Fire Design

LaMalva, Kevin J.

doi:10.4324/9781315733722-9

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furnace A, vs in situ B, boundary conditions 25. Each spring color represents a different stiffness [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com] effects often govern much of the response of structural systems in fire.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rectification of “restrained vs unrestrained”

LaMalva¹,

Bisby

Gales

et al. 2020

Fire and Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary For furnace testing of fire‐resistant floor and roof assemblies in the United States, the ASTM E 119 standard (and similarly the UL 263 standard) permits two classifications for boundary conditions: “restrained” and “unrestrained.” When incorporating tested assemblies into an actual structural system, the designer, oftentimes a fire protection or structural engineer, must judge whether a “restrained” or “unrestrained” classification is appropriate for the application. It is critical that this assumption be carefully considered and understood, as many qualified listings permit a lesser thickness of applied fire protection for steel structures (or less concrete cover for concrete structures) to achieve a certain fire resistance rating if a “restrained” classification is confirmed, as compared with an “unrestrained” classification. The emerging standardization of structural fire engineering practice in the United States will disrupt century‐long norms in the manner to which structural behavior in fire is addressed. For instance, the current edition of the ASCE/SEI 7 standard will greatly impact how designers consider restraint. Accordingly, this paper serves as an exposé of the “restrained vs unrestrained” paradigm in terms of its paradoxical nature and its controversial impact on the industry. More importantly, potential solutions toward industry rectification are provided for the first time in a contemporary study of this paradigm.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rectification of “restrained vs unrestrained”

LaMalva¹,

Bisby

Gales

et al. 2020

Fire and Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Keys to Successful Design

Feeney¹,

LaMalva

Quiel

2021

International Handbook of Structural Fire Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Design Fires and Actions

Hopkin¹,

Coile

Hopkin³

et al. 2021

International Handbook of Structural Fire Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter addresses design fires in the context of structural fire safety. Figure 4.1 illustrates a typical structural fire engineering (SFE) design process. First, the design fuel load must be derived for the given space, which represents the potential energy that needs to be considered. Once the design fuel load is established, estimation of the fire exposure intensity on the structure is a key next step in the process. Specifically, thermal boundary conditions acting on structural and/or insulative exposed boundaries must be derived so that subsequent heat transfer analyses may be conducted to determine the temperature histories of the given structural system. Also, it is important to note that SFE typically only considers a subset of design fires, which are those that are uncontrolled (any cooling effects of active fire protection systems and/or manual intervention are neglected) and termed as structural design

show abstract

Fire Design

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Rectification of “restrained vs unrestrained”

Rectification of “restrained vs unrestrained”

Keys to Successful Design

Design Fires and Actions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About