Structural and fire behaviour of a new light gauge steel wall system

Fire design is an essential element of the overall design procedure of structural steel members and systems. Conventionally the fire rating of load-bearing stud wall systems made of light gauge steel frames (LSF) is based on approximate prescriptive methods developed on the basis of limited fire tests. This design is limited to standard wall configurations used by the industry. Increased fire rating is provided simply by adding more plasterboards to the stud walls. This is not an acceptable situation as it not only inhibits innovation and structural and cost efficiencies but also casts doubt over the fire safety of these light gauge steel stud wall systems. Hence a detailed fire research study into the performance and effectiveness of a recently developed innovative composite panel wall system was undertaken at Queensland University of Technology using both full scale fire tests and numerical studies. Experimental results of LSF walls using the new composite panels under axial compression load have shown the improvement in fire performance and fire resistance rating. Numerical analyses are currently being undertaken using the finite element program ABAQUS. Measured temperature profiles of the studs are used in the numerical models and the results are used to calibrate against full scale test results. The validated model will be used in a detailed parametric study with an aim to develop suitable design rules within the current cold-formed steel structures and fire design standards. This paper will present the results of experimental and numerical investigations into the structural and fire behaviour of light gauge steel stud walls protected by the new composite panel. It will demonstrate the improvements provided by the new composite panel system in comparison to traditional wall systems.

Children, young people and their social and spatial citizenship rights

The use of public space by children and young people is a contentious issue in a number of developed and developing countries and a range of measures are frequently deployed to control the public space which usually deny the rights of children and young people to claim the space for their use. Child and youth curfews, oppressive camera surveillance and the unwarranted attentions of police and private security personnel as control measures in public space undermine attempts to secure greater participation by children and young people in constructing positive strategies to address concerns that impact on them and others in a local area. Evidence from research in Scotland undertaken by Article 12 (2000) suggests that young people felt strongly that they did not count in local community matters and decision making and the imposition on them of a curfew by the adult world of the local area created resentment both at the harshness of the measure and disappointment at an opportunity lost to be consulted and involved in dealing with perceived problems of the locality. This is an important cluster of linked issues as Brown (1998:116) argues that young people are ‘selectively constructed as “problem” and “other” with their concerns marginalised, their lifestyles problematised and their voices subdued’, and this flows into their use of public space as their claims to its use as an aspect of social citizenship are usually cast as inferior or rejected as they ‘stand outside the formal polity’ as ‘non persons’. This has major implications for the ways in which young people view their position in a community as many report a feeling of not being wanted, valued or tolerated. The ‘youth question’ according to Davis (1990) acts as a form of ‘screen’ on which observers and analysts project hopes and fears about the state of society, while in the view of Loader (1996:89) the ‘question of young people’ sits within a discourse comprising two elements, the one being youth, particularly young males, as the ‘harbinger of often unwelcome social change and threat’ and the other element ‘constructs young people as vulnerable’. This discourse of threat is further exemplified in the separation of children from teenagers as Valentine (1996) suggests, the treatment of younger children using public space is often dramatically different to that of older children and the most feared stage of all, 'youth'