10.06: Fire performance of CFS walls with web‐perforated studs–A numerical investigation
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".