Composites: Part B 68 (2015) 27–37

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composites: Part B
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesb

Performances at high temperature of RC bridge decks strengthened

with EBR-FRP
Iolanda Del Prete, Antonio Bilotta ⇑, Emidio Nigro
University of Naples Federico II, Department of Structures for Engineering and Architecture, Italy

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

Article history: Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) can be successfully used to externally strengthen reinforced concrete (RC)
Received 11 February 2014 bridges where fire is not a primary concern. Nevertheless, common maintenance activity on a bridge
Received in revised form 17 July 2014 deck, such as the laying of bituminous paving, can easily lead the FRP to temperatures higher than the
Accepted 1 August 2014
glass transition temperature, Tg. Exceeding Tg does not necessarily imply a drastic reduction in strength
Available online 12 August 2014
and stiffness of the reinforcement. Nevertheless, the softening of the resin implies a drastic reduction in
its adhesion properties. Therefore, the efficiency of the strengthening system for existing structures,
Keywords:
which mainly depends on the effectiveness of the bond between FRP and concrete, is significantly
A. Carbon fiber
B. High-temperature properties
affected by temperature.
B. Thermomechanical The relationships suggested by Italian and American codes in order to evaluate the limit strain for FRP
C. Analytical modelling debonding at normal temperature are modified to take into account the effect of high temperature. Then,
D. Thermal analysis performances at high temperature of RC bridge decks strengthened with externally bonded FRP plates
(EBR) are investigated by considering thermal fields in the structural members which are different from
the normal ones. Both fire and the laying of bituminous paving on the decks are considered. In addition,
the thicknesses of the slabs and the protective layer are varied to assess their influence on the thermal
field in the slabs. The results are discussed with reference to both ultimate and serviceability limit states.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Fiber reinforced polymers (FRP) are composite materials suc-
cessfully applied to repair and/or strengthen RC structures. For
external strengthening of reinforced concrete (RC) structures, the
FRP plates are easily bonded on concrete by using adhesive (e.g.
epoxy resins) which ensure the transfer of forces between concrete
and FRP. However, degradation of mechanical properties of com-
posites (strength, stiffness and bond) due to high temperature
[13,29], moisture absorption [22] and cycling loads [28,12] is a
key aspect as regards the durability of composite materials.
As regards high temperatures, a critical condition occurs when
the glass transition temperature, Tg, of the polymer matrix is
achieved due to the softening of the resin which results in a reduc-
tion of the stress transfer capacity between the fibers. The precise
definition of the value Tg is still under discussion in the scientific
community since the progressive nature of the softening process
makes it difficult to identify a precise temperature limit. Neverthe-
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: iolanda.delprete@unina.it (I. Del Prete), antonio.bilotta@unina.it
(A. Bilotta), emidio.nigro@unina.it (E. Nigro).
less, safety checks as far as temperature is concerned are often car-
ried out conservatively and the value of Tg is considerably reduced
[1].
FRPs which polymerize in ordinary conditions, typical of in situ
applications, have a very low Tg (between 45 °C and 80 °C for nor-
mal and heat resistant resins, respectively). For pre-formed FRPs,
used as internal reinforcement, reinforcements with Tg above
100 °C are easily obtained. Curing processes carried out at temper-
atures and pressures different from ordinary ones allow the Tg to
be further increased.
Although overcoming the Tg implies a reduction in strength of the
reinforcement, a drastic decline in its strength is reached at temper-
atures close to the melting point of the resin (temperature of decom-
position, Td > Tg) or even higher. The reduction in stiffness, on the
other hand, depends on the type of fiber reinforcement and it is gen-
erally negligible compared to the reduction in strength. Therefore,
the true capacity of concrete members reinforced with FRP rein-
forcement can be quite high at high temperatures, [26,27,30].
In contrast, the softening of the resin, which begins during the
glass transition, involves a drastic reduction in its adhesive proper-
ties. Hence, the efficiency of the strengthening system for existing
structures, which mainly depends on the effectiveness of the bond

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2014.08.011
1359-8368/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
28 I. Del Prete et al. / Composites: Part B 68 (2015) 27–37

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
between FRP and concrete, is strongly affected by temperature. kcr 2  Ef  CFk
Some experimental tests [14] showed a similar problem when con- ef ;dd ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi ð2Þ
cf ;d  cc tf
ventional steel strengthening is used without mechanical anchor-
ing. The comparison between steel and FRP strengthening with
systems showed that FRP, in particular sheets, without protection qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
behaves better than steel plates because of the lower heat conduc- CFk ¼ 0:03  kb  f ck  f ctm ð3Þ
tivity and their lesser weight. Clearly, FRP externally strengthened
RC beams or slabs need protection with additional insulation in vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u
order to avoid debonding between FRP sheets or laminates and u 2  bf
kb ¼ t b
bf
P1 ð4Þ
concrete supports. Consequently, some studies have investigated 1 þ 400
the performances of FRP strengthened elements protected by var-
ious insulation systems in order to define the minimum where bf, tf and Ef are the width, the thickness and the stiffness of
requirements necessary to obtain satisfactory performances in a the strengthening material; b is the width of the structural element;
fire [4,19,20]. Obviously, if the FRP strengthening is not directly fck and fctm are the compressive and tensile strength of concrete; CFk
heated by fire or other sources of heat, its performance may be bet- is the specific fracture energy; cf,d = 1.2 and cc = 1.5 are the partial
ter. Hence, FRPs can be successfully used to strengthen bridges safety factors for FRP and concrete; kcr is a coefficient evaluated
where fire is not a primary risk to be considered during design experimentally.
[4]. Nevertheless, it should be noted that bituminous paving cast- According to [11], the maximum strain for intermediate deb-
ing on a bridge deck can easily lead to high temperatures (e.g. onding is defined as:
200 °C). sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
For this reason, the thermo-mechanical behavior of RC bridge kq 2  Ef  kb  kG;2
ef ;dd ¼ f cm  f ctm ð5Þ
decks strengthened with externally bonded FRP plates is investi- cf ;d  Ef t f  FC
gated by considering two possible environmental conditions lead-
ing to thermal states different from the normal ones: (a) fire where
exposure over the bridge deck due to an accident involving trucks; vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u
(b) the laying of bituminous paving on a bridge deck at high
u2  bf
kb ¼ t b
P1 ð6Þ
bf
temperature. 1þ b
The safety checks are performed by considering the results of
the numerical simulation of the thermal field in these two condi- kG,2 is a coefficient experimentally calibrated, kq is a coefficient that
tions. For this purpose, the design relationships suggested by the take into account the load condition (1.0 for concentrated load and
Italian Code [10,11] and the American code [1] for ambient tem- 1.25 for distributed load), FC is a confident factor. Further details as
perature were refined to take into account the effect of the high regards the calibration of kG,2 are shown in Bilotta et al. [3].
temperature. Finally, according to ACI 440-2008:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
f ck
ef ;dd ¼ 0:41 ð7Þ
2. ULS check at ambient temperature nf  t f  Ef

where nf is the number of strengthening layers.

The Ultimate Limit State (ULS) design requires that flexural
capacity of strengthened member is greater than the design bend-
ing moment. The flexural capacity is calculated by means of a sec-
tional analysis based on the following assumptions:
– planarity of the cross-section after bending, also throughout
exposure to high temperature;
– the bond between steel bars and concrete is perfect;
– the concrete is not resistant to tensile stress;
– concrete and steel constitutive laws in accordance with current
standard;
– elastic–brittle constitutive law for FRP.
For the un-strengthened member, the failure is assumed
when the compressive limit strain, ecu = 0.0035 is attained [17,31].
For the FRP-strengthened member, the FRP strain limit, efd, is
also considered. The value of efd was calculated according to the
Italian Code [10] and the updated version [11], and the American
Code [1].
In particular, the [10] suggests the following relationship in
order to calculate efd:
( )
ga efu
efd ¼ min ; ef ;dd ð1Þ
cf
where efu is the ultimate tensile strain of FRP, ga = 0.85 and cf = 1.1
are environment and safety factors, respectively, ef,dd is the maxi-
mum strain for intermediate debonding, defined in:
3. Safety check at high temperature
According to the European codes, the fire resistance assessment
of a structural member may be performed by means of experimen-
tal tests in furnaces or by applying analytical approaches. In both
cases, conventional temperature–time laws of the environment
may be assumed. For fires mainly of burning of oil or other sub-
stances with an equivalent rate of heat release, the ‘‘hydrocarbon
curve’’ shown in Fig. 1, is suggested by EN1991-1-2. For bitumi-
nous paving, the heating of the structural member starts when
the bitumen is laid at a pre-set temperature. Then, the temperature
decreases according to the environmental conditions.
According to the provisions of European and Italian codes
[16,31], safety check on the strength of structural members sub-
jected to fire may be carried out by comparing design values of
the relevant effects of fire at time t, Efi,d,t, with the corresponding
design values of the resistance of the member in a fire at the same
time t, Rfi,d,t:
Efi;d;t 6 Rfi;d;t ð8Þ
In Eq. (8), Rfi,d,t decreases due to material damage at high tem-
perature. Hence, it is evaluated by considering the temperature-
dependent reduction of the mechanical properties of the materials,
Xd,fi = kTXk/cM,fi, where kT is the reduction factor at high tempera-
ture and Xk is the material’s mechanical properties at ambient tem-
perature. Note that in fire safety checks, unit partial safety factors
cM,fi are assumed.
 I. Del Prete et al. / Composites: Part B 68 (2015) 27–37
1200
T (°C)
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500 Hydrocarbon curve:
T =20+1080·(1-0.325·e-0.167t-0.675·e-2.5t)
400
300
200
100
t (min)
0 matrix.
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210
Fig. 1. Nominal temperature–time fire curves.
On the other hand, the effects Efi,d,t may vary due to thermal
expansions and deformations. Nevertheless, Efi,d,t at high tempera-
ture can be evaluated (EN 1991-1-2, 2002) for time t = 0, through
the combination of mechanical actions for accidental design situa-
tions [15]. This means that the restraint conditions and internal
forces in the structure are assumed to be not significantly influ-
enced by temperature variations.
Therefore the following load combination rule can be used, with
appropriate partial safety factors:
X As stated above, FRP-to-concrete bond ensures the transfer of
Efi;d;t ¼ 1:0  Gk þ w1;1  Q k;1 þ w2;i  Q k;i
i sheets, but loss of bond may occur if the glass transition tempera-
As a simplification of (9), the effects of actions Efi,d,t may be obtained
starting from a structural analysis at ultimate limit state (ULS) for
normal temperature by means of the following relationship:
1 þ w1;1  n
Efi;d;t ¼ gfi  Ed ¼  Ed
cG þ cQ ;1  n
where Ed is the design value of the corresponding force or moment
for normal temperature design for a fundamental combination of
actions, and gfi is the reduction factor of Ed. As shown in expression
(10), the factor gfi is dependent on the ratio n = Qk,1/Gk between the
characteristic values of the variable action, Qk,1, and permanent
action, Gk, and the corresponding partial safety factors cQ and cG.
For usual values of the n ratio and partial factors, gfi ranges between
0.50 and 0.70. Hence gfi = 0.70 is generally a safe assumption, as also
Eurocode suggests.
For high temperature not due to fire (e.g. maintenance activities
on the structure), there are no explicit suggestions for calculating
resistance Rd,t. Therefore, EN1992-1-1 was used to define the par-
tial safety factors for steel and concrete (cs = 1.15 and cc = 1.5).
For the FRP the Eqs. (1), (2) and (5) were used to define the strain
limit with the partial safety factor indicated in Section 2.
4. Material properties at high temperature
In order to investigate the behavior of RC slabs strengthened
with FRP at high temperatures, thermo-mechanical properties of
materials should be defined.
For concrete and steel bars, thermo-mechanical properties sug-
gested in [18] were used.
29
Thermal properties of bituminous paving depends on the mix-
ture of bitumen–aggregate. For the sake of simplicity, in this
work bituminous thermal conductivity is assumed to be equal to
0.5 W/m K, which represents the conductivity of lightweight
concrete at a temperature greater than 800 °C. The bituminous
specific heat is assumed to be equal to the concrete specific heat
without moisture content. The density is assumed to be equal to
23.50 kN/m3.
As concerns FRP, no complete information is provided by the
codes, even if several studies on thermal behavior of FRP materials
are available nowadays in the scientific literature. The main theo-
retical and experimental contributions concerning the behavior of
FRP composite materials and adhesive resins at elevated tempera-
ture are summarized in [5,4,9].
The elastic–brittle constitutive law for FRP is still applicable,
with values of tensile strength and Young’s modulus reduced due
to elevated temperature. Based on experimental data assembled
by [5], Fig. 2 shows best-fit curves of the temperature-dependent
reduction coefficients for composites with carbon fibers and epoxy
240 For FRP conductivity through the thickness, the relationship
suggested in [32] was used (see Fig. 3). More particularly, the range
of temperature in which this relationship is defined is (20–180) °C,
therefore, for temperatures greater than 180 °C a constant value of
thermal conductivity, equal to k (180 °C) was assumed. For FRP
specific heat, the relationship suggested in [7] was used (see
Fig. 4). FRP density is considered equal to an average value (refer-
ring to different kinds of laminates commercially available) equal
to 15.00 kN/m3. This value was assumed constant with tempera-
ture, since in the analyzed cases the temperatures are not very
high, thus making it is possible to neglect the density variation.
This assumption can be justified also based on experimental
results obtained by [20].
ð9Þ interaction forces between RC beam and external FRP plates or
ture Tg is reached in the adhesive.
The maximum force transmitted by the FRP-to-concrete inter-
face in normal temperature conditions is related to the so-called
‘‘specific fracture energy’’ Cf of the interface bond law which can
be expressed as [2]:
ð10Þ
1.10
1.00
0.90 ff,T/ff,20
0.80 Ef,T/Ef,20
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
T (°C)
Fig. 2. Temperature-dependent reduction factors for tensile strength and Young’s
modulus of CFRP.
30 I. Del Prete et al. / Composites: Part B 68 (2015) 27–37

0.8 Moreover, from the Eq. (11) the fracture energy for each speci-
λ (W/mK) men was calculated by means of the following relationship:
0.75 P2max
Cf ¼ 2
ð12Þ
2bf Ef t f
0.7
by substituting Fdeb with Pmax. For double shear tests, half of the
load at debonding was considered. C0 is the fracture energy at
0.65
ambient temperature calculated with P0, namely the maximum load
recorded during tests at ambient temperature for each set of tests. If
0.6 more than one test was performed at ambient temperature, the
results were averaged. The values of ambient temperature for each
0.55 set was indicated by a star in Table 1. Finally, the ratios between Cf
and C0 are listed in the last column.
The experimental data were used to calibrate a relationship in
0.5
order to predict the decrease of bond strength against the temper-
ature. In Fig. 5 the ratio Cf/C0 is plotted against the ratio T/Tg. Dots
0.45 represent the experimental data and the curve interpolates the
data. The temperature-dependent reduction curve has a general
T (°C) relationship (13), similar to the one used by [23] for the bond of
0.4
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 FRP bars:
  
Fig. 3. Temperature-dependent FRP thermal conductivity (Sweeting and Liu [32]). Cf ðTÞ T
¼ b1  tanh b2  þ b3 þ b4 ð13Þ
C0 Tg

1700 where the coefficients b1 = 0.45, b2 = 3.31, b3 = 1.31 and b4 = 0.55

c (J/kgK) were obtained through least square method. The constraints
b1 + b4 = 1 and b1  b4 = 0.1 were assumed in order to have a curve
1600
of FRP bond strength with no reduction in ambient temperature and
a minimum residual strength of 10% for 2 < T/Tg < 4. The coefficient
1500 of the determination of the best fitting was R2 = 0.52.
Despite the fact that different tests and methods result in differ-
1400 ent values of Tg, the authors do not explain how these Tg values (see
Table 1) were determined. They could, therefore, be associated
1300 with different stages of the adhesive softening process which
occurs within a significantly wide temperature range. Such uncer-
1200 tainty justifies the significant scatter in Fig. 5.
Note that the fracture energy Cf, calculated by means of the Eq.
1100 (12), depends on Young’s modulus which strongly decreases at
high temperature. Nevertheless, the decrease is negligible (less
than 5%) in the temperature range in which the debonding takes
1000
place.
In this work, the reduction of the maximum strain for interme-
900
diate debonding due to high temperature is correlated to the spe-
T (°C) cific fracture energy Cf at high temperature through Eq. (14):
800 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 CðTÞ
efd ðTÞ ¼ ef ;dd ð14Þ
Fig. 4. Temperature-dependent FRP specific heat [7]. C0

where ef,dd is defined in Section 2, according to CNR-DT200, 2004

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
(Eq. (2)), CNR-DT200R1, 2012 (Eq. (5)) and ACI 440-2008 (Eq. (7)),
F deb ¼ bf 2Ef t f Cf ð11Þ
respectively.

where Fdeb is the maximum load before the debonding, and bf, tf, Ef
are the width, the thickness and the Young’s Modulus of the FRP
plate.
In order to define the reduction of the fracture energy at high
temperature, the results of 77 bond tests performed on Carbon
FRP (CFRP) plates and sheets were collected [6,33]; Klamer,
2009; [8,24,25]. The examined experimental programs include
tests at ambient temperature (i.e. 20–30 °C) and tests at high tem-
peratures, ranging between 50 °C and 160 °C.
Table 1 shows the type of bond test (single shear test, SST, or
double shear test, DST) the main geometrical and mechanical prop-
erties, the Tg of the adhesive, the temperature T at which each test
was performed and the maximum load, Pmax, recorded during each
test for each specimen.
5. Numerical model
The numerical analyses were performed on 15 cm or 20 cm
thick RC bridge slabs symmetrically reinforced with steel bars
(the reinforcement percentages at top or bottom side are equal
to 1% of the concrete area). The slabs are externally strengthened
with C-FRP plates for both sagging and hogging bending moment
(Fig. 6). Both normal resin (NR) with Tg = 45 °C and high resistant
resin (HR) with Tg = 80 °C are considered. A typical 8 cm thick bitu-
minous paving is considered over the RC slab (see Fig. 6c). For the
slabs strengthened for hogging moment, a protection layer, with a
thickness ranging between 0 and 4 cm, was considered. The pro-
tection layer is made of concrete, hence its thermal properties
are defined in accordance with EN1992-1-2. The mechanical con-
 I. Del Prete et al. / Composites: Part B 68 (2015) 27–37 31

Table 1
Results of bond tests at high temperature.

Reference Specimen Test setup bf tf Ef T Tg T/Tg Pmax C CC0

(mm) (mm) (GPa) (°C) (°C) (N) (N/mm)
Blontrock [6] Zijde-20 DST 100 1.2 165 20* 62 0.32 43,000 0.47 1.00
Zijde-40 40 0.65 60,800 0.93 2.00
Zijde-55 55 0.89 53,500 0.72 1.55
Zijde-70 70 1.13 35,000 0.31 0.66
Wu et al. [33] O-26 DST 50 0.111 235 26* 34 0.76 13,300 1.36 1.08
O-26 26* 0.76 12,775 1.25 1.00
O-26 26* 0.76 12,250 1.15 0.92
O-30 30 0.88 12,150 1.13 0.90
O-30 30 0.88 10,625 0.87 0.69
O-30 30 0.88 10,375 0.83 0.66
O-40 40 1.18 7300 0.41 0.33
O-40 40 1.18 7075 0.38 0.31
O-40 40 1.18 5575 0.24 0.19
O-50 50 1.47 5425 0.23 0.18
O-50 50 1.47 4825 0.18 0.14
O-50 50 1.47 4675 0.17 0.13
T-26 DST 50 0.111 235 26* 40 0.65 16,100 1.99 1.25
T-26 26* 0.65 14,775 1.67 1.05
T-26 26* 0.65 12,025 1.11 0.70
T-40 40 1.00 11,775 1.06 0.67
T-40 40 1.00 11,770 1.06 0.67
T-40 40 1.00 9675 0.72 0.45
T-50 50 1.25 9975 0.76 0.48
T-50 50 1.25 8125 0.51 0.32
T-50 50 1.25 7675 0.45 0.28
T-60 60 1.50 7125 0.39 0.24
T-60 60 1.50 6425 0.32 0.20
T-60 60 1.50 6050 0.28 0.18
Klamer (2009) [24] B1-20 DST 50 1.2 165 20* 62 0.32 22,355 0.50 0.96
B1-20 20* 0.32 23,345 0.55 1.04
B1-40 40 0.65 22,445 0.51 0.96
B1-50 50 0.81 21,755 0.48 0.91
B1-50 50 0.81 26,345 0.70 1.33
B1-50 50 0.81 29,055 0.85 1.62
B1-70 70 1.13 27,910 0.79 1.49
B1-70 70 1.13 26,680 0.72 1.36
B1-80 80 1.29 25,930 0.68 1.29
B1-100 100 1.61 22,270 0.50 0.95
B2-20 DST 50 1.2 165 20* 62 0.32 24,580 0.61 1.05
B2-20 20* 0.32 23,295 0.55 0.95
B2-40 40 0.65 24,260 0.59 1.03
B2-40 40 0.65 23,665 0.57 0.98
B2-50 50 0.81 27,310 0.75 1.30
B2-50 50 0.81 26,190 0.69 1.20
B2-70 70 1.13 20,780 0.44 0.75
B2-70 70 1.13 21,155 0.45 0.78
B2-90 90 1.45 16,730 0.28 0.49
Cai [8] CS-4 SST 80 0.165 260 4* 50 0.08 26,700 1.30 1.15
CS-4 4* 0.08 23,200 0.98 0.87
CS-4 4* 0.08 24,600 1.10 0.98
CS-40 40 0.80 34,200 2.13 1.89
CS-40 40 0.80 34,000 2.11 1.87
CS-40 40 0.80 32,000 1.86 1.65
CS-60 60 1.20 15,900 0.46 0.41
CS-60 60 1.20 15,800 0.45 0.40
CS-60 60 1.20 12,800 0.30 0.26
CS-80 80 1.60 8000 0.12 0.10
CS-80 80 1.60 9100 0.15 0.13
CS-80 80 1.60 8800 0.14 0.13
CS-100 100 2.00 8700 0.14 0.12
CS-100 100 2.00 8100 0.12 0.11
CS-100 100 2.00 8500 0.13 0.12
CS-120 120 2.40 8300 0.13 0.11
CS-120 120 2.40 8600 0.13 0.12
CS-120 120 2.40 8700 0.14 0.12
CS-140 140 2.80 9200 0.15 0.14
CS-140 140 2.80 8300 0.13 0.11
CS-140 140 2.80 9300 0.16 0.14
CS-160 160 3.20 8200 0.12 0.11
CS-160 160 3.20 8400 0.13 0.11

(continued on next page)

32 I. Del Prete et al. / Composites: Part B 68 (2015) 27–37

Table 1 (continued)

Reference Specimen Test setup bf tf Ef T Tg T/Tg Pmax C CC0

(mm) (mm) (GPa) (°C) (°C) (N) (N/mm)

Leone et al. [25] C_S-20 DST 100 0.117 226 20* 55 0.36 11,900 0.27 1.00
C_S-50 50 0.91 14,850 0.42 1.56
C_S-65 65 1.18 12,820 0.31 1.16
C_S-80 80 1.45 10,740 0.22 0.81
C_L_20 DST 100 1 176 20* 55 0.36 40,470 0.47 1.00
C_L_50 50 0.91 34,330 0.33 0.72
C_L_80 80 1.45 44,020 0.55 1.18
*
Ambient temperature for each set.

2.0 Γ/ Γ0
fracture energy law
1.8 experimental data

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 1 2 3 4
T/Tg

Fig. 5. Temperature-dependent specific fracture energy.

tribution of the protection layer to the flexural resistance is not

considered.
The hypothesis of decoupling the thermal behavior of the mate-
rials from their mechanical behavior is the basis of the Fourier
equation for the study of heat propagation within solid bodies
and may usually be accepted. Due to the variability of the mate-
rial’s thermal properties with temperature (thermal conductivity,
specific heat, density), a numerical solution of the heat transfer
problem has to be performed. In most practical cases, the thermal
field may be considered uniform along the member axis so the 3D
thermal problem can be reduced to a more manageable 1D prob-
lem. Therefore, for thermal analyses, the slab is modelled with
1 cm thick layers for concrete. The strengthening system, made
by CFRP plate bonded to RC slab through an adhesive layer, is mod-
elled as a single 1.2 mm layer. The presence of steel bars is
neglected due to their negligible influence on heat transfer. Note
that the one-dimensional analysis, carried out using the finite ele-
Fig. 6. FRP strengthened RC slab (a) sagging moment, (b) hogging moment and (c)
ment method (FEM) approach, is exact if a continuous FRP protective layer and finishes.
strengthening is used. Nevertheless, the influence of the FRP plate
on the heat transfer is negligible.
The FEM analyses are carried out using the FIRES-T3 software the time-dependent temperature is assumed uniform and equal
[21] which can assume the heat transfer on the boundary through to that of its centroid.
a combination of radiation and convection, linearly or non-linearly The fire over the bridge deck (case a) is simulated through the
modeled. For this study, in ‘‘case a’’ convection factors equal to thermal model, shown in Fig. 7a, where the slab is subjected to
50 W/m2 K and 4 W/m2 K are assumed on hot and cold surfaces, the hydrocarbon fire curve (Fig. 1).
respectively. Moreover, a radiation factor equal to 0.7 is assumed The maintenance of bituminous paving is simulated through
(EN1991-1-2). In ‘‘case b’’, convection factors equal to 25 W/m2 K the thermal model, shown in Fig. 7b, by imposing a temperature
and 4 W/m2 K on hot and cold surfaces are assumed, respectively, of 180 °C in the bituminous layer at t = 0 min. In addition, the cool-
and no radiation is considered. The slab cross-section is divided ing phase is simulated through the thermal model considering two
into a sufficient number of layers or elements and in each one environmental conditions (Te = 25 °C and Te = 35 °C).
 I. Del Prete et al. / Composites: Part B 68 (2015) 27–37 33

220
(a) T (°C)
Hydrocarbon curve
200
1 slab thickness 20cm
2
3 180 slab thickness 15cm
4
5
6 bituminous paving
7
8
160
9
10 Te (25°C)
11
12 140
13
14
15
16 120
17
18
19
20 RC slab 100
21
22
23
HR
24
25 80
26
27
28
29
30
60 NR
CFRP laminate
Te 40
(b) 20
Te 0
1 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240
2
3
4 t (min)
T=180°C 5
6 bituminous paving
7
8 Fig. 8. Temperature in FRP on the bottom side.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 - (case a): accidental situation, namely fire exposure over the
16
17
18
bridge deck;
19
20 RC slab - (case b): maintenance of bituminous paving, laid in situ on a
21
22
23
bridge deck at temperature T = 180 °C.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
6.1. Fire exposure over the bridge deck (case a)
CFRP laminate
Te
A fire event over the bridge deck may occur because of a vehic-
ular accident. In order to simulate this event, the ‘‘hydrocarbon
Fig. 7. Numerical model scheme for cases (a) and (b).
curve’’ shown in Fig. 1 is used.
For the mechanical analyses, a specific stress–strain law (r–e; Two schemes of FRP external strengthening are considered:
Ti), which takes into account the variation of the material’s
mechanical properties with temperature (see Section 4), can be – Bottom side strengthened slab in the ‘‘sagging moment zones’’
correlated to each element of the mesh into which the section is of continuous or simply supported schemes (Fig. 6a).
divided. Therefore, the assessment of the structural member flex- – Top side strengthened slab in the ‘‘hogging moment zones’’ of
ural resistance at elevated temperature is performed through a continuous schemes (Fig. 6b).
numerical procedure, as for normal temperature, determining the
bending moment–curvature law (M–v; N) of the critical cross-sec-
tion for the imposed value of the axial force N and the current tem- 220 T (°C)
perature field within the section. If the temperature Ti, in the FRP
200 FRP - protective thickness 1cm
adhesive layer exceeds the Tg of the epoxy resin, the FRP strength-
FRP - protective thickness 2cm
ening bond suffers significant damage. Nevertheless, the structural 180 FRP - protective thickness 3cm
member maintains the residual strength of a simple RC member. FRP - protective thickness 4cm

Note that no strain level in concrete substrate at time of FRP 160

installation is considered. Moreover, the planarity of the cross-sec- tslab 15cm
tion, and in particular the strain compatibility between the con- 140
crete and the CFRP (perfect bond), are assumed not to change
120
until the strain in the CFRP reaches the corresponding limit for
each temperature – namely the maximum strain for intermediate 100
debonding (Eq. (14)). Therefore, the debonding instant corresponds
80 HR
to the time of exposure (to fire or paving casting) when the flexural
resistance (reduced by temperature) is equal to the applied
60
moment. NR
40

6. Results 20
t (min)
0
The thermo-mechanical behavior of RC bridge decks (15 cm and 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240
20 cm thick) strengthened with EBR-FRP plates is investigated by
considering the following high-temperature situations: Fig. 9. Temperature in FRP on the top side.
34 I. Del Prete et al. / Composites: Part B 68 (2015) 27–37

100 protective thickness 1cm

100
MRd,fi,FRP (kNm) MRd,fi,FRP (kNm)
protective thickness 2cm NR
90 90
protective thickness 3cm HR

80 protective thickness 4cm 80

MRd,fi,RC 70
70

60 60

MEd,fi,t 0.7 MRd,SLU

50 50

40 40 0.5 MRd,SLU

30 30
0.3 MRd,SLU
20 20

10 10
T (°C)
t (min) 0
0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240
Fig. 11. Slab safety check in hogging moment region (fire on the bridge) with
Fig. 10. Slab safety check in hogging moment region (fire on the bridge) – Te = 25 °C
reference to different load levels.
– slab thickness = 15 cm – (NR).

ened slab is not affected by this exposure to fire. More precisely, it

Table 2 is equal to the resistance at ambient temperature, MRd,fi = 69.2 kN m
Influence of the protective layer on debonding of top FRP for fire on the slab (calculated without material safety factor), which is higher than
(tslab = 15 cm – NR). the bending moment in a fire situation MEd,fi = 49.7 kN m (see
tprot tslab Plate no. (m) bf gfi MEd MEd,fi Tdeb tdeb Fig. 10). Nevertheless, the information regarding the reaching of
cm cm – mm – kN m kN m °C min Tg is useful for a performance-based design approach which could
1 15 2 100 0.7 71 49.7 80 82 take into account a limit state which is different from the ULS,
2 105 namely a ‘‘Damage Limit State’’.
3 112 In order to show that reaching the Tg may be not a critical con-
4 120
dition for the strengthening system, in Fig. 10 the bending moment
of the FRP strengthened slab, MRd,fi,FRP, reduced due to exposure to
fire, is plotted against the time for the 15 cm thick slab with its
For slabs strengthened on the bottom side, the numerical anal- normal resin and four thicknesses of protective layer, tprot. Note
yses show that temperature at FRP-to-concrete interface (Fig. 8) that MRd,fi,FRP is calculated by using the relationships suggested
exceeds the Tg of normal resin (NR) after 160 min and 220 min in by CNR DT200/2004 to evaluate the debonding strain at ambient
the case of slabs with a thickness of 15 cm and 20 cm, respectively. temperature. As stated above, the relationships are modified to
On the other hand, the Tg of heat-resistant resin (HR) is never take into account the effect of high temperature.
attained during 4 h of exposure to fire for a 20 cm thick slab, while Fig. 10 shows that the time of exposure to fire before the deb-
it is exceeded in the case of a 15 cm thick slab after 230 min. onding of the FRP ranges between 82 min and 120 min (see
For slabs strengthened on the top side, the maximum tempera- Table 2), and the temperature at the CFRP-concrete interface is
ture at FRP-to-concrete interface exceeds the Tg (see Fig. 9a and b about 80 °C. These values are higher than those related to the
for NR and HR, respectively). Nevertheless, the thickness of the reaching of the Tg of NR at the FRP-to-concrete interface (i.e.
protection layer and the type of resin (namely NR or HR resins) 50 min and 80 min).
can significantly affect the maximum fire exposure time before Tg Table 3 shows the debonding time for fire on 15 cm and 20 cm
is reached. More precisely, for NR this time ranges between slabs without a protective layer. For both the sagging and hogging
50 min if no protection is used, and 80 min if 4 cm thick protection moment, the time of debonding is confirmed as greater than the
is used. For HR resin, the limits are 80 min and 130 min (about 1.6 time necessary to reach the Tg. In addition, as regards the sagging
times greater than NR). bending moment, FRP debonding is reached after 3 h of exposure
Note that the ULS checks in a fire situation (EN1991-1-2) are to fire, while as regards the hogging moment, it is reached after
always satisfied. Indeed, the bending resistance of the un-strength- about 82 min if NR is used (with a temperature of about 80 °C),

Table 3
Debonding time for fire on the slab – no protective layer.

tslab Plate no. (m) bf gfi MEd MEd,fi NR HR

Tdeb tdeb Tdeb tdeb
cm – mm – kN m kN m °C min °C min
Sagging moment 15 2 100 0.7 71 49.7 75 220 115 300
20 117.5 82.3 75 300 – >300
Hogging moment 15 2 100 0.7 71 49.7 80 82 130 120
20 117.5 82.3 80 82 130 120
 I. Del Prete et al. / Composites: Part B 68 (2015) 27–37 35

100 Table 4
MRd, fi, FRP (kNm) Load level limit gmbp for maintenance of the bituminous paving, sagging moment.

90 ACI440r2-08 Te tslab Plate no. (m) bf MRd,ULS NR HR

CNR DT200/2004 °C cm – mm kN m gmbp gmbp
80 25 15 2 100 71 1 1
20 117.5 1 1
70 protection layer 1cm 35 15 2 100 71 1 1
20 117.5 1 1
60 protection layer 4cm
MEd,fi,t
50
100
T (°C)
40
90
30 HR
80
20
70
10
60
t (min)
0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 50 NR

Fig. 12. Comparison between codes. 40

30
FRP - protective thickness 1cm
60 tslab15cm
T (°C) 20 FRP - protective thickness 2cm
55 Te (25°C) FRP - protective thickness 3cm

50 10 FRP - protective thickness 4cm

NR t (min)
45 0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240
40 Te (35°C)
Fig. 14. Time-dependent temperature in resin and FRP strengthening on the top
35 side.
30 Te (25°C)
25
Table 5
20 Influence of the protective layer on load level limit for maintenance of the bituminous
paving, hogging moment.
tslab 15cm
15
tslab 20cm tprot tslab Plate no. (m) bf MRd,ULS (MRd,fi,0) NR HR
10 cm cm – mm kN m gmbp gmbp
1 15 2 100 71 (90.3) 0.38 0.97
5 2 0.49 0.97
t (h) 3 0.57 0.98
0
4 0.63 0.98
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Fig. 13. Time-dependent temperature in resin and FRP strengthening on the

bottom side.
6.2. Maintenance of bituminous paving (case b)

and 120 min if HR is used (with a temperature of about 130 °C).
Therefore, if the strengthening is located on the top side of the slab,
the use of HR is recommended although the same increase in per-
formance can be exploited if 4 cm of protective layer is used (see
Table 2).
In Fig. 11, MRd,fi,FRP is plotted against the temperature at the con-
crete–CFRP interface for both kinds of resin. Varying load levels are
also shown. With load levels less than 0.7 MRd,SLU, the debonding
temperature is significantly higher. More precisely, in case of a load
level equal to 0.5 MRd,SLU, the debonding temperature is 150 °C for
NR and 180 °C for HR. In the case of a load level equal to 0.3 MRd,SLU,
the debonding temperature is higher than 240 °C.
Finally, in Fig. 12, MRd,fi,FRP, is plotted against the time, for 15 cm
thick slab strengthened by using normal resin, in case of tprot = 1 cm
and tprot = 4 cm. Both the relationships suggested by CNR DT200/
2004 and by ACI 440.2R-08 are used, and differences between
the two codes are negligible for this application.
The laying of bituminous paving on a bridge deck implies peri-
odic maintenance. The laying in situ is carried out at about 180 °C
and so significant damage to the FRP strengthening can occur. Two
environmental conditions are considered, (Te = 25 °C and
Te = 35 °C).
The temperatures in the FRP strengthening at the bottom of the
slab are plotted against the time in Fig. 13. After the laying of bitu-
minous paving, the temperature increases to a peak but which is
always lower than the Tg of both NR and HR, except when a slab
with a thickness of 15 cm, an environment temperature Te = 35 °C
and NR are considered. Nevertheless, in all cases, the load level
during and after the cast of the bituminous paving can be gmbp = 1
without debonding of FRP strengthening (see Table 4)
The temperatures in the FRP strengthening at the top of the
15 cm thick slab, in an environment at temperature T = 25 °C, are
plotted against the time in Fig. 14 for four thicknesses of protective
layer, tprot, ranging between 1 cm and 4 cm. Clearly, the case of no
36 I. Del Prete et al. / Composites: Part B 68 (2015) 27–37
Table 6
Comparison between codes FRP in hogging moment region – NR – maintenance of the bituminous paving Te = 25 °C.
CNR-DT 200 2004
tprot tslab Plate no. (m) bf MRd,ULS (MRd,fi,0)
cm cm – mm kN m
1 15 2 100 71 (90.3)
2 0.49
3 0.57
4 0.63
protective layer is not considered because the temperature of
180 °C is too high for the FRP system. The maximum temperature
in the FRP ranges between 80 °C and 65 °C for tprot = 1 cm and
tprot = 4 cm, respectively. Therefore, the laying of bituminous pav-
ing only exceeds the Tg of NR.
In Table 5, the load level gmbp during and after the laying of the
bituminous paving are calculated for the different values of tprot.
Note that gmbp is calculated with reference to values of MRd,ULS. In
order to avoid FRP debonding, if HR are used, the load level can
be gmbp  1, while for NR the load level cannot exceed 0.38. Never-
theless, the load level can be as high as gmbp = 0.63 for NR, if 4 cm of
protective layer are used.
Note that the protective layer is required in order to have a high
level of resistance to both abrasion and concentrated loads. Indeed,
when a bridge slab is strengthened with FRP plate on the top side,
it is necessary to avoid damage to the FRP during the demolition of
the old road surface, regardless of the high temperature of the bitu-
men. In this way, the thermal insulation provided by the protective
layer is generally guaranteed although the use of HR remains more
suitable.
Table 6 shows the load level gmbp calculated for 15 cm thick
slabs and normal resin by using the relationships suggested by
CNR DT200/2004 and by CNR DT200R1/2012. The values of MRd,ULS
calculated according to the two relationships are very similar
(71 kN m vs 72 kN m). At ambient temperature the CNR
DT200R1/2012 is slightly less conservative for this strengthening
configuration, probably due to different partial safety factors.
Indeed, the CNR DT200R1/2012 is more conservative than CNR
DT200/2004 at high temperature, namely when the partial safety
factors are not considered (MRd,fi,0 = 86.6 kN m vs MRd,fi,0 = 90.3 kN m,
respectively).
7. Conclusions
The paper investigates the performances of RC bridge slabs,
externally strengthened with FRP, at high temperature. Indeed,
the temperature at the FRP-to-concrete interface can exceed the
transition temperature of glass, Tg, due either to an accidental
event, e.g. fire, or a maintenance activity, e.g. the laying of bitumi-
nous paving.
The relationships suggested by Italian and American codes in
order to evaluate the limit strain for FRP debonding at ambient
temperature were modified to take into account the effect of high
temperature on the debonding of FRP. Then, thermo-mechanical
analyses were performed by varying the thicknesses of the slab
and the protection layer in order to assess their influence on the
thermal field in the structural member. Furthermore, normal resin
(NR) with Tg = 45 °C and heat-resistant resin (HR) with Tg = 80 °C
were considered. The results are discussed in terms of both tem-
peratures and safety checks carried out for ultimate and damage
limit states (ULS and DLS).
The structure is always safe for ULS mainly because the flexural
capacity provided by FRP can be neglected during fire or mainte-
nance activity. In contrast, the DLS checks performed to assess
damage to the FRP strengthening system during these events show
CNR-DT 200 R1 2012 CNR-DT 200 2004 CNR-DT 200 R1 2012
MRd,ULS (MRd,fi,0) gmbp gmbp
kN m – –
72 (86.6) 0.38 0.40
0.51
0.60
0.66
that constructive details and type of resin play a key role, as sum-
marized below.
In the case of fire event over the bridge deck:
- if FRP is on the bottom side, for typical fire design load level
gfi = 0.7, FRP debonding does not take place even after a consid-
erable period of exposure to fire (220 min or more with a tem-
perature equal to about 75 °C), even if, in the worst case with
NR and 15 cm thick slab, the resin reaches the glass transition
temperature, Tg = 45 °C after about 160 min;
- if FRP is located on the top side of the slab, the use of heat resis-
tant (HR) resins is advised in order to avoid Tg = 80 °C being
reached. If normal resin (NR) is used, a protective layer on the
FRP strengthening is recommended in order to increase the
maximum possible resistance to fire without FRP debonding.
Indeed, with a 1 to 4 cm thick layer, the Tg = 45 °C of NR is
attained, but the temperatures are lower than the ‘‘debonding
temperature’’ equal to about 80 °C and the debonding time
ranges between 82 and 120 min.
In the case of the laying of bituminous paving:
- if FRP is on the bottom side, the results are quite similar to those
obtained in case of fire.
- if FRP is located on the top side of the slab, the use of HR resins
is necessary in order to avoid debonding of the FRP strengthen-
ing, otherwise, a thick protective layer of concrete is required
for low fire load levels too.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to acknowledge Eng. Sandro Mautone
for his helpful contribution in the interpretation of experimental
data found in literature.
References
[1] ACI 440.2R-08. Guide for the design and construction of externally bonded FRP
systems for strengthening concrete structures. Farmington Hills,
MI: ACI440.2R-08 American Concrete Institute, 2008; 2008. p. 76.
[2] Bilotta A, Faella C, Martinelli E, Nigro E. Indirect identification method of
bilinear interface laws for FRP bonded on a concrete substrate. J Compos Constr
2012;16:171–84. ISSN: 1090-0268, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-
5614.0000253.
[3] Bilotta A, Faella C, Martinelli E, Nigro E. Design by testing procedure for
intermediate debonding in EBR FRP strengthened RC beams. Eng Struct
2013;46:147–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.06.031.
[4] Bisby LA, Green MF, Kodur VKR. Response to fire of concrete structures that
incorporate FRP. Prog Struct Eng Mater 2005;7:136–49.
[5] Blontrock H, Taerwe L, Matthys S. Properties of fiber: reinforced plastics at
elevated temperatures with regard to fire resistance of reinforced concrete
members. FRPRCS-4, Baltimore, SP 188-5; 1999.
[6] Blontrock H. Analysis and modeling of the fire resistance of concrete elements
with externally bonded FRP reinforcement. Ph.D. Thesis, Ghent Univ., Ghent,
Belgium; 2003.
[7] Weidenfeller B, Hofer M, Schilling FR. Thermal conductivity, thermal
diffusivity, and specific heat capacity of particle filled polypropylene.
Composites: Part A 2004;35:423–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.
2003.11.005.
 I. Del Prete et al. / Composites: Part B 68 (2015) 27–37
[8] Cai ZH. Research on bond property of FRP-to-concrete interface under elevated
temperatures. M.S. thesis, Tongji University, Shanghai, China; 2008.
[9] Cao S, Wu Z, Wang X. Tensile properties of CFRP and hybrid FRP composites at
elevated temperatures. J Compos Mater 2009;43:315. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0021998308099224.
[10] CNR-DT 200/2004. Instructions for design, execution and control of
strengthening interventions by means of fibre-reinforced composites. Italian
National Research Council; 2004.
[11] CNR-DT 200 R1/2013 Instructions for design, execution and control of
strengthening interventions by means of fibre-reinforced composites (in
Italian). Italian National Research Council; 2013.
[12] Dai JG, Sato Y, Ueda T, Sato Y. Static and fatigue bond characteristics of
interfaces between CFRP sheets and frost damage experienced concrete. In:
Proceedings of FRPRCS-7, ACI-SP-230-86; 2005. p. 1515–30.
[13] Dai JG, Gao WY, Teng JG. Bond-slip model for FRP laminates externally bonded
to concrete at elevated temperature. J Compos Constr 2013;17(2). Ó ASCE,
ISSN 1090-0268/2013/2-217-228.
[14] Deuring M. Brandversuche an Nachtraglich Verstarkten Tragern aus Beton,
‘‘Research Report EMPA No. 148’795’’. Dubendorf, Swiss Federal Laboratories
for Materials Testing and Research; 1994.
[15] EN1990. European committee for standardization, Eurocode 0, ‘‘Basis of
Structural Design’’; 2002.
[16] EN1991-1-2. European committee for standardization, Eurocode 1, Actions on
structures Part 1–2: General actions – Actions on structures exposed to fire;
2002.
[17] EN1992-1-1. European committee for standardization, Eurocode 2 – Design of
concrete structures – Part 1-1: General rules and rules for building. Brussels,
Belgium; 2004.
[18] EN1992-1-2. European committee for standardization, Eurocode 2, Design of
concrete structures Part 1–2: General rules – Structural fire design’’, December
2004; 2002.
[19] Firmo JP, Correia JR, França P. Fire behaviour of reinforced concrete beams
strengthened with CFRP laminates: protection systems with insulation of the
anchorage zones. Composites: Part B 2012;43:1545–56.
[20] López C, Firmo JP, Correia JR, Tiago C. Fire protection systems for reinforced
concrete slabs strengthened with CFRP laminates. Constr Build Mater
2013;47:324–33.
[21] Iding R, Bresler R, Nizamuddin Z. ‘‘FIRES-T3’’ – A computer program for the fire
response of structures-thermal, Fire Research Group. Berkeley: University of
California; 1997.
37
[22] Jia J, Boothby TE, Bakis CE, Brown TL. Durability evaluation of glass fiber
reinforced-polymer-concrete bonded interfaces. J Compos Constr 2005;9(4).
ÓASCE, ISSN 1090-0268/2005/4-348-359.
[23] Katz A, Berman N. Modeling the effect of high temperature on the bond of FRP
reinforcing bars to concrete. Cem Concr Compos 2000;22:433–43.
[24] Klamer E. Influence of temperature on concrete beams strengthened in flexure
with CFRP. Ph.D. Thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven,
Netherlands; 2009.
[25] Leone M, Matthys S, Aiello MA. Effect of elevated service temperature on bond
between FRP EBR systems and concrete. Compos Part B – Eng
2009;40(1):85–93.
[26] Nigro E, Cefarelli G, Bilotta A, Manfredi G, Cosenza E. Fire resistance of concrete
slabs reinforced with FRP bars. Part I: experimental investigations on the
mechanical behavior. Composites: Part B 2011;42(2011):1739–50.
[27] Nigro E, Cefarelli G, Bilotta A, Manfredi G, Cosenza E. Fire resistance of concrete
slabs reinforced with FRP bars. Part II: experimental results and numerical
simulations on the thermal field. Composites: Part B 2011;42(2011):1751–63.
[28] Nigro E, Di Ludovico M, Bilotta A. Experimental investigation of FRP-concrete
debonding under cyclic actions. J Mater Civ Eng 2011;23:360–71. ISSN: 0899-
1561, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000173.
[29] Nigro E, Bilotta A, Cefarelli G, Manfredi G, Cosenza E. Performance under fire
situations of concrete members reinforced with FRP rods: bond models and
design nomograms. J Compos Constr 2012;16(4).
[30] Nigro E, Cefarelli G, Bilotta A, Manfredi G, Cosenza E. Adhesion at high
temperature of FRP bars straight or bent at the end of concrete slabs. J Struct
Fire Eng 2013;4:71–86. ISSN: 2040-2317, http://dx.doi.org/10.1260/2040-
2317.4.2.71.
[31] NTC2008 Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport (Italian Government) 2008,
‘‘Technical Code for the Constructions’’, G.U. n. 29 of 14/02/2008.
[32] Sweeting RD, Liu XL. Measurement of thermal conductivity for fibre-reinforced
composites. Composites: Part A 2004;35:933–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.compositesa.2004.01.008.
[33] Wu ZS, Iwashita K, Yagashiro S, Isshikawa T, Hamaguchi Y. Temperature effect
on bonding and debonding behavior between FRP sheets and concrete. In:
Proceedings of FRP composites in civil engineering – CICE 2004, Adelaide
(Australia), 8–10 December 2004; 2004. p. 905–12.