“…In the purely numerical configuration, however, the behaviour of the fire-exposed part must be modelled analytically too, which introduces uncertainty to the results (mainly because of the lack of realistic temperatureand time-dependent calibration data for the constitutive material models), that is, by design of the method eliminated in the hybrid configuration. For this reason, hybrid testing has lately attracted the interest of several researchers in structural fire engineering, leading to numerous conference contributions [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] and several different approaches [32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41]. However, a detailed and methodical review of existing approaches in [42] shows that these contributions still have, in aggregate, the following drawbacks: (1) they either lack the necessary theoretical rigour or ignore fundamentals of the well-established hybrid testing method as founded in the field of earthquake engineering (refer to [43] for an excellent review of these principles); (2) or they were only verified using over-simplified laboratory experiments, during which only relatively low elevated temperature levels were reached and, therefore, did not cover the entire range of temperaturedependent material behaviours that are relevant in structural fire engineering problems; or (3) they directly attempted to set up a hybrid fire test with full-scale structural members before exploring the fundamentals through meaningful lab-scale proof-of-concept problems (refer to [42] for a more detailed discussion including a historical overview on pioneering research from the 1980s and 1990s).…”