buildings

Article
Numerical Investigation on Fire Performance of LSF and Steel
Modular Floor Panels
Dilini Perera 1, * , Irindu R Upasiri 2 , Keerthan Poologanathan 1 , Kate O’Grady 3 , Brabha Nagaratnam 1 ,
Elilarasi Kanthasamy 1 and Heshachanaa Rajanayagam 1

1 Faculty of Engineering and Environment, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST, UK
2 Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sri Jayawardenepura, Colombo 10250, Sri Lanka
3 ESS Modular, Crag Ave, Clondalkin Industrial Estate, D22 YK07 Dublin, Ireland
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The steel Modular Building Systems (MBSs) that have been influenced by the Light-gauge
Steel Frame (LSF) techniques have become a prominent culture in the industry. However, the
detrimental behaviour of steel structural components at high temperatures has elevated the risk of
fatal accidents in the event of a fire. Although several research investigations have addressed the
fire performance of steel modular wall systems, the behaviour of modular floor systems has not
been adequately addressed in the state of the art. Hence, to promote the fire safety and optimum
design techniques in the modular construction industry by addressing the aforementioned research
gap, this study investigated 48 conventional LSF and MBS floors for their structural and insulation
Fire Resistance Levels using Finite Element Modelling (FEM) and Heat Transfer Analyses (HTA)
techniques. Initially, full-scale experimental fire tests were modelled using FEM methods, and the
validity of the techniques was verified prior to the analyses of parametric floor systems. Furthermore,
the structural behaviour of the channel section joists in the elevated temperatures was studied,
Citation: Perera, D.; Upasiri, I.R.; and hence a correlation was established to determine the critical steel temperature at the structural
Poologanathan, K.; O’Grady, K.; fire failure with respect to the applied Load Ratio (LR). An additional 12.5 mm thick plasterboard
Nagaratnam, B.; Kanthasamy, E.;
sheathing on single plasterboard sheathed floors resulted a 30 min improvement in structural and
Rajanayagam, H. Numerical
insulation FRLs. In addition, the modular floor systems demonstrated enhanced structural and
Investigation on Fire Performance of
insulation Fire Resistance Levels (FRLs) against the corresponding conventional LSF floor designs
LSF and Steel Modular Floor Panels.
Buildings 2022, 12, 1721. https://
due to double LSF skin build-up. The incorporation of rockwool insulation and the increase in the
doi.org/10.3390/buildings12101721 insulation volume implied increased structural and fire performances. However, insulation material
in the modular designs was more effective. The fire-rated conventional and modular LSF floor
Academic Editor: André Rafael
systems are expected to be practised in the construction industry to achieve required fire resistances
Dias Martins
with optimum material usage.
Received: 27 September 2022
Accepted: 14 October 2022 Keywords: conventional LSF; modular building systems; cavity insulation; structural FRL; insulation
Published: 18 October 2022 FRL; standard fire; channel section joists
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations. 1. Introduction
1.1. Background
The most efficient method of investigating steel Modular Building Systems (MBSs) is
the simultaneous analyses of both Light-gauge Steel Frame (LSF) systems and MBSs. LSF
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
construction methods have been widely applied in various types of structures in the recent
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
couple of decades. LSF systems made of lightweight, cold-formed steel structural elements
This article is an open access article
are factory manufactured as wall and floor panels, which are transported to the construction
distributed under the terms and
site to assemble with the foundation to build structures. Thereafter, Mechanical, Electrical
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
and Plumbing (MEP) are needed and the finishes can be completed on site. With the option
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
of wall/floor panel pre-fabrication and mass-scale factory manufacturing, LSF constructions
4.0/).
are associated with numerous advancements with respect to the long-established heavier

Buildings 2022, 12, 1721. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12101721 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

 construction site to assemble with the foundation to build structures. Thereafter, Mechan-
ical, Electrical and Plumbing (MEP) are needed and the finishes can be completed on site.
With the option of wall/floor panel pre-fabrication and mass-scale factory manufacturing,
Buildings 2022, 12, 1721 LSF constructions are associated with numerous advancements with respect to the long- 2 of 19
established heavier construction technology. The elevated quality of walls/floors due to
factory manufacturing, construction waste reduction, lower demand for skilled labour at
the construction
construction technology.
site, potential Therecyclability
elevated quality options and more importantly
of walls/floors due to factory huge cost and
manufacturing,
timeconstruction
savings can waste be named as few such advancements related to
reduction, lower demand for skilled labour at the construction the LSF technique. Thesesite,
interesting features pushed the construction industry to
potential recyclability options and more importantly huge cost and time savings adopt more pre-fabrication op- can
tions and further advanced techniques such as MBSs. In MBSs,
be named as few such advancements related to the LSF technique. These interesting volumetric modular units
are features
constructed pushedat the
thepre-fabrication
construction industry stage, hence
to adopt MEP moreand internal finishing
pre-fabrication alsoand
options could
further
be implemented
advanced techniques in the controlled
such as MBSs. factory environment.
In MBSs, volumetric Such volumetric
modular unitsmodular units at
are constructed
are then transported to stage,
the pre-fabrication the construction
hence MEPsite and and assembled
internal withalso
finishing the foundation and struc- in
could be implemented
tural core, leaving much less work left to be carried out on
the controlled factory environment. Such volumetric modular units are then transported site. Therefore, all the ad- to
vantages
the construction site and assembled with the foundation and structural core, leavingthe
achieved with LSF constructions are preserved and even enhanced with much
MBSs.
less work left to be carried out on site. Therefore, all the advantages achieved with LSF
As for the build-up
constructions and design
are preserved and of evenLSFenhanced
and steelwith modular wall/floor panels, both con-
the MBSs.
structionAs techniques compriseand
for the build-up lightweight
design ofsteel LSF structural frame elements
and steel modular (mostly
wall/floor cold-both
panels,
formed steel), wall/floorboards
construction techniques comprise and different
lightweight insulation materials.
steel structural Therefore,
frame elements similar
(mostly nu-cold-
merical analyses methods could be adopted for the fie performance
formed steel), wall/floorboards and different insulation materials. Therefore, similar investigations of LSF
systems and MBSs.
numerical analysesHowever,
methods since
could modular
be adoptedconstruction
for the fie involves
performancevolumetric units being
investigations of LSF
assembled,
systemsaand typical
MBSs. floor separation
However, of amodular
since multi-story structureinvolves
construction consists volumetric
of the ceiling panel
units being
of the volumetric
assembled, unit below
a typical floor and the floor
separation of apanel of the volumetric
multi-story unit above.
structure consists of theTherefore,
ceiling panel
whenof the fire resistance
volumetric of modular
unit below and floor
thesystems
floor panel is concerned, the integrity
of the volumetric unit of both ceiling
above. Therefore,
andwhen
floor the
panels must be addressed.
fire resistance of modularInfloor addition,
systems it is
is also necessary
concerned, the to mention
integrity that the
of both ceiling
andare
flames floor panels must
propagating in thebe upward
addressed. In addition,
direction, and it isitvitalis also
for anecessary
floor panel to to
mention
demon-that
thehigher
strate flamesfire areresistance
propagating when infire
the isupward
applieddirection,
from the bottomand it isside vital
offor
theafloor
floorpanel.
panel to
Firedemonstrate
performancehigher fire resistance
investigations of LSFwhen fire is
and steel MBSapplied
floor from
systemsthe conducted
bottom sidebyofprevi-the floor
ouspanel. Fire performance
researchers [1–4] provide investigations
good evidence of LSF for and
the steel MBS of
necessity floor systems
critical conducted by
consideration
whenprevious researchers
fire is applied from [1–4]
the provide
bottom good side of evidence
the floor forpanel.
the necessity
Typical of critical consideration
constructions of an
LSFwhen fire is applied
floor system from thefloor
and a modular bottom sideare
system of the floor panel.
presented Typical
in Figure 1. constructions of an
LSF floor system and a modular floor system are presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Construction of floor Systems: (a): conventional LSF floor and (b) modular LSF floor.
Figure 1. Construction of floor Systems: (a): conventional LSF floor and (b) modular LSF floor.
LSF and MBS structures are associated with a range of appreciable features for their
lightweight and pre-fabrication options, yet the fire spread and possibility of fatal accidents
in a fire event can never be undermined. In fact, traditional heavier constructions are
more resilient in fires when compared against lightweight construction methods such
as LSF and MBS practices. Comparatively low heat capacities and use of combustible
thermal insulation are the main driving forces that adverse the fire spread of LSF and MBS
constructions in a fire event. Moreover, as lightweight steel members are the structural
members of both these constructions, the detrimental behaviour of steel worsens the fire
Buildings 2022, 12, 1721 3 of 19

safety of LSF and steel modular built environments, making those susceptible for fatal
fire accidents.
At the same time, MBS applications are only gaining popularity and substituting
other construction methods by addressing many challenges in the construction industry.
However, there exists quite a limited amount of research on either LSF or steel modular
floor systems against fire performance, such as Gatheeshgar et al. [2] and Steau et al. [4–6],
compared to the widespread research studies conducted on the LSF and steel modular
wall systems against fire performance and thermal transmittance, such as Chen et al. [7–9],
Santos et al. [10], Perera et al. [11–15], and Rusthi et al. [16,17], where the wall board options,
stud geometry options, location of insulation material, optimisation of cavity Insulation
Ratio for better fire and energy ratings and the performance of innovative wall system
designs have been comprehensively analysed. Increasing popularity and applications
of MBSs, the susceptible nature of MBSs to fatal accidents and the absence of adequate
research and investigation on LSF and modular floor systems in fire have been identified as
the research gap for the current study. Hence, in this paper, commonly used LSF and steel
modular floor systems were investigated for their structural and insulation fire resilience
using numerical methods. Single/double gypsum board sheathing options and location and
ratio of insulation were studied in the parametric study with the objective of understanding
the optimum design configurations. The establishment of research knowledge on the fire
ratings of LSF and steel modular floors in present study will provide the building designers
the ability to choose floor panel designs with adequate/required fire ratings at the optimum
material usage.

1.2. Research Focus

To investigate the fire performance of LSF and steel modular floor panel designs, Finite
Element Modelling (FEM) numerical methods were explicitly used with ABAQUS CAE,
a commercially available computational package. The 12.5 mm thick ceiling boards in
single- to double-sheathing options were considered in conventional and modular LSF
floor panel designs. At the same time, application of partial, full and no cavity insulations
were investigated, where the cavity Insulation Ratio (IR) was changed between 0, 0.2, 0.4,
0.6, 0.8 and 1.0.

2. Determination of Fire Resistance Level

2.1. Standard Practice
The established method of rating the FRL of building elements is based on Eurocode 3:
Part 1–2 [18]. Although the fire curve can be determined in accordance with the parametric
fire scenarios, the standard practice involves following the ‘ISO 834’ standard fire curve to
specify the fire rating of building components. This convention is more convenient and
practical, where the building elements can be directly compared for their fire performances.
As the standard fire curve temperatures are experimentally or numerically applied on the
exposed side surface of the building element, time to structural, integrity and insulation
failures are to be determined in order to evaluate the fire resistance of that element. The
structural FRL is the time of fire exposure until the element is structurally incapable of
supporting the loads applied on it. Meanwhile, the integrity failure is referred to as when
the building component loses its ability to resist infiltration of hot gases and flames from one
side to the other through itself. The insulation FRL is specified based on the temperature
rise on the unexposed side of the building component. As per the Eurocodes, when either
the average or maximum values of unexposed surface temperature rises reach beyond
140 ◦ C or 180 ◦ C, respectively, the insulation fire resistance is specified. If a 20 ◦ C ambient
temperature is considered, these thresholds will be 160 ◦ C and 200 ◦ C for the average and
maximum unexposed temperatures.
In this study, a series of LSF and steel modular floor panels were numerically analysed
for their FRLs. Firstly, the well-validated FEM methods described in the next section were
adopted to re-create the floor panels. Heat Transfer Analyses (HTA) were conducted on
Buildings 2022, 12, 1721 4 of 19

each floor panel applying standard fire temperatures from the bottom side (ceiling side)
of the floor systems. HTA results were produced, which contained temperature variation
through thickness of the floor systems for a 240 min period. The temperature variations in
the steel joists were analysed for the determination of structural FRL, while the unexposed
side temperature variations were analysed for the insulation FRL. However, it should be
stated that determination of integrity failure using presently available numerical techniques
has not been proven to be effective. At any rate, the floor panel designs investigated in
the study include gypsum boards on the fire side, and with the evidence of previous
experimental investigations [19,20] the structural fire failure can be expected to be more
critical than the integrity fire failure.

2.2. Structural Failure of Channel Section Joists at Elevated Temperatures

Most of the steel MBS and LSF floor systems comprise channel section steel studs as
the structural load carrying elements. Hence, the structural behaviour of channel section
steel studs with exposure to elevated temperatures has been investigated in previous
research studies [3,21], from which a correlation between the LR values and the average
joist temperatures were developed in the current study.
In the event of a fire, the temperatures of the exposed surfaces of the building can even
rise beyond 1100 ◦ C. Based on the fire protection measures and heat transfer characteristics
of the floor panel, the steel joist temperature will also rise as the exposed temperature rises.
In this scenario, the steel section will be subjected to differential temperature distribution
since the fire load is generally applied on one side of the floor panel. The relative hot
and cold flanges (HF and CF) are the bottom and top flanges of the joist, respectively.
The joists as the structural elements of the floor panels are designed as beam members
to support the floor loads in bending. Here, the bottom flange (which is also the HF) is
applied with tension while the top flange (CF) is applied with compressive stresses. As
the temperature of the joist rises, the temperatures of the bottom flange will always be the
maximum. Therefore, the material strength of the bottom flange degrades at higher rates
than that of the top flange. When the bottom flange (HF) reaches a certain temperature, the
bottom-most elements of the HF will lose the strength beyond the required resistance. At
this event, the effective cross-section will be reduced, and the neutral axis will shift upward
to resist the applied bending stresses. At the next instance, the elements of the adjacent
layer of the bottom flange will also reach the critical temperature and subsequently become
ineffective, contributing to further upward shift of the neutral axis of the steel joist. This
action will continue if the fire temperature continues to rise, until the steel joist experiences
the ultimate structural failure when further stabilising of the neutral axis to resist the
applied bending moment is not possible. Although the calculation of the structural failure
instance of the steel joist appears to be a little complex, the experimental and FE numerical
results available for a range of channel section steel joist structural fire failures were used
to develop an empirical relationship between the applied LR and the average steel joist
temperature at the structural failure, as presented in Figure 2. In fact, 324 structural fire
failure results of channel section joists were analysed to develop this correlation.
The established relationship on the structural failure of steel joists in Figure 2 can
be used along with the HTA results of steel joists to produce the time to the structural
failure of the LSF and steel MBS floors in fire events. The HTA of a floor panel under
consideration can be carried out to derive the temperature variations in the steel joists at
both HF and CF with respect to the elapsed time. The correlation between LR and the
average temperature graph can be referenced to estimate the critical steel temperature
related to the structural failure at a required LR, as presented in Table 1. Since HF and CF
temperature variations are known, the average of those two can be analysed against the
estimated critical steel temperature. Hence, the time related to that critical steel temperature
could be simply predicted from the HTA results, which can be produced as the structural
FRL of the floor panel.
 Buildings2022,
Buildings 2022,12,
12,1721
x FOR PEER REVIEW 55 of
of 19
21

0.9 Exp (Baleshan, 2012)

FE (Baleshan, 2012)
0.8
Exp (Jatheeshan, 2015)
0.7 R² = 0.9704 FE (Jatheeshan, 2015)
0.6 4th Order Polynomial
Load ratio

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1
400 500
290
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Average CFS joist (Mid-web) tempertaure (°C)

Figure 2. LR versus critical steel temperature of channel section joists at the structural failure of LSF
Figure 2. LR versus critical steel temperature of channel section joists at the structural failure of LSF
floors [3,21].
floors [3,21].
Table 1. Critical average temperatures for structural fire failure of channel section joists at different LRs.
The established relationship on the structural failure of steel joists in Figure 2 can be
LR used along with 0.2 the HTA 0.3 results 0.4
of steel joists
0.5 to produce
0.6 the time 0.7 to the 0.8
structural 0.9 failure
of
◦
Critical Steel Temperature ( C) the LSF and610steel MBS550 floors in
500fire events.
455 The HTA
400 of a floor
350 panel under
290 considera-
210
tion can be carried out to derive the temperature variations in the steel joists at both HF
and However,
CF with respect to theexist
limitations elapsed
when time.
this The correlation
correlation between
is used LR and
to predict the steel
critical average tem-
temper-
perature graph can be referenced to estimate the critical steel temperature
atures beyond 0.4 LR. Hence, it is advised to adopt this simplified method to estimate the related to the
structuralFRL
structural failure
for at a required
higher LR, as
LR values presented
where in Table
the steel 1. Since are
temperatures HF less
andthan
CF temperature
400 ◦ C [2].
variations are known, the average of those two can be analysed against the estimated crit-
3.ical steel temperature.
Numerical Analyses Hence, the time related to that critical steel temperature could be
simply predicted from the
Numerical analyses HTAFEM
using results, which can
techniques be produced
were adopted toasinvestigate
the structural the FRL of
struc-
the floor panel.
tural and insulation fire ratings of the conventional LSF and steel modular floor systems
considered in the study scope. To derive the time variant temperature profiles through
Table
the 1. Critical
floor average
thickness, HTAtemperatures for structural
were necessary on thefire failure of channel
developed sectionABAQUS
FEMs using joists at different
CAE
LRs.
application. For reliable HTA results, the validity of the inbuilt HTA models, appropriate
LR thermal properties 0.2 of building
0.3 material
0.4 throughout
0.5 the
0.6temperature0.7 envelope
0.8 of the 0.9fire
curve
Critical Steel Temperature (℃) and the accurate
610 FEM
550 methods
500 to define
455 constraints,
400 interactions
350 and
290 boundary
210
conditions are essential. In fact, the modelling of fire test using FEM techniques involves a
range of variables that influence the reliability of the HTA results; hence, several full-scale
However, limitations exist when this correlation is used to predict critical steel tem-
fire experiments on similar LSF systems are validated and presented in this section for the
peratures beyond 0.4 LR. Hence, it is advised to adopt this simplified method to estimate
confidence application of the techniques and results.
the structural FRL for higher LR values where the steel temperatures are less than 400 ℃
[2].
3.1. Thermal Properties of Wall Specimen Materials
When conducting HTA, conduction, convection and radiation mode heat transfer
3. Numerical Analyses
mechanisms must be recreated. Thermal properties of building materials determine the
Numerical
conduction mode analyses using FEM
heat transfer. techniques
Density, were
thermal adopted toand
conductivity investigate the structural
the specific heat are
and insulation fire ratings of the conventional LSF and steel modular floor systems
identified as the thermal properties. Generally, these three properties are constants in con-
the
sidered in the study scope. To derive the time variant temperature profiles through
ambient temperature. However, when it comes to the fire performance of floor systems, the the
floor thickness,
building materialsHTA
are were necessary
subjected on the developed
to temperatures rangingFEMs
from 20using ABAQUS
◦ C to more than CAE
1100appli-
◦ C,

and hence, the thermal properties are found to be varying significantly, causing dramatic
 When conducting HTA, conduction, convection and radiation mode heat transfer
When conducting
mechanisms HTA, conduction,
must be recreated. convection
Thermal properties of and radiation
building modedetermine
materials heat transfer
the
mechanisms must be recreated. Thermal properties of building materials determine the
mechanismsmode
conduction must heat
be recreated. Thermal thermal
transfer. Density, properties of buildingand
conductivity materials determine
the specific the
heat are
conduction mode heat transfer. Density, thermal conductivity and the specific heat are
conduction mode heat transfer. Density, thermal conductivity and the
identified as the thermal properties. Generally, these three properties are constants in the specific heat are
identified as the thermal properties. Generally, these three properties are constants in the
identifiedtemperature.
ambient as the thermal properties.
However, whenGenerally,
it comesthese
to thethree properties areofconstants
fire performance in the
floor systems,
ambient temperature. However, when it comes to the fire performance of floor systems,
ambient
the temperature.
building materialsHowever,
are subjectedwhentoittemperatures
comes to the ranging from 20 ℃
fire performance of floor systems,
to more than
Buildings 2022, 12, 1721 the building materials are subjected to temperatures ranging from 20 ℃ to more6 of than19
1100 ℃, and hence,
the building materialsthe are subjected
thermal to temperatures
properties are found toranging 20 ℃ to more
fromsignificantly,
be varying than
causing
1100 ℃, and hence, the thermal properties are found to be varying significantly, causing
1100 ℃, and
dramatic hence, in
variations thethe
thermal properties
heat transfer are found to
characteristics as be varying
well. Previoussignificantly,
experimental causing
and
dramatic variations in the heat transfer characteristics as well. Previous experimental and
numerical research studies [17,22] on fire tests of building components have adoptedand
dramatic variations in the heat transfer characteristics as well. Previous experimental re-
numericalinresearch
variations studies
theproperties
heatstudies
transfer[17,22] on fire tests
characteristics of building
asrockwool
well. Previous components
experimental have adopted
andadopted
numerical re-
numerical
alistic research
thermal of[17,22]
gypsum onboard,
fire tests of building components
insulation have
and plywood board, re-as
alistic thermal
research studies properties
[17,22] of gypsum
on fire board, rockwool
tests of building components insulation and plywood
haveofadopted board,
realisticboard,
thermal as
alistic thermal
presented properties
in Table 2. The of gypsum board,
well-established rockwool
thermal insulation
properties and presented
steel plywood in Euro-as
presented of
properties in gypsum
Table 2. The well-established
board, rockwool thermaland
insulation properties
plywood of steel
board,presented
as in Euro-
presented in
presented
code 3 [18]in Table
have also2.been
The well-established
extracted for the thermal
numerical properties
simulationof steel
in thepresented in Euro-
present study.
code 3 [18]
Table have also been extracted for the numerical simulation in the present study.
code 2. The have
3 [18] well-established thermal for
also been extracted properties of steelsimulation
the numerical presented in in Eurocode
the present 3 [18] have
study.
also been extracted for the numerical simulation in the present
Table 2. Thermal properties of the materials involved in the numerical study. study.
Table
Table 2.
2. Thermal
Thermal properties
properties of
of the
the materials
materials involved
involved in
in the
the numerical
numerical study.
study.
Table 2. Thermal properties of the materials involved in the numerical study.
Table 2. Thermal properties of the materials involved in the numerical study.
Material
Material

Density Thermal Conductivity Specific Heat

Material
Material

Density
Density Thermal
Thermal Conductivity
Conductivity Specific
Specific Heat
Density
(kg/m 33) Thermal Conductivity
(W/m. °C) (J/kg.◦Heat
Specific Heat
°C)
(kg/m3333))
(kg/m (W/m.◦°C)
(W/m. C) (J/kg. °C)
(J/kg. C)
(kg/m ) (W/m. °C) (J/kg. °C)
60 6000
6000
60
60
60 6000
6000
60 6000
5000
5000
50
50
50
50 5000
5000
50
40 5000
4000
4000
40
[18]
Steel [18]

40
40 4000
4000
[18]

40 4000
3000
3000
[18]

30
30
7850
7850 30
30 3000
3000
Steel

7850 30
20
20 3000
2000
2000
Steel

7850
Steel

20
20 2000
2000
20
10
10 2000
1000
1000
10
10 1000
1000
10
00 100000
00 00 200
200 400
400 600
600 800
800 1000
1000 1200
1200 00 00 200
200 400
400 600
600 800
800 1000
1000 1200
1200
0 00 200
200 Temperature
400
400 600 (℃)
Temperature
600 (℃)800
800 1000
1000 1200
1200 0 00 200
200 Temperature
400
400 600 (℃)
Temperature
600 (℃)800
800 1000
1000 1200
1200
1000
1000 2.5 0
2.5 200 400Temperature
Temperature
600 (℃)
(℃)
800 1000 1200 20,0000
20,000 200 Temperature
400Temperature
600 (℃)(℃)
800 1000 1200
Temperature (℃) Temperature (℃)
[17]

1000
1000 2.5
2.5 20,000
20,000
[17]

1000 2.5 20,000

800
800 22 16,000
16,000
[17]
Gypsum Board [17]

800
800 22 16,000
16,000
Board

800 2 16,000
Board

600
600 1.5
1.5 12,000
12,000
Board

600
600 1.5
1.5 12,000
12,000
600 1.5 12,000
400
400 11 8,000
8,000
400
Gypsum

400 11 8,000
8,000
400 1 8,000
Gypsum

200
200 0.5
0.5 4,000
4,000
[17] Gypsum

200
200 0.5
0.5 4,000
4,000
200 0.5 4,000
00 00 00
00 00 200
200 400
400 600
600 800
800 1000
1000 1200
1200 00 00 200
200 400
400 600
600 800
800 1000
1000 1200
1200 00 00 200
200 400
400 600
600 800
800 1000
1000 1200
1200
0 00 200 Temperature
400 600 (℃)
600
Temperature (℃)800 1000 1200 Temperature
Temperature (℃) 0 00 Temperature
600 (℃)
200 400 800 1000 1200 0 00 200
200 400
400 600 (℃)800
600 800 1000
1000 1200
1200 200
200 Temperature
400
400 600 (℃)
800
800 1000
1000 1200
1200
0 200 400Temperature
600 (℃)
Temperature 800
(℃) 1000 1200 0 200 400Temperature
600 (℃)
Temperature (℃)
800 1000 1200 0 200 Temperature
400 600 (℃)
Temperature (℃)
800 1000 1200
2.5
2.5
Temperature (℃) Temperature (℃) Temperature (℃)
2.5
2.5
2.5
22
[17]

22
[17]

2
1.5
1.5
Rock Wool [17]
Wool

1.5
1.5
Wool

100 1.5
840
Wool

11
100 11 840
100
100 1 840
840
Rock

0.5
0.5
Rock

0.5
0.5
Rock

0.5
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 00 7 of 21
00 00 200
200 400
400 600
600 800
800 1000
1000 1200
1200
0 00 200
200 Temperature
400
400 600 (℃)
Temperature
600 (℃)800
800 1000
1000 1200
1200
0 200 400Temperature
600 (℃)800
Temperature (℃) 1000 1200
Temperature (℃)

0.25

0.2
Plywood [22]
Plywood [22]

0.15

500
500 0.1 1500
1500

0.05

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Temperature(℃)

InInthis
thisstudy,
study, numerical
numerical studies
studies of only
of only HTAHTA were were conducted
conducted on the on the developed
developed FEMs.
FEMs. Hence, the mechanical properties of the building materials
Hence, the mechanical properties of the building materials were not considered were not considered
in thein
the FEM
FEM analyses
analyses phase,
phase, but but
the the elevated
elevated temperature
temperature thermal
thermal properties
properties describedininthis
described this
sectionwere
section wereusedused to
to simulate
simulate the
the heat
heat transfer
transfermechanisms
mechanismsininthe thefire
firestate.
state.However,
However, an
alternative simplified approach described under Section 2.2 was used
an alternative simplified approach described under Section 2.2 was used to evaluate the to evaluate the
structuralfailure
structural failureincident
incidentofofthe
thesteel
steeljoists
joistsinina afire.
fire.

3.2. FEM Details

The FE techniques adopted in the study to simulate fire exposure incidents of floor
systems are presented in detail in this section. ABAQUS CAE, the commercially available
explicit software package, was used for the HTA on FEMs after careful review of the HTA
models defined inside the application [23]. The objective was to simulate standard fire
exposure of floor systems recreating similar constraints, interactions, boundary conditions
Buildings 2022, 12, 1721 7 of 19

3.2. FEM Details

The FE techniques adopted in the study to simulate fire exposure incidents of floor
systems are presented in detail in this section. ABAQUS CAE, the commercially available
explicit software package, was used for the HTA on FEMs after careful review of the HTA
models defined inside the application [23]. The objective was to simulate standard fire
exposure of floor systems recreating similar constraints, interactions, boundary conditions
and heat transfer mechanisms so that time variant temperature profiles at the steel joists
and on the unexposed surface of the floor panel could be derived. Specifically, numerical
simulation of the equivalent full-scale experimental set-up of LSF and steel modular floor
systems was intended to obtain realistic fire test results, saving huge costs and time. Firstly,
a series of experimental results were used to validate the thermal properties and FEM
methods. Afterward, the same techniques were used to simulate the fire exposure of
parametric floor systems.
To develop the FEM of a floor panel, all building components are to be modelled in
the correct shapes which are referred to as ‘parts’ in ABAQUS CAE. When the parts of steel
joists, gypsum boards, plywood boards and insulation sections were modelled, correct
material properties must be assigned and meshed into finite elements. Thermal properties
presented in Table 2 were fed to the model, creating required material sections, and those
sections were then assigned to the building component parts. Discretisation of parts into
finite elements must be associated with accurate element types, shapes and size in order
to produce reliable HTA results. The global mesh density of 10 mm was chosen, while
the density in the through thickness direction was maintained at 2 mm, since that is the
dominant direction of heat transfer. The steel joists in the parametric floor systems are
quite slender, hence three finite elements were maintained in the thickness of the joist cross-
sections. These mech densities were adopted based on previous sensitivity analyses [17,24]
and with the validation studies conducted in the current study. A presentation of the FEM
of the modular floor system with single plasterboard sheathing and a 90 mm rockwool
insulation option is in Figure 3. Hexagonal-shaped finite elements were assigned in order to
obtain a consistent mesh for all parts. Next, DC3D8 heat transfer brick elements were chosen
as the type of finite elements to enable element to element conduction mode heat transfer.
However, to facilitate conduction mode heat transfer between adjacent elements be-
longing to two parts in contact, it is required to apply tie constraints. Hence, between all
contact surface pairs, tie constraints were applied. Subsequently, convection and radiation
heat transfers on the surfaces were enabled, defining appropriate interactions. The convec-
tion film coefficient used on exposed and unexposed surfaces was set at 25 W/(m.°C) and
10 W/(m.°C), respectively. The flow of air currents inside the closed cavities of the floor
systems are quite restricted; hence, the convection mode heat transfer inside the cavity
regions could be reasonable neglected. Then, the radiation mode heat transfer was defined
on all exposed, unexposed and cavity surfaces, where the relative emissivity coefficient
was set at 0.9. When the FEM of the floor system is generated up to this stage, then it
is necessary to create the fire load on the exposed surface and run the analyses for the
required time. Two steps were used, where the initial step is the steady-state condition
when the floor panel is at room temperature. The initial step was followed by a transient
heat transfer step, which was used to define the fire temperatures on the exposed surface of
the floor system as a temperature boundary condition. The ISO 834 standard fire curve is
expressed in Equation (1) for the fire temperature θ (◦ C), where t (min) is the time elapsed.

θ = 345log10 (8t + 1) + 20 (1)

The present study defined with the time temperature values produced for the standard
fire curve, and this curve was used to apply the temperature boundary condition on the
fire side of the FEM. All interactions and boundary conditions on a typical modular floor
system are illustrated in Figure 4.
 Buildings2022,
Buildings 2022,12,
12,1721
x FOR PEER REVIEW 88 of 21
of 19

Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 21

Figure 3. FEM of M_SP_90RW floor system.

Figure 3. FEM of M_SP_90RW floor system.

However, to facilitate conduction mode heat transfer between adjacent elements be-
longing to two parts in contact, it is required to apply tie constraints. Hence, between all
contact surface pairs, tie constraints were applied. Subsequently, convection and radiation
heat transfers on the surfaces were enabled, defining appropriate interactions. The con-
vection film coefficient used on exposed and unexposed surfaces was set at 25 W⁄(m. ℃)
and 10 W⁄(m. ℃), respectively. The flow of air currents inside the closed cavities of the
floor systems are quite restricted; hence, the convection mode heat transfer inside the cav-
ity regions could be reasonable neglected. Then, the radiation mode heat transfer was de-
fined on all exposed, unexposed and cavity surfaces, where the relative emissivity coeffi-
cient was set at 0.9. When the FEM of the floor system is generated up to this stage, then
it is necessary to create the fire load on the exposed surface and run the analyses for the
required time. Two steps were used, where the initial step is the steady-state condition
when the floor panel is at room temperature. The initial step was followed by a transient
heat transfer step, which was used to define the fire temperatures on the exposed surface
of the floor system as a temperature boundary condition. The ISO 834 standard fire curve
is expressed in Equation (1) for the fire temperature 𝜃 (℃), where 𝑡 (min) is the time
elapsed.
𝜃 = 345𝑙𝑜𝑔 (8𝑡 + 1) + 20 (1)
Interactionsand
Figure4.4.Interactions
Figure andboundary
boundaryconditions
conditionson
onFEM
FEMof
ofM_SP_90RW
M_SP_90RWfloor
floor system.
system.
The present study defined with the time temperature values produced for the stand-
ard fire
FEMscurve,
oftheand
the thispanels
floor curve were
was used to apply
developed the
inthis temperature
thisprocedure
procedureon onboundary
whichthe condition
the HTAwere on
were
FEMs of floor panels were developed in which HTA
the fire side
performed,where of the FEM.
wherenecessary All interactions
necessarytemperatures and
temperaturesthroughboundary
throughfloor conditions
floorthickness
thicknesswereon a typical
werederived. modular
derived.Fire
Fireside
side
performed,
floorhot
(FS), system areofillustrated
flange the joist in Figure
(HF), 4.
mid-web (MW), cold flange (CF) and ambient side (AS)
(FS), hot flange of the joist (HF), mid-web (MW), cold flange (CF) and ambient side (AS)
temperature variations over 4 h of fire exposure were obtained for all floor systems ana-
lysed in the study.
It should be noted that with respect to the current industry practice, the floor systems
studied in the current scope consist of cold-formed, lipped channel section joists that do
not contain welded joints. The joist sections are generally connected to the floorboards
Buildings 2022, 12, 1721 9 of 19

temperature variations over 4 h of fire exposure were obtained for all floor systems analysed
in the study.
It should be noted that with respect to the current industry practice, the floor systems
studied in the current scope consist of cold-formed, lipped channel section joists that do
not contain welded joints. The joist sections are generally connected to the floorboards with
self-drilled screws at 100 to 400 mm spacing. With floor systems containing welded joints
between structural frame elements, it is required to consider the behaviour of welded joints
at high temperatures [25–27].

3.3. Validation of FEMs

As described at the beginning of the section, HTA of fire tests are related to an extensive
number of variables and a considerable complexity is present. In that event, to ensure
the reliability of the FEM approaches, validation of several experimental specimens was
necessary. The full-scale fire tests on LSF floor systems conducted by Balachandren [21]
and Jatheeshan [3] were validated using the numerical approaches descried above.
LSF floor panel designs experimentally studied under standard fire exposure were
numerically modelled for further verification of the Fem methods on floor systems. The
first LSF floor configuration comprises 180 × 40 × 15 × 1.5 mm lipped channel section studs
placed at 600 mm centres and sandwiched between a 19 mm thick plywood floorboard and
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 21
two layers of 16 mm thick gypsum boards. The standard fire temperatures were applied
on the bottom side of the floor panel, where the gypsum board sheathed surface was fire-
exposed. The floor panel was numerically modelled using ABAQUS CAE software, and
75 mm
the thickness. This
time–temperature floor system
profiles wasCF
at FS, HF, also
andnumerically simulated
AS were produced in this current
following study,
the HTA. The
as shown in derived
numerically Figure 6.time variant temperatures were compared against the experimentally
obtained values as presented in Figure 5, where a good agreement was seen.

1200

1000

800
Temperature (°C)

600

400

200

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (min)
FS_FEA HF_FEA CF_FEA AS

FS_Exp HF_Exp CF_Exp AS_Exp

Figure 5. FEA
Figure 5. FEA versus
versus experimental
experimental temperatures
temperaturesof
offloor
floorpanel
panelspecimen—Test
specimen—Test11[1].
[1].

The second test of the experimental series consisted of same stud section joists at
600 mm centres and on either side of the floor panel two layers of 16 mm thick gypsum
Buildings 2022, 12, 1721 10 of 19

Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW

board sheathing. Additionally, the floor comprised a rockwool cavity insulation11with
of 21

75 mm thickness. This floor system was also numerically simulated in this current study,
as shown in Figure 6.

1200

1000

800
Temperature (°C)

600

400

200

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (min)

FS_FEA HF_FEA CF_FEA AS_FEA

FS_Exp HF_Exp CF_Exp AS_Exp

Figure6.6.FEA
Figure FEAversus
versusexperimental
experimentaltemperatures
temperaturesofoffloor
floorpanel
panelspecimen—Tests
specimen—Tests2 2[1].
[1].

Considering
Consideringboth bothvalidation
validation studies implemented
studies implemented in this current
in this study,study,
current the presented
the pre-
thermal properties and adopted FEM methods were validated well against
sented thermal properties and adopted FEM methods were validated well against the re- the reliable
research experimental
liable research investigations
experimental that have
investigations thattaken
haveplace
takeninplace
various parts ofparts
in various the world.
of the
Hence, the presented thermal properties and FEM techniques could be confidently
world. Hence, the presented thermal properties and FEM techniques could be confidently used for
further
used forinvestigations of fire tests
further investigations ofaddressing the research
fire tests addressing thescopes, as scopes,
research necessary.
as necessary.
3.4. Limitations of the Study
3.4. Limitations of the Study
When gypsum board is subjected to fire temperatures, the board material will undergo
When gypsum board is subjected to fire temperatures, the board material will un-
shrinkage, and hence, moisture movement and board cracking will be induced. This
dergo shrinkage, and hence, moisture movement and board cracking will be induced. This
specific behaviour is referred to as the ablation effect, which could not be reliably simulated
specific behaviour is referred to as the ablation effect, which could not be reliably simu-
with only numerical means such as FEM techniques. Therefore, integrity criterion FRL was
lated with only numerical means such as FEM techniques. Therefore, integrity criterion
not investigated in the current study scope. However, the measured thermal properties
FRL was not investigated in the current study scope. However, the measured thermal
were modified to apparent values to simulate the effect on heat transfer caused by ablation
properties were modified to apparent values to simulate the effect on heat transfer caused
and moisture movement. This approach was followed by various researchers [17,28,29],
by ablation and moisture movement. This approach was followed by various researchers
and the reliability of HTA results obtained in this manner was established.
[17,28,29], and the reliability of HTA results obtained in this manner was established.
4. Parametric Study and FEA Results
4. Parametric Study and FEA Results
The present study addressed a few variables related to commonly practised LSF and
The present
steel modular study
floor addressed
systems. a few
A total variables
of 48 parametricrelated to panels
floor commonlywerepractised LSF and
investigated by
steel modular floor systems. A total of 48 parametric floor panels were
developing their FEMs. Since channel section joists are being widely used as the structuralinvestigated by
developing their FEMs. Since channel section joists are being widely used
elements in LSF and steel modular floor designs, all the floor system designs studied were as the structural
elements
based in LSF
on two and
sizes of steel
lippedmodular
channelfloor designs,
section joists.allThe
theconventional
floor system floors
designs studied
only were
consist of
abased
singleon two
LSF sizes
skin, of lipped
where floorchannel section
joists were 231joists.
mm deep.The conventional floors only
The steel modular floorconsist
systems of
a single LSF
comprise twoskin, whereafloor
LSF skins, floor joists
panelwere
and a231 mm panel.
ceiling deep. The steelthe
Though modular
weightfloor systems
on the floor
comprise two LSF skins, a floor panel and a ceiling panel. Though the weight on the floor
is structurally supported by the floor panel joists alone, the ceiling panel is designed to
support its own weight. The joists integrated in the floor panel LSF skin of the modular
 Buildings 2022, 12, 1721 11 of 19

2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 21

is structurally supported by the floor panel joists alone, the ceiling panel is designed to
support its own weight. The joists integrated in the floor panel LSF skin of the modular
floor system contain 231 mm deep lipped channel section joists, while the ceiling panel
floor system contain 231 mm deep lipped channel section joists, while the ceiling panel
LSF skin contains 150 mm deep joists. Since 231 mm deep joists are the structural elements
LSF skin contains 150 mm deep joists. Since 231 mm deep joists are the structural elements
bearing the loading on the floor panel in both conventional and steel modular LSF floors,
bearing the loading on the floor panel in both conventional and steel modular LSF floors,
the FRLs were studied in comparison to each other. All floor systems consisted of 12.5 mm
the FRLs were studied in comparison to each other. All floor systems consisted of 12.5 mm
thick gypsum plasterboard on the bottom side and an 18 mm thick plywood board on the
thick gypsum plasterboard on the bottom side and an 18 mm thick plywood board on the
top side of the floor. Since it is a common practice to use double plasterboard sheathing
top side of the floor. Since it is a common practice to use double plasterboard sheathing as
as an enhancement on fire performance, the floor systems included specimens with both
an enhancement on fire performance, the floor systems included specimens with both single
single and double plasterboard sheathing options. Furthermore, the level of cavity insu-
and double plasterboard sheathing options. Furthermore, the level of cavity insulation has
lation has a significant influence on the fire resistances of LSF constructions. Rockwool
a significant influence on the fire resistances of LSF constructions. Rockwool insulation
insulation material has proved
material to betoabe
has proved favourable insulation
a favourable option
insulation forfor
option thethe
firefire
rating
rating andand on the energy
on the energy rating as well. At the same time, other good insulation options such as
rating as well. At the same time, other good insulation options such as mineral wool and min-
eral wool and glass
glass fibre
fibre inherit
inherit similar
similar thermal properties, and
thermal properties, and no
no significant
significant influence
influencehas been found
has been foundwhen
when thethe cavity
cavity insulation
insulation type typeisischanged
changedbetween
betweenrockwool,
rockwool,glass glassfibre
fibre and mineral
and mineral wool when the fire ratings of LSF constructions are concerned [12,17,28].
wool when the fire ratings of LSF constructions are concerned [12,17,28]. Therefore, only
Therefore, onlyrockwool
rockwoolinsulation
insulation material
material waswas
usedused as cavity
as the the cavity insulation
insulation option. option.
Further research and
Further research and investigations on fire ratings of LSF constructions [12,30]
investigations on fire ratings of LSF constructions [12,30] have suggested have sug-that the location
gested that the and
location and amount of insulation material could influence
amount of insulation material could influence both fire and energy both fire and ratings of the
energy ratings of the structures.
structures. Hence,Hence,
rockwool rockwool insulation
insulation was incorporated
was incorporated in the con- and modular
in the conventional
ventional and modular
LSF floor LSF floor systems
systems right next right
to next to the fire-exposed
the fire-exposed gypsum gypsum
boardsboards at
at different thicknesses
different thicknesses from 0 to 150 mm in 30 mm steps. The considered variables
from 0 to 150 mm in 30 mm steps. The considered variables in the present study scope arein the
present study scope are explained
explained in Figurein 7. Figure 7.

Figure 7. Parametric floor

Figure 7. systema; (a):floor
Parametric C_SP; (b): M_SP;
systema; (c): C_DP
(a): C_SP; (b): & (d) M_DP.
M_SP; (c): C_DP & (d) M_DP.

The parametricThe floor systems were

parametric floormodelled usingmodelled
systems were FEM methodsusing described
FEM methods in thedescribed in the
previous sectionprevious
followedsection
by HTA with standard
followed by HTAfire
withtemperature
standard fire exposure on theexposure
temperature bottom on the bottom
side of each floor
sidesystem.
of eachThe
floorresultant temperature
system. The resultant contours
temperature for contours
durationsfor
ofdurations
4 h were of 4 h were pro-
produced fromduced
whichfromthe which
through-floor thickness thickness
the through-floor temperatures could be could
temperatures extracted for
be extracted for further
further analysesanalyses
to determine structural
to determine and insulation
structural fire ratings.
and insulation From the
fire ratings. 48 paramet-
From the 48 parametric floors,
temperature
ric floors, temperature contours
contours andand time
time varianttemperatures
variant temperaturesassociated
associated with
with the M_DP_120RW
M_DP_120RW floor system are illustrated in Figures Figure 88andandFigure
9, respectively.
9, respectively.
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 21
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 21
Buildings 2022,
Buildings 2022, 12,
12, 1721
x FOR PEER REVIEW 13
12 of 21
of 19

Figure 8. Temperature contours on M_DP_120RW floor specimen cross-section at (a) 0 min; (b) 30
Figure
min; (c)8.
60Temperature contours
min; (d) 120 min; on min;
(e) 180 M_DP_120RW
(f) 240 minfloor specimen
exposure cross-section
to standard fire. at (a) 0 min; (b) 30
min; (c)
Figure 8.60
8. Temperature
min; (d) 120
Temperature contours
min; (e)on
contours on
180 M_DP_120RW
min; (f) 240 min
M_DP_120RW floor
floor specimen
exposure
specimen cross-section
tocross-section
standard at (a)at0(a)
fire. 0 min;
min; (b) 30(b) 30
min;
min;
(c) 60(c) 60 (d)
min; min; (d)min;
120 120 (e)
min;180(e)min;
180 (f)
min;
240(f)min
240exposure
min exposure to standard
to standard fire. fire.
1200
1200
1200
1000
1000
1000
(˚C)

800
(˚C)(˚C)

800
Temperature

800
Temperature

600
Temperature

600
600
400
400
400
200
200
200
0
0 0 60 120 180 240
0 0 60 120 180 240
Time (min)
0 60 120
Time (min) 180 240
FS F_HF F_MW F_CF A_HF A_MW A_CF AS
FS F_HF F_MW Time (min)
F_CF A_HF A_MW A_CF AS
FS F_HF9. Time F_MW
Figure F_CF
variant temperature A_HF floor thickness
through A_MW of M_DP_120RW
A_CF ASfloor system.
Figure9.9.Time
Figure Timevariant
varianttemperature
temperaturethrough
throughfloor
floorthickness
thicknessofofM_DP_120RW
M_DP_120RWfloor
floorsystem.
system.
Figure 9. Time variant temperature through floor thickness of M_DP_120RW floor system.
The locations through floor thickness can be referred to as presented in Figure 10.
The
Thelocations
locationsthrough
throughfloor
floorthickness
thicknesscan
canbe
bereferred
referredtotoasaspresented
presentedininFigure
Figure10.
10.
The locations through floor thickness can be referred to as presented in Figure 10.

Figure 10.
Figure 10. Through
Through thickness
thickness temperature
temperature monitoring
monitoring locations.
locations.
Figure 10. Through thickness temperature monitoring locations.
Figure 10. Through thickness temperature monitoring locations.
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 21
Buildings 2022, 12, 1721 13 of 19

The HTA results of floor systems were analysed against the LR versus critical steel
The HTAexplained
temperature results ofinfloor systems
Section 2 forwere analysed against
the determination of thethestructural
LR versus critical
FRL. The steel
mid-
temperature explained in Section
web (MW) temperature 2 forinthe
variations determination
floor joists are the ofcritical
the structural FRL. The mid-web
steel temperatures corre-
(MW) temperature
sponding variationsfailure
to the structural in floorofjoists
steelarejoists
the critical
whichsteel temperatures
are designed to actcorresponding
in bending.
to the structural
Hence, failure of steel
the MW temperature joists which
variations wereare designed
analysed to actthe
against in critical
bending. Hence,
steel the
tempera-
MW temperature variations were analysed against the critical steel temperatures
tures related to different LR values. As the MW of the floor joists reaches the critical steel related
to different LRrelated
temperature values.toAs
thethe MW ofLR,
applied thethefloor joists reaches
structural failuretheof critical
the joiststeel
willtemperature
be initiated.
related
Hence,to the
the applied
time LR,for
elapsed thethe
structural
MW of the failure
floorofjoist
the joist will the
to reach be initiated. Hence,
critical steel the time
temperature
elapsed for the MW
is the structural FRLofofthe floor
the joist to reachfloor
corresponding the critical
system.steel
Thetemperature
structural FRLs is thedetermined
structural
FRL of the corresponding
for parametric floor systems floor
aresystem.
graphicallyThe presented
structuralin FRLs determined
Figure 11. for parametric
floor systems are graphically presented in Figure 11.
240

210

180

150
Structural FRL (min)

120

90

60

30

0
0 30 60 90 120 150 0 30 60 90 120 150 0 30 60 90 120 150 0 30 60 90 120 150
C_SP M_SP C_DP M_DP

Wall Type and Rockwool Insulation Thickness (mm)

0.2 LR 0.3 LR 0.4 LR 0.5 LR 0.6 LR 0.7 LR 0.8 LR

Figure 11.Structural
Figure11. StructuralFRLs
FRLsof
ofparametric
parametricfloors.
floors.

The overall results indicate that the structural FRL is inversely related to the applied
The overall results indicate that the structural FRL is inversely related to the applied
LR of the steel joists. For both conventional and modular LSF floor designs, double-layer
LR of the steel joists. For both conventional and modular LSF floor designs, double-layer
sheathing resulted in a 30 min increase in the structural fire rating. Obviously, the modular
sheathing resulted in a 30 min increase in the structural fire rating. Obviously, the modu-
floor systems demonstrate enhanced structural fire resistance due to the additional heat
lar floor systems demonstrate enhanced structural fire resistance due to the additional
transfer barriers on the fire side when compared against the conventional floor panel
heat transfer barriers on the fire side when compared against the conventional floor panel
arrangement. However, the thicker designs would not be the ideal option for the building
arrangement. However, the thicker designs would not be the ideal option for the building
designers to obtain the required fire ratings.
designers to obtain the required fire ratings.
In addition, the incorporation of cavity insulation proved to have a positive influence
on the In structural
addition, theFRL.incorporation
The higherofthe cavity insulation
insulation proved
volume thetobetter
have athe
positive influence
structural fire
on the structural FRL. The higher the insulation volume the better
behaviour; however, slightly different influences can be noticed between conventional the structural fire be-
haviour;
and however,
modular types slightly
of floor different
systems. influences
With respect cantobethenoticed betweenfloor
conventional conventional
designs, andthe
modular types of floor systems. With respect to the conventional
increase in rockwool insulation from 0 to 90 mm caused a roughly linear improvement floor designs, the in-
in
crease
the in rockwool
structural insulation
fire rating; fromfurther
however, 0 to 90 increase
mm caused a roughly
in cavity lineardid
insulation improvement
not result in in
the structural
further fire rating;
improvements. however,
Modular LSF further increase
floor systems, in cavity
however, haveinsulation
been able did
to not resultthe
increase in
further improvements. Modular LSF floor systems, however, have been
structural FRL, as the insulation volume is increased in the whole range. These characteristic able to increase
the structural
behaviours FRL,
could beas the insulation
explained volume
with the locationis increased in the
of the cavity whole range.
insulation Thesetochar-
in relation the
floor joists. In the conventional floor designs, the cavity insulation was includedin
acteristic behaviours could be explained with the location of the cavity insulation inrela-
the
tion to the
cavities floor joists.
between floorIn the conventional
joists. When rockwool floorinsulation
designs, the cavity inside
volume insulation was included
the cavity is less
in thehalf
than cavities
of thebetween floor joists.
cavity volume, Whenportion
a greater rockwool insulation
of the steel joistvolume
is not inside the cavity
embedded insideis
lessrockwool
the than halfinsulation,
of the cavity andvolume,
hence the a greater portion
heat trapped of the
inside thesteel joistand
cavities is not embedded
especially on
inside
the the rockwool
mid-web insulation,
of the joist section isand hence
limited. the heat when
However, trappedtheinside the cavities
insulation volume and espe-
is further
cially on the
increased, mid-web
heat trapped ofinside
the joist
thesection
cavitiesis limited.
and on the However, when
steel joist the insulation
is increased, volume
leading the
joist to reach critical steel temperatures earlier.
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 21

is further increased, heat trapped inside the cavities and on the steel joist is increased,
Buildings 2022, 12, 1721 14 of 19
leading the joist to reach critical steel temperatures earlier.
On the other hand, in the modular floor panel designs rockwool was included inside
ceiling leaf cavities, since the closer the insulation is to the fire side the more effective it
will be On the performance.
on fire other hand, inIn the modular
that event, floor
with panel designs
respect rockwool
to the floor joists,was
theincluded
insulationinside
is
located outside the cavity. Therefore, the increase in external insulation volume will al- it
ceiling leaf cavities, since the closer the insulation is to the fire side the more effective
willbe
ways berelated
on fireto
performance. In that event,
increased structural withonly
FRL. The respect to the
reason for floor joists, theFRLs
the structural insulation
being is
located outside the cavity. Therefore, the increase in external insulation volume will always
capped at 240 min is that the HTA were conducted up to that time limit, following the
be related to increased structural FRL. The only reason for the structural FRLs being capped
convention.
at 240 min is that the HTA were conducted up to that time limit, following the convention.
The same HTA results and temperature variations were used to evaluate the insula-
The same HTA results and temperature variations were used to evaluate the insulation
tion FRLs. Here, the unexposed or the ambient side (AS) temperature of the floor speci-
FRLs. Here, the unexposed or the ambient side (AS) temperature of the floor specimens
mens were analysed against ◦160 ℃ (average) and◦ 200 ℃ (maximum) thresholds. Time
were analysed against 160 C (average) and 200 C (maximum) thresholds. Time taken for
taken for each specimen to reach these limits was taken as the insulation fire ratings, as
each specimen to reach these limits was taken as the insulation fire ratings, as presented in
presented in Figure 12.
Figure 12.

240

210
Insulation FRL (min)

180

150

120
90

60

30
0
0
30
60
90
120
150
0
30
60
90
120
150
0
30
60
90
120
150
0
30
60
90
120
150
C_SP M_SP C_DP M_DP
Wall Type and Rockwool Insulation Thickness (mm)

Figure 12. Insulation FRLs of parametric floor systems.

Figure 12. Insulation FRLs of parametric floor systems.
The characteristics of insulation FRLs of the conventional modular floor systems could
The characteristics
be conveniently relatedoftoinsulation
each considered FRLs variable.
of the conventional modularsheathing
Double plasterboard floor systemsagainst
could be conveniently related to each considered variable. Double
single sheathing options resulted in more than 30 min insulation FRL improvements plasterboard sheathing in
against single sheathing
both types. options resulted
From conventional to modular in moreLSF than
floor 30 min insulation
systems, the insulationFRL improve-
FRL could
ments in both types.
be enhanced From
by more thanconventional
one hour. The to modular
increaseLSF floor systems,
in insulation volume the simply
insulation FRL
continued
could be enhanced
to improve by more than
the insulation FRLone hour.conventional
in both The increaseand in insulation
modular volume
designs.simplyHowever, con- in
tinued to improve
conventional the insulation
designs, where theFRL in bothisconventional
insulation integrated inside and floor
modular joist designs.
cavities, aHow-30 mm
increase
ever, in the cavity
in conventional insulation
designs, where thickness
the insulation resulted in an approximate
is integrated inside floor 20 joist
min cavities,
rise in the
insulation
a 30 mm increase FRL.inMeanwhile, a 30 mm increase
the cavity insulation thicknessinresulted
the ceiling
in aninsulation
approximate in modular
20 min rise floor
in designs resulted
the insulation in aMeanwhile,
FRL. more than 30 min
a 30 mm enhancement
increase in in thethe insulation
ceiling FRLs.in modular
insulation
Both structural
floor designs resulted inand insulation
a more than 30 fireminresistances
enhancement couldinbethe positively
insulation influenced
FRLs. by pro-
viding
Bothmore gypsum
structural board
and layers onfire
insulation theresistances
fire side. Modular
could be designs perform
positively better in terms
influenced by
of both structural
providing more gypsum and insulation
board layers fireon resisting
the firecriteria due to the
side. Modular double
designs skin nature
perform betterofinthe
build.
terms The structural
of both insulationand material will be
insulation firemore effective
resisting if placed
criteria due to external
the double to the
skinstructural
nature
of the build. The insulation material will be more effective if placed external to the material
loadbearing elements, which are the steel joists in this study. When the insulation struc-
is placed
tural inside elements,
loadbearing the gaps ofwhichloadbearing
are the structural
steel joistsmembers (steelWhen
in this study. joists),the heat trapped in
insulation
the insulation
material is placed material
inside could
the gaps elevate the steel temperature
of loadbearing structuraland accelerate
members (steelthejoists),
time toheatreach
the critical
trapped in thesteel temperature.
insulation material Therefore,
could elevate if not the
for the
steelpotential increased
temperature panel thickness,
and accelerate the
external
time to reach insulation would
the critical steelbetemperature.
a better option than theifinternal
Therefore, not for cavity insulation.
the potential Table 3
increased
panel thickness, external insulation would be a better option than the internal cavity in-the
presents the summary of fire ratings determined for the parametric floor systems from
HTA. However,
sulation. the convention
Table 3 presents the summary of industry is to specify
of fire ratings the FRL
determined forinthe30parametric
min steps. floor Hence,
following this convention, FRLs for each floor system are presented in Table 4.
Buildings 2022, 12, 1721 15 of 19

Table 3. Exact FLRs of parametric floor systems evaluated from HTA.

Rockwool FRL (min) against LR

Floor Type
Thickness (mm) 0.2 LR 0.3 LR 0.4 LR 0.5 LR 0.6 LR 0.7 LR 0.8 LR
0 49/-/57 40/-/57 35/-/57 30/-/57 25/-/57 22/-/57 19/-/57
30 75/-/80 65/-/80 56/-/80 50/-/80 45/-/80 40/-/80 33/-/80
60 97/-/100 83/-/100 73/-/100 65/-/100 58/-/100 51/-/100 43/-/100
C_SP
90 114/-/118 101/-/118 90/-/118 79/-/118 71/-/118 62/-/118 52/-/118
120 123/-/136 108/-/136 96/-/136 85/-/136 75/-/136 65/-/136 55/-/136
150 117/-/160 103/-/160 92/-/160 82/-/160 72/-/160 64/-/160 54/-/160
0 127/-/131 121/-/131 115/-/131 110/-/131 106/-/131 102/-/131 98/-/131
30 165/-/169 154/-/169 145/-/169 138/-/169 132/-/169 126/-/169 120/-/169
60 206/-/206 188/-/206 174/-/206 166/-/206 157/-/206 149/-/206 142/-/206
M_SP
90 >240/-/>240 224/-/>240 207/-/>240 194/-/>240 185/-/>240 174/-/>240 166/-/>240
120 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240 225/-/>240 212/-/>240 200/-/>240 188/-/>240
150 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240
0 111/-/111 98/-/111 88/-/111 80/-/111 73/-/111 68/-/111 62/-/111
30 127/-/130 115/-/130 105/-/130 97/-/130 88/-/130 80/-/130 71/-/130
60 145/-/147 131/-/147 120/-/147 112/-/147 103/-/147 94/-/147 82/-/147
C_DP
90 161/-/164 146/-/164 134/-/164 125/-/164 115/-/164 106/-/164 93/-/164
120 168/-/182 151/-/182 140/-/182 130/-/182 119/-/182 109/-/182 95/-/182
150 160/-/204 146/-/204 136/-/204 126/-/204 117/-/204 107/-/204 96/-/204
0 169/-/172 160/-/172 154/-/172 150/-/172 145/-/172 140/-/172 136/-/172
30 203/-/207 190/-/207 182/-/207 174/-/207 167/-/207 161/-/207 155/-/207
60 >240/-/>240 222/-/>240 209/-/>240 200/-/>240 191/-/>240 183/-/>240 175/-/>240
M_DP
90 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240 228/-/>240 217/-/>240 207/-/>240 197/-/>240
120 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240 232/-/>240 219/-/>240
150 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240
Buildings 2022, 12, 1721 16 of 19

Table 4. FLRs of parametric floor systems specified in accordance with the industry convention.

Rockwool FRL (min) against LR

Floor Type
Thickness (mm) 0.2 LR 0.3 LR 0.4 LR 0.5 LR 0.6 LR 0.7 LR 0.8 LR
0 30/-/30 30/-/30 30/-/30 30/-/30 0/-/30 0/-/30 0/-/30
30 60/-/60 60/-/60 30/-/60 30/-/60 30/-/60 30/-/60 30/-/60
60 90/-/90 60/-/90 60/-/90 60/-/90 30/-/90 30/-/90 30/-/90
C_SP
90 90/-/90 90/-/90 90/-/90 60/-/90 60/-/90 60/-/90 30/-/90
120 120/-/120 90/-/120 90/-/120 60/-/120 60/-/120 60/-/120 30/-/120
150 90/-/150 90/-/150 90/-/150 60/-/150 60/-/150 60/-/150 30/-/150
0 120/-/120 120/-/120 90/-/120 90/-/120 90/-/120 90/-/120 90/-/120
30 150/-/150 150/-/150 120/-/150 120/-/150 120/-/150 120/-/150 120/-/150
60 180/-/180 180/-/180 150/-/180 150/-/180 150/-/180 120/-/180 120/-/180
M_SP
90 >240/-/>240 210/-/>240 180/-/>240 180/-/>240 180/-/>240 150/-/>240 150/-/>240
120 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240 210/-/>240 210/-/>240 180/-/>240 180/-/>240
150 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240
0 90/-/90 90/-/90 60/-/90 60/-/90 60/-/90 60/-/90 60/-/90
30 120/-/120 90/-/120 90/-/120 90/-/120 60/-/120 60/-/120 60/-/120
60 120/-/120 120/-/120 120/-/120 90/-/120 90/-/120 90/-/120 60/-/120
C_DP
90 150/-/150 120/-/150 120/-/150 120/-/150 90/-/150 90/-/150 90/-/150
120 150/-/180 150/-/180 120/-/180 120/-/180 90/-/180 90/-/180 90/-/180
150 150/-/180 120/-/180 120/-/180 120/-/180 90/-/180 90/-/180 90/-/180
0 150/-/150 150/-/150 150/-/150 150/-/150 120/-/150 120/-/150 120/-/150
30 180/-/180 180/-/180 180/-/180 150/-/180 150/-/180 150/-/180 150/-/180
60 >240/-/>240 210/-/>240 180/-/>240 180/-/>240 180/-/>240 180/-/>240 150/-/>240
M_DP
90 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240 210/-/>240 210/-/>240 180/-/>240 180/-/>240
120 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240 210/-/>240 210/-/>240
150 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240 >240/-/>240
Buildings 2022, 12, 1721 17 of 19

5. Summary
Fire ratings of typical conventional and modular Light-gauge Steel Frame (LSF) floor
systems were investigated adopting comprehensive Finite Element Modelling (FEM) tech-
niques and Heat Transfer Analyses (HTA) studies. The fire performance investigations were
based on standard fire exposure of the bottom side of the floor panels. Elevated temperature
thermal properties of building materials and FEM techniques were thoroughly reviewed
against the theoretical fundamentals and further validated using available full-scale fire
experimental studies implemented on LSF structures. The experimental and numerical
time–temperature plots were very well matched; hence, the validity of the thermal proper-
ties and FEM methods was well-established prior to the modelling of parametric floors and
generating the HTA results.
Meanwhile, in both conventional and modular LSF floor designs, channel section joists
in the floor panel are designed to take structural loads off the floor panel. Hence, the critical
steel temperature of the floor joists must be considered when evaluating the structural Fire
Resistance Level (FRL). Since floor joists support the loads acting in bending, the average or
the mid-web temperature was found to be related to the critical steel temperature. A series
of numerical and experimental studies on the structural fire failures of channel section steel
joists were incorporated in establishing a correlation between the applied Load Ratio (LR)
and the critical (mid-web) steel temperature of the joists at the structural fire failure. This
correlation was used in the current study as an effective simplified method of evaluating
the structural fire failure of the LSF floor systems when the time variant temperature of the
mid-web of steel joist was produced from HTA. Furthermore, temperature distributions of
the unexposed surface of the floor systems were reviewed against average and maximum
thresholds specified in Eurocode 3 for the insulation FRL.
Additional gypsum board sheathing on the fire side of the floor systems was quite
beneficial for improving both structural and insulation FRLs by at least 30 min. Fire
performances of steel modular floors were better than the mapped conventional LSF floors
due to the double skin nature of the modular systems.
Structural and insulation FRLs were found to improve with increase in insulation
volume in the floor systems. However, increase in insulation volume beyond the half height
of the cavity was not effective for conventional floor systems on their structural fire ratings,
as the heat trapped in the insulation accelerates the temperature rise in the steel joists.
Anyway, the modular floors incorporated the insulation material in the ceiling cavities,
and hence the insulation can be considered as external insulation with respect to the floor
panel joists which are the structural load bearers of the design. Therefore, the structural
members are more protected in modular floor systems so that the structural FRL continued
to increase with the increase in insulation volume. Nevertheless, the insulation FRLs of
both conventional and modular floor systems were positively influenced as the insulation
thickness was increased. Again, ceiling insulation in modular floors proved to be more
effective than the cavity insulation in conventional floors.
The research findings on the structural and insulation FRLs of conventional and
modular floor systems intend to broaden the applications in the industry of choosing
optimum designs that cater to the design requirements. Furthermore, the energy rating of
these fire-rated floor systems was identified as a research scope that could even optimise
the LSF and Modular Building System construction practices.
The present study focused on the currently broadly practiced LSF and steel modular
floor systems in the industry. As more innovative and novel floor systems could be
investigated, the authors suggest the necessity of expanding the investigations on LSF and
steel modular floor systems for energy and fire ratings to enhance the standards of modular
construction culture.
Buildings 2022, 12, 1721 18 of 19

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, K.P.; Funding acquisition, K.P.; Supervision, K.P., K.O.
and B.N.; Writing—original draft, D.P. and I.R.U.; Writing—review & editing, E.K. and H.R. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The authors would like to acknowledge ESS Modular Limited and Northumbria University
for the financial support and research facilities.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge ESS Modular Limited and Northumbria
University for the financial support and research facilities.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations
AS Ambient Side
C_DP Conventional LSF Walls with Double Layers of Plasterboard Sheathing
C_SP Conventional LSF Walls with Single Layer of Plasterboard Sheathing
CAE Computer-Aided Engineering
CF Cold Flange
FEM Finite Element Modelling
FRL Fire Resistance Level
FS Fire Side
HF Hot Flange
HTA Heat Transfer Analyses
IR Insulation Ratio
LR Load Ratio
LSF Light-gauge Steel Frame
M_DP Steel Modular Walls with Double Layers of Plasterboard Sheathing
M_SP Steel Modular Walls with Single Layer of Plasterboard Sheathing
MBS Modular Building Systems
MEP Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing
MW Mid-Web
RW Rockwool Insulation

References
1. Baleshan, B.; Mahendran, M. Experimental study of light gauge steel framing floor systems under fire conditions. Adv. Struct.
Eng. 2017, 20, 426–445. [CrossRef]
2. Gatheeshgar, P.; Poologanathan, K.; Thamboo, J.; Roy, K.; Rossi, B.; Molkens, T.; Perera, D.; Navaratnam, S. On the fire behaviour
of modular floors designed with optimised cold-formed steel joists. Structures 2021, 30, 1071–1085. [CrossRef]
3. Jatheeshan, V. Numerical and Experimental Studies of Cold-Formed Steel floor Systems Made of Hollow Flange Section Joists in
Fire. Ph.D. Thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia, 2015. Available online: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/
120145/ (accessed on 1 October 2022).
4. Steau, E.; Keerthan, P.; Mahendran, M. Thermal Modelling of LSF Floor Systems Made of Lipped Channel and Hollow Flange Channel
Section Joists; Ernst & Sohn GmbH: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2017. Available online: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10
.1002/cepa.313 (accessed on 1 October 2022).
5. Steau, E.; Mahendran, M. Elevated temperature thermal properties of fire protective boards and insulation materials for light
steel frame systems. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 43, 102571. [CrossRef]
6. Steau, E.; Mahendran, M. Thermal modelling of LSF floor-ceiling systems with varying configurations. Fire Saf. J. 2020, 118, 103227.
[CrossRef]
7. Chen, W.; Jiang, J.; Ye, J.; Zhao, Q.; Liu, K.; Xu, C. Thermal behavior of external-insulated cold-formed steel non-load-bearing
walls exposed to different fire conditions. Structures 2020, 25, 631–645. [CrossRef]
8. Chen, W.; Ye, J.; Bai, Y.; Zhao, X.-L. Improved fire resistant performance of load bearing cold-formed steel interior and exterior
wall systems. Thin-Walled Struct. 2013, 73, 145–157. [CrossRef]
9. Chen, W.; Ye, J.; Li, X. Fire experiments of cold-formed steel non-load-bearing composite assemblies lined with different boards. J.
Constr. Steel Res. 2019, 158, 290–305. [CrossRef]
10. Santos, P.; Gonçalves, M.; Martins, C.; Soares, N.; Costa, J.J. Thermal transmittance of lightweight steel framed walls: Experimental
versus numerical and analytical approaches. J. Build. Eng. 2019, 25, 100776. [CrossRef]
11. Perera, D.; Poologanathan, K.; Gatheeshgar, P.; Upasiri, I.R.; Sherlock, P.; Rajanayagam, H.; Nagaratnam, B. Fire performance of
modular wall panels: Numerical analysis. Structures 2021, 34, 1048–1067. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2022, 12, 1721 19 of 19

12. Perera, D.; Poologanathan, K.; Gillie, M.; Gatheeshgar, P.; Sherlock, P.; Nanayakkara, S.M.A.; Konthesingha, K.M.C. Fire
performance of cold, warm and hybrid LSF wall panels using numerical studies. Thin-Walled Struct. 2020, 157, 107109. [CrossRef]
13. Perera, D.; Poologanathan, K.; Gillie, M.; Gatheeshgar, P.; Sherlock, P.; Upasiri, I.R.; Rajanayagam, H. Novel conventional and
modular LSF wall panels with improved fire performance. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 46, 103612. [CrossRef]
14. Perera, D.; Upasiri, I.R.; Poologanathan, K.; Gatheeshgar, P.; Sherlock, P.; Hewavitharana, T.; Suntharalingam, T. Energy
performance of fire rated LSF walls under UK climate conditions. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 44, 103293. [CrossRef]
15. Perera, D.; Upasiri, I.R.; Poologanathan, K.; Perampalam, G.; O’Grady, K.; Rezazadeh, M.; Rajanayagam, H.; Hewavitharana, T.
Fire performance analyses of modular wall panel designs with loadbearing SHS columns. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2022,
17, e01179. [CrossRef]
16. Rusthi, M.; Ariyanayagam, A.D.; Mahendran, M. Fire design of LSF wall systems made of web-stiffened lipped channel studs.
Thin-Walled Struct. 2018, 127, 588–603. [CrossRef]
17. Rusthi, M.; Keerthan, P.; Mahendran, M.; Ariyanayagam, A. Investigating the fire performance of LSF wall systems using finite
element analyses. J. Struct. Fire Eng. 2017, 8, 354–376. [CrossRef]
18. Union, T.E. Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures—Part 1–2: General Rules—Structural Fire Design; European Commission: Brussels,
Belgium, 2005.
19. Gunalan, S. Structural Behaviour and Design of Cold-Formed Steel Wall Systems under Fire Conditions. Ph.D. Thesis, School of
Urban Development, Faculty of Environment and Engineering, Quinsland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia, 2011.
20. Kesawan, S.; Mahendran, M. Fire tests of load-bearing LSF walls made of hollow flange channel sections. J. Constr. Steel Res. 2015,
115, 191–205. [CrossRef]
21. Baleshan, B. Numerical and Experimental Studies of Cold-Formed Steel Floor Systems under Standard Fire Conditions. Ph.D.
Thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia, 2012.
22. Jatheeshan, V.; Mahendran, M. Thermal performance of LSF floors made of hollow flange channel section joists under fire
conditions. Fire Saf. J. 2016, 84, 25–39. [CrossRef]
23. Abaqus Theory Manual. Dassault Systèmes. Available online: http://130.149.89.49:2080/v6.9/books/stm/default.htm?startat=
book01.html (accessed on 10 August 2022).
24. Keerthan, P.; Mahendran, M. Numerical studies of gypsum plasterboard panels under standard fire conditions. Fire Saf. J. 2012,
53, 105–119. [CrossRef]
25. Lei, Y.; Xiao, C.; Wang, X.; Yue, J.; Zhu, Q. Tensile properties and fracturing behavior of weld joints in the CLAM at high
temperatures. Fusion Eng. Des. 2015, 95, 27–33. [CrossRef]
26. Huang, Y.; Luo, X.; Zhan, Y.; Chen, Y.; Yu, L.; Feng, W.; Xiong, J.; Yang, J.; Mao, G.; Yang, L.; et al. High-temperature creep rupture
behavior of dissimilar welded joints in martensitic heat resistant steels. Eng. Fract. Mech. 2022, 273, 108739. [CrossRef]
27. He, B.; Cui, L.; Wang, D.; Liu, Y.; Liu, C.; Li, H. The metallurgical bonding and high temperature tensile behaviors of 9Cr-1W steel
and 316L steel dissimilar joint by friction stir welding. J. Manuf. Process. 2019, 44, 241–251. [CrossRef]
28. Gunalan, S.; Mahendran, M. Fire performance of cold-formed steel wall panels and prediction of their fire resistance rating. Fire
Saf. J. 2014, 64, 61–80. [CrossRef]
29. Upasiri, I.; Konthesingha, C.; Nanayakkara, A.; Poologanathan, K.; Perampalam, G.; Perera, D. Finite element analysis of
lightweight concrete-filled LSF walls exposed to realistic design fire. J. Struct. Fire Eng. 2022, 13, 506–534. [CrossRef]
30. Roque, E.; Santos, P. The Effectiveness of Thermal Insulation in Lightweight Steel-Framed Walls with Respect to Its Position. Spec.
Issue Insul. Mater. Resid. Build. 2017, 7, 13. [CrossRef]