Lifts Elevators Escalators and Moving Walkways Travelators 2DE2

Lifts, Elevators, Escalators and Moving Walkways/Travelators
5.11 DESIGNANALYSIS OF CAR FRAMES

5.11.1 Introduction
The car frame is most frequently of a side post construction with guide rails located on two opposite
sides. Figure (5.5), shows a traditional side-post car frame. The car frame or car sling is a supporting
steel structure for the car. It consists of
(a) cross head beam(s)
(b) stiles which are two vertical car uprights
(c) safety plank channel.
The car frame is bolted, riveted and welded having stiles to the cross head at the top and to the safety
plank to the bottom. It is guided on each guide rail by upper and lower guiding members attached
to the frame. The car is usually suspended with a suspension device and from the elevator (lift)
ropes by means of a hitch plate and shackles. The safety plank forms the base of the uprights and
supports car platform, and passengers or other loads resting during the travel. Toe guards are also
attached to the car platform and are flushed with hoist-way edges of the sills and spans. The entire
width of hoist-way door opening. The end of traveling cables is mounted to the bottom of the
platform framing and is also attached to the hangers. A reference is made to various specifications
in Section I.
5.11.2 Design analysis of the car frame
The frame and its guiding members shall be designed to withstand the forces and moments imposed
on them under operational conditions.
5.11.2.1 Cross-heads
The stress in the cross-head beam is based on the total load supported by the cross-head beam
for the case of the car with its rated load being at rest at the top terminal landing, i.e. the effect
of compensating and traveling cables must also be taken into consideration. If the cross-head is
considered a simple beam with two pin-jointed ends, the formulae for the stress and deflection
are as follows:
=
N g
n
L
4Z
xx
(N/mm
2
) (5.97)
and
=
N g
n
L
3
48E I
xx
(mm) (5.98)
where,
N is total load imposed on the cross-head beam (kg),
L is the span of the beam (mm),
E is modulus of elasticity of the material of the beam (N/mm
2
),
Z
xx
is the modulus in bending of the cross-section of the beam, related to the x-x axis (mm
3
),
I
xx
is moment of inertia of the cross-section of the beam, related to the x-x axis (mm
4
).
During normal elevator operation, the stress in the safety plank for the case of the stringers being
supported directly on the plank members is based on the sumof 5/8 of the platformmass uniformly
distributed, plus concentrated loads due to the tension in the compensating and traveling cables, plus
(i) for passenger elevators: 5/8 of the rated load uniformly distributed
(ii) for freight elevators: the portion of the rated load and its location dependent on the class of
loading.
In the case of buffer engagement, account must be taken of the buffer retarding force acting
on the safety plank as well as of an appropriate portion of the rated load and platform mass. For
passenger elevators this portion should be 5/8 of total values.
190
Design analysis of lift elements and components
The buffer retarding force, acting as a concentrated load, is generally given by the formula:
F = (Q + M) (g
n
+
max
) (5.99)
where,
max
is maximum retardation due to the buffer engagement, lasting for more than
0.04 s (m/s
2
).
For oil buffer engagement, the stress is:
=
(Q + M)g
n
d
2Z
xx
(N/mm
2
) (5.100)
For stiles under combined tensioned and compression, the value of a critical stress
cr
is given by
Equation (5.101):
cr
=
N g
n
2A
+
ML
4H Z
xx
(N/mm
2
) (5.101)
where,
A =cross-sectional area of uprights on one side (mm)
M =turning moment
L =free length of an upright
N =loading
H =distance between the centre of upper and lower guide shoes (mm)
Z
xx
=modulus in bending
e =eccentricity of the load in plane of guide rails
M = Q g
n
e (5.102)
For CLASS A Passenger or general freight loading:
M =
Qg
n
b
8
(5.103)
For CLASS B Loading
M =
Qg
n
b
8
(5.104)
or
M = Qg
n
_
b
2
1220
_
(5.105)
For CLASS C Loading
M =
2Qg
n
b
8
(5.106)
5.11.2.2 Distortion of frame parts under loads
Plate (5.5) shows various forces and moments occurring on the frame.
(1) Under concentrated load (Q + M)g
n
acting concentrically
= angle of distortion of the cross-head
=
(Q + M)g
n
b
2
16EI
1
(5.107)
191
(2) If the concentrated load Q is off centre i.e. placed at m and n distance from one end
1
=
Qg
n
n
6bEI
1
(b
2
n
2
) (5.108)
2
=
Qg
n
m n(b + m)
6bEI
1
(5.109)
(3) Safety plank under uniform load the load is:
=
(Q + M)g
n
b
(5.110)
sp
=
(Q + M)g
n
b
2
24EI
3
(5.111)
(4) Two moments M
1
applied at the ends of the cross-head or top of the car:
1
= +
M
1
b
2EI
1
(5.112)
If one end carries M
1
1
= +
M
1
b
6EI
1
(a) Under normal operation conditions
Rated load uniformly distributed on the car floor area.
Inner moments at the ends of the safety plank are M
2
.
Equation of Equilibrium
The angles of distortion at say node (1), the inner moment M
1
, at (1) of the cross-head and the
stile or an upright at (1).
+
1
. ,, .
cross-head
= rotation due M
1
of upright at (1)
rotation due to M
2
at node (1) upper end of the upright
(Q + M)g
n
b
2
16EI
1
+
M
1
L
3EI
2
=
M
1
L
3EI
2
M
2
L
6EI
2
(5.113)
Inner moment M
2
involving angles of distortion of plank at bottom and the bottom end of the
upright:
sp
.,,.
plank
M
2
b
2EI
2
. ,, .
fromplank
=
M
2
b
2EI
2
+
M
1
L
6EI
2
. ,, .
upright
(5.114)
Solving Equations (5.113) and (5.114) for M
1
and M
2
, the final values are given as:
M
1
= K
_
6LI
2
I
3
+ 9bI
2
2
2LI
1
I
2
L
_
(5.115)
M
2
= K
_
4LI
2
I
3
+ 6bI
2
2
2LI
1
I
3
L
_
(5.116)
R=the horizontal reactions are computed as Equation (5.117):
R =
M
1
+ M
2
L
(5.117)
192
Cross-head of the
car frame
Bending moment
along the car frame
M1
M2 M2
M1
Brackets
bolted
Car platform
Safety plank channels
M
Finite element mesh
scheme under loads
C
LH
Vertical
rods
L
C
L
A pictoral view of a car frame.
Plate 5.5. Corner a and c as sides ad and ab [or two other sides] must be kept open for loading and unloading.
(b) Under safety gear Operation
When the dynamic force due to safety gear operation is considered, the above equations are
modified by a coefficient
SG
which is included in these equations. The value of
SG
is given as:
SG
= 1 +

g
n
(5.118)
where,
K =
(Q + M)
24
g
n
b
2
;
L = L
2
I
1
I
3
+ 2bL(I
1
I
2
+ I
2
I
3
) + 3b
2
I
2
2
(5.118a)
Under safety gear operational condition, the above equations can be re-derived. The final values
of M
1
and M
2
are given as:
M
1
= 2
SG
K
_
LI
1
I
2
L
_
(5.119)
M
2
= 2
SG
K
_
2LI
1
I
2
+ 3bI
2
2
L
_
(5.120)
The values K and L are defined by Equation (5.118a).
The final bending moment of the car frame is given in Plate (5.5).
193
5.12 DOORS AND DOOR DYNAMICS
5.12.1 Introduction
The selection depends upon convenient type of car and landing, kind of elevators and its rated load.
In addition the simultaneous transfer of passengers within the door width in shortest opening and
closing time can be treated as an efficient door. Normally as stated earlier in Section 1 the normal
width of the door shall be at least equal to or greater than 1100 mm. In compliance with EN 81.1
the following conditions are satisfied.
(1) the rated speed does not exceed 0.63 m/sec
(2) the depth of the car is greater then 1.5 m
(3) the edge of the car operating panel is at least 0.4 m from the car entrance.
The conditions for the strength of the door panels vary slightly with different standards. In
accordance with EN 81.1 the doors in the locked position shall be subjected to a force of 300N at
right angles the panel evenly distributed over an area of 500 mm and must
(a) resist without permanent deformation
(b) resist elastic deformations greater than 15 mm
(c) operate satisfactorily after such a test.
There are many types of car doors. The doors are classified as
(i) swinging doors
(ii) horizontally sliding doors
(iii) vertical sliding doors
(iv) multi-panel doors.
5.13 DOOR DYNAMICS
The EN81 and USA17.1 standards prescribe that the kinetic energy of the power operated lift
or elevator car and landing doors must not exceed 10 Joules (EN81) and 9.5 Joules (USA17.1)
provided that the reopening exists.
5.13.1 Kinetic energy of the doors
The kinetic energy value is reduced to 4.0 J{3.4J}, if the re-opening device is disabled (eg. During
nudging).
Kinetic energy (KE) is given by:
KE =
1
2
M
2
d
(5.121)
where,
M is the weight of the doors (kg)
2
d
is the maximum speed (m/s) that the doors attain.
Table (5.1) gives the maximum speed that the elevator doors are permitted to attain, when closing.
5.13.2 Door closure force
The force necessary to prevent a door closing may not exceed 150 N {133 N}. The measurement
should be made near the mid point of the door travel.
5.13.3 Doors closed under continuous control
When doors are closed by the user continuously pressing a control button, the fastest panel speed
may not exceed 0.3 m/s.
194
Table 5.1. Maximum permitted speed when closing elevator doors.
Total weight (kg) for 10 J (m/s) for 4 J (m/s) for 9.5 J (m/s) for 3.4 J (m/s)
150 0.37 0.23 0.36 0.21
200 0.32 0.20 0.31 0.18
250 0.28 0.18 0.28 0.17
300 0.26 0.16 0.25 0.15
350 0.24 0.15 0.23 0.14
400 0.22 0.14 0.22 0.13
450 0.21 0.13 0.21 0.12
500 0.20 0.13 0.20 0.12
Note: Do not interpolate for light weight doors, use the formula.
5.13.4 Door weight
Where the weight of a door is not known it may be estimated by assuming weight as:
Painted landing doors 35 kg/m
2
Painted car doors 24 kg/m
2
(add 10% if stainless or bronze clad)
Hangers per door 10 kg
Other hardware (vanes, arms, safe edges, etc.) 5 kg
5.13.5 Door closing time
The door closing time for a side closing door is measured from a point 50 mm from the jamb to a
point 25 mm from centre.
The door closing time for a centrally closing door is measured from a point 25 mm from the
jamb to a point 25 mm from the centre.
D.E. 5.11 EXAMPLE ON SINGLE PANEL SIDE OPENING (SPSO)
Determine the maximum speed of SPSO doors of area 3.0 m
2
, use the following data:
Landing door weights 102 kg
Car door weights 70 kg
Hangers weights 20 kg
Other hardware weights 10 kg
Total 202 kg
From the above table (5.1), the maximum door speed for 10 Joules for 202 kg total weight is
d
= 0.32 m/s
D.E. 5.12 EXAMPLE ON DOOR CLOSINGTIME
The following data for the SPSO Door is as follows, calculate the closing time:
Door width =1065 mm
Weight =202 kg
Time to move =1065 100 =965 mm
will be =
0.965
0.32
=3.0 seconds
Due to acceleration and deceleration at the start and finish of the door close cycle =1.0 second
Total time =3.0 +1.0 =4.0 seconds.
195
6
Lift/Elevator travel analysis
6.1 INTRODUCTION
This section gives an abridged methodology as to how to evaluate the elevator travel and the round
trip time. The analysis includes up-peak in travel and up-peak handling capacity. Atypical example
on elevator traffic is given to explain the usage of various formulae.
The Round Trip Time (RTT) in seconds of a single elevator during up-peak traffic is given by:
RTT = 2Htv + (S + 1)ts + 2N
p
tp (6.1)
where,
H is the average highest reversal floor
S
av
is the average number of stops
N
p
is the average number of passengers in the car (assuming an 80% occupancy)
tv is the time to transit between two adjacent floors at rated speed (s)
i.e. tv =df
H
/v
where,
df
H
is the average interfloor height (m)
v is the rated speed (m/s)
ts is the time lost at each stop (s)
[i.e. ts =tf (1) +to +tc tv =T tv]
where:
tf
H
(1) is the single floor flight time (s)
to is the door opening time (s)
tc is the door closing time (s)
T is the performance time (s)
tp is the average one away passenger transfer time (s)
The up-peak interval (UPPINT) in seconds of a group of (L) cars is given as:
UPPINT = RTT/L (6.2)
the up-peak handling capacity (UPPHC) in persons/5-minutes of a group of (L) cars is given by:
UPPHC =
300N
p
L
RTT
=
300N
p
UPPINT
(6.3)
The percentage (% POP) of the total building population (POP) above the main floor terminal
floor, that can be served during up-peak is given by:
% POP =
UPPHC
POP
100 (6.4)
Equal interfloor distances and floor populations are assumed.
197
Values for H and S are normally obtained froma table provided by the manufactures. For example
for buildings in the absence of data the following is considered:
(a) 15 floors with 10 persons H =13.8 m; S
av
=6.4 and N
p
=8
(b) 10 floors with 21 persons H =9.8 m; S
av
=8.3 and N
p
=16.8
(c) 5 floors with 13 persons H =4.9 m; S
av
=4.5 and N
p
=10.4
D.E.6.1 EXAMPLE ON ELEVATORTRAFFIC
Determine UPPHC and % POP for 21 person car serving 10 floors above the main terminal. Total
population above the main floor =833 persons. Door opening time 2.0 seconds. Door closing
time =2.5 seconds. Peak period =5 minutes. Transfer time =1.2 seconds. H =9.8 m; S
av
=8.3;
N
p
=16.8.
RTT(Eq.6.1) = 2 9.8
3.3
1.6
+ (8.3 + 1)
_
5.0 + 2.5 + 2.0
3.3
1.6
_
+ 2 16.8 1.2
= 40.425 + 69.169 + 40.32 = 149.914
Use 5 cars =
149.914
5
= 29.9828 30 seconds UPPINT
UPPHC = 300
16.8
30
= 168 High
% POP = 100
168
833
= 20.17% High.
198
7
Maximum and minimum stopping distances of car and
counterweight (Based on US-A17.1)
7.1 INTRODUCTION
After discussing the design analysis and specifications for lifts/elevators and their components
and the methodology of the lift travel, it is essential to give additional information on the car
stopping distances. This section gives also the evaluation of the governor tripping speed. A typical
explanatory example is given.
It is important to know from simple dynamics that the velocity
2
is computed as:
2
= 2S (7.1)
The expression used for the governor tripping speed (V
g
) shall be based on a retardation:
S
max
=
V
2
g
6.87
+ 0.26 (m) for retardation of 1.0 g
n
(7.2)
S
max
=
V
2
g
19.63
(m) for retardation of 0.35 g
n
(7.3)
where,
V
g
=governor tripping speed m/sec
g
n
=standard acceleration m/sec
2
.
D.E. 7.1 EXAMPLE ON STOPPING DISTANCES FOR LIFTS
Determine the maximum and minimum stopping distances when the governor tripping speeds
(m/s) are given below:
V
g
(m/s) 0.25 0.5 1.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Using Equations (7.1) and (7.2) for maximum and minimum stopping distances in metres. The
values of V
g
are substituted as given in the example.
V
g
(m/sec) 0.25 0.50 1.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
S
max
(m) 0.27 0.30 0.40 0.84 2.59 5.50 9.56 14.82 21.22
S
min
(m) 0.0031 0.0127 0.05 0.20 0.82 1.83 1.73 5.09 7.34
199
8
Elements of super structures Finite Element Analysis
8.1 BELT CALCULATIONS
Prior to any belting calculation being carried out it is necessary to establish:
1. the output to be conveyed;
2. the profile of the conveyor(s); and
3. the approximate density of the mineral to be conveyed.
When these data are available it is then possible to determine:
4. the belt width and belt speed;
5. total horsepower required;
6. type of drive unit;
7. tensile strength of belt necessary; and
8. the correct belt type for the installation.
8.1.1 Belt capacity
A comprehensive analysis for the belt capacity is given in chapter 4.
When determining the belt width and belt speed the following should be taken into account:
(a) Belt types 10 and 12 will only through and track at the lower throughing angles, i.e.
approximately 20;
(b) There is a danger with deep throughing (i.e. 45
) that the stresses produced in the belt carcass

at the transition area between the wing and centre idlers will cause premature belt failure;
(c) The size of the roadway or gantry may restrict the choice of belt width;
(d) An increase in belt speed increases the rate of wear of the moving parts and increases the
emission of dust at the transfer points.
A length correction factor is generally included, which gives the power required to drive the
empty belt and to convey the material only, and is based on the use of ball or roller bearing equip-
ment throughout. The frictional factors expressed may appear to be unnecessarily conservative
having regard to the figures derived from laboratory tests but experience has proved their depend-
ability, particularly in view of the effects of dust, water, slimes and other factors that have to be
accommodated underground; i.e. tables have been derived from a combination of pit experience as
well as mathematics.
The power required to drive the empty belt is derived as follows:
Horse power =
K
x
LCWSF
884E
(8.1)
where,
K
x
= 0.03
L = Length of conveyor in feet (1ft =0.3048 m)
C = Coefficient of friction.
201
Lifts, Elevators and moving walkways/Travelators
8.2 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
A reference is made to the generalised analysis and computed subroutines given in Appendix I and
Appendix III. Here some finite element mesh schemes are given for specific parts of the stress
analysis of the travelators. They are listed below.
(a) Mesh scheme for the box for the drive system with gears (Fig. 8.1)
(b) Walking platform for travelators (Fig. 8.2)
a typical mesh scheme with and without steps
(c) 3D flange and shear plate moment connection (Fig. 8.3)
(d) 3D flange and seat moment connection (Fig. 8.4)
(e) Finite element mesh schemes for drive system gears and associates parts (Fig. 8.5 to 8.7)
(f) 3D F.E. mesh schemes for the travelators end zone (Fig. 8.8) and the travelator middle zone
supported by special fire supports (Fig 8.9)
(g) Finite element mesh scheme for girder supported by columns or strut (Fig. 8.10) carrying
travelator platform.
8.2.1 Finite element analysis of gears and platforms for the travelators
8.2.1.1 Contact of involute teeth
The involute teeth discussed earlier in case of escalators are now in contact as shown in Plate 8.1
(a-d). The maximum pressure is denoted by P
O
. The curvature radii are R
1
and R
2
of the respective
teeth at the point of contact. The following input data are considered for the analysis.
DATA:
Number of teeth 38
Normal diametral pitch mm 403.5
Normal pressure angle 20.0
Helix angle at pitch diameter 18.0
Normal circular tooth thickness
At pitch diameter mm 2.412
No. elements (8 noded isoparametric) 4500/wheel gear
Contact elements 2580 (excluding 280 triangular)
No. total nodes 15500 nodes
No. interactions 15
b =tooth width (mm) 25:4
E
s
=GN/m
2
Youngs modulus 200
R=radius at tooth contact (mm) 22
=maximum deformed distance =2
_
F
_
1 V
2
_
R
E
s
2 =maximum stretch
F =F
C
/cos 20
=600 kN
H
C
=element height in contact area =0.85 mm
D=base diameter(mm) =60
L= (mm) =618.40 mm
Involute
2
=0.29824
2
=24.4599
f
y
=yield stress =460 N/mm
2
f
failure
=failure stress =673.72 MN/m
2
Plate 8.1 shows the finite element mesh scheme for teeth in contact of the two wheels (Fig. a)
and two teeth in contact. The radii R
1
and R
2
and the enlarged mesh scheme are shown in Fig. (b)
and (c). the plastic and failure node I given in Fig (d). The procedure for the finite element analysis
is given in Appendix I.
202
Elements for Super structures
Figure 8.1. Finite element mesh scheme for a box associated with drive system with gears.
203
Figure 8.2. Walking platform.
Figure 8.3. Flange and shear plate moment connection 3DANSYS mesh scheme.
204
Figure 8.4. Flange and seat moment connection 3D mesh scheme.
Figure 8.5. Finite element mesh scheme for the analysis chainless drive system with planatory gear.
205
Figure 8.6. Drive system with gears.
Figure 8.7. Finite element analysis of 1/2 single gear wheel with hole for shaft.
Figure 8.8. 3D F.E. mesh schemes for travelators closed to the end.
206
Figure 8.9. F.E. mesh scheme platform supported by fin-edge plates.
Figure 8.10. Mesh scheme for the girder-column scheme supporting travelators.
207
8.2.1.2 Step covers and platform
The Schindler passenger conveyor and its data is taken form the Schindler 9300 walkway. A
reference is made to section I for technical data. Stainless steel floor cover and etched grid pattern
is considered. Using the load of 10 kN/m
2
, and the dynamic analysis given in the Appendix III
Plate (8.1e) and (8.1f) give track surface waviness and Plate (8.1g) the vertical deformation and
stress distribution on the walkways central area connecting the end part of the platform structure.
The structure is extremely robust and has a safety factor 5.
Plate 8.1(ad). Contact analysis of involute teeth.
208
(e) Track surface with waviness (periodic).
(f) Waviness due to random vibrations.
(g) Vertical deformation and stress distribution scale enhanced by 1000. (The maximum deformation =
0.02 mm).
Plate 8.1(eg). (Continued).
209
8.3 REFERENCES
1. BS EN: 1995 Safety rules for the construction and installation of escalators and passenger conveyors
British Standards, London 1995
2. Timoshenko S.P. Theory of plates and Shells, McCraw-Hill, NewYork 1959
3. ASME. Inspectors Manual for Escalators and Moving Walks. A17.2.3. American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, NewYork 1998, p.88
4. ASME. Inspectors Manual for Hydraulic Elevators. A17.2.2. American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, NewYork 1997, p.100
5. ASME. Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators. A17.1. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
NewYork 1996 p.472
6. ASME. Handbook of Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators. A17.1. American Society of Mechanical
Engineers. NewYork 1996 p.624
7. ASME. Check List for Inspection and Test of Electric Elevators. A17.2.1. American Society of
Mechanical Engineers. NewYork, 1994 p.100
8. ASME. Check List for Inspection of Escalators and Inspection of Moving Walks. A17.2.3. American
Society of Mechanical Engineers. NewYork, 1995 p.100
9. ASME. Check List for Inspection of Hydraulic Elevators. A17.2.2. American Society of Mechanical
Engineers. NewYork, 1998, p.100
10. ASME. Safety Code for Existing Elevators and Escalators. A17.3. American Society of Mechanical
Engineers. NewYork, 1996, p.128
11. ASME. Inspectors Manual for Electric Elevators. A17.2.1. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
NewYork, 1996, p.112
12. HSE. Safety in the Use of Escalators. Health and Safety Executive. Dec. 1983
13. Fenner Power Transmission UK. Belt drives design manual. 1994
14. Hamilton, P.: Belt Drives. In Hurst, K. (ed). Rotary power transmission design. McGraw Hill. 1994
15. Renold Power Transmission Ltd: The designer guide, 22nd edition. 1996
16. BSI. BS 5801: Specification for flat top chains and associated chain wheels for conveyors. BSI. 1979
17. BSI. BS 2969: 1980. Specification for high tensile steel chains (round link) for chain conveyors and
coal ploughs. BSI. 1980
18. BSI. BS AU 150b: Specification for automotive V belts and pulleys. 1984
19. BSI. BS 2947: Specification for steel roller chains, types S and C, attachments and chain wheels for
agricultural and similar machinery. 1985
20. BSI. BS AU 218: Specification for automotive synchronous belt drives. 1987
21. BSI. BS 4548: Specification for synchronous belt drives for industrial applications. 1987
22. BSI. BS 4116: Conveyor chains, their attachments and associated chain wheels. Specification for chains
(metric series). 1992
23. BSI. BS 7615: Specification for motor cycle chains. 1992
BS 5594: Specification for leaf chain, clevises and sheaves. 1995
24. BSI. BS 228: Specification for short pitch transmission precision roller chains and chain wheels. 1994
25. BSI. BS 3790: Specification for endless wedge belt drives and endless V belt drives. 1995
26. BSI. BS ISO 10823: Guidance on the selection of roller chain drives. 1996
27. ISO. ISO 4348: Flat top chains and associated chain wheels for conveyors. 1978
28. ISO. ISO 610: High tensile steel chains for chain conveyors and coal ploughs. 1980
29. ISO. ISO 487: Steel roller chains, attachments and chain wheels. 1984
30. ISO. ISO 1275: Extended pitch precision roller chains and chain wheels. 1984
31. ISO. ISO 5294: Synchronous belt drives Pulleys. 1989
32. ISO. ISO5296-1: Synchronous belt drives Belts Part 1: Pitch codes MXL, XL, L, H, XH, and XXH
Metric and Inch dimensions. 1989
33. ISO. ISO 155: Belt drives Pulleys Limiting Values for adjustment of centres. 1989
34. ISO. ISO 22: Belt Drives Flat transmission belts and corresponding pulleys Dimensions and
tolerances. 1991
35. ISO. ISO 4184: Belt drives Classical and narrowV belts Lengths and datum system. 1992
36. ISO. ISO 9633: Cycle chains characteristics and test methods. 1992
37. ISO. ISO 606: Specification for short pitch transmission precision roller chains and chain wheels. 1994
38. ISO. ISO 4183: Belt drives Classical and narrow V belts Grooved pulleys (system based on datum
width). 1995
210
39. ISO. ISO 5292: Belt drives V belts and V ribbed belts Calculation of power ratings. 1995
40. EN 292-1: 1991 Part 1: Basic terminology, methodology. 1991
41. EN 292-1: 1991 Part 1: Technical principles and specifications. 1991
42. EN 294: 1992 BSN EN 294: 1992 Safety of machinery. Safety distances to prevent danger zones being
reached by the upper limbs. 1992
43. EN 60068-2-6: 1995 BS EN 60068-2-6: 1995 Environmental testing
Part 2 Tests. Tests Fc. Vibration (sinusoidal). 1995
44. EN 60068-2-27: 1993 BS EN 60068-2-27: 1993 Environmental testing
Part 2 Tests
Test Ea and guidance. Shock 1993
45. EN 60269-1: 1989 BS 88 Cartridge fuses for voltages up to an including 1000 V a.c. and 1500 V d.c.
1989
Part 1: 1988 Specification of general requirements 1988
46. EN 60439-1: 1994 BS EN 60439 Specification for low-voltage switchgear and controlgear assemblies
Part 1: 1994 Specification for type-tested and partially type-tested assemblies. 1994
47. EN 60529: 1991 BS EN 60529: 1992 Specification for degrees of protection provided by enclosures
(IP code). 1991
48. EN 60742: 1989 BS 3535 Isolating transformers and safety isolating transformers.
Part 1: General requirements. 1990
BS EN 60947 Specification for low-voltage switchgear and controlgear. 1989
49. EN 60947-4-1: 1992 Part 4 Contractors and motor-starters
Section 1: Electromechanical control circuit devices. 1992
50. EN 60947-5-1 Part 5 Control circuit devices and switching elements
Section 1: Electromechanical control circuit devices. 1992
51. IEC 249-2 BS EN 60249 Base materials for printed circuits
Part 2 Specifications
52. IEC 326-1: 1994 BS 6221 Printed wiring boards. 1994
Part 1: 1990 Guide for the specification writer. 1990
53. IEC 747-5: 1992 BS 6493 Semiconductor devices. 1992
Part 1 Discrete devices
Section 1.5: Recommendations for optoelectronic devices. 1992
54. OTIS. Travelators. OTIS 606 NCT. 2002
55. Schindler. The reliable moving walks. Schindler 9500. 2002
56. Schindler 9500-10/15 The reliable moving walk for the shopping centres. 2002
57. Schindler 9500-35 Minimum installation space, maximum safety. 2002
58. Schindler 9500-45 The high performance moving walk for long distance. 2002
59. Schindler 9500-55 Rubber-belt passenger conveyors for comfort and safety. 2002
60. OTIS escalators 30. OTIS 506 NCE. 2002
61. KONE The technically superior ramp. ECO 3000(TM) RAMP. 2002
62. Fujitec High speed elevators. 2002
63. Fujitec. Escalator and Autowalk. GS 5000. 2002
64. Roberts, J.A. Spring design and calculations. 10th edition. The institution of mechanical engineers,
London. 1960
65. Gobel, E.F. and Brichta, A.M. Rubber spring design. Newnes-Butterworth. 1974
66. Strakosch, G.R. Vertical transportation: Elevators and escalators. Second edition. John Wiley and Sons.
NewYork. 1983
67. Annett, F.A. Electric elevators. McGraw Hill. NewYork. 1960
68. Adler, R.R. Vertical transportation. American Elsevier Publishing Company. NewYork. 1970
69. Barney, G.C. Dos Santos, S.M. Lift traffic analysis, design and control. Peter Pegrinus Ltd U.K. 1970
70. Lindley, P.B. Engineering Design with natural rubber. NRPRA. 1970
71. Morgan, D.J. Vertical Transportation In Metrostations. Technical Note.
Proc. I. Mech. E. 1999. Vol. 213, Part F. p6367
72. Jubilee Line Extension-Escalator Type Selection, Document
GEN/SEM/ESC/RP002, London Underground Limited, September 1991
73. Jubilee Line Extension-Particular Specification, Working Document,
GEN/SEM/ESC/SP/004, London Underground Limited, November 1993
74. North East Line-Design Criteria and Performance Specification, Land Transport Authority, January
1997
211
75. Butler, J.S. Lifts and escalators. Imperial College, London December 1968
76. Burney, G.C. Remote Monitoringof Lifts, Escalators andpassenger conveyors. International Association
of elevator Engineers. London. March 1990
77. ASTM: Standard specifications for heat-treated flat glass. C1048-97b.
ASTM 1007
78. Glass and Glazing Federation: Glazing Manual. 1991
79. Rice, P. and Dutton, H.: Structural glass, 2nd edition. E & FN Spon. 1995
80. Roark, R.J. and Young, W.C.: Formulas for stress and strain. McGraw-Hill, 6th edition. 1989
81. Ryan, P.A., Otlet, M. and Ogden, R.G.: Steel supported glazing systems. Ascot: SCI Publication
193. 1998
82. So, A.K.W. and Chan, S.L.: Nonlinear finite element analysis of glass panels. Engineering structures
18(8). 1996
83. Smith, A.D.: The analysis design and testing of an asymmetric bolted glass roof panel. Proceedings
of the Sixth International Conference on Architectural and Automotive Glass, Tampere, Finland, 1316
June 1999
84. Timoshenko, S.P. and Woinowski-Krieger, S. (1959): Theory of plates and shells, McGraw-Hill
85. Abramowitz, M., and I.A. Stegun, eds. Handbook of Mathematical Functions, National Bureau of
Standards, Washington, D.C. 1965
86. ANSYS Users Manual. Swanson Analysis Systems, Houston, PA. 1989
87. Argyris, J.H. Energy Theorems and Structural Analysis, Collection of papers published in Aircraft
Engineering. 1954 and 1955
88. Argyris, J.H., and S. Kelsey. Energy Theorems and Structural Analysis, Butterworths, London. 1960
89. Bathe, K.J. Finite Element Procedures in Engineering Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Clifts,
NJ. 1982
90. Bathe, K.J. and E.L. Wilson. Numerical Methods in Finite Element Analysis, Prentice Hall, Englewood
Clifts, NJ. 1976
91. Biezeno, C.B., and R. Grammel. Engineering Dynamics, Blackie and Son, London (translated from
German, Technische Dynamik, SpringerVerlag, Berlin, 1939).
92. Chandrupatla, T.R. and A.D. Belegundu. Introduction to Finite Elements in Engineering, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Clifts, NJ. 1991
93. ABT-West. Resultaten Beoordeling Proefbalk Oranjesluizen. Technical report, Adviesbureau voor
Bouwtechniek B.V. (1991). In dutch.
94. XIAOLAN AI and HERBERT S. CHENG. A transient EHL analysis for line contacts with measured
surface roughness using multigrid technique. Journal of Tribology, 116:549558. 1994
95. XIAOLAN AI, HERBERT S. CHENG, DONGYUN HUA, K. MOTEKI, and S. AOYAMA. A
finite element analysis of dynamically loaded journal bearings in mixed lubrication. Tribology
Transactions, 41(3): 273281. 1998
96. M.H. ALIABADI and C. ALESSANDRI, editors. Contact Mechanics II: Computational Techniques.
Computational Mechanics Publications, Southampton. 1995
97. M.H. ALLIABADI and C.A. BREBBIA, editors. Contact Mechanics: Computational Techniques.
Computational Mechanics Publications, Southampton. 1993
98. T.S. BARRETT, G.W. STACHOWIAK, and A.W. BATCHELOR. Effect of roughness and sliding speed
on the wear and friction of ultra-high molecular weight polythene. Wear, 153:331350(1995)
99. A. VAN BEEK. Analysis of Rubber Supported Hydrostatic Bearing systems with Elastic Bearing
Surfaces. Ph.D. thesis, University of Technology Delft (1995)
100. A. VAN BEEK and A. SEGAL. Numerical solution for tilted hydrostatic multi-pad thrust bearings of
finite length. Tribology International, 30(1):4146. 1997a
101. BHARAT BHUSAN. Analysis of the real area of contact between a polymeric magnetic medium and a
rigid surface. Journal of Tribology, 106:2634. 1984
102. ABDALLAHA. ELSHARKAWYandLOFTI H. GUEDOUAR. Aninverse analysis for steady-state elas-
tohydrodynamic lubrication of one-layered journal bearings. Journal of Tribology, 123:524533. 2001
103. EDWIN GELINCK. Mixed Lubrication of Line Contacts. Ph.D. thesis, Twente University. 1999
104. A.N. GENT, R.L. HENRY, and M.L. ROXBURY. Interfacial stresses for bonded rubber blocks in
compression and shear. Journal of Applied Mechanics, pages 855859. 1974
105. A.N. GENT and P.B. LINDLEY. The compression of bonded rubber blocks. Proc. Instn. Mech. Engrs.,
173(3):111117. 1959
106. I.G. GORYACHEVA. Contact Mechanics in Tribology. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht. 1998
212
107. C.J. HOOKE and C.H. VENNER. Surface roughness attenuation in line and point contacts. Proc. Instn.
Mech. Engrs., 122:19. 2000
108. YUAN-ZHONG HU and DONG ZHU. A full numerical solution to the mixed lubrication in point
contacts. Journal of Tribology, 122:19. 2000
109. T.J.R. HUGHES and T.ETEZDUYAR. Finite elements based upon mindlin plate theory with particular
references to the four-node bilinear isoparametric element. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 48:587596.
1981
110. K.L. JOHNSON. Contact Mechanics. Cambridge University Press. 1985. ISBN 0-521-25576-7
111. K.L. JOHNSON, J.A. GREENWOOD, and S.Y. POON. A simple theory of asperity contact in
elastohydrodynamic lubrication. Wear, 19:91108. 1972
112. J.J. KALKER. Three-Dimensional Elastic Bodies in Rolling Contact. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
1990. ISBN 0-7923-0712-7
113. P.B. LINDLEY. Plane strain rotation moduli for soft elastic blocks. Journal of Strain Analysis for
Engineering Design, 14(1):1722. 1979b
114. GENG LIU, QIAN WANG, and CHIH LIN. A survey of contact models for simulating the contact
between rough surfaces. Tribology Transactions, 42(3):581591. 1999
115. ZHIQIANG LIU, ANNE NEVILLE, and R.L. REUBEN. A numerical calculation of the contact area
and pressure of real surfaces in sliding wear. Journal of Tribology, 123:2735. 2001
116. A.A. LUBRECHT. The Numerical Solution of the Elastohydrodynamically Lubricated Line and Point
Contact Problem using Multigrid Techniques. Ph.D. thesis, University of Technology Twente. 1987
117. WEI PEBG and BHARAT BHUSAN. Sliding contact analysis of layered elastic/plastic solids with
rough surfaces. Journal of Tribology, 124:4661. 2002
118. A. SEGAL. SERPAN Standard Problems. Technical report, Ingenieursbureau SEPRA, Leidschendam.
1993a
119. A. SEGAL. SERPANUsers Manual. Technical report, Ingenieursbureau SEPRA, Leidschendam. 1993b
120. M.H. SHARIFF. An approximate analysis of infinitesimal deformations of bonded elastic mounts.
Journal of Strain Analysis, 23(3):115120. 1988
121. M.H.B.M. SHARIFF. An analysis of non-linear deformation of bonded rubber blocks. Journal of
Mechanical Engineering Science, 203:113119. 1989
122. M. VISSCHER. The Measurement of the FilmThickness and the Roughness Deformation of Lubricated
Contacts. Ph.D. thesis, University of Technology Eindhoven. 1992
123. W.YANand K. KOMVOPOULOS. Contact analysis of elastic-plastic fractal surfaces. J. of Appl. Physics,
84:36173624. 1998
124. X. ZHAI and L. CHANG. An engineering approach to deterministic modelling of mixed-film contacts.
Tribology Transactions, 41(3):327334. 1998
125. YATAOZHANG. Linear deformation of a journal bearing and its relationship to hydrodynamic pressure.
Wear, 115:4152. 1987
126. YONGWUZHAO, DAVIDM. MAIETTA, and L. CHANG. An asperity microcontact model incorporat-
ing the transition from elastic deformation to fully plastic flow. Journal of Tribology, 122:8693. 2000
127. ZHI-HUAZHONG. Finite Element Procedures for Contact-Impact Problems. Oxford University Press.
1993. ISBN 0-19-856383-3
213
Section III
Travelators and Moving Walkways
Analysis for Structural Elements
9
General data on travelators/walkways/autowalks: fire analysis
of their components
9.1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
Various structural/mechanical elements are integrated in the principal establishment of escalators
and travelators. Chapter 2 gives details of four different manufacturers of these facilities. This
section deals with static and dynamic behaviour of these facilities. Only important elements have
been described, assessed and analysed. Again credits are given to the following manufacturers for
their individual achievements in a very competitive market.
(a) Schindler 9500 Horizontal moving walk type 35, 40 and 45
(b) Schindler 9500 Rubber belt passenger conveyor type 55
(c) Fujitec GS 8000 Escalator and autowalk
(d) Kone ECO3000 Escalator types 30 and 35
(e) OTIS Escalators/travelators 660.
9.2 RUBBER BELT PASSENGER CONVEYORTYPE 55 SCHINDLER 9500
Plate 9.1 gives a skeleton picture of schindler 9500 in operation. Below the floor cover tension
device is located on one side with guide drum. Acontinuous rubber belt over the rollers passes over
guide drums on both sides. The drive unit is located near the driving drum with the guide drum.
On top of the rollers and under the floor of the rubber tread are provided transverse steel cord and
longitudinal reinforcement. Skert guard is provided for the human traffic. Miconic F, the brain of
Schindler 9500, is equipped with intelligent communication capability and therefore can transmit
and receive information and commands over a local network and can be controlled through central
building systemsuch as lobby vision servitel telemonitoring. They followthe safety codes including
EN115/ANSI. It has an exceptionally shallow pit of only 315 mm. Table 9.1 gives specifications
for this type of passenger walkway. Generally it reaches 100 m length in various units.
Typical walkways with driving units and drums together with structural details are shown in
Plates 9.2 and 9.3 respectively.
9.3 FUJITEC GS 8000 SERIES AUTOWALK
The basic specifications are given in Table 9.1 serves passenger with its exceptional smoothness.
The basic specification are for models 1000 and 1200 series. They can be horizontal (0) and inclined
types for 10 and 12 angles. The entire design and its specifications are based on EN 115. Plate 9.4
indicates various dimensions of the Autowalks and they are reproduced with the permission of
Fujitec London office.
Standard safety devices, which are:
1. H and rail safety guard.
2. Emergency stop button.
217
P
l
a
t
e
9
.
1
.
S
c
h
i
n
d
l
e
r
9
5
0
0
T
y
p
e
5
5
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
d
e
t
a
i
l
s
.
218
General data on travelators/walkways/autowalks: fire analysis of their components
Table 9.1. Passenger conveyor data.
Finish
Balustrade (i) Clear or coloured tempered safety glass 10 mm, with/without light
(ii) Stainless steel, without lighting
Balustrade profile Stainless steel, finish 240
Skirtings Stainless steel, finish 240
Comb Plastic, yellow
Floor plate Rigid aluminium sections, black anodised
Handrail Black or coloured
Specification
Model type 100 120 140
Belt width A 1000 mm 1200 mm 1400 mm
Balustrade width B 1305 mm 1505 mm 1705 mm
Pit width D 1680 mm 1880 mm 2080 mm
Speed Standard: 0.65 m/s optional: 0.5, 0.6, 0.75 m/s
Inclination 06
Power supply According to local requirements
Controller Micronic F microprocessor control
Key switches At both ends
Stop button At both ends
Location Indoor, or outdoor covered
Plate 9.2. Walkways with driving units and drums using continuous rubber belt.
219
Plate 9.3. Typical structural details.
220
P
l
a
t
e
9
.
4
.
D
a
t
a
o
n
a
u
t
o
w
a
l
k
F
u
j
i
t
e
c
h
i
n
c
.
,
J
a
p
a
n
.
221
3. Skirt guard obstruction safety device.
4. Broken drive chain safety device.
5. Broken step (pallet) chain safety device.
6. Brake.
7. Demarcation line.
8. Reversal protection device.
9. Governor.
10. Comb safety device.
11. Step (pallet) sag safety device.
12. Auxiliary braise.
13. Phase failure (phase reversal) protection.
14. Step upthrust safety device.
The optional safety devices are mentioned which are:
15. Skirt guards.
16. Fire shutter inter located device.
17. Broken hand rail safety device.
18. Hand rail safety delay sensing device.
19. Tandem operation interlock.
20. Dress guard.
9.4 FIRE AND ESCALATORS/TRAVELATORS
9.4.1 Introduction
A reference is made to bibliography (1-250) relevant to this section related to fire. Fire is the
primary cause of loss of life and property throughout the world. During the past two decades fire has
damaged hundreds of thousands of structures. Significant advances have been made in controlling
or mitigating the effects of fire. Various methods have been developed to protect buildings. New
materials have been developed or invented. A considerable time is spent by various researchers on
the development of mathematical models to simulate the behaviour of structural members in fire.
This is possible only if one uses numerical and computer techniques. A large number of computer
programs that calculate the fire resistance of structural members nowexist. The input data for these
computer programs require, apart fromloading and fire density, thermal and mechanical properties
of various materials at elevated temperatures. In addition, the expected severity of building fires and
temperature time relation have also been developed. Most of these properties have been codified.
The closet measures related to building design are probably those for the confinement of a fire.
These measures include fire barriers capable of delaying or preventing spread of fire, dimensions
and locations of buildings. All these measures are directly related to the detailed knowledge of the
mechanics and severity of fire. It is, therefore, essential to outline some areas outside the domain
of a structural engineer which he or she should be aware of. Some of these are described below:
a) Mechanics of fluids and building aerodynamics applicable to fire engineering.
b) Conduction of heat in solids.
c) Convection and radiation heat transfer.
d) Thermochemistry.
e) Chemical equilibrium and thermal decomposition.
f) Fire dynamics.
i) Flame height and fire plumes.
ii) Air entrainment into buoyant jet flames.
iii) Ceiling jet flows, vent flows and natural convention wall flows.
iv) Combustion conditions, and smouldering combustion.
222
v) Flammability limits and flaming ignition of solids.
vi) Smoke production, smoke and heat venting.
g) Burning rates and calorimetry.
h) Compartment fire modelling and fire models for enclosures.
i) Stochastic models for fire growth.
j) Explosion protection.
k) Detection systems, automatic sprinkler systems.
l) Foam system and foam agents.
Within the non-structural analysis, structural analysts must be aware of hazard calculations, risk
analysis and probability methods.
The main concern of the structural engineer is the properties of the various materials involved
and the analytical tools available for the design of structural elements in fire. They are given later
on in this text under various sections.
No matter howmany precautions are taken to improve the fire safety design of buildings, they will
not be complete without sufficient availability of training in professional education and practice.
The main objective is to prepare sufficient manuals of awareness and to transfer knowledge of fire
safety of buildings to the building design practitioners by way of courses and seminars at various
institutions. Architects and engineers must place importance on fire safety provisions and allow
funds for training facilities.
9.4.2 Loading and restraints
The load-bearing structures must be subjected to the characteristic dead load G
k
and the charac-
teristic imposed load Q
k
having the same values as for normal design. The partial safety factors
for dead and imposed loads according to BS8110 are 1.4 and 1.6 respectively. In case of fire they
are 1.05 for dead load and 1.0 for composed load. In major analysis, it is essential to impose tem-
perature load due to fire, where dynamic analysis is performed, the fire load will be treated as an
accidental overload. The American Society of Civil Engineers Standard ASCE7-93 is not explicit
about such a load, as fire is not treated as a permanent load. The best combination is based on the
total of the combined effects multiplied by a factor P
F
:
P
F
(L + L
r
+ *T) + D (9.1)
where
P
F
=0.75 or 0.66
*T =forces due to temperature changes etc.
L=live loads
L
r
=roof loads
D=dead loads.
The other indication is to include a factored *T, i.e. 1.2*T in the above assessment of combined
loads. The best combination will then be:
1.2D + 1.6L + 0.5L
r
+ 1.2*T (9.2)
where thermal properties of the structural materials known, an approximate relationship has been
by Council of Tall Buildings as
L = t
f
_
A
W
A
T
(9.3)
where
L=total weight of fire load in kilograms
t
f
=fire resistance in minutes
A
W
=windowed area in square metre
A
T
=surface area of the enclosed walls and ceiling of the compartment or room
containing the fire in square metres.
223
Generallythe fire gradingof buildings has beendirectlyrelatedtofire loadper unit floor area. Fire
loads for domestic, office and hospital buildings are considered as low, for shops and department
stores as mediumand for storage buildings as high. For modern buildings, based on recent surveys,
an average of 25 kg/m
2
(5.75 lbf/ft
2
) is used. The logical conclusion would be to keep full dead
weight and reduced live load due to occupancy and its reduction in level and full load of fire:
(P
F
L + L
r
+ F
L
) + 1.2D (9.4)
where
F
L
=fire load.
The BSI (British Standard Institute) in their draft code 96/540837 indicate that the fire load
is influenced by duration and severity of fire and the fire load density is related to a number of
different types of occupancy. The effective fire load density is expressed in MJ/m
2
of the floor area
as discussed above in other cases. It is suggested that it can also be expressed in terms of equivalent
weight of wood as a function of floor area. Several methods may be used to establish the effective
fire loads in a room or a compartment:
a) Direct measurement/assessment
b) Static survey
c) Use of characteristic fire load density.
(a) Direct measurement/assessment
Where the fire loading in the direct measurement is unlikely to change over the design life
of the building, the fire load density may be estimated from a knowledge of the weight and
calorific values of the contents.
The following expressions are adopted:
q
ki
=
m
c
H
c
A
f
(9.5)
where
q
ki
=fire load density of the compartment (MJ/m
2
)
m
c
=total weights of each combustible material in the compartment (kg)
H
c
=calorific value of each combustible material (MJ/kg)
A
f
=total internal floor area of the compartment (m
2
)
In the case that wet damped materials are present, the effective calorific value H
c
is modi-
fied by:
H
c
= H
u
(1 0.01M) 0.025M (9.6)
where
H
c
=effective calorific value of the wet material (MJ/m
2
)
H
u
=calorific value of the dry material (MJ/m
2
)
M =moisture content (in % by dry weight).
Table 9.2 gives calorific values of typical materials.
(b) Statistical survey
A statistical survey is needed for the characteristic fire load density of similar buildings in
question. The following points are recommended:
a) a minimum of five buildings
b) buildings investigated should have comparable use and similar size and contents
c) the buildings should be located in the same country in regions of similar socio-economic
conditions.
(c) Characteristic fire loads
Recommended values for characteristic fire load densities in various occupancy types are deter-
mined fromdata collected in European countries. They are given inTable 9.3. For the determin-
istic study it is recommended that the 80%fractile be taken as the characteristic value for design
purposes. If only the average value is available, the 80% fractile may be estimated by 1.5q
ki
.
224
T
a
b
l
e
9
.
2
.
C
a
l
o
r
i
f
i
c
v
a
l
u
e
s
o
f
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
.
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
a
t
2
0
C
T
h
e
r
m
a
l
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
k
,
W
/
m
C
c
,
k
,
,
k
J
/
W
/
m
2
/
s
1
0
0
C
0
C
1
0
0
C
2
0
0
C
3
0
0
C
4
0
0
C
6
0
0
C
8
0
0
C
1
0
0
0
C
1
2
0
0
C
M
e
t
a
l
k
g
/
m
3
k
g
C
m
1
0
5
1
4
8
F
3
2
F
2
1
2
F
3
9
2
F
5
7
2
F
7
5
2
F
1
1
1
2
F
1
4
7
2
F
1
8
3
2
F
2
1
9
2
F
A
l
u
m
i
n
i
u
m
p
u
r
e
2
7
0
7
0
.
8
9
6
2
0
4
8
.
4
1
8
2
1
5
2
0
2
2
0
6
2
1
5
2
2
8
2
4
9
L
e
a
d
1
1
3
7
3
0
.
1
3
0
3
5
2
.
3
4
3
3
6
.
9
3
5
.
1
3
3
.
4
3
1
.
5
2
9
.
8
I
r
o
n
:
P
u
r
e
7
8
9
7
0
.
4
5
2
7
3
2
.
0
3
4
8
7
7
3
6
7
6
2
5
5
4
8
4
0
3
6
3
5
3
6
W
r
o
u
g
h
t
i
r
o
n
0
.
5
%
C
7
8
4
9
0
.
4
6
5
9
1
.
6
2
6
5
9
5
7
5
2
4
8
4
5
3
6
3
3
3
3
3
3
S
t
e
e
l
(
C
m
a
x
1
.
5
%
)
:
C
a
r
b
o
n
s
t
e
e
l
C
0
.
5
%
7
8
3
3
0
.
4
6
5
5
4
1
.
4
7
4
5
5
5
2
4
8
4
5
4
2
3
5
3
1
2
9
3
1
1
.
0
%
7
8
0
1
0
.
4
7
3
4
3
1
.
1
7
2
4
3
4
3
4
2
4
0
3
6
3
3
2
9
2
8
2
9
1
.
5
%
7
7
5
3
0
.
4
8
6
3
6
0
.
9
7
0
3
6
3
6
3
6
3
5
3
3
3
1
2
8
2
8
2
9
C
o
p
p
e
r
:
P
u
r
e
8
9
5
4
0
.
3
8
3
1
3
8
6
1
1
.
2
3
4
4
0
7
3
8
6
3
7
9
3
7
4
3
6
9
3
6
3
3
5
3
A
l
u
m
i
n
u
m
b
r
o
n
z
e
9
5
%
C
u
,
5
%
A
l
8
6
6
6
0
.
4
1
0
8
3
2
.
3
3
0
M
o
l
y
b
d
e
n
u
m
1
0
2
2
0
0
.
2
5
1
1
2
3
4
.
7
9
0
1
3
8
1
2
5
1
1
8
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
0
9
1
0
6
1
0
2
9
9
9
2
N
i
c
k
e
l
:
P
u
r
e
(
9
9
.
9
%
)
8
9
0
6
0
.
4
4
5
9
9
0
2
.
2
6
6
1
0
4
9
3
8
3
7
3
6
4
5
9
N
i
C
r
9
0
%
N
i
,
1
0
%
C
r
8
6
6
6
0
.
4
4
4
1
7
0
.
4
4
4
1
7
.
1
1
8
.
9
2
0
.
9
2
2
.
8
2
4
.
6
S
i
l
v
e
r
:
P
u
r
e
s
t
1
0
5
2
4
0
.
2
3
4
0
4
1
9
1
7
.
0
0
4
4
1
9
4
1
7
4
1
5
4
1
2
P
u
r
e
(
9
9
.
9
%
)
1
0
5
2
4
0
.
2
3
4
0
4
0
7
1
6
.
5
6
3
4
1
9
4
1
0
4
1
5
3
7
4
3
6
2
3
6
0
T
i
n
,
p
u
r
e
7
3
0
4
0
.
2
2
5
6
6
4
3
.
8
8
4
7
4
6
5
.
9
5
9
5
7
T
u
n
g
s
t
e
n
1
9
3
5
0
0
.
1
3
4
4
1
6
3
6
.
2
7
1
1
6
6
1
5
1
1
4
2
1
3
3
1
2
6
1
1
2
7
6
Z
i
n
c
,
p
u
r
e
7
1
4
4
0
.
3
8
4
3
1
1
2
.
2
4
.
1
0
6
1
1
4
1
1
2
1
0
9
1
0
6
1
0
0
9
3
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
E
.
R
.
G
.
E
c
k
e
r
t
a
n
d
R
.
M
.
D
r
a
k
e
,
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
o
f
H
e
a
t
a
n
d
M
a
s
s
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
,
M
c
G
r
a
w
-
H
i
l
l
,
N
e
w
Y
o
r
k
(
1
9
7
2
)
.
R
e
p
r
i
n
t
e
d
b
y
p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
o
f
M
c
G
r
a
w
-
H
i
l
l
,
I
n
c
.
225
Table 9.3. Recommended values for characteristic fire load density various occupancy types.
Substance Temperature

C k, W/m
C , kg/m
3
C, kJ/kg
C , m
2
/s 10
7
Insulating material
Asbestos
Loosely packed 45 0.149
0 0.154 470570 0.816 3.34
100 0.161
Asbestoscement boards 20 0.74
Sheets 51 0.166
Balsam wool, 2.2 lb/ft
3
32 0.04 35
Cardboard, corrugated . . . 0.064
Celotex 32 0.048
Corkboard, 10 lb/ft
3
30 0.043 160
Cork, regranulated 32 0.045 45120 1.88 25.3
Ground 32 0.043 150
Fiber, insulating board 20 0.048 240
Glass wool, 1.5 lb/ft
3
23 0.038 24 0.7 22.6
Structural and heat-resistant materials
Asphalt 2055 0.740.76
Brick:
Building brick, common 20 0.69 1600 0.84 5.2
Face 1.32 2000
Carborundum brick 600 18.5
1400 11.1
Chrom brick 200 2.32 3000 0.84 9.2
550 2.47 9.8
900 1.99 7.9
Diatomaceous earth, 200 0.24
moulded and fired 870 0.31
Fireclay brick, 500 1.04 2000 0.96 5.4
Burnt 2426
F 800 1.07
1100 1.09
Insulating material
Fireclay brick, burnt 2642
F 500 1.28 2300 0.96 5.8

800 1.37
Cement, Portland 0.29 1500
Mortar 23 1.16
Concrete, cinder 23 0.76
Stone 124 mix 20 1.37 19002300 0.88 8.26.8
Glass, window 20 0.78 (avg) 2700 0.84 3.4
Corosilicate 3075 1.09 2200
Plaster, gypsum 20 0.48 1440 0.84 4.0
Metal lath 20 0.47
Wood lath 20 0.28
Stone
Granite 1.733.98 2640 0.82 818
Limestone 100300 1.261.33 2500 0.90 5.65.9
Marble 2.072.94 25002700 0.80 1013.6
Sandstone 40 1.83 21602300 0.71 11.211.9
Wood (across the grain):
Balsa 8.8 lb/ft
3
30 0.055 140
Cypress 30 0.097 460
Fir 23 0.11 420 2.72 0.96
Maple or oak 30 0.166 540 2.4 1.28
Yellow pine 23 0.147 640 2.8 0.82
White pine 30 0.112 430
Source: J. P. Holman, Heat Transfer, McGraw-Hill, New York (1966). Reprinted by permission of
McGraw-Hill, Inc.
226
In the case of protected fire loads (combustible material stored within a container such as a
steel filing cabinet), the effective fire load may be less and will depend upon the fire temperature
and duration, container integrity and the nature of the combustibles. In such circumstances, with
a calorific value of 40%of that of the total contents, the equivalent fire load may be expressed as:
q
e
=
q
ki
H
W
(9.7)
where
q
e
=equivalent fire load density of wood (kg/m
2
)
q
ki
=measured fire load density (MJ/m
2
)
H
W
=calorific value of dry wood (18 MJ/m
2
).
(d) Safety factors
Safety factors have been discussed under loads. If a fire may put a large number of people at
risk, it may be appropriate to include additional safety factors within the design. In buildings
where large numbers of people are unaware of exit routes (e.g. shopping centres), it will be
appropriate to include additional safety factors to take account of uncertainties in the distribu-
tion of occupants between the available exits. The design can be acceptable if the available safe
escape time (ASET) is:
ASET t
det
+ t
pre
+ (
flow
t
flow
) (9.8)
where
t
det
=detection time
t
pre
=pre-movement time
t
flow
=flow time
flow
=design factor applied to flow time
=1 for offices and industrial premises
=2 for large and complex public buildings
such that
ASET t
esc
= t
det
+ t
pre
+
flow
(9.9)
Where dynamic analysis using finite element technique for large buildings is required, the
value of ASET must be considered in time-steps and overall time required for the resistance.
A reference is made to Appendix (I).
Where the occupants remain in tall and complex buildings for an extended period while fire
fighting operations take place and where structural failure threatens the life of the occupants,
it is recommended that the adequacy of the structural fire should be evaluated as follows:
L
crit

str
L (9.10)
where
L
crit
=fire load at structural failure
L=design fire load (805 fractile)
st
=design factor =1.5 for tall and unsprinklered buildings >30 m
=1.0 for low rise <30 m
=1.0 for sprinklered buildings >30 m
however, if t
flow
is estimated at 2 minutes with an inherent factor of 2, the ASET value will
be 5 min. If the travel distance is increased and t
flow
is raised to 3 min it will be necessary to
increase ASET to 6 min such that
ASET
t
flow
(base case)
ASET
t
flow
(new design) (9.11)
227
This increase in ASET may be achieved by a large smoke reservoir, smoke extract system or by
controls on combustible materials that would reduce the expected rate of fire growth. If
ASET
t
flow
(base case) < 1.0 (9.12)
It should be checked that the base case is not unsafe and that an appropriate fire growth rate has
been chosen for the calculations.
The traditional criteria can also be looked at in the following manner.
Travel distance may be increased by a factor of 2 if a smoke control system is provided.
Fire resistance: the required fire resistance is increased by:
(i) hour for every 10 m height to a maximum of 30 m
(ii) 1 hour for basement 10 m deep and hour at the basement level with sprinkler systems.
Compartment size: the floor area is increased by a factor of 2 where a sprinkler system is provided.
The Russians define the fire resistance of the building as the ability of the structure to retain its
operating functions in the period of fire for some definite time, after which the structure losses its
carrying or protecting capacity. Liley (212, 213) reports that the heat of the fire, q, which he calls
warmth of the fire, is given as:
q = z
c
Q
H
n (9.13)
where
z =factor for chemical burning
c
=coefficient of the speed of burning
Q
H
=the lowest warmth of burning
n =weight speed of burning.
The fore load or heat load can be found by:
Q
r
= Q
a
f (Bi; Fo) (9.14)
where
Q
r
=fire heating load during the period of time
Q
a
=maximum heat content of the structure
f (Bi; Fo) =function of the Bio and Fourie criteria.
The fire resistance limit corresponding to these fire load equations is given by:
L
F
= K
o
(9.15)
where
L
F
=required fire resistance limits in hours
=time of the fire in hours
K
o
=factor for fire resistance
=1.5 for vertical structures
=2.5 for fire-proof structures
=1.25 for horizontal structures.
This criterion is taken from Building Standards and Rules SNi 11-A.585.
Japan, in its State of the Art Report No. 5A 1978, recommends a fire load of 36 kg/m
2
, provided
the duration of the fire does not exceed 45 min and the fire temperature does not exceed 150
C.
The Swedes, in their state of the Art Report 5B (1987), assume that tall buildings cannot be
evacuated during a fire: they insist that the buildings should be provided with fire protection
measures. They have established a relation between effective fire load q and resistance time .
For a structure in fire compartment
The fire load q
c
initially is given by:
q
c
=
1
A
f
m
v
H
v
(Mcal/m
2
) (9.16)
228
where
A
f
=floor area (m
2
)
m
v
=the total weight (kg)
H
v
=effective heat value (Mcal/m
2
) for each individual material v
q
c
is also given in terms of an equivalent amount of wood per unit area A
f
.
A modified formula exists for q
c
:
q
c
=
1
A
t
m
v
H
v
(9.17)
in which A
t
is the total area of the surfaces bounding the compartment (m
2
).
The connection between the different fire load definitions is given by:
q
c
=
A
t
A
f
q (Mcal/m
2
) and q
c
=
A
t
4.5A
f
q (kg/m
2
) (9.18)
A further development, leads to a more differentiated characterization of the fire load. The value
of q is:
q =
1
A
t
v
m
v
H
v
(9.19)
in which
v
denotes a dimensionless coefficient between 0 and 1, given the real degree of com-
bustible for each individual component v of the fire load. The coefficient
v
depends on the duration
of the fire and the temperature-time characteristics of the fire compartment.
The range of fire density
It is concluded that for q the temperaturetime relation is very important.
9.4.3 Temperaturetime relation
A great deal of research, involving theory, experiment and data monitoring on site (41-250), has
been carried out and is still continuing with regard to the timetemperature relation. In this section
a few examples are given to show different practices.
In general it is widely believed that the temperature course of fire may be divided into the
following three periods:
a) the growth period
b) the fully developed period
c) the capacity period.
To determine the temperature course, it is necessary to know at each moment during a fire rate
at which heat is produced and the rate which heat is lost to exposed materials and surroundings.
Several of the parameters that determine heat production and heat losses can be categorized as
follows:
a) material properties
b) room dimensions
c) emissivity of flames
d) exposed materials
_
_
predicted with reasonable accuracy
e) gases that burn outside the room
f) loss of unburnt particles through window
g) temperature difference in the room.
_
_
_
predicted with less reasonable accuracy
229
Figure 9.1. Idealized temperature course of fire (reproduced from report No. 5A, 1978).
Figure 9.2. Temperature curves for fire resistance design (reproduced courtesy of the ASCE).
h) temperature change with time during the fire, which in turn
depends on:
i) amount
ii) surface area
iii) arrangement of combustible contents
iv) velocity and direction of wind
v) outside temperatures.
_
_
difficult to predict.
Various unpredictable and variations in approaches exist for computing fire load densities. How-
ever, it is possible to indicate for any compartment a characteristic temperaturetime curve whose
effect will not be exceeded during the lifetime of the building. Such curves are useful for the
fire-resistance design of buildings. Tsuchiya, Y. et al have given results (255); Figures 9.1 and 9.2
summarize the results of the temperature-time curve for the resistance design.
The opening factor F which has an effect on the temperaturetime relation is given by:
F =
A
W
A
t
(9.20)
230
Table 9.4. Factors for an enclosure.
Factor Description
k Thermal conductivity of bounding material:
1.16W/mK for a heavy material ( 1600 kg/m
3
)
0.58W/mK for a light material ( <1600 kg/m
3
)
c
Volumetric specific heat of bounding material:
2150 10
3
J/m
3
K for a heavy material ( 1600 kg/m
3
)
1075 10
3
J/m
3
K for a light material ( <1600 kg/m
3
)
A
T
Total inner surface area bounding the enclosure including window area: 1000 m
2
H Window height: 1.8 m
Emissivity for radiation transfer between hot gases and inner bounding surface of the enclosure: 0.7
c
Coefficient of heat transfer by convection between fire and inner bounding surface area: 23W/m
2
K
u
Coefficient of heat transfer between outer bounding surface area and surroundings: 23W/m
2
K
c Specific heat of combustion gases: 1340 J/Nm
3
C
G Volume of combustion gas produced by burning 1 kg of wood: 4.9 Nm
3
/kg
q Heat released in the enclosure by burning 1 kg of wood: 10.77 10
6
J/kg
T
0
Initial temperature: 20
C
V Volume of enclosure*: 1000 m
3
x Thickness of elementary layers of bounding material: 0.03 m
t Time increment: 0.0004167 hr
D Thickness of bounding material: 0.15 m
*It can be shown that the influence of the volume of the enclosure on the fire temperature is negligible.
Courtesy: ASCE.
Where
A
W
=area of the openings compartments or enclosures
H
=height of the opening

A
t
=area of the bounding surface (A
t
in British codes).
The rate of burning R of the combustible materials in an enclosure is given by:
R = 330A
W
(9.21)
The duration time
=
q
c
A
t
330A
W
=
Q
c
330F
(9.22)
where
q
c
=the fire load/unit area.
Here
q
c
= 330F (9.23)
Table 9.4 gives information for various factors regarding the enclosure needed in the above
equations. If R=KA
W
H, then the value of K in imperial units is 330; 5.5 to 6 kg/(min m

5/2
)
for A
t
and 9 to 10 kg min m
5/2
) for small area A
t
has been adopted in Denmark, Japan, the USA,
the UK and the former USSR.
As an example if the windowheight H
is 1.8 m, A
W
=total opening =356 m
2
and A
t
=6337 m
2
,
the temperature opening factor F will be 0.0754.
The temperature curves for the fire resistance design can be described by:
T = 250(10F)
0.1/F
0.3
e
F
2
t
[3(1 e
0.6t
) (1 e
3t
) + 4(1 e
12t
)] + C
_
600
F
_
0.5
(9.24)
where
T =the fire temperature (
C)
t =time (hr)
231
Figure 9.3. Comparison between temperature-time curves obtained by solving a heat balance and those
described by an analytical expression for ventilation-controlled fires in enclosures bounded by dominantly
heavy materials ( 1600 kg/m
3
).
Figure 9.4. Comparison between temperature-time curves obtained by solving a heat balance and those
described by an analytical expression for ventilation-controlled fires in enclosures bounded by dominantly
light materials ( 1600 kg/m
3
).
F =opening factor (m
1/2
)
C =constant based on the properties of the bounding material in fire
=0 for heavy materials with 1600 kg/m
3
=1 for light materials with 1600 kg/m
3
=density
t = time
0.08
F
+ 1 (9.25)
If
t >
0.08
F
+ 1 assume t =
0.08
F
+ 1 (9.26)
If F >0.15 take F =0.15 for design purposes. Figures 9.3 to 9.6 show some temperature-time
curves for design purposes.
232
Figure 9.5. Standard timetemperature curve.
Figure 9.6. Standard fire temperaturetime relations used in various countries for testing of building elements
(Bangash, M.Y.H., Prototype Building, Thomas Telford, 1999) (298).
The temperature course of fire during the decay period is given by:
T = 600
_
t
1
_
+ T (9.27)
T =20 if T <20
C
The International Standards Organisation (ISO) give the following expression for their standard
curves (291):
T T
0
= 345 log
10
(8t + 1) (9.28)
233
Figure 9.7. Temperaturetimeq
c
curves for F-values Pettersson (125, 219, 220).
where
t =time (hr)
T =the temperature (
C) =T
f
and
T
0
=initial temperature (
C).
In North America an analytical expression exist for temperaturetime curves in the form of an
exponential function:
T T
0
= a
1
(1 e
a
4
t
) + a
2
(1 e
a
5
t
) + a
3
(1 e
a
6
t
) (9.29)
where a
1
=532 for

C, 957 for

F; a
2
=186 for

C, 334 for

F; a
3
=820 for

C, 1476 for

F;
a
4
=0.6; a
5
=3; a
6
=12.
This heat transfer equation is integrable and is used in the finite element analysis.
A number of countries have been involved in fire-temperature-time analysis and research. Har-
mathy (192, 275a, 276) is the first researcher to have collected data from some countries and
presented a comparative study graph for the temperaturetime relation. Figure 9.7 shows the
Harmathy (192, 275a, 276) with data from a few other countries added.
The last step is to see how to fire loads q
c
can be graphically related to the temperaturetime
curve. For design purposes, it is important for the load to be algebraically added to other load.
Pettersson (219) has presented four graphs for temperaturetimeq
c
relations, for
F =
A
W
A
T
= 0.02
m, 0.04
m, 0.08
m and 0.12
m.
He has taken heat capacity c
p
=400 kcal/m
3
C, thermal conductivity =0.7 kcal/mh
C. the
value of q
c
is in Mcal/m
2
. Figures 9.7 and 9.8 show such relationships for four different openings.
British practice allows the opening factor F =0.05
m for heavy bounding materials. Figure 9.7

shows a simplified temperature-time-fire load q
c
curve for the opening factor F =0.05
m. This
234
Figure 9.8. Temperaturetimeq
c
curve for F =0.005 British and American practice (930,955).
curve is in full agreement with American practice. The standard temperature-time curve adopted
by BS 476: Part 8, 1972 is shown in Figure 9.5 and is compared with other countries in Figure 9.6.
9.4.4 Material properties
Nowthat the firetime relation has been thoroughly reviewed, it is necessary to look at various mate-
rials andhowtheyreact tothe fire environment. The most common materials are steel, concrete, tim-
ber and brick. The properties of these materials must be known prior to design of building structures.
9.4.4.1 Steel in Escalators/Travelators
The material properties that affect the temperature rise and distribution in a structural steel
section are
a) Thermal conductivity
b) Specific heat.
The thermal conductivity K is by the USDAAgricultural Handbook No. 72.1987 as
K = 0.022T + 48 for 0 T 900
C
= 28.2 for T > 900
C (9.30)
where T =temperature in steel (
C).
Specific heat is the characteristic that describes the amount of heat input required to raise a unit
mass of material a unit of temperature. A constant of 600 J/(kg K) of the specific heat of steel for
the entire temperature range is a reasonable approximation.
Where thermal conductivity and specific heat are involved, thermal diffusivity of the material
cannot be ignored, since it is a measure of how the heat is dissipated through the material and is the
ratio of the thermal conductivity to the volumetric specific heat of the material. The relationship
for thermal diffusivity a is given by
a = K/c (9.31)
where
K =thermal conductivity
=density
c =specific heat.
In British practice
c =c
s
=0.52 kJ/(kg
C)
=
s
=7850 kg/m
3
K =K
s
=50W/(m
C)
235
Figure 9.9. Relationship between steel material properties and temperatures in

C (British practice).
At 20
C, the elastic limit (Youngs modulus) is: E

20
= 206 kN/mm
2
Elastic limit at 20
C stress: fy
20
= 250 N/mm
2
Ultimate strength: ft
20
= 450 N/mm
2
_
_
_
Grade 43A (BS4360)
From these basic values, the properties at other temperatures are as given below.
Temperature range
Elastic properties 20300
C 300700
C 700900
C
fy
T
fy
20
1
T
3000
0.9
T
300
500
0.1
T
700
200
E
T
E
20
1
T
3000
0.9
T
300
611
(300 900
C)
Thus it is shown that the modulus of elasticity of steel decreases with increasing temperature.
The strength of hot-rolled steel depends on yield and tensile strength. Figures 9.9 and 9.10 show
these relations for British and American practices respectively. Lie and Stanzak (48, 62, 86) give
the yield strength of steel with temperature as
Fy = Fy
0
(1 0.78 1.89
4
) (9.32)
where
=(T
F
68)/1800
T
F
=temperature of steel (
F).
The European Convention for Constructional Steelwork (93, 292) utilizes the same concept:
Fy = Fy
0
(1 + T
C
/(767 ln(T
C
/1750))) 0 < T
C
600
C (9.33)
Fy = Fy
0
((108 T
C
/1000)/(T
C
440)) 600
< T
C
1000
C (9.34)
where
Fy =yield stress at elevated temperature
Fy
0
=yield stress at room temperature
T
C
=temperatures of steel (
C)
236
Figure 9.10. Modules of elasticity of steel at elevated temperatures (American practice).
Figure 9.11. Strength of some steels at high temperature.
Figure 9.11 shows strength versus temperature as used in fire resistance.
TheAmerican Iron and Steel Institute (63, 263266) gives the thermal expansion (temperatures
up to 650
C) as:
= (11 + 0.0062T) 10
6
where T =steel temperature (
C).
The Eurocode ENV 1993-1-2 has an approach originally specified by ECCS as a design guide
(1983, 1985) which calculates the ratio of the required strength at elevated temperatures to that at
ambient in order to ensure that the structural steel components do not collapse. Hence, for beams,
the elastic design should be based on:
f
a max,cr
f
ay,20
C
=
_
_
_
W
el
W
pl
__
q
sd,el
q
fi,d
_
(9.35)
where f
amax,cr
/f
ay,20
C
is the stress ratio, is a factor allowing for the non-uniform temperature dis-
tribution, geometric imperfections and strength variations, is a factor, greater than unity; allowing
237
for redistribution between the elastic ambient moment distribution and the plastic distribution under
fire, W
pl
/W
el
is the ratio between the plastic and elastic section module (known as the shape factor),
and q
fi,d
/q
sd,el
is the ratio of the design load (action) in the fire to the elastic design load (action).
In order to design a beam plastically, the relationship is given as:
f
a max,cr
f
ay,20
C
=
_
q
sd
q
fi,d
_
(9.36)
where q
fi,d
/q
sd
is the ratio of the fire action to the ultimate action.
The Eurocode now gives two methods for steelwork design:
a) Load-carrying capacity
b) Limiting temperature criterion.
(a) Load-carrying capacity
S
d,F
R
d,F(t)
(9.37)
where S
d,F
is the design value of the internal force to be resisted and R
d,F(t)
is the design
resistance at time t and should be calculated in accordance with ENV 1992-1-1 except for the
use of temperature-modified mechanical properties of steel.
For tension members (clause 4.2.21)
R
d,F(t)
= k
amax,
R
d
(9.38)
where k
amax,
is the normalized strength reduction at a temperature of
a
and R
d
is the ambient
design resistance. Note that if
a
is less than 550
C at any cross-section, the member may be

assumed to be able to carry the fire-induced loading. Where the temperature in a member is
non-uniform, then
a
should be taken as the maximum value in the cross-section.
For beams (class 1 and 2, clause 4.2.2.2), under uniform temperature, the rules for tension
and bending are the same except that R
d
is the design bending resistance.
Under non-uniform temperature distribution, the temperature distribution R
d,F(t)
is:
R
d,F(t)
=
R
d,F()
(9.39)
where is a factor allowing for temperature gradient and varying end conditions (Pettersson
and Jonsson (219, 220) and R
d,F()
is the design resistance calculated from the maximum
temperature in the cross-section:
= 1.0 exposed on 4 sides
_
simple beams
_
hyperstatic beams
For compression members (class 1 or 2 section classification; clause 4.2.2.3)
R
d,F(t)
=
k
amx,
R
d
1.2
(9.40)
where R
d
is the ambient design strength calculated using the buckling curve c of ENV1993-1-1,
and the 1.2 factor is an empirical correction factor.
a
here is less than 510
C for members other than tension members

a
<350
C.
(b) Limiting temperature criterion
For a member to perform adequately in a fire, ENV 1993-1-2 requires that
a

a,cr
(9.41)
238
Figure 9.12. Stressstrain curves for a mild steel (ASTMA 36) at various temperatures.
where
a
=actual temperature
a,cr
=critical temperature which depends on degree of loading
(0)
.
The following formula is suggested using plastic theory and strength reduction due to
temperature:
a,cr
= 78.38 ln
_
_
1
0.9674(
(0)
)
3.833
1
_
1/2
_
+ 482 (9.41a)
The parameter
(0)
is the degree of utilization and is given by:
(0)
=
S
d.F
R
d.F(0)
(9.42)
9.4.4.2 Calculations of fire resistance of steel members in travelators
The temperature rise in a steel structure or its elements can be estimated using quasi-steady-state
equation. The equations are derived from one-dimensional heat transfer equations.
(a) Unprotected steel members
The equation for temperature rise during a short time period t is given by:
T
s
=

C
s
(W/D)
(T
f
T
s
)t (9.43)
where
T
s
=temperature rise in steel (
F/
C)
=heat transfer for coefficient from exposure to steel member (Btu/(ft
2
sec) or W/m)
D=heated perimeter (ft or m)
C
s
=specific heat for steel (Btu/(lb
F)) or J/(kg
C)
W =weight of steel (lbf/ ft or kg/m)
T
f
=fire temperature (
R or K)
T
s
=steel temperature (
R or K)
t =time step (sec)
where
=
r
+
c
(9.44)
r
= radiative portion of heat transfer.
239
(Mulhotra considers:
=
1
W/D
=
S
m
S
P
s
s
A
s
(9.45)
where S =area, m
s
=mass)
c
=convective portion of heat transfer
=9.8 10
4
to 1.2 10
3
Btu/(ft
2
sec)
=20 to 25W/(m
2
C)
t <
_
15.9 W/D Imperial units
3.25 W/D SI units
P
s
/A
s
=shape factor
r
(based on the Stefan-Boltzman law for radiation)
=
5.77w
r
T
f
T
s
_
_
T
f
+ 273
100
_
4
_
T
3
+ 273
100
_
4
_
W/(m
C) (9.46)
w
r
=emissivity of flames =0.7 for steel surfaces.
In American practice w
r
=E
f
and
r
is given as:
r
=
C
1
E
f
T
f
T
s
(T
4
f
T
4
s
)
(9.47)
C
1
= 4.76 10
13
Btu/(sec ft
2
)R
4
= 5.77 10
8
W/m
3
K
4
.
The values of w
r
or E
f
are given for more cases in Table 9.5 along with the shape factor P
s
/A
s
.
The fire temperature T
f
is given evaluated at time t according to ASTME-119 test
T
f
= C
1
log
10
(0.133t + 1)T
0
(9.48)
Where t is time and
C
1
= 620 with T
f
, T
0
in

F
= 34.5 with T
f
, T
0
in

C
T
0
= initial temperature.
(b) Protected steel members
Here the insulating material is considered along with steel for the overall thermal resistance. If
the thermal capacity of the insulating material is neglected, the value of T
s
is given as
T
s
=
k
c
s
hW/D
(T
f
T
s
)t. (9.49)
All symbols are defined above, except k and h:
k =thermal conductivity of the insulating material Btu/(ft sec
C) or W/(m
C)
h =protection thickness (ft or m).
Conditions:
(a) If the thermal capacity of the material, then the following inequality is true:
c
s
=
W
D
> 2c
i
i
h. (9.50)
240
Table 9.5. Emissivity
r
or E
f
, heated perimeters and shape factors for steel shapes.
Type of construction Shape factor
exposed to fire
r
or E
f
Shapes Heated perimeter
unprotected steel
1. Columns on all sides

0.7 D=4b
f
+2d 2t
w
D or P
s
A
s
2. Columns outside face
0.3 D=3b
f
+2d 2t
w
D or P
s
A
s
3. Girder with
width
depth
0.5 0.5 D
2
=
(b
f
+d)
b
f
d
D or P
s
A
s
4. Girder with
width
depth
<0.5 0.7 D=
b
f
+d
t
w
(b
f
+ d 2t
w
)
D or P
s
A
s
5. Box or lattice girders
0.7
D=
4d
d
2
(D 2t
w
)
2
D or P
s
A
s
6. Girder with concrete
0.5 D=8b
f
+2d +2a 4t
w
D or P
s
A
s
floor slab, only
underside of the
bottom flange
exposed
7. Floor girder with slab
0.5 D=4a +2b +2c D or P
s
A
s
on the top flange
Indicates the surface through which the heat is flowing through the steel.
The shape factor is the rise of temperature of a steel section.

A
s
=surface area.
(b) If the thermal capacity is considered when gypsum and concrete are used as insulating
materials, the value of T
s
can be written as:
T
s
=
k
h
_
T
f
T
s
c
s
(W/D) +
1
2
c
i
i
h
_
t (9.51)
All symbols are defined above except c
i
and
i
.
c
i
=specific heat of insulating material (Btu/(lb
F)) or J/(kg
C)
i
=density of insulating material (lb/ft
3
or kg/m
3
).
Figure 9.13ad shows the relationship between D/A
s
versus temperatures and durations for
various values of h/k values.
The European Commission suggests in Eurocode that the value of t can be defined as
follows:
t
25 000
D/A
s
241
Figure 9.13. Relations between D/A
s
versus temperature versus duration for h/k ratios.
Figure 9.14. Shape factors for protected steel.
Generally, the shape factor for D/A
s
is in the range of 10 to 300 for an average result-
ing emissivity (W
r
or E
f
) =0.5. Figure 9.14 shows the shape factors for protected steel
sections.
Heat transfer analyses can be very tedious and involved. Computer programs have been
developed and the outputs are translated into graphs. Two of such graphs are known as Jeanes
Graph (Fig. 9.15) and Lies Graphs (47, 48). Jeanes (44) formulated a series of time-temperature
graphs of protected steel beams. The protection is generally provided by a specific spray-applied
cementitious material with a range of 0.5 in. (12.7 mm) to 1.5 in. (38 mm). They are commonly
used for wide-flanged beams. Figure 9.15 shows W/D
s
of the beam versus fire endurance for
various insulation thicknesses.
242
Figure 9.15. Fire protection and endurance of steel beams (average section temperature 1000
F) ASTME-119.
Figure 9.16. Lies graphs: dimensionless steel temperatures versus Fourier numbers (62, 86, 92, 146,
206210).
Lies graphs are shown in Figure 9.16 In order to use these graphs, some dimensionless
parameters have to be evaluated: Fourier number F
0
for the layer and N and defined below:
F
0
=
dt
h
2
(9.52)
N =

i
c
i
h
c
s
(W/D)
(9.53)
=
T T
0
T
m
T
0
(9.54)
The mean temperature T
m
with a heating time t for these graphs is calculated from the standard
time-temperature curve:
T
m
= 150(ln 480t 1)
30
t
, T (
C)
= 270(ln 480t) 238
54
t
, T (
F) (9.55)
243
T
a
b
l
e
9
.
6
a
.
S
t
e
e
l
c
o
l
u
m
n
s
,
h
e
a
t
e
d
p
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
a
n
d
f
i
r
e
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
.
T
y
p
e
H
e
a
t
e
d
p
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
f
u
l
l
y
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
b
o
x
t
y
p
e
F
i
r
e
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
R
(
1
)
L
o
w
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
b
o
x
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
(
1
)
R
=
(
C
1
(
W
/
D
)
+
C
2
)
h
(
2
)
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
r
a
n
g
e
(
2
)
R
=
(
1
2
0
0
(
W
/
D
p
)
+
3
0
)
h
2
0
<
5
0
l
b
/
f
t
3
C
h
e
m
i
c
a
l
l
y
s
t
a
b
l
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
v
e
r
m
i
c
u
l
i
t
e
,
3
2
0
8
0
0
k
g
3
/
m
3
p
e
r
l
i
t
e
,
s
p
r
a
y
e
d
m
i
n
e
r
a
l
f
i
b
r
e
s
a
n
d
d
e
n
s
e
m
i
n
e
r
a
l
w
o
o
l
(
2
a
)
A
s
a
b
o
v
e
i
n
(
2
)
(
2
a
)
C
e
m
e
n
t
p
a
s
t
e
,
g
y
p
s
u
m
,
c
e
m
e
n
t
i
t
i
o
u
s
m
i
x
t
u
r
e
s
a
n
d
p
l
a
s
t
e
r
s
(
3
)
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
r
a
n
g
e
a
s
a
b
o
v
e
i
n
(
2
)
(
3
)
R
=
(
1
2
0
0
(
W
/
D
p
)
+
7
2
)
h
P
a
s
t
e
s
o
r
g
y
p
s
u
m
s
u
c
h
a
s
c
e
m
e
n
t
i
t
i
o
u
s
m
i
x
t
u
r
e
a
n
d
p
l
a
s
t
e
r
s
C
1
,
C
2
=
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
c
o
n
s
t
a
n
t
s
;
W
=
w
e
i
g
h
t
o
f
s
t
e
e
l
c
o
l
u
m
n
l
b
/
f
t
(
k
g
/
m
)
;
D
=
h
e
a
t
e
d
p
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
i
n
c
h
e
s
(
m
m
o
r
m
)
;
h
=
t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
o
f
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
(
m
m
o
r
m
)
.
244
T
a
b
l
e
9
.
6
b
.
S
t
e
e
l
c
o
l
u
m
n
s
,
h
e
a
t
e
d
p
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
a
n
d
f
i
r
e
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
.
T
y
p
e
H
e
a
t
e
d
p
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
s
f
u
l
l
y
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
;
c
o
n
t
o
u
r
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
F
o
r
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
,
R
(
4
)
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
4
)
R
=
(
4
5
(
W
/
D
)
+
3
0
)
h
1
0
2
0
l
b
/
f
t
3
S
m
a
l
l
r
o
u
n
d
a
n
d
s
q
u
a
r
e
1
6
0
3
2
0
k
g
/
m
3
c
o
l
u
m
n
s
(
w
i
d
t
h
<
6
i
n
.
(
1
5
2
m
m
)
)
h
1
.
5
i
n
.
(
3
5
m
m
)
(
5
)
A
s
i
n
(
4
)
(
5
)
R
=
(
6
0
(
W
/
D
)
+
3
0
)
h
A
l
l
o
t
h
e
r
s
h
a
p
e
s
,
s
i
z
e
s
a
n
d
t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
o
f
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
(
6
)
G
y
p
s
u
m
w
a
l
l
b
o
a
r
d
A
I
S
I
1
9
8
0
(
6
)
R
=
(
1
3
0
(
h
W
/
2
D
)
0
.
7
5
W
=
W
+
5
0
(
h
D
/
1
4
4
)
N
o
t
e
:
A
l
l
p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
a
s
b
e
f
o
r
e
.
W
=
w
e
i
g
h
t
o
f
s
t
e
e
l
c
o
l
u
m
n
w
i
t
h
g
y
p
s
u
m
w
a
l
l
b
o
a
r
d
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
(
l
b
/
f
t
o
r
k
g
/
m
)
.
245
Figure 9.17. Concrete-protectedstructural steel columns. (1) square shape protectionwitha uniformthickness
of concrete cover on all sides; (2) rectangular shape with varying thickness of concrete cover and (3) encasement
having all re-entrant spaces filled with concrete.
(c) steel columns.
In steel columns the temperature due to fire is still a function of W/D, weight-to-heated-
perimeter ratio. Hence, to avoid rapid loss of strength in a column it is necessary to insulate
it. Similar to beam sections, the heated perimeter D of some steel columns is shown in Table
9.6a and 9.6b along with their fire resistance formulae. Concrete encasement is another form
of protection for steel columns. Lie and Harmathy (210, 287) have developed methods of
protection. Figure 9.17 gives three cases for which the following equation are given for both
normal and lightweight concrete.
(a) Normal concrete protection on all sides. The resistance R is given as:
R = 11
_
W
D
_
0.7
+ 19h
1.6
_
1 + 94
_
H
c
h(L + h)
_
0.8
_
(9.56)
(b) Lightweight concrete protection on all sides. The resistance R is given as:
R = 11
_
W
D
_
0.7
+ 23h
1.6
_
1 + 94
_
H
c
h(L + h)
_
0.8
_
(9.57)
All notation have been defined previously except
H
=thermal capacity of steel column at ambient temperature

(0.11W Btu/(ft
F))
c
= concrete density (lb/ft
3
or kN/m
3
).
9.4.4.3 Additional methods of protection for hollow columns
There are two types of hollow column protection arrangements, as follows.
(a) Filling the hollow columns and carrying a share of the load at room temperature. Concrete acts
as a heat sink and takes more load as steel strength is reduced.
(b) Filling the hollowcolumns with water. Water inside absorbs the heat transferred fromthe fire to
the column. The heat is dissipated by evaporation of the water. Flemington (272) and Miller and
Iff (295) have done research on the quantity of water necessary to prevent excessive temperature
rise of steel. The quantity of external storage water required to achieve fire resistance is given by
V
W
= 3.92 A q 10
7
(9.58)
where
V
W
=required external storage water (m
3
)
A =surface area of the column (m
2
)
246
Figure 9.18. Section of unprotected steel columns.
q =heat transferred to the column during a fire test per unit surface area (kJ/m
2
)
=150740 for hour fir rating
=225260 for 1 hour fire rating
Column-water interaction
A comprehensive finite element analysis is required for the heat transfer to water while interacting
with columns in the fire environment. Appendix I gives a guidance in this direction.
Unprotected steel columns
Figure 9.18 shows data on unprotected steel shapes used in this section. The AISC (263267) gives
the following formulae for the fire resistance of unprotected steel columns:
R = 10.3
_
W
D
_
0.7
for W/D<10 (9.59)
R = 8.3
_
W
D
_
0.8
for W/D 10 (9.60)
R =resistance in minutes
W =weight of steel column per ft length
D =heated perimeter of steel section (in.)
The values of D are given in Table 9.7 and Fig. 9.18.
9.4.4.4 Summary of empirical equations for steel columns fully protected against fire (USA)
Table 9.7 provides a summary of the empirical equations of columns when they are protected by
various insulations. In each case the resistance R is given.
247
T
a
b
l
e
9
.
7
.
E
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
c
o
l
u
m
n
s
.
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
E
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
E
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
l
u
m
n
/
u
n
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
R
=
1
0
.
3
(
W
/
D
)
0
.
7
,
f
o
r
W
/
D
<
1
0
C
o
l
u
m
n
/
s
p
r
a
y
-
a
p
p
l
i
e
d
R
=
[
C
1
(
W
/
D
)
+
C
2
]
h
(
f
o
r
c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
o
f
1
0
0
F
)
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
n
d
b
o
a
r
d
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
w
i
d
e
-
f
l
a
n
g
e
s
h
a
p
e
s
R
=
f
i
r
e
e
n
d
u
r
a
n
c
e
t
i
m
e
(
m
i
n
)
C
1
a
n
d
C
2
=
c
o
n
s
t
a
n
t
s
f
o
r
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
W
=
w
e
i
g
h
t
o
f
s
t
e
e
l
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
p
e
r
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
l
i
n
e
a
r
f
o
o
t
(
l
b
/
f
t
)
D
=
h
e
a
t
e
d
p
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
(
i
n
.
)
C
o
l
u
m
n
/
g
y
p
s
u
m
w
a
l
l
b
o
a
r
d
R
=
1
3
0
_
h
W
/
D
2
_
0
.
7
5
C
o
l
u
m
n
/
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
c
o
v
e
r
R
=
R
0
(
1
+
0
.
0
3
m
)
w
h
e
r
e
w
h
e
r
e
W
=
W
+
_
5
0
h
D
1
4
4
_
R
0
=
1
0
(
W
/
D
)
0
.
7
+
1
7
_
h
1
.
6
k
0
.
2
c
_
h
=
t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
o
f
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
(
i
n
.
)
W
=
w
e
i
g
h
t
o
f
s
t
e
e
l
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
_
1
+
2
6
_
H
c
C
c
h
(
L
+
h
)
_
0
.
8
_
g
y
p
s
u
m
w
a
l
l
b
o
a
r
d
(
l
b
/
f
t
)
D
=
2
(
b
f
+
d
)
R
=
C
1
(
A
/
P
)
h
+
C
2
R
0
=
f
i
r
e
e
n
d
u
r
a
n
c
e
a
t
z
e
r
o
m
o
i
s
t
u
r
e
C
o
l
u
m
n
/
s
p
r
a
y
-
a
p
p
l
i
e
d
C
1
a
n
d
C
2
=
c
o
n
s
t
a
n
t
s
f
o
r
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
c
o
n
t
e
n
t
o
f
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
(
m
i
n
)
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
n
d
b
o
a
r
d
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
m
=
e
q
u
i
l
i
b
r
i
u
m
m
o
i
s
t
u
r
e
c
o
n
t
e
n
t
o
f
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
h
o
l
l
o
w
T
h
e
A
/
P
r
a
t
i
o
o
f
a
c
i
r
c
u
l
a
r
p
i
p
e
i
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
b
y
:
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
(
%
b
y
v
o
l
u
m
e
)
A
/
P
p
i
p
e
=
(
t
(
d
t
)
/
d
)
b
f
=
w
i
d
t
h
o
f
f
l
a
n
g
e
(
i
n
)
w
h
e
r
e
d
=
d
e
p
t
h
o
f
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
(
i
n
)
d
=
o
u
t
e
r
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
p
i
p
e
(
i
n
)
k
c
=
t
h
e
r
m
a
l
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
o
f
t
=
w
a
l
l
t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
o
f
t
h
e
p
i
p
e
(
i
n
)
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
t
e
m
p
.
(
B
t
u
/
(
h
r
f
t
F
)
)
T
h
e
A
/
P
r
a
t
i
o
o
f
a
r
e
c
t
a
n
g
u
l
a
r
o
r
s
q
u
a
r
e
C
o
l
u
m
n
/
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
e
n
c
a
s
e
d
F
o
r
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
-
e
n
c
a
s
e
d
c
o
l
u
m
n
s
u
s
e
:
t
u
b
e
i
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
b
y
:
H
=
0
.
1
1
W
+
c
C
c
/
1
4
4
(
b
f
d
A
s
)
A
/
P
t
u
b
e
=
t
(
a
+
b
2
f
)
a
+
b
D
=
2
(
B
r
+
d
)
w
h
e
r
e
L
=
(
b
f
+
d
)
/
2
a
=
o
u
t
e
r
w
i
d
t
h
o
f
t
h
e
t
u
b
e
(
i
n
)
H
=
t
h
e
r
m
a
l
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
o
f
s
t
e
e
l
b
=
o
u
t
e
r
l
e
n
g
t
h
o
f
t
h
e
t
u
b
e
(
i
n
)
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
t
a
m
b
i
e
n
t
t
e
m
p
.
t
=
w
a
l
l
t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
o
f
t
h
e
t
u
b
e
(
i
n
)
=
0
.
1
1
W
(
B
t
u
/
(
f
t
F
)
)
C
c
=
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
h
e
a
t
o
f
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
a
t
a
m
b
i
e
n
t
t
e
m
p
.
(
B
t
u
/
(
l
b
F
)
)
L
=
i
n
s
i
d
e
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
o
f
o
n
e
s
i
d
e
o
f
s
q
u
a
r
e
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
b
o
x
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
(
i
n
)
A
s
=
c
r
o
s
s
-
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
r
e
a
o
f
s
t
e
e
l
c
o
l
u
m
n
(
i
n
2
)
9.4.4.5 Examples in steel structures
Example 9.1
American practice. A wide-flange WF 24 76 steel beam with 1 in (25.4 mm) of spray-applied
cementitious material (British equivalent 610 229 113 kg/m). The beam has W/D=1.03 lb/ft
and nowhere does the temperature exceed 1000
F. (538
C) or 811 K. The insulation temperature is

to be 750
F while keeping the steel temperature at 538
C. The results obtained from

(a) Malhotras quasi-steady state approach
(b) Jeanes graph
(c) Lies graph
are compared. To calculate the fire resistance R for the spray-applied beam, the following data are
used:
Steel Insulation
K (Btu/ft hr
F) 25.6 0.067
C
p
(Btu/lb
F) 0.133 0.305
(density/ft
3
) 480 14.9
(a) Malhotras method (113, 215)
c
s
W/D>2c
i
i
d
00.133
1.03
1/12
> 2 0.305 14.9
1.0
12
1.644 >0.757.
The thermal capacity of insulation is therefore neglected. The steel temperature rise for each
time step is:
T
s
=
0.067/3600
10.132
1.0
12

1.03
1/12
(T
f
T
s
)t
= 1.37 10
4
(T
f
T
s
)t
t(max) = 15.9
W
D
= 15.9
1.03
1/12
195 sec
One hour allowable time is prescribed by various codes for fire resistance. At T
0
the room
temperature is around 21
C(70
F). The time step is chosen to be 3 min.

The results are as follows:
Time (min) (T
f
T
s
)
F T
s
(
F) T
s
(
F)
0 70
3 690 18.53

88.53
6 937 25.16 113.69
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
185 764 39 1000
The fire endurance is 106 min.
(Note: to convert to

C, use

C=

F32
1.8
for all values.)
(b) Jeanes graph
W/D=1.03 lb/ft. In with an insulation thickness of 1 in. The fire endurance is estimated to be
2 hr or 120 min.
(c) Lies graph
Figures and equation are used.
250
Dimensionless parameters
F
0
=
t
h
2
=
K
i
c
i
=
0.067
14.9 0.305
= 0.0147 ft
2
/hr
=
0.0147 t
(1/12)
2
= 2.12t (t in hours)
N =

i
c
i
h
c
s
(W/D)
=
14.9 0.305 (1/12)
0.133(1.03/(1/12))
= 0.2304
Adopting a trial and error method with a critical temperature of 1000
F, the fire endurance time

is 115 min.
Jeanes and Lies approaches are in close agreement. Malhotras method is methodical and
the small difference may be attributed to the equations being dependent on one-dimensional
heat transfer.
Example 9.2
British practice. Calculate the time or duration for a beam of 457 152 60 kg/m fully protected
by 25 mm sprayed fibre insulation for a temperature rise in steel of 270
C. Use the following data

and the relevant European Codes including the Eurocode 3 and the ISO formula for the furnace
temperature T
f
.
Steel:
A
s
=75.8 cm
2
s
=7850 kg/m
3
p
s
or D=1.254 m
c
s
=520 J/Kg

C
Insulation:
d
i
=0.025 m
k
i
=0.11W/m
C
c
i
=1050 J/kg
i
=300 kg/m
3
ISO formula for furnace temperature T
f
:
T
f
=345 log
10
(8t +1) +T
0
t
2500
(P
s
or D)/A
s
T
0
=initial temperature =ambient temperature =20
C
P
d
A
s
=
1.254
75.8 10
4
=16.5 m
t =
25 000
1.254/75.8 10
4
=152 sec =2.5 min
c
s
s
A
s
=520 7850 75.8 10
4
=30 942
2c
i
i
d
i
P
i
=2 1050 300 0.025 1.254 =19 750
30 942 >19 750: the insulation has a low heat capacity.
T
s
=
165 2.5 60
520 7850
(T
f
T
s
)
0.11
0.025
= 0.027(T
f
T
s
)
T
f
= 345 log
10
(8t + 1) + T
0
.
Table 9.8 shows a step-by-step calculation. It can be seen that, for a value of 270
C, the duration
is around 150 minutes or 2 hours.
251
Table 9.8. Step-by-step calculation.
t (min) T
f
(
C) T
f
T
s
(
C) T
s
(
C) T
s
(
C)
0 20
2.5
2
=1.25 359 9.70
29.70
2.5 486 486.3 12.32 42.02
5.0 598.43 556.41 15.02 57.04
7.5 672.98 615.94 16.63 73.67
10.0 732.1 658.43 17.78
20.0 852.8 761.35 20.56 91.45
30.0 913.25 821.8 22.20 113.65
40.0 978.4 864.75 23.35 137
60.0 1062.34 925.34 25.00 162
90.0 1148.00 986.00 26.62 188.62
95.0 1182.72 994.10 26.84 215.46
100.0 1217.46 1002.00 27.05 242.51
150 1305.01 1062.5 28.70 271.21
Example 9.3
American practice. A steel column is protected by 1 in thick (25.4 mm) spray-applied cementitious
material. Using the American practice and the following data, determine the fire resistance R for
the column:
C
1
= 63 C
2
= 36
W
D
= 1.45 lb/ftin.
Protection: contour profile type
R =
_
63
W
D
+ 36
_
h
= (63 1.44 + 36) 1
= 126.72 min 2 hr.
Example 9.4
American practice. A column W8 28 is encased in a normal concrete with all spaces duly filled
in. Using the American practice and the following data, determine the fire resistance time for the
column.
ASTM DATA
h
2
= h
1
= h = 1.5 in.; B
f
= 6.535 in.; d = 8.060 in.
w/D = 0.67l/(ft.in.)
Protection: Contour profile type
A = 8.25 in.
thermal property of concrete at 70 F
(21
)
Normal concrete Lightweight concrete
K(Btu/(ft.F
.hr)) 0.95 0.35

c
p
=c
c
(Btu/(lb.F
)) 0.20 0.20
252
d
c
= density of concrete = 100 lb/ft
3
lightweight concrete
= 150 lb/ft
3
Normal concrete
concrete cover =1.5 in.
moisture content in both concrete =5%
Lightweight column i.e. using lightweight concrete, the protection time shall be calculated as:
R = R
0
(1 + 0.3) m with m = 5%
= 1.15R
0
for both concrete
R
0
= 10(W/D)
0.7
+ 17(h
1.6
/K
0.2
C
)
_
1 + 26
_
H
d
c
c
c
h(L + h)
_
0.8
_
h = 15, H = 0.11W +
d
c
c
c
144
(B
f
D A
s
= 0.1(28) +
d
c
(0.2)
144
(6.535(8.06 8.25))
for d
c
= 100 lb/ft
2
H(lightweight) = 9.25
for d
c
= 150 lb/ft
2
H(Normal) = 10.484
L =
1
2
(B
f
+ d) = 7.30 in. (185 mm)
Hence
R
0
(lightweight concrete) = 119 minutes
R
0
(normal concrete) = 87 minutes
R = 1.15R
0
= 1.15 119 = 137 minutes Lightweight, concrete column
R = 1.15R
0
= 1.15 87 = 100 minutes Normal concrete column
Adopting Lightweight concrete 1.5 inches thick for insulation, the duration time R is 1.37 times
more than for the normal concrete.
Example 9.5
British practice. A steel column 254 254 167 kg/m is fully exposed to temperature changes.
Using the following data and the relevant. Eurocode 3, calculate a step-by-step temperature rise
and evaluate the final collapse of this column:
A
s
=212 cm
2
D or P
s
=1.636 m
ambient temperature =20
C
gas temperature T
f
=345 log
10
(0.133t +1) +T
0
t =time (min)
T
0
=initial temperature (
C)
=
c
+
r
c
=25W/(m
2
C)
r
=
5.75 w
r
(T
f
T
s
)

_
_
T
f
+ 273
100
_
4
_
T
s
+ 273
100
_
4
_
W/(m
2
C)
253
Steel properties:
C +s =520 J/(kg
C)
s
=7850 kg/m
3
t
25 000
P
s
or D/AS
T
s
=steel temperature rise at time t
C
w
r
=average emissivity =0.5.
Example 9.6
European practice. Determine the sprayed plaster protection to a unival beam Grade S355JR
406 178 74 kg/m UB for a 90-minute fire duration. Use the following data:
Beam span =9 m
Bending moments from each simple end at 3 m are 236 and 184 kNm respectively
Partial safety factors 1.0 and 0.8 permanent (dead) load action and live load respectively.
concentrated
_
_
dead load 40 kN
load on one side
imposed load 70 kN
dead load 40 kN
load on other side
imposed load 70 kN
gypsum plaster p
p
= 800 kg/m
3
p
= 0.2W/(m
C)
p = 20%
R = load ratio =
M
fi
M
c
mM
fi
M
b
236
532.5
= 0.443
0.89 236
378
lim
(Eurocode 3) =633
C
I
f
=
_
t
fi,d
40(
lim
Ap/Vi = 140/m)
_
1.3
= 9.06 10
4
p
= effective density
=
p
(1 + 0.03p) = 1280 kg/m
3
=
p
_
a
_
I
f
_
Ap
Vi
_
2
= 0.20
_
1280
7850
_
9.06 10
4
(140)
2
= 0.579
254
(0)
=
S
d,f
R
d,F
=
KS
d,f
R
d,F
(0)
= 0.7 0.556 = 0.389
a,cr
= 78.38 ln
_
_
1
0.967(
0
)
3.833
1
_
1/2
_
+ 482
= 624
C.
For a 90-minute fire duration, temperate =607
C and the spray thickness should be 12 mm.

Check
F
w
=
(1 + 4)
1/2
1
2
=
(1 + 4 0.389)
1/2
1
2 0.389
= 0.76
d
P
= thickness (m)
=
p
I
f
F
w
_
AP
Vi
_
= 0.2 9.06 10
4
0.76(140)
= 0.0193 m
= 19.3 mm.
Adopt 21 mm as proposed.
REFERENCES/BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Merrett CyriaxAssociates, The role of structural fire protection. Cement and Concrete Association,
London, November 1969, p. 140.
2. Money to burn? Cement and Concrete Association, London. Leaflet Bpe. I, April 1970, p. 4.
3. Taylor, H. D., Structural fire protection. Proceedings of theThird National Fire Protection Conference.
Fire Protection Association, London, 1968, pp. 7682.
4. Fire Prevention Design Guide: No. 4 in the series Planning for fire safety in buildings. Fire Protection
Association, London. EPA planning programme. FPA Journal No. 86, April 1970, pp. 2738.
5. Report of the Departmental Committee on the Fire Service (Chairman: Sir Ronald Holroyd). HMSO,
London, May 1970, Cmnd. 4371, pp. 228.
6. Fire losses for 1969 top 120 million. FPA Journal No. 86, April 1970, p. 4.
7. Spread of fire in buildings some statistical studies. JoFRO (Joint Fire Research Organization Quar-
terly). Winter 1968, p. 6.
Lee, P. G., Contribution to the discussion of Smith, W. J. Fire protection of industrial buildings. Journal
of the Royal Society of Arts. January 1971, p. 102.
8. Silock, A., Protecting buildings against fire background to costs. TheArchitects Journal Information
Library, 13 December 1967.
9. Srother-Smith, N. C., Code of precautions for industry, The Times. Monday 2 June 1969. Fire Pro-
tection supplement, p. 1. Contributor to the discussion at the National IFPA/BFSA Conference, 18
November 1970, London. Advertisements for Colt Heating and Ventilation.
10. Ahot three hundred million. TheAFAGroup, London. (See alsoThe Engineer, 18 September 1969, p. 9.)
11. SASCO bounce back. New Electronics, 19 August, 1969, p. 17.
12. SASCO are back together again. SASCO Electronic News, Vol. 4, September 1969, p. 1.
13. FPA Journal No. 86, April 1970, pp. 3952.
14. Doublet, A. R., Promotion of fire protection by insurers. Proceedings of the Third National Fire
Prevention Conference. Fire Protection Association, London, 1968, pp. 14, 15.
15. Fire reinsurance some solutions. The Mercantile and General Reinsurance Company Limited, August
1970, p. 8.
255
16. Lawson, D. I., Fire research in the United Kingdom. Second National conference on Fire. Australian
Fire Protection Association, August 1968 (see also Institution of Fire Engineers Quarterly). Also Fry,
J. F. and Eveleigh, C. The behaviour of automatic fire detection systems. Fire Research Stations, F. R.
Note 810/1970.
17. Sprinkler system shut down for maintenance: 2 million fire. FPA Journal No. 86, pp. 45 and 46.
18. The fire at Amaljeverket. Teknisk Ukeblad. Vol. 115, No. 42, November 1968, pp. 9981000. (Translation
available from National Translation Center.)
19. Planning guide to fire safety when you have outside contractors in FPA Journal No. 89, December 1970,
pp. 211218.
20. Early collapse of unprotected steel roof trusses at paper products warehouse. Fire, June 1969, p. 40.
21. The behaviour of steel in fire what is the significance of the British Standard 476 furnace test? JoFRO
(Joint Fire Research Organization Quarterly), Autumn 1968, pp. 25.
22. Forrest, J. C. M. A warehouse to resist fire. Concrete Vol. 3, No. 8, August 1969, pp. 315323.
23. Linblad, A., Pettersson, O., Schmidt, B. and Odeen, K., Fire in Warehouse No. 6 in the Free Port
of Stockholm. ICE Monthly, July 1969, pp. 326336.
24. The Reinstatement of Co-operative House. Simons Construction Group Ltd, October 1970, p. 12.
25. Report of a meeting on The reinstatement of concrete construction after a fire. Concrete Vol. 5, No. 4,
April 1971, pp. 115117.
26. Effect of fire on Glasgowstore. Civil Engineering and PublicWorks ReviewVol. 60, No. 710, September
1965, pp. 1287, 1289.
27. Facaoaru, I., Non-destructive testing of concrete in Romania. Symposium on non-destructive testing
of concrete and timber, 1112 June 1969. Institution of Civil Engineers, Paper No. 4, pp. 2333.
28. Somerville, G., Load tests on Smallbrook Ringway Bridge, Birmingham. Cement and Concrete
Association, July 1969, Technical Report TRA 422.
29. Williamson, T. G., In Evaluation, Maintenance, and Upgrading of Wood Structures. American Society
of Civil Engineers, NewYork, 1982.
30. Do, M. H. and Springer, G. S., J. of Fire Sci., 1, 1983, p. 271.
33. DCA No. 2, Design of Fire-Resistive Exposed Wood Members. American Forest & Paper Association,
Washington, DC, 1985.
34. American Institute of Timber Construction, Timber Construction Manual. John Wiley and Sons, New
York, 1985.
35. Carling, O., Study Report No. 18. Building Research Association of New Zealand, Judgeford, 1989.
36. Wood Handbook: Wood as an Engineering Material (USDA Agr. Hdbk. No. 72). Superintendent of
Documents, Washington, DC, 1987.
37. Gerhards, C. C., Wood and Fiber, 14, 1982, p. 4.
38. Beall, F. C., In Structural Use of Wood in Adverse Environments. Van Nostrand Reinhold, NewYork,
1982.
39. Ostman, B. A.-L., Wood Sci. Tech., 19, 1985, p. 103.
40. Ragland, K. W., Aerts, D. J. and Baker, A. J., Bioresource Technology, 37, 1991, p. 161.
41. ASTME-119-88, StandardTest Methods for FireTests of BuildingConstructionandMaterials. American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1988.
42. Bletzacker, R. W., Effect of Structural Restraint on the Fire Resistance of Protected Steel Beam Floor
and Roof Assemblies. Ohio State Univ., Columbus, 1966.
43. Boring, D., Spence, J. and Wells, W., Fire Protection Through Modern Building Codes. American
Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, DC, 1981.
44. Jeanes, D. C., Technical Report 84-1. Society of Fire Protection Engineers, Boston, 1984.
45. Abrams, M. S., ASTM STP 685. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1979.
46. Harmarthy, T. Z., NRCC 20956 (DBR Paper No. 1080). National Research Council of Canada,
Ottawa, 1983.
47. Lie, T. T., Fire and Buildings. Applied Science, London, 1972.
48. Lie, T. T. and Stanzak, W. W., Eng. J., 57, 1974, pp. 5/6.
49. Boring, D. F., An Analytical Evaluation of the Structural Response of Simply Supported. Thermally
Unrestrained Structural Steel Beams Exposed to the Standard Fire Endurance Test, Masters Thesis,
Ohio State University, Columbus, 1979.
50. Lindberg, R. A., Processes and Materials of Manufacture. Allyn and Bacon, Inc., Boston, 1978,
p. 46.
256
51. Jeanes, D. C., Methods of Calculating Fire Resistance of Steel Structures, Engineering Applications of
Fire Technology Workshop, SFPE, Boston, 1980.
52. Malhotra, H. L., Design of Fire-Resisting Structures. Chapman and Hall, 1982.
53. Harmathy, T. Z., ASME J. of Basic Eng., 1967, p. 89.
54. Harmathy, T. Z., ASTM STP 422. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1967.
55. Fire Resistant Steel Frame Construction. American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, DC, 1974.
56. Designing Fire Protection for Steel Columns. American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, DC, 1980.
57. Stanzak, W. W. and Lie, T. T., Fire Tests on Protected Steel Columns with Different Cross-Sections.
National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, 1973.
58. PABCO, Pabco Super Firetemp Fireproofing Board Fire Protection Guide, PABCO, Ruston, LA, 1984.
59. Seigel, L. G., Fire Tech., 1970, p. 6.
60. Seigel, L. G., Matls. Res. and Standards, February 1970, p. 4.
61. Standard Building Code Congress, South Standard Building Code, SSBC, Birmingham, 1985.
62. Lie, T. T. and Stanzak, W. W., Eng. J. Am. Inst. Steel Const., 34d Qtr., 1973.
63. Designing Fire Protection for Steel Beams. American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, DC, 1985.
64. Manual of Steel Construction. American Institute of Steel Construction, NewYork, 1981.
65. Fire Resistance Directory. Underwriters Laboratories, Northbrook, 1994.
66. Designing Fire Protection for Steel Trusses. American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, DC, 1980.
67. Fire Resistance Design Manual. GypsumAssociation, Evanston, 1984.
68. Stanzak, W. W., Technical Trans. 1425. National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, 1971.
69. Stanzak, W. W., and Harmathy, T. Z., Fire Tech., 4, 1968, p. 4.
70. Pettersson, O., Magnusson, S. and Thor, J., Bulletin 52, Lund Institute of Technology, Lund,
Sweden, 1976.
71. Fire-Safe Structural Steel. A Design Guide. American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington,
DC, 1979.
72. Law, M., AISC Eng. J., 2nd Qtr., 1978.
73. Bond, G. V. L., Fire and Steel Construction Water Cooled Hollow Columns. Constrado, 1974.
74. Lie, T. T. and Harmathy, T. Z., Fire Study No. 28. National Research Council of Canada,
Ottawa, 1972.
75. Zienkewicz, O. C., The Finite Element Method. McGraw-Hill, NewYork, 1983.
76. Paulsson, M., TASEF-2, Lund Institute of Technology, Lund, Sweden, 1983.
77. Iding, R. H., Nizamuddin, Z. and Bresler, B., UCB FRB 77-15. University of California, Berkeley,
1977.
78. Anderberg, A., PC-TEMPCALC. Institutet for Brandteknisks Fragor, Sweden, 1985.
79. Milke, J. A., Estimating Fire Resistance of Tubular Steel Columns, Proceedings of Symposium on
Hollow Structural Sections in Building Construction. ASCE, Chicago, 1985.
80. Bardell, K., ASTM STP 826. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1983.
81. Gross, D., NBSIR 85-3223. National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, 1985.
82. Robertson, A. F. and Ryan, J. V., J. of Res., 63C, 1959, p. 2.
83. Vinnakota, S., Calculation of the Fire Resistance of Structural Steel Members. ASCE Spring
Meeting, 1978.
84. Kruppa, J., J of Struc. Div., ASCE, 1979, p. 105.
85. European Convention for Constructional Steelwork, Technical Committee 3, European Recommenda-
tions for the Fire Safety of Steel Structures. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1983.
86. Lie, T. T. and Stanzak, W. W., AISC Eng. J., 13, 1976, p. 2.
87. Chajes, A., Principles of Structural Stability Theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1974.
88. Jeanes, D. C., F. Safety J., 9, 1985, p. 1.
89. NFPA 251, Standard Methods of Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials. National Fire
Protection Association, Quincy, 1990.
90. UL 263, Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials. Underwriters Laboratories, Northbrook,
1992.
91. Specification for the Design, Fabrication, and Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings. American
Institute of Steel Construction, NewYork, 1978.
92. Lie, T. T. (ed.), Structural Fire Protection. American Society of Civil Engineers, NewYork, 1992.
93. International Fire Engineering Design for Steel Structures: State of the Art. International Iron and Steel
Institute, Brussels, 1993.
94. Gamble, W. L., Predicting Protected Steel Member Fire Endurance Using Spreadsheet Programs, Fire
Technology, 25, 3, 1989, pp. 256273.
257
95. Stubbleeld, R. and Edwards, M. L., NODES-T3: Making FIRES-T3 a Little Easier, Department
of Fire Protection Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park, 1991 (unpublished).
96. Tomecek, D. V. and Milke, J. A., A Study of the Effect of Partial Loss of Protection on the Fire
Resistance of Steel Columns, Fire Technology, 29, 1, 1993, pp. 321.
97. Supplement to the National Building Code of Canada, National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa,
1990.
98. DCA No. 4: Component Additive Method (CAM) for Calculating and Demonstrating Assembly Fire
Endurance. American Forest & Paper Association, Washington, DC, 1991.
99. Wood and Fire Safety. Canadian Wood Council, Ottawa, 1991.
100. White, R. H., in ASTM STP 826. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1983.
101. Richardson, L. R. and Cornelissen, A. A., Fire and Materials, 11, 1987, p. 191.
102. White, R. H., J. of Test. and Eval., 14, 1986, p. 97.
103. Fire Resistance of Wood Structures. Technical Research Centre of Finland, Helsinki, 1980.
104. Gardner, W. D. and Syme, D. R., Technical Report No. 5. N.S.W. Timber Advisory Council Ltd.,
Sydney, 1991.
105. Fung, F. C. W., NBSIR 77-1260. National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC, 1977.
106. Gammon, B. W., Reliability Analysis of Wood-Frame Wall Assemblies Exposed to Fire, Dissertation,
University of California, Berkeley, 1987.
107. Mehaffey, J. R. and Sultan, M. A., in Proc. of First International Fire and Materials Conference.
Interscience Communications Ltd., London, 1992.
108. Browne, F. L., Report No. 2136. USDA Forest Service, Forest Product Lab., Madison, 1958.
109. Schaffer, E. L., Research Note FPL-145. USDA Forest Service, Forest Product Lab., Madison,
1966.
110. Hall, G. S., Saunders, R. G., Allcorn, R. T., Jackman, P. E., Hickey, M. W. and Fitt, R., Fire
Performance of Timber A Literature Survey. Timber Research and Development Association, High
Wycombe, 1971.
111. Schaffer, E. L., Wood and Fiber, 9, 1977, p. 145.
112. Hadvig, S., Charring of Wood in Building Fires. Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, 1981.
113. Malhotra, H. L., Design of Fire-Resisting Structures. Surrey University Press, London, 1982.
114. Schaffer, E. L., Research Paper FPL 69. USDA Forest Service, Forest Product Lab., Madison, 1967.
115. White, R. H., Fire Technology, 28, 1982, p. 5.
116. Lache, M., Holz-Zentralblatt, 117, 1991, p. 473.
117. Colier, P. C. R., Study Report No. 42. Building ResearchAssociation of NewZealand, Judgeford, 1992.
118. Kanury, A. M. and Holve, D. J., NBS-GCR 76-50. National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC,
1975.
119. Noren, B. J. and Ostman, B. A.-L., in Fire Safety Science Proceedings of the First International
Symposium. Hemisphere, NewYork, 1986.
120. Kerksen-Bradley, M., In Proc. of Oxford Fire Conference. Timber Research and Development
Association, High Wycombe, 1993.
121. Schaffer, E. L., J. Fire and Flamm., 1, 1974, p. 96.
122. Tran, H. C. and White, R. H., Fire and Materials, 16, 1992, p. 197.
123. Mikkola, E., In Fire Safety Science Proceedings of the Third International Symposium. Elsevier
Applied Science, London, 1991.
124. Nussbaum, R. M., J. Fire Sciences, 6, 1988, p. 290.
125. Pettersson, O., Magnusson, S. E. and Thor, J., Publication 50. Swedish Institute of Steel
Construction, Sweden, 1976.
126. Oleson, F. B. and Konig, J., Report No. 19210061. Swedish Institute for Wood Technology Research
(Tratek), Stockholm, 1991.
127. Roberts, A. F., In Thirteenth Symposium (Int.) on Combustion. The Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh,
1971.
128. Bamford, C. H., Crank, J. and Malan, D. H., Proc. of Camb. Phil. Soc., 46, 1946, p. 166.
129. Thomas, P. H., Fire Research Note No. 446. Fire Research Station, Borehamwood, UK, 1960.
130. Kung, H., Combustion and Flame, 18, 1972, p. 195.
131. Tamanini, F., In Appendix A of Factory Mutual Research Corporation Report No. 21011.7. Factory
Mutual Research Corp., Norwood, 1976.
132. Atreya, A., Pyrolysis: Ignition and Fire Spread on Horizontal Surfaces of Wood, PhDThesis, Harvard
University, Cambridge, MA, 1983.
258
133. Parker, W. J., In Fire Safety Science Proceedings of the Second International Symposium.
Hemisphere, NewYork, 1989.
134. Havens, J. A., Thermal Decomposition of Wood, Dissertation, University of Oklahoma (1969).
135. Knudson, R. M. and Schneiwind, A. P., Forest Prod. J., 25, 1975, 23.
136. Kansa, E. J., Perlee, H. E. and Chaiken, R. F., Comb. and Flame, 29, 1977, 311.
137. Hadvig, S. and Paulsen, O. R., J. Fire and Flamm., 1, 1976, p. 433.
138. Tinney, E. R., in Tenth Symposium (Int.) on Combustion. The Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh, 1965.
139. White, R. H. and Schaffer, E. L., Wood and Fiber, 13, 1981, p. 7.
140. White, R. H. and Schaffer, E. L., Fire Tech., 14, 1978, p. 279.
141. Fredlund, B., Fire Safety J., 20, 1993, p. 39.
142. Schaffer, E. L., Marx, C. M., Bender, D. A. and Woeste, F. E., Research Paper FPL 467. USDA
Forest Service, Forest Product Lab., Madison, 1986.
143. Noren, J., Report 1 8810066. Swedish Institute for Wood Technology (Tratek), Stockholm, 1988.
144. Schaffer, E. I., Research Paper FPL 450. USDA Forest Service, Forest Product Lab., Madison, 1984.
145. Imaizumi, C., Norsk Skogind, 16, 1962, p. 140.
146. Lie, T. T., Can. J. of Civil Engg., 4 1977, p. 160.
147. Odeen, K., In Fire and Structural Use of Timber in Buildings. HMSO, London, 1970.
148. Fredlund, B., Report No. 79-5, Lund Institute of Technology, Lund, 1979.
149. Meyer-ottens, C., In Three Decades of Structural Fire Safety. Building Research Establishment, Fire
Research Station, Borehamwood, UK, 1983.
150. Pettersson, O., In Three Decades of Structural Fire Safety. Building Research Establishment, Fire
Research Station, Borehamwood, UK, 1983.
151. Barthelemy, B. and Kruppa, J., Resistance au Leu des Structures. Editions Eyrolles,
Paris, 1978.
152. Kirpichenkov, G. M. and Romanenkov, I. G., NSBIR 80-2188. National Bureau of Standards,
153. Odeen, K., Fire Tech., 21, 1985, p. 34.
154. Woeste, F. E. and Schaffer, E. L., Fire and Matls., 3, 1979, p. 126.
155. Woeste, F. E. and Schaffer, E. I., Research Paper FPL 386. USDA Forest Service, Forest Product
Lab., Madison, 1981.
156. White, R. H., Schaffer, E. L. and Woeste, F. E., Wood and Fiber, 16, 1984, p. 374.
157. Schaffer, E. L., White, R. H. and Woeste, F. E., In Proc. 1988 International Conference on Timber
Engineering. Forest Products Research Society, Madison, 1988.
158. White, R. H., Cramer, S. M. and Shrestha, D., Research Paper FPL 522. USDA, Forest Service,
Forest Products Lab., Madison, 1993.
159. Schaffer, E. L. andWoeste, F. E., In Proceedings, Metal PlateWoodTruss Conference. Forest Products
Research Society, Madison, 1981.
160. King, E. G. and Glowinski, R. W., Forest Prod. J., 38(10), 1988, p. 31.
161. Bender, D. A., Woeste, F. E., Shaffer, E. L. and Marx, C. M., Research Paper FPL 460. USDA
Forest Service, Forest Prod. Lab., Madison, 1985.
162. Schaffer, E. L., Structural fire design: wood. U.S. Forest Service Research Paper FPL 450, U.S. Dept.
Agri., For. Prod. Lab., Madison, WI, 1984.
163. Schaffer, E. L., Effects of Pyrolytic Temperatures on the Longitudinal Strength of Dry Douglas-fir.
ASTM J. of Testing and Evaluation, 1(4), 1973, pp. 319329.
164. Schaffer, E. L., Influence of heat on the longitudinal creep of dry Douglas-fir. Structural Use of Wood
in Adverse Environments, Robert W. Meyer, and Robert M. Kellogg, eds. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.,
NewYork, NY, 1978.
165. Schaffer, E. L., State of structural timber fire endurance. Wood and Fiber, 1977.
166. Tang, W. K., Effect of inorganic salts on pyrolysis of wood, alpha-cellulose, and lignin determined by
dynamic thermogravimetry. U.S. Forest Service Research Paper FPL-71, U.S. Dept. Agri., For. Prod.
Lab., Madison, WI, 1967.
167. USDA Agr. Hdbk. No. 72. Wood handbook: Wood as an engineering material. Superintendent of
Documents, Washington, DC, 1987.
168. US Federal Emergency Management Agency, Multiprotection design manual, Fire Section, TR 20, Part
3, Fire, Washington, DC, 1980,
169. Allen, D.E. and Lie, T. T., Further studies of the fire resistance of reinforced concrete columns. NRCC
14047, National Research Council of Canada, Division of Building Research, Ottawa, 1974.
259
170. American Society for Testing and Materials, Standard methods of fire tests of building constructions
and materials, Designation E119-83, Phildelphia, PA, 1985.
171. Atreya, A., Pyrolysis: ignition and fire spread on horizontal surfaces of wood. PhDThesis, Harvard
University, Cambridge, MA, 1983.
172. Bender, D. A., Woeste, F. E. and Schaffer, E. L., Reliability formulation for the strength and fire
endurance of glued-laminated beams. Research Paper FPL 460, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, WI, 1985.
173. Bresler, B. and Iding, R. H. J., Effect of fire exposure on steel frame buildings. (Computer Program
FASBUS II), Final Report, Vols. 1 and 2, to American Iron and Steel Institute, Wiss, Janney, Elstner
Associates, Inc., Emeryville, CA, 1982.
174. British Iron Steel Res. Assoc., Physical constants of some commercial steels at elevated temperatures.
Butterworths, London, 1953.
175. Carling, O., Fire resistance of joint details in loadbearing timber construction A literature survey.
(Translated from the original Swedish by B. Harris and P. K. A. Yiu), BRANZ Study Report SR 18,
Building Research Association of New Zealand, Judgeford, New Zealand, 1989.
176. CEC Research 7210-SA/502-REFAO/CAFIR. Computer assisted analysis of the fire resistance of steel
andcomposite steel Concrete Structures. (Computer ProgramCEFI-COSS), Technical Reports RT1-6,
Luxembourg.
177. CTICM(Centre Technique Industriel de la Construction Mtallique), Methode de prvision par le calcul
du compartement au feu des structures en acier. (In French), D.T.U. (Document Technique Unifi), Revue
Construction Mtallique, No. 3, 1982.
178. Do, M. H. and Springer, G. S., Mass loss of and temperature distribution in southern pine and Douglas
fir in the range 100 to 800
C. J. of Fire Sci., 1, 1983, pp. 271284.

179. Do, M. H. and Springer, G. S., Model for predicting changes in the strength and moduli of timber
exposed to elevated temperatures. J. of Fire Sci., 1, 1983, pp. 285296.
180. Do, M. H. and Springer, G. S., Failure time of loaded wooden beams during fire. J. of Fire Sci., 1,
1983, pp. 297303.
181. Dusinberre, G. M., Heat transfer calculations by finite differences. International Textbook Co.,
Scranton, PA, 1961.
182. Forsen, N. E., STEELFIRE Finite element program for non-linear analysis of steel frames exposed
to fire. Users Manual, Multiconsult A/S, Oslo, Norway, 1983
183. Fredlund, B., Structural design of fire exposed rectangular laminate wood beams with respect to lateral
buckling. Report No. 79-5, Department of Structural Mechanics, Lund Institute of Technology, Lund,
Sweden, 1979.
184. Fredlund, B., A model for heat and mass transfer in timber structure during fire. Report
LUTVDG/(TVBB-1003), Lund University, Department of Fire Safety Engineering, Lund, Sweden,
1988.
185. Fredlund, B., Calculation of fire resistance of wood based boards and wall construction. Report
SE-LUTVDG/(TVBB-3053), Lund University, Department of Fire Safety Engineering, Lund, Sweden,
1990.
186. Gammon, B. W., Reliability analysis of wood frame wall assemblies in fir. University of California,
Berkeley, CA, 1987.
187. Groom, A. J., Modelling of heat transfer in composite structures at fir temperatures. Proceedings of
International Symposium on Fire Engineering Fire Building Structures and Safety, Building Research
Association of New Zealand (Reprints, No. 93), Judgeford, New Zealand, 1989.
188. Hadvig, S. and Paulsen, O. R., One-dimensional charring rates in wood. J. Fire and Flamm., 1, 1976,
pp. 433449.
189. Haksever, A., Rechnerische Untersuchung des Tragverhaltens von einfach statisch unbestimmten
Stahlbetonrahmen unter Brandbeanspruchung. (In German), Institut fr Baustoff-kunde und Stahlbe-
tonbau der Technischen Universitt Braunschweig, 1975.
190. Haksever, A., Zur Frage des Trag- und Verformungsverhaltens ebene Stahlbetonrahmen im Brandfall.
(In German), Institut fr Baustoffkunde und Stahlbetonbau der Technischen Universitt Braunschweig,
Heft 35, Braunschweig, 1977.
191. Harmathy, T. Z., Thermal performance of concrete masonry walls in fire. Special Technical Publication
No. 464. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1970.
192. Havens, J. A., Thermal Decomposition of Wood, Dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 1969.
193. Hognestad, E., A study of combined bending and axial load in reinforced concrete members. Bulletin
No. 399. University of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station, Urbana, IL, 1951.
260
194. Iding, R., Bresler, B. and Nizamuddin, Z., FIRES-T3, A computer program for the fire response of
structures. Report No. UCB FRG 77-5, University of California, Fire Research Group, Berkeley, CA,
1977.
195. Imaizumi, D., Stability in fire of protected and unprotected glued laminated beams. Norw. Inst. Wood
Working Wood Technol., Meddelelse (18), 1962.
196. Ingberg, S. H. and Sale, P. D., Compressive Strength and Deformation of Structural Steel and Cast-
Iron Shapes at Temperatures up to 950
C (1742
F). Proceedings of the American Society for Testing

and Materials, 26(II), Philadelphia, PA, 1926.
197. Jeanes, D. C., Computer modeling the fire endurance of floor systems in steel framed buildings. ASTM
STP 882, T.Z. Harmathy, ed. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1985.
198. Kansa, E. J., Perlee, H. E. and Chaiken, R. F., Mathematical model of wood pyrolysis including
internal forced convection. Comb. and Flame, 29, 1977, pp. 311324.
199. Kanury, A. M., Holve, D. J., NBS GCR 76-50. National Bureau of Standards, Washington,
DC, 1975.
200. King, E. G. and Glowinski, R. W., A rationalized model for calculating the fire endurance of wood
beams. Forest Products Journal, 38(10), 1988, pp. 3136.
201. Klingsch, W., Traglastberechnung thermisch belasteter Stahlbetondruckglieder unter Anwendung
einer zwei- und dreidimensionalen Diskretisierung. (In German), Institut fr Baustoffkunde und
Stahlbetonbau der Technischen Universitt Braunschweig, 1975.
202. Knudson, R. M. and Schneiwind, A. P., Performance of structural wood members exposed to fire.
For. Prod. J., 25(2), 1975, pp. 2332.
203. Konicek, L. and Lie, T.T., Fire tests on protected steel columns under different fire severities. Fire
Study No. 34. NRCC 14170, Division of Building Research, National Research Council of Canada,
Ottawa, 1974.
204. Konig, J. and Kallsner, B., The influence of the support conditions on loadbearing capacity of
axially loaded wood studs under simulated fire exposure. Proceedings of the 1988 International
Conference onTimber Engineering, Seattle, WA. Forest Products Research Society, Madison, WI, 1988,
pp. 423421.
205. Lie, T. T., A method for assessing the fire resistance of laminated timber beams and columns. Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering, 4(2), 1977, pp. 161169.
206. Lie, T. T., Temperature distributions in fire-exposed building columns. Journal of Heat Transfer, 99(1),
1977.
207. Lie, T. T., Calculation of the fire resistance of composite concrete floor and roof slabs. Fire Technology,
14(1), 1978, pp. 2845.
208. Lie, T. T., Aprocedure to calculate fire resistance of structural members. Fire and Materials, 8(1), 1984,
pp. 4048.
209. Lie, T. T. and Harmathy, T.Z., A numerical procedure to calculate the temperature of protected steel
columns exposed to fire. Fire Study No. 28. NRCC 12535, Division of Building Research, National
Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, 1972.
210. Lie, T. T., Lin, T. D., Allen, D. E. and Abrams, M. S., Fire resistance of reinforced concrete
columns. Technical Paper No. 378. Division of Building Research, National Research Council of
Canada, Ottawa, 1984.
211. Liley, P. E., Physical and chemical data. Chemical/Engineering Handbook. McGraw-Hill, NewYork,
1963, p. 133.
212. Liley, P. E., Touloukian, Y.S. and Gambill, W. R., Physical and chemical data, chemical engineers
handbook. J. H. Perry (ed.), Sec. 3. McGraw-Hill, NewYork, 1963.
213. Lim, K. Y. S., King, A. B., Protected nailed gusset connections for glulam members. BRANZ Study
Report SR 29, Building Research Association of New Zealand, Judgeford, New Zealand, 1990.
214. Malhotra, H. L., Design of fire-resisting structures. Surrey University Press, London, 1982.
215. Noren, J., Failure of structural timber when exposed to fire. Proceedings of the International Conference
on Timber Engineering. Forest Products Research Society, Madison, WI, 1988, pp. 397406.
216. Odeen, K., Fire resistance of glued, laminated timber structures. Min. Technol. Fire Offices Comm.
Joint Fire Res. Org. Symp. No. 3, Paper No. 2, HMSO, London, 1970.
217. Parker, W. J., Fire Safety Science Proceedings of the First International Symposium. Hemisphere,
NewYork, NY, 1986.
218. Pettersson, O., Structural fire behavior developments, trends. C. E. Grant and P. J. Pagni, eds.,
Proceedings of the First International Symposium, International Association for Fire Safety Science.
Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, Washington, DC, 1986.
261
219. Pettersson, O., Jonsson, R., Reliability based design of fire exposed timber structures State of
art and summary design guide. Report LUTVDG/(TVBB-3040), Lund University, Department of Fire
Safety Engineering, Lund, Sweden, 1988.
220. Quast, U., Hass R. and Rudolph, K., STABA-F; A computer program for the determination of
load-bearing and deformation behaviour of uni-axial structural elements under fire action. Institut
fr Bausoffkunde, Massivbau und Brandschutz der Technischen Universitt Braunschweig (1982/85),
1984.
221. Reyer, E., Schlich, C., Investigations on the bending and lateral buckling of laminated wood gird-
ers under fire exposure. Proceedings of the International Conference on Timber Engineering. Forest
Products Research Society, Madison, WI, 1988, pp. 407422.
222. Ritter, W., Die Bauweise Hennebique. (In German), Schweizerische Bauzeitung, Vol. 33, 1899.
223. Roberts, A. F., The heat of reaction during the pyrolysis of wood. Combustion and Flame, 17, 1971.
224. Rogowski, B. F. W., Charring of timber in fire tests. Min. Technol. Fire Offices Comm. Joint Fire Res.
Org. Symp. No. 3, Paper No. 4. HMSO, London, 1970.
225. Schaffer, E. L., An approach to the mathematical prediction of temperature rise within a semi-infinite
wood slab subjected to high temperature conditions. Pyrodynamics, 2, 1965, pp. 117132.
226. Schaffer, E. L., Charring rate of selected woods Transverse to grain. U.S. For. Serv. Res. Paper FPL
69. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, WI, 1967.
227. Schaffer, E. L., State of structural timber fire endurance. Wood and Fiber, 9(2), 1977, pp. 145190.
228. Schaffer, E. L., Marx, C. M., Bender, D. A. andWoeste, F. E., Strength validation and fire endurance
of glued-laminated timber beams. Research Paper FPL 467. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, WI, 1986.
229. Schaffer., E. L. and Woeste, F. E., Reliability analysis of a fire-exposed unprotected floor truss. Pro-
ceedings, Metal Plate Wood Truss Conference. Forest Products Research Society, Madison, WI, 1981,
pp. 131137.
230. Schaffer., E. L. and Woeste, F. E., Second moment reliability of fire-exposed wood joist floor
assemblies. Fire and Matls. 3(3), 1979, p. 126.
231. Schaffer., E. L. and Woeste, F. E., Second moment reliability of fire-exposed wood joist floor
assemblies. Fire and Matls. 3(3), 1979, p. 126.
232. Schaffer., E. L. and Woeste, F. E., Reliability analysis of fire-exposed light-frame wood floor
assemblies. Research Paper FPL 386. USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Lab, Madison,
WI, 1981.
233. White, R. H. and Shaffer, E. L., Application of CMA program to wood charring. Fire Tech., 14(4),
1989, pp. 279290, 296.
234. White, R. H. and Shaffer, E. L., Transient moisture gradient in fire-exposed wood slab. Wood and
Fiber, 13(17), 1981, p. 296.
235. White, R. H. and Shaffer, E. L., Replicate fire endurance tests of an unprotected wood joist floor
assembly. Wood and Fiber, 16(3), 1984, pp. 374390.
236. Wickstrom, U., TASEF-2, A computer program for temperature analysis of structures exposed to
fire. Report No. 79-2, Lund Institute of Technology, Department of Structural Mechanics, Lund, Sweden,
1979.
237. Williams-Leir, G., Analytical equivalents of standard fire temperature curves. Fire Technology, 9(2),
1973, pp. 132136.
1973, pp. 132136.
239. Witteveen, J., Twilt, L. and Bylaard, F. S. K., The stability of braced and unbraced frames at
elevated temperatures. Second Int. Colloquium on Column Strength, Liege, Belgium, 1977.
240. Zienkiewicz, O. C. and Cheung, Y. K., The finite element method in structural and continuum
mechanics. McGraw-Hill Publishing Co. Ltd., London, 1967.
241. Schneider, U. and Haksever, A., Bestimmung der quivalenten Branddauer von statisch bes-
timmt gelagerten Stahlbetonbalken bei natrlichen Branden. (In German), Bericht des Instituts fr
Baustoffkunde und Stahlbetonbau der Technischen Universitt Braunschweig, 1976.
242. Spiers, H. M., Technical data on fuel, 6th Edition. World Press Conference, London, 1961.
243. Stanzak, W. W. and Lie, T. T., Fire resistance of unprotected steel columns. Journal of the Structural
Division, ASCE, 99(ST5), 1973, p. 9719.
244. Tinney, E. R., Tenth Symposium Int. on Combustion. The Combustion Institute, Pittsburg, PA, 1965.
245. Trinks, W. and Mawhinney, M. W., Industrial Furnaces. Carnegie Inst. Technology, Wiley, NewYork,
1981.
262
246. White, R. H., Charring rate of different wood species. PhD Dissertation, Madison, WI, University of
Wisconsin, 1988.
247. White, R. H. and Nordheim, E. V., Charring rate of wood for ASTM E119 Exposure. Fire Technology,
28(1), 1992, pp. 530.
248. Lie, T. T., Fire and buildings. Applied Science Publishers Limited, London, 1972, pp. 911.
249. Lie, T. T., Characteristic temperature curves for various fire severities. Fire Technology, 10(4), 1974,
pp. 315326.
250. Magnusson, S. E. and Thelandersson, S., Temperaturetime curves of complete process of fire
development. Theoretical study of wood fuel fires in enclosed spaces. Civil Engineering and Building
Construction Series No. 65. Acta Polytechnica Scandinavica, Stockholm, Sweden, 1970.
251. Odeen, K., Theoretical study of fire characteristics in enclosed spaces. Bulletin 10, Division of Building
Construction, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 1963.
252. Thomas, P. H., Heselden, A. J. M., Fully-developed fires in single compartments. Fire Research Note
No. 923, Building Research Establishment, Fire Research Station, Boreham-wood, U.K., 1972.
253. Thomas, P. H., Heselden, A. J. M. and Law, M., Fully-developed compartment fires; two kinds of
behaviour. Fire Research Technical Paper No. 18. HMSO, London, 1967.
254. Tsuchiya, Y. and Sumi, K., Computation of the behaviour of fire in an enclosure. Combustion and
Flame, 16, 1971, p. 131.
1973, pp. 132136.
256. Abrams, M. S., et al., Fire endurance of continuous reinforced concrete beams. Preliminary Report
of the Tenth Congress of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering. Portland
Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 1976.
257. Abrams, M. S. and Gustaferro, A. H., Fire endurance of two-course floors and roofs. Journal of the
American Concrete Institute, 66(2), 1969, pp. 92102.
258. Abrams, M. S., Gustaferro, A. H. and Salse, E. A. B., Fire tests of concrete joist floors and roofs.
Research and Development Bulletin No. RD006.01B. Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 1971.
259. Allen, L. W. and Harmathy, T. Z., Fire endurance of selected concrete masonry units. Journal of the
American concrete Institute, 69, 1985.
260. AmericanConcrete Institute, Guide for determiningthe fire endurance of concrete elements. ACI 216R81,
1987.
261. American Insurance Services Group, Fire resistance ratings. NewYork, 1985.
262. American Iron and Steel Institute, Designing fire protection for steel trusses. Washington, DC, 1976.
263. American Iron and Steel Institute, Designing fire protection for steel columns, Third Edition.
264. AmericanIronandSteel Institute, Fire Resistance Ratings of Load-BearingSteel StudWalls. Washington,
DC, 1981.
265. American Iron and Steel Institute, Designing fire protection for steel beams. Washington, DC, 1984.
266. American Society for Testing and Materials, Standard Methods of Fire Tests of Building Construction
and Materials, ANSI/ASTM E11983. Philadelphia, PA, 1985.
267. Brick Institute of America, Technical notes on brick construction. Technical Note No. 16. McLean, VA,
1974.
268. Canadian Standards Association, Code for the engineering design of wood, CSA standard 086. Rexdale,
Ontario, 1984.
269. Culver, C. G., Aggarwal, V. and Ossenbruggen, P., Buckling of columns at elevated temperatures.
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, 99(ST4), 1973, pp. 715726.
270. Fitzgerald, R. W., Structural integrity during fire. Fire Protection Handbook, National Fire Protection
Association, 16th edn, Section 7, Chapter 8. Quincy, MA, 1986, pp. 782 to 7108.
271. Flemington, R. A., Fire protection of hollow structural section. Technical Bulletin 21. Stelco Inc.,
Toronto, Canada, 1980.
272. Gustaferro, A. H., Temperature criteria at failure. Fire Test Performance, STP-464. American Society
for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1970, pp. 6884.
273. Gustaferro, A. H. and Selvaggio, S. L., Fire endurance of simply-supported prestressed concrete
slabs. Journal, Prestressed Concrete Institute, 12(1), 1967, pp. 3732.
274. GypsumAssociation, Fire resistance design manual. Evanston, IL, 1978.
Harmathy, T. Z., Ten rules of fire endurance rating. Fire Technology, 1(2), 1965, pp. 93102.
275. Harmathy, T. Z., Thermal performance of concrete masonry walls and fire. Special Technical
Publication 464. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1970.
263
276. Institute for Structural Materials and Buildings Structures, Fire test of a simple, statically indeterminant
beam, Delft. (English Translation, SLATranslation Center, John Crear Library, Chicago), 1959.
277. International Committee for the Study and Development of Tubular Structures, CIDECT Document
#15A76/36, 1976.
278. Issen, L. A., Gustaferro, A. H. and Carlson, C. C., Fire tests of concrete members: An improved
method for estimating restraint forces. Fire Test Performance, STP-464. American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1970, pp. 153185.
279. Jeanes, David C., Application of the computer in modeling fire endurance of structural steel floor
systems. Fire Safety Journal, 9, 1985.
280. Klipstein, K. H., Behavior of cold-formed steel studs in fire tests. Proceedings, Fifth Speciality
Conference, University of Missouri-Rolla, 1980.
281. Lie, T. T., Fire and Buildings. Applied Science Publishers Ltd., Barking, U.K., 1982.
282. Lie, T. T., A method for assessing the fire resistance of laminated timber beams and columns. Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering, 4(2), 1977, pp. 161169.
283. Lie, T. T., Calculation of the fire resistance of composite concrete floor and roof slabs. Fire Technology,
14(1), 1978.
284. Lie, T. T., Aprocedure to calculate fire resistance of structural members. Fire and Materials, 8(1), 1984.
285. Lie, T. T. and Allen, D. E., Calculation of the fire resistance of reinforced concrete columns. Technical
Paper No. 378. Division of Building Research, National Research Council of Canada, 1972.
286. Lie, T. T. and Harmathy, T. Z., Fire endurance of concrete-protected steel columns. Journal of the
American Concrete Institute (1), 1974.
287. Lie, T. T. Lin, T. D., Allen, D. E. and Abrams, M. S., Fire resistance of reinforced concrete columns.
Technical Paper No. 378. Division of Building Research, National Research Council of Canada,
1984.
288. Lie, T. T. andStanzak, W. W., Fire resistance of protectedsteel columns. EngineeringJournal, American
Institute of Steel Construction, 10(3), 1973.
289. British Standards Institution, Code of practice for fire precautions. BSI, London, BS 5588.
290. International Standards Organisation, Fire resistance testselements of building constructions,
ISO, 1977.
291. The European Convention for Construction Steelwork. Preprints, 1979.
292. Bangash, M. Y. H., Concrete and concrete structures numerical modeling and applications, Thomas
Telford, London, 2nd edition, 1999.
293. Purkiss, J. A., Fire safety engineering. Design of Structures. ButterworthHeinemann, Oxford, 1996.
294. Miller, G. D. and Iff, L. W., Steel fire protection: an engineering approach. Stelco Inc., Toronto, 1974.
295. American Institute of Steel Construction, Steel Designers Manual. AISC, 1996.
296. Glos, P., Festigkeit von Bauholz bei hohen Temperaturen. Research Report, 1990.
297. Bangash, M. Y. H., Prototype Building Structures. Analysis and Design. Thomas Telpord, London
1999. p. 921.
298. Bangash, M. Y. H. and Bangash. T., Explosion Resistant Buildings Springs Verlag. 2006. p. 789.
Heidelberg.
264
10
Elements for supporting structures
10.1 TRUSSES SUPPORTINGTRAVELATORS
10.1.1 Influence lines method
The tresses shown on Fig. (10.1) is simply supported at A and B and continuous over support at C
and D are to be obtained. The load is assumed to travel on top chord from the treads of this truss.
In the first place both the supports C and D are supposed to be removed and a unit load acting
downwards is applied at C. A Williot-Mohr diagram is drawn for the simply supported truss AB
and from it the deflection polygon for the top chord is obtained. A similar polygon is drawn for a
unit load acting downwards at D. These polygons are also the influence lines for the deflections at
C and D respectively and from them we can measure.
c, the deflection of point C under a unit load at any panel point M on the top chord.
And d, the deflection of point C under a unit load at any panel point M on the top chord.
From the Williot-Mohr diagrams the following data are found:
c, the vertical movement of the point C for a unit load at C,
c, the vertical movement of the point C for a unit load at D,

d, the vertical movement of the point D for a unit load at D,
d, the vertical movement of the point D for a unit load at C.

Let Rc and Rd be the reactions at C and D when the supports are in position and a unit load acts
at M and suppose these forces are applied upward to the truss deflected by the load at M.
Under the action of such forces alone, the movement of C would be Rcc +Rd
c and the
movement of D would be Rc
d +Rdd.
Since it is assumed that in the actual truss the points C and D do not move, these movements
must be respectively equal to c and d, i.e.
c = Rcc + Rd
c
and d = Rc
d + Rdd
The solution of these simultaneous equations gives the values of Rc and Rd.
The terms c,
c, d,
d are constants for a given truss and are found once and for all from
the Williot-Mohr diagrams while the terms c and d are measured directly from the influence
diagrams. The above equations can therefore be formed quickly for all panel points on the top
chord and the values of Rc and Rd thus determined enable the influence lines of reaction at C and
D to be drawn.
Figure 10.1. N-Trusses.
265
Methods such as flexibility and stiffness methods can be employed for solving such trusses.
They are explained later in this text.
The load is a cling as a transfer load to travel along the bottom chord of the truss. The force in
the diagonal member at GE in Fig. (10.2) is considered.
If the shearing force across the panel GE is F, the force in GE is F cosec .
As long as the load is between A and Q or between E and C the shearing force across the panel
is the same as that for a girder, and the influence line of shearing force is drawn exactly as shown.
When it is between Q and E some modification is necessary.
Project points Q and E to cut AN and CP at K and J respectively and AC at R and S. Join KJ and
let this line cut AC at O. Through O draw NOP perpendicular at AC.
Then
ON
OP
=
KN
PJ
=
OR
OS
(10.1)
and so
ON
NP
=
OR
RS
=
OR
c
Since NP represents unity on the influence diagram we obtain
ON =
OR
c
(10.2)
Figure 10.2. N-Truss: Supporting structure.
266
If the load acts at x from Q and its line of action cuts the diagram at N
, we have
O
= N
(10.3)
= 1
x
c
R
A
= R
A
+
c x
c
(10.4)
But c x/c is the proportion of the load transferred to Q by the beam action of QE and so O
represents the shearing force across the panel GE. The influence diagramfor F is therefore as shown
shaded in Fig. (10.2) and the ordinates to this when multiplied by cosec give the force in GE for
all load positions.
The force in the chord member QE is, by the method of sections, equal to
Moment about G
d
(10.5)
The moments about Gare the same as for a continuous girder and so if the influence line of bending
moments for G is drawn the ordinates of this diagram when divided by d gives the ordinates of the
required influence line of force in QE.
10.1.2 Forces in redundant bars by influence diagrams
The construction of influence lines enables the calculation of the forces in redundant bars of a truss
to be made quickly for any position of the load. Let Fig. (10.3) represent a truss supported at A
and B and having one redundant member PQ for which the force of influence line is required when
the bottom chord is loaded. Suppose the bar PQ to be removed and unit loads to act at P and Q
as shown. The forces in all the members of the resulting just-stiff frame can be found and their
changes of length calculated. A Williot-Mohr diagram and a deflection polygon for the bottom
chord is then constructed. The ordinate m to this deflection polygon at any panel point M on the
bottom chord is the vertical displacement of this point under unit loads at P and Q and by Clerk
Maxwells theorem it is therefore the amount by which the points P and Q separate when a unit
load acts vertically at M. The polygon is therefore the influence line of separation of P and Q when
the member PQ is removed.
The free separation of P and Qcan also be obtained fromthe Williot-Mohr diagram; let this be .
When the redundant member is in position and a unit load acts at M let R be the force in PQ.
This force will cause the member to stretch by an amount RL/AE where L is its length, A is its
cross-sectional area and E is Youngs modulus for the material, and the force R will pull the points
P and Q together by an amount R.
The total separation of the two points in the absence of the member PQ is m and so
R +
RL
AE
=
m
(10.6)
Figure 10.3. N-Truss: Influence line method of finding forces.
267
or
R =

m
+
L
AE
(10.7)
Hence if the ordinates of the deflection polygon for the bottom chord under unit loads at P and Q
are divided by the term +L/AE the deflection polygon represents the influence line for the force
in PQ. If the truss has two redundant members PQ and ST as shown in Fig. (10.4) the following
method may be used to determine the forces in them as a load crosses the truss.
PQ and ST are assumed to be removed and unit loads placed at P and Q. The stresses in the
remainingbars are circulated, the alterations intheir lengths determinedandaWilliot-Mohr diagram
is drawn from which the deflection polygon is also the influence line representing the separation
of points P and Q. Thus, if a load is of unity is placed at any panel point M in the lower chord
the ordinate to the influence line representing the separation of points P and Q. Thus if a load of
unity is placed at any panel point M on the lower chord the ordinate to the influence line at M is
the amount by which P and Q separate. Call this 1 m. From the Williot-Mohr diagram are also
obtained
1
the amount by which P and Q separate under unit loads at P and Q, and
1
the amount
by which S and T separate under the action of the same loads. Similar diagrams are drawn for unit
loads acting at S and T for a unit load at M;
2
and
2
the separations of S and T and of P and Q
respectively under unit loads at S and T.
The redundant bars PQ and ST are now supposed to be in position, the forces in them when a
unit load is placed at M being R
1
and R
2
respectively.
Due to the force R
1
acting at P and Q
P and Q approach by an amount R
1
1
And S and T approach by an amount R
1
1
Due to the force R
2
acting at S and T,
2
2
And S and T approach by an amount R
2
2
Hence due to R
1
and R
2
acting together
1
1
+R
2
2
While S and T approach by an amount R
1
1
+R
2
2
.
The lengths of the members PQ and ST are increased by amounts R
1
L
1
/A
1
E and R
2
L
2
/A
2
E due
to the loads in them and so we have:
1
m
= R
1
1
+ R
2
2
+
R
1
L
1
A
1
E
(10.8)
and
2
m
= R
1
1
+ R
2
2
+
R
2
L
2
A
2
E
(10.9)
Figure 10.4. N-Trusses: Redundant bars evaluation.
268
These simultaneous equations enable the values of R
1
and R
2
to be found. It will be noticed that
1
and
1
and
2
and
2
are constant values for the frame whatever the position of the load on the
bottomchord, while
1
m
and
2
m
are found fromthe respective deflection polygons. By this method
therefore the forces in the two redundant members for any position of the load can be calculated
by the solution of two simple simultaneous equations once the influence lines have been drawn.
10.1.3 Maximum bending moments and shear forces
The exact calculation of the maximum bending moments and shearing forces at all sections of a
travelator as a train of loads passes across it is very laborious and the uncertainties introduced
by the dynamic effects of the system travelling at high speed are such that extreme accuracy in
calculation is not justified. It is usual therefore in design to adopt conventional systems of load to
simplify the procedure.
One method assumes that the effect of a train of rollers can be reproduced by an equivalent
uniformly distributed load. It has already been shown that when a single load traverses a girder the
curve of maximum bending moments is a parabola having a maximum ordinate WL/4 at the centre
of the span: if the concentrated load be supposed to be replaced by a uniformly distributed load of
intensity w it is necessary, if the maximum bending moments are to be the same, to make:
wL
2
8
=
WL
4
(10.10)
i.e. w =
2W
L
The bending moments at all the points when this equivalent load w covers the span will be the
same as those under the concentrated load W as it traverses the travelators. The maximum shearing
forces caused by both will also be the same at the ends of the beam but for no other points, since
in the case of the concentrated load the curves of maximum shearing force are straight lines whilst
in the case of the uniformly distributed load they are parabolas.
When the train consists of a number of concentrated loads under rollers, the curve of maximum
bending moments can be enveloped by a curve which approximates to a parabola but which is rather
flatter at midspan and steeper at the ends than a true parabola. It is thus impossible to obtain exact
agreement at all points when a uniformly distributed load is substituted for a train. If a parabola is
drawn which has the same area as the true curve, the ordinates of the true curves are equal at about
the quarter point of the span and one approximate method of determining the effect of a train of
loads is to calculate the maximumending moment they produce at the quarter point and to make the
equivalent uniformly distributed load of such magnitude that it gives the same value at that point.
The bending moment at the quarter-point of the span under a uniformly distributed load of
intensity w is 3wL
2
/32 and if the calculated maximum bending moment at the same point due to
the actual load system is M
the equivalent load is:

w =
32M
3L
2
(10.11)
This equivalent load gives a bending moment at the centre of the span rather greater and near the
end rather less than the correct values. Agreement between the true bending moment and that due
to a uniformly distributed load may be obtained for any point other than the quarter span by using
a different value of w and if a number of travelators or passenger walks have to be designed for the
same rolling load system it is worthwhile to determine the values of w appropriate to a number of
points along the span. Once tables or curves embodying these data have been obtained they can be
applied very simply to the design of any travelators or passenger walks subjected to the particular
load system, but unless the number to be designed is considerable the time involved in obtaining
the data will not be justified.
269
Figure 10.5. Moment in trusses.
In general, if M
is the true bending moment caused at the 1/nth point of the bridge by the actual
load system and w the equivalent distributed load which produces the same bending moment at
this point we make:
M
=
w
2
_
n 1
n
2
_
L
2
(10.12)
or
w =
2n
2
M
(n 1) L
2
(10.13)
Figure (10.5) shows a truss and the influence line of shearing force for the panel CD. The panels
are of equal length l. Suppose that any system of loads is placed on the section AO of the truss and
let P
L
and P
R
be the resultants of the loads to the left and right of C respectively.
These resultants act at distance a from A and b from C. It is evident from the geometry of the
diagram that:
OC =
nl
N 1
; AO =
Nnl
N 1
(10.14)
and C is the 1/Nth point of the length OA.
Suppose the length AO to be a simply supported beam, then the bending moment at C, due to
the load system is:
M
C
= R
0
CO + P
R
b (10.15)
where R
0
is the reaction at O.
i.e. M
C
=
1
N
_
aP
L
AO
+
_
AC + b
AO
_
P
R
_
+ P
R
b (10.16)
On substituting for the lengths this becomes:
M
C
=
1
N
{aP
L
+ (nl + b) P
R
NbP
R
} (10.17)
Now consider the complete span AB.
270
The shearing force across the panel CD is:
S
CD
= R
B

b
l
P
R
(10.18)
which gives on substitution for R
B
,
S
CD
=
1
Nl
{aP
L
+ (nl + b) P
R
NbP
R
} , (10.19)
i.e. for any system of loads on AO,
M
C
= lS
CD
numerically (10.20)
Now let w
s
be the uniformly distributed load which will give the same maximum shearing force
across the panel CD as the actual load system considered. This will occur when the length AO is
covered and then,
S
CD
= w
s
(area AOG) (10.21)
= w
s

n
N

Nnl
2(N 1)
or
S
CD
=
w
s
n
2
l
2(N 1)
(10.22)
Hence the true bending moment at C on a span of length AO is, from Eq. (10.20),
M
C
=
w
s
n
2
l
2
2(N 1)
(10.23)
Now the influence line of bending moments for point C on the span AO is a triangle similar to
AOG, the ordinate CG being given by AC CO/AO i.e. by nl/N.
From the tables or curves of equivalent loading already prepared we determine the value appro-
priate to the 1/Nth point on a span of length AO. If this is w, the correct bending moment at C is,
from the influence line,
w
2
AO
nl
N
or
M
C
=
wn
2
l
2
2 (N 1)
Equating this to the value given in Eq. (10.23) we obtain,
w
s
= w (10.24)
Hence to determine the true value of the shearing force across the panel CD, we assumeAOto carry
the uniform load which produces the correct bending moment at the 1/Nth point on a span AO.
10.1.4 Flexibility method of analysis
The structure is made to statically determinate specifications. Calculate statical moments, shears
and axial effects etc. Remove the loads on the travelator deck and apply indeterminate reactions
one by one and draw flexibility diagrams. The final diagrams are drawn by algebraically adding
all quantities along the ordinates of indeterminacy or other specified locations. The determinate
271
moment, for example is M
0
and various other indeterminates are X
1
, X
2
, X
3
.X
n
. The final
moment is:
M = M
0
+ M
1
X
1
+ M
2
X
2
+ . . ... M
n
X
n
(10.25)
where M
1
to M
n
are moments from the redundant reactions that are similar for axial effects:
N = N
0
+ N
1
X
1
+ N
2
X
2
+ . . .. N
n
X
n
(10.26)
Other effects such as shear torsion can be represented in the same way. All are algebraically added
in the form:
f
ik
=
_
s
M
t
M
k
ds
EI
. ,, .
bending
+
_
s
N
i
N
k
ds
EA
. ,, .
direct force
+
_
s
V
i
V
k
ds
GA
. ,, .
shear
+
_
s
M
ti
M
tk
ds
GI
t
. ,, .
torsion
(10.27)
where it has a variable section.
The component of the travelator is divided into several points and moment I is integrated within
the established points:
for bending ds
I
=
I
C
I
ds
for direct force ds
II
=
I
C
A
ds
for shear force ds
III
=
EI
C
GA
ds
for torsional moment ds
IV
=
EI
C
GI
t
_
_
(10.28)
A Simpson rule is adopted for the integration process:
area under curve =
L
3
( y
1
+ 4y
2
+ y
3
) (10.29)
Where y
1
, y
2
, y
3
are the ordinates between two equal spaces L. The product integral can be easily
obtained by using Table 10.1. This will ease the job of evaluating various moments and forces. The
flexibility matrix for n indeterminacies is given as:
_
_
_
_
_
f
11
f
12
f
1n
f
21
f
22
f
2n
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
f
n1
f
n2
f
nn
_
_
_
_
X
1
X
2
.
.
.
X
n
_
_
=
_
_
D
10
D
20
.
.
.
D
n0
_
_
(10.30)
[ f ] {X} = {D} (10.31)
The Ds are displacements for statically determinate assumed structure and Xs are indeterminate
quantities obtained by matrix [ f ]. In the analysis a choice is given either to find moments first or
reactions first. All other quantities are determined subsequently.
Table 10.1 gives flexibility coefficients for solving such problems.
Application to deflection of trusses
An expression for the principle of virtual work as applied specifically to trusses. Consider first
the case of an ideal pin-jointed truss where both the deforming P loads and the virtual Q loads are
applied only at the joints of the truss. In such a case, the individual members will be subjected only
to axial member forces F
P
with no shear or bending moment involved. Furthermore, the member
force F
Q
will be constant throughout the length L of a given member, and since:
_
L
0
e
o
ds = axial change in length of member = L (10.32)
272
T
a
b
l
e
1
0
.
1
.
F
l
e
x
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
s
.
273
where,
e
0
=axial strains due to P or Q loads and temperature change t.
F
P
and F
Q
axial forces due to P or Q.
In a similar fashion, the following third and fourth terms could be added by giving the contri-
butions of the deformations due to the bending shears Sp and twisting moments T
P
to the total:
C
s
=
_
L
0
V
Q
V
P
AG
ds +
_
L
0
T
Q
T
P
K
T
G
ds (10.33)
where,
V
Q
, T
Q
=shear and twisting moment on section m-m
due to Q loads;
Cs =shape factor varying with shape of cross section;
K
t
=torsional constant for cross section (equals polar moment of inertia for circular
cross section); and
G=shear modulus of material in addition to the notation introduced previously.
The virtual work of deformation for one particular truss member becomes:
W
d
= F
Q
_
L
0
e
0
ds = F
Q
L (10.34)
When such products for all the members of the truss are summed, the internal virtual work of
deformation for the entire truss may be represented as:
W
d
=
F
Q
L (10.35)
and therefore the principle of virtual work as applied to an ideal pin-jointed truss becomes:
Q =
F
Q
L (10.36)
Suitable expressions for L can easily be developed, depending on whether the imposed change
in length is produced by the P loads, by a change in temperature, or by some other cause. For a
prismatic member having a constant cross-sectional area A
s
and a constant modulus of elasticity E,
if the deformation is due to joint loads P on the truss, then
L =
F
P
L
A
s
E
(10.37)
if the deformation is due to a uniform change in temperature t, then
L =
t
tL (10.38)
and if the deformation is caused by both these effects acting simultaneously, then
L =
F
P
L
A
s
E
+
t
tL (10.39)
Equation (10.36) is the basis for the method of virtual work for computing the deflection of ideal
pin-jointed trusses. Suppose, for example, that we wish to compute the vertical component of the
deflection of joint c caused by the P loads. Suppose that we select as the virtual Q-load system a
unit vertical load at joint c together with its reactions. If we imagine that we first apply this system
to the structure, then when we apply the actual deforming loads P, the Q loads will be given a ride
and will do a certain amount of external virtual work. According to the principle of virtual work,
the internal Q stresses will do an equal amount of internal virtual work as the members change
length owing to the Fp stresses. Applying Eq. (10.36) gives:
(1)(
c
) + W
R
=
F
Q
F
P
L
A
s
E
(10.40)
274
Table 10.2. Truss deflection problems under Q-system of loads.
where,
W
R
represents the virtual work done by the Q reactions if the support points move and could be
evaluated numerically if such movements were known.
If the supports are unyielding, W
R
=0 and
(1)(
c
) =
F
Q
F
P
L
A
s
E
(10.41)
The bar forces F
Q
and F
P
due to the Q- and P-load systems, respectively, can easily be computed.
These data combined with the given values of L, A and E give us enough information to evaluate
the right-hand side of the above equation and therefore to solve for the unknown value of c.
Table 10.2 shows how to select suitable Q systems for use in the computation of the deflection
components that may be required. Note that one has to simply select the virtual Q-force system in
such a way that the desired deflection is the only unknown appearing on the left hand side of the
equation. Worry about the deflection produced by the Q system.
D.E.10.1 EXAMPLE ON JOINT DEFLECTION
A truss in Fig. (10.6) supports the travelator at the edge of the travel. The truss is loaded as shown.
Compute the horizontal component of the deflection of joint E due to the load shown.
275
Figure 10.6. Cross-sectional areas in cm
2
shown in parentheses.
Figure 10.7. Force diagrams.
Bar L A L/A F
Q
F
P
F
Q
F
P
L/A
m cm
2
m/cm
2
kN kN kN
2
m/cm
2
AB
1
1.5 10 0.15 +0.5 +37.5 +2.813
B
1
C
1
1.5 10 0.15 +0.5 +37.5 +2.813
AB 2.5 12.5 0.2 +0.83 62.5 10.417
BC
1
2.5 12.5 0.2 0.83 62.5 10.417
+5.625
Q =
F
Q
L =
F
Q
F
P
L
A
s
E
(10.42)
(1kN) (
E
) =
1
E
F
Q
F
P
L
A
s
=
+5.625 kN
2
m/cm
2
20.710
3
kN/cm
2

E
= +0.00027174 m
to right
276
Since:
/R. Therefore the following theorem may be stated:
If a rigid body is rotated about some centre O through some small angle the component of the
displacement of a point m along some direction XX through that point is equal to the angle times
the perpendicular distance from O to the line XX.
Applied to the above truss,
=
0.005 m
3 m
Therefore, the horizontal movement of E during the rotation about O is:
0.005 m
3 m
(2 m) = 0.003 m
D.E.10.2 EXAMPLE ON RELATIVE DEFLECTIONS OF JOINTS ALONGTHE LINE
JOININGTWO JOINTS UNDER LOADS ANDTEMPERATURE EFFECTS
Compute the relative deflections of joints b and D along the line joining them due to the following
causes:
(a) The loads shown.
E =207, 000 MPa =20.7 10
3
kN/cm
2
(b) An increase in temperature of 40
C in the top chord; a decrease of 10
C in the bottom chord.
t
= 1/75, 000 per
C.
(a)

Q =

F
Q
L =

F
Q
F
P
L
A
s
E
(10.43)
(1 kN)
_
b
_
+ (1 kN) (
D
) =
1
E
F
Q
F
P
L
A
s
(1 kN)
_
bD
_
=
1.1075 kN
2
m/cm
2
20.7 10
3
kN/cm
2
bD
= +5.34966 10
5
m
together
(b)

Q =

F
Q
L=

F
Q
t
tL=
t
F
Q
tL (10.44)
_
1
kN
_
(
bD
) =
_
13.3 10
6
_
/
C
_
74.76
kN
Cm
_
bD
= 9.968 10
4
m
apart
D.E. 10.3 ATYPICAL GIRDERTRUSS LOADAS SHOWN IN FIGS (12.8) AND (12.11).
Using flexibility method, compute forces from the travelator loads in cases shown below:
B
=
BD
+ X
B
BB
+ X
C
BC
= 0 (10.45)
C
=
CD
+ X
B
CB
+ X
C
CC
= 0 (10.46)
277
From either the method of virtual work or the geometry of the adjacent sketch,
BD
= 0.000667 radian
CD
= 0.003444 radian
BB
=
6.667 kNm
2
EI
1
CC
=
4.667 kNm
2
EI
1
BC
=
CB
=
0.833 kNm
2
EI
1
Upon substituting these values, the equations become,
6.667X
B
+ 0.833X
C
= 0.000667EI
1
0.833X
B
+ 4.667X
C
= 0.003444EI
1
Figure 10.8. Pin-joint. Truss under loads.
Figure 10.9. Cross-sectional areas in cm
2
shown in brackets.
278
Figure 10.10. Forces in members of the trusses.
Figure 10.11. Supporting girder under heavy loaded travelators.
279
Figure 10.12. A supporting box chamber with flexibility diagrams.
280
Table 10.3. Tabulated results from flexibility analysis.
L A L/A F
Q
F
P
F
Q
F
P
L/A t F
Q
tL
Bar (m) (cm
2
) (m/cm
2
) (kN) (kN) (kN
2
m/cm
2
) (
C) (kN
Cm)
B
1
C
1
3 50 0.06 0.416 +67.5 1.6848 10 12.48
C
1
D
1
3 50 0.06 0.416 +67.5 1.6848 10 12.48
CD 3 50 0.06 0.831 78.75 +3.9265 +40 99.72
B
1
C 5 25 0.20 0.695 18.75 +2.6063 0 0
CD
1
5 25 0.20 0.695 +18.75 +2.6063 0 0
D
1
D 4 50 0.08 0.555 +105 4.6620 0 0
+1.1075 74.76
Note: The same problems can be solved by reciprocity principles such as Bellis law and Maxwells law
which can be translated into flexibility or stiffness methods.
from which since
EI
1
=
_
207 10
6
_
kN/m
2
_
10
3
_
m
4
=
_
0.207 10
6
_
kNm
The values of X
B
and X
C
are computed:
X
B
= +0.00000802EI
1
= +1.66 kNm
X
C
= +0.000736EI
1
= +152.4 kNm
The reactions and bending-moment diagram can now easily be computed in Fig. (10.11).
D.E. 10.4
Asupporting box structure shown in Fig. (10.12) with constant cross-section is loaded with a portion
of placing three travelators loading occurring on the top CD. Assuming q =2 kN/m, L=10 mand h
is 5 m, calculate moments at A, B, C and D. Treat the moments above the surface while the interior
of the box is used as a maintenance chamber as well. Use the flexibility method for E, I constant,
the elastic centre method is adopted, where:
e =
h
2
=
5
2
= 2.5
Various flexibility diagrams are drawn, indicating various flexibility coefficients. UsingTable 10.3.
M
0
(at C, D, A and B) =
qL
2
8
= 25 kNm
f
11
= (10 1 1) + 2 (5 1 1) = 30
f
22
= 2 (5 5 5) +
2
3
5 5 5 2 =
1250
3
f
33
= 2 10 2.5
2
+
4
3
2.5 2.5
2
= 145.8
f
21
= f
12
= 0; f
13
= f
31
= 0; f
23
= f
32
= 0
D
10
=
_
M
1
M
0
EI
ds =
2
3
5 25 1 2 5 25 1 10 25 1
=
7
6
250 =
1750
6
281
D
20
= 0
D
30
= 10 2.5 25
10
3
2.5 25 =
1250
3
X
1
=
D
10
f
11
= 19.42 kNm
X
2
= 0; X
3
=
D
30
f
33
= 2.85 kN
M = M
0
+ M
1
X
1
+ M
2
X
2
+ M
3
X
3
M
C
= 12.72 kNm
M
D
= 12.72 kNm
M
A
= +1.56 kNm = M
B
.
282
Appendix I
Supporting Analyses and Computer Programs
using Finite Element
Appendix I
IA Material and Structural Matrices For Finite Element Analysis
Table AIA.1. [D] Variable Youngs modulus and constant Poissons ratio
Table AIA.2. [D] Variable Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio
285
Appendix I
Table AIA.2. continued.
Table AIA.2. continued.
286
Appendix I
Table AIA.3. Two-dimensional elastic beam (courtesy STRUCOM, London)
287
Appendix I
Table AIA.4. Three-dimensional elastic beam (courtesy STRUCOM, London)
Fig. AIA.2. Three-dimensional elastic beam.
288
Appendix I
Table AIA.5. Stiffness and mass matrices (courtesy STRUCOM, London)
Fig. AIA.3. Order of degrees of freedom.
289
Appendix I
290
Appendix I
Appendix IB: Element Types, Shape Function,
Derivatives, Stiffness Matrices
Table AIB.1. [K] Shear and torsion included for line element
291
Appendix I
292
Appendix I
Appendix IC: Dynamic Finite-Element Analysis
IC.1. FINITE-ELEMENT EQUATIONS
A three-dimensional finite-element analysis is developed in which a provision has been made for
time-dependent plasticity and rupturing in steel and cracking in materials such as concrete, etc.
The influence of steel liner and studs are included. Concrete, steel liners and studs are represented
by solid isoparametric elements, shell elements and line elements with or without bond linkages.
To begin with, a displacement finite element is adopted.
The displacement field within each element is defined in Figure 1 as
{x} = [N]{x}
e
=
n
i=1
(N
i
[I ]{x}
i
) (1)
The strains and stresses can then be expressed as
{} =
n
i=1
([B
i
]{x
i
}) = [D]{} (2)
In order to maintain equilibriumwith the element, a systemof external nodal forces {F}
e
is applied
which will reduce the virtual work (dW) to zero. In the general equilibriumequations both equations
(1) and (2) are included. The final equation becomes
({d}
e
)
T
{F}
e
= ({d}
e
)
T
_
vol
[B]
T
{}dV (3)
In terms of the local co-ordinate (, , ) system, equation (3) is written as
{F}
e
=
_
vol
[B]
T
[D]{}d.d.d det[J]{x}
c
(4)
The force-displacement relationship for each element is given by
{F}
e
= [K]
c
{u}
e
+ {F
b
}
e
+ {F
s
}
e
+ {F
}
e
i
+ {F
}
e
c
(5)
where the element stiffness matrix is
[K
c
] =
_
vol
[B]
T
[D][B]dV (5a)
The nodal force due to the body force is
{F
b
}
e
=
_
vol
[N]
T
{G}dV (5b)
The nodal force due to the surface force is
{F
s
}
e
=
_
s
[N]
T
{p}ds (5c)
293
Appendix I
Fig. AIC.1. Types of elements used for the F.E. Mesh Schmes.
294
Appendix I
The nodal force due to the initial stress is
{P
}
e
i
=
_
vol
[B]
T
{
0
}dV (5d)
The nodal force due to the initial strain in
{P
}
e
i
=
_
vol
[B]
T
[D]{
0
}dV (5e)
Equations (4) and (5) represent the relationships of the nodal loads to the stiffness and displacement
of the structure. These equations now require modification to include the influence of the liner and
its studs. The material compliance matrices [D] are given. The numerical values are given of the
constitutive matrices are recommended in the absence of specific information.
If the stiffness matrix [K
c
] for typical elements is known from equations (6.4) and (6.5) as
[K
c
] =
_
vol
[B]
T
[D][B]dvol (6)
The composite stiffness matrix [K
TOT
], which includes the influence of liner and stud or any other
material(s) in association, can be written as
[K
TOT
] = [K
c
] + [K
l
] + [K
s
] (7)
where [K
l
] and [K
s
] are the liner and stud or connector matrices.
If the initial and total load vectors on the liner/stud assembly and others are [F
T
] and [R
T
],
respectively, then equation (4) is written as
{F}
e
+ {F
T
} {R
T
} = [K
TOT
]{x}
(8)
295
Appendix I
IC.2. STEPS FOR DYNAMIC NON-LINEARANALYSIS
The dynamic coupled equations are needed to solve the impact/explosion problems and to assess
the response history of the structure, using the time increment t. If [M] is the mass and [C] and
[K] are the damping and stiffness matrices, the equation of motion may be written in incremental
form as
[M]{ x(t)} + [C
in
]{ x(t)} + [K
in
]{(t)} = {R(t)} + {F
1
(t)} (9)
where F
1
(t) is the impact/explosion load. If the load increment of F
1
(t) is P
n
(t), where n is the nth
load increment, then
P
n
(t) = P
n1
(t) + P
n
(t) (9a)
and hence {R(t)} ={P
n
(t)}, which is the residual time-dependent load vector. The solution of
equation (9) in terms of t +t for a t increment becomes
[M]{ x(t + t)} + [C
in
]{ x(t + t)} + [K
in
]{R(t + t)} + {P(t + t)} (10)
where in denotes initial effects by interaction using the stress approach; P(t +t) represents the
non-linearity during the time increment t and is determined by
{} = [D]{} {
0
} + {
0
} (11)
The constitutive law is used with the initial stress and constant stiffness approaches throughout the
non-linear and the dynamic iteration. For the iteration:
{x(t + t)}
i
= [K
in
]
1
{R
TOT
(t + t)}
i
(12)
The strains are determined using
{(t + t)}
i
= [B]{x(t + t)}
i
(13)
where [B] is the strain displacement. The stresses are computed as
{(t + t)}
i
= [D]{(t + t)}
i
+ {
0
(t + t)}
i1
(14)
where {
0
(t +t) is the total initial stress at the end of each iteration. All calculations for stresses
and strains are performed at the Gauss points of all elements.
The initial stress vector is given by
{
0
(t + t)}
i
= f {(t + t)}
i
[D]{(t + t)}
i
(15)
Using the principles of virtual work, the change of equilibrium and nodal loads {P(t +t)
i
is
calculated as
F
1
(t + t) = {P(t + t))
iTOT
(16)
=
+1
_
1
+1
_
1
+1
_
1
[B]
T
{
0
(t + t)}
i
ddd
0
(t) = {
0
(t + t)}
i
= 0
296
Appendix I
where d, d and d are the local co-ordinates and T
is the transpose. The integration is performed

numerically at the Gauss points. The effective load vector Fl(t) is given by
F
1
(t + t) = {P(t + t)}
iTOT
= [C(t)
in
]({x(t + t)}
i
{x(t)})
[C(t + t)]
i
{x(t + t)}
i
[K(t)
in
]({x(t + t)}
i
{x(t)}
i
) (17)
[K(t + t)]
i
{x(t + t)}
i
The Von Mises criterion is used with the transitional factor f
TR
to form the basis of the plastic state,
such as shown in Figure AIC.2.
f

TR
=

y
(t)
y1
(t)
(t + t)
i
(t + t)
i1
(18)
The elasto-plastic stress increment will be
{
i
} = [D]
ep
{(t + t)}
i1
(1 f

TR
){} (19)
If (t +t)
i
<y(t), it is an elastic limit and the process is repeated. The equivalent stress is
calculated from the current stress state where stresses are drifted; they are corrected from the
equivalent stress-strain curve.
The values of [D]
ep
and[D]
p
are derivedusingplastic stress/strainincrements. Inthe elasto-plastic
stage, the time-dependent yield function is f(t). It is assumed that the strain or stress increment is
normal to the plastic potential Q(,K). The plastic increment, for example, is given by
(t + t)
p
= Q/ = b (20)
where =proportionality constant >0
b Q/(t + t)
When f (t) =Q
(t + t)
p
= a
a = f/(t + t)
therefore, df = [f/(t + t)] d(t + t) + (f/dK)dK
If A is the hardening plastic parameter, then
A =
1
(f/dK)dK
An expression can easily be derived for the proportionality constant
297
Appendix I
=
a
T
D(t + t)
[A + a
T
Db]
hence (t + t)
p
= b (21)
The value of the elasto-plastic matrix [D]
ep
is given by
[D]
ep
= D
Dba
T
Db
[A + a
T
Db]
(22)
The value of the plastic matrix [D]p is given by
[D]
p
=
Dba
T
D
[A + a
T
Db]
(23)
where [D] is the compliance matrix for the elastic case.
The elasto-plastic stress increment is given by
{
i
}
t
= [D]
ep
{
i
}
Y
t
(1 f

TR
){} (24)
for the sake of brevity, {
i
}t =(t +t) for the ith point or increment and other symbols are as
given above. The total value becomes
{
i
}
TOT
= {
i
}
Y
t
+ {
i
} (25)
If {
i
}t <
yt
it is an elastic point and {
i
}t ={
i
}t. The process is repeated. Looking at the plastic
point in the previous iteration, it is necessary to check for unloading when y, the unloading
will bring about the total stress {
i
}t ={
i1
}t +{
i
}t, and set {
y
}
t
={
i1
}
t
. Then loading at this
point gives
{
i
} = [D]
ep
{
i1
}
t
{}
t
(26)
The total stress is then written as
{
i
}
TOT
= {
i1
}
t
{
i
} (27)
Stresses are calculated using the elasto-plastic material matrix, which does not drift from the
yield surfaces, as shown in Figure AIC.2. Stresses are corrected from the equivalent stress-strain
curve by
{
corr
} = {
i1
}
t
+ K{
p
}
t
(28)
where, {
p
}
t
=
2
3
{
(
p
ij
)}
i
=equivalent plastic strain increment. Kis the strain-hardened param-
eter, such that {
p
}t =. The equivalent stress is calculated from the current stress state, as shown
below:
{
i
}
eq
= f {(
i
)}
t
(29)
the value of
corr
/ is a factor (31)
298
Appendix I
Fig. AIC.2. Transitional factor and plastic point.
299
Appendix I
Table AIC.1. Chain rule
300
Appendix I
Table AIC.2. Solid isoparametric elements
Eight-noded solid element
Table AIC.3. Twenty-noded solid element
301
Appendix I
T
a
b
l
e
A
I
C
.
4
.
T
h
i
r
t
y
-
t
w
o
-
n
o
d
e
d
s
o
l
i
d
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
302
Appendix I
T
a
b
l
e
A
I
C
.
5
.
I
s
o
p
a
r
a
m
e
t
r
i
c
m
e
m
b
r
a
n
e
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
F
o
u
r
-
n
o
d
e
d
m
e
m
b
r
a
n
e
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
T
a
b
l
e
A
I
C
.
6
.
T
w
e
l
v
e
-
n
o
d
e
d
m
e
m
b
r
a
n
e
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
303
Appendix I
Table AIC.7. Three-dimensional reinforced concrete solid element
304
Appendix I
T
a
b
l
e
A
I
C
.
9
.
S
h
a
p
e
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
p
r
i
s
m
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
T
a
b
l
e
A
I
C
.
8
.
C
r
a
c
k
t
i
p
s
o
l
i
d
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
305
Appendix I
Table AIC.10. Boom elements
306
Appendix I
T
a
b
l
e
A
I
C
.
1
1
.
L
i
n
e
a
r
a
n
d
q
u
a
d
r
a
t
i
c
t
w
o
-
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
a
l
d
i
s
p
a
r
a
m
e
t
r
i
c
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
T
a
b
l
e
A
I
C
.
1
2
.
L
i
n
e
a
r
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
r
i
a
n
g
u
l
a
r
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
(
s
i
x
-
n
o
d
e
d
)
307
Appendix I
T
a
b
l
e
A
I
C
.
1
3
.
C
o
n
s
t
a
n
t
s
t
r
e
s
s
/
s
t
r
a
i
n
[
K
]
m
a
t
r
i
x
308
Appendix I
T
a
b
l
e
A
I
C
.
1
4
.
L
i
n
e
a
r
s
t
r
a
i
n
r
e
c
t
a
n
g
u
l
a
r
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
309
Appendix I
Table AIC.15. The rectangular finite element for plate flexure.
310
Appendix I
311
Appendix I
Table AIC.16. Stress and strain transformation matrices
312
Appendix I
Appendix ID: Criteria for convergence and acceleration
313
Appendix I
314
Appendix II
Computer Programs
Appendix II
Table AII.1. Program ISOPAR to print displacements and (if ISTAT.NE.0) velocities and accelerations
(Jointly developed by J. Tang and the author.).
317
Appendix II
Table AII. 1. Algorithm for principal stresses
318
Appendix II
Figure AII.1. Equivalent stress-strain curve for steel (E
s
=initial yield modulus; E
s
=post-yield modulus.).
Figure AII.2. Failure surface.
319
Appendix II
Figure AII.3. Distribution of Equivalent stresses in Gear using quadratic Isoparametric Finite Element.
Figure AII.4. Finite Element modelling of gear and teeth using a mixture of Isoparametric 20 noded and
prismatic Elements with tips.
320
Appendix II
.
1
.
7
(
d
)
I
S
O
P
A
R
f
i
n
i
t
e
-
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
:
s
u
b
r
o
u
t
i
n
e
321
Appendix II
322
Appendix II
323
Appendix II
324
Appendix II
325
Appendix II
326
Appendix II
327
Appendix II
328
Appendix II
329
Appendix II
330
Appendix II
331
Appendix II
332
Appendix II
333
Appendix II
334
Appendix II
335
Appendix II
1
.
7
(
c
)
U
L
F
W
i
c
k
s
t
r
o
m
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
o
n
t
h
e
r
m
a
l
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
336
Appendix II
337
Appendix II
338
Appendix II
339
Appendix II
Figure AII.5 Equivalent stress distribution in bolts and nuts using mixed finite elements.
Figure AII.6 Equivalent stress distribution in Flanges.
340
Appendix III
Dynamic Finite Element Analysis-Solution
Procedures
Appendix III
Dynamic Finite Element Analysis-Formulations Super Element and
Substructuring
Dynamic finite element analysis formulations
In general terms, such formulations are described by the following:
_
K K
R
K
T
R
K
RR
_ _
U
U
R
_
=
_
F
F
R
_
(1)
The subscript R represents reaction forces. The top half of Equation (1) is used to solve for {U}:
{U} = [K]
1
[K
R
]{U
R
} + [K]
1
{F} (2)
The reaction forces {F
R
} are computed from the bottom half of the equation as
{F
R
} = [K
R
]
T
{U} + {K
RR
}{U
R
} (3)
Equation (2) must be in equilibrium with Equation (3).
III.1. The superelement and substructuring
For large structures with complicated features, a substructure (superelement) may be adopted on
the lines suggested in Equation (1). This superelement may then be used as a reduced element from
the collection of elements. If subscripts and
represent the retained and removed degrees of

freedom of the equations partitioned into two groups, then the expressions in Equation (1) can be
written as
_
K
_ _
U
_
=
_
F
_
(4)
Equation (4) when expanded assumes the following form:
{F
} = [K
]{U
} + [K
]{U
} (5)
{F
} = [K
]{U
} + [K
]{U
} (6)
When a dynamic analysis is carried out, the subscript (retained) represents the dynamic degrees
of freedom.
When Equation (6) is solved, the value of U
is then written, similarly to Equation (2),

{U
} = [K
]
1
{F
} [K
]
1
[K
]{U
} (7)
Substituting {U
} into Equation (3) gives:

[[K
] [K
][K
]
1
[K
]]{U
} = [{F
} [K
][K
]
1
{F
}] (8)
or
[K]{U} = {F} (9)
343
Appendix III
where
[K] = [K
] [K
][K
]
1
[K
] (9a)
{F} = {F
} [K
][K
]
1
{F
} (9b)
{U} = {U
} (9c)
and [K] and {F} are generally known as the substructure stiffness matrix and load vector,
respectively.
In the above equations, the load vector for the substructure is taken as a total load vector. The
same derivation may be applied to any number of independent load vectors. For example, one
may wish to apply thermal, pressure, gravity and other loading conditions in varying proportions.
Expanding the right-hand sides of Equations (5) and (6) gives:
{F
} =
n
i=1
{F
i
} (10)
{F
} =
n
i1
{F
i
} (11)
where n =the number of independent load vectors.
Substituting into Equation (9c)
{F} =
n
i=1
{F
} [K
][K
]
1
n
i=1
{F
i
} (12)
where the initial load {P
t
} is specified by
{P
t
} = [C
0t
]{

U
t
} {K
0t
}{
t
} (13)
To obtain the solution at time t + t, the equation is stated as
[M]{

U
t+t
} + [C
0
]{

U
t+t
} + [K
0
]{U
t+t
}
= {R
t+t
} + {P
t
} + {P
tt+t
} (14)
{P
tt+t
} represents the influence of the nonlinearity during the time increment t and is deter-
mined by iteration and satisfied for t + , where =t ( >1.37 for an unconditionally stable
method) when applied to a linear problem. [C
0t
] and [K
0t
] represent the change of [C] and
[K], respectively, from t =0 to t.
To obtain the solution at time t +t, Equation (15) can be written as
[M]{

U
t+t
} + [C
0
]{

U
t+t
} + [K
0
]{U
t+t
}
= {R
t+t
} + {F
t
} + {F
tt+t
} (15)
{P
tt+t
} represents the influence of the nonlinearity during the time increment t and is
determined by iteration:
{P
tt+t
} =[C
0t
]{

U
tt+t
} [C
tt+t
]({

U} + {

U
tt+t
})
[K
0t
]{U
tt+t
}
[K
tt+t
]({U
t
} + {U
tt+t
}) (16)
(P
tt+t
) is calculated using the initial stress approach.
344
Appendix III
A modified NewtonRaphson or initial stress approach is adopted for solving these nonlinear
equations. Astep-by-step integration method is given. Using these methods along with acceleration
and convergence procedures described in this chapter allows successful solution of finite element-
based problems.
Reduced linear transient dynamic analysis
This is a reduced from of nonlinear transient dynamic analysis. This analysis is carried out faster
than the nonlinear analysis since the matrix of Equation (15) requires to be inverted once, and the
analysis is reduced to a series of matrix multiplications and essential degrees of freedom (dynamic
or master of freedoms) to characterize the response of the system. The analysis generally has
restrictions such as constant [M], [C
t
], [K
t
] and time interval for all iterations and nodal forces
applied at dynamic or master degrees of freedom.
Quadratic integration
_
1
t
2
[M]
R
+
3
2t
[
C
t
]
R
+ [K
t
]
R
_
{U
t
}
R
= {F(t)}
R
+ [M]
R
1
t
2
(2{U
t1
}
R
{U
t2
}
R
)
+
1
t
(2{U
t1
}
R

1
2
{U
t2
}
R
) (17)
The symbol R represents reduced matrices and vectors.
Cubic integration
_
2
t
2
[M]
R
+
11
6t
[C
t
]
R
+ [K
t
]
R
_
{U
t
}
R
= {F(t)}
R
+ [M]
R
1
t
2
(5{U
t1
}
R
4{U
t2
}
R
+ {U
t3
})
+ [C
t
]
R
1
t
2
(3{U
t1
}
R

3
2
{U
t2
}
R
+
1
3
{U
t3
}
R
) (18)
Mode frequency analysis
The equation of motion for an undamped structure with no applied forces is written as
[M]{

U
t
} + [K
t
]{U
t
} = {0} (19)
[K
t
] the structure stiffness matrix, may include stress-stiffening effects.
The systemof equations is initially condensed down to those involved with the master (dynamic)
degrees of freedom.
The number of dynamic degrees of freedom would at least be equal to two times the selected
frequencies. The reduced form of Equation (19) can be written as
[M]
R
{

U
t
}
R
+ [K
t
]
R
{U}
R
= {0} (20)
For a linear system, free vibrations of harmonic type are written as
{U
t
}
R
= {
i
}
R
cos
i
t (21)
345
Appendix III
where {
i
}
R
=the eigenvector representing the shape of the ith frequency;
i
=the ith frequency
(radians/unit time); and t =time.
Equation (19) assumes the form
(
2
i
[M]
R
+ [K
t
]
R
{
i
}
R
= {0} (22)
which is an eigenvalue problemwith n values of
2
and n eigenvectors {
i
}
R
which satisfy Equation
(22), where n is the number of dynamic degrees of freedom. Using standard iteration procedures,
Equation (22) will yield a complete set of eigenvalues and eigenvectors.
Each eigenvector, {
i
}
R
, is then normalized such that:
{
i
}
T
R
[M]
t
{
i
}
R
= 1 (23)
These n eigenvectors are now expanded to the full set of structure modal displacement degrees of
freedom:
{
i
}
R
= [K
]
1
[K
]{
i
}
R
(24)
where {
i
}
R
=the slave degree of freedom vector of mode i; and [K
], [K
] = submatrix parts
as shown in Equation (24) onwards.
The above dynamic analysis approach is generally adopted for structures subjected to normal
dynamic loads, wind, wave and seismic loads. The above analysis, with modifications, is also
applied to missile and aircraft explosions/impact problems.
Spectrum analysis
Spectrum analysis is an extension of the mode frequency analysis, with both base and force excita-
tion options. The base excitation option is generally suitable for seismic and wave applications. A
direction vector and a response spectrumtable will be needed in addition to the data and parameters
required for the reduced model analysis. The response spectrum table generally includes displace-
ments, velocities and accelerations. The force excitation is, in general, used for wind and space
structures and missile/aircraft impact. It requires a force distribution and an amplitude multiplier
table in addition to the data and parameters needed for the reduced modal analysis. A study of
the mass distribution is made. Generally the masses are kept close to the reaction points on the
finite element mesh rather than the (master) degrees of freedom. It is important to calculate the
participation factors in relation to a given excitation direction. The base and forced excitations are
given below.

i
= {
i
}
T
R
[M]{
b} for the base excitation (25)

i
= {
i
}
T
R
{F
t
} for the force excitation (26)
where {
b} =the unit vector of the excitation direction; and {F

t
} =an input force vector.
The values of {}
R
are normalized, and the reduced displacement vector is calculated from the
eigenvector by using a mode coefficient

M:
{

U}
i
= [

M
i
]{}
i
(27)
where {

U
i
} =the reduced displacement vector; and [

M
i
] =the mode coefficient and where (a) for
velocity spectra
[

M
i
] =
[V
si
]{
i
}
i
(28)
(V
si
=spectral velocity for the ith mode); (b) for force spectra
[

M
i
] =
[
f
si
]{
i
}
2
i
(29)
346
Appendix III
(
f
si
=spectral force for the ith mode); (c)
[

M
i
] =
[a
si
]{
i
}
2
i
(30)
(a
si
=spectral acceleration for the ith mode); (d)
[

M
t
] =
[U
si
]{
i
}
2
i
] (31)
(U
si
=spectral displacement for the ith mode);
{U}
i
may be expanded to compute all the displacements, as was done in Equation (2) onwards.
{U
}
i
= [K
]
1
[K
]{U
i
}
R
(32)
where {U
}
i
=the slave degree of freedom vector of mode i; and [K
], [K
] = submatrix parts.
Sometimes an equivalent mass M
e
i
is needed for the ith mode since it may not be a function of
excitation direction. This M
e
i
is computed as
[M
e
i
] = 1/{
i
}
T
R
{
i
}
R
(33)
This is derived from the definition of the diagonal matrix of equivalent masses [M
e
]
[]
T
R
[M
e
][]
R
= [I ] (34)
where [I ] =the identity matrix; and []
R
=a square matrix containing all mode shape vectors.
Where damping is included, the damping ratio D
Ri
for the data input, including damping C
e
, is
given for a matrix of coupling coefficient as
D
Ri
= C
e
i/2
(35)
where
I
is the undamped natural frequency of the ith mode.
In between the modes i and j, a modified damping ratio D
Ri
is
D
Ri
= D
Ri
+ 2/t
e
i
(36)
where t
e
is the duration.
Summary of step-by-step integration method
Initialization
(1) Effective stiffness matrix [K
0
] =(6/
2
)[M] +(3/)[C
0
] +[K
0
] (37)
(2) Triangularize [K
0
]
For each time step:
Calculation of displacement {U
t+
}
(1) Constant part of the effective load vector
{R
t+
} ={R
t
} + ({R
t+t
} {R
t
}) + {F
t
} + [M] (38)
+
__
6
2
_
{U
t
} +
6
{

U
t
} + 2{

U
t
}
_
(B)
+ [C
0
]
_
3
{U
t
} + 2{

U
t
} +

2
{U
t
}
_
347
Appendix III
(2) Initialization i =0, {P
i
tt+
} =0
(3) Iteration (C)
(a) i i +1 (D)
(b) Effective load vector {R
t+
tot
} ={R
t+
} +{P
i1
tt+
}
(c) Displacement {U
i
t+
}[K
0
]{U
i
t+
} ={R
i
t+
tot
} (39)
(d) Velocity {

U
i
t+
} +(3/)({U
i
t+
} {U
t
}) 2{

U
t
} (/2){

U
t
}
(e) Change of initial load vector caused by the nonlinear behaviour of the material {P
i
tt+
}
{P
i
tt+
} =[C
0t
]({

U
i
t+
} {

U
t
}) [C
i
tt+
]{

U
i
t+
}
[K
0t
]({U
i
t+
} {U
t
}) [K
i
tt+t
]{U
i
t+
} (40)
In fact, {P
i
tt+
} is calculated using the initial-stress method.
(f ) Iteration convergence
||{P
i
tt+
} {P
i1
tt+
}||/||{P
i
tt+
}|| < tol (41)
or analogously, on stress.
Note that {P} could be any value of {F}.
Calculation of velocity, acceleration
Calculate newacceleration {

U
t+t
}, velocity {

U
t+t
}, displacement {U
t+t
} and initial load {P
t+t
}:
{

U
t+t
} = (6/
2
)({U
t+
} {U
t
}) (6/){

U
t
} +
_
1
3
_
{

U
t
}
{

U
t+t
} = {

U
t
} +

2
{

U
t
} + {

U
t+t
}
{U
t+t
} = {U
t
} +

{

U
t
} + (
2
/6
2
)(2{

U
t
} + {

U
t+t
})
{P
t+t
} = {P
t
} + {P
i
tt+
} (42)
Calculation by quadratic integration
When the velocity varies linearly and the acceleration is constant across the time interval,
appropriate substitutions are made to obtain the following equation:
[f
1
[M] + f
2
[C
t
] + [K
t
]]{U
t
} = {F(t)} + {f
3
([C
t
], [M], U
t
, U
t2
, . . . )} (43)
where f
1
, f
2
, f
3
=functions of time.
This results in an implicit time integration procedure. The only unknown is {U
t
} at each time
point and this is calculated in the same way as in static analysis. Equation (43) is then written as:
_
2
t
0
t
01
[M] +
2t
0
+ t
1
t
0
t
01
[C] + [K
t
]
_
{U
t
}
= {F(t)} + [M]
_
2
t
0
t
1
{U
t1
}
2
t
1
t
01
{U
t2
}
_
+[C
t
]
_
t
01
t
0
t
1
{U
t1
}
t
0
t
01
t
1
{U
t2
}
_
(44)
348
Appendix III
where
t
0
=t
0
t
1
t
1
=t
1
t
2
t
2
=t
2
t
3
t
0
=time of current iteration
t
1
=time of previous iteration
t
2
=time before previous iteration
t
3
=time before t
2
t
2
=t
0
+t
1
=t
0
t
2
Calculation by cubic integration
Equation 43 becomes cubic and is written as
(a
1
[M] + a
2
[C
t
] + [K
t
]){U
t
}
= {F(t)} + [M](a
3
{U
t1
} a
4
{U
t2
} + a
5
{U
t3
})
+[C](a
6
{U
t1
} a
7
{U
t2
} + a
8
{U
t3
}) (45)
where a
1
to a
8
are functions of the time increments; these functions are derived by inverting a four
by four matrix.
For clear-cut solutions, the size of the time step between adjacent iterations should not be more
than a factor of 10 in nonlinear cases and should not be reduced by more than a factor of 2 where
plasticity exists.
Solution procedures: acceleration and convergence criteria
Criteria for convergence and acceleration
Convergence criteria
To ensure convergence to the correct solution by finer sub-division of the mesh, the assumed
displacement function must satisfy the convergence criteria given below:
(a) displacements must be continuous over element boundaries;
(b) rigid body movements should be possible without straining; and
(c) a state of constant strain should be reproducible.
Euclidean norm is given by
i
/R
i
C. The term
i
represents the unbalanced forces and the norm
of the residuals. With the aid of the iterative scheme described above, the unbalanced forces due
to the initial stresses {
0
} become negligibly small. As a measure of their magnitude, the norm of
the vector ||
i
|| is used. The Euclidean norm and the absolute value of the largest component of
the vector are written as
||
i
|| = (|
1
|
2
+ + |
n
|
2
)
1/2
(46)
||R
i
|| = (|{R
i
}
T
{R
i
}|)
1/2
the convergence criterion adopted is
|||| = max
i
|
i
| < C = 0.001 (47)
Uniform acceleration
Various procedures are available for accelerating the convergence of the modified NewtonRaphson
iterations. Figure AIII.1. shows the technique of computing individual acceleration factors when
1
and
2
are known. Then, assuming a constant slope of the response curve, and from similar
349
Appendix III
Figure AIII.1. (a) Newton-Raphson method. (b) Initial stress method. (Note that P is a specific value of
F.) (c) Technique of computing acceleration factor. (d) Graphical representation. (e) Linear acceleration and
load assumptions of the Wilson method (left). Quadratic and cubic variation of velocity and displacement
assumptions of the Wilson method (right).
triangles, the value of
3
is computed:
2
=

2
3
=
2
1
(48)
When
3
is added to
2
, then the accelerated displacement
2
is expressed as
2
=
2
+
3
=
2
_
1 +

2
1
_
=
2
(49)
where the acceleration factor is
= 1 +

2
1
(50)
Generally the range of is between 1 and 2. The value of =1 for zero acceleration, and the value
of reaches the maximum value of 2 when the slope of the R curve approaches zero.
The acceleration factor is computed individually for every degree of freedom of the system.
The displacement vector obtained from the linear stiffness matrix [k
0
] is then multiplied by the []
matrix having the above constants on its diagonals. The remaining components of [] are zero. The
350
Appendix III
accelerated displacement vector is then expressed as follows:
{u
i
} = [a
i1
]{u
i
} (51)
From these accelerated displacements {u
i
}, the initial stresses {
0
} are found and they are
equilibrated with the forces {
i
}. They are then used for the next solution
{ u
i
} = [k
0
]
1
{
i
} (52)
which results in a new set of acceleration factors. Now an estimate for the displacement increment
is made in order to find the incremental stresses and total stresses.
The residual forces needed to re-establish equilibrium can now easily be evaluated
{
i
} =
_
v
[B]
T
{
0
T
}dV {R
i
} (53)
where {R
i
} represents the total external load; dV is the volume.
A new displacement now results from
{u
i+1
} = [k
0
]
1
{
i
} (54)
In order to carry out these iterative steps, numerical integration is required. First of all the evaluation
of {
i
} from the initial stresses is required, and this requires integration over the elasticplastic
region only. The value of {
i
} is computed by carrying out the integration over the entire domain
of the analysis. Since these kinds of accelerated steps unbalance the equilibrium, it therefore has
to be re-established by finding the residual forces {
i
}. Since the state of stress produced by the
accelerated displacements is not in balance with the residual forces of the previous iteration, the
new residual forces {
i
} of Equation 54 must balance {
T
} and {R
i
}. Here the acceleration scheme
is needed to preserve equilibrium, which will eventually make the equivalent forces over the whole
region unnecessary. This is achieved by applying a uniform acceleration, i.e. the same acceleration
factor

A to all displacements, found by averaging the individual factors
i
A =
1
n
n
i=1
i
(55)
The force-displacement equation is then written by multiplying both sides with the scalar quantity
A without disturbing the equilibrium:
A{u
i
} = [k
0
]
1
A{
i
} (56)
Now to evaluate {
i+1
}, the previous values of {
i
} must be multiplied by

A, and the previously
accelerated forces from the initial stresses {
0
} must be included such that
{
i+1
} =
_
V
[B]
T
{
0
}dV (A 1){
i1
} (57)
351
Appendix III
Relevant computer programs for the finite element analysis
Abstracts from main program ISOPAR based on finite element analysis
352
Additional References/Bibliography
1. BSI. Safety Rules for the Construction and Installation of Escalators and Passenger Conveyors.
BSEN 115: 1995.
2. Private Communications on Elevators, OTIS CO. London 2001.
3. Private Communications on Elevators, Shindler Elevator and Escalator. Co. Vienna. Austria 2002.
4. Private Communications on Elevators and Escalators, Fujitec CO. Japan, 2002.
5. Corus. Special Profiles on Elevator Guide Rail Systems, West Bromwich, U.K. 2002.
6. Barney G.C.: Remote Monitoring of Lifts, Escalators and Passenger Conveyors. Int. Nat. Assn. of
Elevator Engins.* 1990.
7. Strakosch G.R.: Strakosch. Vertical Transportation-Elevators and Escalators. Wiley and Sons 1968.
8. ASME. Inspectors Manual for Electric Elevators. A17.2.1, ASME 1996.
9. ASME. Safety Codes for Elevators and Escalators. A17.1, ASME, 1996.
10. ASME. Check List for Inspection of Hydraulic Elevators. A17.2.2, ASME 1998.
11. ASME. Check List for Inspection and Test of Electric Elevators. A17.2.1, ASME, 1994.
12. ASME. Handbook on Safety Code for Elevators and Escalators. A17.1, ASME, 1996.
13. Aberkrom, P.: Results of Experimental Work on Traction Drives. Elevator Technology 4. Proceedings of
ELEVCON 92, Amsterdam, 1992.
14. Cholewa, W. and Hansel, J.: Problem of Plastic Lining Application in Friction Drives. Elevator
Technology 4. Proceedings of ELEVCON 86, Nice, 1986.
15. de Crouy-Chanel, F.: International Standardization in the Lift Industry. Elevator Technology 4.
Proceedings of ELEVCON 86, Nice, 1986.
16. Deimann, R.: Experience with Rope Brakes. Elevator Technology 4. Proceedings of ELEVCON 92,
Amsterdam, 1992.
17. Distaso, C.: Polyurethane Buffers. Elevator Technology 3. Proceedings of ELEVCON 90, Rome, 1990.
18. Feyrer, K.: Discard Criteria for Wire Ropes. Elevator Technology 2. Proceedings of ELEVCON 88,
Karlsruhe, 1988.
19. Franzen, C.F. and Englert, Th.: Der Aufzugbau. F. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig, 1972.
20. Gibson, G.W.: New Concepts in Traction Drives. Proceedings of the International Lift Symposium,
Amsterdam, 1984.
21. Gibson, G.W.: Kinetic Energy of Passenger Elevator Door Systems. ELEVATOR WORLD 12/1989 and
1/1990, Mobile, USA.
22. Hymans, F. and Hellborn, A.V.: Der neuzeitliche Aufzug mit Treibscheibenatrieb. Julius Springer, Berlin,
1927.
23. Janovsk, L.: Elevator Mechanical Design. Ellis Horwood Ltd., Chichester, 1987.
24. Janovsk, L.: Stress Analysis in Guide Rails of Electric Elevators. Technical University of Prague,
dissertation, 1981.
25. Janovsk, L.: The Distribution of Tensile Forces in Elevator Ropes withTraction Drives and the Resultant
Effect upon Wear of Sheave Grooves. Proceedings of the International Lift Symposium, Amsterdam,
1984.
26. Janovsk, L.: Testing of Elevator Machines. Proceedings of ELEVCON 88, Karlsruhe, 1988.
27. Janovsk, L.: Worldwide Standards for Guide Rail Calculations. Elevator Technology 4. Proceedings of
ELEVCON 92, Amsterdam, 1992.
28. Janovsk, L. and Doleal. J.: Vtahy a eskaltory. SNTL, Prague, 1980.
29. Kamaike H., Ishii, T., Watanabe, E., Matsukura, Y.: A Ropeless Linear Drive Elevator. ELEVATOR
WORLD 3/1991, Mobile, USA.
30. Kampers, P.: The Best Elevator Rope. Elevator Technology 4. Proceedings of ELEVCON92, Amsterdam,
1992.
31. Laney, R. and McCallum, W.: Whisperflex Compensating Cable. Elevator Technology 4. Proceedings of
ELEVCON 86, Nice, 1986.
32. Measuring Sound. Brochure of Bruel & Kjaer, Denmark, 1984.
353
33. Nederbragt, J.A.: Emergency Rope Brake. ELEVATOR WORLD 5/1985, Mobile, USA.
34. Nederbragt, J.A.: Rope Brake as Precaution against Overspeed. ELEVATOR WORLD 7/1989,
Mobile, USA.
35. Niemann, G. and Winter, H.: Maschinenelemente III. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1983.
36. Phillips, R.S.: Electric Lifts. Pitman Publishing, London, 1973.
37. Strakosch, G.: Vertical Transportation: Elevators and Escalators. 2nd Edition. John Wiley & Sons,
NewYork, 1983.
38. Sturgeon, W.C.: The LIM Elevator Drive. ELEVATOR WORLD 3/1991, Mobile, USA.
39. Terminology for Lifts, Escalators and Passenger Conveyors. Federation Europeenne de la Manutention,
Section VII, 1981.
40. The Selection and Inspection of Elevator Ropes. ELEVATORWORLDEducation Package, Mobile, USA.
41. Walker, H.: The Thermal Rating of Worm Gearboxes.
42. ANSI/AGMA6034-A87, Practice for Enclosed Cylindrical Wormgear Speed Reducers and Gearmotors,
March, 1988.
43. Australian Standard AS 2759-1985, Steel Wire Rope Application Guide.
44. Australian Standard AS 3569-1989, Steel Wire Ropes.
45. BS 5655: Part 1: 1979/EN 81: Part 1, Lifts and Service Lifts. Safety Rules for the Construction and
Installation of Electric Lifts.
46. BS 5655: Part 5: 1981, Lifts and Service Lifts. Specification for Dimensions of Standard Electric Lifts
Arrangements.
47. BS 5655: Part 9: 1985, Lifts and Service Lifts. Specification for Guide Rails.
48. ISO 4344. Steel Wire Ropes for Lifts.
354
Subject Index
A
Accessibility, 112
Accidents, 34
Actual effort, 159
Actual load, 159, 269, 270, 271
Adjustable shackle rods, 52
American National Standard, 162
American practice, 51, 62, 250, 252
American standard safety code, 186
Angle of inclination, 103, 107, 113
Anti-rotation devices, 54
Anti-slide device, 106
ASME formulae, 62
Authorised and instructed user, 3
Autowalk, 217, 219, 221
Auxiliary rope-fastening devices, 54
Available car area, 3
B
Babbitt metal, 53
Balustrade, 81, 82, 84, 103, 104, 105, 106,
110, 121, 219
Beams, 237, 238, 242
Belt, 107, 108, 133
Belt calculations, 201
Belt capacity, 201
Belt drive, 133, 135
Belt length, 137, 138
Bending moment, 13, 177, 178
Brake, 116
Brake and braking systems, 164
Brake monitors, 164
Braking system, 113
Braking torque, 10, 166, 170
Bridon Ropes Ltd, 149
British practice, 251
Broken Drive Chain Switch, 127
Buckling factor, 10, 13, 34, 35, 176, 187
Buckling stresses, 9, 38, 39
Buffer, 3, 37, 38, 186
Buffer engagement, 63, 190
Buffer reaction, 72
Buffer strokes, 11, 34, 188
Buffer supports, 72
Bumpers, 55, 60
C
Canopy details, 31
Captive roller, 38
Car buffers, 55, 60
Car frame, 35, 60, 169, 190
Car frame plank, 63
Car frame uprights, 63, 70
Car guide, 169
Centrifugal tension, 142
Chains, 49
Characteristic fire load density, 224, 226
Characteristic fire loads, 224
Clearances, 40, 45, 56, 109
Closed cylinder and plunger heads, 59
Column-water interaction, 247
Comb, 107, 109
Combplates, 104, 128
Compensating ropes, 46, 52
Compensation, 46, 49
Compound belt drive, 134, 135
Compression members, 238
Cone diameter, 138
Continuous rubber belt, 217, 219
CORUS, 175, 176
Counterweight, 31, 35, 37, 60, 168, 169, 182, 199
Counterweight buffers, 60
Counterweight details, 31
Counterweight safeties, 71
Crossed drive, 138
Cross-heads, 190
Cured resin, 53
Cylinder, 56, 58, 59
Cylinder design, 67
Cylinder heads, 59, 68
Cylinder packing heads, 59
D
DC motor drives, 127
Deck barricades, 106
Definitions, 3
Deflection, 17, 181, 128
Deflection of joints, 277
Deflection of trusses, 272
Deflector device, 107
Deformation, 17, 22, 46, 208, 209, 274
Design, 21, 56, 59
Design analysis, 149
Design estimate, 21
Design specifications, 21, 81
Direct-plunger hydraulic elevators, 55, 61
Disconnected motor safety device, 127
Diversion, 46
Door, 194
Door closing time, 195
Door closure force, 194
Door dynamics, 194
Door weight, 195
Drivers, 133, 136
Drives and traction, 153, 154
Driving machine, 61, 112
355
Subject Index
Drums, 49, 217
Dyform elevator ropes, 149
E
Eccentric loading, 67
Electric lifts, 3, 33
Elevator machines, 159
Elevator rope data, 146, 149
Elevator traffic, 198
Emergency, 73
Emergency doors, 36, 37
Emergency stopping, 121
Energy accumulation buffers, 186
Energy dissipation buffers, 188
Escalator, 81, 104
European practice, 254
European Standard, 81, 150
F
Final limit switches, 37
Fin-edge plates, 207
Finite element analysis, 118, 201
Fire, 36, 73, 222
Fire analysis, 217
Fire density, 229
Flame, 76
Flange, 204, 205
Flexibility method of analysis, 271
Followers, 133, 136
Forces, 39, 181, 267
Freight elevator platform, 65
Fujitec, 81, 97, 217
G
Geared elevator machines, 159, 161
General specifications, 104
Girder truss load, 277
Goods passenger lift, 3
Governor tripping speed, 72, 199
Grooved pulley, 144, 145
Guards, 106
Guide rail, 171, 175, 179, 183
Guide, 3, 37, 169
Guide shoes, 32, 182
H
Handrail, 104, 117, 127
Hardened Elevators, 76
Headroom, 40, 43
Heat, 76, 235
Heat transfer analyses, 242
Heaters, 127
Hollow columns, 246
Horizontally sliding doors, 46, 194
Horse power, 141, 201
Hospitals, 21
Hotels, 21
H.P. calculations, 143
Hydraulic elevator arrangements, 32
Hydraulic lift, 3, 55
Hydraulic lift data, 29, 30
Hydraulic machines, 66
I
Ideal effort, 159
Ideal load, 159
Inspection, 119, 121, 127, 128
Inspection doors, 37, 112
Instantaneous safety gear, 3, 12, 38, 39, 174, 185
Instantaneous safety gear with buffed effect, 4
Interior low deck, 107
Involute teeth, 202, 208
J
Jack (Heber), 4, 7
Jeanes graph, 242, 250
Joint deflection, 275
K
Kone, 42, 217
L
Landing depth, 40, 45
Landing doors, 45
Landing entrance, 46
Levelling, 4
Lies graph, 243, 250
Lift, 4, 197
Lift car, 4, 35, 45
Lift machine, 4, 46
Lift wells, 35
Lighting, 111, 121, 128
Limiting temperature criterion, 238
Limits of speed, 62
Linear speed, 134, 142
Load-carrying capacity, 238
Loading and restraints, 223
M
Machine, 41, 85, 87, 88
Machine room, 4, 45
Machine room dimensions, 41, 45
Machinery, 62, 118
Machinery spaces, 111, 112
Malhotras method, 250
Maximum allowable stresses, 61
Maximum bending moments, 269
Maximum stresses, 61, 71
Mechanical advantage, 158, 159
Mechanical strength, 46, 105
Minimum breaking load, 4, 49, 152
Minimum rated load, passenger elevators, 62
Missing step or pallet device, 127
Modules of elasticity of steel, 237
Moment of inertia, 65, 71
Moving walkways, 81, 104
356
Subject Index
N
Newel, 105, 106, 111
Non commercial vehicle lift, 5
Non-return valve, 5
O
One-way restrictor, 5
Open drive, 137
OTIS, 81, 116, 197, 217
Overspeed governor ropes, 49
Overspeed governors, 5, 41, 49
P
Pallets, 107, 108, 109, 113
Panoramic view, 4, 28
Passenger, 5
Passenger conveyor, 3, 104
Passenger conveyor data, 219
Pawl device, 6, 40
Pipe design, 69
Piping, 66
Pit, 5, 40, 43
Platforms, 60, 202
Plunger, 55, 59
Plunger connection, 59
Plunger design, 59, 66
Plunger heads, 68
Plunger joints, 60
Pneumatic lifts, 3
Polyurithane buffers, 189
Positive drive lift (includes drum drive), 6, 38
Positive drive service lift (includes drum drive), 6
Power, 77, 201
Power elevators, 72
Power transmission, 139
Pressure, 151
Pressure in ropes, 150
Pressure relief valve, 6
Pressurization systems, 76
Progressive safety gear, 6, 174
Pulley room, 6, 41
Pulleys, 41, 46
R
Rated load, 6, 116
Rated speed, 7, 107
Redundant bars, 267, 268
Reeving, 46
Reeving ratio, 7
Re-levelling, 7, 152
Residential houses and apartments, 21
Residential lift, 45
Restrictor, 6
Reversal Stop Switch, 127
Roller guides, 182
Rope, 49, 145
Rope drive, 133, 144
Rope elongation, 152
Rope fastenings, 52
Rope riding, 144
Rope termination, 150
Roped hydraulic elevators, 55, 61
Round Trip Time, 197
Routine inspection, 121
Rubber belt passenger conveyor, 217
S
Safeguard, 35
Safety bulkhead, 56
Safety factor, 49, 51, 69, 72, 149, 152, 227
Safety gear, 7, 49
Safety gear operation, 39, 174
Safety rope, 7
Safety space, 43
Schindler, 81, 217
Seat, 205
Semicircular grooves, 50
Service lift, 7
Shear forces, 269
Shear plate, 202, 204
Shut-off valve, 7
Single acting jack (Heber), 7
Single panel side opening (SPSO), 195
Skirt panels, 106, 121
Skirting, 104, 109
Slenderness ratio, 65, 71
Sling, 7
Smoke, 76, 77
Specific pressure, 151
Sprockets, 46, 164
Steel columns, 246
Steel in escalators, 235
Step, 107, 116
Step or pallet level device, 127
Step upthrust device, 127
Stiles, 63, 70
Stopping distances, 71, 199
Strokes, 36, 188
Structural analysis, 117
Structural strength, 46
Super structures, 201
Supporting box chamber, 280
Supporting columns, 83
Supporting girder, 279
Supporting trusses, 83
Suspension, 49
Suspension ropes, 51, 151
Suspension wire ropes, 72, 150
Symbols, 7, 103
T
Tall buildings, 73, 75
Tandem operation, 127
Tapered rope sockets, 52, 53
Temperature course of fire, 230, 233
Temperaturetime relation, 229
Tension members, 238
357
Subject Index
Thermal performance, 163
Thermosetting resin composition, 53
Toe guard, 7, 190
Traction, 50, 153
Traction and pressure, 156
Traction drive lift, 7
Traction drive service lift, 7
Transmission of power, 139
Trap doors, 46, 112
Travel analysis, 197
Travelators, 104, 217
Treadways, 120
Truss deflection, 275
Trusses, 85, 265
Trusses supporting travelators, 265
U
Undercut grooves, 50, 156
Unlocking zone, 7, 27
Unprotected steel columns, 247
Unprotected steel members, 239
Up-peak handling capacity, 197
Up-peak interval, 197
User, 7
V
Valve, 56, 62
Velocity ratio, 133, 135, 158
Vertical force, 40, 46, 105
W
Walking platform, 202, 204
Walkways, 217, 219
Water, 77
Waviness, 209
Well, 7
Williot-Mohr diagram, 265
World Trade Center, 77
Worm diameter, 162
Worm gear drives, 162
Worm thread surfaces, 160
358

Lifts Elevators Escalators and Moving Walkways Travelators 2DE2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lifts Elevators Escalators and Moving Walkways Travelators 2DE2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lifts Elevators Escalators and Moving Walkways Travelators 2DE2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lifts, Elevators, Escalators and Moving Walkways/Travelators

5.11 DESIGNANALYSIS OF CAR FRAMES

) that the stresses produced in the belt carcass

F 500 1.28 2300 0.96 5.8

=height of the opening

H, then the value of K in imperial units is 330; 5.5 to 6 kg/(min m

C, thermal conductivity =0.7 kcal/mh

m for heavy bounding materials. Figure 9.7

C, the elastic limit (Youngs modulus) is: E

C at any cross-section, the member may be

C for members other than tension members

1. Columns on all sides

The shape factor is the rise of temperature of a steel section.

=thermal capacity of steel column at ambient temperature

C) or 811 K. The insulation temperature is

F while keeping the steel temperature at 538

C. The results obtained from

F). The time step is chosen to be 3 min.

F, the fire endurance time

C. Use the following data

.hr)) 0.95 0.35

C and the spray thickness should be 12 mm.

C. J. of Fire Sci., 1, 1983, pp. 271284.

F). Proceedings of the American Society for Testing

c, the vertical movement of the point C for a unit load at D,

d, the vertical movement of the point D for a unit load at C.

the equivalent load is:

C in the top chord; a decrease of 10

C in the bottom chord.

is the transpose. The integration is performed

represent the retained and removed degrees of

is then written, similarly to Equation (2),

} into Equation (3) gives:

b} for the base excitation (25)

b} =the unit vector of the excitation direction; and {F

A without disturbing the equilibrium:

You might also like