Composites Part B 187 (2020) 107815

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composites Part B
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesb

Fire safety of composites in prefabricated buildings: From fibre reinforced

polymer to textile reinforced concrete
Kate T.Q. Nguyen a, *, Satheeskumar Navaratnam a, Priyan Mendis b, Kevin Zhang a,
Jonathan Barnett c, Hao Wang d
a
School of Engineering, RMIT University, Australia
b
ARC Centre for Advanced Manufacturing of Prefabricated Housing, The University of Melbourne, Australia
c
Basic Expert Pty Ltd, Australia
d
Centre for Future Materials, University of Southern Queensland, Australia

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

Keywords: Fibre reinforced composites (FRCs) have been increasingly used in the prefabricated building (PB) industry
Prefabrication owing to its high strength-to-weight ratio, ease of application and flexibility in manufacturing. FRCs can be used
Fire in PBs for both structural and non-structural applications. The major hindrance for composite elements in PB is
Composites
their fire performance. Depending on applications, there will be different requirements for FRCs on the fire
Polymer
Concrete
resistance and vertical flame spread. There is limited information available to structural and façade engineers/
designers on fire safety of FRCs especially for PBs. Therefore, this paper provides the overview on the fire
performance FRCs in PBs with a special focus on fibre reinforced polymer and textile reinforced concrete.

1. Introduction
Fibre reinforced composites (FRCs) have been increasingly used in
the building industry owing to its high strength to ratio, ease of appli­
cation and lightweight. Modern buildings nowadays are to meet stricter
requirements on high insulation (both thermal and acoustic properties),
low energy consumption and cost effectiveness. The construction in­
dustry also witnesses the transformation into prefabrication or modular
with the advantages of fast construction time, high quality control,
minimal waste and interruption owing to construction [1,2]. FRCs have
the potential to revolutionise the prefabrication industry and to provide
sufficient housing for the booming population. With their high strength
to weight ratio, the introduction of FRCs into prefabricated buildings
(PBs) is beneficial for both structural and non-structural elements. Fig. 1
shows a typical structure of FRCs.
FRCs including fibre reinforced polymers (FRPs) and fibre reinforced
inorganic binders (FRIBs), have been introduced into buildings as an
alternative to the traditional construction materials (i.e. steel reinforced
concrete and timber). FRCs have also been recognised as a one of the
alternative solutions to strengthening the existing structural elements
and reducing the amount of reinforcement and cementitious materials in
concrete [3–6]. FRCs are used to construct structural (i.e. walls, beams,
columns, slabs) and non-structural (i.e. facades, curtain walls) elements
the buildings [7–12]. Examples of new buildings constructed with FRPs
façades are illustrated in Fig. 2.
Fire and secondary fire (i.e. fire occurring as a consequence of
another event such as earthquake or blast) have been known as one of
the major hazards with significant damage to the building and losses of
lives. FRCs are providing adequate structural strengths (i.e. bending,
tensile and shear strength) to carry the designed loads and enabling the
structural stability at normal temperature [14]. However, the strength
reduction and heat smoke and toxic release of FRC at elevated temper­
ature is make challenges when it applied in the PB construction. Further,
the fire design specifications and fire test standard for FRC elements
have not been officially incorporated into Australia design codes such as
AS 1530.4–2014 [15], AS 1720.4–2006 [16], AS 3600–2009 [17],
AS3700-2011 [18] and AS 4100–2016 [19].
Thus, this paper aims to provide a comprehensive review of on fire
safety of FRCs as an alternative material for PB technologies, which will
be useful to professionals working in the construction industry such as
structural, façade engineers, designers and architects. This paper will
also present the on-going research on FRC’s deteriorating behaviour at
elevated temperature and relevant construction safety codes for PBs in
Australian context and in comparison, to international standards, where

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kate.nguyen@rmit.edu.au (K.T.Q. Nguyen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2020.107815
Received 30 July 2019; Received in revised form 23 January 2020; Accepted 23 January 2020
Available online 27 January 2020
1359-8368/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K.T.Q. Nguyen et al.
Fig. 1. Typical structure of FRCs [13].
Fig. 2. Examples of FRCs building façades.
applicable. Apart from the overview of the fire performance of FRCs for
both structural and non-structural elements, this paper presents the
research gaps, potential future research and challenges encountered to
the application of FRC in the PB construction.
2. Structural applications of composites
Nowadays, FRCs such as FRP and FRIB have been used as an alter­
native to the traditional construction materials for both structural and
non-structural applications in buildings. The strength of FRCs will pro­
vide load-bearing capacity of the structures while non-structural FRC
elements give other performance (i.e. the aesthetic effect for façades)
under their own weight. The reduced structural performance of FRCs at
elevated temperature have been studied with different research
methods. In this section, FRCs are reviewed in two categories of those
with a polymer matrix (section 2.1) and others with an inorganic matrix
(section 2.2).
2.1. Fibre reinforced polymer (FRP)
Fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) is widely used to strengthen and
repair structural elements [4,5,20–24]. The high strength-to-weight
ratio (see Fig. 3), good insulation character and excellent
2
Composites Part B 187 (2020) 107815
Fig. 3. Strength-to-weight ratio of construction materials [26]; The value
shown for glass, concrete and bricks is compressive strength while the rest is
tensile strength.
electrochemical corrosion resistance material behaviour of FRPs (i.e.
glass fibre-reinforced polymer (GFRP), carbon fibre-reinforced polymer
(CFRP) and aramid fibre-reinforced polymer (AFRP)). Fig. 3 also high­
lighted that the FRP composites material produce similar strength as
steel. These advantages lead the popularity of FRP as an alternative to
the traditional steel reinforcement concrete, especially in coastal regions
[8,20,25].
On the other hand, mechanical properties such as the elastic modulus
and the strength of FRPs deteriorate with the applied temperatures
(Figs. 4 and 5), create unserviceable deflections and loss of tensile
strength [14,21,27–36]. Figs. 4 and 5 show the strength and elastic
modulus reduction of GFRP and CFRP at elevated temperature. These
figures highlighted that the strength and elastic modulus of FRPs is
varied between 20% and 100%. This variation can be associate with type
of fibre, orientation, volume fraction of fibres, type of resin and fillers.
The test procedure and heating rates also can contribute the strength
reduction variation [28]. Fig. 6 shows the comparison of temperature
reduction factor between steel and different types of typical FRPs. The
modulus elasticity and tensile strength of FRPs (i.e. GPRP, CFRP, AFRP)
are significantly reducing at temperature between 400 � C and 500 � C
(Fig. 6). This strength reduction in fire, restrict the use of the FRP in the
building construction. Table 1 summarises the available research
including the investigated FRP specimens, research methods and rele­
vant properties when exposed to fire.
The thermal conductivity (0.57 W/mK) of FRPs is lower than tradi­
tional construction materials (i.e. timber and concrete) [60,61]. More­
over, Scott and Beck [62] found that the thermal conductivity of FRP
varied linearly from 0.77 W/mK to 0.85 W/mK. This thermal conduc­
tivity variation is dependent on the type of fibres, resin type, fibre vol­
ume fraction, fibre architecture, fillers, etc. Several experimental and
numerical model results show that FRPs have low thermal trans­
missibility and fire pyrolysis behaviour [7,11,47,60–62]. However,
there are limited conclusive evidence available on the total behaviour
FRPs structural elements under fire and it demanding the full-scale fire
tests on the FRPs structural elements [21,37,41,42,63]. Thus, it’s
necessary to assess the FRP composite structural elements under fire to
ensure the structural stability and the safety of buildings.
2.2. Fibre reinforced inorganic binder (FRIB) or fibre reinforced concrete
Structural elements such as beams, columns, load wearing walls, and
slabs are traditionally, constructed with steel reinforced concrete. The
tensile strength of concrete is low and vary between 3.2 MPa and 8.2
MPa after 28 days, thus steel bars are used to improve the tensile per­
formance of the concrete [64–67]. However, the reinforcement by steel
bars does not provide an evenly distributed tensile strength especially at
K.T.Q. Nguyen et al.
Fig. 4. The percentage of tensile strength reduction of CFRP and GFRP at elevated temperatures.
Fig. 5. The percentage of elastic modulus reduction of CFRP and GFRP at elevated temperatures.
the surface of concrete. Fibres can be used in combination with steel bars
to ‘homogenously’ increase the tensile strength of concrete elements.
Several different types of fibres reinforcements (e.g. glass fibre, carbon
fibre and aramid fibre, steel fibre) are used in the construction industry.
Among these, steel fibre is mainly used for the structural applications
[68,69]. Depending on the size and length of the fibre, the reinforcement
can provide different benefits. Short fibre is stopping the shrinkage
cracks in the concrete [68,69] while the long fibre contribute to higher
structural properties.
However, the strength reduction and explosive spalling of concrete
at elevated temperature are the major reasons for the use of fibre rein­
forced concrete in building construction [70–72]. The high pore pres­
sure created on concrete by fire caused spalling, which exposed the
underneath reinforcements to direct fire [73–76]. This caused the
reduction in both strength and fire resistance of a structural member.
Spalling can be mitigated by adding fibre in concrete and the effec­
tiveness of preventing spalling varies depending on the type, size and
3
Composites Part B 187 (2020) 107815
weight of the fibres [73,76–81]. Empty channels created by the fibre
melting and interconnected cracks produced by thermal mismatch be­
tween embedded fibres and matrix at elevated temperature help to
release the accumulated vapour pressure and thus prevent the occur­
rence of spalling [79]. A study by Bilodeau et al. [76] found that 3.5 kg
of 20 mm polypropylene fibres per cubic meter is needed to prevent the
spalling of low water-to-cement. Another study by Kodur [77] found
that adding steel fibre in concrete increases the tensile strength of con­
crete at elevated temperature (Fig. 7), which is sufficient to carry the
pore pressure generated in concrete by fire. The addition of fibres can
increase the fire resistance of structural members for two to 3 h without
significant spalling [77]. However, it was noted that spalling cannot be
thoroughly prevented by steel fibre when the accumulated pore pressure
increases to higher than tensile strength of concrete.
FRIB from phosphate-based cement has also been used to strength­
ening the structural elements [33,82,83]. A study by Ding et al. [82]
highlighted that the strengthening efficiency of FRIB at elevated
K.T.Q. Nguyen et al.
Fig. 6. Comparison of Temperature reduction factor between Steel and FRPs [14]: a) Elastic modulus; b) Tensile strength.
temperature is higher than that of from FRP. This study also indicates
that the fire performance of FRIB composite significantly high compared
to FRP composite. However, the fire performance of FRIB is highly
dependent on the selection of the suitable inorganic paste [33]and more
research is required to identify the appropriate inorganic paste to pro­
vide the required fire resistance of structural member strengthened by
FRIB.
In general, the fire resistance and the performance of load-bearing
structural composite FRP and the structural member strengthened by
FRP/FRIB mainly depends on the cover thickness, anisotropy material
properties and geometry of FRP and FRIB [8,47,84]. Full-scale fire tests
on the FRP slabs by Hajiloo et al. [8] showed that FRP slab with concrete
cover (i.e. 60 mm) provides 3 h satisfactory fire resistance (Fig. 8). The
concrete cover used in the Hajiloo et al. [8] study is lower than the cover
(i.e. 70 mm) specified in CSA-S806 [85]. Another study by Lin et al. [20]
shows that the rate of deflection in FRP beam at elevated temperature is
reducing when the cover thickness increases (Fig. 9). The fire resistance
behaviour is also depending on the type of fibre (i.e. glass fibre or carbon
fibre or aramid fibre) [20]. Another factor affecting the FRP composite
performance and strength reduction under fire is the degradation of the
bonding between the FRP and concrete [51,55–59,86–91]. This bonding
degradation will reduce the bending and shear stiffness of the FRP
composite structural elements under fire. Thus, it necessary to investi­
gate and understand the structural behaviour of FRP composite struc­
tural elements at elevated temperatures to ensure the structural stability
of building structures.
3. Non-structural applications of FRCs
3.1. Fibre reinforced polymer for façades
The construction industries aiming for a faster construction tech­
nology has led interest towards the prefabricated building and elements.
Transportation and lifting capacity of cranes are major drawbacks of
prefabrication in the construction industries, as it requires light weight
elements. The light weight nature of FRP eliminating this transportation
and lifting issue in prefabricated systems, as it can produce light-weight
non-structural elements such as partitions, infill walls, parapets, curtain
walls and façades systems [11,54,60,92]. These FRPs also have the
ability to produce excellent weather resistance, high durability, adapt­
able aesthetic appeals and cost-effective manufacturing process. These
abilities increase the attraction of architectures and designers to use the
FRPs in building façades [60].
Lightweight FRPs with good thermal insulation in non-structural
elements (i.e. façade) will reduce the heat gain or loss to the sur­
rounding environment. Façade is often a non-load bearing element and
4
Composites Part B 187 (2020) 107815
designed to resist the movement of building structure. However, FRP
façade systems can potential contribute to the fire spread of building and
become the most critical element in the event of fire, if the façade system
not well designed/understood. Another factor threatening the capability
of FRP façade system is wind-driven fire, it might reduce the fire per­
formance as it can increase the ignition, fire spread, flammability and
hear release risks [93]. The heat release of FRP façade from a fire can be
significant and lead to flashover or consequent building collapse [94,
95]. Flashover action can be prevented by using flame retardants such as
organoclay in the FRPs system, for example 5% organoclay in GFRP can
help to minimise flashover and also horizontal flame spread [2].
The heat released from GFRP composite façade panels has also been
studied and the heat release risk of GFRP composite façade is signifi­
cantly less than the traditional polymer façade system [54]. A study by
Nguyen et al. [11] on the GFRP façade system showed that the heat
release of GFRP façade system meets the fire safety requirements ac­
cording to EN13501 [96], whilst it does not meet the required
smoke-related safety requirements. Further, Nguyen et al. [11] study
suggested that these heat release and smoke released from GFRPs can be
improved with flame retardant such as aluminium trihydride. The
release of smoke and toxic gas from FRPs in a fire is another concern
when being used for the exterior façade. Depending on FRPs and other
components in the façade such as polypropylene wool and combustible
sarking, dense black smoke of carbon monoxide and other toxic gases
such as hydrogen cyanide can emit directly to the surroundings. This
smoke release can create the toxicity hazard and corrosive environment
[29,97–101].
Highly flammable gases (i.e. carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen)
emitted from the polymer matrix will create the ignition risk under fire
when using FRPs in non-structural elements [29,102,103]. The ignition
risk can be resisted by adding additives. These additives also help to
reduce the flammability, heat release, smoke generation, moisture ab­
sorption, oxidation, various chemical actions, and shrinkage of FRPs
composites [29]. However, these additives could reduce the mechanical
properties, thus its essential to assess the mechanical properties of FRPs
when its content with resin additives. Therefore, the façade engineers
and designers need to ensure the satisfaction of fire safety requirements
such as fire resistance, strength reduction, heat release, ignitability,
mass loss, flame spread, smoke and toxic release of the FRPs façade
systems.
3.2. Textile reinforced concrete (TRC)
Textile Reinforced Concrete (TRC) is an innovative product formed
from a combination of cementitious matrix and usually a 2D textile
fabric [13,104,105]. TRC can be used to build different types of
K.T.Q. Nguyen et al. Composites Part B 187 (2020) 107815

Table 1
Summary of fire research on FRC elements (GFRP- Glass fibre reinforced polymer, FRP – Fibre reinforced polymer, CFRP – Carbon fibre reinforced polymer, AFRP –
Aramid fibre reinforced polymer).
Reference Type of composites Applications Research methods Investigated properties

Keller et al. [37] GFRP slab Structural element ISO 834 [38] standard fire test Fire resistance
Correia et al. [39] GFRP beam Structural element ISO 834 [38] standard fire test Fire resistance
Bai et al. [40] GFRP slab Structural element Thermomechanical Model Fire resistance
Bai et al. [41] GFRP column Structural element ISO 834 [38] standard fire test Fire resistance
Morgado et al. [21, GFRP column and Structural element ISO 834 standard fire test Fire resistance
42] beam
Kodur and Bhatt [22] FRP slab Strengthening the structural Numerical model Fire resistance and structural response
element
Rafi et al. [43] CFRP beam Structural element ISO 834 [38] standard fire test Fire resistance
Turkowski et al. [44] CFRP beam Strengthening the structural Full-scale fire test based on EN 1361–1 and EN Fire resistance and structural response
element 1365–3 [45,46]
Adelzadeh et al. [47] GFRP slab Strengthening the structural Numerical model Fire resistance and structural response
element
Hajiloo et al. [8,48] GFRP slab Structural element ASTM-E119 [49] standard fire test and Numerical Fire resistance and structural response
model
Yu and Kodur [50] FRP beam Strengthening the structural Numerical model Fire resistance and structural response
element
Lin and Zang [20] FRP beam Structural element Numerical model Fire resistance and structural response
Ahmed and Kodur FRP beam Strengthening the structural ASTM-E119 [49] standard fire test and Numerical Fire resistance and matrix-fibre bonding
[51,52] element model effects
Nguyen et al. [11] GFRP façade Non-structural element EN 13823:2010 [53] standard fire test and Fire resistance
Numerical model
Ngo et al. [54] GFRP façade Non-structural element Numerical model Fire resistance
Galati et al. [55] FRP – Small scale laboratory test Bonding effects
Ashrafi et al. [27] FRP – Small scale laboratory test Thermo-mechanical behaviour
Hamad et al. [56] FRP – Small scale laboratory test Mechanical properties and bonding
effects
Katz and Berman [57] FRP – Empirical model Bonding effects between FRP rebars and
concrete
Ozkal et al. [58] FRP – Small scale laboratory test Mechanical properties and bonding
effects
Yu and Kodur [59] CFRP – Small scale laboratory test Bond strength and modulus of near
surface mounted

non-structural components and systems due to its versatile forming ca­ 4. Basic fire design requirements
pabilities (See Figs. 10 and 11). Fig. 10b shows a 3. 45 m height and 1 m
width with 0.18 m thicker TRC sandwich panel, which used to construct The performance of FRCs at elevated temperature has been inten­
the modular building facades (Fig. 10c). In this sandwich panel, textile sively studied and shows the potential for FRCs prefabricated buildings,
concrete layers with 15 mm thickness were used in both sides of from structural to non-structural applications. However, the use of FRCs
load-bearing rigid foam core. in prefabricated elements and modular buildings has to follow the
TRC can be adapted to complex free-form geometries and produce construction code that applies to all buildings. The unique characteristic
slender and thin components with complicated shapes. Usual metallic of prefabricated buildings will require additional considerations in fire
reinforcement requires significant cover to the reinforcement and safety design. In this section, a summary of the relevant requirements by
similar TRC members can be made very thin due to the elimination of the construction code is provided (mainly in Australian context) and
the risk of corrosion. TRC also provides high strength in compression discussion on the impact of prefabrication in fire safety design is
and tension (refer to Fig. 3). Lower weight and higher strength are two
critical key properties that make TRC “greener” than aluminium and
steel. However, the fire resistance is an important issue as TRC is sen­
sitive to elevated temperatures and the failure of the composite structure
should be studied comprehensively to ensure the safety of the occupants
in fire hazards.
Mendis et al. [106] have employed 3D printing technology to pro­
duce TRC using AR-glass reinforcement as a non-combustible façade,
which won’t add to the building fuel load or contribute to the fire
spread. The effect of the AR-glass textile on TRC’s performance at two
different elevated temperatures (300 � C and 750 � C) was investigated
[106]. Results show that more cracks were propagated at 750 � C, when
compared to the samples exposed to 300 � C (Fig. 12). The knitting
process of AR-glass yarn also affect the performance of TRCs under fire.
The extended stitch-bonding [107] of the textile can reduce the ripple
effect in yarns which creates cracks along the warp and weft yarns and
thus higher risk of concrete spalling (Fig. 13). Sandwich panel of TRCs
and Aerated concrete core with a thickness of 20 cm was also tested to
achieve a 4 h UL fire rating [105].
Fig. 7. Fire resistance of hollow steel columns filled with concretes [77] (i.e.
normal strength concrete (NSC1 and NSC2); high strength concrete (HSC1);
fibre-reinforced high strength concrete (HFC1)).

5
K.T.Q. Nguyen et al. Composites Part B 187 (2020) 107815

Fig. 8. Temperature at various depths of the slab [8].

Fig. 9. Temperature vs deflection for CFRP reinforced concrete beams with different cover thickness (10 mm cover (Beam III-C1); 20 mm cover (Beam III); 40 mm
cover (Beam III-C2)) [20].

Fig. 10. TRC sandwich panel for modular building façades [13]: a) schematic diagram of sandwich panel; b) sandwich panel for façades; c) sandwich panel used in
the facades.

6
K.T.Q. Nguyen et al. Composites Part B 187 (2020) 107815

Fig. 11. Applications of TRC: a, b) precast house; c) façade [105].

Fig. 12. Specimens after exposed to elevated temperature [106]: (a) 300 � C; (b) 750 � C.

Fig. 13. Exemplary course of the wrap thread [13].

presented. Most existing research in this area were related to steel-frame
prefabricated buildings as this is the most popular configuration for mid-
rise markets. The review is intended to provide both basic requirements
from construction standards as well as lessons learnt from the prefab­
rication industry so far so that a more robust approach for fire safety
design of prefabricated FRCs can be developed in the future.
4.1. Special consideration for prefabricated buildings
The concept of prefabrication has gained significant attention in the
architectural, engineering and construction industry in recent times due
to benefits such as speedy construction and waste reduction. Prefabri­
cation of integrated modules such as modular apartments, student
housing and bathroom pods are increasingly considered in the industry.
Modular buildings (see Fig. 14) are constructed with individual modules
connected through inter-component connections. Each module is man­
ufactured at the factory and then transported to site for assembly.
Bringing most of the building construction process to a quality-
controlled plant and consequent reduction in construction time, and
therefore higher construction rate, will lead to potential financial
returns owing to the “repeatable and higher efficiency construction
methods, streamlined construction process, reduced material waste and
higher construction quality” [108]. However, this typical configuration
also introduces cavities in between modules which are potential
pathway for fire spread in the building (Fig. 15).
Fire stops and other preventions for the inter-module cavities have to
be properly designed considering all load-transfer components
(including connections) located in this space [109]. In current practice,
fire stops are installed in line with the modules on site which will pose
the building to a risk of collapse in fire, where improper installation of
fire stops occur [110]. The limited access to the cavities after the adja­
cent modules is assembled also make it difficult for inspection and
further maintenance. In Australia, the inter-module cavities often lead to
the requirement to follow the performance-based pathway instead of the

7
K.T.Q. Nguyen et al.
Fig. 14. Buildings with modular construction technology [2].
Fig. 15. Possible pathway for fire spreads in prefabricated buildings [110].
Deemed-to-Satisfy (DtS) solution as the National Construction Code
[111] has not included prefabricated constructions. This process is
adding extra cost and planning time for each modular project. Apart
from this main challenge, modular buildings also need to meet the safety
requirements like other conventional constructions.
4.2. Fire resistance
Depending on the type of the building, occupancy and the fire design,
the building element may be part of the passive fire protection to pro­
vide the compartmentation. In this case, i.e. under DtS the building
element is required to obtain a certain level of fire resistance. If the
building element is non-structural, the fire resistance level is determined
by the time that the building element can maintain the integrity and
insulation within the furnace. Structural elements also need to maintain
the structural adequacy in their assessment of the fire resistance level. In
Australia, the test for fire resistance level of a construction element is
defined in AS 1530.4–2014 [15]. The standard to determine the fire
resistance level of a construction element can also be found in AS
1720.4–2006 [16], AS 3600–2009 [17], AS3700-2011 [18] and AS
4100–2016 [19] respectively, for structural timber member, concrete
structures, masonry structures and steel structures. EN 1363 -EN 1366
[45,46,112,113] (or BS 476 [114], Part 20–24), ISO 834–2000 [38] and
ASTM E119-2016 [49] are the equivalent international standard test
methods for fire resistance level of building construction. However,
there are no specific standards and regulation to design and asses the fire
resistance level of FRC building elements in Australia. Thus, designer
and structural engineers are relied on the standard and regulation of the
traditional construction materials (i.e. timber, steel and concrete), when
8
Composites Part B 187 (2020) 107815
Fig. 16. Schematic diagram of typical wall to floor/ceiling junction in a pre­
fabricated building [115].
Fig. 17. Thermal stress between modules owing to expansion at high temper­
ature [109].
designing the FRC building elements. This might generate the uncer­
tainty on the fire resistance of FRC building elements. Thus, more
research study needs to develop a standard for the FRC.
In order to meet multiple performance requirements, building ele­
ments in prefabricated building are often designed in layers. A typical
wall structure includes plaster board(s), steel or timber stud, insulation
layers with or without cavities, sheathing boards or vapour membrane/
sarking, cladding and connector such as aluminium top hat or wall tide
(Fig. 16). Depending on the type of the building elements as well as the
occupancy type of the prefabricated building, different fire resistance
levels are required. Each module is often treated as a compartment thus
elements at the boundaries are required a fire resistance level of 60, 90
or 120 min. Two to three layers of fire-rated plaster boards are installed
to provide adequate fire resistance levels [115]. Apart from the inter­
modular cavity (as mentioned in section 4.1), inner cavities in each
module’s element often exist, thus adequate fire barrier are to be inte­
grated in the element. Kim [116] developed a 3D finite element model
on heat transfer inside prefabricated light steel walls and found the
significant influence of the inner cavities on the fire resistance perfor­
mance of the wall system. Among the investigated prefabricated wall
configurations, the use of discontinuous insulative in the cavity with an
additional backing plaster board next to the steel stud would detri­
mentally increase the time to steel critical temperature by 51%. Tem­
perature contours of the C-shape stud were also generated [116], which
raised the issue of local thermal stress as the front surface of the
K.T.Q. Nguyen et al.
Fig. 18. Scenarios for robustness design of prefabricated buildings where (a) loss of corner support and (b) loss of intermediate support [115].
structural element achieved much higher temperature while the back
surface was cold and insulated by the thick insulation.
Another characteristic of prefabricated buildings is their cellular
structures. The fire resistance of prefabricated buildings should be
investigated at individual module scale as well as a whole system [115].
The fire resistance of the building can be compromised as significant
thermal expansion of each module may trigger failures at rigid con­
nections (Fig. 17) [109]. Paneni [109] also proposed a semi-rigid con­
necting design to allow flexible movement between modules. This tying
action between modules also affect the robustness of structural-fire
safety design of prefabricated buildings. Lawson [115] showed that a
minimum tying force of 35 kN and 50 kN should be used in robustness
design of modular construction where scenarios such as loss of corner or
intermediate support are assumed (Fig. 18).
4.3. Vertical fire spread
Prefabricated façades, similar to other building façades, also need to
meet the requirement of not contributing to vertical fire spread. Pre­
fabricated façades often consist of more than two layers to provide
different performance such as thermal, acoustic, air/watertight, load­
bearing, fire and aesthetic characteristics. The use of multiple layers in
prefabricated façades often involve combustible components such as
vapour membrane and insulation blankets. The involvement of
combustible material often leads to the requirement to follow the per­
formance solution pathway instead of a Deem-to-Satisfied compliance.
Under performance solution, the behaviour and interaction of these
Fig. 19. Effect of (a) vertical and (b) horizontal misalignment [115] and (c) visual misalignment on 461 Dean Tower, New York [117].
9
Composites Part B 187 (2020) 107815
components in a closed façade system should be carefully considered
and investigated. It is also important that FRPs can potentially
contribute to the vertical fire spread of façades owing to the combustible
manner of the polymer matrix.
In conventionally constructed buildings, façades are generally the
last element to be installed and also built as a continuous skin which
often covers slabs and columns. In modular buildings, façades are con­
structed off-site with individual module while prefabricated façade
panels are connected to structural slabs using in-situ connections. Fire
barriers or fire stops are installed within the panel/module prior to on-
site construction. Minimal framework is required for on-site installation
of prefabricated façades and modules which is clearly an advantage of
prefabrication technology. However, the significant dependence on the
accuracy of lifting cane to positioning panels/modules may cause the
incorrect alignment thus compromising the full performance of the fire
barrier. Lawson et al. [115] mentioned about the effect of horizontal and
vertical misalignment owing to limitation of on-site lifting capacity.
Severe misalignments that are visually recognisable, were also observed
on the façade of 461 Dean Tower (New York) (Fig. 19). Several tech­
nologies such as projecting laser line and the integration of corner shims
or S-shape offset bends [115].
Unlike the fire resistance level, the testing requirements for vertical
fire spread of façade and external wall cladding varies from country to
country with different test rig configurations and fire load. Table 2
shows an inventory of different test methods for the vertical fire spread
on external walls. The height of the tested façade can be from less than 1
floor (2.3 m) to three floors (9 m) with testing time can last up to 60 min.
K.T.Q. Nguyen et al. Composites Part B 187 (2020) 107815

Table 2 also an opportunity to establish a specific standard on vertical fire

Main test methods for fire spread on façade and external wall cladding [124, spread for prefabricated elements/buildings. The fluctuating wind speed
125]. and temperature may influence fire ignition, intensity and vertical fire
Test method Specimen Specimen Fuel load Test time spread [18,19,93,118–123]. This introduced wind-driven fires can
size caused significand damage to the prefabricated façades and other
AS 5113 Corner As per BS As per BS 8414 30 min building element envelope.
8414 or ISO or ISO 1785-2
1785-2 5. Future research and recommendation
ISO 13785-2 Corner 3.0 m � 5.7 Propane 23–27 min
m þ 1.2 m
� 5.7 m To improve the fire performance of lightweight FRCs structural and
ISO 13785-1 Corner 1.2 m � 2.4 Propane 30 min non-structural elements, it requires to use heavy and expensive fire
m þ 0.6 m protection with resin additives. These additives often create variations
� 2.4 m in the mechanical properties of composites structural and non-structural
GOST 31251 Flat wall 3.0 m � 5.1 Soft wood 700 35 min
m MJ/m2
elements under fire. Thus, it requires more research on the effect of
JIS A 1310 Flat wall 1.8 m � 4.1 Propane not 25 min with additives on the mechanical properties of FRC. Another potential major
m less than 600 20 min fire issue for limiting the demand and economic of FRCs structural and non-
kW exposure structural elements to the construction industries is smoke toxicity
NFPA 285 Flat wall 4.1 m � 5.3 Gas burner 30 þ 10 min
under fire. Limited research is available on the smoke and toxic release
m
CAN/ULC-S101 Flat wall 2.8 m � 2.8 Defined time/ Not less than under fire from the FRP and TRC composites. Therefore, more research
þ 114 m temperature 15 min needed to assess the smoke and toxic release of FRC structural and non-
curve structural elements under fire to ensure the safety of the users and
CAN/ULC-S314 Flat wall 10 m height Propane 25 min environments.
NFPA 268 Flat wall 1.2 m � 2.4 Radiant panel 20 min
There are several research studies that have been conducted to assess
m 12.5 kW/m2
MSZ 14800-6 Flat wall 6.0 m � 7.0 650 kg wood, 60 min the fire performance and durability of FRC elements (e.g. see Table 1).
m equalled to 3 Most are limited with to the material scale and small-scale experiments,
MW after which numerical models’ analysis are employed. However, limited
Onorm B 3800-5 Corner 3.0 m � 6.0 25 kg wood/ 30 min
full-scale fire tests have been conducted due to high cost and time
m þ 1.5 m 320 kW
� 6.0 m propane consuming. The full-scale fire test is the more suitable and accurate
BS 8414 (9414) Corner 2.5 m � 8.0 Wood, 3.5 30 min method to predict the fire performance of FRCs. Thus, more full-scale
m þ 1.5 m MW, 4500 MJ fire tests on the FRCs structural and non-structural elements needed
� 8.0 m before it applied on the building construction.
LEPIR II Flat wall 5.0 m � 6.6 600 kg wood 60 min, 30
The wind-driven fire is another critical factor, which can cause se­
m min fire
exposure vere damage to the building and elements [18,19,93,118–123]. This
DIN E 4102-20 Corner 3.0 m � 5.2 25 kg wood/ 21 min gas, wind-driven fire also can increase the spalling, fire spreads, smoke and
m þ 2.0 m 320 kW 30 min toxic release and heat release risk on the FRCs structural and
� 5.2 m propane wood
non-structural elements. There are several researches into fire resis­
Procedure No. Uncovered 3.0 m � 3.0 30 kW propane 15 min, 10
281 insulation m burner min fire
tance, material properties variation, strength reduction, heat release,
(construction product exposure fire spreads and sprinkler protection of FRCs structural and
phase and non-structural elements and buildings [7,29,40,41,52,63,75,82,102,
final phase) 126–129]. However, as per authors knowledge there has been not any
EOTA draft Corner Exp 1: 2.8 Exp 1: 30 kg 60 min, 30
full-scale fire test conducted to evaluate the effect of wind-driven fire at
TF073 Exp m � 5.5 m wood min fire
1&2 þ 1.5 m � Exp 2: 382.5 exposure 25 m/s (i.e. gust wind speed at common day) to the FRCs buildings.
5.5 m kg wood Finally, there are inconsistent standards and design regulation pub­
Exp 2: 2.8 licly available in Australia and as well as other countries for certifiers,
m � 9.0 m
regulators, engineers, architectures and designer to use the FRCs struc­
þ 1.5 m �
9.0 m
tural and non-structural elements for the construction projects. Thus, it
DIBT procedure Corner 4.0 m � 9.8 200 kg wood 60 min, 25 requires more research and development programs to produce and
m þ 2.0 m min fire develop appropriate standards and design regulation as well as the
� 9.8 m exposure enhance the robustness of prefabricated systems. This will increase the
PN-90/B-02867 Flat wall 2.3 m 20 kg wood þ 30 min
market demand of FRCs structural and non-structural elements in
height wind towards
the wall (2 Australian construction industries.
ms 1)
prEN 1364-6 Flat wall 10 � 3 m Defined time/ Based on Acknowledgments
width standard customer
cavity temperature declaration
barrier curve
The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding support of the ARC
SP FIRE 105 Flat wall 4.0 m � 6.7 60 l heptane Minimum DECRA [Grant ID: DE190100217], RMIT University and the ARC
m 12 min Training Centre for Advanced Manufacturing of Prefabricated Housing
[Grant ID: IC150100023] of the Department of Infrastructure Engi­
neering, the University of Melbourne.
Generally, there are two sizes of fuel load equivalent to tens kilogram
and hundreds kilogram of timber. There is a lack of a consistent test
References
method which may lead to confusions where façade assessed to be safe
according to a test may not meet the requirements according to another [1] Navaratnam S, Ngo T, Gunawardena T, Henderson D. Performance review of
standard. Although this inconsistency applies for all buildings including prefabricated building systems and future research in Australia. Buildings 2019;9
both conventional and prefabricated ones, the fact that most construc­ (2):38.

tion codes and standards were developed before prefabrication era, is

10
K.T.Q. Nguyen et al.
[2] Nguyen QT, Ngo T, Tran P, Mendis P, Zobec M, Aye L. Fire performance of
prefabricated modular units using organoclay/glass fibre reinforced polymer
composite. Construct Build Mater 2016;129:204–15.
[3] Keller T, Haas C, Vallee T. Structural concept, design, and experimental
verification of a glass fiber-reinforced polymer sandwich roof structure. J Compos
Construct 2008;12(4):454–68.
[4] Correia JR, Bai Y, Keller T. A review of the fire behaviour of pultruded GFRP
structural profiles for civil engineering applications. Compos Struct 2015;127:
267–87.
[5] Hadi MNS, Yuan JS. Experimental investigation of composite beams reinforced
with GFRP I-beam and steel bars. Construct Build Mater 2017;144:462–74.
[6] Junaid MT, Elbana A, Altoubat S, Al-Sadoon Z. Experimental study on the effect
of matrix on the flexural behavior of beams reinforced with Glass Fiber
Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) bars. Compos Struct 2019;222:110930.
[7] Al-saadi AU, Aravinthan T, Lokuge W. Structural applications of fibre reinforced
polymer (FRP) composite tubes: a review of columns members. Compos Struct
2018;204:513–24.
[8] Hajiloo H, Green MF, No€el M, B� enichou N, Sultan M. Fire tests on full-scale FRP
reinforced concrete slabs. Compos Struct 2017;179:705–19.
[9] Gharehbaghi K, Chenery R. Fiber reinforced concrete (FRC) for high rise
construction: case studies. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng 2017;272:012034.
[10] Attia S, Bilir S, Safy T, Struck C, Loonen R, Goia F. Current trends and future
challenges in the performance assessment of adaptive façade systems. Energy
Build 2018;179:165–82.
[11] Nguyen QT, Tran P, Ngo TD, Tran PA, Mendis P. Experimental and computational
investigations on fire resistance of GFRP composite for building façade. Compos B
Eng 2014;62:218–29.
[12] Manolis GD, Gareis PJ, Tsonos AD, Neal JA. Dynamic properties of polypropylene
fiber-reinforced concrete slabs. Cement Concr Compos 1997;19(4):341–9.
[13] Cherif C. Textile materials for lightweight constructions: technologiesmethods-
materials-properties. Springer; 2015.
[14] Saafi M. Effect of fire on FRP reinforced concrete members. Compos Struct 2002;
58(1):11–20.
[15] AS 1530-4:2014. Methods for fire tests on building materials, components and
structures Part 4: fire-resistance test of elements of construction. Council of
Standards Australia. Australian Standars; 2014.
[16] AS 1720.4-2006. Timber structures,Part 4: fire resistance for structural adequacy
of timber members, . Council of Standards Australia. Australian Standard; 2006.
[17] AS 3600-2009. Concrete structures. Standards Australia: Council of Standards
Australia; 2009.
[18] Lecina-Diaz J, Alvarez A, Retana J. Extreme fire severity patterns in topographic,
convective and wind-driven historical wildfires of mediterranean pine forests.
PloS One 2014;9(1):e85127.
[19] Viegas DX. On the existence of a steady state regime for slope and wind driven
fires. Int J Wildland Fire 2004;13(1):101–17.
[20] Lin X, Zhang YX. Nonlinear finite element analyses of steel/FRP-reinforced
concrete beams in fire conditions. Compos Struct 2013;97:277–85.
[21] Morgado T, Correia JR, Silvestre N, Branco FA. Experimental study on the fire
resistance of GFRP pultruded tubular beams. Compos B Eng 2018;139:106–16.
[22] Kodur VKR, Bhatt PP. A numerical approach for modeling response of fiber
reinforced polymer strengthened concrete slabs exposed to fire. Compos Struct
2018;187:226–40.
[23] Nguyen PL, Hong Vu X, Ferrier E. Thermo-mechanical performance of Carbon
Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP), with and without fire protection material,
under combined elevated temperature and mechanical loading conditions.
Compos B Eng 2019;169:164–73.
[24] Simoncello N, Zampieri P, Gonzalez-Libreros J, Pellegrino C. Experimental
behaviour of damaged masonry arches strengthened with steel fiber reinforced
mortar (SFRM). Compos B Eng 2019;177:107386.
[25] Morgado T, Silvestre N, Correia JR, Branco FA, Keller T. Numerical modelling of
the thermal response of pultruded GFRP tubular profiles subjected to fire. Compos
B Eng 2018;137:202–16.
[26] Peter D, John I. Construction materials: their nature and behaviour. fourth ed. ed.
London: CRC Press; 2018.
[27] Ashrafi H, Bazli M, Najafabadi EP, Vatani Oskouei A. The effect of mechanical
and thermal properties of FRP bars on their tensile performance under elevated
temperatures. Construct Build Mater 2017;157:1001–10.
[28] Kodur VKR, Bhatt PP, Naser MZ. High temperature properties of fiber reinforced
polymers and fire insulation for fire resistance modeling of strengthened concrete
structures. Compos B Eng 2019:107104.
[29] Bisby LA, Williams BK, Kodur VKR, Green MF, Chowdhury EU. Fire performance
of FRP systems for infrastructure: a state-of-the-art report. In: Research report
(National research council of Canada institute for research in construction); no
RR-179. National Research Council of Canada; 2005.
[30] Correia JR, Gomes MM, Pires JM, Branco FA. Mechanical behaviour of pultruded
glass fibre reinforced polymer composites at elevated temperature: experiments
and model assessment. Compos Struct 2013;98:303–13.
[31] Bai Y, Keller T. Modeling of strength degradation for fiber-reinforced polymer
composites in fire, vol. 43; 2009. p. 2371–85. 21.
[32] Wang YC, Wong PMH, Kodur V. An experimental study of the mechanical
properties of fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) and steel reinforcing bars at elevated
temperatures. Compos Struct 2007;80(1):131–40.
[33] Dai J-G, Munir S, Ding Z. Comparative study of different cement-based inorganic
pastes towards the development of FRIP strengthening technology. J Compos
Construct 2014;18(3):A4013011.
11
Composites Part B 187 (2020) 107815
[34] Yu B, Kodur V. Effect of temperature on strength and stiffness properties of near-
surface mounted FRP reinforcement. Compos B Eng 2014;58:510–7.
[35] Zhang L, Bai Y, Qi Y, Fang H, Wu B. Post-fire mechanical performance of modular
GFRP multicellular slabs with prefabricated fire resistant panels. Compos B Eng
2018;143:55–67.
[36] Nguyen PL, Vu XH, Ferrier E. Elevated temperature behaviour of carbon fibre-
reinforced polymer applied by hand lay-up (M-CFRP) under simultaneous
thermal and mechanical loadings: experimental and analytical investigation. Fire
Saf J 2018;100:103–17.
[37] Keller T, Tracy C, Hugi E. Fire endurance of loaded and liquid-cooled GFRP slabs
for construction. Compos Appl Sci Manuf 2006;37(7):1055–67.
[38] ISO 834. Fire-resistance tests — elements of building construction. Switzerland:
International Organization for Standardization; 2000.
[39] Correia JR, Branco FA, Ferreira JG, Bai Y, Keller T. Fire protection systems for
building floors made of pultruded GFRP profiles: Part 1: experimental
investigations. Compos B Eng 2010;41(8):617–29.
[40] Bai Y, Keller T, Correia JR, Branco FA, Ferreira JG. Fire protection systems for
building floors made of pultruded GFRP profiles – Part 2: modeling of
thermomechanical responses. Compos B Eng 2010;41(8):630–6.
[41] Bai Y, Hugi E, Ludwig C, Keller T. Fire performance of water-cooled GFRP
columns. I: fire endurance investigation. J Compos Construct 2011;15(3):404–12.
[42] Morgado T, Correia JR, Moreira A, Branco FA, Tiago C. Experimental study on the
fire resistance of GFRPpultruded tubular columns. Compos B Eng 2015;69:
201–11.
[43] Rafi MM, Nadjai A, Ali F. Fire resistance of carbon FRP reinforced-concrete
beams. Mag Concr Res 2007;59(4):245–55.
[44] Turkowski P, Łukomski M, Sulik P, Roszkowski P. Fire resistance of CFRP-
strengthened reinforced concrete beams under various load levels. Procedia Eng
2017;172:1176–83.
[45] EN 1363 -1. Fire resistance tests. General requirements. Brussels, Belgium:
European Comminee for Standardization; 2012.
[46] EN 1365-3. Fire resistance tests for loadbearing elements -Part 3: Beams. Brussels,
Belgium: European Comminee for Standardization; 1999.
[47] Adelzadeh M, Hajiloo H, Green MF. Numerical study of FRP reinforced concrete
slabs at elevated temperature. Polymers 2014;6(2):408–22.
[48] Hajiloo H, Green MF. GFRP reinforced concrete slabs in fire: finite element
modelling. Eng Struct 2019;183:1109–20.
[49] ASTM-El19. Standard test methods for fire tests of building construction and
materials. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM; 2016.
[50] Yu B, Kodur VKR. Factors governing the fire response of concrete beams
reinforced with FRP rebars. Compos Struct 2013;100:257–69.
[51] Ahmed A, Kodur VKR. Effect of bond degradation on fire resistance of FRP-
strengthened reinforced concrete beams. Compos B Eng 2011;42(2):226–37.
[52] Ahmed A, Kodur V. The experimental behavior of FRP-strengthened RC beams
subjected to design fire exposure. Eng Struct 2011;33(7):2201–11.
[53] EN 13823. Reaction to fire tests for building products-Building products
excluding floorings exposed to the thermal attck by a single burning item. Comite
Europeen de Normalisation. British Standard; 2010.
[54] Ngo TD, Nguyen QT, Tran P. Heat release and flame propagation in prefabricated
modular unit with GFRP composite facades. Build. Simulat. 2016;9(5):607–16.
[55] Galati N, Nanni A, Dharani LR, Focacci F, Aiello MA. Thermal effects on bond
between FRP rebars and concrete. Compos Appl Sci Manuf 2006;37(8):1223–30.
[56] Hamad RJA, Megat Johari MA, Haddad RH. Mechanical properties and bond
characteristics of different fiber reinforced polymer rebars at elevated
temperatures. Construct Build Mater 2017;142:521–35.
[57] Katz A, Berman N. Modeling the effect of high temperature on the bond of FRP
reinforcing bars to concrete. Cement Concr Compos 2000;22(6):433–43.
[58] Ozkal
€ FM, Polat M, Ya� gan M, Oztürk
€ MO. Mechanical properties and bond
strength degradation of GFRP and steel rebars at elevated temperatures.
Construct Build Mater 2018;184:45–57.
[59] Yu B, Kodur VKR. Effect of high temperature on bond strength of near-surface
mounted FRP reinforcement. Compos Struct 2014;110:88–97.
[60] Kate TQ Nguyen PW, Mendis Priyan, Ngo Tuan. Performance of modern building
façades in fire: a comprehensive review. Electron J Struct Eng 2016;16(1).
[61] Berardi U, Dembsey N. Thermal and fire characteristics of FRP composites for
architectural applications. Polymers 2015;7(11):2276–89.
[62] Scott EP, Beck JV. Estimation of thermal properties in epoxy matrix/carbon fiber
composite materials. J Compos Mater 1992;26(1):132–49.
[63] Bai Y, Keller T. Fire performance of water-cooled GFRP columns. II: postfire
investigation. J Compos Construct 2011;15(3):413–21.
[64] Ahmed M, Mallick J, Abul Hasan M. A study of factors affecting the flexural
tensile strength of concrete. J. King Saud Univ. - Eng. Sci. 2016;28(2):147–56.
[65] Bhanja S, Sengupta B. Influence of silica fume on the tensile strength of concrete.
Cement Concr Res 2005;35(4):743–7.
[66] Wu S, Chen X, Zhou J. Tensile strength of concrete under static and intermediate
strain rates: correlated results from different testing methods. Nucl Eng Des 2012;
250:173–83.
[67] Gao J, Sun W, Morino K. Mechanical properties of steel fiber-reinforced, high-
strength, lightweight concrete. Cement Concr Compos 1997;19(4):307–13.
[68] Brooke N. A review OF the suitability OF fibre reinforced concrete for structural
applications IN New Zealand. J. Struct. Eng. Soc. New Zealand Inc 2012;25(2):20.
[69] Kohoutkov� a A, Broukalov� a I. Structural applications of fibre reinforced concrete
in the Czech republic. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng 2017;246:012001.
[70] Lau A, Anson M. Effect of high temperatures on high performance steel fibre
reinforced concrete. Cement Concr Res 2006;36(9):1698–707.
K.T.Q. Nguyen et al.
[71] Colombo M, di Prisco M, Felicetti R. Mechanical properties of steel fibre
reinforced concrete exposed at high temperatures. Mater Struct 2010;43(4):
475–91.
[72] Heo Y-S, Sanjayan JG, Han C-G, Han M-C. Limited effect of diameter of fibres on
spalling protection of concrete in fire. Mater Struct 2012;45(3):325–35.
[73] Kodur VKR. Spalling in high strength concrete exposed to fire: concerns, causes,
critical parameters and cures. Adv. Technol. Struct. Eng. 2000:1–9.
[74] Kodur V, Dwaikat M. Fire-induced spalling in reinforced concrete beams.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Structures and Buildings 2012;
165(7):347–59.
[75] Dwaikat MB, Kodur VKR. Fire induced spalling in high strength concrete beams.
Fire Technol 2009;46(1):251.
[76] Bilodeau A, Kodur VKR, Hoff GC. Optimization of the type and amount of
polypropylene fibres for preventing the spalling of lightweight concrete subjected
to hydrocarbon fire. Cement Concr Compos 2004;26(2):163–74.
[77] Kodur VKR. Performance of high strength concrete-filled steel columns exposed to
fire. Can J Civ Eng 1998;25(6):975–81.
[78] Dwaikat MB, Kodur VKR. Hydrothermal model for predicting fire-induced
spalling in concrete structural systems. Fire Saf J 2009;44(3):425–34.
[79] Zhang D, Dasari A, Tan KH. On the mechanism of prevention of explosive spalling
in ultra-high performance concrete with polymer fibers. Cement Concr Res 2018;
113:169–77.
[80] Li Y, Pimienta P, Pinoteau N, Tan KH. Effect of aggregate size and inclusion of
polypropylene and steel fibers on explosive spalling and pore pressure in ultra-
high-performance concrete (UHPC) at elevated temperature. Cement Concr
Compos 2019;99:62–71.
[81] Li Y, Tan KH, Yang E-H. Synergistic effects of hybrid polypropylene and steel
fibers on explosive spalling prevention of ultra-high performance concrete at
elevated temperature. Cement Concr Compos 2019;96:174–81.
[82] Ding Z, Xu M-R, Dai J-G, Dong B-Q, Zhang M-J, Hong S-X, et al. Strengthening
concrete using phosphate cement-based fiber-reinforced inorganic composites for
improved fire resistance. Construct Build Mater 2019;212:755–64.
[83] Mukhopadhyay S, Khatana S. A review on the use of fibers in reinforced
cementitious concrete. J Ind Textil 2015;45(2):239–64.
[84] Schartel B, Humphrey JK, Gibson AG, H€ orold A, Trappe V, Gettwert V. Assessing
the structural integrity of carbon-fibre sandwich panels in fire: bench-scale
approach. Compos B Eng 2019;164:82–9.
[85] CSA-S806. Design and construction of building components with fiber-reinforced
polymers. Mississauga. ON,Canada: CSA (Canadian Standards Association); 2012.
[86] Islam S, Afefy HM, Sennah K, Azimi H. Bond characteristics of straight- and
headed-end, ribbed-surface, GFRP bars embedded in high-strength concrete.
Construct Build Mater 2015;83:283–98.
[87] Katz A. Bond to concrete of FRP rebars after cyclic loading. J Compos Construct
2000;4(3):137–44.
[88] Katz A. Bond mechanism of FRP rebars to concrete. Mater Struct 1999;32(10):
761–8.
[89] Li C, Gao D, Wang Y, Tang J. Effect of high temperature on the bond performance
between basalt fibre reinforced polymer (BFRP) bars and concrete. Construct
Build Mater 2017;141:44–51.
[90] Li T, Zhu H, Wang Q, Li J, Wu T. Experimental study on the enhancement of
additional ribs to the bond performance of FRP bars in concrete. Construct Build
Mater 2018;185:545–54.
[91] Majhi S, Mukherjee A, Spadaccini AF. Thermal performance of an alkali-activated
paste for bonding fibre sheets with concrete. Compos B Eng 2019;162:43–53.
[92] Guillaume E, Fateh T, Schillinger R, Chiva R, Ukleja S. Study of fire behaviour of
facade mock-ups equipped with aluminium composite material-based claddings,
using intermediate-scale test method. Fire Mater 2018;42(5):561–77.
[93] Ruffault J, Moron V, Trigo RM, Curt T. Daily synoptic conditions associated with
large fire occurrence in Mediterranean France: evidence for a wind-driven fire
regime. Int J Climatol 2017;37(1):524–33.
[94] Chow WK, Liu J. Fire hazards of façade materials for energy conservation under
flashover. Energy Procedia 2015;78:3483–8.
[95] Liu J, Chow WK. Determination of fire load and heat release rate for high-rise
residential buildings. Procedia Eng 2014;84:491–7.
[96] EN 13501-1. In: Fire classification of construction products and building elements
in Part 1: classification using data from reaction to fire tests. British Standard:
Comite Europeen de Normalisation; 2009.
[97] Nelson GL. Fire and polymers: an overview. In: Proceedings of fire and polymers
II ACS symposium series 599; 1995. p. 1–26. Conference, Conference.
[98] Craig Ballinger TM, Tokitaro H. Strengthening of reinforced concrete chimneys,
columns and beams with carbon fiber reinforced plastics. ACI Symposium
Publication.138.
[99] Huang G, Huo S, Xu X, Chen W, Jin Y, Li R, et al. Realizing simultaneous
improvements in mechanical strength, flame retardancy and smoke suppression
of ABS nanocomposites from multifunctional graphene. Compos B Eng 2019;177:
107377.
12
Composites Part B 187 (2020) 107815
[100] Ran S, Fang F, Guo Z, Song P, Cai Y, Fang Z, et al. Synthesis of decorated graphene
with P, N-containing compounds and its flame retardancy and smoke suppression
effects on polylactic acid. Compos B Eng 2019;170:41–50.
[101] Fang F, Ran S, Fang Z, Song P, Wang H. Improved flame resistance and thermo-
mechanical properties of epoxy resin nanocomposites from functionalized
graphene oxide via self-assembly in water. Compos B Eng 2019;165:406–16.
[102] Bisby LA, Kodur VKR. Evaluating the fire endurance of concrete slabs reinforced
with FRP bars: considerations for a holistic approach. Compos B Eng 2007;38(5):
547–58.
[103] Milke JA, Vizzini AJ. Modeling and evaluation of the thermal response of fire
exposed composites. J Compos Technol Res 1990;13(3):6.
[104] Pornwannachai W, Ebdon JR, Kandola BK. Fire-resistant natural fibre-reinforced
composites from flame retarded textiles. Polym Degrad Stabil 2018;154:115–23.
[105] Alva P, Arnon B, Barzin M. Textile reinforced concrete. 1 ed. London: CRC Pres;
2017. p. 489.
[106] Mendis P, Nguyen K, Baduge SK, Chandrathilaka ERK. Textile reinforced concrete
composite for advanced construction applications. In: Proceedings of
international conference on composites materials (ICCM22) Melbourne,
Australia; 2019. Conference, Conference.
[107] Hausding J, Lorenz E, Ortlepp R, Lundahl A, Cherif C. Application of stitch-
bonded multi-plies made by using the extended warp knitting process:
reinforcements with symmetrical layer arrangement for concrete. J Textil Inst
2011;102(8):726–38.
[108] Velamati S. Feasibility, benefits and challenges of modular construction in high
rise development in the United States : a developer’s perspective. Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. USA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2012.
[109] Paneni C. Development of fire engineering solutions for modular construction.
Australia The University of Queensland; 2018.
[110] Guruge P, Nguyen K, Mendis P. Fire performance of prefabricated and modular
buildings. In: Proceedings of ARC-CAMPH annual conference. Australia: The
University of Melbourne; 2017. Conference, Conference.
[111] Huang H, Huang TJ, Yuan Q, Zhou DJ, Deng DH, Zhang L. Temperature
dependence of structural build-up and its relation with hydration kinetics of
cement paste. Construct Build Mater 2019;201:553–62.
[112] EN 1364-1. Fire resistance tests for non-load-bearing elements – Part 1: Walls.
Brussels, Belgium: European Comminee for Standardization; 2015.
[113] EN 1366 - fire resistance tests for service installations. Brussels, Belgium:
European Comminee for Standardization; 2014.
[114] BS 476. Fire tests on building materials and structures. British Standard; 1993.
[115] Lawson Mark, Ogden Ray, Goodier C. Design in modular construction. Boca
Raton, FL: USA: CRC Press; 2014.
[116] Kim J. Development of modular building systems made of innovative steel
sections and wall configurations. Australia Queensland University of Technology;
2019.
[117] Pham D. Leaks and alignment issues plaguing Atlantic Yards’ B2 tower were more
severe than reported. 2015.
[118] Pereira MG, Trigo RM, da Camara CC, Pereira JMC, Leite SM. Synoptic patterns
associated with large summer forest fires in Portugal. Agric For Meteorol 2005;
129(1):11–25.
[119] Ruffault J, Mouillot F. How a new fire-suppression policy can abruptly reshape
the fire-weather relationship 2015;6(10):art199.
[120] Trigo RM, Pereira JMC, Pereira MG, Mota B, Calado TJ, Dacamara CC, et al.
Atmospheric conditions associated with the exceptional fire season of 2003 in
Portugal, vol. 26; 2006. p. 1741–57. 13.
[121] Dupuy J-L, Linn RR, Konovalov V, Pimont F, Vega JA, Jim� enez E. Exploring three-
dimensional coupled fire–atmosphere interactions downwind of wind-driven
surface fires and their influence on backfires using the HIGRAD-FIRETEC model.
Int J Wildland Fire 2011;20(6):734–50.
[122] Beer TJB-LM. The interaction of wind and fire, vol. 54; 1991. p. 287–308. 3.
[123] Madrzykowski D, Kerber S, Kumar S, Panindre P. Wind, fire and high-rises. Mech
Eng 2010;132:22–7. 07.
[124] Smolka M, Anselmi E, Crimi T, Madec BL, M� oder IF, Park KW, et al. Semi-natural
test methods to evaluate fire safety of wall claddings: Update. In: MATEC Web of
Conferences. 46; 2016, 01003.
[125] Nguyen KTQ. Fire performance of building façade-fire safety design of buildings,
performance based approach and codes of practice. Australia: The University of
Melbourne; 2018.
[126] Abbasi A, Hogg PJ. Fire testing of concrete beams with fibre reinforced plastic
rebar. Compos Appl Sci Manuf 2006;37(8):1142–50.
[127] Anjang A, Chevali VS, Lattimer BY, Case SW, Feih S, Mouritz AP. Post-fire
mechanical properties of sandwich composite structures. Compos Struct 2015;
132:1019–28.
[128] Echeverria CA, Handoko W, Pahlevani F, Sahajwalla V. Cascading use of textile
waste for the advancement of fibre reinforced composites for building
applications. J Clean Prod 2019;208:1524–36.
[129] Fang C, Izzuddin BA, Elghazouli AY, Nethercot DA. Robustness of steel-composite
building structures subject to localised fire. Fire Saf J 2011;46(6):348–63.