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

net/publication/319494872

Verification of 2D heat transfer models developed in LS-DYNA for structural

fire engineering applications

Conference Paper · September 2017

DOI: 10.1201/9781315107202-39

CITATIONS READS

0 434

5 authors, including:

Alastair Temple Graeme Flint

RISE Research Institutes of Sweden Arup
4 PUBLICATIONS   37 CITATIONS    14 PUBLICATIONS   197 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Panagiotis Kotsovinos
Arup
43 PUBLICATIONS   427 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Probabilistic fire severity for structural fire design View project

Bridge fire safety design View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Panagiotis Kotsovinos on 02 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Verification of 2D heat transfer models developed in LS-DYNA
for structural fire engineering applications

A.Temple, G. Walker, G. Flint, Y.Panev & P. Kotsovinos

Arup, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT: Understanding the spatial heat distribution within a structural member is crucial for
appropriately assessing the structural performance of the member in fire conditions. Obtaining an
appropriate heat transfer model that correctly captures the effects of geometry boundary condi-
tions and material non-linearities requires the use of verified finite element numerical scheme.
Arup’s preferred tool for the purpose is the commercially available multipurpose finite element
package LS-DYNA. This paper presents the methodology and selected results of a verification
exercise for the use of LS-DYNA for heat transfer for structural fire engineering applications that
was conducted by Arup.

1 INTRODUCTION

Structural materials experience significant changes in their mechanical properties when

heated. As a result, it is crucial to ensure that structural members retain their capacity
when exposed to fire. Structural fire engineering design is based on continuous assess-
ment of the resistance of a structural member or assembly when exposed to defined
heating and loading conditions. The process typically involves three stages:
1. Defining the relevant design fire scenarios;
2. Analysing the temperature distribution through the structural members based on
the relevant design fire scenarios; and
3. Analysing the mechanical response of the structural members subject to the cal-
culated temperature distributions.
Simple design methods (for example these in BS EN 1993-1-2) are available, generally
based on the assumption that a member is heated uniformly and advocate the use of
simple lumped capacitance models in determining the temperature distribution. Lumped
capacitance models, however, are not practical in case of complex structural arrange-
ments, or arrangements of structural members and insulating layers with large thermal
resistance. In practice, such arrangements can occur due to the presence of insulating
materials, air gaps and/or structural elements only exposed to a fire on small portions of
their section perimeter.
Additionally, neglecting the thermal gradients within the structural member may result
in non-conservative assessment of their load-bearing capacity as potential failure mech-
anism due to thermal bowing, differential expansion or local degradation of material
properties are neglected.
The actual thermal distribution of the structural member is highly sensitive to the geom-
etry, interface boundary conditions and the temperature dependant non-linear properties
of the involved materials. Usually closed analytical solutions are impossible to estab-
lish, and the problem is typically resolved using Finite Element numerical schemes.
Arup has identified the need for accurate thermal distribution models when conducting
structural fire engineering work. A preferred tool for the purpose is the commercially
available finite element package LS-DYNA. To ensure consistent accuracy and quality
of the developed solution Arup has undertaken an extensive verification exercise of LS-
Dyna for 2D heat transfer models.

2 METHODOLOGY

The objective of this study is to verify that LS-Dyna can predict the thermal response
within different construction materials and assemblies. The focus falls on members
composed of steel, concrete and fire protection materials incorporating protective mate-
rials and radiating enclosures and gaps. LS-Dyna simulation predictions are compared
to the following models and solutions with progressively increasing degree of complex-
ity:
 Analytical solutions for simple transient 0D and 1D thermal response cases; and
 Benchmark cases presented in Wickström & Pålsson (1999).

3 EXAMPLE METHODS

Results from two verification models will be presented. These studies assess the heat
transfer in composite steel and concrete construction and the heat transfer in a protected
steel section with two radiating voids. These cases are both taken from Wickström &
Pålsson (1999).
LS Dyna can be set to use different numerical schemes for heat transfer analysis, for
both of the studies discussed below implicit analysis (with respect to time) was used.
This is set in the LS Dyna’s THERMAL_TIMESTEP control card by setting TIP equal
to 1.

3.1 Insulated section with two radiating voids

An HE200B steel section insulated with 10mm plasterboard is exposed to a Standard
Fire heating regime in accordance with ISO 834. This model is shown in Figure 1 and
tests the following input parameters:
 Non-linear material properties
 Convective and radiative boundary conditions
 Conduction between materials
  Re-radiation within voids between the plasterboard and the flanges and the plas-
terboard and the web.

Figure 1. Arrangement of the section and the plasterboard

A mesh with the following element sizes was used;

 0.5mm square (in plan) elements for the insulation board,
 5mm square elements (in plan) for the steel,
As the meshes don’t match in size, between the materials a surface to surface contact
has been used to simulate perfect contact.
The model utilises an isotropic material model with temperature dependant material
properties identical to those in Wickström & Pålsson (1999).
LS Dyna was set to use a timestep of 1s giving the Fourier numbers shown in Table 1
below. These are within the region expected to give accurate answers for the implicit
scheme used by LS Dyna.
Table 1. Fourier Numbers

Material Steel Promatek

Element size (mm) 5.0 x 5.0 0.5 x 0.5
Temperature (°C) 20 0 0 0 250 1100
Max fourier number 0.46 0.23 0.23 0.71 0.76 0.76

Convection and radiation boundary conditions following the ISO 834 cellulosic fire
curve are applied to the external faces of the model. Internal radiation boundary condi-
tion is applied within the voids. Convection within the cavities was not included.
The temperature is measured at the base of the web and in the centre of the whole dura-
tion of the simulation and along line “S” at 60 minutes.

Figure 2. Location of temperature measurements

The predictions from the LS Dyna model were compared against the findings of an SP
Report 1999:36 for up to 120min of heating. It was determined that the results closely
followed the benchmark throughout the simulation. The LS-Dyna model predictions are
consistently below those of the SP Report predictions with a peak difference of ~10°C
at the base of the web, and ~30°C along the line “S” (see Figure 3). This is attributed to
the fact that the LS-DYNA model lacks a means for convective heat transfer through the
void, while SP have included some convective transfer within their model. When com-
paring this difference along “S” it is noted that it reduces along the flange as a propor-
tion of the heat transferred via the void reduces and conduction becomes more domi-
nant.
Figure 3. Flange temperatures comparison Figure 4. Temperature comparison along
"S" line

This scenario demonstrates that LS-Dyna is able to represent heat transfer via radiation
enclosures and perfect transfer of heat between two solids in contact. Provided a dense
enough mesh is used to give a number of elements through the thickness of the materi-
als, the results are not sensitive to element size.

3.2 Composite construction heat transfer

The case is composed of 0.2m by 0.2m concrete core which is enveloped by a 10mm
thick steel tube. The modelled geometry in LS-Dyna utilises the planes of symmetry as
shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5 Symmetry of the concrete slab

A mesh with 6.25mm square elements (in plan) for the concrete and 6.25mm by 5mm
(in plan, with 2 elements across the thickness of the steel) was used. As the meshes for
the two materials match, heat is transferred between the parts via shared nodes. The
model uses temperature dependant isotropic material properties as defined in the bench-
mark test reported in Wickström & Pålsson (1999).
LS Dyna was set to use a timestep of 5s giving the Fourier numbers shown in Table 2
below. These are within the region expected to give accurate answers for the implicit
scheme used by LS Dyna.
Material Steel Concrete
Element size (mm) 6.25 x 5.0 6.25 x 6.25
Temperature (°C) 100 800 1200 0 100 200 1000
Max fourier number 0.0086 0.0086 0.0373 0.08 0.0086 0.037 0.027

Table 2: Fourier Numbers

Radiative and convective boundary conditions were applied to the exterior faces. Full
contact between the concrete and the steel was established by shared nodes.
The temperature was reported in the centre of the concrete slab and on the corner and on
the midside of the boundary between steel and concrete (Figure 6).

Figure 6 Reported temperatures locations

The results illustrated in Figure 7 show that LS-Dyna predictions correspond to the tem-
perature values reported Wickström & Pålsson (1999) at the selected locations and
times with negligible divergence. This scenario demonstrates that LS-Dyna is able rep-
resent heat transfer though multiple materials and perfect transfer of heat between two
solids in contact.
Figure 7 Temperature distribution in composite construction

4 CONCLUCIONS

This paper outlined the verification process of LS-DYNA, a multipurpose FEA software
package currently used by Arup Fire for structural fire engineering applications, through
a selected number of benchmarks.
Arup has tested and verified the package and we are confident that it provides accurate
predictions in the following areas when used correctly:
 Use of 3D solid elements to represent 2D heat transfer problems
 Thermal material properties that vary with temperature
 Conduction through a solid material
 Conduction between two solids in contact
 Non-linear convective and radiative boundary conditions
 Radiative heat transfer across an enclosure within a model boundary
As a result, the software can be used for advanced heat transfer modelling falling within
the scope of capabilities discussed in this paper.
Arup’s further verification studies include 3D heat transfer problems with incorporation
of convective heat transfer within an enclosure.
 5 REFERENCES

British Standard Institution. 1991. BS EN 1991-1-2. Actions on Structures – Part 1-2: General
actions – Actions on structures exposed to fire. London, British Standards Institution.

International Organization for Standardization. 2014. ISO 834-11:2014. Fire resistance tests –
Elements of building construction – Part 11: Specific requirements for the assessment of fire
protection to structural steel elements. International Organization for Standardization.

Wickström, U. & Pålsson, J. 1999. Scheme for Verification of Computer Codes for Calculating
Temperature in Fire Exposed Structures. SP Report 1999:36. SP Swedish Testing and Re-
search Institute.

View publication stats