Fire Safety of Concrete Structures:: Background To BS 8110 Fire Design

Fire Report 3004 17/6/04 7:49 am Page 1
Fire safety of
concrete structures:
Background to BS 8110 fire design
Tom Lennon
FRS, the Fire Division of BRE
Fire safety of
concrete structures:
Tom Lennon
BRE is committed to providing impartial

and authoritative information on all aspects
of the built environment for clients,
designers, contractors, engineers,
manufacturers, occupants, etc. We make
every effort to ensure the accuracy and
quality of information and guidance when
it is first published. However, we can take
no responsibility for the subsequent use of
this information, nor for any errors or
omissions it may contain.
BRE is the UK’s leading centre of expertise

on building and construction, and the
prevention and control of fire.
Contact BRE for information about its
services, or for technical advice, at:
BRE
Garston
Watford WD25 9XX
Tel: 01923 664000
Fax: 01923 664098
email: enquiries@bre.co.uk
www.bre.co.uk
Details of BRE publications are available from:

www.brebookshop.com
or
IHS Rapidoc (BRE Bookshop)
Willoughby Road
Bracknell RG12 8DW
Tel: 01344 404407
Fax: 01344 714440
email: brebookshop@ihsrapidoc.com
Published by BRE Bookshop

Building Research Establishment
Watford WD25 9XX
Tel: 01923 664761
Fax: 01923 662477
email: brebookshop@emap.com
BR 468
© Copyright The Concrete Centre
First published 2004
ISBN 1 86081 693 2
Requests to copy any part of this publication

should be made to BRE Bookshop.
Contents
Introduction 4
Description of the project 5
Historical development in national concrete codes 6
Comparison between tabulated values from different codes 14
Experimental background to tabulated values 15
Other relevant research 30
Discussion 33
Conclusions and recommendations 36
References 37
Appendix A – Results from National Building Studies Research Paper No. 12 39
Appendix B – Results from National Building Studies Research Paper No. 18 42
Appendix C - Results of fire resistance tests on elements of building construction 43
Appendix D - Results from Fire Research Note 741 44
Executive summary
This report has been prepared at the request of The Concrete Centre and the British Cement Association to investigate the background
to the methods for establishing the fire resistance of concrete structures specified in the relevant parts of the UK concrete Code
BS 81101,2. The work focused on the original research and test results underpinning the tabulated data in BS 8110, which have been
revisited in order to assess the relevance of the approach to modern forms of concrete construction.
This study is important in that it brings together in one document a body of information covering test results and research carried out
over a number of years. There was a danger that much of the important work in support of the development of codes and standards
would be lost. Hence a study was carried out to collate and assess all relevant information to ensure that the important lessons from
the past are recorded and to help define the strategy for a new generation of codes and standards.
The investigation shows that the experimental results used as the basis for developing the tabulated data in BS 8110 support the
provisions of the Code in relation to assumed periods of fire resistance. In many cases the provisions are very conservative as they are
based on the assumption that structural elements are fully stressed at the fire limit state.
Fire safety of concrete structures: Background to BS 8110 fire design 3

Introduction
For many years the most common method of ensuring compliance with the requirements
of the Building Regulations in terms of the fire safety of concrete buildings has been to
rely on tabulated values for minimum dimensions and minimum cover to reinforcement.
Historically both reinforced and prestressed concrete have been shown to provide good
resistance to fire. A study commissioned by the Fire Resistance Committee of
The Concrete Society3 investigated a large number and variety of fire-damaged concrete
structures within the UK. The authors concluded that almost without exception the
structures performed well during and after the fire, and that the majority of structures were
repaired and re-used. However, the report emphasised the need to establish the
circumstances under which spalling would have serious consequences.
The information in the codes is based on the results from standard fire tests on elements
of construction. Such tests generally assume that the structural element is fully stressed
at the time of the fire. This is a conservative assumption. The provisions in terms of cover
are based on limiting the temperature of the reinforcing or prestressing steel to a single
critical value. The development of fire engineering methods has questioned the relevance
of standard fire testing in relation to the performance of actual buildings subject to real
fires. In recent years concrete construction has become more efficient with the use of
chemical admixtures to improve workability, increase strength and reduce curing times.
Modern concrete frames tend to consist of more slender members with all aspects of the
design process rationalised to improve the speed and economy of construction. There is a
need to assess the performance of modern concrete construction against the provisions
of the Code, and to identify areas where the design can be made more efficient.
Previous research4 identified the lack of up-to-date data on the effect of fire on concrete
structures. It pointed out that the industry is in danger of employing the material
inefficiently and that design rules were based on research conducted many years ago. The
report emphasised the need to conduct research in order to fill in gaps in the industry’s
knowledge and to keep abreast with the advances in concrete technology that had taken
place in the preceding 10 to 15 years.
The traditional means of ensuring compliance with the regulatory requirements for fire
safety for elements of structure is to adopt the prescribed values set out in tables A1 and
A2 of Approved Document B to the Building Regulations. The values relate to a minimum
period for which the element must survive in the standard fire test measured against the
relevant performance criteria of stability, integrity and insulation.
• Stability or loadbearing capacity relates to the period of time a structural element can
maintain the appropriate design load during a fire test.
• Integrity measures the ability of an element (structural or non-structural) to prevent the
passage of flames or hot gases during a test.
• Insulation is a measure of the ability of the material to prevent a prescribed temperature
rise on the unexposed face during the prescribed period.
For elements such as beams or columns the only relevant performance criteria is
loadbearing capacity, whereas for loadbearing separating elements, such as compartment
floors and walls, all three requirements have to be met for the prescribed period of fire
resistance.
4 Fire safety of concrete structures: Background to BS 8110 fire design

Description of the project

This project set out to summarise the background to the design values in the current
concrete Code, BS 8110-2: 19851 in relation to fire resistance. This report details the
background to the Code provisions informed by a comprehensive search of the available
information from the Fire Research Station (FRS) archives. It provides information on the
major changes since the publication of the 1948 version of CP 1145 as they relate to
traditional structural elements (beams, columns, floor slabs and walls). The information
covers both reinforced and prestressed concrete.
Available test results are provided in the appendices with the information broken down,
where possible, in terms of support conditions, period of fire resistance attained, type of
aggregate used, moisture content, overall dimensions, load level and the presence and
nature of spalling.
The prescriptive design approach has served the profession well because of its inherent
simplicity. However, in recent years fire engineering design has moved away from
prescriptive design solutions towards a more performance-based approach. It is important
that the concrete industry develops further guidance for designers and regulators to
promote the use of a material with a history of very good performance in fire. There is now
an opportunity to move away from the prescriptive approach in the UK Code and develop
performance-based methods for the structural fire engineering design of concrete
structures.
The assistance of the following is gratefully acknowledged:

Prof Colin Bailey, UMIST
Dr Pal Chana, BCA
Rohan Rupasinghe, BRE

Historical development
in national concrete codes
This section considers the evolution of the concrete design codes in relation to the
provisions for fire resistance.
CP 114: 1948
The starting point for this study is the provisions in the 1948 version of CP 1145. Although
there was not a great deal of information on fire resistance within this Code it did include
tabulated values for the fire resistance of walls and floors to achieve specific fire
resistance periods. Table 14 from the Code is reproduced below with the critical
dimensions converted to metric units.
Table 1 Thickness (mm) of walls and floors for 1/2
Grade of fire resistance 6 hours 4 hours 2 hours 1 hour hour
fire-resisting purposes (CP 114: 1948)
Thickness of wall to attain grade:
With class 1 aggregates 203 152 102 76 76
With class 2 aggregates 228 178 102 76 76
Thickness of solid
reinforced concrete slab 178 152 127 102 89
Thickness of concrete slab and solid

material in tiles of hollow tile floor 152 127 89 76 64
The 1948 version of the Code differentiated between two types of aggregate. Class 1
aggregates (foamed slag, pumice, blastfurnace slag, crushed brick and burnt clay
products, well-burnt clinker and crushed limestone), which provide improved fire
performance, and Class 2 aggregates (flint, gravel, granite and crushed natural stone other
than limestone), which behave less well in fire situations.
Consequently there were different provisions for thickness of walls to achieve a specified
fire resistance. Although there were no tabulated values for columns, the Code
recommended the use of Class 1 aggregates for fire resistance periods of two hours and
above for columns with thicknesses in the range 250 – 300 mm. If Class 2 aggregates were
used then a supplementary mesh placed centrally in the concrete cover was
recommended for fire resistance periods up to 2 hours. For larger columns a 2-hour period
could be obtained regardless of the aggregate used. Fire resistance periods up to 4 hours
could be achieved by the use of Class 1 aggregates or a light mesh reinforcement.
The tabulated values assumed a minimum cover of 25 mm for a 4-hour period, 19 mm for
a 2- or 1-hour period and 13 mm for a half hour fire resistance in relation to hollow tile
floors. No information was provided on the required levels of cover in relation to columns,
walls or floors.
The 1948 Code stated that the thicknesses used for structural reasons would normally lead
to a sufficient degree of fire resistance.
CP 114: 1957
The 1957 version of CP 1146 retained the provisions of the earlier version with respect to
the requirements for walls and floors and provided additional tabulated data for the fire
resistance of precast or in-situ inverted U sections where the minimum thickness occurred
only at the crowns, hollow block construction and precast units of box or section,
concrete beams and concrete columns. This current report is concerned only with the
provisions in relation to commonly used structural forms.
Tables 2 and 3 give minimum dimensions for columns and beams respectively. It is
interesting to note that the beam provisions are expressed in terms of minimum cover
rather than overall depth and are well in excess of the previously quoted values for hollow
tile floors. This reflects the particular problems associated with the spalling of concrete
beams.

Construction and materials Minimum overall size (mm) for period of: Table 2 Fire resistance of reinforced concrete
columns (CP 114: 1957)
4 hours 2 hours 1 hour 1/2 hour
Aggregates in accordance 457 305 203 153
with BS 882
Construction and materials Minimum concrete cover to main reinforcement (mm) Table 3 Fire resistance of reinforced concrete
beams (CP 114: 1957)
for period of:
4 hours 2 hours 1 hour 1/2 hour
Aggregates in accordance
64 51 25 13
with BS 882
The Code stated that column thicknesses for 4 hours and 2 hours could be reduced to
305 mm and 229 mm where limestone aggregate is used or where mesh reinforcement is
included within the concrete cover.
The provisions in the Code are based substantially on an extensive series of fire tests
carried out during the period 1936 to 1946 by the Building Research Station at the Fire
Research Station test facility at Elstree (Borehamwood). The nature and extent of the test
programme are documented in National Building Studies Research Paper No. 127. This
important document also includes a summary of the significant results from the
programme including the results of tests on walls and partitions, floors and roofs, columns
and beams. It is this information that forms the basis for the provisions for concrete
structures in fire in the UK.
The information was incorporated into generic fire resistance tables for walls and
partitions, floors and roofs, beams and columns. Table 4 below combines the information
from these tables as they relate to reinforced concrete construction.
Type of construction Fire resistance period (hours) Table 4 Minimum thicknesses (mm)
to achieve indicated performance
6 hours 4 hours 2 hours 1 hour 1/2 hour (NBS 12, 1953)
Walls and partitions1

Class 1 aggregates 203 152 102 76 76
Class 2 aggregates 228 178 102 76 76
Solid reinforced concrete slab 178 152 127 102 89
Reinforced concrete columns

Class 1 aggregates 305 – 508 254 – 305
Class 2 aggregates 305 – 5082 254 – 3053
Notes:
1 Walls to be reinforced vertically and horizontally at not more than 152 mm centres and reinforcement to be not
less than 0.2% of volume. Walls less than 127 mm thick to have single layer of reinforcement in middle of wall. Walls
more than 127 mm thick to have 2 layers of reinforcement, not less than 25 mm from each face.
2 Increased to 4 hours if light mesh reinforcement placed in cover
3 Increased to 2 hours if light mesh reinforcement placed in cover
There is a clear recognition of the flexibility of reinforced concrete in providing fire

resistance through the design and detailing process. Reference is made to the cover
associated with reinforced concrete beams that would suggest the figures in Table 3 are
conservative.

CP 110: 1972
The next major change came with the publication of CP 1108 in 1972. Anchor9 has
tabulated minimum section sizes and cover from CP 110 and compared the provisions to
the Building Regulations requirements and alternative European specifications. Table 5
below summarises the code provisions from CP 110.
Table 5 Provisions of CP 110: 1972 Type of Minimum dimensions (mm) for a fire resistance (hours) of:
construction
4 3 2 11/2 1 1/2
Reinforced concrete solid slab

Thickness 150 150 125 125 100 100
Cover 25 25 20 20 15 15
Reinforced concrete hollow cored slabs
Thickness 190 175 160 140 110 100
Cover 25 25 20 20 15 15
Prestressed solid slab
Thickness 150 150 125 125 100 90
Cover 65* 50* 40 30 25 15
Prestressed hollow cored slab
Thickness 190 175 160 140 110 100
Cover 65* 50* 40 30 25 15
Reinforced concrete simply supported beam
Width 280 (250) 240 (200) 180 (160) 140 (130) 110 (100) 80 (80)
Cover 65* (50) 55* (45) 45* (35) 35 (30) 25 (20) 15 (15)
Prestressed simply supported beam
Width 280 (250) 240 (200) 180 (160) 140 (130) 110 (100) 80 (80)
Cover 100* (80) 85* (65) 65* (50) 50* (40) 40 (30) 25 (20)
Columns (4-sided exposure)
Minimum dimension 450 (300) 400 (275) 300 (225) 250 (200) 200 (150) 150 (150)
Notes
* Mesh reinforcement required in concrete cover.
Figures in brackets refer to lightweight aggregate concrete, concrete cover is an average value.
The Code indicated that for beams and slabs (both reinforced and prestressed) the
influence of restraint could be incorporated into the design by reducing the requirements
for cover to the next lowest category. For instance, a reinforced concrete beam simply
supported would require a minimum width of 180 mm and an average cover to the
reinforcement of 45 mm for a 2-hour fire resistance period. If the beam is built into a
structure so as to provide restraint against thermal expansion at both ends then the
requirement for cover was reduced to 35 mm, although the minimum width remains
unchanged. The provisions of the Code related specifically to end restraint against thermal
expansion rather than continuity over the supports.
It is interesting to note that there was a distinction in CP 110 between solid and cored
slabs, with cored slabs requiring minimum thicknesses in excess of that for solid slabs; this
is presumably based on the insulation criteria. These separate provisions have been
removed in Part 1 of the present Code2 1997 and are not clearly presented in Part 21 1995.
Clause 4.2.5 of Part 2 mentions that an effective thickness should be used for cored slabs
depending on the proportion of solid material per unit width of slab. It would be much
clearer to include a separate table for cored slabs or at least to incorporate an additional
note to Table 4.4 in the Code.

BS 8110: 1985 and 1997

The current Code provisions in BS 8110 refer to tabulated data published in Guidelines for
the construction of fire resisting structural elements10. As a document referenced in
Approved Document B, the provisions in these BRE guidelines effectively become one way
of achieving the requirements of the regulations in terms of minimum thickness and
minimum cover. One of the major changes is the variation in requirements for normal-
weight and lightweight concrete and, for beams and floors, the recognition of the impact
of continuity on the performance of reinforced concrete elements in fire.
As there are extra provisions to allow for concrete density and continuity, no attempt is
made to tabulate the provisions in a single table. The provisions relating to columns,
beams, plain soffit (flat slab) floors and ribbed open soffit (downstand) floors are detailed
in Tables 6 to 9. In relation to beams and floors the tables also provide information on
prestressed concrete. Values from Part 1 of BS 8110 are included in brackets in Tables 6
to 8 where appropriate. It should be noted that the covers in Part 1 relate to cover to all
reinforcement (including links) while the values in Part 2 and the BRE guidelines are
specified in terms of cover to the main reinforcement. For consistency the values from
Table 3.4 of Part 1 have therefore been increased by 10 mm for beams and columns to
allow for the inclusion of links to the main reinforcement. This approach is consistent with
the guidance in the Code.
Type of Minimum dimensions (mm) for a fire resistance (hours) of: Table 6 Minimum dimensions for reinforced
concrete columns from BRE guidelines
construction (BS 8110)
4 3 2 11/2 1 1/2
Fully exposed
Dense concrete
Width 450 (450) 400 (400) 300 (300) 250 (250) 200 (200) 150 (150)
Cover 35 (35) 35 (35) 35 (35) 30 (30) 25 (30)* 20 (30)*
Lightweight concrete
Width 360 320 240 200 160 150
Cover 35 35 35 25 20 20
50% exposed
Dense concrete
Width 350 300 200 200 160 125
Cover 35 30 25 25 25 20
Width 275 250 185 160 130 125
Cover 30 30 25 25 20 20
1 face exposed
Dense concrete
Width 240 200 160 140 120 100
Cover 25 25 25 25 25 20
Width 150 150 125 125 100 100
Cover 25 25 25 20 20 10
Notes
The guidelines allow for a decrease in cover for a corresponding increase in width.
* Reduced to 25 mm where the maximum aggregate size is less than or equal to 15 mm.

Table 7 Minimum dimensions for concrete Type of Minimum dimensions (mm) for a fire resistance (hours) of:
beams from BRE guidelines (BS 8110)
construction
4 3 2 11/2 1 1/2
Reinforced simply supported

Dense concrete
Width 280 (280) 240 (240) 200 (200) 150 (200) 120 (200) 80 (200)
Cover 80 (80) 70 (70) 50 (50) 40 (30) 30 (30)* 20 (30)*
Width 250 200 160 130 100 100
Cover 65 55 45 35 20 15
Reinforced continuously supported

Dense concrete
Width 240 (280) 200 (240) 150 (200) 120 (200) 80 (200) 80 (200)
Cover 70 (60) 60 (50) 50 (40) 35 (30)* 20 (30)* 20 (30)*
Width 200 150 110 90 80 60
Cover 55 45 35 25 20 15
Prestressed simply supported

Dense concrete
Width 280 240 200 150 120 100
Cover 90 80 70 55 40 25
Width 250 200 160 130 110 80
Cover 75 65 55 45 30 25
Prestressed continuously supported

Dense concrete
Width 240 200 150 120 100 80
Cover 80 70 55 40 30 20
Width 200 150 125 100 90 80
Cover 65 55 45 35 25 20
Notes
The guidelines allow for a decrease in cover for a corresponding increase in width.

Type of Minimum dimensions (mm) for a fire resistance (hours) of: Table 8 Minimum dimensions for plain soffit
floors from BRE guidelines (BS 8110)
construction
4 3 2 11/2 1 1/2

Dense concrete
Thickness 170 (170) 150 (150) 125 (125) 110 (110) 95 (95) 75 (75)
Cover 55 (55) 45 (45) 35 (35) 25 (25) 20 (20) 15 (20)*
Thickness 150 135 115 105 90 70
Cover 45 35 25 20 15 15

Dense concrete
Thickness 170 150 125 110 95 75
Cover 45 (45) 35 (35) 25 (25) 20 (20) 20 (20) 15 (20)*
Thickness 150 135 115 105 90 70
Cover 35 25 20 20 15 15

Dense concrete
Thickness 170 150 125 110 95 75
Cover 65 55 40 30 25 20
Thickness 150 135 115 105 90 70
Cover 60 45 35 30 20 20
Prestressed continuously supported

Dense concrete
Thickness 170 150 125 110 95 75
Cover 55 45 35 25 20 20
Thickness 150 135 115 105 90 70
Cover 45 35 30 25 20 20
Note

Table 9 Minimum dimensions for Type of Minimum dimensions (mm) for a fire resistance (hours) of:
ribbed open soffit floors (BS 8110)
construction
4 3 2 11/2 1 1/2

Dense concrete
Thickness 150 135 115 105 90 70
Width (and cover) 175 (65) 150 (55) 125 (45) 110 (35) 90 (25) 75 (15)
Thickness 130 115 100 95 85 70
Width (and cover) 150 (55) 125 (45) 100 (35) 85 (30) 75 (25) 60 (15)

Dense concrete
Thickness 150 135 115 105 90 70
Width (and cover) 150 (55) 125 (45) 100 (35) 90 (25) 80 (20) 75 (15)
Thickness 130 115 100 95 85 70
Width (and cover) 125 (45) 100 (35) 90 (30) 80 (25) 75 (20) 70 (15)

Dense concrete
Thickness 150 135 115 105 90 70
Width (and cover) 175 (65) 150 (55) 125 (45) 110 (35) 75(25) 70 (20)
Thickness 130 115 100 95 85 70
Width (and cover) 150 (55) 125 (45) 110 (35) 90 (30) 75 (25) 70 (20)
Note
Width refers to the width of the downstand portion of the floor at the level of the lowest reinforcement.
Table 10 Minimum dimensions for concrete Type of construction Minimum dimensions thickness/cover (mm) for a fire
walls with vertical reinforcement (BS 8110)
resistance (hours) of:
4 3 2 11/2 1 1/2
Walls made from dense

aggregate with less than 175 150 150
0.4% reinforcement

aggregate with 0.4 – 1% 240/25 200/25 160/25 140/25 120/25 100/25
reinforcement
Walls made from 190/25 160/25 130/25 115/25 100/20 100/10

lightweight aggregate

aggregate with over 1% 180/25 150/25 100/25 100/25 75/15 75/15
reinforcement
The relationship between the various documents referenced in this report and the
corresponding national regulations and codes is illustrated in the flowchart Figure 1.

Figure 1 Relationship between documents

referenced and national regulations and codes
National Building Studies 12 (1953) 7 and National Building Studies 18 (1953) 11:
Investigations on building fires
CP 114: 1957 6
CP 110: 19728
Design and detailing of

FIP/CEB concrete structures for fire
Recommendations for resistance: Interim guidance by
the design of reinforced a Joint Committee of
and prestressed Schedule 8: Building
The Institution of Structural
concrete structural Regulations 197615
Engineers and
members for fire The Concrete Society (1978).14
resistance (1975)12 Tables produced by the
Fire Research Station
FIP/CEB Report on Guidelines for the

methods of assessment construction of fire
Approved Document
of the fire resistance of resisting structural
ADB 1985 16
concrete structural elements:
members (1978) 13 BRE Report (1982) 10
BS 8110-1
(1985 and 1997) 2 BS 8110-2 (1985) 1
Guidelines for the

construction of fire
Approved Document
resisting
ADB 199117, ADB 2000 18
structural elements:
BRE Report (1988) 10

Comparison between tabulated

values from different codes
The provisions according to the various standards are summarised in Table 11 with
reference to examples of specific structural elements.
Table 11 Comparison of provisions for Type of structural Minimum dimensions thickness/cover (mm) for a fire
common forms of construction
element resistance period (hours) of:
4 3 2 11/2 1 1/2
Reinforced column
CP 114: 1948 >305 254 - 3051
CP 114: 1957 457 305 203 153
NBS Paper No. 121 305 – 508 254 – 305
NBS Paper No. 122 305 – 5083 254 – 3054
CP 110 (1972) 450 400 300 250 200 150
BS 81105 (1985) 450/35 400/35 300/35 250/30 200/25 150/20
BS 81106 (1985) 360/35 320/35 240/35 200/25 160/20 150/20
EC2-1-27 400 – 600 300 – 600 200 – 550 150 – 500 150 – 300 150 – 200
Solid reinforced slab
CP 1141 (1948) 152 102 76 76
CP 1142 (1948) 178 102 76 76
CP 114 (1957) 152/25 127/13 102/13 89/13
NBS Paper No. 12 152 127 102 89
CP 110 (1972) 150/25 150/25 125/20 125/20 100/15 100/15
BS 81108 (1985) 170/55 150/45 125/35 110/25 95/20 75/15
BS 81109 (1985) 150/45 135/35 115/25 105/20 90/15 70/15
BS 811010 (1985) 170/45 150/35 125/25 110/20 95/20 75/15
BS 811011 (1985) 150/35 135/25 115/20 105/20 90/15 70/15
EC2-1-212 175/65 150/55 120/40 100/30 80/20 60/10
Notes
1 Class 1 aggregates
2 Class 2 aggregates
3 Increased to 4 hours with light mesh in cover
4 Increased to 2 hours with light mesh in cover
5 Dense concrete
6 Lightweight concrete
7 Thickness and cover dependent on load ratio at ambient temperature and reinforcement ratio
8 Simply supported/dense concrete
9 Simply supported/lightweight
10 Continuous/dense concrete
11 Continuous/lightweight
12 Simply supported one way spanning
The extent of the notes required for use with Table 11 provide some indication of the care
to be taken in the use of tabulated data. The table itself illustrates the gradual
development of knowledge related to the performance of concrete structures in fire. The
close correlation between the UK codified values and the values taken from National
Building Studies Research Paper No. 12 show the importance of this body of work on the
design of concrete structures in fire. The results from this publication are investigated in
greater detail later in this report. What is also significant is the development of specific
provisions for different types of aggregate, for lightweight concrete and for the effects of
continuity.

Experimental background
to tabulated values
Unless otherwise specified, comparison between measured data and assumed fire periods
are on the basis of both minimum dimension and minimum cover.
National Building Studies research papers

It is widely acknowledged that the main source of data for the derivation of the tabulated
values in successive revisions of the concrete codes of practice comes from fire resistance
tests carried out at the Fire Research Station, Borehamwood between 1936 and 1946.
The results from these tests are summarised in National Building Studies Research Paper
No. 127 (NBS 12) for a range of different structural elements and different construction
materials. Additional source material related to reinforced concrete columns is contained
in National Building Studies Research Paper No. 1811. The test results have been revisited
as part of this project and analysed with respect to the concept of load ratio.
This performance-based approach is not included in BS 8110 for columns and walls.
The concept of load ratio relates the load applied at the fire limit state to the capacity of
the element at ambient temperature. This is the basis of the provisions for columns set out
in the fire part of the Eurocode for concrete structures19.
Reinforced concrete floors

Table A1 of Appendix A is a summary of test data in relation to reinforced concrete floors.
One of the most significant aspects is the extent of spalling to the specimens and the
impact of spalling on the overall fire resistance attained.
The experimental values used as the basis of the Code provisions may be classified
according to the support conditions adopted during the standard fire tests. Figure 2
illustrates the results from simply supported slabs in terms of fire resistance period
attained against the load ratio. The load ratio has been calculated using the design
formulae from BS 8110: 1985 incorporating the partial safety factors but using the actual
concrete material properties as measured during the experimental programme (Table A1).
No information was available for the measured values of the steel yield stress so an
assumption that fy = 250 N/mm2 has been made for all cases. It could be argued that the
calculation should be performed without safety factors for the concrete strength.
The measured values shown in the figures are therefore worst-case values in terms of the
load ratio or degree of utilisation.
Figure 2 indicates the fire resistance period attained or time to failure as well as the mode
of failure and the critical parameters of overall thickness and cover to the main
reinforcement compared with the tabulated values in the Code.
Generally the Code provisions are very conservative when compared with the experimental
results. The specific combinations of thickness and cover make a direct comparison
difficult. In general the mode of failure was cracking through the full depth of the slab
leading to collapse into the furnace. Spalling was not particularly significant with the
exception of one specimen made from limestone aggregate, which collapsed after 35
minutes.
Loadbearing failure in a standard test is generally a function of the temperature of the
reinforcement. The most effective way to delay such a failure is to increase the cover to
the main steel. The thickness of the specimen will determine the temperature of the
unexposed face (insulation criteria). If cover is used as the means of assessment then all
test specimens achieved at least the requirement of the Code and in many cases the
measured performance was well in excess of that assumed using the tabulated values.
This is illustrated in Figure 3.

250 Current
Figure 2 Applied load ratio and failure time for
Code
simply supported floor slabs (NBS 12, 1953) 225 requirements
200
140/25
175
127/13 Plaster finish

Time (minutes)
150
Plaster finish
127/25 114/13
125
125/35
127/13
Plaster finish
100
114/13
110/25
Failure mode 114/13
75 114/13
Insulation 95/20
50
Loadbearing 114/13
75/15
Did not fail 25
during test
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Load ratio
250
Figure 3 Comparison of measured and
assumed design values based on depth
225
of cover for simply supported floor slabs
(NBS 12, 1953)
200
Fire endurance/resistance (minutes)
Plaster finish
175
Plaster finish
150
Plaster finish
125
100
75
50
25
Fire endurance measured
Fire resistance assumed 0

F20 F16 F21 F19 F17 F22 F18 F23 F24
Sample reference
It is clear from the test results that loadbearing failure is the critical mode for all the slabs
where the concrete is directly exposed to the fire. The increased cover will, in the absence
of spalling, lead to increased fire resistance periods. The provisions in relation to simply
supported slabs are therefore conservative due to insufficient variation in the value of
applied load to determine the sensitivity of the results to the load ratio. However, as the
predominant mode of failure is collapse into the furnace it could be assumed that lower
values of imposed load (such as are used for the fire limit state) would increase the fire
resistance.

Figure 4 is a comparison of measured values and assumed fire resistance periods from the
tabulated data based purely on the minimum thickness of the floor slab. Apart from one
rogue value (F20) the results support the Code provisions. Although it is useful to
investigate the assumptions in terms of loadbearing capacity (minimum cover) and
insulation (minimum thickness) separately they need to be taken together. For simply
supported slabs the measured results, taken together, support the provisions of the
current Code.
250
Figure 4 Comparison of measured and
assumed design values based on minimum
225
thickness for simply supported floor slabs
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25 Fire endurance measured
Fire resistance assumed

0
F20 F16 F21 F19 F17 F22 F18 F23 F24
Sample reference
For continuous slabs the Code provisions maintain similar values for minimum thickness
based on the insulation criteria and allow for a reduction in the cover to the main
reinforcement. Figure 5 shows the results for continuous (BS 8110) or restrained (NBS 12)
slabs. The different terminology is important as the reduction in cover in CP 110 was based
on the influence of restraint to thermal expansion while structural continuity implies a
rotational restraint such as that found over supports. One of the most significant results is
the noticeable increase in spalling when compared with the results from the simply
supported slabs.

425
Figure 5 Applied load ratio and failure time Current
400 Code
for restrained floor slabs requirements
375
178/38
350
325
300
275
Time (minutes)
250 152/13 182/13 152/13

170/45
225 Sprayed
asbestos
152/13
200
Failure mode 175 150/35
150
Insulation
152/13 82/13 102/13
125
125/25
Loadbearing 114/13 114/13
100
Integrity 110/20
102/13
75
102/13 82/13
Did not fail 95/20
50
during test 114/13 82/13
82/13 Plaster 75/15
25 covered
82/13
0
Results for specimens 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
that spalled are shown Load ratio
thus: 152/13 and others
thus: 114/13
Apart from one test all specimens had a cover of only 13 mm. In terms of the provisions
of the Code in relation to minimum thickness and minimum cover, all the specimens tested
(with the exception of the specimen attaining a fire resistance period of 6 hours) would be
expected to have a fire resistance of only 30 minutes. The comparison between measured
and assumed resistance is shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6 Comparison of measured and 425
assumed design values based on depth of 400

cover for restrained floor slabs (NBS 12, 1953) 375
350
325
300
275
Sprayed
250 asbestos
225
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
Fire endurance measured 25

0
Fire resistance assumed F53 F34 F33 F49 F48 F73 F71 F25 F77 F74 F45 F68 F72 F76 E3/S1 F67 F63
Sample reference

Only one specimen lies below the assumed design value and in many cases the measured
values show the tabulated data to be extremely conservative with 4 hour fire resistance
periods attained for specimens with only 13 mm cover. The load ratios used in the test are
very high. From the data available the performance of the floor slabs does not seem to be
significantly influenced by the value of the imposed load. Of much greater significance is
the degree of spalling observed. Where the specimens failed to attain a fire resistance
period of 2 hours the reason for this, and for the subsequent integrity failure, was due to
spalling. Figure 6 indicates that spalling has been taken into account in the
development of the tabulated data and accounts in large part for the degree of
conservatism present. The tabulated values have been set according to a mode of
failure driven largely by spalling.
Reinforced concrete walls

The information on reinforced concrete walls from the National Building Studies report is
included in Table A2 of Appendix A. Although there are only three tests in this category
the results indicate the improved performance of crushed brick aggregate compared with
gravel.
Figure 7 shows the results for reinforced concrete walls in terms of the Code provisions
with respect to medium (0.4 to 1.0%) and high (greater than 1.0%) reinforcement.
Although there are obviously not many tests on which to base conclusions, it is clear that
the results available show that the Code provisions are reasonable and that load ratio
does not have a significant effect on performance as the failure criteria is
governed by the insulation properties of the concrete. European research also
supports this conclusion.
Current Code
requirements
250
180/25 Figure 7 Applied load ratio and failure time
225
203/25 high r/f for reinforced concrete walls
200
200/25
175 low r/f
Time (minutes)
150
102/25
125
100 100/25
102/25
high r/f
75
Failure mode
50
100/25 Insulation
25 low r/f
Did not fail
0 during test
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
Load ratio

Reinforced concrete columns

Although there may be few test results to assess the provisions for walls the same cannot
be said for reinforced columns. A total of 95 individual tests have been analysed and the
results processed according to section size and applied load.
Column sizes: 152, 203 and 229 mm

Figure 8 shows the results from tests on 152 mm, 203 mm and 229 mm square columns
in terms of load ratio while Figure 9 is a comparison between measured and assumed fire
endurance/resistance periods.
The results generally support the provisions of the Code and indicate a relationship
between the amount of load present and the fire endurance period attained.
120
Figure 8 Applied load ratio and failure time for
small reinforced concrete columns 110
100
90
80
25 mm cover
Time (minutes)
70
25 mm cover 25 mm cover
28 mm cover
60
50
40
30
Column size
20
152 mm
203 mm 10
229 mm
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Load ratio
120
Figure 9 Measured and assumed values
of fire endurance/resistance for small 110
reinforced concrete columns
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20

0
152 mm 152 mm 203 mm 229 mm
Column size
The results above show the Code provisions to be generally conservative and indicate a
relationship between applied load and fire endurance period attained.

Column size 254 mm

Figure 10 shows the results for 254 mm square columns while Figure 11 shows the
relationship between the measured values and the assumed fire resistance period taken
from the tabulated data in the Code.
250
Figure 10 Applied load ratio and failure time
4 bars, for 254 mm square columns
225
cover = 25.4 mm
200
175
150
Time (minutes)
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Load ratio
250
Figure 11 Comparison of failure time with
assumed fire resistance period
225
200
175
150
125
100
75
50

0
3 A9 A10 C23 C24 C30 C31 C32 C35 C11 C13 C15 C23 C24 C30 C31 C32 C35
Sample reference
Again the results indicate that the Code provides a generally conservative approach.
Figure 10 also shows some correlation between load ratio and decreasing fire
performance of columns. Although the Code provides a conservative approach it does not
take into account the complex interaction between applied load and fire resistance.

Column size 280 mm

Figure 12 shows the relationship between applied load and failure time for 280 mm square
columns. Here the relationship between applied load and time to failure is not so
straightforward.
The comparison between fire endurance period achieved in the tests and fire resistance
assumed in design is shown in Figure 13 below.
250
for 280 mm square columns 4 bars,
225
cover = 38.1 mm
200
175
150
Time (minutes)
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Load ratio
250
Figure 13 Comparison between failure time
and fire resistance period assumed
225
(280 mm square columns)
200
175
150
125
100
75
50

0
C33 C34 C82 C86 C87 C88 C89 C90 E25/S3 C20 C36 C37 C38 C42
Sample reference
There are some instances where the assumed period of fire resistance is less than that
achieved during the test for this particular size of column. However, the only areas where
there is a significant shortfall in performance relates to a specimen where the load ratio is
in excess of 0.5. This is a higher ratio than is generally seen in practice for the fire limit
state.

Column size 305 mm

The corresponding values for 305 mm square columns are shown in Figures 14 and 15
below. Again this shows the relationship between applied load and fire endurance period
and indicates that the test data generally supports the tabulated values from the Code.
There is an important relationship between minimum dimensions for width and cover.
If cover is seen to be the governing factor in terms of slowing the increase in the
temperature rise of the reinforcement then the results should be compared against a
presumed performance of 1 hour. However, if the overall size of the column is the main
determinant then the comparison should more effectively be made against a fire
resistance period of 2 hours.
225
4 bars,
cover = 25.4 mm for 305 mm square columns
200
175
150
Time (minutes)
125
4 bars,
cover = 25.4mm
100
75
4 bars, 4 bars,
cover = 22 mm cover = 25.4 mm
50
25
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Load ratio
225
200
(305 mm square columns)
175
Fire endurance/resitance (minutes)
150
125
100
75
50

0
8 A7 A8 1
Sample reference

Column size 355 mm

The plot for the 355 mm square columns is shown in Figure 16. This indicates a significant
reduction in fire performance with increasing values of load ratio. However, the applied
load is much higher than typically applied in practice and, in some cases, could have led
to a structural collapse even before the start of the fire test. It would only take a small
eccentricity of loading to exceed the ambient temperature capacity at a load ratio of 0.9.
120
for 356 mm square columns 110
100
90
38 mm cover
38 mm cover
80
35 mm cover 25 mm cover
Time (minutes)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Load ratio
Figure 17 shows the comparison between assumed fire resistance and measured failure
times. Although these results do not support the Code provisions they need to be viewed
in the light of the comments related to load ratio above.
Figure 17 Comparison between failure time 120
(356 mm square columns) 110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
Fire resistance assumed 0

7 12 19 E16/S8
Sample reference
From observations during the testing, the failures were attributed to spalling of the corners of
the columns. This behaviour is accounted for in the Code through the requirement for
additional measures (such as the use of supplementary mesh within the cover zone) once the
cover exceeds 40 mm. As the cover increases the fire performance of the concrete member
will increase, assuming no spalling takes place. However, increase in cover increases the
susceptibility of the member to spalling. There is therefore a need to either limit the cover (the
tabulated values for columns do not exceed 35 mm) or take additional measures. The
incidence of spalling means that there is no direct correlation between increasing cover and
increasing periods of fire resistance. The provisions of the Code take this into account.

Column size 381 mm

The results for the 381 mm square columns are shown in Figure 18. There is a clear
correlation between the load ratio and the performance in fire. Here the relationship is
almost linear. The values above a load ratio of about 0.7 need to be viewed in the light of the
comments made above in relation to practical load ratios in operation at the fire limit state.
425
400 4 bars, for 381 mm square columns
375 cover = 28.6 mm
350
325
300
275
Time (minutes)
250
225
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Load ratio
The comparison with assumed fire resistance period is shown in Figure 19. Again this
needs to be viewed in the light of the comments about the importance of applied load and
also that the comparison has been made for a cover of 25 mm. The actual column size is
much greater than the minimum width for the 1 hour category (width 200 mm, cover 25 mm)
and it may be that a 11/2 hour fire resistance period (width 250 mm, cover 30 mm) would
be a more accurate basis for comparison.
425
400 and fire resistance period assumed
375 (381 mm square columns)
350
325
300
275
250
225
200
175
150
125
100
75
25 Fire resistance assumed

0
6 21 22 23 26 27 28 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6
Sample reference
However on the basis of a direct comparison with the provisions of the Code, the
experimental results support the tabulated values. The only member that failed to achieve
the prescribed period of fire resistance had a load ratio in excess of 0.9, which is
considered to be unrealistic for both the fire and ambient temperature limit states.

Column size 406 mm

Figure 20 is the plot for load ratio against failure time for the three tests on 406 mm square
columns. What is again quite apparent is the relationship between applied load and fire
endurance period. Effectively the failure period of 46 minutes can be discounted from the
comparison because of the excessive load imposed at the time of the test. Again the
comparison with assumed fire resistance periods based on the tabular data will be made
for the 1 hour period because the cover is still only 25 mm. The fire resistance period
attained in the tests for the two columns is therefore twice the assumed value.
120
Figure 20 Applied load and failure time for
406 mm square columns 110 4 bars,
cover = 25.4 mm
100
90
80
Time (minutes)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8
Load ratio

Column size 483 mm

The results from the tests on 483 mm square columns are shown in Figure 21 and the
comparison with the assumed values from the tabulated data is shown in Figure 22.
425
Cover = 25 mm Figure 21 Applied load ratio and failure time
400 for 483 mm square columns
375
Cover = 32 mm
350
325
300
275
Time (minutes)
250
225
200
175
150
Cover = 25 mm
125
Cover = 25 mm Cover = 32 mm
100
Cover = 32 mm
75
50
25
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Load ratio
425 Figure 22 Comparison between failure time

400 and fire resistance period assumed
375 (483 mm square columns)
350
325
300
275
250
225
200
175
150
125
100
75
25 Fire resistance assumed
0
10 A11 A12 15 A13 A14
Sample reference
The results from tests on loaded reinforced concrete columns are contained in Table A3
of Appendix A and in Appendix B. The comprehensive test programme includes a large
range of sizes, aggregate types and levels of reinforcement. Again the impact of spalling
on the performance of reinforced concrete members is highlighted. In many cases the
spalling did not lead to collapse of the columns and the commentary often points to corner
spalling or sloughing off rather than explosive spalling. Spalling generally occurred at the
corners of the columns, In many cases the corners were chamfered, but this did not
appear to make a great deal of difference to the overall fire resistance attained nor did it
prevent significant spalling taking place. Moisture content does not appear to have had a
significant influence. The measured values of moisture content for this size of columns
varied from 2.3% to 3.48% by weight and there is no variation in the extent or nature of the
spalling observed that could be related to the difference in measured moisture content.

Reinforced concrete beams

Table A4 of Appendix A contains the results from tests on reinforced concrete beams
taken from the National Building Studies Research report. From these particular tests
moisture content appears to have had no specific influence on whether the specimen
spalled or not. Spalling occurred on one of the specimens with a measured moisture
content of 4% by weight whereas no spalling was observed for the duration of the test for
a similar section with a measured moisture content of 4.7%. However, it should be noted
that this contradicts other published research which shows that moisture content has a
critical influence on susceptibly to spalling. The results also indicate that spalling does not
necessarily lead to a reduction in the fire resistance period attained.
Figure 23 shows the results for reinforced concrete beams in terms of applied load and
time to failure. The results are plotted using the BS 8110 design equations both with and
without the safety factors for material variability. The effect of ignoring the material safety
factors is to reduce the load ratio. However, the performance seems to be largely
independent of the applied load. The Code requirements in terms of minimum dimensions
s for width of beams and cover are indicated on the right of the figure.
d
Two things are immediately apparent from the figure. Firstly, the load ratio is very high and,
S
secondly, the Code provisions are extremely conservative. In the case of beams it is
loadbearing that is the critical factor, not integrity. Therefore the critical parameter is the
e minimum cover to the reinforcement.
s
Current Code
s Figure 23 Applied load ratio and failure time requirements
165/38
d for reinforced concrete beams 250
e 165/38 280/80
225
165/38
e 200
140/25
e 175
240/70
d
Time (minutes)
203/25 114/13
k 150
Applied load
125
200/50
250 N/mm2, includes BS 8110 safety factors
2,
250 N/mm excludes BS 8110 safety factors 100
150/40
272 N/mm2, excludes BS 8110 safety factors
75
120/30
50
Failure mode
Loadbearing 80/20
25
Did not fail during test 0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Load ratio

Figure 24 is a comparison between the assumed period of fire resistance and the test
results.
250
Figure 24 Comparison between failure times
225
and assumed period of fire resistance
(reinforced concrete beams)
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
Fire endurance measured

25
0
1 (F42) 2 (F43) 3 (F44) 4 (F51) 5 (F52) 6 (E16/S9)
Sample reference

Other relevant research

Although the National Building Studies reports provided a large part of the background
data on which the Code provisions are based, there is insufficient data in the reports to
extend the provisions to lightweight concrete, prestressed concrete and ribbed open soffit
floors. The additional provisions for these have arisen as a result of a number of research
programmes and commercial tests undertaken over a number of years. Some of the most
significant research projects are briefly reviewed here, although it is impossible to
determine the extent to which each project influenced the development of the Code
provisions.
A report (in two volumes) published by BRE20 details the results from sponsored fire tests
undertaken between 1950 and 1972. A summary of the test results is given in Appendix C,
covering floors, columns and beams.
What should be immediately clear is the difference between published research results
and the results from sponsored commercial tests. Commercial tests were designed to
provide a justification for the stated period of fire resistance. Hence little information is
provided on the types of aggregate used, moisture contents, reinforcement details,
restraint conditions or whether spalling occurred. In general the mode of failure (stability,
integrity and insulation) is not made clear. Where the information provides only the fire
resistance period attained it has been assumed that this was the target value and the test
was stopped at this point. However, the results do provide some justification for the stated
fire resistance periods quoted by manufacturers and the tabulated provisions relating to
lightweight concrete and hollow core slabs.
The results for reinforced columns come largely from work commissioned through the
Department of the Environment and therefore more details of these research-based tests
are available for scrutiny.
Fire Research Notes

Fire Research Note No. 460, Malhotra, H L. Effect of restraint on fire
resistance of concrete floors 21
Malhotra reported the results from tests to determine the effects of restraint on the fire
resistance of concrete floors and compared the results with similar tests carried out in
Holland. The tests were carried out on precast hollow beams with a concrete topping.
Three different levels of restraint were investigated, ranging from simply supported to
longitudinal and angular restraint. Some limited spalling occurred during the third test.
The first two tests provided a direct comparison of the effects of longitudinal restraint on
the fire resistance of reinforced concrete floors. The inclusion of longitudinal restraint
resulted in an increase of fire resistance of approximately 50% based on a displacement
criteria of span/30. Malhotra pointed out that damage by spalling may, however, be greater
with increasing restraint.
Fire Research Note No. 38, The fire resistance of prestressed concrete 22
This Note claims that spalling of concrete leading to premature failure only occurs with
small prestressed beams of slender section directly exposed to the fire. It is estimated that
a fire resistance of 2 hours can be obtained with a concrete cover to the steel of
approximately 63 mm. This is consistent with the Eurocode values and the BS 8110 values
for prestressed beams.
Fire Research Note 54, Ashton, L A, Prestressed concrete during and

after fires. Comparative tests on composite floors in prestressed and
reinforced concrete 23
This study showed very little difference in performance between reinforced and
prestressed construction for short periods of exposure (1/2 hour). The maximum deflections
were of the same order, with the prestressed floor recovering more quickly indicating no
loss of prestress. However for 1 hour exposure the reinforced concrete floor exhibited

lower deflections and a better rate of recovery. Both types of floor had similar cover to the
steel, based on the requirements of the London County Council Byelaws for 1 hours fire
resistance.
Fire Research Note 65, Ashton, L A and Malhotra, H L, The fire

resistance of prestressed concrete beams 24
An experimental study was undertaken on scaled-down specimens representative of
larger post-tensioned beams used in buildings of high fire risk. The results indicate that
full-scale beams of the type tested should give a fire resistance of 2 hours without
recourse to special measures, but for 4 hours resistance, extra protection would be
necessary for the tendons. This study was initiated due to a sudden brittle failure in a
standard fire test of a small prestressed concrete floor unit due to spalling.
Fire Research Note 741, Malhotra, H L, Fire resistance of structural

concrete beams 25
Malhotra pointed out the scarcity of data in relation to the performance of reinforced
concrete beams when compared with prestressed beams (see above). The programme
involved tests on 24 beams including 13 simply supported beams with a clear span of
7.3 m and an overall length of 7.6 m. Additional specimens were cast with an overall length
of 11.3 m supported over the same span as the smaller beams and with loaded cantilever
ends to produce negative bending moments at the supports to simulate continuous
construction. The overall test programme consisted of 24 tests including prestressed and
encased steel beams as well as reinforced concrete. The factors studied were:
• Type of beam – reinforced, prestressed, steel encased

• Type of aggregate – normal (gravel), lightweight (expanded clay and foam slag)
• Type of steel – mild steel, cold worked steel, hot rolled alloy steel
• Thickness of cover – varied between 25 and 63 mm
• Use of supplementary reinforcement
• End conditions – simply supported, simply supported with continuity
Leaving aside the encased steel beams, Tables 12 and 13 describe the main test
parameters for prestressed and reinforced beams respectively.
No. Type of Type of beam Shape of Cover Supplementary Table 12 Test parameters for prestressed
aggregate x-section (mm) reinforcement (Y/N) concrete beams
7.6 m long specimens
1 Gravel Post-tensioned with tendons Rectangular 100 Y
2 Gravel Pre-tensioned with tendons Rectangular 100 Y
3 Gravel Pre-tensioned with strands I section 50 N
4 Gravel Pre-tensioned with strands I section 50 Y
5 Gravel Pre-tensioned with strands I section 50 N*
6 Gravel Post-tensioned with strands Rectangular 100 Y
7 Gravel Post-tensioned with strands Rectangular 100 Y
Note
* Encasement of 13 mm plaster

Table 13 Test parameters for No. Type of Type of beam Cover Supplementary
reinforced concrete beams aggregate (mm) reinforcement (Y/N)
8 Gravel Mild steel 63 N
9 Gravel Cold worked deformed 63 N
10 Gravel Cold worked twisted 63 N
11 Gravel Hot rolled alloy 63 N
12 Expanded clay Mild steel 63 N
13 Foamed slag Mild steel 63 N
14 Gravel Mild steel 63 Y
15 Gravel Hot rolled alloy 63 Y
16 Gravel Cold worked twisted 63 Y
17 Gravel Hot rolled alloy 38 Y
20 Gravel Mild steel 63 N
21 Gravel Cold worked deformed 63 N
The results from these tests are summarised in Appendix D. The specimens were stored
for periods up to three years to ensure a stable moisture content. The tests were generally
terminated prior to collapse by carefully monitoring deflections. However, in three cases
(3, 6 and 7) collapse occurred before the test could be terminated.
For the reinforced concrete beams made with gravel aggregate the occurrence of spalling
greatly reduced the fire resistance achieved. Additional specimens were therefore made
which incorporated supplementary reinforcement in cases where cover thicknesses were
large.
The tests confirmed the improved performance in fire of beams made using lightweight
aggregates. The specimens made from lightweight concrete withstood heating for
6 hours without showing any signs of spalling or reduction in concrete cover, whereas the
siliceous aggregates showed signs of damage by spalling within the first 30 minutes of the
test, with the extent of the damage varying from specimen to specimen. The report was
quite specific about the effect of spalling on fire resistance of concretes made from
siliceous aggregates, stating that premature failure was due to spalling. The inclusion of a
supplementary mesh 25 mm below the exposed surface gave at least the expected
performance and in some cases better than expected. The report emphasised the need to
adopt mitigating measures when dealing with concretes made with siliceous aggregates.
The report recommended the use of supplementary reinforcement for covers in excess of
40 mm. This is consistent with the provisions of CP 110: 1972 and included in BS 8110:
(clause 4.3.4). The current requirements of 40 mm for dense concrete and 50 mm for
lightweight concrete are conservative in relation to lightweight aggregate where it is
suggested supplementary reinforcement is not required for covers up to 63 mm. The time
taken for the reinforcement to reach a temperature of 550ºC was 360 minutes for the
lightweight aggregate and 260 minutes for the gravel aggregate. The thickness of concrete
cover to limit the rise in temperature for a given size of beam is inversely proportional to
the square root of thermal diffusivity. It is concluded that, for lightweight aggregates a
reduction in cover of about 20% is possible for similar performance in fire. This is
consistent with the provisions in BS 8110.

Discussion
What is of primary interest is how the experimental evidence discussed above relates to
the provisions of the national standard. There is a direct link between the groundbreaking
studies reported in the National Building Studies report and the tabulated values in BS
8110. One useful means of looking at the various inter-relationships between the
provisions of the Codes and the available research results is to start with a standard
solution from the 1948 tabulated values and see how this changes with time. If we take
the simple examples of a solid reinforced concrete slab and a reinforced concrete column
subjected to a four-sided exposure then in some instances very little has changed over the
years. Where no restrictions on the type of aggregate apply and the effect of continuity is
not allowed for the situation is summarised in Table 14 in terms of specified minimum
dimensions and (where appropriate) minimum cover for a fire resistance period of 2 hours.
Source document Solid reinforced concrete Reinforced concrete column Table 14 Code provisions
slab – minimum (4 sided exposure) – minimum
dimension/cover (mm) dimension/cover (mm)
CP 114: 1948 127 305
CP 114: 1957 127/13 305
National Building Studies 127 305
CP 110: 1972 125/20 300
BRE guidelines 125/35 300/35
(BS 8110: 1985/1997)
EN 1992-1-2 120/40* 300/45**
Notes
* Axis distance rather than cover to main steel
** Axis distance rather than cover, based on a load ratio of 0.5
Over the years the codes have been extended to provide more information on the effects
of continuity, the inclusion of prestressed concrete, the use of lightweight concrete, the
choice of aggregate and the depth of cover.
From the data analysis undertaken in this project a number of general conclusions can be
drawn:
• For reinforced concrete walls, the test data supports the provisions of the Code.
• On the basis of the limited data available, load ratio does not have a significant impact
on the performance in fire of reinforced concrete walls.
• For reinforced concrete columns, the test data has highlighted the important influence of
applied load on their performance in fire. This is discussed below in relation to Figure 25.
• For reinforced concrete beams, the test data indicates that the provisions for their fire
resistance are extremely conservative. In some cases measured performance is more
than three times greater than the assumed design value based on the tabulated
approach.
• For restrained (continuous) floor slabs the test data supports the provisions of the Code
in relation to their fire performance
• For simply supported reinforced concrete floor slabs the test data supports the
provisions of the Code in relation to their fire performance.
• For all floor slabs, load ratio does not have a significant influence on the slabs’
performance in fire.
• The provisions of the Code in terms of restrained floor slabs take spalling into account
through a reduction in the minimum value for cover to the main reinforcement.
However, there is some confusion over the use of the terms “restrained” and
“continuous”. There is evidence from standard tests to support the CP 110 approach
based on restraint to thermal expansion (lateral restraint). However, the limited
experimental evidence available19 does not support the view that the same benefits can
be achieved through structural continuity (rotational restraint).

• Spalling severely limits the fire resistance periods for reinforced concrete restrained floor
slabs. Where spalling can be prevented, either through protection to the soffit or a
suitable choice of dimensions, fire resistance periods of up to 6 hours can be achieved
for flat slabs. The prescribed values include the effect of spalling in that they have been
based on the results of specimens where significant spalling took place.
• The provisions for spalling account for a large part of the conservatism inherent in the
Code provisions.
425 Current
Figure 25
Code
Test data for 400
requirements
reinforced
375
concrete
columns 350
325
300
275
250
Time (minutes)
450/35
Section size
and cover 225
200
152/25
175 400/35
254/25
150
279/25
125 300/35
305/25
100
250/30
356/25
75
381/29 200/25
50
406/25 25 150/20
483/25 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Load ratio
Figure 25 shows the relationship between load ratio and fire endurance period for a range
of different section sizes and a small variation in cover. It is important to consider the
results in light of typical values of imposed load on columns in buildings and the reduced
partial factors to be adopted for design for the fire limit state. There are no discrepancies
between the provisions of the Code and the test results at load ratios below approximately
0.5. For column sizes of 254, 279, 305 and 406 mm only one specimen failed before
achieving the required fire resistance period and all these specimens were loaded to
values higher than would be typically in place in a building during a fire. At first sight the
performance of the 381 mm column (29 mm cover) looks of particular concern with six
specimens out of a total of 13 failing to achieve the prescribed level of fire resistance.
However, the values of load ratio for these specimens range from 0.77 to 0.96 (i.e. they fall
within the shaded area). It is highly unlikely that this level of applied load would be
imposed for columns in buildings.
There is therefore no concern over the performance of existing structures based on the
test data used to develop the provisions of the Code. However, this project has highlighted
the need for levels of applied load to be incorporated into the design procedures for
reinforced concrete columns subject to fire. Such an approach is already included in the
fire part of EC2 and will form the basis of fire design procedures in the years to come.
The simplicity of the BS 8110 tabular data, in particular figure 3.2 of BS 8110 Part 12, is of
great benefit to designers. However, an attempt to cover provisions for such a wide range
of concrete members in a single table may lead to unnecessary conservatism. For
hollowcore slabs the results from standard fire tests20 suggest that dimensions

significantly below the tabulated values would provide adequate levels of fire resistance.
As the fire resistance of floor slabs with adequate cover is related to insulation values one
might expect the same to be true of solid slabs.
If the units are sized according to the ambient temperature loading requirements and
simply checked against the provisions of the Code this is a reasonable approach. However,
if they are sized initially on the requirements for fire resistance then they are likely to be
conservative and the potential exists for a reduction in the dimensions to fulfil normal
temperature structural requirements.
This applies not only to prestressed hollowcore units but also to reinforced units cast from
lightweight aggregate. Solid floor units tests20 have shown that 2 hours fire resistance can
be obtained for unprotected floor slabs made using lightweight aggregate with an overall
thickness of 102 mm. This could not be achieved from a simple reliance on tabular data,
which would require a minimum dimension of 115 mm to achieve the 2 hour requirement.
This would suggest that the tabular data is generally conservative. The work by Malhotra21
suggests that a reduction in overall thickness could be justified, based on the effects of
structural continuity and restraint to thermal expansion. Again this is not allowed for in the
Code, which does take into account the increased likelihood of spalling through a
reduction in the minimum value for cover. For downstand beams a fire resistance period
of 2 hours has been achieved with a slab thickness of just 89 mm using lightweight
aggregate.
For floors the critical criteria in terms of minimum dimensions relates to the insulation
properties of the material. In general this will be the critical factor in the choice of the
minimum dimension for floor slabs provided spalling does not take place.
A number of obstacles remain to the development of a more rational approach to the fire
engineering design of concrete structures. There is a wealth of information on the
performance of concrete elements subject to standard fire tests. However, little research
information is available on the performance of concrete structures subject to realistic
(natural) fire exposures. The prescriptive approach adopted in BS 8110 has proved very
effective over a number of years as indicated by the performance of real buildings in real
fires. However, the design methods available in the structural Eurocodes will enable a
performance-based approach to be taken to the design of concrete structures in fire,
leading to a more efficient construction.

Conclusions and
recommendations
The current Code provisions are broadly based on standard fire tests carried out by the
Joint Fire Research Organisation (later FRS) at Borehamwood between 1936 and 1946.
The results from research programmes have been augmented by the results from tests
sponsored by the concrete industry on specific products. When any departure is required
from the tabulated data assessments have to be made from data that has not been
updated or from data obtained from international sources. Whilst in many cases a reliable
assessment can be made, there are a number of areas where the lack of knowledge may
be restricting the economic use of concrete.
Calcareous aggregates such as crushed brick, which give the best performance in the
National Building Studies research, are rarely used nowadays. The majority of concrete is
made from siliceous aggregates such as river gravel or granite. It is therefore appropriate
for the tabulated data to relate to siliceous aggregates as the standard case.
There is evidence that the use of lightweight aggregates gives a much improved
performance in terms of insulation and the incidence of spalling. This is adequately
reflected in the current Code. Evidence of the effect of limestone aggregates compared
with siliceous aggregates is not very clear. Although the Code states that “concretes made
from limestone aggregates are less susceptible to spalling”, this is not borne out from the
results of the National Building Studies report. Unlike previous versions, the current Code
values do not allow for any reduction in requirements based on the use of limestone
aggregates. The BS 8110 approach is therefore valid in this respect.
There is clear evidence from performance in real fires over a number of years that the
tabular approach has proved effective. This study has highlighted a number of design
issues that need to be looked at in a little more detail. In general the provisions of the Code
in terms of minimum cover to the reinforcement are based on limiting the temperature rise,
and therefore the reduction in strength, to values of 550°C and 450°C for reinforcing bars
and prestressing tendons respectively for the prescribed period of fire resistance. The
assumption is that the elements are supporting the full design load at the fire limit state.
This is a conservative assumption and may lead to the inefficient use of concrete in
buildings.
The relationship between load ratio and fire resistance should be explored further. This
concept is already used in European standards for columns and walls through the
introduction of a factor (µfi ) to take account of the load level in the fire situation. The
results from the National Building Studies research reports highlight the important
influence of applied load on the fire endurance of columns.
This study of the background information underpinning the provisions of BS 8110 has
shown that the experimental results support the tabulated data in the Code in relation to
assumed periods of fire resistance. In many cases the provisions are very conservative,
largely due to the requirements related to the prevention of spalling and to the assumption
that concrete elements are fully stressed at the time of the fire.
The provisions of the Code, although drawing extensively on the experimental results
discussed in this report, are also informed by engineering judgement based largely on
observed performance of concrete structures in real fires. The beneficial aspects of
structural continuity provide an enhanced level of safety above that derived from the
results of standard fire tests. The importance of adequate detailing, particularly at
connections between structural members, has been identified as a crucial aspect of the
fire engineering design of concrete structures.
The development of the structural Eurocodes has provided an opportunity for UK
designers to adopt a performance-based approach to designing concrete structures for
the effects of real fires, taking into account the beneficial aspects of whole building
behaviour and the inherent continuity and robustness of properly detailed concrete
buildings.

References
1. BS 8110: Part 2: 1985. Structural use of concrete, Part 2, Code of practice for special
circumstances. British Standards Institution, London, 1985.
2. BS 8110: Part 1: 1997. Structural use of concrete. Part 1, Code of practice for design and
construction. British Standards Institution, London, 1997.
3. Tovey, A K and Crook, R N. Experience of fires in concrete structures, in ACI

Symposium on evaluation and repair of fire damage to concrete. San Francisco, 16 -
21 March, 1986. American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Ref SP-92
4. Hopkinson, J S. Concrete research and fire. Building Research Establishment Note

N14/81 BRE, Garston, 1981.
5. CP 114. The structural use of reinforced concrete in buildings. British Standards

Institution, 1948.
6. CP 114. The structural use of concrete in buildings. British Standards Institution, 1957.
7. Davey, N and Ashton, L A. Investigations on building fires, Part V. Fire tests on structural
elements, National Building Studies Research Paper No. 12, Department of Scientific
and Industrial Research (Building Research Station), HMSO, London, 1953.
8. CP 110. Code of practice for the structural use of concrete, British Standards
Institution, 1972.
9. Anchor, R D. The design of concrete structures for resistance to fire. Building Research
Establishment Note N7/77. BRE, Garston. 1977.
10. Morris, W A, Read, R E H and Cooke, G M E. Guidelines for the construction of fire-
resisting structural elements. Building Research Establishment Report, BR128 BRE,
Garston, 1988 (revised).
11. Thomas, F G and Webster, C T. National Building Studies Research Paper No. 18,
Investigations on building fires, Part VI. The fire resistance of reinforced concrete
columns. Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (Building Research
Station), HMSO, 1953.
12. FIP/CEB. Recommendations for the design of reinforced and prestressed concrete
structural members for fire resistance. FIP Commission on Fire Resistance. Slough,
Cement and Concrete Association for FIP, 1975, FIP Guide to good practice. 19 pp.
13. FIP / CEB. Report on methods of assessment of the fire resistance of concrete structural
members. FIP Commission on Fire Resistance of Prestressed Concrete Structures.
Slough, Cement and Concrete Association for FIP, 1978, 91 pp.
14. Design and detailing of concrete structures for fire resistance: interim guidance by a
joint committee of the Institution of Structural Engineers and The Concrete Society.
London, The Institution, 1978, 59 pp.
15. Building Regulations, 1976. Schedule 8.
16. Building Regulations, 1985. Approved Document B, Fire Safety.
19. prEN 1992-1-2 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1.2: General rules –
Structural fire design, CEN, Brussels, July 2003.

20. Fisher, R W and Smart, P M T. Results of fire resistance tests on elements of building
construction, Volumes 1 and 2. Department of the Environment and Fire Office’s
Committee, Joint Fire Research Organisation, Fire Research Station, Building
Research Establishment, HMSO, 1975 and 1977.
21. Malhotra, H L. Effect of restraint on fire resistance of concrete floors. Fire Research
Note 460, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and Fire Officer’s
Committee, Joint Fire Research Organisation, Borehamwood 1962.
22. The fire resistance of prestressed concrete, Fire Research Note 38, Department of
Scientific and Industrial Research and Fire Officer’s Committee, Joint Fire Research
Organisation, Borehamwood 1952.
23. Ashton, L A. Prestressed concrete during and after fires. Comparative tests on
composite floors in prestressed and reinforced concrete, Fire Research Note 54,
Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and Fire Officer’s Committee, Joint
Fire Research Organisation, Borehamwood 1953.
24. Ashton, L A and Malhotra, H L. The fire resistance of prestressed concrete beams. Fire
Research Note 65, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and Fire Officer’s
Committee, Joint Fire Research Organisation, Borehamwood 1953.
25. Malhotra, H L. Fire resistance of structural concrete beams, Fire Research Note 741,
Ministry of Technology and Fire Offices’ Committee, Joint Fire Research Organisation,
Borehamwood 1969.

Appendix A
Results from National Building Studies Research Paper No. 12
Table A1 Test results for reinforced concrete floors - from investigations on building fires
No. Fire resistance Failure Moisture Thickness Aggregate Cover Spalling Comments Support Span Test load Ref.
period attained criteria content (%) (mm) (mm) (Y/N) (m) (kN/m2)
(minutes)1
1 3600 n/a 7.3 178 Crushed brick 38 N Restraint 3.99 8.1 F63
2 240 n/a 4.4 152 Limestone 13 Y Explosive spalling Restraint 3.99 9.3 F76
3 120 Insulation n/k 152 Limestone 13 Y Explosive spalling Restraint 3.99 9.3 F75
4 180 Insulation n/k 152 Limestone 13 Y Explosive spalling Restraint 3.99 9.3 F72
5 240 n/a 5.2 152 River gravel 13 Y Restraint 3.99 7.2 F67
6 120 Insulation 5.1 140 River gravel 25 N Plaster finish Simple 3.66 2.9 F24
7 120 Insulation 5.1 127 River gravel 13 N Plaster finish Simple 3.66 0 F23
8 120 n/a 4.6 127 River gravel 13 N Plaster finish Simple 3.66 3.3 F22
9 120 Stability 4.3 127 River gravel 25 N Simple 3.66 3.1 F17
11 30 Stability 6.3 114 Limestone 13 Y Explosive spalling Simple 3.66 3.6 F20
12 60 Stability 12.4 114 Crushed brick 13 Y Simple 3.66 4.1 F19
14 60 Stability 4.1 114 River gravel 13 Y Simple 3.66 3.6 F16
15 30 Integrity 5.7 114 River gravel 13 Y Restraint 3.99 7.2 F33
17 60 Integrity n/k 102 River gravel 13 Y Explosive spalling Restraint 3.99 6.7 F77
18 120 n/a n/k 114 Limestone 13 Y Restraint 3.99 6.7 F74
19 60 Insulation 4.6 102 Limestone 13 Y Explosive spalling Restraint 3.99 6.7 F73
20 60 Insulation 4.8 102 Limestone 13 Y Explosive spalling Restraint 3.99 4.8 F71
21 120 n/a 3.8 102 River gravel 13 Y Restraint 3.99 7.2 F68
22 240 n/a 4.1 83 River gravel 13 N Asbestos covering Restraint 3.99 9.3 E3/S1
23 0 Integrity 6.0 83 River gravel 13 Y Plaster finish Restraint 3.99 9.3 F53
24 30 Integrity 3.8 83 Crushed whinstone 13 Y Explosive spalling Restraint 3.99 9.3 F49
25 60 Insulation 4.2 83 Torphin whinstone 13 Y Restraint 3.99 9.3 F48
26 120 n/a 10.7 83 Crushed brick 13 N Restraint 3.99 9.3 F45
27 30 Integrity 5.3 83 River gravel 13 Y Explosive spalling Restraint 3.99 9.3 F34
28 60 Insulation 3.9 190/63 River gravel 25 N Downstand beams Restraint 3.99 9.3 F54
Table A2 Test results for reinforced concrete walls - from investigations on building fires
Fire resistance Failure Moisture Thickness Aggregate Cover Spalling Comments Support Failure Test load Ref. Size (m)
period attained criteria content (mm) (mm) (Y/N) time (kN)
(minutes)1 (%) (minutes)
120 Insulation 3.9 102 Gravel 25 Y Explosive spalling Not known 130 339 W19 3.05 x 3.05
90 Insulation 4.6 102 Gravel 48 Y Surface spalling Restraint 100 - W33 3.05 x 3.05
360 n/a 16.2 203 Crushed brick 25 N No spalling Not known - 1106 W16 3.05 x 3.05
Note
1 Rounded down to nearest full period

Table A3 Test results for reinforced concrete columns - from investigations on building fires
No. Fire resistance period Failure Moisture Size Aggregate Cover Spalling Comments Loaded
attained (minutes)1 criteria content (%) (mm) (mm) (Y/N) (Y/N)
1 60 Not known 4.3 152 x 152 River gravel 25 N Cracking Y
2 60 Stability 4.6 152 x 152 River gravel 25 N Y
4 120 Not known 4.8 254 x 254 Torphin whinstone 25 N Y
5 120 Stability 3.1 254 x 254 Hillhouse whinstone 25 N Y
6 90 Stability 5.5 254 x 254 River gravel 29 Y Steel exposed Y
7 90 Stability 4.7 254 x 254 River gravel 25 Y Steel exposed Y
8 90 Stability 3.4 254 x 254 River gravel 25 N Cracking Y
9 120 Stability 4.9 254 x 254 River gravel 25 N Cracking Y
10 120 n/a 4.0 254 x 254 River gravel 25 Y Y
13 60 Stability 4.9 254 x 254 River gravel 32 Y Y
17 120 n/a 5.3 279 x 279 Hillhouse whinstone 38 Y Y
18 120 n/a 5.7 279 x 279 Torphin whinstone 38 Y Y
19 60 Stability 5.1 279 x 279 River gravel 38 Y Restrained Y
20 120 n/a 4.7 279 x 279 River gravel 38 N Plastered Y
22 120 n/a n/k 279 x 279 Cheddar limestone 38 N Y
23 180 Stability 4.0 279 x 279 Matlock limestone 38 Y Y
24 180 Stability 3.6 279 x 279 Clitheroe limestone 38 N Y
25 120 n/a 4.3 279 x 279 Blast furnace slag 38 N Y
26 180 Stability n/k 279 x 279 River gravel 38 Y Steel mesh Y
29 30 Stability 5.1 305 x 305 River gravel 51 N Cover removed Y
30 60 Not known 3.9 356 x 356 Gravel 38 Y Y
37 60 n/a 5.9 305 x 305 River gravel 13 N Hexagonal Y
38 30 Stability 3.4 305 x 305 River gravel 13 Y Hexagonal Y
39 120 n/a 5.2 356 x 356 River gravel 13 Y Hexagonal Y
41 90 Stability 5.0 406 x 406 River gravel 13 N Hexagonal Y
43 120 Stability 4.8 508 x 508 River gravel 13 Y Hexagonal Y
Note

Table A4 Test results for reinforced concrete beams - from investigations on building fires
No. Fire resistance period Failure Moisture Size Aggregate Cover Spalling Comments Loaded
attained (minutes)1 criteria content (%) (mm) (mm) (Y/N) (Y/N)
1 180 Stability 4.3 102/140 River gravel 51 N Downstand Restraint
3 120 Stability 4.0 102/140 River gravel 25 Y Downstand Restraint
5 240 n/a 6.4 102/140 Torphin whinstone 38 Y Downstand Restraint
6 180 Stability 5.4 102/140 Brick/gravel 38 N Downstand Restraint
7 120 n/a 4.7 305 River gravel 25 Y Rectangular Restraint
Note

Appendix B
Results from National Building Studies Research Paper No. 18
Table B1 Test results for reinforced concrete columns - from investigations on building fires
No. Fire endurance period Failure Moisture Thickness Cube strength at Age Cover Reinforcement Comments Load
attained (minutes)1 criteria content (%)2 (mm) time of test (N/mm2) (days) (mm) ratio (kN)
1 56 Spalling 305 x 305 22 295 22 1.6 Sloughing of corners 747
2 83 Cracking & spalling 280 x 280 28 238 25 1.46 Sloughing of corners 747
6 71 Cracking & spalling 4.2 356 x 356 29 315 25 1.6 Sloughing of corners 1495
34 351 cracking & spalling 2.3 483 x 483 27 251 29 1.9 Sloughing of corners 997
37 98 Cracking & spalling 4.7 254 x 254 38* 32 25 0.7 Sloughing of corners 623
38 103 Cracking 3.4 254 x 254 36* 44 25 0.7 Chamfered edges 658
39 120 Explosive spalling 5.9 406 x 406 27* 40 25 0.9 Chamfered edges 1231
41 120 Cracking & spalling 4.0 254 x 254 36* 251 25 0.7 Chamfered edges 463
47 120 Did not fail 279 x 279 36* 167 32 4.0 Chamfered edges 912
50 83 Cracking & spalling 5.1 279 x 279 29 36 32 4.0 Chamfered edges 608
51 189 Cracking & spalling 279 x 279 29* 45 32 4.0 Chamfered edges 608
53 120 Did not fail 4.3 279 x 279 25* 57 32 4.0 Chamfered edges 907
Notes 1 Rounded down to nearest full period 2 Where measured * Cube strength at 28 days

Appendix C
Results of fire resistance tests on elements of building construction
Table C1 Test results for concrete floors - from results of fire resistance tests on elements of construction
No. Fire resistance Failure Thickness Comments Support
period attained criteria (mm)
(minutes)1
1 240 Not applicable 51/254 Prestressed concrete T beam incorporating 76 mm structural topping Restraint
2 30 Not known 102 Hollow prestressed Aglite beams incorporating 38 mm structural topping Not known
3 30 Insulation 51/254 Reinforced concrete T form floor Not known
4 30 Insulation 56/254 Reinforced concrete T form floor Not known
5 60 Not known 127 Hollow prestressed floor units incorporating 32 mm structural topping Not known
6 60 Not known 159 Hollow prestressed floor units incorporating 32 mm structural topping Not known
7 60 Not known 152 Reinforced aerated concrete slabs Not known
8 60 Not known 152 Prestressed concrete hollow units Not known
9 60 Not known 102 Prestressed concrete hollow units with 51 mm structural topping Not known
10 60 Not known 89 Concrete rib floor (rib depth not known) Not known
11 60 Not known 305 Prestressed concrete jointed double T beam incorporating 51 mm structural topping Not known
12 120 Not known 140 Prestressed concrete plank floor including structural topping and screed Not known
13 120 Not known 152 Aerated concrete slab floor incorporating 38 mm screed Not known
14 120 Not known 229 Reinforced concrete floor slab and beam Not known
15 120 Not known 178 Reinforced aerated concrete floor slabs Not known
16 120 Not known 102 Aglite concrete floor slab Not known
17 120 Not known 159 Prestressed hollow floor slab incorporating 51 mm structural topping Not known
18 120 Not known 152 Prestressed hollow floor slab Not known
19 120 Not known 178 Reinforced hollow concrete slabs Not known
20 120 Not known 150 Reinforced concrete units Not known
21 240 Not known 159 Prestressed hollow units with suspended ceiling Not known
22 60 Not known 89 Reinforced concrete floor slab Not known
Table C2 Test results for concrete columns - from results of fire resistance tests on elements of construction
No. Fire resistance period Failure Thickness Comments Support
attained (minutes)1 criteria (mm)
1 Failed reload test Reload 229 x 229 Achieved 120 minutes stability but failed reload test Not known
2 Reload test could not be applied Stability 180 x 180 Achieved 90 minutes stability prior to failure Not known
7 120 Stability 229 x 229 ‘Lytag’ aggregate Not known
8 120 Stability 292 x 292 Prestressed concrete Not known
9 120 Stability 203 x 203 Capstone column Not known
Table C3 Test results for reinforced concrete beams - from investigations on building fires
No. Fire resistance Failure Thickness Comments Support
period attained criteria (mm)
(minutes)1
1 Failed reload test Reload 51/254 Prestressed concrete double T beam - achieved 90 minutes stability but failed reload test Not known
Note

Appendix D
Results from Fire Research Note 741
Table D1 Summary of test results for prestressed concrete beams

No. Time (minutes) Beam type Age Cover Design fire Load Spalling Mean Time to
to reach critical (months) (mm) resistance (kN) (Y/N) reinforcement max temp
deflection l/30 (minutes) temperature (deg C) (minutes)
1 256 R/PO/W/SR 28 100 240 187 Y 395 255
2 251 R/PO/W/SR 29 100 240 187 Y 400 250
3 – /PR/W/X 35 50 90 97 Y 80 32
4 98 /PR/S/SR 26 50 90 97 Y 410 95
5 195 /PR/S/X(VG) 33 50 150 97 N 350 195
6 264 R/PO/S/SR 37 100 240 210 (52.5) Y 445 105
7 – R/PO/S/SR 36 100 240 185 (46) Y 440 280
Note
All 7.6 m span, except for 6 and 7, which are 11.3 m
Key
R Rectangular PR Pre-tensioned
section W Wire tendons
S Strands VG Vermiculite-gypsum plaster
SR Supplementary reinforcement – Collapse
X No supplementary reinforcement
PO Post-tensioned Figures in brackets are end loads
Table D2 Summary of test results for reinforced concrete beams

No. Time (minutes) Beam type Age Cover Design fire Load Spalling Mean
to reach critical (months) (mm) resistance (kN) (Y/N) reinforcement
deflection l/30 (minutes) temperature (deg C)
8 – DG/MS/X 34 63 240 165 Y 492
9 – DG/CD/X 36 63 240 151 Y 455
10 – DG/CT/X 26 63 240 151 Y 520
11 – DG/HR/X 26 63 240 151 Y 500
12 400 LC/MS/X 34 63 240 165 N 545
13 416 LS/MS/X 32 63 240 165 N 490
14 162 DG/MS/SR 18 63 240 165 Y 495
15 288 DG/HR/SR 18 63 240 151 Y 635
16 270 DG/CT/SR 18 63 240 151 Y 560
17 256 DG/HR/SR 18 38 90 165 Y 640
18 160 DG/HR/X 18 38 90 165 Y 600
19 158 DG/HR/X 18 25 60 169 Y 600
20 – DG/MS/X 40 63 240 333 (83) Y 495
21 – DG/CD/X 38 63 240 318 (79) Y 500
Note
All 7.6 m spans, except for 20 and 21, which are 11.3 m
Key
DG Dense gravel HR Hot rolled alloy steel
LC Lightweight expanded clay SR Supplementary reinforcement
LS Lightweight foamed slag X No supplementary reinforcement
MS Mild steel – Collapse
CD Cold worked deformed steel
CT Cold worked twisted steel Figures in brackets are end loads

Related titles on concrete and fire

Approaches to the design of reinforced concrete flat slabs
R M Moss. BRE Report BR 422, 2001, 47 pages.
The choice of design method should be based on what is appropriate for the structure, on the designer’s experience, and on what is
likely to benefit the client most. This report gives pointers as to how existing design guidance and methods could be developed and
made more user-friendly, particularly with the advent of Eurocode 2. It points out issues for the Permanent Works Designer to consider
as a result of the desire to strike slabs earlier and speed up the construction process.
Backprop forces and deflections in flat slabs: construction at St George Wharf

R Vollum. BRE Report BR 463, 2004, 35 pages.
Analysis of backprop forces measured at the European Concrete Building Project’s in-situ concrete frame building at Cardington
showed that the upper floor carried a greater proportion of the load from casting the slab above than that conventionally assumed. This
was investigated at St George Wharf by measuring backprop forces during construction. The work confirms that most of the conclusions
from research into construction loading and deflection at Cardington are valid for practical purposes.
Best practice in concrete frame construction: practical application at St George Wharf

R M Moss. BRE Report 462, 2003, 20 pages.
This report demonstrates the practical benefits of adopting many of the innovative features and techniques used in the design and
construction of the in-situ concrete frame building at Cardington, for which a series of Best Practice guides and companion reports is
available. Details are given of the application of innovations to a live project involving the construction of a large residential and mixed-
use development.
Effect of polypropylene fibres on performance in fire of high grade concrete

N Clayton and T Lennon. BRE Report BR 395, 2000, 32 pages.
Based on fire tests of concrete columns, this report gives information and recommendations on the use of polypropylene fibres to
improve the performance of high grade concrete in fire. Incorporating polypropylene fibres into the mix prevented spalling but led to no
difference in the ability of the columns to survive the fire test. Separate tests showed that addition of fibres to the concrete led to a
reduced cube compressive strength, which needs to be allowed for in design.
Fire safety engineering: a reference guide

R Chitty and J Fraser-Mitchell. BRE Report 459, 2003, 109 pages.
This guide provides basic descriptions for key topics in fire safety engineering and aspects that should be considered by designers,
enforcers and other responsible persons. It is a reference for those who only occasionally encounter fire safety engineering or are new
to the subject. For experienced practitioners it provides a useful short cut to information in detailed references. The text is formatted so
that users can annotate their copy to build a personalised reference on fire safety engineering.
Performance of high grade concrete containing polypropylene fibres for fire resistance: the effect on strength
N Clayton. BRE Report BR 384, 2000, 16 pages.
This study accompanies research into the possible enhancement of fire resistance of high grade concrete by polypropylene fibres.
Addition of fibres caused a small reduction of cube strength, which was related to the reduction in density due to the addition of the
fibres. It may affect the design of structural elements, but there is no significant loss of flexural or cylinder splitting strength from the
addition of polypropylene fibres.
Precast hollowcore slabs in fire

T Lennon. Information Paper 5/03, 2003, 4 pages.
Two full-scale fire tests were carried out at BRE’s Large Building Test Facility at Cardington. The objectives were to assess the adequacy
of precast hollowcore slabs in terms of the functional requirements of Approved Document B of the Building Regulations. This paper
explains the background, describes the test parameters in detail and summarises the results and conclusions.
For more information, visit www.brebookshop.com or email brebookshop@ihsrapidoc.com.

Fire safety of concrete structures:

Tom Lennon
The background to methods for establishing the fire resistance of

concrete structures specified in BS 8110, the British Standard code of
practice for structural concrete, has been investigated. In particular,
research and test results dating back some 60 years, which have
underpinned the tabulated data in all the codes of practice since 1948,
have been examined and revisited
This publication brings together information derived from testing and

research carried out over a number of years. There was a danger that
the work supporting the development of codes and standards could
have been lost. Collating and assessing the relevant information means
that the lessons from the past are recorded and used to help define the
strategy for the next generation of codes and standards.
The investigations underpinning this publication found that the

experimental results used as data for developing the tabulated
approach in BS 8110 fully supported the provisions of the code in
relation to assumed periods of fire resistance. Furthermore in many
cases these provisions were found to be conservative as they were
based on the assumption that structural elements were fully stressed
at the fire limit state and take into account the spalling characteristics
of concrete.
Evidence from performance in real fires over a number of years

demonstrates that the tabular approach to determining fire resistance
of concrete elements has been effective. It is suggested that further
research could result in greater economies in construction and cost for
concrete structures.
BRE Bookshop
Building Research Establisment
Watford WD25 9XX
Tel: 01923 664761
Fax: 01923 662477 BR 468
email: brebookshop@emap.com ISBN 1 86081 693 2

Fire Safety of Concrete Structures:: Background To BS 8110 Fire Design

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fire Safety of Concrete Structures:: Background To BS 8110 Fire Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fire Report 3004 17/6/04 7:49 am Page 1

BRE is committed to providing impartial

BRE is the UK’s leading centre of expertise

Details of BRE publications are available from:

Published by BRE Bookshop

Requests to copy any part of this publication

Fire safety of concrete structures: Background to BS 8110 fire design 3

4 Fire safety of concrete structures: Background to BS 8110 fire design

Description of the project

The assistance of the following is gratefully acknowledged:

Fire safety of concrete structures: Background to BS 8110 fire design 5

Thickness of concrete slab and solid

6 Fire safety of concrete structures: Background to BS 8110 fire design

Walls and partitions1

Class 2 aggregates 228 178 102 76 76

Solid reinforced concrete slab 178 152 127 102 89

Reinforced concrete columns

There is a clear recognition of the flexibility of reinforced concrete in providing fire

Fire safety of concrete structures: Background to BS 8110 fire design 7

Reinforced concrete solid slab

8 Fire safety of concrete structures: Background to BS 8110 fire design

BS 8110: 1985 and 1997

Fire safety of concrete structures: Background to BS 8110 fire design 9

Reinforced simply supported

Reinforced continuously supported

Prestressed simply supported

Prestressed continuously supported

10 Fire safety of concrete structures: Background to BS 8110 fire design

Reinforced simply supported

Reinforced continuously supported

Prestressed simply supported

Prestressed continuously supported

Fire safety of concrete structures: Background to BS 8110 fire design 11

Reinforced simply supported

Reinforced continuously supported

Prestressed simply supported

Walls made from dense

Walls made from dense

Walls made from 190/25 160/25 130/25 115/25 100/20 100/10

Walls made from dense

12 Fire safety of concrete structures: Background to BS 8110 fire design

Figure 1 Relationship between documents

Design and detailing of

FIP/CEB Report on Guidelines for the

Guidelines for the

Fire safety of concrete structures: Background to BS 8110 fire design 13

Comparison between tabulated

14 Fire safety of concrete structures: Background to BS 8110 fire design

National Building Studies research papers

Reinforced concrete floors

Fire safety of concrete structures: Background to BS 8110 fire design 15

127/13 Plaster finish

Fire resistance assumed 0

16 Fire safety of concrete structures: Background to BS 8110 fire design

25 Fire endurance measured

Fire resistance assumed

Fire safety of concrete structures: Background to BS 8110 fire design 17

250 152/13 182/13 152/13

Failure mode 175 150/35

Figure 6 Comparison of measured and 425

assumed design values based on depth of 400

Fire endurance measured 25

18 Fire safety of concrete structures: Background to BS 8110 fire design