Mitigation of Blast Load Risk on Reinforced Concrete Structures Considering Different Design Alternatives
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
The purpose of this study is to investigate a structure’s response to blast loading when composite columns are used instead of conventional reinforced concrete (RC) cross sections and when a conventional structure is retrofitted with braces. The study includes conducting dynamic analyses on three different structures: a conventional reference RC structure, a modified structure utilizing composite columns, and a modified structure retrofitted with steel braces. The two modified structures were designed in order to investigate their performance when subjected to blast loading compared to the conventional design. During the dynamic analyses, the structures were exposed to simulated blast loads of multiple intensities using the finite-element modelling software, SeismoStruct. To evaluate their performance, the responses of the modified structures were analyzed and compared with the response of the conventional structure. It was concluded that both the structure with composite columns and the steel brace structure experienced less damage than the conventional model. The best performance was obtained through the steel brace structure.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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