Construction and Building Materials 254 (2020) 119122

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Review

Assessing concrete strength in fire-damaged structures

Julia Wróblewska ⇑, Robert Kowalski
Warsaw University of Technology, Civil Engineering Faculty, Institute of Building Structures, Al. Armii Ludowej 16, 00-637 Warsaw, Poland

h i g h l i g h t s

After a fire, it is essential to assess the condition of concrete in the structure.

Conventional test methods may be unreliable as the concrete is non-uniform.

The most important issue is to determine the thickness of the damaged concrete layer.

The paper presents a review of methods for the assessment of concrete after a fire.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The paper presents a review of concrete assessment methods: laboratory and in situ (non-destructive and
Received 21 October 2019 semi-destructive tests) in application to reinforced concrete structures after fire. One of the most impor-
Received in revised form 5 April 2020 tant phenomena affecting the load-bearing capacity of these structures is the reduction in concrete
Accepted 7 April 2020
strength at high temperature and after cooling. Traditional test methods, commonly used in normal con-
ditions (e.g. destructive test on core specimens), usually do not take into account the non-uniformity of
concrete after a fire. Therefore, other methods are proposed to determine the depth of the damaged con-
Keywords:
crete in the external layers of a given structural member.
Concrete
Compressive strength
Ó 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
High temperature (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Fire
Concrete assessment
Laboratory test
In situ test
Semi-destructive test
Non-destructive test

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Reduction of concrete strength during a fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Concrete residual strength. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Tests on core specimens taken from a structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.1. Compressive strength test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4.2. Thickness estimation of the damaged concrete layer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. In situ test methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5.1. Semi-destructive tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5.2. Non-destructive tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Declaration of Competing Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: j.wroblewska@il.pw.edu.pl (J. Wróblewska).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119122
0950-0618/Ó 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
2 J. Wróblewska, R. Kowalski / Construction and Building Materials 254 (2020) 119122
1. Introduction
As compared to steel and timber structures, reinforced concrete
structures have good natural fire resistance [1–4]. This is due to the
relatively large size of members and low thermal diffusivity of con-
crete. Thanks to this property, the heat penetrates slowly into the
member cross-section, and the reinforcement is insulated by the
concrete cover. This allows maintaining a relatively high load-
bearing capacity of a structure during and after a fire. According
to the textbook [1], the fire resistance of reinforced concrete mem-
bers of low slenderness in typical structures is about 50–60 min,
even if they were not specifically designed for fire conditions.
Applying the recommendations given in Eurocode [5], concerning
cross-sectional dimensions and axis distance of reinforcement
from the concrete surface, makes it possible to design reinforced
concrete members with a 4 h-fire resistance (standard fire).
Thermo-mechanical, physical and chemical processes which
occur in concrete exposed to high temperature have an adverse
effect on its mechanical properties [6–8]. Similar phenomena are
observed in ordinary concrete as well as in high-strength concrete,
light-weight concrete, shotcrete and mortars [4,5,9]. However,
high-strength concrete is less resistant to fire conditions than ordi-
nary concrete whereas light-weight concrete shows higher fire
resistance. Nevertheless, concrete in structures, unlike steel and
timber, usually does not get completely destroyed in a fire [1,10–13].
In order to determine the effect of a fire on the structural load-
bearing capacity and safety, it is usually necessary to quantify con-
crete residual strength. This may be the basis for (1) ascertaining
the suitability for further use, (2) establishing the type and scope
of required repairs or (3) dismantling the damaged structure. If
the structural members have been significantly affected by fire,
losses and areas of concrete deterioration are clearly visible and
easy to identify [14]. During the initial visual assessment of less
damaged members, changes in the appearance of concrete may
not be detected. Laboratory and in situ testing provide more pre-
cise information on the condition of concrete and its internal struc-
ture. The most significant parameter to be evaluated is the
concrete compressive strength. It is particularly important to
determine the thickness of the external layer of the member in
which the concrete is damaged to such an extent that it should
be considered destroyed [11,12,15–17].
2. Reduction of concrete strength during a fire
One of the most significant phenomena affecting the load-
bearing capacity of a structure exposed to fire conditions is the
Fig. 1. Concrete compressive strength degradation (fch/fc) at high temperature: 1 –
ordinary strength concrete with siliceous aggregate, 2 – ordinary strength concrete
with calcareous aggregate, 3 – C55/67, C60/75, 4 – C70/85, C80/95, 5 – C90/105;
diagram prepared by authors on the basis of Eurocode [5].
concrete strength degradation at high temperature as a result of
chemo-physical processes and mechanical damages occurring
inside concrete microstructure. This problem has been studied fre-
quently [6,7,18–20] and it is widely described in the literature, e.g.
[2,4,8,13,21,22]. As a summary of the collected experimental
results, generalized, normalized [5] relationships between the con-
crete temperature (h) and the relative degradation of its compres-
sive strength (fch/fc) have been described. In fact, many factors
affect the concrete strength reduction at high temperature, such
as the aggregate type, concrete porosity, member dimensions, the
time and rate of heating and applied load [2,6,13,18,23]. A favor-
able effect of compressive stress (equal to 20–40% of compressive
strength at room temperature) on the concrete strength at high
temperature is well-known [2,18].
Fig. 1 presents the relative reduction of compressive strength
(fch/fc) at high temperature for ordinary and high-strength concrete,
based on the Eurocode [5]. Concretes with calcareous or basalt
aggregate (not mentioned in Eurocode [5]) retain slightly higher
compressive strength than concrete with siliceous aggregate. In
high-strength concrete, strength reduction occurs faster with the
increase in temperature than in ordinary concrete and it grows
with the class of concrete. From a practical point of view, consider-
ing the structural load-bearing capacity, concrete heated to 500–
600 °C may be considered destroyed [2].
Due to the high thermal inertia of concrete, the temperature
in heated members is much higher on the surface than inside. As
a result, concrete in structures exposed to fire conditions does
not have uniform properties in the member cross-section. The
greatest concrete degradation occurs in the surface layer, in
which there are also frequent losses caused by spalling or falling
off.
Spalling occurs mainly due to thermal stress and stress caused
by the high pressure of steam in the pores. As a consequence of a
concrete layer detachment, the member cross-section is reduced.
The reinforcement may be directly exposed to high temperature
because of the cover deprivation. A comprehensive summary of
the state of the art in concrete spalling can be found in papers
[22,24–28]. The factors increasing spalling probability are, primar-
ily, high moisture content, high temperature gradient in the cross-
section (rapid heating) and the occurrence of multiaxial stress
states. In addition, tight concretes e.g. self-compacting and high-
strength concretes are particularly susceptible to spalling. A tight
concrete internal structure impedes the escape of steam accumu-
lated under pressure in the pores, which may lead to explosive
spalling.
Fig. 2. Compressive strength degradation (fch/fc) of concrete with: 1 – siliceous
aggregate, at high temperature [30], 2 – siliceous aggregate, after cooling [30], 3 –
calcareous aggregate, at high temperature [30], 4 – calcareous aggregate, after
cooling [30], 5 – siliceous aggregate [5], 6 – calcareous aggregate [5]; diagram
prepared by authors on the basis of Eurocode [5] and ACI Standard [30].
 J. Wróblewska, R. Kowalski / Construction and Building Materials 254 (2020) 119122
3. Concrete residual strength
Concrete strength is practically always lower after cooling than
at high temperature [2,13,18]. This is due to two main factors. The
first one is the thermal inertia of concrete, which plays an impor-
tant role in large-size members exposed to fire for a long time.
Because of the thermal inertia of concrete, even after the heating
ends, long-term temperature compensation occurs in the cross-
section [12]. As a result, the core of the member is exposed to high
temperature longer than the surface layer, which leads to the
reduction of concrete strength inside the member. This process
can last up to several hours after the end of fire [2,12].
The second significant factor is the rate of cooling. When
cooling the concrete surface, a non-uniform temperature distri-
bution occurs in the member cross-section. This causes addi-
tional stress, so-called self-equilibrating [2,11]. It increases with
the higher temperature gradient in the cross-section (i.e. the
cooling is more rapid) [29]. Tensile stress appears in the outer
part of the member cross-section and compressive stress - in
the inner part. Tension can generate cracks and weak zones in
the concrete structure.
Rapid cooling may be a result of intensive watering of a struc-
ture during a fire. This is particularly significant in the case of
members heated to a relatively low temperature, e.g. 300–
350 °C. Such members are more rigid in comparison to more
heated (damaged) ones and therefore they are more susceptible
to the destructive effect of stress caused by rapid cooling
[2,11,29]. As a result, the reduction of compressive strength can
be up to two times greater compared to the members cooled freely
in the air.
Fig. 2 shows a comparison of the relative compressive strength
degradation of unloaded concrete at high temperature and after
cooling according to the ACI Standard [30], superimposed on the
strength reduction (fch/fc) curves for ordinary concrete recom-
mended in the Eurocode [5]. The curves for cooled concrete are sit-
uated below the standard curves [5]. In the case of concrete with
siliceous aggregate, the difference between the compressive
strength at high temperature and after cooling is approximately
0.1–0.2fc. The strength of concrete with calcareous aggregate
decreases significantly during cooling. For concrete heated to
500–700 °C, the reduction is equal to about 50% of the compressive
strength at high temperature.
Before assessing concrete in a structure after a fire, it is useful to
analyze what was the course (real scenario) of the fire, how high
was the temperature around particular members and how long
this temperature lasted. This data can be provided by determining
fire load in the compartment covered by fire and by calculating the
course of the fire. On this basis, the temperature field in the mem-
ber cross-section may be calculated. Basic guidelines are given in
the Eurocode [31].
Information on the thermal conditions during a fire can also be
provided by visual inspection of the site. During such inspection, it
is advisable to examine not only the structural members but also
the residues of materials, objects, and equipment in the compart-
ment. The reaction to the high temperature of materials frequently
used in buildings can be found in the fib bulletin [32].
During the post-fire evaluation of a structure, it is particularly
important to determine the thickness of the external layer of the
member cross-section in which concrete should be considered
destroyed. In order to assess the condition of concrete after a fire,
it is therefore necessary to use such test methods that will allow
taking into account the variability of concrete strength depending
on the distance from the heated surface.
Currently, many methods of testing concrete in structures are
commonly used [15]. They can be divided into three main groups:
3

tests on core specimens taken from a structure; determination
of compressive strength in the destructive test,

in situ semi-destructive tests; these cause small local losses in a
structure: pull-off test, pull-out test, BRE internal fracture test,
break-off test, Windsor probe test,

in situ non-destructive tests; these do not have a permanent
effect on the examined member: sclerometric test, ultrasonic
pulse velocity test, impact-echo test.
The methods mentioned above, however, are primarily
intended for testing homogeneous concrete and therefore they
show some limitations concerning the specificity of concrete after
fire. The most important issues are: the inability to take into
account concrete strength variability; lack of tools for measuring
the damaged concrete layer thickness; reduced reliability of test
results when the examined member surface is deteriorated. There
are also test methods dedicated to the evaluation of concrete in
structures after fire (e.g. drilling resistance method, colorimetry
[15,33,34]) and modifications of basic methods (e.g. microscopic
analysis, impact-echo and ultrasonic pulse velocity testing on core
specimens [15,35]).
4. Tests on core specimens taken from a structure
4.1. Compressive strength test
The most reliable and the most commonly used standardized
[36] method for assessing concrete in structures is the determina-
tion of compressive strength in a destructive test. Cylindrical spec-
imens with a diameter of 50 to 250 mm, cut from a structure using
a core drilling machine, are usually used in the test. In the Euro-
code [36], it is recommended that the core height (l) is equal to
the diameter (d). In practice, ø100/100 mm specimens are most
commonly used, because according to the Eurocode [36], the
obtained results correspond to the compressive strength of
150 mm cubes. Testing specimens of other sizes requires the use
of correction coefficient to convert the results into standard cube
strength. Values of coefficients modifying core strength due to
specimen diameter, l/d ratio, concrete moisture content and dam-
age caused by drilling are given in the American Standard [37].
For example, for specimens with a diameter of 50 mm, the recom-
mended coefficient is 1.06, and for specimens with a diameter of
150 mm  0.98. For cores with a small diameter, this coefficient
compensates for the damage which occurs during sampling
(micro-cracks, aggregate losses) [38].
The method described above has significant limitations when
applied to structures after fire [35,39], especially in the case of
members with a high temperature gradient in the cross-
section. Concrete in the heated member cross-section is no
longer uniform. The destructive test does not take into account
the variability of mechanical properties of concrete along the
core height. The test result is mainly influenced by the strength
of concrete located in the middle 1/3 of the specimen height
[35]. In addition, the friction and pressure between the press
platen and the top layer of the specimen greatly reduce the
effect of concrete strength in this layer on the obtained result.
If the damaged layer thickness is relatively small, it may not
affect the strength test outcome [35]. Therefore, the results for
specimens taken from a structure after fire should be
approached with caution, because false (usually overestimated)
values of concrete compressive strength may be obtained. This
is one of the reasons why attempts are being made to analyze
the strength of core specimens more accurately in order to
determine the extent of damage in concrete.
4 J. Wróblewska, R. Kowalski / Construction and Building Materials 254 (2020) 119122
Fig. 3. FBTest – diametral compression test.
4.2. Thickness estimation of the damaged concrete layer
In order to adapt the destructive test method to the evaluation
of concrete after fire, in the study described in the paper [40] lon-
gitudinal core specimens were extracted from a structure. Then,
the cores were divided into smaller pieces, so that the ratio of their
height to diameter was equal to 1. Testing specimens in a press
allowed determining the average compressive strength of concrete
in each of the subsequent layers of the member cross-section. This
method, however, is only suitable for massive structures subjected
to long-term exposure to high temperature. In the case of slender
members, e.g. columns or beams, deep holes caused by drilling
can have a significant adverse effect on their load-bearing capacity
and stability.
In the paper [39], a test method called FBTest (Fire Behavior Test)
is proposed. The study is carried out on 1.5 cm thick discs obtained
by cutting cores taken from a structure, perpendicularly to the lon-
gitudinal axis. The water absorption and the splitting tensile
strength of concrete are measured. The compressive force applied
is parallel to the disc diameter (diametral compression test -
Fig. 3). The tensile strength of the specimen is determined from
the formula [39]:
2N
ft ¼ ; crete phase composition [15]. The presence of specific crystals
pde
in which: N – destructive compressive force; d – disc diameter;
e – disc thickness.
According to the paper [39], water absorption of concrete is
directly proportional to the temperature reached, and thus to the
concrete damage. The tensile strength of concrete is constant in
the temperature range 0–100 °C and then it decreases linearly to
the value of 0 at 600 °C [5]. Determination of concrete tensile
strength using FBTest is not reliable due to the small thickness of
tested specimens, which is comparable to the aggregate size. The
variability of results obtained for subsequent discs, however, can
be analyzed to determine the depth in the member cross-section
at which the measured concrete properties ‘‘stabilize” [39]. This
allows estimating the extent of high temperature impact and the
thickness of the damaged concrete layer, without the need to per-
form comparative tests on specimens not influenced by fire.
The dynamic elastic modulus (Ed) test [15,35] is performed on
2.5 cm thick discs cut from concrete core specimens. The Ed value
is determined on the basis of the characteristics of specimen
vibrations induced by a steel ball impact (Fig. 4). For the vibration
frequency measurements, for example, a piezoelectric accelerome-
ter attached to the disc is used. The value of the dynamic elastic
modulus decreases with concrete deterioration. Therefore, as in
the FBTest method, it is possible to estimate the extent of the
Fig. 4. Dynamic elastic modulus test; drawing prepared by authors on the basis of
the paper [35].
concrete damage thanks to the measurements in subsequent slices
cut from the core.
The air permeability index (API) test described in the paper [35]
can also be performed on concrete discs cut from a core. In this rel-
atively quick test, the gas flow through a specimen placed in a vac-
uum chamber is measured. The value of the API is in units [m2/s].
As a result of concrete heating, cracks and weak zones may appear
in its structure, which increases the air permeability index. Exam-
ination of specimens representing subsequent layers of the mem-
ber cross-section allows an approximate determination of the
extent of concrete damage caused by fire.
Temperature distribution in the cross-section of a heated struc-
tural member can be estimated by the analysis of core specimens
using laboratory methods such as X-ray diffraction, scanning
microscopy, chemical analysis, colorimetry, differential thermal
analysis (DTA) and thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) [15]. In these
tests, the information on chemical and physical processes occur-
ring in concrete at a given temperature is used. On the basis of
temperature estimation, it is possible to assess the concrete com-
pressive strength by applying the relationship fch/fc(h) recom-
mended in the Eurocode [5].
In the X-ray diffraction test and scanning microscopy observa-
tions, the temperature is estimated based on the analysis of con-
allows determining areas in the tested member where the temper-
ature was less than 100 °C (which means that concrete is practi-
cally unaffected by fire) and areas where the temperature has
exceeded 500 °C (in which case concrete should be considered
destroyed).
The colorimetric analysis method is based on the phenomenon of
permanent changes in the color of concrete under the influence of
high temperature. The rules regarding the visual assessment are
described, among others, in papers [15,41,42]. The color of con-
crete after heating is described as pink or red - for temperature
300–600 °C, whitish gray - for 600–900 °C and buff - for 900–
1000 °C [15,41,42]. An estimation of the temperature to which
the concrete was heated, based on such visual assessment, may
not be fully reliable, due to the correlation between the reddish
color of concrete and the content of iron compounds in the aggre-
gate [6]. In the case of a low content of these compounds, a change
in the color of concrete at 300–600 °C may not occur. For more pre-
cise color description, a computerized colorimetric analysis of a
digital image is used [15,41].
5. In situ test methods
The second group of concrete assessment methods are
in situ tests. In normal conditions, they allow determining the
 J. Wróblewska, R. Kowalski / Construction and Building Materials 254 (2020) 119122
compressive strength of concrete on the basis of correlation with
other measured physical quantities. In situ tests are usually less
time-consuming and less expensive than laboratory tests, but the
obtained results are approximate. Due to the degree of impact on
a structure, these methods can be divided into semi-destructive
and non-destructive ones.
5.1. Semi-destructive tests
Semi-destructive concrete assessment methods have a local
effect on the tested structure and usually require only minor
repairs. The most commonly used are: pull-off test, pull-out test,
BRE internal fracture test, break-off test, and Windsor probe test.
Also, new methods, based on measuring the drilling resistance,
have been developed to assess concrete in structures after fire.
Apart from the pull-out test [43], semi-destructive methods for
testing concrete are not described in European standards. The
pull-off method is standardized only in respect of products and
systems for the protection and repair of concrete structures.
Detailed recommendations for semi-destructive testing of in situ
concrete can be found, among others, in the American Standards
and the guidelines of test equipment manufacturers.
In order to determine the concrete compressive strength based
on the results of indirect in situ measurements, it is necessary to
use correlation relationships. Ready-to-use experimental correla-
tions are available in the literature, including such variables as,
for example, concrete mix composition or moisture content. How-
ever, to ensure good reliability of the semi-destructive assessment
of concrete strength, it is advisable to calibrate the method, per-
forming additional destructive tests on several core specimens
extracted from a structure [44].
The pull-off method consists in determining concrete tensile
strength by measuring the force required to detach a steel or alu-
minum disc with a diameter usually equal to 50 mm, glued to
the tested member with epoxy resin adhesive [17,44]. The
mechanical properties of concrete on the member surface
(Fig. 5a) as well as in deeper layers of the cross-section (Fig. 5b)
can be tested. By making an incision of a fixed depth around the
disc, the location of expected failure caused by the tensile force
is imposed. The tensile strength of concrete in a particular cross-
section layer determines the test result. Based on the tensile
strength, the compressive strength of concrete can be assessed
using the experimental correlations.
The advantages of the pull-off method include quickness and
simplicity of the test as well as relatively low sensitivity of the
Fig. 5. Pull-off test: a) examination of a concrete surface layer, b) examination of deeper concrete layers by making an incision; 1 – tensile force; 2 – steel/aluminum disc; 3 –
epoxy resin adhesive; 4 – typical failure surface; 5 – an incision in concrete; drawing prepared by authors on the basis of the paper [44].
5
Fig. 6. Pull-out (CAPO) test: 1 – tensile force; 2 – reaction ring; 3 – steel ring
mounted in hardened concrete; 4 – failure surface; drawing prepared by authors on
the basis of Eurocode [43].
results to concrete mix composition or moisture content [44]. It
is required to ensure good adhesion of the disc to the member sur-
face in order for the failure to occur in the concrete and not in the
bonding material (resin). For a severely damaged surface of a struc-
tural member after fire, it may be difficult or even impossible to
perform the test. However, in that case it is usually sufficient to
make a visual assessment to determine the deterioration of the
external concrete layer. In order to adapt the method for testing
members subjected to high temperature, the damaged concrete
surface should be cleaned and smoothed before attaching the disc.
Performing two tests at a single location: first on the surface and
second at a certain depth, may enable the estimation of how the
concrete strength changes depending on the distance from the
heated surface. However, this is an unusual application of the
method, not described in available guidelines.
In the standardized pull-out test [43], the strength of near-
surface concrete is estimated based on the force required to pull
a steel insert out of the member. In the original pull-out method,
the insert is cast into fresh concrete during construction. A variant
of the method called CAPO (cut and pull out) enables testing of
existing structures by mounting a compressed steel ring which
expands into an appropriately prepared hole drilled in concrete
[13,44,45] (Fig. 6). In the case of ordinary concrete, the test results
are slightly dependent on the mix composition [43]. Therefore, it is
possible to estimate the compressive strength quite accurately
with the use of ready-made experimental correlations, even if
6 J. Wróblewska, R. Kowalski / Construction and Building Materials 254 (2020) 119122
concrete of unknown composition is being tested [17,45]. In order
to obtain more precise results, however, it is recommended to per-
form calibrating strength tests on core specimens [43]. The disad-
vantage of the pull-out method is the time-consuming preparation
and testing in comparison to other in situ methods. The time
required to mount one steel ring in hardened concrete and to mea-
sure the pull-out force is about 20 min [17]. In addition, the thick-
ness of the tested concrete layer is limited – according to the
Eurocode [43], inserts are mounted at 25 mm depth. The location
of the reinforcement must be taken into account when selecting
the measurement points. Reinforcing bars should not be located
inside the expected failure surface.
Another variant of the pull-out method is the BRE (Building
Research Establishment) internal fracture test, in which the torque
required to remove an anchor placed in a small hole (6 mm in
diameter) drilled in concrete is measured [15,44]. The anchor is
fixed together with an expanding metal sleeve at 20 mm depth
in the hole. During the test, the anchored component is screwed
with a torque wrench until the concrete is fractured. The concrete
compressive strength is estimated on the basis of the torque value.
Internal fracture testing is inexpensive and can be carried out
quickly. However, the reliability of the method is questionable,
mainly due to a large discrepancy between the obtained results
[44]. In addition, the predetermined, small thickness of the tested
concrete layer is another limitation of the application of this
method to structures after fire.
Using the break-off method, deeper layers of in situ concrete can
be tested (Fig. 7). The test consists in measuring the breaking force
applied perpendicularly to a concrete core formed by making an
incision to the assumed depth (usually 70 mm) in a structural
member [44]. The damage occurs in the core base. The correlation
between the flexural strength and the compressive strength of con-
crete located inside the member cross-section at the incision depth
is determined on the basis of the destructive force value [44]. In the
break-off method, the condition of concrete in layers closer to the
member surface is not considered. The incision should be made
outside the area where the reinforcing bars are present. The test
causes relatively deep cavities in the structure which require filling
and repair.
For the assessment of concrete in structures, the probe penetra-
tion methods are also applied, among which the most frequently
used is the Windsor probe. The test is carried out with a gun
designed to shoot a metal bolt into the concrete with a fixed
velocity [15,45]. The probe penetration depth in the tested mem-
ber may reach 40 mm. The compressive strength of concrete is
determined on the basis of correlation relationships with reference
to the length of the bolt protruding from the member. The influ-
ence of aggregate hardness should also be taken into account.
Fig. 7. Break-off test: 1 – loading device; 2 – breaking force; 3 – concrete core; 4 –
failure surface; drawing prepared by authors on the basis of the paper [44].
The Windsor probe test is simple and quick and can also be per-
formed if the member surface is rough and even significantly dam-
aged. However, the test results may be overestimated when the
probe is shot in the close proximity of reinforcing bars [44]. Due
to the considerable impact energy transmitted by the probe to
the concrete, severely damaged or thin members can get fractured.
Probes with less kinetic energy should be used to test such mem-
bers. Experimental studies confirm the usefulness of methods
based on the probe penetration in the assessment of near-surface
concrete in structures after fire [46].
Other test methods have been also developed to evaluate con-
crete in structures after fire. These methods consist in the mea-
surement of drilling resistance of concrete when a standard
impact drill or core drill are applied [16,33,47].
The paper [33] describes a test performed with a standard
impact drill. The device was equipped with tools for continuous
measurement of power consumption, drill rotational speed, and
hole depth. This enabled, among others, determination of the value
of energy required to drill a unit deep hole, expressed in [J/mm].
Such a parameter is a good indicator of the variability of penetrated
concrete properties [33]. It can be displayed in real time on a com-
puter screen. A wide measurement range allows determining the
drilling resistance in the near-surface layer of the member and
inside the cross-section where the high temperature did not affect
the concrete. Therefore, it is not necessary to use any special cali-
bration to estimate the thickness of the concrete layer damaged by
fire. The drilling resistance test is simple and quick to perform. No
special preparation is required and there are only small cavities to
fill. In order to eliminate the influence of aggregate on the test
results, it is recommended to average the measurements from sev-
eral adjacent points [33]. The drilling resistance method enables
the identification of concrete layers in which the temperature
reached at least 400 °C (a relatively high level of damage). Lower
temperature does not affect the measured values to a noticeable
extent [33].
A core drill can also be used to assess the thickness of a dam-
aged near-surface concrete layer [47]. The measurement may be
carried out while taking samples for laboratory tests or indepen-
dently. In the latter case, it is preferable to use a smaller drill (sev-
eral centimeters in diameter) as this results in reduced losses in the
structure. The time required for the core drill bit to cut a unit deep
hole, at constant thrust, is an indicator sensitive to the variability
of concrete properties. Continuous measurement enables testers
to determine how the drilling resistance changes as the drill bit
penetrates the concrete. Coring leaves relatively large cavities in
the member in comparison to the impact drill test. However, the
core drill test enables identification of even relatively low concrete
damage [47].
In the experimental studies [16], more advanced concrete
assessment methods based on the drilling resistance test were
introduced. It was proposed to measure the propagation of the
impulse generated in concrete by the hammering mechanism of
the drill. The relationship between the level of concrete degrada-
tion and the pulse velocity may allow estimating the extent of
damage in a structure. Moreover, physicochemical analysis and
colorimetric analysis of powder generated as a side effect of dril-
ling can be used to evaluate the temperature to which concrete
was subjected.
5.2. Non-destructive tests
The most commonly used non-destructive methods for the
assessment of in situ concrete are: sclerometric test, ultrasonic
pulse velocity test and impact-echo test.
Sclerometric test is standardized [48] in normal conditions. The
method is based on the correlation between the compressive
 J. Wróblewska, R. Kowalski / Construction and Building Materials 254 (2020) 119122
strength of concrete and its surface hardness. Measurements are
made using a sclerometer (Schmidt hammer). When the sclerome-
ter is applied to the structural member, a spring system releases a
hammer mass. The mass strikes a steel plunger that is in contact
with the concrete surface, and then rebounds at a certain distance
known as the rebound number. Additionally, the sclerometric test
should be carried out on core specimens taken from a structure in
order to establish the rebound number – compressive strength cor-
relation for a given concrete or, alternatively, to calibrate the stan-
dard relationship [36]. Then, the compressive strength of the near-
surface concrete can be determined on the basis of the average
rebound number and the correlation formulas or curves. The thick-
ness of the concrete layer examined with a Schmidt hammer is rel-
atively small (approximately 30 mm) [34]. Before the test, the
member should be locally cleaned and grinded so that the hammer
strikes a flat and dry surface [48]. Testing should be avoided in
areas where the reinforcing bars are situated in concrete at a depth
of less than 30 mm. Otherwise, the obtained results may be
unreliable.
In application to structures after fire, the sclerometric test can
be a good tool for preliminary identification of areas with damaged
surface concrete layer. The rebound number value obtained on a
deteriorated surface is lower than for undamaged concrete [34,49].
The paper [50] describes a sclerometric test carried out on rein-
forced concrete beams heated in a planned way for 60, 120, 180
and 240 min and then freely cooled in the air. A one-way heat
transfer in the cross-section of the tested members was provided.
Fig. 8 presents the relative reduction of rebound number (LT/L0)
depending on the heating duration (continuous line) and the rela-
tive decrease in concrete compressive strength at high tempera-
ture (fch/fc, dashed lines) [50]. The values of fch/fc were
determined on the basis of the standard model [5] and the temper-
ature specified (measurements and results of FEM calculations
[50]) at varying distances from the heated edge of the member
cross-section. The rebound numbers measured on the heated sur-
faces were significantly lower in comparison to readings on
unheated concrete. It was found that the relative reduction of the
rebound number (LT/L0) reflects well the compressive strength
decrease (fch/fc) in concrete situated 15 mm from the heated
cross-section edge. This distance corresponds to the center of the
near-surface layer (30 mm thick) which is measured with a scle-
rometer [34].
In the test [50], the surface of the beams exposed to high tem-
perature conditions was not grinded. Despite this, low scattering of
results and relative reduction in the rebound number correspond-
ing to the decrease in concrete strength were obtained. This leads
Fig. 8. Relative rebound number reduction (LT/L0) on the background of the
decrease in concrete compressive strength (fch/fc) determined at varying depths of
the cross-section, depending on heating duration [50].
7
to a conclusion that, in practice, in order to accelerate the initial
sclerometric testing of structures after fire, it is possible to omit
the inconvenient surface grinding (which is recommended for test-
ing at room temperature).
In the standardized [51] UPV (ultrasonic pulse velocity) test, the
time of travel of compressional waves propagating in concrete
between the transmitting and receiving transducers is measured.
In order to provide proper acoustic coupling, the concrete surfaces
to which the transducers are applied are required to be smooth and
covered with e.g. grease. The concrete compressive strength can be
estimated from the correlation with the wave speed, considering
such parameters as concrete mix composition and moisture. Due
to the relationship of ultrasonic pulse velocity with the value of
concrete modulus of elasticity and the moisture content, the
method may be a good indicator of the level of concrete damage
after fire [52]. As the temperature increases, concrete gradually
loses contained water and the modulus of elasticity decreases as
a result of chemical and physical processes occurring in the heated
member [52]. This causes a reduction in the velocity of ultrasonic
wave propagation in concrete.
In the direct UPV method, the transmitter and the receiver are
placed on two opposite surfaces of the tested member. The
obtained wave velocity and correlated concrete compressive
strength are the average values for the whole member thickness.
This test allows preliminary identification of areas where the con-
crete has lower parameters or where there are present relatively
large (above 100 mm) flaws or voids inside the member [51]. Ultra-
sonic waves get diffracted around such a hindrance, which is
recorded as longer time of travel between the transducers. How-
ever, it is not possible to determine the thickness of the damaged
concrete layer using the direct method. As in the sclerometric
method, the results of ‘‘calibrating” destructive tests carried out
on core specimens extracted from the structure after fire are usu-
ally unreliable. Thus, it is very difficult to provide a reliable esti-
mate of the concrete compressive strength from the ultrasonic
wave velocity measurements.
Thickness measurement of the damaged near-surface concrete
layer is possible with the indirect UPV method [15,35,53,54]. By
placing the transmitter and the receiver on one surface, the time
of travel of the ultrasonic wave in the surface layer can be mea-
sured (Fig. 9). Increasing the distance between the transducers
causes the wave to go deeper into the material. A series of several
Fig. 9. Scheme of ultrasonic pulse velocity measurement and the assessment of
damaged concrete layer thickness using the indirect ultrasonic method: 1 – position
of transmitter; 2 – consecutive positions of receiver; 3 – concrete surface; 4 –
ultrasonic wave travel paths; drawing prepared by authors on the basis of the paper
[15].
8 J. Wróblewska, R. Kowalski / Construction and Building Materials 254 (2020) 119122
measurements for different distances between the transducers
allows determining an increase in the speed of the wave propaga-
tion in deeper parts of concrete. Based on the obtained results it is
possible to estimate the depth beyond which the wave velocity in
concrete is approximately constant, which means that the concrete
is not damaged by high temperature [15,53].
The direct UPV method can also be used in laboratory tests on
core specimens extracted from a structure [52]. Measurements of
wave velocity across the core, in subsequent layers, allow detecting
the variability of concrete properties depending on the distance
from the heated surface. This enables to estimate the quality and
thickness of the near-surface layer of concrete damaged by fire.
The reliability of the UPV test results may be adversely affected
by high degradation of the surface to which the transducers are
applied (insufficient acoustic coupling). Another issue may be the
presence of reinforcing bars situated parallelly to the direction of
measurement, and also large cracks and voids in the concrete which
disperse the waves and thus may lower their evaluated speed.
The impact-echo method is described in the American Standard
[55] and is commonly used in the USA. However, it is not included
in the European standards. In the test, the stress wave propagation
in concrete is examined. The mechanical impulse is induced by an
impact of a small diameter steel ball on the tested member surface.
The emitted waves are reflected inside concrete in local disconti-
nuities, such as cracks or voids, and on the opposite surface of
the member. The resonance frequency and the velocity of the
mechanical wave propagation in concrete are examined. Thanks
to the analysis of the received signal, the software of the impact-
echo test device allows obtaining a lot of information about the
member internal structure, such as the depth of surface cracks,
presence of voids, discontinuities or delaminations [35]. In com-
parison to the UPV method, an important advantage of the
impact-echo method is the ability to inspect the entire member
when even only one surface is available. Furthermore, the presence
of reinforcing bars does not interfere with the measurements.
The impact-echo method can also be applied to locating areas in
a structure where concrete has worse properties, for example, after
a fire. Signal attenuation is significant in damaged concrete [35]. As
the degradation of concrete increases, the velocity of mechanical
wave propagation decreases, together with its resonance frequency
[56]. Due to the lack of systematized experimental correlations in
the available literature, it is not possible, however, to estimate
the strength of concrete based on the measured parameters. More-
over, wave characteristics are recorded as an average value for the
whole thickness of the tested member, without a possibility of dis-
tinguishing between particular layers [35]. Therefore, despite
many applications of the impact-echo method, it is impossible to
determine the thickness of the damaged near-surface layer of
concrete in a structure.
6. Summary
Reinforced concrete structures have good natural fire resis-
tance. Usually, they do not get completely destroyed as a result
of high temperature exposure. This implies the necessity to assess
the condition of concrete in structures after fire.
Concrete in structures exposed to fire conditions has non-
uniform properties in the member cross-section. The most signifi-
cant degradation of concrete occurs in the near-surface layer.
When evaluating structures after fire, it is particularly impor-
tant to determine the thickness of the external cross-section layer
in which concrete is so damaged that it should be considered
destroyed.
The standardized method of determining the compressive
strength of cores extracted from a structure should not be used
uncritically to assess the residual conditions of concrete past a fire.
This method has limitations due to the inability to consider the
variability of concrete strength along the specimen axis.
In order to estimate the extent of concrete damage, laboratory
test methods may be applied to specimens obtained by cutting
cores perpendicularly to their axes. These methods are: compres-
sive strength tests performed on subsequent core layers, FBTest,
dynamic elastic modulus test and air permeability index test.
Approximate distribution of fire temperature in the tested
member can also be determined with laboratory methods such
as X-ray diffraction, scanning microscopy, chemical analysis, col-
orimetry, DTA and TGA analyses. In the tests, relationships
between high temperature and physical and chemical phenomena
occurring in concrete are used.
Semi-destructive methods for in situ concrete assessment: pull-
off test, pull-out test, break-off test, BRE internal fracture test and
probe penetration test may be a good practical alternative to labo-
ratory investigations on structures after fire. This is mainly due to
lower costs and reduced time consumption. However, the applica-
bility of these methods is limited. Measurements are made at a
specific, predetermined distance from the tested member surface
(pull-off, break-off methods) or refer to a concrete layer of a certain
small thickness, giving an average test result (internal fracture,
pull-out, probe penetration tests).
Methods based on the measurement of drilling resistance are
intended for the evaluation of concrete damaged after fire. The test
results allow estimating the variability of concrete strength
depending on the distance from the heated member surface.
By using direct UPV test or impact-echo test it is possible to pre-
identify areas where concrete has lower strength properties after a
fire. In these tests, however, only averaged results for the whole
thickness of the member are obtained. It is not possible to deter-
mine the range of concrete damage.
Indirect UPV test, performed on one surface of the member, can
be used to estimate the thickness of the concrete layer deteriorated
as a result of exposure to high temperature. In this test, the velocity
of ultrasonic wave traveling in the external layer of the member
cross-section is measured. The thickness of the measured concrete
layer depends on the distance between the transducers.
With a Schmidt hammer test, it is not possible to estimate the
compressive strength of concrete in structural members after fire.
However, the sclerometric method may be used for preliminary
identification of areas with a damaged surface concrete layer. On
the basis of the conducted studies, in the paper [50] it was con-
cluded that:

the relative reduction of rebound number (LT/L0) reflects well
the relative compressive strength decrease (fch/fc) in concrete
situated in the member cross-section at 15 mm from the heated
surface,

in order to accelerate the initial sclerometric testing of a struc-
ture after fire, inconvenient grinding of the member surface
may be omitted.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] K.R. Kordina, Design of concrete buildings for fire resistance, Chapter 6 in:
Structural concrete. Textbook on behaviour, design and performance. Second
edition. Vol. 4. fib bulletin 54 (2010) 1–36.
 J. Wróblewska, R. Kowalski / Construction and Building Materials 254 (2020) 119122
[2] R. Kowalski, Mechanical properties of concrete subjected to high temperature,
Archit. Civ. Eng. Environ. 3 (2) (2010) 61–70.
[3] R. Kowalski, P. Król, Experimental examination of residual load bearing
capacity of RC beams heated up to high temperature, Sixth International
Conference Structures in Fire, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan, USA, Proceedings edited by V.K.R. Kodur and J.M. Fransen, DEStech
Publications Inc., pp. 254-261, 2010.
[4] V. Kodur, Properties of concrete at elevated temperature, ISRN Civ. Eng. 1–15
(2014) 2014, https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/468510.
[5] EN 1992-1-2:2004. Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures. General rules.
Structural fire design.
[6] Z.P. Bažant, M.F. Kaplan, Concrete at High Temperatures. Material Properties
and Mathematical Models, Longman, Harlow, Essex, 1996.
[7] U. Schneider, Behaviour of concrete under thermal steady state and non-steady
state conditions, Fire Mater. 1 (3) (1976) 103–115, https://doi.org/
10.1002/fam.810010305.
[8] U. Schneider, Concrete at high temperatures – a general review, Fire Saf. J. 13
(1) (1988) 55–68, https://doi.org/10.1016/0379-7112(88)90033-1.
[9] P. Bamonte, P.G. Gambarova, Properties of concrete subjected to extreme
thermal conditions, J. Struct. Fire Eng. 5 (1) (2014) 47–62, https://doi.org/
10.1260/2040-2317.5.1.47.
[10] M. Abramowicz, R. Kowalski, The influence of short time water cooling on the
mechanical properties of concrete heated up to high temperature, J. Civ. Eng.
Manage. 11 (2) (2005) 85–90, https://doi.org/10.3846/
13923730.2005.9636336.
[11] R. Kowalski, The effects of the cooling rate on the residual properties of
heated-up concrete, Struct. Concr. J. fib 8 (1) (2007) 11–15.
[12] R. Kowalski, Temperature distribution in R/C cross-section subjected to
heating and then freely cooled down in air, Chapter 9 in: Benchmark
Studies. Experimental Validation of Numerical Models in Fire Engineering.
CTU Publishing House, Czech Technical University in Prague, pp. 107–122,
2014.
[13] G.A. Khoury, Compressive strength of concrete at high temperatures: a
reassessment, Mag. Concr. Res. 44 (161) (1992) 291–309, https://doi.org/
10.1680/macr.1992.44.161.291.
[14] P. Knyziak, R. Kowalski, R. Krentowski, Fire damage of RC slab structure of a
shopping center, Eng. Fail. Anal. 97 (2019) 53–60, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engfailanal.2018.12.002.
[15] I. Hager, Methods for assessing the state of concrete in fire damaged
structures, Cem. Lime Concr. 4 (2009) 167–178.
[16] R. Felicetti, Assessment of fire damage in concrete structures: new inspection
tools and combined interpretation of results, 8th International Conference on
Structures in Fire, Shanghai, China, 2014, pp. 1111–1120.
[17] A.E. Long, G.D. Henderson, F.R. Montgomery, Why assess the properties of
near-surface concrete?, Constr Build. Mater. 15 (2–3) (2001) 65–79, https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0950-0618(00)00056-8.
[18] M.S. Abrams, Compressive strength of concrete at temperatures to 1600 F, Am.
Concr. Inst. Publ. 25 (1971) 33–58.
[19] G.A. Khoury, C.E. Majorana, F. Pesavento, B.A. Schrefler, Modelling of heated
concrete, Mag. Concr. Res. 54 (2) (2002) 77–101, https://doi.org/
10.1680/macr.2002.54.2.77.
[20] N.G. Zoldners, Effect of high temperatures on concretes incorporating different
aggregates, American Society of Testing Materials 60: 1087–1108, Sixty-third
Annual Meeting of the Society (1960).
[21] U. Schneider (Editor), RILEM Committee 44-PHT, Behaviour of Concrete at
High Temperatures, Gesamthochschule Kassel Universitat, 1985.
[22] fib Bulletin 38/2007, Fire design for concrete structures – materials, structures
and modelling. State-of-art report, International Federation for Structural
Concrete (fib), April 2007.
[23] P. Chudzik, R. Kowalski, M. Abramowicz, Strains of concrete in RC structures
subjected to fire, Procedia Eng. 193 (2017) 377–384, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
proeng.2017.06.227.
[24] F. Lo Monte, R. Felicetti, Heated slabs under biaxial compressive loading: a test
set-up for the assessment of concrete sensitivity to spalling, Mater. Struct. 50
(4) (2017) 192. doi:10.1617/s11527-017-1055-1.
[25] V.K.R. Kodur, Spalling in high strength concrete exposed to fire: concerns,
causes, critical parameters and cures, ASCE Structures Congress 2000:
Advanced Technology in Structural Engineering, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
USA, Vol. 103, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1061/40492(2000)180.
[26] D. Gawin, F. Pesavento, B.A. Schrefler, Towards prediction of the thermal
spalling risk through a multi-phase porous media model of concrete, Comput.
Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 195 (41–43) (2006) 5707–5729, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cma.2005.10.021.
[27] D. Gawin, F. Pesavento, Prediction of the thermal spalling risk of concrete
structures exposed to high temperatures, Archit. Civ. Eng. Environ. 2 (1) (2009)
49–60.
[28] J. Liu, K.H. Tan, Y. Yao, A new perspective on nature of fire-induced spalling in
concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 184 (2018) 581–590, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2018.06.204.
[29] R. Kowalski, M. Abramowicz, P. Chudzik, Reaction of RC slabs cross-sections to
fire. Calculation of simplified substitute temperature loads induced by an
9
unsteady heat flow, Proceedings of International Conference: Applications of
Structural Fire Engineering, Dubrovnik, Croatia, pp. 214-219, 2015. https://doi.
org/10.14311/asfe.2015.033.
[30] ACI 216.1M-07/TMS-216-07: Code Requirements for Determining Fire
Resistance of Concrete and Masonry Construction Assemblies. An American
Concrete Institute / TMS Standard.
[31] EN 1991-1-2:2002. Eurocode 1: Actions on structures. Part 1-2: General
actions. Actions on structures exposed to fire.
[32] fib Bulletin 46/2008, ‘‘Fire design for concrete structures – structural
behaviour and assessment. State-of-art report”, International Federation for
Structural Concrete (fib), July 2008.
[33] R. Felicetti, The drilling resistance test for the assessment of fire damaged
concrete, Cem. Concr. Compos. 28 (4) (2006) 321–329, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2006.02.009.
[34] E. Annerel, L. Taerwe, Techniques for the evaluation of concrete structures
after fire, International Conference Application of Structural Fire Engineering,
Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 92–96, 2011.
[35] U. Dilek, M.L. Leming, Comparison of pulse velocity and impact-echo findings
to properties of thin disks from a fire damaged slab, J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 21
(1) (2007) 13–21, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2007)21:1(13).
[36] EN 13791:2007. Assessment of in-situ compressive strength in structures and
pre-cast concrete components.
[37] ACI Committee 214.4-10, Guide for Obtaining Cores and Interpreting
Compressive Strength Results, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
Michigan, 2010.
[38] S. Khoury, A.A. Aliabdo, A. Ghazy, Reliability of core test – critical assessment
and proposed new approach, Alexandria Eng. J. 53 (2014) 169–184, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.aej.2013.12.005.
[39] J.R. dos Santos, F.A. Branco, J. de Brito, Assessment of concrete structures
subjected to fire – the FBTest, Mag. Concr. Res. 54 (3) (2002) 203–208, https://
doi.org/10.1680/macr.2002.54.3.203.
[40] I. Hager, T. Tracz, K. Krzemień, The usefulness of selected non-destructive and
destructive methods in the assessment of concrete after fire, Cem. Lime Concr.
3 (2014) 145–151.
[41] R. Felicetti, Digital camera colorimetry for the assessment of fire damaged
concrete, 2nd Fib Task Group 4.3 Workshop – Fire Design of Concrete
Structures: What now? What next? Milan (2004).
[42] N.R. Short, J.A. Purkiss, S.E. Guise, Assessment of fire damaged concrete using
colour image analysis, Constr. Build. Mater. 15 (1) (2001) 9–15, https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0950-0618(00)00065-9.
[43] EN 12504-3:2005. Testing concrete in structures. Determination of pull-out
force.
[44] D.C.K. Tay, C.T. Tam, In situ investigation of the strength of deteriorated
concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 10 (1) (1996) 17–26, https://doi.org/10.1016/
0950-0618(95)00057-7.
[45] J.H. Bungey, M.N. Soutsos, Reliability of partially-destructive tests to assess the
strength of concrete on site, Constr. Build. Mater. 15 (2–3) (2001) 81–92,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-0618(00)00057-X.
[46] I. Hager, R. Kiwit, The assessment of heat damaged concrete based on the
penetration depth of probes fired with gunpowder tool, Cem. Lime Concr. 3
(2012) 155–159.
[47] R. Felicetti, Combined while-drilling techniques for the assessment of the fire
damaged concrete cover, International Conference Application of Structural
Fire Engineering, Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 208–215, 2009.
[48] EN 12504-2:2012. Testing concrete in structures. Non-destructive testing.
Determination of rebound number.
[49] P. Panedpojaman, D. Tonnayopas, Rebound hammer test to estimate
compressive strength of heat exposed concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 172
(2018) 387–395, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.03.179.
[50] R. Kowalski, J. Wróblewska, Application of a sclerometer to the preliminary
assessment of concrete quality in structures after fire, Archiv. Civ. Eng. 64 (4)
(2018) 171–186, https://doi.org/10.2478/ace-2018-0069.
[51] EN 12504-4:2004. Testing concrete. Determination of ultrasonic pulse
velocity.
[52] I. Hager, H. Carré, Ultrasonic pulse velocity investigations on concrete
subjected to high temperature with the use of cylindrical and exponential
transducers, 7th International Conference on Structures in Fire, Zurich,
Switzerland, 2012, pp. 805–814.
[53] M. Colombo, R. Felicetti, New NDT techniques for the assessment of fire
damaged concrete structures, 4th International Workshop Structures in Fire,
Aveiro, Portugal, 2006, pp. 721–734.
[54] ACI Committee 228.2R-13, Report on Nondestructive Test Methods for
Evaluation of Concrete in Structures, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Michigan, 2013.
[55] ASTM C1383-15, Standard Test Method for Measuring the P-Wave Speed and
the Thickness of Concrete Plates Using the Impact-Echo Method, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2015.
[56] K. Krzemień, I. Hager, Post-fire assessment of mechanical properties of
concrete with the use of the impact-echo method, Constr. Build. Mater. 96
(2015) 155–163, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.08.007.