10.06: Fire performance of CFS walls with web‐perforated studs–A numerical investigation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Presented in this paper is a study on the performance of load‐bearing cold‐formed steel (CFS) walls with web‐perforated studs subjected to standard fire evaluated with use of sequentially uncoupled 3D finite element (FE) thermal‐stress analysis. The walls are sheathed with double layers of MgO board, Type C gypsum board, or mixed Type X and MgO board. The predicted failure times obtained from finite element analysis (FEA) are compared with those of full‐scale fire tests of load‐bearing CFS walls. The FEA results indicate that simulating CFS wall fire tests using a single stud model is acceptable. The difference between failure times predicted by the single stud model and fire tests is not significant. To account for possible force and stiffness interactions among the wall studs, modelling the load‐bearing fire wall tests using a CFS wall frame to obtain the system‐level response is also discussed. The FEA results obtained from the CFS wall frame model indicate that the middle interior studs may experience considerably higher loads than that applied to an equivalent single stud model. Consequently, the single stud model may overestimate failure time. Thus, interactions among the CFS wall studs should be considered in FEA to evaluate the performance of the wall system in fire.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it