Re-examination of steel frame office buildings in preventing collapse when subject to intense fires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the paper is to investigate the extent to which present-day design of steel framed buildings is susceptible to total collapse when subjected to extreme fire events. We select a 50 storey structure in which 2 and 4 adjacent storeys located at different above-ground heights are, in separate scenarios engulfed in raging fires. A total of 8 scenarios are analyzed, employing Newtonian mechanics and realistic energy dissipating properties of H-shaped columns and normal concrete floor slabs possessing secondary (shrinkage and temperature) reinforcement alone. While the present Canadian building code is the basis for our column designs, other standards provide very similar specifications. Although fire proofing is required in virtually all high rise building construction, we are excluding such materials in order to simplify the analyses, but clearly do not advocate its omission – quite the opposite in fact. As well, attributes such as floor beams, partitions and furnishings of every description, all of which would in practice participate in absorbing the kinetic energy of a crush-down upper block are excluded. Despite such a vast array of conservative assumptions, it is shown that partial collapse may occur during crush-down, however, in no case will total collapse be the consequence. These results should provide some comfort to code writers that their requirements should indeed prevent the most catastrophic of failures due to fires.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".