Structural Engineers

Guide to
Fire Protection
2008

CASE Fire Protection Committee

Jim DeStefano, P.E., SECB, AIA Chairman

Ken Gibble, P.E.
David Gonzalez, S.E.
Ram Gupta, P.E.
Jonathan Humble, AIA
Susan Lamont, PhD, CEng.
Emile Troup, P.E., SECB (NCSEA)
Table of Contents

Chapter One Introduction 3

Chapter Two Prescriptive Method 7

Chapter Three Performance Based Design 11

Chapter Four Fire Testing 16

Chapter Five Thermal Restraint 19

Chapter Six Fire Walls 22

Chapter Seven Structural Steel 24

Chapter Eight Concrete 35

Chapter Nine Masonry 42

Chapter Ten Wood 44

Appendix A Resources 47

2
Chapter One - Introduction
From the time that Neolithic man first tamed the power of fire to cook his meats and heat
his hut, man has lived with the risk of being consumed by its power. Throughout
recorded history there are accounts of entire cities being destroyed by fire ancient
Rome, London, Chicago, San Francisco and Dresden. These cities were all rebuilt with
more fire resistant construction, but still the threat of fire remained.

Today we have
comprehensive Building
Codes that regulate the
way we design and
construct buildings in the
interest of guarding public
safety and property. The
primary focus of Building
Codes has always been
Figure 1-1 Chicago 1871 - National Archives, Washington, D.C. fire safety with issues such
as structural adequacy
being a secondary consideration. These codes have served us well. A century has passed
since San Francisco was devastated by fire following the 1906 earthquake and no U.S.
cities have burned to the ground in that period.

There have been a few significant high-rise building fires in recent decades, the 1988
Interstate Bank fire in Los Angeles, CA and the 1991 Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia,
PA. In both cases the structures remained standing after the fire was extinguished and the
majority of the occupants were able to escape safely. While the structure of the Interstate
Bank building sustained minor structural damage and was repaired, the Meridian Plaza
structure was extensively damaged and was eventually demolished. In both cases the
Building Code objectives of protecting the safety of building occupants had been
achieved. These events served to reinforce a sense of complacency in the Architectural
and Engineering communities that we were doing all of the right things.

On September 11, 2001, our world changed. The terrorist attack on the World Trade
Center towers was a tragedy that few will forget. There was a loss of innocence on that
day. One of the victims was our confidence in the way we protect building occupants and
structures from uncontrolled fire in tall buildings.

Fire Protection Systems

Modern buildings employ multiple fire protection systems. Active systems such as
sprinkler systems are intended to control a developing fire. Detection and alarm systems
are designed to provide early warning to building occupants and firefighters of a fire.
Manual systems, including standpipes, hose cabinets and fire extinguishers assist
firefighters in fighting fires. Egress systems allow building occupants to safely exit a
building during a fire. Compartment walls contain a fire and slow its spread.

3
Passive fire protection systems are intended to
protect structural elements from severe damage
or collapse during a fire. Examples include
spray applied fire resistive materials for
structural steel, gypsum board assembles or
concrete encasement of structural elements.
Typically passive fire protection systems are
designed and specified by the project architect
with little or no involvement of the structural
engineer. However, there is a growing
consensus that public safety would be better Figure 1-2 Spray fireproofing operation
served if structural engineers played a more DeStefano & Chamberlain
active role in designing, specifying and
inspecting the passive systems that protect the structures that they design.

Prescriptive and Performance Methods

The Building Code stipulates minimum requirements for passive fire protection of
structural and other building elements. The procedures for evaluating these requirements
are cookbook in nature and are not particularly difficult for a structural engineer to
master no formal training in fire protection engineering is needed. Designing fire
protection based on the Building Code requirements is considered a prescriptive
method.

The prescriptive method is conservative in nature and, if properly implemented, should

result in a reasonably fire safe structure. Unfortunately, the passive fire protection of
building structures is all too often not in compliance with the Building Code requirements
due to a lack of knowledge, interest or effort on the part of the responsible design
professional, contractor and inspector.

Furthermore, the prescriptive approach is based on testing of single elements or

assemblies in a relatively small standard fire test. Although, historically the prescriptive
approach has served us well, the limitations of the test mean that true performance of a
structure in a real fire is not predictable.

As an alternative to the prescriptive method, there are analytical methods for calculating
the fire endurance of structural elements. These analytical methods are performance
based. A realistic estimate of the quantity of combustible building contents and the
corresponding fire load, along with knowledge of how the structure behaves locally and
globally under the extreme temperatures of an uncontrolled fire, are used to calculate the
amount of passive fire protection needed on the structural and building elements.

Performance based methods may be more rational than the prescriptive method, but they
can require considerably more effort and expertise. Currently, a performance based

4
analysis or design is usually performed by consultants with special fire protection
engineering expertise, and only when there is an economic incentive to reduce the
amount of code mandated fire protection or when the prescriptive method produces an
architecturally undesirable result. However, there are techniques that can be adopted by
practicing structural engineers and it is the intent of this guide to highlight some of these
opportunities.

Since the performance based analysis often results in a reduction in the amount of passive
fire protection needed, some have argued that it results in a less fire safe building. It is
more accurate to conclude that performance based methods result in fire protection
materials being placed where they can yield the most benefit to the fire safety of the
building and its occupants. Consequently, there can be more confidence in the adequate
performance of a structure subjected to fire.

Teamwork

The design of effective fire protection systems is an effort that requires the participation
of the entire design team. The Architect, serving in the role of prime design professional
is ultimately responsible for all of a buildings fire protection systems, but in fact the
responsibility for designing most of the systems falls on the shoulders of consultants.

The Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing (MEP) engineer is usually responsible for designing

the sprinkler systems, standpipe systems, smoke control systems, detection and alarm
systems. However, it is common practice for the MEP engineer to delegate the
responsibility for sizing sprinkler systems to a sprinkler contractor.

The Architect will design the fire egress systems which include stairways, door hardware
and corridors. The Architect will also design and specify passive fire protection materials
and systems, sometimes with the assistance of the structural engineer, but more often
without.

When performance based methods are required, a specialty Fire Protection Engineer is
often engaged to perform the analysis and design.

So where does the structural engineer fit in? Typically, fire protection design is not part
of the structural engineers basic services. If it is included in the scope of services, the
structural engineer would assist the Architect in selecting appropriate passive fire
protection of structural elements by the prescriptive method. In some cases it may be
more appropriate for the Structural Engineer to assume prime responsibility for the
design of prescriptive fire protection systems relating to the structural framing.

Simple performance based analysis of passive fire protection systems could be performed
by a structural engineer (e.g. single element analysis). To become competent at
performance based analysis requires more training or self-study than the prescriptive
method.

5
There are extensive requirements in the Building Code for Special Inspection and testing
of spray applied fire resistive materials on steel structures. In some cases, the structural
engineer will play a lead role in this inspection and testing.

Whatever the level of involvement of the structural engineer is in designing, specifying

and inspecting fire protection systems, it is imperative that appropriate fees be negotiated
to compensate for the expertise, effort and risk involved.

6
Chapter Two Prescriptive Method
The prescriptive method is the approach whereby the selection of fire resistance is based
on a rigid set of requirements contained within the International Building Code (IBC).
When determining the fire resistance rating of a building structure there are basic
characteristics that must be considered:

Occupancy type or types (single use or mixed use)

Height and area of the building
Construction type.

The Building Code defines five general construction classifications for buildings, with
sub categories within each. The architect or structural engineer must select one of the
construction classifications for a particular building project. The Building Code
stipulates maximum building height and floor area for each construction classification
and use group (Table 503 of the IBC). The code allows increases to the height and area
limits if the building is sprinklered, or has more than 25% of the perimeter accessible to
fire trucks. For construction economy, the objective is to select a construction
classification that has the lowest fire resistance rating requirements.

The Building Code contains special requirements for buildings with mixed uses and for
open parking structures. There are also special provisions for buildings with unlimited
area.

Selecting the Construction Classification

The International Building Code (IBC) uses essentially the same approach for
determining the construction classification that was developed one hundred years ago.

The maximum size (height and area) of buildings is based on the occupancy and the type
of construction. The assumption is that the use influences the combustible content and the
number and characteristics of the occupants (e.g. transient occupants in hotels, non-
ambulatory patients in hospitals, etc.). The fire load is the combustible content plus the
combustible construction. The fire load determines the duration (severity) of the potential
fire.

The philosophy has been to provide ample time for occupants to safely escape a burning
building, to allow safe access for fire fighters and to prevent the fire from spreading to
adjacent buildings. Early classifications were as follows:

Low hazard uses of residential, educational, institutional and assembly having 0

10 psf of fire load.
Medium hazard uses of mercantile having 10 -20 psf of fire load.
High hazard uses where fire load is greater than 20 psf.

7
Industrial uses and storage can change from low hazard to high based on combustible
content. Other considerations are assembly buildings should be more restrictive because
large crowds of people may panic in a fire. Also consideration needs to be made for
people not capable of swift evacuation due to age, illness or physical restraint.

Using the above criteria and experience from fires in one story buildings, allowable floor
areas per story were established for different uses. At a later time these areas were
permitted to be increased based on the use of automatic sprinklers and accessible
perimeter to enhance fire fighting. Area is defined as the floor area within the exterior
walls or fire walls, exclusive of vent shafts and courts. Excluding shafts and courts from
the measurement typically adds about 3-5% to the permitted area.

Height is the vertical distance from the grade plane to the average height of the highest
roof surface in feet. A story is that portion of the building between the upper surface of a
floor and the upper surface of the floor or roof next above. Basements need not be
included unless the floor above is more than 6 feet above grade plane; or more than 6 feet
above the finished ground level for more than 50% of the total building perimeter or
more than 12 feet above the finished ground level at any point.

Mezzanines having an area not exceeding one-third of the area of room or space below
are not to be considered a story.

The initial types of construction were fireproof and non fireproof. These were later
changed to fire resistive for obvious reason. In time these expanded to the following
five:

Fire resistive
Non-combustible
Exterior protected ordinary
Heavy timber
Wood frame

In current code language these have been translated into:

Type I, A and B (non-combustible, protected)

Type II, A and B (non-combustible, protected or unprotected)
Type III, A and B (non-combustible/combustible, protected or unprotected)
Type IV, Heavy timber
Type V, A and B (combustible, protected or unprotected)

Type I and II construction includes structural steel or concrete frame buildings where the
structure is composed entirely of non-combustible materials. In some instances, fire
retardant treated wood is permitted for roof framing.

Type III construction includes buildings with exterior walls constructed of masonry or
other non-combustible materials. The floor and roof framing may be wood.

8
Type IV construction includes buildings framed with heavy timbers. The exterior walls
must be non-combustible. The floor and roof decking must be solid wood planking with
no concealed spaces..

Type V construction includes all types of wood frame construction.

Design Example Based on 2003 IBC

5 stories, 60,000 sf per floor, Business Occupancy, accessible perimeter of the building is
25 feet wide for 50% of the perimeter.

From Table 503, Construction Type II B would permit 4 stories and 23,000 sf per floor.

However, if automatic sprinklers are added, one story can be added and the area can be
increased by 200%. The area may also be increased based on the accessible perimeter.

Equation 5-2, for frontage increase, W is accessible width, P is total perimeter, F is

accessible perimeter.

If = 100 [F/P 0.25] W/30

If = 100 [500/1000 0.25] 25/30 = 21%

Is = 200%, for automatic sprinkler increase

Equation 5-1, for total increase in area

Aa = Att + [At If/100] + [At Is/100], where At is area from Table 503

Aa = 23,000 + [23,000 x 21/100] + [23,000 x 200/100]

Aa = 23,000 + 4830+ 46,000 = 73,830 sf per floor

Therefore, the building is in compliance with the IBC for Construction Type II B.

Determining Fire Ratings

Once the construction classification has been selected, Table 601 of the IBC defines the
fire ratings required for each building element, floor construction, roof construction,
columns, etc.

There are no fire ratings tabulated for brace elements that resist only wind or seismic
lateral loads. This is based on the assumption that it is unlikely that a hurricane or
earthquake will occur during fire.

9
The code does require that beams which brace a column must have the same rating as the
column that they are bracing. Similarly, beams that support a wall around a stair must
have the same rating as the wall.

Fire ratings are listed as restrained assemblies, unrestrained assemblies and unrestrained
beams. Fire rated floors or roofs are assemblies. Fire rated beams that brace a column or
support a rated wall are unrestrained beams.

Restrained assemblies require less fire protection than unrestrained assemblies with the
same fire rating. In the context of fire rated assemblies, the term restrained has a
different meaning from that commonly used by structural engineers.

A building fire is often limited to a small area of a building and only heats up the
structural framing immediately above the fire. If there is surrounding floor or roof
construction that is capable of restraining the thermal expansion of the structure in the
vicinity of the fire, the assembly will perform better and is considered to be restrained.

The Underwriters Laboratory (UL) publishes a directory that lists the fire rated
assemblies, beams, columns and walls that they have tested. UL is not the only testing
laboratory that performs fire tests, but they are the most prolific. There are other
laboratories that also list fire test results such as Warnock Hersey, Southwest Research
Institute, Intertek Testing Services, Omega Laboratories, etc.

Fire tests are defined in ASTM E119. A full size test specimen is placed in a test furnace
and subjected to a fire with a prescribed time-temperature curve. The time period to
failure is recorded for the test. Since actual building fire conditions are different from an
ASTM E119 test, an assembly with a 2 hour rating will not necessarily survive a real fire
for 2 hours. The ASTM E119 test is a good method of rating the relative fire resistance
of different building elements, but it is not a good predictor of an elements actual
duration in a real fire.

Each listing in the UL Fire Resistance Directory describes in great detail all of the
significant components of the test specimen, such as beam size, type and thickness of
fireproofing, type, size and gage of metal deck, thickness of concrete slab and type of
concrete aggregate. The building construction must match all of the components of the
test specimen for the referenced fire endurance test.

References

1. International Code Council (ICC) International Building Code 2006

10
Chapter Three Performance Based Design
Structural Fire Engineering or demonstrating fire resistance by Performance Based
Design (PBD) is essentially the design of structural elements, sub-assemblies or frames to
support the applied load at high temperatures during a fire. It is not significantly different
to designing for wind or any other load except that the material properties (strength and
stiffness) of the structure degrade and thermal expansion can generate additional axial
forces, moments and deflections that may need to be addressed by the design.

Establishing the code required Construction Type and the required fire resistance ratings
for a structural frame has traditionally been the responsibility of the Architect. It is
common practice for the structural engineer to design for all other structural loads. It is
the intent of this chapter to provide structural engineers with an introduction to the
necessary information to consider the impact of fire on their designs.

Structural Fire Engineering Process

Structural Fire Engineering is generally a 3 stage process, as follows:

1. Definition of a design fire, which can be the standard Time-Temperature curve

from ASTM E119 or a credible design fire.
2. Calculation of heat transfer from the design fire to the surrounding structure. The
aim of this stage is to establish the temperature of the affected structure as it
varies with time.
3. Structural assessment of the load paths and capacity at the calculated structural
temperatures.

The complexity with which each stage is assessed can vary from simple hand calculations
to complex computer modeling.

Design Fires

There are a number of fire exposures that a structural element can be exposed to:

A fully developed fire involving all of the contents in the room / compartment /
enclosure.
A localized fire that is prevented from growing significantly because of sprinkler
spray, the compartment height or lack of fuel load.
External flames projecting through windows.

In terms of choosing a suitable design fire, external structures may only be exposed to
flaming through specific window openings. In tall or large spaces with well-defined and
specific locations for fire load (e.g. atriums, airport terminals, parking garages) a local
fuel-bed controlled fire adjacent to a critical piece of structure might be appropriate as the
basis of design. In areas of high fire load (e.g. retail, office, residential) with ceiling

11
heights of 10 to14 feet, a fully developed compartment fire is likely to be the most
appropriate fire case.

Fully Developed Fires

The fully developed fire provides the worst case fire exposure to a structure. Real fully
developed fires are a function of the dimensions of the compartment, the area and height
of window openings, the thermal properties of wall/ceiling and floor linings and the type,
configuration, and quantity of fuel in the compartment. When levels of fire resistance are
derived from an ASTM E119 standard fire test using a furnace with a defined
temperature-time curve, these variables are ignored.

The development of a compartment fire can be described by three distinct phases, the
pre-flashover fire, the fully-developed fire (or post-flashover fire) and the cooling phase.
There is a rapid transition stage called flashover between the pre-flashover and fully
developed fire. While still small (during the growth phase) the compartment fire will
behave as it would in the open. As it grows the confinement of the compartment begins
to influence its behavior. If there is sufficient fuel and ventilation (i.e. window glass
breaks) the fire will develop to flashover and its maximum intensity when all combustible
surfaces are burning. If the fire is extinguished before flashover or if the fuel or
ventilation is insufficient there will only be localized damage. Post-flashover, the whole
enclosure and its contents will be devastated. Structural damage and fire spread beyond
the compartment of origin is also likely unless the fire is in a fire rated enclosure. Fire
resistance is important when elements of structure are subjected to high temperatures for
a prolonged period of time. Post-flashover fires provide the worst case scenario.

The ASTM E119 standard fire test which forms the basis for code defined fire resistance
ratings, is intended to represent a fully developed fire involving all of the contents in the
room. However, it has been widely criticized for its inability to reflect the real fire case.
The difference between the standard test Time - Temperature curve and the Time -
Temperature curves measured in real compartment fires can be considerable.

Localized Fire

Empirical equations and complex computer software,

such as Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS), exist to
calculate local fire cases. They enable the user to
calculate flame heights, plume temperatures at various
heights, and temperatures along ceiling jets. This data
can then be used to calculate the heating effect to and
through the structural elements for the duration of the
fire.

In order to calculate the flame height the engineer has to Figure 3-1 localized fire - Arup
make an assumption about the size of the expected fire in British Thermal Units (BTUs)
per second. The Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE) handbook, the National

12
Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Fire Protection Handbook and NFPA 92 B provide
some data in this regard. Fire test data from organizations such as the National Institute
of Standards and Testing (NIST) is also available on the internet.

External Flaming

Empirical equations also exist to calculate external fire exposures. The calculations
consider the different fire exposure experienced by external structural members as
compared to the same members in a fire compartment. The calculations account for:

The fire being within an adjacent compartment

No heat build-up since the member is outside
Cooling from surrounding air
Heating based on flame size and position of member with respect to the faade
Radiative heat flux from the fire compartment
Radiative and convective heat flux from the external flames through the windows
Radiative and convective heat loss from the steelwork to the ambient
surroundings
Size and location of the structural steelwork
Through-draught conditions if windows are broken on two opposing sides of a
fire compartment.

FDS can also be used to calculate temperature changes with time for external flaming.
The results provided by the software are sensitive to the input data and therefore fire
analysis at this level of detail should only be undertaken by an engineer with a good
knowledge of fire dynamics and fire chemistry.

Heat Transfer

Once a temperature-time regime for the space or the vicinity of a structural element has
been established the structural temperatures can be calculated using heat transfer
equations. Various empirical and analytical equations exist. They consider conduction,
convection, and radiation in accordance with the principles of heat transfer.

For more complicated structural sections a finite element heat transfer analysis can be
carried out.

Structural Analysis

Structural analysis for fire is similar to analysis for other loads and can be based on single
member analysis or a frame approach.

Single element analysis is a fast, effective technique that can bring substantial value to a
design as it allows an understanding of the overcapacity or under capacity of the member
in the fire limit state. This can be used to formulate adequate fire resistance ratings or to

13
inform a change to the structural design to allow adequate capacity without any added
fire protection.

Using single element analysis typically involves comparing the structural load that the
member has to carry in the fire condition with the capacity of the member at elevated
temperature. Axial force, bending, shear, and buckling, including lateral torsional
buckling, all need to be considered as appropriate. Buckling events are dependent on
stiffness rather than strength. Stiffness degrades more quickly than strength in some
materials therefore buckling can occur at lower temperatures than the yield temperature
of the material. The capacity of the associated connections also needs to be examined.

It is not typical to consider thermal expansion in single element calculations, therefore,

the forces experienced by the structural element in a fire when restrained by adjacent
members in a structural frame are not adequately considered. However, in general,
single element calculations can be assumed to be conservative because of alternative load
paths that can be present in a real frame during a fire are neglected.

Sub-frame or global analysis provides a more accurate assessment of structural

performance in fire because it allows the engineer to assess the forces generated by
thermal expansion and thermal bowing. It also permits the inclusion of load transfer
paths as different parts of the structural frame become weakened, buckle/deform or lose
stiffness at high temperatures. Finite element analysis is required for this type of frame
analysis. Some consulting engineering firms offer this type of analysis to check the
robustness of a structural frame solution when exposed to fire and if appropriate to reduce
fire resistance ratings or remove fireproofing where the code requirements can be shown
to be excessive. Almost any design and any fire scenario can be addressed in this way.

An important part of structural fire engineering is defining the applied load assumed to
act on the structure during a fire event. The factors applied to imposed and dead load in
the fire design are typically reduced from that assumed by the structural engineer for
normal design. It is not reasonable for structural members to be designed for a high live
load during an extreme event such as a fire. The factors applied to dead and imposed
loads in fire resistance calculations given by SEI/ASCE 7 are:

1.2 Dead + 0.5 Live + 0.2 Wind

References

1. FEMA, World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection,

Preliminary Observations and Recommendations, FEMA Report 403, 2003.
2. Lamont, S.; Lane, B. , Flint, G. , and Usmani, A. S., Behavior of structures in fire
and real design a case study, Journal of fire protection engineering, Volume 16,
Number 1, February 2006.

14
3. Magnusson S.E. and Thelandersson S., Temperature-time curves of complete Process
of fire development-theoretical study of wood fuel fires in enclosed spaces.
Technical Report 65, 1970.
4. NFPA Fire Protection Handbook.
5. NFPA 92B: Standard for Smoke Management Systems in Malls, Atria, and Large
Areas, 2005 Edition.
6. NIST Building and Fire Research Laboratory, http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/
7. SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 3rd edition. www.sfpe.org
8. SFPE Engineering Guide - Fire Exposures to Structural Elements, 2004
9. SFPE Engineering Guide for performance Based Fire Protection, 2nd edition

15
Chapter Four Fire Testing
Building code requirements for structural fire resistance are based on laboratory tests
conducted in accordance with the ASTM E119 Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of
Building Construction and Materials. NFPA 251 and UL 263 are fire endurance tests that
are virtually identical to ASTM E119. Since its inception in 1918, the ASTM E119 fire
test has required that test specimens be representative of actual building construction.
Achieving this requirement in actual practice has been difficult since most available
laboratory facilities can only accommodate floor specimens on the order of 15 ft. x 18 ft.
plan area and 9 ft. x 11 ft. for walls in a fire test furnace. Even for relatively simple
structural systems, realistically simulating the thermal restraint, continuity and
redundancy globally present in actual buildings is physically impossible to achieve in a
test assembly within the ASTM E 119 fire test furnace.

The ASTM E 119 Standard Fire Test was

developed as a comparative and not a predictive
test. In effect, the standard fire test is used to
evaluate the relative performance (fire
endurance) of different construction sub-
assemblies under controlled laboratory
conditions.

For natural fires there are four recognized

stages, that of incipient stage, growth stage,
burning stage, and a stage of decay. In the
ASTM E119 test, the specimen is subjected to
heat applied on one side in accordance with a
standard time-temperature curve reaching 1000
F in 5 minutes, 1700 F in 1 hour. This
represents the most intense burning stage of a
Figure 4-1 Time Temperature Curve - reprinted real fire, and because the fire in the test
with permission from ASTM apparatus has a constant and controllable fuel
source, this permits a consistent baseline for comparison of fire endurance. The test is
continued until the specimen fails to meet the criteria for acceptance. The time is
recorded to the nearest minute even though ratings are generally published to the nearest
hour exceeded.

For floors and roofs, ASTM E119 provides for testing of restrained assemblies and also
for unrestrained assemblies with different acceptance criteria. The restrained test leads to
two distinct assembly ratings restrained and unrestrained by applying different
acceptance criteria. The unrestrained test leads to an unrestrained rating with a third set of
acceptance criteria.

The ASTM E119 test acceptance criteria includes multiple components:

16
 Flame passage no passage of flame or gases hot enough to ignite cotton waste
on the unexposed side of a floor, roof, partition or wall.
Heat transfer limits are established for the temperature rise on unexposed sides
and for structural elements.
Load support a superimposed load intended to simulate a maximum loading
condition must be maintained.
Hose stream wall and partition test specimens are subjected to a hose stream
intended to simulate the impact, erosion and cooling effects of a fire hose. No
passage of the stream sprayed on the wall is permitted for one half of the
resistance period, but not more than one hour.

Figure 4-2 Standard fire test - AISI

UL Fire Resistance Ratings

In North America, the UL Fire Resistance Directory published annually by Underwriters

Laboratories, Inc. is the most widely used compilation of fire resistance ratings. The
Design Information Section of this Directory includes useful guidance on the proper
design and application of ULs listed ratings.

In the UL test frames, structural connections are rarely included as part of the test
assemblies. Beams in fire tests are generally supported on shelf angles with shims driven
between the ends of the beams and the test frame to simulate a thermally restrained
condition. Although this provides restraint against axial thermal expansion, it does not
mimic the rotational restraint found in real structures. Concrete slabs are cast tightly
against the test frame, but shrinkage during curing often results in something less than a
fully restrained condition. Consequently the support conditions of structural assemblies in
a UL test specimen do not accurately model connection behavior, continuity and
boundary conditions of a typical floor construction

17
References

1. ASTM E119 - Standard Test Method for Fire Tests of Building Construction
and Materials
2. NFPA 251 Standard Methods of Tests of Fire Endurance of Building
Construction and Materials - 2006
3. ANSI / Underwriters Laboratory 263 - Fire Tests of Building Construction
and Materials

18
Chapter Five Thermal Restraint
Floor and roof systems are classified as either thermally restrained or thermally
unrestrained. This dual classification was first introduced in 1970 in the ASTM E119
standard. Appendix X3 of the standard contains the following definition:

A restrained condition in fire tests, as used in this test method, is one in

which expansion at the supports of a load carrying element resulting from
the effects of the fire is resisted by forces external to the element. An
unrestrained condition is one in which the load carrying element is free to
expand and rotate at the supports.

Table X3.1 of the ASTM E119 standard lists various types of floor and roof construction
and classifies each as either thermally restrained or unrestrained. In almost all instances,
structural steel construction, cast-in-place concrete and precast concrete construction is
considered thermally restrained. Wood frame and timber construction is considered
thermally unrestrained. Light-gage cold-formed steel framing is also considered to be
thermally unrestrained.

In recent years, in spite of supportive research, fire testing and actual fire experience, the
validity of classifying structural steel construction as thermally restrained has been
questioned. The International Building Code requires the design professional to
designate whether floor and roof systems are thermally restrained or unrestrained. The
code requires documentation to be provided to the building official as evidence of a
thermally restrained condition. Consequently, the thermally unrestrained classification is
the default selection for the design professional and building official. The code does
not specify what documentation is required to qualify as sufficient evidence of a
restrained condition.

It is noteworthy that, although the

restrained/unrestrained construction
classifications have been in place in the
USA and Canada for more than 35 years,
other developed countries never adopted
them. The restrained/unrestrained
classifications are unheard of among fire
resistance regulations elsewhere around the
globe.
Figure 5-1 Restrained structural steel framing
Some of the confusion about thermal sustained large deflections without collapse during a
restraint lies in the traditional meaning of fire test in Cardington, UK - CORUS Steel
structural restraint within the structural
engineering profession. The term restrained is commonly used to describe the degree
of rotational rigidity in structural steel connections. Rigid moment connections are
referred to as fully restrained and flexible moment connections are referred to as
partially restrained.

19
In structural steel construction, the thermal restraint developed under fire conditions is
a combination of two primary effects:

1. Resistance to axial thermal expansion provided by the surrounding framing and

floor slab or roof deck.

2. Resistance to rotation of the ends of the beams and girders. This restraint is
influenced by connection stiffness, girder or column stiffness, and interaction of
the beams with composite or non-composite components of the floor or roof
construction.

Figure 5-2 ASTM E119 table X3.1 reprinted with permission from ASTM

Both modes of restraint occur in steel framed buildings and they both contribute to the
fire resistance of a structural steel supported floor or roof system. Indeed, there is strong
evidence that, of the two modes, rotational restraint is the more significant. Even
minimal rotational restraint provided by simple connections is effective in achieving
thermally restrained performance. This suggests that calculation (documentation) of the
amount of thermal restraint that exists in a structural steel frame building is unnecessary.

Prior to 1993, a table similar to X3.1 was included in the UL Fire Resistance Directory.
In 1993 the table was deleted and replaced with a description of the UL test frame
stiffness. This information about the test frame stiffness has sometimes been
misinterpreted. It has been suggested that a building structure must have stiffness greater
than that of the test frame to qualify as thermally restrained. This is an erroneous
interpretation.

20
References

1. Gewain, R. G., Troup, E. W. J., Restrained Fire Resistance Ratings in Structural

Steel Buildings, Engineering Journal, Vol. 38, No. 2, Chicago, IL, 2001.
2. Ioannides, S. A., and Mehta, S., Restrained Vs. Unrestrained Fire Ratings: A
Practical Approach, Modern Steel Construction, May 1997
3. Ruddy, J., Marlo, J. P., Ioannides, S. A., Alfawakhiri, F., Fire Resistance of
Structural Steel Framing, AISC Steel Design Guide 19, American Institute of Steel
Construction, Chicago, IL, December 2003

21
Chapter Six Fire Walls
Fire walls have a very specific meaning in the building code. Not all fire-rated walls are
fire walls. Fire walls divide a building into separate portions each of which is treated as a
separate building. They are used when a building exceeds the permitted size for its
construction classifications or if portions of a building are built of different construction
types. The detailed requirements for fire walls are contained in Section 705 of the IBC.
The requirement that presents a structural challenge is 705.2:

Fire walls shall have sufficient structural stability under fire conditions to
allow collapse of construction on either side without collapse of the wall
for the duration of time indicated by the required fire-resistance rating.

Although this requirement seems simple and reasonable, it is often not easy to
accomplish, particularly in multi-story buildings. There are three commonly used
strategies for achieving the structural stability required by 705.2.

Cantilever Fire Walls

Cantilever fire walls are not connected to or braced by the structural framing on either
side and cantilever vertically from the foundation. The wall must be self supporting and
there must be a complete break in the structural framing. The framing cannot bear on the
fire wall in any way.

Cantilever firewalls are usually constructed of masonry or reinforced concrete. They must
be engineered to resist lateral loads stipulated in the code, but not less than 5 psf.
Cantilever fire walls are a very efficient solution for a one story structures, but they
become increasingly impractical as the building height increases.

Double Fire Walls

Double fire walls consist of two walls built back-to-back. Each wall is rigidly connected
to and braced by the structural framing adjacent to it. As with cantilever fire walls, there
must be a complete break in the structural framing.

If the structural framing on one side of the fire wall collapses during a fire, the wall
attached to the framing will collapse along with it, leaving the second wall standing. Each
of the two walls in a double fire wall must have the stipulated fire-resistance rating.

The structural framing may bear on the wall or utilize the wall as a shearwall. Any fire-
rated non-combustible wall assembly may be used in a double fire wall.

When an egress corridor must pass through a double fire wall the configuration of the
rated doors can be challenging. Each wall is required to have rated doors which swing in
the direction of egress travel. This will sometimes require a rated vestibule to prevent the
doors from swinging into each other.

22
Double fire walls are a practical solution for multi-story buildings.

Tied Fire Walls

Tied fire walls are usually built on a column line or between a double row of columns.
The structural framing will be continuous and run through the fire wall with the wall tied
to the structural framing with flexible anchors.

The framing on each side of the fire wall must be engineered to resist the lateral forces
associated with the structure collapsing on the opposite side of the wall during a fire. This
usually requires a somewhat robust lateral load resisting system.

A variation on a tied fire wall commonly found in older buildings consists of a load
bearing masonry wall with wood joists pocketed into each side. A minimum of 4 inches
of solid masonry is required between the ends of the joist pockets and the ends of the
joists have a diagonal fire cut that prevents the wall from being pried over if the joists
collapse during a fire. Intermittent strap anchors connect the masonry wall to the bottom
of the joists for lateral support.

Tied fire walls are used when it is not practical to interrupt the structural framing such as
in the retrofitting of an existing building structure.

Fire walls may be constructed of any approved non-combustible materials. Concrete unit
masonry (CMU) has been the material of choice for fire wall construction. In recent years
fire walls constructed of light-gage steel framing and gypsum board have become an
acceptable alternative to CMU. There has been some opposition from the fire service to
the use of light frame fire walls since these materials lack the toughness to resist falling
debris.

Reference

1. NFPA 221 Standard for High Challenge Fire Walls, Fire Walls, and Fire Barrier
Walls 2006 Edition

23
Chapter Seven Structural Steel
Structural steel is a non-combustible material that has demonstrated reasonably good fire
performance when adequately protected. At elevated temperatures, the physical and
mechanical properties of steel change. As the temperature of steel increases there is a
reduction in strength and stiffness as well as an increase in volume.

Fire Protection Materials

There are a variety of materials and products used to fire protect structural steel framing.
Concrete encasement, masonry and plaster have been used to fireproof steel for over a
century. It is more common today to use gypsum board, spray-applied fire resistive
materials (SFRM), intumescent coatings, or mineral fiberboards and mats. Fire-protection
materials and systems are designed to delay the temperature rise in structural steel.

Other fire-protection methods for structural steel involve rain screens (sprinklers
designed to protect steel members) or filling tubular structures with concrete or water.

Spray-Applied Fire Resistive Materials (SFRM)

Most SFRM either utilize mineral fiber or cementitious materials to insulate steel from
the heat of a fire.

The mineral fiber mixture consists of fibers,

binders and water. Mineral fiber fire protection
material is spray-applied with the dry mixture fed
to a spray nozzle where water is added to the
mixture as it is sprayed on the steel. The mineral
fiber coating is lightweight, non-combustible,
chemically inert and a poor conductor of heat.

Cementitious SFRM are composed of a binder

Figure 7-1 Application of SFRM mixed with vermiculite, perlite or polystyrene
DeStefano & Chamberlain aggregates. Cementitious SFRM are classified as
low density, medium density or high density
products. The low density products are most common and usually have a gypsum binder.
The medium and high density products often use a Portland cement binder.

The mineral fiber SFRM is less costly than the cementitious SFRM, but does not adhere
as well to steel and is easily dislodged. Mineral fiber SFRM and low-density
cementitious SFRM are not suitable for wet locations or exposed locations where the
fireproofing can be dislodged, such as exposed parking garages.

24
Intumescent Coatings

An intumescent coating has an appearance of a thick film or paint. When exposed to a

fire, it chars, foams, and expands significantly in thickness forming an insulating layer.

Two distinct categories of intumescent coating are

manufactured water or solvent based (also
referred to as intumescent paints or thin film
coatings), and epoxy based (also referred to as
mastics or thick film coatings). Water and solvent
based coating are thinner (usually up to 5 mm),
and mostly intended for controlled environments
inside buildings, although some systems are
available for external exposures. Epoxy based
coatings are thicker (up to 45 mm), and are mostly
used for petro-chemical installations.

In many instances, the intumescent coating is

actually a system of multiple coats with different
properties and functions. The base coat will be
formulated to provide a strong bond to the steel
substrate, while the top coat (or the
sealing/decorative coat) will be formulated to
Figure 7-2 steel column with intumescent
provide a durable aesthetically appealing finished coating during fire test - Leighs Paint
surface. The intermediate layer of the fire
protective intumescent material is usually applied in multiple coats, to achieve the desired
protection thickness, allowing sufficient time for each coat to dry before applying the
next coat. Depending on the design thickness, the application of intumescent coatings
could be a lengthy and costly process.

The high cost of intumescent coatings limits their use to projects where it is important to
architecturally expose the structural steel.

During a fire, the intumescent coating will expand up to 50 times its original thickness.
For it to be effective there needs to be a space for the coating to expand into.
Consequently, intumescent coatings should not be used in tight spaces where there is not
sufficient room to allow the coating to expand.

Gypsum Board Products

Type X and Type C gypsum board is used for fire protection. These products have a
specially formulated gypsum core that provides a greater fire resistance than regular
gypsum board of the same thickness.

Gypsum contains chemically-bound water of crystallization. The fire retarding property

of gypsum board is derived primarily from this water content. When the gypsum board is

25
exposed to fire, the water of crystallization is gradually released and evaporated,
consuming large amounts of energy in the process and delaying heat transmission
through the board. Gypsum board effectively acts as a fire barrier until most of its water
content is driven out. Even dehydrated gypsum board acts as a shield against fire flames.

Fibrous Board and Mat Products

Although the mineral fiberboard and similar mat products are usually more expensive
than SFRM, they are relatively easy to install as no wet processes are involved. They are
often used in retrofit applications and projects where speed and dry process are of
importance.

Surface Preparation for SFRM

SFRM is intended to be applied over bare,

unpainted steel. A light coating of rust will
actually improve the adhesion. If the steel has
been painted there are special requirements to
ensure adequate adhesion of the SFRM. Unless
the paint system has been formulated to be
compatible with SFRM, additional measures will
be required such as applying a bonding agent to
the steel or securing metal lath to the steel prior to
applying SFRM. The rules for evaluating the
Figure 7-3 SFRM applied over bare steel adequacy of SFRM bond to painted steel are
DeStefano & Chamberlain described in the UL Directory.

Applying SFRM to open web steel joists can be particularly problematic. There tends to
be an excessive amount of over-spray and wasted material. It is advisable to tie wire lath
to the joist webs prior to applying SFRM although this step will add considerable cost. It
is more common to protect open-web steel joist construction with rated ceiling
assemblies rather than with SFRM.

Many fire rated floor assemblies require the underside of the metal deck to be spray
fireproofed along with the beams. Often galvanized metal deck will have a light film of
oil on its surface that needs to be removed by solvent cleaning.

The Prescriptive Method

Qualification fire resistance testing in accordance with ASTM E119 is used extensively
to satisfy building code requirements for fire resistance. In order to comply with fire
resistance rating requirements, the architect or engineer usually selects suitable fire
resistant designs from the UL Directory. Listed designs must be followed in every detail,
in order to maintain the fire-resistance rating.

26
W/D Ratios

The rate of temperature rise

in a structural steel member
is a function of its thermal
mass and the surface area
exposed to heat. Therefore,
the factor commonly used in
fire resistant design is the
W/D ratio, where W is
defined as the weight per
foot of the steel member in
pounds, and D is defined as
Figure 7-4 Heated perimeter (D) for wide-flange beam - AISI
the inside perimeter of the
fire protection in inches. Similar A/P ratios are used in the fire resistant design of tubular
column sections, where A is the section area in square inches and P is the section
perimeter in inches (identical to D). Values of W/D and A/P ratios for various sections
and configurations are tabulated in the AISC Steel Design Guide 19.

The International Building Code and ASCE/SEI/SFPE 29 Standard Calculation Methods

for Structural Fire Protection have many empirical correlations based on the W/D ratio
to allow engineers to calculate the fire resistance of a particular steel section protected
with different materials, including concrete, masonry, SFRM and gypsum board.

SFRM Thickness Adjustment

The UL design will indicate the SFRM

thickness that is required for a given fire
rating. This thickness is valid only for the
beam size that was tested. For instance,
UL D739 was based on a W8x28 steel
beam. Unless all of the beams on a project
are W8x28s, the SFRM thickness will need
to be adjusted for each beam size used.

There is a simple formula that is used to Figure 7-5 thickness testing of SFRM DeStefano &
calculate the required SFRM thickness Chamberlain
based on the W/D or A/P ratio of the steel section.

(W / D ) + 0.6
h2 = 1 1 h1
(W2 / D2 ) + 0.6

Where h = thickness of SFRM

27
The project specifications should require the fireproofing contractor to submit W/D
calculations for approval along with a schedule of fireproofing thickness for each beam
and column size on the project.

Floor and Roof Construction

Fire rated restrained floor and roof assemblies will usually be selected to satisfy the fire
resistance requirements for floor and roof construction including beams and joists.

The International Building Code contains fire rating requirements for beams or girders
that frame directly into a column. This is intended to ensure that columns remain braced
against buckling during a fire. Fire rated floor and roof assemblies are listed under the D
series designation of the UL directory.

Structural Steel Columns

IBC Table 719.1(1) prescribes many older column fire rated designs using generic
materials, such as concrete, masonry, plaster and gypsum wallboard. Also, IBC Section
720.5.1 contains several equations (with W/D variable) and relevant tables for the
calculation of fire resistance of steel columns protected with generic materials. Further,
IBC Equation 7-13 allows the adjustment of thickness of proprietary SFRM materials
based on the W/D ratio of the column section. ASCE/SEI/SFPE 29 standard contains
very similar provisions for steel columns. In addition, the latter provides an equation for
the determination of fire resistance of concrete filled tubular steel columns.

Fire resistant steel column designs using proprietary materials, such as SFRM and
intumescent coatings, are listed under the X and Y series designation of the UL directory.

Steel Trusses

The inherently large size of truss assemblies does not allow their adequate fire resistance
testing in standard furnaces. However, several conservative approaches have been
developed over the years for truss fire protection. One common approach is to protect
each truss element to the same level as a column of a similar or smaller section size.
Another conservative approach, sometimes used for lighter trusses, is to apply proven fire
resistant joist designs to heavier trusses. Both approaches are based on the rationale that
larger/heavier truss elements would heat up slower than smaller column sections or
lighter joists under similar fire exposures.

Individual Protection

IBC section 714.2.1 requires that fire-rated columns, beams, girders, trusses and other
structural members shall be individually protected on all sides for the full length where
the structural element supports:

28
 more than two floors (or more than one floor and one roof), or
a loadbearing wall, or
a non-loadbearing wall that is more than two stories high.

The requirement applies to most columns in multi-story buildings, and effectively

prohibits protecting more than one column in a single fire protection enclosure. This
individual protection requirement also prohibits the protection of critical beams, girders
and trusses by fire rated ceilings. However, ceiling protection can be used for regular
beam, girder or truss systems supporting one floor or transfer beams, girders and trusses
supporting not more than two floors.

Design by Engineering Analysis

For a given heat exposure history (fire scenario), the engineering analysis of a steel
structure would involve two major stages. First, heat transfer analysis is conducted to
establish the temperature field history in the structure. Second, the structural analysis of
the heated steel structure is performed using one the following methodologies:

Critical temperature approach, the simplest analysis methodology, involves the

determination of critical temperatures for various steel elements, and ensuring that
these critical temperatures are not exceeded for the required time in the design fire
scenario.
Simple calculation methods are generally hand calculation methods, although they
are not necessarily simple to use. These calculation methods are based on well-
established principles, such as plastic analysis of sections, and they usually are used
to analyze one single member at a time. They often involve simplifying assumptions,
such as neglect of thermal
expansion, temperature-
independence and idealization
of structural boundary
conditions, approximation of
second-order effects, and
simplified material property
models.
Advanced calculation methods
are generally finite element
models incorporating
geometrical and material
nonlinearities, and they are
usually used to analyze Figure 7-6 Cardington fire test - CORUS Steel
assemblies of structural
components and/or entire building frames. The many assumptions and
approximations in advanced calculation models are usually of higher order of
refinement than in simple calculation methods, therefore, a higher degree of accuracy
is expected. Significant expense is involved in advanced modeling and calculation;
therefore, these methods are rarely used for routine design projects. The validity of

29
 the advanced calculation methods was verified in the full scale fire tests performed at
Cardington in the UK.

Simple Calculation Models

Simple calculation methods are based on AISC design provisions for the capacity of
structural steel and composite members at room temperature, adjusted for the
deterioration of the mechanical properties of steel and concrete at elevated temperatures.
The provisions cover simple methods for tension, compression and flexural steel
members, and also, for composite floor members. The major limitations and
simplifications associated with the simple methods of analysis are as following:

The methods of analysis in this section are applicable for the evaluation
of performance of individual members at elevated temperature during
exposure to fire. The support and restraint conditions (forces, moments
and boundary conditions) applicable at normal temperatures may be
assumed to remain unchanged throughout the fire exposure.

The AISC Steel Design Guide 19 provides a step-by-step procedure for the calculation of
flexural capacity of composite floor beams at elevated temperatures.

Influence of Load

The failure temperature of a

structural steel member is a
function of the load that it is
carrying. If a steel member needs
about 75% of its ambient strength
to support the load then the failure
temperature is likely to be about
500 C (932 F). If the member is
over designed and only needs
40% of the ambient strength then
the failure temperature will be
higher (~620 C or 1148 F). Figure 7-7 Yield strength of A36 steel at elevated temperature - AISI
The load at the fire limit state is
reduced from that in normal design. Consequently, in localized fires or in situations
where a steel member is partially shielded from direct flaming, steel members can resist
the applied load at the fire limit state without fireproofing.

Restraint and Catenary Action

If a steel beam is restrained at its ends by connection to another beam or column then its
fire performance is substantially improved by catenary action. Restrained beams can
sustain significant deflection, sometimes as much as several feet, with failing. This is

30
because the restrained beam can support the load in axial tension as it hangs from the
connections. Therefore, beams in a real building can be expected to perform better than
beams in a furnace test.

Figure 7-8 Restrained and Unrestrained steel beam failure temperatures - Lamont and Usmani

Partially Exposed Steelwork

Standard fire tests on partially exposed steel have shown that structural members not
fully exposed to the fire exhibit increased levels of fire resistance. This is related to the
W/D concept because parts of the steel are shielded from fire therefore D is reduced.
The most common methods of achieving partially exposed steel are:

Web in-filled columns: Normal weight concrete is poured between the flanges of
the column. The load carrying capacity of the concrete is ignored in the design of
the column but during a fire as the steel weakens the load carried by the flanges is
transferred to the concrete providing up to 60 minutes fire resistance.
Filled hollow sections: Hollow columns can gain enhanced fire resistance by
filling them with concrete. During a fire heat flows through the steel to the low
conductivity concrete. As the steel loses its yield strength with increasing
temperature the load is transferred to the concrete. Adding fiber or bar
reinforcement to the concrete can attain enhanced periods of fire resistance
Water-filled sections: Hollow sections may be filled with water to reduce heating
in fire. This method is expensive and infrequently used but is very effective,

31
 although there have been some problems with corrosion and the associated
plumbing.

Composite Steel and Concrete Members

Composite steel and concrete members are generally concrete slabs connected to steel
beams via shear studs, hollow steel sections filled with reinforced concrete, or steel
sections encased in concrete, all of which are designed at ambient temperature, taking
into account composite action.

Composite steel frame construction generally has good fire resistance properties as a
single member and as a whole frame. The main reason for this good performance is that
when the steel member becomes hot and weak, there are alternative paths for the load
into the colder concrete slab in a composite floor or the concrete core of a composite
column.

The current state of the art for structural fire assessments is to use finite element analysis
to calculate the fire resistance of a composite steel frame and design the fire protection
layout. The finite element modeling approach allows engineers to quantify the global and
local structural performance throughout the duration of a fire and make informed changes
to the structural design to improve robustness. This performance based approach will
often show that secondary steel infill beams can be left unprotected provided that the
girders bracing the columns are protected. This is because alternative load paths exist via
catenary action through the composite slab.

Special Inspections

Spray fireproofing is subject to Special

Inspections under chapter 17 of the IBC.
Testing is required of the fireproofing
thickness, bond/adhesion and density. The
code requires that one thickness test be
performed for every 1,000 square feet of rated
floor or roof assembly, and for 25% of the
individually rated beams and columns.
Previously, one test for every 10,000 square
feet was customary. One thickness test Figure 7-9 Flutes of metal deck have not been
consists of averaging several thickness completely filled over beam DeStefano &
Chamberlain
measurements taken on a prescribed pattern.

In addition to testing, the fireproofing application requires inspection. Some of the

common inspection tasks are as follows:

1. Verifying that the flutes of the metal deck have been completely filled above
beams.

32
 2. Reviewing cold weather protection methods and temporary heating of the
work area.
3. Ensuring there is adequate ventilation to prevent mold from growing in the
fireproofing.

It is common for spray fireproofing to be damaged or removed during construction.

When hangers are secured to the structural framing to support ceilings, pipes, conduits or
ductwork, the tradesmen will often remove portions of any SFRM that is in their way.
The Special Inspector needs to verify that damaged or removed fireproofing has been
replaced.

Evaluation of Fire Damaged Structures

Following a fire, an engineer is often called upon to evaluate the extent of damage to the
structural steel framing and the extent of remedial work needed to put the structure back
in service.

Structural steel is typically

manufactured from mild
steel with a low to
moderate carbon content
and relatively low alloy
content. Unlike a high-
carbon steel, the
mechanical properties of
mild steel are somewhat
insensitive to heat
treatment. Since structural Figure 7-10 Fire damaged steel joists - DeStefano & Chamberlain
steel is typically in a fully
annealed state, once the steel has cooled down following a fire its structural properties are
similar to those prior to the fire. This can be verified by testing coupon samples cut from
beam or column webs.

The same cannot be said for high-strength bolts and nuts. A325 and A490 fasteners are
manufactured from high-carbon alloy steels. A490 bolts are quenched and tempered.
These fasteners can lose significant strength after being subjected to high temperatures. It
is often prudent to replace high-strength bolts and nuts following a fire.

Often the biggest challenge of repairing a fire damaged structure is straightening the steel
members. It is common for steel beams and girders to deflect or buckle laterally due to
thermal expansion and diminished mechanical properties (strength and stiffness) at
elevated temperatures. Members with slight deformations can be straightened with heat
methods and jacking, but severely deformed members often require replacement.

33
References

1. American Institute of Steel Construction, Steel Construction Manual, 13th

Edition, 2005.
2. American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI). Designing Fire Protection for Steel
Beams, 1984.
3. American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI). Designing Fire Protection for Steel
Columns, 3rd Edition, 1980.
4. American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI). Designing Fire Protection for Steel
Trusses, 2nd Edition, 1981.
5. American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI). Design Guide for Fire Safety of Bare
Exterior Structural Steel, 1977.
6. ASCE/ SEI/ SFPE 29 Standard Calculation Methods for Structural Fire
Protection, 2005.
7. DeStefano, J.B. Fire Protection of Structural Steel, Structure Magazine
November 2005
8. Eaton, R. (Ed.), Standard Practice for Testing and Inspection of Field Applied
Thin-Film Intumescent Fire-Resistive Materials; an Annotated Guide, Technical
Manual 12-B, The Association of the Wall and Ceiling Industries International,
1998.
9. Gewain R.G., Iwankiw N. R. and Alfawakhiri F. Facts for Steel Buildings-Fire,
American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., 2003.
10. International Code Council (ICC) International Building Code - 2006
11. Kirby B.R. British Steel data on the Cardington fire tests. Technical report,
British Steel, 2000.
12. Lane, B., Performance-Based Design for Fire Resistance, Modern Steel
Construction, December 2000
13. Lie, T. T. (Editor), Structural Fire Protection, ASCE Manuals and Reports on
Engineering Practice No. 78, 1992
14. Steel Joist Institute Design of Fire Resistive Assemblies with Steel Joists,
Technical Digest 10, 2003
15. Structural Fire Engineering One Stop Shop
www.mace.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/
16. Ruddy, J., Marlo, J. P., Ioannides, S. A., Alfawakhiri, F., Fire Resistance of
Structural Steel Framing, AISC Steel Design Guide 19, December 2003

34
Chapter Eight - Concrete
Concrete construction is naturally fire resistant but, contrary to popular belief, it is not
fireproof. Reinforced concrete will sustain damage when exposed to flames and intense
heat and will loose strength as its surface spalls and the reinforcing steel heats up.

You will not find many cast-in-place concrete assemblies listed in the UL Directory.
Since conducting an ASTM E119 fire test is a fairly costly undertaking, tests are
generally only performed on assemblies containing proprietary products where there is a
financial advantage for the manufacturer. Cast-in-place concrete, being a somewhat
common material produced by numerous small plants, has not been subjected to many
commercial ASTM E119 fire tests. Consequently, Architects and Engineers must rely on
prescriptive fire resistance tables contained within the IBC for determining the fire
resistance of cast-in-place concrete elements and assemblies.

The factors that contribute most to the fire resistance of a concrete element is its
thickness, the cover on the reinforcing steel and the aggregate type.

Concrete containing lightweight aggregate has greater fire resistance than concrete
containing normal weight aggregate. Normal weight aggregates are classified as either
carbonate or siliceous. Limestone (calcium carbonate) and dolomite (magnesium
carbonate) are considered carbonate aggregate. Practically all other stone aggregates are
silica based and are classified as siliceous. Concrete containing carbonate aggregate has
greater fire resistance than concrete containing siliceous aggregate.

Fire Resistance of Concrete Construction

The most common method of designing concrete structures for fire resistance is to
ascertain the required thickness and reinforcing steel cover for the required fire resistance
rating from tables in Chapter 7 of the IBC. Tabulated data for cover and thickness of
concrete elements are also given in ACI 216R-89 and in ASCE/SEI/SFPE 29. However,
there are a number of analytical methods to calculate the fire resistance of concrete
members based on their capacity in fire.

Spalling

Spalling of surface material from concrete sections is common during a fire but it is a
complex process and not well understood. There are various kinds of spalling (aggregate
splitting, explosive, surface, corner separation, sloughing off and cooling spalling). The
most detrimental to a structural member in fire is explosive spalling. Explosive spalling
can occur at temperatures as low as 100 C (212 F) and in some cases can fully expose
the reinforcement to the full heat of a fire. Explosive spalling is thought to be primarily
associated with evaporation of water in the concrete pores and the associated build up of
pore pressures. However, restraint to thermal expansion, the heating rate of the fire, the
strength of the concrete, and the dimensions of the section also contribute. High strength
concrete with added silica fume is particularly susceptible to spalling.

35
The risk of explosive spalling can be reduced by the choice of aggregate, by limiting the
concrete strength, by reducing the moisture content where possible, and by the addition
of monofilament polypropylene fibers. The fibers melt at low temperatures generating a
larger array of pores in the concrete matrix, which has been shown to significantly reduce
explosive spalling by relieving pore pressures.

Material Properties

ACI gives thermal and mechanical properties for reinforcement, prestressing steel, and
concrete at elevated temperature. These can be used for detailed analysis to determine the
capacity of single concrete elements at elevated temperatures. Again a three-step process
(design fire, heat transfer, capacity calculation) is required for concrete.

Heat Transfer

When calculating heat transfer,

there are no simple equations
that can be used because the
conductivity of concrete is low
and concrete sections are
thermally thick. Consequently,
either predefined nomograms
drawn for particular sections in
response to the standard fire can
be used, or a finite element heat
transfer analysis is required to
calculate the temperature
gradient through the depth and/or Figure 8-1 2D finite element analysis of concrete slab - Arup
along the length of a concrete
section.

Structural Calculations

ACI 216R-89 presents analytical methods for determining the fire resistance of concrete
members. The document presents temperature nomograms for slabs and beams in the
standard fire and equations for calculating the fire resistance of simply supported slabs
and beams, continuous unrestrained flexural members and those restrained against
thermal expansion.

Continuous unrestrained members typically have longer fire endurance than simply
supported members because they can redistribute moments. The redistribution of
moment through the depth of a continuous member can result in failure of the negative
moment reinforcement over the supports. However, the ACI warn against increasing this
reinforcement as this could result in compression failure of the member, which is not
desirable. Limitations are therefore placed on the negative reinforcement to ensure

36
flexural failure in design. Equations to calculate the flexural strength at any point are
given.

Equations are also given to account for the thermal thrust force that will occur in the axis
of members heated from below and restrained from thermal expansion. The effect of the
thermal thrust is the same as prestressing a concrete beam or slab. Therefore, the line of
thrust can be considered a fictitious line of reinforcement in flexural design. To calculate
the thrust moment, the mid-span deflection must be calculated.

500C (932 F) Isotherm Method

The most commonly applied design tool for concrete members, in a compartment with a
post-flashover fire, is the 500C (932 F) isotherm method or reduced cross-section
method.

It is assumed that any concrete

at a temperature greater than
500C (932 F) will not be able
to support load in fire. Any
concrete at a temperature less
than 500C (932 F) can be
assumed to have its full ambient
design strength. These simple
rules and the reduced strength
of reinforcement are used to
calculate the residual capacity
of the section in response to
fire. If this residual capacity is Figure 8-2 500 degree C Isotherm Method - Arup
sufficient to carry the loads,
factored for the fire limit state, the section is deemed to be acceptable.

Prestressed Concrete

The performance of prestressed concrete beams and slabs in fire is complicated by the
fact that pre-stressed tendons lose strength faster than ordinary reinforcement at elevated
temperature and thermal expansion may reduce prestress. The Prestressed Concrete
Institute (PCI) has produced guidance on the design of prestressed concrete for fire,
which includes analytical expressions to calculate fire resistance. The expressions are
based on single element analysis and standard fire testing.

Advanced Analysis of Concrete Structures

Calculation of the whole frame response of concrete frames to fire is possible using finite
element analysis. However, none of the computer software that currently exist and are
used in fire design explicitly calculate spalling. Therefore the thickness of spalled

37
material must be assumed and generally removed at the start of a structural or heat
transfer analysis.

As for any frame analysis in fire, the software must model nonlinear behavior of the
structural elements and material properties, as well as include full degradation of material
properties with temperature. An accurate representation of thermal gradients varying
with time is particularly important for concrete elements as a consequence of concretes
poor conductivity.

Calculating the whole frame response of concrete frames to fire is rarely carried out in
design. The main reason for this is the lack of full-scale test data to validate the use of
finite element methods with concrete materials.

Summary

Guidance in ACI standards and other international design documents enable designers to
calculate the fire resistance of concrete analytically. However, as a result of the
simplicity of the tabulated prescriptive guidance, the complexity of spalling and the fact
that there is no additional material (i.e. fire protection) required to achieve fire resistance
then analytical expressions are rarely used in design. Performance based design solutions
can be useful in demonstrating fire resistance if the concrete has been poured to the
wrong thickness or an existing building is being upgraded and does not quite meet the
dimensions required by the most recent code.

References

1. ACI 216R-89 Guide for Determining the Fire Endurance of Concrete

Elements.
2. ACI / TMS 216.1-07 Code Requirements for Determining Fire Resistance of
Concrete and Masonry Construction Assemblies, 2007.
3. ASCE/ SEI/ SFPE 29, ASCE/SFPE Standard Calculation Methods for
Structural Fire Protection, 2005.
4. Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute (CRSI). Reinforced Concrete Fire
Endurance, 1980.
5. Gustaferro A.H. and Martin L.D., Design for Fire Resistance of Precast,
Prestressed Concrete, Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI), 2nd Edition, 1989.

38
Fire Protection of FRP-Strengthened Concrete Structures
Fiber reinforced polymers (FRP) are composite materials that were originally developed
in the 1940's for use in the aerospace industry. The first building structure application
was in Europe and Japan in the 1980's. Eventually FRP materials found its way to North
America and are now widely used in the strengthening of concrete and masonry
structures.

In general, FRP composites consist of two

kinds of materials: strong fibers and a resin
matrix. There are several types of fibers but
the most common are carbon, glass and
aramid fibers. Fibers are woven into a fabric
that is several times stronger than steel. The
most commonly used resin matrix is epoxy
that provides adhesion to the base concrete
or masonry surfaces. FRP fabric can be
fabricated in unidirectional or
multidirectional sheets, which should be
specified depending on whether
strengthening is required in one or two Figure 8-3 FRP unidirectional strengthening of
directions. concrete joists - Degenkolb

The installation process typically consists of patching the base surface so that it is smooth
and clean of debris. Next, epoxy is applied to the substrate and the fiber fabric is
impregnated with epoxy and applied directly. Curing time varies but it could take up to a
few days for the system to completely cure.

Because of their high strength, lightweight and corrosion resistance characteristics, FRP
strengthening has been widely used on bridges, parking garages, concrete slabs, beams
and columns. Although FRP is normally more expensive than a similar solution utilizing
steel plates and concrete; its ease of installation and thin profile provide benefits that can
make it an excellent alternative.

The traditional application of FRP in building structures includes seismic strengthening

of existing concrete slabs, beams, walls and columns to increase its strength and/or
stiffness. FRP strengthening can also increase the gravity-load carrying capacity due to
change of use, construction mistakes, damage repair and corrosion protection.

Fire Behavior of FRP-Strengthened Structures

One of the limitations of FRP strengthening systems is the low temperature endurance of
epoxies and fibers. The mechanical properties of fiber and resins tend to degrade very
quickly after these materials reach their glass transition temperature, Tg. The glass
transition temperature is defined as the temperature range's average at which the epoxies

39
change from a solid state to a softer plastic state. This temperature Tg ranges from
approximately 140 F to 180 F and is dependent on the materials used by each
manufacturer. Each manufacturer determines the maximum service temperature.

Under high temperatures, the fibers and epoxy can produce toxic smoke, spread flames
and ignite. Direct fire can cause the FRP materials to delaminate, suffer melting or
charring. At this point both the bond with the substrate and the structural properties of
FRP materials have been compromised. Recent research indicates that the rate of
strength degradation under high temperatures is much greater for FRP materials than it is
for concrete and mild steel reinforcement. For example, at a temperature of 200 F,
concrete will lose approximately 5% of its initial strength while FRP and steel will have
lost approximately 15%. At 400 F, concrete will lose 10% of its initial strength, steel
25% and FRP between 60% and 75% depending on the type of fiber. In general, glass
FRP tends to have a faster degradation than carbon FRP.

Design Considerations

For seismic applications the loss of strength is not very significant since the probability of
having the seismic design event and a fire that can reach the critical temperature is small.
However, for gravity-load strengthening, this strength loss can pose a challenge that
needs to be addressed by the structural engineer.

There are two main approaches to dealing with fire resistance design of FRP
strengthening. One approach is to provide a fire resistance barrier or insulation that
protects the FRP. This can be done with the application of layers of gypsum board. This
type of protection can be very expensive.

Spray applied fireproofing or intumescent coatings have been deemed ineffective when
applied to FRP, as these systems do not prevent the FRP materials from reaching the
critical temperature.

Manufacturers are actively researching new ways to protect the FRP strengthening
systems from elevated temperatures under fires. One of the manufacturing companies
has developed a multi-layer insulation system that consists of a primer, a dash coat layer
and additional layers of proprietary fire resistive material to build up a minimum average
thickness of 1-5/8 or more. Concrete assemblies tested by Canadas National Research
Council have determined that this proprietary system can provide a fire rating of up to 4-
hour for vertical and overhead assemblies. However, cost and appearance can be
prohibitive in some applications. A different type of coating can provide a Class 1 (Class
A) flame and smoke rating at a much lower cost.

Considering that the primary concern during a fire is life-safety and egress, ACI 440
recommends evaluating the nominal strength capacity of the original structure to
determine if it exceeds the capacity required for the services loads for the required
duration of the fire. In this approach, the following limit is suggested:

40
 (Rn)existing 1.0SDL + 1.0 SLL where:

(Rn)existing = nominal strength of the original (unstrengthened) structural member

computed in accordance with ACI 216R
SDL = dead loads acting on the strengthened member
SLL = live loads acting on the strengthened member

Essentially, this criterion permits for the unstrengthened structure to be evaluated

assuming that the loads acting on the member during a fire event can be assumed to be
unfactored loads. This is permissible since the probability that the structure would
collapse under typical actual loads is low.

The nominal strength capacity of the original member should be calculated in accordance
with the concepts of the American Concrete Institutes Guide for Determining the Fire
Endurance of Concrete Elements (ACI 216R).

References

1. ACI 440.2R-02: Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP
Systems for Strengthening Concrete Structures, 2002.

2. ACI 216R-89 Guide for Determining the Fire Endurance of Concrete Elements.

41
Chapter Nine Masonry
As with concrete construction, there are very few masonry assemblies listed in the UL
Directory. There are tables contained within Chapter 7 of the IBC that list fire resistance
ratings for masonry of various thicknesses and composition. When hollow masonry units
are used they are converted to an equivalent solid thickness for purposes of establishing
fire resistance rating.

Fire Resistance of Masonry

The design of masonry walls is almost always on the basis of experimentally determined
fire resistance levels for walls. The only guidance provided on fire resistance is typically
a minimum thickness to give a stated fire resistance period ranging from 30 minutes up to
4 hours. This is not unreasonable since fire tests of masonry walls have consistently
shown that the fire endurance is governed by heat transmission (insulation criteria) rather
than by structural failure.

Some codes give thicker

dimensions for load bearing
walls than non-load bearing
walls, but this may not be
justified by comparison with
standard fire test data. ASTM
E119 requires a load to be
applied to load-bearing walls
however, although no load is
applied to a non-load-bearing
panel, the edges of the wall are
restrained imposing a significant
thermal load as the wall tries to Figure 9-1 Masonry bearing walls sustained no significant
expand. This thermally induced damage in fire - DeStefano & Chamberlain
load can be higher than the imposed load in a loaded test.

The restraint provided to a wall has a significant impact on its fire performance. A
cantilevered wall will tend to bow outwards, away from the fire. A wall pinned at the top
and bottom will tend to bow towards the fire. Walls built into the structure with some
continuity at top and bottom will tend to bow less than the pinned case and therefore have
more fire resistance because deflections are reduced.

Reinforced concrete masonry walls generally exhibit good fire performance because the
reinforcing steel is in the center of the wall and therefore insulated from fire. The
reinforcing steel limits cracking of the concrete masonry and resists tensile forces as the
wall bends towards the fire.

42
Masonry walls and parapets are often
susceptible to lateral stability problems in fires,
especially when pushed by thermal expansion
of the structural framing. Proper detailing of the
attachment of the structural framing to masonry
walls is crucial to prevent the destabilization of
masonry walls in a fire. For instance, it has
been common practice for over a century to
provide a diagonal fire cut on the ends of
wood joists and beams that are pocketed into
masonry bearing walls. The fire cut prevents
the joists from prying the masonry wall over if
the wood joists fail during a fire.
Figure 9-2 "Fire cut" on wood joists bearing on
masonry wall - DeStefano & Chamberlain
References

1. ACI / TMS 216.1-07 Code Requirements for Determining Fire Resistance of

Concrete and Masonry Construction Assemblies, 2007.
2. BIA Technical Note 16 Fire Resistance of Brick Masonry, Brick Industry
Association, 2008.
3. International Code Council (ICC) International Building Code 2006.
4. NCMA TEK 7-1B Fire Resistance Ratings of Concrete Masonry Assemblies,
National Concrete Masonry Association, 2008.

43
Chapter Ten Wood

Wood is a combustible material which contributes fuel to a fire. Unprotected light wood
frame construction and prefabricated wood truss construction in particular has poor fire
resistance. Wood framing is usually protected with one or more layers of gypsum board
to achieve a fire rating.

Unlike light wood framing, heavy timber construction has demonstrated excellent fire
performance.

Fire Resistance of Light Frame Wood Construction

The fire resistance of light frame

construction is difficult to predict therefore
tabulated data and empirical correlations
based on standard testing should be used.
ASCE/SEI/SFPE 29 presents values of fire
resistance for various components of light
frame wood construction. The additive
method of calculation is proposed, which
simply means adding together the fire
resistance times assigned to each component
as given in the code. For a stud wall for
Figure 10-1 Fire damaged light wood framing - example the fire resistance time is equal to
DeStefano & Chamberlain the total of all of the membrane elements on
the fire exposed face plus the fire resistance time of the stud framing elements but the
membrane on the unexposed face is ignored in the calculation.

Fire Retardant Treatment (FRT)

Wood can be pressure treated with fire retardant chemicals which allow it to be used for
certain applications in non-combustible buildings. The FRT chemical formulations are
proprietary and vary with the manufacturer.

The most common FRT products are only suitable for interior applications since the
chemicals are water soluble and will leach out of the wood if exposed to the weather.
There are exterior grade FRT products available that are suitable for wet environments.

Early FRT products were hygroscopic compounds that often caused accelerated corrosion
of ferrous metal fasteners, even in a dry environment. These products were replaced in
the 1980s with a new generation of low-hygroscopic compounds. Unfortunately, some of
the low-hygroscopic FRT products caused degradation of plywood roof sheathing when
subjected to high temperature and humidity. Current FRT products have less
susceptibility to wood degradation, but the problem has not been entirely eliminated.

44
Fire Resistance of Heavy Timber

The burning behavior of wood is that of a charring

material that deposits residue as it burns. This char
residue insulates the timber from the heat of a fire
and helps prevent further pyrolysis; it does,
however, result in a loss of section.

A mechanics based design procedure for calculating

the fire endurance of heavy timber is contained in
Chapter 16 of the National Design Specification for
Wood Construction (NDS). The char rate of timber
in a fire is assumed to be the same for all species of Figure 10-2 Charred glulam timber
following fire test - AF&PA
wood. After a fire endurance of 1 hour, the effective
char layer thickness is assumed to be 1.8 inches. After 2 hours, the assumed effective
char layer thickness is 3.2 inches. The char layer is assumed to have no reliable strength
or stiffness, so the section properties of the remaining timber section inside the char layer
are calculated.

The strength of the timber is calculated based on the reduced section properties. Ultimate
strength values are used in the calculation. The published allowable stresses are increased
by an adjustment factor K to determine the ultimate strength. For flexural strength, the
value of K is 2.85.

For calculating fire endurance, only dead and live loads are considered since there is a
very low probability of an extreme wind or seismic event occurring simultaneous with a
fire.

For heavy timber members, ASCE/SEI/SFPE 29 provides analytical methods for

calculating the fire resistance time (t) of beams and columns. The equations typically
include load factor (z), initial dimensions of the section (b,d), and a constant () with the
units min/mm or min/in.

An example for beams exposed to fire on four sides is given in Equation 10-1.

[ ( d )]
t = zb 4 2 b (equation 10-1)

Timber Connections in Fire

Where connections are traditional wood joints, the same charring rates as for the main
member can be adopted and its capacity in shear can be checked as it would be in
ambient design.

45
 The collapse of traditional wood connections
in fire scenarios is preceded by distinctive
cracking and hissing noises due to the
stresses in the wood. Visible deflections also
become apparent before collapse, providing
the fire services with warning that collapse is
imminent.

Timber connections involving steel

connectors such as bolts or steel plates mean
that the traditional bending and compressive
Figure 10-3 Timber frame structures exhibit forces in the wood joints have been largely
good fire performance - DeStefano & replaced now by localized shear forces
Chamberlain surrounding the steel connectors. Since steel
is a good conductor of heat, the connections result in elevated temperatures in the wood
adjacent to the steel hardware

Shear failure occurs when the lignin within the wood section becomes heated and begins
to act like a super-cooled liquid. This change occurs at relatively low temperatures ~120
C (248 F) and causes the shear strength of the wood to change. This shear failure poses
a catastrophic collapse mechanism during a fire scenario because no prior warning of
collapse is given under these circumstances. Consequently, metal connectors should be
protected. Intumescent coatings are an effective method of protecting exposed steel
gusset plates and connection hardware.

References

1. ANSI / AF&PA NDS National Design Specification for Wood Construction,

American Forest & Paper Association American Wood Council, 2005.
2. AF&PA Technical Report 10 Calculating the Fire Resistance of Exposed
Wood Members, 2003.
3. AF&PA Design for Code Acceptance 3 Fire Rated Wood Floor and Wall
Assemblies, 2007.
4. ASCE/ SEI/ SFPE 29, Standard Calculation Methods for Structural Fire
Protection, 2005.
5. Gypsum Association, Fire Resistance Design Manual, 18th edition.

46
Appendix A Resources
The following documents and publications are useful resources for Structural Engineers
engaged in the design of passive fire protection systems.

The Underwriters Laboratory Fire Resistance Directory

catalogs building elements and assemblies that have been
subjected to fire testing by UL. It includes fire test results
for beams, floors, roofs, columns, walls and partitions.
While not the only source of fire test results, it is certainly
the most comprehensive.

ASCE/SEI/SFPE 29-05 Standard Calculation Method for

Structural Fire Protection is a joint standard of the
American Society of Civil Engineers, the Structural
Engineering Institute and the Society of Fire Protection
Engineers. It contains analytical methods for calculating
the fire endurance of concrete, structural steel, masonry
and wood structural elements.

AISC Steel Design Guide 19 Fire Resistance of

Structural Steel Framing is a useful design aide for
selecting passive fire protection of structural steel by the
prescriptive method. It contains easy to understand
explanations of fire protection systems as well as useful
charts and tables for determining the required thickness of
fireproofing.

47
CRSI Reinforced Concrete Fire Endurance provides a detailed
explanation of the fire performance of reinforced concrete
structures. Published in 1980, the document contains some
outdated Building Code references but it is still a useful
document.

The SFPE handbook of Fire Protection Engineering can

be found on the desk of almost every fire protection
engineer in the world. It provides detailed information
on of all aspects of fire protection engineering including
egress and people movement, detection and alarm,
smoke control systems, sprinkler design, fire test
methods, properties of materials at high temperatures
and computer modeling of fire and smoke. It contains
two chapters on the subject of fire resistance but a
number of chapters which provide test data and
guidance for defining design fires or conducting a heat
transfer analysis. It is a useful guide for engineers who
want to learn more about the principles of fire
engineering.

The SFPE Engineering Guide to Performance Based

Fire Protection Analysis and Design of Buildings
outlines an approach or process for a performance based
design and assessment of building fire safety. It focuses
on the application of scientific and engineering
principles to design, identifies parameters that should be
considered in the design, helps the user set performance
objectives and provides information that an authority
having jurisdiction can use to assess a performance
based solution. It is not specifically for fire resistance
but a general approach to any performance based
solution.

48
 Structural Design for Fire Safety provides a thorough
review of many of the issues relating to the fire
resistance of structural elements. It is a useful guide for
engineers who want to learn more about performance
based design for fire resistance and covers in more detail
many of the concepts introduced in this Guide.

Technical Report 10 Calculating the Fire Resistance of

Exposed Wood Members American Forest and Paper
Association. This technical report provides a detailed
description of the mechanics based design procedure for
calculating the fire endurance of heavy timbers
construction.

49
Acknowledgement

CASE acknowledges the participation of the National Council of Structural Engineer

Associations (NCSEA), the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) and Arup Fire in the
preparation of this document.

Disclaimer

This document is intended to provide information in regard to the engineering of

structural fire protection. It is not to be regarded as providing opinion or advice for any
individual project. This document is distributed with the understanding that CASE is not
engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice is desired, the services
of a competent professional should be sought.

50