Analysis of progressive collapse in single-

storey steel buildings affected by local fire

Tim Hedlund

Fire Engineering, master's level

2020

Luleå University of Technology

Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering
ANALYSIS OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE
IN SINGLE-STOREY STEEL BUILDINGS
AFFECTED BY LOCAL FIRE

Author: Tim Hedlund

Internal supervisor: Naveed Iqbal, PhD, Luleå University of Technology

External supervisor: Joakim Sandström, PhD, Brandskyddslaget AB
Examiner: Michael Försth, Professor, Luleå University of Technology

In collaboration with: Brandskyddslaget AB

Master Programme in Fire Engineering

Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering
Luleå University of Technology
SE – 971 87 LULEÅ
www.ltu.se/shb
FOREWORD

This thesis is the conclusive work of the Master Program in Fire Engineering at Luleå University of
Technology.

Firstly, I would like to thank my colleagues at Brandskyddslaget’s offices in Falun and Karlstad. Not
only for allowing me to work at your offices during this work but also for the camaraderie that you have
shown since the first day I stepped my foot into your offices.

Secondly, I would like to thank Andreas Elofsson at Ranaverken who provided me with design drawings
of the trusses analysed in this thesis. Without your contribution this work would have lost a great amount
of quality.

I would also like the thank my examiner Michael Försth who have provided great comments and
feedback during this work and for the guidance that he has given me throughout my master studies.

Finally, I would like to sincerely thank my two supervisors Naveed Iqbal and Joakim Sandström. Not
only for supporting and providing me with invaluable input throughout this work, but also for
introducing and teaching me the fine arts of structural fire safety engineering.

Karlstad, August 2020

Tim Hedlund

I
ABSTRACT

When a building is exposed to fire, it is required to remain structurally stable for a period of time. The
regulations do however allow some types of localised failures within this time frame. The damage area
of these failures must be contained and remain proportional to the initial triggering action and not
continue into a widespread collapse, commonly referred to as a progressive collapse. In order to prevent
progressive collapses, it is necessary to first identify which types of failures that could result in a
progressive collapse.

In a recent study (Iqbal N., Ph.D. thesis, Luleå University of Technology, 2016), single-storey steel
frame buildings affected by localised fires were analysed. In the study it was identified that an initial
failure in the truss’ top chord could potentially result in a progressive collapse. The reason for this is
because when the top chord fails, the truss and its roof sheeting deflect and transitions into only handling
catenary forces. The catenary forces present in the roof sheeting are then transferred to the adjacent
trusses which therefore risks collapsing. The analysis could however not determine the possibility of
progressive collapses and how factors such as truss span length affect the possibility of progressive
collapses. The purpose of this thesis therefore became to analyse how span length affect the roof
sheeting’s catenary forces and try to determine if a failure in the top chord could result in a progressive
collapse. To answer this, finite element analyses where conducted on two different truss models with
varying span lengths, i.e. 18- and 36-meter. Each model consisted of three trusses along with columns,
bracings, and roof sheeting. Additionally, a hand calculation model was adopted to determine the
strength of the catenary forces.

From the finite element analysis, it could be seen that the adjacent trusses of the 36-meter truss model
became grossly deformed. Hence indicating that a longer span length would increase the possibility of
a progressive collapse. However, the hand calculation model used to calculate the strength of the
catenary forces indicated that catenary forces present in the roof sheeting of the longer truss model, was
relatively weak compared to the shorter truss model. The reason for this could not be determined, but
some adjustments to the hand calculation model might be necessary to make it compatible with the
analysed truss model. Consequently, it was impossible to determine the possibility of a progressive
collapse. Additionally, during this work it was identified that other factors, such as truss model, bay
length and roof sheeting thickness, could affect the possibility of progressive collapses. Hence, further
work is necessary to determine the possibility of a progressive collapse.

II
ABSTRACT IN SWEDISH

När en byggnad utsätts för brandpåverkan ska den förbli strukturellt stabil under en viss tidsperiod.
Regelverken tillåter dock att vissa typer av lokala skador inträffar redan under denna tidsperiod. Dessa
skador måste begränsas till en viss area och förbli proportionerliga mot den initiala skadan och inte
resultera i utbredda kollapser, det vill säga fortskridande ras. För att kunna förhindra fortskridande ras
är det nödvändigt att först identifiera vilka typer av skador som skulle kunna resultera i fortskridande
ras.

I en relativt ny analys (Iqbal N., Doktorsavhandling, Luleå tekniska universitet, 2016) analyserades den
bärande konstruktionen i enplans stålhallar då konstruktionen utsattes för lokala bränder. Där det
identifierades att ett brott i balkens överram eventuellt skulle kunna resultera i ett fortskridande ras.
Brottet i överramen medförde nämligen att balken och dess takplåt sjönk ihop och övergick till att endast
hantera linkrafter. Takplåtens linkrafter fördelades ut till de angränsade balkarna som därmed riskerade
att kollapsa. Analysen kunde dock inte verifiera att ett fortskridande ras var möjligt eller avgöra hur
faktorer såsom balkspännvidd påverkade sannolikheten för ett fortskridande ras. Syftet med detta arbete
blev därför att analysera om balkspännvidd påverkade takplåtens linkrafter samt att försöka avgöra om
ett brott i överramen kan resultera i ett fortskridande ras eller inte. För att besvara detta genomfördes
finita elementanalyser på en 18- och en 36-meter lång balk. Varje modell bestod av tre balkar med
tillhörande pelare och takplåt. För att sedan kunna uppskatta styrkan av linkrafterna i takplåten
tillämpades en handberäkningsmodell.

Resultatet från finita elementanalyserna visade att den längre balkmodellen utsattes för högre
påkänningar i jämförelse med den kortare balkmodellen. Detta indikerar att en längre spännvidd ökar
sannolikheten för fortskridande ras. Handberäkningsmodellen som användes för att beräkna styrkan av
linkrafterna gav dock generellt mindre linkrafter för den längre balkmodellen jämfört med den kortare
balkmodellen. Anledningen till detta gick inte att fastställa men det skulle kunna vara så att
handberäkningsmodellen behöver justeras för att kunna tillämpas på den undersökta balkmodellen. I
och med detta var det omöjligt att avgöra sannolikheten för ett fortskridande ras. Under detta arbete
identifierades det även att andra faktorer så som balkmodell, centrumavstånd mellan fackverk och
plåttakstjocklek skulle kunna påverka linkrafternas styrka. På grund av detta är fortsatt arbete
nödvändigt för att kunna avgöra möjligheten och sannolikheten för ett fortskridande ras.

III
Table of Contents

FOREWORD............................................................................................................................................ I
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................ II
ABSTRACT IN SWEDISH .................................................................................................................. III
NOMENCLATURE .............................................................................................................................. VI
ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................ VIII
STRUCTURAL TERMINOLOGY....................................................................................................... IX
1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Main Objective and Research Questions ................................................................................. 2
1.2 Limitations............................................................................................................................... 2
2 STATE OF THE ART ..................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Earlier Research ...................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Code compliance ..................................................................................................................... 4
2.2.1 Structural Fire Safety Requirements ............................................................................... 5
2.2.2 Load Combinations ......................................................................................................... 8
2.2.3 Design Load for Fire Situations ...................................................................................... 9
2.2.4 Accidental Design Situations ........................................................................................ 10
3 THEORY ....................................................................................................................................... 12
3.1 Material Properties of Structural steel ................................................................................... 12
3.1.1 Thermal Elongation ....................................................................................................... 12
3.1.2 Material Degradation ..................................................................................................... 13
3.1.3 Specific Heat Capacity .................................................................................................. 14
3.1.4 Thermal Conductivity.................................................................................................... 15
3.2 Finite Element Analysis at Elevated Temperatures ............................................................... 16
3.2.1 Elevated Temperatures .................................................................................................. 16
3.3 Localized Fire Model ............................................................................................................ 17
3.4 Catenary Effect ...................................................................................................................... 19
3.4.1 Hand Calculation Model – Trusses in Catenary Action ................................................ 20
3.4.2 Hand Calculation Model – Roof Contribution .............................................................. 21
4 METHOD ...................................................................................................................................... 22
4.1 Case Study ............................................................................................................................. 22
4.2 Steel Frame Model ................................................................................................................ 23
4.3 Fire Model ............................................................................................................................. 24
4.4 Design Load for Fire Situation .............................................................................................. 24
4.5 Finite Element Model ............................................................................................................ 24

IV
 4.5.1 Analysis Procedure ........................................................................................................ 25
4.5.2 Element Types ............................................................................................................... 25
4.5.3 Material Model .............................................................................................................. 26
4.5.4 Assembly Details ........................................................................................................... 26
4.5.5 Boundary Conditions and Loads ................................................................................... 27
4.6 Calculation Procedure ........................................................................................................... 29
5 RESULT ........................................................................................................................................ 31
5.1 Local Failures ........................................................................................................................ 31
5.2 Ultimate Failures ................................................................................................................... 33
5.2.1 Run-away deflections .................................................................................................... 33
5.2.2 Load Levels and Applied Bending Moments ................................................................ 36
5.2.3 Roof Segments Catenary Contributions ........................................................................ 37
5.2.4 Deformation plots .......................................................................................................... 41
6 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................... 45
7 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 48
7.1 Further Work ......................................................................................................................... 48
8 REFERENSES .............................................................................................................................. 49
Appendix A – Reduction Factors .......................................................................................................... 51
Appendix B – Design Drawings ............................................................................................................ 52
Appendix C – Load Calculations .......................................................................................................... 54

V
NOMENCLATURE

𝐴 Grey gas layer surface area [m²]

𝐴𝑑 Design value of accidental action [kN/m²]

𝐴𝑠𝑡𝑟 Structural collapse area [m2]

𝐴𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 Lethal fire condition area [m²]

𝐴1,𝑖 Radiating area [m²]

𝐴2 Receiving area [m²]

𝑏Δ𝜃 Width of plume [m]

𝑐𝑎 Specific heat capacity [J/(kg K)]

𝐶𝑒 Exposure factor [-]

𝐶𝑡 Thermal coefficient [-]

𝑑𝑏𝑓 Bottom flange width [m]

𝑑𝑝 Pitch width [m]

𝑑𝑅−𝑛 Segment deflection [m]

𝐸𝑠 Modulus of elasticity of steel at 20°C [GPa]

𝐸𝑠,𝜃 Modulus of elasticity of steel at elevated temperature [GPa]

𝐸𝑒𝑑 Design value of effect of actions [kN/m²]

𝐸𝑓𝑖,𝑒𝑑 Design load for fire situation [kN/m²]

𝐸𝑓𝑖,𝑚𝑜𝑑 Modified design load for fire situation [kN/m²]

𝐹𝑐𝑎𝑡 Catenary tensile force [kN]

𝑓𝑝,𝜃 Proportional limit [MPa]

𝑓𝑦 Yield strength at 20°C [MPa]

𝑓𝑦𝑏 Basic yield strength [MPa]

𝑓𝑦,𝜃 Yield strength at elevated temperature [MPa]

VI
𝐺𝑘 Self-weight of a structure [kN/m²]

𝐺𝑘,𝑠𝑢𝑝 Unfavourable permanent load [kN/m²]

𝐺𝑘,𝑖𝑛𝑓 Favourable permanent load [kN/m²]

𝑘𝐸,𝜃 Reduction factor for the linear elastic range at elevated temperature [-]

𝑘𝑝,𝜃 Reduction factor for the proportional limit at elevated temperature [-]

𝑘𝑠𝑡 Thermal conductivity [W/(m K)]

𝑘𝑦,𝜃 Reduction factor for the yield strength at elevated temperature [-]

𝑙 Length [m]

𝐿𝑏 Beam length [m]

𝐿𝑟 Roof span length [m]

𝐿𝑠 Truss span length [m]

Δ𝑙 Temperature induced expansion [m]

Δ𝑙⁄𝑙 Thermal elongation [-]

𝑀𝑐,𝐸𝑑 Applied bending moment [kNm]

𝑀𝑐,𝑅𝑑 Bending moment resistance [kNm]

𝑀𝑓𝑖,𝑡,𝑅𝑑 Bending moment resistance at elevated temperatures [kNm]

𝑀𝑐𝑎𝑡 Catenary bending moment [kNm]

𝑃 Prestressing actions [kN/m²]

𝑄𝑘 Characteristic variable load [kN/m²]

𝑞𝑘 Wind load [kN/m²]

𝑞𝑐𝑎𝑡 Catenary load [kN/m²]

𝑆 Snow load [kN/m²]

𝑆𝑐𝑎𝑡 Catenary profile length [m]

𝑆𝑘 Characteristic snow load [kN/m²]

𝑉 Grey gas volume [m3]

VII
𝜀𝑦,𝜃 Yield strain at elevated temperature [-]

𝜀𝑡,𝜃 Limiting yield strain at elevated temperature [-]

𝜀𝑢,𝜃 Ultimate yield strain at elevated temperature [-]

𝜀𝑝,𝜃 Proportional limit for yield strain at elevated temperature [-]

𝜀𝑓 Flame emissivity [-]

𝜅 Material absorption coefficient [m-¹]

𝜃𝑓𝑙,𝑖 Flame temperature [°C]

𝜃𝑟 Radiating temperature [°C]

𝜃𝑠 Steel temperature [°C]

Φ View factor [-]

𝜇𝑖 Geometric shape factor [-]

𝜌𝑠 Density of steel [kg/m³]

𝛾𝑀0 Partial factor for resistance of cross section [-]

𝛾𝑀,𝑓𝑖 Partial factor for resistance of cross section for fire situation [-]

𝜓 Load combination factor [-]

𝛿 Catenary sag [m]

ABBREVIATIONS

CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics

EKS Europeiska konstruktionsstandarder
FE Finite element
FEA Finite element analysis
FEM Finite element method

VIII
STRUCTURAL TERMINOLOGY

In this section the structural terms used in this thesis are explained. Figure 1 illustrates a steel framework
together with a description of the structural terms used in this thesis.

Roof sheeting

Bracing
Diagonals
Top chord

Bottom chord
Span length
Column

Bay length

Figure 1 Steel framework with description of the structural terms used in this thesis.

IX
1 INTRODUCTION

In the event of an accidental action, such as fire, buildings are required to remain structurally stable for
a period of time (EN 1990-1-1, 2002). The reasoning for this could arguably be to allow occupants to
evacuate out of the building. It would however not be possible or economically reasonable to prevent
all types of local failures. Therefore, regulations allow some scale of structural damage in the event of
an accidental action. To ensure an acceptable level of economical consequence as well as safety level
for human life, the damage scale should not be unproportional to the initial accident. Therefore, it is
essential that an initial triggering local failure will not continue into a widespread collapse, which is
commonly referred to as a progressive collapse.

Progressive collapses exist in various forms and with a set of different behaviours. The triggering events
can either be known, e.g. impact or fire, or unknown. For this reason, a great understanding of real
structural behaviour is necessary not only to prevent progressive collapses but also to identifying the
possibility of progressive collapses. In addition to this, it is also important to have a clear definition of
acceptable damage scales in the event of an accidental action. Unfortunately, it is not easy to determine
which damage scales are acceptable since there is a lack of clear guidance from regulations.
Furthermore, the discussion of which damage scales are acceptable in the event of fire has surprisingly
been almost completely absent.

However, recently a novel approach was proposed by Sandström (2019), which could be used to define
and determining acceptable damage scales in single-storey steel frame buildings affected by fire. The
novel approach implied that the collapse area, due to fire, is acceptable if it does not exceed the area of
which lethal fire conditions are present. Accordingly, if a single-storey building is affected by a local
fire, a collapse contained within the lethal fire area would be acceptable. On the other hand, if the initial
failure or collapse results in a progressive collapse the damage is no longer acceptable. It is therefore
essential that a local damage, due to fire, can be contained. This is unfortunately a very complex problem
since there exists both known and unknown failure models, with various sets of behaviours that are
dependent on several factors.

To limit the structural damage caused by various failure models. It is first necessary to identify which
failure models that potentially could result in a progressive collapse. One of these potential failure
models was recently identified by Iqbal (2016), who conducted an in-depth analysis of single-storey
steel frame buildings affected by local fires. In the analysis it was found that a failure in the truss’ top
chord resulted in a great amount of force being transferred out through the roof sheeting to the adjacent
trusses. These forces where great enough to raise concern that they potentially could pull the adjacent
trusses to a collapse and thus creating a progressive collapse.

1
However, the analysis was limited to one type of truss model and with similar span lengths. Moreover,
the analysis could not confirm that a progressive collapse was possible and the effects of factors such as
span-length and truss model had yet to be analysed. It is therefore necessary to analyse how different
truss models and factors such as span length affect the possibility of a progressive collapse.

1.1 Main Objective and Research Questions

The main aim of this thesis is to expand the current knowledge in the real performance of steel buildings
in the event of fire. In more detail, this thesis will analyse how trusses with different span lengths will
affect the catenary forces transferred through the steel roof to the adjacent trusses. By analysing these
affects this thesis desires to answer if a progressive collapse is possible in the event of fire when the
truss and its roof sheeting have transitioned into catenary action.

Research questions for this thesis were limited to the following two. When the affected steel truss is in
catenary action due to a localised fire:

• how does the span length affect the catenary forces transferred across the roof sheeting?
• can the catenary forces transferred across the roof sheeting lead to progressive collapse?

1.2 Limitations

Only two steel framework designs where analysed in this thesis. This is also further narrowed down by
only analysing three trusses for each of the models instead of a whole building model.

2
2 STATE OF THE ART

2.1 Earlier Research

To avoid progressive collapses, a great understanding of buildings’ structural performance is necessary.

This also includes a building’s structural performance while affected by events such as fire. Hence, a
great understanding of fire dynamics is also necessary to understand and predict fire’s effect on
structures. This is especially important since fire has been argued to be one of the biggest obstacles for
the further development of steel structures (Obiala and Vassart, 2010).

Fire is mainly being viewed as one of steel structure’s biggest obstacles, since steel loses its strength at
elevated temperatures (Isaksson et al., 2017). Until recently, most studies, like the one performed by
(Choi et al., 2008), have only been focusing on the behaviour and performance of single members or
trusses at elevated temperatures. However, an increased amount of research has been starting to focus
on the global behaviour of steel structures in the event of fire. Examples of these types of analyses are
presented in the following text.

Since single-storey steel frame buildings are very common and can be viewed as one of the least complex
steel building types, most analysis of global behaviour has been performed on this building type. One
of the earlier analysis of global behaviour was performed by Moss et al. (2009), who analysed different
failure models, caused by fire, in steel portal-frame buildings. The analysis was carried out using three-
dimensional finite element analysis, FEA software SAFIR (Franssen and Gernay, 2020). For most of
the analyses done in this study, the standard ISO 834 fire curve was used and applied to the analysed
structure. The Standard fire does however assume a uniform temperature distribution across the whole
structure, which would arguably not be the case in a real fire scenario. Therefore, analysis of the global
structural behaviour has, in more recent years, started to implement natural fires where computational
fluid dynamic, CFD codes are commonly being used to determine the temperature distribution.

The natural fire model has been adopted in analysis like the one performed by Björkstad (2012), where
the fire resistance of a typical industry hall’s unprotected trusses was analysed. The analysis was carried
out using FEA software ABAQUS (Abaqus, 2014) and analysed both standard and natural fires, where
natural fire’s temperature distribution was determined using CFD simulations. This work showed an
especially interesting result when comparing the two fire models. All of the FE analyses adopting the
standard fire ultimately resulted in structural failure, while the structure affected by natural fires could
withstand the fire and no structural failure occurred. The results from this work indicates that there is a
great difference between how natural and standard fires affect structural behaviours. It is however worth
mentioning that the FE-models was limited to only three trusses without any roof or columns and thus
not taking the global robustness into account.

3
Work in this area was continued by Fodor (2016), who performed another FE-analysis on a typical
single-story steel frame building. Unlike the previously mentioned FE-analysis, this FE-model did in
addition to the three trusses also consist of columns, roof sheeting and fasteners. Hence, the total
structural stability was considered. Additionally, both natural and standard localized fires were analysed.
From the analysis it could then be seen that the roof sheeting provided a great amount of robustness and
that forces was transferred out through the sheeting to adjacent trusses. Nonetheless, Fodor (2016) did
not address what potential problems this could also result in. These potential problems was later
addressed by Iqbal (2016), who performed an in-dept analysis on a very similar frame and truss model,
but with a different failure model. As previously mentioned, the global structural behaviour was
analysed as the top chord failed due to elevated temperatures. The initial failure then resulted in a
catenary effect along the truss as well as in its roof sheeting, i.e. the truss and roof sheeting could no
longer handle moment and can only hold tensile forces. From the result it was then found that the
analysed 19-meter truss at a bay length of 6 meters, was handling 50% of the initial design load when
ultimate failure occurred. It was then assumed that the remaining load was transferred out through the
roof sheeting by catenary action to the adjacent trusses. Subsequently, it was calculated that a total of
213.5 kN of catenary force was transferred across the roof sheeting to the adjacent trusses. Which then
lead to the concern that these forces could potentially result in a progressive collapse in the adjacent
trusses.

There was however as previously mentioned only one truss model analysed and with fairly similar span
lengths. Additionally, the truss model used was non-angled, which is arguably not too commonly used.
Instead, it is arguably more common with some sort of angled truss.

2.2 Code compliance

As previously mentioned, structures are required to remain structurally stable for a period of time and
potential accidental damages should remain proportional to the initial failure. In this chapter basic design
requirements and structural regulations for fire situations according to the Eurocodes and Sweden’s
national annex will be presented.

Building and structural design inside the European Member States is controlled by the EN Eurocodes,
typically referred to simply as Eurocodes. The Eurocodes is a collection of standards that European
Member States are mandatory to follow. The main purpose of the Eurocodes is to harmonize building
regulations and make a more uniform building safety level in Europe. (European committee of
standardization, n.d.)

The Eurocodes consists of ten standards (EN 1990-1999) that are covering various areas of construction.
Basic design requirements, such that structures should be designed with adequate structural resistance,
serviceability and durability, can be found in (EN 1990-1-1, 2002). This standard also covers the basic

4
regulations of limit state design as well as ultimate limit state design. Where limit state is when a
structure no longer fulfils its design performance criteria. Ultimate limit state is instead associated with
ultimate structural collapse or other similar forms of structural failure. Regulations associated with the
actions that can potentially affect structures are found in (EN 1991-1-1, 2002). The remaining standards,
i.e. EN 1992-1999, are covering different structural materials and the regulations associated with them.

The Eurocodes consists of some so-called nationally determined parameters, these can be chosen
separately for each member state (European committee of standardization, n.d.). The EKS 11 (Boverket,
2019a) is Swedish national annex and covers the Eurocodes along with Sweden’s nationally determined
parameters. Thus, also presenting the generally demanded protection level for a building as well as for
each of its structural members.

2.2.1 Structural Fire Safety Requirements

In addition to implying fundamental requirements, EN 1990 (EN 1990-1-1, 2002) states that structures
should be designed while taking different design situations into account. Where each design situation
represents a family of circumstances or conditions that a structure potentially could experience during
its lifetime.

The Eurocodes also presents specific regulations for each of the load types or actions that can be
expected to affect a structure. These are mainly covered and described in the EN 1991 (EN 1991-1-1,
2002). However, these regulations vary a bit between Member States and more detailed description of
these can be found in each of the national annexes. Having said that, this thesis will only take
consideration to the Swedish national annex and the Eurocodes.

Fire protection requirements listed in the Swedish national annex, EKS 11 (Boverket, 2019a), are mainly
dependent on the building class and members’ fire safety class. Classification of building classes are
regulated by the Swedish building regulations and found in, BBR 28 (Boverket, 2019b). The Swedish
system has divided the building classes into the following four different classes:

• Br0 – buildings that require very high protection

• Br1 – buildings that require high protection
• Br2 – buildings that require moderate protection
• Br3 – buildings that require low protection

Single-storey buildings designed for public usage (occupancy class Vk2B and Vk2C) should be
classified as building class, Br2 (Boverket, 2019b).

Structural member’s fire safety classes should be determined while taken the following factors into
account:

5
 • the risk for people, such as evacuating occupants or firefighters, present inside the damage area;
• secondary effects which could occur, such as progressive collapse to adjacent parts of the load
bearing system;
• effects on the building’s functions that are essential for evacuation and firefighting.

Additionally, the Swedish national annex provides sets of recommended fire safety classes for structural
members located in various building types. The sets of recommended fire safety classes are classified
according to the building class and each structural member’s safety class. Table 1 shows the
recommended classification for members in building class, Br2 and occupancy class Vk2 in accordance
with EKS 11 (Boverket, 2019a).

Table 1 Recommended fire safety classification of structural elements in building class, Br2 and occupancy class Vk2,
according to the regulations presented in EKS 11 (Boverket, 2019a).

Fire safety class Examples of structural elements in building class, Br2

1 - Fastening of non-supporting walls to the facades, beams on or just above
ground, eaves, canopies, galleries or balconies.
- Secondary structures such as purlins, roofing sheets that only transfer
load etc. that are not designed to contribute to the overall stability of the
structure.
- Structures in buildings with occupancy class 2 which at a collapse do not
lead to a total collapsed area larger than 150 m².
- Eaves, roof beams or corresponding horizontal structures in the roof
structure with a span of ≤ 15 m in occupancy class 2,
- Landings and flights of stairs in escape routes that do not serve a
basement floor located below the uppermost basement level.
2 -
3 - Structures belonging to the building’s main structural system and not
assigned to any other specific fire safety class.
- Landings and flights of stairs in escape routes that do not serve a
basement floor located below the uppermost basement floor.
- Frame-stabilising structural members that belong to the building’s main
system and that are necessary for the building’s horizontal stability in
the fire load case.
4 -
5 - All structural members belonging to the building’s main structural
systems and that are located under the upper most basement level.

6
Using the fire safety class, members’ fire protection requirements can be determined. However, the
definition of each protection level is dependent on which design approach that is adopted. When
adopting the prescriptive approach, protection levels for Br2 buildings are defined as presented in Table
2.

Table 2 Fire protection classes for Br1, Br2 and Br3 buildings according to the regulations presented in EKS 11 (Boverket,
2019a).

Fire safety class Fire protection class depending on the fire load, 𝑓 [MJ/m²]
𝑓 ≤ 800 𝑀𝐽/𝑚2 𝑓 ≤ 1600 𝑀𝐽/𝑚2 𝑓 > 1600 𝑀𝐽/𝑚2
1 - - -
2 R15 R15 R15
3 R30 R30 R30
4 R60 R120 R180
5 R90 R180 R240
* Note that fire protection classes may be lowered if automatic sprinklers are installed.

However, when adopting the performance-based approach, the protection levels for Br2 buildings is
instead defined as the time structures should be able to resist fire. These protection levels are presented
in Table 3.

Table 3 Structural requirements for Br1, Br2 and Br3 buildings according to regulations presented in EKS 11 (Boverket,
2019a).

Fire safety class Required structural resistance

1 -
2 The first 15 minutes of fire.
3 The first 30 minutes of fire
4 The whole fire (including the cooling phase)
5 The whole fire and with 50% boosted fire load (including the cooling phase)

In structural fire safety design, fire safety engineers are most commonly following the regulations
mentioned above along with the recommended fire safety classes. It has however been argued by
(Sandström, 2019) that these requirements could be too conservative if compared to the regulation of
accidental actions such as impact or explosion. Unfortunately, the Eurocodes are not clear whereas
structural fire safety can be demonstrated utilizing the principles of accidental load design or not.

There does however exist some acceptance towards smaller local damages due to fire in the Swedish
national annex. These will be presented and compared with (Sandström, 2019) novel approach as well
as the structural requirements for general accidental actions, in chapter 2.2.4 Accidental Design
Situations.

7
2.2.2 Load Combinations

When designing a structure, various design values, also typically referred to as design loads, are used.
Structures are required to be able to handle these loads or forces. The design values can be defined as
the actions, such as internal forces or moments, that can be expected to affect a structure. The design
values are dependent on the structure’s self-weight, 𝐺𝑘 [kN/m²], variable load combinations, 𝑄𝑘
[kN/m²], and the load combination factors, 𝜓 [-]. Where each variable load type has a set of combination
factors. These factors are varying between Member States and are presented in the national annexes (EN
1990-1-1, 2002).

When defining the variable load combination, the most unfavourable load combination is used.
Commonly a combination of snow and wind loads provide the most unfavourable combination. The
combination factor values for wind and snow load, 𝑆𝑘 [kN/m²] found in EKS 11 (Boverket, 2019a), are
reproduced and presented in Table 4.

Table 4 Load combination factors for characteristic snow and wind, according to the Swedish national annex EKS 11
(Boverket, 2019a). Where 𝜓0 is used for characteristic combination, 𝜓1 for frequent combination and 𝜓2 quasi permanent
combinations (Isaksson et al., 2017).

Load 𝝍𝟎 𝝍𝟏 𝝍𝟐
𝑆𝑘 ≥ 3 kN/m² 0.8 0.6 0.2
2.0 ≤ 𝑆𝑘 < 3.0 kN/m² 0.7 0.4 0.2
1.0 ≤ 𝑆𝑘 < 2.0 kN/m² 0.6 0.3 0.1
𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑑 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 0.3 0.2 0.0

As previously mentioned, snow and wind load commonly give the most unfavourable variable load
combinations. With that being said, it cannot be decided in beforehand which load combination out of
these that gives the most unfavourable combination. So to determine the most unfavourable load
combination, various combinations are tested until the most unfavourable combination is found
(Isaksson et al., 2017).

At last, characteristic variable load values must be determined before proceeding with design load
calculations. The characteristic snow load, 𝑆 [kN/m²] is given by Equation 1, according to Isaksson et
al. (2017).

𝑆 = 𝜇𝑖 𝐶𝑒 𝐶𝑡 𝑠𝑘 Equation 1

where:
𝜇𝑖 is the geometric shape factor [-]; 𝐶𝑒 is the exposure factor [-];
𝐶𝑡 is the thermal coefficient [-]; 𝑆𝑘 is the snow load [kN/m²].

8
2.2.3 Design Load for Fire Situations

In the EN 1990 (EN 1990-1-1, 2002) fire is described as one of the situations where the accidental design
situation’s design load, 𝐸𝑓𝑖,𝑒𝑑 [kN/m²] should be adopted. The design load for accidental design
situations, is given by Equation 2.

𝐸𝑓𝑖,𝑒𝑑 = 𝐸{𝐺𝑘,𝑗 ; 𝑃; 𝐴𝑑 ; (𝜓1,1 𝑜𝑟 𝜓2,1 ); 𝑄𝑘,1 ; 𝜓2,𝑖 𝑄𝑘,𝑖 } 𝑗 ≥ 1; 𝑖 > 1 Equation 2

where:
𝑃 is the prestressing actions [kN/m²]; 𝐴𝑑 is the accidental actions [kN/m²];
and the combination of actions located inside of the brackets {…} are given by Equation 3.

∑ 𝐺𝑘,𝑗 "+"P "+" 𝐴𝑑 "+"(𝜓1,1 𝑜𝑟 𝜓2,1 )𝑄𝑘,1 "+" ∑ 𝜓2,𝑖 𝑄𝑘,𝑖 Equation 3
𝑗≥1 𝑖>1

Additionally, the standard provides a vague description about the accidental design load as followed:

“For fire situations, apart from the temperature effect on the material properties, 𝐴𝑑
should represent the design value of the indirect effects of thermal action due to fire.”
EN 1990 (EN 1990-1-1, 2002)

In the Sweden’s national annex, EKS 11 (Boverket, 2019), the design load for fire situations, 𝐸𝑓𝑖,𝑒𝑑
[kN/m²] is slightly simplified. Accordingly, the design load for fire situations is given by Equation 4.

𝐸𝑓𝑖,𝑒𝑑 = 𝐺𝑘,𝑗,𝑠𝑢𝑝 + 𝐺𝑘,𝑗,𝑖𝑛𝑓 + 𝐴𝑑 + 𝜓1,1 𝑄𝑘,1 + 𝜓2,𝑖 𝑄𝑘,𝑖 Equation 4

where:
𝐺𝑘,𝑗,𝑠𝑢𝑝 is unfavourable permanent load [kN/m²];
𝐺𝑘,𝑗,𝑖𝑛𝑓 is favourable permanent load [kN/m²].
A numerical example calculating the design load for fire situation can be seen in Appendix C – Load
Calculations.

9
2.2.4 Accidental Design Situations

As previously mentioned there exists some acceptance towards local failures due to fire in the Swedish
national annex. For example as indicated by Table 1 presented in 2.2.1 Structural Fire Safety
Requirements, a 150 m² collapse area of structural elements belonging to the building’s load bearing
system is acceptable. This does however not take any consideration of fire intensity or area.

Separate to the structural fire regulations, the Swedish national annex also regulates accidental actions
and acceptable damage scales. Accordingly, it can be found in EKS 11 (Boverket, 2019a) that the
collapsed areas for intermediate floors and roofs in buildings should be the smallest of;

• 15% of the flooring area for each of its two adjacent floors.
• 100 m² for each of its two adjacent floors.

The Eurocodes provides a bit more freedom and guidance of structural design while considering
accidental actions. Regulations of accidental actions, found in the Eurocodes, are mainly covered in EN
1991-1-7 (EN 1991-1-7, 2006). Here, it can be found that local failures, due to known accidental action
such as impact or explosion, would be acceptable provided that the following requirements are satisfied:

• the stability of the whole structure is not endangered;

• the overall load-bearing capacity of the structure is maintained;
• necessary emergency measures remain useable.

Then, when it comes to classifying what exact damage scales are applicable, the Eurocodes does
unfortunately not provide too much guidance. However, the following general statement can be found
in EN 1990-1-1 (EN 1990-1-1, 2002);

“(1)P A structure shall be designed and executed in such a way that it will not be damaged…
… to an extent disproportionate to the original cause.”
EN 1990 (EN 1990-1-1, 2002)

10
A novel approach of determining acceptable damage scales, in regards to the regulations, has, however,
as previously mentioned been proposed by (Sandström, 2019). The novel approach suggests that
collapse areas, 𝐴𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 [m2] in single-storey buildings, due to fire, are acceptable if they do not exceed the
area where lethal fire conditions are present, 𝐴𝑠𝑡𝑟 [m2]. Thus, taking the fire scale into consideration
while determining the acceptable damage scale. The relationship between collapse area and lethal fire
area is presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2 Structural collapse area 𝐴𝑠𝑡𝑟 [m2] inside of lethal fire condition area 𝐴𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑡 [m2] (Sandström, 2019).

11
3 THEORY

3.1 Material Properties of Structural steel

At the middle of the 1800s, new methods were established that allowed mass production of steel. Due
to this, steel started to be used more frequently in structures. However, it was not until the 1930s that
the welding technology was introduced, which provided major progress in steel constructions. Since
then, steel structures have become increasingly more popular for its several structural benefits. However,
steel as a material have some challenging properties at elevated temperatures. As a result of heating,
steel rapidly loses its strength and stiffness as its temperature increases. (Isaksson et al., 2017)

3.1.1 Thermal Elongation

According to Iqbal (2016), most structural material undergo thermal elongation when heated. Thermal
elongation is important because any restraint of it in the structure will cause additional stresses in the
structure. These stresses will act together with other mechanical stresses that are produced by loads
affection the structure. Which may cause significant variations to the structural members stress
distribution.

In accordance with EN 1993-1-2 (EN 1993-1-2, 2005), the thermal elongations of carbon steel Δ𝑙⁄𝑙 [-]
is given by Equation 5 to Equation 7:

for 20°C ≤ 𝜃𝑠 ≤ 750°C:

Δ𝑙⁄𝑙 = 1.2 ∙ 10−5 ∙ 𝜃𝑠 + 0.4 ∙ 10−8 ∙ 𝜃𝑠 2 − 2.416 ∙ 10−4 Equation 5

for 750°C ≤ 𝜃𝑠 ≤ 860°C:

Δ𝑙⁄𝑙 = 1.1 ∙ 10−2 Equation 6

for 860°C ≤ 𝜃𝑠 ≤ 1200°C:

Δ𝑙⁄𝑙 = 2 ∙ 10−5 ∙ 𝜃𝑠 − 6.2 ∙ 10−3 Equation 7

where:

𝑙 is the length at 20°C [m]; 𝜃𝑠 is the steel temperature [°C];

Δ𝑙 is the temperature induced expansion [m];

12
3.1.2 Material Degradation

Most structural materials’ mechanical strength and stiffness will undergo degradation when its
temperature increases. Structural steel is not different and its yield strength and modulus of elasticity
will be reduced when its temperature increases (Iqbal, 2016).

EN 1993-1-2 (EN 1993-1-2, 2005) describes that the module of elasticity is determined using the stress-
strain relationship which is expressed by the following three reduction factors:

• effective yield strength, relative to yield strength at 20°C [-]: 𝑘𝑦,𝜃 = 𝑓𝑦,𝜃 ⁄𝑓𝑦
• proportional limit, relative to yield strength at 20°C [-]: 𝑘𝑝,𝜃 = 𝑓𝑝,𝜃 ⁄𝑓𝑦
• slope of linear elastic range, relative to slope at 20°C [-]: 𝑘𝐸,𝜃 = 𝐸𝑠,𝜃 ⁄𝐸𝑠

The complete list of carbon steel’s reduction factors, in regards to its temperature, can be found in Table
12 in Appendix A.

EN 1993-1-2 (EN 1993-1-2, 2005) provides two different models to describe the stress-strain
relationship of structural steel at elevated temperatures. The first model disregards any post yield
hardening and is presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3 Stress-strain relationship for carbon steel at elevated temperatures, without post yield hardening (EN 1993-1-2,
2005).
where:
𝑓𝑦,𝜃 effective yield strength [MPa]; 𝜀𝑦,𝜃 yield strain [-];
𝑓𝑝,𝜃 proportional limit [MPa]; 𝜀𝑡,𝜃 limiting strain for yield strength [-];
𝐸𝑠,𝜃 slope if the linear elastic range [GPa]; 𝜀𝑢,𝜃 ultimate strain [-].
𝜀𝑝,𝜃 strain at the proportional limit [-]

13
The second model unlike the first model takes some hardening into consideration and is presented in
Figure 4.

Figure 4 Stress-strain relationship for carbon steel at elevated temperature with post yield hardening (EN 1993-1-2, 2005).

3.1.3 Specific Heat Capacity

Specific heat capacity, 𝑐𝑎 [J/(kg K)] can be described as the amount of heat needed to increase a
substance’s temperature. It is therefore one of the more significant parameters for the temperature
development of structural steel. Commonly, the specific heat capacity is assumed constant at a value of
460 J/(kg·K). However, for more accurate calculations it is recommend to calculate the specific heat
capacity for specific temperatures (Wickström, 2016).

The Eurocodes recommends that structural steel’s specific heat capacity is calculated according to
Equation 8 to Equation 11, as a function of its temperature (EN 1993-1-2, 2005):

for 20°C ≤ 𝜃𝑠 < 600°C;

𝑐𝑎 = 425 + 7.73 ∙ 10−1 𝜃𝑠 − 1.69 ∙ 10−3 𝜃𝑠 2 + 2.22 ∙ 10−6 𝜃𝑠 3 Equation 8

for 600°C ≤ 𝜃𝑠 < 735°C;

13002 Equation 9
𝑐𝑎 = 666 +
738 − 𝜃𝑠
for 735°C ≤ 𝜃𝑠 < 900°C;

17820 Equation 10
𝑐𝑎 = 545 +
𝜃𝑠 − 731
for 900°C ≤ 𝜃𝑠 ≤ 1200°C;

𝑐𝑎 = 650 Equation 11

14
The variation of structural steel’s specific heat capacity as a function of its temperature is illustrated in
Figure 5.

Specifik Heat Capacity

Specifik heat capacity [J/kg K] 5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
Temperature [°C]

Figure 5 Specific heat capacity calculated according to (EN 1993-1-2, 2005).

3.1.4 Thermal Conductivity

Thermal conductivity, 𝑘𝑠𝑡 [W/(m K)], is a measure of a material’s ability to conduct heat. Where heat
transfer is slower in materials with a low thermal conductivity compared to materials with a high thermal
conductivity. Usually it can be viewed as a less significant parameter compared to the specific heat
capacity, when analysing structural steel’s temperature development. This is because metals generally
have a very high thermal conductivity and can therefore often be assumed to have a uniform temperature.
It is however still recommended to calculate the thermal conductivity for specific temperatures, when
performing more accurate analyses (Wickström, 2016).

The Eurocodes recommends that structural steel’s thermal conductivity is calculated according to
Equation 12 to Equation 13, as a function of its temperature (EN 1993-1-2, 2005):

for 200 C ≤ 𝜃𝑠 < 800°C;

𝑘𝑠𝑡 = 54 − 3.33 ∙ 10−2 𝜃𝑠 Equation 12

for 8000 C ≤ 𝜃𝑠 < 1200°C;

𝑘𝑠𝑡 = 27.3 Equation 13

15
The variation of the structural steel’s thermal conductivity as a function of its temperature is illustrated
in Figure 6.

Thermal Conductivity
60
Thermal Conductivity [W/m K] 55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Temperature [°C]

Figure 6 Thermal conductivity calculated according to (EN 1993-1-2, 2005).

3.2 Finite Element Analysis at Elevated Temperatures

The Finite element method, FEM is a method used for solving complex problems found in various
physical phenomenon. The FEM uses general differential equations to solve these complex problems in
an approximate way. These problems can be described in one-, two- or three dimensions (Ottosen and
Petersson, 1992).

Structural behaviour is no exception to the various physical problems that can be analysed using the
FEM. Structural behaviours are commonly analysed using the FEM and is also becoming more
commonly used to analyse structural behaviour at elevated temperatures. When analysing whole
structures at elevated temperatures, it usually involves advance geometry and several material properties
without linear behaviour. For this reason, it is often necessary to use the FEA to successfully predict
these structural behaviours (Song, 2008).

3.2.1 Elevated Temperatures

Finite element analyses, FEA are commonly used for predicting structural behaviours. However,
according to Iqbal (2016), there are some challenging aspects when analysing steel structures at elevated
temperatures. The rapidly softening of steel at elevated temperatures, especially beyond 600°C cause
numerical problems and convergence failures in Finite element software such as ABAQUS. This is
essentially causing problems when trying to show the structural robustness at much higher temperatures.
A single storey building in fire is essentially a static problem. However, to overcome the previously
mentioned problems, a quasi-static analysis is necessary. The benefits of a quasi-static analysis
compared to a totally static analysis, is that internal forces can be held to a minimum.

16
Another alternative to overcome these problems would be to perform real-time analyses. However,
according to Iqbal (2016), these analyses are very computationally expensive especially for larger
models. Therefore, it is recommended to artificially increase the speed of the processes, i.e. a quasi-
static analysis. This type of analysis can be achieved by either increased loading rates or by using mass
scaling, where both methods essentially achieve the same effect, i.e. artificially increasing the speed of
the process. In addition, to minimise numerical problems an amplitude curve can be used when applying
any actions, such as mechanical or thermal.

3.3 Localized Fire Model

The current structural fire design methods are mainly developed for fully-developed compartment fires,
where the gas temperatures can be approximated to be uniformly distributed (Zhang et al., 2015).
However, Stern-Gottfried and Rein (2012) came to the conclusion through their work that fires in large,
open-plan compartments do not burn simultaneously throughout the whole compartment. Instead, fires
in these compartments tend to have characteristics of localized fire that travels across the floor as the
fire spreads. Thus, only burning over a limited area at any given moment. Instead of providing a uniform
gas temperature like a fully-developed fire, localized fires provides a non-uniform gas temperature
according to Zhang et al. (2015).

According to Iqbal (2016), the proposition of localized ‘traveling fire’ presented by Stern-Gottfried and
Rein (2012) is also completely in accordance with the scenario from his work. Iqbal (2016) analysed
open single-story steel frame buildings.

The most commonly used hand calculated localized fire models are presented in EN 1991-1-2 (EN 1991-
1-2, 2002), which can be found in its Annex C. These models can be used to determine an approximate
temperature at different vertical position over the fire plume. These models are however not customized
to determine the temperature at different horizontal distances from the plume’s centreline. For this
reason it has been argued that these models are not perfectly suitable when analysing the temperature
distribution in trusses (Fodor, 2016).

Fortunately, a novel hand calculation model proposed by Sandström et al. (2019) was recently published.
The novel model was established with the aim of creating a complete design tool for thermal exposure
calculation of trusses, when affected by localized fires in large open spaces. When the model was first
proposed it was evaluated against two commonly used hand calculation fire models. The evaluation was
done against a previously performed fire test (Sandström et al., 2015) and its showed that the novel
model had the best accuracy out of the three.

The novel model proposed by Sandström et al. (2019) is a combination of two pre-existing methods.
These methods were combined to create a complete description of the thermal action both in- and outside
of the fire plume. These methods are presented in the following two chapters.

17
Thermal exposure to horizontal surfaces outside the plume radius
To determine the thermal exposure to horizontal surfaces outside the plume radius and thus also
determine these surfaces’ temperatures. Sandström et al. (2019) assumed that the fire plume has a
cylindric form. Because the temperature is non-uniform vertically, the cylinder is divided into segments.
Where each segment is assumed to have a constant temperature that is equal to the temperature at the
plume’s vertical axis at the corresponding height. Each segment’s view factor, Φ [-] to an annular ring
(receiving area 𝐴2 [m²]) can then be calculated, see Figure 7. The view factor is calculated as proposed
by Brockmann (1994) and Howell et al. (n.d.) with adjustments according to van Antwerpen and
Greyvenstein (2008).

Figure 7 Radiation from a cylindric segment surface of a fire plume to a receiving area (Sandström et al., 2019).

After calculating the view factors from the radiating area 𝐴1,𝑖 [m²] to the annular ring as well as the
flame temperature 𝜃𝑓𝑙,𝑖 [°C] for each of the plume cylinder’s segments. The radiation temperature, 𝜃𝑟
[°C] at the receiving area can then be given by Equation 14.

4 1
Equation 14
4
𝜃𝑟 = √ ∑ 𝐴1,𝑖 Φ𝑖 ε𝑓𝑙 𝜃𝑓𝑙,𝑖
𝐴2
𝐼=1

where ε𝑓𝑙 [-] is the flame emissivity and is given by Equation 15.

𝜀𝑓𝑙 = 1 − 𝑒 −𝜅𝐿𝑏 Equation 15

where 𝜅 [m-¹] is a material’s absorption coefficient, commonly set to 0.8 m-¹ (Drysdale, 2011), and 𝐿𝑏
[m] is the mean beam length and is given by Equation 16.

𝑉 Equation 16
𝐿𝑏 = 3.6
𝐴
where 𝑉 [m3] is an arbitrary grey gas volume with surface area 𝐴 [m²].

Thermal exposure to horizontal surfaces inside the plume radius

When considering the thermal exposure inside the plume radius, the model uses (Heskestad, 2016)
plume radius definition. Which states that the width of the plume, 𝑏Δ𝜃 [m] is equal to the distance from
the plume’s vertical axis to the point where the temperature has halved. It has then been proposed by

18
Sandström et al. (2019) that the thermal exposure inside the plume is defined using a Gaussian
distribution, from the plum’s vertical axis to the temperature at 𝑏Δ𝜃 . Finally, the temperature at 𝑏Δ𝜃 is
adjusted to the temperature calculated according to the previous chapter. This was done to create a
smooth transition between the two methods, as illustrated in Figure 8.

Figure 8 Illustration taken from (Sandström et al., 2019), which edited labels in accordance with this thesis.

3.4 Catenary Effect

The word catenary comes from the Latin word for “chain” (Weisstein, 2020). Which should give the
reader quite a good understanding of the catenary effect. However, the effect can also be described in
other word as a chainlike structure hanging from supports at each end. Where the structure has no
moment resistance and can only hold tensile forces.

This effect has also been shown to occur in composite truss frameworks at elevated temperatures (Choi
et al., 2008). Where the top chord gradually loses its bending moment resistance, until a point where the
element eventually fails, as its temperature increases beyond a critical level. This occurs because the
chord’s strength and stiffness capacity decreases as the temperature rises. When failure occurs or the
element no longer can hold any moment resistance, the truss’ load bearing mechanism transfers and
becomes catenary.

The catenary effect has also been shown to occur in steel frame trusses with steel roof sheeting as shown
in an analysis performed by Iqbal (2016). Where it was identified that a great amount of force could be
transferred through the roof to the adjacent trusses through catenary action.

In the following chapter a novel hand calculation model proposed by Iqbal (2016) is presented. The
model can be used to predict trusses capacity to carry design load, post truss failure.

19
3.4.1 Hand Calculation Model – Trusses in Catenary Action

Parameters that are of interest regarding the catenary effects are presented in Figure 9.

Figure 9 Parameter description of the catenary effect of truss in catenary (Iqbal, 2016), with updated parameter description.

Where 𝑞𝑐𝑎𝑡 [kN/m²] is the catenary load, 𝛿 [m] is the catenary sag and 𝐹𝑐𝑎𝑡 [kN] is the catenary force.
Other parameters that are of interest regarding the catenary force in the truss, is the its span length 𝐿𝑠
[m] and the length of the catenary profile, 𝑆𝑐𝑎𝑡 [m]. Emphasize that the catenary sag is the distance from
the maximum bottom chord deflection to the horizontal axis between the two supports. Thus, to
determine the catenary sag, the bottom chord’s deflection most be multiplied with its original distance
from the horizontal axis between the supports.

The catenary tensile force in the truss, which should be correspond to the tensile force through the
bottom chord in the FE-model, can be described using Equation 17.

𝑞𝑐𝑎𝑡 Equation 17
𝐹𝑐𝑎𝑡 = ( ) (𝑆𝑐𝑎𝑡 2 −4 ∙ 𝛿 2 )
8∙𝛿
Where the length of the catenary profile and the catenary sag can be described using Equation 18 and
Equation 19 respectively.

2 ∙ 𝐹𝑐𝑎𝑡 𝑞𝑐𝑎𝑡 ∙ 𝐿𝑠 Equation 18

𝑆𝑐𝑎𝑡 = ( ) 𝑆𝑖𝑛ℎ ( )
𝑞𝑐𝑎𝑡 2 ∙ 𝐹𝑐𝑎𝑡
𝐹𝑐𝑎𝑡 𝑞𝑡 ∙ 𝐿𝑠 Equation 19
𝛿=( ) ∙ [𝐶𝑜𝑠ℎ ( ) − 1]
𝑞𝑐𝑎𝑡 2 ∙ 𝐹𝑐𝑎𝑡
However, according to (Iqbal, 2016) the level of load that is transferred through the truss in catenary,
i.e. the catenary load, is unknown. Therefore, hand calculated catenary forces with varying percentages
of load levels must be compared to the FE-model. Where the catenary load is the load level which gives
a tensile force that corresponds to the FE-model’s tensile force at ultimate failure.

20
3.4.2 Hand Calculation Model – Roof Contribution

As previously mentioned, the trusses in catenary cannot be assumed to carry the whole original design
load. Instead it has been proposed by (Iqbal, 2016) that the remaining load is transferred through the
steel roof sheeting to adjacent trusses. These loads are transferred to adjacent trusses from the so-called
catenary forces. Which are dependent on the catenary load, the roof’s span length as well as its catenary
sag. Because the catenary load as well as the catenary sag varies over the roof sheeting, it is important
to divide the roof sheeting into segments. Thenceforth, the catenary forces for each of the roof segments
can be calculated. However, before performing these calculations, the applied bending moment, 𝑀𝑐,𝐸𝑑
[kNm] as well as the bending moment resistance at elevated temperatures, 𝑀𝑓𝑖,𝑡,𝑅𝑑 [kNm] must first be
determined.

The bending moment resistance at elevated temperatures is dependent on the bending moment resistance
at ambient temperature, 𝑀𝑐,𝑅𝑑 [kNm]. Which is often given in manufacturer’s product sheets. Given this
variable, the bending moment resistance at elevated temperatures can be determined using Equation 20
according to (EN 1993-1-2, 2005). Where the reduction factor is dependent on the roof segment’s
specific temperature and are presented in Appendix A – Reduction Factors.

𝛾𝑀0 Equation 20
𝑀𝑓𝑖,𝑡,𝑅𝑑 = 𝑘𝑦,𝜃 𝑀𝑐,𝑅𝑑 [ ]
𝛾𝑀,𝑓𝑖
where:
𝛾𝑀,𝑓𝑖 is the partial factor for fire situation [-];
𝛾𝑀0 is the partial resistance factor [-].

Knowing the bending moment resistance at elevated temperatures as well as the applied bending
moment, the catenary bending moment, 𝑀𝑐𝑎𝑡 [kNm] can be determined. Where the catenary bending
moment is defined as the applied bending moment that is in excess to the moment (Iqbal, 2016).
Accordingly, the catenary bending moment resistance is determined using Equation 21
𝑀𝑐𝑎𝑡 = 𝑀𝑐,𝐸𝑑 − 𝑀𝑓𝑖,𝑡,𝑅𝑑 Equation 21

The catenary load, 𝑞𝑐𝑎𝑡 [kN/m²] can then be determined using Equation 22.
8 𝑀𝑐𝑎𝑡 Equation 22
𝑞𝑐𝑎𝑡 = 2
𝐿𝑟
Where 𝐿𝑟 [m] is the roof span length between the adjacent trusses of the middle truss in catenary action.
Lastly, the catenary force can be determined using Equation 17 to Equation 19. Where the previously
mentioned roof segment’s span length, catenary load and sag are used.

21
4 METHOD

4.1 Case Study

A case study was conducted to collect steel truss models, that would then be re-modelled in a FEM
software for further analyses. The ambition was to collect steel frame models that were as consistent as
possible with the steel building industry’s standard solutions.

In the case study Ranaverken, a steel building entrepreneur from Sweden was contacted and asked to
provide design drawings for typical truss frameworks, with varying span lengths. Where span lengths
should vary from their typically shortest to longest truss. Thus, the entrepreneur could freely choose
what he would define as their typically shortest to longest truss framework design. The design drawing
provided from Ranaverken was then as previously mentioned used to design the FE-models. Where the
FEM software ABAQUS was used.

From the case study two design drawings were collected, i.e. one 18-meter and one 36-meter truss
framework. These frameworks are presented in Figure 10.

Figure 10 Overview of 18-meter and 36-meter truss framework design drawing provided by steel building entrepreneur.

According to the entrepreneur, the frameworks were designed in accordance with the following rules
and praxis:

• Boverkets konstruktionsregler, EKS 11 (Boverket, 2019a)

• Steel construction according to EN 1993 (EN 1993-1-2, 2005)
• Mechanical loads according to EN 1991 (EN 1991-1-1, 2002)

22
Where load conditions, according to Table 5, were used when designing the frameworks. Design
drawing for each framework is presented in Appendix B.

Table 5 Load conditions used for designing the frameworks presented in Appendix B.

Load conditions
Self-weight roof 0.40 kN/m²
Self-weight installations 0.10 kN/m²
Snow zone 2.0 -
Wind load, 𝑞𝑘 0.78 kN/m²
Bay length 6.0 m

4.2 Steel Frame Model

Two truss models were created, i.e. one 18-meter and one 36-meter model. Each model was designed
with three trusses, placed at a 6-meter bay length. The models were designed and modelled using the
same type of column, steel roof and bracing types. These structural components are presented in more
detail in the following chapters.

Columns and Bracings

Columns was designed as square 180x180 mm beams with a thickness of 10 mm. Columns were given
a height of 8.0 m and for roofs with an angle the shortest column was assumed 8.0 m. Bracings were
designed as square 114x114 beams with a thickness of 10 mm and a length of 5 656 mm. Bracings were
placed at an angle of 45 degrees.

Roof sheeting
The steel roof sheeting was designed as standard LTP 115 steel roof sheeting with a thickness of 0.8
mm. Profile dimensions are presented in Table 6, according to product sheet provided by (Lindab,
n.d.).

Table 6 Profile dimensions for standard steel roof sheeting LTP 115.

Part Length [mm]

Pitch 245
Web height 115
Top flange 56
Bottom flange 82

The 0.8 mm roof sheeting’s ambient bending moment resistance is 12.28 kNm according product sheet
given by Lindab (n.d.).

23
4.3 Fire Model

The trusses temperature distribution was determined using the Sandström and Wickström model
presented in 3.3 Localized Fire Model. This model was chosen because none of the commonly used
hand calculation fire models presented in the Eurocodes are as previously mentioned suitable when
analysing the temperature distribution in trusses. Another suitable alternative would however be using
a computational fluid dynamic, CFD model. These are however commonly very computationally
expensive and the difference in result quality compared to the adopted method is assumed insignificant.

The fire properties where customized so the trusses temperature distribution would result in initial failure
in the trusses top chords. This was done because it is the failure model analysed in this thesis. The final
input values for the fire model are listed in Table 7.

Table 7 Input values for the fire model used to determine the analysed trusses temperature distribution.

Input values for fire model

Maximum heat release rate 100 MW
Heat release rate per unit area 1000 kW/m²

4.4 Design Load for Fire Situation

The design load for fire situation was calculated according to Boverket (2019a) using Equation 4. Where
the unfavourable load is made-up out of the self-weight of the roof as well as the installations. The
primary variable load is set to the snow load because it is clearly much higher than the wind load. Thus,
leaving the wind load as the secondary variable load. Primary and variable loads are presented in Table
5.

Calculation for design load in fire situation are presented in Appendix C – Load Calculations. Since
none of the truss frameworks have any significant angle and are designed with the same load conditions,
a uniform design load for fire situations can be applied for each of FE-models.

4.5 Finite Element Model

The three-dimensional FE-models of single-storey steel buildings were created using the FE software
ABAQUS (Abaqus, 2014). Where, a quasi-static analysis was performed to overcome the earlier
mentioned challenging aspects of analysing steel structures in fire. The different parts of the FE-models
are presented in more detail as followed.

24
4.5.1 Analysis Procedure

The FEA in this thesis was performed in two steps i.e. first applying the load step, where the design load
for the fire situation was applied to the model. Followed by the heating step, where the temperature
increase is applied.

To keep the analysis computationally efficient, the speed of the process was increased using the mass
scaling method. Which artificially increases the density of materials over a set time increment (Abaqus,
2014). The time increment factor in ABACUS was set to 1×10-6.

A quasi-state analysis was achieved by using a smooth step amplitude curve. Implying, that all load in
each step is applied using the predefined SMOOTH STEP amplitude curve shown in Figure 11 (Abaqus,
2014).

Figure 11 Predefined SMOOTH STEP amplitude curve (Abaqus, 2014).

By using an amplitude curve and performing quasi-static analysis, the loads are essentially gradually
increased over the duration of time steps until the desired load is achieved. Where the mechanical load
is first gradually increased over 10 steps during time step 0.00 to 1.00. Then the mechanical load then
remains constant and the thermal load is applied over another 10 steps during time step 1.00 and 2.00.
Due to this, it is essentially not possible to see at which specific time a phenomenon is occurring and
instead only at which temperature or time step the phenomenon is occurring.

4.5.2 Element Types

The FE-models in this thesis was created using shell elements (S4R) from the element library in
ABAQUS. This element type was chosen because most structural elements i.e. the beams, trusses,
columns and connection components are made of thin steel members. This element type and reasoning
was also chosen and made by Iqbal (2016) and Fodor (2016).

25
4.5.3 Material Model

Material models are necessary to successfully simulate structural FE-models. The material model used
in this thesis uses material properties that are correspondent with the properties according to EN 1993-
1-2 (EN 1993-1-2, 2005) and presented in 3.1 Material Properties of Structural steel. This model was
also used by Iqbal (2016) and Fodor (2016). A more detailed description of each parameter is presented
below.

The stress-strain relationship for carbon steel at elevated temperatures, without post yield hardening,
presented in Figure 3, was used in this material model. Where nominal values for strength and elastic
modulus for steel grade S355 was used with a steel density, 𝜌𝑠 set to 7850kg/m3.

Reduction factors at elevated temperatures was set according to (EN 1993-1-2, 2005) and presented in
Table 12 in Appendix A – Reduction Factors.

Specific heat capacity was defined according to (EN 1993-1-2, 2005) and calculated using Equation 8
to Equation 11.

Thermal conductivity was defined according to (EN 1993-1-2, 2005) and calculated using Equation 12
to Equation 13.

4.5.4 Assembly Details

Truss to column connection
The connection between the trusses and columns is the same for all the frameworks. Where the truss to
column assembly is welded together with the truss and a 15mm thick endplate, that is then bolted
together with the column. The designed truss to column assembly is presented in Figure 12.

Figure 12 Detailed design drawing of the truss to column connection taken from design drawings presented in Appendix B –
Design Drawings.

26
In the FE-models the assemblys are assembeld using the predefined Tie function to connect the
elements. Thus, the elements are fixed together and will not detach from one and other under any
circumstances (Abaqus, 2014). The modeled assembely from FE-models is presented in Figure 13.

Figure 13 Truss to column assembly modelled in ABAQUS.

Connections
Elements in the models, thus implying beams, plates and roof sheets, are also connected to one and other
using predefined Tie function. Thus, resulting in that the elements are fixed together and will not detach
from one and other under any circumstances.

4.5.5 Boundary Conditions and Loads

Boundary conditions
Ends of columns and bracings are modelled so they are restrained in horizontal and vertical direction as
well as restrained from rotation along any axis. Thus, resulting in completely fixed ends. The boundary
conditions are applied to a reference point in the centre of the beams cross section. The reference point
is then fixed to the edges of the cross section, using the predefined Coupling function in ABAQUS
(2014). Where all degrees of freedom are restrained, thus resulting in a completely fixed beam ends with
a cross section at the bottom that cannot be deformed. Coupling at the end of the beam’s cross section
to a reference point and the boundary condition applied to the reference point is presented in Figure 14.

Figure 14 To the left the coupling at the end of a beam’s cross section is applied to Reference point 1 and to the right the
boundary condition is applied to Reference point 1 at the end of the beam’s cross section.

27
Mechanical load
The mechanical load, thus implying the design load, was applied as pressure at the bottom flanges of
the steel roof sheeting, see Figure 15.

Figure 15 Mechanical load applied as pressure to the bottom flanges of the roof sheeting in ABAQUS.

The load was only applied to the bottom flanges to reduce unnecessary computer time for simulations.
This slight modification could be done because this thesis is not covering the deformation of the
individual flanges themselves and is instead only analysing the whole deformation of the roof sheet.
Nevertheless, the design load needs to be modified, since the surface area of which it applied to is
reduced. The modified design load 𝐸𝑓𝑖,𝑚𝑜𝑑 [kN/m²] was determined using Equation 23.

𝑑𝑝 Equation 23
𝐸𝑓𝑖,𝑚𝑜𝑑 = 𝐸𝑓𝑖,𝑒𝑑
𝑑𝑏𝑓
where:

𝑑𝑏𝑓 is the bottom flange width [m]; 𝑑𝑝 is the pitch width [m].
Calculations for the modified design load are presented in Appendix C – Load Calculations.

Thermal load
The thermal load, thus implying the elevated temperature at each structural element, was applied to the
roof sheet and the middle truss. Where the roof as well as the trusses where divided into parts so that
each part’s calculated temperature could be applied. Figure 16 presents how the thermal load is applied
to the structural elements.

28
Figure 16 Thermal load applied to18-meter truss and roof sheet in ABAQUS.

4.6 Calculation Procedure

As previously mentioned in 3.4 Catenary Effect, the roof sheeting’s catenary forces are dependent on
the catenary load as well as the catenary sag. To determine these variables, the load level, moment
resistance as well as the applied bending moment must first be determined. The calculation procedure
used in this thesis follows the one presented in 3.4 Catenary Effect. An overview of the calculation
presented is presented in Figure 17 and then followed by some additional explanation of the adopted
method

Verify local failure Determine when Determine the load

and that truss is in ultimate failure level at the time of
catenary action. occurs. ultimate failure.

Calculate the
applied bending
moment
Divide the steel Calculate bending
roof sheeting into moment resistance
segments. for each segment.
Calculate catenary
bending moments
and loads for each
segment.

Calculate the
catenary force for
each segment.

Figure 17 Overview of calculation procedure used to determine the roof sheeting’s catenary forces.

29
Local failures and trusses transition into catenary action was verified by analysing the truss elements’
axial forces as a function of their temperature. From this it could verified when elements fail as well as
when the top chords’ axial force transitions to tensile, thus verifying the transition into catenary action.

Ultimate failure or run-away deflection was determined by analysing the midspan truss deflection as a
function of temperature. Where the run-away deflection was indicated and verified by the rapid increase
in deflection.

Truss load level at the time of ultimate failure was determined by comparing theoretical axial forces
with varying load percentages to the tensile force in the bottom chord. The theoretical axial forces were
calculated using Equation 17 to Equation 19. Where the catenary sag was defined as bottom chords’
vertical distance to the axis between truss supports. The roof sheeting load level could then consequently
be determined as the reaming load level. Which was then used to determine the applied bending moment.

Since the catenary force is not uniform across the whole roof sheeting, the sheeting was divided into
one-meter segments. Each segment’s bending moment resistance was then calculated using Equation
20. Knowing both the roof sheeting’s bending moment and the applied bending moment, the catenary
bending moment was determined in accordance with Equation 21. Which was then used to determine
the catenary load in accordance with Equation 22.

Lastly, roof segments’ catenary forces were determined using Equation 17 to Equation 19. Where the
segment’s catenary sag was determined using the middle roof segment’s deflection and linear
interpretation.

30
5 RESULT

The results are divided into two chapters, where the first chapter covers the initial local failure for both
FE-models. The second chapter covers the progression into ultimate failure for both FE-models, as
well as the hand calculated of the catenary forces.

Truss element mentioned in the following chapters has been labelled according to Figure 18 and
Figure 19.

Figure 18 Truss element labels for the 18-meter truss.

Figure 19 Truss element labels for the 36-meter truss.

5.1 Local Failures

Each truss element’s axial force as a function of temperature was analysed to determinate at which
location as well as at which temperature a local failure first occurred. For both trusses it was found that
TC-8 elements were responsible for the initial failure.

The axial force through one of each trusses L-chords, as a function of their temperature, is presented in
Figure 20.

Axial force through top chord - 18m Axial force through top chord - 36m
truss truss
200 450
150 350
100 250
50 TC-8 TC-8
150
Axial force [kN]

Axial force [kN]

0 50
-50 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 -50
-100 -150 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
-150 -250
-200 -350
-450
-250 -550
-300 -650
-350 -750
-400 -850
-450 -950
Temperature [°C] Temperature [°C]

Figure 20 Axial force through single top L-chord as a function of the chord temperature. Derived from the 18- and 36-meter
FE truss models.

31
Figure 20 shows that both top chord’s axial force transitions from compressive to tensile as their
temperature increases beyond a critical temperature. This transition indicates that a local failure has
occurred in each of the truss elements. According to Figure 20 the 18-meter truss’ critical temperature
is approximately 425°C and the 36-meter truss’ is approximately 395°C. Both temperatures correspond
to time step 1.55 in each of the simulations.

The local failures for the 18- and 36-meter truss are also verified by Figure 21 and Figure 22, that
respectively shows each of the trusses stress and deformation plot at time step 1.55.

Figure 21 Stress and deformation plot of the 18-meter truss as time step 1.55. Derived from 18-meter FE truss model.

Figure 22 Stress and deformation plot of the 36-meter truss at time step 1.55. Derived from 36-meter FE truss model.

Both critical temperatures are however relatively low and local failure in trusses typically occurs around
600°C. For this reason, hand calculations and further analysis were conducted. Where it was found that
the chords in the FE-models had much larger axial forces than what the hand calculations showed.
Eventually, it was found that the chords’ axial forces significantly increased as soon as the thermal load
was applied. Therefore, it is assumed that the thermal expansion in the chords has a significant
contribution to the axial forces in the FE-models. This can be seen in Figure 23 where the original 36-
meter truss model, with thermal expansion enabled is compared to the same 36-meter truss model but
without thermal expansion enabled.

32
 Axial force through top chord - 36m truss
350
250
150
50
Axial force [kN] -50
0,00 0,25 0,50 0,75 1,00 1,25 1,50 1,75 2,00
-150
-250
-350
-450 TC-7 No Thermal Exp.
-550 TC-8 No Thermal Exp.
-650 TC-7
-750 TC-8
-850
Time step [-]
Figure 23 Axial force comparison between the 36-meter model with and without thermal expansion enabled. Where a
significant increase in axial force can be seen after time step 1.00 where the thermal load is starting to be applied.

Thus, thermal elongation impacts the critical temperature for the element in the top chord but has no
significant impact on the catenary forces and the possibility of a progressive collapse. This is because
this analysis focused on the effects after a local failure and does not account for the time or temperature
needed for the initial failure to occur.

5.2 Ultimate Failures

5.2.1 Run-away deflections

The temperature and time step at which ultimate failure or run-away deflection occurs was determined
by analysing the midspan deflection. The bottom chord deflection as a function of its temperature is
presented in Figure 24.
Bottom chord deflection as a function of temperature
-100
-300 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
-500
-700
Deflection [mm]

-900
-1100
-1300
-1500
-1700 18m truss BC-5
-1900
-2100 36m truss BC-5
-2300
-2500
-2700
-2900
Temperature [°C]

Figure 24 FE Bottom chord deflection as a function of its temperature, where red indicates run-away deflection.

As indicated by Figure 24 the 18-meter truss transitions into ultimate failure as the bottom chord’s
temperature exceeds 862°C, which corresponds to time step 1.85. Accordingly, the 36-meter truss

33
transitions into ultimate failure as the bottom chord’s temperature exceeds 876°C, which corresponds to
time step 1.85.

The 18-meter truss’ transition into ultimate failure is also indicated by Figure 25, which shows the plastic
strain distribution of the middle truss at time step 1.85.

Figure 25 Plastic strain plot of the middle 18-meter truss model at time step 1.85, which indicates that the truss is transitioning
into ultimate failure.

Accordingly the 36-meter truss’ transition into ultimate failure is also indicated by Figure 26, which
shows the plastic strain distribution of the middle truss at time step 1.85.

Figure 26 Plastic strain plot of the middle 36-meter truss model at time step 1.85, which indicates that the truss is transitioning
into ultimate failure.

34
The midspan deflection for the 18- and 36-meter truss models can also be seen in Figure 27 and Figure
28 respectively, which are showing a deformation plots of the FE models at the moment of ultimate
failure.

Figure 27 Deformation plot of the 18-meter truss model when ultimate failure.

As indicated by Figure 27 the middle truss’ deformations from its original position seems to be the same
for both sides of the affected truss.

Figure 28 Deformation plot of the 36-meter truss model when ultimate failure occurred.

Figure 27 and Figure 28 indicates that the affected trusses deformation from their original positions are
the same for both sides and thus verifying that only one of the side needs to be analysed.

35
5.2.2 Load Levels and Applied Bending Moments

As previously mentioned in 3.4.1 Hand Calculation Model – Trusses in Catenary Action, the actual load
level transferred through the truss in catenary action must be verified. This was done by comparing the
results of the FE-models, with different percentage of load level when ultimate failure occurs. This
comparison for each of the trusses is presented in Figure 29.

Comparison between theroetical and FE Comparison between theroetical and FE

axial forces in bottom chord - 18m truss axial forces in bottom chord - 36m truss
175 100% 450
100%
75% 400 75%
150 50%
350 48%
Axial force [kN]

Axial force [kN]

33% 25%
125
BC-5 300 BC-5
100 250
200
75
150
50
100
25 50
1,60 1,70 1,80 1,90 2,00 2,10 2,20 2,30 2,40 2,50 2,50 2,70 2,90 3,10 3,30 3,50 3,70 3,90
Catenary sag [m] Catenary sag [m]
Figure 29 Axial force comparison between theoretical percentage of load levels and FE-model results.

As indicated by Figure 29 the 18- and 36-meter trusses’ load levels are 33% and 48% respectively.
Which consequently determines the load levels of the 18- and 36-meter trusses’ roof sheeting, i.e. 67%
and 52% respectively. As a result of this, the roof sheeting’s applied bending moments was determined
and are presented in Figure 30 and Figure 31.

Figure 30 Bending moment diagram for the applied bending moment to each of the 18-meter trusses roof segments.

36
Figure 31 Bending moment diagram for the applied bending moment to each of the 36-meter trusses roof segment.

As indicated by Figure 30 and Figure 31 the 18-meter truss’ roof sheeting receives the greatest amount
of bending moment.

5.2.3 Roof Segments Catenary Contributions

The resulting catenary forces as well as the underlying results are presented in the following two
chapters. Where the 18-meter truss’ results are first presented and then followed by the 36-meter truss’
results.
18-meter truss model
The temperature distribution of the 18-meter truss roof segments’ is presented in Figure 32.

Figure 32 Temperature distribution of the 18-meter truss’ roof segments at time step 1.85.

37
As indicated by Figure 32 several roof segments have equivalent temperature and thus accordingly also
equivalent bending moment resistance. The bending moment resistance for each 18-meter truss roof
segments are presented in Table 8.
Table 8 18-meter truss roof segments’ bending moment resistance with corresponding temperatures.

18-meter truss
Segments Temp [°C] ky,ϴ [-] Mfi,t,Rd [kNm]
R-1 699 0.23 2.85
R-2 603 0.46 5.68
R-3 532 0.68 8.36
R-4 to R-5 470 0.85 10.39
R-6 311 1.00 12.28
R-7 to R-9 196 1.00 12.28

Several of the roof segments have the identical bending moment resistances as seen in Table 8. The
reason for this is because these segments have identical temperatures and therefore the bending moment
resistance is also the same.
Catenary bending moment as well as catenary load, sag and force for each of the roof segments is
presented in Table 9, where 𝑑𝑅−𝑛 [m] is the segment deflection.
Table 9 Calculated catenary bending moment, load, sag and force for each of the 18-meter truss’ roof segments.

18-meter truss
Segments Mcat [kNm] qcat [kN/m] dR-n [m] Fcat [kN]
R-1 12.59 0.70 1.08 11.79
R-2 9.76 0.54 0.96 10.21
R-3 7.08 0.39 0.84 8.41
R-4 5.05 0.28 0.72 7.03
R-5 5.05 0.28 0.60 8.43
R-6 3.16 0.18 0.48 6.76
R-7 3.16 0.18 0.36 9.01
R-8 3.16 0.18 0.24 13.51
R-9 3.16 0.18 0.12 27.00

As indicated by Table 9 the roof segment’s catenary forces are strongest at the trusses ends and with a
slight increase at the segments located at the midspan of the trusses. Summing the listed hand calculated
catenary forces transferred across the roof sheeting for both sides gives a total of 204 kN

38
The distribution of catenary forces across the roof sheeting is also indicated by Figure 33, which is
showing the FE stress plot of across the roof sheeting when ultimate failure occurs.

Figure 33 Stress plot of the 18-meter truss model when ultimate failure occurs.

Figure 33 indicates that the tensile forces across the roof sheeting are strongest at the ends of the middle
truss and gradually becomes weaker when coming closer to the midspan of the middle truss. This is not
the case when analysing the hand calculated tensile forces, where there is instead a peak at the midspan
of the middle truss.
36-meter truss model
The temperature distribution for one side of the 36-meter truss roof segments is presented in Figure 34.

Figure 34 Temperature distribution of the 36-meter truss’ roof segments at time step 1.85.

39
As indicated by Figure 34 several roof segments have equivalent temperature and thus accordingly also
equivalent bending moment resistance. The bending moment resistance for each 36-meter truss roof
segments are presented in Table 10.

Table 10 36-meter truss roof segments’ bending moment resistance with corresponding temperatures.

36-meter truss
Segments Temp [°C] ky,ϴ [-] Mfi,t,Rd [kNm]
R-1 to R-2 648 0.35 4.36
R-3 to R-4 501 0.78 9.54
R-5 to R-18 193 1.00 12.28

Several of the roof segments have the identical bending moment resistances as seen in Table 8. The
reason for this is because these segments have identical temperatures and therefore the mending moment
resistance is also the same.

Catenary bending moment as well as catenary load, sag and force for each of the roof segments is
presented in Table 11, where 𝑑𝑅−𝑛 [m] is the segment deflection.

Table 11 Calculated catenary bending moment, load, sag and force for each of the 36-meter truss’ roof segments

36-meter truss
Segments Mcat [kNm] qcat [kN/m] dR-n [m] Fcat [kN]
R-1 8.77 0.49 2.57 3.62
R-2 8.77 0.49 2.43 3.81
R-3 3.59 0.20 2.28 1.65
R-4 3.59 0.20 2.14 1.75
R-5 0.85 0.05 2.00 0.47
R-6 0.85 0.05 1.86 0.50
R-7 0.85 0.05 1.71 0.54
R-8 0.85 0.05 1.57 0.59
R-9 0.85 0.05 1.43 0.64
R-10 0.85 0.05 1.28 0.71
R-11 0.85 0.05 1.14 0.80
R-12 0.85 0.05 1.00 0.91
R-13 0.85 0.05 0.86 1.05
R-14 0.85 0.05 0.71 1.27
R-15 0.85 0.05 0.57 1.58
R-16 0.85 0.05 0.43 2.10
R-17 0.85 0.05 0.29 3.11
R-18 0.85 0.05 0.14 6.43

As indicated by Table 11 the roof segments’ catenary forces are strongest at the trusses ends and with a
slight increase at the segments located at the midspan of the trusses. Summing the listed hand calculated
catenary forces transferred across the roof sheeting for both sides gives a total of 63 kN

40
The distribution of catenary forces across the roof sheeting is also indicated by Figure 35, which is
showing the FE stress plot of across the roof sheeting when ultimate failure occurs.

Figure 35 Stress plot of the 36-meter truss model when ultimate failure occurs.

Figure 35 indicates that the distribution of tensile forces is rather uniform across the roof sheeting, with
exception to the ends and midspan of the middle truss, where the forces are weaker. This is not the case
when analysing the hand calculated tensile forces, where these areas had the strongest forces.
5.2.4 Deformation plots

In addition to the great midspan deflections presented and analysed in the previous chapters, other
deformation areas of the FE models have been indicated. These are presented in the following two
subchapters.
18-meter truss model
Since the 18-meter middle truss archived a great amount of midspan deflection, its column assemblies
also received a great amount of deformation as indicated by Figure 36.

Figure 36 Stress plot of the 18-meter truss model when ultimate failure occurs. Showing one side of the three column pairs and
their corresponding column assemblies.

41
As indicated by Figure 36, the assembly of the middle column has received a great amount of stress and
is very deformed compared to the other assemblies. The figure also indicates that the roof sheeting has
become rather deformed at its ends. The deformations can be seen more clearly in Figure 37.

Figure 37 Deformation plot of the 18-meter truss model when ultimate failure occurs. Showing the roof deformation at one of
the sides of the roof sheeting.

These deformations indicate that these parts of the roof sheeting have been exposed to larger forces, in
a real scenario these forces could potentially detach the roof from the truss. In addition, it was also
identified that the adjacent trusses rotated inwards as a consequence of the initial failure, as indicated
by Figure 38.

Figure 38 Deformation plot of the 18-meter truss model when ultimate failure occurs. Showing the inward rotation of one of
the outer trusses.

The rotation of the adjacent truss, presented in Figure 38, indicates that the trusses have been subjected
to a great amount of force from the roof sheeting and its catenary forces.

42
36-meter truss model
In addition to receiving a rather large midspan deflection, the columns of the middle truss were deflected
outwards, as indicated by Figure 39.

Figure 39 Deformation plot of the 36-meter truss model when ultimate failure occurs. Showing one side of the three column
pairs, where the middle truss’ column has moved outwards from its original position.

Figure 39 shows how one column of the middle truss has deflected outwards compared to its original
position. In addition, it was also identified that the assemblies of the middle truss was exposed to a great
amount of stress as indicated by Figure 40.

Figure 40 Stress plot of the 36-meter truss model when ultimate failure occurs. Showing one side of the three column pairs and
their corresponding column assemblies.

Figure 40 shows how one of the middle trusses assemblies is exposed to a great amount of stress and
how its deformation compared to the other assemblies.

43
In addition to the deformation areas previously mentioned, it was also identified that adjacent trusses
had become deformed and started to extremely rotate inwards, as indicated by Figure 41.

Figure 41 Deformation plot of the 36-meter truss model when ultimate failure occurs. Showing the inward rotation of one of
the outer trusses.

As indicated by Figure 41, the adjacent trusses have started to rotate inwards and also become deformed
in some areas. This indicates that they have been subjected to a great amount of force which could
possibly result in a progressive collapse.

44
6 DISCUSSION

Since it is not reasonable to assume that all types of structural failures can be prevented it is essential
that local failures do not progress disproportionally in relation to the original cause. To prevent local
failures from progressing into disproportional damage scales, a great structural understanding is
necessary. With that being said, little work has been done on global structural behaviour in the event of
localised fires and research in this area is often very complex, and thus demanding a great amount of
resources. Hence, it is no surprise that the Eurocodes does not have complete design solutions for these
types of problems. It is however unfortunate that the Eurocodes do not provide more clarity and guidance
of what damage and risk levels are acceptable for structural fire safety design.

On the other hand, the Swedish’s construction code does provide more clarity in what damage scales,
in the event of fire, that are deemed to be acceptable. The code does however not treat fire as any of the
other accidental actions, such as impact or explosion, even though fire’s general nature, probability and
consequence are very similar to these types of events. Hence, when comparing the regulations of these
events, while taking the different initial damage areas into account, the regulations of structural fire
design seems to be too conservative. In addition, the regulations do not take the scale, intensity or fire
area into account while deciding what damage scales are acceptable. These parameters were however
considered in novel approach proposed by Sandström (2019), and would arguably define accaptable
damage scales for fire that are more proportional to the acceptable risk levels of other accidental actions.
However, this approach is built on the criteria that damage area does not exceed the area of which lethal
fire conditions are present. It is therefore necessary that structural fire engineers can ensure that this
cannot occur. This is unfortunately a very complex and difficult task, since there exist several potential
failure models and most of these have not yet been fully analysed. One of these failure models has
however been analysed in this thesis, with the aim of expanding the knowledge of global structural
behaviour in the event of fire. This is necessary, not only to get a better general understanding of
progressive collapses but also so that structural fire engineers and regulators eventually can find better
solutions for them.

The global structural behaviour after an initial failure in the upper chord due to fire was first analysed
by Iqbal (2016), where it was concluded that a great amount of force was being transferred across the
roof sheeting. This phenomenon was also identified in this thesis, as it can be seen from both the hand
calculations and the stress plots that forces are being transferred across the roof sheeting. The hand
calculation model proposed by Iqbal (2016) and adopted in this thesis did however only indicate fairly
week catenary forces in the longer truss’ roof sheeting. This was rather surprising since the deformation
plots shows a rather extreme deformation for the longer truss. The reason for this is unknown and it
could be because of several factors. Firstly, it could be because the geometry and internal load bearing

45
mechanism of the longer truss is not perfectly suitable for the hand calculation model. For instance, it
might be necessary to analyse whole truss when determining its catenary load level, instead of only
analysing the bottom chord. Another factor that might have an impact on the hand calculations is the
inward rotation of adjacent trusses. The rotation contributes to a greater midspan deflection of the middle
truss, which gives smaller catenary forces. There is also a possibility that other types of forces have
contributed to the weakening and rotation of the adjacent trusses that the hand calculation model is not
considering.

When considering the rotation of trusses, it is important to consider that this model did not have any
additional resistance for horizontal movement inwards. Another segment of framework and roof
sheeting would provide some resistance for horizontal movement and thus creating a resistance for
inward rotation. Additionally, this thesis has not taken the roof fixings into consideration which could
have a significant impact on the maximum amount of force being transferred.

When it comes to determination of how the span length affects the possibility of a progressive collapse,
it does not seem like the hand calculations gives an accurate interpretation. In contrast to the hand
calculations, the deformation plots indicate that the longer truss’ deformation is likelier to result in a
progressive collapse, compared to the shorter truss. The strength of the forces that the adjacent trusses
are exposed to is however impossible to determine from this work alone. It is therefore difficult to
determine the possibility of a progressive collapse due to a failure in the upper chord. However, the
deformation plots indicate that a failure in the longer truss is probably more likely to result in a
progressive collapse.

Having said that, the span length is only one of several factors that could affect the possibility of a
progressive collapse. Firstly, the truss type and angle appear to have an impact, because the load level
of the 18-meter truss from this thesis and the 19-meter truss analysed by Iqbal (2016) are different.
Another factor that could affect the strength of the catenary forces is the bay length between trusses.
Mathematically, a longer bay length would increase the catenary force, this is however built on the
assumption that the other parameters remains constant. For this reason, it is crucial to first analyse its
effect on other parameter such as catenary sag and trusses load level. Before concluding if it would
contribute to larger catenary forces or not. The catenary forces could also be affected by the thickness
of the roof sheeting. Since a thinner roof sheeting has a weaker bending moment resistance compared
to a thicker one, a thinner sheeting also contributes to greater catenary bending moment as well as
catenary forces. The sheeting’s thickness should however be neglectable for the roof segments with high
temperatures. The reasoning for this is because the bending moment resistance of these segments have
almost completely been reduced due to the high temperatures.

Since there exists uncertainty with regards to how various factors affect the possibility of progressive
collapses, it is impossible to determine the probability for the analysed failure model to result in a

46
progressive collapse. Nevertheless, the deformation plots indicate that the analysed failure mode
potentially could result in a progressive collapse.

Assuming that a progressive collapse is possible, a potential solution might be to design the roof sheeting
with week enough fixings. The reason for this is because the catenary forces transferred across the roof
sheeting can only be as strong as the strength of the roof fixings. Therefore, if the catenary forces exceed
the strength of the fixings they break, and the roof segment can no longer transfer any load or forces.
Consequently, the catenary forces in the roof segments and eventually the trusses disappear. Having said
that, it would still need to be further analysed before adopted.

47
7 CONCLUSION

The FE analysis performed in this thesis clearly indicates that a failure in a truss’ upper chord would
transform the load carrying mechanism of the truss and roof sheeting into catenary. Consequently, it
could be verified that catenary forces are transferred across the roof sheeting to adjacent trusses.
Unfortunately, the results for the longer truss indicate that the adopted hand calculation model does not
give an accurate interpretation of forces affecting the adjacent trusses. Hence, the actual strength of these
forces could not be verified. However, the deformation and stress plots indicate that a progressive
collapse could possibly occur and that a longer span length is disadvantages.

Additionally, this work identified that other parameters and factors such as truss model, bay length and
roof sheeting thickness could affect the possibility of a progressive collapse. However, since little work
has been performed in this area and especially of this failure model, more research is needed to determine
the actual possibility of a progressive collapse.

7.1 Further Work

Since very little work has been done analysing the global behaviour of steel structures affected by fire,
more analysis of steel structures’ global behaviour while affected by fire is necessary. Additionally,
when it comes to the failure model, analysed in this thesis, it is necessary to analyse how factors such
as bay-length and roof sheet thickness affects the possibility of a progressive collapse.

Finally, the unexpected thermal effect presented and briefly discussed in chapter 5.1 Local Failure, was
assumed to not have any significant effect on this analysis. If this is a real or computational problem,
could however not be determined from this work alone. Since this problem have not been identified by
any earlier full-scale fire tests, to the best of the author’s knowledge, it seems, however, to be a numerical
problem rather than a real problem. Regardless, it is necessary to determine why this is occurring in the
numerical model and how to best address it. Potentially, the attachment of the roof sheeting to the trusses
could influence the additional axial forces. In this thesis the surface of the roof sheeting’s bottom flanges
was used to fix the sheeting to the trusses. This provides large attachment areas that could act like
resistances for the trusses to thermally expand, and thus create additional axial forces inside the trusses.

48
8 REFERENSES

Abaqus, 2014. Abaqus Analysis User’s Guide (Manual). RI, USA.

Björkstad, L.-O., 2012. Single storey steel building exposed to fire : An integrated approach
for analytical evaluation of steel structures exposed to fire.
Boverket, 2019a. EKS 11, Boverkets föreskrifter om ändring i Boverkets föreskrifter och
allmänna råd (2011:10) om tillämpning av europeiska konstruktionsstandarder
(eurokoder).
Boverket, 2019b. BBR 28, Boverkets föreskrifter om ändring i Boverkets byggregler (2011:6)
- föreskrifter och allmänna råd;
Brockmann, H., 1994. Analytic angle factors for the radiant interchange among the surface
elements of two concentric cylinders. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 37, 1095–1100.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0017-9310(94)90195-3
Choi, S.-K., Burgess, I., Plank, R., 2008. Performance in fire of long-span composite truss
systems. Eng. Struct. 30, 683–694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.05.016
Drysdale, D., 2011. An introduction to fire dynamics. John Wiley Sons Inc, New York.
European committee of standardization, n.d. Joint Research Center [WWW Document]. EN
Eurocodes. URL https://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ (accessed 1.24.20).
Fodor, J., 2016. Fire Resistance of Steel Tubular Trussed Single Storey Industrial Hall.
Franssen, J.-M., Gernay, T., 2020. USER’S MANUAL FOR SAFIR 2019 A COMPUTER
PROGRAM FOR ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURES SUBJECTED TO FIRE 98.
Heskestad, G., 2016. Fire Plumes, Flame Height, and Air Entrainment, in: Hurley, M.J.,
Gottuk, D., Hall, J.R., Harada, K., Kuligowski, E., Puchovsky, M., Torero, J., Watts,
J.M., Wieczorek, C. (Eds.), SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering. Springer,
New York, NY, pp. 396–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2565-0_13
Howell, J.R., Siegel, R., Mengü, M.P., n.d. Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer 15.
Iqbal, N., 2016. Analysis of Catenary Effect in Steel Beams and Trusses Exposed to Fire.
Isaksson, T., Mårtensson, A., Thelandersson, S., 2017. Byggkonstruktion, 2nd ed.
Studentlitteratur AB, Lund.
Lindab, n.d. Lindab [WWW Document]. URL
http://www.lindab.com/global/pro/products/pages/ltp-115-se-uninsulated.aspx
(accessed 2.28.20).
Moss, P.J., Dhakal, R.P., Bong, M.W., Buchanan, A.H., 2009. Design of steel portal frame
buildings for fire safety - ScienceDirect. J. Constr. Steel Res. 1216–1224.
Obiala, R., Vassart, O. (Eds.), 2010. Fire safety of industrial halls: a valorisation project,
EUR. Publications office of the European Union, 2010, Luxembourg.
Ottosen, Niels.S., Petersson, H., 1992. Introduction to the finite element method. Prentice Hall
Europe, Lund.
Sandström, J., 2019. The life safety objective in structural fire safety design (Doctoral thesis).
Luleå university of technology, Luleå.
Sandström, J., Sjöström, J., Wickström, U., 2019. Engineering approach to thermal exposure
from localized fires to horizontal surfaces.
Sandström, J., Wickström, U., Sjöström, J., Veljkovic, M., Iqbal, N., Sundelin, J., 2015. Steel
truss exposed to localized fires, Brandforsk project no 312-131. Brandforsk, Luleå.
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.5033.6406
Song, Y., 2008. Analysis of Industrial Steel Portal Frames under Fire Conditions. Univ. Sheff.
198.
Standard - Eurocode 0: Basis of structural design EN 1990-1-1, 2002.

49
Standard - Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-1: General actions - Densities, self-
weight, imposed loads for buildings EN 1991-1-1, 2002.
Standard - Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-2: General actions -Actions on
structures exposed to fire, 2002.
Standard - Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-7: Geberal actions - Accidental actions,
2006.
Standard - Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 1-2: General rules - Structural fire
design, 2005.
Stern-Gottfried, J., Rein, G., 2012. Travelling fires for structural design-Part II: Design
methodology. Fire Saf. J. 54, 96–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2012.06.011
van Antwerpen, H.J., Greyvenstein, G.P., 2008. Evaluation of a detailed radiation heat
transfer model in a high temperature reactor systems simulation model. Nucl. Eng.
Des. 238, 2985–2994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2008.02.020
Weisstein, E.W., 2020. Catenary [WWW Document]. WolframMathWorld. URL
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Catenary.html (accessed 3.3.20).
Wickström, U., 2016. Temperature Calculation in Fire Safety Engineering, 1st ed. Springer,
Luleå, Sweden.
Zhang, C., Silva, J.G., Weinschenk, C., Kamikawa, D., Hasemi, Y., 2015. Simulation
Methodology for Coupled Fire-Structure Analysis: Modeling Localized Fire Tests on
a Steel Column. Fire Technol. 52, 239–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10694-015-0495-
9

50
Appendix A – Reduction Factors

Carbon steel’s reduction factors for stress-strain relationship at elevated temperatures are presented in
Table 12 gattered from (EN 1993-1-2, 2005).

Table 12 Reduction factor for stress-strain relationship pf carbon steel at elevated temperatures (EN 1993-1-2, 2005a).

51
Appendix B – Design Drawings

52
53
Appendix C – Load Calculations

Snow load
𝑠𝑘 = 2.0 kN/m²

𝐶𝑒 = 1.0 - according to EKS 11 (Boverket, 2019a)

𝐶𝑡 = 1.0 – according to EKS 11 (Boverket, 2019a)

Equation 1 gives:

𝑠 = 2.0 ∙ 0.8 ∙ 1.0 ∙ 1.0 = 1.6 kN/m²

Design load for fire conditions

𝐺𝑘 = 0.40 + 0.10 = 0.50 kN/m²

𝜓1,1,𝑆𝑛𝑜𝑤 = 0.4 - according to EKS 11 (Boverket, 2019a)

𝜓2,1,𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑑 = 0.0 - according to EKS 11 (Boverket, 2019a)

Equation 4 gives:

𝐸𝑓𝑖,𝑒𝑑 = 0.5 + 0.4 ∙ 1.6 + 0.0 ∙ 𝑊𝑘 = 1.14 kN/m²

Modified design load for fire condition

𝑑𝑝 = 245 mm

𝑑𝑏𝑓 = 82 mm

Equation 23 gives:

𝑑
𝐸𝑓𝑖,𝑚𝑜𝑑 = 𝐸𝑓𝑖,𝑒𝑑 𝑑 𝑝 = 3.4 kN/m2 = 0.0034 N/mm
𝑏𝑓

54