## 4 Results of Numerical and Experimental Approaches
As can be clearly observed from the direct comparison of Figure 8c,d with Figure 9a,b, the results of the numerical modeling differ visually from the experimental findings. Although the characteristic pattern of temperature bands--closely corresponding to the position of the reinforcement--is preserved in both cases, and the temperature ranges are in close agreement (with a maximum temperature of 21.6 \({}^{\circ}\)C in the numerical results and 21.4 \({}^{\circ}\)C in the experimental data), the distribution of these bands varies to some extent. This discrepancy arises primarily from the inherent differences in how the data were obtained. The numerical results represent the simulated surface temperature distribution of the specimen, while the experimental data were acquired using a thermal imaging camera with a specific accuracy, positioned at an angle relative to the specimen and at a considerable distance (precisely 2.32 m). Moreover, the numerical model was developed using predefined material properties obtained from the literature, which, although representative, may not precisely match the properties of the materials used in the physical specimen. The model further assumes an idealized configuration, including perfectly aligned reinforcement bars and a uniform concrete cover thickness throughout the structure. In reality, small deviations in bar placement or variations in cover thickness can have a local impact on heat distribution, which the model does not capture. Additionally, the numerical simulation does not account for all environmental influences present during the experimental measurements, such as ambient air movement, humidity, or varying emissivity due to surface conditions, all of which may affect the accuracy of thermal imag  
Figure 9: Temperature distribution at the surface of the sample after 100 s, 200 s, and 300 s of heating, presented for two experimental configurations: (**a**) 30\({}^{\circ}\) inclination and (**b**) 45\({}^{\circ}\) inclination with respect to the antenna axis. ing data. Nevertheless, for the purpose of this study, it is sufficient that the numerical results replicate the overall trends observed in the experimental data. That is, the temperature maxima should coincide with the actual locations of the reinforcement bars, the average temperature in the vicinity of the reinforcement should be comparable, and--most importantly, as demonstrated in the following Figures 10 and 11--the temperature-time characteristics of the averaged temperature within the reinforced zones should exhibit a similar profile in both the numerical and experimental results. Figures 10 and 11 illustrate the comparison between the numerical and experimental time-temperature characteristics for two selected reinforcement bars, R4 and R5, in two analyzed configurations with bar inclinations of 30\({}^{\circ}\) and 45\({}^{\circ}\), respectively. The temperature profiles were obtained by averaging the temperature values over designated regions surrounding the reinforcement bars, as marked on the thermograms. In the case of the 30\({}^{\circ}\) configuration, Figure 10a shows the experimental thermogram with the locations of rebars R4 and R5 clearly indicated, while Figure 10b presents the corresponding numerical thermogram with the same areas marked. Figure 10c,d displays the resulting time-temperature curves for rebar R4 and R5, respectively, with blue lines representing the numerical data and red lines representing the experimental measurements. Similarly, for the 45\({}^{\circ}\) configuration, the thermographic regions used for averaging are shown on the experimental thermogram in Figure 11a and on the numerical thermogram in Figure 11b. The corresponding time-temperature characteristics for R4 and R5 are presented in Figure 11c,d, respectively.