TheStructuralEngineer

January 2018
Volume 96 | Issue 1

The flagship publication of The Institution of Structural Engineers

SPECIAL ISSUE

TSE72_01_Cover.indd 1 14/12/2017 12:55

 Architects: Anthony Béchu - Tom Sheehan; Photo: Pierre-Élie de Pibrac
D2 Tower
Paris, La Défense

HISTAR® steel from ArcelorMittal combines good toughness and excellent weldability with
outstanding minimum yield strengths of 355 or 460 N/mm2, through the larger majority
of section thicknesses, to give decisive weight and cost savings for high-rise buildings
and long span structures.

The Orange Book from ArcelorMittal now enables design engineers to achieve greater competitiveness
and efficiency with fast and accurate designs using S355/HISTAR® 355 and S460/
HISTAR® 460 steel grades in sizes up to UC356x406x1299 and UB’s of 1138mm depth.

Our latest High-rise buildings brochure gives insight to all construction industry stakeholders
for optimal use of rolled steel shapes in tall buildings. Guidance is offered for key construction
considerations such as bracing systems, connections, fire resistance, robustness, earthquake
design and sustainability.

Technical assistance: sections.tecom@arcelormittal.com

sections.arcelormittal.com - orangebook.arcelormittal.com

p02_TSE.Jan18.indd 2 13/12/2017 12:20

 Upfront
thestructuralengineer.org Contents

Fire on
F98

Fire on 3.0h
F94
2.0h
1.5h

PAGE 14 COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS PAGE 20 KEY CONSIDERATIONS AT ALS IN FIRE PAGE 68 SUPER-HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS IN CHINA

TheStructuralEngineer
Volume 96 | Issue 1

20 Key considerations for assessing structures at

Upfront the accidental limit state in fire
Opinion
5 Editorial 25 Developments in structural fire protection design – 73 Book review: Structural Design for
a US perspective Fire Safety (2nd ed.)
6 Institution news: The 360-degree viewpoint
8 Institution news: 30 Performance-based design of fire-protected 74 Verulam
Notice to Voting Members: Council Election 2018 composite beams with web openings
Election of members of the Board for 2018–19 36 Determining the fire resistance rating of buildings
Structural Awards special issue: clarifications using the probabilistic method – a state-of-the-art At the back
10 Institution news: End-of-year report: approach
76 Diary dates
a President’s reflection 42 Explosive spalling of concrete in fire: novel testing
77 Spotlight on Structures
to mitigate design risk
79 Products & Services
48 Fire safety design in modern timber buildings
Structural fire 54 Structural timber buildings – avoiding fire spread
80 Services Directory
engineering risks during construction 82 TheStructuralEngineerJobs

12 An introduction to fire engineering
14 Fire engineering and structural design – common
misconceptions and good practice
60 A structural fire strategy for an exposed weathering 86 Library update: Researching fire engineering
steel-framed building
68 Structural fire engineering for super-high-rise
buildings in China

Front cover: Grenfell Tower | ALAMY

The Structural Engineer www.thestructuralengineer.org

PRESIDENT ADVERTISING EDITORIAL ADVISORY GROUP © The Institution of Structural Engineers. All non-member authors
Faith Wainwright are required to sign the Institution’s ‘Licence to publish’ form.
MBE, FREng, DEng (Hon), DISPLAY SALES Will Arnold MIStructE Authors who are members of the Institution meet our requirements
FIStructE, FICE Lucy Filamba Allan Mann FIStructE under the Institution’s Regulation 10.2 and therefore do not need
t: +44 (0) 20 7880 7632 Don McQuillan FIStructE to sign the ‘Licence to publish’ form. Copyright for the layout and
CHIEF EXECUTIVE e: lucy.filamba@redactive. Chris O’Regan FIStructE design of articles resides with the Institution while the copyright
Martin Powell co.uk Angus Palmer MIStructE
of the material remains with the author(s). All material published in
Simon Pitchers MIStructE
RECRUITMENT SALES The Structural Engineer carries the copyright of the Institution, but
EDITORIAL the intellectual rights of the authors are acknowledged.
Beth Fifield
t: +44 (0) 20 7880 6235 Price (2018 subscription)
HEAD OF PUBLISHING Institutional: £430 (incl. e-archive, p&p and VAT) The Institution of Structural Engineers
e: beth.fifield@redactive.co.uk
Lee Baldwin Personal: £130 (incl. p&p) International HQ
DESIGN Personal (Student Member): £40 (incl. p&p) 47–58 Bastwick Street
MANAGING EDITOR London EC1V 3PS
Robin Jones SENIOR DESIGNER United Kingdom
Single copies: £25 (incl. p&p)
t: +44 (0) 20 7201 9822 Nicholas Daley t: +44 (0)20 7235 4535
e: robin.jones@istructe.org DESIGNER e: mail@istructe.org
Callum Tomsett Printed by
EDITORIAL ASSISTANT Warners Midlands plc The Institution of Structural Engineers
Ian Farmer PRODUCTION The Maltings, Manor Lane Incorporated by Royal Charter
t: +44 (0) 20 7201 9121 PRODUCTION EXECUTIVE Bourne, Lincolnshire PE10 9PH Charity Registered in England and Wales number 233392 and in
e: ian.farmer@istructe.org Rachel Young United Kingdom Scotland number SC038263

TheStructuralEngineer | January 2018 3

TSE72_03 Contents.indd 3 14/12/2017 11:51

 Diamond Formation
In creating the façade at Victoria Gate in Leeds, ACME
Architects have combined polished and acid-etched
precast concrete finishes in a tour-de-force of geometry
and texture.
The design emerged from a desire to create a façade
of both transparency and structure, avoiding vertical
joints and using sufficient repetition of panels to be
cost-effective.
The concrete diagrid did all this through the
incorporation of either glazed or solid panels within the
composition, all with a nod to the city’s textile heritage in
its pleats and folds.
Watch Friedrich Ludewig of ACME Architects talk about
the development at Victoria Gate or read the full
Concrete Quarterly article on this project at:

www.thisisconcrete.co.uk
This is Concrete is a campaign to promote a sustainable built
environment, supported by MPA The Concrete Centre

Twitter: @thisisconcrete

Image © Jack Hobhouse

p87_TSE.Jan18.indd 87 13/12/2017 12:28

 Upfront
thestructuralengineer.org Editorial

Editorial
Designing for fire
resistance – a task for us all
Professor Roger Plank Guest Editor

The Grenfell Tower tragedy in London last June was a stark
reminder of how rapidly a fire can spread and the horror which
it can cause. In the wake of this disaster, the UK construction
industry is actively examining what can be done to minimise the
risk of similar tragedies in the future. It is likely that one of the
recommendations will be a clearer identification of responsibilities,
but whatever the outcome it will clearly be helpful for all members
of the design team to have a good understanding of all aspects
of fire safety, as well as detailed knowledge about those aspects
under their direct control.
At present, there is very little emphasis or consistency on fire
safety in the basic education or training of structural engineers
throughout the world. Perhaps partly as a result of this, the vast
majority of buildings are still designed in accordance with simple
prescriptive procedures. It may be argued that such approaches
have proved themselves since, apart from the collapse of the New
York World Trade Center in 2001, when the buildings were subject
to an exceptional combination of extensive physical damage and
high temperatures, there have been very few instances of fatalities
caused by structural failure in a building fire. However, the level of
simplification implicit in such an approach may not be suitable for
some of the more innovative forms of structure being constructed
today, and in many cases may not provide best value. Moreover, the
methods were developed when, in some respects, structures and
materials were very different from current construction.
Recognising these deficiencies, more scientific ways of designing
structures to achieve the required fire resistance are now available;
these range from relatively simple methods, as detailed in the
Eurocodes, to finite-element modelling of whole structures, and
are based on recent dramatic improvements in our understanding
of building fires. But many uncertainties remain and further
research continues apace. This will lead to further refinements in
the current design methods and, despite the increasing number
of fire engineering consultancies, structural engineers are well
placed to put these methods into practice; this will, however, require
some additional learning, typically as part of a programme of CPD,
supported by short courses such as that offered by the Institution.
To support engineers who would like to improve their
understanding of structural fire engineering, the Institution has
published two guides, Introduction to the Fire Safety Engineering
of Structures and Guide to the Advanced Fire Safety Engineering of
Structures, with a new edition of the former currently in preparation.
In addition, the papers in this special issue of The Structural
Engineer cover a range of topics from a basic introduction to the
latest developments in research and design, all aimed at a practising
structural engineer with little or no specialist knowledge. Watch out,
too, for details to be published later this year of a new Institution
special diploma examination in fire structural safety.
Roger Plank recently retired from the University of Sheffield, and
is currently a director of Vulcan Solutions, offering software and
consultancy services in fire engineering. He has collaborated
extensively with the steel construction sector in the field of fire
engineering, and is a Past President of the Institution.

The Structural Engineer
 provides structural engineers and related
professionals worldwide with technical information
on practice, design, development, education and
training associated with the profession of structural
engineering, and offers a forum for discussion on
these matters
 promotes the learned society role of the Institution
by publishing peer-reviewed content which advances
the science and art of structural engineering
 provides members and non-members worldwide
with Institution and industry related news
 provides a medium for relevant advertising
The Institution The Structural Contributions published in The Structural Engineer are
 has over 27 000 members in over 100 countries Engineer (ISSN published on the understanding that the author/s is/are
around the world 1466-5123) is solely responsible for the statements made, for
 is the only qualifying body in the world concerned solely published by the opinions expressed and/or for the accuracy of
with the theory and practice of structural engineering IStructE Ltd, a the contents. Publication does not imply that any
 through its Chartered members is an internationally wholly owned statement or opinion expressed by the author/s
recognised source of expertise and information subsidiary of reflects the views of the Institution of Structural
concerning all issues that involve structural engineering The Institution Engineers’ Board; Council; committees; members
and public safety within the built environment of Structural or employees. No liability is accepted by such persons
 supports and protects the profession of structural Engineers. It is or by the Institution for any loss or damage, whether
engineering by upholding professional standards available both caused through reliance on any statement, opinion
and to act as an international voice on behalf of in print and or omission (textual or otherwise) in The Structural
structural engineers online. Engineer, or otherwise.

TheStructuralEngineer | January 2018 5

TSE72_05_Editorial.indd 5 14/12/2017 11:52

 Upfront
Institution news
Martin Powell
Chief Executive,
The Institution of Structural Engineers
To borrow a phrase from Minnie Haskins’
poem, I am writing this article in advance
of reaching the ‘gate of the year’. By the
time you receive this issue of the magazine,
together we will hopefully all have come
through that gate safely and into a new
year. A new year in an era that I recently
read described as the VUCA period:
volatile (V), uncertain (U), complex (C) and
ambiguous (A).
That as it may be, there is a temptation,
by way of an update in a January issue,
to look back and reflect on the past year
of the Institution. Equally compelling is to
disregard 2017 and write about Institution
ambitions for 2018. To me this is perhaps
all too linear, and while I really don’t like the
modern idiom of everything being ‘part of a
journey’ or a ‘direction of travel’, the notion
of a 360° viewpoint where we can look both
forwards and backwards, and reflect on the
route we are following, is altogether a more
interesting new year reflective.
For many members, the milestone and
memories of the Institution’s centenary
celebrations of 2008 will seem like
yesterday. Is it really possible that at 110
years, we are now 10% older again?! I
suspect that with every decade shift, the
Institution has looked and felt different
to those who have made the transition.
The speed of change in the world at large
is, however, undeniably faster. To remain
relevant, the Institution too must continue to
evolve; faster – certainly; appropriate to its
core values – yes, most definitely.
Because change within professional
bodies is largely incremental, it is perhaps
necessary to look back at the 10 years since
our centenary to understand the impact
of that change. It certainly helps to inform
where we are today and will be the base on
which we build for the decade to follow.
6 January 2018 | TheStructuralEngineer
TSE72_6-7_CEO Report 2.indd 6
The 360-degree viewpoint
Growing membership
By the time you read this, 555 candidates
from around the world will have taken
the January Chartered Membership
Examination. Bearing in mind our
examination is now held twice a year, this
represents colossal growth that, in part,
can be attributed not only to the relevance
of the Institution in the global context,
but also to the many initiatives that have
been implemented to make access to the
Institution more straightforward, plus the
increased emphasis on providing technical,
engineering and learning support for
young professionals.
Graduate numbers have been increasing
by approx. 7–9% year on year, and with
this a real connection with the Institution,
evidenced by the growth of vibrant young
members’ groups around the world. Student
numbers, thanks to the various engagement
initiatives and the learning support packages
on offer, have risen to just under 12 000;
with this, we see the potential of a growing
pipeline through to eventual full Institution
membership in the years ahead.
International ambitions
In addition to our own examinations,
the introduction in recent years of a
supplementary examination route for those
who have taken professional examinations
of competence in their home country has
seen substantial increases in members from
Singapore and China. In 2018, we will be
launching a supplementary examination in
the USA for those who have qualified at the
designated SE (structural engineer) level
and offering an affiliate scheme to a number
of engineering professional bodies outside
the UK.
International relationships mature
and change and with them come new
opportunities. In Hong Kong, where
membership now stands in excess of 3200,
we expect before the end of Quarter 1 to
announce an exciting new chapter in our
support for members in that region.
As well as renewing agreements in South
Africa, India and British Columbia in 2017,
and significantly deepening our relationship
with the American Society of Civil Engineers
and its Structural Engineering Institute, we
forged new relationships in Oman and Saudi
thestructuralengineer.org
Arabia as part of our ambition to grow our
support within the Arab states of the
Persian Gulf.
The relevance of the international
dimension to this institution cannot be
under stated. It would be easy to get
swept up in a fever of membership growth
and size. To do so misses the point of
our Charter obligations for public benefit
and the Institution’s purpose to equip and
support the development of the profession
for public safety. It is reassuring to see at
first hand, when talking to students and
young professionals around the world,
that they really do understand the ‘big
picture’ and the realism that an international
institution enables learning from around
the globe where no one country can claim
to have all the answers. We genuinely,
therefore, have a unique structural
engineering proposition and the pending
extension of CROSS into the USA and
Australia. along with very real prospects for
further growth in the next five years, are
manifest expressions of why the Institution
can add value to a member wherever in the
world they live and work.
This extends beyond our CM Exam
into the arena of specialist diplomas,
where in addition to the currently available
Seismic and Offshore diplomas, work is
now progressing on one in Fire Safety
Engineering. There is growing international
interest in these diplomas and a very real
ambition that these will provide an excellent
supplementary qualification to sit alongside
the formal tests of competency held in
many countries.
Adapting to a changing world
Connecting the Institution world is a really
exciting challenge and one in which we
must harness appropriate digital solutions.
With the appointment of Silvia Pilotto as our
Digital and Data Director, the Institution is
embarking on an ambitious but essential
business transformation programme over
the next few years to help underpin better
support for members and, at the same time,
ensure efficiency and effectiveness in the
Institution’s own internal workings.
The appointment of Ashley Kacha as our
Senior Engineer (Computational Design) is
a further example of the evolving Institution.
14/12/2017 11:54

thestructuralengineer.org
Steered by our recently established Digital
Workflows and Computational Design
Panel, the Institution has a significant
role to play in providing guidance to deal
with the complexities, challenges and
opportunities of modern design practice.
The traditional learned society functions
of the Institution are, of course, impacted
by the momentum of change. A modern
and thriving institution can only deliver
when there is a vibrant partnership
between members and the employed
staff of the professional body. Harnessing
the complementary skillsets is essential.
Meeting the demands of growing members,
and also satisfying members’ professional
requirements from their institution, pushes
the boundaries of what it is possible
to expect from the hugely important
voluntary input so many members already
make. Whether that be as technical panel
members, regional group representatives,
interviewers, examiners, representatives on
external bodies, or as Council and Board
members, there is increasing urgency to
engage and involve many more members at
ENGINEERING THE
DEVELOPING WORLD
TSE72_6-7_CEO Report 2.indd 7
a practical level. This is a job for us all.
I don’t believe for a moment that the
Institution has an endemic issue with
volunteer fatigue, but it does face a real
practical challenge in that, in the modern
workplace, the capacity of members to
engage in the ‘extracurricular’ demands
of Institution life means that availability is
likely to become outstripped by need. It
was heartening, therefore, to learn that
nominations for representation on 2018
technical activities were oversubscribed
on average by 30 times per panel and
committee. This has inevitably led to some
disappointment from those offering their
time and service, but should not be seen as
an underlying message that member input
is no longer valued.
Redeployment and a re-energising
of how we harness the undoubtable
enthusiasm of members for their institution
will be a core topic for the Board and
Council during 2018, in tandem with the
Board’s own recent review of overall
Institution governance, of which there will
be more to share in the months ahead.
TheStructuralEngineer | January 2018
Upfront
Institution news
A bright future
What will be the needs of the profession
in 10 years’ time? In a VUCA world it is
clear the answer cannot be addressed
with certainty! In this, our 110th year, the
Board has committed to dedicating time to
articulate a vision to run in tandem with its
current 2020 strategic objectives, founded
on an institution committed to competence
and communities. I believe we have great
cause for optimism. If those who shaped
the Institution’s 2008 strategic review and
those who have taken it forward iteratively
since then all use their 360° viewfinder,
there is compelling evidence of positive
development and achievement with an
innate pipeline brimming with potential into
the future.
Having passed through the gate of the
year, I offer my best wishes for 2018 to all
Institution members; my thanks for all you
do in making this such a vibrant
organisation; and my sincere request for
your support and continued energy as
together we seek out the evolving pathways
to successful gateways.
KUALA LUMPUR 2018
IABSE CONFERENCE
7
14/12/2017 11:54
 Upfront
Institution news thestructuralengineer.org

Notice to Voting Election of members of

Members: Council the Board for 2018–19
Election 2018 Voting by members of Council 2017 for the election of three
members of the Board for 2018–19 closed at 12 noon GMT on 13
November 2017. The result is as follows:
Nominations are sought for candidates for election as:
 Vice-President 2019–20 Number of eligible voters: 82
 Ordinary member of Council 2019–21 Number who voted: 58
Turnout: 70.7%
Information about the role and operation of the Council may be
found at www.istructe.org/about-us/organisation-structure/council. Glenn R. Bell 43 Elected
The electoral regions in the UK and the Republic of Ireland are David F. Knight 39 Elected
based on Institution regional groups – a map of which can be Elizabeth M. Visser 29 Elected
accessed from the website at www.istructe.org/near-you/europe/ Robert J. Paul 27
united-kingdom. Simon H. Westcott 16
The regions are:
1 0Lancashire and Cheshire Susan M. Doran
2 Scottish, Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland Company Secretary and Director of Regulations
3 Yorkshire and Northern Counties 13 November 2017
4 Bedfordshire and Adjoining Counties, East Anglia and East
Midlands
5 Midland Counties and Wales
6 Devon and Cornwall, Western Counties and Southern Structural Awards special
7 Thames Valley and Surrey
8 North Thames
9 South Eastern Counties
issue: clarifications
10 Rest of Europe, Middle East, Africa and the Americas
11 Hong Kong
12 Asia and Pacific
NICHOLAS MUTTON (CC BY-SA 2.0)

The minimum number of ordinary members (continuing in office

in 2019 and to be elected) from any electoral region is one (apart
from region 11, where because of the size of the electorate, it is
two). To fulfil this requirement, at least one ordinary member of
Council from each of Region 4 and Region 8 must be elected.
Chartered and Incorporated Structural Engineers and Technician
Members (who have submitted a current Institution Continuing N Severn Bridge – inaugural winner
of the Institution Special Award

Professional Development return) are invited to consider standing

for election as an ordinary member of the Council 2019–21. Fellows
(who have previously served on Council and who have submitted
a current Institution Continuing Professional Development return)
are invited to consider standing for election as a Vice-President
2019–20. Nomination papers (which must be completed by the
candidate and 10 other Voting Members) are obtainable from Dr
S.M. Doran and must be submitted by Monday 12 February 2018.
Candidates must also complete a candidate information form and
supply a photograph. Completed nomination documents can be
returned by email to sue.doran@istructe.org or by post.
In due course, voting documents will be issued and you will
be able to vote either electronically or by post. The results will
subsequently be published in The Structural Engineer, in the
e-newsletter and on the website.
Dr S.M. Doran
Company Secretary and Director of Regulations
Thank you to readers who wrote or phoned in to highlight a number of
errors in the November/December Structural Awards special issue. We
strive to maintain high standards, but are happy to hold our hands up
when we don’t. To set the record straight:
1) The bridge portrayed in Figure of David Nethercot’s introductory
article (page 28) was, of course, the Second Severn Crossing, not the
Severn Bridge. A corrected version of the article is available online.
It’s worth noting, though, that the Second Severn Crossing also won a
Structural Special Award in 1996.
2) The entries for ElevArch (Award for Construction Innovation, page
60 and Award for Outstanding Value, page 69) incorrectly listed BHA
and Freyssinet as the architect for the project. There was no architect,
with BHA and Freyssinet responsible for the structural design.
3) Question 7 of the quiz on page 74 described the Conwy Tunnel as
the ‘first and only use to date’ of the immersed tube method in the UK.
This is not quite correct. While the Conwy Tunnel was indeed the first
example, it is no longer the only one: subsequent examples include the
Medway Tunnel (1996) and the Second Tyne Tunnel (2011).

8 January 2018 | TheStructuralEngineer

TSE72_8_Institution News.indd 8 14/12/2017 11:55

 Interactive‘Blue Book’
The essential aid for the design of steelwork
www.steelforlifebluebook.co.uk

A comprehensive interactive version

of the Blue Book is now available.
Key features
• Provides design data for the full range of both open sections
and hollow sections (both hot-finished and cold-formed)
• Includes design information in accordance with both the
Eurocodes and BS 5950
• Allows users to either print information directly or export
information to a spreadsheet
• Does not require any software to be installed on a host
computer.
This new easy-to-use interactive Blue Book is freely available at
www.steelforlifebluebook.co.uk
The Blue Book was produced by the Steel Construction Institute
(SCI) on behalf of Steel for Life.

p09_TSE.Jan18.indd 9 13/12/2017 12:22

 Upfront
Institution news
End-of-year report:
a President’s reflection
Ian Firth
BSc, MSc, DIC, CEng, FREng, FIStructE, FICE
2017 President of The Institution of Structural
Engineers
I must say, it has been quite a year! Many
thanks to all of you who have given so
generously of your time and energies to help
make it go so smoothly, and thank you also
to my colleagues at COWI for their support
and understanding throughout. It has felt
like a bit of a whirlwind at times, and there
has certainly been a lot happening, but all in
all I have enjoyed myself and it has been a
great privilege to serve the Institution as your
President over the past 12 months.
Looking back on the year, I am immediately
struck by the breadth and significance of
the Institution’s activity and reach around the
world. I am not sure how easy it is to perceive
this for a member who has not been lucky
enough to travel internationally, as I have this
year, meeting members in a wide variety of
circumstances and witnessing the worldwide
work of the Institution first hand, so you
probably have to take my word for it. I have
certainly learnt a lot about the importance
and high standing of our global reputation
and impact in the last 12 months. We talk a lot
about being a truly international organisation,
not just a UK one with international interests,
and this is absolutely correct. That is who we
are, and I have been able to see for myself this
year how true and effective this really is.
A global network
Our members do vital work, striving to
ensure that the structures we build are safe,
sustainable and all the rest – and, of course,
most of this work goes on unseen and
uncelebrated. Many of our members work in
relatively small organisations, routinely turning
out excellent work in their own field, and
although they may only operate in a relatively
small area, they are all connected into the
worldwide network of expertise, experience
and resources that is the Institution of
Structural Engineers.
We are able to support those members
in a number of ways, wherever they are
and whatever the type and scale of their
enterprise. We already run an impressive
10
TSE72_10-11_President Report.indd 10
array of events, training courses, workshops
and seminars. For these to be fully effective
for our diverse and widely dispersed
membership, they need to be provided
regionally and online, as well as centrally.
Our online offering is growing all the time,
with exciting new opportunities ahead as
we roll out an improved online platform
currently under development. I have observed
that regional offerings vary widely, and
this is perhaps an area where we need to
devote some time to see how and where
improvements can be made.
We know the importance of our outreach
to schools and students, inspiring and
encouraging them to pursue a career in
structural engineering. This is one of the
most vital roles of our various regional
groups around the world. Some do it really
well, others less so. I believe we all have
a duty to reach out to young people with
inspiring stories of great engineering projects,
and help them to see their potential –
hopefully in our built environment world. It is
hard not to be inspired with so many amazing
structures and structural engineers around
us. With free membership for students (soon
for first-year graduates too) and the plethora
of excellent material available to them, it is not
a hard message to sell.
On my travels this year, I have been
pleased to see several universities taking
advantage of the free offering that we provide
to students and staff, but also dismayed by
the number of universities which appear to
do little or nothing about it. Maybe they fear
there is a catch, not believing that such a
great offer is genuinely free! This is where our
regional groups and student liaison officers
have a vital role to play in spreading the word,
and there is room for improvement here in
some quarters. But the good news is that we
will undoubtedly continue to see significant
growth in our student and graduate
membership as a result of the many excellent
initiatives that the Institution has
implemented recently. And this is vitally
important. It is the strength and energy of
our student and graduate communities that
secures a strong future for the Institution and
indeed our profession, and we all have a role
to play here.
January 2018 | TheStructuralEngineer
thestructuralengineer.org
Professional responsibilities
I am writing this having just presided over a
wonderful day at our London HQ handing
out certificates to newly qualified Chartered
Members and Fellows, and acknowledging
their considerable achievement in passing
the professional milestone for which they
have worked so hard for so long. There was
a tangible sense of celebration (and some
would say relief!) in the room, and rightly so;
this is certainly something worth celebrating.
I can testify that the Institution is held in
very high esteem around the world, and the
Chartered Membership Exam is well known
for what it is – the gold-standard professional
qualification for structural engineers
everywhere; anyone who passes it can be
justly proud.
Fellows are the leaders of our profession;
those in positions of significant responsibility,
often with the opportunity to influence others
to work towards achieving Chartered Member
status for themselves, and we certainly
need many more Fellows. And talking about
our international reach, a quick glance at
the list of new Members published in The
Daily Telegraph recently shows that we had
candidates successfully passing the exam in
no fewer than 22 countries this year; a global
institution for a global profession indeed!
But alongside the joy and the celebration,
there is also a serious side. The professional
qualification bestowed on all those new
members brings with it a greater responsibility
and an increased sense of duty. It has
been said before that our members are the
custodians of public safety, and working
to avoid structural failure is, of course, our
number one responsibility. In delivering her
excellent keynote address at the ceremony,
Board member Tanya de Hoog stressed
the importance of recognising the potential
impact that our work has on people and
communities, pointing out the privilege it is
to serve them as professionals. She used a
phrase which has stuck with me, saying that
when she qualified, she realised she had
‘earned the privilege of membership’.
It is indeed a privilege, and we all know that
with great privilege comes great responsibility.
We know that this responsibility means,
among other things, realising that we don’t
14/12/2017 11:55

thestructuralengineer.org
N Figure 1
Presenting Chartered Membership certificates in
Hong Kong was a particular highlight
know all the answers and that we need to
stay plugged into the unique professional
network that is the Institution, to engage
with and learn from the global community of
expertise and experience, to learn from failures
or near-misses when they are reported by
SCOSS or CROSS, and to keep abreast of
new developments and technologies through
ongoing continual professional development.
This is the duty of all our members, and
enlightened employers are ensuring that these
values are promoted among all their staff.
Procurement in the spotlight
Throughout the year, whenever I have been
given the opportunity, I have repeated versions
of my inaugural theme – ‘Going for Gold in
a Changing World’ – exhorting our present
and future members to focus on high quality
standards, often in the face of counteracting
commercial pressures, and to be wary of some
modern procurement processes, which sadly
tend to increase risks rather than reduce them.
This message has struck a chord wherever I
have been, and has received strong support
everywhere, with only one dissenting voice to
my knowledge (notably from a contractor).
When I raised my concerns over the risks
inherent in some modern processes at my
inauguration last January, I could not have
predicted how things would develop during the
year. In February, the report on the collapse at
Oxgangs School in Edinburgh was published.
This did not get the widespread publicity
it deserved, partly because, by a fluke of
timing, no one was injured in the incident. I
have no doubt that had some children been
killed, which would have been the case had
TSE72_10-11_President Report.indd 11
it occurred a couple of hours later, the story
would have been very different. Nevertheless,
the SCOSS Alert published as a result makes
essential reading, and illustrates exactly the
kind of scenario to which I have been trying to
draw attention.
And then there was the Grenfell Tower fire
in June, with over 70 people killed and huge
potential ramifications for our industry. The
inquiries and investigations are ongoing and
the Institution has been centrally involved
in developments both independently and
through the coordinated activities of the
Construction Industry Council. As a result, it
has been a particularly busy six months or so.
The work of Structural Safety (SCOSS and
CROSS), and particularly Director Alastair
Soane, has been pivotal, as has been the
contribution of several people, including
Roger Plank, Andrew Minson and others, and
we owe them all a debt of gratitude for their
tireless efforts. It is too soon to report on any
conclusions, but one thing seems certain – the
concerns extend way beyond fire safety and
cladding on tall buildings.
Edinburgh and Grenfell have put the
spotlight on an endemic and systemic
problem with the way we procure and
implement construction in certain sectors, at
least in the UK. I acknowledge that things are
different elsewhere. Some things will need
to change, possibly very significantly. Time
will tell what the nature of these changes
will be, but they have the potential for being
far reaching and potentially transformational
for the construction industry in the UK, and
possibly elsewhere.
A future to look forward to
Early in the year, I started a blog on the
Institution website about structures to
TheStructuralEngineer | January 2018
Upfront
Institution news
look forward to during the year, as well as
one looking back at interesting structures
celebrating round-number anniversaries. I
found it difficult to find the time to maintain
both, so sadly the first one never got beyond
the first episode. I also had all sorts of good
intentions to blog about some of my activities
and opinions, but didn’t get beyond a few
tweets. Oh well; maybe future Presidents will
be more prolific! But it certainly has been a full
year, and I am grateful for the experience.
Returning to the international theme, I
believe that building on our already well-
established good relationships with the
various national and regional engineering
institutions around the world will be
particularly important in the coming years.
The high standards of competence and
professionalism generally exhibited by
our members are already well known, and
collaborating with the relevant professional
bodies in those countries where they work is
an important role for the Institution. So it was
a pleasure to meet with young members in
many places to encourage them to engage
with the Institution’s activities in their region. I
particularly enjoyed presenting certificates to
a large group of enthusiastic new Members in
Hong Kong in November (Figure 1).
I am also especially excited about
developments with the Structural Engineering
Institute (SEI) of the American Society of
Civil Engineers in the USA. The opportunities
for growth here are potentially huge, and I
am particularly delighted that Glenn Bell has
been re-elected to our Board for a second
term, where his unique position as a senior
representative of both organisations is of
pivotal importance. Next year sees the rollout
of our first supplementary exams in the USA,
assisting qualified structural engineers from
there to obtain MIStructE. I am hopeful that
this is just the beginning and it will ultimately
lead to making it easier for those with
MIStructE to obtain professional qualifications
in the USA.
Finally, it remains just for me say a huge
thank you, on behalf of all our members, to
CEO Martin Powell, Deputy CEO Darren
Byrne and the rest of the staff at the
Institution. They all do a fantastic job, and the
sheer scale of activity is awesome. It has been
my privilege to see some of this work first
hand this year, and I am pleased to say that
the Institution is in very good hands, which
bodes well for a healthy future for all of us.
HAVE YOUR SAY
To comment on this article:
Eemail Verulam at tse@istructe.org
Etweet @IStructE #TheStructuralEngineer
11
14/12/2017 11:55
 Structural fire engineering
Introduction
An introduction to
fire engineering
Fire is a basic hazard which can devastate
buildings, cities and regions. It is therefore
an essential part of an engineer’s skill set to
understand and control the risk. Control is a
key word, for the risk can never be eliminated,
as the recent Grenfell Tower fire in London
reminds us (Figure 1). That event was truly a
nightmare: an out-of-control fire destroying a
whole residential tower, killing 71 occupants. In
the same contemporary timeframe, wild fires in
California destroyed approx. 9000 structures
and left over 40 dead, reminding us of the
consequences of regional fires.
How these catastrophes happened is yet to
be established. It is said that lessons should be
learned, and so they should, since the history
of fire engineering is largely one of reaction to
disasters. As a start, it’s worth observing, as
some of the papers in this special issue do, that
the basic skills of ‘fire engineering’ are probably
absent among many of us. That situation
stems partly from an omission of basic training;
perhaps from a feeling that this is a speciality
for others, and perhaps because advances
PA
have been rapid. This is unsatisfactory and
unsafe. Fire protection needs to be ensured
overall between the architects, plant engineers
and structural engineers who make up any
project team: we have collective obligations to
make buildings ‘safe’.
The principles of fire engineering are simple:
 Minimise the risk of ignition.
 If fires ignite, make sure flames cannot
spread.
 If fires spread, make sure they are volume
contained.
 Assume fires will develop and make sure
people can escape.
 Provide a means of fire detection and
suppression.
 Protect firefighters.
However, as always, there are complications.
Ignition sources always exist from faulty
electrical apparatus, cigarettes, cooking and
so on, and about half of all fires originate from
arson. In the UK, the King’s Cross underground
fire of 1987 (31 dead) started from cigarettes
discarded into a void below a wooden
escalator, while lightning was the cause of the
York Minster roof fire (1984, cost £2.25M). Hot
working on sites is a major hazard and some
spectacular conflagrations have originated
12
TSE72_12-13_Mann.indd 12
 Figure 1
Grenfell Tower – a stark reminder
of the dangers fire presents
from poor control. The Broadgate fire (London,
1990) and the Windsor Castle fire (1992) are
examples of this. The latter blaze started from a
spotlight pressed against a curtain; subsequent
restoration works cost £36.5M. In some cases,
the ignition source has been bewildering, as in
2013, when a Chinese lantern landed on the
roof of a Birmingham plastics factory, setting
it alight.
In earlier times, awareness of fire was a
strong motivator in the search for new building
forms: an early attraction of concrete and
iron frames was their potential as fireproof
construction. This was especially so in the mills
and warehouses springing up in the Industrial
Revolution. In 1803, the original Belper cotton
mill in Derbyshire was destroyed by fire. To
reduce the risk to the new build, columns
and beams were made of cast iron, while
floors between were brick arches interlinked
with wrought iron ties. The whole concept
was promoted as a ‘fireproof building’. Of
course, fireproof frames were insufficient and
subsequent fires highlighted new aspects of
protection required. Although excess heat is a
clear risk to structures and occupants, death is
actually more likely to result from smoke.
January 2018 | TheStructuralEngineer
thestructuralengineer.org
Allan Mann
BSc(Eng), PhD, CEng, FREng, FIStructE
Spread of flame
One objective of fire engineering is to prevent
surface flames spreading. The pictures of
Grenfell Tower, when flames rapidly licked their
way up the tower’s external surfaces, show
what is not supposed to happen. But this is not
the first event of its kind. Another notorious
example occurred in the Summerland fire of
1973. Summerland was a large leisure centre
on the Isle of Man (in the Irish Sea). Its frontage
and part of the roof were clad in Oroglas®
(a transparent acrylic sheeting). A fire started,
ignited by boys smoking in a kiosk, the heat
then spread via soundproofing material, which
ignited the highly flammable Oroglas. Flames
rapidly swept across the whole surface and,
as the sheeting melted, more air was sucked in
and the building’s open plan allowed the air to
flow freely, so feeding the fire’s intensity.
Emergency management appears to have
been inadequate, as there was no call to the
fire services and no evacuation. Subsequently,
about 3000 occupants started to panic, a
situation made worse by some fire doors being
locked. All this led to congestion at the free
exits and some deaths by crushing. During the
fire, power supplies and emergency generators
failed. In total, 50 people died and the structure
was seriously damaged. In the ensuing inquiry,
use of flammable building materials was
condemned.
Compartmentation
If there is going to be a fire, it should be
confined. This general idea has been around
for a long time, with early planning laws
controlling building separation widths or
warehouse floor areas. In the late 19th century,
the notion of a compartment (i.e. a defined
volume) bounded by fire-resisting surfaces
emerged as a fundamental control strategy.
Sizing stems from the Tooley Street warehouse
fire (London, 1861) which led the London Fire
Brigade to propose a cube of 60ft (approx.
19m) as the maximum volume that could be
safely fought (approx. 7000m3). The limit of
60ft was based on heights accessible by
ladders and the horizontal dimension to a
distance that could be fought with hoses.
Compartment boundaries ought to prevent
transmission of fire, radiated heat, passage
of smoke or hot gasses, yet there have been
many fires where these objectives were
14/12/2017 11:55

thestructuralengineer.org
not achieved, largely as a consequence of
inattention to building detail.
Means of escape
The scenarios described at Summerland
illustrate the complexities of escape and the
interlinking with management. In numerous
events, death has been due to blocked or
smoke-filled escape routes – factors made
worse when occupants panic, as evidenced in
the 1985 Bradford football stadium fire. Ignition
was probably due to a discarded match, with
the fuel being an accumulation of rubbish
beneath the stand. Flame progress was rapid
and, in less than four minutes, the whole stand
was ablaze. Fans were trapped and suffered
from burning and molten roof material falling on
them. Panic ensued and some trying to escape
to the rear had to break down locked doors to
get out. In total, 56 fans died and 265
were injured.
Again, this was not the first event of its kind.
Theatre fires had historically been especially
dangerous and one incident, the Victoria Hall
disaster (Sunderland, 1883), led to the invention
of door panic bars and the convention of
escape doors opening outwards. In the disaster,
about 1000 children panicked when trying to
escape down a staircase; 183 died.
Smoke
The dangers of smoke can be exemplified
by the Manchester Woolworth’s fire of 1979.
A faulty electrical cable ignited a furniture
display. Unfortunately, this particular furniture
incorporated flammable polyurethane foam,
which gave off highly toxic smoke when alight.
Some of the 10 dead were found close to exits,
presumably overcome by fumes or perhaps
unable to locate escape routes in the smoky
conditions. Smoke spread is a particular
problem in shopping malls, atria and basements;
not least as the basic principles of separation
can be violated by the building’s shape.
Detection and suppression
The Woolworth’s fire happened quickly and no
calls were made to the fire service. Likewise,
it appears the Grenfell Tower fire developed
so rapidly that even though fire services were
called, they could not prevent the disaster.
Nonetheless, and self-evidently, detection,
alarms and suppression are vital components
within an overall fire control strategy.
The earliest detectors were simply fire
watchers and many old cities incorporated
manned watchtowers. Modern technology
offers all kinds of automatic detection and alarm
systems for both heat and smoke. Suppression
is mostly via sprinklers. The world’s first system
was installed in the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane,
London in 1812 as a large water tank located
above the stage (the primary area of fire risk).
TSE72_12-13_Mann.indd 13
Later, throughout the 19th century, systems
began to be used in textile mills; an automated
system was patented in 1872. In the UK, there is
much current debate about making sprinklers
compulsory in residential blocks.
Protecting firefighters
Firefighters take formidable risks: just imagine
the complexities of dealing with the Channel
Tunnel fire of 1996. Designers therefore have
duties to facilitate the tasks of fighting fire and
keep firefighters safe. What might go wrong
was revealed in the extreme in the World Trade
Center attack of 2011, when over 340 New
York firefighters died as debris rained down,
crushing some of their fire engines. In the UK,
the 1960 Cheapside Street whisky bond fire in
Glasgow was, at the time, the country’s worst
peacetime firefighting disaster. The warehouse
‘fire load’ was over 1M gallons of whisky and
rum. As temperatures increased, some of the
casks exploded, pushing walls out and causing
large quantities of masonry to collapse.
Nineteen firefighters died.
Regulations provide for building in protected
routes and lobbies for firefighter access,
plus pipes for water supplies and firefighting
equipment at higher floor levels. Further
regulations cover the extraction of smoke from
basements. Firefighters might have to enter
zones which are hazardous, dark and filled
with smoke. A lesson from certain fires is that
this activity has been severely hampered by
lack of plans. In the King’s Cross fire, there
was significant confusion in the labyrinth
of underground tunnels and a key inquiry
recommendation was for the provision of plans
to assist fire services.
Structural fire protection
Providing adequate fire resistance is a key
demand for any structure and that includes
means of escape, firefighting and avoidance of
materials with adverse rates of flame spread.
In addition to general awareness, a key direct
interest for structural engineers is the topic
of frame resistance to excessive heat. The
objective is to ensure structures survive long
enough for occupants to escape and for
firefighters to be protected. For reinforced
concrete structures, this demand can have a
direct influence on rebar cover; and for steel
structures, it influences the fire protection
provided. Thus, for all structures, the demands
of fire resistance have a direct influence on
design and cost.
The fire survivability of components is given
by standard tests. However, such tests may
not reflect performance in real fires, where
temperatures rise and decay and where
component performance in isolation may
differ from performance as part of a wider
system. A significant demonstration occurred
TheStructuralEngineer | January 2018
Structural fire engineering
Introduction
in the Broadgate fire, with verification later
provided via full-scale fire tests at Cardington1,2.
Broadgate was a 14-storey steel-framed
building with composite concrete floors. During
construction, a fire began in a contractor’s hut
and spread undetected. Temperatures locally
reached approx. 1000°C on the unprotected
steel; nonetheless, despite the heat, the
structure was considered to have behaved well;
it did not ‘collapse’.
In the aftermath of Broadgate, the steel
industry carried out a great deal of research
aimed at improving understanding, providing
safer structures and economising on fire
protection, which is normally provided by
board or intumescent coatings. Observations
from Broadgate and Cardington showed the
importance of concrete floor slabs in protecting
beams and potentially contributing to the
overall fire resistance, the ability of beams to
survive in catenary action and the capability of
concrete slabs themselves to survive, relying
on membrane action, with the notional slab
reinforcement playing a key role.
Modern capabilities
The topic of fire resistance is so important
and so complex that several chairs of Fire
Engineering exist in universities. The output of
research has led to improved understanding,
economy and higher safety, and to new
and evolving analytical methods. It is now
mathematically possible to model fires, heat
profiles in members, smoke discharge through
buildings and even crowd movement in panic.
The need to develop that understanding
continues and the scope of ongoing research
is reflected in the papers contained in this
special issue. As well as learning from these
papers, we would all do well to learn from past
fire disasters.
REFERENCES
E1) Bailey C.G. and Moore D.B. (2000) ‘The
structural behaviour of steel frames with
composite floorslabs subject to fire. Part 1:
Theory’, The Structural Engineer, 78 (11), pp.
19–27
E2) Bailey C.G. and Moore D.B. (2000) ‘The
structural behaviour of steel frames with
composite floorslabs subject to fire. Part 2:
Design’, The Structural Engineer, 78 (11), pp.
28–33
HAVE YOUR SAY
To comment on this article:
Eemail Verulam at tse@istructe.org
Etweet @IStructE #TheStructuralEngineer
13
14/12/2017 11:56
 Structural fire engineering
Common misconceptions
Fire engineering and structural
design – common misconceptions
and good practice
Holly Warren
PhD, MEng, AIFireE
Fire Engineer, AECOM, UK
Emma Byrne
MEng, AIFireE
Fire Engineer, AECOM, UK
Background
Fire protection and structural fire
performance have long been seen as the
role of fire engineering specialists and
architects, but the move towards more
performance-based design in both structural
and fire engineering disciplines means that
it is ever-more important to have a common
understanding and collaborative approach to
structural fire engineering (SFE).
This paper has been written as a
collaboration between AECOM fire engineers
and structural engineers, who together have
formed a Structural Fire Engineering group in
an effort to elevate the subject and improve
our mutual understanding of structural
performance in fire. The paper is not intended
to be a comprehensive or detailed study into
SFE, but will serve as a high-level introduction
for practising structural engineers, providing a
series of useful pointers to educate engineers
about common misconceptions and good
practice in structural fire design as a part of
modern building design.
The information that follows is relevant to
any structure, but largely refers to steel-
framed examples, as these forms of structure
tend to be more sensitive to fire performance
and are therefore the most common focus
for SFE in terms of both assessing and
optimising the structural performance.
Introduction to structural
fire engineering
Ensuring life safety for building occupants
and firefighters, and protection of property,
in the event of a fire is an intrinsic part of
almost any building design. It dictates the
14
TSE72_14-19_Quinn_Common Misconceptions.indd 14
Olivia Quinn
MEng, CEng, MICE
Structural Engineer, AECOM, UK
Jon Leach
MEng, CEng, FIStructE, MICE
Director, AECOM, UK
architectural layouts and how people behave
in and around the building in terms of access,
egress and congregation, and it informs the
fabric of the building to prevent the spread
of fire. The growing complexity of fire codes
and regulations has led to fire engineering
becoming a relatively specialist subject, and
often a fire engineer is employed to support
the architect in achieving a design that is
safe and compliant with approval
authority requirements.
Recommended guidance which is provided
to help the designer achieve the functional
objectives of the UK Building Regulations
states: ‘The building shall be designed and
constructed so that, in the event of a fire, its
stability will be maintained for a reasonable
period.’1
The fire resistance of an element should be
specified according to REI principles2:
 load-bearing capacity (R) – time the
element should be able to support the given
loading without excessive deformation
 integrity (E) – time the elements should
resist the passage of flames and hot gases
 insulation (I) – time the temperature on the
unexposed side of an element should not
exceed a given limit.
Other internationally recognised
regulations and codes of practice typically
adopt a similar approach. Thus, it can be
seen that the performance of the structure
in a fire is a key component in achieving
these functional objectives, and it is typically
defined by a fire-resistance (FR) period given
in minutes or hours. By providing this FR, the
structure supports the components that are
January 2018 | TheStructuralEngineer
thestructuralengineer.org
fundamental to the building’s performance
in a fire – the means of escape, access for
the fire brigade, and the compartment walls,
facades and finishes that provide the
passive measures for limiting fire spread
both inside the building and externally to
adjacent properties.
The structural performance requirements
include basic strength and load-bearing
capacity to avoid local or global collapse, but
also the control of deformations which could
result in destabilising loads or loss of integrity
and insulation, e.g. in fire stopping between
compartment floors and walls.
By identifying the need for structural
engineers and fire engineers to collaborate
more closely, we can provide a more holistic
approach to design (Figure 1) which improves
life safety above that provided by prescriptive
design, and also provides economic benefits
to the project.
Basic material considerations
For elemental code-based design, in the
case of concrete structures, the provision of
adequate minimum member sizes and cover
to reinforcement is generally deemed to
provide the necessary performance in a fire,
primarily by limiting the temperature reached
by the steel reinforcement.
More rigorous approaches can also be
carried out in accordance with BS EN 1992-
1-2:20043. These consider in more detail
the utilisation of the member and the way in
which the element may be exposed to a fire
in its given situation. Further considerations
such as the effects of spalling are also
important.
Timber structures are similar, in that the
provision of minimum member sizes against
known rates of charring gives a reasonable
degree of certainty on the structural
performance in a fire, as determined in BS EN
1995-1-2:20044. The charred timber provides
a degree of insulation to the undamaged
timber beneath, and the performance of this
undamaged timber is then the basis of the
elemental strength and stiffness at the fire
limit state (FLS).
14/12/2017 12:17

thestructuralengineer.org
Steel-framed structures have limited
inherent FR and when a specific resistance
is required, additional protective measures,
such as boarding, concrete encasement
or intumescent paints, are often needed.
The various available types of protective
measures and the ductile nature of steelwork
mean that steel-framed structures often
offer the most scope for design optimisation
through SFE.
It should be noted that the above is a
very simplified description of the factors
influencing structural performance in a
fire. SFE requires a holistic approach and
therefore, beyond basic elemental checks,
more specialist knowledge is usually
necessary. Furthermore, there are variations
between Eurocode National Annexes and
other international design codes, in line with
local practice and fire regulations, which
must be understood and considered.
Managing client expectations
UK structural design codes, as an example,
do cover SFE in some detail. As the subject
of SFE becomes better understood, many
clients and approvers are expecting to see
the application of a fire-engineered approach
and performance-based design both to
improve life safety and to optimise the fire-
protection strategy. This has the benefit of
encouraging structural engineers to consider
the structural fire performance in more detail,
TSE72_14-19_Quinn_Common Misconceptions.indd 15
but can also mean that there is pressure
to push the boundaries of conventional
best practice.
Any keen researcher of SFE will
acknowledge that the existing design
guidance is based on a very small sample of
physical testing, with even fewer examples
of full-scale testing, the most famous being
those carried out in Cardington in the 1990s.
Therefore, a cautious approach to design
is always necessary, and there are many
common misconceptions relating to the role
of the structural engineer in determining the
structural fire performance of a building.
Misconception 1 – Designing for the
FLS is less important than the ULS
or SLS
Current UK codes of practice cover SFE
in some detail and the FLS is defined
as an accidental load case. However, in
our experience, few practising structural
engineers consider this with the same rigour
that they would consider the ultimate limit
state (ULS) and serviceability limit state (SLS)
at ambient temperatures.
It is the responsibility of the structural
engineer to ensure that the structural FR
period is achieved at the FLS, as defined in
the fire strategy and by Approved Document
B2 of the Building Regulations.
As with any accidental load combination,
the FLS takes into account that the total
TheStructuralEngineer | January 2018
Structural fire engineering
Common misconceptions
 Figure 1
Holistic design approach to
structural fire engineering
live load on a structure is reduced. This is a
simple combination that engineers should add
to their load case calculations, as stipulated in
BS EN 1991-1-2:20025, section 4.3.1 (2).
Misconception 2 – Fire protection
design is not an integral part of the
structural design
In our experience, the behaviour of a
structure in a fire is rarely considered in detail
by practising structural engineers. The need
to provide fire protection, particularly for
steel structures that may require additional
protective coatings, is often covered in a
short note on a drawing: ‘Fire protection
in accordance with fire strategy – refer to
architect’. The structure is often ‘deemed
to comply’ by satisfying those basic
requirements.
However, as the following demonstrates,
fire protection should be considered
an integral part of the structural
engineering design. It is important that
the recommendations of the fire strategy
in relation to the expected structural
performance are fully understood by
all parties.
Designing fire protection
In the context of a steel-framed building,
the limiting or critical temperature is the
highest temperature that a steel element
can withstand before it fails. This is affected
by the load on the member and also the
temperature profile through the section.
Limiting temperatures can be obtained by
looking at the utilisation of the beam and its
section factor, using the equations in BS EN
1993-1-2:20056. The application of insulation
via the use of applied protection is a common
way of achieving this.
Figure 2 shows the reduction factors for
the stress–strain relationship of carbon steel
at elevated temperatures. There are two
different curves: yield strength and Young’s
modulus. For a fully restrained beam, strength
may govern the design more than stiffness.
However, for beams with web openings, or
trusses and compression elements, buckling
and hence stiffness may govern.
At elevated temperatures, the rate of
reduction in Young’s modulus is much greater
than that of yield strength, and this often
means that the failure mode of the beam is
different in a fire situation than at ambient
15
14/12/2017 12:18
 Structural fire engineering
Common misconceptions
temperatures. We therefore cannot use
simple FLS/ULS load ratio methods without
considering all the potential failure modes.
The ‘section factor’ of an element allows
the designer to work with the fire protection
supplier to provide the recommended FR.
The section factor is a ratio of the surface
area of the steel exposed to fire per unit
length, by the volume of the section per unit
length. Figure 3 shows how the section factor
impacts heat transfer.
The adoption of common ‘good practice’
limiting temperatures, e.g. 590°C for a beam
used in composite construction or 550°C for
any other beam or column, is taken from an
assumed load ratio of 0.5 in Fig. 2 and based
on the element being 100% utilised at ULS.
In the absence of better information, fire
protection suppliers often use these limiting
temperatures as the design criteria.
For simple construction this may be
acceptable, and in most cases such
limiting temperatures are likely to be very
conservative. However, for a building with
high permanent imposed loads, e.g. one used
for storage, this may be an inappropriate
assumption. This demonstrates the
importance of providing correct information
on loading, utilisation, limiting temperatures
and failure mechanisms in collaboration with
protective coating suppliers.
Holistic design for safety and economy
Protective coatings are one of the most
expensive components in a steel-framed
building; however, the focus for the structural
engineer is often optimising the pure tonnage
of steelwork. An optimised design should
consider the holistic costs and performance
of the steelwork and its protective coatings.
16
TSE72_14-19_Quinn_Common Misconceptions.indd 16
Furthermore, small steel sections, particularly
hanger-rods, thin-walled structural hollow
sections, or narrow web-posts in cellular
beams, are often difficult (and sometimes
impossible) to protect. Calculating their
limiting temperatures prior to procurement
can avoid costly rectification on site if the
paint suppliers cannot provide a product to
protect the engineer’s design.
The specification of protective coatings
is typically a combination of corrosion
protection and fire protection. In the case
of paint, this is usually one warranted
system, so separating the two performance
requirements is not good practice.
Despite recent developments in high-
performance products, many intumescent
coatings can be difficult to apply and are
easily damaged during transportation and
handling. It is often challenging to achieve
a high-quality surface finish for
exposed structures.
The detailing of fire protection can also be
essential to its performance. For example,
intumescent paint typically requires of the
order of 100mm to expand. This must be
considered where over-cladding is adopted at
complex junctions. Over-cladding can insulate
the steelwork, but
it will also prevent
an underlying
intumescent coating
from reacting.
Therefore, the use of
multiple systems to
create ‘layers’ of fire
protection should be
treated carefully; e.g.
30-minute boarding
plus a 60-minute
January 2018 | TheStructuralEngineer
thestructuralengineer.org
 Figure 2
Carbon steel reduction
factors for the stress–strain
relationship at elevated
temperatures
(BS EN 1993-1-2:2005)
intumescent coating does not necessarily
yield a 90-minute fire rating.
It can therefore be concluded that
separating the steelwork design, corrosion
protection and fire-protection system is not
good practice and the approach to design
must be collaborative and informed.
Misconception 3 – The meaning of
structural fire resistance periods and
the limitations of design fires
There is a misconception that the FR or fire
rating equates to the time that a building will
stand up in a fire, or that the fire rating period
is the time an element of the structure will be
able to sustain load. However, it may be the
case that a building with a 60-minute FR will
stand up and perform after the fire, but that
the individual elements will have failed within
the first few minutes of the fire.
The recommended FR is provided to
achieve the functional objectives of the
relevant building regulations; it is based
on the FR being proportional to the risk. It
currently varies based on occupancy type,
building height and whether the building has
sprinklers.
The FR values therefore do not mean a real
building or element will perform or fail at that
REI time. The values are derived to provide
a reasonable likelihood of the structure
surviving burnout, and a benchmark for
structural design and product specification.
They are not necessarily an accurate
or realistic time period before structural
failure. They may be conservative or, most
importantly, inappropriate in some instances.
For this reason, there has been much debate
on whether the FR should be specified as a
risk category instead of a time period.
The work conducted by Ingberg7, the
S Figure 3
Impact of section factor on heat transfer
14/12/2017 12:18

thestructuralengineer.org
BSI
Ministry of Works in its Post-War Building
Studies8 and Malhotra9 provides further
valuable background as to how FR
requirements were historically determined.
Limitations and development of design fires
Standard fire testing
The FR is based on historic, benchmarked,
standard fire testing of loaded, single building
elements or isolated structural assemblies.
The temperature–time regime used to heat the
furnace has become known as the ‘standard’
temperature–time curve or ISO 834 curve.
This standard benchmarking has remained the
common approach since its initial development
at the turn of the last century, despite the
major knowledge developments in SFE.
The standard fire test was originally
developed to compare building materials and
acclaimed fireproof construction systems10.
Figure 4 shows the standard fire test for a
structural beam element with fire protection.
The beam is loaded to 100% ULS capacity
and heated to a standard ISO 834 heating
regime. The performance of the fire
protection of a specific beam section is
assessed according to the BS 476-21:1987
test approach11.
Structural engineers should be aware of
the limitations of standard fire testing when
applying FR to the structural response of real
buildings in a real fire.
The standard ISO 834 heating regime has
been shown to not be representative of a real
building fire. The temperature–time curve of
a real fire can vary from a short ‘hot’ fire to a
long ‘cool’ fire. Furthermore, the length of the
element tested is limited to the furnace size,
and the loading and support conditions are
not well defined and often do not represent
the continuity, restraint, redistribution of loads
and membrane actions in real buildings,
which can hugely influence the overall
structural performance.
TSE72_14-19_Quinn_Common Misconceptions.indd 17
Parametric and travelling fire curves
Due to the limitations of the standard ISO
834 curve, research has been carried out to
try to define more realistic fire curves that
could be applied in SFE design.
Simplified parametric design curves have
been adopted into current design guidance
(Figure 5). These depend on a range of
factors such as floor area, window area, fire
load, etc. The parametric fire curves will differ
for every individual building and floor plate
and should be calculated as such.
The currently adopted parametric
curves essentially assume a ‘flashover’
fire for compartment floor areas up to
500m2, whereby the entire surface area of
the compartment of fire origin is burning
simultaneously. The rate of burning is
assumed to be controlled by the ventilation
rate, and the duration of the fire depends on
the fire load and the surface area of
the compartment.
Current codes of practice do not
provide alternative design fire curves for
compartments which exceed this threshold,
where a full flashover fire is less likely
to occur. However, recent research has
explored the concept of a ‘travelling fire’ as a
more realistic model of fire behaviour in large
open-plan compartments12.
A ‘travelling fire’ means that only part of the
floor plate is on fire at any one time, as the
fire travels to different areas, in some areas
running out of fuel and burning out, and in
others breaking partitions and liberating more
fuel for the fire to burn.
The parametric fire assumes the
compartment is at a homogenous
temperature during the entire time of the fire.
The travelling fire can keep the structure at
an elevated temperature for longer and could
be the critical design scenario. This is due to
the travelling fire curve taking into account
the ‘far field’ temperatures the structure
TheStructuralEngineer | January 2018
Structural fire engineering
Common misconceptions
 Figure 4
Representative general
arrangement for BS 476
fire test on structural
beam element
encounters. ‘Far field’ temperatures occur
when the structure is far from the fire, but
not engulfed; while ‘near field’ temperatures
occur when the structure is in the fire.
The act of having non-uniform heating in
the structure may also cause failure of
the structure in other ways. This is due to
variations in temperature and therefore the
build-up of uneven axial forces in elements
and connections.
To reduce the design risk, it is important
that the fire curves adopted in design are
agreed with the relevant approval authority
early in the design process.
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and
computational heat-transfer analysis are also
becoming a common tool for determining
temperature–time parameters for particular
fire scenarios.
In an SFE context, the design fires are then
used to determine the maximum temperature
that a structural element might reach in a fire
scenario and, in more complex analysis, how
the structure behaves against time along the
design fire curve. The structure must then be
designed to achieve the necessary functional
performance under these criteria.
A combination of these methods is
common, and it is important that an
experienced fire engineer is involved to
ensure that all credible fire scenarios are
considered in the design.
Misconception 4 – Elemental design
and prescriptive fire protection alone
is always sufficient to justify structural
fire performance
One of the limitations of the code-based
approach is that it focuses primarily on
elemental design, whereas it is important that
a holistic approach, rather than a component-
based approach, is adopted. The complexities
of structural performance in a fire often occur
due to secondary effects, such as global non-
linearity, the effects of structural redundancy
that are frequently ignored in ambient design
(such as plastic deformation, catenary and
tensile membrane action), and the effects of
non-structural components, e.g. partitions,
both as destabilising loads and in creating
alternative load transfer paths. It is often
these global, cumulative and less-predictable
effects that govern the SFE strategy.
Overall robustness becomes a key design
consideration. For a particular design, the
17
14/12/2017 12:18
 Structural fire engineering
Common misconceptions
limiting temperature may not be exceeded
in any one element, but the deformations
due to thermal expansion and destabilising
effects of components in the building (e.g.
heavy walls, tanks, high-bay storage), could
still lead to localised or even progressive
collapse. These project-specific scenarios
REFERENCES
E1) The Building Regulations 2010, SI 2010/2214
E2) Department for Communities and Local
Government (2010) Approved Document B:
Fire Safety – Volume 2: Buildings other than
dwellinghouses [Online] Available at: www.gov.uk/
government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_
data/file/441669/BR_PDF_AD_B2_2013.pdf
(Accessed: November 2017)
E3) British Standards Institution (2005) BS EN 1992- get here, and where are we going?’ 15th International
1-2:2004 Eurocode 2. Design of concrete structures. Conference on Experimental Mechanics (ICEM 15),
General rules. Structural fire design, London: BSI
E4) British Standards Institution (2004) BS EN 1995- E11) British Standards Institution (1987) BS
1-2:2004 Eurocode 5. Design of timber structures.
General. Structural fire design, London: BSI
E5) British Standards Institution (2002) BS EN
1991-1-2:2002 Eurocode 1. Actions on structures.
General actions. Actions on structures exposed to
fire, London: BSI
E6) British Standards Institution (2005) BS EN
1993-1-2:2005 Eurocode 3. Design of steel structures. Structure [Online] Available at: www.gov.uk/
General rules. Structural fire design, London: BSI
E7) Ingberg S.H. (1928) ‘Tests of the Severity of
Building Fires’, Q. Natl. Fire Prot. Assoc., 22, pp. 43–61
18
TSE72_14-19_Quinn_Common Misconceptions.indd 18
also raise questions over what are
perceived to be common practices, e.g.
building roofs usually not requiring fire
protection.
It is also important to consider how
connections are detailed and protected,
and much recent research has focused
E8) Ministry of Works (1944–55) Post-War Building
Studies, Bracknell, BRE Press
E9) Malhotra H.L. et al. (1953–77) Fire Research
Notes [Online] Available at: www.iafss.org/
publications/frn/author/1514 (Accessed: November
2017)
E10) Gales J., Maluk C. and Bisby L.A. (2012)
‘Structural fire testing – where are we, how did we
Porto, Portugal, 22–27 July, pp. 1–22
476-21:1987 Fire tests on building materials and
structures, London: BSI
E12) Law A., Stern-Gottfried J., Gillie M., and Rein G.
(2011) ‘The influence of travelling fires on a concrete
frame’, Eng. Struct., 33 (5), pp. 1635–42
E13) Department for Communities and Local
Government (2004). Approved Document A:
government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_
data/file/429060/BR_PDF_AD_A_2013.pdf
(Accessed: November 2017)
January 2018 | TheStructuralEngineer
thestructuralengineer.org
 Figure 5
Temperature–time plots
of design fires
on the behaviour of different connection
types in terms of ductility and heat transfer
behaviour. Where fire protection is being
optimised, e.g. by omitting or reducing
protection to floor beams and relying on
tensile membrane action of composite
floor slabs, it is important to ensure that
principal vertical supports remain robust
and fully tied into the floor diaphragms
and stability system. Thus, columns and
ties often remain protected following the
optimisation process.
It is another common misconception,
particularly for steel-framed buildings,
that only unprotected structures will
deform significantly in a fire. As has been
shown before, the limiting temperatures
commonly adopted by paint suppliers,
in the absence of information from the
engineer, will still be high enough for some
structures to lose significant stiffness
and strength. For structures governed
by elastic buckling, this could result in a
considerable lack of performance in a fire
and, potentially, an unconservative design.
In addition to non-linearity caused by
large deformations, temperature–time
effects add a further dynamic to consider.
In the case of bi-linear structures (e.g.
inclined columns), the effects can be very
significant, including dramatic increases
in load, or even load reversal, due to the
thermal expansion of the floor plates.
Other such examples include:
 load reversal in connections due to
FURTHER READING
British Standards Institution (2004) BS
EN 1992-1-1:2004 Eurocode 2: Design of
concrete structures. General rules and
rules for buildings, London: BSI
British Standards Institution (2004)
NA to BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005 UK
National Annex for Eurocode. Basis of
structural design, London: BSI
Institution of Structural Engineers
(2003) Introduction to the fire safety
engineering of structures, London:
IStructE Ltd
HAVE YOUR SAY
To comment on this article:
Eemail Verulam at tse@istructe.org
Etweet @IStructE
#TheStructuralEngineer
14/12/2017 12:18

thestructuralengineer.org
heating and cooling cycles and
uneven/asymmetrical thermal
loading
~ local instabilities, e.g. beams
with web openings and slender
components
~ stability of transfer structures,
e.g. loss of lateral restraint
~ curved and faceted beams.
Cautious approach to
performance-based design
For larger or more complex
structures, there may be the
temptation to employ highly
complex software to model the
temperature–time behaviour
of large structural frames.
As with any performance-
based design, a cautious
and informed approach by
the user is essential, and the
limitations of current guidance
and best practice should be
acknowledged. In this sense,
SFE is still largely a specialist
subject, but practising
structural engineers should
still consider the implications in
their designs.
Extensive sensitivity and
statistical analysis is often
necessary to determine the
overall risk profile of the
potential collapse mechanisms
and the various consequences
of collapse. Such a systematic
approach should be common
to all structural design, but
with SFE there are many
more parameters and design
scenarios that need to be
considered. These include
parameters in the ‘structural
domain’, e.g. pattern loading,
connection stiffness, boundary
conditions and non-linear
material properties; and in
the ‘fire domain’, e.g. variable
design fires and heat transfer,
single-sided heating of an
element, heating and cooling
cycles.
Most commonly used
non-specialist structural
analysis software has limited
capability when considering
large deformations. Specialist
SFE software is capable of
TSE72_14-19_Quinn_Common Misconceptions.indd 19
Structural fire engineering
Common misconceptions
carrying out this computational
analysis, but is often highly
bespoke for carrying out
specific, discrete tasks. The
user must understand the
limitations of the analysis
methodology, in terms of the
input and constraints, and must
also consider the complex
DELTABEAM®
and unpredictable interactions
between structural and non-
structural elements, which may
require a more intuitive and
qualitative assessment. Superior composite
Conclusion slim-floor system
SFE is an important
consideration in the design
of new structures, and in • Flat soffit
the assessment of existing • Fire resistance built in up to R180,
buildings.
This paper has covered only
no additional fire protection is needed on site
a discrete aspect of the subject • Can be used with concrete or steel columns
but, by highlighting a number of • Enables large open spaces
common misconceptions that
the authors have encountered
as practising engineers, it
is hoped that readers will
consider not only these h
examples, but also the need for
structural engineers to work
more closely with fire engineers
and architects to understand Based on live load=4.0kN/m2
the importance of holistic fire
and life safety design.
UK structural engineers
should all be very familiar with Slab Grid DELTABEAM® x Hollowcore
the robustness classifications
DELTABEAM®
Depth (h) R60 R120
in Approved Document A13 of
the Building Regulations based 200mm D20-500 9.0 x 7.5 7.5 x 7.5
on building type, with large, 250mm D25-600 9.0 x 9.0 9.0 x 9.0
complex or high-occupancy
buildings requiring an 300mm D30-300 9.0 x 12.0 7.5 x 12.0
independent risk assessment
rather than simply employing
prescriptive code-based ties Note: Indicative spans for given loads please contact our
and key elements in the design. office for beam types for other spans & loading situations.
The authors believe that a
similar structural classification
when considering the FR
and FLS design procedure,
www.peikko.co.uk
connecting the philosophies
of Approved Documents A
and B more closely, might help
to elevate the importance of
SFE in design. This would be
worthy of further research and
consultation with the industry.
TheStructuralEngineer | January 2018 19
14/12/2017 14:40
 Structural fire engineering
Accidental limit state in fire thestructuralengineer.org

Key considerations for

assessing structures at the
accidental limit state in fire
Leon Sullivan but are generally based on the conservative
BSc, CEng, MIStructE, MIFireE, SE, assumption of the structure being fully loaded
MASCE, MSFPE during a fire.
Structural Engineering Manager, AkzoNobel The fire strategy developed for the building
Protective Coatings, UK will determine how the structure will be
protected to ensure that the temperatures of
the members are prevented from exceeding
Synopsis the values attributable to each member
Most structures in Europe are constructed using limit state design category type. This strategy may specify
methods. Most of these structures are protected against some form of the use of either one or a combination of
the following: active fire protection such as
specified fire scenario. However, only a small minority of projects link sprinkler systems, passive fire protection
these two major considerations together to form part of a unified (PFP) such as intumescent coatings, fire-
structural fire design process. rated boards and mineral wool, etc. All these
The Eurocodes provide designers with the necessary procedures to protection systems will contribute towards
undertake an accurate and economical structural fire design, yet few controlling the temperature of the structural
elements to remain within the limits of the
engineers ever consider undertaking such an assessment.
specified design temperature by the end of
This article will focus on the load actions and combinations to be the resistance period.
considered that enable the engineer to perform an adequate structural Although this approach will produce a
assessment for the accidental limit state in fire. It will also cover important satisfactory fire protection system, it will be
considerations to ensure that any structural fire engineering strategy overly conservative for the overall objectives
of the fire strategy in terms of maintaining
is appropriately aligned, and the key information is available within the
structural stability for the duration of the
contract chain to facilitate this performance-based approach. FR period. Taking the PFP systems as
an example, to limit the temperature of a
structural member to 400°C in a design
Introduction requirements for accidental limit states (ALS) fire exceeding 1000°C after 90 minutes will
A colleague of mine recently asked me, ‘At relating to scenarios such as fire, blast and require more PFP material to be applied than
what point during your degree did you learn seismic events, the process can often be if that same member were allowed to reach
about structures in fire?’, to which I gave the overlooked, unless it is a specific hazard 600°C during the same period. This means
rather sheepish, yet predictable response… identified in the project specification. that an excessive amount of PFP may be used
‘I didn’t’. Compliance with fire regulations is a throughout the building, causing unnecessary
Sadly though, a similar response could structural design requirement prevalent cost and wasteful use of materials, if the
be received from many highly experienced throughout the world, so how is this typically limiting steel temperature is specified without
engineers when questioned about the level of addressed on projects and how can we, due consideration.
structural fire engineering (SFE) knowledge as engineers, improve our knowledge and The alternative to this method is to adopt a
they have attained over the course of their working practices to produce more accurate performance-based approach incorporating a
professional lives. structural fire engineered designs? structural fire design assessment to produce
Engineers often spend most of their a robust fire protection strategy that will
careers designing structures to satisfy Current limited state also be accurate and efficient in terms of the
ultimate limit state (ULS) requirements The approach currently adopted throughout material used, as well as the associated time
for strength and stability, in addition to the UK and Europe to protect a steel-framed and labour costs to the project.
serviceability limit state (SLS) requirements structure against fire involves specifying
for deflection and vibrations. Designing to a fire resistance (FR) time period, then When less may be more
these limit state criteria is a process that stipulating a limiting temperature for each Throughout any project contract, there is
engineers are both familiar with and feel member based on its structural use and fire always a desire to reduce unnecessary
comfortable doing. exposure classification. These temperatures costs where possible. This can manifest
When it comes to designing to meet the vary between countries around the world, itself in driving investigations into tasks

20 January 2018 | TheStructuralEngineer

TSE72_20-24_Sullivan Key considerations at ALS.indd 20 14/12/2017 12:57


thestructuralengineer.org
 Figure 1
Structural fire design
team members
such as reducing materials used,
streamlining construction methods,
assessing the payback periods of
mechanical equipment installed,
etc. As structural engineers, we
have all received a request from the
contractor at some point to review
our designs to see if there are any
unnecessary member redundancies
in our structure, in a perceived bid
to reduce steel tonnage, concrete
volumes and other material costs
to increase the contractor’s chance
of achieving an acceptable financial
return.
What many contractors and
structural engineers are unaware
of is that carrying out this process
invariably increases the cost of
the fire protection to the project. As the
contractor incurs raw material and erection
costs for the structural frame at the front end
of the construction programme, attention is
often drawn to reducing these cost elements
as much as possible, without sufficient
consideration to the resulting effect on
subsequent project processes.
Up until the point of contract award, the
engineer may have spent many months,
potentially years, developing their design from
first concepts through to what they believe is
their ‘final’ design. Post-contract award, they
can find themselves in a situation where they
are given a small fraction of that time by the
contractor to revise the submitted design in
an effort to reduce costs. The engineer is then
faced with the task of reviewing their design
and substituting members where sufficient
redundancy exists in member capacity or
deflection limitations to warrant the use of
a smaller, lighter section size. This reduces
the steel tonnage attributable to the project
and the contractor believes that savings have
been made.
Steel fabricators often raise concerns
about this issue; that using a wide variety of
smaller section sizes can add unnecessary
complexity and cost to the resulting
fabrication and connection designs. The
benefits of rationalising the range of section
sizes used – adopting repetition in serial sizes
when possible and using simple connection
detailing during fabrication – are often lost
to the more immediate concern of material
savings.
A similar concern is shared by fire
protection manufacturers. The temperature
TSE72_20-24_Sullivan Key considerations at ALS.indd 21
of an unprotected small section rises more
quickly than that of an unprotected large
section. This results in more fire protection
material being required to maintain the limiting
steel temperature when that value has been
specified simply on the member’s structural
function and exposure classification. It follows
that, if the contractor’s objective is to reduce
the holistic cost of the structural frame, the
greatest opportunity for this is created by
considering the fire protection strategy as an
integral part of the structural design process.
New recruit
To maximise the benefits of such a process,
a new member needs to be introduced to
the traditional design team: the structural
fire engineer.
By introducing a structural fire engineer
to the design team, a vital link is created
between the structural design engineer
responsible for the stability of the building
in the event of a fire, the architect who is
invariably responsible for the successful
execution of the fire protection strategy and
the contractor responsible for installing the
specified fire protection (Figure 1).
This expanded form of the design team
structure creates the opportunity to ensure
the fire protection strategy is executed to
bring the greatest potential cost benefit to
the project. For the structural fire engineer
to bring maximum value to the team, they
must work closely with the structural design
engineer to gain an understanding of the
loads acting on the building for the fire
scenario.
To carry out this process, the structural
TheStructuralEngineer | January 2018
Structural fire engineering
Accidental limit state in fire
design engineer must perform the
necessary analysis for this ALS
event, but how?
Accidental limit state in fire
The Eurocodes have provided
engineers with the best means yet to
carry out structural fire assessments
on their structures, using methods
and principles that they are already
familiar with for typical ULS and SLS
design checks. Despite this, very few
engineers even consider carrying
out such an assessment. Generally,
this appears to stem from the fact
that they do not view this as part of
their project remit, but also, in many
cases, that they are simply unaware
of what is actually involved.
The Eurocodes classify load actions
from fire as accidental events, as they
are statistically unlikely to occur during
the design life of the building. As a result,
when considered in conjunction with other
coexistent actions on the structure during
the fire scenario, they are assigned lower
combination safety factors than those
considered for normal operating conditions.
As with other ULS and SLS designs
using the Eurocodes, the load combinations
required to make structural assessments for
the ALS in fire are given in BS EN 19901. Cl.
6.4.3.3 gives the following expression for the
load combination to be considered:
(1)
This expression remains consistent with
those given for ULS and SLS, although now
with the inclusion of the term Ad to represent
the design value of the indirect effects of
thermal actions due to fire. Now, although Cl.
1.5.1.7 of BS EN 1991-1-22 defines this phrase
as ‘internal forces and moments caused
by thermal expansion’, how should this be
addressed by the engineer?
Simplifications before implications
Before we begin to contemplate the
implications of thermal expansion phenomena
and the resulting time-dependent analyses
that would ensue using non-linear material
properties, we should first consider the
simplifications that the design standards offer
when dealing with this issue.
One such simplification is given by Cl.
21
14/12/2017 12:57
 Structural fire engineering
Accidental limit state in fire thestructuralengineer.org

TABLE 1: EXAMPLE OF ALS LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR TYPICAL OFFICE DEVELOPMENT

1.0 Gk,j + 0.5 Qk,1 1.0 × Permanent self-weight

2.4.1(3) of BS EN 1993-1-23 which states
that ‘for verifying standard fire resistance
requirements, a member analysis is sufficient’.
This means that for buildings where fire
strategy requirements are based upon
meeting the heat regimes of the standard
time–temperature curve defined in Cl.
3.2.1(1)2, a satisfactory solution is obtained
by considering each structural element
in isolation, and the more complex global
analysis method accounting for thermal
expansion effects is not necessary.
When using the member analysis method,
Cl. 2.4.2(4)3 states that ‘effects of axial or in-
plain thermal expansions may be neglected’,
which means that the term for Ad shown in
Equation 1 effectively becomes redundant
in the ALS load combination for a member
analysis.
The net result of this approach is to reduce
the load combination for the ALS in fire to the
following expression:
(2)
In accordance with Cl. A1.3.21, the partial
factors γ applied to load actions at the ALS
should be 1.0, with any relevant ψ factors
taken from Table A1.1. In the case of the lead
variable action, the frequent value ψ1,1 or the
quasi-permanent value ψ2,1 may be selected,
although the UK National Annex recommends
the use of the frequent value4.
If this is applied to an example of a
typical office development for a UK project
considering permanent self-weight loads,
Category B variable occupancy loads and
0.5 × Occupancy load considered as leading variable load
Wind load not required as accompanying variable load = 0
1.0 Gk,j + 0.2 Qk,1 + 0.3 Qk,i 1.0 × Permanent self-weight
0.2 × Wind actions considered as leading variable load
0.3 × Occupancy load considered as accompanying
variable load
wind actions with no prestressing loads
present, the relevant load combinations
required for consideration would be as shown
in Table 1.
From this simplified approach, the task of
producing an accurate assessment for the
ALS appears more achievable, but not without
further consideration to other aspects that
may affect governing structural failure modes.
Structural fire design analysis models
Carrying out a structural fire assessment
may not necessarily be as simple as adding
a couple of extra load combinations into the
model and then clicking ‘Analyse’. Through
collaboration with the architect and structural
fire engineer, the structural design engineer
must ensure that the requirements of the
fire protection strategy are reflected in the
analysis model used to produce an accurate
structural fire assessment.
A project fire protection strategy may
stipulate that some secondary members do
not require protecting or only require partial
protection, an approach commonly adopted
in offshore oil and gas platforms, but also
found in some commercial construction
buildings. In scenarios involving unprotected
or partially protected steelwork, what further
considerations should the structural design
 Figure 2
Reduction factors
for carbon steel
at elevated
temperatures
engineer give to their existing design?
In the case of steel frames, the structural
design engineer requires an understanding
of how the mechanical properties of
carbon steel change during a fire and how
quickly these changes may arise. Elevated
temperatures have detrimental effects on both
the yield strength and stiffness of carbon steel
(Figure 2), which affect the governing bending
and buckling failure modes. Class 4 sections
are affected to an even greater extent and
have their own reduction factors given in
Annex E of BS EN 1993-1-23.
When unprotected steel is exposed to
the time–temperature curve associated with
fires from hydrocarbon fuel sources, the yield
strength can be reduced to just 5% of its
original value in less than 10 minutes. For this
reason, it is not unreasonable to suggest that
unprotected or partially protected members
are unable to perform the same function in
the fire that they were designed for at ambient
room temperatures. This is a particularly
important point in structures where concrete
slabs are not present to provide the necessary
lateral restraint to floor beams, commonly
the case in offshore structures or onshore
industrial facilities, as well as during the
construction phase.
Where concrete slabs provide lateral
restraint to unprotected secondary members,
studies have explored the effects of the
resulting membrane actions of composite
structures in fire. This work is beyond the
scope of this article, along with the general
design principles of steel structures in fire,
but further knowledge can be obtained from
available sources referenced at the end of this
article5–10.
To perform a more appropriate global
analysis for the ALS, unprotected and partially
protected members should be deactivated
from the structural analysis model where such
members are providing the only form of lateral
restraint. This process helps produce a more
accurate stiffness matrix in the model, which
only considers fully protected members that
are capable of distributing loads and resisting
these actions.
In the case of unprotected secondary
members that provide the only form of lateral
restraint to primary members for the normal

22 January 2018 | TheStructuralEngineer

TSE72_20-24_Sullivan Key considerations at ALS.indd 22 14/12/2017 12:57


thestructuralengineer.org
 Figure 5
Fire protection solution
operating condition of the structure (e.g. in
offshore structures or industrial facilities), this
introduces an additional consideration to be
given to effective buckling length values used
in lateral torsional buckling calculations.
If the ULS design of a primary member
relies on the lateral restraint of unprotected
or partially protected secondary members
(Figure 3), the ALS design must reflect any
change in the length considered for lateral
torsional buckling checks.
When considering the partially protected
arrangement shown in Figure 4 for the
ALS in fire, deactivating the members in
TSE72_20-24_Sullivan Key considerations at ALS.indd 23
 Figure 3
Buckling length
considered for
ULS design
the analysis model must also increase the
buckling length considered for the primary
members where adequate lateral restraint is
no longer present. Care must be taken that
deactivating unprotected members does
not result in loads being removed from the
analysis. The unprotected steel may have lost
the necessary yield strength and stiffness
required to provide lateral restraint to the
primary beam, but it will still be transferring
gravity loads via the connections.
Although the buckling length for the primary
member has increased, this does not mean
that the beam is now going to be deemed
TheStructuralEngineer | January 2018
Structural fire engineering
Accidental limit state in fire
 Figure 4
Revised buckling
length for ALS design
inadequate. It must be remembered that
the design load actions considered for the
ALS are considerably lower than those
used for the ULS, due to the reduced safety
factors applied. This reduction in the loads
considered to be acting during the fire
may mean that the member could still be
considered as suitable following the SFE
analysis.
Adopting these principles gives the
structural design engineer greater
confidence that accidental event scenarios
have been addressed more comprehensively
and that this assessment can be used in
further processes to reduce project costs.
Reap what you sow
As part of this collaborative design team
effort, the structural fire engineer has
already worked with the architect and the
structural design engineer to ensure that
the fire strategy requirements have been
considered correctly. The structural fire
engineer now begins the process of working
with the structural design engineer and
the contractor to ensure that a solution
is found that considers all aspects of the
fire protection process, to bring maximum
benefit to the project. This will involve
balancing frame costs, fire protection costs,
labour costs, productivity, etc. to ensure a
holistic solution is obtained (Figure 5), rather
than one which considers each element as
an isolated process.
To provide the most cost-effective passive
fire protection solution, many aspects
need consideration – such as protection
type, project environment, off-site or
on-site application, number of coats or
layers applied. In the case of intumescent
coatings, the number of coats required can
have a significant impact on project costs
and productivity, with single-coat solutions
bringing several benefits to a project.
Without considering these aspects as part
of a combined process that incorporates
the whole frame cost and construction
programme, unnecessary expenditure can
23
14/12/2017 12:57
 Structural fire engineering
Accidental limit state in fire thestructuralengineer.org

escalate quickly and schedule delays can

be incurred.

Summary
Too often in construction, structural design
engineers are asked to focus on making
savings in the material costs of structural
elements without being afforded the time to
fully consider the subsequent cost impact
of making such changes. By considering fire
protection costs as part of the holistic cost
of the structural frame, a performance-based
approach can help deliver the greater benefit
to the project.
Introducing a structural fire engineer as an
inherent member of the design team offers the
greatest opportunity to realise such additional
project value. Through close collaboration
with the structural design engineer and the
necessary assessment carried out for the ALS
in fire, savings can be made that will benefit
the design team as a whole.
HAVE YOUR SAY
To comment on this article:
Eemail Verulam at tse@istructe.org
Etweet @IStructE #TheStructuralEngineer
REFERENCES
E1) British Standards Institution (2002)
BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005 Eurocode: Basis
of structural design, London: BSI
E2) British Standards Institution (2002)
BS EN 1991-1-2:2002 Eurocode 1: Actions
on structures. General actions. Actions on
structures exposed to fire, London: BSI
E3) British Standards Institution (2005)
BS EN 1993-1-2:2005 Eurocode 3: Design of
steel structures. General rules. Structural fire
design, London: BSI
E4) British Standards Institution (2004)
NA to BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005 UK
National Annex for Eurocode. Basis of
structural design, London: BSI
E5) Vassart O. and Zhao B. (2013)
Membrane Action of Composite Structures
in Case of Fire (1st ed.), Brussels: European
Convention for Constructional Steelwork
(ECCS)
E6) Franssen J.-M. and Real P.V. (2010)
Fire Design of Steel Structures (1st ed.),
Brussels: European Convention for
Constructional Steelwork (ECCS)
E7) Lennon T. (2011) Structural Fire
Engineering, London: ICE Publishing
E8) Franssen J.-M. (2005) Design of Steel
Structures subjected to Fire: Background
and Design Guide to Eurocode 3, Liège: Les
Éditions de l’Université de Liège
E9) Lennon T., Moore D.B., Wang Y.C.
and Bailey C.G. (2007) Designers’ guide
to EN 1991-1-2, EN 1992-1-2, EN 1993-1-2
and EN 1994-1-2, London: Thomas Telford
Publishing
E10) Simms W.I. (2012) Fire Resistance
Design of Steel Framed Buildings, Ascot:
Steel Construction Institute

Multi-material modelling,
analysis and design software
Available to rent or buy for a lot less than you might think

• BIM / Revit compatible

• Design codes for concrete,
steel, timber, aluminium,
composite and cold formed
steel in one model
• Footfall, dynamics, stability and
non-linear analysis
• 3D wind load generator
• UK field support team
Blavatnik School of Government, Oxford - Pell Frischmann. RIBA National Award 2016
• Co-developed and supported
by CADS www.cads.co.uk/scia | 01202 603031

24 January 2018 | TheStructuralEngineer

TSE72_20-24_Sullivan Key considerations at ALS.indd 24 14/12/2017 12:57

 Structural fire engineering
thestructuralengineer.org New ASCE/SEI 7 standard

Developments in structural
fire protection design – a US
perspective
intended to control a single fire that grows
Kevin J. LaMalva naturally and involves ordinary combustibles.
PE Accordingly, the hydraulic capacity of a
Senior Staff II / Fire Safety, Simpson Gumpertz fire sprinkler system is designed based on
& Heger Inc., Boston, USA; Chair, ASCE/SEI Fire the potential activation of a small cluster of
Protection Committee contiguous sprinkler heads (e.g. six sprinkler
heads) at a single and hydraulically remote
Synopsis location of the system1. This standardised
design method allows for efficient control of
The next edition of the ASCE/SEI 7 standard commences a new and ground-
ordinary fires using practically sized sprinkler
breaking industry-consensus standard of care for structural fire protection piping. Consequently, the effectiveness of a
in the USA, and other adopting jurisdictions. The default option is termed fire sprinkler system decreases precipitously
standard fire resistance design, and is based on a long-standing empirical when the number of sprinkler heads that
indexing system that excludes consideration of realistic thermal demands activate significantly exceeds its design basis
and structural system response. (e.g. 10 or more sprinkler heads)2. Hence,
fire sprinkler systems may not be effective
The only permitted alternative to standard fire resistance design is at controlling extraordinary fires, such as
structural fire engineering (SFE), as constituted in the new Appendix E. SFE those resulting from arson, terrorism, or
explicitly evaluates the demand and capacity of structural systems under other rare events. Such events may produce
fire loading in a similar manner as other design loads are treated in structural a rapid-growth fire due to an explosion, fires
engineering practice. that originate in more than one location, and/
or a fire that involves a larger area than that
Due to common misconceptions and lack of industry guidance, designers
contemplated by the hydraulic design of
often erroneously intermingle these two approaches in order to justify the system.
structural fire protection variances. To combat this poor practice, recent In the rare case that both fire sprinkler
industry efforts in the USA have focused on formally bifurcating these two system control and manual intervention are
design options, and providing specific requirements for the SFE approach. ineffective or not present, a fire may become
structurally significant. When structural
systems are heated by uncontrolled fire,
Design problem
Why do we thermally insulate structural
systems? Structural fire protection 
Figure 1
Furnace test of
protected open web
(referred to as ‘structural insulation’ herein) steel joists
addresses the low-probability and potentially
LAMALVA K.J. / UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES, NORTHBROOK, IL

high-consequence event of uncontrolled

fire exposure. Accidental fires ignited
in engineered buildings are most often
controlled by fire sprinkler systems, which
are widely relied upon in the USA. Fires may
also be controlled by direct intervention from
building occupants and/or fire department
personnel. If these active measures were
invariably effective, applied structural
insulation would serve no purpose. In reality,
fire sprinkler systems have performance
limitations, and direct intervention may be
hindered by logistical obstacles. Hence, the
sole purpose of structural insulation is to
serve as a critical back-up fire-safety system.
Fire sprinkler systems are generally

TheStructuralEngineer | January 2018 25

TSE72_25-29_Developments in structural fire protection LaMalva.indd 25 14/12/2017 12:58

 Structural fire engineering
New ASCE/SEI 7 standard
E Figure 2
WTC 7
collapse
following
uncontrolled
fire
they experience thermal effects that are not
contemplated by conventional structural
engineering design. Under these conditions, it
is critical that structural systems remain stable
to protect occupant life safety, and satisfy
other required performance objectives (e.g.
limitation of damage). Standard building code
requirements provide prescriptive measures
to help mitigate the risk of structural failure
due to uncontrolled fire exposure (referred
to as standard fire resistance design herein).
However, direct consideration of this risk and
an informed selection of appropriate safety
measures requires structural engineering
GETTY
analyses (referred to as structural fire
engineering herein).
Sanctioned design options
Since the early 20th century, building
codes have primarily adopted standard fire
resistance design. This design option is
entirely based on furnace testing of isolated
structural components, and relies almost
exclusively on insulation for structural fire
protection. The primary intent of this approach
is to reduce the heating of individual structural
components, with the intent of mitigating
the risk of structural system failure during an
uncontrolled fire.
As an alternative approach, structural fire
engineering (SFE) explicitly evaluates the
demand (i.e. induced forces from heating) and
capacity (i.e. temperature-dependent strength
and stiffness) of structural systems under
fire exposure, in a similar manner to which
other design loads are treated in structural
engineering practice.
It is improper to marry aspects of standard
fire resistance design with SFE, and vice
versa. Accordingly, the incompatible aspects
of these two sanctioned design options are
shown in Table 1 and further examined below.
Standard fire resistance design
Dating back to the 1927 Uniform Building
Code, the level of fire resistance required for
individual structural components has been
prescribed by building codes in the USA3.
TABLE 1: CONTEMPLATION OF FIRE EFFECTS
Demand
Heating
Standard fire resistance design Measured
Structural fire engineering Calculated
26
TSE72_25-29_Developments in structural fire protection LaMalva.indd 26
The required level of fire resistance has been
primarily based on the building occupancy,
height and area. More recently, US building
codes have allowed for specific reductions
in fire resistance if the building is equipped
with a fire sprinkler system, despite the fact
that structural fire protection is intended to
serve as a critical back-up system. Within
this prescriptive framework, the level of fire
resistance of a structural component is based
on its performance in a standard furnace test,
which has remained relatively unchanged
since the ASTM E119 standard was first
published in 19184,5.
Standard furnace testing exposes a
structural component (often with applied
insulation) to a relatively intense heating
exposure by means of fuel burners
(Figure 1). This testing excludes consideration
of structural connections, structural system
response (e.g. realistic load redistribution),
or actual fire exposure (e.g. representation
of fuel burnout). Also, the size limitation of a
test furnace restricts structural component
spans to no greater than 17ft (5.2m), which
further trivialises its representation of
actual structural systems. Due to these
severe limitations, it has been recognised
by designers since the 1980s6, or perhaps
earlier7, that there is no correlation between
structural component performance in a
Capacity
Induced forces Structural endurance
Indeterminate Indeterminate
Calculated Calculated
January 2018 | TheStructuralEngineer
thestructuralengineer.org
standard furnace test and the associated in
situ structural system performance during an
actual uncontrolled fire.
Fire resistance directories (e.g. UL Fire
Resistance Directory8) provide a list of
protected components that have been
qualified in accordance with standard
furnace testing. These listings have very
specific construction requirements that are
commensurate with the test mock-up. Even
though fire resistance directories are quite
lengthy, the ability of designers to achieve
project goals is routinely inhibited by this
empirical framework, especially when unique
or non-conventional architecture is proposed.
More troubling, the in situ performance
expectation of a qualified protection
scheme is entirely indeterminate, and highly
dependent on non-contemplated aspects
of the structural system design (e.g. seismic
detailing). Hence, the vulnerability of buildings
to structural failure from fire is presumably
variable across different jurisdictions,
which have varying wind, seismic and other
structural design requirements.
Structural fire engineering
Although rare, severe structural damage and
collapses of engineered buildings due to
fire (e.g. One Meridian Plaza building9, World
Trade Center (WTC) 1 and 2 buildings10,
WTC 5 building11, WTC 7 building12 (Figure 2),
Windsor Tower13, Delft Technical University
building14 and others) have highlighted the
need for structural engineering participation in
evaluating fire effects on structural systems.
Moreover, the failure modes exhibited by
these events could not have been anticipated
by examination of standard furnace testing
results (e.g. connection failures). Historically,
structural engineers have remained outside
the fray of structural fire protection practice.
However, a fast-growing segment of the
structural engineering community in the
USA has become more assertive that their
involvement and assimilation into structural
fire protection practice is very much needed.
The emerging field of SFE involves the
explicit design of structural systems to
adequately endure thermal load effects
from uncontrolled fire exposure. Within
this framework, thermally induced forces
and degraded material properties from fire
exposure can be limited by means of rationally
allocated structural insulation, control of fuel
loads, and/or other fire exposure mitigation
techniques. Also, the ability of a structural
14/12/2017 12:58
 Structural fire engineering
thestructuralengineer.org New ASCE/SEI 7 standard

E Figure 3
Occupant
evacuation
simulation

system to endure fire effects can be enhanced

by means of specific member sizing, connection
detailing, and/or other measures to provide
added structural robustness.

THUNDERHEAD ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC

Standard fire resistance design only permits
the designer to influence the level of insulation
applied to a structural system. In contrast, SFE
allows for the evaluation of multiple design
variables (e.g. structural robustness), which
facilitates enhanced design flexibility (Table 2)15.
Accordingly, SFE provides opportunities to
develop alternative designs that are optimised
for aesthetics, functionality and/or costs
without compromising fire safety. Additionally,
this approach allows for efficient analyses of
non-conforming existing building construction
(e.g. historic preservation) prior to undertaking
costly rehabilitation.
The use of SFE constitutes an alternative
methodology to meet project design objectives,
as permitted by the alternative materials,
design and methods of construction provision
in US building codes16. Unlike standard fire
resistance design, in which the architect
typically serves as the responsible party for
satisfying code requirements for structural
fire protection, SFE usually requires a team
consisting of structural engineers, fire
protection engineers, and possibly other
design professionals.
Seminal standards
In cases where standard fire resistance design
is judged to be overly restrictive and/or too
amorphous for the potential hazard by project
stakeholders (including the building authority),
SFE may be employed to provide a rational
basis for evaluation of structural performance
under fire exposure. However, standardised
guidance for practising and evaluating SFE has
not existed in the USA until very recently. In
2011, the American Society of Civil Engineers:
Structural Engineering Institute (ASCE/SEI)
Technical Activities Division identified the need
for, but the lack of standards regarding SFE as
TABLE 2: CONTROLLABLE DESIGN VARIABLES
Insulation Fuel load
control
Standard fire
resistance Controllable
design
Structural
fire Controllable Controllable
engineering
an industry dilemma. To address this issue,
the ASCE/SEI Fire Protection Committee
has endeavoured to integrate relevant
standardisation into the industry.
ASCE/SEI 7 (Minimum Design Loads and
Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other
Structures)17 serves as the parent standard
for structural engineering in the International
Building Code (IBC). This standard is
published on a six-year revision cycle and
was previously released in 2010. The recently
released edition of this standard now includes
a new section on ‘Fire Resistance’ (Chapter
1). In addition to being the first time that
fire resistance has ever been addressed
in this standard, this section is intended
to commence a new and ground-breaking
industry-consensus standard of care for
structural fire protection practice in the USA,
and other adopting jurisdictions18. The default
option is for the designer to strictly adhere to
the requirements and restrictions of standard
fire resistance design per the applicable
building code. The only permitted alternative
to standard fire resistance design is SFE, as
constituted in the standard’s new Appendix
E (‘Performance-Based Design Procedures
for Fire Effects on Structures’). Notably, the
Structural Structural
design detailing
N/A N/A N/A
Controllable Controllable
inclusion of Appendix E in ASCE/SEI 7 marks
the first time that fire effects are considered
as an explicit design load in a US structural
engineering standard.
Appendix E is organized into six sections
with associated commentary. Notably, Section
E.4 specifies mandatory and discretionary
performance objectives for structural systems
under fire exposure. In all cases, the designer
must explicitly demonstrate that the structural
system would allow for a safe and complete
evacuation of building occupants to a public
right of way (e.g. roadway) in the event of
an uncontrolled fire. This necessitates an
ASET (Available Safe Egress Time) versus
RSET (Required Safe Egress Time) analysis,
in which the determination of RSET involves
consideration of occupant egress times
(Figure 3)19. Additionally, the designer must
demonstrate that structural elements that
support building refuge areas within the
building (e.g. horizontal exit areas) would
remain stable during and after an uncontrolled
fire event. These mandatory performance
objectives uphold the intended functionality
of occupant egress systems. Beyond these
mandatory performance objectives, all
other relevant performance objectives are
classified as discretionary. Discretionary
performance objectives may address issues
such as tolerable levels of structural damage,
Other structural support of fire resistance rated
mitigation assemblies, structural support of ingress
routes for firefighters, and others. Accordingly,
the need for and the scope of discretionary
N/A
performance objectives must be agreed upon
by project stakeholders, and this agreement
should be made explicit within a Design Brief
Controllable document20. Even if discretionary performance
objectives are not explicitly analysed for a

TheStructuralEngineer | January 2018 27

TSE72_25-29_Developments in structural fire protection LaMalva.indd 27 14/12/2017 12:58

 Structural fire engineering
New ASCE/SEI 7 standard
E Figure 4
Thermal model of
steel girder/column
assembly21
given project, fulfilment of the mandatory
performance objectives may enhance
structural performance in these respects
(e.g. added structural robustness of stairways
used by firefighters).
To serve as key supporting documents for
ASCE/SEI 7-16 Appendix E, the Society of
Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE) and National
Fire Protection Association (NFPA) have
developed a novel suite of standards that
provide guidance for estimating the fuel load,
fire exposure, and associated heat transfer
(Figure 4)21 to the structural system (i.e.
NFPA 55722, SFPE S.0123, and SFPE S.0224).
Collectively, these standards provide an
industry-consensus method for calculating the
thermal load on a structural system from fire.
Appendix E only pertains to structural
systems, excluding all other fire-resistant
assemblies (e.g. fire barriers, fire stops).
Such fire-resistant assemblies are primarily
governed by their mechanical integrity
performance under fire exposure (e.g.
deterioration of gypsum wallboard), not
their structural performance. Accordingly,
the SFPE S.02 standard cautions that
mechanical integrity performance cannot be
reliably predicted using available analytical
tools. Hence, the regulation of these types of
fire-resistant assemblies remains within the
purview of standard fire resistance
design only.
Official bifurcation
ASCE/SEI 7-16 effectively compartmentalises
the two sanctioned design options for
structural fire protection. Standard fire
resistance design is recognised as an
empirical indexing method, and nothing
beyond that. Within this design option,
justification of code variances for structural
fire protection must be conducted within
the context of the standard furnace test
and its acceptance criteria, and not with
respect to postulations of in situ thermal and/
or structural performance. Accordingly, the
removal of structural insulation from steel
structures based solely on temperature field
information (e.g. fire and thermal modelling
results) is strictly prohibited.
If the limitations and restrictions of standard
fire resistance design inhibit the achievement
of stakeholder design objectives, the only
acceptable alternative is an SFE approach
that is conducted in accordance with the
required scope and performance objectives of
ASCE/SEI 7-16 Appendix E. In effect, this new
28
TSE72_25-29_Developments in structural fire protection LaMalva.indd 28
standardisation should drastically reduce the
number of structural fire protection variances,
which have become all too common and
easy to achieve in the USA. Instead, the
expectations for a structural fire protection
variance will be elevated per the standard of
care embodied in ASCE/SEI 7-16.
Redefined concept of equivalence
Standard fire resistance design helps to
uphold a high level of quality in building
construction, and there is no question that
the good practices incorporated into qualified
listings significantly raise the level of fire
safety in buildings25. However, the level of
risk associated with code compliance for fire
resistance is unquantifiable, and this approach
does not affirmatively inform stakeholders
about actual fire performance. In practice,
there is often a perceived need to judge a
SFE design based on standard fire resistance
design metrics, such as the level of fire
resistance. Unfortunately, fire resistance is an
artefact of an empirical test method, and there
exists no practical method for a designer to
quantitatively compare the level of safety
provided by a SFE design to that provided by
a standard fire resistance design.
Whereas the intended performance of a
structural system under fire exposure per
standard fire resistance design is opaque
and interpretative, minimum performance
expectations of a SFE design are clearly
 Figure 5
LaGuardia Airport
Terminal B redevelopment
project (aerial view
rendering)28
January 2018 | TheStructuralEngineer
thestructuralengineer.org
defined within ASCE/SEI 7-16 Appendix
E. SFE requires the designer to perform
structural analyses in all cases, which
involves explicit calculation of structural
demand-to-capacity ratios and/or computer
simulation of structural system response.
Hence, it is not reasonable to require that
a SFE design be ‘equivalent’ to a standard
fire resistance design, which does not
require appreciable engineering rigour.
Otherwise, applying SFE to actual building
projects becomes highly impractical, and
would lack any appreciable incentive to
invest the significant amount of engineering
time involved. In fact, designers should be
rewarded with enhanced design freedom
if this higher level of engineering rigor and
confirmation is enacted.
Invigorated practice
There has been a more rapid acceptance of
SFE in Europe and other specific countries
compared to the USA (e.g. with reference
to EN 1991-1-226). As a result, projects that
utilise SFE are much more prevalent in these
countries than in the USA. However, the
release of ASCE/SEI 7-16 should lead to a
similar level of acceptance and utilisation
in the USA. This transition is envisioned to
be natural, for structural engineers and fire
protection engineers collectively possess
sufficient skills and experience to evaluate
structural systems under fire exposure.
Until now, designers in the USA have had
to decide on their own what constitutes
a satisfactory SFE design. Consequently,
there has been significant inconsistency in
the application of this alternative approach,
14/12/2017 12:58

thestructuralengineer.org
REFERENCES
E1) National Fire Protection Association
(2016) NFPA 13: Standard for the Installation
of Sprinkler Systems, Quincy, MA: NFPA
E2) Hall J. (2010) U.S. Experience with
Sprinklers and Other Automatic Fire
Extinguishing Equipment, Quincy, MA:
National Fire Protection Association
E3) International Conference of Building
Officials (1927) Uniform Building Code,
Whittier, CA: ICBO
E4) Babrauskas V. and Williamson R. (1978)
‘The Historical Basis of Fire-Resistance
Testing – Part I’, Fire Technol., 14 (3), pp.
184–194
E5) Babrauskas V. and Williamson R. (1978)
‘The Historical Basis of Fire-Resistance
Testing – Part II’, Fire Technol., 14 (4), pp.
304–316
E6) Law M. (1981) ‘Designing Fire Safety
for Steel – Recent Work’, Proc. ASCE Spring
Convention, Reston, VA: American Society
of Civil Engineers
E7) Pettersson O. (1975) ‘The Connection
Between a Real Fire Exposure and the
Heated Conditions According to Standard
Fire Resistance Tests – with Special
Application to Steel Structures’, Bulletin
of Division of Structural Mechanics and
Concrete Construction, Bulletin 39, Lund,
Sweden: Lund Institute of Technology
E8) Underwriters Laboratories (2016) UL
Fire Resistance Directory, Northbrook, IL:
Underwriters Laboratories
E9) Eisner H. and Manning W. (1991) ‘One
Meridian Plaza Fire’, Fire Engineering
Magazine, 144 (8), pp. 50–70
E10) Gross J. and McAllister T. (2005)
NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response
and Probable Collapse Sequence of the
World Trade Center Towers, Gaithersburg,
MD: National Institute of Standards and
Technology
E11) LaMalva K., Barnett J. and Dusenberry
D. (2009) ‘Failure Analysis of the World
and project stakeholders are often reluctant
to employ this approach in fear of elevated
approvals risk and liability. Notwithstanding,
it is envisioned that the release of ASCE/
SEI 7-16 will legitimise the practice of SFE,
and ease the reluctance of stakeholders to
adopt this approach for building projects.
For instance, SFE was recently employed in
accordance with ASCE/SEI 7-16 Appendix
E for the LaGuardia Airport Central Terminal
B Redevelopment Project in New York,
TSE72_25-29_Developments in structural fire protection LaMalva.indd 29
Trade Center 5 Building’, J. Fire Protect.
Eng., 19 (4), pp. 261–274
E12) McAllister T., Gann R., Averill J. et
al. (2008) NIST NCSTAR 1-9: Structural
Fire Response and Probable Collapse
Sequence of World Trade Center Building
7, Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of
Standards and Technology
E13) Fletcher I., Borg A., Hitchen N. and
Welch S. (2006) ‘Performance of concrete
in fire: a review of the state of the art, with a
case study of the Windsor Tower fire’, Proc.
4th International Workshop for Structures in
Fire, Volume 2, pp. 779–790
E14) Meacham B.J., Park H., Engelhardt M.
et al. (2010) ‘Fire and collapse, Faculty of
Architecture building: The Delft University of
Technology: Data collection and preliminary
analysis’, 8th International Conference on
Performance-Based Codes and Fire Safety
Design Methods, Lund University, Sweden
E15) LaMalva K. (2017) ‘Chapter 9: Fire
Design’, In: McMullin P.W., Price J.S. and
Simchuk S. (eds.) Architect’s Guidebook to
Structures: Special Structural Topics, New
York, NY: Routledge
E16) International Code Council (2016)
International Building Code, Falls Church,
VA: ICC
E17) American Society of Civil Engineers:
Structural Engineering Institute (2016)
ASCE/SEI 7: Minimum Design Loads and
Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other
Structures, Reston, Virginia: ASCE
E18) Post N. (2017) ‘Guidance for Structural
Fire Engineering Making Its Debut’,
Engineering News Record [Online] Available
at: www.enr.com/articles/41393-guidance-
for-structural-fire-engineering-making-its-
debut?v=preview (Accessed: November
2017)
E19) Thornton C., O’Konski R., Hardeman
B. and Swenson D. (2011) ‘Pathfinder: An
Agent-Based Egress Simulator’, Pedestrian
and Evacuation Dynamics, Boston, MA:
Springer
NY, which will feature the world’s first dual
pedestrian bridges that span across aircraft
taxi lanes27 (Figure 5)28.
To further support the prospective
emergence of SFE in the USA and other
adopting jurisdictions, the ASCE/SEI Fire
Protection Committee has developed a new
ASCE/SEI Manual of Practice (Structural Fire
Engineering) with a prospective release in
early 2018. This 200-page manual will provide
recommendations for analysis techniques,
TheStructuralEngineer | January 2018
Structural fire engineering
New ASCE/SEI 7 standard
E20) Society of Fire Protection Engineers
(2007) SFPE Engineering Guide to
Performance-Based Fire Protection (2nd
ed.), Bethesda, MD: SFPE
E21) LaMalva K. (2011) ‘Thermal response
of steel structures to fire: test versus field
conditions’, J. Fire Protect. Eng., 21 (4), pp.
285–299
E22) National Fire Protection Association
(2016) NFPA 557: Standard for
Determination of Fire Loads for Use in
Structural Fire Protection Design, Quincy,
MA: NFPA
E23) Society of Fire Protection Engineers
(2011) SFPE S.01: Engineering Standard on
Calculating Fire Exposures to Structures,
Bethesda, MD: SFPE
E24) Society of Fire Protection Engineers
(2015) SFPE S.02: Engineering Standard on
Calculation Methods to Predict the Thermal
Performance of Structural and Fire Resistive
Assemblies, Bethesda, MD: SFPE
E25) Fitzgerald R. (2004) Building Fire
Performance Analysis, Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons
E26) British Standards Institution (2002)
BS EN 1991-1-2:2002 Eurocode 1: Actions
on structures. General actions. Actions on
structures exposed to fire, London: BSI
E27) HOK (2016) New York Governor
Andrew Cuomo and Vice President Joe
Biden Announce Groundbreaking on New
LaGuardia Airport [Online] Available at:
www.hok.com/about/news/2016/06/14/
new-york-governor-cuomo-and-
vice-president-joe-biden-announce-
groundbreaking-on-new-laguardia-airport/
(Accessed: November 2017)
E28) LaGuardia Gateway Partners
(2016) LaGuardia Central Fact
Sheet [Online] Available at: http://
laguardiagatewaypartners.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/06/LGP-Fact-
Sheet-and-Renderings.pdf (Accessed:
November 2017)
input parameters and structural acceptance
criteria. At a minimum, SFE represents an
emerging market opportunity for qualified
specialists that can provide stakeholders
enhanced design freedom. At its paramount,
building authorities may be empowered to
require an SFE approach to better protect
the public in certain instances, such as for
the design of buildings that have a high
consequence of structural failure and/or
specific potential threats.
29
14/12/2017 12:58
 Structural fire engineering
Fire protection of beams with web openings thestructuralengineer.org

Performance-based design
of fire-protected composite
beams with web openings
Mark O’Connor Nicoletta Galluzzi
BSc, PhD, MBA BSc, MSc
Director, Structures, WSP, London, UK Senior Structural Engineer, WSP, London, UK beams with web openings are investigated.
The paper first outlines the current design
practice of the beams for both static and fire
Waleed Hamad limit states. It then outlines the performance-
BSc(Hons), MSc, PhD based approach for the optimisation of
Structural Engineer, WSP, London, UK fire-protection systems to composite floors.
Finally, the effects of including more realistic
restraint conditions on the performance of the
Synopsis composite beams are investigated by the use
Fire protection of composite beams with large web openings is an important of appropriate finite-element (FE) modelling.
design issue, especially when using intumescent coatings. This is due
to higher web slenderness and differential thermal heating through the Current design practice
Ultimate limit state
web openings in fire. Previous tests on composite beams, however, have
The design of composite beams with web
involved simple support conditions and were performed under a standard openings under factored loading is fairly
fire temperature–time regime. straightforward and is covered by existing
As performance-based design of fire-protected steel structures becomes design guidance. Steel Construction
more prevalent, it is important to investigate the behaviour of protected Institute (SCI) publication P3557 presents
a comprehensive engineering model to
beams with web openings in complete frames under natural fires. This paper
design beams with web openings and
outlines the technical background before considering the development of provides information that complements the
more realistic performance within the design of optimised fire-protection requirements of the Eurocodes. The checks
systems of composite floor plates. consist of bending resistance at the openings,
shear resistance of web-posts between
openings, Vierendeel bending and shear
Introduction it is always necessary to fire-protect the buckling. The guidance also provides practical
The wide use of composite steel construction main structural steelwork to ensure that the geometric limits in terms of depths and lengths
in commercial developments is based on the beams supporting the floor play their role in of openings, and widths of web-posts and
ability to create long-span column-free zones maintaining compartmentation. Fire protection end-posts.
which can incorporate the large servicing with boarding is an expensive option and the Often, the minimum depth of the steel beam
requirements within the structural depth of the use of sprayed fire-protection products can be is 500mm to 600mm due to the practical need
beams. In recent years, steel beams with web problematic on site. This has given rise to the to accommodate sensible opening sizes for
openings have become a practical solution application of intumescent coatings that are servicing. For efficient structural design of the
to these requirements, as they are capable of applied either on site or off site. This method composite beam, the top flange can be smaller
achieving long spans due to their high bending of fire protection, however, is often deemed than the bottom flange and the web is kept as
capacity and stiffness, while accommodating to be a design issue due to the higher web slender as possible.
frequent heating and ventilation ducts through slenderness and differential thermal heating
the openings. These openings can be regularly through the openings in fire. Additionally, as Fire limit state
or irregularly spaced. There is also usually a it is an active system, it takes some minutes BS EN 1994-1-2 (Eurocode 4)8 describes the
requirement for one or more larger openings for the intumescent properties to develop, requirements for design of composite steel
to accommodate the main distribution ducting, giving rise to a complex variation of member structures exposed to fire, taking into account
often close to mid-span. temperature with time. As a consequence, the behaviour of the structural system at
For most commercial developments, floor- extensive research has been performed to elevated temperatures, the potential heat
to-floor compartmentation is a mainstay of fire scrutinise the behaviour of these beams at exposure and the beneficial effects of fire-
strategies to ensure that any fire is contained elevated temperatures1–6. protection systems. At elevated temperatures,
within the compartment of fire origin. Due In this paper, some practical aspects on EC4 provides reduction factors for yield
to the degradation of steel properties in fire, the performance of fire-protected composite strength and Young’s modulus relative to

30 January 2018 | TheStructuralEngineer

TSE72_30-35_Performance-based design O'Connor.indd 30 14/12/2017 12:14


thestructuralengineer.org
those at room temperature (20°C). The
design checks are then identical to those
of the ultimate limit state (ULS) but using
reduced properties appropriate to the relevant
temperature. The tacit assumption is that
the beam is a simply supported and
unrestrained element.
EC4 does not explicitly cover composite
beams with web openings, and recently the
SCI produced fire design guidance for such
beams9 to complement publication P355. The
guidance considers the common failure modes
of composite beams with web openings
and provides a methodology to determine
the critical limiting temperature. The design
procedure assumes a temperature distribution
across the elements of the beam cross-
section, represented as a function of bottom
flange temperature and web-post temperature
between the openings. This is based on
observations of previous fire tests on beams
with intumescent protection.
The dry film thickness (DFT) of the coating
provided to achieve a given fire resistance is
a key parameter in the cost of fire-protection
systems. It determines the number of coats
and the number of times the steel member
needs to be handled and dried. Depending
on the intumescent product, there is a
limitation on the thickness that can be
applied practically in one pass. The DFT for a
particular section tends to be determined by
the most slender element in the section, as
it is a function of the massivity or A/V factor
for the particular element. This is often the
web; thereby the web critical temperature
becomes a key determinant on the economic
efficiency of the fire-protection system. Often,
by increasing the web thickness, it is possible
to significantly reduce the DFT requirement for
the total section.
Therefore, from a pragmatic viewpoint,
the most economical solution is somewhere
between the most efficient structural section
TSE72_30-35_Performance-based design O'Connor.indd 31
at ambient temperature and the one which
minimises the fire-protection cost. In principle,
a slightly heavier beam might lead to a better
solution by minimising the coating costs.
Performance-based design
Traditionally, the easiest way of demonstrating
compliance to the functional requirements
of the UK Building Regulations10 is to
protect all elements of the structure to the
prescriptively stated fire resistance rating
dependent on occupancy, sprinkler provision
and building height. However, a performance-
based approach is allowed within Approved
Document B as an alternative to the
prescriptive requirements of the code. In a
performance-based approach, the response of
the structure is calculated using more realistic
fire scenarios based upon the expected
fire loads, compartment conditions and the
structural configuration for the part of the
structure concerned.
It is normally possible using such an
approach to develop an optimised fire-
protection scheme for composite floor plates
consisting of a mixture of protected and
unprotected beams. Based on the full-scale
tests of BRE Cardington, composite structures
have been demonstrated to be particularly
robust in fire, as they develop alternative load
paths at the fire limit state due to catenary
 Figure 2
Extruded view of FE
model of floor plate
a) All model
components
TheStructuralEngineer | January 2018
Structural fire engineering
Fire protection of beams with web openings
W Figure 1
Typical floor plate with
protected (red) and
unprotected (blue) beams
action within the composite floor slab2.
A typical floor plate consisting of a 15m
secondary span and 9m primary span is
illustrated in Figure 1, with protected (red) and
unprotected (blue) beams indicated. If a beam
can be left unprotected, the most efficient
section for normal design can be adopted.
The fire protection of the protected secondary
beams providing alternative load paths at the
fire limit state then becomes doubly important.
However, the performance of such beams
in a composite floor structure is different
from that of a simply supported, unrestrained
element acting predominantly in bending, on
which the design rules at the fire limit state are
based. It is therefore necessary to investigate
the potential differences in more detail.
Full-scale testing of structures in fire is an
expensive undertaking1,3,5. FE modelling is
considered to be an effective approach for
investigating the key phenomena exhibited
in fire4,6, and it is used here to illustrate the
potentially different behaviour between simply
supported and realistically restrained beams
with web openings in fire.
Study on protected beams with
web openings
To illustrate the potential difference in
response of an optimised fire-protection
scheme, the portion of the floor plate
studied is shown in Figure 2. This is a 15m
long secondary beam spanning between a
perimeter column and core wall and designed
for 90-minute fire resistance. A 130mm
composite steel deck slab spans 3m between
secondary beams. These are UB610×229×101
and have 16 circular openings of 300mm
diameter spaced at 700mm centres. An
additional 900mm wide by 400mm deep
rectangular opening is provided at mid-span.
It is important to note that if spacing
of openings can be kept as far apart as
possible, this can avoid potential problems
b) Frame elements
31
14/12/2017 12:14
 Structural fire engineering
Fire protection of beams with web openings
E Figure 3
Variation of atmosphere
temperature with time
caused by the web-post buckling at elevated
temperatures. This practical limitation does not
usually cause much difficulty for other design
professionals if communicated early in the
design process.
Fire resistance ratings are determined for
the standard fire curve11. In a performance-
based approach, a more realistic fire scenario
based on expected fire loading, potential
ventilation conditions and thermal inertia
of the compartment is used. For this, the
parametric time–temperature curve outlined
in BS EN 1991-1-212 is suitable. Fire loading for
offices is defined in the UK National Annex to
BS EN 1991-1-2 and the 80% fractile loading
is normally recommended. The thermal
inertia will vary within a small range, which
means that the ventilation condition is the
main variable.
Most commercial buildings have fully
glazed facades, so it is usual to adopt a range
of ventilation conditions based on glazing
failure within a practical range of 25% to
100% failure. The worst case for protected
elements is the case with 25% failure,
which results in a longer, cooler ventilation-
controlled fire than the shorter fuel-controlled
fire. Therefore, the studied beams compare
the performance under the standard fire and
the worst-case parametric fire (Figure 3).
Prediction of the thermal response of
the components of the composite beam
is essential in determining the correct
overall response. The thermal regime in
the composite slab was calculated using a
heat-transfer analysis within the FE program,
Abaqus13. This ensures that the correct
temperature gradient is inputted to the slab
elements. For the beam, the temperatures of
the various parts of the section are related to
the bottom flange temperature by multiplying
by the factors outlined in SCI publication
RT13569 to estimate the temperature
variation across the cross-section.
Structurally, the main failure mechanisms
within the beam with web openings are
predicted to be buckling-type modes. To
capture these adequately, a shell-element
modelling approach is required. An illustration
32
TSE72_30-35_Performance-based design O'Connor.indd 32
of the composite beam modelled using shell
elements for the simply supported case is
shown in Figure 4. The beam is supported
on its bottom flange using a pinned support
at one end and a roller support at the other
end. The slab was also modelled using shell
elements and constrained to the top flange
of the beam using multiple-point constraints
to account for the composite action. The
temperature was applied to the slab at five
points through the shell thickness, which
captured the influence of the important
temperature gradient through the slab
as heated.
The main difference in the performance of
a composite beam in the standard fire test
and within a real structure is attributed to
the restraint conditions applied to the beam.
Structural response to fire is largely driven by
restraint to thermal expansion. In the standard
fire test, the beam can simply expand without
restraint, while in a real structure the beam
is restrained by the surrounding structural
elements and slabs. In this case, the beam
would be restrained by a rigid concrete core
at one end and a perimeter column and
in-plane membrane action of the composite
slab at the other end. The FE model used
to investigate realistic restraint conditions is
illustrated in Fig. 2. The columns and core wall
were pinned from the bottom and restrained in
the horizontal (z) and transverse (x) directions
WS Figure 4
Extruded view of FE model of
simply supported composite
beam with web openings
a) 3D view
January 2018 | TheStructuralEngineer
thestructuralengineer.org
from the top. Symmetry boundary conditions
were applied to the sides of the floor plate to
reduce model size.
In all models, temperature-dependent
material properties are taken from BS EN
1994-1-2 for both steel and concrete. The
steel beam and composite slab are assumed
to be perfectly coupled through the use
of multiple-point constraint equations. The
analysis includes the effects of geometric
nonlinearity to correctly capture the P-δ
effects and tensile membrane action.
Imperfections are included within the shell
representation models by undertaking a
buckling analysis of the section and then
imposing the displaced shape of the relevant
buckling mode on the section. Structural fire
analyses then proceed by firstly applying
the static load at the fire limit state and then
applying the relevant temperature regime to
the part of the model concerned and time
stepping through the problem.
In the analysis, the impacts of restraint
conditions on the performance of beams
with web openings in fire are studied by
comparing the response of the beam
in Fig. 4 to that in the floor plate model in
Fig. 2. The effects of web thickness on failure
modes are studied by increasing the web
thickness of the UB610×229×101 beam from
10.5mm to 13.1mm, which is the thickness of
the web of a UB610×229×140 beam.
b) Elevation view
14/12/2017 12:15

thestructuralengineer.org
Standard fire – unrestrained versus
restrained beams
Figure 5 compares the variation of mid-span
displacement with bottom flange temperature
for the two models. Up to a temperature of
300°C, all beams have similar displacements
of about 125mm. At higher temperatures,
the two models show significantly different
behaviour. At the design limiting temperature
of 530°C, which was calculated using
Sherwin-Williams FIRETEX Design Estimator
software14, the beam in the floor plate deflects
by 250mm and the unrestrained beam deflects
by 500mm. Then, the displacement of the
unrestrained beam increases sharply until
failure, while that of the beam in the floor plate
increases gradually until failure at 600°C. The
beams with a thicker web follow a similar trend
but fail at higher temperatures.
S  Figure 6
Deformed shapes at failure under
standard fire, where for beam 1 tw =
10.5mm and for beam 2 tw = 13.1mm
a) Simply supported beam 1
c) Floor plate beam 1
TSE72_30-35_Performance-based design O'Connor.indd 33
The failure modes experienced in all
cases are shown in Figure 6. The simply
supported beams fail by Vierendeel action
around the large opening, as illustrated by
plastic straining in the bottom flange
(Figs. 6a and 6b). The floor plate beams
in Figs. 6c and 6d exhibit different failure
modes, however, associated with web
buckling at the end supported by the core.
The beam is compressed against the
rigid core wall due to restrained thermal
expansion, whereas at the other end the
beam pushes the heated column outwards.
The fact that this buckling starts to occur
at a temperature well below the limiting
temperature predicted by the simplified
design rules illustrates that the beam
behaviour is significantly influenced by
restraint to thermal expansion.
b) Simply supported beam 2
d) Floor plate beam 2
TheStructuralEngineer | January 2018
Structural fire engineering
Fire protection of beams with web openings
W Figure 5
Variation of mid-span displacement with
temperature for simply supported beam and
floor plate beam under standard fire, where for
beam 1 tw = 10.5mm and for beam 2 tw = 13.1mm
Parametric fire – unrestrained versus
restrained beams
Figure 7 compares changes in mid-
span displacements with bottom flange
temperatures for the two models. Similar to
the results in Fig. 5, all beams have similar
displacements of around 120mm up to about
300°C. The displacements of the floor plate
beams then increase gradually, reaching a
maximum displacement of 350mm for beam
1 and 270mm for beam 2, before recovering
in the cooling phase. The simply supported
beams show a different behaviour and
the displacements increase rapidly above
the design limiting temperature (530°C)
until failure. This shows that the limiting
temperature of a realistically restrained beam
is higher than the design limiting temperature.
The failure modes are illustrated in Figure 8.
All beams have similar failure modes to those
under a standard fire in Fig. 6, but with a much
lower magnitude, particularly for the floor plate
beams. The beams with thicker web follow a
similar trend to those with thinner web (Fig. 7),
but with a lower deformation.
Modelling techniques – shell elements
versus beam elements
Generally, in developing an optimised
fire-protection scheme, the full floor plate
is considered. Modelling every beam with
shell elements would be a tedious and
computationally inefficient task, and therefore
beams are modelled using Euler–Bernoulli
beam elements. Such elements cannot
adequately capture the localised buckling
failure modes, as they assume plane sections
remain plane. Therefore, it is useful to compare
the performance of beams modelled with
shell elements with those simulated by beam
elements to observe if the correct global
response is still captured.
The effects of modelling beams using
beam elements instead of shell elements on
the performance of floor plates in fire are
examined in Figure 9. In the beam elements
model, a standard UB610×229×101 beam
is used, which is the parent section of the
beam with web openings modelled using shell
elements. The figure compares changes in
mid-span displacement with increasing bottom
flange temperature under both standard and
parametric fires.
It is seen in Fig. 9 that the displacement–
temperature curves are similar for both
modelling techniques, but the beams
33
14/12/2017 12:15
 Structural fire engineering
Fire protection of beams with web openings thestructuralengineer.org

E  Figure 7
Variation of mid-span
displacement with temperature
for simply supported beam and
floor plate beam under parametric
fire, where for beam 1 tw = 10.5mm
and for beam 2 tw = 13.1mm

S  Figure 8
Deformed shapes at failure
under parametric fire, where
for beam 1 tw = 10.5mm and
for beam 2 tw = 13.1mm

a) Simply supported beam 1

b) Simply supported
beam 2

modelled using shell elements show lower
deflections. This is deemed acceptable for this
combination of opening configuration and web
slenderness. Although these results suggest
that, in optimised fire-protection schemes,
beams with web openings can be modelled
as beam elements, this may not be applicable
to beams with different web slenderness and
c) Floor plate beam 1
hole spacing. In such a scenario, a case-by-
case check may be required, but this is beyond
the scope of this paper.
Conclusions
Assessing the behaviour of composite beams
with web openings in fire is important when
using performance-based design of fire-
d) Floor plate
beam 2 protected steel structures. Such assessment,
however, requires the consideration of more
realistic behaviour of the beams by accounting
for effects of restraint conditions and applied
thermal regimes. This paper has investigated
these effects by assessing the performance
of fabricated beams with web openings when
considered as isolated, simply supported
elements and in a composite floor plate.
Practical choice of web opening spacing and
web slenderness prevented problems with
determining the amount of fire protection used
in present simplistic design rules.
It has been demonstrated that, under both
standard and parametric fires, the failure
mode of the simply supported beam studied
is significantly different to that of the same
beam in a real floor plate. Under both thermal
regimes, the simply supported beams fail at
a temperature close to the design limiting
temperature of 530°C, while the beams in the
floor plate reach a higher limiting temperature.
These findings suggest that the current practice
of fire design of beams with web openings is
conservative, as it predicts unrealistic failure
modes due to simplified end restraints in the
tests used. It also underestimates the limiting
temperature, resulting in the use of more
intumescent coating that would otherwise
be required.
This paper has also highlighted that, in an
optimised fire-protection scheme, based on the
variation of mid-span displacement with bottom
flange temperature, judicious choice of web
openings in beams means that they can
be modelled as beam elements by neglecting
the presence of the openings.

W  Figure 9
Comparisons of variation of mid-
span displacement with temperature
between fabricated beam with web
openings and beam element

34 January 2018 | TheStructuralEngineer

TSE72_30-35_Performance-based design O'Connor.indd 34 14/12/2017 12:15

 Structural fire engineering
thestructuralengineer.org Fire protection of beams with web openings

REFERENCES

E1) Bailey C.G., Lennon T. and Moore D.B.
(1999) ‘The behaviour of full-scale steel-
framed buildings subjected to compartment
fires’, The Structural Engineer, 77 (8), pp.
15–21
E2) O’Connor M.A., Kirby B.R. and Martin
D.M. (2003) ‘Behaviour of a multi-storey
composite steel framed building in fire’, The
Structural Engineer, 81 (2), pp. 27–36
E3) Bailey C.G. (2004) ‘Indicative fire
tests to investigate the behaviour of
cellular beams protected with intumescent
coatings’, Fire Safety Journal, 39 (8),
pp. 689–709
E6) Wang P., Wang X., Liu M. and Zhang
L. (2016) ‘Web-post buckling of fully and
partially protected cellular steel beams at
elevated temperatures in a fire’, Thin-Walled
Structures, 98 (Part A), pp. 29–38
E7) Lawson R.M. and Hicks S.J. (2011)
P355: Design of composite beams with large
web openings, Ascot: Steel Construction
Institute
E8) British Standards Institution (2005)
BS EN 1994-1-2:2005+A1:2014 Eurocode
4: Design of composite steel and concrete
structures. General rules. Structural fire
design, London: BSI
uploads/attachment_data/file/441669/
BR_PDF_AD_B2_2013.pdf (Accessed:
November 2017)
E11) Technical Committee ISO/TC 92/SC
2 (2009) ISO 834-8:2002 Fire-resistance
tests – Elements of building construction
– Part 8: Specific requirements for non-
loadbearing vertical separating elements,
Geneva: International Organization for
Standardization
E12) British Standards Institution (2002)
BS EN 1991-1-2:2002 Eurocode 1: Actions
on structures. General actions. Actions on
structures exposed to fire, London: BSI

E4) Nadjai A., Vassart O., Ali F., Talamona
D., Allam A. and Hawes M. (2007)
‘Performance of cellular composite floor
beams at elevated temperatures’, Fire
Safety Journal, 42 (6–7), pp. 489–497
E5) Nadjai A., Bailey C.G., Vassart O. et al.
(2011) ‘Full-scale fire test on a composite
floor slab incorporating long span cellular
steel beams’, The Structural Engineer, 89
(21), pp. 18–25
E9) Steel Construction Institute (2012)
RT1356: Fire design of composite beams
with rectangular and circular web openings,
Ascot: SCI
E10) Department for Communities and
Local Government (2013) The Building
Regulations 2010: Approved Document B
(Fire safety) – Volume 2: Buildings other
than dwellinghouses [Online] Available at:
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/
E13) Dassault Systemes Simulia Corp
(2014) ABAQUS User Manual Version 6.14-2,
Providence, RI: Dassault Systemes
E14) The Sherwin-Williams Company,
Protective & Marine Coatings (2017)
FIRETEX Design Estimator FDE 2.0, Bolton:
Sherwin-Williams

If you are aged 28 years or under, you are invited to enter the Kenneth Severn Award 2018.
To enter, answer the following question, set by 2018 Institution President, Faith Wainwright:

Question:
What will structural engineering practice look like in 10–15 years’ time
and how can our professional community help us prepare for this?

Answers should be in the form of a written paper (max. 1500 words) The winner will receive:
and may include relevant imagery that supplements the text. The prestigious Kenneth Severn Diploma
A cash prize of £500
The judges will be looking for originality, value to the structural
engineering profession and clarity of presentation. The winning paper will also be considered
for publication in The Structural Engineer.
Entrants must be 28 years of age or under on 1 January 2018.
Entry is NOT restricted to members of the Institution.

Please submit your entry online at:

www.istructe.org/kenneth-severn-award

The closing date for entries is 31 January 2018.

2018

TheStructuralEngineer | January 2018 35

TSE72_30-35_Performance-based design O'Connor.indd 35 14/12/2017 12:15

 Structural fire engineering
Determining the fire resistance rating of buildings thestructuralengineer.org

Determining the fire resistance

rating of buildings using the
probabilistic method – a state-
of-the-art approach
Florian M. Block Tad-Song Kho This is because the prescriptive approach
Dipl.-Ing., PhD BEng results in a generic solution applicable to
Associate Director, BuroHappold Engineering, Engineer, BuroHappold Engineering, typical buildings with little consideration of
Frankfurt am Main, Germany London, UK unique building characteristics, e.g. ventilation
conditions, fire load densities and the internal
layout of each individual fire compartment in
Synopsis the building.
This article will present a state-of-the-art method which is an Based on current research, the authors
amalgamation of several recent research studies from various authors will present a state-of-the-art method to
to determine the required structural fire resistance period of buildings. determine the required structural FR period
of buildings, which can be lower or higher
The bespoke approach is based on the Monte-Carlo probability method,
than the prescriptive FR period required.
which considers not only a range of fully developed compartment fires, but As buildings become increasingly complex,
also the phenomenon of travelling fires in increasingly open-plan spaces. adopting a bespoke approach which
An improvement is made on the random selection of compartments considers the characteristics of individual
depending on the use and area of the individual compartments. A case buildings will become more common, in place
of the traditional prescriptive approach,
study is presented in which the probability method is applied to a steel-
which may not necessarily be applicable
framed office building in Scotland. The fire resistance period for the given current trends for more open space
building is reduced from the code-required 120 minutes to 60 minutes. within buildings. The bespoke approach is
based on the Monte-Carlo probability method
and an improved version of the BS 99992
Introduction performance-based solution is probabilistic approach, which considers not
The fire resistance (FR) rating of buildings considered acceptable. only a range of fully developed compartment
is of considerable importance to structural For a typical building design in the UK, fires, but also the phenomenon of travelling
engineers, as it affects all forms of the fire engineer states the performance fires in increasingly open-plan spaces. The
construction, be it steel- or concrete-framed specification of the building to meet the background study carried out for BS 9999 is
buildings. The purpose of this article is design intent of the Building Regulations. It is described in detail in a paper by Kirby et al.3
to inform practising structural engineers, often then the role of other members of the In the case study presented, the probability
architects and fire engineers of the benefits design team or manufacturers to ensure that method is applied to a steel-framed office
of adopting a holistic approach and engaging the prescribed performance specification building in Scotland, in which the FR period
a suitably qualified structural fire engineer is met during the detailed design. The FR for the building is reduced from the code-
early in the design process, to determine an period for most UK buildings varies from 30 required R120 to R60. R denotes the load-
appropriate FR period for the building. to 120 minutes; for other countries, resistance bearing resistance of a structure relative to
The adoption of this article’s recommended periods of up to 240 minutes can commonly the Standard Fire in accordance with
approach, as covered in the case study be seen. In many cases, the FR rating the Eurocode.
discussed, can potentially allow a general of the building can govern the structural
reduction in the required FR period relative design, particularly where high fire ratings Case study
to that of a prescriptive, code-based are required. If this is not considered early Building description
approach. However, it should be noted in the design stage, it may have a negative The multistorey building located in Edinburgh
that the approach may result in higher FR impact both on the structural design and the consists of eight levels of commercial
requirements. The article is written in the project’s budget. office accommodation above ground. The
context of meeting Building Regulations1 The use of prescriptive FR ratings for height from the fire service access level to
requirements in the UK, but the approach can structures is not always the most appropriate the topmost storey is approx. 26.5m. The
also be applied in other countries where a solution and can be unnecessarily onerous. basement levels consist of a reinforced

36 January 2018 | TheStructuralEngineer

TSE72_36-40_Block_Determining the fire resistance ratingV2.indd 36 14/12/2017 12:19


thestructuralengineer.org
concrete structure. The office floors from
ground floor upwards are of steel-frame
construction with the floor slabs mostly being
supported by cellular beams. The 140mm
thick composite slab is made of a trapezoidal
metal deck and normal weight concrete.
For the given height and occupancy use
of the building, all elements of structure
within the development should be provided
with a long (R120) FR duration in line with
the recommendations of the Scottish Non-
Domestic Technical Handbook4 (NDTH)
guidance. The provision of sprinklers is not
required by the NDTH but, as part of the fire
strategy, a sprinkler system will be installed
in this building.
Probabilistic study
The Monte-Carlo method allows the
distribution of a probabilistic outcome to
be obtained by utilising an algorithm which
repeatedly samples input parameters. Each
of the input parameters, which are randomly
generated from a probability distribution
defined by the user, are then used to perform
a deterministic computation. The process
is repeated, with the results ultimately
aggregated to find a probability distribution
for the solution. By increasing the number of
random samplings, the probability distribution
of the solution improves. The solution is then
compared against an agreed acceptance
criterion reflective of the acceptable risk,
which is bespoke to the building.
In the case study, the structural fire rating
for the basement of the structure will remain
at R120 due to the higher fire severity
associated with fires in basements with
limited ventilation. The probabilistic study,
with the aim of justifying a reduction in the
level of structural fire protection required,
has been carried out on the steel structure
above ground.
Acceptance criteria
Kirby et al.3 and Law et al.5 have proposed
a way in which the level of acceptable risk
can be quantified; readers are directed
to their papers for more details about the
approach. According to these approaches,
the acceptable risk can be quantified using
Equation 13. Based on the equation, the level
of risk is dependent on the height of the top
occupied floor (h) from the firefighting access
level and the reliability (r) of the building.
The quantifiable level of risk (Risk) in
Equation 2 is benchmarked against Approved
Document B6 of the Building Regulations and
the NDTH guidance4, assuming h = 18m and
TSE72_36-40_Block_Determining the fire resistance ratingV2.indd 37
Determining the fire resistance rating of buildings
the required r of the building under fire as
80% for an office building3. In other words, the
benchmark can be interpreted as the need to
provide a level of acceptable risk equivalent to
an 18m office building which should be able to
withstand 80% of all possible fires that may
occur in the building while maintaining its load-
bearing function. In Eq. 2 the acceptable risk
level is calculated to be 64.8.
(1)
(2)
By using a top-floor height of the proposed
building of approx. 26.5m, the aggregate
structural reliability requirement can be
calculated as 90.8% (Equations 3 and 4).
This means that the building should be able
to withstand 90.8% of possible fires without
failure of the structure.
(3)
(4)
The presence of a sprinkler system is
known to be able to control the growth
of potential fires, or extinguish them; the
beneficial contribution of the sprinklers to
the structural reliability is expressed using
Equation 5 (refer to Law et al.5 for the
derivation of this equation), where rt is the
aggregate reliability of the structure, rsp is the
sprinkler reliability and rst is the reliability of
the structure in the event of sprinkler failure.
PD 7974-77 suggests that for a new life-
safety sprinkler system, the reliability of the
sprinkler system rsp can be taken as 0.9; this
can be interpreted as the sprinkler system
 Figure 1
Typical fire
curves for
parametric
(left) and
travelling
(right) fires
TheStructuralEngineer | January 2018
Structural fire engineering
being capable of extinguishing or controlling
90% of possible fires. The remaining 10% are
assumed to grow uncontrollably, either due to
the inability of the sprinkler system to control
the growth of the fire effectively, due to human
error or due to mechanical faults.
(5)
The calculation above shows that the
required structural reliability in the event of
a sprinkler failure is, in this example, approx.
8%. This is assumed to be achieved through
a combination of inherent FR of the structure
and applied fire protection. The sprinkler
system, in conjunction with passive fire
protection, should provide an overall reliability
of 90.8% for all possible fires. From here on,
the overall reliability of the building (known as
rt or r) is referred to as the design reliability.
Failure of the structure is assumed to occur
if the temperature of the notional element
at the design reliability is greater than its
corresponding critical/limiting temperature.
The critical temperature is based on the
utilisation of the steel members, which are,
in turn, based on factors such as the applied
loading and steel strength/grade.
In the example provided, the level of
structural fire protection is considered
adequate if the resulting steel temperatures
for 90.8% of the possible fires are below the
structural member’s critical temperature,
while considering the contribution of the
sprinklers. For this proposed development,
the critical temperatures have been obtained
from the steel contractors; however, a default
critical temperature can also be used in the
absence of more specific values.
37
14/12/2017 12:19
 Structural fire engineering
Determining the fire resistance rating of buildings thestructuralengineer.org

 Figure 2
Flowchart of
Monte-Carlo
Start analysis,
counter i = 1
Random selection
i=i+1
of compartment
probabilistic
assessment

A typical beam, which has a critical Read geometrical features

of compartment such as
temperature of 596°C, has been selected as compartment length and
width, plan area, opening area,
a notional steel beam member. A sensitivity and type of occupancy
study investigating the selection of other
steel members as the notional steel member
(reflected by the use of different section Does compartment
factors) has been carried out, but this is not area exceed 100m2?
covered in this article. No Yes

Travelling and parametric design fires

Until recently, there have been only two
main types of realistic design fires used in
industry. The first is a localised fire, in which
the temperature of a structural member
is dependent on its position relative to the
localised fire. The second is a flashover
fire, in which the temperature inside the fire
compartment is considered to be uniform,
meaning a structural member exposed to
such a fire anywhere within the compartment
will experience the same temperature. Both
types of design fires are considered static, as
the fire is assumed to be immobile.
These two types of design fires do not
reflect the growing trend for increasingly
open-plan spaces in buildings. In these
spaces, flashover is unlikely to occur; instead,
fires are more likely to travel. Recent research
on travelling fires by Stern-Gottfried and Rein8
and Rackauskaite et al.9 attempts to bridge
this gap in knowledge; their work has been
used in this study to derive the travelling fires
used. To reflect the possibility of smaller fire
compartments, where flashover is likely to
occur, the parametric fire from BS EN 1991-1-
210 is used as the basis for a flashover fire in
this case study.
Travelling fires involve a longer preheating
period relative to parametric fires (Figure 1).
As such, for similar compartment
characteristics, a travelling fire would
generally result in a higher steel temperature
relative to a parametric fire. BS EN 1991-1-2
suggests that parametric design fires are
valid for compartments with floor areas up to
500m2; a fifth of this value is conservatively
Derive travelling fire curve
Derive parametric fire curve
Randomise occupancy-specific Randomise occupancy-specific
fire load, combustion factor and fire load, combustion factor,
percentage of glazing breakage near-field fire temperature,
heat release rate per unit area,
percentage of floor area burning
and position of structural member
in relation to compartment length
Conduct heat-transfer
analysis using BS EN 1993-
1-2 method and record
Repeat for maximum temperature of
number of cases protected steel member
analysed
Is i less than 10,000?
No
Yes
Plot cumulative distribution curve of maximum
temperatures and determine temperature at design
reliability (90.8%)
used as the limit in this assessment. This is Algorithm
conservative in the sense that there would The Monte-Carlo method described in
be a larger proportion of travelling fires Figure 2 has been applied to simulate a total
used in comparison to the conventional of 10 000 possible design fires for any one
method of considering solely parametric case3, during which variables of the design
fires. As part of the probabilistic study, if the fires are generated at random based on a
randomly selected compartment has an area defined distribution curve for each input. This
exceeding the prescribed 100m2 threshold, a allows the probabilistic nature of fire scenarios
travelling fire is assumed to occur; whereas to be implicitly considered, which is ahead
a parametric fire is assumed to occur if the of the conventional deterministic approach
compartment area is less than the threshold5. described in current fire engineering codes
and standards that do not take into account

 Figure 3
Three different floorplan arrangements

Layout 1 Layout 2 Layout 3

38 January 2018 | TheStructuralEngineer

TSE72_36-40_Block_Determining the fire resistance ratingV2.indd 38 14/12/2017 12:19

 Structural fire engineering
thestructuralengineer.org Determining the fire resistance rating of buildings

 Figure 4
Design fires generated using Monte-Carlo approach  Figure 5
Resulting steel temperatures corresponding to design fires in Fig. 4

the uncertainties which prevail in reality.
The flowchart in Fig. 2 illustrates the
Monte-Carlo algorithm adopted in this case
study. The algorithm was programmed as
a VBA macro in Microsoft Excel. The heat
transfer from the simulated design fires to
the steel section is conducted in accordance
with BS EN 1993-1-211. The notional steel
beam member is provided with 60 minutes of
structural fire protection based on an initial
estimate of the required FR period. However,
if the Monte-Carlo analysis results suggest
that this level of fire protection is not enough
to meet the acceptance criteria defined
above, then the level of fire protection can be
further increased.
Before starting an analysis, the geometrical
characteristics for each of the rooms in
the building, such as the area, available
ventilation, occupancy of the room and other
dimensions, are entered as an input into the
spreadsheet. At the start of each Monte-
Carlo analysis, a compartment is selected
at random; this is dependent on the area
size and the probability of a fire occurring,
based on the occupancy characteristic of the
compartment. These factors are accounted
for in the randomisation by calculating a
form of weightage for each compartment.
The overall weightage of a fire occurring
Most of the parameters used to derive the
design fires (Fig. 2) are randomly selected
from distribution curves. The distribution
curves used are defined based on project
experience due to the lack of experimental
and statistical data other than from the
fire load density3,5. Due to the uncertainty
of the distribution curves associated with
certain parameters, such as the amount of
available ventilation from glazing breakage, a
sensitivity study was carried out. This study
investigated separate scenarios using three
different distribution curves for ventilation. In
addition, the effects of using different section
factors and critical temperatures relative to
the base case have also been investigated.
A total of 10 cases including the base case
have been investigated.
Floor configurations
The development will only provide a
shell and core to the building owners;
therefore, the layout of the building may
change during tenant fit-out. To account
for this and to futureproof the building, a
further sensitivity analysis was performed
considering a number of hypothetical floor
layouts. Although fire
ratings for walls are
not specified, internal

Figure 6
Cumulative distribution curves for four different layout arrangements
assuming a single tenant occupies the
whole floor
 Layout 2: floor consisting of two
compartments
 Layout 3: floor consisting of multiple
smaller compartments to reflect a cellular
office floorplan.
The floorplan layout for each is illustrated
in Figure 3.
Four combinations have been studied of
how the different office layouts are distributed
over the different floor levels of the building
(Table 1). This investigates two extremes of
possible arrangements – from a building with
fully open-plan layouts to a building with a
mostly cellular office arrangement.
Results
Based on the Monte-Carlo analysis, the
design fire simulated and the corresponding
temperature of the steel beam for
Arrangement 4 (Table 1) are shown in Figures
4 and 5, respectively, for illustration purposes.
This arrangement was selected because it
has both small cellular and large open-plan
rooms, which translate to the parametric and

in a particular compartment is therefore partitions within an

calculated as: office floor plate are
assumed to have
(6) some inherent level of
FR; therefore, in this
where: example, each room
Woverall,i is the overall weightage of is considered to be a
the i-th compartment fire compartment. So,
Areai is the area of the i-th compartment in addition to an open-
Poccupancy,i is the probability of the fire plan floor plate, two
90.8%
occurring in the i-th compartment different cellular office
depending on the type of arrangements have
occupancy; this is taken from Table been considered: Sprinkler reliability = 90%
A.3 of PD 7974-77  Layout 1: floor 596oC
i is the index of the compartments. consisting of just
one compartment,

TheStructuralEngineer | January 2018 39

TSE72_36-40_Block_Determining the fire resistance ratingV2.indd 39 14/12/2017 12:19

 Structural fire engineering
Determining the fire resistance rating of buildings
travelling fires, respectively (Fig. 4). Only the
first 255 of the 10 000 analysed design fires
and steel temperatures could be shown on
the graphs due to the software limitations of
Microsoft Excel.
A total of 10 different cases combining
different floor arrangements, ventilation
conditions, section factors and critical
temperatures were investigated. By
aggregating the resulting steel temperatures
corresponding to the 10 000 design fires, a
cumulative distribution curve can be plotted
for each case. Of the 10 cases analysed,
four cases representing the different floor
arrangements listed in Table 1 are presented
in this article to illustrate the use of this
method. The other six studies on ventilation
conditions, section factors and critical
temperatures are not covered in this article,
but they serve to investigate the sensitivity
of these three parameters. The resulting
cumulative distribution curves for the first
four cases, which have the same critical
temperature of 596°C, are shown in Figure 6.
The steel temperatures for the four cases
at a design reliability of 90.8% are shown
to be lower than the critical temperature of
the beam section. The results demonstrate
that for 90.8% of the possible fires that
may occur in the building, the resulting steel
temperature of the notional beam section,
with 60 minutes’ fire protection, will not
REFERENCES
E1) The Building Regulations 2010, SI
2010/2214
E2) British Standards Institution (2008)
BS 9999:2008 Code of practice for fire
safety in the design, management and use of
buildings, London: BSI
E3) Kirby B.R., Newman G.M., Butterworth
N., Pagan J. and English C. (2004) ‘A new
approach to specifying fire resistance
periods’, The Structural Engineer, 82 (19),
pp. 34–37
E4) Scottish Government (2013)
Technical Handbook: Non-Domestic
[Online] Available at: www.gov.scot/
Resource/0052/00521761.pdf (Accessed:
November 2017)
E5) Law A., Stern-Gottfried J. and
Butterworth N. (2015) ‘A risk based
framework for time equivalence and
fire resistance’, Fire Technol., 50 (4), pp.
771–784
40
TSE72_36-40_Block_Determining the fire resistance ratingV2.indd 40
thestructuralengineer.org
TABLE 1: LAYOUT ARRANGEMENTS OF BUILDING ANALYSED
Level Original layout Compartments Compartments Compartments
per architect’s with mixed with open-plan with cellular
GA plan – arrangement – arrangement only arrangement only
– Arrangement 4
Arrangement 1 Arrangement 2 – Arrangement 3
Level 00 Layout 2 Layout 1 Layout 1 Layout 3
Level 01 Layout 2 Layout 2 Layout 1 Layout 3
Level 02 Layout 2 Layout 2 Layout 1 Layout 3
Level 03 Layout 2 Layout 2 Layout 1 Layout 3
Level 04 Layout 2 Layout 3 Layout 1 Layout 3
Level 05 Layout 2 Layout 3 Layout 1 Layout 3
Level 06 Layout 2 Layout 3 Layout 1 Layout 3
Level 07 Layout 1 Layout 1 Layout 1 Layout 3
exceed its critical temperature when conditions (refurbished or new) where such
working in conjunction with a life-safety an approach could produce considerable
sprinkler system. benefits in relation to cost, construction
time and usable floor area in the building.
Conclusion Similar principles have been successfully
The example described in this article implemented on other projects in the UK12,13.
demonstrates that R60 structural fire Therefore, the probabilistic approach
protection, in conjunction with a sprinkler described in this article is a powerful tool
system, will be able to provide sufficient which allows the adoption of a bespoke
reliability to the building in the event of a fire. approach in determining the appropriate
The assessment shows that a reduction of FR of buildings given an acceptable
the prescriptive requirement of R120 for the calculated risk.
proposed building is possible, while providing
a level of safety equivalent to code guidance Acknowledgements
in the UK. The authors wish to thank Hannah Greene
This method can be applied to buildings of and Alberto Marquez of BuroHappold
different heights, occupancy risks, types of Engineering for helping with the production
construction (steel or concrete frame) and of this article.
E6) Department for Communities and E10) British Standards Institution (2002)
Local Government (2013) The Building BS EN 1991-1-2:2002 Eurocode 1: Actions
Regulations 2010: Approved Document B on structures: General actions. Actions on
(Fire safety) – Volume 2: Buildings other structures exposed to fire, London: BSI
than dwellinghouses [Online] Available at:
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ E11) British Standards Institution (2005)
uploads/attachment_data/file/441669/ BS EN 1993-1-2:2005 Eurocode 3: Design of
BR_PDF_AD_B2_2013.pdf (Accessed: steel structures. General rules. Structural fire
November 2017) design, London: BSI
E7) British Standards Institution (2003) E12) Kho T., Block F. and Thomas L.
PD 7974-7:2003 Application of fire safety (2015) ‘Determining the fire rating of
engineering principles to the design of concrete structures: Case study of using a
buildings. Probabilistic risk assessment, probabilistic approach and travelling fires’,
London: BSI 4th International Conference on Applications
of Structural Fire Engineering, Dubrovnik,
E8) Stern-Gottfried J. and Rein G. (2012) Croatia, 15–16 October, Prague: Czech
‘Travelling fires for structural design-Part Technical University, pp. 104–109
II: Design methodology’, Fire Safety J., 54,
pp. 96–112 E13) Block F.M. and Kho T. (2016)
‘Engineering an Icon or the Probabilistic-
E9) Rackauskaite E., Hamel C., Law A. and based Structural Fire Engineering of the
Rein G. (2015) ‘Improved formulation of Battersea Power Station’, 9th International
travelling fires and application to concrete Conference on Structures in Fire, Princeton
and steel structures’, Structures, 3, pp. University, USA, 8–10 June, Pennsylvania:
250–260 DEStech Publications, pp. 901–908
January 2018 | TheStructuralEngineer
14/12/2017 12:19
p41_TSE.Jan18.indd 41 13/12/2017 12:23
 Structural fire engineering
Explosive spalling of concrete in fire thestructuralengineer.org

Explosive spalling of
concrete in fire: novel testing
to mitigate design risk
Ieuan Rickard Luke Bisby Spalling refers to the breaking away of
MEng PhD, PEng, CEng, FIStructE, FIFireE pieces from the surface of concrete elements
when exposed to heat1,2; it can take several
PhD Candidate, The University of Edinburgh, UK Professor of Fire and Structures and Head of
different forms and may significantly affect the
Research Institute, The University of Edinburgh, UK
load-carrying capacity of a concrete structure.
Susan Deeny This is due to reductions in cross-section,
PhD, CEng, MIFireE changes in the load distribution, and loss of
Senior Fire Engineer, Arup, Edinburgh, UK thermal protection to internal reinforcement. It
is an extremely complex phenomenon involving
time- and temperature-dependent mechanical
Synopsis
stresses, temperature gradients, differential
Heat-induced explosive spalling in fire poses a credible risk to concrete thermal stresses, moisture movement, and
structures, and has received considerable research attention in recent microstructural and chemical changes with
decades. However, no validated guidance to enable the design of concrete increasing temperature4. Figure 1 shows two
mixes to prevent spalling, nor any established, widely verified, repeatable spalled samples after testing.
The available research suggests that heat-
test methods are yet available to confidently quantify or demonstrate
induced spalling exhibits a stochastic nature,
spalling resistance for a particular mix in a given application. As a result, no and experimental results are sometimes
models yet exist that can predict spalling with sufficient confidence to be contradictory. Whether this is due to genuine
used in design. randomness or to insufficiently controlled or
This paper summarises contemporary research on heat-induced concrete instrumented testing environments is a matter
of debate2. This uncertainty hinders design
spalling, with particular emphasis on design for fire of concrete-lined tunnels.
and often results in conservative and/or semi-
The topic is also relevant for modern concrete buildings. A novel, repeatable arbitrary mitigation measures being used.
and economical testing method to reduce project risk by quantifying the However, general trends in factors
propensity of concrete mixes for spalling under a range of different thermal increasing the risk of spalling can be
and mechanical conditions is described. The intent of this paper is to present highlighted. Spalling risk tends to increase
the limitations of knowledge to enable design for heat-induced spalling, and with increases in compressive strength, rate
of heating, moisture content, mechanical
to highlight research currently under way to overcome some of the issues restraint, and imposed compressive load1,2,5. An
faced in practice. exhaustive list of factors known to influence
spalling is given by Maluk6; Bailey and Khoury1
Explosive spalling of concrete historically yielded an acceptable level of fire provide a highly accessible summary of the
Concrete structures have historically performance in concrete buildings2,3 and that available knowledge on heat-induced spalling
performed very well in building fires1,2. heat-induced concrete spalling has not been a of concrete; and a detailed and comprehensive
Concrete is non-combustible and has a serious concern. summary of the available literature is given
relatively low thermal conductivity and However, contemporary concrete mixes, by Jansson5.
diffusivity. In a fire, provided the concrete particularly those with higher strength and/
cover to the internal reinforcement remains in or reduced permeability, appear more prone Background
place, heat flow to the reinforcement and the to heat-induced spalling, as evidenced by both The current paper is interested in a particular
inner core occurs slowly, thereby yielding the experiences from real fires and recent research manifestation of heat-induced spalling, often
necessary fire resistance. on heat-induced spalling. This raises concerns referred to as ‘explosive spalling’; this is violent
Traditional ‘fire resistance’ design of that heat-induced spalling may become a more and typically (but not always) occurs when
concrete structural elements is usually prominent issue in future fires and, therefore, concrete elements experience steep in-depth
accomplished by prescribing minimum overall that the potential consequences and the use thermal gradients, as in the early stages of a
member dimensions and minimum concrete of assessment and mitigation methods ought severe fire. A number of notable examples of
cover to the reinforcement. The available to be considered by structural engineers when real fires in which explosive concrete spalling
evidence from real fires suggests that undertaking structural fire design of modern has occurred are available in the literature,
these simple, prescriptive approaches have concrete structures. including a number of tunnel fires4,7, fires on or

42 January 2018 | TheStructuralEngineer

TSE72_42-47_Explosive spalling of concrete in fire BISBY.indd 42 14/12/2017 12:21


thestructuralengineer.org
 Figure 1
Spalled concrete samples after testing
a) Extreme case of explosive spalling of
ultra-high-performance concrete
under bridges8,9, and building fires5.
Two key mechanisms are now
acknowledged as contributing to explosive
spalling. The first mechanism is related to the
development of differential thermal stresses
in the concrete, induced by thermal gradients,
differential thermal expansion, and induced
restrained deformations that develop during
heating10. The second mechanism attributes
spalling to a build-up of pore pressure due
to evaporation, along with transport of
moisture within the concrete microstructure11,12.
Harmathy11 originally hypothesized that the
pore pressure in heated concrete is increased
due to the formation of a liquid water ‘moisture
clog’ that results from moisture transport
and condensation in the cooler zones within
the concrete core. More recently, other
mechanisms have also been proposed5.
Regardless of the mechanisms responsible,
fire-induced explosive spalling erodes
cross-sectional dimensions and removes
the concrete cover, thus exposing internal
reinforcement to more severe heating and
reducing its strength and stiffness. This could
ultimately lead to structural damage, loss of
structural stability, or loss of water-tightness.
The potential costs of spalling in buildings
are hard to quantify; however, in tunnels the
costs associated with repairs and loss of
revenue during rehabilitation are likely to be
considerable. For example, the direct repair
costs following the 2008 Channel Tunnel fire
were estimated at £46M, and given that the
tunnel facilitates £91.4bn of trade annually,
downtime as a result of fire could be as high
as £250M per day, not accounting for
indirect losses13.
There are no obvious documented cases of
large-scale structural failures or collapses that
can be attributed directly to explosive spalling,
and the consequences of spalling
for structural performance of concrete
structures admittedly remains a topic of
ongoing research14.
The importance of preventing, or properly
accounting for, explosive spalling during the
TSE72_42-47_Explosive spalling of concrete in fire BISBY.indd 43
design of concrete structures is related to at
least three design considerations:
 life safety
 asset protection and financial losses
 project risk.
Life safety
Explosive spalling reduces structural capacity,
and hence fire resistance, and could result
in life-threatening structural collapses,
exacerbated fire spread, or loss of water-
tightness (particularly important in
submerged tunnels).
Asset protection and financial losses
Explosive spalling causes damage to concrete
elements, raising concerns for both direct and
indirect economic losses, increased post-
fire downtime and repair, asset protection,
business continuity, and so on.
Project risk
The predominant approach to assessing
spalling risk for concrete mixes used in
real projects (at least in tunnelling projects
where spalling mitigation often governs
concrete mix design) is by full-scale furnace
testing of representative structural elements.
This approach presents serious technical
challenges, and generates project risk as a
concrete mix may fail at a late stage of design.
It is generally not feasible to run multiple
tests, and in tunnel design and construction,
testing is often performed late in the design
stage after the concrete mix and tunnel
lining thickness have been fixed. Test failure
would result in redesign and project delays,
thus reducing design confidence in the early
stages. Reliance on small sets of tests also
places restrictions on the contractor, limiting
their ability to change concrete mix designs
in response to supply, constructability, or
economic factors occurring after testing4.
Project risk due to heat-induced spalling
of concrete is usually less critical in other
areas of construction, where spalling is rarely
explicitly considered and ‘fire resistance’ is
TheStructuralEngineer | January 2018
Structural fire engineering
Explosive spalling of concrete in fire
b) Spalling of concrete
slab surface exposing
internal reinforcement
during standard
furnace test
assured by relying on historical evidence from
furnace tests and real building fires. Whether
structural engineers ought to be more reflexive
as regards the potential consequences of
concrete spalling in modern building projects
is open to debate.
Potential solutions
Addressing these design issues for modern
concrete mixes requires the ability to
quantitatively predict explosive spalling
– such that the depth of spalling to be
expected during a credible design fire can
be approximated and accounted for during
the structural design process – or prevent
spalling – such that design can be performed
confidently, neglecting its influence. While
considerable progress has been made on both
fronts in recent decades, both remain difficult
challenges and are the focus of a great deal of
research internationally15.
Available research on spalling
The available research on explosive spalling
of concrete can be classified into three broad
categories, as outlined and discussed in the
following sections.
Standard furnace testing
The fire resistance of structural elements
(of all material types) is assessed in practice
using large-scale fire resistance tests
(Figure 2). These tests subject loaded,
representative and typically full-scale (or
as close to full-scale as possible) structural
elements to a standard gas temperature–time
curve within a fire testing furnace. Explosive
spalling has been directly observed for a large
number of concrete elements tested in this
manner, for more than a century16; however,
this spalling has historically been mild and not
thought to be of critical importance for the
overall fire resistance of concrete structures.
In recent decades, however, with the advent of
engineered high-strength, high-performance
and self-consolidating concrete mixes with
increased propensity for explosive spalling,
43
14/12/2017 12:21
 Structural fire engineering
Explosive spalling of concrete in fire
spalling has become a more common failure
mode for concrete elements tested
in furnaces17.
Since explosive spalling depends not only
on material parameters but also on structural
parameters, it is necessary to repeatably
and accurately reproduce realistic conditions
(geometry, boundary conditions, applied
mechanical and thermal loads, etc) when
experimentally studying spalling of different
concrete mixes. Such control over testing
parameters is challenging when testing in
furnaces, particularly during the early stages
of heating, which are critical for influencing
explosive spalling.
Furnace tests therefore have limited
applicability for quantifying spalling risk,
although in some cases the time to spalling,
final depth of spalling, and volume of spalled
material are noted in furnace testing reports.
Such testing is typically used to support
design assumptions of: (i) no spalling under
a ‘standard fire’ heating scenario (i.e. where
none is observed in furnace testing); or (ii) a
certain depth of spalling (sometimes assumed
as the final spalling depth observed during
standard furnace testing). However, given the
known variability of spalling for a single mix
under slightly different thermal and mechanical
conditions, neither assumption can usually be
confidently defended based on the available
experimental evidence.
The reliance on full-scale furnace testing
is particularly problematic for assessing the
spalling risk of concrete tunnels or tunnel
lining segments. A number of furnace test
procedures have been applied to assess
spalling of concrete for tunnelling applications;
however, there has been little harmonisation
of these from either a thermal or a mechanical
perspective. The majority of these test
large-scale tunnel structure or lining samples
exposed to a ‘tunnel fire’ heating regime18,19
based on data from tunnel fire tests that are
assumed to adequately represent the thermal
environment during a severe fire within a
tunnel.
Furnace testing of structural elements other
than tunnel segments is also challenging as it
is often only possible to test single elements,
and loading/restraint cases may be hard to
replicate. Demonstration by testing that a
concrete mix will perform adequately is not
as commonplace elsewhere in structural
engineering as in tunnel engineering, but may
be advisable where modern, high-strength
concrete mixes are being used or where
spalling could be a critical factor to meet
functional performance objectives. This is
the case, for example, when applying slender
ultra-high-performance concrete slabs,
prestressed with carbon fibre-reinforced
polymers, in building applications20.
44
TSE72_42-47_Explosive spalling of concrete in fire BISBY.indd 44
 Figure 2
Large number of samples
positioned on standard fire testing
furnace ready for spalling testing by
standard fire exposure from below
Spalling experiments
Owing to the numerous challenges associated
with large-scale furnace testing of concrete
elements to assess their propensity for
spalling, a wide range of scientifically-based
test methods and research projects are
presented in the technical literature5,21. A
detailed summary is avoided here, but it is
noteworthy that researchers have used a
range of sample sizes (from small cubes
of only a few centimetres up to full-scale
structural elements on the scale of metres),
heating conditions (including furnace
environments, electrical ovens, open pool
and bonfires, direct flame impingement, cone
heaters, and electrical, optical and propane-
fired radiant panels), and mechanical restraint
and loading conditions (including unloaded,
passively restrained, and actively restrained
samples under uniaxial or biaxial, steady-state
or time-varying stress states).
A shortcoming of the available data from
such experiments is that often insufficient
care is taken when controlling the relevant
material, thermal and mechanical parameters
that may affect spalling. For instance, samples
have been exposed to heating scenarios
which are poorly controlled or potentially
non-uniform. Other testing has paid little
attention to either mechanical or differential
thermal stress development in the samples
during heating6. As a result, there is currently
no agreement or harmonisation within the
spalling research community regarding the
appropriate small-scale experimental methods
that should be used to quantify spalling risk
or the respective influences of parameters
influencing spalling. It is therefore difficult
to compare results from different authors.
The International Union of Laboratories and
Experts in Construction Materials, Systems
and Structures (RILEM) Technical Committee
on Spalling, 256-SPF, is currently seeking to
January 2018 | TheStructuralEngineer
thestructuralengineer.org
address this by developing an internationally
harmonised testing method to assess
spalling risk.
Predictive numerical modelling
A number of related, coupled, thermo-
hygro-chemo-mechanical codes of varying
complexity are available in the literature; these
generally attempt to predict spalling time and
depth by simulating the stress state in heated
concrete resulting from the relevant thermo-
hygral and thermo-mechanical processes that
take place during heating10,22. However, even
the most developed of these advanced models
are, at present, unable to accurately predict
spalling for a given concrete mix in a particular
application and subjected to either standard
or project-specific design fires. A number
of simplified spalling models (or spalling
criteria) are also available in the literature
– e.g. assuming that only pore pressures
are relevant23 or that spalling will occur at
a particular temperature in the concrete –
however, neither of these approaches is
easily defended based on the available
experimental evidence.
State of play
The situation described above has resulted in a
state of play where:
 the mechanisms of explosive spalling, and
the respective influences of the various
factors that are thought to exacerbate
explosive spalling, are not fully understood
and cannot be quantified
 confident prediction and/or prevention of
explosive spalling, under the full range of
relevant thermal or mechanical actions for
a given mix in a given application, is not
currently possible
 a lack of harmonisation of testing
methodologies has resulted in an ad hoc,
project-specific approach to testing and
14/12/2017 12:21

thestructuralengineer.org
experimentation, thus somewhat muddying
the waters of scientific advancement on
this topic
 the potential consequences of spalling
for the response of concrete structures
in fire have not been quantified in most
cases, and in many applications (aside
from tunnelling and nuclear engineering)
spalling is rarely explicitly considered
by designers (although, again, RILEM
Committee 256-SPF is studying
this issue).
Design approaches to account
for spalling
Given this state of play, structural designers
currently apply one of four approaches
to addressing the issue of spalling in the
structural design process:
1) Assume no spalling
In most cases (aside from in tunnel design;
see below) designers assume that spalling
is sufficiently unlikely to occur, or that its
consequences will be sufficiently benign, that
they need not explicitly consider it in design;
this is the approach suggested in Eurocode
224 for concrete with compressive strength
less than 80MPa and moisture content
less than about 3%. Such an approach
is only partly supported by the available
experimental data.
2) Mitigate spalling
EC2 also provides a range of means to
reduce the risk of explosive spalling. For
concrete with a strength greater than 55MPa
and with more than 6% silica fume (by weight
of cement), or for concrete with a strength
greater than 80MPa, four specific options are
given: (i) adding steel reinforcement mesh
 Figure 3
Current
H-TRIS
spalling test
set-up at
University of
Edinburgh
TSE72_42-47_Explosive spalling of concrete in fire BISBY.indd 45
within the concrete cover at a depth of 15mm;
(ii) demonstration ‘by experience or testing’
that no spalling occurs under fire exposure;
(iii) addition of supplemental fire protection
(see approach 3 below); or (iv) addition of 2kg/
m3 of polypropylene (PP) anti-spalling fibres. PP
fibres have been shown1,2,5 to reduce the risk
of explosive spalling, although the mechanism
by which this is achieved remains a matter of
debate. EC2 fails to make clear, however, that
the current understanding of the phenomenon
of spalling is insufficient to enable a genuine
risk-based approach to design for spalling. It
is not currently possible to understand the risk
of spalling for untested concrete mixes, nor
to generate specific guidance on what would
constitute acceptable spalling for the wide
range of elements and load cases that
are possible.
3) Apply supplemental thermal insulation
Addition of supplemental thermal insulation
(e.g. rigid board systems or spray-applied
coatings) is a common approach to protect
concrete from increased temperatures and to
avoid damage altogether, as well as to mitigate
spalling, particularly in concrete-lined tunnels25.
Such solutions are indeed supported by the
available experimental evidence, but are likely
to be conservative, to result in significant
cost increases, and will require ongoing
inspection and maintenance for the lifetime of
the structure. This approach is rarely used in
normal buildings, aside from parking garages.
4) Assume sacrificial spalling depth
In some concrete tunnelling projects, designers
have assumed a sacrificial spalling depth,
which is then accounted for in subsequent
heat-transfer and structural design
calculations. The assumed spalling depth is
TheStructuralEngineer | January 2018
Structural fire engineering
Explosive spalling of concrete in fire
typically ‘verified’ using large-scale furnace
tests on representative structural elements.
Given the stochastic nature of spalling and
its demonstrated sensitivity to thermal and
mechanical testing conditions, this approach
must be regarded as having considerable
uncertainty, and also being potentially
over-conservative.
Other options
It is noteworthy that if designers are sufficiently
confident that explosive spalling will not occur
in a credible design fire (e.g. using approaches
1, 2, or 3 above), then fire engineering design of
concrete structures becomes possible, since
performing accurate heat-transfer calculations
within non-spalling concrete is relatively
straightforward with available models. If,
however, designers cannot confidently prevent
or predict spalling, then structural design
calculations for concrete structures in fire are
both uncertain and rather difficult to defend.
The alternative is to take conservative and/or
arbitrary actions that may result in additional
costs (i.e. the costs of supplementary fire
insulation or sacrificial concrete cover).
Novel testing to mitigate design risk
Current approaches to heat-induced explosive
spalling design can be described as ‘design by
experiment’4 and/or use uncertain measures to
reduce risk. ‘Design by experiment’ currently
relies on large-scale furnace tests, which are
costly and variable. A reliable and verifiable
design tool is not feasible at present, so this
cannot be an immediate solution.
The spalling process is driven by a range of
influencing parameters and complex thermal,
mechanical, physical and chemical processes.
Some researchers6 have suggested that
what is needed is a means of experimentally
characterising and quantifying the propensity
for spalling of different concrete mixes under
various credible conditions of heating and
mechanical stresses, rather than a detailed
understanding of (and ability to computationally
predict) spalling. Through this approach it
may be possible to effectively guarantee (by
experiment) that explosive spalling will not
occur for a given mix in a given application.
This is not just an alternative to understanding
the underlying mechanisms, but a necessary
precursor to properly test hypotheses
and models.
Fire engineering has frequently sought
to address knowledge gaps through the
establishment of test methods and sets of
empirical data. The success of this approach
is dependent upon the ability of those test
methods to characterise the key parameters
affecting behaviour. The University of
Edinburgh is working with Arup to address
some of the key issues facing design for fire-
45
14/12/2017 12:21
 Structural fire engineering
Explosive spalling of concrete in fire thestructuralengineer.org

E Figure 4
Before (top) and after (bottom)
images of heated surface of two
identical samples tested using
H-TRIS – (A) unloaded, and (B) loaded
to sustained compressive stress of
10MPa uniaxial compression

induced spalling by adapting a novel fire testing

method and apparatus9,21,26 (Figure 3). The
approach is to undertake tests on concrete
under a range of carefully controlled
conditions of thermal exposure and sample
loading/restraint.

Thermal exposure
The temperature–time curves used in current
structural and tunnel fire testing are notionally
based on experimental data; however,
furnace testing is known to provide variable
thermal exposures due to its approach of
matching temperatures inside the furnace to
a prescribed ‘standard fire’ temperature–time
curve (within acceptable limits). Spalling can
be particularly sensitive to this variation20.
Applying the thermal load as a prescribed,
received thermal exposure (or incident heat
flux) is potentially more consistent in that the
amount of energy received by each sample is
directly controlled. Maluk26 developed a novel
test method and apparatus named H-TRIS
(Heat-Transfer Rate Inducing System), which
heats prismatic concrete samples using a
computer controlled array of radiant panels,
and has outstanding repeatability and economy
when compared to conventional furnace
testing, particularly as regards stress is maintained constant in the H-TRIS in terms of the thermal exposures it applies
spalling testing. method. While this may not represent the by comparison with in-depth temperatures
The H-TRIS thermal test method can true time-dependent loading and restraint measured in full-scale furnace tests of identical
produce exposures that are equivalent to the conditions in a given concrete structure, samples6,27. The authors are actively seeking
temperature–time curves currently used in it generates a known external mechanical research partners interested in undertaking a
furnace testing and design. Alternatively, this stress condition and allows multiple tests to programme of validation testing in parallel with
method is also capable of replicating realistic be quickly and inexpensively performed under a conventional spalling assessment involving
design fire exposures; e.g. determined on the a range of mechanical conditions, to highlight large-scale furnace tests on loaded samples
basis of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) or the potential influence of loading on spalling (most likely involving tests on precast concrete
zone fire modelling, and thus offering greater risk for a given concrete mix. Some typical tunnel lining segments).
flexibility in support of functionally based fire images from recent H-TRIS testing are shown
engineering design. in Figure 4. Both samples shown have the Structural engineer’s responsibility
same geometry and were tested to the same Reinforced concrete has a good record of
Loading and restraint thermal exposure. A uniaxial compressive performance in real fires, and the information
Differential thermal stress is one of the key load of 10MPa (Sample B) was observed to presented in this short paper should not be
factors known to contribute to spalling in some be sufficient to cause severe spalling after 7 construed as a criticism of concrete compared
cases. To impose representative mechanical minutes 49 seconds, compared to no spalling with other candidate construction materials. All
stress conditions during testing, the new test occurring during a 30-minute exposure when construction materials present risks in fire; how
method replicates the pre-fire stress state no load was applied (Sample A). the structural engineering community manages
by externally prestressing the sample using The H-TRIS test method is currently based these risks will differ between materials and
a bespoke 3MN uniaxial loading frame. This on medium-scale samples21 (500 × 500mm in must necessarily change as construction
loading frame has been developed with tunnel plan). At this scale, tests with H-TRIS address materials continue to evolve, presenting new
testing applications in mind, but different many of the design confidence and risk issues and different fire risks.
loading frames have been used to provide associated with spalling prevention. Tests However, the available research suggests5,6
general insights into the spalling are less expensive and faster, allowing more that many modern concrete mixes, used
phenomenon – applicable to essentially all candidate mixes to be tested repeatedly, across all areas of construction, are more
areas of construction. testing earlier in the project programme, and prone to spalling than has historically been the
As the sample is heated, the internal sample rapidly retesting to allow mix optimisation. case. The structural engineering community
self-restraint changes but the total external The H-TRIS test method has been validated therefore ought (i) to consider whether spalling

46 January 2018 | TheStructuralEngineer

TSE72_42-47_Explosive spalling of concrete in fire BISBY.indd 46 14/12/2017 12:21


thestructuralengineer.org
REFERENCES
E1) Bailey C. and Khoury G.A. (2011)
Performance of Concrete Structures in Fire,
London: MPA - The Concrete Centre
E2) Bisby L., Mostafaei H. and Pimienta
P. (2014) White paper on fire resistance of
concrete structures [Online] Available at:
https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.GCR.15-983
(Accessed: November 2017)
E3) Bisby L., Gales J. and Maluk C. (2013)
‘A contemporary review of large-scale non-
standard structural fire testing’, Fire Sci. Rev.,
2, pp. 1–27
E4) Deeny S., Gildersleeve C., Bisby L.,
Rickard I and Maluk C. (2014) ‘A novel design’,
World Tunneling, May, pp. 9–12
E5) Jansson R. (2013) Fire Spalling of
Concrete: Theoretical and Experimental
Studies (Doctoral thesis, KTH Royal Institute
of Technology) [Online] Available at: www.
diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:647411/
FULLTEXT01.pdf (Accessed: November 2017)
E6) Maluk C. (2014) Development and
Application of a Novel Test Method for
Studying The Fire Behaviour of CFRP
Prestressed Concrete Structural Elements
(Doctoral thesis, University of Edinburgh)
[Online] Available at: www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/
bitstream/handle/1842/15926/Maluk2014.
pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (Accessed:
November 2017)
E7) Channel Tunnel Safety Authority (1997)
Inquiry into the fire on heavy goods vehicle
shuttle 7539 on 18 November 1996, London:
HMSO
E8) Giuliani L., Crosti C. and Gentili F.
(2012) ‘Vulnerability of bridges to fire’, In:
Biondini F. and Frangopol D.M. (eds.) Bridge
Maintenance, Safety, Management, Resilience
and Sustainability, London: Taylor & Francis,
pp. 1565–1572
E9) Rickard I., Maluk C., Bisby L. and Deeny
S. (2015) ‘Predictive testing for heat-induced
spalling of concrete’, IABSE Conference
Geneva 2015: Structural Engineering:
Providing Solutions to Global Challenges,
Geneva: IABSE, pp. 929–936
is likely for a given concrete mix and credible
design fire conditions for a particular design
scenario, and (ii) account for the potential
impact of spalling on the structure’s ability
to meet the agreed functional performance
objectives for the structure in fire. Mitigating
actions, which will depend on the particular
circumstances of a given application, should be
taken if necessary.
The available guidance24 on concrete
spalling in fire is based on research but is not
fully supported by the available experimental
TSE72_42-47_Explosive spalling of concrete in fire BISBY.indd 47
E10) Zhang H.L. and Davie C.T. (2013) ‘A
numerical investigation of the influence of
pore pressures and thermally induced stresses
for spalling of concrete exposed to elevated
temperatures’, Fire Saf. J., 59, pp. 102–110
E11) Harmathy T.Z. (1965) ‘Effect of moisture
on the fire endurance of building elements’, In:
ASTM STP385: Moisture in materials in relation
to fire tests, Philadelphia, PA: American Society
for Testing and Materials, pp. 74–93
E12) Kalifa P., Chéné G. and Gallé C. (2001)
‘High-temperature behaviour of HPC with
polypropylene fibres: From spalling to
microstructure’, Cem. Concr. Res., 31 (10), pp.
1487–1499
E13) Ernst and Young LLP (2016) Economic
footprint of the Channel Tunnel fixed link
[Online] Available at: www.ey.com/Publication/
vwLUAssets/Economic_footprint_of_the_
Channel_Tunnel_fixed_link/$File/Channel%20
Tunnel%20EN%20light.pdf (Accessed:
November 2017)
E14) Kelly F. and Purkiss J. (2008) ‘Reinforced
concrete structures in fire: a review of current
rules’, The Structural Engineer, 86 (19), pp.
33–39
E15) Dehn F. (ed.) (2015) 4th International
Workshop on Concrete Spalling due to Fire
Exposure, Leipzig, Germany, 8–9 October,
Leipzig: MFPA Leipzig GmbH
E16) Hull W.A. (1920) ‘Fire tests of concrete
columns’, Proc. 16th Annual Convention of the
American Concrete Institute, pp. 20–45
E17) Maluk C., Bisby L. and Terrasi G.P. (2017)
‘Effects of polypropylene fibre type and dose
on the propensity for heat-induced concrete
spalling’, Eng. Struct., 141, pp. 584–595
E18) Haack A. (1998) ‘Fire protection in traffic
tunnels: General aspects and results of the
EUREKA project’, Tunn. Undergr. Sp. Technol.,
13 (4), pp. 377–381
E19) French Interior Ministry and Ministry for
Equipment, Transport and Housing (2000)
Circulaire interministérielle no 2000-63 du
25 Aout 2000 relative à la sécurité dans les
evidence, posing a challenge for designers.
Additional research on this issue is therefore
needed, particularly as advances in concrete
technology continue to generate novel,
high-performance concrete mixes for use in
construction. Designers need to ensure that
potential for spalling is not overlooked.
A novel, experimental method and apparatus
such as H-TRIS presents an opportunity to
advance current approaches. It can address a
number of the necessary issues, both technical
and financial, in the assessment and mitigation
TheStructuralEngineer | January 2018
Structural fire engineering
Explosive spalling of concrete in fire
tunnels du réseau routier français [Online]
Available at: www.vie-publique.fr/documents-
vp/circulaire_25-08-2000-1.pdf (Accessed:
November 2017)
E20) Maluk C., Terrasi G.P., Bisby L., Stutz A.
and Hugi E. (2015) ‘Fire resistance tests on
thin CFRP prestressed concrete slabs’, Constr.
Build. Mater., 101, pp. 558–571
E21) Rickard I., Bisby L., Deeny S. and Maluk
C. (2016) ‘Predictive testing for heat induced
spalling of concrete tunnels - the influence
of mechanical loading’, In: Garlock M. and
Kodur V.K.R. (eds.) Structures in Fire: Proc.
9th International Conference, Lancaster, PA:
DEStech Publications, Inc., pp. 217–224
E22) Gawin D., Pesavento F. and Schrefler
B.A. (2011) ‘What physical phenomena can be
neglected when modelling concrete at high
temperature? A comparative study. Part 1:
Physical phenomena and mathematical model’,
Int. J. Solid. Struct., 48 (13), pp. 1927–1944
E23) Dwaikat M.B. and Kodur V.K.R. (2009)
‘Fire induced spalling in high strength concrete
beams’, Fire Technol., 46, p. 251
E24) British Standards Institution (2005)
BS EN 1992-1-2:2004 Eurocode 2: Design of
concrete structures. General rules. Structural
fire design, London: BSI
E25) National Fire Protection Association
(2011) NFPA 502: Standard for Road Tunnels,
Bridges, and Other Limited Access Highways,
Quincy, MA: NFPA
E26) Maluk C., Bisby L., Krajcovic M. and
Torero J.L. (2016) ‘A heat-transfer rate inducing
system (H-TRIS) test method’, Fire Saf. J.
(in press)
E27) Rickard I., Maluk C., Robert F., Bisby L.,
Deeny S. and Tessier C. (2015) ‘Development of
a novel small-scale test method to investigate
heat-induced spalling of concrete tunnel
linings’, In: Dehn F. (ed.) 4th International
Workshop on Concrete Spalling due to Fire
Exposure, Leipzig, Germany, 8–9 October,
Leipzig: MFPA Leipzig GmbH, pp. 195–205
of explosive concrete spalling. Its basis on
heating specimens by directly controlling
the thermal exposure received also offers
flexibility in its capability to replicate thermal
exposures predicted (e.g. using CFD analysis) in
performance-based structural design for fire.
HAVE YOUR SAY
To comment on this article:
Eemail Verulam at tse@istructe.org
Etweet @istructe #TheStructuralEngineer
47
14/12/2017 12:21
 Structural fire engineering
Fire safety design in modern timber buildings
Fire safety design in
modern timber buildings
Susan Deeny
PhD, CEng, MIFireE
Senior Fire Engineer, Arup, Edinburgh, UK
Rory Hadden
PhD
Rushbrook Senior Lecturer in Fire Investigation,
University of Edinburgh, UK
Introduction: modern methods of
timber construction
Designers of the built environment
are currently focused on creating new
materials for construction, or innovating
new construction methods with traditional
construction materials. This is part of
the very complex challenge of balancing
environmental issues, such as energy use,
with the ongoing market demand for reducing
construction costs and time.
This has led to a rapid rise in the uptake
of timber, such as glued laminated timber
(glulam) and cross-laminated timber (CLT),
particularly in the design of multistorey
residential buildings (Figures 1 and 2).
It is also architecturally attractive due
to its ability to function as a load-bearing
element and the external or internal finishes.
For contractors, these materials may also
eliminate the need for wet, decorative trades
(such as concreting, plastering and painting)
on site, which has significant benefits in
terms of construction programme, site
logistics, minimising timber degradation due
to moisture entrapment and, perhaps most
importantly, cost.
This paper focuses on the design of tall
timber construction for which many hybrid
and composite forms of timber are being
developed, resulting in a wide range of
structural typologies. Fire safety of all timber
buildings during the construction phase is
also an important consideration for designers
and constructors but outwith the scope of
this article.
This paper outlines the fire safety
challenges of modern methods of timber
construction and explains the technical basis
for moving away from traditional methods
of fire safety design. It sets out new design
considerations as a result of recent research,
48
TSE72_46-51_Fire safety design in modern timber buildingsDEENY.indd 48
Barbara Lane
PhD, FREng, CEng
Fellow, Arup, London, UK
Andrew Lawrence
MA, CEng, MIStructE, MICE
Associate Director, Arup Advanced Technology and
Research, London, UK
including full-scale experiments by Arup
and the University of Edinburgh. It explains
the significant parameters observed that
dominate the structural fire response of
timber. It also instigates a much-needed wider
discussion on how these parameters can
be reliably implemented for real design and
construction projects in the immediate future,
and so support the use of timber.
Traditional timber fire safety solutions
In the event of fire, structural stability is
required to maintain safe escape routes and
firefighting access routes. It is also required
to maintain stability of the internal fire-rated
construction, which contains the spread of
fire in a building.
In the UK, the Building Regulations
require elements of structure to be capable
of withstanding the effects of fire for an
appropriate period without loss of stability for
the purposes described above. In practice,
stability performance is typically prescribed
in periods of load-bearing fire resistance
 Figure 1
The Smile, Alison Brooks Architects and Arup,
London Design Festival, shows potential for fast
‘flat pack’ timber construction
January 2018 | TheStructuralEngineer
thestructuralengineer.org
(30, 60, 90 and 120 minutes) when tested
to either specific British or European test
standards. This (fire resistance) time is a test
time and cannot be attributed to ‘real time’,
e.g. the time to evacuate a physical space.
Fire resistance may also be demonstrated
for common forms of construction through
analysis methods in BR 128, the relevant
British Standard or Eurocode, provided the
construction is within the limits of applicability
of those standards. Therefore, load-bearing
fire resistance may be demonstrated through
either testing or engineering calculation.
In buildings where the consequences
of structural failure are high, such as tall
buildings or high-risk occupancies with
complex evacuation procedures (e.g.
healthcare), a higher period of fire resistance
is required. In these buildings, the fire safety
design is reliant on occupants being able to
remain safely within the building for what may
be a prolonged time in the event of a fire.
Automatic fire suppression may further be
prescribed to reduce the likelihood of severe
post-flashover fires, but they cannot prevent
them absolutely. Structures are still, therefore,
required to maintain stability under severe
post-flashover1,2.
In traditional timber fire safety design,
there have been, to date, two distinct
approaches to demonstrating the prescribed
minimum fire resistance. Firstly, no passive
fire protection is applied and the inherent fire
resistance is calculated using the ‘reduced
cross-section method’; this is predominantly
applied to heavy timber beam and column
construction3,4. Secondly, ‘encapsulation’,
where passive fire protection is applied to
the timber, typically in lightweight timber-
frame construction.
N Figure 2
Sky Health and Fitness Centre, dRMM and Arup,
London, shows growing interest in exposed timber
14/12/2017 12:37
 Structural fire engineering
thestructuralengineer.org Fire safety design in modern timber buildings

Charring of structural timber

As wood heats it pyrolyses, producing
flammable gases and a rigid carbon-rich
layer of char at the exposed surface. Char is
highly insulating and therefore reduces the

ALASTAIR BARTLETT / UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH

UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH
heat which is conducted into the remaining
timber or ‘virgin material’. Therefore, pyrolysis
of wood simultaneously produces fuel
to sustain a fire and also produces char
which insulates the underlying timber from
the pyrolysis process. Initially, the rate of
pyrolysis is high, leading to the release
of large volumes of flammable gas fuel.
However, as the char layer increases in N Figure 4
Calculated charring rates of CLT from real-scale
compartment fire test
thickness, this rate slows until such point
that the heat transfer to the underlying N Figure 3
Delamination of CLT in small-scale experiment
timber is too low to sustain further pyrolysis,
quenching the visible flame on the timber
surface. This effect is illustrated in Figures 3 shown poor repeatability in performance, and
This behaviour has been well researched and 4, which show the delamination of a for ceilings, a concerning number of repeated
since the 1940s5 and underpins the now charred CLT section causing new flaming failures. This area requires substantial and
established design rules found in BS 5268:4- of the underlying timber, as well as the short-term work to develop a robust system
13 and more recently Eurocode 54. The design measured effect of delamination on the rate which is easily constructed on or off site.
solution is relatively simple; sections are of CLT charring during a real-scale fire test. Protection applied to merely delay
sized to allow for a constant charring rate The CLT had experienced 9.1mm of charring the onset of charring (which has been
over the prescribed period of fire resistance at the point the room contents had burnt out. investigated by some academics9 for mid-rise
and the residual uncharred cross-section is However, repeated delamination of the CLT construction) is not the same as protection
relied upon to maintain structural stability. continued to supply sufficient additional fuel to provide the minimum fire resistance. Once
The current EC5 residual cross-section to maintain a fire within the compartment, the applied protection has failed, the CLT
method is applicable to heavy timber resulting in a further 32.8mm of charring is directly exposed and will interact with
elements like glulam beams, but not new before the CLT was manually extinguished7. the fire as previously described (charring,
construction like CLT. The applicability of delamination, increased fuel load and
the EC5 reduced cross-section method and Encapsulation of structural timber potentially sustained burning).
its assumptions about rates of char, zero- Lightweight timber frames, generally used in No specific performance criteria exist in
strength layers and failure modes of CLT, the two- to four-storey structures prevalent the UK for encapsulation of CLT to provide
as well as the development of a modified in the housing market, are characteristically prescribed periods of fire resistance.
method of calculation, are an ongoing area of formed with small timber studs and rails (e.g. However, in Germany and Australia, a specific
research6. 47 × 97mm8) sheathed with oriented strand performance is set based on preventing the
The residual cross-section method board (OSB). This form of timber burns temperature on the unheated side of the
includes a further limitation for CLT rapidly and has no inherent fire performance. protection system from reaching the charring
construction in that the additional fuel Traditionally, the fire safety solution has been temperature of the underlying timber (CLT,
produced by the pyrolysis process described to completely encapsulate these structures glulam or solid). This temperature is typically
above is ignored. This is considered in fire-resisting materials, the intention taken as 250–270°C. Proving this by test
particularly significant for CLT construction presumably being to prevent any charring of enables a certified specified period of fire
for two reasons. Firstly, CLT is used in panels the timber occurring at all and so maintain resistance to be obtained for protection of
to form walls, ceilings and floors; therefore, structural stability during the fire. the CLT system10.
the area of exposed timber relative to There are numerous certified passive
the size of the room is large, and thus the protection systems for lightweight timber Recent experiments to explore CLT
volume of additional fuel is also large. As frames. However, at the time of writing, there behaviour in fire
will be shown in this article, this additional are currently no certified passive protection Arup and the University of Edinburgh
fuel impacts the overall compartment systems in the UK for CLT construction. This have been investigating the governing
fire behaviour. Secondly, CLT is formed includes no certified fire-stopping systems parameters of CLT performance in fire. As
of distinct timber layers (lamella) glued for service penetrations, nor any certified part of this investigation, five real-scale CLT
together. During furnace and full-scale fire structural connection details available to compartments (3 × 3 × 3m) were tested
testing, CLT has exhibited substantial char designers. in 2016 to investigate compartment fire
fall-off during a fire, a process commonly Academic studies indicate that special behaviour within CLT-formed compartments.
referred to as delamination. Loss of the forms of encapsulation, substantially more The intention was to identify the contribution
insulating char layer increases the rate of expensive and denser with respect to layers of exposed and protected CLT surfaces for
timber pyrolysis, therefore adding more fuel and insulation materials, can protect for long design purposes. Of specific interest was the
to the compartment fire and, in a potentially periods of exposure. However, confidential effect of exposed CLT surfaces both on the
cyclical process, sustaining burning of the project-specific testing of plasterboard overall compartment fire behaviour, as well as
compartment fire. protection systems for walls and floors has on individual compartment surfaces. Three

TheStructuralEngineer | January 2018 49

TSE72_46-51_Fire safety design in modern timber buildingsDEENY.indd 49 14/12/2017 12:37

 Structural fire engineering
Fire safety design in modern timber buildings thestructuralengineer.org

S  Figure 5
Compartment configurations used in
experimental programme7

UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH
a) Two surfaces: rear c) Three surfaces:
and side wall exposed rear wall, side wall
and ceiling exposed
b) Two surfaces:
rear wall and
ceiling exposed

different configurations of exposed CLT if the fire grows sufficiently, flashover occurs attributed to slower fire spread on the crib in
surfaces were investigated (Figure 5): two and the fire is referred to as ‘fully developed’. agreement with visual observations.
perpendicular walls (compartment corner), This phase is the most critical for structural
one wall and ceiling, and one compartment stability as temperatures are high (between Fully developed fire behaviour
corner with an exposed ceiling. The 1100 and 1200°C11). Finally, is the decay The size of the fire, measured in heat
compartment corner cases were repeated. phase: when the majority of fuel has been release rate (HRR), increases as a function
All other surfaces were encapsulated consumed, the rate of burning and the of further exposure of the CLT. The peak
using a bespoke plasterboard/stone wool temperatures inside the compartment start HRR measured for the tests ranged from
composite lining. to decrease. 4.7 to 6.7MW. The peak HRR from the cribs
Four wood cribs formed the compartment In small compartments, the duration of alone was calculated as 2.5–3MW; the HRR
fuel load of 130MJ/m2. This low fire- the fully developed fire before the onset of represents all energy released internally
load density was used to enable close the final decay phase is determined by the and externally to the compartment. Analysis
examination of the burning behaviour of amount of fuel available to burn. In a CLT of the test data demonstrates that a large
the CLT surfaces. The full description of compartment, the exposed timber provides proportion of the additional fuel contributed
these experiments is presented in Hadden additional fuel and is therefore significant by the CLT was in fact burnt externally,
et al.7 and the effect of CLT exposure with regards to fire duration. In reviewing the manifesting in a large external fire plume.
on fire dynamics and CLT encapsulation data obtained from the five experiments, the This was supported by visual observations,
performance is summarised in Table 1. following was observed about the resulting and has implications for external vertical
compartment fires: fire spread. External vertical fire spread is
Effect of exposed CLT on fire dynamics relevant to decisions on the exterior surface
As is well documented5, there are three Fire growth behaviour form suitable for high-rise buildings, as well
distinct phases to a classic compartment The time to flashover (Table 1) does not as calculating the risk of fire spread between
fire. Firstly, following ignition, is the growth appear to be governed strongly by the buildings as required by the UK Building
phase where the fire is controlled by the different configurations of exposed CLT. The Regulations.
amount of gaseous fuel available. Secondly, longer duration observed in Beta 2 can be Peak temperatures recorded in the tests
were between 1114 and 1236°C, i.e. no greater
TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF EXPERIMENTAL PARAMETERS than those experienced in conventional,
plasterboard-lined compartments (1100 and
Experiment Exposed CLT Time to Total peak Maximum Maximum No. of
label flashover HRR (MW) temperature char depth lamellas
1200°C11). However, the rate of temperature
(min) 220cm in exposed affected increase is much higher for exposed CLT
above floor, timber after when compared with data obtained from
centre (°C) 60 min (mm) compartments with non-combustible
Alpha-1 2 walls 4.6 5.3 1236 53 3 surfaces.
Alpha-2 2 walls 5.1 4.7 1169 53 3 With respect to the duration of the fully
Beta-1 1 wall & 8.6 6.2 1167 11 1 developed phase in the three configurations
ceiling tested, three distinct outcomes were
Beta-2 1 wall & 4.2 5.2 1114 44 3 recorded:
ceiling 1) Quasi steady-state burning – the exposed
Gamma-1 2 walls & 5.4 6.7 1187 58 3 CLT continued to burn at a quasi-steady
ceiling state following consumption of the wood

50 January 2018 | TheStructuralEngineer

TSE72_46-51_Fire safety design in modern timber buildingsDEENY.indd 50 14/12/2017 12:37


thestructuralengineer.org
 Figure 7
Heat release rate for configuration
Beta in which auto-extinction was
observed. Burnout of imposed fuel
load occurred after 17 min
cribs. This behaviour was exhibited in the
configuration with three exposed surfaces
(Gamma 1).
2) Cyclical burning – the HRR of the
compartment fire increases after an initial
decay period. Driven by fall-off of char
and timber layers, ‘cyclical burning’ occurs
after the imposed fuel load has been
consumed. This behaviour was exhibited
in the cases with two exposed surfaces
(Alpha 1, Alpha 2 and Beta 2).
3) Extinction – the exposed CLT
extinguishes after consumption of the
wood cribs. This behaviour was exhibited
in one configuration only (Beta 1; however,
this was not observed in the repeat test).
Sustained burning
Behaviours (1) and (2) above demonstrate
that when CLT is exposed within a
compartment, it can lead to sustained
burning, i.e. the CLT continues to burn after
consumption of the imposed fuel. Where
quasi-steady state burning was observed,
three CLT surfaces were exposed: The large
area of exposed and burning CLT provided
sufficient heat to continue to penetrate
the char layer and therefore pyrolyse the
underlying timber (Figure 6).
Cyclical or recurrent burning (behaviour
2) was observed where two surfaces were
exposed. In the decay phase, regrowth
was observed over a period of approx. 20
minutes. Analysis7 suggests that this is the
time taken to thermally penetrate a single
lamella and reach an adhesive layer. It is
proposed that thermal penetration12 to this
depth results in char fall-off and exposure
of fresh timber. The fresh timber pyrolyses
 Figure 6
Heat release rates for three configurations studied, exhibiting
sustained burning of CLT following burnout of wood cribs7
UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH
TSE72_46-51_Fire safety design in modern timber buildingsDEENY.indd 51
more rapidly than
charred timber,
therefore liberating
more gaseous fuel
and resulting in
regrowth in HRR.
Extinction
The results also
demonstrate that
extinction of exposed
CLT, behaviour (3)
above, is possible
(Figure 7). This was
observed in one
test where the compartment corner was
exposed.
Current work13 seems to demonstrate
that when there is insufficient heat
transfer through the char layer to sustain
the generation of flammable gases, the
pyrolysis process should cease.
In this full-scale experiment, it appears
that the wood cribs were consumed
and the fire decayed before thermal
penetration of the first lamella, i.e. before
significant char fall-off of the first lamella
could occur. Thus, the insulating role of the
char was maintained and the compartment
had cooled sufficiently such that heat
required could not penetrate the char layer
to maintain pyrolysis of the underlying
timber. On the other hand, in the second
repeat test of this configuration, extinction
was not observed. It seems that when
repeated, there was a greater degree of
delamination, which sustained pyrolysis of
the CLT panels in the manner
described above.
TheStructuralEngineer | January 2018
Structural fire engineering
Fire safety design in modern timber buildings
UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH
Performance of CLT encapsulation
A specific encapsulation system was
developed for the tests with the intention of
preventing the underlying timber contributing
to the compartment fire; comprising two
overlapping layers of 12.5mm Type F14
plasterboard individually fixed to the CLT
panels using 100mm at approx. 300mm
centres with a 20mm offset from the edge of
boards. However, this system experienced
significant failures from 22.6 minutes after
ignition, eventually exposing the entire
encapsulated timber area (Figure 8a).
A second system was therefore developed
utilising two layers of 12.5mm Type F
plasterboard on the fire side of the build-up,
with a 25mm layer of stone wool beneath and
a further 12.5mm Type F plasterboard layer in
contact with the CLT surface. All layers were
individually fixed to the CLT panel using the
same fixing method as in the first system.
This system also experienced plasterboard
failure; however, the underlying stone wool
and layer of plasterboard interfacing with the
CLT remained in place and prevented any
charring of the timber (Figure 8b).
CLT can therefore be exposed to the fire
deliberately by providing no encapsulation, as
in the unprotected surfaces within this test
series. It can also be exposed accidentally
due to failure of the encapsulation system
resulting in exposure and/or charring of the
underlying CLT. In the latter scenario, there
would be extensive areas of CLT exposed
to the fire. As shown in these tests, this
presents a risk of sustained burning of the
CLT after the burnout of the room contents.
Challenges – next steps proposed for
fire safe design
These recent tests, and those conducted
by others15–18, have highlighted a number of
51
14/12/2017 12:37
 Structural fire engineering
Fire safety design in modern timber buildings
 Figure 8
Performance
of CLT
encapsulation
challenges for designers of modern high-rise
timber construction.
Firstly, the need for a means to determine
the size of the fire which incorporates the
impact of any exposed CLT. As the additional
energy contributed by the exposed CLT
appears to be released external to the
compartment (in the small compartment size
tested), there is a clear need for a means
of quantifying the extent of external flaming
and subsequent incorporation into design
guidance for external and vertical fire spread.
The duration of the fire is seen to be
significantly affected by the exposure of
CLT. Where the CLT does not extinguish
following consumption of the room fuel,
prolonged fire durations have been observed.
Including the tests reported here, in five of
14 recent tests15–18 on partially protected CLT
compartments, the CLT self-extinguished.
These cases included two with a single
vertical exposed surface and three instances
REFERENCES
E1) Kirby B.R., Newman G.M., Butterworth
N., Pagan J. and English C. (2004) ‘A new
approach to specifying fire resistance
periods’, The Structural Engineer, 82 (19), pp.
34–37
E2) Law A., Stern-Gottfried J. and
Butterworth N. (2015) ‘A risk based
framework for time equivalence and fire
resistance’, Fire Technol., 50 (4), pp. 771–784
E3) British Standards Institution (1978)
BS 5268-4.1:1978 Structural use of timber.
Fire resistance of timber structures.
Recommendations for calculating fire
resistance of timber members, London, BSI
E4) British Standards Institution (2004)
BS EN 1995-1-2:2004 Eurocode 5: Design of
timber structures. General. Structural fire
design, London, BSI
E5) Drysdale D. (2011) An Introduction to
Fire Dynamics (3rd ed.), Chichester: J Wiley
& Sons
E6) Klippel M. and Schmid J. (2017) ‘Design
of cross-laminated timber in fire’, Structural
Engineering International, 27 (2), pp 224–230
E7) Hadden R.M, Bartlett A.I., Hidalgo
J.P. et al. (2017) ‘Effects of exposed cross
laminated timber on compartment fire
52
TSE72_46-51_Fire safety design in modern timber buildingsDEENY.indd 52
a) View of ceiling (top), sidewall (bottom
right) and front wall (bottom left) after
failure of first encapsulation system
which had two surfaces exposed (30–45%
of the room surface area). However, a further
five cases with two exposed surfaces did not
extinguish. In addition to the proportion of
room surface area exposed, delamination of
the unprotected CLT has been identified as a
key parameter determining whether burning
of the CLT is sustained or extinguished.
Therefore, regardless of whether the
CLT is deliberately left exposed, or in the
event of protection methods failing, the
conditions governing self-extinction remain
relevant in creating a reliable method to
quantify fire duration. In order to create a
dynamics’, Fire Safety Journal, 91, pp.
480–489
E8) Structural Timber Association (2014)
‘Timber frame structures – platform
construction (part 1)’, Structural Timber
Engineering Bulletin, 3, pp. 1–7
E9) Taber B.C., Lougheed G.D., Su J.Z. and
Bénichou N. (2014) Solutions for mid-rise
wood construction: apartment fire test
with encapsulated cross laminated timber
construction [Online] Available at: http://
doi.org/10.4224/21274564 (Accessed:
November 2017)
E10) British Standards Institution (2016)
BS EN 13501-2:2016 Fire classification of
construction products and building elements.
Classification using data from fire resistance
tests, excluding ventilation services, London,
BSI
E11) Chitty R. (2015) ‘External fire spread
and building separation distances’, BRE Fire
Conference, Watford, UK, 11 June
E12) Hasburgh L., Bourne K., Dagenais C.,
Ranger L. and Roy-Poirier A. (2016) ‘Fire
performance of mass-timber encapsulation
methods and the effect of encapsulation on
char rate of cross-laminated timber’, Proc.
World Conference on Timber Engineering
January 2018 | TheStructuralEngineer
thestructuralengineer.org
UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH
b) View of ceiling (top), sidewall (bottom right) and
front wall (bottom left) after experiment Alpha 2
design methodology with a sole reliance
on self-extinction, it is clear that a more
detailed understanding of the interactions
between the CLT and the compartment fire
is needed. This, however, does not mean that
in the short term we can avoid assessing
the impact of fire duration in combustible
construction for fire safe design purposes.
It is clear that charring of timber,
traditionally considered only with respect
to its effects on the reduction in structural
capacity, is significant for the fire behaviour
also. Fire safety design of modern timber
therefore needs to consider not only the rate
(WCTE 2016), Vienna, Austria, 22–25 August
E13) Bartlett A.I, Hadden R.M., Hidalgo J.P.
et al. (2017) ‘Auto-extinction of engineered
timber: Application to compartment fires
with exposed timber surfaces’, Fire Safety
Journal, 91, pp. 407–413
E14) British Standards Institution (2009)
BS EN 520:2004+A1:2009 Gypsum
plasterboards. Definitions, requirements and
test methods, London, BSI
E15) Li X., McGregor C., Medina A., Sun
X., Barber D. and Hadjisophocleous G.
(2016) ‘Real-scale fire tests on timber
constructions’, Proc. World Conference on
Timber Engineering (WCTE 2016), Vienna,
Austria, 22–25 August
E16) Hakkarainen T. (2002) ‘Post-flashover
fires in light and heavy timber construction
compartments’, J. Fire Sci., 20 (2), pp.
133–175
E17) McGregor C. (2013) Contribution of
Cross Laminated Timber Panels to Room
Fires (Master’s Thesis, Carleton University)
E18) Emberley R., Putynska C.G., Bolanos A.
et al. (2017) ‘Description of small and large-
scale cross laminated timber fire tests’, Fire
Safety Journal, 91, pp. 327–335
14/12/2017 12:37
 Structural fire engineering
thestructuralengineer.org Fire safety design in modern timber buildings

of char formation, but also the release of
additional fuel and the effect of delamination
upon rate of charring. Where these are
ignored, it is not possible rely on current
charring rate methods.
For this matter, the development of
CLT panels with the express purpose of
preventing delamination seems to be key,
and there are already various investigations
into the effect of different adhesives on
preventing delamination.
Practically, therefore, there is a need to
control the number and area of CLT surfaces
which may interact with a fire, in particular
for buildings with high consequences of
failure. Currently, there are no certified
encapsulation products on the market in the
UK that have been tested in a CLT assembly.
This will require the need for project-specific
testing until such products exist on the
market, including fire-stopping products
(collars, sealants and batts). Large-scale
testing has shown poor repeatability in
performance of some encapsulation systems
– reliable and consistent performance
is required. The consequence of failure
of encapsulation systems is to cause an
increased risk of a secondary flashover
or fire regrowth, which poses a particular
risk to firefighters, and also to occupants
where the building relies on ‘stay in
place’ strategies rather than immediate
evacuation.
Finally, the applicability to CLT of
currently available reduced cross-section
methods to determine load-bearing
fire resistance is an area of ongoing
research. However, across the research
community, these efforts are currently
primarily focused on modification of the
traditional residual cross-section methods.
Reliable design methods which are based
on a fundamental understanding of the
response of CLT and CLT hybrid frames to
fire are now required.
With further research and testing,
it is hoped that the specific fire safety
risks identified for CLT in this paper shall
provide the fundamental understanding of
behaviour to enable designers to mitigate
those risks. This is likely to indicate that
for taller structures, the amount of timber
exposed will need to be limited at all stages
of the fire, in order to both limit the amount
of fuel load and also to help ensure self-
extinction.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the
generous support of the EPSRC Impact
Acceleration Account, KLH, SVG Gmbh and
Rockwool International. Also, the significant
contributions of the experimental team,
Dr Juan Hidalgo, Alastair Bartlett, Felix
Wiesner, Simon Santamaria and Nikolai
Gerasimov, are acknowledged.
HAVE YOUR SAY
To comment on this article:
Eemail Verulam at tse@istructe.org
Etweet @IStructeE #TheStructuralEngineer

ADVANCED STRUCTURAL
ENGINEERING SOFTWARE
Structural Engineering problems require software that can deliver robust
solutions for a wide range of project types. GSA is a comprehensive design
and analysis package for buildings, bridges, tensile structures and much
more. This intuitive software is feature rich and has been used the world
over to aid the design of many award winning structures. For accurate

Download your free 30-day oasys-software.com +44(0) 191 238 7559 oasys@arup.com

trial from our site today Oasys Software @Oasys_Software TheOasysSoftware

TheStructuralEngineer | January 2018 53

TSE72_46-51_Fire safety design in modern timber buildingsDEENY.indd 53 14/12/2017 12:37

 Structural fire engineering
Avoiding fire spread risks during timber-frame construction thestructuralengineer.org

Structural timber buildings

– avoiding fire spread risks
during construction
Martin Milner starting with the client and the client’s
MSc, CEng, MIStructE design team (which is headed up by the
principal designer) and continuing within the
Director, Milner Associates, Bristol, UK
construction-phase team with the principal
contractor and subcontractors.
Synopsis While the CDM Regulations and HSG 168
Construction site fires can be significant events creating risks to life safety guidance are applicable to all construction
material types, there is a requirement to
as well as causing extensive property damage. During the build process,
consider the increased risks of fire spreading
timber-frame structures can be vulnerable to ignition, whether from a beyond the original fire source, due to the
construction process, accident or arson attack. presence of combustible building materials
This paper describes the thinking and background behind the fire model in the development. Timber is combustible
underpinning risk-mitigation techniques used for structural timber buildings. and, when exposed during the construction
The work has evolved from over six years of industry-based research and process, can contribute to the fire load
within a building. Designers should be aware
fire testing, which has led to the Health and Safety Executive endorsing of this and consider it in the development
the principles presented. Martin Milner has been the project manager and of the project. The Structural Timber
engineer representing the Structural Timber Association on this work. Association (STA) has collaborated with
industry fire experts to produce guidance on
structural timber projects for designers and
Introduction
The construction phase of any project
includes many safety risks, of which fire is  Figure 1
Fire risk-management strategy
perhaps one of the most dangerous, not just
for the site workers but for persons in the Fire risk assessments Responsibility
immediate surrounding area outside the site
Off-the-site fire
boundary. spread risk is to Principal
According to the Health and Safety existing buildings designer
and neighbouring
Executive (HSE), there are hundreds of fires persons outside
of a site boundary On-the-site risks are for
on construction sites in the UK each year. In the safety of the project Principal
response to the risk of such site fires, the HSE workers and management contractor
team
has published guidance note HSG 168: Fire
safety in construction1.
On all projects in the UK, contractors and
designers involved in construction have a Application of recommendations
legal duty under the Construction (Design and in the fire risk assessments
Off-the-site
Management) Regulations (CDM Regulations) fire spread risk
assessment
20152 and the fire safety acts to consider the
Either inherent fire Subcontract
risks of fire. Table 1 provides a summary of the risk mitigation built building system
into the frame as it supplier to include
acts relevant to the constituent parts of the recommendations
is erected
UK where the works are being undertaken. Principal
Or site process
The CDM Regulations and the fire safety mitigation contractor
to action
acts are all focused on establishing a On-the-site risk assessment recommendations
responsible person at each stage of the
development, from concept to completion,
to plan, manage and monitor the risks.
Responsible persons under the CDM Fire safety plan for site

Regulations are those who have a role in Checklist procedures Site reviews Inspections Principal contractors
making decisions about the development,

54 January 2018 | TheStructuralEngineer

TSE72_54-58_Avoiding fire spread risks during construction milner.indd 54 14/12/2017 12:59

 Structural fire engineering
thestructuralengineer.org Avoiding fire spread risks during timber-frame construction

TABLE 1: UK LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL PROJECTS TO CONSIDER FIRE RISK DURING CONSTRUCTION PROCESS

Legal requirements for fire risk assessment

Type of development STA guidance STA support
England and Wales Scotland Northern Ireland
Private Self-build houses
Single-house development
CDM Regulations
Multiple-house development CDM Regulations 2015 CDM Regulations
Multiple-occupancy project, 2015 2015
Fire (Scotland)
Commercial

e.g. residential buildings, 16 steps to fire

hotels, care homes, student Regulatory Reform Act (FSA) 2005, Fire and Rescue Site Safe policy
safety
accommodation (Fire Safety) Order supported by Fire Services Order
(RRO) 2005 Safety (Scotland) (FRS) 2006
Public-space buildings, e.g. Regulations 2006
schools, education buildings,
leisure centres, offices, shops,
restaurants, hospitals, halls

construction-phase planners. This is so that
structural timber buildings can be constructed
in a fire-safe manner.
The key STA guidance is called 16 steps
to fire safety3 and provides a road map to
derive a Fire Safety Plan. A Fire Safety Plan
is required on any project and for all material
duty to consider fire spread outside the site on-the-site. The difference between these
boundary, called off-the-site. Figure 1 shows assessments is covered in Table 2.
the key persons responsible for this, as well The off-the-site risk assessment will be dealt
as for fire within the site boundary, called with in more detail in the following sections.
 Figure 2
Example of minimum separating distances selected from tables

types. It has been noted by the STA that 16

steps to fire safety has been used on projects
other than those adopting timber structures.
The initial steps of the guidance are
focused on the duties of designers; in
particular, the assessment of fire spread
beyond the site boundary. Separation
distances between a new building and an
existing building outside the site should be
considered in the design process. Risks
should be mitigated whenever fire spread is
Extract from STA Table 1 for Category A (standard) timber frame (minimum separating distances in metres)
assessed to be sensitive via radiant heat from
the new construction to the existing building.
No. of Emitter length (eL)
This paper provides a review of both the
timber
STA Design guide to separating distances
storeys ≤5m ≤10m ≤15m ≤20m ≤25m ≤40m >40m
during construction4 and the fire model used
for structural timber buildings to determine 1 5.5 7.25 8.25 8.75 9.5 10.25 10.5
risk mitigation measures for reducing fire
spread beyond the site boundary during the 2 7.5 10.5 12.75 14.25 15.5 18 20.25
construction process.
3 9 13 16 18 20 23.25 28.5
Responsibility for fire spread reviews
4 3 15 18.5 21.25 23.5 28.5 35.75
outside site boundary
16 steps to fire safety refers the reader to the If the emitter length (eL) is 15m and the number of storeys is 3, the safe separation distance from Table 1 is 16m
CDM Regulations and the principal designer’s for a Category A (standard) timber frame form of construction

TABLE 2: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ON-THE-SITE AND OFF-THE-SITE REQUIREMENTS

ON-the-site OFF-the-site

To check the impact of the risk of fire spread should a

Objective To stop a fire occurring
fire occur and recommend mitigation if required
The life safety of members of the public in the
Advice relates to Activities by site workers inside the site boundary
neighbouring properties outside the site boundary

Persons being protected Site workers and visitors Site personnel and the public

16 steps to fire safety

16 steps to fire safety
Guidance available from STA Design guide to separating distances during
Advice notes 7, 8, 9, 15 (www.structuraltimber.co.uk)
construction

TheStructuralEngineer | January 2018 55

TSE72_54-58_Avoiding fire spread risks during construction milner.indd 55 14/12/2017 12:59

 Structural fire engineering
Avoiding fire spread risks during timber-frame construction
S Figure 3
Standard timber frame (Category A)
Fire temperatures are such that intensity may
spread across project, creating increased
temperatures and ventilated fire condition
Separating distances during
construction
The documents that make up the Design
guide to separating distances during
construction are intended to be used as
the basis for an accessible method for
the development of an off-the-site fire risk
assessment, sufficient to address the design
phase of a project and to carry it through to
the construction phase in the form of the Fire
Safety Plan. The guidance can also be used
before the start of the site phase of a project
to check that appropriate risk mitigation has
been included in the works.
The purpose of the design guide is to
check whether there is a need to mitigate the
risk of potential radiant heat emissions from
a site fire to acceptable levels, by selection
of appropriate structural frame material
specifications. This is done by using tables.
Figure 2 provides an example of one of these
to check the required minimum separation
distances for a standard timber-frame
assembly. The safe separation distance is
selected from the tables depending on the
category of timber frame.
If the minimum separation distances given
for a standard timber fame are not achievable,
then additional risk mitigation is required. This
can either be through the material choice
of the frame or by the adoption of on-site
processes by the contractor to reduce the
risks to acceptable levels.
The use of inherently fire-robust structural
 Figure 5
Material differences in categories of timber-frame assembly
Category A Category B
Standard timber frame, exposed Key change from Category
timbers and timber-based board A: flame-retardant timber
materials and insulation materials
56
TSE72_54-58_Avoiding fire spread risks during construction milner.indd 56
S Figure 4
Robust timber-frame assemblies (Category B and C)
Risk mitigation to walls and floors
Category depends on materials selected
timber-frame assemblies (i.e. those timber-
frame assemblies where fire risk-mitigation
measures are built in as the structural
frame is erected) is the preferred method
of risk mitigation, as it avoids the potential
omission or delays associated with a site-
process application. The STA has simplified
the choices for providing robust structural
framing by presenting a set of timber-frame
categories (Categories A, B and C) which
result in reduced radiant heat from a fire and
thus increased robustness against fire spread.
The STA design guide provides tables for
these three categories. The tables are based
on the findings of research, as explained in
various STA technical papers5–7.
Figures 3 and 4 provide a diagrammatic
view of the different behaviour of a fire in the
different categories of timber-frame assembly.
Table 3 provides an explanation of each of
the categories of timber frame and Figure
5 shows examples of the different materials
used in the different categories of timber
frame.
Guidance for structural timber
buildings below 250m2 in total
floor area
The STA design guide to separation distances
is principally aimed at the commercial
construction market, e.g. classrooms, multiple-
occupancy developments (apartments),
multiple-house developments, care homes
and student accommodation.
Category C
Key change from Category A:
limited or non-combustible
sheathing materials
January 2018 | TheStructuralEngineer
thestructuralengineer.org
However, for smaller developments, the
STA has produced Product Paper 58, which
provides separation distance guidance for
structural timber buildings during construction
which are below an accumulative floor area
of 250m2. Product Paper 5 is the result of
additional research to investigate the scale
effect of construction fires from a smaller
total fuel load in terms of the duration of the
peak heat output and efficiency of the burning
process. For smaller buildings, a review of
the complex interactions from radiant heat
emitted due to the resultant shape of the fire
once the smaller-surface-area walls have
burned through results in a reduced vertical
emitter face. Product Paper 5 has been
reviewed by BRE and the HSE.
Fire engineering background to
guidance on separating distances
The principal cause of fire spread from new
buildings to existing buildings, both beyond
and within a site boundary, is by radiation
(Figure 6). Radiation can cause heat energy
to be transferred across significant distances.
The term radiant heat flux (RHF) is used as
the measure in quantifying how much radiant
heat is emitted from a fire source (the emitter)
and how much of that RHF is transferred to
another building, either outside or inside the
site boundary (the receiver). The RHF unit of
measurement is kW/m2.
The STA has undertaken research5 into
the radiant heat generated as a result of
the geometry and different material types
in a fire occurring during the construction
process. The work included industry-funded
tests (Figure 7), which were carried out
with the input and review of the HSE, the
Fire Protection Association and the Chief
Fire Officers Association (now known as
the National Fire Chiefs Council). The STA
guidance documents are backed up by
technical papers that provide background
to the fire modelling and provide data for
fire engineers to adopt when undertaking
bespoke RHF calculations.
The science behind the development and
behaviour of a real fire and its modelling is
complicated and the subject of much debate
and development. There are many variables,
so generic guidance has led to simplifications
and conservatism in order to provide usable
information that may avoid the need to
appoint a specialist consultant. The STA
has adopted the fire engineering code BS
79749, together with the suite of supporting
documents PD 797410, to provide a framework
on which guidance on the behaviour of timber-
frame structures during the construction
process could be based. This is combined
with the results of the research from tests5 for
the temperatures of emitting flames.
14/12/2017 12:59

thestructuralengineer.org
TABLE 3: STA CATEGORIES OF TIMBER-FRAME ASSEMBLY
Standard type of frame
(Category A)
Separating distance
Standard radiant heat emissions
Standard ignition
Standard growth of fire through compartment
NB Cross-laminated timber (CLT) is a different category and has different rules which are found in Part 4 of the guidance
PD 7974-311 provides an expression for the
emitter radiated heat rate as:
where:
qrad is the radiant heat at the emitter of area Arad
Ɛg is the emissivity of the fire
σ is the Stefan–Boltzmann constant
Tg is the flame temperature.
It can be seen from this equation that
emitted radiant heat is significantly
influenced by temperature, which is raised
to the power 4.
As data on structural timber-frame fire
temperatures were not available, the STA
carried out research and tests5 on different
assemblies to determine the range of
temperatures arising from different frame
assemblies and material types. Three
categories of timber frame were derived as
delivering different emitter temperatures and
having different rates of fire growth; with the
slowest burning category having the least
radiant heat emitted per unit area (see earlier
section for explanation of categories).
The amount of radiant heat that is
calculated to be at a receiver is given by:
where ϕ is the view factor, which is an
expression to determine how much of the
radiated heat is received at the distance being
considered.
The view factors used in the STA guidance
were based on known design formulae
used across both the PD 7974 documents
and other fire engineering texts. A review of
each method was undertaken and results
compared to tests and peer-reviewed by fire
engineering experts, Leeds University and the
HSE.
Within the UK Building Regulations, in
order to derive space separation in service,
designers refer to BRE Report 18712. The
accepted level of RHF on a receiver building
from a fire in the emitter building is given in the
TSE72_54-58_Avoiding fire spread risks during construction milner.indd 57
Avoiding fire spread risks during timber-frame construction
Reduced-fire-spread timber frame
(Category B)
Separating distance guidance Part 3
Reduction in radiant heat emissions
Reduced potential for ignition of frame
Standard growth of fire through compartment
N Figure 6
Radiant heat may cause ignition of
properties remote from building
on fire
report as 12.6kW/m2 over a 10-minute period.
It was therefore logical to adopt the same
value in the STA guidance on which to base
the acceptable separation distances between
a timber-frame building under construction
and an adjacent off-the-site building.
During the construction of a timber-frame
building, the most vulnerable stage with regard
to the size of a potential fire is when the
structural shell is complete but no secondary
passive-fire-protection components have
been added. At this stage, the calorific value
for combustion (the fire load) is at a maximum
value. The basis of the STA guidance to
reduce the fire intensity is to subdivide the
length of building (to reduce the effective
emitter length and, where relevant, emitter
height) by providing vertical and horizontal fire
barriers (compartmentation). These barriers
are to be of sufficient depth so that a single
wall or floor element cannot be breached
by fire, by conduction or flame infringement.
The most effective fire compartmentation is
that formed by a complete room assembly of
 Figure 7
Fire testing of different timber-frame assembly category types undertaken by STA
a) At ignition of crib
TheStructuralEngineer | January 2018
Structural fire engineering
Fires-spread-resistant timber frame
(Category C)
Limited fire growth from seat of fire
Category B and Category C frames (Box 1).
Once divided with compartmentation, the
reduced-sized building areas, or subdivisions,
give lower temperatures and lower emitted
radiant heat. Figure 8 and 9 provide a
diagrammatic representation of the reduction
of emitter lengths in a Category B or Category
C frame.
The fire compartmentation used to mitigate
the radiant heat during the construction
phase is not to be confused with the Building
Regulations requirements for fire-resistance
compartmentation for completed buildings.
The Building Regulations requirements for
fire robustness and compartmentation are
based on BS 476 or EN 13165 fire tests for the
completed elements in the room. The Building
Regulations Approved Documents lead to
element fire tests to have achieved a defined
duration in minutes for specific levels of cold
face temperature, integrity and structural
stability of the element. The test duration is
taken as a reasonable period of the element in
a compartment that will provide sufficient time
during a fire to allow safe escape of persons
in the building and some possibility for the fire
service to fight the fire.
The purpose of fire compartmentation
during the construction process is to delay
the fire spread and reduce the time periods
of peak heat in each compartment; it is not
there specifically to provide a time delay
for safe escape of workers. The purpose of
the STA tests was to benchmark the heat
generated by different material combinations
in an exposed structural frame and measure
the temperatures against predictions from
mathematical models. The results showed
b) After crib has burned through
57
14/12/2017 12:59
 Structural fire engineering
Avoiding fire spread risks during timber-frame construction
consistent findings for temperatures and
emissivity of the fire from different assembly
types, and allow engineers to calculate the
emitted radiant heat from real buildings during
the construction phase.
Cross-laminated timber (CLT) buildings
behave differently and additional test data,
together with engineering calculations, have
been used to produce STA guidance4 to
enable safe separation to be determined, or
risk mitigation measures to be applied, to this
form of structural timber assembly.
Summary
Over several years, the STA has undertaken
research and testing, including the
presentation of the data to third-party
reviewers, in order to make available good
practice guidance for deriving emitted radiant
heat from burning structural timber buildings.
The outputs from the work undertaken
for the STA have been published in the form
of Technical Papers 1–35–7, which provide
information on the tests and the frame
categories.
For designers, a set of design guides
for separation distances for timber-frame
buildings during construction has been
produced, with supporting papers on product
compliance (Product Papers 1–3)13–15, which
outline the required product specifications
to be used in compliant structural frame
construction.
In addition, for the building designer, Product
Paper 416 provides combinations of timber-
REFERENCES
E1) Health and Safety Executive (2010)
HSG 168: Fire safety in construction (2nd
ed.) [Online] Available at: www.hse.gov.
uk/pUbns/priced/hsg168.pdf (Accessed:
November 2017)
E2) Health and Safety Executive (2015)
L153: Managing health and safety in
construction – Construction (Design and
Management) Regulations 2015 – Guidance
on Regulations [Online] Available at:
www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l153.pdf
(Accessed: November 2017)
E3) Structural Timber Association (2017)
16 steps to fire safety (4th ed.), Alloa: STA
E4) Structural Timber Association (2014)
Design guide to separating distances during
construction (Parts 1 to 4), Alloa: STA
E5) Structural Timber Association (2012)
Technical Paper 1: Separating distances
technical background report, Alloa: STA
58
TSE72_54-58_Avoiding fire spread risks during construction milner.indd 58
S Figure 8
Diagrammatic plan of Category A frame with
single-wall risk mitigation
Fire spread potential in large buildings (above 250m2
total floor area). Conservatively, in this situation,
emitter length is taken as full length of building
S Figure 9
Diagrammatic plan of Category B or C frame with
wall and floor risk mitigation
Reduced fire spread potential resulting in reduced
effective emitter width
frame assemblies that comply with the given
categories of timber-frame construction.
The latest publication from the ongoing
research work by the STA is Product Paper 58,
which describes good practice for separation
distances for smaller timber-frame buildings
such as single-dwelling houses.
E6) Structural Timber Association (2012)
Technical Paper 2: Summary of timber
frame categories to reduce separating
distances and information for fire
engineering modelling and test compliance,
Alloa: STA
E7) Structural Timber Association
(2012) Technical Paper 3: Product test
methodology for category compliance,
Alloa: STA
E8) Structural Timber Association (2017)
Product paper 5: Separating distances
for small buildings below 250m2 total
floor area - self-build and general housing
developments, Alloa: STA
E9) British Standards Institution (2001)
BS 7974:2001 Application of fire safety
engineering principles to the design of
buildings. Code of practice, London: BSI
E10) British Standards Institution
(2002–14) PD 7974 Application of fire safety
engineering principles to the design of
buildings (Parts 1–8), London: BSI
January 2018 | TheStructuralEngineer
thestructuralengineer.org
BOX 1. FIRE COMPARTMENTATION
IN CATEGORY B AND C
TIMBER-FRAME ASSEMBLIES
For Category B and C timber frame
assemblies, vertical fire compartmentation
may comprise:
 approved flame-retardant (FR) sheathing
boards fixed to timber-frame party walls
with ‘full-fill’ STA fire-tested insulation
products in the party wall cavity
 non-combustible sheathing boards fixed to
the party wall cavity face
 a non-combustible sheathing board on
both faces of a wall to provide a continuous
barrier.
For compartment walls, the continuity
of the fire compartmentation is to follow
across floor levels and up to the top of the
roof pitch level, so that there is no breach
of the vertical fire compartmentation over
the full building height.
Note
Openings for services in any fire barrier
are to be closed off with non-combustible
board material or mineral wool to maintain
the fire compartment’s resistance to
fire spread. Simple fire doors of similar
construction as the walls to which they are
attached are to be used for access routes
through a fire compartment.
E11) British Standards Institution (2011)
PD 7974-3:2011 Application of fire safety
engineering principles to the design of
buildings. Structural response and fire
spread beyond the enclosure of origin,
London: BSI
E12) Chitty R. (2014) BRE 187: External fire
spread: building separation and boundary
distances (2nd ed.), Watford: BRE
E13) Structural Timber Association (2012)
Product paper 1: Flame retardant - FR Build
product compliance, Alloa: STA
E14) Structural Timber Association (2012)
Product paper 2: Insulation - FI Build
product compliance, Alloa: STA
E15) Structural Timber Association (2012)
Product paper 3: Sheathing and decking -
FC Build product compliance, Alloa: STA
E16) Structural Timber Association (2017)
Product paper 4: Product assemblies to
achieve different categories of timber frame
construction, Alloa: STA
14/12/2017 12:59
 Book now at
www.istructe.org/bre

The leading training

provider for the
built environment
Online training Classroom training Bespoke training

The Institution is pleased to present a new partnership

with BRE, offering essential career development
for training and practising structural engineers.

Over 70 online courses

@BREAcademy
24/7 access for 1 year
Topics include: BIM, BREEAM,
domestic construction, fire @breacademy
engineering, health & safety,
management skills, and much more! uk.linkedin.com/
Prices start from £25 + VAT company/bre-academy

Get an unbeatable 15% discount on all online courses

when you book via www.istructe.org/bre

BRE Academy
E breacademy@bre.co.uk
T +44 (0)333 321 8811

p59_TSE.Jan18.indd 59 13/12/2017 12:24

 Structural fire engineering
A structural fire strategy for a weathering steel building thestructuralengineer.org

A structural fire strategy

for an exposed weathering
steel-framed building
Danny Hopkin Simeon Anastasov David Illingworth
EngD, CEng, MIFireE MEng, AIFireE MEng, CEng, MIStructE
Associate, Olsson Fire & Risk UK, Oxford, UK Fire Engineer, Olsson Fire & Risk UK, London, UK Design Director, AKT II, London, UK

Ben McColl Eoin O’Loughlin Adam Taylor

MEng, AIFireE MSc, CEng, MIFireE MSc, CEng, MIFireE
Fire Engineer, Olsson Fire & Risk UK, Oxford, UK Senior Fire Engineer, Arup Dubai Director, Trenton Fire Ltd, UK

Synopsis
Performance-based structural fire design can play an important part in engineers, structural fire safety specialists and
delivering iconic buildings. Early design team engagement with critical issues, structural engineers.
including fire safety considerations, allows a holistic solution to be developed, From conception, the structural engineer AKT
II developed a strategic approach to manage
in contrast to post-applied fire engineering which could severely compromise
the forces from a range of complexities in
the original design intent. the design intent and the site. This included
Four Pancras Square (London) is a successful example of where early fire the concept design strategy for releasing the
engineering engagement has helped deliver an iconic design. seasonal longitudinal and lateral forces in the
The building features an external, fully load-bearing, weathering steel Vierendeel girder, which was then utilised in the
detailed SFE later in the design process.
frame, with a storey-deep Vierendeel transfer truss. To allow the weathering
steel to develop its protective patina and achieve the desired aesthetic, it Building structure and problem
must be left untreated and exposed; this is in conflict with traditional fire definition
resistance solutions. Four Pancras Square was the first building to
This paper documents the key steps undertaken in realising the building be conceived as part of a new public square in
and describes how they were tackled at the interface of the fire and the south of the King’s Cross redevelopment
in central London. The final product bears
structural engineering disciplines. These include quantification of the design remarkable similarity to the original architectural
goals, selection of the fire constraints, understanding the behaviour of concept sketches produced by Eric Parry in
unconventional steel, quantifying thermal exposure for external elements 2003 (Figure 1).
and, finally, quantification of structural response in fire. The building is a 10-storey office with a
large clear-height ground floor and a two-
storey shared basement. The structure is
Introduction erected in central London. It describes the predominately a concrete frame with post-
The fire resistance design of a complex or processes undertaken in the delivery of a tensioned (PT) concrete slabs for the main
unique structure requires the delivery of solution that fulfilled statutory obligations office floors, a concrete stability core and
solutions at the interface of two different and met client goals. Central to this was a internal concrete columns (Figure 2).
disciplines: fire safety engineering and performance-based structural fire engineering The concrete soffit is exposed and the
structural engineering. An insular approach by (SFE) approach enabling a strong architectural perimeter of the slab is supported at 4.5m
either party is at risk of neglecting key features intent, which would have otherwise been intervals on steel brackets (‘hods’). These mild
of the complex behaviour of such structures. significantly restricted by the conventional steel hods are welded to a fabricated, stainless
Even worse, perhaps, is the possibility that means of achieving the required fire resistance steel, rolled hollow section stub, which passes
innovative concepts and architecture might be for steel structures (i.e. applied protection or through the cladding build-up and thermal line,
stifled and lost due to the need to conform to encapsulation). The challenges of delivering a and is in turn welded to a weathering steel
generically accepted prescriptive norms and/ weathering steel structure that is appropriately external column.
or practices. resilient to fire, without the use of protective The choice of weathering steel for the
This paper presents a case study of a coatings or through reliance on encapsulation, external frame was driven by aesthetic and
unique and complex weathering steel structure were tackled with collaborative input from fire maintenance considerations. Weathering

60 January 2018 | TheStructuralEngineer

TSE72_58-64_Hopkin.indd 60 14/12/2017 14:38


thestructuralengineer.org
 Figure 1
Four Pancras Square
a) Concept sketch by Eric Parry, 2003
steel performs in most respects as mild steel.
However, when well ventilated and exposed
to rain, it develops a patina which forms a
protective (sacrificial) layer that drastically
reduces the rate of corrosive damage.
The weathering steel columns are fabricated
H-sections, with the back half enclosed to
provide the required bending capacity for
the eccentric loading from the slabs. These
columns are supported on a 5.5m deep
Vierendeel girder wrapping the building
perimeter. The span of the girder varies from
13.5m to 27m. Aesthetics were greatly improved
through standardisation of section sizes, though
this is counter to engineering needs in places.
The fire safety design challenges of
delivering a building with the complexity of
4 Pancras Square can be broken down into four
key areas:
~ architectural vision – the structure was
to be expressed in its pure form, creating
a direct conflict with the conventional fire
design solutions of encapsulation or applied
coatings
~ building geometry – compartments are
large and, as such, the prospect of flashover
unlikely
~ location of key structural elements – unlike
conventional buildings, a significant portion
of the steel structure is outside the building
envelope; thus, characterising thermal
exposure from fires is difficult
~ structural form – the structural arrangement
is complex, posing challenges under both
ambient and fire conditions.
The process of resolving these core design
challenges started with the qualitative design
review (QDR), where key design questions were
AKT II
identified and subsequently interrogated.
TSE72_58-64_Hopkin.indd 61
A structural fire strategy for a weathering steel building
b) Completed building
Qualitative design review
A successful design solution (i.e. one that
satisfies the project goals and constraints) can
only be obtained by:
~ following a design approach that is
appropriate for the building in question
~ quantifying tangible project goals
~ ensuring that the project-specific challenges
are suitably accounted for.
At the outset of the project, a formal QDR
was undertaken to document the key aspects
requiring consideration in the development of
design solutions (Figure 3).
This process identified a series of challenges
in fulfilling both the architect’s vision and the
client’s goals. In the case of the former, the
building did not comfortably fit with the remit
of prescriptive fire design guidance1,2, which is
a) Structural isometric
TheStructuralEngineer | January 2018
Structural fire engineering
intended for straightforward buildings that do
not typically pose the challenges discussed
previously. This created the need for a fully
performance-driven fire engineering design
process to demonstrate that the fire life safety
requirements of the Building Regulations were
satisfied. In doing so, a number of questions
needed to be answered (Figure 4).
The following sections address each of the
design challenges.
Approach and solutions
Quantification of design goal
The target reliability for the building was
determined in accordance with the methods
underpinning BS 9999 (Kirby et al.3). For a
building height of 46m, it was determined that
the structure should withstand approx. 97.5%
of all design (significant) fires that may occur,
ranked in terms of severity.
This can be achieved via active measures
(i.e. automatic suppression) and/or passive
measures (either inherently, or through applied
fire protection). The proposed sprinkler system
is considered to be reliable (i.e. it operates and
is able to control the fire) in 94% of instances,
according to relevant research4. Using the
methods proposed by Law et al.5 for correlating
active and passive reliability, it was determined
that the structure must withstand the most
severe 49.2% of the design fires not controlled
by the sprinklers (i.e. those free to fully develop).
Fire dynamics, uncertainty and selection
Due to the inappropriateness of prescriptive
guidance for 4 Pancras Square, a design
approach based on reliability expectations was
adopted instead. This required the generation
of a large number of (plausible) significant
design fires, and their subsequent ranking
in terms of increasing severity. This was
undertaken through a Monte Carlo analysis,
 Figure 2
Building structure
b) Layout for Vierendeel girders
61
14/12/2017 15:38
 Structural fire engineering
A structural fire strategy for a weathering steel building thestructuralengineer.org

adopting the time equivalence principle. The

process follows principles analogous to similar
studies published in the literature5.
For each Monte Carlo trial, 10 000
simulations were analysed for both the office
and retail areas, considering potential fit-out
subdivisions. The input parameters (fire load
density, ventilation, fire spread rate and peak
temperature) were varied between iterations,
based on their probability distributions (PD
79746). Each iteration was initiated on the
premise of a travelling fire (as per Hopkin7).
This initial condition was then revaluated,
shifting to a post-flashover parametric fire (as
per BS EN 1991-1-28), if (based on ventilation
and fire spread rate characteristics generated)
the travelling fire was able to cover the entire
length of the compartment without consuming
the entirety of the fuel available at the starting
location9. The large compartment sizes resulted
in predominantly travelling fire occurrences.
Fire severity was quantified and ranked
according to the peak temperature attained  Figure 3
Summary of QDR process – goals, constraints and solutions
by an indicative steel section. Steel section
temperatures were monitored at different
locations within the fire compartment relative
to the ignition point, with the most onerous
peak member temperature adopted for
each Monte Carlo realisation. A series of
protection specification trials were undertaken
(corresponding with 30–120 minutes’ fire
resistance) to benchmark fire severity against
the common fire resistance metric (ISO
834 exposure10), at a representative limiting
temperature of 620°C. The lowest protection
specification able to prevent the trial section
exceeding the limiting temperature in 49%
of instances was considered acceptable (in
this case 60 minutes). Cumulative probability
distributions (CPDs) of peak steel temperature
for the Monte Carlo trials (at FR60) are
presented in Figure 5.
While the design condition(s) manifests as
a period of standard fire exposure, a selection
of credible ‘non-standard’ design fires was
necessary for the detailed analysis. Six
sufficiently distinct curves were selected from a
0.5% margin of the reliability target (Table 1) for
this purpose.  Figure 4
Summary of key design questions by field

Heat transfer to external steel

TABLE 1: DESIGN FIRES
The existing tools (based on SCI
Publication 00911) for approximating
Fire Area Type Duration Peak Peak size
temperatures attained by external
(min) temp. (˚C) (MW)
elements exposed to fire (i.e. in
Annex B of BS EN 1991-1-2) were A (Office Travelling 189 1000 49
found to be inefficient for 4 Pancras B floors Travelling 80 1100 189
Square. As an essential element of 1-9)
C Parametic 492 770 115
the SFE strategy, this was addressed
by adapting the BS EN 1991-1-2 D (Retail Travelling 190 1000 46
method, as follows: E ground Travelling 98 1100 300
 The Annex B method was floor)
F Parametic 492 700 115
rearranged in terms of ‘effective

62 January 2018 | TheStructuralEngineer

TSE72_58-64_Hopkin.indd 62 14/12/2017 14:09


thestructuralengineer.org
 Figure 5
Peak steel temperature CPD plot
a) FR60 protection for office
 Figure 6
Relationship of external vertical member to compartment temperature (left) and CFD
benchmarking for external horizontal element (right)
 Figure 7
Comparison of weathering steel versus regular mild steel (after Garlock et al.)
window opening width’ given a defined fire
size, peak compartment fire temperature
(Table 1), fire load density and compartment
geometry.
 Total incident heat flux was determined for
the faces of each exoskeleton component
(with individual elements idealised as
box sections), depending on its size
and orientation, adopting the Annex B
correlations.
 Adiabatic surface temperature conversion
scalars were derived for the different faces
of individual elements based on steady-state
TSE72_58-64_Hopkin.indd 63
A structural fire strategy for a weathering steel building
b) FR60 protection for retail
conditions.
 The conversion scalars were applied to the
internal fire time–temperature curves to arrive
at transient thermal boundary conditions for
each fire scenario and external structural
element, further verified by computational
fluid dynamics (CFD) modelling (Figure 6).
The methodology was developed for both
‘through-draft’ and ‘no-through-draft’ conditions
at an area-appropriate wind speed (BS EN
1991-1-2).
TheStructuralEngineer | January 2018
Structural fire engineering
Consideration at material and local scale
The element additives (Cu, Cr and Ni) that give
weathering steel its unique properties can alter
the temperature-dependent strength reduction
factors due to the relationship of individual
elements with heat.
Garlock et al.12 subjected A588 weathering
steel samples to tensile loading tests at a
constant strain rate and elevated temperatures
(427, 538, 649 and 815°C). The study produced
a comparison to ‘regular’ carbon steel, with
Figure 7 showing the normalised yield strength
difference between the two materials.
NIST Technical Note 171413 collates the
properties of materials recovered from the
World Trade Center (WTC) collapse in New
York in 2001 and provides structural steel
modelling data, including information on
weathering steel. The strength retention data
presented in this note is shown in Figure 8
alongside Eurocode relations for regular mild
steel.
The obvious differences in strength reduction
characteristics observed, combined with
the Vierendeel elements’ susceptibility to
local buckling, had to be represented by a
suitable material model. The primary goals
of the required model were to: (i) capture the
differences between weathering steel and mild
steel, and (ii) simulate sections susceptible
to local buckling effectively. The material law
proposed by Franssen and Cowez14 was
chosen as the basis, for its conservative
representation of local buckling, along with
compatibility with the computationally efficient
beam elements. The inherent BS EN 1993-1-
215 strength reduction factors were adjusted
by reducing the yield strength below grade
value (i.e. S355), to ensure agreement with the
literature in the temperature ranges of interest
(i.e. 550–700°C) was achieved.
As the cooling phase behaviour was likely to
be a defining period for the structure’s resilience
in the event of fire, steel strength was assumed
to be only partially recoverable. The residual
yield strength of steel (post-fire) was reduced
by 0.3MPa16 for each degree Celsius it was
heated above 600°C.
Structural response
The two main areas of structural response
discussed herein relate to the delivery of
solutions for the unprotected Vierendeel girder
and the means by which unprotected perimeter
columns were achieved.
Vierendeel girder
The Vierendeel girders (Figure 9a) present
a unique design challenge due to the sizes
of their constituent components and overall
dimensions. Their size is both integral to, and
influenced by, the structural fire design process.
63
14/12/2017 14:10
 Structural fire engineering
A structural fire strategy for a weathering steel building
 Figure 8
Comparison of NIST strength reduction data with BS EN 1993-1-2
a) Plan showing Vierendeel girder locations
Thermo-mechanical behaviour was modelled
using sequential heat transfer and structural
investigations, undertaken with the SAFIR finite-
element software17 and the external exposure
methodology documented previously.
To reduce heat transfer to the Vierendeel
girders via radiation from the fire compartment,
10mm thick, non-structural shielding plates
were introduced on the rear (inward) faces
of all Vierendeel elements (Figure 10). These
served to create a shadowing effect, reducing
convective and radiative heat transfer to the
web of the I-section. The effect of these
was modelled and captured within the time-
dependent temperature profiles for the fire
‘load case’.
The thermo-mechanical analyses comprised
a sub-frame model representative of each
Vierendeel element in SAFIR, incorporating
sufficient surrounding structure to adequately
represent Vierendeel boundary conditions
and secondary actions (i.e. expansion and
contraction). These incorporated three storeys
of one-bay-deep PT slab, upper columns and
hods. Models were solved using the dynamic
64
TSE72_58-64_Hopkin.indd 64
 Figure 9
Vierendeel truss
b) Indicative elevation of portion of
Vierendeel truss
solution procedure in SAFIR incorporating the
specialised local buckling routines discussed
previously.
The primary goal of the Vierendeel structural
solution was to maintain structural stability
throughout the full duration of the design fires
considered. As such, satisfactory performance
was measured relative to (i) clear and
demonstrable global stability (no ‘run-away’
 Figure 10
Indicative Vierendeel section
showing shielding plate
January 2018 | TheStructuralEngineer
thestructuralengineer.org
deformation), and (ii) constitutive stability (i.e.
materials remaining within plastic limits without
approaching ultimate strain). Furthermore, as
the Vierendeel girders would be impossible to
replace, a serviceability deflection limit was also
introduced (satisfactory performance against
this criterion is shown in (Figure 11).
To realise a Vierendeel girder of this scale in
practice, a number of additional considerations
were made, both in terms of connection
detailing and the interfacing of the girder with
the supported PT floor slabs. Most notably:
~ the steel fabricator was provided with
detailed information about the effects of fire
development on bolted connections
~ the Vierendeel elements could not be
rigidly fixed to the internal PT structure
due to the chance of either: (i) huge axial
forces resulting from thermal expansion, or
more likely, (ii) excessive damage to the PT
concrete floors due to said expansion.
The structural design strategy already set
in place permitted lateral and longitudinal
movement of the Vierendeel girder to
accommodate cyclic seasonal thermal
movements, where the hods were designed
to permit lateral movement of the girder
(Figure 12). This strategy was further adopted
for the fire case, and was achieved by
providing slotted holes, through which smaller,
threaded rebar couplers passed, subsequently
connecting to anchored rebars at the PT slab
edge. This allowed for the accommodation
of limited translational differential movement
between the steel and concrete elements.
Perimeter weathering steel columns
In the same manner as the Vierendeel girders,
the exoskeleton columns are formed of
expressed weathering steel and, therefore, will
remain unprotected. Broadly speaking, there
are two types of perimeter columns, those
at ground floor supporting the Vierendeel
girders above, and those spanning Levels 2–10,
supported on the Vierendeel top chords.
Based on initial qualitative assessments
 Figure 11
Deflection as function of time for design fire B
14/12/2017 15:06
 Structural fire engineering
thestructuralengineer.org A structural fire strategy for a weathering steel building

(prior to the detailed analyses), it was proposed

to fill most columns with reinforced concrete,
thereby providing a composite element with
an enhanced inherent fire resistance. The
reinforcement was provided by an internal ‘tee’,
welded (off site) to the inside of each column,
cut from grade S355 UC sections (Figure 13).
The efficacy of the concept was investigated
via hand calculations (accounting for both
geometrical imperfections and second-order
effects), undertaken alongside simplified finite-
element models. The analysis demonstrated
that the approach allowed acceptable
performance to be delivered by all exoskeleton
columns without applied fire protection
(Figure 14).

Summary and concluding remarks

The successful delivery of this iconic building
can largely be attributed to the collaboration
between the structural engineer and architect,
their thoroughness in all aspects of the
technical design, and their full engagement with
specialist structural fire engineers to develop,
through numerous iterations, a consistent set
of details. The early engagement of the relevant
parties enabled (i) the understanding of the
importance of particular provisions and, (ii)
means by which to implement them efficiently.
Four Pancras Square was considered to fall
outside the scope of prescriptive guidance
 Figure 12
Hod section connecting
weathering steel exoskeleton
to internal PT floors
documents (Approved Document B or BS
9999) due to a number of challenges or

AKT II
considerations that have been noted herein.
Therefore, a performance-based assessment
was considered necessary to fulfil the fire life
safety requirements of the Building Regulations.
The design goal was quantified in terms of a
target reliability, in lieu of the common practice  Figure 13
Indicative composite
column design to achieve
of selecting a ‘reasonable worst case’. fire performance
(showing connection)
The design solutions for the exoskeleton
elements were based on inherent fire
resistance, achieved through a combination of
element sizing, shielding and/or concrete filling.
Additionally, the critical effects of the cooling
phase on the structure were found to be
integral to the design and would not have been
captured via traditional design approaches.
The realisation of the project required the
structural, fire and structural fire engineers to
coordinate effectively. While labour intensive,
this necessitated that any structural or fire
strategy variations be worked through by all
parties to establish any impacts or interactions,
and to communicate those to steel fabricators,
where necessary. In addition, the main
contractor was engaged early, leading to their
improved appreciation of the fire engineering
processes that had been undertaken, while
also giving them the opportunity to contribute
valuable insight on the practicalities of
delivering such an unusual structure.
AKT II

TheStructuralEngineer | January 2018 65

TSE72_58-64_Hopkin.indd 65 14/12/2017 14:38

 Structural fire engineering
A structural fire strategy for a weathering steel building
Acknowledgements
The lead authors (D. Hopkin, S. Anastasov,
B. McColl and E. O’Loughlin) were under
the employment of Trenton Fire Ltd while
delivering the project. They would like to
acknowledge Trenton Fire for its support in
developing this article and for permitting its
publication. Queries relating to this project
should be directed to
enquiries@trentonfire.co.uk.
The authors are also grateful to the
other design team members for their
support, including Robert Dawson of Eric
Parry Architects, Stuart Hinde and Mike
Hayes of BAM Design, Gary Winn of BAM
Construction, and Alex Emery and Mark
Davison of Sweco.
HAVE YOUR SAY
To comment on this article:
email Verulam at tse@istructe.org
tweet @IStructE #TheStructuralEngineer
REFERENCES
1) British Standards Institution (2008) BS
9999:2008 Code of practice for fire safety in
the design, management and use of buildings,
London: BSI
2) Department for Communities and
Local Government (2013) The Building
Regulations 2010: Approved Document B
(Fire safety) – Volume 2: Buildings other than
dwellinghouses [Online] Available at: www.
gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/441669/BR_PDF_AD_
B2_2013.pdf (Accessed: November 2017)
3) Kirby B.R., Newman G.M., Butterworth
N., Pagan J. and English C. (2004) ‘A new
approach to specifying fire resistance
periods’, The Structural Engineer, 82 (19), pp.
34–37
4) Hall J.R. (2010) U.S. experience
with sprinklers and other automatic fire
extinguishing equipment, Quincy, MA:
National Fire Protection Association
5) Law A., Stern-Gottfried J. and
Butterworth N. (2015) ‘A risk based
framework for time equivalence and fire
resistance’, Fire Technol., 50 (4), pp. 771–784
6) British Standards Institution (2003)
PD 7974-7:2003 Application of fire safety
engineering principles to the design of
66
TSE72_58-64_Hopkin.indd 66
 Figure 14
Engagement (utilisation) of inner tee as function of time for indicative fire scenario
buildings. Probabilistic risk assessment,
London: BSI
7) Hopkin D. (2013) ‘Testing the single zone
structural fire design hypothesis’, Proc. 13th
Int. Interflam Conf. (Interflam 2013), London,
UK, 24–26 June
8) British Standards Institution (2002)
BS EN 1991-1-2:2002 Eurocode 1: Actions
on structures. General actions. Actions on
structures exposed to fire, London: BSI
9) Hopkin D., Van Coile R., Rush D. et al.
(2017) ‘Applicability of ambient temperature
safety targets for appraising structures
exposed to fire’, Proc. 2nd Fire & Blast
Conf. (CONFAB 2017), London, UK, 10–12
September
10) International Organization for
Standardization (1999) ISO 834-1:1999
Fire-resistance tests – Elements of building
construction – Part 1: General requirements,
Geneva: ISO
11) Law M. and O’Brien T. (1989) SCI 009:
Fire and Steel Construction: Fire Safety of
Bare External Structural Steel, Ascot: Steel
Construction Institute
12) Garlock M., Glassman J. and Labbouz
S. (2014) Elevated Temperature Properties of
January 2018 | TheStructuralEngineer
thestructuralengineer.org
A588 Weathering Steel [Online] Available at:
https://cait.rutgers.edu/files/CAIT-UTC-021-
final_1.pdf (Accessed: November 2017)
13) Luecke W., Banovic S. and McColskey
J. (2011) NIST Technical Note 1714: High-
temperature tensile constitutive data
and models for structural steels in fire,
Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST)
14) Franssen J.M. and Cowez B. (2012)
‘Consideration of local instabilities in beam
finite elements by means of effective
constitutive laws’, Proc. 7th Int. Conf. on
Structures in Fire, Zurich, Switzerland, 6–8
June, Zurich: ETH Zurich, pp. 155–164
15) British Standards Institution (2005)
BS EN 1993-1-2:2005 Eurocode 3: Design of
steel structures. General rules. Structural fire
design, London: BSI
16) Kirby B., Lapwood D. and Thomson G.
(1986) The reinstatement of fire damaged
steel and iron framed structures, London: UK:
British Steel Swinden Laboratories
17) Franssen J.M. (2005) ‘SAFIR: A thermal
and structural program for modelling
structures under fire’, Engineering Journal
AISC, 42 (3), pp. 143–158
14/12/2017 14:39
 ALLPLAN
RAISE
YOUR LEVEL

TRY NOW FOR FREE:

allplan.com/en/tse2017

Allplan Engineering Building is the ultimate BIM solution for structural engineers where
no compromises are necessary. The high performance software enables engineers to
create models, detail concrete reinforcement and generate working drawings without
switching tools.

BE QUICK AND ACCURATE:

> Up-to-date documents and professional visualisations
> Efficient reinforcement modelling with high data precision
> Reliable and traceable quantities and costs

allplan.com

p67_TSE.Jan18.indd 67 13/12/2017 12:25

 Structural fire engineering
Super-high-rise buildings in China thestructuralengineer.org

Structural fire engineering for

super-high-rise buildings in China
of special designs which do not meet
Hongxia Yu Young Wong prescriptive requirements. All buildings over
Senior Engineer, Arup, Beijing, China CEng, FIFireE, MHKIE, RPE 250m are considered to require special design
Director, Arup, Hong Kong, China (regardless of whether they follow prescriptive
guidance) and must be reviewed by an expert
Synopsis panel.
Structural fire engineering is often adopted in large open-plan structures
Case studies
such as airport terminals, railway stations, etc., where the low fire risk can Shenzhen Stock Exchange
be directly conceived and a structural fire analysis may bring significant The Shenzhen Stock Exchange is an office
savings on structural fire protective coatings. In some recent cases, building 241m in height for which the structural
structural fire engineering approaches have also been applied to landmark fire design was performed in 2007. Its structural
form is characterised by an elevated podium
high-rise buildings in China. This paper introduces four different examples
(Figure 2). The majority of the structure was
of such methods with varying motivations, approaches and ultimate design fire protected according to the prescriptive
schemes, to provide readers with an insight into the commercial application requirements. However, the architect desired
of structural fire engineering in China. the steel trusses of the elevated podium and
atrium below it to be left exposed for aesthetic
Introduction intention of the paper is to promote general purposes. The use of an intumescent coating
According to recent statistics from the Council awareness, acceptance and application of SFE on the steel provided an option for structural
for Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), both in China and worldwide. fire protection which allowed the architectural
by the end of 2016, China had completed 84 goals of the project to be achieved. A fire
towers over 200m, representing 67% of the Fire approval in China engineering analysis was performed to
global total1. This trend is expected to increase Public buildings over 50m are classified as demonstrate the performance of the structure
further as many more such towers are being Class I of four classes in China, which means in fire, and an intumescent coating with a 1.5-
designed and constructed. It is therefore timely the highest fire protection level is required hour rating was shown to be suitable.
to review the current status of the application in terms of fire resistance and structural fire Different fire scenarios were used based on
of structural fire engineering (SFE) to high-rise protection. The building components of a Class the characteristics of the space. The elevated
buildings in China, and consider the benefits I building must satisfy the fire resistance ratings podium includes several office floors with a
and further improvements that can be made. given in Table 1 according to the China national ceiling height less than 4m, for which flashover
In mainland China, Arup has worked as a fire fire code2. is quite likely to occur if sprinklers fail to control
engineering consultancy for a large proportion Fire protection design in China essentially the fire. As a result, the ISO 834 standard fire
of the super-high-rise buildings. Figure 1 shows follows a prescriptive approach. All steel was adopted to evaluate the structural fire
some of the tallest buildings which Arup has structural members or composite members resistance; our objective was to demonstrate
been involved with, and there are many more with exposed steel members must be that the structure could achieve a 3.0-hour
with a moderate height of 200–400m. With so protected according to the ISO 834 standard fire resistance with an intumescent coating
many landmark buildings, some fire/structural fire test calculation results. The city of equivalent to 1.5 hours.
engineers have been trying to promote Shanghai, which has a large number of high- The key challenge was to accurately
SFE to deliver a better optimised and more rise buildings, has published a local technical calculate the temperature of the steel
cost-effective structural protection scheme. code3 for calculating the fire resistance of
However, currently, it is still a challenge to typical steel members, which is similar to TABLE 1: STRUCTURAL FIRE
RESISTANCE RATINGS IN CHINA CODE
obtain approval from local authorities and Eurocode 3, Part 1-34, but with more onerous
such approaches cannot be widely applied to calculation requirements. Performance- Component Rating
buildings, other than for low-rise buildings such based SFE analysis is also allowed within the
as airport or rail terminals where there is a low framework of this code. Load-bearing wall 3.0hr
fire risk. For fire approval, all construction drawings
Fire wall 3.0hr
This paper begins by introducing the fire must be submitted to the approving authorities
approval system in China and the basic code (Fire Safety Bureau) and reviewed by a fire Column 3.0hr
requirements regarding structural resistance in officer. Where the fire safety design does Beam 2.0hr
fire. Then, four SFE projects are presented: two not comply with the code requirements, an
Slab 1.5hr*
designed in 2007 and another two designed application may be filed for an expert panel
in 2013–14. Design objectives, background meeting, along with associated performance- Roof 1.5hr
context, the technical approach adopted based analysis. The opinion of the expert * Slab is required to have 2.0hr fire resistance for buildings
over 100m
and the outcome are described briefly. The panel can be used to support the approval

68 January 2018 | TheStructuralEngineer

TSE72_66-70_Yu.indd 68 14/12/2017 12:10


thestructuralengineer.org
 Figure 1
Examples of super-high-rise projects designed by Arup Fire Engineering team in China
Shenzhen, Guangzhou IFC, Shanghai, WTC,
Pingan Finance 438.6m 492m
Center, 599m
protected by the intumescent coating,
considering the characteristics of the fire.
This remains a challenge around the world. An
alternative approach was to use the equivalent
conductivity of di / λi (where di = thickness of
fire coating and λi = thermal conductivity) to
make a conservative estimate. According to
the China national code on fire coatings5, the
recommended protection thickness for 1.5
hours of fire coating is 15mm and the thermal
conductivity shall not exceed 0.116W/m°C. As
a result, di / λi = 0.13. The thermal insulation
properties of the intumescent coating were
conservatively assumed to be equal to the
effect of 12mm of such fire coating, which
resulted in di / λi = 0.10. An incremental
approach similar to that specified in EC34 was
then used to obtain the steel temperature.
Although very thin fire protection is assumed,
the temperature of various structural members
subjected to the 3.0-hour ISO 834 standard
fire can vary between 248°C and 660°C due to
the very low shape factors (Table 2).
The atrium on the ground floor is a 36m high
space containing a reception and office lobby
with limited combustibles such as reception
desks, TVs, plants and sofas. If a fire occurs
here, it is likely to be confined to the local area.
Fire tests show that the peak heat release rate
of a three-person sofa is about 3MW. To be
conservative, a 10MW fire size was used for
the structural resistance analysis, which
was able to cover potential combustibles
in an office lobby, such as a fire involving
a seating unit, including a coffee table
surrounded by several sofas, and the
burning of a large Christmas tree.
The worst possible location of
the fire was found to be 1m from the
column. The temperature of structural
TSE72_66-70_Yu.indd 69
Guangzhou, CTF Shenzhen, KingKey
finance center, 100, 441.8m
530m
members far from the fire was calculated using
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation
(i.e. Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) assuming
no fire coating) but the temperature of those
structural members in contact with the fire
was calculated using a simplified approach,
by assuming the members were fully engulfed
by flames with their temperature equal to the
flame temperature.
Figure 3 shows the temperature of the
elevated podium and the structural deflection
in fire of the structural components of
the building. Clearly, during the fire, the
structure as a whole maintains stability and
the structural deformations comply with the
preset deformation criteria, such as a flexural
deformation rate limit of L2 / 9000D where L is
the span and D is the section height.
Small section factors of the large box
sections provided an advantage and were
the main reason for the excellent structural
performance in fire. Box sections with
thicknesses of 50mm or more helped to keep
the critical temperature below 550°C after
the 3.0-hour standard fire heating, even with
significantly reduced fire protection thickness. roof of the building (Figure 6) would provide a
Shenzhen KingKey 100
Fire engineering analysis was performed
in 2007, focusing on the top area of this
TABLE 2: TEMPERATURES OF MEMBERS WITH 1.5-HOUR INTUMESCENT COATING
Member Shape Section
B×H×T×t
P25 Box 1000×1600×80×80
P26 Box 1000×1200×50×50
P27 Box 1000×1200×20×20
TheStructuralEngineer | January 2018
Structural fire engineering
Super-high-rise buildings in China
430m super-tall building (Figure 4). The
bottom of the space is a hotel lobby, and
the space inside the egg-shaped feature
is an observation gallery with a restaurant.
The whole top area is enclosed by a facade
supporting structure that is relatively
independent of the main structure of the
tower. The purpose of the fire engineering
analysis was to determine the structural
fire protection requirements for the facade
structure, as this did not fit into any structure
type category in the China national fire code.
The analysis procedure followed the standard
sequence of structural fire analysis heat-
transfer assessment. Based on the typical
table layout in the restaurant, the maximum
fire size was calculated to be 13.2MW,
assuming a fire spreading from one table/
seats to adjacent tables in both directions
Beijing, China
Zun, 528m
(Figure 5).
The worst possible fire locations are where
the fire is close to the exposed structure; these
are identified for the open space in Fig. 4. For
those members that are directly engulfed
by flame, temperatures were calculated by
assuming that the environmental temperature
follows that of the ISO 834 standard fire
curve. For members located outside the
flame, temperatures were calculated by
flame radiation. For structural analysis, the
computer program GSA5 was used, with an
elastic analysis approach assumed. Although
structures may exhibit plasticity during a fire,
in this case the structure has been designed
to remain elastic during the assumed fire
exposure described above. As a result, the fire
protection thickness was applied according to
the fire resistance rating shown in Fig. 4.
The final fire protection was based on more
conservative requirements, by specifying all
members above the 6m zone to be protected
to 2.0-hour rating.
Chongqing Raffles City
The purpose of this project in 2014 was to
evaluate whether the provision of little or no
structural fire protection for the conservatory
sufficient level of fire safety. The conservatory
is used as a restaurant, gym and tourist
observation area, with the restaurant
considered to impose the highest fire risk.
Fi / V
Protection Temperatures
-1
(m ) 90min 180min
13.3 1.5hr 127°C 248°C
21 di
/ λi
= 0.10 177°C 348°C
51 367°C 660°C
69
14/12/2017 12:10
 Structural fire engineering
Super-high-rise buildings in China
 Figure 2
Shenzhen
Stock
Exchange
– structural
form and
exposed
steel
members at
podium
Exposed steel members
 Figure 3
Structural temperature and U3 deformation
in ABAQUS model
The fire size was estimated to be 8.0MW,
based on the combustion of a single large
dining table set for a typical Chinese banquet.
The temperature of the steel members
subjected to this fire was calculated using the
simplified calculation method in EC34, with
the net heat flux including radiation from the
flame and convection from the surrounding
air. Radiation from the flame was calculated
by assuming the flame is a block and all
its external surfaces are radiating panels.
The temperature of unprotected structural
elements was calculated according to their
relative location and distance to the fire in
space. The calculated temperature distribution
for one fire scenario is shown in Figure 7.
The response of the structure was analysed
using the finite-element program LS-DYNA7,
by assuming that the entire structure was
unprotected.
To assess the potential fire spread from one
table to another, a travelling fire model was also
considered. Each table set reaches the peak
heat release rate in 6.2 minutes following a
fast fire growth rate and the combustion lasts
for 17.4 minutes. Therefore, the steel members
may be subjected to a fire which comes from
one side and travels to the other side, with a
total fire duration of 44 minutes. Due to the
high structural redundancy in the grid structure,
the overall framework was calculated as being
able to sustain the fire without collapse.
For design purposes, a limiting temperature
70
TSE72_66-70_Yu.indd 70
Exposed steel members
method was defined, and all members with
unprotected temperatures exceeding their
limiting temperature received 1.5 hours of
intumescent coating. As a simple result, the
oval roof structure, which was up to 8.0m from
the floor level, was provided with structural fire
protection.
Beijing China Zun
Beijing China Zun is a 528m tower among a
cluster of 200–350m buildings in the Beijing
central business district. Simulations have
shown a well-organised full evacuation of
this building can take over 2.0 hours. During
the fire approval process for the building in
2013, the fire authority requested a structural
fire analysis to be undertaken to assess the
potential issue of premature structural buckling
considering thermal expansion during a fire.
This is an unusual but reasonable requirement
that the authors have not previously been
asked to provide elsewhere in China. An
analysis was made of the mega columns
(huge composite columns that ultimately
transfer all gravity loads to the foundation) with
the intention to optimise the fire protection
scheme. It should be noted that, although the
China national fire code specifies a maximum
Fire on
F98
Fire on
F94
 Figure 4
KingKey 100 fire scenarios and resulting protection scheme
January 2018 | TheStructuralEngineer
thestructuralengineer.org
of 3.0 hours of structural fire protection, the
analysis was conducted on the basis of a fire
duration of 6.0 hours, as it was considered that
a higher standard should be adopted for this
super tower.
The structural system is shown in Figure 8.
For simplicity, the full structural model includes
only the external tubes; the beneficial effect
of the internal tubes was ignored. Two fire
scenarios were considered: one was assumed
to occur on the mechanical and electrical
plant floor and affect the belt truss; the other
was assumed to occur over three consecutive
office floors, affecting all relevant members
and connections. The steel members were
protected so that their temperatures reach
nearly 500°C after 3.0 hours. The analysis
shows that under both fire scenarios, the
structure showed little yielding at 3.0 hours;
at 6.0 hours, although extensive yielding had
occurred, no sign of structural failure was
observed. It can be concluded that this tower
provides sufficient structural stability in a fire
for both escape and firefighting operations in
the fire scenarios explored.
We were particularly interested in the
mega columns, because they have natural
advantages for fire resistance. The composite
sections of these columns consist of an
external tube, infilled with concrete and steel
stiffening plates. The section size of these
columns varies from 4.8m to 1.5m. As heat
transfers slowly in concrete, a normal building
fire is unlikely to cause significant deterioration
to these columns. However, common
engineering practice requires them all to be
provided with structural fire protection, as for
typical steel columns.
Each mega column was mainly supported
by the belt truss and also subjected to finite
restraint from interval floors. To analyse the
fire resistance of the mega columns, they were
simplified into one column using an idealised
3.0h
2.0h
1.5h
14/12/2017 12:10
 Structural fire engineering
thestructuralengineer.org Super-high-rise buildings in China

Heat release rate (kW)

Heat release rate (kW)
 Figure 5
Fire spread model
to calculate fire size
for restaurant
Time (s) Time (s)

boundary condition,

Heat release rate (kW)

Heat release rate (kW)

with its length equal to

the equivalent length
of the restrained
column. The
simplification process
is shown in Figure 9.
It is a first principle
that fire protection
is required and, as the minimum required Time (s) Time (s)
thickness for vermicular paint is taken as 7mm,
this thickness was assumed as the protection slabs was also enhanced by 0.5 hours to 2.5 No matter whether a phased evacuation or
thickness of the mega columns. This one- hours and 2.0 hours, respectively. simultaneous evacuation strategy is adopted
member model was then analysed for its fire during a fire, the structure must attain sufficient
resistance when subjected to the ISO 834 Summary fire resistance to maintain the structural
standard fire. We see three motivations for the application stability and integrity of the escape system for
As the most important structural member of SFE approaches in China. Two are from a longer period.
that carries all gravity load to the foundation, the clients to either cut costs or provide a The structural gravity load-transfer system
the failure criterion was defined as being when better aesthetic appearance, and the third is of super-high-rise buildings has better fire
the axial deformation of the column returns from the fire authority to understand actual resistance than multistorey buildings, because
to its initial value before it was affected by the structural performance in fire. the large structural members of super-high-rise
fire. We adopted this much more conservative For the first three case studies presented, buildings are heated very slowly and the rate
criterion because the mega columns are the SFE analysis was applied to local features. of temperature increase is typically lower. As
critical members. The measured structural fire In these case studies, determination of the a result, it is quite possible that no structural
resistance for columns in different zones varied fire size is probably the most important aspect fire protection is required, but an SFE analysis
from 4.9 hours to 5.2 hours. Column MC7 in and there is a clear need for a
the top zone had the smallest section size standard approach to conducting
and the lowest structural fire resistance rating. such an analysis within the fire 
Figure 6
Chongqing Raffles City project rendering
An additional parametric fire analysis was engineering field, especially
performed for column MC7. In the parametric regarding the question of whether
fire analysis, the steel tubes reached a peak the fire will spread or not. There
temperature of 420°C at about 4.0 hours, and are a number of principles for T3N T4N
the overall section temperature reduced to a evaluating heat transfer from Conservatory
relatively uniform distribution of 100°C after 20 localised fires to structural
hours. The maximum lateral deformation was members; however, refined
approx. 35mm at around 4.0 hours in fire, and calculation models may also
gradually stabilised at 33mm during cooling. provide benefit in fire engineering T1 T2 T3S T4S T5 T6
As a result of the analysis, which included practice.
consideration of both a standard fire and For the China Zun project,
parametric fire, 7mm vermicular paint was full evacuation analysis showed
shown to provide a much higher level of that the building’s fire resistance
structural fire protection than required by needed to be enhanced to
the China national fire code (which requires allow full evacuation, and the
3.0 hours of structural fire resistance for the SFE analysis confirms that the
mega columns). The standard structural fire tower has sufficient structural
resistance of the vertical escape system was fire resistance. Super-high-rise
subsequently enhanced to 2.5 hours. The buildings all face the same issue
structural fire resistance of floor beams and of prolonged evacuation times.

TheStructuralEngineer | January 2018 71

TSE72_66-70_Yu.indd 71 14/12/2017 12:10

 Structural fire engineering
Super-high-rise buildings in China thestructuralengineer.org

is always recommended to determine this.

During the analysis, loss of support to vertical
members due to the loss of the floor system
should be considered. In the China Zun project,
the lateral support from the floor system was
directly omitted.
An estimation of the potential cost savings
due to the reduced fire protection thickness
for the mega-column for the China Zun project
showed that it was probably unlikely to provide
significant benefit in meeting the prescriptive
requirements, but it could reduce the overall
size of the column. A more desirable solution
was to protect the concrete-filled steel tubular
members with an intumescent coating. Utilising
the benefits of both the concrete and the
coating in combination provide the required fire
resistance for the columns.

REFERENCES
 Figure 7
Localised fire and structural temperature
E1) Council on Tall Buildings and Urban
Habitat (2017) ‘CTBUH Year in Review:
Tall Trends of 2016’, CTBUH Journal, 1,
pp. 38–47 [Online] Available at: www.
skyscrapercenter.com/year-in-review/2016
(Accessed: March 2017)

E2) China Public Security Department

(2014) GB 50016-2014 Code for fire
protection design of buildings, Beijing:
China Planning Press

E3) China Association for Engineering

Construction Standardization (2006)
CECS 200:2006 Technical code for fire
safety of steel structure in buildings, Beijing:
China Planning Press

E4) British Standards Institution (2005)

BS EN 1993-1-2:2005 Eurocode 3: Design
of steel structures. General rules. Structural
fire design, London: BSI

E5) China Public Security Department

(2002) GB 14907-2002 Fire resistive
coating for steel structure, Beijing: State
 Figure 8
Structural system and structural fire stability analysis scenarios
Administration for Quality Supervision and
Inspection and Quarantine

 Figure 9
Simplification of
structural model
E6) Oasys (2017) GSA Suite [Online]
Available at: www.oasys-software.com/
for mega column
products/engineering/gsa-suite.html
(Accessed: March 2017)

E7) Livermore Software Technology

Corporation (2017) LS-DYNA [Online]
Available at: www.lstc.com/products/ls-
dyna (Accessed: November 2017)

HAVE YOUR SAY

To comment on this article:

Eemail Verulam at tse@istructe.org
Etweet @IStructE #TheStructuralEngineer

72 January 2018 | TheStructuralEngineer

TSE72_66-70_Yu.indd 72 14/12/2017 12:10


thestructuralengineer.org
Review Dr Panagiotis Kotsovinos finds this book and its worked examples to be a useful
introduction to the subject of structural fire engineering, particularly for buildings
with relatively simple structural arrangements.
Structural Design
for Fire Safety
( 2nd ed.)
Authors: Andrew H. Buchanan and
Anthony K. Abu
Publisher: Wiley
Price: £45.95 (hardcover); £41.99 (e-book)
ISBN: 978-0-470-97289-2
The first edition of this book, authored only
by Prof. Buchanan, was published in 2002.
It was the first comprehensive publication
in the field of structural fire engineering
and a key reference for international
undergraduate/postgraduate courses in
this area.
The field of structural fire engineering
is rapidly evolving and there have been
a number of developments since 2001 –
notably the collapse of the World Trade
Center towers in New York and subsequent
research on the structural fire response
of complex structures, and the rally in
innovation of structural forms, construction
methods and materials (modular
construction, high-strength materials, etc).
In this second edition, Prof. Buchanan
was joined by Dr Abu and the authors tried
to fill some of these gaps. Both authors are
globally recognised academics/researchers
in the field of structural fire engineering
and have contributed to the advances
in the discipline. It should be noted that
the second revision is relatively light in
the amount of new material introduced in
proportion to the research that has been
undertaken in the last 15 years; however,
this is expected given the generally
TSE72_73_Viewpoint_Book Review.indd 73
introductory nature of the book. Some parts
of the book that are now redundant, due
to developments in the field since the first
edition, have been removed .
In the first chapters, the reader is
introduced to the fire safety design of
buildings and how structural fire resistance
becomes relevant to achieve the fire-safety
objectives. Then the fire phenomena are
described, including the various stages that
a fire may go through and the design fires
provided in the Eurocode and elsewhere for
structural fire engineering purposes, with a
focus on typical compartment fires; fires in
large enclosures (‘progressive burning’ and
‘localised fires’) are only briefly covered.
The various principles of heat transfer from
a fire to the structure and within a structural
member are also briefly covered.
The concepts of ‘fire severity’ and
‘fire resistance’ are then introduced. The
authors describe the process of relating
a real fire to the standard fire in order to
assess its fire severity. They also describe
how fire resistance is achieved for various
structural and non-structural components.
The design process of structural
members and assemblies in fire is then
discussed, including a description of the
TheStructuralEngineer | January 2018
Opinion
Book review
applied loads at the fire limit state and
how a probability of failure can be
established. In the subsequent chapters,
the behaviour and design of steel, concrete,
composite and timber structures and light-
frame construction, including properties
of fire protection materials, are covered in
more detail.
A new chapter on advanced calculation
methods was introduced in this edition
to capture the advances in the fire,
thermal and mechanical modelling and
the increased desire for the application of
these methods in the design environment. A
chapter on design recommendations is also
provided at the end of the book with overall
best-practice guidance for designers.
A useful feature throughout the book
is that it includes a number of worked
examples at the end of each chapter to
take the reader through a practical
application of some of the analytical
formulations provided.
The book serves as an introduction to the
subject of structural fire engineering. The
reader would need to refer to other sources
for more advanced subjects, such as
advanced thermal and mechanical analysis,
probabilistic design methods and the in-
depth complexities of the fire dynamics
and heat-transfer science. Additionally, it
is concentrated on buildings with relatively
simple structural arrangements; more
complex structural arrangements would
generally require further considerations.
Non-building structures, such as bridges,
tunnels and stadia and arenas, are only very
briefly covered.
Panagiotis Kotsovinos
Dr Panagiotis Kotsovinos is a fire engineer with Arup
and has worked in several structural fire engineering
projects in the UK and internationally. He is a
member of the revision panel of the Institution of
Structural Engineers’ introductory and advanced
fire safety engineering guides. Dr Kotsovinos is also
a member of BSI, ISO and SFPE committees
related to fire safety engineering and has also
authored a number of publications in this field.
73
14/12/2017 12:22
 Opinion
Letters
Verulam
Topics of importance
openly discussed
Keeping up with
the times
Former Institution Chief Executive,
Keith Eaton, writes from St Albans
(aka Verulamium) to explain why
the Yearbook is no longer published.
I feel I must respond to Brian Clancy’s concerns
(Verulam, November/December 2017) about
the Institution no longer producing a Yearbook,
and the resulting situation of being ‘out of touch
with members’.
I should start by saying that I used to feel
somewhat like Brian. It was on my watch as
Chief Executive that the last Yearbook was
published – in 2009. It was an extremely useful
publication and I used to refer to it regularly to
look up contact details of members anywhere
in the world, and also to refer to all the historical
information about the Institution, its awards,
its Presidents, etc. But I realised that its
preparation and production took an inordinate
amount of time, involving many senior staff each
year, particularly the IT department. To get the
membership database into a format that was
suitable for this publication took hundreds of
hours – if not longer.
Up to 2009 I felt that the Yearbook still had
a useful role to play, because the information
available to members and others on the website
was not what it is today. But things had to
change, and that’s what has happened
very effectively.
I now frequently use www.istructe.org to
look up an address, a telephone number or an
email address of a member. And it’s not ‘stored
away somewhere on the website’ as Brian
states. The login process to the website takes
two clicks; then a click on ‘Membership’; then
a click on ‘Verifying Institution membership’.
Type in the necessary surname (and more
details if needed) and you’re there. The search
presents you with all the contact details,
CPD information, and any narrative about the
person’s positions, prizes, etc. Doing all that is
just as quick and informative as reaching for the
74
TSE72_74-75_Verulam.indd 74
old Yearbook and flicking through the pages.
Brian also refers to knowing who has won the
various Institution awards. Again, I immediately
see some useful information on the website.
Click on ‘Events & Awards’, then ‘People and
Papers Awards’ and scroll down – this leads
the user to 19 different pages, one for each of
the awards. Behind each page there is detailed
information about the award and, to some
extent, a list of past winners.
Having expressed these views about the
parts of the website that cover what was
previously published annually in the Yearbook,
I would admit that there is still a little more that
could be included – such as more historical
information about past winners. I’m sure this
is planned and being implemented gradually.
And other archive information would be useful.
For example, there used to be a photographic
collection of all the former Presidents, displayed
on the top floor of the Upper Belgrave Street
HQ. It would be great to have that reproduced
on the website alongside the list of names
and dates.
Brian, I fully agree with you that ‘We, the
members, are the Institution’. But come on
members, keep up with the times. I know the
staff will continue to do as much as possible to
help us all feel part of a 21st-century,
worldwide organisation.
Well, there you have it.
Bending the truth?
Some readers dislike the ‘And finally…’
brainteasers, but at least they provoke
a reaction, this time a strong one from
Bill Harvey (in response to October’s
question on portal frame deflection).
Here I am again, and this time incensed.
I have argued many times with Tim Ibell and
others about these contrived questions. To
me they miss the most important issues and
concentrate (like far too much of teaching)
January 2018 | TheStructuralEngineer
thestructuralengineer.org
Send letters to…
All contributions to Verulam should
be submitted via email to:
tse@istructe.org
Contributions may be edited on the
grounds of style and/or length by the
Institution's publishing department.
on the stuff that is easy to test. This month
[October], though, I am moved by a different
issue. The notes on solutions are, to me,
seriously flawed, because they offer a response
that considers bending as the only issue.
What is really important, ALWAYS, in all
structures, is stiffness. Axial stiffness will always
trump flexural stiffness. The most serious point
about A and D is emphatically not the rigid
supports (which are not possible anyway, there
is no such thing as rigid), but the axial stiffness
of the horizontal, which cannot shorten enough
to allow the patterns shown.
If these solutions are intended to teach, they
are actually masking the most important things
and leading the readers away from them. An
educational disaster.
Well, reactions are mixed. Some readers find
the teasers of interest. Perhaps they do bring
enlightenment, as Bill himself has concluded
with his observations about (i) support
presumptions and (ii) axial stiffness. Do other
readers have other ideas?
Chases in
party walls
Simon Pole has concerns and seeks
feedback from other readers.
I write to record my increasing concern for the
trend of introducing full-height slots or chases
in party walls, particularly to old buildings.
Some of these chases are more than half the
thickness of the wall and within half a brick of
the neighbour’s wall plaster. Their frequency is
sometimes at 2m or 3m vertical centres if used
for both steel columns and riser ducts, etc.
The implications are several-fold but include:
 ruining the load-sharing and lateral
distribution characteristics of a wall generally
 weakening the wall, which might already be
poorly bonded
 that subsequent generations of owners to
14/12/2017 12:28

thestructuralengineer.org
both sides of the wall will not be aware of the
change in character of the wall when party
wall papers are lost
 that future assumptions for padstone design
and load distribution may be dangerous
 that subsequent similar practice to the other
half of the wall could reduce the wall to
rubble.
Party wall surveyors point out that this work
is lawful by agreement under a Party Wall
Award and state that other engineers are quite
happy with this approach.
What do other readers think please?
Well, what do our readers think?
An industry under
scrutiny
Former President, Mike Fordyce,
writes from Australia on the subject
of building control.
The issues facing the construction industry
as outlined in the President’s mid-year report
– ‘An industry under scrutiny’ (August 2017) –
are certainly not confined to the UK. Here in
Australia, we have had a long-running Senate
inquiry into non-conforming building products1
that never quite manages to complete its work
as events overtake it (such as asbestos fibres
being found in imported cladding in 2016; and
this year the Grenfell Tower tragedy). The
inquiry has highlighted that there is a major
problem with compliance and enforcement,
and that there is a clear need for greater on-
site supervision and oversight coupled with
a need for greater accountability across the
supply chain. The question is how to
achieve this?
Although Australia has national building
codes and standards, we have state-based
laws and thus there is inconsistency in their
application. The Queensland Building Act
requires a Building Certifier to be appointed
whose role is to manage the building approval
process through all stages from design
through construction to completion, a process
once undertaken by the local authority, but
privatised since 1998. In the design stage, their
role is to confirm that the design complies with
the Building Act; then, during construction,
they are required to undertake sufficient
inspections to confirm that the construction
complies with the approved design. In practice,
most of these inspections are undertaken by
a ‘competent person’ who, in the case of the
TSE72_74-75_Verulam.indd 75
engineering elements, will be required to be a
RPEQ (Registered Professional Engineer of
Queensland).
It thus falls on the structural engineer to
ensure that they carry out sufficient inspections
of the structure during construction to satisfy
themselves that the construction ‘is reasonably
in accordance with the design intent’ or similar
such ‘woolly words’ that try to minimise one’s
liability. While this system is fine in theory, it
raises several questions in practice. One is the
matter of fees. The project team members,
including the Building Certifier, are usually
engaged on a fixed fee for both design and
construction stages, and thus are expected
to build in the number of site inspections that
are deemed necessary, when very little is
known about the project. Queensland is now
undertaking a detailed review of this building
certification process2.
The building certification process described
above is not construction supervision! Unless
the client agrees to have full-time Resident
Engineers and Clerks of Works, then the only
party that can be responsible for ‘construction
supervision’ is the construction contractor.
Here I fully agree with Brian Hughes (Verulam,
September 2017).
Surely responsibility should lie with the party
undertaking the task – responsibility for design
lies with the designer and responsibility for
construction should lie with the constructor. In
the case of the Edinburgh schools, ‘periodic
inspections’ by a visiting consultant might
have picked up the deficiencies hidden in
the masonry (slim chance), but the head
construction contractor was the party in the
position to ensure the work was carried out
properly. There should be a requirement for
the head contractor to engage the necessary
competent supervision of the works and for
them to sign off on the works in the same way
that the design consultant certifies their design.
REFERENCES
E1) Parliament of Australia (2017)
Non-conforming building products
[Online] Available at: www.aph.gov.au/
Parliamentary_Business/Committees/
Senate/Economics/Non-conforming45th
(Accessed: December 2017)
E2) Queensland Government
(2017) Building certification [Online]
Available at: www.hpw.qld.gov.au/
BuildingPlan/AreasOfReform/Pages/
BuildingCertification.aspx (Accessed:
December 2017)
As Mike writes, the problems the UK
has experienced on building failures
manifestly due to poor construction are
TheStructuralEngineer | January 2018
Opinion
Letters
not unique to this country. Nor are the
questions about how to ensure public
safety consequent on these failures.
This is a serious matter which affects the
whole industry and all views are welcome.
The question of responsibility is perhaps
easy to resolve, but it is of little benefit
to victims to assign blame after. What
we want (for everyone’s benefit) are
processes that minimise the risk of
failure in the first place.
In praise of
‘drawing’
We end with praise from David
Brett for our President.
What a great video was released recently
on YouTube featuring our President
encouraging young engineers to learn to
draw. Well done to all concerned with
this project.
In the age of laptops, smartphones and
CAD, we hardly need to hand write
anything except our signatures, let alone
draw freehand.
As a young engineer, I was fortunate,
as life drawing was part of the structural
engineering course. The head of our
department always visited us during this
lesson. He obviously thought that the ability
to draw freehand was very important, so
we all became quite adept at this
particular skill.
I find that at meetings with colleagues,
we nearly always illustrate our ideas with
freehand drawings, as it’s much quicker and
simpler than using computers.
The conceptual phase of developing ideas
is nearly always easier with spontaneous
sketches – often on the back of an envelope
or table napkin as, although we usually carry
a pen, we don’t normally carry paper.
Never mind the video, introducing life
drawing classes back on the engineering
curriculum looks to be a great
recruitment aid!
75
14/12/2017 12:29
 At the back
Diary dates thestructuralengineer.org

Diary
Unless otherwise stated,
evening technical meetings
start at 18:00 (with
refreshments from 17:30)
and are free of charge
to attend. Registration
is required via events@
istructe.org

History Study Group

dates
meetings start at 18:00 with
refreshments from 17:30.
Registration is not required
except for the Annual
Business Meeting held in
January.

CPD courses are held at HQ

unless otherwise stated.
Times and costs vary.

Note that more current information may be available from the Regional Group Committee members
should submit details of forthcoming
Institution website: www.istructe.org/events-and-awards events to: regionsupport@istructe.org

MEETINGS AT HQ Wednesday 17–Thursday 18 REGIONAL GROUPS Charlotte Rourke

47–58 Bastwick Street, London
EC1V 3PS, UK
Wednesday 11 January
President’s Inaugural
Address 2018
Faith Wainwright
17:30 for 18:00
Register: www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/
presidents-inaugural-address-2018-
tickets-39691717997?ref=ebtnebregn
CPD COURSES
(Held at Institution HQ unless
otherwise stated)
Monday 15 January
Designing with Glass as a
Structural Material
Chris O’Regan
£145 + VAT (Members); £190 + VAT
(non-members)
14:00–18:00
Booking: www.eventbrite.
co.uk/e/designing-with-glass-
as-a-structural-material-tickets-
36821634500?ref=ebtnebtckt
Monday 15 January
Concrete Basements
Jenny Burridge
£290 + VAT (Members); £370 + VAT
(non-members)
10:00–17:30
Booking: www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/
concrete-basements-tickets-
37190434591?ref=ebtnebtckt
January Members Suite Lancashire
Temporary Works Design Caribbean County Cricket Club, Old Trafford,
(Sheffield) Manchester M16 0PX
Ray Filip Saturday 27 January Price: Members £26.50. Students
Engineering Training Centre, 4 Europa 10th Annual Secondary School £13.50 (tickets: http://bit.ly/2hfkQOC)
View, Sheffield Business Park, Design & Build Competition 18:30 for 19:00
Sheffield S9 1XH JFK Auditorium, University of the
£475 + VAT (Members); £615 + VAT West Indies, St Augustine Campus, Secretary: Helen Fairhurst (email:
(non-members) Trinidad and Tobago, West Indies Helen.L.Fairhurst@sellafieldsites.com)
10:00–17:30 08:15–14:30
Booking: www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/ Contact:
temporary-works-design-sheffield- istructe.caribbean@gmail.com Northern Counties
tickets-36772969943?ref=ebtnebtckt
Secretary: Danielle Steele Tyneside
Thursday 18 January (email: dvtsteele@gmail.com) Tuesday 16 January
Winning New Business Nuclear Power
John Hattam Tim Viney
£345 + VAT (Members); £460 + VAT Chester And North Wales Neville Hall, Westgate Road,
(non-members) Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 1SE
10:00–17:30 Thursday 4 January 17:45 for 18:15
Booking: www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/ Lessons from Failures Contact:
winning-new-business-tickets- Dr Allan Mann vemuryconsultancy@gmail.com
30223375931?ref=ebtnebtckt Holiday Inn Chester-South,
Wrexham Road, Teesside
HISTORY STUDY GROUP Chester, Cheshire CH4 9DL Tuesday 23 January
18:00 for 18:30 Technical Meeting
Tuesday 16 January Contact: James.drew@ramboll.co.uk (Joint meeting with ICE)
Annual Meeting Speaker: tbc
Secretary: James Drew Stephenson Building, Teesside
Thursday 8 February (email:James.drew@ramboll.co.uk) University, Middlesbrough TS1 3BA
Sutherland History Lecture 17:45 for 18:15
Contact: joe@structural.org.uk
Lancashire and Cheshire
Secretary: Trevor Little (tel: 0191 226
Thursday 18 January 1234: email: trevor.little@wsp.com)
Inaugural Meeting and
Hot Pot Supper

76 January 2018 | TheStructuralEngineer

TSE72_86_Diary dates_v2.indd 76 14/12/2017 12:23


thestructuralengineer.org
Spotlight on
In this section we shine a spotlight on papers recently published in Structures – the Research Journal of
The Institution of Structural Engineers.
Structures is a collaboration between the Institution and Elsevier, publishing internationally-leading research
the full breadth of structural engineering which will benefit from wide readership by academics and practitioners.
Access to Structures is free to Institution members (excluding Student members) as one of their membership
benefits, with access provided via the ‘My account’ section of the Institution website. The journal is available online at:
www.structuresjournal.org
Editor’s highlights
Editor-in-Chief, Professor Leroy Gardner, has
chosen the following highlights:
Design of Composite Cold-Formed Steel
Flooring Systems
Pinelopi Kyvelou, Leroy Gardner and David A.
Nethercot
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2017.09.006
Wind Loading of Structures: Framework,
Phenomena, Tools and Codification
Giovanni Solari
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2017.09.008
An assessment framework for sensor-based
detection of critical structural conditions
with consideration of load uncertainty
Sebastian Rau and Guido Morgenthal
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2017.06.001
Full issue
Determination of Loading Scenarios on
Buildings Due to Column Damage
Carles Colomer Segura, Lotfi Hamra, Marina
D’Antimo, Jean-François Demonceau and
Markus Feldmann
Estimating Shear Strength of Short
Rectangular Reinforced Concrete Columns
Using Nonlinear Regression and Gene
Expression Programming
S.B. Beheshti Aval, H. Ketabdari and S. Asil
Gharebaghi
A Numerical Analysis of the Stress-strain
Behavior of Anchorage Elements and
Steel Liner of a Prestressed Concrete
Containment Wall
Petr Bílý and Alena Kohoutková
Concrete Stiffened Steel Plate Shear Walls
With an Unstiffened Opening
TSE72_77_Spotlight.indd 77
Soheil Shafaei, Farhang Farahbod and Amir
Ayazi
Shear Transfer Capacity of Composite
Sections in Steel Tubed-Reinforced-Concrete
Frames
Dan Gan, Zheng Zhou, Feng Yan and Xuhong
Zhou
Ultra-high Strength Concrete on Eccentrically
Loaded Slender Circular Concrete-filled Dual
Steel Columns
C. Ibañez, Manuel L. Romero, A. Espinos, J.M.
Portolés and V. Albero
Parametric Evaluation of Racking
Performance of Platform Timber Framed
Walls
R. Dhonju, B. D’Amico, A. Kermani, J. Porteous
and B. Zhang
Behaviour of Composite Beams Made Using
High Strength Steel
R. Shamass and K.A. Cashell
Hysteretic Behaviour of a Piston Based Self-
centering (PBSC) Bracing System Made of
Superelastic SMA Bars – A Feasibility Study
A.B.M. Rafiqul Haque and M. Shahria Alam
Ductility considerations for mechanical
reinforcement couplers
D.V. Bompa and A.Y. Elghazouli
CFRP strengthened steel beams:
Improvement in failure modes and
performance analysis
Sivaganesh Selvaraj and Mahendrakumar
Madhavan
Optimal prestressing of triple-bay
prestressed stayed columns
Jialiang Yu and M. Ahmer Wadee
TheStructuralEngineer | January 2018
At the back
Spotlight on Structures
Volume
12 now
available
The latest issue of
Structures is now available at
www.structuresjournal.org/
issue/S2352-0124(17)
X0003-9.
h across
Nonlinear Static Pushover and Eigenvalue
Modal Analyses of Quasi-Isolated Highway
Bridges with Seat-Type Abutments
Jie Luo, Larry A. Fahnestock and James M.
LaFave
Geometric Nonlinear Analysis of Plane Frames
With Generically Nonuniform
Shear-deformable Members
Francisco C. de Araujo and Iara S. Ribeiro,
Katia I. Silva
Prediction of the Bolt Fracture in Shear
Using Finite Element Method
Amir Ahmad Hedayat, Ehsan Ahmadi Afzadi and
Amin Iranpour
Impact Statement on “Prestressing in
Coventry Cathedral”
Chris Burgoyne and Owen Mitchell
Anisotropic Damage Plasticity Model
for Concrete and Its Use in Plastic Hinge
Relocation in RC Frames with FRP
M.R. Javanmardi and Mahmoud R. Maheri
Stability of Multiple-crossarm Prestressed
Stayed Columns With Additional Stay Systems
Luke Lapira, M. Ahmer Wadee and Leroy
Gardner
The Effect of Shear and Lap Arrangement on
Reinforcement Lap Strength
Marianna Micallef and Robert Vollum
Experimental and Numerical Dynamic
Analyses of Hollow Core Concrete Floors
Fangzhou Liu, Jean-Marc Battini, Costin Pacoste
and Alexandra Granberg
Mathematical Model to Determine the Weld
Resistance Factor of Asymmetrical Strength
Results
M. Dundu
77
14/12/2017 12:22
 Sir Arnold Waters Medal
The Sir Arnold Waters Medal is open to presentations that have won a
Regional Group award in the session.
To be eligible for consideration, all authors of a presentation must be members (any grade) of the Institution, and the presentation
must be submitted to HQ by the Regional Group.

The Judging Panel will consider: Entries for 2018:

• Value to the profession as a contribution to the art • Presentations must be submitted to the panel secretary by
and science of structural engineering the Regional Group Chair/Secretary by 28 February 2018
• Clarity and presentation • The submission may take the form of a written paper, an
• Extent of the author’s responsibility for the work electronic presentation (e.g. PowerPoint), or any other
described suitable method

Further information on entries can be found at www.istructe.org/Arnold-Waters

Sir Arnold Waters VC
1886–1981
President: 1933–34 and 1943–44

The only person to have been Institution President twice, Sir Arnold Waters was awarded the Victoria Cross for an act of
bravery in completing the construction of a bridge during the second Battle of the Sambre near Ors in France in 1918.

01182078020
rcd@reinforcegroup.com
hƩps://reinforcegroup.com

TRUST us to REINFORCE your FUTURE

• UK based company chaired by experienced Chartered Structural Engineers
• Specialists in Reinforced Concrete Detailing (RCD) and GAs

p78_TSE.Jan18.indd 78 13/12/2017 12:27

 Products & Services
Telephone: +44 (0)20 7880 6217 Email: callum.nagle@redactive.co.uk

Histar steel combines strength

and weldability
ArcelorMittal’s Histar® is a low alloy, high grade structural steel comparable to EN10025:4-
2004 thermomechanically rolled material. Properties include high strength, good toughness,
superior weldability and providing minimum yield strengths of 355N/mm2 (Histar® 355) or
460N/mm2 (Histar® 460). It maintains yield through the majority of thicknesses (see graph)
and provides weight and cost savings of 20% in columns and even more in trusses if using
Histar® 460.
Further information: ArcelorMittal
(web: www.sections.arcelormittal.com/library.html; email: sections.tecom@arcelor-
mittal.com)

RIW provides waterproofing

expertise for Winchester House
RIW has supplied some of its products for the 19-storey Winchester House residential development
in Bracknell Town Centre, UK. It includes 311 luxury apartments together with shops and a gym. RIW’s
waterproofing systems were used in the construction of the basement and podium areas. RIW closely
cooperated with Pure Structures to specify and detail the waterproofing system which site developer
Comer Homes is installing. Over 3000m2 of Structureseal, a self-healing, bentonite impregnated
membrane, has been used behind the basement retaining walls and under the reinforced concrete slabs.
This is being laid with overlapped joints across the blinded sub-base under the main basement slab, as
well as being fixed up the face of the contiguous basement piles. prior to the shuttering for the retaining
walls being erected. It is also being used to protect the ground floor construction which is sitting on piling
where Cementseal has been applied up the face of the pilecaps and across their upper surfaces.
In addition, approximately 750m2 of Flexiseal Pro is being used to waterproof the podium deck and perimeter detailing.
Further information: RIW Ltd
(web: www.riw.co.uk; tel: +44 (0)1344 397777)

IDEA StatiCa: The future of steel

connection design
IDEA StatiCa is a revolutionary software that filled a big gap that existed for many years in steel connection
design, between simple software that is not capable of handling complex connections, and highly
sophisticated FEM tools that are not productive enough to be used by practising engineers, and do not
provide code checks.
IDEA StatiCa uses finite element analysis to calculate the internal forces within a joint, enabling the engineer
to design any connection (of any number of members, loading and cross sections) even if it is not covered by
current standards, such as EC3. At the same time, it offers some unique features like local buckling analysis,
joint resistance, and stiffness analysis/classification, which provide much more information about the real
behaviour of the connection.
Further information: IDEA StatiCa UK
(tel: +44 (0)20 3579 9397; email: info@ideastatica.uk; web: www.ideastatica.uk)

Vapour control delivered

with Visqueen’s latest tapes
Visqueen has launched a new range of high performance Vapour Tapes to
provide airtightness for building projects when used as an integral part of
Visqueen’s Vapour Check system.
In working temperatures ranging from -40°C to 40°C, the tapes are designed
for all weather conditions and actively displace moisture. The tapes are used to
mount Visqueen’s vapour membranes to the building substructures.
Available as a 20mm x 50m Doubled Sided Vapour Tape which provides 250m coverage, and as a Single Sided Vapour Tape which is a flexible blue PE-Scrim tape
and is ideal for sealing overlaps, detailing and pipe penetration.
Further information: Visqueen
(web: www.visqueenbuilding.co.uk)

TheStructuralEngineer | January 2018 79

P&S_Jan18.indd 79 13/12/2017 12:31

 Services Directory
Telephone: +44 (0)20 7880 6217 Email: callum.nagle@redactive.co.uk

ANALYSIS & DESIGN STRUCTURAL DESIGN & CAD DRAWING

TONY DOYLE ASSOCIATES LTD

COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN & DRAWING

Au t o CAD D r a u g h t i n g S e r v i c e s
We are a team of professional
technicians with ofÀces in the UK
ANALYSIS & DESIGN

and Ireland providing an efÀcient,

STRAP software for analysis and
design of cold formed, concrete, steel
on-demand service for our clients
- RC Detailing Specialists -
and pre & post-tensioned structures.

Fine GEO5 geotechincal software for - Structural Drawing GA·s & Details -
soil structure interaction, slope stability,
earth pressure, sheeting & pile design. - Bespoke Drawings for all Applications -
Trial downloads at www.sigma-x.net
UK: +44 (0) 203 603 1442 Tel: 01934 808468
www.tonydoyleassociates.co.uk
Ireland: +353 (0) 86 85 45 425
www.sigma-x.net

SOFTWARE

WE DO ALL
AND
L THIS
D MUCH MORE
S WANT TO
EN 1990, EN 1991, EN 1993, EN 1994, EN 1995, BS5502-22, BS5950, BS5268, BS6399
UB, UC, RSJ, UBP, HF-CHS, HF-SHS, HF-RHS, CF-CHS, CF-SHS, CF-RHS, RSA, TEE, 2-RSC,
2-RSA, PFC, 2-PFC , ASB, SFB, UB/PFC (Gantry Girders) , Custom, rolled, welded, S235, S275,
ADVERTISE
S355, S420, S450, S460, Custom, Class 1, Class 2, Class 3, Class 4 (slender)…
Ea
asy to
o use prov
Get the
e jo
ven pro
ob done
e!
ofe
essio
onal softwarre - fastt com
mpre
ehensiv
ve re
esu
ults. YOUR
Free 28 da
ay trrial av
vaiilab
ble fo
or all ou
ur softtwarre!

Download from: www.quiksoft.co.uk email sales@quiksoft.co.uk

PRODUCTS &
or call 08456 250 280
SERVICES?
REINFORCED CONCRETE DETAILING

R.C. Detailing Specialists

Established 1980 Contact Callum Nagle on 020 7880 6217
Extensive experience
Proven reliability or email callum.nagle@redactive.co.uk
Large capacity

Paul Benham Ltd

TheStructuralEngi
S u
Str neerneer
Civil & Structural Engineering Draughting Service

mail@paulbenhams.co.uk
www.paulbenhams.co.uk
01273 730956
TTheStructuralEngi
TheS
The
The
Th flagship
he flfla
flagship
ip
pp publication
publication
tion of The
on of The Institution
Institution of Structural
of Structural Engineers
Engineers

80 January 2018 | TheStructuralEngineer

Directory Jan18.indd 80 13/12/2017 14:21

 Recruitment
Telephone: +44 (0)20 7880 6235 Email: tsejobs@redactive.co.uk
Recruitment
Telephone: +44 (0)20 7880 6235 Email: tsejobs@redactive.co.uk

Attract the right candidate for less -

Advertise for just £379
Our five new options offer various levels of targeting and visiblity. These include:

£379 £879
DIGITAL DIGITAL & PRINT

Job board ad live for 1 month, Job board ad live for up to 3 months,
with logo with logo
Featured in top section of search
results
£1,575 Included on two job newsletters

RAPID RESPONSE ¼ page in The Structural Engineer

Job board ad live for 1 month,

with logo
Featured in top section of search
results
Included on two job newsletters
Call Beth Fifield on
¼ page in The Structural Engineer 020 7880 6235 to book
Targeted email sent to matching
candidates
your advertising today

“
We needed to recruit an additional structural engineer for our growing Berkshire-based
business, and looked to the Institution to find the right candidate. I was pleased to learn that
their recruitment service has been streamlined. The new options (five, with a further
opportunity to create a bespoke package) offer various levels of exposure and targeting.
We went with the competitively-priced ‘Digital & Print’ option. Our vacancy was
immediately added to The Structural Engineer Jobs Board, and was followed up with a
print advertisement in The Structural Engineer. We received response in two spikes –
coinciding with the digital and print pushes - and were delighted with the quality and
quantity of response. Having successfully recruited one of the short-listed candidates, we’ll
certainly use the service again.

” John M Staves, Managing Director,

Michael Aubrey Partnership

Only The Institution of Structural Engineers can provide such a dedicated and receptive audience, whose
experience and creative abilities are sufficiently diverse to fill any vacancy, regardless of seniority.

TSE Recr Jan18.indd 81 14/12/2017 14:58

 Recruitment
Telephone: +44 (0)20 7880 6235 Email: tsejobs@redactive.co.uk
Chartered Structural Engineer
Career Advancement opportunity
Experienced Engineer required with Partnership potential to
work initially with two current partners.
Responsibility
• A team player able to communicate with clients and other
professionals
• Prepare design calculations to current standards and
supervise drafting
• Attend Meetings
• Prepare structural Reports and specifications
Required
• Chartered engineer with past experience
• Fluent English
• Proven track record
• Understanding of Building regulations
• Communication and leadership proven ability
• Full UK Driving license
We offer
• Opportunity for career progression
• Competitive salary
• Flexible working hours
Location
• Bromley – South East London
Please apply with full CV to jb@edastrcuteng.co.uk
ENGINEERING DESIGN ASSOCIATES
South Tower | 26 Enfield Road | Bromley | BR1 1LR
Telephone: 020 7357 8222
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
The Concrete Centre is looking for a Structural Engineer to join our
multi-disciplinary team.
With offices in London and Leicester, the role is based from
the London office, or working from home within a commutable
distance from London.
The applicant must be a chartered structural engineer with
experience of design and construction with concrete and other
materials, with substantial experience in the UK construction
industry. The candidate would ideally be active within the IStructE,
have experience in presenting technical presentations to large
audiences of construction industry professionals and be able
to represent the concrete sector on national and international
committees.
The role is a unique opportunity to contribute to the development
of best practice guidance for structural engineers and make a
difference to the UK construction industry. Salary is based on
experience.
For more information please download the full job description at
the following www.concretecentre.com/recruitment
Please send your CV and covering letter, including salary
expectation, to recruitment@mineralproducts.org
The closing date for applications is 19th January 2018.
We regret we cannot accept applications from people who do not
already have the right to live and work in the UK. No agencies please.
TSE Recr Jan18.indd 82
PART-TIME, HOME BASED
Chartered Structural Engineer
We are a small structural and civil consultancy practice
established over 30 years ago. We need one or two
chartered structural engineers based in certain areas of
London and the South-East to handle jobs local to them on
a self-employed, sub-consultant basis but covered by our
professional indemnity and public liability insurance.
You would be working from your own home and can choose
the hours you work and how many jobs you take on. The
work involves mainly inspections and reports on building
defects and structural design of alterations and extensions,
both domestic and commercial. It would suit a person who’s
taken early retirement but wishes to keep their hand in. Must
be chartered and able to write good English. We pay around
£200 for a typical inspection and report, and £35 per hour
for design work. No formal contract is involved and we
would pay for an extra telephone line to keep business calls
separate from personal ones.
All new enquiries and invoicing are handled at head office,
so you would not need to get involved in red tape.
We would expect you to have a computer, an A3 printer
and basic survey equipment. Autocad is preferable but not
essential.
If you are interested, please see our web site:
www.abbott-holliday.co.uk and write to Peter Holliday
at Wissenden Oast, Bethersden, Kent, TN26 3EL
or email peter@abhol.co.uk.
Senior Structural Engineer
Due to continued growth, we have a vacancy in our technical team
for an experienced Senior Structural Engineer. Ideally chartered
or near chartered, with a reputation for technical innovation, you
will have significant experience in the competitive design of steel
structures and connections.
Reference Number: WEB\SE
Team: Design
Qualifications Needed:
• BEng/MEng Civil Engineering
• Chartered status with either ICE or IStructE would be desirable
Experience Required:
A minimum of 5 years’ experience in the design of steel framed
buildings. You must have well developed IT skills with competence in
Tekla Structural Designer or other 3D design software packages.
Salary: Competitive salary and benefits package, dependent on
experience.
Please apply in writing quoting reference as above to:
Human Resources
Caunton Engineering Limited
Moorgreen Industrial Park
Moorgreen
Nottingham
NG16 3QU
or e-mail HR@caunton.co.uk
14/12/2017 10:13

Trusted recruitment advisors bringing
candidates and organisations together
to build outstanding careers.
Associate Structural Engineer - Bristol
£50k to £55k plus benefits
Wonderful opportunity for a Chartered
engineer to join a successful company to
help grow the office and establish a talented
engineering team. Your background will
focus on buildings structures schemes and
you will be a confident technical designer
who can liaise at all levels, attending site and
client meetings. Strong business
development skills would be an advantage
as you will be encouraged to win new work
for the office as part of its expansion plans.
Schemes include new build and
refurbishment within education, residential,
student accommodation and car dealerships.
There is a generous benefits package on
offer which includes private healthcare and
discretionary bonus scheme. Structural
analysis experience is vital and the ability to
use AutoCAD is preferred.
For further information please contact
Graham Ventham on 01728 726 120
Chartered Structural Engineer -
Birmingham
£48k to £52k plus benefits
This leading engineering consultancy, with
offices throughout the UK, is enjoying an
increasing upturn in its workload. Their
Birmingham office is seeking a senior
structural engineer who has at least 2 years’
post Chartered experience. A dynamic and
driven candidate who has team leading and
mentoring skills. You will have worked on a
broad range of building structures projects
from concept to completion. Either
IEng/CEng Chartered with experience of
working in a client facing role. A driven
engineer who wants to go places!
For further information please contact
Graham Ventham on 01728 726 120
Find all jobs at conradconsulting.co.uk
TSE Recr Jan18.indd 83
Telephone: +44 (0)20 7880 6235 Email: tsejobs@redactive.co.uk
Recruitment
Telephone: +44 (0)20 7880 6235 Email: tsejobs@redactive.co.uk
Senior Structural Engineer - Surrey
£38k to £48k plus benefits
Opportunity for an experienced Structural
Engineer to join a leading multi-disciplinary
consultancy in their Surrey head office.
Responsibilities will include structural
engineering assessment and inspection of
new and existing properties in steel, concrete,
masonry and timber; Prepare high quality
technical reports and structural surveys
across a diverse project portfolio; Prepare
structural drawings using AutoCAD and Revit;
Undertake analysis and design using a range
of software packages, including Tekla TEDDS
to back up reporting tasks. Ensure that quality
and consistency of technical output (drawings,
reports etc) is maintained; Liaise with and
lead other members of the design team to
achieve a coordinated design solution that
meets the clients' objectives. Ideally
applicants should be chartered within ICE or
IStructE, or working towards this.
For further information please contact
Darryl Yates on 01728 726 136
Director - Central London
£100k to £120k plus benefits
Our client is currently looking for a dynamic
candidate to help lead and develop their
structural engineering business whilst
managing numerous exciting projects. The
successful applicant will be expected to build
and promote the company externally,
networking with existing and potential clients.
For this role our client is looking for a
candidate with experience in building
structures which has been gained across a
broad field, proven structural design and
project management experience, with
leadership and business development
capabilities.
For further information please contact
Graham Ventham on 01728 726 120
London 0203 1595 387
Suffolk 01728 726 120
Leeds 0113 457 0079
Recruitment
Associate Director - London
£65k to £75k plus benefits + equity
potential
Our client is an award winning consultancy
based in Central London, whose main
strength is their client relationships focusing
on a bond between client and staff with all
directors being approachable and available
on each project. Their continued success
has resulted in the need to expand their
buildings structures team with the
appointment of an associate director. You
could be at senior level looking to take the
next step in your career where you can
produce successful project delivery and
provide team leadership. Your technical
expertise should be in buildings design in all
materials, having worked on a range of
schemes across all sectors.
For further information please contact
Graham Ventham on 01728 726 120
Associate Director Structural
Engineer - Leicester
£65k to £70k plus package + equity
potential
Our client has a healthy orderbook and an
expansion plan within their Leicester office.
To assist with these exciting growth plans
they are seeking an associate director level
structural engineer who has excellent
technical and business development ability.
Chartered MIStructE engineers are
preferred who excel at successful project
delivery and who can motivate and mentor
their team, assisting in further development.
Local knowledge would be an advantage
and your project experience should include
buildings structures design for both public
and private sectors across a range of
schemes.
For further information please contact
Graham Ventham on 01728 726 120
Edinburgh 0131 240 1260
Manchester 0161 209 3246
Birmingham 0121 698 2085
14/12/2017 10:13
 `

Recruitment
Telephone: +44 (0)20 7880 6235 Email: tsejobs@redactive.co.uk

Principal Engineer
(Associate Designate)
We have a vacancy for a Principal Engineer who is chartered with MICE and/or MIStructE to
join our busy office located in Harrogate; a Spa Town named the best place to live in the UK
three years running.
You will be reporting to a Partner and be responsible for the management of projects,
representing the company at meetings, liaising with Clients and planning the workload of
your design team.
Salary £50 000+ and to include a generous relocation allowance; flexible working hours;
private health care package; company pension scheme. Prospects of early progression to
Associate level.
Send your CV to: glynn.rhodes@hillcannon.com

www.hillcannon.com

We are looking for the following individuals to join our vibrant offices across the country:

CENTRAL MANCHESTER OFFICE BROMSGROVE OFFICE

Infrastructure (Highways and
Drainage)
Director Designate £60k per annum +
benefits
Structural Chartered Engineers
£50k per annum plus benefits
Senior Technicians
Salary Commensurate with experience
Experienced Revit Technician
Salary Commensurate with experience
Graduate 4+ years experience
Junior Technicians/Apprentices
CENTRAL SHEFFIELD OFFICE
Infrastructure (Highways/Drainage
Engineer)
£50k per annum plus benefits
Graduate 2/3+ years experience
Salary Commensurate with experience
Equity Director (No inward
investment required)
£60k per annum + benefits
Experienced Chartered Engineer
£50k per annum
Senior Graduate 2+ years experience
Salary Commensurate on experience
Please email your CV
Structural Technicians
Salary Commensurate on experience with covering letter to:
info@tieruk.com
CHESTER OFFICE Website:
Experienced Revit Technician www.tierconsult.co.uk
Graduate 2/4+ years experience
Apprentices
CENTRAL LONDON OFFICE
Graduate 2/3+ years experience
Salary Commensurate with experience

TSE Recr Jan18.indd 84 14/12/2017 10:13

`
knowledge based
recruitment in
structural engineering
consultancy
Structural Design
Engineer
Central London Ref: 51353
Up to £37,500 + Benefits
Cutting-edge premier 80-strong consultancy
has a requirement for a Structural Design Engineer
to join one of its teams as it continues its relentless
expansion towards 100 staff. Candidates will
need to be a Graduate member of IStructE,
be educated to MEng/MSc-level (2:1 min)
and will have gained excellent building
structures design skills in another
design-focused niche or premier
London consultancy.
for a just-Chartered Structural Engineer to join the
rapidly expanding London studio. Candidates will need
to be a just Chartered member of IStructE and/
ENGINEERS HRW
Chartered Senior
Structural Engineer
North London Ref: 51378
Up to £55,000 + Benefits
30-strong niche consultancy has a
requirement for a Chartered Senior Structural
Engineer to join the North London studio as it
continues to expand. Candidates will need to be
Chartered with IStructE and/or ICE and must
have gained extensive analytical structural
engineering design skills in the UK and
will be placed centre-stage on a
large new-build development
with a signature UK Architect.
MARKET
UPDATE
The market is in the slow-down
over Xmas, however good demand
remains across London and the South
East for Structural & Civil Infrastructure
Engineers, with stronger demand at project-
running level through to Associate-grade.
The market is still showing strong
resilience from the headwinds of
Brexit and recruitment/retainment
of good staff will still not be
easy in 2018.
TSE Recr Jan18.indd 85
Recruitment
Telephone: +44 (0)20 7880 6235 Email: tsejobs@redactive.co.uk
Engineer to join the business as it continues to win
EXPEDITION
Just Chartered
Structural Engineer
Central London Ref: 51373
Up to £50,000 + Benefits
35-strong premier consultancy has a requirement
or ICE, be educated to MEng/MSc-level and
must have gained extensive experience
working in London consultancy in
either another premier or niche
consultancy combined with a
structured career history.
TECHNIKER
to join the London office as it continues to expand
MICHAEL HADI ASSOCIATES
24 Greville Street
Farringdon
London
EC1N 8SS
Recruitment
Telephone: +44 (0)20 7880 6235 Email: tsejobs@redactive.co.uk
Structural
Conservation Engineer
Central London Ref: 51384
Up to £50,000 + Benefits
90-strong premier consultancy has a
requirement for a Structural Conservation
IMAGES SHOW RECENT PROJECTS UNDERTAKEN BY SOME OF OUR CORE CLIENTS
new work in conservation and historic structural
engineering. Candidates will need to be a
near or just Chartered member of IStructE,
have good design experience working
in UK conservation engineering and
be passionate about structural
conservation engineering.
FLUID STRUCTURES
Structural Design/
Project Engineer
Central London Ref: 51377
Up to £40,000 + Benefits
25-strong niche boutique consultancy (ex-Buro
MOMENTUM Happold) has a requirement for a design-focused
Structural Design/Project Engineer to join the
Central London studio. Candidates will need
to be a Graduate member of IStructE and/or
ICE, be educated to MEng/MSc-level and
will need to have worked for another
niche or premier consultancy on
architecturally-challenging projects
in new-build construction.
Structural Revit
Technician
Central London Ref: 51310
Up to £50,000 + Benefits
High-profile 40-strong niche consultancy has
SD STRUCTURES a requirement for a Structural Revit Technician
to join the London studio as it continues to expand
its BIM capability. Candidates will need to have
2No Senior extensive structural engineering draughting
Structural Engineers and modelling experience gained working
Central London Ref: 51372 at another niche or premier London
consultancy and should have a
Up to £54,000 + Benefits
minimum of 3 years’ working
140-strong premier consultancy has a Revit software experience.
requirement for 2No Senior Structural Engineers
with project values up to £400million in new-
build and refurbishment sectors. Candidates
will need to be near or Chartered with
IStructE and/or ICE and will also need
to have fast-tracked through to
Chartership as well as a having
a structured career history.
ECKERSLEY O’CALLAGHAN
T 020 3457 0797
E technical@walkerdendle.co.uk
PRICE & MYERS
uualkerdendle.co.uk
14/12/2017 10:13
 At the back
Library update
Library update
Researching fire engineering
Enquiries received in the Library on fire
engineering can be categorised broadly into six
headings.
Here is a selection of what the Library has
on these subjects and the most frequently
requested items. Those marked with an * are
also available in the E-library at www.istructe.
org/resources-centre/library/e-library.
Fire properties and performance of
materials
 BRE (2013) Fire performance of external
thermal insulation for walls of multistorey
buildings (3rd ed.) (BR 135)
 BRE (2004) Structural fire engineering
design: Materials behaviour (BRE Digest
487–1: Concrete; 2: Steel; 3: Masonry; 4:
Timber)
 BRE (2004) Structural fire engineering
design: Fire and thermal response (BRE
Digest 488)
Fire-resistant design
 Lennon T. et al. (2017) Installing fire protection
to structural steelwork (BRE Good Building
Guide GG85)
 *Buchanan A.H. and Abu A.K. (2017)
Structural design for fire safety (2nd ed.),
Wiley
 *Franssen J. and Vila Real P. (2015) Fire
design of steel structures. Eurocode 1: actions
on structures part 1-2 - actions on structures
exposed to fire. Eurocode 3: design of steel
structures part 1-2 - structural fire design (2nd
ed.), ECCS / Ernst & Sohn (ECCS Eurocode
Design Manuals)
 Concrete Centre (2015) ‘Concrete Design
Guide. No. 6: Fire design of concrete columns
and walls to Eurocode 2’, The Structural
Engineer, 93 (6), pp. 46–51
 *Purkiss J.A. and Li L. (2014) Fire safety
engineering design of structures (3rd ed.),
CRC Press
 Association for Specialist Fire Protection
(2014) Fire protection for structural steel in
buildings (Volumes 1 and 2) (5th ed.), ASFP
 Structural Timber Association (2013) ‘Timber
Engineering Notebook series. No. 7: Fire
safety in timber buildings’, The Structural
Engineer, 91 (9), pp. 37–43
 Wang Y. et al. (2013) Performance-based fire
engineering of structures, CRC Press
86
TSE72_86_LibraryUpdate.indd 86
 Razdolsky L. (2012) Structural fire loads:
theory and principles, McGraw-Hill
 Lennon T. (2011) Structural fire engineering,
ICE Publishing
 Lennon T. et al. (2007) Designers’ guide to
EN 1991-1-2, 1992-1-2, 1993-1-2 and 1994-
1-2: handbook for the fire design of steel,
composite and concrete structures to the
Eurocodes, Thomas Telford
 Institution of Structural Engineers (2003)
Introduction to the fire safety engineering of
structures, IStructE Ltd
Fire management
 BRE (2016) External fire spread.
Supplementary guidance to BR 187
incorporating probabilistic and time-based
approaches (BRE Information Paper IP3/16)
 Hurley M.J. and Rosenbaum E.R. (2015)
Performance-based fire safety design, CRC
Press
 BRE (2014) Fire risk in high-rise and super
high-rise buildings: prevention and mitigation
(BRE Digest 533)
 BRE (2014) External fire spread: building
separation and boundary distances (2nd ed.)
(BR 187)
 Stollard P. et al. (2014) Fire from first
principles: a design guide to international
building fire safety (4th ed.), Routledge
 The Building Regulations 2010. Approved
Document B (Fire safety) – Volume 1:
Dwellinghouses (2006 edition incorporating
2010 and 2013 amendments)
 The Building Regulations 2010. Approved
Document B (Fire safety) – Volume 2:
Buildings other than dwellinghouses (2006
edition incorporating 2010 and 2013
amendments)
 Craighead G. (2009) High-rise security
and fire life safety (3rd ed.), Butterworth-
Heinemann
 Institution of Structural Engineers (2007)
Guide to the advanced fire safety engineering
of structures, IStructE Ltd
 BRE (2004) Structural fire engineering
design: Introduction (BRE Digest 484)
 BRE (2004) Structural fire engineering
design: Aspects of life safety (BRE Digest
490)
 BRE (2004) Structural fire engineering
design: Fire development (BRE Digest 485)
January 2018 | TheStructuralEngineer
thestructuralengineer.org
Fire damage assessment and repair
 Institution of Structural Engineers (2010)
Appraisal of existing structures (3rd ed.),
IStructE Ltd
 Concrete Society (2008) Assessment, design
and repair of fire-damaged concrete structures
(Technical Report 68)
 Kirby B.R. et al. (1986) The reinstatement
of fire damaged steel and iron framed
structures, British Steel Corporation Swinden
Laboratories
Standards
All the fire parts of the Eurocodes:
 BS 8414-1/2:2015+A1:2017 Fire performance of
external cladding systems
 BS 9999:2017 Fire safety in the design,
management and use of buildings. Code of
practice
 BS 9991:2015 Fire safety in the design,
management and use of residential buildings.
Code of practice
Case studies
 US Department of Commerce and NIST
(2005) Federal building and fire safety
investigation of the World Trade Center
disaster: final report on the collapse of the
World Trade Center Towers, US Government
Printing Office (NIST NCSTAR 1)
 INTEMAC (2005) Fire in the Windsor building,
Madrid: survey of the fire resistance and
residual bearing capacity of the structure after
the fire, INTEMAC (Notas de Informacion
Technica, NIT2-05)
 Dibb-Fuller D. et al. (1998) ‘Windsor Castle: fire
behaviour and restoration aspects of historic
ironwork’, The Structural Engineer, 76 (19), pp.
367–372
 Dixon R. and Taylor P. (1993) ‘Hampton Court:
restoration of the fire-damaged structure’, The
Structural Engineer, 71 (18), pp. 321–325
 BRE (1974) Report on the spread of fire at
Summerland in Douglas on the Isle of Man, 2
August 1973 (BRE Current Paper 74/74)
CONTACT
Rob Thomas (Manager – Library and
Information Services)
ETel.: +44 (0)20 7201 9105
EEmail: library@istructe.org
14/12/2017 12:23
 O N S
AT I
L I C
PU B
SCI

www.steel-sci.com

Our high quality technical publications continue to be used as the

GHÀQLWLYHJXLGDQFHZLWKLQWKHVHFWRUIRFXVLQJRQSURYLGLQJWKHODWHVW
and most accurate information to ensure best practice is maintained
across every aspect of steel construction.

Brittle Fracture: Selection of Steel
Sub-Grade to BS EN 1993-1-10 (P419)
In structures where fatigue is not a design
consideration, BS EN 1993-1-10 notes that
the tabulated limiting thicknesses can be
conservative. This guide presents limiting
thicknesses for internal and external steelwork
in the UK when fatigue is not a design
consideration.
SCI Members £22.50
Non SCI Members £45
Design Manual for Structural
Stainless Steel (P413)
This Design Manual provides design rules for
austenitic, duplex and ferritic stainless steels.
The rules are aligned to the 2015 amendment
of the Eurocode for structural stainless steel,
EN 1993-1-4. They cover the design of cross-
sections, members, connections and design at
elevated temperatures as well as new design
PHWKRGVZKLFKH[SORLWWKHEHQHÀFLDOVWUDLQ
hardening characteristics of stainless steel.
Electronic Format Only
Free Download
Steel Bridge Group: Completion of
Appendix 18/1 (P418)
This publication provides guidance on the
completion of an ‘Appendix 18/1’ document to
EHXVHGLQFRQMXQFWLRQZLWKWKHVSHFLÀFDWLRQV
for steelwork issued by Highways England and
Network Rail. The guidance is in the form of
additional requirements that may be included
LQWKHSURMHFWVSHFLÀF$SSHQGL[GRFXPHQW
or in Appended Documents.
Electronic Format Only
SCI Members Free
Non Members £30 + VAT

The SCI is committed to helping members meet their design, For further details contact
manufacture, construction and commercial objectives.
+44 (0)1344 636505
@SCIsteel steel-construction-institute SCI Bookshop https://portal.steel-sci.com/shop

p04_TSE.Jan18.indd 4 13/12/2017 12:21

 Analysis Concrete Steel

Composite Timber Masonry

Retaining Walls Drafting Lite Suite

p88_TSE.Jan18.indd 88 13/12/2017 12:29