Journal of Constructional Steel Research 145 (2018) 529–551

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Constructional Steel Research

Experimental study of non-load bearing light gauge steel framed walls

in fire
Anthony Deloge Ariyanayagam, Mahen Mahendran ⁎
Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Light gauge Steel Framed (LSF) wall panels are essential components in the construction of residential and com-
Received 4 November 2017 mercial buildings. They are used as load bearing and non-load bearing walls in low and mid-rise buildings. During
Received in revised form 14 February 2018 fire events, LSF wall lining material acts as a thermal barrier against fire propagation through the wall and pro-
Accepted 20 February 2018
tects the thin-walled steel studs from higher temperatures. Many detailed studies have been conducted to inves-
Available online 29 March 2018
tigate the thermal and structural behaviour of gypsum plasterboard lined load bearing LSF walls exposed to fire
Keywords:
conditions. However, such studies are limited for non-load bearing LSF walls. The behavioural characteristics of
Light gauge steel framed walls non-load bearing LSF walls are different from those of load bearing walls with only insulation or integrity failures
Non-load bearing walls governing their fire design. Small-scale non-load bearing wall fire tests do not simulate the actual fire behaviour,
Cold-formed steel studs rather they only provide comparative results for tests conducted under identical conditions. This paper presents
Gypsum plasterboards the details of a detailed experimental study conducted on the fire performance of 3 m high non-load bearing LSF
Fire resistance level walls, and the results. Full-scale standard fire tests were conducted and the effects of gypsum plasterboard thick-
ness, wall configurations and noggings on the fire performance of non-load bearing walls were quantified. Fire
test results were compared based on the measured stud and gypsum plasterboard temperatures. This paper
has provided very useful fire test data for use in the fire design of non-load bearing LSF walls, which can also
be used in developing advanced thermal finite element models and their calibration.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Cold-formed steel wall construction is increasingly adopted in many
applications of the building sector. Robust structural performance and
lightweight, as well as ease, efficiency and economy in using cold-
formed steel construction are all favourable attributes for cold-formed
steel wall construction. Light gauge steel framed (LSF) walls are made
of thin-walled cold-formed lipped channel studs and unlipped channel
section tracks and lined with wall lining materials. With the highest
strength-to-weight ratio of cold-formed steel frames, LSF walls are
used as load bearing walls in single dwellings, mid-rise buildings (3 to
9 storeys) and modular based constructions. They are also used as
non-load bearing partition walls in high-rise concrete framed buildings
due to the light-weight nature of framing components. When LSF walls
are used in buildings as load bearing or non-load bearing walls, they
should satisfy the fire safety requirements specified in terms of fire re-
sistance levels in the building regulations [1].
The behaviour of load bearing LSF walls is different to that of non-
load bearing LSF walls. Load bearing walls exposed to fire on one side
are subjected to non-uniform temperature distribution, which will
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: m.mahendran@qut.edu.au (M. Mahendran).
induce thermal bowing and neutral axis shift. Thus the initially axially
loaded wall studs will be subjected to combined axial compression
and bending actions when exposed to fire on one side. Many re-
searchers have investigated the structural fire behaviour of LSF walls
and proposed suitable fire design rules to determine the axial compres-
sion capacity of studs at elevated temperatures and to predict the struc-
tural adequacy based FRL [2–16]. However, only a few studies [6,17–19]
have been conducted on non-load bearing LSF walls and their thermal
behaviour.
Feng and Wang [6] and Kolarkar and Mahendran [17] conducted ex-
perimental studies on the thermal behaviour of small-scale non-load
bearing wall panels. The test panel sizes were only 300 mm × 300 mm
and 1280 mm × 1015 mm, respectively. Their fire test results showed
that the shape of the cold-formed steel stud did not affect the tempera-
ture distribution on the unexposed side of plasterboards and the cavity
insulation significantly delayed the temperature rise across the wall
panel and thus insulated walls performed much better than non-
insulated walls. Further, the use of composite panels where the insula-
tion was sandwiched between gypsum plasterboards provided greater
fire resistance than other wall panels [17]. Recently, Liu et al. [19] con-
ducted fire tests of 3 m high non-load bearing walls lined with gypsum
plasterboards to investigate the effects of slotted hole arrangement in
the studs. The wall panels failed due to integrity failure criterion,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcsr.2018.02.023
0143-974X/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
530 A.D. Ariyanayagam, M. Mahendran / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 145 (2018) 529–551

Table 1
Non-load bearing fire tests.

Test Stud Gypsum plasterboard No of plasterboard Insulation Remarks Failure time Failure criterion
panel thickness layers (min)

T1 92 ∗ 0.55 mm 13 mm Single layer – – 60 Insulation (avg temp)

T2 92 ∗ 1.15 mm 13 mm Single layer – Horizontal plasterboard joint over 56 Insulation (avg temp)
noggings at 600 mm spacing
T3 92 ∗ 0.55 mm 16 mm Single layer – – 94 Insulation (avg temp)
T4 92 ∗ 1.15 mm 16 mm Single layer Glass fibre (11 kg/m3) Cavity insulated 106 Insulation (avg temp)
T5 92 ∗ 1.15 mm 16 mm Two layers – 197 Insulation (max temp)

Gypsum Plasterboards Fire Side

Plasterboard
Pb1

Stud 1 Stud 2 Stud 3 Stud 4 Stud 5 Stud 6

Pb2
600 mm 600 mm 600 mm 600 mm 600 mm
(Stud spacing) (Stud spacing) (Stud spacing) (Stud spacing) (Stud spacing)
Ambient Side
Plasterboard
Note: Test Panels T1 and T2 are lined with 13 mm gypsum plasterboards and T3 is lined with 16 mm
gypsum plasterboards.
Test Panel T3 had vertical plasterboard joints on the ambient side along Studs 3 and 5

(a) Single plasterboard lined LSF wall – Test Panels T1 to T3

16 mm Gypsum Plasterboards Fire Side

Cavity Insulation Plasterboard
Pb1

Stud 1 Stud 2 Stud 3 Stud 4 Stud 5 Stud 6

Pb2
600 mm 600 mm 600 mm 600 mm 600 mm
(Stud spacing) (Stud spacing) (Stud spacing) (Stud spacing) (Stud spacing)

Ambient Side
Plasterboard
(b) Cavity insulated and single plasterboard lined LSF wall – Test Panel T4

Fire Side
16 mm Gypsum Plasterboards Plasterboard
Pb1

Pb2
Stud 1 Stud 2 Stud 3 Stud 4 Stud 5 Stud 6
Pb3

Pb4

600 mm 600 mm 600 mm 600 mm 600 mm

(Stud spacing) (Stud spacing) (Stud spacing) (Stud spacing) (Stud spacing)

Ambient Side
Plasterboard
(c) Double plasterboard lined LSF wall – Test Panel T5

Fig. 1. Non-load bearing fire test wall configurations - cross-section view.

 A.D. Ariyanayagam, M. Mahendran / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 145 (2018) 529–551
where unexposed gypsum plasterboards cracked and flame was ob-
served through them.
Several numerical research studies were also conducted to investi-
gate the thermal behaviour of LSF walls [6,20–24]. Suitable thermal FE
models were developed based on one or two dimensional heat transfer
analyses, with the use of apparent elevated temperature thermal prop-
erties of wall lining materials and were validated using small-scale fire
test results. Thus these FE models cannot be used to evaluate the fire
performance of 3 m high wall panels. Past numerical studies also as-
sume that integrity failure is not critical and focused only on insulation
failures.
Fire testing of small-scale wall panels will give good comparative re-
sults for wall systems if tested under identical conditions. However, it
does not provide accurate behavioural details and FRLs of LSF walls,
which are normally 3 m high. When non-load bearing LSF walls are ex-
posed to fire on one side, it causes bowing towards the fire side. As the
plasterboard is attached to the stud, this causes the fire exposed gypsum
plasterboard to be in tension, which could ultimately lead to crack open-
ings in the gypsum plasterboard. Shrinkage cracks also appear on gyp-
sum plasterboards due to the loss of water. Thermal bowing of 3 m
high wall panels could lead to cracking of gypsum plasterboards, abla-
tion and fall-off while LSF wall panel could fail under integrity failure
criterion. Such behavioural characteristics are different in small scale
wall panel tests. Thus using the small scale wall panel tests to develop
and validate the thermal FE models with apparent thermal properties
of LSF wall components is inadequate. Experimental results on the fire
performance of 3 m high non-load bearing walls are very limited, but
are needed to validate the thermal FE models before they can be used
to predict the FRLs of non-load bearing LSF walls.
In this research an experimental study was conducted on the fire
performance of non-load bearing wall panels lined with gypsum plas-
terboards. Full-scale standard fire tests were conducted to investigate
Studs at 600 mm spacing
Top Track
Stud
Stud
Stud
Stud
Bottom Track
Track
Stud
Screw
Fig. 2. Light gauge steel framed wall.
531
the fire performance of 3 m high gypsum plasterboard lined non-load
bearing walls. Test parameters included gypsum plasterboard thickness,
wall configurations and noggings. This paper presents the details of the
fire tests, and the results including the measured time-temperature
curves of studs and gypsum plasterboards, and the lateral deflection
curves of the tested wall panels. Fire test results were then compared
and the effects of plasterboard thickness, wall configurations and nog-
ging were quantified based on the measured stud and plasterboard
temperatures. Fire test results provide an improved understanding of
the thermal behaviour of 3 m high non-load bearing wall panels,
and the necessary background to expand the investigation into the be-
haviour of other LSF wall panels using advanced thermal finite element
models, calibrated using the fire test results reported here.
2. Fire tests of non-load bearing walls
Five fire tests of non-load bearing LSF walls (T1 to T5) of 3 m width
and 3 m height were conducted in this study. Table 1 and Fig. 1 give the
details of these test wall panels.
2.1. Test wall panels
LSF wall test panels consisted of six 92 mm × 35 mm cold-formed
steel lipped channel studs spaced at 600 centres and unlipped channel
section tracks (top and bottom) as shown in Fig. 2. The studs and tracks
of 0.55 and 1.15 mm thickness were used. Stud and track flanges were
screwed together using 16 mm long self-drilling screws and lined
with fire rated gypsum plasterboard layers on both sides of the studs
as per the fire test program shown in Table 1. Gypsum plasterboard
sheeting used in constructing the test panels were 13 or 16 mm thick
and their sizes were 3000 × 1200 mm.
Stud Stud
Stud
Track
Screw
532 A.D. Ariyanayagam, M. Mahendran / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 145 (2018) 529–551

300 mm Screw Spacing

along the Studs

2250 mm
Tc Tc
Tc

1500 mm Tc
200 mm Screw Spacing Tc Tc Tc
Staggered along the joints
Plasterboard
joint Plasterboard Tc
joint 750 mm
Tc Tc

Fig. 3. Plasterboard to LSF wall frame screw connections.

Stud 1 Stud 2 Stud 3 Stud 4 Stud 5 Stud 6

Fig. 5. Locations of thermocouples (Tc) on the LSF wall frame.

Noggings at 600 mm spacing

Studs at 600 mm spacing

Stud
Stud
Nogging
Stud

Stud Nogging

Nogging
Stud

Stud

(a) Construction of Test Panel T2

Gypsum
plasterboard (Pb2)
Track
Stud
Stud Stud

Gypsum
Stud plasterboard (Pb1)

75 mm thick Glass Fibre

Insulation

Track

(b) Construction of Test Panel T4

Fig. 4. Construction of Test Panels T2 and T4.

 A.D. Ariyanayagam, M. Mahendran / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 145 (2018) 529–551 533

Test Panels T1 to T4 were lined with single layer of gypsum plaster-

boards on either side of the studs. Test Panels T1 and T2 were lined with
13 mm thick boards while Test Panels T3 and T4 were lined with 16 mm
thick gypsum plasterboards. Plasterboard joints were placed vertically
along the studs for Test Panels T1, T3 and T4. 25 mm long self-drilling
screws were used to fix the gypsum plasterboards at 300 mm spacing
along the studs without any plasterboard joints and 200 mm staggered
spacing over the studs with plasterboard joints (Fig. 3). The recessed
plasterboard edges on the plasterboard joints were filled with two
nearly equal thickness joint filler coat with a 50 mm wide paper based
tape sandwiched between the two coats of the filler.
Test Panel T2 had horizontal plasterboard joints, which were backed Stud
by noggings at 600 mm spacing (Fig. 4(a)). 92 mm unlipped channel
Stud
sections were used as noggings and 16 mm long self-drilling screws
were used to connect the noggings to the studs. Gypsum
Test Panel T3 was similar to Test Panel T1, but was lined with 16 mm
Plasterboard
thick gypsum plasterboards on both fire exposed and unexposed
sides of the studs. Test Panel T4 was also similar to Test Panel T1 but
lined with 16 mm thick gypsum plasterboard and cavity insulated
with 75 mm thick and 600 mm width 11 kg/m3 density glass fibre insu- Stud
lation. Fig. 4(b) shows this LSF wall panel with cavity insulation, where
the 75 mm thick insulation was placed in the cavity after fixing the plas-
terboard layer on one side of the wall panel.
Test Panel T5 was lined with two layers of 16 mm thick gypsum plas-
terboards on both sides of the studs. The first (base) layers of plaster-
boards (Pb2 and Pb3) were installed vertically on both sides of the LSF
wall panel while the second (face) layers (Pb1 and Pb4) were installed
horizontally. The first and second layers of gypsum plasterboards were
attached to the studs by 25 and 45 mm long self-drilling screws. Thermocouple Wire

Stud

T1 to T3:
Plasterboard

T5: Fig. 7. Thermocouple fixings on LSF wall test panel.

2.2. Locations of thermocouples and displacement transducers

T4:
Type-K cable thermocouples were placed along and across the LSF
wall test panels on both stud and gypsum plasterboard surfaces.
The installed thermocouple wires measure temperatures in the range
of −200 to 1100 °C with an accuracy of ±2.5 °C. Temperatures were
Top-Mid measured along the wall panel height at 750, 1500 and 2250 mm,
2250 mm while they were measured across the wall panel width at five locations
Tc
in each layer of gypsum plasterboard (Figs. 5 and 6). Further, stud tem-
peratures were also measured at the above heights and at each height,
thermocouple wires were connected to both flanges (Fig. 5). In addition,
1500 mm an infrared gun was also used to measure the unexposed surface gyp-
Tc Tc Tc
sum plasterboard temperatures. Fig. 7 shows the thermocouples at-
Mid-Left Mid-Mid Mid-Right
tached to the surfaces of gypsum plasterboards and studs of a test wall
panel.
The lateral (out-of-plane) deflections were also measured using six
750 mm
Tc linear variable displacement transducers. They were used to measure
Bottom-Mid the lateral deflections of the two central studs (Studs 3 and 4) at quarter
heights (750, 1500 and 2250 mm).

2.3. Fire test set-up

Stud 1 Stud 2 Stud 3 Stud 4 Stud 5 Stud 6
Fire tests of LSF wall Test Panels (T1 to T5) were conducted using a
Fig. 6. Locations of thermocouples (Tc) on the gypsum plasterboard surfaces. propane gas fired furnace consisting six radiant flame burners. Test
534 A.D. Ariyanayagam, M. Mahendran / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 145 (2018) 529–551

wall panel was placed in the loading frame, where the bottom track of
the test panel rested on the loading plates and the top track against
the top loading frame. Fig. 8 shows the fire test set-up used in this
study on non-load bearing LSF walls. The vertical edges of the test
wall panels were unrestrained and were insulated with ceramic insula-
tion. Fig. 9 shows the fire exposed surface of the test panel before the
fire test. An axial compression load of 0.5 kN was applied on each stud
to support the self-weight of the test wall panel prior to the start of
the test, and this load was maintained during the entire duration of Gypsum
the fire test. Test panel was then exposed on one side to the standard plasterboard
fire time-temperature curve based on AS 1530.4 [1].

3. Fire test observations and results

In all the fire tests, after 5 min of starting the furnace, smoke was vis-
ible at the top of the wall panel for nearly 8 to 10 min. This was due to
the burning of the paper layer on the fire exposed surface of the gypsum
plasterboard layer (Pb1). Also water drops were seen along the edges of
the top loading frame after 15 min as the gypsum plasterboard (Pb1)
started to dehydrate and the free water in gypsum plasterboard evapo-
rated from the surface. Then at about 35 min smoke started to appear
again from the top and/or bottom of the test panel and continued for
about 5 min. The appearance of smoke was considered to be due to
the burning of paper layer on the inside surface of the gypsum plaster- Plasterboard
board layer (Pb1). These observations were made in all five fire tests Furnace joint
and the specific observations are described next. Further, all five test
panels failed due to the insulation failure criterion and neither integrity
nor structural failure was observed. Table 1 summarises the failure
times of test wall panels.

Fig. 9. Fire exposed side of LSF wall panel before the fire test.
3.1. Test Panel T1

During the fire testing of Test Panel T1, smoke started to appear
again at the end of 56 min from the top and continued to emerge also
from the bottom of the test panel. Water drops were also seen on the
top and bottom of the loading frame. This was due to the burning of
the papers layer on the cavity facing gypsum plasterboard layer Pb2
and its dehydration process. Ambient plasterboard (Pb2) layer
discolouration was also visible and the data logger showed that the av-
erage gypsum plasterboard temperatures exceeded the insulation
failure criterion. However, the fire test was continued until 65 min
when the gypsum plasterboard joint along Stud 4 cracked and opened
up. Fig. 10 shows the unexposed side of the LSF wall Test Panel T1
after the fire test. Visual inspection of the test panel after the test
showed that the fire exposed plasterboard (Pb1) layer had completely
calcinated and the plasterboard joints on the fire side had opened up.
Studs did not buckle and no permanent deformations were observed.

Universal Beam
(Top)

LSF Wall
Panel

Plasterboard
joints
Universal Column

Displacement Data Logger

Transducers

Hydraulic Rams Thermocouple

Wires

Universal Beam
(Bottom)

Fig. 8. Fire test set-up of non-load bearing LSF walls.

A.D. Ariyanayagam, M. Mahendran / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 145 (2018) 529–551 535

Cracked ambient
side plasterboard
joint along Stud 4

Board
Discolouration

Stud 4

Water Drops

Fig. 10. Unexposed side of Test Panel T1 after the fire test.

Standard Fire

Fire Pb1

Fire Pb1- Cavity

Cavity – Amb Pb2

Amb Pb2

(a) Average plasterboard temperatures

o
Maximum Temperature (210 C)

Mid-Mid
Bottom-Mid
Average Temperature (170oC)

Mid-Left

Mid-Left

60 min

(b) Ambient side plasterboard temperatures

Note: Amb Mid-Left thermocouple malfunctioned and did not record temperatures

Fig. 11. Fire test results of LSF wall Test Panel T1.
536 A.D. Ariyanayagam, M. Mahendran / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 145 (2018) 529–551

Stud 5 HF
Stud 3 HF

Stud 4 HF

Stud 5 CF Stud 2 HF

Stud 2 CF

(c) Stud hot and cold flange temperatures

Stud 3 - Bottom
Stud 4 - Bottom

Stud 3 - Mid

Stud 4 - Mid

(d) Lateral displacement curves

Fig. 11 (continued).

Plasterboard Joint

Board
Discolouration
Cracked ambient side gypsum
plasterboard joint

Fire side plasterboard joint tape

and filler materials

Fig. 12. Unexposed side of Test Panel T2 after the fire test.
 A.D. Ariyanayagam, M. Mahendran / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 145 (2018) 529–551 537

Ambient side plasterboard layer (Pb2) was seen in good condition with
some discoloured paper in the middle of the test panel.
The average measured plasterboard time-temperature curves across
the test panel are shown in Fig. 11(a). This is based on the temperatures
recorded at five locations on the gypsum plasterboard surfaces: Top-
Mid, Mid-Left, Mid-Mid, Mid-Right and Bottom-Mid in each layer across
the test panel (Fig. 6). In the early stages of the fire, dehydration of
plasterboards maintained the surface temperatures at approximately
100 °C, while the furnace temperature was well above 600 °C. The plas-
terboard surface time-temperature curve had three distinct phases:
gradual temperature rise, constant temperature and rapid temperature
increase. After about 14 min the fire side face layer plasterboard (Pb1)
was dehydrated and the temperature started to increase rapidly, as
seen in the average fire side Pb1-Cavity surface temperature curve
(Fig. 11(a)).
Fig. 11(b) shows the individual and average thermocouple readings.
They show that the individual surface temperatures measured on the am-
bient plasterboard surface did not go beyond 210 °C (ambient tempera-
ture at the start of the fire test 30 °C + 180 °C), which is the maximum
temperature insulation criterion [1]. But the average plasterboard surface
temperature of 170 °C (ambient temperature at the start of the fire test
30 °C + 140 °C) was exceeded at 60 min (Fig. 11(b)). Hence according to
AS 1530.4 [1] it is concluded that the insulation failure occurred at 60 min.
Fig. 11(c) shows the variations of stud hot and cold flange tempera-
tures at mid-height (1500 mm). Stud 5 hot flange (HF) showed higher
temperatures throughout the fire test, followed by Stud 3, and Studs 2
and 4. At the insulation failure time of 60 min, Stud 5 hot and cold flange
temperatures at mid-height were 700 and 474 °C, respectively. Fig. 11
(d) shows the lateral deflections of Studs 3 and 4 along their height
with respect to time. Negative lateral deflection indicates the deflection

Standard Fire

Fire Pb1

Fire Pb1- Cavity

Cavity – Amb Pb2

Amb Pb2

(a) Average plasterboard temperatures

o
Maximum Temperature (210 C)

o
Average Temperature (170 C)

56 min 61 min

(b) Ambient plasterboard temperatures

Fig. 13. Fire test results of LSF wall Test Panel T2.
538 A.D. Ariyanayagam, M. Mahendran / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 145 (2018) 529–551

Stud 5 HF Stud 4 HF

Stud 2 HF

Stud 3 CF

Stud 5 CF

Stud 3 HF

(c) Stud hot and cold flange temperatures

Note: Stud 3 HF thermocouple malfunctioned and did not record temperatures

Stud 2 - Bottom
Studs 2 and 3 - Top

Stud 3 - Mid

Stud 2 - Mid

Stud 3 - Bottom

(d) Lateral displacement curves

Fig. 13 (continued).

towards the furnace. From the ignition of the furnace, the wall was ob-
served to bend towards the furnace. All the studs followed a similar de-
flection curve until the end of the fire test. Stud mid-height deflections
are higher than the top and bottom height deflections, as the test
panel thermally bowed towards the furnace. Beyond 35 min the lateral
deflections of the studs were seen to be held constant or reversed their
directions. This is due to the change in temperature variation across the
stud cross-section (i.e. hot and cold flanges). With time cold flange
temperatures started to increase rapidly and come close to the stud
hot flange temperatures. The maximum lateral deflection of 43 mm
was recorded at the mid-height (1500 mm) of Stud 4 at 33 min.
3.2. Test Panel T2
During the fire testing of Test Panel T2, the ambient side top hor-
izontal plasterboard joint filler started to discolour from white to
 A.D. Ariyanayagam, M. Mahendran / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 145 (2018) 529–551
Board
Discolouration
Plasterboard
Joints
Stud 5
Stud 3
Water Drops
Fig. 14. Unexposed side of Test Panel T3 after the fire test.
brown after 50 min. Then at the end of 56 min joint started to open
up and the joint filler material turned to dark brown colour. After
62 min, smoke was seen to escape via a few hairline cracks in this
cracked plasterboard joint. Also water drops were seen again on
the surface at the end of 63 min. However, the test was continued
beyond this point, and was terminated at 64 min. Fig. 12 shows
the unexposed side of the wall after the fire test, where the ambient
side plasterboard layer (Pb2) was seen in good condition with some
discolouration of the paper layer in the middle of the LSF wall. Vi-
sual inspection of the wall panel after the fire test showed that the
fire exposed plasterboard (Pb1) layer had completely calcinated
and the horizontal plasterboard joints on the fire side have opened
up.
The average measured plasterboard time-temperature curves
across the test panel are shown in Fig. 13(a). After about 16 min,
the fire side plasterboard layer (Pb1) was completely dehydrated
and the temperature started to increase rapidly, as seen in the aver-
age Fire Pb1 – Cav surface time-temperature curve. Fig. 13(b) shows
the individual and average thermocouple readings measured at five
locations. It shows that the average plasterboard temperature of
170 °C (ambient temperature at the start of the fire test 30 °C +
140 °C) was exceeded at 56 min, while the maximum measured
temperature of 210 °C (ambient temperature at the start of the
fire test 30 °C + 180 °C) using Type-K thermocouples was reached
at 61 min (Fig. 13(b)). Fig. 13(c) shows the stud hot flange temper-
atures at the mid-height (1500 mm) of the test panel. Stud 5 tem-
perature was 570 °C when the insulation criterion was reached at
56 min, and was 600 °C at the end of the test. The lateral deflection
of studs with respect to time at different heights: top (2250 mm),
mid-height (1500 mm) and bottom (750 mm) of the studs are
shown in Fig. 13(d). All the studs followed a similar deflection
curve until the end of the test and a maximum lateral deflection of
27 mm was recorded at the mid-height of Stud 2 after 35 min of
fire testing.
539
Discolouration of Ambient side
plasterboard (Pb2) and
plasterboard joint
3.3. Test Panel T3
Similar to the observations in Test Panels T1 and T2, smoke appeared
again at 48 min from the top left hand corner (near Stud 1), and contin-
ued for about 5 min. During this time period, water drops were also
seen on the loading frame. At the end of 76 min, plasterboard joint filler
material along Stud 3 started to discolour and then it turned to dark
brown colour. Fig. 14 shows the unexposed side of Test Panel T3,
while Fig. 15 shows the average and measured plasterboard and stud
temperatures and lateral deflection curves.
The individual gypsum plasterboard surface temperatures measured
at five locations on the ambient plasterboard surface did not go beyond
209 °C (ambient temperature at the start of the fire test 29 °C + 180 °C).
But the average plasterboard surface temperature of 169 °C (ambient
temperature at the start of the fire test 29 °C + 140 °C) was exceeded
at 94 min (Fig. 15(b)). As seen in Fig. 15(c), Stud 2 showed higher tem-
peratures than other studs and the hot flange temperature was 614 °C
when the insulation criterion was reached at 94 min, and was 770 °C
at the end of the test.
3.4. Test Panel T4
The fire test observations were similar to those of Test Panels T1 to
T3, however, after 63 min the ambient side plasterboard (Pb2) joint
filler along Studs 3 and 5 started to discolour from white to brown.
Then at the end of 76 min the ambient side plasterboard (Pb2) near
Stud 2 started to discolour and smoke started to emerge from the top
of the wall panel. Also water drops were seen on the surface. Fig. 16
shows the unexposed side of the Test Panel T4. Visual inspection of
the test panel after the fire test revealed that both plasterboard joints
along Studs 2 and 4 on the fire side had opened up. This allowed the
hot gases to penetrate the cavity, thus the ambient side plasterboard
(Pb2) was exposed to higher temperatures and ultimately led to the in-
sulation failure of the wall panel.
540 A.D. Ariyanayagam, M. Mahendran / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 145 (2018) 529–551

As seen in Fig. 17(a) the average Fire side Cavity (Pb1-Cavity) sur-
face temperature started to increase rapidly after 21 min. Similar tem-
perature rise on the Ambient side Cavity (Cavity-Amb Pb2) surface was
recorded after 26 min, until then both cavity facing plasterboard sur-
faces (Fire Pb1-Cavity and Cavity-Amb Pb2) temperatures were only
about 100 °C. This is due to the dehydration process of gypsum plaster-
board. This is the significant distinctive behaviour of gypsum plaster-
boards as it will delay the temperature rise of the ambient side
plasterboard surface. Fig. 17(b) shows that the average ambient plas-
terboard temperature of 168 °C (ambient temperature at the start of
the fire test 28 °C + 140 °C) was exceeded at 106 min, while the
maximum measured temperature of 208 °C (ambient temperature at
the start of the fire test 28 °C + 180 °C) was reached at 115 min
based on Type-K thermocouple measurements. The critical studs
were Studs 2 and 4, where the fire side plasterboard (Pb1) joints
were present with the maximum hot flange temperatures in Stud 2.
Stud 2 hot flange temperature was 884 °C when the insulation criterion
was reached at 106 min, and was 904 °C at the end of the test (Fig. 17
(c)). Test Panel T4 was observed to bend towards the furnace from the
beginning of the fire test, but after 45 min it started to reverse its direc-
tion and started to straighten out (Fig. 17(d)). This is due to the change
in temperature variation across the stud, resulting in reduced thermal

Standard Fire

Fire Pb1

Fire Pb1- Cavity

Cavity – Amb Pb2

Amb Pb2

(a) Average plasterboard temperatures

o
Maximum Temperature (209 C)

o
Average Temperature (169 C)

94 min

(b) Ambient plasterboard temperatures

Fig. 15. Fire test results of LSF wall Test Panel T3.
 A.D. Ariyanayagam, M. Mahendran / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 145 (2018) 529–551 541

Stud 2 HF

Stud 4 HF

Stud 3 HF

Stud 4 CF Stud 5 HF

Stud 5 CF

Stud 2 CF

(c) Stud hot and cold flange temperatures

Note: Stud 3 – CF thermocouple malfunctioned and did not record the temperatures.

Stud 3 - Top

Stud 4 - Bottom Stud 4 - Top

Stud 3 - Mid

Stud 4 - Mid
Stud 3 - Bottom

(d) Lateral displacement curves

Note: Stud 3 – Bottom displacement transducer malfunctioned and did not record after 30 min.
Fig. 15 (continued).

bowing. The maximum lateral deflection of approximately 53 mm was
recorded at the mid-height of Stud 3 (1500 mm) after 47 min of fire
testing.
3.5. Test Panel T5
Test Panel T5 was lined with two layers of 16 mm thick gypsum plas-
terboards on each side of the studs. Similar observations of smoke es-
caping and water drops around the test panel were also made during
this fire test. At 190 min ambient side face layer plasterboard (Pb4)
joint filler started to discolour and screw heads were visible through
the plasterboard joints. Then at 200 min the gypsum plasterboard joints
started to open up and the joint filler material turned to dark brown col-
our. However, no integrity failure was observed.
Fig. 18 shows the unexposed side of Test Panel T5 after the fire test,
while Fig. 19 shows the fire test results. After about 25 min the fire side
face layer plasterboard (Pb1) was completely dehydrated and the tem-
perature started to increase rapidly, as seen in the Fire side Pb1–Pb2
542 A.D. Ariyanayagam, M. Mahendran / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 145 (2018) 529–551

Cracked gypsum board

joints Studs 3 and 5

Gypsum board discolouration

(along Stud 2 where fire side
plasterboard joint was present)

Water drops

Fig. 16. Unexposed side of Test Panel T4 after the fire test.

Standard Fire

Fire Pb1

Fire Pb1- Cavity

Cavity – Amb Pb2

Amb Pb2

(a) Average plasterboard temperatures

o
Maximum Temperature (208 C)

o
Average Temperature (168 C)

106 min 115 min

(b) Ambient plasterboard temperatures

Fig. 17. Fire test results of LSF wall Test Panel T4.
 A.D. Ariyanayagam, M. Mahendran / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 145 (2018) 529–551 543

Stud 2 HF
Stud 4 HF

Stud 4 CF
Stud 5 HF
Stud 3 CF

Stud 5 CF

(c) Stud hot and cold flange temperatures

Note: Stud 2 – CF thermocouple malfunctioned and did not record the temperatures.

Stud 4 - Top
Stud 4 - Bottom

Stud 3 - Bottom

Stud 4 - Mid

Stud 3 - Top
Stud 3 - Mid

(d) Lateral displacement curves

Fig. 17 (continued).

Cracked ambient side

horizontal plasterboard joint

Board
discolouration

Fire side plasterboard joint

tape and filler materials

Fig. 18. Unexposed side of Test Panel T5 after the fire test.
544 A.D. Ariyanayagam, M. Mahendran / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 145 (2018) 529–551

plasterboard surface time-temperature curves (Fig. 19(a)). A closer look
at this curve revealed a rapid rise in the temperature at about 190 min.
Visual observations after the fire test and individual analysis of thermo-
couple measurements along the fire side Pb1–Pb2 surface show that
most of the fire side Pb1 plasterboard had fallen off soon after 190
min. Following this, the fire side Pb1–Pb2 surface temperature in-
creased rapidly and approached the furnace time-temperature curve.
As seen in Fig. 19(b) the maximum measured plasterboard temperature
of 210 °C (ambient temperature at the start of the fire test 30 °C + 180
°C) was exceeded at 197 min and the average plasterboard temperature
of 170 °C (ambient temperature at the start of the fire test 30 °C + 140
°C) was reached at 208 min. Stud 4 hot flange temperature was 784 °C
when the insulation criterion was reached at 197 min (Fig. 19(c)), and
the maximum lateral deflection of 21 mm was measured in both Studs
3 and 4 at mid-height (Fig. 19(d)).
In summary, all five non-load bearing fire test panels (T1 to T5)
failed due to the insulation failure criterion (average or maximum
temperature limits) according to AS 1530.4 [1]. No integrity failure
was observed in the 3 m high LSF wall panels lined with 13 or 16
mm gypsum plasterboards, and permanent deformations of studs
were also not observed. The differences in LSF wall panel failure
times are due to the use of different LSF wall configurations, and
their effects on fire resistance is described and quantified in the
next section.

Standard Fire

Fire Pb1

Fire Pb1 – Pb2 Fire Pb2- Cavity

Cavity – Amb Pb3

Amb Pb3 – Pb4

Amb Pb4

(a) Average plasterboard temperatures

o
Maximum Temperature (210 C)

o
Average Temperature (170 C)

197 min 208 min

(b) Ambient plasterboard temperatures

Fig. 19. Fire test results of LSF wall Test Panel T5.
 A.D. Ariyanayagam, M. Mahendran / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 145 (2018) 529–551 545

Stud 4 CF
Stud 4 HF
Stud 5 CF

Stud 3 HF
Stud 5 HF

Stud 2 CF

Stud 3 CF

(c) Stud hot and cold flange temperatures

Stud 3 - Bottom

Stud 4 - Bottom

Stud 4 - Top

Stud 3 - Mid Stud 4 - Mid

Stud 3 - Top

(d) Lateral displacement curves

Fig. 19 (continued).

4. Discussion of results
4.1. Effect of nogging and plasterboard joint arrangement
Fire Test Panels T1 and T2 were made of 90 mm lipped channel sec-
tion studs and lined with 13 mm thick gypsum plasterboards. The dif-
ference between them were; T1 had no noggings and gypsum
plasterboards were placed vertically with vertical plasterboard joints,
whereas T2 had noggings at 600 mm spacing and gypsum plasterboards
were horizontally placed with horizontal plasterboard joints. Both Test
Panels T1 and T2 failed due to the insulation failure criterion based on
the average temperature limit at 60 and 56 min, respectively. This
shows that there is insignificant difference in FRL due to plasterboard
joint arrangement (vertical and horizontal). Considering the need to
546 A.D. Ariyanayagam, M. Mahendran / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 145 (2018) 529–551

include noggings for horizontal plasterboard joints, it appears that ver-
tical plasterboard joints are more suitable for this wall configuration.
Further, Test Panels T1 and T2 were made of 92 ∗ 0.55 and 92 ∗ 1.15
mm studs, and the test results show that the insulation failure time is
not affected by the steel stud thickness. The heat transfer across the cav-
ity from Fire Pb1-Cavity to Cavity-Amb Pb2 is mostly by radiation and
convection within the cavity than the conduction through the studs.
Fig. 20 shows the comparison of average plasterboard surface tem-
peratures across the test panels, mid-height lateral deflections and
stud hot flange temperature curves for Test Panels T1 and T2. As seen
in Fig. 20(a) the plasterboard surface temperatures across the wall
panel merged well with each other for the first 60 min of fire exposure.
However, a closer look at the Fire Pb1-Cavity and Cavity-Amb Pb2 sur-
face temperatures shows that fire test with noggings (T2) lagged behind
by 20 to 50 °C between 25 and 50 min during the fire test.
Fig. 20(b) shows that the lateral deflections of studs without nog-
gings (T1) showed higher deflections than studs with noggings (T2).
Gypsum plasterboard will become soft after the calcination process
and with stud laterally deflecting due to thermal bowing, the plaster-
boards will eventually fall-off. In load bearing wall panels, this behav-
iour will either remove the thermal barrier of the stud or will widen
the cracks in the fire side gypsum plasterboard and cause the stud tem-
peratures to rise rapidly, leading to the failure of the stud. Noggings will
restrain the lateral deflection of studs, and thus they will reduce the

Fire Pb1- Cavity

Cavity – Amb Pb2

Amb Pb2

(a) Average plasterboard temperatures

Stud 4 – T2
Stud 3 – T2

Stud 3 – T1

Stud 4 – T1

(b) Lateral displacement curves

Fig. 20. Effect of noggings using fire test results of T1 and T2.
 A.D. Ariyanayagam, M. Mahendran / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 145 (2018) 529–551 547

701oC

Stud 5 HF – T1
538oC Stud 3 HF – T1
Stud 4 HF – T1
589oC

Stud 2 HF – T2

402oC

Stud 3 HF – T2

(c) Stud hot flange temperatures

Note: Stud 3 HF – T2 thermocouple malfunctioned and did not record temperatures
Fig. 20 (continued).

lateral deflections, i.e. calcined fire side gypsum plasterboards will not
be disturbed as much as in fire tests without noggings. Also, higher lat-
eral deflection in studs cause the plasterboard joints to crack and open
up, leading to higher stud hot flange temperatures. This can be clearly
seen in Fig. 20(c), where the stud hot flange temperatures of stud with-
out noggings (T1) recorded higher temperatures than with noggings.
For instance, at 30 min the maximum stud temperatures were 538
and 402 °C (Stud 5 HF) in the studs without noggings and with noggings
(T1 and T2), respectively, and they were 701 and 589 °C at 60 min, i.e. a
difference in stud hot flange temperature of more than 100 °C. The stud
failures in load bearing walls are governed by the stud hot flange tem-
peratures as shown by past research studies [19,20], and simplified de-
sign equations to predict the axial compression capacity of studs at
elevated temperatures exist based on stud hot flange temperatures.
Therefore the use of noggings can provide higher FRLs for load bearing
walls than for non-load bearing walls as observed in Fire Tests T1 and
T2.
4.2. Effect of gypsum plasterboard thickness
Fire Test Panels T1 and T3 are lined with 13 and 16 mm thick
gypsum plasterboards, and Fig. 21 shows the comparison of time-
temperature curves of average plasterboard and stud hot flange tem-
peratures. As seen in Fig. 21(a) Test Panel T3 temperatures lagged be-
hind by nearly 30 min. 16 mm thick gypsum plasterboard delayed the
temperature rise across the wall, due to its longer dehydration time.
This is nearly 30 min. For instance, after the dehydration process
Cavity-Ambient Pb2 surface temperatures started to increase at about
47 min in 13 mm thick gypsum plasterboard lined wall (T1) and it
was 76 min in 16 mm gypsum plasterboard lined wall (T3) (Fig. 21
(a)). The delay in temperature rise of nearly 30 min continued until fail-
ure, thus Test Panels T1 and T3 failed at 60 and 94 min, respectively.
Therefore having an extra 3 mm thickness in the gypsum plasterboard
on each side of the stud increases the FRL by more than 30 min. Similar
behaviour is also observed with stud hot flange temperatures, with a
difference in stud hot flange temperatures of more than 100 °C. For in-
stance, 13 mm thick gypsum plasterboard lined wall stud hot flange
temperature was 701 °C at 30 min, and it was only 583 °C in 16 mm
thick board lined wall stud (Fig. 21(b)). Thus it can be concluded that
the use of thicker boards in wall panels significantly increases the wall
panel failure time.
Fig. 21(c) shows the insulation failure times as a function of plas-
terboard thickness based on the test results of T1, T3 and T5. It shows
the significant contribution the plasterboard thickness provides to the
fire resistance of LSF walls. When the total thickness was increased
from 16 to 32 mm by using two gypsum boards, the insulation
failure time increased by only 100 min, whereas it increased by 30 min
when single plasterboard thickness was increased from 13 to 16 mm.
With increasing fire exposure the fire side plasterboard loses its integrity
due to calcination process with crack formation and eventual fall-off,
allowing hot gases to penetrate the wall. When heat transfer occurs
from fire side to ambient side plasterboard layers, board thickness re-
duces on the fire side. Therefore in the walls lined with multiple layers
of plasterboard, all the layers do not provide the same level of thermal re-
sistance at a given time. Thus the insulation failure time does not in-
crease linearly with the use of multiple plasterboard layers or thicker
boards.
4.3. Effect of LSF wall configuration
Test Panels T3, T4 and T5 were lined with 16 mm thick gypsum plas-
terboards of single layer, single layer with cavity insulation and two
layers, respectively. When the results of cavity insulated wall fire test
(T4) were compared with those of uninsulated wall fire test (T3), insu-
lation failure time increased by only 12 min (T3 and T4 failure times are
94 and 106 min, respectively). Although the use of cavity insulation
548 A.D. Ariyanayagam, M. Mahendran / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 145 (2018) 529–551

increased the insulation failure time, it is only 12 min for single layer of
16 mm gypsum plasterboard lined walls. However, the use of cavity in-
sulation delayed the temperature rise across the wall and the ambient
plasterboard temperatures were well below the uninsulated wall until
the insulation failure. Cavity insulation retained and restrained the
heat transfer across the cavity depth. A significant difference was ob-
served between the temperatures of the cavity facing plasterboard sur-
faces (Fire Pb1-Cavity and Cavity-Amb Pb2) during the test. For
instance, the difference in cavity facing temperatures (Fire Pb1-Cavity
and Cavity-Amb Pb2) at 35 min was 422 °C (596–174 °C) in cavity insu-
lated wall and it was only 154 °C (382–228 °C) in the uninsulated wall.
This difference is due to the cavity insulation, as it traps the heat to the
fire side and prevents heat transfer to the ambient side plasterboards.
However, this is only possible until the insulation reaches their melting
point temperature. As seen in Fig. 22(a), Fire Pb1-Cavity gypsum
plasterboard surface temperatures remained about the same at
about 650 °C from 45 min to the end of the fire test, while the
Cavity-Amb Pb2 gypsum plasterboard surface temperatures in-
creased rapidly. This shows that when the cavity insulation (glass
fibre) temperature was about 650 °C, it started to melt and allowed
the hot gases to the ambient side of the wall. Thus after cavity insu-
lation started to melt, the temperature difference between the cavity

Fire Pb1 - Cavity

Cavity – Amb Pb2

~ 30 min
Amb Pb2

(a) Average plasterboard temperatures

o
701 C
Stud 2 HF – T2
Stud 5 HF – T1
Stud 3 HF – T1 Stud 4 HF – T2

Stud 5 HF – T2

o
583 C

(b) Stud hot flange temperatures

Fig. 21. Effect of gypsum plasterboard thickness using fire test results of T1 and T3.
 A.D. Ariyanayagam, M. Mahendran / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 145 (2018) 529–551
197 min
94 min
60 min
13 mm
(c) Plasterboard thickness vs insulation failure time
Fig. 21 (continued).
facing gypsum plasterboard surfaces reduced rapidly, and it was only
87 °C (678–591 °C) at 100 min in comparison with 422 °C (596–174
°C) recorded at 35 min (Fig. 22(a)). Therefore if a cavity insulation
with a higher melting temperature is used, higher insulation based
FRL could be achieved.
Further, comparison of the results of the single plasterboard
(T3) and double plasterboard lined wall fire tests show that the
failure time increased from 94 to 197 min, i.e. an increase of
more than 100 min. Fig. 22(b) shows the comparison of average
plasterboard temperatures. It shows that the use of two gypsum
plasterboards delayed the rapid increase in Fire Pb1-Cavity surface
temperatures significantly due to the prolonged dehydration pro-
cess. In single plasterboard lined wall panel (T3), Fire Pb1-Cavity
surface temperatures started to increase rapidly after 22 min and
this was after 64 min in double plasterboard lined wall (T5). The
use of another two layers of gypsum plasterboards on the ambient
side increased the above difference of 40 min further. This is clearly
noticeable from the ambient side plasterboard temperatures and
there was a 90 min delay in the double plasterboard lined wall
fire test to reach the same temperature in single plasterboard
lined wall panel (T3).
In summary, the use of noggings did not contribute to the fire re-
sistance of 3 m height non-load bearing LSF walls. However, it is ex-
pected to increase structural adequacy based FRL of load bearing
LSF walls. Further, having thicker plasterboard, cavity insulation and
two layers of gypsum plasterboard gave higher FRLs and their effects
were quantified.
5. Conclusions
Five full-scale fire tests of 3 m high non-load bearing gypsum plas-
terboard lined light gauge steel framed (LSF) walls were conducted.
549
32 mm
16 mm (2 layers of 16 mm)
The effects of LSF wall parameters such as gypsum plasterboard thick-
ness, noggings, cavity insulation and wall configurations on the fire re-
sistance were investigated and the following conclusions are drawn
from this study.
▪ The 3 m high non-load bearing LSF walls did not fail by either integ-
rity or structural adequacy criterion, instead their failures were
governed by insulation criterion.
▪ Cracking of ambient side gypsum plasterboards was not observed
until the end of the tests. Only the plasterboard joints opened up
at the end of the tests, but the insulation failure had occurred prior
to this.
▪ An increase of 3 mm in gypsum plasterboard thickness (13 to 16 mm)
provided an increase of 30 min in fire resistance level (FRL).
▪ Noggings did not provide any improvements to insulation based FRL,
but it has been shown that it will improve the structural adequacy
based FRL of load bearing walls.
▪ Glass fibre cavity insulation delayed the temperature rise of the
ambient side plasterboards, but increased the insulation FRL by only
12 min.
▪ Cavity insulation materials with higher melting temperatures such as
rockwool are required to achieve higher FRLs.
▪ Using two layers of 16 m thick gypsum plasterboard instead of one
layer increased the FRL by 100 min.
Fire test results from this study have provided an improved un-
derstanding of the thermal performance of 3 m high non-load bear-
ing LSF walls exposed to standard fire. These results have also
provided the necessary data to expand the investigation into the
fire behaviour of other non-load bearing LSF wall panels using ad-
vanced thermal finite element models calibrated using the fire test
results reported in this paper.
550 A.D. Ariyanayagam, M. Mahendran / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 145 (2018) 529–551

o
678 C o
o
602 C
596 C

o o
382 C 591 C

o
547 C

o
228 C
o
174 C

(a) Non-insulated vs cavity insulated with glass fibre walls – T3 vs T4

Fire Pb1 - Cavity

~ 90 min

Dehydration durations in
single and two layers Pb

Cavity – Amb Pb2

Amb Pb2

(b) Single vs two layers of plasterboard lined walls – T3 vs T5

Fig. 22. Effect of wall configuration using fire rest results of T3, T4 and T5.

Acknowledgements Technology (QUT) for providing the necessary research facilities and
support to conduct this research project, Kyoungsoo Go, Research Assis-
The authors would like to thank Australian Research Council tant, and QUT technical staff members for their assistance with fire
(LP130101043) for their financial support, Queensland University of testing.
 A.D. Ariyanayagam, M. Mahendran / Journal of Constructional Steel Research 145 (2018) 529–551
References
[1] Standards Australia, AS/NZS 1530.4-2014, Methods for Fire Tests on Building Mate-
rials, Components and Structures – Fire-Resistance Test of Elements of Construction,
2014 (Sydney, Australia).
[2] F. Alfawakhiri, Fire resistance of load bearing steel-stud walls protected with gyp-
sum board: a review, Fire. Technol 35 (4) (1999) 308–335.
[3] J.T.H. Gerlich, P.C.R. Collier, A.H. Buchanan, Design of light steel-framed walls for fire
resistance, Fire Mater. 20 (2) (1996) 79–96.
[4] B. Zhao, J. Kruppa, C. Renaud, M. O'Connor, E. Mecozzi, W. Apaizu, T. Demarco, P.
Karlstrom, U. Jumppanen, O. Kaitila, T. Oksanen, P. Salmi, Calculation Rules of Light-
weight Steel Sections in Fire Situations, Technical Steel Research, European Union,
2005.
[5] V.K.R. Kodur, M.A. Sultan, Factors influencing fire resistance of load-bearing steel
stud walls, Fire. Technol 42 (2006) 5–26.
[6] M. Feng, Y.C. Wang, J. Davies, Thermal performance of cold-formed thin-walled steel
panel systems in fire, Fire Saf. J. 38 (4) (2003) 365–394.
[7] S. Gunalan, P.N. Kolarkar, M. Mahendran, Experimental study of load bearing cold-
formed steel wall systems under fire conditions, Thin-Walled Struct. 65 (2013)
72–92.
[8] A.D. Ariyanayagam, M. Mahendran, Fire tests of load bearing steel stud walls
exposed to real building fires, Proceedings of the 7th International Confer-
ence on Structures in Fire, 6–8 June, 2012, Zurich, Switzerland 2012,
pp. 105–114.
[9] A.D. Ariyanayagam, S. Kesawan, M. Mahendran, Detrimental effects of plasterboard
joints on the fire resistance of light gauge steel frame walls, Thin-Walled Struct. 107
(2016) 597–611.
[10] S. Kesawan, M. Mahendran, Fire tests of load bearing LSF walls made of hollow
flange channel sections, J. Constr. Steel Res. 155 (2015) 191–205.
[11] W. Chen, J. Ye, Yu. Bai, X. Zhao, Full-scale fire experiments on load-bearing cold-
formed steel walls lined with different panels, J. Constr. Steel Res. 79 (2012)
242–254.
551
[12] M. Feng, Y.C. Wang, An analysis of the structural behaviour of axially loaded full-
scale cold-formed thin-walled steel structural panels under fire conditions, Thin-
Walled Struct. 43 (2005) 291–332.
[13] S. Gunalan, M. Mahendran, Development of improved fire design rules for cold-
formed steel wall systems, J. Constr. Steel Res. 88 (2013) 339–362.
[14] A.D. Ariyanayagam, M. Mahendran, Fire design rules for load bearing cold-formed
steel frame walls exposed to realistic design fire curves, Fire Saf. J. 77 (2015) 1–20.
[15] S. Kesawan, M. Mahendran, Predicting the performance of LSF walls made of hollow
flange channel sections in fire, Thin-Walled Struct. 98 (A) (2016) 111–126.
[16] A. Shahbazian, Y.C. Wang, A simplified approach for calculating temperatures in ax-
ially loaded cold-formed thin-walled steel studs in wall panel assemblies exposed to
fire from one side, Thin-Walled Struct. 64 (2013) 60–72.
[17] P.N. Kolarkar, M. Mahendran, Experimental studies of non-load bearing steel wall
systems under fire conditions, Fire Saf. J. 53 (2012) 85–104.
[18] Y. Wang, C. Ying-Ji, C. Lin, The performance of calcium silicate board partition fire-
proof drywall assembly with junction box under fire, J. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 125
(2015) 1–12.
[19] F. Liu, F. Fu, Y. Wang, Q. Liu, Fire performance of non-load bearing light-gauge slot-
ted steel stud walls, J. Constr. Steel Res. 137 (2017) 228–241.
[20] A.M. Sultan, A model for predicting heat transfer through non-insulated unloaded
steel-stud gypsum board wall assemblies exposed to fire, Fire. Technol 32 (3)
(1996) 239–259.
[21] G. Thomas, Modelling thermal performance of gypsum plasterboard lined light tim-
ber frame walls using SAFIR and TASEF, Fire Mater. 34 (8) (2010) 385–406.
[22] P. Collier, A model for predicting the fire-resisting performance of small-scale cavity
walls in realistic fires, Fire. Technol 32 (2) (1996) 120–136.
[23] A.D. Ariyanayagam, P. Keerthan, M. Mahendran, Thermal modelling of load bearing
cold-formed steel frame walls under realistic design fire conditions, Adv. Steel
Constr. 13 (2) (2017) 160–189.
[24] A.D. Ariyanayagam, M. Mahendran, Development of realistic design fire time-
temperature curves for the testing of cold-formed steel wall systems, Front. Struct.
Civ. Eng. J. 8 (4) (2014) 427–447.