in Table 2.1 and are H2 caLcuLation occasional test unpractical

compared in Section 4.1.

ted
Design verification should consider the
compartment
frequency of fires, their expected severity, T Fire
catculatmn calculation catcutation
the nature of the thermal and structural H3 occasiorla[ occasional and
for research
response and the actions relevant in fire
exposure as well as any model uncertainties.
 86
3. Criteria for Structural Fire Design
T h e following criteria p r i n c i p a l l y r e f e r to
advanced assessment methods.
Commentary: This restriction does not preclude a
gradual improvement of traditional assessment
methods according to these criteria.
3.1. LIMIT STATES
Fire design involves v e r i f i c a t i o n o f t h e
f o l l o w i n g limit states* :
(1) limit states with r e s p e c t t o t h e l o a d
bearing c a p a c i t y (strength, stability and
ductility);
(2) limit states w i t h r e s p e c t to t h e sepa-
rating f u n c t i o n ( t h e r m a l insulation, integrity
to fire p e n e t r a t i o n ) .
T h e limit state c o n d i t i o n s m a y r e f e r to t h e
entire fire process or o n l y a limited p a r t o f it.
L i m i t s t a t e c o n d i t i o n s can be f o r m u l a t e d in
the
- - t i m e d o m a i n (applicable f o r all limit states);
- - m e c h a n i c a l s t r e n g t h d o m a i n ( f o r t h e load
bearing c a p a c i t y ) ;
--temperature d o m a i n ( f o r limit states o f
thermal insulation and sometimes for load
bearing c a p a c i t y ) .
T h e limit states are e x p r e s s e d in t e r m s o f
a p p r o p r i a t e c a l c u l a t i o n m o d e l s a n d / o r experi-
m e n t a l m o d e l s for:
-- the heat exposure;
- - t h e s t r u c t u r a l response.
In a d d i t i o n , a d v a n c e d a s s e s s m e n t m e t h o d s
allow f o r t h e i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f a p p r o p r i a t e
reliability m o d e l s in o r d e r to c o m p l y c o n -
sistently w i t h specified s a f e t y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s .
*These two limit states encompass the three ele-
ments generally accepted as performance criteria:
load bearing capacity, thermal insulation and integri-
ty. From a functional point of view the distinction
between two types of limit states is considered more
consistent.
3.2. VARIABLES AND DATA
As c o n c e r n s a d v a n c e d a s s e s s m e n t m e t h o d s ,
the f o l l o w i n g variables a n d d a t a s h o u l d im-
plicitly or explicitly be t a k e n into a c c o u n t , if
r e l e v a n t f o r t h e limit state c o n s i d e r e d :
- - variables in t h e h e a t e x p o s u r e m o d e l :
• fire load d e n s i t y ,
• c o m b u s t i o n b e h a v i o u r o f t h e fire load,
• g e o m e t r y o f t h e fire c o m p a r t m e n t ,
• v e n t i l a t i o n characteristics o f t h e fire
compartment,
• t h e r m a l p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e fire c o m p a r t -
ment;
- - variables in t h e s t r u c t u r a l r e s p o n s e m o d e l :
• geometry of the structure,
• t h e s t r u c t u r a l s y s t e m (including details o f
t h e s u p p o r t c o n d i t i o n s , end c o n d i t i o n s ,
restraints),
• thermal properties of the structural
components,
• • mechanical properties of the structural
components,
• loads;
- - t h e reliability m o d e l c o m p r i s i n g :
• a p p r o p r i a t e n u m e r i c a l / s t a t i s t i c a l presen-
t a t i o n o f t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d variables,
c o n s i d e r e d as r a n d o m variables,
• d a t a governing t h e f r e q u e n c y o f severe
fires ( o c c u p a n c y and size o f t h e fire c o m -
p a r t m e n t , fire-fighting facilities, w a t e r
s u p p l y , fire-detecting a n d a l a r m devices)
• provisions accounting for the inherent
model uncertainties.
3.3. DESIGN FORMAT
T h e design f o r m a t to be generally a d o p t e d
if a d v a n c e d a s s e s s m e n t m e t h o d s are e m p l o y e d
is t h e partial s a f e t y f a c t o r f o r m a t . In this
f o r m a t each o f t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d variables

X is represented by a characteristic value x k
to which a certain probability of exceedance
or non-exceedance may be allocated (i.e.,
which is expressed as a specified fractile).
F r o m these characteristic values, design values
x d are derived by multiplication or division
with corresponding safety factors:
X d = Xk~[x or Xd = Xk/Tx
In the specification o f safety factors the
rare occurrence o f the accidental situation
"severe fire", i.e., a fire which is severe
enough to cause structural damage, should be
considered; thus, safety factors generally have
smaller values than the corresponding factors
for normal situations.
Partial safety factors related to the heat
exposure model should take account of:
-- the possibility o f unfavourable r a n d o m de-
viation o f the fire load density and o t h e r
variables considered in the heat exposure
model from their characteristic values;
- - t h e inaccuracy of the heat exposure
model;
- - t h e u n cer tain ty in the reliability model
describing the r a n d o m nature of the heat
exposure.
Partial safety factors related to the struc-
tural response model cover various uncertain-
ties, depending on the limit state condition
and on the manner of evaluation (i.e., analyti-
cally or experimentally):
(1) Limit state with respect to the load
bearing capacity:
(i) uncertainties with regard to the mechani-
cal loading -- which are basically the same as
for an experimental or analytical evaluation
in the design for normal situations (but are of
less significance in the accidental situation* );
(ii) uncertainties with regard to the resistance
c a p a c i t y - which cover the same sources of
uncertainties as in an experimental or analyti-
cal evaluation in the design for normal situa-
tions (but are o f less significance in the
accidental situation) plus additional sources
o f uncertainties and variability due to the
considerations o f elevated temperatures.
(2) Limit states with respect to the sepa-
rating function:
(i) uncertainties with regard to the specifica-
tion of insulation or integrity criteria;
*Cf. also Commentary to Sections 4.2.7 or 4.3.7.
87
(ii) uncertainties with regard to the effect of
fire exposure on the structural c o m p o n e n t .
A more operational allocation of the
various safety factors is indicated in the dif-
ferent assessment m et hods of Section 4.
Material-related partial safety factors
should be specified in the corresponding
material-related d o c u m e n t s (structural or
p r o d u c t specifications). Partial safety factors
for loads and com bi nat i on rules depend on
t he load specifications according to national
regulations (cf. also Appendix 4 and Sections
4.2.7, 4.3.7, 4.4.7).
Basically, the safety factors should be dif-
ferent for different safety classes (cf. Section
2.1) and should account for the estimated fire
f r e q u e n c y allocated to the fire c o m p a r t m e n t
o f a specified category of occupancy or of a
particular project. These aspects can be con-
sidered by introducing a differentiation
factor 7n
7n = 7hi 7n2
so that 7nl modifies the partial safety factors
to account for reliability requirements, dif-
fering from average requirements in view of
safety consideration (different safety classes),
and 7~2 modifies the partial safety factors to
account for reliability requirements, differing
from basic requirements owing to the assess-
m e n t of fire frequency (sprinkler systems,
efficiency of fire brigades). Example values
are given in Appendix 5.
Commentary: If rational criteria for specifying fire
compartment sizes are available, then similar differen-
tiation factors can also be specified to modify com-
partment sizes accordingly.
3.4. MODELS
3.4.1. Heat exposure models
It is generally sufficient to assume a fully
developed ventilation controlled compart-
m e n t fire with a uniform t e m p e r a t u r e distri-
bution. Currently, three models can be
applied, as identified in Table 2.1, which form
the basis for the various assessment methods,
dealt with in Section 4.
Assuming a uniform t e m p e r a t u r e distribu-
tion m ay n o t be adequate in the case of extre-
mely c o n c e n t r a t e d fire loads and it m ay be
necessary to consider the effect of local fires.
88
Commentary: Since heat models considering this
effect are not yet prepared to an extent allowing
practical application, a pragmatic approach has to be
applied. This may involve, for example, an assessment
of the fire compartment or a subspace thereof,
according to a rather crude model and by additionally
ensuring by structural detailing that local failure of
the structure in the vicinity of the local fire will not
cause progressive collapse of the structure.
The validity o f the a f o r e m e n t i o n e d assump-
tions m a y also be q u e s t i o n e d f o r large fire
c o m p a r t m e n t s and likewise f o r c o m p a r t m e n t s
with e x t r e m e ventilation c o n d i t i o n s including
cross-ventilation and wind.
Commentary: As before, heat models for practical
application accounting for the spatial development of
fires are not yet available. A pragmatic approach may
likewise involve, for example, an assessment of the
fire compartment or a subspace thereof, according to
a rather crude model and accounting for the reduced
probability of a full fire involvement (flashover) in
the estimation of fire frequencies. However, for the
time being, no guidelines on numerical values for the
possibly reduced flashover probability can be given.
3.4.2. Structural response models
With reference t o Table 2.1 it is possible to
c h e c k either individual structural m e m b e r s ,
subassemblies or the entire structure. In
a c c o r d a n c e with c u r r e n t design practice, it is
usually sufficient to c h e c k only individual
m e m b e r s , i.e., referring to m e m b e r s directly
e x p o s e d t o fire.
This applies in particular if design criteria
are derived/specified on t h e basis o f simplified
heat e x p o s u r e models. It m a y be necessary to
c h e c k subassemblies (also directly e x p o s e d t o
fire), e.g., in case o f excessive slenderness o f
m e m b e r s with axial constraints, w h i c h also
suggests the a p p l i c a t i o n o f a d v a n c e d heat
e x p o s u r e models. It m a y be necessary to
c h e c k the entire s t r u c t u r e in special cases
(including subassemblies n o t directly e x p o s e d
t o fire) w h e r e c o m m o n detailing rules
allowing for e x p a n s i o n s c a n n o t be followed.
The a p p l i c a t i o n o f a d v a n c e d heat e x p o s u r e
m o d e l s is t h e n r e c o m m e n d e d .
A p p r o p r i a t e analytical m o d e l s for deter-
mining t h e structural response should be given
in t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g structural specifications.
3.4.3. Reliability models
The stochastic n a t u r e o f the heat e x p o s u r e
and o f the structural response is a c c o u n t e d
for b y considering the relevant variables in the
calculation and e x p e r i m e n t a l m o d e l s as
r a n d o m variables.
A safety d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n a c c o r d i n g t o
Section 2.1 can be reflected b y allocating dif-
ferent tolerable failure p r o b a b i l i t i e s - versus
specified limit states and a p p l y i n g to the
service life o f the s t r u c t u r e - - t o the d i f f e r e n t
safety classes (cf. Section 4.3.8}.
Commentary: It is emphasized that this allocation
requires calibration to generally acknowledged fire
design solutions on a national basis.
C o n s i d e r a t i o n o f severe fires as accidental
situations calls for m o d e l s describing t h e fire
f r e q u e n c y . T h e y are derived on the basis o f
d a t a o n fire o c c u r r e n c e s ( d e p e n d i n g on the
use o f the building and t h e o c c u p a n c y and
size o f t h e fire c o m p a r t m e n t ) o n the one h a n d
and, o n the o t h e r h a n d , o f the estimated
efficiency o f d e t e c t i o n and alarm devices and
sprinkler systems and o f fire brigades in
p r e v e n t i n g severe fires. The m o d e l s r e n d e r an
estimate for t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f o c c u r r e n c e o f
severe fires.
Commentary : It is noted that data on fire occurrences
may be different for different countries and may even
vary within one country. The same holds for the
efficiency of the various measures. As mentioned in
Section 3.4.1, fire frequency models would ideally
also include an estimate on the reduced probability of a
full fire involvement with increasing size of fire com-
partments.
F r e q u e n c y d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n can thus be
established b y d e t e r m i n i n g the target failure
p r o b a b i l i t y in the accidental situation
considering the p r o b a b i l i t y o f o c c u r r e n c e .
All m o d e l s are associated with uncertainties
due to simplifications necessary for practical
design and due to limited possibilities o f
proving the validity o f models. C u r r e n t struc-
tural fire r e q u i r e m e n t s (as well as safety fac-
tors given as examples in this d o c u m e n t ) pre-
sume a certain degree o f m o d e l uncertainties.
If m o d e l s are i m p r o v e d in the course o f time,
this r e d u c t i o n o f m o d e l uncertainties should
be t a k e n into a c c o u n t , e.g., b y a p p r o p r i a t e l y
r e d u c i n g safety factors (cf. A p p e n d i x 5).

4. Assessment
4.1. CRITERIA FOR THE CHOICE OF ASSESS-
MENT METHODS
The three available assessment m e t h o d s are
based on the heat exposure models H, to H 3
as specified in Table 2.1 and can be catego-
rized as follows:
- Assessment Method 1: m e t h o d on the basis
- tural design based on the behaviour of fire
o f a standard fire exposure. The design crite-
rion is th at the fire resistance, determined
either by experiments or analytically, is equal
to or exceeds the time of fire duration re-
quired by building regulations or codes.
- Assessment Method 2: m e t h o d on the basis
- 2 or 3. This generally requires more infor-
o f a standard fire exposure. The design crite-
rion is that the fire resistance, determined
either by experiments or analytically, is equal
to or exceeds the equivalent time of fire
exposure, a q u an ti t y which relates compart-
m e n t (non-standard) fire exposure to the
standard fire*.
- - A s s e s s m e n t Method 3: m e t h o d charac-
terized by a direct analytical design on the
basis o f c o m p a r t m e n t (non-standard) fire
exposure.
A design procedure according to assessment
m e t h o d 1 corresponds to the vast majority of
national building codes in which the require-
ments are expressed as a required time of fire
duration, usually in multiples of 30 minutes
and directly related to the standard fire. It
follows th at assessment m e t h o d 1 is essential-
ly a classification system rather than a func-
tionally-based design m e t h o d .
Accordingly, assessment m e t h o d 1 applies
to structural members only and may be
identified with the heat e x p o s u r e - s t r u c t u r a l
model co mb in atio n H I - S 1 and in some cases
H~-S2, as specified in Table 2.1. The rough
a p p r o x i m a t i o n o f the c o m p l e x behaviour of
*cf. Commentary at the end of Section 4.1.
89
fire exposed structures by such a simplified
approach is acceptable for m a n y applications,
because the required fire resistance generally
accounts for a large safety margin and the
classification system is supported by m a n y
years of experience. It is also simple to use.
However, in more advanced levels of struc-
exposed structural systems rather than on the
behaviour of structural members only, for
reasons of consistency m ore advanced heat
models are needed as well. Preference is then
on the functionally-based assessment m e t h o d s
mation.
Assessment m e t h o d 3 represents a direct
design procedure based on the non-standard
c o m p a r t m e n t fire exposure and is straight-
forward from a functional point of view. In
most practical cases it combines heat
exposure model H 3 with structural models
$1 or $2, as indicated in Table 2.1. Which of
the models $1 and $2 is to be chosen depends
on the c o m p l e x i t y of the structural system
involved. It allows consideration of indirect
t e m p e r a t u r e actions -- if necessary. Eventual-
ly, detailed investigation of the cooling-down
phase may be a t t e m p t e d .
As an intermediate step, assessment
m e t h o d 2 may be used. In this procedure non-
standard c o m p a r t m e n t fire exposure is related
to the standard fire by an "equivalent time of
fire e x p o s u r e " , which is a funct i on of the fire
load, the geometry, the ventilation conditions
and the thermal properties of the fire com-
partment. In principle, a verification based on
assessment m e t h o d 2 can, therefore, be con-
sidered as an improved assessment of the fire
c o m p a r t m e n t (as com pared with the tradi-
tional classification system) accounting for
the actual physical conditions in the compart-
ment. It can be used for an individual design
90
or f o r deriving p h y s i c a l l y - b a s e d c o d e require-
ments. For those applications for which the
validity o f t h e m e t h o d in t e r m s o f reliably
p r e d i c t i n g t h e s t r u c t u r a l p e r f o r m a n c e has
b e e n p r o v e d , m e t h o d 2 m a y also be con-
sidered as a s i m p l i f i c a t i o n o f m e t h o d 3, b u t
in c o n t r a s t to m e t h o d 3 does n o t allow
p r o b l e m s to be dealt w i t h in t h e real t i m e
domain.
A design a c c o r d i n g to a s s e s s m e n t m e t h o d 2
requires an e x p e r i m e n t a l or a n a l y t i c a l deter-
m i n a t i o n o f t h e fire resistance o f s t r u c t u r a l
e l e m e n t s or s u b a s s e m b l i e s in t h e s a m e w a y as
f o r a s s e s s m e n t m e t h o d 1. T h e extensive infor-
m a t i o n o b t a i n e d over m a n y years o f
e x p e r i e n c e w i t h s t a n d a r d fire resistance tests
can t h u s be applied. This c o n s t i t u t e s o n e o f
t h e m a i n a d v a n t a g e s o f a s s e s s m e n t m e t h o d 2.
T h e m e t h o d m a y be identified w i t h t h e m o d e l
c o m b i n a t i o n s H2-$1 a n d H2-$2, as p r e s e n t e d
in T a b l e 2.1.
Commentary: It should be noted that assessment
method 2 is not necessarily confined to the model
used in Section 4.3.5 for relating the natural fire
exposure to the standard fire exposure. This model is
guided by the intention roughly to compare tempera-
ture effects in both exposures. A possible alternative
is to compare the respective heat fluxes in both
exposures.
Commentary: In the following presentation of the
assessment methods, those features are repeated
literally for each method which are identical in all
three or in two methods respectively. This is to facili-
tate the appraisal of common features and differences
in the three methods.
4.2. ASSESSMENT METHOD 1--STANDARD
FIRE EXPOSURE AND FIRE RESISTANCE
4.2.1. Object
This section o f t h e design guide is c o n -
c e r n e d w i t h an a s s e s s m e n t o f fire c o m p a r t -
m e n t s with r e s p e c t to t h e a p p r o p r i a t e fire
resistance o f s t r u c t u r a l m e m b e r s to be
p r o v i d e d b y t h e design. It refers o n l y t o t h o s e
s t r u c t u r a l m e m b e r s which are d i r e c t l y
e x p o s e d in t h e case o f a fire, i.e., t h o s e
m e m b e r s w h i c h s u r r o u n d t h e fire c o m p a r t -
m e n t or are l o c a t e d within t h e c o m p a r t m e n t .
Fire design is c o n f i n e d t o t h e v e r i f i c a t i o n
o f a d e q u a t e fire resistance in case o f a
s t a n d a r d fire e x p o s u r e . A d e q u a t e s t r u c t u r a l
design m a y be a s s u m e d if s t r u c t u r a l m e m b e r s
are used w h i c h m e e t t h e fire resistance
r e q u i r e m e n t s s t i p u l a t e d b y the r e g u l a t o r y
b o d y f o r specific t y p e s o f buildings a n d fire
c o m p a r t m e n t s w h i c h are classified a c c o r d i n g
to p r a c t i c a l e x p e r i e n c e .
4.2.2. Scope
This a p p r o a c h is generally applied t o all
t y p e s o f fires a n d fire c o m p a r t m e n t s w h e r e
s u f f i c i e n t practical e x p e r i e n c e c o n c e r n i n g t h e
risks at fire is available. T h e a p p r o a c h can be
a p p l i e d f o r an e x p e r i m e n t a l or an analytical
e v a l u a t i o n o f the s t r u c t u r a l response.
T h e a s s e s s m e n t c o n c e r n s o n l y aspects
relating to t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f s t r u c t u r a l
e l e m e n t s . Particular m e a s u r e s n e c e s s a r y f o r
t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f p e o p l e (escape r o u t e s ,
s m o k e c o n t r o l , etc.) or special m e a s u r e s for
ensuring r e p a i r a b i l i t y a n d reserviceability o f
t h e s t r u c t u r e are n o t dealt w i t h herein (or are
a s s u m e d to be i n c l u d e d in t h e rating {classifi-
c a t i o n ) , cf. Commentary t o Section 2.2.3).
F u r t h e r m o r e , a certain s t a n d a r d o f fire
p r e v e n t i o n and fire-fighting e f f i c i e n c y m a y be
a p r e r e q u i s i t e in t h e specification o f
( n a t i o n a l ) r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r t h e design. Like-
wise, l i m i t a t i o n s o n c o m p a r t m e n t sizes m a y
be a s s u m e d .
4.2.3. Information and data for rating (classi-
fication)
T h e r e q u i r e d fire resistance rating (classes)
should be specified, d e p e n d i n g on t h e
following data:
- - t y p e o f building a n d o c c u p a n c y ;
- -size o f building, n u m b e r o f floors;
- -size a n d l o c a t i o n o f fire c o m p a r t m e n t s ;
- - t y p e o f possible building fire and its
severity (in t e r m s o f fire l o a d d e n s i t y ) ;
- - f u n c t i o n s o f t h e various s t r u c t u r a l m e m b e r s
w i t h regard to c o m p a r t m e n t a t i o n a n d t h e
overall stability o f t h e s t r u c t u r e ;
- - f i r e - f i g h t i n g devices ( d e t e c t i n g s y s t e m s ,
sprinkler systems);
- -fire brigades and w a t e r s u p p l y .
4.2.4. Grading criteria
S t r u c t u r a l m e m b e r s are graded w i t h regard
to t h e f o l l o w i n g criteria:
(1) L o a d bearing c a p a c i t y (strength, stabili-
ty, ductility)
(2) S e p a r a t i n g f u n t i o n {thermal insulation,
integrity to fire p e n e t r a t i o n ) .
T h e grades are e x p r e s s e d in t e r m s o f fire
resistance p e r i o d s {classes) w i t h r e f e r e n c e to a

standard fire exposure according to Section
4.2.5.
For grading criteria with regard to thermal
insulation, cf. Appendix 6.
4.2.5. Standard fire exposure
The standard fire exposure is defined by
the t e m p e r a t u r e - t i m e curve according to ISO
834 or its national variant:
T - - To = 345 logl0(8t + 1) (4.1)
where
t = time in minutes
T = furnace temperature at time t, (°C)
To = furnace temperature at t = 0, (°C).
Commentary: For particular applications some
c o u n t r i e s use o t h e r t e m p e r a t u r e - t i m e curves.
4.2.6. Fire resistance
The fire resistance of a structural member
with respect to the grading criteria under con-
sideration may be determined:
- - experimentally (possible for all criteria) ac-
cording to ISO 834 or its national variant; or
--analytically (only for criteria referring to
the load bearing capacity and in some cases
thermal insulation), cf. Appendix 3;
- - by interpolation or extrapolation and anal-
ogy from experimental/analytical results; or
- - b y reference to catalogues, compiling
experimental/analytical results, possibly
extended by interpolation and analogy.
The fire resistance of a structural member
may be expressed:
• directly as a fire resistance time tf in
minutes, or
• indirectly in terms of fire resistance classes,
e.g., F15, F30, F60, F90 . . . . representing
grades according to minimum fire resistance
times.
With regard to the load bearing capacity,
the fire resistance can be determined:
-- as a function of the mechanical loading, so
that the decisive fire resistance for a structural
member is evaluated taking the individual
loading conditions in terms of Section 4.2.7
into account, or
- - f o r a specified design load, roughly
accounting for representative loading condi-
tions in terms of Section 4.2.7.
4.2. 7. Loads
In conventional fire design, the fire resis-
tance is determined for the design load
91
corresponding to the normal (non-accidental)
design situation.
More consistently, the appropriate design
load for evaluating the fire resistance could be
determined by considering an accidental load
combination of the type
(G k + E ~ i Q k , i + Q k , i n d ) (4.2)
i
where all actions are represented by their
characteristic values
Gk = permanent loads (actions)
Qk, i = variable loads (actions)
Q k , i n d = indirect actions due to temperature
exposure
with
= combination coefficients (generally
different for i = 1 and i > 1),
and all other load factors are set to unity (cf.
Appendix 4).
Commentary: E q u a t i o n (4.2) p r e s u m e s t h a t (na-
t i o n a l ) loading r e g u l a t i o n s are p r e p a r e d for use in a
partial safety f a c t o r design f o r m a t .
It s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t a p p l y i n g a n a p p r o p r i a t e
a c c i d e n t a l load c o m b i n a t i o n will c o n t r i b u t e sub-
s t a n t i a l l y t o a m o r e u n i f o r m level o f s t r u c t u r a l safety
in fire e x p o s u r e . If an e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e fire resistance
for a n a c c i d e n t a l load c o m b i n a t i o n is c o n s i d e r e d ,
provisions m a y h o w e v e r be necessary to avoid a
general unintentional decrease in t h e level o f struc-
t u r a l fire safety. This calls for t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f
a d e q u a t e safety e l e m e n t s in t h e e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e fire
resistance, w h i c h have t o be e s t a b l i s h e d b y c a l i b r a t i o n
to generally a c k n o w l e d g e d design solutions. This c a n
be easily d o n e for a n a n a l y t i c a l e v a l u a t i o n , b u t m a y
be difficult f o r a n e x p e r i m e n t a l e v a l u a t i o n a n d w o u l d
possibly require a n a d a p t a t i o n o f catalogues.
4.2.8. Safety and frequency differentiation
The fire resistance rating (classification)
system (cf. Section 4.2.3) should adequately
reflect a safety and frequency differentiation
as appropriate for certain types of buildings
and occupancies and the respective functions
of structural members.
Having regard to a certain occupancy,
provisions employed for reducing the
frequency of severe fires for a particular
project, i.e.,
- -envisaged alarm and sprinkler systems, and
- -available force of fire-fighting brigades
may be considered, provided their long-term
efficiency is ensured.
In design verification, frequency differen-
tiation could be accounted for by allowing a
reduction of the required fire resistance class,
depending on the intended provisions.
 92
4.2.9. Verification
The required fire resistance rating (class) of
each structural m e m b e r has to be verified
before its application in the design.
Verification is by ensuring t hat
[req. tf] < [eval. tf] (4.3)
where
[req. Q] = required fire resistance rating
(class)
[eval. tf] evaluated fire resistance rating
(class), determined experimental-
ly, analytically or by reference to
catalogues of standardized struc-
tural members.
4.3. ASSESSMENT METHOD 2 - EQUIVALENT
TIME OF FIRE EXPOSURE AND FIRE
RESISTANCE
4.3.1. Object
This section o f the design guide is con-
cerned with the assessment of fire compart-
ments with respect to the appropriate fire
resistance o f structures and structural
members to be provided by design. It refers
only to those structural members which are
directly exposed in the case of a fire, i.e.,
those members which surround the fire
c o m p a r t m e n t or which are located within the
compartment.
Fire design is based on the verification of
adequate structural safety in case of a fully
developed c o m p a r t m e n t fire. In practical
application, adequate structural fire safety
may be assumed if the fire resistance of the
structural members is equal to or exceeds the
"equivalent time o f fire e x p o s u r e " with ap-
propriate safety factors and differentiation
factors considered.
4.3.2. Scope
This approach can be applied to fire com-
partments with specified occupancies.
Reference can be made to either
- - individual assessment of a particular
a n
c o m p a r t m e n t , comprising a detailed indi-
vidual appraisal of the various influence
parameters, or
- - a n assessment of a fire c o m p a r t m e n t con-
sidered as representative for a certain t y p e of
building and o ccu pancy with respect to the
various influence parameters.
The approach can be applied for an experi-
mental or an analytical evaluation of the
structural response.
The assessment only concerns aspects
relating to the structural fire performance.
Particular measures necessary for the protec-
tion of people (escape routes, smoke control,
etc.) or special measures for ensuring
repairability and reserviceability of the struc-
ture are not dealt with herein (cf. Commenta-
ry to Section 2.2.3).
F u r t h e r m o r e , a certain standard of fire
prevention and fire-fighting efficiency is
presumed in the specification of (national)
safety factors. Likewise, some limitations on
c o m p a r t m e n t sizes are assumed (cf. Section
3.4.1).
4.3.3. Required information and data
For an assessment, the following informa-
tion and data are required:
-- t y p e of building and occupancy;
- size of building, num ber of floors;
-
- -size and location of fire com part m ent s;
- -t y p e and a m o u n t of fire loads (permanent
and variable fire loads) referring to either
• the particular c o m p a r t m e n t , or
• a representative c o m p a r t m e n t for a
certain occupancy;
-- ventilation conditions in the c o m p a r t m e n t
and thermal properties of surrounding struc-
tures (walls, floors) again referring to
• the particular c o m p a r t m e n t , or
• a representative c o m p a r t m e n t for a
certain occupancy;
-- functions of the various structural members
with regard to c o m p a r t m e n t a t i o n and the
overall stability of the structure;
--fire-fighting devices (detecting systems,
sprinkler systems);
- -fire brigades and water supply.
4.3.4. Limit states
Ultimate limit states to consider refer to:
(1) the load bearing capacity (strength,
stability, ductility);
(2) the separating function (thermal
insulation and integrity to fire penetration).
T hey are expressed in the time domain
(min) in terms of:
- - t h e equivalent time of fire exposure (te)
which may be assumed to be independent of
the t y p e of construction, t y p e of structural

c o m p o n e n t s (walls, doors) and limit state
considered (cf. Section 4.3.5)
- - t h e fire resistance (tf) with respect to the
particular structure, t y p e of structural com-
p o n e n t and limit state of concern with
reference to a heat exposure according to
Section 4.3.6.
For limit state criteria with regard to
thermal insulation cf. Appendix 6.
Thus, for each limit state, the limiting con-
dition is given by
tf, d - - te, d ~ 0 (4.4)
where the design values tf, d and re, d a r e
expressed by characteristic values and appro-
priate safety factors and differentiation
factors according to eqn. (4.8).
4.3.5. Eq u ivalen t t i m e o f fire e x p o s u re *
T h e e q u i v a l e n t time o f fire e x p o s u r e for
t h e assessment o f a certain c o m p a r t m e n t is
calculated as:
te = cwqf (min) (4.5)
T h e fire load d e n s i t y q~ is derived from
1
q~ = - - EMiHui(m~) (MJ/m 2) (4.6)
As
where
A~ = floor area o f fire c o m p a r t m e n t (m 2)
Mi = a m o u n t of combustible materials (kg)
H~i = lower calorific values of the combus-
tible materials (MJ/kg)
mi = c o m b u s t i o n factor (if considered).
Equation (4.6) basically applies to unpro-
tected (and p er ma nent ) fire loads. For con-
sideration o f variable fire loads and the
favourable effect o f any fire load p r o t e c t i o n ,
see Appendix 1.1.
Commentary : The equivalent t i m e o f fire d u r a t i o n is
primarily i n t e n d e d as a m e a s u r e for t h e rating o f fire
c o m p a r t m e n t s - - i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e t y p e o f material
a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n , f u n c t i o n o f t h e various structural
c o m p o n e n t s , etc. (cf. also S e c t i o n 4.1 ). With r e s p e c t
to t h e c o m b u s t i o n factor, it is n o t e d t h a t t h e n e e d for
a simplified c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e c o m b u s t i o n be-
haviour is generally a c k n o w l e d g e d , b u t t h a t suggested
p r o c e d u r e s are still u n d e r discussion (cf. A p p e n d i x
1.2).
*With r e f e r e n c e t o t h e C o m m e n t a r y at t h e e n d o f
S e c t i o n 4.1, t h e m o d e l i n t r o d u c e d here d o e s n o t pre-
clude t h a t an equivalent t i m e o f fire e x p o s u r e m a y be
derived o n t h e basis o f o t h e r models, e.g., as t e = f ( H ' )
w i t h H' t h e n o r m a l i z e d h e a t load a c c o u n t i n g for basi-
cally t h e s a m e variables as eqn. (4.5).
93
For an individual a s s e s s m e n t the expect ed
a m o u n t and t y p e o f combustible material in
the considered c o m p a r t m e n t are estimated,
taking possible unfavourable variations in
time into account. Example values for Hui are
given in Appendix 1.2.
For reference to a representative c o m p a r t -
m e n t for a certain occupancy, the fire load
density q~ is defined as a specified fractile;
example values for different occupancies are
compiled in Appendix 1.3.
The ventilation f a c t o r w may be assessed
according to Appendix 2.2. For normal
buildings and average ventilation conditions in
absence of wind and mechanical ventilation,
w = 1.5 will generally provide a conservative
estimate (corresponding to an opening area of
~> 10% of the floor area).
T h e conversion factor c (min/(MJ/m2))
accounts for the thermal properties of the sur-
rounding structural members. Example values
are listed in Appendix 2.2; c = 0.1 will render
a conservative estimate.
4.3.6. Fire resistance
The fire resistance of the structure or struc-
tural m e m b e r with respect to the limit state
under consideration may be determined:
- - e x p e r i m e n t a l l y (possible for all limit
states), according to ISO 834 or its national
variant; or
- - a n a l y t i c a l l y (only for criteria referring to
the load bearing capacity and thermal insula-
tion, in some cases), according to Appendix 3;
- -interpolation or extrapolation and analogy
from experimental/analytical results; or
- - b y reference to catalogues, compiling
experimental/analytical results, possibly
e x t e n d e d by interpolation and analogy.
The fire resistance of a structural m e m b e r
may be expressed:
• directly as a fire resistance time tf in
minutes, or
• indirectly in terms of fire resistance classes,
e.g., F15, F30, F60, F90, . . . representing
grades according to minimum fire resistance
times.
With regard to the load bearing capacity,
the fire resistance can be determined:
-- as a funct i on of the mechanical loading, so
that the decisive fire resistance for a struc-
tural m e m b e r is evaluated taking into a c c o u n t
94
the individual loading conditions in terms of
Section 4.3.7, or
a specified design load, roughly ac-
- - f o r
counting for representative loading conditions
in terms of Section 4.3.7.
4.3.7. Loads
In conventional fire design, the fire resis-
tance is determined for the design load cor-
responding to the normal (non-accidental)
design situation.
More consistently, the appropriate design
load for evaluating the fire resistance should
be determined by considering an accidental
load combination of the type
(Gk + ~ ~ Q k , i + Qk,~d)
where all actions are represented by their
characteristic values:
Gk = permanent loads (actions)
Qk, i = variable loads (actions)
Qk,ind indirect actions due to temperature
: factors for different safety classes or, more
exposure
with
= combination coefficients (generally
different for i = 1 and i > 1),
and all other load factors are set to unity (cf.
Appendix 4).
Commentary: E q u a t i o n (4.7) p r e s u m e s t h a t (na-
t i o n a l ) loading r e g u l a t i o n s are p r e p a r e d for use in a
partial safety f a c t o r design f o r m a t .
It s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t a p p l y i n g an a p p r o p r i a t e acci-
d e n t a l load c o m b i n a t i o n will c o n t r i b u t e s u b s t a n t i a l l y
to a m o r e u n i f o r m level o f s t r u c t u r a l safety in fire
e x p o s u r e . This a p p r o a c h is s t r o n g l y r e c o m m e n d e d for
a d v a n c e d assessment m e t h o d s . If a n e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e
fire resistance for an a c c i d e n t a l load c o m b i n a t i o n is
c o n s i d e r e d , provisions h o w e v e r m a y be necessary to
avoid a n unintentional decrease in t h e level of struc-
tural fire safety. This calls for t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f
a d e q u a t e safety e l e m e n t s in t h e e v a l u a t i o n of t h e fire
resistance, w h i c h have to be e s t a b l i s h e d by c a l i b r a t i o n
to generally a c k n o w l e d g e d design solutions. This can
be easily d o n e for a n analytical e v a l u a t i o n , b u t m a y
be difficult for a n e x p e r i m e n t a l e v a l u a t i o n and w o u l d
possibly require an a d a p t a t i o n o f catalogues.
4.3.8. Safety and frequency differentiation
The functional requirements specified for
design should be differentiated with respect
to the type of occupancy, type and size of
building, number of floors, size and location
of fire compartments, and the importance of
the structure or structural member to the
overall stability of the building. This may be
considered, for example, by a system of
safety classes associated with different failure
probabilities, resulting in corresponding safety
factors 7.
Having regard to a specified building, it is
generally sufficient to distinguish three safety
classes as follows:
SCf 3: Structural members with very impor-
tant fire safety functions
SCf 2: Structural members with relevant fire
safety functions
SCf 1: Structural members with minor fire
safety functions.
Additional requirements with respect to re-
pairability and reserviceability of the struc-
ture may be dealt with by, for example, a
(4.7)
transfer to a higher safety class.
Structural members without fire safety
functions are not considered.
In design verification safety differentiation
is accounted for by applying different safety
conveniently, by applying corresponding dif-
ferentiation factors (7nl). Example values are
given in Appendix 5.
Having regard to a certain occupancy,
provisions employed for reducing the frequen-
cy of severe fires for a particular project, i.e.,
-- envisaged alarm and sprinkler systems,
-- available force of fire-fighting brigades,
should be considered, provided their long-
term efficiency is ensured. Likewise, the size
of the fire compartment which governs the
frequency of fires within the compartment
should be allowed for.
In design verification, frequency differen-
tiation is accounted for by applying different
safety factors, depending on the intended
provisions and compartment size or, more
conveniently, by applying corresponding dif-
ferentiation factors (7n2). Example values are
given in Appendix 5.
4.3.9. Verification
Verification is by ensuring that
tf/~[f ~ ~'e te~/n (4.8)
where
te(k) = equivalent time of fire e x p o s u r e -
characteristic value
tf(k) = fire resistance, determined experimen-
tally, analytically or by reference to
catalogues of standardized structural
components -- characteristic value

~/f -- partial s a f e t y f a c t o r related t o the fire
resistance
% = partial s a f e t y f a c t o r related t o the
equivalent t i m e o f fire e x p o s u r e
~'n = d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n f a c t o r a c c o u n t i n g f o r
d i f f e r e n t safety classes (7nl) and
special fire-fighting provisions (~'n2);
~'n = ~l~'n2 a c c o r d i n g to Section 4.3.8.
E q u a t i o n (4.8) can be r e w r i t t e n b y intro-
ducing
t o r e n d e r t h e " r e q u i r e d fire resistance t i m e " :
(req.) tf = te~/Tn2 (4.9)
T h e d e r i v a t i o n o f s a f e t y factors and e x a m p l e
values f o r 7 are given in A p p e n d i x 5.
If r e f e r e n c e is m a d e to fire resistance
classes (and n o t explicitly t o tf) t h e n (req.) tf
a c c o r d i n g t o eqn. (4.9) is t r a n s f o r m e d t o t h e
" r e q u i r e d fire resistance class", e.g., a c c o r d i n g
to
0 < (req.) tf ~< 15 min ~ F 1 5 (or no require-
ments)
15 < (req.) tf ~< 30 min -~ F 3 0
30 < (req.) tf < 60 min ~ F 6 0 etc.
Commentary: It is r e c o m m e n d e d to i n t r o d u c e a
l o w e r limit b e y o n d w h i c h design verification is dis-
pensable. P r e s e n t n a t i o n a l choices range b e t w e e n 5
min and 15 rain. Likewise, s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f an u p p e r
limit for t h e r e q u i r e d fire resistance m a y be sensible
for c o m m o n buildings. P r e s e n t national c h o i c e s range
b e t w e e n 120 rain a n d 180 rain.
If the r e q u i r e d fire resistance rating (class)
a c c o r d i n g t o eqn. (4.9) is higher t h a n the
relevant c o d e r e q u i r e m e n t s , it m a y be con-
c l u d e d t h a t t h e safety r e q u i r e m e n t s o f the
c o d e r e f e r o n l y t o a limited d u r a t i o n o f fire
e x p o s u r e ; if this is t h e case, t h e p r e s c r i b e d
rating (class) m a y be sufficient (cf. A p p e n d i x
5.2).
4.4. A S S E S S M E N T M E T H O D 3 - - C O M P A R T M E N T
FIRE EXPOSURE AND STRUCTURAL RESPONSE
4.4.1. Object
This section o f the design guide is con-
c e r n e d with t h e assessment o f t h e t h e r m a l and
m e c h a n i c a l response o f s t r u c t u r e s and struc-
tural m e m b e r s e x p o s e d to fire. It applies t o
t h o s e s t r u c t u r e s and structural m e m b e r s
which s u r r o u n d the fire c o m p a r t m e n t or are
l o c a t e d within it, as well as to s t r u c t u r e s and
95
s t r u c t u r a l m e m b e r s which are l o c a t e d o u t s i d e
the fire c o m p a r t m e n t , e.g., e x t e r n a l c o l u m n s
and beams. T h e design situation c o n s i d e r e d
m a y be a fire affecting t h e s t r u c t u r e as a
w h o l e or o n l y a part o f it.
Fire design is based o n t h e verification o f
a d e q u a t e structural s a f e t y in case o f a fully
d e v e l o p e d c o m p a r t m e n t fire. In practical ap-
plication, a d e q u a t e structural safety m a y be
assumed if the r e q u i r e d f u n c t i o n o f the struc-
t u r e or structural m e m b e r is m a i n t a i n e d
during t h e relevant p a r t o f t h e fire e x p o s u r e
with a p p r o p r i a t e safety and d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n
factors considered.
4.4.2. Scope
This a p p r o a c h can be applied to fire c o m -
p a r t m e n t s in buildings with specified oc-
cupancies. R e f e r e n c e can be m a d e t o either
- - a individual assessment o f a particular
n
c o m p a r t m e n t and building, comprising a
detailed individual appraisal o f t h e various
i n f l u e n c e p a r a m e t e r s , or
- - an assessment o f a fire c o m p a r t m e n t and
building c o n s i d e r e d as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e f o r a
certain t y p e o f building and o c c u p a n c y with
respect t o the various influence p a r a m e t e r s .
T h e a p p r o a c h is i n t e n d e d to be used o n l y
f o r t h o s e applications w h e r e an analytical
d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f the structural fire response
is possible.
T h e assessment o n l y c o n c e r n s aspects
relating to t h e structural fire p e r f o r m a n c e .
Particular measures necessary f o r the p r o t e c -
tion o f p e o p l e (escape routes, s m o k e c o n t r o l ,
etc.) o r special measures f o r ensuring repaira-
bility and reserviceability o f the s t r u c t u r e
(e.g., c h o i c e o f b u i l d i n g materials and struc-
tural systems) are n o t dealt with herein.
F u r t h e r m o r e , a certain standard o f fire
p r e v e n t i o n and fire-fighting e f f i c i e n c y is
p r e s u m e d in t h e specification o f (national)
safety factors. Likewise, some limitations on
c o m p a r t m e n t sizes are assumed.
4.4.3. Required information and data
F o r an assessment t h e following informa-
t i o n and d a t a are required:
-- t y p e o f building and o c c u p a n c y ;
- - size o f building, n u m b e r o f floors;
- - size and l o c a t i o n o f fire c o m p a r t m e n t s ;
-- t y p e and a m o u n t o f fire loads ( p e r m a n e n t
and variable fire loads), referring to e i t h e r
• t h e particular c o m p a r t m e n t , or
96
• a representative compartment for a
certain occupancy;
-- ventilation conditions in the compartment
and thermal properties of surrounding struc-
tures (walls, floor and roof), again referring to
• the particular compartment, or
• a representative compartment for a
certain occupancy;
- - f u n c t i o n of structure and structural
members with respect to compartmentation
and overall stability of the building;
--fire-fighting devices (detecting systems,
sprinkler systems);
-- fire brigades and water supply.
4.4.4. L i m i t s t a t e s
Ultimate limit states to consider refer to:
(1) the load bearing capacity (strength,
stability, ductility);
(2) the separating function (thermal insula-
tion and integrity to fire penetration).
They are related to the heat exposure of a
fully developed compartment fire and can
refer to either the complete fire process or a
limited part of it.
For a load bearing structure, the limit state
condition implies that the minimum design
value of the ultimate load bearing capacity
of the structure Rd(t ) during the fire exposure
shall meet the design load effect on the struc-
ture Sd, i.e.,
min(Rd(t)} -- Sd ~> 0 (4.10)
For a separating structure, the limit state
condition with respect to insulation reads,
with appropriate safety factors included:
Tlim - - max{ Tsd(t)) ~> 0 (4.11)
where Turn is the maximum temperature on
the unexposed side of the structure, accept-
able with respect to the requirement to
prevent a fire spread from the fire compart-
ment to an adjacent compartment, and Tsd(t)
the highest design temperature on the unex-
posed side at the time t of the relevant fire
process. Data on Tnm are given in Appendix 6.
The limit state condition with respect to
integrity cannot be formulated analytically.
When decisive, it has to be proved experimen-
tally with the required time of fire resistance
determined according to assessment method 2.
4.4.5. C o m p a r t m e n t fire e x p o s u r e
The thermal exposure on the structure or
structural member during a fully developed
compartment fire is determined by the energy
and mass balance equations with due regard
taken to the characteristics of the fire load,
the ventilation of the fire compartment and
the thermal properties of the structures
enclosing the fire compartment. The thermal
exposure can be specified by the time curve
of either the gas temperature within the fire
compartment or other appropriate properties,
e.g., t h e heat flux to the structure or struc-
tural member.
Examples of design aids for a practical
determination of the thermal exposure are
given in Appendix 2.3. Controlling parameters
used then are the fire load density, the
opening factor of the fire compartment and
the thermal properties of the enclosing struc-
tures.
The fire load d e n s i t y is derived from
1
qf = - ~,MiH~i(mi) (4.12a)
Af
1
qt = - ~,MiHui(mi) (MJ/m 2) (4.12b)
At
where
Af = floor area of fire compartment (m 2)
A t = total interior area of the surfaces
bounding the fire compartment in-
cluding all openings (m 2)
M i = a m o u n t of combustible materials (kg)
Hui = lower calorific value of the combustible
materials (MJ/kg)
m i = combustion factor (if considered).
Example values for Hui are given in Appendix
1.2, and fire load densities for different
occupancies are compiled in Appendix 1.3
(cf. also Section 4.3.5).
The o p e n i n g f a c t o r represents the influence
of the ventilation of the fire compartment in
absence of wind and mechanical ventilation; it
is defined as A x / - h / A t (m 1/2), where A is the total
area of door and window openings (m2), h is
the mean value of the height of window and
door openings, weighted with respect to each
individual opening area (m), and A t is defined
above.
For practical calculations, a transformation
between fire compartments having different
t h e r m a l p r o p e r t i e s of the enclosing structures
can be made by using effective values of the

fire load density and the opening factor or in
some other equivalent way. Further guidance
is given in Appendix 2.2.
4.4.6. Structural response to fire
The thermal and mechanical behaviour of
the structure or structural member, fire
exposed according to Section 4.4.5, may be
determined analytically as described in
Appendix 3, accounting for the load combina-
tion rules given in Section 4.4.7.
With respect to the load bearing function,
the structural response is expressed by the
minimum value of the ultimate load bearing
capacity of the structure or structural
member during the relevant fire process.
With respect to the insulation c o m p o n e n t
of the separating function, the structural
response is analogously expressed by the
m a x i m u m value of the temperature on the
unexposed side of the structure or structural
member. The integrity c o m p o n e n t of the
separating function has to be determined
experimentally, when decisive.
4.4.7. Loads
The appropriate design load for evaluating
the fire behaviour and the ultimate load
bearing capacity is determined by considering
an accidental load combination of the type
(Gk + ~'~)iQk,i + Q k , i n d )
wherein all actions are represented by their
characteristic values:
Gk = permanent loads (actions)
Qk, i = variable loads (actions)
Q k , i n d = indirect actions due to temperature
exposure
with
~i = combination coefficients (generally
different for i = 1 and i > 1),
and all other load factors are set to unity (cf.
Appendix 4).
Commentary: E q u a t i o n ( 4 . 1 3 ) p r e s u m e s t h a t (na-
t i o n a l ) loading r e g u l a t i o n s are p r e p a r e d for use in a
partial safety f a c t o r design f o r m a t .
4.4.8. Safety and frequency differentiation
The functional requirements specified for
design should be differentiated with respect
to the type of occupancy, type and size of
building, number of floors, size and location
of fire compartments, and the importance of
the structure or structural member to the
97
overall stability of the building. This may be
considered, for example, by a system of
safety classes associated with different failure
probabilities, resulting in corresponding safety
factors %
For a given building, it is then generally
sufficient to distinguish three safety classes as
follows:
SC~ 3:Structures or structural members with
very important fire safety functions
SC, 2:Structures or structural members with
relevant fire safety functions
SCf l : Structures or structural members with
minor fire safety functions.
Additional requirements with respect to
repairability and reserviceability of the struc-
ture may be dealt with by a transfer to a
higher safety class.
Structures or structural members without
fire safety functions are not considered.
In design verification, safety differentiation
is accounted for by applying different safety
factors for different safety classes or, more
conveniently, by applying corresponding dif-
ferentiation factors ~'n~- Example values are
given in Appendix 5.
For a given occupancy and for a particular
project, the following means for reducing the
frequency of severe fires may be considered,
- envisaged alarm and sprinkler systems,
-
- available force o f fire-fighting brigades.
-
(4.13)
It is essential however that their long-term
efficiency is ensured. Likewise, the size of the
fire c o m p a r t m e n t which governs the frequen-
cy of fire occurrence within the compartment
should be allowed for.
In design verification, frequency differen-
tiation is accounted for by applying different
partial safety factors, depending on the
intended provisions and compartment size or,
more conveniently, by applying corre-
sponding differentiation factors ~/.2. Example
values are given in Appendix 5.
4.4.9. Verification
Verification is by ensuring that
1
Rdn - Rd{Rdl, Rd2 . . . . } />
~> Sd(Gd, Q d l , • • • }
or
(4.14)
1
- - R d ( R k l / % l , Rk:/"/~, • • • } >~
>~Sd{Gk, t~i, Qk,i, Qk,ind}
98

SAFETY AND
FREQUENCY ( yn )
DIFFERENTIATION

DESIGN
OF~GN I MECHANICAL
STRENGTH
THEn MAL Rd~(T), Rdl( T)....
PROPERTIES
'°.°DEN-
SITY qd I I
~ i
~
IOESION LOAD ~ ~ r . 1
OESIOH FIRE t I DESIGN I fOSAnINO [ /_ _.\ IOESIGN~OAD t
~"g'IEXPOSURE ~ TEMPERATURE~"~ CAPACITY r - ~ % Mdn£ b d / / " ' ~ l EFFECT AT FIRE /
[FIREEOMPART- T-: J I STAT) I1%~"'"0,".~I ~ I~'~'O~'O''~
LT""T'C~ ~TR=T~RA~ I
DESIGN
t DATA
(a) T ~ ,

FREQUENCYi',ml ~-~ DESIGN

DIFFERENTIATIONI I r. . . . . . 'l JMECHANICAL
I~;;,~",. i ISTRENOT.
O',GN,,RE / // I,~";'E~ / t'~'""O"'l"
. ! !
,SITY qd I,..D'ONF'REI
[ --
J-e"JEXPOSURE ~
lDESIG
r

I I.AR,HO
DESIG LOAD
TEMPERATUREJ"~"~CAPAClTY
r /~DE~,ON~OAO i
~"~"~Rdn:" Sd ~ ) " " ~ EFFECT AT FIREI
TMoNARAo.~
~.ENTF'RECD"'AIRT'LI J ~]1%~"%,"o,"r ~/I ~.S,Oo.%,,..,i
LTER'~T'C~' T~.. STRO~T~RA'DES,G. .l
t DATA ]

t
(b) ',0
Fig. 4.1. Alternative allocation of differentiation factors 7n in assessment method 3 (cf. eqn. (4.14)).

where ~Ynl'Yn2 according to Section

Rd = the design value of the ultimate 4.4.8.
load bearing capacity, deter- Alternatively to eqn. (4.14), % may also
mined by the lowest value of be applied as to affect the design fire load
the ultimate load bearing density (qd) thus modifying the design fire
capacity during the relevant exposure (cf. Fig. 4.1).
fire process The derivation of safety factors and
Sd = the design load effect in fire, example values for 7 are given in Appendix 5.
determined from the load com- Depending on the particular application,
bination according to Section eqn. (4.14) has to be verified for either the
4.4.7. complete fire process or a limited part of it,
R d i , R k i , "[ri = design values, characteristic given by, for example, the design evacuation
values and partial safety factors time for the building trd.
respectively, related to the If the resulting design is in excess of the
ultimate load bearing capacity, design complying with the relevant code
accounting for the uncertain- requirement, it may be concluded that the
ties in the heat exposure and safety requirements of the code refer to a
structural response (cf. Fig. shorter duration of exposure than considered
4.1). in the verification; if this is the case, the
differentiaton factor ac- resulting real-time fire resistance of the code
counting for different safety design may be evaluated and assessed, e.g.,
classes (7,1) and special fire- with regard to the time necessary for
fighting provisions (~',2); 7n = evacuating the building (cf. Appendix 5.2).
 99

5. Units and Symbols

5.1. ALL PARTS OF THE DESIGN GUIDE Xd Design value of X

Xk Characteristic value of X
Af Floor area (m 2) 7e Partial safety factor related to t e
At Total interior area of fire compart- 7f Partial safety factor related to t~
ment (m 2) ~/n Differentiation factor modifying
G Permanent loads partial safety factors to account for
Lower calorific value of combus- differing reliability requirements in
tible materials (MJ/kg) view of different safety considera-
M~ A m o u n t of combustible material tions (~'nl) and/or in view of dif-
(kg) ferent fire frequencies (7n2)
Q Variable loads % Partial safety factor related to R
Qind Indirect actions due to temperature (also denoted by (7mTd) in other
exposure documents)
R Load bearing capacity ~X Partial safety factor related to X
Rd, Rdn Design load bearing capacity Load combination coefficient
S Load effect
Sa Design load effect Subscripts
T Furnace temperature (°C) d Design value
Turn Specified m a x i m u m temperature on k Characteristic value
unexposed side of the structural
member (°C)
T~ Decisive temperature of structural 5.2. APPENDICES ONLY
member (°C)
X General symbol for a random Fx Distribution function of variable X
variable of the limit state condition H~ Calorific value of moist material
Conversion factor within assess- Rxso Load bearing capacity in standard
ment m e t h o d 2 fire exposure as compared to the
Average height of window and door load bearing capacity in compart-
openings ment fire exposure (R)
mi Combustion factor TIso, s Decisive temperature of structural
q Fire load density (MJ/m 2) member in standard fire exposure
qf q related to floor area as compared to the decisive tem-
qt q related to total interior area perature of member in compart-
t Time (min) ment fire exposure (Ts)
te Equivalent time of fire exposure U Standardized normal variable
te,d Design value of te v~ Coefficient of variation of variable
t~ Standard time of fire duration (fire X
resistance) Z Safety margin
t f, d Design value of tf b Thermal inertia
tr Evacuation time g(X) Limit state condition as a function
tr, d Design value of t r of variables X = XI, X2, • • •
w Ventilation factor within assess- Fractile factor referring to a normal
ment method 2 distribution function
100

kf Factor for adapting q to an effec- p (fire) Probability of occurrence of initial

tive fire load density accounting for fires
differing thermal properties of the q Expected value of fire load density
fire compartment ~(.) Standard normal distribution func-
m X Mean value of variable X tion
m* Moisture content of combustible ¢-1(.) Inverse of ¢ (.)
materials c~ Sensitivity factors
Pa Probability of occurrence of the Safety index
accidental design situation ga Safety index corresponding to p~, a
Pf Failure probability Thermal conductivity (W/mK)
Pf,a Tolerable failure probability for ~q, ¢, Combination coefficients for
accidental design situation variable fire loads and protected
p(t) Time-dependent probability term fire loads, respectively
Pi Probability for fire-fighting provi- P Unit density (kg/m 3)
sions to fail in timely suppression Ox Standard deviation of variable X
of initial fires 5x Standard deviation of lnX

Appendix 1
Fire Load Density
AI.1. CLASSIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF
FIRE LOADS (INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT)
1.1.1. General
T h e fire load density q (qt or qt) within
assessment m e t h o d s 2 and 3 is derived f r o m
1 m a y be i n t r o d u c e d into t h e calculation b y
q = - - ~ , M i H u i ( m i ) = ~,qi (1.1)
A o
considering all fire loads which m a y contri-
b u t e t o t h e fire process. With regard to t h e
p r o b a b l e a m o u n t o f materials p r e s e n t in t h e
case o f fire and with regard t o their probabili-
t y o f participating in t h e fire process (or t h e i r
possibly d e l a y e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n ) , it is r e c o m -
m e n d e d t o distinguish b e t w e e n p e r m a n e n t ,
variable, p r o t e c t e d and u n p r o t e c t e d fire loads,
r e n d e r i n g a c o m b i n a t i o n rule f o r fire load
densities as follows [ 1 ] :
qd = ~ - ~ T q i ~ ' l q i ~ p i q k i (1.2)
i
where
qd = design value o f t h e fire load d e n s i t y q
qki characteristic values o f fire load densi-
= during t h e service life o f structures, are con-
ties f o r the various fire loads c o n s i d e r e d
7qi = partial safety factors f o r t h e fire load
densities, f o r which generally a u n i q u e
value (Tqi = 7q) is c h o s e n ; n o t e t h a t , f o r
assessment m e t h o d 2, ~/q is i n c l u d e d in
"~e ( c f . A p p e n d i x 5)*
~qi = c o m b i n a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t f o r variable fire
loads (~qi = 1.0 f o r p e r m a n e n t fire
loads)
~pl = c o m b i n a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t f o r p r o t e c t e d
fire loads ( ~ , i = 1.0 f o r u n p r o t e c t e d fire
loads).
*Subscript "q" is not to be confused with the sub-
script "Q" or "q" for variable mechanical loads.
101
1.1.2. P e r m a n e n t fire loads
All c o m b u s t i b l e materials, t h e a m o u n t (and
c o m b u s t i o n b e h a v i o u r ) o f which display n o
or o n l y a neglectable variation during
the service life o f structures, are c o n s i d e r e d as
p e r m a n e n t fire loads. T h e respective densities
o
their e x p e c t e d (nominal) values qi:
qki = qi (1.3)
P e r m a n e n t fire loads generally c o m p r i s e all
fixed or built-in fire loads, e.g., c o m b u s t i b l e
building materials including the load bearing
s t r u c t u r e , linings, finishings, p e r m a n e n t l y
installed o p e r a t i o n devices, etc.
In the case o f m a j o r structural alterations,
e.g., additional insulation in t h e c o n t e x t o f
energy-saving programs, reassessment m a y be
necessary. T h e r e f o r e , a conservative estimate
O
o f qi m a y b e advantageous.
1.1.3. Variable fire loads
All c o m b u s t i b l e materials, t h e a m o u n t (and
c o m b u s t i o n b e h a v i o u r ) o f which m a y vary
sidered as variable fire loads. T h e y are princi-
pally i n t r o d u c e d into the calculation b y their
characteristic values qk~ ( c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o a
specified fractile in t h e e s t i m a t e d d i s t r i b u t i o n
o f i n s t a n t a n e o u s values).
Commentary: Characteristic values are specified as,
for example,
O
qki = q i ( 1 + kVq~)
referring to a normal distribution, or
o e x p ( k ~ / l n ( V ~ i + 1))
qki = qi
referring to a lognormal distribution.
E.g.,
for Vqi = 0.2 and a 90%-fractile
102
0
qki ~ qi X 1 . 2 5
w h e r e i n qi d e n o t e s t h e e x p e c t e d value, Vqi t h e coef-
ficient o f v a r i a t i o n a n d k t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g fractile
factor.
In the presence o f several variable fire
loads, which can be regarded as i n d e p e n d e n t
o f each o t h e r , their i m p r o b a b l e s i m u l t a n e o u s
a t t a i n m e n t o f high values can be c o n s i d e r e d
b y c o m b i n a t i o n coefficients ~bqi. T h e n the
individual c o n t r i b u t i o n o f a variable fire load
to the fire load density is r e p r e s e n t e d by
( ~ q i q k i ) , w h e r e the c o m b i n a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t
~qi can be derived/specified in analogy to
variable m e c h a n i c a l loads.
~bqi = 0.8 m a y be c o n s i d e r e d as a reason-
able c h o i c e [1], so t h a t in t h e presence o f
several variable fire loads the simple c h o i c e
t~qiqki -~ qi
m a y be sufficient. However, f o r d o m i n a t i n g
fire loads with excessive variability -- as m a y
be the case for industrial o c c u p a n c i e s -- it is
r e c o m m e n d e d to specify ~qi = 1.0 for the
m o s t u n f a v o u r a b l e fire load.
E x a m p l e s for variable fire loads are storage
goods, m o v a b l e e q u i p m e n t , f u r n i t u r e , etc. In
the case o f alteration o f o c c u p a n c y o f the
building or fire c o m p a r t m e n t , reassessment
m a y be necessary. T h e r e f o r e , a conservative
estimate o f qi m a y be advantageous.
1.1.4. Protected fire loads
All c o m b u s t i b l e materials which are
p r o t e c t e d against e x p o s u r e to fire such t h a t
t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the e s t i m a t e d fire
process is associated with a low p r o b a b i l i t y
are d e n o t e d as p r o t e c t e d fire loads. Considera-
t i o n o f the e f f e c t o f p r o t e c t i o n requires an
estimate o f this p r o b a b i l i t y , e.g., in t e r m s o f
the failure p r o b a b i l i t y o f the p r o t e c t i o n .
In principle, the e f f e c t o f p r o t e c t i o n m a y
be c o n s i d e r e d in the calculation by specifying
coefficients ~pi so t h a t the individual contri-
b u t i o n o f a p r o t e c t e d load to the fire load
densities is r e p r e s e n t e d b y (~bqi t~piqki ). T h e r e
is, h o w e v e r , no generally agreed p r o c e d u r e for
deriving the coefficients ~pi. Such a proce-
d u r e c o u l d involve:
- - c a l c u l a t i o n o f m a x i m u m gas t e m p e r a t u r e
(or te), excluding t h e p r o t e c t e d fire loads;
-- assessment o f failure p r o b a b i l i t y o f p r o t e c -
tion ( p f i ) based on this i n f o r m a t i o n , ideally
b y calculation, otherwise b y engineering
judgement;
- - e v a l u a t i o n o f ~bpi b y applying an appro-
priate statistical m o d e l rendering ~pi as a
f u n c t i o n o f the e s t i m a t e d failure p r o b a b i l i t y
of protection.
C o m m e n t a r y : (1) T h e c h o i c e o f t h e statistical m o d e l
is n o t u n a m b i g u o u s . As an e x a m p l e , Table A1.1
c o m p a r e s t h e results of:
• a statistical a d a p t a t i o n of t h e p r o b a b i l i t y for ex-
ceeding t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c value b y a s s u m i n g [ 1 ]
~/pi ---- e x p [ ( ¢ - l ( p f i ) + k)Vq/] and
• a probabilistic system approach [2], assuming
Q p r o t = ~QiBi w h e r e i n B i is a state variable de-
scribing t h e state o f p r o t e c t i o n of t h e fire load Qi
with an e x p e c t e d value E(Bi) = Pfi"
(2) It has to be n o t e d t h a t assessment of t h e
failure p r o b a b i l i t y (pfi) can generally n o t be per-
f o r m e d by t h e designer. Hence, t h e s t a n d a r d com-
m i t t e e w o u l d have to specify a qualitative descrip-
t i o n of t h e p r o t e c t i o n to w h i c h specific coeffi-
cients are allocated.
(3) A similar a p p r o a c h using " d e r a t i n g f a c t o r s "
K ranging f r o m 0.4 to 0.1, d e p e n d i n g o n t h e ratio
of t h e p r o t e c t e d fire loads (weights) to all fire
loads (weights) in t h e c o m p a r t m e n t , is suggested in
[3]. O t h e r a u t h o r s , e.g., [4, 5], i n d i c a t e com-
parable o p t i o n s . In this c o n t e x t it s h o u l d also be
n o t e d t h a t t h e i n t e r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e com-
b u s t i o n b e h a v i o u r (cf. A p p e n d i x 1.2.2) a n d t h e
degree of p r o t e c t i o n is n o t y e t well established.
TABLE AI.1
C o m b i n a t i o n values for p r o t e c t e d fire loads appli-
cable to c h a r a c t e r i s t i c values r e p r e s e n t i n g a 90%-
((~r smaller) fractile [ 1, 2 ]
Failure ~pi ~pi
probability of a c c o r d i n g t o [ 1 ] a c c o r d i n g to [ 2 ]
p r o t e c t i o n (pfi) for 2 < i < 9
0.1 0.65 0.4
0.01 0.56 0.12
0.001 0.50 0.03
1.1.5. Unprotected fire loads
All c o m b u s t i b l e materials which are n o t
p r o t e c t e d b y n o n - c o m b u s t i b l e linings,
claddings or c o n t a i n m e n t s or by special
storage c o n d i t i o n s (low t e m p e r a t u r e , high
h u m i d i t y ) are d e n o t e d as u n p r o t e c t e d fire
loads.
T h e y are i n t r o d u c e d into the calculation
b y assuming ~bpi = 1.0.
Assuming all fire loads as u n p r o t e c t e d , will
o b v i o u s l y r e n d e r a 'safe-side' estimate.
 103

1.1.6. R e f e r e n c e s T A B L E A1.2 (continued)

1 D. Hosser, S i c h e r h e i t s k o n z e p t des E n t w u r f e s D I N
1 8 2 3 0 , Baulicher Brandschutz, Bemessung im Solids MJ/kg
Industriebau, I n s t i t u t fiir B a u t e c h n i k , March,
1979. K i t c h e n refuse 8- 21
2 M. K e r s k e n - B r a d l e y , Probabilistic Approach for Leather 18 - 20
an Assessment of Protected Fire Loads, Research Linoleum 19 - 21
Report: Fire Safety Concepts, I n s t i t u t fiir Paper, C a r d b o a r d 13 - 21
B a u t e c h n i k , Berlin, 1 9 8 4 . Paraffin wax 46 - 47
3 Building Materials and Structures Report, BMS Plastics
92, N a t i o n a l B u r e a u o f S t a n d a r d s , 1 9 4 2 , T a b l e 6. ABS 34 - 40
4 S. Bryl, Brandbelastungen in Biirogebfi'uden- Acrylic 27 29
Brandsicherheit im Stahlbau, Part III, ECCS-III- Celluloid 17 20
74-2-D. Epoxy 33 34
5 M. B o n e t t i , P. Kree a n d J. K r u p p a , E s t i m a t i o n des M e l a m i n e resin 16 19
charges mobili~res d ' i n c e n d i e d a n s les i m m e u b l e s Phenolformaldehyde 27 30
usage de b u r e a u , Construction Mdtallique, 3 Polyester 30 31
( 1 9 7 5 ) 7 - 15. Polyester, fibre r e i n f o r c e d 20 22
Polyethylene 43 44
A1.2. D A T A F O R A N I N D I V I D U A L A S S E S S M E N T Polystyrene 39 40
Petroleum 40 42
Polyisocyanurate foam 22 26
1.2.1. Calorific values of combustible Polycarbonate 28 30
materials Polypropylene 42 43
The fire load in a compartment is d e t e r - Polytetrafluorethylene 5.0
mined by the total mass of combustible Polyurethane 22 24
Polyurethane foam 23 28
material per unit floor area or unit area of sur-
Polyvinylchloride 16 17
faces bounding the compartment, the net Ureaformaldehyde 14 15
calorific value, and the combustion behaviour. Ureaformaldehyde foam 12 15
The net calorific value Hu (MJ/kg) shall be Foam rubber 34 4 0
determined as specified in standards, e.g., IS Rubber isoprene 44 45
R u b b e r tire 31 33
1716 or its national variants. The humidity
Silk 17 21
of the material should be taken into account. Straw 15 16
The calorific value of moist materials H E can Wood 17 20
be determined from the formula Wool 21 26
Particle b o a r d ( c h i p b o a r d a n d
H F = Hu(1 -- 0.01 m*) -- 0.025 m*, hardboard) 17 - 18
w h e r e m * is t h e m o i s t u r e c o n t e n t i n % b y
weight. Calorific values of some dry solids, Liquids MJ/kg
liquids and gases are given in Table A1.2. Gasoline 43 - 44
Diesel oil 40 42
T A B L E A1.2 Linseed oil 38 40
Methanol 19 20
Net calorific v a l u e H u of c o m b u s t i b l e m a t e r i a l s ( M J / P a r a f f i n oil 40 42
kg) Spirits 26 28
Tar 37 39
Solids MJ/kg Benzene 40.1
Benzyl a l c o h o l 32.9
Anthracite 31 - 36 Ethyl alcohol 26.9
Asphalt 40 - 42 I s o p r o p y l alcohol 31.4
Bitume n 41 - 43
Celullose 15 - 18 Gases MJ/kg
Charcoal 34 - 35
Clothes 17 - 21 Acetylene 48.2
Coal, Coke 28 - 34 Butane 45.7
Cork 26 - 31 Carbon monoxide 10.1
Cotton 16 - 20 Hydrogen 119.7
Grain 16- 18 Propane 45.8
Grease 40 - 42 Methane 50.0
Ethanol 26.8
(continued)
104
1.2.2. C o m b u s t i o n b e h a v i o u r
The vast majority of the data that are used
to provide design m e t hods for structural fire
safety come from experiments in which the
fuel was wood. Sometimes the fuel has been
in the form of piles of scrap timber, some-
times in the form of furniture and more
recently, in the form of cribs of wood. Other
types of fire loads can be expressed in terms
o f the equivalent energy available. But this
c o n c e p t is obviously very crude as it does not
a c c o u n t for the specific fire behaviour of the
combustible materials according to their
nature, shape, size, distribution, storage
density, etc. The geometrical properties of
fuel and the position of the fuel in the fire
c o m p a r t m e n t , among ot her things, are
decisive for the fire behaviour of the fuel.
Qualitatively, it is generally recognized that
for wood, a decrease in the surface/volume
ratio (i.e., making the fuel thicker) can lead,
as does partial protection, to slower burning
and perhaps u n b u r n t residues. For very large
surface/volume ratios, e.g., dusts, burning can
be fast enough to be explosive. This hazard
has some similarity to a gaseous explosion and
is outside the scope of this design guide.
If the fuel is chemically different from
wood, the energy required to produce gaseous
fuel for co mb u s tio n with air -- or the balance
between this co mb us t i on in the gaseous phase
and co mb u s tio n at solid surfaces of charring
materials -- is altered.
An increased requirement in the energy
required for volatilisation will tend to
produce less severe fires. On the ot he r hand a
reduced requirement, e.g., a low latent heat
for a liquid fuel, will produce gaseous fuel
more quickly from a given thermal environ-
ment. However this may not necessarily
p ro d u ce a more severe fire within a compart-
ment: extra fuel may n o t be able to burn
inside the c o m p a r t m e n t if the fire is air-
limited b u t the hazards o u t s i d e the compart-
m e n t would be aggravated.
These consequences of changing the fuel
are n o t independent of the level of ventila-
tion, etc. One must expect some interaction
between the material and the circumstances
in which it burns, and these effects are n o t
quantitatively understood. However one can
o f t e n recognize that there are grounds for
expecting significant differences from the
behaviour for conventional situations.
To take into account the a f o r e m e n t i o n e d
effects, in Sections 4.3.5 and 4.4.5, the com-
bustion factor mi has been introduced when
defining the fire load density q~ and qt. See
eqns. (4.6), (4.12a) and (4.12b). For situa-
tions covered in the design guide, mi will have
a value between 0 and 1.
It follows from the above discussion that
the actual value of mi is a function of the t ype
of fuel, the geometrical properties of the fuel,
and the position of the fuel in the fire com-
part m ent , among ot her things. For some
types of fire load com part m ent s, mi depends
also on the time of fire duration and on the
gas t e m p e r a t u r e - t i m e characteristics of the
c o m p a r t m e n t fire.
In some countries, such as Czechoslovakia,
a global approach is applied, by setting mi
equal to one single, conventional value, e.g.,
mi = 0.8.
A more differentiated approach for quanti-
fying m i is presented in refs. 1 and 2. This
m e t h o d o l o g y deals with cellulose materials
(mainly paper), stored in metal frames and
(open) cupboards as c o m m o n l y used in office
buildings. For such applications it is, as a con-
servative approximation, suggested to take
mi ~-0.7. Also, the effect of (partial) protec-
tion of the fire load is covered in refs. 1 and
2. When this effect is taken into account as
well, 'overall' reduction factors will result,
which are well below 0.7. Statistical data on
the effective fire load, evaluated on the basis
of overall reduct i on factors according to refs.
1 and 2, are given in ref. 3.
A systematic procedure for an evalua-
tion of mi is given in ref. 4. According to this
procedure, which as a first approximation,
discounts interaction between fuel and the
conditions of the fire, for solids mi values are
found to vary in a range between 0.8 and, per-
haps, 0.2. For some liquids, significant higher
mi values may result. It is noted, however, that
the procedure described in ref. 4 is not gener-
ally known or recognized internationally.
Alternatively, one could therefore think of
special ad h o c tests or analysis when a more
precise quantification of mi is required. In
interpreting such test data, it is i m p o r t a n t to
recognize that a low mi value may be due to
 105

e i t h e r e x c e s s f u e l o r e x c e s s air a n d t h a t t h e A1.3. STATISTICAL DATA ON FIRE LOAD

c o n s e q u e n c e s o f t h e s e are v e r y d i f f e r e n t .
1.2.3. R e f e r e n c e s
1 C. Herpol, R. Minne and P. Vandervelde, Charge
d'incendie effective represent~e par le papier,
ECCS, Committee 3.
2 S. Bryl, Fire loads in office buildings- Fire
Safety in Constructional Steelwork, Part IlI,
ECCS-III-74-2-D, (a version in German language is
also available).
3 M. Bonetti, P. Kree and J. Kruppa, Estimation des
• charges mobili~res d'incendie dans les immeubles
usage de bureau, Construction M~tallique, 3
(1975) 7 - 15.
4 Structural fire protection in industrial buildings,
DIN 18230 Part 2, Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin,
1986.
DENSITIES AND GEOMETRY OF FIRE COM-
PARTMENTS FOR DIFFERENT OCCUPANCIES
1.3.1. T a b l e s
The following Tables comprise data for the
assessment of the heat exposure relevant for a
c e r t a i n t y p e o f o c c u p a n c y . T h e d a t a are b a s e d
on investigations in different countries and
are l i s t e d s e p a r a t e l y w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o t h e
respective d a t a source. Differences in the
various values m a y be due to i n h e r e n t
n a t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s , b u t p o s s i b l y also r e s u l t
from different sampling and evaluation
techniques.

L o c a t i o n o f v a r i a b l e fire l o a d d e n s i t i e s q~ Table
Dwellings 1.3.1
Hospitals 1.3.2
Hotels 1.3.3
Offices 1.3.4
Shopping centres, Department stores 1.3.5
Industrial buildings 1.3.6
Schools 1.3.7
Additional data relevant for Schools 1.3.8 - 1.3.11

F i r e l o a d d e n s i t y qt
(Dwelling, Offices, Schools, Hospitals, Hotels) 1.3.12

A v e r a g e fire l o a d d e n s i t i e s f o r d e t a i l e d
occupancy specification 1.3.13

TABLE A1.3.1
Variable fire load densities in dwellings (MJ/m 2) fire load density qf per unit floor area (m 2 )

Single Average Standard Fractile Remarks

value deviation
80% 90% 95%

Swedish data [ 1 . 1 - 1 . 3 ] qf = qt × 5.2

3 rooms 720 104 770 Characteristic value (0.8 fr.)
2 rooms 780 128 870 -- Bedroom 630
- - Living room 510

European data [ 2 ]
6 rooms 500 180 qf = qt X 5.2
5 rooms 540 125 5.2 = cubic measure
3 rooms 670 133 760 780 830 3.2 x 4.3 × 2.9
2 rooms 780 129 870 1020 950
1 room 720 104 760 780 890

Swiss risk evaluation [ 6 ]

Flat 330
(continued)
 106

T A B L E A1.3.1 (continued)

Single Average Standard Fractile Remarks

value deviation
80% 90% 95%

U S A data [ 7 ]
Living r o o m 350 104
Family room 250 58
Bedroom 390 104
Dining r o o m 330 92
Kitchen 290 71
All r o o m s 320 88
U S A data [ 9 ]
Residence 750" * T o t a l fire load including
Max. for l i n e n closet 4440* p e r m a n e n t fire load
R a n g e o f m a x i m u m values
730 - 1 2 7 0 "
for single o c c u p i e d r o o m

TABLE A1.3.2
Variable fire load densities in h o s p i t a l s ( M J / m 2 ) fire load d e n s i t y qf per u n i t floor area (m 2 )

Single Average Standard Fractile Remarks

value deviation
80% 90% 95%

Swedish data [1.2, 1.3]

Hospital b e d r o o m 80
E u r o p e a n data [ 2 ]
Hospitals 230 350 670 Data f r o m T h e N e t h e r l a n d s
Swiss risk e v a l u a t i o n [6 ]
Hospitals 330
U S A data [ 7 ]
Hospital p a t i e n t r o o m 108 33
U S A data [ 9 ]
Hospitals 250* * T o t a l fire load including
Max. for: p e r m a n e n t fire load
- - service s t o r e 1720"
-- l a u n d r y , c l o t h e s storage 2090*
Range o f max. values for
270 - 1 9 9 0 "
single o c c u p i e d r o o m

T A B L E A1.3.3
Variable fire load densities in h o t e l s ( M J / m 2) fire load density qf p e r u n i t floor area (m 2 )

Single Average Standard Fractile Remarks

value deviation
80% 90% 95%

Swedish data [1.2, 1.3]

Hotels 310 92 380 qf = qt × 4.7
Bedroom 420
E u r o p e a n data [ 2 ]
Bedrooms 310 104 400 470 510
European data [ 5 ] Bathroom included
Bedroom 182 p e r m a n e n t fire load = 25
Swiss risk e v a l u a t i o n [ 6 ]
Hotels 330
 107

T A B L E A1.3.4
Variable fire load densities in offices ( M J / m 2 ) fire load d e n s i t y qf per unit floor area (m 2 )

Single Average S t a n d a r d Fractile Remarks

value deviation
80% 90% 95%

Swedish data [1.2, 1.3]

Company management 272 126 Characteristic value
Production management 355 168 (0.8 fractile):
Officials 441 250 -- technical office
Office s t a f f 417 210 720
Special r o o m s 1172 798 - - adm. office 640
Technical r o o m s 278 109 - - All offices
Rooms of communication 168 240 investigated 675
All r o o m s 411 334

E u r o p e a n data [ 2 ]
Company management 270 125
Production management 360 170
Officials 450 260
Office s t a f f 380 46
Special r o o m s 1330 890
Technical r o o m s 330 67
Rooms of communication 170 220
All r o o m s 420 370 570 740 950

E u r o p e a n data [ 3 ]
Company management 270 125
Production management 350 170
Officials 440 250
Office s t a f f 420 210
Special r o o m s 1170 790
Technical r o o m s 280 108
Rooms of communication 170 240
All r o o m s 410 330 520 770 920

E u r o p e a n data [ 4 ]
Company management 300 140
Office s t a f f 380 180
Special r o o m s 1000 390
Conference 220 117
Various r o o m s 260 225
Rooms of communication 80 83
All r o o m s 330 400

E u r o p e a n data [ 5 ] P e r m a n e n t fire load

Technical office 250 = 290

Swiss risk evaluation [6]

Technical offices 580
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e offices 750

USA data - - Government

buildings [1.2, 7]
General 555 285
Clerical 415 425
Lobby 115 92
Conference 270 515
File 1420 1025
Storage 950 1700
Library 2650 695
All r o o m s 555 625
(continued)
 108

T A B L E A1.3.4 (continued)

Single Average S t a n d a r d Fractile Remarks

value deviation
80% 90% 95%

USA data - - Private

buildings [ 8 ]
General 525 355
Clerical 465 315
Lobby 300 325
Conference 370 380
File 1300 1110
Storage 1040 980
Library 1980 940
All r o o m s 580 535

USA data [8]

Offices 1670" *Total fire load
excl. heavy files 960* including p e r m a n e n t
Max. for heavy files 7800* fire loads
Range o f m a x i m u m
values for single 635 - 3 9 0 0 *
occupied room

T A B L E A1.3.5
Variable fire load densities in s h o p p i n g c e n t r e s and d e p a r t m e n t stores ( M J / m 2) fire load d e n s i t y qf per u n i t floor
area (m 2 )

Single Average Standard Fractile Remarks

value deviation
80% 90% 95%

E u r o p e a n data [2]
Shopping centre Local peak values E x p l a n a t i o n o f the very
floor area 3000 m 2 low values :
Articles o f daily use 420 Sales area = 20 - 25% o f
Foods 585 the total floor area
Textiles 380 535
P e r f u m e r y , toys,
s t a t i o n e r y store, 420 560
h o u s e h o l d items
F u r n i t u r e , carpet 585 960

E u r o p e a n data [ 5 ]
F u r n i t u r e store 970 P e r m a n e n t fire load = 200
Little s u p e r m a r k e t 750

Swiss risk evaluation [6 ]

Food store 665
Clothing store 585
Perfumery 420
S t a t i o n e r y store 665
F u r n i t u r e store 420
Toy store 500
Carpet store 835
Dept. store 420

USA data [9]

Mercantile
(dept. s t o r e ) 935* *Total fire load including
Max. for paint dept. 4260* p e r m a n e n t fire load
(continued)
 109

TABLE A1.3.5 (continued)

Single Average Standard Fractile Remarks

value deviation
80% 90% 95%

Warehouse
-- General 2270*
-Printing
- 15800*
-Max. value
- 23200*

TABLE A1.3.6
Variable fire load densities in industrial buildings ( M J / m 2) fire load d e n s i t y qf per u n i t floor area (m 2 )

Single Average Standard Fractile Remarks

value deviation
80% 90% 95%

G e r m a n data [6, 9, 1 1 ]
Storage o f c o m b u s t i b l e
g o o d s in a m o u n t s :
<150 kg/m 2 1780 1260 2560 3490 4490 Fractile values
>150kg/m 2 15360 10600 23190 33110 44330 c a l c u l a t e d for a
M a n u f a c t u r i n g a n d storage lognormal
o f c o m b u s t i b l e goods in distribution
amounts:
<150 kg/m 2 1180 855 1820 2640 3590
>150kg/m 2 9920 8530 14180 19810 26040

Storage of p r i n c i p a l l y 130 100 190 260 350

non-combustible goods
Vehicle m a n u f a c t u r i n g 145 105 220 310 420
Processing of m e t a l goods 140 120 210 330 470
Processing of t i m b e r or 305 175 420 550 670
plastic g o o d s
Manufacturing of metal goods 240 170 420 680 1010
Electrical devices ( m a n u f a c t u r i n g , 235 115 330 430 530
assembling, storage)

Garaging, m a i n t e n a n c e , 190 105 270 340 420

e x p l o i t a t i o n o f vehicles

M a n u f a c t u r i n g , processing, 280 225 470 720 1010

s u p p l y o f c e r a m i c s a n d glassware
Cf. also Swiss d a t a o f
Table A1.3.13

T A B L E A1.3.7
Variable fire load densities in schools ( M J / m 2) fire load d e n s i t y qf per u n i t f l o o r area (m 2 )

Single Average Standard Fractile Remarks

value deviation
80% 90% 95%

Swedish d a t a [1.2, 1.3] qf = qt × 3.53

J u n i o r level 295 50 345
Middle level 340 71 415
S e n i o r level 215 67 250
All schools 285 83 340
(continued)
110

T A B L E A1.3.7 (continued)

Single Average Standard Fractile Remarks

value deviation
80% 90% 95%

E u r o p e a n data [ 2 ]
J u n i o r level 295 58 340 395 400
Middle level 340 58 425 445 450
Senior level 220 67 275 300 450
All schools 285 79 360 415 440
Classrooms 245
Cardboardroom 235
Collection r o o m 435
Corridors 63
Average 240

The N e t h e r l a n d s
All schools 215 365 550

S w i s s r i s k evaluation [6]
Schools 250

USA data [ 9 ]
School 1420" *Total fire
Max. for t e x t b o o k s t o r e r o o m 20670* load (variable
Range o f m a x i m u m values for 635 - 3 5 4 0 * and interior
single o c c u p i e d r o o m finish)

T A B L E A1.3.8
Fire loads in t h e individual groups o f school r o o m s * , f r o m Table 5 o f ref. 10: fire load d e n s i t y qf per unit floor
area (m 2)

P e r m a n e n t fire load Variable fire load Total fire load

(MJ/m 2 ) (MJ/m 2 ) (MJ/m 2 )

Mean 90% Mean 90% Mean 90%

value fractile value fractile value fractile

Classrooms 250 360 115 165 360 495

R o o m s o f teachers 435 900 375 720 815 1050
Special r o o m s 280 470 190 290 470 685
Material r o o m s 265 480 705 1330 965 1660
Lecture r o o m s 345 660 80 165 425 720
Administration rooms 365 625 450 760 815 1260
Libraries 230 325 1510 2550 1750 2690
Storerooms 175 245 440 885 615 1060
Others 345 575 190 465 535 1030

*Owing to t h e restricted selection o f objects, n o t all influences o n t h e investigated p a r a m e t e r s could be p r o v e d by

a s u f f i c i e n t n u m b e r o f samples. The o b s e r v e d t e n d e n c i e s are s u m m a r i z e d in the n e x t Table.

T A B L E A1.3.9
D e p e n d e n c e o f investigated p a r a m e t e r s o n various influences, f r o m Table 6 o f ref. 10

Room Ventilation Fire load

geometry conditions
Permanent Variable Total

Position o f school - -
no no no no no
city/country (continued)
 111

T A B L E A 1 . 3 . 9 (continued)

Room Ventilation Fire l o a d

geometry conditions
Permanent Variable Total

Building a r r a n g e m e n t --
no yes no no no
compact/disbanded
Type of school --
g r a m m a r s c h o o l , etc. yes no yes yes yes

Use o f r o o m s - -
c l a s s r o o m s etc. yes yes yes yes yes

Area of r o o m s yes yes yes yes yes

Built-in f u r n i t u r e -
existing/not existing no no yes yes yes

V e n t i l a t i o n in t h e ceiling - -
no yes no no no
existing/not existing

TABLE A1.3.10
G e o m e t r i c a l p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e g r o u p s o f r o o m s , T a b l e 3 o f ref. 10. F o r deriving average values o f v e n t i l a t i o n
factors by standardizing c o m m i t t e e s

Groups of r o o m s F l o o r base ( m 2) Total surrounding V o l u m e ( m a) Height of room

area ( m 2 ) (m)
Mean 90% Mean 90%
value fractile Mean 90% value fractile Mean 90%
value fractile value fractile

Classrooms 69.2 79.4 250.9 281.1 231.3 273.5 3.37 3.74

R o o m s of teachers 32.2 47.5 142.3 187.5 111.9 137.5 3.41 3.85
Special r o o m s 87.2 133.7 308.5 438.8 307.8 476.0 3.53 3.86
Material r o o m s 47.4 122.0 190.2 448.1 165.9 471.2 3.42 3.85
Lecture rooms 131.3 275.0 420.5 750.0 490.6 900.0 3.59 4.00
Administration rooms 43.6 92.5 174.7 325.0 149.0 312.5 3.33 3.84
Libraries 35.3 56.2 157.3 275.0 130.7 225.0 3.56 3.75
Storerooms 69.9 172.5 260.4 597.5 246.0 645.0 3.44 3.62
Others 84.0 135.0 280.3 422.5 314.5 445.0 3.64 3.85

TABLE A1.3.11
F a c e o f o p e n i n g s o f t h e g r o u p s o f r o o m s , T a b l e 4 o f ref. 10. F o r d e r i v i n g average values o f v e n t i l a t i o n f a c t o r s b y
standardizing committees

Groups of rooms External openings External openings Internal openings

- - vertical ( m 2 ) -- horizontal (m 2 ) - - vertical ( m 2 )

Mean A* 90% A Mean A 90% A Mean A 90% A

value -- fractile -- value -- fractile -- value -- fractile --
At At At At At At

Classrooms 15.3 0.06 21.4 0.08 0.23 0.001 0.30 0.001 3.8 0.02 5.9 0.02
Rooms of teachers 9.2 0.06 10.8 0.06 10.7 0.07 14.2 0.08 6.6 0.05 9.0 0.05
Special r o o m s 19.6 0.06 41.3 0.09 5.9 0.02 10.6 0.02 8.5 0.03 13.0 0.03
Material r o o m s 11.0 0.06 24.6 0.05 4.2 0.02 15.4 0.03 8.7 0.05 16.4 0.04
Lecture rooms 17.1 0.04 28.0 0.04 2.0 0.01 7.2 0.01 9.0 0.02 19.5 0.03
Administration rooms 12.6 0.07 21.8 0.07 . . . . 6.2 0.04 9.0 0.03
Libraries 10.5 0.07 21.6 0.08 2.8 0.02 4.2 0.02 8.1 0.05 20.0 0.07
Storerooms 6.0 0.02 6.7 0.01 . . . . 9.3 0.04 19.8 0.03
Others 22.2 0.08 26.0 0.06 . . . . 8.3 0.03 16.8 0.04

* V e n t i l a t i o n f a c t o r A / A t.
 112

T A B L E A1.3.12
Fire load d e n s i t y qt per unit area o f t h e surface b o u n d i n g t h e fire c o m p a r t m e n t - - Swedish data [ 1.1 - 1.3 ]

T y p e o f fire c o m p a r t m e n t Average S t a n d a r d deviation Characteristic value

(MJ/m 2 ) (MJ/m 2) (0.8 fractile)
(MJ/m 2)

1. Dwellings*
(a) t w o r o o m s and a k i t c h e n 150 24.7 168
(b) t h r e e r o o m s and a k i t c h e n 139 20.1 149

2. Offices**
(a) technical offices 124 31.4 145
(b) administrative offices 102 32.2 132
(c) all offices investigated 114 39.4 138

3. S c h o o l s * *
(a) s c h o o l s - - junior level 84.2 14.2 98.4
(b) schools - - middle level 96.7 20.5 117
(c) schools - - senior level 61.1 18.4 71.2
(d) all schools investigated 80.4 23.4 76.3

4. Hospitals 116 36.0 147

5. H o t e l s * * 67 19.3 81.6

* F l o o r covering excluded.
* * O n l y variable fire loads included.

T A B L E A1.3.13
Average fire load densities qf [ 11 ] - - Swiss data.
The following values for fire load densities (only variable fire load densities) are t a k e n f r o m Beilage 1:
Brandschutztechnische Merkmale verschiedener Nutzungen und Lagergiiter [6 ] and are d e f i n e d as d e n s i t y qf per
unit floor area ( M J / m 2 ).
N o t e t h a t for the d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e variable fire load o f storage areas, the values given in t h e following
Table have to be m u l t i p l i e d by the height o f storage in metres. Areas and aisles for t r a n s p o r t a t i o n have been
t a k e n into c o n s i d e r a t i o n in an averaging m a n n e r .
The values are based o n a large investigation carried o u t during t h e years 1967 - 1969, by a staff o f 10 - 20
s t u d e n t s u n d e r the guidance o f the Swiss Fire P r e v e n t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n for I n d u s t r y and T r a d e (Brandverhfitungs-
dienst f~r Industrie u n d G e w e r b e , Niischelerstrasse 45, CH-8001 Zurich), w i t h the financial s u p p o r t o f the
g o v e r n m e n t a l civil d e f e n e e organization.
F o r each t y p e o f o c c u p a n c y , storage a n d / o r building, a m i n i m u m o f 10 - 15 samples were a n a l y z e d ; normally,
20 or m o r e samples were available. All values given in t h e following pages are average values. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , it has
been impossible to o b t a i n the basic data sheets o f this investigation. In o r d e r t o e s t i m a t e t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g
s t a n d a r d deviations and t h e 80%- 90%- and 95%-fractile values, t h e data f r o m this source were c o m p a r e d with
data given in refs. 1 - 5, 7 - 11. This c o m p a r i s o n results in the following suggestions:
(a) F o r well-defined o c c u p a n c i e s w h i c h are r a t h e r similar or with very limited d i f f e r e n c e s in f u r n i t u r e and
s t o r e d goods, e.g., dwellings, hotels, hospitals, offices a n d schools, t h e following e s t i m a t e s m a y suffice:
C o e f f i c i e n t o f variation = 30% - 50% o f the given average value
90%-fractile value = (1.35 - 1.65) × average value
80%-fractile value = (1.25 - 1.50) × average value
isolated peak values = 2 × average value

(b) F o r o c c u p a n c i e s w h i c h are r a t h e r dissimilar or with larger d i f f e r e n c e s in furnitures and s t o r e d goods,

e.g., s h o p p i n g centres, d e p a r t m e n t stores and industrial occupancies, t h e following e s t i m a t e s are t e n t a t i v e l y
suggested:
c o e f f i c i e n t o f variation = 50% - 80% o f t h e given average value
90%-fractile value = (1.65 - 2.0) × average value
80%-fractile value = (1.45 - 1.75) × average value
isolated peak values = 2.5 × average value
 113

TABLE A1.3.13 (continued)

Type of occupancies Fabrication Storage Type of occupancies Fabrication Storage

(MJ/m 2 ) MJ/m 2 )

Academy 300 Bookstore 1000

Accumulator forwarding 800 Box mfg 1000 600
Accumulator mfg 400 800 Brick plant, burning 40
Acetylene cylinder storage 700 Brick plant, clay preparation 40
Acid plant 80 Brick plant, drying kiln with
1000
Adhesive mfg 1000 3400 wooden grates
Administration 800 Brick plant, drying room with
40
Adsorbent plant for metal grates
combustible vapours > 1700 Brick plant, drying room with
4OO
Aircraft hangar 200 wooden grates
Airplane factory 200 Brick plant, pressing 200
Aluminium mfg 40 Briquette factories 1600
Aluminium processing 200 Broom mfg 700 400
Ammunition mfg Spez. Brush mfg 700 800
Animal food preparing, mfg 2000 3300 Butter mfg 700 4000
Antique shop 700
Apparatus forwarding 700 Cabinet making (without
Apparatus mfg 400 600
woodyard)
Apparatus repair 600 Cable mfg 300 600
Apparatus testing 200 Caf~ 4OO
Arms mfg 300 Camera mfg 30O
Arms sales 300 Candle mfg 1300 22400
Artificial flower mfg 300 200 Candy mfg 400 1500
Artificial leather mfg 1000 1700 Candy packing 80O
Artificial leather processing 300 Candy shop 4OO
Artificial silk mfg 300 1100 Cane products mfg 400 200
Artificial silk processing 210 Canteen 3OO
Artificial stone mfg 40 Car accessory sales 30O
Asylum 400 Car assembly plant 3OO
Authority office 800 Car body repairing 150
Awning mfg 300 1000 Car paint shop 5OO
Car repair shop 3OO
Car seat cover shop 7OO
Bag mfg (jute, paper, plastic) 500 Cardboard box mfg 800 2500
Bakery 200 Cardboard mfg 300 4200
Bakery, sales 300 Cardboard products mfg 800 2500
Ball bearing mfg 200 Carpenter shed 7O0
Bandage mfg 400 Carpet dyeing 5OO
Bank, counters 300 Carpet mfg 600 1700
Bank, offices 800 Carpet store 8OO
Barrel mfg, wood 1000 800 Cartwright's shop 5OO
Basement, dwellings 900 Cast iron foundry 400 800
Basketware mfg 300 200 Celluloid mfg 800 3400
Bed sheeting production 500 1000 Cement mfg 1000
Bedding plant 600 Cement plant 4O
Bedding shop 500 Cement products mfg 8O
Beer mfg (brewery) 80 Cheese factory 120
Beverage mfg, nonalcoholic 80 Cheese mfg (in boxes) 170
Bicycle assembly 200 400 Cheese store 100
Biscuit factories 200 Chemical plants (rough
Biscuit mfg 200 average) 300 1000
Bitumen preparation 800 3400 Chemist's shop 1000
Blind mfg, venetian 800 300 Children's home 4O0
Blueprinting firm 400 China mfg 2OO
Boarding school 300 Chipboard finishing 800
Boat mfg 600 Chipboard pressing 100
Boiler house 200 Chocolate factory,
Bookbinding 1000 6000
intermediate storage
(continued)
114

TABLE A1.3.13 (continued)

Type of occupancies Fabrication Storage Type of occupancies Fabrication Storage

(MJ/m 2) (MJ/m 2)

Chocolate factory, packing 500 Dry-cell battery 400 600

Chocolate factory, tumbling 1000 Dry cleaning 300
treatment Dyeing plant 500
Chocolate factory, all other
500
specialities Edible fat forwarding 900
Church 200 Edible fat mfg 1000 18900
Cider mfg (without crate 200 Electric appliance mfg 400
storage) Electric appliance repair 500
Cigarette plant 300 Electric motor mfg 300
Cinema 300 Electrical repair shop 600
Clay, preparing 50 Electrical supply storage 1200
Cloakroom, metal wardrobe 80 H < 3m
Cloakroom, wooden wardrobe 400 Electro Industry 600
Cloth mfg 400 Electronic device mfg 400
Clothing plant 500 Electronic device repair 500
Clothing store 600 Embroidery 300
Coal bunker 2500 Etching plant glass/metal 200
Coal cellar 10500 Exhibition hall, cars 200
Cocoa processing 800 including decoration
Coffee-extract mfg 300 Exhibition hall, furniture
500
Coffee roasting 400 including decoration
Cold storage 2000 Exhibition hall, machines
80
Composing room 400 including decoration
Concrete products mfg 100 ExhibitiorL of paintings 200
Condiment mfg 50 including decoration
Congress hall 600 Explosive Industry 4000
Contractors 500
Cooking-stove mfg 600 Fertilizer mfg 200 200
Coopering 600 Filling plant/barrels
Cordage plant 300 600 liquid filled and/or barrels
< 200
Cordage store 500 incombustible
Cork products mfg 500 800 liquid filled and/or barrels
Cosmetics mfg 300 500 combustible:
Cotton mills 1200 Risk Class I > 3400
Cotton wool mfg 300 Risk Class II > 3400
Cover mfg 500 Risk Class III > 3400
Cutlery mfg (household) 200 Risk Class IV > 3400
Cutting-up shop, leather, Risk Class V > 1700
artificial leather 300 (if higher, take into con-
Cutting-up shop, textiles 500 sideration combustibility
Cutting-up shop, wood 700 of barrels)
Filling plant/small casks
Dairy 200 liquid filled and casks < 200
Data processing 400 incombustible
Decoration studio 1200 2000 liquid filled and/or casks
Dental surgeons laboratory 300 combustible:
Dentist's office 200 Risk Class I < 500
Department store 400 Risk Class II < 500
Distilling plant, combustible 200 Risk Class III < 500
materials Risk Class IV < 500
Distilling plant, incombustible 50 Risk Class V < 500
materials (if higher, take into con-
Doctor's office 200 sideration combustibility
Door mfg, wood 800 1800 of casks)
Dressing, textiles 200 Finishing plant, paper 500
Dressing, paper 700 Finishing plant, textile 300
Dressmaking shop 300 Fire works mfg Spez. 2000
(continued)
 115

TABLE A1.3.13 (continued)

Type of occupancies Fabrication Storage Type of occupancies Fabrication Storage

(MJ/m 2) (MJ/m 2)

Flat 300 Heat sealing of plastics 800

Floor covering mfg 500 6000 High-rise office building 800
Floor covering store 1000 Homes 500
Flooring plaster mfg 600 Homes for aged 400
Flour products 800 Hosiery mfg 300 1000
Flower sales 80 Hospital 300
Fluorescent tube mfg 300 Hotel 300
Foamed plastics fabrication 3000 2500 Household appliances, mfg 300 200
Foamed plastics processing 600 800 Household appliances, sales 300
Food forwarding 1000
Food store 700
Ice cream plant (including 100
Forge 80
packaging)
Forwarding, appliances 700 Incandescent lamp plant 40
partly made of plastic
Injection moulded parts mfg
Forwarding, beverage 300 (metal) 80
Forwarding, cardboard goods 600
Injection moulded parts mfg 500
Forwarding, food 1000
(plastic)
Forwarding, furniture 600 Institution building 500
Forwarding, glassware 700 Ironing 500
Forwarding, plastic products 1000
Forwarding, printed matters 1700
Forwarding, textiles 600 Jewelry mfg 200
Forwarding, tinware 200 Jewelry shop 300
Forwarding, varnish, polish 1300 Joinery 700
Forwarding, woodware (small) 600 Joiners (machine room) 500
Foundry (metal) 40 Joiners (workbench) 700
Jute, weaving 400 1300
Fur, sewing 400
Fur store 200
Furniture exhibition 500 Laboratory, bacteriological 200
Furniture mfg (wood) 600 Laboratory, chemical 500
Furniture polishing 500 Laboratory, electric, electronic 200
Furniture store 400 Laboratory, metallurgical 200
Furrier 500 Laboratory, physics 200
Lacquer forwarding 1000
Galvanic station 200 Lacquer mfg 500 2500
Gambling place 150 Large metal constructions 80
Glass blowing plant 200 Lathe shop 600
Glass factory 100 Laundry 200
Glass mfg 100 Leather goods sales 700
Glass painting 300 Leather product mfg 500
Glass processing 200 Leather, tanning, dressing, etc. 400
Glassware mfg 200 Library 2000 2000
Glassware store 200 Lingerie mfg 400
Glazier's workshop 700 Liqueur mfg 400 8OO
Gold plating (of metals) 800 3400 Liquor mfg 500 8OO
Goldsmith's workshop 200 Liquor store 700
Grainmill, without storage 400 13000 Loading ramp including goods 800
Gravestone carving 50 (rough average)
Graphic workshop 1000 Lumber room for
500
Greengrocer's shop 200 miscellaneous goods

Hairdressing shop 300 Machinery mfg 200

Hardening plant 400 Match plant 300 800
Hardware mfg 200 Mattress mfg 500 500
Hardware store 300 Meat shop 50
Hat mfg 500 Mechanical workshop 200
Hat store 500 Metal goods mfg 200
Heating equipment room, 300 Metal grinding 80
wood or coal firing Metal working (general) 200
(continued)
116

TABLE A1.3.13 (continued)

Type of occupancies Fabrication Storage Type of occupancies Fabrication Storage

(MJ/m 2) (MJ/m 2)

Milk, condensed, evaporated, 200 9000 Plumber's workshop 100

mfg Plywood mfg 800 2900
Milk, powdered, mfg 200 10500 Polish mfg 1700
Milling work, metal 200 Post office 400
Mirror mfg 100 Potato, flaked, mfg 200
Motion-picture studio 300 Pottery plant 200
Motor cycle assembly 300 Power station 600
Museum 300 Precious stone, cutting etc. 80
Musical instrument sales 281 Precision instrument mfg
(containing plastic parts) 200
News-stand 1300 (without plastic parts) 100
Nitrocellulose mfg Spez. 1100 Precision mechanics plant 200
Nuclear research 2100 Pressing, metal 100
Nursery school 300 Pressing, plastics, leather etc. 400
Preparation briquette
Office, business 800 production
Office, engineering 600 Printing, composing room 300
Office furniture 700 Printing ink mfg 700 3000
Office, machinery mfg 300 Printing, machine hall 400
Office machine sales 300 Printing office 1000
Oilcloth mfg 700 1300
Oilcloth processing 700 2100 Radio and TV mfg 400
Optical instrument mfg 200 200 Radio and TV sales 500
Radio studio 300
Packing, food 800 Railway car mfg 200
Packing, incombustible goods 400 Railway station 800
Packing material Industry 1600 3000 Railway workshop 800
Packing, printed matters 1700 Record player mfg 300 200
Packing, textiles 600 Record repository, documents
4200
Packing, all other combustible 600 see also storage
goods Refrigerator mfg 1000 300
Paint and varnish, mfg 4200 Relay mfg 400
Paint and varnish, mixing plant 2000 Repair shop, general 400
Paint and varnish shop 1000 Restaurant 300
Painter's workshop 500 Retouching department 300
Paint shop (cars, machines, 200 Rubber goods mfg 600 5000
etc.) Rubber goods store 800
Paint shop (furniture etc.) 400 Rubber processing 600 5000
Paper mfg 200 10000
Paper processing 800 1100 Saddlery mfg 300
Parking building 200 Safe mfg 80
Parquetry mfg 2000 1200 Salad oil forwarding 900
Perambulator mfg 300 800 Salad oil mfg 1000 18900
Perambulator shop 300 Sawmill (without woodyard) 400
Perfume sale 400 Scale mfg 400
Pharmaceuticals, packing 300 800 School 300
Pharmaceutical mfg 300 800 Scrap recovery 800
Pharmacy (including storage) 800 Seedstore 600
Photographic laboratory 100 Sewing machine mfg 300
Photographic store 300 Sewing machine store 300
Photographic studio 300 Sheet mfg 100
Picture frame mfg 300 Shoe factory, forwarding 600
Plaster product mfg 80 Shoe factory, mfg 500
Plastic floor tile mfg 800 Shoe polish mfg 800 2100
Plastic mfg 2000 5900 Shoe repair with manufacture 700
Plastic processing 600 Shoe store 500
Plastic products fabrication 600 Shutter mfg 1000

(continued)
 117

TABLE A1.3.13 (continued)

Type of occupancies Fabrication Storage Type of occupancies Fabrication Storage

(MJ/m 2) (MJ/m 2)

Silk spinning (natural silk) 300 TV studio 300

Silk weaving (natural silk) 300 Twisting shop 250
Silverwares 400
Ski mfg 400 1700 Umbrella mfg 300 400
Slaughter house 40 Umbrella store 300
Soap mfg 200 4200 Underground garage, private > 200
Soda mfg 40 Underground garage, public < 200
Soldering 300 Upholstering plant 500
Solvent distillation 200
Spinning mill excluding 300 Vacation home 500
garnetting Varnishing, appliances 80
Sporting goods store 800 Varnishing, paper 80
Spray painting, metal goods 300 Vegetable, dehydrating 1000 400
Spray painting, wood products 500 Vehicle mfg, assembly 400
Stationery store 700 Veneering 500 2900
Steel furniture mfg 300 Veneer mfg 800 4200
Stereotype plate mfg 200 Vinegar mfg 80 100
Stone masonry 40 Vulcanizing plant (without 1000
Storeroom (workshop 1200 storage )
storerooms etc. )
Synthetic fibre mfg 400
Synthetic fibre processing 400 Waffle mfg 300 1700
Synthetic resin mfg 3400 4200 Warping department 250
Washing agent mfg 300 200
Tar coated paper mfg 1700 Washing machine mfg 300 40
Tar preparation 800 Watch assembling 300 40
Telephone apparatus mfg 400 200 Watch mechanism mfg 40
Telephone exchange 80 Watch repair shop 300
Telephone exchange mfg 100 Watch sales 300
Test room, electric appliances 200 Water closets - 0
Test room, machinery 100 Wax products forwarding 2100
Test room, textiles 300 Wax products mfg 1300 2100
Theatre 300 Weaving mill (without carpets) 300
Tin can mfg 100 Welding shop (metal) 80
Tinned goods mfg 40 Winding room 400
Tinware mfg 120 Winding, textile fibres 600
Tire mfg 700 1800 Window glass mfg 700
Tobacco products mfg 200 2100 Window mfg (wood) 800
Tobacco shop 500 Wine cellar 20
Tool mfg 200 Wine merchant's shop 200
Toy mfg (combustible) 100 Wire drawing 80
Toy mfg (incombustible) 200 Wire factory 800
Toy store 500 Wood carving 700
Tractor mfg 300 Wood drying plant 800
Transformer mfg 300 Wood grinding 200
Transformer winding 600 Wood pattern-making shop 600
Travel agency 400 Wood preserving plant 3000
Turnery (wood working) 500
Turning section 200 Youth hostel 300

1.3.2. References 1 . 2 0 , Pettersson, S. E. Magnusson and J. Thor,

1.1 National Swedish Building Research Summaries
R 3 4 : 1 9 7 0 Nilsson, L., 1970, Brandbelastning/
Bostadsl6"genheter/Fire loads in fiats (Statens
Institut FSr Byggnadsforskning); Stockholm,
Rapport R 34: 1970, Svensk Byggtj~/nst, Box
1403, S-11184 Stockholm.
Fire Engineering Design of Steel Structures,
Publ. 50, Swedish Institute of Steel Construc-
tion, Stockholm 1976, (Swedish Edition 1974).
1.3 European Recommendations for the Fire
Safety of Steel Structures; Ch. 2, Fire Expo-
sure, Fire Safety of Steel Structures, Technical
Committee 3, European Convention for
118
Constructional Steelwork, Avenue Louis 326,
Bte 52, B-1050 Brussels, July 1981.
2 S. Bryl, Brandbelastung in Hochbau,
Schweizerische Bauzeitung, 24 April 1975;
special reprint from: 93. Jahrgang, Heft 17.
(Supplied by: Schweizer Ingenieur und
Architekt, Generalsekretariat, Selnaustrasse 6,
Postfach, CH-8039 Ziirich.)
3 S. Bryl, Brandbelastung im Stahlbau, Teil III,
Brandbelastung in Biirogeb~'uden, ECCS-III-
74-2-D, European Convention for Construc-
tional Steelwork, Rotterdam 1974.
4 M. Bonetti, P. Kree and J. Kruppa, Estimation
des Charges Mobilidres d'Incendie dans les Im-
meubles d Usage de Bureaux, Construction
M~tallique, No. 3, Centre Technique Industriel
de la Construction M~tallique (C.T.I.C.M.), 20,
Rue Jean Jaur~s, F-92807 Puteaux, September
1975.
5 J . C . Combessis, R. Fauconnier and D. Cluzel,
Enqudtes et Charges d'Incendie ; Etablissements
Recevant du Public, Charges Incendie Courbes,
Tempdrature/Temps Correspondantes, Com-
mande D.S.C. No. 005110, Institut Technique
du B~timent et des Travaux Publics, 9 Rue la
P~rouse, F-75784 Paris C~dex 16, September
1983.
6 Beilage 2 der SIA-Dokumentation 81]1984,
Brandrisikobewertung/Berechnungsvertahren
SIA, Schweizerischer Ingenieur- und
Architektenverein, Postfach, CH-8039 Ziirich.
7 J . A . Campbell, Confinement of fire in
Buildings, Fire Protection Handbook, 1981,
National Fire Protection Association, Quincy,
MA, Section 5.9.
8 C.G. Culver, Survey Results for Fire Loads and
Live Loads in Office Buildings, NBS Building
Science Series 85, US Department of Com-
merce/National Bureau of Standards, May
1976. ( F o r sale by the Superintendent of
Documents, US Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC 20402, USA: order by SD
catalog No. C 13.29/1:85.
9.1 A. F. Robertson and D. Gross, Fire Load, Fire
Severity and Fire Endurance, Special Technical
Publication 464, American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1970.
9.2 D. Gross, Measurements of fire loads and
calculations of fire severity, Wood and Fiber, 9
(1) Special Fire Symposium Issue, Part I, spring
1977, Center for Fire Research, National
Engineering Laboratory, National Bureau of
Standards, Washington, DC.
10 R. Hass, Statistical Investigations on Fire Load,
System Geometry and Ventilation in Modern
School Buildings, Res. Report No. BI7-810705-
216 for the Bundesminister fiir Raumordnung,
Bauwesen und St~dtebau, Technische
Universit~it Braunschweig, Institut fiir
Massinbau, Baustoffe und Brandschutz, 1981.
11 U. Schneider and U. Max, Brandlasterhebungen
in Industrie Stahlhallen; unpublished research
report, 1984; supplied by Prof. Schneider,
Gesamthochschule Kassel.
 119

Appendix 2

Ventilation Conditions and Thermal Properties of

Fire Compartment Enclosures

A2.1. BASIC PARAMETERS A2.2. VENTILATION AND CONVERSION

The basic parameters for describing the
ventilation conditions and the thermal
properties of the fire c o m p a r t m e n t enclosures
are: (cf. e.g., [1 - 7])
-- the opening factor Ave~At, where A (m 2)
is the total area of door and window
openings, h (m) is the average height of the
openings, weighted with respect to each
individual opening area, and A t (m 2) is the
total interior surface area of the c o m p a r t m e n t
including openings;
- - t h e thermal conductivity X (W/mK), and
-- the heat capacity pCp (MJ/m 3 K).
With regard to window and door openings
considered in the assessment, it has to be
ensured that any cover of openings is either
automatically released or is destroyed early in
the fire process.
Example values for ~, and ~ are given
in Table A2.1.
TABLE A2.1
Thermal properties of enclosures (example values)
Material p X X/~p
(kg/m 3 ) (W/mK) (Whl/2/m2 K)
FACTORS FO R ASSESSMENT METHOD 2
Ventilation conditions and the thermal
properties of the fire c o m p a r t m e n t enclosure
are considered in terms of the factors w and c
(cf. Section 4.3.5).
With reference to the opening factor Ax/h /
A t the ventilation factor w may be calculated
from*
,1
w = w VA (2.1a)
w' = AVA--(-x/~ (2.1b)
where Af denotes the floor area of the fire
c o m p a r t m e n t and A and At are specified as in
Section A2.1. Equation (2.1b)was basically
derived for vertical opening areas [3]. It is
recommended to confine the application of
eqn. (2.1b) to fairly high fire compartments
(H >> 3.5 m) and an average height of the
opening areas which is well above ground
level (h >> 1.0 m).
The greater effectiveness of horizontal roof
openings may be considered by calculating
the total area A of the openings from A =
Av + a f A h with a~/> 1.0 and where Av denotes

Normal *Equation (2.1) was derived by reference to t h e

concrete 2300 1.5 38 more explicit formula for the equivalent time of fire
Lightweight exposure [4, 6, 7] (cf. also Section A2.3)
concrete 1200 0.5 14
te = aqtf/(AN/~/At)f 1f2
Aerated
Af
concrete 800 0.3 7
= qf (AtA%/~)I/~_ a~l~f
Steel 7850 55 250
Brick 1800 0.75 20
= qfwa~f
Timber 800 0.15 10
qfwc
120

the vertical and A h the horizontal opening :I ,J,,002 m V2

area (for an application, cf. [5]).
Neglecting geometrical effects, the ventila-
tion factor can be evaluated from the simple
expression
w = x/0.25 Af/-A (2.2) 1 2 3 & 5 6
time (h)
indicating w = 1.0 for A/A~ = 0.25, and w =
1200~ A ~/At:004m v2
1.5 for A/A~ = 0.1, which may be regarded as
I000r ~ m 2
an adequate estimate for any location of the
opening areas (cf. suggested value in Section
4.3.5).
For excellent ventilation conditions,
including roof openings of more than 2% of
I 2 3 /, 5 6
the floor area ( A h / A f >~ 0.02), a reduction of ~' time (h)
-_....
the ventilation factor up to 70% (i.e., 0.7 w)
1200/~ A./-~/At : 0.08 mVZ
may be considered. ,oooI \\
The conversion factor c is related to the
thermal properties of the enclosure by means \ \ \
of thermal conductivity X and the heat capaci-
ty pcp combined to render the thermal inertia
b =~ . A rough allocation, for example 1 2 3 & 5 6
according to Table A2.2, may be sufficient time I,hl
for the majority of applications. 1200 F x...~---,,~-~ A V ~ / A t : 0.12 m v2

T A B L E A2.2
Conversion factor c [5 ]
\ \ \
b -~ ~ % ~ p c
(Whl/2/m2 K) ( m i n / ( M J / m 2 ))
I 2 3 & 5 G
time (h)
< 12 0.09
12...42 0.07 Fig. A2.1. T e m p e r a t u r e - t i m e curves for fire compart-
> 42 0.05 ments of m o d e r a t e size ( c o m p a r t m e n t t y p e A)
(example values).

A2.3. V E N T I L A T I O N C O N D I T I O N S A N D
THERMAL PROPERTIES OF ENCLOSURE FOR
ASSESSMENT METHOD 3
The ventilation conditions and thermal
properties of the fire compartment enclosure
are directly considered in terms of the basic
parameters of Section A2.1, within the energy
and mass balance equations.
Temperature-time curves may be prepared
as design aids for different opening factors
A k / ~ / A t. Examples according to [6, 7] are
given in Fig. A2.1. The effect of different
thermal properties of t h e enclosure are con-
sidered by specifying a standard compartment
(type A} with a specified thermal conductivi-
ty and heat capacity and by adapting to dif-
ferent thermal properties by means of an
effective fire load density
qtf = kfqt (2.3)
and an effective opening factor
(AM/h/At) f = k f A v ~ / A t (2.4)
Example values for the coefficient k~ for dif-
ferent types of fire compartments defined by
their surrounding structure are given in Table
A2.3 (cf. [6, 7]).
For the calculation of the opening factor
A v ~ / A t for fire compartments having not
only vertical but also horizontal openings,
reference is made to refs. 6 and 7.
The different types of fire compartment
are defined as follows:
-- fire c o m p a r t m e n t , t y p e A: bounding
structures of a material with a thermal
conductivity X = 0.81 W/mK and a heat
capacity pcp = 1.67 MJ/m 3 K;
- - f i r e c o m p a r t m e n t , t y p e B: bounding
structures of concrete;
 121

TABLE A2.3
Coefficient kf for transforming a real fire load density qt and a real opening factor of a fire compartment AN/-h/
A t to an effective fire load density qtf and an effective opening factor (AN/h/At) f corresponding to a fire
compartment, type A -- eqns. (2.3) and (2.4), qtf = kfqt and (A x/~]At) f = kfAx/~/A t

Type of fire Opening factor AN/rh[At (m 1/2 )

compartment
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12

Type A 1 1 1 1 1 1
Type B 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Type C 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.50
Type D 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.50 1.55 1.65
Type E 1.65 1.50 1.35 1.50 1.75 2.00
Type F* 1.00 - 0.50 1.00 - 0.50 0.80 - 0.50 0.70 - 0.50 0.70 - 0.50 0.70 - 0.50
Type G 1.50 1.45 1.35 1.25 1.15 1.05
Type H 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.50

*The lowest value of kf applies to a fire load density qt > 500 MJ/m 2, the highest value to a fire load density
qt ~<60 MJ/m 2. For intermediate fire load densities, linear interpolation gives sufficient accuracy.

- - f i r e c o m p a r t m e n t , t y p e C: b o u n d i n g
s t r u c t u r e s o f aerated c o n c r e t e (density
p = 500 kg/m3);
- - f i r e c o m p a r t m e n t , t y p e D: 50% o f t h e
b o u n d i n g s t r u c t u r e s o f c o n c r e t e , and
50% o f aerated c o n c r e t e (density p =
500 kg/m3);
- - f i r e c o m p a r t m e n t , t y p e E: b o u n d i n g
structures with the following percentage
o f b o u n d i n g surface area:
50% aerated c o n c r e t e (density p = 500
kg/m3),
33% c o n c r e t e , and
17%, f r o m t h e interior t o t h e exterior, o f
p l a s t e r b o a r d panel (density p = 7 9 0 kg/
m 3) 13 m m thickness, diabase w o o l
(density p = 50 k g / m 3) 10 c m thickness,
a n d b r i c k w o r k (density p = 1 8 0 0 k g / m 3)
20 c m t h i c k n e s s ;
- - f i r e c o m p a r t m e n t , t y p e F: 80% o f the
b o u n d i n g s t r u c t u r e s o f sheet steel, and
20% o f c o n c r e t e . The c o m p a r t m e n t cor-
r e s p o n d s t o a storage space with a sheet
steel r o o f , sheet walls, and a c o n c r e t e
floor;
- - f i r e c o m p a r t m e n t , t y p e G: b o u n d i n g
structures with the following percentage
o f b o u n d i n g surface area:
20% c o n c r e t e , and
80%, f r o m t h e interior t o t h e exterior, o f
d o u b l e p l a s t e r b o a r d panel (density p =
790 k g / m 3) 2 × 13 m m thickness, air
space 10 c m thickness, and d o u b l e
p l a s t e r b o a r d panel (density p = 790 kg/
m 3) 2 × 13 m m thickness;
--fire compartment, t y p e H: b o u n d i n g
s t r u c t u r e s o f sheet steel o n b o t h sides o f
diabase w o o l (density p = 50 k g / m 3) 10
c m thickness.
F o r fire c o m p a r t m e n t s , n o t directly
r e p r e s e n t e d in Table A2.3, t h e c o e f f i c i e n t k~
can either be d e t e r m i n e d b y a linear inter-
p o l a t i o n b e t w e e n applicable t y p e s o f fire
c o m p a r t m e n t in the Table or be c h o s e n in
such a w a y as t o give results o n the safe side.
F o r fire c o m p a r t m e n t s with s u r r o u n d i n g
s t r u c t u r e s o f b o t h c o n c r e t e and lightweight
c o n c r e t e , t h e n d i f f e r e n t values can be
o b t a i n e d o f t h e c o e f f i c i e n t kf, d e p e n d i n g o n
t h e c h o i c e b e t w e e n the fire c o m p a r t m e n t
t y p e s B, C and D at t h e i n t e r p o l a t i o n . This is
d u e t o t h e fact t h a t t h e relationships, deter-
m i n i n g k~, are non-linear. H o w e v e r , the
k f v a l u e s o f the Table are such t h a t a linear
i n t e r p o l a t i o n always gives results o n the safe
side, irrespective o f the alternative o f i n t e r -
p o l a t i o n chosen. In o r d e r t o avoid an unneces-
sarily large o v e r e s t i m a t i o n o f k~, t h a t
alternative o f i n t e r p o l a t i o n is r e c o m m e n d e d
w h i c h gives t h e lowest value o f kf. A t t h e
d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f kf, it is n o t allowed t o
c o m b i n e t y p e s o f fire c o m p a r t m e n t s in such a
w a y t h a t a n y o f t h e m gives a negative con-
t r i b u t i o n t o k~.
A2.4. REFERENCES
1 0 . Pettersson, The Possibilities of Predicting the
Fire Behaviour of Structures on the Basis of Data
from Fire Resistance Test, Bulletin 20, Division
of Structural Mechanics and Concrete Construc-
tion, Lund Institute of Technology, Lund 1971.
122
2 M. Law, Analysis of some results of experimental
fires, Proc. Symposium No. 2, Behaviour o f Struc-
tural Steel in Fire, Fire Research Station, Bore-
hamwood, January, 1967, HMSO, London, 1968.
3 H. Ehm, Untersuchungen mit natiirlichen
Bra'nden im kleinen Versuchsbrandhaus in Metz,
Europ~ische Konvention der Stahlbauverb~/nde,
Metz, 1969.
4 0 . Pettersson, The Connection Between a Real
Fire Exposure and the Heating Conditions
According to Standard Fire Resistance Tests,
CECM-III-74-2E, European Convention for
Constructional Steel Work, Ch. II.
5 DIN 18 230, Baulicher Brandschutz im Industrie
bau, Vornorm, November, 1982.
6 Comments on SBN No. 1, National Swedish
Board of Physical Planning and Building, Stock-
holm, 1976.
7 O. Pettersson, S. E. Magnusson and J. Thor, Fire
Engineering Design o f Steel Structures, Publica-
tion 50, Swedish Institute of Steel Construction,
Stockholm, 1976, (Swedish Edition 1974).

Appendix 3
Analytical Determination of the Thermal and Mechanical Response
A3.1. GENERAL
Traditionally, the behaviour of fire-exposed
structural members is analyzed by means of
standard fire resistance tests. For many types
of structural members this constitutes the
only way at present for obtaining the infor-
mation required for a structural fire engi-
neering design. In spite of this, the standard
fire resistance test can be seriously criticized.
In its present form, the test procedure is
insufficiently specified in several aspects; for
instance, concerning the heating and restraint
characteristics, the environment of the
furnace, and the thermocouples for measuring
and regulating the furnace temperature. Con-
sequently, a considerable variation can arise in
the fire resistance for one and the same struc-
tural element, when tested in different fire
laboratories with varying furnace charac-
teristics and varying support and restraint
conditions.
Because of these problems and to achieve
solutions with greater e c o n o m y and more
uniform safety, there is a strong need to move
towards analytical structural fire engineering
design methods. Generally, these methods
include two main steps, namely:
(1) A calculation of the temperature distri-
bution within the fire-exposed load bearing
element or assembly during the heating
process;
(2) a transformation of this temperature
distribution to the variation of the load
bearing capacity as a function of time, in
order to examine whether or not the fire
exposure will cause a failure of the structural
element or assembly at the specified loading.
The first step requires the solution of the
heat balance equilibrium equation for given
geometries and boundary conditions. For
123
practical applications, numerical methods
have to be used to solve this equation.
The second step requires valid models for
calculating the mechanical behaviour and/or
the load bearing capacity of fire exposed
structural elements or assemblies. This implies
that the mechanical properties of the struc-
tural materials in question and in a tempera-
ture range associated with fire must be known.
Due to the schematizations, necessary to
make the analytical methods accessible for
practical use, discrepancies may occur when
the result of a standard fire resistance test is
compared with the calculated fire resistance.
Normally, an analytical design will tend to
conservative results when related to the
results of a standard test. This discrepancy has
two sources. The main source is related to
statistical aspects as test results generally give
information on mean values whereas an
analytical evaluation refers to characteristic
values corresponding to small fractiles. The
other source is related to slightly differing as-
sumptions in the thermal/mechanical model.
Hence, analytical methods have to allow for
a corresponding adaptation of results, render-
ing a level of safety comparable to that obtain-
ed by testing. The value of this adaptation will,
in principle, depend on the structural material
as well as on the structural system involved.
During the last decade, considerable
progress has been made in developing analyti-
cal and computation methods for fire-exposed
load bearing elements and structural assem-
blies. Consequently, an analytical design can
be completed today for most cases where
steel structures are exposed. Validated
material models for the mechanical behaviour
of concrete under transient high temperature
conditions and thermal models for the
charring rate in wood exposed to fire, derived
124
during r e c e n t years, have significantly
enlarged t h e area o f a p p l i c a t i o n o f analytical
design. T o aid this a p p l i c a t i o n , design
d i a g r a m s and tables have b e e n d e v e l o p e d
giving directly, on t h e one h a n d , t h e t e m p e r a -
t u r e state o f the f i r e - e x p o s e d s t r u c t u r e , and
on t h e o t h e r , a t r a n s f e r o f this i n f o r m a t i o n t o
t h e load bearing c a p a c i t y o f t h e s t r u c t u r e .
In t h e field o f steel a n d c o n c r e t e s t r u c t u r e s ,
i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y a c c e p t e d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s do
exist which, in a c o m p r e h e n s i v e w a y , sum-
m a r i z e available k n o w l e d g e and give opera-
tional design s o l u t i o n s [1, 2]. E f f o r t s to arrive
at similar r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s in t h e field o f
t i m b e r s t r u c t u r e s are c u r r e n t l y u n d e r w a y [ 3].
M o r e detailed reviews can be f o u n d in t h e
c o m p r e h e n s i v e discussion on t h e t h e r m a l a n d
m e c h a n i c a l b e h a v i o u r o f building s t r u c t u r e s
at fire e x p o s u r e given in ref. 4.
A3.2. REFERENCES
1 ECCS (European Convention for Constructional
Steelwork), Technical Committee 3, Fire Safety
of Steel Structures, European Recommendations
for the Fire Safety o f Steel Structures --Part 1:
Calculation o f the Fire Resistance o f Load
Bearing Elements and Structural Assemblies
Exposed to the Standard Fire, Elsevier, Amster-
dam, 1983.
2 Design o f Concrete Structures o f Fire Resistance,
Appendix to the CEB Model Code, Bulletin
d'Information No. 145, CEB (Comit~ Euro-
International du B~ton), Paris, 1983.
3 CTIB (Centre Technique de l'Industrie du Bois),
European Code Related to the Determination o f
the Behaviour o f Wooden Building Components
Exposed to Fire, Preliminary Draft, November
1980.
4 CIB W14, A Conceptual Approach Towards a
Probability Based Design Guide on Structural
Fire Safety, Fire Safety J., 6 (1) {1983) 35 - 40.

Appendix 4
Combination Rules for Mechanical Loads
A4.1. FUNDAMENTAL AND ACCIDENTAL
COMBINATIONS
The load combination formula for verifica-
tion of the resistance capacity in normal
design situations (fundamental combination)
is usually specified in the following symbolic
form (cf. e.g., [1, 2]):
7 G G k + "~Q1Qk, 1 + ~ ~Qil~oiQk,i +
i>l
+ 7mdQk,ind (4.1)
where
Gk = permanent loads (actions)
Qk = variable loads (actions)
Q k , ind = indirect actions
7 = partial safety factors
= combination coefficients.
The corresponding load combination
formula for accidental design situations
(accidental combination) is usually specified
in the respective symbolic form (cf. e.g.,
[1, 2]):
Gk+ ~llQk,1 + ~ ~2iQk,i+Qk,ind (4.2)
i:>l
Equations (4.1) and (4.2) presume that the
relevant codes are prepared in a partial safety
factor format.
A4.2. F I R E SITUATIONS
Referring to the aforementioned formula,
conventional fire d e s i g n - considering the
normal {conventional) design l o a d s - would
be equivalent to designing for a combination
according to eqn. (4.1), generally, however,
setting all safety factors to unity or alterna-
tively, for a combination according to eqn.
(4.2) setting all combination coefficients to
unity.
125
In the course of improving structural
models for fire design, application of im-
proved models for describing the joint occur-
rence of the various actions, considering
- - t h e relatively rare occurrence and short
duration of fire actions as compared to the
lifetime of the structure,
-- the relatively high variability of fire actions
as compared to other actions (loads),
is a consistent development.
With regard to the combination formula
eqn. (4.2), it may be argued that this
formula -- referring to all partial load factors
set to unity and corresponding numerical sug-
gestions for combination coefficients (e.g.,
[1] ) - have been specified without specific
consideration of all aspects of fire design.
Principally, these factors and coefficients
have to be specified on a national basis in
accordance with the relevant loading codes.
However, from the designer's point of view,
to pursue different accidental combinations
for different accidental actions should be
avoided. Hence, those responsible for
specifying the relevant (fire) accidental com-
bination formula are strongly recommended
to adhere to the (general) accidental com-
bination formula and to account for possible
reservations with regard to the magnitude of
load factors and coefficients by an adaptation
of specific fire design factors (e.g. 7nl), if
necessary.
With regard to the reservation regarding an
unintentional decrease of level of fire safety
in the wake of a lower mechanical load to be
considered in the accidental combination,
reference is made to the c o m m e n t a r y of the
main text (cf. Sections 4.2.7, 4.3.7 and
4.4.7). To summarize it can be stated that
application of an accidental combination (or
an appropriately reduced conventional design
load) is (a) straightforward for assessment
126
m e t h o d 3, (b) is r e c o m m e n d e d for assessment
m e t h o d 2, and (c) may be considered for
assessment m e t h o d 1.
As concerns me t hods 2 and 1, application
should ideally be considered in the c o n t e x t o f
improved structural models in terms of an
improved modelling of restraint conditions,
imperfections, material properties, etc. In this
case the resulting decrease of uncertainty in
the structural model may possibly justify a
decrease of level of mechanical loading
w i t h o u t excessive need for major adaptation
to ensure the conventional level of fire safety.
A4.3. LIMITATION OF STRUCTURAL DAMAGE
If repairability/reserviceability is a design
specification, then assumption of a higher
level of loading than necessary for ensuring
sufficient load bearing capacity, is one of the
present design provisions oft en pursued,
owing to a lack of more functional design
criteria (cf. Section 2.2.3 of the main text).
Thus, if repairability/reserviceability are
explicitly required, the fundamental com-
bination eqn. (4.1), i.e., the normal design
load, may be assumed. However, the sub-
stituting character of this provision should be
acknowledged.
A4.4. REFERENCES
1 Eurocodes 1-3, Industrial Processes: Building and
Civil Engineering, Commission of the European
Communities, Report 1984.
2 CEB/FIP, Model Code for Concrete Structures,
Comit~ Euro-International du B4ton, Paris, 1974.
 127

Appendix 5

Safety Factors T and Differentiation Factors ~'n

A5.1. L I M I T S T A T E F U N C T I O N S
TSd
5.1.1. Entire fire process versus limited part
o f fire process
Limit state design for load bearing struc- Tsd(t)
tures in fire exposure comprises a comparison
of variables R(t) describing the load bearing
capacity during fire exposure on the one (a) tr t
hand, and of variables Sit) describing the cor- Rj.Sd
responding load effects on the other hand --
referring to a formulation of the limit state
function in the mechanical load effect Ra{t)
domain. The variables are represented by their
design values Rd(t) and Sd(t), respectively. In 1 i s,
simple cases the design condition for not i E[
attaining the limit state (survival condition) (b) ir I
tm R= t
can be written as
Fig. A 5 . 1 . Design steel t e m p e r a t u r e s Tsd , resistance
min Rd(t )/> S d (5.1) capacities R d and load effect S d for t w o structures
in c o m p a r t m e n t fire exposure.
where min Rd(t) denotes the minimum load
bearing capacity during the relevant fire Design is performed by ensuring t h a t
exposure and Sd is specified as a time and
case 1: min (Rd(t)) >1 S (5.2a)
temperature invariant action effect. rE[o, td]
For illustration, reference is made to Fig.
A5.1 showing the effect of the same compart- case 2: min (Rd(t)~ >~S (5.2b)
tE [o, tr]
ment fire exposure on the members of two
different isolated steel structures. The full- with td representing the duration of the entire
line curves may be relevant for a structure, fire exposure (corresponding, for example, to
where verification is required for the entire the duration of time until the structure
fire process (case 1). The dash-line curves in attains its original temperature) and t~ an a
turn (terminated at tr) may be relevant for priori specified duration as mentioned before.
another structure, where verification is only Extension to include also a time-dependent
required for a limited part o f the process, action effect is straightforward:
given, for example, by the evacuation time --
min (Rd(t) -- Sd(t)) ~ 0 (5.3)
expressed in the real time domain (case 2). t ~ [o, t...]
Figure A5.1(a) illustrates the decisive
Equation (5.2) m a y be rewritten as
design steel temperatures Tsd as a function of
time for both cases. Figure A5.1(b) represents case I: Rd(trninRd ) ~ S d (5.4a)
the corresponding design resistance capacities
Rd(t) as a function of time and a time case 2 : Rd(tminRd) /f- S d t ~ tr (5.4b)
invariant action effect Sd -- assumed to be the thus emphasizing the message from Fig. A5.1.
same in both cases. For t~ <~ tn~mRd verification for a limited part
128

of the fire process wilt obviously render a
design involving lower building costs.
5.1.2. C o m p a r t m e n t fire exposure versus
standard fire exposure
The different effects of a compartment fire
exposure on the one hand and of a standard
fire exposure on the other hand for an
isolated steel structure are illustrated in Fig.
A5.2. Figure A5.2(a) shows the decisive
design steel temperatures Tsd (full-line curve)
and Tiso, sd ( d o t t e d curve) as functions of
time, and Fig. A5.2(b) gives the qualitative
graphs of the corresponding resistance capaci-
ties Rd(t) and R1so, d(t ). Depending on the
particular structural application, the following
relation is satisfied with a varying magnitude
of the error term e:
Rd(tminRd) = R i s o , d(ted ) -----e
Tsd
.................... [.'.,'.t I
with Sd = RZSO,d(t~d), is equivalent to a verifi-
cation of the entire fire process according to
eqns. (5.2a) or (5.4a), provided t,d is deter-
mined for the relevant action effect Sd.
A5.2. PROBABILISTIC BACKGROUND
5.2.1. Failure probabilities
The probability for attaining a limit state,
defined, for example, by the failure condition
Z = R -- S ~< 0 is calculated, considering the
probability distribution functions of the
random variables R and S (cf. Fig. A5.3(a))
p~ = P ( R -- S < 0) (5.7a)
fR 'fs
(5.5)
~fs(') /~
fnS mR r.s
(a)

~ Tsdlt) fz

(a)
failure survival

RdSd
%,°
i
.,(, R, (,) mR" ms z -- r-s

I I
I I
I I
(b) tmedt'd:tfd t bility density distribution of the safety margin Z =
Fig. A5.2. Design steel temperature Tsd , resistance
capacities R d and load effect Sd for compartment fire
exposure and standard fire exposure.
w h e r e ted is the design value of the equivalent
time of fire exposure (cf. Section 4.3 of the
main text) and tmin Rd is the time at which the
minimum resistance capacity is attained
during the entire c o m p a r t m e n t fire exposure
(cf. eqn. (5.4a)). Thus for those applications,
where the error term e is sufficiently small,
verification of
Rzso, d(ted) ~ Sd
or
t~d ~< t~d
(b)
Fig. A5.3. (a) Probability density distributions of the
resistance capacity R and the load effect S; (b) proba-
R--S.
Referring to the examples of Fig. A5.1, a
time-dependent failure condition Z ( t ) =
R(t)--S<O renders a time-dependent
probability
p ( t ) = P ( R ( t ) -- S) <~ 0 (5.7b)
Figure A5.4(a) illustrates the probability
curves p ( t ) corresponding to the examples of
Fig. A5.1. As an approximation, the failure
probability throughout fire exposure may be
estimated by the maximum probability value
(5.6a)
p ( t ) during the relevant fire process
(5.6b) pf -~ max(p(t)} (5.7c)
 129

or vectorial:
P
Z = {XE[g(x) ~< 0] } (5.95)
The safety index is evaluated by trans-
pe : max p(t) .__ f o r m i n g the variables X~ into i n d e p e n d e n t
standardized normal variables U~ by applying
tr train Rd t u = ~)-l(Fx(x)) (5.10a)
(a)
for i n d e p e n d e n t variables X~ with a distribu-
tion f u n c t i o n F x ; ~b-1(.) d e n o t e s the inverse of
t h e standard normal distribution f u n c t i o n .
j p (t) E.g., for i n d e p e n d e n t n o r m a l variables
X -- m x
u = (5.10b)
I
[
i
Ip = minp (t) Oa
Ox
and for i n d e p e n d e n t lognormal variables
(b) t, tmmRd t
In x -- mtnx
Fig. A5.4. (a) Probability curves for a design condi- u - (5.10c)
t i o n a c c o r d i n g t o Fig. Ah.1; (b) c o r r e s p o n d i n g graph Oln x
o f s a f e t y i n d e x ~(t). where omx = 6x =x/ln(V~ 2 + 1) ~ V~ for V~ ~<
0.25.
F o r the calculation of probabilities, appli- The limit state f u n c t i o n is t h e n expressed
cation of first-order reliability m e t h o d s as a surface in the space of u-variables (h(U) =
( F O R M ) is r e c o m m e n d e d (cf. e.g. [1]). 0). The m i n i m u m distance to the origin
Within this m e t h o d a safety index 13 is intro- generally determines the safety index 13 [ 1 ]:
duced which is related to the probability t e r m
13 = min{llull} for U E [ h ( u ) = 01 (5.11a)
via
The p o i n t u on the surface, satisfying the eoh-
p ( t ) = ¢(--13(0); p~ = ¢(--13) (5.8a)
dition in eqn. (5.11a) is d e n o t e d as design
wherein ~b(.) d e n o t e s the standard n o r m a l p o i n t ua. Its location is defined by the coor-
distribution f u n c t i o n . dinates (cf. Fig. A5.5)
For the simple failure c o n d i t i o n con-
uia = ~113 (5.11b)
sidered, the safety index m a y be calculated
f r o m (cf. Fig. 5.3(b)): where the sensitivity factors are calculated
mz from
13 = (5.8b) ox
Oz
~i 6xi 6ui 6u~ (5.11c)
where m z = m R - - m s and Oz = ~O'R 2 4" OS2,
assuming a normal distribution f u n c t i o n - f o r The j o i n t evaluation of a, Ud and 13 generally
the variables R and S with m e a n values m R requires several steps of iteration.
and m s and variances OR2 and Os2. Figure
A5.4(a) gives the qualitative graphs of 13(t)
corresponding to t h e probability curves p ( t )
of Fig. A5.4(b). In analogy to eqn. (5.7c), the URd 0
safety index for the relevant fire exposure 13
R I
m a y be e s t i m a t e d b y
Pl
13 ~ min{13(t)} (5.8c) Usd laRL : cos VPR

More generally, the limit state f u n c t i o n _ ' .... u~ l=sl: cos %

m a y involve several n o r m a l or n o n - n o r m a l Us
variables X and m a y be linear or non-linear:
Z = g(X) = 0. The corresponding failure con-
Fig. A5.5. Limit s t a t e f u n c t i o n h ( U ) = 0 o f t w o
dition m a y be scalar:
variables in t h e space o f t r a n s f o r m e d variables U R and
Z = g(X) ~< 0 (5.9a) Us.
 130

Reliability verification is then accom- ~i = Xik/Xid

plished by ensuring that
for variables mainly governing the resistance
P~ ~<P~. a or ~ ~> ~a capacity.
where Pf, a and fl~ represent the tolerable
failure probability and the corresponding 5.2.3. T o l e r a b l e failure p r o b a b i l i t i e s
safety index. The failure probability decisive for the
(accidental) fire design situation may be
5.2.2. Design values a n d partial s a f e t y f a c t o r s specified as
Instead o f calculating failure probabilities
P~
or safety indices for a given design solution, PLa = - - f(A) (5.14)
design values for the relevant variables may Pa
be determined for a given safety index fla p~ is the tolerable failure probability for a
corresponding to a tolerable failure probabili- certain reference period. Different values may
t y PLa (cf. Section 5.2.3). be allocated to different safety classes--
With reference to eqn. (5.11), design values depending on the consequences of failure.
for a given safety index ~a are specified as Example values for tolerable life-time failure
probabilities are listed in Table A5.1.
Xdi = Fxi-l~)(--OLifla) (5.12a)
E.g., for normal variables
TABLE A5.1
X d i = taxi - - OLi~JaOXi (5.12b)
Tolerable lifetime failure probabilities* according to
and for lognormal variables (for 5xi cf. eqn. [2] --pf
(5.10c))
Expected number of Economic losses
Xdi = taxi exp(--OQ[JaSXi -- 0.552i) (5.12c) fatalities in case
of fire Low Medium High
and for ex tr eme value I variables
Low (~ 0.1) 10-3 10-4 10-s
Xdi = taxi (1 - - V° x~i ( O ' g 7 7 7 r + Medium (~ 1.0) 10-4 10-s 10-6
\ High (~ 10.0) 10-s 10-6 10-7
+ ln(--ln(¢(---~/fla )))}) (5.12d)
N o t e t h a t annual probabilities are o b t a i n e d f r o m
F or limit state functions o f the t y p e ~ , b i X i lifetime probabilities a p p r o x i m a t e l y b y dividing t h e s e
values by 50.
= 0 and all X i normally distributed, the sensi-
*All values are given only in an indicative m a n n e r
tivity factors ~i according to eqn. (5.11c) for illustration and have to be c h e c k e d o n a national
a m o u n t to basis.
bioxi
o~i N/~.,(bioxi) 2 (5.13a)
Pa is the probability of occurrence of severe
and for limit state functions of the t y p e fires within the reference period considered.
l n ( b i X i ) = 0 and all X i lognormally distri- A simple estimate is obtained from
buted, the sensitivity factors ~i according to
Pa = P ( f i r e ) p l P 2 • • • (5.15a)
eqn. (5.11c) a m o u n t to
with p(fire) representing the probability of
biVxi
OQ "~ N / ~ , ( b i V x i ) 2 (5.13b) (initial) f i r e s - depending on the occupancy
and size of the fire c o m p a r t m e n t . In a general
Otherwise sensitivity factors (~i have to be presentation p(fire) can be modelled by
evaluated by iteration. p(fire) = p A ~ (5.15b)
Partial safety factors 7i for any variable X i
are obtained f r o m the design values by intro- with p denoting the probability of occurrence
ducing characteristic values Xik: per m 2. There is some evidence that ~ is
generally smaller than unity [3], so that
~[i = X i d / X i k
assuming ~ = 1.0 will render a safe-side
for variables mainly governing the action estimate for p(fire). Example values for p
effects; (per m 2 and year) are given in Table A5.2.
 131

T A B L E A5.2 - - i n t r o d u c i n g a risk enhancement function

Probabilities o f o c c u r r e n c e o f fires* a s s u m e d in [ 4 ] - - f(A)
p (m 2 yr -1) a n d a c c o r d i n g t o [5]
on the tolerable failure probability and the
corresponding safety index.
Dwellings [5] 1.0 . . . 3.0 10 - s
Offices 0.5 . . . 5.0 10 - 6
Industrial buildings
(cf. also [ 3 ] ) 2.0 10 - 6 5.3. S A F E T Y FACTORS FOR ASSESSMENT
METHOD 2
*All values are given o n l y in an indicative m a n n e r
for illustration and have t o be c h e c k e d o n a n a t i o n a l
basis.
5.3.1. D e r i v a t i o n o f s a f e t y f a c t o r s
(a) T i m e d o m a i n
P~, P2 . . . . identify the decrease of proba- With reference to Section 4.3.9 of the main
bility for an initial fire to develop into a text, design verification is accomplished by
severe fire, depending on the various fire ensuring that
detection and fire-fighting provisions
tfd ~ ted (5.17)
employed. For example values, cf. Table
A5.3. However, if several provisions are wherein tfd and ted are the design values of
employed, the product P~P2 • • • should be the fire resistance tf and the equivalent time
associated with a lower bound to account for of fire exposure, respectively.
the dependency among the provisions with Assuming a lognormal distribution for both
regard to their possible success. variables results in the following design values
(cf. eqn. (5.12c)):
T A B L E A5.3
tea = m t f exp(--0hf~a ~tf -- 0.5~t2f) (5.18a)
R e d u c t i o n o f p r o b a b i l i t y for a severe fire* - - Pi
a s s u m e d in [6] and a c c o r d i n g t o [7]
ted = m t e e x p ( - - O Q e ~ a ~ t e - - 0.5~t2e ) (5.18b)
Average s t a n d a r d public fire brigade 0.1 where 5t =v/ln(Vt ~ + 1) ~ Vt for V~< 0.25
A d e q u a t e l y m a i n t a i n e d sprinkler 0.02
The safety index ~a was introduced in
system [ 7 ]
F a c t o r y ] p r i v a t e fire brigade, d e p e n d i n g 0.5 - 0.05 Section 5.2.3 and reflects the tolerable failure
on standard probability. The sensitivity factors may be
Adequately maintained detection and 1 - 0.1 evaluated from (cf. eqn. (5.11c))
alarm s y s t e m
Vtf --Vie
*All values are given o n l y in an indicative m a n n e r
+
~ +
(5.19)
for illustration a n d have t o be c h e c k e d o n a n a t i o n a l
basis.
with Vtf and Vie the coefficientsof variation
A function f ( A ) may be introduced, if of tf and te.
desired, to account for a risk being enhanced Relating the design values of eqn. (5.18) to
as c o m p a r t m e n t size is increased, e.g., as specified characteristic values Ilk and tek
f(A) = A*/A (5.15c)
renders corresponding partial safety factors as

with A* corresponding, for example, to the "~tf = t f k / t f d ~t e = ted/tek (5.20)

average fire c o m p a r t m e n t size for a certain
type o f occupancy.
With reference to eqn. (5.8a) the tolerable
failure probability pf, a may be expressed in
terms of the safety index ~a
Basically, the characteristic values can be
chosen arbitrarily. By choosing a 10% - 15%
fractile for tf and a 85% - 90% fractile for t~:
tfk = m t r e x p ( k t f ~ t f - - 0.55t2f) (5.21)

/3a = q~-'(1 --Pf, a) (5.16) tek = m t e exp(kte 5 t e - - 0 . 5 ~ 2 e ) (5.22)

Table A5.4 illustrates the effect of: with kt~ = - - k t r = 1 . 0 . . . 1.28

- -the c o m p a r t m e n t size, will generally lead to safety factors greater
- - t h e probability of occurrence of severe than unity and which are n o t too sensitive to
fires, and slight variations in the coefficient of variation:
 132

TABLE A5.4
Tolerable probabilities pf, a and safety indices ~a for different fire compartment sizes A and probabilities of fire
occurrence Pa for a tolerable annual failure probability of pf = 10 -6 [ 4 ]

A PPlP2 • • •
(m2) 10 -6 10 ? 10 8 10-9

Pa = p A p l p 2 - • • 5000
10000
20000
30000
0.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
t 10-2 °5t
1.0
2.0
3.0)
°5t
10
-3 1.0
2.0
3.0
10 -4
1.0
2.0
3.0
10 s

Pf
Pf,a = --f(A)
Pa
5000
10000
20000
20.0
10.0
5.0
} 10-s
t 0o} 00}
10.0
5.0 ~u
- ^-4 10.0
5.0
10_ 3 i0.0
5.0
i0_ 2

f ( A ) = 1.0 30000 3.3 3.3) 3.3 3.3

pf
Pf,a = - - f ( A )
Pa 2500
5000
10000
20000
10.0
2.5
0.6
t 10-s
100 100} o01
2.5/
0.6 10
-4 2.5
0.6
10_ 3 2.5
0.6
10_ 2

~A)= 30000 0.3 0.3) 0.3 0.3

A
~afor ~ A ) = 1.0 5000 3.6 2.9 2.1 0.9
10000 3.7 3.1 2.3 1.3
20000 3.9 3.3 2.6 1.7
30000 4.0 3.4 2.7 1.8

2500 5000 3.7 3.1 2.3 1.3

~af°rf(A) = - - 10000 4.1 3.5 2.8 2.0
A 20000 4.4 3.8 3.2 2.5
30000 4.5 4.0 3.5 2.8

3't~ = exp((0~t~fia + k t ~ ) x / l n ( V ~ + 1)) (5.23a) 10%-fractile. Assuming a coefficient of

v a r i a t i o n o f Vt~ = 0 . 2 0 w i l l g e n e r a l l y s u f f i c e .
3"te = exp((O~tefia + kte)x//ln(V~e + 1)) (5.23b)
C o m m e n t a r y : An evaluation of tf for a specified
F i n a l l y , a g l o b a l f a c t o r 3' m a y b e s p e c i f i e d as value of the mechanical loading amounts to an
estimation of the conditional distribution of tf, con-
7 = 3"t~3"te (5.23c)
ditioned by S = S d. If information regarding R ( t ) or,
With regard to numerical values for the at least, d R I d t is available, then~the corresponding
unconditional distribution could be estimated, con-
c o e f f i c i e n t s o f variation and an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
sidering the variation of the mechanical loading.
of the characteristic values the following con- This distribution would be associated with a larger
siderations may apply: coefficient of variation (also accounting for variation
of loads), but also with a larger mean value (cf. Fig.
tf--the fire resistance is g e n e r a l l y A5.6). It follows that tfk , according to eqn. (5.24),
evaluated for a specified design value of the corresponds to a smaller fractile in the unconditional
m e c h a n i c a l l o a d s (cf. Fig. A 5 . 6 ) w h i c h distribution than in the conditional distribution.
r e n d e r s a n e s t i m a t e f o r tfk as: Whilst the distribution functions depend on the slope
of R(t), the probabilities associated with Q. remain
approximately constant. Features also toKbe con-
tfk = t f ( S d ) (5.24a) sidered hereby are statistical uncertainties and the
or effect of classification [8 ].

tfk = t-f(Sd)[1 - - 0.7Vt,] (5.245)

referring to a rating by one test result or the
minimum of two test results respectively [8].
I t is s u g g e s t e d t o i n t e r p r e t tfk in t h e f i r s t c a s e
as a 1 5 % - f r a c t i l e a n d in t h e s e c o n d c a s e as a
te - - t h e e q u i v a l e n t t i m e o f f i r e e x p o s u r e :
h e r e a d i s t i n c t i o n h as t o b e m a d e b e t w e e n
(1) a n i n d i v i d u a l a s s e s s m e n t - in t h i s c a s e
Vte represents t h e r a n d o m variations o f t h e
f i r e l o a d d e n s i t y in t i m e r e s u l t i n g f r o m

s
t~:tfdtm
--~1
Fig. A5.6. Relat!onship between the distribution
functions of tf, R and S.
variable fire loads (Vq) plus some intrinsic
randomness of the fire process including a
certain degree of model uncertainties
Vte ~ x/Vq 2 + 0.202 =X/0.152 + 0.202 = 0.25
may be considered as a reasonable choice.
(2) an assessment for a certain category of
o c c u p a n c y - in this case Vte also represents
the random variation of the fire load density
and o t h e r physical conditions among different
projects:
Vt~ ~ x/Vq 2 + 0.302
with Vq as suggested in Appendix 1.3, with
0.30 (as compared to 0.20) also reflecting,
for example, variations in ventilation condi-
tions.
(b) Load effect domain
Alternatively, eqn. (5.17) may be expressed
in the load effect domain (cf. eqn. (5.6a) and
Fig. A5.6).
RISO,d (ted) >/ 8 d (5.25)
Since R ( t ) is a non-linear function of several
random variables, the respective design values
require an evaluation by iteration as
mentioned in Section 5.2.2. However, since
eqn. (5.17) implicitly involves the same
variables, the following considerations may
apply:
(i) Obviously, ted and hence 7re should --
for practical reasons -- be the same for both
design formulas.
Commentary: Strictly speaking, ~te and ~/te for eqn.
(5.25) are functions of dRidt. Assuming a u n i f o r m
safety factor ~'te according to eqn. (5.23b) implies
that ~/te is derived for dlnR[dlnt = 1.0.
133
(ii) Load factors for evaluating Sd -- either
accounting for or not accounting for the
accidental situation -- are fixed according to
national load regulations (cf. Appendix 4). If
a general accidental combination rule is
adopted, the possible need for an adaptation to
fire situations may be checked by roughly
estimating Sd by applying C~G = 0.0 for per-
manent loads and C~Q = - - 0 . 4 for variable
loads [9]. An adaptation is most conveniently
considered by modifying R d accordingly. If
no accidental combination rule is adopted,
then any adaptation is n o t considered as
appropriate.
(iii) Partial safety factors for materials
governing the resistance capacity shall be
specified by reference to the particular type
of material and structural member from
lITMi ~ 7R = exp((O~Rf]a + kR)N/ln(VR 2 + 1))
(5.26)
where kR may correspond to a 5%-fractile and
VR denotes the c.o.v, of the resistance capaci-
ty, which may be a function of t. With regard
to the sensitivity factor, assuming ~R = ate
will generally be conservative.
5.3.2. Example for application
In the German Standard DIN 18230 [2]
safety factors for multi-storey industrial
buildings were derived upon the following
assumptions:
Tolerable failure probabilities per annum (cf.
Section 4.3.8 for rough classification
criterion)
Safety class 3 : 1 0 -6
Safety class 2 : 1 0 -s
Safety class 1 : 1 0 -4
Probability of occurrence o f (initial) fires (cf.
Table A5.2)
p(fire) ~ 2 × 10-6(m -2) X A(m 2)
Probability of occurrence of severe fires
without special measures considered (only
public fire brigade)
p~ ~ p(fire) X 10 -1
The significance of fire risks was introduced
by the following relation
P~, a = p ~ f( A) with f ( A ) = A*
Pa A
134

with A* = 2500 m 2 corresponding to the OtT V T "~ OQeVte"

average fire compartment size for industrial
buildings according to a German survey. For example, for an individual assessment,
adoption of 0LT --0.9 and VT = 0.20 may
m
Coefficients of variation:
suffice. If the characteristic value is defined
Vt~ = 0.20 as an 85%- or 90%-fractile (as suggested for
referring to an experimental evaluation of the tek in Section 5.3.1) then '~/W~ '~te is obtained.
fire resistance
Commentary : Strictly s p e a k i n g , t h e s e n s i t i v i t y f a c t o r
Yte = 0:25 0tT a n d t h e c.o.v. V T d e p e n d o n t. A s s u m i n g c o n s t a n t
values r e n d e r s a r e a s o n a b l e a c c u r a c y . T h e s m a l l e r
referring to an individual assessment of the c o e f f i c i e n t o f v a r i a t i o n o f V T as c o m p a r e d w i t h Vte --
fire load density. d u e to a l o w e r degree o f m o d e l u n c e r t a i n t y - - is c o m -
p e n s a t e d b y a s t r o n g e r s e n s i t i v i t y o f t h e limit s t a t e
Characteristic values: c o n d i t i o n t o w a r d s v a r i a t i o n s in T.
tfk and tek were introduced as 10% and 90%-
fractiles respectively. In practical application it will generally be
more convenient to allocate a safety factor to
These input data result in the following global the fire load density than to the temperature
safety factors (as basic values ~; for 7 , values state (which also corresponds better with the
cf. Section 5.5). initial intention of the partial safety factor
concept). Hence, 7q ~ '~/T may be assumed [8]
(ii) Load factors for evaluating S d -
F l o o r area
o f fire accounting for the accidental s i t u a t i o n - are
1600 5000 10000 20000 30000 fixed according to national load regulations
compartment
( m 2) (cf. Appendix 4). The possible need for
adapting the general rule to fire situations
Global s a f e t y
factor 7 for 1.00 1.25 1.45 1.65 1.75 may be checked by roughly estimating Sd by
safety class 2 applying ~v = 0.0 for permanent loads and
~Q = - - 0 . 4 for variable loads [9] and by
evaluating the respective design values from
eqns. (5.12b) and (5.12d). An adaptation is
5.4. SAFETY FACTORS FOR ASSESSMENT most conveniently considered by modifying
METHOD 3 R d accordingly.
(iii) Partial safety factors for materials
With reference to Section 4.4.4 of the main governing the resistance capacity shall be
text, design verification is accomplished by specified by reference to the particular type
ensuring that of material and structural members from
eqn. {5.26) where k R may correspond to a
min Rd(t) ~> Sd (5.27) 5%-fractile and VR denotes the c.o.v, of the
Since R(t) is a non-linear function of several resistance capacity and c~R the respective
random variables, evaluation of the respective sensitivity factor. Assuming ~n = c~t~ will
design values requires an evaluation by generally be conservative.
iteration as mentioned in Section 5.2.2. In
Commentary : Strictly s p e a k i n g , t h e s e n s i t i v i t y f a c t o r
Section 5.1 it was stated that, if the equiva- 0~R a n d t h e c.o.v. V R g e n e r a l l y d e p e n d o n t. A s s u m i n g
lent time of fire exposure were determined c o n s t a n t values r e n d e r s a r e a s o n a b l e a c c u r a c y .
without bias, then m e t h o d 2 - - i n v o l v i n g
principally the same variables -- would strictly
correspond to m e t h o d 3.
From this correspondence the following 5.5. D I F F E R E N T I A T I O N F A C T O R S
considerations, also based on trial calculations
[8], may apply: 5.5.1. D e f i n i t i o n s
(i) The partial safety factor ~'T for deter- With reference to Section 5.2, safety
mining the design temperature state of the factors may be established for average
structure may be derived assuming reliability requirements {average i6~) and for

t h e fire f r e q u e n c y t o be e x p e c t e d f o r t h e
occupancy under consideration without
special m e a s u r e s envisaged (basic /Sa) , t h u s
resulting in basic values iris, a a n d fla. D i f f e r e n t
reliability r e q u i r e m e n t s a n d / o r a r e d u c e d fire
f r e q u e n c y resulting in d i f f e r e n t values p~, a
and/~a are t h e n a c c o u n t e d f o r b y d i f f e r e n t i a -
t i o n f a c t o r s 3,,, d e f i n e d b y
3"
3"n = : - (5.28a)
3'
w h e r e ~ d e n o t e s t h e glo_bal s a f e t y f a c t o r f o r
basic values of/~f, a o r ~a a n d 3, d e n o t e s t h e
c o r r e s p o n d i n g global s a f e t y f a c t o r f o r t h e
a c t u a l values o f p f , a o r fla.
F o r t h e l i m i t s t a t e eqn. (5.17) 3",-values are
derived f r o m
3'. - 3"
_ - e x p [ohf v/ln(Vt~2 + 1 ) _
3'
- %Cln(V e +
e x p [ ( x / V ~ + V~e)A~a ]
w h i c h m a y b e generalized t o
3', ~ e x p [ ~ A ~ a ] (5.28b)
w i t h A~a = I~a - - fiaJ a n d Vi t h e c o e f f i c i e n t s o f
v a r i a t i o n o f t h e variables c o n s i d e r e d in t h e
limit state condition.
D e p e n d i n g o n t h e design c o n d i t i o n c o n -
sidered, 3', m a y be e m p l o y e d t o a d a p t ted,
e.g., in eqns. (5.17) or (5.25), o r t o a d a p t R d
in eqn. (5.27) d i r e c t l y or, m o r e c o n s i s t e n t l y ,
to a d a p t Td or qd.
5.5.2. Examples for differentiation factors
(a) Different reliability requirements
F o r p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n , reliability
r e q u i r e m e n t s m a y be c o n s i d e r e d b y intro-
d u c i n g s a f e t y classes w h i c h a l l o w f o r d i f f e r e n t
failure p r o b a b i l i t i e s p e r class. If class 2
r e p r e s e n t s average r e q u i r e m e n t s , classes 1 a n d
3 m a y be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h failure p r o b a b i l i t i e s
w h i c h are higher o r l o w e r b y , f o r e x a m p l e ,
o n e or t w o orders o f m a g n i t u d e . This c a n
roughly be accounted for by the following
d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n f a c t o r s 3'~1.
TABLE A5.5
Differentiation factors for three safety classes
class 1 2 3 4 H. Bub, D. Hosser, M. Kersken-Bradley and U.
~/nl 0.6... 0.8 1.0 1.3... 2.0
135
(b ) Different fire frequencies
With r e f e r e n c e t o eqn. (5.28), r e d u c i n g t h e
fire o c c u r r e n c e b y o n e o r d e r o f m a g n i t u d e ,
r o u g h l y results in 7n2 = 0.8 a n d a r e d u c t i o n
b y t w o orders o f m a g n i t u d e r e n d e r s r o u g h l y
7n2 = 0.6 as a safe-side e s t i m a t e . Based o n
t h e p r o b a b i l i t i e s i n d i c a t e d in T a b l e A5.3, t h e -
f o l l o w i n g d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n f a c t o r s 7n2 are
obtained:
TABLE A5.6
Differentiation factors for considering a reduced fire
frequency
No. Fire detecting and fighting 7n2
provision
1 Average standard public fire
brigade (if not considered in 0.8
the 'normal' safety factor)
Adequately maintained
sprinkler system 0.6
Acknowledged factory/private
fire brigade (according to the 0.9 . . . 0.7
national standard of fire brigades
Adequately maintained detection
1.0 . . . 0.8
and alarm system
W h e n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e special p r o v i s i o n s
(Nos. 2, 3 a n d 4 o f T a b l e A 5 . 6 ) in t h e assess-
m e n t , care has t o be t a k e n t h a t t h e y are n o t
envisaged t o e n c o u n t e r an increased f r e q u e n -
c y o f fire o c c u r r e n c e s t h a n average, o w i n g t o
a p a r t i c u l a r o c c u p a n c y . T h e various f a c t o r s
may be combined by multiplication, but the
t o t a l value o f 7,2 s h o u l d n o t d r o p b e l o w a
c e r t a i n limit, e.g. 7n2 > / 0 . 4 0 . (This is to
a c c o u n t f o r t h e f a c t t h a t t h e various provi-
sions are n o t entirely i n d e p e n d e n t o f each
o t h e r w i t h regard t o t h e i r possible success.)
Also, s u f f i c i e n t w a t e r s u p p l y has t o be
provided.
5.5.3. References
1 R. Rackwitz and B. Fiessler, Structural reliability
under combined random sequences, Compt. &
Structures, 9 (1978) 484 - 494.
2 Common Unified Rules for Different Types of
Material and Construction; Bulletin No. 116,
Joint Committee for Structural Safety, CEB, 1976
3 R. Rutstein and M. B. Clarke, The probability of
fire in different sectors of industry, Fire
Surveyor, (Feb.) (1979) 20 - 23.
Schneider, Eine Auslegungssystematik fiir den
baulichen Brandschutz, BRABA Heft 4, Erich
Schmid Verlag, 1983.
136
5 U. Schneider, Statistische Ermittlung der Brand-
Miufigkeiten in mehrgesehossigen Wohngebh'uden,
Forschungsbericht, Institut fiir Bautechnik IV
1-5-383/83.
6 H. Bub et al., Grundlagen zur Festlegung yon
Sicherheitsanforderungen fiir den baulichen
Brandschutz, Beuth Verlag, 1979.
7 Verband der Sachversicherer, Jahresbericht 1979/
80, Abteilung Schadenverhiitung und Teehnik.
8 A Conceptual Approach Towards a Probability
Based Design Guide for Structural Fire Safety,
CIB W14 Workshop Report, Fire Safety J., 6 (1)
(1983).
9 D. Hosser and U. Schneider, Sicherheitskonzept
fiir Brandschutztechnische Nachweise yon
Stahlbetonbauteilen nach der W~rmebilanz-
theorie, Institut ftir Bautechnik, 20. November
1980.
10 DIN 18230 Baulicher Brandschutz im Industrie-
bau (Vornorm), Beuth Verlag, 1979.

Appendix 6
Criteria for Thermal Insulation
The limit state condition for a separating
structure or structural member with respect
to thermal insulation is specified in Section
4.4.4 by eqn. (4.11). The condition consti-
tutes one of two criteria to be fulfilled with
respect to the requirement to prevent a fire
spread through the separating structure from
the fire c o m p a r t m e n t to an adjacent compart-
ment. The criterion is based on the m a x i m u m
temperature on the unexposed side of the
structure Turn, acceptable according to this
requirement.
In the standard ISO 834, the criterion is
specified in the following way:
The average temperature of the unexposed
surface of the test specimen shall n o t increase
above the initial temperature by more than
140 °C, and
-- the m a x i m u m temperature at any point of
this surface shall n o t exceed the initial tem-
perature by more than 180 °C and simul-
taneously not 220 °C, irrespective of the
initial temperature.
These limit values apply directly to a struc-
tural fire design in accordance with assess-
m e n t methods 1 and 2. These values have
been chosen in such a way that they allow for
137
a further temperature rise on the unexposed
surface of the structure during a subsequent
cooling in the test furnace after the heating
period of the standard fire resistance test,
without violating the requirement with
respect to the prevention of fire spread. In a
structural fire design, according to assessment
m e t h o d 3, the limit values Turn have to be
adjusted in view of this.
Examples of adjusted limit values, appli-
cable in a structural fire design, according to
assessment m e t h o d 3, are those specified in
the Swedish Building Code, Comments No. 1,
1976, namely:
- - a n average temperature of the unexposed
surface of the separating structure of not
more than 200 °C, and
- - a m a x i m u m temperature at any point of
this surface of not more than 240 °C.
An alternative is to pursue a more elaborate
verification with regard taken to the ignition
characteristics of the fire load in the adjacent
compartment. The latter procedure then may
have relevance in an individual assessment of
a particular building and compartment, com-
prising a detailed individual appraisal of the
various influence parameters.