Material Properties at Elevated Temperatures: Numerical Model

FIRE RESISTANCE OF AXIALLY LOADED SLENDER CONCRETE
FILLED STEEL TUBULAR COLUMNS. Development of a threethreedimensional numerical model and comparison with Eurocode 4.
Ana Espins, Antonio Hospitaler, Carmen Ibez, Manuel L. Romero
Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnologa del Hormign (ICITECH)
Universidad Politcnica de Valencia
MATERIAL PROPERTIES AT ELEVATED TEMPERATURES
NUMERICAL MODEL
CONCRETE
CORE
Non-linear FE analysis package ABAQUS

Parts: concrete core + steel tube ASSEMBLY
Eight-node three-dimensional solid elements (C3D8RT)
Additional variable: Nodal temperature (NT11)
Element size < 2 cm
CONCRETE
Thermal properties according to EC2 Part 1-2

c = 6 x 10-6 C
C-1 (Hong
(Hong-Varma,
Varma, 2009)
Stress-strain curves proposed by prof. Lie (1994)
STEEL
Thermal and mechanical properties according to EC3 Part 1-2

s = 12 x 10-6 C-1 (Hong-Varma, 2009)
3 50E+07
3.50E+07
c = th ( c ) + ( c , c ) + cr ( c , c , t ) + tr ( c , c )
a = th ( a ) + ( a , a ) + cr ( a , a , t )
STRAIN COMPONENTS
3.50E+08
20 C
3.00E+08
100 C
100 C
200 C
STEEL TUBE
200 C
2.50E+07
300 C
2.50E+08
s a (Pa)
s c (P a )
500 C
2.00E+07
400 C
500 C
1.50E+07
2.00E+08
600 C
STEEL-CONCRETE INTERFACE. MECHANICAL CONTACT

Normal behaviour
1.00E+07
cr Creep strain
700 C
1.50E+08
800 C
600 C
Length of the column (L)

External diameter (D)
Thickness of the steel tube (t)
Axial load level ( =N / Npl)
Concrete resistance (fck) and steel resistance (fy)
Stress-related strain
400 C
300 C
C3D8RT
PARAMETERS
th Free thermal strain
20 C
3.00E+07
900 C
tr Transient strain
1000 C
1.00E+08
700 C
1100 C
800 C
5.00E+06
5.00E+07
900 C
0.00E+00
0.00%
2.00%
4.00%
6.00%
8.00%
10.00%
12.00%
0.00E+00
0.00%
14.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
e a (% )
e c (%)
Stress strain curves for a 30 MPa concrete

Stress-strain
Stress strain curves for a S275 steel

Stress-strain
STEEL-CONCRETE INTERFACE. THERMAL CONTACT

Gap conductance: q = k ( A B )
Frictional behaviour
k Gap conductance
A Temperature of point A (slave surface)
B Temperature of point B (master surface)
Gap conductance as a function of clearance
Gap radiation: q = C (( A Z ) 4 ( B Z ) 4 )
Z Absolute zero
Hard contact (pressure-overclosure relationship)
F Effective viewfactor
A Surface A emissivity
B Surface B emissivity
Coulomb friction model (slip regions)
C=
F
1/ A + 1/ B 1
Viewfactor as a function of clearance
Han LH et al., 2005.
VALIDATION OF THE MODEL. THERMAL RESPONSE

ISO-834 standard fire curve
VALIDATION OF THE MODEL. MECHANICAL RESPONSE
Comparison with Lies finite differences model (Lie TT, 1994)
1200
c = 25 W/m K
2
1000
=1
T em p era t u re(C )
800
1200
= 5.6710 8 W/m 2 K 4
600
1100
m = 0.7
400
200
f =1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
1000
120
900
Time(min)
800
Heat transfer equation:
Temperature (C)
c
= ( ) + Q
t
m = h&net h&net = h&net ,c + h&net ,r (W/m 2 )

n
Boundary conditions:
T4_ANALYTICAL
T5_ANALYTICAL
T6_ANALYTICAL
57
56
80
102
82
112
133
70
0
120
40
FRR (min)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
20
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
D (mm)
t (mm)
fy (N/mm2)
fck (N/mm2)
N (kN)
= N / Npl,Rd
FRR (min)
141
168
219
219
219
273
273
273
6.5
4.8
4.8
4.8
8.2
5.6
5.6
5.6
401.93
346.98
322.06
322.06
367.43
412.79
412.79
412.79
28.62
28.62
24.34
24.34
24.34
26.34
26.34
26.34
131
218
492
384
525
574
525
1000
8.90%
15.37%
26.19%
20.44%
18.88%
17.08%
15.63%
29.76%
57
56
80
102
82
112
133
70
Cross-sectional temperature distribution for a CFT 141x6.5 mm column
Test
Numerical prediction
-10
Simulation
FRR
72
75
74
97
68
126
137
70
Average
Standard deviation
max (mm)
FRRtest
=
FRR NS
Test
0.79
0.75
1.08
1.05
1.21
0 89
0.89
0.97
1.00
0.97
0.15
Simulation
max
24.09
20.48
18.13
18.77
20.36
16 40
16.40
19.67
5.51
24.35
19.25
12.36
16.23
19.30
17 71
17.71
18.61
10.35
Average
Standard deviation
COMPARISON WITH EC4 SIMPLIFIED CALCULATION MODEL
= max,test
max,NS
The proposed numerical model gives a better prediction of the fire resistance rating, showing a very accurate trend.
The EC4 simplified model doesnt take into account the thermal expansion of the materials, nor the air gap at the
steel-concrete boundary, what lies on the safe side and gives a very conservative prediction.
If we apply these simplifications to our numerical model,
model
smaller values of the fire resistance ratings are obtained,
very similar to those predicted by EC4.
0.99
1.06
1.47
1.16
1.05
0 93
0.93
1.06
0.53
1.03
0.26
160
140
-40
160
25
-60
Time (min)
Comparison between calculated and measured

axial displacement, for tests no. 4 and 7
30
+15%
140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
+15%
Numerica
al predictions, max (mm)
Numerical predictions, FRR (min)
-50
120
-15%
100
80
60
40
SAFE
20
20
-15%
15
10
FRR
FRR (min)
Test
est
Simulation
S
u at o
57
56
80
102
82
112
133
70
72
75
74
97
68
126
137
70
Simulation
( expansion)
(no
i )
49
46
52
63
52
118
126
58
EC4
C
49
46
49
61
51
91
96
56
Average
Standard deviation
140
120
120
0.79
0.75
1.08
1.05
1.21
0.89
0.97
1.00
0.97
0.15
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
10
80
100
120
140
160
20
80
60
40
Proposed model
20
100
80
60
40
Proposed model (no expansion)
20
EC4 simplified model
EC4 simplified model

0
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Test results (min)
MODEL WITH EXPANSION
160
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Test results (min)
MODEL WITHOUT EXPANSION
Maximum axial displacement (max)
CONCLUSIONS
-20
1.40
1.60
-15%
100
80
Column
specimen
60
20
1.20
Time ((min))
max
m
tRRF
-50
1.00
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
EC4 Simplified Model predictions (min)
1.20
FRR =
FRR EC 4
FRR NS
40
1.40
-40
+15%
120
-10
-30
FRR > 120
140
25
Test results, max (mm)
Fire resistance rating (FRR)
15
Numerical p
predictions (min)
Test results, FRR (min)
60
1.16
1.22
1.63
1.67
1.61
1.23
1.39
1.25
1.39
0.21
100
160
10
40
EC4
C
0
Numerical prediction
20
Simulation
( expansion)
(no
i )
1.16
1.22
1.54
1.62
1.58
0.95
1.06
1.21
1.29
0.25
Simulation
S
u at o
Test
20
FRRtest
=
FRRcalc
Calculated results (min)
Column
specimen
-30
160
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1.00
1.00
0.94
0.97
0.98
0.77
0.76
0.97
Itt iss poss

possible
b e to reproduce
ep oduce tthee EC4
C ssimplified
p ed ca
calculation
cu at o model
ode ppredictions
ed ct o s by assu
assuming
g full
u tthermal
e a co
contact
tact in tthee
steel-concrete interface and removing the thermal expansion of the materials, what lies on the safe side.
1.00
0.80
0.80
30
Axial disp. velocity (Numerical)

10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
-20
-5
-38,1
-40
h
mm
Axial displacement limit C =
100
EN 1363-1:1999 failure criteria
Axial displacement velocity limit
25
30
35
40
45
50
20
25
30
D/t
35
40
45
50
D/t
1.40
3h
dC
mm/min
=
dt 1000
The proposed numerical model provides more accurate predictions than the EC4 simplified calculation model, which
tends to be excesively conservative in most cases.
1.40
1.20
1.00
-10
1.00
0.80
-11,43
11 43
0.80
0.60
-70
-15
-80
Time (min)
Determination of the FRR (test no. 5)
In order to simulate the real behaviour of the column under fire, the thermal expansion of steel and concrete must be
taken into account, what extends the failure time.
1.60
1.20
-50
-60
60
0.40
20
tRF
-30
0.60
max
0
-10
Axial displacemnt ve
elocity (mm/min)
Axial displacement (Numerical)

Axial disp. velocity (Test)
20
0.60
Axial displacement (Test)
Axial displacem
ment (mm)
Axial displacement (mm)
160
-20
Calculated resultts (min)
Axial displacement (mm

m)
Column
specimen
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
T2_ANALYTICAL
Time (min)
Column
specimen
Test
100
T1_ANALYTICAL
400
20
80
T6_ABAQUS
60
T5_ABAQUS
500
200
h&net ,r = m f ( r + 273) 4 - ( m + 273) 4 (W/

(W/m 2 )
40
T4_ABAQUS
100
30
20
T3_ABAQUS
600
300
RESULTS
T2_ABAQUS
Circular hollow sections

Filled with plain concrete
Concentric compression load
L = 3810 mm (Lexposed = 3048 mm)
Fix-ended
T3_ANALYTICAL
Convection: h&net ,c = c ( g - m ) (W/m 2 )

Radiation:
T1_ABAQUS
700
Some of the specimens previously tested by Lie et al. (1988)

at the National Research Council of Canada were simulated:
0.60
0.40
5
10
15
20
(% )
25
30
35
10
15
20
(% )
25
30
35
The th
Th
thermall expansion
i off th
the steel
t l ttube
b produces
d
an opposed
d axial
i l strain
t i iin th
the early
l stages
t
off hheating,
ti as wellll as an
opening of the gap in the steel-concrete interface, which delays the heating of the concrete core and thus increases
the fire resistance rating.

Material Properties at Elevated Temperatures: Numerical Model

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Material Properties at Elevated Temperatures: Numerical Model

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Material Properties at Elevated Temperatures: Numerical Model

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FIRE RESISTANCE OF AXIALLY LOADED SLENDER CONCRETE

Non-linear FE analysis package ABAQUS

Thermal properties according to EC2 Part 1-2

Thermal and mechanical properties according to EC3 Part 1-2

STEEL-CONCRETE INTERFACE. MECHANICAL CONTACT

Length of the column (L)

th Free thermal strain

Stress strain curves for a 30 MPa concrete

Stress strain curves for a S275 steel

STEEL-CONCRETE INTERFACE. THERMAL CONTACT

A Temperature of point A (slave surface)

B Temperature of point B (master surface)

Gap conductance as a function of clearance

Hard contact (pressure-overclosure relationship)

Coulomb friction model (slip regions)

Han LH et al., 2005.

VALIDATION OF THE MODEL. THERMAL RESPONSE

VALIDATION OF THE MODEL. MECHANICAL RESPONSE

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

Heat transfer equation:

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

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

COMPARISON WITH EC4 SIMPLIFIED CALCULATION MODEL

Comparison between calculated and measured

Numerical predictions, FRR (min)

Proposed model (no expansion)

EC4 simplified model

EC4 simplified model

Test results (min)

MODEL WITH EXPANSION

Test results (min)

MODEL WITHOUT EXPANSION

Maximum axial displacement (max)

EC4 Simplified Model predictions (min)

FRR > 120

Test results, max (mm)

Fire resistance rating (FRR)

Test results, FRR (min)

Calculated results (min)

Itt iss poss

Axial disp. velocity (Numerical)

Axial displacement velocity limit

Determination of the FRR (test no. 5)

Axial displacement (Numerical)

Axial displacement (Test)

Axial displacement (mm)

Calculated resultts (min)

Axial displacement (mm

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

Circular hollow sections

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

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

You might also like