Use of reinforced rigid polyurethane foam for blast hazard mitigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents the development of a cost-effective lightweight protection technique for explosives transporting container and storage facilities employing surface-mounted Rigid Polyurethane Foam (RPF) plates. Different RPF specimens were prepared with different densities and sand particle reinforcement ratios ranging between 0% (unreinforced) and 30%. Mechanical properties characterization was conducted to optimize an RPF formulation to be tested under blast loading using different experimental techniques. Explosive scaling laws were utilized to relate indoor blast test results (performed with small explosive charges) to real-life blast scenarios. Small RDX explosive charges were placed and detonated inside RPF specimens to correlate the size of the resulting cavity to the explosive charge weight and the RPF density. Another set of experiments were conducted to evaluate the maximum deformation depth of lead witness plates resulting from blast waves. In these latter experiments, explosive charges were mounted on the free surface of RPF plates. In general, test results demonstrated the capability of reinforced RPF as a light weight cost-effective technique to mitigate blast load hazard.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".