See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/283578876

Behavior of stiffened panels exposed to fire

Conference Paper · March 2013

DOI: 10.1201/b15120-2

CITATIONS READS

4 175

4 authors:

Miguel Renato Manco Rivera Murilo Augusto Vaz

Federal University of Rio de Janeiro Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
7 PUBLICATIONS   8 CITATIONS    90 PUBLICATIONS   609 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Julio Cyrino Alexandre Landesmann

Federal University of Rio de Janeiro Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
20 PUBLICATIONS   45 CITATIONS    73 PUBLICATIONS   295 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Foinaven Umbilical VIV monitoring View project

Computational Mechanics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Miguel Renato Manco Rivera on 17 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Analysis and Design of Marine Structures – Guedes Soares & Romanoff (eds)
© 2013 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-1-138-00045-2

Behavior of stiffened panels exposed to fire

M.R. Manco, M.A. Vaz, J.C.R. Cyrino & A. Landesmann

COPPE/UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

ABSTRACT: This paper presents a numerical investigation of the behavior of stiffened steel panels,
accounting for different configurations of the Passive Fire Protection (PFP) layer, under fire conditions.
In the simulations, nominal temperature-time curves, as well as variations in mechanical and thermal
properties of steel due to temperature, determined by EUROCODE1 and 3 [EC1 e EC3] (2004) were
used, and a shell finite element model was developed using ABAQUS® commercial software. The thermal
and mechanical analyses were decoupled; therefore, the transient temperature field due to fire was first
assessed and, then, this thermal load was applied to the structure for the evaluation of its mechanical
behavior. The initial geometry of the model took into account the initial imperfections recommended by
ISSC (2012). The fire conditions were assumed as a result of a typical process involving combustion of
hydrocarbons. Once the fire scenario was set, it was possible to assess the development of the temperature
field with respect to time. Induced thermal loads were taken into account in the analysis of the structural
model in combination with the pre-existing operating loads, thereby allowing the evaluation of the panel
behavior. The purpose of this paper is to present the methodology employed to assess a steel ship struc-
ture in case of fire, which can be generalized to represent diverse conditions. The results show that the use
of protective materials delays fire heating, improving its behavior during the fire. The choice of the best
PFP solution depends on the load case and panel configuration. Finally, it is concluded that the method-
ology employed in this study can be used in the optimization process of the PFP layer.

1 INTRODUCTION Tragic examples of this kind of accidents are

those which took place in the Piper Alpha platform
1.1 Current scenario in the UK, in July 1989, killing 167 of the 229 occu-
pants in less than 22 minutes and, most recently, at
The design of steel structures for the offshore
the Deepwater Horizon platform, in the Gulf of
exploration and production of oil and gas provides
Mexico in April 2010, where 11 people disappeared
for the consideration of different scenarios related
and a large environmental impact was generated.
to severe accidents, including: large waves, extreme
As a result of the analysis of the Piper Alpha
winds, earthquakes, collision between vessels and
platform disaster, made by Cullen (1990), the adop-
fires. For all these conditions, the integrity of the
tion of security measures based on principles of
facility must be ensured and, in some cases, dam-
structural performance (performance-based analy-
ages must be limited, ensuring the maintenance of
sis) was suggested in substitution of merely pre-
safe operating characteristics for a given period
scriptive recommendations, deemed too generic.
of time. Due to the presence of large volumes of
Cullen (1990) noted that the sole suggestion of fire
flammable materials (liquid and gas), equipment
protective coatings for structural elements (even
operating at high temperatures, active flames (e.g.,
in large quantities) does not necessarily guaran-
flares) and human lives, living and interacting in
tee safety; in other words, each situation must be
confined spaces, the manufacturers and operators
evaluated in order to rationally dimension the PFP
of these facilities are required to follow strict fire
layer required. Additionally, it should be noted
protection criteria (deemed the most severe among
that the presence of passive fire protective results
all industrial facilities).
in significant facility cost implications, either as far
The occurrence of a fire in this type of struc-
as their application or even their preventive main-
ture is considered one of the most unfavorable
tenance are concerned.
conditions, for the combustion of hydrocarbons
Other operational issues must also be considered,
presents a very high rate of temperature increase
for example: additional weight, reduced internal
in the initial stage of the fire, causing a very
spaces, difficulties to inspect structural compo-
rapid loss in mechanical properties of steel, thus
nents, among others. These issues significantly
generating the possibility of deaths and economic
increase the facility costs.
and environmental damages.

101
 In the late 90s, PETROBRAS initiated a
development program in order to rationalize the
use of passive protection systems that would allow
addressing the consequences of a fire in a global
manner. According to Mendes (1996), the meth-
odology was applied to different platforms, and
resulted in a significant reduction of costs associ-
ated with passive protection systems.
1.2 Scope and objective
In this context, this work presents only the appli-
cation of a methodology of computer numerical
analysis to evaluate the behavior of a stiffened
panel exposed to fire with different configurations
of the PFP layer.
The numerical analyses are performed using
the commercial code ABAQUS®, according to the
Finite Element Method (FEM), taking into account
the structural and thermal effects resulting from the
proposed fire. Variation in thermal and mechanical
properties of materials in case of high temperature
conditions are taken into account in the analysis,
in accordance with the applicable standard recom-
mendations, such as is the case of part 1.2 of EC3
(2004). The fundamentals of the applied analysis
model are described in item 2 below. A case study
is proposed and briefly described in item 3 hereto.
A panel is submitted to a fire scenario, caused
by the burning of hydrocarbons, Part 1.2 of EC1
(2004), allowing to evaluate the thermo-structural
behavior for different instances of the fire. The
main results obtained with the numerical model are
presented and critically assessed in item 4 of this
work, taking into account the fulfillment of secu-
rity requirements. The main conclusions drawn
from the analyses developed are referenced in
item 5, indicating that this methodology not only
allows meeting the safety requirements, but also
shows great potential for application in the reduc-
tion of the use of passive protection structure.
2 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The analysis is carried out using FEM, the model
includes a direct and rigorous consideration of
nonlinear physical and geometric effects on the
numerical formulation, allowing the estimate of
the possible structural collapse modes.
The proposed analysis procedure begins with
the review of the panel layout with the selection
of the fire scenario. Then, the thermal analysis is
performed, which purpose is to determine the vari-
ation of the temperature in the elements exposed
to fire. The main numerical formulation aspects of
this stage are addressed in item 2.1. The final stage
of the procedure aims at determining the structural
102
behavior as a function of the elapsed time of fire, in
other words, depending on the thermal conditions
of fire exposure and applied external loads (mechan-
ical). Computational characteristics adopted in this
final stage of the numerical simulations are briefly
described in item 2.2 hereto.
2.1 Thermal analysis
The numerical model used FEM to solve the two-
dimensional transient heat conduction problem,
as shown in Cook (2002), Skallerud and Amdahl
(2002), Lewis et al. (2004) and Landesmann et al.
(2010). The DS4 element was used to model pan-
els and the DC1D2 element was used to represent
the thermal protection layer, respectively made of
4 and 2 nodes.
The partial differential equation which expresses
the temperatures (in degrees Celsius) T(x,y,z,t) is
shown in Equation (1), subject to a temperature
field defined in its contour Ts, which is represented
in this analysis by fire-temperature curves (Part 1.2
of EC1 (2004)).
∂ ⎛ ∂T⎞ ∂ ⎛ ∂T⎞⎞ ∂ ⎛ ∂T⎞ ∂T
⎜k ⋅ ⎟ + k⋅ + ⎜k ⋅ ⎟ = ρ ⋅ c ⋅ (1)
∂x ⎝ ∂x⎠ ∂y ⎜⎝ ∂y⎟⎠ ∂z ⎝ ∂z ⎠ ∂t
where ρ is the specific mass of steel (assumed tem-
perature independent), ρ = 7850 kg/m3, c is the spe-
cific heat and k is the thermal conductivity. In this
paper, the thermal properties of steel, as a function
of temperature, are provided by part 1.2 of EC3
(2004) and shown in Figure 1.
When prescribed temperatures are different from
temperatures on the surface, a heat flux qn with two
portions is generated: (i) one due to convection and
another (ii) resulting from radiation, which can be
written in a single equation through the lineariza-
tion of the radiation portion, as below:
(Ts − Tg )
qn = qc + qr ( c r ) (2)
Figure 1. Specific heat and thermal conductivity of car-
bon steel as a function of the temperature.
 (
where: α r ε r .σ r . Ts 2 − Tg 2 ⋅ + )( )
, εr is the
resulting emissivity, defined as 0.8 (for steel); σr is
the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (5.67.10−8W/m2 K4);
and σc is the convective heat coefficient adopted
as 50 W/m2K (part 1.2 EC1 (2004)). Denoting C
as capacitance matrix, Kl and Kc are conductivity
matrices (Kl + Kc = Kt), fb as vector of nodal flux
due to convection, Equation (1) can be rewritten:
∂T (t )
⋅ + Kt T (tt fb (t )
∂t
Solution of Equation (3) is based on FEM,
being possible to determine the temperature at
time n + 1 based on data at time n:
of 4 nodes and 6 degrees of freedom per node
(translations and rotations around global axes X,
Y and Z), with capacity for developing nonlinear
physical and geometrical analyses. The complete
Newton-Raphson solution process is adopted
to update the matrices and the linear solution of
equations. The Von Mises criterion is adopted for
determining the element plastification criterion.
Apart from the thermal deformation imposed
on the structural model, variations in the mechani-
(3) cal properties of steel as a result of temperature,
as shown in Figure 2, are also taken into account,
including reduction: of yield strength (fy,θ), modu-
lus of longitudinal elasticity (Eθ) and yield point
(fp,θ) obtained based on recommendations of part
1.2 of EC3 (2004).

Tn +1 =
{⎡⎡C
⎣C ( ) tKt⎤⎦ Tn + t ⎡f
tK ⎣ fbn + (fbn + fbn)⎤⎦ } Defining fy,20 as the characteristic yield stress
and E20 as the modulus of elasticity, at environ-
(C Kt t) ment temperature, the reduction factors (ratio
(4) between the values of the property considered at a

where Δt is the time interval, γ is the temporal inte-

gration factor (taken as 0.9) and the initial temper-
ature throughout the solid is assumed to be equal
to 20°C (To).
Analyses presented here uses the nominal fire
curve corresponding to the burning of hydro-
carbons (Part 1.2 of EC1 (2004)), as given by
Equation (5):

(
Tg (t ) = To 1080 1 0.325 e−0.167.t − 0.675 ⋅ e 2.5.t
)
(5)
where: t is the elapsed time of fire (in minutes), Tg
is the temperature in the middle (in °C) and To is
the initial temperature (equal to 20°C).
Figure 2. Stress-strain relationship for carbon steel at
elevated temperatures.
2.2 Structural analysis
Since the variation of the temperature field was
established in the previous analysis stage, the finite
element mesh used, i.e., the nodal coordinates,
the elements connectivity and the results for heat
fluxes are used in the simulation of structural
behavior under the postulated fire conditions. The
procedure is initialized by the application of exter-
nal loads, including the own structural weight,
fluid action and other operational loads. At this
stage, deformations and their respective stresses,
corresponding to normal operating conditions of
the panel, can be seen. The variation of the tem-
perature field determined in the thermal analysis is
imposed to the structural model along with other
external loads applied.
In building the mesh of finite elements for the Figure 3. Reduction factor for the stress-strain relation-
structural analysis, the S4R element is used for ship and thermal expansion coefficient for carbon steel at
the panel simulation. This element is composed elevated temperatures.

103
temperature θ and initial temperature of 20ºC, e.g.
kE,θ = Ea,θ/Ea,20), as well as the coefficient of linear
thermal expansion of steel, as a function of tem-
perature (αa,θ), are shown in Figure 3.
The thermal protection material was not con-
sidered in the structural analysis due to the fact
that it has many mechanical properties lower than
steel, which would cause the addition of very small
terms in the stiffness matrix.

3 CASE STUDY

A stiffened panel is considered, as part of a plat-

form deck, under fire resulting from the burning
of hydrocarbons. In this panel, shown in Figure 4,
points were selected to present the results of analy-
ses. The temperature of the hot gases (on the side
of stiffeners) is described by Equation (5) while
the outdoor temperature was considered constant
and equal to 20°C. For simplicity, we considered Figure 5. Settings of the thermal protection layer on
only the weight of the structure itself and a lateral the reinforced panel.
pressure of 0.10 MPa. As boundary conditions,
we considered the four panel edges clamped. The
geometry and initial geometric imperfections pat- where m = Lu/bp + 1 and NS is the number of
terns of the plate and stiffener of the panel were stiffeners
considered equal to the benchmark study of ISSC
(2012), which is presented in Table 1 and Equa- hw mπ x πz L z
tions 6 and 7, respectively. v( x , z ) = si
sin si
sin
i + u (7)
200 Lu hw 1000 hw
bp mπ x π y Lu πx πy
w( x , y ) = sin sii
sin + sin sin
i Once the panel is subject to fire, we seek to
200 Lu bp 1000 Lu NS ⋅ bp ensure the maintenance of its functionality over a
(6) period of two hours, considered sufficient for the
arrival of rescue brigades. In order to guarantee
such time, three different configurations of the
PFP layer, shown in Figure 5, were considered.
This plaster layer is 5 mm thick and has the fol-
lowing properties: specific heat of 1700 J/kg ⋅ K,
thermal conductivity of 0.2 W/mK and density of
800 kg/m3, deemed independent from temperature,
Vila Real (2003).

4 RESULTS
Figure 4. Stiffened panel model.
4.1 Thermal analysis
Table 1. Geometry of stiffened panel. Figures 6–8 show the distribution of temperatures
on the plate, web and flange of stiffener, respec-
Length of stiffened panel Lu 2550 mm
tively (taken at points shown in Figure 4), for
Width of stiffened panel bp 850 mm
different time instants after the start of the fire.
Plate thickness tp 16 mm
A 400°C temperature is taken as reference, since
Stiffener web height hw 235 mm
above this, the mechanical properties show a very
Stiffener web thickness tw 8 mm
pronounced decline (see Figures 2 and 3).
Stiffener flange width bf 90 mm
Stiffener flange thickness tf 10 mm
On the plate (Figure 6), we saw that, between
Yield strength fy,20 324 MPa
points A and B, in cases where there is an equiva-
Slope of linear elastic range E20 210 GPa lent thermal protection, the temperature distribu-
tion is the same, while between points B and C, the

104

Figure 6. Temperature at points A, B and C of plate,
in time.
Figure 7. Temperature at points C, D and E in the web
of the stiffener, in time.
Figure 8. Temperature at points E, F and G in the
flange of the stiffener, in time.
distribution changes according to the heat flux in the
stiffener. The reference temperature (400°C) in case 1
is reached, across the plate, in about 4 minutes, while,
in other cases, times change significantly between
points A, B and C, which should be taken into con-
sideration upon the mechanical analysis. Further-
105
more, it should be pointed out that the temperature
on the plate does not reach 1100°C, which is the
maximum temperature in the considered fire curve
(Hydrocarbon Temperature-Time Curve, HT-HT),
since one of its sides is in contact with the environ-
ment, where temperature is 20°C constantly.
The stiffener web (Figure 7) has the highest
rate of warming, due to the large ratio of the area
exposed to fire and little volume of the element.
Thus, for cases 1 and 3, the temperature of 400°C,
at point D, is reached within 4 minutes, while in
cases 2 and 4, it is reached in 55 min. The difference
between the temperature distribution at points C
and E, in the analyzed cases, is due to heat flux
from the web to other elements.
Finally, on the flange of the stiffener (Figure 8),
we have the same temperature distribution for cases
1 and 2, however, in cases 3 and 4, the same trend
is found, but with different magnitudes. In cases
1 and 2, the 400°C temperature is reached in less
than 4 min. On the other hand, in case 3, this tem-
perature is reached only at points E and F. In case
4, the temperature does not exceed the threshold
value over the time interval examined.
Considering the severity of the fire in case 1,
where there is no thermal protection, temperatures
in the different panel components quickly reach
temperatures above 400°C. This indicates that the
properties of the structural elements will be sig-
nificantly affected by the fire, reaching their capac-
ity limit, in other words, there will be a structural
failure, besides the possibility of large areas under
plastic regime. The continuity of the fire, with a
progressive rise in temperature, could cause the
local perforation of a portion of the panel, ena-
bling the propagation of smoke, heat and flames
to other areas of the platform.
It should be noted that the protection layer
considered in cases 2, 3 and 4 was not able to
reduce the temperature and keep it below 400°C,
over the whole panel, thus its resizing shall help
increase the safety of the platform. This protec-
tion layer should be optimized, reducing cost
and weight in these facilities, notwithstanding
security.
4.2 Structural analysis
Based on information on the variation of the tem-
perature field in the panel, we have checked the
state of stresses and deformations in different pos-
tulated fire instants. Here, in addition to actions
resulting from thermal deformations (fire), external
actions (mechanical) applied on the structure were
also taken into account. It should be mentioned
that the load condition considered significantly
affects behavior of the stiffened panel, altering the
time of resistance to fire. In this paper we will con-
sider only the action of gravity and uniform lateral
pressure of 0.10 MPa. Figure 9 shows the stress
fields after application of considered loads.
Case 1 evaluates the behavior of the panel
without any thermal protection, and is therefore
the most critical case among the four ones con-
sidered, which justifies its separated analysis. In
this case, the structural analysis was stopped after
78 minutes. Figure 10 shows the distribution of
Von Mises stress in the panel at different time
instants. We can see the fast growth of vertical dis-
placements, indicating the rapid loss of strength
due to the high rate of heating in the panel. The
stiffener web is the most critical element, since in
about 15 minutes, its stiffness decreases, starting
to twist and losing, therefore, its load capacity and
behaving as a membrane.
Figure 11 illustrates the variation of vertical (U2)
and transverse (U3) displacements, respectively,
at points A, D, E, H and I over time. This figure
shows the beginning of relative displacements
(vertical and horizontal) between points D-E and

Figure 11. Transverse and vertical displacements in

points A, D, E, H and I for different instants of time for
Case 1.

Figure 9. Stress field after application of loads.

H-I, indicating the beginning of the stiffener tor-
sion. We can see the different final configurations
between the right and left stiffener, due to the influ-
ence of boundary conditions. It is important to
note, also, that the vertical displacement of point
A reaches 0.6 m, approximately. We can see that
stresses at the ends of the panel are higher due to
the temperature distribution in those areas, where
temperature is lower, which is reflected in a lower
decrease of mechanical properties, as shown in
Figures 2 and 3.
Figure 12 presents the stress states for cases 2,
3 and 4. It can be seen that, in case 2, stiffener
behavior is similar to case 1, stiffener begins to
twist off after 60 minutes of analysis as the plate,
up until then, had load capacity. In case 3, the larg-
est deformations are located on the plates between
stiffeners, since, in this case, the plate is the most
weakened element. In case 4, the mechanical
properties of both the plate and the stiffener are
weakened, but the panel behaves well due to the
fact that the stiffener flange has a good resistance
Figure 10. Stress field for different instants of time for preventing the rotation of the stiffener. One should
Case 1. also mention that this behavior is valid only for the

106

Figure 12. Stress field for different instants of time for
Cases 2, 3 and 4.
assumed loading condition. In a real situation,
where the structure undergoes the action of waves,
a distinct behavior can be seen.
Results show that the thermal protection layer
delays, in all cases, the heating of the protected ele-
ment by helping to maintain over time the mechan-
107
Figure 13. Vertical displacement of point A for different
instants of time for all cases.
ical properties, improving the structural behavior
of the panel. In Figure 13 we can see the vertical
displacement of point A in all analyzed cases, as
well as the final configuration of the panel in half
section. As expected, case 4 shows the best per-
formance, plus it has also the highest weight of the
protective layer.
5 CONCLUSIONS
The numerical-computational methodology for
analyzing the behavior of steel structures under
fire conditions presented in this paper was applied
to evaluate the behavior of a stiffened panel subject
to a fire scenario. In spite of idealized loading con-
ditions, we can see the thermomechanical behavior
for different instants of the postulated fire. Based
on the results of case 1, the need to apply PFP ele-
ments is evident.
In cases 2 through 4, we find the final configura-
tions of the panel, showing the difference between
behaviors for each case. It should be noted that
considerably severe fire conditions were assumed
with the assignment of a standard curve for the
burning of hydrocarbons. Finer studies can be
applied in order to make more realistic simulations
of fire scenarios, for example, the use of models
under CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) and,
therefore, the mechanical properties of the struc-
ture could be estimated in a more reliable manner.
Conclusions reached based on numerical simu-
lations discussed in this work indicate that the
methodology presented hereto can be applied
to assess the structural performance of offshore
structures, with different loading conditions as
well as different thermal protection materials, with
potential application in the reduction of the use
of PFP, notwithstanding the preservation global
security levels. Finally, despite considering ideal-
ized thermal and mechanical loads, for more com-
plex and real situations, the analysis procedure is
the same.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to express their gratitude to the
National Petroleum Agency of Brazil (ANP) and
COPPE-UFRJ for their support for the develop-
ment of this work.
REFERENCES
Cook, R.D., Malkus, D.S., Plesha, M.E. and Witt, R.J.
(2002), Concepts and Applications of Finite Element
Analysis, 4th Ed., John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Cullen, L. (1990), “The Public Inquiry into the Piper
Alpha Disaster”, HM Stationery Office.
European Committee for Standardization (2004),
EUROCODE No. 1: Actions on Structures, Part 1–2:
Actions on Structures exposed to Fire, ENV 1991-1-2,
British Standards Institution, London, UK.
European Committee for Standardization (2004),
Eurocode No. 3: Design of steel structures,
Part 1.2: Structural fire design, ENV 1993-1-2, British
Standards Institution, London, UK.
108
View publication stats
ISSC (2012). Report of Specialist Committee III.1
Ultimate Strength, Proceedings of the 18th Inter-
national Ship and Offshore Structures Congress
(ISSC 2012), Edited by Wolfgang Fricke and Robert
Bronsart, Rostock, Germany, Vol. 1, pp. 285–363.
Landesmann, A., Mendes, J.R., Ellwanger, G. (2010),
“Numerical Model for the Analysis of Offshore Struc-
tural Elements under Fire Conditions” Proceedings
of XXXIV Jornadas Sudamericanas de Ingeniería
Estructural, San Juan, Argentina.
Lewis R.W., Nithiarasu, P. and Seetharamu, K.N. (2004),
Fundamentals of the Finite Element Method for Heat
and Fluid Flow, John Wiley and Sons, England.
Mendes, M.F., “A Methodology for Fire Computational
analysis in Offshore Instalations” (Portuguese), D.Sc.
Thesis, Civil Engineering Program, COPPE/UFRJ,
1996.
Skallerud, B. and Amdahl J. (2002), Nonlinear Analysis
of Offshore Structures, Research Studies Press Ltd.,
Baldock, Herforshire, England.
Vila Real, P.M. (2003), Fire on Steel Structures—
Structural Calculation (Portuguese), 1st Ed., ORION
Editions, Portugal.