Engineering Structures 295 (2023) 116858

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Model fire test and similarity relationship development of RC columns

subjected to uneven fire exposure
Haiyan Zhang a, b, Weian Jiang b, Bo Wu a, b, *, Bo Wen c, Congyue Qi d, Lijun Yuan d
a
State Key Laboratory of Subtropical Building and Urban Science, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, PR China
b
Department of Civil Engineering and Transportation, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, PR China
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Xi’an University of Architecture and Technology, Xi’an, PR China
d
The Third Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. of China Construction Third Engineering Bureau, Guangzhou, PR China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The model fire test of reinforced concrete components typically requires a furnace temperature-rising curve that
Fire testing is significantly higher than that of the prototype, according to traditional similarity theory. However, this
Model testing requirement can sometimes render the model fire test infeasible due to surpassing the heating capacity of the
Reinforced concrete columns
furnace. To address this challenge, the present study conducts experiments and finite element analysis (FEA) on
Similarity
Fire resistance
geometrically similar, reinforced, square concrete columns of various sizes exposed to fire from two or three
sides, using the ISO 834 standard fire curve for all columns. The fire resistance results from experiments and FEA
are utilized to derive similarity relationships for the time scale of the model to prototype columns. The similarity
in the thermal–mechanical response of the model and prototype columns under the proposed time scale is
evaluated and validated using experimental data from this study and previous research. The findings indicate
that good similarity between the mechanical response and fire resistance of the model and prototype columns can
be attained as long as the model and prototype columns exhibit similar average sectional temperatures and
similar temperatures near the rebar. By normalizing the time scale using s1.19 for 2-sided heating and s1.29 for 3-
sided heating, where s represents the geometric scale factor of model to prototype, the data from the model
column under standard fire effectively predicts the axial deformation development and fire resistance of the
prototype column. Although there is a certain deviation in the temperature near the fire exposure surface and
concrete center of the model and prototype columns under the proposed time scale factor, this discrepancy does
not significantly affect the similarity of their mechanical response.

1. Introduction establishing a reliable similarity relationship for scaling up the observed

Extensive application of concrete in high-rise buildings and frequent
fires have generated increasing concern worldwide about the fire
resistance of concrete structures. Fire test in a laboratory furnace is a
reliable way to determine the fire resistance of a component and
structure, but space limitations in a normal laboratory furnace normally
make fire testing of large-scale component or full-scale structures
impossible. Finite element analysis (FEA) is usually utilized to predict
the fire behavior of component or structure. However, correctness of
FEA model needs to be validated by test data. The alternative is fire
testing in model scale and scaling up to predict the fire resistance of a
full-scale structure. That is usually the only practical way to predict the
fire behavior of full-scale structures. Such methods of course require
thermal and mechanical responses of the model to that of the prototype.
The mechanical response of a RC member in fire is highly dependent
on its temperature distribution. In the traditional similarity theory,
highly similar temperature distribution between the prototype and
model is the prerequisite for their mechanical behavior similarity. In
1954 McGuire first revealed [1] the scaling law for heat conduction and
showed that the time required to attain similar temperature distribu­
tions in geometrically similar members scales as the square of the
dimensional scale (s), provided that the time axis of the model’s tem­
perature–time curve is also scaled by s2. He later extended the applica­
tion of that scaling law to fire resistance [2]. With a power exponent of
1.6–2.2 (s1.6–s2.2) the full-scale fire resistance of a beam could be pre­
dicted from that of a model beam.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bowu@scut.edu.cn (B. Wu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.116858
Received 30 March 2023; Received in revised form 28 August 2023; Accepted 3 September 2023
Available online 9 September 2023
0141-0296/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Zhang et al.
Ng reported [3] the results of fire tests on two 1:2.23 and 1:3 scale
models of reinforced concrete (RC) columns, and compared the model
column fire responses under time-scaled fire curve with that of full-scale
columns under ASTM standard fire curve. Due to the fact that the times
of the fire curves for the models were scaled by s2, a heating rate far
higher than that of the prototype is required for the model. For example,
the furnace temperature reached by the prototype in 60 min has to be
reached by the 1:2 scale model in 15 min, as shown in Fig. 1 (a). The
intense fire for the 1:3-scale model column exceeded the furnace’s ca­
pacity, resulting in some discrepancies between the experimental
furnace temperature curve with the theoretical curve, and thus the fire
endurance of the prototype predicted from the 1:3-scale model test data
using that time scaling (s2) had to be corrected. Consequently, it can be
concluded that Ng’s methodology is not applicable in cases where there
is a substantial disparity in scale between the model and the prototype.
O’Connor also derived the s2 scaling between prototype and model
through dimensionless analysis [4]. However, he reported that apart
from scaling the time axis using s2, the temperatures of the fire curves for
the model fire tests must be increased due to the contributions from
thermal convection and radiation to the heat transfer. He proposed a
purely convective model, a purely radiative model and a combined
model to enhance the furnace temperature of the model fire tests [5].
Among the three models, the purely radiative model was strongly rec­
ommended (Fig. 1 (a)) for the case of using small furnace, in which the
furnace wall was so close to the specimen that the burner system pro­
vided little forced convection in the furnace environment [4–6].
O’Connor’s tests on small-scale brick walls, reinforced concrete slabs
and steel columns [5,6] verified his theories.
Lv applied O’Connor’s purely radiative model in his fire tests on
reduced-scaled model RC beams [7]. To reduce the heating rate
requirement in model fire tests, a designed fire curve lower than ISO 834
standard fire curve (Fig. 1 (a)) was used for the prototype beam. The test
results showed that good similarity between the temperatures at each
normalized position in the model and prototype beams could be ach­
ieved with s2 time scaling, but the similarity relationship between fire
resistance of model and prototype beams was better modified to s1.7 or
s1.8, due to size effect and nonlinear mechanical behavior which devel­
oped in the beams. Zhuang conducted similar fire tests and performed
numerical simulation of full-scale and model-scale RC columns exposed
to fire on all four sides [8]. His data supported an s1.8 relationship for
time scale of fire resistance as long as no significant concrete spalling
occurred during the fire exposure. However, in Lv’s and Zhuang’s fire
tests, the fire resistance of the prototype members predicted from the
models is under a reduced design fire curve, rather than a standard
temperature-rise curve.
Fig. 1. Furnace temperature curves for full- and half-scale specimens.
2
Engineering Structures 295 (2023) 116858
Adjusting the temperature-rise curve for the model fire test can
provide a good thermal similarity between the model and prototype RC
members, but increase the difficulty of fire tests, even sometimes
requiring a heating rate that exceeds the capacity of the furnace. If
similarity between the fire resistance of prototype and model can be
maintained using the same temperature-rise curve (Fig. 1 (b)), model
fire testing is more practical, although in this case the temperatures of
the prototype and the model may be not completely similar. Reddy
simulated numerically geometrically-similar square columns exposed to
a standard fire on all four sides [9], and endorsed a relative fire duration
to relative size relationship of s1.46 for square columns, based on the
criteria that of the temperatures at every geometrically equivalent layer
being the same or as close as possible, and the average temperatures in
the cross-sections with different dimensions being the same. However,
Reddy’s concept was not experimentally validated. If this approximate
(average) thermal similarity criteria can be applied to model fire test,
the difficulty of model fire tests will be greatly reduced, by adopting the
same fire curve for both full- and reduced-scale RC members.
The present investigation involved conducting fire tests and nu­
merical simulations on columns of full and reduced scales, which were
exposed to non-uniform heating (3- and 2-sided fire exposure) and
subjected to ISO 834 standard fire. The study aimed to establish a sim­
ilarity relationship between the fire resistance of different scale col­
umns, and subsequently evaluate the similarity of the thermal and
mechanical responses during the fire. The study’s results offer a practical
model fire testing method, which can accurately predict the fire resis­
tance of RC columns at full scale and mitigate the need for costly large-
scale fire testing.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Test specimens
The present study’s fire tests focused on six square RC columns,
constructed at scales of 0.5, 0.7 and full scale. They were exposed to fire
on two or three sides. The specimens were denoted as 0.5-S2, 0.5-S3,
0.7-S2, 0.7-S3, 1.0-S2 and 1.0-S3, where the number before the hyphen
is the geometric scale and number after the hyphen refers to the number
of sides exposed to fire. Prototype columns (1.0-S2, 1.0-S3) measured
350 mm × 350 mm in cross-section and were 3810 mm in height, with
2600 mm exposed to the fire. The longitudinal reinforcement consisted
of four ϕ20 deformed rebars with a yield strength of 437 MPa. The
stirrups were ϕ10 plain rebar spaced 200 mm in the middle 2400 mm
and 100 mm apart at each end. The concrete cover over the stirrups was
30 mm thick. The geometric dimensions of the model columns are 0.7
H. Zhang et al.
and 0.5 times of that of the prototype columns. The longitudinal rein­
forcement ratio in the model-scale columns was almost same (0.54–0.56
%), and the volumetric stirrup ratios were also almost equal (1.08–1.12
% in the middle). The thickness of the concrete cover was scaled
accordingly. The columns’ detailed geometry is summarized in Table 1
while Table 2 outlines the reinforcement details. Fig. 2 provides a
clearer illustration of the sizes and reinforcement.
All of the columns were fabricated from the same batch of com­
mercial siliceous aggregate concrete. To minimize spalling during the
fire exposure, normal strength concrete with a designed strength grade
of C30 was used. The columns were cured indoors and at ambient
temperature for 210 days before the testing. The average compressive
strength of six 150 mm concrete cubes was 36.1 MPa at the time of the
fire tests.
To determine the concrete moisture content, four 150 mm concrete
cubes were dried in an oven set at 105 ◦ C for several days until their
weight no longer decreased. The reduction in weight was taken to
represent the water loss, thereby allowing the average moisture content
to be calculated. Based on the measurement, it was found that the
average moisture content of the concrete was 2.8 % (66.7 kg/m3).
During the test, the model-scale column was mounted in the furnace
on a supporting column as shown in (Fig. 3). To ensure that their stiff­
ness was significantly greater than that of the specimens, the supporting
columns had a larger cross-section (see Fig. 2 (b)(c)), and were
completely covered with three layers of heat-insulating cloth. This
approach ensured that any deformation in the supporting columns could
be disregarded when measuring the displacements of the model
columns.
During the 2-sided heating tests, adjacent sides of the columns were
exposed to fire, while the unheated sides were covered with three layers
of heat insulating cloth that was secured with molybdenum wire to
provide effective heat insulation. To isolate the length to be exposed to
the fire, both ends of the columns were also covered with heat insulating
cloth. It should be noted that the ratios of the heated height to the total
height were the same for all of the columns.
2.2. Test apparatus
The fire tests were conducted using the vertical component furnace
at South China University of Technology. The furnace can heat and
apply compressive loading at the same time, as shown in Fig. 3. The
internal dimensions of the furnace measure 2.5 m × 2.5 m × 3.0 m in
height, and it has a maximum load capacity of 5000 kN. The columns’
upper ends were pinned with a loading platen, and the lower ends were
pinned with the ground using steel plates and screws.
The columns were instrumented with thermocouples and displace­
ment transducers. Twenty-seven thermocouples designated as T1 to T27
were installed at 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 of each column’s height. Thermo­
couple T28 (and T29 for 2-sided heating columns) evaluated the insu­
lating effect of the cloth insulation on the unheated sides. Fig. 4 shows
the locations of the thermocouples.
Axial deformation was measured at the top of the columns using four
symmetrically distributed linear variable differential transducers
(LVDTs).
Table 1
Summary of the specimen parameters and test results.
Specimen Scale Number of heated Side length Total height
No. sides (mm) (mm)
0.5-S2 0.5 2 175 1905
0.5-S3 0.5 3 175 1905
0.7-S2 0.7 2 245 2667
0.7-S3 0.7 3 245 2667
1.0-S2 1.0 2 350 3810
1.0-S3 1.0 3 350 3810
3
Engineering Structures 295 (2023) 116858
2.3. Test procedure
All of the columns were subjected to an axial load equal to 35 % of
their bearing capacity at ambient temperature. The bearing capacities
were calculated using the actual material strength tested on the day of
the fire test. Table 1 listed the values of the bearing capacities and
applied loads of each column. The load was applied to the column at
least 20 min prior to starting the heating and maintained until there was
no further increase in axial deformation. The load was then kept con­
stant throughout the test.
All of the columns were exposed to the ISO 834 standard fire. Fig. 5
compares the measured temperature curves with the standard fire curve.
The real fire curves of all of the columns followed the standard curve
closely.
During the tests, the applied load, upper end displacement and
temperature were recorded in real-time. According to Chinese national
code GB/T 9978.1-2008 [10], when a column’s axial deformation rea­
ches h/100 (where h is the heated length) or the deformation rate rea­
ches 3 h/1000 mm/min, the specimen should be considered to have
failed. At that point the fire test was terminated and specimen was
allowed to cool naturally to room temperature.
3. Test results
3.1. Failure mode
Of the six columns tested, five, all except 1.0-S2, failed in shear-
compression mode (see Fig. 6 and Fig. 7). Column 1.0-S2 did not fail
after 5 h of exposure. The failure of 0.5-S3 occurred near the lower end,
but for the other columns it was near the upper end. Inclined major
cracks and falling-off of concrete can be observed where the failure
occurred, exposing the rebar to the fire and resulting in its local buck­
ling. Longitudinal bars on all sides bent out at the failure position,
indicating a small eccentric compression failure. The eccentricity-
induced tensile cracks on the unheated sides reported by Jin [11]
were not observed, perhaps because the load ratio was higher in the
current tests. The compressive stress exceeded the tensile stress pro­
duced by eccentricity due to uneven heating.
No major inclined crack was observed in column 1.0-S2 which did
not fail, but some concrete falling-off was observed along the longitu­
dinal bars on the heated sides. Such falling-off was also observed from
columns 0.7-S3 and 1.0-S3. Because there was no sudden temperature
increase, the falling-off probably occurred in the final stage of fire
exposure as temperature-induced deterioration of the concrete failed to
resist the expansion of the rebar at high temperatures.
Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 show that no significant concrete explosive spalling
occurred on any of the columns, which the temperature data confirm,
since there was no sudden increase in temperatures. According to
Eurocode 2, explosive spalling is unlikely to occur when the moisture
content of concrete is less than 3 % by weight [12]. The content here was
2.8 %.
3.2. Thermal response
Fig. 8 (a) and (b) plot the temperature evolution in the concrete and
Heated length Bearing capacity Applied load Fire resistance
(mm) (kN) (kN) (min)
1300 343.5 120.2 166
1300 343.5 120.2 107
1820 677.6 237.2 248
1820 677.6 237.2 167
2600 1368.4 478.9 >300
2600 1368.4 478.9 262
H. Zhang et al. Engineering Structures 295 (2023) 116858

Table 2
Reinforcement in the prototype and model columns.
Specimen Cover thickness Longitudinal rebar Yield strength of the Stirrups Longitudinal reinforcement/stirrups Yield strength of the
scale (mm) (mm) longitudinal rebar (MPa) volumetric ratio stirrups (MPa)

1 30 4 ϕ 20 437 ϕ10@200/ 0.54 %/1.08 % 370

100
0.7 21 4 ϕ 14 470 ϕ 8@180/90 0.55 %/1.10 % 352
0.5 15 4 ϕ 10 450 ϕ 6@140/70 0.56 %/1.12 % 410

Fig. 2. Geometric sizes and reinforcement of the prototype and model columns.

the longitudinal rebar in the prototype and model columns subjected to
2-sided and 3-sided fire. Thermocouples T1, T10 and T12 were at the
concrete surface, 1/4 depth away from the surface and the concrete’s
center, respectively; and thermocouple T3 was on the longitudinal
rebar, at the mid-height section.
It shows that under the same fire curves, the surface temperatures
(T1) of columns with different scales are close, but the inner tempera­
tures of the smaller-scale specimens significantly exceeded those of
larger-scale specimens, consistent with the principle of heat flow input
and temperature increase. Although the small-scale columns received a
lower total heat flow input when subjected to identical heat flux in­
tensities, the reduced mass resulted in more rapid temperature increases
within the concrete columns.
Clearly, heating three sides of a column generates higher tempera­
ture at a given location than heating only two sides. However, the
temperature difference between 2- and 3-sided heating columns at the
concrete’s center is smaller. Comparing the temperature curves of
columns with different scales shows that the heating mode has a larger
influence on small-scale columns than on the prototype columns. For
example, at the 100th minute of fire exposure, the maximum tempera­
ture difference at the rebar (T3) between columns heated on three and
two sides is 233 ◦ C for the 0.5-scale column, 198 ◦ C at 0.7-scale and
143 ◦ C at full scale.
At 1/4-depth (T10) and at the center (T12) there is a plateau in the
temperature–time curve at about 100 ◦ C. The plateau at the center of the
prototype column lasted longer than those of the smaller-scale columns.
That was due to the larger amount of moisture involved and longer
migration path to the surface for the water vapor in the prototype
column.
3.3. Structural response and fire resistance
Fig. 9 presents the mean axial deformation development of the six
columns in the fire measured by the four LVDTs on the top of the

4
H. Zhang et al. Engineering Structures 295 (2023) 116858

(a) Prototype column (b) Model column

(c) Insulation of column side (d) Pinned support between model and
supporting column through screws
Fig. 3. The test setup.

Fig. 4. Thermocouple arrangement.

columns. As the figure shows, the axial deformation first increased in the
positive (tensile) direction due to thermal expansion and then gradually
decreased to negative (compressive deformation) as the high tempera­
ture degraded the strength of the concrete and steel. When a column
could no longer bear the load, the axial deformation increased rapidly
and the column reached its fire resistance. The fire resistances of all of
the columns are listed in Table 1.
Comparing the deformation development of columns with the same
scale but different heating modes in Fig. 9 shows that columns heated
from three sides exhibited more significant expansion, briefer expansion
and shorter fire resistance than the columns heated from two sides only.
Heating more faces gives greater heat input, causing larger thermal
expansion and faster temperature development, resulting in faster
deterioration and shorter fire resistance.
But the effects differ at different scales. The fire resistance of the 0.5-
scale column exposed to fire on three sides (107 min) was 36 % less than
that of a similar column with 2-sided heating (166 min). At 0.7-scale,
however, the difference was 33 %. And at full scale it was 28 %. The
heating mode is less important for the fire resistance of larger columns,
similar as the effect on the thermal response.

5
H. Zhang et al.
Fig. 5. Measured and ISO 834 standard fire curves.
4. Finite element modeling and parametric study
4.1. Building and validation of FEA model
Finite element analysis (FEA) was used to extend these observations
to other scales. It used ABAQUS commercial software. Truss elements
were adopted to model the steel bars and C3D8R elements were chosen
(a) 0.5-S2
Fig. 6. Failure modes of columns heated on two sides.
(a) 0.5-S3
Fig. 7. Failure modes of columns heated on three sides.
Engineering Structures 295 (2023) 116858
for modeling the concrete. The bond between the steel bars and the
concrete was defined as an “embedded region”, thus the slip between
steel bars and concrete was neglected. The boundary conditions for both
column ends were se as pinned connections, allowing axial translation
and rotation at the upper end, but only rotation at the lower end. Lie’s
published data [13,14] were used for the specific heat and conductivity
of the concrete and the steel. The thermal expansion was that of Euro­
code 2 [12]. A concrete damage plasticity model [15] was used for the
concrete and an elastic-plasticity model was adopted for the steel bars.
The stress–strain relationship for the concrete was that of Guo [16] and
for the steel it was that of Eurocode 2 [12]. The mesh sizes were pro­
portional to the columns’ dimensions to keep the mesh quantities of all
of the columns identical. Sequential coupling was adopted for the
thermal–mechanical analysis, with the mechanical analysis based on the
results of the thermal analysis. Mesh and boundary conditions are shown
in Fig. 10.
Six FEA models were built representing the 6 columns tested. Mesh
sizes for 1.0-scale, 0.7-scale, 0.5-scale columns were 43.75 mm, 30.625
mm and 21.875 mm, respectively. Fig. 11 shows the temperature-
exposure time curves for thermocouples T1, T3, T10 and T12 on col­
umns 0.5-S2, 0.5-S3, 1.0-S2 and 1.0-S3 predicted from the FEA and the
experimental observations. Apart from the measure point T1 at the fire
exposure surface, the calculated curves agree well with the observations.
Fig. 12 compares the predicted and observed axial deformations.
(b) 0.7-S2 (c) 1.0-S2
(b) 0.7-S3 (c) 1.0-S3
6
H. Zhang et al.
Fig. 8. Temperature-time curves during the heating.
Fig. 9. Axial deformation observations.
Fig. 10. Mesh and boundary condition in FEA.
Though there are some deviations between the predicted and observed
deformation curves, the fire resistances are quite close, as shown in
Table 3. The modeling method and parameter definition therefore seem
reasonable.
4.2. Parametric study
The FEA models were used in parametric studies varying the geo­
metric scale. 0.6-, 0.8- and 0.9-scale columns, were modeled. Their di­
mensions were proportional to those of the prototype columns, while the
7
Engineering Structures 295 (2023) 116858
reinforcement ratio, load ratio, furnace temperature curve and bound­
ary condition remained unchanged. Scale greater than 1.0 was not
considered since the 1.0-scale column was taken as the prototype col­
umn. Table 3 summarizes the predicted fire resistances assuming 2-sided
and 3-sided fire exposure. The table shows that with a given heating
mode the fire resistance of a column increases with its size, but not
linearly.
5. Developing and validation of similarity relationship
Based on the fire resistance test results and the FEA, a similarity
relationship quantifying the relative fire resistance of prototype and
model columns can be obtained by regression analysis. This similarity
relationship, as the time scale, should also apply to the development of
the temperature distribution and axial deformation.
5.1. Developing the similarity relationship
Reddy [9] have proposed the following model to describe the rela­
tionship between the fire resistances of two similar square RC columns
exposed to fire on all four sides and their size scale.
( )x
tm lm
= = sx (1)
tp lp
where tm and tp are the fire resistances in model and full scale; lm and
lp are their characteristic sizes and x is called the time-similarity index.
Reddy proposed that x is 1.46 with square columns and 4-sided heating
[9]. Using the form of Eq. (1) and the data in Table 3, the time-similarity
indexes for 2-sided and 3-sided heating can be estimated by regressing
H. Zhang et al. Engineering Structures 295 (2023) 116858

Fig. 11. Comparison of the temperatures predicted by the FEA and the experimental observations.

Fig. 12. Comparison of the axial deformations predicted by the FEA and the experimental observations.

the fire resistances against the scale. Fig. 13 presents the results for both
2-sided and 3-sided heating. The regressions suggest indexes for 2- and
3-sided heating of 1.19 and 1.29. The R2 values are 0.990 and 0.987,
respectively, so the regressed curves fit the data points well, as shown in
Fig. 13. A published curve and data points for 4-sided heating [9] are
also plotted. It shows that as the number of heated sides decreases, the
value of the time-similarity index decreases, and the relationship be­
tween the relative fire resistance and the relative size tends to be linear.
This implies that the size-induced difference in fire resistance of square
RC columns decreases with the number of sides heated.
5.2. Similarity of thermal response
The similarity relationship of fire resistance is commonly regarded as
the time scale [2]. Using this similarity relationship to scale the time
axis, the thermal and mechanical response of the model columns can be

8
H. Zhang et al. Engineering Structures 295 (2023) 116858

Table 3 temperatures at the columns’ mid-height section. The time axis is

Experimental and FEA fire resistance. normalized using s1.19 and s1.29 for 2- and 3-sided heating columns,
Heating mode Scale Fire resistance respectively. The sectional average temperature evolutions of the three
columns with different scales under 2- or 3-sided heating are now very
Exp. (min) FEA (min) (FEA-Exp.)/FEA
close, though the sectional temperature distributions are not completely
2-sided 0.5 166 186 12 % similar.
0.6 / 214 /
0.7 248 271 9%
0.8 / 286 / 5.3. Similarity of mechanical response
0.9 / 333 /
1.0 >300 363 / Normalized axial deformation curves can be derived using a similar
3-sided 0.5 107 114 7%
procedure—normalizing the time axis using s1.19 or s1.29 for 2-sided and
0.6 / 130 /
0.7 167 172 3% 3-sided heating respectively. The measured deformations can be
0.8 / 184 / normalized by dividing by the heated length of the column. Fig. 16 (a)
0.9 / 220 / and (b) show the normalized axial deformation – time curves for col­
1.0 262 285 9% umns heated on 2 and 3 sides with three scales. In each case the three
normalized curves are quite close.

5.4. Validation of similarity relationship

Wang [17] conducted standard fire tests (ISO834 fire curves) on 2-

Fig. 13. Relative fire resistance (tm/tp) vs. relative size (lm/lp).
normalized, which enables the comparison on the similarity between the
thermal–mechanical response of the model and prototype. For example,
adjusting the horizontal (time) axis of the measured temperature–time
curves of the model columns with 3-sided fire exposure by dividing s1.29
while keeping the vertical (temperature) axis unchanged (the similarity
factor of temperature being 1), and this is called the normalized
procedure.
Fig. 14 compares the normalized temperature–time curves of the
three 3-sided heating columns (0.5-S3, 0.7-S3 and 1.0-S3) on the surface
(T2), on a longitudinal steel bar (T3), at 1/4 depth of the concrete (T9),
and at the concrete’s center (T12). All of the measurements are at the
column’s mid-height section.
The curves for rebar (T3) are quite close, so the time scaling delivers
good similarity there. In the other locations there are certain differences
between the three columns’ curves. The similarity improves with depth
and then becomes poorer again. For example, on normalized 150th min
the difference in predicted temperature between columns 0.5-S3 and
1.0-S3 at surface exposed to the fire is 52 ◦ C. On the rebar is only 17 ◦ C.
At 1/4 depth the difference is 73 ◦ C, but at the center it is back down to
52 ◦ C. The varying similarity can be attributed to the fact that the same
fire curve, namely the ISO 834 standard fire curve, was used for the fire
tests of columns with different scales. Previous research has shown [3]
that a more intense fire should be used in model scale tests, to reach the
same thermal boundary as that of the prototype column, under the
scaled time axis. When the same fire curves were used for the columns
with different scales, the concrete surface temperature (T1) curves of the
model columns (0.5-S3, 0.7-S3) with adjusted time axis are lower than
that of the prototype column (1.0-S3), as shown in Fig. 14(a).
Sectional average temperature can be calculated using the FEA
model. Temperatures of each element in the same section were summed
up then divided by the total element numbers, and then the sectional
average temperature is derived. Fig. 15 compares those average
sided and 3-sided heating concrete columns. Both of them were 300
× 300 × 3810 mm (length × width × height) and casted using the same
batch of siliceous concrete. The concrete strength of the 150 mm cube on
the test day was 43.2 MPa. The columns had identical reinforcement, 4
rebars on each corner with diameter of 25 mm and stirrups with
diameter of 8 mm spacing at 200/100 mm. The yield strength of rebars
and stirrups were 350 MPa and 374 MPa respectively. The cover
thickness was 30 mm. Load ratios of the 2- and 3-sided heating columns
were 0.6 (1771 kN) and 0.4(1181 kN) respectively. The fire resistances
of 2- and 3-sided heating columns are listed in Table 4. To validate the
proposed similarity relationship in current study, half-scale FEA models
of Wang’s tested columns were built up. The fire resistance of half-scale
models from FEA are given in Table 4. After adopting the proposed
similarity relationship of fire resistance (time), it can be seen that pre­
dicted fire resistances of full-scale specimens are quite close to the fire
resistance of actual tests. Besides fire resistance, the predicted axial
deformations fit well with the real ones (Fig. 17). It should be noted that
the load ratio used in Wang’s test were 0.6 for 2-sided heating column
and 0.4 for 3-sided heating column, while the prediction method in the
current study is developed under load ratio of 0.35, which indicates the
proposed time similarity relationship is also applicable under other load
ratios, as long as the model has the same load level and heating condi­
tions as the prototype.
6. Discussion
Conventional model fire tests are usually conducted based on simi­
larity theory which strictly requires similar sectional temperature dis­
tribution in RC members with different scales. Such model fire test may
be infeasible since the required model fire curve are much higher than
that of the prototype, and sometimes exceeds the heating capacity of the
furnace. Proposed method in this paper only requires the same fire
curves with that of the prototype for the model fire tests.
Though the sectional temperature distribution is not completely
similar when ISO 834 fire curve is adopted for both full- and reduced-
scale columns, the similarity of mechanical response is still good,
which implies that achieving a completely similar sectional temperature
distribution to that of the prototype is not a prerequisite for conducting
model fire tests, and the approximate thermal similarity criteria were
sufficient for achieving good mechanical response similarity. As long as
the sectional average temperatures and the temperatures near rebars of
full- and reduced-scale columns are close, the mechanical response of
full-scale column can also be predicted by that of the reduced-scale
column. To explain this phenomenon, take the normalized 150th min­
ute (actual time divided by s1.19 or s1.29 for 2-sided and 3-sided heating
columns) as an example.

9
H. Zhang et al. Engineering Structures 295 (2023) 116858

Fig. 14. Normalized temperature –time curves of columns with 3-sided heating.

Fig. 15. Sectional average temperature evolution with 2- and 3-sided heating.

Fig. 18 shows the calculated sectional temperature distribution from
FEA on normalized 150th minute for the six tested columns, where the
sectional sizes of columns are also normalized. For each normalized
position, the standard deviation in temperatures of three columns with
same heating modes can be calculated. The contour plots of the standard
deviation are illustrated in Fig. 18 (d) and (h) for 3- and 2-sided heating
columns, respectively, in which deeper color indicates larger deviation
and white color indicates small deviation. From Fig. 18 (d) and (h),
deviations in descending order are deviations at surface (less than
100 ◦ C), near the concrete center (about 50 ◦ C) and at the rebar (less

10
H. Zhang et al. Engineering Structures 295 (2023) 116858

Fig. 16. Normalized axial deformation variation with normalized time.

of concrete is not significant.

Table 4
Although the standard deviation of the surface temperatures is large,
Comparison on predicted and actual fire resistance of Wang’s [17] specimens.
after long fire exposure all of the columns’ surface temperatures are
Heating Fire resistance of half- Predicted fire Actual fire predicted to exceed 800 ◦ C (Fig. 18). That concrete makes little contri­
mode scale column from FEA resistance of full-scale resistance
bution to the bearing capacity of a column. The significant temperature
(min) columns (min) (min)
differences in the outer layer of concrete therefore have little effect on
2-sided 76 76 × 21.19 = 173 170 the similarity of the columns’ mechanical responses at different scales.
heating
3-sided 77 77 × 2 1.29
= 188 184
Close to the center, all of the columns are predicted to remain at less
heating than 300 ◦ C, so the deviation of about 50 ◦ C there also has little influence
on the mechanical response similarity.
On the other hand, it turns out that where the concrete’s temperature
than 20 ◦ C). lies in the “sensitive range” exhibits a small deviation. For instance, in
Panels (a)–(c) and (e)–(g) of Fig. 18 show that after 150 min of fire Fig. 18 (a), (b) and (c), the temperature of the concrete near steel bars
exposure the temperature near concrete surface is predicted to exceed lies within the “sensitive range”, which means the concrete strength
800 ◦ C, while the temperature close to the concrete’s center is less than varies significantly with temperature in those areas. However, Fig. 18
300 ◦ C. Fig. 19 shows the changes in the concrete’s relative compressive (d) shows that the temperature deviation in that volume is very small,
strength with temperature according to Eurocode 2 [12], in which fTc and which leads to a similar mechanical response of columns with different
fc are concrete compressive strength under high temperatures and at sizes.
room temperature, respectively. At a temperature less than 300 ◦ C the
concrete’s strength is close to that at the room temperature, but from 7. Conclusions
300 ◦ C up to 800 ◦ C the strength decreases rapidly. This temperature
range can be regarded as the “sensitive range” for concrete strength Fire tests and finite element analysis on 2- and 3-sided heating col­
(colored green in Fig. 19) in which a large temperature difference (e.g., umns with different geometric scales, were conducted in this paper. The
greater than 100 ◦ C) will induce a significant difference in strength. time scales of columns under the two heating modes were proposed and
Above 800 ◦ C concrete loses nearly all of its strength. So below 300 ◦ C validated, and the similarity in thermal–mechanical response of
and above 800 ◦ C the influence of temperature variations on the strength

Fig. 17. Axial deformation evolution in Wang’s [17] experiment and predicted using proposed method.

11
H. Zhang et al.
Fig. 18. Sectional temperature distributions at the normalized 150th minute.
Fig. 19. Concrete strength variation with temperature [12].
prototype and model columns was evaluated. Based on the results from
experiments and analysis, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Achieving a completely similar sectional temperature distribution to
that of the prototype is not a prerequisite for conducting model fire
tests. As long as the model and prototype columns have similar
average sectional temperatures and similar temperatures near the
rebar, good similarity between the mechanical response of the model
and prototype can be achieved. Therefore, the same fire curve can be
used for the model and prototype fire tests.
2. Under the ISO 834 standard fire, the ratio of the fire resistance of a
model square RC column to that of a similar full-scale column varies
as about s1.19 for 2-sided heating and s1.29 for 3-sided fire exposure,
where s is geometric scale factor.
3. Under the proposed time scale factor, it has been observed that there
is a certain deviation in the temperature near the fire exposure sur­
face and concrete center of the model and prototype columns.
However, this deviation does not have a significant impact on the
similarity of their mechanical response. This is because that the outer
layer of concrete contributes little to the bearing capacity of the
columns in fire and no significant strength degradation occurs near
the concrete center.
12
Engineering Structures 295 (2023) 116858
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Haiyan Zhang: Methodology, Writing – review & editing. Weian
Jiang: Investigation, Writing – original draft. Bo Wu: Writing – review
& editing, Supervision. Bo Wen: Data curation. Congyue Qi: Investi­
gation. Lijun Yuan: Investigation.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by National Natural Science Foundation
of China (grant No. 51978286) and the Natural Science Foundation of
Guangdong Province, China (grant No. 2020A1515010728). That sup­
port is gratefully acknowledged. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or
recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do
not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors.
References
[1] McGuire JH. The scaling of dimensions in heat conduction problems. Fire Res
Notes 1954;94.
[2] McGuire JH, Stanzak WW, Law M. The scaling of fire resistance problems. Fire
Technol 1975;11(3):191–205.
[3] Ng AB, Mirza MS, Lie TT. Response of direct models of reinforced concrete columns
subjected to fire. ACI Struct J 1990;87.
[4] O’Connor DJ, Silcock GWH. A strategy for the fire testing of reduced scale
structural models. Fire Technol 1992;28(1):48–69.
[5] O’Connor DJ, Silcock GWH, Morris B. Furnace heat transfer processes applied to a
strategy for the fire testing of reduced scale structural models. Fire Saf J 1996;27
(1):1–22.
[6] O’connor DJ, Moris B, Silcock GWH. A model fire test for parametric testing of half
scale structural components. Fire Saf Sci 1997;5:997–1008.
[7] Lv HR. Similarity in thermal-structural response of reinforced concrete beams with
different scales in fire. Master: South China University of Technology; 2019 [in
Chinese].
H. Zhang et al.
[8] Zhuang HJ. Similarity of thermal-structural response of reinforced concrete
columns with different scales and influence of concrete spalling under fire. Master:
South China University of Technology; 2020 [in Chinese].
[9] Reddy DV, Sobhan K, Liu L, Young JD. Size effect on fire resistance of structural
concrete. Eng Struct 2015;99:468–78.
[10] GB/T9978.1—2008. Fire-resistance tests-elements of building construction Part1:
general requirements. Beijing: Standardization Administration of China; 2008.
[11] Jin J. Fire performance of axially restrained high strength concrete (HSC) columns
in uneven fire boundary. Master: Suzhou University of Science and Technology;
2014 [in Chinese].
[12] EN1992-1-2. Eurocode2, Design of concrete structures - Part 1-2: general rules -
structural fire design. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization; 2004.
13
Engineering Structures 295 (2023) 116858
[13] Lie T.T. , Lin T.D. Fire performance of reinforced concrete columns. In: Fire safety:
science and engineering 1985.
[14] Lie TT. Fire resistance of circular steel columns filled with bar-reinforced concrete.
J Struct Eng 1994;120(5):1489–509.
[15] Lubliner J, Oliver J, Oller S, Oñate E. A plastic-damage model for concrete. Int J
Solids Struct 1989;25(3):299–326.
[16] Guo Z, Shi X. Experiment and calculation of reinforced concrete at elevated
temperatures. Butterworth-Heinemann; 2011.
[17] Chao W. Study on fire resistance of RC columns with different faces exposed to fire.
Master: South China University of Technology; 2006 [in Chinese].