Original Research

Advances in Structural Engineering

1–15
A scenario-based methodology for Ó The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
determining fire resistance ratings sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1369433219864457

of irregular steel structures journals.sagepub.com/home/ase

Behrouz Behnam

Abstract
This article investigates the response of irregular steel structures under natural fires. As the severity and duration of natural fires
depend on many factors, a probabilistic-based approach known as two-level factorial design is used, whereby possible fire scenarios
are considered based on the minimum and maximum values of the involved factors. Two seven-story regular steel structures with
three span lengths of 5500 and 7000 mm are designed to meet a 2.0-hr fire resistance rating based on the ISO834 fire. Two types of
irregularities, setback and soft story, are then imposed on the regular structures to make them irregular. The regular and irregular
structures are then exposed to the fire scenarios (32 in total) to evaluate their fire resistance ratings. The results show that while the
regular structures are able to meet the required fire resistance rating under all of the fire scenarios, this is not the case for the irregu-
lar structures. It is shown that the reduction in the fire resistance ratings of the setback and the soft-story structures can be as low as
45% and 33% that of the required fire resistance ratings, respectively. Also, the setback irregular structures tend to collapse laterally,
hence endangering the safety of adjacent buildings. To address the above deficiencies, it is proposed here that the maximum surface
temperature on the structural members should be limited to 415°C–460°C. Alternatively, providing a 20%–25% increase in the insula-
tion thickness can provide the required safety margin as dictated by fire codes.

Keywords
fireproofing, fire resistance rating, irregular structures, probabilistic-based approach, steel structures, two-level factorial design

Introduction standard-based FRRs, there are performance-based

Buildings are designed to withstand fire loads that they
might experience during their lifetime. To this end, a
defined index (fire resistance rating (FRR)) requires
that the structural integrity, stability, and temperature
transmission of structural components should be
maintained for a specific duration of fire exposure,
based on a standard fire such as ISO834 or ASTM
E119. The required FRRs are dictated to structures
based on the occupancy type and the building’s
height, varying in a range of 30–240 min. Although
the standard-based FRRs follow a simple procedure,
their reliability has always received serious criticism
from scholars worldwide (Behnam, 2018; Gernay and
Franssen, 2015). The standard-based FRRs are
achieved according to a number of assumptions made
regarding real fires, and based on dictated circum-
stances to the fire testing environment. No structural
system and architectural aspect are also considered
when the standard tests are performed. Hence, the
results cannot be generalized to a wide range of
structural systems. To address the deficiencies of
methods (such as natural fire methodology), which are
particularly useful for small- and medium-sized com-
partments and which can provide more realistic FRRs
than those derived from the standard fires. Pioneer
methods, such as traveling fires, have also recently
been proposed and can be used particularly for large
open flat compartments, although these methods are
yet to be codified (Dai et al., 2017).
From a different perspective, in none of the above-
mentioned methods are the architectural aspects such
as regularity or irregularity discussed. While this is
important, there are few studies that have addressed
the fire structural response with a focus on structural
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Amirkabir University of
Technology, Tehran, Iran
Corresponding author:
Behrouz Behnam, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Amirkabir University of Technology, 424 Hafez Street, Tehran 13496,
Iran.
Email: behrouz.behnam@uqconnect.edu.au
2 Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)
regularity or irregularity (Behnam, 2016). An impor-
tant question that may thus arise is whether FRRs
based on the abovementioned methods are reliable
enough when the regularity or irregularity aspects of
structures are taken into consideration. In other words,
for two structures, identical in terms of their occu-
pancy type and architectural configuration, but differ-
ent in terms of structural regularity and irregularity, is
it a true assumption that the FRRs of these structures
are identical? To respond to this question, the study
here aims to determine the FRRs of irregular struc-
tures under different fire scenarios. While structural
irregularities can take many forms, two structural irre-
gularities (setback and soft story) are examined here.
Yet, the work here is a part of a wider research project
where other aspects of structural irregularities are also
addressed in future.
A structure is considered to be ‘‘setback irregular’’
where the horizontal dimensions of a story are more
than 130% of their adjacent story (Soni and Mistry,
2006). A structure is considered to be ‘‘soft-story irre-
gular’’ when the lateral stiffness of a story is less than
70% that of the upper story, or less than 80% that of
the three lower stories (D’Ambrisi et al., 2013).
Here, three steel fireproofed moment resisting
frames are considered, one regular and two irregular.
The analyses are performed on two different span
lengths—of 5500 mm and 7000 mm; this can provide
further insight into understanding the structural
response when different load ratios are considered.
The structures are first designed to meet their required
FRRs, based on the standard fire curve of ISO834
(2014). A series of sensitivity analyses are then per-
formed to determine the FRRs of the cases studied
under various fire curves based on the natural fire
methodology stipulated in EN 1991-1-2 (2002), known
as Eurocode Parametric Fire (EPF). Using EPF, many
factors influence the fire’s severity and duration such
as fire load density, ventilation ratio, and so on. A
comparison is then made between the FRRs of the reg-
ular cases studied and those of the irregular cases stud-
ied, in order to understand which parameters have
further influence on the FRRs of the structures. In
addition, since different failure fashions might be expe-
rienced by structures under a fire scenario, that is, lat-
erally (when the collapse is mostly due to the drift of
columns) or locally (when the collapse is mostly due to
the mid-span deflection of beams), scrutiny is also
given to which type of failure mode pertains more to
the cases studied.
Methodology
Investigating the response of structures under fire
involves three main stages: adopting a design fire,
performing a heat transfer analysis, and carrying out a
structural fire analysis. It is understood that the struc-
tural robustness under fire depends on many factors.
Some factors have root in the design fire, where its
duration and severity can be influenced by the fire load
density, ventilation ratio, boundary material proper-
ties, availability or non-availability of fire-suppressing
facilities, and so on. Other factors can provide the
required FRR, depending on the strength of materials,
the insulation specifications, and the architectural
aspects.
When a design fire is adopted, the heat transfer
analysis is performed based on the Fourier’s equation,
and over a non-steady-state 2D temperature distribu-
tion inside the cross-sections (Torero, 2012). The struc-
tural fire analysis is accordingly performed, in which
failure criteria are defined; this can determine whether
the structure has failed. The structural analysis can be
performed using a static approach, in order to reduce
computational time, but in that case, even local buck-
ling in the structural members may result in termina-
tion of the analysis (Couto et al., 2015; Maraveas,
2019). Therefore, the failure time might be misjudged.
On the contrary, while using a dynamic approach may
increase the computational time, it considers the global
stability of structures, meaning that local buckling does
not lead to termination of the analysis (Tondini and
Franssen, 2017). In this study, a dynamic approach is
employed to handle the analyses.
Here, the calculations start with determining the
value of the thermal properties
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiof the enclosures
(known as b factor) using b = crl, where c, r, and l
respectively stand for the specific heat, the density, and
the thermal conductivity. The b factor is limited
between 100 and 2200 J/m2 s0.5 K. The time–
temperature variations are determined based on differ-
ent values of the characteristic fire load density (qf,k)
(80% fractile). The 80% fractile is used here as per the
code suggestion, although it has been shown in some
surveys that this value might not always be a correct
assumption (Thauvoye et al., 2008). The characteristic
fire load density is dependent on the amount of
combustible materials inside the compartments,
which changes widely from about 120 MJ/m2 to
1800 MJ/m2. The design fire load density of the com-
partments (qt,d) is then determined using equation 1
qt, d = qf , k (Aroof =At ) ð1Þ
where Aroof and At are the combined area of the roof
and floor, and the total area (including the area of
walls, roof, and floor) respectively. The fire load den-
sity can change if the influence of availability or non-
availability of firefighting facilities is taken into
account as mentioned in Annex E of EC1. In that case,
Behnam 3

Table 1. Firefighting facilities.

Firefighting Buildings’ firefighting Urban regions’ firefighting

facilities (d1-5) facilities (d6-10)
Automatic Water Automatic Automatic Automatic An on-site An off-site Safe Normal Smoke
water supply fire fire alarm transmission fire fire brigade access firefighting exhaust
extinguishing detection brigade routes devices systems
systems

d1 d2 d3 or d4 d5 d6 or d7 d8 d9 d10

Available 0.61 0.7 0.87 0.73 0.87 0.61 0.78 1.0 1.0 1.0
Not available 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.5

Note: In the table, d4 and d6 are used to result in a worst case scenario.

qf,k in the above equation is substituted with qf,d in growth rate is fast, to 25 min, when the growth rate is
equation 2 slow

qf , d = dq1 dq2 dn mqf , k ð2Þ tmax = 0:2 3 103 qt, d =O ð7Þ

where dq1 and dq2 are respectively the risks of building When the fire reaches its maximum temperature at
size and the occupancy type, and dn is the availability t*max, the time versus temperature curve starts to
or non-availability of fire-extinguishing facilities (either decline based on equations 8–10.
those established inside the building, or those related
to professional fire brigades and rescue teams). The m t*max ł 0:5 : Tg = Tmax  625 (t*  t*max ) ð8Þ
in the above equation is the combustion factor and can
0:5\t*max \2:0 : Tg = Tmax  250 (3  t*max )
be determined from the test. It is, however, assumed to ð9Þ
be 0.80 for most cellulosic materials. The value of dq1 (t*  t*max )
changes from 1.10 for small compartments (up to t*max .2:0 : Tg = Tmax  250 (t*  t*max ) ð10Þ
25 m2) to 2.13 for very large compartments (up to
10,000 m2). The value of dq2 varies in a range from When the fire is fuel-controlled, the O and G factors
0.78 to 1.66 such that the lower boundary is used for in equations 5 and 6 over the heating phase are modi-
compartments with a lower fire risk (such as swimming fied using equations 11 and 12
pools), and the upper boundary is used for compart-
ments with a higher fire risk (such as chemical stores). Olim = 0:1 3 qt, d =tlim ð11Þ
For the cases studied here, the values of dq1 and dq2 are 2 2
G = (Olim =b) =(0:04=1160) ð12Þ
considered to be 1.50 and 1.00, respectively. The values
of dn are shown in Table 1. The above information shows that a design fire may
After deciding on the design fire, the variations of change based on the following factors:
time versus temperature during the heating phase are
determined using equations 3–6 (a) The b factor changing from 100 to 2200
J/m2 s0.5 K;
Tg = 20 + 1325(1  0:324e0:2t*  0:204e1:7t*  0:472e19t* ) (b) The opening factor (O) changing from 0.02 to
ð3Þ 0.20;
(c) The characteristic fire load density (qf,k)
t* = Gt, t*max = Gtmax ð4Þ changing from 120 to 1800 MJ/m2.
G = (O=b)2 =(0:04=1160)2 ð5Þ (d) The firefighting facilities (dn) changing from a
minimum value of 0.17, where the building is
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
Av heq fully fire-protected, to a maximum value of
O= ð6Þ 3.38, where there are no firefighting facilities
At
inside or outside the building. When the inter-
where heq is the weighted average of openings’ heights. nal and external firefighting facilities are sepa-
The longest duration of the heating phase, that is, rately involved, this gives a minimum and
tmax, is accounted for using equation 7 or tlim, which- maximum value of 0.27 and 1.0 for d1-5 and a
ever is greater. The value of tlim is defined based on the minimum and maximum value of 0.61 and
growth rate of the fire varying from 15 min, when the 3.38 for d6-10 respectively.
4 Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)

Table 2. A 25 factorial design for creating fire curves.

Fire curve Qualitative expression Quantitative expression

b O qf,k d1-5 d6-10 b O qf,k d1-5 d6-10

1 – – – – – 100 0.02 120 0.27 0.61

2 + – – – – 2200 0.02 120 0.27 0.61
3 – + – – – 100 0.2 120 0.27 0.61
4 + + – – – 2200 0.2 120 0.27 0.61
5 – – + – – 100 0.02 1800 0.27 0.61
6 + – + – – 2200 0.02 1800 0.27 0.61
7 – + + – – 100 0.2 1800 0.27 0.61
8 + + + – – 2200 0.2 1800 0.27 0.61
9 – – – + – 100 0.02 120 1.0 0.61
10 + – – + – 2200 0.02 120 1.0 0.61
11 – + – + – 100 0.2 120 1.0 0.61
12 + + – + – 2200 0.2 120 1.0 0.61
13 – – + + – 100 0.02 1800 1.0 0.61
14 + – + + – 2200 0.02 1800 1.0 0.61
15 – + + + – 100 0.2 1800 1.0 0.61
16 + + + + – 2200 0.2 1800 1.0 0.61
17 – – – – + 100 0.02 120 0.27 3.38
18 + – – – + 2200 0.02 120 0.27 3.38
19 – + – – + 100 0.2 120 0.27 3.38
20 + + – – + 2200 0.2 120 0.27 3.38
21 – – + – + 100 0.02 1800 0.27 3.38
22 + – + – + 2200 0.02 1800 0.27 3.38
23 – + + – + 100 0.2 1800 0.27 3.38
24 + + + – + 2200 0.2 1800 0.27 3.38
25 – – – + + 100 0.02 120 1.0 3.38
26 + – – + + 2200 0.02 120 1.0 3.38
27 – + – + + 100 0.2 120 1.0 3.38
28 + + – + + 2200 0.2 120 1.0 3.38
29 – – + + + 100 0.02 1800 1.0 3.38
30 + – + + + 2200 0.02 1800 1.0 3.38
31 – + + + + 100 0.2 1800 1.0 3.38
32 + + + + + 2200 0.2 1800 1.0 3.38

It is understood that combining different values of
the above factors can result in an unlimited number of
design fires to create. There are two different
approaches, deterministic and probabilistic, that can
be employed to create a design fire via which the struc-
tural robustness can then be evaluated. Using a deter-
ministic approach, the structural fire analysis is
performed under determined values of the abovemen-
tioned factors. The deterministic approach is often
used for evaluation or design of a structure when all
specifications are known in advance. When a probabil-
istic approach is used, possible combinations of the
above factors are considered. This approach is hence
very useful for predicting the structural response under
possible scenarios.
A functional application of the probabilistic-based
approach arises when only the lower and upper bound-
aries of the mentioned factors are involved. In that
case, the structural robustness can be controlled under
even very extreme conditions. This approach is named
two-level factorial design (TLFD; Box et al., 2005).
Using the TLFD method in structural analysis is of
vital importance since, on one hand, it does not require
numerous possibilities to consider for the variables
while, on the other hand, it determines a promising
direction for further required calculations. Here, using
the TLFD method, the possible fire curves that might
be produced are 2k=5 = 32 (k includes b, O, qf,k, d1-5,
d6-10). Mathematical studies have also indicated that a
half-replicated runs, that is, 2k=4, can also cover the
necessary calculations. Here, first full runs of 2k=5 are
performed. It is then shown that some runs are repeti-
tive and can be omitted from the analysis. For the
abovementioned factors, 32 possibilities for the fire
curves are shown in Table 2. In the table, the lower
and upper boundaries of the five factors are presented
qualitatively by plus and minus signs, and quantita-
tively with their minimum and maximum variables.
Behnam
Figure 1. The (a) structural plan and (b) 3D views of the regular structure (L = 5500 and 7000 mm).
Analytical models
The above methodology is now applied to three cases
studied, as introduced hereafter. First, a steel moment
resisting regular structure, as a generic model that com-
prises seven stories with equal height of H = 3200 mm
and three equal spans of L = 5500 mm over the both
directions, is designed based on ASCE (American
Society of Civil Engineers) code for gravity and seismic
loads (ASCE, 2017), with a peak ground acceleration
(PGA) of 0.35 g. The structure is loaded for the load
combinations of 7.0-kPa dead load and 2.0-kPa live
load. Calculating the earthquake load, a combination
of 100% dead load and 20% live load is used in order
to find the required mass. Two geometric irregularities
(as explained earlier) are then imposed on the regular
structure by changing the horizontal and vertical
dimensions to make irregular structures. As well, in
order to monitor the effect of different span lengths on
the structural responses, the above process is repeated
for new span lengths of 7000 mm. For the regular
structures with span lengths of 5500 and 7000 mm, the
load to capacity ratio of the members changes respec-
tively in a range of 0.39 to 0.51, and 0.50 to 0.73. The
views and properties of the designed regular and irre-
gular structures are presented in Figures 1 and 2,
respectively. In all of the structures, the floors are made
of normal weight siliceous concrete, with a density of
2400 kg/m3 and a thickness of 100 mm. The external
walls are made of standard bricks with a density of
1800 kg/m3. The steel elements are designed using steel
profiles with the yield stress of 240 MPa. In the slab,
the yield stress in the rebars is 300 MPa, and the com-
pressive strength in the concrete is 24 MPa. Poisson’s
ratio for the steel is 0.30, and for the concrete is 0.23.
5
The thermal expansion coefficient of steel is assumed
to be 12 3 10–6/°C.
It is assumed that the emissivity of the concrete is
0.7, the coefficient of convection between concrete
and air is 35 W/m2 K, thermal conductivity is
1.33 W/m K, and specific heat is 1000 J/kg K. For the
thermal properties of the insulation material, it is
assumed that the thermal conductivity is 0.1 W/m K,
the specific heat is 900 J/kg K, the dry specific mass is
550 kg/m3, the coefficient of convection is 35 W/
m2 K, and the emissivity is 0.8. The structural compo-
nents are fireproofed to resist a 120 min ISO834 fire as
mentioned in Holicky et al. (2005). The insulation
thickness is determined in a way that after 120-min fire
exposure, the surface temperature does not exceed
550ºC. This gives a 20-mm insulation thickness on the
columns surfaces. The external surface of the external
columns is not insulated, as the external surface is not
directly exposed to the fire flames and it is assumed
that no traveling fire would occur between stories.
Similarly, an insulation material with a thickness of
23 mm is considered on the beam surfaces, excluding
the top side as it is protected by the concrete slab.
Figure 3 shows the cross-sections of C1 and B1 under
the 120-min fire exposure. To monitor the variations
of temperature inside the concrete slab, it is also mod-
eled and included in the thermal analysis.
Based on the information given in Table 2, the pos-
sible fire scenarios are now created for the span lengths
of 5500 and 7000 mm, as summarized respectively in
Tables 3 and 4. The fire curves are concurrently
applied to the spans of the first story; hence, no non-
uniform temperature distribution—horizontally or
vertically—is considered. It is worth mentioning that,
6 Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)

Figure 2. Specifications of the cases studied (dimensions are in mm): (a) the regular structure (RS), (b) the setback irregular
structure (SB), and (c) the soft-story irregular structure (SS).
C1: HE500A; C2: HE400A; C3: HE300A—B1: IPE500; B2: IPE400; B3: IPE300.

Figure 3. The cross-sections of B1 and C1 under the 120-min ISO834 fire: variations of temperature in (a) B1 and (b) C1.

as pointed out in EC1, the design fire load density qt,d
has to be limited between 50 and 1000 MJ/m2, even
though the determined value is less or more than these
limits. As well, when the fires are fuel-controlled,
required modifications shall be made on G factor and
accordingly on tmax. These limitations and modifica-
tions have all been considered in the information given
in the tables.
Referring to Table 2, the calculations showed that
the fire curves of 9, 10, 11, and 12 were identical to the
fire curves of 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Similarly,
the fire curves of 29, 30, 31, and 32 were identical to
the fire curves of 21, 22, 23, and 24, respectively. Thus,
in order to avoid repetition, the fire curves which are
used over the analyses were reduced to 24, with their
information given in Tables 3 and 4. Some of the fire
curves are also shown in Figure 4 to better visualize the
variations of the gas temperature versus time. It is
worth mentioning that the total areas of the regular
structures and the soft-story structure are not identical,
because the first story height in the soft-story structures
is greater than in the regular structures. Therefore,
required differences should be made on the fire curves
of the regular structures with the soft-story structures.
Behnam 7

Table 3. Design parameters for the cases studied with span length of 5500 mm.

Fire curve qf,d qt,d G tmax t*max Tmax ttotal

1 23.7 50 33.64 0.5 16.82 1330 2.60

2 23.7 50 0.069 0.5 0.034 340.7 1.06
3 23.7 50 18.96 0.333 6.313 1223 2.28
4 23.7 50 0.039 0.333 0.013 164 0.57
5 355.7 200.2 33.64 2.002 67.37 1345 7.30
6 355.7 200.2 0.069 2.002 0.139 669 4.60
7 355.7 200.2 304.24 0.333 101.31 1345 2.45
8 355.7 200.2 0.628 0.333 0.209 732 1.47
9 1317.6 741.8 33.64 7.418 249.54 1345 12.7
10 1317.6 741.8 0.069 7.418 0.515 845 10.7
11 1317.6 741.8 3364 0.741 2495.44 1345 3.10
12 1317.6 741.8 6.950 0.741 5.155 1191 2.83
13 131.4 73.9 33.64 0.739 24.88 1342 3.10
14 131.4 73.9 0.069 0.739 0.051 437 1.50
15 131.4 73.9 41.51 0.333 13.82 1317 2.42
16 131.4 73.9 0.085 0.333 0.028 297 0.78
17 1971.2 1000 33.64 10 336.4 1345 15.3
18 1971.2 1000 0.069 10 0.695 888 13.4
19 1971.2 1000 3364 1 3364 1345 3.65
20 1971.2 1000 6.950 1 6.950 1238 3.43
21 486.7 274.0 33.64 2.740 92.18 1345 8.00
22 486.7 274.0 0.069 2.740 0.190 719 5.48
23 486.7 274.0 569.48 0.333 189.63 1345 2.45
24 486.7 274.0 1.176 0.333 0.391 808 1.60

Table 4. Design parameters for the cases studied with span length of 7000 mm.

Fire curve qf,d qt,d G tmax t*max Tmax ttotal

1 23.7 50 33.64 0.5 16.82 1330 2.83

2 23.7 50 0.069 0.5 0.034 340 1.15
3 23.7 50 18.960 0.333 6.313 1223 2.48
4 23.7 50 0.039 0.333 0.013 164 0.62
5 355.7 200.2 33.64 2.209 74.31 1345 7.95
6 355.7 200.2 0.069 2.209 0.153 686 5.01
7 355.7 200.2 304.24 0.333 101.31 1345 2.67
8 355.7 200.2 0.628 0.333 0.209 732 1.60
9 1317.6 741.8 33.64 8.182 275.25 1345 13.84
10 1317.6 741.8 0.069 8.182 0.568 859 11.66
11 1317.6 741.8 3364 0.818 2752.52 1345 3.37
12 1317.6 741.8 6.950 0.818 5.687 1207 3.08
13 131.4 73.9 33.64 0.816 27.45 1343 3.37
14 131.4 73.9 0.069 0.816 0.056 462 1.63
15 131.4 73.9 41.51 0.333 13.82 1317 2.63
16 131.4 73.9 0.085 0.333 0.028 297 0.85
17 1971.2 1000 33.64 10 336.4 1345 16.67
18 1971.2 1000 0.069 10 0.695 888 14.60
19 1971.2 1000 3364 1 3364 1345 3.97
20 1971.2 1000 6.950 1 6.950 1238 3.73
21 486.7 274.0 33.64 3.022 101.67 1345 8.72
22 486.7 274.0 0.069 3.022 0.210 732 5.97
23 486.7 274.0 569.48 0.333 189.63 1345 2.67
24 486.7 274.0 1.176 0.333 0.391 808 1.74
8 Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)
Figure 4. The variations of temperature versus time for the
cases studied with span length of 5500 mm.
Nevertheless, the differences are not considerable in
the cases here, and they are ignored for simplicity.
Analysis results
The cases studied and the methodology were explained
in the previous sections. The fire curves used to investi-
gate the cases studied were also determined in the pre-
vious section. Here, the cases are analyzed using
SAFIRÒ (Franssen and Gernay, 2017), a finite
element–based package which has been exclusively
developed to investigate the responses of structures
under fire, though it is also capable of handling struc-
tural analysis under ambient temperature. All of the
thermal and mechanical characteristics of steel and
concrete are based on Eurocodes 2 and 3 (EN-1992-1-
1, 2004; EN-1993-1-2, 2005).
To start modeling, the cross-sections of the struc-
tural components are meshed into well-scaled quadran-
gular fibers, and are then subjected to the fire curves,
in order to store the temporal and spatial distributions
of temperature inside the sections. It is worth noting
that the thermal and mechanical characteristics of the
materials introduced are all assigned to every fiber.
Therefore, the stress–strain material law is solved for
all fibers. To create the longitudinal discretization of
the structural members, the Bernoulli beam-type ele-
ments (Irschik, 1991) with three nodes and six degrees-
of-freedom are used. Large displacements and P-D
effects are considered, through co-rotational transfor-
mation of the geometric stiffness matrix. The analyses
are run until the software is not able to find equili-
brium for the structure. This is graphically shown when
an asymptote is seen in the horizontal or vertical dis-
placement versus time in a benchmark node in either a
beam or in a column. As well, since all of the fibers
conform to the material’s nonlinearity, the asymptote
implicitly represents the failure of the structure.
The following explanation may further clarify the
advantages of using the stress–strain law failure criter-
ion. There are two prescriptive-based and
performance-based failure criteria that are widely dis-
seminated by codes. Prescriptive-based failure criteria,
although simple to use, are very superficial and cannot
act as a reliable failure reference (ASTME 119-01,
2001). When using performance-based failure criteria,
the nonlinearity specifications of the materials are
involved during the analysis; hence, the results are
much more reliable (Kodur and Dwaikat, 2007). Most
performance-based failure criteria point to the mid-
span or the rate of deflection of beams and the rate of
lateral displacement of columns (Beyler et al., 2007).
These failure criteria are based on some simplified
assumptions; hence, they cannot be generalized to a
wide range of structural systems. However, when the
stress–strain law is employed, the results are even more
reliable, because the stress in any fiber can never go
beyond the temperature-dependent material strength.
Hence, sectional failure is routinely discovered. When
the cases are being analyzed, it is assumed that the
connections are ideally rigid and it is expected that
they are able to transfer the internal forces until the
global failure occurs. As well, in order to maximize the
accuracy of the results’ convergence, a short-time step
of Dt = 0.5 sec is defined over the analysis.
Here, the structural analyses are performed on
Frame 2 from the structure shown in Figure 1(a),
which represents a 2D planner model. While 3D mod-
els can provide detailed information about the struc-
tural response under fire, studies have indicated that
results from 2D framed models are also reliable to a
large extent (Flint, 2005; Quiel and Garlock, 2008a,
2008b; Röben et al., 2010; Usmani, 2005). This is also
worth noting that 2D models do not capture the possi-
ble load redistributions through the slab (e.g. tensile
membrane action) which in turn can enhance the fire
structural response. This can be concluded that results
of 2D models may even be conservative than those of
3D models.
Table 5 shows results of the analyses under the
determined fire curves. The results indicate that the
regular structures with span lengths of 5500 and
7000 mm are able to meet the required FRR of 2.0 hr
under all of the fire scenarios. This means that the reg-
ular structures are robust enough, even under very
extreme loading scenarios, for example, scenarios 9,
10, and 17. It is worth noting that in some of the fire
scenarios, no collapse (NC) was observed throughout
the analyses, as shown in the table. Therefore, the EPF
can be employed for regular structures with a
high degree of surety, and when all of the possible
combinations of the effective factors are considered
Behnam 9

Table 5. Results of structural fire analyses.

Fire curve FRR of the structures with span length of 5500 mm FRR of the structures with span length of 7000 mm
RS SB SS RS SB SS

1 NC NC NC NC NC NC
2 NC NC NC NC NC NC
3 NC NC NC NC NC NC
4 NC NC NC NC NC NC
5 132.6 100.7 110.0 118.0 85.9 93.8
6 155.5 103.9 113.6 135.2 88.3 96.5
7 NC NC NC NC NC NC
8 NC NC NC NC NC NC
9 127.5 96.9 105.8 115.0 82.3 89.9
10 155.5 103.9 113.6 135.2 85.9 96.5
11 155.5 103.9 113.6 135.2 85.9 96.5
12 155.5 103.9 113.6 135.2 85.9 96.5
13 155.5 103.9 113.6 135.2 85.9 96.5
14 NC NC NC NC NC NC
15 NC NC NC NC NC NC
16 NC NC NC NC NC NC
17 127.5 96.9 105.8 114.0 81.1 89.9
18 155.5 103.9 113.6 135.2 85.9 96.5
19 155.5 103.9 113.6 135.2 85.9 96.5
20 155.5 103.9 113.6 135.2 85.9 96.5
21 127.5 96.9 105.8 115.0 85.9 89.9
22 155.5 96.9 105.8 135.2 82.3 89.9
23 NC NC NC NC NC NC
24 NC NC NC NC NC NC

FRR: fire resistance rating; NC: no collapse; RS: regular structure; SB: setback irregular structure; SS: soft-story irregular structure.

(see Table 2). In the regular structure with the span
length of 7000 mm, there are a few scenarios under
which the required FRR is not met, but the insufficien-
cies are not considerable (2 ’ 5%) and can be ignored
(see scenarios 5, 9, 17, and 21). It should be mentioned
here that in the current study, the structural responses
are only monitored for the fire duration based on the
information of Tables 3 and 4 and not for long after
the temperature has returned to ambient. While inves-
tigating this new scenario is also of paramount impor-
tance, it is not within the scopes defined for the
current study. There are yet studies that have exclu-
sively addressed response of structures over the cooling
phase (e.g. Behnam, 2018; Gernay and Gamba, 2018).
On the other hand, the results show that the irregu-
lar structures are unable to meet their required FRR
under any of the fire scenarios. The table shows that in
more than 50% of the fire scenarios, the FRRs of the
irregular structures are much lower than required. In
addition, it is understood that while the span length
increases, the FRR decreases even further. The results
show that under scenarios 5, 9, 17, and 22, the FRRs
of the irregular structures are minimized. This means
that the minimum FRR is not necessarily achieved
when all five of the introduced factors are at their
maximum value; rather, other combinations of these
factors can lead to critical scenarios. The table also
indicates that the structural vulnerability in the setback
irregular structures is greater than in the soft-story
irregular structures. This can pertain to the non-
uniform distribution of loads in the setback irregular
structures, where the columns are assigned different
load ratios (as shown in Figure 5).
The collapse modes of the irregular structures are
also important. As an example, Figure 6 shows the col-
lapse modes of the setback and soft-story irregular
structures subject to scenario 5. The results of the anal-
yses show that in all of the setback structures, both
mid-span deflection of beams and lateral deflection of
columns are considerable, but overall these structures
would tend to collapse laterally. In the soft-story struc-
tures, the results show that the collapse mode is highly
dominated by the mid-span deflection of beams; hence,
these structures would collapse inwardly. The collapse
fashion in the setback irregular structures is of para-
mount importance since, after a lateral collapse, adja-
cent buildings could also be placed in danger.
As well, both setback and soft-story structures are
faced with a progressive collapse scenario. In the set-
back irregular structure shown in Figure 6(a), there
are three columns that have buckled at the end of the
analysis, where the numerical simulation is no longer
10 Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)

(a) (b)
Figure 5. Axial forces diagrams in the irregular structures under only the gravity loads: (a) the setback structure and (b) the
soft-story structure.

Figure 6. The collapse shape of the irregular structures with span length of 5500 mm subject to scenario 5: the collapse shape of
(a) the setback irregular structure and (b) the soft-story irregular structure.

able to find a new equilibrium and loads cannot find
an alternative load path to redistribute. In the same
vein, both of the internal columns in the soft-story
structure (Figure 6(b)) have buckled, leading to the
beams in the first story becoming unable to carry their
applied loads; hence, a progressive collapse can be
triggered.
Figures 7 and 8 show the axial forces and bending
moments in the beams and columns of the setback and
soft-story structures at the end of the analyses. In
Figure 7(a), catenary action and arch effect can be
seen in the second story. As well, due to buckling and
pulling of the columns, considerable positive
bending moments develop in the beams, as shown in
Figure 7(b). Similarly, in Figure 8(a), catenary action
Behnam 11

N < 0 (Compression)
N > 0 (Tension)

(a) (b)
Figure 7. The axial and bending moment diagram in the setback structure with span length of 5500 mm subject to scenario 5:
(a) the axial force and (b) the bending moment.

N < 0 (Compression)
N > 0 (Tension)

(a) (b)
Figure 8. The axial and bending moment diagram in the soft-story structure with span length of 5500 mm subject to scenario 5: (a)
the axial force and (b) the bending moment.

and arch effect can be seen in the second story of the Discussion and suggestion
soft-story structure at the end of the analysis. Figure
The above results indicate that vulnerability to fire in
8(b) shows that due to the buckling of the middle col-
irregular structures is much greater than in regular
umns and the fact that they are unable to tolerate their
structures. This is particularly the case in setback irre-
bending moments, the external columns are assigned
gular structures, where loads are not equally distribu-
further bending moments that are beyond their bend-
ted between structural members, causing these
ing capacity.
12
Figure 9. The FRRs of the irregular cases studied: the irregular structures with span length of (a) 5500 mm and (b) 7000 mm.
structures to collapse laterally. To provide a better
understanding of the results, Figure 9 summarizes the
FRRs of the irregular cases studied. In the figure,
the horizontal and vertical axes respectively represent
the number of fire scenarios and the fire durations.
The dashed line shows the required FRR (which is
here 2.0 hr). The FRRs of the setback and soft-story
structures (with span lengths of 5500 and 7000 mm)
are also shown in Figure 9(a) and (b). It is seen that
FRRs of the setback irregular structures may decline
further to 45% of the required FRR. In the same vein,
reduction in the FRRs of the soft-story structures may
drop to 33% of the requirement. This reveals that
there should be different FRRs requirements for regu-
lar and irregular structures—while important, this
point has not as yet been addressed by fire codes.
To address the above deficiency, FRRs of the irre-
gular structures should be increased so that the
required resistance is met. For the cases studied here,
based on a 20-mm insulation thickness for the col-
umns, and a 23-mm insulation thickness for the
beams, the surface temperature was limited to 550ºC
Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)
(Figure 3). It is hence understood that additional insu-
lation can further decrease the surface temperature
and thereby increase the FRR. This aim can be
reached via a trial-and-error process. Here, providing
9 mm of further insulation on the beams and a 7 mm
further insulation on the columns reduces the surface
temperature to 415°C and 460°C, respectively. Results
of the thermal analyses are shown in Figure 10.
The structural fire analyses are now re-performed
for the fire scenarios where the irregular structures
were unable to meet the required FRR of 2 hr. The
results are shown in Table 6.
As seen in the table, the new FRRs have risen to
acceptable levels. For those FRRs which are still lower
than 2 hr, the insufficiencies are not considerable and
can be ignored. As a tentative strategy to reduce the
failure vulnerability of irregular structures subject to
natural fires, the surface temperature of the structural
members should be limited to a range between 415°C
and 460°C. In other words, in order to meet the
required FRRs in irregular structures, it is a functional
suggestion to increase the thickness of insulation
Behnam 13

Figure 10. The variations of temperature in B1 and C1 based on new configuration of the insulation material and under the
120 min ISO834 fire: variations of temperature in (a) B1 and (b) C1.

Table 6. Results of the structural fire analyses for the irregular structures based on new configuration of the insulation material.

Fire FRR of the setback and soft-story structures FRR of the setback and soft-story structures
curve with span length of 5500 mm with span length of 7000 mm
SB SS SB SS

5 121.8 133.1 118.5 129.4

6 125.7 137.4 121.8 133.1
9 117.2 128.0 113.5 124.0
10 125.7 137.4 118.5 133.1
11 125.7 137.4 118.5 133.1
12 125.7 137.4 118.5 133.1
13 125.7 137.4 118.5 133.1
17 117.2 128.0 112.0 124.0
18 125.7 137.4 118.5 133.1
19 125.7 137.4 118.5 133.1
20 125.7 137.4 118.5 133.1
21 117.2 128.0 118.5 124.0
22 117.2 128.0 113.5 124.0

FRR: fire resistance rating; SB: setback irregular structure; SS: soft-story irregular structure.

materials by 20%–25% over what is employed for
regular structures.
Summary and conclusion
This article investigated the structural response of reg-
ular and irregular structures subject to natural fires
based on the methodology stipulated in EC1. As many
factors contribute to the severity and duration of natu-
ral fires, a probabilistic-based approach, known as
TLFD, was used to simulate possible fire scenarios.
Using combinations of minimum and maximum values
of the factors involved in natural fires, 32 curves were
created. These fire curves were then employed to
monitor the structural response of regular and irregu-
lar structures to fire. Accordingly, a seven-story
moment resisting structure, with three span lengths of
5500 mm over the both directions and a story height
of 3200 mm, was first designed for gravity and seismic
loads. Then, two geometric irregularities were imposed
on the regular structure to make it setback irregular
and soft-story irregular. As well, in order to monitor
the effect of different span lengths on the structural
response, the above steps were repeated for span
lengths of 7000 mm. All of the structural members
were then insulated to meet a 2.0-hr FRR, based on
the standard fire curve of ISO834. To do this, the sur-
face temperature of the members was limited to 550°C.
14
A series of structural fire analyses were then per-
formed on the regular and irregular structures sub-
jected to the 32 fire curves. The results showed that,
under all of the fire scenarios, both of the regular
structures were able to meet the required FRR.
However, the irregular structures were unable to meet
the required FRR under all of the fire scenarios. It was
also observed that setback irregular structures were
even more vulnerable to fire than soft-story structures.
Two types of structural collapse had been expected to
occur during the fire analyses: an inward collapse,
where the collapse was mainly due to considerable
mid-span deflection of beams, and a lateral collapse,
where the collapse was mainly governed by lateral
deflection of columns. The results indicated that all of
the collapsed setback irregular structures tended to
collapse laterally, while the soft-story structures tended
to collapse inwardly. Lateral collapse can be of vital
importance, as adjacent structures might be faced with
unpredicted risks. Overall, results of the analyses
showed that the FRRs of the setback irregular and
soft-story irregular structures under all of the possible
fire scenarios might be reduced to as low as 45% and
33% of the required FRRs, respectively.
The above results are very interesting, but also
extremely important. Currently, no difference is made
between the FRRs required of regular and irregular
structures in the fire codes. In order to solve this defi-
ciency, two mitigation strategies are suggested—either
the maximum temperature on the structural members
should be limited to 415°C–460°C, or the insulation
thickness should be increased by 20%–25%.
This research has employed a functional methodol-
ogy to evaluate the robustness of structures under pos-
sible natural fire scenarios. The research is novel, as
there have been few studies that have addressed the
fire-related structural response of buildings with archi-
tectural irregularity. As the suggestions here are for
specific structures, the results cannot hence be extrapo-
lated as general recommendations. In future, further
investigations should be performed on different struc-
tural systems and materials to assess their FRRs. As
well, the effect of non-uniform distribution of tempera-
ture on the structural response of irregular structures
should be investigated. The suggestions proposed here,
although simple to use in prescriptive-based
approaches, can visibly increase the fire safety margin
of irregular structures. The results can also provoke
fire-engineering community to think whether
prescriptive-based fire codes can provide the required
safety for different urban buildings.
Finally, it should be emphasized that the results
here are based on the TLFD method with its defined
boundaries; hence, when required, further
probabilistic-based fire curves can be considered in
Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)
order to deepen understanding into response of struc-
tures under fire.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Behrouz Behnam https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8348-4711
References
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2017) Mini-
mum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings
and Other Structures. Reston, VA: ASCE.
ASTME 119-01 (2001) Standard Methods of Fire Test of
Building Construction and Materials. West Conshohocken,
PA: American Society for Testing and Materials.
Behnam B (2016) Structural response of vertically irregular
tall moment-resisting steel frames under pre- and post-
earthquake fire. The Structural Design of Tall and Special
Buildings 25: 543–557.
Behnam B (2018) Failure sensitivity analysis of tall moment-
resisting structures under natural fires. International Jour-
nal of Civil Engineering 16: 1771–1780.
Beyler C, Beitel J, Iwankiw N, et al. (2007) Fire resistance
testing for performance-based fire design of buildings.
Final report, The Fire Protection Research Foundation,
Quincy, MA, June.
Box GE, Hunter JS and Hunter WG (2005) Statistics for
Experimenters: Design, Innovation, and Discovery. New
York: Wiley-Interscience.
Couto C, Real PV, Lopes N, et al. (2015) Resistance of steel
cross-sections with local buckling at elevated tempera-
tures. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 109:
101–114.
D’Ambrisi A, De Stefano M, Tanganelli M, et al. (2013) The
effect of common irregularities on the seismic perfor-
mance of existing RC framed buildings. In: Lavan O and
De Stefano M (eds) Seismic Behaviour and Design of Irre-
gular and Complex Civil Structures. Dordrecht: Springer,
pp. 47–58.
Dai X, Welch S and Usmani A (2017) A critical review of
‘‘travelling fire’’ scenarios for performance-based struc-
tural engineering. Fire Safety Journal 91: 568–578.
EN 1991-1-2 (2002) Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures—Part
1-2: General Actions—Actions on Structures Exposed to
Fire. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization
(CEN).
EN 1992-1-1 (2004) Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Struc-
tures—Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings.
Behnam
Brussels: European Committee for Standardization
(CEN).
EN 1993-1-2 (2005) Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures—
Part 1-2: General Rules—Structural Fire Design. Brussels:
Comité Européen de Normalisation.
Flint G (2005) Fire Induced Collapse of Tall Buildings. Edin-
burgh: The University of Edinburgh.
Franssen J-M and Gernay T (2017) Modeling structures in
fire with SAFIRÒ: theoretical background and capabil-
ities. Journal of Structural Fire Engineering 8: 300–323.
Gernay T and Franssen JM (2015) A performance indicator
for structures under natural fire. Engineering Structures
100: 94–103.
Gernay T and Gamba A (2018) Progressive collapse triggered
by fire induced column loss: detrimental effect of thermal
forces. Engineering Structures 172: 483–496.
Holicky M, Meterna A, Sedlacek G, et al. (2005) Implemen-
tation of Eurocodes, Handbook 5: Design of Buildings for
the Fire Situation. Luxembourg: Leonardo da Vinci Pilot
Project.
Irschik H (1991) Analogy between refined beam theories and
the Bernoulli-Euler theory. International Journal of Solids
and Structures 28: 1105–1112.
ISO834 (2014) Fire resistance tests—elements of building
construction: specific requirements for the assessment of
fire protection to structural steel elements (British Stan-
dards Institute).
Kodur V and Dwaikat M (2007) Performance-based fire
safety design of reinforced concrete beams. Journal of Fire
Protection Engineering 17: 293–320.
15
Maraveas C (2019) Local buckling of steel members under
fire conditions: a review. Fire Technology 55: 51–80.
Quiel SE and Garlock MEM (2008a) 3-D versus 2-D model-
ing of a high-rise steel framed building under fire. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 5th international conference on structures in
fire (SiF’08), Singapore, 28–30 May.
Quiel SE and Garlock MEM (2008b) A closed-form analysis
of perimeter member behavior in a steel building frame
subject to fire. Engineering Structures 30: 3276–3284.
Röben C, Gillie M and Torero J (2010) Structural behaviour
during a vertically travelling fire. Journal of Constructional
Steel Research 66: 191–197.
Soni DP and Mistry BB (2006) Qualitative review of seismic
response of vertically irregular building frames. ISET
Journal of Earthquake Technology, Technical Note 43:
121–132.
Thauvoye C, Zhao B, Klein J, et al. (2008) Fire load sur-
vey and statistical analysis. Fire Safety Science 9:
991–1002.
Tondini N and Franssen J-M (2017) Analysis of experimen-
tal hydrocarbon localised fires with and without engulfed
steel members. Fire Safety Journal 92: 9–22.
Torero JL (2012) Assessing the true performance of struc-
tures in fire. In: Performance-based and life-cycle structural
engineering, Hong Kong, 5–7 December. Hong Kong:
The University of Hong Kong.
Usmani A (2005) Stability of the world trade center twin
towers structural frame in multiple floor fires. Journal of
Engineering Mechanics 131: 654–657.