I ASFPCM 004: 1996

ASFPCM

ASFPCM

FIRE PROTECTION OF ROOF COMPONENTS OF PORTAL

FRAMED BUILDINGS AND SECONDARY STRUCTURAL
STEELWORK

ASSOCIATION OF SPECIALISTFIRE PROTECTION CONTRACTORSAND MANUFACTURERS

This document
contains pages
L i
The Association of Specialist Fire Protection Contractors and Manufacturers (ASFPCM)

The Association was formed in 1976, and currently represents the majority of UK contractors and
manufacturers of specialist fire protection products, with associate members representing
regulatory, certification,testing and consulting bodies.

The ASFPCM seeks to increase awarenessand understandingof the nature of fire and the various
forms, functions and benefits provided by passive fire protection.

It is willing tomake available its specialist knowledge on all aspects of fire protection and can
assist specifiers and main contractors in identifying products suitable for specific requirements,
both in the UK and overseas.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Thisdocument was originallypreparedon behalf of W & J Leigh by Warrington Fire Research.
It has now been revised and updated by Warrington Fire Research and has been reproducedwith
their kind permission, by the Association of Specialist Fire Protection Contractors and
Manufacturers.

Although care has been taken to ensure, to the best of our knowledge, that all data and
information contained herein is accurate to the extent that it relates to either matters of fact or
accepted practice or mattersof opinion at the time of publication, the Association of SpecialistFire
Protection Contractorsand ManufacturersLimited assumes no responsibility for any errors in or
misinterpretationsof such data and/or information or any loss or damagearising from or relatedto
its use.

Compliancewith this ASFPCM Technical Guidance Note does not of itself confer immunity
from legal obligation.

© The AssociationofSpecialistFire Protection Contractorsand Manufacturers 1996

ISBN: 1 870409 086

 FIRE PROTECTION OF ROOF COMPONENTS OF PORTAL FRAMED
BUILDINGS AND SECONDARY STRUCTURAL STEELWORK

CONTENTS

1. Introduction 4

2. Discussion 4

3. Summary and Conclusions 8

4. References 9

Notional and Relevant Boundaries 10

Summary of Relevant Boundary Conditions 10

Behaviour of Portal Frames In Fire 11

Modelling of Rafter Collapse 12

APPENDIX 1 13

APPENDIX 2 15

3
1. Introduction
1.1 This report combines and reviews the comments made in two previous reports
with respectto the current provisions of Approved Document B of the Building
Regulations1991.
1.2 Report No. C42430 made comments concerning the protection of the roof
supporting componentsof steel portal frames used in single storey buildings.
1.3 Report No. C52047 made comments concerningthe need for the protection of
lightweight steel tees, anglesand bracing membersagainst the effects of fire.
2. Discussion
RegulatoryRequirements
2.1 The commentsmade in Approved DocumentB of the Building Regulations1991
relating to steel portal frame building remain, technically, unchanged to those
comments made in Approved Document B of the 1984 Building Regulations.
Therefore the technical aspects of report no. C42430 continue to remain valid.
All references to the Approved DocumentB hereafterrefer to the 1991 edition.
2.2 The comments of C52047 relating to the regulatory requirements remain valid
except that thefire resistance periods set out in the current Building Regulations
are now based on the height to the top floor and the use of the building.
Incorporatinga sprinkler system can influencethe compartment size and period
of fire resistance. Periods offire resistance are reducedand compartment sizes
increased for some buildings fitted with sprinklers.

Boundary Conditions
2.3 Steel portal frames are often used in single-storey industrial and commercial
buildings where there may often be no requirement for fire protection to the
steel structure. However, where the building is near to a site boundary, the
provisions of Approved Document B 1991 deem that the adjacent external wall
should provide adequate fire resistance to prevent fire spread to the adjacent
site.
Performance Levels
2.4 The levels of performance and physical limitations of an external wall of a
single-storeybuilding with such a boundary condition are given in Appendix A,
Table A2 of the Approved Document. A brief summary of these parameters is
given in the following Table 1.
Table 1
PURPOSEGROUP SINGLE STOREY
(single storey building no basement) Height (m) of Floor above Ground, in
Building or Separating of Building

Shop and Commercial

Notsprinklered 60
Sprinklered 30 *
Industrial
Not sprinklered 60
Sprinklered 30 *
Storage and Other Non-Residential
Not sprinklered 60
Sprinklered 30 *
* Increased to a minimum of 60 minutes for compartment walls separating
buildings

4
Note: If a boundary condition does not exist no fire protection would normally be
required but fire protection to platform floors or mezzanine floors would be
required (ref. 7.4 ii c)
Roof
2.5 The provisions of the Approved Document do not generally require the fire
protection of any member forming part of a roof structure. Fire Resistance of
roofs is required when the roof performs the function of a floor or a means of
escape, and the structure is essential for the stability of an internal wall which
needs to havefire resistance (ref. B3, 7.4). However,where rafters and columns
form one 'continuous member, i.e. as in portal frames, and the column forms
part of a wall with a boundary condition, it is considered by many authorities
that portal frames act as a single element, and, therefore, fire protection to the
rafter may be necessary. The Approved Documenthas provided for this aspect
of portal frames and Clause B4 12.4 of the provisions determines that the rafter
members of the frame may need to be fire protected as well as the column
members.
Portal Frames
2.6 The provision of the Approved Document as laid down by Clause B4 12.4
consider the needs to provide fire protection only to the column members of
portal frames which form part of or support an external wall having a boundary
condition i.e. external walls which cannot be wholly unprotected as mentioned
previously, i.e. depending upon the structural design principles involved with
the design of a portal frame building, the rafter members as well as the column
members, may need to be fire protected. The significance of this aspect is
discussed in greater detail in Section 2.7 of this report.
Protection of the Rafters
The Needto Protect
2.7 Consideringthe requirementsof Approved DocumentB it is generally accepted
that a portal frame acts as a single element and as such the rafter may also
require protection against fire in addition to the supporting columns and
boundarywalls. The degree of protection to the rafter is generally related to the
ability of the column section to resist overturning under the influence of the
movementsof the rafters during a fire.
Clause B4 12.4 of the Approved Documentrecognises that where a high degree
of resistance to overturning is provided by the fixing of the bases of columns to
the foundations, the collapsing rafters are unlikely to influence the stability of
thecolumns.
Essentially, if during a fire the failure of the rafters is unlikely to cause failure of
the column supports it is not necessary to provide protection to the rafters.
Determination of Column Base Fixing
2.7.1 The sequence of events experienced by the unprotected rafters in fire
and their influence on the protected columns is shown in Figure 2. It
can be seen that the behaviour of the unprotected rafters is
considerably influenced by the degree of fixity at the base of the
columns. In the case of a substantially fixed base there is generally
little possibility of the columns being pulled over by the collapsing
rafter. In the case of a pinned or partially fixed base there is a
possibility of the collapsing rafter pulling the columns over as hinges
form at the base of the column. This would result in loss of the
boundary wall. Generally it would be expected that for most
applications concerning new buildings there will be at least some
degree of fixity at the base and, therefore, total collapse of the

5
 protected columns is unlikely prior to the notional period of fire
resistance provided by the protection material.
Rafter Construction and Levelof Protection to the Rafter
2.7.2 As a first approximation, the required amount of protection to the
rafter should the base fixity be limited, would be that required to
provide the same notional period of resistance as the column.
However, considering the behaviour of unprotected rafters, whether
solid or lattice, in fire it is expected that the amount of materialto the
rafters could be reduced since some degree of fixity at the column
base is likely. The reduction in the notional amount will be dependant
upon actual site parameters. If first hand calculationsof base fixity are
not available it is reasonable to consider that the rafter will support
only a nominal load due to its self-weight and any remains of the roof
cladding and as such is likely to remain reasonablystable until a steel
temperature of approximately 620°C is exceeded. It is, therefore,
reasonable to suggest thicknesses of protection material which would
maintain the temperature of the steel of that particular rafter section
below thiscritical temperature.
Limiting Protection to the Rafter
2.7.3 It is probable that the mode of behaviour likely to be experienced by
protected rafters in a fire will be similar to unprotected rafters but the
effects are likely to occur at a later stage. In addition, it is likely that
some roofcladding will remain attachedto the upper edge of the rafter
and a critical steel temperature in excess of 620°C would need to be
reached before probable instability of the rafter occurs. Guidance
relating to the amount of roof cladding remaining is provided by Table
3 of Reference 1. It is, therefore, anticipatedthat where it is required to
protect the rafters, that protection need only be applied to the three
fully exposed sides, i.e. the top edge of the upper flange can remain
unprotected.
Long and Short Spanning Rafters
2.7.4 The guidelines given in Reference 1 consider that a fixed portal frame
will usually have adequate base fixity to resist rafter collapse.
However, frames in which the span divided by the height to eaves is
less than two should be checked using the methods provided in
Reference 1 to determineif protection to the rafters is required.

Multiple Bays
2.7.5 The behaviour of the rafters of multiple bay portal frames is generally
similarto single bays butthe columns of internal bays will tend to stay
upright being stabilised by adjacentframes. It is, therefore, reasonable
to consider that the rafters of multiple bays can be treated in the same
manner as those of single bays.
Longitudinal Stability
2.7.6 The longitudinal stability of a portal frame is an important
consideration when assessing the overall stability of the frame. The
longitudinal stability will be dependantupon the actual base fixity and
the design of the walling system if any. It is possible that the column
base fixity alone will provide sufficient resistance to prevent collapse
of the portal frame in a longitudinal direction. There are a number of
recommendations which may be adopted to prevent longitudinal
instability, e.g. the inclusion of masonry constructions between
columns or the setting of the columns into concrete bases.

6
 Acceptable guidelines to minimise longitudinal instability are given in
Reference Ito this report.
2.8 Fire Protection of SecondaryStructural Steelwork Regulatory Requirements
2.8.1 In England and Wales the provisions of Approved Document B of the
Building Regulations 1991 (Ref. 2) are the main basis by which
approving authorities determine the level of protection required for
elements of a building to limit the spread of fire. Except in single-
storey buildings, Approved Document B calls for a fire resistance
period ranging between 30 minutes and 2 hours for load-bearing
structural elements except those supporting a roof only (see Ref. 9).
Similar provisions to Approved Document B appear in The Building
Standards (Scotland) Regulations 1990 (Ref. 3) and the associated
Technical Standards (Ref. 4). However, it should be noted that the
general recommendations of Approved Document B are not
mandatory under the Building Regulations and can be modified
provided a reasonable standardoffire safety is maintained.
Further Guidancefor Structural Steelwork
2.8.2 Further guidance on the fire protection of structural steelwork is given
in BS 5950: Structural use of steelwork in buildings: Part 8: 1990:
Code of practice for fire resistance design, and in the ASFPCM
document 'Fire protectionfor structural steel in buildings' (Ref. 6). It is
clear from these documents that even though lightweight steel
sections may strictly be structural elements as defined in Approved
Document B it is not always necessary to provide them with fire
resistance. This is because the design of the loadbearingcapacity of a
structure is based on the sum of all possible loads both imposed and
dead. It is recognised that fire represents an extreme load which is
very unlikelyto occur at the sametime as maximum load from variable
factors such as wind and snow.
Snow Loading
2.12 In all cases, BS 5950: Part 8: allows snow loads to be ignored at the fire
condition. If it can be shown that the load on a secondaryelement is removedif
snow loading is taken as zero then no fire protection is necessary for these
secondaryelements.
Wind Bracing
2.13 BS 5950: Part 8 also allows wind load to be discontinuedwhen calculating load
under fire conditions for all buildings below 8 m in height to the eaves. Above
this height a wind load of one third maximum should be considered.
2.14 In addition, BS 5950 states that evenfor taller buildings wind load need only be
consideredfor Y primary' elements of structure. However, BS 5950 does not
define primary 'elements' and it could therefore be argued that in no cases do
secondaryelements used for windbracing require fire protection. Nevertheless,
in our opinion to do this is unsafe for tall buildings, and some protection is
required for windbracing elements unless it can be shown that the primary
structural (without) bracing can resist wind loads up to one third of the
maximum consideredfor structuralcalculations.
SecondaryElementsRequiringProtection
2.15 All secondary elements that carry load (once snow load and either all or one
third of wind load have been ignored) require fire protection. In general,this
fire protection should be to the same standard (in terms of fire resistance) as
that of other loadbearing elements. However, it is appreciated that for very
lightweight sections with high section factor (Hp/A m') this could in some

7
 circumstancesresult in unrealisticallyhigh levels of fire protection coating. The
ASFPCM (Ref. 6) therefore suggeststhat where lightweight secondarystructural
elements, such as bracing needed to maintain a structure's stability in a fire,
require fire protection, this should be based on a maximum section factor of
200 m1 rather than actual (higher) section factor. In our opinion this approach
is reasonable provided that the structure is provided with additional stability by
virtue, for example, of masonry walls or steel cladding. In othersituations, e.g.
load-bearing bracing to free-standing columns, fire protection based on the
actual sectionfactoris considered necessary.
Reduced Loading
2.16 It is possiblethat the load on any particularsecondaryelement is greatly below
the maximum permitted using BS 5950: Part 1 (Ref. 7) or BS 449: Part 2 (Ref. 8).
(This, of course, may be particularly the case if snow and wind loads are
assumed to be zero.) In such circumstancesthe 'limiting temperature' of steel as
defined in BS 5950: Part 8 (i.e. its 'failure temperature')will be greater than the
550°C generally assumed when making assessments of required protection
thickness. In such cases, it is possible to use reducedthicknesses based on a
higher limiting temperature. In practice, however, it may be worthwhile to use
this approach onlywhere a large number of similar elements are concerned, as
it is necessary in each caseto make an assessment based on the actual stress in
the steel and test data at elevated temperatures.
Connections
2.17 Where using any of the approaches described above results in a decision to
apply more or a greatly reduced protection thicknessto a secondary element, a
potential problem arises in determining the protection required at the
connections between the secondaryand primary elements. BS 5950: Part 8:
states that the connections between two elements with different thicknesses of
protection should be provided with the greater level of protection. This advice
should be followed where both primary and secondaryelements are protected.
Where unprotected secondary elements are connected to protected primary
elements it may be necessary to prevent localised 'hot spots' forming on the
primary elements by providing protection to some portion of the secondary
element in addition to that at the connection. In these circumstances,specialist
technical advice should be sought from the protection manufactureror suitably
qualified fire safety organisations to determine the need to protect and if
applicablethe degree of protection required.
3. Summary and Conclusions
Fire Protection to the Rafters of Steel Portal Frames
3.1 The need for and level of protection to the rafters of portal frames used in
single-storey buildings having a boundary conditions largely depends on the
degree of fixity provided by the column base.
It is possible to determine the moment induced at the base of the column due
to the collapsing of the rafter. If the degree of fixity at the base is sufficient to
resist this moment, then no protection to the rafter would normally be required.
It is therefore important to determine the overturning moment if the rafters are
to remain unprotected.
In situations where it is shown to be necessary to provide protection to the
rafters or detailed calculations are not available,the following recommendations
are made:
i) Column bases- pin jointed or no significantbasefixity.
Rafters should be fully protectedon four sides assuminga critical steel
temperatureof 550°C.

8
 ii) Column bases - providing a reasonable degree of fixity but shown by
calculation as not being able to resist overturning due to collapsing
unprotectedrafters or where detailed calculations are not available.
Rafters should be protectedon three sides with a thicknessof material
capable of maintaining steel temperatures below 620°C (i.e. using
standard three sided beam assessment figures).
Note: In specific cases, the architect/engineershould be able to provide an
indication of the degreeof base fixity.
Fire Protection of SecondaryStructural Steelwork
3.2 The need to protect secondary structural steel elements against fire and the
thickness of protection required depends on several factors. These are
discussed above. The Table in Appendix 2 lists these factors. Appendix 2
presents a flow diagram to aid the designer in arriving at the correct answer in
any particularcase.
4. References
1 The Steel Construction Institute. The Behaviour of Steel Portal Frames in
BoundaryConditions. (2nd Edition)
2 Departmentof the Environmentand The Welsh Office The Building Regulations
1991. Approved DocumentB. Fire Safety HMSO 1992 Edition.
3 The Building Standards (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1990 HMSO 1990.
4 Technical Standards for Compliance with the Building Standards (Scotland)
Regulations1990. HMSO 1990.
5 British Standards Institution
BS 5950: Structural use of Steelworkin Building: Part 8: 1990: Code of Practice
for Fire Resistant Design.
6 Associationof SpecialistFire Protection Contractors and ManufacturersLimited.
Fire protection of structuralsteel in buildings. 2nd edition (Revised 1992).
7 British StandardsInstitution
BS 5950: Part 1: 1985: Code of practice for design in single and continuous
construction: hot rolled sections.
8 British Standards Institution BS 449: Part 2: 1969: The use of structural steel in
buildings.
9 Warrington Fire Research Consultants Investigation concerning the protection
of roof components. WFRC Report No. C42430, for W & J Leigh & Co., 11th
November1987.
10 British Steel CorporationFire resistance of steel structures 1986.

9
 Figure 1: NOTIONALAND RELEVANT BOUNDARIES
1. these rules only apply when two or
more buildings are on the same site
SITE BOUNDARY and when one of the buildings (new or
existing) is of residential or assembly
use
BUILDING 2. a notional boundary should be set
[LDING between a building of the above usage
and another building of any use
3. an existing building should be taken as
if it was a new building of the same use
but having the existing unprotected
area and fire resistance in the outside
wallfacing the notional boundary
4. the notional boundary should be so
situated that aH buildings comply with
NOTIONAL BOUNDARY DRAWN WITHIN the safe distancerequirement
THIS AREA IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE RULES OPPOSITE. 5. when set, the notional boundary
becomes the relevantboundary.

SUMMARYOF RELEVANT BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

BOUNDARY LESS THAN For a boundary to be

80 TO WALL C relevant it should coincide
with or be parallel to or be
at an angle of not more
than 800 to the external
BOUNDARY COINCIDES wall.
WITH VALL B

BUILDING
BOUNDARY PARALLEL
TO WALL B

B D

I
___________ BOUNDARY PARALLEL
A

(BOUNDARY MAY BE THE CENTRE LINE OF

A STREET, CANAL, RAILWAY OR RIVER)

10
 Figure 2: BEHAVIOUR OF PORTAL FRAMES IN FIRE

INITIAL STAGE: Expansion of rafter components

ELONGATION RESISTED UPVARD MOVEMENT

BY COLUMNS OF APEX

UNPROTECTED
RAFTERS PROTECTED
COLUMNS
FORMATION
OF HINGES
FIRE

INTERMEDIATE STAGE - Collapseof rafter to approximate horizontal

FORMATION OF 'HINGES' COLLAPSE OF RAFTER TO EAVES

CAUSES RAFTER TO ACT LEVEL RAFTER STILL ABLE TO
AS PINNED ARCH SUPPORT ITSELF

COLUMNS STILL
REMAINING STABLE

COMPLETECOLLAPSE
FIXED BASE PINNED BASE (partially fixed)

TOP OF COLUMNS DRAVN INVARDS

BY COLLAPSING RAFTERS

— ——
——
— RAFTER COLLAPSES
RDS GROUND

FIRE

\
FIXED BASE ABLE TO RESIST OVERTURNING
MOMENT INDUCED BY COLLAPSING RAFTER
PINNED BASE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO RESIST
OVERTURNING MOMENT AND COLUMNS MAY BE
PULLED OVER BY COLLAPSING RAFTERS

11
 Figure 3: MODELLING OF RAFTERCOLLAPSE

Fl
DISTRIBUTED LOAD Fl
DISTRIBUTED LOAD Fl

H
Mpl
RAFTER
Fl
H
COLUMN

>- Mp2

HR
VA

12
 APPENDIX 1

Determination of Base Fixity

Basic Premises
The effect of a collapsing rafter is to cause an overturning moment to be applied to the
foundation of the column.
By considering the shape of the collapsing rafter the forces acting on it may be estimated
and theoverturning momentat the column base obtained,see Figure 3.
2. Formula
A simplified formula for the overturning moment (OTM) is given below and is based on
thefollowing assumptions:
i) The columns lean inwardsby 10.

ii) The rafter elongationis 2%.

iii) The hinge moments are both equalto 0.065 of the plastic moment of resistance
of the rafter.
Vertical Reaction
VA = ½ WfSL + dead weight of wall
Horizontal Reaction

HR -
=K[WfSGA
Overturning Moment

OTM = WfSGY(A + - MP'

K[ _0.065)]
where:
Wf load at time of collapse (kN/m2) (Inclusive of remaining roof cladding) - See
Table - Reference 1)
S Distance between frame centres (m)
G Distance between endsof haunches (m)
Y Vertical height of end of haunch (m)
M Plastic moment of resistance of rafter (kNm)
K 1 for single bay frames or is taken from Table 2 for multi-bay frames - See
Reference 1
A and C are taken from Table 1 - Reference 1 and are based on rafter pitch and
span/heightratio

B=L__G whereL = span(m)

8G

13
 Note that for frames without haunches, G should be taken as the span and Y should be
taken as the column height.

3. Applicability
Commentsapply to steel portal frames subjectto thefollowing conditions:
a) The frame is constructed from standard beams or column sections. The
columns may be tapered but the rafters may not.
b) The frame may or may nothave haunches.
c) theframe may be single of multi-bay.
d) The rafter adjacent to the boundary must be symmetrical about the centre of its
span.
e) The ratio of the span of the rafteradjacent to the boundary divided by the height
of the eves should be greaterthan 1.6 to 1.
f) The columns in the boundary wall must be adequately restrained in the
longitudinal direction.
g) Not applicableto gable end columns.
h) The eaves height is less than 8m. Above this height additional loading due to
the wind needs to be considered.
If the foundation, column and column base is designed to resist the calculated
overturning moment resulting from rafter collapse, then rafters do not require protection.

14
 APPENDIX 2
A2.1 Flow diagram for Determining Fire Protection for Secondary Elements

NO

YES

NO

A2.2 Table of Fire Protection of SecondarySteel

FACTORS SUGGESTING PROTECTION NEEDED FACTORS SUGGESTING NO OR REDUCED PROTECTION NEEDED

LOADED UNLOADED
LOAD MAINLY DEAD LOAD LOADED MAINLYIMPOSED BY SNOW OR WIND
TALL BUILDING LOW BUILDING
NO ADDITIONAL STABILITY PROVIDED ADDITIONAL STABILITY PROVIDED(e.g. MASONRY WALLS)

SUPPORTSROOF ONLY

15
 ASFPCM
THE ASSOCIATION OF SPECIALIST FIRE PROTECTION CONTRACTORS AND MANUFACTURERS
Association House, 235 Ash Road, Aldershot, HampshireGU12 4DD
Tel: 0125221322 Fax: 01252333901

1k'