Fire Safety Journal 141 (2023) 103924

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fire Safety Journal

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/firesaf

The response of diagrid structures to fire

Zhiruoyu Wang a, *, Mhd Anwar Orabi b, Zhuojun Nan b, Weiyong Wang c, Matthew Mason a,
David Lange a, **
a
The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
b
Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China
c
Chongqing University, Chongqing, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The diagrid structural system has seen significant uptake in medium to high rise buildings because of the
Diagrid structural system architectural and resource advantages that it provides. These arise mainly as a result of flexibility in the topology
Steel structures that this particular structural solution provides. However, as a result of the way in which diagrids carry both
Structural fire resistance
horizontal and vertical loading, the diagrid structure itself may be susceptible to fire in ways which are not
Numerical modelling
immediately obvious on the basis of our understanding of more traditional rectilinear construction forms. This
study addresses this to improve our understanding of diagrid structures’ response to fire. A comprehensive
structural analysis on 45 fire load cases is conducted, considering different fire locations and sizes, using
parametric design tools and finite element analysis software. The results provide valuable insights into the load
redistribution and collapse mechanisms of diagrid structures in fire conditions.

1. Introduction Alternatively, numerical layout optimisation techniques can be applied

The diagrid structural system is an innovation that takes advantage
of structural topologies that depart from the rectilinear norm that has
prevailed in tall building design for over 100 years. The diagrid system
comprises of diagonal members arranged to form triangle structures that
can carry both horizontal and lateral loads [1]. This has many advan­
tages over more traditional structural arrangements since lateral loads,
arising from, e.g. wind, can be easily carried by the external structure
which removes the necessity for large shear walls internal to the
building. In addition, the unique geometric configurations made
possible by these systems provide far wider architectural and aesthetic
possibilities and structural capabilities than more traditional outrigger
systems and tubular systems. Due to these possibilities and capabilities,
diagrid systems have enormous potential for optimisation [2].
As a lateral stability system with potential for configurability to
different designs, the optimisation of the diagrid has been studied since
2005 [2]. These optimisation studies are based on Moon’s methodology
which optimises the diagrid structural system through minor changes
within the limitations of certain optimisation approaches and
pre-defined general layouts of the diagrid structural system [3].
in diagrid system optimisation to propose an even more optimal design.
These studies have brought the potential of innovation through iteration
of diagrid systems in both concept design and realized tall building
diagrid structures [4]. However, it is worth noting that this optimisation
research is fundamentally based on the principle of maximising mate­
rials efficiency with regular structural using a digital model [5].
Therefore, a further research question that bears consideration is: with
such novel and materially optimised structures, what is the impact of
this material optimisation on the fire performance; and with this
particular topology which is a significant departure from more tradi­
tional tall building design, what mechanisms for load redistribution or
collapse mechanisms can be expected to occur and does the topology
optimisation represent a significant change to the fire risk in tall
building design?
The outcome of this study represents a significant contribution to the
field of fire safety engineering by providing a comprehensive under­
standing of the behaviour of diagrid systems when exposed to fire. The
findings of this research are crucial in advancing our knowledge and
improving fire safety measures for diagrid structures.

* Corresponding author.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: zhiruoyu.wang@uq.edu.au (Z. Wang), anwar.orabi@connect.polyu.hk (M.A. Orabi), zhuojun.nan@connect.polyu.hk (Z. Nan), wywang@cqu.
edu.cn (W. Wang), matthew.mason@uq.edu.au (M. Mason), d.lange@uq.edu.au (D. Lange).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2023.103924
Received 18 June 2023; Received in revised form 13 August 2023; Accepted 21 August 2023
Available online 26 August 2023
0379-7112/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
Z. Wang et al.
2. Modelling methodology
2.1. Approach and layout
A series of finite models were developed to study a representative
diagrid system design, based on the topology of the iconic 30 St Mary
Axe building. The models were created using the parametric design tool
Rhino [6]+Grasshopper [7] and were imported into GiD to develop a
finite element model for structural fire engineering analysis using
OpenSEES for Fire [8] base OpenSEES version 3.0.0 [9]. OpenSEES for
structural fire engineering including heat transfer has been validated in
many previous studies including by the team at the University of Edin­
burgh and latterly at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University [10–12],
including for hybrid simulations [13–15]. The modelling approach
approximately followed the layout of the 30 St Mary Axe diagrid
structure, while incorporating modifications to the angle of the diagrids
and the size of the structural elements based on the optimisation
methodology proposed by Moon in 2007 [3]. The aim of this approach
was to study the global response and load redistribution under fire
conditions through the diagrid elements. Thus, the model focusses on
the response of the diagrid in isolation. Without considering the
contribution to the structure from any composite floors which may be
present. The entire building was initially model as a whole, and then
selected sub-sections were subjected to further detailed analysis.
2.2. The structural model
The Rhino + Grasshopper parametric model is 40 stories tall with a
total height of 180 m. The model features an average inter-story height
of 4.15 m, and a circular design that tapers in diameter from 56 m at its
widest point on the 20th floor to 49 m at ground level and 30 m on the
38th floor. The structure is capped by a steel and glass dome on the 38th
floor [16]. The diagonal elements in this topology span 3 storeys.
Based on the Rhino and Grasshopper parametric models, a finite
element analysis of a 9-storey diagrid structure system was carried out.
The 9-storey sub-model represents floors 16 to 24 inclusive of the overall
diagrid structure. The diagonal elements were modeled as I-section el­
ements with varying cross-sections, ranging from 394 mm in depth, 399
mm in flange width, and 22.6 mm in web thickness, with a flange
thickness of 36.5 mm from the 15th to 18th floors, to 362 mm in depth,
370 mm in flange width, and 12.3 mm in web thickness, with a flange
thickness of 20.7 mm from the 21st to 24th floors. The horizontal chord
elements that formed part of the diagrid structure were modeled as 250
Fig. 1. The diagrid system model layouts.
2
Fire Safety Journal 141 (2023) 103924
mm × 300 mm x 25 mm rectangular hollow sections (RHS).
As noted above, the modelling approach was designed to allow a
study of the diagrid itself without considering the response of the floor
systems. However the floor systems serve to transfer horizontal loads
from one side of the diagrid to the other via a membrane action when
subject to horizontal loads [17]. Thus, a representative floor structure
that models the membrane action of the floor system for transferring
horizontal loads between diagrid members was introduced. This con­
stitutes a novel contribution to the study of diagrid structures under fire
conditions. To elaborate further, the floor model consisted of outrigger
beams spanning from the nodes of the diagrid or from the points of
connection with the floor structures on the intermediate diagrid floors,
extending inwards towards the central core structure, as depicted in
Fig. 1. These beams were connected to a representative ring structure for
transferring lateral load throughout the structure. The rigid core struc­
ture was modeled utilizing 500 mm × 500 mm x 70 mm rectangular
hollow sections (RHS) and an I-section floor beam with dimensions of
400 mm in depth, 300 mm in flange width, and 13.5 mm in web
thickness. The flange thickness was recorded as 24 mm.
All elements were steel, using the Steel01Thermal material model
implemented in OpenSees with a yield stress of 500 MPa, initial elas­
ticity of 200Gpa, and strain-hardening ratio of 0.15. The density was
7850 kg/m3. The mechanical point loads representing gravity loading
were applied to the connection nodes of the structure. Any contribution
from passive fire protection was neglected from this model, in order to
better understand the response of the diagrid structure itself. The
methodology adopted is depicted in Fig. 1. On the left-hand side the
entire diagrid structure as realized using Rhino + Grasshopper, is pre­
sented. On the right-hand side, the sub-model, which was subject to
further analysis as detailed in this study, is displayed.
In the modelling that was conducted these nodes are identified by the
letter “N” and the corresponding member number. The response of
structure is described in reference to individual member spans, which
are allocated a number for reference, and which are differentiated from
the diagrid elements in that these member spans may span only one
floor, whereas the diagrid members, as discussed previously, span 3
floors in this model. Horizontal elements which comprise the 3rd side of
the triangles formed in the diagrid are referred to as chords such as the
Chords151 in Fig. 2 (a). Thus, the triangles forming the diagrid are
formed always of two diagrid elements, such as the Diagrid Element
7678 and Diagrid Element 6769, which each comprise 3 member spans,
76,77,78 and 67,68,69, respectively, and one chord. Examples of node,
member span and chord numbering are given in Fig. 2, below. We refer
Z. Wang et al.
Fig. 2. The details criteria and structure design of model (a) mechanical loads (b) series numbers of the diagrids’ members and connection nodes.
to the floors which coincide with diagrid chords as diagrid nodal floors,
such as N67, N68 and N69 as shown in Fig. 2 (b).
Diagonal members and chord beams were modeled as displacement-
based beam-column components with fibre-based sections. 8 discrete
elements were used per member, resulting in a total of 3630 discrete
elements to represent the 176 structural members in the model. The
boundary conditions implemented are limited to the bottom nodes of the
diagrid structure system, effectively prohibiting all translational and
rotational movements, as shown in Fig. 2(a).
2.3. Fire scenarios
A total of 45 fire scenarios were created by applying an idealised
uniform fire to various locations of the diagrid system model. The
location of the fires was chosen to allow a study of the response of the
diagrid with one or more members on one floor heated; as well as with
one or more members plus chords on multiple floors heated. Thus,
combinations of heated elements represent fires on one floor or on
multiple floors. A summary of these cases is given in Table 1. Since the
model is comprised of steel, none of the behaviour is likely to be influ­
enced by rate of heating, thus results are presented as a function of
average steel temperature. In each case listed in Table 1,diagrid mem­
bers and chords are heated continuously and simultaneously.
2.4. Numerical analysis details
The structural analysis of the diagrid system was performed using
both static and dynamic intervals. The static interval adopted a load-
controlled integration approach utilizing the Band General system of
equations. This integration method was coupled with the reverse
3
Fire Safety Journal 141 (2023) 103924
Cuthill-McKee numbering technique, a transformation constraints
handler, and the Full Newton-Raphson algorithm to solve the system of
equations. The dynamic interval, on the other hand, used a load-
controlled integration approach with the UmfPack system of equa­
tions. The reverse Cuthill-McKee numbering technique was employed,
along with a transformation constraints handler, to facilitate the inte­
gration process. The integration process was performed through the
application of the Newmark method with an average acceleration
approach by using the parameters γ = 0.5 and β = 0.25 [10] and the
Krylov Newton algorithm was utilized to solve the system of equations.
The fire scenario could be condensed by a factor of 1/1000 for the im­
plicit dynamic analysis in OpenSEES [18]. The analysis was performed
with a step size of 0.005 s and a total duration of 3.6 s.
3. Results
3.1. Response to single floor fires
In the discussion of results we use load case 0 as a reference case. This
is the scenario with only one diagrid member span heated on one floor.
Displacements of all diagrid nodes in the model are shown in Fig. 3. Of
particular relevance are the displacements of Nodes N67, N68 and N69
in this analysis, since these represent the nodes at the tops of the indi­
vidual diagrid member spans which comprise the heated diagrid mem­
ber in this analysis. As is shown in the plot of displacement, after the
static loading step and when heating starts, heating to approximately
500 ◦ C of the lower diagrid member span results in an expansion and
upwards displacement of all floors above the 19th floor, as indicated in
Fig. 3(a) and (b). The thermal expansion phase of the Diagrid Member
span No. 67 is followed by a buckling phase after steel temperature
Z. Wang et al. Fire Safety Journal 141 (2023) 103924

Table 1 Table 1 (continued )

Table of fire cases. Fire Diagrid member span Chords Description
Fire Diagrid member span Chords Description scenario heated heated
scenario heated heated case
case number
number
23 67 + 68+85 + 86+129 / Five diagrid member in
0 67 / One diagrid member span three diagrid element
on 19F spans on 20F,21F
1 68 / One diagrid member span 24 68 + 69+87 + 86+129 151 + 150 Five diagrid member in
on 20F three diagrid element
2 69 / One diagrid member span spans on 20F,21F and 2
on 21F connecting diagrid chord
3 67 + 68 / two diagrid member spans 25 68 + 69+87 + 86+130 151 + 150 Five diagrid member in
in one diagrid element on three diagrid element
19F,20F spans on 20F,21F and 2
4 68 + 69 / two diagrid member spans connecting diagrid chord
in one diagrid element on 26 67 + 85+128 + / Six diagrid member in six
20F,21F 171+91 + 13 diagrid element spans on
5 67 + 85 / Two diagrid member in 19F
two diagrid element spans 27 68 + 86+129 + / Six diagrid member in six
on 19F 172+92 + 14 diagrid element spans on
6 68 + 86 / Two diagrid member in 20F
two diagrid element spans 28 69 + 87+130 + 151 + Six diagrid member in six
on 20F 173+93 + 15 150+ 149 diagrid element spans on
7 69 + 87 / Two diagrid member in 21F and 3 connecting
two diagrid element spans diagrid chord
on 21F 29 67 + 68+85 + / Six diagrid member in
8 67 + 68+69 151 Three diagrid member in 86+128 + 129 three diagrid element
one diagrid element spans spans on 19F, 20F
on 19F,20F,21F and a 30 68 + 69+86 + 151 + 150 Six diagrid member in
connecting diagrid chord 87+129 + 130 three diagrid element
9 67 + 85+128 / Three diagrid member spans on 20F,21F and 2
spans on 19F connecting diagrid chord
10 68 + 86+129 / Three diagrid member 31 67 + 68+69 + 85+86 151 + 150 Six diagrid member in two
spans on 20F + 87 diagrid element spans on
11 69 + 87+130 150 Three diagrid member 19F,20F,21F and 2
spans on 21F and a connecting diagrid chord
connecting diagrid chord 32 67 + 85+128 + / Seven diagrid member in
12 67 + 85+128 + 171 / Four diagrid members in 171+91 + 13+100 seven diagrid element
four diagrid element spans spans on 19F
on 19F 33 68 + 86+129 + / Seven diagrid member in
13 68 + 86+129 + 172 / Four diagrid members in 172+92 + 14+101 seven diagrid element
four diagrid element spans spans on 20F
on 20F 34 69 + 87+130 + 151 + Seven diagrid member in
14 69 + 87+130 + 173 151 + 150 Four diagrid members in 173+93 + 15+102 150+ 149 seven diagrid element
four diagrid element spans + 148 spans on 21F and 4
on 21F and a connecting connecting diagrid chord
diagrid chord 35 67 + 68+85 + 86 / Seven diagrid member in
15 67 + 68+86 + 85 / Four diagrid members in +128 + 129+171 four diagrid element spans
two diagrid element spans on 19F,20F
on 19F and 20F 36 67 + 68+85 + 86 / Seven diagrid member in
16 68 + 69+86 + 87 151 + 150 Four diagrid members in +128 + 129+172 four diagrid element spans
two diagrid element spans on 19F,20F
on 20F and 21F and 2 37 68 + 69+87 + 151 + 150 Seven diagrid member in
connecting diagrid chord 86+128 + 129+172 four diagrid element spans
17 67 + 68+69 + 85+86 151 Five diagrid member in two on 20F,21F and 2
diagrid element spans on connecting diagrid chord
19F,20F,21F and a 38 68 + 69+87 + 151 + 150 Seven diagrid member in
connecting diagrid chord 86+128 + 129+173 four diagrid element spans
18 67 + 68+69 + 86+87 151 + 150 Five diagrid member in two on 20F,21F and 2
diagrid element spans on connecting diagrid chord
19F,20F,21F and 2 39 67 + 68+69 + 85+86 151 + 150 Seven diagrid member in
connecting diagrid chord + 87+128 three diagrid element
19 67 + 85+128 + / Five diagrid member in five spans on 19F,20F,21F and
171+91 diagrid element spans on 2 connecting diagrid chord
19F 40 67 + 68+69 + 85+86 151 + 150 Seven diagrid member in
20 68 + 86+129 + / Five diagrid member in five + 87+129 three diagrid element
172+92 diagrid element spans on spans on 19F,20F,21F and
20F 2 connecting diagrid chord
21 69 + 87+130 + 151 + Five diagrid member in five 41 67 + 68+69 + 85+86 151 + 150 Seven diagrid member in
173+93 150+ 149 diagrid element spans on + 87+130 three diagrid element
21F and 3 connecting spans on 19F,20F,21F and
diagrid chord 2 connecting diagrid chord
22 67 + 68+85 + 86+128 / Five diagrid member in 42 67 + 68+69 + 85+86 151 + 150 Nine diagrid member in
three diagrid element + 87+128 + 129+130 three diagrid element
spans on 19F,20F spans on 19F,20F,21F and
2 connecting diagrid chord
(continued on next page)

4
Z. Wang et al. Fire Safety Journal 141 (2023) 103924

Table 1 (continued ) the rest of this diagrid member, which occurs as the load applied at the
Fire Diagrid member span Chords Description connections with the floor structures pushes this member downwards.
scenario heated heated This is clearly seen in Fig. 3 (a). Fig. 3 (b) also shows the displaced shape
case of the structure at various stages in its response.
number The load redistribution throughout the diagrid can be explored in
43 67 + 68+69 + 85+86 151 + Twelve diagrid member in reference to the section forces in the diagrid member spans. This is
+ 87+128 + 129+130 150+ 149 four diagrid element spans provided in Fig. 4 (a) for Diagrid Member spans 67–69, 85–87, 128–130,
+ 171+172 + 173 on 19F,20F,21F and 3
76–78, and 58–60, with visualisations of the section force shown
connecting diagrid chord
44 67 + 68+69 + 85+86 151 + Fifteen diagrid member in inprocessing models in Fig. 4 (b).
+ 87+128 + 129+130 150+ 149 five diagrid element spans As can be seen, the increase in temperature of one member span up to
+ 171+172 + 173+91 on 19F,20F,21F and 3 ca. 570 ◦ C results in an increase in the section force in all three spans of
+ 92+93 connecting diagrid chord the heated diagrid member. Note that the section force in the other
diagrid member that connects at the node with the heated member span
reaches approximately 570 ◦ C, corresponding with a reduction in yield is also subject to the same behaviour, a slight increase in the section
stress of approximately 50% of the ambient value of this member span. force upon heating of the adjacent member. This is accompanied by a
Failure of this member is accompanied by a downwards displacement of reduction in section force in the surrounding diagrid members, however
when the heated diagrid member span fails all of the accompanying

Fig. 3. (a) Z-axis Displacement of Connection Nodes between 19 and 21F, and (b) Five-times scaled displacement structural members at the 100th, 200th, and 720th
Intervals of Dynamic steps.

Fig. 4. (a) Section force plot, (b) Visualized section force post-processing models.

5
Z. Wang et al.
spans on the diagrid member and in the adjacent member are subject to
a significant reduction in the section force, and this force is transferred
to the adjacent members.
As can be seen, the majority of the load reduction incurred in the
triangle diagrid structure, comprised of Diagrid Member 67, has been
redistributed among Diagrid Members No. 128–130 and 58–60. These
diagrid members align in the same direction as Diagrid Members No.
67–69, rather than being transferred to the nearest diagrid members,
76–78 and 85–87. A smaller load redistribution occurs to member spans
85 to 87, the magnitude of which corresponds with the load reduction on
member spans 76 to 78, which it is aligned with.
In the scenario of Case 001, the structural response of Diagrid
Member No. 68, on an intermediate floor between two of the diagrid
nodal floors is exposed to fire. The behaviour is similar to that observed
in the previous load case, with a pre-buckling phase upon heating to a
temperature of ca. 600 ◦ C and a post-buckling phase characterized by
similar behaviour as that observed above. Thermal expansion in this
initial phase causes Diagrid Member span 69 to move upwards and
Diagrid Member span 67, below, to move downwards, as shown in Fig. 5
(a). However, both Diagrid Member spans 68 and 67 recover these
displacements after the temperature of the heated span exceeds
approximately 600 ◦ C.
This recovery of the displacement can be attributed to the clockwise
rotation at the major connection node N69 as shown in Fig. 5 (b). This
rotation was likely the result of a combination of factors, including the
geometry of the diagrid, an increasing P-delta moment caused by
displacement of the diagrid element and thermal expansion against the
Fig. 5(a). Z-axis Displacement of Connection Nodes between 19 and 21F, and (b) the nodal displacements and rotations.
6
Fire Safety Journal 141 (2023) 103924
partial restraint of this structure, the distribution of loads, and the
reduction in strength of Diagrid Member span 68 after reaching a tem­
perature of 600 ◦ C. Note that the magnitudes of these displacements are
significantly lower than those observed in load case 0.
In the scenario of Case 002, with the diagrid member span below the
nodal floor heated, the structural behaviour of Diagrid Member span 69
when heated exhibits similarities to that observed in load Case 0.
However, it is important to note that the expansion primarily resulted in
downwards displacement of Diagrid Member spans 68 and 67, as
depicted in Fig. 6 (a). This deviation from the response observed in Case
000 can be attributed to the presence of the major connection node N69,
which provides substantial restraint at the top of Diagrid Member span
69.
It is important to emphasize that the load reduction and load dis­
tribution observed in Case 000 were consistent across both Case 001 and
Case 002, as indicated by the section forces presented in Fig. 6(b).
A progression from the initial scenario of Case 000 was established
by incrementally increasing the number of diagrid members subjected to
fire on same floor. This resulted in the establishment of four additional
scenarios, load cases 005, 009, 012, and 019, which correspond to the
horizontal fire exposure of 2, 3, 4, and 5 diagrid member spans,
respectively, on the same floor, as listed in Table 1. As shown in Fig. 7
(a), 7(b), and 7(c), the structural responses of Cases 005, 009, and 012
closely followed the pattern observed in Case 000, however, with a
progressively increasing magnitude of maximum displacement in the Z
direction. However, upon exposing 5 diagrid members to fire in Case
019, the diagrid system collapsed, as shown in Fig. 7 (d), initiated when
Z. Wang et al. Fire Safety Journal 141 (2023) 103924

Fig. 6. (a) Z-axis Displacement of Connection Nodes between 19 and 21F, and (b) Visualized section force post-processing models.

Fig. 7. Z-Axis displacement of connection nodes between 19 and 21F of (a) Case 005(b) Case 009 (c) 012 (d) Z-axis displacement of connection nodes between 19th
to 21st floor of Case 019 with interval steps on X-Axis.

the steel reached a temperature of 400 ◦ C–500 ◦ C.
The findings of Case 000 and the subsequent “Case 000-type" group
cases (005, 009, 012, and 019) were also observed to apply to the rest of
the series of the two “Case 001-type" group cases and the “Case 002-
type" group cases.
The findings regarding load reduction and load distribution observed
in the cases of Case 000, Case 001, and Case 002, where a single diagrid
member was subjected to fire, have also been demonstrated to hold true
when multiple diagrid members on the same floor were exposed to fire.
The section force plot and visualized section force post-processing
models of Case 006 and Case 009 show the impact of fire on a diagrid
member and its resultant effect on the entire triangular diagrid struc­
ture. The results show that when a diagrid member is exposed to fire, it
results in a reduction of section force values for all three diagrid member

7
Z. Wang et al. Fire Safety Journal 141 (2023) 103924

spans and a significant amount of load reduction and redistribution redistribution throughout the triangular Diagrid structure and 2) the
throughout the triangular diagrid structure, as shown in Fig. 8 (a) and load reductions incurred in the triangular Diagrid structure are pri­
Fig. 8 (b). Furthermore, the results support the earlier conclusion that marily redistributed among Diagrid members oriented in the same di­
the load reductions incurred in the triangular diagrid structure are pri­ rection, rather than being transferred to neighboring Diagrid members.
marily redistributed among diagrid members aligned in the same di­
rection, rather than being transferred to the nearest diagrid members, as 3.3. Comparative Analysis of the model with concrete slabs
shown in Fig. 8 (c) and Fig. 8 (d).
The approach to modelling the floors, as outlined in Section 2.2,
introduces a representative floor structure that simulates the membrane
3.2. Response to multi-floor fires
action of the floor system for transferring horizontal loads between
diagrid members. This represents a novel contribution to the study of
The results of the multi-floor fire simulation study indicate that the
diagrid structures under fire conditions. This modification focuses on the
displacement of the Diagrid members (No. 67, No. 68, and No. 69)
behaviour of the diagrid components under fire exposure without the
subjected to fire in Case 008 is significantly greater than that observed in
need to model the entire floor system, without substantially increasing
the benchmark case, Case 000. The primary cause of this increase in
the computational cost. These radial beams serve to connect the diagrid
displacement can be attributed to the thermal expansion of the Diagrid
to the core of the building. Because of the concave topology of the
members. This expansion leads to a significant upward displacement of
diagrid structure chosen in this case study these beams are in tension as
the connection node N69, while simultaneously accelerating the
the vertical loading on the diagrid increases. The modelling approach
downward displacement of all three Diagrid members, as depicted in
thus has the advantage of being able to account for the contribution of
Fig. 9 of the study.
these beams (although this will form a part of a future study).
Despite the differences in displacement and expansion observed
In this section, a variety of cases including the concrete slab, have
between single-floor and multi-floor structures subjected to fire, the
been analysed and presented to validate the proposed simplified floor
analysis of the section force of the Diagrid members in Case 000 and
structure models. As the shown in Fig. 11, the general behaviour and
Case 008 reveals a substantial degree of consistency with respect to the
magnitudes of the displacements correspond to those shown in Fig. 7. In
overall pattern of the curve and the section force of each Diagrid
addition, it is noteworthy to mention that both modelling methodologies
member at the final interval step of the simulation, where the steel
predict a global collapse happens for case 019.
temperature reaches 934 ◦ C as,depicted in Fig. 10 (a) and Fig. 10 (b).
Further empirical evidence is provided in Fig. 12 that the load
The similarities in load reduction and distribution observed in multi-
reduction and distribution patterns in the model including the concrete
floor fire Case 008 and single-floor fire Case 000, as depicted in Fig. 10
slabs exhibits a high degree of congruence with the structural modelling
(c) and (d) respectively, are indicative of the validity of two established
approach that excludes concrete slabs, as shown in Fig. 8.
principles of load reduction and distribution. These principles, estab­
lished through previous analysis, state that: 1) exposure of a Diagrid
member to fire results in a reduction of section force values for all three
Diagrid members and a significant amount of load reduction and

Fig. 8. The diagrid members’ section force plot of (a)Case 006, (b)Case 009 and Visualized section force post-processing models of (c) Case 006, (b)Case 009.

8
Z. Wang et al. Fire Safety Journal 141 (2023) 103924

Fig. 9. Z-Axis displacement of connection nodes between 19 and 21F of (a)Case 000 (b)Case 008.

Fig. 10. The diagrid members’ section force plot of (a)Case 000, (b)Case 008 and Visualized section force post-processing models of (c) Case 000, (b)Case 008.

Fig. 11. Comparative analysis model: Z-Axis displacement of connection nodes between 19 and 21F of (a) Case 005(b) Case 009(c) Case 012 (d) Case 019.

4. Overall response and damage to diagrid system from fire inflicted upon the Diagrid structure due to fire. Within this context, the
term ‘non-collapse’ denotes that indirectly fire-exposed members retain
Table 2 summarises the comprehensive response and damage their structural integrity and do not fail to collapse. ‘Local collapse’

9
Z. Wang et al. Fire Safety Journal 141 (2023) 103924

Fig. 12. Comparative Analysis of the Model: the diagrid members’ section force plot of (a)Case 006, (b)Case 009 and Visualized section force post-processing models
of (c) Case 006, (b)Case 009.

Table 2
Summary of global collapse, local collapse, and non-collapse cases.
Cases DiaE Beam Collapse Cases DiaE Beam Collapse

0 67 / N 11 69 + 87+130 150 N
1 68 / N 12 67 + 85+128 + 171 / N
2 69 / N 13 68 + 86+129 + 172 / N
3 67 + 68 / N 14 69 + 87+130 + 173 151 + 150 N
4 68 + 69 / N 15 67 + 68+86 + 85 / N
5 67 + 85 / N 16 68 + 69+86 + 87 151 + 150 N
6 68 + 86 / N 17 67 + 68+69 + 85+86 151 N
7 69 + 87 / N 18 67 + 68+69 + 86+87 151 + 150 N
8 67 + 68+69 151 N 19 67 + 85+128 + 171+91 / Y
9 67 + 85+128 / N 20 68 + 86+129 + 172+92 / Y
10 68 + 86+129 / N 21 69 + 87+130 + 173+93 151 + 150+149 Y
22 67 + 68+85 + 86+128 / N 33 68 + 86+129 + 172+92 + 14+101 / Y
23 67 + 68+85 + 86+129 / N 34 69 + 87+130 + 173+93 + 15+102 151 + 150+149 + Y
148
24 68 + 69+87 + 86+129 151 + 150 N 35 67 + 68+85 + 86+128 + 129+171 / Y
25 68 + 69+87 + 86+130 151 + 150 N 36 67 + 68+85 + 86+128 + 129+172 / Y/N(Local
Collapse)
26 67 + 85+128 + 171+91 + / Y 37 68 + 69+87 + 86+128 + 129+172 151 + 150 Y/N(Local
13 Collapse)
27 68 + 86+129 + 172+92 + / Y 38 68 + 69+87 + 86+128 + 129+173 151 + 150 N
14
28 69 + 87+130 + 173+93 + 151 + Y 39 67 + 68+69 + 85+86 + 87+128 151 + 150 N
15 150+149
29 67 + 68+85 + 86+128 + / N 40 67 + 68+69 + 85+86 + 87+129 151 + 150 N
129
30 68 + 69+86 + 87+129 + 151 + 150 N 41 67 + 68+69 + 85+86 + 87+130 151 + 150 N
130
31 67 + 68+69 + 85+86 + 87 151 + 150 N 42 67 + 68+69 + 85+86 + 87+128 + 129+130 151 + 150 N
32 67 + 85+128 + 171+91 + / Y 43 67 + 68+69 + 85+86 + 87+128 + 129+130 + 151 + 150+149 Y
13+100 171+172 + 173
44 67 + 68+69 + 85+86 + 87+128 + 129+130 + 151 + 150+149 Y
171+172 + 173+91 + 92+93

10
Z. Wang et al.
pertains to the failure of indirectly fire-exposed members in a localised
manner, accompanied by force redistribution. Conversely, ‘global
collapse’ denotes a progressive mode of failure of indirectly fire-exposed
members causes the collapse of adjacent members.
Among all single-floor fire cases, the smallest fire size (a total of 5
Diagrid members over 1 floor were subjected to fire) which can cause
the global collapse are observed, specifically load case 019, 020, and
021. Among the multi-floor fire cases, the smallest fire size capable of
causing collapse was observed in Case 035, where a total of 7 Diagrid
members and 2 floors were exposed to fire. Furthermore, among both
single-floor and multi-floor fire cases, the largest fire size that was
withstood by the Diagrid system was found in Case 42, where a total of 9
Diagrid members and 3 floors were subjected to fire.
A summary of those conditions which lead to collapse of the diagrid
is given in Fig. 13 This summarises those conditions in terms of number
of diagrid member spans heated over a given number of floors which
lead to collapse of the structure. As can be seen, in the cases explored in
this paper, heating of 4 member spans over 2 or more storeys, or heating
of 5 or more member spans over 1 storey, leads to collapse of the diagrid.
The diagrid structure seems on the basis of the results presented to be
more susceptible to a large fire over one floor as opposed to fire over
multiple floors between the same nodal floors of the diagrid.
5. Conclusions
This paper has presented a detailed study of the response of a specific
diagrid topology to heating. The modelling approach comprised the use
of parametric design tools Rhino + Grasshopper and finite element
analysis (FEA) software, including GiD and OpenSees. 45 individual
simulations were run exploring different thermal load cases. We propose
a novel means of accounting for the contribution of the floor plate to the
response of the diagrid structure without having to carry out a detailed
analysis of the floor itself. The analysis conducted explored the influence
of location of the heated elements relative to the rest of the diagrid
structure as well as the number of heated elements over a given number
of floors. The results highlight the specific behaviour of the diagrid
structures to fire and suggest:
1. Leads to significant load reduction in the heated member and
redistribution throughout the triangular Diagrid structure.
2. Load reductions in heated diagrid members are primarily transferred
to members aligned in the same direction, not to neighboring
members.
3. Diagrids seem to be more susceptible to heating of multiple member
spans on a single floor as opposed to heating one member over
multiple floors.
There are a number of limitations in the proposed study, including in
particular the fact that we consider only steel diagrid elements and thus
have not considered the contribution of thermal gradients which may
occur in diagrid members comprised of concrete filled hollow steel
sections. However, this has allowed us to explore the behaviour of this
topology of structure through reference only to a temperature increase
as opposed to having to address any transient effects. The incorporation
of thermal gradients will form a future study to be conducted by the
authors, which will include consideration of the performance of this
structural system under multiple varied fire scenarios as well.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare the following financial interests/personal re­
lationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:
11
Fire Safety Journal 141 (2023) 103924
Fig. 13. Summary of load cases which lead to failure of the diagrid structure.
Dr David Lange is on the editorial board.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
References
[1] E. Asadi, H. Adeli, Diagrid: an innovative, sustainable, and efficient structural
system, Struct. Des. Tall Special Build. 26 (8) (2017) e1358.
[2] K. Al-Kodmany, M.M. Ali, An overview of structural and aesthetic developments in
tall buildings using exterior bracing and diagrid systems, International Journal of
High-Rise Buildings 5 (4) (2016).
[3] K.S. Moon, J.J. Connor, J.E. Fernandez, Diagrid structural systems for tall
buildings: characteristics and methodology for preliminary design, Struct. Des. Tall
Special Build. 16 (2) (2007) 205–230.
[4] J. Ye, et al., Computational layout design optimization of frame structures, in:
Proceedings of IASS Annual Symposia vol. 2017, International Association for Shell
and Spatial Structures (IASS), 2017, pp. 1–8, 16.
[5] E. Mele, M. Imbimbo, V. Tomei, The effect of slenderness on the design of diagrid
structures, International Journal of High-Rise Buildings 8 (2) (2019) 83–94.
[6] 3D Rhinoceros, Rhino 7 SR26 (7.26.23009.7001, 2023-01-09). Robert McNeel &
Associates. Educational Lab License SN: 6-1702-0104-1-1956-46280, Used at Civil
Engineering, The University of Queensland, 2023.
[7] Grasshopper, Grasshopper Version Monday 09 January 2023 7:00 Build 1.0.0007,
Robert McNeel & Associates, 2023. Copyright@ 2009-2023.
[8] OpenSEES for Fire, OpenSEES for fire, Retrieved from, http://openseesforfire.gith
ub.io/, 2022, May 4.
[9] Open System For Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees), Pacific
earthquake engineering research center, Version 3.0.0 64-Bit.(c) Copyright 1999-
2016 The Regents of the University of California. All Rights Reserved. (Copyright
and Disclaimer @, http://www.berkeley.edu/OpenSees/copyright.html), 2016.
[10] M.A. Orabi, L. Jiang, A. Usmani, J. Torero, The Collapse of World Trade Center 7:
Revisited, Fire Technology, 2022, pp. 1–28.
[11] T. Yarlagadda, H. Hajiloo, L. Jiang, M. Green, A. Usmani, Preliminary modelling of
plasco tower collapse, International Journal of High-Rise Buildings 7 (4) (2018)
397–408.
[12] P. Kotsovinos, A. Usmani, The World Trade Center 9/11 disaster and progressive
collapse of tall buildings, Fire Technol. 49 (2013) 741–765.
[13] X. Cai, et al., Dual-3D hybrid fire simulation for modelling steel structures in fire
with column failure, J. Constr. Steel Res. 197 (2022), 107511.
[14] M.A. Khan, L. Jiang, K.A. Cashell, A. Usmani, Virtual hybrid simulation of beams
with web openings in fire, J. Struct. Fire Eng. 11 (1) (2020) 118–134.
[15] M.A. Khan, L. Jiang, K.A. Cashell, A. Usmani, Analysis of restrained composite
beams exposed to fire using a hybrid simulation approach, Eng. Struct. 172 (2018)
956–966.
[16] T.M. Boake, Diagrid Structures: Systems, Connections, Details, Walter de Gruyter,
2014.
[17] E. Mele, M. Toreno, G. Brandonisio, A. De Luca, Diagrid structures for tall
buildings: case studies and design considerations, Struct. Des. Tall Special Build. 23
(2) (2014) 124–145.
[18] Z. Nan, M.A. Orabi, X. Zhang, A.A. Khan, X. Huang, L. Jiang, A. Usmani, Rapid
forecasting of the structural failure of a full-scale aluminium alloy reticulated shell
structure in fire, in: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Structures
in Fire (SiF 2022), The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 2022. Nov 30 - Dec 2,
2022.