ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fire Safety Journal 42 (2007) 425–436

www.elsevier.com/locate/firesaf

Behaviour of concrete floor slabs at ambient and elevated temperatures

C.G. Bailey, W.S. Toh
School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering, University of Manchester, P.O. Box 88, Pariser Building, Sackville Street,
Manchester M60 1QD, UK
Received 24 July 2006; accepted 3 November 2006
Available online 3 July 2007

Abstract

This paper presents the latest developments of a simple design method used to predict the membrane action of unrestrained concrete,
or concrete and steel composite, floors under fire conditions. The developments include the refinement of the assumed in-plane stress
pattern and a prediction of when concrete crushing occurs in the proximity of the corners of the slab. The design method is compared
against 44 small-scale tests carried out at ambient and elevated temperatures on horizontally unrestrained slabs with an aspect ratio of
1.0 or 1.55. The slabs were reinforced with either mild steel or stainless-steel welded mesh of different grades, ductility, sizes and bar
spacing. Both the ambient and fire tests highlighted the occurrence of membrane action, either supporting loads higher than the
theoretical yield-line load in the case of the ambient tests, or reaching higher failure temperatures compared to those calculated based on
yield-line theory. Comparison between the developed simple design approach and test results showed good correlation both at ambient
and elevated temperatures.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Ambient tests; Concrete slabs; Critical temperature; Fire tests; Membrane action; Simple design method

1. Introduction also published in more detail in 2001 [10], allowing

Tensile membrane action in concrete (or steel and
concrete composite) slabs has been observed in full-scale
fire tests [1,2] and in real buildings [3] following actual fires.
Simple design procedures given in current fire design codes
[4,5] for floor slabs are based on flexural action and ignore
any beneficial effect of membrane action. However,
provided they follow general engineering principles, the
codes do allow advanced design methods to be used but
they present no guidance on these methods. Examples of
advanced methods generally involve the use of various
finite element models, which have been shown [6–8] to be
successful in predicting membrane action in slabs and
whole building behaviour.
In 2000, a simple pragmatic fire design method [9], which
utilised the behaviour of tensile membrane action, was
published in a tabulated form for composite floor slabs
supported by a grillage of steel beams. The method was
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: colin.bailey@manchester.ac.uk (C.G. Bailey).
designers to use the method to its full potential. The
design method is based on the assumption that the
floorplate is divided into a collection of horizontally
unrestrained slabs spanning over unprotected beams and
supported around their perimeter by protected steel beams.
By utilising the membrane action of the floor slab, a large
proportion of the steel beams within a given floorplate can
be left unprotected as shown in Fig. 1.
The original design approach was recently updated in
2006 [11] to include more efficient reinforcement patterns
and the practical use of natural fires. However, even with
these recent updates, the original method still had a
number of assumptions, which could only be refined by
extensive testing. This led to a test programme looking at
the tensile membrane action of horizontally unrestrained
slabs at both ambient and elevated temperatures. The slabs
incorporated welded mesh reinforcement, which is typically
used in composite floors in the UK. The tests comprised 22
tests at ambient temperature, which were repeated at
elevated temperatures. All the tests were carried out at
small-scale and although this resulted in unrealistic

0379-7112/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2006.11.009
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
426 C.G. Bailey, W.S. Toh / Fire Safety Journal 42 (2007) 425–436

Nomenclature H measured slab thickness (mm)

k parameter defining magnitude of membrane
a aspect ratio (L/l) force
b parameter defining magnitude of membrane K ratio of yield force in the reinforcing steel in the
force short span to the yield force in the reinforcing
d average effective depth of reinforcement (mm) steel in the long span
d1 effective depth of reinforcement in the short KT0 yield force in the reinforcing steel per unit width
span (mm) in the short span (kN/m)
d2 effective depth of reinforcement in the long l shorter span of rectangular slab (mm)
span (mm) L longer span of rectangular slab (mm)
e overall enhancement of theoretical yield-line m parameter defining the width of the in-plane
load due to membrane action triangular compressive stress block
e1 net enhancement for Element 1 n parameter defining the yield-line pattern
e2 net enhancement for Element 2 P uniformly distributed theoretical yield-line load
e1b enhancement due to bending action for Ele- at ambient temperature (kN/m2)
ment 1 Plimit predicted load corresponding to maximum
e2b enhancement due to bending action for Ele- allowable displacement D20 (kN/m2)
ment 2 Ptest maximum test load (kN/m2)
e1m enhancement due to membrane forces for TBot temperature on bottom surface of slab (1C)
Element 1 Tmesh measured test average mesh temperature at
e2m enhancement due to membrane forces for failure (1C)
Element 2 Tpred predicted critical average mesh temperature
E Young’s modulus of reinforcement at ambient based on DT (1C)
temperature (kN/mm2) T0 yield force in reinforcing steel per unit width in
f1 ratio of ultimate strength to yield strength the long span (kN/m)
(fu/fy) for reinforcement in the short span TTop temperature on top surface of slab (1C)
f2 ratio of ultimate strength to yield strength v parameter defining extent of central membrane
(fu/fy) for reinforcement in the long span m coefficient of orthotropy
fcu compressive cube strength of concrete (N/mm2) w vertical central deflection of the slab (mm)
f0.2p 0.2% proof strength of stainless-steel reinforce- a coefficient of thermal expansion of concrete
ment (N/mm2) D201 predicted maximum allowable vertical displace-
fy yield strength of reinforcement (N/mm2) ment at ambient temperature (mm)
fu ultimate strength of reinforcement (N/mm2) DT predicted maximum allowable vertical displace-
g1 parameter defining the compressive stress block ment at elevated temperature (mm)
in flexural action in the short span + diameter of reinforcement (mm)
g2 parameter defining the compressive stress block
in flexural action in the long span

temperature distributions through the thickness of the slab

for the elevated tests, the results allowed a thorough
understanding of the basic mechanics of membrane action
to be obtained. The results from the tests have led to a
refinement of the original design method, which has
included a more accurate estimate of the in-plane stress
distribution and a limit on the load-carrying capacity due
to crushing of the concrete in the corners of the slab. This
extension to the method, together with comparison against
Unprotected beams
Protected beams
the test results is discussed in this paper.

2. Ambient tests

Fig. 1. Use of membrane action to remove fire protection from secondary A series of 22 small-scale reinforced concrete slabs were
beams. tested at ambient temperature (Fig. 2) at the University
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.G. Bailey, W.S. Toh / Fire Safety Journal 42 (2007) 425–436 427

of Manchester from November 2004 to July 2005.
The slabs had a size of 1.2 m  1.2 m or 1.8 m  1.2 m
with a target thickness of 20 mm and a concrete cover of
5 mm. The slabs were supported vertically on 50 mm wide
angles, resulting in a clear span of 1.1 m  1.1 m or
1.7 m  1.1 m, giving an aspect ratio of 1.0 or 1.55. The
corners of the slabs were lightly clamped, with rollers
Reaction frame Support frame Concrete slab
Air bag
Load cells
Fig. 2. Experimental set-up for ambient tests.
between the clamps and slabs, allowing free horizontal
movement. There was no horizontal restraint provided to
the slab’s perimeter. Due to the large displacements
witnessed in the tests, it was observed that the slab was
supported off the edge of the angles leading to the
assumption that the span of the slab could be taken as
the clear span.
The proportions of the concrete mix comprised 44%
Granno aggregate (maximum size 6 mm), 30% sand, 20%
cement and 6% water, by weight. The reinforcement
consisted of either mild steel or stainless-steel welded wire
mesh of different grades, ductility, diameters and bar
spacing. Tables 1 and 2 summarise the details of the tests
together with the calculated theoretical yield-line loads P
and recorded maximum test loads Ptest.
All the slabs supported a load well above the theoretical
yield-line load showing that membrane action occurred.
Table 1 shows that the value of Ptest (which includes the
self-weight of the slabs) ranged from 1.45 to 2.44 above the
yield-line load P for the slabs with mild steel mesh. For the
slabs with stainless-steel mesh, the value of Ptest/P, referred
to hereinafter as the enhancement factor e, ranged from
1.44 to 3.66, as shown in Table 2.

Table 1
Details of slab tests with mild steel mesh at ambient temperature

Test Dimensions Wires in long span Wires in short span Wire fcu P Ptest Ptest =P D20 Plimit Plimit =Ptest
L  l  H (mm) spacing (MPa) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) (mm) (kN/m2)
+ fy/fu Ductility + fy/fu Ductility (mm)
(mm) (MPa) (%) (mm) (MPa) (%)

M1 1700  1100  18.2 2.42 732/756 1.49 2.42 757/777 3.26 50.8 41.3 8.52 20.7 2.44 44.0 15.5 0.74
M2 1100  1100  19.1 2.42 732/756 1.49 2.42 757/777 3.26 50.8 38 13.8 27.0 1.96 28.5 20.3 0.75
M3 1700  1100  22.0 1.53 451/487 6.39 1.49 454/495 8.98 25.4 35.3 6.35 12.3 1.93 34.5 9.13 0.74
M4 1100  1100  20.1 1.53 451/487 6.39 1.49 454/495 8.98 25.4 35.3 8.17 18.3 2.24 22.3 11.9 0.65
M5 1700  1100  18.9 1.47 406/500 9.89 1.48 435/473 9.87 12.7 37.9 8.69 17.9 2.06 32.8 12.7 0.71
M6 1100  1100  21.6 1.47 406/500 9.89 1.48 435/473 9.87 12.7 38.6 15.7 27.03 1.72 21.2 21.2 0.78
M7 1700  1100  20.4 0.84 599/653 3.30 0.85 604/679 2.91 12.7 41.6 5.11 8.65 1.69 39.8 7.68 0.89
M8 1100  1100  19.0 0.84 599/653 3.30 0.85 604/679 2.91 12.7 42.9 6.68 10.7 1.60 25.8 10.1 0.94
M9 1700  1100  22.0 0.66 450/470 1.30 0.68 402/454 3.93 6.35 37.6 5.07 7.35 1.45 34.5 7.16 0.97
M10 1100  1100  19.7 0.66 450/470 1.30 0.68 402/454 3.93 6.35 37.3 6.36 9.89 1.56 22.3 9.13 0.92

Table 2
Details of slab tests with stainless steel at ambient temperature

Test Dimensions Wires in long span Wires in short span Wire fcu P Ptest Ptest =P D20 Plimit Plimit =Ptest
L  l  H (mm) spacing (MPa) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) (mm) (kN/m2)
(mm)
+ fy/fu Ductility + fy/fu Ductility
(mm) (MPa) (%) (mm) (MPa) (%)

S1 1700  1100  19.0 2.99 639/888 31 3 614/859 33 50.8 40.6 10.6 17.1 1.61 41.1 16.5 0.96
S2 1100  1100  20.4 2.99 639/888 31 3 614/859 33 50.8 41.2 18.7 26.8 1.44 26.6 25.5 0.95
S3 1700  1100  21.0 2.51 569/854 38 2.51 555/848 38 50.8 50 9.20 17.3 1.88 38.8 15.7 0.91
S4 1100  1100  19.0 2.51 569/854 38 2.51 555/848 38 50.8 50.7 11.6 22.8 1.96 25.1 20.7 0.91
S5 1700  1100  17.6 1.55 344/732 37 1.53 447/739 34 25.4 49.8 4.23 13.4 3.15 30.2 7.2 0.54
S6 1100  1100  20.6 1.53 344/732 37 1.55 447/739 34 25.4 49.8 7.76 26.8 3.45 22.2 12.7 0.48
S7 1700  1100  20.5 1.58 265/578 41 1.58 271/586 41 12.7 41.9 7.37 19.5 2.64 26.5 11.3 0.58
S8 1100  1100  19.3 1.58 265/578 41 1.58 271/586 41 12.7 43 9.84 36.0 3.66 17.1 15.7 0.44
S9 1700  1100  19.7 0.98 280/678 54 0.98 301/707 59 8 37.1 4.94 14.3 2.89 27.2 7.84 0.55
S10 1100  1100  18.8 0.98 280/678 54 0.98 301/707 59 8 37.2 6.66 20.2 3.03 17.6 10.8 0.54
S11 1700  1100  18.9 0.78 349/744 56 0.75 580/815 39 6.35 45.7 5.97 16.2 2.72 30.3 8.74 0.54
S12 1100  1100  22.3 0.78 349/744 56 0.75 580/815 39 6.35 48.2 10.5 31.5 3.02 25.3 17.2 0.55
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
428 C.G. Bailey, W.S. Toh / Fire Safety Journal 42 (2007) 425–436

Observations from the slab tests with mild steel mesh
showed two distinct modes of failure, which were found to
be dependent on the reinforcement ratio, aspect ratio and
ductility of the reinforcement. Considering a constant
aspect ratio, it was found that the first mode of failure, for
lightly reinforced slabs, comprised fracture of the rein-
forcement across the shorter span of the slabs (Fig. 3a).
The other mode of failure, for heavily reinforced slabs,
comprised compressive failure at the corners of the
slabs (Fig. 3b). For the high ductile stainless-steel slabs,
fracture of the reinforcement did not occur and failure
was by crushing of the concrete at the corners of the
slab.
3. Fire tests
A similar experimental programme at elevated tempera-
tures, consisting of 22 slabs, with the same geometry, rein-
forcement and support conditions, adopted in the ambient
tests, was carried out from September 2005 to June 2006.
The details of the tests are given in Tables 3 and 4.
All tests were carried out under a transient heating state,
with a predefined working load (Ptest) uniformly applied on
the top surface of the slab by using dead weights, as shown
in Fig. 4. Tables 3 and 4 show the values of the theoretical
yield-line load at ambient temperature (P) and the applied
test load (Ptest) for the mild steel and stainless-steel slabs,
respectively. The load ratio, defined as the applied test
load divided by the yield-line load at ambient temperature
(Ptest/P) that could be achieved by using the dead weights
was quite restrictive, due to the physical size of the slab’s
footprint and the need to ensure enough space between the
weights so that they did not clash with each other as the
slab deflected downwards. As a result, the actual values of
the load level (Ptest/P) varied significantly in the tests, from
0.29 to 1.33, as shown in Tables 3 and 4. The strategy was
to try and apply, within the physical constraints, the
maximum achievable load level, but less than the unity, in
each test. However, in the case of Test MF7, the load level
was accidentally applied beyond unity due to human error.
An electric kiln, located beneath the slabs, provided a
heating rate of 300 1C/h, up to a maximum temperature of
1000 1C, which was maintained for the duration of the test.
The temperature inside the kiln, the temperature of bottom
and top surfaces of the slab, and the temperature of
reinforcement at three locations at the centre of the slab,
were recorded during each test. Fig. 5 shows the typical
temperature recording for a test slab.
All the tests failed in a similar manner (Fig. 6) showing
the classic membrane action [12] behaviour of horizontally
unrestrained slabs. Failure occurred by fracture of
reinforcement across the shorter span of the rectangular
slabs or across one of the spans of the square slabs. Fig. 6
shows clearly the mode of failure with the longer edges of
the slab being pulled inwards as the slab deflects down-
wards, which relives the reinforcement strains in the shorter

Fig. 3. Two typical modes of failure for test slabs at ambient temperature: (a) fracture of reinforcement along short span and (b) compressive concrete
failure at corners.

Table 3
Details of slab tests with mild steel at elevated temperatures

Test Dimensions Wires in long span Wires in short span Wire fcu P Ptest Ptest =P Tmesh DT Tpred T pred =T mesh
L  l  H (mm) spacing (MPa) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) (1C) based
+ fy/fu Ductility + fy/fu Ductility (mm) on DT
(mm) (MPa) (%) (mm) (MPa) (%) (1C)

MF1 1700  1100  19.7 2.43 695/727 2.86 2.41 722/742 3.46 50.8 43.2 9.52 5.280 0.55 764.9 54.38 641 0.84
MF2 1100  1100  23.1 2.41 684/736 3.19 2.43 780/795 1.07 50.8 43.3 19.00 5.519 0.29 747.1 37.33 679 0.91
MF3 1700  1100  19.0 1.54 336/404 18.76 1.54 349/420 12.57 25.4 39.1 4.07 3.655 0.90 727 41.74 543 0.75
MF4 1100  1100  19.8 1.54 336/404 18.76 1.54 349/420 12.57 25.4 39 6.36 5.429 0.85 700.1 30.74 537 0.77
MF5 1700  1100  20.1 1.51 402/463 12.84 1.52 467/498 6.53 12.7 37.1 13.47 5.280 0.39 721.9 43.88 647 0.90
MF6 1100  1100  19.5 1.51 402/463 12.84 1.52 467/498 6.53 12.7 38.5 14.35 7.900 0.55 782.4 32.73 620 0.79
MF7 1700  1100  18.8 0.85 405/444 5.40 0.83 470/486 3.65 12.7 43.8 3.36 4.460 1.33 556.5 44.95 439 0.79
MF8 1100  1100  20.9 0.85 405/444 5.40 0.83 470/486 3.65 12.7 43.5 5.65 4.646 0.82 653.9 32.13 545 0.83
MF9 1700  1100  21.6 0.71 371/382 3.40 0.68 449/455 1.44 6.35 47.1 5.23 3.697 0.71 652.1 41.82 568 0.87
MF10 1100  1100  21.0 0.71 371/382 3.40 0.68 449/455 1.44 6.35 40.4 7.18 5.494 0.77 686.0 31.07 555 0.81
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.G. Bailey, W.S. Toh / Fire Safety Journal 42 (2007) 425–436 429

Table 4
Details of slab tests with stainless steel at elevated temperatures

Test Dimensions Wires in long span Wires in short span Wire fcu (MPa P Ptest Ptest =P Tmesh DT Tpred T pred =T mesh
L  l  H (mm) spacing (kN/m2) (kN/m2) (1C) based
+ fy/fu Ductility + fy/fu Ductility (mm) on DT
(mm) (MPa) (%) (mm) (MPa) (%) (1C)

SF1 1700  1100  21.1 2.99 589/891 65.0 2.99 570/885 65.4 50.8 42.7 12.32 5.31 0.43 892.3 50.21 849 0.95
SF2 1100  1100  20.5 2.99 639/888 31.1 3 614/859 32.6 50.8 38.5 18.47 7.92 0.43 879.0 37.66 857 0.97
SF3 1700  1100  18.6 2.48 608/874 47.8 2.5 583/834 45.5 50.8 40.6 7.56 5.25 0.69 870.6 52.29 772 0.89
SF4 1100  1100  18.7 2.51 569/854 38.2 2.51 555/848 37.6 50.8 45.7 11.17 5.41 0.48 4825a 37.23 845 –
SF5 1700  1100  17.9 1.58 343/725 69.0 1.55 460/766 47.8 25.4 40.0 4.50 3.64 0.81 886.6 42.79 699 0.79
SF6 1100  1100  18.9 1.53 344/732 37.0 1.53 447/739 34.5 25.4 46.5 6.77 5.41 0.80 897.6 31.52 698 0.78
SF7 1700  1100  18.4 1.56 256/585 78.1 1.57 316/621 40.0 12.7 35.2 6.50 5.24 0.81 887.6 38.34 681 0.77
SF8 1100  1100  22.2 1.58 265/578 41.3 1.58 271/586 41.1 12.7 41.2 12.19 7.97 0.65 878.9 27.34 731 0.83
SF9 1700  1100  19.8 0.98 280/678 53.9 0.98 301/707 59.2 8 40.4 5.00 3.68 0.74 881.6 38.66 715 0.81
SF10 1100  1100  22.6 0.98 280/678 53.9 0.98 301/707 59.2 8 39.7 8.74 7.98 0.91 874.9 27.64 602 0.69
SF11 1700  1100  19.8 0.78 349/744 56.0 0.75 580/815 38.6 6.35 40.8 6.38 5.29 0.83 826.4 41.83 606 0.73
SF12 1100  1100  23.3 0.78 349/744 56.0 0.75 580/815 38.6 6.35 41.7 11.07 8.00 0.72 839.9 29.39 629 0.75

a
Test stopped before failure.

Fig. 6. Mode of failure for test slabs at elevated temperatures (loading

Fig. 4. Experimental set-up for fire tests. removed).

1000
900 Test SF10 It was observed that the mild steel slabs normally
800 collapsed in a more sudden manner, whereas the collapse
Temperature (°C)

700 mode for the stainless-steel slabs was gentler, which is

600 thought to be due to the difference in the ductility of the
500 meshes. Therefore, the measured critical temperature
400 Kiln
Tmesh—defined as the average temperature of the mesh
Bottom surface of slab
300 Reinforcement 1 reinforcement—for the mild steel slabs was determined at
200 Reinforcement 2
Reinforcement 3 the start of the runaway phenomenon, whereas the critical
100 Top surface of slab temperature for the stainless-steel slabs was determined at
0
the start of significant rupture of the reinforcement. The
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Time (hour)
critical temperatures (Tmesh) for all the slabs are shown in
Tables 3 and 4 for the mild steel and stainless-steel slabs,
Fig. 5. Typical temperatures recorded in fire tests. respectively.

span until fracture of the reinforcement in the longer span 4. Simplified method at ambient temperature
occurs. Previous work [12,13] has shown that this failure
mode is characteristic of tensile membrane action occurring Based on the ambient and elevated test results, the
in the central region of the slab surrounded by a balancing original design method [12] was extended to include a
compressive membrane ring. No compression failure, as more precise in-plane stress pattern and to include
identified in the ambient tests (Fig. 3b), was observed in possible crushing of the concrete at the corners of the
any of the fire tests. slabs. The method calculates the enhancement (e) above
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
430 C.G. Bailey, W.S. Toh / Fire Safety Journal 42 (2007) 425–436

the theoretical yield-line load due to membrane action. together with affinity rules, and is given by
As a slab deflects, it will be subject to membrane action, 1 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
provided all the perimeter edges are vertically supported n ¼ pffiffiffi 2 3ma2 þ 1  1 , (1)
2 ma
and fracture of the reinforcement does not occur. Since
membrane action is dependent on the in-plane forces, where a is the aspect ratio of the slab (L/l) and m is the
an increase in vertical displacement will result in an coefficient of orthotropy, which defines the ratio of the
increase in the load carrying capacity. In the case of yield moment capacity of the slab in the orthogonal
horizontally unrestrained slabs, membrane action com- directions (refer Fig. 7).
prises tensile membrane action in the central plan area of For a square slab, with isotropic or orthotropic
the slab surrounded by a balancing ring of compressive reinforcement, the ‘shorter’ span of the slab is defined by
membrane action. As the method is based on an enhance- the span with the smaller moment capacity so that the
ment due to membrane action (which is governed by the coefficient of orthotropy (m) is always less than, or equal to,
change of geometry) above the yield-line load (which is unity. Provided the coefficient of orthotropy (m) is less
based on rigid-perfectly plastic slab behaviour), the overall than, or equal to, unity, Eq. (1) will result in a value of n
method can be classed as plastic design with change of less than, or equal to, 0.5 leading to a valid yield-line
geometry. pattern.
The assumptions adopted in the design method are
summarised as follows:
4.2. First stress pattern
1. Based on a predefined yield-line pattern, the in-plane
For the failure mode of reinforcement fracture across the
forces increase with increase in vertical displacement.
shorter span, the in-plane stress distribution is defined by
2. The self-equilibrium in-plane forces comprise compres-
the constants k and b (Fig. 7a), which are calculated using
sive membrane action around the perimeter of the slab
and tensile membrane action in the central area of the 4na2 ð1  2nÞ
k¼ þ 1, (2)
slab. 4n2 a2 þ 1
3. Based on the in-plane stress distributions (as shown  
in Fig. 7), the in-plane forces along the rigid plates 1 1 þ 2f 2 þ 2m
b¼ ð1  2mÞ pf 1 , (3)
are defined by the constants ‘k’ and ‘b’ or ‘v’ depen- KðA þ BÞ 3
ding on the stress pattern. The 1st stress pattern
in which
in Fig. 7 governs provided the value of ‘b’ is less
than f1 (f1 ¼ fu/fy). If ‘b’ is greater than f1 then the A ¼ ð1  4n2 Þa2 ,
2nd stress pattern must be used with the value of ‘b’ set 2k
to f1. B¼ ½ð2naÞ2 þ 1.
3
4. When the applied load on the slab exceeds a certain
limit, the fracture of the reinforcement across the central Considering a triangular compressive stress block (ml) at
crack will initiate at the slab’s centre and gradually both ends of the assumed fracture line, with the full slab
propagate towards its edges. For simplicity, the tensile depth H being in compression and the contribution of the
stress of reinforcement across the crack is assumed to reinforcement in compression ignored, the width factor m
vary linearly from its yield stress (fy) near the edge of the can be determined from equilibrium of the in-plane
slab to its ultimate stress (fu ¼ f2  fy) at the slab centre, horizontal forces across the full central fracture line as
as shown in Fig. 8. follows:
5. Two modes of failure are considered, comprising  
1 0:8f cu H 1
fracture of reinforcement across the shorter span of m¼ 1þ . (4)
2 ð1 þ f 2 ÞT 0
the slab (as explained in assumption 4 above) and
compression failure of concrete in the corners of the By substituting the value of m from Eq. (4) into Eq. (3),
slab. The compression failure considers both membrane the constant b can be calculated. If the constant b is less
and bending action at the corner of the slabs. than or equal to f1, the 1st stress pattern (Fig. 7a) is valid
and the load carrying capacity for a given displacement can
The basic equations for the simplified design method are be calculated. However, if the constant b is greater than f1,
presented here. then the 1st stress pattern becomes invalid and the 2nd
stress pattern (Fig. 7b), which is discussed in Section 4.3,
4.1. Yield-line pattern must be used.
Assuming that the 1st stress pattern is valid, the load
Considering a rectangular slab of L  l (length  width), carrying capacity can be calculated with reference to
the in-plane stress distributions are based on an assumed Fig. 7a and Eqs. (2) and (3). The load carrying contri-
yield-line pattern determined by the factor n (Fig. 7), which bution from the membrane forces, and the increase in
can be calculated using general yield-line theory [14] bending resistance due to the in-plane compressive forces,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.G. Bailey, W.S. Toh / Fire Safety Journal 42 (2007) 425–436 431

L
kbKT0 nL
C C
4 1

Fracture
forming at
kLd S centre of slab S 1

1+k 3 2
Ld T2 T2
where 1+k
bKT0 T1
Ld = (nL) 2 + l 2 / 4
In-plane forces: Reinforcement: 2 l
T1 = bKT0 (1 − 2n) L Yield force = T0
bKT0 Ultimate force = f2T0
T2 = Ld Yield moment = M0
2 (1 + k)
Yield force = KT0
k2 bKT0 Ultimate force = f1KT0
C= Ld
2 (1 + k) Yield moment = M0 5

L
kbKT0 nL
C C
4 1

S Fracture
forming at
k(1 − v) Ld centre of slab S

1+k 1
3 2
(1 − v) Ld T2 T2

1+k T2' T2'

where vLd
bKT0 T1
Ld = (nL) 2 + l 2 / 4
In-plane forces:
T1 = bKT0 (1 − 2n) L 2 l
Reinforcement:
T2' = bKT0 (vLd) Yield force = T0
bKT0 Ultimate force = f2T0
T2 = (1− v)Ld Yield moment = M0
2 (1 + k)
Yield force = KT0
k2 bKT0 Ultimate force = f1KT0
C= (1 − v) Ld
2 (1 + k) Yield moment = M0
5

Fig. 7. In-plane stress distribution patterns shown along assumed yield lines: (a) 1st stress pattern for bof1 and (b) 2nd stress pattern for b ¼ f1.

are represented separately by enhancement factors above 2. Enhancement due to the effect of in-plane forces on
the theoretical yield-line load as follows: the bending capacity for Elements 1 and 2 (Fig. 7a) is
given by
1. Enhancement due to membrane forces for Elements 1
and 2 (Fig. 7a) is given by  
a1 b b b2
  e1b ¼ 2n 1 þ ðk  1Þ  1 ðk2  k þ 1Þ
4b w nð2  kÞ 2 3
e1m ¼ 1  2n þ ,
3 þ g1 d 1 3 þ ð1  2nÞð1  a1 b  b1 b2 Þ,
 
2bK w 2  k a2 bK b b2 K 2
e2m ¼ . ð5Þ e2b ¼ 1 þ ðk  1Þ  2 ðk  k þ 1Þ, ð6Þ
3 þ g2 d 2 3 2 3
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
432 C.G. Bailey, W.S. Toh / Fire Safety Journal 42 (2007) 425–436

0.5L 0.5L
nL n
kbKT0 kbKT0
ml C
T0 C 1 T0 1
0.5T3 0.5T3

l
-ml 0.5T3 0.5T3 S
2 S
 
z z
T2
f2T0
f2T0 T2'
T2
0.5T bKT0 0.5T bKT0
1st Stress Pattern 2nd Stress Pattern

2 + f2 l
The in-plane lever arm z is given by z = ( − ml)
3 (1 + f2) 2

Fig. 8. In-plane stress distribution.

4.3. Second stress pattern

C1 C2
d1 g1d1 d2 g2d2
When, according to Eq. (3), the constant b is greater
2 2 2 than the ratio of ultimate stress to yield stress (f1), the stress
2
pattern shown in Fig. 7a becomes invalid and the in-plane
d1 d2 forces should be derived based on the 2nd stress pattern as
2 KT0 2 shown in Fig. 7b.
T0
The constants k and v, defining the in-plane stress
In short span In long span distribution for the failure mode of reinforcement fracture
Fig. 9. Calculation of moment resistance.
across the shorter span, are given by
4na2 ð1  2nÞ þ ð1 þ vÞð4n2 a2 þ 1Þ
k¼ , (10)
ð1  vÞð4n2 a2 þ 1Þ
in which
1=Kð1  2mÞð1 þ 2f 2 þ 2mÞ  1  3a2 þ 4na2
2gi 1  gi v¼ , (11)
ai¼1;2 ¼ and bi¼1;2 ¼ , 2 þ 4na2
3 þ gi 3 þ gi
where g1 and g2 are defined in Fig. 9. where m is defined using Eq. (4). The enhancement above
3. Net enhancement for each element is given by the theoretical yield-line load due to membrane action, and
the effect of in-plane forces on the bending capacity, is
e1 ¼ e1m þ e1b , calculated as follows:
e2 ¼ e2m þ e2b . ð7Þ
1. Enhancement due to membrane forces for Elements 1
4. Overall enhancement for the slab is given by and 2 (Fig. 7b) is given by
e 1  e2 4b w  n

e ¼ e1  . (8) e1m ¼ 1  4 þ k  ð1 þ kÞð2v  v2 Þ ,
1 þ 2ma2 3 þ g1 d 1 3
 
2bK w 2  k þ ð1 þ kÞð2v  v2 Þ
e2m ¼ . ð12Þ
5. The enhancement (e) shown in Eq. (8) is applied to 3 þ g2 d 2 3
the yield-line load P, which for a square or rectangular
slab subjected to a uniformly distributed load, is
2. Enhancement due to the effect of in-plane forces on
given by
the bending capacity for Elements 1 and 2 (Fig. 7b) is
"sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi #2 given by
24mM 1 1  
P¼ 3þ  , (9) a1 b b 1 b2 2
l2 ða0 Þ2 a0 e1b ¼ 2nð1  vÞ 1 þ ðk  1Þ  ðk  k þ 1Þ
2 3
pffiffiffi
where a0 ¼ ma. þ ð1  2n þ 2nvÞð1  a1 b  b1 b2 Þ,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.G. Bailey, W.S. Toh / Fire Safety Journal 42 (2007) 425–436 433
 
a2 bk b 2 b2 k 2 2 corresponding load capacity Plimit is shown in Tables 1 and
e2b ¼ ð1  vÞ 1 þ ðk  1Þ  ðk  k þ 1Þ
2 3 2 for all slabs.
þ vð1  a2 bK  b2 b2 K 2 Þ.
5. Simplified method at elevated temperatures
Similarly, the net enhancement for each element can be
obtained by using Eq. (7) and the overall enhancement is The simplified method discussed in Section 4 can easily
given by Eq. (8). be adapted for analysing the concrete slabs at elevated
temperatures. Eqs. (1) to (14) may be applied incorporating
the thermal effects on the material properties. In this study,
4.4. Compressive failure of concrete
the reduction factors at elevated temperatures for the
mechanical properties of the mesh reinforcement and
When considering the 1st and 2nd stress patterns,
concrete were taken from EN1992-1-2(4).
discussed in Sections 4.2 and 4.3, respectively, the stress
The design procedure, at elevated temperatures, is briefly
distribution was defined based on fracture of the reinforce-
discussed as follows:
ment. The possibility of compressive failure in the
proximity of the corner of the slab, which was shown to
occur in some of the tests (Fig. 3b), needs to be considered. 1. Assign a temperature increment scheme for the slabs. In
This has been achieved by limiting the value of the constant this study, it was assumed that the temperature of the
‘b’, which defines the magnitude of the in-plane stresses. reinforcement increases monotonically from 20 to
Considering Fig. 7, it can be seen that the maximum in- 1000 1C, and the temperature of concrete is 20% lower
plane compressive force at the corners of the slab is given than the reinforcement.
by kbKT0. In addition to the in-plane force, the compres- 2. At each reinforcement temperature, determine the
sive force due to bending needs to be considered. If we corresponding yield-line load. Plotting the computed
assume that the maximum compressive stress-block depth yield-line loads versus the temperatures will generate the
is limited to 0.45d, and adopt an average effective depth to solid thick curve in the upper graph in Fig. 10, taking
the reinforcement in both orthogonal directions, we obtain Test SF12 as an example.
    3. For a series of vertical deflections (e.g. w ¼ 40,
KT 0 þ T 0 d1 þ d2 80, 120 and 160 mm), determine the enhancement
kbKT 0 þ ¼ 0:67f cu  0:45 .
2 2
25
Solving for the constant b leads to
     Test SF12 Enhancement
1 d1 þ d2 K þ1
Load capacity (kN/m2)

20 based on
b¼ 0:67f cu  0:45  T0 . w = 160 mm
kKT 0 2 2 120
80
(14) 15 40

In case of the 1st stress pattern, the constant b is the

10
minimum value given by Eqs. (3) and (14); while in the case Working load
of the 2nd stress pattern, the constant b is the minimum
5 Yield-line load
value of f1 or that given by Eq. (14).

0
4.5. Maximum allowable vertical displacement 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Reinforcement temperature (°C)
The simple method presented so far in this paper cannot 160
predict the maximum allowable vertical displacement at 140
which actual fracture of the reinforcement or crushing of
Displacement (mm)

the concrete occurs. A very simplified and conservative 120

prediction of the maximum allowable vertical displacement 100
D20 at ambient temperature is given by [10] 80
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 Test
0:5f y 3L2 60
D20 ¼ , (15) 40
E 8
20 Simplified method
where E is the Young’s modulus of the reinforcement in the
longer span. Based on the maximum allowable displace- 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
ment (D20), the enhancement (e) above the theoretical yield
Average reinforcement temperature (°C)
load can be calculated (using Eqs. (2)–(14) and setting
w ¼ D20) allowing the load capacity Plimit to be estimated. Fig. 10. Prediction of deflection–temperature relationship using the
The maximum allowable vertical displacement D20 and simplified method.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
434 C.G. Bailey, W.S. Toh / Fire Safety Journal 42 (2007) 425–436

factors over the range of temperatures specified in various values of w. The calculated average reinforce-
Step 1. ment temperature–displacement response can then be
4. Compute the load carrying capacity by multiplying the compared with the test results, as illustrated in the lower
yield-line loads from Step 2 by the enhancement factors graph in Fig. 10.
from Step 3. Plotting the obtained load carrying capacities
versus the temperatures for each value of w will generate When considering the temperature–displacement re-
the four dash lines in the upper graph in Fig. 10. sponse in Fig. 10, it is worth noting that the simple
5. For a given constant working load, extract the method is based on rigid plastic behaviour with change of
corresponding temperatures for the yield-line load and geometry. Therefore, the method does not predict any

Tests MF1 and MF2 Tests MF3 and MF4

200 200
Test MF1 Test MF3
Simple MF1 Simple MF3
Central deflection (mm)

Central deflection (mm)

160 160
Test MF2 Test MF4
Simple MF2 Simple MF4
120 120

80 80

40 40

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Average reinforcement temperature (°C) Average reinforcement temperature (°C)

Tests MF5 and MF6 Tests MF7 and MF8

200 160
Test MF5 Test MF7
Simple MF5 Simple MF7
Central deflection (mm)
Central deflection (mm)

160
Test MF6 120 Test MF8
Simple MF6 Simple MF8
120
80
80

40
40

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Average reinforcement temperature (°C) Average reinforcement temperature (°C)
Tests MF9 and MF10
160
Test MF9
Simple MF9
Central deflection (mm)

120 Test MF10

Simple MF10

80

40

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Average reinforcement temperature (°C)

Fig. 11. Predicted deflection–temperature relationships for slabs with mild steel mesh at elevated temperatures.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.G. Bailey, W.S. Toh / Fire Safety Journal 42 (2007) 425–436 435

displacement until the theoretical yield-line load is reached The above design procedure can easily be conducted using a
(at 180 1C for Test SF12). The simple method then forms a standard spreadsheet. However, using Eqs. (2)–(14) will only
displacement–temperature failure envelop based on the provide an average reinforcement temperature–displacement
reduction in strength of the material and an increase in response as shown in Fig. 10. To calculate the failure point at
vertical displacement, which is required to mobilise the which reinforcement fracture occurs a maximum allowable
membrane effects. For a good comparison the test curve displacement needs to be specified. The original design
and predicted failure envelop should gradually merge approach [10] extended the maximum allowable displacement
together. (D20) at ambient temperature (Eq. (14)) to included the effects

Tests SF1 and SF2 Tests SF3 and SF4

200 200
Test SF1 Test SF3
Simple SF1 Simple SF3

Central deflection (mm)

Central deflection (mm)

160 160
Test SF2 Test SF4
Simple SF2 Simple SF4
120 120

80 80

40 40

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Average reinforcement temperature (°C) Average reinforcement temperature (°C)
Tests SF5 and SF6 Tests SF7 and SF8
200 200
Test SF6 Test SF7
Simple SF6 Simple SF7
Central deflection (mm)
Central deflection (mm)

160 160
Test SF5 Test SF8
Simple SF5 Simple SF8
120 120

80 80

40 40

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Average reinforcement temperature (°C) Average reinforcement temperature (°C)

Tests SF9 and SF10 Tests SF11 and SF12

160 160
Test SF9 Test SF11
140 140
Central deflection (mm)

Simple SF9 Simple SF11

Central deflection (mm)

120 Test SF10 120 Test SF12

Simple SF10 Simple SF12
100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Average reinforcement temperature (°C) Average reinforcement temperature (°C)

Fig. 12. Predicted deflection–temperature relationships for slabs with stainless-steel mesh at elevated temperatures.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
436 C.G. Bailey, W.S. Toh / Fire Safety Journal 42 (2007) 425–436
of thermal curvature to estimate the maximum allowable
displacement in fire conditions (DT) as follows [10]:
s
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 addition, details of 44 small-scale tests on horizontally
aðT Bot  T Top Þl 2 0:5f y 3L2
DT ¼ þ , (16)
19:2H E 8
where a is the coefficient of thermal expansion of concrete
which can be taken as 18  106 for normal weight
concrete. The difference between the temperature at the
bottom and top of the slab (TBotTTop) can be taken as
250 1C for the small-scale slabs considered, in accordance
with the test results. The maximum allowable displacement
(DT) and corresponding critical temperature Tpred is shown
in Tables 3 and 4 for all slabs.
6. Comparison between test results and simple analyses
When compared against the 22 ambient tests, the
simplified design method tends to give conservative
predictions when estimating the load capacity (Plimit) based
on the maximum allowable displacement D20 given by Eq.
(15). As shown in Tables 1 and 2, it was found that the
ratio of the predicted allowable load to the maximum test
load (Plimit/Ptest) ranged from 0.97 to 0.65 for the mild steel
slabs and 0.96–0.44 for the stainless-steel slabs.
Comparison of the predicted displacement–temperature
response (based on the principle of rigid plastic behaviour
with change of geometry) and the test results, of the 10
mild steel reinforced slabs at elevated temperatures, is
shown in Fig. 11. The predictions for MF2, MF3 and MF6
do not correlate very well with the test results. It was found
that slabs MF2 and MF6 had a low load ratio (Ptest/P), as
shown in Table 3, and further investigation is required to
understand the poor correlation. The predicted displace-
ment–temperature response and the test results, for the
stainless-steel reinforced slabs, are shown in Fig. 12. In
general, the predictions are very good except for slabs
SF1–SF4, which again had a low load ratio (refer Table 4).
Based on the maximum allowable displacement (DT) at
elevated temperature, given by Eq. (16), the corresponding
average mesh temperature can be calculated (Tpred). It was
found that the ratio of the predicted average mesh critical
temperature to the test average mesh critical temperature
Tpred/Tmesh ranged from 0.91 to 0.75 for the mild steel slabs
and 0.97–0.69 for the stainless-steel slabs, as shown in
Tables 3 and 4, respectively. This comparison shows that
the simple design method, presented in this paper, provides
conservative predictions for the mesh reinforcement failure
temperature. However, it is clear that further work is
required to improve the accuracy of predicting the failure
point corresponding to fracture of the reinforcement to
achieve a more efficient design.
7. Conclusions
The recent developments of refining the in-plane stress
distribution, and prediction of compression failure, within
a simple design method for unrestrained concrete slabs at
ambient and elevated temperatures has been presented. In
unrestrained concrete slabs at ambient and elevated
temperatures are briefly discussed. The tests comprised of
mild steel or stainless-steel mesh reinforcement with
varying bar diameter, spacing and ductility. Observations
from the tests showed that two modes of failure were
observed at ambient temperature, comprising fracture of
the reinforcement or crushing of the concrete at the corners
of the slab. At elevated temperatures all the tests failed by
fracture of the reinforcement.
When compared against the test results, the developed
simple design method produced good predications both at
ambient and elevated temperatures. In some cases, where
the load ratio was low, the prediction for the response at
elevated temperatures was not so good. However, based on
the maximum allowable displacement, the simplified
method always produced conservative predictions of the
maximum load capacity at ambient temperature and
failure temperatures under fire conditions.
References
[1] Bailey CG, Lennon T, Moore DB. The behaviour of full-scale steel
framed buildings subjected to compartment fires. Struct Eng 1999;
77(8):15–21.
[2] O’Conner MA, Kirby BR, Martin DM. Behaviour of a multi-storey
composite steel framed building in fire. Struct Eng 2003;81(2):27–36.
[3] Fire resistance of concrete structures. Report of a Joint Committee of
the Institution of Structural Engineers and the Concrete Society, The
Institution of Structural Engineers, 1975.
[4] BSEN1992-1-2, Eurocode 2, Design of concrete structures. Part 1.2.
General rules. Structural fire design. London: British Standards
Institution; 2004.
[5] BSEN1994-1-2, Eurocode 4, Design of composite steel and concrete
structures. Part 1.2. General rules. Structural fire design. London:
British Standards Institution; 2006.
[6] Huang Z, Burgess IW, Plank RJ. Modelling of six full-scale fire tests
on a composite building. Struct Engr 2002;80(19):30–7.
[7] Gillie M, Usmani AS, Rotter JM. A structural analysis of the
Cardington British Steel Corner Test. J Construct Steel Res
2002;58:427–42.
[8] Elghazouli AY, Izzuddin BA, Richardson AJ. Numerical modelling
of the structural fire behaviour of composite buildings. Fire Saf J
2000;35:279–97.
[9] G.M. Newman, J.T. Robinson, C.G. Bailey, Fire safe design: a new
approach to multi-storey steel-framed buildings. SCI Publication
P288. Ascot: The Steel Construction Institute; 2000.
[10] C.G. Bailey, Steel structures supporting composite floor slabs: design
for fire, BRE digest 462. Watford: The Building Research Establish-
ment; 2001.
[11] G.M. Newman, J.T. Robinson, C.G. Bailey, Fire safe design: a new
approach to multi-storey steel-framed buildings. 2nd ed. SCI
Publication P288. Ascot: The Steel Construction Institute; 2006.
[12] Bailey CG. Membrane action of unrestrained lightly reinforced
concrete slabs at large displacements. Eng Struct 2001;23(5):470–83.
[13] Bailey CG, White DS, Moore DB. The tensile membrane action of
unrestrained composite slabs simulated under fire conditions. Eng
Struct 2000;22(12):1583–95.
[14] Wood RH. Plastic and elastic design of slabs and plates, with
particular reference to reinforced concrete floor slabs. London:
Thames and Hudson; 1961.