Eurocode 3 および耐火性能検証法における鋼梁の限界部材

温度算定式の精度に関する検討
レ ハイ エン（理科大国際火災） 佐野 晃（理科大国際火災） 河野 守（理科大国際火災）
Examination of the accuracy of critical member temperature calculation formulae for steel beams in Eurocode 3 and FRVM
Le Hai Yen, Akira Sano, Mamoru Kohno

1. Introduction sections are divided into 4 layers with the average mesh size of
The steel structure is applied widely in the construction field 5 mm. The mechanical and thermal properties of steel grade
because of its deniable advantages. Along with the strong points SN400 [3], ALC slab [3], and rock wool protection [4] were input
of steel structure, its negative aspect is poor fire resistance. in Abaqus simulations. The heating curve followed the ISO-834
According to Eurocode 3 [1] and the Fire Resistance Verification standard fire curve [5]. Deflection criteria is determined by
𝑙2
Method (FRVM) [2], regulations for designing the capacity of ẟ= = 100 mm for the beams (l: length of the beam, d: depth
400𝑑
steel structures at elevated temperatures are enacted. The rules of the beam’s cross-section). The retained fire-resistance time
for designing the beam capacity of these two approaches have of the beam will be determined when its deflection reaches the
certain differences. Along with that, results extracted from value ẟ=100 mm. After that, the temperature of steel
beam model analyses by Abaqus will be used for comparison corresponding to the retained fire-resistance time is considered
with the above approaches to assess the safety level in the critical temperature. The temperature development of each
designing critical temperatures in Eurocode 3 and FRVM. position in a cross-section is different, therefore 4
representative positions on the surface of steel are used for
2. The procedure for determing the critical temperature estimating the critical temperature of the steel beam as shown
In FRVM, the TBcr is the maximum temperature stipulated in Figure 2. The temperature calculated by an average of 4
according to the high-temperature strength of the beam, which points is considered as the average critical temperature Tcr,ave
has the resemble idea with critical temperature determined in and the critical temperature of position 2 - middle of the web is
Eurocode 3. Therefore, TBcr in FRVM is used for comparison considered as the maximum critical temperature Tcr,max.
with 𝞱cr in Eurocode and results in Abaqus as the following part.
4. Calculation results
Abaqus is a finite element method (FEM) software that can
analyze structural behavior at elevated temperatures. Abaqus The critical temperatures calculated by Eurocode 3 and
results are appreciated as reliable with the experiment results by FRVM are summarized in Table 1.
many researchers. In this paper, Abaqus results were used as It is obvious that while the load ratio decrease from 0.64 to
reference data for comparison with the results by Eurocode 3 0.5 and 0.32, the critical temperature 𝜽Cr following FRVM are
and FRVM to point out the level of safety in designing beam the lowest compared to Eurocode 3 and Abaqus results for all
capacity at elevated temperatures in Eurocode 3 and FRVM. load ratio cases.
The detail procedure of each approach are shown in the For each case of load ratio, critical temperature 𝜽Cr
Figure 1. following Eurocode 3 is not dependent on the boundary
conditions of the beam. Meanwhile, the critical temperature by
Abaqus and FRVM of the restrained beam are always higher
3. Analysis models than the beams with simply supported conditions.
The cross-section of the steel beam used for calculation is Compared with the maximum critical temperature Tcr,max by
H-400x200x8x13 conforming to JIS A 1304. The steel grade is Abaqus, the critical temperature of the S-D beam following
SN400 [3], the fire protection is made of rock wool [4] with a Eurocode 3 𝜽Cr is mostly similar except for the case of a ratio
thickness of 20 mm. The slab above is an 80 mm thickness ALC equal to 0.32 when the Eurocode’s results 𝜽Cr is slightly lower
[3]
panel, a width of 1,000 mm attached along the beams with no than that for Tcr,max. Meanwhile, for the S-C beam and the R-D
function in terms of structural bearing. The length of the beam beam, the Tcr,max is nearly 10% higher than that of 𝜽Cr in
is 4,000 mm with two types of boundary conditions including Eurocode 3 for most of the cases. In addition, the Tcr,max is much
simply supported (S) and restrained (R). Distinguishing higher than the TBcr in FRVM, even 61% higher for the case of
designed forces are applied for these beams which contain the R-D beam with a ratio of 0.32 and 51% higher for the S-C
distributed load (-D) and concentrated force (-C). Three typical beam with the biggest ratio of 0.64.
load ratios of the design moment (𝑀𝐷0 ) to the resistant moment The average critical temperature Tcr,ave by Abaqus for all the
(𝑀𝑅0 ) at the room temperature are used, which include ratios of beams is about 15% to 30% higher on average than the results
approximately 0.64, 0.5 and 0.32. TBcr in FRVM, especially it is 49% higher in the case of R-D
In Abaqus, a solid element, C3D8T, is used for modeling with ratio 0.32. The average critical temperature Tcr,ave by
steel beam, slab and protection. Both steel and protection Abaqus can be higher or lower than the results in Eurocode 3
 Table 1 Critical temperature results

Load Critical temperature (ᵒC)

Ratio S-D S-C R-D
𝜽Cr (Eurocode) 638 638 638
TBcr (FRVM) 458 460 518
0.64
Tcr,max (Abaqus) 638 695 709
a) Eurocode 3 b) FRVM c) FEM analysis
Figure 1 Procedure for determining the critical temperature Tcr,ave (Abaqus) 560 618 633
𝜽Cr (Eurocode) 676 676 676
TBcr (FRVM) 512 510 558
0.5
Tcr,max (Abaqus) 677 722 749
Tcr,ave (Abaqus) 599 650 688
𝜽Cr (Eurocode) 744 744 744
TBcr (FRVM) 580 581 611
0.32
a) Cross-section of beam b) Representative positions Tcr,max (Abaqus) 732 846 983
Figure 2 Cross-section of beam and representative positions Tcr,ave (Abaqus) 666 765 911

depending on different beam types and load ratios. Tcr,ave of

S-D beam is around 10% lower than that of Eurocode 3, while
Tcr,ave of S-C beams and R-D beams does not have a constant
tendency when compared with Eurocode 3.

5. Conclusion
The critical temperature in FRVM are safer than that in
Eurocode 3 and also in the Abaqus simulation. The maximum
a) S-D beam a) Load ratio 0.64 critical temperature by Abaqus Tcr,max is observed as the most
similar to the critical temperature in Eurocode 3. However, for
a more accurate assessment of the accuracy of formulae to
calculate critical temperature in Eurocode 3 and FRVM, more
models with different sections and constraints need to be carried
out in the future.

References
[1] EN 1993-1-2 (2005): Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part
b) Load ratio 0.5 1-2: General rules – Structural fire design.
b) S-C beam
[2] Notification No.1433, Ministry of Construction/ May 31,2000. (in
Japanese)
[3] High temperature behavior of H-shaped steel beam with circular
openings in web (Part 2): Reproduction of experiments by finite
element analysis and analysis of fire resistance under various
conditions, Unggi YOON, 2021. (in Japanese)
[4] Guide Book for Fire-Resistive Performance of Structural Materials,
2017, Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ). (in Japanese)
[5] ISO 834-8, Fire Resistance Tests – Elements of Building
Construction, International Organization for Standardization,
Geneva, 1999.
c) R-D beam c) Load Ratio 0.32

Figure 3 Deflection of beam Figure 4 Temperature

development in cross-section