Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/jstbu.15.00120
Paper 1500120
Received 29/10/2015
Accepted 19/01/2016
Keywords: beams and girders/conservation/fire engineering
CEng, MICE
2
&
Yong C. Wang BEng, PhD, CEng, FIStructE
3
&
Thomas Swailes BEng, MICE, MIStructE, CEng
Cast-iron girders were used in many nineteenth century structures, especially in fireproof flooring systems (such as
jack arches). Many such structures are still in use today and it is important that they fulfil the current requirements on
fire resistance when there is a change of use. Cast iron has limited ductility so it is not possible for cast-iron beams to
achieve total plasticity as for modern steel beams. Furthermore, cast iron has different mechanical properties in
tension and compression and there is often a severe non-uniform temperature distribution in cast-iron beam sections.
This paper presents the development of a simplified method to calculate the bending moment capacity of cast-iron
beams in a jack arched system exposed to a standard ISO 834 fire. The method is based on an assumed strain
distribution in the cross-section. A comparison of the results calculated using the simplified method with those using
the fibre method, validated by Abaqus simulation results, indicates that the proposed simplified method is sufficiently
accurate as the basis of a design method.
Notation
Fc
Ft
fy
k
M
Mel,Rd
Mfi
T
t
Wel,u
y
yCG
d
fi
1.
compressive force
tensile force
yield strength
curvature
moment
design moment resistance
applied bending moment in fire situation
temperature
fire exposure time
tensile elastic modulus
distance from bottom of cross-section
distance of centre of gravity from bottom of
cross-section
ambient temperature design safety factor
safety factor for fire design
strain
utilisation factor
stress
Introduction
columns, cast iron was also used in beams for more than
70 years, especially during the period 18201850 (IStructE,
1996). Cast-iron beams were partially fire protected by means
of various types of thermal insulation systems (Hurst, 1990;
Swailes, 2003; Wermiel, 1993), with the jack arch floor
(Figure 1) being the most widely applied. However, because of
the limited use of cast-iron structures in modern construction,
there has been very limited research on cast-iron structures,
with most of the relevant research studies being focused on
renovation (Friedman, 1995; Parmenter, 1996; Paulson et al.,
1996; Rondal and Rasmussen, 2003; Swailes, 1995).
This paper deals with cast-iron beams exposed to fire. Castiron structural beams exhibit different behaviour from that of
modern steel beams. When cast-iron beams are used as part of
jack arched construction, the temperature distribution in the
cast-iron cross-section is extremely non-uniform. In addition,
the stressstrain curve of cast iron does not possess the degree
of plastic behaviour of steel, making it not possible to analyse
cast-iron beams based on the plastic analysis method.
Furthermore, cast iron shows different behaviour under tension
and compression (Angus, 1976; Kattus and McPerson, 1959;
Maraveas et al., 2015; Palmer, 1970). As a result, the plastic
bending moment capacity method for steel beams, which is the
1
11''
10'
a
b to c
c to crown
d
1' 6''
12''
1' 11''
13''
10'
&
&
2.
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&
Tn
Fc
Neutral
axis
T3
3
2
1
Cross-section
with layers
Temperature
profile
T2
Mk
3
T1 2
1
Ft
23
1
Strain
profile
Stress
profile
00
22
Convection
Concrete
165
Thermal properties
of concrete (Eurocode 2)
573
20
1956
Masonry
153
450
Cast iron
1142
Thermal properties
of concrete (Eurocode 2)
Thermal properties
of steel (Eurocode 3)
Fire exposure
22
00
&
&
30
&
91
(a)
y z
x
22
Rigid links
00
All degrees
of freedom fixed
Centre
of gravity
Rigid links
Centre
of gravity
M
(b)
4.
Cross-section temperatures
Thermal analyses were conducted to determine the temperature profiles of the unprotected as well as the partially protected ( jack arch system) systems. The temperature study was
carried out via two-dimensional heat transfer analysis using
the commercial software Abaqus. The thermal properties of
cast iron were assumed to be those of steel, as defined in
EN 1993-1-2 (CEN, 2005a). This assumption was proposed by
Maraveas et al. (2013) and has been proven to give satisfactory
results (Maraveas et al., 2014). Moreover, for jack arched
systems, early concrete and masonry were modelled according
to the thermal properties of modern concrete as per
EN 1992-1-2 (CEN, 2005b), using the lower bound thermal
conductivity values as suggested by Maraveas et al. (2015).
4.1
&
5.
800
700
600
Stress: MPa
20400C
500
500C
400
300
600C
200
700C
100
0
800C
900C
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Strain: %
(a)
0
Stress: MPa
110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
900C
800C
70
80
90
100
10 20 30 40 50 60
20400C
500C
600C
700C 800C
900C
Strain: %
700C
600C
500C
20400C
110
70
250
200
150
100
50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
(b)
700
600
Moment: kNm
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
0002
0004
0006
0008
0010
0012
Curvature: 1/m
0014
0016
0018
0020
(a)
600
Moment: kNm
500
400
300
200
100
0002
0004
0006
0008
0010
0012
Curvature: 1/m
(b)
0014
0016
0018
0020
108
25
25
51
51
29
(a)
470
521
444
95 51
25
38
51
89
60
25
419
457
457
489
197
222
38
32
13 13
16
368
13
146
(b)
203
241
(c)
(d)
(c) Shaws G mill (1851), jack arch span 244 m; (d) Shaws H mill
(1880), jack arch span 275 m (dimensions in mm)
6.
6.1
Unprotected cross-sections
For a uniform temperature, the change in cast-iron beam
bending moment resistance will be governed by the reduction
in cast-iron tensile strength because the tensile strength of cast
iron is lower than the compressive strength (Angus, 1976;
Maraveas et al., 2015). This is confirmed in Figure 11, which
compares the residual cast-iron strength reduction factor
with the cast-iron tensile strength reduction factor at elevated
temperatures. The two sets of curves practically coincide.
The slightly higher reduction at temperatures around 400C
is a result of the reduction in Youngs modulus. Since the
applied bending moments are likely to be much lower than
the residual bending moment resistance at around 400C,
the cast-iron temperature will be much higher and the small
differences at temperatures around 400C are considered
insignificant.
6.2
6.2.2
Strain profiles
The proposed method for calculating the bending moment
capacity of a cast-iron beam is based on a strain approach.
Figure 13 shows the maximum tensile and compressive strains
in the different beams as a function of the average temperature
in the bottom (tensile) flange. It can be seen that both
maximum strains are grouped together within a very narrow
band. At lower temperatures, the maximum tensile strain is
close to 067%, this being the tensile strain at peak tensile
stress, as shown in Figure 5(b). At higher temperatures,
although the tensile strain at tensile peak stress is still 067%,
because the stress at higher strain is close to the peak stress,
higher maximum strains at the edge of the bottom flange
can develop to allow the inner cast iron to develop high stresses. For the development of a simplified bending moment
capacity calculation method for cast-iron beams, it is possible
to give approximate maximum tensile and compressive strain
temperature relationships.
6.2.1
t;T
20C T 400C
T 400
t;20 400C , T 900C
t;20 06
500
100
150
250
(a)
0
Temperature: C
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
t = 0 min
t = 15 min
t = 30 min
t = 45 min
t = 60 min
t = 75 min
t = 90 min
t = 105 min
t = 120 min
100
200
300
Average temperature: C
320
(a)
200
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
400
Cross-section from
Marshal mill
(Fitzgerald, 1988)
Cross-section from
Shaws H mill
(Fitzgerald, 1988)
Cross-section from
Shaws G mill
(Fitzgerald, 1988)
Cross-section from
Armley mill
(Fitzgerald, 1988)
20
40
500
Temperature: C
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
80
100
120
Figure 9. (a) Typical temperature distribution (in C) in the crosssection (Shaws H mill, 15 min exposure). (b) Average temperature
distributions in unprotected cross-sections
t = 0 min
t = 15 min
t = 30 min
t = 45 min
t = 60 min
t = 75 min
t = 90 min
t = 105 min
t = 120 min
100
200
300
12
400
10
500
08
(c)
600
0
Distance from outer fibre of top
flange: mm
60
Time: min
(b)
(b)
600
330
340
350
360
370
380
50
31
0
t = 0 min
t = 15 min
t = 30 min
t = 45 min
t = 60 min
t = 75 min
t = 90 min
t = 105 min
t = 120 min
300
Temperature: C
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Temperature: C
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
t = 0 min
t = 15 min
t = 30 min
t = 45 min
t = 60 min
t = 75 min
t = 90 min
t = 105 min
t = 120 min
100
200
300
400
Armley protected
Marshall protected
Shaw G protected
Shaw H protected
Armley unprotected
Marshall unprotected
Shaw G unprotected
Shaw H unprotected
Mfi,t,RD(numerical)
06
Mfi,t,RD(elastic strength)
04
02
Mfi,t,RD(elastic strength)
20
40
60
80
Time: min
100
120
140
500
600
Mfi,t,RD / MRD
(d)
c;T 09t;20
2:
c;T 09t;20
20C T 400C
T 400
1 0375
500
400C , T 900C
where t,20 is the strain (067% for the material in Figure 5(b))
at peak tensile stress at ambient temperature.
8
12
12
Marshall
Mfi,,RD / MRD
Shaws G
08
Shaws H
Reduction of cast-iron tensile
strength with temperature
06
04
02
0
200
400
600
800
Temperature: C
1000
Armley
10
1200
10
Tension
08
06
02
0
&
100
&
&
150
90 min 120 min
200
60 min
30 min
250
&
(a)
Temperature: C
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
100
200
Thermal analysis results
Proposed equations (Zaharia and Franssen, 2012)
120 min
90 min
300
400
500
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Average temperature of bottom flange: C
Temperature: C
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Proposed equations
(Zaharia and Franssen, 2012)
Compression
50
Armley
Shaws G
Shaws H
Marshall
Proposed model (tension)
Proposed model (compression)
04
30 min
60 min
600
(b)
From crosssection
equilibrium
c
tw
c (corresponding to c)
20C
Temperature
profile
h1
Neutral
axis
Lc
Block C
400C
h2
Block B
400
h400
tf
Block D
Block A
t
Tmax
400
(corresponding
to 400)
Tmax
(corresponding
to t for temperature Tmax)
From crosssection
equilibrium
tw
h1
Neutral
axis
h
h2
c
20C
Temperature
profile
Lc
400C
h400
tf
d
600C
500
Tmax
500C
700C
c (corresponding to c)
400
600
t
700
400
600
500
700
Tmax
(corresponding
to t for temperature Tbf)
7.
Sensitivity analysis
As shown in Figure 13, there are variations between computationally estimated strains and the suggested strain distribution.
A sensitivity analysis was thus performed in order to ascertain
whether the moment capacity is sensitive to these strain variations. For this purpose, the extreme bounds of maximum
strain values shown in Figure 18 were used.
The upper bounds of maximum strains are given by
t;T t;20
3:
t;T
20C T 300C
T 300
t;20
t;20 065
600
300C , T 900C
250
Simplified method
200
500
450
120 min
400
350
60 min
150
300
Fibre
analysis
Fibre analysis
60 min
250
100
200
Simplified method
150
50
100
50
0
200
100
400
0
0
200
Stress: MPa
200
Stress: MPa
Fibre analysis
400
600
(b)
Distance from outer fibre
of bottom flange: mm
(a)
500
450
120 min
400
350
60 min
600
500
120 min
400
60 min
300
Fibre analysis
250
300
200
Simplified method
Simplified method
200
150
100
100
50
400
200
0
0
200
Stress: MPa
400
600
(c)
400
200
0
0
200
Stress: MPa
400
600
(d)
11
12
12
10
10
08
Armley
Mfi,t,RD / MRD
Mfi,t,RD / MRD
Shaws H
06
04
Shaws G
02
08
Shaws H
Armley
06
04
Shaws G
Marshall
02
Marshall
0
0
0
20
40
60
80
Time: min
(a)
100
120
140
20
40
60
80
Time: min
(b)
100
120
140
12
10
Armley tension
Tension
Marshall tension
08
Shaw G tension
Shaw H tension
Armley compression
06
Marshall compression
Shaw G compression
Shaw H compression
04
Compression
02
100
200
c;T 09t;20
4:
c;T
20C T 400C
1 T 400
400C , T 900C
09t;20 1
3
500
c;T 09t;20
6:
20C T 450C
T 450
c;T 09t;20 1 05
450
450C , T 900C
12
t;T
20C T 450C
T 450
t;20
t;20 037
450
450C , T 900C
Analysis 1
Analysis 2
Analysis 3
Analysis 4
Analysis 5
Analysis 6
Tensile strain
Compressive strain
12
10
Mfi,,RD /MRD
30 min
08
90 min
06
Fibre model
Analysis 1, Table 1
Analysis 2, Table 1
Analysis 3, Table 1
Analysis 4, Table 1
Analysis 5, Table 1
Analysis 6, Table 1
04
02
0
100
200
60 min
120 min
300
600
400
500
Temperature: C
(a)
700
800
900
12
&
Mfi,,RD /MRD
10
08
30 min
60 min
06
Fibre model
Analysis 1, Table 1
Analysis 2, Table 1
Analysis 3, Table 1
Analysis 4, Table 1
Analysis 5, Table 1
Analysis 6, Table 1
04
02
0
0
100
200
&
90 min
300
400
500
600
Temperature: C
(b)
700
800
900
8.
&
&
&
The bending moment resistance of the cast-iron beam crosssection is the sum of the bending moments of all the zones
(A, B, C, D in Figure 14) of the cross-section.
13
696
Mel;
Rd
When using fibre analysis where the non-linear stress distribution is considered, the more accurate value of moment
capacity of the cross-section is
fibre
Mel;
Rd
Mel;Rd
fibre
Mel;
Rd
219
Mel;
Rd
20084
131
15312
20084
412
4866
Wel;u fy
d
fibre
Mel;
Rd
69;6
Mel;
Rd
60251
kNm 20084 kNm
3
14598
kNm 4866 kNm
3
45935
kNm 15312 kNm
3
8:
Mfi Mel;RD
fi
d
25
3217C
052%
44472 MPa
16936 kN
L1
L2
Li
Fc = 125553 kN
Neutral axis
489
313
K = 0031 m1
32
Ft = 125553 kN
146
Cross section
divided into fibres
71588C
Temperature
per fibre
097C
Strain
per fibre
14
4282 MPa
Stress
per fibre
4001 kN
Force
per fibre
A3.1 Temperatures
From Figure 8(b), the average temperature of the bottom
flange is 700C and the maximum is 722C and the position
with 400C is 400 mm from the top of the cross-section or
89 mm from the bottom.
2
3
A3.2 Strains
From Equations 1 and 2, for t,20 = 067% the maximum
tensile and compression strains for the 700C bottom flange
temperature are
Mfi
Mfi Mel;Rd 2 Mel;Rd
3 Mfibre
Mfibre Mel;Rd Mfibre
t 0911%
2
05
3 131
c 0467%
2
017
3 412
for an over-strength ratio of 412.
A3.3 Stresses
From the applied stressstraintemperature
(Figure 5(b)) the corresponding stresses are:
relationship
722
4208 MPa corresponding to t
t
25
c = 0467%
Lc
c = 46618 MPa
323
489
457
Neutral
axis
400 = 066%
400C
32
89
60
722C
700C
t = 091%
146
15
25
c = 46618 MPa
Lc
E
D
489
457
Neutral
axis
C
t400 = 21573 MPa
400C
32
60
A
722C
B
= 10452 MPa
700C
146
REFERENCES
400
21573 MPa corresponding to 400
t
20
c 46 618 MPa corresponding to c
The stress distribution is shown in Figure 21. The stresses
result in five internal forces (Figure 22) A, B, C, D and E
applied at the centre of gravity of each stress block. Forces D
and E are functions of Lc. From cross-section equilibrium, the
length Lc can be calculated as
F x 0 ! A B C DLc ELc 0 ! Lc
40 21 mm
So, the internal forces are A = 3424 kN, B = 2282 kN,
C = 6310 kN, D = 73307 kN and E = 4685 kN (Figure 22).
After multiplying each internal force with the appropriate lever
arm, the moment capacity can be calculated. For this crosssection and the given temperatures, the moment capacity is
M 391 8 kNm
For comparison,
37915 kNm.
16
the
fibre
analysis
model
gives
M=