Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
101-119, 1996
Copyright 1996 ElsevierScienceLtd
Printed in Great Britain.All rights reserved
0143-974X/96 $15.00+0.00
0143-974X(95)00014-3
ELSEVIER
NOMENCLATURE
I01
102 C. G. Bailey, I. IV. Burgess, R. J. Plank
1 INTRODUCTION
of a fire engineering approach, to set the required section size, load ratio
and possibly partial protection. BS5950 Part 8 deals with unrestrained
beams firstly by using a load ratio based on lateral-torsional buckling
failure at ambient temperature, and then by giving limiting temperatures
reduced by about 65C from those for restrained beams. An underlying
problem is that the limiting temperatures for beams in furnace testing are
based on a definition of failure when the maximum in-plane deflection
reaches span/20, or a maximum rate of deflection when span/30 is
exceeded. 5 It has been shown at ambient temperature 7 that the lateral
instability of beams is a complex problem, which will become even more
complicated at elevated temperatures due to degradation of strength and
stiffness, and to the progressively more curvilinear nature of the stress-
strain curves. In the work reported here computer modelling has been
used to investigate the failure temperatures of unrestrained beams under
various loading conditions and comparisons have been made between
these and the limiting temperatures given by the Code.
The finite element software used is based on a non-linear spread-of-yield
program originally written by E1-Zanaty and Murray 8 to study the
two-dimensional behaviour of steel frames at ambient temperature. This
was firstly extended by Saab and Nethercot 9 to include elevated tempera-
ture effects, and has more recently been extensively re-formulated by
Najjar 1 and Najjar and Burgess 11 to analyse three-dimensional frame
behaviour, including warping behaviour, in fire conditions. The program
uses two-noded one-dimensional line elements with eight degrees of
freedom in local coordinates. Every effort has been made in the formula-
tion to retain higher-order terms, resulting in a very accurate treatment of
geometric non-linearity, together with the capacity to allow for consider-
able variation in cross-sectional properties. It has been shown to be very
accurate in large-deflection problems, both at ambient and elevated
temperatures. In the course of the present work this software has been
developed further to include flexural shear stresses, so that it is now
capable of accurately predicting lateral-torsional buckling effects, for loads
placed at any level on a cross-section, and the results presented below were
largely generated as part of this development process. Other extensions,
which are not relevant to the subject matter of this paper, include the
introduction of semi-rigid connection characteristics which degrade at
elevated temperatures, a proper treatment of strain reversal in cooling and
the inclusion of slabs within the building model. The overall objective of
the developments has been to facilitate the modelling of full steel-framed
buildings subject to local and spreading fire scenarios in order to produce
more comprehensive guidance both for fire engineering design and for
assessment of repairability after a fire.
The lateral-torsional buckling of unrestrained steel beams in fire ! 05
TABLE 1
Ambient-temperature Elastic Critical Loads Predicted by the Present Model, Compared
with Theoretical Critical Loads, 12 for a Simply Supported Beam with a Point Load at
Mid-span
TABLE 2
Comparison Between Computer Model Predictions of Inelastic Lateral-torsional Buckling
Loads and Kitipornchai and Trahair 13'14 Experimental and Computed Results
3 T H E B E H A V I O U R O F B E A M S AT
ELEVATED TEMPERATURES
In order to set the findings for unrestrained beams into context the
prescribed limiting temperatures are first compared with analytical results
for beams with the compression flange continuously restrained against
lateral deflection. Uniform heating is assumed throughout. A Ramberg-
Osgood representation 16 of the BS5950/EC3 steel stress-strain data at
elevated temperatures was used in the analysis.
This case has often been analysed, 16'17 particularly for beams supporting
concrete slabs on their top flange with uniformly distributed loading, and
it is known that the limiting temperatures given in BS5950 Part 8 and EC3
Part 1.2 for this three-sided heating case are an accurate lower bound. This
The lateral-torsional bucklin0 of unrestrained steel beams in fire 107
is a slightly different case from those analysed here, since it has a cooler
top flange and therefore bending occurs about a neutral axis above the
section's centroid. Limiting temperatures given in BS5950 Part 815 and
EC3 Part 1.218 for the four-sided heating case are lower than these since
more of the section is at a high temperature. Since no buckling can take
place the 'failure' criterion when the in-plane deflection reaches span/20
must be used. A comparison is shown in Fig. l(a) of the predicted limiting
temperatures for uniformly loaded beams of a series of different serial sizes
and spa:as giving different span:depth ratios. It has previously been
s h o w n 16 that the span:depth ratio is a controlling parameter for limiting
temperatures of restrained beams, and the effect of this parameter is
illustrated in Fig. 1. It can be seen that the limiting temperatures given by
BS5950 Part 8 are generally conservative compared with the computed
results. The yield stresses to be used in design at ambient temperature
differ slightly between BS5950 and EC3, and so it is not possible to plot
the EC3 limiting temperatures on the same figure since the load ratios
have slightly different meanings. However, these differences are small, and
the relationship between limiting temperature and load ratio is identical
in the two Codes, so it may be said that use of the limiting temperature
method on simple beams with continuous compression flange restraint
and uniformly distributed loading is vindicated by these results.
750 838x292x194 UB
- (span = 9.Ore)
750 ~ (s~n = 9.Ore)
7O0 700 | / span/depth = 10.7
span/dept h =10,7 ~._~,,~ ~ | i- 457x191x67 UB
650 650 i ~ ' ~ ~ [ j (span = 5.Om)
6OO 600 ] ~ | span/depth = 13.2
Limiting temperatures /
55O 550 from BS.59501~.8
flx~rn BS.5O5O Pt.8
5OO I 5OO
356x127x39 UB
457x191x67 UB 45O
450
(span = 6.Ore) I spen/depth = 17.0 I
4(3O span/depth = 13.2 400 i
203x133x30 UB
350 35ox127x39 UB 350
(span = 6.0m) spen/depth = 2 4 2 I
3O0 3OO
span/depth = 17.0 i
250 25O 305x305x158 UC /
203x133x30 UB M M (span = O.Om)
200 (span = 5.0m) | 200 ~'__ ,) span/depth = 27.5
span/depth = 24.2
150 ~uII lateral restraint) 150 (full lateral restraint)
305x305x153 U
100 (span = 9 0 m ) 100
qT-/-/77F7
span/depth = 27.5
5O 50
0 i i i 0 I I I I ~ I
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.3 0,4 0,5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Load Ratio Load Ratio
(=) (b)
Fig. 1. Failure temperatures for simply supported beams with full lateral restraint to the
compression flange. (a) Uniformly distributed load, (b) Uniform moment.
108 C. G. Bailey, I. W. Burgess, R. J. Plank
The analysis was used to carry out an investigation into the behaviour of
uniformly heated, unrestrained simply supported beams, loaded at the
centroid (also the shear centre) of the cross-section. There are several
factors which affect the lateral-torsional buckling behaviour of steel
I-beams at ambient temperature, including cross-sectional properties,
span, support and restraint conditions, and the precise form of loading
employed. For any given case the ratio M b / M e x (in the terminology of
BS5950 Part 1is) is a convenient measure of the beam's propensity to
lateral-torsional buckling; low values tend to represent slender cases, and
values approaching 1.0 cases where plastic hinge failure is becoming the
preferred mode. Six different serial sizes were chosen, with spans giving a
wide range of values for Mb/Mcx. Two of the beams, 457 x 191 x 67UB and
838 x 292 194UB, were chosen to give exactly the same value of Mb/Mox.
The range of the ratio Mb/Mcx was chosen so that at ambient temperature
both elastic and inelastic lateral-torsional buckling failure modes were
represented. The actual value of this ratio varies with the loading arrange-
ment, and is shown on the figures. An initial out-of-plane imperfection was
assumed which gave an imperfection parameter value at mid-span equal
to r/=0-0032. The support conditions allow both flanges to rotate and
warp, but prevent twisting about the beam's axis. Thus, the effective length
of the beam is its actual span, in the absence of intermediate points of
restraint.
The lateral-torsional buckling of unrestrained steel beams in fire 109
(span =9.0 m) ~
400 400-
M b,RdlMc,Rd= 0.46
350 - 350-
300 3OO 5U
25O 250 -
Mb,Rd/Mc.Rd= 0.62
20O 200.
305x305x158 UC
150 M M 914x305x253 UB~ 150 - M M (span = 9.0 m)
(span = 5.0 m) Mb.Rd/Mc,Ra= 0.79
100 Mb/M= = 0.74
50 T ~ / ~ - 5o.
0 0 I I I I I I
0:, 012 0:3 0:4 0:5 0:0 017 05 0 01 o, 03 0,4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.5
Load Ratio Degree of utilisation
(=) (b)
Fig. 2. Failure temperatures for unrestrained simply supported beams with uniform
moment. (a) Comparison with BS5950 Part 8, (b) Comparison with EC3 Part 1.2.
110 C. G. Bailey, I. W. Burgess, R. d. Plank
Failure Temperature *C
356x127x39 UB
850 Rrfrnm
L i m i t itemperatures
~KaKn
ng ~ (span = 6.0 m)
800 ~ ~ I " v. ' " ' vk" v v ' ~ " Mb/Mcx = 0.28
_457x191x67 UB
750 (span = 6.0 m)
700 M b/Mcx = 0.43
_838x292x194 UB
650 (span = 9.0 m)
600 M b/Mcx = 0.43
550 ~ "--.
450 203x133x30 U B ~ ~
(span = S.0 m) t"
400 Mb/Mcx = 0.5 /
/
350 686x254x125 UB_ /
(span = 6.0 m) |
300 Mb/Mcx = 0.56
250 305x305x158 UC_J
(span = 9.0 m)
200
Mb/Mcx = 0.78
150 "~
100
5O
0 I I I I I I I
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Load Ratio
Fig. 3. Failure temperatures for unrestrained simply supported beams under uniformly
distributed load placed at the shear centre.
Failure Temperature *C
.356x127x39 UB
850 limiting temperatures (span = 6.0 m)
from BS5950 Pt.8 Mb/Mcx = 0.32
800 ~k F -457x191x67 UB
~, | (span = 6.0 m)
75o = 049
0 I I I t I I i
0 0.1 0.2 0:3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Load ratio
Fig. 4. Failure temperatures for unrestrained simply supported beams under mid-span
point load placed at the shear centre.
The essential difference between the two figures lies in the way in which
the load :ratios have been calculated. It is interesting to note from Fig. 2(a)
that the beams 457x 191 67UB and 838 x292 x 194UB, which have
spans set to produce identical Mb/Mc,, values for uniform moment
according to BS5950, have identical failure temperatures throughout the
range of load ratio.
The predicted failure temperatures for various other loading conditions
are shown graphically in Figs 3-7, but are only compared with BS5950
limiting temperatures. These show a similar general pattern of results to
those for uniform moment, except that the range of variation in failure
temperatures for various Mb/Mc,, values is not as high.
The destabilising effect of placing the load on the top flange was consider-
ed for the case of uniformly distributed load. The same six beams were
analysed as before, but with different spans. Once again the 457 x 191 x
112 C. G. Bailey, I. W. Burgess, R. J. Plank
Failure Temperature C
Umiting temperatures 356x127x39 UB
850
800
750
700
650
~[ from BS5950 Pt.8 -(span = 6.0 m)
MI~/M~ = 0.38
457x191x67 UB
- (span = 6.0 m)
M b/Mcx = 0.56
- 838x292x194 UB
(span = 9.0 m)
M b/Me= = 0.56
6O0
550
500
450 203x133x30 UB
400 (span = 5.0 m)
Mb/M= = 0.62
350
686x254x125 UB
300. (span = 6.0 m)
250 Mb/Mcx = 0.69
200 305x305x158 UC
M (span = 9.0 m)
150 ~" M b IMcx = 0.87
100
50-
0 I I I I
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Load Ratio
Fig. 5. Failure temperatures for unrestrained simply supported beams under moment
applied at one end.
67UB and 838 x 292 x 194UB spans were chosen to give exactly the same
value of Mb/Mox to allow a comparison to be made.
As can be seen from the results shown in Fig. 8, the failure temperatures
are higher compared with the predicted results with the load placed at the
shear centre. This is due to the very conservative nature of the BS5950
Part 1 design calculation is for the ambient-temperature buckling resis-
tance m o m e n t under destabilising load. The method uses a slenderness
correction factor of 1.0, irrespective of the m o m e n t pattern, and also a
'blanket allowance' of an assumed effective length equal to 1.2 times the
actual span. Load ratios are therefore artificially increased in these cases.
EC3 Part 1.1 adopts a more analytical approach to the calculation of
ambient-temperature load capacities under destabilising load, in which the
height of the load application point is specifically used, and this again
produces higher buckling capacities than does BS5950 Part 1. In the
examples used here the ambient-temperature buckling capacities for uni-
formly distributed loading with the load at the top flange are increased
The lateral-torsional buckling of unrestrained steel beams in fire I 13
Failure TemperatureC
358x127x39UB
850 Limiting temperatures -(span= 6.0 m)
~ .from BS5950Pt.8 Mb/M~ = 0.49
000- 457x101)(87UB
750 / (spen ,, e.o m)
/
Mb/Mcx= 0.67
700-
| 838X292X194UB
650 / -(span= 9.0 m)
~ ~ Ulo/M. =0'67
600.
550
580,
450,
400,
350.
300. (span = 6.0 m)
Mb/Mex= 0.79
250
305x305x158UC
200 (span = g.o m)
150 ~.,,.~ M..~ Mb/M~ = 0"95
100.
50.
0 I I I
Fig. 6. Failure temperatures for unrestrained simply supported beams under equal end-
moments.
It can be seen that, at least for the higher range of load ratios, the failure
temperatures for unrestrained beams with any consistent loading pattern
vary with the value of Mb/Mcx, with instability occurring at progressively
lower temperatures as this increases. It may be agrued that this is because
inelastic buckling loads in general are controlled by tangent modulus
values oll the local stress-strain curves of the members affected just prior
to instability occurring. The stress-strain curves of steel at elevated
temperatures are continuously curvilinear, tending towards zero slope at
114 C. G. Bailey, I. IV. Burgess, R. J. Plank
Failure Temperature *C
_ 356x127x39 UB
850 Limiting temperatures (span = 6.0 m)
from BS5950 Pt.8 M b/Mcx = 0.28
800
_ 457x191x67 UB
750 (span = 6.0 m)
M b/MCX = 0,43
700
838x292X194 UB
650 (span = 9.0 m)
600 M b/Mcx = 0.43
550
500
450
203x133x30 UB
400 (span = 5.0 m)
M b/Mcx = 0.5
350
686x254x125 UB_
300 (span = 6.0 m)
25O Mb/M~ = 0.56
P P
305x305x158 UC
200 ~t J/=== (span = 9.0 m)
150 u4 L/4 Mb/Mcx = 0.78
100
8o X/////
0 I I I I I i i
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Load Ratio
Fig. 7. Failure temperatures for unrestrained simply supported beams with point loads at
the quarter-points, placed at the shear centre.
ultimate stress levels which degrade with rise in temperature. At any given
load ratio a beam with higher value of Mb/Mcx will be more highly
stressed than one with a lower value. Its compression flange is therefore
subject to a lower tangent modulus in resisting any infinitesimal disturb-
ance, and as the temperature rises this tangent modulus rapidly declines.
This is shown schematically in Fig. 9. As load ratios decrease the failure
temperatures of all beams can be seen to converge to a single value
depending only on the load ratio. Failure for these cases is essentially by
elastic buckling, which takes place when increase of temperature has
reduced the initial (Young's) modulus to a proportion of its initial value
approximately equal to the initial load ratio.
An effort was made to represent the failure temperatures for unre-
strained beams at elevated temperatures in a normalised fashion for any
given load ratio, independent of the loading pattern, similar to the
treatment of different load patterns at ambient temperature. This does not
seem to be possible due to the different rates of degradation of stiffness for
The lateral-torsional buckling of unrestrained steel beams in fire 1! 5
Failure temperature *C
Limiting temperatures ,56x127x39 UB
850 from BS5950 Pt.8 - (span = 5.0 m)
M b/Mc~ = 0.25
800
~ I 457x191x67 UB
750 %~ / r/ M.,M
(span = 5.0 m)
= 03,
700
~ . I ~ 83ex292x194 UB
650
"~',~ I
I (span = 7.5 m)
~ I M ~ = 0.39
600
550
500
450
203x133x30 UB
(span = 5.0 m)
~ I T"
400 Mb/Mcx = 0'47 I I
350
,w sasx2S4x125 UB_j I
(span = 6.0 m) -- I
300 MblMcx = 0"52 I
250 (Loaded at 305x305x158 UCJ
top flange) (span = 8.0 m)
200 Mb/Mcx = 0.72
150
100
5O
0 I I I I I I I
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Load Ratio
Fig. 8. FailLure temperatures for unrestrained simply supported beams loaded at the top
flange (destabilising position) with uniformly distributed load.
Stress
T1
f " ~ Temperaturevalues
j ~ / ('I"2> T1)
T2
E1
ess Level
L_ E 2 ......._L_ow__S!ressLevel
Strain
Fig. 9. Illu=~tration of the different rates of degradation of tangent modulus with tempera-
ture for members at high and low load levels.
116 C. G. Bailey, I. W. Burgess, R. J. Plank
5 CONCLUSIONS
The results presented indicate that both BS5950 Part 8 and EC3 Part 1.2
overestimate the limiting temperatures for unrestrained simple beams in
fire resistance calculations. This is in contrast to the very accurate
predictions given for the case, which is very common in simply designed
building frames, of uniformly loaded beams with full lateral restraint from
concrete slabs. The less conservative predictions for unrestrained simple
beams are for those load cases which have high moment over the longest
portions of the beam in the midspan region. Thus, a moment profile
which changes sign at midspan produces the best prediction and uniform
moment the worst.
Clearly more work is needed before an all-embracing approach to the
design of unrestrained beams for fire resistance can be proposed. At
present, however, the indications are that for a given bending moment
pattern the locus of change of buckling temperature with load ratio is
governed by the value of Mb/Mcx(or Mb.Rd/Mc.Rdin the notation of EC3),
and that limiting temperatures decrease as this increases, at least within
the range of cases examined in this study.
Despite the fact that the more extreme cases studied here give very low
failure temperatures which are considerably below the prescribed values,
it must be recognised that beams in real structures are very rarely subject
to the idealised conditions used. Support conditions often provide con-
siderable restraint and continuity which is not allowed for in simple design
approaches. Even after buckling has occurred there is every prospect that
The lateral-torsional bucklino of unrestrained steel beams in fire 117
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
REFERENCES
16. Burgess, I. W,, E1-Rimawi, J. and Plank, R. J., Studies of the behaviour of steel
beams in fire. J. Constr. Steel Research, 19 (1991) 285-312.
17. Lawson, R. M. and Newman, G. M., Fire Resistant Design of Steel Struc-
tures--A Handbook to BS5950: Part 8. Steel Construction Institute, 1990.
18. Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures. Part 1.1: General Rules and Rules for
Buildings (Draft), Commission of the European Communities, 1993.
19. Steelwork Design Guide to BS5950: Part 1: 1990, Volume 1, Section Proper-
ties, Member Capacities: 3rd Edition, Steel Construction Institute, 1993.
= 965.2 k N m
The lateral-torsional bucklin# of unrestrained steel beams in fire 119
= 1.07
4'LT ----0"5 [ 1 + ~,~T(:rL, -- 0"2) + I-~T]
=1"16
1
XLT -- ~ + [#,L~-
2 ~-~T]
2 0"5
= 0.62
UK partial safety YM,1 = 1.05
factor
Buckling resistance Mb,Rd =XLlrBw Wvlyfy [cl. 5.5.2]
~M,1
moment
= 649.2 kNm.
Limiting: temperature calculation from Part 1.2 (temperature domain):
Design effect of the Eei,d = 329.4 kNm,
actions in fire
Load capacity at time Rfi,d,o = 649"5/1-2 = 541"25 kNm
t=0
(where 1.2 is an empirical correction factor)
Degree of utilisation /~0 = Efi,d/Rfi,d,O
at time t = 0
=0.61
Critical (limiting) 0a,er = 39.191n(0.96741-bto3833 1)+482
temperature
= 551C. [cl. 4.2.2.5]
Alternative limiting temperature calculation from Part 1.2 (load domain):
Design buckling Mb,fi,t,Rd ----3 2 9 " 4 kNm,
resistance at time t
Reduction factor for
yield strength of steel
at temperature 0ma, ky,0,max _ l'2Mb,fi,t,Rd
Mb,Rd
=0"609
From table 3.1 0m,, =555C. [cl. 4.2.2.2]
The limiting temperatures of 555C (BS5950), 551C and 555C (EC3) may
be compared with the computed failure temperature of 487C for this case.