buildings

Article
Assessing Structural Damage after a Severe Wildfire:
A Case Study
Angeliki Papalou * and Dimitrios K. Baros
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Peloponnese; 26334 Patras, Greece
* Correspondence: papalou@teiwest.gr; Tel.: +30-2610-369059




Received: 27 June 2019; Accepted: 16 July 2019; Published: 18 July 2019


Abstract: Wildfires have always been a threat to forests and areas of high combustible vegetation.
When they are not kept under control, they can spread to residential areas, creating severe damage
and destruction. This paper examines the effects of the extreme heat conditions that developed during
a wildfire on buildings as a function of their construction type. One of the deadliest wildfires in Greece
(July 2018) is considered as a case study, and the damage that occurred to buildings during this event
is presented. The temperature of the various structural subsystems in extreme heat conditions was
estimated using the finite element method. Parameters that influenced the corresponding temperature
distribution were identified. Simple guidelines are given to prevent or reduce damage in buildings
exposed to wildfires.

Keywords: Wildfire; structural damage; concrete buildings; masonry buildings; steel buildings;
timber structures; finite element method

1. Introduction
Every year during dry seasons, wildfires start in areas of combustible vegetation all over the
world. Under extreme weather, these fires can spread uncontrollably, destroying everything in their
path, including vegetation and structures, and endangering human lives.
Preventing the ignition and spreading of wildfires is not an easy task. It involves actions that
have to take place prior or after the start of a fire:

1. Opening security roads in the forest area, creating fire breaks, and limiting available fuel with
prescribed burns and vegetation thinning;
2. Monitoring and detecting the ignition of a fire in its early stages based on human surveillance
and/or advanced detection and monitoring techniques, including satellite remote sensing, forest
animals as biological sensors, image processing, etc. [1];
3. Educating people in the community to avoid the initiation of fires when high winds are expected,
especially in areas with combustible vegetation;
4. Acquiring (by the government, local or national) all necessary equipment and personnel for fire
suppression and having a plan of action to reduce fire spread and to direct people who are being
evacuated from areas of danger.

There are factors that influence the spread of a wildfire that cannot be avoided, such as weather
conditions (wind speed, direction, relative humidity, air temperature) and topography [2]. Wildfires
can spread uncontrollably, destroying the infrastructure of an exposed area. There are several factors
that influence the vulnerability of a building to wildfires, including its location, the flammability of the
materials outside and inside the structure, and the design and construction materials used [3].
The design of fire-resistant structures is an important issue, especially in areas surrounded by
combustible vegetation. The safety of lives and the protection of structures in case of fire are the

Buildings 2019, 9, 171; doi:10.3390/buildings9070171 www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2019, 9, 171 2 of 22

subjects of fire codes. Active and passive control systems can be used to increase the fire safety of a
structure [4]. Active control systems such as automatic sprinklers may fail to work under extreme
conditions, and passive fire protection may be the last resort to contain fires and protect the structure.
Passive fire protection adopts structural design strategies (i.e., the usage of fire-resistant materials) that
prevent the spreading of a fire and protect buildings from collapsing.
Under regular conditions, structural analysis provides the tools to safely design a structure to
support its loads. Most current design codes are based on the method of limit state design (strength
and serviceability limit states). The main concern for a structure exposed to fire is its ability to maintain
its strength and stability.
Research about structural damage associated with wildfires is limited [5]. Previous work has
mainly focused on investigating the behavior of buildings exposed to fire, using models of buildings
and creating fire conditions. Bailey et al. [6] examined the behavior of a full-scale steel frame
building. Lamont et al. [7] examined the structural stability of a steel frame building without passive
fire protection. The finite element method and a standard fire model were used for determining
the displacements and strains developed in structural members exposed to fire. Foster et al. [8]
presented thermal and structural results using numerical models based on a full-scale building during
a compartment fire test. Wald et al. [9] investigated the temperature development and distribution of
internal forces within various structural elements of a compartment on a steel–concrete composite
frame building during a large-scale fire test.
It is essential for engineers to understand the effects a fire may have on structures depending on
the material they consist of and to predict the loads and the properties a structure may have under
these extreme conditions. This paper outlines the design process used to predict the loads and the
remaining capacity a structure will have when exposed to fire. The behavior of different construction
materials exposed to fire is analyzed using as a case study one of the deadliest wildfires that have
occurred in Greece, on July 23, 2018. A numerical analysis was performed to identify the temperature
of structural subsystems exposed to fire conditions using the finite element method. Simple guidelines
are given to prevent or reduce damage in buildings exposed to extreme heat conditions.

2. Fires and Structures

A wildfire may start from lightning, from damaged power cables, from people’s activities, etc.,
and can spread uncontrollably, destroying large areas of land. The stages of a typical fire include
the “ignition stage”, when the combustion material (fuel), oxygen, and heat interact, creating a fire;
the ”growth stage” (flash-over), when the fire (depending on the amount of fuel and oxygen) starts
growing; the “fully developed stage”, when all fuel is used and the fire reaches its maximum extent;
and the “decay stage”, when most of the fuel or the oxygen has been used and the fire gradually ceases.
The behavior of structures exposed to fire depends on several factors, including construction
materials, the temperatures developed, and the duration of the fire. The temperatures developed
inside structural members must be estimated either for design purposes or for a damage assessment of
a structure exposed to fire. These temperatures can be estimated if the gas temperature throughout the
burning time is known. The gas temperature developed from a wildfire is more difficult to predict and
depends on weather conditions [10].
Gas temperatures can be estimated using a design fire. A nominal fire or a natural fire can be
selected. A nominal fire is represented by a standard curve of uniform gas temperature with time
(e.g., ISO 834-1 [11]). It is independent of fuel and ventilation conditions and continues with time
without decaying. A natural fire depends on fuel, geometry, and ventilation conditions, and it decays
following the stages of a typical fire, as described above. Simplified models can be used to predict gas
temperature, such as one-zone models, two-zone models, and computational fluid dynamics. Nominal
fires are often used for designing purposes.
After calculating the maximum gas temperature, the temperature at the surface of the material can
be estimated and is usually 50–100 ◦ C less than the gas temperature depending on the time the member
Buildings 2019, 9, 171 3 of 22

is exposed to fire. Inside the structural member, the temperature reduces by depth. High temperatures
change the properties of the materials, leading to a reduction in the strength and modulus of elasticity.
If the members’ expansion is restricted, additional stresses develop inside the member, which plays an
important role especially in steel members.
In structural design, fire is considered an accidental event. Structures exposed to fire loads are
examined only in the ultimate limit state, and it is sufficient to only analyze parts of the structure
without the need to examine the whole. A load combination that can be used is

Gk + ψ1 Qk,1 + ψ2 Qk,2 (1)

where the safety factor for the permanent load Gk is unity; Qk,1 , Qk,2 are the leading and accompanying
variable actions, respectively; and ψ1, ψ2 are the corresponding building factors.
In the first step of fire design, the temperatures of the materials are estimated. Then, a structural
analysis is performed considering a load combination such as the one discussed above, including also
the forces induced by the fire. These forces are developed due to the constraints that may exist in the
structure that restrict its thermal expansion or that are due to large deformations [4]. In the structural
analysis, material properties either are modified from the beginning (adopting the reduced due to
fire values), or a step-by-step analysis is considered with increasing loads and decreasing property
values [12].
According to Eurocodes [13–15], the fire design strength ( fd, fi ) of construction materials, including
steel, concrete, and masonry, is given by

fk
fd, fi = k fi , (2)
γM, fi

where fk is the characteristic strength of the material at normal temperature, k fi is a reduction factor
depending on the material’s temperature, and γM, fi is a partial safety factor for the strength of the
material for the fire conditions, usually taken as 1.
The fire design strength ( fd, fi ) of timber [16] is given by

fk
fd, fi = kmod, fi k fi , (3)
γM, fi

where k fi and kmod, fi are modification factors for fire considering the strength and effects the temperature
has on the strength of timber, respectively.

3. Construction Materials Exposed to Fire

In the following sections, a brief discussion of the properties, the expected behavior, and ways to
improve the fire resistance of each construction material composing the structural form is presented.
The effects of a fire on the behavior of materials can also be identified as effects from direct and indirect
fire actions. Damages from indirect fire actions occur when thermal expansion and deformation
are constrained.

3.1. Behavior of Concrete in Fires

Concrete is composed of aggregates, cement, and water, and when it is reinforced, of steel bars.
It has low thermal conductivity, and it is considered to be noncombustible. Its good behavior in fires is
further improved when it consists of carbonate or lightweight aggregates. As long as the temperature
of concrete is below 500 ◦ C, concrete’s strength is not affected. Above 500 ◦ C, the compressive strength
of concrete starts to reduce (direct fire action). The strength reduction is higher for high-strength
concrete. The modulus of elasticity is also reduced with an increase in temperature, and this reduction
starts at temperatures lower than 200 ◦ C. After concrete cools down, it regains most of its strength.
Buildings 2019, 9, 171 4 of 22

Concrete’s steel bars are protected when the concrete cover is still in place. If they are exposed directly
to fire, their yield strength is reduced considerably above 400 ◦ C. When steel bars cool down, they
regain most of their strength [17].
The concrete’s color after exposure to fire can give a good estimation of the temperature the
concrete’s surface reached. Below 300 ◦ C, there is not a real change in color. Above 300 ◦ C and below
600 ◦ C, the color is pink; between 600 and 900 ◦ C, the color changes to gray; and above 900 ◦ C it is
buff-yellow. Smut also appears even below 300 ◦ C.
The increase in temperature may cause large axial forces if thermal expansion is restrained (indirect
fire action). The usual damage that can occur is spalling of the cover concrete that protects the steel bars
from corrosion and fire. This is most likely due to an increase in the pore pressure in the cement paste.
Other possible damage may include sagging of beams and slabs, diagonal cracking in continuous
beams, cracking of columns, etc.
For concrete, the addition of polypropylene fibers to the concrete mix can increase its resistance
to spalling. The fibers melt under high temperatures, creating passages for the vapors to escape [18].
The increase of cover thickness increases the protection of the steel bars, and the use of fire resistance
coatings can increase the safety of the buildings exposed to fire.

3.2. Behavior of Masonry in Fires

Masonry structures are incombustible and behave better than concrete, steel, or timber structures
exposed to fire. The surfaces of the units experience high temperatures (leading to flaking and
discoloration of the outer layer), while the material underneath the surface is protected, experiencing
lower temperatures. Low-porosity materials experience more disruption than porous ones do.
Calcareous units maintain their compressive strength up to 700 ◦ C, while the modulus of elasticity
is reduced [12]. Brick units above 400 ◦ C experience a reduction in strength and the modulus of
elasticity. Discoloration (direct fire action) is due to both shoot deposition and thermal oxidation
of iron-containing minerals [19]. Thermal oxidation can begin to take place at temperatures as low
as 250–300 ◦ C. Different minerals produce differently colored changes. This may not comprise the
structural stability of the material, but it can generate aesthetic damage.

3.3. Behavior of Timber in Fires

Timber structures are vulnerable to fire, since wood is a combustible material. Heavy and light
timber structures behave differently when exposed to fire. Heavy timber structures [20] consist of
large-dimension members that behave well in fires. When they are ignited, their surfaces burn, creating
a layer of char that protects the inner wood for a long time.
The moisture of the inner wood below the layer of char evaporates above 100 ◦ C. At 200 ◦ C, the
wood thermally decomposes. The charring temperature is about 300 ◦ C [3]. The strength and modulus
of elasticity of wood are reduced with increasing temperatures (direct fire action).
Resistance against fire for light timber structures consisting of smaller-dimension members can be
provided by protective materials such as gypsum boards, fiber cement panels, and protective coatings.
The connections can be protected either by being inside the wood section or by enclosure by a gypsum
board. Gusset plates have poor behavior in fires when they are unprotected.

3.4. Behavior of Steel in Fires

Steel members are usually thin and have higher thermal conductivity than other construction
materials. When they are unprotected, they perform poorly when exposed to fire [4]. Steel’s yield
strength and modulus of elasticity drop considerably above 300 ◦ C. At about 700 ◦ C, strength and
stiffness reduce to half values (direct fire action). In addition, restricted thermal expansion can result in
large deformations and the buckling of thin steel members (indirect fire actions). If the temperature
does not exceed 700 ◦ C and there is no prolonged exposure, the mechanical properties return to their
initial values after cooling down. If steel members are exposed to temperatures above 700 ◦ C for
Buildings 2019, 9, 171 5 of 22

Buildings 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 22

more than 20 min, oxidation will appear on the surface, as well as pitting and a loss of cross-sectional
cross-sectional
thickness (directthickness (direct
fire action). fire870
Above action). Above
◦ C, their 870 °C,do
properties their
not properties do initial
return to their not return to their
values. Steel
initial values. Steel members will have smaller ductility and
members will have smaller ductility and higher strength and hardness.higher strength and hardness.
The
The protection
protection of steel members
of steel members from fire can
from fire can be
be achieved
achieved through
through several
several methods,
methods, including
including
the application of certain coatings (for example, intumescent coating), encasement
the application of certain coatings (for example, intumescent coating), encasement with concrete,with concrete,
and
and enclosure with boards (calcium silicate, gypsum,
enclosure with boards (calcium silicate, gypsum, timber, etc.)timber, etc.)

4.
4. Case
Case study
Study

4.1.
4.1. Details
Details of
of the
the occurrence
Occurrenceofofthe
thewildfire
Wildfire
Mati
Mati is
is aa Greek
Greek village
village located
located on
on the
the east
east coast
coast ofof Attica
Attica that
that attracts
attracts many
many visitors
visitors and
and tourists
tourists
during
during the summer. Its
the summer. Its proximity
proximity toto Athens
Athens (30(30 km)
km) makes
makes itit an
an ideal
ideal second-home
second-home place
place for
for
Athenians. On
Athenians. OnJuly
July23,
23,2018,
2018, a wildfire
a wildfire started
started in theinPenteli
the Penteli Mountains
Mountains west ofwest
Mati,ofpassing
Mati, through
passing
through Kallitechnoupolis
Kallitechnoupolis and Neosand Neos(Figure
Voutzas Voutzas 1), (Figure 1), destroying
destroying everything ineverything in its
its path, and path, and
reaching the
reaching
village inthe
thevillage in the evening.
evening.

Figure
Figure 1.
1. Satellite
Satellite picture
picture of
of the
the areas
areas affected
affected by the fire (from Google Maps).

A significant
A significant fraction
fraction of of Mati
Mati (Figure
(Figure 2) 2) is
is covered
covered by by pine
pine trees,
trees, which
which are are highly
highly flammable.
flammable.
Strong winds (stronger than 90 km/h, reaching 120 km/h at times) moved
Strong winds (stronger than 90 km/h, reaching 120 km/h at times) moved the fire uncontrollably the fire uncontrollably over
the area.
over A 20-m-wide
the area. A 20-m-wide highway (Marathon
highway Ave., green
(Marathon color) color)
Ave., green that separated the main
that separated theinhabited part of
main inhabited
the village from a higher-altitude area was considered to be a barrier for fires
part of the village from a higher-altitude area was considered to be a barrier for fires and a safety and a safety measure for
the village,
measure forbut
the itvillage,
did notbut restrain the restrain
it did not fire. With theboth
fire.of its sides
With both covered
of its sides by covered
pine trees, by it wastrees,
pine easilyit
crossed by the fire.
was easily crossed by the fire.
The high
The high winds
winds movedmoved the the fire
fire toward
toward the the coast. Someone would
coast. Someone would thinkthink thatthat the
the beach
beach would
would
provide an easy escape for Mati’s inhabitants and visitors. Unfortunately,
provide an easy escape for Mati’s inhabitants and visitors. Unfortunately, the beach is not easily the beach is not easily
accessed, since most of the area is elevated several meters above sea level
accessed, since most of the area is elevated several meters above sea level (Figure 3a) and the (Figure 3a) and the existence
existence of fences
of fences along alongblocks
the coast the coast blocks
access access
to the sea. toThethefewsea. The few
narrow narrow
paths (Figurepaths3b) (Figure
leading3b) leading
toward the
toward
sea werethe sea were
difficult difficult
to locate to locate
in the smoky inair
theconditions
smoky airthe conditions
fire had the fire had created.
created.
During these difficult hours, with insufficient/wrong guidance from
During these difficult hours, with insufficient/wrong guidance from thethe local
local authorities
authorities and
and aa
limited number of
limited number offire-fighting
fire-fightingvehicles,
vehicles,panicpanic waswas created.
created. Some
Some people
people left left
the the
areaarea
usingusing
theirtheir
cars,
cars, but others got stuck in the narrow roads, losing their lives. Most of the people that reached the
but others got stuck in the narrow roads, losing their lives. Most of the people that reached the sea were
sea
ablewere able toafter
to survive survive afterthere
staying staying there for
for several several
hours hours
before theybefore
werethey were There
rescued. rescued. There
were, were,
however,
however, several people who could not find the path toward the sea in the smoky, suffocating
several people who could not find the path toward the sea in the smoky, suffocating conditions and
conditions and suffered a tragic death. Twenty-six of them were found together at the top of a cliff
suffered a tragic death. Twenty-six of them were found together at the top of a cliff above the sea.
above the sea. The total death toll in Mati and the villages next to it reached 102. Figure 4 shows part
of the destruction the day after the fire.
Buildings 2019, 9, 171 6 of 22

Buildings 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 22

The total death toll in Mati and the villages next to it reached 102. Figure 4 shows part of the destruction
Buildings
Buildings after9,
the day2019,
2019, x
x FOR
9,the PEER
PEER REVIEW
fire.
FOR REVIEW 66 of
of 22
22

Figure 2. Satellite picture of Mati before the fire occurrence (from Google Maps).

Figure
Figure 2. Satellite picture of Mati before the fire occurrence (from Google Maps).
Figure 2.
2. Satellite
Satellitepicture
picture of
of Mati
Mati before
before the
the fire
fire occurrence
occurrence (from
(from Google
Google Maps).
Maps).

(a) (b)

(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure 3. Pictures of Mati after the fire: (a) Coastal area; (b) narrow path leading toward the sea.
Figure 3. Pictures of Mati after the fire: (a) Coastal area; (b) narrow path leading toward the sea.
Figure
Figure 3.
3. Pictures
Pictures of
of Mati
Mati after
after the
the fire:
fire: (a)
(a) Coastal
Coastal area;
area; (b)
(b) narrow
narrow path
path leading
leading toward
toward the
the sea.
sea.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 4.
4. Pictures
Picturesof
(a)Mati
of Matithe
theday
day after
after the
the fire
fire (a)
(a) forest
forest area
area (b)
(b) damaged
damaged buildings
(b)
buildings and
and vehicles.
vehicles.
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 4.
4.2. Observed Pictures
Pictures of
damage
4. of Mati
Mati the
the day
day after
after the
the fire
fire (a)
(a) forest
forest area
area (b)
(b) damaged
damaged buildings
buildings and
and vehicles.
vehicles.

4.2. The buildings in Mati were mainly made from concrete frames with brick infill walls or
4.2. Observed
Observed damage
damage
masonry with timber/concrete roofs. A few buildings had steel or wood frames as a light structural
The
The buildings
buildings in
in Mati
Mati were
were mainly
mainly made
made from
from concrete
concrete frames
frames with
with brick
brick infill
infill walls
walls or
or
masonry with timber/concrete roofs. A few buildings had steel or wood frames as a light structural
masonry with timber/concrete roofs. A few buildings had steel or wood frames as a light structural
Buildings 2019, 9, 171 7 of 22

4.2. Observed Damage

Buildings 2019, 9, x FOR
The buildings PEER REVIEW
in Mati made from concrete frames with brick infill walls or7 ofmasonry
were mainly 22

with timber/concrete roofs. A few buildings had steel or wood frames as a light structural system and
system and plaster boards as infills. In the following sections, the damage observed in the buildings
plaster boards as infills. In the following sections, the damage observed in the buildings is described.
is described.
4.2.1. Observed Damage of Reinforced Concrete Buildings
4.2.1. Observed damage of reinforced concrete buildings
The The
buildings depicted
buildings depictedin Figure
in Figure 5 consisted
5 consistedof of
a reinforced
a reinforced concrete
concreteframe
frameandandbrick
brickinfill
infill walls.
Discoloration of the cement
walls. Discoloration of theplaster
cementoccurred in the walls
plaster occurred in theexposed to fire,toespecially
walls exposed around
fire, especially the windows
around the
windows
(Figure (Figure
5a). The 5a). The
different differentcolors
observed observed colors
reveal thereveal the temperatures
temperatures that developed.
that developed. Aside Aside
from the
from the discoloration,
discoloration, more severe
more severe damage damage was
was observed, observed,
including including
cracks cracks in small-section
in small-section concrete columns
(Figure 5b), the sagging of concrete slabs (Figure 5c), cracks in the middle section of beamssection
concrete columns (Figure 5b), the sagging of concrete slabs (Figure 5c), cracks in the middle (Figure 5d),
of beams of
and spalling (Figure 5d), and
the slab’s spalling
plaster of the5e),
(Figure slab’s plaster
which in(Figure 5e), which
some cases in someto
proceeded cases
the proceeded to
concrete cover of
the concrete cover of the steel bars, exposing them to high-temperature conditions
the steel bars, exposing them to high-temperature conditions (Figure 5f,g). Most of the windows were (Figure 5f,g).
Most of the windows were destroyed, and the melting of the frame increased the temperature, as can
destroyed, and the melting of the frame increased the temperature, as can be observed from the colors
be observed from the colors around the windows (Figure 5a,h). When the fire entered the house, it
around the windows (Figure 5a,h). When the fire entered the house, it burnt everything in its way,
burnt everything in its way, leaving standing the frame and the walls of the building. Even though
leaving standingdamage
considerable the frame and the
occurred, walls
most of the
of the building.
buildings withEven though
concrete framesconsiderable damage
and infill walls were occurred,
still
mostrepairable.
of the buildings with concrete frames and infill walls were still repairable.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 5. Cont.
Buildings 2019, 9, 171 8 of 22
Buildings 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 22

Buildings 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 22

(e) (f)

(e) (f)

(g) (h)
Figure 5. Pictures showing damage that occurred in reinforced concrete frame buildings and infill
5. Pictures
Figurewalls showing
after the (g) damage
wildfire in Mati:that occurred
(a, h) in reinforced
discoloration around concrete
openings;frame
(b, d)buildings
(h) andconcrete
cracking on infill walls
after the wildfire(c)insagging
members; Mati: (a,h) discoloration
of slabs; around
(e, f, g) spalling openings;
of concrete (b,d) cracking on concrete members; (c)
cover.
Figure 5. Pictures showing damage that occurred in reinforced concrete frame buildings and infill
sagging of slabs; (e–g) spalling of concrete cover.
walls after the wildfire in Mati: (a, h) discoloration around openings; (b, d) cracking on concrete
4.2.2. Observed damage of masonry buildings
members; (c)
4.2.2. Observed sagging of
Damage of slabs;
Masonry(e, f, g) spalling of concrete cover.
Buildings
The houses from masonry in Mati were composed from stone, brick, cement blocks, or a
4.2.2.
The Observed
houses damage
combination of them.
from ofDiscoloration
masonry
masonry in buildings
Matiof the units
were exposed tofrom
composed fire was observed,
stone, brick,especially
cement above
blocks,theor a
windows
combination of(Figure
them. 6a,b). Cracking and
Discoloration of thepeeling
unitswere observed
exposed in walls
to fire covered with
was observed, paint or plaster
especially above the
The houses from masonry in Mati were composed from stone, brick, cement blocks, or a
windows (Figure 6c,d).6a,b).
(Figure The windows
Cracking exposed
and to fire were
peeling burnt. Cracks in appeared abovewith
the windows orand
combination of them. Discoloration of the units were observed
exposed to fire was walls covered
observed, paint the
especially above plaster
(Figure below theThe
6c,d). wooden roof (Figure
windows exposed 6e,f).
to Some
fire unitsburnt.
were fell down,
Cracks destroying
appeared partabove
of the the
masonry walls and
windows
windows (Figure 6a,b). Cracking and peeling were observed in walls covered with paint or plaster
(Figure 6g). Theroof
roofs(Figure
that were made from units
wood fell
were burnt (Figure 6h). The pictures
theshow that the
(Figure
below the 6c,d).
woodenThe windows exposed
6e,f). toSome
fire were burnt. down,
Cracks appeared
destroying above
part the
of windows and walls
masonry
windows, the roof, and everything inside the house may have been destroyed, but the walls in most
below6g).
(Figure theThewooden
roofsroof
that(Figure 6e,f). Some
were made units fell
from wood down,
were burnt destroying part The
(Figure 6h). of the masonry
pictures wallsthat the
show
of the buildings were still standing, experiencing damage in the form of cracks above the windows,
(Figure 6g).
windows, the The
roof,roofs
andthat were made
everything fromthe
inside wood weremay
house burnthave
(Figure 6h).destroyed,
been The picturesbutshow
the that
wallsthein most
discoloration, and destruction of the plaster covering the walls.
windows, the roof, and everything inside the house may have been destroyed,
of the buildings were still standing, experiencing damage in the form of cracks above the windows, but the walls in most
of the buildings
discoloration, andwere still standing,
destruction of theexperiencing damage
plaster covering theinwalls.
the form of cracks above the windows,
discoloration, and destruction of the plaster covering the walls.

(a) (b)

(a) (b)

Figure 6. Cont.
Buildings 2019, 9, 171 9 of 22
Buildings 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 22

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

(g) (h)

Figure 6. Photographs of damage in masonry buildings after the wildfire in Mati: (a,b) discoloration of
Figure 6. Photographs of damage in masonry buildings after the wildfire in Mati: (a, b) discoloration
exposed surfaces; (c–f) cracking of walls; (g) extensive damage; (h) destroyed wooden roof.
of exposed surfaces; (c, d, e, f) cracking of walls; (g) extensive damage; (h) destroyed wooden roof.
4.2.3. Observed Damage of Timber Structures
4.2.3. Observed damage of timber structures
Only a few structures were made solely from wood in Mati. Wood was used mostly as a structural
Only a few structures were made solely from wood in Mati. Wood was used mostly as a
framework in framework
structural roofs, as a in
patio cover,
roofs, and in
as a patio windows.
cover, These parts
and in windows. of parts
These the buildings were destroyed
of the buildings were
whendestroyed
they were exposed
when to fire
they were (Figure
exposed to 7).
fire (Figure 7).
Buildings 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 22

Buildings 2019, 9, 171 10 of 22

Buildings 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 22

(a) (b)

Figure 7. (a, b) Photographs presenting damage that occurred in wooden roofs after the wildfire in
Mati.
(a) (b)

Figure 7. (a,b) Photographs presenting damage that occurred in wooden roofs after the wildfire in Mati.
4.2.4. Observed damage of buildings with steel frames
Figure 7. (a, b) Photographs presenting damage that occurred in wooden roofs after the wildfire in
4.2.4. Observed Damage of Buildings with Steel Frames
Few
Mati.buildings in Mati had a steel frame as a structural form. These buildings were light-weight,
with Few
cement boardsin
buildings asMati
infillhad
walls and in
a steel some
frame ascases metal siding
a structural form. panels with thermal
These buildings wereinsulation for
light-weight,
4.2.4.
with Observed
cement damage
boards as of buildings
infill walls andwith
in steel
some frames
exterior walls. The strong beams and columns of the buildings either were not affected or exhibited
cases metal siding panels with thermal insulation for
some
exterioroxidation
Few (Figure
walls. The
buildings 8a,b).
strong
in Mati Most
beams
had of the
and
a steel thinasmetal
columns
frame
of themembers
buildingswere
a structural form. oxidized
either
These
were notand
buildings buckled,
affected or revealing
exhibited
were light-weight,
the
withtemperatures
some oxidation
cement boards thatasdeveloped
(Figure
infill wallsand
8a,b). Most
andthe
of
in prolonged
the
some casesperiod
thin metal members of timepanels
metal siding
were they were
withexposed
oxidized
thermal to
and buckled, fire (Figure
revealing
insulation for
8c). In some
the temperatures buildings, cement
that developed boards
and with
the prolonged their light
period ofwire
timemesh followed
they were exposed
exterior walls. The strong beams and columns of the buildings either were not affected or exhibited thetocollapse of the
fire (Figure 8c).
structural form (Figure
In some buildings,
some oxidation (Figure
cement 8c). InMost
boards
8a,b). others, thethin
with their
of the external
light wirewalls
meshfrom
metal members metal
followed
were siding
the panels
collapse
oxidized
of thebuckled
structural
and buckled, (Figure
form
revealing
8d). The membersthat
(Figure 8c). In
the temperatures of developed
others, steel roof trusses
the external
and theexposed
walls from metal
prolonged forperiod
a prolonged
siding panels time were
buckled
of time they to fire
(Figure exhibited
8d).
exposed
The oxidation,
members
to fire
of
(Figure
severe
8c). In damage,
steel roof trussesand buckling
exposed
some buildings,
for a(Figure
cement
prolonged8e).time
boards Some
with
to thin
their aluminum
light wire parts
meshinfollowed
fire exhibited oxidation, the window
severe
the frames
damage,
collapsebuckled
and buckling
of the
(Figure
(Figure
structural10f).
8e). Some thin aluminum parts in the window frames buckled (Figure 10f).
form (Figure 8c). In others, the external walls from metal siding panels buckled (Figure
8d). The members of steel roof trusses exposed for a prolonged time to fire exhibited oxidation,
severe damage, and buckling (Figure 8e). Some thin aluminum parts in the window frames buckled
(Figure 10f).

(a) (b)

Figure 8. Cont.

(a) (b)
Buildings 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 22

Buildings 2019, 9, 171 11 of 22

Buildings 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 22

(c) (d)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

(e) (f)
Figure 8. Photographs depicting damage that occurred in buildings with a steel frame after the
wildfire
Figure 8.inPhotographs
Mati: (a, b) relatively
depicting unaffected
damage thatstrong members;
occurred (c) corrosion
in buildings and frame
with a steel bucklingafterofthe
thin metal
wildfire
Figure
in Mati:8.(a,b)
members; Photographs
(d)relatively depicting
buckling unaffected damage
of metal panels;
strong that
(e) occurred
severe
members; (c)damagein buildings
corrosion of and with
trusses; aofsteel
thin frame
(f) buckling
buckling after the
of aluminum
metal members;
wildfire
frames. in Mati:
(d) buckling (a, b)panels;
of metal relatively unaffected
(e) severe strong
damage members;
of trusses; (f) (c) corrosion
buckling and buckling
of aluminum of thin metal
frames.
members; (d) buckling of metal panels; (e) severe damage of trusses; (f) buckling of aluminum
Asbestos
Asbestos existed
frames. existed inin more
more than
than 200
200 buildings
buildings inin the
the area
area exposed
exposed to to fire
fire (Figure
(Figure 9).9). After
Afterthethefire,
fire,
the
the remains
remains were
were collected
collected and
and put
put inside
inside special
special bags
bags in
in order
order to
to be
be carried
carried away
away and
and deposited
deposited inin aa
safe Asbestos existed in more than 200 buildings in the area exposed to fire (Figure 9). After the fire,
safe place.
place.
the remains were collected and put inside special bags in order to be carried away and deposited in a
safe place.

(a) (b)
Figure 9. (a,b) Pictures of the remains of buildings containing asbestos, which was enclosed in
(a) (b)
Figure 9. (a, b) Pictures of the remains of buildings containing asbestos,
special bags. which was enclosed in
special bags.
Figure 9. (a, b) Pictures of the remains of buildings containing asbestos, which was enclosed in
special bags.
 Buildings 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 22
Buildings 2019, 9, 171 12 of 22
After the fire, a crew of engineers visited all of the buildings, characterizing them (depending
on the observed damage) as repairable, nonrepairable, or without any damage. Depending on the
After the fire, a crew of engineers visited all of the buildings, characterizing them (depending
characterization, the building was marked with a colored sign. A green sign corresponded to a
on the observed damage) as repairable, nonrepairable, or without any damage. Depending on the
building without damage, yellow to a building with repairable damage (Figure 10a–c), and red to a
characterization, the building was marked with a colored sign. A green sign corresponded to a building
building with nonrepairable damage (Figure 10d,e). In some buildings, only one of the floors was
without damage, yellow to a building with repairable damage (Figure 10a–c), and red to a building
characterized as nonrepairable (Figure 10f). Almost half of the buildings were characterized as
with nonrepairable damage (Figure 10d,e). In some buildings, only one of the floors was characterized
green, 23% as yellow, and 28% as red.
as nonrepairable (Figure 10f). Almost half of the buildings were characterized as green, 23% as yellow,
and 28% as red.analysis
5. Numerical
5. Numerical Analysis
5.1. Numerical model
A numerical
5.1. Numerical Modelanalysis was performed as a supplement to the in situ investigations discussed in
the A
previous sections.
numerical Thewas
analysis main aim of this
performed as analysis was totoestimate
a supplement theinvestigations
the in situ temperature distribution
discussed inin
structural subsystems under extreme heat scenarios similar to those experienced
the previous sections. The main aim of this analysis was to estimate the temperature distribution during the 2018
in
Attica region
structural wildfires.
subsystems underThe numerical
extreme results were
heat scenarios compared
similar to field observations
to those experienced in order
during the 2018 Atticato
evaluate
region the reliability
wildfires. of the model’s
The numerical results predictions.
were compared to field observations in order to evaluate the
Considering the typology of the residential buildings in the area of the case study, we focused
reliability of the model’s predictions.
ourConsidering
numerical investigation
the typologyon of an
theanalysis
residentialof abuildings
typical wall panel
in the areaof ofdimensions 5 mwe
the case study, in focused
length and
our 3
m in height. Wall thickness was expected to affect the temperature distribution on the
numerical investigation on an analysis of a typical wall panel of dimensions 5 m in length and 3 m in nonexposed
wall face
height. Walland was addressed
thickness in atoparametric
was expected manner. Two
affect the temperature values were
distribution on theexamined,
nonexposed with 0.20
wall facem
representing a typical masonry infill and 0.50 m representing the bearing masonry
and was addressed in a parametric manner. Two values were examined, with 0.20 m representing a of a medium-rise
building.
typical masonry infill and 0.50 m representing the bearing masonry of a medium-rise building.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 10. Cont.

Buildings 2019, 9, 171 13 of 22
Buildings 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 22

(e) (f)

Figure 10. Pictures of buildings characterized as repairable (a–c), non-repairable (d,e), or with a
Figure 10. Pictures
nonrepairable of buildings
upper floor (f). characterized as repairable (a–c), non-repairable (d,e), or with a
nonrepairable upper floor (f).
Moreover, the effect of openings was also included in our numerical investigation, given the fact
Moreover,damage
that structural the effect of openings
patterns on wallswas also included
appear in our numerical
to be connected with theirinvestigation, given the
presence (or absence).
fact that
Thus, structural
two different damage
models patterns onwall
of 0.20-m-thick walls appear
panels weretousedbe connected withW1A
in the analysis: theirrepresented
presence (or a
absence). Thus,
“continuous” walltwo different
without models
openings, andofW1B0.20-m-thick
represented wall panels were
a window openingusedofin the analysis:
dimensions 1.3 mW1A
in
represented
length and 1 ma in “continuous”
height located wall without
at the centeropenings,
of a paneland W1B
(Figure represented a window opening of
11).
dimensions
A numerical1.3 mrepresentation
in length andof1 them inexamined
height located at thewas
wall panels center of a panel
derived using(Figure
ANSYS11). [21] computer
A numerical representation of the examined wall panels
code. The volumes comprising each panel were meshed into respective proper 3-D finite was derived using ANSYS
elements[21]
computer
(FEs). code.
A solid The volumes
element comprising
with thermal conductioneach capability
panel were meshed
was intoThe
selected. respective
elementproper 3-D finite
was defined by
elements
eight nodes(FEs). A solid element
and isotropic with thermal
or orthotropic materialconduction capability
thermal properties. wasaselected.
It had The element
single degree was
of freedom,
definedtemperature,
namely by eight nodes and node.
at each isotropic or orthotropic
A hexahedral, material thermal
prism-shaped, properties.
tetrahedral, It had a single
or pyramid-shaped
degree could
element of freedom, namely
be formed temperature,
by properly managingat each
nodenode. A hexahedral,
locations in order toprism-shaped,
better match the tetrahedral,
geometry ofor
pyramid-shaped
each problem. The element couldwall
“continuous” be formed by properly
panel model (W1A) wasmanaging
meshed node
intolocations in orderelements,
3000 hexahedral to better
match the geometry of each problem. The “continuous” wall panel model
whereas prism-shaped elements were more appropriate for a specimen with an opening. In the latter (W1A) was meshed into
3000the
case, hexahedral
number was elements,
increasedwhereas
to 5683prism-shaped elements
elements as a result of thewere moredenser
slightly appropriate
grid that forwasa specimen
applied
with an opening. In the latter case, the number was increased to 5683 elements
in the area immediately around the opening in order to improve the accuracy of the results. It should as a result of the
slightly
be denser
noted that finergrid that were
meshes was also
applied in the since
applicable area the
immediately
computational aroundloadthefor opening
the solution in order
of suchto
improve the
simplified heataccuracy of the results.
transfer problems It should
is rather limited, beyielding
noted that finer meshes
numerical modelswere also applicable
manageable since
from typical
the computational load for the solution of such simplified
personal computers and suitable for use in practical applications. heat transfer problems is rather limited,
yielding
Thermalnumerical modelsλcmanageable
conductivity, , was identified fromas typical personal
the crucial computers
parameter and suitable
that defines the behaviorfor useandin
practical
the resultsapplications.
of the numerical model. As discussed in previous sections, the environment built in the
area ofThermal
the caseconductivity, λc, wasmostly
study is comprised identified as the
of low- andcrucial parameter
medium-rise that defines
masonry the behavior
buildings or buildingsand
the results
with of the
reinforced numerical
concrete model.
structural As discussed
systems in previous
and masonry infills.sections, the environment built in the
area of the case study is comprised mostly of low- and medium-rise masonry buildings or buildings
with reinforced concrete structural systems and masonry infills.
Buildings 2019, 9, 171 14 of 22
Buildings 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 22

(a)

(b)
Figure
Figure 11.11. Modellayout:
Model layout: (a)
(a) W1A;
W1A;(b)
(b)W1B
W1Bwall
wallspecimens.
specimens.

Concrete,
Concrete, cementinius
cementinius mortars,and
mortars, andtypical
typical clay
clay masonry
masonryunits
units (bricks) or limestone
(bricks) stonestone
or limestone units units
are the most common materials used. The thermal conductivity of standard concrete reduces as
are the most common materials used. The thermal conductivity of standard concrete reduces as
temperature rises. Eurocode 2 [13] provides one upper bound and one lower bound equation for λc
temperature rises. Eurocode 2 [13] provides one upper bound and one lower bound equation for λc
with respect to temperature. The lower bound estimation provides values ranging from 1.36 W/m K
with for
respect to temperature. The lower bound estimation provides values ranging from 1.36 W/m K
a temperature of 0 °C to about 0.60 W/m K for a temperature of 1200 °C. The lowest value is
for a further
temperature
reduced of 0to◦ C0.50
to about
W/m K 0.60
in W/m K for4a[14].
Eurocode temperature
According of to
1200 ◦ C. The lowest value is further
Eurocode 6 [15], the thermal
conductivity
reduced to 0.50 W/mof typical
K inclay masonry
Eurocode units According
4 [14]. may rise fromto 0.42 W/m K6to[15],
Eurocode about
the1.24 W/m K,
thermal which
conductivity
represents an upper bound value for temperatures greater than 200 °C. On the other hand, the λc of an
of typical clay masonry units may rise from 0.42 W/m K to about 1.24 W/m K, which represents
upper limestone units ranges
bound value from 1.00 W/m
for temperatures K to than
greater a highest
200 ◦value
C. Onofthe
about
other4.00hand,
W/m the
K atλ200
c of°C, but then units
limestone
rangesgradually
from 1.00drops
W/m to Kpractically 0 at value
to a highest about 1200 °C. However,
of about 4.00 W/mthe equivalent
K at thermal
200 ◦ C, but thenconductivity of
gradually drops to
masonry also depends on
◦ the λc value of the cementinius mortar, which is similar to that of concrete.
practically 0 at about 1200 C. However, the equivalent thermal conductivity of masonry also depends
Considering the previous discussion, we decided that thermal conductivity should also be
on the λc value of the cementinius mortar, which is similar to that of concrete. Considering the previous
addressed in a parametric manner. Two values of λc were considered: 0.50 W/m K, representing a
discussion, we decided that thermal conductivity should also be addressed in a parametric manner.
lower bound estimation, and 1.00 W/m K, which is a typical mid-range value associated with the
Two values of λc were
materials used
considered: 0.50 W/m K, representing a lower bound estimation, and 1.00 W/m
for the construction of the buildings in the area of our case study.
K, which is a typical mid-range value associated with the materials used for the construction of the
buildings in the area of our case study.
Buildings 2019, 9, 171 15 of 22
Buildings 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 22

5.2. Numerical
5.2. Numerical analysis
Analysis resultsand
Results andDiscussion
discussion
Temperature
Temperature loads
loads werewere described
described usingaastandard
using standard ISO
ISO834
834fire
firecurve
curve[11] with
[11] a total
with duration
a total duration
of 240ofmin.
240 min. The duration
The duration waswas selected
selected consideringthe
considering theseverity
severityand
and extreme
extreme temperatures
temperaturesrecorded
recorded at
at thecase
the actual actual caseevent.
study studyFor
event.
the For
same thereason,
same reason,
one face one
of face of the
the wall wall model
model was assumed
was assumed as
as uniformly
uniformly “loaded” with the previously described temperature history. Convection
“loaded” with the previously described temperature history. Convection and radiation boundary and radiation
boundary conditions were defined on all other surfaces of the wall specimens except for the bottom
conditions were defined on all other surfaces of the wall specimens except for the bottom one (which
one (which was assumed to be connected to the foundation and the ground). Typical values for the
was assumed to be connected to the foundation and the ground). Typical values for the respective
respective coefficients were selected according to the literature [22–24]. The surface convection
coefficients werewas
coefficient selected according
set equal to 20 Wmto-2 °C
the-1,literature [22–24].
while emissivity The surface
related convection
to the wall coefficient
surfaces was adoptedwas
as set
equalεto 20 Wm −2 ◦ C−1 , while emissivity related to the wall surfaces was adopted as ε = 0.7.
m = 0.7. m
The temperature
The temperature gradients
gradients onon thenonexposed
the nonexposed faceface and
andaasection
sectionofofthethe
wall for for
wall the the
W1A and and
W1A
W1B models
W1B models are presented
are presented in Figures
in Figures 1212andand13,
13,respectively.
respectively.

(a)

(b)

Figure 12. Analysis results for the W1A specimen and two values of material thermal conductivity:
(a) 0.50 W/m K; (b) 1 W/m K.
 Buildings 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 22

Figure
Buildings 2019, 12. Analysis results for the W1A specimen and two values of material thermal conductivity:
9, 171 16 of 22
(a) 0.50 W/m K; (b) 1 W/m K.

(a)

(b)

FigureFigure 13. Analysis

13. Analysis results
results forfor
thethe W1Bspecimen
W1B specimen and
and two
twovalues
valuesofof
material thermal
material conductivity:
thermal conductivity:
(a)W/m
(a) 0.50 0.50 W/m K; 1(b)
K; (b) 1 W/m
W/m K. K.

As can As be
canseen
be seen in both
in both figures,
figures, theuse
the useofofthe
the lower valueofofλλ
lower value c led to relatively low temperature
c led to relatively low temperature
values (< 200 °C) on the nonexposed face. This was not consistent with the in situ observations of
values (< 200 ◦ C) on the nonexposed face. This was not consistent with the in situ observations of
extensive coloration and structural damage related to high temperature values on both exposed and
extensive coloration and structural damage related to high temperature values on both exposed and
nonexposed faces of walls. The use of λc = 1.00 W/m K significantly improved the results, leading to
nonexposed facesup
temperatures of to
walls.
aboutThe400 °C λcnonexposed
useonofthe = 1.00 W/mface K significantly improved
of the model. Thus, we may theconclude
results,that
leading
to temperatures upoftothermal ◦
about conductivity
400 C on the nonexposed face of
the latter value was more appropriate forthe
the model.
numerical Thus, we mayofconclude
investigation the
problem.
that the latter The previous
value observations
of thermal were consistent
conductivity was more with results found
appropriate for in
thesimilar research
numerical efforts
investigation
of the(e.g., References
problem. The[22–25]).
previousHowever, as shown
observations wereinconsistent
Figure 13, with
both numerical
results foundmodels appearedresearch
in similar to
efforts (e.g., References [22–25]). However, as shown in Figure 13, both numerical models appeared
to misinterpret the effect of openings. Lower temperatures were calculated in their immediate areas,
which would indicate that openings are actually “stress relief” zones, and as a result, no significant
structural damage should be expected close to them. Obviously this contradicted the previously
discussed field observations (e.g., Figure 6e).
 Buildings 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 22
Buildings 2019, 9, 171 17 of 22
misinterpret the effect of openings. Lower temperatures were calculated in their immediate areas,
which would indicate that openings are actually “stress relief” zones, and as a result, no significant
structural
In order todamage
furthershould be expected
investigate the reasonclosefor
to the
them. Obviously this
contradiction contradicted
between the previously
the numerical results and
discussed
the field field observations
observations, (e.g., Figure
a more accurate 6e).
representation of an actual wall panel was employed. In this
In order to
case, the window further
frame wasinvestigate
properlythe reason for
included the numerical
in the contradiction between
model. the numerical
Window framesresults
of typical
residential buildings are usually constructed from aluminum or, in rare cases, steel. employed.
and the field observations, a more accurate representation of an actual wall panel was AluminumInhas a
this case,larger
significantly the window
thermalframe was properly
conductivity, namelyincluded
aboutin200
the W/m
numerical model.
K, than Window
masonry frames
does. Hence,of the
typical residential buildings are usually constructed from aluminum or, in rare cases, steel.
thermal behavior of the window frame differs greatly from that of the surrounding wall. In order to
Aluminum has a significantly larger thermal conductivity, namely about 200 W/m K, than masonry
properly analyze the behavior of this “dual system”, both its components should be carefully included
does. Hence, the thermal behavior of the window frame differs greatly from that of the surrounding
in a numerical model.
wall. In order to properly analyze the behavior of this “dual system”, both its components should be
carefully includedwere
Window frames in a numerical
included in model.
the numerical model as a separate volume that was subsequently
meshed toWindow
respective frames were included in therepresentative
3-D FEs with properties numerical model as frame
of the a separate
material (λc =that
volume 200 was
W/m K).
subsequently
The heat meshed to
transfer between therespective
separate3-D FEs with
volumes wasproperties
achievedrepresentative of thenodal
by using proper frameconstraints
material (λcfor
= the
200 W/m K).interfaces.
frame–masonry The heat transfer between
Indicative the from
results separate
the volumes
analysiswas achieved
of the by using model,
more detailed proper nodal
including
constraints
the window for are
frame, the presented
frame–masonry interfaces.
in Figure 14. Indicative results from the analysis of the more
detailed model, including the window frame, are presented in Figure 14.

(a)

(b)

Figure 14. Analysis results for the W1B specimen, including an aluminum window frame, and
considering (a) 120 min and (b) 240 min of exposure.
 Buildings 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 22

Buildings Figure 14. Analysis results for the W1B specimen, including an aluminum window frame, and 18 of 22
2019, 9, 171
considering (a) 120 min and (b) 240 min of exposure.

TheThe numericalresults
numerical resultsindicated
indicatedthat
that the
the model
model identified
identifiedthetheeffect
effectofofopenings,
openings,asasit it
properly
properly
calculated
calculated thethe variationand
variation andhigher
highervalues
values of
of temperature
temperature thatthat may
mayleadleadtotoconcentrated
concentratedstructural
structural
damage
damage in in
thethe immediatearea
immediate areaofofwall
wallopenings,
openings,as as was
was observed
observed in in the
thefield.
field.
Finally,
Finally, Figure
Figure 15 15 presents
presents thethe results
results forfor
W2A W2Aandand
W2B W2B models.
models. These
These were
were similar
similar to to W1A
W1A and
andrespectively,
W1B, W1B, respectively, with
with the thethickness
wall wall thickness increased
increased to m.
to 0.50 0.50 m.

(a)

(b)

Figure 15. Analysis results for (a) W2A and (b) W2B specimens (material thermal conductivity
1 W/m K).
Buildings 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 22

Figure
Buildings 2019,15. Analysis results for (a) W2A and (b) W2B specimens (material thermal conductivity 19
9, 171 1 of 22
W/m K).

Thermal
Thermal conductivity
conductivity was
was considered
considered equal
equal to
to 1.00
1.00 W/m
W/m K K in
in both
both cases.
cases. The
The analysis
analysis results
results
indicated
indicated that
that even
even in the extreme
in the extreme temperature
temperature scenario
scenario that
that was applied, relatively
was applied, relatively low
low values
values of
of
temperature
temperature (<(< 150
150 °C)
◦ C) were
were expected
expected in
in the
the nonexposed
nonexposed wall
wall face.
face. This
This may
may be
be possible
possible in
in cases
cases of
of
very thickstone
very thick stonemasonry.
masonry. TheThe results
results werewere improved
improved when when the window
the window frame wasframe was modeled,
properly properly
modeled,
as shown as shown 16.
in Figure in Figure 16.

(a)

(b)
Figure
Figure 16.
16. Analysis
Analysisresults
resultsfor
forthe
theW2B
W2Bspecimen, including
specimen, anan
including aluminum
aluminumwindow frame,
window close
frame, to (a)
close to
the exposed and (b) nonexposed face and considering 240 min of exposure.
(a) the exposed and (b) nonexposed face and considering 240 min of exposure.

In
In this case, the
this case, the numerical
numerical findings
findings suggested
suggested that
that the
the location
location of
of the window frame
the window frame may
may also
also
affect the temperature distribution and, as a result, the expected structural damage. As shown in
affect the temperature distribution and, as a result, the expected structural damage. As shown in
Figure
Figure 16b,
16b, when
when thethe window
window frame
frame was
was closer
closer to
to the
the nonexposed
nonexposed face
face and
and the
the fire
fire reached
reached it,
it, aa
higher temperature in its immediate area was possible, leading to extensive structural damage the
higher temperature in its immediate area was possible, leading to extensive structural damage on on
nonexposed face of thick masonry. This was consistent with some of the field observations discussed
in the previous sections of the present article.
Buildings 2019, 9, 171 20 of 22

Based on our initial findings, we believe that a more extensive numerical analysis program
considering a wider range of alternative values of thermal conductivity may shed more light for the
case of thick stone masonry.
In future investigations, a wider range of values of thermal conductivity will be considered for
thick masonry. In addition, the thermal and mechanical response of a building with a concrete frame
with brick infill walls and one with load bearing masonry walls and a timber roof exposed to fire will
be analyzed numerically. The obtained results will be compared to the observed damage to identify
the parameters that most influence response in the case of fire.

6. Conclusions
The effects of extreme temperatures on different construction materials were outlined. The severity
and the extent of damage in buildings that was caused by one of Greece’s deadliest wildfires (occurring
in July 2018) were presented. Observations of the damage that occurred in the buildings exposed to
this wildfire demonstrated the resistance of concrete, steel, masonry, and timber structures to extreme
heat conditions. As expected, concrete and masonry structures exhibited a superior performance to
steel and timber.
A finite element analysis on the thermal response of a typical wall panel under extreme heat
conditions was performed by varying the geometry of the wall panel and its thermal conductivity.
The analysis showed the following:

• When the walls were exposed to extreme heat conditions and damage was observed,
the highest thermal conductivity value recommended by Eurocode better represented the
temperatures developed;
• The edges of the nonexposed faces of the wall panels were least affected by the extreme
heat conditions;
• When wall openings were included in the analysis, they had to be considered together with their
window frame in order to properly identify the temperatures that developed;
• The thickness of the wall panel played an important role in temperature distribution. The larger
the thickness was, the lower the temperatures were that developed across the wall panel;
• The location of the window frame played an important role in thick masonry. When it was
closely, the exposed face had a small effect on the temperatures that developed across the window
and on the nonexposed face. The opposite occurred when the window frame was closer to the
nonexposed face and the fire reached it. In the last case, the area around the window was affected
the most.

It is observed that even simple FE models with carefully selected material thermal properties can
provide useful information on the temperature distribution in structural members that can be directly
linked to damage from wildfires.
The results from such a numerical analysis can be used as the basis for design optimization or
the rehabilitation of structural damage after extreme wildfire events similar to the one discussed in
the present article. Simple guidelines can be used to reduce/prevent structural damage in buildings
exposed to fire.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.P.; Formal Analysis, D.K.B.; Software, D.K.B.; Visualization, A.P.;
Writing-Review-Editing, A.P. and D.K.B.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Buildings 2019, 9, 171 21 of 22

References
1. Chowdary, V.; Gupta, M.K. Intelligent communication, control devices. In Advances in Intelligent Systems and
Computing; Springer: Singapore, 2018; pp. 1111–1117.
2. Dimitrakopoulos, A.; Gogi, C.; Stamatelos, G.; Mitsopoulos, I. Statistical analysis of the fire environment of
large forest fires (> 1000 ha) in Greece. J. Environ. Stud. 2011, 20, 327–332.
3. Xanthopoulos, G. Factors affecting the vulnerability of houses to wildland fire in the Mediterranean region.
In Proceedings of the International Workshop Forest Fires in the Wildland-Urban Interface and Rural Areas
in Europe, Athens, Greece, 15–16 May 2003.
4. Buchanan, A.H.; Abu, A.K. Structural Design for Fire Safety, 2nd ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017.
5. Porterie, B.; Consalvi, J.-L.; Loraud, J.-C.; Giroud, F.; Picard, C. Dynamics of wildland fires and their impact
on structures. Combust. Flame 2007, 149, 314–328. [CrossRef]
6. Bailey, C.G.; Moore, D.B. The behaviour of full-scale steel framed buildings subject to compartment fires.
Struct. Eng. 1999, 7, 15–21.
7. Lamont, S.; Lane, B.; Flint, G. Behavior of Structures in Fire and Real Design—A case Study. J. Fire Prot. Eng.
2006, 16, 5–35. [CrossRef]
8. Foster, S.; Chladna, M.; Hsieh, C.; Burgess, I.; Plank, R. Thermal and structural behaviour of a full scale
composite building subject to a severe compartment fire. Fire Saf. J. 2007, 42, 183–199. [CrossRef]
9. Wald, F.; Simoes da Silva, L.; Moore, D.B.; Lennon, T.; Chladna, M.; Santiago, A.; Benes, M.; Borges, L.
Experimental behaviour of a steel structure under natural fire. Fire Saf. J. 2006, 41, 509–522. [CrossRef]
10. Butler, B.W. Characterization of convective heating in full scale wildland fires. In Proceedings of the VI
International Conference on Forest Fire Research, Coimbra, Portugal, 15–18 November 2010; Viegas, D.X.,
Ed.; Miscellaneous Publication: Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
11. ISO 834-1. Fire-Resistance Tests—Elements of Building Construction, Part 1: General Requirements; International
Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1999.
12. Technical Chamber of Greece and National Technical University of Athens. Practical Guide for the Evaluation
of Load Bearing Capacity and Structural Repairs on Small Concrete and Masonry Buildings after Fires; Technical
Chamber of Greece and National Technical University of Athens: Athens, Greece, 2008. (In Greek)
13. EN 1992-1-2. Eurocode 2—Design of Concrete Structures—Part 1-2: General Rules Structural Fire Design; European
Committee for Standardization (CEN): Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
14. EN 1994-1-2. Eurocode 4—Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Structures—Part 1-2: General Rules—Structural
Fire Design; European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Brussels, Belgium, 2005.
15. EN 1996-1-2. Eurocode 6—Design of Masonry Structures—Part 1-2: General Rules—Structural Fire Design;
European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Brussels, Belgium, 2005.
16. Vassart, O.; Zhao, B.; Cajot, L.G.; Robert, F.; Meyer, U.; Frangi, A. JRC Science and Policy Reports Eurocodes:
Background & Applications Structural Fire Design; Report EUR 26698 EN; Publications Office of the European
Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2014.
17. Kiute, L.M.; Mang’uriu, G.N.; Mulu, P. Effects on flexural strength of reinforced concrete beam subjected to
fire. Civ. Environ. Res. 2014, 6, 36–45.
18. Comsa, T. Spalling Mechanism in Concrete Exposed to Elevated Temperatures. Master’s Thesis, Aalborg
University, Aalborg, Denmark, 2013.
19. Gomez-Heras, M.; Fort, R. Impact of fire on stone-built heritage. An overview. J. Archit. Conserv. 2009,
15, 47–58. [CrossRef]
20. Buchanan, A.H.; Ostman, B.; Frangi, A. Fire resistance of timber structures. In International Journal of Standards;
NIST Special Publication 1188; National Institute of Standards and Technology: Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
21. ANSYS Inc. ANSYS Mechanical APDL, Computer Software; ANSYS Inc.: Canonsburg, PA, USA, 2014.
22. Dzolev, I.M.; Cvetkovska, M.J.; Ladinovic, D.Z.; Radonjanin, V.S. Numerical analysis on the behaviour of
reinforced concrete frame structures in fire. Comput. Concr. 2018, 21, 637–647.
23. Nguyen, T.D.; Meftah, F.; Chammas, R.; Mebarki, A. The behaviour of masonry walls subjected to fire:
Modelling and parametrical studies in the case of hollow burnt-clay bricks. Fire Saf. J. 2009, 44, 629–641.
[CrossRef]
Buildings 2019, 9, 171 22 of 22

24. Nguyen, T.D.; Meftah, F. Behavior of hollow clay masonry walls during fire. Part 2: 3D finite element
modeling and spalling assessment. Fire Saf. J. 2014, 66, 35–45. [CrossRef]
25. Du, H.; Hu, X.; Zhang, B.; Minli, Y. Numerical simulation on behaviour of timber-concrete composite beams
in fire. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing Ltd: Bristol, UK, 2017;
p. 012148.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).