[0001] This invention relates to a fire wall and, more particularly, a fire wall incorporating
blast proofing, and to the production of such form of fire wall.
[0002] A typical fire wall is built up from Durasteel (Registered Trade Mark) sheets which
have been commercially available for over 50 years and which, in their basic form,
are a non-combustible, asbestos-free composite of fibre-cement between mechanically
bonded metal facing sheets normally of galvanised steel, but also possibly in austenitic
stainless steel or other materials when performance or environmental requirements
demand. The wall may also have a sandwich construction made of a pair of such sheets
with a flame retardant, for example, mineral wool filling therebetween. Coupling of
sheets or sandwich panels made up therefrom at their junctions is conventionally achieved
by means of L-section members extending along the edges of sheets or panels and bolted
to each other at their upstanding flanges and also to the sheets or panels. If panels
are employed, then at the edge regions there may be an internal reinforcement of U-section
through which pass bolts connecting the panels to flanges of L-section members. Although
there have been various developments in fire wall technology over the years, they
are normally produced from an array of standard sheets or sandwich panels, which array
is sized to the overall wall which is to be installed, with there being an appropriate
array of horizontal and vertical connections to adjacent sheets or panels. As the
sandwich panel construction is the more common, reference will generally be made thereto
in the description which follows except where otherwise indicated.
[0003] In recent years there have been a number of situations in which fire walls of conventional
type have proved to be unsatisfactory in operation, not so much because of inadequacies
in their fire limiting effect but because the fires are preceded by a blast which
causes deformation of the fire wall to such an extent that opposite sides of the fire
wall are communicated with one another so that flame can pass from one side of the
wall to the other. This has proved to be a particular problem on offshore oil and
gas platforms where, inter alia, living environments have to be safely separated from
working environments in the event of fire breaking out at the well head after a gas
explosion has occurred.
[0004] The deformation which conventional fire walls undergo in the event of a blast is
entirely plastic deformation. For a fire wall to offer resistance to a blast, it must
possess overall a capacity for elastic deformation, a resilience which will counter
the effect of a shock wave from a blast which is incident thereon, before onset of
plastic deformation. Such behaviourwhen the wall is subject to the action of an intense
shock wave from a blast has hitherto been generally lacking when the wall is of conventional
design.
[0005] It is an object of the present invention to provide a fireproof and blastproof wall
(hereinafter termed a fireblast wall) which will provide the required extent of protection
of living and other environments on, for example, an offshore gas or oil platform.
[0006] According to one aspect of the present invention, there is provided a building construction
comprising at least one fireblast wall located at a predetermined position in the
building construction and which has a design such that it is formed from an array
of fireproof sheets formed of a non-combustible, asbestos-free composite of fibre-cement
between mechanically bonded metal facing sheets; or from an array of panels each formed
from a spaced apart opposed pair of said fireproof sheets, optionally with flame retardant
material disposed therebetween, the fireproof sheets in said array being secured to
a supporting framework of structural beams extending lengthwise and transversely thereof,
characterised in that beams extending in at least one direction impart to the wall
a resistance to plastic deformation caused by a blast shockwave of predetermined intensity
which is incident thereon, which resistance is in excess of a minimum value predetermined
for a wall to be located at said position. The predetermined value will generally
be calculated for a wall at a predetermined location in a building construction and
for an expected maximum intensity of blast shock wave acting normally thereon. This
latter parameter can be determined by a man skilled in the art who has knowledge of
for example potential gas pressure build-ups on offshore oil and gas platforms.
[0007] It is preferred that positions of structural beams extending in at least one direction
coincide with abutting edge regions of fireproof sheets, with the fireproof sheets
then being connected to the structural beams as a means of achieving the structural
integrity of the array of sheets or panels. Additional structural beams may be disposed
at positions intermediate such abutting margins. The term "wall" is used herein to
denote both vertical walls and roof and/or floor partitions. In the former case, at
least the structural beams extending vertically will provide the resistance to plastic
deformation.
[0008] The design of such a wall is not simple to achieve because of the very many considerations
involved. The production of the wall is a costly procedure and the weight of reinforcement
as provided by the structural beams should therefore be minimised but without prejudice
to the effectiveness of the fire wall acting as a blast partition. In a single constructional
project, many different sizes of fire wall may well be required and each will be in
a location where it can be potentially subject to a different blast force. It would
be desirable for each individual fire wall to be designed as appropriate for its location.
I n view of the large number of fire walls to be incorporated on an offshore platform
and because of the large number of factors which has to be taken into consideration
in designing such wall, the design of compartmentation for equipment protection and
for quarters to be occupied on an offshore oil or gas platform with walls being blastproofwould
be extremely time consuming and unreliable.
[0009] Thus, according to a second aspect of the invention, there is provided a method of
constructing a fireblast wall according to the first aspect of the invention which
comprises the steps of:
a) establishing for the wall the value of said predetermined resistance to plastic
deformation;
b) inputting into a database elastic behaviour data for structural beams to extend
in at least one wall direction and which are of different profile and size and establishing
in the database a file correlating this data to fireblast walls of a said design having
a range of resistance to plastic deformation within which lies said predetermined
resistance to plastic deformation;
c) running a computer program which yields instructions for provision of an array
as aforesaid of such structural beams of identified character in panels of the wall
for providing at least a minimal deflection of a shock wave incident normally on the
wall sufficient to achieve said predetermined resistance to plastic deformation and;
d) constructing a said fireblast wall including such an array of structural beams
as part of a said building.
[0010] Although in principle the method may be employed to produce any array of reinforcing
members which will enable the wall to have the desired deformation characteristics,
as there may be a variety of alternative arrays which fulfils this function, the computer
is preferably programmed to select for use those reinforcing members which yield a
wall at minimum cost.
[0011] Alternatively, if only one type of structural beam is available, but in different
sizes, the smallest sectioned such beam type which provides the desired reinforcing
effect will be indicated. In addition, different sizes of fireproof sheet or panel
are commercially available and it may be desirable to use a smaller number of large
sheets or panels with relatively large reinforcing members to reduce labour costs.
A further approach will be for the user to have the freedom to select which beam member
type he wishes to use and then he can accept the design of wall produced for such
reinforcement.
[0012] The present invention thus provides a method which is simple to carry out by unskilled
workers since a procedure using dynamic/plastic procedures to determine the deflection
of a given structural beam for a given load condition and checking this against wall
thickness and deflection criteria to see whether the structural beam is acceptable
can be repeated for a wide range of different beam types and beam section sizes with
all necessary details being contained in a database file. In this way, fire walls
not previously contemplated can be readily produced.
[0013] If there is a door (or hatch) through the wall, the structural beams adjacent to
the door will have different weights per unit length to those remote from an opening.
As a door is a source of weakness in a partition, the computer will be programmed
to select members for such a wall which will generally all have the same depth. Additional
parameters which may be incorporated in the program will enable the handling of complex
geometries or highly irregularly shaped environments with suitably sized structural
beams then being proposed.
[0014] Hitherto herein, there have been no observations on the securing of the fireblast
wall of the invention to side walls. The strength of the securing as such will be
reflected in the maximum blast force which it is required that the wall withstand.
[0015] For a better understanding of the invention and to show how the same can be carried
into effect, reference will now be made by way of example only to the accompanying
drawings wherein:
Figures 1A an B are sections through conventional fire walls at panel connection positions;
Figure 2 is a section through a fireblast wall produced according to the invention;
Figure 3 shows the build up of an offshore platform and the required locations of
fireblast walls;
Figure 4 is a flowchart showing the overall structure of a program whose running is
embodied in the method of this invention;
Figure 5 is a computer screen design of a fireblast wall produced according to this
invention; and
Figure 6 is a pressure-time curve of a blast acting on a wall structure.
[0016] Referring to Figure 1A of the drawings, a single skin construction of conventional
fire wall has two panels 100 and 101 each formed of a non-combustible, asbestos-free
composite of fibre-cement 102 between metal facing sheets 103 and 104 which are mechanically
bonded together (not shown) and which are hereinafter referred to as "Durasteel" panels.
The end edges of the sheets abut at 105 and connection therebetween is achieved by
L-shaped members 106 which are connected together by means of bolts 107 and to the
panels 100 and 101 by means of bolts 107a.
[0017] Figure 1B shows a sandwich construction between two wall sections 110 and 111 each
of which is formed of a pair of Durasteel panels 100 and 101 respectively with a mineral
wool or other flame retardant filling 112 therebetween. The respective pairs of panels
100 and 101 are separated by means of U-sectioned members 113. L-shaped members 106
are again employed on one face of panels in connecting together of the panels. However,
hexagonal head self-tapping screws 108 are employed for connecting the L-shaped members
to the panels. A facing strip 114 of Durasteel lies over the opposite face of the
panels at the joint and the screws 108 for connection of the L-shaped members to the
panels extend right through the panels and through Durasteel strips 114 to maintain
structural integrity and sealing at the connection position between the respective
panels.
[0018] The structure shown in Figure 2 is a modification of that appearing in Figure 1B
with like reference numerals denoting like parts in Figure 1 B, in that in place of
the L-shaped members essentially external of the sandwich panel structure, there is
positioned within the panel structure and abutting the internal faces of panels 110
and 111 an I-sectioned joist 120 whose shape and location obviates the need for the
U-shaped member 113 of Figure 2. A strip 114 of Durasteel lies at both faces of panels
110 and 111 over the junction therebetween. Because of the depth of the panel structure,
it is often not necessary for a flame retardant filling to be present between panels
110 and 111 or, if present, for it to occupy the entire space between the panels.
The quantity of filling is determined by the fire rating required and, as shown in
Figure 2 at 116 it is more of a lining for those panels 110 and 111 on which flame
is likely to be incident, the flame approaching in the direction shown by arrow 119.
The joist 120 is clad with like filling, usually of mineral wool, as shown at 117.
The filling is attached to joist 120 and panels 110 and 111 by means of electric discharge
stud fixings 118 as shown or mineral wool adhesive. Sealing is completed by silicone
mastic 115 applied over both faces of panels 100 and 111 where they are to be contacted
by strip 114 or joist 120.
[0019] The use of a variety of different structural beams togetherwith, or as alternatives
to, the joist shown in Figure 2 can take place in building up a wall construction
or floor construction which is to have the fireproof and blastproof characteristics.
Once the array of structural members has been predetermined, then conventional building
techniques as used in offshore platform construction may be employed to assemble preformed
walls from wall sections constructed either on or off site or from an array of panels
and with structural beams possibly present at positions intermediate margins of the
wall sections and certainly present at the margins of the walls sections and able,
additionally, to take part then in linking of walls of different chambers either in
line with each other or at an angle. The constructional techniques employed do not
themselves form part of the present invention and do not require elaboration here.
[0020] Figure 3 shows through four views A, B, C and D the build up of an offshore platform.
The walls which need to have at least fireproof and generally also blastproof characteristics
are indicated by reference numerals 131 to 141 and appear shaded in the respective
view indicated in the stage at which the wall concerned is installed. Thus, in Figure
3, the reference numerals indicate the following:
131) Escape tunnel
132) Blow out preventer walls
133) Machinery housing
134) Generator casings
135) Accommodation and service area compartment
136) Turbine house walls
137) Combustible material storage
138) Fire walls to risk elevations on manifold compression platforms
139) Protection below heli deck
140) Shield below flare stack of maintenance platform
141) Fuel storage protection
[0021] In general, of these featured walls, only shield 140 need not have blast protection.
Other parts of an offshore platform which need to have both blast and fire protection
will be escape routes, the water ring main, gas cables, etc.
[0022] These various walls are of different size and shape and potentially subject to different
intensities of shock wave according to blasts to which they may be subject. Each requires
its own careful design parameters which should enable as much onshore construction
as possible to take place. Such construction preferably takes place according to the
program of the flowchart of Figure 4 of the accompanying drawings. This flowchart
is driven from a main menu 1 which is a first instruction screen reached on entering
the program. From here it is possible to select one of ten main sub-screens 10 to
19 having the following features:-Retrieve model 10 enables data and results to be
retrieved from a previous run. The program checks at 21 to see whether any retrieved
file exists or whether it does not exist and to prevent a premature exit from the
program. If, at 20, the retrieve option is not used, then the program starts with
a default set of values.
[0023] Geometry module 11 will be discussed in greater detail hereinafter. If changes are
made to the wall geometry, then a graphics screen which will illustrate the recommended
partition structure will be redrawn on exiting from the geometry module.
[0024] Loading module 12, materials module 13 and options module 14 will be described in
greater detail hereinafter. Data from each of modules 11 to 14 is edited at 22 to
25 respectively.
[0025] Run module 15 causes a program to enter a design routine. The data is first checked
at 26. If errors are detected, then at 33 the user is returned to the main menu. If
no errors are detected, the program proceeds at 34 with the design process. Further
details are set out hereinafter.
[0026] Results module 16 calls up the results sub-menu. 27 indicates the absence of availability
of results with the user being returned to the main menu. If a results file is found
at 28, the user may proceed to view the results. Further comments on the results follow
hereinafter.
[0027] Print module 17 enables the user to print results from within the program. If no
results are currently available, it is necessary at 30 for the user to call up an
existing print file 36. If results are available from a recent run as indicated at
29, then it is necessary to write a print file for that run 35.
[0028] Save module 18 enables the user to save the current data 31. This is written to file
and may be retrieved at a later time using the retrieve module.
[0029] Finally, exit module 19 enables the user to exit from the program in an orderly fashion
with all files being closed ready for ending the program at 32. Data may be saved
through this routine.
[0030] Some of the aforementioned modules will now be described in greater detail as follows.
[0031] The geometry module 11 allows the user to specify the overall dimensions and spacings
for the blast wall.
[0032] There is a list of parameters to set out:
a) Wall height, i.e. deck to deck height which will correspond to the vertical beam
length;
b) Spacing between verticals, i.e. spacing between main load carrying members. This
is preferably 1 m or 3 m corresponding to the widths of available Durasteel sheets.
c) Spacing between horizontals. Horizontal members need not always have a reinforcing
function and may be of prior art type. They may span between large uprights, typically
at a spacing of 1.5 m or less.
d) Door widths clear openings. This is not an essential parameter if the door width
is less than the spacing between verticals. Otherwise in its calculation, account
should be taken of an arbitrary allowance for flange widths of the upright and any
door framing.
e) Door height clear opening, i.e. deck to horizontal support member for any uprights
above door opening and to define the height above the door. If this height is less
than 0.15 m, then there is no need for any reinforcing member above the door. If there
is no door, this dimension is set to zero.
f) Maximum static wall thickness: this defines the maximum thickness of wall when
installed. Thickness is defined as the depth of the beam plus 25 mm free to clad face.
For a typical wall clad on both sides this equates to the beam depth plus 50 mm. This
parameter is used to reject members that have to large a depth.
g) Deflection allowance: this is the distance beyond the static wall thickness that
a wall is allowed to deflect. If the actual wall thickness is less than the maximum
static wall thickness, then the difference is added to the deflection allowance. For
all widths of wall, this dimension is used purely to work out the total weight of
the wall.
[0033] The various supporting members will be referred to hereinafter as beams. Materials
menu 13 is used to select the type and section of beam. The use of three types of
material has been found to be satisfactory, these having BS4360 grades 43, 50 and
55. All are assumed to have a Young's Modulus of 210 x 10
3 N/mm
2 and yield stresses of 275, 355 and 420 N/mm
2 respectively. The program may have a facility for the user to define his own yield
stress and Young's Modulus. The beam sections which may be employed include universal
beam (UB), joist (JST), channel (CHNL), universal column (UC) and bearing pile (BP).
Because of the wide variety of approaches which may be selected according to profile
and material, which would result in a considerable computational overhead, it is preferred
to preselect the section type to be used, thereby, in addition, achieving a control
over the final design.
[0034] For achieving optimal design of firebiast waits a number of analysis options are
available which can be used at will. These include the following:
1) Strain raise effects.
2) Composite action, i.e. adding in to the elasticity calculations those which may
be attributed to the wall in its unreinforced state.
3) Cladding: This may be dispensed with on one side of the wall where an HO fire rating
rather than H120 rating is acceptable. With single sided cladding, i.e. single Durasteel
rather than sandwich structure of Figure 2, then the use of composite action in the
computation should be prevented since single sided applications would not contribute
to the elastic behaviour of the overall wall.
4) Material factor: This represents small variations in material properties such as
for the natural scatter in yield strength associated with a particular grade of steel.
5) Load factor: A safety margin to be applied to the analysis.
[0035] Reverting to Figure 4 of the drawings, the results menu 16 provides five graphics
screens. The first of these is a wall sketch 50 which is reproduced herein as Figure
5 of the accompanying drawings. This screen displays the geometry of the wall associated
with the set of results active at the time. If results are called up from an existing
file, then the screen that is displayed is appropriate to the results. Main beams
are indicated at B. Determination of the appropriate uniform load for these beams
is straightforward. For beams A, C and D which are associated with door openings,
it is necessary to make assumptions with regard to the area that is loading the beam
concerned. If the facility is being used for only a 3 or 4 point curve (see hereinafter),
then the remaining pressures up to 6 should be set to zero. Horizontal beams which
are here non-load bearing are not captioned but are referred to hereinafter as beams
E. Certain typical dimensions which are shown are expressed in metres.
[0036] 51 denotes a results summary which comprises a summary of the main input parameters
plus details of the recommended beam sizes. If there is no door, results are only
presented for the type B beams. Results are provided as follows:-
1) Shear at end 61, (SHEAR 1) is the reaction force at one end of the beam. It is
calculated from the peak in the formally distributed load multiplied by the static
load factor. It thus accounts for dynamic amplification effects. For number types
B, C and D the reaction force will be the same at each end.
2) Shear at end 62, (SHEAR 2) is the reaction force at the other end of the beam and
will differ from end 61 only for beam type A.
3) Permanent deflection (PRMD) is an indication of the degree of plastic response.
4) Maximum deflection (MAXMD) is the maximum deflection calculated during the dynamics
routine for the size of beam specified. It includes elastic as well as plastic deflections.
The maximum deflection should always be less than the allowable deflection.
5) The PERIOD of the wall system is determined by the dynamics routine by calculations
based on classic theory and the assumption that the beam remains elastic. In practice,
the beam may become plastic but not to an extent sufficient to cause its deformation
to take the wall precision out of its installed position.
6) Static Load Factor (SLF): The dynamics routine solves the equation of motion on
a time stepping basis. At each step it is possible to evaluate the reaction as a proportion
to the reaction were the beam to be loaded statically with peak pressure. The program
checks the SLF at each stage and stores the highest value.
[0037] The static load factor is a good indication of whether the system being proposed
is efficient. Design should aim for SLF's approximately equal to or less than unity.
SLF's greater than about 1.25 indicate that the beam is responding primarily in the
elastic region.
[0038] Examples of results 1) to 6) appear in Example 1 which follows together with additional
information which is optionally provided for information, i.e. information in respect
of wall weight, nominal wall weight for main steel comprising entirely type B beams,
local to door weight, being the weight of the main steel associated with an opening
and excluding the area weight there. (It comprises two type A beams and all beams
lying therebetween), total weight exclusive of any doors etc. Wall displacements of
interest to the engineer constructing a fireblast wall are allowable displacements
which comprises the static wall thickness plus the deflection allowance less the actual
wall thickness, and the second displacement which is the maximum wall displacement
predicted by the program. Deflections for type A, C and D beams are additive. The
maximum wall deflection is thus the greatest of the following:
1) Mid-point deflection of beam type B.
2) Mid-point deflection of beam type A.
3) Mid-point deflection of beam type C plus the deflection of beam type A at the position
of intersection with beam C. The latter portion is determined on the assumption that
the type A beam has a deflection varying with the square of the distance along the
beam.
4) Half the mid-point deflection of beam type C plus the mid-point deflection of beam
type D.
[0039] A view detail screen 52 indicates the results for those parameters which have been
specifically inputted as a matter of choice by the engineer. The view detail screen
allows the user to look at the results of other section sizes as screen 55. Only those
section sizes that passed the preliminary selection will be available for viewing.
General details will only be presented for a type B beam loading. The view detail
screen will only be added to the print file at 56 if specifically requested by the
user.
[0040] Finally, the program will develop a series of notes at 53 appropriate to specific
sensible data which has ben inputted to provide final guidance to the designer. When
the results sequence has been followed, this program section can be exited to the
main menu at 54.
[0041] The design of a fireblast wall in accordance with the invention is carried out automatically
by computer program once all load factors, materials, geometry and options have been
correctly entered. Routines 37, 38 and 39 in the flow scheme are followed in a first
step to establish the beam sizes. This is coupled with a dynamics routine 41 which
however takes a relatively long time to run. Hence it is unacceptable to pass all
beams to be solved. Beam sections are therefore screened at the start of the design
phase. Since screening involves eliminating beams that are too large, the screening
procedure is carried out, in essence, for the type A beams. However when there is
no door in the fireblast wall, screening is carried out for type B beams. Screening
step 38 involves the following:
1) Checking that the beam is of a type selected in the materials module.
2) Checking that the beam will not result in a wall thicker than the static wall thickness.
3) Checking that the beam elastic modulus is less than 1.25 times the required elastic
modulus to resist the peak load. The required elastic modulus is determined from simple
beam theory using yield of the limiting stress. This limits vastly oversized sections.
[0042] Once a beam has passed preliminary screening, the data for passing to the dynamics
routine can be assembled. If the beam does not pass preliminary screening, then the
next section in the properties file is to be read and screened.
[0043] At 40, the load is determined for each beam in accordance with assembled data. All
of the data is available from the input routines except for the beam properties with
include depth of beam and beam weight and which are required to calculate the beam
mass. The beam properties filed must be read before all data can be assembled for
handing to the dynamics routine. The mass handed to the dynamics routine incorporates
a factor of 0.5 which is the mass transformation factor derived from classical theory.
[0044] The dynamics routine which will be described in greater detail hereinafter consists
of dynamic load factor, natural period, permanent set and maximum deflection. These
values are stored along with the beam properties in a dynamic array within the program
for later processing.
[0045] In the beam properties file, the various beams are divided into different depth groups.
All beams within that group have a nominal depth ±10 mm approximately.
[0046] Once the type A beams have been analysed, a routine is used at 43 to check whether
the maximum deflection exceeds that allowable. Those depth groups that have one or
more type A beams with an acceptable deflection have identification therefore stored.
[0047] For a wall with a door, it is necessary for all beams to have a similar depth. There
is no purpose served in analysing a section for beams B, C or D loading unless there
exists a suitable type A beam. Once a suitable type A beam has been found, the program
proceeds to assemble the loads and masses. The dynamics routine is then called up
and the process is repeated at 44 for all the selected sections within acceptable
depth groups and for each of beams B, C and D. The results obtained are then sorted
at 45 to select the beams which have been analysed to give the lightest weight wall.
Sorting proceeds on a depth group by depth group basis since all beams selected for
a given wall must have a similar depth. Sorting starts by identifying the lightest
weight type A beam. To this is passed the deflection of the lightest weight type C
beam and the lightest weight type D beam. If the deflection calculated by this procedure
accepts the allowable deflection, then the next heaviest D beam is used. If none of
the D beams within a given depth group is suitable then the next heaviest C beam is
used and the procedure is repeated until all possible combinations have been analysed
or the lightestweight wall for that particular depth group identified. A standard
for the lightest weight wall may be defined as the weight of the door framing plus
the weight of four type B beams. When a suitable combination of beams has been found,
the section types are stored at 46.
[0048] The above procedure is repeated for each depth group. When all depth groups have
been checked, the program selects the depth group that has the lightest weight wall
of all. If none of the depth groups has passed all the criteria of maximum deflections
exceeding allowable deflections, then the program reports at 47 that no solution has
been found. To find a solution will require a change of input criteria.
[0049] If a solution has been found, the beams are identified for use in the results. The
program also then defines at 48 a type E beam which is the lighter in terms of mass
per metre of the following:-
1) Type B beam.
2) Beam comprising 80 x 8 mm flanges and a 5 mm thick web. The beam depth is equal
to that of the type B beam.
At this stage the program returns to the main menu 1.
[0050] The flow scheme of Figure 4 will also operate with alternative routes through the
program. Specifically two other routes may be identified:
a) When there is no door in the wall it is unnecessary to analyse type A, C and D
beams. The program may thus be set up so that if the door width is less than the spacing
between the verticals, then the door is not considered to be present. The path through
the program is similar except that type B loading is used for any type A beams. The
results and graphic screens are modified accordingly.
b) A user may want to specify his own section properties. These may be entered and
a solution immediately found. Loads, basic geometry, options and materials are taken
from the main body of the program and automatically used. Results can be sent to the
print file if required.
[0051] Dynamics routine 41 forms the core of the present invention. The program uses the
technique of idealising the simple beam system of a lumped mass, single degree of
freedom (SDOF) model. This means that the beam can be regarded as behaving as if it
were a mass oscillating on a spring. In this analogy, the spring equates to the stiffness
of a beam, the mass to the beam mass and the force in the spring to the moment in
the beam. Loads can be applied to the system to force a response. A limitation of
the idealisation is that, although the spring stiffness can be chosen to give a correct
load deflection behaviour under dynamic loads, the response of the system is not correctly
modeled. This results from inertia effects which are a function of mass, velocity
and acceleration. These vary along the beam length. However if the deflected shape
of a beam is known, it is possible to derive transformation factors which can be applied
to the load, mass and resistance of the actual system in order for it to be correctly
modeled by the SDOF idealisation.
[0052] The resistance factor is applied to the stiffness of the beam. In order for Hooke's
law to hold both for the actual and equivalent system, it can be shown that the resistance
factor must be equal to the load factor. The load and mass factors are derived on
the assumption of a deformed shape of beam under loading. The deformed shape must
obviously be a comparatively forward equation. Although this is a simplification of
the analysis, it can be established that the "shape functions" used give a comparatively
accurate idealisation.
[0053] In the practice of this invention, the beam will transfer from an elastic regime
to a plastic regime by the formation of a hinge at mid-span. A major change in the
deformed shape of beam occurs with this. It is thus necessary to use a different set
of transformation factors once yielding has occurred. The transformation factors applicable
to a pin-ended beam with uniformly distributed mass unload are given in the following
Table 1.

[0054] The program changes from elastic values to plastic values when the yield point is
reached. Since in practice this does not occur at a point, and to help reduce potential
numerical instabilities, the procedure used is to linearly interpolate the load and
mass factors between 0.9 of yield and yield.
[0055] In the idealised SDOF model, the force in the spring has been equated to the moment
in the beam. From this it is possible to calculate the reaction forced by considering
the equilibrium of the beam. However the idealisation does not have the full load
applied. It is thus necessarily assumed in the idealisation to be transferred direct
to the support points by known mathematical techniques. The reaction forces for the
elastic and plastic cases are as follows:-
Elastic: Dynamic reaction = 0.39R + 0.11 F
Plastic: Dynamic reaction = 0.38R + 0.12F where R = instantaneous beam resistance
and F = instantaneous total load
In the application of the theory to the program, the same equation may be used for
both elastic and dynamic ranaes:
[0056] 
[0057] The program utilised in the practice of this invention is also based on the basic
equation of motion as defined below:

wherein F(t) is the load which can vary against time, k is the spring stiffness, M
is the mass, y is the displacement and y is the acceleration. Note that in the application
of this equation to find the motions of a beam it is necessary to use the transformation
factors mentioned above.
[0058] The above equation can be solved by numerical integration if the conditions are known
at a given moment in time. This will always be the case at time T = 0 when the displacement,
velocity and force are all zero. Otherwise, the numerical integration procedure is
a standard procedure and numerical solutions to the equations of motion can be found
in various references including "Introduction to Structural Dynamics", John M. Biggs,
McGraw Hill Book Company 1964.
[0059] The basic equation of motion can be modified to include the effects of damping as
follows:

wherein c denotes damping coefficient and y is velocity. The damping coefficient acts
to restrict movement causing oscillations to "fade away". Most structural systems
exhibit some level of damping and although difficult to define precisely, values of
c of 0.08 have been found to be suitable.
[0060] For a fireblast wall embodying the invention, higher levels of damping are to be
expected. Despite large initial displacements, there is almost no evidence of. induced
harmonic motion. The harmonic response which is evident has a longer natural period
than that of the beam and is believed to represent a warping mode. For this reason
c has been increased to 0.1. A further increase in c would have overestimation consequences
leading to a serious underestimate of deflection.
[0061] The basic equations of motion assume that the system remains in the elastic regime.
For fireblast walls embodying the invention, it is a specific requirement that the
beams be allowed to deform plastically, thereby absorbing energy and attenuating the
load. The basic equation of motion can thus be modified further to reflect the fact
that the resistance function of the beam is no longer following Hooke's law.

wherein R
m is the plastic resistance of the beam.
[0062] The program first solves the aforementioned equations in the elastic region and determines
the deflection. From this deflection is subtracted any plastic deflection that has
occurred in previous time steps. The resulting deflection can be used with the beam
stiffness to determine whether the beam resistance R
m has been exceeded. If it has, then the equation is used to determine the correct
deflection.
[0063] In the above procedure it is necessary to distinguish between elastic deflection
and plastic deformation since the latter remains locked in and is not recoverable.
The value of R
m is not a constant and should be adjusted at each step to vary both with the values
of the transformation factor and the strain rate.
[0064] One advantage of a time stepping procedure is the opportunity to make adjustments
to parameters of each time step. This enables strain rate effects to be realistically
included. The procedure is to work for a deflection strain for a given load step from
the deflection increment according to the equation:

where
d = length of beam
δ = displacement increment
L = beam length
[0065] This strain is turned into a rate of strain by dividing by the time increment.
[0066] Once the rate of strain is known, it is converted to a factor which can be applied
to the yield stress. This is done using the Cowper-Symonds equation:

where, for structural steels, the recommended values are D = 40.4 and p = 5. This
factor is not applied to yield stress in the program but to the plastic resistance
limit R
m.
[0067] The output of the dynamics routine is a dynamic load factor (DLF) which is the ratio
of the maximum dynamic reaction force to the statically derived reaction for consuming
peak load. The DLF is calculated at each time step and checked against the previous
highest value. At the end of the dynamics routine, the maximum DLF is returned to
the main program.
[0068] As indicated before, the load curve provided to the diameter routine is generally
a 6 point curve as shown in Figure 6 in which pressure is plotted against time from
explosion. Pressure build-up begins after under 1 sec. and peaks and declines again
within 100 to 200 ms before subsidiary peaks occur and can also be monitored. However,
load data may only be available for the first two sections of the curve for build-up
to the main pressure peak and decline therefrom, i.e. a triangular distribution. The
dynamics routine checks for this condition by monitoring for two successive zero load
states.
[0069] In order to calculate the DLF's, the dynamics routine needs to check the load data
to determine the maximum load. This is carried out at the start of the routine. The
time step used in the analysis is determined by first calculating a variable TFAC
which indicates the rate of change of load relative to the natural period:

where time interval = period of time between start and end of the sector of curve
change of load = load change above the time interval defined above
[0070] The time step is them selected by the following criteria:
* if TFAC < 0.3 then timestep = (beam natural period)/24
* if TFAC < 0.1 then timestep = (beam natural period)/12
* if TFAC < 0.01 then timestep = time interval
* if TFAC >= 0.3 then timestep = (beam natural period)/36
[0071] The timestep determined above is converted after calculation to be an integer division
of the time interval. The values against which TFAC are checked and the right hand
denominators have been selected by careful sensitivity analysis and found to give
solutions with accuracy better than 2% for a wide range of curve shapes. Because each
part of the curve will generate a different time interval, it is necessary to analyse
each part of the curve separately. This does not affect the numerical integration
procedure in that there is always a starting set of conditions.
[0072] The following example illustrates the invention.
Example 1
[0073] Utilising a computer program according to the flow scheme of Figure 4 a fireblastwall
was designed having the following characteristics:

[0074] The aforementioned data was inputted into the computer and the data set out in Table
2 below outputted as a specification for a wall of lightest weight having the desired
dynamic properties:

[0075] The wall which was thus designed had a maximum allowable displacement of 350 mm for
a predicted displacement of 68 mm, a nominal weight of 103 kg/m, a local to door weight
of 123 kg/m and a total weight of 5.5 T.
Example 2
[0076] The procedure of Example 1 was repeated for like loading characteristics but with
a predetermined UB section 305 x 127 mm and a weight of 48 kg. The following data
were determined for a wall having such data inputted:

[0077] Once again it is assumed that the wall was clad on both sides. The wall weight was
based upon the 'B' beams having a weight of 110 kg/m
2 with a nominal wall thickness of 360 mm. If all beams of the wall were of this type,
then the maximum deflection of the wall was to be 237 mm and the total weight of the
wall to be 5.7 T.
Comparative Example
[0078] The modified procedure of Example 2 was repeated using UB beams 127 x 76 mm with
a weight of 13 kg. The results obtained are set out in the following Table 4:

[0079] Again it was assumed that the wall was clad on both sides. The wall weight based
on this lighter beam was 73 kg/m
2 with there being a nominal wall thickness of 177 mm. If all the beams of the wall
would have been this type, then the maximum deflection of the wall would have been
3181 mm and the total weight of the wall would have been 3.7 T. This maximum deflection
is in excess of that allowable and therefore the aforementioned beam could not be
utilised in practice.
[0080] In the foregoing examples the following factors were taken into account:
1) The analysis assumed that all beams were pin ended. If the beam ends have a degree
of fixing, this will reduce maximum deflections but will increase reaction loads.
2) The end reactions must be resisted by supporting structures. These are significantforces
which generally require local stiffening of the supporting structure.
3) The analysis assumes lateral restraint is provided to the beam flanges by the basic
fireproof wall structure. This requires the structure to be attached rigidly to the
beams.
4) Composite action has been assumed. This requires that the panels be attached to
the steel work in the manufacturer's recommended manner.
5) The horizontal beams have been selected as I sections in order to minimise weight.
lfweight is not critical, a type B beam can be used for the horizontals.
6) Material stream rate effects are included. If low ductility steel is to be used
and/or the wall is expected to experience very low temperature, the strain rate effects
are to be removed from the computation. Alternatively, further advice is to be obtained
from a metallurgist.
7) The program selects equal depth beams for the wall assuming that there is cladding
on both sides. If the wall is only to be clad on one side, it may be possible to make
a lighter weight construction by using different depth beams. A view detail option
should then be used to obtain details of suitable beams. However, the detailing then
becomes much more complex if different depth beams are used.
8) The wall is drawn on a screen as shown in the accompanying Fig. 2. This is for
the purpose of identifying beams but does not represent the full width of the wall
as input on the geometry menu.