ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 92-S38

Repair of Fire-Damaged Reinforced Concrete Columns

by Chien-Hung Lin, Shun-Tyan Chen, and Chen-An Yang

Both analytical and experimental methods were employed to investigate the

behavior of reinforced concrete columns repaired after fire. Eleven col-
umns were first exposed to various durations of fire and then repaired
based on results of thermal analyses using the finite element method. The
unheated and repaired columns were subjected to eccentric axial loads to
determine their stiffness and ultimate strengths. The results show that most
repaired columns could develop their original strength and stiffness or
even higher than those of unheated columns. Also, the analytical results
coincide with the experimental data.

Keywords: columns (supports); fires; reinforced concrete; repairs; stiff-

ness; strength.

If a reinforced concrete structure is exposed to a fire, the

question that arises is whether the structure is still adequate
to safely sustain the original design loads, since it is usually
more economical to repair the structure than rebuild it.
Research1-3 has been done to evaluate the strength and stiff-
ness of reinforced concrete columns after fires. This paper
presents an experimental study on repairing fire-damaged
concrete columns. Eleven columns with different cross
sections were exposed to various furnace-simulated levels of
fire environment to evaluate damage to the concrete columns
and subsequent repair procedures. The repair work involved
removing surface layers of calcined concrete and surface
cleaning and patching using specially designed concrete.
The required strength of the repair concrete was determined
by means of thermal analyses based on finite element
scheme. The analyses determined the temperature distribu-
tion in the column section during fire, computed the temper-
ature effect on the residual strength of concrete, and varied
the strength of repair concrete to find the required value to
restore the original strength of the column cross sections.
After the columns were repaired, load tests were carried out.
The results of repaired columns were compared with those of
columns that were not exposed to fire (undamaged) to verify
the adequacy of repair and the finite element analyses.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Research on residual strengths of fire-damaged concrete
columns has been reported. However, the literature survey
reveals that no data on repaired columns were conceivably
available. The objective of this study is to generate the
Fig. 1—Test specimen.
needed data to those who may be engaged in rehabilitation of
concrete columns after fire.
SPECIMENS AND TEST PROCEDURES
A total of 11 square cross section test columns were made
for this study. The cross section dimensions were 400 mm
(15.7 in.), 300 mm (11.8 in.), and 200 mm (7.9 in.) square.
Details of the test columns are shown in Fig. 1 and Table 1.
Chromel-alumel K-type thermocouples that were 1.0 mm
were installed in each test column to monitor the temperature
distribution through the cross sections during fire simula-
tions. The maximum temperature that can be measured by
this type of thermocouple is 950 C (1742 F). It has been
shown that the temperature variation along the longitudinal
direction of the column is not significant;1 thermocouples
were installed across one cross section at midheight of the
column. The locations of the thermocouples are shown in Fig. 2.
ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 4, July-August 1995.
Received November 3, 1994, and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
Copyright © 1995, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the
making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion will be published in the May-June 1996 ACI Materials Journal if
received by January 1, 1996.

406 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 1995

 columns. The test setup is sketched in Fig. 3. The load was
ACI member Chien-Hung Lin is a professor of civil engineering at National Chung-
Hsing University, Taiwan, Republic of China. He received his MS and PhD degrees applied through displacement control so that the descending
from the University of Texas at Austin. His research interests include reinforced con- portion of the load-deformation curve could be obtained
crete structures and structural analysis. correctly. Readings from the dial gages were converted to the
Shun-Tyan Chen is a professor of construction engineering at National Taiwan Insti- column curvature at each load step.
tute of Technology, Taiwan, Republic of China. He received his PhD degree from the
University of Washington at Seattle. His research interests include finite element mod-
eling of reinforced concrete structures and construction engineering.
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSES
A finite element computer program was developed5 to
Chen-An Yang is a former graduate student of construction engineering at National calculate the temperature distribution in the test columns
Taiwan Institute of Technology, and currently a PhD candidate in civil engineering at during fire. The results were used in conjunction with phys-
National Taiwan University.
ical properties of concrete exposed to fire to evaluate the
residual strength and stiffness of the column section. The
Ready-mixed concrete was used to cast the test columns. stress-strain curve for concrete after exposure to fire may be
After 28 days, the specimens were placed in a gas furnace, represented by the following:
which measured 4000 mm (157.5 in.) long, l500 mm (59.l for εc ≤ εo
in.) wide, and 1500 mm (59.1 in.) deep. The heat input was
controlled manually so that the average furnace temperature ε o – ε c⎞ 2
closely followed the BS476 temperature rise curve4 f c = f rc 1 – ⎛ ---------------
- (2)
⎝ ε ⎠
o
T = 345log(480t + 1) (1)
for εc > εo
where T is the temperature, C, and t is the time, hr. The test
columns were exposed to the simulated fire for the durations ε c – ε o⎞ 2
f c = f rc 1 – ⎛ ---------------
- (3)
specified in Table 1, cooled to ambient temperature, and ⎝ 3ε ⎠
o
taken out of the furnace. The damaged exterior concrete on
the heated columns was mechanically removed and repaired
with fresh cast-in-place concrete. The required design mix or in which
minimum compressive strength for the fresh concrete for
each damaged column was evaluated using finite element εo = 0.0025 + (6.0T + 0.04T 2) × 10–6 (4)
analyses. The strength of the new concrete had to be higher
than the original specified minimum to compensate for the frc = fco(1 – 0.001T) for T ≤ 500°C (5)
concrete strength loss in the column core. Before the new
concrete was cast, cement paste was placed on the roughened
surface of the concrete core to insure a good bond between
old and new concrete. The w/c of the cement paste was 0.5.
An expansive admixture was used in the new concrete mix
to reduce shrinkage.
After the repair concrete reached 28-day strength, the
columns were load-tested with a 600-ton MTS machine. The
axial load was applied eccentrically. To monitor the axial
deformation and curvature, six dial gages were installed
along the column. Swivel heads were employed to simulate
hinge-type connection at the top and bottom of the test Fig. 2—Locations of thermocouples.

Table 1—Specimen detail

Area of longitudinal Section size, Thickness of Eccentricity of Duration of fco of repair
Specimen no. steel, cm2 fy, MPa fco , MPa cm concrete cover, cm Tie spacing, cm axial load, cm fire, hr concrete, MPa
D1T0 23.2 391 18.6 40 x40 5.0 25.0 20.0 0 —
D1T1 23.2 391 18.6 40 x 40 5.0 25.0 20.0 1 30.9
DlT2 23.2 391 18.6 40 x 40 5.0 25.0 20.0 2 34.3
DlT3 23.2 391 18.6 40 x 40 5.0 25.0 20.0 3 33.2
D2T0 15.5 391 18.6 30 x 30 5.0 25.0 15.0 0 —
D2T1 15.5 391 18.6 30 x 30 5.0 25.0 15.0 1 30.3
D2T2 15.5 391 18.6 30 x 30 5.0 25.0 15.0 2 31.7
D3T0 7.6 435 18.6 20 x 20 6.0 20.0 10.0 0 —
D3T1 7.6 435 18.6 20 x 20 6.0 20.0 10.0 1 39.8
D3T2 7.6 435 18.6 20 x 20 6.0 20.0 10.0 2 39.8
D3T3 7.6 435 18.6 20 x 20 6.0 20.0 10.0 3 39.8

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 1995 407

Fig. 3—Test setup.

Fig. 5—Temperature distribution in column section, D1

specimens.

fc = fco k[1 – Zm(εc – εo)] for εc ≥ εo (9)

but

fc ≥ 0.2kfco

where

ρ s f y⎞
k = ⎛ 1 + --------
-
Fig. 4—Temperature rise curves. ⎝ f ⎠ co

frc = fco(1.375 – 0.00175T) for 500°C ≤ T ≤ 700°C (6) εco = 0.002k

frc = 0 for T > 700°C (7)

0.5
Z m = -------------------------------------
-
where ε 50u + ε 50h – ε o
fco = cylinder strength of concrete not exposed to fire, at
28 days ε50u = strain of unconfined concrete corresponding to 0.5fco
frc = residual strength of concrete after fire ε50u + ε50h = strain of confined concrete corresponding to 0.5fco
fc = concrete stress ρs = volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement.
εc = concrete strain The reinforcing steel will recover almost all its original
εo = concrete strain corresponding to frc strength after cooling to ambient temperature.1,8 Thus, the
T = highest temperature attained by concrete stress-strain relations for steel before and after fire employed
The preceding stress-strain relations for concrete after fire in this study may be expressed by
were obtained by combining the stress-strain curve for
concrete under fire,6 and relations between residual strength fs = Es εs for εs ≤ εy (10)
and temperature of concrete.1
The stress-strain curve for concrete not exposed to fire can fs = fy for εs > εy (11)
be represented by7
where
2ε ε
f c = f co k -------c- – ⎛ ----c-⎞ for 0 ≤ εc ≤ εo (8) fs = steel stress
εo ⎝ ε o⎠ εs = steel strain

408 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 1995

Table 2—Thermocouple readings, C, versus time, min
D1T3 D2T2 D3T3
Fire dura-
tion, min S1 S2 S3 Ml M2 M3 M4 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5
10 20.2 25.8 45.2 19.6 19.6 34.7 104.7 17.8 17.8 19.0 31.3 74.6
20 39.2 61.2 109.5 30.9 29.6 90.8 169.9 17.9 18.4 30.8 68.4 118.4
30 105.4 119.9 136.3 55.9 59.2 120.5 259.0 18.9 20.5 49.7 109.9 165.7
40 126.5 130.2 153.7 92.9 88.6 119.8 324.2 22.4 30.2 97.1 116.1 229.2
50 111.6 118.5 195.0 105.8 105.2 134.1 378.7 52.6 104.2 114.8 126.8 289.9
60 111.8 134.6 242.6 109.1 110.2 164.9 426.2 95.6 115.8 116.7 158.2 340.1
70 113.9 172.9 295.6 106.3 107.5 196.3 469.1 104.9 114.5 115.1 190.3 383.5
80 138.3 219.0 346.7 104.8 105.8 227.2 511.3 107.6 112.6 113.4 222.0 422.4
90 190.0 267.8 395.7 104.1 106.3 258.5 549.5 108.2 110.6 123.1 252.0 458.6
100 245.9 316.9 442.9 104.6 115.7 289.5 586.3 107.8 109.0 140.7 279.7 493.5
110 297.5 364.6 489.0 114.7 128.2 320.1 621.8 106.7 107.3 156.4 307.0 526.7
120 343.8 410.6 532.4 130.1 148.0 349.7 642.2 105.7 106.0 180.2 333.7 559.3
130 388.3 454.4 574.6 — — — — 104.7 105.0 200.4 360.4 592.1
140 430.2 494.4 617.8 — — — — 103.7 104.0 221.1 386.6 622.9
150 471.1 530.9 659.1 — — — — 103.5 103.6 242.6 412.6 653.0
160 507.9 561.9 699.9 — — — — 102.8 103.0 263.5 437.6 682.3
170 532.5 600.0 739.0 -— — — — 102.0 101.9 282.2 460.4 709.3
180 546.4 640.0 776.2 — — — — 102.0 109.3 303.2 485.4 733.3

Fig. 6—Test results of Specimen D1T1. Fig. 7—Test results of Specimen D1T2.

εy = yield strain of steel
Es = modulus of elasticity of steel
The residual strength and stiffness of the test columns with
eccentric axial loading can then be derived from load-curva-
ture analysis.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The measured furnace temperature followed by Eq. (1) is
shown in Fig. 4. The measured temperature distribution in
the column sections coincide with the analytical temperature
distribution as shown in Fig. 5. Temperature readings from
thermocouples versus time are shown in Table 2.
During load tests, the readings from dial gages were
converted to curvature. The load-curvature curves for all the
test columns are plotted in Fig. 6 through 13. In each of these
figures, comparisons can be made between unrepaired
columns and repaired columns, and experimental and analyt-
ical results. Curve 1 represents the analytical load-curvature
relations of the fire-exposed but unrepaired column, Curve 2
represents the analytical load-curvature relations of the fire-
exposed and repaired column, Curve 3 represents the exper-
imental load-curvature relations of the fire-exposed and
repaired column, and Curve 4 represents the experimental
load-curvature relations of the undamaged column not
exposed to fire. In Fig. 6 and 7, the repaired columns
regained about the same strength and stiffness as the undam-
aged column not exposed to fire. But in Fig. 8, because weak
repair concrete cover spalled early in the load test, the
repaired column showed a much lower strength. Fig. 9 and
10 show good comparisons. The repaired 30 x 30-cm test
columns regained about the same strength as the undamaged
column. In Fig. 11 and 12, owing to mix proportions, which
yielded excessive compressive strength of the new concrete,

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 1995 409

Fig. 8—Test results of Specimen D1T3.
Fig. 11—Test results of Specimen D3T1.

Fig. 9—Test results of Specimen D2T1.

Fig. 12—Test results of Specimen D3T2.

Fig. 10—Test results of Specimen D2T2.

Fig. 13—Test results of Specimen D3T3.

the repaired columns showed higher strength and stiffness
than the undamaged columns. In Fig. 13, the experimental
and analytical results are again close enough.
In the preceding comparisons, the analytical results coin-
cide with the experimental results. Also, the concrete
columns that were damaged by fire can be repaired to retain
their original strength and stiffness, if the repair work is
properly done.

410 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 1995

 CONCLUSIONS t = fire duration, hr
Both analytical and experimental methods were employed T = highest temperature attained by concrete, C
to investigate the strength and stiffness of reinforced εc = strain in concrete
εo = concrete strain corresponding to maximum stress
concrete columns repaired after fire damage. The results εs = strain in reinforcement
showed that the analytical approach is a useful tool and that εy = yield strain of steel
damaged columns are, in general, repairable. They also indi- ρs = volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement
cated that the stress-strain curve for concrete after fire repre-
sented by Eq. (2) and (3) is reasonable, as shown in the REFERENCES
1. Lie, T. T.; Rowe, T. J.; and Lin, T. D., “Residual Strength of Fire
comparisons of analytical and experimental results. Exposed RC Columns,” Evaluation and Repair of Fire Damage to Con-
crete, SP-92, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1986, pp. 153-174.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 2. Lin, C. H.; Chen, S. T.; and Hwang, T. L., “Residual Strength of RC
The study described in this paper was sponsored through Grant No. NSC78- Columns Exposed to Fire,” Journal, Chinese Institute of Engineers (Tai-
0410-E011-13 by the National Science Council, Taiwan, R.O.C. The authors wan), V. 12, No. 5, 1989, pp. 557-565.
gratefully acknowledge the support. Thanks are also extended to National 3. Lin, C. H., and Tsay, C. S., “Deterioration of Strength and Stiffness of
Taiwan Institute of Technology for providing the needed test facilities. RC Columns after Fire,” Journal, Chinese Institute of Engineers (Taiwan),
V. 13, No. 3, 1990, pp. 273-283.
4. British Standards Institution, “Fire Tests on Building Materials and
CONVERSION FACTORS Structures, Part 8: Test Methods and Criteria for the Fire Resistance of Ele-
2.54 cm = l in.
1 MPa = 145 psi ments of Building Construction,” BS 476, London, 1972.
1 cm = 10 mm 5. Shieh, T. H., “Behavior of RC Members after Fire Analyzed by Finite
1 kN = 224.8 lb Element Method,” MS thesis, Department of Construction Engineering,
National Taiwan Institute of Technology, Taipei, 1989.
NOTATION 6. Lie, T. T.; Lin, T. D.; Allen, D. E.; and Abrams, M. S., “Fire Resis-
b = width of column section tance of Reinforced Concrete Columns,” National Research Council Can-
Es = modulus of elasticity of reinforcement ada, Division of Building Research, DBR Paper 1167, NRCC 23065,
fc = stress in concrete Ottawa, 1984.
fco = cylinder strength of concrete without being exposed to fire 7. Scott, B. D.; Park, R.; and Priestley, M. J. N., “Stress-Strain Behavior
frc = residual strength of concrete after exposed to temperature, T of Concrete Confined by Overlapping Hoops at Low and High Strain
fs = stress in reinforcement Rate,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 79, No. 1, 1982, pp. 13-27.
fy = yield stress of reinforcement 8. Malhotra, H. L., Design of Fire-Resisting Structures, Chapman &
h = depth of column section Hall, New York, 1982, 226 pp.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 1995 411