FIRE RESISTANCE OF AXIALLY LOADED SLENDER CONCRETE

FILLED STEEL TUBULAR COLUMNS. Development of a threethreedimensional numerical model and comparison with Eurocode 4.
Ana Espins, Antonio Hospitaler, Carmen Ibez, Manuel L. Romero
Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnologa del Hormign (ICITECH)
Universidad Politcnica de Valencia
MATERIAL PROPERTIES AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES

NUMERICAL MODEL

CONCRETE
CORE

Non-linear FE analysis package ABAQUS

Parts: concrete core + steel tube ASSEMBLY
Eight-node three-dimensional solid elements (C3D8RT)
Additional variable: Nodal temperature (NT11)
Element size < 2 cm

CONCRETE

Thermal properties according to EC2 Part 1-2

c = 6 x 10-6 C
C-1 (Hong
(Hong-Varma,
Varma, 2009)
Stress-strain curves proposed by prof. Lie (1994)

STEEL

Thermal and mechanical properties according to EC3 Part 1-2

s = 12 x 10-6 C-1 (Hong-Varma, 2009)
3 50E+07
3.50E+07

c = th ( c ) + ( c , c ) + cr ( c , c , t ) + tr ( c , c )
a = th ( a ) + ( a , a ) + cr ( a , a , t )
STRAIN COMPONENTS

3.50E+08

20 C
3.00E+08

100 C

100 C
200 C

STEEL TUBE

200 C

2.50E+07

300 C

2.50E+08

s a (Pa)

s c (P a )

500 C

2.00E+07
400 C
500 C

1.50E+07

2.00E+08

600 C

STEEL-CONCRETE INTERFACE. MECHANICAL CONTACT

Normal behaviour

1.00E+07

cr Creep strain

700 C

1.50E+08

800 C

600 C

Length of the column (L)

External diameter (D)
Thickness of the steel tube (t)
Axial load level ( =N / Npl)
Concrete resistance (fck) and steel resistance (fy)

Stress-related strain

400 C

300 C

C3D8RT

PARAMETERS

th Free thermal strain

20 C

3.00E+07

900 C

tr Transient strain

1000 C

1.00E+08

700 C

1100 C

800 C

5.00E+06

5.00E+07

900 C

0.00E+00
0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

0.00E+00
0.00%

14.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

e a (% )

e c (%)

Stress strain curves for a 30 MPa concrete

Stress-strain

Stress strain curves for a S275 steel

Stress-strain

STEEL-CONCRETE INTERFACE. THERMAL CONTACT

Gap conductance: q = k ( A B )

Frictional behaviour

k Gap conductance

A Temperature of point A (slave surface)

B Temperature of point B (master surface)

Gap conductance as a function of clearance

Gap radiation: q = C (( A Z ) 4 ( B Z ) 4 )
Z Absolute zero

Hard contact (pressure-overclosure relationship)

F Effective viewfactor
A Surface A emissivity
B Surface B emissivity

Coulomb friction model (slip regions)

C=

F
1/ A + 1/ B 1
Viewfactor as a function of clearance

Han LH et al., 2005.

VALIDATION OF THE MODEL. THERMAL RESPONSE

ISO-834 standard fire curve

VALIDATION OF THE MODEL. MECHANICAL RESPONSE

Comparison with Lies finite differences model (Lie TT, 1994)

1200

c = 25 W/m K
2

1000

=1

T em p era t u re(C )

800

1200

= 5.6710 8 W/m 2 K 4

600

1100

m = 0.7

400

200

f =1

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

1000

120

900

Time(min)

800

Heat transfer equation:

Temperature (C)

c
= ( ) + Q
t

m = h&net h&net = h&net ,c + h&net ,r (W/m 2 )

n

Boundary conditions:

T4_ANALYTICAL
T5_ANALYTICAL
T6_ANALYTICAL

57
56
80
102
82
112
133
70

0
120

40

FRR (min)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

10

20

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

D (mm)

t (mm)

fy (N/mm2)

fck (N/mm2)

N (kN)

= N / Npl,Rd

FRR (min)

141
168
219
219
219
273
273
273

6.5
4.8
4.8
4.8
8.2
5.6
5.6
5.6

401.93
346.98
322.06
322.06
367.43
412.79
412.79
412.79

28.62
28.62
24.34
24.34
24.34
26.34
26.34
26.34

131
218
492
384
525
574
525
1000

8.90%
15.37%
26.19%
20.44%
18.88%
17.08%
15.63%
29.76%

57
56
80
102
82
112
133
70

Cross-sectional temperature distribution for a CFT 141x6.5 mm column

Test

Numerical prediction

-10

Simulation

FRR

72
75
74
97
68
126
137
70
Average
Standard deviation

max (mm)

FRRtest
=
FRR NS

Test

0.79
0.75
1.08
1.05
1.21
0 89
0.89
0.97
1.00
0.97
0.15

Simulation

max

24.09
20.48
18.13
18.77
20.36
16 40
16.40
19.67
5.51

24.35
19.25
12.36
16.23
19.30
17 71
17.71
18.61
10.35
Average
Standard deviation

COMPARISON WITH EC4 SIMPLIFIED CALCULATION MODEL

= max,test
max,NS

The proposed numerical model gives a better prediction of the fire resistance rating, showing a very accurate trend.
The EC4 simplified model doesnt take into account the thermal expansion of the materials, nor the air gap at the
steel-concrete boundary, what lies on the safe side and gives a very conservative prediction.
If we apply these simplifications to our numerical model,
model
smaller values of the fire resistance ratings are obtained,
very similar to those predicted by EC4.

0.99
1.06
1.47
1.16
1.05
0 93
0.93
1.06
0.53
1.03
0.26

160

140

-40

160

25

-60

Time (min)

Comparison between calculated and measured

axial displacement, for tests no. 4 and 7
30

+15%

140

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

+15%
Numerica
al predictions, max (mm)

Numerical predictions, FRR (min)

-50

120

-15%

100
80
60
40

SAFE
20

20

-15%
15

10

FRR

FRR (min)
Test
est

Simulation
S
u at o

57
56
80
102
82
112
133
70

72
75
74
97
68
126
137
70

Simulation
( expansion)
(no
i )
49
46
52
63
52
118
126
58

EC4
C

49
46
49
61
51
91
96
56
Average
Standard deviation

140

120

120

0.79
0.75
1.08
1.05
1.21
0.89
0.97
1.00
0.97
0.15

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

10

80

100

120

140

160

20

80

60

40

Proposed model

20

100

80

60

40

Proposed model (no expansion)

20

EC4 simplified model

EC4 simplified model

0

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Test results (min)

MODEL WITH EXPANSION

160

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Test results (min)

MODEL WITHOUT EXPANSION

Maximum axial displacement (max)

CONCLUSIONS

-20

1.40

1.60

-15%
100

80

Column
specimen

60

20

1.20
Time ((min))

max
m

tRRF

-50

1.00

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

EC4 Simplified Model predictions (min)

1.20

FRR =

FRR EC 4
FRR NS

40

1.40

-40

+15%

120

-10

-30

FRR > 120

140

25

Test results, max (mm)

Fire resistance rating (FRR)

15

Numerical p
predictions (min)

Test results, FRR (min)

60

1.16
1.22
1.63
1.67
1.61
1.23
1.39
1.25
1.39
0.21

100

160

10

40

EC4
C

0
Numerical prediction

20

Simulation
( expansion)
(no
i )
1.16
1.22
1.54
1.62
1.58
0.95
1.06
1.21
1.29
0.25

Simulation
S
u at o

Test
20

FRRtest
=
FRRcalc

Calculated results (min)

Column
specimen

-30

160

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

1.00
1.00
0.94
0.97
0.98
0.77
0.76
0.97

Itt iss poss

possible
b e to reproduce
ep oduce tthee EC4
C ssimplified
p ed ca
calculation
cu at o model
ode ppredictions
ed ct o s by assu
assuming
g full
u tthermal
e a co
contact
tact in tthee
steel-concrete interface and removing the thermal expansion of the materials, what lies on the safe side.

1.00

0.80
0.80
30

Axial disp. velocity (Numerical)

10

0
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

-20
-5

-38,1
-40

h
mm
Axial displacement limit C =
100
EN 1363-1:1999 failure criteria

Axial displacement velocity limit

25

30

35

40

45

50

20

25

30

D/t

35

40

45

50

D/t

1.40

3h
dC
mm/min
=
dt 1000

The proposed numerical model provides more accurate predictions than the EC4 simplified calculation model, which
tends to be excesively conservative in most cases.

1.40
1.20

1.00

-10

1.00

0.80
-11,43
11 43

0.80
0.60

-70

-15

-80
Time (min)

Determination of the FRR (test no. 5)

In order to simulate the real behaviour of the column under fire, the thermal expansion of steel and concrete must be
taken into account, what extends the failure time.

1.60

1.20

-50

-60
60

0.40
20

tRF

-30

0.60

max

0
-10

Axial displacemnt ve
elocity (mm/min)

Axial displacement (Numerical)

Axial disp. velocity (Test)

20

0.60

Axial displacement (Test)

Axial displacem
ment (mm)

Axial displacement (mm)

160

-20

Calculated resultts (min)

Axial displacement (mm

m)

Column
specimen
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

T2_ANALYTICAL

Time (min)

Column
specimen

Test

100

T1_ANALYTICAL

400

20

80

T6_ABAQUS

60

T5_ABAQUS

500

200

h&net ,r = m f ( r + 273) 4 - ( m + 273) 4 (W/

(W/m 2 )

40

T4_ABAQUS

100

30

20

T3_ABAQUS

600

300

RESULTS

T2_ABAQUS

Circular hollow sections

Filled with plain concrete
Concentric compression load
L = 3810 mm (Lexposed = 3048 mm)
Fix-ended

T3_ANALYTICAL

Convection: h&net ,c = c ( g - m ) (W/m 2 )

Radiation:

T1_ABAQUS

700

Some of the specimens previously tested by Lie et al. (1988)

at the National Research Council of Canada were simulated:

0.60

0.40
5

10

15

20

(% )

25

30

35

10

15

20

(% )

25

30

35

The th
Th
thermall expansion
i off th
the steel
t l ttube
b produces
d
an opposed
d axial
i l strain
t i iin th
the early
l stages
t
off hheating,
ti as wellll as an
opening of the gap in the steel-concrete interface, which delays the heating of the concrete core and thus increases
the fire resistance rating.