Technical Discussion

R440 DESIGN OF PASSIVE FIRE PROTECTION

Introduction proposed methods are in close agreement with test results and
results from non-linear finite element analysis. It is also shown
Traditionally structures are designed assuming material
that results are in close agreement with those obtained by the
temperatures to be at or near the ambient level. A Passive Fire
British and European codes of practice.
Protection (PFP) coating is then applied such that the steel
temperature during a postulated fire would not increase beyond
a limiting or “critical” value at which the load carrying capacity Properties of steel at elevated temperature
of the structure first becomes insufficient. Steel design codes The yield strength of steel at elevated temperature is defined in
allow a fraction, generally 60%, of the yield stress of the material, terms of strain. The strain at yield is defined as the value
to be utilised in order to attain an acceptable probability of failure. consistent with the plateau for mild steel. Traditionally for steel
Furthermore, the present design practice uses the elastic method without definable yield stress, 0.2% strain is used at room
of analysis for calculating the internal stress distributions. temperature to define yield strength. At elevated temperatures
However, if the material is ductile, members are compact and the yield plateau is quite extended. To make better use of such
lateral supports and joints strength are adequate, then the ductility, relatively larger strains can be allowed. Large strain
structure could deform in-elastically. As a result, the internal means large deformations, which could cause cracks or even
forces redistribute and the structure shows more load carrying separation of the passive fire protection material. Thus, the level
capacity than the elastic method would suggest. For an extreme of strain needs to be limited in order to prevent the possible
event such as fire, all these reserves can be utilised so that the damage to fire coating. Some codes allow larger strain but require
PFP requirement is optimised. In addition in deciding on the the adhesion of PFP at high strain to be proved by testing.
safety margins for operating loads one should consider the
probability of both fire loads and the operating loads to be at BS5950 gives table of strength retention factors as function of
their maximum possible value simultaneously. temperature and strain, together with a recommendation on the
maximum level of strain that could be considered for various
In the Appendix, a theorem is proved which shows the self- structural members, i.e. beams, columns, etc.
limiting nature of thermal stresses. It is shown that if the
temperature is kept bounded (limited) during the required survival Table 440.1 shows the steel yield strength at elevated temperature
time, then the thermal stresses stop growing as the temperature for Grade 50 steel.
reaches a limiting value. The temperature is required to be
bounded to prevent material degradation beyond which the Both strength and the modulus of elasticity reduce as the
member could not sustain its self-weight and operating loads. It temperature increases. Reference 1 gives two methods for
is always possible to slow down the temperature growth for a determining values of Young’s modulus and the yield stress at
given survival time by providing adequate amount of PFP. various temperatures. These references give values which show
higher retention of properties by steel at elevated temperatures
In order to use this theorem for determining the limiting compared to other sources - for example see Reference 2. The
temperature of a structural system, one needs to determine the enhancement is achieved by defining a higher strain level
ultimate capacity of that system. The method uses a lower bound associated with the yield stress at any particular temperature.
solution (or exact solution, if one can be found) to determine a
structure’s reserve strength and the minimum strength to be Utilisation of reserve strength
retained to prevent collapse in a fire. Using this minimum required
Within the design framework, the structural design is governed
strength and steel yield strength at elevated temperatures, the
by one of several extreme load combinations, such that the
limiting temperature is obtained. Results obtained with the
probability of the resultant maximum stresses exceeding the
failure limit is acceptably low. It is obvious
Steel BS 5950: Part 8 EC: Part 10 that the probability of extreme design loads
Temperatu and extreme fire at the same time is quite
re In C remote. Consequently for the safety
Strength Retention Factor at Strain (in % ) Effective Yield Stresses assessment of a structure under fire attack,
of: as a proportion of
0.5% 1.5% 2.0% load factors on the material and loads can
20 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 be reduced or removed. There are other
100 0.970 1.000 1.000 1.000 sources of strength reserves, such as the
200 0.946 1.000 1.000 1.000 ability of the structure to deform plastically
300 0.854 1.000 1.000 1.000
400 0.798 0.956 0.971 1.000 and redistribute internal forces.
500 0.622 0.756 0.776 0.780
600 0.378 0.460 0.474 0.470 The theorem given in the Appendix shows
700 0.186 0.223 0.232 0.230
800 0.071 0.108 0.115 0.110
that the reserve strength of a member
900 0.030 0.059 0.062 0.060 determines how hot that member can get
1000 0.0206 0.0394 0.0446 0.040 before collapse. To determine the reserve
1100 0.0137 0.0263 0.0297 0.020 strength, either the exact capacity-
1200 0.0069 0.0131 0.0149 0.0000
1300 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 according to the plasticity theory, see

Table 440.1 Steel yield strength at elevated temperature for Grade 50 steel

Issue 32 - May 2002 Page 9

Technical Discussion

Reference 4 - or a lower bound estimate of the capacity is required.
Constructing an exact (or close) lower bound solution for a
complex large structure is not easy. Codes of practice give
simplified methods (known as the sub-framing, see BS5950
Section 5.7) for the plastic design of multi-storey rigid frame.
Non-linear finite element analysis gives a close lower bound
solution, since at all stages of loading the system is in equilibrium
and the yield condition of plasticity is also satisfied. Most of the
commercially available software packages use distributed
plasticity and could also account for instability and change of
geometry. The advantage of non-linear finite element analyses
is the ability to discriminate between members, i.e. let some
members degrade faster than the others and shed their load to
the surviving members.
Very good estimates of limiting temperature can also be obtained
by approximate methods of estimating the reserve strength. For
instance, the elastic analysis result, with all material and load
factors set to one, is a lower bound solution.
BS5950 Section 8 gives an approximate method for determining
the capacity (utilisation ratio) on a member by member basis.
This approach is useful when every member in the fire-affected
area is protected.
Manual application of the theorem
A topside structure can be categorised as a braced frame
structure, which means that all resistance to lateral forces, sway
and frame instability is provided by the bracing system. This
bracing system is in the form of an intersecting framework. The
required member sizes for the beams and columns in such frame
are often governed by the gravity load. However, as all joints are
fully welded, web members of the truss-work will take part in
carrying some of the gravity loads.
of the first hinge corresponds to exhaustion of the reserve
strength. The above statement is true when yielding governs.
However, if bucking intervenes, then some of the extra margin of
strength may not be present.
BS5950 Section 5.7 describes a sub-framing method to estimate
the load carrying capacity of multi-storey rigid frames.
Example 1
Consider a rigidly supported uniform I-beam of length L
subjected to a uniformly distributed load p per metre length.
Assume that the section is compact and adequate number of
lateral braces prevents lateral buckling. Suppose that this beam
has already been designed to remain elastic for the operating
loads using a current practice (e.g. AISC- WSD), then:
pL2
( M e )max = . Thus,
12
Me pL2
S = Section Modulus = (F S. F .) = 12(F S. F .)
Y Y
(1)
where: FY = Yield strength of the steel at room temperature
S. F .= A safety factor to give allowable bending
stress; typically 1.67 (Ref. 5)
M e = The maximum elastic moment
It is assumed that this member is fully utilised according to the
design code. If not then there is some margin that can be used.
Suppose that this beam is subjected to a fire, which cause the
steel temperature to rise to Tl at time t e . It is necessary to
construct a solution in the following form:

The purpose is to determine the approximate ultimate capacity

(
mi + M i* ≤ M PTl )
i
(2)

of structural members for the calculation of the critical

temperature. In order to make a safe estimate of critical where: ( )
M PTl denotes the plastic moment at the limiting
i
temperature the lower bound approach of plasticity theory is temperature Tl .
used. It is generally better for the beams to fail first, as the
failure of columns would cause the total collapse of the structure.
Sincemi can be any self-equilibrating stress field, including
Consequently, all girders are assumed to fail by forming three-
mi = 0 everywhere. M i* can be any solution including the
elastic solution or the exact collapse solution, i.e.
hinged beam mechanisms. With the reserve strength known, the
M collapse = M c = pL2 16 , then:
limiting temperature can be determined by using the material
strength retention table at elevated temperatures.
Z = M c FYT = pL2 16 FYTl (3)
Columns in the framework must retain sufficient strength to resist
the axial force from the floors above and bending moments
transmitted to the joints by girders framing into them. As the where: FYTl refers to yield strength at temperature Tl .
column section sizes are already selected for the operational
load, it remains to calculate its reserve strength. This reserve It should be mentioned that p does not require a load factor for
strength is a function of the column slenderness ratio and the an extreme event such as fire, since the probability of
axial force that it carries, as well as if it buckles in single or simultaneous occurrence of extreme gravity load and the
double curvature. For slenderness ratios up to 50 and an axial maximum credible fire is quite remote.
force up to 0.6 PY and double curvature buckling, the reduction
in the moment capacity M P is negligible. However for higher Dividing Equation (3) by Equation (2) gives
axial load (up to 0.9 PY ) the maximum moment will be somewhat
reduced. Beam-columns in topside structures generally fall within
the category for which the maximum resisting moment can be (
Z S = (3 4 S . F .) × FY FYTl ) (4)
used. But, it will be conservatively assumed that the formation

Page 10 Issue 32 - May 2002


Substituting for Z S = 112 . and S. F . = 167
. , and
rearranging gives FY FYTl = 2.494 or FYTl FY = 0.4
Using Table 1 and 1.5% strain (allowed for beam) for the required
strength retention factor 0.4 gives Tl = 625o C . If the level of
strain is allowed to be 2%, then Tl = 670 o C . This should be
compared with BS5950 recommended value, which ranges from
590 to 680°C depending on floor arrangement.
If supports were not fixed, but pinned, then the reserve strength
of the member is FY FYTl = 112 . × 167
. = 187 . , i.e. the
required strength retention is FYTl FY = 0.535 . Using this
value and 1.5% strain, the limiting temperature is 575°C, which is
the same as given BS5950. If this member were under-utilised,
the reserve of strength would have been more. As a result, the
limiting temperature would have been higher. These values
compare very well with experimental results, see for instance
Reference 5.
It should be noted that the critical temperature is a function of
reserve strength, the higher the reserve strength, the higher the
limiting temperature would be. As the current practice uses elastic
analysis methods, the reserve strength varies from member to
member, depending on the load pattern as well as on the structural
action, and end fixity.
Example 2
Consider a column within a topside offshore structure, which
is made of Grade 50 steel, and is designed according to a
code, such that the section is fully utilised. Furthermore,
suppose that its slenderness ratio is less than 50 and the
axial load is less than 0.6 PY . It is required to compute its
limiting temperature.
Buckling would not reduce the capacity of such column to a
great extent. Consequently, the capacity corresponding to
formation of the first hinge can be realised. Thus, a lower
bound of reserve strength is
FY FYTl = 112 . × 167 . = 187. so that the required strength
retention is FYTl FY = 0.535 . Using this value and 0.5%
strain, the limiting temperature is 535°C, which is the same as
given BS5950. The maximum strain is limited to 0.5% to reflect
its importance to the rest of the topside structure.
BS5950 Section 8
BS5950 allows using the limiting temperature method to
determine the behaviour of hot finished steel member in fire.
Table 5 of BS5950 lists the limiting temperature as a function
of member type (beam, column or tension members), the
slenderness ratio and the load ratio. Expressions for
calculations of the load ratio are given in Sections 4.4.2.2
and 4.4.2.3. The load ratio is very similar to the Interaction
Ratio (IR), or the utilisation ratio. The theorem can be used
to explain the BS550, as explained in Examples 1 and 2.
For the first iteration of the procedure outline in Section 6,
the IR (after resetting load and resistant factors) can be used
as surrogate for the load ratio. This enables to determine the
approximate limiting temperature and hence the film
thickness.
Issue 32 - May 2002
Technical Discussion
Non-linear finite element method
An alternative method is to use non-linear finite element (FE)
method. The FE method is by far the most flexible tool as it
allows to optimise the amount PFP (both the extent and the film
thickness). Although the principles established in the Appendix
still applies, there is no need to determine a closed form solution,
or approximately determine the utilisation. Furthermore FE allows
considering the complete system.
The design fires are generally expressed in terms of heat fluxes
(convective or radiative) and gas temperature in the fire affected
areas. The mode of the heat transfer through the structure is by
conduction. Heat conduction is a slow process. As a result the
rise in temperature away from the fire-affected area is dependent
on member sizes and the heating environment, i.e. heat fluxes
and gas temperatures. Previous experience with similar situations
indicates that for a typical topside under a fire attack, it is
adequate to consider the area immediately adjacent to the fire
affected zone only. Based on this finding, heat transfer models
of the topside consists of the fire-affected zone and its immediate
neighbouring areas only.
If the intention is only to determine the limiting temperature,
then a heat transfer analysis of the unprotected structure is
performed to determine the temperature time-histories of all fire-
affected members.
In the first step of a two-step non-linear structural analysis the
operational loads are applied. In the second step, temperature
time histories at the nodal points will be applied. At this stage
zero time signifies the start of the fire. By marching through the
time from the start of the fire, the time to collapse will be
determined. The temperature associated with the time to collapse
is the limiting temperature.
By judicially adding PFP to those members that failed earlier, an
optimal solution would be obtained for a particular fire affected
zone. Generally several runs may be required.
For the optimal design of PFP a decision should be made on the
type of PFP to be used, since the temperature rise in a member is
dependent on the type of PFP. Various types of PFP provide
protection on a different basis. Each scheme of PFP (i.e. the
extent of protection, the type of PFP and thickness) requires one
set of heat transfer analysis.
An alternative way for determining an approximate limiting
temperature for the first iteration is to use BS 5950:Part 8 Tables.
Using certified fire test for the chosen PFP, the film thickness is
determined. The calculated thickness and the material behaviour
of PFP are then used in the heat transfer model to determine the
temperature time histories of all points on the structure.
Yet another alternative method of determining an initial limiting
temperature is by ramping the steel temperature of the entire
model uniformly in a non-linear analysis. This eliminates the
need for the heat transfer analysis of un-protected steelwork.
The temperature at which the software fails to converge would
be an average critical temperature for the whole structure. For a
structure designed to present Codes of Practices, such BS 5950
Page 11
Technical Discussion
or AISC, the structure can be heated up to more than 600°C (and
more) before instability sets in.
Determining the average limiting temperature
using design software
Design software can be used to construct a lower bound solution.
Elastic design methods give a lower bound solution. This is due
to the fact that the external loads are in equilibrium with the
internal forces and the code check ensures that the yielding
condition is not violated. Firstly, set all material and load factors
to one (or to another value commensurate with simultaneously
occurrence of maximum operation load and fire loads). For the
first iteration assume that the average critical temperature for
the whole system is, say 400°C. Define the modulus of elasticity
and material yield compatible with this temperature. As shown
in the Appendix the effect of thermal expansion due to
temperature rise can be ignored in determining the limiting
temperature. The member unity check (or utilisation factor) will
indicate if the structure would survive this level of temperature.
Increase (or decrease) the stipulated temperature and repeat the
analysis/design cycle until an adequate number of members fail
the unity check. Since the effect of redistribution of internal
forces cannot be accounted, results are always a poor lower
bound solution. This approach would only give a minimum
estimate of the average limiting temperature for the whole system.
There are ways to improve the accuracy of this approach.
PFP Design for vessels
The above discussion was centred on calculating the limiting
temperature. The limiting temperature governs the Stability Limit
State. However, other limit states need to be considered for walls
and floor, as well as vessels containing volatile material. The
fundamental to fire protection is the ability of fire barriers to
prevent the transfer of heat, flames or hot gases through the
structure such that the ignition of combustible materials on the
non-fire side is prevented. Thus, the formation of openings
through which gas transfer or passage of flame can take place
should be prevented. In addition, temperature rise on the
unheated face should be limited so as to eliminate the ignition
possibility.
The above performance requirement imposes three design
conditions which are known as the stability, integrity and
insulation limit states. A brief description of these limit states
and the limiting conditions are given below.
Stability Limit State: This limit state is reached when the total
collapse or unacceptable deformation occurs. Load carrying
members are expected to resist failure during heating period as
well as during the cooling phase.
Integrity Limit State: This limit state is reached when a breach
occurs in fire barrier through which passage of flame or hot
gases becomes possible. This limit state is mainly relevant to
separating constructions, namely floors and walls. In fire test it
is judged by the application of a cotton-fibre pad to the suspect
opening on the unheated face. Vessels should also comply with
this requirement.
Page 12
Limit State of Insulation: This limit state is reached when heat
transfer through the structure or vessel raises the temperature
of the unexposed face to a level considered unsafe for
combustible materials in contact with that face. For instance,
The temperature of unexposed surface must not increase more
than an average of, say, 140°C or a maximum of 180°C at any
point, above the initial temperature.
Although the theorem of the Appendix is proved in the context
of a beam, it is also valid for a continuum. Any of the above
mentioned methods can be used for determining the limiting
temperature of a vessel. Although the last Limit State is more
relevant for design of vessels, but all three limit states should be
considered for vessels.
Conclusions
The self-limiting nature of thermal stresses in a steel-framed
structure under fire heating is proved in this paper. It is also
shown the way in which the theorem for determining the limiting
temperature of structural members can be used. It is required to
determine a lower bound solution. The closeness of this lower
bound to the exact solution determines the accuracy of the
calculated limiting temperature.
References
[1]
The Steel Construction Institute “Fire Resistant Design of
Steel Structure - A Handbook to BS5950: Part 8”, SCI
Publication 080, 1990.
[2]
European Convention for Constructional Steelwork
“European Recommendations for the Fire Safety of Steel
Structures”, Elsevier 1983.
[3]
American Iron and Steel Institute, Plastic Design of Braced
Multi-storey Steel Frames, Published by Committee of
Structural Steel Produces in co-operation with AISC, 1968.
[4]
Horne M. R. and Morris L. S., Plastic Design of Low-Rise
Frames, Constrado Monograph, Collins, London, 1981.
[5]
BS 5950, Part 1: 1990. British Standard Institute.
Appendix
Description of Fire Loads
Fires impose some level of thermal loading onto a structure and
heat it up in a certain manner. The way a structure heats up by a
fire can be called a heating programme. The heating environment
causes the steel temperature to rise above the ambient level.
The question that we need to answer is how hot the structural
members can get before the load carrying capacity becomes
inadequate.
Generally, there are a large number of possible scenarios, which
could lead to a sustained fire. If a number of such scenarios can
be distinguished as to be severe enough which require attention,
then temperature time history of the structural members due to
the fire heating can be expressed in the following form
Ts (x, t ), for s = 1,2, ... , n
where x denotes an arbitrary point on the structure, t is the
accumulated time from the start of the fire, and s characterises
s -th fire scenario.
Issue 32 - May 2002

The range of possible variations of the heating environment
imposed on the structure is defined by T(x, t ) , such that at
any instant T(x, t ) ≥ Ts (x, t ), for s = 1,2, ... , n , that is
T(x, t ) is a design heating programme which encompasses all
possible fires in an identifiable area. Since this design fire which
envelopes all fires in an area at any given point and at any
instant of time, the actual temperature would not exceed T(x, t ) ,
the limit on temperature. This limiting temperature will be set
such that the strength retained at the end of survival time is just
enough to sustain the member loads. If required, PFP can be
applied to control the rate of temperature rise, such that the
heated material would retain sufficient strength to carry its loads.
Thermal Stresses in a Fire
Consider an ideal elastic-plastic structure experiencing a set of
mechanical loads, which are assumed to remain un-changed.
Furthermore, assume that the local buckling of the frame members
is prevented and the deformations are small enough for changes
in geometry to be negligible. This structure which is designed to
a certain code is then subjected to an arbitrary temperature field
T = T(x, t ) as a result of a fire. This temperature field increases
as a function of time from the start of the fire.
The instantaneous bending moment at cross-section i due to
only mechanical (operating) load combination is denoted by
M i* . This moment is computed on the assumption that the
structure carries this load combination wholly by elastic action
(for the instantaneous values of the Young’s Modulus at the
same point of the heating Programme).
Heating would cause some thermal stresses to develop in the
structure. At the same instance of the time when M i* was
calculated, let the actual bending moment at the same cross-
section i in the actual elasto-plastic state to be M i . Let mi be
the bending moment in the cross-section i due to the thermal
effect. This is given by the difference
mi = M i − M i* (A1)
The actual set of the bending moments M i and M i* (the
bending moment due to operating loads only and assuming
perfect elastic action) at cross-section i must satisfy the
equilibrium equation for the given loads. Since mi is due to the
heating, it must satisfy the equation of equilibrium for zero
external loads.
This seems to imply that the mechanical loads and temperature
rise cause only bending moments, which in general is not true,
since there will be some axial force. This assumption is not
necessary for general solid. Here the context of a framed structure
is used to emphasise the practical implication of the theorem.
For a framed structure, if the axial component of the stresses is
substantial, then buckling may intervene before yielding could
take place.
It is further assumed that the steel temperature at the time t = t e
is limited to
Tl = T (x, t e ) (A2)
where Tl is the critical (or limiting) temperature that can be
allowed a structural member to reach before exhaustion of its
Issue 32 - May 2002
Technical Discussion
capacity at this temperature. The basic assumption is that, even
though the steel temperature is rising, it will not be permitted to
increase beyond this limiting value (to be established) during
survival time t e . The fire protection of a structure is then reduced
ensuring this limiting temperature is not reached during the
required survival time. By applying an appropriate amount of a
suitable PFP to the member. However, the steel temperature could
drop or fluctuate, provided it remains below Tl during the time
period t e .
Suppose that a distribution of the thermal bending moment mi
is found which is statically admissible and satisfies at every
cross-section i the condition
mi + M i ≤ ( M PT )i (A3)
where ( M PT )i denotes the plastic moment at temperature T
for cross-section i . The temperature dependence of the yield
strength is accounted for by allowing the yield condition to
contract as the temperature rises. The value of the yield surface
contraction (or yield strength retention) is given in Table 1.
The bending moment mi may be any system of thermal bending
moment, whether real or hypothetical which satisfies the
appropriate equations of equilibrium for zero external load.
It will now be shown that as the temperature rises (up to Tl ) the
thermal stresses stop growing, that is, a limiting state will be
reached. However, the actual distribution at this stage will not
necessarily be the assumed distribution mi . A structure that
satisfies the condition (A3) for a given set of mechanical loads
and heating Programme Equation (A2) has no possible mode of
collapse.
Proof of the above stated theorem is along the line given by
Horn and others for the shakedown theorem.
~
Consider now the fictitious elastic energy Π of the moment
difference mi − mi ,
~ 1
2
( )
Π = ∫ 1 (EI )i × (mi − mi ) dsi
2
(A4)
in which mi represent the actual thermal moments (stresses) at
any cross-section i of the frame at any stage of the heating
process, dsi is an element of length of the member at section i ,
(EI )i is the flexural rigidity at this section, and integration
~ is a positive
extends over all members of the structure. Clearly Π
quantity and is a measure of the difference between the actual
and hypothetical thermal moment distribution, mi and mi .
( )
The moment differences mi − mi are connected with the
curvature change δmi (EI )i by Hook’s law. Since both
distribution mi and mi satisfy the condition of equilibrium
( )
with zero external loads, then mi − mi satisfy these
conditions. The derivative of energy with respect to time, noting
that mi are by definition independent of time, is
~
( ) ( )
dΠ dt = ∫ 1 (EI )i (mi − mi )δmi dsi + ∫ (mi − mi ) δ 1 (EI )i dsi
2
(A5).
Page 13
Technical Discussion

Since E i is a decreasing function with time, and then The thermal moments will no longer change with temperature.

δ (1 (EI )i ) is a negative quantity, hence the second integral

of Equation (5) is either zero or negative. Thus
~
( )
dΠ dt ≤ ∫ 1 (EI )i (mi − mi )δmi dsi (A6)
( )
Now consider mi − mi as the system of bending moments in
equilibrium with zero external load, and changes of curvature
δmi (EI )i and hinge rotation Θ i associated with increments
δmi (EI )i of the thermal moments, as compatible
displacements. The equation of virtual work gives
Thus the system of thermal moments mi existing in the structure
in the shakedown condition will differ from mi but mi will
settle down to a constant distribution.
Since the conditions of the theorem proved above includes those
of the lower bound theorem of plastic collapse, the limiting load
in the presence of heating cannot exceed the load corresponding
to static collapse.
Further information
For further details, please contact:

∫ (EI ) (m − mi )δmi dsi + ∑ (mi − mi )Θ i = 0

−1 Sirous Yasseri
i i (A7) Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR)
South Point
Combining equation (A6) and (A7) gives 6-14 Sutton Court Road
~ Sutton
dΠ dt ≤ − ∑ (mi − mi )Θ i (A8) Surrey SM1 4TY
United Kingdom
Since the bending moments mi reach yield surface bending
moments mi lie inside yield surface, therefore Tel: +44 (0) 1372 865 226
Fax: +44 (0) 1372 865 111
(mi − mi )Θ i > 0 (A9) E-mail: sirous.yasseri@halliburton.com
~
Thus dΠ dt < 0 as long as Θ i ≠ 0 . Since the elastic energy
~
Π is non-negative, a time will be reached when hinge rotation
ceases (i.e.Θ i
~
)
= 0, dΠ dt = 0 .

Page 14 Issue 32 - May 2002