4.5 Article

Fire tests of load-bearing LSF walls made of hollow flange channel sections

期刊

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTIONAL STEEL RESEARCH
卷 115, 期 -, 页码 191-205

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2015.07.020

关键词

Cold-formed steel structures; LSF walls; Hollow flange channel sections; Fire tests; Standard fire; Fire resistance rating

资金

  1. QUT
  2. Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fire resistant and load bearing Light gauge Steel Frame (LSF) wall systems are generally made of cold-formed steel stud sections lined with gypsum plasterboards. Structural stability of these steel frames at elevated temperatures is important for the load bearing LSF walls for survival during fire events. The studs in these frames are usually Lipped Channel Section (LCS) studs. However, there are other more structurally efficient stud sections such as the hollow flange section studs, which can be effectively used in LSF walls. However, lack of fire research on these sections has inhibited their usage in LSF walls. This paper proposes the use of hollow flange channel (HFC) section studs in LSF walls with a view to increase their fire-resistant ratings (FRR). In this study, five full scale fire tests of LSF walls made of welded hollow flange channel section studs were conducted under standard fire conditions. Three different wall configurations and three load ratios were considered in these tests. This paper presents the details of fire tests and their results including the time-temperature profiles of plasterboard and steel stud surfaces, lateral displacement and axial deformation profiles, failure modes and failure temperatures. It also presents the effects of using different wall configurations and load ratios on the FRR of LSF walls. Comparison of the fire performance of LSF walls made of welded HFC section studs with those made of conventional LCS studs demonstrated the superior fire performance through the use of welded HFC section studs. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据