Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1184–1195

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Design model for the verification of the separating function of light timber frame
assemblies
Andrea Frangi ∗ , Vanessa Schleifer, Mario Fontana
ETH Zurich, Institute of Structural Engineering, 8093 Zurich, Switzerland

article info abstract

Article history: In order to limit fire spread by providing adequate fire compartmentation, elements forming the
Received 18 August 2009 boundaries of fire compartments are designed and constructed in such a way that they maintain their
Received in revised form separating function during the required fire exposure (insulation and integrity criteria). While fire tests
10 December 2009
are still widely used for the verification of the separating function of light timber frame assemblies, design
Accepted 22 December 2009
Available online 15 January 2010
models are becoming increasingly common. A comprehensive research project on the separating function
of light timber frame wall and floor assemblies with cladding made of gypsum plasterboards and wood-
Keywords:
based panels was carried out at ETH Zurich in collaboration with the Swiss Laboratories for Materials
Timber Testing and Research (Empa). The objective of the research project was the development of an improved
Fire design model for the verification of the separating function of light timber frame wall and floor assemblies.
Fire tests A large number of small-scale fire tests permitted the analysis of different parameters on the thermal
ISO fire exposure behaviour of protective cladding made of gypsum plasterboards and wood-based panels. The results of
Design model the fire tests allowed the verification and calibration of thermal properties used for thermal finite element
Separating function (FE) analysis. Based on an extensive FE parametric study, the coefficients of the design model for the
Insulation and integrity criteria verification of the separating function of light timber frame wall and floor assemblies were calculated. The
FE thermal analysis
design model was verified by means of full-scale fire tests. The paper first describes the basic structure
Light timber frame assemblies
of the design model for the verification of the separating function of light timber frame wall and floor
assemblies. Then, the main results of experimental and numerical analyses are presented. The results
permitted the calculation of the coefficients of the design model for the verification of the separating
function of light timber frame wall and floor assemblies.
© 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction exposure (requirement on integrity E and insulation I). The

Light timber frame wall and floor assemblies are typical struc-
tural elements used in timber buildings. The assemblies consist of
solid timber studs or beams with cladding made of gypsum plas-
terboards, wood-based panels or combinations of these layers. The
cavities may be filled with insulation made of rock, glass or wood
fibre or include voids. Unlike heavy timber structures in which
the char layer of fire-exposed members performs as an effective
protection of the remaining unburned residual cross-section, the
fire performance of load-bearing and non-load-bearing light tim-
ber frame assemblies mainly depends on the protection provided
by the cladding [1–3].
In order to limit fire spread by guaranteeing adequate fire
compartmentation, elements forming the boundaries of fire
compartments are designed and constructed in such a way that
they maintain their separating function during the required fire
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: frangi@ibk.baug.ethz.ch (A. Frangi).
0141-0296/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.12.044
required period of time is normally expressed in terms of fire
resistance using the standard fire exposure [4] and is specified by
the building regulations. While fire tests are still widely used for
the verification of the separating function of light timber frame
assemblies, design models are becoming increasingly common. For
ISO fire exposure criterion I (insulation) may be assumed to be
satisfied if the average temperature rise over the whole of the non-
exposed surface is limited to 140 K, and the maximum temperature
rise at any point of that surface does not exceed 180 K, thus
preventing ignition of objects in the neighbouring compartment.
The criterion E (integrity) may be assumed to be satisfied if no
flames or hot gases on the fire-unexposed side of the construction
can be observed. Criterion I (insulation) is clearly defined and
thus the verification can be made by heat transfer calculations
instead of testing. On the other hand, criterion E (integrity) is
mostly determined by observations, because calculations are still
very complex (crack-formation, dynamics of hot gases, etc.). For
example, premature integrity failure may occur due to sudden
failure of claddings or opening of gaps, which often is dependent
on the construction details such as fixings. However, extensive
experience of full-scale testing of wall and floor assemblies
 A. Frangi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1184–1195 1185

permitted to define some rules about detailing of wall and floor Table 1
assemblies that have been included for example in EN 1995-1-2 [5]. Thickness and mean density of the gypsum boards tested under ISO fire exposure.

Thus, the criterion E (integrity) may be assumed to be satisfied if Manufacturer Type Thickness Density
the criterion I (insulation) has been satisfied and panels remain tested (mm) (kg/m3 )
fixed to the timber structure on the unexposed side. Manufacturer 1 Gypsum fibreboard (GF) 10, 12.5, 15, 18 1186
In timber buildings, walls and floors are mostly built up by Gypsum plasterboard 15 908
adding different layers to form an assembly. For the verification of (GP) of type A
the separating function of timber assemblies, component additive Manufacturer 2 Gypsum plasterboard 15 853
methods are common. These models are called component (GP) of type F
Gypsum fibreboard (GF) 12.5 1504
additive models, since the fire resistance of a layered construction
Gypsum plasterboard 10, 12.5, 15, 25 810
is obtained by adding the contribution to the fire resistance of
(GP) of type A
the different layers. In [6] calculation models for the verification Manufacturer 3 Gypsum plasterboard 15 889
of the separating function of light timber frame wall and floor (GP) of type F
assemblies used in the UK [7], Canada [8] and Sweden [9] as Gypsum fibreboard (GF) 12.5 1313
well as according to ENV 1995-1-2 [10] have been presented and
reviewed. The current design method according to EN 1995-1-2 • Gypsum plasterboards:
(Annex E) is based on the Swedish component additive method. As Type A, H and F according to EN 520 [14].
an enhancement of the method of ENV 1995-1-2 and the Canadian Type X according to ASTM C1396 [15] or CAN/CSA-82.27-
method, the Swedish component additive method takes into M91 [16].
account the influence of adjacent materials on the fire performance • Gypsum fibreboards according to EN 15283-2 [17].
of each layer and therefore describes the real fire performance • Rock fibre insulation (density ≥ 26 kg/m3 ).
more appropriately. However, the design method is based on input • Glass fibre insulation (density ≥ 15 kg/m3 ).
data that was deduced from a limited number of fire tests on wall The developed design method is based on the additive compo-
assemblies and therefore only covers a limited range of timber nent method given in EN 1995-1-2. Thus, the fire resistance tins of
structures. the timber assembly is taken as the sum of the contributions from
A comprehensive research project on the separating function the different layers (claddings, void or insulated cavities) according
of light timber frame wall and floor assemblies with cladding to their function and interaction as follows (Fig. 1):
made of gypsum plasterboards and wood-based panels has
i=n−1
been carried out at ETH Zurich in collaboration with the Swiss X
tins = tprot,i + tins,n (1)
Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research (Empa). The
i=1
objective of the research project was the development of an
improved design model for the verification of the separating with
Pi=n−1
function (insulation and integrity criteria) of light timber frame i =1 tprot,i Sum of the protection values tprot,i of the layers (in
wall and floor assemblies. A large number of small-scale fire tests direction of the heat flux) preceding the last layer of
permitted the analysis of different parameters (material, thickness, the assembly on the fire-unexposed side (min).
position and number of the layers) on the thermal behaviour of tins,n Insulation value tins,n of the last layer of the assembly
protective cladding made of gypsum plasterboards and wood- on the fire-unexposed side (min).
based panels [11,12]. The results of the fire tests allowed the Protection and insulation values of the layers can be calculated
verification and calibration of thermal properties used for thermal according to the following general equations taking into account
finite element (FE) analysis. Based on an extensive FE parametric the basic values of the layers, the coefficients for the position
study, the coefficients of the design model for the verification of the of the layers in the assembly and the coefficients for the joint
separating function of light timber frame wall and floor assemblies configurations:
were calculated [13]. The design model was verified by means of tprot,i = (tprot,0,i · kpos,exp,i · kpos,unexp,i + 1ti ) · kj,i (2)
full-scale fire tests.
The paper first describes the basic structure of the design model tins,n = (tins,0,n · kpos,exp,n + 1tn ) · kj,n (3)
for the verification of the separating function of light timber frame with
wall and floor assemblies. Then, the main results of experimental tprot,0,i Basic protection value (min) of layer i (Fig. 1
and numerical analyses are presented. Their results permitted
and Table 3).
the calculation of the coefficients of the design model for the
tins,0,n Basic insulation value (min) of the last layer
verification of the separating function of light timber frame wall
n of the assembly on the fire-unexposed
and floor assemblies.
side (Fig. 1 and Table 3).
2. Design method for separating function of timber construc-
1ti , 1tn Correction time (min) for layers protected
by gypsum plasterboards of type F or type X
tions
as well as gypsum fibreboards (Table 5).
A comprehensive design method for the verification of the kpos,exp,i , kpos,exp,n Position coefficient that takes into account
separating function of timber constructions has been developed the influence of layers preceding the layer
based on an extensive experimental as well as finite element considered (Table 4).
thermal analysis [13]. The design method is capable of considering kpos,unexp,i Position coefficient that takes into account
timber assemblies with an unlimited number of layers made of the influence of layers backing the layer
gypsum plasterboards, wood panels or combinations thereof. The considered (Table 6).
cavity may be void or filled with insulation made of rock or glass kj,i , kj,n Joint coefficient (Table 7).
fibre. The design method is valid for following materials:
• Solid timber panels (density ≥ 400 kg/m3 ). 3. Fire tests
• Oriented Strand Board (OSB) (density ≥ 550 kg/m3 ).
• Particleboards (density ≥ 500 kg/m3 ). A series of 17 small-scale fire tests (in the following mentioned
• Plywood (density ≥ 400 kg/m3 ). as V1 to V17) was performed with non-loaded specimens consist-
1186 A. Frangi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1184–1195

Fig. 1. Timber frame wall and floor assemblies: Numbering and function of different layers.

Table 2
Measured fire resistance of the small-scale tests V4 and V9 with regard to the insulation criterion (temperature rise criteria: 140 ◦ C/180 ◦ C at fire-unexposed side of
assembly).
Fire test Test specimen Insulation time (min) Figure

V9 10 + 10 + 10 mm gypsum fibreboards 57

V4 15 + 15 mm gypsum fibreboards with cavity filled with 80 mm thick wood fibre batts (ρ = 178 kg/m3 ) 72

V4 15 + 15 mm gypsum fibreboards with void cavity 80

V4 15 + 15 mm gypsum fibreboards 83

V9 15 + 15 mm gypsum fibreboards with cavity filled with 80 mm thick glass fibre batts (ρ = 27 kg/m3 ) 85

V9 15 + 15 mm gypsum fibreboards with cavity filled with 40 mm thick rock fibre batts (ρ = 31 kg/m3 ) >85 (test stopped)

V9 15 + 15 mm gypsum fibreboards with cavity filled with 40 mm thick rock fibre batts (ρ = 110 kg/m3 ) >85 (test stopped)

V4 15 + 15 mm gypsum fibreboards with cavity filled with 80 mm thick rock fibre batts (ρ = 42 kg/m3 ) >105 (test stopped)

ing of layers made of gypsum or timber subjected to ISO fire ex-

posure. The fire tests were carried out in Empa’s horizontal small
furnace with the inner dimensions of 1.0 × 0.8 m. Different gyp-
sum boards as well as timber boards (solid timber panels, cross-
laminated timber panels, OSB and particleboards) were studied. In
addition to the different types of boards tested, the number, thick-
ness and position of the boards as well as the cavity insulation
(rock, glass and wood fibre) have been varied. During the tests the
temperature at selected locations was measured using thermocou-
ples of type K. The objective of the fire tests was to provide fun-
damental experimental data on the thermal behaviour of cladding
with regard to basic values (tprot,0 and tins,0 ) as well as the influence
of layers backing or preceding the cladding under consideration.
Thus, small-scale fire tests with non-loaded specimens were per-
formed, some of them only with one single layer. The mechanical
behaviour of the cladding (e.g. falling-off of the cladding) was not
subject of the fire tests.
Gypsum plasterboards of type A and F according to EN 520
as well as gypsum fibreboards according to EN 15283-2 from
three different European manufacturers were studied (Table 1). Fig. 2. Temperature development on the fire-unexposed side of different types of
15 mm thick gypsum boards tested as a single board.
Gypsum plasterboards of type A are regular common boards and
contain a porous gypsum core with no reinforcement except the
paper-laminated surface. Gypsum plasterboards of type F show Gypsum fibreboards usually have a higher density in comparison
improved core cohesion at high temperatures by adding other to gypsum plasterboards of type A and F (Table 1) and may even
materials to the core such as glass fibres and fillers. Gypsum exhibit a better fire performance than gypsum plasterboards of
plasterboards of type X commonly used in North America also type F [18].
have improved core cohesion at high temperatures and may be Fig. 2 shows the temperature development on the fire-
considered similar to gypsum plasterboards of type F. Gypsum unexposed side for different types of gypsum boards (gypsum plas-
fibreboards have a gypsum core reinforced with cellulose fibres. terboards of type A and F as well as gypsum fibreboards) of the
 A. Frangi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1184–1195
Fig. 3. Left: Temperature development for the small-scale fire tests V4 and V2; Right: Position of the thermocouples (RF = rock fibre, WF = wood fibre).
same thickness (15 mm). Even though gypsum boards of different
type and manufacturer (with different density, fibres and fillers)
were tested, the duration of the plateau at about 100 ◦ C was more
or less the same and the overall temperature development mea-
sured up to about 200 ◦ C was quite similar (the differences in
time for the same temperature measured were less than 5 min).
Thus, it can be assumed that the water content and therefore of
gypsum for the different boards was about the same. Further, the
addition of fibres and fillers to the gypsum core did not signifi-
cantly change the thermal behaviour of the boards. However, the
reinforcement of the gypsum core with fibres and fillers generally
improves the stability and the mechanical properties (shrinkage,
cracking, ablation, falling-off) of the boards after complete dehy-
dration. Noticeable is that the density of the gypsum fibreboards
was much higher than for the gypsum plasterboards (Table 1), but
no significant difference was observed with regard to the thermal
behaviour. Thus, the density does not seem to be a relevant pa-
rameter to describe the thermal behaviour of gypsum boards. The
main parameter is the water content and therefore the thickness
of the board (Fig. 2). Cone calorimeter tests conducted with reg-
ular gypsum plasterboards as well as gypsum plasterboards with
improved core cohesion from different countries (Sweden, Canada,
USA, New Zealand and Japan) and tested as fire protective cladding
for a wooden member showed similar results [19]. The density of
the boards tested varied between 651 and 864 kg/m3 .
Since all results shown in Fig. 2 were obtained by testing single
gypsum boards directly exposed to fire, the thermal behaviour of
the gypsum boards was studied without the influence of additional
layers. However, gypsum boards used as cladding for light timber
frame assemblies are usually backed by other boards (gypsum,
timber), insulation batts (rock, glass or wood fibre) or void cavities.
Therefore, the effect of the backing material, or void, was studied
in a separate series of tests. Fig. 3 left shows the temperatures
measured for the small-scale fire test V4 with 15 mm thick
gypsum fibreboards (Fig. 3 right), which permitted the analysis
of the influence of the void cavity or cavities filled with different
insulation (RF = rock fibre, WF = wood fibre) as well as the
influence of multiple layers. Further, Fig. 3 left also shows the
temperature development of 15 mm thick gypsum fibreboards
tested as single board (fire test V2, Fig. 3 right). It can be seen
that the temperatures measured behind the fire-exposed gypsum
fibreboards for the assemblies with the cavities filled with rock
fibre or wood fibre (see thermocouples T25 and T35) were similar
and increased faster than for gypsum fibreboards tested as a single
board (see T10). Additional fire tests with gypsum boards backed
with glass fibre showed the same thermal behaviour as for gypsum
1187
Position of thermocouples of fire test V4
T1 RF
T5 Fire exposed side T25
T11
WF
T15 Fire exposed side T35
Position of thermocouples of fire test V2
T10 T20
Fire exposed side
boards backed with rock fibre or wood fibre. Thus, insulating
batts caused the fire-exposed gypsum boards to heat up more
rapidly. The temperature development measured behind the fire-
exposed gypsum fibreboard for the assembly with void cavity
(see T15) followed up to 250 ◦ C roughly the same development
as for gypsum boards backed with rock fibre or wood fibre (see
T25 and T35). Subsequently, the temperature increase was slower.
For the assembly with a double layer of 15 mm thick gypsum
fibreboards, the temperature development measured behind the
first gypsum fibreboard (see T5) followed up to 250 ◦ C roughly
the same development as for gypsum fibreboards tested as single
board (see T10). But then the temperature increase was slower.
A possible reason may be the effect of some moisture migration
from the second gypsum board towards the first gypsum board.
Noticeable is that the temperature measured behind the fire-
unexposed gypsum fibreboard for the assemblies with a void cavity
and double layer (see T1 and T11) were quite similar. Thus, the void
cavity did not significantly influence the temperature development
on the fire-unexposed side of the assembly.
Temperature measurements between gypsum board and tim-
ber frame (see for example thermocouple T20 in Fig. 3) as well
as additional results of fire tests with gypsum boards backed by
timber boards (OSB, particleboards) showed that the timber had
a small influence on the thermal behaviour of the gypsum boards
in comparison to gypsum boards tested as a single board (see also
thermocouples T10 and T20 in Fig. 3). Fig. 4 summarizes the mea-
sured time taken to reach the temperature rise of 250 ◦ C (average)
and 270 ◦ C (at any point) on the fire-unexposed side of 15 mm thick
gypsum fibreboards tested as a single board or backed with differ-
ent materials.
Table 2 summarizes the measured fire resistance of the small-
scale fire tests V4 and V9 with regard to the insulation criterion.
According to most standards, for example EN 13501-2 [20], the
insulation failure is the time taken for the average temperature on
the fire-unexposed side of the whole construction to increase by
140 ◦ C and at any point by 180 ◦ C. It can be seen that assemblies
with cavities filled with rock fibre batts showed the highest fire
resistance although the thermal behaviour of gypsum boards
backed by insulating batts is influenced unfavourable (Figs. 3 and
4). The shortest fire resistance was measured for the assembly
consisting of 3 layers of gypsum fibreboards, although the total
thickness of the gypsum fibreboards was the same as for the other
assemblies given in Table 2. The main reason is that the 10 mm
thick gypsum fibreboards fell off sooner than the 15 mm thick
gypsum fibreboards. Noticeable is that the insulation time of the
assembly with the cavity filled with 80 mm thick wood fibre batt
1188 A. Frangi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1184–1195

Fig. 4. Time taken to reach the temperature rise of 250 ◦ C (average) and 270 ◦ C (at any point) on the fire-unexposed side of 15 mm thick gypsum fibreboards tested as a
single board or backed with different materials.

was lower than for the assembly with a void cavity. The reason was Table 3
that first the wood fibre batt caused the fire-exposed gypsum board Basic insulation values tins,0,n as well as basic protection values tprot,0,i for different
materials. For rock and glass fibre insulation only the basic protection value tprot,0,i
to heat more rapidly, and secondly the wood fibre batt started to is given as wall and floor assemblies with the insulation as last layer of the assembly
shrink strongly when directly exposed to fire and fell off. Unlike are rarely used in buildings.
the wood fibre batt, the rock fibre batt remained in place during Material Basic insulation Basic protection value
the whole time of fire exposure. value tins,0,n (min) tprot,0,i (min)
 1.4  1.2
hi hi
Gypsum 24 · 30 ·
4. FE thermal analysis 15 15
plasterboard,
gypsum fibreboard
For the calculation of the coefficients of the design method 
hi
1.4 
hi
1.1
Solid timber panel 19 · 30 ·
(basic values tprot,0 and tins,0 , correction time 1t as well as position 20 20
1.4 1.1
coefficients kpos,exp and kpos,unexp ) an extensive finite element
 
hi hi
Particleboard 22 · 20
33 · 20
thermal analysis was conducted using ANSYS. The heat transfer
 1.4  1.1
to the surface of the member was calculated using temperature- OSB, plywood 16 ·
hi
23 ·
hi
20 20
independent constant values according to EN 1991-1-2 [21] for the
(0.75·log(ρi )−ρi /400)
resultant emissivity by radiation εres = 0.8 and the coefficient of Rock fibre – 0.3 · hi
heat transfer by convection αc ,exp = 25 W/m2 K and αc ,unexp = Glass fibre – for hi < 40 mm: 0
for hi ≥ 40 mm: (0.0007 · ρi
4 W/m2 K. Density, thermal conductivity and specific heat capacity
+ 0.046) · hi + 13 ≤ 30
of gypsum, timber and insulation vary as a function of temperature.
With hi : Thickness of the layer considered (mm), ρi : Density of the layer considered
Unfortunately, the thermal properties of these materials at high
(kg/m3 ).
temperatures are difficult to measure. Transient effects and the
method of measurement can have a significant effect on the test
After calibration with the fire tests on single boards, the material
results [22,23]. Further, the thermal properties are influenced by
properties were verified with additional 15 small-scale and large-
mass transfer of moisture into or out of the gypsum and timber
scale fire tests [27–29]. For example, Fig. 7 right shows the compar-
board as well as cracking and ablation. In order to consider these
ison between FE thermal analysis and fire tests on gypsum boards
effects the thermal properties are usually calibrated with results of
backed by timber boards or particleboards. It can be seen that the
fire tests. Thus, thermal properties of gypsum and timber used in
FE thermal analysis also predicted the temperature development
FE thermal analyses are often ‘‘apparent or effective’’ values rather
of gypsum boards satisfactorily. Additional detailed comparisons
than ‘‘real’’ physically-correct material properties and explain the
between FE thermal analysis and fire tests can be found in [13].
large scatter of values used by different authors [23].
Density, thermal conductivity and specific heat of gypsum, tim-
ber and insulation were assumed based on measurements found 5. Coefficients of the design method
in the literature [24–26] and calibrated to results of fire tests with
single gypsum or timber boards as well as insulation batts. Figs. 5 5.1. Basic values
and 6 show the temperature-dependent thermal conductivity and
specific heat of gypsum and timber used for the FE thermal analy- The basic insulation value tins,0 corresponds to the fire resis-
sis. In the figures values measured and assumed by other authors tance of a single layer without the influence of adjacent materials
are also given. The value of the thermal conductivity of gypsum and joints, i.e. the average temperature rise over the whole of the
assumed between 20 and 70 ◦ C, which is higher in comparison to non-exposed surface is limited to 140 K, and the maximum tem-
values assumed by other authors, takes into account the increased perature rise at any point of that surface does not exceed 180 K. The
heat transfer due to mass transfer of moisture. Shrinkage, cracks basic insulation value can be assessed by tests or FE thermal analy-
and ablation of gypsum boards as well as cracks in charred layer sis. For FE thermal analysis only the temperature criterion 140 ◦ C is
of timber panels increase the heat flux due to radiation and con- used. Further, the temperature of the layer at the beginning of the
vection. For simplicity, these effects were modelled by increasing analysis on the fire-exposed side as well as on the fire-unexposed
the thermal conductivity starting from 600 ◦ C. This approach has side is assumed as 20 ◦ C. The definition of the basic insulation value
already been used by other authors [2,22]. tins,0 is illustrated in Fig. 8.
The results of small-scale fire tests on single gypsum and timber Wall and floor assemblies with only one single layer are rarely
boards were used to calibrate the material properties assumed for used in buildings. Most wall and floor assemblies consist of
the FE thermal analysis (FEA). In this way, the thermal behaviour of assemblies having two or more layers (Fig. 1). The contribution to
the boards was not influenced by other layers. For example Fig. 7 the separating function of the construction of each layer (except
left compares the results of the FE thermal analysis with the results the last layer of the assembly on the fire-unexposed side) is
of the small-scale fire tests on single gypsum boards. The FE ther- mainly the protection of the following layers (Fig. 1). Therefore
mal analysis predicted the temperature development of the gyp- it seems more appropriate to introduce a basic protection value
sum boards with a thickness of 10, 12.5 and 15 mm satisfactorily. tprot,0 defined as the time until failure of the protective function.
For the gypsum board with a thickness of 18 mm the increase of the In analogy to the calculation for fire protective claddings of
temperature after complete dehydration based on the FE thermal load-bearing timber constructions according to EN 13501-2 the
analysis occurred about 5 min earlier than in comparison to the definition of the basic protection value tprot,0 is illustrated in Fig. 9.
fire test, i.e. the result of the FE thermal analysis was conservative. The testing method for fire protective claddings according to EN
 A. Frangi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1184–1195 1189

Fig. 5. Temperature-dependent thermal conductivity (left) and specific heat (right) of gypsum used for the FE thermal analysis in this study as well as in previous studies.
The points given in the figure indicate measured values of the thermal conductivity and the specific heat.

Fig. 6. Temperature-dependent thermal conductivity (left) and specific heat (right) of timber used for the FE thermal analysis in this study as well as in previous studies.
The points given in the figure indicate measured values of the thermal conductivity and the specific heat.

13501-2 is performed with a particleboard with a thickness of
19 mm backing the layer studied. The contribution of the cladding
to the fire protection of the particleboard may be assumed to be
satisfied if the average temperature rise over the whole exposed
surface of the particleboard is limited to 250 K, and the maximum
temperature rise at any point of that surface does not exceed 270 K.
For FE thermal analysis only the temperature criterion 250 ◦ C is
used. Further, the temperature of the layer at the beginning of the
analysis on the fire-exposed side as well as on the fire-unexposed
side is assumed as 20 ◦ C (Fig. 9).
Table 3 gives the equations for the calculation of the basic
insulation value tins,0 as well as the basic protection value tprot,0
for different materials, that were systematically calculated using
numerical finite elements simulations and verified with fire
tests [12,13]. For example Fig. 10 left shows the comparison of
the basic protection value tprot,0 for gypsum boards calculated
according to the equation given in Table 3 as well as according to
EN 1995-1-2 with all results of the small-scale fire tests performed
with gypsum boards backed by timber board or timber frame. It
can be seen that the difference between the new equation and
EN 1995-1-2 is quite small and both agree well with the test
results. Unlike EN 1995-1-2 the new equation assumes a non-
linear relationship between thickness of the board and the basic
protection value.
Fig. 10 right shows the comparison of the basic insulation
value tins,0 for gypsum boards measured in the small-scale fire
tests and calculated according to the equation given in Table 3 as
well as according to EN 1995-1-2 for all fire tests with gypsum
boards tested as a single board. It can be seen that the basic
insulation values calculated according to EN 1995-1-2 are in a
good agreement only with the results of fire tests with 10 mm
thick gypsum boards. By increasing the thickness of the board the
basic insulation values are underestimated, i.e. EN 1995-1-2 leads
to conservative results. Vice versa, the results based on the FE
parametric study (new equation in Table 3) agree better with the
test results. Unlike EN 1995-1-2 the new equation assumes a non-
linear relationship between thickness of the board and the basic
insulation value.
5.2. Position coefficients
The position coefficient considers the position of the layer
within the assembly (in direction of the heat flux), because the
layers preceding and backing the layer considered have an influ-
ence on its fire behaviour. The physical meaning of the position
coefficient can be explained looking at the fire behaviour of a tim-
ber assembly with 3 layers as shown in Fig. 11. For simplicity, it
is assumed that each layer is of the same material, has the same
1190 A. Frangi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1184–1195

Fig. 7. Comparison between measured and calculated temperatures for different fire tests [13].

Fig. 8. Definition of the basic insulation value tins,0 using FE thermal analysis.

Fig. 9. Definition of the basic protection value tprot,0 using FE thermal analysis.

Fig. 10. Left: Comparison of the basic protection value tprot,0 for gypsum boards calculated according to the equation given in Table 3 as well as according to EN 1995-1-2
with all results of the small-scale fire tests performed with gypsum boards backed by timber board or timber frame. Right: Comparison of the basic insulation value tins,0 for
gypsum boards measured in the small-scale fire tests and calculated according to the equation given in Table 3 as well as according to EN 1995-1-2 for all gypsum boards
tested as single board.
 A. Frangi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1184–1195
(a) Start of fire: t = 0. (b) Second layer exposed to fire: t = t prot,1.
Fig. 11. Temperature distribution at different times of timber assembly with 3 layers.
thickness and density, and the influence of joints is neglected.
In this case the basic protection value for each layer is the same
(tprot,0,1 = tprot,0,2 = tprot,0,3 ). The first layer is directly exposed to
fire and backed by the second layer. The temperature of all layers
at the beginning of the fire on the fire-exposed side as well as on
the fire-unexposed side is 20 ◦ C (Fig. 11(a)). The contribution of the
first layer to the total fire resistance is defined as tprot,1 . The posi-
tion coefficient kpos,1 of the first layer can be described as the ratio
tprot,1 to tprot,0,1 and depends on the layer backing the first layer.
The second layer is protected by the first layer. It is conserva-
tively assumed that, after failure of the protection by the first layer
(temperature of 270 ◦ C at the interface between first and second
layer) at time t = tprot,1 , the second layer is directly exposed to fire.
The main difference in comparison to the initially unprotected first
layer is that the temperature in the fire compartment is already at
a high level while no protective char layer exists to reduce the ef-
fect of the temperature [30]. Further, the temperature of the second
layer on the fire-exposed side is 270 ◦ C (as previously defined) and
the temperature on the fire-unexposed side is equal or greater than
20 ◦ C depending on the thickness of the second layer and the mate-
rial preceding and backing the layer (Fig. 11(b)). For these reasons
the contribution of the second layer to the total fire resistance is
lower than the contribution of the first layer, i.e. tprot,2 < tprot,1 . The
position coefficient kpos,2 of the second layer can be described as
the ratio tprot,2 to tprot,0,2 and is <1.0. For the same physical reasons
EN 1995-1-2 assumes that after failure of a cladding, charring takes
place at an increased rate of initially unprotected surfaces [31].
The third layer is protected by the second layer. After failure
of the protection by the second layer (temperature of 270 ◦ C
at the interface between second and third layer) at time t =
tprot,1 + tprot,2 , the third layer is directly exposed to fire. The
third layer is the last layer in the assembly and takes care of the
insulation function (Fig. 1). Therefore for this layer the temperature
criterion 140 ◦ C is applied and an insulation value (tins,3 ) has to
be calculated. Because of the further increased temperature in the
fire compartment and the missing protective char layer as well
as the temperature rise criterion of 140 ◦ C instead of 250 ◦ C, the
contribution of the third layer to the total fire resistance is lower
than the contribution of the first and second layer, i.e. tins,3 <
tprot,2 < tprot,1 . The position coefficient kpos,3 of the third layer
can be described as the ratio tins,3 to tins,0,3 and is <1.0. The fire
resistance of the timber assembly can be calculated as the sum
of the contributions from the different layers, i.e. tins = tprot,1 +
tprot,2 + tins,3 .
The influence of the layers preceding and backing the layer con-
sidered was analysed separately. The position coefficient kpos,exp
considers the influence of the layers preceding the layer studied,
while the influence of the layer backing the layer studied is con-
sidered by kpos,unexp . The position coefficients were systematically
calculated using numerical finite elements simulations. The results
of the numerical FE simulations showed that the position coeffi-
cient kpos,exp is mainly influenced by the furnace temperature at
1191
(c) Third layer exposed to fire: t = t prot,1 + tprot,2.
Fig. 12. Position coefficient kpos,exp of gypsum boards with different thicknesses as
a function Pof the sum of the protection values of the layers preceding the gypsum
board (i.e. tprot,i−1 ).
the time when the layer considered is exposed directly to fire as
well as the material and thickness of the layer considered, while
the influence of preheating is small. As the design model for the
verification of the separating function of timber assemblies is de-
veloped for ISO fire exposure the furnace temperature is a func-
tion
P of the sum of the protection values of the preceding layers (i.e.
tprot,i−1 ). The thickness of the layer considered is expressed by
its basic protection value tprot,0,i or basic insulation value tins,0,n .
For example, Fig. 12 shows the position coefficient kpos,exp of gyp-
sum boards with different thickness as a function of the sum of the
protection
P values of the layers preceding the gypsum board (i.e.
tprot,i−1 ). It can be seen
P that the position coefficient kpos,exp de-
creases with increasing tprot,i−1 , because the longer the gypsum
board is protected by the preceding layers, the higher the furnace
temperature will be when exposed directly to the fire. Further, the
position coefficient kpos,exp decreases with decreasing thickness of
the gypsum board. For timber boards and insulation batts similar
effects were observed. Thus, it was possible to determine the po-
sition coefficient kpos,exp as a function of the sum ofP the protection
values of the layers preceding the layer considered ( tprot,i−1 ) and
the basic values of the layer considered (tprot,0,i and tins,0,n ), mak-
ing the calculation of the position coefficient kpos,exp easy for the
designer (Table 4).
The position coefficients kpos,exp given in Table 4 were
calculated assuming that the layers fall off when the temperature
of 270 ◦ C is reached on the fire-unexposed side of the layers.
Fire tests showed that this assumption is conservative for gypsum
plasterboards of type F or type X (commonly used in North
America) and gypsum fibreboards [13]. Therefore the protection
1192 A. Frangi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1184–1195

Table 4
Position coefficients kpos,exp,i and kpos,exp,n . For rock and glass fibre insulation only the position coefficient kpos,exp,i for the protection value tprot,i is given as wall and floor
assemblies with the insulation as last layer of the assembly are rarely used in buildings.
Material Position coefficients kpos,exp,i and kpos,exp,n

kpos,exp,n for tins,n

P
tprot,i−1 tins,0,n
1 − 0.6 ·
P
tins,0,n
for tprot,i−1 ≤ 2
Cladding (gypsum, timber) q
t tins,0,n
0.5 · P ins,0,n tprot,i−1 >
P
tprot,i−1
for 2

kpos,exp,i for tprot,i

P
tprot,i−1 tprot,0,i
1 − 0.6 ·
P
tprot,0,i
for tprot,i−1 ≤ 2

q
tprot,0,i tprot,0,i
0.5 · tprot,i−1 >
P
P
tprot,i−1
for 2

kpos,exp,i for tprot,i

Rock fibre
P
tprot,i−1 tprot,0,i
1 − 0.6 ·
P
tprot,0,i
for tprot,i−1 ≤ 2

q
tprot,0,i tprot,0,i
0.5 · tprot,i−1 >
P
P
tprot,i−1
for 2

kpos,exp,i for tprot,i

Glass fibre for hi ≥ 40 mm
P
tprot,i−1 tprot,0,i
1 − 0.8 ·
P
tprot,0,i
for tprot,i−1 ≤ 4

h i(0.75−0.002·ρi )
t tprot,0,i
(0.001 · ρi + 0.27) · P prot,0,i tprot,i−1 >
P
tprot,i−1
for 4

With ρi : Density of the layer considered (kg/m ). 3

Table 5
Correction times 1ti and 1tn of protection and insulation values tprot,i and tins,n of layers protected by gypsum plasterboards of type F or type X as well as gypsum fibreboards.

Material Floor assemblies Wall assemblies

1tn for tins,n (min)

Cladding (gypsum, timber)
0.06 · tprot,i−1 + 1.1 · tins,0,n − 5 for tins,0,n < 8 min
0.1 · tprot,i−1 − 0.035 · tins,0,n + 1.2 for tins,0,n ≥ 8 min
1ti for tprot,i (min)
0.06 · tprot,i−1 + 1.1 · tprot,0,i − 5 for tprot,0,i < 8 min
0.1 · tprot,i−1 − 0.035 · tprot,0,i + 1.2 for tprot,0,i ≥ 8 min
0.03 · tprot,i−1 + 0.9 · tins,0,n − 2.3 for tins,0,n < 12 min
0.22 · tprot,i−1 − 0.1 · tins,0,n + 4.7 for tins,0,n ≥ 12 min
0.03 · tprot,i−1 + 0.9 · tprot,0,i − 2.3 for tprot,0,i < 12 min
0.22 · tprot,i−1 − 0.1 · tprot,0,i + 4.7 for tprot,0,i ≥ 12 min

1ti for tprot,i (min)

Insulation (rock and glass fibre) 0.1 · tprot,i−1 + tprot,0,i − 1.0 for tprot,0,i < 6 min
0.1 · tprot,i−1 − 0.035 · tprot,0,i
0.22 · tprot,i−1 − 0.1 · tprot,0,i + 3.5 for tprot,0,i ≥ 6 min

or insulation values of layers protected by gypsum plasterboards
of type F or type X as well as gypsum fibreboards can be increased
using a correction time 1t (Eqs. (2) and (3)). Table 5 gives
the correction times 1t that were systemically calculated using
numerical finite element simulations. For the calculation of 1t it
was assumed that for floor assemblies the gypsum plasterboards
type F or type X and the gypsum fibreboards fall off when the
temperature of 400 ◦ C is reached on the fire-unexposed side of
the board, while for wall assemblies the falling-off of the boards
was assumed by a temperature of 600 ◦ C. The temperature criteria
were based on the evaluation of a large number of full-scale fire
tests found in the literature [29,32–37].
The influence of the layer backing the layer studied is
considered by the position coefficient kpos,unexp . Results of fire
tests supported by finite element thermal simulations showed
that the influence of the layer backing the layer considered is
small if the backing layer is made of gypsum or timber, while
insulating batts backing the layer considered caused the layer to
heat up more rapidly, reducing the protection time of the layer.
Further, it was observed that the thickness hi+1 of the layer backing
the layer considered does not influence the position coefficient
kpos,unexp,i for hi+1 ≥ 30 mm. For example Fig. 13 shows the
calculated position coefficient kpos,unexp,i for a 10 mm thick solid
timber panel backed by layers made of different material and
thickness. There is a strong influence of insulating batts on the
fire behaviour of the solid timber panel (kpos,unexp,i < 0.6), while
the influence of backing layers made of timber or gypsum is
small (for gypsum board kpos,unexp is about 1.1, i.e. the gypsum
board has even a positive effect on the fire behaviour of the
solid timber panel). Table 6 gives the equations for the position
coefficient kpos,unexp for different materials backed by insulating
batts, that were systematically calculated using numerical finite
elements simulations. For backing layers made of timber or
gypsum kpos,unexp,i = 1.0 is assumed as a simplification.
5.3. Void cavities
The influence of void cavities between two layers is considered
in the design method by modifying the position coefficient kpos,exp
for the layer on the fire-unexposed side of the cavity and the
position coefficient kpos,unexp for the layer on the fire-exposed
side of the cavity. The results of the fire tests supported by
finite element thermal simulations showed that the temperature
development measured behind claddings made of gypsum or
timber backed with the void cavity followed up roughly the same
development as for claddings backed with insulation (see for
example T15, T25 and T35 in Fig. 3). Thus, for simplicity, for
claddings made of gypsum or timber on the fire-exposed side of
the cavity the same position coefficients kpos,unexp as for insulation
as baking layer are used (Table 7), while the influence of the void
cavity on insulations on the fire-exposed side of the cavity can be
neglected (i.e. kpos,unexp = 1.0, Table 7).
Results of finite element thermal simulations showed that the
positive influence of the void cavity on the thermal behaviour of
claddings or insulations on the fire-unexposed side of the cavity
 A. Frangi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1184–1195 1193

Fig. 13. Position coefficient kpos,unexp for a 10 mm thick solid timber panel (STP) backed by layers made of different materials and thicknesses (STP: Solid timber panel, PB:
Particleboard; GP: Gypsum plasterboard; RF30: Rock fibre insulation with a density of 30 kg/m3 ; RF120: Rock fibre insulation with a density of 120 kg/m3 ).

Table 6 Table 7
Position coefficient kpos,unexp,i . Modification of position coefficients kpos,exp and kpos,unexp in the case of void cavities.

Material of the layer kpos,unexp,i for kpos,unexp,i for layers backed by Material Layer on the Layer on the fire-unexposed side
considered layers backed by insulation fire-exposed side of of the cavity
cladding made of the cavity
gypsum or timber
Cladding kpos,unexp,i 3 × 1ti according to
Gypsum 1.0 0.5 · h0i .15 according to 1.6 × kpos,exp,i Table 5
plasterboard, gypsum Table 6, column 3 according to
fibreboard Insulation kpos,unexp,i = 1.0 Table 4 1ti according to Table 5
Solid timber panel 1.0 0.35 · h0i .21
Particleboard 1.0 0.41 · h0i .18
OSB, plywood 1.0 0.5 · h0i .15
(0.001·ρi +0.08)
Rock fibre 1.0 0.18 · hi
h2i
Glass fibre 1.0 0.01 · hi − 30 000
+ ρi0.09 − 1.3
With hi : Thickness of the layer considered (mm), ρi : Density of the layer considered
(kg/m3 ).

can be taken into account by increasing the position coefficient

kpos,exp by a factor 1.6. Further, results of finite element thermal
simulations showed that for claddings on the fire-unexposed side
of the cavity with gypsum plasterboards of type F or type X or
gypsum fibreboards on the fire-exposed side of the cavity the
correction times 1ti can be increased by a factor 3 (Table 7).

5.4. Joint coefficient

The joint coefficient considers the influence of joints in panels

(claddings) not backed by battens or structural members or panels
and their influence on the protection and insulation time of these
layers. According to EN 1995-1-2 joints with a gap width greater
than 2 mm are not allowed. Results of the fire tests showed that
the influence of joints with a gap width less than 2 mm backed by a
layer is small [38]. Thus, for simplicity the design method considers
the influence of joints only for the last layer of the assembly on
the fire-unexposed side and for the layer preceding a void cavity
(Table 8). For all other layers it is assumed kj,i = 1.0.
6. Comparison to fire tests
The proposed design method was compared with 33 results
of full-scale fire tests on light frame wall and floor assemblies
found in the literature [27,34,35,39,40], where the fire tests were
conducted until the insulation failure was measured (temperature
rise criteria: 140 K/180 K at unexposed side of assembly).
Fig. 14. Comparison between the fire resistance measured and calculated
according to the proposed design method (n = number of layers of the light frame
assemblies).
Fig. 14 shows the comparison between the fire resistance mea-
sured and calculated according to the proposed design method. It
can be seen that the design method leads mostly to safe results.
The average ratio between tins,model /tins,test is 1.27. Further, it can
be seen that with increasing number of layers the ratio between
tins,model /tins,test increases as well. The analysis of the protocols of
the fire tests showed that the observed differences between calcu-
lation model and fire tests are due to the falling-off of the claddings
and/or insulations that often occurred later in comparison to the
assumptions of the calculation model. However, conservative as-
sumptions with regard to falling-off seem necessary in order to
cover the large variety of detailing of light frame wall and floor
assemblies and the resulting large variability of falling-off times
1194 A. Frangi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1184–1195
Table 8
Joint coefficients kj,i and kj,n .
Material Joint type
Cladding (timber)
Gypsum plasterboard, gypsum
fibreboard
of claddings and insulations. Additional calculations using the ef-
fective measured falling-off times for the single layers confirmed
that the fire resistance calculated according to the proposed design
method agrees well with the results of the fire tests. The average
ratio between tins,model /tins,test is 1.07 in this case.
7. Conclusions
In order to limit fire spread by providing adequate fire
compartmentation, elements forming the boundaries of fire
compartments are designed and constructed in such a way that
they maintain their separating function during the required fire
resistance time (insulation and integrity criteria). While fire tests
are still widely used for the verification of the separating function
of light timber frame assemblies, design models are becoming
increasingly common. The design method presented in this paper
was developed during a comprehensive research project carried
out at ETH Zurich and is based on physical submodels for each layer
and the interaction between the layers forming the assembly. Thus,
the total fire resistance is taken as the sum of the contributions
from the different layers (claddings, void or insulated cavities).
The design method takes into account the influence of adjacent
materials on the fire performance of each layer according to their
function (protection and insulation values tprot,i and tins,n ) and
their interaction (position coefficients kpos,exp and kpos,unexp ). The
coefficients of the design method (basic protection and insulation
values tprot,0,i and tins,0,n , correction time 1t as well as position
coefficients kpos,exp and kpos,unexp ) were calculated by extensive
finite element thermal simulations based on physical models for
the heat transfer through separating multiple layered construction.
The coefficients of the design method were then simplified by
general equations. The material properties used for the finite
element thermal simulations were calibrated and validated by fire
tests performed on unloaded specimens at Empa using ISO fire
exposure. The design method was verified with full-scale fire tests,
showing that the model is able to predict the fire resistance of
timber assembly safely. The proposed design method significantly
extends the application range of the design method according to
EN 1995-1-2 by giving additional data as well as physical models
for the basic protection and insulation values as well as the position
coefficients and permits the verification of the separating function
of a large number of common timber assemblies.
kj,n für tins,n kj,i für tprot,i
Layer backed by a void cavity Layer backed by battens or
panels or structural members
or insulation
0.3 0.3 1.0
0.4 0.4 1.0
0.6 0.6 1.0
0.8 0.8 1.0
References
[1] Takeda H, Mehaffey JR. WALL2D: A model for predicting heat transfer through
wood-stud walls exposed to fire. Fire Mater 1998;22:133–40.
[2] König J, Walleij L. Timber frame assemblies exposed to standard and
parametric fires, Part 2: A design model for standard fire exposure. Trätek.
Report I 0001001. Stockholm; 2000.
[3] Young SA, Clancy P. Structural modelling of light-timber framed walls in fire.
Fire Safety J 2001;36:241–68.
[4] ISO 834-1. Fire-resistance tests—Elements of building construction—Part 1:
General requirements. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization
(ISO); 1999.
[5] EN 1995-1-2. Design of timber structures, Part 1–2: General rules—Structural
fire design. CEN. Brussels; 2004.
[6] König J, Oksanen T, Towler K. A review of component additive methods
used for the determination of fire resistance of separating light timber frame
construction. In: Proc. Meeting 33 of the working commission W18-timber
structures. CIB. Int. Council for Research and Innovation. Paper no. CIB-
W18/33-16-2. 2000.
[7] BS 5268-4. Structural use of timber—Section 4.2. Recommendations for
calculating fire resistance of timber stud walls and joisted floor constructions.
British Standards Institution (BSI); 1990.
[8] National Building Code of Canada NBCC—Volume 2, Canadian Commission
on Building and Fire Codes. Institute for Research in Construction. Ottawa:
National Research Council of Canada (NRC); 2005.
[9] Östman B, König J, Norén J. Contribution to fire resistance of timber frame
assemblies by means of fire protective boards. In: Proceedings of the 3rd
international fire and materials conference. 1994.
[10] ENV 1995-1-2. Design of timber structures, Part 1–2: General rules—Structural
fire design. CEN. Brussels; 1994.
[11] Frangi A, Schleifer V, Fontana M, Hugi E. Experimental and numerical analysis
of gypsum plasterboards in fire. Fire Technol 2010;46:149–67.
[12] Schleifer V, Frangi A, Fontana M. Experimentelle Untersuchungen zum
Brandverhalten von Plattenelementen. IBK report no. 302. ETH Zurich:
Institute of Structural Engineering; 2007.
[13] Schleifer V. Zum Verhalten von raumabschliessenden mehrschichtigen
Holzbauteilen im Brandfall. Ph.D. thesis. ETH no. 18156. ETH Zurich; 2009.
[14] EN 520. Gypsum plasterboards—Definitions, requirements and test methods.
CEN. Brussels; 2004.
[15] ASTM C1396/C1396M-06a. Standard specification for gypsum board. Ameri-
can Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM, West Conshohocken; 2006.
[16] CAN/CSA-82.27-M91. Gypsum board. Etobicoke (Ontario): Canadian Stan-
dards Association; 1991.
[17] EN 15283-2. Gypsum boards with fibrous reinforcement—Definitions, require-
ments and test methods—Part 2: Gypsum fibreboards. CEN. Brussels; 2008.
[18] Kordina K, Meyer-Ottens C. Holz Brandschutz Handbuch, 2. Auflage, Deutsche
Gesellschaft für Holzforschung e.V. München: Ernst & Sohn Verlag; 1995.
[19] Tsantaridis LD, Östman B, König J. Fire protection of wood by different gypsum
plasterboards. Fire Mater 1999;23:45–8.
[20] EN 13501-2. Fire classification of construction products and building
elements—Part 2: Classification using data from fire resistance tests, excluding
ventilation services. CEN. Brussels; 2003.
[21] EN 1991-1-2. Actions on structures—Part 1–2: General actions—Actions on
structures exposed to fire. CEN. Brussels; 2001.
 A. Frangi et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 1184–1195
[22] Thomas G. Thermal properties of gypsum plasterboards at high temperatures.
Fire Mater 2002;26:37–45.
[23] Källsner B, König J. Thermal and mechanical properties of timber and some
other materials used in light timber frame construction. In: Proc. Meeting 33 of
the working commission W18-timber structures. CIB. Int. Council for Research
and Innovation. Paper no. CIB-W18/33-16-3. 2000.
[24] Mehaffey JR, Cuerrier P, Carisse G. A model for predicting heat transfer
through gypsum-boards/woos-stud walls exposed to fire. Fire Mater 1994;18:
297–305.
[25] Bénichou N, Sultan MA, MacCallum C, Hum J. Thermal properties of wood,
gypsum and insulation at elevated temperatures. Internal report no. 710.
Ottawa: Institute for Research in Construction, National Research Council of
Canada; 2001.
[26] Harmathy TZ. Properties of building materials. In: The SFPE handbook
of fire protection engineering. 2nd ed. Boston: Society of Fire Protection
Engineers/National Fire Protection Association; 1988.
[27] König J, Norén J. Timber frame assemblies exposed to standard and parametric
fires—Part 1: Fire tests. Trätek. Rapport I 9702015. Stockholm; 1997.
[28] König J, Walleij L. One-dimensional charring of timber exposed to standard and
parametric fires in initially unprotected and post-protection situation. Trätek.
Rapport I 9908029. Stockholm; 1999.
[29] König J, Rydholm D. Small-scale fire tests of heavy timber components. Trätek.
Rapport P 0310036. Stockholm; 2003.
[30] Frangi A, Erchinger C, Fontana M. Charring model for timber frame floor
assemblies with void cavities. Fire Safety J 2008;43:551–64.
1195
[31] König J. Structural fire design according to Eurocode 5—Design rules and their
background. Fire Mater 2005;29:147–63.
[32] Kodur VKR, Sultan MA, Denham EMA. Temperature measurement in full-scale
wood stud shear walls. Internal report no. 729. Ottawa: Institute for Research
in Construction, National Research Council of Canada; 1996.
[33] Kodur VKR, Sultan MA, Latour JC, Leroux P, Monette RC. Experimental studies
on the fire resistance of load-bearing steel stud walls. Internal report no. 833.
Ottawa: Institute for Research in Construction, National Research Council of
Canada; 2003.
[34] Sultan MA, Séguin YP, Leroux P. Results of fire resistance tests on full-scale
floor assemblies. Internal report no. 764. Ottawa: Institute for Research in
Construction, National Research Council of Canada; 1998.
[35] Sultan MA, Lougheed GD. Results of fire resistance tests on fullscale gypsum
board wall assemblies. Internal report no. 833. Ottawa: Institute for Research
in Construction, National Research Council of Canada; 2002.
[36] Sultan MA. Fire resistance of wood joist floor assemblies. Fire Technol 2008;
44:383–417.
[37] Sultan MA. Fall-off of gypsum plasterboard in fire. In: Proceedings of the fifth
international conference structures in fire. 2008.
[38] Richardson LR, Batista M. Fire resistance of timber decking for heavy timber
construction. Fire Mater 2001;25:21–9.
[39] König J. Fire resistance of timber joists and load bearing wall frames. Trätek.
Rapport I 99412071. Stockholm; 1995.
[40] Collier PCR, Buchanan AH. Fire resistance of lightweight timber framed walls.
Fire Technol 2002;38:125–45.