Fire resistance: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:54, 2 November 2026

Fire resistance is the ability of a building member or assembly to maintain specified functions for a stated time under a defined fire exposure. Depending on the assembly, these functions include carrying loads, preventing the passage of flames and limiting heat transmission. A rating records performance against particular criteria, rather than a general resistance to every possible fire.^[1]^[2]

Assessment concerns the complete construction and its conditions. Materials, dimensions, protection, loading, connections and restraint can all affect the result. A standard furnace test provides one means of evaluation, while suitable calculations can connect the exposure to temperatures and structural response. Both approaches require a defined endpoint.^[3]

The duration in a rating is therefore inseparable from the method used to establish it. It is not automatically the time available for evacuation, the time to collapse in a natural fire or a measure of combustibility. Understanding the exposure and performance criteria is necessary to interpret what the rating demonstrates.^[2]^[4]^[5]

The functions being assessed

Fire resistance criteria identify the functions that an assembly must maintain. Structural adequacy concerns carrying the specified load without unacceptable structural response. Integrity concerns the passage of flames or hot gases through a separating assembly. Insulation concerns heat transmission to the unexposed side. These functions can reach their endpoints at different times.^[1]^[6]^[7]

A separating wall illustrates the difference between integrity and insulation. Heat can conduct through an intact wall and raise the temperature of its unexposed surface. No visible opening is needed for that heat transfer to become excessive under an insulation criterion. Conversely, a crack can permit hot gases or flames to pass even where most of the wall remains comparatively cool.^[4]

Structural adequacy is a further, separate question. A load-bearing member can lose strength or stiffness as its temperature rises. Its response also depends on applied loads and the conditions at its supports. A thermal result therefore cannot establish structural endurance unless it is connected to a suitable structural criterion or model.^[2]

New Zealand's C/VM2, second edition of 2025, expresses the fire resistance rating through three times in minutes. The stated order is structural adequacy, integrity and insulation. That notation makes the separate functions explicit. Other test and classification systems require their own interpretation rather than an assumed transfer of symbols or values.^[7]

Three panels for load support, flame separation and limited heat transmission. — Fire resistance has three distinct performance criteria. Based on Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025), p. 64.

How a furnace test establishes a rating

A Fire resistance test exposes a defined specimen to a prescribed heating history while monitoring the required endpoints. Milke describes this approach through the United States ASTM E119 framework in the 2002 handbook. A successful specimen receives a rating for the stated test duration and conditions. The rating belongs to the tested assembly and its permitted applications.^[2]

The specimen can include several materials and components. Protection around a steel member, for example, changes the heat entering the steel and its temperature history. The test observes the interaction between the protection and the member. This is one reason separate material properties do not always reproduce the behaviour of an assembled construction.^[2]

Loads and restraint form part of the test arrangement. Restraint describes the extent to which surrounding construction prevents thermal movement. Milke explains that framing geometry and connections affect the distinction between restrained and unrestrained test systems. A result obtained under one arrangement cannot automatically represent another arrangement with different movement conditions.^[6]

The monitored endpoints also depend on the assembly. They can include maintaining the applied load, limiting temperatures and preventing the passage of flames or gases capable of igniting a specified target. Some historical ASTM procedures include a hose-stream exposure. These observations have distinct purposes, so a report identifies which endpoints and procedures apply to its specimen.^[6]

Standard furnace curve heats an assembly and leads to structural, flame and temperature endpoints. — Fire-resistance testing links exposure to assembly endpoints. Based on Milke (2002), pp. 4-209–4-210.

An unlisted assembly and a failed assembly are not the same evidential category. Milke explains that an assembly without a listing has no established rating unless acceptable performance is demonstrated. That demonstration may involve a standard test, a special experiment or an analytical method. Absence of a rating therefore concerns the available evidence, rather than an observed failure time.^[8]

Reading temperature criteria correctly

A temperature rise is a difference from the starting temperature. It is not the same quantity as an absolute temperature. Confusing them changes the interpretation of an insulation criterion, even when both are printed using degrees Celsius. The initial condition therefore belongs with the stated limit and measurement location.^[9]

Milke's historical ASTM E119 table gives wall-insulation examples of a 139 °C average rise and a 181 °C single-point rise. These values apply to measurements on the unexposed side of the stated wall or partition assemblies. They are not limiting furnace temperatures. The table also contains other endpoints for steel members, which require their own interpretation.^[9]

Wall with average 139 °C and single-point 181 °C temperature-rise criteria marked on the unexposed side. — ASTM E119 wall-insulation endpoint examples (temperature rise). Based on Milke (2002), p. 4-211.

An average and a single-point limit address different aspects of the temperature field. The average represents the group of measured locations, while the single-point value constrains a local high temperature. Keeping both avoids replacing the endpoint definition with one convenient measurement. Neither value alone describes the complete fire exposure or the structural condition of the specimen.^[9]

A structural temperature criterion is different again. Kodur and Harmathy explain that a critical temperature corresponds to the material becoming unable to support the applied load under the adopted conditions. It consequently depends on loading and material behaviour. A temperature used in a simplified test-based method is not a universal temperature at which every member collapses.^[10]^[8]

Standard exposure and a worked example

A Standard fire curve prescribes temperature as a function of time. It provides a repeatable exposure for comparing assemblies. It does not directly describe the heat release rate of a burning object or the temperature in every real room. Van Rossum distinguishes these quantities because they serve different purposes in a fire analysis.^[5]

Milke presents the following approximation for the ISO 834 furnace-temperature history. The logarithm describes the continuing rise in prescribed temperature, while the initial temperature is added separately. In this expression, time is entered in seconds. The coefficient 0.133 carries reciprocal-second units, making the quantity inside the logarithm dimensionless.^[11]

$T_{f} = T_{0} + 345 \log_{10} (0.133 t + 1)$

Symbol	Description	Unit
$T_{f}$	Prescribed furnace temperature	°C
$T_{0}$	Initial temperature	°C
$t$	Elapsed heating time	s

Using an initial temperature of 20 °C gives approximately 841 °C at 1,800 s and 945 °C at 3,600 s. These calculations use the rounded coefficient printed by Milke. They illustrate the prescribed thermal environment at 30 min and 60 min. They do not predict the temperature of the specimen, which requires a separate heat-transfer calculation.^[9]^[11]

The equation contains no material thickness, conductivity, loading or support condition. It therefore cannot calculate whether a particular wall or beam survives either exposure duration. Two assemblies in the same furnace can develop different internal temperatures and structural responses. The standard curve supplies one input to the assessment, not its final result.^[8]^[11]

Material and assembly behaviour

Materials perform different functions within an assembly. Steel provides load-bearing capacity but changes strength and stiffness when heated. Concrete can carry load while delaying heat transfer to reinforcement. Insulating materials can protect a structural component without carrying significant load themselves. The complete assembly combines these roles under the imposed exposure.^[12]^[13]

Combustible construction can also retain structural function for a specified period. White describes timber endurance through protective membranes, the extent of charring and the capacity of the remaining uncharred wood. Char itself has very little load-bearing capacity. The existence of combustion therefore does not, by itself, establish the time at which the member loses its required function.^[14]^[15]

Conversely, noncombustibility does not establish fire resistance. A material can remain unburned while its mechanical properties deteriorate or its unexposed surface becomes too hot. This is the distinction from Reaction to fire, which concerns the material's contribution to fire development. Different tests are needed because the two assessments follow different physical outcomes.^[1]^[12]^[16]

Changes to an assembly can affect several outcomes together. White explains that changing membranes, member spacing or insulation can fall outside the tested timber arrangement. Adding insulation does not produce an automatic improvement in every floor or roof assembly. The relevant evidence is the behaviour of the revised construction, including how its layers remain supported during heating.^[17]

Heat transfer through protection can involve physical and chemical changes as well as ordinary conduction. Van Rossum describes moisture evaporation, release of chemically bound water and swelling as processes that change thermal response. These processes can consume energy or alter the heat-conduction path. An assembly calculation using fixed room-temperature properties may therefore miss part of the protective behaviour.^[18]

The relevant time is also a property of the complete sequence. The furnace heats the surface, energy moves through the construction, and the specified endpoint is reached at a measurement location or structural state. A material's conductivity describes only one part of this sequence. It cannot by itself supply a duration without geometry, boundary conditions and the selected endpoint.^[8]^[18]

Fire resistance within compartmentation

Fire compartmentation uses separating construction to restrict the spread of fire between spaces. The wall or floor is only part of that separation. Existing openings, closures and penetrations can provide other routes for spread. The 2005 International Fire Engineering Guidelines therefore consider spread through openings separately from failure of the barrier material.^[19]^[4]

The guidelines distinguish conduction, loss of integrity and loss of stability as different barrier-failure mechanisms. Conduction can heat nearby combustible material without opening the barrier. Loss of integrity includes cracks and failure of firestopping, while loss of stability involves collapse. A fire-resistance rating must be interpreted alongside the boundary details relevant to those mechanisms.^[4]

Door use also changes the separation during evacuation. The same guidelines treat the time of opening a door as information supplied by the occupant-movement analysis. A closed-door test does not describe the period when the door is open. Compartmentation performance consequently depends on the states of its openings as well as the endurance of closed components.^[4]

Passive fire protection includes the barriers and protective materials that support these functions. Their performance is expressed through particular constructions and conditions, rather than a general promise that fire remains contained. This connection explains why rated construction and its installation details belong to the same design. A rating on one component cannot close an unprotected route around it.^[4]^[20]

Calculation methods and validation

Structural fire engineering connects fire exposure, heat transfer and structural response. The first stage defines the thermal environment. The second calculates temperatures within the member, using material properties and boundary conditions. The third evaluates the consequences for stresses, deformation and load-carrying capacity. A calculation of one stage does not independently establish the others.^[8]

Empirical correlations provide a simpler route where sufficient test data exist. Milke explains that such correlations are limited by the exposure, loading and span represented in their underlying tests. Their numerical simplicity does not remove those limits. Applying a correlation outside its supporting range introduces a different problem from interpolating within the tested conditions.^[8]

Thermal models can represent either standard exposure or a specified nonstandard fire. Their output may be the time to a chosen temperature or a temperature distribution for structural analysis. Temperature-dependent properties and the description of heating both affect accuracy. A model with detailed geometry can still produce a misleading result if those physical inputs are unsuitable.^[8]

Testing remains relevant even where calculation is available. It supplies material behaviour, checks assembly interactions and provides evidence for judging model predictions. New Zealand's 2025 C/VM2 definition explicitly connects its calculation route to verification against standard fire-resistance tests. That connection identifies the evidence supporting a rating rather than treating calculation as evidence by itself.^[6]^[7]

Limits when applying a rating

A furnace test is a controlled representation with practical size and support constraints. Milke notes that these constraints make some results comparative rather than exact reproductions of entire structures. An extended continuous frame can behave differently from an isolated specimen. The tested configuration and the proposed application therefore remain part of the interpretation.^[21]

A real compartment fire can grow, reach a maximum and decay. Its temperature history depends on the fuel, ventilation and enclosure, while the standard curve serves a repeatable testing purpose. A stated rating is therefore not a direct forecast of survival time in every natural fire. Connecting the two requires a method that represents the relevant exposure and structural conditions.^[5]^[8]

The same rating also does not establish the time available for occupants to escape. The International Fire Engineering Guidelines treat barrier performance, fire spread and other subsystem results as interacting parts of an analysis. Smoke and opening conditions can affect adjacent spaces before a closed assembly reaches its furnace-test endpoint. Escape and containment consequently require related but distinct assessments.^[19]^[4]

Notes

↑ ^1.0 ^1.1 ^1.2 Kodur and Harmathy (2002), p. 1-155.
↑ ^2.0 ^2.1 ^2.2 ^2.3 ^2.4 Milke (2002), pp. 4-209–4-210.
↑ Milke (2002), pp. 4-209–4-211.
↑ ^4.0 ^4.1 ^4.2 ^4.3 ^4.4 ^4.5 ^4.6 Australian Building Codes Board et al. (2005), p. 1.6-7.
↑ ^5.0 ^5.1 ^5.2 Van Rossum (2027), §8.6.
↑ ^6.0 ^6.1 ^6.2 ^6.3 Milke (2002), pp. 4-210–4-211.
↑ ^7.0 ^7.1 ^7.2 Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025), p. 64.
↑ ^8.0 ^8.1 ^8.2 ^8.3 ^8.4 ^8.5 ^8.6 ^8.7 Milke (2002), p. 4-209.
↑ ^9.0 ^9.1 ^9.2 ^9.3 Milke (2002), p. 4-211.
↑ Kodur and Harmathy (2002), p. 1-163.
↑ ^11.0 ^11.1 ^11.2 Milke (2002), p. 4-223.
↑ ^12.0 ^12.1 Kodur and Harmathy (2002), p. 1-157.
↑ Fleischmann and Buchanan (2002), p. 4-239.
↑ White (2002), p. 4-257.
↑ White (2002), p. 4-260.
↑ Janssens (2002), pp. 3-38–3-39.
↑ White (2002), pp. 4-257–4-259.
↑ ^18.0 ^18.1 Van Rossum (2027), §5.2.
↑ ^19.0 ^19.1 Australian Building Codes Board et al. (2005), p. 1.6-3.
↑ Milke (2002), pp. 4-212–4-214.
↑ Milke (2002), p. 4-210.

References

Australian Building Codes Board, National Research Council of Canada, International Code Council, & Department of Building and Housing New Zealand. (2005). International fire engineering guidelines. Australian Building Codes Board.
Fleischmann, C., & Buchanan, A. (2002). Analytical methods for determining fire resistance of concrete members. In P. J. DiNenno (Ed.), SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering (3rd ed., pp. 4-239–4-256). National Fire Protection Association.
Janssens, M. (2002). Calorimetry. In P. J. DiNenno (Ed.), SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering (3rd ed., pp. 3-38–3-62). National Fire Protection Association.
Kodur, V. K. R., & Harmathy, T. Z. (2002). Properties of building materials. In P. J. DiNenno (Ed.), SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering (3rd ed., pp. 1-155–1-181). National Fire Protection Association.
Milke, J. A. (2002). Analytical methods for determining fire resistance of steel members. In P. J. DiNenno (Ed.), SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering (3rd ed., pp. 4-209–4-238). National Fire Protection Association.
Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. (2025). C protection from fire: Verification method C/VM2 (2nd ed.).
Van Rossum, E. (2027). Introduction to Fire Safety Engineering. Fire Safety Academy.
White, R. H. (2002). Analytical methods for determining fire resistance of timber members. In P. J. DiNenno (Ed.), SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering (3rd ed., pp. 4-257–4-273). National Fire Protection Association.

[KH_1-155-1] 1.0 ^1.1 ^1.2 Kodur and Harmathy (2002), p. 1-155.

[M_4-209_4-210-2] 2.0 ^2.1 ^2.2 ^2.3 ^2.4 Milke (2002), pp. 4-209–4-210.

[M_4-209_4-211-3] Milke (2002), pp. 4-209–4-211.

[IFEG_1.6-7-4] 4.0 ^4.1 ^4.2 ^4.3 ^4.4 ^4.5 ^4.6 Australian Building Codes Board et al. (2005), p. 1.6-7.

[VR_8.6-5] 5.0 ^5.1 ^5.2 Van Rossum (2027), §8.6.

[M_4-210_4-211-6] 6.0 ^6.1 ^6.2 ^6.3 Milke (2002), pp. 4-210–4-211.

[CVM_64-7] 7.0 ^7.1 ^7.2 Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025), p. 64.

[M_4-209-8] 8.0 ^8.1 ^8.2 ^8.3 ^8.4 ^8.5 ^8.6 ^8.7 Milke (2002), p. 4-209.

[M_4-211-9] 9.0 ^9.1 ^9.2 ^9.3 Milke (2002), p. 4-211.

[KH_1-163-10] Kodur and Harmathy (2002), p. 1-163.

[M_4-223-11] 11.0 ^11.1 ^11.2 Milke (2002), p. 4-223.

[KH_1-157-12] 12.0 ^12.1 Kodur and Harmathy (2002), p. 1-157.

[FB_4-239-13] Fleischmann and Buchanan (2002), p. 4-239.

[W_4-257-14] White (2002), p. 4-257.

[W_4-260-15] White (2002), p. 4-260.

[J_3-38_3-39-16] Janssens (2002), pp. 3-38–3-39.

[W_4-257_4-259-17] White (2002), pp. 4-257–4-259.

[VR_5.2-18] 18.0 ^18.1 Van Rossum (2027), §5.2.

[IFEG_1.6-3-19] 19.0 ^19.1 Australian Building Codes Board et al. (2005), p. 1.6-3.

[M_4-212_4-214-20] Milke (2002), pp. 4-212–4-214.

[M_4-210-21] Milke (2002), p. 4-210.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-'''Fire resistance''' is the duration for which a building element satisfies specified performance criteria during fire exposure. These criteria concern structural adequacy, integrity and insulation, with the required functions depending on the element. Fire resistance is therefore a performance property of an assembly, not simply the combustibility of the materials from which it is made.<ref name="CVM2-64">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025), p. 64.</ref><ref name="Kodur-Harmathy-1-155">Kodur and Harmathy (2002), p. 1-155.</ref>
+'''Fire resistance''' is the ability of a building member or assembly to maintain specified functions for a stated time under a defined fire exposure. Depending on the assembly, these functions include carrying loads, preventing the passage of flames and limiting heat transmission. A rating records performance against particular criteria, rather than a general resistance to every possible fire.<ref name="KH_1-155">Kodur and Harmathy (2002), p. 1-155.</ref><ref name="M_4-209_4-210">Milke (2002), pp. 4-209–4-210.</ref>
-Structural adequacy concerns load-bearing performance and stability, integrity concerns preventing flame and hot-gas passage, and insulation concerns limiting temperature transmission. C/VM2 presents a fire resistance rating as three numbers giving the minutes for which each criterion is satisfied, always in that order. The criteria can have different durations.<ref name="CVM2-64" /><ref name="Milke-4-210">Milke (2002), pp. 4-209–4-210.</ref>
+Assessment concerns the complete construction and its conditions. Materials, dimensions, protection, loading, connections and restraint can all affect the result. A standard furnace test provides one means of evaluation, while suitable calculations can connect the exposure to temperatures and structural response. Both approaches require a defined endpoint.<ref name="M_4-209_4-211">Milke (2002), pp. 4-209–4-211.</ref>
-Fire resistance can be established through standard tests, special experiments or analytical techniques supported by experimental evidence. The result depends on the exposure, loading, restraints, geometry and end conditions. It should not be transferred to another assembly without assessing those differences.<ref name="Milke-4-209">Milke (2002), p. 4-209.</ref><ref name="Milke-4-210" />
+The duration in a rating is therefore inseparable from the method used to establish it. It is not automatically the time available for evacuation, the time to collapse in a natural fire or a measure of combustibility. Understanding the exposure and performance criteria is necessary to interpret what the rating demonstrates.<ref name="M_4-209_4-210" /><ref name="IFEG_1.6-7">Australian Building Codes Board et al. (2005), p. 1.6-7.</ref><ref name="VR_8.6">Van Rossum (2027), §8.6.</ref>
-== Performance criteria ==
+== The functions being assessed ==
-[[Fire resistance criteria]] define the functions an element must maintain and the conditions for judging failure. A load-bearing column needs structural support, while a separating wall may need to prevent flame passage and limit unexposed-side temperature. The appropriate criteria follow the element's purpose.<ref name="Kodur-Harmathy-1-155" /><ref name="Milke-4-210" />
+[[Fire resistance criteria]] identify the functions that an assembly must maintain. Structural adequacy concerns carrying the specified load without unacceptable structural response. Integrity concerns the passage of flames or hot gases through a separating assembly. Insulation concerns heat transmission to the unexposed side. These functions can reach their endpoints at different times.<ref name="KH_1-155" /><ref name="M_4-210_4-211">Milke (2002), pp. 4-210–4-211.</ref><ref name="CVM_64">Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025), p. 64.</ref>
-Structural adequacy is not only avoidance of collapse. Deflections, strains and stress levels can be compared with established limits, and load-bearing performance must continue for the required period. Actual loading and end restraint can therefore change the result.<ref name="Milke-4-209" /><ref name="Milke-4-210" />
+A separating wall illustrates the difference between integrity and insulation. Heat can conduct through an intact wall and raise the temperature of its unexposed surface. No visible opening is needed for that heat transfer to become excessive under an insulation criterion. Conversely, a crack can permit hot gases or flames to pass even where most of the wall remains comparatively cool.<ref name="IFEG_1.6-7" />
-Integrity limits the passage of flame and hot gases through an assembly. Cracks, joints and failed firestopping can create paths even when the main element remains in place. ASTM E119 also includes ignition of cotton waste as an endpoint related to flame and hot-gas transmission.<ref name="Milke-4-210" />
+Structural adequacy is a further, separate question. A load-bearing member can lose strength or stiffness as its temperature rises. Its response also depends on applied loads and the conditions at its supports. A thermal result therefore cannot establish structural endurance unless it is connected to a suitable structural criterion or model.<ref name="M_4-209_4-210" />
-Insulation limits heat transmission and temperature rise on the unexposed side. ASTM E119 includes average and single-point temperature endpoints, including an average of 139 °C and a single point of 181 °C for walls and partitions in the cited method. These values belong to that test method and should not be treated as universal criteria.<ref name="Milke-4-211">Milke (2002), p. 4-211.</ref>
+New Zealand's C/VM2, second edition of 2025, expresses the fire resistance rating through three times in minutes. The stated order is structural adequacy, integrity and insulation. That notation makes the separate functions explicit. Other test and classification systems require their own interpretation rather than an assumed transfer of symbols or values.<ref name="CVM_64" />
-[[File:fse-fire-resistance-v3.svg|thumb|upright=1.5|alt=Wall with average 139 °C and single-point 181 °C temperature-rise criteria marked on the unexposed side.|ASTM E119 wall-insulation endpoint examples (temperature rise). Based on Milke (2002), p. 4-211.]]
-C/VM2 requires its three criteria to be reported in the order structural adequacy, integrity and insulation. A rating can consequently communicate different durations for different functions rather than implying one uniform period of complete performance.<ref name="CVM2-64" />
 [[File:fse-fire-resistance-v1.svg|thumb|upright=1.5|alt=Three panels for load support, flame separation and limited heat transmission.|Fire resistance has three distinct performance criteria. Based on Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2025), p. 64.]]
-== Standard exposure and testing ==
+== How a furnace test establishes a rating ==
-The [[Standard fire curve]] provides a specified furnace temperature-time exposure for fire-resistance testing. ASTM E119 uses such a curve to represent severe room-fire exposure, while acknowledging limitations for exterior members. The curve is a test input, not a prediction of every real compartment fire.<ref name="Milke-4-210" /><ref name="Lie-4-201">Lie (2002), pp. 4-201–4-203.</ref>
+A [[Fire resistance test]] exposes a defined specimen to a prescribed heating history while monitoring the required endpoints. Milke describes this approach through the United States ASTM E119 framework in the 2002 handbook. A successful specimen receives a rating for the stated test duration and conditions. The rating belongs to the tested assembly and its permitted applications.<ref name="M_4-209_4-210" />
-A [[Fire resistance test]] subjects an assembly to that furnace environment and records when the relevant endpoint is reached. Tests can be conducted with or without load, and structural assemblies can be restrained or unrestrained against thermal expansion. These arrangements influence the measured performance.<ref name="Milke-4-209" /><ref name="Milke-4-210" />
+The specimen can include several materials and components. Protection around a steel member, for example, changes the heat entering the steel and its temperature history. The test observes the interaction between the protection and the member. This is one reason separate material properties do not always reproduce the behaviour of an assembled construction.<ref name="M_4-209_4-210" />
-ASTM E119 evaluates structural integrity, temperature, flame passage, cotton-waste ignition and, in some cases, hose-stream response. Unloaded tests can have a relaxed structural criterion requiring only that the component remains in place. The test report must therefore state the loading and endpoint arrangement.<ref name="Milke-4-210" />
+Loads and restraint form part of the test arrangement. Restraint describes the extent to which surrounding construction prevents thermal movement. Milke explains that framing geometry and connections affect the distinction between restrained and unrestrained test systems. A result obtained under one arrangement cannot automatically represent another arrangement with different movement conditions.<ref name="M_4-210_4-211" />
-[[File:fse-fire-resistance-v2.svg|thumb|upright=1.5|alt=Standard furnace curve heats an assembly and leads to structural, flame and temperature endpoints.|Fire-resistance testing links exposure to assembly endpoints. Based on Milke (2002), pp. 4-209–4-210.]]
-Furnace and specimen dimensions limit the test. Milke notes that continuous beams, actual full floor or roof systems and long columns may not be tested in full, making the result comparative. Actual performance requires appropriate analysis and validation rather than assuming literal full-scale reproduction.<ref name="Milke-4-210" />
+The monitored endpoints also depend on the assembly. They can include maintaining the applied load, limiting temperatures and preventing the passage of flames or gases capable of igniting a specified target. Some historical ASTM procedures include a hose-stream exposure. These observations have distinct purposes, so a report identifies which endpoints and procedures apply to its specimen.<ref name="M_4-210_4-211" />
-C/VM2 permits a rating from a standard test or from a specific calculation method verified by experimental data from standard fire-resistance tests. This establishes a link between analytical methods and experimental evidence within New Zealand's 2025 framework.<ref name="CVM2-64" />
+[[File:fse-fire-resistance-v2.svg|thumb|upright=1.5|alt=Standard furnace curve heats an assembly and leads to structural, flame and temperature endpoints.|Fire-resistance testing links exposure to assembly endpoints. Based on Milke (2002), pp. 4-209–4-210.]]
-== Fire compartmentation ==
+An unlisted assembly and a failed assembly are not the same evidential category. Milke explains that an assembly without a listing has no established rating unless acceptable performance is demonstrated. That demonstration may involve a standard test, a special experiment or an analytical method. Absence of a rating therefore concerns the available evidence, rather than an observed failure time.<ref name="M_4-209">Milke (2002), p. 4-209.</ref>
-[[Fire compartmentation]] divides a building into enclosures intended to limit fire and smoke spread. Fire resistance enables the enclosing elements to preserve that separation for the required time. It is one part of a wider strategy that also addresses openings, penetrations and active systems.<ref name="IFEG-1.6-7">Australian Building Codes Board et al. (2005), p. 1.6-7.</ref><ref name="CVM2-64" />
+== Reading temperature criteria correctly ==
-Conductive heat can expose the unexposed side even when integrity and stability remain intact. Combustibles there can then ignite, so insulation and the disposition of adjacent fuel must be assessed together. A wall that remains standing is not necessarily preventing every form of fire spread.<ref name="IFEG-1.6-7" /><ref name="Rockett-Milke-1-29">Rockett and Milke (2002), p. 1-29.</ref>
+A temperature rise is a difference from the starting temperature. It is not the same quantity as an absolute temperature. Confusing them changes the interpretation of an insulation criterion, even when both are printed using degrees Celsius. The initial condition therefore belongs with the stated limit and measurement location.<ref name="M_4-211">Milke (2002), p. 4-211.</ref>
-Loss of integrity creates cracks and paths for flame and hot gases, while loss of stability creates larger openings through collapse. These are distinct failure modes and can occur at different times. Fire-resistance analysis should track them separately.<ref name="IFEG-1.6-7" />
+Milke's historical ASTM E119 table gives wall-insulation examples of a 139 °C average rise and a 181 °C single-point rise. These values apply to measurements on the unexposed side of the stated wall or partition assemblies. They are not limiting furnace temperatures. The table also contains other endpoints for steel members, which require their own interpretation.<ref name="M_4-211" />
-Doors, glazing, dampers and penetrations are part of the same separating system. Their ratings and operation affect the assembly's overall performance, and a stronger wall does not compensate automatically for a weaker penetration. The whole construction must be assessed.<ref name="CVM2-64" /><ref name="IFEG-1.6-7" />
+[[File:fse-fire-resistance-v3.svg|thumb|upright=1.5|alt=Wall with average 139 °C and single-point 181 °C temperature-rise criteria marked on the unexposed side.|ASTM E119 wall-insulation endpoint examples (temperature rise). Based on Milke (2002), p. 4-211.]]
-== Structural fire engineering ==
-[[Structural fire engineering]] evaluates how fire exposure changes temperatures, material properties, deformations and load-bearing behaviour. It links a fire-exposure model with heat-transfer analysis and structural mechanics. All three are required for a defensible fire-resistance assessment.<ref name="Milke-4-209" /><ref name="Kodur-Harmathy-1-155" />
-Fire exposure describes gas temperatures and heat flux over time. Heat transfer then determines the temperature distribution within the member, including surface resistance, conduction and, where relevant, internal radiation and convection. Finally, structural analysis evaluates strength, stiffness, stability and deformation under elevated temperatures.<ref name="Milke-4-209" />
-Material properties often change substantially during heating. Conductivity, heat capacity, strength and elastic modulus can vary, and microstructural changes can make the material different from its ambient condition. Temperature-dependent data are therefore necessary for many assessments.<ref name="Kodur-Harmathy-1-163">Kodur and Harmathy (2002), p. 1-163.</ref><ref name="Fleischmann-Buchanan-4-241">Fleischmann and Buchanan (2002), pp. 4-241–4-242.</ref>
-Loading and restraint affect both stress and deformation. Thermal expansion can be resisted by connections and adjacent construction, creating additional forces or changing stability. The actual framing and end conditions must be represented rather than assuming a generic simply supported member.<ref name="Milke-4-210" /><ref name="Fleischmann-Buchanan-4-242" />
-== Passive fire protection ==
-[[Passive fire protection]] uses construction, materials and details to resist fire without requiring activation. Fire-resistant walls, floors, doors, coatings and firestops contribute by preserving separation, protecting members and limiting heat transfer. Their performance depends on installation and continuity.<ref name="CVM2-64" /><ref name="White-4-259">White (2002), pp. 4-259–4-260.</ref>
+An average and a single-point limit address different aspects of the temperature field. The average represents the group of measured locations, while the single-point value constrains a local high temperature. Keeping both avoids replacing the endpoint definition with one convenient measurement. Neither value alone describes the complete fire exposure or the structural condition of the specimen.<ref name="M_4-211" />
-Protective membranes delay heating and can preserve member capacity for longer. White's component-additive discussion assigns times to membranes and framing based on ASTM E119 evidence, while warning that fastener type and spacing can be critical. Installation details therefore belong in the assessment.<ref name="White-4-259" />
+A structural temperature criterion is different again. Kodur and Harmathy explain that a critical temperature corresponds to the material becoming unable to support the applied load under the adopted conditions. It consequently depends on loading and material behaviour. A temperature used in a simplified test-based method is not a universal temperature at which every member collapses.<ref name="KH_1-163">Kodur and Harmathy (2002), p. 1-163.</ref><ref name="M_4-209" />
-Intumescent and other coatings can add an insulating layer, but adhesion and durability under deformation matter. A coating that performs in a small test may fail when a member bends or cracks. Full-scale evaluation is needed where those conditions apply.<ref name="White-4-260">White (2002), p. 4-260.</ref>
+== Standard exposure and a worked example ==
-Passive protection also includes limiting ignition of adjacent fuel and preventing flame and smoke passage. Its effectiveness should be judged against structural adequacy, integrity and insulation rather than only against visible flames. Thermal exposure can continue after the initial fire has declined.<ref name="Rockett-Milke-1-29" /><ref name="IFEG-1.6-7" />
+A [[Standard fire curve]] prescribes temperature as a function of time. It provides a repeatable exposure for comparing assemblies. It does not directly describe the heat release rate of a burning object or the temperature in every real room. Van Rossum distinguishes these quantities because they serve different purposes in a fire analysis.<ref name="VR_8.6" />
-== Reaction to fire and combustibility ==
+Milke presents the following approximation for the ISO 834 furnace-temperature history. The logarithm describes the continuing rise in prescribed temperature, while the initial temperature is added separately. In this expression, time is entered in seconds. The coefficient 0.133 carries reciprocal-second units, making the quantity inside the logarithm dimensionless.<ref name="M_4-223">Milke (2002), p. 4-223.</ref>
-[[Reaction to fire]] concerns how a material contributes to ignition, heat release, spread and smoke. Fire resistance instead concerns an assembly's continued performance under exposure. A combustible member can be protected to achieve a rating, while a noncombustible member can still fail structurally or transmit excessive heat.<ref name="CVM2-64" /><ref name="Janssens-3-38">Janssens (2002), pp. 3-38–3-39.</ref>
+<math display="block">T_f=T_0+345\log_{10}(0.133t+1)</math>
-Noncombustibility does not guarantee fire resistance. Materials can melt, spall, expand, lose strength or allow heat transmission without burning. The assembly's functions and failure modes must be evaluated explicitly.<ref name="Kodur-Harmathy-1-155" /><ref name="Kodur-Harmathy-1-163" />
+{| class="wikitable"
+! Symbol !! Description !! Unit
+|-
+| <math>T_f</math> || Prescribed furnace temperature || °C
+|-
+| <math>T_0</math> || Initial temperature || °C
+|-
+| <math>t</math> || Elapsed heating time || s
+|}
-Combustible content can also change the exposure of other elements. If an assembly ignites, it can add heat release and weaken separation, while if it remains protected, it can delay the fire's development. Reaction and resistance therefore interact but remain distinct measurements.<ref name="Kodur-Harmathy-1-157">Kodur and Harmathy (2002), p. 1-157.</ref><ref name="IFEG-1.6-7" />
+Using an initial temperature of 20 °C gives approximately 841 °C at 1,800 s and 945 °C at 3,600 s. These calculations use the rounded coefficient printed by Milke. They illustrate the prescribed thermal environment at 30 min and 60 min. They do not predict the temperature of the specimen, which requires a separate heat-transfer calculation.<ref name="M_4-211" /><ref name="M_4-223" />
-== Analysis and validation ==
+The equation contains no material thickness, conductivity, loading or support condition. It therefore cannot calculate whether a particular wall or beam survives either exposure duration. Two assemblies in the same furnace can develop different internal temperatures and structural responses. The standard curve supplies one input to the assessment, not its final result.<ref name="M_4-209" /><ref name="M_4-223" />
-Analytical methods range from empirical correlations to heat-transfer and structural calculations. Empirical methods are limited to the exposure, loading and span represented in their supporting tests. Other conditions require an appropriate heat-transfer or structural model.<ref name="Milke-4-209" />
+== Material and assembly behaviour ==
-Heat-transfer analysis estimates the time to a critical temperature or supplies temperatures for structural analysis. Its accuracy depends on exposure description and temperature-dependent properties. Structural analysis then requires loading, end conditions and elevated-temperature material behaviour.<ref name="Milke-4-209" />
+Materials perform different functions within an assembly. Steel provides load-bearing capacity but changes strength and stiffness when heated. Concrete can carry load while delaying heat transfer to reinforcement. Insulating materials can protect a structural component without carrying significant load themselves. The complete assembly combines these roles under the imposed exposure.<ref name="KH_1-157">Kodur and Harmathy (2002), p. 1-157.</ref><ref name="FB_4-239">Fleischmann and Buchanan (2002), p. 4-239.</ref>
-Testing remains necessary to validate calculations and assess interactions between members, insulation and other components. Calculation can extend test results and reduce the need for additional experiments, but it does not eliminate the need for evidence.<ref name="Milke-4-210" /><ref name="CVM2-64" />
+Combustible construction can also retain structural function for a specified period. White describes timber endurance through protective membranes, the extent of charring and the capacity of the remaining uncharred wood. Char itself has very little load-bearing capacity. The existence of combustion therefore does not, by itself, establish the time at which the member loses its required function.<ref name="W_4-257">White (2002), p. 4-257.</ref><ref name="W_4-260">White (2002), p. 4-260.</ref>
-Results should include their exposure and endpoint definitions. A rating based on one furnace curve and load arrangement does not automatically cover a natural fire, different restraint or another assembly. Any extrapolation should be justified and documented.<ref name="Milke-4-210" /><ref name="Lie-4-201" />
+Conversely, noncombustibility does not establish fire resistance. A material can remain unburned while its mechanical properties deteriorate or its unexposed surface becomes too hot. This is the distinction from [[Reaction to fire]], which concerns the material's contribution to fire development. Different tests are needed because the two assessments follow different physical outcomes.<ref name="KH_1-155" /><ref name="KH_1-157" /><ref name="J_3-38_3-39">Janssens (2002), pp. 3-38–3-39.</ref>
-== Limits and common misunderstandings ==
+Changes to an assembly can affect several outcomes together. White explains that changing membranes, member spacing or insulation can fall outside the tested timber arrangement. Adding insulation does not produce an automatic improvement in every floor or roof assembly. The relevant evidence is the behaviour of the revised construction, including how its layers remain supported during heating.<ref name="W_4-257_4-259">White (2002), pp. 4-257–4-259.</ref>
-Fire resistance is not the time until an element first shows damage. It is the time for which specified criteria continue to be met. Local damage can occur without failure, and different criteria can fail at different times.<ref name="CVM2-64" /><ref name="Milke-4-210" />
+Heat transfer through protection can involve physical and chemical changes as well as ordinary conduction. Van Rossum describes moisture evaporation, release of chemically bound water and swelling as processes that change thermal response. These processes can consume energy or alter the heat-conduction path. An assembly calculation using fixed room-temperature properties may therefore miss part of the protective behaviour.<ref name="VR_5.2">Van Rossum (2027), §5.2.</ref>
-A rating is not a universal property of a material. It belongs to an assembly under its test or verified analytical conditions. Changing thickness, joints, loading or exposure can change the rating.<ref name="Milke-4-209" /><ref name="White-4-259" />
+The relevant time is also a property of the complete sequence. The furnace heats the surface, energy moves through the construction, and the specified endpoint is reached at a measurement location or structural state. A material's conductivity describes only one part of this sequence. It cannot by itself supply a duration without geometry, boundary conditions and the selected endpoint.<ref name="M_4-209" /><ref name="VR_5.2" />
-An intact barrier does not necessarily provide adequate insulation. Heat can be conducted through it and expose occupants or fuel on the other side. Integrity, stability and insulation must be evaluated separately.<ref name="IFEG-1.6-7" /><ref name="Rockett-Milke-1-29" />
+== Fire resistance within compartmentation ==
-Finally, the standard curve is not every real fire. Natural fires can have different growth, peak, duration and decay, and those differences affect performance. Fire-resistance assessment must state which exposure is being represented.<ref name="Lie-4-201" /><ref name="Cadorin-Franssen-429">Cadorin et al. (2003), pp. 429–430.</ref>
+[[Fire compartmentation]] uses separating construction to restrict the spread of fire between spaces. The wall or floor is only part of that separation. Existing openings, closures and penetrations can provide other routes for spread. The 2005 International Fire Engineering Guidelines therefore consider spread through openings separately from failure of the barrier material.<ref name="IFEG_1.6-3">Australian Building Codes Board et al. (2005), p. 1.6-3.</ref><ref name="IFEG_1.6-7" />
-The evidence should be assigned to the correct part of the assembly. A furnace-average temperature, a steel or reinforcement temperature and an unexposed-surface temperature describe different aspects of performance. Reporting them as one value can conceal which criterion actually failed.<ref name="Milke-4-210" /><ref name="Fleischmann-Buchanan-4-242">Fleischmann and Buchanan (2002), p. 4-242.</ref>
+The guidelines distinguish conduction, loss of integrity and loss of stability as different barrier-failure mechanisms. Conduction can heat nearby combustible material without opening the barrier. Loss of integrity includes cracks and failure of firestopping, while loss of stability involves collapse. A fire-resistance rating must be interpreted alongside the boundary details relevant to those mechanisms.<ref name="IFEG_1.6-7" />
-Protection should be assessed as a complete system rather than a thickness alone. Membrane continuity, fasteners, joints and attachment determine whether the intended thermal path exists throughout exposure. A nominally identical material can therefore produce different ratings when installed differently.<ref name="White-4-259" /><ref name="White-4-260" />
+Door use also changes the separation during evacuation. The same guidelines treat the time of opening a door as information supplied by the occupant-movement analysis. A closed-door test does not describe the period when the door is open. Compartmentation performance consequently depends on the states of its openings as well as the endurance of closed components.<ref name="IFEG_1.6-7" />
-Loading should remain consistent with the structural evaluation. A member that remains in place under self-weight is not equivalent to one carrying its full design load, and restrained expansion can add further forces. Test and analysis reports should state those conditions before comparing results.<ref name="Milke-4-210" />
+[[Passive fire protection]] includes the barriers and protective materials that support these functions. Their performance is expressed through particular constructions and conditions, rather than a general promise that fire remains contained. This connection explains why rated construction and its installation details belong to the same design. A rating on one component cannot close an unprotected route around it.<ref name="IFEG_1.6-7" /><ref name="M_4-212_4-214">Milke (2002), pp. 4-212–4-214.</ref>
-Exposure duration and decay also matter. A member can pass an early criterion and fail later as heat penetrates, or it can remain vulnerable after the furnace has stopped heating. Fire-resistance assessment should therefore consider the complete relevant thermal history.<ref name="Rockett-Milke-1-29" /><ref name="Lie-4-201" />
+== Calculation methods and validation ==
-For compartmentation, the receiving side must be included. Insulation criteria limit temperature rise, but actual ignition also depends on combustible material and its arrangement there. A numerical insulation result does not by itself prove that fire will not spread to the next enclosure.<ref name="IFEG-1.6-7" /><ref name="Kanury-2-231">Kanury (2002), pp. 2-231–2-232.</ref>
+[[Structural fire engineering]] connects fire exposure, heat transfer and structural response. The first stage defines the thermal environment. The second calculates temperatures within the member, using material properties and boundary conditions. The third evaluates the consequences for stresses, deformation and load-carrying capacity. A calculation of one stage does not independently establish the others.<ref name="M_4-209" />
-For structural fire engineering, alternative load paths and local failures can change system behaviour. Connections and adjacent elements may provide restraint or additional capacity, but they also conduct heat. A system-level review is needed where member-only analysis cannot represent those interactions.<ref name="Fleischmann-Buchanan-4-242" /><ref name="Cadorin-Franssen-430">Cadorin et al. (2003), p. 430.</ref>
+Empirical correlations provide a simpler route where sufficient test data exist. Milke explains that such correlations are limited by the exposure, loading and span represented in their underlying tests. Their numerical simplicity does not remove those limits. Applying a correlation outside its supporting range introduces a different problem from interpolating within the tested conditions.<ref name="M_4-209" />
-A final report should distinguish tested performance, calculated performance and regulatory acceptance. Test data support a rating, calculations extend it to defined conditions, and the authority's rules determine how it may be used. Keeping those roles separate prevents an analytical result from being presented as direct test evidence.<ref name="CVM2-64" /><ref name="Milke-4-210" />
+Thermal models can represent either standard exposure or a specified nonstandard fire. Their output may be the time to a chosen temperature or a temperature distribution for structural analysis. Temperature-dependent properties and the description of heating both affect accuracy. A model with detailed geometry can still produce a misleading result if those physical inputs are unsuitable.<ref name="M_4-209" />
-The concept should finally be interpreted as time under specified performance, not time until any damage occurs. An assembly can deform, crack or lose material while still satisfying a selected criterion, and another can appear intact while allowing excessive heat transmission. The endpoint definitions determine what the rating means.<ref name="CVM2-64" /><ref name="Milke-4-210" />
+Testing remains relevant even where calculation is available. It supplies material behaviour, checks assembly interactions and provides evidence for judging model predictions. New Zealand's 2025 C/VM2 definition explicitly connects its calculation route to verification against standard fire-resistance tests. That connection identifies the evidence supporting a rating rather than treating calculation as evidence by itself.<ref name="M_4-210_4-211" /><ref name="CVM_64" />
-Ratings should therefore be read with their exposure and assembly details. Changing the fire curve, protection, joints, loading or restraint can change when each criterion fails. A single duration cannot be separated from those conditions without losing its technical meaning.<ref name="Milke-4-209" /><ref name="Lie-4-201" />
+== Limits when applying a rating ==
-Where the intended scenario differs, the analysis should be repeated with the relevant exposure and acceptance criteria. This can use additional tests or verified calculations, but the supporting evidence must remain explicit. That approach is more defensible than transferring a rating solely because two elements share a material name.<ref name="CVM2-64" /><ref name="Milke-4-210" />
+A furnace test is a controlled representation with practical size and support constraints. Milke notes that these constraints make some results comparative rather than exact reproductions of entire structures. An extended continuous frame can behave differently from an isolated specimen. The tested configuration and the proposed application therefore remain part of the interpretation.<ref name="M_4-210">Milke (2002), p. 4-210.</ref>
-A clear rating therefore belongs to the complete tested or analysed assembly and its exposure. It records the functions preserved, the criteria applied and the evidence used to verify them. Without that context, a numerical duration can create a misleading impression of universal performance.<ref name="CVM2-64" /><ref name="Milke-4-210" />
+A real compartment fire can grow, reach a maximum and decay. Its temperature history depends on the fuel, ventilation and enclosure, while the standard curve serves a repeatable testing purpose. A stated rating is therefore not a direct forecast of survival time in every natural fire. Connecting the two requires a method that represents the relevant exposure and structural conditions.<ref name="VR_8.6" /><ref name="M_4-209" />
-For final acceptance, each criterion should be evaluated at the required time and under the intended exposure. Structural adequacy, integrity and insulation can pass or fail independently, so a summary should not hide an early failure in one of them. The rating is meaningful only when those separate outcomes are visible.<ref name="CVM2-64" /><ref name="Milke-4-210" />
+The same rating also does not establish the time available for occupants to escape. The International Fire Engineering Guidelines treat barrier performance, fire spread and other subsystem results as interacting parts of an analysis. Smoke and opening conditions can affect adjacent spaces before a closed assembly reaches its furnace-test endpoint. Escape and containment consequently require related but distinct assessments.<ref name="IFEG_1.6-3" /><ref name="IFEG_1.6-7" />
 == See also ==
-* [[Post-flashover fire]]
+* [[Concrete in fire]]
+* [[Timber in fire]]
+* [[Critical steel temperature]]
 * [[Time equivalence]]
-* [[Fire wall]]
 == Notes ==
@@ Line 126: / Line 120: @@
 == References ==
-* Australian Building Codes Board, National Research Council of Canada, International Code Council, & Department of Building and Housing New Zealand. (2005). ''International fire engineering guidelines'' (2005 ed.). Australian Building Codes Board.
+* Australian Building Codes Board, National Research Council of Canada, International Code Council, & Department of Building and Housing New Zealand. (2005). ''International fire engineering guidelines''. Australian Building Codes Board.
-* Cadorin, J.-F., Pintea, D., Dotreppe, J.-C., & Franssen, J.-M. (2003). A tool to design steel elements submitted to compartment fires: OZone V2. Part 2: Methodology and application. ''Fire Safety Journal, 38'', 429–451.
+* Fleischmann, C., & Buchanan, A. (2002). Analytical methods for determining fire resistance of concrete members. In P. J. DiNenno (Ed.), ''SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering'' (3rd ed., pp. 4-239–4-256). National Fire Protection Association.
-* Fleischmann, C., & Buchanan, A. (2002). Analytical methods for determining fire resistance of concrete members. In P. J. DiNenno (Ed.), ''SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering'' (3rd ed.). National Fire Protection Association.
+* Janssens, M. (2002). Calorimetry. In P. J. DiNenno (Ed.), ''SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering'' (3rd ed., pp. 3-38–3-62). National Fire Protection Association.
-* Janssens, M. (2002). Calorimetry. In P. J. DiNenno (Ed.), ''SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering'' (3rd ed.). National Fire Protection Association.
+* Kodur, V. K. R., & Harmathy, T. Z. (2002). Properties of building materials. In P. J. DiNenno (Ed.), ''SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering'' (3rd ed., pp. 1-155–1-181). National Fire Protection Association.
-* Kodur, V. K. R., & Harmathy, T. Z. (2002). Properties of building materials. In P. J. DiNenno (Ed.), ''SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering'' (3rd ed.). National Fire Protection Association.
+* Milke, J. A. (2002). Analytical methods for determining fire resistance of steel members. In P. J. DiNenno (Ed.), ''SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering'' (3rd ed., pp. 4-209–4-238). National Fire Protection Association.
-* Lie, T. T. (2002). Fire temperature-time relations. In P. J. DiNenno (Ed.), ''SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering'' (3rd ed.). National Fire Protection Association.
+* Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. (2025). ''C protection from fire: Verification method C/VM2'' (2nd ed.).
-* Milke, J. A. (2002). Analytical methods for determining fire resistance of steel members. In P. J. DiNenno (Ed.), ''SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering'' (3rd ed.). National Fire Protection Association.
+* Van Rossum, E. (2027). ''Introduction to Fire Safety Engineering''. Fire Safety Academy.
-* Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. (2025). ''C protection from fire: Verification method C/VM2'' (2nd ed.). New Zealand Government.
+* White, R. H. (2002). Analytical methods for determining fire resistance of timber members. In P. J. DiNenno (Ed.), ''SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering'' (3rd ed., pp. 4-257–4-273). National Fire Protection Association.
-* Rockett, J. A., & Milke, J. A. (2002). Conduction of heat in solids. In P. J. DiNenno (Ed.), ''SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering'' (3rd ed.). National Fire Protection Association.
-* White, R. H. (2002). Analytical methods for determining fire resistance of timber members. In P. J. DiNenno (Ed.), ''SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering'' (3rd ed.). National Fire Protection Association.
 [[Category:Structural Fire Engineering]]