1. 1 Connections Design for Fire Safety Cardington Structural Integrity Fire Test This project has been carried out with the support of the European Community project Continuing Education in Structural Connections under Leonardo da Vinci Programme.

2. 2 Contents  Structural Connections at Fire  Distribution of temperature  Thermal properties  Component method  Structural Integrity Test in Cardington Laboratory  Preparation  Experiment  Major results  Conclusion

3. 3 Three Stages of Fire Design  Resistance to collapse R (t) in min.

4. 4 Temperature Influence on Structure  Degradation of material properties  Elongation/shortening of elements Connections at Fire  Exposed to diferent forces compare to room temperature  In colder areas  Colder compare to elements due to the concentration of mass Structural Connections at Fire

5. 5 Example based on prediction according to prEN 1993-2 Distribution of Temperature in Connection

6. 6 Thermal Properties of Connectors Accordig to Annex to prEN 1993-1-2

7. 7 Discretisation into components Component Method for Connections at High Temperature

8. 8 Resistance at high temperature Stiffness at high temperature Prediction based on room temperature calculacions. Component Behaviour at High Temperature

9. 9 Resistance at high temperature Stiffness at high temperature Prediction based on room temperature calculacions. Connection Behaviour at High Temperature

10. 10 Example of Prediction at High Temperature

11. 11 Cardington Hangar on Postcard, 1925

12. 12 Experimental area 48 m x 65 m x 250 m

13. 13 Timber Structure - 6 Floors

14. 14 Concrete Structure - 7 Floors

15. 15 Steel Composite Structure – 8 Floors Structure finished 1994, plan area 945 m 2

16. 16 Beam-column connections - header plates Beam-beam connections - fin plates Typical composite structure

17. 17 Large Scale Fire Experiments on Steel Frame

18. 18 Test Observed Fire compartmentLoading size, marea, m 2 FireMech. G + % Q 1One beam heated by gas8 x 324Gas30% 2One frame heated by gas 21 x 2,5 53Gas30% 3Corner compartments10 x 77045 kgm -2 30% 4Corner compartment9 x 65445 kgm -2 30% 5Large compartment21 x 1834240 kgm -2 30% 6Office – Demonstration18 x 913646 kgm -2 30% 7Structural integrity11 x 77740 kgm -2 56% Major Observations, Compartment, and Loading

19. 19 TestOrg.LevelTime, minTemp., °CDeformation, mm to max. temp.gassteelmaximalresidual 1BS7170913875232113 2BS4125820800445265 3BS2751020950325425 4BRE31141000903269160 5BRE370 - 691557481 6BS24011501060610- 7 ČVUT 45511081088~1200925 Duration, Temperatures, and Deformations

20. 20 Column shortening, Test 2 – BS, 1996

21. 21 Cardington Fire Test January 16. 2003 European Fifth Framework Project HPRI – CV 5535 TENSILE MEMBRANE ACTION AND ROBUSTNESS OF STRUCTURAL STEEL JOINTS UNDER NATURAL FIRE Objectives  Temperatures in elements and joints  Internal forces in the connections  Behaviour of the composite slab

22. 22 Fire Compartment Wall three layers of gypsum plasterboard (15 mm + 12,5 mm + 15 mm), with K = 0,19 – 0,24 W/m°K Window 9 m x 1,27 m

23. 23 Columns External joints 1 m of the primary beam by 15 mm of Cafco300 vermiculite-cement spray (K = 0,078 W/m°K) Protected Members

24. 24  148 thermocouples  57 low temperature strain gauges  10 high temperature strain gauges Instrumentation

25. 25 Deformation  37 deformations

26. 26 Cameras  10 video cameras  2 thermo cameras

27. 27  Permanent 100%  Variable permanent 100%  Live 56% by sand bags Mechanical Load

28. 28 Fire Load Timber cribs 50 x 50 mm - fire load 40 kg/m 2 Fire Load

29. 29 Experiment January 16, 2003

30. 30 Deformation of Composite Slab Residual deformation 925 mm (during fire from video cameras reading about 1200 mm )

31. 31 Cracking of Concrete Slab

32. 32 400,0°C 980,0°C 400 600 800 Heating and Cooling of Structure

33. 33 Gas 1108 °C in 55 min. (predicted 1078 °C in 53 min.) Gas Temperatures

34. 34 Beam 1088 °C in 57min. (predicted 1067 °C in 54 min.) Beam Temperatures

35. 35 Fin Plate Temperature Profile

36. 36 Header Plate Temperature Profile

37. 37 Compartment after Fire Residual deformation 925 mm.

38. 38 Local Buckling of Beam Lower Flanges

39. 39 Deformation Capacity of Fin Plate Connection by Bearing of Plate

40. 40 Fracture of One Side of Leader Plate Connection

41. 41 Header Plate Strain Gagues

42. 42 Column Flange Buckling

43. 43  Collapse of structure not reached  Fire load 40 kg/m 2  Mechanical load 56%  Good structural integrity of composite slab aproved  Concept of unprotected beams and protected columns aproved Conclusions of Test

44. 44  Local buckling of lower flanges during heating  Fracture of end plates without lost of bearing capacity  Elongation of holes in fin plates Connection Behaviour

45. 45  Exposed to diferent forces compare to room temperature Important its robustnost  In colder areas and due to the concentration of mass colder compare to elements No need of special check or of special thermal isulation  For connections exposed to fire Component method gives a good prediction of behaviour Structural Connections at Fire

46. 46 The End This lesson has been produced with the support of the European Community project Continuing Education in Structural Connections - CESTRUCO under Leonardo da Vinci Programme.

47. 47 of project CV 5535 of European Fifth Framework Programme Tensile membrane action and robustness of structural steel joints under natural fire Test January 16. 2003 Participating Institutions Building Research Establishment Czech Technical University in Prague Coimbra University Technical University, Bratislava Experiment

48. 48 Project Team Mr. Martin BenešResearch Student, CTU Prague Mr. Luis BorgesResearch Student, University of Coimbra Prof. Ian Burges Research Group Member, University of Sheffield Mr. Dalibor GregorResearch Student, CTU Prague Mrs. Petra HřebíkováResearch Student, CTU Prague Mrs. Magdaléna ChladnáResearch Student, Slovak Technical University, Bratislava Mr. Derek Jennings Engineering Technician, BRE Watford Mr. Tom Lennon Supervising Engineer, BRE Watford Mr. Ewan Macdonald Technician, BRE Watford Dr. David B. Moore Project Director, BRE Watford Mrs. Aldina SantiagoResearch Student, University of Coimbra Prof. Luis S. da SilvaResearch Group Member, University of Coimbra Mr. Paul SimsProject Manager, BRE Watford Dr. Zdeněk SokolResearch Group Member, CTU Prague Dr. Jan PašekResearch Group Member, CTU Prague Mr. Nick PettyContracted Technicians, BRE Watford Mr. Jiří SvobodaRes. Group Member, TMV SS, Prague Prof. František WaldEuropean Research Group Leader, CTU Prague Mr. David White Project Leader, BRE Watford

49. 49 Lesson Script Prof. František WaldCzech Technical University in Prague Prof. Ian Burges University of Sheffield Dr. David Moore Building Research Establisment, Watford Prof. Luis S. da SilvaUniversity of Coimbra Camera Mr. Luis BorgesUniversity Coimbra Mr. Dalibor GregorCzech Technical University in Prague Dr. Jan Pašek Czech Technical University in Prague Dr. Zdeněk Sokol Czech Technical University in Prague Mr. Jiří SvobodaTMV SS, Prague Photos Mrs. Petra Hřebíková Czech Technical University in Prague Mrs. Magdaléna ChladnáTechnical University, Bratislava Production Mr. Richard SýkoraCzech Technical University in Prague Mrs. Zdeňka ZochováCzech Technical University in Prague The content of this project does not necessarily reflect the position of the European Community or the National Agency, nor does it involve any responsibility on their part.