1Template for engineering journal articles

2● Article type: paper (3000-5000 words, excluding abstract and References list)
3● One illustration per 500 words.
4● Date text written or revised.
5● Number of words in your main text and tables, followed by the number of figures.
6● This is an example created from parts of other articles; it is not designed to be read for
7 sense.
8● Text should be double line spaced, line numbered and pages should be numbered.
9-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10
11Title (maximum length of 62 characters including spaces)
12
13Author 1
14● Name, qualifications
15● Department of XXXX, XXXX Institute of Science, City, Country
16● ORCID number
17Author 2
18● Name, qualifications
19● Department of XXXX, XXXX Institute of Science, City, Country
20● ORCID number
21
22Full contact details of corresponding author.
23
24
25
Editor’s note: your article’s title and abstract are the main ways that readers will
find your work. For each, aim to make them:
o clear and interesting
o include keywords that your peers might type into a search engine
o place such keywords at the beginning of the first sentence. Google will then
find them more easily

Each keyword only needs to be mentioned once, after that use plenty of other
similar words.

1This is an example created from parts of other articles, it is not designed to be read for sense.
2
3
26
27Abstract (150 words)
28
29XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
30XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
31XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
32XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
33XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
34XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
35XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
36XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
37
38Keywords chosen from ICE Publishing list
39Keyword 1; keyword 2; keyword 3 chosen from lists on this webpage here (if these .xlsx
40files open showing internet code, try using a browser that is not Internet Explorer).
41
42
43List of notation (examples below)
44v is the allowable vertical displacement
45α is the coefficient of thermal expansion of concrete
46T2 is the slab bottom surface temperature
47T1 is the slab top surface temperature
48L is the length of the longer span of the slab
49l is the length of the shorter span of the slab
50h is the effective depth of the slab, as given in BS EN1994-1-2
51fy is reinforcement yield stress
52E is the elastic modulus of the reinforcement

4 2
5
53Introduction

54Recent trends aimed at ensuring the fire resistance of structures have encouraged increased

55use of performance-based approaches, which are now often categorised as structural fire
56engineering. These methods attempt to model, to different degrees, the actual behaviour of the
57three-dimensional structure, taking account of realistic fire exposure scenarios, the loss of some
58load from the ultimate to the fire limit state, actual material behaviour at elevated temperatures
59and interaction between various parts of the structure.

60

61Assessment of the real behaviour of structures in fire has shown that the traditional practice of

62protecting all exposed steelwork can be wasteful in steel-framed buildings with composite floors,
63since partially-protected composite floors can generate sufficient strength to carry considerable
64loading at the fire limit state, through a mechanism known as tensile membrane action, provided
65that fire-compartmentation is maintained and that connections are designed with sufficient
66strength and ductility.

67

68Tensile membrane action is a load-bearing mechanism of thin slabs under large vertical

69displacement, in which an induced radial membrane tension field in the central area of the slab
70is balanced by a peripheral ring of compression. In this mechanism the slab capacity increases
71with increasing deflection. This load-bearing action offers economic advantages for composite
72floor construction, since a large number of the steel floor beams can be left unprotected.

73

74The BRE membrane action method, devised by Bailey and Moore (2000), is one such

75procedure, which assesses composite slab capacity in fire by estimating the enhancement
76which tensile membrane action makes to the flexural capacity of the slab. It is based on
77rigid-plastic theory with large change of geometry. The method assumes that a composite floor
78is divided into rectangular fire-resisting ‘slab panels’ (see Figure 1), composed internally of
79parallel unprotected composite beams, vertically supported at their edges which usually lie on
80the building’s column grid.

81

6This is an example created from parts of other articles, it is not designed to be read for sense.
7
8
 82In fire the unprotected steel beams within these panels lose strength, and their loads are

83progressively borne by the highly deflected thin concrete slab in biaxial bending. The increase in
84slab resistance is calculated as an enhancement of the traditional small-deflection yield-line
85capacity of the slab panel. This enhancement is dependent on the slab’s aspect ratio, and
86increases with deflection. The method, initially developed for isotropically reinforced slabs, has
87been extended to include orthotropic reinforcement. A more recent update by Bailey and Toh
88(2007) considers more realistic in-plane stress distributions and compressive failure of concrete
89slabs. The deflection of the slab has to be limited in order to avoid an integrity (breach of
90compartmentation) failure. Failure is defined either as tensile fracture of the reinforcement in the
91middle of the slab panel or as compressive crushing of concrete at its corners. The deflection
92limit, shown as Equation 1, is defined on the basis of thermal and mechanical deflections and
93test observations.

94

  T2  T1  l 2 0 .5 f y 3 2
95 v    L
19.2h E t  20 C 8

961.

97

98The first term of Equation 1. accounts for the ‘thermal bowing’ deflection, assuming a linear

99temperature gradient through the depth of a horizontally-unrestrained concrete slab. The

100second part considers deflections caused by applying an average tensile mechanical
101reinforcement strain, of 50% of its yield strain at 20 °C, across the longer span of the slab,
102assuming that its horizontal span stays unchanged. This part of the allowable deflection is
103further limited to l/30. In normal structural mechanics terms this superposition of two
104components of the total deflection is not acceptable, because of their incompatible support
105assumptions, but nevertheless it is the deflection limit used. The limiting deflection has been
106calibrated to accord with large-scale fire test observations at Cardington (Bailey, 2000). In
107particular, in Equation 1 α is taken as 18 x 10 -6/°C, the recommended constant value for simple
108calculation, for normal-weight concrete, and the difference (T2 - T1) between the bottom and top
109slab surface temperatures is taken as 770°C for fire resistance periods up to 90 min, and 900 °C
110for 2 h, based on the test observations.

9 2
10
111

112Previous studies (support with literature reference) have compared the Bailey-BRE method both

113with experiments and with more detailed analytical approaches based on finite-element
114analysis. These have highlighted a number of shortcomings in the simplified method. One which
115has attracted particular interest is the effect of increased slab reinforcement ratios. The Bailey-
116BRE method indicates that a modest increase in the reinforcement ratio can result in a
117disproportionately large increase in composite slab capacity, whereas the finite-element
118analyses indicate a much more limited increase.

119

1202. Studies comparing Vulcan and the Bailey-BRE method

121The three slab panel layouts shown in Figure 3 were used for the structural analyses. The 9 m x

1226 m, 9 m x 9 m and 9 m x 12 m panels were designed for 60 min standard fire resistance,
123assuming normal-weight concrete of cube strength 40 MPa and a characteristic imposed load of
1245.0 kN/m2, plus 1.7 kN/m2 for ceilings and services. Using the trapezoidal slab profile shown in
125Figure 4, the requirements of BS 5950-3 (1990) assuming full composite action between steel
126and concrete, and simple support to all beams, in line with common British engineering practice.
127The ‘Office’ usage class is assumed, so that the partial safety factors applied to loadings are 1.4
128(dead) and 1.6 (imposed) for ultimate limit state (ULS) and 1.0 and 0.5 for fire limit state. The
129assumed uniform cross-section temperatures of the protected beams were limited to 550 °C at
13060 minutes. The ambient- and elevated-temperature designs resulted in specification of the
131steel beam sizes shown in Table 2.

132

133As previously mentioned, the assessment in this paper is presented as a comparison between

134the Bailey-BRE method and Vulcan finite-element analysis. Both the Bailey-BRE method and
135Tslab implicitly assume that the edges of a slab panel do not deflect vertically. The progressive
136loss of strength of the intermediate unprotected beams is captured by a reduction in the steel
137yield stress with temperature. The reduced capacity of the unprotected beams (interpreted as
138an equivalent floor load intensity) is compared with the total applied load at the fire limit state to
139determine the vertical displacement required by the reinforced concrete slab (the yield-line
140capacity of which also reduces with temperature) to generate sufficient enhancement to carry

11 3
12
141the applied load. The required displacement is then limited to an allowable value. The Vulcan

142finite-element analysis, on the other hand, properly models the behaviour of protected edge
143beams, with full vertical support available only at the corners of each panel. Vulcan (support with
144reference) is a three-dimensional geometrically non-linear specialised finite-element program
145which also considers non-linear elevated-temperature material behaviour. Nonlinear layered
146rectangular shell elements, capable of modelling both membrane and bending effects, are used
147to represent reinforced concrete slab behaviour, while beam or column behaviour is adequately
148modelled with segmented nonlinear beam-column elements.

149

150The analyses are initially performed with the standard isotropic reinforcing mesh sizes A142,

151A193, A252 and A393. These are respectively composed of 6 mm, 7 mm, 8 mm and 10 mm
152diameter bars of 500 N/mm2 yield strength, all at 200 mm spacing. The required mid-slab
153vertical displacements of the Bailey-BRE approach and the corresponding predicted deflections
154of the Vulcan analyses are compared with the Tslab, BRE and standard fire test (l/20) deflection
155limits; the structural properties of the two models are selected to be consistent with the
156assumptions of the Bailey-BRE method. The results are also compared with a simple slab panel
157failure mechanism, shown in Figure 5. This mechanism determines the time at which the
158horizontally unrestrained slab panel loses its load-bearing capacity due to biaxial tensile
159membrane action, and goes into single-curvature bending (simple plastic folding), due to the
160loss of plastic bending capacity of the protected edge beams. Using a work-balance equation, it
161predicts when the parallel arrangements of primary or secondary (intermediate unprotected and
162protected secondary) composite beams lose their ability to carry the applied fire limit state load
163because of their temperature-induced strength reductions. The expressions for plastic folding
164failure across the primary and secondary beams are shown in Equations 2 and 3 respectively.

165

166

167

168

169

170Primary beam failure

13 4
14
 wab 4 M p
171  0
2 a

1722.

173

174Secondary beam failure

wab  4 M s 4 M u 
0
175  
2  b b 
 

1763.

177

178In the equations above a and b are the lengths of the primary and secondary beams; w is the

179applied fire limit state floor loading and Mu, Ms and Mp are the temperature-dependent capacities
180of the unprotected, protected secondary and protected primary composite beams, respectively,
181at any given time.

182

1833. Results

184The results of the comparative analyses, shown in Figures 7–9, show slab panel deflections

185with different reinforcement mesh sizes. For ease of comparison, in each graph the A142
186reinforced panels are shown as dotted lines, while those reinforced with A193, A252 and A393
187are shown as dashed, solid and chain-dot lines respectively. For clarity the required vertical
188displacements for the Bailey-BRE method and the predicted actual displacements from the
189Vulcan analyses are shown on separate graphs (‘a’ and ‘b’) for each slab panel size.
190Displacements predicted by Vulcan at the centres of the slab panels are also shown relative to
191the deflections of the midpoints of the protected secondary beams in graphs ‘c’ for comparison.
192This illustration is appropriate because the deflected slab profile in the Bailey-BRE method
193relates to non-deflecting edge beams; a more representative comparison with Vulcan therefore
194requires a relationship between its slab deflection and deflected edge beams.

195

1963.1 Slab panel analyses

1973.1.1 9 m x 6 m slab panel

15 5
16
198SCI P-288 (Newman et al., 2006) specifies A193 as the minimum reinforcing mesh required for

19960 minutes’ fire resistance. Figure 7(a) shows the required Bailey-BRE displacements together
200with the deflection limits and the slab panel collapse time. A193 mesh satisfies the BRE limit,
201but is inadequate for 60 min fire resistance according to Tslab. A252 and A393 satisfy all
202deflection criteria. It should be noted that there is no indication of failure of the panels according
203to Bailey-BRE, even when the collapse time is approached. This is partly due to their neglect of
204the behaviour of the edge beams; runaway failure of Bailey-BRE panels is only evident in the
205required deflections when the reinforcement has lost a very significant proportion of its strength.
206Vulcan predicted deflections are shown in Figure 7(b). It is observed that the A393 mesh just
207satisfies the BRE limiting deflection at 60 min. It can also be seen that the deflections of the
208various Vulcan analyses converge at the ‘collapse time’ (82 min) of the simple slab panel folding
209mechanism. This clearly indicates the loss of bending capacity of the protected secondary
210beams.

211

2123.1.2 9 m x 12 m slab panel

213In the previously-discussed 9 m x 6 m slab panel the secondary beams are longer than the

214primary beams. In the 9 m x 12 m layout this is reversed. However, its large overall size requires
215its minimum mesh size to be A252. From the required displacements shown in Figure 8(a),
216A252 mesh satisfies a 60 min fire resistance requirement with respect to the Bailey-BRE limit. It
217is observed from this graph that increasing the mesh size from A252 to A393 results in an
218increase in the slab panel capacity from about 37 min to over 90 min, relative to the Tslab
219deflection limit. The same cannot be said for the Vulcan results (Figure 8(b)), which show very
220little increase in capacity with larger meshes.

221

2223.1.3 9 m x 9 m slab panel

223Figure 9 shows results for the 9 m x 9 m slab panel, plotted together with the edge beam

224collapse mechanism and the three deflection criteria. The discrepancy between the Bailey-BRE
225limit and Tslab is evident once again; the recommended minimum reinforcement for 60 minutes’
226fire resistance, A193, is adequate with respect to the BRE limit, but fails to meet the Tslab limit.
227As reported for the other panel layouts, an increase in mesh size results in a disproportionately

17 6
18
228large increase in the Bailey-BRE panel resistance (Figure 9(a)) while Vulcan (Figure 9(b))

229shows a more modest increase. Failure of the protected secondary beams at 73min (also Figure
2309(b)) limits any contribution the reinforcement might have made to the panel capacity. A
231comparison of the relative displacements (Figure 9(c)) with the required Bailey-BRE
232displacements indicates that the latter method is the more conservative for A142 and A193
233meshes.

234

235The comparisons in Figures 7–9 show that finite-element modelling indicates only marginal

236increases in slab panel capacity with increasing reinforcement size. The Bailey-BRE method, on
237the other hand, shows huge gains in slab panel resistance with larger mesh sizes, even when
238compared to the relative displacements given by the finite-element analyses. Results for the 9 m
239x 6 m and 9 m x 9 m slab panels have shown that the Bailey-BRE method is conservative with
240the lower reinforcement sizes, while it overestimates slab panel capacities for higher mesh
241sizes.

242

2433.2 Effects of reinforcement ratio

244The comparison in the previous section shows that the Bailey-BRE method can predict very

245high increases of slab panel capacity as a result of small changes in reinforcement area, while
246Vulcan on the other hand indicates only marginal increases. The fact that the structural
247response of the protected secondary beams is ignored seems to be the key to this over-
248optimistic prediction by the Bailey-BRE method. Therefore, to investigate the real contribution of
249reinforcement ratios, structural failure of the panel as a whole by plastic folding has been
250incorporated as a further limit to the Bailey-BRE deflection range. Fictitious intermediate
251reinforcement sizes have been used, in addition to the standard meshes, in order to investigate
252the effects of increasing reinforcement area on slab panel resistance. The range of
253reinforcement area is maintained between 142 mm2/m and 393 mm2/m; the additional areas are
254166, 221, 284, 318 and 354 mm2/m. The investigation in this section examines failure times of
255the slab panel with respect to the three limiting deflection criteria (Tslab, the generic BRE limit
256and span/20) normalised with respect to the time to creation of a panel folding mechanism,
257since this indicates a real structural collapse of the entire slab panel. Results for the 9 m x 6 m,

19 7
20
2589 m x 12 m and 9 m x 9 m panels are shown in Figure 10. The lightly-shaded curves show

259required deflections from the Bailey-BRE method. The deflections predicted by Vulcan are
260shown as darker curves. The dotted, solid and dashed lines refer respectively to failure times
261with respect to the short span/20 criterion, the Tslab deflection limit and the BRE limit.

262

263Figure 10(a) shows how the normalised 9 m x 6 m slab panel failure times vary with increasing

264reinforcement mesh size for the 60 min design case. The results confirm the earlier observation
265of modest increases in slab panel capacity in the finite-element model and over-optimistic
266predictions in the Bailey-BRE method model. Looking at the BRE limit, the increase in slab
267panel resistance between reinforcement areas of 142 mm2/m and 166 mm2/m is 26%. However,
268increasing the reinforcement area from 166 mm2/m to 193 mm2/m results in a capacity
269increases of over 100%. Similar observations are made with respect to the other deflection
270limits with reinforcement areas above 200 mm2/m. Vulcan on the other hand registers a
271maximum capacity increase of only 30% between 142 mm2/m and 393 mm2/m.

272

273The 9 m x 6 m, 9 m x 12 m and 9 m x 9 m slab panels are re-designed for these higher fire

274resistance times by selecting appropriate beam sizes, fire protection and slab thicknesses to
275ensure that the load ratios of all beams lie between 0.4 and 0.5, considering increased loadings
276on the protected secondary beams at the fire limit state. Also, the reinforcement depth is
277maintained at 45 mm from the top surface of the slab. Again the fire protection ensures that the
278protected beam temperatures reach a maximum of 550 °C at the respective fire resistance
279times, on exposure to the standard fire curve. The beam specifications for the 90 and 120 min
280cases are shown in Table 4. The slab panel collapse times and corresponding intermediate and
281protected secondary beam temperatures are shown in Table 5. Vulcan failure times for the 9 m x
2826 m, 9 m x 12 m and 9 m x 9 m slab panels with respect to the Tslab, BRE and span/20
283deflection limits for 60, 90 and 120 min panels are plotted together in Figure 11. Since the 60
284min designs have already been highlighted in Figure 10, they are shown as thinner lines, in the
285background of each figure. The line coding used in the previous figure are maintained for Figure
28611.

287

21 8
22
288From Figure 11(a), it is seen that lower reinforcement area does not significantly influence slab

289panel failure times for the 90 and 120 min cases. Mesh sizes above 280 mm 2/m show significant
290increases in capacity with increasing reinforcement. A similar trend is observed in the 9 m x 12
291m slab panel (Figure 11(b)). An examination of the results of the 9 m x 9 m slab panel in Figure
29211(c) reveals a general increase in failure time with increasing reinforcement area. However, it is
293observed that mesh sizes below 240 mm2/m hardly influence slab panel capacity, especially in
294the higher fire resistance category. To investigate the phenomenon further four extra fictitious
295reinforcement mesh sizes (236.5, 244.25, 260 and 268 mm 2/m) are included in the 120 min 9 m
296x 9 m slab panel analyses. By examining the failure time curve relative to the Tslab deflection
297limit for the 120 min design scenario, even with the increased number of reinforcement areas, it
298is evident that two conditions exist for failure. The same phenomenon is however not recorded
299in the 60 min case (Figure 10(c)), which shows a continuous increase in slab panel capacity
300with increasing reinforcement size.

301

3024. Conclusions

303

304

305 Editor’s note: research papers must include a section, at the end of the main text,
detailing the practical relevance and potential applications of the work described.
306
This is important to readers working in civil engineering and related practice.
307

308 Similarly, case studies and project papers must highlight the relevance of the work
described and summarise the lessons learned. As with research papers, they must
309
also include relevant references to demonstrate how previous research and
310 practice has been used. These references could be standards, codes or relevant
311 past ICE journal papers (search here).

312

313

314

315

316The analyses and comparisons made in this investigation confirm a discrepancy between the

317original Bailey-BRE method and its development to Tslab, in their interpretation of deflection

23 9
24
318limits. The results also show that, even after recent development, the Bailey-BRE method loses

319its conservatism with higher reinforcement ratios. The method’s reliance on calculating the
320deflection required to enhance the traditional yield-line capacity, without adequate consideration
321of the stability of the edge beams, results in very optimistic predictions of slab panel resistance
322with larger mesh sizes. On the other hand the finite-element analyses show that, when load
323redistributions, aspect ratios and edge beam deflections are considered, only marginal
324increases in slab panel capacity are obtained with increasing reinforcement size, and the slab
325panel eventually fails by edge beam failure. The simple edge-beam collapse mechanism is
326found to give accurate predictions of slab panel runaway failure. The comparison indicates that
327this mechanism needs to be added to the Bailey-BRE method, since edge beams do not stay
328cold throughout a fire.

329

330Further analyses of the effect of reinforcement size on slab panel capacities reveals that, for

331small sized panels and lower fire resistance requirements, increasing reinforcement size does
332not significantly increase the panel capacity. However, it is simply logical that larger mesh sizes
333are required for large panels. Higher reinforcement ratios are also required for slabs designed
334for longer fire resistance periods, in order to resist the high initial thermal bending which occurs.
335In terms of membrane enhancement however, increasing the mesh size has little influence.

336

337Acknowledgements

338The authors would like to acknowledge the XXXXXXXXXXX scheme, the University of XXXX

339and XXXX PLC, which collectively funded this project.

340

341References (examples only, click here for full details of how to cite your references)

342BS 5950-3 (1990). Tests for geometrical properties of aggregates. Determination of particle size

343 distribution. Test sieves, nominal size of apertures. BSI, London, UK.

344Bailey and Moore (2000) Electrochemical removal of chlorides from concrete. In Proceedings of

345 a Conference on the Rehabilitation of Concrete Structures (Smith DW and Lewis F (eds)).

346 Thomas Telford, London, UK, pp. 2–30.

25 10
26
347Bailey and Toh (2007a) A Study of Breakdown in Concrete. American Concrete Institute,

348 Farmington Hills, MI, USA, Report STP 67, pp. 1–10.

349Bobb G (1963) Methods and Machines. Canadian Patent 672 051, Oct.

350Chapman DN, Rogers CDF and Ng PCF (2005) Predicting ground displacements caused by

351 pipesplitting. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Geotechnical Engineering

352 158(2): 95–106.

353Murray EJ and Geddes JD (1987) Uplift of anchor plates in sand. Journal of Geotechnical

354 Engineering ASCE 113(3): 202–215.

355HA (Highways Agency) (2009) Act on CO2 Calculator. HA, London, UK. See

356 http://carboncalculator.direct.gov.uk/index.html (accessed 27/06/2011).

357Wilby R, Nicholls R, Warren R et al. (2011) Keeping nuclear and other coastal sites safe from

358 climate change. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Civil Engineering 164(3):

359 129–136, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/cien.2011.164.3.129

360Traffic Management Act 2004 (2004) Elizabeth II. Chapter 18. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office,

361 London, UK

362

363

364

365

366

367Figure captions (images as individual files separate to your MS Word text file).
368
369 Editor’s note: do not copy and paste your

370 images into MS Word, this reduces their

371 quality. Instead upload them to the journal

372 website as separate files in the format

373 used to originally create them.

374
375
376Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the Bailey-BRE method
377Figure 2. Slab deflection limits
378Figure 3. Slab panel sizes
379Figure 4. Concrete slab cross-section, showing the trapezoidal decking profile

27 11
28
380Figure 5. Slab panel folding mechanism
381Figure 6. Beam and slab temperature evolution for R60 design
382Figure 7. Bailey-BRE method - 9 m x 6 m slab panel, required vertical displacements (R60) (a),
383Vulcan 9 m x 6 m slab panel, central vertical displacements (R60) (b), Vulcan 9 m x 6 m slab
384panel, displacements of slab centre relative to protected secondary beams (R60) (c)

29 12
30