ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fire Safety Journal 41 (2006) 547–557

www.elsevier.com/locate/firesaf

Experimental evaluation of the fire behaviour of insulated

fibre-reinforced-polymer-strengthened reinforced concrete columns
Venkatesh K.R. Kodura,, Luke A. Bisbyb, Mark F. Greenb
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 48824-1226 MI, USA
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Queen’s University, Canada
Received 27 June 2005; received in revised form 15 May 2006; accepted 30 May 2006

Abstract

In recent years, there has been an increase in the use of fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) materials for strengthening of concrete
structures. However, since FRP materials are combustible, and because they are typically applied to the exterior of structural members in
these strengthening applications, concerns exist regarding the behaviour of such FRP strengthening systems in fire. There is currently
little information available on the fire endurance of FRP-strengthened concrete systems. This paper presents results from full-scale fire
resistance experiments on three insulated FRP-strengthened reinforced concrete (RC) columns. A comparison is made between the fire
performances of FRP-strengthened RC columns and conventional unstrengthened RC columns tested previously. Data obtained during
the experiments is used to show that the fire behaviour of FRP-wrapped concrete columns incorporating appropriate fire protection
systems is as good as that of unstrengthened RC columns. Thus, satisfactory fire resistance ratings for FRP-wrapped concrete columns
can be obtained by properly incorporating appropriate fire protection measures into the overall FRP-strengthened structural system.
Fire endurance criteria and preliminary design recommendations for fire safety of FRP-strengthened RC columns are briefly discussed.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Fire-resistance tests; Reinforced concrete columns; Fibre reinforced polymers; Strengthening; Fire insulation

1. Introduction With the increasingly widespread use of FRPs in

In recent years, the construction industry has shown
significant interest in the use of fibre-reinforced polymer
(FRP) materials for reinforcement and strengthening of
concrete structures. This can be attributed to the numerous
advantages, including extremely high strength to weight
ratios, versatility, and resistance to electrochemical corro-
sion, that FRPs offer over conventional materials such as
steel. A particularly attractive use of FRPs in structural
engineering applications involves strengthening of existing
reinforced concrete (RC) columns by bonding circumfer-
ential (confining) FRP wraps to their exterior. Indeed, FRP
wrapping of RC columns is now considered a method of
choice for axial and seismic strengthening of these types of
members.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 517 353 9813.
E-mail addresses: kodur@egr.msu.edu (V.K.R. Kodur), bisby@civil.-
queensu.ca (L.A. Bisby), greenm@civil.queensu.ca (M.F. Green).
buildings, concern has developed regarding the behaviour
in fire of these systems in fire, since FRPs are typically
combustible and susceptible to deterioration of mechanical
and bond properties at elevated temperature. Before FRP
wraps can be used with confidence in buildings, the
performance of these materials during fire, and the ability
of FRP-strengthened members to meet the fire endurance
criteria set out in building codes, must be evaluated.
Information in this area is currently very limited.
Studies are underway at the National Research Council
of Canada (NRC), in collaboration with ISIS Canada,
Queen’s University, and industry partners, to develop fire-
resistance guidelines for FRP-strengthening systems for
concrete structures for possible incorporation into emer-
ging FRP design codes. As part of this effort, full-scale fire-
resistance tests have been conducted to investigate the
behaviour of both circular and square FRP-wrapped and
insulated RC columns under exposure to a standard fire.
Three columns were strengthened with circumferential

0379-7112/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2006.05.004
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
548 V.K.R. Kodur et al. / Fire Safety Journal 41 (2006) 547–557

FRP-wraps and provided with suitable fire protection,

while two specimens were conventional unwrapped RC
columns tested previously by researchers at NRC [1].

2. FRP-strengthened concrete columns in fire

Structural fire safety is a major requirement in the design

of buildings, and the provision of appropriate fire
resistance for structural members is a prerequisite require-
ment for structural materials and systems [2]. It is
important to recognize that the need for adequate fire
resistance of structural members ensures that, when
measures for preventing, extinguishing, or containing a
fire fail, structural integrity is the last line of defence for
building occupants and emergency personnel.
RC columns typically exhibit comparatively good
performance under fire exposure, and a great deal of
information on the behaviour of these members during fire
is available [1,3,4]. However, only limited studies exist on
fire performance of FRP-reinforced or strengthened RC
members [5–8]. There are several important fire-safety
concerns associated with the use of FRPs as externally Fig. 1. Full-scale column test furnace at the National Research Council of
Canada, Ottawa.
bonded reinforcement for concrete members in buildings
[2,9]. These include the potential for increased flame spread
and smoke generation, loss of FRP strength and stiffness, No unprotected FRP-wrapped RC columns were tested,
and loss of bond between the concrete and the FRP. In this since results of previous fire endurance tests (unpublished)
paper, the focus is on the structural behaviour of FRP- have shown that FRP-wrapped RC columns without fire
wrapped RC columns under fire. Thus, flame spread and protection tend to perform poorly, since the FRP wrapping
smoke generation concerns are not discussed in any is lost within less than 30 min of fire exposure.
significant detail.
FRP materials are known to be sensitive to the effects of
3.2. Column fabrication
elevated temperatures [9–12]. Deterioration in mechanical
and/or bond properties can be expected at temperatures
All five columns were designed as per Canadian design
approaching the glass transition temperature (Tg) of the
procedures [13]. Circular Column 1 had six 19.5 mm
polymer matrix/adhesive [9–12], which is typically less than
diameter longitudinal bars and an 11.3 mm diameter spiral
100 1C. Thus, there are concerns that sudden loss of
with a pitch of 54 mm, and Columns 2 and 3 had
structural effectiveness of FRP wraps during fire could lead
longitudinal steel consisting of eight 19.5 mm diameter
to sudden collapse of FRP-strengthened structures under
deformed steel bars and an 11.3 mm diameter spiral pitch
increased (strengthened) service loads.
of 50 mm. Thus, the longitudinal steel reinforcing ratios for
Columns 1–3 were similar, at 1.81%, 1.85%, and 1.85%,
3. Experimental studies respectively. Square Column 4 had eight 20 mm diameter
longitudinal bars and 9.5 mm diameter ties at 406 mm,
3.1. Test specimens while Column 5 had four 25 mm diameter longitudinal bars
and 11.3 mm diameter ties at 406 mm. These reinforcement
The experimental programme consisted of fire endurance details resulted in reasonably similar longitudinal reinfor-
tests on five RC columns: one unstrengthened circular RC cing ratios of 1.46% and 1.21% for Columns 4 and 5,
column (Column 1), two circular FRP-wrapped and respectively. The clear cover to the main reinforcing bars
insulated RC columns (Columns 2 and 3), one unstrength- was 50 mm for all columns. Both the main reinforcing bars
ened square RC column (Column 4), and one square FRP- and ties had specified yield strengths of 400 MPa. All five
wrapped and insulated RC column. These tests were columns were made with normal strength (CSA Type 10
conducted in the full-scale column furnace at the NRC, [14]) Portland cement concrete. Columns 1 and 4 were
Ottawa. The testing apparatus is shown in Fig. 1. All five fabricated with siliceous (granite) aggregate while Columns
columns were 3810 mm long. Dimensions and reinforce- 2, 3, and 5 were fabricated from carbonate (limestone)
ment details of the columns are given in Table 1. Insulation aggregate.
schemes were applied to the exterior of the FRP wraps and The average compressive cylinder strengths of the
are discussed in detail in Section 3.4. concretes used in the various columns, measured 28 days
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
V.K.R. Kodur et al. / Fire Safety Journal 41 (2006) 547–557 549

after pouring and at the time of testing, are given in Table
1. The moisture condition of Columns 1–5 at the time of
testing, measured by drilling into the concrete and using a
humidity probe, were approximately equivalent to those in
equilibrium with air at room temperature of 78% relative
humidity (RH), 63% RH, and 75% RH, 80% RH, and
83% RH, respectively.
The reader will note that the circular and square RC
columns being compared in the current paper, while
similar, were not exactly the same, both in terms of
construction and instrumentation. This is because Columns
1 and 4 were fabricated as part of a larger previous testing
programme [1] studying conventional RC columns,
whereas Columns 2, 3, and 5 were fabricated (in
collaboration with industry partners) for the current study
and to obtain Underwriters’ Laboratories fire ratings for
these assemblies. However, the columns have reasonably
similar overall dimensions and reinforcement ratios,
although they differed somewhat in terms of the type of
aggregate used and the amount of internal longitudinal
reinforcing steel. As shown in Section 4, these differences
can reasonably be overlooked when comparing and
discussing the qualitative behaviour of the wrapped and
insulated columns versus the unstrengthened columns.
3.3. FRP strengthening
As outlined in Table 1, Columns 2 and 3 were
strengthened with a circumferential FRP wrap consisting
of a single layer of a commercially available unidirectional
carbon/epoxy FRP system (refer to Tables 1 and 2). The
FRP wrap had a 300 mm overlap in the circumferential
direction and a 25 mm overlap in the vertical direction, and
resulted in a design ultimate load capacity increase of
about 26% based on the ISIS Canada guidelines for
strengthening of concrete structures with FRP [15] (these
guidelines are essentially equivalent to the Teng et al. [16]
FRP confinement model for concrete if used in conjunction
with the CSA A23.3 [13] design equations for the axial
compressive strength of RC columns). Column 5 was
strengthened with three layers of a commercially available
glass/epoxy FRP system (refer to Tables 1 and 2), again
with 300 and 25 mm overlaps in the circumferential and
vertical directions. This strengthening scheme resulted in a
theoretical design ultimate load capacity increase of about
10%, again based on the Teng et al. [16] confinement
model (for rectangular FRP-confined concrete columns)
used in conjunction with the CSA A23.3 [13] column design
equations. Column capacities and strength increases due to
wrapping are provided in Table 3.
3.4. Fire protection
Columns 1 and 4 were plain RC columns and were not
provided with any supplemental fire protection insulation,
since appropriately designed RC columns generally display
adequate fire endurance without additional fire protection
measures. However, FRP-wrapped columns, 2, 3, and 5,
were protected with a unique two-component fire protec-
tion system that was applied to the exterior of the FRP
wraps. The fire protection system was developed specifi-
cally for this application by an industry partner, and
consisted of a spray applied cementitous fire protection
mortar (Fyfe Company’s Tyfos VG insulation), combined
with a surface-hardening agent and sealant (Tyfos EI or
EI-R coating). The insulation systems are shown schema-
tically in Figs. 2 and 3, and are described in more complete
detail by Bisby [17].
VG Application: Once the FRP wraps had been installed
and had cured for at least 24 h, VG insulation was spray-
applied to the surface of the column in 20 mm lifts until the
desired thickness was achieved. The surface of the FRP

Table 1
Details of column specimens

No. Cross-section Length Longitudinal steel Transverse steel fc FRP VG thicknessa Nominal EI or
(mm) (mm) (mm) + wrap (mm) EI–R coverage
(mm)
28-day Test day (MPa)
(MPa)

1 355 + 3810 6
20 11.3 mm + spiral at 39 42 None 0 0

54 mm pitch
2 406 + 3810 8
20 11.3 mm + spiral at 39 40 SCHb 32 0.56–EI
50 mm pitch
3 406 + 3810 8
20 11.3 mm + spiral at 39 39 SCHb 57 0.25–EI
50 mm pitch
4 406
406 3810 8
20 9.5 mm + ties at 38 38 None 0 0
406 mm c-c
5 406
406 3810 4
25 11.3 mm + ties at 52 – SEHc 38 0.25–EI-R
406 mm c-c
a
VG/EI–Fyfe Co. Tyfos VG/EI Insulation is a specialized two-component fire protection system developed specifically for fire protection of FRP
wraps.
b
SCH–Fyfe Co. Tyfos SCH carbon/epoxy FRP system, applied in a single layer.
c
SCH–Fyfe Co. Tyfos SEH glass/epoxy FRP system, applied in three layers.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
550 V.K.R. Kodur et al. / Fire Safety Journal 41 (2006) 547–557

Table 2
Selected manufacturer specified properties of FRP and matrix/adhesive system used in the current study (additional information available from
www.fyfeco.com)

Property Tg (1C) Tensile Tensile Strain at Flexural Flexural Design

strength modulus rupture (%) strength modulus thickness
(MPa) (GPa) (MPa) (GPa) (mm)

Matrices/adhesives
Matrix/adhesivea 82 72.4 3.18 5.0 123.4 3.12 —
Dry fiber properties (in fibre direction)
Carbon 1b — 4900 230 2.1 — — —
Glassc — 3240 72.4 4.5 — — —

Gross laminate properties (in fibre direction)

CFRPd — 1351 95.2 1.4 — — 0.76
GFRPe — 575 26.1 2.2 — — 1.3
a
Tyfo S Epoxy.
b
Tyfo SCH Fabric.
c
Tyfo SEH Fabric.
d
Tyfo SCH System with Tyfo S Epoxy.
e
Tyfo SEH System with Tyfo S Epoxy.

Table 3
Summary of calculated column capacities and fire endurances

No. Unstrengthened Strengthened % increase in Test load, C Load intensity, ASTM E119 Time to exceed
capacitya (kN) capacityb, Cr strength (kN) C/Cr fire endurance T cg c (hr:min)
(kN) (hr:min)

1 2172 — — 1431 0.66 4:05 —

2 2722 3430 26 2515 0.73 45:00 0:39
3 2722 3430 26 2515 0.73 45:00 0:55
4 3458 — — 2418 0.69 4:22 —
5 3714 4097 10 3093 0.75 4:16 0:26
a
Factored design strength calculated in accordance with CSA A23.3-94 [13].
b
Confined concrete strength calculated in accordance with Teng et al. [16], factored column strength calculated in accordance with CSA A23.3-94 [13].
c
This is not currently a recognized fire endurance criterion and has been included for the purposes of illustration only.

400 mm 400 mm

6 EI

12 Metal plastering lath

14 16
1 10 4 7 9
11 Carbon FRP

VG

(a) (b)

Fig. 2. Selected thermocouple locations in (a) Column 1 and (b) Columns 2 and 3.

wrap was lightly sanded with a coarse-grit sand paper to
ensure as strong a bond as possible with the VG. Circular
depth guides were installed at various heights around the
column during the spraying application. The depth guides
consisted of PVC tubes of known outside diameter,
wrapped circumferentially around the columns at four
locations. The guides were essential to level and screed the
surface of the VG and to obtain a uniform surface with a
constant thickness. Once the desired thickness of VG had
been applied, its surface was hand trowelled. As soon as the
VG had hardened sufficiently to remain in place while
being manipulated, the circumferential depth guides were
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
V.K.R. Kodur et al. / Fire Safety Journal 41 (2006) 547–557
406 mm
44 2
47
6 11
48
1 16
29 13
28
Thermocouples 13, 28, 29
& 44 are at a depth of 6mm
inside the concrete
(a) (b)
Fig. 3. Selected thermocouple locations in (a) Column 4 and (b) Column 5.
removed and the resulting grooves were filled with VG by
hand. The columns were allowed to dry for 4 days before
application of the EI or EI-R coating. The overall thickness
of VG material applied to each column is provided in
Table 1.
Columns 2 and 3 were protected and tested several
months before Column 5, and represented the first
attempts at using the newly developed fire protection
system in a full-scale test. Thus, before spray-application of
the VG insulation on Columns 2 and 3, a single layer of
galvanized steel plastering lath (diamond lath) was
mechanically fastened to the exterior of both columns over
their full height using concrete anchors and steel brackets.
This was done for the two initial tests to ensure that the VG
material would remain intact during fire exposure and to
prevent the formation of shrinkage cracks in the VG during
heating. The VG insulation on Column 5 was applied
directly to the FRP wrap, without any mechanical
anchorage.
EI coating: The EI or EI-R coating was applied by trowel
to the exterior of the VG insulation. EI is a polymeric
intumescent sealant and surface-hardening coating that
expands on heating to form a thick multi-cellular char with
low-thermal conductivity. EI-R is a non-intumescent
version of the same coating. The reason for using EI on
Columns 2 and 3 but changing to EI-R for Column 5 is due
to the observation, based on the two initial tests, that the
intumescent capabilities of the EI were not significantly
beneficial to the overall fire performance of the system, but
that the sealing and surface hardening functions were
important.
The design specification for the insulation systems called
for small but specific coverages of EI or EI-R, as shown in
Table 1. To achieve these nominal coverages, the required
volumes of EI or EI-R were determined based on the
surface areas of each of the columns, and the amounts of
material applied to the columns were monitored through-
out the application process.
551
406 mm
6 EI
VG
7 3
Glass FRP
8
4
3.5. Instrumentation
During fabrication of the specimens, thermocouples
were installed within the concrete and on the internal
reinforcing steel at the columns’ mid-height for measuring
temperatures at various locations over the cross section.
This is shown in Figs. 2 and 3. Columns 2, 3, and 5 were
also instrumented with thermocouples to record the
temperatures at various locations within the FRP strength-
ening and insulation systems (Figs. 2 and 3). Further
details on material characteristics, column fabrication, and
instrumentation for the various columns are given by Lie
and Woolerton [1], Bisby [17], and Kodur et al. [18].
Applied load and axial deformation were also monitored
during testing.
3.6. Test conditions and procedures
The columns were installed in a specialized column-
testing furnace at NRC, built for testing loaded columns
under fire exposure [19]. Rotationally fixed end conditions
were used. The 3810 mm long columns were exposed to fire
over a height of approximately 3000 mm. Previous column
testing at NRC [1] has shown that the effective length of
RC columns tested in this condition is about 2000 mm.
All five columns were tested individually under a
sustained concentric axial compressive load chosen to
represent the full service load on the columns. The test
loads are given in Table 3, as are the resulting load
intensities. These test loads on the FRP-strengthened
columns were determined by back-calculating from the
factored design capacities of the columns by assuming a
factored live to dead load ratio of 1:1 and using the
Canadian [20] load factors of 1.5 and 1.25 for live and
dead load loads, respectively. It is evident in Table 3 that
the FRP-strengthened columns were tested under more
severe load intensities than the unstrengthened columns,
both because they were subjected to strengthened service
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
552 V.K.R. Kodur et al. / Fire Safety Journal 41 (2006) 547–557

loads, and because the resulting load intensities were 1200

approximately 5% higher.
Loads were applied to the columns approximately 1 h 1000
before the start of the fire endurance tests. The loads were

Temperature (°C)
maintained until a condition was reached at which no 800
further increase of the axial deformations could be
measured, and this condition was selected as the initial 600
condition of the columns’ deformation during the fire tests.
The load was maintained at a constant value until failure of 400
E119
the column, or until 5 h of fire exposure.
Furnace
As discussed in more detail below, Columns 2 and 3 200 38 mm depth (14)
performed extremely well during fire exposure and hence Vert. rebar (5&6)
100 mm depth (16)
displayed no signs of failure up to 5 h of exposure. Thus, at 0
5 h of fire exposure the loads on these two columns were 0 60 120 180 240 300
increased at a constant rate until failure. Actual failure of Time (min)
these two columns occurred in a sudden and explosive Fig. 4. Variation of representative temperatures recorded at selected
manner at about 5.5 h of fire exposure. All other columns locations as a function of time for Column 1.
failed under their sustained loads before 5 h of exposure.
The columns were exposed to heat in such a way as to
follow, as closely as possible, the ULC S101 [21] standard
time–temperature curve (this is equivalent to ASTM E119 1200
[22]).
1000
4. Results and discussion E119
Temperature (°C)

800 Furnace
In this section, results from the experimental studies are Carbon FRP Surface (1&9)
38 mm depth (10)
used to illustrate the comparative behaviour of the five 600 Vert. rebar (11&12)
columns. The columns had reasonably similar character- 100 mm depth (4&7)
istics, except for the overall size of the column, minor 400
reinforcement detailing, and the type of aggregate used.
The type of aggregate did not significantly influence the 200
behaviour of the FRP-strengthened columns with respect
to the unstrengthened columns because the temperatures in 0
the concrete remained well below the temperature (about 0 60 120 180 240 300
500 1C) at which aggregate begins to play an important Time (min)
role. Similarly, the temperatures in the reinforcing steel for
Fig. 5. Variation of representative temperatures recorded at selected
can be assumed (on the basis of the temperatures measured locations as a function of time for Column 2.
at the surface of the concrete), to have remained sufficiently
low so as not to have significantly reduced the steel’s
mechanical properties during the fire test. Thus slightly
1200
different amounts of reinforcing steel in the columns are
assumed not to have affected their respective heat transfer
behaviour (reinforcing steel is commonly considered 1000
insignificant with respect to heat transfer in concrete
Temperature (°C)

members exposed to fire). 800

E119
Furnace
4.1. Temperatures 600 Carbon FRP Surface (1&9)
38 mm depth (10)
Vert. rebar (11&12)
Temperatures recorded at selected locations in all 400 100 mm depth (4&7)
five columns during fire endurance testing are shown in
Figs. 4–8. In all cases, the furnace temperature closely 200
followed the ULC S101 standard fire curve.
The temperature–time curves at various locations 0
Column 1, the unstrengthened circular column, are shown 0 60 120 180 240 300
in Fig. 4. The temperatures inside the concrete rose rapidly Time (min)
to about 100 1C, after which point the temperature Fig. 6. Variation of representative temperatures recorded at selected
continued to increase, although at a slightly decreased locations as a function of time for Column 3.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
V.K.R. Kodur et al. / Fire Safety Journal 41 (2006) 547–557 553

1200 case the steel experienced slightly higher temperatures. In

this case, failure of the column occurred when the
1000 temperatures at its centre reached about 800 1C. The
longitudinal reinforcing steel reached temperatures of more
Temperature (°C)

800 than 700 1C.

Figs. 5 and 6 show temperatures recorded at various
600 locations in Columns 2 and 3, the strengthened circular
columns with different thicknesses of insulation, during
400 exposure to fire. These figures show that that the
E119 temperature of the FRP wraps remained less than 100 1C
Furnace
200 6 mm depth @ corner (28&44) for an extended period of time (for up to 4 h for Column 2).
6 mm depth @ mid-face (13&29) This was due to the provision of requisite thicknesses of the
Vert. rebar (6,11,47&48)
extremely effective VG/EI insulation system on the
0
0 60 120 180 240 columns, which maintained the temperatures at low levels
Time (minutes) for prolonged durations. As expected the temperatures in
Fig. 7. Variation of representative temperatures recorded at selected
Column 3 were generally lower than those observed in
locations as a function of time for Column 4. Column 2, which was protected with approximately half
the thickness of fire insulation as was applied to Column 3.
The temperatures of the steel reinforcing bars and internal
1200 concrete for Columns 2 and 3 were significantly lower (less
than 200 1C for most of the fire exposure) than for Column
1000 1. Since temperatures of less than 200 1C are not
E119
Furnace
structurally significant in terms of deterioration of mechan-
Temperature (°C)

800 GFRP surface @ mid-face (1&3)
GFRP surface at corner (2&4)
Conc. surface @ mid-face (7&16)
600 Conc. surface @ corner (6&8)
400
200
0
0 60 120 180
Time (minutes)
Fig. 8. Variation of representative temperatures recorded at selected
locations as a function of time for Column 5.
rate. This behaviour is due to the evaporation of moisture
from the concrete at temperatures near 100 1C and to the
thermally induced migration of moisture toward the centre
of the column [3]. The temperature at the centre of the
column had reached about 400 1C when failure of the
column occurred. The reinforcing steel in Column 1
reached temperatures in excess of 600 1C at 4 h of exposure,
indicating that the reinforcement had lost a significant
proportion its room temperature strength.
Fig. 7 shows the temperature–time behaviour for
Column 4, the unstrengthened square column. The
temperatures just beneath the surface of the concrete (at
a depth of 6 mm) rose rapidly until the onset of concrete
spalling at a temperature of about 800 1C. The thermo-
couples at the corners recorded higher temperatures than
those at the column’s mid-face (as expected). The
temperatures at the location of the reinforcing steel were
similar to those observed for Column 1, although in this
ical properties for either concrete or steel, it can be stated
with confidence that the FRP strengthened and insulated
columns maintained at least their full unwrapped axial load
carrying capacity for the full 5-plus hour duration of the
tests.
Fig. 8 shows temperatures recorded at various locations
in Column 5, the strengthened and insulated square
column. The temperature of the FRP wrap remained less
than 100 1C for about 30 min in this case, a considerably
240 shorter duration than for Column 2, which had less
insulation. This is presumed to be due to the formation
of cracks in the insulation, which were slightly larger than
those observed for Columns 2 and 3. The VG/EI-R
insulation system maintained the temperatures at levels
well below those observed in Column 4 for the duration of
the test. No thermocouples were installed within the
concrete for Column 5, and it is hence difficult to be
certain of the temperatures experienced by the core
concrete and reinforcing steel. However, these tempera-
tures can reasonably be assumed to have remained low, as
compared with Column 4, on the basis of temperatures
recorded at the level of the FRP–concrete interface.
While it is clear that the temperature of the FRP wraps
exceeded the glass transition temperature of their polymer
matrices/adhesives (refer to Table 3), it is impossible at
present to state conclusively whether, or for what duration,
the FRP wraps remained effective during the fire tests.
Mechanical tests on the specific FRP materials and
adhesives themselves are required to determine their
effectiveness at elevated temperature. Because all five
columns were tested to failure, it also remains unclear
whether, and to what extent, the FRP wraps would have
remained effective after the fire if the tests had been
stopped earlier. This information is important in terms of
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
554 V.K.R. Kodur et al. / Fire Safety Journal 41 (2006) 547–557

the fire survivability of these systems, and testing is during testing, was probably due to a very mild thermal
currently underway at Queen’s University [23] to shed expansion. Comparing Columns 2 and 3, the magnitude of
light in this area. the expansion was greater for Column 2, which experienced
slightly higher internal temperatures than Column 3 due to
a smaller insulation thickness. Unlike Columns 1 and 4,
4.2. Axial deformations there was no contraction observed for Columns 2, 3, or 5
until late in the tests. For Columns 2 and 3 this was
The variation in axial deformation with fire exposure induced by increasing the loads in an effort to fail the
time is shown in Fig. 9a for all five columns. The columns. Fig. 9b shows the load and axial deformation
unstrengthened columns (Columns 1 and 4) initially versus time for Columns 2 and 3, where it is evident that
expanded until the reinforcement yielded at elevated the behaviour of the insulated columns was virtually
temperature. These columns then contracted, eventually identical. For Column 5, it is hypothesized that the
leading to failure. The deformation during fire exposure formation of longitudinal cracks, which were observed in
results from a complex interaction between various factors the insulation late in the fire tests, led to thermal
such as load, thermal expansion, creep, and bending. The concentrations in the concrete, which in turn led to spalling
initial deformation of Columns 1 and 4 was mainly due to of the cover concrete and the insulation, thus causing
the thermal expansion of the concrete and steel upon contraction of the column and failure. Clearly, the lack of
heating. The effect of creep becomes pronounced in the observed deformation in the FRP-strengthened columns is
later stages due to the higher temperatures experienced due to the effective thermal insulation provided by the fire
within the column, thus counteracting any additional protection system.
thermal expansion. The contraction of these columns late
in the exposure is mainly due to loss of strength and 4.3. Fire resistance
stiffness of the concrete and steel as the internal
temperatures increased. Table 3 provides a comparison of the fire-resistance
Most of the deformation of the FRP-strengthened ratings achieved by all five columns, where fire resistance
columns, which displayed only very slight elongations has been defined in terms of the columns’ ability to
maintain their sustained service load for the required
duration during exposure to the ULC S101 [21] standard
10 fire. The fire resistance was greater than 4 h in all cases.
Comparing the fire resistances of the circular columns,
5 Column 1, had a resistance of 245 min, whereas Columns 2
Axial Deformation (mm)

and 3, had fire resistances of greater than 330 min. This

0 result is significant in that it demonstrates that the FRP-
strengthened columns are capable of achieving satisfactory
-5 fire resistances under their strengthened service loads.
Column 1 Clearly, the superior fire resistance of the strengthened
Column 2
-10 Column 3 columns, as compared to the conventional column, can be
Column 4
Column 5
attributed to the presence of the fire protection system.
-15 Column 1 experienced sudden failure in compression
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 under service load at 4:05 of the fire test, with approxi-
(a) Time (min) mately 30% of the cover concrete spalling upon failure.
5
Columns 2 and 3 failed beyond 5:30 of the fire exposure by
4800
crushing and spalling of concrete at loads of 4437 and
0 4400 4680 kN, respectively. The reader will note that this
Axial Elongation (mm)

represents and applied load of more than 180% of the

4000
-5 required service load. Fig. 10 shows Column 3 before
Load (kN)

ISIS-2 Axial Elongation

ISIS-1 Axial Elongation 3600 testing and after failure.
-10 ISIS-2 Applied Load
In terms of the performance of the square columns,
ISIS-1 Applied Load 3200
Column 4 had a fire resistance of 262 min, while for
-15
2800 Column 5 it was 256 min. Again, the satisfactory fire
-20 behaviour of the strengthened column under increased
2400
service loads can be attributed to the thermal insulation
-25 2000 provided by the fire protection system.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 As was the case for Column 1, Column 4 experienced
(b) Time (min) sudden failure in compression under service load, with
Fig. 9. Axial deformations as a function of time for (a) all five columns failure accompanied by spalling of approximately 30% of
and (b) Columns 2 and 3 including applied load versus time curves. the cover concrete. Column 5 failed by sudden combustion
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
V.K.R. Kodur et al. / Fire Safety Journal 41 (2006) 547–557
of the FRP wrap, accompanied by crushing and spalling of
concrete. It remains unclear whether combustion of the
FRP wrap led to spalling or whether the converse is true.
Fig. 11 shows Column 5 before testing and immediately
after failure.
The observed superior behaviour of the square insulated
FRP-wrapped RC column is consistent with results of the
fire tests on circular insulated FRP-wrapped RC columns
discussed previously. However, the performance in fire of
the circular columns was superior to that of the square
columns for both the wrapped and unwrapped cases, as
expected.
It should be noted that Columns 1 and 4 were fabricated
from siliceous aggregate concrete whereas columns 2, 3,
and 5 were fabricated from carbonate aggregate concrete.
Fig. 10. Circular FRP wrapped in insulated column (Column 3) (a)
immediately before testing and (b) after failure.
Fig. 11. Square FRP-wrapped and insulated column (Column 5) (a)
immediately before testing and (b) after failure.
555
Siliceous aggregate typically results in lower fire resistances
as compared with carbonate aggregate concrete [24],
although this is not thought to have been a significant
factor in the tests described herein, as discussed previously.
4.4. Fire protection system
The insulated columns did not display any significant
deformation or signs of failure for at least 4 h of fire
exposure under their strengthened service loads, which can
be attributed primarily to the strong performance of the
fire protection system.
For Columns 2 and 3, the intumescent EI coating
activated within the first 3–4 min of the test. Expansion of
the EI coating was complete within 10 min of fire
exposure, and the expanded EI char began to debond
from columns within 15 min of exposure. The beneficial
effects of the EI coating on the overall fire performance of
the columns were twofold. First, the EI acted as an initial
defence against the fire and reduced the temperatures
experienced in the column in the very early stages of the
fire. The effectiveness of the intumescent char was
relatively short-lived, however, and it is thus not thought
to be significant in the long-term performance of the
insulation system. Hence, Column 5 was tested with a non-
intumescent EI-R coating in place of EI. The EI-R coating
appeared to burn off within the first 15 minutes of fire
exposure. Second, the EI (or EI-R) coating acted as an
impervious membrane, which trapped moisture inside the
VG insulation and enhances its insulating capabilities.
When exposed to elevated temperature, VG insulation
releases chemically combined water in the form of water
vapour, which helps to maintain its temperature near
100 1C until all of the water has been driven off.
Meanwhile, the insulating action of a lightweight filler
delays the release of steam and retards the transmission of
heat, thus improving the overall fire-proofing character-
istics. The VG insulation performed well under fire
exposure, and remained intact until failure, when the
violent failure mode caused it to suddenly debond.
Only minimal changes were observed in the appearance
of the VG insulation during the fire exposure, such as the
formation of cracks, generally less than 5 mm wide, which
gradually appeared and widened as the test progressed.
From structural point of view, the FRP-strengthened and
insulated columns behaved better than the unstrengthened
columns.
5. Significance for fire safety of FRP-strengthened columns
The test data presented previously demonstrate that it is
possible to design fire-safe FRP strengthening systems.
However, it is instructive to consider more generally the
issues involved in designing these systems for fire. Most
existing design codes and guidelines for strengthening RC
structures with FRP materials [15,25,26] suggest that, to
protect against sudden and complete loss of effectiveness of
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
556 V.K.R. Kodur et al. / Fire Safety Journal 41 (2006) 547–557
FRP wraps, the unfactored service load on the strengthened
column should not exceed the ultimate design strength of
the pre-existing (unstrengthened) member. This limit
provides a measure of protection against poor installation
practices or vandalism in addition to fire. Under this
philosophy, the increases in strength due to FRP wrapping
must be limited to between 25% and 70% for columns,
depending on the load factors enforced and the live to dead
load ratio for the specific member being strengthened.
For the specific case of loss of the FRP due to fire, it is
important to remember that we are concerned primarily
with life-safety objectives. Structural fire resistance require-
ments for columns are intended to prevent structural
collapse. In these situations, the loads on the members are
typically less [4] and the above requirement can be relaxed
so that the unfactored service load on the column should
not exceed the nominal strength of the unstrengthened
member for the required duration during fire. This can be
expressed as [25]:
ðRny Þnew Xð1:0SDL þ 1:0SLL Þnew .
This is essentially a statement of the ULC S101 [21] (or
ASTM E119 [22]) structural fire endurance criterion for
columns, and confirms that loss of the effectiveness of the
FRP is not explicitly a concern. Various design codes
support the use of slightly different versions of the above
equation. For instance, the Eurocodes [27] allow a further
reduction of the live load factor from 1.0 to 0.9 during fire.
The above equation suggests that, if the nominal
capacity of the strengthened member can be protected
from fire (using supplemental fire protection for instance)
then the member might be able to achieve satisfactory fire
resistance under increased loads, as has been shown
through the testing presented in this paper. Currently, the
only way to rationally estimate the nominal strength of an
FRP-wrapped and insulated RC column during fire is by
using the numerical models previously developed by the
authors [7]. The reader will note that there is currently no
specific requirement that the temperature remain below its
Tg to ensure adequate fire resistance.
The requirements stated above assume complete loss of
effectiveness of FRP during fire. The strength of externally
bonded FRP materials could be used in a fire situation if
and only if the temperature of the FRP is kept below a
‘‘critical’’ temperature. Unfortunately, critical tempera-
tures remain unknown for currently available FRP-
strengthening systems. The conservative lower bound is
likely to be in the range of Tg (typically below 100 1C),
while the upper bound could be as high as 300 1C (in non
bond critical applications) based on available research
[9,10–12]. It is important to recognize that the results
presented in this paper apply to FRP-confined columns
only, and they should not be taken to apply to FRP-
strengthened beams. However, tests on FRP-strengthened
beams conducted by the authors REF have indicated that
flexurally strengthened concrete beams can be similarly
protected against fire [8,9]. Clearly, additional research is
required in this area. It is also important to recognize the
respective roles of the FRP wraps and the insulation in
providing adequate structural fire endurance. The FRP
wraps provide an increase in the ultimate limit state
strength at room temperature, but are assumed to be
ineffective in fire. The insulation provides fire resistance to
the existing column, such that it can resist service loads
during fire in the post-strengthened condition.
6. Ongoing research and numerical modelling
A primary objective of the experimental studies reported
above was to obtain test data for the development of
numerical models that can predict the behaviour of FRP-
wrapped RC columns under fire conditions. The develop-
ment of computer programs for the calculation of the fire
resistance of FRP-wrapped RC columns is ongoing.
Details of a numerical model for the fire resistance
prediction of circular FRP-wrapped columns have been
presented by Bisby et al. [7], and similar models for square
(1)
columns are under development. To validate these models,
further full-scale fire tests are being conducted on FRP-
wrapped RC columns with various FRP wrap in insulation
systems. Once validated, the computer programs will be
available to aid in the development of design requirements
for these types of members.
7. Conclusions
Based on the data presented and discussed herein, the
following conclusions can be drawn:
 Unlike conventional square RC columns, FRP-strength-
ened square RC columns require suitable fire protection,
in most cases, to achieve the required fire endurance
ratings under increased (strengthened) service loads. The
performance of protected FRP-strengthened square RC
columns at high temperatures can be similar to, or better
than, that of conventional RC columns.
 FRP-strengthened square RC columns protected with
the fire-protection system discussed herein are capable
of achieving fire endurance ratings of 4 h or more
according to CAN/CSA-S101 requirements, under full
service loads.
 The supplementary insulation described herein is an
effective fire protection system. Visual observations
made during the fire tests indicated that the insulation
remained intact for more than 4 h of exposure to the
standard fire with only minimal cracking. Clearly, the
supplemental fire insulation is the primary factor
contributing to satisfactory fire performance of these
types of members. Thus, future work should focus on
understanding and modelling various available fire
insulation materials. This will reduce reliance on time-
consuming and costly full-scale fire-resistance tests.
 Further studies, currently in progress, will generate
additional data on the fire endurance of FRP–RC
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
V.K.R. Kodur et al. / Fire Safety Journal 41 (2006) 547–557
members and will identify the conditions under which
these members can be safely used. Numerical models are
under development and will be used in the future to
develop design guidelines for FRP-strengthened con-
crete members.
Acknowledgements
The research presented in this paper is the result of a
partnership between NRC, Intelligent Sensing for Innova-
tive Structures (ISIS Canada), Queen’s University, Cana-
da, and industrial partners Fyfe Co. LLC and Degussa
Building Systems. The authors would like to acknowledge
these organizations for their support of, and partici
pation in, this important research. The authors would also
like to thank NRC Technical Officers J. Hum, J. Latour,
P. Leroux and R. Monnette for their assistance with the fire
experiments.
References
[1] Lie TT, Woolerton JL. Fire resistance of reinforced concrete
columns: test results. IRC internal report no. 569. Ottawa, ON:
National Research Council of Canada; 1988.
[2] Kodur VKR. Fire resistance requirements for FRP structural
members. Proceedings of the annual conference of the Canadian
Society for Civil Engineering. Canadian Society for Civil Engineer-
ing; 2001. p. 83–95.
[3] ASCE. Structural fire protection. Manuals and reports on engineer-
ing practice no. 78. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers;
1992.
[4] Buchanan AH. Structural design for fire safety. New York: Wiley;
2001.
[5] Blontrock H, Taerwe L, Vandevelde P. Fire testing of concrete slabs
strengthened with fibre composite laminates. In: Proceedings of the
fifth annual symposium on fibre-reinforced-plastic reinforcement for
concrete structures. London, UK: Thomas Telford; 2001. p. 547–56.
[6] Kodur VKR, Bisby LA. Evaluation of fire endurance of concrete
slabs reinforced with fiber-reinforced polymer bars. J Struct Eng
2005;131(1):34–43.
[7] Bisby LA, Green MF, Kodur VKR. Modeling the behavior of fiber
reinforced polymer-confined concrete columns exposed to fire. J
Compos Constr 2005;9(1):15–24.
[8] Williams BK, Bisby LA, Green MF, Kodur VKR. An investigation
of the fire behaviour of FRP-strengthened reinforced concrete beams.
In: Proceedings, structural faults and repair. Edinburgh, UK:
Engineering Technics Press; 2003 (CD-ROM).
[9] Bisby LA, Green MF, Kodur VKR. Response to fire of concrete
structures that incorporate FRP. Prog Struct Eng Mater 2005;7(3):
136–49.
557
[10] Wang YC, Wong PMH, Kodur VKR. Mechanical properties of fibre
reinforced polymer reinforcing bars at elevated temperatures. In:
Proceedings of ASCE/SFPE conference on designing structures for
fire. Baltimore, MD: Society of Fire Protection Engineers; 2003.
[11] Katz A, Berman N, Bank LC. Effect high temperature on the bond
strength of FRP rebars. J Compos Constr 1999;3(2):73–81.
[12] Blontrock H, Taerwe L, Matthys S. Properties of fiber reinforced
plastics at elevated temperatures with regard to fire resistance of
reinforced concrete members. In: Proceedings of the fourth interna-
tional symposium on fibre reinforced polymer reinforcement for
reinforced concrete structures. Farmington Hills, MI: American
Concrete Institute; 1999. p. 43–54.
[13] CSA. CAN/CSA A23.3-94: design of concrete structures. Ottawa,
ON: Canadian Standards Association; 1994.
[14] CSA. CAN.CSA A5-93: Portland cement. Ottawa, ON: Canadian
Standards Association; 1993.
[15] ISIS Canada. Design manual no. 4: strengthening reinforced concrete
structures with externally bonded fiber reinforced polymers. Winni-
peg, MB: Intelligent Sensing for Innovative Structures Canada; 2001.
[16] Teng J, Chen J, Smith S, Lam L. FRP strengthened RC structures.
London, UK: Wiley; 2002.
[17] Bisby LA. Fire behaviour of FRP reinforced or confined concrete.
Doctoral thesis. Kingston, ON: Department of Civil Engineering,
Queen’s University; 2003.
[18] Kodur VKR, Bisby LA, Green MF, Chowdhury E. Fire endurance
experiments on FRP-strengthened reinforced concrete columns.
Research report IRC-RR-185. Ottawa, ON: Institute for Research
in Construction, National Research Council Canada; 2005.
[19] Lie TT. New facility to determine fire resistance of columns. Can J
Civil Eng 1980;7:551–8.
[20] NRC. National Building Code of Canada. Ottawa, ON: National
Research Council of Canada; 1995.
[21] ULC. CAN/ULC-S101-M89: standard methods of fire endurance
tests of building construction and materials. Scarborough, ON:
Underwriters’ Laboratories of Canada; 1989.
[22] ASTM. Standard methods of fire tests of building construction and
materials. ASTM E119–01. West Conshoken, PA: American Society
for Testing and Materials; 2001.
[23] Foster SK, Bisby LA. High temperature residual properties of
externally bonded FRP systems for concrete. Proceedings of the
seventh international symposium on fiber reinforced polymers for
reinforced concrete structures. Farmington Hills, MI: American
Concrete Institute; 2005. p. n/a.
[24] Kodur VKR, Harmathy T Z. Properties of building materials. In:
SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering. Quincy, MA:
National Fire Protection Association; 2002 (p. 1.155–1.181).
[25] ACI. ACI 440.2R-02: guide for the design and construction of
externally bonded FRP systems for strengthening concrete structures.
Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute; 2002.
[26] The Concrete Society. Design guidance for strengthening concrete
structures using fibre composite materials. Technical report no. 55.
Surrey, UK: The Concrete Society; 2004.
[27] ECI. Eurocode 1: basis of design and design actions on structures.
Part 2-2: actions of structure during Fire. Brussels, Belgium:
European Committee for Standardization. 1994.