Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 1109–1120

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

GFRP reinforced concrete slabs in fire: Finite element modelling T

Hamzeh Hajiloo , Mark F. Green
⁎

Civil Engineering, Queen’s University, 58 University Avenue, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: In a fire incident, service loads are present when the structure is engulfed by the fire. This sequence of structural
Finite element loading followed by the heat exposure is employed in the finite element (FE) modelling of GFRP reinforced
Fire concrete (RC) slabs. The FE model is validated against two sets of full-scale fire tests of GFRP RC slabs and one
GFRP Reinforced concrete slabs set of steel RC slabs. The FE model successfully predicts temperature distribution within the elements as well as
Elevated temperatures
the rapid thermal bowing deflections due to the temperature gradient within the depth of the slabs. The heat
Heat transfer
Concrete damaged plasticity
transfer analysis parameters were modified to achieve a realistic heat distribution in the unexposed zones. The
Coefficient of thermal expansion paper discusses the various parameters in modelling of reinforced concrete in a fire and identifies the coefficient
of thermal expansion (CTE) of the concrete and reinforcing bars as the most significant parameter in predicting
the deflection behaviour in a fire. The FE modelling showed that stress in the GFRP reinforcing bars increases
rapidly at the beginning of the fire (first 30 min) and becomes steady after that. The model is an effective tool to
predict the required concrete cover and the unexposed anchor zones to achieve the desired fire resistance.

1. Introduction
Owing to the low thermal conductivity of concrete, concrete cover
acts as fire insulation to reinforcing bars in reinforced concrete (RC)
elements. In real fire incidents, concrete buildings generally perform
well, and local or global collapse is rare [1]. However, glass fibre re-
inforced polymer (GFRP) reinforcing bars are more susceptible to high
temperatures than steel reinforcing bars.
Design standards such as ACI 216.1 [2] and CSA S806 [3] have
prescriptive approaches for the fire design of steel and FRP RC ele-
ments, respectively. The current conservative approach of CSA S806 [3]
results in requiring thick concrete cover for GFRP slabs (i.e., 60 mm of
concrete cover for a 2-h fire rating) that reduces the competitiveness of
such slabs when compared to steel RC slabs. The knowledge on the fire
performance of FRP reinforcing bars has enhanced over the time, and
the latest version of ACI 440.1R [4] reflects notable changes that pro-
mise a brighter outlook for using FRP reinforcement where the fire
safety is required. Previously, ACI 440.1R [5] clearly recommended
that FRP reinforcing bars should be avoided in cases where the fire
resistance was a concern. However, owing to recent research on FRP
reinforcing bars, ACI 440.1R [4] provides more rational recommenda-
tions for the fire design of FRP RC structures.
Experimental studies on the fire resistance of structural elements
have made significant progress in establishing the current structural fire
engineering and recommending the preventive measures to minimize
the extent of the damage. Fire tests are essential to explore the real
behaviour and failure modes of structural elements; however, they can
be extremely costly and time-consuming. Experimental studies can be
effectively used to validate numerical models and investigate critical
parameters in the fire performance of reinforced concrete elements.
Numerical models can play a vital role in providing insights into the
performance of GFRP RC slabs in fires beyond the limitations of full-
scale fire tests. To address this need, this paper presents the develop-
ment and validation of a nonlinear finite element (FE) model to simu-
late the structural performance of GFRP RC slabs in fires.
2. Literature review
To date, researchers have quite successfully employed numerical
approaches to study the fire behaviour of various steel or concrete
structures [6–9]. FE modelling of a realistic behaviour of reinforced
concrete under the fire effects has been an attractive topic to re-
searchers for more than 30 years. The general modelling approach has
two distinct steps: (i) heat transfer step where the realistic fire exposure
boundary conditions along with the heat transfer properties of concrete
are defined to estimate the heat propagation at various positions of the
element at different time intervals; (ii) structural and mechanical ana-
lysis of the element taking into account the simultaneous effects of heat
and mechanical loads.
While FE modelling has been successfully employed to assess the

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Hajiloo.h@queensu.ca (H. Hajiloo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.01.028
Received 22 November 2017; Received in revised form 26 October 2018; Accepted 6 January 2019
0141-0296/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Hajiloo, M.F. Green
different aspects of reinforced concrete elements at room temperature,
the increasing number of variables at elevated temperatures introduces
challenges that are vital to accurately estimate the thermal and struc-
tural behaviour. In addition, the nonlinearities arise from the tem-
perature dependent nonlinear mechanical properties of concrete, tem-
perature dependent thermal properties of concrete and reinforcing bars,
and the nonlinear temperature distributions within the thickness of
slabs. The issue becomes particularly significant when considering
different values are found in codes and literature for a single variable,
e.g. thermal expansion of concrete. Degrading material properties of
reinforcement and concrete must be determined as a function of in-
creasing temperature. The effects of variables in the outcome of FEM
will be discussed in the following sections.
Borst and Peeters [10] employed FE analysis to study the com-
pressive stress-strain behaviour of plain concrete at elevated tempera-
tures under sustained loading. The research strongly emphasized the
importance of including transient creep in modelling concrete at ele-
vated temperatures. The model accurately computed axial strains as
temperature increases. By including the effects of cracking in the
model, the behaviour of one-way steel RC slabs was examined to vali-
date the model for reinforced concrete as well. The slabs were tested at
the University of Gent by Minne and Vandamme [11]. Overall, a rea-
sonable agreement was achieved between the deflections (during the
fire) from the experiments and FE modelling. The same experimental
work [11] was used by Nechnech et al. [12] to validate the FE model
that studied the damage in concrete. The two slabs were different in
terms of the concrete cover and the reinforcement ratio but carried the
same sustained load. The ductile and long-lasting behaviour of the slab
with the thicker concrete cover was seen in FE model results. Gao et al.
[6] analysed steel RC beams that were subject to standard fire fires.
Three sets of full-scale fire experiments were used to validate the model
by comparing the predicted temperature distributions through the
thickness of the elements from FE modelling with the measured ex-
perimental results. As a workaround, Gao et al. employed nonlinear
spring elements in ABAQUS [13] software to create the bond between
reinforcement and the concrete. The nonlinear load-displacement be-
haviour of the springs was defined as a function of temperature to re-
plicate the degrading bond strength during the fires. In ABAQUS, nor-
mally, a perfect bond is assumed between reinforcement and concrete.
The results [6] showed that the analysis with perfect bond produced
slightly lower deflections than the analysis with the temperature-de-
pendent bond-slip relationship. In another study, Rafi et al. [14]
modelled two concrete beams: one steel reinforced and the second one
FRP reinforced. The study demonstrated the significance of temperature
dependent mechanical properties of reinforcing bars in the model. Be-
cause of insufficient and unreliable data on the degradation of CFRP
reinforcing bars, the prediction of the model did not agree well with the
experimental results, and the need for a calibrated relationship between
temperature and mechanical properties of CFRP reinforcing bars was
suggested in the paper. The need to collect more experimental data on
degradation of FRP reinforcing bars has been expressed by many re-
searchers to facilitate accurate analytical and numerical modelling
[14–17].
Full-scale fire tests on FRP RC elements [18–21] have shown the
complexity of FRP RC when compared with steel RC. The significance of
an anchor zone (or an unexposed area) in providing a sufficient fire
resistance of FRP RC elements was expressed by several researchers
[19,22,23]. The propagation of heat into the anchor zone of FRP bars
weakens the bond between FRP and concrete resulting in a global
failure [24]. A limited number of FE modelling of FRP RC has been
performed [14,25] which studied the FRP RC beams in fires. Analytical
studies, mainly employing layered section analysis, were performed to
estimate the flexural strength degradation and determine the fire re-
sistance of FRP RC elements exposed to standard fires [11,15,16,26]
1110
Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 1109–1120
and modified design fires [17]. The objective of this paper is to provide
an in-depth understanding of the behaviour of one-way GFRP RC slabs
in a fire by employing FE modelling. The full-scale fire tests [22,23]
showed the significance of concrete cover and unexposed anchor zones
at the ends of the slab. The accurate temperature prediction in concrete
(exposed and unexposed regions) is necessary to estimate the retained
strength (particularly the bond strength) of GFRP bars during a fire. The
effects of temperature-dependent variables (available in the codes and
literature) on deflection predictions of the slabs were evaluated. In
addition, the stress variations in the GFRP reinforcing bars are esti-
mated which is not possible to measure in fire tests.
3. Finite element modelling approach
The FE model presented in this paper evolved step by step by ex-
amining its performance against the available experimental results from
the literature at each step. The available literature on fire experiments,
generally, reports the behaviour of elements during a standard fire and
the failure modes at the end of the experiments [18,21]. In this study,
the detailed experimental data from the full-scale fire test by the au-
thors [23] was used to evaluate the FE model at room temperature
before and during the fire. The details of the full-scale fire tests that
were necessary for the modelling of the slabs are presented in section 5.
3.1. General procedure
The analyses in this study were performed using ABAQUS [13] finite
element software using a Newton–Raphson method to solve nonlinear
problems. A sequential thermal-stress analysis which performs a heat
transfer analysis first was used. Stress analysis, then, is performed by
reading the nodal temperatures from the heat transfer analysis stage.
The stress analysis considers the effects of the sustained load and the
temperature increase. In the study, another stage was defined to apply
the sustained load before the fire. Overall, the stages of the sequential
analysis were heat transfer, stress analysis with only the sustained load,
and stress analysis.
The process of developing the FE model was divided into the fol-
lowing distinct steps: (1) concrete and reinforcing bars were created as
separate parts in the graphical interface of the program. As a part of the
sequential analysis process, two models were constructed; one for the
heat transfer analysis and the second one for stress analysis considering
thermal effects. The configuration of the model was identical for the
heat transfer and the structural analysis stages. The number of elements
and mesh configuration must remain constant for two assemblies,
otherwise nodal temperatures data cannot transfer correctly from the
heat transfer analysis into stress analysis. (2) thermal and mechanical
properties for the concrete and reinforcing bars were defined. At this
point, the heat transfer model started to differentiate from the stress
analysis model in terms of element types, boundary conditions, and
loading. (3) Heat transfer analysis was performed by one of the stan-
dard fires: ASTM E-119 [27] or ISO 834 [28] based on the experimental
data; the time-temperature graphs at several depths within the thick-
ness were compared with the measured ones from the experiments. (4)
Loads were applied to the top face of the slabs in the stress analysis
model to simulate the stress/strain state before the fire. (5) A “pre-
defined field” was defined at the last stage of analysis to transfer the
transient nodal temperature into the stress analysis model, and sus-
tained load and thermal effects were analysed simultaneously at each
increment of the analysis time. In this study, two-dimensional (2D)
modelling was chosen because the slabs were subject to the fire from
the bottom surface, and the fire and the load do not change in the third
dimension. The computational cost was tremendously lower using the
2D model enabling many aspects of a fire-exposed RC element to be
examined.
H. Hajiloo, M.F. Green
3.2. Modelling assumptions
By assuming a perfect bond, equal strains exist between reinforcing
bars and concrete. However, upon the development of cracks, when the
normal flexural stress in tension zone reaches the maximum tensile
strength, strains in a reinforcing bar spike at the location of a local
crack, and the FE model can track the strains distribution afterwards.
The “tie” constraint in ABAQUS was used to constrain the nodes of the
reinforcing bars to the closest nodes of the surrounding concrete to
define bond. The other common method in ABAQUS for creating in-
teractions between reinforcing bars and concrete (i.e., the “embedded
region” method) cannot be used because the “embedded region” feature
cannot transfer heat from concrete to reinforcement. The concrete to
FRP bar should be ideally modelled as a temperature-dependent me-
chanism. However, there was not any information on the bond-slip
behaviour of FRP bars at high temperatures.
Concrete spalling was not considered in this analysis. Regardless of
5% moisture content and 60 mm clear concrete cover of the GFRP RC
slabs tested by Hajiloo et al. [23], spalling did not occur. Spalling, also,
was not reported in the other experimental studies that were used to
validate the FE model [11,18].
3.3. Discretization of the FE model
Planar 2D second-order elements with eight nodes (CPS8) were used
to model concrete. In dealing with bending problems, first-order fully
integrated elements have poor performance, and for that reason,
second-order elements or reduced-integration linear elements are pre-
ferred. DC2D8 (8-node quadratic heat transfer element) was used to
analyse heat transfer within the concrete. DC2D8 elements, with one
extra node on each side, provided a smooth temperature distribution.
The temperature gradient through the depth of the slabs was highly
nonlinear, and thus a higher resolution of the thermal field was ne-
cessary for an accurate stress analysis.
Linear displacement truss elements with two nodes (T2D2) were
used for reinforcing bars. It should be noted that 3-node quadratic
displacement truss elements are not appropriate for modelling re-
inforcement because the middle node may not be constrained to con-
crete properly, and spurious deformations may appear in the results.
T2D2 elements have two active degrees of freedom in the X and Y di-
rections on the plane. Although reinforcing bars do not affect the heat
transfer analysis because of their negligible volume ratio in a reinforced
concrete section, one-dimensional heat transfer elements, DC1D2, were
used in heat transfer analysis model. Because of the requirements for
heat transfer analysis in ABAQUS, the analysis will not proceed if ele-
ments have formulations other than heat transfer.
3.4. Failure criteria
While design standards such as CSA S806 [3] still use the tem-
perature in FRP bars as the governing failure criteria, it was shown that
GFRP RC slabs or beams most likely fail because of a complete loss of
bond in fire-exposed areas or the gradual degradation of bond strength
in the unexposed anchor zone [18,19,23]. Although the advancement in
nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete has provided a realistic as-
sessment of the deflection response of reinforced concrete at room and
elevated temperatures, the significant difference between the failure
mode of FRP and steel RC elements in a fire has created a gap in tracing
the failure of FRP RC slabs and beams. The studies on nonlinear analysis
of reinforced concrete in a fire first started by modelling steel RC beams
and slabs [10,12]. Indeed, the behaviour and mode of failure of steel RC
slabs and beams are more predictable than FRP RC ones. Because of the
complexity and lack of knowledge on the bond-slip behaviour of FRP
bars at elevated temperatures and the limited features of FE analysis
programs to model the thermally-induced bond degradation of FRP
reinforcing bars, FE modelling did not consider the bond degradation at
1111
Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 1109–1120
high temperatures directly. In this study, besides investigating the
temperatures in the bars to check the adequacy of tensile strength, the
lengthwise temperature gradient of the reinforcing bars in the anchor
zone predicted by heat transfer analysis was evaluated against the ex-
perimental measurements [23] as an approach to approximately esti-
mate the failure because of the bond degradation. Some of the other
adopted failure criteria in the study were: compressive failure of con-
crete occurs when the strain in the outermost fibres of section exceeds
0.0035; tensile strains in steel reinforcing bars were limited to 0.05
(Eurocode 1992-1-2 [29]) and the tensile rupture of GFRP reinforce-
ment was controlled by the tensile strength of the bars at the respective
temperature during the fires.
4. Identification of material parameters
4.1. Concrete
Concrete at elevated temperatures has highly nonlinear properties
because of the properties such as temperature-dependent material
properties, thermal expansion, transient creep and cracking [10]. In the
current FE model, the Concrete Damaged Plasticity (CDP) constitutive
model was employed to model the mechanical behaviour of concrete.
The model details can be studied in ABAQUS [13] where the underlying
fundamentals are described. The main failure mechanisms in CDP are
tensile cracking and compressive crushing of concrete. The CDP model
requires that initial yield surface, a hardening rule, and a flow rule to be
defined. The parameters that are required to define the yield surface
consists of four constitutive parameters. The Poisson’s ratio controls the
volume changes of concrete before the inelastic behaviour. During in-
elastic behaviour, the increase in plastic volume is considered by a
parameter called the dilation angle (ψ) which was taken as 36° in this
study as recommended in ABAQUS. The program’s default values of 0.1
and 0.66 were accepted for the flow potential eccentricity and the ratio
of the second stress invariant on the tensile meridian to that on the
compressive meridian, respectively. The ratio of initial biaxial com-
pressive yield stress to initial uniaxial compressive yield stress was also
set with a default value of 1.16.
4.1.1. Thermal strains of concrete
Several kinds of strains develop at a reinforced concrete member
when heated; first, the stress-independent free thermal strain occurs on
any construction materials and can cause the structural member to be
subject to severe stresses if the member is restrained. Aggregate type
predominantly controls the nonlinear free thermal expansion of a
concrete specimen. The nonlinearity of free thermal expansion with
respect to temperature is due to chemical and physical changes in the
aggregate at a temperature around 600 °C as well as the thermal in-
compatibility between aggregate and cement paste. In addition,
shrinkage occurs at a temperature below 150 °C when the free water is
driven off, and this affects the free thermal strains [30]. The second
type of strain is developed when the specimen is under load and elastic
strains are developed under loads. The third kind of strains is the
classical creep strain. Anderberg and Thelandersson [31] identified
another strain known as the transient creep strain which is a function of
the sustained stress and temperature. The results of parametric studies
on columns indicated an increase of the deflection and a reduction of
the buckling resistance when transient creep strain was considered in
the constitutive model of concrete. Khoury [32] expressed the im-
portance of transient strain in any structural analysis of concrete at
elevated temperatures particularly for columns in a fire. Transient
creep, which is also called load-induced thermal strain (LITS), develops
during the first heating time. According to Khoury [32], LITS is notably
larger than the elastic strain which provides thermal stress relaxation
and redistribution. However, the transient strain is less of a concern for
the elements under bending (beams or slabs) at elevated temperatures.
Lu et al. [33] numerically investigated the effects of transient creep on
H. Hajiloo, M.F. Green Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 1109–1120

the behaviour of simply supported flexural RC elements using two 1.2

different material models. In the first model, the transient creep strain 020°C
was considered implicitly in the total strain by implementing the re- 200°C
1.0 400°C
lationships proposed by Eurocode 1992-1-2 [29]. In the second model,
the transient creep strain was separately and explicitly computed using 600°C
the equations presented by Tao [34]. The parametric study showed that 800°C

Normalized Stress (-)

the midspan deflection is slightly lower (less than 10%) when explicit
transient creep strains are used in the model which means the re-
lationships in Eurocode 1992-1-2 [29] are slightly conservative. The
study concluded that the implicit transient creep strain models can be
used for beams and slabs under bending. By investigating the con-
tributions of different strain types to the overall response of a structure,
Bratina et al. [35] showed that the fire resistance time is not affected by
transient creep strains in concrete provided that the structure is simple
enough. In addition, temperatures at the top surface of slabs in full-
scale fire tests [36] remained around 100 °C after three hours of the
standard fire. The water content of the concrete migrates toward the
cooler regions of the slabs (e.g., top surface). The water boils and
maintains the temperature of the concrete at 100 °C. From the above-
mentioned points [33,35] and the low elevated temperatures in the
compressive portion of the slabs’ section, transient creep strain was
excluded from the mechanical analysis of the slabs in this paper. To the
authors’ knowledge, in addition, the Concrete Damaged Plasticity
model in ABAQUS does not account for transient creep strains in total
strains of a heated concrete element.
4.1.2. Thermal properties of concrete
Thermal conductivity, specific heat and density of concrete and
reinforcing bars are the required parameters in a heat transfer analysis.
Eurocode 1992-1-2 [29] has provided equations for the specific heat of
siliceous and calcareous concrete at high temperatures (Fig. 1a). Be-
tween 100 and 115 °C, a sharp spike is introduced by situating a con-
stant value of peak specific heat, which varies depending on moisture
content. In Fig. 1a, the values of specific heat were shown for the
moisture content up to 4%. The upper and lower bounds for the con-
ductivity of normal weight concrete proposed in Eurocode 1992-1-2
[29] were used in this study (Fig. 1b). The heat transfer analysis is
performed by each of the upper and lower bound values, and the closest
agreement with the experimental results is chosen. The upper and lower
bound values for thermal conductivity of concrete is remarkably an
effective approach in heat transfer analysis. The density of normal
weight concrete was taken as 2300 kg/m3 independent of thermal
variations.
0.8
1000°C
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Compressive Strain (-)
Fig. 2. Compressive stress-strain curves of concrete at elevated temperatures.
4.1.3. Mechanical properties of concrete
In the absence of experimental data on the stress-strain behaviour of
concrete at elevated temperatures, the compression stress-strain curves
at elevated temperatures are defined in the FE model using the re-
lationships provided by Eurocode 1992-1-2 [29]. The stress-strain re-
lationships at various temperatures are linear for the stresses below
0.3f′c and thereafter the nonlinear ascending and linear descending
segments of the curves must be introduced for higher temperatures in
the Concrete Damaged Plasticity model. Fig. 2 shows the degradation of
the compressive strength of concrete as temperature rises. Although the
curves are introduced in the model for the temperatures up to 1000 °C,
the temperature in the compression zone of reinforced concrete flexural
members exposed to a fire from underneath rarely exceeds 200 °C. The
authors found that the compressive strength of concrete at high tem-
peratures insignificantly affects the behaviour of the studied slabs.
With the growth of flexural cracks in plain concrete under mono-
tonic loading, tension softening of concrete occurs at relatively high
rates. The brittle tension failure of concrete is improved by reinforcing
the concrete because the reinforcing bars engage the concrete chunks
between cracks through the local bond stress transfer. In the numerical
analysis, the sudden failure of concrete creates difficulty in reaching
convergence, and the issue can be rectified by introducing the “tension

10-3
MC=0.0 % Upper Limit
2500 2.0 Lower Limit
MC=1.5 %
Thermal Conductivity (W/mm/ C)

MC=3.0 %
MC=4.0 %
2000 1.5
Specific Heat (J/kg/ C)

1500 1.0

1000 0.5

500 0.0
0 100 200 300 400 1100 1200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Temperature (°C) Temperature (°C)
(a) (b)
Fig. 1. The variation with the temperature of (a) specific heat and (b) thermal conductivity of concrete [29].

1112
H. Hajiloo, M.F. Green
stiffening” effect which modifies the stiffness of a cracked reinforced
concrete element providing a gradual reduction of tensile stress with
growing cracks. It was shown that the GFRP reinforced member con-
crete exhibits more tension stiffening effect than the steel RC [37].
When the CDP model is used in ABAQUS, three methods are available
to define the uniaxial tension stiffening behaviour of concrete: tensile
stress versus strain relationship, tensile stress versus crack opening
displacement relationships, and fracture energy. While a simple linear
approach can be used for the post-peak descending response of re-
inforced concrete in all of the abovementioned approaches, a nonlinear
exponential approach [38] was employed in this study. To avoid un-
reasonable mesh-sensitive outcomes, the tensile post-peak behaviour
was introduced in terms of a fracture energy cracking criterion by
specifying the tensile stress as a function of crack opening displacement
curve instead of a stress-strain curve. The tensile stress-crack opening
relationship was characterized using three main parameters: fracture
energy of plain concrete, cracking tensile strength (ft), and crack
bandwidth. The following equation is specific for normal weight con-
crete [38]:
3 Fig. 3. Temperature-dependent tensile stress versus crack opening displace-
t wt wt 28wt
= 1+ 3 exp 6.93 exp( 6.93)
ft wc wc wc (1)
where σt is the tensile stress, ft is the concrete tensile strength, wt is the
crack opening displacement, wc is the ultimate crack opening dis-
placement when tensile stress is gradually reduced to zero. In Eq. (1),
the tensile stress (σt) is a function of wt and increases up to ft. From the
mathematical definition of fracture energy, GF, which corresponds to
the area under the tensile stress-crack opening displacement curve, wc
can be calculated if GF is known from the concrete aggregate properties
and compressive strength as follows:
5.14GF
wc =
ft (2)
The uncertainty concerning the fracture energy of concrete appears
to have been existing for a long time. The latest version of fib Model
Code for Concrete Structures [39] has adopted the provisions from the
earlier version of CEB-FIP [40] where the fracture energy of plain
concrete was strongly temperature-dependent for the temperatures
below 80 °C. In the latest version [39], however, the fracture energy of
concrete is described as a property with the least influence from heat,
but the issue still remains highly debatable in spite of the several test
results. In this study, the fracture energy of concrete in creating tensile
stress-crack opening displacement curves was assumed constant at
various temperatures. The relationships proposed by CEB-FIP [40] were
used to calculate the fracture energy of concrete based on the concrete
material properties which were reported in the literature [11,18,23]. As
an example, the tensile strength versus crack opening displacement
curves are shown (Fig. 3) for the concrete with f′c = 45 MPa. The curves
show the variation of tensile strength as temperature increases.
ABAQUS [13] enforces a lower limit on the post-peak tensile stress
equal to 0.01ft to ensure numerical convergence. This approach is ef-
ficient in advancing the analysis of reinforced concrete problems facing
issues with convergence. The limiting value enforced by ABAQUS is so
small that does not affect the accuracy of the solution. In some studies,
higher values such as 0.02ft (Kodur and Agrawal [7]) and 0.05ft (Gao
et al. [6]) were used. In general, tensile strength and the post-peak
response of reinforced concrete are of particular importance in pre-
dictions of reinforced concrete members.
4.2. FRP reinforcing bars
The coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) values for GFRP re-
inforcing bars differ widely in the longitudinal and transverse direc-
tions. While the properties of the fibres determine the longitudinal CTE
of GFRP reinforcing bars, the resin properties dominate the transverse
1113
Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 1109–1120
3.0
2.5 20°C
200°C
, Tensile Stress (MPa)
300°C
2.0
400°C
500°C
1.5
1.0
t
0.5
0.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.65 0.70
wt , Crack Opening Displacement (mm)
ment for f′c = 45 MPa.
CTE. Experimental results show that the transverse CTE of GFRP re-
inforcing bars can be 22 × 10−6/°C on average, which is four times
higher than the longitudinal CTE [4]. The difference between the
transverse CTE values of GFRP bars and concrete can initiate splitting
cracks as temperature rises resulting in failure of the concrete cover if
the concrete is not sufficiently confined (ACI-440.1R [4], fib [41]). This
is considered an exceptional characteristic of GFRP bars and should be
studied locally in small concrete cylinders. In this study, the stress and
strain behaviour in the longitudinal direction of the slabs was of con-
cern in the mechanical analysis. Only the interaction of the reinforcing
bars with the concrete in the longitudinal direction (the direction of
fibres) was significant and, thus, the transverse CTE of the reinforcing
bars was neglected. In FRP RC design codes ACI-440.1R [4], the long-
itudinal CTE is in the range of 6–10 × 10−6/°C. In this study, the
longitudinal CTE is taken as 7 × 10−6/°C based upon the material
properties provided by the manufacturers. In terms of mechanical
characteristics of FRP bars at elevated temperatures, lack of sufficient
and conclusive data is identified, and there is a unanimous agreement
between the researchers as well as the design codes that the behaviour
FRP reinforcing bars must be explored further [4,5,41–43].
4.3. Steel reinforcing bars
In this study, the temperature-dependent thermal equations pro-
posed by Eurocode 1992-1-2 [29] were used to extract CTE for the steel
reinforcing bars. Regardless of the nonlinear temperature-dependent
nature of the equation, the CTE slightly varies with temperature. Si-
milar to thermal properties, the mechanical properties of steel re-
inforcing bars are well established. The mechanical properties of the
steel bars at room temperature were available for the steel RC slabs
[11]. In Fig. 4, the ratios of the remaining mechanical properties at
elevated temperature to the original room temperature values are
shown on the left axis. The values of yield stress and modulus of elas-
ticity at different temperature are shown on the right axes for the
specific steel reinforcing bars used in this study for the slabs tested by
Minne and Vandamme [11].
5. Validation of the FE model
Two full-scale GFRP RC slabs [23] were used to validate the FE
model. The authors had access to the data collected from the fire tests to
evaluate and calibrate the FE model for the heat transfer analysis as
well as the mechanical analysis. The fire tests on full-scale FRP RC slabs
H. Hajiloo, M.F. Green Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 1109–1120

1.2 600 Table 1

Yield Stress 250
Modelling assumptions adopted from the experimental work.
Modulus of Elaticity
1.0 500 Properties GA

Modulus of Elasticity (GPa)

200
Applied force (dead & superimposed) kN/m 25

Yiled Stress (MPa)

0.8 400 f′c (Concrete) MPa 28
ft (Concrete) MPa 2.0
150
Ratio (-)

Ec (Concrete) GPa 22
0.6 300 CTE (Concrete) °C−1 7.5 × 10−6
Concrete cover (to GFRP bars bottom) mm 60
100 Total nominal cross-sectional area (GFRP) mm2 12 × 200
0.4 200 Mean nominal tensile strength MPa 1700
Mean nominal modulus of elasticity GPa 64
50 Glass transition temperature °C 118
0.2 100

0.0 0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 5.1.1. Heat transfer analysis
Temperature (°C) Among the available methods of defining thermal loads in ABAQUS,
convective film conditions and radiation conditions were selected be-
Fig. 4. Mechanical properties of steel reinforcing bars at elevated temperatures.
cause the required values concerning the standard fire are defined in
Eurocode [44]. The boundary conditions in the heat transfer analysis
are the convective and radiative conditions on the exposed and the top
by Nigro et al. [18] were also examined. The fire test by Minne and surfaces of the slabs. The heat convection and radiation are expressed in
Vandamme [11] was the third experimental work used to extend the Eq. (5):
capability of the model to analyse the steel RC slabs.
k = hc ( 4 4]
m) + m· f · [( z) ( z)
n
g g m
(5)

5.1. FRP RC slabs tested by Hajiloo et al. [23] where n is the normal of the surface, hc is the convection coefficient, θg
is the gas temperature near the fire-exposed surfaces, θm is the surface
The experimental work [23] concerned two one-way GFRP RC slabs temperature of the structural member. With regard to radiation, εm and
which were tested in the floor furnace at the National Research Council εf are the surface emissivity of the element and the fire, respectively; σ
(NRC) facilities in Canada. The slabs were simply supported on the is the Stefan Boltzmann constant taken as 5.669 × 10−14 W/mm2/K4,
short sides (1200 mm). The slabs were free to expand in the long- and θz is absolute zero which is set at 273.15 °C below zero. In ABAQUS,
itudinal and transverse directions, and enough spaces were provided to convection effects were simulated by a surface-based film condition
maintain an unrestrained state of the slabs during the fire. The slabs with the varying temperature of the standard fire curve. The film
were uniformly loaded with evenly distributed jacks located along the condition was defined 25 × 10−6 W/mm2/°C as hc for the fire-exposed
length of slabs. The loading, the fire exposure condition, and the details surfaces of the slabs. For the top unexposed surface of slabs, hc is taken
of the slabs were shown in Fig. 5. as 9 × 10−6 W/mm2/°C, and the radiation portion was set as zero.
The slabs were identical in every aspect except the type of GFRP The nodal temperatures were read into the stress analysis as a
reinforcing bars. The first slab, which is denoted GA in this paper, was predefined field; the temperature varied with position and time. They
reinforced with sand coated GFRP bars. The second slab (denoted GB were then interpolated to the calculation points within elements as
herein) used GFRP bars with the sand-coated and deformed surface. The needed. The temperature interpolation in the stress elements was
mechanical and thermal properties of the reinforcing bars were in the usually approximate and one order lower than the displacement inter-
same range. Because of the similarity of GA and GB slabs, only the GA polation to obtain a compatible variation of thermal and mechanical
slab was modelled in this study and the results were compared against strain.
the experimental results for the GA and GB slabs. The most noticeable Fig. 6 shows the temperature distribution predicted by the FE model
difference between the slabs was the slightly different surface treatment and the relevant experimental data. The model estimated the tem-
of the reinforcing bars that was not addressed in this study. Table 1 peratures of the slab GA very closely. While the predictions at 40 and
summarizes the properties of concrete and GFRP reinforcing bars that 60 mm from the bottom of GB are in a close agreement with the tem-
adopted from the paper on the experimental work [23]. The lower and peratures measured slab, the predictions show some underestimation
upper bound values of the tensile strength proposed by CEB-FIP [40] temperatures at 20 mm. Since both slabs, GA and GB, were cast with the
were used to find the tensile strength of concrete. same concrete and were tested in an identical situation, the different

Fig. 5. Fire test setup, elevation, and the transverse section of slabs.

1114
H. Hajiloo, M.F. Green Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 1109–1120

1200 1200
FEM-Soffit FEM-Soffit
FEM-20 mm FEM-20 mm
FEM-40 mm FEM-40 mm
1000 FEM-60 mm 1000 FEM-60 mm
Exp-20 mm Exp-20 mm
Exp-40 mm Exp-40 mm
800 Exp-60 mm 800 Exp-60 mm
Temperature (°C)

Temperature (°C)
600 600

400 400

200 200

0 0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210
Time (min) Time (min)
(a) (b)
Fig. 6. Experimental and FEM temperatures of (a) Slab GA; (b) Slab GB.

Fig. 7. (a) Bottom surface of GA slab after the fire test; (b) Temperature contour.

300 300
Exp @150 mm Exp @150 mm
Exp @75 mm Exp @75 mm
250 FEM @150 mm 250 FEM @150 mm
Exp @75 mm FEM @75 mm

200 200
Temperature (°C)
Temperature (°C)

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210
Time (min) Time (min)
(a) (b)
Fig. 8. Test and FE model temperatures in the unexposed zone: (a): Slab GA; (b) Slab GB.

measured temperatures from GA and GB slabs at the depth of 20 mm
confirms slight variances in the locations of thermocouples which were
deemed to be placed in the identical depth.
A realistic estimating of the heat distribution within the anchor zone
of GFRP RC slabs is critical for achieving a close prediction of the failure
time. Fig. 7(a) shows the bottom surface of the GA slab at which the
conditions of the exposed and unexposed regions are distinctly dif-
ferent. To replicate the actual heating conditions in the fire tests, both
ends (200 mm) of the slab were not exposed to the fire in the heat
transfer analysis. Fig. 7(b) shows the contour of the temperature

1115
H. Hajiloo, M.F. Green Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 1109–1120

300 300
Exp @150 mm Exp @150 mm
Exp @75 mm Exp @75 mm
250 FEM @150 mm 250 FEM @150 mm
FEM @75 mm FEM @75 mm
200 200

Temperature (°C)
Temperature (°C)

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210
Time (min) Time (min)
(a) (b)
Fig. 9. The improved predictions of temperatures in the unexposed zone: (a): Slab-A; (b) Slab-B.

40 100
Experiment
FEM
35
80
30
Deflection (mm)
Moment (kN-m)

25 60

20
40
15 Mesh size study
Exp-GA
10 20
FEM- 15 mm
5 FEM- 20 mm
FEM- 25 mm
0
0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (min)
Midspan Deflection (mm)
Fig. 12. Experimental and the calculated midspan deflection of the slabs tested
Fig. 10. Mesh size effects on the prediction deflection before the fire. by Hajiloo et al. [23].

Thermal Expansion ( l/l) 10-3

10-3 1st derivative of "Thermal Expansion" 10-6 10-6
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (CTE) (1/°C) 12 Terro [50]
14 35 16 Lie [45]
Linear ( c=7.5 10-6)
Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (CTE)
1st derivative of "Thermal Expansion"

10
12 30 14
Thermal Expansion

10 25 12 8
Thermal Expansion

20 10
8
6
15 8
6
4
10 6
4
5 4 2
2
0 2
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Temperature (°C) Temperature (°C)
(a) (b)
Fig. 11. Thermal expansion models: (a) detailed Eurocode 1992-1-2 values; (b) various values from the literature.

1116
H. Hajiloo, M.F. Green Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 1109–1120

250 0 min Table 2

10 min
30 min
Modelling assumptions adopted from the experimental work for S4, S5, and S6
60 min slabs.
200 Exp. (0 min) [23]
Properties S4 S5 S6
Exp. (10 min) [23]

Applied force on the slabs kN Only dead 2 × 17.5 2 × 17.5

150 f′c (Concrete) MPa 45 45 45
Stress (MPa)

ft (Concrete) MPa 3.2 3.2 3.2

Ec (Concrete) GPa 32 32 32
CTE (Concrete) °C−1 Lie Lie Lie
100 Concrete cover (to the GFRP centre) mm 51 51 51
Total nominal cross-sectional area mm2 10 × 129 10 × 129 7 × 129
(GFRP)
50 Mean tensile strength MPa 1000 1000 1000
Mean modulus of elasticity GPa 50 50 50
Glass transition temperature °C 100 100 100

0
0 1000 2000 3000
Lengthwise position (mm)
Fig. 13. Stress in reinforcing bars along the length of the slab.
distribution in the anchor zone after three hours of the standard fire.
Temperatures in the anchor zone at 75 and 150 mm from the ends of
the slabs at the depth of 60 mm are shown in Fig. 8. The FE model has
clearly underestimated the temperatures in anchor zones in comparison
to the measured experimental values [23]. In contrast to the concept of
insulating, temperatures were fairly high in the protected zone parti-
cularly in the close vicinity of heat-exposed zones [23]. The intensity of
heat diminishes as moving away from the heat-exposed zone. Under
these circumstances, modification in the heat transfer analysis was re-
quired to consider the effects of heat in the protected zone. In the
modified heat transfer analysis, different values were used for convec-
tion coefficient and concrete surface emissivity. Since the unexposed
zones were protected from a direct fire exposure, the convection factor
must be lower than the exposed regions. The closest temperature pre-
diction was achieved when the convection factor was taken as 15 W/m2
in the unexposed zone and the heat transfer through radiation was ig-
nored. The temperature predictions by the FE model with the modified
heat transfer show an improved accuracy (Fig. 9).
5.1.2. Mechanical analysis
The mesh size sensitivity on the load-deflection response of the GA
slab is illustrated in Fig. 10. Following the recommendations on the
preferable aspect ratios of the elements when dealing with concrete, the
aspect ratio of the elements was 1.0. For the meshes in the GA model,
17.5 mm square elements were used. In this study, the accuracy of the
FE model in predicting the load-deflection behaviour was investigated
at room temperature. The results in Fig. 10 shows that the selected
parameters of the concrete model are correct. Then, other parameters
that are significant at high temperatures (such as the thermal strains,
the CTE of concrete and reinforcing bars) are studied.
Literature review and the authors’ extensive examination of the
4000
parameters in the numerical analysis showed that CTE and post-peak
tensile behaviour of concrete are the two most influential parameters in
predicting the deformations of the elements. In the absence of any
measured values, the CTE values were chosen from 1992-1-2 [29],
Harmathy and Allen [45], and Lie [46]. Ellobody and Bailey [47] stu-
died unbonded post-tensioned concrete slabs in fire. The midspan de-
flection of the slabs during the fire was studied by using three different
CTEs: 8.1 × 10−6/°C for concrete with limestone, 13.2 × 10−6/°C for
concrete with Thames Gravel, and the proposed equations by Eurocode
1992-1-2 [29]. The mechanical analyses of the slabs were performed
with identical properties and configurations except for different CTE
models. The comparisons showed considerable disagreement between
the deflections from the experiments and the analysis by using the CTE
presented by Eurocode 1992-1-2. The deviation was substantial parti-
cularly for the slabs with limestone aggregate. Ellobody and Bailey [47]
conducted the rest of the analytical work employing the constant and
calibrated CTE values. Huang et al. [48] used a nonlinear layered FE
method to evaluate the structural response of RC slabs in fires. The
variation of midspan deflection with fire exposure time was predicted
using three CTE models: Nizamuddin [49], Ellingwood and Lin [50],
and Lie [46]. The high spread of analytical predictions and deviations
from the experimental results exhibited the notable dependency of the
deflection response on the CTE values.
Constant and temperature-independent CTE values generate linear
thermal expansions as temperature rises. However, CTE models can be
nonlinear and temperature-dependent which means that the total
thermal expansion of a concrete element is the sum of stepwise thermal
expansion with respect to temperature increase. Eurocode 1992-1-2
[29] has provided thermal expansion equations as a function of tem-
perature. The equations must be expressed in the form of CTE as re-
quired by ABAQUS. The first derivative of thermal expansion equations
was extracted to be used as CTE for concrete. However, thermal ex-
pansion in ABAQUS is the product of instant temperature and the de-
fined CTE which can be temperature-dependent. As shown in Fig. 11a,
the first derivative of thermal expansion drops to zero at temperatures

Fig. 14. Fire test setup, elevation, and transverse section slabs [18].

1117
H. Hajiloo, M.F. Green Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 1109–1120

100
FEM-Soffit Exp-S6
1000 FEM-25mm FEM-S6
FEM-45mm Exp-S5
Exp-45mm FEM-S5
FEM-51mm (Rebar)
80
Exp-S4
800 Exp-51mm (Rebar) FEM-S4
Temperature ( C)

Deflection (mm)
60
600

40
400

200 20

0 0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Time (min) Time (min)
(a) (b)
Fig. 15. Experimentally measured and the calculated curves for (a) temperature distribution and (b) midspan deflection as a function of fire exposure time.

Fig. 16. Fire test setup, elevation, and the

transverse section of slabs [11].

Table 3 RC slabs as long as the anchor was sufficient at the unexposed ends.
Modelling assumptions adopted from the experimental work for G1 and G3 This shows that the degradation of the bond has negligible effects on
slabs. the deflection behaviour of these specific slabs.
Properties G1 G3 The FE simulations of GA slab (Fig. 12) showed a quite reasonable
agreement with the experimental results when CTE of concrete was
Applied force on the slabs kN 2 × 27.5 2 × 27.5 taken equal to 7.5 × 10−6/°C. Less agreement was found when Euro-
f′c (Concrete) MPa 43 43
code 1992-1-2 CTE was implemented as it resulted in a 33% higher
ft (Concrete) MPa 2.6 2.6
Ec (Concrete) GPa 32 32 deflection at the end of three hours of fire exposure. It should be noted
CTE (Concrete) °C−1 Eurocode Eurocode that the measurements in the experiment have been terminated when
Total area of steel bars mm2 1178 1414 GA slab began to deflect rapidly due to complete bond failure at the
Concrete cover mm 15 35
anchor zone not the tensile failure of the GFRP bars. Thus, the FE
Yield stress (Steel) MPa 504 504
Modulus of elasticity (Steel) GPa 215 215
predicted time-deflection curve did not show a sign of failure.
The tensile stress curves along the GFRP bars are plotted in Fig. 13.
The stresses in the bars in the midspan before the fire (120 MPa) is in a
fair agreement with the values from the experiments (140 MPa). The
around 800 °C which makes the total thermal expansions to become difference between the FE model predictions and the experimental re-
zero in ABAQUS. Consequently, as a workaround, the nonlinear tem- sults can be attributed to the form and depth of the cracks. The curves
perature-dependent CTE was calculated in a way which yields the extracted from the FE analysis at 0, 10, 30, and 60 min. The stress va-
proper thermal expansions at every temperature. Along with the lues in the bars are helpful because the same measurements are not
Eurocode’s model for thermal expansion, the Lie’s model [46] and collectable from experiments since usually strain gauges lose their
Terro’s Model [51], as well as temperature-independent constant CTE functionality when the temperature rises above 80 °C [23]. Fig. 13
(Fig. 11b) were examined for the studied slabs in this study. shows the quick rise in tensile stress in the reinforcing bars with a
For the temperatures higher than 200 °C, the pullout tests at ele- temperature increase, and then it becomes steady with little increase.
vated temperatures have shown a negligible interaction between GFRP Regarding the tensile failure of the bars, the temperatures in the GFRP
bars and concrete [52]. The findings can be extended to GFRP RC bars (e.g., in the GA slab) reaches 400 °C at the end of the fire test (three
elements such that a sufficient FRP-concrete bond cannot be mobilized hours). The remaining tensile strength of the GA bars at 400 °C is
after almost 60 min of the standard fire on the slabs. Thus, the com- around 700 MPa [54] which is higher than the tensile stress in the bars
posite action of GFRP and concrete in the fire-exposed length cannot be based on the results in Fig. 13. This proves that the slabs would not fail
considered secure. It is conservative to assume the slabs had unbonded because of the degradation in the tensile strength. As seen in Fig. 13,
GFRP reinforcement in the entire exposed zone. The experimental re- the local stress concentration (the spikes in the curves) in the reinfor-
sults [18,23,53] showed that the degradation of the bond in the ex- cing bars diminishes as the temperatures increase because the tension
posed zones had little effects on the deflection behaviour of the GFRP stiffening deteriorates.

1118
H. Hajiloo, M.F. Green
FEM-Soffit
Exp-Soffit
1000
FEM-15mm
Exp-15mm
800
FEM-35mm
Deflection (mm)
Temperature ( C)
Exp-35mm
600
FEM-45mm
Exp-45mm
400
FEM-60mm
Exp-60mm
200
0 0
0 30 60 90 120
Time (min)
(a)
Fig. 17. Experimentally measured and the calculated curves for (a) temperature distribution and (b) midspan deflection as a function of the fire time.
5.2. FRP RC slabs tested by Nigro et al. [18]
Nigro et al. [18] tested six slabs with straight GFRP bars. The slabs
were divided into two groups with the concrete cover of 32 mm and
51 mm. They studied the variances in performance when the concrete
cover and the unexposed anchor zone change. In this paper, the slabs
with 51 mm of concrete cover were analyzed using the developed FE
model. The slabs were 4000 mm long, and 500 mm at both ends was not
exposed to the fire. The slabs were 180 mm thick and reinforced at two
top and bottom layers with longitudinal GFRP bars. The slabs were
called S1 to S6 in the experimental work [18]. Slabs S4, S5, and S6 were
of the interest in this paper. The slabs S4 and S5 had the same re-
inforcement ratio, but S6 had a lower ratio (Fig. 14). The slabs S5 and
S6 were loaded with two 17.5 kN loads which were 700 mm apart from
each other. Slab S4 was only under its own dead load and was aimed to
determine the post-fire remaining strength. Table 2 summarizes the
details of tests and the available material properties reported in the
literature.
In addition to precise prediction of temperatures (see Fig. 15a), the
objectives were achieved when the model discerned the effect of the
various sustained load on the deflection behaviour of the slabs. In the
experiment, S4 was only under its weight load; S5 and S6 were loaded
to 40 and 60% of their flexural strengths, respectively. The FE model of
each slab was analysed with the respective load and the results
(Fig. 15b) were in a close agreement for slabs S4 and S5. The model
prediction for S6 deviated from the experimental response at the end of
the test; the model calculated the tensile stress in the bars 230 MPa
before the fire and 410 MPa after three hours.
5.3. Steel RC slabs tested by Minne and Vandamme [11]
In addition to the GFRP RC slabs, the steel RC slabs tested by Minne
and Vandamme [11] were used to verify the FE model. The slabs were
different from the previous GFRP RC slabs because of the nonlinear
behaviour of steel reinforcement. In a similar manner to the previously
studied tests in this paper, the slabs were first loaded (see Fig. 16) then
the fire initiated from underneath. The size and details of the slabs are
illustrated in Fig. 16.
Two slabs (G1 and G3) were identical in every aspect except G3 had
the advantage of a thicker concrete cover. To make up for the lower
flexural strength of G3 due to the lower lever arm, G3 was reinforced
more than G1 (Table 3). The temperature dependent mechanical
properties were introduced in the FE model based on the relationships
shown in Fig. 4. The actual reported tensile strength of the concrete
1119
Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 1109–1120
250
200
150
100
FEM-G1
Exp-G1
50
FEM-G3
Exp-G3
0 30 60 90 120
Time (min)
(b)
(2.6 MPa) was used.
The temperature distributions within the thickness were extracted
from experimental data [11] and compared with the predicted values in
Fig. 17a. The close agreement of temperature within the thickness of
the slabs was a significant factor in the prediction of mechanical be-
haviour as shown in Fig. 17b. The deflection behaviour of the slabs was
best predicted using Eurocode 1992-1-2 CTE model although the Lie’s
model yielded reasonable results.
The large deflection of G1 and G3 was due to the lower concrete
cover and the consequent rapid temperature rise in steel reinforcing
bars, and severe and quick degradation of steel mechanical properties
specially modulus of elasticity as shown in Fig. 4. The insufficiency of
15 mm concrete cover to the steel reinforcing bars was fairly pro-
nounced in the experiments as the G1 slabs failed in less than one hour
after the fire started. Slab G3 with 35 mm concrete cover and only 20%
more reinforcement endured 2 h.
6. Conclusions
FE modelling was used to predict temperatures within the GFRP RC
slabs. In addition, the simultaneous effects of heat distribution and the
sustained load on the structural behaviour of the slabs were studied.
• The results from the thermal modelling showed very close agree-
ment with the experimental results. The temperature distribution
within the unexposed anchor zones is critical to determine the ul-
timate failure because of the complete bond loss. The modified heat
transfer parameters improved the accuracy of the thermal analysis
in the unexposed anchor zones.
• The model satisfactorily showed the effects of the intense heat from
the standard fire in increasing the midspan deformation rapidly
(thermal bowing). The model also closely predicted the deforma-
tions after the thermal bowing phase.
• The major source of errors in predicting the deformation behavior of
the slabs is the thermal expansion coefficient. Thermal expansion
behavior of various types and mixes of concrete varies notably. The
concrete thermal expansion relationships by Eurocode is re-
commended as the start point in evaluating the deformation beha-
viour. However, it is recommended that the thermal expansion be-
havior of concrete to be determined by material test for enhanced
accuracy.
• The model enables researchers and structural designers to conduct
parametric studies that are essential to develop design guidelines
and efficient use of GFRP in construction. The concrete cover
H. Hajiloo, M.F. Green
thickness can be studied against the provided unexposed anchor
zones at GFRP RC elements to select the most efficient approach to
provide the fire safety.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada (NSERC), Queen’s University, MITACS
Canada, the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO), Pultrall, BP
Automation, and the National Research Council of Canada for sup-
porting this research.
References
[1] Bisby L, Mostafaei H, Pimienta P. State-of-the-art on fire resistance of concrete
structure structure-fire model validation international R&D road map for fire re-
sistance of structures. NIST-Special Publications; 2014.
[2] ACI (American Concrete Institute). Code requirements for determining fire re-
sistance of concrete and masonry construction assemblies. Farmington Hills: ACI
216–1; 2007.
[3] CSA (Canadian Standards Association). Design and construction of building com-
ponents with fiber-reinforced polymers. Mississauga (ON, Canada): CSA-S806;
2012.
[4] ACI (American Concrete Institute). Guide for the design and construction of con-
crete reinforced with FRP bars. Farmington Hills (MI): ACI440-1R; 2015.
[5] ACI (American Concrete Institute). Guide for the design and construction of con-
crete reinforced with FRP bars. Detroit (Michigan): ACI 440-1R; 2006.
[6] Gao W, Dai J-G, Teng J, Chen G. Finite element modeling of reinforced concrete
beams exposed to fire. Eng Struct 2013;52:488–501.
[7] Kodur V, Agrawal A. An approach for evaluating residual capacity of reinforced
concrete beams exposed to fire. Eng Struct 2016;110:293–306.
[8] Payá-Zaforteza I, Garlock M. A numerical investigation on the fire response of a
steel girder bridge. J Constr Steel Res 2012;75:93–103.
[9] Mago N, Hicks S, Simms W. Sequentially coupled thermal-stress analysis of a new
steel concrete composite slab under fire. SESOC J 2016;29(1):37.
[10] De Borst R, Peeters PP. Analysis of concrete structures under thermal loading.
Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 1989;77(3):293–310.
[11] Minne R, Vandamme M. Resistance of reinforced concrete floor slabs against fire.
Cement 1982;34:642–6.
[12] Nechnech W, Meftah F, Reynouard J. An elasto-plastic damage model for plain
concrete subjected to high temperatures. Eng Struct 2002;24(5):597–611.
[13] ABAQUS. ABAQUS/Standard user’s manual version 6.14. Hibbitt, Karlsson, &
Sorensen, Inc; 2014.
[14] Rafi MM, Nadjai A, Ali F. Finite element modeling of carbon fiber-reinforced
polymer reinforced concrete beams under elevated temperatures. ACI Struct J
2008;105(6):701.
[15] Adelzadeh M, Hajiloo H, Green MF. Numerical study of FRP reinforced concrete
slabs at elevated temperature. Polymers 2014;6(2):408–22.
[16] Kodur V, Bisby LA. Evaluation of fire endurance of concrete slabs reinforced with
fiber-reinforced polymer bars. J Struct Eng 2005;131(1):34–43.
[17] Yu B, Kodur V. Factors governing the fire response of concrete beams reinforced
with FRP rebars. Compos Struct 2013;100:257–69.
[18] Nigro E, Cefarelli G, Bilotta A, Manfredi G, Cosenza E. Fire resistance of concrete
slabs reinforced with FRP bars. Part I: Experimental investigations on the me-
chanical behavior. Composites Part B 2011;42(6):1739–50.
[19] Weber A. Fire-resistance tests on composite rebars. Proceedings of international
conference on FRP composites in civil engineering (CICE2008). Zurich, Switzerland.
2008.
[20] Abbasi A, Hogg PJ. Fire testing of concrete beams with fibre reinforced plastic
rebar. Composites Part A 2006;37(8):1142–50.
[21] Rafi M, Nadjai A, Ali F. Fire resistance of carbon FRP reinforced-concrete beams.
Mag Concr Res 2007;59(4):245–55.
[22] Nigro E, Bilotta A, Cefarelli G, Manfredi G, Cosenza E. Performance under fire si-
tuations of concrete members reinforced with FRP rods: bond models and design
nomograms. J Compos Constr 2011;16(4):395–406.
[23] Hajiloo H, Green MF, Noël M, Bénichou N, Sultan M. Fire tests on full-scale FRP
1120
Engineering Structures 183 (2019) 1109–1120
reinforced concrete slabs. Compos Struct 2017;179:705–19.
[24] Hajiloo H, Green MF. Bond strength of GFRP reinforcing bars at high temperatures
with implications for performance in fire. J Compos Constr 2018;22(6):04018055.
[25] Hawileh R, Naser M. Thermal-stress analysis of RC beams reinforced with GFRP
bars. Composites Part B 2012;43(5):2135–42.
[26] Saafi M. Effect of fire on FRP reinforced concrete members. Compos Struct
2002;58(1):11–20.
[27] ASTM. Standard test methods for fire tests of building construction and materials.
West Conshohocken (PA): ASTM E119; 2015.
[28] ISO. Fire resistance tests-Elements of building construction-Part 1: General re-
quirements. Geneva (Switzerland): ISO 834-1; 1999.
[29] CEN (European committee for standardization). Eurocode 2: Design of concrete
structures – Part 1-2: General rules – structural fire design. Brussels (Belgium): EN
1992-1-2; 2004.
[30] Purkiss JA, Li L-Y. Fire safety engineering design of structures. 2nd ed. Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann; 2013.
[31] Anderberg Y, Thelandersson S. Stress andd eformation characteristics of concrete at
high temperatures: 2. Experimental investigation and material behaviour model.
Lund Institute of Technology; 1976.
[32] Khoury GA. Effect of fire on concrete and concrete structures. Prog Struct Mat Eng
2000;2(4):429–47.
[33] Lu L, Yuan Y, Caspeele R, Taerwe L. Influencing factors for fire performance of
simply supported RC beams with implicit and explicit transient creep strain mate-
rial models. Fire Saf J 2015;73:29–36.
[34] Tao J, Liu X, Yuan Y, Taerwe L. Transient strain of self-compacting concrete loaded
in compression heated to 700 C. Mater Struct 2013;46(1–2):191–201.
[35] Bratina S, Saje M, Planinc I. The effects of different strain contributions on the
response of RC beams in fire. Eng Struct 2007;29(3):418–30.
[36] Nigro E, Cefarelli G, Bilotta A, Manfredi G, Cosenza E. Fire resistance of concrete
slabs reinforced with FRP bars. Part II: experimental results and numerical simu-
lations on the thermal field. Composites Part B 2011;42(6):1751–63.
[37] Bischoff PH, Paixao R. Tension stiffening and cracking of concrete reinforced with
glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars. Can J Civil Eng 2004;31(4):579–88.
[38] Reinhardt HW, Cornelissen HA, Hordijk DA. Tensile tests and failure analysis of
concrete. J Struct Eng 1986;112(11):2462–77.
[39] fib – International Federation for Structural Concrete. CEB-FIB model code 2010.
Lausanne (Switzerland): Thomas Thelford; 2010.
[40] Comite Euro-International du Beton. CEB/FIP model code for concrete structures.
Comite Euro-International du Beton; 1993.
[41] fib. FRP reinforcement in RC structures. Lausanne, Switzerland: fib Bulletin No 40;
2007.
[42] Bisby LA, Green MF, Kodur VK. Response to fire of concrete structures that in-
corporate FRP. Prog Struct Mater Eng 2005;7(3):136–49.
[43] Hajiloo H, Green MF. Post-fire residual properties of GFRP reinforced concrete
slabs: a holistic investigation. Compos Struct 2018.
[44] CEN (European committee for standardization). Eurocode 1: Actions on Structures -
Part 1-2: General actions—Actions on structures exposed to fire. Brussels (Belgium):
EN 1991-1-2; 2002.
[45] Harmathy T, Allen L. Thermal properties of selected masonry unit concretes. ACI J
Proc 1973;70(2).
[46] Lie TT. ASCE manuals and reports on engineering practice No. 78, structural fire
protection. New York (NY): American Society of Civil Engineers; 1992.
[47] Ellobody E, Bailey CG. Modelling of unbonded post-tensioned concrete slabs under
fire conditions. Fire Saf J 2009;44(2):159–67.
[48] Huang Z, Burgess IW, Plank RJ. Nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete slabs
subjected to fire. Struct J 1999;96(1):127–35.
[49] Nizamuddin ZT. Thermal and structural analysis of reinforced concrete slabs in fire
environments. Berkeley: University of California; 1976.
[50] Ellingwood B, Lin T. Flexure and shear behavior of concrete beams during fires. J
Struct Eng 1991;117(2):440–58.
[51] Terro MJ. Numerical modeling of the behavior of concrete structures in fire. ACI
Struct J 1998;95(2).
[52] Katz A, Berman N, Bank LC. Effect of high temperature on bond strength of FRP
rebars. J Compos Constr 1999;3(2):73–81.
[53] Hajiloo H, Green MF, Bénichou N, Sultan M. Fire Performance of FRP reinforced
concrete slabs. Proceedings of 7th international conference on advanced composite
materials in bridges and structures, Vancouver (Canada). 2016.
[54] Hajiloo H, Green MF, Gales J. Mechanical properties of GFRP reinforcing bars at
high temperatures. Constr Build Mater 2018;162:142–54.