Structures Congress 2011 © ASCE 2011 2929

Analysis of Creep Buckling of Steel Columns Subjected to

Fire

M. A. Morovat1, J. Lee1, M. D. Engelhardt1, T. A. Helwig1 and E. M. Taleff2

Ferguson Structural Engineering Laboratory, Dept. of Civil, Architectural and

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 03/30/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Environmental Eng., Univ. of Texas at Austin, 10100 Burnet Road, Building 177,
Austin, Texas 78758 USA; PH (512) 471-4476; email: morovatma@mail.utexas.edu,
jinwoo@mail.utexas.edu, mde@mail.utexas.edu, thelwig@mail.utexas.edu
2
Dept. of Mechanical Eng., Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712 USA; email:
taleff@mail.utexas.edu

ABSTRACT
One of the critical factors affecting the strength of steel columns at elevated
temperatures is the influence of material creep. Under fire conditions, steel columns
can exhibit creep buckling, a phenomenon in which the critical buckling load for a
column depends not only on slenderness and temperature, but also on the duration of
applied load. Although material creep and consequently the phenomenon of creep
buckling can significantly impact the safety of steel columns subjected to fire, they
have received relatively little research attention, and are not currently explicitly
considered in code-based design formula for columns at elevated temperatures, such
as those in the Eurocode 3 or in the AISC Specification.
This paper will propose a preliminary methodology to study the phenomenon of
creep buckling in steel columns subjected to fire. Preliminary analytical solutions are
presented, and compared with computational predictions for creep buckling. The
analytical and computational results clearly indicate that accurate knowledge of
material creep is essential in studying creep buckling phenomenon at elevated
temperatures. In addition, the results show that neglecting creep effects can lead to
erroneous and potentially unsafe predictions of the strength of steel columns
subjected to fire.

INTRODUCTION
The essence of performance-based structural fire safety design of steel building
structures is the ability to predict thermal and structural response to fire. An important
aspect of such predictions is the ability to evaluate strength of columns at elevated
temperatures. Columns are critical structural elements, and failure of columns can
lead to collapse of a structure. One of the critical factors affecting the strength of steel
columns at elevated temperatures is the influence of material creep. Under fire
conditions, steel columns can exhibit creep buckling, a phenomenon in which the
critical buckling load for a column depends not only on slenderness and temperature,

Structures Congress 2011

 Structures Congress 2011 © ASCE 2011 2930

but also on duration of applied load. This paper presents some results of an on-going
research on the phenomenon of high-temperature creep buckling of steel columns.

Creep of Steel at Elevated Temperatures

The term creep refers to time-dependent strain response of materials, or more
generally to time- and rate-dependent stress-strain response. At normal temperatures,
the stress-strain response of steel shows only a very mild dependence on loading rate,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 03/30/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

for typical loading rates seen in buildings. Yield stress variations on the order of 10-
percent are possible as loading rates are varied (Galambos 1998). Although showing
mild rate dependence, steel shows virtually no time-dependent strain (i.e., creep
strain) at normal temperatures, and creep effects are normally neglected in the
analysis and design of steel structures at normal temperatures. However, as
temperature increases, steel exhibits increasingly significant creep effects. The
temperature of structural steel members in a building fire can vary widely. However,
as a point of reference, unprotected steel in building fires can reach temperatures on
the order of 1000 °C (Buchanan 2002). Steel protected with insulation
(“fireproofing”) can reach temperatures of 550 °C (Buchanan 2002). At these
temperatures, the effects of creep on the response of structural steel can be very
significant. Creep tests on materials are commonly conducted by subjecting the
material to constant stress and temperature, and then measuring strain (creep strain)
as a function of time. A typical creep strain versus time curve is shown in Figure 1.
This curve is often divided into the three phases of primary, secondary and tertiary
creep. In the primary stage, the curve is nonlinear and typically exhibits a decreasing
creep strain rate with increase in time. In the secondary stage, the creep strain rate is
almost constant, and this stage is often referred to as steady-state creep. In the tertiary
stage, the creep strain rate increases with time. For steel, the shape of the curve, the
magnitude of the creep strain, and the time scale are highly dependent on temperature
and stress levels.

Figure 1. Typical creep strain versus time response under constant stress and
temperature.

The creep behavior of steel at elevated temperatures has been studied and reported
by several researchers (Norton 1929, Bailey 1930, Dorn 1954, Harmathy 1967,
Knight, Skinner and Lay 1971, Williams-Leir 1983, Fields and Fields 1989, and

Structures Congress 2011

 Structures Congress 2011 © ASCE 2011 2931

Luecke et al 2005). One of the simplest and most widely used creep models is the
Norton-Bailey model, also known as creep power law (Norton 1929, and Bailey
1930). It should be noted that although the Norton-Bailey law is capable of modeling
primary creep, it can define the steady-state or secondary stage of creep more
accurately. One of the widely used creep models in structural-fire applications
proposed by Fields and Fields (1989) incorporates a power law and represents creep
strain, εc, in the form of a Norton-Bailey equation as follows:

εc = a tb σc (1)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 03/30/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

In this equation, t is time and σ is stress. The parameters A, B and C are

temperature-dependent material properties. Fields and Fields (1989) derived
equations for these temperature-dependent material properties for ASTM A36 steel.
As a result, the creep model developed by Fields and Fields (1989) were used by
NIST in their analysis of the WTC 1 and 2 collapses (NIST 2005). The model
developed by Fields and Fields (1989) is capable of predicting creep in the
temperature range of 350 °C to 600 °C and for creep strains up to 6-percent. For
initial studies of creep buckling of steel columns at elevated temperature, one of the
creep models used by the authors was the Fields and Fields (1989) model. The
application of this creep model together with observations will be discussed in more
detail in the following sections of this paper.
Another creep model used by the authors in their study of creep buckling
phenomenon at high temperatures is the one developed by Harmathy (1967).
Harmathy (1967) appears to be one of the first investigators who attempted at
developing creep formula for structural steels subjected to fire exposure. Harmathy
proposed a creep model based on experiments on several structural and prestressing
steels including ASTM A36. His model attempts to predict creep strains in both the
primary and secondary stages of creep. The model proposed by Harmathy represents
creep strain, εc, for steel as follows:

σ
ε 3Zε ₀ θ Zθ when 0 (2)

In this equation, θ is the temperature-compensated time in Dorn’s creep theory, Z

is the slope of the secondary part of the creep curve, also known as the Zener-
Hollomon parameter (Zener and Hollomon 1967), and εc0 is the intercept obtained by
extending the straight-line section (secondary part) of the εc(θ) curve to the εc axis.
The parameters εc₀, and Z are stress-dependent material parameters.
Although models developed by Fields and Fields (1989) and Harmathy (1967)
are referenced by many investigators in the field of structural-fire engineering, their
predictions of creep strain for some applied stress levels and temperatures are quite
different. As an example, predictions from these two models for ASTM A36 steel are
compared and plotted in Figure 2 for an applied stress of 23 ksi at 500 °C. As can be
observed from this plot, the differences in the two models are significant. This
difference in creep predictions and its impact on creep buckling behavior will be
discussed in the following sections and emphasized throughout this paper.

Structures Congress 2011

 Structures Congress 2011 © ASCE 2011 2932
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 03/30/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 2. Comparison between Fields and Fields (1989) and Harmathy (1967) models at
23 ksi and 500 °C.

Creep Buckling of Steel Columns at Elevated Temperatures

The term creep buckling, as used herein, refers to the phenomenon in which the
critical buckling stress for a column depends not only on slenderness and temperature
of the column, but also on the duration of the applied load. The concept of creep
buckling is illustrated qualitatively in Figure 3. This figure plots buckling stress for a
steel column of given effective slenderness KL/r, for different temperatures.
Temperature T1 represents room temperature, for which creep effects are not
significant. In this case, the buckling stress is independent of the duration of applied
load.
As temperature increases, the initial buckling load (at time zero) decreases, due to
the decrease in material strength, modulus and proportional limit. Consequently, the
buckling capacity at initial application of load depends only on temperature. This
phenomenon has been studied by a number of past investigators. But, as temperature
increases and material creep becomes significant, the buckling stress depends not
only on temperature, but also on the duration of load application. Thus, in a fire
scenario, initially a column at elevated temperature may be safely carrying its load.
However, after a period of time, even though the load and temperature have not
changed, the column may buckle. This time-dependent creep buckling phenomenon
has seen only very limited study in structural-fire engineering research, but is
potentially of great importance.

Figure 3. Qualitative representation of creep buckling.

Structures Congress 2011

 Structures Congress 2011 © ASCE 2011 2933

Freudenthal (1946) was one of the first researchers who attempted to solve creep
buckling analytically. One year later, Marin (1947) suggested an analytical model to
predict creep deflections in columns. Shanley (1952) studied creep buckling behavior
of columns for aircraft applications and came up with a model based on the concept
of time-dependent tangent modulus. A complete account of creep buckling testing
programs in the fifties and sixties is provided by Singer, Arbocz, and Weller (2002).
Hoff (1957), and Eggwertez (1976) did early work on the effect of creep on high-
temperature behavior of steel columns. More recently, Tan et al. (2002) incorporating
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 03/30/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Harmathy’s creep model, developed a finite element program to study the buckling of
steel columns at elevated temperatures.
To better evaluate the potential importance of creep buckling in structural-fire
engineering applications, preliminary creep buckling analyses have been conducted
by the authors. These analyses, analytical and computational, attempt to predict the
elevated-temperature creep buckling strength of simply supported steel columns. For
these analyses, a W12×120 section made of A36 steel is considered for both the
analytical and numerical studies. Moreover, the effective slenderness ratio is kept
constant by considering only one single column length of 240 inches.
For the analytical creep buckling studies, the creep buckling model proposed by
Rabotnov and Shesterikov (1957) is utilized, along with the creep material models
developed by Harmathy (1967) and by Fields and Fields (1989), both for ASTM A36
steel. It should be noted that the model by Rabotnov and Shesterikov (1957) has been
adopted, after a fairly comprehensive review of the literature on creep buckling, due
to its simple form. In developing their creep buckling model, Rabotnov and
Shesterikov (1957) make the fundamental assumption that creep strain rate depends
only on the stress and creep strain and not on the history of loading. In other words,

σ, ε , ε 0 or ε F σ, ε (3)

In which both and F are functions expressing material creep, ε is the creep strain,
and ε is the creep strain rate. With this assumption, the creep buckling equation can
be shown to have the following form,
P
(4)
PE Eλ⁄μ

in which, E is the temperature-dependent Young’s modulus, PE is the Euler buckling

load at elevated temperatures, and λ and μ are material parameters defined as follows,

λ μ (5)
σ ε

Using the material creep models by Harmathy (1967) and Fields and Fields (1989),
equations for material parameters μ and λ can be derived according to Equation (5).
Equation (4), which again represents creep buckling capacity, has a simpler form
when the material creep model by Fields and Fields (1989) is used to get parameters μ
and λ. Equation (4) together with the Fields and Fields (1989) creep material model
has the following form,

Structures Congress 2011

 Structures Congress 2011 © ASCE 2011 2934

P P
or ⁄
(6)
PE E PE E

Equation (6) clearly shows that at constant stress and temperature, creep buckling
capacity is inversely proportional to creep strain. This fact is also represented
graphically in Figure 4, in which equivalent creep and creep buckling capacity curves
are plotted together at 400 °C. Therefore, like the creep curve at constant stress and
temperature, the buckling capacity curve changes with time and ends at a failure point
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 03/30/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

at which the buckling capacity is equal to the applied load. Another useful
observation is that there is a specific creep strain corresponding to the buckling
failure. The time to reach this specific creep strain and consequently the creep
buckling load is considered to be the failure time or time-to-buckle. By considering
other constant load levels, one can generate more buckling capacity curves at the
same temperature. Figure 5(a) plots these curves, which will be referred to as iso-load
creep buckling capacity curves at a constant temperature of 400 °C. Again, these
curves end at creep buckling loads which are the same as the corresponding applied
loads. The envelope to these curves at the buckling failure points is what we refer to
as the creep buckling curve or the time-dependent buckling curve throughout this
paper and is shown in Figure 5(b). It is also possible to use Equation (6) directly to
solve for creep buckling load. Since at buckling σ = σcr = Pcr /A, Equation (6) can be
rewritten as follows,
E
P t P PE (7)
A

in which A is the cross sectional area of the column. Equation (7) can be solved
iteratively to get the Pcr as a function of time at constant temperature. In other words,
Equation (7) can be used directly to construct the creep buckling curve at a specific
temperature.

Figure 4. Graphical representation of the concept of creep buckling at 400 °C.

Structures Congress 2011

 Structures Congress 2011 © ASCE 2011 2935
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 03/30/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 5. Iso-load buckling capacity curves and the creep buckling envelope at 400 °C.

As a final note on the analytical formulation, it should be added that this method
disregards any initial imperfections and assumes a perfectly straight column.
Moreover, this method predicts the Euler buckling load as the zero-time buckling
load at any given temperature. To be more specific, this method only considers time-
dependent inelasticity and ignores time-independent inelasticity due to the applied
load at time zero. To have a more sensible model, a cap was placed on the maximum
predicted buckling strength to reflect the effects of inelasticity and initial crookedness
at time zero. For instance, the Euler buckling load for the column in consideration is
1198 kips at 400 °C. The results of load-deflection analysis on ABAQUS® assuming
an initial imperfection of L/1000 and including material inelasticity showed a
buckling load of 885 kips, which is shown in Figure 5.
Figures 6(a) and 6(b) show representative results of the analysis considering both
material creep models. In these figures, plots of buckling load as a function of time
are presented. Results are shown for temperatures of 400 °C to 700 °C. Although this
is just a rudimentary study, these results show the potentially enormous impact of
creep on buckling. At 500 °C and higher temperatures, the buckling strength of the
column after just 20-minutes is reduced to about one-half of its value at initial
application of load.

(a) Fields’ and Fields’ material model (b) Harmathy’s material model
Figure 6. Analytical predictions of creep buckling using Rabotnov–Shesterikov method.

Structures Congress 2011

 Structures Congress 2011 © ASCE 2011 2936

As a next step, computational predictions of creep buckling were developed using

ABAQUS®. In order to simulate creep buckling on ABAQUS®, first, temperature is
increased to the desired level, and then a fraction of the zero-time buckling load is
applied to the column. No material creep is considered in these two steps. Next, the
column is allowed to creep over the time period of 50 hours under the sustained load.
Finally, the time-to-buckle due to creep is estimated. It should be pointed out here
that to get the zero-time buckling load, an inelastic load-deflection analysis has to be
performed. This has been done in ABAQUS® by using a nonlinear analysis scheme
called a Riks Analysis. Moreover, to model initial geometric imperfections, an Eigen-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 03/30/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

value buckling analysis was performed. The initial shape of the column was taken as
the shape of the first buckling mode, and the magnitude of the imperfection was
chosen as a fraction of the column length. As far as material modeling is concerned,
the inelastic material model at elevated temperatures was defined according to
Eurocode 3 (2003), and the creep material model is the one proposed by Fields and
Fields (1989), explained in the previous section. 3D hexahedral eight-node linear
brick elements, C3D8R, have been utilized to model the columns on ABAQUS®.
As an example, the results of creep buckling simulations for the temperature of
500 °C and an initial out-of-straightness of L/1000 are presented in Figure 7 as plots
of creep deflection versus time at different load levels. Figure 7 clearly shows that the
rate of change of deflection with time increases very slowly up to an inflection point
and then increases more rapidly until the column no longer can support its load. The
time at which column becomes instable is considered as the failure time or time-to-
buckle in this study.
Curves like the one presented in Figure 7 can be used to construct time-dependent
column buckling curves, a sample of which is shown in Figure 8. Figure 8 simply
presents buckling load as a function of time for different initial imperfections at 500
°C. To better gage the effect of temperature on time-dependent column buckling,
Figure 9 compares buckling curves at three different temperatures. As can be
expected, the higher the temperature, the more significant are the creep effects on
column buckling behavior. It should be emphasized here that creep buckling curves
like the ones shown in Figures 8 and 9, clearly show the possible danger of high-
temperature design of steel columns just based on the zero-time buckling loads
thereby ignoring the effect of duration of the applied load.

Figure 7. Lateral deflections due Figure 8. Creep buckling curves at

to creep at 500 °C and Δo = L/1000. 500 °C considering different initial
imperfections.

Structures Congress 2011

 Structures Congress 2011 © ASCE 2011 2937

Creep buckling predictions from analytical and computational methods are

compared at 500 °C and presented in Figure 10. The analytical predictions are for a
perfect column, while the computational one is for a column with L/1000 initial
crookedness. As can be seen in Figure 10, these three curves follow the same trend
after about 10 minutes. The difference between these predictions after 10 minutes is
related to the difference in predictions of the material models and inclusion of time-
independent inelasticity in the computational method. The interesting part though is at
times of less than 10 minutes. This initial difference may be related to the effect of
initial imperfection on the zero-time buckling load. On the other hand, it can
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 03/30/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

probably also be related to the fact that Harmathy’s and Fields’ and Fields’ models
consider primary creep quite differently, especially at high level of stresses as shown
in Figure 2. In any event, this seems to be an interesting observation and any solid
conclusion requires more accurate experimental information regarding material creep
behavior at elevated temperatures.

Figure 9. Computational creep Figure 10. Comparison between analytical

buckling curves at Δo = L/1000. and computational creep buckling
predictions at 500 °C.

Comparison with AISC and EC3 Predictions

In this section results obtained from analytical and computational creep buckling
analyses presented in the previous sections will be compared with the corresponding
elevated temperature column strength predictions of AISC (2011) and Eurocode 3
(2003).
It should be pointed out here that formula to predict column strength at high
temperatures in Appendix 4 of the 2011 edition of the AISC Specification for
Structural Steel Buildings are based on work by Takagi and Deierlein (2007). Both
the Eurocode 3 column strength formula and that proposed by Takagi and Deierlein
predict column strength as a function of temperature, but do not consider duration of
load and temperature exposure; i.e., they do not consider creep buckling effects.
These formulas are based on computational studies using elevated-temperature stress-
strain curves for steel that do not explicitly include creep effects, and are verified
against high-temperature column buckling experiments that also did not explicitly
consider time dependent effects on buckling.

Structures Congress 2011

 Structures Congress 2011 © ASCE 2011 2938

Figure 11 depicts the comparison of creep buckling predictions from ABAQUS®

and Rabotnov-Shesterikov with the ones from Eurocode 3 (2006) and AISC (2011).
Generally speaking, it can be observed that code-based predictions underestimate
creep buckling time, especially at higher temperatures like at 600 °C as shown in
Figure 11(c). The problem with code-based predictions of creep buckling becomes
more evident when analytical creep buckling predictions using Harmathy’s material
creep model are compared against code-based ones, as shown in Figures 11(b), 11(c)
and 11(d). It is also interesting to note that as temperatures get higher, analytical and
computational buckling predictions using the Fields and Fields material creep model
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 03/30/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

get closer, suggesting that the effect of creep is perhaps more important in overall
inelastic buckling behavior at higher temperatures. Observations like these clearly
show the significance of the need for more reliable creep data for structural steel.

Figure 11. Comparison between computational, analytical, using both Fields and Fields
and Harmathy creep models, and code-based creep buckling predictions.

CONCLUSIONS
This paper has presented some results of on-going research on the time-dependent
buckling behavior of steel columns subjected to fire. Studies were conducted using a
3D finite element model incorporating both geometric and material nonlinearities.
Analytical solutions were also developed to consider material creep effects on the
overall time-dependent buckling. A number of factors that influence the time-
dependent buckling behavior of steel columns in fire have been investigated,
including the initial imperfection of columns.

10

Structures Congress 2011

 Structures Congress 2011 © ASCE 2011 2939

It is clear from results obtained during this research that having an accurate
knowledge of material creep is essential in predicting column buckling behavior at
elevated temperatures. In addition, results show that neglecting creep effects can lead
to erroneous and potentially unsafe predictions of the strength of steel columns
subjected to fire. Columns are critical elements that affect the safety of structures
during a fire. Consequently, a thorough understanding of column behavior during fire
events is essential for developing appropriate analysis and design approaches. The
research presented in this paper is on-going. The next stages of this research will
involve a series of elevated temperature experiments on column specimens to provide
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 03/30/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

further understanding of the time-dependent behavior and controlling failure modes

of the column as far as creep is concerned. It will also provide further data for
validation of modeling techniques.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The research reported herein was conducted as part of a research project on Creep
Buckling of Steel Columns Subjected to Fire supported by the National Science
Foundation (NSF Award 0927819). The support of the National Science Foundation
and of NSF Program Director M.P. Singh is gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). (2011). Specification for Structural
Steel Buildings. Standard ANSI/AISC 360-11, Chicago, IL.
ABAQUS (2007). ABAQUS Version 6.7 User’s Manual. Hibbitt, Karlsson, &
Sorensen, Inc., Pawtucket, RI.
Bailey, R.W. (1930). “Creep of Steel under Simple and Compound Stress.”
Engineering, 121, 265.
Buchanan, A.H. (2002). Structural Design for Fire Safety, John Wiley & Sons Inc.,
New York.
Dorn, J.E. (1954). “Some Fundamental Experiments on High Temperature Creep.”
Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 3, 85.
Eggwertez, S. (1976). “Creep Buckling of Steel Columns at Elevated Temperatures.”
10th Congress on Behavior of Building Structures under Fire Effects, IABSE,
235-240.
Eurocode 3. (2006). “Design of steel structures. Part 1-2: General rules. Structural fire
design.” EN 1993-1-2 European Committee for Standardization. CEN.
Fields, B.A., and Fields, R.J. (1989). “Elevated Temperature Deformation of
Structural Steel.” Report NISTIR 88-3899, National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
Freudenthal, A.M. (1950). The Inelastic Behavior of Engineering Materials and
Structures, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York.
Galambos, T.V., Editor. (1998). Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal
Structures, 5th Edition, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York.

11

Structures Congress 2011

 Structures Congress 2011 © ASCE 2011 2940

Harmathy, T.Z. (1967). “A Comprehensive Creep Model.” Journal of Basis

Engineering Transactions, ASME, 396-502.
Hoff, N.J. (1957). “Buckling at High Temperatures.” Journal of the Royal
Aeronautical Society, 61, 756-774.
Hu, G., Morovat, M.A., Lee, J., Schell E., and Engelhardt, M.D. (2009). “Elevated
Temperature Properties of ASTM A992 Steel.” Proceedings, ASCE Structure
Congress 09, April 30-May 2, Austin, TX.
Knight, D., Skinner D.H., and Lay, M.G. (1971). Prediction of isothermal creep,
BHP Melbourne Research Laboratories, Report MRL 18/2, The Broken Hill
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 03/30/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Proprietary Company Limited Australia, 1-14.

Luecke, W.E., McColskey, J.D., McCowan, C. N., Banovic, S.W., Fields, R. J.,
Foecke, T., Siewert, T.A., and Gayle, F.W. (2005). Federal Building and Fire
Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster – Mechanical
Properties of Structural Steels (Draft), Report NIST NCSTAR 1-3D, National
Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
Marin, J. (1947). “Creep Deflections in Columns.” Journal of the Applied Physics,
18, 103-109.
Morovat, M.A., Lee, J., Hu, G., and Engelhardt, M.D. (2010). “Tangent Modulus of
ASTM A992 Steel at Elevated Temperatures.” Proceedings, Sixth International
Conference on Structures in Fire (SiF’ 10), Michigan State University, East
Lansing, Michigan, June 2-4, 2010.
NIST (2005) “Component, Connection, and Subsystem Structural Analysis.” Report
NIST NCSTAR 1-6c, National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Gaithersburg, MD, September 2005.
Norton, F.H. (1929). The Creep of Steel at High Temperatures, McGraw-Hill Book
Company Inc., New York.
Rabotnov, G.N., and Shesterikov, S.A. (1957). “Creep Stability of Columns and
Plates.” Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 6(27), 27-34.
Shanley, F.R. (1952). Weight-Strength Analysis of Aircraft Structures, 1st Edition,
McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc., New York.
Singer, J., Arbocz, J., and Weller, T. (2002). Buckling Experiments: Experimental
Methods in Buckling of Thin-Walled Structures, Volume 2, John Wiley & Sons
Inc., New York.
Takagi, J. and Deierlein, G.G. (2007). “Strength Design Criteria for Steel Members at
Elevated Temperatures.” Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 63, 1036-
1050.
Tan, K.H., Ting, S.K., and Huang, Z.F. (2002) “Visco-Elasto-Plastic Analysis of
Steel Frames in Fire.” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 128 (1), 105-
114.
Williams-Leir, G. (1983). “Creep of Structural Steel in Fire: Analytical Expressions.”
Fire and Materials, 7(2), 73-78.
Zener, C., and Hollomon, J.H. (1944). “Effect of Strain Rate on the Plastic Flow of
Steel.” Journal of Applied Physics, 15, 22-32.

12

Structures Congress 2011