NBSIR 85-3158

Fire Performance of Interstitial

Space Construction System

J. Randall Lawson

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Fire Research

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

May 1985

Supported in part by:

Veterans Administration

QC, Washington, DC 20420

|0O

•ust

NBSIR 85-3158

FIRE PERFORMANCE OF INTERSTITIAL

SPACE CONSTRUCTION SYSTEM

J. Randall Lawson

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Fire Research

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

May 1985

Supported in part by:

Veterans Administration

Washington, Dc 20420

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES v

LIST OF FIGURES vi

SI CONVERSION UNITS xiv

Abstract 1

1. INTRODUCTION 2

2. TEST METHOD AND SUPPORTING STRUCTURE 4

2.1 Test Structure 6

2.2 Furnace Design 7 2.3 General Description of Test Assemblies

2.4 Dummy Air Conditioning Duct Construction and Installation 9

2.5 Interstitial Space Enclosure 10

2.6 General Instrumentation 11 2.6.1 Center Column Instrumentation 11 a. Fire Compartment 11 b. Interstitial Space 11 2.6.2 Center Beam Supporting the Functional Floor 12

2.6.3 Steel Deck Supporting the Functional Floor 12

2.6.4 Functional Floor Surface Instrumentation 12

2.6.5 Deflection Instrumentation 13

2.6.6 Interstitial Space Air Temperature 13

2.6.7 Dummy Air Conditioning Duct Temperatures 13

3. DESCRIPTION OF LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE WALK-ON DECK SYSYEM 14

3.1 Special Instrumentation for Lightweight Concrete

Walk-On Deck System 16

4. TESTING OF LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE WALK-ON DECK SYSTEMS 17

5. TEST RESULTS FOR LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE WALK-ON DECK SYSTMS 19

5.1 Test 1 Fire Endurance for Lightweight Concrete Walk-on

Deck System 19

5.1.1 Test Observations Test 1 19

5.1.2 Post Test Observations, Test 1 23

5.1.3 Discussion of Test Results, Test 1 1* 5.2 Test 2 Fire Endurance for Lightweight Concrete Walk-On

Deck System .!< 5.2.1 Test Observations, Test 2 5.2.2 Post Test Observations, Test 2 .’8 5.2.3 Discussion of Test Results, Test 2 5.3 Test 2A Fire Endurance for Lightweight Concrete Walk-On

Deck System

5.3.1 Test Observations, Test 2A 1

iii
5.3.2 Post Test Observations, Test 2A 33

5.3.3 Discussion of Test Results, Test 2A 34

6. DESCRIPTION OF GYPSUM WALK-ON DECK SYSTEM 36

6.1 Special Instrumentation for Gypsum Walk-On Deck System 37

7. TESTING OF POURED GYPSUM WALK-ON DECK SYSTEM 38

8. TEST RESULTS FOR POURED GYPSUM WALK-ON DECK SYSTEM 39

8.1 Test 3 Fire Endurance for Gypsum Walk-On Deck System 39

8.1.2 Test Obsevations, Test 3 39

8.1.3 Post Test Observation, Test 3 42

8.2 Discussion of Test Results, Test 3 43

9. FIRES- T3 COMPUTER MODEL PREDICTIONS 46

9.1 Predictions for Lightweight Concrete Walk-On Deck.... 47

9.2 Predictions for Fireproofed Purlin Supporting

Lightweight Concrete Walk-On Deck 47

9.3 Predictions for Unprotected Purlin Supporting

Lightweight Concrete Walk-On Deck 48

10. CONCLUSIONS 50

11. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 51

12. REFERENCES 53
LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1. Fireproofing 54

Table 2. Weather Conditions . 55

v
LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. Elevation of fire test structure ..... 56

Figure 2. Standard time-temperature fire endurance curve 57

Figure 3. Plan ground level of test structure............. 58

Figure 4. Photograph of fire compartment 59

Figure 5. Plan walk-on deck level of test structure.. 60

Figure 6. Plan functional floor of test structure 61

Figure 7. Fire protection for W 14x61 columns 62

Figure 8. Sketch of welded connections for steel tube to

W 6x9 steel purlins.. 63

Figure 9. Details of air conditioning duct construction 84

Figure 10. Sketch of wall construction enclosing the interstitial

space 85

Figure 11. Photograph showing interstitial space 86

Figure 12. Placement of thermocouples attached to the

W 14x61 steel column 87

Figure 13. Placement of thermocouples on center beams supporting

the functional floors 88

Figure 14. Placement of thermocouples on functional floor steel

decks 89

Figure 15. Surface thermocouples on functional floors 70

Figure 16. Locations for deflection gauges on purlins. 71

Figure 17. Photograph showing deflection gauge weight on load

container 72

Figure 18. Locations for thermocouples on air conditioning ducts 73

Figure 19. Construction details for lightweight concrete walk-on

deck system 74

Figure 20. Photograph of fireproofing on purlins, firesafing at

duct penetration, and gypsum board column protection... 75

vi
Figure 21. Locations for thermocouples used in the lightweight

concrete deck system 76

Figure 22. Arrangement of thermocouples attached to W 6x9 steel

purlin supporting the walk-on deck

Figure 23. Chart record of average furnace temperature, test 1

Figure 24. Photograph showing bottom of walk-on deck after test 1

Figure 25. Functional floor surface temperatures quadrant I,

test 1 80

Figure 26. Functional floor surface temperatures quadrant II,

test 1 80

Figure 27. Fu'ctional floor surface temperature quadrant III,

test 1 81

Figure 28. Functional floor surface temperatures quadrant IV,

test 1 81

Figure 29. Functional floor surface temperature center of test

bay, test 1 82

Figure 30. Functional floor steel deck temperatures quadrant IV,

test 1 82

Figure 31. Temperature for center beam supporting the functional

floor, center measurement point between quadrants I and II, test 1 83

Figure 32. Temperatures for center beam supporting the functional

floor, center measurement point between quadrants III

and IV, test 1 83

Figure 33. Center column temperatures in intere'sitial space at

measurement point two feet above walk-on deck, test 1 84

Figure 34. Center column tempertures in interstitial space at

measurment point four feet above walk-on deck,

test 1. . . . 84

Figure 35. Column temperatures in furnace compartment two feet

up from floor, test 1 85

Figure 36. Column temperatures in furnace compartment four feet

up from floor, test 1 85

Figure 37. Column temperatures in furnace compartment six feet

up from floor, test 1

'

Figure 38. Column temperatures in furnace compartment eight feet

up from floor, test 1

vii
Figure 39. Walk-on deck purlin temperatures quadrant I, test 1 87

Figure 40. Walk-on deck purlin temperatures quadrant II, test 1 87

Figure 41. Walk-on deck purlin temperatures quadrant III, test 1 88

Figure 42. Walk-on deck purlin temperatures quadrantv IV, test 1......... 88

Figure 43. Walk-on deck temperatures thick section quadrant I,

test 1 89

Figure 44. Walk-on deck temperatures thin section quadrant I,

test 1 89

Figure 45. Walk-on deck temperatures thick section quadrant III,

test 1 90

Figure 46. Walk-on deck temperatures thin section quadrant III,

test 1 90

Figure 47. Temperatures for suspension rods and steel tube bracket,

test 1 91

Figure 48. Dummy air conditioning duct temperatures, test 1...... 91

Figure 49. Interstitial space air temperatures, test 1 92

Figure 50. Walk-on deck purlin deflections, test 1 92

Figure 51. Photograph showing permanent upward set of suspended

purlin, test 1 93

Figure 52. Record of average furnace temperature, test 2 94

Figure 53. Photograph showing bottom of walk-on deck after test 2. 95

Figure 54. Functional floor surface temperatures quadrant I, test 2..... 96

Figure 55. Functional floor surface temperature quadrant II, test 2..... 96

Figure 56. Functional floor surface temperature quadrant III, test 2.... 97

Figure 57. Functional floor surface temperature quadrant IV, test 2 97

Figure 58. Functional floor surface temperature center of test

bay, test 2..... 98

Figure 59. Functional floor steel deck temperatures quadrant IV,

test 2. 98

Figure 60. Temperatures for center beam supporting the functional

floor, center measurement point between quadrants I and II, test 2 ^

viii
Figure 61. Temperatures for center beam supporting the functional

floor, center measurement point between quadrants III

and IV, test 2 99

Figure 62. Center column temperatures in interstitial space at

measurement point tWD feet above walk-on deck, test 2 100

Figure 63. Center column temperatures in interstitial space at

measurement point four feet above walk-on deck, test 2 100

Figure 64. Column temperatures in furnace compartment two feet

up from floor, test 2 - -

Figure 63. Column temperatures in furnace compartment four feet

up from floor, test 2 l f l

Figure 66. Column temperatures in furnace compartment six feet

up from floor, test 2. 101

Figure 67. Column temperatures in furnace compartment eight feet

up from floor, test 2....

Figure 68. Walk-on deck purlin temperatures quadrant I, test 2 10-

Figure 69. Walk-on deck purlin temperatures quadrant II, test 2

Figure 70. Walk-on deck purlin temperatures quadrant III, test 2

Figure 71. Walk-on deck purlin temperatures quadrant IV, test 2

- ~

Figure 72. Walk-on deck temperatures thick section quadrant I,

test 2

Figure 73. Walk-on deck temperatures thin section quadrant I,

test 2

1

*•

Figure 74. Walk-on deck temperatures thick section quadrant III,

test 2 106

Figure 75. Walk-on deck temperatures thin section quadrant III,

test 2

Figure 76. Temperatures for suspension rods and steel tube brakcet

,

test 2

Figure 77. Dummy air conditioning duct temperatures, test 2

Figure 78. Interstitial space air temperatures, test 2

Figure 79. Walk-on deck purlin deflections, test 2

Figure 80. Record of average furnace temperature, test 2A

ix
Figure 81. Photograph showing bottom of walk-on deck at end of

test 2A HO

Figure 82. Functional floor surface temperatures quadrant I,

test 2A HI

Figure 83. Functional floor surface temperatures quadrant II,

test 2A HI

Figure 84. Functional floor surface temperatures quadrant III,

test 2A 112

Figure 85. Functional floor surface temperatures quadrant IV,

test 2A 112

Figure 86. Functional floor surface temperature center of test bay,

test 2A 113

Figure 87. Functional floor steel deck temperatures quadrant IV,

test 2A 113

Figure 88. Temperatures for center beam supporting the functional

floor, center measurement point between quadrants I and II, test 2A H4

Figure 89. Temperatures for center beam supporting the functional

floor, center measurement point between quadrants III

and IV, test 2A

Figure 90. Center column temperatures in interstitial space at

measurement point two feet above walk-on deck, test 2A

^->

Figure 91. Center column temperatures in interstitial space at

measurement point four feet above walk-on deck, test 2A

Figure 92. Column temperatures in furnace compartment two feet up

from floor, test 2A

Figure 93. Column temperatures in furnace compartment four feet

up from floor, test 2A

Figure 94. Column temperatures in furnace compartment six feet

up from floor, test 2A

Figure 95. Column temperatures in furnace compartment eight feet

up from floor, test 2A

118 Figure 96. Walk-on deck purlin temperatures quadrant I, test 2A

118 Figure 97. Walk-on deck purlin temperatures quadrant II, test 2A

119 Figure 98. Walk-on deck purlin temperatures quadrant III, test 2A

Figure 99. Walk-on deck purlin temperatures quadrant IV, test 2A

x
120

Figure 100.

Figure 101.

Figure 102.

Figure 103.

Figure 104.

Figure 105.

Figure 106.

Figure 107.

Figure 108.

Figure 109.

Figure 109(B)

Figure 110.

Figure 111.

Figure 112.

Figure 113.

Figure 114.

Figure 115.

Figure 116.

Figure 117.

Figure 118.

Walk-on deck temperatures thick section quadrant I,

test 2A.

Walk-on deck temperatures thin section quadrant I,

test 2A

Walk-on deck temperatures thick section quadrant III,

test 2A

Walk-on deck temperatures thin section quadrant III,

test 2A

Temperatures for suspension rods and steel tube bracket,

test 2A

Dummy air conditioning duct temperatures, test 2A

Interstitial space air temperatures, test 2A.

Walk-on deck purlin deflections, test 2A

Construction details for poured gypsum walk-on deck

system, test 3

Thermocouple locations through section of gypsum walk-on

deck, test 3

. Subpurlin temperature measurement points, test 3

Locations for thermocouple sets in gypsum walk-on deck,

test 3..

Record of average furnace temperature, test 3

Photograph showing bottom of gypsum walk-on deck

after test 3

Photograph showing bent suspension rod in interstitial

space, test 3

Functional floor surface temperatures quadrant I, test 3...

Functional floor surface temperatures quadrant II,

test 3

Functional floor surface temperatures quadrant III,

test 3

Functional floor surface temperatures quadrant IV,

test 3

Functional floor surface temperature center of test

bay, test 3

120

121

121

122

122

123

123

124

123

125

126

127

128

129

130

130

xi
Figure 119. Functional floor steel deck temperatures quadrant IV,

test 3 132

Figure 120. Temperatures for center beam supporting the functional

floor, center measurement point between quadrants I and II, test 3 133

Figure 121. Temperatures for center beam supporting the functional

floor, center measurement point between quadrants III

and IV, test3 133

Figure 122. Center column temperatures in interstitial space at

measurement point two feet above walk-on deck,

test 3. . 134

Figure 123. Center column temperatures in interstitial space at

measurement point four feet above walk-on deck,

test 3... 134

Figure 124. Column temperatures in furnace compartment two feet up

from floor, test 3..... 135

Figure 125. Column temperatures in furnace compartment four feet up

from floor, test 3 135

Figure 126. Column temperatures in furnace compartment six feet

up from floor, test 3 136

Figure 127. Column temperatures in furnace compartment eight feet

up from floor, test 3... 136

Figure 128. Walk-on deck purlin temperature quadrant I, test 3..... 137

Figure 129. Walk-on deck purlin temperature quadrant II, test 3 137

Figure 130. Walk-on deck purlin temperature quadrant III, test 3 138

Figure 131. Walk-on deck purlin temperature quadrant IV, test 3 138

Figure 132. Walk-on deck subpurlin temperature quadrant II, test 3....... 139

Figure 133. Walk-on deck subpurlin temperature quadrant IV, test 3.. 139

Figure 134. Walk-on deck temperatures quadrant II, test 3 1^0

Figure 135. Walk-on deck temperatures quadrant IV, test 3 1^0

Figure 136. Temperatures for suspension rods and steel tube

bracket, test 3.....

Figure 137. Dummy air conditioning duct temperatures, test 3

1Z| 1

Figure 138. Interstitial space air temperatures, test 3 1^2

xii
Figure 139.

Figure 140.

Figure 141.

Figure 142.

Figure 143.

Figure 144.

Figure 145.

F ig ure 146.

Walk-on deck purlin deflections, test 3

Lightweight concrete walk-on deck node and element

locations for FIRES-T3 model

Comparisons of FIRES-T3 predictions for walk-on deck

with results from test 1....

Node and element locations for fireproofed purlins in

lightweight concrete walk-on deck FIRES-T3 model....

Comparisons of FIRES-T3 predictions for fireproofed

purlin with results from test 2

Node and element locations for unprotected purlins in

lightweight concrete walk-on deck FIRES-T3 model....

Comparisons of FIRES-T3 predictions for bottom flange

of unprotected purlin with results from test 1

Comparisons of FIRES-T3 predictions for top flange of

unprotected purlin with results from test 1

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

148

xiii
SI CONVERSION UNITS

AREA

1 in^ = 0.000645 square meter (m^)

= 6.4516 square centimeters (cm^)

1 ft^ = 0.0929 square meter (m )

LENGTH

1 in = 0.0254 meter (m)

1 ft = 0.3048 meter (m)

MASS

1 lb = 0.453 kilogram (kg)

POWER

1 watt = 1 joule per second (—

)

s

QUANTITY OF HEAT

1 Btu = 1055.87 joule (J)

TEMPERATURE

°F = 9/5 °C + 32

xiv
FIRE PERFORMANCE OF INTERSTITIAL SPACE CONSTRUCTION SYSTEMS

J. Randall Lawson

Abstract

Two unique walk-on deck construction systems were exposed to the standard

NFPA 251 time-temperature fire exposure for periods up to two hours in order

to evaluate their fire performance. A large scale steel structure was used in

the test program to simulate construction systems found in the field. The

structure consisted of two large functional floors separated by an

interstitial space in which a walk-on deck was suspended from the top

functional floor. One of the walk-on deck systems was constructed from

lightweight concrete, and the second was built with poured gypsum. Critical

components evaluated were the top functional floor, unprotected steel work in

the interstitial space, the walk-on deck system, and protection for a heavy

steel column located in the center of each test bay. Test data were compared

with the fire endurance test requirements of NFPA 251. Computer predictions

also were made using the FIRES- T3 model to determine its ability to accurately

predict the construction systems performance.

The interstitial construction system achieved the design fire endurance.

Key words: Fire endurance; fire test; interstitial space; structural systems;

floor systems; structural response; computer predictions.

I
1. INTRODUCTION

With the substantial growth in knowledge over the last one hundred years,

architects and engineers have developed the ability to design and construct

buildings more complex and larger than many people thought possible. It is

not uncommon to find that these structures contain hundreds of thousands of

square feet in area and cost hundreds of millions of dollars when they are

completed. In order to protect these buildings and their occupants from fire,

the designers must provide a safe yet economical approach to fire protection

design. With many of these complex designs, small variations can lead to

unsafe conditions or substantial increases in cost. This is a difficult task

since fire safety cannot always be easily determined, while cost savings are

easily shown on the project's budget estimate. Currently, the only recognized

means for evaluating a building system is to submit it to a standard fire test

and observe its performance.

The project described in this report was carried out to address the need

for measuring fire performance of two recently designed interstitial space

construction systems proposed for installation in Veterans Administration

medical facilities. These construction systems consist of an interstitial

space (separating two functional floors) created by the installation of

suspended walk-on decks and were evaluated using the National Fire Protection

Association (NFPA) 251 standard, Standard Methods of Fire Tests of Building

2
•J* Construction and Materials [1] . Several design questions were evaluated in

this investigation:

1. Would the new designs provide a two hour fire rating (by NFPA 251)

for the functional floor above each interstitial space design?

2. Does the firestopping around the duct penetrations in the walk-on

deck provide adequate protection to prevent fire spread into the

interstitial space?

3. Is the fire protection provided by the interstitial space walk-on

deck system sufficient to permit elimination of fireproofing on

structural steel members in the interstitial space?

4. Can the fireproofing on the purlins supporting the walk-on deck be

omitted and still provide appropriate protection to the interstitial

space and functional floor above?

In addition to the above testing, a computer model was also used in an

attempt to predict the heat transfer through one of the walk-on deck

systems. The FIRES- T3 computer model [2], developed at the University of

California, was used to provide this evaluation. The results from the

computer model are compared with temperature data recorded during the fire

tests

.

Figures in brackets indicate literature references at the end of th i ^ !• •

.

3
2. TEST METHOD AND SUPPORTING STRUCTURE

The test method used for evaluating the building systems in this project

was NFPA 251-79. A special two story steel test structure was modified to

provide a large scale test facility for this project as shown in figure 1.

Briefly, the referenced method requires that a building system test specimen

be constructed in a way that is representative of that found on an actual

construction site. Since the building systems evaluated in this study were

primarily floor systems, the standard requires that no less than 180 ft of

the assembly be exposed to the fire environment. Details on the tested

construction systems are found in sections 3 and 6. The fire test exposes a

specimen to a standard time-temperature fire environment throughout a

specified length of time. Figure 2 shows the standard time-temperature

curve. This exposure is not designed to represent all fire conditions but

does provide a relative measure of fire performance for comparable assemblies

under the same specified fire conditions.

The conditions for acceptance of these building systems are found in

several different sections of the test standard. The acceptance conditions

relating to temperature recorded on the functional floor are found in

sections 10-5 and 10-6 of the standard. Since the functional floor was

restrained by a steel angle around its perimeter, section 10-5(b) applies.

This states that heat transmission through the specimen during the classification period shall not raise the average temperature on its unexposed surface

more than 250°F above its initial temperature. The acceptance conditions for

the structural steel members supporting the functional floor comes from

section 10-6(c). This specifies that the structural steel members shall not

4
exceed 1300°F at any single location during the classification period nor

shall the average temperature recorded by four prescribed thermocouples at any

section have exceeded 1100°F during the same period. The specification for

applying a load to the functional floor system was not followed in any of the

four tests. The sponsor requested that the surface of the walk-on deck not be

loaded during the tests. The Veterans Administration stated that no live

loads would be allowed on the walk-on decks except for an occasional inspector

or workman. This variation from test standard was adopted because it was

recognized that should a failure occur with the walk-on deck the unprotected

steel in the interstitial space would likely reach a failure point before a

load or cotton waste ignition failure would occur on the functional floor.

The budget for this test program also did not allow for a major load failure

with the functional floor since this would seriously damage the test

structure. However, design loads were applied to the purlins supporting the

walk-on decks in two of the three tests in this project. See each test

description for details.

Another structural component of importance was the W14x61 steel column

located in the center of each test bay. This is shown in figures 1, 3,

and 4. Acceptance conditions from the NFPA standard, section 9-5, state that

heat transmission through fire protection enclosing the column shall not rais

the average of recorded steel temperatures at any one of four levels above

1000°F. In addition, temperature rise at any one of the measured points shall

not exceed 1200°F. Load failures were not considered in these tests because

the design load was not applied to any of the columns tested.

5
2.1 Test Structure

A unique structure built at NBS for an earlier fire study [3] was

modified to meet the needs of this program. The test structure was originally

designed to represent the mid-height of a twenty story steel frame building.

Drawings of the structure as used in this test program are shown in figures 1,

3, and 5. The structure consists of three different levels. The ground

level, figures 3 and 4, served as the fire compartment and represented a

patient floor on fire. The second level, figure 5, consisted of the suspended

walk-on deck system which formed the lower part of the interstitial space

enclosure. The top level, figure 6, served as a functional floor which

represents a patient floor in a medical facility. The slab for this floor was

poured on an existing 20 gage galvanized steel deck.

Only two of the four bays were used for testing. These bays are the ones

shown with the burner walls and chimneys in figure 3. The walk-on deck

o surface area exposed to the fire compartment was 320 ft , which is almost

twice the minimum area required by the test method. The W14x61 steel columns

located in the center of each test bay were required by the VA test design.

See figure 4. This was done in order to better simulate the actual finished

construction system to be used in the field. The short concrete block walls

resting on the mid-height beams in figure 1 were used to provide the required

vertical spacing for the interstitial space. The wall construction enclosing

the interstitial space is described in section 2.4. All openings around the

test assemblies and interstitial space walls were packed with mineral fiber

firestopping to prevent leakage of hot gases.

\

6
2.2 Furnace Design

The fire compartments in these tests were located on the ground level of

the structure. The frame for the walls enclosing the compartments was constructed with light gage steel studs. The enclosure was completed by

fastening 20 gage steel sheet metal to the interior side of the studs. In

order to protect the metal fire compartment walls from intense heat produced

by the burner, a high temperature ceramic fiber blanket was fastened to all

exposed wall surfaces. All structural steel supporting the test structure and

exposed to the fire compartment was coated with a minimum 2 inch thickness of

spray-on cementitious fireproofing. The floor of the fire compartment was

earth; building sand was used to fill any openings found at ground level.

The fire exposure for each test was supplied by a single 15 million Btu/h

propane gas burner. Test exposure temperatures were monitored by 10 furnace

thermocouples located one foot below the bottom surface of the walk-on deck.

Two additional furnace thermocouples were located in the interstitial space

one foot below the bottom surface of the functional floor. These

thermocouples were to be used for fire exposure control if the walk-on deck

experienced a massive failure and allowed the hot gases to rise into the

interstitial space.

2.3 General Description of Test Assemblies

Each of the three test assemblies evaluated In this study had the

following construction details in common: See figures 1 and 3-6. (1) the * : ir"

compartments located at ground level were all constructed as desert hod In

7
section 2.1 and 2.2, (2) the W14x61 steel columns, supported on individual

footings located in the center of each test bay, extended through the walk-on

decks and were fastened to the W12x22 beams supporting the center of the

functional floor above the interstitial space, (3) these columns were

protected with a two hour type-x gypsum board system in the fire compartments,

see figure 7. (The gypsum board fire protection systems were completely

rebuilt after each fire test.) (4) there was no fire protection applied to

the steel column where it was exposed to the interstitial space test

environment, and (5) the walk-on decks tested were supported on purlins

fabricated from hot rolled structural steel and were suspended by 6 ft-2 in

long, 0.625 inch diameter steel hanger rods. Each of the eight steel rods was

screwed into individual 0.625 inch tapped steel studs that were welded to the

bottom of the W12x22 steel beams supporting the functional floor above. All

welds were made by a certified welder. These vertical hanging rods were

fastened on the other end to purlins which supported the walk-on decks.

Pieces of steel tubing measuring 4 x 4 x 1/4 inch were cut into 3 inch long

sections and were welded to the top flange of the purlins. These pieces of

tube were located to match the suspension rod positions. The tubes were

welded into place by a certified welder at points shown in figure 8. A 0.75

inch hole was drilled through the top of each tube section to allow for

fastening the rods. The purlins were suspended by inserting the rods through

the drilled holes and placing 3 x 3 x 5/8 inch square steel washers and

0.625 inch nuts on the rods. The nuts were tightened until each purlin was

completely suspended 0.50 inch above the masonry extension wall at the fire

compartment's top, figure 1. The center purlins ("B") in figure 5 were also

attached to the Wl4x61 steel column. They were fastened to the column by clip

angle shear connections using two high-strength bolts through the purlin web

8
and two high-strength bolts through each clip angle and the steel column. The

suspended purlins provided support for each of the walk-on deck test

assemblies

.

The functional floor located above the interstitial space was constructed

using 2 inch deep 20 gage galvanized steel deck. A 3 inch fill of normal

O O weight (150 lb/ft ) Portland cement concrete with 4000 lb/in strength was

poured on the steel deck. Reinforcing mesh made of 19 gage galvanized steel

wire twisted to form 2 inch hexagons with an additional 16 gage galvanized

longitudinal wire placed at every 3 inch interval of its width was embedded in

the poured concrete. The perimeter of this slab was held in place by

3 x 3 x 3/8 inch steel angles welded to the W12x22 steel perimeter beams.

The functional floor was poured on June 6, 1983, and the first test was

conducted 71 days later. The last fire test was conducted 169 days after the

floor was poured. The floor, which made up the structure's top level, was

covered on rainy days and was uncovered on fair days to promote drying. Even

with these precautions, the middepth relative humidity measurements made with

a relative humidity meter before testing were typically 97 percent.

2.4 Dummy Air Conditioning Duct Construction and Installation

Two 10 x 10 inch air conditioning ducts were located in the interstir'

space formed by each fire test assembly. The ducts penetrated the walk--,

decks at holes made before the decks were poured. Details of duct

construction are shown in figure 9. Locations for duct penetrations i>-.-

in figure 5.

9
The longer duct represented the supply duct in each fire test and the

shorter duct represented the return air. No flow passed through these ducts

during the fire tests. Sheet metal plugs were used to seal the duct's ends

that penetrated the interstitial space's outside wall. The duct ends that

extended through the walk-on decks and into the fire compartment had

commercially manufactured sheet metal diffusers attached. The louvers on

these were left open during testing. The supply ducts were covered with

1.5 inch thick glass fiber blanket insulation meeting Federal Specification

HH-I-558B[4 ] . This insulation was Form B, flexible blanket, Type 1,

Class 6 B3, 1 pcf density, with a k factor of 0.31 Btu-in/h-°F and a

temperature rating up to 350°F. The insulation was installed using normal

field practices which included wire tying and taping with duct tape.

After the ducts were positioned and wrapping was completed on the supply

duct, mineral fiber fire safing was used to fill the remaining space around

the walk-on deck duct penetration. The mineral fiber safing used was 4 inches

thick and met the requirements of Federal Specification HH-I-558B, Form A,

4 pcf density, with a k factor of 0.24 Btu-in-/h-°F , and a melt point of

2000°F. The mineral wool safing was installed to completely encircle the duct

and seal the penetration. It extended 6 inches above and below the walk-on

deck. The safing was wire tied into place with 16 gage tie wire.

2.5 Interstitial Space Enclosure

A specially designed gypsum wallboard system was constructed to enclose

the volume comprising the interstitial space. The system was designed to

provide protection from weather on the outside and to provide fire protection

10
to the metal stud system supporting the wall on the inside. The system was

also designed to resist leakage of hot gases in the event that a walk-on deck

experienced a significant failure. A detail of this wall system is shown in

figure 10. These walls were penetrated by two dummy air conditioning ducts

during each test as seen in figure 11.

2.6 General Instrumentation

2.6.1 Center Column Instrumentation

A. Fire Compartment

A total of twenty, 24 gage, type K thermocouples were used on each of

the Wl4x61 steel columns to measure performance of the steel and two hour

gypsum board systems during each fire test. The placement of these

thermocouples is shown in figure 12. These thermocouples were positioned

to meet the requirements in NFPA 251. Thermocouples attached to the steel

column were placed into 0.062 inch diameter drill holes and peened into

place. Thermocouples on the gypsum board were mounted in contact with the

respective surface and were held in place by staples.

B. Interstitial Space

Six 24 gage, type K thermocouples were attached to each of the W14x61

steel columns in the interstitial space, figure 12. Each of these

thermocouples was peened into the column surface using the procedure

stated above.

11
2.6.2 Center Beam Supporting the Functional Floor

A total of 24 stainless steel sheathed type K thermocouples with an

outside diameter of 0.125 inch were attached to the W12x22 steel beam at six

different locations, figure 13. These thermocouples werevpeened into

0.187 inch holes drilled into the steel surfaces. The thermocouples were

positioned to meet the requirements of the NFPA 251 fire test procedure.

2.6.3

Steel Deck Supporting the Functional Floor

Eight stainless steel sheathed type K thermocouples, 0.125 inch outside

diameter, were silver soldered to the steel deck at locations shown in

figure 14. Leads from these thermocouples were bent vertical to extend above

concrete poured on the deck.

2.6.4

Functional Floor Surface Instrumentation

Nine 24 gage, type K thermocouples were positioned on the surface of each

functional floor tested. These thermocouples were located as shown in

figure 15. These measurement locations are as specified in NFPA 251. Each

thermocouple was covered with a 6 inch square, 0.375 inch thick refractory

fiber pad that meets the requirements of ASTM E 119-83, Standard Methods of

Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials [5 ]

.

12
2.6.5 Deflection Instrumentation

Three deflection gauges were used to record movement of each of the

suspended purlins. The deflection gauges were mounted on frames located above

the functional floor, and the deflection wires went through 0.50 inch holes

drilled through the functional floor. The deflection gauge wire was held in

place on the purlin's flange by a metal weight. These gauges measured the

deflection at the center of the span between the suspension rods, figure 16.

In tests where load was applied to the purlins, the deflection gauge weights

were positioned on top of sand filled plywood boxes. This can be seen in

figure 17.

2.6.6

Interstitial Space Air Temperature

A thermocouple tree consisting of seven, 24 gage, type K thermocouples

was located next to the center column in each test. The thermocouples were

spaced at one foot intervals between the bottom side of the functional floor

and the walk-on deck's top surface.

2.6.7

Dummy Air Conditioning Duct Temperatures

Three type K, 24 gage thermocouples were located on each duct,

figure 18. On the supply duct, one thermocouple was centrally located inside

the duct to measure air temperature, one thermocouple was attached to the

duct's surface, and the third was attached to the outside surface of thermal

insulation which was wrapped around the duct. The thermocouple fastened to

the insulation was located directly above the thermocouple attached to th<-

13
duct's surface. For the return duct, one thermocouple was centrally located

Inside the duct and two were attached to the duct's surface (there was no

insulation on this duct).

3. DESCRIPTION OF LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE WALK-ON DECK SYSTEMS

The lightweight concrete walk-on deck system was used in tests 1, 2, and

2A. The walk-on deck was built on the suspended W6x9 steel purlins.

Construction details for the deck are shown in figure 19. The 1.5 inch deep

type B steel deck was attached to purlins with 0.50 inch diameter puddle welds

using welding washers. The welds were made at every other flute of the metal

deck in contact with the lower flange of the purlin. Welds were also made

every 36 inches along each side deck seam to fasten the decking together.

After the steel deck was laid, two 15 inch square holes were cut through it,

and they were boxed in with wood forms to provide penetrations for the air

conditioning ducts. This can be seen in figure 4. It should be noted that

the metal deck around the air conditioning openings exhibit weakness after the

openings are cut. This weakness is significant if a deck joint passes through

the opening. Deck welds may be broken, and the deck will sag if supports are

not put in to make the area rigid when the concrete is poured. During test

assembly construction, temporary T-braces were used to support the steel deck

from ground level. Before any further construction work was done, a group of

thermocouples was attached to the deck and purlins, as described in

section 3.1. Reinforcing mesh made of 19 gage galvanized steel wire twisted

to form 2 inch hexagons with an additional 16 gage galvanized longitudinal

wire placed at 3 inch intervals along its width was laid on top of the steel

deck. Wood forms were placed around the deck perimeter. Lightweight

14
insulating concrete containing vermiculite aggregate, with a density of 27 to

35 pcf, was then poured. The wire mesh was worked into the concrete mix so

its finished level was at approximately half the concrete thickness. Total

thickness of the finished floor was 5 inches. After the concrete set and

initial drying was complete, forms around the deck and air conditioning

penetrations were removed. The lightweight concrete walk-on decks tested in

this project were poured on June 13, 1983. The first walk-on deck system was

tested 64 days after it was poured, and the second walk-on deck system was

tested after 147 days. These deck systems were protected from the weather

throughout the period before testing. Attempts were made to heat and

ventilate the decks to reduce moisture content. This had little affect on the

deck systems since the environmental relative humidity was generally high

during the curing period. A relative humidity of 95 percent was measured at

middepth in both walk-on decks just before each was tested. Relative humidity

measurements in the walk-on decks were made using an electric hygrometer,

model 15-3000, manufactured by Hygrodynamics , Inc.* This information led to

the fire exposure period being extended beyond the planned two hours. It was

decided to conduct the tests until some observed failure occurred.

Just after the lightweight concrete decks were poured, a local

fireproofing contractor spray applied a 1.5 inch thick coat of fireproofing on

the lower flange of the W6x9 steel purlins in test bay #1. The fireproofing

*Certain commercial equipment, instruments, or materials are identified in

this paper in order to adequately specify the experimental procedure. Such

identification does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the National

Bureau of Standards, nor does it imply that the materials or equipment

identified are necessarily the best available for the purpose.

Neither the contents of this report nor the fact that the tests were made it the National Bureau of Standards shall be used for advertising or prnnnt i on i ! purposes

.

15
specifications are shown in table 1. Before the fireproofing was applied, the

purlins were cleaned to remove surface contaminants and rust. The

fireproofing completely covered the lower flange and was feathered to about

6 inches either side on the metal deck. Figure 20 illustrates the spray

applied fireproofing. Initially no fireproofing was applied to the purlins in

test bay #2. However, after the first fire test, it was decided that a

different fireproofing should be evaluated. The second material shown in

table 1 was applied to the purlins in test bay #2 after some other

modifications were made. In addition to this change in fireproofing, it was

decided to determine if woven wire mesh would improve bonding of fireproofing

to the purlins. The same wire mesh described earlier in this section was used

to cover the lower flanges on two purlins. On purlin "A" (see figure 5), wire

mesh was wrapped around the lower flange and 22 gage steel sheet metal clips

were slipped over the wire and flange to secure it. On purlin ”B", the wire

mesh was simply bent over the purlin flange to secure it. No wire mesh was

attached to the purlin "C", which crosses quadrants III and IV. After the

wire mesh was hung, fireproofing was spray applied to all three purlins.

3.1 Special Instrumentation for Lightweight Concrete

Walk-On Deck System

Since the walk-on deck acted as membrane protection for the bare steel in

the interstitial space from the fire environment, special efforts were made to

accurately document the thermal response of each component in the system.

Data obtained from these measurements provided the data necessary for

analyzing the interstitial construction system's response to the fire tests.

The measurements were also used to compare performance with predictions made

16
by the FIRES- T3 [2] computer model for the fire response of structures, as

described in section 9.

Thirty stainless steel sheathed, type K thermocouples with an outside

jacket diameter of 0.125 inch were positioned in the lightweight concrete deck

as shown in figures 21 and 22. An additional 16 thermocouples of the same

type were attached to each of the full length purlins. The thermocouples were

attached by placing them into shallow 0.187 inch drill holes and peening them

in until tight. This arrangement can be seen in figure 22. One more thermocouple of the same type was fastened, using the same technique, to one of the

4 x 4 x 1/4 inch steel tubes used to couple the purlin to the suspension

rod. This thermocouple was attached to the tube located in the center of

purlin "C" . A single 24 gauge, type K thermocouple was located halfway up the

suspension rod that extended through the same steel tube. The thermocouple

was wire tied to the suspension rod, and the junction was held on the surface

with high temperature tape.

4. TESTING OF LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE WALK-ON DECK SYSTEMS

Originally, two fire tests were to be conducted on the lightweight

concrete walk-on deck systems. One test was to be conducted with the walk-on

deck unloaded and fireproofing applied to the purlin flanges exposed to the

furnace compartment. A second identical test was to be conducted but with no

fire protection applied to the fire exposed purlin flanges. This initial t<^t

plan was altered after the first test because of problems experienced wi'f M i

.

performance of the fireproofing protecting the walk-on deck purlins, v i

details are given in sections 5.1.1 through 5.1.3. As a result of the '-i

'

17
te$t results and discussions with the sponsor, it was decided to try a

different fire rated fireproofing material and to apply a load of

90 lbs/lin ft to each of the suspended purlins. The box containers shown in

figure 17 are filled with building sand. Another change made after the first

test was the installation of a 0.625 inch nut and standard washer on each

suspension rod above the tube brackets. These nuts and washers were tightened

against the brackets after the bottom nuts and heavy washers were used to

suspend the purlins.

The second test assembly, which had been built at the same time as the

first, occupied the second test bay; this test bay was constructed to

duplicate test bay #1. However, it was found during the second test that heat

loss was much greater in bay two than experienced in bay one. This finding

lead to the second test being stopped at 1 hour 30 minutes into the test

because of excessive fuel usage. A careful study of the two test bays

revealed only one slight difference in construction. A temporary lintel had

been placed at the stack entrance in test bay one during a project preceeding

this one. Not surprisingly, the lintel apparently reduced the hot gas flow

from the fire compartment and significantly altered fuel usage as compared to

the new second test bay. An identical lintel was built and installed in test

bay #2

.

Analysis of surface damage to the walk-on deck, fireproofing on the

purlins, and other structural elements after the second fire test showed

little damage. The metal decking and lightweight concrete floor showed no

openings. All fireproofing remained on the purlins. The only major damage

was noted on the two hour gypsum board system protecting the test column.

18
Additional details describing this test are found in sections 5.2.1 through

5.2.3. Based on this information and the need to fully test this walk-on deck

assembly, a decision was made, with the sponsor's concurrence, to conduct

another complete two hour fire test on this same assembly. The entire gypsum

board fire protection system was removed from the center column and a

completely new system of the same design was constructed. After the above

modifications were made to the test assembly, the walk-on deck system was

successfully tested for the required two hours. Test results for this fire

exposure are located in sections 5.3.1 through 5.3.3.

5. TEST RESULTS FOR LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE WALK-ON DECK SYSTEM

5.1 Test 1 Fire Endurance for Lightweight Concrete Walk-on Deck System

The record of the average furnace temperature as compared to the standard

time-temperature curve is shown in figure 23. The record shows a test

duration of 2 hours, 15 minutes.

5.1.1 Test Observations, Test 1

Time

hr :min: sec Test begins at 8:20 a.m., 8/16/83

00 : 00:00 Ignition

00:01:49 Burner adjustment.

19
00:02:14 Paper burning off of gypsum board protecting the column and

pier in the furnace compartment.

00:03:24 Steam is coming out around penetration of return duct in

the interstitial space.

00:04:25 Steam is forming around the base of the column in the

interstitial space.

00:05:00 Looking through an observation post into the interstitial

space, a small amount of steam is showing around the

purlins. Visibility in the interstitial space is good.

00:10:25 Steam has reduced visibility in the interstitial space to

zero

.

00:12:00 Steam is coming out of small openings along the walls

enclosing the interstitial space.

00:12:30 No heating noted at the top functional floor level.

00:14:00 Fireproofing fell from a portion of the purlin in quadrant

III and the center purlin between quadrants I and IV.

00:14:37 Deck is showing buckling in the furnace compartment.

20
00:24:55 Steel decking is showing signs of oxidation and metal

corner beads on column fire protection in the furnace

chamber are starting to warp.

00:34:45 The joint is opening at the top of the pier on the fire

side

.

00:42:30 Gypsum board is still in place around the column and pier

in the furnace compartment.

00:50:00 Moisture collecting on structure outside of interstitial

space as a result of condensing steam.

00:55:44 Gypsum board around column and pier is showing cracks

.

01:00:00 Steel flooring is bending and may have sagged as much as

two inches. Fireproofing is mostly still in place on the

purlins. Gypsum board corner joints on the column and pier

are open slightly up to about 0.25 inch.

01:04:12 Gypsum board around the pier is showing marked signs of

calcination.

01:10:45 Purlin in quadrant III appears to be sagging.

01:15:00 Deck between the center purlin and both adjacent purlins !

sagging about two inches.

21
01:17:45 Fire protection around the column is showing marked signs

of calcination. First layer of gypsum board around the

pier is starting to fall off.

01:21:00 Fireproofing on the center purlin, between quadrants II and

III, has fallen off and gypsum board joints around the

column have opened up to about 0.5 to 1 inch.

01:36:09 Two layers of gypsum board protecting the pier have fallen

off on the fire side.

01:36:50 Steam is still coming from small openings in the walls

around the interstitial space.

01:48:00 Gypsum board around the column is buckling and joints are

continuing to open.

01:53:55 The first layer of gypsum board on the column has fallen

off, and the bottom layer of gypsum board is still secure.

02:00:00 The bottom layer of gypsum board on the column is still in

place but is cracked with the joints at the corners open

about 1 inch.

02:16:00 Bottom layer of gypsum board on the column, East side, fell

of f

.

22
02:17:00 Test is terminated

5.1.2 Post Test Observations, Test 1

1. Most of the inside layer of gypsum board is still in place around the

center column. The metal studs supporting the gypsum board on the column

are still in place, figure 24.

2. The pier has spalled on the side exposed to the furnace burner. One piece

of concrete approximately 2 inches deep and 6 to 8 inches in diameter has

broken away from the pier.

3. The walk-on deck between the purlins has sagged. The metal flooring has

dropped away from the concrete floor at one place near the return duct and

is sagging approximately one foot below the bottom of the current floor

level, figure 24.

4. About 75 to 85 percent of the fireproofing on all of the purlins has

dropped off. Only three spots are left where fireproofing remains.

5. All of the firestop material is still in place at the duct penetrations.

6. No signs of burning were noted in the interstitial space.

23
5.1.3 Discussion of Test Results, Test 1

The critical temperature measurements mentioned in section 2, from NFPA

251, relate to the performance of the functional floor, unprotected steel in

the interstitial space, and the Wl4x61 steel column. As can be seen in

figures 25 to 29, all surface temperatures were well below the allowable 250°F

temperature rise failure point at the test's end. As shown in figure 30, the

functional floor's steel deck temperatures only approached 200°F. Figures 31

to 34 exhibit the temperature rise experienced with the unprotected structural

steel elements in the interstitial space. These indicate relatively uniform

distribution of heat in the interstitial space. Again, the temperatures on

these structural elements were well below the failure temperatures at the

maximum exposure time. These data show that the lightweight concrete walk-on

deck system acted to provide significant protection to the steelwork in the

interstitial space from the high temperature fire.

The protected W14x61 column in the fire compartment also successfully

passed the NPFA 251 two hour fire test criteria with a maximum single point

temperature of 1002°F. The column temperature did reach a failure point

during the extended test phase at nearly 2 hours 15 minutes. This can be seen

in figures 33 to 38.

Other test data demonstrated the significant effect associated with the

loss of fireproofing protecting the walk-on deck purlins. Figures 39 to 42

show the temperature history for these purlins. The purlin sections in

quadrants I and III showed early temperature failures. These failures

occurred at 40 and 26 minutes, respectively, resulting from fireproofing

24
falling off of the purlins. On the purlins where fireproofing remained in

place throughout most of the test, temperatures remained below the critical

temperature of 1300°F.

Figures 43 to 46 shows a comparison of walk-on deck temperatures. The

high temperatures noted in figure 44 resulted from a crack developing in the

walk-on deck near the measurement location. Temperatures were high enough to

easily ignite cotton waste, as referenced in NFPA 251. Figures 45 and 46 show

temperature rise data for a floor area that did not exhibit major cracking.

In this case the surface temperatures stayed below 250°F.

As stated earlier, temperature measurements were also made on two

suspension rods and a steel tube bracket. Temperature plots for these construction elements are shown in figure 47. Each of these components performed

well with temperatures remaining below 400°F. Figure 48 shows representative

temperature data for the dummy air conditioning ducts. The large difference

in surface temperatures between the supply and return ducts is attributed to

the fact that the supply duct was wrapped with insulation, and the return duct

was not. Figure 49 shows selected air temperature data in the interstitial

space. Data obtained on deflections of the walk-on deck purlins are presented

in figure 50. These deflection plots show that the purlins moved in various

directions throughout the test. These data do not appear to accurately

reflect the observed permanent upward bend experienced with each of the

totally suspended purlins. Figure 51 illustrates an example of the 3 inch

upward permanent set of purlin "C" . The picture shows the suspension

bracket. This unusual movement of the purlins has been studied, but no fir

conclusions have been drawn. The behavior of these purlins resulted In

25
questions concerning their performance while carrying the specified design

load of 90 lbs/lin. ft. Plans were made to test the remaining walk-on deck

systems with their designed load.

5.2 Test 2 Fire Endurance for Lightweight Concrete Walk-on Deck System

A record of the average furnace temperature is presented in figure 52.

This test was terminated at 1 hour 30 minutes into the test. This termination

was not related to any failure of the construction assemblies under test. It

resulted from the excessive heat losses from the fire compartment described in

section 4.

5.2.1 Test Observations, Test 2

Time,

hr :min: sec Test begins at 1:47 p.m., 11/7/83.

00 : 00:00 Ignition

00:00:54 Gypsum board paper ignited on the column.

00:03:10 Propane burner output reduce. Flame is not currently

impinging on the pier or the column.

00:04:00 All fireproofing is still in place on the purlins.

26
00:05:54 Visibility in the interstitial space is still good. Steam

was evident in the enclosed space.

00:06:45 All gypsum board paper on the burner side of the column has

burned off.

00:11:25 Steam has reduced visibility in the interstitial space to

zero.

00:13:15 All fireproofing is still in place on the purlins.

00:15:15 The metal deck exposed to the furnace is showing some

buckling.

00:25:00 The steel deck joints have separated at two locations. The

joint on the west side of the column above the burner has

opened up approximately 0.5 inch. The second joint to the

east of the column has also opened about 0.5 inch.

00:35:15 The steel corner head on the gypsum board protecting the

column has started to warp, and the first layer of gypsum

board is showing some cracks.

00:47:00 Gypsum board joints continuing to open on pier and column

protection.

27
01 : 00:00 Steel flooring is exhibiting sag of about 1 to 1-1/2 inches

between the purlins.

01:05:10 It has been noted that the fuel consumption rate is about 2

times that of the first test.

01:09:45 All fireproofing is still on the purlins and the joints of

the gypsum board have opened on the first layer to about

0.5 inches.

01:15:00 Fuel consumption rate is still high even though attempts

have been made to reduce consumption by changing the combustion mixture.

01:16:40 The first two layers of gypsum board protecting the pier

have fallen off where the flame is impinging on the pier.

01:25:10 Fuel consumption is still high after more attempts to

reduce fuel needs.

01:30:30 The burner has run out of fuel, and the test has been

stopped.

5.2.2 Post Test Observations, Test 2

1. Three layers of gypsum board are still in place around the pier.
2. All fireproofing is still in place on the three purlins, but it shows some

cracking, see figure 53.

3. The steel floor deck shows a sag of about 1 to 2 inches between the

purlins, see figure 53.

4. One layer of gypsum board on the column is still in place.

5. The purlins appear to be straight.

5.2.3 Discussion of Test Results, Test 2

Data plots for the 1.5 hour exposure period are presented for this test

so that comparisons can be made with test 1 and test 2A. Test 2A represents

the retesting of the original assembly exposed to the fire environment in

test 2, and its results are presented in section 5.3

Data representative of the functional floor surface temperatures recorded

during test 2 are shown in figures 54 to 58. The surface temperature from

this test never exceeded 77°F. This was also well below the failure point of

250°F. The cooler surface temperatures in this test reflected the cooler

weather experienced during test 1, see table 2. The steel deck temperature

reached a peak of 138°F by the test’s end, figure 59. The center beam

supporting the function floor reached a peak temperature of 153°F, figures (S' 1

and 61. The maximum temperature reached by the unprotected portion of the

center column in the interstitial space was 165°F, figures 62 and 63.

Figures 64 to 67 present plots of temperatures for the protected center ’

:

29
section that was exposed to the fire compartment. The maximum test

temperature for the column was 937°F, and it occurred 18 minutes after the

furnace burner was turned off. The fireproofed purlins supporting the walk-on

deck performed well, figures 68 to 71. As stated in section 5.2.2, all

fireproofing stayed on the purlins. This resulted in a maximum purlin temperature for this short test of only 354°F, figure 71. The walk-on deck

temperatures are shown in figures 72 to 75. These temperature plots show

similarity with the data obtained in test 1. The maximum surface temperature

measured was 205°F. This again occurred after the burner was turned off, but

the overall floor performance is much like that seen in test 1. Temperature

plots for the walk-on deck suspension rods and steel tube bracket are shown in

figure 76. Heat transfer through the purlins and the suspension system was

clearly reduced as a result of the fireproofing remaining in place. The

temperature of these structural elements remained significantly low throughout

the test exposure. Figures 77 and 78 provide information on duct temperatures

and air temperatures in the interstitial space. Again, these temperture plots

show similar performance to that experienced with the first test. However, a

major difference is seen in figure 79 when compared with figure 49 of

test 1® Test 2 shows very little movement in purlin deflection

measurements. Since the purlins and walk-on deck system of test 2 appeared to

maintain much of their initial strength after this aborted test, it was

decided to conduct another full two hour test on the same assembly in an

attempt to obtain additional information. Only the fire protection on the

column and pier was replaced.

30
5.3 Test 2A Fire Endurance for Lightweight Concrete Walk-on Deck System

The record showing the average furnace temperature throughout the two

hour test is presented in figure 80. It should be noted that the assembly

exposed to this standard fire test was the same assembly tested for 1.5 hours

the day before. This should be kept in mind when comparing test results. The

gypsum board protection on the column and pier was replaced for test 2A.

5.3.1 Test Observations, Test 2A

Time

,

hr :min: sec Test begins at 1:48 p.m., 11/8/83

00:00:00 Ignition

00:00:30 Burner ignition resulted in significant turbulence in the

furnace compartment. All fireproofing remained in place on

the purlins.

00 : 01:20 The gypsum board paper has ignited and is burning off

around the column.

00:05:10 All of the fireproofing on the purlins is still in place,

and all of the paper on the gypsum board protecting tl

column has burned off.

00:09:30 All fireproofing on the purlins is still in placp.

31
00:15:00 Steam is developing in the interstitial space, but

visibility is good.

00:21:30 The metal deck is beginning to glow red as a result of

heating.

00:26:30 Steam is still developing in the interstitial space, but

visibility is still good. The opposite wall across the

compartment is visible.

00:35:00 All fireproofing is still in place on the purlins.

00:50:00 The gypsum board is totally in place around the column, and

all fireproofing is in place on the purlins.

01:13:15 Steam is noted coming from the walls enclosing the interstitial space.

01:17:00 The fireproofing is still in place on all of the purlins,

and the gypsum board joints have opened on the column to

about 1 inch.

01:19:00 Steam has completely obstructed view in the interstitial

space

.

01:21:00 The first layer of gypsum board has dropped off of the

column on the burner side.

32
01:30:00 All fireproofing is still in place on the purlins, and the

entire first layer of gypsum board has dropped off of the

column. The second layer of gypsum board is still totally

in place.

01:45:00 A piece of fireproofing about 1.5 to 2 feet long has

dropped off of purlin "C"

.

01:51:00 A significant volume of steam is coming from the gypsum

board walls enclosing the interstitial space.

01:53:00 All of the fireproofing is still in place on the purlins

except the 2 foot long section that dropped off earlier.

02:00:00 Gas supplying the burner was shut off.

5.3.2 Post Test Observations, Test 2A

1. Most of the fireproofing is still in place on the purlins. A section

about four feet long has dropped off of purlin "A" in quadrant I. Only

half of the two inch thickness has dropped off. The wire mesh on the

purlin is not visible, figure 81.

2. The floor is sagging between the purlins about 2 inches.

33
3. The center purlin has lost a five foot long section of fireproofing about

one inch thick on the side between quadrants I and IV.

4. The bottom layer of gypsum board is still in place around the column. The

gypsum board pulled away from the metal studs where screws were not

attached.

5. The metal deck joint opened at the location where the return duct

penetrates the walk-on deck. The metal is sagging about 6 to 7 inches.

The metal deck pulled away from the concrete.

6. All fireproofing remaining on the purlins exhibits cracking.

5.3.3 Discussion of Test Results, Test 2A

Heat transmission through the functional floor during the second exposure

of the test assembly was limited, figures 82 to 86. The maximum temperature

on the unexposed surface of the functional floor was 88 °F. The steel deck

supporting the floor experienced a maximum temperature of 156°F which was 18°F

more than that during test 2, figure 87. In addition, the center beam

supporting the walk-on deck also showed higher temperatures than recorded in

tests 1 or 2, figures 88 and 89. The maximum temperature in this test for the

beams was 201 °F. The center column in the interstitial space also performed

well during this second exposure, figures 90 and 91. It should be remembered

that the gypsum board system protecting the center column in the fire

compartment was completely rebuilt for test 2A. As seen in figures 92 to 95,

the column did not remain adequately protected in the fire compartment. A

34
single point temperature failure occurred at 1 hr. 35 min. into the test.

This occurred at the six foot high point. The temperature limits were

exceeded at four other locations some 15 to 20 minutes later. The single

point failure temperature for the column is 1200°F. Even though this failure

occurred in the fire compartment, the heat transfer through the column did not

result in failure condition in the interstitial space. The fireproofing

protecting the purlins remained in place on all purlins during most of the

second exposure, figures 96 to 99. This fireproofing gave protection for a

cumulative exposure time of 3.5 hours between the two different fire test

exposures. The maximum single point temperature on a purlin was 546°F, well

below the temperature limit for beams. The woven wire mesh on purlins "A" and

"B" helped to hold some of the fireproofing on the purlins resulting in

clearly improved performance as compared to test 1.

The walk-on deck during this test generally performed better than the

walk-on deck in test 1, figures 100 to 103. This deck did not show the amount

of cracking noted at the end of test 1. The suspension rod and steel tube

bracket temperatures are presented in figure 104. Temperatures recorded for

the dummy air conditioning ducts, figure 105, are similar to results obtained

during tests 1 and 2. Air temperature in the interstitial space reached a

maximum of 331 °F. This is only 36 degrees higher than that experienced in

test 1 . Particular attention was paid to the purlin deflections recorded

during this test, figure 107. In test 1, the deflections were random, and in

test 2 the purlins moved very little. During this test the purlins showed a

gradual movement in the downward direction. This movement was attributed fn

part to the gradual degradation of the fireproofing combined with the

35
90 lbs/lin ft load on the purlins. This type of movement was more

representative of that expected in a test of this type.

6. DESCRIPTION OF GYPSUM WALK-ON DECK SYSTEM

After the three tests conducted on the two lightweight concrete walk-on

deck systems were completed, the tested walk-on decks were removed from the

structure. New suspension rods and W6x9 purlins were fabricated and hung in

test bay #1. These new steel elements, identical to those tested earlier,

formed the structural base for the poured gypsum deck system, figure 108. The

modifications made in tests 2 and 2A that included extra nuts and washers used

on purlin/bracket connections were also used on the gypsum deck assembly.

Truss tee subpurlins, used as components of this system, were positioned

between the main purlins with a center to center spacing of 30 inches. The

subpurlin flanges were spot welded to the lower flanges of the W6x9 purlins.

The subpurlins, manufactured by Keystone Steel and Wire (style number was

000-5-14-2), were specified by the Veterans Administration. After the purlins

were fastened in place, one inch thick glass fiber formboard was laid on the

flanges of the subpurlins. Where joints occurred between the glass fiber

formboards, sheet metal tees were positioned between subpurlins to support the

butt joints. When all of the formboard was layed, woven wire mesh, as

described in section 3, was laid directly on top of the board covering the

Certain commercial equipment, instruments, or materials are identified in

this paper in order to adequately specify the experimental procedure. Such

identification does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the National

Bureau of Standards, nor does it imply that the materials or equipment

identified are necessarily the best available for the purpose.

Neither the contents of this report nor the fact that the tests were made at

the National Bureau of Standards shall be used for advertising or promotional

purposes

.

36
entire surface. At this point, instrumentation, as described in section 7,

was placed into the deck system. Gypsum concrete with a cured strength of 500

lb/ft was mixed and poured over the formboard and wire mesh to a thickness of

two inches. The gypsum walk-on deck was protected from the weather and

ventilated during curing in an attempt to help dry the system before testing.

The bottom flanges of the W6x9 purlins were coated with fireproofing

described in table 2. This was the same type of fireproofing used in tests 2

and 2A. Again, two of the three purlins, A and B, had woven wire mesh wrapped

around the bottom flanges before the fireproofing was applied. As before,

this was done to improve mechanical bonding of the fireproofing to the

purlins. One purlin did not have wire mesh attached so that a comparison

could be made. After 40 days, penetrations for the dummy air conditioning

ducts were cut in the deck. The ducts and firesafing were installed, as

described in section 3.2. These ducts were also plugged on the exterior end

and the same type of air diffusers used in tests 1, 2, and 2A were attached to

the fire compartment ends.

6.1 Special Instrumentation for Gypsum Walk-On Deck System

Most of the temperature measurements taken in tests 1 through 2A were

also made when the gypsum walk-on deck was tested. However, a major

difference in temperature measurement points in the gypsum test relates to

variations in the gypsum deck design. Four temperature measurements were mad»>

through the thickness of the gypsum deck system, figure 109a. One thermocouple measured the temperature at the glass fiber formboard on the fire

exposed surface. Another measured the temperature at the gypsum

37
deck/f ormboard interface. A third was used to obtain the center gypsum core

temperature and the fourth was used for unexposed surface temperature. This

set of measurements was made at two deck locations, figure 110. A second

major difference appears with temperature measurements made on the subpurlins,

figure 109b. Subpurlin temperature measurement locations on the walk-on deck

are shown in figure 110.

All of the thermocouples mentioned above were stainless steel sheathed,

type K, thermocouples with an outside jacket diameter of 0.125 inch. The top

thermocouple on each of the subpurlins was attached by drilling a shallow

0.187 inch diameter hole, placing the thermocouple into the hole, and peening

it into place. The thermocouples on the lower flanges were wire tied to the

flange surface.

7. TESTING OF POURED GYPSUM WALK-ON DECK SYSTEM

The gypsum walk-on deck system was tested 55 days after it was poured.

The system was tested with the 90 lbs/lin. ft. load applied to each of the

W6x9 purlins. This test was conducted for a period of 2 hours and 30

minutes. The test was extended beyond the usual two hour time period because

the walk-on deck's relative humidity at middepth was 98 percent and because

there was a desire to push the walk-on deck to a point where it no longer

presented protection for the interstitial space. Test results for this fire

exposure are presented in section 8.

38
8. TEST RESULTS FOR POURED GYPSUM WALK-ON DECK SYSTEM

8.1

A record

standard timeTime

,

hr :min: sec

00 : 00:00

00:01:08

00:03:45

00:05:29

00:09:37

Test 3 Fire Endurance for Gypsum Walk-on Deck System

of the average furnace temperature for test 3 as compared to the

temperature curve is shown in figure 111.

8.1.2 Test Observations, Test 3

Test begins at 9:45 a.m., 11/22/83

Ignition

Glass fiber turned dark. Gypsum board paper burned off on

the column.

Smoke and steam noted in the interstitial space.

About 1 inch thickness of fireproofing dropped off of N.E.

end of purlin "C", in quadrant IV. Drop out is about

5 feet long.

Glass fiber board is starting to turn white and is

shrinking. Metal corner bead on the column is warping.

39
00:11:42 Smoke and steam is still increasing in the interstitial

space, but the opposite wall is still visible.

00:17:48 Small pieces of glass fiber are dropping from the bottom of

the walk-on deck.

00:22:57 The gypsum deck is starting to show in patches where the

glass fiber has dropped off.

00:26:10 Visibility in the interstitial space is almost zero.

00:28:12 A large piece of fireproofing on purlin "C” in quadrant III

dropped off. Large gaps were noted between the

fireproofing and gypsum deck where the glass fiber board

has burned out. The fireproofing at these locations is

unsupported which is causing the dropouts.

00:33:39 Fireproofing is dropping off of purlin "A", in quadrant II

,

00:39:28 Steam is coming from around the interstitial space.

00:43:54 Truss tee is sagging about 0.5 to 1.0 inch on the east side

of the center column.

00:54:11 All of the glass fiber board has dropped off of the deck at

this point and the gypsum deck is fully exposed to the

furnace temperature.

40
01:00:00 All of the gypsum deck is in place with a sag of about 0.5

to 1.0 inch noted between the purlins.

01:12:16 Gypsum deck around duct opening is starting to crack and

chip off. The subpurlin next to the duct opening in

quadrant IV is sagging about 1 to 2 inches.

01:18:34 The primary purlins in the walk-on deck system appear to be

straight with no sag.

01:21:18 The first layer of gypsum board on the column is starting

to crack.

01 :24 : 50 Long cracks are noted in the gypsum deck between the

subpurlins

.

01:36:50 Subpurlins are sagging between 2 and 3 inches, and the

primary purlins are basically straight.

01:39:00 First layer of gypsum board on the column is opening up to

about 1 inch at the corners.

01:47:01 Gypsum deck between subpurlins is sagging about 2 to 3

inches in places. Many long cracks between the subpur 1 i ns

are noted.

41
01:53:46 A piece of fireproofing dropped off of purlin A in quadrant

II.

01:56:00 Gypsum deck between the subpurlins is sagging from 3.0 to

3.5 inches with large long cracks.

02:18:30 One inch wide random cracks are showing in the gypsum deck.

02:25:59 Last layer of gypsum board on the column, burner side,

dropped off leaving the column exposed. Gypsum deck is

sagging 3.0 to 5.0 inches in quadrants III and IV.

02:31:00 Test is terminated.

8.1.3 Post Test Observations, Test 3

The walk-on deck in quadrant III has sagged about one foot. A hole

approximately 4 inches in diameter has penetrated the deck at that point.

A one inch wide crack is open through the walk-on deck between the two

center subpurlins at quadrants III and IV. The crack penetrates the deck into

the interstitial space.

Both ducts have settled about six to eight inches at the penetration, and

openings are observed through the walk-on deck at the penetrations,

figure 112.

42
The wire mesh in the gypsum walk-on deck is visible across the entire

fire exposed surface in the furnace compartment, figure 112.

All subpurlins visibly appear to be still firmly attached to the purlins.

All fireproofing on purlin "C" that was not covered with woven wire mesh

has fallen off, figure 112. The two purlins with the woven wire mesh attached

still have fireproofing intact on their full length.

Purlin "C" is bowed up in the center. As a result, the suspension rod

was bent out of plumb about six inches, figure 113.

8.2 Discussion of Test Results, Test 3

In test 3, the functional floor temperatures showed that the walk-on deck

provided significant resistance to heat flow. Figures 114 through 118 show

that the maximum temperature on the top functional floor surface never

exceeded 115°F during the 2.5 hour exposure. The temperature of the steel

deck supporting the functional floor had a maximum temperature of 176°F,

figure 119. This temperature was less than that measured in test 1, but was

more than 35°F higher than the maximum steel deck temperatures measured in

tests 2 and 2A. These maximum deck temperatures are still well below any

critical temperatures specified by the test procedure. Temperatures for t li • *

central beam supporting the functional floor are shown in figures 120 and

121. The highest temperature measured was 304 °F which is substantial]/ t-.. 1

the critical temperature for that structural element. This temperature w r;

measured after 2.5 hours of test exposure. The unprotected column In the

43
interstitial space also showed relatively low maximum temperatures,

figures 122 and 123. In figure 123, the measurement made at the column flange

lip was discarded because of a thermocouple failure. The flange and web

temperatures show similar results with measurements well below the critical

1200°F value. The protected part of the center column also performed well in

this test, figures 124 to 127. After the initial two hours, the maximum

temperature was still more than 60°F below the failure point.

Walk-on deck purlins did not achieve the same degree of success. This is

shown in figures 128 to 131. The purlin which crosses quadrants III and IV

experienced peak temperatures in excess of 1800°F on the bottom flanges. The

earliest single point critical temperature limit was reached in quadrant III

at about 36 minutes into the test. The two measurement locations on this

purlin also show failures for average temperature. These failures occurred at

1 hour 11 minutes for the purlin location in quadrant III and 1 hour

53 minutes for the purlin location in quadrant IV. Test observations noted in

section 8.1.2 show that these critical temperatures relate directly to the

fireproofing dropping off the purlin. This purlin, which failed, did not have

its bottom flange wrapped with wire mesh before the fireproofing was

applied. The other purlins that did have wire mesh wrapping performed well,

and it indicates that it is important for purlin protection when glass fiber

formboard is used in a system of this design. The observation noted in

section 8.1.2 stating that large gaps were observed between fireproofing and

the gypsum deck, where the glass fiber board burned out, supports this

conclusion. The subpurlins ' temperatures are shown in figures 132 and 133.

These construction elements also experienced significantly high

temperatures. However, it should be remembered that the subpurlin flanges

44
were completely exposed to the fire compartment heat. The temperatures on the

upper lip reflect the gypsum deck's thermal influence. Gypsum deck

temperatures are shown in figures 134 and 135. These plots show that the

maximum walk-on deck top surface temperature was 775°F at the end of the test.

Temperature rise for the suspension rods and steel tube bracket are

presented in figure 136. Dummy air conditioning duct temperatures are

exhibited in figure 137 and the interstitial space air temperature measurements are given in figure 138.

The walk-on deck purlin deflection measurements are shown in figure

139. As can be seen, purlin "C", which crossed quadrants III and IV, moved

vertically. This movement was similar to that observed in test 1 when the

fireproofing also fell off. The center of the purlin, as mentioned in

section 8.1.2, moved upward about three inches. However, in this test the

purlin was loaded to full design capacity, but it still moved upward in the

center. The other suspended purlin "A" also showed upward movement but not to

the same degree. Most of the fireproofing remained on this purlin throughout

the test. The center purlins which were attached to the column remained

relatively straight. The downward movement shown at the test's end was not

clearly evident when observing the structure. However, the permanent upward

set of the suspended purlins was clearly observed, figure 113. The bent

suspension rod in the picture's center provides some indication of how much

the purlin had deflected upward.

45
9. HEAT TRANSFER MODELING PREDICTIONS

The FIRES- T3 computer program for modeling temperature distribution for

structures in fire environments was developed at the University of California

under grants provided by the National Science Foundation and National Bureau

of Standards [2]. The computer program was designed to evaluate three-dimensional solids or composites that are subjected to fire environments. Options

for two-dimensional and one-dimensional heat flow analysis are also

available. In this project, the two-dimensional analysis option was used in

an attempt to predict heat flow through the lightweight concrete walk-on deck

system. Separate predictions were made for the walk-on deck, protected

purlins, and unprotected purlins in the walk-on deck.

With the two-dimensional model, the structural assembly is drawn in the

form of a nodal mesh using elements which are made up of 4-node isoparametric

quadrilaterals and triangles. The mesh used to analyze the three cases

described above are shown in figures 140, 142, and 144. Thermal properties

data for each material used in the analysis are assigned to the elements.

These inputs describe thermal conductivity and specific heat characteristics

as a function of temperature. The materials densities also are included, but

this input represents only the initial density.

The input for fire environments can be either a linear or nonlinear

model. Both of these models include convective and radiative heat flow

mechanisms in the predictions. In this case, the nonlinear fire environment

model was used where the fire followed the standard NFPA 251 time-temperature

curve

.

46
9.1 Predictions for Lightweight Concrete Walk-On Deck

The first prediction and comparison made was for the lightweight concrete

walk-on deck system evaluated in test 1. The slab mesh identifying the nodes

and elements used in the prediction is shown in figure 140. Elements 7, 14,

20 and 25 represent the steel deck. The remaining elements are for the lightweight concrete. Figure 141 shows a comparison of FIRES-T3 predictions for

the walk-on deck with test results obtained from test 1 in quadrant III.

Prediction elements 1 and 21, found in figure 140, are compared with surface

temperatures over thick and thin walk-on deck sections. As can be seen, these

predictions are fairly close with the maximum temperature difference at tests

end being 29°F. This represents a maximum difference of 13 percent between

the prediction and the actual test results. Purlin comparisons were also made

but did not show the same degree of correlation.

9.2 Predictions for Fireproofed Purlin Supporting

Lightweight Concrete Walk-On Deck

In this evaluation, purlin temperature data from test 2, quadrant II are

composed with FIRES-T3 predictions for a fireproofed purlin. It should be

remembered that test 2 ran for 1 hour 30 minutes. However, the computer model

provides a prediction for a full 2 hour exposure. The nodes and elements for

the combined slab and purlin section are shown in figure 142. As shown,

elements 1 through 3 and elements 5 and 6 represent the fireproofing.

Elements 4 and 8 represent the steel deck which is attached to the purlins

lower flange.

47
The FIRES- T3 prediction is compared with test data in figure 143. This

comparison shows that the predictions for the lower flange were significantly

off track. This may be due in part to the fact that thermal properties for

the fireproofing had to be estimated since the manufacturer's data were

incomplete for the temperature range being studied. Hotoever, predictions for

the top purlin flange were very close. In this case it is clear that the

lightweight concrete walk-on deck was influencing the heat transfer to the

upper flange. Walk-on deck temperatures from test 1, figure 141, help

demonstrate this. It appears that the computer model handles heat transfer

through the floor and fireproofed purlin well. However, the lower flange

prediction was not as accurate. It would appear from the temperature plateaus

figure 143 that moisture played a major role. It should be noted that FIREST3 does not take into account the beneficial effect of moisture.

9.3 Predictions for Unprotected Purlin Supporting

Lightweight Concrete Walk-On Deck

This FIRES- T3 prediction was compared with data taken from test 1. The

node and element meshes for this lightweight concrete and purlin section is

shown in figure 144. For this analysis, two different mesh arrangements were

used and therefore two separate analyses were made. One depicts the section

where the steel deck flute is open, figure 144a, and the other shows a section

where the flute is in contact with the lower purlin flange, figure 144b. Test

data for the comparison shown in figures 145 and 146 had to be adjusted in

time to fit the prediction plots. It should be noted that these test data

start at 13 minutes into test 1 when the fireproofing fell off purlin "C" in

quadrant III.

48
Figure 145 gives the comparison between predictions and test data for the

unprotected purlin lower flange. Predicted lower flange temperatures are

consistantly lower than those of the test data. By test's end, the

temperature difference is more than 260°F. This represents a discrepancy of

almost 14 percent, which is similar to that seen earlier.

The prediction for the top flange of the same unprotected purlin is

compared to test data in figure 146. Here again the predicted temperatures

are lower than those obtained from test 1. The purlin's test data show temperatures more than 16 percent above predicted values at 2 hours. Some of

this difference and that seen in figure 145 may be attributed to the 13 minute

time shift noted in the test data. During this time period, the total

building system did have an opportunity to heat up, but the purlin did not

show any significant increase in temperature until after the fireproofing fell

off at 13 minutes.

In general, the FIRES- T3 model did provide reasonable predictions.

However, for the assemblies actually evaluated it did not provide the accuracy

necessary for predicting fire endurance classifications for the systems

tested. This is more likely attributable to the program assumptions made

regarding the integrity of the assembly during the fire exposure period. It

may also, to a lesser extent, result from the accuracy of thermal properties

data used for the materials tested. As stated earlier, some of the materials'

thermal properties had to be estimated.

49
10. CONCLUSIONS

1. The unloaded lightweight concrete walk-on deck system suspended by the

0.625 inch steel rods will provide a 2 hour fire endurance rating based

temperature limits specified in NFPA 251 for the unprotected steel in the

interstitial space and the functional floor above. This rating is clear

when the loaded purlins supporting the walk-on deck are covered with a 2

hour rated fireproofing.

2. The unloaded poured gypsum walk-on deck system suspended by the 0.625 in

steel rods will also provide a 2 hour fire endurance rating based on

temperature limits of 1100 and 1300°F for the unprotected steel in the

interstitial space and the functional floor above. This rating also

depends on the use of a 2 hour rated fireproofing protecting the loaded

suspended purlins.

3. It is not clear that either the lightweight concrete walk-on deck system

or the poured gypsum walk-on deck system will provide the required protection to the unprotected steel in the interstitial space or the functional

floor above if fireproofing is not used to protect the suspended purlins.

4. Duct penetrations can be adequately protected for 2 hours using the

materials and methods described in this report. It should be stressed,

however, that the ducts were not left open to provide for free flow of hot

gases from the fire compartment.

5. The gypsum board protection fastened to the center column provided a two

50
hour fire endurance rating based on temperature limits of 1000 and 1200 C F

to the Wl4x61 steel column. However, it should be noted that the column

was not loaded and the furnace temperature was not evenly distributed

along the column's length as would be the case in a column test furnace.

6. The FIRES-T3 computer model will provide an estimate of the temperature

rise in construction systems when exposed to the NFPA 251 fire exposure,

but the model does not account for changes in the integrity of the system

and the presence of moisture..

7. FIRES- T3 computer predictions and other fire prediction methods require

accurate materials properties data to produce usable results. There is a

need to develop materials property data to assist in the use of computer

models

.

1 1 . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Mr. Doyle Carrington and Mr. Sid Israel of the Veterans Administration

are recognized for their assistance in coordinating the research project and

providing technical advice. Appreciation is extended to Mr. William Bailev

and his crew of superb technicians: Messrs. Oscar Owens, Charles Veirtz, Mel

Womble, Roy McLane, and Gary Proulx. These gentlemen were responsible for

constructing, instrumenting, and testing the building systems. Mr. Sar Ste^I

provided technical advice on instrumentation and coordinated data taking

activities. Special thanks is given to Mr. David Jeanes for his advire

of the FIRES- T3 computer model. Keystone Steel and Wire provided f

’ > ' r ;

tee subpurlins and woven wire mesh for the gypsum deck test. W. y . r-<

51
Company, Construction Products Division, provided fireproofing for the purlins

and fire compartment for tests 2, 2A, and 3. The Veterans Administration

Office of Construction provided funds for this research project.

52
12. REFERENCES

[1] Standard Methods of Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials,

NFPA 251, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA (1983).

[2] Iding, R., Bresler, B., Nizamaddin, Z., FIRES-T3 A Computer Program For

the Fire Response of Structures Thermal, report number UCB FRG 77-15,

Fire Research Group University of California, Berkeley, October 1977.

[3] Jeanes, D.C., Predicting Fire Endurance of Steel Structures, paper

presented to American Society of Civil Engineers, April 1982.

[4] Federal Specification HH-I-558B, Insulation, Blocks, Boards, Blankets,

Felts, Sleeving (Pipe and Fire Covering), and Pipe Fitting Covering,

Thermal (Mineral Fiber, Industrial Type) November 1971.

r 5 ] Standard Methods of Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials,

ASTM E119-83, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,

PA (1983).

53
Test

Manufacturer

Brand

Manse

Composition

Application

Application

Efanbeg

Method

Rating

ASTM

E119

G

O

O 3 P -H a

4-1

a

00p3OX

aP3OX P ©

aj 73

73

C

p P ffi O o ai a

p£

rH«

CM CM

C

O rH

7-i o a co a th tH P P P P

oi

©a

9-a rH> £©

as O.O.0 a 0 j=

a

-O P

g. § © y

a 7-1 j; ^ 4J H

pp

ayed -coat

4J

OO P c a

tH an st • u w n

aa

73a

a

pi

one- o.

ffi J>S£

•o©

a

© 73 >7

O

tH .HO.

aa

»p

C O* P p • tm o e 3 P «H *h o. a © 5 a C w a a a p a a o a y h jg p e.

tH tH P a

p

»p

aa 3 a *h a p p O.

a 3 p

p

© o p o

HD -H i a e *o «w a

a

•d

X P a

© !_

® *o

p

a

p c

•H «H 3 « H

H

O

H©

<P P P« a c ja

p tH c «h .c a © p

pH 0) hS?

<p=J P O “ rH

X

©

a

g

S3

c—=) e * a 3 a *h

p

g P g fgl © a, p to 73 a 5 0) o 2 u 6; p P G s @ a w o a

tH 73

y 8 73

a 0 C p a c p «p

p

© o u

a

® o 3 4j a a

*> •© CO ,o

X

a

a

p

py «-t

a •H

G

©©

X

p ffi

a

p <j

© 7-1 8 1 O. 3 G P

0)m 3 a >7 P N P pH a 1-H P a © 73 © p a p <*-i P >

rH t-H

pap 3 P © 73

ffi 0) 5 c c pq

a ©. ffi *H t-< a ® a 8 ^ © g H ® p p c ® «3 a a ©

«H £ P P c ©

a <p

© da©a tH

Oa o. th e £ •3 g w P P a

e.

aa

a so «H SE P !p 3 3 a © o y.c a a p x ffi J8

ffi

p

a

p

|8

rH >7 tH a <p >> u-i

aa

rH•H

H

H 3 H

p

a

ti t>

y >?O

O P e J=

m

£rj

a^ d© 2 | © e p

a

p c a a c a 0 a a 73 oy

ffi

ffi V* B i th a 73

®

a

B

©

© .C P y h ffi p p a

p

w * M ape 73

SE *« c p o ap

C

th© 73 i aa 53 © 3 a & X p 2 p er a th p to Pa 3 H a 73 p zr a <4H u a © a as O • o CM

PO ••

eajH *a 4J PM 5

54
Table 2. Weather Conditions

Test Number Ambient Air Unexposed Surface Wind

Temperature Speed at Start of Test

°F ft/s

1 64 2.8

2 58 3.3

2A 66 3.4

3 62 2.9

55
STACK

AND

BURNER

WALL

SOUTH

END

56

Figure

1.

Elevation

of

fire

test

structure
2400

CO

hCO

IT)

CO

C\J

o

o O O O O

o o O

o

CM

CO CM 00

o

(do) aanivaddiAidi

57

Figure

2.

Standard

timetemperature

fire

endurance

curve
BURNER

rm

CMU WALL

STACK

NORTH END

E^n.

20 -0

"

40'-0"

lJ

BOTTOM

FUNCTIONAL FLOOR AREA

TEST BAY 2

5

W14x61

COLUMN

a3

u

BOTTOM

FUNCTIONAL FLOOR AREA

TEST BAY 1

W14x6

1

COLUMN

r?

r

r

STACK BURNER

SOUTH END

32-0'

Figure 3. Plan ground level of test structure

58
Figure 4. Photograph of fire compartment

59
Figure 5. Plan walk-on deck level of test structure

60
TOP FUNCTIONAL FLOOR

TEST BAY 2

STACK

NORTH END

l-*C

QUADRANT

I

W 1 4x6 1 _ COLUMN

QUADRANT

IV

'Mi

L L

TT“

r

*l TT

QUADRANT

W 1 2x22

BEAM

QUADRANT

id

n

_L

QUADRANT

W1 2x22

BEAM

QUADRANT

LL

i-l

QUADRANT

IV

W 1 4x6

1

COLUMN

QUADRANT

-T-«

STACK

SOUTH END

TOP FUNCTIONAL FLOOR

TEST BAY 1

Figure 6. Plan functional floor of test struriur.-

61

t£I
COLUMN FIRE PROTECTION

TWO LAYERS OF 0.625 INCH TYPE-X GYPSUM WALLBOARD SCREW ATTACHED TO 1.625

INCH METAL STUDS LOCATED AT EACH CORNER OF W 14x61 COLUMN WITH 1 INCH

TYPE "S" SCREWS 24 INCHES O.C. FOR BASE LAYER AND 1.625 INCH TYPE "S"

DRYWALL SCREWS 12 INCHES O.C. FOR FACE LAYER, 1.25 INCH METAL BEADS AT

CORNERS ATTACHED WITH 6D COATED NAILS 1.75 INCH LONG, 0.915" SHANK, 0.25

INCH HEADS 12 INCHES O.C.

CORNER BEAD

TWO LAYERS 0.625"

TYPE-X GYPSUM BOARD

Figure 7. Fire protection for W 14x61 columns

62
Q

LLJ CO t O H

-I DC

LU LLI Sio

_J LU

-J DC

x

a

—

J

h- o

4-1

a)

4-1

01

QJ

03o

03Co

•H

4-1 a

atccO 03 U C

*rH T3 —I 0) J- XI 3 h a.

QJ3 -H

QJ i— 'j O 4-1 03 "u o^

AJ

X

QJ

O

c/3 3

00

63

Figure
TWO

(2)

DUCTS

10-11"

LONG

AND

wo3OO

CD ~ 0 -o % © 0

**- 0 (D -c n co _ O = 0 > N CO C I- 0 0 > w 0

D) O)0 O ~

CO

® o -o0 0 C

CD 3 0 O

O) £

CO -C

co 3 3

CM

LL CMisO -0 as I g S E 0 *-> CO

C0C T3 o C O 0

co co

+-' *=< o c

3S< <

LUHo

Figure

9.

Details

of

air

conditioning

duct

construction
FACE

LAYER

0.5

INCH

TYPE-X

GYPSUM

BOARD

APPLIED

PARALLEL

W/STUDS

WITH

1.625

INCH

TYPE

"S"

DRYWALL

SCREWS

12

INCHES

O.C.

co ^ LU

=>

m

X

£8 «

gt-J U CO _J X ^ < 1 ^ ^

E-. >

!r uj dc x < o 5

LOo

DC

LU

>-<-1 Q

LU DC CO< <o

CO

LU

CL

>- . H O x o

i<0 — LUXo X z

<2 -I CO LU

LU -!

DCDCLUXo <

DC<

CLQ

UJ

_l

CLQ.<QX<O

CD

com ^

C\J

inox

LU>

5|

LU CO

CO

X < >

co o

>-xQ

CO

LU

h- o X co o LU Z X - o

T- Z X

hC\J

CO COQ

ID

LUXo

CO CO

COo

rt0)oc

COu

65

EXTERIOR

FINISH

26

OR

28

GA.

GALV.

SHEET

STEEL

APPLIED

WITH

SELF

TAPPING

SHEET

METAL

SCREWS
66

Figure

11.

Photograph

showing

interstitial

space
BAYS 1

AND 2

CENTER

COLUMN

dcOO

_i

LL

_!<Zo JI

COzo

CO

H

UJ <

iil t- CC CO o LU

UJ I O COHh

Q

DC<2 z

CD

g ^ hCD O

CO LLJ 0. CD O

DC

CL ( M »

DC llj 1

99

C\J Li- / T3 <U

C. oz

CD oJ

CVJ oJCVJ

DCoo

-J

Li- |W^ z

CD _J 5 X LU D ^ LU I > I- o ^ CO o oJ .

CVJ oJ

CVJ 01

CVJ 01

CVJ oJ -

CVJ

TO —I

G- 3

67

THERMOCOUPLE

LOCATIONS
Figure 13

2

'- 0

"

MID-SPAN

2

'- 0

'

2

'- 0

'

MID-SPAN

]~2-0"

d==lrBURNER

SECTION SHOWING

LOCATIONS ON BEAM

TEST BAYS

1 AND 2

Placement of thermocouples on center beams supporting

the functional floors

68
QUADRANT III QUADRANT IV

4'-0" —

I

QUADRANT QUADRANT I

BURNER

TEST BAYS

1 AND 2

/

DECK JOINT

/

STEEL DECK

• THERMOCOUPLE LOCATIONS ON DECK

Figure 14. Placement of thermocouples on functional fin • steel decks

69
» * NOTE: Approximate locations for

thermocouples on this drawing

\

are based on locations of deck

thermocouples. Test bays 1 and 2

Figure 15. Surface thermocouples on functional floors

70
Figure 16. Locations for deflection gauges on purlins

71
Figure 17. Photograph showing deflection gauge weight on load

container 72
* 1 THERMOCOUPLE INSIDE CENTER OF DUCT

1 THERMOCOUPLE OUTSIDE SURFACE OF DUCT

Figure 18. Locations for thermocouples on air conditionin' du t

73
PLATFORM

LIGHTWEIGHT

CONCRETE

DESIGN

LOAD

WALK-ON

DECK

LIVE

LOAD

25

LBS/FT 2

EQUIPMENT

LOAD

15

LBS

/FT 2

LU

LD

h-=)

G01 I 1 &

CL) uaj aeou

d)&U

rC

bO

•HUO

M—I

CO i—I cd

4-1 CD X>Co

•H &CD

u co 3

Vj CO 4-» CO ^ C a o 0) cj x)

cuu3

00

•H

74

PURLIN "C'

4'-0"

PURLIN "B'

2'-Q"

O

3'-0"

O*—6" FROM

PURLIN

DUCT

PENETRATION

PURLIN "B' 3—

C

DUCT

PENETRATION

6" FROM PURLIN

3'-0"

PURLIN "A'

4-0'

O WALK-ON DECK

THERMOCOUPLE LOCATIONS

& W6x9 PURLIN

THERMOCOUPLE LOCATIONS

BURNER

LOCATION

Figure 21. Locations for thermocouples used in the lightweight

concrete deck system

76
•

THERMOCOUPLE

LOCATIONS

O

THERMOCOUPLE

LOCATIONS

ON

W6x9

PURLINS

IN

WALK-ON

DECK

LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE Tn(

LOIs- CM

LO

LO

N.00

CM

CM

CMOu3

oc

u. Is- oo

CM

O

'V o

77

Arrangement

of

thermocouples

attached

to W

6x9

steel

purlin

supporting

the

walk-on

deck
1200

78

Figure

23.

Chart

record

of

average

furnace

temperature,

test
79

Figure

24.

Photograph

showing

bottom

of

walk-on

deck

after

test
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TFiST 1 - FUNCTIONAL FLOOR

SURFACE TEMPERATURES I QUADRANT

Figure 25. Functional floor surface temperatures quadrant I,

test 1

TEST 1 - FUNCTIONAL FLOOR

SURFACE TEMPERATURES II QUADRANT

Figure 26. Functional floor surface temperatures quadrant II,

test 1

80
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 1 - FUNCTIONAL FLOOR

SURFACE TEMPERATURES III QUADRANT

Figure 27. Functional floor surface temperatures quadrant III,

test 1

TEST 1 - FUNCTIONAL FLOOR

SURFACE TEMPERATURES IV QUADRANT

1000 i i i i i i i i i Over deck valley

Over deck ridge

800

600 -

400 -

200 -

0 1 1 1 1 1 i i i i 0 1800 3600 5400 7200 9000

TIME (s)

Figure 28. Functional floor surface temperatures quadr

test 1 31
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEMPERATURE

(°F)

1000

800

600

400 -

200 -

TEST 1 - FUNCTIONAL FLOOR

SURFACE TEMPERATURE AT CENTER

1800 3600 5400

TIME (s)

7200 9000

Figure 29. Functional floor surface temperature center of test

bay, test 1

TEST 1 - FUNCTIONAL FLOOR

STEEL DECK TEMPERATURES IV QUADRANT

Figure 30. Functional floor steel deck temperatures quadrant IV

test 1 82
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 1 - CENTER BEAM LOCATED

BETWEEN QUADRANTS I AND II

Figure 31. Temperature for center beam supporting the functional

floor, center measurement point between quadrants I and II, test 1

TEST 1 - CENTER BEAM

LOCATED BETWEEN QUADRANTS III AND IV

Temperatures for center beam supporting the functi* n il floor, center measurement point between quadrant',

and IV, test 1 cp

Figure 32.
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 1 - INTERSTITIAL SPACE,

CENTER COLUMN, TWO FEET FROM DECK

Figure 33. Center column temperatures in interstitial space at

measurement point two feet above walk-on deck, test 1

TEST 1 - INTERSTITIAL SPACE,

CENTER COLUMN, FOUR FEET FROM DECK

Figure 34. Center column temperatures in interstitial space at

measurement point four feet above walk-on deck, test 1 84
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 1 - FIRE COMPARTMENT,

CENTER COLUMN, TWO FEET FROM FLOOR

Figure 35. Column temperatures in furnace compartment two feet

up from floor, test 1

TEST 1 - FIRE COMPARTMENT,

CENTER COLUMN, FOUR FEET FROM FLOOR

Figure 36. Column temperatures in furnace compartment tom . up from floor, test 1

85
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 1 - FIRE COMPARTMENT,

CENTER COLUMN, SIX FEET FROM FLOOR

Figure 37. Column temperatures in furnace compartment six feet

up from floor, test 1

TEST 1 - FIRE COMPARTMENT,

CENTER COLUMN, EIGHT FEET FROM FLOOR

Figure 38. Column temperatures in furnace compartment eight feet

up from floor, test 1

86
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 1 - WALK-ON DECK

PURLIN TEMPERATURES QUADRANT I

Figure 39. Walk-on deck purlin temperatures quadrant I, test 1

TEST 1 - WALK-ON DECK

PURLIN TEMPERATURES QUADRANT II

Figure 40. Walk-on deck purlin temperatures quadrant II, t.

87
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 1 - WALK-ON DECK

i i i i i i i 1 0 1800 3600 5400 7200 9000

TIME (s)

Figure 41. Walk-on deck purlin temperatures quadrant III, test 1

TEST 1 - WALK-ON DECK

0 1800 3600 5400 72 00 9000

TIME (s)

Figure 42. Walk-on deck purlin temperatures quadrant IV, test 1

88
TEST 1 - WALK-ON DECK TEMPERATURES

THICK SECTION I QUADRANT

Figure 43. Walk-on deck temperatures thick section quadrant I,

test 1

TEST 1 - WALK-ON DECK TEMPERATURES

THIN SECTION I QUADRANT

Figure 44. Walk-on deck temperatures thin section quadrant

test 1 89
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

^

TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 1 - WALK-ON DECK TEMPERATURES

THICK SECTION III QUADRANT

Lgure 45. Walk-on deck temperatures thick section quadrant III,

test 1

TEST 1 - WALK-ON DECK TEMPERATURES

THIN SECTION III QUADRANT

Figure 46. Walk-on deck temperatures thin section quadrant III,

test 1

90
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 1 - SUSPENSION RODS

AND STEEL TUBE BRACKET

Figure 47. .Temperatures for suspension rods and steel tube bracket,

test 1

TEST 1 - DUMMY

AIR CONDITIONING DUCT TEMPERATURES

Figure 48. Dummy air conditioning duct temperatures, i,
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 1 - AIR TEMPERATURE

INTERSTITIAL SPACE

Figure 49. Interstitial space air temperatures, test 1

TEST 1 - WALK-ON DECK PURLIN DEFLECTIONS - SOUTH (A), CENTER (B), NORTH (C)

Figure 50. Walk-on deck purlin deflections, test 1

92
Figure 51. Photograph showing permanent upward set of suspn !• s purlin, test 1

93
1200

LO

(0

D

oX

111

in

d

oo co CM

o

©

94

Figure

52.

Chart

record

of

average

furnace

temperature,

test
-

Figure 53. Photograph showing bottom of walk-on n ,

:

95
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 2 - FUNCTIONAL FLOOR

SURFACE TEMPERATURES I QUADRANT

1000

800

600

400

200

0

0 1800 3600 5400 7200 9000

TIME (s)

Figure 54. Functional floor surface temperatures quadrant I, test 2

n i i

1 1 1 1 1 r Over deck valley

Over deck ridge

LU

CCZ><

CCLU

Q.

LU

1000

800

600

400

200

0

0 1800 3600 5400 7200 9000

TIME (s)

TEST 2 - FUNCTIONAL

FLOOR SURFACE TEMPERATURES II QUADRANT

T

Over deck valley

Over deck ridge

Figure 55. Functional floor surface temperature quadrant II, test 2

96
TEST 2 - FUNCTIONAL FLOOR

SURFACE TEMPERATURES III QUADRANT

1000

~ 800

LLo£ 600

z>

h-<

2 400

CL

LUH 200

0

0 1800 3600 5400 7200 9000

TIME (s)

“i r n i

1 r Over deck valley

Over deck ridge

J L J L

Figure 56. Functional floor surface temperature quadrant III, test 2

TEST 2 - FUNCTIONAL FLOOR

1000

~ 800

LLO£ 600

ID

I-<

£

400

CL

LUH 200

0

0 1800 3600 5400 7200 9000

TIME (s)

SURFACE TEMPERATURES IV QUADRANT

i

1 1 1

i

1 1 1 r Over deck valley

Over deck ridge

J | | 1 | | 1 I L

Figure 57. Functional floor surface temperature quadrant IV, tr t

97
TEST 2 - FUNCTIONAL FLOOR

SURFACE TEMPERATURE AT CENTER

1000

_ 800

LLo£ 600

Z)

t-<

£ 400

CL

LU*” 200

0

0 1800 3600 5400 7200 9000

TIME (s)

Figure 58. Functional floor surface temperature center of test bay,

test 2

l

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r

j i i i i i L

TEST 2 - FUNCTIONAL FLOOR

STEEL DECK TEMPERATURES IV QUADRANT

1000

~ 800

LLo£ 600

3

I-<

£ 400

Q.

LU

l_ 200

0

0 1800 3600 5400 7200 9000

TIME (s)

Figure 59. Functional floor steel deck temperatures quadrant IV,

test 2

98
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 2 - CENTER BEAM LOCATED

BETWEEN QUADRANTS I AND II

Figure 60. Temperatures for center beam supporting the functional

floor, center measurement point between quadrants I and II, test 2

TEST 2 - CENTER BEAM

LOCATED BETWEEN QUADRANTS III AND IV

TIME (s)

Figure 61. Temperatures for center beam supporting tin- • t floor, center measurement point between quadrant

and IV, test 2 99
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 2 - INTERSTITIAL SPACE,

CENTER COLUMN, TWO FEET FROM DECK

Figure 62. Center column temperatures in interstitial space at

measurement point two feet above walk-on deck, test 2

TEST 2 - INTERSTITIAL SPACE,

CENTER COLUMN, FOUR FEET FROM DECK

Figure 63. Center column temperatures in interstitial space at

measurement point four feet above walk-on deck, test 2

100
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 2 - FIRE COMPARTMENT,

CENTER COLUMN, TWO FEET FROM FLOOR

Figure 64. Column temperatures in furnace compartment two feet

up from floor, test 2

TEST 2 - FIRE COMPARTMENT,

CENTER COLUMN, FOUR FEET FROM FLOOR

Figure 65. Column temperatures in furnace compartment four feet

up from floor, test 2 101
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 2 -FIRE COMPARTMENT,

CENTER COLUMN, SIX FEET FROM FLOOR

Figure 66. Column temperatures in furnace compartment six feet

up from floor, test 2

TEST 2 - FIRE COMPARMENT,

CENTER COLUMN, EIGHT FEET FROM FLOOR

TIME (s)

Figure 67. Column temperatures in furnace compartment eight feet

up from floor, test 2 102
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 2 - WALK-ON DECK

PURLIN TEMPERATURES QUADRANT I

Figure 68- Walk-on deck purlin temperatures quadrant I, test 2

TEST 2 - WALK-ON DECK

PURLIN TEMPERATURES QUADRANT II

Figure 69. Walk-on deck purlin temperatures quadrant ! , l<

103
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 2 - WALK-ON DECK

Figure 70. Walk-on deck purlin temperatures quadrant III, test 2

TEST 2 - WALK-ON DECK

PURLIN TEMPERATURES QUADRANT IV

Figure 71. Walk-on deck purlin temperatures quadrant IV, test 2

104
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 2 - WALK-ON DECK TEMPERATURES

THICK SECTION I QUADRANT

Figure 72. Walk-on deck purlin temperatures thick section quadrant I,

test 2

TEST 2 - WALK-ON DECK TEMPERATURES

THIN SECTION I QUADRANT

Figure 73. Walk-on deck temperatures thin section q'l.iir.nt

test 2 105
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 2 - WALK-ON DECK TEMPERATURES

2500

_ 2000

Li- o£ 1500

D

\-

<

£ iooo

Q.

UJH 500

0

0 1800 3600 5400 7200 9000

TIME (s)

Figure 74. Walk-on deck temperatures thick section quadrant III test 2

THICK SECTION III QUADRANT

i 1 1 1 1 Surface

Mid-depth

Steel deck

TEST 2 - WALK-ON DECK TEMPERATURES

THIN SECTION III QUADRANT

Figure 75. Walk-on deck temperatures thin section quadrant III,

test 2 106
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 2 - SUSPENSION RODS

AND STEEL TUBE BRACKET

76. Temperatures for suspension rods and steel tube bracket

test 2

TEST 2- DUMMY AIR CONDITIONING

DUCT TEMPERATURES

Figure 77. Dummy air conditioning duct temper iturt

107
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 2 - AIR TEMPERATURE

INTERSTITIAL SPACE

Figure 78. Interstitial space air temperatures , test 2

TEST 2 - WALK-ON DECK PURLIN DEFLECTIONS - SOUTH (A), CENTER (B), NORTH (C)

Figure 79. Walk-on deck purlin deflections, test 2

108
1200

100

Chart

record

of

average

furnace

tempe
Figure 81. Photograph showing bottom of walk-on deck at end of

test 2A

110
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 2A - FUNCTIONAL FLOOR

SURFACE TEMPERATURES I QUADRANT

1000

800

600

400

200

0

0 1800 3600 5400 7200 9000

TIME (s)

1 1 1 1

1

1 1 r

Over deck valley

Over deck ridge

Figure 82. Functional floor surface temperatures quadrant I,

test 2A

1000

800 -

600 -

400 -

200 -

TEST 2A - FUNCTIONAL FLOOR

SURFACE TEMPERATURES II QUADRANT

1 r i r Over deck valley

Over deck ridge

0 I I I I I I I I L 0 1800 3600 5400 7200 9000

TIME (s)

Figure 83. Functional floor surface temperatures quadrant II test 2A

ill
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 2A - FUNCTIONAL FLOOR

SURFACE TEMPERATURES III QUADRANT

1000

800

600

400

200

0

0 1800 3600 5400 7200 9000

TIME (s)

n i 1 1 1 1 1 1 r Over deck valley

Over deck ridge

Figure 84. Functional floor surface temperatures quadrant III,

test 2A

TEST 2A - FUNCTIONAL FLOOR

SURFACE TEMPERATURES IV QUADRANT

1000

800

600

400

200

0

0 1800 3600 5400 7200 9000

TIME (s)

Figure 85. Functional floor surface temperatures quadrant IV,

test 2A

n 1 i

i

1 1 r Over deck valley

Over deck ridge

J I I I I I J L

112
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 2A - FUNCTIONAL FLOOR

SURFACE TEMPERATURE AT CENTER

Figure 86. Functional floor surface temperature center of test bay,

test 2A

TEST 2A - FUNCTIONAL FLOOR

STEEL DECK TEMPERATURES IV QUADRANT

Figure 87. Functional floor steel deck temperature '

. : test 2A

113
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 2A - CENTER BEAM

LOCATED BETWEEN QUADRANTS I AND II

Figure 88. Temperatures for center beam supporting the functional

floor, center measurement point between quadrants I and II, test 2A

TEST 2A - CENTER BEAM LOCATED

0 1800 3600 5400 7200 9000

TIME (s)

Figure 89. Temperatures for center beam supporting the functional

floor, center measurement point between quadrants III

and IV, test 2A

114
TEMPERATURE

<°F)

TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 2A - INTERSTITIAL SPACE,

CENTER COLUMN, TWO FEET FROM DECK

Figure 90. Center column temperatures in interstitial space at

measurement point two feet above walk-on deck, test 2A

TEST 2A - INTERSTITIAL SPACE,

CENTER COLUMN, FOUR FEET FROM DECK

Figure 91. Center column temperatures in interstitial spa . .it measurement point four feet above walk-on deck, t. .t

115
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 2A - FIRE COMPARTMENT,

CENTER COLUMN, TWO FEET FROM FLOOR

Figure 92. Column temperatures in furnace compartment two feet up

from floor, test 2A

TEST 2A - FIRE COMPARTMENT,

CENTER COLUMN, FOUR FEET FROM FLOOR

Figure 93. Column temperatures in furnace compartment four feet

up from floor, test 2A

116
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 2A - FIRE COMPARTMENT,

CENTER COLUMN, SIX FEET FROM FLOOR

Figure 94. Column temperatures in furnace compartment six feet

up from floor, test 2A

TEST 2A - FIRE COMPARTMENT,

CENTER COLUMN, EIGHT FEET FROM FLOOR

Figure 95. Column temperatures in furnace compartment < i lit up from floor, test 2A

117
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 2A - WALK-ON DECK

PURLIN TEMPERATURES QUADRANT I

Figure 96. Walk-on deck purlin temperatures quadrant I, test 2A

TEST 2A - WALK-ON DECK

PURLIN TEMPERATURES QUADRANT II

Figure 97. Walk-on deck purlin temperatures quadrant II, test 2A

118
TEST 2A - WALK-ON DECK

PURLIN TEMPERATURES QUADRANT III

TEST 2A - WALK-ON DECK

PURLIN TEMPERATURES QUADRANT IV

Figure 99. Walk-on deck purlin temperatures quadrant iV, t.

119
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 2A - WALK-ON DECK TEMPERATURES

THICK SECTION I QUADRANT

Figure 100. Walk-on deck temperatures thick section quadrant I,

test 2A

TEST 2A - WALK-ON DECK

TEMPERATURES THIN SECTION I QUADRANT

Figure 101. Walk-on deck temperatures thin section quadrant I,

test 2A

120
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 2A - WALK-ON DECK TEMPERATURES

THICK SECTION III QUADRANT

Figure 102. Walk-on deck temperatures thick section quadrant III,

test 2A

TEST 2A - WALK-ON DECK TEMPERATURES

THIN SECTION III QUADRANT

2500

2000 -

1500

1000

500

0

Surface

Mid-depth

Steel deck

r V

itj

/

J

If

t*

i r

0 1800 3600 5400 7200 9000

TIME (s)

Figure 103. Walk-on deck temperatures thin section quadrant

test 2A

121
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 2A - SUSPENSION

RODS AND STEEL TUBE BRACKET

Figure 104 Temperatures for suspension rods and steel tube bracket,

test 2A

TEST 2A - DUMMY AIR CONDITIONING

DUCT TEMPERATURES

Figure 105. Dummy air conditioning duct temperatures, test 2A
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 2A - AIR TEMPERATURE

INTERSTITIAL SPACE

Figure 106. Interstitial space air temperatures, test 2A

TEST 2A - WALK-ON DECK PURLIN

DEFLECTIONS - SOUTH (A), CENTER (B), NORTH (C)

Figure 107. Walk-on deck purlin deflections, to L

123
PLATFORM

POURED

GYPSUM

DESIGN

LOAD

WALK-ON

DECK

LIVE

LOAD

25

LBS/FT

2

EQUIPMENT

LOAD

15

LBS/FT

2

1 1U

Figure

108.

Construction

details

for

poured

gypsum

walk-on

deck
•

THERMOCOUPLE

LOCATIONS O

THERMOCOUPLE

LOCATIONS

IN

GYPSUM

WALK-ON

DECK

ON

SUBPURLINS

LU Z

QC c0 3

CO 0.

id

m

DC ID

125

rmocouple

locations

through

section

Figure

109(B).

Subpurlin

temperature

measurement

gypsum

walk-on

deck

system,

test 3

points,

test 3
PURLIN "C'

4-0'

PURLIN "B'

f 2' -O'

© •

3-0'

DUCT

PENETRATION

DUCT

PENETRATION

PURLIN "A'

PURLIN "B'

3'-0' ^ 4-0" *

O

• WALK-ON DECK

THERMOCOUPLE LOCATIONS

O W6x9 PURLIN THERMOCOUPLE

LOCATIONS

© SUBPURLIN THERMOCOUPLE

LOCATIONS

BURNER

LOCATION

Figure 110. Locations for thermocouple sets in gypsum walk-on
200

in

c\i

o

cvi

in

in

o

o

o o o

o o o

o 00 CD O O o

o o ^ C\J

CO

k_3

o

LU2

o

m

127

Figure

111.

Chart

record

of

average

furnace

temperature,

test
Figure 112. Photograph showing bottom of gypsum walk-on deck

after test 3

128
Figure 113. Photograph showing bent suspension rod :i n ini- r t it i space, test 3

129
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 3 - FUNCTIONAL FLOOR

SURFACE TEMPERATURES I QUADRANT

Figure 114. Functional floor surface temperatures quadrant I, test 3

TEST 3 - FUNCTIONAL FLOOR

SURFACE TEMPERATURES II QUADRANT

Figure 1]5. Functional floor surface temperatures quadrant II,

test 3

130
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

1000

800

600

400

200

0

0 1800 3600 5400 7200 9000

TIME (s)

TEST 3 - FUNCTIONAL FLOOR

SURFACE TEMPERATURES III QUADRANT —I

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T Over deck valley

Over deck ridge

J I I I I I I L

Figure 116. Functional floor surface temperatures quadrant III,

test 3

Li. o

LU

ccD

h-<

CCLU0-

LU

TEST 3 - FUNCTIONAL FLOOR

SURFACE TEMPERATURES IV QUADRANT

1000

800

600

400

200

0

0 1800 3600 5400 7200 9000

TIME (s)

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 r

Over deck valley

Over deck ridge

J I I I I I 1 L

Figure 117. Functional floor surface temperatures quadrant

test 3

131
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 3 - FUNCTIONAL FLOOR

SURFACE TEMPERATURE AT CENTER

Figure 118. Functional floor surface temperature center of test

bay, test 3

TEST 3 - FUNCTIONAL FLOOR

STEEL DECK TEMPERATURES IV QUADRANT

Figure 119. Functional floor steel deck temperatures quadrant IV,

test 3

132
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 3 - CENTER BEAM LOCATED

BETWEEN QUADRANTS I AND II

Figure 120. Temperatures for center beam supporting the functional

floor, center measurement point between quadrants I and II, test 3

TEST 3 - CENTER BEAM LOCATED

BETWEEN QUADRANTS III AND IV

Figure 121. Temperatures for center beam supporting the •

;

. t i floor, center measurement point between qu r. m

and IV, test 3

133
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 3 - INTERSTITIAL SPACE,

CENTER COLUMN, TWO FEET FROM DECK

Figure 122. Center column temperatures in interstitial space at

measurement point two feet above walk-on deck,

test 3

TEST 3 - INTERSTITIAL SPACE,

CENTER COLUMN, FOUR FEET FROM DECK

Figure 123. Center column temperatures in interstitial space at

measurement point four feet above walk-on deck,

test 3 134
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEMPERATURE

(°

F)

TEST 3 - FIRE COMPARTMENT,

CENTER COLUMN, TWO FEET FROM FLOOR

Figure 124. Column temperatures in furnace compartment two feet up

from floor, test 3

TEST 3 - FIRE COMPARTMENT,

CENTER COLUMN, FOUR FEET FROM FLOOR

Figure 125. Column temperatures in furnace comp.i r t :i i

• from floor, test 3

135
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

Figure 126. Column temperatures in furnace compartment six feet ud from floor, test 3

TEST 3 - FIRE COMPARTMENT,

CENTER COLUMN, EIGHT FEET FROM FLOOR

Figure 127. Column temperatures in furnace compartment eight feet

up from floor, test 3

136
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 3 - WALK-ON DECK

PURLIN TEMPERATURES QUADRANT I

Figure 128. Walk-on deck purlin temperature quadrant I, test 3

TEST 3 - WALK-ON DECK

PURLIN TEMPERATURES QUADRANT II

Figure 129. Walk-on deck purlin temperature quadrant II, test 3

137
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 3 - WALK-ON DECK

PURLIN TEMPERATURES QUADRANT III

Figure 130. Walk-on deck purlin temperature quadrant III, test 3

TEST 3 - WALK-ON DECK

PURLIN TEMPERATURES QUADRANT IV

Figure 131. Walk-on deck purlin temperature quadrant IV, test 3

138
TEST 3 - TRUSS SUBPURLIN

TEMPERATURES II QUADRANT

Figure 132. Walk-on deck subpurlin temperature temperature quadrant II,

test 3

TEST 3 - TRUSS SUBPURLIN

TEMPERATURES IV QUADRANT

Figure 133. Walk-on deck subpurlin temperature quadrant IV, test )

139
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 3 - WALK-ON DECK

TEMPERATURES II QUADRANT

Figure 134. Walk-on deck temperatures quadrant II, test 3

TEST 3 - WALK-ON DECK

TEMPERATURES IV QUADRANT

Figure 135. Walk-on deck temperatures quadrant IV, test 3

140
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 3 - SUSPENSION RODS

AND STEEL TUBE BRACKET

Figure 136. Temperatures for suspension rods and steel tube

bracket, test 3

TEST 3

- DUMMY AIR CONDITIONING DUCT TEMPERATURES

Figure 137. Dummy air conditioning luct temperature

141
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

TEST 3 - AIR TEMPERATURE

INTERSTITIAL SPACE

Figure 138. Interstitial space air temperatures, test 3

TEST 3 - WALK-ON DECK PURLIN DEFLECTIONS

- SOUTH (A), CENTER (B), NORTH (C)

Figure 139. Walk-on deck purlin deflections, test 3

142
Walk-on

Deck

Slab

Mesh

for

Fires

- T3

Model

t

O r- CM CO rj- iO

CO CO CO CO CO CO

143

Figure

140.

Lightweight

concrete

walk-on

deck

node

and

element

locations

for

FIRES-T3

model
COMPARISON

OF

FIRES

-T3

PREDICTIONS

FOR

WALK

ON

DECK

WITH

RESULTS

FROM

TEST

1 o

o

o

G)

O

O

C\i

o

o

uo

CO

LJJ °

o i=

^

CD

CO

o

o

oo

oo CD C\J

(do) aanivaddi^ai

144

Figure

141.

Comparison

of

FIRES-T3

predictions

for

walk-on

deck

with

results

from

test

1
y

Figure 142. Node and element locations for fireproofed purlin in

lightweight concrete walk-on deck FTRES-T3 model

145
COMPARISON

OF

FIRES

- T3

PREDICTIONS

FOR

FIREPROOFED

PURLIN

WITH

RESULTS

FROM

#2 o

o

o

o

o

o

C\j

NO

o

^r

LO

o

o

CD

CO

O

O

00

c/D

LU

H

00 CD C\J

(do) aanivaddiAidi

146

Figure

143.

Comparisons

of

FIRES-T3

predictions

for

fireproofed

purlin

with

results

from

test

2
Mesh

for

Fires - T3

Model

a

O

O

®

(fi

147

Figure

144.

Node

and

element

locations

for

unprotected

purlins

in

lightweight

concrete

walk-on

deck

FIRES-T3

model
TEMPERATURE

(°F)

COMPARISON OF FIRES - T3 PREDICTIONS

FOR BOTTOM FLANGE OF UNPROTECTED PURLIN - #1

Figure 145. Comparisons of FIRES-T3 predictions for bottom flange

of unprotected purlin with results from test 1

COMPARISON OF FIRES - T3 PREDICTIONS

FOR TOP FLANGES OF UNPROTECTED PURLIN -#1

Figure 146. Comparisons of FIRES-T3 predictions for top flange of

unprotected purlin with results from test 1

148
NBS-114A IREV. 2-BC) U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET (See instructions)

1. PUBLICATION OR

REPORT NO. NBSIR-85/ 3158

2. Performing Organ. Report No. 3. Publication Date

May 1985

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Fire Performance of Interstitial Space Construction Systems

5. AUTHOR(S)

J. Randall Lawson

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS, see instructions) 7. Contract/Grant No. NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 8. Type of Report & Period Covered

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street, City. State. ZIP)

Veterans' Administration

810 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D. C.

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

2) Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

11. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bi bliography or literature survey, mention it here) Two unique walk-on deck construction systems were exposed to the standard NFPA 25

i

time-temperature fire exposure in order to evaluate their fire performance. A Inrf

scale steel structure was used in the test program to simulate construction systems

found in the field. The structure consisted of two large functional floors separ it : by an interstitial space in which a walk-on deck systems was constructed from 1 i • h t — weight concrete, and the second was built with poured gypsum. Three complete tv. hour fire tests were conducted along with one shorter test. Critical areas ev.iln.it- >! were the top functional floor, unprotected steel work in the interstitial sp.:< • , response of the walk-on deck systems, and protection for a heavy steel column 1>>> -it- : in the center of each test bay. Test data were compared with the fire endur.m- • requirements of NFPA 251. Computer predictions were also made using the FI RMSmodel to determine its ability to accurately predict the construction systems

performance

.

12. KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and seporat" . Computer models; concrete; fire endurance; fire tests; interstiti <1 structural systems; gypsum; steel structures

words by semic

paces

;

13. availability

14. NO. OF

|X | Unl i mi ted

| 1 For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

j Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing OF-ce, Wash-nj-to'

' 20402.

PRINTED

IS. Price

[]X) Order F rom N ati onal Techn ical Information Service (NTIS) , Springfield, VA. 22 u -

-

1 m- *

o c_ Z

tor • DO

to cn

to JO rn 00 to po

fD toCL 00

rt to cn

H* (-* 1 rr M CO

H*

fD

r1 cn

to 00

rt *: O w • • o3

cn nj

"< Hto r( cn tr) rr fD HfD to r( 3 TJ rr (D

to fD 0)

rt 3 rti Hi rt> o i-t r| Hi

(D to

r| rr

to rt> rt r» h- to rr rt H- Hto rr

l-1 Hto

C/3 h->

to cn O "3

0) too n re c

to

n

w o

rr 3

r(

w

C rr n rf rr to H* O O3 O3