Structures 22 (2019) 266–277

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Influence of post-heating on the behavior of reinforced self-compacting T

concrete hollow columns
⁎
Thaar S. Al-Gasham , Jasim M. Mhalhal, Hussain A. Jabir
Civil Engineering Department, College of Engineering, University of Wasit,Kut, Iraq

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this paper, an experimental investigation was implemented for evaluating the behavior of reinforced self-
Hollow columns compacting hollow columns after heating to 600 °C. The test parameters were the hollowness ratio and exposure
Heat time. Twelve columns were fabricated with four hollowness ratios (0.0%, 2.3%, 9.0%, and 20.3%). Accordingly,
Fire these columns were grouped into four categories. For each category, one column was un-heated, kept as a
Temperature
reference, and the remaining two columns were heated for one and two hours, respectively. After cooling down,
Stiffness
Toughness
the columns were subjected to a concentric axial load up to failure. The test results revealed that the ultimate
Ductility load, stiffness, and toughness of columns were reduced after heating and then cooling, whereas the ductility was
found to be improved. These observations were more significant for columns having the largest hollow (20.3%)
and heated for two hours.

1. Introduction
Fire is considered a destructive power [1,2], resulting in the deaths
of thousands of people around the world as well as billion losses in
properties annually [3,4]. Worldwide, Most buildings are made of re-
inforced concrete (RC), which may experience an extreme fire during
their service life, as happened in the 9/11 terrorist attack in New York
[5]. Therefore, the concept of fire safety must be considered in de-
signing RC structures, this concept highly depends on the fire resistance
of constitutive materials, concrete, and steel bars [6–8]. Generally,
concrete has an excellent fire resistance because of comparatively slight
thermal conductivity, good thermal capacity, and slower decay of its
mechanical properties with elevated temperatures [9,10]. In spite of
these positive thermal properties of concrete, a noteworthy decline in
strength and stiffness of RC elements is reported after heating [9].
Li et al. [11] reported that the concrete is highly sensitive to tem-
peratures. Furthermore, the mechanical properties of concrete were
found to be altered due to rigorous microstructural changes induced in
high temperatures [12,13]. Moreover, the concrete spalling with huge
permanent deformations and high reinforcing bars temperatures were
reported to RC members under severe heating, exceeding 500 °C.
However, the damage level depends on several factors such as the
properties of steel re-bars and concrete, the scenario of fire exposure
and a constraint degree (supports) [14]. These factors, however, result
in evaluating the residual strength of heated RC members to be highly
complex since they remarkably vary in different ways, and they are
interdependent [9].
Recently, a set of procedures has been available for evaluating the
residual strength of exposed RC members. They have various com-
plexity, ranging from simple design procedures based on the dimen-
sions of the cross-sectional area to extremely complicated multi-phase
methods for heated concrete members [15].
Among these procedures, Eurocode 2 part 1-2 [16] presents a simple
method for determining the residual strength of RC member subjected
to heating. In which, parts of the cross-section, suffering temperatures
higher than 500 °C, are not considered for the ultimate load, whereas
the other parts are assumed to keep their original strength and stiffness.
The other design codes, including ACI 216.1 [17], BS 8110-2 [18], and
AS 3600 [19] introduce prescriptive approaches to determine the fire
resistance period of RC elements like the tabulated method that assigns
some limitations on the minimum concrete covers as well as the
minimum members' dimensions. Usually, these limitations based on test
results conducted on RC elements exposed to heating according to
ASTM E119, BS 476-20 [20], or ISO 834-1 [21].
Broadly, these standards give a conservative design and a rare in-
sight into the influence of many parameters that play an important role
in the fire resistance of RC structures. These parameters involve the
loading level, material characteristics that vary with temperature,
support condition, and concrete behavior after cracking [22–24].
Therefore, experiments, conducting on RC members exposed to heating

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: thaar@uowasit.edu.iq (T.S. Al-Gasham).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2019.08.013
Received 5 April 2019; Received in revised form 27 August 2019; Accepted 28 August 2019
2352-0124/ © 2019 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T.S. Al-Gasham, et al.
are still needed, especially for RC columns where the failure may sud-
denly occur, leading to the progressive collapse in RC buildings.
Until now, the residual strength and stiffness of RC columns ex-
perienced fire damage are not well evaluated where the available ex-
perimental data on the behavior of RC columns after heating is limited
[25–27]. An experimental investigation [28] was conducted to evaluate
the influence of the columns' shape on their behavior after heating to
500 °C. The results stated that about 44% and 42% losses were ob-
served, respectively, in the load-carrying capacity of the square and
circular columns. In addition, strengthening these post-exposed col-
umns by FRP enhanced the strength considerably. Another experi-
mental investigation [29] reported a 51% and 49% drop in the ultimate
load of the square and circular columns upon heating to 600 °C for two
hours and then cooling, respectively. This study also referred to develop
the column ductility after heating with a significant decay in the
column stiffness. Besides, other studies [30–32] focused on repairing
and reusing RC columns damaged due to heating by using different
techniques. On the other hand, the fire responses of normal concrete
strength (NCS) and high concrete strength (HCS) columns were com-
pared experimentally [33], and the findings stated that the NCS col-
umns displayed higher fire resistance than the HCS columns did.
Further, two studies [34,35] were presented to evaluate the fire
effect on reactive powder concrete columns. These columns were
burned to different temperatures for one and two hours. According to
the results, the residual strength of these columns was slightly devel-
oped due to reducing the tie spacing and increasing the concrete
strength.
In the last decades, using RC hollow columns has been growing due
to several reasons, including obtaining optimum strength/mass and
stiffness/mass ratios of structural members required for reducing their
seismic response, reducing the overall foundation sizes, and providing a
space to access miscellaneous services as plumbing pipes, and electric
wires [36,37].
In case of exposing to extreme temperature, hollow columns are
expected to lose a higher percentage of their strength than solid col-
umns due to eliminating the concrete core, which does not experience
an extreme temperature compared to other parts of the cross-section
that located close to the heating resources. Although this critical issue,
there is only one paper [38] to the best knowledge of authors that dealt
with hollow columns exposed to fire. In this paper, columns were made
of normal concrete with a square cross-section of a 120 mm side length
and a total height of 600 mm. These columns were subjected to fire
flame of different temperatures (300 °C, 500 °C, and 700 °C) for one
hour. After cooling down, they were tested under concentric axial
loads. However, the observations were limited to ultimate loads and
deflections. Moreover, the study did not capture the real situation for
fire accidents where the columns were placed horizontally inside the
furnace, and the fire flame was allowed to penetrate the hollow parts.
In the current investigation, an experimental program was con-
ducted for providing an insight into the influence of post-heating to
600 °C on the behavior of self-compacting hollow columns. The para-
meters of this study were the hollowness ratio (0%, 2.3%, 9.0%, and
20.3%) and the exposure time (0, 1, and 2) hours. Beyond cooling down
gradually, the columns were subjected to concentric axial loads up to
failure. The findings are discussed in terms of ultimate loads and de-
flections, stiffness, ductility, and toughness.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Specimens preparation
In order to achieve the purpose of this investigation, extensive ex-
perimental tests were conducted on short column specimens. A total of
twelve reinforced concrete columns were prepared and cast. They had a
square cross-section of a 150 mm side length and a total height of
1000 mm. Three of them were constructed with a solid cross-section,
267
Structures 22 (2019) 266–277
Fig. 1. Details of column specimens.
whilst the others had a hollow cross-section. Three hollowness ratios
were used, 2.3%, 9.0%, and 20.3% with three replicates for each ratio.
The hollowness ratio represents the percentage of a hollow area to the
entire cross-sectional area of solid columns. The hollow was created by
inserting polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipes longitudinally into the center
of columns. The diameters of these pipes were 25.4 mm, 50.8 mm, and
76.2 mm for the hollowness ratios of 2.3%, 9.0%, and 20.3%, respec-
tively.
All specimens were identically reinforced, the reinforcement cage
comprised four deformed longitudinal bars of a 10 mm diameter, and
6 mm diameter bars as square stirrups spaced uniformly along the
height of columns at a distance of 100 mm center to center, as shown in
Fig. 1. This cage was inserted into molds, leaving 10 mm as a concrete
cover from all sides. Yield strengths for 6 and 10 mm bars were 559 and
484 MPa, respectively.
It is worth highlighting that the self-compacting concrete (SCC) was
used for fabricating these columns to secure that SCC reaches relatively
narrow spaces, which are often present in hollow columns. The SCC was
made of an ordinary Portland cement, clean sand, crashed 10 mm
maximum size quartz gravel, water, and superplasticizer. Several trial
mixes were done to realize workability within the limits of EFNARC
[39]. Hence, three tests on workability were performed: slump flow, V-
funnel, and L-box. The SCC mixture listed in Table 1 was adopted,
which passed these three tests, as shown in Table 2.
To avoid the difference in the concrete strength, all columns were
constructed from one batch of concrete. All columns were horizontally
cast as seen in Fig. 2. Then, the columns were kept wet for 28 days.
Based on the hollowness ratio, the twelve columns were divided into
four groups as listed in Table 3. Each group includes three columns, one
of them was unheated, and the remaining two columns were heated up
to 600 °C for one and two hours, respectively.
Furthermore, each column was identified by a code comprising the
letter C, followed by two numbers separated by (−). A first number
shows the hollowness ratio and a second one refers to both temperature
and exposure time (i.e., 600/1 means exposing to a temperature of
600 °C for one hour, and 25 means unheated column kept in the room
temperature).
Finally, standard cylinders (150 mm × 300 mm) were taken from
the concrete batch to evaluate the compressive strength of concrete at
T.S. Al-Gasham, et al. Structures 22 (2019) 266–277

Table 1
Mix design to produce 1m3 of self-compacting concrete.
Cement (kg) Fine aggregate (kg) Coarse aggregate (kg) Water (kg) Superplasticizer (kg)

470 867 841 155 6.6

Table 2
Test results of fresh self-compacting concrete.
Test Value Limits of [39]

Slump flow 770 mm 650–800 mm

T50 3.6 s 2–5 s
L-box (H2/H1) 0.95 0.8–1

Fig. 3. The used electric furnace.

regularly distributed electric heaters along its four sides, except the top
and bottom of the furnace, as shown in Fig. 3. In addition, the furnace
has a digital screen to control and monitor the required heating sce-
nario.
Fig. 2. Preparing the column for casting.
For the heating scenario adopted herein, the temperature was in-
creased at a rate of 2 °C per second until reaching the target tempera-
Table 3 ture (600 °C), and then the temperature was kept constant for specific
Outline of column specimens. duration either one or two hours. Subsequently, the furnace was swit-
Group Designation Hollow Hollowness Temperature (°C) Exposure ched off, and the columns were left inside it for cooling down gradually
diameter ratio (%) time to the room temperature, 25 °C. This heating procedure was adopted in
(mm) (hour) many previous investigations [3,29,34,35,40,41].
1 C0–25 0.0 0.0 25 0.0
It is essential to state that the selected heating scenario did not
C0–600/1 600 1 follow the ISO834 due to two reasons. The first, compared with a real
C0–600/2 600 2 fire accident, the standard ISO834 gave overestimated thermal effects
2 C2.3–25 25.4 2.3 25 0.0 [42–44]. The second reason was that the adopted heating procedure is
C2.3–600/1 600 1
most suitable to represent the peak temperature, resulting from a real
C2.3–600/2 600 2
3 C9–25 50.8 9.0 25 0.0 fire accident, which could be happened in a closed car parking. In such
C9–600/1 600 1 event, the maximum temperature was found to be 550 °C due to the
C9–600/2 600 2 successive ignition of six cars placed in a closed car parking [45]. In
4 C20.3–25 76.2 20.3 25 0.0 Paris, the number of cars, adopted by [45], was nearly within 98% of
C20.3–600/1 600 1
C20.3–600/2 600 2
the incidents happened in underground car-park [46].
In case of burning car parking, a column may be subjected to heat
on four sides. For capturing this situation, the columns were positioned
the ambient temperature, and after heating to the 600 °C for one and vertically inside the furnace, and their hollows were filled with re-
two hours, the compressive strengths were 53.2 MPa, 37.8 MPa, and fractory cotton to prevent penetration of heat through the hollow part.
29.1 MPa, respectively. Thus, the hollow columns were heated from the external surfaces only
as solid columns.
Finally, three thermocouples were employed to observe the tem-
2.2. Heating process perature attained across the depth of columns, which were located at
mid-height. One of them (TC1) was bonded to the external surface. The
An electric furnace, with dimensions of others were embedded inside columns at the position of longitudinal
1200 mm × 500 mm × 500 mm and 1200 °C capacity, was used for bars (TC2) and either the center of solid samples or the hollow face of
heating the columns and cylinders. The furnace is equipped with

268
T.S. Al-Gasham, et al.
Fig. 4. Locations of thermocouples.
hollow columns (TC3). Fig. 4 shows the locations of thermocouples
across the column depth.
2.3. Test configuration
After heating processes were accomplished, the columns were pre-
pared for testing where their top and bottom ends were evened by
covering with thin layers of dental plaster. This method was adopted
previously in [28] for securing the full contact between these ends and
loading platens. Then, the columns were vertically positioned into a
testing machine, as seen in Fig. 5. Special attention was paid in posi-
tioning the columns at the center of the machine for averting any
possible eccentricity in applying the load. Thereafter, the columns were
tested until collapse under concentrated axial load applied gradually at
a rate of 1 kN/s. Two linear variable differential transducers (LVDT)
were employed for observing the axial and transverse displacements of
columns. The first LVTD was placed vertically touching the lower
platen (moving platen) of the machine, whereas the second one was
positioned horizontally touching the column at mid-height. During the
Fig. 5. Test setup.
269
Structures 22 (2019) 266–277
testing event, the data was automatically registered, utilizing a data
acquisition system.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Appearance of heated columns
Beyond the heated columns were cooled down to the ambient
temperature, they were lifted out the furnace, and their appearance was
accurately inspected. The color of the columns was observed to be
changed due to heating. Initially, the columns had a blue-gray color and
then the color became gray-brown for columns heated for one hour.
Subsequently, the color altered to pale brown when the heating dura-
tion was increased to two hours, as seen in Fig. 6. The same change in
the color was reported in [5]. The color change is mainly attributed to
oxidizing Iron that normally exists in both fine and coarse aggregate
and to dissolving the hydrate when the temperature is ranging between
300 °C and 600 °C [47,48].
Furthermore, micro-cracks were observed that distributed randomly
T.S. Al-Gasham, et al.
Fig. 6. Appearance of columns: (a) unheated, (b) heated for one hour, and (c)
heated for two hours.
Fig. 7. Micro-cracks after heating.
on the external surfaces of specimens (Fig. 7), especially for columns
heated for two hours. These cracks mainly resulted from the large steam
pressure and compression stress, which are caused by detaining thermal
dilatation of concrete exposed to an extreme temperature [5]. In ad-
dition, several heated columns suffered spallation of the concrete cover,
particularly at their corners.
3.2. Temperature variation
In general, the solid and hollow columns that heated for the same
duration displayed approximately similar temperature-time histories
during the heating process. This denotes that the refractory cotton la-
bored well in insulating the hollow part from the heating penetration.
Thus, all columns were subjected to the temperature from the external
faces only. Therefore, the plotting representations are summarized on
270
Structures 22 (2019) 266–277
Fig. 8. Temperature-time history for solid columns: (a) one hour exposure, and
(b) two hours exposure.
the solid and 20.3% hollow columns heated for one and two hours, as
shown in Figs. 8 and 9, respectively.
It can be seen that the temperature at the external surface of col-
umns followed identically the furnace temperature. It increased rapidly
to 600 °C at 304 s beyond switching on the furnace. Thereafter, it re-
mained constant for a specific duration. Additionally, the temperatures
within the concrete cross-section were found to be increased with the
exposure time but in different trends. The temperatures at the position
of the main bars (TC2) rose quickly for the first 20 min, and then they
continued increasing but at a lower rate. This phenomenon is caused by
migrating the moisture that thermally induced toward the column
center [5,33,49].
For solid columns, the temperatures at their center (TC3) showed a
relatively different trend. In which, the temperature kept at the room
temperature for about 10.0 min, and then increased at nearly a constant
rate.
On the other hand, due to relatively low thermal conductivity and
large specific heat of concrete, the temperatures dropped across the
column depth toward the column center. The temperatures attained at
the end of exposure are presented in Fig. 10 for both one and two hours
T.S. Al-Gasham, et al.
Fig. 9. Temperature-time history for 20.3% hollow columns: (a) one hour ex-
posure, and (b) two hours exposure.
exposed columns. For thermocouple TC2, it can be noted that the
hollow samples experienced a slightly higher temperature than the
corresponding solid ones did, these increases ranged between 5% and
7% for one and two hours exposure, respectively. For TC3 tempera-
tures, this thermocouple was not kept at the same location for all col-
umns, and it neared to the column surface as the hollow size was en-
larged, and hence this thermocouple recorded a higher temperature for
bigger hollow columns.
It is worth mentioning that prolonging the exposure time by twice
(from one to two hours) led to rising the peak temperature of heated
columns about 23%–27% at TC2, and 47%–79% at TC3.
3.3. Failure mode
Both the unheated and post-heated columns experienced typical
crushing failure. This crushing was seen at the top of the columns be-
cause of the high-stress concentration in this zone [50], as displayed in
Fig. 11. General, the unheated columns suddenly collapsed, and an
explosion sound due to this brittle failure was heard at the time of
collapse. In contrast, the post-heated columns exhibited a more gradual
271
Structures 22 (2019) 266–277
Fig. 10. Peak temperatures at the end of exposure: (a) one hour exposure, and
(b) two hours exposure.
failure (ductile failure). Moreover, this ductility was found to be more
evident for columns exposed for two hours. The failure modes were
found to be coincided with what reported by [28,29].
3.4. Collapse load
The failure loads of all tested columns are listed in Table 4. An effect
of the hollow core on the ultimate strength of columns is illustrated in
Fig. 12. It can be revealed from this figure that the columns' strength
(collapse load) declined with rising the hollowness ratio with ap-
proximately linear trends. However, these declines were inconsiderable
for columns having the smallest hollow (2.3%), about 2.3%–7.1%.
Contrarily, the drop of strength was more significant when the hol-
lowness ratio was greater than 9.0%, reaching 16.8%, 21.2%, and
25.1% for un-heated, one and two hours exposed to 600 °C columns,
respectively. This finding was expected since the strength of such col-
umns depends mainly on the strength of concrete. For instance, based
on the strength of materials used in this investigation, nearly 87% of the
nominal strength of the unheated solid column is carried by the con-
crete according to the ACI code [51]. In hollow columns, due to
creating the central hollow, a considerable amount of well-confined
concrete (at the core) was lost as well as the concrete confinement in-
side the reinforcement cages was weakened. These reasons resulted in
the hollow column strength to be lower than that of corresponding solid
columns.
T.S. Al-Gasham, et al. Structures 22 (2019) 266–277

Fig. 11. Failure pattern of columns: (a) solid columns, and (b) 20.3% hollow columns.

Table 4 Further, the maximum decline percentage (at 20.3% hollow) for
Test results for all columns. exposed columns were 25.6%–49.4% above that of un-heated ones; this
Group Designation Failure Secant Ductility Normalized
indicates that the influence of hollow-core becomes more severe with
load (kN) stiffness index toughness heating. The strength of heated columns relies mainly on the concrete
(kN/mm) (kN·mm2/mm) core that normally suffers low temperature due to excellent thermal
characteristics of concrete, and hence losing this core as in case of
1 C0–25 1359.8 517.7 1.27 831.6
hollow columns made the strength drop more evident than un-heated
C0–600/1 1003.5 247.0 1.34 643.2
C0–600/2 830.6 139.3 1.54 571.0 columns.
2 C2.3–25 1328.5 501.8 1.29 818.3 Finally, the influence of the exposure duration to 600 °C on the
C2.3–600/1 965.3 225.9 1.43 636.5 column strength is demonstrated in Fig. 13. It can be seen that heating
C2.3–600/2 771.5 129.4 1.55 532.4
the solid and hollow columns at 600 °C caused a remarkable decay in
3 C9–25 1255.3 460.4 1.31 784.6
C9–600/1 891.9 208.7 1.38 581.3 their strength. All columns showed identical non-linear decline trends
C9–600/2 723.0 125.7 1.55 499.3 with exposure time. With these trends, the strength of columns reduced
4 C20.3–25 1131.3 414.9 1.29 702.2 dramatically within the first hour of heating. Thereafter. The rate of
C20.3–600/1 790.4 154.9 1.49 537.3 drop became lower for the second hour of heating. In general, the
C20.3–600/2 622.2 99.2 1.57 416.2
strength of 0%, 2.3%, 9.0%, and 20.3% hollow columns, heated for one-
two hours reduced by about 26.2%–38.9%, 27.3%–41.9%,
28.9%–42.4%, and 30.1%–45.0%, respectively.
The decline in column strength with heating could be attributed to
several reasons; the main one was the loss in the compressive strength

Fig. 12. Failure load versus hollowness ratio.

Fig. 13. Failure load versus exposure time.

272
T.S. Al-Gasham, et al.
of concrete about 28.9% to 45.3% for the heating time one to two
hours, respectively. The second cause was the reducing of the area of
cross-section due to the spallation of concrete cover. The third factor
was the occurrence of micro-cracks in heated columns; these cracks
damaged both the integrity of columns and the bond between steel bars
and surrounding concrete, the negative effect of heating on the bond
between steel bars and concrete was stated in previous studies [52–54].
The final one was the reduction in the yield strength of reinforcing bars
with heating where about 51% loss in the steel yield strength was re-
ported [55] upon heating to 600 °C for two hours and then cooling.
It is worth noting that the percentages of strength decline with
heating time for hollow columns were more than for solid ones, notably
for hollowness larger than 9.0%. This denotes the riskiness of heating
exposure to be more severe for columns constructed with the hollow
core. Broadly, this percentage for C20.3–600/2 was 15.7% higher than
that of C0–600/2. This result can be explained due to the average
temperature (TC1 + TC2 + TC3) /3 experienced by 20.3% hollow
columns was 14.4% greater than the average temperature of the solid
counterpart.
3.5. Load-deflection behavior
In this section, the illustration is briefed on the axial deformation
since the lateral deformations were negligible due to applying a con-
centric axial load only, and no buckling was observed in columns
during testing. Fig. 14 shows the load versus axial displacement curves
for the columns of the variable cross-section, suffering the same heating
procedure. It can be concluded from the figure that, at the same level of
Fig. 14. Load-axial displacement curves for columns identically heated: (a) un-heated columns, (b) exposed for one hour, and (c) exposed for two hours.
273
Structures 22 (2019) 266–277
load, the installation of PVC pipes in the center of columns increased
the axial displacement. However, this rise was slight for columns with
smaller hollowness ratio (2.3%) and was more evident for columns with
the 20.3% hollow.
Further, the influence of the adopted heating procedure on the load-
deflection responses of columns having the same cross-section is de-
picted in Fig. 15. This figure highlights a significant rise in the axial
displacement when columns were subjected to 600 °C for one or two
hours. In contrast to un-heated columns, the plastic plateau lines were
clearly noted in exposed columns, especially those heated for two
hours. These lines explain the slow ductile failure reported previously
for heated columns. Moreover, in the term of the ultimate deflection,
the heated columns displayed extremely higher values than those of
their solid counterparts.
In general, the differences in the load-deflection response of tested
columns related mainly to three factors, which were stiffness, ductility,
and toughness. Therefore, it is convenient to discuss each of these
factors separately, as stated in the next sections.
3.6. Stiffness
There are various procedures for determining the stiffness of
structural members [35,56,57]. Herein, the secant stiffness, which is
sometimes known as the effective stiffness, was adopted. This stiffness
is defined as the ratio of the ultimate load of columns (Pu) to the cor-
responding displacement (Δu), as demonstrated in Fig. 16. However,
this value does not represent the overall stiffness of columns. Never-
theless, it provides a useful criterion for comparing the stiffness of post-
T.S. Al-Gasham, et al.
Fig. 15. Load-axial displacement curves for columns with similar cross-sections: (a) solid columns, (b) 2.3% hollow columns, (c) 9.0% hollow columns, and (d) 20.3%
hollow columns.
Fig. 16. Adopted method for secant stiffness [34].
heated columns with un-heated ones.
The secant stiffness values of all tested columns are listed in Table 4
and plotted in Figs. 17 and 18. It can be revealed from Fig. 17 that the
existence of a central hollow in the axially loaded columns resulted in a
salient deterioration in their stiffness. This deterioration rose as in-
creasing the hollowness ratio at approximately linear trends. This was
274
Structures 22 (2019) 266–277
Fig. 17. Secant stiffness versus hollowness ratio.
due to a reduction in the cross-section area of columns, where the
stiffness of such columns relied primarily on the area of columns.
Compared with similar solid columns, the secant stiffness of 2.3%-
20.3% hollow columns dropped by about 3.1%–19.9%, 8.6%–37.3%,
and 7.1%–28.8% for un-heated, one and two hours exposed columns,
respectively.
Obviously, the percentages of stiffness deterioration with hollow-
ness ratio for hollow columns were more than of similar un-heated
columns. This states that the impact of hollow core on the decay of
column stiffness became more severe with heating.
T.S. Al-Gasham, et al.
Fig. 18. Secant stiffness versus exposure time.
Fig. 18 compares the secant stiffness of columns with the same
cross-section, subjected to different heating scenarios. It is evident that
heating solid and hollow columns caused a noticeable drop in the se-
cant stiffness, particularly for those heated for two hours. This is at-
tributed to the initiation of tiny-cracks and the decay in concrete
stiffness beyond heating. Voids have a remarkable effect on the stiffness
of concrete since they define the porosity in its microstructure. The
porosity relies mainly on factors such as the ratio of water to cement
and the intensity of internal microcracking. Due to heating, the porosity
is found to be increased because of moisture loss and the growth of
internal micro-cracks, which remarkably reduces the concrete stiffness
[28].
In general, the trend of stiffness drop with the exposure time was
polynomial for all columns, in which the stiffness declined rapidly when
exposing for one hour, and then the stiffness continued descending but
at a lower rate. These reductions for one-two hours heating were in a
range of 52.3%–73.1%, 55.0%–74.2%, 54.7%–72.7%, and
62.7%–76.1% for solid, 2.3%, 9.0% and 23.3% hollow columns, re-
spectively.
3.7. Ductility
The ductility concept refers to the capability of structural elements
to sustain a significant plastic deformation without an essential drop in
the load-carrying capacity [58,59]. However, the ductility is universally
considered an argumentative issue having a debatable definition [28].
According to [60,61], there are four definitions for ductility, which are
based on the first yield, based on equivalent elasto-plastic yield, based
on equivalent elasto-plastic energy absorption, and based on reduced
stiffness equivalent elasto-plastic yield. Among these methods, the last
one is the most realistic method for defining the ductility because it
includes the decay in stiffness due to cracking that normally occurs at
the end of the elastic zone [60,61]. Thus, this method was selected for
representing the ductility herein. In this method, the ductility is cal-
culated as the ratio of axial displacement corresponding to the ultimate
load (Δu) to the displacement at the yield of reinforcement (Δy). The
Fig. 19. Ductility based on reduced stiffness equivalent elasto-plastic yield.
275
Structures 22 (2019) 266–277
Fig. 20. Ductility index versus hollowness ratio.
yield displacement corresponds to the point of intersection of two lines
(Fig. 19), the first line is a horizontal tangent touching the load-dis-
placement curve at the ultimate load, whereas the second one is a line
passing through the initial point and a point that represents 75% of the
ultimate load.
The ductility values of all columns are listed in Table 4. The re-
lationships between the ductility index and the hollowness ratio of
columns are plotted in Fig. 20. The inspection of this figure discovers
that the ductility of both un-heated and two hours heated columns did
not substantially change with hollowness ratio, and the maximum in-
crease percentage in ductility was within 3.1%. For one hour heated
columns, the trend of ductility was not clear, fluctuating with the hol-
lowness ratio. However, the maximum enhancement in the ductility
recorded for this group was about 11.2% for 20.3% hollow column.
Fig. 21 clarifies the influence of 600 °C-exposure time on the duc-
tility of columns, having the same cross-section. It can be seen that the
ductility of columns related directly to the exposure duration. Also, the
solid and hollow columns experienced almost convergent ductility va-
lues when they were un-heated or heated for two hours. The difference
in the ductility values was only apparent for columns heated for one
hour.
Furthermore, these columns had different trends of improving the
ductility with time, where the solid and 9.0% hollow columns showed a
slow increase in the ductility at first, and then the ductility dramatically
rose beyond one hour-exposure. In 20.3% hollow columns, a utterly
contradictory trend was shown. For 2.3% hollow columns, an ap-
proximately linear trend was noticed.
In general, the ductility of all columns was enhanced by about
5.3%–15.5% and 20.2%–21.7% due to heating for one and two hours,
respectively. This was attributable to two factors; the reduction in the
concrete strength with heating where the concrete of lower grade is
more ductile than that of higher strength [58], and the ductility im-
provement of reinforcing bars upon heating then cooling [55].
Fig. 21. Ductility index versus exposure time.
T.S. Al-Gasham, et al.
Fig. 22. Normalize toughness versus hollowness ratio.
Fig. 23. Normalize toughness versus exposure time.
3.8. Toughness
Toughness is a measure of the energy absorption by structural
members without a fundamental decline in the load-carrying capacity.
Accordingly, the toughness is equal to the area under the curve of load-
deflection up to the displacement corresponding to the collapse load
[35,62]. In order to capture the influence of both hollowness ratio and
exposure time on the toughness of columns displaying variable ultimate
deflection values, it is most suitable for normalizing the toughness va-
lues by dividing them with coinciding ultimate deflections [63].
The normalized toughness values for all columns are summarized in
Table 4 and plotted in Figs. 22 and 23 versus the hollowness ratio and
the exposure time, respectively. Fig. 22 indicates that the presence of
the central hollow at the columns reduced the normalized toughness,
particularly for hollowness ratio larger than 9.0%. This means that the
ability of axial columns to absorb the energy declines if these columns
are fabricated with a hollow core. The toughness trends for un-heated
and post-heated columns with hollowness ratio were nearly comparable
with an approximately constant rate of drop. The drop of toughness
reached 1.6%–15.6%, 1.0%–16.5%, and 6.8%–27.1% for unheated, one
and two hours post-heated columns with 2.3%–20.3% hollow, respec-
tively. In compression members, the concrete is mainly responsible for
resisting the cracking and fracture, and hence the toughness of such
members depends primarily on concrete, which reflects the decay in the
toughness of hollow columns compared with the solid ones. In addition,
these results state that the toughness drop due to the existing hollow
core was more critical with heating for two hours.
Further, the normalized toughness was found to be lessened re-
markably with heating, as depicted in Fig. 23. This was related mainly
to the reduction in the concrete toughness upon heating to 600 °C and
then cooling [64]. It is worth highlighting that the decay trends of
toughness for all columns with exposure time were approximately
identical, and the decay rate for columns, except for 20.3% hollow
ones, became lower after one hour of heating. Compared with un-
276
Structures 22 (2019) 266–277
heated columns, the one and two hours post-exposed columns lost
about 22.2%–25.9% and 31.3%–40.7 of their toughness, respectively.
4. Summary and conclusions
In this paper, an experimental program was conducted for providing
an insight into the influence of post-heating to 600 °C on the behavior of
reinforced self-compacting concrete hollow columns that subjected to
concentric axial loads. Test parameters were the hollowness ratio (0%,
2.3%, 9%, and 20.3%) and the exposure time (0, 1, and 2) hours. Based
on the experimental results, the following briefs the most remarkable
findings:
1. Both un-heated and post-heated columns exhibited the typical
crashing failure. The nature of collapse in the un-heated columns
was sudden and explosive. In contrast, the failure of post-heated
columns was slow and more ductile.
2. The presence of the central hollow in the axially loaded columns led
to a considerable reduction in the collapse load compared to the
solid columns subjected to the same heating scenario. This drop was
more significant for hollowness ratio greater than 9.0% ranging
between 16.8% and 25.1%. In addition, the negative effect of
hollow-core rose with heating.
3. The exposure to the heating of 600 °C for one and two hours ap-
preciably reduced the strength of solid and hollow columns. The
maximum decay in strength of solid and hollow columns were
26.2% to 38.9% and 27.3% to 45.0% when the exposure time was
one to two hours, respectively.
4. The heated columns displayed load-deflection responses softer than
those of un-heated counterparts did. Moreover, the plastic plateau
was more evident in columns heated for two hours.
5. A salient deterioration in the stiffness of columns was noticed due to
the existence of the central hollow, and it became more significant
as the hollowness ratio exceeded 2.3%, realizing 19.9%, 37.3%, and
28.8% for un-heated, one and two hours exposed 20.3% hollow
columns, respectively.
6. Heating to 600 °C highly deteriorated the stiffness of both solid and
hollow columns. The maximum stiffness drop for solid and hollow
columns heated for two hours were 73.1% and 76.1%, respectively.
7. A slight enhancement was revealed in ductility of axial columns due
to creating a central hollow. This enhancement did not surpass
11.2%. On the other hand, the ductility of solid and hollow columns
was found to be developed when exposing to heat, particularly for
more than two hours, ranging 18.3% to 21.7%.
8. The toughness of hollow columns was less than the corresponding
solid ones about 5.6%–27.1%. Moreover, the toughness of columns
was remarkably declined due to heating, ranging from
22.2%–23.5% and 31.3%–40.7% for 1 and two hours heating
duration, respectively.
References
[1] Al-Gasham TSS. Structural performance of reinforced concrete bubble slabs after
exposing to fire flame. J Eng Sustain Dev 2015;19:1–14.
[2] Jabir HA, Al-Gasham TS, Mhalhal JM. Structural performance of reinforced con-
crete corbels exposed to high fire flame, UEMK 2018 BİLDİRİ ÖZETLERİ KİTABI
18–19 Ekim 2018 Hukuk Fakültesi. 2018. p. 544.
[3] Hsu JH, Lin CS. Residual bearing capabilities of fire-exposed reinforced concrete
beams. Int J Appl Sci Eng 2006;4:151–63.
[4] Liu J-Q, Han L-H, Zhao X-L. Performance of concrete-filled steel tubular column-
wall structure subjected to ISO-834 standard fire: analytical behaviour. Thin-Walled
Struct 2018;129:28–44.
[5] Zhai C, Chen L, Xiang H, Fang Q. Experimental and numerical investigation into RC
beams subjected to blast after exposure to fire. Int J Impact Eng 2016;97:29–45.
[6] Ruan Z, Chen L, Fang Q. Numerical investigation into dynamic responses of RC
columns subjected for fire and blast. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2015;34:10–21.
[7] Kodur V, Mcgrath R. Fire endurance of high strength concrete columns. Fire Technol
2003;39:73–87.
[8] Sarker PK, Mcbeath S. Fire endurance of steel reinforced fly ash geopolymer con-
crete elements. Construct Build Mater 2015;90:91–8.
T.S. Al-Gasham, et al.
[9] Kodur VKR, Agrawal A. An approach for evaluating residual capacity of reinforced
concrete beams exposed to fire. Eng Struct 2016;110:293–306.
[10] Kodur V, Hibner D, Agrawal A. Residual response of reinforced concrete columns
exposed to design fires. Procedia Eng 2017;210:574–81.
[11] Li Z, Xu J, Bai E. Static and dynamic mechanical properties of concrete after high
temperature exposure. Mater Sci Eng A 2012;544:27–32.
[12] Luccioni BM, Figueroa MI, Danesi RF. Thermo-mechanic model for concrete ex-
posed to elevated temperatures. Eng Struct 2003;25:729–42.
[13] Heinfling G, Reynouard JM, Merabet O, Duval C. Thermo-elastic–plastic model for
concrete at elevated temperatures including cracking and thermo-mechanical in-
teraction strains. Comput Plast Fundam Appl 1997;2:1493–8.
[14] Alogla S, Kodur VKR. Quantifying transient creep effects on fire response of re-
inforced concrete columns. Eng Struct 2018;174:885–95.
[15] Feist C, Aschaber M, Hofstetter G. Numerical simulation of the load-carrying be-
havior of RC tunnel structures exposed to fire. Finite Elem Anal Des
2009;45:958–65.
[16] BS EN, 1-2. 2004 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures-part 1–2: General rules-
structural fire design. 2004.
[17] ACI 216.1. Code requirements for determining fire resistance of concrete and ma-
sonry construction assemblies. Detroit: American Concrete Institute; 2007.
[18] BS8110-2. Structural use of concrete–part 2: Code of practice for special circum-
stances. Milton Keynes: British Standards Institute; 1985.
[19] AS 3600. Concrete structures, standards Association of Australia, Sydney. 2009.
[20] BS476-20. Fire tests on building materials and structures. Part 20: Methods for
determination of the fire resistance of elements of construction (general principles).
Milton Keynes: British Standards Institute; 1987.
[21] ISO834-1. Fire resistance tests — elements of building construction. Part 1: General
requirement. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; 1999.
[22] Kodur VKR, Dwaikat M. Performance-based fire safety design of reinforced concrete
beams. J Fire Prot Eng 2007;17:293–320.
[23] Kodur VKR, Dwaikat MMS, Dwaikat MB. High-temperature properties of concrete
for fire resistance modeling of structures. ACI Mater J 2008;105:517.
[24] Gao WY, Dai J-G, Teng JG, Chen GM. Finite element modeling of reinforced con-
crete beams exposed to fire. Eng Struct 2013;52:488–501.
[25] Lie TT, Rowe TJ, Lin TD. Residual strength of fire-exposed reinforced concrete
columns. Spec Publ 1986;92:153–74.
[26] Ali F, Nadjai A, Silcock G, Abu-Tair A. Outcomes of a major research on fire re-
sistance of concrete columns. Fire Saf J 2004;39:433–45.
[27] Kodur VKR, Raut NK, Mao XY, Khaliq W. Simplified approach for evaluating re-
sidual strength of fire-exposed reinforced concrete columns. Mater Struct
2013;46:2059–75.
[28] Yaqub M, Bailey CG. Cross sectional shape effects on the performance of post-he-
ated reinforced concrete columns wrapped with FRP composites. Compos Struct
2011;93:1103–17.
[29] Zahid MZAM, Bakar BHA, Nazri FM. Behaviour of post heated reinforced concrete
columns. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth environ. Sci. IOP Publishing; 2019. p. 12006.
[30] Heo Y-S, Sanjayan JG, Han C-G, Han M-C. Construction application of fibre/mesh
method for protecting concrete columns in fire. Construct Build Mater
2011;25:2928–38.
[31] Yaqub M, Bailey CG. Repair of fire damaged circular reinforced concrete columns
with FRP composites. Construct Build Mater 2011;25:359–70.
[32] Yaqub M, Bailey CG. Non-destructive evaluation of residual compressive strength of
post-heated reinforced concrete columns. Construct Build Mater 2016;120:482–93.
[33] Kodur VKR, Cheng F-P, Wang T-C, Sultan MA. Effect of strength and fiber re-
inforcement on fire resistance of high-strength concrete columns. J Struct Eng
2003;129:253–9.
[34] Abdulraheem MS, Kadhum MM. Experimental and numerical study on post-fire
behaviour of concentrically loaded reinforced reactive powder concrete columns.
Construct Build Mater 2018;168:877–92.
[35] Kadhum A, Mohammed MMustafa S. Experimental investigation of fire effects on
ductility and stiffness of reinforced reactive powder concrete columns under axial
compression. J Build Eng 2018;20:750–61.
[36] Lignola GP, Prota A, Manfredi G, Cosenza E. Deformability of reinforced concrete
hollow columns confined with CFRP. ACI Struct J 2007;104:629.
[37] Son KS, Pilakoutas K, Neocleous K. Behaviour of concrete columns with drilled
277
Structures 22 (2019) 266–277
holes. Mag Concr Res 2006;58:411–9.
[38] Al-Gasham TSS. Experimental performance of reinforced concrete hollow columns
exposed to fire. Al-Qadisiyah J Eng Sci 2016;9:211–24.
[39] EFNARC. The European guidelines for self-compacting concrete specification, pro-
duction and use. European Federation of National Associations Representing for
Concrete; 2005.
[40] Felicetti R, Gambarova PG. Effects of high temperature on the residual compressive
strength of high-strength siliceous concretes. ACI Mater. J. 1998;95:395–406.
[41] Chen GM, He YH, Yang H, Chen JF, Guo YC. Compressive behavior of steel fiber
reinforced recycled aggregate concrete after exposure to elevated temperatures.
Construct Build Mater 2014;71:1–15.
[42] Arna’ot FH, Abbass AA, Abualtemen AA, Abid SR, Özakça M. Residual strength of
high strength concentric column-SFRC flat plate exposed to high temperatures.
Construct Build Mater 2017;154:204–18.
[43] Annerel E, Taerwe L, Merci B, Jansen D, Bamonte P, Felicetti R. Thermo-mechanical
analysis of an underground car park structure exposed to fire. Fire Saf J
2013;57:96–106.
[44] Arna’ot FH, Abid SR, Özakça M, Tayşi N. Review of concrete flat plate-column
assemblies under fire conditions. Fire Saf J 2017;93:39–52.
[45] Bamonte P, Felicetti R. Fire scenario and structural behaviour of underground
parking lots exposed to fire. In Proceeding of International Conference Application
of Structural Fire Engineering , Session 2 Fire Modelling,Prague 2009:60–5.
[46] Li Y, Spearpoint M. Analysis of vehicle fire statistics in New Zealand parking
buildings. Fire Technol 2007;43:93–106.
[47] Hager I. Colour change in heated concrete. Fire Technol 2014;50:945–58.
[48] Lee J, Choi K, Hong K. Color and material property changes in concrete exposed to
high temperatures. J Asian Archit Build Eng 2009;8:175–782.
[49] Lie TT, Celikkol B. Method to calculate the fire resistance of circular reinforced
concrete columns. Mater J 1991;88:84–91.
[50] Kumutha R, Palanichamy MS. Investigation of reinforced concrete columns con-
fined using glass fiber-reinforced polymers. J Reinf Plast Compos 2006;25:1669–78.
[51] American Concrete Institute (ACI). ACI 318–14: Building code requirements for
structural concrete, Farmington hills. 2014. https://doi.org/10.2307/3466335.
[52] Haddad RH, Shannis LG. Post-fire behavior of bond between high strength pozzo-
lanic concrete and reinforcing steel. Construct Build Mater 2004;18:425–35.
[53] Xiao J, Hou Y, Huang Z. Beam test on bond behavior between high-grade rebar and
high-strength concrete after elevated temperatures. Fire Saf J 2014;69:23–35.
[54] Haddad RH, Al-Saleh RJ, Al-Akhras NM. Effect of elevated temperature on bond
between steel reinforcement and fiber reinforced concrete. Fire Saf J
2008;43:334–43.
[55] Haddad RH, Al-Mekhlafy N, Ashteyat AM. Repair of heat-damaged reinforced
concrete slabs using fibrous composite materials. Construct Build Mater
2011;25:1213–21.
[56] Mhalhal JM, Al-gasham TS, Jabir HA. New technique to enhance the shear per-
formance of RC deep beams using mild steel plates. Int J Eng Technol
2018;7:86–94.
[57] Hasan HA, Sheikh MN, Hadi MNS. Maximum axial load carrying capacity of fibre
reinforced-polymer (FRP) bar reinforced concrete columns under axial compres-
sion. Structures. Elsevier; 2019.
[58] Issa MA, Alrousan RZ, Issa MA. Experimental and parametric study of circular short
columns confined with CFRP composites. J Compos Constr 2009;13:135–47.
[59] Alhussainy F, Sheikh MN, Hadi MNS. Axial load-axial deformation behaviour of
SCC columns reinforced with steel tubes. Structures. Elsevier; 2018. p. 259–69.
[60] Park R. Ductility evaluation from laboratory and analytical testing. Proc. 9th world
Conf. Earthq. Eng. Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan. 1988. p. 605–16.
[61] Park R. Evaluation of ductility of structures and structural assemblages from la-
boratory testing. Bull New Zeal Natl Soc Earthq Eng 1989;22:155–66.
[62] Salaman TS. Reinforced concrete moderate deep beams with embedded PVC pipes.
Wasit J Eng Sci 2015;3:19–29https://www.iasj.net/iasj?func=fulltext&aId=
116356.
[63] Mertol HC, Baran E, Bello HJ. Flexural behavior of lightly and heavily reinforced
steel fiber concrete beams. Construct Build Mater 2015;98:185–93.
[64] Zhang B, Bicanic N. Residual fracture toughness of normal-and high-strength gravel
concrete after heating to 600 C. Mater. J. 2002;99:217–26.