Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

ICDMSDR 2016 INTERNATIONAL NIT TIRUCHIRAPPALLI , India, 22-24, February 2016

1st International Conference on Disaster Mitigation and Management for Sustainable Development and Risk Reduction

Prediction of rebar temperature using FEM modeling


AnupamaKrishna.D Shafeeq.k Narayanan S Mini Soman
Reserach Scholar M.tech scholar Prof. &Head of Department, Associate Professor,
Department of Civil Department of Civil Department of Civil Department of Civil
Engineering College of Engineering Engineering, Mohandas College Engineering , College of
Engineering, Trivandrum, JBCMET,Perumbavoor of Engineering, Trivandrum, Engineering, Trivandrum,
Kerala Shfqk1991@gmail.com Kerala.nsambupotty@yahoo.com Kerala
anupamakrishnad@gmail.com mini_soman@rediffmail.com
Abstract

One of the major safety requirements in the design of buildings is the provision of appropriate fire endurance of
structural members. In current design codes, such as BS 8110-2, ACI 216.1 and AS 3600, the fire resistance period
of an RC member is usually determined using a prescriptive approach, such as the tabulated method which specifies
some deemed-to-satisfy requirements of the minimum member dimensions and the minimum concrete cover for the
reinforcing steel. Recent years have seen a gradual transition from the prescriptive approach to the performance-
based approach in the fire safety design of RC members. The amount of work available on performance based
design of structural concrete is much less. The practical implementation of performance-based fire safety design of
reinforced concrete (RC) structures hinges on the availability of accurate numerical simulation tools for the
behaviour of RC members exposed to fire. Such studies would lead to a reduction on the tough restrictions and
requirements set by the current codes of practice on the use of different materials in building and other types of
structures.(this can be deleted sir).The fire resistance of concrete members reinforced with fibre reinforced polymer
(FRP) rebars is extremely crucial area that needs to be investigated prior to implementing.This paper comprises of
an accurate prediction of the thermal behaviour of RC beams exposed to fire and comparing the same with RC beam
reinforced with different materials like CFRP, GFRP etc exposed to fire. This paper reveals an intensereview onfire
response of concrete beams strengthened with different rebars. The work also deals with a comparative study on the
thermal capacities of RC beams reinforced with Steel, GFRP and CFRP. Towards this modeling was done with the
help of finite element tool ANSYS. The model have been validated against semi empirical equations. A coupled
thermo-structural analysis was carried out and found that the CFRP has a good thermal capacity and the results
holds good with the structural integrity also.

Keywords : FRP strengthened beams, coupled numerical analysis, GFRP, CFRP

1. Introduction

Fire resistance of RC members is an important issue that needs to be considered in the design of RC
buildings. In the current design codes, such as BS 8110-2, FIP/CEB, and ACI 216.1 and AS 3600, the fire
resistance period of an RC member is usually determined using a prescriptive approach, such as the
tabulated method which specifies some deemed-to-satisfy requirements of the minimum member
dimensions and the minimum concrete cover for the reinforcing steel. Recent years have seen a gradual
transition from the prescriptive approach to the performance-based approach in the fire safety design of
RC members since the latter provides a more cost-effective, flexible and rational tool and allows
designers to use multiple routes to achieve the required fire safety. The performance-based fire safety
design approach requires tools for the accurate fire resistance analysis of RC members (or systems),
which has motivated the development of numerical simulation tools with the desired capability.
Many numerical models have been presented to simulate the thermal and mechanical behaviour
of RC beams exposed to fire. In these numerical models, the heat transfer analysis is conducted mostly
using the finite difference method or the FE method although empirical formulas have occasionally been
used. The mechanical response of RC beams is evaluated using either the traditional sectional analysis or
the FE method; in the latter case, beam elements or iso parametric four-node quadrilateral elements have
both been employed.
ICDMSDR 2016 INTERNATIONAL NIT TIRUCHIRAPPALLI , India, 22-24, February 2016
1st International Conference on Disaster Mitigation and Management for Sustainable Development and Risk Reduction

Exposure of an RC beam to elevated temperatures during a fire leads to significant losses in the
strength and stiffness of the concrete and the reinforcing steel as well as the bond between them. Elevated
temperatures have a negative effect on the performance of FRPs [Robert Mathieu;2010]. Even though
FRP bars do not burn when embedded in concrete, due to a lack of oxygen, the epoxy will soften. The
temperature at which this occurs is referred to as the glass transition temperature, Tg. Beyond the Tg, the
elastic modulus of a polymer is significantly reduced due to changes in its molecular structure. [Kian et
al; 2011].
2. Behaviour of different performance-based fire safety design of reinforced concrete
beam in fire
During a fire attack, the temperature normally reach 1000ºC and above in buildings leading to severe
structural damages. Therefore fireprotection must be made to reduce the impact of such events.
Traditional building materials like concrete will not propagate fire and will not produce smoke or toxic
gases. It is generally considered to have an acceptable resistance to fire in comparison with other
construction materials such as wood or steel. It will not melt nor get the elements detached from its
surface. It has high thermal inertia and as most of the structures are built as massive, it can withstand
high temperatures for a relatively long time. Since the temperature in excess of 200ºC turns steel
reinforcement brittle, it needs to be protected against heat. Concrete and steel exhibits similar thermal
expansion coefficients up to 400ºC. However, higher temperatures result in significant expansion of steel
compared to concrete. If temperature of the order of 700ºC is attained, load carrying capacity of
reinforcement gets reduced by 20% of its designed strength [Bisby et al.,2005]. Reinforcing steel is much
more sensitive to high temperatures than concrete. Due to spalling of concrete outer cover, the steel will
be exposed to fire. Beyond 482ºC, there is rapid reduction in the modulus of elasticity and strength of
steel. The reduction in the modulus of elasticity is related to the carbon content of high strength
steel[Bailey et al., 2002].
Kiang et al (2011) studied the flexural behavior of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP)–strengthened beams
after exposure to elevated temperature in an electrical furnace. Glass and basalt FRP systems were used
with and without protective systems. The studies revealed that at a temperature less than 700oC the
protective systems appeared to preserve the structural integrity of glass FRP systems. Basalt FRP-
strengthened beams exhibited smaller deterioration in ultimate strength than glass FRP-strengthened
beams.Rami A. Hawileh, (2010) gave a semi-emprical equation to predict the rebar temperature during
the course of fire loading, this was validated against experimental work, and the results were in good
correlation of 1.5%. FRP materials are sensitive to fire and experience severe deterioration of strength,
stiffness, and bond properties at elevated temperatures (Bisby et al. 2001; Blontrock et al. 1999).Fire tests
on FRP-plated concrete beams and slabs (Blontrock et al. 2001, 2000) have demonstrated the need for
thermal protection of external FRP reinforcement to maintain its structural effectiveness during fire. Katz
et al;1999 reported the comparison of FRP materials to Steel.The performance of FRP also depends on
the strength of the polymer adhesive used to bond the FRP sheet/laminate to the concrete surface. FRP is
susceptible to rapid loss of bond strength and stiffness above glass transition temperature (Tg) [Dai et
al;2010].In FRP-strengthened members, the main load carrying mechanism is through transfer of stresses
from concrete substrate to FRP reinforcement. This transfer of forces to FRP reinforcement occurs
through development of shear stresses at the interface of FRP and concrete [Jian et al; 2013]. However,
when the temperature at the interface reaches Tg, the bond properties of the adhesive deteriorate
considerably and introduces a slipat the interface [Guo et al; 2013]. This slip significantly reduces force
transfer from concrete to FRP composite, and subsequently leads to debonding of FRP. The fire
resistance of an FRP-strengthened RC beam depends on anumber of factors including type of fire
exposure, loading, support conditions, type of insulationand high temperature properties of constitutive
materials. At elevated temperatures, bond between FRP and concrete is a critical factor that influences
the behavior of FRP-strengthened RC beams.
Sakashita et al (1997), and Lin et al (1988) conducted experiments which involved fire tests on full - scale
beams where the rebar interface temperature was measured continuously during the test by embedded
thermocouples. The experiment was done on three sets of beams (rectangular in cross section), with FRP
ICDMSDR 2016 INTERNATIONAL NIT TIRUCHIRAPPALLI , India, 22-24, February 2016
1st International Conference on Disaster Mitigation and Management for Sustainable Development and Risk Reduction

rebar in the tension face of the beam. In the fire tests the lower face (tension) was exposed to fire as were
the two sides of the beams, but the top surface was encased in the test support apparatus and insulated
from the external temperatures. The cover depths of the three beams were 30 mm, 38 mm and 105 mm.
In each case the external temperature T was assumed to follow the standard temperature curve and
equation required by ISO-834. The rebar temperature (θ) /time (t) curves reported by Sakashita et al
(1997), and Lin et al (1988), are shown in Fig. 1, Fig. 2 shows the relationship between (θ –T), the
difference between the rebar temperature (Fig.3) and the fire test furnace temperature (Fig. 2), T, versus
time, t, from the fire tests.

Fig. 1Heating time – reinforcement Fig. 2 Relationship between the Fig. 3 Relationship between the
temperature curves obtained for various differences between furnace curve fitting parameter β and
concrete cover depths. temperatures and rebar temperature concrete cover depth, c, for
(T-θ) versus time, t. rectangular beams

It is proposed that this difference in temperature between the rebar interface temperature and that of the
external fire follows a common relationship.

𝑇 − 𝜃 = Α𝑒 −𝛽(𝑡) (1)

The term β is a curve fitting parameter that can be derived from the experimental data and incorporates
the relationship between temperature and the depth of the cover. Plotting t versus ln( θ –T) allows β to be
defined from the gradient of the best fit line as is depicted in Fig. 11 for each concrete cover.

Curve fitting software suggests that the values for a, b and d as a = 0.001, b = 7.602,d=23.623

Temperature, T, at any time can be obtained from ISO-834 (ISO 1975) equation:

𝑇 = 345 log(8𝑡 + 1) + 20 S (2)

Overall equation for rebar temperature in a concrete beam during a fire test, with respect to time (t) and
concrete cover (c) as:
7.602
−(.001𝑒 𝑐−23.623 ).𝑡
𝜃 = (345 log(8𝑡 + 1) + 20) − 767. 𝑒 (3)

3. Numerical studies on the Performance of FRP strengthened beams subjected to


elevated temperatures
ICDMSDR 2016 INTERNATIONAL NIT TIRUCHIRAPPALLI , India, 22-24, February 2016
1st International Conference on Disaster Mitigation and Management for Sustainable Development and Risk Reduction

3.1.Problem definition

This study aims to bring out the structural behavior of concrete beams reinforced with steel, GFRP and
CFRP bars under elevated temperature. Towards this, a beam element, of size 250x400mm with an
effective span of 3.6 m from a building of typical storey height 3 m as shown in Fig.4and Fig. 5to carry a
factored moment of 36.186 kNm (Fig. 6) was considered for the study. The beam is analyzed using
ANSYS and validated using semi-emprical equations from literature. The rebar temperature at different
time intervals and the load at which spalling takes place is taken as a parameter for the study. The beam is
exposed to three sided temperature.

Fig.4Position of beam Fig.5plan of the Fig 6Bending moment


considered for the study building diagram of beam considered
for the study

After analysis of the beam, the reinforcement details have been shown in Fig. 7.Two and
Threenumbers of 12mm diameter bars are provided at the bottom and top respectively along with a stirrup
of 8mm diameter with 150 mm spacing. Fig.7 showsthe details of the beam.

Fig. 7Details of the beam.

3.2. Methodology - Finite element tool


ICDMSDR 2016 INTERNATIONAL NIT TIRUCHIRAPPALLI , India, 22-24, February 2016
1st International Conference on Disaster Mitigation and Management for Sustainable Development and Risk Reduction

The FE model of beam was developed and simulated using ANSYS. In order to simulate a complex
behaviour, an analytical procedure was determined. Firstly, the different material properties and
corresponding constitutive laws were collected from literature. The development of the geometry and
simulation environment was conducted using ANSYS with different element types, meshing and
simulation techniques were incorporated to simulate the concrete, steel bars , reinforcing GFRP barsand
CFRP elements. Finally, a coupled analysis (thermo structural)was done to find out the loading at which
spalling takes place.

3.2.1 ElementsUsed

Different element types were selected from the ANSYS element type selection library. The
thermal elements implemented to model the concrete material, reinforcing GFRP and CFRP rebars and
steel rebars were SOLID70 and LINK33, respectively and the corresponding structural element
types are SOLID65 and LINK 180. SOLID70 has eight nodes with a single degree of freedom at each
node, defined as temperature as well as 3-D thermal conduction capability. SOLID70 has 2×2×2
integration scheme for both conductivity and specific heat matrices. On the other hand, GFRP rebars were
modelled using LINK33. LINK33 is a thermal uniaxial element with the ability to conduct heat between
its two nodes. The element has a single degree of freedom SDF, temperature, at each node. In addition,
both elements are applicable to conduct 3-D, steady-state and/or transient thermal analysis (ANSYS
14.5). LINK180 can be used to model trusses, sagging cables, links, springs, etc. This 3-D spar element is
a uniaxial tension-compression element with three degrees of freedom at each node: translations in the
nodal x, y, and z directions. Fig. 8shows the isometric view of the beam with steel reinforcement.

Fig. 8 Isometric view of Control RC beam


3.2.2 Properties of constituent materials
The thermal material properties and structural properties are required as inputs to the developed
FE model. The reinforcing steel is replaced with GFRP and CFRP and the temperature variation have
been studied.Table1 tabulates the thermal properties for the concrete and GFRP bars materials used in this
study at room temperatures.
Table 1 Thermal and structural material properties at ambient room temperature
Material Ko (W/mm K) Co (J/kg K) ρ (N/mm3) Ex(N/mm2) µ
-3 -5 4
Concrete 2.5×10 722.8 2.4×10 2.7x10 0.2
GFRP 4.0×10-5 1310 1.60×10-5 7.5x104 0.22
Steel 43x10-3 510.78 7.8x10-5 2.1x105 0.3
-3 -5 5
CFRP 7.2x10 798 1.8x10 2.3 x10 0.18
Where Kois the thermal conductivity
Co is the heatCapacity
Ρ is the density
Ex is the modulus of elasticity
µ is the poisons ratio
The model so created was subjected to transient fire curve ISO 834 along with the structural loading.
3.2.3 Loading & boundary conditions
ICDMSDR 2016 INTERNATIONAL NIT TIRUCHIRAPPALLI , India, 22-24, February 2016
1st International Conference on Disaster Mitigation and Management for Sustainable Development and Risk Reduction

The developed FE model was exposed to thermal transient temperature-time curve, ISO834 (ISO,
1975). The applied ISO 834 fire curve is shown in Fig.9. The ISO 834 curve was applied as nodal
temperature loading versus time at the soffit and vertical sides of the RC beam specimen. The locations of
the applied nodal transient temperatures areshown in Fig.10.

Fig.9 Location of applied nodal temperatures

All degrees of freedom (fixed end condition) are constrained while the beam subjected to structural
loading where as in the case of fire loading degrees of freedom TEMP is constrained. Fig. 10 and Fig.
11shows the beam constrained at the supports along with uniformly distributed loading. Table 2 shows
the temperature of different rebars attained at different time values obtained from the FEM tool ANSYS.

Fig. 10Location of applied nodal temperatures Fig.11 Beam carrying UDL and constrained at the support

Table 2Temperature attained by rebars during the time of exposure to transient temperature at different
concrete cover

COVER TIME OF TEMPERATURE (K)


(mm) EXPOSURE
(minute) STEEL GFRP CFRP
60 496.75 430 462
90 550.6 466.7 524
30 120 598.2 499.1 576
150 640.4 527.97 620
60 430 387 387
90 470 414 420
40 120 507 440 468
150 544.4 463 503
60 430.7 388.9 401
50 90 461.5 411 438
120 488.5 430.88 469
150 513.08 450 496

4. Validation of problem
ICDMSDR 2016 INTERNATIONAL NIT TIRUCHIRAPPALLI , India, 22-24, February 2016
1st International Conference on Disaster Mitigation and Management for Sustainable Development and Risk Reduction

4.1 Thermal validation using semi-empirical equation


The results for the temperature-time relationship for the rebar, predicted by the FE model and the semi-
empirical equation reported from literature as per Eq1,Eq 2 and Eq 3 are presented in Fig.12. The graphs
clearly predict that the finite element analysis is less accurate and underestimates the actual temperature
encountered by rebars in the test. In some respects this is a surprising result given that the semi-empirical
analysis must contain some inaccuracies. The beams used to derive the equation are real three
dimensional structures with different dimensions. The analysis does not take into account explicitly the
fact that heat flows into the beam from both the sides and base, although this is covered implicitly by the
fact that the data is from real specimens.

FE MODEL EMPRICAL

800 610.5
590.2
TEMPARATURE (K)

560
600 490

400 507 544.4


430 470
200
0
60 90 120 150
TIME OF EXPOSURE

Fig. 12. Validation of rebar temperature modeled in ANSYS semi empirical equation

Results and Discussions

5.1 Failure criteria


Failure criteria adopted in this paper is based on the deflection of the steel,GFRP and CFRP bars at local
spalling areas or yielding of steel whichever may occurred earlier. The Fig. 13, Fig.14 and Fig.15shows
the temperature attained by reinforcing bars placed at different concrete covers.

700 640
551 598
600 620
497 576
500 524 500 528
462
Temperature

467
400 430 Steel
300 CFRP
200 GFRP
100
0
50 100 150 200
Time (mins)

Fig. 13 Temperature evolution in steel, GFRP and CFRP bars with time (30mm cover)
ICDMSDR 2016 INTERNATIONAL NIT TIRUCHIRAPPALLI , India, 22-24, February 2016
1st International Conference on Disaster Mitigation and Management for Sustainable Development and Risk Reduction

600 545
T 470 507
500 430 503
E 468
M 463
400 420 440
387
P 414
300 387
E
E
R 200
A
100
T
U 0
R 30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170
TIME OF EXPOSURE (min)
STEEL GFRP CFRP

Fig. 14 Temperature evolution in steel, GFRPand CFRP bars with time (40mm cover)

600
489 514
500 431 462 496
469 450
438
400 401 431
411
Temperature

389
300 Steel

200 CFRP
GFRP
100

0
50 70 90 110 130 150 170
Time (mins)

Fig. 15 Temperature evolution in steel, GFRP and CFRP bars with time (50mm cover)

5.2 Summary of results

The conventional Finite element method is considered and it is done by using FEM software ANSYS in
this study. ANSYS software simulated the actual case of a fixed end beam subjected totemperature by
providing fixed end conditions at both the ends and a coupledthermo-structural analysiswas carried out.
The model is validated theoretically using semi empirical equations which derived good correlation..The
time of exposure and temperature attained by the reinforcing bars such as steel, GFRP and CFRP were
studied and the following results were drawn,
 It is clear from the graphs that the thermal capacity of CFRP is found to be more than GFRP and
Steel.
 The temperature attained by CFRP is less than GFRP which is less than temperature attained by
normal steel bars during the course of time.
ICDMSDR 2016 INTERNATIONAL NIT TIRUCHIRAPPALLI , India, 22-24, February 2016
1st International Conference on Disaster Mitigation and Management for Sustainable Development and Risk Reduction

 The cover in concrete plays a significant role in fire resistance, as the concrete cover increases,
spalling decreases and thus the temperature attained by reinforcing bars.
 The structural integrity of GFRP is less compared to CFRP and Steel
 CFRP can be used as a good substitute for steel reinforcement considering thermal as well as
structural capacity.
 The coupled thermo structural analytical studies reveals that the load at which spalling takes place
in the RC beams is17 kN with CFRP reinforcement , 12 kN with steel reinforcement ,and 8kN
when reinforced with GFRP.
The temperature of rebar was calculated using the model in ANSYS at 40mm cover and validated against
semi empirical equations from open literature, the drawn results are as follows:

 After 60 mins of exposure , the temperature of rebar is 13% more conservative using empirical
equation
 After 90 mins of exposure , the temperature of rebar is 16% more conservative using empirical
equation
 After 120 mins of exposure , the temperature of rebar is 14% more conservative using empirical
equation
 After 150 mins of exposure , the temperature of rebar is 10% more conservative using empirical
equation

5.3. Conclusion
Thermal gradient developed in the beam is the reason for thermal stress, as a result of this thermal
stress spalling will occur. Spalling can make the failure of reinforcement early. CFRP proved to be
better in this situation. With the increase of cover to the reinforcement in RC beam, the load carrying
capacity of the RC beam under thermal exposure also improves.GFRP and CFRP can be used as an
alternative material for steel bars with sufficient clear cover and also considering structural integrity.
Major advantage of changing the steel bars with GFRP bars is the considerable reduction in the self-
weight. GFRP bars are corrosion resistant; it has high stiffness/weight ratio, improved impact
resistance and better thermal properties than steel. The empirical equation to predict the rebar
temperature is conservative than the FE model by almost 16%

Reference
1. ACI 216.1, “Code requirements for determining fire resistance of concrete and masonry
construction assemblies,” ACI 216.1- 07/TMS-0216-07, American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, Michigan, USA, 2007.
2. ANSYS MECHANICAL 14.5 ANSYS® Academic Research, Release 16.2
3. Ahmed A, Elshafey, Medhat Mohammed ,Mostafa M, El-Shamib, and Kamel S.
Kandila“Strengthening of Concrete Beams Using FRP Composites”concrete research letters
volume 5 march 2014.
4. AS 3600-2001 Concrete Structures, Australian Standards., 5 June 2001
5. Bailey, C., Holistic Behaviour of Concrete Buildings in Fire. Journal of Structures & Buildings,
2002.152(3): p. 199-212.
6. Bisby, L.A., Green, M.F., and Kodur, V.K.R.,Response to fire of concrete structuresthat
incorporate FRP, Progress in StructuralEngineering and Materials, 7, 3, 2005,pp. 136-149.
7. BS 8110-2, 1985, Structural Use of Concrete, British Standards Institution.
8. FIP/CEB, 1990, CEB-FIP Model Code 1990: Design Code published in 1978, 8th congress of
International Federation for Prestressing.
9. Fletcher, I.A., Welch, S., Torero, J. I., Carvel R.O., and Asifusmani “The behaviour of concrete
structures in fire”.Engineering Structures, Vol. 33, 2011, pp 2832–2838.
ICDMSDR 2016 INTERNATIONAL NIT TIRUCHIRAPPALLI , India, 22-24, February 2016
1st International Conference on Disaster Mitigation and Management for Sustainable Development and Risk Reduction

10. J. G. Dai, W.Y. Gao and J.G. Teng, “Finite Element Modeling of Insulated FRP-strengthened RC
Beams Exposed to Fire” CICE 2010 - The 5th International Conference on FRP Composites in
Civil Engineering September 27-29, 2010 Beijing, China.
11. Jian- Guo Dai, W. Y. Gao and J.G. Teng, Bond Slip model for FRP laminates externally bonded to
concrete at elevated temperature, Journal of Composites for construction, ASCE, April 2013,Vol:
17(2), pp: 217-228
12. Katz, A., Berman, N., and Bank, L.C.,Effect of high temperature on the bondstrength of FRP
rebars, Journal ofComposites for Construction, 3, 2, 1999,pp. 73-81.
13. Kiang HweeTanandYuqian Zhou “Performance of FRP-Strengthened Beams Subjected to
Elevated Temperatures”journal of composites for construction © asce, 2011.
14. Kodur, V. K. R., and Baingo, D. (1998). "Fire resistance of FRP reinforced concrete slabs." IRC
Internal Report No. 758, Institute for Research in Construction,NationalResrach Council of Canada,
Ottawa, ON, Canada.
15. Lin, T. D., Ellingwood, B. and Piet O., “Flexural and shear behaviour of reinforced concrete
beams during fire tests”, U.S. Department of Commerce National Bureau of Standards Centre of
Fire Research Gaithersburg, MD 20899, November 1988.
16. Masoudi, R., Masoudi, A., Ouezdou, B. &Daoud, A. (2011). Long-term bond performance of
GFRP bars in concrete under temperature ranging from 20°C to 80°C. Construction and Building
Materials, Vol.25, No.2, (2011), pp. 486-493
17. Mônica Garcez1,Leila Meneghetti and Luiz Carlos Pinto da Silva Filho“Structural Performance of
RC Beams Post strengthened with Carbon, Aramid, and Glass FRP Systems”journal of composites
for construction © asce ,2008
18. Rami A. Hawileh(2000)“Heat transfer analysis of reinforced concrete beams reinforced with GFRP
bars” master thesis, American University of Sharjah.
19. Robert Mathieu and BrahimBenmokrane “Behavior of GFRP Reinforcing Bars Subjected to
Extreme Temperatures” journal of composites for construction © asce 2010.
20. Sakashita, M., Masuda, Y., Nakamura, K., Tanano, H., Nishida, I. and Hashimoto, T., “Deflections
of continuous fibre reinforced concrete beams under high temperatures loading”, Non-metallic
(FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures Proceedings of the Third International Symposium
Vol.2, Oct. 1997, pp.51-58.
21. W. Y. Gao1, Jian-Guo Dai, J. G. Teng and G. M. Chen “Finite Element Modelling of Reinforced
Concrete Beams Exposed to Fire”.
22. ISO–834, “Fire resistance tests”, Elements of building construction,International Standards
Organisation, Geneva 1975.