Thin-Walled Structures 77 (2014) 67–76

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thin-Walled Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tws

A fire resistance design method for thin-walled steel studs

in wall panel constructions exposed to parametric fires
Ashkan Shahbazian, Yong Chang Wang n
School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering, the University of Manchester, Pariser Building, Sackville Street, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper investigates the applicability of a simple fire resistance design method for axially loaded thin-
Received 11 October 2013 walled steel studs in wall panel assemblies when exposed to parametric fires from one side. The simple
Received in revised form method includes calculations of cross-section temperatures and ultimate load carrying capacities at
2 December 2013
elevated temperatures. The simplified calculation method for heat transfer in the cross-section is based
Accepted 2 December 2013
on dividing the cross-section into a number of segments. The thermal properties of these layers are based
on weighted averages of the thermal properties of the components contained within. The structural
Keywords: capacity calculation method is based on the Direct Strength Method. Results from the design method are
Thin-walled steel studs compared with the results from Finite Element simulations for heat transfer and structural analysis (236
Wall panel
models). The calculation results are in good agreement with the simulation results and the proposed
Parametric fire
method may be used in performance-based fire engineering design of such construction.
Design method
Fire resistance & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Performance-based fire engineering

1. Introduction presence of the gypsum plasterboards and interior insulation.

Fire resistance is one of the most fundamental requirements of
building safety. Two different approaches may be employed to
demonstrate structural fire safety: prescriptive approach based on
specifying fire protection thickness to achieve a standard fire
resistance rating [1] and performance-based method in which
the behaviour of the structure in fire is explicitly assessed [2].
In the performance-based approach, realistic fire conditions may
be considered by using the so-called parametric fire curves [3].
This paper considers performance-based fire safety design of thin-
walled steel studs.
Cold-formed thin-walled steel structures are one of the com-
mon load bearing members in building construction as they are
easy to construct with a short construction time. Usually they are
part of wall panel assemblies (Fig. 1), which consist of cold-formed
thin-walled steel sections (commonly lipped channel), thermal
insulation and gypsum plasterboard. Gypsum boards act as fire
protection and they do not carry any axial load.
Cold-formed thin-walled steel members have much more
complex behaviour than hot-rolled members in fire. Not only are
prone to various types of buckling (local, distortional and global),
they also have non-uniform temperature distributions in the
cross-section due to fire exposure from one side (Fig. 2) and the
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 44 161 3068968.
E-mail address: yong.wang@manchester.ac.uk (Y.C. Wang).
Whilst fire resistant design methods for hot-rolled members
[1,4], including allowing for natural (parametric) fire conditions,
are well established, the development for design methods for thin-
walled members in fire is still at a relatively early stage.
Evaluating fire resistance of a structural member includes
obtaining temperature distributions in the cross-section first and
then calculating the structural load-bearing capacity at elevated
temperatures. For structural performance assessment of thin-
walled studs in wall panels under compression, the authors [5–7]
have developed methods for calculating their ultimate load carrying
capacity under global, local and distortional buckling with non-
uniform temperature distribution in the cross-section. The deve-
loped methods are based on the direct strength method (DSM) [8]
which has been adopted by AISI [9] for ambient temperature
applications. In DSM, the critical elastic buckling loads and the
cross-sectional plastic loads are evaluated separately. They are then
used in a similar way to obtain the compressive resistance of the
member as in hot-rolled column design by using buckling curves.
The authors’ extensions of DSM to elevated temperature calculation
will be summarised in Section 5.2.
For structural load carrying capacity calculations, the non-
uniform temperature distribution in the thin-walled cross-section
may be represented by linear distribution between the two
flanges, therefore, it is only necessary to obtain the temperatures
of the two flanges in heat transfer analysis. This conclusion was
based on the conclusion of Feng et al. [10]. To obtain these two
temperature values, the authors recently [11] developed a simple

0263-8231/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2013.12.001
68 A. Shahbazian, Y.C. Wang / Thin-Walled Structures 77 (2014) 67–76
Fig. 1. Wall panel construction.
Fig. 2. Wall panel exposed to fire from one side.
approach which is based on simple finite difference solution of one
dimensional heat transfer in the panel thickness direction and uses
the weighted average of thermal resistances in the panel width
direction. This temperature calculation method has been demon-
strated to be accurate for application under different fire conditions
and this method will be summarised in Section 5.1.
Combining the proposed temperature calculation method and
structural load carrying capacity method allows the fire resistance
to be easily evaluated in design. The applicability of the combined
thermal–structural performance method has been assessed under
the standard fire condition (heating stage) and the results are very
accurate [11]. This paper investigates applicability of this method
under parametric fire conditions which are now becoming more
widely used in practical performance-based fire engineering
design. The effects of cooling will also be included.
2. Assumed parametric fire temperature–time curves
EN 1991-1-2 [3] gives an equation for evaluating the parametric
fire curves which depend on the thermal properties of the fire
enclosure, the opening factors (related to the area of openings
relative to and total area of the enclosure) and the fire load. For the
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi standard fire
so-called enclosure with a thermal property value of
ðρcλÞ ¼ 1160 J=m2 s1=2 K and an opening factor of 0.04 m1/2, the
Fig. 3. Assumed fire temperature–time curves.
fire temperature–time relationship for the heating stage is almost
identical to the standard fire temperature–time equation.
Different thermal properties and opening factors will result in
faster or slower rates of increase in the fire temperature. In this study,
three representative fire temperature–time relationships will be used.
These are the standard curve (medium fire, θg ¼ θa þ 345 log 10
ð8t þ 1ÞÞ, fast fire ðθg ¼ θa þ445 log 10 ð8t þ 1ÞÞ and slow fire (θg ¼
θa þ245 log 10 ð8t þ 1ÞÞ). In addition, a cooling phase is associated with
each fire curve, starting at 20 min, 40 min and 60 min respectively for
the fast, medium and slow fires. The fire temperature–time relation-
ships during the cooling phase are according to EN 1991-1-2. The
three fire temperature–time curves are described by the equations
below.
 Fast fire
For heating phase : θg ¼ θa þ 445 log 10 ð8t þ 1Þ; t max ¼ 20 min
ð1aÞ
For cooling phase : θg ¼ θmax  625ðt  t max Þ ð1bÞ
 Medium fire
For heating phase : θg ¼ θa þ 345 log 10 ð8t þ 1Þ; t max ¼ 40 min
ð2aÞ
For cooling phase : θg ¼ θmax  250ð3  t max Þ ðt  t max Þ ð2bÞ
 Slow fire
For heating phase : θg ¼ θa þ 245 log 10 ð8t þ 1Þ; t max ¼ 60 min
ð3aÞ
For cooling phase : θg ¼ θmax  250ð3  t max Þ ðt  t max Þ ð3bÞ
In the above equations: θg is the fire temperature; θa is the
ambient or room temperature; θmax is fire temperature at the
maximum heating time and tmax is the maximum heating time.
Fig. 3 shows the three representative fire temperature–time curves
assumed in this study. These three fire curves produce a range of
desired different temperature distributions in the cross-section.
3. Methodology
Fig. 4 shows the procedure used in validating the proposed
method for calculating the fire resistance of thin-walled steel studs
 A. Shahbazian, Y.C. Wang / Thin-Walled Structures 77 (2014) 67–76 69

Abaqus Unified FEA [12] Proposed Method

To find temperature distributions 2D heat transfer FE model Thermal performance based
in the steel stud on simple approach
(Section 4.1)
(Section 5.1)

To find ultimate load carrying 3D structural FE model Structural performance

capacity of steel stud at elevated based on extended direct
temperature (Section 4.2) strength method
(Section 5.2)

Ultimate load – time Ultimate load – time

relationship relationship

Comparison of results

(Section 6)

Fig. 4. Procedure of validation.

under parametric fire conditions. The calculation results were 280 mm

compared with the authors’ Finite Element simulation results 12.5 mm
using Abaqus Unified FEA software [12].

4. Finite element numerical study

In order to validate the proposed method (Section 5), a series of

numerical studies have been performed by using Abaqus Unified
FEA [12] software. The simulation models have been validated by
12.5 mm
the authors [5–7,11]. To reduce the computational time, the
simulation was carried out in two phases: Fig. 5. Typical wall panel with one layer of gypsum boards on both sides for heat
transfer analysis.
 Phase one: 2D heat transfer analysis of the wall panel including
the steel studs, the internal insulation and the gypsum boards.
It was assumed that the temperature distribution along the
height of the panel was uniform. Fig. 5 shows a sketch of the Table 1
heat transfer model. Numerical study cases.
 Phase two: 3D structural analysis of the steel stud at elevated
temperatures using the temperature profile from the heat Lipped channel Fire curve Phase one Phase two (structural
sectiona (heat transfer) analysis models)
transfer analysis.
Total fire exposure Time increment
time (min)
In total 18 heat transfer and 236 structural analysis FE models
were made. This allows the effect of different lipped channel 75  50  15  2.5 Fast 114 Approximately every
Medium 128 10 min
sections, and three different fire temperature–time curves (Fig. 3)
Slow 138
to be investigated. Table 1 summarises the numerical study cases. 100  50  15  2.5 Fast 114
Medium 128
Slow 138
4.1. Heat transfer FE model
100  50  5  1.8 Fast 114
Medium 128
Fig. 5 shows a typical heat transfer model: consisting of a steel Slow 138
stud (section size 100  56  15  2), thermal insulation (ISO- 100  50  15  0.8 Fast 114
WOOL) and one layer of 12.5 mm thick gypsum plaster boards Medium 128
Slow 138
on both sides. The thermal properties of the steel stud are based 100  75  15  0.8 Fast 114
on EN 1993-1-2 [13], those of the gypsum plaster board based on Medium 128
Rahmanian and Wang [14] and those of ISOWOOL (thermal Slow 138
insulation) based on Salhab and Wang [15]. 100  56  15  2 Fast 114
Medium 128
The thermal boundary conditions (Fig. 6) are: initial (room)
Slow 138
temperature ¼20 1C, resultant emmissivity ¼0.3 on the exposed
side and 0.8 on the unexposed side, convective heat transfer a
Web depth  flange width  lip length  thickness.
70 A. Shahbazian, Y.C. Wang / Thin-Walled Structures 77 (2014) 67–76
coefficient on the fire exposed side ¼25 W/m2 K and on the
unexposed side ¼10 W/m2 K. The element type is DC2D4 (4-node
linear heat transfer quadrilateral) [11]. The temperature distribu-
tion in the steel studs from the heat transfer FE models were used
in the structural analysis model using Abaqus.
4.2. Structural analysis FE model
The structural analysis is based on the validated Abaqus model
[5–7] by the authors. The objective of this study is to compare the
FE results with calculation results using the proposed method.
Since the proposed method gives the load carrying capacity of the
structure at elevated temperatures, the FE analysis was conducted
Fire temperature around the surface
Convection and Radiation
2
h = 25 W/m .K
Convection and Radiation
20 °C
h = 10 W/m2.K ε = 0.8
Fig. 6. Thermal boundary conditions.
Fig. 7. Mechanical boundary conditions. (a) column boundary, (b) loading condition and (c) restraints.
in this way. To do so, the structure temperatures at any time were
applied and then the mechanical load was applied until the steel
stud reaching its ultimate load carrying capacity. The thermal
expansion coefficient for steel was assumed to be 0.000014/1C. The
mechanical properties at elevated temperature were based on EN
1993-1-2 [13] with a steel yield stress and elastic modulus 350 and
205,000 N/mm2 respectively at ambient temperature.
For the FE structural analysis, the non-uniform structural
temperatures were taken from the output of the FE heat transfer
analysis (Section 4.1). Fig. 7 shows the mechanical boundary and
loading conditions: the column was simply supported (preventing
lateral displacement, allowing longitudinal displacement at each
node except for the centre of one end) at the top and bottom of the
column (Fig. 7b); the axial loads were applied on each node at the
two ends of the column (Fig. 7b); it was restrained at 300 mm
spacing in the lateral (flange) direction to simulate the restraining
ε = 0.3 effect of the gypsum boards (Fig. 7c). It should be noted that in
reality, the gypsum boards may lose their restraining effects on the
steel studs in fire. However, since the objective of this study is to
assess the proposed simple method, this effect was not considered
and the assessment was considered valid as long as the same
restraining conditions were applied in both the finite element
model and the proposed method. The length of the column is
3000 mm. Abaqus shell element type S4 was used and the global
mesh size was 2.5 mm. The FE structural analysis model incorpo-
rated initial imperfection. The initial imperfection mode corre-
sponded to the expected final failure mode of the column. For
distortional buckling, the maximum initial imperfection was equal
to half of the section thickness; for pure local and pure global
buckling, the maximum initial imperfection was equal to the
thickness; for interactive local/global buckling, the maximum
initial imperfection for the local buckling mode was equal to the
thickness and the maximum imperfection for the global buckling
mode was equal to H/500 (where H is the column height)
respectively.
Length = 3000 mm
 A. Shahbazian, Y.C. Wang / Thin-Walled Structures 77 (2014) 67–76
5. Proposed design method
5.1. Thermal analysis
In the research study by Feng et al. [10], it was found that for
steel studs in wall panels exposed to fire attack from one side, the
temperature distribution in the steel stud may be assumed to be
linear between the hot and cold sides, with the flanges having
uniform temperature distributions. This simplifies the tempera-
ture field in the panel structure considerably and lends it to the
development of a simple method of heat transfer analysis.
Recently the authors [11] have developed such a simple approach.
In this approach, the wall panel is represented by a segment of
width We (Fig. 8), outside of which the panel temperature
distribution is not affected by the steel stud. This segment is then
divided into 13 layers through the panel thickness, as shown in
Fig. 9. Heat transfer is assumed to be one dimensional in the
thickness direction of the panel, with each layer having its own
thermal conductivity and thermal capacitance (density  specific
heat). The thermal properties of each layer are obtained from the
weighted averages of the all materials contained in the layer
within the segment. For calculating the contributions of different
components within each layer to the overall thermal conductivity,
this research applied the additive rule of thermal resistance
(thickness/thermal conductivity) in the direction of heat conduction
(conductors in series). In the direction perpendicular to heat
conduction (parallel conductors), the additive rule of thermal con-
ductivity (ratio of component thickness to overall layer thickness
Fig. 8. Proposed geometry for simplified 1D heat transfer calculation [11].
Fig. 9. Wall panel layers [11].
71
times component thermal conductivity) was used. The total thermal
capacitance (density times specific heat) of the layer was assumed to
be the sum of all the components based on their proportion to the
total mass. Based on these assumptions, a 1D finite difference
program has been written to calculate the temperatures of all the
layers. This method is much quicker than using 2D finite element
heat transfer analysis, but more importantly, it can be easily adopted
in design.
This procedure has been implemented for panels exposed to the
standard fire from one side and comparison against the results of an
extensive set of finite element heat transfer simulations comprehen-
sively validated this procedure [11]. This paper (Section 6) provides
further validation of this method for panels exposed to parametric
fires with cooling stage. The width of the segment (Fig. 8) for
calculating the weighted average of thermal properties is
W e ¼ t i þ bf þ bi ¼ 45 þ0:85 bf ðin mm; t i ¼ bi Þ ð4Þ
5.2. Extended direct strength method for fire applications
Direct strength method [8] is a recently adopted method [9] for
calculating the load carrying capacity of thin-walled columns. It is
based on regression equations using the elastic critical load and
the plastic resistance of the column. The elastic buckling load for
local, distortional and global buckling can be obtained by using a
numerical procedure such as CUFSM which is a Finite Strip
Method program [16]. The plastic resistance of the cross-section
(squash load) is simply the gross sectional area multiplied by the
yield stress.
Recently the authors [5–7] have applied this method to fire
conditions, for both uniform and non-uniform temperature dis-
tribution in the cross-section.
For calculating the elastic buckling loads using CUFSM, the
different strips of the cross-section are assigned different Young's
modulus values according to their temperatures. With non-
uniform temperature distribution in the cross-section, the effects
of thermal bowing and shift of the centre of resistance generate
bending moments in the cross-section. Therefore, the original
column under pure axial load becomes a beam-column with
combined axial load and bending moment. The squash load of
the column used in DSM is the axial load value that causes the
cross-section with non-uniform temperature to reach the full
plastic limit of the cross-section under combined axial load and
bending. This is termed “effective” squash load in this study and is
obtained using the following procedure [5]:
(1) Determine the plastic axial load–bending moment interaction
curve of the cross-section. To do so, locate a neutral axis in the
cross-section, which divides the cross-section into a tensile
and a compressive part. Assume the cross-section has reached
complete yield everywhere. The resulting stress distribution
gives one value of axial load and one value of bending moment
which is taken about the centre of resistance of the cross-
section with non-uniform temperature distribution. Moving
the neutral axis from one extreme side of the cross-section to
the other side gives the continuous plastic axial load–bending
moment interaction curve of the cross-section.
(2) Since the top and bottom of the cross-section are fixed in
position, there is no thermal bowing displacement so only a
shift of the centre of resistance exists. In the middle of the
column, both thermal bowing and the shift of the centre of
resistance exist and they are in opposite directions. As a result,
the bending moments at the ends and in the middle of the
column are different. The effective squash load of the column
is the one that gives the least value based on these two
bending moments.
72 A. Shahbazian, Y.C. Wang / Thin-Walled Structures 77 (2014) 67–76

buckling). In the above equations: P y is the “effective” squash load

For application at elevated temperatures, the ambient tempera-
of the cross-section (taking into consideration the effects of
ture buckling curves had to be modified to take into consideration
thermal bowing and shift in the centre of resistance as explained
the difference in effects of initial imperfections at ambient and
elevated temperatures. The modified buckling curves are:

 For global buckling [5]:

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Py
λc ¼ ð5aÞ
P cre

2
for λc r1:5; P ne ¼ ð0:495 λc ÞP y ð5bÞ
!
0:462
for λc 41:5; P ne ¼ Py ð5cÞ
λ2c

 For local buckling (including local–global interaction) [6]:

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
P ne
λl ¼ ð6aÞ
P crl

for λl r 0:776; P nl ¼ P ne ð6bÞ

 0:75 ! 0:75
P P crl
for λl 4 0:776; P nl ¼ 1  0:22 crl P ne ð6cÞ
P ne P ne

 For distortional buckling [7]:

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Py
λd ¼ ð7aÞ
P crd

for λd r0:561; P nd ¼ P y ð7bÞ

  ! 
P crd 0:7 P crd 0:7
for λd 40:561; P nd ¼ 0:65 1  0:14 Py
Py Py
ð7cÞ

Fig. 10 compares the authors’ modified and the original DSM

interaction curves.
The axial strength of the column is the minimum of P ne (for
global buckling), P nl (for local buckling) and P nd (for distortional

Fig. 11. Comparison of average flange temperatures for LC100  56  15  2:

Fig. 10. Oiginal and modified DSM buckling curves [5–7,9]. (a) slow fire growth, (b) medium fire growth and (c) fast fire.
 A. Shahbazian, Y.C. Wang / Thin-Walled Structures 77 (2014) 67–76 73

above); P cre is the critical elastic global buckling load; P crd is the
critical elastic distortional buckling load; P crl is the critical elastic
local buckling load; λc , λd and λl are the slenderness for global,
distortional and local buckling modes respectively; P ne , P nl and
P nd are the column axial strength for global, distortional and local
buckling modes respectively.

6. Evaluation of the proposed design method: comparison

with Abaqus simulation results

6.1. Comparison of temperature results

Fig. 11 shows typical comparison of the average flange tem-

peratures on the exposed and unexposed sides of the section
between the proposed simple calculation method and Abaqus
simulation results for section 100  56  15  2 with one layer of
gypsum board on both sides. The comparison indicates excellent
agreement, including the plateau stage. The simple method gives

Fig. 12. Temperature distributions for LC100  56  15  2 at: (a) 30 min and Fig. 14. Position of centre of resistance for lipped channel 100  56  15  2 (web
(b) 60 min. dimension ¼ 100 mm, at ambient temperature the centre of the cross-section/
resistance is equal to 50 mm).

Fig. 15. Results of using different schemes to calculate the squash load for LC100 
Fig. 13. Lateral deflection caused by thermal bowing for LC100  56  15  2. 56  15  2.
74 A. Shahbazian, Y.C. Wang / Thin-Walled Structures 77 (2014) 67–76

slightly conservative results before the temperature reaches their
maximum. Fig. 12 further shows that the agreement for tempera-
ture distributions in the cross-section at different times (30 and
60 min) is very good for all three fire curves.
6.2. Comparison of column strength
Section 5.2 has provided a description of how the effects of
thermal bowing and shift of centre of resistance can be included in
the calculations for the elastic buckling loads and the “effective”
squash load. In order to do so, it is necessary to calculate the
thermal bowing and the shift of centre of resistance. For the
thermal bowing deflection, Fig. 13 shows a comparison between
Abaqus FEA results and the analytical equation ðαL2 ΔT=8dÞ [1].
The agreement is very good.
Fig. 14 shows the shift of the centre of resistance of the cross-
section in time. At ambient temperature, the centre of resistance is
the same as the centre of the cross-section because the mechanical
properties are distributed uniformly in the cross-section. However,
when the mechanical properties are non-uniform in the cross-
section due to non-uniform high temperatures, the centre of
resistance is different from the geometrical centre of the cross-
section. With slower heating, the temperature gradient in the
cross-section is smaller, hence the shift of the centre of resistance
is smaller. However, in all cases, the maximum shift of the centre
of resistance is quite significant. This shift gradually returns to the
minimum when the cross-section cools down and the temperature
in the cross-section return to ambient temperature. To demon-
strate the importance of including the effects of the thermal
bowing and shift of the centre of resistance, Fig. 15 compares the
squash loads with and without considering these effects.
Appendix demonstrates how the DSM method is applied, at
given flange temperatures, through an example. Fig. 16 compares the
column strengths at different fire exposure times. The agreement is

Fig. 16. Comparing capacity at different times. Fig. 17. Comparing the results for global buckling mode.

Table 2
Minimum capacity comparison.

Lipped channel section Ambient temperature Elevated temperature

Abaqus DSM Temperature calculation Capcaity calculation Slow fire Medium fire Fast fire
(PFE) (Pu) method method (Pumin) (Pumin) (Pumin)

75  50  15  2.5 89,840.20 87,711.50 Abaqus FEA (Section 4.1) Abaqus FEA (Section 4.2) 39,658.10 31,195.70 30,425.20
Abaqus FEA (Section 4.1) Extended DSM (Section 5.2) 40,990.94 35,359.20 34,956.23
Thermal analysis (Section 5.1) Extended DSM (Section 5.2) 41,319.86 35,275.27 35,267.43

100  50  5  1.8 71,864.20 80,925.73 Abaqus FEA (Section 4.1) Abaqus FEA (Section 4.2) 34,846.40 27,291.60 26,637.90
Abaqus FEA (Section 4.1) Extended DSM (Section 5.2) 37,219.72 29,701.74 28,625.41
Thermal analysis (Section 5.1) Extended DSM (Section 5.2) 36,804.42 30,292.68 29,035.79

100  50  15  0.8 27,210.40 23,400.84 Abaqus FEA (Section 4.1) Abaqus FEA (Section 4.2) 10,433.40 72,64.61 6300.39
Abaqus FEA (Section 4.1) Extended DSM (Section 5.2) 9482.36 6966.33 6629.64
Thermal analysis (Section 5.1) Extended DSM (Section 5.2) 9397.19 7250.10 6785.57

100  50  15  2.5 144,323.00 130,114.40 Abaqus FEA (Section 4.1) Abaqus FEA (Section 4.2) 65,687.00 53,376.30 52,612.50
Abaqus FEA (Section 4.1) Extended DSM (Section 5.2) 68,381.32 58,476.38 58,203.11
Thermal analysis (Section 5.1) Extended DSM (Section 5.2) 68,791.99 59,599.22 58,473.07

100  56  15  2 115,000.00 112,873.66 Abaqus FEA (Section 4.1) Abaqus FEA (Section 4.2) 51,514.10 40,804.90 39,584.30
Abaqus FEA (Section 4.1) Extended DSM (Section 5.2) 55,332.65 46,746.98 45,376.24
Thermal analysis (Section 5.1) Extended DSM (Section 5.2) 55,959.89 46,897.32 45,306.95

100  75  15  0.8 24,827.70 27,458.33 Abaqus FEA (Section 4.1) Abaqus FEA (section 4.2) 8991.67 6067.26 5191.60
Abaqus FEA (Section 4.1) Extended DSM (Section 5.2) 9962.35 5537.07 4947.17
Thermal analysis (Section 5.1) Extended DSM (Section 5.2) 10,075.37 6090.63 4964.85

Note: Pumin (N) ¼minimum column capacity.

 A. Shahbazian, Y.C. Wang / Thin-Walled Structures 77 (2014) 67–76 75

generally very good. A comparison between using the Abaqus and

proposed temperature calculation results, given in Table 2, indicate
that although there is some difference in the temperature calculation
results, the influence of these temperature differences is small on the
column strengths.
The proposed method gives slightly higher minimum column
strength in most cases. This is because the proposed modified
Direct Strength Method equations (Eqs. (7a–c)) give slightly higher
values than the FE simulation results when the load ratio is small.
Here the load ratio is the ratio of the strength in fire to that at
ambient temperature. To demonstrate this, Fig. 17 plots the ratio of
the calculated column strength using the proposed method to that
using Abaqus simulation against load ratio. The solid marks (for
the minimum strength) follow the general trend for global buck-
ling, which is that the proposed simplified calculation method is
slightly unconservative than the Abaqus simulation results when
the load ratio is low. However, the overall agreement between the
two sets of results is very good. In summary, despite the simplicity
of the proposed thermal and strength calculation methods, both
the temperature and column strength values are calculated with
very good accuracy when compared with the Abaqus FEA
simulations.
Fig. A1. Temperature–time curve..

7. Conclusion

This paper has presented the results of an extensive set of FE

simulations and a semi-analytical method containing models for
thermal and structural performance of wall panel assemblies
consisting of thin-walled steel studs, thermal insulation and
gypsum/plaster boards. The panels were exposed to parametric
fires, including the cooling stage, from one side. The proposed
semi-analytical method includes using a simple heat balance
procedure to calculate the approximate temperature distribution
in the steel stud, the finite strip program CUFSM to calculate the
elastic critical loads at elevated temperatures, and a procedure to
calculate the effective squash load of the cross-section at elevated
temperatures including the effects of thermal bowing and the shift
in the centre of resistance of the cross-section. These semi-
analytical methods have previously been applied to thin-walled
steel studs in wall panels exposed to the standard fire from one
side. The comparisons for the temperature distribution results and
column strength results confirm that this method is also suitable
for applications under parametric fires for using in performance-
based fire engineering.

Appendix A. A worked example as illustration of the
calculation procedure
Requirement: Calculate the load carrying capacity of a panel at
50 min of the medium parametric fire exposure time.
Basic input data: Steel section dimensions—lipped channel 75 
50  15  2.5; Interior insulation—ISOWOOL; Gypsum—One
layer of 12.5 mm thick Fireline British gypsum on each side;
Panel height—3 m.
First step: Calculate the steel temperatures in the flanges on the
fire exposed and unexposed sides. The equivalent panel width for
calculating the average steel temperature is
We ¼45þ 0.85(50) ¼87.5 mm
Using the proposed method which should be implemented and
solved numerically by computer program (http://j.mp/TTRCW1),
the temperature–time results in Fig. A1 can be obtained. From this
figure, the steel flange temperatures at 50 min on the exposed and
unexposed sides are 454.84 1C and 264.91 1C respectively.
Fig. B2. Determination of the effecitve squash load .
Second step: Determining the load-carrying capacity of the steel
channel stud by using the extended DSM.
Using method described briefly in Section 5.2 and in detail
in [5], the centre of plastic resistance is 32.93 mm from the lower
temperature flange side (37.5 mm at ambient temperature). There-
fore, the shift of centre of resistance is 37.5–32.93¼ 4.57 mm.
Using equation in Fig. 12 gives a thermal bowing [5] value of
39.88 mm. Therefore, the eccentricities at the top and bottom and
at the centre of the column are 4.57 mm and |4.57–39.88| ¼
35.31 mm respectively. The column axial load–bending moment
interaction curve is obtained based on Section 5.2 (http://j.mp/
CALESL), as shown in Fig. A2. From the two eccentricities above,
the effective squash loads are 113.14 kN (top and bottom) and
67.81 kN (middle) respectively. Therefore, the effective squash
load is min(113.14, 67.81) ¼ 67.81 kN.
Using the CUFSM program (http://bit.ly/CUFSM), with input
of the elevated temperature Young's modulus values of the steel
76 A. Shahbazian, Y.C. Wang / Thin-Walled Structures 77 (2014) 67–76

section, the elastic critical loads for global, distortional and local [5] Shahbazian A, Wang YC. Calculating the global buckling resistance of thin-
buckling are: walled steel members with uniform and non-uniform elevated temperatures
under axial compression. Thin-Walled Struct 2011;49:1415–28.
[6] Shahbazian A, Wang YC. Application of the Direct Strength Method to local
Pcre ¼ 72.96 kN buckling resistance of thin-walled steel members with non-uniform elevated
Pcrl ¼410.22 kN temperatures under axial compression. Thin-Walled Struct 2011;49:1573–83.
Pcrd ¼ 345.81 kN [7] Shahbazian A, Wang YC. Direct Strength Method for calculating distortional
buckling capacity of cold-formed thin-walled steel columns with uniform and
Using Eqs. (5)–(7): non-uniform elevated temperatures. Thin-Walled Struct 2012;53:188–99.
λc ¼ 0.9640; Pne ¼35.27 kN [8] Schafer BW. Local, distortional, and Euler buckling of thin-walled columns.
λl ¼0.2932; Pnl ¼ 35.27 kN J Struct Eng 2002;128:289–99.
λd ¼0.4428; Pnd ¼67.81 kN [9] AISI. North American specification for the design of cold-formed steel
structural members. Washington, DC: American Iron and Steel Institute; 2007.
Pn ¼ min(35.27, 35.27, 67.81) ¼35.27 kN [10] Feng M, Wang YC, Davies JM. Axial strength of cold-formed thin-walled steel
For comparison, the finite element solution is 31.19 kN. channels under non-uniform temperatures in fire. Fire Saf J 2003;38:679–707.
[11] Shahbazian A, Wang YC. A simplified approach for calculating temperatures in
axially loaded cold-formed thin-walled steel studs in wall panel assemblies
exposed to fire from one side. Thin-Walled Struct 2013;64:60–72.
References [12] A.U. FEA. Abaqus Unified FEA.
[13] CEN. Eurocode 3: design of steel structures – Part 1-2: general rules –
structural fire design. EN1993-1-2:2005. Brussels: European Standard; 2005.
[1] Wang YC. Steel and composite structures: behaviour and design for fire safety.
[14] Rahmanian I, Wang YC. A combined experimental and numerical method for
London: Spon; 2002.
[2] Wang YC, Burgess I, Wald F, Gillie M. Performance-based fire engineering of extracting temperature-dependent thermal conductivity of gypsum boards.
structures. London: CRC Press; 2012. Constr Build Mater 2012;26:707–22.
[3] CEN, Eurocode 1: actions on structures – Part 1-2: general actions – actions on [15] Salhab, B, Wang, YC. A study of the thermal performance of cold-formed thin-
structures exposed to fire. EN1991-1-2:2002. Brussels: European Standard; walled perforated steel studs (thermal studs) in fire, In: Proceedings of the
2002. Earth & Science 2004 conference, Houston, USA: 7-10 March 2004.
[4] Zhang C, Li GQ, Wang YC. Sensitivity study on using different formulae for [16] Schafer B.W., Adany S., Buckling analysis of cold-formed steel members using
calculating the temperature of insulated steel members in natural fires. Fire CUFSM: conventional and constrained finite strip methods. In: 18th interna-
Technol 2012;48:343–66. tional specialty conference on cold-formed steel structures; 2006.