MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413388234 · doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2025.104504

O.I.C.-based design of steel rectangular hollow sections at high temperatures

2025· article· en· W4413388234 on OpenAlexafffund
Mina Aleseyedan, Mariana Echeverri, Nicolas Boissonnade

Bibliographic record

VenueFire Safety Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Load-Bearing Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMaterials scienceStructural engineeringEngineeringForensic engineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the fire resistance of hot-rolled rectangular and square hollow sections at the cross-sectional level. Advanced non-linear Finite Element models are developed and validated against 17 well-documented tests, covering Class 2 (plastic) and Class 4 (slender) tube sections under combined compression and bending from 20°C to 700°C. The strong correlation between numerical and experimental results confirms the accuracy of these models, which are then used to analyze cross-sectional fire behavior and resistance. Over 1 400 non-linear simulations assess the influence of cross-sectional geometry, temperature, and loading conditions. A novel design approach based on the Overall Interaction Concept (O.I.C.) is introduced, offering a simplified yet highly accurate method for design verification. Compared to Eurocode 3, A.I.S.C., and C.S.A.-S16 standards, which tend to be either overly conservative or unsafe, the O.I.C. method provides superior precision and reliability. Reliability analyses further demonstrate that the O.I.C. approach meets and exceeds the required safety levels, making it a more effective alternative for fire-resistant structural design.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.196 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFire Safety JournalSame topicStructural Load-Bearing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207