Results in Engineering 19 (2023) 101294

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Results in Engineering
journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/results-in-engineering

Fire resistance of square reinforced concrete column with one-face gypsum

layer insulation under axial loading
Mohanad Salih Farhan *, Abdul Muttalib I. Said
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Baghdad, Iraq

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

Keywords: This study aims at investigating the fire resistance performance of square-reinforced concrete columns exposed to
Compressive load capacity a standard hydrocarbon fire under a time-range axial loading. The gypsum layer is used as a prime fire protection
Fire resistance for aggressive fire-flame. The gypsum boards are commonly employed as finishing material in construction. The
Hydrocarbon fire
ASTM C1529 hydrocarbon fire scenario is adopted in this study for all reinforced concrete samples subjected to
Gypsum layer
Fire flame
axial load simultaneously exposed to direct fire flame of (600 and 900)oC. The experimental investigation is
ASTM E− 1529 carried out on twelve laboratory-scale concrete samples. The outcome discussed the influence of various gypsum
layer thicknesses applied to one face of the column sample under axial loading. The results showed different
senses of fire resistance between samples. The gypsum protection layer reduces the effect of fire-exposed concrete
specimens. For 1 h duration, 600 ◦ C, and 10 mm and 20 mm gypsum layer thicknesses, the strength load evo­
lution drops by 30.7% and 34.96%, respectively compared to the reference sample. Furthermore, for the 1-h
duration, 900 ◦ C, and 10 mm and 20 mm gypsum layer thicknesses, the load evolution drops by 29.6% and
34.58%, respectively compared to the reference model. Also, the strength drops by 15%, 19%, 29.4, and 17.9%
for the same testing characterization, but a 2-h fire duration. The results show no spalling or delamination of the
concrete substrate. Also, the amount of lateral deflection is improved.

1. Introduction
Reinforced concrete columns in a building might be exposed to fire
attack as a fire coincidence happens depending on the column location
within the space in different column faces. Basically, in design, the
American and European codes provide tables and charts for the calcu­
lation of the fire resistance of reinforced concrete (RC) columns. These
tables and charts are based on empirical formulas [1]. More experi­
mental knowledge on the behavior of reinforced concrete columns in
case o fire exposure is important to enrich structural design practice [1].
Gypsum layer protection for the effective concrete face should improve
the strength capacity of the concrete columns by minimizing the impact
of fire and the time of exposure delay. Peng and Mostafaei [2] developed
a new formula for obtaining fire resistance ratings of gypsum board
protected steel columns with high load ratios. The proposed formula can
be applied to correct the limiting steel temperature, which is usually
used 538 ◦ C (1000 ◦ F) according to the US standards. An experimental
research on restrained composite columns under fire behavior was car­
ried out by Rúben et al. [3]. The columns under investigation were filled
double-skin and double-tube hollow sections. They were square (ordi­
nary, lightweight, and high-strength) concrete. The furnace temperature
for all fire tested specimens was similar. Comparing this temperature
with the ISO 834 fire curve. The column samples have been subjected to
a constant compressive load during the tests that tried to simulate the
serviceability load of the column when in a real structure. A new
gypsum-concrete composite panels was developed and tested under fire
by Shaochun Ma et al., in 2020 [4]. The authors suggested adding the
insulation gypsum layers for the panel to increase the thermal insulation
system. These insulation layers increased obviously the bearing capacity
and ductility of composite boards, implying that the thermal insulation
system is beneficial for the seismic performance of composite boards [4].
Experimental studies that achieved the behavior of gypsum plaster­
boards exposed to thermal loading for steel elements with natural fires
are presented by Zehfuß and Sander in 2021 [5]. Large-scale steel beams
exposed to fire tests with load application, as well as unloaded steel
columns insulated by gypsum plasterboards. The results obtained an
obvious relationship on the heating and cooling procedure. The authors
adopted (EN 1363-12) fire tests satisfy to the ISO - 834 standard fire

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: j_shwik@yahoo.com, m.farhan1901p@coeng.uobaghdad.edu.iq (M.S. Farhan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2023.101294
Received 16 February 2023; Received in revised form 7 July 2023; Accepted 11 July 2023
Available online 17 July 2023
2590-1230/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
M.S. Farhan and A.M.I. Said Results in Engineering 19 (2023) 101294

Fig. 1. Column reinforcement details and gypsum protection layers.

Table 1
Characteristics of the tested columns.
Column Cross section Longitudinal reinforcement reinforcement ratio As/ gypsum layer time to exposure to Slender-
reference Ac (%) thickness (mm) fire (min) ness
Dimensions Ac Number and As
(mm) (mm2) diameter (mm) (mm2)

Sq-R-600-1F- 150 × 150 22500 4φ12 452.16 2 0 60 30

1h-L
Sq-R-600-1F- 150 × 150 22500 4φ12 452.16 2 0 120 30
2h-L
Sq-R-900-1F- 150 × 150 22500 4φ12 452.16 2 0 60 30
1h-L
Sq-R-900-1F- 150 × 150 22500 4φ12 452.16 2 0 120 30
2h-L
Sq-1G-600-1F- 150 × 150 22500 4φ12 452.16 2 10 60 30
1h-L
Sq-1G-600-1F- 150 × 150 22500 4φ12 452.16 2 10 120 30
2h-L
Sq-1G-900-1F- 150 × 150 22500 4φ12 452.16 2 10 60 30
1h-L
Sq-1G-900-1F- 150 × 150 22500 4φ12 452.16 2 10 120 30
2h-L
Sq-2G-600-1F- 150 × 150 22500 4φ12 452.16 2 20 60 30
1h-L
Sq-2G-600-1F- 150 × 150 22500 4φ12 452.16 2 20 120 30
2h-L
Sq-2G-900-1F- 150 × 150 22500 4φ12 452.16 2 20 60 30
1h-L
Sq-2G-900-1F- 150 × 150 22500 4φ12 452.16 2 20 120 30
2h-L

curve. Experimental results simulate and analyzed the deformation
response using commercial computer software (SAFIR) developed at the
University of Lià ge. Three levels depend on this procedure to obtain the
final results, first, concrete respective strength reduction factor deter­
mination, and the same sequence for elasticity modular at elevated
temperature numerically, second, compute equilibrium column failure
point, third, by trial and error determining fault load. By this procedure,
the ACI could capable viewed as an extension and predict
column-bearing capacity at ambient temperature [6]. The effect of
different gypsum and plaster cover for reinforced concrete beam cast
and exposure of two temperature range under a hydrocarbon fire flame
standard curve, the results showed improvement in a loss of the first
crack load and the ultimate load capacity with samples gypsum plaster
covered. By increasing gypsum layer thickness, the smaller deflection
occurrence because the protective concrete surface prevents direct
exposure to heat and the occurrence of cracks in the face of the concrete
[7]. Three groups were cast and exposed to (400 and 700)◦ C covered by
(10 and 20) mm gypsum and plaster layers and non-covered samples
(reference). The results presented improvement in the compressive
strength of concrete for covered samples by using Gypsum layers at
400 ◦ C about 4% and 6% at (10 and 20) mm respectively, and for 700 ◦ C
the compressive strength reduced to a half [8]. Finite element software
Abaqus was used to study the effect of fire on the axial bearing capacity
and behavior of reinforced concrete columns. Full-scale dimensions and
various shapes were used and exposed to fire temperature at all sides
with different temperature ranges with a time duration of 1 h to check
the numerical models accuracy used. The temperature effect depends on
the duration of the heat intensity and geometric parameters including
the burning location and the load application direction. The results
showed that ultimate load values decrease when the column specimens
were exposed to fire, the fire resistance for the Circular column with
spiral reinforcement was more than other solid columns due to the
stability dimensions in all directions [9]. Non-prismatic reinforced
concrete beams (NPRC) with and without openings were subjected to
post-fire testing to assess their performance and residual strength. The
samples were tested in fire conditions with three temperature ranges
(ambient, 400, and 700 ◦ C). Increasing fire flame temperatures caused
degradation in NPRC beams. The results showed that for the samples
exposed to 400 ◦ C and 700 ◦ C the ultimate strength was reduced to 5.7
and 10.84% for solid NPRC beams, for NPRC beams with eight trape­
zoidal openings reduced by about 21.13–32.8%, for samples with eight
circular openings the reduction in ultimate strength was 10.5%–12.8%
[10]. Composite post-tensioned concrete beam with a concrete deck on
top, The fire exposure scenarios were adopted and cooled with by air,
with or without a uniformly distributed sustained loading. The deck
slabs cast with various concrete compressive strengths were examined.
The results indicated a considerable decline connected to the member’s
increased camber. After being exposed to fire, the midspan camber
increased twice as much. The load-carrying capacity of the
heat-deteriorated samples was found to be reduced in different values
after 1 h of fire exposure [11]. The effects of ultimate load and deflection
on the structural member behavior following fire flame exposure were
investigated using the suggestion of a numerical model for the experi­
mental tests validation. Self-compacted R.C. beams containing polymer

2
M.S. Farhan and A.M.I. Said
Fig. 2. Experimental set-up for fire resistance tests on columns.
Fig. 3. Furnace installation and specimen location.
Fig. 4. Fire flame furnace test process.
3
Results in Engineering 19 (2023) 101294
Fig. 5. Frame fabrication at the workshop.
Fig. 6. Furnace cross-section and specimen position.
Fig. 7. Top view of a test system Details.
spheres that absorb water when exposed to flames should be tested ac­
cording to ASTM E119 for one and 2 h [12]. Different temperature
ranges were used to evaluate the influence of fire flame exposure on the
punched shear strength of reinforced concrete flat plates strengthened
with steel fiber. For the experimental testing in the adopted a rapid
cooling was used. The results showed a drop in punching shear strength
with increasing in ultimate deflection [13]. Three different percentage
of steel fiber was used with reactive powder concrete exposed to fire
with different range of temperature for 1 h exposure time duration. The
M.S. Farhan and A.M.I. Said Results in Engineering 19 (2023) 101294

Fig. 8. Column details and thermocouple locations through cross-sections.

Fig. 9. Standard fire curves with designed furnace temperature.

2. Experimental work
J
J
J
J
The experimental procedure implies testing of 12 samples in a hor­
J izontal position and both ends are confined as shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 6.
Two different layer thicknesses of 10 mm and 20 mm were applied on
one face of the sample as a protection layer. Four columns were sub­
J
jected to fire without a protection layer, the other four columns were
covered with a 10 mm gypsum layer, and the last four columns were
covered with 20 mm gypsum. All samples were subjected to the same
fire temperature and duration where the samples were exposed to 600
and 900 ◦ C. The exposure time duration ranges between 1 h and 2 h for
each temperature. The tests were designed to simulate the actual fire
scenario in the building when one face of the concrete column will be
under direct fire flame. The tests of this research were carried out in the
concrete company site namely Reyah AL-Moasem located in Baghdad,
Fig. 10. Temperature evolution at the cross-section specimens covered a 20 which is a concrete-providing company. The details of concrete samples
mm layer of Gypsum and Reference. along with the test specifications are given in Table 1.

different cooling method was achieved by sudden and gradual cooling.
The results showed various influences according to fire exposure [14].
This study investigates the effect of direct fire flame of (600 and 900)oC
of twelve laboratory-scale RC columns protected with 10 mm and 20
mm gypsum layers. The study aims at exploring the distribution of heat
inside the section, and the effect of the heat on the lateral displacement
of the column samples.
3. Test set-up
3.1. Characteristics of the specimens
The test specimens are reinforced concrete columns of 1500 mm in
length and (150 mm × 150 mm) cross-section. The compressive strength
of the normal concrete specimens is 30 MPa. The samples are reinforced
with 4-Φ 12 mm steel bars of 420 MPa yield stress. Shear reinforcement
of 6 mm at 140 mm spacing is added. The fresh concrete specimens are
then subjected to 24 h of hot bath curing at 67 ◦ C to accelerate the

4
M.S. Farhan and A.M.I. Said Results in Engineering 19 (2023) 101294

Table 2
Specimens temperature evolution and variation.
Column gypsum layer Time Range of T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T-rebar T-surface T-Furnace Surf. T5. T-rebar
reference thick. (mm) duration Exposure (⁰C) (⁰C) (⁰C) (⁰C) (⁰C) (C⁰) (⁰C) (⁰C) * Temp. var.% var. %
(min) (min) var.%

Sq-R-900- 0 120 R120 280 413 417 591 800 382 900 ≥900 0 0 0
1F-2h-L
Sq-1G-900- 10 120 R120 149 166 198 281 313 219 451 ≥900 49.88 60.8 42.6
1F-2h-L
Sq-2G-900- 20 120 R120 84 127 143 161 235 176 373 ≥900 58.55 70.6 53.9
1F-2h-L

(*) assumed the furnace temperature was constant for all test duration.

connected to a thermometer to provide hot water. The water was heated

J
J
to 67Co with a duration of about 24 h to reach the maximum ultimate
J
J
strength according to ASTM C-684 [15]. The specimens are ready to be
J
tested within 24 h after casting. The concrete sample dimensions and
characterization of reinforcement are given in Fig. 2. The specimens
J
were instrumented with type-(K) thermocouples placed in three
different sections along its length, each section contains pair of 5–6
thermocouples as shown in sections 2-2, 3-3, and 4-4 of Fig. 8.

3.2. Specimens preparation

The test has been achieved by putting the specimen in a furnace in a

Fig. 11. Temperature evolution at the cross-section specimens covered a 10
mm layer of Gypsum and Reference.
Fig. 12. Fire resistance comparison with gypsum-covered specimens and
noncovered 600 ◦ C one duration of 1 h.
horizontal position. This procedure of test is not a standard procedure.
However, it was utilized to reduce the fire effect that came through
outside the furnace at the ends of specimens. Also, to maintain the
measurement devices effective from flame and temperature, and to
easily handle the samples at the end of the test Fig. 4. One end of the
sample is attached to the main testing frame, while the other end is
extended through 85 mm diameter solid steel rod indicated with number
4 in Fig. 7. The steel rod was connected to the hydraulic jack indicated as
3 and the other side of the hydraulic Jack was attached to the Load cell 2
with a load capacity of 2 MN. The main steel reinforcement area was
selected to have the same ratio values per cross-section for all specimens.
All specimens were cast under the same conditions, characteristics, and
properties. The test was performed to be applied to all specimens
exposed to fire flame by the Furnace as shown in Fig. 5 and indicated
with number 6 in Fig. 7. The furnace has dimensions of (500 × 650 ×
1250) mm (inside dimensions) open from both ends, subjected to fire
flame heating by propane gas referred to as number 1 in Fig. 7. The
application of the fire was designed to cover the perimeter exposed to
direct fire flame. The top and bottom faces contain 10 gas jets. The
furnace sides consisted of five jets from each side. The jet group for all
sides is altogether connected to the main gas hose stand-alone to make it
more easily used and controlled manually by a gas valve regulator. The
amount of gas flow depends on temperature increases and decreases,
heat loss, and wind speed.

3.3. Test installation

Figs. 2 and 5 present a general view of the typical experimental

Fig. 13. Fire resistance comparison with gypsum-covered specimens and
noncovered 600 ◦ C duration 2 h.
maturity of concrete. The concrete samples are strengthened by two (50
× 50 × 3mm) steel plate ends (around the ends). A water tank of (1750
× 1250 × 750)mm dimensions used three electric heaters of 3000 W
setup. The system consists of a steel frame of dimensions (H300 × 300 ×
15) mm welded, strengthened by stiffeners, and positioned freely
referred to as number 5 in Fig. 4. Also, the steel frame is shown in Fig. 5.
The furnace was built with cast-iron fabricated in the workshop using
appropriate equipment with certain dimensions and enhanced by insu­
lation bricks to keep the temperature up for as long as it took during the
test time Figs. 3 and 4. The steel frame was designed to resist the applied
load with clear space to avoid fire effects on the frame and the measuring
device. The load application on the specimen was carried out using a
hydraulic jack to reach the design service load. During the test, the
applied load is kept constant and monitored if any change will happen
until the test started by applying fire flame on the specimen.
According to the ACI-318 design code [7], the load was taken as 50%

5
M.S. Farhan and A.M.I. Said Results in Engineering 19 (2023) 101294

Table 3
Load evolution with time.
Column gypsum fire Initial Load Evolution Under fire (x102) kN P/Po Variation Variation Time effect
item layer exposure Load with Po % with variation
Heating Phase Cooling Phase
thick. duration (x102) Ref. % %
(mm) (min) kN R30 R60 R90 R120 R15 R30 R45

Sq-R- 0 60 3.166 4.735 5.767 ——— ——— 5.554 ——— ——— 1.821 45.101 0 2.25
600-
1F-1h-
L
Sq-R- 0 120 3.158 3.913 4.696 5.285 5.702 5.463 ——— ——— 1.863 44.61 0
600-
1F-2h-
L
Sq-R- 0 60 3.158 4.922 5.564 ——— ——— 5.374 ——— ——— 1.762 43.24 0 5
900-
1F-1h-
L
Sq-R- 0 120 3.158 5.299 5.660 5.760 5.861 4.610 ——— ——— 1.856 46.11 0
900-
1F-2h-
L
Sq-1G- 10 60 3.167 3.481 4.154 ——— ——— 4.188 ——— ——— 1.26 23.76 29.6 22.7
900-
1F-1h-
L
Sq-1G- 10 120 3.131 3.708 4.101 4.586 5.107 4.868 ——— ——— 1.631 38.69 29.40
900-
1F-2h-
L
Sq-2G- 20 60 3.132 3.780 3.817 ——— ——— 4.063 ——— ——— 1.229 17.9 34.58 14.96
900-
1F-1h-
L
Sq-2G- 20 120 3.189 3.563 3.884 4.280 4.853 4.770 ——— ——— 1.522 34.28 17.9
900-
1F-2h-
L
Sq-1G- 10 60 3.167 3.351 3.999 ——— ——— 4.232 4.349 4.39 1.262 20.80 30.69 17.7
600-
1F-1h-
L
Sq-1G- 10 120 3.132 3.416 4.074 4.428 4.805 4.845 ——— ——— 1.534 34.81 15.00
600-
1F-2h-
L
Sq-2G- 20 60 3.142 3.353 3.710 ——— ——— 3.862 ——— ——— 1.181 15.30 34.96 19.2
600-
1F-1h-
L
Sq-2G- 20 120 3.203 3.494 3.950 4.312 4.625 4.675 ——— ——— 1.462 30.74 19.00
600-
1F-2h-
L

Fig. 14. Fire resistance comparison with gypsum-covered specimens and

Fig. 15. Fire resistance comparison with gypsum-covered specimens and
noncovered 900 ◦ C duration 1 h. noncovered 900◦ Cduration 2 h.

of the column design load at ambient temperature. A compression load surrounding area on each side of the column of the restraining frame was
cell of 2 MN (Fig. 4) was placed between the piston’s head of the hy­ instrumented with strain dial gauges placed on each edge of the frame
draulic jack and the solid steel rod transfer load. The specimen was flanges. The sections were located at 375 mm, 750 mm, and 1125 mm,
positioned horizontally with the frame testing machine and the respectively from the base of the column to check the frame rigidity. The

6
M.S. Farhan and A.M.I. Said
Fig. 16. The ratio of fire resistance for specimens with different protection layers and temperature.
Fig. 17. Lateral displacement pattern for columns subjected to 600 ◦ C for 1 h.
Fig. 18. Lateral displacement pattern for columns subjected to 600 ◦ C for 2 h.
restraining compression forces developed due to the fire flame exposure
of the columns were measured. The load cell of 2 MN, placed inside a
special device built for this specific experiment, was designed and
7
Results in Engineering 19 (2023) 101294
Fig. 19. Lateral displacement pattern for columns subjected to 900 ◦ C for 1 h.
Fig. 20. Lateral displacement pattern for columns subjected to 900 ◦ C for 2 h.
assembled by the author. The thermal influence was applied to the
specimens providing temperatures up to 1300 ◦ C. Trial test recorded and
able to apply fire curves with different heating rates. The heating curve
applied was the standard fire curve, ASTM 1529 [16] (Fig. 9). The
M.S. Farhan and A.M.I. Said
Fig. 21. Specimens after fire test.
temperatures of the test specimens were recorded by type-K thermo­
couples placed at five different levels along the vertical direction of the
cross-section of the column, as shown in Fig. 8. Six thermocouples were
placed in each section, two thermocouples are attached to the longitu­
dinal and transverse reinforcement bars, while the others are embedded
in the concrete at various depths (near the surface, in the center, midway
between the center and surface, and the fourth located near the stirrups
at top level) (Fig. 6). In addition, the temperatures inside the furnace are
measured by extra four shielded type-K thermocouples to observe the
furnace temperature during test time. The temperature measurements
are recorded using data acquisition system of 24-channel data logger.
3.4. Test procedure
The fire resistance tests were performed on two levels. The idea is to
apply the specimen at the service design load first and apply the fire
flame afterward. The specimens were axially loaded up to the target
force at a rate of 5 kN/s. The applied load is about 50% of the design
value of the ultimate buckling load of the columns at ambient temper­
ature. These loading levels are intended to simulate the actual load
conditions of the columns when they are acted into the actual building
structure. The specimens are covered by a gypsum layer on one face of
the column with 10 mm thickness and 20 mm thickness, respectively.
The time of exposure is 1 h and 2 h at temperatures of 600 ◦ C and 900 ◦ C,
respectively. Four specimens had no cover of gypsum layer to make
comparisons with the other three testing groups. It is aimed to determine
the safety level of each type of element in fire situations and at most
severe mechanical loading. despite the authors being aware of this being
a very limited scenario. The specimens are loaded by a hydraulic jack
applied axially to the test column, and when the load reaches a specific
amount, the jack should be a closed system to keep the load fixed all
along the fire duration test. The variation of the load had been recorded
by the data logger through the load cell, and the thermal elongation
occurred while the specimens were measured and calculated as thermal
stress by the data logger at the time of the test. The data will be used to
determine the differences between the specimens that experienced the
tests with and without gypsum protection.
4. Results and analysis
4.1. Temperature evolution
Fire flame exposure applied to reinforced concrete square columns
showed an obvious influence of heat transfer response for different
samples depending on the existence or not of gypsum protection cover.
Temperature curves showed that the curves of reference samples acted
as non-linear behavior for all thermocouples data. However, the
gypsum-covered specimens temperature behavior showed a linear
behavior for all cross-sectional thermocouples. Figs. 7 and 8 give the
temperature evolution throughout the column cross-section S3 for
samples Sq-R-900-1F-1h and Sq-2G-900-1F-2h. The design and fire
curves of ASTM 1529 [16], ASTM E119 [17], and ISO 834 [18] as well as
the temperature inside the furnace, are also shown in Fig. 10. A com­
parison between the columns that have no gypsum cover along with the
8
Results in Engineering 19 (2023) 101294
covered columns shows that the temperatures in the former models are
remarkably higher than in models with gypsum layers. For S3-T5, and
samples Sq-R-900-1F-1h and Sq-2G-900-1F-2h there is a large difference
in temperature development undergoing the same furnace temperature
of 900 ◦ C, as shown in Fig. 7. For 2 h fire duration, and thermocouple
S3-T5, 60.8% decrease in temperature is noticed for Sq-1G-900-1F-2h
compared to R-900-1F-2h. In addition, the decrease in temperature is
about 70.6% for (Sq-2G-900-1F-2h) compared to R-900-1F-2h, Fig. 7.
The thermal conductivity of the gypsum layer prevents heat from
diffusing into concrete. It is observed that the temperature diffusion in
the 20 mm thickness layer drops by 24% compared to the 10 mm layer
samples. After 120 min at 900 C, all S3-(T1, T2, T3, and T4) for spec­
◦
imen Sq-(2G-900-1F-2h), the temperature rises constantly, and all
temperature values are below 200 ◦ C. In general, for full exposure time,
except S3-T5, the nearest thermocouple to the surface exposure zone
records a temperature of 235 C. There are no fire effect signs observed
◦
for all protected specimens of all durations. The maximum temperature
noted is 313 ◦ C for specimen Sq-2G-900-1F-2h at the end of the test. The
reference specimens showed that the temperature is rising rapidly all
along the test time, and concrete cracks and crushed zone are noticed
after exposure to direct fire. For S3-T1, S3-T2, and S3-T3 for
Sq-2G-900-1F-2h, the temperature decreased compared to the reference
specimen in the same cross-section thermocouple positions. The tem­
perature at the T-surface (boundary thermocouple) for the specimens
Sq-1G-900-1F-2h and Sq-2G-900-1F-2h showed that the temperature
decreased by about 49.88% and 58.55%, respectively compared to the
reference model. For S3-T5 the temperature decreased by 60.8% and
70.6% respectively for the same specimens with regarding the variation
of T-rebar the temperature dropped to 42.6% and 53.9% respectively for
the same specimens compared to the reference model. These results are
given in Table 2.
4.2. Fire resistance and restraining forces
During the applied loads, the restraining forces increased gradually
while the specimen is exposed to fire. Then, when the test stopped, the
restraining forces decreased under the cooling effect. The failure indi­
cator adopted is the time (fire resistance) when the restraining forces (P)
recovered the value of the initial applied load (Po). It should be high­
lighted here that this failure time is not a standard for fire resistance.
Figs. 12 and 13 present the development of restraining force (P) to the
initial applied load (Po) (P/Po) as a function of exposure time. From these
figures, it can be noticed that the 10 mm gypsum layer for the specimen
exposed to 600 C and 1-h duration led to an increase in the fire resis­
◦
tance by 30.69% compared to the bare column. The column covered
with a 20-mm gypsum layer has a higher fire resistance by about 34.96%
compared to the reference model as given in Fig. 16 a. However, the
differences between 10 mm and 20 mm are about 14.5% and 18.4%,
respectively. The 20 mm layer thickness has been shown more effective
than the 10 mm thickness for the same test conditions (Fig. 11 and
Fig. 16 b). Two hours of fire exposure for test specimens indicates that
the variations regarding to gypsum-layer thickness are 9.3% and 13.6%,
respectively (Figs. 12 and 13 d.). The time effect comparison for the
same condition specimens showed a variation between the reference
M.S. Farhan and A.M.I. Said Results in Engineering 19 (2023) 101294

Fig. 22. Lateral displacement comparing covered and non-covered columns by gypsum.

9
M.S. Farhan and A.M.I. Said
samples exposed to 600 ◦ C and the time duration test for one and 2 h is
about 2.25%. Nevertheless, for 10 mm and 20 mm protection covers, the
variations are about 17.7% and 19.2, respectively (Fig. 16 a and b). The
variation for the group exposed to 900 ◦ C and time duration test of one-
and 2-h duration is 5% for the bare reference specimens and for covered
specimens vary by 22.7% and 19.52%, respectively (Fig. 16 c and
Fig. d). Table 3 gives the load evolution (P/Po) of the 12 test samples for
30, 60, 90 and 120 min during the heating phase in addition to 15 min
during the cooling phase. From the results above it can be noticed that
the variation for all specimens ranged between 15% and 34.96%
compared to the references, and between 15.3% and 38.69% compared
to Po. Thus, the gypsum protection layer showed a large influence of fire
resistance for all covered specimens compared to the non-covered
specimens, and showed a linear rising behavior for all test durations
compared to the non-covered specimens, which showed a non-linear
behavior(Figs. 14 and 15).
4.3. Deformation of test specimens
Fig. 22 illustrates the deflection due to temperature after the initial
load was applied. It was measured after the test and the specimens were
cooled by air. The buckling of the testing columns was mainly about the
x-axis. However, some local buckling and spalling were noticed in the
faces and corners of the columns for the non-covered specimens. The
local buckling was more noticeable in the column without a gypsum
cover. The lateral displacement for all non-covered columns was hardly
noticeable. For the 600 ◦ C and duration of 1 h (Figs. 17 and 18), the
lateral displacement varies between the tested columns by about 75%
reduction for samples of 10 mm gypsum cover. In addition, the variation
for 20 mm gypsum cover samples is about 79%. For specimen R-600 and
2 h of fire exposure, the lateral displacement varies from 76.7% to 82%,
respectively, compared to the 10 mm and 20 mm gypsum-covers sam­
ples. In the group with a temperature of 900 ◦ C and a 1-h duration time
(Fig. 16), the lateral displacement varied about 53.2% and 61.5%,
respectively compared to the (10 mm) and (20 mm) gypsum-covered
specimens. Moreover, for the reference specimens that were exposed
to fire testing for 2 h, the lateral displacement for the tested column
results was about 47% and 84% compared to the (10 mm) and (20 mm)
columns (Figs. 19 and 20). The deflected shape appears very clear with
the references regarding aggressive fire attacks with respect to time
however the protected specimen shows an almost undeflected shape or
small values of lateral displacement and maintained the ultimate regular
shape (Fig. 21).
4.4. Critical time and ultimate collapse time
This section discusses the results of the deflected shape due to time,
the ultimate collapse time, and the time corresponding to the maximum
restraining forces. The critical time signifies the time instant when the
restraining force starts to decline after increasing due to thermal elon­
gation. The decline occurs due to the degradation of the mechanical
properties of constituent materials. A critical time has no more observed
in these columns due to the gypsum protection pattern. Under the initial
applied load, the restraining forces are still rising all along the test
duration for all specimens, and failure is no longer reached. The
development in force remains constant for much longer. The last
moment before reaching failure namely ultimate collapse time. In the
reference columns with no gypsum cover, it is observed a much higher
rise in restraining force, and for these values, both affected to achieve
the probable of ultimate failure. It could be predicted the critical time of
failure. On the other hand, in columns 1G and 2G of gypsum covers, and
with reduced heat transfer through the cross-section, no significant
deflected shape is noticed, no spalling, and no critical times. At least, for
the first 2 h of fire flame tests(Fig. 22).
10
Results in Engineering 19 (2023) 101294
5. Conclusions
This article presents the results of experimental research on the
behavior of one-face gypsum-covered concrete columns subjected to
one-face fire flame. Various ranges of fire resistance in the gypsum-
covered column specimens compared to noncovered columns are pre­
sented, and the reduction in heat transfer is shown. The investigations
are carried out for 1hr and 2hrs fire durations, with 600 ◦ C and 900 ◦ C
for 10 mm and 20 mm gypsum layer thicknesses. The non-covered
columns presented higher thermal stress up to ultimate collapse times.
The gypsum layers presented a high protection level and improved fire
resistance. The 900 ◦ C surface temperature variation for the exposed
specimen led to 49.88% and 58.55, respectively for 10 mm and 20 mm
covers specimens. For the same specimens, S3-T5 surface temperature
variation differs by 60.8% and 70.6 compared to the non-covered
reference models, and temperature drops in rebar occurred by about
42.6% and 53.9, respectively. No appearance of cracks, spalling, and no
color changes are noticed for the gypsum-protected columns. The re­
sidual load-carrying capacity of the protected specimens is minimal. The
rising in thermal stresses for all protected specimens shows a constant
linear increasing behavior. However, the non-cover specimens present
nonlinear increasing behavior, leading to more defects and more dam­
age for all specimens. All covered specimens showed minimal deflection
due to fire resistance compared with the non-covered references. The
drop in deflection is 75% for 10 mm gypsum cover; in addition to the
variation of 79% for 20 mm gypsum cover when the fire duration is 1 h.
Furthermore, the drops are 76.7% and 82%, respectively for 2 h dura­
tion compared to the reference bare samples.
Credit author statement
Abdul Muttalib I.Said: Conceptualization, Methodology, and
Reviewing the Writing the Writing – original draft, manuscript. Moha­
nad Salih Farhan: Carrying out the experimental tests, analyzing the
results, and the presentation of the output. Writing the Writing – original
draft.
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.
Acknowledgments
The support provided by the Department of Civil Engineering at the
University of Baghdad and Al-Mustansyriah University is gratefully
acknowledged.
References
[1] K.H. Tan, Y. Yao, Fire resistance of R. C. Columns subjected to 1-, 2-, and 3-face
heating, J. Struct. Eng. © ASCE (2004).
[2] Z. Peng, H. Mostafaei, Fire resistance of gypsum board protected steel columns
with high load ratios, J. Struct. Eng. 144 (11) (2018), 04018208. ASCE.
[3] A.J.P.M. Correia, J.P.C. Rodrigues, Behaviour of restrained concrete-filled square
double-skin and double-tube hollow columns in case of fire, Eng. Struct. 216
(2020), 110736.
[4] Shaochun Ma, Peng Bao and Nan Jiang, Experimental Study of Gypsum-Concrete
Dense-Column Composite Boards with External Thermal Insulation Systems.
Shaochun. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10061976.
[5] Jochen Zehfuß, Lisa Sander, Gypsum Plasterboards under Natural
Fire—Experimental Investigations of Thermal Properties, Ernst & Sohn Verlag für
Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, 2021, https://doi.
org/10.1002/cend.202100002.
M.S. Farhan and A.M.I. Said
[6] K.H. Tan, Y. Yao, Fire resistance of four-face heated reinforced concrete columns,
J. Struct. Eng. © (2003) asce.
[7] Raid Sattar Warwar, Abdulmuttalib Said, Flexural behavior of reinforced concrete
beams covered by gypsum layers and exposed to elevated temperatures, in: E3S
Web of Conferences 318(3):03005, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-
6277-5_51.
[8] Raid Sattar Warwar, Abdulmuttalib Said, Mechanical properties of normal strength
concrete covered with gypsum layers and exposed to high temperatures (fire
flame), in: Geotechnical Engineering and Sustainable Construction, Sustainable
Geotechnical Engineering, March 2022, https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/
202131803005.
[9] Hadeer Riyadh Mohammed, Abdul Muttalib I.Said, Numerical analysis of
reinforced concrete columns subjected to fire and different loading conditions, Des.
Eng. (6) (2021) 2498–2515.
[10] Bashar F. Abdulkareem, Amer F. Izzet, Residual post-fire strength of non-prismatic
perforated beams, in: IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 961,
2022.
[11] Amer F. Izzet, Nazar Oukaili, Nibras A. Harb, in: Post-Fire Serviceability and
Residual Strength of Composite Post-tensioned Concrete T-Beams Post-fre
Serviceability and Residual Strength of Composite Post-tensioned Concrete T-
Beams, SN Applied Sciences, vol. 3, 2021, p. 158, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s42452-020-04116-9.
11
Results in Engineering 19 (2023) 101294
[12] Nibras Farooq Hussein, Shatha Dheyaa Mohammed, Influence of fire-flame
duration and temperature on the behavior of reinforced concrete beam containing
water absorption polymer sphere; numerical investigation, Number 11, J. Eng. 28
(2022), www.joe.uobaghdad.edu.iq.
[13] Ahmed Naji Dalaf, Shatha Dheyaa Mohammed, Steel fiber Enhancement upon
punching shear Strength of concrete flat plates Exposed to fire flame”, Civ. Eng. J. 7
(10) (2021).
[14] K Aboud Rawaa, K Awad Hadeel, D Mohammed Shatha, Fire flame effect on the
compressive strength of reactive powder concrete using different methods of
cooling”, in: IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 518, 2019,
022029, 2nd International Conference on Sustainable Engineering Techniques
(ICSET 2019).
[15] ASTM C684/C684M-99 “Standard Test Method for Making, Accelerated Curing, and
Testing Concrete Compression Test Specimens” DOI: 10.1520/C0684-99..
[16] ASTM, Standard Test Methods for Determining Effects of Large Hydrocarbon Pool
Fires on Structural Members and Assemblies, ASTM E1529, West Conshohocken,
PA, 2022 (ASTM).
[17] ASTM, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and
Materials, ASTM E119, West Conshohocken, PA, 2020 (ASTM).
[18] ISO 834 “Fire-resistance tests — Elements of building construction” Reference number
ISO 834-13:2019(E).