NIST Technical Note 1828

Software Independent Data 

Mapping Tool for Structural Fire 

Analysis

Dilip K. Banerjee
NIST Technical Note 1828

Software Independent Data 

Mapping Tool for Structural Fire 

Analysis

Dilip K. Banerjee

Materials Science and Engineering Division

Materials Measurement Laboratory

February 2014

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Penny Pritzker, Secretary

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Patrick D. Gallagher, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Director 
Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this

document in order to describe an experimental procedure or concept adequately.

Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by the

National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the

entities, materials, or equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose. 

National Institute of Standards and Technology Technical Note 1828

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Tech. Note 1828, 45 pages (February 2014) 

CODEN: NTNOEF
1

Software Independent Data Mapping Tool for Structural Fire Analysis

Dilip K. Banerjee

Abstract

In order to model the structural behavior under fire, three separate analyses need to be 

conducted: a) fire propagation and growth (fire modeling), b) transient heat transfer in structural 

members due to fire, and c) structural analysis to account for both thermal and mechanical load. 

Advanced methods for fire modeling are based on computational fluid dynamics (CFD) 

approach. Typical heat transfer analysis is conducted using finite element analysis (FEA) 

approach employing solid 3-D or 2-D shell elements. Structural analysis is often conducted using 

a FEA approach, but employing beam and shell elements, especially for large structures. While 

both thermal and structural analyses are conducted using finite elements, fire modeling is often 

carried out using finite difference method (FDM), where the computational domain is discretized 

using rectangular grids. The computational domain is made up of right parallelepipedic volumes 

called meshes. Fire modeling is also conducted with the finite element method in some cases.

Typical outputs of a fire model are heat flux and gas temperature field, which are inputs to the 

heat transfer model as thermal boundary conditions. Subsequently, the transient temperatures 

computed by the heat transfer analysis in the entire computational domain comprising structural 

members are inputs to the structural analysis model. However, this transfer of data is rather 

complicated because of the difference in the level and type of discretization used in each of these 

analyses. As mentioned earlier, fire modeling using CFD approach uses FDM, while both heat 

transfer and structural analyses use FEA approach. Since the type of discretization is different, a 

mapping tool is therefore required to transfer temperatures and heat flux from fire model to a 

heat transfer model. This is because the coordinates of nodes or grid points in both models may 

vary. On the other hand, the transfer of data from heat transfer model to structural analysis model 

poses additional challenges as different types of elements are used in each analysis (e.g., solid 

elements in thermal model while beam and shell elements in structural model). A mapping tool is 

also required to transfer the thermal data from heat transfer model to structural analysis model.

This document describes the approach developed for both types of data transfer. Transfer of data 

from fire model to heat transfer model is discussed first. Then the transfer of data from heat 

transfer model to structural analysis model is discussed. 
2

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................3

2. Data Transfer from Fire Model to Heat Transfer Model...........................................................................4

2.1. Run FDS2ASCII from command line:..................................................................................................7

2.2. Strip header and text information in FDS output file ........................................................................8

2.3. Create a FE model for thermal modeling:..........................................................................................9

2.4. MATLAB data mapping script:............................................................................................................9

2.5 Data Formats:....................................................................................................................................14

3. Thermal Model to Structural Model Data Transfer................................................................................15

3.1 Theory ...............................................................................................................................................15

3.1.1 Beam or Line Elements ..............................................................................................................15

3.1.2 Shell Elements............................................................................................................................17

3.2 Temperature Mapping Methodology: ..............................................................................................18

3.3 Data Mapping Script: ........................................................................................................................21

3.4 Verification........................................................................................................................................23

3.4.1 Fireproofed Steel Beam Temperatures: ....................................................................................23

3.4.2 Unprotected Steel Beam Temperatures:...................................................................................27

3.4.3 Unprotected Steel Beam Deflections:........................................................................................28

3.4.4 Cardington Test Results: ............................................................................................................29

3.4.5 Complete Fire to Thermal to Structural Data Transfer..............................................................35

3.4.6 Data Formats:.............................................................................................................................39

4. Summary .................................................................................................................................................41

5. References ..............................................................................................................................................41

6. Appendix 1 (Time-temperature curves used for Figure 21) ...................................................................42
3

1. Introduction

To predict structural behavior under fire, both spatial and temporal variations of temperatures in 

structural members need to be accurately determined. The ability to predict with high confidence 

time-varying temperature profiles in structural members is necessary for a robust performancebased approach to the fire resistance design of structures. In most cases, computational modeling 

approaches are used to obtain structural temperatures based on exposure to a particular fire 

scenario. Structural analyses are then conducted with these temperatures obtained at specific 

times into the fire event. Typically, a comprehensive modeling approach requires three separate

analyses: a) fire dynamics modeling, b) heat transfer analysis, and c) structural analysis. Each of

these analyses typically involves different computational approaches such that seamless transfer 

of thermal data between models is difficult. For example, fire dynamics is typically modeled 

with computational fluids dynamics (CFD) approach using finite difference method (FDM). On 

the other hand, heat transfer (thermal) analysis and structural analysis are conducted using finite 

element (FE) method. Most heat transfer analysis employ solid hexahedral or shell elements 

while structural models use beam and shell elements. Transfer of data between FDM and FE 

meshes or FE to FE meshes (fire to thermal) and FE thermal and structural models (thermal to 

structural) are not straightforward and require tools for mapping data appropriately. The present 

technical note describes the development of two MATLAB1 scripts for transferring thermal data 

between fire and thermal and thermal and structural models (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. A schematic representation of the data flow in fire-thermal-structural analysis.

 1 Certain commercial software or materials are identified to describe a procedure or concept adequately. Such identification is not intended to 

imply recommendation, endorsement, or implication by NIST that the software or materials are necessarily the best available for the purpose.
4

2. Data Transfer from Fire Model to Heat Transfer Model

In this section, the transfer of relevant data from a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model 

for fire dynamics to a finite element model for heat transfer in structural members is discussed. 

CFD model provides the most comprehensive modeling approach for simulation of fire 

initiation, propagation, and growth. NIST Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) is one such software

[1]. In the following section, a procedure is discussed for transferring thermal data from a FDS 

model to a finite element analysis (FEA) model of structural members for subsequent heat 

transfer calculations.

FDS numerically solves the spatially filtered form of the Navier-Stokes equations appropriate for 

incompressible flow using a technique known as large-eddy simulation (LES). The mass, 

momentum, and energy equations are discretized by finite differences and a numerical solution is 

obtained as a function of time on a 3-D rectilinear grid. All FDS calculations must be performed 

within a domain that is made up of right parallelepipedic volumes called meshes. Each mesh is 

divided into rectilinear volumes or cells. The number of cells depends on the desired resolution 

of the computed flow dynamics calculations. 

Typical output quantities from FDS that are of interest here include a) exposed surface heat flux 

as a function of time and b) Adiabatic Surface Temperature (AST) as a function of time. As a 

first example, the transfer of adiabatic surface temperatures from a FDS model to a FEA heat 

transfer model is discussed.

AST is defined as the temperature of a surface which cannot absorb or lose heat to the 

environment, i.e. a perfect insulator. Typically, it is a weighted mean temperature of the radiation 

temperature and the gas temperature depending on the heat transfer coefficients.

The first step is to develop an FDS input file, which describes the computational domain and 

defines the structural member(s) as obstruction(s) [3]. FDS can be instructed to output AST on 

exposed surface as boundary files. This means that the AST data computed on all grid points at 

the boundary of structural members are written to a binary output file. The data mapping 

between FDS model and FEA thermal model is challenging because computational meshes do 

not match as shown in Fig. 2.
5

Fig. 2. A schematic representation of computation grid in FDS and a typical FEA mesh for 

thermal analysis.

Selected portion from a typical FDS input file is shown in Fig. 3. Note that the six lines starting 

with “&OBST” in Fig. 3 define top flange, web, and bottom flange of a girder as obstructions. 

The last line starting with “&BNDF” in Fig. 3 instructs FDS to write AST data on grid points 

located on the surface of the girder. Such data are written by FDS as “*.bf” files [1]. Since these 

data are written in binary format, they need to be converted to ASCII format for subsequent 

transfer to a FEA heat transfer model. Since FDS generates a large amount of computational 

data, a major challenge is to extract only relevant numeric data needed for subsequent heat 

transfer analysis. Parsing of computational output data is needed for a software-independent tool 

to work. Therefore, there is a need to create unformatted data files free of any header or text 

information as typically written out by FDS. The sequence of steps needed for data mapping 

from FDS to a FEA heat transfer model is shown in the flowchart in Fig. 4.

Thermal FEA 

Mesh

FDS Grid on Member at 

Exposed Surface
6

Fig. 3. A portion of a typical FDS input file.

Fig. 4. A flowchart showing sequence of steps for transferring FDS temperatures to exposed 

surface of structural members in a heat transfer model.
7

A program called “FDS2ASCII” (which comes with the standard installation of the FDS 

software) can be run to convert the AST boundary file data from binary to ASCII format [3]. 

FDS2ASCII can be run interactively or in batch mode. A typical output from an interactive 

FDS2ASCII run session is shown in Fig. 5.

Fig. 5. A typical output from an interactive “FDS2ASCII” run.

Since it is cumbersome to run FDS2ASCII in interactive mode, an input script has been 

developed to run FDS2ASCII from command line (Fig. 6). FDS2ASCII writes output files with 

header information and text information, which needs to be stripped. The sequence of steps is 

written below:

2.1. Run FDS2ASCII from command line:

FDS2ASCII needs to be run 6 times to write the entire boundary file data (e.g., in +X, -X,

+Y, -Y, +Z and -Z directions) for all six directions. An input script (Fig. 6) has been developed 

for each of the six directions. A typical file, called “case_5_v1_test_xm_input”, is shown in Fig. 

6. Note that the file has all the information a user will enter in an interactive session as shown in 

Fig. 5. The last line shows the name of the output file of the program. The program can then be 

executed as follows.

Run as: $ fds2ascii < case_5_v1_test_xm_input [for -X direction]

[dilip@bfrl104166 case_5_v1_test_fds_thermal]$ fds2ascii

 Enter Job ID string (CHID):

case_5_v1_test

 What type of file to parse?

 PL3D file? Enter 1

 SLCF file? Enter 2

 BNDF file? Enter 3

3

 Enter Sampling Factor for Data?

 (1 for all data, 2 for every other point, etc.)

1

 Domain selection:

 y - domain size is limited

 n - domain size is not limited

 z - domain size is not limited and z levels are offset

 ya, na or za - slice files are selected based on type and 

location.

 The y, n, z prefix are defined as before.

n

 1 MESH 1, GAUGE HEAT FLUX

 2 MESH 1, WALL TEMPERATURE

 3 MESH 1, ADIABATIC SURFACE TEMPERATURE

 Enter starting and ending time for averaging (s)

7.9 8.0

 Enter orientation: (plus or minus 1, 2 or 3)

1

 Enter number of variables

3

 Enter boundary file index for variable 1

1

 Enter boundary file index for variable 2

2

 Enter boundary file index for variable 3

3

 Enter output file name:

case_5_v1_test_xp_alt

 Writing to file... case_5_v1_test_xp_alt
8

This creates an ASCII output file (Fig. 7) called “case_5_v1_test_xm” listing x, y, z coordinates 

and boundary file quantities, e.g., AST, Heat flux etc.

Fig. 6. A typical input file for running FDS2ASCII program in batch mode.

2.2. Strip header and text information in FDS output file

Fig. 7 shows first few lines of the typical output file as written out by the FDS2ASCII program:

Fig. 7. First few lines of a typical boundary output file written out by the FDS2ASCII program.

Note that the FDS output file containing boundary data has text information as header lines and 

also at several locations in the output file. A MATLAB script has been written which can read 

the above FDS ASCII output data as shown in the above figure in either Microsoft Excel format 

or as text file and can remove all the text information from the file and create an ASCII file 

(comma separated) with X, Y, Z coordinates of grid points and corresponding values of output 

quantities (heat flux, wall temperature, and AST) as shown in Fig. 8.

case_5_v1_test

3

1

n

13.2 13.3

-1

3

1

2

3

case_5_v1_test_xm

Patch 5 3.00<x< 3.00, 0.50<y< 4.50, 2.92<z< 3.10

X,Y,Z,GAUGE HEAT FLUX,WALL TEMPERATURE,ADIABATIC SURFACE TEMPERATURE

m,m,m,kW/m2,C,C

0.30000E+01, 0.51250E+00, 0.29375E+01, 0.66834E+02, 0.64825E+03, 0.73548E+03

0.30000E+01, 0.53750E+00, 0.29375E+01, 0.66814E+02, 0.64902E+03, 0.73529E+03

0.30000E+01, 0.56250E+00, 0.29375E+01, 0.66724E+02, 0.64968E+03, 0.73493E+03

0.30000E+01, 0.58750E+00, 0.29375E+01, 0.66688E+02, 0.65032E+03, 0.73478E+03

0.30000E+01, 0.61250E+00, 0.29375E+01, 0.66606E+02, 0.65090E+03, 0.73447E+03

0.30000E+01, 0.63750E+00, 0.29375E+01, 0.66535E+02, 0.65134E+03, 0.73423E+03

0.30000E+01, 0.66250E+00, 0.29375E+01, 0.66464E+02, 0.65169E+03, 0.73401E+03

0.30000E+01, 0.68750E+00, 0.29375E+01, 0.66305E+02, 0.65183E+03, 0.73345E+03

0.30000E+01, 0.71250E+00, 0.29375E+01, 0.66178E+02, 0.65190E+03, 0.73294E+03

0.30000E+01, 0.73750E+00, 0.29375E+01, 0.65949E+02, 0.65186E+03, 0.73206E+03
9

Fig. 8. First few lines of a typical FDS boundary output file after running MATLAB parsing 

script on data shown in Fig. 7.

Note that FDS writes X, Y, Z coordinates of each grid point on the boundary and corresponding 

output quantities as requested in the FDS input file. The parsed output file contains all the data 

from the above figure except the header and text lines. Five other files can be written by the 

MATLAB program (in other 5 directions using input scripts similar to the one in Fig. 6). These 

six files contain output (wall temperature, heat flux, and AST in this example) data for all grid 

points on the surface of a structural member at a given time into the fire simulation.

2.3. Create a FE model for thermal modeling:

A finite element model of structural members needs to be created in any FEA software. The 

geometry needs to be discretized using shell or solid hexahedral elements. The geometry of the 

structural member needs to have the same dimensions as those defined in FDS. Also, the global 

coordinates and origin in both the FEA heat transfer model and FDS need to match.

2.4. MATLAB data mapping script:

A MATLAB script has been developed to perform the following:

a) Identify the nodes that are on the boundary of the structural member as defined in the FE 

heat transfer model. It reads the FE nodal coordinates and element connectivity data 

(from the heat transfer model) and by using a unique algorithm, it identifies the surface 

nodes in the FE model and collects their nodal coordinates into a matrix (see description 

below). Create a 3-D uniform, orthogonal grid in MATLAB using minimum and 

maximum x, y, z values in the FE model. This is the target matrix for the data transfer.

 3.0000 0.5125 2.9375 66.8340 648.2500 735.4800 

 3.0000 0.5375 2.9375 66.8140 649.0200 735.2900 

 3.0000 0.5625 2.9375 66.7240 649.6800 734.9300 

 3.0000 0.5875 2.9375 66.6880 650.3200 734.7800 

 3.0000 0.6125 2.9375 66.6060 650.9000 734.4700 

 3.0000 0.6375 2.9375 66.5350 651.3400 734.2300 

 3.0000 0.6625 2.9375 66.4640 651.6900 734.0100 

 3.0000 0.6875 2.9375 66.3050 651.8300 733.4500 

 3.0000 0.7125 2.9375 66.1780 651.9000 732.9400 

 3.0000 0.7375 2.9375 65.9490 651.8600 732.0600 
10

b) Read all six FDS boundary ASCII output files (from section 2.2 above) and assemble 

them into a matrix form in “X, Y, Z, AST” format. This matrix is the parent matrix for 

data transfer.

c) Use MATLAB utility called “Griddata” to map the AST from step b into target matrix 

given in step a. This MATLAB function is used to map FDS AST data into the FE 3-D 

grid (heat transfer model).

d) Write the nodal (mapped) AST data (Node #, X, Y, Z, AST) in ASCII format, which can 

be read by any FEA heat transfer software.

The algorithm for finding nodes on the surface of the FE model described in step (a) above 

works as follows. Using element connectivity data in the FE (heat transfer) model, the data 

mapping script obtains (1) a column vector containing the number of elements that use each 

node, (2) a column vector pointing to the beginning of the element list for each node, and (3) 

finally, a column vector containing a list of elements surrounding each node.

Next, nodes on faces of each element are compared with nodes of other elements that are 

connected to the same nodes to determine if all nodes along the faces of each pair of elements 

match. This is possible since an element list was already obtained that contains the elements that 

are connected to each node. If all nodes along common faces of a pair of elements match, then 

these nodes are not on free surface. When this match is not found, then nodes of the element face 

are on free surface and these nodes are written to a column vector. A unique list of such nodes 

can be obtained using a simple MATLAB functionality that removes any duplication of surface 

nodes in the column vector containing surface nodes.

As an example, a W33x130 Girder was chosen as a test problem (with 0.5 inch uniform 

fireproofing) as shown in Fig. 9. The girder is placed in a compartment (Fig. 10) and was 

exposed to a fire from a burner located at the floor. The girder was defined as an “obstruction” in 

the FDS input model. AST data on the exposed boundary of the girder were written to output 

files. These temperatures were then mapped to the boundary of an equivalent ANSYS FE

thermal model using the MATLAB Data Mapping Script.

Mapped temperatures at boundary nodes are written to an ASCII file and can be read in any FE

heat transfer (HT) software for subsequent thermal analysis. Fig. 10 and 11 compare 

temperatures on exposed surface of the girder as written by FDS with those mapped on an 

ANSYS FE model using the MATLAB data mapping script (see quantitative comparisons in Fig. 

10). Fig. 12, 13, 14 show three different views of exposed surface temperatures in FDS and 

corresponding mapped temperatures on the exposed surface of the girder using MATLAB “slice” 

plots. Mapped temperatures at surface nodes are written in an ASCII “.csv” file. Overall, the 

mapped temperatures on the exposed surface agree very well with those written out by FDS.
11

Fig. 9. A FEA model of a fireproofed steel beam.

The following two plots (Fig. 10 and 11) show a comparison of AST data in FDS/Smokeview 

and mapped AST nodal data in ANSYS as written out by the MATLAB script.

Fig. 10. A comparison of exposed surface temperatures in FDS and those mapped by the 

MATLAB script and subsequently read in ANSYS (view 1).

Steel

SFRM

FDS

Location X Y Z Temp

A 3.0625 0.5 3.0375 662.53

B 3.3625 0.5 2.0875 451.98

ANSYS

A 3.075 0.5 3.025 661.25

B 3.35 0.5 2.075 453.37

View 1

FDS Mapped Temperatures Plotted in ANSYS
12

Fig. 11. A comparison of exposed surface temperatures in FDS and those mapped by the 

MATLAB script and subsequently read in ANSYS (view 2).

A comparison of plots of the adiabatic surface temperature in FDS/Smokeview and mapped 

temperatures on FE surface nodes using MATLAB script (displayed using MATLAB “slice 

plot”) is shown in the following three figures (Fig. 12, 13, and 14).

Fig. 12. A comparison of exposed surface temperatures in FDS and those mapped by the 

MATLAB script and displayed using MATLAB “slice” plot (view 1).

View 2

FDS Mapped Temperatures Plotted in ANSYS

 FDS/SmokeView MATLAB “Slice Plot”
13

Fig. 13. A comparison of exposed surface temperatures in FDS and those mapped by the 

MATLAB script and displayed using MATLAB “slice” plot (view 2).

Fig. 14. A comparison of exposed surface temperatures in FDS and those mapped by the 

MATLAB script and displayed using MATLAB “slice” plot (view 3).

 FDS/SmokeView MATLAB “Slice Plot”

 FDS/SmokeView MATLAB “Slice Plot”
14

2.5 Data Formats:

The input data to the MATLAB data transfer script is the FDS boundary file data in ASCII 

format, which were obtained by running the “FDS2ASCII” program six times (+x, -x, +y, -y, +z, 

-z directions). The header information and texts inside these data files are removed by the 

MATLAB parsing script.

The input data (x, y, z, AST for each FDS grid point on the member boundary) from FDS after 

running the MATLAB parsing script are in the following format:

The MATLAB data mapping script maps these data to the FE heat transfer model nodes on the 

FEA model boundary. The format of the output file obtained after running the MATLAB data 

mapping script is:

Node # x-coordinate y-coordinate z-coordinate “Mapped AST”

These data can be easily read by any FEA software.

 3.0000 0.5125 2.9375 

 3.0000 0.5375 2.9375 

 3.0000 0.5625 2.9375 

 3.0000 0.5875 2.9375 

 3.0000 0.6125 2.9375 

 3.0000 0.6375 2.9375 

 3.0000 0.6625 2.9375 

 3.0000 0.6875 2.9375 

 3.0000 0.7125 2.9375 

 3.0000 0.7375 2.9375 

735.4800

735.2900

734.9300

734.7800

734.4700

734.2300

734.0100

733.4500

732.9400

732.0600

X Y Z AST
15

3. Thermal Model to Structural Model Data Transfer

The transfer of computed thermal results from a heat transfer analysis modeled with solid or 

shell elements to a structural analysis model comprising beam and shell elements is described 

here. Transfer of thermal results can be easily accomplished in traditional FEA (finite element 

analysis) software when compatible elements of the same FE mesh are used for both heat 

transfer and structural analysis calculations (e.g., solid to solid or shell to shell etc.). Such an 

approach is practical when the structural model is simple and when the model can be described 

with relatively small number of elements. However, for larger structures the use of beam and/or 

shell elements is often necessary to ensure that a structural model of a reasonable size is 

developed. Currently, there is no commercial software available to map thermal data computed 

in solid thermal FE model to a beam and/or shell FE structural model. Therefore, a general 

purpose and an efficient approach are needed to map thermal results from a solid thermal FE

model to an equivalent structural FE model comprising line and/or shell elements. Accurate 

mapping of thermal results in structural analysis model is needed to account for the effects of 

thermal expansion/contraction and temperature dependent changes in material properties 

associated with fire exposure.

3.1 Theory

In the solid thermal FE model, the transient temperatures are computed at each nodal point. For 

the structural analysis models these temperatures are transferred as thermal loads. They are 

transferred as nodal quantities and are applied as body loads. Depending on the FEA software 

and types of elements used, the thermal loads can be entered differently. For example, for most 

shell elements in the ANSYS structural model, temperatures are input as thermal loads at the 

corners of the outside faces of the element and at corners of interfaces between layers. In typical 

ANSYS beam element model, temperatures are input at each node of a beam element as a mean 

temperature and two temperature gradients in the element section X and Y directions, assuming 

the Z direction being along the beam direction. Note that the temperature variation in the beam 

axial direction is addressed by proper discretization. The following sections describe data 

mapping strategies for beam and shell elements.

3.1.1 Beam or Line Elements

In order to compute the mean temperatures and the temperature gradients for the structural nodes 

in the beam element as required in the ANSYS beam element model, a number of transfer points 

need to be defined on the beam section. Temperature results for these transfer points are 
16

determined by interrogating the thermal results obtained using the solid thermal analysis model. 

Using temperatures of the transfer points, the mean temperatures and temperature gradients at 

each structural model node can then be computed easily (see Fig. 15).

Fig. 15. A schematic of temperature transfer from thermal to beam model in ANSYS.

For ABAQUS, temperatures input at specific transfer points along beam sections are mapped by 

the software to appropriate integration or Gauss points. (Fig. 16) [3].

Fig. 16. A schematic of locations where temperatures are specified in ABAQUS beam element.

• • •

•

•

•

• • •

• •

x

y

Solid Element

 

Mapping BeamElement 

Thermal 

FEA Mesh

Structural Element

Transfer Points Structural Node Mapped Temp
17

3.1.2 Shell Elements

For the structural shell element model (typically used for concrete slab or steel beam), the 

coordinates of the structural nodes are used as transfer point coordinates and an average 

temperature is obtained by querying the thermal solid element model results. Shell elements can 

have layers with varying material properties and number of integration points through the 

thickness of the layers. For layered shell elements, temperature transfer points corresponding to 

each structural node will have varying height for each layer but have same coordinates in the 

other two directions as the nodes themselves. The height for each layer should correspond to the 

type of offset used (e.g., mid-plane etc. as shown in Fig. 17). Fig. 17 shows a structural layered 

shell model for a concrete slab comprising 3 layers with mid-plane offset. In this case, each 

structural element is a 4-node quadrilateral element with three layers. For each element, the 

temperatures are computed by (a) specifying coordinates for 4 nodes in a given layer (with 

proper layer height) and (b) then using these coordinates as transfer point coordinates and 

interrogating the thermal solid element results.

Fig. 17. A view of a solid element mesh of a thermal model and corresponding structural 3-layer 

shell element model (mid-plane offset) with locations of transfer points.
18

3.2 Temperature Mapping Methodology:

Temperature at each transfer point corresponding to a node of a structural element in the 

structural model is obtained by (a) determining the exact solid element to which the transfer 

point belongs and (b) computing an average temperature of the transfer point by using that solid 

element shape function and transfer point coordinates. The first goal is to determine the solid 

finite element that contains the transfer point. Assuming an 8-node brick solid element, the 

following three functions (e.g., f, g, and h) can be written:

 

Where, Ni is the element shape function in local or natural coordinates and xi, yi, and zi are the 

global coordinates of nodes of an 8-noded brick element and x_pt, y_pt, and z_pt are the 

coordinates of the transfer point. Note that a local coordinate system is one which is located on 

or within the boundary of an element. Shape functions are listed for common element types in 

any standard finite element text book. For eight-noded linear brick elements, the shape functions 

are given as shown in equation (2) using natural coordinates ξ,η, and ζ (Fig. 18) for the ith node:

Fig. 18. A sketch of a solid brick element showing natural coordinates (ξ,η, and ζ).

8

1

8

1

8

1

( )

( ) (1)

( )

i i

i

i i

i

i i

i

f x x pt N x

g y y pt N y

h z z pt N z

−

=

−

=

−

=

= −

= −

= −

∑

∑

∑

( )( )( ) 1 1 1 1 , 1, 2,...,8 (2) 8

Ni iii =+ + + = ξξ ηη ζζ for i
19

Note that i ξ ,ηi , and i ζ values of the eight corner nodes are either -1 or +1 in the above equation.

Any arbitrary point within this element will have i ξ ,ηi , and i ζ values between -1 and +1 range.

Since the shape function, N, is a function of ξ, η, and ζ, a first order Taylor expansion can be 

written as follows:

The objective of finding the transfer point within an element can be obtained by:

 f x x gy y hz z ( +∆ = +∆ = +∆ = ) ( ) ( ) 0 (4)

Zeroing out the left side of each Taylor expansion equations in equation (3) yields,

( )

( ) (5)

( )

fff f x

ggg g y

hhh h z

ξηζ ξηζ

ξηζ ξηζ

ξηζ ξηζ

∂∂∂ ∆ + ∆ + ∆ =−

∂∂ ∂

∂∂∂ ∆ + ∆ + ∆ =−

∂∂ ∂

∂∂∂ ∆ + ∆ + ∆ =−

∂∂ ∂

( ) ()

( ) ( ) (3)

( ) ()

fff fx x fx

ggg gy y gy

hhh hz z hz

ξ ηζ ξ ηζ

ξ ηζ ξ ηζ

ξ ηζ ξ ηζ

∂∂∂ +∆ = + ∆ + ∆ + ∆

∂∂∂

∂∂∂ +∆ = + ∆ + ∆ + ∆

∂∂∂

∂∂∂ +∆ = + ∆ + ∆ + ∆

∂∂∂
20

Equation (5) can be written in matrix form as shown below:

( )

( ) (6)

( )

fff

f x

ggg g y

h z hhh

ξηζ ξ

η ξηζ ζ

ξηζ

  ∂∂∂   ∂∂∂     ∆ −   ∂∂∂      ∆ =−

∂∂∂     ∆ −   ∂∂∂     ∂∂∂

The left hand side matrix in equation (6) containing the derivatives can be easily obtained. The 

system of equations are then solved using Cramer’s rule for the ∆ξ , ∆η , and ∆ζ values. 

Updatedξ ,η , andζ values are checked to see if they fall within -1 to +1 range. If this becomes 

true, then the point is contained within the particular element. Equation (6) can be solved 

iteratively to ensure that the final values of ∆ξ , ∆η , and ∆ζ do not change further between 

iterations. For each point, the looping can be done over a thermal solid element set that is in the 

vicinity of the transfer point. This set of thermal solid elements (that are located near the transfer 

point) can be determined by knowing the coordinates of the centroids of all the solid elements.

When it is found that the point is contained within a given element, the temperature at the 

transfer point is then determined by the following equation:

where, Tj denotes computed temperatures at each transfer point and i varies from 1 to 8 for the 

hexahedral solid element that contains the transfer point. Note that the values of Ni will change 

based on values of the natural coordinates of the transfer point. The sequence of steps that is 

followed to obtain the temperature of a transfer point is given in the following flowchart (Fig. 

19):

8

1

(7) j ii

i

T NT == ∑
21

Fig. 19. A flowchart showing the sequence of steps used to compute temperatures at a transfer 

point.

Note that the loop over elements shown in Fig. 19 can be chosen such that only those elements, 

whose centroids lie within a user chosen distance away from the coordinate of the transfer point, 

can be searched. This way the computation time will be manageable especially for a large model.

3.3 Data Mapping Script:

The data mapping script has been developed in the MATLAB software. The data flow and 

framework for this script is shown in Fig.20.

Start

Read coordinate of 

transfer point (j)

Loop over Thermal 

Elements 

( 1 <= i <= nel )

Does j

belong 

to i 

Loop 

( iter <= niter )

-1 <= ξ <= +1

-1 <= η <= +1

-1 <= ζ <= +1

Do ξ, η, Yes

ζ values 

change

 Yes

 No

End No

Legends:

N = shape function

ξ, η, ζ = natural coordinates

niter = max no. of iterations

nel = max no. of nearest elements
22

Fig. 20. A flow chart of the Data Mapping Script and its framework.

As Fig. 20 shows, a thermal analysis is first conducted using solid brick elements with any FE 

software. The inputs to the thermal model are fire boundary conditions at the exposed surface(s), 

appropriate initial conditions, and thermal properties of the materials included in the model. A 

successful thermal analysis will generate time dependent nodal temperatures at all nodes in the 

model. The user needs to write nodal temperatures at specific time intervals (e.g., half hour, 1 

hour etc.) into a comma separated variable (.csv) file. Additionally, two other files need to be 

written in .csv format: a) nodal coordinates of all nodes (e.g., node number, x, y, z) and element 

connectivities (e.g., element number, node 1, node 2,......., node 8) in the solid element model. 

The Data Mapping Script reads these three files and also reads three additional files: a) list of 

transfer points along with their coordinates, b) nodal coordinates in the structural model, and c) 

structural model element connectivities. Note that the transfer point coordinates can be computed 

automatically using beam section dimension or a user can input these transfer point coordinates 

using a “*.csv” file. The script then computes temperatures at each of the transfer points. These 

nodal temperatures are used to define element body loads. Currently, the script outputs 

temperatures in ANSYS format for all elements in the structural model. Work is ongoing to 

develop the capability where the user will be given a choice to choose the software format for 

output of the mapped temperatures.

Section dimensions

bf

, h, tf, tw

Nodal Temperatures

Thermal Nodal coord

Fire Temperatures

Data Mapping Tool

(MATLAB Script)

Structural Temperatures

Thermal Analysis

Thermal Element connectivities 

Nodal coord

Material Properties

Temp Transfer Points

Element 

connectivities

Thermal Model

Structural Model
23

3.4 Verification

The verification cases focus on the accuracy of structural temperatures obtained for the following 

cases: a) a protected member exposed to a fire, b) an unprotected member exposed to a fire, c) a 

structural assembly exposed to a fire using condition similar to the one in the Cardington Test 1.

3.4.1 Fireproofed Steel Beam Temperatures:

In the first verification example, a single W24X55 Beam with 0.5 inch uniform fireproofing was 

chosen (Figure 9). The beam was discretized with solid 8-node hexahedral elements. The beam 

was exposed to an oil-fired fire. Time varying boundary conditions were artificially altered in 

order to develop non-uniform, varying time-temperature profile for beam web, top flange, and 

bottom flange as shown in Figure 21. This was done by modifying the fire curve (e.g., Fire 

Curve (A), Fire Curve (B), and Fire Curve (C)) and using these curves at different locations (Fig. 

21). Time-temperature values for each of these curves are listed in Appendix 1. Note the values 

of temperatures were arbitrarily chosen in order to generate some variation of temperature along 

beam web and in axial directions.

Fig. 21. Artificial non-uniform fire conditions applied to the exposed surfaces of the solid 

thermal model. See Appendix 1 for the time-temperature data.
24

Next, a structural FEA model was developed using beam elements in ANSYS for the steel beam 

only. The coordinates and dimensions of the beam in the structural and thermal model were the 

same. Note that the number of transfer points per node is chosen by the user. A large number of 

transfer points will increase the computational time, while too few transfer points will result in 

possibly inaccurate temperatures for the structural node. In this data mapping exercise, a set of 

fifteen temperature transfer points was chosen for each node in the structural analysis model 

(Fig. 22). 

The data mapping script reads the coordinates of these transfer points after reading (a) thermal 

solid model nodal coordinates, (b) thermal solid model element connectivities, (c) thermal solid 

model nodal temperatures, (d) structural model nodal coordinates, and (e) structural model 

element connectivities. Next, the data mapping script probes the solid element analysis results 

for each transfer point to determine the equivalent temperature at these transfer points.

Fig. 22. Temperature transfer points along the beam section at each structural node.

x

y
25

A simple example is given for computing nodal mean temperatures and two temperature 

gradients for each structural node (as required by ANSYS) following ref [4] in the following 

section (Tx and Ty are the temperature gradients in the x and y directions):

where, A is the total cross section area, wi is the area weight at each transfer point, Ti is the 

temperature at each transfer point as computed by the data mapping script. The beam node is 

located at mid web in the origin (point 8 in Fig. 22). Areas around each point have area 

weightages as shown in Fig. 22. For example, the area weightage at each web node is 1/3 of the 

total web area. Using these area weightages, equation 8 has been empirically formulated [4].

As a first case for verification of this data mapping script, the following exercise is conducted. 

For the fireproofed beam shown in Fig. 9, three locations were arbitrarily chosen along beam 

length (Fig. 23). At each location, three node points were chosen in the solid model (one each at 

top flange, mid-web, and bottom flange). Temperatures obtained at each of these nine points 

from solid thermal model are compared with interpolated results from MATLAB script using 

exact coordinates of these points. Results are compared for two different time steps (Table 1).

Fig. 23. Locations where ANSYS solid model outputs are compared with mapped results.

Pts Locations

(8a)

w Ti i Mean temperature A = ∑

2 1 3 4 6 1 10 12 13 15

11 2 2 11 2 2

2 ( ) 2( ) (8b) 3( ) 3( ) x

tT T T T tT T T T T

Wt Wt Wt Wt

−+− − + − = − + +

1 3 4 6 2 5 10 12 13 15 11 14

3 4 3 4

2( ) 2( ) (8c) 4( ) 4( ) y

TTTT TT T T T T T T T

W W W W

++++ + + + + + + = − + +
26

Table 1: Comparisons of temperatures (in degree Celsius) at specified locations obtained with 

ANSYS solid thermal model and with the MATLAB data mapping script.

Time = 20 min

Location Top Flange Mid Web Bottom Flange

ANSYS Thermal MATLAB ANSYS Thermal MATLAB ANSYS Thermal MATLAB

z = 0 in 48.99 48.98 79.70 79.70 74.24 74.24

z = 80 in 42.60 42.60 69.73 69.73 65.16 65.16

z = 120 in 42.58 42.58 69.72 69.71 65.14 65.14

Time = 120 min

z = 0 in 457.85 457.85 651.42 651.42 650.59 650.59

z = 80 in 423.42 423.42 613.81 613.81 615.09 615.09

z = 120 in 423.05 423.06 613.63 613.62 614.94 614.94

Table 1 shows an almost exact agreement between the nine ANSYS thermal solid element model 

nodal temperatures and those computed with the data mapping script using coordinates of these 

nodes and probing the ANSYS thermal results. Fig. 24 and 25 show temperature profile in the 

steel beam at 1 hour and 2 hours into the fire as computed in the ANSYS thermal model and 

mapped in the structural model. 

Fig. 24. Temperatures in the steel beam at 1 hour: (a) as computed in the ANSYS thermal solid 

model, (b) as mapped in the structural beam element model using the data mapping script, (c) 

comparison of temperature profiles along the web (at a location along the beam length): ANSYS 

thermal: temperatures from heat transfer mode: MATLAB Mapped: temperatures at transfer 

points along the web; ANSYS Mapped: structural temperatures obtained with equation (8). 

(c)

(b)

(a)
27

Fig. 25. Temperatures in the steel beam at 2 hours: (a) as computed in the ANSYS thermal solid 

model, (b) as mapped in the structural beam element model using the data mapping script.

Note that there are some differences in temperatures in the ANSYS solid model and those 

mapped on the ANSYS beam element model using the data mapping script. This discrepancy 

between the ANSYS thermal and Structural mapped results is due to the use of linear 

temperature gradients at each structural beam node (e.g., mean temperature and two temperature 

gradients at each structural node). Note that the temperature scale for the structural temperatures 

in Fig. 24(b) and 25(b) was adjusted to match with those of the corresponding thermal model 

results (Fig. 24(a) and 25(a)). As a result, temperatures of certain regions were outside this scale 

and they are marked in gray color. Since ANSYS allows only three temperature inputs at each 

structural node point, the temperature averaging scheme used needs to be properly developed and 

validated with real data for each case. Note that beam elements with multiple integration points 

can also be used as ANSYS will map temperatures to integration points appropriately. Other 

software such as ABAQUS allows more locations for input of mapped temperatures (see Fig. 

16). Fig. 24 (c) shows temperatures along beam height at particular axial location of the beam. It 

is evident that ANSYS structural temperatures show linear profiles. However, it can be noticed 

that transfer point temperatures obtained with MATLAB script fall exactly on the ANSYS 

thermal results indicating that the data mapping algorithm computed temperatures correctly.

3.4.2 Unprotected Steel Beam Temperatures: 

In order to verify that the mapped temperature field is accurate, an example was created where 

the heat transfer in an unprotected beam was modeled with fixed temperatures at the bottom of 

lower flange (600 0C) and the top of the upper flange (100 0C). Fig. 26(a) displays the computed 

(a) (b)
28

temperature field at 1 hour into the simulation as computed by the ANSYS solid element model. 

Note that there is no heat flow in the beam axial direction. Mapped temperatures as computed 

using the MATLAB script are displayed in Fig. 26(b), where mean temperatures and two 

temperature gradients at each structural node are computed using fifteen transfer points as 

discussed above.

Fig. 26. Temperatures in an unprotected steel beam at 1 hour: (a) as computed in the ANSYS 

thermal solid model, (b) as mapped in the structural beam element model using the data 

mapping script, (c) comparison of temperature profiles along the web height (at a location along 

the beam length) among ANSYS thermal, ANSYS structural results along with computed 

temperatures at transfer points.

Note that there is a very good agreement between Fig. 26(a) and 26(b) in terms of the trend of 

the variation of temperature profile across the beam section. However, because of limitation of 

the ANSYS structural body load input format, the minimum and maximum values of the 

temperatures in the structural model do not exactly match those in the ANSYS solid thermal 

model. As mentioned for Fig. 24, Fig. 26 (c) shows temperatures along beam height at particular 

axial location of the beam. Again, transfer point temperatures along the web height obtained with 

the MATLAB script lie exactly on the ANSYS thermal results verifying that the data mapping 

algorithm computed temperatures correctly.

3.4.3 Unprotected Steel Beam Deflections: 

ANSYS Thermal Model Output

ANSYS Structural Temperatures 

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

-200 0 200 400 600 800

ANSYS Thermal

ANSYS Mapped

MATLAB Mapped

Axial location: Midlength of the beam

BC 1: T = 100

BC 2: T = 600

(a)

(b)

(c)
29

Another verification case that is of interest to structural engineers includes an analysis of the 

mechanical behavior of a beam as a result of exposure to elevated temperatures. In this section, a 

static, linear structural structural analysis simulation is conducted using thermal loading obtained 

for an unprotected beam (as discussed in Section 3.4.2). Two simulations were run: (1) ANSYS 

structural simulation using computed temperatures shown in Fig. 26(a) with solid hexahedral 

elements and (2) ANSYS structural simulation using computed temperatures at 1 hour as shown 

in Fig. 26(b) with beam elements. No mechanical loading is considered. The beams are pinned at 

either end. ASTM A572 Grade 50 steel properties are used for structural analysis. Identical 

properties were used for both of these simulations. Fig. 27(a) and 27(b) show vertical deflections 

computed in both of these models.

Fig. 27. Vertical displacements in inches at 1 hour in an unprotected steel beam: (a) as 

computed in the ANSYS structural solid element model using temperatures in Fig. 26(a), (b) as 

computed with ANSYS structural beam element model with mapped temperatures shown in Fig. 

26(b).

The maximum deflection of 0.425 inches obtained with ANSYS solid elements model is 

reasonably close to the maximum deflection of 0.387 inches obtained with the ANSYS beam 

element model. In addition, the displacement profile in the beam for both of these cases agrees 

reasonably well. 

3.4.4 Cardington Test Results:

Another verification case that was chosen is the data mapping for the Cardington Test 1 [5]. The 

Cardington test was conducted on a composite floor assembly from the seventh floor of an 8-

(a) (b)

ANSYS Solid Elements Output ANSYS Beam Elements Output
30

story frame. A single UB305x165x40 restrained beam and the surrounding concrete floor 

spanning about 29.5 ft. (9 m) between a pair of columns were heated using a gas-fired furnace. 

Lightweight concrete was used for the slab. The gas-fired furnace was constructed on the sixth 

floor to heat the specified structure between two columns. The dimensions of the furnace used 

are: 26.2 ft. (8 m) in length, 9.8 ft. (3 m) in width, and 6.6 ft. (2 m) in height. The columns and 

end connections were not subjected to heating. The steel was unprotected. During the fire test, 

the beam was heated over the middle 26.2 ft. (8m) of its 29.5 ft. (9m) length at a rate ranging 

from 3 oC/minute to 10 oC/minute until a temperature in the range of 800 oC to 900 oC was 

reached through the profile of the beam section. A structural analysis model was developed using 

dimensions used in the Cardington test (see Fig. 28). The beam was modeled using 1-D line 

elements and the slab was developed using 3-layer, 4-node quadrilateral elements (Fig. 28 (a)). 

Using same dimensions, an equivalent thermal model was developed using solid elements (shear 

studs were not included) (Fig. 28 (b)). An enclosure was built around the composite floor 

assembly in the thermal model. The exterior surface nodes of the enclosure were heated as a 

function of time using the furnace heating data available from the Cardington test. The exposed 

surface of the composite floor assembly and interior surface of the enclosure were assigned 

emissivity data using known values in the literature. ANSYS radiosity method [2] was used to 

generate transient heating in the composite floor assembly for a 2 hour fire. After simulation, 

nodal temperatures were written at six different times (20, 40, 60, 80, 100, and 120) min to a file 

in ASCII format. A sketch of the elevation view of the composite floor model is shown in Fig. 

29.

Fig. 28 A FEA model for structural analysis and an equivalent FEA heat transfer model for the 

composite floor system in Cardington test 1. 

As discussed earlier, fifteen transfer points corresponding to each node in a structural beam 

element were developed (Fig.22). The MATLAB script was queried using these transfer point 

(a) (b)

Structural Analysis Model Heat Transfer Model
31

coordinates against six sets of thermal results (at different times into the fire) to obtain 

temperatures at these transfer points for the beam element nodes. For the concrete slab, nodal 

coordinates of each element (adjusting for the layer height) were used to query the six sets of 

thermal results using the MATLAB script to obtain the corresponding temperatures. Output

structural temperatures in the beam and the slab in ANSYS format at 1 hour and 2 hour into the 

simulation are shown below (Fig. 30 and 31). Also shown are temperatures from the heat transfer 

simulation using solid elements. A good agreement was noticed between ANSYS thermal model 

temperatures and mapped structural temperatures. Note that in this example, the layer height for 

the transfer points in the slab was chosen such that the first layer was very close to exposed 

surface height in the thermal model. This allows for ease in comparison of the mapped 

temperatures of the exposed slab surface in the structural model with the temperatures in the heat 

transfer model. In reality, the transfer points for the shell nodes for the first layer should be at the 

height corresponding to that of the mid-plane of the first layer above (see Fig. 17). This is why 

there is a small discrepancy in temperatures of the slab near the unexposed surface (see Fig. 32). 

Fig. 29. A sketch of the elevation view of the composite floor model in Cardington Test 1.

•

Beam Node

• 4 inch slab

• 3 layers

• Mid-plane 

section offset

305x165x40UB 

Beam (W12x27)
32

Fig. 30. A plot temperatures in the composite floor model in Cardington test 1 at 60 minutes into 

the fire: (a) heat transfer FEA results and (b) Mapped temperatures in ANSYS structural model.

Fig. 31. A plot temperatures in the composite floor model in Cardington test 1 at 120 minutes 

into the fire: (a) heat transfer FEA results and (b) Mapped temperatures in ANSYS structural 

model.

ANSYS Temperatures (solid elements) Mapped Structural Temperatures

(a) (b)

ANSYS Temperatures (solid elements) Mapped Structural Temperatures

(a) (b)
33

Fig. 32. A plot temperatures in the composite floor model in Cardington test 1 at 120 minutes 

into the fire: (a) heat transfer FEA results and (b) Mapped temperatures in ANSYS structural 

model.

Note that in the structural model shear studs connect top of the beam with the slab. The grooved 

metal deck is not modeled in the structural model. Shear studs are not shown in Fig. 32 and they 

are not included in the heat transfer model.

3.4.4.1 Cardington Test Slab Temperature Verification:

In this section, slab temperatures as mapped by the MATLAB script are compared with nodal 

temperatures of nearest nodes in the heat transfer model. Fig. 33 shows a plot of shell elements 

for the concrete slab in Cardington Test 1. Each slab element has 4 nodes and the elements have 

three layers. MATLAB script mapped temperatures of nodes of two different elements at 2 hour 

into the fire are compared with those obtained with the ANSYS heat transfer model (see two 

inset plots where nodal temperatures at 3 layers are compared in Fig. 33). A good agreement was 

obtained.

Mapped temperatures of transfer points (at 2 hour into the fire) at three layers for each node 

belonging to these two elements are listed in the spreadsheet shown in Fig. 34(a). Also shown are

the temperatures of the nearest node in the ANSYS heat transfer model. Temperature variation 

along the slab height for 2 transfer points obtained with the MATLAB script are plotted along 

with those of two nearest nodes from the ANSYS heat transfer model in Fig. 34(b). Again, very 

good agreement was obtained.

ANSYS Temperatures (solid elements) Mapped Structural Temperatures

(a) (b)
34

Fig. 33. A color plot of shell elements for the concrete slab in Cardington Test 1. MATLAB script mapped 

temperatures of nodes of two elements at 2 hour into the fire are compared with those obtained with the ANSYS heat 

transfer model (see two inset plots where nodal temperatures at 3 layers are compared).

Fig. 34. (a) A spreadsheet showing MATLAB script mapped transfer point temperatures (at 2 hour into the fire) at 3 

layers for two different shell elements for the slab in the Cardington Test 1 along with temperatures of the nearest 

node in the ANSYS heat transfer model and (b) Temperature variation along the slab height for 2 transfer points 

obtained with the MATLAB script is shown along with those of two nearest nodes from the ANSYS heat transfer 

model.

Layer 1

Layer 2

Layer 3

Layer 1 Layer 2

Layer 3

(a)

(b)
35

3.4.5 Complete Fire to Thermal to Structural Data Transfer

As a case of a complete fire to thermal to structural data transfer example, a protected steel girder 

was subjected to a fire in a compartment. The fireproofed girder was specified as an obstruction 

in the FDS input file. A heat transfer model of the girder was created in ANSYS using 8-node 

solid hexahedral elements. Finite element structural analysis model of the girder was created in 

ANSYS using (a) solid elements and (b) beam elements. The exposed surface temperature at 

about 24 seconds into the fire is shown in Fig. 35(a). These temperatures were mapped to the 

exposed surface nodes of the FE heat transfer model using the MATLAB fire/thermal data 

mapping script. Fig. 35(b) shows a plot of these temperatures. A visual comparison of Fig. 35(a) 

and 35(b) shows a reasonably good agreement. 

Subsequently, a FE heat transfer analysis was conducted in ANSYS for 2 hours. The MATLAB 

thermal/structural data mapping script was used to map these temperatures (at 1 hour and 2 hour 

into the thermal simulation) to an equivalent structural model of the steel girder composed of 1-

D beam or line elements. Fig. 36 (a) shows temperatures in the beam at 1 hour as computed by

the ANSYS heat transfer model while Fig. 36(b) displays the temperatures as mapped in the 

structural beam element model using the MATLAB data mapping script. Note that the agreement 

between Fig. 36(a) and 36(b) is reasonable, although the maximum temperature in Fig. 36(b) is

different from those in Fig. 36(a) due to the linear temperature gradient approach available with 

the ANSYS beam elements. Note that the temperature scale of structural model results and 

thermal model results was not artificially made equal. Similar agreement was obtained with 

temperatures at 2 hour (not shown here for brevity).

Fig. 37 shows vertical displacements under gravity loads (e.g., self-weight or the weight of the 

structure itself) only for the girder which has pinned support at either end (at the centroid of the 

web) for both solid element and beam element models. Although the deformation behavior of the 

beam for both the models is similar, the maximum displacements differ (e.g., 0.221x10-4 m in the 

solid model as opposed to 0.236x10-4

m in the beam element model). Note that linear structural 

analysis was conducted for all cases.

Fig. 38 and 39 show plots of vertical deflections due to the combined gravity and thermal loads 

(obtained using the MATLAB data mapping script as shown in Fig. 36(b) for the 1 hour case). 

Again, the maximum displacements differ among the solid element and beam element models, 

with lower maximum vertical displacements for the beam element model. However, the 

deformation behavior among the models is similar, with both models showing out of plane 

displacements due to non-uniform thermal gradients.
36

Fig. 35. A comparison of exposed surface temperatures in FDS and those mapped by the 

MATLAB script and read into the ANSYS heat transfer model.

Fig. 36. (a) Temperatures in the beam at 1 hour as computed by the ANSYS heat transfer model;

(b) as mapped in the structural beam element model using the MATLAB data mapping script.

FDS/Smokeview MATLAB mapped to ANSYS

View 1

ANSYS Thermal 1 hour View 1 MATLAB Mapped Structural

a b
37

Fig. 37. Vertical displacements due to gravity loads only: (a) as computed in the ANSYS 

structural solid element model; (b) as computed with ANSYS structural beam element model.

Fig. 38. Vertical displacements at 1 hour in an unprotected steel beam: (a) as computed in the 

ANSYS structural solid element model using temperatures as shown in Fig. 36(a); (b) as 

computed with ANSYS structural beam element model with mapped temperatures shown in Fig. 

36(b).

ANSYS Solid Elements ANSYS Beam Elements

Gravity Loads only

Solid Elements

Gravity + Thermal (1 hour)

Beam Elements
38

Fig. 39. Vertical displacements at 2 hour in an unprotected steel beam: (a) as computed in the 

ANSYS structural solid element model using temperatures as shown in Fig. 36(a); (b) as 

computed with ANSYS structural beam element model with mapped temperatures.

Solid Elements

Gravity + Thermal (2 hour)

Beam Elements
39

3.4.6 Data Formats:

The flowchart in Fig. 6 shows the files that the MATLAB data transfer script reads. In this 

section format of these files is described. No header or text information should be included in 

any of these ASCII files. Sample data formats are shown below with examples.

3.4.6.1 Thermal Nodal Coordinates (solid heat transfer FEA model):

Node # x-coordinate y-coordinate z-coordinate

1 -386.9 -2.0 -6.0

2 -386.9 -2.0 -6.2

3 -386.9 -2.0 -6.0

4 -386.9 -2.0 -6.1

5 -386.9 -1.5 -6.2

3.4.6.2 Thermal Element Connectivity (solid heat transfer FEA model):

Element # Node 1 Node 2 Node 3 Node 4 Node 5 Node 6 Node 7 Node 8

1 1 3 13 12 24 25 57 49

2 3 4 15 13 25 27 61 57

3 4 2 6 15 27 18 34 61

4 12 13 14 11 49 57 59 51

5 13 15 16 14 57 61 63 59

3.4.6.3 Nodal Temperatures (solid heat transfer FEA model) for six time steps:

Node # Temp, Step 1 Temp, Step 2 Temp, Step 3 Temp, Step 4 Temp, Step 5 Temp, Step 6

1 80.4 150.8 255.8 414.1 546.2 648.2

2 50.5 96.0 165.3 270.1 373.1 465.6

3 80.3 150.7 255.6 413.8 545.7 647.8

4 80.1 150.1 254.8 412.6 544.3 646.5

5 79.8 149.2 253.5 410.7 541.9 644.2
40

3.4.6.4 Element Connectivity (Structural Model: beam or shell):

Example is shown for a beam model comprising 2-node line elements:

 Element # Node 1 Node 2

21580 48889 48872

21579 48888 48889

21578 48887 48888

21577 48886 48887

21576 48885 48886

3.4.6.5 Nodal Coordinates (Structural Model: beam or shell)

Node # x-coordinate y-coordinate z-coordinate

48872 3300.6 1448.6 1858.6

48889 3320.3 1448.6 1858.6

48888 3340.0 1448.6 1858.6

48887 3359.7 1448.6 1858.6

48886 3379.4 1448.6 1858.6

Note that x-coordinates represent coordinates for the axial direction of the beam.

3.4.6.6 Nodal Temperature Transfer Points

3.4.6.6.1 Beam Elements:

The transfer points are to be defined by the user. Fig. 9 shows 15 transfer points for each beam 

node, whose temperatures are computed by the MATLAB script by interrogating the thermal 

results. The axial or x-coordinate of each transfer point associated with a node is the nodal xcoordinate, while y and z coordinates are determined by knowing the beam cross section 

dimensions (beam section width, beam section height, beam flange thickness, and beam web 

thickness). The y and z coordinates of all transfer points associated with each node are the same, 

only the axial coordinates of transfer points will vary from node to node. The user will be given a 

choice to enter transfer point coordinates in y and z directions by providing a file name.

3.4.6.6.2 Shell Elements:

The transfer points associated with shell nodes of a given element need to be defined for each 

layer of the shell element. The coordinates of the transfer points associated with nodes for each 

layer are the same as the nodal coordinates except that the coordinates in the vertical direction 

(e.g., slab height) will vary according to the vertical coordinates of each layer (e.g., the vertical 

coordinate for mid-plane offset will be the vertical coordinate of the mid-plane of each layer, see 

Fig. 3 or 17). The user will be asked to define slab thickness and number of layers. The 

coordinates of transfer points are computed from these data.
41

4. Summary

This report provides a summary of a stand-alone data mapping tool/software that was developed 

for transferring computed temperatures from a fire dynamics model to a FE heat transfer model 

and from a FE heat transfer model to a FE structural analysis model. Such a data mapping tool is 

needed as traditionally incompatible discretization schemes are used for each type of analyses. 

Therefore, this tool is appropriate in a sequential fire modeling / thermal analysis / structural 

analysis approach for analyzing the behavior of structures under fire.

FDS was used as the fire modeling software in this study. The transfer of fire modeling results 

from a FDS model to a heat transfer model comprises three tasks: a) parsing ASCII boundary file 

data obtained from a FDS analysis and storing AST data on grid points located on exposed 

surface of structures in the FDS model in matrix form, b) development of an unique computer 

algorithm for locating the nodes that are situated on the exposed surface of the FE heat transfer 

model, and c) mapping the temperature results in FDS grid (step a) to the FE surface nodes using 

a built-in MATLAB function. 

The algorithm that was developed for transferring computed results from a FE solid element 

based heat transfer model to an equivalent FE structural model (using line and shell elements) 

relies on the fundamental concepts of finite elements pertaining to element shape functions and 

the use of local or natural coordinates. 

The present tool has been implemented in MATLAB and can be used to interface with results 

from any commercial FEA software as long as ASCII data files containing nodal coordinates, 

element connectivities, and nodal temperatures are obtained from relevant FE models in ASCII 

format.

5. References

1. McGrattan, K., Hostikka, S., and Floyd J. (2010), “Fire Dynamics Simulator (Version 5)

Technical Reference Guide”, NIST Special Publication 1018-5, Gaithersburg, MD.

2. ANSYS Mechanical Release 12.1 (2011), ANSYS Inc., Southpointe, 275 Technology 

Drive, Canonsburg, PA. 

3. Dassault Syestemes (2008), ABAQUS Version 6.8, User’s manual. 

http://www.simulia.com.

4. Duthinh, D., McGrattan, K., and Khaskia, A. (2008), “Recent Advances in Fire-Structure 

Analysis”, Fire Safety Journal 43, pp. 161-167.

5. “The behavior of multi-story steel framed buildings in fire” (1999), British Steel plc., 

Swinden Technology Institute, Rotherham, UK.
42

6. Appendix 1 (Time-temperature curves used for Figure 21)

Time Fire Curve Fire Curve (A) Fire Curve (B) Fire Curve (C) 

(s)

Temperature 

(

o

C)

Temperature 

(

o

C)

Temperature 

(

o

C)

Temperature 

(

o

C)

0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0

93.5 56.2 26.2 26.2 26.2

200.0 124.6 94.6 84.6 44.6

293.0 189.5 159.5 139.5 99.5

318.6 224.5 194.5 174.5 134.5

730.2 265.3 235.3 215.3 175.3

1197.5 295.6 265.6 245.6 205.6

1748.2 313.8 283.8 263.8 223.8

2161.5 323.0 293.0 273.0 233.0

2381.0 344.3 314.3 294.3 254.3

2407.7 360.1 330.1 300.1 260.1

2709.0 399.0 369.0 349.0 309.0

3051.3 444.9 414.9 394.9 354.9

3146.0 478.3 448.3 428.3 388.3

3392.4 513.6 483.6 463.6 423.6

3501.9 527.7 497.7 467.7 427.7

3611.5 541.9 511.9 481.9 441.9

3982.7 563.3 533.3 503.3 463.3

4092.8 568.7 538.7 508.7 468.7

4198.8 645.9 615.9 565.9 525.9

4308.4 660.0 630.0 580.0 540.0

4570.3 663.8 633.8 583.8 543.8

4735.5 669.3 639.3 589.3 549.3

4983.5 674.8 644.8 574.8 534.8

5424.0 689.3 659.3 589.3 549.3

5974.2 718.0 688.0 618.0 578.0

6909.7 762.9 732.9 662.9 622.9

7225.8 782.5 752.5 672.5 632.5