Façade failure effects on blast propagation along city streets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In assessing the potential hazard to buildings and people in a city landscape, it is usual to assume that building façades are perfectly rigid reflecting surfaces. This is an attractive assumption because it results in conservative estimations of impulse loads at locations remote from the explosion. Similarly, it enables both small-scale physical modelling and numerical simulation to be performed without the need for structural prototypes or response calculations. However, close to the source of an explosion, damage to building façades can be devastating. It is not unusual for all the glazing elements, light cladding and architectural features to be completely removed, leaving only the steel or reinforced concrete skeleton of the building. Because this region of devastation allows blast to enter the building, pressures and impulses experienced at locations further down the street in which the building is located will be reduced. The extent and significance, or otherwise, of any reduction is difficult to quantify as is the intensity of the blast that enters the building by way of the failed façade. The investigation presented in this paper has two complementary components. In the first part it is assumed that light, non-structural elements (such as windows) close to the source of an explosion, break instantly on detonation, and they do not impede the passage of the blast into the affected buildings. This approach allows the blast to propagate both through the buildings nearby, as well as along the street, or streets, in the vicinity of the building. In the second part, a complete building (forming part of a street of buildings) is studied. This building has frangible façade elements, separate floors, side and rear walls and a roof. The blast that enters the building is measured at locations on the central ‘core’ of the building. From the first part of the study, reduction in blast impulse resulting from the ingress into adjacent buildings has been quantified by both small-scale experiments and numerical simulations in which the proportion of façade removed from the buildings (termed ‘building porosity’) was varied systematically. A similar approach is used in the second part, where blast has entered the building, to assess the effects on blast resultants both when the walls of the building remain in place and when they are removed (corresponding to a low level of wall ‘robustness’). For the first part, results are presented in the form of impulse against scaled distance for various degrees of porosity and are compared with the performance of rigid façades. For the second part comparisons of the blast environment are made for different façade configurations and different levels of behind-façade confinement.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".