Construction and Building Materials 154 (2017) 993–1003

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Modeling the behavior of load bearing concrete walls under fire

exposure
Puneet Kumar a, V.K.R. Kodur b,⇑
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 3501 Engineering Building, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 3580 Engineering Building, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA

h i g h l i g h t s

A finite element based numerical model is proposed for tracing fire response of load bearing concrete walls.

Validity of the proposed model is established.

Results from model are utilized to characterize three distinct stages in fire response of walls.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A generic three-dimensional (3D) finite element (FE) based numerical model is presented for predicting
Received 30 April 2017 thermo-mechanical behavior of load bearing reinforced concrete (RC) walls exposed to fire. The proposed
Received in revised form 1 August 2017 model is capable of accounting for critical parameters governing fire resistance of RC walls including wall
Accepted 3 August 2017
slenderness ratio, support restrains, and temperature dependent properties of reinforcement and con-
Available online 11 August 2017
crete. The model is validated by comparing predicted thermal and structural response parameters with
the experimental data on three full scale load bearing RC walls tested under fire exposure. The compar-
Keywords:
isons show good correlation between model predictions and measured data, indicating that the proposed
Concrete walls
Fire exposure
model can predict the thermo-mechanical behavior of RC walls from pre-loading to collapse stage under
Fire resistance fire exposure. The validated model can be applied to undertake parametric studies aimed at quantifying
Numerical model critical factors governing fire performance of load bearing RC walls under fire.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Reinforced concrete (RC) walls are widely used as vertical sep-
arations in buildings due to their cost effectiveness, architectural
aesthetics, better space utilization, and low maintenance costs.
These walls provide significantly higher axial and out-of-plane
strength as compared to masonry infill walls, which results in
small size requirements for the framing members; thus, leading
to larger space and economical construction. Consequently, the
use of load bearing RC walls in high rise building construction
has gained popularity in the recent decades. In these buildings,
RC walls are subjected to both in-plane (gravity loads from upper
floors) and out-of-plane loads (arising from the eccentricity in
gravity loading and/or wind loading); and play a key role in devel-
oping load transfer mechanisms in the building.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: kumarpu2@msu.edu (P. Kumar), kodur@egr.msu.edu
(V.K.R. Kodur).
Typically, walls are to be designed for fire safety assuming one
side fire exposure, and such a condition can develop steep thermal
gradients within wall cross section. These thermal gradients cause
uneven material degradation across wall cross section at elevated
temperatures, which in turn imparts eccentricity to gravity load-
ing. Thus, fire exposure has strong potential for inducing out-of-
plane instability in RC walls. However, studies pertaining to fire
behavior of walls, especially under eccentric loading, are rather
scarce in the literature.
In case of fire, RC walls are expected to satisfy three criteria
(failure limit states); which include ability to carry applied load
under fire exposure (stability criterion), ability to keep tempera-
ture on unexposed face below ignition temperature (insulation cri-
terion), and ability to provide fire compartmentation by preventing
cracks and fissures (integrity criterion). Currently, these three cri-
teria are assumed to be satisfied if prescribed member dimensions
(for e.g. minimum thickness of the wall, concrete cover to main
reinforcement etc.) are provided as per prescriptive code based
specifications. Such prescriptive approaches are developed under

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.08.010
0950-0618/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
994 P. Kumar, V.K.R. Kodur / Construction and Building Materials 154 (2017) 993–1003
standard fire conditions and do not take into consideration many
critical factors governing the fire behavior of RC walls such as load
level, wall slenderness, load eccentricity etc.
Moreover, there is lack of validated numerical models for pre-
dicting realistic behavior of RC walls under fire exposure. Most of
the previously reported numerical studies on simulating behavior
of RC walls under fire are either two-dimensional (2D) idealiza-
tions or do not account for all critical factors governing fire behav-
ior of RC walls [1–5]. In order to overcome current drawbacks, a
generic 3D finite element (FE) based numerical model is developed
in ANSYS [6]. Comprehensive details of the model development
along with its validation against fire test data are presented in this
paper. Special consideration is given to incorporate thermal bow-
ing and reverse bowing in evaluating structural performance under
fire exposure, which play a key role in characterizing stability of
concrete walls under fire exposure.
2. Behavior of RC walls under fire
There are limited numerical [1–5] and experimental [7–14]
studies on behavior of load-bearing RC walls under fire. Some of
the main findings in these studies are reported below.
2.1. Experimental studies
Crozier and Sanjayan [7] tested a total of eighteen load bearing
slender RC walls (3600 mm  1200 mm) by exposing them to stan-
dard fire exposure [15] on the tension face of walls. The varied
parameters included wall thickness (75 mm, 100 mm, and
150 mm), clear cover to rebars (30 mm–110 mm), slenderness
(24, 36, and 48 height to thickness ratio), concrete strength
(44 MPa–70 MPa), and varying levels of eccentric in-plane loads.
The in-plane load carrying capacity was evaluated through tests
on eight wall specimens, supported on two short edges and sub-
jected to eccentric in-plane and lateral loads –resulting from self-
weight of the wall in horizontal position. Also, to investigate the
effect of spalling and thermal bowing, eight additional walls were
tested under the combined effect of gravity loading and standard
fire exposure. Based on the results, the study concluded that (a)
thermal bowing degrades the in-plane load carrying capacity of
walls significantly; (b) strength of concrete had little influence on
the fire behavior of RC walls; and (c) walls with vertical reinforce-
ment at mid-thickness performed better than doubly reinforced
walls (i.e. rebars at two outer surfaces).
It should be noted that testing of these walls in horizontal posi-
tion led to development of significant flexural cracks on the tension
side of walls, which led to degradation in fire resistance of walls.
However, such flexural cracking is contrary to the service load con-
ditions of walls, as walls are predominantly subjected to axial
loads. This stimulated researchers to focus on providing realistic
service loading conditions during fire tests, hence, most of the
experimental studies after Crozier and Sanjayan [7] pursued test-
ing of RC walls in vertical position along with appropriate support
conditions [8–14].
Guerrieri and Fragomeni [8] tested four slender
(1300 mm  1300 mm  50 mm) concrete walls, by exposing one
face to standard fire exposure, to gauge fire induced spalling in
walls. All walls were tested after a duration of six months from
casting, with reported concrete strength to be approximately
40 MPa. Two of these walls were tested under the effect of self-
weight alone, whereas, other two were subjected to an eccentric
axial loading. In the tests, explosive spalling was observed in walls
subjected to self-weight alone, and walls under eccentric loading
did not experience any explosive spalling. This is explained on
the account of relatively low flexural cracking in walls without
eccentric loading. Flexural cracking allows dissipation of pore
water pressure within wall under fire exposure, which reduces
the risk of explosive spalling. Therefore, walls with relatively low
flexural cracking are more prone to explosive spalling, which is
reflected by results of the study.
Go et al. [9] studied the effect of aggregate density (normal
weight, and light weight concrete), vertical reinforcement spacing
(10 mm, 20 mm, and 30 mm), and width of wall (1000 mm and
1500 mm) on post-fire in-plane structural response of five RC walls
(1500 mm  75 mm). The concrete strength for all wall specimen
varied between 20 and 22 MPa, and they were subjected to one
sided standard fire exposure. The post-fire in-plane structural
response of walls was compared with that of walls tested at room
temperature, and it was concluded that lightweight concrete walls
retained relatively higher in-plane strength, stiffness, and ductility
as compared to normal weight concrete walls.
Lee et al. [10] studied the fire behavior of eight RC walls by
exposing both faces of wall to standard fire exposure. The key vari-
ables of this study include: thickness of wall (100 mm–200 mm),
load ratio (0–6%), amount of reinforcement (0.3% and 0.6% with
equal vertical and horizontal reinforcement ratio), concrete
strength (10 MPa–40 MPa), and curing duration of concrete (38
and 120 days). The results of the study show that thin wall speci-
mens with shorter curing duration and high strength concrete
are susceptible to premature failure under fire exposure. Kang et.
al. [11] studied the effect of wall thickness (150 mm–250 mm)
and moisture content (5–7%) on development of temperature pro-
file within RC wall cross-section, and results of this study illustrate
the influence of moisture content on thermal response of RC walls.
Ngo et al. [12] studied the effect of eccentric loading (10 mm
eccentricity), concrete strength (36 MPa–89 MPa), and polypropy-
lene fibers on ten full-scale (2400 mm  1000 mm  150 mm) RC
walls subjected to standard and hydrocarbon fire exposures. The
results of the study show that all normal strength concrete (NSC)
walls withstood fire exposure of 120 min with little or moderate
spalling under standard and hydrocarbon fire exposure. However,
walls fabricated with high strength concrete (HSC) experienced
severe spalling in case of hydrocarbon fire exposure, which led to
ultimate collapse of the wall at 31 min. The authors inferred that
this spalling problem in HSC can be remedied to a certain extent
by adding polypropylene fibers into HSC mix. This was shown
through testing a wall by adding polypropylene fibers, which
enhanced the fire resistance of modified wall to 65 min (from
31 min) under hydrocarbon fire exposure.
Mueller et al. [13] tested two load bearing RC walls
(380 mm  1020 mm  3050 mm) with varying lateral restrains
under standard fire exposure. Both walls had similar reinforcement
detailing with an average test day concrete strength of 51 MPa and
47 MPa, respectively. The walls were subjected to an axial load of
2400 kN, representing constant dead load from superstructure,
with fixed boundary conditions at the bottom. For one wall, the lat-
eral displacement was constrained using an actuator at about
230 mm from the top of wall; whereas, another was subjected to
a step wise incremental lateral load, pushing wall towards the fur-
nace at the same location. The thermo-mechanical behavior was
monitored using conventional strain gauges, digital image correla-
tion, and infrared thermography. The results of this study revealed
that constraining thermal bowing of RC walls can result in devel-
opment of significant out-of-plane loads. Therefore, boundary con-
ditions play a key role in characterizing thermo-mechanical
behavior of RC walls.
Same experimental setup was further utilized by Mueller and
Kurama [14] to evaluate the effect of concrete strength (47 MPa–
123 MPa average test day strength), eccentric loading, wall thick-
ness (203 mm–380 mm), reinforcement detailing, end restrains,
and lateral loading on thermo-mechanical behavior of load bearing
 P. Kumar, V.K.R. Kodur / Construction and Building Materials 154 (2017) 993–1003
RC walls (1020 mm  3050 mm). They tested a total of five load
bearing RC walls, all of which were subjected to a constant axial
load of 2400 kN similar to that in Mueller et al. [13] study. The
eccentric loading was applied as a consequence of varying thick-
ness of the RC wall at the top [14].
The results of this study concluded that RC walls with inade-
quate steel reinforcement at the vertical faces (i.e. when reinforce-
ment is provided only at the middle thickness of the wall) are more
inclined to buckling failure, well below the fire resistance times
given in ACI 216.1 [16]. This is demonstrated by wall specimen 6
and 7 of the study, where a buckling failure occurred at fire expo-
sure of 46 and 70 min instead of 4 h fire rating predicted by ACI
216.1 [16]. This is attributed to absence of steel reinforcement
layer near vertical face of wall which resulted in the concrete spal-
ling to reach approximately mid thickness of the wall (about
100 mm from exposed face), and ultimately led to sudden buckling
failure. Apart from that all wall specimens demonstrated large
thermal bowing and reverse bowing deflections based on lateral
boundary conditions, which demonstrates the potential for signif-
icant fire induced out-of-plane instability.
2.2. Numerical studies
Buchanan and Munukutla [1] were one of the early researchers
to develop a numerical model to assess the fire behavior of load
bearing RC walls. In this model, the heat transfer in wall is modeled
with one dimensional (1D) finite difference approach, and the Ber-
noulli’s plain strain assumptions are deemed to be valid. Subse-
quently, structural behavior is captured using a strain and force
compatibility analysis. The numerical model accounted for end
restrains, temperature dependent constitutive models and geo-
metric non-linearity. The study concluded that end restrains, cover
to reinforcement, slenderness ratio, and axial load on the wall are
critical factors influencing fire resistance of RC walls. A similar
model has been developed by O’Meagher and Bennetts [2], which
focus on similar aforementioned governing factors, and affirms
the conclusions of Buchanan and Munukutla [1]. However, it
should be noted that the predictions of model are not validated
against appropriate fire test data in either of these studies, hence,
the validity of models in predicting the fire behavior of RC walls
is not established.
Lee and Lee [3] developed an improvised model that incorpo-
rated the effect of fire induced spalling in concrete on fire resis-
tance of walls, as per spalling model proposed by Dwaikat and
Kodur [17]. The model considered a 1D heat transfer analysis along
with a strain compatibility structural solution, similar to that of
Buchanan and Munukutla [1]. The axial displacement predictions
from this model were validated using appropriate experimental
data [10], and a comparison with fire resistance predictions of
codes and standards was provided. They also provided a simplified
formula (as in Eq. (1)) to assess the fire resistance of load bearing
RC walls. For simplicity, the model assumed conservatively that
spalling of concrete is constrained to the clear cover thickness of
concrete only, and steel rebars affected by spalling debond com-
pletely on occurrence of spalling. The simplified formula for esti-
mation of fire resistance of load bearing RC walls is given as:
        conductivity, and density; whereas, elastic modulus, stress–strain
Pg Pg
t f ¼ 1:1 þ 1:6 tw þ 52:3  59:8 ;
Pn Pn
Where, tf is the fire resistance in minutes, Pg is applied axial
load, Pn is nominal axial load carrying capacity of wall, and tw is
the thickness of wall. As Eq. (1) is based on linear regression of fire
test results of eight wall specimens only, therefore, following con-
strains are applied on the Eq. (1):
995
Pg
100 mm  t w  250 mm; 0:01   0:9; ð2Þ
Pn
Other simplified numerical models in the literature [4,5]
include models based on sectional analysis and yield design based
analysis. Based on the above review, it is clear that there is lack of
validated 3D numerical models capable of predicting realistic fire
response of RC walls.
3. Numerical model
A numerical model to predict the thermo-mechanical response
of RC walls subjected to fire exposure, along with structural load-
ing, is developed in ANSYS [6]. Comprehensive details of the model
development are presented below.
3.1. FE discretization of wall
For fire resistance analysis, a coupled transient thermal-stress
approach is adopted in ANSYS [6]; where RC wall is discretized into
two sets of elements to simulate thermal and structural response.
For thermal analysis, the wall is discretized into SOLID70 and
LINK33 elements with SURF152 elements overlaid on the surface.
SOLID70 is a 3D eight noded solid element capable of simulating
conduction in concrete, and LINK33 is a two noded bar element
used to simulate conduction in reinforcement. SURF152 is a four
noded surface element capable of simulating heat transfer via con-
duction, convection, and radiation between fire zone and the RC
wall. Using this discretization, heat transfer between fire zone
and exposed surfaces of RC wall is captured using SURF152 ele-
ments, and the conduction within is simulated using SOLID70
and LINK33 elements.
For simulating structural response, thermal elements are con-
verted to compatible structural elements i.e. SOLID70 to SOLID65,
LINK33 to LINK180, and SURF152 to SURF154. SOLID65 element
is an eight noded element which is utilized to implement the Wil-
liam Warnke failure envelope for simulating cracking and crushing
of concrete (see Section 3.3). LINK180 element is a two noded ele-
ment capable of simulating compression or tension within steel
reinforcement, and SURF154 is utilized for application of surface
loads (pressure) on the solid elements. The resulting cross-
sectional temperatures from thermal analysis are applied as nodal
loads along with structural loading in the structural analysis, and
the corresponding structural response is simulated using SOLID65,
LINK180, and SURF154 elements. A typical RC wall discretized into
various elements is shown in Fig. 1.
3.2. High temperature material properties
Concrete and steel reinforcement experience significant degra-
dation in thermal and mechanical material properties at elevated
temperatures [18,19]. Therefore, to simulate realistic thermo-
mechanical response of RC walls, temperature dependent thermal
and mechanical material properties are to be provided as input to
ANSYS [6]. The thermal properties include specific heat, thermal
ð1Þ relations, coefficient of thermal expansion come under mechanical
material properties. These temperature dependent properties of
concrete and steel rebars are incorporated as per recommenda-
tions of Eurocode 2 [20]. It should be noted that nodal tempera-
tures are main output parameters from the thermal analysis,
therefore, one element (consisting of 2 or more nodes) may have
different nodal temperatures. As every individual element can
996 P. Kumar, V.K.R. Kodur / Construction and Building Materials 154 (2017) 993–1003

Fig. 1. Developed FE model for RC wall, (a) symmetric FE model, (b) reinforcement detailing.

account for variation in material properties at only one tempera-

ture state at a time, therefore, the temperature dependent material
properties are evaluated at the average nodal temperature of the
element in both thermal and structural analysis.

3.3. Cracking and crushing of concrete

Cracking and crushing of concrete can significantly deteriorate

in-plane and out-of-plane stiffness of RC walls, especially due to
material degradation at elevated temperatures, and thus play a
key role in characterizing structural response of walls under fire.
Therefore, to capture temperature dependent cracking and crush-
ing effects, Willam and Warnke [21] failure envelope (suitable
for concrete [22]) is incorporated using SOLID65 element in the
structural analysis. This failure criterion for a multiaxial stress Fig. 2. Willam and Warnke failure envelope in 3D principal stress space (r1, r2,
state of concrete is implemented as: and r3 are principal stresses).

F
 S  0;
fc
In which, F is a function of principal stress state; and S is a con-
tinuous failure surface with five temperature dependent input
parameters as: uniaxial tensile strength, ft, uniaxial compressive
strength, fc, biaxial compressive strength, fcb, and ultimate com-
pressive strengths for a biaxial compression superimposed on
hydrostatic stress state i.e. f1 and f2. The relative magnitudes of
principal stresses on the octahedral plane are defined using angle
of similarity, g, and parameters r1 and r2 (see Fig. 2). The resulting
three-dimensional failure envelope in the principal stress-state is
shown in the Fig. 2, and detailed mathematical formulation of
the same can be found elsewhere [21].
In case of absence of experimental data, failure surface (S) can
be represented using just two fundamental strength characteristics
of concrete as ft and fc [6]. In this case, other input parameters are
assigned a default value as:
ð3Þ
f cb ¼ 1:2f c ; f 1 ¼ 1:45f c ; and f 2 ¼ 1:725f c ; ð4Þ
Once the failure criterion for crushing of concrete is satisfied,
the stiffness of the corresponding SOLID65 element is reduced to
a negligible value thus making it crushed. Whereas, in case of
cracking, a plane of weakness is introduced in a direction perpen-
dicular to that of the tensile principal stress which satisfies the fail-
ure criterion. To implement this reduction in stiffness due to
tensile cracks additional parameters, open (bt) and closed crack
(bc) factors, are utilized by SOLID65 elements. The value of these
factors range between 0 and 1, with 0 representing complete loss
of shear transfer (smooth crack) and 1 representing no loss of loss
of shear transfer (rough crack). Based on the preliminary studies, bt
and bc are assigned a value of 0.53 and 0.98 in the developed
model, respectively.
 P. Kumar, V.K.R. Kodur / Construction and Building Materials 154 (2017) 993–1003
3.4. Numerical convergence criteria
In the above analysis procedure, transient thermal analysis uti-
lizes an explicit solver, and a Newton-Raphson iterative solver is
used in the structural analysis. The convergence of the FE solution
is defined using stringent vector norms in both analysis domains,
ensuring physical behavior of the FE model. However, temperature
dependent cracking and crushing of concrete, high temperature
constitutive models, and material and geometric non-linearities
can often lead to an ill-conditioned stiffness matrix in the struc-
tural analysis. This imparts several convergence hurdles to the FE
analysis and often leads to divergence from reaching a solution,
inhibiting further progress of FE analysis. To overcome such con-
vergence hurdles, the load is incremented gradually using very
small load increments which allows the appropriate plastic defor-
mation of the cracked and crushed concrete and continuity of the
FE analysis. However, it should be noted that using very small load
increments enhances the computational efforts exponentially.
Therefore, smaller load increments are only implemented at con-
vergence hurdle points and the solution is allowed to follow nor-
mal load increments otherwise.
3.5. Failure limit states
RC wall can attain failure under fire exposure through reaching
insulation, or integrity, or stability limit states (as discussed in Sec-
tion 1). Therefore, to evaluate fire resistance, failure of wall should
be checked against these failure limit states at each time step of
analysis. The failure of wall in insulation limit state occurs when
temperature rise on the unexposed face exceeds 139 °C above its
initial temperature [23]. The integrity criterion is assessed as per
the recommendations of Eurocode 2 [20], according to which
requirements for integrity criterion are considered satisfied where
the minimum thickness of wall and concrete cover are in accor-
dance with prescribed values. As per stability criterion, the failure
occurs when the capacity at a critical section falls below the
applied loading effects. In addition to these failure limit states,
ISO834 [24] specifies deflection or rate of deflection as a failure
limit state for walls. According to ISO834 [24] compression mem-
ber (wall) undergoes failure when the axial deformation exceeds
h 3h
100
mm or the rate of deformation reaches 1000 (mm/min) during
fire exposure, where h denotes the height of wall in mm.
4. Model validation
The above developed FE model is validated against data from
fire tests on full-scale load bearing RC walls [12–14] (see Table 1).
Predictions from the developed FE model are compared with
Table 1
Description of RC walls selected for validation.
Parameter Wall-W1
Tested by Ngo et. al. [12]; Specimen NSC3
Dimensions (length  width  height) (mm) 1000  150  2400
Longitudinal reinforcement 8 u 16 mm vertical bars
Lateral reinforcement 14 mm horizontal bars @ 300 mm
Concrete characteristic strength–28 days (MPa) 31.8
Concrete strength–test day (MPa) 35.6
Aggregate type calcareous
Age of wall specimen at the time of fire test (days) 120
Applied axial load (kN) 485
Axial load eccentricity (mm) 10
Lateral loading none
Concrete clear cover (mm) 25
Moisture content (%) 8.4
Load bearing capacity as per ACI 318 [25] (kN) 1542.8
997
experimental results in thermal and structural domains to gauge
the efficacy of the model in predicting behavior of RC walls under
fire.
4.1. Selection and description of RC walls utilized for validation
Some of the major challenges in utilizing previously discussed
experimental studies [7–11] for validating numerical models are:
(a) impractical member dimensions -arising from testing equip-
ment limitations (for example: 50, and 75 mm wall thickness;
and 1300, and 1500 mm height), (b) lack/no reporting of compre-
hensive structural response which is vital for validating structural
response, and (c) use of low load levels in tests, representing typ-
ical non-load bearing walls. These limitations are well accounted
for in the experimental studies of Ngo et al. [12], Mueller et al.
[13], and Mueller and Kurama [14]; hence, these studies have been
utilized for the validation of developed FE model. Comprehensive
details of the selected RC walls from these studies are provided
in Table 1.
Wall-W1 represent a typical load bearing wall in low rise con-
struction, and was tested by Ngo et al. [12] under one face standard
fire exposure. The wall was subjected to a gravity/axial load of
485 kN at an eccentricity of 10 mm –towards fire exposed face
from the central axis of wall. This eccentricity in axial loading is
representative of typical accidental eccentricity (eccentricity due
to construction imperfections, geometry etc.) in the service loading
of walls, hence, provides an ideal case to gauge its effect on thermal
bowing of wall under fire exposure. The wall was tested under sim-
ply supported conditions at top and bottom, and withstood fire
exposure for a duration of two hours with very small amount of
spalling.
Wall-W2 and Wall-W3 represent load bearing walls in high rise
buildings with high gravity loads from the superstructure. These
walls were tested by Mueller et al. [13], and Mueller and Kurama
[14] using identical experimental setup. These walls represent
two typical configurations of reinforcement in load bearing walls,
illustrated in Fig. 3. Therefore, validation using these studies allow
the numerical model to account for typical reinforcement configu-
rations in load bearing walls. Both walls are subjected to an axial
load of 2400 kN, which is kept constant until the failure of wall.
Also, these walls are subjected to a varying lateral load at a dis-
tance of 230 mm from the top of wall –representing typical
restraint from the floor slab assembly. Bottom of the walls is fixed
to the laboratory strong floor using a concrete base, whereas sim-
ply supported conditions are maintained at the top. Once the axial
and initial lateral loading stabilize, wall is subjected to one face
standard fire exposure over half height of the wall using a custom
furnace. Comprehensive thermo-mechanical response, in terms of
Wall-W2 Wall-W3
Mueller et. al. [13]; Specimen 2 Mueller and Kurama [14]; Specimen 3
1020  380  3050 1020  380  3050
12 u 25.4 mm vertical bars 8 u 15.9 mm vertical bars
12.7 mm shear ties @ 230 mm 15.9 mm horizontal bars @ 305 mm
37.3 41.3
47.1 52.3
calcareous calcareous
973 1079
2400 2400
none none
varying lateral load (see Fig. 4) varying lateral load (see Fig. 4)
19 19
5.7 5.9
6586.4 7313.5
998 P. Kumar, V.K.R. Kodur / Construction and Building Materials 154 (2017) 993–1003
Fig. 3. Reinforcement detailing of (a) Wall-W1, (b) Wall-W2, and (c) Wall-W3.
temperatures and out-of-plane displacements was monitored for
both walls until failure. The failure of the wall was assumed to
occur when either it was not possible to maintain the axial loading
of 2400 kN, or the rate of displacement increased significantly
beyond the stroke (displacement capacity) of hydraulic jack. The
fire test was stopped when either one or both conditions were met.
It should be noted that fire exposure over the half height of wall
causes slower degradation in load carrying capacity relative to full
face fire exposure, as the extent of material degradation is limited
to fire exposed portion of the wall. Under full face exposure, wall
will experience relatively higher out-of-plane displacement, lead-
ing to early failure.
4.2. Analysis details
To save the computational effort in the analysis, the base of
walls which provides fixed support conditions to the wall is
removed and replaced with fixed boundary conditions in the
developed FE model. Also, due to symmetry in loading, geometry,
material properties, and boundary conditions only half symmetric
model is analyzed for all walls. The symmetric boundary condition
is implemented by constraining the perpendicular displacement
and out-of-plane rotation degrees of freedom for all nodes located
at the plane of symmetry (see Fig. 1). These simplifications have
significant impact on reducing the total number of elements in
numerical model, which ultimately leads to lower computational
effort and swift analysis.
To simulate the development of cross sectional temperatures
within RC walls using thermal analysis, the developed half FE mod-
els of selected walls are subjected to (a) initial temperature,
assumed to be 20 °C for all three walls, (b) corresponding fire expo-
sure, and (c) radiation and convection boundary conditions at the
unexposed face to simulate heat loss. Note that Eurocode 2 recom-
mends specific heat of concrete as a function of moisture content,
and therefore, specific heat corresponding to moisture content of
each wall (provided in Table 1) is input into thermal analysis. At
the end of thermal analysis, temperature history at every node is
stored in the database, and these temperatures form an input to
the structural analysis. For structural analysis, thermal elements
are converted to compatible structural elements (as explained in
Section 3.1), and FE models are subjected to service load and sup-
port conditions as per experimental testing.
Wall-W1 is subjected to an axial load of 485 kN at an eccentric-
ity of 10 mm in the first load step. Wall-W2 and Wall-W3 are sub-
jected to an axial load of 2400 kN, followed by initial lateral
loading as per Fig. 4. Once the displacements stabilize for initial
loading, the FE model at this stage represents a typical RC wall
under the effect of service loads inside a building. At this point,
resulting cross sectional temperatures from thermal analysis are
applied as nodal loads along with structural loading until failure
of the RC wall. This allows predicting realistic thermo-
mechanical behavior of RC wall from initial loading stage to the
ultimate collapse.
4.3. Thermal response
To validate thermal response predictions of the developed FE
model, temperature history predictions of the FE model are com-
pared with the test data across various depths of cross section.
For Wall-W1, seven thermocouples were embedded across the
wall cross section from exposed to unexposed face. The peak tem-
perature near exposed face (at 10 mm depth from exposed face, see
Fig. 5) of wall measured 865 °C, whereas, a temperature of 99 °C
was measured at unexposed face (at 145 mm depth from exposed
face, see Fig. 5). This huge difference in the temperatures at
exposed and unexposed face of wall is due to high thermal inertia
of concrete, and can be clearly observed from Fig. 5. Due to this
thermal inertia high thermal gradients are developed within wall
under fire exposure, which play a key role in characterizing
thermo-mechanical response of wall.
A comparison between predicted and measured temperature
histories for the Wall-W1 is illustrated in Fig. 5. It can be clearly
observed from Fig. 5 that FE model predictions are in good agree-
ment with the experimental data at all depths of consideration.
For the exposed face (at 10 mm depth), model predictions are very
close to experimental results in the first 20 min of fire exposure.
Beyond 20 min, the model predictions are slightly below measured
Fig. 4. Applied lateral loading for RC wall specimens (pushing towards fire exposed
face).
 P. Kumar, V.K.R. Kodur / Construction and Building Materials 154 (2017) 993–1003
Fig. 5. Comparison of predicted and measured cross sectional temperatures at various depths for Wall-W1.
values. However, the final predicted and measured exposed face
temperatures are very close to each other i.e. 845 °C and 865 °C,
respectively. For all other depths of consideration, model predic-
tions are very close to the experimental results in beginning, and
then slightly high temperatures are predicted; making tempera-
ture predictions slightly conservative. It should be noted that as
temperatures predicted at various depths throughout the fire test
are in good agreement with measured values, therefore, thermal
gradients are also predicted with similar accuracy throughout the
fire test. This manifest the trust in FE model to predict accurate
thermal gradients, which play a key role in thermal bowing and
spalling of concrete.
In case of Wall-W2 and Wall-W3, both walls share similar
geometry, thermal properties, and fire exposure which results in
a similar thermal response. The temperature history is reported
at depths near the exposed face and unexposed face (25 mm from
the face of wall) for both walls. Therefore, the temperature data
from these studies is not as suitable as Wall-W1 data to analyze
the efficacy of model in predicting temperatures at any depth
within wall. A comparison between predicted and measured tem-
peratures for Wall-W2 is illustrated in Fig. 6. It can be observed
from Fig. 6 that temperature predictions of model near unexposed
face of wall are in good agreement with the experimental data.
However, the model over predicts temperatures near fire exposed
Fig. 6. Comparison of predicted and measured cross sectional temperatures in
Wall-W2.
999
face of the wall. This variation in temperature at exposed face is
explained by possible dislocation of thermocouples at exposed face
of wall during the casting process [14]. Moreover, capability of the
developed FE model in predicting temperatures near exposed face
can be clearly observed from Fig. 5. Therefore, the developed FE
model is capable of predicting temperatures at any depth within
RC walls.
4.4. Structural response
To illustrate validity of the FE model in predicting thermo-
mechanical response of RC walls under fire exposure, the out-of-
plane displacement predictions are compared with the fire test
data in Figs. 7–9. In general, the out-of-plane displacement
response of RC walls under one face exposure can be categorized
into three main stages, based on their thermo-mechanical response
(see Figs. 7, 8(a), and 9(a)). In stage 1, high thermal inertia of con-
crete leads to development of steep thermal gradients within con-
crete cross section, while keeping temperatures within wall cross
section relatively below 500 °C. This is illustrated by large differ-
ence in the temperature rise near exposed and unexposed face
Fig. 7. Comparison of predicted and measured out-of-plane displacements for
Wall-W1.
1000 P. Kumar, V.K.R. Kodur / Construction and Building Materials 154 (2017) 993–1003
Fig. 8. Comparison between out-of-plane displacement predictions and Wall-W2 test data at wall height of (a) 2.29 m, (b) 2.79 m and 0.76 m, (c) 1.78 m, and (d) 1.27 m.
(see Figs. 5 and 6). This results in relatively high thermal expansion
near exposed face, as compared to near unexposed face, and causes
movement of wall away from exposed face (thermal bowing).
Therefore, this stage is marked by rapid increase in the out-of-
plane displacement, where the effect of material degradation is
not significant as temperatures within wall (away from exposed
face) are considerably below 500 °C.
Once the temperatures near exposed face exceed 500 °C, signif-
icant material degradation occurs in the strength and stiffness
properties of concrete and steel [20]. This causes a shift in the neu-
tral axis of axial loading towards unexposed face, and imparts
additional eccentricity to axial loading. The moment caused by this
eccentricity counteracts the movement of wall away from exposed
face, which can be clearly observed by the decreased rate of out-of-
plane displacement for all three walls after stage 1 (see Figs. 7–9).
Once the moment caused by shift of neutral axis exceeds the effect
of displacement caused due to thermal gradients, wall starts to
move towards exposed face. This is illustrated by onset of recovery
in out-of-plane displacement, and can be clearly observed from
Figs. 7–9. This change in movement of wall often leads to reversal
in the initial deflected shape of RC wall, and is termed as reverse
bowing. The onset of recovery of out-of-plane displacement, when
wall starts to progress towards reverse bowing, is marked as com-
pletion of stage 2.
Beyond stage 2, the effect of shift in neutral axis (resulting from
material degradation) dominates the thermo-mechanical response
of wall, and is marked as stage 3. Initial eccentricity in axial loading
and restraints from floor-slab assembly play a key role in charac-
terizing rate of displacement in this stage. The total duration of
stage 3 depends on wall material properties, geometry, loading
and boundary conditions, and duration of fire exposure. Comple-
tion of this stage marks onset of failure in strength domain at
which major failure modes can be observed in terms of excessive
deformation, buckling etc.
It can be clearly observed from Figs. 7–9 that the model predic-
tions are in good agreement with test data for all three walls, and it
correctly predicts occurrence and trends in structural response of
walls for all three stages. In case of Wall-W1, the model predictions
are in good agreement with measured values in stage 1 and 3.
However, the model slightly over predicts out-of-plane displace-
ments (by approximately 3 mm) in stage 2. This is primarily due
to the perfect bond assumption between steel reinforcement and
concrete, which is implemented in model to save computational
effort. However, in reality, there is some level of slippage at
rebar-concrete interface at elevated temperatures. Due to this
assumption, the thermal strains of steel rebars (with relatively
higher thermal expansion [20]) are completely transferred to con-
crete elements, and cause wall to deform beyond the measured
 P. Kumar, V.K.R. Kodur / Construction and Building Materials 154 (2017) 993–1003
Fig. 9. Comparison between out-of-plane displacement predictions and Wall-W3 test data at wall height of (a) 2.79 m, (b) 2.29 m and 0.25 m, (c) 1.78 m, and (d) 1.27 m.
value. This effect becomes more pronounced in the stage 2 as
material degradation at elevated temperatures (which dominates
this stage) has significant impact on bond between rebars and con-
crete. However, this effect is not captured currently by the model,
due to lack of reliable high temperature bond properties. Hence,
the model slightly over predicts in stage 2.
A similar effect of bond on structural response in stage 2 can be
observed for Wall-W2 and Wall-W3 as well (see Figs. 8 and 9). For
both walls, the effect of bond becomes significant towards end of
stage 1, and attains its maximum effect in stage 2. However, the
effect of bond is more pronounced in Wall-W2 as compared to
Wall-W3, which is mainly due to relatively high reinforcement
ratio in Wall-W2. Beyond stage 2, the effect of bond is slightly
reduced as shift in neutral axis and lateral restrains become more
dominating factors for structural response of walls. At the comple-
tion of stage 3, failure due to excessive deformation is observed for
Wall-W2 and Wall-W3. This is attributed to excessive spalling on
the exposed face which exposes the rebars to direct fire exposure,
as temperatures increase well beyond 800 °C. Currently, the model
does not account for the spalling of concrete, hence, the model
under predicts structural response beyond this stage. It should be
noted that even with these two limitations in terms of bond and
spalling, the model predictions are in good agreement with struc-
tural response. Therefore, the numerical model can be utilized to
capture the thermo-mechanical response of RC walls.
1001
4.5. Failure modes and thermal bowing
One of the governing failure mechanism in RC walls subjected
to one face fire exposure, is through buckling during reverse bow-
ing under the influence of lateral restrains and shift in neutral axis
at elevated temperatures. This has been observed in various exper-
imental studies [12–14]. Mueller et al. [13] and Mueller and Kur-
ama [14] demonstrated that thermal bowing and reverse bowing
played a key role in the failure of RC walls under fire exposure.
Also, they showed that restraining even small displacements in
RC wall could lead to significant additional lateral forces in the wall
for which it may not be designed. Therefore, thermal bowing and
reverse bowing phenomenon plays a key role in determining the
failure of RC walls under fire exposure, and can be utilized as an
important tool to investigate the same.
Moreover, deflected shape of wall can be utilized by several
simplified numerical models for the validation of their predicted
response [1,2,4,5]. Therefore, deflection predictions from model
can be utilized to develop simplified two dimensional (2D) models
for RC walls. Such models can provide significant computational
benefits over the three-dimensional (3D) models in terms of gener-
ating large databases. Hence, in order to assess the capability of
developed FE model in capturing failure modes of RC walls under
fire, a comparison between predicted and measured deflected
shapes is shown in Figs. 10 and 11, respectively.
1002 P. Kumar, V.K.R. Kodur / Construction and Building Materials 154 (2017) 993–1003

Fig. 10. Comparison between predicted and measured out-of-plane deformation Fig. 11. Comparison between predicted and measured out-of-plane deformation
profile for Wall-W2 at (a) initial loading, (b) 1 h, (c) 2.5 h, (d) 3.5 h, (e) 5 h, (f) 7.5 h, profile for Wall-W3 at (a) initial loading, (b) 1 h, (c) 2.5 h, (d) 3.5 h, (e) 5 h, (f) 7.5 h,
and (g) 10.2 h fire exposure. and (g) 9.7 h fire exposure.
 P. Kumar, V.K.R. Kodur / Construction and Building Materials 154 (2017) 993–1003
It should be noted that the accuracy in prediction of RC wall
deflected shape is directly dependent on the capability of model
to predict out-of-plane displacements along various heights of
the wall. Therefore, similar to the displacement response discussed
in previous section, the model predicts deflected shape with rea-
sonable accuracy in all three stages. Further, it can be clearly
observed from Figs. 10 and 11 that model correctly predicts the
thermal bowing and reverse bowing trends for both walls. Hence,
the model can be utilized to generate deflected profiles of the RC
walls under fire exposure which can be further utilized to develop
simplified 2D numerical models.
5. Conclusions
A FE based numerical model is proposed to predict the fire
response of load bearing RC walls. Predictions from the numerical
model are compared against fire test data in structural and thermal
domains to illustrate the efficacy of proposed model in predicting
realistic fire behavior of RC walls. Based on the results presented
in this paper, the following conclusions can be drawn:

The proposed finite element model is capable of predicting the
response of RC walls from initial loading to collapse stage under
combined effects of fire exposure and structural loading.

High thermal inertia of concrete leads to development of steep
thermal gradients within a RC wall, which imparts out-of-plane
instability to wall under fire loading.

Structural response of a RC wall under fire exposure occurs in
three distinct stages. First stage is marked by rapid increase in
out-of-plane displacement, resulting from steep thermal gradi-
ents. While second stage is mainly characterized by shift in the
neutral axis, resulting from material degradation at elevated
temperatures. The third stage is marked by onset of reverse
bowing, representing dominance of shift in neutral axis effects
over thermal expansion due to thermal gradients.

The proposed model can capture the thermal bowing and
reverse bowing phenomenon, which plays a critical role in ini-
tiating failure mechanism in a load bearing RC wall under fire
exposure.

Results from the proposed numerical model can be further uti-
lized to develop simplified 2D numerical models for evaluating
fire resistance of load bearing RC walls.
References
[1] A.H. Buchanan, V.R. Munukutla, Fire resistance of load-bearing reinforced
concrete walls, Fire Safety Sci. 3 (1991) 771–780.
1003
[2] A.J. O’Meagher, I.D. Bennetts, Modelling of concrete walls in fire, Fire Safety J.
17 (4) (1991) 315–335.
[3] S. Lee, C. Lee, Fire resistance of reinforced concrete bearing walls subjected to
all-sided fire exposure, Mater. Struct. 46 (6) (2013) 943–957.
[4] S.F. El-Fitiany, M.A. Youssef, Assessing the flexural and axial behaviour of
reinforced concrete members at elevated temperatures using sectional
analysis, Fire Safety J. 44 (5) (2009) 691–703.
[5] D.T. Pham, P. de Buhan, C. Florence, J.V. Heck, H.H. Nguyen, Yield design-based
analysis of high rise concrete walls subjected to fire loading conditions, Eng.
Struct. 87 (2015) 153–161.
[6] ANSYS, Mechanical APDL version 15, Canonsberg (PA): ANSYS Inc. (2013).
[7] D.A. Crozier, J.G. Sanjayan, Tests of load-bearing slender reinforced concrete
walls in fire, ACI Struct. J. 97 (2) (2000) 243–251.
[8] M. Guerrieri, S. Fragomeni, Spalling of normal strength concrete walls in fire,
in: 6th International Conference on Structures in Fire, East Lansing, USA (2010)
301–311.
[9] C.G. Go, J.R. Tang, J.H. Chi, C.T. Chen, Y.L. Huang, Fire-resistance property of
reinforced lightweight aggregate concrete wall, Construction Building Mater.
30 (2012) 725–733.
[10] C. Lee, S. Lee, H. Kim, Experimental observations on reinforced concrete
bearing walls subjected to all-sided fire exposure, Magazine Concrete Res. 65
(2) (2013) 82–92.
[11] J. Kang, H. Yoon, W. Kim, V. Kodur, Y. Shin, H. Kim, Effect of wall thickness on
thermal behaviors of RC walls under fire conditions, Int. J. Concrete Struct.
Mater. 10 (3) (2016) 19–31.
[12] T. Ngo, S. Fragomeni, P. Mendis, B. Ta, Testing of normal-and high-strength
concrete walls subjected to both standard and hydrocarbon fires, ACI Struct. J.
110 (3) (2013) 503–510.
[13] K.A. Mueller, Y.C. Kurama, M.J. McGinnis, Out-of-plane behavior of two
reinforced concrete bearing walls under fire: a full-scale experimental
investigation, ACI Struct. J. 111 (5) (2014) 1–10.
[14] K.A. Mueller, Y.C. Kurama, Out-of-plane behavior and stability of five planar
reinforced concrete bearing wall specimens under fire, ACI Struct. J. 112 (6)
(2015) 701–712.
[15] AS1530.4, Methods for fire tests on building materials, components and
structures: part 4 fire resistance tests of elements of building construction,
Standards Association of Australia, 1997.
[16] ACI-216.1-07, Code requirements for determining fire resistance of concrete
and masonry construction assemblies, Reported by Joint ACI-TMS Committee
216, 2007.
[17] M.B. Dwaikat, V.K.R. Kodur, Hydrothermal model for predicting fire-induced
spalling in concrete structural systems, Fire Safety J. 44 (3) (2009) 425–434.
[18] V. Kodur, Properties of concrete at elevated temperatures, ISRN Civil Eng. 2014
(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/468510.
[19] V.K.R. Kodur, M.M.S. Dwaikat, M.B. Dwaikat, High-temperature properties of
concrete for fire resistance modeling of structures, ACI Mater. J. 105 (5) (2008)
517–527.
[20] Eurocode 2, Design of concrete structures, Part 1-2: General rules-structural
fire design, CEN: European Committee for Standardization, UK, 2004.
[21] K. Willam, E. Warnke, Constitutive model for the triaxial behavior of concrete,
Proceedings, Int. Assoc. Bridge Struct. Eng., ISMES, Bergamo, Italy 19 (1975) 1–
30, http://dx.doi.org/10.5169/seals-17526.
[22] P. Kumar, Characterization of in-plane and out-of-plane behavior of infill
panels subjected to thermal exposure Master’s Thesis, Indian Institute of
Technology, Gandhinagar, 2015. http://repository.iitgn.ac.in/handle/
123456789/1889.
[23] E119-16a, Standard test methods for fire tests of building construction and
materials, American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2016.
[24] ISO, Fire resistance tests-elements of building construction, ISO 834-1,
International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland (2012).
[25] ACI 318-11 Building Code Requirements For Structural Concrete and
Commentary Reported by ACI Committee 318, 2011.