Behaviour of LSF floor systems with improved joist sections under fire conditions

Fire safety design of buildings is essential to safeguard lives and minimize the loss of damage to properties. Light-weight cold-formed steel channel sections along with fire resistive plasterboards are used to construct light gauge steel frame floor systems to provide the required fire resistance rating. However, simply adding more plasterboard layers is not an efficient method to increase FRR. Hence this research focuses on using joists with improved joist section profiles such as hollow flange sections to increase the structural capacity of floor systems under fire conditions and thus their FRR. In this research, the structural and thermal behaviour of LSF floor systems made of LiteSteel Beams with different plasterboard and insulation configurations was investigated using four full scale tests under standard fires. Based on the ultimate failure load of the floor joist at ambient temperature, transient state fire tests were conducted for different Load Ratios. These fire tests showed that the new LSF floor system has improved the FRR well above that of those made of lipped channel sections. The joist failure was predominantly due to local buckling of LSB compression flanges near mid-span with severe yielding of tension flanges. Fire tests have provided valuable structural and thermal performance data of tested floor systems that included time-temperature profiles, and failure times and temperatures. Average failure temperatures of LSB joists and reduced yield strengths were used to predict their ultimate moment capacities, which were compared with corresponding test capacities. This allowed an assessment in relation to the accuracy of current design rules for steel joists at elevated temperatures. This paper presents the details of full scale fire tests of LSF floor systems made of LSB joists with different plasterboard and insulation configurations and their results along with some important findings.

Static load bearing exercises during rehabilitation of individuals with transfemoral amputation fitted with osseointegrated implant: Load compliance

Osseointegration has been introduced in the orthopaedic surgery in the 1990’s in Gothenburg (Sweden). To date, there are two frequently used commercially available human implants: the OPRA (Integrum, Sweden) and ILP (Orthodynamics, Germany) systems. The rehabilitation program with both systems include some form of static load bearing exercises. These latter involved following a load progression that is monitored by the bathroom scale, providing only the load applied on the vertical axis. The loading data could be analysed through different biomechanical variables. For instance, the load compliance, corresponding to the difference between the load recommended (LR) and the load actually applied on the implant, will be presented here.

Description of body posture during Static load bearing exercises for individuals with transfemoral amputation fitted with bone-anchored prosthesis

The rehabilitation programs of bone-anchorage prostheses relying either on the OPRA (Integrum, Sweden) or the ILP (Orthodynamics, Germany) fixation involve some forms of static load bearing exercises (LBE). So far, most of biomechanical studies of these static LBEs focused on the direct measurements of the actual forces and moments applied on the OPRA fixation of individuals with transfemoral amputation (TFA). To date, the proof-of-concept of an apparatus to conduct these kinetic measurements has been presented, along with some preliminary data. The understanding of the kinetic data is essential to improve rehabilitation programs as well as the design of upcoming loading frames. However, kinetic information alone is difficult to interpret without concomitant kinematic data. The purpose of this preliminary study was to introduce a qualitative analysis describing the different body postures during LBE for a group of TFAs.

Load bearing exercises and functional outcome of individuals with transfemoral amputation fitted with OPRA fixation

Individuals with lower limb amputation fitted with an OPRA osseointegrated fixation are facing an extensive rehabilitation program including static load bearing exercises (LBE). The application of a suitable amount of stress stimulates osseointegration and prepares the bone to tolerate the forces and moments that will be incurred during activities of daily living (ADL. At present, the monitoring is typically carried out using a normal bathroom weighing scale. This scale provides information only on the magnitude of the vertical component of the applied force. The moment around the long axis of the fixation when the femur is perpendicular to the ground is not assessed and neither are the components of force and moment generated on the other two axes.

Static load bearing exercises during rehabilitation of individuals with transfemoral amputation fitted with osseointegrated implant: Kinetic analysis

The desire to solve problems caused by socket prostheses in transfemoral amputees and the acquired success of osseointegration in the dental application has led to the introduction of osseointegration in the orthopedic surgery. Since its first introduction in 1990 in Gothenburg Sweden the osseointegrated (OI) orthopedic fixation has proven several benefits[1]. The surgery consists of two surgical procedures followed by a lengthy rehabilitation program. The rehabilitation program after an OI implant includes a specific training period with a short training prosthesis. Since mechanical loading is considered to be one of the key factors that influence bone mass and the osseointegration of bone-anchored implants, the rehabilitation program will also need to include some form of load bearing exercises (LBE). To date there are two frequently used commercially available human implants. We can find proof in the literature that load bearing exercises are performed by patients with both types of OI implants. We refer to two articles, a first one written by Dr. Aschoff and all and published in 2010 in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery.[2] The second one presented by Hagberg et al in 2009 gives a very thorough description of the rehabilitation program of TFA fitted with an OPRA implant. The progression of the load however is determined individually according to the residual skeleton’s quality, pain level and body weight of the participant.[1] Patients are using a classical bathroom weighing scale to control the load on the implant during the course of their rehabilitation. The bathroom scale is an affordable and easy-to-use device but it has some important shortcomings. The scale provides instantaneous feedback to the patient only on the magnitude of the vertical component of the applied force. The forces and moments applied along and around the three axes of the implant are unknown. Although there are different ways to assess the load on the implant for instance through inverse dynamics in a motion analysis laboratory [3-6] this assessment is challenging. A recent proof- of-concept study by Frossard et al (2009) showed that the shortcomings of the weighing scale can be overcome by a portable kinetic system based on a commercial transducer[7].

Static load bearing exercises of individuals with transfemoral amputation fitted with an osseointegrated implant: Reliability of kinetic data

This study aimed at presenting the intra-tester reliability of the static load bearing exercises (LBEs) performed by individuals with transfemoral amputation (TFA) fitted with an osseointegrated implant to stimulate the bone remodelling process. There is a need for a better understanding of the implementation of these exercises particularly the reliability. The intra-tester reliability is discussed with a particular emphasis on inter-load prescribed, inter-axis and inter-component reliabilities as well as the effect of body weight normalisation. Eleven unilateral TFAs fitted with an OPRA implant performed five trials in four loading conditions. The forces and moments on the three axes of the implant were measured directly with an instrumented pylon including a six-channel transducer. Reliability of loading variables was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and percentage standard error of measurement values (%SEMs). The ICCs of all variables were above 0.9 and the %SEM values ranged between 0 and 87%. This study showed a high between-participants’ variance highlighting the lack of loading consistency typical of symptomatic population as well as a high reliability between the loading sessions indicating a plausible correct repetition of the LBE by the participants. However, these outcomes must be understood within the framework of the proposed experimental protocol.

Loading compliance of static load bearing exercises performed by transfemoral amputees fitted with an osseointegrated implant

Background To date bone-anchored prostheses are used to alleviate the concerns caused by socket suspended prostheses and to improve the quality of life of transfemoral amputees (TFA). Currently, two implants are commercially available (i.e., OPRA (Integrum AB, Sweden), ILP (Orthodynamics GmbH, Germany)). [1-17]The success of the OPRA technique is codetermined by the rehabilitation program. TFA fitted with an osseointegrated implant perform progressive mechanical loading (i.e. static load bearing exercises (LBE)) to facilitate bone remodelling around the implant.[18, 19] Aim This study investigated the trustworthiness of monitoring the load prescribed (LP) during experimental static LBEs using the vertical force provided by a mechanical bathroom scale that is considered a surrogate of the actual load applied. Method Eleven unilateral TFAs fitted with an OPRA implant performed five trials in four loading conditions. The forces and moments on the three axes of the implant were measured directly with an instrumented pylon including a six-channel transducer. The “axial” and “vectorial” comparisons corresponding to the difference between the force applied on the long axis of the fixation and LP as well as the resultant of the three components of the load applied and LP, respectively were analysed Results For each loading condition, Wilcoxon One-Sample Signed Rank Tests were used to investigate if significant differences (p<0.05) could be demonstrated between the force applied on the long axis and LP, and between the resultant of the force and LP. The results demonstrated that the raw axial and vectorial differences were significantly different from zero in all conditions (p<0.05), except for the vectorial difference for the 40 kg loading condition (p=0.182). The raw axial difference was negative for all the participants in every loading condition, except for TFA03 in the 10 kg condition (11.17 N). Discussion & Conclusion This study showed a significant lack of axial compliance. The load applied on the long axis was significantly smaller than LP in every loading condition. This led to a systematic underloading of the long axis of the implant during the proposed experimental LBE. Monitoring the vertical force might be only partially reflective of the actual load applied, particularly on the long axis of the implant.

Automated topometric graph generation from floor plan analysis

The world is rich with information such as signage and maps to assist humans to navigate. We present a method to extract topological spatial information from a generic bitmap floor plan and build a topometric graph that can be used by a mobile robot for tasks such as path planning and guided exploration. The algorithm first detects and extracts text in an image of the floor plan. Using the locations of the extracted text, flood fill is used to find the rooms and hallways. Doors are found by matching SURF features and these form the connections between rooms, which are the edges of the topological graph. Our system is able to automatically detect doors and differentiate between hallways and rooms, which is important for effective navigation. We show that our method can extract a topometric graph from a floor plan and is robust against ambiguous cases most commonly seen in floor plans including elevators and stairwells.