COMPARISONS AGAINST EXPERIMENTAL AND CLASSICAL RESULTS
A number of comparisons have been made with classical analytical results and tests. Some of these relate to ambient temperature behaviour, and although is intended primarily for use in modelling the structural response to high temperatures, it can also be used at a constant temperature but under increasing load to analyse conventional conditions for which classical solutions are available. The comparisons described below cover the following cases
Plastic analysis of an asymmetric beam at ambient temperature
Vulcan has been used to analyse the load-deflection behaviour of an asymmetric beam at ambient temperature. Details of the beam and the analytical results are shown in the figure, compared with the moment capacity of the section based on a simple plastic analysis. These indicate that, as the load is increased, the deflection increases, gradually in the first instance but increasingly rapidly as the moment capacity is approached. The point at which deflections might be regarded as running away compares very closely with the idealised plastic moment capacity, indicating that models collapse behaviour well.
Large deflection analysis of a cantilever beam at ambient temperature
Full scale fire test on the Slimdek floor system
The Building Research Establishment (BRE) conducted a full-scale fire test on a composite Slimdek floor extending across two bays of 6109mm in both directions. The slab was supported on a steel structure consisting of 254x254UC73 columns, 280ASB100 asymmetric beams and T-section (191x229x49) beams. The steel grade throughout was BSEN10025 S355 and C30concrete was used. The 295mm deep composite slab was cast on top of a SD225 deck. A single 20mm diameter reinforcing bar (Grade 460) was placed in each rib, and a uniformly distributed load of 6.88kN/m² was applied. The analytical results for the two beams are compared with the test results in the figure, and are in very good agreement.
|1.||Gere, J.M. and Timoshenko, S.P., ‘Mechanics of Materials’, Third Edition, PWS-Kent Publishing Company, 1984.|
|2.||Yam, L. C. P. & Chapman, J. C., ‘The inelastic behaviour of simply supported composite beams of steel and concrete’, J. Inst. Civ. Engrs., 41(1) (1968) pp651-683.|
|3.||Wainman, D.E. and Kirby, B.R., ‘Compendium of UK Standard Fire Test Data Unprotected Structural Steel-1’, British Steel Corporation, Ref. No. RS/RSC/S10328/1/87/B, Swinden Laboratories, Rotherham.|
|4.||Wainman, D.E. and Martin, D.M., ‘Preliminary Assessment of the Data Arising from a Standard Fire Resistance Test Performed on a Slimflor beam at the Warrington Fire research Centre on 14th February, 1996’, Technical Note SL/HED/TN/S2440/4/96/D, British Steel Swinden Technology Centre, March 1996.|
|5.||Lennon, T., ‘Full Scale Fire Test on a Slimdek Floor System,’ BRE Client Report TCR 30/99, November 1998.|