International Journal of Thermal Sciences 132 (2018) 96–103

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Thermal Sciences

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

Numerical simulation of fire integrity resistance of full-scale gypsum-faced T

cross-laminated timber wall
V.D. Thi, M. Khelifa∗, M. Oudjene, M. El Ganaoui, Y. Rogaume
Université de Lorraine, INRA LERMAB, F-88, France

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Fire design requires three fire resistance criteria, namely integrity, insulation and load-bearing. In particular,
Gypsum board repartition wall systems used in residential and commercial buildings are required to provide certification of
Integrity failure insulation and integrity fire resistance and have to be analysed in the context of the characteristic time scales of a
Fire safety fire. This paper presents a numerical methodology to simulate the fire integrity resistance of full-scale timber-
CLT
based wall systems exposed to fire. The main contribution of this paper, with regard to the existing literature, is
FEM
Thermal behaviour
the presence of cross-laminated timber (CLT) panel in the central part of the wall system, where the pyrolysis of
timber was modelled explicitly in the energy balance equation system. For this end, a user-subroutine, called
UMATHT, is developed and successfully implemented in the Abaqus finite element code for thermal analysis.
The falling off of the gypsum boards under fire was considered implicitly in the FE model based on experimental
observations. The obtained results show clearly the need to take into account explicitly the cracks and falling off
of the gypsum boards for an appropriate prediction of the integrity fire resistance in order to reduce expensive
experimental procedures.

1. Introduction between buildings, there is a risk of extrapolating codes and standards

Fire Safety is the superposition of three different types of events
occurring simultaneously. Two of these events, egress and structural
behaviour, are reactive events while the rate of fire growth is the
driving process. The structure will be designed and it will respond to
the fire. Some passive fire protection systems (detection, alarm) are
designed and implemented to warn of the fire, and others are designed
to affect the rate of growth (suppression). People within a building are
located according to the general use of the premises but will change
their behaviour in response to the fire. Occupants will have mostly a
passive role, while fire fighters will have an active role attempting to
control the growth of the fire.
Building design and fire fighter intervention procedures are defined
on the basis of one or more fire growth scenarios. In the case of pre-
scriptive design (codes and standards) the fire growth scenarios are
implicit, while in the case of performance based design (engineering
based methods) they are explicitly defined and are referred to as “de-
sign fires”. Prescriptive design rules use knowledge on fire dynamics
and empirical data to bind the fire growth for the specific conditions of
the implied scenarios. Fire safety systems are designed to operate
within these bounds and are deemed adequate for a range of buildings.
But given that there are unavoidable and significant differences
outside its range of applicability. Therefore, to know the extent of the
extrapolation of prescriptive solutions requires understanding the
parameters that govern and bound the fire growth scenario. In the case
of performance based design, knowledge on fire dynamics is used to
predict fire growth under the particular conditions of the building. Thus
the link between fire safety objective and understanding of the physical
parameters controlling fire growth is important and explicit.
There are three fire resistance criteria for fire design, namely: in-
tegrity, insulation and load-bearing. The integrity failure which results
in flame and/or smoke leakage from the fire compartment can result in
significant loss of life [1]. Light non-load-bearing partition wall systems
used in residential and commercial properties are required to provide a
certified insulation and integrity fire resistance rating. In Europe, cer-
tification for fire resistance rating involves subjecting such walls to a
standard fire according to the standard fire curve ISO 834-1 [2] as given
in the EN1991-1-2 [3].
The fire rating of partition walls are subjected to certification before
they can be used in construction. The certification process is quite
costly and could involve repeated experimental attempts, using accre-
dited fire testing facilities which are very limited, to achieve the re-
quired fire rating with additional cost and loss of time [1]. It is,
therefore, of primary importance to develop numerical tools to simulate

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mourad.khelifa@univ-lorraine.fr (M. Khelifa).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2018.06.003
Received 15 December 2016; Received in revised form 13 March 2018; Accepted 1 June 2018
Available online 14 June 2018
1290-0729/ © 2018 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
V.D. Thi et al. International Journal of Thermal Sciences 132 (2018) 96–103

Nomenclature A pre-exponential constant [1/s]

Δh reaction heat [J/kg]
T temperature [K]
t time [s] Subscript
x,y,z location coordinates [mm]
ci specific heat of components i [J/(kg.K)] λ thermal conductivity [W/(m.K)]
ρ density [kg/m3] 0 initial
Q″r energy source [kW/m3] c char
h conv convection coefficient [W/(K.m2)] g gas
ε emis emissivity l liquid
R gas constant [J/(K.mol)] t tar
k reaction rate [1/s] v vapor
E activation energy [J/(mol)] w wood
H moisture content [%]

the behaviour of full-scale structural (or non-structural) components
under fire.
Timber has an explicit role within the context of fire growth. Timber
is a flammable material that when exposed to a fire will ignite con-
tributing to the growth of the fire. Thus, it will affect the rate of growth
of the fire and thus alter the times to reach untenable conditions. If
burning or pyrolyzing it will generate combustion products, thus will
introduce toxic and irritant species. Timber, if part of the structure
(load bearing or non-load bearing) will have a significant impact on
structural integrity but also will help define heat transfer through the
infrastructure boundaries, thus will affect compartment temperatures.
It is therefore clear that the presence of timber has the potential of
dramatically affect fire safety. Nevertheless, the real question that
needs to be addressed is how significant is this effect. The significance
of timber in fire is intimately related to the characteristic times involved
in the degradation, burning and loss of mechanical properties of the
material relative to all the characteristic times for egress.
Timber structures have traditionally been built using heavy timber
frames, with the walls being constructed of various materials such as
interwoven branches and split logs in the very early versions of these
types of structures, and later using plastered panels and bricks [4]. The
coming of the industrial revolution marked the appearance of in-
dustrially built planks, boards and nails which spawned the appearance
of new and modern construction techniques, especially in the Europe
and USA, where new framing methods reduced labour costs, increased
the flexibility in construction and allowed for prefabrication [4]. These
light frame construction methods are nowadays the predominant form
of construction in residential and low-rise buildings. During the last
decade, prefabricated cross-laminated timber panels (CLT) for load
bearing wall and floor assemblies have become increasingly popular not
only for residential but also for office, retail and industrial buildings
[5,6] in particular in the actual context of multi-storey timber

Fig. 1. Geometrical illustration of the studied wall systems and location of thermocouples:
(a) steel-stud gypsum-faced partition wall and (b) gypsum-faced CLT wall.

97
V.D. Thi et al.
buildings. CLT panels are not only recognized for their excellent re-
sistance and stiffness characteristics, but also for their excellent thermal
insulation and air tightness [7]. However, even if CLT panels are fa-
vourable in case of fire, as the risk of fire spread through void cavities is
reduced, in comparison to light timber frame constructions, they in-
crease the fire load in the room compartment.
Nowadays, the need for predicting the structural behaviour of
timber structures exposed to fire has gained increasing interest in the
context of more and more intensive use of CLT in modern constructions,
including multi-storey buildings. On the other hand, appropriate and
safe fire design of buildings in the context of multi-storey timber
buildings [8] will requires the integrity, insulation as well as the load-
bearing criteria. In this context, the authors have developed and im-
plemented in the Abaqus software a user-subroutine material called
UMATHT dedicated to the behaviour of timber under fire. The main
novelty of this work with regard to the existing literature [9–12]
dealing with the behaviour of timber structures under fire, is that the
energy sources (endothermic and exothermic) involved in the pyrolysis
of timber exposed to fire are taken into account explicitly in the energy
balance equation, instead of gradually-modified thermo-physical
properties which is standard in the literature. In the spirit of previous
analytical one-dimensional pyrolysis models [13–20] dedicated to small
scale wooden fuel particles or biomass gasification, we develop a 2D
finite element pyrolysis model to simulate the behaviour of timber
structures under fire. The model was successfully implemented in the
ABAQUS commercial software via a user-defined subroutine called
UMATHT.
Here, the developed pyrolysis model is applied to two examples
gathered from the literature. The firt example is the simulation of fire
integrity resistance of full-scale steel-stud gypsum-faced repartition
wall (Fig. 1a), experimentally and numerically studied by Nassif et al.
[1]. The second example deals with gypsum-faced CLT timber wall
(Fig. 1b), studied experimentally Frangi et al. [5].
2. Numerical modelling strategy
The studied wall systems include several materials: galvanised steel-
stud, gypsum boards (standard and fire proof), mineral wool and cross-
laminated timber panel (Fig. 1).
To model such a wall, we propose to consider two kinds of mate-
rials:
- Non-combustible materials, namely insulating and finishing
Fig. 2. Thermo-physical properties of the gypsum board according to [1,21]:
(a)specific heat and (b) thermal conductivity.
98
International Journal of Thermal Sciences 132 (2018) 96–103
materials: steel, rockwool and gypsum boards. The thermal beha-
viour of those materials was modelled using gradually-modified
thermo-physical properties gathered from the published literature
[1,20] and the corresponding standards [21];
- Combustible materials, namely CLT panel. The thermal behaviour of
timber exposed to fire is modelled by taking into account the dif-
ferent physicochemical reactions (Fig. 5) due to the pyrolysis, at
elevated temperature (> 300 °C), explicitly in the energy balance
equation (see Eq. (1)).
All the numerical simulations were run based on the standard fire
ISO834-1, using convection coefficient h conv = 25 [W/(K.m2)] and
emissivityε emis = 0.8.
2.1. Modelling of steel-stud gypsum-faced partition wall
The main objective of this example is to calibrate the thermo-phy-
sical parameters of the thermal model, thus all the model parameters of
gypsum, steel-stud and rockwool have been chosen from the literature
[1]. Thermal behaviour under fire of light non-load-bearing steel-stud
gypsum-faced partition wall systems has been extensively studied ex-
perimentally, by many researchers [1,5,6,21,22]. These studied include
measurement of temperature rating at different location depths, mid-
high deflection/buckling of steel-stud, influence of the thickness of
steel-stud as well as the mode of failure integrity. Numerical simulation
of the behaviour, during fire scenario, is presented in the published
literature by considering the standard ISO fire [2] curve provided by EN
1991-1-2 [3] and by means of gradually-modified thermal and physical
properties of the different constitutive materials (gypsum, steel and
rockwool). In particular, specific heat and thermal properties of the
gypsum boards are determined as a function of temperature by many
researchers [21,23–27], among others. Therefore, several data base
regarding the thermo-physical properties of gypsum board are available
in the published literature, however, the users are advised to select the
best suited data to the nature of gypsum that they are using [1], since
the data are different from an author to another. For example, some
authors consider one pic value of the specific heat corresponding to
dehydration of the gypsum at about 120 °C, while some others consider
two or three pic values at 120 °C and 650 °C, and at 120 °C, 200 °C and
650 °C, respectively, corresponding to two or three dehydration stages.
In the present study, the data published by Nassif et al. [1] (Fig. 2) were
used in the numerical simulation of the gypsum board. While the
thermo-physical properties of steel-stud as a function of temperature
V.D. Thi et al.
Fig. 3. Thermo-physical properties of the steel-stud according to the EN 1993 [28]:
(a) specific heat and (b) thermal conductivity.
Fig. 4. Finite element mesh of the steel-stud gypsum-faced partition wall (1/2
model).
were taken from the EN 1993 [28] (Fig. 3).
The density of the gypsum board is taken equal to 698 kg/m3 at
20 °C and decreases to 576 kg/m3 for temperatures over than 800 °C.
The density, the specific heat and the thermal conductivity of the
rockwool remain constant and taken, respectively, equal to 25 kg/m3,
840 J/(kg.K) and 0.035 W/(m.K).
The coupled thermo-mechanical behaviour of the steel-stud, due to
the thermal expansion (thermal gradient), has been considered based
on the reduction factors as suggested in EN 1993-1-2 [28].
The gypsum boards were assumed to prevent both torsional buck-
ling and lateral buckling in the plane of the wall. Because the wall
99
International Journal of Thermal Sciences 132 (2018) 96–103
Fig. 5. The one-set of decomposition of wet wood during pyrolysis.
admits symmetry, only one half of the model was meshed using 2325
and 12000 solid elements (C3D8RT element of Abaqus) for the gypsum
board and the rockwool, respectively, and 1092 shell elements (S4RT
element of Abaqus) for the steel-studs (Fig. 4).
2.2. Modelling of gypsum-faced CLT wall
In this example it is required to appropriately model the wood
pyrolysis for an accurate prediction of the temperature rise during fire.
The performance of wood has to be analysed in the context of the
characteristic time scales of a fire. It was concluded that wood plays a
minor role in egress and life safety, since characteristic time scales and
heat fluxes are too short to involve large amounts of wood.
Furthermore, burning rates and flame spread are small in the absence of
significant heat feedback. Thus the problem of wood in fire is mostly a
structural problem that should focus on the mechanical behaviour of
the degrading material.
According to the one-dimensional analytical models available in the
literature [16–20], wet wood is assumed to decompose into several
major products (Fig. 5): water/vapor, char, gas and tar. This is a
combination between pyrolysis analytical models by Shen [16] and Di
V.D. Thi et al. International Journal of Thermal Sciences 132 (2018) 96–103

Blasi [18]. In the first model, it is assumed that wood decomposes on Table 1
three products, namely char, water/vapor and gas by three reactions. Di Thermo-physical parameters of the pyrolysis [17,18].
Blasi's model, however, assumes moisture-free wood which decomposes Pyrolysis reaction parameters
on char, tar and gas by three primary reactions, and then a portion of
the tar decomposes on gas and char by successive secondary reactions w→c (kc) w→t (kt) w→g (kg) t→c (kc2) t→g (kg2)
[18]. The primary reactions are identical to that of the Shen's model −1 6 10 6 6
Ai (s ) 2,66 .10 1,48.10 5,16.10 1.10 4,28.106
and they are endothermic reactions, while the secondary reactions are Ei (kJ/mol) 106.5 112.7 88.6 108 108
exothermic. Δhi (kJ/kg) −418 −418 −418 42 42
It is concluded that the thermal characteristics of the wood pyrolysis
is highly depending on the endo/exothermic mechanisms [16–20]. It is, Thermo-physical properties
therefore, proposed to develop and implement a user-defined sub- H Ci [J/(kg.K)] ρ0 [kg/m3] T0 [K]
10% Cw = 2300 470 298 [K]
routine in the Abaqus finite element code to obtain close-to-reality fire
Cl = 4200
behaviour of timber. Cc = 1100
The evolution of the temperature gradient, incorporating the energy Cv = 1580
source due to the pyrolysis, in a 3D wood sample can be described by Cg = 1100
Ct = 1980
the energy conservation equation as follows:

∂ ∂ ⎛ ∂T ⎞ ∂ ⎛ ∂T ⎞
[T(ρw c w + ρc cc + ρt ct + ρl cl)] = λ sx + ⎜λ sy ⎟ Note that all the thermo-physical properties of the CLT timber as
∂t ∂x ⎝ ∂x ⎠ ∂y ⎝ ∂y ⎠
well as the parameters of the pyrolysis reactions were adopted from
∂ ⎛ ∂T ⎞ [17,18] and are listed in Table 1. Several simulations have been per-
+ λ sz + Q''r
∂z ⎝ ∂z ⎠ (1) formed by the authors on small-scale applications showing that the
adopted parameters are generally well suited for spruce timber.
It is assumed that the energy source induced by the pyrolysis de-
2D finite element mesh was used to model the gypsum board-faced
composes on endothermic and exothermic reaction sources as follows:
CLT wall involving 268 DC2D4 elements of Abaqus for the gypsum and
Q''r = Q''endot + Q''exot (2) the rockwool and 402 DC2D4 elements of Abaqus for the CLT panel.

where
3. Results and discussion
Q''endot = k c ρw [Δh0c + (cc −c w)(T−T0)]+ k g ρw [Δh0g
3.1. Results from steel-stud gypsum partition wall
+ (cg −c w)(T−T0)]+ kt ρw [Δht0 + (ct −c w)(T−T0)]+ kv ρl [Δh 0v
+ (c v −cl)(T−T0)] (3) Fig. 6 displays the comparison between the measured thermal
profiles and the numerically-predicted ones at different thermocouple
and
locations (T1 to T4). It can be observed a fairly good agreement up to
Q''exot = k c 2 ρt [Δhc02 + (cc −ct )(T−T0)]+ k g 2 ρt [Δh0g 2 + (cg −c t)(T−T0)] about 50 min time of exposure to fire. Beyond this point the numerical
results show divergence as compared to the experimental measure-
(4)
ments. This is mainly caused by the falling off of the gypsum boards
The mass conservation equations for wood, char, gas, tar and liquid/ leading to direct exposure to fire of the thermocouples, as documented
vapor are as follows: in [1]. Thermocouples T2 to T4 demonstrate the effect of the insulating
∂ρw property of the rockwool, where the temperature profiles are still al-
= − (k c + k g + kt )ρw most constant up to 30 min time of exposure to fire.
∂t (5)
Fig. 7a depicts the thermal deflection measured at the mid-span of
∂ρc the steel-stud. It can be observed from this Figure that the numerically-
= k c ρw + k c 2ρt
∂t (6) predicted thermo-mechanical behaviour of steel-studs compares well
∂ρg with the experimental measurement as well as with the simulation
= k g ρw + k g2ρt
∂t (7)

∂ρt
= kt ρw − k c 2ρt − k g 2ρt
∂t (8)

∂ρl ∂ρv
= − kv ρl ; = kv ρl
∂t ∂t (9)
The chemical reactions for pyrolysis of wet wood are assumed to be
governed by the first-order Arrhenius law as follows:
−Ei
⎛ ⎞
ki = Ai . e⎝ RT ⎠ (10)
The thermal conductivity value of the solid wood was obtained from
those corresponding to wood and char and they are taken from [16]:
λ w = 0.166 + 0.369 × H (11)

λ c = 0.105 (12)

λ s,j = ηλ c,j +(1−η)λ w,j (13)

ρc
η= Fig. 6. Comparison between temperature profiles for steel-stud gypsum-faced
ρw + ρc (14) partition wall.

100
V.D. Thi et al. International Journal of Thermal Sciences 132 (2018) 96–103

Fig. 7. Thermo-mechanical behaviour of steel-studs: (a) thermal deflection curves at the mid-span of the steel-stud and (b) deformed shape.

results from [1]. However, beyond 50 min time of exposure, the final regarding the thermal profiles within the CLT panel, at various location
predicted deflection seems to be more much quick and higher than the depths, in order to appropriately validate the pyrolysis model. The
experimental one. This can be explained by the partial composite action authors, however, have run several simulations on the small size ex-
between the gypsum board and the steel-studs (screwed connections) of ample presented by Shen et al. [16] and the results seems to be in good
the non-exposed side which was neglected in the present study. On the agreement [29].
other hand, contrarily to that documented in [1], the simulations were Furthermore, Fig. 10 depicts the evolution of the thermal con-
run with and without taking into account the geometrical nonlinearity ductivity of the solid timber (see Eqs. (11)–(13)). The thermal con-
(model-GL and model-GNL) of the steel-stud and the results showed ductivity deceases following two stages: the first stage at about 100 °C
that this do not have any effect on the thermal deflection (Fig. 7a). corresponds to the drying process, while the second stage of decrease
takes place at about 300 °C and it corresponds to the conversion to
3.2. Results from gypsum-faced CLT wall charring.
Fig. 11 illustrates the numerically-predicted product fractions.
Fig. 8 displays the numerically-predicted temperature rise at ther- When temperature exceeds 300 °C, it seems that more gas and char are
mocouples T1 and T2 compared against experimental measurements. It produced and less tar is produced. Tar, however, seems to decrease
can be seen that the numerical predictions are reasonable as compared beyond 350 °C because of the secondary tar decomposition, leading to
to the experiments up to about 48 min time of exposure to fire. Beyond additional gas and char (see Fig. 5).
this time of exposure, the experimental measurement, recorded by
thermocouple T2, exhibits a quick rise in temperatures. This corre- 4. Conclusion
sponds to the time where the gypsum boards cracked and crumbled,
with it came the mineral wool, leading to the direct exposure of the This paper aimed to provide a numerical methodology for full-scale
thermocouples to fire [7]. Note that the cracks and degradation of the simulation of the fire resistance of load-bearing or non-load bearing
gypsum board exposed to fire is a complicated issue which is not ex- gypsum-faced wall systems used in modern constructions. The numer-
plicitly modelled here. ical modelling considers nonlinear thermo-mechanical behaviour of
It is worth noting that the divergence of the numerically-predicted steel-stud, falling off of the gypsum boards as well as the pyrolysis of
temperature at the thermocouple T2 (Fig. 8) is due to the insulating timber (CLT panel). The thermal behaviour of the gypsum and the steel-
property of the mineral wool. stud was considered through gradually-modified thermo-physical
Based on these results, the authors propose to carry-out the simu-
lation on two steps, to take into account, implicitly, the falling off of the
gypsum under fire: the first step corresponds to the time scale up to
48 min time of exposure, after that a second step takes place where the
insulating properties of both the gypsum and the mineral wool are
disregarded in order to heat directly the interface between the mineral
wool and the CLT panel (location of thermocouple T2). With this
methodology, it seems that the numerically-predicted thermal profile at
T2 is in line with the experimental measurement (Fig. 9). However,
during time exposure comprised between 12 and about 48 min the
predicted thermal profile at T2 exhibits a slight difference (Fig. 9). We
do not know for sure, at the time of this writing, the reason for this
difference but it could be, as documented in [1], that this is believed to
be caused by energy transportation via steam movement within the
insulating and finishing material cavities.
The pic observed at the thermocouple T2 at about 55 min time of
exposure to fire is due to the exothermic reaction involved in the pyr-
olysis of the CLT panel.
After about 55 min time of exposure to fire, the numerically-pre-
dicted the value of the charring depth for the CLT panel (8 mm) pre-
sents a fairly good agreement with the experimentally-measured values Fig. 8. Comparison between numerically-predicted temperature rises against
at different locations which were comprised between 5 and 10 mm [7]. experimentally-recorded ones at thermocouples T1and T2 for gypsum-faced
At this stage of the study, we do not have enough measurements CLT wall.

101
V.D. Thi et al.
Fig. 9. Comparison between numerically-predicted temperature rises against
experimentally-recorded ones at thermocouples T1and T2 for gypsum-faced
CLT wall.
Fig. 10. Evolution of the thermal conductivity of the solid timber during the
conversion process.
properties of the constituent materials, while the thermal behaviour of
timber panel was considered by considering explicitly the reactions
involved in the pyrolysis of timber at high temperature (> 300 °C).
The following main remarks can be mentioned:
- The obtained results can be considered as satisfactory until falling
off of the gypsum boards;
- The geometric nonlinearity of the steel-stud under fire did not affect
the thermo-mechanical behaviour;
- Even if the composite partial action between the gypsum board and
the steel-stud from the exposed side to fire can be neglected, the
non-exposed side seems to contribute to the global stiffness of the
entire wall system;
- The falling off of the gypsum boards under fire was taken into ac-
count implicitly based on experimental observation.
The developed numerical model, however, needs further and deeper
improvements before it can be considered as a robust and a general tool
for fire design. For example, the cracks and falling off of the gypsum
102
International Journal of Thermal Sciences 132 (2018) 96–103
Fig. 11. Numerically-predicted product fractions.
board (and the mineral wool) play an important role in the integrity fire
resistance and should be taken explicitly in the numerical model to
appropriately analyse the structures in the context of the characteristic
time scales of a fire. Moreover, the developed pyrolysis model needs
further and deeper validation on different timber species and assem-
blies.
Acknowledgement
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the
French Ministry of High Education and Research (MESR contract-
2014).
References
[1] A.Y. Nassif, I. Yoshitake, A. Allam, Full-scale fire testing and numerical modelling of
the transient thermo-mechanical behaviour of steel-stud gypsum board partition
walls, Construct. Build. Mater. 59 (2014) 51–61.
[2] ISO 834-1, Fire-resistance Tests. Elements of Building Construction. Part 1: General
Requirements, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva,
Switzerland,, 1999.
[3] Eurocode 5 – Design of timber structures. Part 1–2: General – Structural Fire Design.
CEN 2004 (European Committee for Standardization), EN 1995-1-2, Brussels,
Belgium.
[4] G.C. Foliente, Developments in performance-based building codes and standards,
For. Prod. J. 50 (7/8) (2000).
[5] M. Feng, Y.C. Wang, J. Davis, Thermal performance of cold-formed thin-walled
steel panel systems in fire, Fire Saf. J. 38 (4) (2003) 365–394.
[6] M. Feng, Y.C. Wang, An experimental study of loaded full-scale cold-formed thin-
walled steel structural panels under fire conditions, Fire Saf. J. 40 (1) (2005) 43–63.
[7] Frangi A., Bochicchio G., Ceccotti A., Lauriola M.P., Natural full-scale fire test on a 3
storey Xlam timber building. Proceedings of the 10th World Conference on Timber
Engineering (WCTE), Curran Associates, Inc., 2–5th June 2008.
[8] V.D. Thi, M. Khelif, M. Oudjene, M. El Ganaoui, Y. Rogaume, Finite element ana-
lysis of heat transfer through timber elements exposed to fire, Eng. Struct. 143
(2017) 11–21.
[9] Eurocode 5 – Design of timber structures. Part 1–2: General – Structural Fire Design.
CEN 2004 (European Committee for Standardization), EN 1995-1-2, Brussels,
Belgium.
[10] S. Schnabl, I. Planinc, G. Turk, S. Srpcic, Fire analysis of timber composite beams
with interlayer slip, Fire Saf. J. 44 (2009) 770–778.
[11] A. Menis, Fire resistance of Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL) and Cross Laminated
Timber (XLAM) elements. Italy: Università degli studi di Cagliari, (2012) (PhD
Thesis).
[12] C. Erchinger, A. Frangi, M. Fontana, Fire design of steel-to-timber dowelled con-
nections, Eng. Struct. 32 (2010) 580–589.
[13] B. Benkoussas, J.-L. Consalvi, B. Porterie, N. Sardoy, J.-C. Loraud, Modelling
thermal degradation of woody fuel particles, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 46 (2007) 319–327.
[14] A. Fuentes, J.L. Consalvi, Experimental study of the burning rate of small-scale
forest fuel layers, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 74 (2013) 119–125.
[15] O. Séro-Guillaume, S. Ramezani, J. Margerit, D. Calogine, On large scale forest fires
propagation models, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 47 (2008) 680–694.
[16] D.K. Shen, M.X. Fang, Z.Y. Luo, K.F. Cen, Modeling pyrolysis of wet wood under
V.D. Thi et al.
external heat flux, Fire Saf. J. 42 (2007) 210–217.
[17] W.C. Park, A. Atreya, H.R. Baum, Experimental and theoretical investigation of heat
and mass transfer processes during wood pyrolysis, Combust. Flame 157 (2010)
481–494.
[18] C.D. Blasi, Analysis of convection and secondary reaction effects within porous solid
fuels undergoing pyrolysis, Combust. Sci. Technol. 90 (1993) 315–340.
[19] R. Bilbao, J.F. Mastral, J. Ceamanous, M.E. Aldea, Modeling of the pyrolysis of wet
wood, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrol. 36 (1996) 81–97.
[20] S.S. Alves, J.L. Figueiredo, A model for pyrolysis of wet wood, Chem. Eng. Sci. 44
(1989) 2861–2869.
[21] F. Alfawakhiri, M.A. Sultan, D.H. MacKinnon, Fire resistance of loadbearing steel
stud wall protected with gypsum board: a review, Fire Technol. 35 (4) (1999)
308–335.
[22] M.A. Sultan, V.R. Kodur, Light-weight frame wall assemblies: parameters for con-
sideration in fire resistance performance based design, Fire Technol. 36 (2) (2000)
75–88.
[23] J.R. Mehaffey, P. Cuerrier, G. Carisse, A model for predicting heat transfer through
103
International Journal of Thermal Sciences 132 (2018) 96–103
gypsum board/wood-stud walls exposed to fire, Fire Mater. 18 (1994) 297–305.
[24] G. Thomas, Thermal properties of gypsum plasterboard at high temperatures, Fire
Mater. 45 (2002) 37–45.
[25] D.J. Hopkin, J. El-Rimawi, V. Silberschmidt, T. Lennon, An effective thermal
property framework for softwood in parametric design fires: comparison of the
Eurocode 5 parametric charring approach and advanced calculation models,
Construct. Build. Mater. 25 (5) (2011) 2584–2595.
[26] D.J. Hopkin, T. Lennon, J. El-Rimawi, V. Silberschmidt, Full-scale natural fire tests
on gypsum lined structural insulated panel (SIP) and engineered floor joist as-
semblies, Fire Saf. J. 46 (8) (2011) 528–542.
[27] T. Lennon, D. Hopkin, J. El-Rimawi, V. Silberschmidt, Large scale natural fire tests
on protected engineered timber floor systems, Fire Saf. J. 45 (3) (2010) 168–182.
[28] EN1993-1-2. Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures—Part 1–2: General Rules –
Structural Fire Design.
[29] V.D. Thi, M. Khelifa, M. El Ganaoui, Y. Rogaume, Finite element modelling of the
pyrolysisÐf wet wood subjected to fire, Fire Saf. J. 81 (2016) 85–96.