TOKYO UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE

Department of Global Fire Science and Technology

Examination of the accuracy of critical member

temperature calculation formulae for steel beams in
Eurocode 3 and FRVM

Presenter: Le Hai Yen

OUTLINE

I INTRODUCTION

II PROCEDURE

OUTLINE III ANALYSIS MODELS

IV COMPARISON RESULTS

V CONCLUSIONS
I. INTRODUCTION

FEM
analysis

Eurocode 3 Critical temperature FRVM

Introduction Procedure Analysis models Comparison results Conclusions

II. PROCEDURE
Eurocode 3 FEM analysis FRVM
Determine action in fire situation Models simulation Design, type of boundary
condition , ,
Classify member
Determining the
retain fire- strength of beam
Resistance at normal temperature resistance time

Degree𝝻o thermal deformation

Critical temperature
Critical temperature 𝞱cr ()

𝞱cr = 39.19ln [1/(0.9674-1] +482 = 700 -

𝝻o,M = max( 𝝻o,M,k , 𝝻o,v,k)

= 20 +
=, =

𝞱 cr
? T cr ? T 𝐵 cr

Introduction Procedure Analysis results Comparison results Conclusions

III. ANALYSIS MODELS
Cross-section Boundary condition Deflection criteria
H-400x200x8x13
- ISO 834:
S-D =
(Simply supported – distributed load)

S-C Load ratio (Ratio of moment)

L= 4000 mm (Simply supported – concentrated load)

H-600x200x11x17 Case Load ratio =

1 0.64
R-D
(Restrained– distributed load) 2 0.5
3 0.32

R-C
L= 6000 mm (Restrained– concentrated load)

Introduction Procedure Analysis models Comparison results Conclusions

 III. ANALYSIS MODELS
Steel property

Stress-strain curve following EC (Eurocode 3) Stress-strain curve of SN (SN400B)

300 600

250 500

Stress (N/mm2)
200 400
Stress (N/mm2)

150 300

100
200

50
100

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Strain (%) Strain (%)
20-EC 200-EC 300-EC 400-EC 600-EC 23 300 400 450 500
500-EC 700-EC 800-EC 900-EC 1000-EC 550 600 650 700 800
1100-EC 900 1000 1100

Introduction Procedure Analysis models Comparison results Conclusions

IV. COMPARISON RESULTS
Temperature results in Abaqus Steel temperature development of H400x200x8x13
900

800

700

600

Temperature (ᵒC)
500

400

300
Tcr_ave: Average of 4 nodes
200
Tcr_max: Temperature of node 2
100

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (min)
Node 1 Node 2 Node 3 Node 4 Tcr_ave

Introduction Procedure Analysis models Comparison results Conclusions

IV. COMPARISON RESULTS
H400x200x8x13, tp 20mm 1000
Critical temperature of H400x200, tp 20mm
 
Critical temperature (ᵒC) 900
Ratio (S-D) (S-C) (R-D) (R-C) 800

SN400 EC SN400 EC SN400 EC SN400 EC 700

Temperature (ᵒC)
600
(Eurocode) 638
500
(FRVM) 459 459 519 459 400
0.64
(Abaqus) 555 521 612 572 630 602 611 589 300
200
(Abaqus) 633 600 689 651 706 681 689 668
100
(Eurocode) 676
0
S-D S-C R-D R-C S-D S-C R-D R-C S-D S-C R-D R-C
(FRVM) 512 512 559 512
0.64 0.5 0.32
0.5
(Abaqus) 595 561 645 607 678 648 663 632
Tcr_max_SN400B Tcr_max_Euro FRVM Eurocode
(Abaqus) 673 640 719 686 738 721 731 708

θ cr T cr
(Eurocode) 744 Beam 0.64 0.5 0.32
Load ratio
max
(FRVM) 581 581 610 581
S-D, S-C, R-C 0.72 0.76 0.78
0.32
(Abaqus) 658 623 695 661 728 708 726 704 R-D 0.81 0.83 0.82
T B cr T cr ave
(Abaqus) 728 700 755 730 804 775 802 769

Introduction Procedure Analysis models Comparison results Conclusions

IV. COMPARISON RESULTS
H600x200x11x17, tp 20mm Critical temperature of H600x200, tp 20mm
800
 
Critical temperature (ᵒC) 700
Ratio (S-D) (S-C) (R-D) (R-C)
600
SN400 EC SN400 EC SN400 EC SN400 EC

Temperature (ᵒC)
500
(Eurocode) 638
400
(FRVM) 459 459 519 459
0.64 300
(Abaqus) 551 514 591 555 616 586 604 580
200
(Abaqus) 637 599 677 641 700 672 689 666
100
(Eurocode) 676
0
(FRVM) 512 512 559 512 S-D S-C R-D R-C S-D S-C R-D R-C S-D S-C R-D R-C
0.5 0.64 0.5 0.32
(Abaqus) 590 554 629 592 660 627 645 618

(Abaqus) 676 640 711 677 732 709 724 702 Tcr_max_SN400B Tcr_max_Euro FRVM Eurocode

(Eurocode) 744

θ cr T cr
Beam 0.64 0.5 0.32
(FRVM) 581 581 611 581 Load ratio
0.32 max
(Abaqus) 653 615 689 646 704 691 695 689 S-D, S-C, R-C 0.72 0.76 0.78

(Abaqus) 729 700 749 724 769 751 757 749 R-D 0.81 0.83 0.82
T B cr T cr ave

Introduction Procedure Analysis models Comparison results Conclusions

IV. COMPARISON RESULTS
(Eurocode) vs (Abaqus) 12 Ratio of R1
10 H4_064
R1 = (%) R2 = (%)
8 H4_05
H400 633 600 -0.7 -6.0
S-D 6

Ratio R1(%)
H600 637 599 -0.2 -6.2 H4_032
0.64 H400 689 651 8 2 4
S-C
H600 677 641 6 0.5 2 H6_064
638
H400 706 681 11 7
R-D 0 H6_05
H600 700 672 10 5
H400 689 668 8 5 -2
R-C H6_032
H600 689 666 8 4
H400 673 640 -0.4 -5.4 -4
S-D S-D S-C R-D R-C
H600 676 640 0 -5.3
H400 719 686 6 1
S-C
H600 711 677 5 0.2 8 Ratio of R2
0.5 676
H400 738 721 9 7 6 H4_064
R-D
H600 711 709 5 5
H400 731 708 8 5 4 H4_05
R-C
H600 724 702 7 4 2

Ratio R2(%)
H400 728 700 -2.2 -6.0 H4_032
S-D 0
H600 729 700 -2.1 -6.0
H400 755 730 2 -2 -2 H6_064
S-C
H600 749 724 1 -3 -4 H6_05
0.32 744
H400 804 775 8 4
R-D -6
H600 769 751 3 1 H6_032
H400 802 769 8 3 -8
R-C
H600 757 749 2 1 S-D S-C R-D R-C

Introduction Procedure Analysis models Comparison results Conclusions

IV. COMPARISON RESULTS
(FRVM) vs (Abaqus) 45 Ratio of R3
R3 = R4= 40 H4_064
(%) (%) 35
H4_05
H400 555 521 21 14 30
S-D 459

Ratio R3 (%)
H600 551 514 20 12 25 H4_032
0.64 H400 612 572 33 25
S-C 459 20 H6_064
H600 591 555 29 21
H400 630 602 21 16 15
R-D 519 H6_05
H600 616 586 19 13 10
H400 611 589 33 28 5 H6_032
R-C 459
H600 604 580 32 26 0
H400 595 561 16 10
S-D 512 S-D S-C R-D R-C
H600 590 554 15 8
H400 645 607 26 19
S-C 512
0.5
H600 629 592 23 16 40 Ratio of R4
H400 678 648 21 16 H4_064
R-D 559 35
H600 660 627 18 12
H400 663 632 29 24 30 H4_05
R-C 512
H600 645 618 26 21 25 H4_032

Ratio R4 (%)
H400 658 623 27 20
S-D 518 20
H600 653 615 26 19 H6_064
H400 695 661 34 28 15
S-C 518 H6_05
H600 689 646 33 25 10
0.32
H400 728 708 19 16
R-D 610 5 H6_032
H600 704 691 15 13
H400 726 704 40 36 0
R-C 518 S-D S-C R-D R-C
H600 695 689 34 33

Introduction Procedure Analysis models Comparison results Conclusions

V. CONCLUSIONS
 (FRVM)  (Eurocode 3)
 Critical in FRVM is the smallest, 70-80% in Eurocode 3.  Equation in Eurocode 3 is safe for:
 Restrained beams for all the cases of load
 Equation in FRVM is safe for all types of beams with ratio, which:
different load ratios, which: • 1-11% lower than
• 8-36% lower than • 0.2-7% lower than
• 10-40% lower than
 S-C beams with the high load ratio 0.64 & 0.5
 Concentrated load beams have the higher
 Equation in Eurocode 3 is unsafe for:
level of safety
+ S-D beams for all the cases of load ratio.
+ S-C beams with the small load ratio 0.32
 Restrained beams have the higher level of safety

! For a more accurate assessment of the accuracy of formulae to calculate critical temperature in Eurocode 3 and
FRVM, more models with different sections and constraints need to be carried out in other research.

Introduction Procedure Analysis models Comparison results Conclusions

Thank you for your kind attention!