See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331320998

FACTORS AFFECTING THE SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF REINFORCED CONCRETE

STRUCTURES AFTER FIRE EXPOSURE

Conference Paper · February 2019

CITATIONS READS

0 1,092

2 authors:

Alper Ilki Ugur Demir

Istanbul Technical University Izmir Institute of Technology
287 PUBLICATIONS 3,324 CITATIONS 28 PUBLICATIONS 57 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

İSTANBUL’DA ÇEVRESEL VE KENTSEL RİSK ALGILAMA / Environmental and Urban Risk Perception in Istanbul View project

Risk Algılama / Risk Perception View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ugur Demir on 25 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

FACTORS AFFECTING SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF REINFORCED CONCRETE
STRUCTURES AFTER FIRE EXPOSURE

Alper Ilki1, Ugur Demir2

ABSTRACT

In the areas under high earthquake risk, the impact of fire damage on the seismic performance of
the reinforced concrete (RC) structures ought to be realistically taken into account while assessing
the fire damage to develop reuse/repair/replace strategies through the remaining service life. In the
scope of this study, a literature review is conducted on the changes of mechanical characteristics
of concrete and reinforcement caused by a fire with a particular emphasis on the post-cooling stage.
Post-cooling behaviour of RC members is different than the behaviour under elevated temperatures
and hence it is of vital importance on structural seismic performance assessment after a fire. Apart
from material-wise assessment methodologies, post-fire seismic performance of RC structural
members is also discussed through post-fire simulated seismic loading tests conducted on full-scale
cast-in-place and precast columns. The test results pointed out to a reduction in lateral load bearing
capacity of the cast-in-place columns subjected to fire whereas fire-exposed precast columns
demonstrated better performance in terms of residual lateral load capacity due to the lower axial
load and larger heights. All columns exhibited satisfactory performance in terms of ductility.

Keywords: reinforced concrete column; fire exposure; seismic behaviour; life safety; high
temperatures; concrete cover.

1. INTRODUCTION
In recent decades, provision of fire safety of the structures in terms of life safety of residents, and
the structural and non-structural components has gained importance [1-3]. Fires may cause considerable
structural damages on reinforced concrete (RC) structures because of deterioration of concrete, steel
reinforcement and bond between concrete and steel reinforcement. The structural damage associated
with fire exposure may result with ambiguous post-fire seismic behaviour. In order to determine
the post-fire residual building capacity, a careful assessment should be executed to detect the
structural damages and their effects on seismic performance. Then, a decision should be taken to
repair, strengthen or rebuild the fire-exposed structure considering its residual seismic capacity.
Design criteria in fire regulations have been typically expressed in terms of required concrete cover
basically required for maintaining life safety [4-6]. As a consequence of this design philosophy,
there is no accept by means of quantifying structure protection goals considering further damage.
Instead, a simple pass/fail assessment usually consisting of prescribed fire resistance criteria and
times is employed [7]. However, the general applicability of this approach may be debated since
the heating and cooling regimes in fires may be quite different. Thus, there are still obvious gaps
in knowledge of the real behaviour of concrete structures during and after fire. In particular, behaviour
1 Professor, Civil Engineering Faculty, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey, Ph. +90 212 285 38 38, Email: ailki@itu.edu.tr.
2 PhD student, Civil Engineering Faculty, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey, Email: udemir@itu.edu.tr.

NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH-SPECIAL ISSUE ON FIRST SOUTH ASIA CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING (SACEE'19), 2019 00
 A. Ilki and U. Demir
Alper Ilki is a Full-Professor at Istanbul Technical University, Turkey. He is a member of IIFC
Executive Committee, National Delegate of FIB, editorial board member of several international
journals. He is an author of more than fifty journal papers and around one hundred sixty
conference papers. He has supervised thirteen PhD thesis on seismic behaviour of reinforced
concrete and masonry structures, seismic design/performance assessment, seismic retrofitting,
structural testing and fibre reinforced polymers.
Ugur Demir is a PhD student and Research/Teaching Assistant in the Civil Engineering Faculty
at Istanbul Technical University, Turkey. His research interests include post-fire seismic
performance of reinforced concrete structures, axial behaviour of high performance fibre
reinforced cementitious composites, structural health monitoring of RC structures and applications
of fibre reinforced polymers in structures.
after cooling is of importance in terms of post-fire structural performance assessment considering
the residual seismic capacity. Strength reduction in concrete and steel reinforcement at high
temperatures is partly recovered after cooling phase [8-11]. Despite the large number of research
in literature on the behaviour of RC structural members under elevated temperatures, researches
on the post-cooling behaviour of RC structural members are limited [12-16]. Post-fire behaviour
of structural components should be investigated carefully to make a realistic determination of residual
seismic performance of structures after a fire. Within the scope of this study, firstly, the factors
affecting the mechanical behaviour of the structural members under elevated temperatures and after
cooling phases are discussed. Then, post-fire seismic behaviour of RC members obtained through
structural testing is presented.

Proper evaluation of seismic vulnerability of RC structures after a fire is a challenging and key issue
for earthquake prone countries. The post-fire seismic performance assessment is generally based
on the damage of concrete cover and material deterioration over the RC members. Most of the issues
related to concrete cover and material deteriorations are codified and a comparison between the
recommendations of some of the major codes [4-6, 11] is investigated in this paper. In the light of
existing knowledge in literature, when subjected to fire, some of physical and chemical changes
which occur in concrete and reinforcing steel are reversible upon cooling, while others are irreversible
and may significantly weaken the RC structure after a fire [8-16]. The changes in mechanical
properties of concrete and steel reinforcement, under elevated temperatures and after cooling are
discussed below as well as the effect of fire on bond behaviour.

2. FACTORS INFLUENCING ELEVATED TEMPERATURE BEHAVIOUR OF

CONCRETE
2.1 Effect of Concrete Cover
In RC structural members, current design criteria have been typically expressed only in terms of
required concrete cover thickness for the considered design fire (Table 1). For example, Turkish
fire regulation - TFR [2] demands minimum clear concrete cover of 35 mm (1.4 in.), 25 mm (1 in.)
and 20 mm (0.8 in.) for columns, beams and slabs, respectively, for 120 min of standard fire
resistance. According to ACI 216.1-97 [3], minimum concrete cover, regardless of any other
parameters, shall not be less than 25.4 mm (1 in.) times the number of hours of required fire
resistance, or 50.8 mm (2 in.), whichever is less for columns. For 120 min of fire resistance, minimum
concrete cover for beams is given depending on width and restrain conditions (19.05 mm (3/4 in.)
for 300 mm (12 in.) wide restrained beams). Minimum concrete cover for slabs is given depending
on aggregate type and restrain conditions (19.05 mm (3/4 in.) for siliceous aggregate made restrained
slabs). EN-1992-1-2 [4] (Eurocode-2, hereafter EC-2) defines axis distance (concrete cover) and
minimum dimensions of RC members for required fire resistance (for 120 min of fire resistance
of columns and for mechanical reinforcement ratio (w) of 0.5 and axial load level (n) of 0.5, minimum
dimension of the cross-section is 450 mm (18 in.) and minimum axis distance is 50 mm. Axis
distance is defined depending on the width for beams. For example, for 120 min of fire resistance,
Table 1. Minimum concrete cover for 2 hrs of fire resistance
Minimum concrete cover, mm (in.)
ACI 216.1-97 EC-2 TFR
(a) (c)
Slab 19.05(3/4) 20(0.8) 20(0.78)
Beam 19.05(3/4) (b) 35(1.4) (d) 25(1)
Column 50.8(2) 50(2) (e) 35(1.4)
(a) for unrestrained slabs, cover shall be larger than 25.4 mm (1 in.)
(b) for unrestrained beams with smaller width than 127 mm (5 in.), cover shall be
larger than 31.75 mm (1.25 in.)
(c) given for two way slabs supported from four edges (m < 1,5)
(d) for beams with a width of 500 mm (19 in.), cover shall be larger than 30 mm (1.2 in.)
(e) given for columns with minimum dimension of 500 mm (19 in.), w and n are 0.5

00 NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH-SPECIAL ISSUE ON FIRST SOUTH ASIA CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING (SACEE'19), 2019
axis distance shall be at least 35 mm(1.4 in.) in case the width of the continuous beam is 300 mm
(12 in.). Minimum concrete cover for slabs is given considering the thickness and type of the slabs
(one-way or two-way slabs). For 120 min of fire resistance, minimum slab thickness shall be 120
mm (5 in.) and for a two-way slab minimum axis distance shall be 20 mm (0.8 in.). It should be noted
that for all codes investigated here, concrete cover is measured from concrete surface to surface of
longitudinal reinforcement. As seen in Table 1, although given values are similar for slabs, EC-2
gives the most conservative values for other types of structural members. For columns, ACI 216.1-
97 and EC-2 give similar values whilst TFR demands relatively thinner concrete cover. It is worth
to note that columns are generally major lateral load carrying members in frame buildings under
lateral loading. Therefore, when the post-fire seismic behaviour of RC buildings is considered, TFR
cover requirement seems to be less conservative in comparison with ACI 216.1-97 [3] and EC-2 [4].

2.2 Behaviour under Elevated Temperature

Deterioration in mechanical properties of RC members under elevated temperatures has been one
of the major concerns for structural engineers since the fire resistance of the members should be
considered in design. As concrete is a less combustible and a good insulating material possessing
a low thermal diffusivity when compared to steel, RC structures are known as less sensitive to heat
exposure with respect to steel structures. However, there are two problems of concrete in fire: (i)
deterioration in mechanical properties as temperature rises, and (ii) explosive spalling; these result
in loss of material, reduction in section size and exposure of the reinforcing steel to excessive
temperatures [8]. Under elevated temperatures, concrete mechanical properties such as compressive
and flexural strengths, modulus of elasticity and volume stability are significantly affected [17, 18].
If the temperature exceeds 100°C (212°F), water in concrete evaporates causing a pressure within
the concrete and thus stimulating spalling. Chemically bound water is initiate to be released from
hydrated calcium silicate above 150°C (302°F) and reaches to a peak at 270°C (518°F). After 300°C
(572°F), micro cracks occur. At about 400°C (752°F), the calcium hydroxide in the cement begins
to dehydrate, generating more water vapour. This dehydration of the cement brings a significant
reduction in the physical strength of the material crystals of calcium hydroxide which decompose
with the highest intensity at about 535°C (995°F). Finally, at 800°C (1472°F), concrete can be
crumbled to gravel where above 1150°C (2100°F) it melts and the cement paste turns into glass
phase [8]. The critical temperatures for significant strength reduction depend strongly on aggregate
type. Quartz-based aggregates increase in volume at about 575°C (1057°F), whilst limestone
aggregates will begin to decompose at about 800°C (1472°F). This volume increase reduces the
compressive strength of the material for approximate values of at 650°C (1200°F) for sand light-
weight concrete, 660°C (1220°F) for carbonate, and 430°C (805°F) for siliceous [9]. Similar results
were also reported in the study of Rangan and Warner [19]. According to this study, concrete
resistance to heat is governed by the type of aggregate used: while siliceous aggregates decompose
at temperature slightly above 500°C (632°F), those of carbonic composition decompose at considerably
higher temperatures. As a function of the degree of heat exposure and based on the physical and
chemical changes summarized above, a strength reduction is expected in concrete of RC members.
ACI 216.1-97 [3] and EC-2 [4] give values for the change in the characteristic compressive strength
of concrete, to be used with the simplified cross-section calculation methods (Figure 1). As seen
in this figure, both codes give compressive strength as percentage of initial strength and report that
when compared to calcareous, siliceous concrete is more sensitive to heat exposure. EC-2 [4] curves
recommend no compressive strength loss up to 100°C (212°F) and the compressive strength loss
at 700°C (1292°F) is about seventy percent for siliceous concrete and sixty percent for calcareous,
respectively. On the other hand, ACI curves demonstrate that there is no loss in compressive strength
until approximately 400°C (752°F) and 600°C (1112°F), respectively, both for siliceous and calcareous

Figure 1. Compressive strength of concrete made of: (a) siliceous aggregate; and
(b) calcareous concrete at high temperatures.
NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH-SPECIAL ISSUE ON FIRST SOUTH ASIA CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING (SACEE'19), 2019 00
 A. Ilki and U. Demir

Figure 2. Yield strength of reinforcement steel at high temperatures.

concrete. The trend for reduction in strength given by the codes is similar for siliceous concrete.
However, for calcareous concrete at about 700°C (1292°F), EC-2 [4] gives a reduction of sixty
percent of undamaged case while ACI 216.1-97 [3] recommends only ten percent. This remarkable
difference can be based on the fact that behaviour under elevated temperatures is related to the mix
proportion, aggregate and cement type, loading and restrain conditions etc. On the other hand, as
shown in Figure 2, no changes in yield strength of steel reinforcement is expected under temperatures
up to 400°C (752°F) according to EC-2 [4] while the yield strength is reduced to about twenty
percent of the initial value (eighty percent loss in yield strength) at a temperature of 700°C (1292°F).
ACI 216.1-97 [3] recommends similar trend in yield strength reduction. However, ACI 216.1-97
[3] reports a strength increase of about ten percent at a temperature of 200°C (392°F) and decrease
of ten percent at temperature of 400°C (752°F) unlike given in EC-2.

It should be noted that the post-cooling strength gain for concrete and steel reinforcement is not
considered in the values given in Figures 1 and 2, and the issue of strength gain after cooling is
discussed in the following section.

2.3 Behaviour after Cooling

When compared to the behaviour under elevated temperatures, RC members behave differently
after cooling [12, 13, 20-23]. Post-cooling behaviour can be separated into two stages. At the first
stage after cooling to ambient temperatures, it is observed that the strength of concrete may be
further reduced from its strength under high temperatures until a period of time because of continuing
disintegration of the microstructure in concrete. This is shown as one reason that a more conservative
strength reduction factor to assess the residual strength of the concrete is given in Concrete Society
Report [11] (hereafter CS-68). The first stage of post-fire cooling period is reported as about one
month from the beginning of cooling by Harada et al. [12] and Papayianni and Valiasis [13]. These
researches reported that the reduction in compressive strength of concrete continues during 30 days
after fire exposure. Because of the reaction between the concrete and moisture in the air (needed
for re-hydration of cement), after 30 days, recovery in compressive strength begins referring to the
second stage of cooling period.

It should be noted that there is a great variation in the residual strength of concrete after cooling
depending on the maximum temperature attained, duration of heating exposure, mix proportions,
aggregates, conditions of loading during heating and stress level [11]. Although EC-2 [4] curves
consider the loss of strength at the first stage of cooling, it neglects the second stage of the cooling
in which a strength gain is expected. Furthermore, since the effects of creep are not explicitly considered
in EC-2 [4] curves as well as other investigated codes, previous researches [24, 25] report that the EC-
2 [4] curves are not valid for structural assessment for the cooling phase since the irreversibility of
transient creep is not considered. The EC-2 [4] model with recommended value of the peak stress
strain leads to overestimated elongations (approximately fifty percent larger values with respect to the
test results), because of a highly underestimated transient creep strain [25]. CS-68 [11] recommends
a curve for residual compressive strength reduction which is valid for the cooling phase considering
the poor behaviour after being exposed to temperatures above 300°C (572°F) unlike 500°C (932°F)
isotherm approach given in EC-2 [4] in which the design methodology discounts the strength of
concrete exposed to temperatures higher than 500°C (932°F). Therefore, it can be concluded that CS-
68 approach is more conservative than the one according to EC-2 [4] (Figure 3). It should be noted
that due to the variety of residual compressive strength depending on the aggregate type and loading
conditions, only the values for the siliceous concrete are shown in Figure 3 for comparison. Similarly,
00 NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH-SPECIAL ISSUE ON FIRST SOUTH ASIA CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING (SACEE'19), 2019
 Figure 3. Residual compressive strength of concrete after cooling.

Figure 4. Residual yield strength of reinforcement steel after cooling.

CS-68 recommends a curve for yield strength of steel reinforcement in terms of post-fire strength
reduction (Figure 4). According to FIB Bulletin No. 46 [16], the concrete incorporating siliceous
aggregate resulted with a marginally-lower residual strength, compared to the calcareous aggregate
after cooling. Siliceous aggregates (such as basalt and quartzite), make the concrete more temperature-
sensitive than calcareous aggregates (such as carbonate and sandstone, the latter being partly
siliceous). FIB Bulletin No. 46 [16] also reports that a compressive load applied during heating and
cooling, may increase the residual compressive strength by twenty to forty percent. Keeping this
in mind, ACI 216.1-97 [3] gives the relationship between reduction in compressive strength and
temperature for varying aggregate (siliceous or carbonate) and loading cases. According to ACI
216.1-97 [3], compressive behaviour of concrete under high temperature is better than the cooled
one since the loss of humidity still continues for a period after cooling as defined in previous section
(first stage of cooling). Bazant et al. [26] reports results of an experimental work under the
temperatures 200°C (392°F), 400°C (752°F), 600°C (1112°F) and 800°C (1472°F) and demonstrates
that residual compressive strength (after cooling) for these temperatures are resulted with strength
reductions as seventy percent, sixty percent, forty percent and twenty five percent of their initial values
(Figure 3). It should be noted that, concrete that is exposed to an elevated temperature up to 500°C
(932°F), recovers ninety percent of its original strength in one year (second stage of cooling) [27].
Cooling will often restore the material to its original state for temperatures up to 450°C (842°F) for
cold work steel reinforcement and 600°C (1112°F) for hot rolled steel reinforcement [11, 27]. Above
these temperatures, a simple approach is suggested by CIB [14] in which for every 100°C (212°F)
increase in temperature, 7.5 percent of the yield strength is reduced (Figure 4). On the other hand,
Fletcher et al. [10] recommended to reduce the load bearing capacity of steel reinforcement about
twenty percent of its design value when exposed to temperatures of the order of 700°C (1292°F)
as similarly reported by CS-68 [11]. Felicetti and Meda [15] presented an experimental work that
has also been considered by FIB Bulletin No. 46 [16] and showed that the deformed bars exhibited
a sizeable decay above 550°C (1022°F) with a loss of forty five percent in terms of yield strength
after being heated to 850°C (1562°F) (Figure 4). This study shows that CIB [14] approach on
reducing yield strength is unsafe when compared to experimental findings.
NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH-SPECIAL ISSUE ON FIRST SOUTH ASIA CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING (SACEE'19), 2019 00
 A. Ilki and U. Demir
2.4 Effect of Fire on Bond Behaviour
The loss of bond may cause the premature activation of one of the major failure mechanisms in RC
structures [28]. Therefore, another key phenomenon particularly on the performance assessment
after exposing to fire is bond behaviour between concrete and the reinforcing bars. Previous researches
on bond behaviour mostly conducted using pull-out tests where the pull-out loads are used to
calculate average bond strength [29-31]. The effect of cooling on bond behaviour between the
ordinary concrete and the reinforcing bars is reported to be slight and bond strength increases with
an increase in compressive strength of concrete and embedment length of the bar [29]. The previous
researches reported that the residual loss in bond strength could be between thirty percent to ninety
six percent of its initial value when RC members are subjected to temperatures in excess of 500°C
(932°F) [29-30]. Similar dramatic post-fire bond reductions are also reported by Haddad and Shannis
[31]. However, the results of the studies conducted by the authors of the presented work on the post-
fire seismic behaviour of full-scale RC columns demonstrated that none of the current specimens
experienced bond failure or noticeable bond damage even if the longitudinal reinforcing bars were
exposed to 500°C (932°F). These findings indicate that the performance of post-fire pull-out tests
are questionable in terms of predicting the real bond behaviour. The details of this work will be
published separately.

3. FULL SCALE SEISMIC TESTS ON RC COLUMNS AFTER FIRE DAMAGE

The damage progress and failure of reinforced concrete structures in fire vary according to the
nature of the fire (rate of temperature increase and maximum temperature), the loads acting on the
structural system, types of structural materials and the characteristics of the structural system exposed
to fire. Therefore, a careful structural performance assessment is required to determine the structural
degradation and residual capacity after a fire. However, this is not easy due to many parameters
effective on post-fire residual capacity. In order to realistically estimate the post-fire capacity, testing
of structures or structural elements under fire exposures is a useful approach. The main advantage
of fire testing is providing valuable data on temperature distributions as well as information on
damages and deflections of the structural elements during and after heating.

Although behaviour of cast-in-situ RC columns under elevated temperatures have been extensively
investigated under service loads [32-35], and under service loads combined with uniaxial/biaxial
bending after cooling [36-38], experimental studies on the post-fire seismic behaviour of cast-in-
place RC columns are extremely rare. Yakub and Bailey [39] investigated the seismic performance
of post-heated shear critical RC columns repaired with glass (GFRP) or carbon (CFRP) fibre
reinforced polymer. A uniform temperature was applied and the influence of fire damage on hysteretic
response was addressed in case of FRP retrofitting. The study included the cast-in-situ RC columns
with insufficient shear capacity and focuses on the retrofitting issues in order to enhance the lack
of shear capacity addressing sub-standard existing buildings. Benichou et al. [40] presented the
lateral load resistance of FRP strengthened RC columns after fire exposure. Two square and five
circular columns with FRP confinement and fire insulation were exposed to four hours of standard
fire. Then, a pushover lateral load was gradually applied. Since a specimen that has been exposed
to fire was not available in the study for the columns without FRP confinement, a simplified
approximation using ASFI method [41] was employed to estimate the unfired lateral load capacity
of one of the columns. Furthermore, a numerical evaluation was conducted using the structural
analysis software SAFIR. It was numerically reported that the bare (unconfined and four hours fire
exposed) column experienced a fifty five percent reduction in its maximum lateral load capacity
due to fire damage and the maximum drift estimated for this column was 0.030 corresponding to
about two hundred percent increment in deformation capacity compared to the reference specimen
that was kept at room temperature. It should be noted that, according to the best knowledge of the
authors, there is no experimental study in the literature considering the post-fire seismic behaviour
of flexure critical full-scale RC columns. For this reason, a total of ten flexure-critical RC columns
consisting of six cast-in-situ columns (denoted as CS) representing low-rise dwelling columns and
dour prefabricated columns (denoted as PC) representing industrial facility columns were tested
under simulated seismic loads by the authors. Each specimen consisted of a RC foundation and a
cantilever column. CS columns were casted monolithically whereas PC columns and their footings
were casted separately and the column was erected within the footing socket afterwards. The gap
between the footing socket and the column was filled with mortar. Both CS and PC columns had
cross-sectional dimensions of 300×300 mm (12×12 in.), while the height was 1500 mm (4.9 ft) for
CS columns and 2200 mm for PC columns. All specimens and the footings of the PC columns were
casted at once with a concrete having a compressive strength of approximately 36 MPa (5220 psi)
at around the day of seismic tests. Columns were reinforced with four longitudinal steel bars of 20
mm (0.8 in.) diameter with a yield strength of 461 MPa (66.9×103 psi). Lateral reinforcement was
00 NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH-SPECIAL ISSUE ON FIRST SOUTH ASIA CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING (SACEE'19), 2019
provided using 10 mm ties spaced at 100 mm (4 in.) centre-to-centre with yield strength of 472 MPa
(68.5×103 psi). The geometric ratio of the longitudinal bars and the volumetric ratio of the lateral
reinforcement of the columns were 1.6 percent and 0.7 percent, respectively. Specimens were tested
under reversed cyclic lateral loading together with a constant axial load following a family of fire
exposure intensities (30 min, 60 min and 90 min–denoted as 30M, 60M and 90M) as defined by ISO-
834 fire curve. In addition, one identical specimen from each group (CS and PC) was tested without
being exposed to fire to serve as reference specimens. The simulated seismic tests were conducted
under axial loads corresponding to twenty percent of the axial load capacities for CS columns
(0.20f ’cbh) where f ’c is the compressive strength of concrete and b, h are the depth and width of the
cross-section, respectively. The fire facility and the seismic test set-up are shown in Figure 5.

The axial load ratio was ten percent for PC columns (0.10f ’cbh). The tests were executed sixty days
(denoted as 60D) after fire exposure. As abovementioned, the duration between fire exposure and
seismic tests was one of the parameters of the current study. Therefore, another column subjected
to 90 min of fire exposure was tested thirty days after fire exposure (denoted as 30D) to investigate
the influence of the duration after a fire on the seismic behaviour of RC columns. For evaluating
the effect of concrete cover on the post-fire seismic performance, columns with 25 mm (1 in.) and
40 mm (1.6 in.) cover thicknesses were tested (represented with notations of 25C and 40C). These
columns were subjected to fire exposure of 30 min. Schematically shown graphs of envelopes of
lateral load-displacement relationships of the columns are given in Figures 6-9. All specimens
reached their theoretical flexural capacities calculated considering the deterioration of concrete
strength obtained by the model proposed by Chang et al. [42]. It should be noted that the uniaxial
tensile test results for the reinforcement samples taken from the columns after seismic tests indicated
no reduction in mechanical properties of longitudinal and lateral reinforcements, and therefore,
unheated sample test results were used in the calculations. This indicates that the flexure-critical

Figure 5. Testing arrangement: (a) fire facility; and (b) seismic test set-up

Figure 6. Load-displacement curves indicating the variation of fire intensities

(CS specimens).
NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH-SPECIAL ISSUE ON FIRST SOUTH ASIA CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING (SACEE'19), 2019 00
 A. Ilki and U. Demir

Figure 7. Load-displacement curves indicating effects of variation of concrete cover

thickness.

Figure 8. Load-displacement curves indicating variations of duration after fire.

Figure 9. Load-displacement curves indicating variations of fire intensities (PC specimens).

columns were still flexure critical after fire exposure as verified by theoretical calculations. The
maximum temperatures measured during the fire exposures to 90 min, 60 min and 30 min were
1005°C (1841°F), 945°C (1733°F) and 841°C (1546°F), respectively. As seen in Figure 6, these
levels of fire exposure caused a remarkable reduction in lateral load capacities of cast-in-place
specimens. For 90 min heated specimen, peak lateral load estimated as the mean value of pushing
and pulling directions was approximately eighty percent of the reference specimen. The reductions
in lateral load capacity were twenty percent and thirteen percent for the specimens subjected to 60
min and 30 min of fire exposure, respectively.

Figure 7 demonstrates that the seismic performance of the column with 25 mm (1 in.) thick concrete
cover (CS-60D-25C-30M) is not worse than that of identical column with 40 mm (1.6 in.) thick
concrete cover (CS-60D-40C-30M) after both columns were subjected to 30 min of fire exposure.
Similar lateral strengths of these two columns may be justified with higher flexural capacity of the
column with 25 mm (1 in.) thick concrete cover due to higher effective depth.
00 NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH-SPECIAL ISSUE ON FIRST SOUTH ASIA CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING (SACEE'19), 2019
As seen in Figure 8, the duration between fire exposure and simulated seismic loading test did not
remarkably affect the performances of identical columns. In other words, seismic performances of
the columns subjected to 90 min of fire exposure were similar under combined action of reversed
cyclic lateral and axial loads 30 days and 60 days after fire exposure. The envelopes of cyclic load-
displacement relationships of precast columns are presented schematically in Figure 9. As seen in
Figure 9, there were no reductions in lateral load capacities for 30 min and 60 min of fire exposed
precast columns whereas the reduction in lateral load capacity of 90 min of fire exposed precast
column was ten percent. As seen, the reduction of lateral strengths for precast columns is relatively
less with respect to columns cast in-situ. This is attributed to lower axial load and greater heights
of the precast columns making the flexural effects more governing, where basically steel reinforcement
governs the strength. It should be noted that, other than lower axial load and greater height of the
precast columns, the gap of 25 mm (1 in.) between the socket footing and the precast column
constitutes the main difference of the precast columns with respect to columns cast in-situ. During
erection of the precast column in the socket footing, this gap was filled with a commonly used
cement base, non-shrink and expanding pouring grout, with compressive and flexure strengths of
65 MPa (9427 psi) and 9 MPa (1305 psi), respectively.

Furthermore, for all test parameters, it was observed that ductility of the specimens was not influenced
from fire exposure remarkably until large lateral drifts. This can be justified with approximately
parallel post-peak branches of load-displacement envelopes of the columns in the same series. For
the presented ranges of test parameters, and for columns subjected to standard fire exposures of 30
min, 60 min and 90 min, retrofitting strategies should mainly focus on increasing lateral load
capacities rather than ductility.

4. CONCLUSIONS
Tests towards assessment of seismic performance of fire exposed large scale structural members
are crucial for realistic evaluation of residual seismic capacity of the structures exposed to fire.
However, such tests are scarce. In this paper, after summarizing the behaviour of concrete, steel and
the bond between concrete and steel under elevated temperatures, brief introduction of a few studies
on the post-fire behaviour of specimens representing structural members is presented. Finally, a part
of an extensive research program on the seismic behaviour of fire exposed large scale reinforced
concrete columns is outlined. The following conclusions can be drawn at the end of the study

1) Fire exposure caused a lateral strength reduction for all cast-in-situ columns. The reductions in
lateral load capacities for these columns were between ten percent and twenty percent with
respect to the reference column after 30 min, 60 min and 90 min of fire exposure. The level of
strength reduction was not proportional to duration of fire exposure or maximum temperature
reached during fire exposure. For precast columns, there was no reduction in lateral load capacity
for 30 min and 60 min of fire exposure, whereas for 90 min heated column, ten percent reduction
was experienced. The difference between cast-in-situ and precast columns is attributed to lower
axial load and greater heights of the precast columns making the flexural effects more governing.
2) No remarkable change was observed in ductility of the columns presented in this study.
3) The influence of the concrete cover thickness on the global performance of the tested flexure-
critical columns was observed to be limited.
4) Although the time after cooling is a key parameter in terms of restoring of concrete characteristics,
the global performance of the tested flexure-critical columns after 30 days and 60 days of fire
exposure was similar since lateral load capacity of the columns was basically governed by the
characteristics of reinforcing bars.
5) Further research is necessary to realistically address repair/strengthening methodologies for fire
damaged structural members considering potential seismic demands in terms of strength and
deformation capacity. Although some repair/strengthening techniques for fire damage are defined
by several technical documents in the existing literature, none of these recommendations consider
post-fire seismic risk.

REFERENCES
[1] Buchanan AH, Abu AK. Structural design for fire safety. John Wiley & Sons, USA, 2017.
[2] Maluk C, Woodrow M, Torero JL. The Potential of Integrating Fire Safety in Modern Building
Design. Fir Safe J 2017;88:104-112.
[3] Dai X, Welch S, Usmani A. A Critical Review of Travelling Fire Scenarios for Performance-
based Structural Engineering. Fir Safe J 2017;91:568-578.
[4] Turkish Fire Regulation. Regulation on the Protection of Buildings from Fire (in Turkish).
Official Gazette No. 26735, Ankara, Turkey, 2007.
NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH-SPECIAL ISSUE ON FIRST SOUTH ASIA CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING (SACEE'19), 2019 00
 A. Ilki and U. Demir
[5] ACI Committee 216. Standard method for determining fire resistance of concrete and masonry
construction assemblies (ACI 216.1-97). Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 1997.
[6] European Committee for Standardization (CEN). Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures-
Part 1-2: General rules - Structural fire design (EN-1992-1-2). Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
[7] Rush D, Bisby L, Ioannou I, Rossetto T. Towards Fragility Analysis for Concrete Buildings
in Fire: Residual Capacity of Concrete Columns. In: 8th International Conference on Structures
in Fire. Shanghai, China: 2014.
[8] Khoury GA. Effect of Fire on Concrete and Concrete Structures. Prog Struc Eng Mat 2000;
2(4):429-447.
[9] Hertz KD. Concrete Strength for Fire Safety Design. Mag Con Res 2005;57(8):445-453.
[10] Fletcher IA, Welch S, Torero JL, Carvel RO, Usmani A. Behavior of Concrete Structures in
Fire. Therm Sci 2007;11(2):37-52.
[11] Concrete Society. Assessment, Design and Repair of Fire-damaged Concrete Structures.
Technical Report 68, The Concrete Society, Camberley, UK, 2008.
[12] Harada T, Takeda J, Yamane S, Furumura F. Strength, Elasticity and Thermal Properties of
Concrete Subjected to Elevated Temperatures. ACI Special Publication 1972;34:377-406.
[13] Papayianni J, Valiasis T. Residual Mechanical Properties of Heated Concrete Incorporating
Different Pozzolanic Materials. Mat Struc 1991;24(2):115-121.
[14] Schneider U, Nagele E. (1990). Repairability of Fire Damaged Structures (CIB W14). Conseil
International du Batiment (CIB), Delft, The Netherlands.
[15] Felicetti R, Meda A. Residual Behaviour of Reinforcing Steel Bars after a Fire. In: Proceedings
of FIB Symposium Keep Concrete Attractive. Budapest, Hungary: 2005. p. 1148-1155.
[16] International Federation for Structural Concrete (fib). Fire Design of Concrete Structures-
Structural Behaviour and Assessment: State-of-the-art Report (fib Bulletin No. 46). Lausanne,
Switzerland, 2008.
[17] Arioz O. Effects of Elevated Temperatures on Properties of Concrete. Fir Safe J 2007;42(8):516-522.
[18] Netinger I, Kesegic I, Guljas I. The Effect of High Temperatures on the Mechanical Properties
of Concrete made with Different Types of Aggregates. Fir Safe J 2011;46(7):425-430.
[19] Rangan BV, Warner RF. Large concrete buildings. Longman Group Limited, England, 1996.
[20] Poon CS, Azhar S, Anson M, Wong YL. Strength and Durability Recovery of Fire-damaged
Concrete after Post-fire-curing. Cem Conc Res 2001;31(9):1307-1318.
[21] Gernay T. Effect of Transient Creep Strain Model on the Behavior of Concrete Columns
Subjected to Heating and Cooling. Fir Tech 2012;48(2):313-329.
[22] Chen YH, Chang YF, Yao GC, Sheu MS. Experimental Research on Post-fire Behavior of
Reinforced Concrete Columns. Fir Safe J 2009;44(5):741-748.
[23] Mohamedbhai GTG. The Residual Strength of Concrete Subjected to Elevated Temperatures.
Conc 1953;17(12):22-27.
[24] Franssen JM. Plastic Analysis of Concrete Structures Subjected to Fire. In: proceedings of the
Workshop on Fire Design of Concrete Structures: What Now? What Next?. Milan, Italy: 2004.
[25] Gernay T, Franssen JM. (2010). Consideration of Transient Creep in the Eurocode Constitutive
Model for Concrete in the Fire Situation. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference
Structures in Fire. Michigan State University, USA: 2010. p. 784-791.
[26] Bazant ZP, Kaplan M (1996). Concrete at high temperatures: material properties and mathematical
models. Longman Group, Harlow, UK, 1996.
[27] Committee on Fire Protection. Structural Fire Protection. In: Lie TT, Editor. American Society
of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Structural Division, 78, 1992.
[28] Gambarova PG, Rosati GP. Bond and Splitting in Bar Pull-out: Behavioural Laws and Concrete
Cover Role. Mag Conc Res 1997;49(179):99-110.
[29] Bingöl AF, Gül R. Residual Bond Strength between Steel Bars and Concrete after Elevated
Temperatures. Fir Safe J 2009;44(6):854-859.
[30] El-Hawary MM, Hamoush SA. Bond Shear Modulus of Reinforced Concrete at High Temperatures.
Eng Frac Mech 1996;55(6):991-999.
[31] Haddad RH, Shannis LG. (2004). Post-fire Behavior of Bond between High Strength Pozzolanic
Concrete and Reinforcing Steel. Cons Build Mat 2004;18(6):425-435.
[32] Franssen JM, Dotreppe JC. Fire Tests and Calculation Methods for Circular Concrete Columns.
Fir Tech 2003;39(1):89-97.
[33] Tan KH, Yao Y. Fire Resistance of Four-face Heated Reinforced Concrete Columns. J Struc
Eng 2003;129(9):1220-1229.
[34] Benichou N, Cree D, Chowdhury EU, Green MF, Bisby LA. Fire Testing of FRP Strengthened
Reinforced Concrete Columns. In: International Conference on Durability and Sustainability
of FRP Composites for Construction and Rehabilitation (CDCC 2011). Québec Canada: 2011.
[35] Khaliq W, Kodur V. Behavior of High Strength Fly Ash Concrete Columns under Fire Conditions.
Mat Struc 2013;46(5):857-867.
00 NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH-SPECIAL ISSUE ON FIRST SOUTH ASIA CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING (SACEE'19), 2019
 [36] Lie TT, Rowe TJ, Lin TD. Residual strength of fire exposed RC columns evaluation and repair
of fire damage to concrete (SP-92). American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, USA,
1986. p. 153-174.
[37] Jau WC, Huang KL. A Study of Reinforced Concrete Corner Columns after Fire. Cem Conc
Comp 2008;30(7):622-638.
[38] Chen YH, Chang YF, Yao GC, Sheu MS. Experimental Research on Post-fire Behaviour of
Reinforced Concrete Columns. Fir Safe J 2009;44(5):741-748.
[39] Yaqub M, Bailey CG. (2012). Seismic Performance of Shear Critical Post-heated Reinforced
Concrete Square Columns Wrapped with FRP Composites. Cons Build Mat 2012;34:457-469.
[40] Bénichou N, Mostafaei H, Green MF, Hollingshead K. The Impact of Fire on Seismic Resistance
of Fibre Reinforced Polymer Strengthened Concrete Structural Systems. Canadian J Civil Eng
2013;40(11):1044-1049.
[41] Mostafaei H, Hum JK. Response Simulation of Reinforced Concrete Columns under Lateral
Loads. NRC Research Report No. 294, 2010. p. 55.
[42] Chang YF, Chen YH, Sheu MS, Yao GC. Residual Stress-strain Relationship for Concrete
after Exposure to High Temperatures. Cem Conc Res 2006;36(10):1999-2005.

NED UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF RESEARCH-SPECIAL ISSUE ON FIRST SOUTH ASIA CONFERENCE ON EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING (SACEE'19), 2019 00

View publication stats