FIRE AND MATERIALS

Fire Mater. (2014)

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/fam.2268

Comparing simple and advanced tools for structural re

safety engineering
Nicolas Henneton*,, Christophe Renaud and Bin Zhao
CTICM (Centre Technique Industriel de la Construction Mtallique), Saint-Aubin, France

SUMMARY
The present paper gives an overview of the actual tools available for the estimation of the re development
and of the resulting thermal actions on structural members. A case study is developed on the basis of the Fire
Safety Engineering methodology, respectively with two different approaches, one based on advanced tools
and another one based on simplied tools. Indeed, three categories of re models are used in this study,
each of which corresponding to a different level of precision and complexity: hand calculations, zone
models, and computational uid dynamics (CFD) models. The case study is relative to the calculation of
the heating of a portal frame in a gymnasium, under localised real re conditions. It is shown through
comparisons that, in this case, predictions of analytical methods are, to certain extent, in good agreement
with predictions of the CFD model. In particular, it is demonstrated the relevance of using a simplied
method of EN 1991-1-2 to predict thermal actions to vertical members. The obtained results also highlight
the need to develop more relevant analytical methods in order to predict the temperature eld during a re in
a large volume. Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 27 September 2013; Revised 12 March 2014; Accepted 21 August 2014
KEY WORDS:

re safety engineering; analytical model; CFAST; FDS; localised re; heat transfer

1. INTRODUCTION
In the structural Eurocodes, standard procedures for the prediction of thermal actions on structures are
dened. The way to evaluate the thermal actions in case of real res is described in Eurocode 1 part 12
[1]. There are basically three main approaches to deal with re development and the resulting thermal
actions [24]. The simplest is to use analytical methods, which can be set up quickly and are easy to
use because of the limited parameters involved. These analytical formulations and empirically based
correlations have been used for more than ve decades [5]. However, results may only be correct
within a narrow range of applicability. Nevertheless, these models can serve as a rst step for more
sophisticated computer modelling.
A more complex approach is the use of zone models [6], which assume the compartment as being
composed of a plume region and two gaseous layers, both interacting through the governing
equations. Zone models consider the temperature in these layers to be time dependent but uniform in
space. Most existing zone models have been developed for single compartments or series of
compartments whose size is representative of domestic rooms, small ofces or small industrial units.
For this kind of compartments, the zone models predict reasonable results. Despite being classied
as advanced models in Eurocode 1 part 12, they are rather simple to set up and the computational
time is of the order of seconds on a modern desktop PC. However, when zone models are used for
the design of structural members, the effects of the radiation from a localised re to the structure
*Correspondence to: N. Henneton, CTICM (Centre Technique Industriel de la Construction Mtallique), Saint-Aubin, France.

E-mail: nhenneton@cticm.com
Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

N. HENNETON, C. RENAUD AND B. ZHAO

should be considered additionally with help of analytical methods [7]. Besides, as for analytical
methods, it is not possible with zone models to predict precisely re development along and
between combustible materials, and the user needs to specify heat release rate (HRR) curves.
The most complete approach is the use of eld models (or CFD models), which solve numerically
the 3D governing equations for a re-driven ow in their differential form with varied levels of
complexity. Fire development can be simulated on the basis of the thermo-physical properties of the
materials rather than the simply prescribed HRR history.
Unfortunately, there is no guidance in Eurocode 1 part 12 on how to select the appropriate type of
model according to the encountered case study and no recommendations on the scope and limits of
such models. Moreover, although sophisticated models have found increasing application in re
modelling and thus in re safety engineering, it is clear that a large number of practitioners,
including re engineers, and re control authorities still lack of in-depth awareness of the re
modelling techniques. Indeed, these sophisticated models consider in detail the most important re
mechanisms, which imply a high number of fundamental parameters and require therefore further
calibration and validation. Another point is that these complex models may be limited by the
impossibility to obtain the inputs required [4].
However, there exist specic cases where hand calculations or simpler models can be used as a
good approximation of more complex models, provided that assumptions are correct. In this
context, this paper aims at studying the heating of a portal frame of a gymnasium in real re
conditions, respectively with two different approaches, by using the re safety engineering
methodology [8]. This is the specic case of a localised re in a large building because all
combustible materials cannot be involved simultaneously in the re. Research in this topic is rather
limited because design re scenarios most commonly used for the structural design of buildings are
frequently based on post-ashover res, with the assumption of uniform temperature conditions
throughout a compartment, regardless of its size ([11, 12]). This engineering approach will follow the
steps below:
Description of the gymnasium, including the structural members to be analysed and fuel loads,
Selection of the design re scenario challenging the structure,
Determination of the thermal actions on the structural members, both with simplied and
advanced tools,
Evaluation of the thermal response of the structure, both with simplied and advanced tools.

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE STUDY

Figure 1 gives an overview of the gymnasium and of the different activities planned within. The
oor area is 34 84 m2, and the height of the gymnasium is 11 m. There are 10 smoke vents
(activated at a temperature of 93 C), representing 1% of the roof area, and 2 smoke screens of
2 m high (all are visible in Figure 1). The vents will be considered in both the CFD model and
the zone model.

Figure 1. Description of the gymnasium (snapshot from the FDS simulation).

Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Fire Mater. (2014)

DOI: 10.1002/fam

COMPARING SIMPLE AND ADVANCED TOOLS FOR STRUCTURAL FIRE SAFETY ENGINEERING

In order to select the appropriate design re scenario for the evaluation of the portal frame, fuel loads need
to be determined. Many activities that take place in the gymnasium may involve combustible materials: shot
put, high jump, pole vault, climbing, sprint, and other accessories such as a wooden podium, chasubles,
balls, hoops, etc. Besides, the bleachers consist of glue-laminated benches. To be on a safe side, it will be
supposed that all devices are set up at the same time. Table I summarizes the corresponding re loads.
The foam gym mats represent almost half of the total re load, which is approximately 400 GJ.
The load-bearing structure of the gymnasium consists of unprotected steel portal frames with welded
sections (PRS), spaced at 6 m intervals. The span of the portal is 33.7 m, and the grade of structural
steel is S235. The characteristics of the structural members are summarized in Figure 2.
The portal frame that is studied by the re safety engineering methodology is located close to the
high jump and shot put activities, as shown in Figure 1. The columns are not embedded in the
walls, so the column close to the high jump activity is likely to be engulfed by the re.

3. METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING THE THERMAL ACTIONS

As mentioned in the introduction, two approaches have been considered to assess the heating of the portal
frame in real re conditions and will be compared: an approach based on advanced tools (later called in the
text advanced approach) and another based on simplied tools (later called simplied approach).
3.1. Advanced approach
The rst approach uses advanced tools, namely the re dynamics simulator (FDS) code (version 5.5.3)
developed by National Institute of Standards and Technology [13] to simulate re development and
propagation of smoke in the gymnasium and the FEM code ANSYS [14] to calculate the heating of
Table I. Estimated re loads in the gymnasium.
Location/activity
Bleachers
High jump
Pole vault
Sprint
Sprint
Sprint
Shot put
Shot put
Shot put
Climbing
Climbing
Miscellaneous accessories

Combustible material

Fire load (MJ)

Glue-laminated benches
Polyester foam mats
Polyester foam mats
Hurdles (PVC)
Starting block (PE)
Polyester foam mats
Safety net (polyethylene rope)
Standing support structure (wood)
Polyester foam mats
Climbing wall (wood)
Polyester foam mats
Pommel horse, podium, hoops, balls, chasubles

51 000
33 000
61 200
2 550
2 400
17 000
2 000
15 000
21 300
136 000
32 400
30 500

Figure 2. Portal frames.

Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Fire Mater. (2014)

DOI: 10.1002/fam

N. HENNETON, C. RENAUD AND B. ZHAO

the steel members. A coupling procedure between FDS and ANSYS developed within the scope of the
European research project FIRESTRUC [15, 16] is used to predict the thermal actions to the portal
frame. This is a one-way coupling procedure developed to take into account the radiation effect for
any type of structural members cross section shape, in particular when the shadow effects are
signicant. It consists of the following steps:
1. In the FEM code ANSYS, members of the portal frame are modelled using brick elements
(SOLID70). Each structural member is considered independently, and its connection with other
members is neglected. In such a way, each member will have its own heat transfer model. Thermal
actions and radiation effect between the walls of structural members are managed with specic
plane elements (SURF152).
2. The geometric description of all FEM members is written to a le. For each member, the number of composing nite elements is given. For each nite element, location, normal and solid angle seen are given.
3. A FDS simulation is conducted, and a result le is generated, containing gas temperature, the
convective heat transfer coefcient and average radiant intensities along every direction, for each
cell in 3D user-dened zones.
4. A post-processing program reads the le with geometric data made in step 2 and converts the
thermal results of the whole (time dependent) FDS run (written in the le made in step 3) to the
specic locations of the mesh nodes of each FEM member.
5. ANSYS reads the le with thermal data made in step 4 and computes the time-dependent
temperature response using this data as a boundary condition.
3.2. Simplied approach
The second approach is based on simplied tools. Various methods and formulae are used, depending
on the situation.
3.2.1. Thermal actions resulting from a localised re to the horizontal structural members of the
portal frame. Thermal actions resulting from a localised re to the horizontal structural members of
the portal frame are calculated according to simple analytical formulae given in EN 1991-1-2,
namely Hasemis and Heskestads methods [1].
In Heskestads method, the ame height Lf is rst given by
Lf 1:02D 0:0148Q2=5 m

(1)

where D is the diameter of the re [m] and Q the HRR of the re [W]. Then, the temperature (z) along
the axis of the plume is estimated by
z 20 0:25Qc 2=3 z  z0 5=3 900C

(2)

where Qc is the convective part of the HRR [W], z the height [m] along the ame axis and z0 the virtual
origin [m]. In this study, the resulting net heat ux per unit area hnet received by a horizontal structural
member will be nally calculated by
h

i



4
hnet f m zLf 273 m 2734 c zH  m W=m 
(3)
where is the conguration factor, f is the emissivity of the re (equal to 1), m is the emissivity of the
structural member (equal to 0.7), is the Stephan Boltzmann constant, c is the heat transfer coefcient
(equal to 35 W/m2K), H is the distance between the re source and the ceiling [m], and m is the surface
temperature of the structural element [C].
Therefore, in this case, the radiative part of the heat ux is calculated from the temperature at the
height of the ame axis (a disc with a diameter identical to the diameter of the re is considered for
the conguration factor) and the convective part of the heat ux is obtained from the temperature of
gases under the ceiling.
In Hasemis method, the net heat ux per unit area hnet is calculated from a horizontal ame length
LH and the horizontal distance between the vertical axis of the re and the point along the ceiling where
the thermal ux is calculated, r (refer to EN 1991-1-2 for more details of the calculation procedure).
Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Fire Mater. (2014)

DOI: 10.1002/fam

COMPARING SIMPLE AND ADVANCED TOOLS FOR STRUCTURAL FIRE SAFETY ENGINEERING

In theory, Heskestads method should be used if the ame is not impacting the ceiling and Hasemis
method in the other case (ame impacting the ceiling). In this study, the height under the ceiling is
11 m; therefore, ames are not likely to impact the ceiling. However, the two methods will be used,
regardless of this limitation, in order to compare the results.
3.2.2. Thermal actions resulting from a localised re to the vertical structural members of the portal
frame. Thermal actions resulting from a localised re to the vertical structural members of the portal
frame are calculated according to a simplied model based on the concept of solid ame. As shown in
Figure 3, the ame envelope is modelled as a radiative area (semi-cylinders and rectangular planes),
discretized in bands of constant temperature, whose properties evolve with time according to the
HRR and depend on the height considered. The height of the ame is calculated from Eqn (1), and
the temperature of each elementary band (10 cm high) is given by Eqn (2). Then, the radiative heat
ux received by an elementary face of a columns section is the sum of radiative heat uxes emitted
by each elementary band. More details for this simplied model can be found in Thauvoye et al. [17].
3.2.3. Thermal actions resulting from the hot smoke layer on structural members far from re.
Thermal actions resulting from the hot smoke layer on structural members far from re are
calculated using the temperature of the hot gas layer and the smoke layer height predicted by the
two-zone model CFAST [18] and Eqn (3). Actually, at each time step,
Radiative and convective heat uxes will be calculated to horizontal structural members, and also
to vertical structural members if they are in the hot gas layer,
Radiative heat uxes will be calculated to vertical structural members if they are in the cold gas layer.
Figure 4 gives an overview of the CFAST model. Smoke vents and natural ventilation are simulated, with
equivalent geometric dimensions to those used in the FDS simulation. Because the assumption of uniform
properties within a layer may be challenged for spaces that are very long as a result of cooling and loss of
buoyancy far from the re, that may not be accounted for in the zone model [9], the gymnasium is
subdivided into three virtual rooms connected by full height and width openings in order to better
simulate variations in gas temperature and layer height across the area of the large space. The virtual
openings between the compartments are located under the smoke screens, as can be seen in Figure 4.
3.2.4. Heating of the portal frame. The combination of both above models allows the determination
of the temperature eld near and far away from the re. In consequence, the thermal actions for all the
structural members are obtained by taking the most important value predicted by above models.
For the heating of the structural members, a uniform temperature distribution in the cross section is
considered, and the increase of temperature m during a time interval t is calculated from the equation

Figure 3. Model of solid ame.

Figure 4. CFAST model.

Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Fire Mater. (2014)

DOI: 10.1002/fam

N. HENNETON, C. RENAUD AND B. ZHAO

m Am =V=C hnet t

(4)

where , C and (Am / V), are, respectively, the density, specic heat, and section factor of the steel element.

4. DESIGN FIRE SCENARIO AND DESIGN FIRE

4.1. Design re scenario
A re scenario is a qualitative description of the course of a particular re with respect to time and space [10].
The design re scenario is the re scenario selected to be the more challenging for the structure subject to
analysis. The factors considered in order to select this more challenging re scenario concern therefore
the re itself (distribution and type of fuel, re load density, re spread) and the position of the re
relative to the portal frame. In this study, the selected design re scenario consists of a re starting on a
piece of foam gym mat near the portal frame studied and then spreading to the neighbouring mats used in
activities such as high jump or shot put (refer to Figure 1). Indeed, these foam mats
Represent an important re load density under the portal frame studied,
Are very close to the column 1,
Are composed of materials (mainly polyester) that will support a rapid re growth.
4.2. Design re
Once the design re scenario is selected, the characteristics of the design re have to be determined. A
design re is a simplied but still representative description of the complex physical and chemical
processes occurring in a re. Design re is usually characterized in terms of time-dependent
variables, such as the HRR. Fire can grow from ignition to a fully developed stage and nally decay
and eventually burnout [10]. In the gymnasium, it can be supposed that the re would rapidly reach
a fully developed stage where the rate of combustion is limited by the fuel. The burning rate of fuel
controlled res is dependent upon the nature and surface area of the fuel.
In re safety engineering, there are three main approaches to determine the HRR as a function time:
Analysis of experimental data and denition of a simplied HRR curve that is conservative.
Construction of each part of the curve (growing, stationary and decay phases) by using analytical
rules and parameters depending on the type of building, such as the commonly used relationships
given in EN 1991-1-2. In this approach, the user needs to estimate a priori the amount of
combustible that will be involved in the re. A classical hypothesis is to consider that all
combustible materials within a compartment are burning after the ashover has occurred.
Use of re modelling to assess the HRR. It leads to a more specic re development, depending
on the rate of re growth of the combustible materials.
4.2.1. Advanced approach. In this approach, the FDS code is used to estimate the re growth and the
resulting HRR curve is calculated by simulating the ame spread along the combustible surfaces
involved in the re. The ame spread is modelled by heat transfer through convection and radiation.
As a surface reaches the specied ignition temperature, that part of the surface ignites and burns
following a pre-dened constant HRR per unit area (HRRPUA).
In this case, the design re consists in
Dening the characteristics of the combustible materials (specic heat, density, conductivity,
ignition temperature, HRRPUA, heat of combustion);
Placing a small radiating panel in front of a foam gym mat in order to ignite the rst solid
meshes (Figure 1).
The remaining surface of the foam mat and all other combustible materials will ignite when their
surface temperature reach their ignition temperature. Consequently, the re will propagate to other
combustibles by heating as a result of direct heat radiation or convection from the ames.
Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Fire Mater. (2014)

DOI: 10.1002/fam

COMPARING SIMPLE AND ADVANCED TOOLS FOR STRUCTURAL FIRE SAFETY ENGINEERING

It is worth noticing that adjustments of some of the thermo-physical characteristics may be necessary in
a CFD model, depending on the grid size. In large domains, a compromise is needed between ow
resolution and computational time. The use of a coarse grid (in the FDS model the mesh used is
50 50 50 cm) may result in a lack of accuracy of the heat transfer calculations along combustible
surfaces. As a rule of thumb, the key parameters (ignition temperature and HRRPUA) can be adjusted
by preliminary comparisons with the expected re growth rate of the material involved (slow, medium,
fast or ultra-fast [19]). For example, an ignition temperature of 350C and a constant HRRPUA of
400 kW/m2 have been chosen for the foam mats. These values have been calibrated in preliminary
simulations with FDS of a foam mat in re, in order to have a fast re growth, as can be seen in
Figure 5a and b. One may notice in Figure 5b that between 3 and 6 min, the re growth is rather of
medium type. This is because of the fact that the re area is quickly limited laterally by the width of
the mat. With initial values found in literature (HRRPUA of 400 kW/m2 [20] and ignition temperature
of 400C [21]), the simulated re spread was too slow (Figure 5b).
Such calibrations have been achieved for all types of combustible materials: glue-laminated
benchers (slow re growth), polyethylene ropes (ultra-fast re growth), etc Values used are
summarized in Table II.

Figure 5. (a) Preliminary simulation with FDS of a foam mat. (b) Resulting HRR in FDS, comparison with
t2 curves.
Table II. Values used in the FDS simulation.
Combustible material
Glue laminated
Wood
PVC
Polyester
Polyethylene

Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

HRRPUA (kW/m2)

Ignition temperature (C)

175
250
200
400
700

350
340
360
350
360
Fire Mater. (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/fam

N. HENNETON, C. RENAUD AND B. ZHAO

4.2.2. Simplied approach. For both analytical methods and CFAST, the HRR curves are constructed
with the relationships given in EN 1991-1-2. First, it is necessary to determine the re load, that is to
say the total energy able to be released in case of re. The re is supposed to start on a piece of foam
gym mat near the portal frame studied and then will spread to the neighbouring mats used in high jump,
shot put and sprint activities because polyester foam will support a rapid re growth. Glue-laminated
benchers are more difcult to ignite, so it is considered a priori that only benchers located at
proximity of the high jump activity will ignite. Finally, the re load of some miscellaneous
accessories is added in order to be on a safe side.
Then, in order to meet the applicability requirement of the analytical methods given in EN 1991-1-2,
especially with respect to an equivalent diameter of the re less than 10 m, two zones are considered
(refer to Figure 6):
Z1: zone including foam gym mats used for high jump and some glue-laminated benchers at proximity, giving a re load of 51 GJ.
Z2: zone including the shot put activity (foam gym mats, the safety net in polyethylene rope and
the standing support structure in wood), foam mats used at the end of the sprint, and some miscellaneous accessories, giving a re caloric load of 62.5 GJ.
Besides, these two zones are more relevant for the solid ame models used to evaluate the thermal
actions to the vertical structural members of the portal frame. Figure 7 illustrates the solid ame for
each zone, composed of semi-cylinders and rectangular planes.
In the simplied approach, the design re scenario is described as follows: Fire starts in zone Z1 and
then propagates to zone Z2, 5 min later. At this time, the HRR is 4 MW in zone Z1, corresponding to a
re area of 10 m2, and the re will therefore propagate to zone Z2 because the foam mat in zone Z1 is
only 3 m wide.

Figure 6. Zones considered in the simplied approach.

Figure 7. Schematic above view of incident heat uxes and solid ames for zones Z1 and Z2 in the simplied model.
Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Fire Mater. (2014)

DOI: 10.1002/fam

COMPARING SIMPLE AND ADVANCED TOOLS FOR STRUCTURAL FIRE SAFETY ENGINEERING

The growing phase for each zone is dened by the expression

Q 106 t=t W

(5)

where t is the time needed to reach a HRR of 1 MW, depending on the re growth rate. It is supposed
a fast re growth rate for zone Z1 (reasonable assumption for a polyester foam mat), and an ultra-fast
re growth for zone Z2, considering that the re would be already fully developed in zone Z1, thus
leading to high incident heat uxes to foam mats of zone Z2.
The growing phase is limited by a horizontal plateau corresponding to the stationary state and to a
value of Q given by multiplying the maximum HRRPUA with the maximum area of the re, dened
by the layout of the combustible materials. For each zone, the max HRRPUA is chosen to be
400 kW/m2 [20] (because polyester foam is the dominant combustible), and the calculated maximum
re area is also similar, of approximately 100 m2.
Finally, the horizontal plateau is limited by the decay phase that starts when 70% of the total re
load has been consumed. The decay phase may be assumed to be a linear decrease starting when
70% of the re load has been burnt and completed when the re load has been completely burnt [1].
Figure 8 gives the resulting HRR curves. It should be mentioned that the recommendations on the
range of applicability of analytical methods given in EN 1991-1-2 are met:
The equivalent diameter of the re in each zone is 10 m,
The maximum HRR in each zone is 50 MW.

5. RESULTS
5.1. Results of the advanced approach
As can be seen in Figures 9 and 10, in the FDS simulation, there is a rapid re development between 7
and 8 min, with a maximum HRR of 125 MW during a few seconds, corresponding to the fully
developed re in the shot put area, and especially because of the very fast combustion of the
polyethylene ropes surrounding the foam mats. This behaviour is typically difcult to predict in the
simplied approach, when constructed the HRR curve.
The HRR then stabilizes at 82 MW between 15 and 25 min after the re starting, which is very
similar to the maximum value (80 MW) of the HRR curve constructed in the simplied approach. It
allows a relevant comparison between the two approaches, especially at the height of the re. After
40 min, there is a slow combustion of wooden combustibles in FDS, so results between the two
approaches are no longer comparable.
The maximum gas temperature under the ceiling is approximately 800C and is reached in the
corner of the gymnasium (Figure 11).

Figure 8. HRR curves constructed with EN 1991-1-2.

Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Fire Mater. (2014)

DOI: 10.1002/fam

N. HENNETON, C. RENAUD AND B. ZHAO

Figure 9. HRR curve in FDS, comparison with the RR curve used in the simplied approach.

Figure 10. Snapshots from the FDS simulation.

The maximum heating of the portal frame is reached at about 30 min after the re starting. In
Figure 12, the snapshot from ANSYS at this time shows the heating of the column 1 close to the
re and part of the horizontal members. The maximum temperature is approximately 700C and is
reached within the column 1 at 1 m high. The temperature of the members decreases with the height,
and in the upper part of the column, the temperature is only 350C. Concerning horizontal members
of the portal frame, the maximum temperature is about 500C and reached above the high jump area.
Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Fire Mater. (2014)

DOI: 10.1002/fam

COMPARING SIMPLE AND ADVANCED TOOLS FOR STRUCTURAL FIRE SAFETY ENGINEERING

Figure 11. Temperature of gases (C) under the ceiling, t = 20 min. Value of 500C in black.

Figure 12. Heating of the portal frame (C) obtained with ANSYS, at t = 30 min.

5.2. Comparison between simplied methods

As mentioned previously, various methods and formulae are used in the simplied approach,
depending on the situation:
Heskestads and Hasemis methods for calculating thermal actions to the horizontal structural
members,
A simplied model based on the concept of solid ame for calculating thermal actions to the vertical structural members,
The CFAST model for calculating thermal actions resulting from the hot smoke layer on structural
members far from re.
In the Figure 13 are compared the incident heat uxes to the horizontal structural members obtained by
Heskestads method (for each zone Z1 and Z2), Hasemis method (for each zone Z1 and Z2, calculating
heat uxes on the vertical axis of the re, r = 0) and the CFAST model. At the height of the re, between
15 and 25 min, results obtained with the Hasemis method are by far the most important. Consequently, in
order to have a safe approach, thermal actions predicted by the Hasemis method will be used to study the
heating of the portal frame, even though ames are not impacting the ceiling.
Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Fire Mater. (2014)

DOI: 10.1002/fam

N. HENNETON, C. RENAUD AND B. ZHAO

Figure 13. Comparison of incident heat ux to the horizontal structural members obtained in the simplied
approach.

5.3. Comparison between simplied and advanced approaches

The Figure 15 gives heating curves of the portal frame for both simplied (dotted line) and advanced
approaches (full line). The selected measurement points are indicated in Figure 14.
These results allow the following analyses:
For the horizontal structural member above the re in the high jump area (x = x1 in Figure 14), the
temperatures are very similar (Figure 15a). The simplied approach (i.e. Hasemis method) gives
realistic results and seems to be conservative, despite the fact that in theory, the method should not
be used because ames are not impacting the ceiling. At the opposite, the Heskestads method
would give underestimated and not conservative results. This rst result highlights the need to
extend the scope of application of these methods for large compartments.
For the horizontal structural member nearly above the re in the shot put area (x = x2 in Figure 14),
the temperature predicted by Hasemis method in zone Z2 is also realistic and conservative in
comparison to the advanced approach (Figure 15b). It should be mentioned that these results have
been obtained using r = 0 in Hasemis method, that is to say calculating heat uxes at the vertical axis
of the ame. This is relevant for x = x1 (this point is at the centre of Z1) but not for x2. In fact, temperatures are quickly reduced as the horizontal distance from the axis of the ame increases, which is
not on the safe side. For example, the maximum temperature calculated in the steel member is 550C
above the axis of the ame in zone Z2 (r = 0), 420C with r = 2 m and 340C with r = 5 m.
For the horizontal structural members very far from the re (x = x4), results of both approaches are
very close (Figure 15d). In the simplied approach, thermal actions are calculated from the hot gas
layer predicted by CFAST, which seems to be relevant in that case.
For the horizontal structural members a bit far from the re (x = x3), still mainly subjected to the
hot gas layer, the simplied approach (i.e. CFAST model) underestimates the heating of the
members (Figure 15c). This is because of the fact that the assumption of a uniform hot gas
layer in space is not accurate, in such a large compartment, in the transition zone between the eld
close to and the eld far from the re. The average gas temperature in the upper layer calculated
by the zone model is not sufcient because there is a vertical thermal gradient within the hot gas
layer at this location.

Figure 14. Locations of measurement points for the comparative study.

Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Fire Mater. (2014)

DOI: 10.1002/fam

COMPARING SIMPLE AND ADVANCED TOOLS FOR STRUCTURAL FIRE SAFETY ENGINEERING

Figure 15. Heating of the portal frame. Comparison between advanced approach (full line) and simplied
approach (dotted line). (a) x = x1. (b) x = x2. (c) x = x3. (d) x = x4. (e) Column 1, z = 1 m. (f) Column
1, z = 4 m. (g) Column 1, z = 8 m. (h) Column 2, z = 4 m. (i) Column 2, z = 9 m.

For the vertical structural members close to the re (column 1, z = 1 m and 4 m), the simplied model based on the concept of solid ame gives results very similar to the advanced
approach (Figure 15e and f). There is a tendency to overestimate the incident heat uxes
at z = 4 m (Figure 15f) because the ame envelope is modelled as a cylinder, while a cone
should be more appropriate, leading to lower heat uxes to the column. One can also nd
that there is a slight delay between the two approaches, during the rst 20 min of re.
Actually, in the simplied approach, the solid ame covers a surface area of 100 m2 from
the starting of the re (as in Figure 7). This is not a correct assumption because the use
of Eqns (1) and (2) leads to very low heat uxes before 15 min, when the HRR is not
sufciently important. The model will be improved in the future by considering a solid ame
whose surface area evolves with time according to the HRR.
For the vertical structural members close to the re but in the hot gas layer (column 1, z = 8 m), the
simplied approach underestimates the temperature within the member (Figure 15 g). In fact, this
Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Fire Mater. (2014)

DOI: 10.1002/fam

N. HENNETON, C. RENAUD AND B. ZHAO

part of the column is only subjected to the hot gas layer computed by CFAST because the ame
height is found to be approximately 5 m both in the FDS simulation and with the Heskestads
method (the latter being used for the model based on the concept of solid ame, refer to 3.2.2).
For the vertical structural members far from the re and in the cold gas layer (column 2, z = 4 m),
results between the simplied and advanced approaches are very close (Figure 15 h). In the
simplied approach, the members located in the cold gas layer received heat uxes from both
the upper layer and the solid ames.
For the vertical structural members far from the re and in the hot gas layer (column 2, z = 9 m),
results are also very similar (Figure 15i).

6. CONCLUSIONS
In this comparative study, hand calculations and a zone model, on one hand, and a CFD model, on the
other hand, have been used to estimate thermal actions to a portal frame of a gymnasium in real re
conditions. The aim was to use the various tools proposed in the structural Eurocodes and to investigate
their limits. Two distinct methodologies to assess the HRR of the re have been compared. It is shown
that in spite of the signicant differences in the sophistication of these modelling approaches, in case of
localised res, predictions of analytical methods can be in good agreement with predictions of the CFD
model. In particular, it is demonstrated the relevance of using a simplied method based on the concept
of solid ame to predict thermal actions to vertical members.
It must be noticed that, in case of localised re ames not impacting the ceiling, surprisingly, the
Hasemis method leads to realistic thermal actions for horizontal members if heat uxes are calculated
at the vertical axis of the ame, while theoretically, it should not be applicable. The obtained results
also reveal some limitations in the use of actual simplied tools proposed in EN 1991-1-2 (both zone
models and analytical methods) to predict the thermal eld in the particular transition zone between the
eld close to and the eld far from the re, in such a large building. This nding shows the need to
develop more relevant analytical methods to ll the gap in order to prepare the future revision of the
structural Eurocodes. Because such experiments are very rare, an alternative way to validate the new
formulae may be to perform parametric studies with help of CFD models.

NOMENCLATURE
(Am / V)
C
D
H
hnet
Lf
LH
Q
Qc
r
t
t
x
z
z0

Section factor of the steel element (m1)

Specic heat (J/kgK)
Diameter of the re (m)
Distance between the re source and the ceiling (m)
Net heat ux per unit area received by a horizontal structural member (W/m2)
Flame height (m)
Horizontal ame length (m)
Heat release rate (W)
Convective part of the heat release rate (W)
Horizontal distance from the vertical axis of the re (m)
Time needed to reach a heat release rate of 1 MW (s)
Time interval (s)
Measurement point on the portal frame
Height (m)
Virtual origin (m)
GREEK SYMBOLS

c
f

Heat transfer coefcient (W/m2K)

Emissivity of the re

Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Fire Mater. (2014)

DOI: 10.1002/fam

COMPARING SIMPLE AND ADVANCED TOOLS FOR STRUCTURAL FIRE SAFETY ENGINEERING

m
m

Emissivity of the structural member

Temperature along the axis of the plume (C)
Surface temperature of the structural element (C)
Increase of temperature (C)
Density (kg/m3)
Stephan Boltzmann constant (W/m2K4)
Conguration factor

REFERENCES
1. EN 1991-1-2. Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-2: General actions - Actions on structures exposed to re.
European Committee for Standardisation (CEN), Brussels, Belgium, 2002.
2. Mowrer FW. The Right Tool for the Job. Fire Protection Engineering Magazine 2002; 13:3945.
3. Rein G, Bar-Ilan A, Fernandez-Pello AC, Alvares N. A comparison of three models for the simulation of accidental
res. Journal of Fire Protection Engineering 2006; 16:183209.
4. Torero JL. Scaling-Up re. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 2013; 34:99124.
5. Beyler CL. Fire plumes and ceiling jets. Fire Safety Journal 1986; 11:5375.
6. Olenick SM, Carpenter DJ. An Updated International Survey of Computer Models for Fire and Smoke. Journal of
Fire Protection Engineering 2003; 13:87110.
7. ProlARBED, Universit de Lige, CTICM, TNO, Labein. Development of design rules for steel structures
subjected to natural res in Large Compartments. ECSC Agreement No 7210-SA/210/317/517/619/932. Final
Report EUR 18868 EN, 1999.
8. ISO/TS 24679:2011. Fire safety engineering - Performance of structures in re. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2011.
9. ISO/TS 13447:2013. Fire safety engineering - Guidance for use of re zone models. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2013.
10. ISO/TS 16733:2006. Fire safety engineering - Selection of design re scenarios and design res. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland,
2006.
11. Stern-Gottfried J, Rein G. Travelling res for structural designPart I: Literature review. Fire Safety Journal 2012;
54:7485.
12. Hopkin DJ. Testing the single zone structural re design hypothesis. Interam 2013, Proceedings of the 13th
International Conference, University of London, UK, 2013; 139150.
13. McGrattan K, McDermott K, Hostikka S, Floyd J. Fire Dynamics Simulator (Version 5) - Users Guide. NIST
Special Publication 1019-5, SVN Repository Revision: 6701, September 3, 2010.
14. ANSYS. ANSYS Users Manual for Revision 14.0 - Volume IV Theory. Swanson Analysis SYSTEM, INC.,
Houston, USA, 1992.
15. Zhao B, Desanghere S, Darche J. CFD and FEM Coupling With Computer Codes FDS and ANSYS For Fire Resistance,
Interam 2007, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference, University of London, UK, 2007; 14611466.
16. BRE, Arcelor Prol Luxembourg, CTICM, TNO Efectis, Universit de Lige. FIRESTRUC - Integrating advanced
three-dimensional modelling methodologies for predicting thermo-mechanical behaviour of steel and composite
structures subjected to natural res. Final Report of RFCS Project, Contract No RFS-CR-030300, 2007.
17. Thauvoye C, Vassart O, Zhao B. Analytical method for the calculation of heat uxes received by a vertical member
subjected to a localized re in an open car park. Interam 2013, Proceedings of the 13th International Conference,
University of London, UK, 2013; 10831094.
18. Jones W, Peacock R, Forney G, Reneke P. CFAST - Consolidated Model of Fire Growth and Smoke Transport
(Version 6) - Technical Reference Guide. NIST Special Publication 1026, 2005.
19. NFPA 92B. Guide for Smoke Management Systems in Malls, Atria, and Large Areas, 2000 Edition. NFPA.
20. Mouritz AP, Mathys Z, Gibson AG. Heat release of polymer composites in re. Composites: Part A 2006;
37:10401054.
21. Braun E, Levin BC. Polyesters: A Review of the Literature on Products of Combustion and Toxicity. Fire and
Materials 1986; 10:107123.

Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Fire Mater. (2014)

DOI: 10.1002/fam