NISTIR 6890 

Fire Resistance Determination and 

Performance Prediction Research 

Needs Workshop: Proceedings 

William Grosshandler 

Editor 
 
 

 

NISTIR 6890

Fire Resistance Determination and

Performance Prediction Research

Needs Workshop: Proceedings

William Grosshandler

Editor

Building and Fire Research Laboratory

September 2002

U.S. Department of Commerce

Donald L. Evans, Secretary

Technology Administration

Phillip J. Bond, Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director
 
iii 

ABSTRACT 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology's Building and Fire Research Laboratory, as 

the national laboratory responsible for research into building fires, initiated a program prior to 

the events of September 11 to put structural fire protection on a stronger scientific footing. The 

first phase of this program focused on addressing the poor performance of high strength concrete 

(HSC) in fire, which was not yet reflected in any design codes. The catastrophic collapses of the 

World Trade Center underscored the need not only to accelerate but also to broaden this effort to 

include fire safety design of steel construction. A workshop calling upon scientific and 

engineering experts in materials, fire protection, and structural design was held February 19 and 

20, 2002, at NIST to identify the research required to underpin meaningful test and predictive 

methods for use in evaluating the performance of structures subject to real fires. The specific 

objectives of the workshop were to review current practices for achieving fire resistance; to 

explore the promise of fire dynamics simulations and structural behavior predictions at elevated 

temperatures; to identify new fire resistance options coming from materials science; to identify 

opportunities and needs in advanced computational methods; and to identify applications and 

needs for emerging measurement, instrumentation and test methods. Commercial, academic and 

government experts provided background and suggestions on how best to achieve the objectives, 

from the perspective of the discipline they represented. This information is summarized in these 

Proceedings. Key recommendations include the following: 

• to develop new experimental methods for measuring high temperature thermal and 

mechanical properties of structural and insulating materials; 

• to develop experimental facilities and capabilities for measuring the behavior of real-scale 

connections and assemblies under controlled fires that permit extrapolation to total building 

frame behavior up to the point of failure; 

• to improve the physics and speed of sophisticated numerical models, and to expand the use 

and acceptance of proven, simpler computational design tools;

• to establish as a goal the need to predict the performance of coupled building systems in 

elevated temperatures to the point of impending failure; 

• to develop a strategy to effectively incorporate technological advances in structural fire 

resistance into engineering tools that support performance-based design alternatives; 

• to train and improve communications between the architecture and engineering professions; 

and 

• to appreciate the needs of, and better train, building code officials and regulators. 
iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The success of any workshop is dependent upon the hard work of the individual speakers and 

facilitators, and the efforts of participants motivated toward a common goal. These proceedings 

are an assimilation of the contributions from the workshop participants, with some of the text 

coming directly from the presentations of the invited panelists from the following organizations: 

 

Arup Fire, UK (Barbara Lane) 

Hughes Associates (Craig Beyler and Philip DiNenno) 

Institute for Research in Construction, NRC-CANADA (Venkatesh Kodur) 

Lehigh University (James Ricles) 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (Howard Baum, Shyam Sunder, 

William Pitts, John Gross, Edward Garboczi, and William Grosshandler) 

University of California, Berkeley (Brady Williamson, Abolhassan Astaneh) 

University of Edinburgh (Asif Usmani) 

University of Liege (Jean-Marc Franssen) 

University of Maryland (James Milke and Fred Mowrer) 

University of Utah (Adel Sarofim and Philip Smith) 

SP Fire Technology (Ulf Wickstrom) 

Stanford University (Greg Deierlein) 

Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates (Robert H. Iding) 

Verbatim copies of the presentations are included in the appendix. In addition, the editor wishes 

to acknowledge the assistance of Ms. Wanda Duffin of NIST, who helped with the planning, 

organizing and running of the workshop. 

DISCLAIMER 

Certain companies and commercial products are identified in this paper in order to specify 

adequately the source of information or of equipment used. Such identification does not imply 

endorsement or recommendation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor 

does it imply that this source or equipment is the best available for the purpose. 
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ABSTRACT iii 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv 

DISCLAIMER iv 

BACKGROUND 1 

WORKSHOP ORGANIZATION AND OBJECTIVES 2 

HISTORY AND CURRENT PRACTICE 3 

Craig Beyler, Philip DiNenno, and James Milke 

FIRE TESTING AND SIMULATION 7 

Howard Baum, Adel Sarofim, Philip Smith, Asif Usmani, Venkatesh Kodur, and 

Ulf Wickstrom 

FIRE RESISTANT MATERIALS 13 

R. Brady Williamson, Frederick Mowrer, Robert Iding, and Abdohlhassan Astaneh 

STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE 17 

Jean-Marc Franssen, James Ricles, Greg Deierlein, and Barbara Lane 

SUMMARY 24 

RECOMMENDATIONS 26 

REFERENCES 29 

APPENDICES 

I. Workshop Agenda 31 

II. Workshop Attendees 33 

III. Workshop Presentations 39 
vi
1

FIRE RESISTANCE DETERMINATION & PERFORMANCE PREDICTION 

RESEARCH NEEDS 

BACKGROUND 

The enormity of the loss of life and the economic impact caused by the destruction on September 

11, 2001, has led the scientific and engineering community to recognize its responsibility to 

understand the technical issues associated with the buildings that collapsed that day. The Twin 

Towers, as designed, withstood the physical impact of the aircraft but succumbed to the thermal 

impact of the ensuing fire. WTC 7, with unknown but significantly less structural damage 

collapsed hours later, apparently due to the fire that burned unchecked, making it the first 

instance of a building of such a design to ever fail by this method. The relative amount of 

damage to the Pentagon due to the initial impact and due to the subsequent fire has been 

investigated, which is important if we are to learn the right lessons from the observed building 

performance, occupant behavior, and fire fighter response. 

Central to all these events is the fire resistance of the structures. No one did a calculation ahead 

of time to predict how resistant to heat these buildings were in the event of an extreme fire. 

Why? Consider the following reasons: 

• There was no code requirement to include a realistic fire scenario. 

• A plane crash into a high-rise building followed by severe fire had never occurred. 

• Structural engineers anticipated a possible accidental hit by an aircraft, but the architect 

responsible for fireproofing did no fire analysis. 

• The structural elements were protected with fire resistant coatings and panels following the 

accepted practice of the day. 

• In the late 1960s (when the buildings were designed), the engineering tools available to 

predict the performance of structural connections and assemblies in an actual large fire 

setting were primitive. 

• The prevailing mindset at the time the Towers were designed was "the engineer designs the 

structure and the architect specifies the fire protection." 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST's) Building and Fire Research 

Laboratory (BFRL), as the national laboratory responsible for research into building fires, 

initiated a program prior to the events of September 11 to put structural fire protection on a 

stronger scientific footing. The first phase of this program focused on addressing the poor 

performance of high strength concrete (HSC) in fire, which was not yet reflected in any design 

codes. As a result, scientific data and knowledge related to mechanical properties of HSC at 

high temperature, methods for mitigating explosive spalling in fire-exposed HSC, and 

recommended code provisions for HSC strength-temperature relationship were developed and 

published [30-32]. However, the catastrophic collapses of the World Trade Center underscored 

the need not only to accelerate but also to broaden this effort to include fire safety design of steel 

construction. A workshop calling upon scientific and engineering experts in materials, fire 

protection, and structural dynamics was held February 19 and 20, 2002, at NIST in Gaithersburg, 

MD, to identify the fundamental research required to underpin meaningful test and predictive 
2

methods for use in evaluating the performance of structures subject to actual fires. The agenda 

with the topics covered, speakers names and affiliations is shown in Appendix I. Appendix II 

includes a list of those who attended, and Appendix III contains the presentations. 

WORKSHOP ORGANIZATION AND OBJECTIVES 

The tone of the workshop was set by Sunder (see Appendix III. A) who provided an overview of 

the NIST strategy for advancing standards, technology and practices leading to cost-effective 

safety and security of buildings and critical facilities, with explicit reference to the proposed 

investigation of the World Trade Center disaster. In addition to the 24 month investigation, the 

strategy calls for sustained research and a developmental effort in structural fire protection; 

human behavior, emergency response and mobility; building vulnerability reduction; and an 

industry-led roadmap for construction and infrastructure support. As part of the structural fire 

protection program, research and development are proposed for methods of fire resistance 

determination, improved fire resistance coatings and materials, fire safety design and retrofit of 

structures, and mitigation of progressive collapse. 

Grosshandler laid out a vision that extended beyond a direct response to the events of 9/11/01 

(see Appendix III. B): Vision Scientifically-based performance predictions for the design and 

operation of buildings, accepted by regulators and major stakeholders, that enable a rational 

balance of competing demands for fire safety, function, economy, aesthetics, and environmental 

stewardship. 

Improvements to current understanding of instrumentation development, computational methods, 

and measurement techniques are needed to achieve this vision. The need for performance 

prediction extends to building materials, products, structural elements, and systems up to the 

point of imminent fire-caused collapse of a significant load-bearing element. Assessment of the 

uncertainties in the prediction of performance, and convincing the regulators and stakeholders of 

the validity of the uncertainty established, will be as important as the development of the tools 

themselves. 

The specific objectives of the workshop were laid down by Grosshandler as follows: 

• to review current understanding of practices for achieving fire resistance; 

• to explore the promise of fire dynamics simulations and structural behavior predictions; 

• to identify new fire resistance options coming from materials science; 

• to identify opportunities and needs in advanced computational methods; and 

• to identify applications and needs for emerging measurement, instrumentation, test methods. 

Commercial, academic and government experts provided background and suggestions on how 

best to achieve the workshop objectives, from the perspective of the discipline they represented. 

This information is summarized in the following sections, loosely categorized as History and 

Current Practice, Fire Testing and Simulations, Fire Resistant Materials, and Structural 

Performance. The final sections provide a summary of the workshop and list specific 

recommendations.
3

HISTORY AND CURRENT PRACTICE 

P. DiNenno and C. Beyler 

DiNenno and Beyler (Appendix III. C) provided an overview of designing fire resistance for 

buildings. The first fire endurance tests in the U.S. were conducted in Denver on floors in 1890. 

The New York City Building Department adopted a code around 1900, which required floor 

systems to endure a five hour exposure to a furnace maintained at a temperature of 1100 °C with 

a mass loading of 211 kg/m2

, and to subsequently withstand a load four times this for 24 h. A 

furnace for conducting the test was located at Columbia University. The Baltimore fire in 1904 

led to the formation of an ASTM committee to develop an American standard for fire 

 resistance. The first standards were released in 1908, with similar load requirements but the 

peak furnace temperature decreased from the New York code to 927 °C. Within the next ten 

years, testing was being conducted at Factory Mutual, the National Board of Fire Underwriters, 

the National Bureau of Standards and Underwriters Laboratories. Standard fire resistance tests 

for loaded columns began to be developed at UL around 1917. The year 1918 saw the release of 

ASTM C19, the first edition of the standard that is now numbered ASTM E119 [1], which 

contained provisions for floor and wall testing using a standard time-temperature curve and a 

25% safety factor with respect to time. Ingberg [2] of the National Bureau of Standards led the 

efforts in the U.S. during the 1920s, examining different fuel loads and suggesting that 

integrating the furnace temperature over time was a way to compare performance among various 

fire scenarios and furnace conditions. 

Figure 1. Photograph [3] of building fire as part of a series of tests used to develop timetemperature curve. Inset is a wall assembly ready for testing in the ASTM E119 furnace. 
4

The compelling needs for fire resistance are the following: 

• to prevent building collapse; 

• to prevent fire spread from building to building; 

• to contain the fire from spreading horizontally through wall partitions and vertically 

through floor assemblies; 

• to maintain safe means of egress; 

• to control the movement of smoke; and 

• to provide for fire fighter safety 

Today, fire resistance requirements are established in a purely prescriptive manner by building 

code and are a function of occupancy, height and area of the space, and whether or not sprinklers 

are present. Testing is done routinely at many commercial laboratories following the procedures 

specified in ASTM E119, NFPA 251 [4], ISO 834 [5], or some variant developed by FM or UL. 

A standard time-temperature curve, based upon the work of Ingberg, is used to challenge the test 

specimen. Pass/fail criteria are based upon the peak temperature attained at the back of the test 

article and/or whether or not the test article collapses or distorts in a fashion that allows hot gases 

to escape (and in the case of E119, whether the wall can withstand the pressure of a hose stream). 

Many structural elements are tested unloaded; there is no limit on the amount of deflection that a 

beam can undergo and still pass the test; and connections are not tested at all. Products that are 

tested with these methods are assigned an equivalent fire endurance time (in hours). 

The materials and systems currently used to provide fire resistance to structural members include 

sprayed fibers, cementitious materials, mastics, intumescent paints, suspended ceilings and 

drywall assemblies (membranes), concrete encasements, tiles, and plaster/lath. The adhesion and 

cohesion properties of spray-on fireproofing [6], and gross behavior when exposed to modest 

deflection and indirect impact loads are measured in standard tests [15, 16], but hardness and 

resistance to direct impact are not explicitly measured. 

While a number of revisions were made to the above standards throughout the twentieth century, 

the prescriptive nature for these fire resistance test methods remains unaltered, in spite of 

changing fire loads and significant advances in our knowledge of fire and structural behavior. 

As early as the 1950s the engineering community was beginning to understand a number of 

situations that caused the fire exposure curve established by Ingberg [2] to vary significantly 

from reality, including post-flashover fires, ventilation controlled fires, and different insulation 

properties of wall linings. More was understood about the thermal response of columns and 

beams to changes in temperature, with new analytical, numerical, and experimental methods 

being developed to predict column buckling, beam deflection and truss deflection. Finite 

element heat transfer models, structural response models (e.g., FASBUS [7]), and models of post 

flashover fire conditions (e.g., COMPF [8]) were available by 1980. It is suggested by DiNenno 

and Beyler (Appendix III. C) that all of these tools can be brought to bear on the problem of 

predicting fire resistance performance of structural systems. 

Figure 2 provides a framework for working these issues. Design fire exposure should be dictated 

by a modern fire load survey, and the knowledge gained from our capability to characterize local 

heat flux in a way more meaningful than provided by the well-stirred assumption. Data on the 
5

thermal and mechanical response of insulation systems needs to be institutionalized, and 

standard test methods and performance criteria developed for mechanical response, non-fire 

impact loading and fire exposure. The performance of fire barriers is needed along with that of 

load-bearing elements. The relative role for full structural models and detailed local deformation 

analysis needs to be assessed, especially regarding the performance of connections. A full 

compliment of test methods are needed to establish engineering properties. Furnace testing 

should be severe; e.g., ASTM E1529 [9] is a simple bounding fire exposure that provides a 

harsher (compared to ASTM E119) thermal test of the mechanical properties of fireproofing 

materials. Test methods should relate more directly to the mechanical and thermal environment 

likely to be experienced in a real structural fire, and should be used primarily as a validation of 

engineering methods. Performance criteria must be established depending upon the question 

being asked. 

The greatest difficulty encountered in advancing fire resistance performance prediction, 

according to DiNenno and Beyler, is translating our increased understanding and technology into 

codes and standards. It is necessary to develop a broad consensus for the need to change how 

fire protection engineering is done. Science-based fire protection design practices need to be 

codified, and building codes must be formulated to accept new practices. Education of 

engineers, architects and authorities having jurisdiction is essential. Science-based structural fire 

protection is technically achievable, though it will require a total reexamination of how things 

are done, from product listing to design to operations (inspection, testing and maintenance). The 

payoff is known cost-effective performance and assured safety. 

Figure 2. Science-Based Structural Fire Protection Design (DiNenno and Beyler)

Building Code

Requirements

Listings

- Engineering data

- Furnace validation

Architectural

Design

Structural

Design

Design

Fire

Passive FP

Conceptual

Design

Passive FP

Detailed Design

Thermal/Mech. Analysis

Structural Fire

Performance

Evaluate Performance
6

J. Milke

Milke (Appendix III. D) described an effort by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 

and the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE) to develop a standard on performance-based 

structural fire protection analyses, motivated by the difficulty in relating the current comparative 

tests to actual fire performance. The new standard will outline calculation procedures to link the 

results of tests to structural performance. Other organizations involved in the effort include the 

American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), the concrete industry, the Masonry Alliance for Codes 

and Standards, and the American Forest and Paper Association (AFPA). The analytical 

framework is shown in Fig. 3. The material properties, thermal response and structural response 

of concrete, masonry and steel are each handled in their own section of the standard. A role will 

exist for simple calculations, advanced computations and experiments, all working together to 

determine the performance of individual structural elements, structural assemblies, and the 

global response of the building. 

The fire exposure will be based upon heat flux (including radiative and convective contributions) 

as a function of time as well as temperature vs. time. Pool fires, distributed fires, and external 

fire exposures will be included. The thermal response of the structural elements can be followed 

using multi-dimensional finite element analysis with the boundary conditions provided by the 

(experimental and/or numerical) fire exposure. Although some material properties have been 

tabulated, many more, especially at higher temperature, have to be compiled. The structural 

response will be determined by a combination of first-order, single element analyseis (column 

stability, moment analysis of a slab/beam, isothermal over a range of temperatures). Computer 

simulations are needed to account for temperature distributions in space, variable cross-section 

members, complex loading, and frame analyses. Additional experimental programs are required 

to develop a complete material properties data base, to better characterize complex material 

behavior (cracking, adherence, charring and spalling), to calibrate models, and to examine 

interactions between component building assemblies and adjacent building assemblies within the 

larger structural frame. 

Figure 3. Analytical framework for ASCE/SFPE pre-standard (Milke) 

Fire Exposure

q”(t), T∞(t)

T(x,y,z)

σ, E, α

k, ρ, c Thermal Response

Structural Response

T(x,y,z

Temperature

limit

Material 

Propertie

Stability, 

Load Capacity, 

Deflection, 

Post-fire capability
7

Figure 4. Full-scale steel structure built in Cardington 

Laboratory (left), and during a test fire (Usmani) 

FIRE TESTING AND SIMULATION 

H. Baum

The research needs from a fire modeler's perspective were stated succinctly by Baum. The first 

need is associated with defining the building. While conceptually straightforward, the large 

amount of data available to describe a modern building and the differing ways that these data are 

used for design, operations, and maintenance overwhelms the individual interested in predicting 

fire resistance performance, leading to great inefficiencies in the calculations and limiting their 

value. An efficient way to generate an electronic database that can be accessed seamlessly for 

multiple purposes is critical. The detail has to be sufficient to capture the location and operations 

of the HVAC systems, elevators and stairways. The second need is to develop a better 

understanding of the burning behavior of the contents of modern buildings, including complex 

shaped objects (e.g., real furniture), libraries and paper files. Being able to predict the 

occurrence of fire-induced geometry changes is the third primary need, specifically windows 

breaking and the warping/penetration of partitions (walls and floors). 

A. Sarofim and P. Smith

An overview of the Center for the Simulation of Accidental Fires and Explosions (C-SAFE) 

located at the University of Utah was given by Sarofim and Smith (Appendix III. E). C-SAFE is 

allied with the Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI) to develop (unclassified) 

simulation science in support of the DOE defense program laboratories to safeguard the U.S. 

nuclear stockpile. C-SAFE is focused on the science-based tools for numerical simulation of 

accidental fires and explosions, within the context of handling and storing highly flammable 

material. The accident scenario to be simulated is a conventional high explosive material in a 

metal container of arbitrary shape, size and location within an arbitrary, sooting hydrocarbon 

pool fire. Following an assumed ignition of the liquid fuel, the calculations are made of the fire 

spread, the dynamics of the container, high energy transformations, and conditions that lead to 
8

accidental detonation. An example was provided of a calculation of a 10 m diameter heptane 

pool fire in a (50 m)3

 domain. With 3.4 million computational cells and 6800 time steps, the 

calculation took 18 h to complete on the Los Alamos Nirvana computer (500 processors). The 

challenge for the Center is to make optimum use of the increasing number of processors to allow 

finer spatial resolution. Problem areas for the integrated calculation exist at the interfaces 

between the various phases, communication among the multiple scientific disciplines involved 

and with the ultimate user, and all aspects of data management (transfer, storage, mining). 

Lessons from Sarofim and Smith that may bear on predicting the fire resistance of structures 

include the encouragement to consider interdisciplinary approaches on cross-cutting issues, in 

particular a close collaboration with software engineers and computer scientists. "Amphibians" 

are needed to bridge disciplinary gaps, and the importance of communication cannot be 

overstated. The C-SAFE program has advanced the state of computational chemistry to predict 

properties, mechanisms and kinetics, and more detailed chemistry and fluid mechanics can be 

included in massively parallel computations. The material point methods show promise for 

handling large deformations and the break up of structures. Sarofim and Smith concluded by 

emphasizing the importance of experiments for guiding and validating the computations. 

A. Usmani

An eight story steel structure, shown in Figure 4, was built in Cardington, England in the mid 

1990s [10] to examine the behavior of individual elements and the structural frame when 

exposed to various fire environments. The impetus for the full-scale testing was to demonstrate 

that the requirements for structural design fire safety were overly conservative. The Cardington 

tests have improved our understanding of structural behavior in fire, produced data for validating 

computer models. The new understanding of composite framed structure behavior in fire, so 

generated, may lead eventually to more rational design methods, and could reduce the cost of 

steel fire protection. 

Usmani (Appendix III. G) described the challenge of numerically modeling the response of the 

Cardington structure to different fire loads. ABAQUS [11, 12] was used to examine a large 

number of structural arrangements and the details of modeling and subsequent interpretations of 

behavior are too voluminous to present here. However, interested readers can find many reports 

and other documentation containing substantial details of this work at 

http://www.civ.ed.ac.uk/research/fire/project/main.html. 

Very briefly, this work revealed the following lessons for whole structure behavior in fire: 

• restraint to thermal strain dominates behavior of the composite beam and slab system 

• conventional loading contribution to overall behavior is low 

• the results show low sensitivity to variations in strength and stiffness properties of steel 

• at large deflections tensile membrane action in the spans and compressive membrane 

action near the perimeter supports of floor slabs were observed 

• thermal strains automatically produce a beneficial load-carrying shape in tensile 

membrane action for slabs without large and damaging mechanical strains 

• the load capacity can be further enhanced by thermal pre-stressing 

• local buckling of the lower flange always occurred but was not found to be a detrimental 

mechanism 
9

A simple analysis will reveal that in a member restrained from lateral translation, as the mean 

temperature increases, compression occurs, but as the through-depth temperature gradient 

increases, tension occurs. The former scenario is most likely in a slow growing, protracted fire, 

while the latter results from a rapidly growing, short duration fire. Frames smaller than the 

Cardington structure may have fewer redundant paths, and the fires could extend over the entire 

floor. By the same token, large compartments that may be a part of a very large frame may 

behave quite differently because of the nature of the fire (spreading with local flashover perhaps) 

leading to significantly different structural response. To enable reliable tensile membrane 

mechanisms, it is necessary that the floor slab reinforcement is anchored at the compartment 

perimeter, with interior continuity provided by lapping reinforcement. Edge and corner 

compartments have discontinuous edges that may or may not have fire protection. Unprotected 

edges will provide considerably lower anchorage to tensile membrane forces, therefore 

protecting edge beams seems worthwhile as a means to anchor membrane forces and to protect 

cladding. Further 3-D modeling using DIANA was conducted to examine the impact of these 

variables on the structure and the results produced similar conclusions. 

The key conclusions from this work are that the structural response to a fire depends upon the 

rate of heating as well as the temperature of the structure, and that different fires can produce 

very different stress/strain patterns in composite floor systems. This is because most of the prefailure response of structural members depends upon the two geometric effects produced by 

heating, a mean temperature increase and a mean thermal gradient. The material effects of 

reduction in strength and stiffness begin to dominate just before failure. 

Further research was suggested by Usmani to establish the worst case fire scenario on the basis 

of the maximum structural damage it would inflict on the building (in addition to other life safety 

issues such as smoke movement and egress, the worst case scenario(s) for these may be quite 

different). This would require new scientifically based and practical analysis methods for reliable 

prediction of structural damage against a given heating regime. Research is also required to 

properly include (in a risk-based framework), extreme fire events as limit states, (which should 

be the basis of all structural designs). Tall buildings with long evacuation times require special 

consideration to ensure that localized collapse does not lead to overall progressive collapse. 

Other questions that need further research are: Are floor slab failures ductile or brittle? Can one 

generalize that a short and hot fire places a more severe load on the structure than a sustained, 

less intense fire (or vice versa)? How important is it to model connections, the cooling process, 

and the integrity of non-load bearing compartment boundaries? A final provocative question 

posed (but not answered) by Usmani is, How does one define failure? 

In terms of the fundamental structural and solid mechanics research required in the context of 

understanding structural response to extreme events, perhaps the most important research need is 

as follows. Most failures in large redundant structures have roots in local “seed” events (such as 

a crack or fracture) that grow without being arrested and cause progressive global collapse. 

Many local events in a large redundant structure will occur as load redistribution mechanisms 

and will be self-limiting under the overall equilibrium and compatibility constraints. A thorough 

understanding of the development of local structural phenomena into events that threaten global 

structural stability/integrity should be one of the main research objectives. 
10

V. Kodur 

The positive attributes of high strength concrete for buildings and columns make it an attractive 

material, but its high density and low porosity make it susceptible to spalling under fire 

conditions. Since an intended benefit of concrete is the elimination of additional fire protection, 

methods are required to ensure the fire safety of high strength concrete. However, there are 

currently no guidelines for the exposure of high strength concrete to fire. Test methods for 

evaluating the fire resistance of large-scale structural systems were described by Kodur 

(Appendix III. H), and used to highlight the differences in performance between high and normal 

strength concrete. 

Columns of both types of concrete were examined, with size, load intensity, fiber reinforcement, 

fire intensity, and reinforcement configuration the independent variables. The specimens were 

full-scale and designed according to code, and tested according to the protocol in ASTM E119 

(see Figure 5). Column temperatures, deflections and degree of spalling were the dependent 

variables. The primary observations during the tests were that spalling was not significant in the 

first 30 minutes, and that using 135° (as opposed to 90°) column-ties reduces early spalling to a 

minimum. Within 2 h, hair line cracks appear, widen at corners, and lead to chunks of concrete 

dropping off for the 90° reinforcing bar ties. Failure occurs when the ties open up and the rebar 

buckles. The 135° ties remain superior all the way through the test. The normal strength 

concrete, for comparison, failed only locally, the ties did not open up nor rebar buckle, and less 

spalling occurred. 

Figure 5. Comparison between normal strength concrete (left) and high strength concrete (right) 

after ASTM E119 column test. 
11

Figure 6. Photograph of modern floor testing furnace (Kodur) 

Kodur summarized the factors that influence fire performance of concrete: compressive 

strength, reinforcement layout, moisture content, concrete density, heating rate, aggregate type, 

load intensity and type, and fiber reinforcement. The major factors that enhance spalling and 

decrease fire resistance are higher concrete strength and higher loads; factors that reduce spalling 

and increase fire resistance are closer tie spacing, 135° ties, use of carbon aggregate, and use of 

reinforcing fibers. The experimental work conducted at CNRC was complimented by numerical 

studies of the factors influencing behavior, using thermal and mechanical properties measured at 

elevated temperatures, to develop design equations for fire resistant structures. 

For the future, Kodur emphasized the need for realistic conditions when assessing fire resistance, 

the need for analytical tools and specified fire scenarios, with validated models, design fires and 

material properties. To be ready for performance-based codes, the industry must have suitable 

calculation methods, software packages and design guides. High performing materials must 

satisfy fire resistance criteria, and practical and cost-effective solutions to overcome current 

shortcomings are necessary. 

U. Wickstrom

The need for improved fire testing in combination with calculations was the theme stressed by 

Wickstrom (Appendix III. I). When analyzing the performance of structures exposed to fires, 
12

one needs to consider the fire development (design fire), heat transfer to fire exposed structures, 

temperature development in the structures, and the resulting mechanical behavior of the 

structures. To improve fire resistance design, standard methods for measuring thermal and 

mechanical properties of structural and protective materials must be developed. Techniques for 

improving furnace testing and for monitoring deformation properties during the test are also 

required. Two specific techniques put forth by Wickstrom are the transient plane source, heat 

transmission, thermal diffusivity (TPS) apparatus and the plate thermometer. The former 

consists of a thin heater that is sandwiched between flat sections of the fire protection material 

under investigation. By following the temperature as a function of heat input, position, and time, 

key thermal properties can be generated. The plate thermometer can be used to monitor and 

control the temperature in the furnace (e.g., ISO 834 or ASTM E119). The benefit of the plate 

thermometer is that it allows one to calculate the true structural temperature in close agreement 

with the measured structural temperature (see Figure 7), in contrast to the standard shielded 

thermocouple. While no techniques were proposed for measuring deflection during the test, 

Wickstrom emphasized that such data are essential to relate calculated behavior to actual 

expected behavior. 

Figure 7. Temperature measurements in floor assembly furnace test, comparing the plate 

thermometer to the calculated temperature. 

Plate Thermometer Measurements 
13

Figure 8. Alternative temperature-time curves for fire resistance tests (left), and a photograph of 

a steel column ready for testing in the furnace. 

FIRE RESISTANT MATERIALS 

R.B. Williamson

Williamson (Appendix III. K) briefed the participants on the history of fire protection of 

structural steel and the materials used for that purpose. Dating back to the 1898 Home Life Fire 

in New York City, a new approach to high rise safety began emerging that required buildings to 

be constructed of columns, floors, walls and other elements that were fire resistive, defined as the 

ability of an element to withstand the effects of fire for a specified period of time without loss of 

its fire separating or load bearing function. This ability was determined by exposure in a furnace 

to sustained high temperatures. Various temperature-time curves are used today, depending 

upon the country and application. Figure 8 compares the ISO 834 test, the hydrocarbon fire 

(ASTM E1529), and external fire exposures to the standard ASTM E119 curve (also shown in 

Figure 1). A column instrumented for a test is shown on the right. 

The first materials used for fire proofing in the early 20th century were traditional construction 

materials such as masonry or concrete, which led to substantial labor costs and excessive 

weights. Gypsum-based systems such as wire lath and plaster systems came on the market thereafter, but these also suffered labor and weight penalties. Like concrete, these systems derived 
14

Figure 9. Construction worker 

applying spray resistive material 

much of their effectiveness from water of crystallization, which is immune from normal 

evaporation. Sprayed fire resistive materials (SFRM) were introduced about 40 years ago as a 

lower labor cost, lighter weight alternative to concrete and lath/plaster. The SFRM also derived 

its fire resistive properties from water of hydration contained in the gypsum or portland cement 

used to bind various fibers and other fillers. A worker is shown applying SFRM at a recent 

construction site in Figure 9. 

Williamson [13] specified four performance requirements of SFRM: performance under actual 

fire conditions; durability and integrity under normal life of structure; durability and integrity 

under the construction process; and integrity under extreme conditions (earthquakes, thermonuclear attack, severe fire). A number of ASTM tests currently are used (in addition to E119 for 

fire resistance) to address these requirements: 

ASTM E605 [14], Thickness and Density 

ASTM E736 [6], Test for Cohesive/Adhesive Properties of SFRM 

ASTM E759 [15], Effect of Deflection 

ASTM E760 [16], Effect of Impact on Bonding 

ASTM E761 [17], Compressive Strength 

ASTM E937 [18], Corrosion of Steel by SFRM 

A fundamental weakness of all of these tests is that they are not well linked to materials science. 

According to Williamson (Appendix III. K), there are many different SFRM materials 
15

commercially available today, but the current test methods do not adequately address the most 

important properties or the range of conditions from ordinary fires to the extremes of a terrorist 

attack. 

The current method for testing the cohesive/adhesive properties of SFRM (ASTM E736) consists 

of a disk with a hook for hanging a weight that is attached to the sprayed on fire resistive 

material with a quick setting adhesive. The material must withstand a minimum weight before 

becoming dislodged. The weakness of this method is that while failure from poor adhesion can 

be distinguished from failure due to poor cohesion, the method is incapable of providing failure 

loads for each, just whichever fails first. Williams [19] suggests an alternative approach to 

evaluate the adhesive properties separately, using what is called a blister test. Williamson 

(Appendix III. K) suggests adapting this technique to SFRM. A thin plastic bag with a bladder 

feed hose can be attached to the rigid steel substrate before applying the fire resistant material. 

The feed hose would extend beyond the fire resistive material layer. A measured pressure could 

be applied to the feed hose to cause the bag to inflate, and a blister would grow at the interface of 

the steel and SFRM to a size related to the interfacial properties. 

Williamson concluded his remarks by recommending that the fire and non-fire performance of 

fire resistive materials be reevaluated in terms of current challenges to buildings and other 

structures. A new approach to testing and approvals is necessary, supported by sound research to 

characterize the available materials and to establish the micro-structure/property relationships 

that are central to materials science. 

F. Mowrer

Mowrer (Appendix III. J) listed a series of steps that typically might occur when a building is 

fireproofed. 

Figure 10. Missing spray-on fire proofing around a 

connection (left ) and missing fireproofing panels on a steel column (Mowrer). 
16

These include the following: 

• structure erected 

• fireproofing applied 

• fireproofing inspected (maybe) 

• fireproofing scraped off 

• other building services installed 

• everything covered with finishes 

• fireproofing forgotten 

Conditions that are troublesome include connections, attachments, members with extreme W/D 

ratios, long spans, and end restraints. Since connections are not evaluated in tests, what is the 

best way to protect them against fire? How much fireproofing do attachments require, and is it a 

function of the thickness and/or length of the element? Fireproofing thickness requirements are 

based upon standard geometries; how do those relate to round members and other non-planar 

arrangements? Four meters is about the maximum span tested; how are the fireproofing 

requirements extrapolated to spans that are considerably longer? Furnace test articles are often 

wedged into the frame; how does this arrangement relate to real-world constraint conditions? 

How can deficiencies in fire proofing be identified during inspections, and how can they be 

corrected? If fire proofing is damaged or missing, how does that impact the overall performance 

of the structure? (See Figure 10.) These are all issues that require research solutions. 

R. Iding

Iding (Appendix III. L) presented several case studies of performance-based structural analysis 

to determine fireproofing requirements [20]. There are three key elements in the approach: 

• Fire Hazard Analysis - identify all possible fire scenarios and determine gas temperatures 

achieved adjacent to structural members. 

• Thermal and Structural Analysis - calculate temperature history in structural elements and the 

elements' response (forces and stresses) to the fire with varying levels of fireproofing. 

• Risk Mitigation Plan - revise fireproofing scheme, or devise alternative risk reduction 

schemes, to ensure performance is acceptable for type of building being designed. 

A step-by-step methodology was described, with examples given for a transient trash fire in a 

power plant and fireproofing for an unusual structure for which no prescriptive code applied: the 

Eiffel Tower II in Las Vegas. 

The following specific recommendations were provided by Iding: 

• identify material properties at elevated temperatures, particularly those of spray-on fire 

proofing and intumescent paint 

• develop analytical tools for structural connections 

• develop peer review protocol for performance-based analysis during transition to new 

methodology 

• incorporate basic capabilities for fire analysis into commercial computer codes that can 

handle non-linear structural effects 
17

• expose engineering students and practitioners to basics of structural fire analysis and 

computational tools, and sponsor workshops for non-specialists 

• codify methods to calculate fire curves for most common scenarios to assist design engineers 

for routine applications 

• examine fire safety of building as a whole and develop practical methods to avoid 

progressive collapse that could be incorporated into performance-based building codes 

A. Astaneh

Astaneh (Appendix III. M) discussed the protection of steel structures against impact, explosion 

and ensuing fire. An impact is a force applied on a building over a short time interval, and 

depending upon the geometry and velocity of the impacting object or pressure wave, dynamic 

forces are generated throughout the building which can cause serious damage at the local and 

global level to the structure and fire protection systems. The main route to life safety is by 

preventing collapse of the building directly following the initial impact and after any ensuing 

fire. The use of catenary action provided by a floor was presented as a possible technology to 

mitigate collapse. Cables imbedded in a floor specimen were shown to be able to significantly 

retard the onset of failure. The gross physical behavior was mimicked in a finite element 

analysis. 

The challenge posed by Astaneh was for realistic modeling of the behavior of steel and 

composite structures exposed to sustained fires. Data are needed on the fire resistance of light 

weight and high strength concrete and on steel connections. More realistic models of local and 

overall buckling of steel and composite structures (including composite shear walls) at elevated 

temperatures are needed. Composite shear walls with a gap between the wall and frame could be 

used, for example, to protect egress routes. Research is also needed to better predict the 

performance of various structural systems, especially at elevated temperatures. 

STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE 

J-M. Franssen

The frontiers of structural fire modeling were explored by Franssen (Appendix III. N). The 

temperature in the structure and mechanical behavior are simulated with SAFIR [21], a nonlinear, transient finite element model that determines the structure temperature as a function of 

three directions and the gas temperature, and determines the 3-dimensional displacements as a 

function of the structural temperature and loads. Limitations on computational resources 

constrain the capabilities of the mechanical model when 3-dimensional temperature field 

calculations such as those in Figure 11 are made. Beam finite element calculations provide a 

link between the thermal and mechanical analysis of the structural frame. Shell finite element 

calculations work well on thin elements and can successfully predict severe deformations, as 

shown in Figure 12. 

The limits of structural fire modeling are associated with eight factors. (1) The first factor is the 

lack of thermal properties of structural materials (the thermal conductivity of concrete, for 

example, is presently under discussion in Europe, as well as the impact of radiative heat transfer 

to H-steel sections, the so called shadow effect that reduces the radiation to the inner surface of a 
18

Figure 11. Temperature distribution in two steel beams connected by cover plates (Franssen) 

Figure 12. Shell finite element simulation showing severe deformation of a steel column 

(Franssen) 
19

wide flange section). (2) The second factor is the interaction between the gas and the structure in 

the case of localized fires, which is a problem for both CFD and zone models of the fire. (3) 

Spalling in concrete is a third factor that limits structural fire models. (4) The beam finite 

element models are based upon the Bernoulli hypothesis (that parallel planes remain parallel 

during deformation), which is a fourth factor limiting modeling in situations with significant 

rotation, local buckling, shear failure or debonding of reinforcing bars or prestressing tendons. 

(5) A non-physical local and/or temporary negative stiffness can arise in some situations, which 

causes the calculation to terminate. (6) Boundary conditions in the substructures are difficult to 

specify. Which may be more appropriate, fixed or free conditions? (7) A seventh limitation is 

the definition of failure. How much deformation qualifies as a failure of the element? 

(Suggested criteria are given by Ryan and Robertson [22].) (8) Finally, structural fire models are 

limited to structures that do not exceed a certain size because computational resources are finite. 

Franssen (Appendix III. N) concludes that 

"for understanding and designing structures submitted to fire, numerical modelling offers 

capabilities that are unique. The frontiers at the moment are

• Spalling in concrete 

• Thermal properties 

• Local or temporary failures 

• Very large structures 

• Very large displacements 

• Boundary conditions 

• Interface with environment in localised fires 

• Resources (money, time, people, ... )" 

J. Ricles

The response of structures to earthquakes and extreme fires was reviewed by Ricles (Appendix 

III. O). Analysis and experimental testing are essential tools for predicting the fate of a building 

during an earthquake. Material modeling must deal with cyclic plasticity, cyclic degradation of 

material stiffness and strength, and fracture, all non-linear phenomena. Geometric nonlinearities accompany local buckling and global instabilities (P-∆). 

Experimental testing is required to develop a database on real performance, to demonstrate proof 

of concept, and to calibrate analytical models. Shake table testing is precisely controlled and 

provides data in real time; however the specimen sized is quite limited. Reaction wall testing 

(pseudo-static or pseudo dynamic) allows one to test full-scale specimens, although the building 

system's response to the loads are not real time (compared to earthquake time scales). Full-scale 

component tests can also be conducted in multi-dimensional reaction wall facilities, although 

choosing the most appropriate boundary conditions, and controlling them requires careful 

attention. Time response remains an issue. 

Finite element analysis can be applied to building details such as welded connections to examine 

the impact of cyclic load in the local region around the joints. Non-linear analysis of the 
20

structural system over time can also be performed, with the details of the connections such as 

panel zone deformations and connector flexibility (i.e., semi-rigid connections) considered. 

Elevated temperatures effect the yield strength, the ultimate stress, the modulus of elasticity, and 

the coefficient of thermal expansion of all structural materials, leading to a dramatic decrease in 

structural performance of steel above 600 °C. Member restraints change, large displacements 

can occur, and loads shifted to other parts of the structure. Beam twisting and local buckling, 

column local buckling, and connection failure are all observed. 

Ricles (Appendix III. O) lists the following research issues and needs: 

Testing

• determining the effects of structural redundancy, restraint, connections, and non-load 

bearing elements during structural component vs. structural system testing 

• determining how to maintain the proper thermal environment 

• developing heat resistant structural response sensors 

• establishing proper testing protocol 

• constructing and maintaining adequate facilities for fire testing 

Analysis

• calibration of models with test data 

• structural component vs. structural system modeling, with concern for the effects of 

structural redundancy, restraint, connections, and non-load bearing elements 

• thermal input 

• time scale 

• non-linearities 

− change in material properties due to thermal input and loading 

− geometric non-linearities (large displacements, local buckling, load shifting) 

− connection modeling (stiffness and strength deterioration, fracture) 

Ricles concludes that success has been achieved in predicting the performance of structures to 

extreme earthquakes using sophisticated analytical models and experimental testing. Predicting 

the fire resistance and performance of structures is challenged by the physical complexities of 

structural fires, the level of sophistication needed for analytical models, and the compounding 

difficulty of experimental testing to calibrate these models. 

G. Deierlein

Parallels were drawn by Deierlein (Appendix III. P) between performance-based engineering for 

fire and for earthquake hazards. Citing the ICC 2000 Performance Code [23], the objective of 

the design is "to limit the impact of a fire event in the building, its occupants, processes and use; 

and to limit the impact of an exposing fire on buildings, adjacent properties and processes." A 

level IV performance group (see Fig. 13) includes vital facilities that can sustain only moderate 

damage even under the rarest of disasters (earthquake or fire), while a low performing (level I), 

expendable structure can tolerate design criteria that lead to severe damage for a rare event, and 

moderate damage for frequent small events. 

The qualitative description from the matrix can be made more explicit by relating the damage 

assessment to replacement cost and/or casualty rate, as shown in Figure 14 based upon the work 
21

Figure 13. ICC 2000 performance matrix [23]. 

Figure 14. Explicit performance assessment in terms of earthquake intensity [24]. 

PERFORMANCE GROUPS 

Small MODERATE MILD MILD MILD 

(Frequent)

Medium HIGH MODERATE MILD MILD 

(Less Frequent) 

Large SEVERE HIGH MODERATE MILD 

(Rare) 

Very Large SEVERE SEVERE HIGH MODERATE

(Very Rare) 

I II III IV 

Performance 

Measure

Seismic 

Hazard 

Intensity

Downtime, days

Casualty rate 0.0001 0.001 0.01 .25

% replace. cost 25% 50% 100%

1 7 30 180

Damage 

Threshold Collapse 

Comprehensive Damage 

Assessment 
22

by Holmes [24]. As presented by Deierlein, the key attributes of performance based approaches 

are that they are more scientific and transparent, they address stakeholder decision needs at 

multiple levels, and they provide for a consistent treatment of risk and uncertainties. The 

methodology has four serial components: input damage intensity measures (e.g., earthquake 

duration and strength), engineering demand parameters (e.g., drift and acceleration felt by 

building), resulting damage measures (e.g., condition assessment and necessary repairs), and 

decision variables (e.g., fatalities and injuries, dollars lost, downtime). By examining each of the 

components in detail, a probabilistic description of a decision variable can be developed. 

A parallel methodology was suggested to guide decisions involving fire safety design. Intensity 

measures could include fire load and compartment temperatures. Engineering demand 

parameters might be related to peak structural temperatures and deflections. The damage 

measures and decision variables would be similar to those used in the performance based 

earthquake engineering methodology, with the additional special considerations of the fire 

services. Questions that need to be answered in developing this methodology include the 

following: 

• For whom is the methodology intended: the fire protection engineer, the structural engineer 

or the mechanical engineer? 

• How does one describe the fire scenario, and how many scenarios need to be examined? 

• How faithfully must the global analysis be able to predict local degradation of members, 

connections and composite action? 

• Is there a different tolerance of risk for fires vis a vis earthquakes? 

• What is the minimum level of protection required, and how does one quantify higher 

performance levels? 

Deierlein summarized the issues and needs for improved fire resistance performance prediction o 

include a comprehensive methodology that is consistent with other hazards and evolving code 

provisions; a probabilistic fire hazard assessment; codification of acceptance criteria such as 

explicit numbers of causalities or dollars lost, component strength checks, and survival duration; 

structural simulation tools; and validation through laboratory tests and field reconnaissance. 

B. Lane

Lane (Appendix III. Q) presented her list of items needed most for a numerical model of 

structural response to fire conditions, from the perspective of a consultant. She suggested that 

there were widespread concerns about the standard fire resistance test (temperature/time 

relationship is not the same as in real fires; structural response and fire protection materials 

response are important; how to deal with the huge body of existing data; how to relate standard 

fire test data to numerical structural fire models; the need for a new test). She felt that all could 

agree that mechanical response is not properly addressed in the current test (single elements 

tested and single elements analyzed; real frame behavior ignored, including effects of restrained 

thermal expansion, load transfer through connections to cooler elements, slab actions that 

sometimes may increase overall strength of composite frame). 
23

Current finite element models are just beginning to capture the complexities of structural fire 

response. The principles for advanced calculation models are laid out in the Eurocode 3, Part 

1.2, Structural Fire Design [25], and in CIB W014 [26], Rational Fire Safety Engineering 

Approach to Fire Resistance in Buildings. There is also the ASCE/SFPE effort to guide fire 

model applications, and work sponsored by AISC. The information that needs to come from 

these studies should lead to a reference document for consultants and authorities having 

jurisdiction, stating design objectives and means for achieving acceptable results. 

 

Clear guidance is required on the design-basis fires. Do we create a new standard fire resistance 

test, use temperature-time relationships from real fire data, or calculate the real fire environment 

from the known fuel load, ventilation, and boundary properties? 

Once the design-basis fires are established, the heat transfer to the structural elements can be 

calculated, which leads to a time varying temperature field in each element. How well have 

existing heat transfer models been assessed, and are they sufficient for current construction 

materials and fire proofing? What level of detail is required regarding the temperature field? 

The structure responds to the high temperature in a fire with a combination of effects: loss in 

strength and stiffness of the structural elements, compression forces in the elements produced by 

restraint to thermal expansion, greater deflections resulting from higher restraint, and curvature 

in the elements imposed by through-depth thermal gradients. The combination of these can 

produce a range of deflections and internal force patterns. Non-linear analysis is required to 

handle these complexities. A means to translate the results of the complex models into simple 

tables for mainstream design is needed, as is a way to use these models to incorporate new 

understanding into building codes. An intensive effort over the last decade in Europe is 

beginning to bear fruit. It is essential to build on this work rather than to start again, and to 

reformat the input and output to be useful in a design office. 

Some specific models currently in use were mentioned by Lane. VULCAN [27], an implicit 

scheme developed by the University of Sheffield, applies to steel-framed buildings only, and was 

used to interpret the results of the Cardington full-scale tests. Geometric and material 

nonlinearities are included, and plate elements are used to simulate floor slabs. Beam-column 

elements are used to simulate beams and columns, and spring elements simulate the steel-to-steel 

connections. The heat transfer analysis is not a part of VULCAN. The University of Edinburgh 

used ABAQUS [10, 28], a non-linear model specifically for composite steel-framed buildings, to 

compare with the results of the Cardington fire tests. A stress resultant approach is used to 

describe the behavior of the shell elements simulating the floor slabs. Shear connectors are 

incorporated with rigid elements and pins joins approximate steel-t-steel connections. 

Reinforcements within the slab are included using a smeared model. ABAQUS includes heat 

transfer, assuming uniform temperature across elements but not necessarily along elements. 

Both an implicit and explicit version exist. Other models that should be examined are explicit 

such as LS-DYNA [29]. These models may be able to anticipate collapse because the can cope 

with highly non-linear situations. A thermal analysis may be conducted in parallel with the 

mechanical analysis. More computing time and power are obviously associated with these 

capabilities. 
24

Lane's wish list consists of the following: 

• come to agreement on the concerns, issues and inaccuracies 

• develop a reference document laying out acceptable principles required for AHJs and 

consultants 

• establish the criteria for choosing a design fire, and the data, model, and input for codes 

• establish heat transfer analysis capabilities 

• compare and contrast existing 3D finite element models 

• further develop these models to address complex behaviors associated with structural 

response to fire (beyond Cardington) 

• develop usable commercial analysis tools 

• develop the means to translate results into building codes and simple design methods 

SUMMARY

Following the expert presentations described above, the participants broke into three parallel 

teams to discuss research issues and raise additional ones as they saw appropriate. Each team 

came up with their own list of priorities and shared them with the whole group on the second 

day. Their presentations are include in Appendices III. R. through III. T and summarized in the 

following paragraphs. 

Lack of communication among disciplines was expressed by the first team as a hindrance to the 

introduction of new methods and technologies to structural fire safety. The proper education of 

young engineers and building designers would eventually overcome this hindrance, but it was 

felt to be critical to get the right information on structural fire performance to the structural 

engineering community and the authorities having jurisdiction in a more expeditious fashion. 

Establishing a full-time position at NIST dedicated to this problem, making use of steering 

committees to better define project goals and objectives, and development teams with fire 

modelers, structural engineers, computer scientists, and materials scientist were recommended as 

ways to increase communications across disciplines. The need to publish and to disseminate 

new research results across disciplines was also highlighted. 

Construction materials were a second focus of recommendations. What is our current state of 

knowledge? Where gaps exist, we need to acquire basic thermal and physical properties using 

well thought out principles and accepted test methods, including under conditions likely to exist 

within a fire. The effects of material variability on installed performance need also be assessed. 

New information is required to characterize durability and reliability of fireproofing materials 

during normal operation and in the event of a fire, and the implication of these properties on 

inspection and maintenance protocols. Is there a role for new sensing methods? 

There is a general lack of understanding of the science underlying existing test methods and the 

proper use of data derived therefrom. In fact, many current test methods are not well suited to 

collecting useful data; at the same time, the vast amount of test data that has been accumulated 

cannot be ignored. New fire test methods may be needed to address data gaps and to allow 

proper interpretation of the ratings generated from flawed or incomplete existing test methods. 
25

Although the tools used most often in design have an over reliance on empirical data and a 

general lack of scientific basis, a review and summary of the current generation of predictive 

methods would be useful. A recognized procedure for specifying the design fire is required. 

Integration of the gas phase fire models with structural response models is the key to progress, 

and we should borrow freely from computational methods generated outside the fire community 

as appropriate. Extending capabilities of current CFD models to better address flashover 

conditions is also required. All improved predictive capabilities will require full scale, fully 

instrumented validation tests with interaction between modellers and experimentalists. As a first 

step, a prototype simulation methodology could be developed joining a selected specific choice 

of existing software for fire simulation, thermal/mechanical properties, and structural response. 

Eventually, one would need a practical predictive tool for progressive collapse in fire, as well. 

The practical difficulty of blending structural numerical codes that are primarily commercial 

with fire numerical codes that are primarily public will need to be addressed as well 

The second team listed validated engineering tools, a design framework for new construction, 

design for retrofitting existing construction, integration of structural and fire performance-based 

design, and education of engineers, designers and AHJs as the desired end products of a 

coordinated research effort. Tools for modeling fire growth include space independent models, a 

simplified approach that includes space/opening effects, and CFD models. The latter can not be 

used for direct routine design but can be used to develop design tools and for special design 

issues. A need-based approach must be established for fire growth models. The objective and 

amount of uncertainty that is acceptable helps define the need, which points out the utility of a 

standardized process for uncertainty quantification and analysis techniques. 

Insulating and fire proofing materials dictate the amount of heat that will enter the structural 

elements. One needs to measure the thermal properties of insulating materials as a function of 

temperature, the adhesion/cohesion properties, and the tendency toward destructive 

decomposition due to abrasion and thermal degradation. Understanding the role of geometry (of 

the insulation and underlying structure) on durability is critical as well. The thermal/mechanical 

properties of structural materials as a function of temperature are a basic need. These include all 

properties of special steels (light gage steel, high strength/performance steels, welds, bolts, rebar, 

pre-stressing), high strength concrete, normal strength concrete , FRPs, aluminum, timber, and 

glazing. 

Validation is needed of existing structural response tools for assemblies (including connections) 

and systems under fire conditions (including soot and other fire phenomena effects). Structural 

response engineering sub-models for specific fire phenomena and fire barrier models need to be 

developed. Structural response models need incorporation of high strength concrete behavior in 

analysis and design, and guidance on how to apply the “fire load” as a load combination to the 

entire structure. What are the design limit states (i.e., objectives of design)? 

Performance criteria for insulating materials need to be developed for in-service use, including 

impact, maintenance and inspection over the life of the structure. The same is required for 

structural materials, products and systems. 
26

Improved fire measurement technologies (especially for heat flux) are required, along with 

standardized test methods for material property determination and for structural components 

such as connections. The possible use of existing ASTM E119 for standard fire model validation 

should be evaluated. 

The third group listed fire exposure, thermal response, structural response, mitigation strategies 

(including the use of redundancy, prevention, and design with fire safety in mind) and improved 

communications among engineers, and regulators as critical needs. Instrumentation of real fires 

is needed to obtain better fuel load characterization, the impact of spatial distribution, 

temperature/oxygen histories, heat flux, products of combustion, and full cycle (heating and 

cooling) data. The behavior of fire proofing and non-structural elements (including glazing) 

needs to be modeled, including material properties and the thermal response of slabs, 

dehydration and cracking, improved high temperature performance data (modification of high 

strength concrete with polymer inclusion, composites), hysteresis, and the difference in response 

to "short-hot" and "long-cool" fires. 

To predict structural response one needs to understand deflections and stresses, the behavior of 

connections, fire proofing materials, the impact of heating and cooling cycles, and to develop an 

efficient means to merge fire and structural models (zone with frame models). The models need 

also to be coupled with experiments for validation and to properly design the experiments and 

measurement methods. Detailed phenomenological models of chemistry, molecular dynamics, 

crack development, and pyrolysis behavior will aid the development of new materials and a 

better understanding of the thermal environment created by the fire.

Validation experiments and measurements are needed for basic material properties (especially 

the effect of temperature), constitutive properties of slabs (concrete), single step experiments, 

(ignition, fire spread), multiple step experiments (corner fires, flashover), and integrated tests 

(enclosures, building fires). Proper instrumentation is required to capture spatial and temporal 

aspect of fires, behavior of non-structural components (glazing), local stresses and deflection, 

and heat transfer through connections. The "real world" provides opportunities for validation 

through analysis of accidental fires. 

Performance objectives should include the ability to relate test conditions to the real world. 

A danger with testing to traditional temperature-time curves arises from the dimensionality of the 

real world, which has the important implication that it determines the response; e.g., a plume 

impacting on the ceiling combines convection and radiation loads on the structure; flash-over has 

not been modeled, and yet the transition can significantly modify the heat transfer; and illdefined air availability changes the dynamics of the fire. There is a need to translate test results 

into real world situations. The integrity of fire walls is a major factor. Fire test data need to be 

used to validate models, but there are little data on more complex structures. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

The stated objectives of the workshop were to review current practices for achieving fire 

resistance; to explore the promise of fire dynamics simulations and structural behavior 

predictions; to identify new fire resistance options coming from materials science; to identify 
27

opportunities and needs in advanced computational methods; and to identify applications and 

needs for emerging measurement, instrumentation and test methods. The first objective was 

clearly met as documented in this report and referenced material. A better appreciation was 

achieved across the multiple disciplines represented of what can and cannot be done with the 

current generation of fire dynamics and structural behavior models. No new fire resistance 

options nor materials technologies were revealed, although the paucity of technical data on 

current fireproofing materials and the inadequacy of test methods to evaluate their performance 

were themes that emerged continuously. The need to measure additional variables during 

structural fire testing and to quantify the uncertainty of parameters regularly measured were 

identified as problems worthy of study. An issue not originally raised but which emerged 

naturally during the discussions was the need to increase communications and education 

horizontally across technical disciplines and vertically from the research community to the 

regulator. 

The following recommendations are the editor's synthesis of the discussions and opinions 

expressed by participants of the workshop: 

Communication/Education/Training 

• Cross-train practicing structural engineers, architects and fire protection engineers involved 

in new building construction and retrofit projects to ensure that rational fire safety is 

inculcated into the profession. 

• Modify engineering and architecture curricula to increase student exposure to crossdisciplinary team work to enhance awareness of the other disciplines' capabilities in, and 

constraints to, assuring practical fire safe designs. 

• Develop innovative techniques to better educate building code officials, AHJs, and the fire 

service of the capabilities and limitations of standard test methods and computational tools. 

Thermal and Mechanical Properties of Materials

• Identify existing and/or develop new experimental techniques for measuring the thermal and 

mechanical properties of structural materials (normal and high strength concrete, steel, 

steel/concrete composite, aluminum, fiber-reinforced composite, timber) at temperatures up 

to their point of failure. 

• Standardize measurement methods and use them to accumulate a consistent, reliable high 

temperature data base on the thermal and mechanical properties that dominate the response of 

a structure to a severe fire up to the point of failure. 

• Develop experimental protocols for measuring, at elevated temperature, the thermal and 

mechanical properties of non-structural building materials (glazing, fire stops, intumescent 

coatings, structural fireproofing) that impact structural integrity during a fire, and accumulate 

a consistent, reliable high temperature data base. 

Measured Behavior of Connections and Assemblies

• Develop experimental methods and protocols for measuring the thermal and mechanical 

behavior of fireproofing as installed and when degraded by time, temperature, and stress. 
28

• Develop experimental methods and protocols for measuring the response of structural 

connections (including welds, bolts, rivets and adhesives) when exposed to severe fire 

conditions and loads. 

• Develop fully instrumented experimental facilities for exposing floor and wall composite 

assemblies to controlled fires under measured loads up to the point of failure. 

• Develop large-scale test facilities to the extent necessary to extrapolate the behavior of 

connections and assemblies to the behavior of whole building frames. 

Computational Models

• Develop a guide for AHJs and designers detailing the range of fire and structural models that 

currently exist, including limitations and constraints. 

• Establish a framework (or more likely a patchwork) of models to couple the fire exposure, 

the heat transfer, and structural behavior. 

• Develop more efficient structural and CFD algorithms to expand the number of significant 

physical phenomena and the range of length scales that can be practically accommodated. 

• Develop subgrid models to better resolve the heat transfer from the fire environment to the 

structural elements, and expand fire models to include post-flashover conditions. 

• Develop efficient submodels for failure of structural connections and interfaces at elevated 

temperatures. 

• Use numerical models to design experiments and standard test methods, and use results of 

experiments and tests to improve computational models. 

Standard Test Methods and Codes

• Establish as a goal the need to predict the performance of coupled building systems to the 

point of impending failure in a fire. 

• Determine the extent to which ratings from current standard fire resistance tests indicate the 

reserve capacity of structural assemblies under moderate and severe fire conditions. 

• Modify standard test methods or develop new ones to demonstrate our ability to predict 

reserve capacity from computational models and measured behavior of connections and 

assemblies. 

• Identify which existing engineering tools and fire-proofing materials that have been 

developed and evaluated in the past 50 years provide an opportunity to significantly upgrade 

our ability to design fire resistance into buildings, and work to fast-track their acceptance into 

current building codes. 

• Develop a strategy to effectively incorporate technological advances in structural fire 

resistance into engineering tools that support performance-based design alternatives. 

By acting on these recommendations, we will move towards the vision put forth at the workshop 

of buildings whose designs balance competing demands for function, aesthetics, fire safety and 

economy, using scientifically-based performance predictions that are so sound that the 

predictions can be endorsed by all major stakeholders. 
29

REFERENCES 

[1] "ASTM E 119-98: Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction 

Materials," ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1999. 

[2] Ingberg, S.H., "Tests of the Severity of Building Fires," Quarterly of NFPA 22, 43-61 

(1928). 

[3] Photo by Hugh Miller in "Fire Test of Brick Joisted Buildings, " Quarterly of NFPA 22, 65 

(1928).

[4] "NFPA 251: Standard Methods of Test of Fire Endurance of Building Construction 

Material," NFPA International, Quincy, MA, 1999. 

[5] "ISO 834: Fire resistance tests -- Elements of Building Construction," International 

Organization for Standardization, Geneva. 

[6] "ASTM E 736-92, Test Method for Cohesion/Adhesion of Sprayed Fire-Resistive Material 

Applied to Structural Members," ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1999. 

[7] Chiapetta, R.L., and Salmon, M.A., "A Computer Program for the Analysis of Fire 

Endurance of Structural Building Components," IITIRI Report, Illinois Institute of Technology, 

Chicago, May 1975. 

[8] Babrauskas, V., "COMPF2: A Program for Calculating Post-Flashover Fire Temperatures. 

Final Report," NBS TN 991, National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, MD, June 1979. 

[9] "ASTM E 1529-00: Standard Test Methods for Determining Effects of Large Hydrocarbon 

Pool Fires on Structural Members and Assemblies," ASTM International, West Conshohocken, 

PA, 2002. 

[10] Bengtsson, L-G., Gustavsson, S., Tuovinen, H., and Werling, P., "Experiments at the 

Cardington Large Building Test Facility," Brandforsk project no. 746-961, SP AR 1997:15, 

Brandteknik, Boras, 1997. 

[11] ABAQUS Theory Manual and Users Manual, ver. 5.4, Hibbit, Karlsson and Sorensen, Inc., 

Pawtucket, RI, 1994. 

[12] Lamont S. "The behavior of multi-storey composite steel framed structures in response to 

compartment fires," PhD thesis The University of Edinburgh, 2002. 

[13] Williamson, R.B., Report to Sprayon International, 1972. 

[14] "ASTM E 605-93: Test Method for Thickness and Density of Sprayed Fire-Resistive 

Material (SFRM) Applied to Structural Members," ASTM International, West Conshohocken, 

PA, 1999. 

[15] "ASTM E 759-92: Test Method for Effect of Deflection on Sprayed Fire-Resistive Material 

Applied to Structural Members," ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1999. 

[16] "ASTM E 760-92: Test Method for Effect of Impact on Bonding of Sprayed Fire-Resistive 

Material Applied to Structural Members," ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1999. 

[17] "ASTM E 761-92: Test Method for Compressive Strength of Sprayed Fire-Resistive 

Material Applied to Structural Members," ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1999. 

[18] "ASTM E 937-93: Test Method for Corrosion of Steel by of Sprayed Fire-Resistive 

Material (SFRM) Applied to Structural Members," ASTM International, West Conshohocken, 

PA, 1999. 

[19] Williams, M.L., Appl. Poly. Sci 14, 735-745 (1970). 

[20] Iding, Robert H., "Performance-based Structural Analysis to Determine Fireproofing 

Requirements: Methodology, Case Studies, and Research Needs," Proceedings of the Workshop 

to Identify Innovative Research Needs to Foster Improved Fire Safety in the United States, 
30

National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council, Washington, D.C., April 15-16, 

2002. 

[21] Nwosu, D.I., Kodur, V.K.R., Franssen, J.-M., and Hum, J.K., User Manual for SAFIR: A 

Computer Program for Analysis of Structures at Elevated Temperature Conditions, National 

Research Council Canada, int. Report 782, 1999, p 69. 

[22] Ryan, J.V., and Robertson, A.F., "Proposed Criteria for Defining Load Failure of Beams, 

Floors, and Roof Construction During Fire Tests," Journal of Research of the National Bureau 

of Standards - C. Engineering and Instrumentation, 63C, 121-124 (1959). 

[23] International Building Code, International Code Council, Inc., Falls Church, VA, 2000. 

[24] Holmes, W., and Barry, T.F., "FPEQRA: Fire Protection Engineering Quantitative Risk 

Assessment," in Proceedings, Fire Risk and Hazard Assessment Symposium, National Fire 

Protection Research Foundation, San Francisco, June 1996. 

[25] Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures — Part 1.2: General rules — Structural fire design 

(together with United Kingdom National Application Document) DD ENV 1993-1-2:2001 

Corrected and reprinted September 2001. 

[26] "Rational Fire Safety Engineering Approach to Fire Resistance in Buildings," CIB Report, 

Publication 269, W014 Fire. 

[27] Allam, A.A., Burgess, I.W. and Plank, R.J., "The Large-Deflection Behaviour of Steel and 

Composite Frames in Fire", Proc. SFPE International Conference on Engineered Fire Protection 

Design, San Francisco, June 2001. 

[28] Usmani A.S., Rotter J.M., Lamont S., Sanad A.M. and M.Gillie, "Fundamental principles 

of structural behavior under thermal effects," Fire Safety Journal Vol. 36 No. 8, 2001. 

[29] LS-DYNA Users Manual Version 950, Livermore Software Technology Corporation, 1999. 

[30] Phan, L.T., “High-Strength Concrete at High Temperature – An Overview,” Proceedings of 

6th International Symposium on Utilization of High Strength/High Performance Concrete, June, 

Leipzig, Germany 2002, pp. 501-518. 

[31] Phan, L.T., and Carino, N.J., “Effects of the Test Conditions and Mixture Proportions on 

Behavior of High-Strength Concrete Exposed to High Temperatures,” ACI Materials Journal, 

Vol. 99, No. 1, January-February 2002. 

[32] Phan, L.T.; Carino, N.J., “Mechanical Properties of High-Strength Concrete at Elevated 

Temperature,” NISTIR 6726, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 

20899, March 2001. 
31

 APPENDIX I. Workshop Agenda

RESEARCH NEEDS FOR FIRE RESISTANCE 

DETERMINATION & PERFORMANCE PREDICTION

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA 

Building 101, Lecture Room B 

February 19 and 20, 2002 

WORKSHOP AGENDA 

Tuesday

8:45 Introductory Session (Chair: William Grosshandler, Chief, Fire Research Division, NIST) 

Welcome to NIST, Jack Snell, Director, Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

NIST Response to Sept. 11, Shyam Sunder, Chief, Structures Division, NIST 

Goals of Workshop, William Grosshandler

9:20 Session I (Chair: William Grosshandler) 

Overview of Designing Buildings for Fire Resistance, Craig Beyler and Philip DiNenno,

Hughes Associates, Baltimore, USA 

ASCE/SFPE Standard on Performance-based Structural Fire Protection Analyses, James Milke, 

Department of Fire Protection Engineering, University of Maryland, USA 

10:00 Break 

10:20 Session II (Chair: William Pitts, Fire Research Division, NIST) 

Simulation of Accidental Fires and Explosion, Adel Sarofim and Philip Smith, Department of 

Chemical Engineering, University of Utah, USA 

Research Needs for Building Fire Models, Howard Baum, Fire Research Division, NIST, USA 

Simulation of the Cardington Fire Tests, Asif Usmani, University of Edinburgh, UK 

Fire Resistance Evaluation of Large-scale Structural Systems, Venkatesh Kodur, Institute for 

Research in Construction, NRC-CANADA 

Improved Fire Testing in Combination with Calculation, Ulf Wickstrom, SP Fire Technology, 

Borås, SWEDEN 

Discussion and short presentations from participants on fire modeling 

12:20 Lunch, NIST cafeteria 
32

1:15 Session III (Chair: Edward Garboczi, Building Materials Division, NIST) 

Degradation in Performance of Installed Fire Resistance Materials, Frederick Mowrer, 

Department of Fire Protection Engineering, University of Maryland, USA 

Performance-Based Analytical Prediction of Fireproofing Requirements in Complex Buildings, 

Robert H. Iding, Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, San Francisco, USA 

Materials for the Fire Protection of Structural Steel, Brady Williamson, Department of Civil 

and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, USA 

 

Protection of Steel Structures Against Blast, Impact and Ensuing Fires, Abolhassan Astaneh, 

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, USA 

Discussion and short presentations from participants on fire resistant materials 

3:20 Session IV (Chair: John Gross, Structures Division, NIST) 

Structural Fire Modeling: Where is the Frontier Nowadays? Jean-Marc Franssen, Institute de 

Mécanique et Génie Civil, University of Liege, BELGIUM 

Fire Resistance and Performance Prediction: Structural Analysis Issues and Research Needs, 

James Ricles, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Lehigh University, USA 

Parallels Between Performance-Based Engineering for Fire and Earthquake Hazards, Greg 

Deierlein, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, USA

A Consultant's Wish List for a Numerical Model of Structural Response to Fire Conditions, 

Barbara Lane, Arup Fire, London, UK 

Discussion and short presentations from participants on structural modeling 

5:00 Break-out sessions to identify research needs (W. Pitts [LR-B], J. Gross [B111], and 

E. Garboczi [B113], facilitators)

6:30 Dinner and informal discussion at local restaurant

Wednesday

8:30 Reconvene breakout sessions (W. Pitts [LR-D], J. Gross [B111], and E. Garboczi [B113])

10:45 Summary of breakout session discussions (spokespersons from parallel sessions), LR-D 

12:15 Lunch, NIST cafeteria 

1:15 Open discussion, LR-D (Chair: W. Grosshandler) 

 Workshop Recommendations and Assignments 

4:00 Adjourn
33

APPENDIX II. Workshop Attendance List 

Name Organization CONTACT Information 

Ronald Alpert FM Global Research 

P.O. Box 9102 

Norwood, MA 02062 

ronald.alpert@fmglobal.com 

tel. 781-255-4920 

FAX 781-255-4024 

Farshad Alamdari Fire Research & Risk Sciences (FRS) 

BRE, Garston, Watford, WD25 9XX, UK 

alamdarif@bre.co.uk 

T +44 (0) 1923 664947 

F +44 (0) 1923 664910 

M +44 (0) 7775 701792 

J. Guadalupe Arguello Sandia Nat'l Laboratories 

P. O. Box 5800 – MS 0847 Albuquerque, 

NM 87185-0847 

jgargue@sandia.gov 

tel. (505) 844-1482 

FAX (505) 844-9297 

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl University of California 

781 Davis Hall 

Berkeley, CA 94720 

astaneh@ce.berkeley.edu 

(510) 642-4528 

Jonathan Barnett Worcester Polytechnic Institute 

100 Institute Rd. 

Worcester, MA 01609 

jbarnett@wpi.edu 

508 831-5113 

508 831-5680 

Howard Baum Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

NIST, MS-8663 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

howard.baum@nist.gov 

(301) 975-6668 

Robert M. Berhinig Underwriters Laboratories 

333 Pfingsten Rd. 

Northbrook, IL 60062 

robert.m.berhinig@us.ul.com 

(847) 664-2292 

Jesse Beitel Hughes Assoc. 

3610 Commerce Dr., Ste. 817 

Baltimore, MD 21227 

jbeitel@haifire.com 

410-737-8677 

410-737-8688 fax 

Craig Beyler Hughes Assoc. 

3610 Commerce Dr., Ste. 817 

Baltimore, MD 21227 

cbeyler@haifire.com 

410-737-8677 

410-737-8688 fax 

Nelson Bryner Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

NIST, MS-8661 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

nelson.bryner@nist.gov 

(301) 975-6868 

Richard Bukowski Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

NIST, MS-8664 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

richard.bukowski@nist.gov 

(301) 975-6853 

Peter Chang National Science Foundation pchang@nsf gov 

Ken Chong National Science Foundation ken.chong@nist.gov 

Len Cooper Hughes Associates lycooper@erols.com 

(301) 229-4474 
34

Name Organization CONTACT Information 

John Danko Isolatek International 

41 Furnace Street 

Stanhope, NJ 07874 

jdanko@isolatek.com 

973-347-1200, x 202 

973-347-9443 fax 

Greg Deierlein Stanford University 

Dept. of Civil & Env. Engr 

Stanford, CA, 94305-4020

ggd@stanford.edu 

tel. 650-723-0453 

FAX 650-723-7514 

Jason Dreisbach National Academy of Sciences jdreisba@nas.edu 

Philip DiNenno Hughes Assoc. 

3610 Commerce Dr., Ste. 817 

Baltimore, MD 21227 

phil@haifire.com 

410-737-8677 

410-737-8688 fax 

Clarissa Ferraris Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

NIST, MS-8621 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

clarissa.ferraris@nist.gov 

(301) 975-6711 

Jean-Marc Franssen Université de Liège 

Inst. de Mécanique et Génie Civil 

Chemin des chevreuils, 1 

4000 Liège 1, Belgium 

 jm.franssen@ulg.ac.be 

tel. +32-4-366.92.65 (dir.) 

+32-4-366.92.51 (secr.) 

fax. +32-4-366.95.34 

Thomas Fritz Armstrong World Ind. 

2500 Columbia Avenue, Room 5203A 

Lancaster, PA 17604 

Thomas_W_Fritz@armstrong.com 

tel.717-396-5679 

FAX 717-396-5486 

Ed Garboczi Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

NIST, MS-8621 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

edward.garboczi@nist.gov 

(301) 975-6708 

Richard Gewain Hughes Assoc. 

3610 Commerce Dr., Ste. 867 

Baltimore, MD 21227 

dgewain@haifire.com 

410-737-8677 

Jeff Gilman Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

NIST, MS-8665 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

jeffrey.gilmani@nist.gov 

(301) 975-6573 

James Griffith, Jr. Southwest Research Institute, Bldg 143 

PO Drawer 28510 

San Antonio, TX 78228-0510 

jgriffith@swri.edu 

(210) 522-2311 

Louis Gritzo Sandia Nat. Laboratories 

P.O. Box 5800 

Albuquerque, NM 

87185-0821 

lagritz@sandia.gov 

tel. (505) 844-8353 

FAX: (505) 845-3151 

John Gross Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

NIST, MS-8611 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

john.gross@nist.gov 

(301) 975-6068 
35

Name Organization CONTACT Information 

William Grosshandler Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

NIST, MS-8660 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

william.grosshandler@nist.gov 

(301) 975-2310 

Anthony Hamins Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

NIST, MS-8663 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

anthony.hamins@nist.gov 

(301) 975-6598 

Robert H. Iding Wiss, Janney, Elstner Assoc. 

2200 Powell St. 

Emeryville, CA 94608 

riding@wje.com 

tel. 510-428-2907 

fax 510-429-0456 

Rudy Jagnandan Isolatek International 

41 Furnace Street 

Stanhope, NJ 07874 

rjagnandan@isolatek.com 

 973-347-1200, x 204 

973-347-9170 fax 

Richard Kaczkowski USG Research & Technology Center 

700 N. Highway 45 

Libertyville, IL 60048 

RKaczkowski @usg.com 

Tel: 1-847-970-5255 

Fax: 1-847-970-5299 

Venkatesh Kodur Institute for Research in Construction; 

National Research Council of Canada 

Bldg. M59, 1500 Montreal Road Ottawa, 

ON, K1A 0R6 Canada 

venkatesh.kodur@nrc.ca 

tel. (613) 993-9729 

FAX. (613) 954-0483 

Mamoru Kohno Building Research Institute 

Tachihara 1, Tsukuba 305-0802, Japan 

 kohno@kenken.go.jp 

+81-298-79-0692 

Barbara Lane Arup Fire, Ove Arup and Partners Ltd 

13 Fitzroy St, London, W1T 4BQ 

barbara.lane@arup.com 

tel. +44 2077553303 

FAX +44 2077552001 

Dan Madrzykowski Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

NIST, MS-8661 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

daniel.madrzykowski@nist.gov 

(301) 975-6677 

Kevin McGrattan Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

NIST, MS-8663 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

kevin.mcgrattan@nist.gov 

(301) 975-2712 

James Milke Dept. of Fire Protection Engineering 

University of Maryland 

College Park, MD 

milke@eng.umd.edu 

David Moore Construction Division 

BRE, Garston 

Watford, WD25 9XX, UK 

mooredb@bre.co.uk 

Fred Mowrer Dept. of Fire Protection Engineering 

University of Maryland 

College Park, MD 

fmowrer@eng.umd.edu 

301-405-3994 
36

Name Organization CONTACT Information 

George Mulholland Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

NIST, MS-8662 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

george.mulholland@nist.gov 

(301) 975-6695 

Harold Nelson Hughes Assoc. 

4217 Kings Mill Lane 

Annandale, VA 

hnelson444@aol.com 

(703) 256-2004 

(703) 256-0411 FAX 

Andrew Osborn Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. 

14 Washington Rd., Ste. 501 

Princeton Junction, NJ 08550 

aosborn@wje.com 

Long Phan Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

NIST, MS-8611 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

long.phan@nist.gov 

(301) 975-6077 

William Pitts Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

NIST, MS-8662 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

william.pitts@nist.gov 

(301) 975-6486 

Kuldeep Prasad Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

NIST, MS-8663 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

kuldeep.prasad@nist.gov 

(301) 975-3968 

Ron Rehm Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

NIST, MS-8663 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

ronald.rehm@nist.gov 

(301) 975-2704 

James M. Ricles Department of Civil and Environmental 

Engineering 

117 ATLSS Drive 

Bethlehem, PA 18015-4729 

(610) 758-6252 

jmr5@lehigh.edu 

Richard Roby Combustion Science Engineering 

8940 Old Annapolis Rd., Ste. 2 

Columbia, MD 21045 

roby@csefire.com 

(410) 884-3266 

James Rossberg Structural Engineering Inst, ASCE 

1801 Alexander Bell Dr. 

Reston, VA 20191-4400 

jrossberg@asce.org 

Arnold Rosenberg Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

NIST, MS-8621 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

arnold.rosenberg@nist.gov 

(301) 975-2421 

Adel Sarofim U. Utah/Reaction Engineering 

Salt Lake City, UT 

sarofim@reaction-eng.com 

(801)585-9258 

(801) 364-6977 FAX 

Paul E. Senseny FM Global 

P.O. Box 9102 

Norwood, MA 02062-9102 

paul.senseny@fmglobal.com 
37

Name Organization CONTACT Information 

Mark Shmorhun Grace Performance Chemicals 

62 Whittemore Avenue 

Cambridge, MA 02140 

Mark.Shmorhun@grace.com 

(617) 498-4316 

(617) 498-4360 FAX 

Phil Smith Dept. of Chemical and Fuels Engineering 

University of Utah 

Salt Lake City, UT 84112 

smith@crsim.utah.edu 

801-585-3129 

Richard Smith National Science Foundation 

CTS Division 

4201 Wilson Blvd. 

Arlington, VA 22203 

rnsmith@nsf.gov 

(703) 292-8371 

Kenneth Steckler Treasury/ATF KDsteckler@atfhq.atf.treas.gov 

Shyam Sunder Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

NIST, MS-8610 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

sunder@nist.gov 

(301) 975-6713 

Amal Tamim WR Grace 

62 Whitemore Ave 

Cambridge, MA 02140 

amal.tamim@grace.com 

tel. 617-498-4441 

FAX:617-498-4419 

Russ Thomas National Research Council Canada, Bldg. 

M-59 

Montreal Road 

Ottawa, Ontario K1A OR6, CANADA 

russ.thomas@nrc.ca 

(613) 993-0817 

(617) 954-0483 fax 

Jose Torero Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engr. 

The University of Edinburgh 

Edinburgh, EH9 3JN, UK 

jltorero@eng.umd.edu 

Asif Usmani University of Edinburgh asif.usmani@ed.ac.uk 

Alex Wenzel Southwest Research Institute, Bldg 143 

PO Drawer 28510 

San Antonio, TX 78228-0510 

awenzel@swri.edu 

(210) 522-2311 

Ulf Wickstrom SP Fire Technology 

Box 857, SE-501 15 Borås 

SWEDEN 

ulf.wickstrom@sp.se 

Tel: +46 33 165194 

Fax: +46 33 417759 

R. Brady Williamson UC Berkeley 

1052 Merced Street 

Berkeley, CA 94707 

bradywilliamson@sbcglobal.net 

tel: (510) 527-2248 (home) 

fax: (510) 525-3009 

Phillip Wearne The Learning Channel pkwearne@hotmail.com 

(202) 232-2875 

Robert Wills Regional Director, Construction Codes & 

Stds., American Iron & Steel Inst. 

907 Spyglass Circle 

Birmingham, AL 35244 

rwills@steel.org 

205) 980-0016

(205) 980-0391 Fax 
38
39

APPENDIX III. Presentations 

A. NIST Response to Sept. 11 

Shyam Sunder, Chief, Structures Division 

Building and Fire Research Laboratory, NIST 
40
41
42

B. Goals of Workshop 

William Grosshandler, Chief, Fire Research Division 

Building and Fire Research Laboratory, NIST 

WHAT IS OUTSIDE OUR CHARTER?

• Buildings less than ten stories tall

• Industrial facilities

• Impact damage

• Blast protection

• Progressive collapse not initiated by fire

• Incremental improvements to current 

codes and standards

Courtesy of We idlinge r Assoc iates, Inc .

STRUCTURAL 

ENGINEERING 

FIRE PRO TECTIO N 

ENGINEERING

MATERIALS SCIENCE 

& ENGINEERING

WHAT IS WITHIN OUR CHARTER?

MECHANICAL 

ENGINEERING

FIRE RESISTANCE DETERMINATION

& PERFORMANCE PREDICTION

Objectives of Workshop:

• Review current practices for achieving fire resistance.

• Explore promise of fire dynamics simulations and 

structural behavior predictions. 

• Identify opportunities in materials science.

• Identify opportunities/needs in advanced 

computational methods; and for new measurement, 

instrumentation, and test methods.

FIRE RESISTANCE DETERMINATION

& PERFORMANCE PREDICTION

Developments needed to achieve vision:

• Validated tools (instrumentation, computational 

methods, measurement techniques) necessary to

predict performance of building materials,

products, structural elements, and systems up to the

point of imminent fire-caused collapse of tall 

buildings

FIRE RESISTANCE DETERMINATION

& PERFORMANCE PREDICTION

Vision: A rational balance of competing demands 

for function, aesthetics, fire safety and economy in 

tall buildings

• enabled by scientifically-based performance 

predictions, and

• endorsed by all major stakeholders.

Time Horizon: Ten years
43
44

C. Overview of Designing Buildings for Fire Resistance 

Craig Beyler and Philip DiNenno 

Hughes Associates, Baltimore, MD 
45
46
47
48
49
50
51

D. ASCE/SFPE Standard on Performance-based Structural Fire Protection Analyses 

James Milke, Department of Fire Protection Engineering 

University of Maryland, College Park, MD 

 
52
53
54

E. Simulation of Accidental Fires and Explosions 

Adel Sarofim and Philip Smith, Department of Chemical Engineering 

University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 
55
56
57
58

F. Research Needs 

Howard Baum, Fire Research Division 

Building and Fire Research Laboratory, NIST 

• Defining the building 

- Generating electronic databases 

- HVAC systems, stairways, and elevators 

• Burning the office environment 

- Furniture and other non-planar items 

- Libraries and paper files 

• Fire induced geometry changes 

- Window breaking 

- Warping of partitions 
59

G. Simulation of Cardington Fire Tests 

Asif Usmani, 

University of Edinburgh, UK 
60

24/03/2002 11

STRUCTURES AND FIRE RESEARCH INSTITUTE (Est. 2002)

JM Rotter, DD Drysdale, BP Sinha, J Torero, AS Usmani, Pankaj, M Gillie

Thermal bowing

M = EIφT, y

Curvature => φ =αT, y

2

l

2

l sin

1 φ

φ

ε φ = −
61
62
63
64
65

 
66
67

25/03/2002 53

STRUCTURES AND FIRE RESEARCH INSTITUTE (Est. 2002)

Axial force in primary beam B14: All beams unprotected JM Rotter, DD Drysdale, BP Sinha, J Torero, AS Usmani, Pankaj, M Gillie
68
69
70

H. Fire Resistance Evaluation of Large-scale Structural Systems 

Venkatesh Kodur, Institute for Research in Construction 

NRC-CANADA
71
72
73
74
75
76

I. Improved Fire Testing in Combination with Calculation 

Ulf Wickstrom, SP Fire Technology 

Borås, SWEDEN 
77
78
79

J. Degradation in Performance of Installed Fire Resistance Materials 

Frederick Mowrer, Department of Fire Protection Engineering 

University of Maryland, College Park, MD 
80
81

 
82

K. Materials for the Fire Protection of Structural Steel 

R. Brady Williamson, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering 

University of California, Berkeley CA 
83
84
85

L. Performance-Based Analytical Prediction of Fireproofing Requirements in Complex 

Buildings, Robert H. Iding, Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, San Francisco 

(See file App III L.pdf) 
89

M. Protection of Steel Structures Against Blast, Impact and Ensuing Fires 

Abolhassan Astaneh, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering 

Unversity of California, Berkeley CA 
90
91
92
93
94

N. Structural Fire Modeling: Where is the Frontier Nowadays? 

Jean-Marc Franssen, Institute de Mecanique et Genie Civil 

University of Liege, BELGIUM 
95
96
97
98
99
100
101

Steel frame – axial forces at 20°C
102
103
104
105
106
107

O. Fire Resistance and Performance Prediction: Structural Analysis Issues and Research 

Needs 

James Ricles, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering 

Lehigh University, Bethlehem PA 

(see file App III O.pdf) 
112

P. Parallels Between Performance-based Engineering for Fire and Earthquake Hazards 

Greg Deierlein, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering 

Stanford University, Stanford CA 
113
114
115
116

Q. A Consultant's Wish List for a Numerical Model of Structural Response to Fire Conditions 

Barbara Lane, Arup Fire 

London, UK 
117
118
119

R. Summary of Red Breakout Session 
120
121

S. Summary of Blue Breakout Session
122
123

T. Summary of Green Breakout Session 
124
Performance-Based An

Prediction of Firepro

Requirements in Com

Buildings

By Robert H. Iding

Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associa

Research Needs for Fire Resistance Determination and Pe

National Institute of Standards and Techno

Gaithersburg, MD

February 19 and 20, 2002
Analytic Approach 

Approach

Fire Safety Desig

Q Possible fire exposures based on 

conditions (fuel load, ventilation, 

Q Temperature history during fire ca

heat conduction computer progra

Q Based on calculated temperatures

endurance determined using struanalysis computer programs.

Heat Conduction Equ

Heat Conduction Equ
Fire Boundary Condi

Fire Boundary Condi
Matrix Heat Conduction 

Matrix Heat Conduction 
Fixed Fire Hazards on Gro

of Healy Power Pla
Transportation Fire Haz

Ground Floor of Healy Po
Large Truck Fire Sce
Motor Control Center Fire 
Effect of Temperature on 

Between Elevated-Tempe

Room-Temperature Yield 

of Steel
Column Exposure Temp

from Maintenance Refu
Column, Adjacent Base P

Floor Slab Discretize

Finite Element Me
Steel Temperature Hist

Maintenance Refuse 
Eiffel Tower II
Calculated Steel Tempe

in Eiffel Tower II 

Four Fire Scenari
Behavior of Structures in Extreme Events

James Ricles

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA

NIST Workshop on

Fire Resistance Determination and Performance Prediction

February 19-20, 2002
Presentation

• Response of Structures to Severe Earthquakes

• Elevated Temperature Effects on Structural Steel Systems

• Research Needs for Fire Resistance Determination and 

Performance Prediction
Response of Structures to Severe Earthquakes

Damage to Olive View Hospital from 1971 San Fernando EQ

Soft-story Mechanism Column Failure

Source: Chopra, 2001

10 20 30

Ground 

Time - sec.

Accel - g -0.40

0.0

0.40

0

ug(t) :
Structural Response Prediction to Earthquakes

Analysis

• Material modeling (non-linearities)

- Cyclic plasticity

- Cyclic degradation of material stiffness and strength

- Fracture

• Geometric non-linearities

- Local buckling

- Global instabilities (P-Δ effects)

Experimental testing

- Database on real performance

- Proof of concept

- Calibration of analytical models
Earthquake Structural Performance Evaluation

Experimental Testing

Shake Table Testing

• Real Time

• Limited Specimen Size

University of California, Berkeley

Shake Table (Source: Chopra, 2001)
Earthquake Structural Performance Evaluation

Experimental Testing

Reaction Wall Testing

(Pseudo-Static or Pseudo Dynamic)

• Not Real Time

• Full-Scale Specimens

Lehigh University Multi-directional Reaction Wall 

Testing Facility

r

4

r

r

2

3

r

Actuator

1

Complete

Building System Test
Earthquake Structural Performance Evaluation

Experimental Testing

Component Tests

(Pseudo-Static or Pseudo Dynamic)

• Not Real Time

• Boundary Condition Effects

• Full-Scale Specimens

Lehigh University Multi-directional Reaction Wall 

Testing Facility
Earthquake Structural Performance Evaluation

Analysis

Finite Element Analysis of Welded Connection

• Material and geometric non-linearities

• Emphasis on local joint region 

• Cyclic load analysis

Pin Roller

Applied Lateral Load

: Lateral Brace

Global model

Sub-model Equivalent Plastic Strain in Weld Access Hole Region
Earthquake Structural Performance Evaluation

Analysis

Finite Element Analysis of Welded Connection

Cyclic Equivalent Plastic Strain
Earthquake Structural Performance Evaluation

Analysis

Finite Element Analysis of Welded Connection

Deformed Shape with Local Buckling

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

-10 -5 0 5 10

Lateral Displacement, D- inches

Lateral Load, H - kips

Test

Analysis

Lateral Load – Displacement Hysteretic 

Response
Earthquake Structural Performance Evaluation

Analysis

Nonlinear Structural System Time History Analysis

2190 712

2190 712

3022 756

2753 688

T o- kN Ff- kN

1659 539

3022 756

4.5

7

m

5

@

3

9. 6

m

4@9.15m = 36.6m

CFT16x16

CFT16x16

CFT16x16

Column Sizes

-30,000

-20,000

-10,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

-6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6%

Column Rotation (rad)

Moment (k-in)

10 20 30

Ground 

Time - sec.

Accel - g -0.40

0.0

0.40

0

Segment

Element

Slice with 

Fibers

Fiber σ−ε

σ

ε

x ́ y ́

I 

J

ε, P

φ, M
Earthquake Structural Performance Evaluation

Analysis

Nonlinear Structural System Time History Analysis

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

-600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600

Floor Displacement (mm)

Story Level

FR MRF

MRF with

PFDC

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0

Residual Floor Displacement (mm)

Story Level

FR MRF

MRF with PFDC

4.5

7

m

5

@

3

9. 6

m

4@9.15m = 36.6m

CFT16x16

CFT16x16

CFT16x16

Column Sizes

-600

-450

-300

-150

0

150

300

450

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

Time (sec)

Dis

pla

c

e

m

e

nt (m

m)

FR MRF

MRF with PFDC

-600

-450

-300

-150

0

150

300

450

600

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

Time (sec)

Dis

pla

c

e

m

e

nt (m

m)

FR MRF

MRF with PFDC
Structural Steel Behavior at Elevated Temperature

Steel Production

(Source: Tide, 2000)

Phase Diagram for Structural Steel

Ferrite

Austenite

Austenite and

Ferrite

Ferrite

Ferrite and Cementite

Pearlite and Cementite Pearlite 

and Ferrite

Percent Carbon

Te

m

p

e

r

atu

r

e, F

0 0.8 2.0

3200

2800

2400

2000

1600

1200

800

400

Steel Production
Structural Steel Behavior at Elevated Temperature

Mechanical Properties

0 400 800 1200 1600

Temperature, F

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

F

y

/

F

y @ 70

0

Yield Stress

0 400 800 1200 1600

Temperature, F

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

F

u/F

u @ 70

0

Ultimate Stress

0 400 800 1200 1600

Temperature, F

E/E @ 70

0

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Modulus of Elasticity

(Source: Tide, 2000)

0 400 800 1200 1600

Temperature, F

α

/

α @ 70

0

0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

Coef. of Thermal 

Expansion
Structural Steel Behavior at Elevated Temperature

Structural Behavior

Cardington Lab Fire Test, U.K.

(Source: Gewain and Troup, 2001)

• Temperature Rise and Distribution

- Change in Material Properties

- Thermal Expansion

• Member Restraint

• Large Displacements

• Shifting Load
Structural Steel Behavior at Elevated Temperature

Structural Behavior

(Source: Tide, 2000)

Beam Twisting

Beam Local Buckling

Column Local 

Buckling

Connection

Failure
Post-Fire Structural Integrity Evaluation

Dexter and Lu, 2001

(Source: Dexter and Lu, 2001)

One Meridian Plaza (Phil, PA)

• 38-Story Steel Frame Bldg

• 1991 Fire, 18-hr Duration

• 9 Fire Floors
Post-Fire Structural Integrity Evaluation

Dexter and Lu, 2001

(Source: Dexter and Lu, 2001)

Building Position After Fire

• Inelastic Deformations During Fire

• Changes in Beam Length – Locked 

in Forces in Members
Post-Fire Structural Integrity Evaluation

Dexter and Lu, 2001

(Source: Dexter and Lu, 2001)

Non-linear Static Pushover Analysis 
Research Issues and Needs

Testing -

- Structural component vs. structural system tests (effects of structural 

redundancy, restraint, connections, non-load bearing elements)

- Thermal input

- Measuring structural response (thermal effect on sensors)

- Test protocol

- Adequate facility for conducting fire testing

Analysis -

- Calibration of models with test data 

- Structural component vs. structural system modeling (effects of structural 

redundancy, restraint, connections, non-load bearing elements)

- Thermal input

- Time scale

- Non-linearities:

- Change in material properties due to thermal input and loading

- Geometric non-linearities (large displacements; local buckling; load 

shifting)

- Connection modeling (stiffness and strength deterioration; fracture)
Summary and Conclusions

(1) Success has been achieved in predicting the performance of structures to 

extreme earthquakes

- Sophisticated analytical models

- Experimental testing

(2) Predicting the fire resistance and performance of a structure has several 

challenges. The complexities involved require sophisticated analytical models, 

and experimental testing to calibrate these models.