Damage level assessment of response limits in light-frame wood stud walls subjected to blast loading
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently, no systematic approach exists for damage evaluation of light-frame wood structures subjected to blast loading. This paper presents a detailed assessment of the behaviour of 33 full-scale light-frame wood stud walls subjected to a total of 48 shots of simulated blast loading. Detailed documentation of the observed damage allowed for the development of an accurate evaluation strategy of the response limits. The observed response limits are compared to limits derived from single-degree-of-freedom modelling using scaled pressure–impulse diagrams and to current code performance levels. It was concluded that the assumption made in contemporary blast design codes overestimates the ductility ratios for light-frame wood stud walls, and that using a maximum ductility of 2 is more appropriate and safer for blast design. Based on the observed damage levels obtained from the experimental study, the authors propose new ductility ratios corresponding to four damage regions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it