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
The steel structure is applied widely in the construction field
with almost construction types because of its deniable
advantages. Along with the strong points of steel structure, its
negative aspect is poor fire resistance. According to Eurocode
3 [1] and the Fire Resistance Verification Method (FRVM) [2],
regulations for designing the capacity of steel structures at
elevated temperatures are enacted. The rules for designing the
beam capacity of these two approaches have certain differences,
especially the critical temperature will be clarified. Along with
that, results extracted from beam models in Abaqus will be
used for comparison with the above approaches, safety level in
designing critical temperatures in Eurocode 3 and FRVM will
be assessed.
2. The procedure for determing the critical temperature
a) Eurocode 3 b) FRVM c) FEM analysis
Figure 1 Procedure for determining the critical temperature
In FRVM, the TBcr is the maximum temperature stipulated
according to the high-temperature strength of the beam, which
has the resemble idea with critical temperature determined in
Eurocode 3. Therefore, TBcr in FRVM is used for comparison
with 𝞱cr in Eurocode and results in Abaqus as the following part.
Abaqus is a finite element method (FEM) software that can
analyze structural behavior at elevated temperatures. Abaqus
results are appreciated as reliable with the experiment results
by many researchers. In my research, Abaqus results were used
as trustworthy data for comparison with rules following
Eurocode 3 and FRVM to point out the level of safety in
designing beam capacity at elevated temperatures in Eurocode
3 and FRVM.
3. Analysis models
The cross-section of the steel beam used for calculation is
H400x200x8x13 conforming to JIS A 1304. The steel grade is
SN400 [3], the fire protection is made of rock wool [4] with a
thickness of 20 mm. The slab above is an 80mm thickness
ALC [3] panel, a width of 1,000 mm attached along the beams
with no function in terms of structural bearing. The beam’s
length is 4,000 mm with two types of boundary conditions
including simply supported beam (S) and restrained beam (R).
Distinguishing designed forces are applied for these beams
which contain distributed load (-D) and concentrated force (-
C). Designing three typical load ratios calculated by the design
moment (𝑀𝐷0 ) and the resistant moment (𝑀𝑅0 ) at the room
temperature, which include ratios approximately 0.64, 0.5 and
0.32.
Following the procedure and equations in Eurocode 3 and
FRVM, the critical temperature results are synthesized in the
Table 1.
In Abaqus, models are conducted for all these aforementioned
beams. Solid elements are used for designing steel, slab and
protection along with the C3D8T type. Dividing 4 layers for
both steel and protection section with the average mesh size of
5 mm. The mechanical and thermal properties of steel grade
SN400, ALC slab, and rock wool protection were input in
Abaqus simulation. The heating curve followed the ISO-834
standard fire curve [5]. Deflection criteria for the thermal part
𝑙2
following Standard ISO-834 is determined by ẟ= = 100
400𝑑
mm for these mentioned beams (l: length of the beam, d: depth
of the beam’s cross-section). The retained fire-resistance time
of the beam will be determined when its deflection reaches the
value ẟ=100mm. After that, the temperature of steel
corresponding to the retained fire-resistance time is considered
the critical temperature. The temperature development of each
position in a cross-section is different, therefore 4
representative positions on the surface of steel as below are
used for estimating the critical temperature of the steel beam.
In addition, the temperature calculated by an average of 4
points is considered as the average critical temperature T cr,ave
and the critical temperature of position 2 - middle of the web is
considered as the maximum critical temperature T cr,max.
a) Cross-section of beam b) Representative positions
Figure 2 Cross-section of beam and representative positions
4. Calculation results TBcr following FRVM and critical temperatures in Abaqus
witnessed growth up trends. Generally, the critical
temperatures following FRVM are the lowest compared to
Eurocode 3 and Abaqus results with every load ratio value.
For each case of load ratio, critical temperature 𝜽Cr following
Eurocode 3 is not dependent on the boundary conditions of the
beam. Meanwhile, extracted results from Abaqus and
TBcr results following FRVM of the restrained beam are always
a) S-D beam a) Load ratio 0.64 higher than remained beams with simply supported conditions.
Compared with the maximum critical temperature T cr,max by
Abaqus, the critical temperature of the S-D beam following
Eurocode 3 𝜽Cr is mostly similar except for the case of a ratio
equal to 0.32 when the Eurocode’s results 𝜽Cr is slightly lower
than that for Tcr,max. Meanwhile, for the S-C beam and the R-D
beam, the Tcr,max is nearly 10% higher than that of 𝜽Cr in
Eurocode for most of the cases. In addition, the Tcr,max is
extremely higher than the results TBcr in FRVM with tens of
percent, even 61% higher for the case of the R-D beam with a
ratio of 0.32 and 51% higher for the S-C beam with the biggest
b) C-D beam b) Load ratio 0.5 ratio of 0.64.
The average critical temperature Tcr,ave by Abaqus for all the
beams is about 15% to 30% higher on average than the results
TBcr in FRVM, especially reach to 49% in the case of R-D with
ratio 0.32. Opposite, this average critical temperature Tcr,ave by
Abaqus can be higher or lower than Eurocode 3 results
depending on different beam types and load ratios. In detail, the
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
c) Load Ratio 0.32 constant tendency when comparing with Eurocode 3.
c)R-D beam
5. Conclusion
Figure 3 Deflection of beam Figure 4 Temperature Regulations for determining the critical temperature in FRVM
development in cross-section are safer than that in Eurocode 3 and also in the Abaqus
simulation. The maximum critical temperature by Abaqus
Table 1 Critical temperature result Tcr,max is observed as the most similar to the rules for designing
Load Critical temperature (ᵒC) critical temperature in Eurocode 3. However, for a more
Ratio S-D S-C R-D accurate assessment of regulations in designing critical
𝜽Cr (Eurocode) 638 638 638 temperature in Eurocode 3 and FRVM, more models with
TBcr (FRVM) 458 460 518 alternative elements and other constraints will be carried out in
0.64 the future.
Tcr,max (Abaqus) 638 695 709
Tcr,ave (Abaqus) 560 618 633 References
𝜽Cr (Eurocode) 676 676 676 [1] EN 1993-1-2 (2005): Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures – Part
TBcr (FRVM) 512 510 558 1-2: General rules – Structural fire design.
0.5 [2] Notification No.1433, Ministry of Construction/ May 31,2000.
Tcr,max (Abaqus) 677 722 749
[3] High temperature behavior of H-shaped steel beam with circular
Tcr,ave (Abaqus) 599 650 688 openings in web (Part 2): Reproduction of experiments by finite
𝜽Cr (Eurocode) 744 744 744 element analysis and analysis of fire resistance under various
conditions, Unggi YOON, 2021.
TBcr (FRVM) 580 581 611
0.32 [4] Guide Book for Fire-Resistive Performance of Structural Materials,
Tcr,max (Abaqus) 732 846 983 2017, Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ).
Tcr,ave (Abaqus) 666 765 911 [5] ISO 834-8, Fire Resistance Tests – Elements of Building
Construction, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva,
1999.
It is obvious that while the load ratio decrease from 0.64 to 0.5
and 0.32, the critical temperature 𝜽Cr following Eurocode 3,