Computational Models for Structural Crashworthiness Analysis in Fires

  • Jeom Kee PaikEmail author
Part of the Topics in Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality book series (TSRQ, volume 37)


Structures and infrastructures in fires inevitably experience nonlinear structural consequences as a result of fire loads, such as elevated temperatures and heat fluxes (as described in Chap.  8). Such analysis is a key task within the framework of quantitative fire risk assessment and management (as described in Chap.  16). Two methods of structural crashworthiness analysis in fires are relevant, namely the one-way method and the two-way method. The one-way method is a sequential approach in which the prediction of the fire load profile, heat transfer analysis, and structural response analysis are conducted sequentially in a single way. Furthermore, the interacting effects between fire loads (e.g., temperatures) and structural responses (e.g., deformations and structural failures) with time are not accounted for. The two-way method is an approach that captures fire consequences more realistically. Specifically, fire load prediction, nonlinear structural response analysis, and heat transfer analysis are conducted simultaneously. Furthermore, this approach considers the “fluid-structure interaction” (FSI) effect. This chapter presents computational models for both the heat transfer analysis and the nonlinear structural response analysis in fires.


  1. 1.
    British Steel Corporation (1987) Compendium of UK standard fire test data on unprotected structural steel. Report No. RS/RSC/S10328/1/87/B, North Lincolnshire, UKGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burgess IW, El Rimawi J, Plank RJ (1991) Studies of the behavior of steel beams in fire. J Constr Steel Res 19:285–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cengel YA, Ghajar AJ (2010) Heat and mass transfer (in SI units): fundamentals and applications, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, Columbus, OH, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cong S, Liang S, Dong Y (2005) Experimental investigation of behavior of simply supported steel beams under fire. J SE Univ (Nat Sci Ed) 35:66–68 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    EN 1993-1-2 (2005) Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures—Part 1-2: General rules—Structural fire design. European Standard, Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Franssen JM, Real PV (2010) Fire design of steel structures. ECCS Eurocode Design Manuals, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Paik JK (2018) Ultimate limit state analysis and design of plated structures. Wiley, Chichester, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Paik JK, Kim JH, Park SI, Islam S, Lee DH (2013) A new procedure for the nonlinear structural response analysis of offshore installations in fires. SNAME Maritime Convention, The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 6–8 November, Bellevue, WA, USAGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Paloposki T, Liedquist L (2005) Steel emissivity at high temperatures. VTT Research Notes 2299, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Purkis JA (2006) Fire safety engineering—design of structures, 2nd edn. Elsevier, New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rahmanian I, Wang Y (2009) Thermal conductivity of gypsum at high temperatures. Acta Polytechnica 49:16–20Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.The Korea Ship and Offshore Research Institute (Lloyd’s Register Foundation Research Centre of Excellence)Pusan National UniversityBusanKorea (Republic of)

Personalised recommendations