Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
Abstract
In the UK, new design guidance is currently being developed for the behaviour of steel-framed buildings when subjected to fire.
This is primarily based on recent research that considers the structural behaviour of all horizontal members, without applied fire
protection, acting as a complete entity within the building. This guidance assumes that columns designed to current design procedures
will always be adequate when used within this new design philosophy. For bare steel columns these existing design methods usually
consist of applying some form of passive fire protection.
Presented in this paper is an analytical investigation of the structural behaviour of columns when subjected to various structural
and fire scenarios. The results from this study do not endorse the view that current fire design methods for columns are adequate.
These design methods will require revision if instability of columns during a fire is to be avoided. In most cases this will result
in the need for additional passive fire protection to be applied to the steel columns. 2000 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
All rights reserved.
0141-0296/00/$ - see front matter 2000 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 0 2 9 6 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 2 8 - 0
756 C.G. Bailey / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 755768
The design guidance, which is currently being with the steel beams and underside of the steel trap-
developed, based on the Cardington test results, is effec- ezoidal deck unprotected. To highlight the behaviour of
tively a hybrid design philosophy. The design of the the columns the results from two of the tests are briefly
beams (which could possibly be unprotected) and slabs presented, one conducted by BRE, the other by British
is based on the behaviour of the structure as a whole, Steel. The locations of these tests are shown in Fig. 1
whereas the columns are based on current design prac- and are situated in the corner bays of the frame. The
tice by treating them as a series of isolated members. following description of the tests concentrates on the
This paper investigates the validity of this approach and behaviour of the columns. A more detailed description
raises questions about its safety in relation to the overall of the overall structural behaviour is presented else-
stability of the structure. where [1,2].
Fig. 3. Maximum recorded major axis moments during the BRE cor-
Fig. 2. Maximum recorded minor axis moments during the BRE cor- ner fire test.
ner fire test.
Fig. 5. Recorded major axis moment for column E/1 during the British Steel corner compartment fire test (measured 500 mm above second floor).
Fig. 6. Recorded lateral displacement of column E/1 (British Steel test) and column E4 (BRE test).
the beams should, in part, alleviate the lateral displace- lar beams in the BRE and British Steel tests. However,
ment of the columns, results from all the fire tests indi- both tests have shown that high moments are induced
cate that local buckling does not occur until beam steel into the columns owing to thermal expansion of the con-
temperatures in excess of 500C are reached. From Fig. necting beams. This paper presents the possible conse-
6 it can be seen that the difference in displacements quence of this thermal expansion on the behaviour of the
occurs at the start of the test and continued throughout columns and considers the influence of different fire and
the duration of the test. This difference could be due to structural scenarios.
either one of the following, or a combination of the two
(together with local buckling at higher temperatures):
3. Behaviour of steel columns due to lateral
1. The beam in the BRE test was only heated from one
displacement caused by thermal expansion of the
side and was partially protected by the compartment
connecting beams
wall [2].
2. The restraint from the composite floor was different
The results from the Cardington fire tests have shown
in each test, due to the different timetemperature
that the internal and external columns are subjected to
relationship of the tests, as shown in Fig. 7.
high moments caused by expansion of the connecting
Further analytical work is required to obtain definitive beams during a fire. If these moments were simply
explanations for the different thermal expansion of simi- included within the present member design procedure
C.G. Bailey / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 755768 759
Fig. 7. Maximum atmosphere temperatures recorded in the BRE and British Steel corner fire tests.
beams protected, partially protected or unprotected. Fig. is approached the column deflected shape suggests that
9 shows the failure temperatures for the beam and col- instability is occurring. The minor axis moments, for the
umn for varying column-to-beam temperature ratios. It same analysis, are shown in Fig. 12. These indicate that
can be seen that if the column is protected from the fire, the moment at point C (floor level) reverses sign to a
so that its maximum temperature is less than 60% of restraining moment prior to instability. Both the pre-
the temperature of the beam, then failure is by beam dicted displacements and moments strongly indicate that
squashing. This is caused by axial restraint to thermal column instability occurs and not numerical instability
expansion of the beam by the sway stiffness of the col- of the computer model.
umn. If the column reaches higher temperatures then The predicted moments along the length of the column
failure is by column instability. Fig. 10 shows a simpli- are shown in Fig. 13, for varying temperatures. From
fied representation of the type of structural behaviour this figure it can be seen that plastic hinges have formed
that causes either beam or column failure. in the bottom and in the centre of the heated column,
Considering the behaviour of the column, Fig. 9 indi- with a third plastic hinge beginning to form at the top
cates that the worst scenario is when the column reaches of the heated column as the moment reverses direction
a temperature of 509C and the beam reaches a tempera- to a restraining moment. The formation of these hinges
ture of 848C. This failure temperature increases to is caused by column instability.
528C when the beams and column are heated at the Considering the structural behaviour of the column,
same rate. If the column was heated, and the beams the effect of the expanding beams causes the column to
remained at 20C, it was shown that failure of the col- deflect into double curvature with high localised stresses
umn would occur at 541C. This corresponds well with occurring at the top and bottom of the column. This
the BS5950 Part 8 [6] Limiting Temperature (failure should not cause instability, due to the restraint present
temperature) value of 540C. Therefore considering the at floor level. Therefore, instability of the column must
results presented in Fig. 9, the Limiting Temperature of be initiated by the P effect of the applied axial load
the column should be reduced from 541C to 509C if and forced displacement of the column. To investigate
the beams are unprotected, so that they can reach tem- this argument the same previous analysis, where the col-
peratures of 848C or higher. This will ensure stability umn was heated at 70% of the beam, was repeated
of the columns during any fire scenario. If the beams are except that the axial load in the column was assumed to
protected to the same degree as the columns, then the be zero. Compressive failure of the beams was identified
Limiting Temperature should be reduced from 541C when they reached 730C, with the column at 511C.
to 528C. To investigate the behaviour of the column for higher
It is important to investigate the results presented in temperatures the beam was replaced by a 914 419
Fig. 9, in more detail, to ensure that column instability 388UB. The column minor axis displacements are shown
is occurring and failure in modelling terms is not in Fig. 14. Instability of the column did not occur. This
caused by numerical instability. The column displace- can be seen clearly from Fig. 15, which indicates that a
ments about the minor axis, for the analysis where the nominal moment occurs at the centre of the column. This
column was heated at 70% of the beam temperature, are figure also indicates that a plastic hinge forms at the top
shown in Fig. 11. As the failure temperature of 514C and bottom of the heated column, which reduces in
C.G. Bailey / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 755768 763
capacity as the column is heated and thus reduces in umn instability occurred. The analyses indicate that the
strength. beam has an important effect and for a connecting beam
Comparison of these analyses show that instability of of size 914 419 388UB the column Limiting Tem-
the column occurs due to a combination of the axial load perature should be reduced to 430C. However, it should
in the column and its deflected shape caused by the be noted that this beam-to-column size combination is
expansion of the connecting beams. highly unrealistic and the only purpose of these analyses
is to investigate the effect of the beam size. From these
3.1. Effect of beam size results it can be concluded that increasing the size of the
connecting beams has a detrimental effect on the stab-
The previous analyses (where the Load Ratio in the ility of the columns.
column was 0.6) were repeated with the beams increased
to 914 419 388UBs. Fig. 16 shows the failure tem- 3.2. Effect of column size
peratures of the simple structural model for different
beam-to-column temperature ratios. It can be seen that The above analyses were repeated with the column
increasing the beam size increased the beam-to-column size reduced to a 152 152 23UC. This had the
temperature range (i.e. from 0.4 to 1.0) over which col- effect of increasing the slenderness of the column from
Fig. 16. Failure of structure for varying column-to-beam temperature ratios (beam 914 419 388UB; column 305 305 37UC).
764 C.G. Bailey / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 755768
Fig. 17. Failure of structure for varying column-to-beam temperature ratios (beam 914 419 388UB; column 152 152 237UC).
the previous value of 45.4 to 96.1. The applied axial load beam forcing the column into a deflected shape. This
was 254 kN, which gave a Load Ratio of 0.6 (assuming causes the P effects to become significant and ulti-
an effective length of 0.85 times the system length). For mately leads to column instability.
the worst scenario (Fig. 17) the failure temperature of
the column is 430C, which is the same value predicted 3.3. Effect of beam-to-column connection rigidity
for the above analyses where the column size was 305
305 37UC. When the column was heated and the The original analyses (Fig. 9), where the beams were
beams remained at ambient temperature column insta- 356 171 51UB and the column was 305 305
bility occurred at 590C, significantly higher than the 37UC, were repeated with the beam-to-column connec-
temperature of 541C predicted in the above analyses. tions assumed as fully rigid. The predicted failure tem-
This phenomenon has been shown previously by various peratures are shown in Fig. 18 and comparison with Fig.
researchers [12,13] and is due to the beneficial end 9 indicates that the results are very similar. This implies
restraint for slender columns. that the rotational stiffness and moment capacity of the
The effect of column slenderness does not seem to be beam-to-column connection has nominal effect on the
significant for the worst fire scenario, indicating that the behaviour of the column. This can be attributed to the
dominant behaviour is caused by the expansion of the following:
Fig. 18. Failure of structure for varying column-to-beam temperature ratios (rigid beam-to-column connection).
C.G. Bailey / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 755768 765
Fig. 21. Failure of structure with varying column-to-beam temperature ratios (spring stiffness used to represent horizontal restraint to heated
beams).
Fig. 22. Failure of structure for varying column-to-beam temperature ratios (beam spans 15.0 m and 6.0 m).
with a pinned base. The applied static load to the column 3.7. Effect of column load ratio
was reduced to 2728 kN, assuming an effective length
equal to the system length. Fig. 23 shows that the worst The original analyses (Fig. 9) were repeated, with the
scenario is when the column is heated at 40% of the Load Ratio of the column varied between 0.7 and 0.2.
temperature of the beam. To ensure column stability the Fig. 24 shows that the worst case is when the column
Limiting Temperature of the column should be reduced is subjected to a Load Ratio of 0.7 (as expected since it
to 330C. This represents a reduction of 196C. How- represents the highest axial load in the column). With
ever, it should be noted that a nominally pinned base this level of applied static load the column Limiting
will provide some rotational restraint and it may be poss- Temperature should be reduced from 510C to 425C.
ible to increase the failure temperature of the column. As the Load Ratio becomes smaller the reduction in
Further studies are required to investigate this possi- Limiting Temperature also reduces. For the structural
bility. layout used in this analyses, the required reduction in
C.G. Bailey / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 755768 767
Fig. 23. Failure of structure for varying column-to-beam temperature ratios (column base pinned).
Fig. 24. Failure of structure for varying column-to-beam temperature ratios and varying Load Ratios.
Limiting Temperature for a Load Ratio of 0.4 or less is that these column moments were caused by the thermal
lower than 10C and can effectively be ignored. expansion of the connecting beams.
To carry out a detailed investigation into the conse-
quence of these column moments, on the overall stability
4. Conclusions of the column, a simple structural model was developed
(Fig. 8). This model represented a continuous column in
Results from the Cardington full-scale fire tests indi- a multi-storey frame, with beams framing into the minor
cated that high moments occurred in the columns during and major axes of the column from one side only. It was
the test. At present these moments are not considered in shown that the column was forced into double curvature
existing design methods. Investigation of the test results, with high localised stresses occurring at the top and bot-
supplemented with computer models [10], concluded tom of the heated column. It was assumed that the col-
768 C.G. Bailey / Engineering Structures 22 (2000) 755768