MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7067451603

Loadbearing capacity of cold formed steel joists subjected to severe heating

2001· article· en· W7067451603 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser and Thermal Forming Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCold-formed steelJoistGypsumCeiling (cloud)StiffnessHingeDeformation (meteorology)BowingFire resistance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses the behaviour of lightweight steel framed (LSF) unrestrained floors, protected with gypsum board ceilings, in five standard fire resistance tests. Parameters investigated in this test series were joist spacing, number of gypsum board layers in the ceiling membrane, floor cavity insulation and presence of concrete topping in the sub-floor. The fire resistance of LSF floors appears to be essentially governed by the ability of gypsum board to remain in place under fire exposure; other factors are of secondary importance.Retrospective numerical thermal-structural simulations of these tests show good agreement with measured temperature and deformation histories. The development of floor deflections is governed by the thermal bowing of steel joists except for the last one or two minutes in the tests, when 'run-away' deformations develop due to the formation of inelastic hinges near mid-span. Evaluation of bending moment resistance of heated joists using current design provisions for cold formed steel structures, adjusted to account for the deterioration of strength and stiffness of steel at elevated temperatures, leads to conservative and fairlyaccurate predictions of fire resistance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicLaser and Thermal Forming TechniquesFrench-language works237,207