ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fire Safety Journal 38 (2003) 679–707

Axial strength of cold-formed thin-walled steel

channels under non-uniform temperatures in fire
M. Feng, Y.C. Wang*, J.M. Davies
Manchester Centre for Civil and Construction Engineering, University of Manchester, Oxford Road,
Manchester M13 9PL, UK
Received 7 October 2002; received in revised form 10 April 2003; accepted 3 June 2003

Abstract

This paper presents the results of a numerical investigation into the axial strength of cold-
formed thin-walled channel sections (columns) under non-uniform high temperatures in fire.
The non-uniform temperature distributions are based on the results of a thermal analysis of
thin-walled stud panels carried out by the authors. The general finite-element package
ABAQUS is used to obtain strengths of columns with different lengths at different fire
exposure times. To aid development of a hand calculation method of column strength in fire,
the accuracy of using two ways of simplifying the non-uniform temperature distribution is
investigated. The ambient temperature design method for cold-formed thin-walled columns in
Eurocode 3 Part 1.3 (EN1993-1-3, Eurocode 3: design of steel structures, Part 1.3: general
rules, supplementary rules for cold formed thin gauge members and sheeting, European
Commission for Standardisation, Brussels, 2001) is modified to take into account the change
in the strength and stiffness of steel at elevated temperatures and thermal-bowing effects. The
results of this design method are compared to the ABAQUS simulation results.
r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Non-uniform temperature distribution; Thin-walled structures; Thermal bowing; Axial

strength; Design method; Fire engineering

1. Introduction

Cold-formed thin-walled steel channels are commonly used in wall construction as

load-bearing studs with interior insulation and planar gypsum board sheeting on

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-161-275-4349; fax: +44-161-275-4361.

E-mail address: yong.wang@umist.ac.uk (Y.C. Wang).

0379-7112/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0379-7112(03)00070-5
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
680 M. Feng et al. / Fire Safety Journal 38 (2003) 679–707

both sides, as shown in Fig. 1. If they form part of a fire resistant construction, fire
exposure is usually from one side. As a result of these features, complex non-uniform
temperature fields develop in the column cross-sections. Firstly, due to fire exposure
from one side, there is a steep temperature gradient from the fire-exposed side to the
unexposed side, i.e. along the web. Secondly, in the perpendicular direction i.e. along
the flanges, due to small thickness of the channels, heat is dissipated rapidly from the
thin-walled components to the surrounding material and this sets up non-uniform
temperature distributions along the flanges. These non-uniform temperature
distributions will induce complicated structural behaviour. Firstly, they will induce
thermal bowing and when a column is under axial compression, the thermal bowing
will become a bending moment. Secondly, they will give rise to a non-uniform
distribution of strength and stiffness of steel, which will cause a shift of neutral axis
of the column cross-section from the original position. These effects caused by non-
uniform temperature distributions will compound the already complex structural
behaviour of thin-walled steel columns due to local buckling, distortional buckling,
global buckling and complex interactions with the support sheeting.
At present, the design of thin-walled steel structures in fire is based on the
standard fire resistance test results of manufacturers and there are very few
independent research studies. Among relevant studies, Ala-Outinen and Myllymaki
[1] carried out a number of tests on short thin-walled tubular columns at uniform
elevated temperatures. Klippstein [2,3] reported some results of strength and stiffness
degradation of cold-formed steel at elevated temperatures. Outinen (2000) has
recently provided more comprehensive information of mechanical properties of cold-
formed steel at elevated temperatures [17]. Ranby [4] carried out a theoretical
investigation of local buckling of thin-walled plates at elevated temperatures.
Lawson [5] adapted the limiting temperature method for hot-rolled steel structures to
cold-formed thin-walled steel structures and has recommended limiting temperatures
for a number of cold-formed thin-walled constructions. The authors have recently
carried out studies to investigate the performance of short cold-formed thin-walled
channel columns at uniform elevated temperatures [6] and non-uniform temperature
distributions in small sized (200
300 mm) panels [7].

Gypsum board or similar board

Steel Channel

Interior Insulation Fire

Fig. 1. Cold-formed thin-walled steel sections under fire attack.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Feng et al. / Fire Safety Journal 38 (2003) 679–707 681

The most relevant studies of cold-formed thin-walled steel columns with non-
uniform temperature distributions are reported by Gerlich [8], Wang and Davies [9],
Alfawakhiri and Sultan [10] and Kodur and Sultan [11].
Gerlich [8] reported three fire tests on full-scale light-steel-framed walls in which
two 2850 mm high wall panels with lipped channel section of 102
51
1.0 mm3 and
one 3600 mm high wall panel with unlipped channel 76
32
1.15 mm3 were loaded
and then exposed on one side to the standard fire exposure. Substantial temperature
gradients in the steel studs were recorded. Local buckling of steel studs and lateral
deflection induced by thermal bowing were observed. In two tests, failure was
flexural buckling about the major axis initiated by local buckling of the compression
flange between fasteners adjacent to the unexposed lining. The other test’s failure
mode was by torsional flexural buckling after the unexposed lining failed to provide
lateral restraint to the compression flange. This suggests that the non-load-bearing
gypsum board provided important restraints to the steel studs.
Alfawakhiri and Sultan [10] reported the results of six standard fire resistance tests
on axially loaded lightweight-steel-framed (LSF) walls exposed to fire on one side.
Each assembly consisted of a single row of galvanized cold-formed steel studs and
protected with two layers of fire-resistant gypsum board on each side. Four of these
specimens incorporated three types of interior insulation (glass fibre batts, rock fibre
batts and dry blown cellulose) and the other two without any interior insulation.
During the early stage of fire tests, the LSF specimens bowed towards the fire test
furnace due to thermal bowing. At the later stage, the LSF specimens without
interior insulation continued to bow towards the furnace and failed by compressive
crushing on the cold face near the middle of the test specimens, while those with
interior insulation reversed direction to bow away from the fire test furnace and
failed by compression crushing on the hot face at the locations of the service hole
near one end of the assemblies. Because of high temperature gradients in interiorly
insulated panels, the results of these fire tests suggest that interior insulation can
cause a reduction in the fire resistance of load-bearing LSF walls.
Wang and Davies [9] carried out a theoretical study using the design equations in
Eurocode 3 Part 1.3 [12] to calculate the fire resistance of thin-walled cold-formed
members. They found that the ambient temperature approach was suitable for
adoption under fire conditions; however, design calculations should take into
account reductions in the strength and stiffness of steel at elevated temperatures, the
additional bending moments due to thermal bowing and shift in the neutral axis.
They made many assumptions about the effects of non-uniform temperature and
stress distributions on the cross-section properties.
Kodur and Sultan [11] tested 14 steel stud wall panels with single or double layers
of gypsum boards on both sides, including 13 tests with steel cross-bracing and one
with shear membrane. The thickness of steel studs was 0.84 or 0.912 mm and stud-
spacing was 406 or 610 mm. Among 14 tests, nine test panels were interiorly
insulated with glass fibre, rock fibre or cellulose fibre, respectively, and three were
without interior insulation. They found that wall assemblies without interior
insulation provided higher fire resistance compared to insulated assemblies, and that
the type of interior insulation also had significant influence on fire resistance. The
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
682 M. Feng et al. / Fire Safety Journal 38 (2003) 679–707

cellulose fibre had good insulation performance while the glass fibre was poor. Since
steel has high thermal conductivity, the wall assemblies with wider stud spacing
(610 mm) had higher fire resistance than the narrow spaced walls (406 mm). Also the
thinner stud wall panels achieved higher fire resistance than the thicker ones. Because
gypsum boards are a good insulator with low thermal conductivity and high specific
heat, the temperatures of studs in double layers of gypsum hoard were much lower
than those with a single layer of gypsum board.
This paper reports the results of a numerical investigation of the behaviour and
failure load of cold-formed thin-walled steel channel columns in fire. The non-
uniform temperature distributions of steel members were simulated using ABAQUS
[16] as reported by Feng et al. [7]. The real temperature distributions are highly non-
uniform in different components of a steel column. It is impractical to implement
these temperature distributions in simplified calculations suitable for design purpose.
Therefore, two simplified temperature distribution profiles, as shown in Figs. 11 and
12 later in this paper, are proposed to represent the realistic ones. ABAQUS
simulations are performed to obtain strengths of columns of different lengths with
different temperature distributions at different fire exposure times. An objective of
these simulations is to assess the accuracy of using the two different ways of
simplifying the non-uniform temperature distributions. The ABAQUS results are
also used to evaluate a proposed design method for thin-walled steel columns
exposed to fire attack on one side.

2. Finite-element modelling using ABAQUS

The commercially available general purpose finite-element program ABAQUS has

been successfully used by the authors [6] to simulate the behaviour of short columns
tested at uniform and elevated temperatures. This paper extends ABAQUS
modelling to long columns with non-uniform temperature distributions. Due to
difficulty of obtaining detailed test information, e.g. temperature distributions, for
tests by others involving non-uniform temperature distributions, the present study is
not able to fully validate the accuracy of ABAQUS simulations. However, based on
previous experiences of using ABAQUS [6], the authors have a high degree of
confidence in the simulation results.

2.1. Basic parameters

The present study uses only one cross-section, a lipped channel 100

54
15
1.2. The dimensions of this section are given in Fig. 2. S4R shell elements
in ABAQUS are used. One rigid plate is attached to each end of the column. The
rigid plate can deform in the axial direction, but twisting about it is prevented. Two
horizontal restraints are applied at the centroid of the channel section at each end.
Fig. 3 shows the boundary conditions of a column.
The stress–strain relationships of cold-formed steel at high temperatures used in
ABAQUS analyses are based on the model in Eurocode 3 Part 1.2 [13], but using the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Feng et al. / Fire Safety Journal 38 (2003) 679–707 683

15
1.2 100
54

units in mm
Fig. 2. Cross-section dimensions of lipped channel 100
54
15
1.2.

P
P

Fig. 3. Boundary conditions.

measured yield stress and elastic modulus of lipped channel 100
54
15
1.2
(Fig. 4) from Feng et al. [6]. Eurocode 3 Part 1.2 [13] gives mathematical equations
for the stress–strain relationships of steel at elevated temperatures and can be
directly used in this study if the yield stress is based on the stress at 2% total strain.
Since Eurocode 3 Part 1.2 [13] only gives the retention factors of the 0.2% proof
stress, a suitable modification is necessary in order that the mathematical equations
for the stress–strain relationships of steel at elevated temperatures in Eurocode 3
Part 1.2 [13] can be used. The modification is to select, for each temperature, a value
of the stress retention factor at 2% total strain by trial and error so that the retention
factor of the 0.2% proof stress obtained from the resulting stress–strain relationship
equals to the Eurocode 3 Part 1.2 [13] value for the 0.2% proof stress. The stress–
strain curves to be used in ABAQUS at different temperatures are given in Fig. 3. A
constant thermal expansion coefficient of 1.4
105 mm/mm  C is used in all
analyses.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
684 M. Feng et al. / Fire Safety Journal 38 (2003) 679–707

450
20° 100˚
400
200°
350 300°
400°
300
500°

250
Stress

200 600°

150

100 700°

50 800°
900°
1000°
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.02
Total strain

Fig. 4. Input stress–strain relationships of lipped channel 100
54
15
1.2 according to EC3 Part 1.2.

2.2. Finite-element procedure

For convenience of comparison of ABAQUS results with design calculations, the

finite-element analyses have been performed under the steady-state condition. This
means that temperature distributions in the steel cross-section are raised to the target
levels and then kept unchanged. Afterwards, load is applied in increments until
failure. The steel column temperatures are based on the results of a temperature
distribution study on cold-formed thin-walled steel panel systems [7] at different
times. Figs. 5 and 6 show detailed temperature distribution profiles at different times
used in this study.
Each analysis is carried out in three steps. The first step is an eigenvalue buckling
analysis, in which the buckling modes are obtained and the deflection profile of the
lowest buckling mode is used to determine the column initial imperfections. In the
second and third steps, temperatures and loads are applied consecutively.

2.3. Sensitivity study

Different finite-element meshes are used to determine an optimum mesh for later
parametric studies. Tables 1 and 2 give the predicted ultimate loads using different
meshes for a 300-mm column and a 2000-mm column, respectively, at ambient
temperature and 30 min fire exposure. Figs. 7 and 8 compare their load–axial
displacement relationships. From these comparisons, it is noted that the different
finite-element meshes have only a slight influence on the column behaviour and
failure load. Therefore, for both accuracy and computational effort, later parametric
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Feng et al. / Fire Safety Journal 38 (2003) 679–707 685

662
405 425 445 465 472 480 489 613 632 646 656
560 589
116 120 124 126 128 128 130

116 130 405 489 560 662

107 129 372 486 517 657
100 128 346 483 485 656
92 318 451
85 290 417
77 262 383
70 235 349
65 212 319
59 190 288
54 168 257
49 31 148 80 226 120
45 31 131 80 205 120
42 31 118 81 189 121
42 39 37 35 33 32 31 124 121
118 106 98 92 86 82 81 189 170 154 140130

At 15 minutes At 30 minutes At 45 minutes

728 832 912
689 704 718 726 771 786 812 824 856 878 894 905
632 665 715 728 791 827

632 728 715 832 791 912

600 725 677 828 749 909
566 721 643 827 711 907
527 603 669
488 563 628
448 523 586
409 483 544
377 451 509
346 419 474
314 387 439
282 166 355 233 404 277
259 166 332 232 380 277
233 165 308 232 355 276
178 172 165 237 232 282 276
233 216 200 185 308 287 270 253245 355 334 316 301290

At 60 minutes At 90 minutes At 120 minutes

Fig. 5. Temperature profiles in the cross-section of a lipped channel 100
54
15
1.2 with single
gypsum board face and interior mineral wool care (from [7]).

studies will adopt mesh (3), i.e. the lip is divided into two shell elements, the flange
into six shell elements and the web into 12 elements. Each shell element is 10 mm
along the column length.
Since thin-walled columns usually fail by inelastic buckling, it is expected that the
behaviour and failure load of a column would be affected by initial imperfections. As
mentioned earlier, the initial deflections are according to the deflection profile of the
lowest eigenvalue. Fig. 9 shows the load–axial deformation relationships from
different initial imperfections, at either the thickness of cross-section or column
length (L) over 1000, 500 or 200. The initial deflection profile is shown in the inset of
Fig. 9. It can be seen that under fire conditions, due to the dominance of thermal
bowing, the maximum initial imperfection does not have any noticeable effect on the
behaviour of cold-formed thin-walled columns under non-uniform high tempera-
tures. Since a value of L=1000 has often been used by other researchers, this value
will be used in this study.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
686 M. Feng et al. / Fire Safety Journal 38 (2003) 679–707

237
102 102 103 225 231 235
93 96 98 100 197 208
217

54 57 59 60 61 61 62

54 62 93 103 197 237

51 62 89 102 183 234
49 61 84 102 170 233
45 79 155
52 74 141
40 70 128
37 66 117
35 62 107
33 58 98
31 54 89
29 23 50 36 82 53
28 23 48 36 76 53
27 23 45 36 70 53
27 26 25 24 24 23 23 45 43 41 39 38 37 36 70 65 62 58 56
54 53

At 15 minutes At 30 minutes At 45 minutes

443 451 456 651 661 668 745

419 432 620 637 705 720 731 739
384 403 573 598 660 685

384 456 573 668 660 745

360 453 542 666 627 741
338 452 513 665 599 739
311 478 563
286 444 528
262 411 494
239 379 461
217 349 429
197 310 399
177 292 369
158 95 265 163 340 228
144 95 244 163 319 228
130 95 224 163 298 228
95 163 228
130 119 110 104 100 97 224 206 191 180 172 166
298 279 263 250
240 233

At 60 minutes At 90 minutes At 120 minutes

Fig. 6. Temperature profiles in the cross-section of a lipped channel 100
54
15
1.2 with double
gypsum board faces and interior mineral wool care (from [7]).

Table 1
Predicted failure loads of 300-mm long lipped channel 200
54
15
1.2 for different finite element
meshes

Temperature FE mesh ID No. of elements along Predicted failure

situation load (kN)
Web Flange Lip Length

Ambient (1) 6 3 1 15 60.4

temperature
(2) 6 3 1 30 58.9
(3) 12 6 2 30 56.5
(4) 12 6 2 15 57.1

Thirty-min fire (1) 6 3 1 15 42.2

exposure
(2) 6 3 1 30 41.4
(3) 12 6 2 30 41.2
(4) 12 6 2 15 41.6
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Feng et al. / Fire Safety Journal 38 (2003) 679–707 687

Table 2
Predicted failure load of 2000-mm long lipped channel 200
54
15
1.2 for different element meshes

Temperature FE mesh I. D. No. of elements along Predicted failure

situation load (kN)
Web Flange Lip Length

Ambient (1) 6 3 1 100 30.1

temperature
(2) 6 3 1 200 29.7
(3) 12 6 2 200 29.6
(4) 12 6 2 100 29.9

Thirty-min fire (1) 6 3 1 100 19.8

exposure
(2) 6 3 1 200 19.8
(3) 12 6 2 200 19.5
(4) 12 6 2 100 20.0

3. Parametric study

In this study, the behaviour of columns with a lipped channel 100
54
15
1.2
is simulated. The column lengths are 300 and 2000 mm. For a 2000-mm column, two
additional types of lateral supports are imposed along the column, as shown in
Fig. 10, to consider different possible restraints from the gypsum boards. Therefore,
a wide range of effective lengths about the minor axis from 300 to 2000 mm is
considered in the present study. Simulations have been performed for fire resistance
times of 15, 30, 45, 60, 90 and 120 min using temperature profiles shown in Figs. 5
and 6. Tables 3–10 summarize the predicted ultimate failure loads and failure modes
of different columns at different fire times. In Tables 3–10, L, F, T and B refer to
local buckling, flexural buckling about the major axis, torsional buckling and bi-
axial bending, respectively. It can be found that column failure modes change from
local buckling at ambient temperature and short length to local buckling, bi-axial
bending and flexural buckling about the major axis at medium temperature gradients
and bi-axial bending failure and torsional–flexural buckling at high temperature
gradients. The change of failure mode is mainly a result of thermal-bowing-induced
bending moments about the major axis. At short lengths or lower fire exposure times
where the thermal gradient is relatively small, the thermal-bowing-induced bending
moment is small and failure is local buckling. At longer fire exposures, bending
moments about the major axis become significant due to steep thermal gradients in
the column cross-section so that failure is controlled by flexural buckling about the
major axis. At even longer fire exposure times, the thermal gradient becomes almost
constant; however; there is a large reduction in the column resistance in torsional–
flexural buckling and this becomes the governing failure mode.
As can be seen from Figs. 5 and 6, temperature distributions in a cold-formed
thin-walled steel stud under fire exposure on one side are extremely complicated. It
would not be practical to incorporate these temperature distributions in hand design
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
688 M. Feng et al. / Fire Safety Journal 38 (2003) 679–707

70

60

50

40
Load (kN)

30

20 FE mesh (1)
FE mesh (2)
FE mesh (3)
10 FE mesh (4)

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Axial Displacement (mm)

(a) At ambient temperature

45

40

35

30

25
Load (kN)

20

15

FE mesh (1)
10 FE mesh (2)
FE mesh (3)
5 FE mesh (4)

0
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Axial Displacement (mm)

(b) At 30 minutes
Fig. 7. Load–axial displacement relationships of 300-mm column.

calculations. To do so, simplifications are necessary. In this study, ABAQUS

simulations have been performed for the 300- and 2000-mm column with two
different possible simplified temperature distributions shown in Figs. 11 and 12. In
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Feng et al. / Fire Safety Journal 38 (2003) 679–707 689

35

30

25

20
Load (kN)

15

10 FE mesh (1)
FE mesh (2)
FE mesh (3)
5 FE mesh (4)

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Axial Displacement (mm)

(a) At ambient temperature

25.00

20.00

Load (kN)
15.00

10.00

FE mesh (1)
FE mesh (2) 5.00
FE mesh (3)
FE mesh (4)

0.00
-7.00 -6.00 -5.00 -4.00 -3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00
Displacement (mm)

(b) At 30 minutes
Fig. 8. Load–axial displacement relationships of 2000-mm column.

the first simplification, the lip and flange on each side of the cross-section are
assumed to have the same temperature, being the average of those in Figs. 5 and 6.
The web has a linear distribution of temperatures. In the second simplification each
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
690 M. Feng et al. / Fire Safety Journal 38 (2003) 679–707

20

18

16

14

Load (kN)
12

10

6
0.1%L
0.2%L 4
0.5%L
t
2
Profile of initial deflection
0
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
Axial displacement (mm)

Fig. 9. Load–axial displacement relationships of a 2000-mm column with different initial imperfections.

P P P
P P P

L/4
L/2
L/4
L
L/4
L/2
z z z
y y y
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

Fig. 10. Different gypsum board support cases.

plate element of the cross-section is assumed to have a linear temperature distribution,

with the two ends temperature being the same as those in Figs. 5 and 6. A future
study will address how to evaluate these simplified temperature distributions
for design calculations. In the meantime, Tables 11–14 compare the
ABAQUS simulated column failure loads using the complicated temperature
Table 3
Failure loads of 300-mm columns with single layer of gypsum board

Time Temperature Effective length (mm) Load Load Failure Dominant Failure location
(min) (kN) ratio mode bending
direction
Average temp. ( C) DT ( C) Ly Lz Lt

0 20 0 300 300 210 56.5 1 L, B About z2z Near mid-span

M. Feng et al. / Fire Safety Journal 38 (2003) 679–707

15 77.6 99 300 300 210 55.5 0.98 L, B About z2z Near mid-span
30 264.6 409 300 300 210 41.2 0.73 L, B About y2y Near boundary
45 374.3 542 300 300 210 22.6 0.4 L, B About y2y Near boundary
60 435.7 562 300 300 210 15.1 0.27 L, B About y2y Near boundary

ARTICLE IN PRESS
90 518 600 300 300 210 9.2 0.15 L, B About y2y Near boundary
120 576.5 636 300 300 210 5.4 0.1 L, B About y2y Near boundary

Table 4
Failure loads of 300-mm columns with double layers of gypsum boards

Time Temperature Effective length (mm) Load Load Failure Dominant Failure location
(min) (kN) ratio mode bending
direction
Average temp. ( C) DT ( C) Ly Lz Lt

0 20 0 300 300 210 56.4 1 L, B About z2z Near mid-span

15 40.5 39 300 300 210 56.2 0.996 L, B About z2z Near mid-span
30 68.3 67 300 300 210 55.6 0.986 L, B About z2z Near mid-span
45 130.6 184 300 300 210 53.6 0.950 L, B About z2z Near boundary
60 259.5 361 300 300 210 42.9 0.761 L, B About y2y Near boundary
90 400.4 505 300 300 210 21.1 0.374 L, B About y2y Near boundary
120 477 517 300 300 210 12.9 0.229 L, B About y2y Near boundary

691
 692
Table 5
Failure loads of 2000-mm columns with single layer of gypsum boards (not considering gypsum board support)

Time Temperature Effective length (mm) Load Load Failure Dominant Failure location
(min) (kN) ratio mode bending
direction
Average temp. ( C) DT ( C) Ly Lz Lt

0 20 0 2000 2000 1400 29.6 1 L, F, B About z2z Near mid-span

M. Feng et al. / Fire Safety Journal 38 (2003) 679–707

15 77.6 99 2000 2000 1400 29.0 0.94 L, F, B About z2z Near mid-span
30 264.6 409 2000 2000 1400 19.5 0.65 L, F, B About y2y Near mid-span
45 374.3 542 2000 2000 1400 9.1a 0.31 T–F, B About y2y Near mid-span
60 435.7 562 2000 2000 1400 2.3a 0.08 T–F, B About y2y Near mid-span

ARTICLE IN PRESS
a
No convergence of numerical simulation.

Table 6
Failure loads of 2000-mm columns with double layers of gypsum boards (not considering gypsum board support)

Time Temperature Effective length (mm) Load Load Failure Dominant Failure location
(min) (kN) ratio mode bending
direction
Average temp. ( C) DT ( C) Ly Lz Lt

0 20 0 2000 2000 1400 29.6 1 L, F, B About z2z Near mid-span

15 40.5 39 2000 2000 1400 28.9 0.98 L, F, B About y2y Near mid-span
30 68.3 67 2000 2000 1400 28.6 0.97 L, F, B About y2y Near mid-span
45 130.6 184 2000 2000 1400 24.9 0.84 L, F, B About y2y Near mid-span
60 259.5 361 2000 2000 1400 20.7 0.7 L, F, B About y2y Near mid-span
90 400.4 505 2000 2000 1400 10.0 0.34 T–F, B About y2y Near mid-span
120 477 517 2000 2000 1400 3.13a 0.11 T–F, B About y2y Near mid-span
a
No convergence of numerical simulation.
Table 7
Failure loads of 2000-mm columns with single layer of gypsum board (considering gypsum board support at centre)

Time Temperature Effective length (mm) Load Load Failure Dominant Failure location
(min) (kN) ratio mode bending
direction
Average temp. ( C) DT ( C) Ly Lz Lt

0 20 0 2000 1000 850 55.2 1 L, B About z2z Near mid-span

M. Feng et al. / Fire Safety Journal 38 (2003) 679–707

15 77.6 99 2000 1000 850 48.5 0.88 L, B About y2y Near mid-span
30 264.6 409 2000 1000 850 31.3 0.57 L, B About y2y Near mid-span
45 374.3 542 2000 1000 850 25.9 0.47 L, B About y2y Near mid-span
60 435.7 562 2000 1000 850 16.0 0.29 F, B About y2y Near mid-span

ARTICLE IN PRESS
90 518 600 2000 1000 850 10.1 0.18 F–T, B About y2y Near mid-span
120 576.5 636 2000 1000 850 2.6a 0.05 F–T, B About y2y Near mid-span
a
No convergence of numerical simulation.

Table 8
Failure loads of 2000-mm columns with double layers of gypsum boards (considering gypsum board support at centre)

Time Temperature Effective length (mm) Load Load Failure Dominant Failure location
(min) (kN) ratio mode bending
direction
Average temp. ( C) DT ( C) Ly Lz Lt

0 20 0 2000 1000 850 55.2 1 L About z2z Near mid-span

15 40.5 39 2000 1000 850 53.2 0.96 L, B About y2y Near mid-span
30 68.3 67 2000 1000 850 51.4 0.93 L, B About y2y Near mid-span
45 130.6 184 2000 1000 850 42 0.76 L, B About y2y Near mid-span
60 259.5 361 2000 1000 850 33.4 0.60 L, B About y2y Near mid-span
90 400.4 505 2000 1000 850 24.0 0.44 F, B About y2y Near mid-span
120 477 517 2000 1000 850 14.5 0.26 F, B About y2y Near mid-span

693
 694
Table 9
Failure loads of 2000-mm columns with single layer of gypsum board (considering gypsum board supports at 500 mm centres)

Time Temperature Effective length (mm) Load Load Failure Dominant Failure location
(min) (kN) ratio mode bending
direction
Average temp. ( C) DT ( C) Ly Lz Lt

0 20 0 2000 500 425 57.6 1 L About z2z Near mid-span

M. Feng et al. / Fire Safety Journal 38 (2003) 679–707

15 77.6 99 2000 500 425 51.7 0.9 L, B About y2y Near mid-span
30 264.6 409 2000 500 425 34.0 0.59 L, B About y2y Near mid-span
45 374.3 542 2000 500 425 25.8 0.45 L, B About y2y Near mid-span
60 435.7 562 2000 500 425 17.3 0.30 F, B About y2y Near mid-span

ARTICLE IN PRESS
90 518 600 2000 500 425 10.6 0.18 F–T, B About y2y Near mid-span
120 576.5 636 2000 500 425 4.5a 0.08 F–T, B About y2y Near mid-span
a
No convergence of numerical simulation.

Table 10
Failure loads of 2000-mm columns with double layers of gypsum boards (considering gypsum board supports at 500 mm centres)

Time Temperature Effective length (mm) Load Load Failure Dominant Failure location
(min) (kN) ratio mode bending
direction
Average temp. ( C) DT ( C) Ly Lz Lt

0 20 0 2000 500 425 57.6 1 L, B About z2z Near mid-span

15 40.5 39 2000 500 425 55.6 0.97 L, B About y2y Near mid-span
30 68.3 67 2000 500 425 53.7 0.93 L, B About y2y Near mid-span
45 130.6 184 2000 500 425 47.2 0.82 L, B About y2y Near mid-span
60 259.5 361 2000 500 425 36.2 0.63 L, B About y2y Near mid-span
90 400.4 505 2000 500 425 24.0 0.42 L, B About y2y Near mid-span
120 477 517 2000 500 425 14.6 0.25 F, B About y2y Near mid-span
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Feng et al. / Fire Safety Journal 38 (2003) 679–707 695

125.4 460.9 630.2

125.4 125.4 460.9 460.9 630.2 630.2

34.6 91.4 91.4 140.9 140.9

34.6 34.6
91.4 140.9
AT 15 minutes AT 30 minutes AT 45 minutes

700.8 791.4 875.4

700.8 700.8 791.4 791.4 875.4 875.4

186.6 255.4 301

186.6 255.4 301
186.6 255.4 301
AT 60 minutes AT 90 minutes AT 120 minutes
(a) Single gypsum board face panel

59.7 99.8 213.1

59.7 59.7 99.8 99.8 213.1 213.1

24.1 38.9 38.9 58.3 58.3

24.1 24.1
38.9 58.3
AT 15 minutes AT 30 minutes AT 45 minutes

432.6 637.7 718.3

432.6 432.6 637.7 637.7 718.3 718.3

105.0 180.9 249.7

105.0 180.9 249
105.0 180.9 249.7
AT 60 minutes AT 90 minutes AT 120 minutes
(b) Double gypsum board face panel
Fig. 11. Simplification 1 of temperature distributions.

distributions in Figs. 5 and 6 with the simplified temperatures in Figs. 11 and 12.
Fig. 13 shows the overall comparison of the results. It can be seen that the second
simplification gives results in very close agreement with results using the complicated
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
696 M. Feng et al. / Fire Safety Journal 38 (2003) 679–707

130 405 489 560 662

116
116 130 489 560 662
405
128 483 656

31 80 121
42 31 118 81 189 121
42 31 118 81 189 121
At 15 minutes At 30 minutes At 45 minutes

632 728 715 832 791 912

632 728 715 832 791 912

721 827 907

165 233 277

233 165 308 232 355 276
233 165 308 232 355 276
At 60 minutes At 90 minutes At 120 minutes
(a) Single gypsum board face panel

54 62 93 103 197 237

54 62 103 197 237
93
61 102 233

23 36 53
27 23 45 36 70 53
27 23 45 36 70 53
At 15 minutes At 30 minutes At 45 minutes

384 456 573 668 660 745

384 456 573 668 660 745

452 665 739

95 163 228
130 95 224 163 298 228
130 95 224 163 298 228
At 60 minutes At 90 minutes At 120 minutes

(b) Double gypsum board face panel

Fig. 12. Simplification 2 of temperature distributions.

temperature distributions. Results using the first method of simplifying temperature

distributions are slightly less accurate. However, this temperature distribution is easy
to deal with in design and is used in further studies of this paper.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Feng et al. / Fire Safety Journal 38 (2003) 679–707 697

Table 11
Predicted failure loads of 300-mm columns with single layer of gypsum boards by using different
temperature fields

Time (min) Failure load (kN)

Temperature distribution as in

Fig. 5 Fig. 11 Fig. 12

15 55.5 55.2 55.2

30 41.2 39.9 41.4
45 22.6 20.1 22.7
60 15.1 12.1 15.6
90 9.2 7.08 8.8
120 5.4 5.07 5.5

Table 12
Predicted failure loads of 300-mm columns with double layer of gypsum boards by using different
temperature fields

Time (min) Failure load (kN)

Temperature distribution as in

Fig. 6 Fig. 11 Fig. 12

15 56.2 56.0 56.1

30 55.6 55.6 55.5
45 53.6 54.4 54.3
60 42.9 42.0 42.8
90 21.1 19 21.5
120 12.9 10.8 13.1

Table 13
Predicted failure loads of 2000-mm columns with single layer of gypsum boards by using different
temperature fields

Time (min) Failure load (kN)

Temperature distribution as in

Fig. 5 Fig. 11 Fig. 12

15 29.0 28.4 28.1

30 19.5 22.6 20.5
45 9.1 13.15 8.84
60 2.3 1.9 2.9
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
698 M. Feng et al. / Fire Safety Journal 38 (2003) 679–707

Table 14
Predicted failure loads of 2000-mm columns with double layer of gypsum boards by using different
temperature fields

Time (min) Failure load (kN)

Temperature distribution as in

Fig. 6 Fig. 11 Fig. 12

15 28.9 29.3 29.1

30 28.6 28.7 28.7
45 24.9 27.1 25.4
60 20.8 23.2 21.3
90 10.0 12.92 9.3
120 3.13 3.3 3.03

70
P=1.1Ptru
ABAQUS simulation failure load by using simplification

P=Ptru
60

P=0.9Ptru

50
temperature distribution

40

30

20
Simplification 1
Simplification 2
10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
ABAQUS simulation failure load by using true temperature distribution (kN)

Fig. 13. Comparison of ABAQUS predicted failure loads between using the true and simplified
temperature distributions.

4. Development of a design method

Due to a lack of experimental results, the ABAQUS simulation results will be used
in this paper to develop a suitable design calculation method. This paper will
consider two possible design methods:
(1) Modification of the design method at ambient temperature in Eurocode 3 Part
1.3 [14], using a similar approach to that of Wang and Davies [9].
(2) Using the limiting temperature method of Lawson [5].
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Feng et al. / Fire Safety Journal 38 (2003) 679–707 699

4.1. Modifications to Eurocode 3 Part 1.3 [14]

For cold-formed thin-walled steel columns, Eurocode 3 Part 1.2 [14] simply refers
fire limit design to Eurocode Part 1.3 [14]. For combined axial load and bending
moments, the general design equation is
Nsd ky ðMy;sd þ DMy;sd Þ kz ðMz;sd þ DMz;sd Þ
þ þ p1; ð1Þ
wmin fyb Aeff fyb Weff;y;com fyb Weff;z;com
Nsd ky ðMy;sd þ DMy;sd Þ kz ðMz;sd þ DMz;sd Þ
þ þ p1; ð2Þ
wlat fyb Aeff wLT fyb Weff;y;com fyb Weff;z;com
where Nsd is the applied axial load; My;sd and Mz;sd are the applied bending moments
about the y2y and z2z axes, respectively; DMy;sd and DMz;sd are the additional
moments about the y2y and z2z axes due to neutral axis shifts, Aeff is the effective
cross-sectional area; Weff;y;com and Weff;z;com are the elastic modulus of the section; ky
and kz are modification factors to account for non-uniform bending moment
distributions in the column about the y2y and z2z axes; wmin is the minimum of the
buckling reduction factors of flexural buckling about the two axes and torsional or
torsional–flexural buckling; wlat is the smallest of the buckling reduction factor of
flexural buckling about z2z axis and torsional–flexural or distortional buckling;
wLT is the lateral torsional buckling reduction factor under bending about the major
(y2y) axis, and fyb is the design yield stress at elevated temperatures according to
Table 15.
In order to use Eqs. (1) and (2) to calculate the strength of a column with non-
uniform temperature distributions, it is necessary to make a number of assumptions.
In this study, the following assumptions are made:
* The stress–strain relationships of cold-formed steel at elevated temperatures
are perfectly linear elastic–plastic. The yield stress is taken as the 0.2% proof
stress.
* The flanges and lips of the cross-section have a uniform temperature distribution.
Therefore, the method in Eurocode 3 Part 1.3 [14] is directly used to evaluate their
effective widths, but using the elevated temperature properties to replace those at
ambient temperature.
* For the web of the cross-section, due to different steel properties at non-uniform
temperature distributions, the weighted average steel stiffness value is used to
calculate the web effective width.
* To simplify calculations, the shear centre location and warping constant of the
cross-section are unchanged under non-uniform high temperatures. When
calculating the cross-section warping rigidity, the weighted average elasticity of
the cross-section is used.
* At the column centre, compression is on the cold side which has a high strength,
and tension is on the hot side with a lower strength. Under this circumstance,
partial plasticity may be considered whereby tension stresses at the extreme fibres
have reached yield and the maximum compression stress at the extreme fibre is
equal to the yield stress, as shown in Table 15(2). Alternatively, as shown in Table
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
700 M. Feng et al. / Fire Safety Journal 38 (2003) 679–707

Table 15
Design yield strength

15(1), the lower of either first compression yield or tension yield is considered.
When using the Eurocode 3 Part 1.3 [14] method, this study will consider both
first occurrence of material yield and partial plastic behaviour.
* At the column centre, the bending moment about the z2z (minor) axis is a result
of a shift of the centroid only. The bending moment about the y2y (major) axis is
a result of a shift of the centroid and thermal bowing. Near the column ends, the
bending moment about the y2y axis is caused by a neutral axis shift. Design
calculations should check both cross-sections. The bending moment at the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Feng et al. / Fire Safety Journal 38 (2003) 679–707 701

support about the major axis is

My;sd þ DMy;sd ¼ Pez ð3Þ
and at the mid-span about the major axis is
My;sd þ DMy;sd ¼ Pðdmax  ez Þ; ð4Þ
in which, ez is the shift of neutral axis in the z2z direction, as shown in Fig. 14,
and dmax is the maximum lateral deflection, which is induced by thermal bowing
and can be calculated as
a DT L2
dmax ¼ ; ð5Þ
8D
where DT is the temperature difference across stud section in  C; D is column
section depth and L the column height.
The bending moment about the z2z axis can be calculated as
Mz;sd þ DMz;sd ¼ Pey ; ð6Þ
in which, ey is the shift of neutral axis in the y2y direction, as shown in Fig. 14.
Since there is no lateral movement at the supports of a column, the bending
moment modification factors ky and kz should be set to 1.0.

Tables 16 and 17 and Fig. 15 compare the results of ABAQUS simulations and
modified Eurocode 3 Part 1.3 calculations. It can be seen that including partial
plasticity may increase the design column strength in some cases; however, the
difference between first yield and partial plasticity results is small. Overall,
the agreement between partial plasticity results and ABAQUS results is good, but
the first yield results are also close to the ABAQUS results. It may be concluded that
by adopting the aforementioned modifications in the Eurocode 3 Part 1.3 design

Ynu
Y Original centroid of
gross cross-section

Cold Load Point Hot

Z Z
ey
Z nu Znu

ez
Centroid of cross-section with
non-uniform temperature
Ynu Y distribution

Fig. 14. Neutral axis shifts in lipped channel section under non-uniform high temperatures.
 702
Table 16
Comparison of results between modified Eurocode 3 Part 1.3 and ABAQUS for columns with single gypsum board

M. Feng et al. / Fire Safety Journal 38 (2003) 679–707

Time Average temp. Column strength (kN) for column height of
(min) ( C)

Hot Cold 300 mm 2000 mm 2000 mm with lateral bracing at 2000 mm with lateral bracing at

ARTICLE IN PRESS
flange flange 1000 mm 500 mm

ABAQUS EC3 ABAQUS EC3 ABAQUS EC3 ABAQUS EC3

First Partial First Partial First Partial First Partial

occurrence plasticity occurrence plasticity occurrence plasticity occurrence plasticity
of material of material of material of material
yield yield yield yield

0 20 20 56.5 55.7 — 29.6 30.5 — 55.2 55.7 — 57.6 56.3 —

15 125.4 34.6 55.5 55 — 29.0 27.8 27.8 48.5 49.6 49.6 51.7 49.6 49.6
30 461.1 91.4 41.2 38.4 — 19.5 18.3 19.3 31.3 29.7 32 34.0 29.7 32
45 630.1 140.9 22.6 17.6 — 9.1 6.6 6.2 25.9 18.2 24.2 25.8 18.2 24.2
60 700.9 186.8 15.1 10 — 2.3 5.4 5 16.0 10.2 15.9 17.3 10.3 16.3
90 802 255.1 9.2 6.6 — 10.1 6.6 8.3 10.6 7.1 9.1
120 875.4 300.9 5.3 4.62 — 2.6 5.67 7.2 4.5 6.1 7.9

Note: —: data not available.

 Non-convergence of numerical simulation.
Table 17
Comparison of results between modified Eurocode 3 Part 1.3 and ABAQUS for columns with double gypsum boards

M. Feng et al. / Fire Safety Journal 38 (2003) 679–707

Time Average temp. Column strength (kN) for column height of
(min) ( C)

Hot Cold 300 mm 2000 mm 2000 mm with lateral bracing at 2000 mm with lateral bracing at

ARTICLE IN PRESS
flange flange 1000 mm 500 mm

ABAQUS EC3 ABAQUS EC3 ABAQUS EC3 ABAQUS EC3

First Partial First Partial First Partial First Partially

occurrence plasticity occurrence plasticity occurrence plasticity occurrence plasticity
of material of material of material of material
yield yield yield yield

0 20 20 56.4 55.7 — 29.6 30.5 — 55.2 55.7 — 57.6 55.7 —

15 59.1 24.6 56.2 55.7 — 28.9 29.4 29.4 53.2 53.3 53.3 55.6 53.3 53.3
30 99.1 39.9 55.6 55.6 — 28.6 28.8 28.8 51.4 51.7 51.7 53.7 51.7 51.7
45 221.4 59.7 53.6 52.4 — 24.9 25.5 25.5 42 44.8 44.8 47.2 44.8 44.8
60 426.9 107.9 42.9 39.7 — 20.7 19.3 20.2 33.4 31.9 33.7 36.2 31.9 33.7
90 629.7 186 21.1 16.7 — 10.0 6.1 6.4 24 18.3 23.9 24.0 18.3 23.9
120 712.1 255.9 12.9 8.9 — 3.13 4.8 5.3 14.5 10.4 15.4 14.6 10.4 15.4

Note: —: data not available.

 Non-convergence of numerical simulation.

703
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
704 M. Feng et al. / Fire Safety Journal 38 (2003) 679–707

70

PABAQUS=Pcode
60
Modified code predicted load (kN)

50

40

30

20

10 First yield
Partial plasticity

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
ABAQUS predicted load (kN)

Fig. 15. Comparison of failure loads between ABAQUS simulations and modified code predictions.

method [14], it is possible to calculate the failure loads of cold-formed thin-walled

steel columns under non-uniform high temperatures with good accuracy.

4.2. Lawson limiting temperature method

Lawson [5] adopted the limiting temperature method in BS5950 Part 8 [15] for hot-
rolled steel structures to cold-formed thin-walled steel structures. The limiting
temperature is a function of the load ratio of the structural member. The load ratio is
defined by
Load on member at the fire limit state
Load ratio ¼ : ð7Þ
Load carrying capacity of member under normal loading
Since hot-rolled columns are usually subject to fire attack on all sides, they have a
uniform temperature distribution. Thus, the BS5950 Part 8 method is, strictly
speaking, not applicable to cold-formed thin-walled columns of this study where
they have severe non-uniform temperature distributions. For the sake of
comparison, the limiting temperature may be applied to either the maximum
temperature or the average temperature. Fig. 16 compares the ABAQUS simulation
results and the limiting temperatures according to Lawson for the maximum and
average temperatures. If the limiting temperature is applied to the average
temperature of the cross-section, the Lawson method overestimates the limiting
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Feng et al. / Fire Safety Journal 38 (2003) 679–707 705

(a) 300mm column

1.2
Maximum Temp. (double layers)
1
Maximum Temp. (single layer)

0.8 Lawson method (1993)

Load ratio

0.6
Average Temp. (double layers)
0.4

0.2
Average Temp. (single layer)

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Temperature (°C)

(b) 2000mm column

1.2
Maximum temp. (single layer)
1 Maximum temp. (double layers)

0.8
Load ratio

0.6
Average temp. (double layers)
0.4

0.2 Average temp. (single layer)

Lawson method (1993)
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Temperature (°C)

(c) 2000mm column with lateral bracing at centre

1.2
Maximum temp. (double layers)
1
Lawson method (1993)

0.8 Maximum temp. (single layer)

Load ratio

0.6

0.4
Average temp. (double layer)
0.2
Average temp. (single layer)
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Temperature (°C)

(d) 2000mm length column with lateral bracing at ¼ locations

1.2

1 Maximum temp. (double layers)

Lawson method (1993)
0.8
Load ratio

0.6 Maximum temp. (single layer)

0.4 Average temp. (double layers)

0.2
Average temp. (single layer)
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Temperature (°C)

Fig. 16. Comparison of load ratio between ABAQUS simulations and Lawson method.

temperature of a column. If applied to the maximum temperature of the cross-

section, the Lawson method is conservative. In all cases, the agreement with
ABAQUS simulation results is poor. Thus, it may be concluded that the Lawson [5]
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
706 M. Feng et al. / Fire Safety Journal 38 (2003) 679–707

limiting temperature method is not suitable for columns with fire exposure on one
side.
An interesting observation is that at the same load ratio, the failure temperatures
in a column with either single or double layers of gypsum boards are very similar.
This suggests that for these columns, the effect of using double layers of gypsum
board is simply to delay the time to reach the same temperatures in the steel section
with a single layer of gypsum board.

5. Conclusions

This paper has presented the results of a numerical study of ultimate failure loads
of cold-formed thin-walled steel studs with different slenderness under non-uniform
high temperatures in fire. The commercial finite-element package ABAQUS is used
to generate results of failure loads of columns of lipped channel 100
54
15
1.2
with different slendernesses and different non-uniform temperature profiles,
including two simplified temperature profiles. The ABAQUS simulation results are
then compared with predictions by using a design method based on Eurocode 3 Part
1.3 [14] and the limiting temperature method of Lawson [5]. The following
conclusions may be drawn:

* At increasing temperatures of a column, the failure mode changes from local

buckling at ambient temperature to either a combination of local buckling,
flexural buckling and bi-axial bending or a combination of torsional–flexural
buckling and bi-axial bending at high temperatures. This comes about as a result
of thermal bowing and a shift of the neutral axis.
* For short columns, the effect of non-uniform high temperatures is merely to
reduce the strength and elastic modulus of steel. For long columns, thermal-
bowing effect becomes critical.
* Without losing much accuracy, the non-uniform temperature field in the cross-
section of a column may be simplified by assuming uniform temperatures in the
flanges and lips on both the fire and cold sides, and a linear temperature
distribution in the web. This simplification of non-uniform temperature
distributions makes it possible to develop hand calculation methods to evaluate
column strength. It is also possible to develop hand calculation methods to
evaluate the simplified non-uniform temperature distributions.
* The design method in Eurocode 3 Part 1.3 [14] is suitable to form the basis of a
calculation method to predict the failure loads of cold-formed thin-walled
columns in fire if consideration is given to partial plasticity, reductions in the
strength and stiffness of steel at elevated temperatures, additional bending
moments due to thermal bowing and a shift in the neutral axis.
* The limiting temperature method of Lawson [5] is not suitable to calculate the
critical temperatures of cold-formed thin-walled columns under non-uniform high
temperatures.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Feng et al. / Fire Safety Journal 38 (2003) 679–707 707

Acknowledgements

This paper forms part of a research project on cold-formed thin-walled structures

in fire funded by the UK’s Engineering and Physical Science Research Council
(EPSRC) under grant GR/M56319.

References

[1] Ala-Outinen T, Myllymaki J. The local buckling of RHS members at elevated temperatures. VTT
Research Notes 1672, Technical Research Centre of Finland, VTT, Espoo, Finland, 1995.
[2] Klippstein KH. Strength of cold-formed studs in fire tests. Washington, DC: American Iron and Steel
Institute; 1980.
[3] Klippstein KH. Strength of cold-formed studs exposed to fire. Washington, DC: American Iron and
Steel Institute; 1980.
[4] Ranby A. Structural fire design of thin walled steel sections. J Construct Steel Res 1998;46:303–4.
[5] Lawson RM. Building design using cold formed steel sections: fire protection. The Steel Construction
Institute, Publication P129, 1993.
[6] Feng M, Wang YC, Davies JM. Behaviour of cold-formed thin-walled steel short columns under
uniform high temperatures. Proceeding of the International Seminar on Steel Structures in Fire,
Paper 23, Shanghai, P.R. China, 2001. p. 300–12.
[7] Feng M, Wang YC, Davies JM. Thermal performance of cold-formed thin-walled steel panel systems
in fire, Fire Saf J, in press.
[8] Gerlich JT. Design of loadbearing light steel frame walls for fire resistance. Fire Engineering Research
Report 95/3, 1995.
[9] Wang YC, Davies JM. Design of thin-walled steel channel columns in fire using Eurocode 3 Part 1.3.
Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Structures in Fire, Copenhagen, 2000. p. 181–93.
[10] Alfawakhiri F, Sultan M. Numerical modelling of steel members subjected to severe thermal loads.
Proceedings of the Fire and Materials 2001 Conference, California, USA, 2001. p. 483–94.
[11] Kodur VR, Sultan MA. Factors governing fire resistance of loadbearing steel stud walls. Proceeding
of the Fifth AOSFST International Conference, Newcastle, Australia, 2001. p. 1–2.
[12] CEN. EN1993-1-3, Eurocode 3: design of steel structures, Part 1.3: general rules, supplementary rules
for cold formed thin gauge members and sheeting. European Commission for Standardisation,
Brussels, 1996.
[13] CEN. Env 1993-1-2, Eurocode 3: design of steel structures, Part 1.2: general rules, structural fire
design, 1995.
[14] CEN. EN1993-1-3, Eurocode 3: design of steel structures, Part 1.3: general rules, supplementary rules
for cold formed thin gauge members and sheeting. European Commission for Standardisation,
Brussels, 2001.
[15] BSI. British Standard: structural use of steelwork in building, Part 8: code of practice for fire resistant
design. British Standard Institution, 1990.
[16] HKS. ABAQUS standard user’s manual volumes I–III. Version 6.2. Hibbit, Karlsson & Sorensen
Inc., USA, 2001.
[17] Outinen J. A study for the development of the design of steel structures in fire conditions. Proceedings
of the First International Workshop on Structures in Fire, Copenhagen, 2000. p. 269–81.