Performance of Concrete

Members Subjected to Large

Hydrocarbon Pool Fires
Renata I. Zwiers, PhD
Senior Research Engineer
Fire!Thermal Technology Section
Construction Technology
Laboratories, Inc.
Skokie, Illinois

Bruce J. Morgan, PhD

Principal Engineer
Structural Evakuation
and Analysis Section
Construction Technology
Laboratories, Ina.
Skokie, Illinois

he performance of structural rnem- exposed to the standard ASTM Desig-

T bers and assemblies exposed to fire
conditions resulting from large, outdoor,
free burning, fluid hydrocarbon fueled
pool fires is of concern in the design of
Hydrocarbon Processing Industry (HP!)
facilities and other facilities where this
type of fire can occur. Fire resistance
ratings for most structural concrete
components have been determined in
accordance with ASTM Designation:
E119, "Standard Methods of Fire Tests
of Building Construction and Mate-
rials." i However, since outdoor hydro-
carbon pool fires are significantly differ-
ent than building fires, special hydro-
carbon pool fire models and associated
test procedures have been developed.
In this paper, a comparative evalua-
tion is made on the performance of con-
crete beams and columns when they are
nation: E119 building fire and when
they are exposed to a hydrocarbon pool
fire. The hydrocarbon pool fire selected
for this analysis is defined in ASTM
Designation: E5 P191, "Proposed Test
Methods for Determining Effects of
Large Hydrocarbon Pool Fires on
Structural Members and Assemblies."a
Significant differences that exist be-
tween the two fire models can be iden-
tified as follows:
Higher temperature of the hydro-
carbon pool fire during the first 2 hours.
Requirement for hot moving gases
in the hydrocarbon pool fire model as
compared to no such requirement in the
standard building fire model.
Total flame engulfment (bottom,
sides and top) of beams in the hydrocar-
bon pool fire test as compared to the

120
 SUMMARY
The purpose of this investigation was to
determine analytically if the performance
of concrete beams and columns in a
hydrocarbon pool test fire would differ sig-
nificantly from their performance in a stan-
dard test fire. The investigation consisted
of a finite element analysis to obtain
temperature distributions in typical cross
sections, a comparison of the resulting
temperature distribution in the cross sec-
tion, and a strength analysis of a beam
based on temperature distribution data.
The following three findings are based
on the results of the investigation:
1. In contrast to other structural compo-
nents with sprayed-on or lightly attached
insulation, concrete has a very good re-
sistance to the erosive and abrasive ef-
fects of hot moving gases which typically
typical three-sided exposure (bottom
and sides) of beams in the standard
building fire test.
These differences are discussed in
more detail in a later section. The pur-
pose of this paper is to determine
analytically whether these differences
significantly affect the fire endurance of
concrete components typically used in
HPI facilities.
BACKGROUND
Experimental and Analytical
Methods for Determining Fire
Endurance of Concrete Structural
Components
A typical pipe rack found in HPI
facilities is shown in Fig. 1. It consists
of beams, columns and struts. A stan-
dard ASTM Designation: E119 fire test
would involve loading a structural com-
ponent (beam or column) to its full de-
sign load and then exposing the loaded
PCI JOURNALUanuary-February 1989 121
exist in hydrocarbon pool fires.
2. Temperatures in the cross sections
due to the hydrocarbon pool test fire were
about 10 to 25 minutes ahead of those due
to the standard test fire. Differences were
greatest during the first hour at points near
the surface.
3. The nominal moment strength of a
beam section (calculated at 1.2 and 3 hour
exposures) was reduced only an additional
5 to 12 percent of original strength when
the beams were exposed to the hydrocar-
bon pool fire rather than the standard test
fire. Most of this difference in strength
capacity was because the beam was ex-
posed on four sides (top, bottom and
sides) in the hydrocarbon pool fire, while
only the bottom and sides of the beam
were exposed in the standard test fire.
component to the standard fire until it
can no longer support its load.
To analytically determine the fire en-
durance of a component based on
strength criteria, temperature distribu-
tion in a cross section can be obtained
from a finite element analysis. These
data can then be used to calculate the
strength of the component at selected
times, The procedure for strength
calculations is outlined in Refs. 3, 4 and
5. Presently, strength analysis guide-
lines in the cited publications are lim-
ited to analysis of beams and slabs. No
analytical procedures are outlined for
evaluating column strength in a fire.
However, as in the analysis of beam and
slab strength, these latter strengths will
to a large degree depend on the temper-
ature distribution in the columns,
Therefore, in addition to a strength
analysis of a beam section, this investi-
gation includes a comparison of temper-
ature distributions in beam and column
cross sections resulting from exposure to
the two different fires.
 Expansion Joint

Concrete
te
Struts

Precast
Concrete
Columns

(a) Side view

Expansion Jolnl
Precast Concrero Struts

Precast Concrete Booms

Precast Concrete Columns

(b) Plan view

Fig. 1. HPI pipe rack assembly.

Comparison of the Standard

Building Fire and the Selected
Hydrocarbon Pool Fire
A typical oil pool fire will have
higher initial temperatures and greater
heat fluxes than those associated with
the standard building fire. The differ-
ence in temperatures is due to the dif-
ference in the nature of the fuel found in
buildings and HPI facilities, while the
difference in heat flux is a result of vary
-ingcostra ulionfar.F
example, in a building fire, the primary
source of air movement is through doors
and windows. This results in significant
constraints on the movement of air to the
fire and movement of combustion prod-
ucts away from the fire. Such constraints
on circulation do not typically exist in
HPI facilities.
The standard furnace time-tempera-
ture curve for a building fire is shown in
Fig. 2. 1 Unlike the standard building
fire, the selected hydrocarbon pool fire
model does not specify a furnace time-
temperature relation.' Instead, the E5
P191 Fire Test specifies that a heat flux
of 55,000 Btu/ft2/hr be incident upon a
test specimen within 5 minutes of test
initiation. The heat flux is required to
consist of both radiative and convective
components with approximately a ten to

122
 2000
1500
Exposure
Temperature, 1000
'F
500
0 05 1 1.5
Fig. 2. Furnace time-temperature curves.
one radiative to convective heat flux
ratio. As noted in Ref 2, an enclosed
furnace with optically opaque walls at
1865F, containing optically transparent
gases at 1865F, generates the required
radiative heat flux of approximately
50,000 Btu/ft2/hr.
Based on these data, a furnace time-
temperature curve for the radiative
component of a hydrocarbon pool fire
can be developed. This resulting time-
temperature curve is also shown in Fig.
2. The convective heat flux component
of 5000 Btu/tt2/hr needed to meet the
55,000 Btu/(t 2llir total heat flux require-
ment would come about from engulfing
the test object with the 1865F gas
moving at approximately 33 ft/sec.
The circulating hot gases in a hydro-
carbon pool fire can affect the fire resis-
tance of a structural component in two
ways. First, they will affect the temper-
ature distribution within the component
due to the additional heat flux generated
by the hot gases. The resulting higher
cross-sectional temperatures can be
determined using a finite element
analysis. The other possible effect of
moving gases is erosion of surface mate-
PCI JOURNAL/January-February 1989
2 2.5 3
Time, hrs
rial. However, while this may be signifi-
cant for members with certain
sprayed-on or lightly attached insula-
tion, it should not be a factor in the fire
resistance of components fabricated
from materials with good high temper-
ature resistance to surface erosion and
abrasion such as concrete. Therefore,
this latter effect is not modeled in the
current analysis,
Flame Engulfment
To simulate actual construction con-
ditions in a building, ASTM Designa-
tion: E119 requires that columns under-
going a fire test be exposed on all four
sides, while beams be exposed on three
sides. In buildings, beams generally
support floor or ceiling assemblies that
protect the beam from complete expo-
sure. However, in HPI pipe rack as-
semblies both beams and columns can
be exposed to the fire from all sides.
This is reflected in ASTM Designation:
E5 P191 guidelines which require that
both beams and columns be exposed to
furnace temperatures on all tour sides.
Figs. 3a and 3b show how tempera-
123
 Isothermal
Line

T1
T2
T3
Ta
Ts Reinforcing
Steel

(a) Total flame engulfment

Isothermal
Line

T
T2
T3
4
rs .Reinforcing
Steel

(b) Exposure on three sides

"T il T 2 T T 4 . T 5 are temperatures, where T1<T2<T3<T4<T5

Fig. 3. Typical temperature distribution in beam cross section.

tune distributions within a beam cross nation: E5 P191. For a comparative

section would differ as a result of the
two types of exposures. For a given
time, temperatures at the top of the
beam tested according to ASTM Desig-
nation: E119 would be significantly
lower than temperatures at the top of the
beam tested according to ASTM Desig-
evaluation of these two cases, simply
examining temperature distributions
may not he sufficient. Strength calcula-
tions should be carried out to determine
if changes in the concrete temperature
of the compression block significantly
affect beam performance.

124

20"
16"
20.
7 6'
18"
24'
Fig, 4, Selected column and beam cross sections.
THE FINITE ELEMENT
MODEL
Three column and two beam cross
sections were selected for analysis using
the TASEF (Temperature Analysis of
Structures Exposed to Fire) 6 digital
computer program. The selected col-
umn cross sections were 16 x 16,
20 x 20, and 24 x 24 in. The beam cross
sections were 12 x 20 and 18 x 24 in.
The column and beam cross sections
selected for the analysis are shown in
Fig. 4. Concrete thermal properties
were based on Refs. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
The properties from these references
were refined based on calibration
TASEF computer runs of beam and col-
uwnn cross sections using experimental
temperature distribution data for com-
parison. Both normal weight and struc-
tural lightweight concretes with densi-
PCI JOURNAUJanuary-February 1989 125
24"
24'
20"
ties of 145 and 110 pcf, respectively,
were used.
The furnace time-temperature rela-
tions used in the analysis are shown in
Fig. 2. The TASEF computer program is
capable of simulating both radiative and
convective heat flux inputs. The hy-
drocarbon pool fire model included a
convective heat transfer coefficient of
2.4 Btu/ft2fhr/F so that the convective
heat flux incident on the cross section
would be the approximately 5000 Btu/
ft2/hr needed to generate the required
total heat flux of 55,000 Btu/ft21hr.
The cross sections of components that
are totally engulfed in the fire are dou-
bly symmetric. Therefore, only one
quarter of each cross section was mod-
eled. For analysis of a beam exposed to
fire on three sides, the same quarter
section model was used. However, data
were extrapolated as shown in Fig. 5.
 r............................................._.......^

............................................^ f

^...._....._
- ^-'- -^
Extrapolated
Distribution

1
LEJJH Calculated
:..,. J I Temperature
Distribution

(a) Exposure on four sides

i E

I
Extrapolated
Distribution

E ^

Calculate
Temperature
Distribution

b __...._......_...-.-.- .....

(b) Exposure on three sides

Fig. 5. Finite element model and extrapolation of data.

The smallest cross section was modeled the two fires in Figs. 6 through 13. Data
with 140 elements while the largest are presented fin points 1, 2, 3 and 4 in.
cross section was modeled with 225 from the exposed surface in both normal
elements, Localized material failures weight and lightweight aggregate con-
that might occur during an actual expo- crete components. Calculations indi-
sure, such as cracking or spalling, were cated that the temperatures depended
not modeled. primarily on the distance from the ex-
posed surface rather than on specimen
dimensions. Therefore, curves in Figs. 6
RESULTS OF through 13 are representative of tem-
TEMPERATURE ANALYSIS perature distributions for any of the
cross sections shown in Fig. 4.
Time-temperature data obtained from Table 1 lists the maximum tempera-
the finite element analysis are shown for ture difference occurring at each of the

126
Table 1. Maximum temperature differences at selected points.
Temperature at time of
maximum difference, 'F
Distance Time of maximum Time
from Type of temperature difference E E5 P191 delay,
surface, in. concrete hours : minutes fire fire Difference minutes*
weight 0;15 439 815 376 15
1 Lightweight 0:15 383 624 241 10
Normal weight 0:30 393 554 161 15
2 Lightweight 0:30 226 361 135 10
Normal weight 0:45 306 404 98 10
3 Lightweight 1:00 231 318 87 10
Normal weight 1:00 225 302 77 10
4 Lightweight 1:45 267 311 44 10
'Additional time needed for temperature in Column 4 of table to reach temperature in Column 5 oftable.
11ote: 1 in. _ 25.4 mm; tc = (t F 31)!1.8,

four points during the 3 hour exposure
period. It also shows the time at which
this maximum difference occurred. For
points 1, 2, 3 and 4 in. from the surface
in normal weight aggregate concrete,
the maximum temperature difference
occurred during the first hour of the test,
This was also the case for points 1, 2
and 3 in. from the surface in lightweight
aggregate concrete. For the point 4 in.
from the surface in lightweight aggre-
gate concrete the maximum temperature
difference occurred during the second
hour of the test. However, the mag-
nitude of this latter maximum tempera-
ture difference was only 44F.
Table 1 also lists the additional time
required for a point in a component ex-
posed to the standard building fire to
reach the temperature existing at the
same point in a component exposed to
the hydrocarbon pool fire. For example,
for a point I in. from the surface in a
normal weight aggregate concrete com-
ponent, the maximum temperature dif-
ference due to the two fires occurs at 15
minutes. At that time, the temperature
in the component exposed to the hydro-
carbon pool fire is 815F. When the
component is exposed to the standard
building fire, the same point reaches the
815F temperature 30 minutes after the
start of the fire (Fig. 6). The temperature
rise at 1 in. from the surface due to the
standard building fire is then about 15
minutes slower than the temperature
rise at 1 in. from the surface due to the
hydrocarbon pool fire.
Temperature rise delays for points 1, 2,
3 and 4 in. from the surface are listed in
Table I for times at which the maximum
temperature difference occurs. Informa-
tion about temperature rise delays at
other times can be obtained from Figs. 6
through 13. For points 1 in. from the sur-
face, the temperature rise delays ranged
from about 10 to 25 minutes. For points 2
in. or more from the surface, the temper-
ature rise delays ranged from about 10 to
15 minutes.
ANALYSIS OF BEAM
STRENGTH
The strength of the heath cross section
shown in Fig. 14 was analyzed for 1, 2
and 3 hour exposures to both the stan-
dard building fire and the hydrocarbon
pool fire. Normal weight as well as
lightweight concretes were modeled.
Strength calculations followed standard

PCI JOURNALIJanuary-February 1989 127

 1700

1500
E5
1300

1100

T F 900

700

500

300

100
0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:3(
Time, hrmin

Fig. 6. Temperature 1 in, from the surface in a normal weight concrete section.

1700

1500

1300

1100

Temp 900 G

700

500

300

100
0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00 1
Time, hrmin

Fig. 7. Temperature 2 in. from the surface in a normal weight concrete section.

procedures outlined for simple sup-
ported beams exposed to high temper-
atures. 3 s Calculations for a 2 hour ex-
posure of a normal weight concrete
beam are shown in Table 2 and are
briefly outlined in the following para-
graphs. Similar calculations were car-
ried out for other cases.
Temperatures at steel locations were
obtained from the finite element
analysis. Tensile strength of the steel
was calculated using the strength/tern-
perature relation for hot rolled steel
shown in Ref. 3. For a steel temperature
of 930F, the steel strength is about 69
percent of room temperature strength,
while for a temperature of 1000F, the
steel strength is about 64 percent of
room temperature strength. As a result,
steel strengths for a 2 hour exposure to
the standard building fire and to the
hydrocarbon pool fire are 41.4 and 38.4
ksi, respectively.
Compressive strength of the concrete

128
 1

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00

Time, hrmin

Fig. 8. Temperature 3 in. from the surface in a normal weight concrete section.

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:3C 3:00

Time, hr:min

Fig. 9. Temperature 4 in. from the surface in a normal weight concrete section.

was calculated using the strengthitem-
perature relation in Ref. 3. Actually, two
strength/temperature curves are pre-
sented in Ref. 3 for normal weight con-
crete. One curve is for siliceous aggre-
gate concrete while the other is for car-
bonate aggregate concrete. The carbo-
nate aggregate concrete has a signifi-
cantly higher resistance to high teniper-
atures than the siliceous aggregate con-
crete. For the analysis in this paper, the
siliceous aggregate model was used.
Calculations using the carbonate aggre-
gate model would result in somewhat
higher beam strengths.
Information about concrete strength
in Ref. 3 is provided up to 1400F. At
higher temperatures, concrete strength
decreases rapidly. As a result, concrete
at temperatures greater than 1400F is
generally disregarded. This is accom-
plished by modifying cross section di-
mensions. Fig. 15 shows the reduced
width, b, and reduced distance, d, used

PCI JOURNAUJanuary-February 1989 129

 1700

1500

1300
E
1100

900

700

500

300

100
0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00
Time, hr:min

Fig. 10. Temperature 1 in. from the surface in a lightweight concrete section.

1700

1500
1300
1100

Ten 900
700
500
300

100
0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00
Time, hr:min
Fig. 11. Temperature 2 in. from the surface in a lightweight concrete section.

to calculate the reduced moment
strengths.
To determine an average concrete
strength, a concrete temperature was
calculated for the compressive block of
the modified section by averaging the
top and bottom temperature of the com-
pressive block. The percent of remain-
ing concrete strength was then obtained
from Ref. 3 based on this average tem-
perature (842F for the beam exposed to
the standard building fire and 868F for
the beam exposed to the hydrocarbon
pool fire).
Tables 3 and 4 summarize the results
of strength calculations for 1, 2 and 3
hour exposure cases analyzed. De-
pending on type of concrete and expo-
sure period, the calculated strength after
exposure to the hydrocarbon pool fire
was 15 to 37 ft-kips less than the calcu-
lated strength after exposure to the stan-

130
 II

0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00

Time, hrmin
Fig. 12. Temperature 3 in. from the surface in a lightweight concrete section.

1700

1500

1300

1100

Tm 900

700

500

300

100
0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 2:30 3:00
Time, hr:min

Fig. 13. Temperature 4 in. from the surface in a lightweight concrete section.

dard building fire. This represents an
additional reduction of 5 to 12 percent of
original beam strength due to the hydro-
carbon pool fire. The strength of the
lightweight concrete beam was less af-
fected by the type of fire than the silice-
ous aggregate concrete beam. Differ-
ences were smallest during the first
hour of exposure.
Concrete strength, steel strength, and
b and d values used in the calculations
are listed in Table 5. Average concrete
strength, f,, was not significantly af-
fected by the type of fire, while steel
strength, f,,, and effective beam widths,
b, were somewhat affected. Tn general,
the most significant factor for the re-
duced beam strength in the hydrocar-
bon pool fire appeared to be the re-
duced distance, d, resulting from a four-
sided rather than a three-sided ex-
posure.

PCI JOURNAL/January-February 1989 131

Table 2. Strength calculations for beam cross sections (normal weight concrete,
2 hour exposure).
Standard Hydrocarbon
Parameter building fire pool fire
Steel temperature (F) 928F 1009F

Steel strength (ksi) (0.69)(60) = 41.4 ksi (0.64)(60) = 38.4 ksi

Average concrete 259 + 1425= 366 +1399 = 8b8F

temperature (F) 2 842F 2

Average concrete
strength (ksi) (0.95) 4 = 3.8 ksi (0.95)(4) = 3.8 ksi

d (in.) 17.5 in. 16 in.

b (in.) 9.5 in. 9 in.

(4)(41.4) = 5.4 in. (4)(38.4) = 5.3 in.

a = `9f" (in.)
0.85ffb (0.85}(3.8)(9.5) (0.85)(3.8)(9)

M . = A Jv [ ct - 2 `
(4X41.4)[ 17.5- 24] (4)(18.4) r 16_-]
53

(ft-kips) J = 204 ft -kips = 171 ft-kips

tiutc: l in. - 15.4 loin; I k.vi = 6.895 MPa; 1 it-kip = 1356 N-m; tc = (tr - 32)/1.8.

17.5'

0 0 0 0 2.5"
As=4.Dsq In.
tY = 60 ksi
f^ = 4 ksi
M n = 291 ft kips
(at room temp)

Fig. 14. Beam cross section for strength analysis.

132
 Concrete reaching
temperatures
greater than 1400 F

16- (d) 17.5 (d1

f" 7
(a) Hydrocarbon pool fire (b) Standard building fire

Fig. 15. Modified beam cross sections (normal weight concrete at 2 hours).

Table 3. Strength of siliceous concrete beam.

Strength in Strength in hydro-

Fire exposure standard fire carbon pool fire Difference,
period, hours test, ft-kips test, ft-kips ft-kips
1 242 217 25
2 204 171 33
3 135 9R 37
Note: 1 ft-kip = 1356 .\-in.

Table 4. Strength of lightweight concrete beam.

Strength in Strength in
Fire exposure standard fire hydrocarbon pool Difference,
period, hours test, ft -kips fire test, it-kips ft -kips

1 244 229 15
2 225 199 26
3 202 169 33
\ otc: I ft-kip = 1356 N-m.

CONCLUSIONS moving gases, the effect of initial higher

Three significant differences between
the standard test fire model and the se-
lected hydrocarbon pool test fire model
were identified as the effect of hot
temperatures, and the effect of total
flame engulfment.
Typical concrete column and beam
sections were evaluated analytically to
determine if differences in the test fires

PCJ JOURNAUJanuary-February 1989 133

Table 5. Strength parameter values.

Parameter valve
Fire exposure Building Hydrocarbon
Type of concrete period, hours Parameter fire pool fire
f, ksi 4 4
1 f,, ksi 49.2 47.4
b, in. 10.5 10.0
d, in. 17.5 16.5
ff,ksi 3.8 3.8
Siliceous 2 f, ksi 41.4 38.4
9.0
aggregate h, in. 9.5
d, in. 17.5 16.0
f,, ksi 3.4 3.4
3 f,,, ksi 26.4 21.6
b, in. 8.5 8.0
cf. in. 17.5 15.5
f,ksi 3.6 3.6
f,,, ksi 50.4 50.4
b, in. 11,0 10.5
c1, in. 17.5 16.8
f, ksi 3.6 3.6
Lightweight f,,, ksi 46.8 45.
2 h, in. 10.0 9.5
aggregate
d, in. 17.5 16.3
f, ksi 3.6 3.6
3 f, ksi 36.0 38.4
b, in. 9.0 9.0
d, in. 17,5 16.0
Note: I in. = 25.4 mm; 1 ksi = 6.895 41Pa.

would significantly affect the fire en-
durance of these elements. Because
concrete has good resistance to erosion
and abrasion, the erosive effects of hot
moving gases were considered to he in-
significant for concrete components.
This may not be true for other t ypes of
structural components with sprayed-on
or lightly attached insulation.
By means of a finite element analysis,
cross section temperature distributions
were calculated for both fire exposures.
These indicated that temperatures due
to the hydrocarbon pool test fire were
about 10 to 25 minutes ahead of temper-
atures due to the standard test fire.
A strength analysis was performed on
a 12 x 20 in. beam cross section for 1, 2
and 3 hour exposure periods. The
analysis was made for both normal
weight (siliceous) and lightweight
aggregate concretes. The nominal mo-
ment strength of the beam section was
reduced only by an additional 5 to 12
percent of original strength when the
beams were exposed to a hydrocarbon
pool fire rather than the standard test
fire. Most of this difference in strength
capacity was because the beam was ex-
posed on four sides (top, bottom and
sides) in the hydrocarbon pool fire,
while only the bottom and sides of the
beam were exposed in the standard
building fire.

134
 REFERENCES
1. ASTM Committee E-5, "Standard Meth-
ods of Fire Tests of Building Construc-
tion and Materials, ASTM Designation:
E119," American Society for Testing and
Materials, 1985 Annual Book of Stan-
dards, V. 04.07, 1985,
2. ASTM Committee E-5, "Proposed Test
Methods for Determining Effects of
Large Hydrocarbon Pool Fires on Struc-
tural Members and Assemblies, ASTM
Designation: E5 P191, - American Soci-
ety for Testing and Materials, 1986 An-
nual Book Standards, V. 04.07, 1985.
3. PCI Design Handbook -Precast and Pre-
stressed Concrete, Prestressed Concrete
Institute, Chicago, Illinois, Third Edi-
tion, 1985.
. ber 1980,
4. ACI Committee 216, "Guide for Deter-
mining the Fire Endurance of Concrete
Elements (ACI 216R-81)," American
Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan,
1981, 44 pp.
5. CRSI Reinforced Concrete Fire Resis-
tance, Concrete Reinforcing Steel Insti-
tute, Chicago, Illinois, 1980.
6. Wickstrom, U., "TASEF-2 A Computer
Program for Temperature Analysis of
Structures Exposed to Fire," Report No.
79-2, Department of Structural Mechan-
ics, Lund Institute of Technology, Lund,
Sweden, 1979.
7. Forsen, N. E., "A Theoretical Study on
the Fire Resistance of Concrete Stnic-
lures," SINTEF Report No. STF65
A82062, Norwegian Institute of Tech-
nology, University of Trondheim,
Trondheim, Norway, 1982, 213 pp.
8. Ellingwood, B., and Shaver, J. N., "Ef-
fects of Fire on Reinforced Concrete
Members," Journal of the Structural
Division, American Society of Civil
Engineers, V. 106, No. ST11, Novem-
9. Anderberg, Y., "Fire-Exposed Hyper-
static Concrete Structures An Experi-
mental and Theoretical Study," Bulletin
55, Lund Institute of Technology, Lund,
Sweden, 1976, 186 pp.
10. Harmathy, T. Z., "Thermal Properties of
Concrete at Elevated Temperatures,"
Journal of Materials, V. 5, No. 1, March
1970, pp. 47-74.

METRIC (SI) CONVERSION FACTORS

1 in. = 25.4 mm 1 ksi = 6.895 MPa
1ft=0.3048m 1pcf=16.02kglm'
1 ft-kip = 1356 N-m to - (tr .. 32)/1.8
1 Btulftzlhr!F = 5.678 Wlm2!C

NOTE: Discussion of this paper is invited. Please submit

your comments to PCI Headquarters by October 1, 1989.

PCI JOURNAUJanuary-February 1989 135