See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/290031186

The slab panel method: Design of composite floor systems for dependable
inelastic response to severe fires

Article · January 2010

CITATIONS READS

8 3,010

3 authors:

George Charles Clifton Antony Gillies

University of Auckland University of Auckland
281 PUBLICATIONS   2,498 CITATIONS    1 PUBLICATION   8 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Nandor Mago
New Zealand Heavy Engineering Research Association
13 PUBLICATIONS   133 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Diaphragm View project

Structural Fire Engineering View project

All content following this page was uploaded by George Charles Clifton on 13 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Title: The Slab Panel Method: Design of Composite Floor Systems for Dependable
Inelastic Response to Severe Fires

Authors: G Charles Clifton

Anthony G Gillies
Nandor Mago
.
ABSTRACT
The Slab Panel Method (SPM) covers design of steel/concrete composite floor
systems for dependable inelastic response in severe fires, in which two-way action
within a deformed region of the floor known as a slab panel is used to allow many
of the supporting beams within that slab panel to remain unprotected. The SPM, in
which significant deformation of the unprotected elements and supporting floor
structure is anticipated and designed for, is suitable for desktop design office use.
This paper focuses firstly on a description of the features, application and
limitations of the method, followed by details of the development steps taken from
the first published method in 2001 to the latest draft in development, 2010.
References are given to sources of further information to allow readers to study the
method and each of the development steps undertaken in more detail

INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF PAPER

The Slab Panel Method (SPM) of designing composite floor systems for dependable
inelastic response to severe fires is a general purpose method for determining
whether a region of slab will, under a specified duration of severe fire exposure and
two-way action, support the applied load in flexure and shear. The current version,
presented in HERA Report R4-131 [1], has been developed from a 10 year research
programme and further development work is underway.
Space limitations herein mean that this presentation is limited to brief written
descriptions of the principal aspects of these developments and references are given
to publically available source documents which include more details.
It is assumed that readers are generally familiar with the tensile membrane model
developed by Bailey [2] as this paper covers only the changes to that model that
have been made.

G Charles Clifton, The University of Auckland, 20 Symonds Street, Auckland 1142, New
Zealand
Anthony G Gillies, Lakehead University, 955 Oliver Road, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada
Nandor Mago, New Zealand HERA, 17-19 Gladding Place, Manukau City, New Zealand
FEATURES, APPLICATION AND LIMITATIONS OF THE SLAB PANEL
METHOD

Features of Method

The SPM comprises a generalised application of the tensile membrane model [2] in
conjunction with the yieldline theory of Park [3] to a two-way region of a floor slab
known as a Slab Panel; Figure 1 shows an example.

Primary edge support

beam

Secondary beam

Fig. 43
2

Primary edge support beam

Figure 1 Reflected Floor Plan Showing Dimensions for Slab Panel Yield Line Pattern and
Developed Moments

Features of the method are:

1. The method is applicable to a wide range of concrete slabs supported on
secondary and primary steel beams.
2. Types of concrete slabs covered are flat slab with reinforcement, slabs on steel
deck with clipped pan (solid slab), trapezoidal profiles or deep ribbed deck
profiles and a limited range of solid precast units incorporating a two way
reinforced in-situ topping layer.
3. Normal weight and constructional light weight concrete are covered.
4. The supporting software allows two layers of slab reinforcement in the Lx and
Ly directions, as well as individual reinforcing bars in each rib of a steel deck
slab, and interior support bars over slab panel edges which are continuous across
the support (eg side 3 in panel 1 in Figure 1).
5. Supporting unprotected secondary beams within the slab panel (see Figure 1)
can be hot rolled or welded beams with discrete web openings or with
continuous web openings or closely spaced cold formed steel joists.
6. The expected deformations of the slab panel and supporting edge beams are
calculated for the end state and can be used in design of fire separating walls
which must pass under the slab panel.
7. Structural detailing requirements to withstand the expected deformations
without failure of the floor system is a key aspect of the procedure. This
includes all supporting beams being connected by shear studs, reinforcement at
the slab edges to tie the slab securely into the shear studs and prevent edge
unzipping, minimum elongation requirements for reinforcement required to
undergo yielding in fire and all supporting steel member connections having a
minimum specified rotation capacity at room temperature without loss of load
carrying capacity.
8. Design temperatures are calculated for all elements exposed to high
temperatures and the reduced strength associated with those temperatures is
used in the strength design checks.
9. The strength design checks on the slab panel involve a flexural/tensile
membrane load carrying capacity check and a shear check.
10. The contribution of the secondary beams is included in the calculation of
internal actions and hence slab panel capacity as described in the next section.

Application of Method

Application of the SPM involves the following steps (the full method is given in
Appendix A of [1]:
Step 1. Determine the fire emergency design loading, w*, which is in accordance
with the New Zealand Loadings Standard AS/NZS 1170.0 [4].
Step 2. Determine the design structural fire severity, which uses the teq value
calculated by EN 1991-1-2 [5]or as described in [6].
Step 3. Determine the temperatures of all slab panel components and associated
mechanical properties.
Step 4. Determine the yieldline load carrying capacity of the slab panel at elevated
temperatures. This involves the following sub-steps:
a. Determine the positive moment capacity within the slab panel per
unit length in each of the x- and y- directions. For the Lx direction,
the positive moment capacity in the x- direction includes directly the
contribution of the unprotected secondary beams, as shown in Figure
2. This involves determining the total tension force from all steel
components that can develop a dependable tension force across the
span Lx, given as Rtsx,total, expressed as force/unit width of slab in the
Ly direction and the distance to the centroid of this force from the top
of concrete, erx. This is balanced by a compression force Rcc in the
top of the slab, such that Rcc = Rtsx,total, whereupon the moment
capacity is determined using standard reinforced concrete theory.
These capacities are shown in Figure 1 as mx,1 and my,1.
b. For the slab panel sides which are continuous, determine the negative
moment capacity per unit length in the appropriate direction. For the
 slab panel shown in Figure 1, only side 3 is continuous and so m 'x ,1−2
is the only negative moment capacity calculated for that slab panel.
c. Calculate the yieldline load carrying capacity, using the equation for
a general rectangular slab with either pinned or fixed edge supports
given by Park [3]. This capacity is calculated for the slab panel with
the actual edge support conditions, designated wylθ, and for the slab
panel with all edges assumed simply supported, designated wylθ,ss.
Tensile membrane enhancement is applied only to the latter.

Top of concrete ax Rcc

slab reo Rcc
slab Rtsx, reo erx
Rtsx, tf
Top flange Rtsx, total

beam Web Rtsx, w All steel tension forces

are calculated for their
design elevated
temperatures
Bottom flange
Rtsx, bf
Δx

Figure 2 Section E-E Through Region of Floor Slab Incorporating Steel Decking, Showing
Development of Positive Moment Capacity Using the General Slab Reinforcement and the
Secondary Beams

Step 5. Determine the limiting and maximum deflection of the slab panel. This gives
the maximum allowed vertical deflection of the slab panel relative to the pre-fire
condition of the adjacent supports, used to calculate the tensile membrane
enhancement. The limits have been modified from those of [2] on the basis of
subsequent testing and analysis and include a dependence on the structural fire
severity, teq, as described in the next section.
Step 6. Determine the tensile membrane enhancement. In the currently published
method [1] this uses the Bailey model for isotropic reinforcement given in [2],
however the Bailey model for orthotropic reinforcement [7] has been
incorporated into the next revision currently in draft development stage and
described in the final section of the paper.
Step 7. Determine the moment/tension membrane adequacy of the slab panel, wu
and check if it is adequate.
This is given by equation (1).
w u = ( w ylθ − w ylθ,ss ) + w ylθ,ss e (1)
where e is the enhancement in simply supported slab panel load carrying
capacity due to tensile membrane action.
If w* ≤ wu, then the moment/tension membrane capacity is adequate.
Step 8. Determine the shear capacity of the slab panel. This is determined for side 1
or side 3, Figure 1, where the decking, if present, is running parallel to the edge
support beams and so the minimum thickness of slab is present. The procedure
takes account of the loss of concrete load carrying capacity in the bottom of the
slab due to the high temperatures developed. It also incorporates the elevated
temperature contribution from the secondary beams if present, being calculated
as the minimum of the contribution from the web of the beam or from the
connections of the secondary beam into the primary edge beam.
Step 9. Determine the reinforcement content required for integrity (prevention of the
passage of fire through any cracks in the slab). These provisions taken directly
from the six slab panel furnace tests described by Lim [8].

Limitations of the Slab Panel Method

As a research tool the method has limited application, in that it determines the
adequacy of the slab load carrying capacity at a given structural fire severity (teq)
when a specified mid-panel maximum deflection is reached. It does not generate the
behaviour of the slab panel throughout the period of fire exposure, unlike a finite
element based approach such as VULCAN [9].
The method is very versatile as a design tool but with the following limitations:
(1) Because the method is based on developing significant vertical deformation of
the floor system to generate the required fire resistance it is not applicable where
this deformation may compromise the life safety performance of elements
underneath the fire separating floor.
(2) To dependably resist the expected structural deformations the structural system
must have sufficient ductility capacity as specified in [1]. Structural systems
designed and detailed to resist severe earthquake demands meet these criteria.
This is especially important for the building to withstand dependably the fully
developed fire on more than one level at one time, which might occur.
(3) The slab panel vertical edge supports must have sufficient strength to resist the
applied loads generated from the slab panel tributary supported areas (eg for
side 2, panel 1, Figure 1, this is the tributary area from region ACB) and must
resist these loads with limited deformation (limit of span/100 is given).
(4) Bare steel columns supporting the slab panel must be passive protected full
height including the connection region.

DEVELOPMENT WORK UNDERTAKEN

The overall research programme for the SPM has involved the following steps:
1. The Cardington (UK) full scale fire tests in 1995/1996 [10] showed that
composite floor systems with unprotected primary and secondary floor support
beams can develop high fire resistance through inelastic action under severe fire
exposure. However, these reports did not produce a design model for this
observed behaviour.
2. Bailey published the tensile membrane model of floor system behaviour [2] and
confirmed the postulated slab panel/tensile membrane behaviour in lightly
reinforced large scale slab panel tests at ambient temperature.
3. Clifton et al [11] generalised Bailey’s model into the first edition of the Slab
Panel Method of design and detailing composite floor systems for dependable
inelastic response under fully developed fires.
4. Finite element modelling [12] of the Cardington tests as an assemblage of linked
composite members undertaken over 2002/2003 showed the three-dimensional
nature of the floor system response, involving two-way action of the floor
system, consistent with the Bailey model [2].
5. Six rectangular slab panels were designed to the first edition of the SPM
procedure and tested at the Building Ressearch Association of New Zealand fire
test furnace in 2002 [8]. The panel supports on the 4 sides of the panel were
rigid vertically, but free to translate horizontally and to rotate.
6. These 6 tests allowed the methods of temperature determination for the concrete
and slab reinforcement and the requirements for integrity to be revised. Details
are in [13]. These revisions were incorporated into the second edition of the
SPM [14]. Prediction of the expected failure times of the tested slab panels by
the first edition [11] and the second edition [14] showed both to be conservative,
the first edition especially so.
7. Advanced Finite Element Analysis (FEA) of all 6 tested panels was undertaken,
with the models validated through comparing the mid-panel deflection and then
being used to compare edge lateral deflections and reinforcement strains.
Accurate models were obtained in all cases; details are in [15].
8. FEA was then used to determine the influence of deforming supports on the slab
panel behaviour. Details are in [16]. This influence is minor and is accounted for
in the edition of the procedure currently published [1]. The influence of in-plane
axial restraint on the slab panel deformation was determined and found to be
significant, with even minor levels of restraint (less than 100kN/m stiffness)
reducing the vertical deformation at the centre of the slab panel [16]
9. Modelling of a real floor system (similar to that shown in Figure 1) comprising
unprotected secondary beams was next undertaken to confirm that the SPM
approach of incorporating the unprotected secondary beams into the slab panel
resistance, in the manner shown in Figure 2, is valid. Details are in [17]. This
involved first validating the FE model for a slab on beams by accurately
predicting [18] the standard fire test response of one non composite and two
composite floor beams undertaken at the Warrington Fire Testing station.
10. FEA was then used to determine the performance of a complete floor system
with unprotected secondary beams within the slab panel compared with the
predicted response from the SPM second edition, with good agreement [19].
This modelling included determining the response under the Standard Fire
exposure [20] up to and beyond the calculated time to failure and under a natural
fire generating the same structural fire severity as the calculated time to failure.
11. FEA was used to determine the load distribution into the supporting beams of
the slab panel under severe fire conditions and to compare this with the assumed
load transfer mechanism for slab panel response. This comparison showed [17]
that the yieldline basis of load transfer from the slab panel into the support
beams (as determined from the tributary area shown in Figure 1) is more
accurate than the ambient temperature load transfer assumed in ambient
temperature design, which assumes a series of 1 way load transfer systems,
comprising slab → secondary beams → primary beams → columns.
12. A tentative fire engineering design procedure incorporating unprotected slab
panel supporting beams was developed. Representative slab panel systems with
protected and with unprotected floor support beam were designed and analysed
[21]. This model enabled a good prediction of the Cardington Large Enclosure
test floor performance [10] to be made, however ensuring lateral stability of the
unprotected edge beams and confirming the additional detailing requirements to
ensure slab panel stability required too much additional research work for the
benefit to be obtained and so this avenue has not been further developed.
13. Modification to the limiting deflection through the factor CISO was introduced.
For slab panels with unprotected secondary beams, large temperature
differentials in the beams early in the fire exposure drive rapid downwards
deflection, the rate of which decreases with increasing time. This is stage 1
behaviour. It is followed by a period of stable slab panel behaviour, with a
constant rate of deflection versus structural fire severity, teq. This is stage 2
behaviour. The increasing deflection generates increasing tension membrane
resistance, which counters the loss of strength with increasing temperature and
gives the stability to this stage of slab panel response. It is this effect which is
incorporated through the CISO factor. Details are given in section CA4.2.3 of [1].
Finally, if the structural fire severity is sufficiently great, the rate of deflection
increases with increasing time until final failure occurs. This is stage 3.
14. The SPM procedure has now been applied to all multi-storey steel framed office
buildings built within the City of Auckland over the last 4 years. The Building
Control Authority responsible for this jurisdiction required the procedure to be
subjected to independent peer review prior to allowing the first application. This
was undertaken in 2006 by Holmes Fire and Safety and the resulting
recommendations were incorporated into the current procedure [1].

CURRENT DEVELOPMENT WORK AND CONCLUSIONS

The most recent revisions to the procedure, which are currently in draft form,
involve the following:
a. Incorporating orthotropic strength at fire design temperature into the tensile
membrane enhancement factor, as recommended by Bailey in [7]. This is
essential as every application is orthotropic due to the temperature effects.
b. Ensuring that the tensile membrane failure mode is correctly determined
when the tensile capacity in the x- direction (ie the direction mx,1 in Figure 1)
is less than that in the y- direction. The Bailey model [7] assumes that tensile
membrane failure occurs mid-panel and parallel to the Lx direction.
However, if the tensile capacity in the x- direction is the lower of the two,
the Bailey model will overestimate the flexural/tensile membrane capacity.
c. Maintaining equilibrium in the yieldlines at their intersections within the
slab panel (eg at points C and D in Figure 1). This is not checked in [2, 7].
These provisions have been incorporated into a draft revision of the program,
termed SPM0609, which has been used to predict with acceptable or better accuracy
the response of several recent large scale fire tests, such as the Mokrsko test [22]
prior to the unzipping failure which prematurely ended the test (and which would
have been suppressed by the detailing requirements in the SPM procedure for tying
the slab onto the supporting edge beams).
 REFERENCES

1. Clifton, G., Design of composite steel floor systems for severe fires, HERA Report R4-131.
2006, New Zealand HERA: Manukau City.
2. Bailey, C.G., Design of steel members with composite slabs at the fire limit state. 2000:
Building Research Establishment.
3. Park, R., Ultimate Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs, Volume 2. 1970, The University
of Canterbury: Christchurch, New Zealand.
4. AS/NZS1170.0, Structural Design Actions Part 0 - General Principles, N.Z. Standards,
Editor. 2002, Standards New Zealand: Wellington, NZ.
5. ENV1991-1-2, Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures Part 1-2: General Actions - Actions on
Structures Exposed to Fire, CEN, Editor. 2002, CEN, Brussels, Belgium.
6. Spearpoint, M.E., ed. Fire Engineering Design Guide, Third Edition. 2008, Centre for
Advanced Engineering: Christchurch, NZ.
7. Bailey, C.G., Efficient Arrangement of Reinforcement for Membrane Behaviour of
Composite Floor Slabs in Fire Conditions. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 2003.
59: p. 931 - 949.
8. Lim, L. and C.A. Wade, Experimental Fire Tests of Two-Way Concrete Slabs, Fire
Engineering Research Report 02/12. 2002, University of Canterbury: Christchurch, NZ.
9. Huang, Z., I.W. Burgess, and R.J. Plank, Modelling Membrane Action of Concrete Slabs in
Composite Action in Fire, Theoretical Development and Validations. ASCE Journal of
Structural Engineering, 2003. 129(8): p. 1093 - 1112.
10. Kirby, B., The Behaviour of a Multi-Storey Steel Framed Building Subject to Fire Attack-
Experimental Data: Also data from BRE, Cardington, on the Corner Fire Test and the
Large Compartment Fire Test, 1996. 1998, British Steel Swinden Technology Centre:
Swinden.
11. Clifton, G.C., M. Hinderhofer, and R. Schmid, Design of Multi-Storey Steel Framed
Buildings with Unprotected Secondary Beams or Joists for Dependable Inelastic Response
in Severe Fires. Steel Design and Construction Bulletin, 2001. 60(February): p. 1 - 58.
12. Moss, P.J. and G.C. Clifton, Modelling of the Cardington LBTF Steel Frame Building Fire
Tests. Fire and Materials, 2004. 28: p. 177 - 198.
13. Clifton, G.C. and C. Beck, Revision of the Slab Panel Method - Comparison With
Experimental Results. Steel Design and Construction Bulletin, 2002.
70(October/November): p. 1 - 19, 47.
14. Clifton, G.C. and C. Beck, Design of Multi-Storey Steel Framed Buildings with Unprotected
Secondary Beams or Joists for Dependable Inelastic Response in Fires: Second Edition.
Steel Design and Construction Bulletin, 2003. 71(December02/January03): p. 3 - 72.
15. Mago, N. and G.C. Clifton, Stage 2 development of the Slab Panel Design Method, HERA
Report R4-118. 2003, New Zealand HERA: Manukau City, NZ.
16. Mago, N., Influence of slab panel edge sagging in fire - Stage 2 of the SPM: Concise
summary, HERA Report R4-118.1. 2004a, New Zealand HERA: Manukau City, NZ.
17. Mago, N. and G.C. Clifton, Advanced Analysis of Slab Panel Floor Systems Under Severe
Fire Attack. Steel Design and Construction Bulletin, 2005. 77(March): p. 3 - 18, 23 - 24.
18. Mago, N., FEA of three WRCSI fire tests: concise summary, HERA Report R4-118.2.
2004b, New Zealand HERA: Manukau City, NZ.
19. Mago, N., Composite floor system performance in ISO 100 min and natural fire teq 44 min:
concise summary, HERA Report R4-118.3. 2004c, New Zealand HERA: Manukau City,
NZ.
20. ISO834, Fire Resistance Tests - Elements of Building Construction Part 1 General
Requirements, G. ISO, Switzerland, Editor. 1999, ISO, Geneva, Switzerland.
21. Mago, N., DCB No 71 with secondary beams or Speedfloor joists: concise summary, HERA
Report R4-118.4. 2005, New Zealand HERA: Manukau City, NZ.
22. Wald, F. and P. Kallerova, Draft Summary of Results from Fire Test in Mokrsko 2008.
2009, CVUT: Prague, Czechoslovakia.

View publication stats