A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Rectification of “restrained vs unrestrained”
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.
Rectification of “restrained vs unrestrained”
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.
Rectification of “restrained vs unrestrained”
LaMalva, Kevin (author) / Bisby, Luke (author) / Gales, John (author) / Gernay, Thomas (author) / Hantouche, Elie (author) / Jones, Cliff (author) / Morovat, Ali (author) / Solomon, Robert (author) / Torero, Jose (author)
Fire and Materials ; 44 ; 341-351
2020-04-01
351 pages
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
English
Rectification of “restrained vs unrestrained”
| Wiley | 2020
Restrained Vs. Unrestrained Fire Ratings: A Practical Approach
British Library Online Contents | 1997
RESTRAINED Vs. UNRESTRAINED FIRE RATINGS: A PRACTICAL APPROACH
Online Contents | 1997
Dynamic Axial Stiffness of Typical Restrained and Unrestrained Underground Pipe Joints
| British Library Online Contents | 2005