Fire Safety Journal 19 (1992) 159-175 ~ , ~

Fire Resistance of Columns in Steel Frames

J.-M. Franssen & J.-C. Dotreppe

Service des Ponts et Charpentes, Institut du G6nie Civil, Universit6 de Liege, 6, quai
Banning, Liege, Belgium
(Received 16 February 1990; revised version received 10 December 1990;
accepted 25 April 1991)

ABSTRACT
The standard fire resistance test is not appropriate for predicting the
behaviour of steel frames under fire conditions. The simplified theories
that have been published in approved national and international
documents apply to some restricted particular cases of single elements
(beams, columns). In most practical circumstances beams and columns
are subjected to a combination of axial forces and bending moments
and have variable restraint and displacement conditions at their ends.
The problem is particularly complicated for columns. For this type of
situation advanced computer programs can at the present time provide a
satisfactory method for the determination of the fire resistance. This
paper illustrates the preceding comments by evaluating the fire en-
durance of an unbraced steel frame with two loading conditions.

NOTATION

A Area of the cross-section

C Parameter related to the formula for combined axial forces
and bending m o m e n t s
e Eccentricity
eeq Equivalent eccentricity
E Modulus of elasticity
i Radius of gyration
I M o m e n t of inertia
l Length
159
Fire Safety Journal 0379-7112/92/$05-00 © 1992 Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd,
England. Printed in Northern Ireland
16o J.-M. Franssen, J.-C. Dotreppe

Buckling length
M Bending moment
gmax Maximum bending moment
M. Plastic moment
Dimensionless buckling stress
Dimensionless modified buckling stress
P Load, axial load on a column
e. Critical buckling load
P¢~ Critical (Eulerian) buckling load
r Dimensionless decrease of yield strength
Distance from the outer point of the cross-section to the
centro'id
Z Plastic modulus

O{ Parameter related to the buckling curves

A Displacement
E Strain
0 Temperature
Slenderness ratio
Critical (Eulerian) slenderness ratio
Dimensionless modified slenderness ratio
(7 Stress
O~r Critical buckling stress
Oy Yield strength

1 INTRODUCTION

It is now well accepted that the fire resistance of structures can be

assessed on the basis of one of the following methods:
(a) standard fire resistance test;
(b) tabulated data;
(c) simple calculation methods;
(d) general calculation methods.
Tabulated data (b) have been obtained essentially by collecting
results from standard tests. Simple calculation methods (c) are based on
the same models as those used at ordinary temperature (ultimate limit
states, plastic mechanisms), but taking into account the variation of
temperature in the elements in a simplified way. Due to the various
assumptions results obtained by this type of method differ from test
results. As the aim of these models is to simulate standard fire tests,
semi-empirical coefficients have been proposed in order to bring the
 Fire safety of steel frames 161

necessary corrections. Simple calculation methods have been developed

for various types of elements, mainly in the case of steel. 1~
In several practical circumstances the three methods (a)-(c) do not
provide a realistic way of predicting the behaviour of structures under
fire conditions.
Their deficiencies are primarily due to the method of representing the
conditions existing during a fire, namely standard heating conditions,
heat transfer in a furnace, exposure of the element. For instance in the
test, a column is located entirely inside a furnace and is subjected to fire
attack on all sides. This is a questionable simulation of real fire
conditions.
Secondly, beams and columns are not very often isolated elements;
they are usually part of a frame, and they are influenced by the actions
and displacements of adjacent elements.
The load-actions and displacements at the ends of members are
sometimes important factors controlling performance. This is not the
case, for example, for simply supported beams, but for columns these
parameters can be significant. They are already important at ordinary
temperatures, but they are amplified at high temperatures due to
thermal effects.
In some practical cases, the three methods (a)-(c) are not applicable,
and more elaborate procedures [method(d)] have to be used in order to
take into account all the parameters involved: combination of axial
forces and bending moments, variable restraint conditions, and second
order effects due to thermal elongations.
To define the circumstances in which more elaborate methods have
to be used is not an easy problem. In general, as mentioned in Ref. 1,
simplified methods may be used for beams in all cases and for columns
in braced frames, while they may not be applicable to unbraced frames.
These are general indications but not fixed rules, and in most
circumstances engineers will have to exercise their judgement in order
to choose the most appropriate methods.
As this problem is mainly critical for columns, Section 2 will be
devoted to a review of the simplified calculation methods applicable to
steel columns and Section 3 to some characteristics of their behaviour in
frames.

2 SIMPLIFIED C A L C U L A T I O N M E T H O D S F O R STEEL
COLUMNS

The considerations described below apply to protected and unprotected

columns. In the case of protected elements premature failures have been
162 J.-M. Franssen, J.-C. Dotreppe

observed due to the fact that the insulation is not always able to follow
the deformations of the column. It is thus essential that the c o l u m n is
properly tested in case large transverse displacements are expected.
This means that the conditions to which the protection is subjected shall
be as close as possible to those e n c o u n t e r e d on site.
T h e most elementary reference case for steel columns is the one for
which the column is completely s u r r o u n d e d by the fire, axially loaded
and free to expand (Fig. 1). This last condition is essential in order to
avoid restraint to thermal expansion. Hinges at the ends are the
classical boundary conditions, but built-in end conditions can also be
accepted; in this case the slenderness ratio will be different.
If the conditions described in Fig. 1 are met, the buckling curves at
elevated t e m p e r a t u r e s can be derived from the E C C S buckling curves
specified at r o o m temperature. 1,5,6 T h e following analytical expressions
have been adopted: 6
1~I( 0) = r( O) . 1~I (1)
~ / = 1 + tr(~, - 0-2) + ~2 1
2~2 2~ 2 . [(1 + c~(~, - 0-2) + ~2)2 _ 4~211,2 (2)

r(O) = O y ( 0 ) / O y (3)
where:
~I = act~try: dimensionless buckling stress at ordinary
temperature
~, = ~'/~'E: modified slenderness ratio
~'E = ~ ( E / O y ) 1/2" critical (Eulerian) slenderness ratio.

Fig. 1. Column axially loaded and free to expand under fire _ j

conditions. 7-/7-A r~"
 Fire safety of steel frames 163

At ordinary temperature, five buckling curves (a, ao, b, c, d) have

been defined for the various steel profiles. Due to the approximations
of eqns (1)-(3), it has been decided for safety reasons to cover in fire
conditions all classes of profiles by one single curve corresponding to
curve c at ordinary temperature. For this particular case tr = 0.489 in
eqn (2). This assumption could be modified in the future when
additional experimental results covering a wider range of sections and
steel qualities are available. At the present time, however, no sig-
nificant results have been published on this matter.
Figure 2 shows the non-dimensional buckling curves corresponding to
different temperatures. The method has been compared with ex-
perimental results made in several European countries; 5'7'8 the agree-
ment obtained was quite good and theoretical results were on the safe
side.
It must be pointed out that in practice, the exposure conditions,
mechanical effects and displacements at the ends of the element are
very often rather far away from the assumptions described above.
In most structures the column is submitted not only to axial forces,
but to a combination of axial forces and bending moments. Very few
research studies have been devoted to this problem. Some formulae

1,0
20*c

200*c
0,s
300"c

o,~
_,---...
q~

o,2

0,2 0,~ 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2 I,~

Fig. 2. Non-dimensional buckling curves at e|evated temperatures.
164 J.-M. Franssen, J.-C. Dotreppe

have been proposed but a very limited amount of experimental data

exists. All these models assume that the formulae used at room
temperatures are applicable at high temperatures, provided all para-
meters dependent on temperature are taken into account.
One of the authors 3 has proposed the use of the well-known
Campus-Massonnet formula which is applicable to this case at ordinary
temperature. 9 Under fire conditions this formula can be written as
follows (see Fig. 3):
P C. Mmax
- - + - r(O) (1)
Per Mp(1 P
pE Jr(O))
where
P: axial load on the column;
ecr'- critical buckling load for the axially loaded column;
&/max: maximum bending moment in the column;
C: coefficient depending on the end moments M, and M2 (see Fig. 3);
Mp: plastic moment (= Z . try);
PoE: Euler buckling load (= Jr2 EI/12);
r(0): as defined in eqn (3).
Another formula based on the concept of equivalent eccentricity6 has
been proposed in studies related to ECCS works? Under fire conditions

-~P L~el~j~/P
/ I \
/ / \
/ /
/ / \
/ \
/ \
p/ e2:0
e2=-el~P
(a) (b) (c) (d)

C = 0,6 + 0.4 M~ =
_> 0,4 M 1 = Pe 1 M2 Pe 2
M1

Fig. 3. Campus-Massonnet formula for eccentricallyloaded columns.

 Fire safety of steel frames 165

P p
P
el

P 4_ P ~\ P
e2 e2

eeq=0,6e z+0,ue 1 >~ 0 . . e z lezl > lell

Fig. 4. Concept of equivalent eccentricity for eccentrically loaded columns.

this can be written as follows (cf. Fig. 4):

IXI* ( O ) = r( O) . 1~1" (5)
1 + rl* +~} 1
~/* = 2~.z 2~ z . [(1 + r/* + ~z)2 _ 4~2]v2 (6)
where
eeq
r/* = a~(~ - 0.2) + i2/---~ (7)

and N* is called the dimensionless modified buckling stress.

Indications concerning the method of calculating the equivalent
eccentricity eeq are given in Ref. 6 (cf. also Fig. 4).
Formulae (4) and (6) give rather similar results. Formula (6) has
been corroborated by a few tests. 7
Attempts have been made in order to model in a more realistic way
some parameters such as the temperature field and the mechanical
properties of materials. In Ref. 10 several improvements of this type
have been introduced, e.g. non-uniform temperature distribution on
the cross-section and along the element, and creep characteristics of
steel at high temperature. According to this study these parameters
may influence the behaviour of the column, and additional diagrams
should be published in order to incorporate these particular effects.

3. B E H A V I O U R OF COLUMNS IN F R A M E S

As has been seen in the preceding section, the behaviour under fire
conditions of columns considered as single elements is not yet corn-
166 J.-M. Franssen, J.-C. Dotreppe

pletely solved. Therefore it is easy to understand that the question of

columns in frames is still under discussion.
When a column is part of a frame, its behaviour is influenced by the
adjacent elements. In case of appropriate compartmentation, fire does
not spread throughout the building and affects only a limited number of
elements [Fig. 5(a)]. The heated profiles cannot expand freely, and
therefore a restraint due to the surrounding structure is observed.
Among the attempts that have been made in order to present
analytical formulae for restraint, the contribution presented by CTICM 2
should be highlighted. In this study only the case of restraint due to
axial forces is considered [Fig. 5(b)], while in practice additional shear
forces and bending moments may also occur.
Diagrams giving the non-dimensional parameter o'(.~. Or) as a
function of temperature have been published. 2 They consider different
values of the slenderness ratio and of the factor R/E, where E is the
elastic modulus and R a stiffness parameter related to the structure
surrounding the column. One example of the curves is presented in Fig.
6. They result mainly from theoretical considerations and very few
comparisons with experimental results exist.
In the study of columns in frames, a clear distinction has to be made
between braced and unbraced frames, as is pointed out in Ref. 1.
In the case of braced frames, P - A effects will be relatively
moderate and redistribution of internal forces can be evaluated by the
method mentioned hereabove. 2 General considerations regarding the
buckling length to be considered are given in Ref. 1 and represent
valuable indications for the designer (cf. Fig. 7).
The problem of unbraced frames is far more complicated and at
present still under discussion, since in this case both P - A effects and
redistribution of internal forces can be expected. Some considerations

compartment

) ,~,~ ~, 47/~

Ca) (b)

Fig. 5. Column in a frame with axial restraint. (a) compartmentation; (b) principle of
determination of axial restraint.
 Fire safety of steel frames 167

Slenderness
,t
0 ratio : 60
1,0
0,9
0,8
O,q
0,6
0,5

0,3 i
{ {\\\\\\ \\\ \
0,2
0°1:

qO0 200 300 £00 500 600 "/00 800 900 "100l
TErIPEBATUI:~E ( o C)

Fig. 6. Determination of the critical temperature of structural elements with axial

restraint.

on this problem have been developed in Ref. 11. ECCS recommenda-

tions acknowledge the lack of design tools on this matter. 1 Based on
some tests realized in Ref. 11, it is said that, in the absence of a full
analysis of the structural behaviour at elevated temperatures, a critical
temperature of 300 °C should be adopted. However, in the case of
unbraced frames with no more than two storeys, the critical tempera-
ture of the columns may be determined by applying the rules given for
ri(~id c¢¢e

¢
[]'~¥-fire al~o:,ed
/ ! column I
/ (

(a)
2 (b) (c)
Fig. 7. Structural behaviour of columns in braced frames (schematic). (a) Section
through the building; mode of deformation: (b) room temperature, and (c) elevated
temperature.
168 J.-M. Franssen, J.-C. Dotreppe

7' ,7,

(a) (b)
Fig. 8. Evaluation of thermal effects in a large building.

braced frames. The critical temperature derived in this way should not
exceed 550 °C.
In any case, engineering judgement has to be exercised in order to
determine to what extent the various parameters are dominant. Some
examples described below, in which P - A effects and restraint are
observed, indicate that, in the same building, the situation may be
different according to the position of the fire.
Figures 8 and 9 show the case of a large building and a single-storey
industrial building respectively. In Figs 8(a) and 9(a) fire is restricted to
only one c o m p a r t m e n t , while in Figs 8(b) and 9(b) fire involves a whole
storey due to a lack of vertical compartmentation. The conclusions
regarding the mechanical effects on the beams and the columns will be
different.
In the situations presented in Figs 8(a) and 9(a), restraint of the

(a)

ko, o LoLoLoL (b)

Fig. 9. Evaluation of thermal effects in a one-storey industrial building.
 Fire safety of steel frames 169

I I
I I
I !
/

Fig. 10. Evaluation of thermal effects in a

single frame.

elements will occur. However tentative calculations made on plausible

grounds 1 show that in such cases, the effect of axial restraint remains
moderate. This is also partially due to high temperature creep effects.
In the situations presented in Figs 8(b) and 9(b), columns can expand
freely and the expansion of the horizontal top beam is not very much
restrained, which means that important transverse displacements ap-
pear at the top of the columns. Therefore P - A effects have to be
considered, particularly for the columns located at the ends of the
building and situations (b) are more complex than situations (a), as it is
rather difficult to evaluate these geometrical non-linear effects.
It must be pointed out that, from a practical point of view, the
situation described in Fig. 9(b) will occur more frequently than that
described in Fig. 8(b), since Fig. 9(b) refers mainly to industrial
buildings where vertical compartmentation is not very often realized.
The phenomena described above occur even in structures which look
apparently simple, like the single frame shown in Fig. 10. If the roof
beam is rather long, it will tend to expand and due to thermal
gradients, some bending can be expected; therefore all the effects
mentioned previously ( P - A effects, redistribution of internal forces)
will appear.
In order to illustrate these considerations, a particular example is
presented in the next section by using a general calculation model.

4. A N A L Y S I S OF THE FIRE RESISTANCE OF A REAL

STRUCTURE

In the preceding sections it has been indicated that in practical cases

such as those corresponding to Figs 8 and 9, the three methods (a)-(c)
mentioned in Section 1 cannot be suitable, and that more elaborate
procedures (d), i.e. general calculation models, should be used.
These models can be considered as methods that are able to simulate
the actual structural behaviour under fire conditions. Normally numeri-
cal models based on finite differences or finite elements are used.
170 J.-M. Franssen, J.-C. Dotreppe

General calculation models comprise sub-models for the determina-

tion of:

- - T h e development and distribution of the temperature inside the

structural elements, called thermal response models. Normally
finite differences or finite elements will be used for this sub-model.
- - T h e mechanical behaviour of the structure or a part of it, called
mechanical response models. Normally finite elements will be used
for this sub-model.

The Department of Bridges and Structural Engineering of the

University of Li6ge has been involved in the development of general
calculation models for a long time. 3 The analysis presented in this
section has been performed by using CEFICOSS computer program ~2A3
and the results compared with those obtained from simplified calcula-
tion methods.
CEFICOSS stands for Computer Engineering of the Fire design of
COmposite and Steel Structures. This computer program is dedicated
to the analysis of the fire behaviour of columns, beams or plane frames.
It is based on the finite element method, in which beam elements have
their cross-section discretized in a rectangular mesh.
The material properties can be different from one mesh to another
making the program suitable for the analysis of pure steel, composite
steel-concrete or reinforced concrete structures. The calculation first
involves defining the temperature in the cross-section (i.e. in the
meshes). The eventual presence of insulating materials, the moisture in
concrete and the non-linear thermal characteristics, are considered.
The temperature increase leads to thermal elongations, thermal
restraints, creep effects, and variations of the mechanical properties
(stress-strain relationships) of steel and concrete. These effects are
different from one finite element to another and from one mesh to
another. Moreover, they are essentially transient since the temperature
distribution in the elements due to the fire environment varies
continuously during the whole process.
Various stress-strain laws are available: multi-linear or linear-elliptic
for steel, non-linear for concrete. Strain-softening and elastic unload-
ings are taken into account. Creep is implicitly included in the
stress-strain relationships. Residual stresses (in fact residual strains)
are considered as well as the effects of large displacements.
As the computation strategy is based on a step-by-step procedure,
the following information is provided up to the failure of the structure:
---displacements of the structure (at each node);
 Fire safety of steel frames 171

--axial and shear forces, bending moments (at two integration points
in each finite element);
---strains, stresses and tangent modulus (in each mesh at both
integration points of each finite element).

The reliability of CEFICOSS is checked: it is calibrated on the basis

of various full-scale fire tests on beams, columns and frames. More
detailed information on this matter can be found in Ref. 12.
The structure illustrated in Fig. 11 has been analysed under standard
fire conditions by one of the authors.
The structure is made of several steel plane frames. The distance
between each of these frames is 8 m. The permanent load including the
dead weight of the roof and of the beam is equal to 5 kN/m, while the
variable load is equal to 8 kN/m. The effect of transverse wind is not
considered.
Two loading conditions have been considered. The first one includes
the permanent load plus the full variable load. This can be considered
as a rather unrealistic case, as the probability of the full variable load
being present under standard fire conditions is very low. However, this
would be the load to be considered in case a standard test were to be
performed to assess the fire endurance of one element.
A slight inclination of the frames equal to h/lO00 has been
considered. As recommended in Chapter 20 of the Eurocode on
Actions (structures exposed to fire), 14 only 80% of this value has been
considered under fire conditions.
The calculation of the fire resistance by using the CEFICOSS
computer program gives very interesting results.
Figure 12 shows the situation of the frame at failure. Buckling of
column CD is observed, while failure of the beam in bending is very
near. The critical temperature of the column at buckling is equal to
565 °C.
Figure 13 indicates the variation of the vertical displacement at the

P a} p:5 kNlm
B~ blp=13kN/m

Fig. 11. Evaluation of the fire endurance of an unbraced one-storey steel frame with
two loading conditions.
172 J.-M. Franssen, J.-C. Dotreppe

I °--" i I
I t -~.~ _.-- d I
i t i /
I
I I d i
I I a /
/
II I /
II I/
l/ I/
, V

Fig. 12. F a i l u r e m e c h a n i s m o f t h e f r a m e f o r p = 13 k N / m .

top of column CD. The increase is due to thermal elongation, but when
buckling starts, it goes quickly to zero. This shows that CEFICOSS is a
real simulation tool, as this is exactly what is observed in a fire test on a
column.
It is interesting to examine the variation of the bending m o m e n t at
node C (Fig. 14). Due to thermal effects the m o m e n t first increases, but
after some time it decreases because of the influence of non-linearities.
At failure it is very close to its value before fire starts.
Simplified calculation methods have also been used in order to assess
the fire endurance of the structure. The C a m p u s - M a s s o n n e t formula 4
has been applied to column CD introducing the load-actions existing
before fire starts. The critical temperature of the column is equal to
470 °C.
In this case the critical temperature given by C E F I C O S S is slightly
higher. This difference is partly due to the fact that the C a m p u s -
Massonnet formula has been applied here by using the decrease of
strength r(O) r e c o m m e n d e d in the Belgian document, 4 while

ID(crn) ,

~.o I- ........................ ~................

I

2.0 . . . . . . . . . ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

l(min)
16,0 2O.0
V a r i a t i o n o f t h e v e r t i c a l d i s p l a c e m e n t at t h e t o p o f c o l u m n C D .
 Fire safety of steel frames 173

'M (kNm}

200.0 ............ -, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
r

,,
r

I
i
,,
t

100,0 ............. 4...............

t (rain}

20,0 lO,O

Fig. 14. Variation of the bending moment at node C.

CEFICOSS uses the formulae defined in Eurocode 3.15 A discrepancy

between these laws is observed near 400 and 500 °C. When comparing
with experimental results, CEFICOSS leads to a more realistic analysis
of structures exposed to fire than simple calculation methods. It can
also be concluded that P - A effects are not significant here, because
the axial force in the column is very small.
The structure has also been analysed under the action of the dead
load with no variable load. This corresponds to a rather good approach
of real conditions: in a one-storey industrial building, for example, it is
reasonable to assume that no variable load is acting on the roof under
fire conditions.

Illu | I "~ " " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " " ~ " ~ ullll I I

lilt I I " ~ "

Ill I ,,/ " " ' - ". " - . . . . . . . . - - " _ - - " " pd I I /

kl I " - " " . . . . . . . . . " ~1 / iI

I,/ lit l/
#t i t I
Is/~
II ,/
Fig. 15. Failure mechanism of the frame for p = 5 kN/m.
174 J.-M. Franssen, J.-C. Dotreppe

Figure 15 shows the situation of the frame at failure. Again, buckling

of column CD occurs and the critical temperature is equal to 695 °C.
The variation of the characteristics is similar to the one observed in the
first example. By applying the C a m p u s - M a s s o n n e t formula a critical
temperature of 690 °C is found.
In this case the critical temperature given by CEFICOSS is ap-
proximately equal to that given by the simple calculation method.

5 CONCLUSIONS

In this article it has been shown that recommendations and simplified

methods existing in codes and guidance documents cannot always be
used to determine the fire resistance of steel frames, particularly in the
case of columns.
At present, the calculation of these structures can be envisaged on
the basis of general calculation (numerical) methods such as the one
presented here. Ideally a tridimensional analysis should be required,
but in many cases, a bidimensional analysis will be sufficient, provided
that the influence of some transverse effects has been carefully
examined.
The example described here by using the CEFICOSS computer
program can lead to the following conclusions.

- - T h e horizontal displacements at the top of the columns lead to

P - A effects, but in this case, these effects are not significant due
to the small value of the axial force. Therefore the fire endurance
can here be evaluated on the basis of the load-actions existing
before fire starts.
Further investigations should be made on tall buildings where
columns are submitted to important axial forces and on other types
of unbraced frames.
- - I n case of one or two-storey buildings, the loads acting on the
columns are usually rather small under fire conditions. The
columns can therefore reach high temperature without failure,
which means that adopting a very low critical temperature as
recommended by ECCS is uneconomical.1

It would be desirable if ECCS Technical Committee 3--Fire Safety of

Steel Structures---could start some work on the problem of columns in
frames in order to provide the designers with some rules and recom-
mendations of practical interest.
 Fire safety of steel frames 175

REFERENCES

1. ECCS, European Recommendations for the Fire Safety of Steel Structures.

ECCS Technical Committee 3---Fire Safety of Steel Structures, Elsevier,
Amsterdam, 1983.
2. CTICM, M6thode de pr6vision par le calcul du comportement au feu des
structures en acier. Document Technique Unifi6, Construction M6tallique,
no. 3, 1982.
3. Dotreppe, J.-C., M6thode num6rique pour la simulation du comportement
au feu des structures en acier et en b6ton arm6. Th~se d'Agr6gation de
l'Enseignement Sup6rieur, Universit6 de Liege, 1980.
4. Dotreppe, J.-C., Behets, J.-F., Dehareng, J., Peeters, G. & Van Acker,
A., R6sistance au feu des structures: Principes g6n6raux et recommanda-
tions ~ l'usage des auteurs de projet. Laboratoire d'Essais du G6nie Civil
de l'Universit6 de Liege et Laboratorium voor Aanwending der
Brandstoffen en Warmte-Overdracht, 1983.
5. Janss, J. & Minne, R., Buckling of steel columns in fire conditions. Fire
Safety Journal, No. 4 (1981/82) 227-35.
6. Rondal, J. & Maquoi, R., Le flambement des colonnes en acier. Chambre
syndicale des fabricants de tubes en acier, Paris, 1980.
7. Hoffend, F., Brandverhalten von Stahlstiizen bei ausmittiger Lasten-
leitung, Dehnbehinderung oder teilweiser Bekleidung. Sonder-
forschungsbereich 148---Brandverhalten von Bauteilen, Arbeitsbericht
1978-1980, teil 1, Tech. Univ. Braunschweig, 1980.
8. Olesen, F. B., Fire tests on steel columns. Institute of Building Technol-
ogy and Structural Engineering, Aalborg, Denmark, 1980.
9. IBN, NBN B 51-002, Charpentes en Acier. Calcul par la M~thode des
E,tats-Limites, 1st edn., Institut Beige de Normalisation, Bruxelles, 1988.
10. Aribert, J.-M. & Abdel Aziz, M., Simulation du comportement
l'incendie de poteaux comprim6s et fl6chis en pr6sence de gradients
quelconques de temp6rature. Construction M6tallique, No. 2 (1987) 3-40.
11. Witteveen, J., Twilt, L. & Bijlaard, F. S. K., The stability of braced and
unbraced frames at elevated temperatures. Second International Collo-
quium on the Stability of Steel Structures, Preliminary Report, Liege,
1977, pp. 647-55.
12. Franssen, J.-M., Etude du comportement au feu des structures mixtes
acier-b6ton. Th~se de doctorat en Sciences Appliqu6es. Collection des
Publications de la Facult6 des Sciences Appliqu6es, No. 111, Liege, 1987.
13. Schleich, J.-B., REFAO-CAFIR, Computer assisted analysis of the fire
resistance of steel and composite concrete---steel structures. CEC Re-
search 7210-SA/502, Final Report E U R 10828 EN, Luxembourg, 1987.
14. CEC, Actions on structures exposed to fire. In Eurocode on Actions on
Structures. Commission of the European Communities, Industrial Pro-
cesses: Building and Civil Engineering, Brussels, 1990.
15. CEC, Eurocode no. 3: Design of steel structures---Part 10: Structural fire
design. Commission of the European Communities, Industrial Processes:
Building and Civil Engineering, Brussels, 1990.