MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969409138 · doi:10.1680/jstbu.18.00223

Contact explosion response of RC columns: experimental and numerical investigation

2019· article· en· W2969409138 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Structures and Buildings · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Response to Dynamic Loads
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExplosive materialParametric statisticsStructural engineeringSlabResidualDemolitionMaterials scienceReinforced concreteEngineeringComputer scienceMathematicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is limited experimental test data available on the response of concrete columns subjected to contact explosions. Columns are the most vulnerable and critical member in any structure and are at risk of contact explosion attacks using small quantities of explosives. A benchmark study for the response of full-scale reinforced concrete (RC) columns subjected to live contact explosions of varying charge mass is presented in this paper. Quantitative and qualitative assessments of damage profiles and the residual axial load capacity of the columns are presented. The experimental data were used to establish a set of validated numerical LS-Dyna models that were used for parametric studies to establish the influence of various design parameters on the response. The results of the parametric studies showed that the demolition charge mass for an RC column is considerably lower than the breaching charge mass for an RC slab of the same depth and material properties. Concrete strength was found to have a limited influence on the residual axial capacity of blast-damaged columns.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.587

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it