Fire Safety Journal 68 (2014) 81–99

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fire Safety Journal

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/firesaf

Review and analysis of fire resistance tests of timber members

in bending, tension and compression with respect to the Reduced
Cross-Section Method
Joachim Schmid n, Michael Klippel, Alar Just, Andrea Frangi
SP, Technical Research Institute of Sweden, SP Wood Technology, Box 5609, 114 86 Stockholm, Sweden

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The Reduced Cross-Section Method (RCSM) provides a popular method for the design of timber members
Received 13 August 2013 exposed to fire, using an effective cross-section and mechanical properties at normal temperature. The RCSM
Received in revised form was adopted from a single publication and was originally developed for single-span beams exposed to bending
6 May 2014
load. It has been introduced in Eurocode 5 for a large range of timber members, including columns under
Accepted 11 May 2014
Available online 4 July 2014
compression and members under tension. Recently, the applicability of the method and its extended
applications were called into question on the basis of limitations and contradictions found by advanced
Keywords: simulations. This paper analyses a total of 153 fire resistance tests (117 members in bending, six members in
Fire design model compression and 30 members in tension) with respect to the RCSM. The analysis shows that (i) most of the
Reduced Cross-Section Method
references are of too poor quality, or are incomplete, to validate a design model, (ii) results with adequate
Timber
information content showed a significant deviation from the RCSM, and (iii) that the RCSM may lead to a non-
Standard fire
Fire resistance conservative design. For members in tension, results fit well with the RCSM, while significant deviations were
Fire testing found for members in compression. Members in bending show very large scatter. It is therefore recommended
that the existing design approach in Eurocode 5 should be revised in order to include the results of advanced
calculations and appropriate tests.
& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction plaster boards), with a residual cross-section being determined

As for any other building elements, the fire resistance of timber
members has to be verified. While calculation methods provide a
fast and cheap means of evaluating the load-bearing resistance of
timber members, fire tests are time-consuming and costly. In the
field of timber engineering, tools for advanced calculations for
verification of fire resistance are rare, and simplified models are
preferred by engineers. In general, simulations of the fire perfor-
mance of timber members use effective material properties to
include effects such as cracks and degradation of the char layer, as
well as mass flow in the timber member [1]. For the design of
timber members exposed to standard fire, the Reduced Cross-
Section Method (RCSM), as specified in EN 1995-1-2 [2], provides a
popular design method using an effective cross-section and
mechanical properties at normal temperature to perform a simple
member analysis. This procedure is a two-step approach.
In a first step, the original cross-section is reduced depending
on the time of fire exposure corresponding to the requirement
and, if present, taking into account a protection system (e.g.
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 46 105166260.
E-mail address: joachim.schmid@sp.se (J. Schmid).
by means of appropriate charring rates.
In addition to the one-dimensional charring depth (dchar,0),
Ref. [2] specifies a notional charring depth (dchar,n) that includes
consideration of the effect of corner roundings which appears in
two-dimensional fire exposures. The one-dimensional charring
depth and the notional charring depth are shown in Fig. 1.
The notional charring rate βn is slightly higher than the one-
dimensional charring rate β0, and is intended for simplification of
verification of the fire resistance of timber members. The notional
charring rate compensates the losses in the section modulus of the
rounded residual cross-section. According to Ref. [2], the influence
of roundings must be considered for cross-sections with a mini-
mum width defined by
bmin ¼ 2dchar;0 þ80 ð1Þ
where bmin is the minimum cross-section width in mm.
Eq. (1) was introduced to consider the effect of overlaying heat from
two sides, and considers a heated depth of 40 mm below the char line.
In the second step of the RCSM, the residual cross-section is
reduced further by what is known as a zero-strength layer to
consider the losses in strength and stiffness of the residual cross-
section; an effective cross-section is determined (see Fig. 1(b)).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2014.05.006
0379-7112/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
82 J. Schmid et al. / Fire Safety Journal 68 (2014) 81–99

Fig. 1. One-dimensional charring depth dchar,0 of an infinitely wide member (a) and a beam exposed to fire on three sides (b). The residual cross-section (2) in (b) has the
same section modulus as the rectangular cross-section 3 in (b) determined by the notional charring depth dchar,n. Key: 1, original cross-section; 2, residual cross-section;
3, notional cross-section; 4, effective cross-section; h, original cross-section depth; hresidual, residual cross-section depth; b, original cross-section width;
dchar,0, one-dimensional charring depth; dchar,n, notional charring depth; d0, zero-strength layer.

The RCSM implemented in EN 1995-1-2 [2] can be used for any

verification of the load-bearing capacity of a timber member in a fire
situation, e.g. bending, buckling or lateral torsional buckling. Although
no limitations are given on the use of the RCSM, and not explicitly
stated, it is assumed that any verification calculation described in EN
1995-1-1 [3] can be done using the effective cross-section. The RCSM
was originally proposed in [4] for simply-supported glued-laminated
(glulam) beams. For its implementation in EN 1995-1-2 [2], the
method was further simplified and its use extended to other members,
e.g. members in tension and compression. Recently, this RCSM
specifying a general zero-strength layer of 7 mm was discussed in
some papers [1,5,6], in which a comparison of simulation results with
the RCSM was presented. These simulation results showed that the
RCSM seems to be appropriate for members in tension while it leads
to non-conservative solutions for members in compression (see Fig. 2).
For members in bending, the zero-strength layer varies sig-
nificantly depending on the geometry, the availability of protec-
tion cladding and the time of fire exposure [1,5]. Performed
simulations used effective material properties for timber, as given
for strength and stiffness in [2]. Since they were determined by Fig. 2. Determined zero-strength layer d0 for initially unprotected, squared timber
members in compression and tension, with dimensions a  a [5].
means of fire tests on nearly defect-free narrow timber beams
(width 45 mm) to allow reliable prediction [7], criticism arose that
the reported material properties are conservative for larger mem-
bers. Further, it was stated that the RCSM proposed in [4] was For determination of the zero-strength layer, results of large-
verified by means of comparison calculations with national stan- scale tests and design principles as given in EN 1995-1-1 [3] were
dards available in the drafting period of EN 1995-1-2 [2]. However, used, assuming mechanical properties at normal temperature and
no background document on verification of today's RCSM with a using effective cross-sections as intended by the procedure of the
general, constant zero-strength layer for all timber members is RCSM. Section 2 describes classification of the data and explains
available. extension of the data sets. Section 3 summarises the different fire
The aim of this paper is to compare the RCSM specified in EN 1995- test series, with discussion of results in Section 4.
1-2 [2] with actual fire test results. Test results presented here range
from fire tests in the 1960s to tests performed in 2013. This paper
compares fire test results in terms of the determined zero-strength 2. Suitability and classification of references and fire test data
layer d0. Fire tests for members in compression, bending (single-span
beams) and tension were investigated. Since the main design proce- Although the focus of this paper is on analysis of European test
dure in EN 1995-1-2 [2] is based on the ISO standard fire test [8,9], reports which were used to develop national codes in Europe,
only fire tests following the standard time–temperature fire curve non-European test reports have also been included in this paper in
were evaluated in this study. In general, analysis of fire tests is order to increase the body of data available. Before the available
complex since the references give only limited information regarding literature was analysed, reports and papers had been classified as
the material tested. Where information is lacking, the fire tests were primary or secondary. Secondary references were considered as
further analysed in this investigation but evaluated separately. For the such when test reports were used to determine or improve a
determination of all results, mean values were used and no safety design method instead of reporting test results. Primary references
factors were included in the analysis. give details of conducted tests, but do not contain necessary
 J. Schmid et al. / Fire Safety Journal 68 (2014) 81–99
design recommendations and design rules. Only primary refer-
ences are included in this paper.
2.1. Suitability of the references
The suitability of the references was evaluated before analysing
the data. Although very ambitious and costly, some test series are
useless for further analysis with respect to assessment of the RCSM
and determination of the zero-strength layer respectively, since
serious mistakes and wrong assumptions were made. Sometimes
the results of such studies are misinterpreted to prove agreement
with today's calculation methods. Although these references were
summarised, and errors highlighted, in order to point out the
unsuitability of the references with respect to the RCSM and to
identify the mistakes which can be avoided in future test series,
the data from these references was not further analysed. In some
references, the design load is mentioned as the test load. However,
since the design load depends on regulations on one hand and on
the safety philosophy on the other hand, this information is not
sufficient for further evaluation; especially when the load calcula-
tion was not available. If it was not possible to determine the
actual load used in the specific fire test, the test was considered as
unsuitable.
2.2. Classification of the test data
When a reference was found to be suitable for further analysis,
the reported data sets were classified as (i) certain data, (ii)
uncertain data and (iii) very uncertain data, depending on the
availability of fire test details and the characterisation of the
materials tested.
To classify the references, the test characteristics reported as
data sets were evaluated in terms of the feasibility of performing
backwards calculation of a corresponding zero-strength layer. The
requirements to consider a data set as complete, and the calcu-
lated results for the zero-strength layer as certain, call for the
following test details in the references – standard fire exposure
during loaded tests with well-defined support conditions, docu-
mentation of the failure time and failure mode, appropriate
definition of the timber to allow a correct determination of the
load-bearing capacity, adequate initial moisture content (MC) of
the timber member before the fire test and documentation of the
residual cross-section by means of appropriate measurements.
These requirements are specified in Sections 2.2.1–2.2.6 of this
paper. Table 1 provides an overview of the requirements and also
shows whether deviations (non-compulsory requirements) have
been accepted for further analysis in this paper.
Only determined values for the zero-strength layer based on
data sets fulfilling all the compulsory requirements are classified
as certain. If one compulsory requirement is not fulfilled, the result
is classified as uncertain. If more than one compulsory require-
ment is not fulfilled, the result is classed as very uncertain.
Table 1
Overview of compulsory and non-compulsory requirements for classification of the data sets as certain.
Standard fire Plate Testing
Thermometer until failure
Compulsory
Non-compulsory
Details Section 2.2.1
83
2.2.1. Fire exposure
For comparison reasons, only references using standard fire
exposure were analysed. Different furnace control devices used in
the references (tube thermocouples, plate thermometers) may
affect the overall thermal exposure of structural members. The
plate thermometer [9] was introduced in Europe to normalise
the fire exposure of different furnaces. When controlling the fire
exposure with thermocouples as in previous European standards,
several parameters – such as the furnace geometry and wall lining
– will influence the thermal exposure. The large area of the plate
thermometer, as well as its position in front of the test specimen,
makes it possible to measure the same radiant flux to which the
specimen is exposed [10]. Other ways of calibrating furnaces are
mentioned in literature, e.g. calibrating specimens or using a fuel
which yields combustion products of higher absorption coeffi-
cients [10]. No studies are available to quantify the effect of
different temperature measurement devices or fuel types on the
load-bearing capacity of timber members. Today's regulations in
Europe require standard tests to use the plate thermometer; no
particular type of fuel is specified [9].
2.2.2. Fire test conditions
To be evaluated as a Certain result, the fire tests have to have
been performed under loading, and the load has to have been
defined in the reference. Well-defined support conditions (stati-
cally defined) are needed in order to determine the effect of the
load, e.g. maximum bending moment. References are evaluated in
respect of the documentation of support conditions in the fire
tests. In general, older references provide poor documentation of
the support conditions, e.g. fire-resistant bricks were used as
supports, preventing free rotation and horizontal movement. Even
newer references simply describe support as being on ‘frames’,
without further details, and with the degrees of freedom remain-
ing undefined. Contrary to steel members, timber members will
not exhibit thermally induced axially forces when exposed to fire
[11], and so the requirement of well-defined support conditions
using supports which allow horizontal movement and unhindered
rotation are not regarded as compulsory in this study.
2.2.3. Failure and failure mode
The failure must occur in the fire situation (failure in hot
condition). In some tests, timber members were exposed to fire,
extinguished, moved to testing equipment, and subsequently
loaded until failure. Loading procedures which permit the timber
member to cool down in an uncontrolled manner at its surface,
allowing a mass flow of moisture distribution in the cross-section,
lead to results which are not certain. The determined zero-
strength layer was assigned to the actual failure mode, i.e. if shear
failure caused the failure of the tested member, it is assumed that
the determined zero-strength layer is appropriate to describe the
shear capacity.
Failure in hot Well-defined Definition of Initial EMC Report of the
condition support the material residual cross-section
conditions tested
Section 2.2.2 Section 2.2.4 Section 2.2.5 Section 2.2.6
84 J. Schmid et al. / Fire Safety Journal 68 (2014) 81–99

2.2.4. Definition of the material
It is self-evident that the timber quality of members tested in
fire has a large influence on the load-bearing capacity in fire.
However, in many references, very little effort was made to
characterise the material properties. Today, timber is graded in
Europe in strength classes depending on the bending strength at
normal temperature [12,13]. However, the graded strength classes
represent 5% fractile values. Considering the large natural scatter
of the material it is very unlikely that the material tested in fire
equals this fractile value. An acceptable method of determining the
material properties is to perform reference tests at normal
temperature – they are considered as sufficient if destructive tests
are also conducted with the material from the same batch. These
tests must be performed in accordance with the intended failure
mode in the fire tests, i.e. bending, compression or tension.
The lack of investigation of the material properties, and the
poor prediction methods used by many authors in the references,
lead to significantly high uncertainties in the conclusions regard-
ing the load-bearing capacity and subsequently in the zero-
strength layer results based on these tests. Any underestimation
of the strength at normal temperature leads obviously to unac-
ceptable general conclusions and to unusable data for the devel-
opment of any calculation method. Results in this paper showing
negative values for the zero-strength layer imply either (i) a
contribution of the char layer to the load-bearing capacity, (ii) an
improvement in strengths of the heated cross-section or (iii) an
underestimation of the strengths at normal temperature. Since
(i) and (ii) can be excluded, the error source is the limited effort
describing the material tested in the fire situation.
2.2.5. Moisture content of the material
The moisture content (MC) of timber exposed to fire has a
significant effect on the charring rate [14,15]. Standard fire testing
usually requires conditioning of the specimens to 23 1C, 50%
relative humidity [9], which corresponds to an equilibrium moist-
ure content (EMC) in wood of about 9%. Standard testing of timber
to determine material properties at normal conditions requires
testing with a reference EMC of 12% [16].
the charring rate is linear. However, difficulties appear when the
reference does not specify whether the corner roundings are taken
into account or were neglected.
2.3. Extension of the data sets
Only a small number of data sets in the investigated references
fulfil the obligatory requirements specified in Table 1. To extend
the incomplete data sets, different procedures were used to allow
further analysis of the test reports. The procedures are described in
Sections 2.3.1–2.3.5 of this paper.
2.3.1. Fire exposure
References summarised in Section 3 use different curves of
standard fire exposures. However, the differences are limited, as
most of the tests lasted less than 60 min (see Fig. 3).
Only two references investigated in this paper [17,22] used
plate thermometers to control the furnace. Since no information is
available on possible effects of the controlling device or the fuel on
the load-bearing capacity, any control of the testing equipment
was accepted as long as it was in accordance with a specified
standard. To allow future investigations, the fuel type as well as
the use of the plate thermometer in the references is mentioned,
but not further considered in this study. Further, it is assumed that
deviation from the pressurisation of the furnace compartment as
specified in [9] has no impact on the timber members tested.
2.3.2. Fire test conditions
Based on advanced calculations as given in [2], it was assumed
that the zero-strength layer may be different for different loading
modes, e.g. bending, compression or tension. When the reported
failure mode was not in agreement with the intended failure
mode, i.e. corresponding to the actual testing method failure in
bending, tension or compression, the zero-strength layer was
further determined, but evaluated as Not Certain. In this case, it
can be assumed that the zero-strength layer corresponding to the
intended failure mode is equal to or lower than the observed
value, i.e. the determined zero-strength layer is conservative.

2.3.3. Definition of the material

2.2.6. Definition of the residual cross-section
To determine the zero-strength layer data used in the RCSM,
The residual cross-section is very important information for the
data for the prediction of material strength of specimens tested
calculation of the load-bearing capacity of timber in general and
have to be available. Reference tests at normal temperature
assessment of the zero-strength layer in particular. However,
are considered as a reliable method for the prediction of the
available references give limited information on the determination
of the charring depth and the charring rate. When a fire test is
terminated the furnace is normally turned off, the specimen
removed from the furnace and subsequently extinguished. This
procedure must be as short as possible, since the charring
behaviour in this uncontrolled phase before determination of the
residual cross-section cannot be estimated. Experience from fire
tests shows that flaming at the timber surface stops when the
furnace is turned off, but other effects have not been investigated.
While model-scale tests deliver short times from the end of the
test (e.g. failure of the member) until extinguishing of up to 90 s,
extinguishing of full-scale tests may take up to 15 min or longer
depending on the test equipment. To deal with scatter of the
charring depth, it would be good practice to document deviation
from the mean values instead of reporting only the mean value.
This is a lack in test reports, which seldom give details of
the numbers of measurements or their positions. While some
researchers report in detail the number of measurements as well
as the location, e.g. [17], other reports contain no information.
The residual cross-section was calculated from the reported
charring depth or the charring rate in order to calculate the zero- Fig. 3. Furnace temperatures of different fire exposures evaluated in this paper
strength layer. Based on literature [14,18,19] it was assumed that [9,20,21].
 J. Schmid et al. / Fire Safety Journal 68 (2014) 81–99 85

load-bearing capacity of the specimens. If no reference tests at

normal temperature were reported, the fire test results were used
to give an indication of the corresponding zero-strength layer,
unless the results were treated as Not Certain.
Depending on the reported material characterisation, prefer-
ably correlations with Young's Modulus (MOE) were used to
estimate the timber strength. When the density was reported,
although less accurate, the density of the specific beam was used
to estimate the strength of the member. When only the timber
grade was reported, a mean bending strength was estimated to
produce indicative results.
Estimation of the bending strength based on the MOE is con-
sidered as a suitable procedure for timber beams which is used
(among other properties) for the grading of timber [23–25]. To
estimate the actual bending strength and the ultimate load-bearing
resistance at normal temperature based on measured MOE or the
density, the Joint Committee of Structural Safety Probabilistic Model
Code [26] and material relationships specified for solid timber in EN
338 [12] and for glulam timber in EN 1194 [13] were used.
Fig. 4. Relationships between MOE and mean bending strength of solid and glulam
In general, the design and assessment of structural components
timber according to EN 338 [12] and EN 1994 [27], determined by JCSS [26].
involve decision problems due to a combination of inherent,
modelling and statistical uncertainties. The Joint Committee of
Structural Safety (JCSS) has therefore recently developed a prob-
abilistic model code for timber properties for structural design
[26]. This model code summarises recent developments in the area
of structural reliability and presents probabilistic models for the
structural response and for loads to quantify uncertainties and to
make consistent decisions. The JCSS model code presents general
guidelines for uncertainty modelling, reliability assessment and
probabilistic models for loads and material resistance for building
materials as concrete, steel and timber. For timber strength, basic
reference properties and parameters are described in the model
code, and were used in this paper.
For the extension of data sets, to estimate the mean strength
characteristics of the tested members, the correlations between
the mean and characteristic values specified in standards for solid
and glulam timber [12,13] were used, as shown in Table 2.
Fig. 4 shows the relationship between mean MOE and mean
bending strength, for prediction of the mean bending strengths,
while Fig. 5 shows the relationship between mean density and
mean bending strength.
Density, as a single parameter, is a poor prediction method
Fig. 5. Relationships between the mean density and the mean bending strength of solid
for timber strength in bending. If the density alone is used to and glulam timber according to EN 338 [12] and EN 1194 [27], determined by JCSS [26].
estimate the strength of the timber member, results of the analysis
represent an indication of the zero-strength layer. However,
results are documented here since these test results might be some timber species and specimens with limited defects was
used to verify the general and constant zero-strength layer, developed by Thunell [28]; see Eq. (2). When no reference tests
d0 ¼7 mm, when EN 1995-1-2 [2] was drafted. Variation of the are available in the investigated reference, the density of members
zero-strength layer based on a variation of the bending strength tested in compression is considered as a sufficient parameter.
by 7 15% was determined when only the density of timber
f c ¼ 0; 144ρ0;12  9 ð2Þ
members is reported, and further used to estimate the bending
strength for calculation of the zero-strength layer. The value of where fc is the compression strength at normal temperature in
715% is specified by JCSS as the coefficient of variation (COV) of N/mm2, and ρ0,12 is the dry density in kg/m3.
the bending strength of glulam timber members.
Density it is more suitable for evaluating compression strength.
2.3.4. Moisture content of the material
A relationship between density and compression strength for
At normal temperature, procedures are given in [16] to convert
other EMCs to 12% EMC. However, no such procedures are given
Table 2 for a fire situation. Due to the lack of procedures, zero-strength
Ratio of mean and characteristic value (5% fractile value) for different material layers determined by fire tests with timber members showing an
characteristics as specified in [9]. EMC of 3 percentage points lower or higher than the accepted
Bending strength Density MOE (bending)
value of 9–12% EMC were rated as Not Certain in this study.

Solid timber 1.55 n.u. n.u.

Glulam timber 1.29 1.20 1.25
2.3.5. Determination of the residual cross-section
Although of high importance for timber members, limited
n.u. – Not used. information on the charring depth is given in many references.
86 J. Schmid et al. / Fire Safety Journal 68 (2014) 81–99
Very limited information on the determination and measurement
techniques of the charring rate is given. It is assumed that the
reported values represent the mean values observed after the fire
tests, but only one reference contains more information on the
number of measurements used to specify the charring depth and
the residual cross-section [17]. Ideally, the residual cross-section
was documented using images as well as a scale to follow the
reported data.
Assuming too large a residual cross-section and thus too low a
charring-rate to determine the residual cross-section would result
in a higher value for the zero-strength layer. Contrary, assuming
too small a residual cross-section would result in a lower zero-
strength layer thickness.
The residual cross-section at failure of the timber beam was
calculated either by means of the specific reported charring rates,
available images or using EN 1995-1-2 [2]. When the reported
charring rates deviated significantly from charring rates specified
in [2], the zero-strength layer was determined with values of the
standard for comparison purposes. In this case, a notional charring
rate of 0.7 mm/min, considering corner roundings and assuming a
rectangular residual cross-section, was used.
3. Fire tests results and analysis
Analysed reports are given in Table 3 specifying the test pro-
gramme, standard and parameters as well as the number of per-
formed tests. Test details are given in Table 4 in addition to report
summaries in Sections 3.1–3.11. Summaries are needed, since the
testing procedures vary significantly which makes it impossible to
compare all details in tables. Further, many of the references are
literature published in languages other than English.
In this section, fire test results of various sources are reported
and further analysed if the quantity of reported details is regarded
to be suitable. Tests performed in full-scale furnaces in accordance
with different testing standards are indicated as large-scale tests.
Most of the references reported fire resistance tests using full-scale
furnaces, but in some cases test furnaces of less than full scale
were used in order to increase the quantity of data available.
The analyses aimed at determination of the zero-strength layer
with by the RCSM as given in EN 1995-1-2 [2].
3.1. Tenning (1961) [29]
The author presents some results of a Swedish test programme
comprising five fire tests with glulam timber beams of unknown
material. Tests were intended to investigate a reported collapse of
a hanger with glulam beams which failed due to a smouldering
fire. All beams were produced using either casein glue or Casco-
sinol. The tested beams were instrumented with thermocouples at
different depths and tested for between 30 and 105 min. All beams
were exposed to a standard fire, and the report gives details of the
fire curve and temperatures inside the beams. Only one test was
loaded with dead weights, but without further details. No influ-
ence of the adhesive (‘melting’ [29]) was observed on the overall
fire performance of the beams during or after the test. The residual
cross-section of a non-loaded test is reported. The test was not
further analysed due to the lack of basic test details such as load
and material definition.
3.2. Dorn et al. (I), 1961 [30]
The DIN 4102 [40] fire exposures were 30 min (16 tests) and
60 min (two tests). Before the fire tests, the MOE of the beams was
determined and the EMC measured. Limited preheating of the
furnace was done to follow the required temperature curve. Four
test series with five different cross-sections and four different
types of adhesives were tested. During the tests, temperatures
were measured in the four-sided exposed beams. After the
unloaded fire tests, the fire was extinguished using water or
nitrogen and the beams were loaded in bending until failure at
about 90–120 min after the end of the fire test. Subsequently, the
geometry and the EMC of the residual cross-section were deter-
mined. No influence of the adhesive on the load-bearing resistance
was observed. The tests were not evaluated further in this study
since the long delay between the end of the test and the
determination of the bending resistance might have influenced
the results considerably.
3.3. Hall, 1968 [32]
The author performed one fire test on four glulam timber
beams placed parallel to each other. The beams were simply
supported (3650 mm span) and subjected to a constant bending
moment achieved by weights. The actual timber grading uses a
Knot Area Ratio (KAR) limiting the maximum allowed knot area to
20%. The maximum allowed design stress for the actual test
specimens is specified to 24.8 N/mm2 with respect to the fire
situation. For further calculation from this paper, it is assumed that
the glulam beam was made of Class C24 lamellas (EN 338) [12].
Extending the data set, a bending strength of 37.1 N/mm2 was
estimated. The tests were performed in a furnace using the BS 476-
1[41] fire curve. During the fire test, the temperatures were
recorded in the timber cross-section as well as in the furnace by
means of thermocouple readings. After the first beam had col-
lapsed at 53 min, the fire test had to be aborted. However, the
second beam collapsed only five minutes after the first one. Using
a notional charring rate considering the corner roundings of
βn ¼0.7 mm/min as given in EN 1995-1-2 [2] and the above
mentioned bending strength, a zero-strength layer of 2.1 mm
was derived for the failed beam (see Table 6). Since the material
properties are not sufficiently described, and the residual cross-
section is not specified, the corresponding zero-strength layer is
evaluated as Very Uncertain. For the second beam, which failed
during the removal of the dead load (weights), a negative value for
the zero-strength layer would be determined, likewise for the
beams arranged close to the edge of the furnaces, for which the
author supposed a lower fire load [32], probably due to the (not
further documented) investigation of the residual cross-section of
the outer beams. A negative result for the zero-strength layer may
be explained by the high uncertainty of the material properties, i.e.
a higher actual bending strength than assumed for the determina-
tion of the zero-strength layer.
3.4. Dorn et al. (II), 1967 [31]
In total, 24 large-scale fire tests loaded in bending were
performed with glulam beams with a length of 4500 mm and a
span of 4000 mm; details of 23 tests are reported. Two different
adhesives, resorcinol-resin (PRF) and urea-resin (UF), were used to
produce the beams, with lamellas of between 20 and 25 mm
thickness. It is assumed that beams had an EMC of 12%, since they
had been stored in a normal climate for more than five months
before testing. Tests were performed before the fire tests to
determine the MOE of the glulam beams that were later tested
in fire. Temperature measurements within some beams were
performed in glue lines at depths of 6.0–34.1 mm from the fire-
exposed surface. Four beams were impregnated with a fire
retardant; two were protected from direct fire exposure by a fire
protection cladding. Protected or impregnated beams were not
evaluated in this study, leaving 17 initially unprotected beams for
further analysis. The beams were exposed on all four sides to a DIN
 J. Schmid et al. / Fire Safety Journal 68 (2014) 81–99 87

Table 3
Overview of the references available and further analysed. The number of Certain results for determination of the zero-strength layer are given in brackets.

Author Reference Year Title Bending Compression Tension Test programme – Fire test Test
Comment standard parameters
noted

Tenning [29] 1961 Glued laminated beams: fire tests and 5 (0) Five tests with one cross- Not Adhesive
experience in practice section specified
Dorn et al. [30] 1961 Fire tests on glued laminated structural 18 (0) 30 and 60 min fire exposure DIN 4102 Dimension,
(I) timbers (glulam beams) and loading until failure adhesive
4 1h after the fire test
Dorn et al. [31] 1967 Brandversuche an brettschichtverleimten 24 (0) Four beams failed during DIN 4102 Dimension,
(II) holzträgern unter biegebeanspruchung the tests, 20 residual (1965) adhesive,
strength tests after fire protection
exposure; reference tests:
MOE
Hall [32] 1968 Fire resistance tests of laminated timber 4 (0) One test with four beams BS 476-2 Dimension,
beams (1953) wood
species
Dreyer (I) [33] 1969 Holzträger unter biege- und 20 (0) Solid timber beams; 3- and DIN Dimension
feuerbeanspruchung 4-sided fire exposure of 4102,
beams 5 m; high moisture Part 2
content (1965)
Dreyer (II) [34] 1970 Brandverhalten von holzträgern unter biege- 14 (0) 3- and 4-sided fire exposure DIN Dimension,
und feuerbeanspruchung of beams 5.0–7.5 m 4102, adhesive
Part 2
(1965)
Dreyer (III) [35] 1970 Träger, binder und decken aus holz unter 14 (0) 3- and 4-sided fire exposure DIN Dimension,
biege- und feuerbeanspruchung of beams 5.0–7.5 m 4102, adhesive,
Part 2 build-up
(1965)
White [36] 1996 Fire resistance of exposed wood members 15 (11) Solid specimen and glulam ASTM E Dimension,
specimens 119 load, wood
species
Peter et al. [22] 2006 Bemessung von voll- und 5 (1) 6 (6) 6 (4) Solid specimen and glulam DIN EN Dimension,
brettschichtholzbauteilen aus maschinell specimens; comprehensive 1363-1 load,
sortiertem schnittholz für den brandfall, teil reference tests (1999) strength
2: brandversuche zur bestätigung der class
theoretischen ergebnisse
Zhang et al. [37] 2012 A numerical study on fire endurance of wood 4 (4) 3-Sided fire exposure; four Not Load,
beams exposed to three-side fire initially unprotected beams, specified dimension,
one protected beam protection
Fragiacomo [38] 2013 Predicting the fire resistance of timber 5 (0) Five tests with LVL EN 1363- Load,
et al. members loaded in tension specimens; no reference 1 (2012) dimension,
tests are available adhesive
Klippel et [39] 2014 Fire tests on finger-jointed timber boards- – 4 (3) Four solid wood lamellae, EN 1363- Load,
al. test report 40 finger-jointed lamellae 1 (2012) dimension,
(not evaluated here); adhesive
reference tests are available
Lange et al. [17] 2014 The influence of parametric fire scenarios on 8 (5) Eight beams tested in one EN 1363- Load
structural timber performance and reliability test; same cross-section, 1 (2012)
same batch

4102 fire [42]. No significant influence of the adhesive used was
observed in terms of effect on the load-bearing resistance. How-
ever, beams produced with the UF adhesive showed increased
charring at the sides in the areas of the glue lines. The fire
exposure was 30 min in the furnace. The load was applied prior
to the fire test by means of two hydraulic jacks and maintained
constant until failure or for 30 min fire exposure. The applied load
corresponded to a bending stress of about 13 N/mm2 with respect
to the original cross-section. After 30 min of fire exposure, the test
load was increased until beam failure occurred, with this proce-
dure taking up to about ten minutes. For some of the larger cross-
sections (hZ400 mm), lateral buckling that occurred during the
fire test necessitated removal of the load after only 15 min, with
the test continuing by exposure of the unloaded beam to the fire
for the remaining 15 min. Failure occurred in four cases during the
30 min' fire exposure. In the other cases, the load was increased
after extinguishing about 35 min after the fire test had been
terminated. The mean charring rate was determined to 0.66 mm/
min. For comparison reasons and further analysis in this study, the
residual cross-section was determined using a notional charring
rate that included the corner roundings of βn ¼0.7 mm/min as
specified in EN 1995-1-2 [2]. This was done since it is assumed
that the reported charring depth was determined disregarding the
corner roundings. Although all test results determined from these
tests were estimated to be Uncertain, they were used to provide
data for this investigation since no reference tests specifying a
load-bearing resistance were available. No beams with depths of
400 mm and above showed any bending mode failure, but failed in
shear mode. Corresponding results for the zero-strength layer are
further reported as Very Uncertain, since results are expected to be
lower for bending failure. Determined results are given in Table 6;
the determined zero-strength layers show a significant variation;
results are plotted in Fig. 6.
3.5. Dreyer (I–III), 1969–1970 [33–35]
Continuing the test series performed by Dorn et al. [31], the
author performed several series of loaded large-scale tests of solid
timber beams and of glulam beams. Three available studies [33–
35] are analysed in Sections 3.5.1–3.5.3. All beams were exposed to
 88
Table 4
Overview of the data sets analysed as well as classification in Certain (C), Uncertain (U) and Very Uncertain(V) and Unsuitable (US).

Reference Tenning Dorn et al. (I) [30] Dorn et al. (II) Hall [32] Dreyer (I) [33] Dreyer (II) [34] Dreyer (III) [35] White [35]
[29] [31]

Classification US US U,V U V V U U, V
State of stress Bending Bending Bending Bending Bending Bending Bending Tension
Species n.a. n.a. Fir and spruce Whitewood Fir and spruce Southern pine, Douglas fir
Grade n.a. n.a. GK I and GK II LB GK II 1 and 2
Cross-section Width  depth 143  420 Width: 100 to 240, 100  500 to 139  228 Width: 115 to 196; Width: 120 to 300; depth: Width: 120 to 240; 38  89; 86  135;
[mm] depth: 200 to 400 240  200 depth: 196 to 326 200 to 500 depth: 205 to 600 128  224; 217  222
Failure [min] 50 30 and 60 30 Z 53 33 to 63 21–79 35 to 79 13 to 124
Material MOE [N/mm2] n.a. 9700–11,950 10,500 to 16,250 n.a. 9000 to 17,600 n.a. n.a. 13,050 to 14,800

J. Schmid et al. / Fire Safety Journal 68 (2014) 81–99

characterisation
Density [kg/ n.a. 450–475 425 to 525 n.a. 500 to 575 425 to 500 400 to 475 525
m3]
Moisture n.a. n.a. 12 (assumed) (13) 16 to 24 (20) 9 to 13 (11) 10 to 15 (12) n.a.
contenta [%]
Strength prediction n.a. MOE MOE Grade MOE Density Density Reference tests, grade
Strengthb [N/mm2] n.a. n.a. 37 37 28 to 73 29 to 43 25 to 36 15 to 35
Report of charring Image Measurements, some Measurements, Extrapolated from Measurements, Measurements, images Measurements, some n.a.
(similar images some images temperature images (partly without scale) images
test) measurements
Charring rate [mm/ 0.67 0.55 to 1.04 0.52 to 0.73 0.73 0.24 to 0.82 0.34 to 1.14 0.59 to 1.29 n.a.
min]
Failure mode n.a. n.a. Bending Tensile n.a. Bending Bending, lateral Tensile
(separate buckling
testing)

Reference Peter et al. [22] Zhang et al. [37] Fragiacomo et al. [38] Klippel et. al. [39] Lange et al. [17]

Classification C,U C,U C U,V U C C

State of stress Bending Tension Compression Bending Tension Tension Bending
Species Spruce Douglas fir Radiata Pine n.a. n.a.
Grade C24, GL24h, GL32h n.a. LVL H1.2 L40 CE L40c
Cross-section Width  depth [mm] 120  362; 139  278; 140  600 ca.120  120; ca.155  155; 100  200; 150  300 63  115 140  40 140  269
ca.220  220
Failure [min] MOE [N/mm2] 14 to 52 28–49 24–34 17–37 18–27 55–74 22–61
Material characterisation Density [kg/m3] 9680–13,000 Only for small scale specimens n.a. 13,725–14,625 12,600–13,800
350–450 n.a. 425–450 420–495
Moisture contenta [%] 10 to 11 (11) 11–22 (13) 10 to 12 (11) n.a. n.a. 11 to 14 (12) 11 to 13 (12)
Strength prediction Reference tests Reference tests Grade Reference tests Reference tests
b 2
Strength [N/mm ] 33 to 55 19 to 24 28 to 40 20 and 30 37 43 38
Report of charring Measurements images n.a. n.a. Measurements, images Measurements, images
Charring rate [mm/min] 0.53–0.77 n.a. 0.69 to 0.83 0.67 to 0.83 0.71 (mean)
Failure mode Bending, shear Tensile, support Compression Bending, unknown Tensile Tensile Bending

n.a. – Not available.

a
Mean value in brackets.
b
Strength regarding the specific loading of the member, i.e. bending, tension or compression.
 J. Schmid et al. / Fire Safety Journal 68 (2014) 81–99 89

Minimum, maximum and mean determined zero-strength layer in mm for bending grouped in Certain (C), Uncertain (U) and Very Uncertain (V) results. The number of available results for the calculation of the statistical values is

Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max

15.9

15.9
Table 5

Actual res. cross- Actual res. cross- Actual res. cross-

–
Comparison of compression strength by means of different prediction methods.

20.1 12.8 14.4

20.1 12.8 14.4

sectionsb
Prediction EN 338 and EN 1194 JCSS and Thunell, Reference

–
base EN density tests
Variable Characteristic compression Mean compression strength

–
strength
fc,k [N/mm2] fc,mean [N/mm2]

–
Lange et al.

15.0

15.0
C24 21.0 29.7 36.3 28.0

sectionsa

–
GL24h 24.0 29.4 33.4 33.4

[19]
GL32h 29.0 35.6 33.7 39.5

9.5

34.0 9.5
(5)

(5)
34.0 –
–
–

–
–

–
Peter et al.

19.2

16.2
a standard DIN 4102[42] fire in an oil-fired furnace. In some of the

4.1
sections

–
tests, two similar beams were tested, but the tests were termi-

[21]

3.3

3.3
(1)

(4)

(5)
nated after failure of the first beam of the pair tested. For further

8.68 –

–
11.8
evaluation, only the failed beam is considered in this paper. The

–
load was kept constant during the fire test, which lasted until

Based on βn acc. to βn acc. to EN

Zhang et al.

5.02
11.8
failure of the beams, after which the furnace was turned off,

1995-1-2

-1.9 6.7
opened, and the beams removed from the furnace and extin-

[37]

(1)

(3)

(4)
1.9
guished. This procedure took between about 30 and 60 min.

–
–

–
Residual cross-sections were evaluated and are given in the

21.5

21.5
9.5
–
reports [33–35]. However, the effect of possible charring after

EN 1995-1-2
failure and until the specimens were extinguished was not

14.4

24.6 8.0 4.9

8.0 2.5
–
estimated. The long time to extinguish the fire may lead to a

Mean Max Min

smaller residual cross-section documented in the report than

24.6 7.4
–
would have been the case at failure time. Using the documented

11.4
residual cross-section, any calculated zero-strength layer would be

–
Based on βn acc. to β as reported
non-conservative. Images of the residual cross-sections have

11.9 18.2
therefore not been further used for analysis of the fire test results; Dreyer (3)

3.2 5.0

3.2 7.7
–
whether one-dimensional reported charring rates with respect
[35]

Mean Max Min

(10)
(8)

(2)
to the side of the beam (lower-, upper- and side charring) or a

–
–
notional charring rate as specified in EN 1995-1-2 [2] was used.

13.1

13.1
–

–
Only results of initially unprotected beams with rectangular cross-
EN 1995-1-2

sections are summarised and analysed in Sections 3.5.1–3.5.3.

2.3 2.6

2.3 2.6
–

–
The glulam beams tested were of Grade II, as specified in DIN
4074 [43]. A very limited material characterisation was performed
Mean Max Min

–
in [33–35]; however, results are used to estimate material proper-
ties based on today's knowledge and are finally used to give an 9.9

9.9
–

–
indication of the zero-strength layer (see Sections 3.5.1–3.5.3 in
β as reported
Dreyer (2)

this paper).
 5.5 1.8

 5.5 1.8
–

–
[34]

Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min

(14)

(14)
–
–

37.5 –

3.5.1. Dreyer (I), 1969 [33]

37.5
–

The author conducted loaded large-scale tests with 20 solid

βn acc. to EN

timber beams. Eight beams were fire-exposed on three sides, and

39.3 16.1 24.7
1995-1-2

39.3 16.1 25
–

the other beams were initially protected by gypsum plaster boards

of different thicknesses and exposed to fire on four sides. Beams
–

were pairwise tested and had a span of 4550 mm. The purpose of
the study [33] was to investigate the benefit of three-sided fire
–

–
β as reported

exposure compared to four-sided fire exposure as well as the

Dreyer (1)

24.5 30.2
24.5 30

possibility of reaching 60 min' fire resistance by means of applied

–

fire protection (gypsum plaster boards). No reference bending

[33]

(4)

(4)
–
–
–
–

tests until failure at normal temperature were conducted to define

1995-

Based on corrected fire test results.

to EN

an ultimate load-bearing resistance of the beams. However, the

[32]
Hall

acc.

1-2

(1)

(1)
15.7 2.1

16.5 2.1
βn

density, the MOE and the initial MC were documented. The mean
Min Mean Max

16.5

MC was reported as about 20%, which is quite a high value in

–

Based on fire test results.

βn acc. to EN

comparison with the normal MC of 12% to be expected from a

Dorn et al.

climate of 20 1C and 65% relative humidity (see Sections 2.2.5 and

1995-1-2

0.9 8.4

4.6 9.7

0.9 8.9
–

2.3.4). The simply supported beams had a span of 4750 mm, with
[31]

(17)
(11)

(6)

about 95% of the span being exposed to fire. Loads were applied
–
–
given in brackets.

Very uncertain

between a ratio of allowed and actual load of 0.58 and 0.73, based
results (U)

results (V)
Certain results
Determination

Classification
cross-section

on a maximum allowed bending stress of about 10 N/mm2 at the

of the res.

All results
Reference

Uncertain

outer fibres, assuming linear elastic stress distribution. In this

(C)
Author
Table 6

study, only four tests with three-sided fire exposed beams were
b
a

further investigated, since the other tests included initially

90 J. Schmid et al. / Fire Safety Journal 68 (2014) 81–99
Fig. 6. Determined zero-strength layer for tension tests [31]. Grey markers indicate
Uncertain results; white markers indicate Very Uncertain results.
protected beams. Results for the zero-strength layer are consid-
ered as Very Uncertain, since no reference tests were performed
and the MC was very high. For the analysis, the residual cross-
section was estimated by the reported charring rate and for
comparison purposes by means of the notional charring rate
βn ¼ 0.7 mm/min (including the corner roundings) given in EN
1995-1-2 [2]. The residual cross-sections determined by means of
βn ¼ 0.7 mm/min are between 4 and 22 percentage points smaller
than the reported cross-section dimensions. Although not
observed in [33], the charring behaviour is obviously dependent
on the initial MC of the timber member. The high MC may further
affect the material characteristics of the heated cross-section and
thus also affect the depth of the zero-strength layer. Results of the
determination of the zero-strength layer of the extended data sets
are given in Table 6 and are plotted in Fig. 7.
3.5.2. Dreyer (II), 1970 [34]
The author performed loaded large-scale fire tests in bending
with glulam timber beams made from two different adhesives,
resorcinol-resin and urea-resin. Beams were produced with lamel-
las of different depths, of 20 mm and 30 mm, but neither the
specific adhesives nor the build-up is described in the report.
The test programme was intended to prove the fire resistance for
fire exposures longer than 60 min for three and four-sided fire
exposures. Beams tested in fire had various rectangular cross-
sections, with areas from about 40,000 mm2 (beams intended fire
exposure of equal to or more than 30 min) and up to about
120,000 mm2 (beams intended fire exposure of equal to or more
than 60 min). In [34], four tests were performed with three-sided
fire exposure. Little effort was made to characterise the material
properties of the beams, only the MC and the specific mean
density of the beams are reported, but there is no description of
how the mean values were derived. The mean MC of the beams
was 11.2%. In the present study, the residual cross-section was
determined by the reported charring rate β and for comparison
purposes by means of the notional charring rate βn specified in EN
1995-1-2 [2]. Comparing the residual cross-section areas, the
agreement is better for the four-sided fire-exposed beams (ten
beams; average deviation 4%) than for the three-sided fire-
exposed beams (four beams; average deviation 19%). Mean char-
ring rates were specified in [34] for the lower side as 0.92 mm/
min, for the wide sides 0.70 mm/min, and for the upper side as
0.37 mm/min. The latter value could be explained by the narrow
Fig. 7. Determined zero-strength layer for bending tests and three- and four-sided
fire exposure [33]. White markers indicate Very Uncertain results.
space between the beam and the furnace roof of about 160 mm
when testing four-sided fire exposure. The significantly higher
value on the lower side might be a result of a delamination of
lamellas, but there was no information in the reference confirming
this hypothesis. The observed mean charring rate of all four sides,
β¼0.67 mm/min, is about the same charring rate as specified in EN
1995-1-2 [2] and was used for further analysis in this study.
Varying the determined bending strength by 15%, (see Section
2.3.3), the bending strength was calculated to about 39 N/mm2
(upper bound) and 26 N/mm2 (lower bound) respectively. Con-
sidering the uncertainties regarding the bending strength and the
residual cross-section, the results of the determined zero-strength
layer are rated as Very Uncertain. The zero-strength layer was
determined for four-sided fire exposure (ten tests) and three-sided
fire exposure (four tests); results are plotted in Fig. 8 and are
tabulated in Table 6.
3.5.3. Dreyer (III), 1970 [35]
The author presents the results of 19 loaded large-scale fire
tests with beams and roof sheathings, of which 14 were performed
with glulam timber beams. The beam lamellas had a depth of
about 30 mm, with resorcinol-resin and urea-resin adhesives used
for the production of the beams. Four beam tests were performed
with I-section beams or hollow core sections. The intention of the
test series was to investigate the effect of lower loads and
dimensions different from those tested in a previous study [34]
(see Section 3.5.2) on the load-bearing resistance in the fire
situation. For comparison purposes, only the fire tests of beams
with rectangular cross-sections were evaluated further in this
study (ten tests); their section areas were about 45,000–
144,000 mm2. The beams had a span of 4750 mm (five specimens)
or 7200 mm (five specimens) and were loaded in bending mode.
During the tests, one support was exposed to fire, while the other
support was protected from direct fire exposure. Four tests were
performed with a restrained support at one end and simply
supported at the other end. An oil-fired furnace was used; in
general, two beams were tested at the same time with a distance
of about 2100 mm between them. In this investigation, the
minimum cross-sectional area for a fire-rating of 30 min was
studied for initially unprotected timber beams. Eight beams failed
in bending and two in lateral buckling. No influence on the fire
resistance for the two different types of adhesives was reported.
The report does not contain any information on the MOE or
 J. Schmid et al. / Fire Safety Journal 68 (2014) 81–99
Fig. 8. Determined zero-strength layer for bending tests reported in [34]. White
markers indicate Very Uncertain results; whiskers indicate results based on a
variation of 70.15% of the bending strength estimation.
strength properties of the material tested, but the density of each
beam is reported.
The reported specific beam density was used in this study to
estimate a mean bending strength. Varying the strength of the
beam by 15% gave calculated upper and lower bending strength
limits of about 35 N/mm2 and 23 N/mm2 respectively. Two beams
failed in lateral buckling (results B11b09 and B11b10 in Fig. 9). The
reported charring depths at the top of the beams exposed to fire
on four sides are considerably lower than at the bottoms (up to
51% lower), probably due to the very limited space of only 160 mm
between the specimen and the furnace roof. The effect of this
would be that the heating at the top of the beam was limited as
reported above in Section 3.5.2. A significantly greater charring
rate than given in EN 1995-1-2 [2] was observed at the bottom of
the beams (β0,bottom,mean ¼ 0.86 mm/min). Although fall-off of char
was observed, no delamination or effect of the adhesive was
reported. Considering the lesser charring at the top of the beams,
the observed overall mean charring rate of β0,mean ¼ 0.65 mm/min
is equal to the value given in EN 1995-1-2 [2]. Calculating residual
cross-sections using a notional charring rate including corner
roundings of βn ¼0.7 mm/min would decrease the residual cross-
section by about 7% on average. The reported charring depths
seem to be quite low, considering the fact that the extinguishing
work was finished about 30–60 min after the end of the fire test.
Thus the cross-section in the fire test is larger than assumed in
this study, and any calculated zero-strength layer value is
non-conservative. In this study, the residual cross-sections were
estimated by means of the reported charring depth values. Due to
the assumptions of the material properties, as well as the residual
cross-sections, all results are considered as Very Uncertain results.
The residual cross-sections for the calculation of the zero-strength
layers in Fig. 9 were derived using the reported charring rates. For
comparison purposes, the zero-strength layer was determined
assuming the notional charring rate βn specified in EN 1995-1-2
[2]. The zero-strength layers were determined for all ten tests and
are shown in Fig. 9; tabulated results are given in Table 6.
3.6. White (1996) [36]
White [36] performed loaded large-scale fire tests with mem-
bers in tension and applied a constant load to the specimens with
four different cross-sections. Prior to the fire tests following the
time–temperature curve specified in ASTEM E 119 [44], White
91
Fig. 9. Determined zero-strength layer for all bending tests [35]. White markers
indicate Very Uncertain results; the triangle indicates three-sided fire exposure,
while squares indicate four-sided fire exposure. Whiskers indicate results based on
the variation of 7 0.15% of the bending strength estimation.
performed tensile tests at different elevated temperatures (con-
stant); results are not given here. In the fire tests, solid timber and
glulam were tested, with an exposed length of 1800 mm. Refer-
ence tests were performed for some specimens, which showed
that the factor between design value and tested mean value was
about 1.5 times higher than given in general. No reference tests
were performed to characterise the ultimate tensile strength of the
DF specimens; for these tests a ratio of ultimate strength to
allowable stress of 2.85 (general value, specified in [36]) was used
for further calculations in [36]. In the fire tests, the load was held
constant until failure, which occurred after between 10 and
124 min. Test T05t04 (see Fig. 10) was loaded intentionally with
a lower load ratio. Since no failure had occurred up to 120 min fire
testing, the load was increased at t¼ 120 min, after which failure of
the member occurred at t¼124 min.
No information on the residual cross-section is available. The
residual cross-section used for determination of the zero-strength
layer was calculated for the failure time by means of a notional
charring rate of βn ¼0.7 mm/min; the results are classified as
Uncertain. The zero-strength layers for members in tension were
determined and are shown in Table 6 and plotted in Fig. 10. The
corresponding zero-strength layer for Test T05t04 is a negative
value, which might be the result of the changed loading rate.
However, standard bending tests determining the tension strength
at normal temperature require a failure within 5 72 min, and the
procedure was proven to be appropriate for timber members in
[45]. Due to the lack of the material characterisation for DF
specimens, the results of the determination of the zero-strength
layer was considered as Very Uncertain.
3.7. Peter et al., 2006 [22]
This reference describes a very comprehensive test programme,
including fire tests in tension, compression and bending as well as
reference tests at normal temperature for the respective loading
modes. All fire tests were conducted according to EN 1363-1 [9]
with plate thermometers to control the temperature of the test
furnace. Reference tests at normal temperature were performed in
accordance with EN 408 [46]. In all fire tests, the load was kept
constant until failure of the timber member. Beams made from
solid timber members were graded in accordance with EN 338
[12], while glulam timber members were graded in accordance
92 J. Schmid et al. / Fire Safety Journal 68 (2014) 81–99
Fig. 10. Determined zero-strength layer for tension tests [36]. Grey markers
indicate Uncertain results; white markers indicate Very Uncertain results.
with EN 1194 [27]. The charring depth and the geometry of the
residual cross-section were evaluated on the basis of unloaded
reference specimens exposed in the same fire test. These speci-
mens were further instrumented with thermocouples to follow
the charring rate. The residual cross-section was analysed by the
authors and details specified; for most of the tests, the residual
cross-section is reported. If images were available, these were
analysed for the present paper. This way, a notional charring rate,
βn, was calculated and used for calculation of the zero-strength
layer. The charring rate, βn, reported in [22] deviates from the
values determined in this study by means of reported images
(deviations are specified in the particular section). As shown in
Section 3.7.2 the reported charring rate is reported as about 15%
lower than the charring rate determined based on the reported
images. It can be concluded that the reported charring rate
indicated as notional charring rate βn [22] is most likely a mean,
one-dimensional charring rate, but a definition is not given in [22].
3.7.1. Tension tests
Mean values for the specific grade and cross-section given in
the reference tests were used in this study to estimate the ultimate
load-bearing resistance. The fire-exposed length of the tested
members was about 760 mm. The applied load was in the range
of 0.18–0.54 of the estimated ultimate load-bearing resistance.
Two specimens failed in the connection area at the supports, while
for one specimen (C04t04, see Fig. 11) a failure near the connection
was observed after the test. The results for failure due to the
connection are evaluated as Uncertain, since the timber members
would have performed better. For this reason, a zero-strength
layer lower than determined here can be expected in these cases.
The zero-strength layer for members in tension resulted in some
negative values (see Fig. 11). This indicates limitations in the
prediction of material properties at normal temperature.,
Zero-strength layer values plotted in Fig. 11 are based on the
reported values for the charring rate, βn; determined results are
given in Table 7. It should be noted that according to Ref. [2] for
the tested cross-sections with lower width than 156 mm (two test
specimens) the use of one-dimensional charring rates to deter-
mine the residual cross-section at the observed failure times is not
permitted. Images of the residual cross-sections of all the tension
tests are reported, and were further analysed in this study to
determine the areas of the residual cross-section. A notional
charring rate assuming a rectangular residual cross-section was
Fig. 11. Determined zero-strength layer for tension tests [22]. Black markers
indicate Certain results; grey markers indicate Uncertain results.
determined. The determined mean notional charring rate is
βn ¼0.79 mm/min, compared to the reported charring rate of
βn ¼0.71 mm/min on average. For comparison purposes, the
zero-strength layer was calculated using the charring rates deter-
mined in this study.
3.7.2. Compression tests
The fire-exposed length of the members tested in compression
was between 760 mm and 1000 mm. Differing from the bending
strength case, density is considered as an appropriate measure for
the compression strength parallel to the grain of (clear) wood [28].
Assuming that the performed reference tests are reasonable for
prediction of the compression strength, the procedure described in
Section 2.3.3, JCSS [26] delivers too low values for glulam (devia-
tion about 10%) and slightly too high values (deviation about 5%)
for solid timber. Compression strength values are given in Table 5.
The prediction by Thunell's equation (2) shows higher deviation
(over 20%) for solid timber and limited deviation (below 20%) for
glulam timber. See Fig. 12 for the reference tests that were
performed.
Since Thunell [28] developed the relationship for the compression
strength and the density of clear wood, this outcome seems to be
reasonable. The prediction of the load-bearing capacity was based on
the reference tests. The applied constant loads in the fire tests were
in the range of 0.15–0.41 of the predicted ultimate load-bearing
resistance. In all fire tests of this series, the specimens failed in
compression, and no stability failure (buckling) was observed. As
described in this section for the tension tests, the specified charring
rates βn in [22] (0.65 mm/min in average for the members tested in
compression, which corresponds to the one-dimensional charring
rate) deviate from the definition in EN 1995-1-2 [2], where a cross-
section with an equal area can be determined by the notional
charring rate βn. EN 1995-1-2 [2] allows application of the one-
dimensional charring rate for the larger cross-sections with a width
larger than 120 mm due to the limited fire exposure of less than
35 min. For this study, determined notional charring rates included
the corner roundings based on an analysis of the reported images
which were, on average, about 15% higher than the reported charring
rates given in [22]. For comparison purposes, the zero-strength layer
for members in compression was determined based on different
charring rates (see Fig. 13).
The scatter of results plotted in Fig. 13 is significant, and shows
results between 12.5 and 24.3 mm depending on the charring rate
 J. Schmid et al. / Fire Safety Journal 68 (2014) 81–99 93

Table 7
Minimum, maximum and mean determined zero-strength layer in mm for tension grouped as Certain (C), Uncertain (U) and Very Uncertain (V) results. The number of
available results for calculation of the statistical values is given in brackets.

Reference [21] [36] [38] [39]

Author Peter et al. White Fragiacomo et al. Klippel et al.
Determination of the res. cross-section based on Actual res. cross-sections βn acc. to EN 1995-1-2 β as specified Actual res. cross-sections

Classification Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max

Certain results (C)  8.0  1.3 7.1 – – – – – – 3.2 8.5 13.9

(4) – – (3)
Uncertain results (U) 9.8 11.0 12.3 9.9 6.0 12.9 8.5 9.3 10.3 – 2.30 –
(2) (11) (5) (1)
Very uncertain results (V) – – –  3.4 8.0 15.2 – – – – – –
– (4) – –
All results  8.0 2.8 12.3  3.4 7.3 15.2 8.5 9.3 10.3 2.3 7.0 13.9
(6) (15) (5) (4)

Fig. 12. Reference test results of [22] as well as the estimated compression strength Fig. 13. Determined zero-strength layer for compression tests [22]; black markers
from the density acc. to [28]. indicate Certain results. Results are based on the analysed images, the reported
charring rates and the notional charring rate specified in EN 1995-1-2 [2].

used in the calculations. Considering the zero-strength values Table 8

based on the digital images as the most reliable information, the
scatter decreases to values between 12.5 and 18.9 mm (squares in
Fig. 13); results are tabulated in Table 8.
Minimum, maximum and mean determined zero-strength layer in mm for
compression grouped as Certain (C), Uncertain (U) and Very Uncertain
(V) results. The number of available results for the calculation of the statistical
values is given in brackets.

Reference [21]
3.7.3. Bending tests Author Peter et al.
The fire tests were performed as four-point bending tests with Determination of the res. Actual res. cross-sections
cross-section based on
specimens of a length of 4000 mm exposed to fire on all sides. The
Classification Min Mean Max
applied load was between 0.23 and 0.30 of the predicted load-
bearing resistance from reference tests. Certain results (C) 12.5 14.8 18.9
Due to the limited span of 3400 mm, the absolute applied loads (6)
Uncertain results (U) – – –
were quite high and resulted in unintended failure modes for
–
beams with depths of 600 mm. Shear failure was observed for Very uncertain results (V) – – –
both tests with specimens of higher grade GL32h. The correspond- –
ing zero-strength layers are evaluated as Uncertain for the bending All results 12.5 14.8 18.9
mode but may be used to determine zero-strength layers for the (6)

shear capacity. In another test, a combined shear and bending

failure was reported. One beam had an initial MC of 22.2% before
the fire test, which is a very high value in comparison with the 9%
and 12% as specified in [9]. Test results showing shear failure or a
high initial MC were evaluated as Uncertain in this study.
Available images of the residual cross-sections were analysed
in this study in order to estimate the moment of inertia of the
residual cross-sections. Three images of residual cross-sections are
reported by the authors for most of the cross-sections. In two
cases, no images were available in [22], and so the mean notional
charring rates determined based on the available images for the
other cross-sections were used (βn ¼ 0.74 mm/min). Fig. 14 shows
94 J. Schmid et al. / Fire Safety Journal 68 (2014) 81–99
the results based on the determined notional charring-rates;
tabulated results are given in Table 6.
3.8. Zhang et al., 2012 [37]
Before the development of a finite model for prediction of the load-
bearing capacity the authors conducted five loaded large-scale fire
tests with beams exposed on three sides. The report does not specify if
solid timber or glulam timber was used for the beams, which had a
length of 4000 mm. Beams were tested initially unprotected (four
tests), and then protected by a fire protection system (one test), which
is not further evaluated in this study. Prior to the fire resistance tests
following ISO 834 [8] fire exposure, one reference test was performed
for each dimension, with the results being used for prediction of the
load-bearing capacity for the beams tested in fire. The stiffness, tensile
and compression strengths and densities of small-scale specimens
were determined for every specimen of the test series, but there
are no figures for how many samples were used to determine
the specified values. These values are assumed to be local values
and are not further used in this study. The beams were loaded with a
ratio of the predicted load-bearing capacity between 0.25 and 0.50,
and tests lasted between 13 and 37 min. Deflection and deflection rate
criteria were used to define the failure time, and the fire tests were
terminated when either of the criteria was reached. Bending failure
was observed for one beam (C37.5), but the failure mode of the other
beams is unknown since they were lost after collapse and extinguish-
ing was not possible in the furnace. Residual cross-sections or charring
depths were not noted in [37]. The charring rates specified in EN 1995-
1-2 [2] were therefore used in this study to determine the residual
cross-section at failure, and results for the determined zero-strength
layer are evaluated as Uncertain. Due to the Unknown failure mode of
three beams, the corresponding results are classified as Very Uncertain
although the zero-strength layer for these beams is lower than for the
specimen with reported bending failure (see Fig. 15).
3.9. Fragiacomo et al., 2013 [38]
The authors conducted fire resistance tests in tension tests with
LVL specimens and an exposed length of 500 mm [38]. Tests were
performed with constant loading between 0.12 and 0.22 of the
predicted ultimate load-bearing resistance. The ultimate strength
of about 37 N/mm2 was predicted in [38], using a ratio of the
characteristic value of tensile strength and an appropriate
Fig. 14. Determined zero-strength layer for bending tests [22]. Black markers
indicate Certain results; and grey markers indicate Uncertain results. All results
shown are based on the determined charring rate.
conversion coefficient specified by the LVL manufacturer. The
electric furnace was not able to follow the ISO 834 [8] temperature
curve, but the differences were very limited. The residual cross-
section was not reported in [38]; during the tests the charring
depth was determined by thermocouple measurements. Since the
residual cross-section is based on assumptions, and no reference
tests were reported, the results for the determined zero-strength
layers are evaluated as Uncertain. In this study, the residual cross-
section was determined by a notional charring rate of
βn ¼0.65 mm/min reported in [47] for the same product. Results
are shown in Fig. 16; the calculated mean values agree well with
the range between 7 and 9 mm reported in [47].
3.10. Klippel et al., 2014 [39]
The investigation primarily investigates the influence of different
adhesives on the load-bearing resistance of finger-jointed timber
boards subjected to a tensile load and exposed to a standard ISO fire
[8] on two sides. As a reference, four fire tests were performed on solid
(unjointed) timber boards, which are further investigated in this study.
The length of the tensile specimens was about 3500 mm but, for three
of the four solid wood specimens, the fire-exposed length of 1000 mm
was partly reduced to 300 mm by thermal insulation to reduce the
risk of failure outside the knot-free area. Before the fire tests, reference
tests at normal temperature were performed to obtain mean tensile
strength values of the material. The density of each board as well as, in
general, the residual cross-sections were determined after the test.
Three were performed with a constant load level of about 25% of the
mean tensile strength at normal temperature. The test load for test
specimen T01t02 (see Fig. 17), however, was increased after 40 min
until failure. As already observed for tests performed by White [36], a
small zero-strength layer of only about 2 mm was calculated for this
test, in which the load was increased until failure after a certain time
of fire exposure. In the actual case, the load was increased to the
failure load within about one minute, which could be the cause of this
low value, and this result is considered to be Uncertain. Results of the
determination of the zero-strength layers are given in Fig. 17.
3.11. Lange et al., 2014 [17]
The authors performed a series of large-scale fire tests with one
beam type (same batch, geometry and grade) and different fire
exposures. In the present study, only fire tests performed with ISO
834 [8] fire exposure are evaluated. In the tests reported in [17], eight
Fig. 15. Determined zero-strength layer for bending tests [37]. Grey markers
indicate Uncertain results; and white markers indicate Very Uncertain results.
 J. Schmid et al. / Fire Safety Journal 68 (2014) 81–99
Fig. 16. Determined zero-strength layer for tension tests [38], grey markers
indicate Uncertain results.
Fig. 17. Determined zero-strength layer for tension tests [39]. Black markers
indicate Certain results; and grey markers indicate Uncertain results.
beams were placed across the horizontal furnace, giving a span of
3300 mm. The fire test was conducted according to EN 1363-1 [9].
Prior to the fire tests, EN 408 reference tests in bending were
performed at normal temperature [46] to determine the mean
ultimate bending resistance of ten bending members. Beams tested
in fire were instrumented with internal thermocouples at different
depths along the centre line. In the fire tests, the beams were loaded
pairwise with a constant load which was maintained constant until
failure. Due to the pairwise loading, the load had to be removed from
the pair when either of the two beams failed in order to avoid integrity
failure of the furnace. However, an individual failure was allowed for
the last pair. After failure of any beam, the load was removed from the
pair but the beams were left in the furnace until the last beam failed
and the test was terminated. Rapid extinguishing was achieved with a
special support frame which enabled all the beams to be removed at
the same time. During the test procedure, five beams failed during the
fire test. The results of the fire tests are plotted in Fig. 18 as a function
of the predicted bending moment resistance at normal temperature.
In Fig. 18, an exponential correlation was fitted to the fire test
results to consider the scatter of the material properties of the
glulam beams. In a next step, corrected values were determined to
95
represent fire test results which perfectly fit to the previously
mentioned correlation function; the failure time was maintained
constant but the load-level Efi/E20 (ratio of effect of loads in the fire
situation Efi and at normal temperature E20) was modified. Results
of the corrected values were then used for further evaluation but
treated separately. The residual cross-section at specific failure
could not be investigated due to the test set-up. For this study, the
notional charring rate βn was determined using images of the
residual beams considering a fire exposure of 60 min when the fire
test was terminated after the failure of the last beam. A mean
value was found to be βn ¼0.71 mm/min, which is in good
agreement with βn specified in EN 1995-1-2 [2]. The zero-
strength layer results determined for the five fire tests as well as
the corrected results are shown in Fig. 19.
4. Results and discussion
Many fire tests have been performed in the past but very few
test results are suitable and deliver reliable information about the
zero-strength layer. The poor documentation as well as the lack of
material investigations and reports of test characteristics after the
tests is the largest obstacle when analysing the available literature.
Based on all suitable references, the zero-strength layer was
reverse-calculated from the applied loading and the residual
cross-section. Results for members in bending, tension and com-
pression are given in this section, and the different effects are
discussed.
4.1. Members in bending
Members in bending provide the largest group of available test
results. Fire tests caused failure between about 13 and 74 min, and
fire exposure on three or four sides is available. Tests reports
before the 1980s are characterised by their poor material descrip-
tions, and deliver mainly Uncertain results for the zero-strength
layer. Older test methods often deviate from today's standard
testing requirements regarding the heat flux, e.g. a controlled
4-sided fire exposure could not be achieved, e.g. [33–35]. In total,
59 fire resistance tests delivered sufficient data to be analysed
with respect to the zero-strength layer. A very large variation
between about –6 mm and þ39 mm was noted in this study (see
Table 6). The minimum, maximum and mean values of all results
are given in Table 6, with information on how the residual cross-
sections used as bases for the determination of the zero-strength
Fig. 18. Test results of [17]. Load ratio Efi/E20 versus time of failure.
96 J. Schmid et al. / Fire Safety Journal 68 (2014) 81–99

Fig. 20. Determined zero-strength layers for members in bending. Results are
plotted for Certain (C), Uncertain (U) and Very Uncertain (V) results.

Fig. 19. Determined zero-strength layer for bending tests reported in [17].

layer was derived. The respective columns are marked grey for
results plotted in Fig. 20. It must be noted that only about 10% of
all determined values are rated as Certain values (C) for the zero-
strength layer for members in bending.

4.2. Members in tension

Although tensile members are common (e.g. for trusses), only a

few fire tests of members in tension are available. This is probably a
result of the lack of a standard testing procedure for this load type. In
total, 30 fire resistance tests with members in tension were evaluated,
but only seven results were considered as Certain (see Table 7). The
evaluated tests of White [36], Fragiacomo et al. [38] and Klippel [39]
show a mean value which agrees very well with today's general rule
for the zero-strength layer in EN 1995-1-2 [2], but extreme results
indicate a higher value from longer fire exposures of between about
60 and 90 min; see Fig. 21. Results of Refs. [22] and [36] show negative
values classified partly as Certain, which indicate problems with the Fig. 21. Determined zero-strength layers for members in tension. Results are
plotted for Certain (C), Uncertain (U) and Very Uncertain (V) results.
prediction of the material properties.

4.3. Members in compression
Most studies into compressive strength in fire situations
incorporate stability performance perpendicular to the compres-
sive direction. To date, there are relatively few cases where studies
avoid implications from stability performance. The analysed tests
have good reliability, since tests were performed according to
a current European testing standard, EN 1363-1 [9], as well as
offering comprehensive reference tests to describe the material
properties of the tested members at normal temperature. Results
show a mean value of the zero-strength layer considerably larger
than the value given in EN 1995-1-2 [2] (see Fig. 22 and Table 8).
4.4. Material properties
The most important characteristic influencing the zero-strength
layer is the assumed material properties. Large ranges of results can be
determined when varying the predicted material properties: see, for
example, Fig. 8. In general, the use of the timber grade is not sufficient
to describe the source material. The use of statistical methods may
improve prediction of the material properties (see Table 5). Reference
tests may be an appropriate tool to describe the test material and
predict the material properties needed to determine the zero-strength
layer. However, it remains unclear how many reference tests are
necessary in order to achieve reasonable prediction accuracy. Authors
have used different numbers of tests for their results. For smaller
specimens, it is easier to investigate a large number of specimens, e.g.
tension lamella [48] than for large-scale members. While Zhang et al.
[37] used one reference specimen, Lange et al. [17] used ten specimens
to predict the material properties of large-scale timber beams. The
MOE of a large number of beams (including beams for reference and
fire tests) was measured in [17] in order to ensure that the beams
selected for fire tests were adequately described. A drawback of the
procedure including a large number of reference beams and MOE
measurements is the high cost. In future, it may be possible to predict
the load-bearing capacity of large members by means of a combined
testing and simulation approach. Ref. [49], for example, showed a high
prediction rate of the bending resistance of glulam beams where the
lamella were described with discrete material properties previously
investigated in non-destructive tests.
4.5. Charring rate
In addition to the material properties of the source material,
the reported charring rate has a significant influence on determi-
nation of the zero-strength layer. The charring rate of different
timber species was the focus of many studies, with significant
deviations (0.24–1.14 mm/min) being reported for initially unpro-
tected structural timber beams (see Table 4). When large devia-
tions from the commonly used value β0 ¼ 0.65 mm for structural
 J. Schmid et al. / Fire Safety Journal 68 (2014) 81–99
Fig. 22. Determined zero-strength layers for members in compressions. Results are
plotted for Certain (C) results.
timber used in Europe [2] are observed, it is very likely that the fire
exposure was different from the standard fire, e.g. caused by close
distances (see [33–35]). Although the zero-strength layer does not
depend on the charring rate, the charring depth is crucial for
determination of the residual cross-section.
The authors obviously used different techniques to determine
the charring depth. While some authors measured the one-
dimensional charring depth on the specimen's side by a scale,
other authors used images for further evaluation. The influence on
the zero-strength layer of limited deviations of the charring rate
used is shown in Fig. 13 and Table 6 for analysed members in
compression. In this (exemplary) reference [22], images of the
residual cross-sections permitted the use of correct values to
increase the reliability, and are recommended for further tests.
Reducing the times of extinguishing tested members seems to be a
significant challenge, but documentation for further comparison is
missing. Any continuing charring after the end of the fire test
would decrease the residual charring depth and thus decrease the
zero-strength layer. One author used dummy specimens of the
same cross-section size to allow fast removal from the furnace for
determination of the cross-section, which seems to be a good
procedure (see [22]). Only one author considered the charring rate
as a scattered variable and investigated the distribution of the
results [17]. The char layer provides an important insulation layer
comparable to fire protection systems, and should be considered
as such. Thus a systematic documentation of the residual cross-
section and of the charring depth, as done for applied coatings, e.g.
for steel members in [50], is recommended for further tests.
4.6. Effect of the fire curve
The RCSM is available only for standard fire exposure. Limited
experience of timber members exposed to non-standard fires is
available. It may be possible to determine a modified RCSM
appropriate to parametric fire exposures, but due to the observed
limitations of the very simple verification method, any modifica-
tion of the RCSM with respect to other fire exposures may be
counterproductive. In general, based on simulation results [1] it
was shown that slower heating of a timber member, e.g. due to fire
protection cladding or slower heating curves, results in an increase
in the depth of the uncharred but heated timber cross-section,
which may result in higher values for the zero-strength layer.
However, the slower heating may lead to minor influence of the
mass transfer in general and water in particular. It was observed in
97
[51] that the time to failure is normally longer with parametric fire
exposures. Currently, some research is ongoing to evaluate the
performance of timber members exposed to parametric fire curves
[17].
4.6.1. Effect of adhesive
Investigation of the influence of structural adhesives on the
load-bearing capacity of glulam beams was the aim of some
studies used as references [29,31]. Although a minor effect on
the shape of the residual cross-section was reported in [31], no
difference in the load-bearing capacity was observed. Considering
the discussed scatter and importance of the material properties in
this study it can be assumed that the effect on the charring of the
adhesive tested is subordinate to the effect of the actual difference
in load-bearing capacity. The effect of different adhesives on fire
exposed finger joints and the load-bearing capacity of glulam
beams containing finger-joints is currently under investigation,
with first results confirming that certified structural adhesives
have little influence on the load-bearing capacity [52]. Simulation
techniques may be helpful for investigating the influence of
adhesives in finger joints, since the effects of heat exposure on
glulam beams incorporating finger-joints made from certified
structural adhesives may be less than the scatter of the material
properties caused by, for example, knots [53].
4.7. Comparison of the Reduced Cross-Section implemented in EN
1995-1-2 with fire tests
Differences between the existing Reduced Cross-Section
Method (RCSM) given in the EN 1995-1-2 [2] model using a
zero-strength layer of 7 mm for large timber members and results
based on fire tests are in general high – see, for example, the
results for bending members in Fig. 20. The RCSM was originally
developed for bending members only [1]. For members in tension,
the zero-strength layer observed in tests seem to fit well with the
general rule of Ref. [2]. However for members in compression, an
approximately doubled value can be observed in some fire tests.
This value fits for compression members, but the buckling beha-
viour is not considered here and may have an influence. Observed
values for compression and tension are in good agreement with
advanced calculations [5]. For bending, the situation is more
complex since other aspects such as the number of fire-exposed
sides as well as the applied load ratio seem to have a significant
influence; compare Ref. [5].
5. Conclusions
In this paper, the zero-strength layer was determined for fire
tests, of which most were large-scale fire tests. On the basis of the
extensive experimental investigations, a large variation of the
zero-strength layer found in the tests was observed. Mainly due
to the lack of the characterisation of the material tested in fire, it is
not possible to draw conclusions from most of the references. Most
of the results are Uncertain, and it is not recommended that they
should be used to verify any design method. The zero-strength
layer used as crucial parameter in the RCSM, and determined by
these tests, is therefore Uncertain in most of the cases; only 31 test
results are considered as Certain.
Based on the analysis of fire tests, the RCSM implemented in EN
1995-1-2 [2] seems to be suitable only for tension members, and gives
non-conservative results for compression members. For members in
bending, a significant scatter was observed, which indicates that the
simplified design approach of the existing RCSM may not properly
describe the complex behaviour of timber members in bending.
98 J. Schmid et al. / Fire Safety Journal 68 (2014) 81–99
The scatter of results shows that the existing RCSM is a very
rough calculation method for estimating the load-bearing capacity
of timber members in a fire situation, as the available test results
do not underpin the extent of simplification in the actual design
procedure. Although today's method permits very simple design it
has been shown that it goes against the common understanding
that simplification goes along with increased safety margins.
It is recommended that the RCSM should be revised in general.
Either a simple approach can be found, which exhibits sufficient
safety in all cases, i.e. members in bending, compression and
bending, or different design approaches must be employed, using
more economic design. Available data as presented in this study or
simulation results can be used to follow this approach.
For a comprehensive revision of the RCSM it is recommended
that fire tests should be systematically performed in order to verify
or improve available effective material properties in a fire situation as
given today in [2], for use in a finite model code. Advanced testing
techniques to reduce the scatter of results and improve the prediction
of material properties should be used. Existing or improved effective
material properties can be used to modify the RCSM.
Acknowledgements
This study was carried out at and funded by SP Wood
Technology (formerly SP Trätek), a division of SP Technical
Research Institute of Sweden, in conjunction with ETH Zürich.
The authors would like to thank R. White and P. Steer for their help
in evaluating some fire test results.
References
[1] J. Schmid, J. Kö
nig, A. Just, The Reduced Cross-Section Method for the design of
timber structures exposed to fire-background, limitations and new develop-
ments, Struct. Eng. Int. 22 (2012) 514–522.
[2] EN 1995-1-2: Design of Timber Structures – Part 1-2: General – Structural Fire
Design, CEN, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, 2004.
[3] EN 1995-1-1: Design of Timber Structures – Part 1-1: General – Common
Rules and Rules for Buildings, CEN, European Committee for Standardization,
Brussels, 2004.
[4] E.L. Schaffer, Forest products L, strength validation and fire endurance of
glued-laminated timber beams, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest
Products Laboratory, Madison, WI, 1986.
[5] M. Klippel, J. Schmid, A. Frangi, The Reduced Cross-Section Method for timber
members subjected to compression, tension and bending in fire, International
Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction, Working
Commission W18 – Timber Structures, Meeting 45 (CIB-W18 Meeting 2012),
Växjö, Sweden, 2012, pp. CIB-W18/45-16-1.
[6] J. Schmid, J. Kö hler, Fire-exposed cross-laminated timber – modelling
nig, J. Kö
and tests, in: Conference proceedings of the World Conference on Timber
Engineering 2010, Riva del Garda, Trentino, Italy, 2010.
[7] J. König, L. Walleij, Timber frame assemblies exposed to standard and
parametric fires – Part 2: a design model for standard fire exposure, Swedish
Institute for Wood Technology Research, Stockholm, Sweden, 2000.
[8] ISO 834: Fire-resistance Tests – Elements of Building Construction – Part 1:
General Requirements, International Organization for Standardization, 1999.
[9] EN 1363-1: Fire Resistance Tests – Part 1: General Requirements, CEN,
European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, 1999.
[10] U. Wickströ m, The plate thermometer – a simple instrument for reaching
harmonized fire resistance tests, Fire Technol. 30 (1994) 13.
[11] EN 1991-1-2: Actions on Structures – Part 1-2: General Actions – Actions on
Structures Exposed to Fire, CEN, European Committee for Standardization,
Brussels, 2002.
[12] EN 338: Structural Timber – Strength Classes, CEN, European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels, 2009.
[13] EN 1194: Timber Structures – Glued Laminated Timber – Strength Classes and
Determination of Characteristic Values, CEN, European Committee for Stan-
dardization, Brussels, 1999.
[14] E.L. Schaffer, Charring Rate of Selected Woods – Transverse to Grain, Forest
Products Lab., Madison, Wisconsin, 1967.
[15] P. Cachim, J.-M. Franssen, Assessment of Eurocode 5 charring rate calculation
methods, Fire Technol. 46 (2010) 169–181.
[16] EN 384: Structural Timber – Determination of Characteristic Values of
Mechanical Properties and Density, CEN, European Committee for Standardi-
zation, Brussels, 2010.
[17] D. Lange, L. Bostrom, J. Schmid, J. Albrektsson, The influence of parametric fire
scenarios on structural timber performance and reliability, SP Swedish
Technical Research Institute; Report No. 2014:35, ISBN 978-91-87461-78-1,
Borås, Sweden, 2014.
[18] A. Frangi, M. Fontana, Charring rates and temperature profiles of wood
sections, Fire Mater. 27 (2003) 91–102.
[19] J. König, L. Walleij, One-dimensional charring of timber exposed to standard and
parametric fires in initially unprotected and postprotection situations, SP Technical
Research Institute of Sweden, Wood Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 1999.
[20] DIN 4102-2: Brandverhalten von Baustoffen und Bauteilen, Teil 2: Begriffe,
Anforderungen und Prüfiungen von Bauteilen, DIN, Deutsches Institut für
Normung e. V., Berlin, Germany, 1970.
[21] E119-05a: Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and
Materials, ASTM, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
2006.
[22] M. Peter, T. Gö ckerl, Bemessung von Voll- und Brettschichtholzbauteilen aus
Maschinell Sortiertem Schnittholz für den Brandfall – Teil 2: Brandversuche
zur Bestätigung der theoretischen Ergebnisse, Berlin, Institut des Zimmerer-
und Holzbaugewerbes e.V., 2006.
[23] P. Glos, Festigkeitssortierung, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Holz e. V., Beitrag A6 aus
Step 1: 9, 1995.
[24] C.-J. Johansson, Grading of timber with respect to mechanical properties, in:
Conference proceedings of the Timber Advanced Course 2000, Lund, Sweden,
2000.
[25] B. Thunell, Grading and strength of timber, Holzals Roh-und Werkstoff. 9
(1971) 4.
[26] Probabilistic Model Code, JCSS, Joint Committee on Structural Safety, 〈http://
www.jcss.byg.dtu.dk〉, 2007.
[27] EN 1194, Brettschichtholz-Festigkeitsklassen und Bestimmung Charakteris-
tischer Werte, CEN, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, 1999.
[28] Thunell B., Hållfasthetsegenskaper hos Svenskt Furuvirke Utan Kvistar och
Defekter, in: Proceedings no. 161, Royal Swedish Institute for Engineering
Research, Stockholm, Sweden, 1941 (in Swedish).
[29] K. Tenning, Glued laminated timber beams: Fire tests and experience in
practice. Symposium No. 3 "Fire and structural use of timber in buildings"
held at the Fire Research Station, Borehamwood, Herts, on 25th October, 1967,
London 1970.
[30] H. Dorn, K. Egner, Brandversuche mit geleimten Holzbauteilen,
Holz-Zentralblatt Stuttg. 87 (1961) 435–438.
[31] H. Dorn, K. Egner, Brandversuche an brettschichtverleimten Holzträgern unter
biegebeanspruchung, Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 25 (1967) 308–320.
[32] G.S. Hall, Fire resistance tests of laminated timber beams, Timber Research
and Development Association, High Wycombe, U.K., 1968.
[33] R. Dreyer, Holzträger unter Biege- und Feuerbeanspruchung, Institut für
Baustoffkunde und Stahlbetonbau, Technische Universität Braunschweig,
Braunschweig, 1969.
[34] R. Dreyer, Brettschichtverleimte binder unter biege- und feuerbeanspruchung:
unters, durchgef, Auftr, Deutschen Gesellschaft für Holzforschung, vom
Bayerischen Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft und Verkehr, Institut für Baus-
toffkunde und Stahlbetonbau, 1970.
[35] R. Dreyer, Träger, binder und decken aus holz unter biege- und feuerbean-
spruchung, Institut für Baustoffkunde und Stahlbetonbau der technischen
Universität, Braunschweig, Germany, 1970.
[36] R.H. White, Tensile strength of fire-exposed wood members, in: Conference
Proceedings of the International Wood Engineering Conference, New Orleans, 1996.
[37] J. Zhang, Q.-f. Xu, Y.-x. Xu, B. Wang, J.-x. Shang, A numerical study on fire
endurance of wood beams exposed to three-side fire, J. Zhejiang Univ. – Sci. A
13 (7) (2012) 491–505.
[38] M. Fragiacomo, A. Menis, P.J. Moss, I. Clemente, A.H. Buchanan, B. Nicolo,
Predicting the fire resistance of timber members loaded in tension, Fire Mater.
37 (2013) 114–129.
[39] M. Klippel, A. Frangi, Fire tests on finger-jointed timber boards – test report,
Zürich, vdf Hochschul-Verlag an der ETH Zürich, 2014.
[40] DIN 4102, Widerstandsfähigkeit von Baustoffen und Bauteilen gegen feuer
und wärme, DIN, Deutsches Institut für Normung e. V., Berlin, Germany, 1940.
[41] BS 476-1: Fire Tests on Building Materials and Structures – Part 1: Test
Conditions, BSI, British Standards Institution, London, UK, 1953.
[42] DIN 4102-4: Brandverhalten von Baustoffen und Bauteilen – Einreihung in die
Begriffe, DIN, Deutsches Institut für Normung, Berlin, Germany, 1965.
[43] 4074-1 D, Bauholz für Holzbauteile, Gütebedingungen für Bauschnittholz
(Nadelholz), Berlin, Germany, DIN, 1958.
[44] ASTM E119, Standard test methods for fire tests of building construction and
materials, ASTM International STMfFToBCaM, 2012.
[45] J. Kö nig, Fire resistance of timber joists and load bearing wall frames, Institutet
för Träteknisk Forskning, Stockholm, Trätek, 1995.
[46] EN 408: Timber Structures – Structural Timber and Glued Laminated Timber –
Determination of Some Physical and Mechanical Properties, CEN, European
Committee for Standardization, Brussels, 2010.
[47] W. Lane, A. Buchanan, P. Moss, Fire performance of Laminated Veneer Lumber
(LVL), in: Proceedings of the 18th Austrailasian Conference on the Mechanics
of Structures and Materials, Perth, Australia, 2004.
[48] M. Klippel, A. Frangi, E. Hugi, Experimental analysis on the fire behavior of
finger-jointed timber members, ASCE J. Struct. Eng. (2013).
[49] G. Fink, A. Frangi, J. Kö hler, Modelling the bending strength of glued-
laminated timber – considering the natural growth characteristics of timber,
CIB-W18 Meeting, Vancouver, Canada, 2013.
 J. Schmid et al. / Fire Safety Journal 68 (2014) 81–99 99

[50] EN 13381-4: Test Methods for Determining the Contribution to the Fire
Resistance of Structural Members – Part 4: Applied Passive Protection to Steel
Members, CEN, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, 2013.
[51] J. Kö
nig, Timber Frame Assemblies Exposed to Standard and Parametric Fires:
Fire tests, Trätek, 1997.
[52] M. Klippel, A. Frangi, M. Fontana, Influence of the adhesive on the load-
carrying capacity of glued laminated timber members in fire, in: Proceedings
of the 10th International Symposium on Fire Safety Science (IAFSS 2011), 2011,
pp. 1219–1232.
[53] M. Klippel, A. Frangi, Nummerical investigations on the fire behaviour of
glued-laminated timber beams talking into account the influence of adhe-
sives, in: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Structures in Fire,
Tongji University in Shanghai, China, June 11–13 2014.