Coupled CFD–FEM Simulation Methodology

for Fire-Exposed Bridges

Zhi Liu1; Julio Cesar G. Silva2; Qiao Huang3; Yuji Hasemi4; Yili Huang5; and Zhaoyuan Guo6

Abstract: Evaluating the fire performance of bridges is necessary for damage mitigation as more fire-related accidents occurred on bridge struc-
tures. Current solutions adopting temperature curves can result in significant inaccuracy by neglecting the inhomogeneous characteristic of the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Southeast University on 10/13/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

fire-induced thermal environment. This paper proposed a numerical methodology for analyzing the coupled thermomechanical response of var-
ious bridges exposed to fires. The computational fluid dynamics (CFD) approach was implemented to reproduce the fire condition more real-
istically by modeling the combustion process and fire-driven flow. Then, an interface was adopted to extract the thermal boundary from the fire
model. At last, the thermomechanical finite-element method (FEM) was coupled with the CFD model for determining the fire-induced response
of the global bridge, thermally and structurally. By incorporating the multiscale FEM, this methodology can be extended to various large-scale
bridges subjected to localized fires. The proposed approach was validated through a real fire experimental study on a steel column. To demon-
strate the application of this strategy, a complex case study was carried out. A long-span cable-stayed bridge was investigated considering its
girder segment was exposed to an under-deck tanker fire. Numerical results showed that the proposed method was able to capture the surround-
ing temperature field with strong thermal gradients and can predict not only the localized thermomechanical response of exposed segments but
also the global structural performance evolution for large-scale complex bridges. The under-deck fire can introduce a significant impact on the
entire cable-stayed bridge. Thereby, the multiscale FEM modeling strategy is required for the long-span bridges exposed to localized fires.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0001770. © 2021 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Bridge; Fire; Computational fluid dynamics; Finite-element method; Thermomechanical behavior; Coupled simulation;
Multiscale modeling.

Introduction performance evolution originates from temperature-induced mate-

Fire is one of the most dangerous hazards threatening bridge safety.
This is particularly the case as more fuel-powered and fuel-carrying
vehicles are shuttling on and under bridges. As per statistical anal-
yses, more than 3% of counted bridge failures in the United States
after 1951 were due to fires, which is close to earthquake-caused
bridge failures (Harik et al. 1990; Wardhana and Hadipriono
2003; Garlock et al. 2012). To develop efficient mitigation strat-
egies against potential fire accidents, deeply understanding the
fire performance of bridges is becoming more necessary.
Predicting the response of fire-exposed bridges is twofold: ther-
mally and structurally. Determining the fire-induced surrounding
temperature field is the foundation because the structural
1
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Bridge & Tunnel Engineering, Southeast
Univ., Nanjing 211100, China. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8518
-3894.
2
First Lieutenant, Engineering Corps of Brazilian Navy, Rio de Janeiro
22220-030, Brazil. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2798-9384.
3
Professor, Dept. of Bridge & Tunnel Engineering, Southeast Univ.,
Nanjing 211100, China (corresponding author). Email: qhuanghit@126
.com
4
Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Architecture and Architectural Engineer-
ing, Waseda Univ., Tokyo 169-8050, Japan.
5
Graduate Student, Dept. of Bridge and Tunnel Engineering, Southeast
Univ., Nanjing 211100, China.
6
Jiangsu Provincial Transportation Engineering Construction Bureau,
69 Shigu Rd., Nanjing 210004, China.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on October 28, 2020; approved on
May 27, 2021; published online on August 2, 2021. Discussion period open
until January 2, 2022; separate discussions must be submitted for individual
papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge Engineering, © ASCE,
ISSN 1084-0702.
rial deterioration. The majority of existing studies simplified fire
conditions as spatially homogeneous temperatures varying over
time, like the ISO834 or hydrocarbon fire (HC) profile (CEN 2002).
One primary problem with applying temperature curves is the
distortion of reconstruction for the fire-induced temperature field.
Extensive studies have demonstrated that a significant inaccuracy
can be introduced (Alos-Moya et al. 2014; Quiel et al. 2015;
Buchanan and Abu 2017; Beneberu and Yazdani 2018). Prescrip-
tive curves were obtained based on the layered model established
for indoor fires (CEN 2002), whereas bridge fires are usually char-
acterized by gradient temperature and high fire intensity.
Sporadic studies have implemented the computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) approach to provide a more realistic fire basis.
Choi (2008) incorporated the CFD technique to calculate the spa-
tial–temporal temperature distribution of reinforced concrete
(RC) beams and gave an acceptable prediction for the structural
response. The experimental studies on composite beams con-
ducted by Alos-Moya et al. (2017) and their numerical valida-
tions (Alos-Moya et al. 2019) showed that the CFD method is
capable of predicting the temperature distribution for fire-bridge
analyses. However, the laborious coupling procedures in these
studies are merely limited to small bridges consisting of orthog-
onal geometries because of the lack of a methodology that can
tackle complex structures, trapping the current understanding of
the bridge behavior in fires lingering at the application of simple
temperature models.
This paper proposed a fire-thermomechanical simulation frame-
work for analyzing the behavior of bridges exposed to fires. Fire
conditions were considered using the CFD technique to reproduce
the spatially inhomogeneous temperatures. Then, the response was
captured by performing a coupled thermomechanical finite-element

© ASCE 04021074-1 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2021, 26(10): 04021074

 method (FEM) simulation by applying the thermal exposure
extracted from the fire model using an interface. The proposed
framework was validated based on a real fire experiment on a
steel column. Combining with the multiscale FEM approach, large-
span bridges subjected to localized fires are investigatable also con-
sidering the interaction between the exposed portion and other
components. For demonstration, a cable-stayed bridge was studied
using the proposed approach. Not only the localized thermome-
chanical response was determined but also the entire bridge perfor-
mance was captured, providing a dependable foundation for future
safety evaluations of fire-exposed bridges.
Previous Approaches
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Southeast University on 10/13/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Numerically evaluating the behavior of fire-exposed bridges is
basically a thermomechanical FEM simulation based on the fire-
induced surrounding temperature field, which is the emphasis of
how precisely a fire scenario can be represented. For compart-
ment fires, the one-zone model was developed assuming a homo-
geneous distribution of temperature, density, internal energy,
and pressure of the gas, and then, a two-zone model was further
proposed by defining two thermal layers assuming the combus-
tion products accumulate in the form of layers (CEN 2002). Var-
ious temperature curves are the illustration of the one-zone
model or the upper layer in the two-zone model. Following
these compartment-aimed assumptions, numerous numerical
studies have been contributed for bridges to predict their resist-
ance before fire, failure process during fire, and residual strength
after fire (Aziz and Kodur 2013; Kodur et al. 2013; Aziz et al.
2015).
As an advanced solution, the CFD approach involves the mod-
eling for the characteristics of the fire source, the geometry of com-
ponents, and fire-driven fluid heat flow. The open-source program
FDS (version 6.7.5) has been extensively utilized for replicating the
fire scenario in infrastructures. Because adopting prescriptive tem-
perature curves for bridges can yield very different thermal re-
sponses comparing to the FDS-based fire modeling (Alos-Moya
et al. 2014), coupling the FDS model with the FEM model has in-
creased as the major concern in the recent decade. A critical review
of the studies is summarized in Table 1.
The crux of coupling two models is the passed quantities. The
heat flux was a direct quantity for thermal analysis, like the study
(Choi et al. 2012) for concrete members. The surface temperature
and gas temperature were adopted in Choi et al. (2012), Gong
and Agrawal (2015, 2016), and Cui et al. (2020). The better solu-
tion is increasing as the adiabatic surface temperature (Wickström
et al. 2007), whose utilization is able to avoid the transfer of the
heat flux, surface temperature, and convective heat-transfer coeffi-
cient simultaneously. Its successful application has been reported
on general beam bridges (Alos-Moya et al. 2014; Peris-Sayol
et al. 2015; Wu et al. 2020).
The exclusive way through which quantities were passed in
these studies was to define measuring devices on needed locations
before the FDS simulation. The device approach can be acceptable
by small-scale bridges with regular geometries. However, placing
devices priorly will be very laborious and even become impractica-
ble for irregular bridges. Although endeavors have been contrib-
uted to unconventional bridge structures, their fire performance
cannot be estimated precisely by using insufficient quantities
based on FDS models.
Also, for localized fires imposing thermal effects on a limited
portion, the behavior evolution of large-scale bridges involves
the interaction between all structural members. A dramatic
© ASCE 04021074-2
J. Bridge Eng., 2021, 26(10): 04021074
computational cost can result because the structural FEM model
of the entire bridge is usually required to consider the local thermal
evolution and the global redistribution of internal force. Extending
the coupled FDS–FEM analyses to large-span complex bridges is
now prevented by these dilemmas, which will be addressed by
the programmatic and effective simulation methodology proposed
in this paper.
CFD–FEM Coupled Simulation Methodology
This paper proposed a methodology for evaluating the fire perfor-
mance of various bridge structures by coupling the CFD-based fire
model and FEM-based thermomechanical model, as illustrated in
Fig. 1. Three main steps were included: replicating the fire scenario
considering environmental variables using a CFD code, extracting
and transferring the thermal boundary from the fire model to the
FEM model of exposed members, and performing the coupled ther-
momechanical FEM simulation.
For complex or long-span bridges, a cautious numerical plan
was required to reduce the computational cost because these simu-
lations, especially the CFD, are time-consuming iteration pro-
cesses. It is critical to determine how many structural members
are required in each step and to what extent should their geometric
details be modeled. Depending on the relative size of the fire-
affected region to the global scale, the partial and entire modeling
of a bridge are alternatives in the first step, and a detailed discreti-
zation and multiscale FEM modeling of the entire bridge are alter-
natives in the third step.
CFD-Based Fire Modeling
The aim of the CFD-based modeling for the fire condition is to
reproduce the thermal circumstance. The dimensions of the re-
quired computational domain in which the simulation will be
carried out mainly depend on how the fire-driven heat flow
will progress. The necessary domain must enclose not only the
flame but also the space conveying heat transfer to consider a
comprehensive fire exposure. On the other hand, the domain
should be as narrow as possible to minimize the computational
expenditure.
Because thermal conduction and radiation highly depend on the
configurations of bridges, their real geometry should be considered
in the CFD simulation. In this methodology, all components of
small-scale bridges in fire conditions were modeled. For large-scale
bridges subjected to localized fires, the computational domain en-
closed the exposed portion and its adjacent members, which will
be discretized using high-fidelity elements in the following FEM
analyses.
The open-source program FDS developed by the National In-
stitute of Standards and Technology (NIST 2020) was adopted to
simulate fire behavior. It is a large-eddy-simulation-based code
designed to model the fire-driven fluid flow by solving numeri-
cally the Navier–Stokes equations. Validated by various exper-
iments, FDS is capable of predicting fire-related quantities,
such as the gas-phase temperature field, heat flux, and smoke
movement.
Before the FDS simulation, the thermal FEM model of the mem-
bers that will be considered in the CFD simulation was developed
to provide geometric information. The FDS model is limited to a
computational domain made up of rectilinear volumes. Inclined ge-
ometries are not supported at present in FDS because it solves
equations using the finite-difference method. This paper scripted
a code to orthogonalize irregular geometries into FDS-compatible
J. Bridge Eng.
 Table 1. Literature studying the fire performance of bridges using the CFD-FEM approach
Title
Integrated fire dynamic and
thermomechanical modeling of a bridge
under fire
Analysis of a bridge failure due to fire
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Southeast University on 10/13/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Authors (year) Summary
Choi et al. (2012) A fire-heat-structural simulation approach was proposed for analyzing the behavior of
structures subjected to fires. The solid-phase temperature at the external surface of steel
members predicted by the FDS-based fire model was approximated using a fourth-order
polynomial form over time and was considered as the component temperature. Inside steel
members, the temperature was assumed to be linearly distributed. For concrete obstructions,
the surface heat fluxes calculated by FDS were transferred to the ABAQUS-based FEM
model to undertake a thermomechanical simulation. For validation, the authors simulated a
three-point loading test of an RC beam under the ISO834 condition. The predicted midspan
and quarter-span deflection was 28% and 31% lower than the experimental values,
respectively, at the end of the test. The behavior of the I-80/880 interchange in Oakland,
California, collapsed due to fire was then reproduced using the proposed approach
Alos-Moya et al. The authors simulated the fire-induced failure process of the I-65 overpass in Birmingham,

using computational fluid dynamics and
finite-element models
Analysis of the influence of geometric,
modeling, and environmental parameters
on the fire response of steel bridges
subjected to realistic fire scenarios
Numerical simulation of fire damage to a Gong and Agrawal The authors performed a coupled simulation to replicate the impact caused by a vehicle fire
long-span truss bridge (2015)
Safety of cable-supported bridges during
fire hazards
A localized fire model for predicting the Wu et al. (2020)
surface temperature of box girder bridges
subjected to tanker truck fire
Stability assessment of a suspension bridge Cui et al. (2020)
considering the tanker fire nearby steel–
pylon
(2014) Alabama which was a three-span continuous beam bridge composed of seven steel I-beams
and a concrete slab. The adiabatic surface temperature proposed by Wickström et al. (2007)
was collected from the developed FDS fire model by manually adding measuring devices
and applied to the thermomechanical ABAQUS model of steel beams. For comparison,
simulations were performed using standard and HC temperature curves. The thermal and
structural results were very different from those calculated by coupled CFD–FEM method.
Further parametric studies were carried out to estimate the influence of fire intensity, FEM
discretization, and axial boundary conditions of bearings
Peris-Sayol et al. A simulation was conducted for a simply-supported bridge with a span of 12.2 m. The
(2015) adiabatic surface temperature was measured in FDS and applied as the thermal boundary to
the thermomechanical FEM model of the entire steel portion. Parametric studies were
carried out to analyze the impact caused by different horizontal restraints, count of
considered components in FEM modeling, vertical clearance, wind, and bridge
configuration, and their failure patterns were also compared and discussed
to Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge, which is a long-span truss bridge. The fire scenario was
modeled in FDS and the surface temperature was extracted and then applied to the exposed
portion for the coupled thermomechanical simulation. Based on the fire test of a beam
component exposed to the ISO834 fire, the approach validation was performed using a
thermomechanical simulation. The predicted out-of-plane deformation of stringers
presented a correlation with the observed phenomenon
Gong and Agrawal To investigate the stability of stiffening girders in cable-supported bridges subjected to fire,
(2016) series coupled simulations on isolated orthotropic box girder segments were performed. The
over-deck and under-deck fire scenarios were replicated in FDS and surface temperatures
were collected then passed to the thermomechanical FEM model of these segments. For
conservation, the inside heat convection and radiation were not considered. Different axial
compressive loads, 0%, 30%, and 60% of the yield capacity for decks, were applied at the
two ends of segments representing anchored suspension, self-anchored suspension, and
cable-stayed bridges, respectively. Cables or suspenders were considered as rigid vertical
constraints and two ends of segments were constrained in the longitudinal and transverse
directions. The bulking failure behavior of decks was analyzed by examining and
thermal-induced axial force for various fire intensities and distances from the fire source to
the deck floor. Simulation results indicated that the magnitude of axial force is critical for the
potential buckling failure of cable-supported bridges during fire scenarios. The authors
clarify the necessity of conducting more investigation on the behavior of cable-supported
bridges exposed to fire
Series coupled FDS–ABAQUS simulations were conducted for a general concrete box
girder with inclined geometries. The bridge was subjected to various localized tanker truck
fires. Inclined webs were orthogonalized into rectangles overlaid by measuring devices to
transfer the adiabatic surface temperatures. The authors proposed a modified SFPE fire
model for predicting the flame length and distribution of heat flux of box girder bridges in
localized fires
The stability of a steel pylon near a tanker fire in a suspension bridge was investigated by the
authors. The gas temperature calculated by FDS was applied to the FEM model of the entire
bridge. Results showed that the fire source defined by burning time and firepower can
decrease the stability coefficient of the exposed pylon significantly

obstructions snapping to the underlying grids by identifying the [dimensions, heat release rate per unit area (HRRPUA), fuel
closest gridding planes. The FDS model can thus be established type, and so on], material properties of the structure, ventilation,
by incorporating other information, such as the fire source and so on.

© ASCE 04021074-3 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2021, 26(10): 04021074

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Southeast University on 10/13/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Simulation methodology.

Data Mapping from the CFD Model to the FEM Model
Heat propagates from flames and hot gases to structure surfaces
in the ways of radiation and convection, making up the total
heat flux, q̇′′tot
q̇′′tot = q̇′′rad + q̇′′conv
which is shown in Fig. 2(a).
The radiative heat flux, q̇′′rad , is the difference between the radi-
ative flux absorbed (q̇′′r,abs ) and emitted (q̇′′r,emi ):
q̇′′rad = q̇′′r,abs − q̇′′r,emi
where α = absorptivity. According to the Stefan–Boltzmann law,
the emitted radiative thermal energy is defined as follows:
q̇′′r,emi = εσ(Tsurf )4 (4)
where ɛ = surface emissivity; and σ = Stefan–Boltzmann constant.
(1) Based on Kirchhoff’s assumption that emissivity and absorptivity
are equal, Eq. (2) becomes
q̇′′rad = ε[q̇′′inc − σ(Tsurf )4 ] (5)
Newton’s law of cooling states that the convective heat flux,
q̇′′conv , is proportional to the temperature difference between gas
(2) (Tgas) and surface (Tsurf). Thereby, Eq. (1) can be written as follows:

The absorbed radiative flux can be considered as part of the inci- q̇′′tot = ε[q̇′′inc − σ(Tsurf )4 ] + h(Tgas − Tsurf ) (6)
dent radiative heat flux (q̇′′inc ):
where h = convective heat-transfer coefficient. Supposing a per-
fectly insulated surface, whose temperature is the adiabatic surface
q̇′′r,abs = αq̇′′inc (3) temperature, TAST, and the emissivity keeps unchanged. When sub-
jected to the same heating conditions, the total heat flux of the ideal

© ASCE 04021074-4 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2021, 26(10): 04021074

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Southeast University on 10/13/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a)
Fig. 2. Illustration of (a) heat transfer from the fire source to exposed surfaces; and (b) example (TAST) of quantity composition for thermal exposure
and interface from the FDS to the FEM model, for a generic fire-exposed structure.
surface is zero:
ε[q̇′′inc − σ(TAST )4 ] + h(Tgas − TAST ) = 0
Combining Eqs. (6) and (7), the total heat flux transferred to the
real structural surface can be written as a function of TAST:
q̇′′tot = εσ[(TAST )4 − (Tsurf )4 ] + h(TAST − Tsurf )
Eq. (8) shows that the heat flux to an exposed surface can be deter-
mined by TAST, which can be calculated based on the measured
temperature using a plate thermometer during experiments. This
concept proposed by Wickström et al. (2007) provides a simple sol-
ution of using one quantity for transferring the heat flux from the
fire model to advanced three-dimensional (3D) solid-phase pro-
grams rather than using the one-dimensional (1D) heat-transfer
model in FDS.
To correct the different profiles of orthogonalized obstructions
by FDS and the actual surface in the FEM model, another treatment
was introduced for inclined geometries. Fig. 2(b) exemplifies the
vector composition of TAST in a two-dimensional (2D) space.
Eq. (7) shows that TAST is orientation-dependent because it is re-
strained to radiative incident energy and the convective heat-
transfer coefficient, which are both orientation-dependent. For a ge-
neric 3D exposed surface with a normal vector of n, vAST , and vh
can be summed by the contributions in the directions of three coor-
dinate axes:
vAST = TAST,x · i + TAST,y · j + TAST,z · k
vh = hx · i + hy · j + hz · k
The thermal exposure can be considered as the projections of vAST
and vh onto n:
vAST · n
TAST,n = |vAST | · |n| · cos (vAST , n) = |vAST |
|vAST | · |n|
(10)
vh · n
hn = |vh | · |n| · cos (vh , n) = |vh |
|vh | · |n|
Given an initial surface temperature, the total heat flux imposed
on a generic structural surface can be calculated by using Eqs. (8)
and (10), providing a thermal load to the following FEM
simulations.
© ASCE
J. Bridge Eng., 2021, 26(10): 04021074
(b)
The general approach for data transfer is the device method. It
requires the definition of measuring devices before the FDS simu-
(7) lation to record quantities representing the fire environment, like
TAST. As a direct approach, the device method has been exclusively
utilized in bridge fire engineering. However, for complex bridges
with irregular geometries, the device method is not applicable be-
cause inclined geometries will be transformed to orthogonal ob-
(8) structions aligning to the meshing grids in FDS. This makes it
impossible to set devices on the obstructions in advance. Also, de-
vices are manually arranged, which is impractical for long-span
bridges with crisscross panels being considered.
To collect the thermal boundary from the FDS simulation, the
fds2ftmi developed by Silva et al. (2016) was used as the interface
in this framework. It was developed based on fds2ascii, a Fortran
program, to map the data from FDS to ANSYS (2020 R2). The
fds2ftmi collects from ANSYS the geometric information of ex-
posed surfaces including the coordinates and normal directions.
Based on each keypoint position, it searches into the boundary
files (.bf) of FDS results, iterating over time and orientation to tran-
scribe the variables called the thermal exposure, TAST and h, into
ASCII text files. For application convenience, the code outputs
these variables into a file in ANSYS APDL format. The applicabil-
ity of the fds2ftmi code to transcribe thermal exposure from FDS to
thermal FEM model has been validated by experiments and com-
plex structures exposed to fire such as spheres and inclined panels
(Silva et al. 2014, Zhang et al. 2016). More details about fds2ftmi
can be found in Silva et al. (2016).
(9)
Thermomechanical FEM Simulation
Two approaches are available in the coupled thermomechanical
FEM analysis. One is the direct coupling method. It handles the
problem by using a coupled-field element type containing all neces-
sary degrees of freedom. The direct coupling method is advanta-
geous in strongly coupled problems and requires less user
intervention. However, it only applies to limited types of bilinear
solid elements, which will introduce a tremendous computational
need for large-scale thin-walled steel structures. The other is the se-
quential coupling method. By applying results from one analysis as
loads of another analysis, two or more analyses in different fields are
performed sequentially and separately. This method is extensively
used for engineering structures because it is geometry-friendly and
04021074-5 J. Bridge Eng.
 time-frugal. The methodology proposed in this paper implemented
the sequential coupling method for the FEM simulation.
To minimize the computational cost, only the members ther-
mally affected by the fire were considered in the thermal FEM
model. The heat flux was evaluated automatically using Eq. (8), ac-
cording to TAST and h at each time step. On the exposed surface
sides, both of TAST and h were applied for calculating radiative
and convective heat fluxes, respectively.
It is important to note that FDS is also capable of calculating the
structure temperature using the 1D thermal conduction model.
However, the in-plane heat conduction is neglected. Studies like
Silva et al. (2016) have verified that using the 1D heat-transfer
model in FDS can introduce a considerable inaccuracy. The tem-
perature of the exposed portion can be overestimated, and the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Southeast University on 10/13/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

neighboring region is usually underestimated in its temperature.

Also, some studies adopted the gas temperature to transfer the
heat from the FDS model to the FEM model. However, applying
the gas temperature can neither predict the surface temperature as
demonstrated by Zhang et al. (2013). Therefore, this methodology
implemented the FEM method to perform the 3D heat-transfer
analysis for predicting the temperature more precisely.
Determining the structural response should involve all the compo-
nents interacting with the exposed portion. In this paper, small bridges
were entirely considered in the structural FEM models. For large-
scale bridges, the entire model was established to consider the inter-
action between all components although the localized fire is imposed
on a few components. In this task, the multiscale FEM was adopted
to simultaneously provide both global and local mechanical charac-
teristics. The structural FEM model of thermally affected members
was discretized identically with the thermal model. Other members
were modeled in simple configurations and connected to the well-
discretized portion to ensure structural interaction. The necessity re-
garding the entire modeling will be demonstrated by a complex case
study on a cable-stayed bridge, whose fire-induced response pre-
dicted by using the proposed approach was different from previous
studies. The time-dependent nodal temperatures obtained from the
thermal FEM simulation were imported as the thermal body load
for conducting the structural simulation considering both the me-
chanical and thermal loads. In this way, the structural behavior of
the entire bridge subjected to a localized fire was calculated.
Experimental Validation
Test Description
The experimental study carried out by Kamikawa et al. (2006) was
validated using the methodology proposed in this paper. In the seri-
ous tests, a burner was placed upward adjacent to the base of steel
columns applied with different boundary conditions. Case 3 was re-
produced because the tested specimen was applied with a constant
axial force, corresponding to the loading characteristics of the stiff-
ening girder exposed to a localized fire in the cable-stayed bridge as
investigated below.
In Case 3, as shown in Fig. 3, the 1.6-m-tall column specimen
had an STKR400-type section with a side length of 0.1 m and a
thickness of 3.2 mm. A propane burner with a footprint of 30 cm
by 30 cm and a height of 25 cm was used as the fire source. During
the test, the column bottom was fixed to the ground, and a 186-kN
vertical load was maintained at the specimen cap when the burner
released a steady 52.5-kW fire lasting 60 min. There was also a
60-min cooling phase after heating. The behavior measurement in-
volved the body temperature at four surfaces and the vertical defor-
mation at the column cap.
(a) (b)
Fig. 3. Experimental configuration (in cm) of Case 3 by Kamikawa
et al. (2006): (a) front view; and (b) side view.
Numerical Results
The fire scenario was replicated using FDS within the computational
domain of 0.75 × 0.45 × 1.8 m in x-, y-, and z-directions, respectively.
The domain was discretized with 180,000 cubic cells in the dimen-
sion of 1.5 cm. The thermal and mechanical material model pre-
scribed in CEN (2005a) was adopted in the FDS model and
following FEM simulations. Fig. 4 visualizes the predicted fire be-
havior and its comparison with the observed flame. Note that the
flame oscillated drastically due to the turbulent combustion. Because
of the insulation clothes employed in experiments, the simulated tur-
bulence slightly differs from the observed behavior.
The thermomechanical response of the specimen was simulated in
ANSYS. Two-layered shell elements were utilized to discretize the
FEM model with a side length of 1 cm. To reproduce the boundary
condition, the model bottom was fully constrained and the column
cap was restricted laterally. A constant force of 186 kN was applied
to the nodes of the square section at the specimen top.
Fig. 5 compares the thermomechanical response predicted by
the coupled models to the measured values. The thermal response
includes the temperature evolutions at the centroids of the front
panel, side panel, and back panel, and the vertical deformation at
the column cap representing the structural response. The simulated
temperature evolution agrees well with the tested specimen whose
temperature increased to steady at about 20 min and decreased
quickly at 60 min when the burner was extinguished. Regarding
the structural performance, the vertical deformations at the column
top were very close before 20 min and began to recover after
60 min. The slight difference is mainly attributed to the insulation
clothes and instrumental deviations, which cannot be considered
precisely in the FEM model. Overall, the proposed methodology
is capable of reproducing the fire-thermomechanical response of
the specimen in Case 3 (Kamikawa et al. 2006).
Complex Case Study: Cable-Stayed Bridge
To demonstrate the application of the proposed methodology in
predicting the fire-induced response for various bridges, a cable-
stayed bridge exposed to localized under-deck tanker fire was

© ASCE 04021074-6 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2021, 26(10): 04021074

 numerically investigated. This is a more complex case than general
beam bridges because cable-stayed bridges usually involve criss-
cross panels that cannot be handled by current methods.
Prototype Bridge
The prototype cable-stayed bridge has a span of 63 + 257 + 648 +
257 + 63 m, as shown in Fig. 6. The bridge deck consists of 89 seg-
ments with a height of 3.2 m and a width of 37.2 m, which are sup-
ported by two-plane stayed cables every 12 m in the auxiliary span
and 15 m in the main span and side span. The Q345 orthotropic
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Southeast University on 10/13/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 4. Comparison between simulated and observed fire behaviors in
Case 3 by Kamikawa et al. (2006).
Fig. 5 Comparison of the thermomechanical behavior of the specimen in Case 3 by Kamikawa et al. (2006).
© ASCE 04021074-7
J. Bridge Eng., 2021, 26(10): 04021074
steel plate system is composed of a roof, two webs, a flat floor,
two tilt floors, trapezoidal shape stiffeners, and diaphragms. The
supporting system includes vertical bearing at the transitional
pier, auxiliary pier, and pylon crossbeam without any longitudinal
or lateral constraints.
Material Model
Steel is temperature-sensitive in that its thermal properties vary and
mechanical properties also deteriorate significantly in a fire envi-
ronment. Standards such as CEN (2005a) and AISC (2005) have
prescribed these material properties at high temperatures. To be
more representative, this study adopted the material property mod-
els at high temperatures specified in CEN (2005b) for the steel
decks, which are shown in Fig. 7.
Fire Scenario
Fire behaviors are complex and different fire sources can be very
distinct. The engineering approach quantifies the burning intensity
as the firepower, equaling to the product of the HRRPUA and the
fire area. The fire development can be represented by the HRRPUA
curve, which is divided into the growth phase, steady phase, and
decay phase (Karlsson and Quintiere 2000). The t-squared function
Q̇ = αt 2 (11)
is widely used to describe the initial growth stage because the fire is
nearly accelerating. In the steady phase, the fire is fuel-bed-controlled,
which will reach a maximum burning rate with sufficient oxygen sup-
port. Fig. 8 compares the HRRPUA curves adopted in existing studies
during the first 6 min. Some of these fires were more intensive than
the ultrafast fire classified in Karlsson and Quintiere (2000), which
is characterized by α = 0.19 kW/s2. Previous studies adopted the
HRRPUAMAX ranging from 1,600 to 4,500 kW/m2. This study
J. Bridge Eng.
 (a)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Southeast University on 10/13/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(b)

Fig. 6. Profile of prototype cable-stayed bridge: (a) elevation view; and (b) section view.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 7. Temperature-dependent material properties of Q345 steel: (a) conductivity; (b) specific heat; (c) thermal elongation; and (d) stress–strain
relationships.

© ASCE 04021074-8 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2021, 26(10): 04021074


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Southeast University on 10/13/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 8. HRRPUA curves adopted in this paper and existing studies.
Fig. 9. FDS model and steady flame behavior.
assumed an HRRPUAMAX of 2,800 kW/m2 reached in 60 s following
the t-squared function. The combustion lasted 30 min in total.
This paper considered a tanker fire that occurred 18 m below
the floor of the #26 deck segment. The fire source was close to
the south pylon that might be caused by ship collisions with the
pylon or terrorist attacks. The dimensions of the tanker were 15,
6, and 3 m in the lateral, longitudinal, and vertical directions of
the cable-stayed bridge, respectively. According to the HRRPUA
curve defined as Eq. (5), the steady firepower was 252 MW.
Note that this fire scenario was designed to demonstrate the simu-
lation process instead of reproducing a real fire accident.
Simulating the Bridge Response
Fire Behavior
In the FDS model shown in Fig. 9, five deck segments were mod-
eled: #26 segment, which was above the fire source, and two seg-
ments on both ends. The calculation was performed within the
computational parallelepiped of 44.4 m (X ) × 24.6 m (Y ) × 75.6 m
(Z) to consider the heat transfer between the fire, deck, and environ-
ment. The domain was discretized using uniform 0.7 m grids, con-
taining 276,480 control volumes in total. The boundary results of
obstructions were recorded every 10 s.
The fire behavior during steady combustion is shown in Fig. 9.
The orthotropic deck including the slope was transformed into
stair-stepping obstructions aligning with meshing grids. It is
shown that with a steady power of 252 MW, the flame reached
the deck floor 18 m above. Note that the fire was in a dynamic
© ASCE 04021074-9
J. Bridge Eng., 2021, 26(10): 04021074
steady state that the flame profile oscillated promptly due to the fire-
driven plume.
Fig. 10 shows the results of FDS-predicted thermal exposure,
whose TAST is the adiabatic surface temperature defined in
Eq. (3) and h is the convective heat-transfer coefficient. Unlike pre-
scriptive curves, the FDS-based fire model reconstructs an inhomo-
geneous thermal exposure to the segments above the fire source.
The evolutions of TAST and h at the floor centroid show that
TAST reached an oscillated steady state after 1 min when the
HRRPUA became constant. h also oscillated but was not steady be-
cause it depends on the velocity field, which changed drastically
with the plume.
Figs. 10(b and d) show the distributions of the averaged TAST
and h of the exposed floor, respectively. It is shown that TAST
above the flame was nearly 1,200°C, which was much higher
than that at other locations, and the thermal gradient was also the
largest in the central region. h was about 12 W/(m2 · K) at the
floor centroid, slightly lower than other locations. Overall, the ther-
mal exposures were symmetric about the transverse direction, and
the slight longitudinal asymmetry of thermal exposures was caused
by the deck slope and vector compositions.
Thermal Response of Fire-Affected Deck Segments
The thermal FEM model of the fire-affected portion involved the same
segments as those considered in the FDS model, including main
plates, ribs, and diaphragms. The four-noded 3D layered thermal
shell element, SHELL131, was used for discretizing the steel compo-
nents. It can tackle transient-state and steady-state thermal problems.
To impose these loads, the surface effect element SURF152 was
used. They were overlaid on SHELL131 elements sharing their
nodes with one extra node beyond. Adopting elements of
SHELL131 and SURF152 in ANSYS to simulate the thermal perfor-
mance of fire-exposed structures has been verified by adequate studies
(Kodur et al. 2013; Zhang et al. 2020). The thermal FEM model had
116,381 shell elements and 232,762 surface effect elements in total to
consider the 3D thermal conduction and radiation.
On the outside of the exposed floor, TAST was prescribed to the
extra nodes and h was applied on the element surfaces for the cal-
culations of radiative and convective heat fluxes, respectively. The
roof panel of thermally influenced girder segments was constrained
to 20°C because of the considerable specific heat of the overlaid
pavement exposed to the ambient environment. Applying the ther-
mal boundaries obtained through fds2ftmi from FDS to the FEM
model, the transient-state thermal response of the fire-affected
deck segments was determined with a maximum time step of 5 s
considering radiation and convection. The layered nodal tempera-
ture results were the basis of the subsequent analysis of global
structural behavior.
Fig. 11 shows the temperature distribution of the exposed deck
floor at different exposure times. The temperature of the floor was
significantly influenced by the fire source, which was 18 m below.
The central region of the deck floor heated up first and then the tem-
perature propagated outward. At the fire extinguishment at 30 min,
a considerable district above the flame reached over 700°C.
The temperature distribution of the floor has value valleys along
with diaphragms because diaphragms can absorb heat from the ex-
posed floor.
Fig. 12 compares the evolutions of steel temperatures at six
locations on the deck floor. The distances between adjacent mea-
suring points were 3 and 7 m in lateral and longitudinal directions,
respectively. It is shown that the points closer to the fire center had
higher temperatures and elevation rates. Centroid P1, which is clos-
est to the fire, had the highest temperature reaching 436°C at
10 min and up to 748°C at 30 min because it is exposed to the
J. Bridge Eng.
 (a) (b)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Southeast University on 10/13/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(c) (d)

Fig. 10. Thermal exposures: (a) TAST evolution at the centroid of the flat floor; (b) distribution of averaged TAST at the floor; (c) h evolution at the
centroid of the flat floor; and (d) distribution of averaged h at the floor.

Fig. 12. Evolution of surface temperatures at representative points of

exposed floor.

most heat-carrying gases. At further locations, temperatures in-

creased due to the lesser fire exposure. The temperature lags that
P2 behind P1, P4 behind P3, and P6 behind P5 decreased as
their longitudinal distances from the fire source increased. This
Fig. 11. Isotherms of the floor in fire-affected deck segment at different
demonstrates that the thermal gradient also decreased on further
exposure times.
surfaces. Note that the temperatures at P1 and P2 fluctuated because

© ASCE 04021074-10 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2021, 26(10): 04021074

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Southeast University on 10/13/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 13. Multiscale structural FEM model of the entire bridge.
the nodal temperatures were forced to follow the oscillations of
TAST and h, which were applied as thermal boundaries.
Structural Response of the Entire Bridge
The mechanical response of the prototype bridge was calculated
from the multiscale structural FEM model of the entire bridge, as
shown in Fig. 13. The fire-affected deck segments were discretized
with four-node shell elements using the SHELL181 element type in
ANSYS, and the fish-spine modeling technique was adopted for
other segments using BEAM188. On the interfaces of beam ele-
ments and shell elements, the nodes were coupled with constraint
equations to transfer interactive actions. Pylons were also discre-
tized with beam elements. Stayed cables were modeled using
LINK180 elements to merely consider the axial tension force.
They were connected to pylons and decks using rigid beams to
transfer cable actions. These element types are commonly utilized
in global bridge analyses with good accuracy and profitable run-
ning time. There were 118,418 elements in total in the multiscale
FEM model of the entire bridge. The structural performance was
determined by applying the nodal temperatures obtained previously
as the body load taking into account the geometric nonlinearity and
the nonlinear material model shown in Fig. 7.
Local Response
The fire-induced structural impact was directly imposed on the
girder segments through the material transformation. Figs. 14 and
15 show the Mises stress of the roof and floor above the flame at
various exposure times, respectively. The deck floor experienced
two stress evolution stages. The first stage is from the completion
state of the bridge to 10 min. The bottom stress before the fire
was evenly distributed at about 57 MPa. After the 5-min fire expo-
sure, the central stress increased up to 227 MPa, and the peripheral
stress also increased. The averaged stress within the studied portion
was almost doubled to 110 MPa at 10 min.
During the second stage from 10 to 30 min, the surrounding
stress still raised and reached up to 284 MPa, whereas the stress
© ASCE 04021074-11
J. Bridge Eng., 2021, 26(10): 04021074
within the central region reduced significantly to below 19 MPa.
This stress reduction is caused by the decrease of the ultimate stress
led by the temperature elevation of steel, as shown in Figs. 7(d) and
12. On the other hand, the stress increment of the floor is due to the
unbalanced expansion of the roof and floor in decks. The upper roof
keeps at ambient temperature because no direct fire exposure was
imposed, whereas the temperature at the lower floor increased a
lot. Confined by the tension force of stayed cables, the mean stress
of the floor was enhanced to 158 MPa due to the expansion, and the
roof stress was partially released because of its temperature lag be-
hind the floor.
Global Response
The results of the deflection and internal force of the stiffening
decks at four representative times are presented in Fig. 16, in
which the deck segments modeled with shell elements are shaded.
Note that the internal force of the decks modeled using beam ele-
ments was captured at the element midpoints, and the internal
force of the segments discretized with shell elements was calculated
by composing the force components to the section centroids that
were the same as that of beam elements.
The five shell-shaped deck segments above the fire source de-
formed most drastically due to the stiffness reduction caused by
high temperatures, as shown in Fig. 7. The maximum vertical dis-
placement appeared above the fire centerline and was 21.0, 32.3,
and 38.5 cm at 10, 20, and 30 min, respectively. Apart from that,
many girder segments had a considerable compensatory deforma-
tion: the decks in the south side span and midspan were lifted
and the decks in the north side span deflected downwards.
The axial force in girders was almost unaffected by the fire. This
is because there are no constraints in the longitudinal direction and
no obvious secondary axial force was introduced by the short-
exposed length, which was 1/17 of the full span. This observation
is different from previous studies (Gong and Agrawal 2016) be-
cause the global interaction was considered in this study.
J. Bridge Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Southeast University on 10/13/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 14. Mises stress of floor in exposed deck segments at different times.

Fig. 15. Mises stress of roof in exposed deck segments at different times.

Fig. 16(c) shows that a remarkable increment in bending moments
was caused to the decks near the fire source. Before the fire accident,
the bridge decks had reasonable bending moments that were limited
at most positions and comparatively larger near the piers and the mid-
span of auxiliary spans. Exposed to the fire underneath, the deck mo-
ment above the fire centerline jumped from 6.5 MN · m before the
fire to 88.3 MN · m after only 10 min. The bending moment contin-
uously increased up to 139.5 and 170.1 MN · m at 20 and 30 min,
respectively. Also, the bending moments (upper edge under tension)
of the deck segments between the anchors of Cables S13 to S30 were
significantly increased by the fire, but the decks at other locations
were not affected obviously.
Although the stayed cables were not directly exposed to fire, the
cable force was influenced notably. As shown in Fig. 17, the axial
force of the three cables neighboring the fire centerline was in-
creased. The axial force of Cable S20 increased by 32% and 59%
after 10 and 30 min, respectively. This force increment is caused
by the reduction of the corresponding deck segments shown in
Fig. 16(a). The neighboring cables, S22–S26 and S11–S16,
reduced up to 15% of the tension force, and the force of further ca-
bles varied no more than 1%.
As for the pylons, Fig. 18 compares the longitudinal displace-
ment and internal force at four representative times. The results of
both south and north pylons are shown side by side referring to
the annotated midspan. It is shown that the two pylons had differ-
ent deformed directions under the fire condition. The south pylon,
which is on the side that fire occurs, deformed southward, and the
north pylon was also pulled to the midspan with a magnitude
smaller than the south pylon. At the pylon tops, the south and
north pylons deformed 20.5 and 15.5 cm after the 30-min fire ex-
posure, respectively. The pylons kept their axial force during the
fire because the loads applied to them only included their gravity
and the deck gravity transferred from cables, both of which did
not change.
However, a great variation was introduced to longitudinal
bending moments. The bottom bending moment of the south
pylon decreased, and the moments of the pylon sections anchored
by the cables close to fire significantly increased. Also, the bottom

© ASCE 04021074-12 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2021, 26(10): 04021074

 (a)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Southeast University on 10/13/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(b)

(c)

Fig. 16. Structural behaviors of decks at different times: (a) deflection; (b) axial force; and (c) bending moment.

Fig. 17. Cable force variation at different times.

bending moment of the north pylon, which is far away from the
fire source, increased 1.06 times at 30 min, endangering its struc-
tural safety and even of the global bridge. Because the two pylons
are not constrained in the longitudinal direction, the significant
variation of their bending moments is caused by the variation of
cable force. For the north pylon, the slight variation of the tension
force of the anchoring cables gives rise to a prominent change of
the bending moment at the pylon bottom because its mechanics
characteristic is close to a column, which is very sensitive to lat-
eral actions.
Compared to existing studies, it is shown that more comprehen-
sive results were obtained considering the cooperative actions of all
structural members. Thereby, a global view is required for deter-
mining the performance of large-scale bridges in localized fires
by undertaking a multiscale simulation for the entire bridge.
Mechanism of Behavior Evolution
To analyze the mechanism of the structural behavior evolution
caused by fire, Fig. 19 shows the vertical displacement of the
roof and floor in the exposed deck segments, including the time his-
tories of centroids and the distributions at 30 min. Basically, be-
cause of the strong connections from vertical diaphragms, the
roof and floor had a similar deformation profile that the central
part deflects most severely. Their difference is the central region
of the floor was corrugated by fire, which means the material had
deteriorated to its limit before failure. This is due to the stiffness
loss caused by the high temperature in the central region, which
is demonstrated in Figs. 7(d) and 11.
Deformation evolutions for the centroids of the roof and floor ex-
perienced three stages. From the fire ignition to 7 min, the centroids
had a consistent deflection. The thermal expansion is mainly respon-
sible for the deformation because the thermal properties varied much
more significantly than the mechanical property when the surface tem-
perature was below 300°C, as demonstrated in Figs. 7 and 12. During
the second phase from 7 to 16 min, the floor deformed more appar-
ently than the roof because of the temperature-induced material dete-
rioration. However, the temperature propagated slower after 16 min
when the thermal conduction exceeded radiation becoming the main
manner of heat transfer. The central floor region was softened

© ASCE 04021074-13 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2021, 26(10): 04021074

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Southeast University on 10/13/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 18. Structural behaviors of the pylons at different times: (a) longitudinal deformation; (b) axial force (positive representing compression); and
(c) bending moment.

(a) (b)

Fig. 19. Vertical deformation of the roof and floor in fire-exposed segments: (a) time histories; and (b) distributions.

seriously and was corrugated by stiffeners and diaphragms. Because
the floor temperature became more steady, as shown by the plateau
in Fig. 12, the behavior evolution of the exposed surface became
less apparent.
In addition, the centroids deformed quickly first but then slowly,
which is similar to the performance variation of the global bridge.
The greatest behavior evolution of the global structure was ob-
served in the first 10-min combustion comparing the results of
the structural components shown in Figs. 16–18. For example, in
the three 10-min time intervals of the 30-min combustion, the
deck above the fire centerline deflected 21.0, 11.3, and 6.2 cm,
respectively, and the bending moment of the deck above the fire in-
creased 81.8, 51.2, and 30.6 MN · m, respectively. It is seen that
the increments of all these quantities decreased as the fire
developed.
Because TAST reached steady very quickly after ignition, which
is shown in Fig. 10(a), the temperature difference between the steel
and thermal boundary was the greatest at the early stage of the fire.
The temperature elevation during this stage is the fastest thereby, as
demonstrated in Fig. 12. Also, after the central region of the deck
floor reaches a very high temperature, the thermal conduction
through the plates accounts for the major contribution to the

© ASCE 04021074-14 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2021, 26(10): 04021074

 temperature elevation and the structural performance evolution.
Therefore, the deterioration of the structural behavior of the global
bridge is slowing down as the fire develops.
Figs. 14 and 15 demonstrate that the unbalanced stress development
in the girder resulted in a dramatic increment in the bending moments
above the fire: the stress in the exposed floor was elevated seriously due
to expansion, whereas the roof stress was decreased, composing a
much higher bending moment comparing with the state before the
fire. This behavior evolution in girders further gives rise to the variation
of the internal force in the entire bridge, including the force release of
cables and increment of bending moments in pylons.
During both thermal and structural simulations, the running pro-
cesses converged until the fire extinguishment at 30 min. However,
this does not indicate the bridge can survive the fire. For instance, the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Southeast University on 10/13/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Łazienkowski Bridge in Warsaw resisted the strong fire exposure in
2015. However, the bridge was rated as the high level damage by the
fire accident and it was rebuilt totally. Thereby the criteria for fire-
exposed bridges are complex requiring specific and comprehensive
insights. This paper does not identify failure criteria for the investi-
gated cable-stayed bridge, and instead, the purpose of this paper is to
propose the simulation methodology, providing a numerical basis for
evaluating the bridge responses related to fires.
Conclusions
This paper proposes a numerical methodology for predicting the re-
sponse of fire-exposed bridges by coupling the CFD-based fire
model and FEM-based thermomechanical model. First, the fire sce-
nario is simulated in FDS within the fire-affected spatial domain.
Then, the thermal exposure is extracted from FDS using a validated
interface. At last, the time-variant thermal and structural behavior is
captured utilizing the sequentially coupled thermomechanical FEM
simulation.
Unlike existing studies, this approach does not simplify the fire
condition as spatially uniform temperature curves, and instead, re-
produces an inhomogeneous surrounding temperature field by con-
sidering the fire-driven heat flow, obstructions, and environment.
This method is validated by predicting a close thermomechanical
response with the measured values in a fire-column test, whose
specimen had a similar loading characteristic with the stiffening
girder in cable-stayed bridges.
To demonstrate the application of the proposed methodology,
this paper performs a complex case study on a prototype long-span
steel cable-stayed bridge with an orthotropic deck system, which
was assumed to be exposed to an under-deck tanker fire. The gra-
dient thermal response of fire-affected segments is simulated, and
the variation of the global structural performance is captured. Re-
sults show that a localized fire can introduce a significant structural
behavior evolution to the entire bridge, endangering the fire-
exposed deck segments and pylons by increasing their bending mo-
ments dramatically.
Undertaking a multiscale FEM simulation is necessary for large-
span bridges in localized fires. The interactions between fire-
exposed members and other components can thus be considered.
With this methodology that can programmatically tackle complex
geometries with an acceptable time cost, various bridge structures
subjected to fires can be numerically investigated.
Data Availability Statement
All data, models, or code that support the findings of this study are
available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
© ASCE 04021074-15
J. Bridge Eng., 2021, 26(10): 04021074
Acknowledgments
This study was financially supported by the Natural Science Foun-
dation of Jiangsu Province (Grant No. BK20181278 and
BK20201274). Thanks to Dr. Kevin McGrattan at NIST for his
support in improving the FDS codes regarding the simulation of
sealed obstructions subjected to ultra-strong fires. Valuable sugges-
tions from Xiuqi Xi at University College London are also
acknowledged.
Supplemental Materials
Additional data is available online in the ASCE Library (www
.ascelibrary.org).
References
Alos-Moya, J., I. Paya-Zaforteza, M. E. M. Garlock, E. Loma-Ossorio,
D. Schiffner, and A. Hospitaler. 2014. “Analysis of a bridge failure due
to fire using computational fluid dynamics and finite element models.”
Eng. Struct. 68: 96–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.02.022.
Alos-Moya, J., I. Paya-Zaforteza, A. Hospitaler, and E. Loma-Ossorio. 2019.
“Valencia bridge fire tests: Validation of simplified and advanced numer-
ical approaches to model bridge fire scenarios.” Adv. Eng. Software 128:
55–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2018.11.003.
Alos-Moya, J., I. Paya-Zaforteza, A. Hospitaler, and P. Rinaudo. 2017.
“Valencia bridge fire tests: Experimental study of a composite bridge
under fire.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 138: 538–554. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.jcsr.2017.08.008.
AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction). 2005. Specification for
structural steel buildings. Chicago: AISC.
Aziz, E., and V. Kodur. 2013. “An approach for evaluating the residual
strength of fire exposed bridge girders.” J. Constr. Steel Res. 88: 34–42.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2013.04.007.
Aziz, E. M., V. K. Kodur, J. D. Glassman, and M. E. Maria Garlock. 2015.
“Behavior of steel bridge girders under fire conditions.” J. Constr. Steel
Res. 106 (2015): 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2014.12.001.
Beneberu, E., and N. Yazdani. 2018. “Performance of CFRP-strengthened
concrete bridge girders under combined live load and hydrocarbon fire.”
J. Bridge Eng. 23: 04018042. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943
-5592.0001244.
Buchanan, A. H., and A. K. Abu. 2017. Structural design for fire safety.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
CEN (European Committee for Standardisation). 2002. Eurocode 1:
Actions on structures—Part 1–2: General actions—Actions on struc-
tures exposed to fire. Brussels, Belgium: CEN.
CEN (European Committee for Standardisation). 2005a. Eurocode 3:
Design of steel structures—Part 1–2: General rules structural fire de-
sign. Brussels, Belgium: CEN.
CEN (European Committee for Standardisation). 2005b. Eurocode 4:
Design of composite steel and concrete structures—Part 1–2:
General rules—Structural fire design. Brussels, Belgium: CEN.
Choi, J. 2008. “Concurrent fire dynamics models and thermomechanical
analysis of steel and concrete structures.” Ph.D. thesis, School of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology.
Choi, J., R. Haj-Ali, and H. S. Kim. 2012. “Integrated fire dynamic and
thermomechanical modeling of a bridge under fire.” Struct. Eng.
Mech. 42 (6): 815–829. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2012.42.6.815.
Cui, C., A. Chen, and R. Ma. 2020. “Stability assessment of a suspension
bridge considering the tanker fire nearby steel–pylon.” J. Constr. Steel
Res. 172: 1–9.
NIST. 2020. “Fire dynamics simulator.” Gaithersburg, MD: NIST.
Garlock, M., I. Paya-Zaforteza, V. Kodur, and L. Gu. 2012. “Fire hazard in
bridges: Review, assessment and repair strategies.” Eng. Struct.
35 (2012): 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.11.002.
J. Bridge Eng.
 Gong, X., and A. K. Agrawal. 2015. “Numerical simulation of fire damage
to a long-span truss bridge.” J. Bridge Eng. 20 (10): 04014109. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000707.
Gong, X., and A. K. Agrawal. 2016. “Safety of cable-supported bridges
during fire hazards.” J. Bridge Eng. 21 (4): 04015082. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000870.
Harik, I. E., A. M. Shaaban, H. Gesund, G. Y. S. Valli, and S. T. Wang.
1990. “United States bridge failures, 1951–1988.” J. Perform.
Constr. Facil 4 (4): 272–277. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887
-3828(1990)4:4(272).
Kamikawa, D., Y. Hasemi, K. Yamada, and M. Nakamura. 2006.
“Mechanical responses of a steel column exposed to a localized fire.”
In Proc., 4th Int. Workshop on Structures in Fire, 225–234. Aveiro,
Portugal: Universidade De Aveiro Campus Universitário De Santiago.
Karlsson, B., and J. G. Quintiere. 2000. Enclosure fire dynamics. Boca
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Southeast University on 10/13/22. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Kodur, V., E. Aziz, and M. Dwaikat. 2013. “Evaluating fire resistance of
steel girders in bridges.” J. Bridge Eng. 18 (7): 633–643. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000412.
Peris-Sayol, G., I. Paya-Zaforteza, J. Alos-Moya, and A. Hospitaler. 2015.
“Analysis of the influence of geometric, modeling and environmental
parameters on the fire response of steel bridges subjected to realistic
fire scenarios.” Comput. Struct. 158: 333–345. https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.compstruc.2015.06.003.
Quiel, S. E., T. Yokoyama, L. S. Bregman, K. A. Mueller, and
S. M. Marjanishvili. 2015. “A streamlined framework for calculating
the response of steel-supported bridges to open-air tanker truck
fires.” Fire Saf. J. 73: 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2015
.03.004.
© ASCE 04021074-16
J. Bridge Eng., 2021, 26(10): 04021074
Silva, J. C. G., A. Landesmann, and F. L. B. Ribeiro. 2014.
“Performance-based analysis of cylindrical steel containment vessels
exposed to fire.” Fire Saf. J. 69: 126–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.firesaf.2014.08.013.
Silva, J. C. G., A. Landesmann, and F. L. B. Ribeiro. 2016.
“Fire-thermomechanical interface model for performance-based analy-
sis of structures exposed to fire.” Fire Saf. J. 83: 66–78. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.firesaf.2016.04.007.
Wardhana, K., and F. C. Hadipriono. 2003. “Analysis of recent bridge
failures in the United States.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil 17 (3):
144–150. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2003)17:3(144).
Wickström, U., D. Duthinh, and K. B. McGrattan. 2007. “Adiabatic surface
temperature for calculating heat transfer to fire exposed structures.”
In Proc., 11th Int. Interflam Conf., 943–953. London: Interscience.
Wu, X.-q., T. Huang, F. T. K. Au, and J. Li. 2020. “A localized fire model
for predicting the surface temperature of box girder bridges subjected to
tanker truck fire.” Fire Technol. 56: 2059–2087.
Zhang, C., G.-Q. Li, and R. Wang. 2013. “Using adiabatic surface temper-
ature for thermal calculation of steel members exposed to localized
fires.” Int. J. Steel Struct. 13 (3): 547–556. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s13296-013-3013-2.
Zhang, C., J. G. Silva, C. Weinschenk, D. Kamikawa, and Y. Hasemi.
2016. “Simulation methodology for coupled fire–structure analysis:
Modeling localized fire tests on a steel column.” Fire Technol.
52 (1): 239–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-015-0495-9.
Zhang, G., V. Kodur, C. Song, S. He, and Q. Huang. 2020. “A numerical
model for evaluating fire performance of composite box bridge girders.”
J. Constr. Steel Res. 165: 105823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2019
.105823.
J. Bridge Eng.