CONTENT

CANDIDATES DECLARATION.................................................................................... i
ABSTRACT ..................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER - 1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 GENERAL ......................................................................................................... 1
1.2 FIRE LIMIT STATE ....................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.3 IS CODES FOR FIRE RESISTANCE ............................................................ 16
1.4 NEED OF STUDY ............................................................................................ 2
1.5 AIMS AND GOALS ....................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.6 METHODOLOGY .......................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.7 ORGANISATION OF DISSERTATION ....... Error! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER - 2
LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.1 GENERAL ................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2 IS CODE PROVISIONS FOR FIRE RESISTANCE ..... Error! Bookmark not
defined.
2.3 EFFECT OF HIGH TEMPERATURE ON CONCRETE .... Error! Bookmark
not defined.
2.3.1 Spalling of Concrete ......................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.3.2 Modulus of Elasticity. ....................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.3.3 Concrete Compressive Strength ....... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.4 STRESS-STRAIN RELATIONSHIP FOR CONCRETE AT ELEVATED
TEMPERATURE .................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.4.1 Stress-Strain Relationship as per Eurocode2 ... Error! Bookmark not
defined.
2.4.2 Stress-Strain Relationship for Confined Concrete (Youssef et al,
2007) .......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.5 CONSTITUTIVE MODEL COMPARISON .. Error! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER 3
THERMAL ANALYSIS ................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.1 GENERAL ....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.2 THERMAL PROPERTIES ............................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.2.1 Thermal Properties of Concrete ........ Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.2.2 Thermal Properties of Steel .............. Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.3 ANALYTICAL STUDIES .............................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.3.1 Sectional Details: Beam and ColumnError! Bookmark not defined.
3.3.2 Fire Scenario and Exposure Condition ............ Error! Bookmark not
defined.
3.4 ANALYSIS: PROCEDURE AND THEORY . Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.4.1 Uncoupled Heat Transfer Analysis ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.4.2 Effect of Boundary Condition .......... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.5 HEAT TRANSFER ANALYSIS RESULTS .. Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.5.1 TNC1: Results and Comparison ....... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.5.2 THC4: Results and Comparison ....... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.5.3 THC8: Results and Comparison ....... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.5.4 B1: Results and Comparison ............ Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.5.5 B2: Results and Comparison ............ Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.5.6 B4: Results and Comparison ............ Error! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER 4
STRESS ANALYSIS ....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.1 GENERAL ....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.2 ANALYTICAL STUDIES .............................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.2.1 Test Conditions and Procedure ......... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.3 ANALYSIS: PROCEDURE AND THEORY . Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.3.1 Element Description ......................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.3.2 Material Model for Concrete ............ Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.3.2.1 Linear Elasticity ................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.3.2.2 Concrete Damaged Plasticity Model Error! Bookmark not
defined.
4.3.3 Material Model for Reinforcement ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.3.3.1 Classical Metal Plasticity ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.4 STRESS ANALYSIS OF BEAMS ................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.4.1 Beam B1 ........................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.4.1.1 Material Properties for Concrete ...... Error! Bookmark not
defined.
4.4.1.2 Material Properties for Reinforcing SteelError! Bookmark
not defined.
4.4.1.3 Results and Comparison .... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.4.2 Beam B3 ........................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.4.2.1 Material Properties for Concrete ...... Error! Bookmark not
defined.
4.4.2.2 Material Properties for Reinforcing SteelError! Bookmark
not defined.
4.4.2.3 Results and Comparison .... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.4.3 Beam B4 ........................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.4.3.1 Material Properties for Concrete ...... Error! Bookmark not
defined.
4.4.3.2 Material Properties for Reinforcing SteelError! Bookmark
not defined.
4.4.3.3 Results and Comparison .... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.5 STRESS ANALYSIS OF COLUMNS ............ Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.5.1 Column THC4 .................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.5.1.1 Material Properties for Concrete ...... Error! Bookmark not
defined.
4.5.1.2 Material properties for Reinforcing Steel Error! Bookmark
not defined.
4.5.1.3 Results and Comparison .... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.5.2 Column TNC1 .................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.5.2.1 Material Properties for Concrete ...... Error! Bookmark not
defined.
4.5.2.2 Material Properties for Reinforcing SteelError! Bookmark
not defined.
4.5.2.3 Results and Comparison .... Error! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS .............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.1 SUMMARY ..................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.2 CONCLUSIONS ............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER WORK ...... Error! Bookmark not
defined.

REFERENCES ................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.




1
INTRODUCTION


Objective:- Briefly explain the problem statement, its significance and
scope of the work carried out.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL
Major advances in fire engineering of building structures have occurred in the past decade with
considerable effort made in the understanding of how real structures behave in fire. The
knowledge base is by no means complete but the advances that have occurred to date allow a
more realistic assessment of the fire performance of structural components. This study
summarises the current knowledge with respect to both reinforced and pre stressed concrete
structural elements although some of the discussion can be readily applied to other materials.
Concrete elements can generally be divided into two types: flexural members such as beams and
floors, and compression members such as columns and walls. The ability of loadbearing
elements to remain loadbearing is usually a major concern in a fire, while walls, ceilings and
floors may also be required to contain fire by preventing its spread directly through the element
or by restricting excessive heat transmission from the side exposed to the fire to the side not
exposed.
Existing simplified practices used to confirm adequate member sizes or to design new members
rely on a number of assumptions, which are necessarily conservative. In a large number of cases
these practices will still be adequate as fire resistance requirements may not govern the design.
However, there may be instances where member design is over conservative where factors such
as the beneficial effects of continuity and restraint are not currently adequately assessed, or
unsafe where the effects of restraint have been incorrectly assessed.
Much of the early work and effort put into investigating the fire performance of concrete
members was conducted in the United States on behalf of the pre-stressed concrete industry. Pre-
stressed concrete beams were known to be more susceptible to fire damage due to the rapid
deterioration in strength of cold-worked pre-stressing tendons and wires at high temperature.
Member sizes for pre-stressed elements also tend to be more slender than for reinforced
construction. Fortunately, most of the work on pre-stressed concrete can easily be extended to
include reinforced concrete construction.
Reinforced concrete (RC) beams function as critical load bearing structural members in a
building, and hence the provision of appropriate fire resistance is one of the major design
requirements in buildings. The basis for this requirement can be attributed to the fact that, when
other measures for containing the fire fail, structural integrity is the last line of defence. Fire
resistance is the duration a structural member (system) exhibits resistance with respect to
structural integrity, stability and temperature transmission under fire conditions. Typical fire
resistance requirements for specific building members are specified in building codes. Fire
resistance can play a crucial role in the performance of buildings and infrastructure in the event
of fire, as seen in the collapse of the World Trade Centre twin towers.
1.2 NEED OF STUDY
First, the methods now used for assigning fire resistance classifications are being seriously
challenged. These methods are based on results of standard fire tests of building materials and
constructions, i.e., ASTM E-119. Nevertheless, testing agencies, as well as architects and
engineers appears to be facing an insurmountable task because no single standard fire test can
accurately reflect the behavior of an assembly under the many different ways the assembly can
be used in buildings.
Existing simplified practices used to confirm adequate member sizes or to design new members
rely on a number of assumptions, which are necessarily conservative. In a large number of cases
these practices will still be adequate as fire resistance requirements may not govern the design.
However, there may be instances where member design is over conservative where factors such
as the beneficial effects of continuity and restraint are not currently adequately assessed, or
unsafe where the effects of restraint have been incorrectly assessed.
Generally, concrete structural members (made from NSC) exhibit good performance under fire
situations. The fire resistance of RC structural members is evaluated using a prescriptive-based
approach. While the Eurocode specifications provide some options for performance-based fire
resistance design, the specifications in American as well as Indian standards are highly
prescriptive. There are many drawbacks to the prescriptive-based approach of evaluating the fire
resistance, since this approach is based on standard conditions and does not account for
realistic scenarios. Therefore, the current design approaches may not be fully applicable for use
under the recently introduced performance-based codes that facilitate innovative, cost-effective
and rational designs
Firstly, the development of rational design approaches for fire safety evaluation requires an
insight into the extent of the influence of various factors governing the fire resistance of
46
(Kodur
and Dwaikat) RC beams, namely fire scenario, load level, concrete cover thickness, failure
criteria, aggregate type and span length.
Secondly, it is often possible to provide added fire resistance more economically through
structural design than by other more conventional methods. Considerable research has been
carried out into the effect of fire on the behaviour of steel and composite beams and reinforced
concrete slabs, while very less similar research undertaken into the behaviour of concrete beams.
Reinforced concrete beams within real structures may be subjected to varying support conditions
because neither total horizontal restraint nor total rotational restraint is likely to be realised.
Thus, the behaviour of the beams with varying support conditions has to be analysed.
The previous research on steel and composite beams has shown that the effect of a decay phase
of the fire can have detrimental consequences on the structure. Therefore there is great interest in
the behaviour of a concrete beam exposed to the full process of fire development.
In view of all the factors outlined above, this literature review is set out to investigate the
behaviour of reinforced concrete beams having a range of support conditions and subjected to
ISO and parametric fires.


Basic Definitions
Fire Endurance. A measure of elapsed time during which a material or
assembly continues to exhibit fire resistance under specified conditions of test
and performance.
Fire Resistance. This is the property of a material or assembly to withstand fire
or to give protection from it. As applied to elements of a building, it is
characterized by the ability to confine a fire or continue to perform a given
structural function or both.
Notwithstanding this definition given above fire resistance and fire endurance
have been used interchangeably by various authors.
Fire resistance can also be defined as the measure of the ability of a building
element to resist a fire. Fire resistance is most often quantified as the time for
which the element can meet certain criteria during exposure to a standard fire-
resistance test. It is a property assigned to building elements; individual materials
do not possess fire resistance.
During a fire test, a structural element must perform its load-bearing function and
carry the load for the duration of the test without collapse. It then meets the
stability criteria. Barriers like walls and slabs additionally have to meet the
integrity and insulation criteria to prevent fire spreading from the room of origin.
Therefore, the test specimen must not develop any cracks or fissures which allow
smoke or hot gases to pass through and the temperature of the cold side must
not exceed a specified limit (Buc-01).
It is important to realise that the fire-resistance time does not express the time a
structure might resist in a real fire, as the duration of an actual fire cannot be
precisely specified.The construction in a building may perform satisfactorily for a
shorter or a longer period depending upon the characteristic of the fire (Mal-82).
Failure Criteria
2
(purkiss)

1. Insulation (denoted as I): The average temperature on an unexposed face
achieves a temperature of 140C or a local value exceeds 180C.
2. Integrity (denoted as E): Cracks or openings occur in a separating element such
that ignition can occur on the unexposed face.
3. Load-bearing capacity (denoted as R): The element being tested loses load-
bearing capacity when the element is no longer able to carry the applied loading.
In practice, however, deflection limits are imposed, partly in recognition of the
fact that at collapse, large deflections occur due to the formation of plastic hinges
in beams or slabs, or due to incipient buckling in walls or columns and partly to
avoid the specimen collapsing into the furnace with possible consequential
damage to the furnace and loading system. For any members such limits should
not be applied until the deflection reaches L/30. Then for

Flexural members:
Limiting deflection is L
2
/400d (mm) or rate of deflection L2/9000d (mm/min)
Where d is the depth of the member and L the span, both in mm.

Vertically loaded members:
Limiting vertical contraction is h/100 (mm) or rate of contraction 3 h/1000
(mm/min)
Where h is the initial height of the member (mm).
Isotherm
A Line drawn on the cross section of a member connecting points of same
temperature.

GENERAL
The fire resistance of an RC beam depends on a number of factors including fire
scenario, sectional characteristics, load level, geometric properties and support
conditions. The current fire resistance provisions in codes and standards are
prescriptive and do not account for many of these factors. The purpose of this
study is to quantify the influence of these parameters on the fire resistance of RC
beams and to develop a simplified approach for fire resistance design of RC
beams under a performance-based code environment.
Fire Models
Most fire resistance tests follow time-temperature curves that serve as
standard fires which are idealized simulations of room fires. Since the tests
follow established time-temperature curves, the heat load imposed on a test
specimen is calculable at any point during testing. Standard fire test time-
temperature curves for various countries can be seen in Figure 2.1 (Lie 1992). The
most widely used standard test conditions are the ASTM E119 (United States and
Canada) and ISO 834 (Australia, New Zealand, and England) (Buchanan 2001).

Several models of time-temperature relationships are available for the simulation
of fires for design purposes:
A simplified equation that approximates the ASTM E119 curve is given by (Lie
1992):



where th (hours) is the time. The conditions for failure for reinforced concrete
components exposed to the ASTM E119 protocol are (Ellingwood & Shaver 1979):

o Collapse of the component or failure to inhibit passage of flame or
hot gases
o Attainment of the limiting average temperature of 593C in
reinforcement
o Rise of 139C in the average temperature of the unexposed surface
of the test component.


The ISO 834 fire is the basis of most fire resistance tests and is defined according
to the following equation:
T = 345 log
10
(8 t +1) + T
0

where t is the time (minutes) and To is the ambient temperature (C).

Where a structural member is engulfed in flames from a large pool fire, the
hydrocarbon fire curve according to EC1 (EC1-03) should be used. The
hydrocarbon fire curve is defined as follows:
T = 1080 (1 0.325 e
0.167

t
0.675

e2.5

t
) + 20
Where t is the time (minutes).

Structural members located outside a burning compartment will be exposed to
lower temperatures than the members inside a compartment unless they are
engulfed in flames.
They can be designed according to:
T = 660 (1 0.687
e0.32

t
0.313
e3.8

t
) + 20
Where t is the time (minutes).
The fires mentioned above are shown in Figure

The Eurocode (EC1-03) also provides an equation for parametric fires, which
allows a time-temperature relationship considering any combination of fuel loads,
ventilation openings and wall lining materials. Thus the fire curve can be adjusted
to any existing fuel load to produce a realistic temperature development to allow
for a performance-based design.
The temperature during the heating period is defined as:

Where

Time Equivalent Methodology
The methodology for establishing time equivalency between standard and design
fire scenarios is based on equivalent energy concept. The energy based concept is
better suited, than equal area or maximum temperature approach, for
establishing equivalency since equal energy concept relates the fire severity, and
thus resulting fire resistance, to the amount of energy transferred to the beam.
Accordingly, two fires will have the same fire severity if they transfer same
amount of energy to an RC beam. The amount of energy transferred to an RC
beam exposed to fire is related to the heat flux on the fire exposed boundaries of
the beam, which involves heat transfer through convection and radiation. The
convection and radiation heat flux on the boundary of an RC beam exposed to fire
can be given by the following two formulae respectively: [5]


or

The term E represents the energy bound by the time- temperature curve of
given fire exposure. Both A and are assumed to be constant
where A = Area of boundary exposed to fire and E = total energy

where t e(FE) =time equivalent computed from maximum deflection method (or
FE analysis) and
t e(energy) =time equivalent computed from equivalent energy method and
Tmax = maximum temperature of design fire.


This energy based approach can only be applied if the temperature of the
compartment can be assumed as a single temperature and the convective heat
transfer coefficient and emissivity have to be homogeneous along the structural
element. In the current study, an emissivity (e) value of 0.5 and convective heat
transfer coefficient (hc)of 25 W/m2K are used. Thus using the equivalent energy
principle, a design fire will have the same severity as that of the standard fire if Es
= Ed
where Es = total energy under the heat flux (q/) curve of the standard fire, and
Ed = total energy under the heat flux (q/) curve of the design fire.
Consequently, the equivalent time can be computed by equating the total area
under the heat flux (q/) curve for the design fire with the area under the heat
flux (q/a) curve for the standard fire as shown in Fig. 5 (for the standard and
design fires). To arrive at equivalency, first the total area under the heat flux
curve for the design fire (area B in Fig. 5) is computed. The area under the heat
flux of a standard fire (area A in Fig. 5) is computed at various time steps. The
time at which area A (which varies as a function of time) equals area B is the time
equivalent of the design fire(kodour)
2
.
2.1.2 Numerical and Analytical Methods
Due to the costs involved in performing fire tests, numerical and analytical
methods have been developed as an economic alternative for determining fire
resistance. These methods have proven to be successful in predicting the fire
resistance of structural elements (Lie 1972; Lie 1992), and the application and
limitations of each are explained. The main advantage of analytical methods is
that simple graphs and formulae can be used to estimate the fire resistance
(Bushev, Pchelintsev, Fedorenko, & Yakovlev 1972; Lie 1972; Malhotra 1982;
Wade 1991). These techniques eliminate the need for computers and special
testing devices, and estimations can be done quickly without much effort by
applying simple algebra.
However, analytical procedures are less accurate in determining temperatures in
structural elements than numerical and testing procedures because their
application is limited to specific conditions and assumptions. Numerical methods,
albeit more complicated, have several advantages over their analytical
counterparts (Harmathy 1979; Hertz 1981; Munukutla 1989; Lie 1992). For
instance, they enable the solution of complex heat transfer problems for which
analytical solutions have not yet been developed. Additionally, solving the
governing heat transfer equations numerically allows for the implementation and
investigation of temperature- dependent material properties. On the other hand,
use of numerical methods is more complicated and time consuming than the use
of analytical methods. Time is needed to develop and input the model as well as
to review and interpret the body of results. Computers have reduced calculation
time significantly but the preparation phase before execution is still cumbersome
and involves programming equations into software applications as well as
determining material properties as a function of time.



Application Of Structural Engineering Principles To Design For Fire Safety

The rational design procedure described in this document applies structural
engineering principles and material properties at elevated temperature to the
calculation of fire resistance of reinforced or pre-stressed concrete beams and
floor slabs.
Current methods used for reinforced or pre- stressed concrete structural
elements are based on tabular data. This tabular data specifies fire resistance
according to the minimum width or thickness of the element and the amount of
concrete cover provided to tensile steel. In many cases, the use of this tabulated
data will be sufficient, particularly when fire resistance requirements do not
govern the design of the element. When fire resistance governs the dimensions of
the element then a rational design approach may well be appropriate particularly
for members requiring fire resistance of more than about 90 to 120 minutes for
reinforced concrete and about 60 minutes for pre-stressed concrete.
When fire resistance requirements do govern cover requirements for flexural
elements, the rational fire design procedure can be used to most advantage by
optimising design to take into account a range of properties (such as restraint,
amount of steel and degree of loading) other than just element width or thickness
or concrete cover to tensile steel. All of these parameters can have an influence
on the amount of fire resistance achieved.
The failure criterion used by this design procedure is that of 'Loadbearing
Capacity' (or collapse) for slabs and beams, and in addition 'Insulation' for slabs.
These criteria are consistent with internationally accepted criteria for fire
resistance testing of beams and floors, except that vertical deflection of the
element is not considered. This factor is not regarded as significant as an
increasing rate of deflection will normally precede the collapse of the member.
The mode of failure is assumed to be in flexure and the time at failure is taken as
the time at which the moment capacity of the element, which reduces as the
temperature within the section increases, becomes less than the moment applied
to the element. Shear failure of flexural members in fire rarely occurs, but can be
checked for in the usual way using material properties at elevated temperatures
and factored loads.
As safety factors are already incorporated into the fire resistance period and the
normal design loads, in fire design it is usual to allow the load factors and design
live loads to be reduced.

STRUCTURAL RESPONSE AND DESIGN PROCEDURES

Concrete structures have a very good record for their performance in fire. There
are likely to be a number of reasons for this:
(a) Standard fire resistance testing has traditionally treated structural elements in
isolation, treating failure of an individual element as unacceptable, even if the
structure as a whole remains satisfactory due to the presence of structural
redundancy. In a real building, the failure of one structural element is not
necessarily indicative of structural collapse of the whole building.
(b) At higher temperatures concrete elements become more flexible, due to a
reduction in elastic modulus and are therefore capable of greater structural
deformations.
(d) The imposed load may be much less than the design load assumed in the
determination of fire resistance.

(d) The imposed load may be much less than the design load assumed in the
determination of fire resistance.
Structural Design Loads for Fire
In standard fire resistance testing, loadbearing structures are usually loaded to
produce their maximum permissible stresses, thus assuming that the full design
load is present at the time of the fire. The Institution. good performance of many
concrete structures to the fact that the imposed load on the structure in a fire is
often much less than the full design load.
As fire can be considered an accidental load, then its simultaneous occurrence
with other accidental loads can generally be ignored. Buchanan*





Design Process


2.2 Code recommendations for fire design of concrete beams
This section gives an overview of the regulations concerning the design of fire
resistance of different codes, with emphasis on the design of concrete beams.
2.2.1 Eurocode
Eurocode 1 Part 1-2: Actions on structures exposed to fire (EC1-03) regulates
calculation models for the determination of temperature and load effects. The
fire scenario is treated as exceptional action and does not need to be
superimposed with other, independent exceptional actions. For the fire design,
different time-temperature curves for the determination of the hot-gas-
temperature are provided. These are stated in section 2.4.
Eurocode 2 Part 1-2: Design of Concrete Structures Structural Fire Design
(EC2-02) (EC2-95) deals with the design of concrete structures for the case of fire.
It states the design values for material properties and combination factors for
actions and treats methods of the passive and structural fire precautions; active
fire protection methods are not included.
For the determination of a sufficient fire rating, Eurocode 2 (EC2-02) (EC2-95)
gives three alternatives of design methods:
Tabulated data
In dependence on the fire resistance rating, the tabulated data gives minimum
values for cross-sectional dimensions and the axial distances of the longitudinal
reinforcement to the concrete surface. For beams there is a distinction between
simply supported and continuous beams.
For statically determinate structures the axial distance of the reinforcement is
determined such, that for the fire resistance time, the critical temperature in the
steel bars is 500C. Reaching this critical temperature, the reinforcement reaches
its yield stress if the loads under fire conditions equal 0.7 times the load under
cold conditions. If the applied load in the event of fire is less, the tabulated axial
distances may be reduced. a reduced cross-section consisting of cooler parts of
the member. Therefore, the temperature profiles within the member and data of
the temperature dependant changes of the material properties are needed. More
details on simplified calculation methods are given in section 2.3.1.
Advanced calculation methods
Advanced calculation methods can be used for the simulation of the structural
behaviour of single members, parts of the structure, or the entire structure.
The advanced calculation methods provide a realistic analysis of the structures
exposed to fire. They are based on fundamental physical behaviour leading to a
reliable approximation of the expected behaviour under fire conditions.
Thermal analysis shall be based on acknowledged principles and assumptions of
the theory of heat transfer and include the temperature dependant thermal
properties of the materials. Mechanical analysis shall be based on the
acknowledged principles and assumptions of the theory of structural mechanics,
taking into account the changes of mechanical properties with temperature. Non-
linear geometrical effects and the effects of thermally induced strains and
stresses shall be considered, as well as all strains due to the temperature,
mechanical loads, creep and transient creep (EC2-02).
The code provides details on the thermal and mechanical properties of concrete
and reinforcing steel when they are subjected to elevated temperatures. 2.2.2
German Standard
The German regulations on determining the fire resistance of concrete structures
are regulated according to DIN 4102-4 (DIN-4102-4). DIN 4102-4 gives tabulated
data considering the size of the member, the axial distance of the longitudinal
reinforcement to the concrete surface and the minimum number of reinforcing
bars within the beam, related to the fire resistance rating.
At present, DIN 4102-4 is not applicable to the current German concrete standard
DIN 1045-1, as it is based on stress analysis and not on the partial safety
coefficient concept used in DIN 1045-1. This discrepancy is going to be closed with
the introduction of DIN 4102-22, which is a direction for use of DIN 4102-4. At the
moment, the first draft of DIN 4102-22 (DIN-4102-22) has been published. For the
design of concrete beams the application of DIN 4102-22 will not result in great
changes in the use of the tabulated data.
At the moment, the determination of the fire resistance has to be performed
using the tabulated data of Eurocode 2 (EC2-95), considering additional
regulations stated in DIBt-Richtlinie zur Anwendung von DIN V ENV 1992-1-2 in
Verbindung mit DIN 1045-1" (DIBt-02).
1.3 IS CODES FOR FIRE RESISTANCE
Most of the countries have their own fire protection codes and consider fire
resistant design in their normal construction practices. However in India fire
resistance design has not yet gained attention. This is clear from the fact that all
codes for fire safety of buildings were introduced in latter half of 1980s and since
then have not been revised. These codes were based on then research done on
fire protection in countries like USA, UK and Canada. Even the code for fire
resistance test of structures is based on, then ISO-834.

Above points show the need for introduction of new fire resistant design code for
structures in Indian context. Indian codes are prescriptive codes and they lay
down guidelines to be followed to achieve fire resistance of required duration.
From design point of view, provisions in code are limited to minimum dimension
and minimum cover to reinforcing steel to achieve fire resistance ranging from 0.5
hr to 4 hr.
IS: 1641-1988 defines fire load as heat in kilocalories which is liberated per sq. m. of floor area.
This amount of heat is used as the basis for classification of occupancies. It also defines 3 types
of fire zones, which are basically groups of different types of buildings (classified on based on
occupancy). IS: 1642-1989 classifies type of construction according to fire resistance into 4
categories namely type 1, type 2, type 3 and type 4.The code also enlists fire resistance ratings
for various type of construction and building elements (walls, beams, column etc). It also enlists
minimum dimensions of building elements for different fire resistance. NBC:2005 Part- 4
provides the criterion for limit state of insulation. It states that on an unexposed face maximum
temperature should not exceed 180
0
C at any location on the face and average temperature of the
face should not exceed 150
0
C. IS: 3809-1979 describes the procedures for conducting standard
fire resistance tests. Indian standard for RC design of buildings (general) IS: 456-2000 ensures
fire safety of structure by laying guidelines regarding the minimum dimension and cover
requirements for various fire rating (duration) of columns, beams and floors.









Table 2.2:- List of various IS codes related to fire safety of buildings (General)
IS 1641:1988
Code of practice for fire safety of buildings (General): General
principles of fire grading and classification
IS 1642:1989
Fire safety of buildings (General): Details of construction-code of
practice
IS 1643:1988
Code of practice for fire safety of buildings (General): Exposure
hazards
IS 1644:1988
Code of practice for fire safety of buildings (General): Exit
requirements and personal hazard
IS 1646:1997
Code of practice for fire safety of buildings (General): Electrical
installation
IS 3808:1979 Method of test for non-combustibility of building materials
IS 3809:1979 Fire resistance test of structures

Code of practice for fire safety of special/particular buildings and institutions like industrial
buildings, temporary structures, libraries, hotels, educational institutions had also been
introduced in 1990s [32, 33, 36-39, 49]


2.3 Design methods
2.3.1 Simplified calculation methods
The design of beams under fire conditions is normally performed in the strength
domain. Thus it has to be demonstrated, that the design resistance under fire
conditions is greater than the design action at a particular duration of the fire. For
the determination of the design resistance, the reduced strength of the concrete
and the reinforcement has to be determined. Eurocode 2 (EC2-02) gives two
methods to determine the residual strength of a structural member using reduced
cross-sections:
The 500C isotherm method comprises a general reduction of the cross-
section size with respect to a heat-damaged zone at the concrete surfaces. The
thickness of the damaged zone is made equal to the average depth of the 500C
isotherm in the compression zone of the cross-section. Thus concrete with
temperatures in excess of 500C is assumed not to contribute to the load bearing
capacity of the member, whilst the residual cross-section retains its initial values
of strength and modulus of elasticity. Taking the reduced strength of the
reinforcement bars into account, the ultimate load bearing capacity can be
determined using conventional calculation methods, such as those stated in the
Eurocode (EC2-02), by the CRSI (Gut-80), Harmathy (Har-93), or the ACI
Committee (ACI-81).
The Zone method subdivides the cross-section into several zones of
equivalent thickness and evaluates the reduced strength of each zone. Out of the
single value of each zone, a damaged zone and the residual strength of the
reduced cross- section can be determined. For the standard fire curve, the
Eurocode provides several diagrams which allow for a quicker determination of
the reduced cross- section. This method is more accurate, but also more
laborious, compared to the 500C isotherm method.
For the determination of the temperature profiles needed, published generic
temperature contours for structural members can be used. Temperature contours
have been published among others by FIP (FIP-78), ACI (ACI-81), Wade (Wad-91)
and the Eurocode (EC2-95) (EC2-02) for standard fires. For fire conditions other
than standard fires, the temperature profiles should be determined using suitable
computer programs.

PROPERTIES OF STEEL AND CONCRETE AT ELEVATED TEMP






Effect of Fire on Building Materials
A relatively new method for determining fire exposure used by fire protection
engineers is to first calculate the fire load density in a compartment. Then, based
on the ventilation conditions and an assumed source of combustion determine
the compartment temperature at various times. Another factor considered in the
analysis is the effect of active fire protection systems e.g. sprinklers or fire
brigades on the growth of the fire. The size and timing of the fire growth
determined by fire analysis is sensitive to changes in the fuel load over time and
changing ventilation conditions during the fire. This method of fire analysis
requires special software and extensive training and is used only in very large or
unusual buildings. Once the temperature time relationship is determined using a
standard curve or from the method described above, the effect of the rise in
temperature on the structure can be determined. The rise in temperature causes
the free water in concrete to change from a liquid state to a gaseous state. This
change in state causes changes in the rate with which heat is transmitted from
the surface into the interior of the concrete component. The rise in temperature
causes a decrease in the strength and modulus of elasticity for both concrete and
steel reinforcement. However, the rate at which the strength and modulus
decrease depends on the rate of increase in the temperature of the fire and the
insulating properties of concrete. Note that concrete does not burn.
Concrete
The change in concrete properties due to high temperature depends on the type
of coarse aggregate used. Aggregate used in concrete can be classified into three
types:
(a) Carbonate,
(b) Siliceous and
(c) Lightweight.
Carbonate aggregates include limestone and dolomite. Siliceous aggregate
include materials consisting of silica and include granite and sandstone.
Lightweight aggregates are usually manufactured by heating shale, slate, or clay.

Temp
Figure 1 Effect of high temperature on the compressive strength of concrete.
Figure 1 shows the effect of high temperature on the compressive strength of
concrete. The specimens represented in the figure were stressed to 40% of their
compressive strength during the heating period. After the designated test
temperature was reached, the load was increased gradually until the specimen
failed. The figure shows that the strength of concrete containing siliceous
aggregate begins to drop off at about 800 F and is reduced to about 55% at
1200F. Concrete containing lightweight aggregates and carbonate aggregates
retain most of their compressive strength up to about 1200 F. Lightweight
concrete has insulating properties, and transmits heat at a slower rate than
normal weight concrete with the same thickness, and therefore generally
provides increased fire resistance.
200 93.3
400 204.4
600 315.6
800 426.7
1000 537.8
1200 648.9
1400 760.0
1600 871.1


Figure 2 Effect of high temperature on the modulus of elasticity of concrete.
Figure 2 shows the effect of high temperature on the modulus of elasticity of
concrete. The figure shows that the modulus of elasticity for concretes
manufactured of all three types of aggregates is reduced with the increase in
temperature. Also, at high temperatures, creep and relaxation for concrete
increase significantly.
Steel
Reinforcing steel is much more sensitive to high temperatures than concrete.

Figure 3. The effect of high temperature on the yield strength of steel.


Figure 4. The effect on the modulus of elasticity.
As indicated in the figures, hot-rolled steels (reinforcing bars) retain much of their
yield strength up to about 800 F, while cold-drawn steels (pre stressing strands)
begin to lose strength at about 500 F. Fire resistance ratings therefore vary
between pre stressed and non pre stressed elements, as well as for different
types of concrete.

Temperature Distribution Inside Concrete Elements
To use high temperature property information for various building materials in
predicting performance, it is necessary to know the temperature distribution in
the members of a structure exposed to fire. Due to the transient nature of heat
transmission the temperature distribution in concrete elements exposed to fire is
non-linear. Temperature distribution information has been developed for
concrete members made with different types of concrete.
Slabs
There is a need for simpler methods of estimating the temperature of steel in
structural concrete members to be available which do not require detailed heat
transfer calculations or computers. Such methods will of course not be as
accurate as the numerical procedures. A common way of providing the
temperature data is by graphical presentation of the form shown in Figure 13 for
concrete slabs (ACI, 1981). The temperature at a depth in the slab can be read
directly off the figure for the required period of exposure. This data is derived
from measurements taken during large numbers of fire resistance tests by the
Portland Cement Association (Abrams and Gustaferro, 1968). Temperature design
data of this sort can either be empirically based (i. e. , derived from the results of
standard fire tests) or analytical (generated from theoretical models).
An empirical expression for the variation in the temperature within a normal
weight siliceous aggregate concrete slab is given by Purkiss, Claridge and Durkin
(1989) as:
T = 558 log
lO
t - (6.82 y + 373.77)
where
T = temperature in slab (
0
C) (for 250 < T < 950)
t = time (min) (for 30 < t < 240)
y = distance from fire-exposed face (mm)
Temperature distributions in concrete slabs or flat panels at selected distances
from the exposed surface during fire exposure are shown for structural concretes
made with siliceous, carbonate, and lightweight aggregates in Figs. 4, 5, and 6,
respectively. Similar information is available for other types of concrete and for
combinations of materials. Slab thickness does not significantly affect
temperatures in the materials except for very thin slabs or when the
temperatures are less than about 200 C (400 F).

Fig 1 Fig 2

Fig 3

Beams
Unfortunately, beams and columns are a little more complex because they are
usually heated from more than one side and temperature distributions depend on
the width of the beam as we11 as the distance from fire exposed surfaces.
Graphical means can still be used to estimate steel temperature but the process
may involve a transformation of the information. Temperature distributions
within concrete beams are considerably different than those obtained for flat
slabs. Temperatures within beams are affected not only by distance from the
exposed surface but also by beam width. Much of the temperature distribution
information for beams resulted from a test program in which 32 rectangular "T"
beam specimens were tested [ 11]. Beams were 406 mm (16 in.) deep and had
widths from 51 mm to 610 mm (2 in. to 24 in.). Several types of aggregates were
included in the test program. All specimens were exposed to a standard ASTM
El19 test. Representative temperature distributions for a 305-mm (12- in.) wide
normal-weight concrete beam at fire exposure times of one and three hours are
shown in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively. Similar distributions for selected exposure
periods have been prepared for all 32 beams of the test program.Results shown
here are taken from ACI 216.

Fig 1 Fig 2 Fig 3
























Structural behaviour of Flexural elements


Load Combination and Resistance Factors for Fire Exposure.
All major codes includes a on load combinations for extraordinary events, such as
fire, explosions and vehicular impact. This load combination recognizes the small
probability of such occurrences by utilizing load factors which are lower than for
normal load combinations. It is opined that no resistance factors need to be used
on the resistance side of the equation. Additionally, the structure only needs to
withstand the fire without failure and, thus, no service- ability criteria should be
applicable.( By Socrates A. Ioannides , Sandeep Mehta).
1.2D + Ak + (0.5L or 0.2S)
where: D = Dead Load
L = Live load
S = Snow Load
Ak = Load effect resulting from extraordinary event
Also as the safety factors are already incorporated into the fire resistance period
and the normal design loads, in fire design it is usual to allow the load factors and
design live loads to be reduced(C Wade).

2.5 Simply supported beam under fire conditions
When a simply supported beam, as shown in Figure 2.2, is exposed to fire, it will
expand outwards and gradually deflect downwards. The expansion is due to the
thermal elongation of the materials. The deflection results from the non-linear
temperature gradients that form across the cross-section of the beam and lead
the beam to bow thermally. The high temperatures at the bottom and the sides of
the beam will cause the tensile reinforcement to lose its flexural strength as well
as the concrete in the compression zone to lose its compressive strength. This
reduction in the flexural strength of the beam will result in increasing deflections.
When the applied bending moment exceeds the residual strength of the beam, a
plastic hinge will form and failure will occur.

Experimental tests on simply supported members have been carried out by the
Portland Cement Association. In three different studies the fire resistance of
prestressed concrete members has been investigated.
Study A investigated the influence of thickness of concrete cover of the
prestressing steel strands (Car-62). The tests showed that an increase in covering
did increase the fire resistance, but not proportionally.
Study B studied the influence of aggregate and load intensity (Sel-64). It was
shown that beams made of concrete containing expanded shale aggregates
exhibited longer fire endurance than did beams of normal weight aggregate
concrete. Beams made of normal weight aggregate mainly failed in tension as the
steel elongated at critical amounts, whereas lightweight concrete members
showed a compression failure at the top of the beams as their compression zones
were subjected to higher temperatures due to the longer fire endurance. Heavier
loading led to a more rapid midspan deflection and failure occurred at lower
average temperatures, and so shorter endurance times, than did the lighter
loading.
In study C, the type of reinforcement, the type of bond and the influence of
aggregate were investigated (Gus-71). Beams with reinforcing bars showed longer
fire endurance than those with post-tensioned high-strength alloy bars or cold
drawn wire. General effects of the type of bond and the aggregate could not be
obtained in those tests.
Structural behavior For a simply supported reinforced concrete slab, with the
underside of the slab exposed to fire, the bottom of the slab will expand more
than the top resulting in a deflection of the slab [12]. The tensile strength of the
concrete and steel near the bottom of the slab will decrease as the temperature
increases. When the strength of the steel at elevated temperature reduces to the
stress in the steel due to loads, a structural end point can be expected to occur.
The nominal moment strength can be expressed by the following
equation:(Gustaferro)
Mn=AsFy(d-a/2)
where
As = the area of the reinforcing steel
fy = the yield stress of the reinforcing steel
d = the distance from the centroid of the re- inforcing steel to the extreme
compressive fiber
a = the depth of the equivalent rectangular compressive stress block at ultimate
load and is equal to As fy/O.85fc'b where fc' is the compressive strength of the
concrete
b = the width of the slab/beam. If the slab is uniformly loaded, the moment
diagram will be parabolic with a maximum value at midspan:
M=

w = dead plus live load per unit of length
l = span length. It can be assumed that during a fire the dead and live loads
remain constant. However, the material strengths are reduced so that the
retained nominal moment strength is:
Mn
Q
=As Fy
Q
(d - a
Q
/2)
in which
Q
signifies the effects of elevated temperatures. Note that As and d are
not affected, but fy
Q
is reduced. Similarly ao is reduced, but the concrete strength
at the top of the slab fc' is generally not reduced significantly. If, however, the
compressive zone of the concrete is heated, an appropriate reduction should be
assumed. Flexural failure can be assumed to occur when Mn
Q
is reduced to M.
From this expression, it can be noted that the fire endurance depends on the
load. intensity and the strength-temperature characteristics of steel.
Estimating structural fire endurance
Figure 9 shows the fire endurance of simply supported concrete slabs as affected
by type of reinforcement, type of concrete, moment intensity and the thickness of
con- crete between the center of the reinforcement and the fire exposure surface
(referred to as "u" or the "cover"). If the reinforcement is distributed over the
tensile zone of the cross section, the value of u is the weighted average of the u
distances of the individual bars in the tensile zone with the weighting included to
consider the effect of using bars of different diameters. The graphs in Fig. 9 can
be used to estismate the fire endurance of simply supported concrete beams by
using "effective u" rather than "u". Effective u accounts for beam width by
assuming that the u values for corner bars are reduced by one-half for use in
calculating the average u.

Fig. 9. Fire endurance of concrete slabs as influenced by aggregate type,
reinforcing steel type, moment intensity, and u.
* = Asfy/bdfc'. ( <.3)
I in. = 25.4 mm.
2.6 Restraints
It should be recognized that thermal restraint is not necessarily the same as
structural restraint. Thermal restraint can be in the form of thrust restraint or
rotational restraint.




2.6 Effect of axial or thrust restraint.
Axial restraint can have a significant influence on the fire performance of concrete
beams. It results when a heated member is restrained from thermal expansion by
a more rigid surrounding structure and thus compressive axial forces develop in
the beam.

Figure 2.3 shows the effect of axial restraint on a simply supported concrete beam
restrained by rigid supports as stated by Buchanan (Buc-01). Due to the heating of
the beam an axial thrust T develops, which can be considered as external
prestressing. It can be seen that the applied moment M*fire can be resisted,
although the flexural moment capacity at elevated temperatures Mf may be
smaller than M*fire. This is due to the additional bending moment T*e induced in
the structure by the axial force, where e is the eccentricity between the line of
action of the thermal thrust and the centroid of the compression block near the
top of the beam, as shown in Figure 2.4.

The total flexural resistance R
fire
can thus be calculated as:
R
Fire
= M
f
+ t*e
It can be seen from equation (2.5) that the positive effect of the thermal thrust is
strongly dependant on the position of the axial force. The additional moment may
become negative if large deflections occur or the axial force acts at the top of the
beam. Consequently, the resulting moment will tend to deflect the beam
downwards. Unless T is large enough to induce sufficient compressive stress to
counteract the tensile stresses caused by T*e and the applied moment, structural
failure will occur earlier (Car-65).

The position of the line of thrust can only be located accurately for specific
support conditions where the line of thrust is well defined due to the method of
construction.
Figure 2.5 (a) to (c) show such determinate support conditions which mainly exist
in precast concrete construction. Figure 2.5 (d) represents a situation, such as
cast-in-place concrete, where the position of the thrust line is not clearly defined.
Fire tests have shown, that when only minimal thrust occurs, the thrust line is
near the bottom of the member throughout the fire exposure. For highly
restrained members the thrust line will be at the bottom of the member at the
start of the fire, with the position rising slowly during the fire.
In order to develop the beneficial effects of axial restraint, the surrounding
structure has to provide sufficient strength and stiffness to restrain the thermal
elongation. According to Gustaferro (Gus-86), the thrust forces that occur can be
quite large but are always considerably less than that calculated by use of elastic
properties of concrete and steel together with appropriate coefficients of
expansion as at high temperatures, creep and stress relaxations play an important
role.
Experimental investigations of the effects of axial restraint on fire exposed
concrete members have first been executed by the Portland Cement Association
(Sel-63). A series of double-tee shaped specimens were exposed to the American
standard fire ASTME119. Each specimen was permitted to expand a given amount
and then further expansion was prevented. Issen (Iss-70) reported that all tested
beams supported their load longer than would have anticipated for simply
supported beams. The tests have also shown that the maximum thrust for a given
allowed expansion is proportional to the heated perimeter and the concretes
modulus of elasticity, where the heated perimeter is defined as the perimeter of
the cross-section of the specimen, perpendicular to the direction of the thrust,
which is exposed to fire. Based on the test results, a step-by-step method
incorporating several nomograms was developed to estimate the thrust
requirements for a given fire endurance for simply supported beams (PCI-77).
The applicability of this approach to slabs and beams other than those tested has
not been demonstrated. Besides, Anderberg and Forsn (And-82) have shown,
using the non-linear finite element program CONFIRE, that the PCI method over-
predicts the developing axial force. Wade (Wad-91) recommends that the positive
effects of thermal restraint be disregarded where the location of the thrust is
difficult to determine.
Numerical analyses on the effect of a moveable line of thrust on the behaviour of
one-way concrete slabs have been carried out by Lim (Lim-03). Lim showed that
the slab behaviour is very sensitive to the position of the line of thrust. If the
position of the line of thrust is located much above the soffit of the slab, the slabs
will rapidly undergo large deformations and sag into a catenary, imposing axial
tensile forces at the supports. The analyses have also shown that even if the line
of thrust is located close to the soffit, the slab can still deform into a catenary if
there is insufficient horizontal axial restraint (Lim-03) (Lim-04).
2.7 Effect of Rotational Restrain
Rotational Restraint (Figure 2), on the other hand, produces negative end
moments which also reduce the positive moment at mid-span. The negative end
moments can be resisted either by reinforcing in the slab (which remains cooler)
or by the simple beam connections and the capacity of the steel section itself for
negative moment at elevated temperatures.





Figure 3 shows the required flexural strength (Mu ) and nominal flexural strength
(Mn) for an unrestrained beam before and after fire. Notice that before fire there
exists some negative nominal flexural strength (possibly less than the positive due
to longer unbraced flange lengths) in the beam, but it drops to zero at the ends
because of the absence of connection capacity. Also, notice that both Mu and Mn
have reduced after fire. Mu reduces due to reduced load fac- tors and Mn due to
lower capacity (see discussion in the follow- ing section).



Rotational restraint (Figure 5) results in shifting the moment diagram by imposing
negative moments equal to the flexural strength of the restraint (connection
capacity or composite action). In the case of composite action, notice the
additional negative nominal flexural strength resulting from the existence of
reinforcing in the slab.
2.7 Effect of continuity
Continuous flexural elements have a considerably greater fire resistance than
simply supported elements. Their superior performance is due to beneficial
changes in the moment distribution that take place in response to fire exposure,
and their higher level of redundancy against failure (Har-93) (Buc-01) (Gut-80).


Figure 2.6 shows the centre beam of a member that is continuous over several
supports. When it is heated, the beam wants to deflect downwards due to the
temperature gradient which produces different amounts of thermal elongation on
the top and the bottom of the beam. This thermally induced curvature results in a
uniform negative bending moment M
thermal
along the length of the beam.
Consequently the support moments M
-
cold of the beam increase and the bending
moment at the span M
+
cold decreases. This is beneficial to the beams fire
endurance, as the moment is reduced at the midspan where the beams flexural
capacity is reduced faster due to higher temperatures in the steel bars. The
M
-
cold

M
+
cold


Mthermal



M
-
cold + Mthermal

M
+
cold + Mthermal
change in bending moment will always be limited to between the reduced
positive and negative flexural capacity of the beam. Gustaferro and Martin (PCI-
77) state that the amount of redistribution that occurs is sufficient to cause
yielding of the negative reinforcement. By increasing the amount of negative
moment reinforcement, a greater negative moment will be attracted. To avoid a
compression failure in the negative moment region, the amount of negative
moment reinforcement should be small enough so that = Asfy/bdfc is less than
about 0.30 even after reductions due to temperature are taken into account. In
contrast to simply supported members, a continuous beam will not fail until three
plastic hinges form.
Experimental tests on the behaviour of continuous beams carried out by Ehm and
v. Postel (Ehm-65) showed that the negative flexural capacity at the supports is
reached quite early during the fire exposure. The reduction in flexural stiffness
due to cracks forming at the support reduced the induced moment. As the
temperatures increased and the flexural stiffness of the span dropped, the
support moment increased again. Tests carried out by the Portland Cement
Association (Lin-81) (Lin-88) report beneficial effects of the continuity over the
supports. The tests were also simulated with mathematical models, which
showed sufficient accuracy (Ell-91).
However, Malhotra (Mal-69) reports as a result of tests that the continuity over
supports without any horizontal restraint showed only marginal effects on the
overall performance of beams compared to simply supported ones. The beams
failed through the formation of three plastic hinges, but those formed more or
less simultaneously.


















Structural behavior

Figure 10 shows a continuous beam, whose underside is exposed to fire. The
bottom of the beam becomes hotter than the top and tends to expand more than
the top. This differential heating causes the ends of the beam to tend to lift from
their supports thus increasing the reaction at the interior support. This action
results in a redistribution of :moments, i.e., the negative moment at the interior
support increases while the positive moments decrease. During the course of a
fire, the negative moment reinforcement remains cooler than the positive
moment reinforcement because it is better protected from the fire. Thus, some
increase in the negative moment can be accommodated. However, the redistribu-
tion that occurs may be sufficient to cause yielding of the negative moment
reinforce- ment. The resulting decrease in positive moment means that the
positive moment reinforcement can be heated to a higher temperature before
failure will occur. Thus, it is apparent that the fire endurance of a continuous
reinforced concrete beam is generally significantly longer than that of a similar
simply supported beam loaded to the same moment intensity.

Detailing precautions
Again, the amount of redistribution that occurs is sufficient to cause yielding of
the negative moment reinforcement. By increasing the amount of negative
moment reinforcement, a greater negative moment will be attracted, so care
must be exercised in designing the member to assure that flexural tension will
govern the design. To avoid a compressive failure in the negative moment region,
the amount of negative moment reinforcement should be small enough so that
o- i.e. As'fy/bd'fc' is less than about 0.30 even after reductions due to
temperature in fy and fc' are taken into account. Furthermore, the negative
moment reinforcing bars must be long enough to accommodate the complete
redistributed moment and change in the location of inflection points. It is
recommended that at least 20% of the maximum negative moment
reinforcement in the span extend throughout the span.
Estimating structural fire endurance
The charts in Fig. 9 can be used to estimate
the fire endurance of continuous beams andslabs. To use the charts, first estimate
the negative moment at the supports taking into account the temperatures of the
negative moment reinforcement and of the concrete in the compressive zone
near the supports. Then estimate the maximum positive moment after
redistribution. Entering the appropriate chart with the ratio of that positive
moment to the initial positive nominal moment strength, the fire endurance for
the positive moment region can be estimated. If the resulting fire endurance
is considerably different than that originally assumed in estimating the steel and
concrete temperatures, a more accurate estimate can be made by trial and error.
Usually such refinement is unnecessary. It is also possible to design the
reinforcement in a continuous beam or slab for a particular fire endurance period.
From the lowermost diagram of Fig. 10 the beam can be expected to collapse
when the positive nominal moment strength M& is reduced to the value indicated
by the dashed horizontal line, i.e., when the applied moment at a point x1 from
the outer support, M,> = M&. For a uniform applied load w,

And

also
x
0 =
2x
1

For a symmetrical interior bay,
X
1
=

Thus, substituting for x
1
,

or

FIRE ENDURANCE OF FLOORS AND ROOFS IN WHICH RESTRAINT TO THERMAL
EXPANSION OCCURS
Structural behavior
If a fire occurs beneath a small interior portion of a large reinforced concrete slab,
93 the heated portion will tend to expand and push against the surrounding part
of the slab. In turn, the unheated part of the slab exerts compressive forces on
the heated portion. The compressive force, or thrust, acts near the bottom of the
slab when the fire first occurs, but as a fire progresses the line of action of
the thrust rises. At high temperatures, creep and stress relaxation play an
important role. Nevertheless, the thrust is generally great enough to increase the
fire endurance significantly. In most fire tests of restrained assemblies, the fire
endurance is determined by temperature rise of the unexposed surface rather
than by structural considerations even though the steel temperatures often
exceed 800 0(3 (1500 F). The effects of restraint to thermal expansion
can be characterized as shown in Fig. 11. The thermal thrust acts in a manner
similar to an external prestressing force, which, in effect, increases the positive
nominal moment strength.



Fig. 11. Moment diagrams for axially restrained beam during fire exposure. Note
that at 3 h Mn
Q
is less than M and effects of axial restraint permit beam to
continue to support load.
Estimating structural fire endurance
The increase in nominal moment strength is similar to the effect of "fictitious
reinforcement" located along the line of action of the thrust. It can be assumed
that the "fictitious reinforcement" has a strength (force) equal to the thrust. By
this approach, it is possible to determine the magnitude and location of the
required thrust to provide a given fire endurance. The procedure for estimating
thrust requirements is:
(1) determine temperature distribution at the required fire test duration;
(2) determine the retained nominal moment strength for that temperature
distribution;
(3) if the applied moment, M, is greater than the retained moment capacity M,e,
estimate the midspan deflection at the given fire test time (if M, is greater than
M no thrust is needed);
(4) estimate the line of action of the thrust;
(5) calculate the magnitude of the required thrust, T;
(6) calculate the "thrust parameter", T/AE, where A is the gross cross-sectional
area of the section resisting the thrust and E is the concrete modulus of elasticity
prior to fire exposure;
(7) calculate Z defined as Z = A/s in which s is the "heated perimeter" defined as
that portion of the perimeter of the cross section resisting the thrust exposed to
fire;
(8) use Fig. 12 with the appropriate thrust parameter and Z value and determine
the "strain parameter", A/;
(9) calculate A by multiplying the strain parameter by the heated length of the
member; and
(10) determine if the surrounding or supporting structure can support the thrust T
with a displacement no greater than A.
The above explanation is greatly simplified because in reality restraint is quite
complex, and can be likened to the behavior of a flexural member subjected to an
axial force[13,14].




Multi-course assemblies
Floors and roofs often consist of concrete base slabs with overlays or
ndercoatings of other types of concrete or insulating ma- terials. If the fire
endurances of the individual courses are known, the fire endurance of the
composite assembly can be estimated from the formula:

R = (R
1
.59
+ R
2
.59
+ ... + R
n
.59
)
1.7


where R = fire endurance of the composite assembly in minutes, and R1, R2, Rn =
the fire endurances of the individual courses in minutes.


2.8 Shear
Shear failure is not usually a problem in fire exposed concrete structures, with the
exception of precast pre-tensioned slabs with narrow webs (Buc-01). Tests by Lin
et al. (Lin-88) on highly loaded reinforced concrete beams showed that shear
cracks developed during the fire exposure before flexural cracks occurred. But as
the latter extended rapidly, all the beams tested failed in flexure rather than in
shear.
Eurocode 2 (EC2-02) also states, that shear failure is very uncommon, and thus
provides calculation methods that are stated as not having been fully verified.
Normal temperature design methods are recommended, using the reduced cross
sections and material properties obtained with the simplified calculation methods
stated in section 2.3.1. If there is no shear reinforcement provided, or the shear
capacity relies mainly on the reduced tensile strength of the concrete, the actual
shear behaviour of the concrete at elevated temperatures must be considered.
Franssen and Brul (Fra-97) assumed that the shear resistance of concrete is less
affected by the temperature than the compressive strength. Thus, they showed
that the concrete contribution to the shear strength reduces more slowly than the
contribution of steel stirrups or any prestressing forces.
Desai (Des-98) has proposed a similar design rule for estimating shear capacities
of rectangular beams exposed to fire. The method takes the contribution of the
concrete and the links into account. Additionally, the provision of a central
reinforcing bar as a part of the web reinforcement is proposed. The contribution
of this to the shear strength could be useful for beams with smaller dimensions.
The method showed good agreement with test results, but is only applicable to
rectangular beams.




elevated CF PU =ultimate tensile strength of pre stressing steel.
To calculate the reduced moment capacity due to fire, the value of F or and b usually remain unchanged
at elevated temperature where the F PS at the applicable temperature is used. The values of As, d
compression zone is protected from the fire (e.g., by a ceiling/floor slab), except that if the compression
zone of the concrete is heated above 760C (1400F), the concrete above this temperature should be
ignored in the calculation, and reduced values of ftc, b and d (ftC6, be and do) should be used. The
subscript 6 indicates the effect of high temperature.
Figure 18 shows the applied moment and moment capacity for a simply- supported beam with a
uniformly distributed load. Collapse is presumed to occur when the reduced moment capacity at mid-
span reaches the value of the applied moment with the formation of a plastic hinge at mid-span.
Purkiss et a1 (1989) also describe a simple method for calculating the fire resistance of simply supported
one-way spanning slabs which takes into account the load level. They also considered the effects of
variations in concrete strength, steel strength and temperature profiles and concluded that the largest
effect was due to variations in the calculation of temperature profiles, a lesser effect due to variation in
steel strength and a negligible effect due to concrete strength.
To calculate the reduced moment capacity due to fire, the value of F or
and b usually remain unchanged at elevated temperature where the
F PS at the applicable elevated temperature is used. The values of As, d
compression zone is protected from the fire (e.g., by a ceiling/floor slab), except that if the compression
zone of the concrete is heated above 760C (1400F), the concrete above this temperature should be
ignored in the calculation, and reduced values of ftc, b and d (ftC6, be and do) should be used. The
subscript 6 indicates the effect of high temperature.
The procedure outlined in CEB (1987) is similar but varies in the following respects: (1) Concrete heated
to above 500C is ignored in the calculation of loadbearing capacity (e values of b and possibly d need to
be reduced as shown in Figure 16), while concrete with lower temperature can be assumed to retain its
ordinary room temperature strength. Thus a step function for concrete compressive strength is assumed
changing from 1 to 0 at 500C. (2) It is noted that using practical design curves for steel strength, as
described earlier in this report, can lead to structural design which is too conservative, therefore a
critical stress approach is recommended in which F Y in the above
expression is replaced with the critical stress given in Figure 17 (CEB, 1987) as a function of steel
temperature and a cross section parameter

Continuous Beams and Slabs
A beam continuous over its supports possesses a much greater fire resistance than if simply supported.
This is because restraint against rotation provided at the supports causes a redistribution of the applied
moments, increasing the negative moment at the supports as the positive moment decreases due to
elevated temperature. See Figure 19. The fire will tend to have a greater effect in reducing the positive
moments rather than the negative, since the positive moment reinforcement is more exposed to the fire
than the negative. Gustaferro and Martin (1977) indicate the procedure that should be followed for
checking the strength of a continuous beam. The procedure is summarised here (refer to Figure 20 for
moment diagrams and meaning of symbols).
Given a preliminary design of beam - 1.
Determine the positive moment capacity, Mg + at time required using equation [8] .
2.
Determine the required negative -moment capacity (after moment redistribution).
At interior support of an end bay, Mg- = 'rwL2 - wL2 ./2~~+
/wL2 [ 101 At support of symmetrical intermediate bay, Mg = wL2/8 - M~+ [ll]
-3.
Determine the amount of negative reinforcement (or prestressing steel) needed to provide the required
negative moment capacity using equation [8] .
4. Determine the position (maximum value) of the inflection points, (Xo) and thus the necessary lengths
of reinforcement.
Within an end bay, Xo = L - 2Me - /wL 1121 Within a symmetrical intermediate bay, Xo = 4L - 4 J~M~+/w
[ 13 I
For maximum value of Xo, the minimum value of the service load (w) should be used. The negative
reinforcing bars must be long enough to accommodate the redistributed moments and the change in
the position of inflection points. It is recommended that at least 20% of the maximum negative moment
reinforcement be extended throughout the span.
5. Ensure that flexural tension governs design.
To avoid a compressive failure of the concrete, the negative moment reinforcement should be small
enough so that:
-
AS/bgdgftc. Readers are referred to the CEB publication for further detailed information.



Figure 18 shows the applied moment and moment capacity for a simply- supported beam with a
uniformly distributed load. Collapse is presumed to occur when the reduced moment capacity at mid-
span reaches the value of the applied moment with the formation of a plastic hinge at mid-span.
Purkiss et a1 (1989) also describe a simple method for calculating the fire resistance of simply supported
one-way spanning slabs which takes into account the load level. They also considered the effects of
variations in concrete strength, steel strength and temperature profiles and concluded that the largest
effect was due to variations in the calculation of temperature profiles, a lesser effect due to variation in
steel strength and a negligible effect due to concrete strength.