Fire safety design for a

building

Date :
17th May 2016

Table of contents
Presentation of the building......................................................................2
First evaluation using a catalog................................................................3
Characterization of the steel.....................................................................3
Temperature evaluation of unprotected steel members........................4
Comparison............................................................................................5
Fire design with the critical temperature method.....................................5
Angelina beam.......................................................................................6
Composite beam IPE 400.....................................................................10
Column HEB 360..................................................................................14
Analyse of the membrane effect using Macs +.......................................17
Fire design with Ozone............................................................................18
Angelina beam P1................................................................................19
P2 beam...............................................................................................20
Column................................................................................................21
Impact of the openings........................................................................22

Presentation of the building

We will study an average office building in Luxemburg made of
composite steel and concrete.
The goal of this work is to put into practice our knowledge about fire
design for a building. We know that fire can deal a lot of damages,
especially when steel is used. Therefore, we will study its effects on steel
members and calculate the protection needed to get a resistance of 60
minutes (R60).

Figure 1 : Building aspect

First evaluation using a catalog

The first step of this work will be to use a catalog and find which
thickness is advised for our elements. We need to know that the majority
of the design offices results are limited by this, even if insulation is a big
cost in the price of a building. Using the Promat catalog 1, we can then
determine what we need. We decided to use the PROMASPRAY-F250 that
is a spray applied based on a mixture of mineral wool and cement binders,
for internal use. We will here consider the same critical temperature than
the material, which is 570 C.
We find for a resistance R60 :
Tableau 1 : Results from catalog

Profile
IPE 330

Thickness
[mm]
20

IPE 400

18

HEB 360

15

We will now see if more sophisticated calculus will help us to decrease

the quantity of insulation.

Characterization of the steel

The first thing we need to determine is the behavior of our main
material, the steel, when its exposed to high temperatures. Indeed, his
features are influenced by fire and we cant ignore that. In consequence,
we will study his thermal and mechanical properties. As you can see on
the figure below, coefficients that will impact them tend to decrease with
the temperature ; steel starts to significantly lose strength and stiffness
from 400 C.

Figure 2 : Evolution of coefficients

1 http://www.promat.be/fr-be/downloads

In the following sections we will now study the evolution of the

temperature in function of the time on unprotected and protected
members. In both cases, we will use the standard ISO-Fire curve.

Temperature evaluation of unprotected steel members

An expression has been developed to determine the evolution of the
temperature for a time step t:
k A
a ,t = sh m hnet ,d t
c a a V
Where:
- Ksh is a specific coefficient for the shadow effect that can be
calculated for a I-shape section as:
Am
/A
V b m
k sh =0,9
V

( )

ca is the specific heat of the steel

kg
a is the density of the steel and is equal to 7850 [ m3 ]
Am
V

is the section factor that is the ratio between the perimeter

through which heat is transferred to steel and the steel volume

hnet,d is the design value of the net flux per unit area that can be
subdivided on two parts : hnet ,d =hnet ,r + hnet , c :
Radiation :

hnet ,r = res ( ( g +273 )4 ( m +273 ) 4 )

Convection :

hnet ,c = c ( g m )

With :
4

W
is the Bolzmann constant and is equal to 5,67 10-8[ m2 K 4 ]

res

is the configuration factor equal to 1

is the resultant emissivity of the member and is always taken

equal to 0,7
g and m

steel
c is the coefficient of convection and is equal to 25 for standard

are respectively the temperature of the gas and the

fire conditions
The equation of

is iterative. Indeed, as said previously, the

properties of the steel evolve with the increasing temperature and then
have to be calculated for each step (generally each step is equal to 5
seconds).

Temperature evaluation of protected members

Here we need to consider the protection whose effect will be to slow
down the raise of the temperature in the steel. Indeed, the material has
his own features towards fire. The heat stored in the protection layer
relative to the heat stored in the steel is equal to :
c
A
= p p d p p
c a a
V
With:

cp and

dp is the insulation thickness

Ap
is the section factor of fire protected sections
V

are the specific heat and the density of the material

A formula who take the insulation into account allows us, as previously,
to calculate for each time step the increase of the steel temperature :

p/ d p A p
1
10
a ,t =
( ) t e 1 g , t
c a a V 1+ /3 g , t a ,t

We chose to test the effect of the protection with a thickness of 20 mm.

Indeed, consulting the Promat Website has allowed us to know that it was
necessary for a IPE330,

Comparison
We will compare two IPE330 beams, one that is protected or the other
that is not.

Figure 3 : Evolution of the temperature of a IPE330 beam protected (blue) and not protected
(green)

As you can see on the figure above, the difference of behavior is pretty
important. On one side, we have the unprotected steel with its
temperature that increase quickly and that follows the shape of the ISO
curve. On the other side, the insulated member has its temperature that
grows slower, with a slope that is almost constant. But the most important
thing is the fact that temperature after 60 minutes is very different.
Indeed, it reaches 425 C if its insulated and 939 C if its not.

Fire design with the critical temperature method

The building is made of 10 floors (2 underground) and is 13 m wide. The
floors are made of CofraPlus 60 floors with 12 cm concrete. The floor
stands on composite Angelina IPE 330 beams distant of 2,7 m each. The
Angelinas are supported by composite IPE 400 beams. The loads are
transmitted to the foundations with different HEB steel columns and
concrete walls in the cellar.

Angelina beam
First, we identified the different loads that are applied on the beam:

Tableau 2 : Loads applied on the Angelina beam

Permanent loads ( Gk
Concrete stab
CofraPlus 60
Finishing
Partition Walls
Angelina beam

[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]

2,03

kN
2
m

0,0853
2

kN
m2

Security
factor ( i
1,35

1,35

kN
2
m

1,35

kN
2
m

1,35

0,491

[ ]
kN
m

1,35

Ultimate
Limit State
load
kN
2,7405 2
m

[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
kN
m2

0,1152
2,7

kN
2
m

1,35

kN
2
m

0,6629

[ ]
kN
m

Live loads ( Qk )
Live load

[ ]
kN
2
m

This gives us a linear load

1,5

q=31,46

4,5

[ ]
kN
2
m

kN
m . We can now determine the

maximum moment in the beam: for a simply supported beam, the

q L2
M
=
maximum moment is given by
8 . We obtain for the Angelina
beam:
M Ed =664,55 kNm
We use the software developed by ArcelorMittal (Angelina v3.02
software) to determine the resistant moment of the beam.
M Rd =742kNm

Figure 4: the Angelina beam in the software

We now have to determine the fire resistance of the beam. We are going
to use the graphical method of EN-1993 to have a first estimation of the
fire resistance. The load on fire condition is :

Tableau 3 : Loads during fire

Permanent loads ( Gk
Concrete stab
CofraPlus 60
Finishing

Angelina beam

kN
m2

0,0853

Partition Walls

[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]

2,03

kN
2
m

Security
factor ( i
1

kN
2
m

0,491

[ ]
kN
m

[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
kN
m2

2,03

kN
2
m

Fire load

kN
2
m

0,0853

2
1

kN
2
m
kN
2
m

0,491

[ ]
kN
m

Live loads ( Qk )
Live load

[ ]
kN
m2

This gives us a linear load

0,3

0,9

[ ]
kN
m2

q fire=16,73 kN . We can as previously

determine the maximum moment in the beam:

M Ed , fi =353,47 kNm
We can now calculate the rate of utilization of the beam:
M
0= Ed , fi =0,5476
M Rd , fi ,0
A
1
We now need the factor of massiveness ( V =175 m
beam under a concrete stab) and the
calculated with the following formula:
k =k 1 k 2=0,7
where:
-

k 1=0,7

k 2=1

for an IPE 330

coefficient. The last one can be

because the beam is unprotected

because the beam is isostatic

Using the tables, we can determine the critical temperature and time:

Figure 5 : Nomogram

crit 530 C
t crit 11 min
After this estimation, we will now determine more precisely the critical
temperature and time. Unlike the previous section, we cant consider the
beam in one entire part for the critical temperature. This is because being
a composite beam, the resistant moment depends not only on the beam
but also on the concrete stab. Each part of the beam contributes
differently to the resistant moment. And because the different parts of the
beam dont heat up equally we have to consider them separately. We
consider the beam in three parts: the upper flange (protected by the
concrete stab), the web (with the hole) and the lower flange. We first
determined the heating curve of the different parts:

Angelina heating curves

T ISO fire

T IPE330

T Web

T low Flange

T Up Flange

Figure 6 : Heating curves of the different parts of the angelina beam

We can see that the lower flange and the web heat up faster than the
upper flange. We can now calculate the resistant moment of the composite
beam.
The effective with of the concrete stab is given by the following formula:
L b
L b
beff =min ; 1 +min ; 2 =2,7 m
8 2
8 2

) (

The force equilibrium shows that the compression strength in the

concrete depends on the strength of the different parts of the beam that
varies with the heat:
Fc ( t , )=F up ( t , ) + Fweb ( t , ) + F low (t , )
The effective width of the stab is constant; this means that only the
height of compressed concrete changes:
F ( t , ) + F web ( t , )+ F low (t ,)
hc ( t , )= up
b eff
And thus the lever arm also changes with the heat:
h (t , )
d i=H i c
2
To determine the resistant moment, we must do a step by step
calculation of the different forces in the beam and the lever arms:
Tableau 4 : Determination of MRd
ti
me
(min)
1
0,50
1
1,00
1

t
upper
flang
e
34
1,67
36
1,65
38

F_
up
(kN)
84
6,40
84
6,40
84

d1
(mm)
17
4,32
17
4,72
17

t
web
(C)
61
0,07
62
6,85
64

F_
web
(kN)
85
,36
77
,40
70

d2
(mm)
33
3,57
33
3,97
33

t
lower
flang
e
52
3,88
54
6,08
56

F_l
ow
(kN)
59
5,32
53
8,96
48

d3
(mm)
49
2,82
49
3,22
49

h
c
(mm
)
1
8,85
1
8,06
1

M
Rd
(kNm
)
46
9,41
43
9,56
41

10

1,50
1
2,00
1
2,50
1
3,00
1
3,50
1
4,00
1
4,50
1
5,00
1
5,50

1,53
40
1,27
42
0,82
44
0,11
45
9,10
47
7,75
49
6,00
51
3,83
53
1,19

6,40
84
3,98
80
6,76
77
0,02
73
3,85
69
8,34
66
3,57
62
0,84
57
6,76

5,09
17
5,45
17
5,99
17
6,47
17
6,92
17
7,36
17
7,76
17
8,19
17
8,62

1,91
65
5,42
66
7,57
67
8,53
68
8,44
69
7,47
70
5,72
71
3,31
72
0,35

We obtain a critical time

,25
63
,84
58
,08
52
,88
48
,18
43
,90
41
,47
39
,85
38
,35

4,34
33
4,70
33
5,24
33
5,72
33
6,17
33
6,61
33
7,01
33
7,44
33
7,87

6,93
58
6,43
60
4,57
62
1,38
63
6,91
65
1,22
66
4,38
67
6,47
68
7,59

6,00
43
6,50
39
2,38
35
6,80
32
3,94
29
3,66
26
5,81
24
0,22
21
6,71

3,59
49
3,95
49
4,49
49
4,97
49
5,42
49
5,86
49
6,26
49
6,69
49
7,12

7,32
1
6,60
1
5,52
1
4,56
1
3,65
1
2,79
1
1,99
1
1,12
1
0,27

1,57
38
5,06
35
5,48
33
0,24
30
6,52
28
4,24
26
3,84
24
3,39
22
3,71

t crit =12,5 min . This is a little bit more than the

value obtained with the graphical estimation but its nevertheless not
enough for a R60 protection. The beam must be protected by a special
spray. After 12,5 min , the critical temperature is Crit =516,43 C . The
Promat catalogue advises a minimum critical temperature 540 C for
isostatic beams. We find that 20 mm of PROMASPRAY-F250 gives a R60
protection to the IPE 330 beam.

Figure 7 : Thickness used

Composite beam IPE 400

First, we identified the different loads that are applied on the beam:

11

Tableau 5 : Loads aplied

Security
factor ( i

Permanent loads ( Gk
Angelina
reaction (x2)
Faade

1,35

92,97 [ kN ]
3,5

IPE 400 beam

[ ]
[ ]
kN
m

0,663

kN
m

1,35

Ultimate
Limit State
load
125,51 [ kN ]
4,725

1,35

0,895

[ ]
[ ]
kN
m

kN
m

Live loads ( Qk )
52,65 kN

Angelina
reaction (x2)

1,5

This gives us a linear load

q=5,62

78,98 kN
kN
m

and two punctual loads

Q=204,49 kN

at L/3 distance from the supports. We can now determine

the maximum moment in the beam: for a simply supported beam, the
QL
q L2
M=
M
=
maximum moment is given by
for
the
linear
load
and
3
8
for the punctual loads. We obtain for the IPE 400 beam:
M Ed =518,18 kNm
The beam is composite and works with the concrete slab. The effective
width of the concrete is given by:
L b
L b
beff =min ; 1 +min ; 2 =1,113 m
8 2
8 2

) (

The compressive strength in the concrete is lower than the tensile

strength in the steel beam:
f
Fc =0,85 ck beff h c =2269,5 kN
1,5
F s=1,0 f y A=2999,75 kN
This means that a part of the steel beam is in compression too. We have
to determine if there is compression only in the flange or also in the web:
F's=F sF c =730,25 kN < F flange =862,65 kN
There is thus compression in the flange.
We can determine the resistant moment :
12

M Rd =1001,84 kNm
We now have to determine the fire resistance of the beam. We are going
to use the graphical method of EN-1993 to have a first estimation of the
fire resistance. The load on fire condition is :
Tableau 6 : loads during fire

Permanent loads ( Gk
Angelina
reaction (x2)
Faade

Security
factor ( i
1

92,97 [ kN ]
3,5

IPE 400 beam

92,97 [ kN ]

[ ]
[ ]
kN
m

0,663

Fire load

3,5

kN
m

[ ]
[ ]
kN
m

0,663

kN
m

Live loads ( Qk )
52,65 kN

Angelina
reaction (x2)
This

gives

us

linear

0,3

load

15,795 kN

q fire=4,163

kN
m

and

punctual

load

Q=108,77 kN . We can as previously determine the maximum moment in

the beam:
M Ed , fi =327,79 kNm

We can now calculate the rate of utilization of the beam:

M
0= Ed , fi =0,3227
M Rd , fi ,0
A
1
We now need the factor of massiveness ( V =153 m
beam under a concrete stab) and the
calculated with the following formula:
k =k 1 k 2=0,7
where:
-

k 1=0,7

k 2=1

for an IPE 400

coefficient. The last one can be

because the beam is unprotected

because the beam is isostatic

Using the tables, we can determine the critical temperature and time:

13

Figure 8 : Nomogram

crit 620 C
t crit 14 min
After this estimation, we will now determine more precisely the critical
temperature and time. Like the previous section, we cant consider the
beam as a whole part for the critical temperature. This is because being a
composite beam, the resistant moment depends not only on the beam but
also on the concrete stab. Each part of the beam contributes differently to
the resistant moment. And because the different parts of the beam dont
heat up equally we have to consider them separately. We consider the
beam in three parts: the upper flange (protected by the concrete stab), the
web (with the hole) and the lower flange. We first determined the heating
curve of the different parts:

14

IPE400 heating curves

T ISO fire

T IPE400

T Up Flange

T Web

T low Flange
Figure 9 : Heating curves

We can see that the lower flange and the web heat up faster than the
upper flange. We can now calculate the resistant moment of the composite
beam.
The effective with of the concrete stab is given by the following formula:
L b
L b
beff =min ; 1 +min ; 2 =1,113 m
8 2
8 2

) (

The force equilibrium shows that the compression strength in the

concrete depends on the strength of the different parts of the beam that
varies with the heat:
Fc ( t , )=F up ( t , ) + Fweb ( t , ) + F low (t , )
The effective width of the stab is constant; this means that only the
height of compressed concrete changes:
Fup ( t , ) + F web ( t , )+ F low (t ,)
hc ( t , ) =
b eff
And thus the lever arm also changes with the heat:
h (t , )
d i=H i c
2
To determine the resistant moment, we must do a step by step
calculations of the different forces in the beam and the lever arms:
Tableau 7 : determination of MRd

tim
e

t
F_up
uppe (kN)

d1
(mm

t
web

F_we
b

d2
(mm

t
lowe

F_lo
w

d3
(mm

hc
(m

MRd
(kN

15

(mi
n)
12,
50
13,
00
13,
50
14,
00
14,
50
15,
00
15,
50
16,
00
16,
50
17,
00
17,
50

r
flang
e
376,
80
394,
86
412,
78
430,
54
448,
10
465,
41
482,
45
499,
18
515,
57
531,
60
547,
24

862,
65
862,
65
837,
84
803,
37
769,
30
735,
69
702,
62
670,
15
628,
25
586,
78
546,
31

)
158,
37
159,
65
161,
19
162,
69
164,
11
165,
37
166,
45
167,
48
168,
61
169,
70
170,
65

(C)
649,
73
662,
70
674,
47
685,
17
694,
92
703,
84
712,
04
719,
60
726,
60
733,
13
739,
24

We obtain a critical time

(kN)
399,
34
362,
42
328,
91
298,
45
270,
68
251,
30
240,
80
231,
12
222,
14
213,
78
205,
95

)
351,
62
352,
90
354,
44
355,
94
357,
36
358,
62
359,
70
360,
73
361,
86
362,
95
363,
90

r
flang
e
565,
66
546,
08
566,
93
586,
43
604,
57
621,
38
636,
91
651,
22
664,
38
676,
47
687,
59

(kN)
498,
62
538,
96
486,
00
436,
50
392,
38
356,
80
323,
94
293,
66
265,
81
240,
22
216,
71

)
544,
87
546,
15
547,
69
549,
19
550,
61
551,
87
552,
95
553,
98
555,
11
556,
20
557,
15

m)
52,
75
50,
20
47,
12
44,
12
41,
27
38,
76
36,
60
34,
54
32,
27
30,
09
28,
20

m)
548,
72
511,
64
473,
95
440,
43
408,
80
381,
01
357,
28
334,
86
312,
14
290,
51
273,
42

t crit =16 min . This is a little bit more than the

value obtained with the graphical estimation but is nevertheless not

enough for a R60 protection. The beam must be protected by a special
spray. After 16 min , the critical temperature is Crit =606,24 C . The
Promat catalogue advises a minimum critical temperature 540 C for
isostatic beams. We find that 18 mm of PROMASPRAY-F250 gives a R60
protection to the IPE 400 beam.
We used the ABC software from ArcelorMittal to verify our results:

16

Figure 10: the results of the ABC software analysis

The software obtains a critical time

Crit =629 C .

t crit =19 min

and critical temperature

Column HEB 360

The failure cause of compressed elements is for most cases buckling.
Buckling depends not only on the limit of elasticity but also on the E
modulus. Both reduce a lot with increased heating so we must take that in
account when verifying the stability under fire conditions.
First we identified the different loads applied on the column.
At ultimate limit state:

17

Tableau 8 : Loads applied on the column

92,97 [ kN ]

1,35

Ultimate
Limit State
load
125,51 [ kN ]

109,83 [ kN ]

1,35

148,27 [ kN ]

Permanent loads ( Gk
Angelina
reaction
IPE
400
reaction (x2)
HEB
360
weight

1,42

[ ]
kN
m

Security
factor ( i

1,35

1,917

[ ]
kN
m

Live loads ( Qk )
Angelina
reaction
IPE
400
reaction (x2)
N Ed =664,71

52,65 kN

1,5

78,98 kN

52,65 kN

1,5

78,98 kN

kN
floor

The load in the column of the first floor:

N Ed , RDC =5893,37 kN
At fire state:
Tableau 9 : loads during fire

92,97 [ kN ]

Ultimate
Limit State
load
92,97 [ kN ]

109,83 [ kN ]

109,83 [ kN ]

Permanent loads ( Gk
Angelina
reaction
IPE
400
reaction (x2)
HEB
360
weight

1,42

[ ]
kN
m

Security
factor ( i

1,42

[ ]
kN
m

Live loads ( Qk )
Angelina
reaction
IPE
400
reaction (x2)
N Ed =364,26

52,65 kN

0,3

15,8 kN

52,65 kN

0,3

15,8 kN

kN
floor

The load in the column of the first floor:

N Ed , RDC =3212,43 kN
18

We must verify that :

-

The compressive strength of the beam under buckling is higher

than the load at ULS at 0C
The resistant strength of the beam under buckling is higher than
the load under fire condition after 60 minutes

The strength of a beam under buckling is given by the following formula:

N Rd ( ) = ( ) N pl ( )
where:
-

N Pl

k y,

where

is the reduction factor of the limit of

elasticity under heat

-

N pl ( )=k y, f y A

is the resistant charge under compression :

()

is the buckling factor :

where

( )

N cr ( )

( )=

1
( ) + ( ) ( )
2

( )=0,5(1+ ( ( )0,2 ) + ( )2)

is the reduced slenderness :

is Eulers critical charge :
where

k E ,

( )= k y, f y A
N cr ()
N cr ( ) = 2

I (k E , E)
L2fl

is the reduction factor of the E-modulus

under heat
Those parameters have been calculated step by step with temperature
increase:
Tableau 10 : Determination of the resistant charge Npl

t
(mi
n)
0,0
0
5,0
0
10,
00
15,
00
18,
85
20,

T
ISO
20,0
0
576,
41
678,
43
738,
56
772
,54
781,

T
HEB
360
20,0
0
108,
64
261,
39
430,
37
551,
22
583,

k_
y
1,
00
1,
00
1,
00
0,
93
0,
62
0,

k_
E
1,
00
0,
99
0,
84
0,
67
0,
45
0,

fy
(N/m
m2)
355,0
0
355,0
0
355,0
0
330,7
4
220,5
8
185,9

E
(N/mm
2)
21000
0,00
20818
6,25
17610
8,37
14062
2,71
93732
,97
73257,

Npl,fi
(kN)
6411
,30
6411
,30
6411
,30
5973
,23
3983
,65
3358

lamb
da
0,31
0,31
0,33
0,36
0,36
0,37

ph
i
0,
56
0,
57
0,
58
0,
59
0,
59
0,

Xi
0,
96
0,
96
0,
95
0,
94
0,
94
0,

Npl,fi,
buckl
(kN)
6167,8
5
6164,7
2
6100,9
1
5623,4
9
3750,2
5
3143,7

19

00
25,
00
30,
00
35,
00
40,
00
45,
00
50,
00

35
814,
60
841,
80
864,
80
884,
74
902,
34
918,
08

72
700,
24
777,
72
827,
01
859,
92
884,
10
903,
51

52
0,
22
0,
14
0,
10
0,
08
0,
07
0,
06

We can see that

we also note that

35
0,
12
0,
12
0,
10
0,
10
0,
09
0,
08

7
79,78
48,83
35,14
29,30
25,01
21,94

96
26243,
75
24209,
79
22020,
80
20076,
76
18648,
72
17501,
71

,54
1440
,82
881,
95
634,
67
529,
18
451,
68
396,
21

0,41
0,33
0,30
0,28
0,27
0,26

60
0,
62
0,
58
0,
56
0,
55
0,
55
0,
55

94
0,
92
0,
95
0,
97
0,
97
0,
97
0,
98

6
1328,6
3
839,22
612,59
513,27
440,03
387,28

N pl , Rd ( 0 C )> N Ed , the column is resistant at ULS. But

t crit =18,85 min

which is not sufficient for a R60 fire

protection. The beam must be protected by a special spray. After

Crit =551,22 C . The Promat
18,85 min , the critical temperature is
catalogue advises a minimum critical temperature 500 C for beams
under compression. We find that 15 mm of PROMASPRAY-F250 gives a
R60 protection to the HEB 360 beam.

Analyse of the membrane effect using Macs +

With this software, we can
membrane effect ; as we saw before,
when fire occurs, the increase of temperature
deteriorate the different materials
membrane phenomenon will appear.
armatures will then stabilize the slab if its
well dimensioned.

consider

the

and
Tension in

will
the
the

Well use the software to identify

the possibility
to avoid to use protection that is
very
expensive. For that, we will thus
determinate
what armature will be needed in
our problem to
have fire resistance of 60 minutes.
But how does
it work? We need to know that the
lower
the
armature are, the better is the
resistance of the slab but the lower
Figure 11 : Membrane effect
it is, the faster it is affect by fire.
The program will compare the
resistance of the slab with the total capacity ; if after 60 minutes the ratio
stay lower than 1,it means that it works and that we dont need insulation.

20

After several tests, we found that we can use the ST50 C mesh type
where the armatures would be between 32-42 mm far from the upper
section, that allows some inaccuracies. We will then place it at 37 mm.

Figure 12 : Mesh type used

Characteristics at 37 mm :

Figure 13 :Results for mesh at 37 mm

21

Fire design with Ozone

Ozone is a two-zone model that has been developed at
University of Lige and has been validated, taking as
reference the results of 54 experimental tests.
Previously, we used the ISO curve in our calculus but
the
problem is that its different from a natural fire.
Indeed, it doesnt have a pre-flashover or a
decreasing phase. Therefore, the use of this
software is necessary : it will allow us to know if we
really need insulation or maybe if we can only do an
over-dimensioning.
Figure 14 : Openings
We studied the case of a fire in a rectangular
compartment of 13 x 56,7 m (the central core act
as a firewall). Only the two long walls have openings, windows, that we
consider to be 1,7 m tall, as you can see on the picture (with the free
height of a floor being equal to 2,7 m). For their opening, we followed the
Luxembourgish guide that give several scenarios of the evolution of the
opening during time. Here we took double glazing. We have then 50% that
are opened at 200 C end 90% at 400C. Because we dont have a solid
slab, we take a equivalent thickness of 8,5 cm. Concerning the walls, we
implemented them with two steel plates of 1 mm and an insulator layer of
20 mm.
For the fire, we consider that occupancy is mostly offices. We have then
a characteristic fire load of 511 MJ/m. Finally, we chose to think there
would have automatic fire detection by smoke (thing that you can find in
almost every building). Finally
All these datas allow us to generate the zone temperature curve :

The drops down are caused by the evolution of the openings. We can
see that the flashover occur approximately after 49 minutes and last until
64 minutes with a peak of 876 C. We will always consider the fact that
steel is heated by the hot zone temperature. We can already say that with
such fire, insulation will be needed, the structure must be protected.
Now, we will analyze the behavior of each isolated element in these
conditions and then observe the results. We used in this software one of
the protections suggested :
22

Tableau 11 : Insulation characteristics

Unit Mass
[kg/m]
Spray
Mineral Fiber

300

Specific
Heat [J/kgK]
1200

Thermal
Conductivity
[W/mK]
0,12

Angelina beam P1
This beam has, in addition to its dead-load, the slab and the variable
load applied on it, what can be represented by a uniform distributed load
of 16,73 kN/m. Given that the span is 13 m long, we then have a bending
moment under fire condition of 353,4212 kNm.
First, lets see what would be the result without any protection (we know
that its exposed on three sides) :

The steel starts to significantly lose strength and stiffness from 400 C,
temperature that is reached after 48 minutes. After that, temperature rise
until 734,94 C after 60 minutes. With this figure we can then conclude
that well need insulation. Indeed, the results given by the software are :
- A critical temperature of 535,92 C.
- A fire resistance of 52,09 min.

Using insulation help us to reduce the steel curve. Using a protection

with a thickness of 10 mm (that is the minimum coating thickness) give us
:

23

With :
- A critical temperature of 485,52 C.
- A fire resistance of 72,57 min.

P2 beam
Then we have the edge beam experiencing the loads of the Angelina
beams and its dead-weight. That give a bending moment M fi =327,79 kNm .
We have without insulation :

This figure is slightly different of the Angelinas one but the same
conclusions can be drawn : we need insulation. Indeed :
- A critical temperature of 592,10 C.
- A fire resistance of 53,97 min.
As before, we will now use insulation with 10 mm of thickness. We have
the following results :

24

We have a critical temperature of 557,91 C that is never reached.

Column
Finally, we have the columns that experience a load of 3178,35 kN. We
have, without any insulation :

The steel reach a temperature of 670,5 C after 60 minutes. We must

then use protection, as before. We have :
- A critical temperature of 499,02 C.
- A fire resistance of 54,02 min.

When we use 10 mm of insulation, we obtain :

25

We can see that the steel temperature dont go beyond 400C and so
resist during the all fire stage. Maybe using another type of protection
would be more efficient.

Impact of the openings

The severity of a fire an enclosure depends on the amount of openings
in the enclosure. Indeed, the more openings there are, the more oxygen
can enter the room but also the more energy can be released. If no
opening is taken into account from the beginning of the fire, the amount of
oxygen in the compartment will be too small and the fire will not develop :

Then if there are openings, their size matters in the development of the
fire :
Opening : 0,5m
We can see that the temperature
increase during a long time (it
reaches a peak after more than 120
minutes). The reason is that fire
needs oxygen to develop but with
small openings, only a limited
quantity can enter. Therefore, it
needs for everything to be burned.
The peak is about 800 C because
the heat stay in the room but the fire
26

develop
slowly
temperature too.

and

so

the

Opening : 2,4m
Here we have the opposite case
where openings are tall enough to
give fire all the oxygen it needs. But
given that we have big openings,
heat is released outside of the room
and the temperature can then not
be too high (peak at 600 C). In this
case it is possible our elements dont
need protection (through an overdimensioning if its needed).
Opening : 1m
That is an intermediate case
between the other ones. We can see
that the temperature reaches a
higher peak of 1000 C after about
70 minutes. That is the case where
the most protection will be used.

27

Conclusion
This work has allowed us to implement a series of purely theoretical
concepts on the design of a structure subjected to fire. This has allowed us
to become aware of different parameters that influence fire design. We are
well aware that this is a simple problem but it will nevertheless have
helped us to familiarize ourselves with the different methods to use. We
also had the opportunity to learn different software and to compare
numerical results with analytical analysis.

28