materials

Article
Post-Fire Characteristics of Concrete Beams
Reinforced with Hybrid FRP Bars
Kostiantyn Protchenko * and Elżbieta Szmigiera
Department of Civil Engineering, Warsaw University of Technology, 1 00-661 Warsaw, Poland;
e.szmigiera@il.pw.edu.pl
* Correspondence: k.protchenko@il.pw.edu.pl; Tel.: +48-795-943-133




Received: 3 February 2020; Accepted: 9 March 2020; Published: 10 March 2020


Abstract: One of the main concerns of experimental and numerical investigations regarding the
behavior of fiber-reinforced polymer reinforced concrete (FRP-RC) members is their fire resistance
to elevated temperatures and structural performance at and after fire exposure. However, the data
currently available on the behavior of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforced members related
to elevated temperatures are scarce, specifically relating to the strength capacity of beams after
being subjected to elevated temperatures. This paper investigates the residual strength capacity
of beams strengthened internally with various (FRP) reinforcement types after being subjected to
high temperatures, reflecting the conditions of a fire. The testing was made for concrete beams
reinforced with three different types of FRP bars: (i) basalt-FRP (BFRP), (ii) hybrid FRP with carbon
and basalt fibers (HFRP) and (iii) nano-hybrid FRP (nHFRP), with modification of the epoxy matrix
of the rebar. Tested beams were first loaded at 50% of their ultimate strength capacity, then unloaded
before being heated in a furnace and allowed to cool, and finally reloaded flexurally until failure.
The results show an atypical behavior observed for HFRP bars and nHFRP bars reinforced beams,
where after a certain temperature threshold the deflection began to decrease. The authors suggest
that this phenomenon is connected with the thermal expansion coefficient of the carbon fibers present
in HFRP and nHFRP bars and therefore creep can appear in those fibers, which causes an effect of
“prestressing” of the beams.

Keywords: fiber-reinforced polymers; FRP bars; HFRP; fire resistance of FRP; beams reinforced with
FRP; fire testing of FRP reinforced members; nano-HFRP bars

1. Introduction
For the last few decades, the use of fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP) composites for concrete
structures has experienced explosive growth. A major reason of its implementation lies in the unique
characteristics of these materials and their constituents, as well as the appropriate use of FRP composites
for its considered design purpose. Numerous investigations have shown that FRP composites are
effective materials for use in concrete members [1,2].
The application of FRP bars as internal reinforcement in concrete members has many advantages,
as opposed to structural members reinforced with steel bars [3]. Durability, strength and stability
are the main criteria when selecting a material in the design of concrete structures with internal FRP
reinforcement [4–7].
The progress in manufacturing technology has introduced new types of FRP bars, and furthermore
hybrid FRP (HFRP), which allow one to adjust FRP characteristics to a specific design situation. HFRP
bars contain several types of reinforcing constituents and/or several types of adhesive constituents in a
matrix. Moreover, some authors suggest that such hybridization of the constituents of FRP bars can
prevent changes in their behavior, making it semi-ductile instead of linear [8,9].

Materials 2020, 13, 1248; doi:10.3390/ma13051248 www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2020, 13, 1248 2 of 15

Therefore, their use in the form of FRP bars as a replacement of conventional reinforcement for
reinforced concrete (RC) structures has become attractive. In addition, these materials are unaffected
by electrochemical deterioration [9,10].
FRP composites consist of unidirectional organic or inorganic fibers embedded in a thermosetting
or thermoplastic polymer matrix [9]. The properties of FRP composites are dependent on the properties
of their constituents and the relative proportions of the fiber, known as the fiber-volume ratio [11].
The matrix can be seriously affected at elevated temperatures, therefore it is necessary to examine
the behavior of bars subjected to fire exposure, as well as structures reinforced with these materials.
Currently, the use of FRP reinforcement for RC structures is limited and only includes cases when fire
resistance aspects are not particularly meaningful.
Building structures must satisfy the requirements of building codes, including requirements
related to the behavior of structures in a fire. Fire ratings for buildings refer to the amount of time
a structure can be exposed to fire before the structure collapses. The most relevant property of FRP
bars is not its flammability or its reaction to fire, but rather its ability to continue to sustain loads in an
environment of rapidly rising temperature [12,13].
The mechanical performance of FRP reinforcement is already known at ambient temperatures,
however, several technical characteristics of FRP bars make designing structures with FRP reinforcement
different from conventional RC design in regard to fire resistance aspects [11]. The data available
from standards on the behavior of FRPs and FRP reinforced concrete (FRP-RC) members at elevated
temperatures are scarce. ACI committee ACI 440.1R-15 [14] describes the material characteristics
needed to design the minimum reinforcement in the perspective of temperature and shrinkage
thresholds. The Canadian code CAN/CSA S806-12, Annex R for slabs [15] provides a design procedure
in a fire situation based on critical temperatures related to the FRP bars [16].
The material properties and behavior of FRP composites at elevated temperatures is a critical
topic that needs clear understanding in terms of their structural uses in civil engineering. Some studies
state that high temperatures can reduce the mechanical properties of FRP composites significantly. For
instance, Wang et al. [17] investigated the mechanical properties of Carbon-FRP (CFRP) plates, and it
was discovered that when the temperature of the CFRP plates reached 300 ◦ C, the ultimate strength
of the plates became approximately 50% of their room-temperature strength. In addition, the tensile
strength of the plate became as low as 7% of the room-temperature tensile strength at the approximate
peak temperature of 700 ◦ C. Furthermore, Hu et al. [18] investigated the reduction in the properties for
different directions (0◦ , 45◦ and 90◦ of the load-to-fiber angle) for basalt-FRP (BFRP) laminates. Based
on the outcomes, it was found that the elasticity modulus in the various directions was reduced to a
very low level (less than 20%) from 20 to 250 ◦ C. Furthermore, the in-plane shear modulus of BFRP at
250 ◦ C was only 3% of that at 20 ◦ C.
As mentioned in the literature, a reduction in strength and bond properties starts when the
temperatures become close to the glass transition temperature, Tg, are reached [19]. The magnitude
of Tg depends on the type of resin and ranges between 70 ◦ C and 175 ◦ C [20], however for some of
the resins, glass transition temperature can be more than 500 ◦ C. However, the decisive factors of the
strength deterioration are also fiber type, manufacturing process and the quality of FRP bars and,
above all, the temperature attained in FRP [21]. Therefore FRP-RC structures can withstand fire much
better, due to the fact that concrete provides reliable protection for FRP bars.
Furthermore, the literature provides experimental results from failure tests performed on
FRP reinforced concrete slabs [22–25] and beams [26–28], working in flexure that were exposed
to conventional fire conditions. Abassi and Hogg [12] investigated the fire resistance of concrete beams
reinforced with Glass-FRP (GFRP) bars with a concrete cover of about 70 mm. The beams retained
their fire endurance for over 90 min, therefore a minimum concrete cover of 70 mm was recommended
for the design of GFRP-RC beams under fire action.
However, the outlined literature shows a gap in research on the topic of the post-fire behavior of
FRP-RC structures [24]. Nigro at al. [23] investigated the residual strength capacity for slabs reinforced
Materials 2020, 13, 1248 3 of 15

with GFRP bars. Two unloaded slabs, after being heated, attained deflections of approximately 70 mm,
due to their own weight and thermal strains, and their residual resistance, evaluated after the cooling
phase, which was about 55% to 100% of the ultimate design bearing moment resistance. Moreover, it
was stated that the typical values of concrete clear cover (i.e., between 30 and 50 mm) can be adopted.
On the other hand, the relatively non-corrosive behavior of the fibers prevents a significant
reduction of concrete clear cover without compromising the material’s durability [28–30]. This enables
thinner structures to be built, whose construction requires less raw materials and is more sustainable,
environmentally friendly, durable, and cost-efficient. However, thin-walled elements with thin concrete
covers may subject the reinforcement to substantial effects when exposed to elevated temperatures [31].
As known from experiments on beams reinforced with steel reinforcement, the concrete clear
cover, and the fire scenario have the most significant influence on the response of the concrete element
subjected to fire [32]. Nevertheless, in the design of FRP-RC structures, the reinforcement type and
obtaining of a specific high-temperature resistance for FRP bars is one of the main concerns. The use of
FRP in structures vulnerable to fire needs further research since this is one of the main reasons that
limit the widespread use of FRP in construction.
However, the behavior of such reinforcement during a fire is still unknown. In addition, the
mentioned literature demonstrates a lack of insight on the behavior of basalt FRP (BFRP) and HFRP
reinforcement at and after applying fire conditions. Therefore, the authors attempted to investigate
the post-fire behavior of RC flexural members reinforced with these types of reinforcement. The
FRP-RC members were not subjected to loading during heating phase to allow to concentrate on
the performance of FRP bars after being subjected to elevated temperatures. Different reinforcement
configurations were examined for the tension zone to check the influence of different types of the bars.
This paper investigates the residual capacity of full-scale FRP-RC beams after being subjected to
elevated temperatures. For residual testing, the beams were preliminary loaded with a force of 50%
of their ultimate strength capacity (checked at room temperature), then the beams were unloaded.
Afterwards the beams were placed into a furnace and heated for approximately one hour. After heating,
the beams were allowed to cool, and finally reloaded flexurally until failure.
The results of the investigations were discussed, with particular emphasis on the structural
performance of the concrete members and on the types of FRP bars used.

2. Novelty and Purpose of the Work

Tested specimens were subjected to specific fire actions, where the midsection, approximately 1/3
of the length of the beams, was exposed to heating from both the bottom and the sides. In conventional
testing, the entire span length of concrete members is usually subjected to heating and loading is
applied simultaneously. The presented investigation is focused on residual fire resistance testing,
where the samples were heated and the strength capacity was checked afterwards.
As one of the main aims was to examine the influence of different reinforcement types, the testing
was made for concrete beams reinforced with three different types of FRP bars, including newly
developed hybrid FRP bars: (i) basalt-FRP (BFRP), (ii) hybrid FRP with carbon and basalt fibers (HFRP)
and (iii) nano-hybrid FRP (nHFRP), with modification of the epoxy matrix of the rebar.

3. The Concept of Hybrid FRP Bars

The concept behind the invention of HFRP bars came as a desire to obtain a material with improved
and adjustable properties, where the final product can exploit the most favorable qualities of every
individual constituents.
In the context of this work, the term “hybridization” should be understood as a physical
substitution of some of the fibers by another type. The proposed constituents for these hybrid bars:
carbon and basalt fibers, were embedded in epoxy resin creating HC/BFRP (HFRP) bars.
Processing HFRP bars is analogous to BFRP bars, a certain amount of the basalt roving is physically
replaced with carbon roving during the pultrusion process; subsequently both were embedded in
 2020, 13, x FOR PEER2020,
Materials REVIEW
13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 15 4 of 15
Materials 2020, 13, 1248 4 of 15

ded in epoxy resin. Different

embedded in epoxyconstituents
resin. Different and constituents
their locationand weretheirestimated.
location Basalt and carbonBasalt and carbon
were estimated.
f low strength
fibers(LS) type
of epoxy
low were
resin.selected
strength (LS) type
Different due to their
were similar
selected
constituents anddue strain
to their
their parameters.
similar
location were Different
strain volume
parameters.
estimated. BasaltDifferent
and carbonvolume
fibers of low
ns for carbon and basalt
fractions strength (C:B)
for carbon (LS)fibers
and
type were
basalt considered
were(C:B) fibers
selected due astowell,
were before
considered
their similar production
as of theproduction
well,parameters.
strain before bars.
Different ofvolume
the bars. fractions for
nalytical and numerical
carbonestimations
Analytical and basalt
and numerical wereestimations
(C:B) performed,
fibers priorperformed,
were
were considered to the production
as well, prior
before of
theHFRP
to production and
production
of theofbars.
HFRP and
bars. ThenHFRP
properties
bars.of Thecomposite
properties
Analytical and barsof in the longitudinal
composite
numerical bars in the
estimations direction can be direction
longitudinal
were performed, calculated
prior to using
can beproduction
the calculated using
of HFRP and
e of mixtures (ROM)
the rule nHFRP (Voigt
of mixturesbars.model),
(ROM) as it comes
(Voigt
The properties fromasthe
model),
of composite literature
it bars
comes from
in the [33–35]. The direction
the literature
longitudinal transverse
[33–35].canThe transverseusing the
be calculated
ties can be obtained
properties with
rulecan beHalpin–Tsai
obtained
of mixtures (ROM) withand other semi-empirical
Halpin–Tsai
(Voigt model), asand otherfrom
it comes modelsthe [36,37].
literatureHowever,
semi-empirical models
[33–35].[36,37]. However,
The transverse properties
ormulas do notformulas
these consider bars
do
can be obtained notconfiguration,
consider barsi.e.
with Halpin–Tsai the location
configuration,
and of fibers,
i.e. so, itmodels
the location
other semi-empirical was agreed
of fibers, so,toit
[36,37]. was agreed
However, thesetoformulas
e an additional
prepare numerical
an additional
do simulation
not consider barsfor
numerical this purpose.
simulation
configuration, forthe
i.e., thislocation
purpose. of fibers, so, it was agreed to prepare an additional
he numerical simulation
Thenumerical of tensile
numerical strength
simulation
simulation oftest
for for
tensile
this HFRP
strength
purpose. barstestwith different
for HFRP barsconfigurations
with differentofconfigurations of
was performed
fibersbywasfinite element
performed
The methods
by
numerical finite (FEM) in
element
simulation ofthe
methods software
tensile (FEM)
strength ANSYS®
in the forAcademic
testsoftware
HFRPANSYS®
barsResearch
withAcademic
different Research
configurations of
nical, Release 16.2fibers
Mechanical, (Ansys was Inc.,
Release Canonsburg,
16.2
performed (Ansys by Inc.,PA,Canonsburg,
finite USA) [38].
element Two
methodsPA, different
USA)
(FEM)[38].inbarTwo
the configurations
different
software ®
bar configurations
ANSYS Academic Research
roposed, one
were where carbon
proposed,
Mechanical, onefibers
where substituted
Release carbon the basalt
fibers
16.2 (Ansys Inc.,fibers
substituted in
thethe
Canonsburg, core
basaltPA, region,
fibers
USA) the
theother
in[38]. core one
Tworegion,
differentthebar
other one
configurations
rbon fibers located
with carbon
werein fibers
the near-surface
located
proposed, one region.
inwhere
the near-surface
carbon fibers region.
substituted the basalt fibers in the core region, the other one
he bars were modelled
Thewith as
barscarbon
werecylindrical
modelled elements
fibers located with
as cylindrical
in the a elements
diameterregion.
near-surface of 8 mm
with and a length
a diameter of 8 mm of 850
and a length of 850
constant mm.
pressure of 500
A constant TheMPabarswas
pressurewereof applied
500 MPa
modelled on asthe
was side edges.
applied
cylindrical on One central
the side
elements point
edges.
with Onewascentral
a diameter fixed in
of 8 mmpointandwas fixed of
a length in 850 mm.
nd z directions (non-longitudinal
the y and z directions directions).
(non-longitudinal The structure
directions). of the
The HFRP
structure
A constant pressure of 500 MPa was applied on the side edges. One central point was fixed barsof consisted
the HFRP of a
bars consisted of a in the y
d surface core
region,
andwhich
surface
and were perfectly
region,
z directions which interconnected.
were perfectly
(non-longitudinal interconnected.
directions). The structure of the HFRP bars consisted of a core and
he obtained results from numerical
Thesurface
obtained results
region, whichmodelling
fromwere numericalwere modelling
perfectly compared with
interconnected.were analytical
comparedconsiderations
with analytical considerations
e found and
to beare in found
a good convergence
Thetoobtained
be in aresults with
good from each
convergence other.
numericalwith The results
each other.
modelling for different
The results
were compared fibers
foranalytical
with different considerations
fibers
ement and different
arrangementandvolumeand
are found fractions
different
to be in of
volume fibers
a good are described
fractions
convergence with in
of fibers Table
are
each 1. The
described
other. Theresults
comparison
in Tablefor 1. The comparison
different fibers arrangement
n analytical considerations
between analytical
and differentand numerical
considerations
volume simulations
fractionsand of fibersofare
numerical FRP bars was
simulations
described explained
inofTable
FRP1.barsTheinwas more
explained
comparison in more
between analytical
n [8]. detail in considerations
[8]. and numerical simulations of FRP bars was explained in more detail in [8].

ble 1. Comparison of Young’s

Table Table modulus
1. Comparison obtained
of Young’s
1. Comparison from rule
of modulus
Young’s of mixtures
obtained
modulus from(ROM) ofand
rulefrom
obtained finite
mixtures
rule element
(ROM) and
of mixtures finiteand
(ROM) element
finite element
ethods (FEM) modeling.
methods methods
(FEM) modeling.
(FEM) modeling.

Modulus of Elasticity of Hybrid

Modulus Fiber-Reinforced
of Elasticity
Modulus of Hybridof
of Elasticity Polymer
Hybrid(HFRP)
Fiber-ReinforcedBars, GPa (HFRP)
Polymer
Fiber-Reinforced PolymerBars, GPaBars, GPa
(HFRP)
FEM(chenchen) FEM(chenchen)
lume Fraction Volume Fraction FEM
Volume Fraction ROM(chenchen) ROMROM(chenchen) Carbon Fibers Carbon Fibers
pendence C:B1 Dependence C:B1 Carbon Fibers Location
Dependence
The C:B
1 The Location
Location of Fibers of Fibers
Is Neglected
The Location of Fibers Is Neglected Location Location
Is Neglected
1:9 1:9 83.3 83.3 83.0 82.9 83.0 82.9
1:9 83.3 83.0 82.9
1:4 1:4 1:4 94.8 94.8 94.8 93.6
93.6 93.6 93.6 93.6
93.6
1:3 1:3 1:3 100.5 100.5 100.5 101.1
101.1 100.1 101.1 100.1
100.1
1:2 1:2 1:2 110.0 110.0 110.0 110.5 109.1 110.5 109.1
1:1 1:1 1:1 129.1 129.1 129.1 127.8 129.2 127.8 129.2
1 C—carbon fibers; B—basalt fibers.
1 C—carbon fibers;1 B—basalt
C—carbonfibers.
fibers; B—basalt fibers.

he results showed The that The results showed

barshowed
results configuration
that baris that
less bar configuration
important
configuration isthan
less the isvolume
less important
important the than
fraction
than the fraction
of fibers.
volume volume of fraction
fibers.of fibers.
ference between The difference
various
The difference between between
bar configurations
various barvarious
can bebar configurations
a maximum
configurations canofbe2%, a can be a maximum
meanwhile,
maximum of the of 2%, meanwhile,
2%,volume
meanwhile, the volume the volume
n of all analyzed fraction
fractionconfigurations of all
of all analyzedcan analyzed configurations
influence thecan
configurations final can influence
stiffnessthe
influence by final
74.6%.the final stiffness
stiffness by 74.6%. by 74.6%.
veral technological
Several Several
issues weretechnological
technological observed
issueswhile
wereissues
placing were
observed observed
thewhile
carbon while
fibers
placing placing
located
the carbon the near-
in fibers
the carbon
locatedfibers
in thelocated
near- in the
region, including near-surface
increased
surface region, includingregion,
heterogeneity including
increased increasedat
at heterogeneity
fiber locations andheterogeneity
local
fiber scorching
locations at
andfiber
oflocal
barslocations
caused and
scorching local
of bars scorching of
caused
perature increases. bars caused
Consequently,
by temperature by temperature
increases.the increases.
most suitablethe
Consequently, Consequently,
location for carbon
most suitable the most
fibersfor
location suitable
is in location
the core
carbon for carbon
fibers is in the core fibers is in
of the HFRP rebar.
region the core region
of the HFRP rebar. of the HFRP rebar.
addition, nHFRP barsInwere
In addition, addition,
nHFRP nHFRP
prepared
bars with
were barsan were
addition
prepared prepared
with an with
of nano-silica an fillers
addition addition of nano-silica
to the
of nano-silica fillers tofillers
resin to the resin
the resin
ency. Theconsistency.consistency.
additives were The used The additives
for improving
additives were usedthewere used
forchemical for
improving improving
cohesion the
between
the chemical chemical cohesion
the agents
cohesion betweenof the agents ofagents of
between the
and to improve
nHFRPthe nHFRP
and overall and
to improve to improve
properties theproperties
of the
the overall overall
bars, asproperties
suggested
of the bars, of
in theas bars,
some as suggested
sources
suggested in some in
[39–41]. some sources
sources [39–41]. [39–41].
gure 1 represents Figure
an 1example
Figure 1
represents represents
of scanning
an example an example
electron of
microscope
of scanning scanning (SEM)
electron electron microscope
images, showing
microscope (SEM)
the
(SEM) images, images,
showingshowing
the the
uents of nHFRP constituents
bars, where
constituents of nHFRP of nHFRP
it is possible bars, where
to distinguish
bars, where it is possibleit is possible
different to distinguish
fibers and
to distinguish different
nano-additives
different fibers
fibers and(by and nano-additives
nano-additives (by (by
imensionstheir their dimensions
and dimensions
color). Visibleandareas andofcolor).
color). Visible
nanosilica
Visible areas areas
locations of nanosilica
of nanosilicaare marked locations
locationsas Q, are
arebrightmarked
marked spotsasasQ,Q,bright
bright spots
spots indicate
e basalt fibers,
indicate basalt
while fibers,
carbon
basalt while
fibers
fibers, while carbon
appear
carbon fibers
as darker appear as darker
areas. as darker areas.
fibers appear areas.
Materials 2020, 13, 1248 5 of 15
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 15

Figure 1. SEM
Figure 1. SEM images
images ofof nano-hybrid fiber-reinforced polymer
nano-hybrid fiber-reinforced polymer (nHFRP)
(nHFRP) rebar
rebar with
with 44 mm
mm diameter,
diameter,
after cooling phase (till-20 ◦ C). Detailed properties for the selected bars are represented in subchapter
after cooling phase (till-20 °C). Detailed properties for the selected bars are represented in subchapter
Section
Section 4.1.
4.1.
4. Experimental Program
4. Experimental Program
The experimental program is involved in the design and fabrication of the six FRP reinforced
The experimental program is involved in the design and fabrication of the six FRP reinforced
concrete beams without any fire protection system. The investigation consisted of fire tests performed
concrete beams without any fire protection system. The investigation consisted of fire tests performed
on three simply supported concrete beams strengthened internally with different reinforcement in the
on three simply supported concrete beams strengthened internally with different reinforcement in
tensile zone (Set 1) and three corresponding reference beams that were used for comparison (Set 2).
the tensile zone (Set 1) and three corresponding reference beams that were used for comparison (Set
The beams of Set 1 were preliminarily loaded by a force of 50% of their ultimate strength capacity
2).
to simulate realistic situations, i.e., the appearance of cracks. As for the next step, unloaded cracked
The beams of Set 1 were preliminarily loaded by a force of 50% of their ultimate strength capacity
beams were placed into a furnace in such a way that the mid-section of the beams was inside it. After
to simulate realistic situations, i.e., the appearance of cracks. As for the next step, unloaded cracked
the cooling phase, the beams’ capacity was checked with a four-point flexural test. The beams of Set
beams were placed into a furnace in such a way that the mid-section of the beams was inside it. After
2 were tested with four-point flexural tests without preliminary loading and were not exposed to
the cooling phase, the beams’ capacity was checked with a four-point flexural test. The beams of Set
elevated temperature. Table 2 shows the description of specimens used in the tests.
2 were tested with four-point flexural tests without preliminary loading and were not exposed to
elevated temperature. Table
Table 2. Loading 2 shows
and the description
description of specimens.ofBFRP
specimens
= basaltused in the tests.
fiber-reinforced polymer.

of specimens. BFRP = Reinforcement

Table 2. Loading and descriptionReinforcement Preliminary
basalt fiber-reinforced polymer.
Set No. Beam Designation 1 Type (Tension Loaded (50% of
Set Beam Reinforcement Ratio
Reinforcement TypeZone) Preliminary Loaded Load)
the Ultimate (50% of
No. Designation 1 Ratio (Tension Zone) the Ultimate Load)
- - (%) Number/dia/type (kN)
- - (%) Number/dia/type (kN)
B2Ø14 B2Ø14 2/14/BFRP 2/14/BFRP 30 30
1 H2Ø14 2/14/HFRP 40
1 H2Ø14 2/14/HFRP 40
N2Ø14 2/14/nHFRP 40
N2Ø14 0.98 2/14/nHFRP 40
B2Ø14 B2Ø14 0.98 2/14/BFRP 2/14/BFRP 0 0
2 2 H2Ø14 H2Ø14 2/14/HFRP 2/14/HFRP 0 0
N2Ø14 2/14/nHFRP 0
N2Ø14 2/14/nHFRP 0
1 BFRP—basalt fiber-reinforced polymers; HFRP—hybrid fiber-reinforced polymers; nHFRP—nano hybrid
1 BFRP—basalt
fiber-reinforced fiber-reinforced polymers; HFRP—hybrid fiber-reinforced polymers; nHFRP—nano
polymers.
hybrid fiber-reinforced polymers.
Materials 2020, 13, 1248 6 of 15

4.1. Materials

4.1.1. Concrete
The concrete mixture design was identical for all beams: a typical concrete mix C40/45 was used.
Ordinary Portland cement CEM III/A, ash, and crushed stone (silica), with a nominal maximum size of
16 mm, were used in concrete mixes. The beams were cured for a complete 28-day period in the lab,
before they were moved to the testing frame. The cubic specimens from the same concrete mixture
were checked to confirm the concrete class.

4.1.2. Bars
A more detailed description for choosing the configuration of the bars and their characteristics is
reported in the following companion papers [42–44]. For these tests, the bar types BFRP, HFRP, and
nHFRP were chosen.
The selected volume fractions of carbon-to-basalt fibers for HFRP bars were assumed as 1:4 (i.e.,
16% of carbon fibers, 64% of basalt fibers and 20% of epoxy resin). For the nHFRP bars, the matrix was
modified by adding a four-component 1300 System® (CIECH Sarzyna S.A., Nowa Sarzyna, Poland)
to the epoxy resin. A sol with the nanosilica particles with a concentration of 25 to 30% by weight
was used. Average diameter of particles was equal 24.7 nm, containing two fractions: fine (80%) and
coarse (20%).
The mean values of maximum strength, Fu , limit stress, fu , modulus of elasticity, E11 , and the limit
strain, εu , for BFRP, HFRP and nHFRP bars were obtained from tensile tests and are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Mechanical properties of the fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) bars utilized in the tests.

Type of Bars Maximum Tensile Tensile Strength fu Tensile Strength at Modulus of Elasticity
Type/Dia Force Fu (kN) (MPa) Rupture εu (%) E11 (GPa)
BFRP Ø6 37.07 1148.81 2.48 46. 47
BFRP Ø8 60.03 1103.30 2.52 43.87
BFRP Ø14 179.26 1101.94 2.39 46.02
HFRP Ø14 206.57 1160.06 1.61 72.12
nHFRP Ø14 150.54 958.00 1.58 60.44

4.2. Specimen Dimensions and Reinforcement Configuration

All specimens had a rectangular cross-section with dimensions 140 mm wide and 260 mm high and
were 3200 mm long. The clear cover, cnom , was equal to 30 mm from all sides for all tested specimens.
The top reinforcement (compression zone) and shear reinforcement (stirrups) were kept constant
for all beams. Two BFRP bars with a diameter of 8 mm were used as longitudinal top reinforcement.
The stirrups made of BFRP with a diameter of 6 mm were used as shear reinforcement. The stirrup
spacing was assumed as 100 mm and the mid-part of the beam did not have stirrups to simulate clear
bending. The bottom reinforcement (tension zone) was a variable parameter and described based on
the reinforcement type, as mentioned in Figure 2. Figure 2 shows the scheme of tested specimens.
Materials 2020,
Materials 13, 13,
2020, 1248x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of
7 of 15 15

Figure 2. Schematic details of beam specimens.

Figure 2. Schematic details of beam specimens.
4.3. Test Setup
Prior
4.3. Testto casting, each specimen was instrumented with thermocouples of Type K (till 1200 ◦ C)
Setup
inside the specimens at different locations, in order to monitor the temperature during fire exposure.
Prior to casting, each specimen was instrumented with thermocouples of Type K (till 1200 °C)
Eight thermocouples
inside the specimens were used forlocations,
at different each beam that were
in order embedded
to monitor at differentduring
the temperature depths.
fireSeven of the
exposure.
thermocouples were added
Eight thermocouples wereinto
usedthe
forconcrete
each beam andthat
onewere
of the thermocouples,
embedded T3, was
at different embedded
depths. Seven ofon the
the
upper surface of a bar.
thermocouples were added into the concrete and one of the thermocouples, T3, was embedded on
Three
the upper dial gauges
surface of were
a bar.applied to the top face in order to measure the deflections in the mid-section
of the beams.
Three In addition,
dial gauges twoweredial gauges
applied to were
the topadded
face on
in the sides
order to measure
to measure thepossible beam
deflections in extensions.
the mid-
section of the beams. In addition, two dial gauges were added on the sides to measure possibleOutputs
The specimens were exposed to heat in the mid-section from below and from the sides. beam
were recorded every half second during the heating and cooling process.
extensions.
The specimens
Before the temperaturewere exposed to heatthe
was applied, in the mid-section
beams from Setfrom below
1 were and from
loaded theof
to 50% sides.
theirOutputs
ultimate
were recorded
strength every halfin
load (as described second
Table during
1). Set 2the
washeating
testedand cooling
without process. exposure and preliminary
temperature
loading. Before
Figure
Materials
the temperature
3 shows
2020, 13,
was
the REVIEW
x FOR PEER test applied,
setup of the the beams from Set 1 were loaded to 50% of their ultimate
beams. 8 of 15
strength load (as described in Table 1). Set 2 was tested without temperature exposure and
preliminary loading. Figure 3 shows the test setup of the beams.

Figure3.3.Test
Figure Test setup
setup description.
description.

Beams were heated from the bottom, as well as parts of both sides, for a period of approximately
one hour. The standards provide the means of heating beams from room temperature to temperatures
representative of a fire, taking into account a time parameter. Structural fire testing was performed
under standard conditions in accordance with norms [45] and a standard heating curve ISO-834
(1999) [46], represented by formula:
Materials 2020, 13, 1248 8 of 15

Figure 3. Test setup description.

Beams were heated from the bottom, as well as parts of both sides, for a period of approximately
Beams
one hour. were
The heated from
standards thethe
provide bottom,
means asofwell as parts
heating of both
beams fromsides,
roomfor a period oftoapproximately
temperature temperatures
one hour. The standards provide the means of heating beams from room temperature to temperatures
representative of a fire, taking into account a time parameter. Structural fire testing was performed
representative
under standardofconditions
a fire, taking
in into accountwith
accordance a time parameter.
norms [45] andStructural fire heating
a standard testing was performed
curve ISO-834
under [46],
(1999) standard conditions
represented in accordance with norms [45] and a standard heating curve ISO-834
by formula:
(1999) [46], represented by formula:
TISO = T0 + 345 × log(8t + 1), (1)
TISO = T0 + 345 × log(8t + 1), (1)
where: TTISO
ISOisisthe
thetemperature
temperature (◦ C),
(°C), T0 Tis0 the
is the room
room temperature
temperature (assumed
(assumed to beto20
be°C) ◦ C) and t is the
20 and t is the time
time (min).
(min).
Figure 4 illustrates the test setup during the heating phase.

Figure 4. Test setup during heating phase.

5. Results and Discussion

The performed tests provide a means to estimate the influence of elevated temperatures on
beams reinforced with FRP and therefore investigate their thermal behavior being subjected to those
temperatures. All specimens showed a typical flexural-ductile failure, the beams of Set 1 were destroyed
due to reinforcement failure in the tensile zone, however the reason of the beams destruction of Set 2
was the concrete crushing in the compression zone. Figure 5 demonstrates the beam sample B2Ø14
from Set 1 just after it was taken out of the furnace.
As shown on Figure 6, after the hybrid FRP bars were uncovered by removing the clear cover, the
temperature caused a burning of the FRP bars. This resulted in the evaporation of the matrix in the
middle of the bars. The temperature caused a de-bonding with the concrete, completely separating the
reinforcement from the concrete (Figure 6a). However, a major portion of the fibers remained in the
same place and continued to sustain the load (Figure 6b).
destruction of Set 2 was the concrete crushing in the compression zone. Figure 5 demonstrates the
beamThe performed
sample tests Set
B2Ø14 from provide
1 just aafter
means to taken
it was estimate
out the influence
of the furnace.of elevated temperatures on
beams reinforced with FRP and therefore investigate their thermal behavior being subjected to those
temperatures. All specimens showed a typical flexural-ductile failure, the beams of Set 1 were
destroyed due to reinforcement failure in the tensile zone, however the reason of the beams
Materials 2020, 13, 1248 9 of 15
destruction of Set 2 was the concrete crushing in the compression zone. Figure 5 demonstrates the
beam sample B2Ø14 from Set 1 just after it was taken out of the furnace.

Figure 5. Sample B2Ø14 just after being taken out of the furnace.

As shown on Figure 6, after the hybrid FRP bars were uncovered by removing the clear cover,
the temperature caused a burning of the FRP bars. This resulted in the evaporation of the matrix in
the middle of the bars. The temperature caused a de-bonding with the concrete, completely
Figure 5.
separating the reinforcement
Figure Sample
5. Sample
from B2Ø14
the just after
concrete
B2Ø14 just after being6a).
(Figure
being taken out of
of the
However,
taken out theafurnace.
furnace.
major portion of the fibers
remained in the same place and continued to sustain the load (Figure 6b).
As shown on Figure 6, after the hybrid FRP bars were uncovered by removing the clear cover,
the temperature caused a burning of the FRP bars. This resulted in the evaporation of the matrix in
the middle of the bars. The temperature caused a de-bonding with the concrete, completely
separating the reinforcement from the concrete (Figure 6a). However, a major portion of the fibers
remained in the same place and continued to sustain the load (Figure 6b).

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 6.
6. The
Thedestruction of of
destruction sample H2Ø14:
sample (a) gaps
H2Ø14: between
(a) gaps bars bars
between and and
concrete surface;
concrete (b)
surface;
(b) reinforcement
reinforcement failure.
failure.

Analyses of the temperatures attained at different depths were possible with the collection of
measurements from eight (a)thermocouples embedded in the concrete and on (b) the bars. An example
temperature
Figure 6.distribution is shown
The destruction in Figure
of sample 7a,b, which
H2Ø14: demonstrate
(a) gaps the and
between bars measurements obtained
concrete surface; (b) from
thermocouples for sample
reinforcement failure. B2Ø14. The thermocouples are numbered in accordance with the scheme
(Figure 3) and represent temperatures at different locations.
From Figure 7, it can be seen that the temperatures obtained at thermocouples T4 and T7 are
similar, indicating that the temperatures were distributed uniformly. At the same time, measurements
obtained from thermocouples T1 and T5, indicate that the gaps between the beam interfaces and edges
of the furnace were carefully insulated with ceramic and rock wool. In addition, it can also be seen that
the maximum temperatures measured at the bottom edge were approximately 20% lower (at the last
point) than the applied temperatures.
 scheme (Figure 3) and represent temperatures at different locations.
From Figure 7, it can be seen that the temperatures obtained at thermocouples T4 and T7 are
similar, indicating that the temperatures were distributed uniformly. At the same time,
measurements obtained from thermocouples T1 and T5, indicate that the gaps between the beam
interfaces
Materials 2020, and edges of the furnace were carefully insulated with ceramic and rock wool. In addition,
13, 1248 10 of 15
it can also be seen that the maximum temperatures measured at the bottom edge were approximately
20% lower (at the last point) than the applied temperatures.

(a) (b)
Figure7.7.Measurements
Figure Measurements from
fromthe
thethermocouples embedded
thermocouples in the
embedded in sample B2Ø14;
the sample (a) location
B2Ø14; A; (b) A;
(a) location
location B and C.
(b) location B and C.

The
Thesample
samplebeam
beamB2Ø14
B2Ø14 from
from Set 1 showed
showedaatime-vertical
time-verticaldeflection
deflection relationship
relationship moremore similar
similar
totoa atypical
typicalone onefor
forsteel
steel reinforced
reinforced concrete beams[13,32];
concrete beams [13,32];the
thedeflections
deflections were
were only
only increasing.
increasing.
Despitethe
Despite thelarger
largerinitial
initialdeflections
deflections for beam
beam samples
samplesB2Ø14,
B2Ø14,H2Ø14
H2Ø14and andN2Ø14,
N2Ø14, thethe
increase of of
increase
deflectionsduring
deflections duringfire
fireexposure
exposure started
started to
to be
be twice
twicelower
lowerthan
thanininthe
thecase
caseofof
analogous
analogous beams
beams with
with
steel reinforcement. However, samples H2Ø14 and N2Ø14 demonstrated
steel reinforcement. However, samples H2Ø14 and N2Ø14 demonstrated an atypical behavior for an atypical behavior for
beamssubjected
beams subjectedtotoelevated
elevated temperatures,
temperatures, since
sinceatataacertain
certainpoint
pointthe deflection
the deflectionbegan
beganto decrease.
to decrease.
AtAt that
that time,the
time, theregistered
registeredtemperature
temperature onon the
the bar
bar surface
surfacewas
wasininthe
therange
rangeofof550–570
550–570 °C.◦ C.
Figure 8 8
Figure
Materials 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 16
describes the deflections obtained by three dial gauges during the heating process
describes the deflections obtained by three dial gauges during the heating process of the beams from of the beams from
SetSet
1. 1.

(a) (b)

(a) (b)

(c)
Mid-span deflections during the heating phase; (a) B2Ø14, (b) H2Ø14, (c) N2Ø14.
Figure 8. Mid-span

Figure
Figure 99 shows the deflections
shows the of beams
deflections of beams from
from Set
Set 1,
1, measured
measured by by the
the middle
middle dial
dial gauge, U2,
gauge, U2,
during
during the
the heating
heating and
and cooling
cooling phases. It was
phases. It was noticed
noticed that
that just
just after
after the
the heating
heating phase,
phase, the
the deflection
deflection
of sample B2Ø14 at first started to decrease and then returned to its maximum value (shown in the
Figure 9a), however for both samples H2Ø14 and N2Ø14 the deflections during the cooling phase
started to decrease until approx. 30% of their maximum value was reached (Figure 9b,c). In the
opinion of the authors, this difference is due to the carbon fiber presence in hybrid FRP bars, which
works as a kind of “prestressing” during heating (at certain thresholds as shown in Figure 8), as well
 (c)
Figure 8. Mid-span deflections during the heating phase; (a) B2Ø14, (b) H2Ø14, (c) N2Ø14.
Materials 2020, 13, 1248 11 of 15

Figure 9 shows the deflections of beams from Set 1, measured by the middle dial gauge, U2,
during the B2Ø14
of sample heatingatand cooling
first startedphases. It wasand
to decrease noticed
then that just after
returned to itsthe heating phase,
maximum value the deflection
(shown in the
of sample
Figure 9a),B2Ø14 at first
however for started to decrease
both samples H2Ø14 and then
and returned
N2Ø14 to its maximum
the deflections value
during the (shown
cooling in the
phase
Figure 9a), however for both samples H2Ø14 and N2Ø14 the deflections during the
started to decrease until approx. 30% of their maximum value was reached (Figure 9b,c). In the opinioncooling phase
started to decrease
of the authors, until approx.
this difference is due30% of carbon
to the their maximum valuein was
fiber presence hybridreached (Figure
FRP bars, which9b,c).
worksIn as
thea
opinion of the authors, during
kind of “prestressing” this difference
heating is
(atdue to the
certain carbon fiber
thresholds presence
as shown in hybrid
in Figure FRP
8), as bars,
well which
as during
works as a kind
the cooling of “prestressing”
process, during heating
since beam displacement (at certain
becomes thresholds
smaller and then asremains
shown in Figure 8), as well
constant.
as during the cooling process, since beam displacement becomes smaller and then remains constant.

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 9. Mid-span
Figure Mid-spandeflections
deflectionsduring
duringthethe
heating andand
heating cooling phases;
cooling (a) B2Ø14,
phases; (b) H2Ø14,
(a) B2Ø14, (c) N2Ø14.
(b) H2Ø14, (c)
N2Ø14.
The strength capacity for beams of Set 1 was compared with beams of Set 2, which were tested
without
The the influence
strength of elevated
capacity for beamstemperatures (Figure
of Set 1 was 10). The
compared beams
with beamsfrom
of Set
Set 22,were
whichonly subjected
were tested
to loading in the four-point flexural test, and subsequently had a greater strength capacity.
without the influence of elevated temperatures (Figure 10). The beams from Set 2 were only subjected The samples
of loading
to Set 2 werein loaded till 12.5 flexural
the four-point kN and then loading
test, and was reduced
subsequently hadtoa5greater
kN, after one more
strength analogous
capacity. The
cycle of loading
samples of Set 2 the beams
were loadeduntil
tillfailure.
12.5 kN The cyclic
and thenloading
loadingwas
wasapplied
reduced in order to reduce
to 5 kN, effects
after one moreof
plastic strains.
A comparison between results of tested beams is represented in Table 4.

Table 4. Mechanical properties of the FRP bars utilized in the tests.

BFRP HFRP nHFRP

Type of Bars Fu, tested Fu, reference Fu, tested Fu, reference Fu, tested Fu, reference
(kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
Ultimate force 40.00 70.00 51.00 85.00 46.00 81.00
Fu,tested /Fu,reference (%) 57 60 57
 (kN) (kN) (kN)
Ultimate force 40.00 70.00 51.00 85.00 46.00 81.00
Fu,tested/Fu,reference (%) 57 60 57
Set 2 (Fu, reference) showed a higher strength capacity by 43%, 40% and 43% respectively for beams
B2Ø14; H2Ø14 and N2Ø14 from Set 1 (Fu, tested). A comparison between results for beams from Set 1
Materials 2020, 13, 1248 12 of 15
and Set 2 is shown in Figure 10. The highest strength capacity that was obtained by the tested sample
H2Ø14 for both beams was equal to 51 and 85 kN for beams from Set 1 and Set 2, respectively.

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure
Figure 10.
10. Comparison
Comparison of
ofthe
theultimate
ultimatecapacity
capacityfor
forbeams
beamsfrom
from Set
Set 11and
andSet
Set2;
2;(a)
(a)B2Ø14,
B2Ø14,(b)
(b)H2Ø14,
H2Ø14,
(c) N2Ø14.

Set 2 (Fu, reference ) showed a higher strength capacity by 43%, 40% and 43% respectively for beams
6. Conclusions
B2Ø14; H2Ø14 and N2Ø14 from Set 1 (Fu, tested ). A comparison between results for beams from Set 1
This study investigates the residual strength capacity for beams subjected to elevated
and Set 2 is shown in Figure 10. The highest strength capacity that was obtained by the tested sample
temperatures that were preliminarily loaded by half of their ultimate capacity. Solely FRP
H2Ø14 for both beams was equal to 51 and 85 kN for beams from Set 1 and Set 2, respectively.
reinforcement was used; beams were having different reinforcement in the tensile zone (bottom part
of
6. the beams): BFRP, HFRP or nHFRP bars. Reinforcement used in the compression zone and stirrups
Conclusions
were made from BFRP.
This study investigates the residual strength capacity for beams subjected to elevated temperatures
Obtained results show that deflections obtained from current investigation for beams reinforced
that were preliminarily loaded by half of their ultimate capacity. Solely FRP reinforcement was used;
with FRP bars were much smaller than the results received for similar beams reinforced with steel
beams were having different reinforcement in the tensile zone (bottom part of the beams): BFRP, HFRP
bars in other studies [13,32]. In addition, the behavior of FRP-RC beams was quite uncharacteristic
or nHFRP bars. Reinforcement used in the compression zone and stirrups were made from BFRP.
when subjected to elevated temperature, as well as during the cooling phase.
Obtained results show that deflections obtained from current investigation for beams reinforced
with FRP bars were much smaller than the results received for similar beams reinforced with steel bars
in other studies [13,32]. In addition, the behavior of FRP-RC beams was quite uncharacteristic when
subjected to elevated temperature, as well as during the cooling phase.
Based on the experimental testing of beams reinforced with FRP, the following main conclusive
remarks can be drawn:

1. All tested samples subjected to elevated temperatures were destroyed due to the tensile zone
reaching its ultimate strength capacity. The authors suggest that this issue can be related to the
reduction of mechanical properties experienced by the bars after being subjected to fire actions.
2. The overall strength capacity of the FRP reinforced beams after being subjected to fire exposure
was reduced; by approx. 43% for beams with the tensile zone reinforced with BFRP bars, 40%
and 43% for beams reinforced with HFRP and nHFRP bars, correspondingly.
Materials 2020, 13, 1248 13 of 15

3. The highest strength capacity was obtained by beams reinforced with HFRP bars. The strength
capacity of the beams reinforced with HFRP bars after applying elevated temperatures was
reduced by approximately 40% and was equal to 51 kN. As it can be seen from the force-deflection
plots; the post-fire behavior of FRP-RC beams (Set 1) was similar to beams not subjected to fire
exposure (Set 2) until failure. Nevertheless, the reduction in strength is significant.
4. When the temperature on the bars reached the range of 550–570 ◦ C, and the bottom edge of beams
were heated to around 700 ◦ C, the deflections of the beams reinforced with hybrid FRP bars, i.e.,
for HFRP and nHFRP reinforced beams) started to decrease. This behavior was different for the
BFRP reinforced beam, which was more similar to typical steel reinforced beams.

Similar behavior was observed during the cooling phase. It was noticed that deflections obtained
for beams reinforced with BFRP bars were reduced by 40% initially and then returned to their maximum
value of 25 mm during the cooling phase. The deflections for the beams reinforced with hybrid FRP
bars were decreasing and then stopped at approx. 30% of their maximum value; 4 mm during the
cooling phase. Since the deflections became smaller for beams reinforced with HFRP bars, the authors
suggest that it relates to the presence of carbon fibers, which cause a kind of “prestressing” for the
beams at a certain temperature threshold, as well as during the cooling phase.
The authors want to conclude that further research is still needed to estimate the influence of
elevated temperatures on the strength capacity of FRP-reinforced beams, with taking into account
other variables such as the reinforcement type and the type of fire scenario, which can significantly
change the mechanical behavior of RC structures strengthened with FRP reinforcement. Therefore,
other analyses with regard to reinforcement types and their ratios will be made.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, K.P. and E.S.; methodology, K.P.; validation, E.S.; formal analysis, E.S.;
investigation, K.P.; resources, E.S.; data curation, K.P.; writing—original draft preparation, K.P.; writing—review
and editing, E.S.; visualization, K.P.; supervision, E.S.; project administration, K.P.; funding acquisition, K.P. and
E.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Centre for Research and Development (NCRD), grant number
NCBR: PBS3/A2/20/2015 and the APC was funded by Warsaw University of Technology.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Aslam, M.; Shafigh, P.; Jumaat, M.Z.; Shah, S.N.R. Strengthening of RC beams using prestressed fiber
reinforced polymers—A review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 82, 235–256. [CrossRef]
2. Zhang, S.S.; Yu, T.; Chen, G.M. Reinforced concrete beams strengthened in flexure with near-surface mounted
(NSM) CFRP strips: Current status and research needs. Compos. Part B Eng. 2017, 131, 30–42. [CrossRef]
3. Szmigiera, E.D.; Urbański, M.; Protchenko, K. Strength Performance of Concrete Beams Reinforced with
BFRP Bars. In International Congress on Polymers in Concrete (ICPIC 2018); Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018;
pp. 667–674. [CrossRef]
4. Balendran, R.V.; Rana, T.M.; Maqsood, T.; Tang, W.C. Application of FRP bars as reinforcement in civil
engineering structures. Struct. Surv. 2002, 20, 62–72. [CrossRef]
5. Kashwani, G.A.; Al-Tamimi, A.K. Evaluation of FRP bars performance under high temperature. Phys. Proc.
2014, 55, 296–300. [CrossRef]
6. Yehia, S.; Kashwani, G. Performance of Structures Exposed to Extreme High Temperature—An Overview.
Open J. Civ. Eng. 2013, 3, 154–161. [CrossRef]
7. Hollaway, L.C. Polymer Composites for Civil. and Structural Engineering; Blackie Academic and Professional:
Glasgow, UK, 1993; pp. 12–62.
8. Szmigiera, E.; Protchenko, K.; Urbański, M.; Garbacz, A. Mechanical Properties of Hybrid FRP Bars and
Nano-Hybrid FRP Bars. Arch. Civ. Eng. 2019, 65, 97–110. [CrossRef]
9. Garbacz, A.; Radomski, W.A.; Mossakowski, P. Alternatywne zbrojenie betonu kompozytami
FRP—Zagadnienie kompatybilności (in English—Alternative reinforcement of concrete using FRP
composites—compatibility issues). Mosty 2015, 73, 42–45.
Materials 2020, 13, 1248 14 of 15

10. Elsayed, T.A.; Elhefnawy, A.A.; Eldaly, A.A.; Ghanem, G.M. Hybrid fiber reinforced polymers rebars. J. Adv.
Mater. 2011, 43, 65–75. [CrossRef]
11. Nanni, A.; De Luca, A.; Jawaheri Zadeh, H. Reinforced Concrete with FRP Bars: Mechanics and Design; CRC
Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2014.
12. Abbasi, A.; Hogg, P.J. Fire testing of concrete beams with fibre reinforced plastic rebar. In Advanced Polymer
Composites for Structural Applications in Construction; Hollaway, L.C., Chryssanthopoulos, M.K., Moy, S.S.J.,
Eds.; Woodhead Publishing Limited: Cambridge, UK, 2005; pp. 445–456.
13. Kowalski, R.; Głowacki, M.J. On the experimental analysis of temperature influence on stiffness of reinforced
concrete beams. J. Struct. Fire Eng. 2015, 6, 49–57. [CrossRef]
14. ACI. Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars; ACI 440.1R-15; American
Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2015.
15. CSA. Design and Construction of Building Structures with Fibre-Reinforced Polymers; CAN/CSA S806-12; Canadian
Standards Association: Mississauga, ON, Canada, 2012; p. 206.
16. 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. Compos. Part B Eng.
2011, 42, 1751–1763. [CrossRef]
17. Wang, K.; Young, B.; Smith, S.T. Mechanical properties of pultruded carbon fibre-reinforced polymer (CFRP)
plates at elevated temperatures. Eng. Struct. 2011, 33, 2154–2161. [CrossRef]
18. Hu, Y.-J.; Jiang, C.; Liu, W.; Yu, Q.-Q.; Zhou, Y.-L. Degradation of the In-plane Shear Modulus of Structural
BFRP Laminates Due to High Temperature. Sensors 2018, 18, 3361. [CrossRef]
19. Bellakehal, H.; Zaidi, A.; Masmoudi, R.; Bouhicha, M. Behavior of FRP Bars-Reinforced Concrete Slabs under
Temperature and Sustained Load Effects. Polymers 2014, 6, 873–889. [CrossRef]
20. Scholzen, A.; Chudoba, R.; Hegger, J. Dünnwandiges schalentragwerk aus textilbewehrtem Beton. Beton
Stahlbetonbau 2012, 107, 767–776. [CrossRef]
21. Mechtcherine, V. Novel cement-based composites for the strengthening and repair of concrete structures.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 41, 365–373. [CrossRef]
22. Hajiloo, H.; Green, M.F.; Noël, M.; Bénichou, N.; Sultan, M. Fire tests on full-scale FRP reinforced concrete
slabs. Comp. Struct. 2017, 179, 705–719. [CrossRef]
23. 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. Compos. Part B Eng. 2011, 42,
1739–1750. [CrossRef]
24. Nigro, E.; Cefarelli, G.; Bilotta, A.; Manfredi, G.; Cosenza, E. Tests at high temperatures on concrete slabs
reinforced with bent FRP bars. Spec. Publ. 2011, 275, 1–20.
25. Kodur, V.K.R.; Bisby, L.A.; Foo, S. Thermal behaviour of fire-exposed concrete slabs reinforced with fibre
reinforced polymer bars. ACI Struct. J. 2005, 102, 799–807.
26. Sadek, A.; El-Hawary, M.; El-Deeb, A. Fire Resistance Testing of Concrete Beams Reinforced by GFRP Rebars.
Eur. J. Sci. Res. 2006, 15, 190–200. [CrossRef]
27. Saafi, M. Effect of fire on FRP reinforced concrete members. Comp. Struct. 2002, 58, 11–20. [CrossRef]
28. Palmieri, A.; Matthys, S.; Taerwe, L. Experimental investigation on fire endurance of insulated concrete
beams strengthened with near surface mounted FRP bar reinforcement. J. Compos. Part B Eng. 2012, 43,
885–895. [CrossRef]
29. Palmieri, A.; Matthys, S.; Taerwe, L. Fire endurance and residual strength of insulated concrete beams
strengthened with near surface mounted reinforcement. J. Compos. Constr. 2013, 17, 454–462. [CrossRef]
30. Bootle, J.; Burzesi, F.; Fiorini, L. Design guidelines. In ASM handbook; ASM International: Material Park, OH,
USA, 2001; pp. 388–395.
31. Schneider, K.; Michel, A.; Liebscher, M.; Terreri, L.; Hempel, S.; Mechtcherine, V. Mineral-impregnated
carbon fibre reinforcement for high temperature resistance of thin-walled concrete structures. Cem. Concr.
Compos. 2019, 97, 68–77. [CrossRef]
32. Kowalski, R.; Głowacki, M.J.; Abramowicz, M. Premature destruction of two-span RC beams exposed to
high temperature caused by a redistribution of shear forces. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2017, 23, 431–439. [CrossRef]
33. Barbero, E.J. Introduction to Composite Materials Design, 2nd ed.; Taylor & Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL,
USA, 2011; pp. 91–100.
Materials 2020, 13, 1248 15 of 15

34. Black, T.; Kosher, R. Non Metallic Materials: Plastic, Elastomers, Ceramics and Composites. In Materials and
Processing in Manufacturing, 10th ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008; pp. 162–194.
35. Voigt, W. Uber die beziehung zwischen den beiden elasticitatsconstanten isotroperkorper. Ann. Phys. 1889,
274, 573–587. [CrossRef]
36. Ashton, J.E.; Halpin, J.C.; Petit, P.H. Primer on Composite Materials: Analysis; Technomic Publishing Company:
Stamford, CT, USA, 1969.
37. Halpin, J.C. Stiffness and expansion estimates for oriented short fiber composites. J. Compos. Mater. 1969, 3,
732–734. [CrossRef]
38. ANSYS®Academic Research Mechanical, Release 16.2, Help System, Coupled Field Analysis Guide; ANSYS, Inc.:
Canonsburg, PA, USA, 2016.
39. Baur, J.W.; Chen, C.; Justice, R.S.; Schaefer, D.W. Highly dispersed nanosilica-epoxy resins with enhanced
mechanical properties. Polymer 2008, 49, 3805–3815. [CrossRef]
40. Jesionowski, T.; Pilawka, R. Kompozycje epoksydowe z krzemionka˛ (Epoxy composites with silica).
Kompozyty 2009, 9, 112–116.
41. Jesionowski, T.; Pilawka, R. Kompozyty epoksydowe z krzemionka˛ sieciowane 1-etylomimidazolem [Epoxy
composites with silica crosslinked with 1-ethylimidazole]. Kompozyty 2011, 11, 14–17.
42. Garbacz, A.; Szmigiera, E.D.; Protchenko, K.; Urbański, M. On Mechanical Characteristics of HFRP Bars
with Various Types of Hybridization. In International Congress on Polymers in Concrete (ICPIC 2018); Springer:
Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 653–658. [CrossRef]
43. Protchenko, K.; Dobosz, J.; Urbański, M.; Garbacz, A. Wpływ substytucji włókien bazaltowych przez włókna
w˛eglowe na właściwości mechaniczne pr˛etów B/CFRP (HFRP) (Influence of the substitution of basalt fibres
by carbon fibres on the mechanical behavior of B/CFRP (HFRP) bars). Czas. Inżynierii Ladowej ˛ Środowiska
Archit. JCEEA 2016, 63, 149–156.
44. Protchenko, K.; Szmigiera, E.D.; Urbański, M.; Garbacz, A. Development of Innovative HFRP Bars. MATEC
Web Conf. 2018, 196, 04087. [CrossRef]
45. Fire Resistance Tests. General Requirements; EN 1363-1:2012; British Standards Institution: London, UK, 2012.
46. ISO 834-1. Fire Resistance Tests—Elements of Buildings Construction, Part-1 General Requirements; International
Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1999.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).