Blast-Resistant Window Anchors. II: Numerical Investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A combined experimental and analytical investigation was conducted at the University of Ottawa to assess the performance of blast-resistant window retention anchors to generate design information. The experimental phase of research involved 46 full-scale window tests with different parameters. The analytical investigation included numerical modeling and dynamic analysis of windows to expand the experimental results and to assess the significance of design parameters. Computer software LS-DYNA was selected for the analyses. Analytical models of selected test windows with aspect ratios of 1.0 and 3.0 anchored on structural steel, reinforced concrete, concrete block masonry, and stone masonry substrates were modeled. The models were validated against experimental data. Additional windows with aspect ratios of 1.5 and 2.0 were also modeled for investigation. The models were used to conduct a parametric investigation with the parameters consisting of substrate flexibility, anchor fixity conditions, window size and aspect ratio, frame rigidity, number and spacing of anchors, and the threat level as defined by reflected pressure-impulse combinations. The significance of each parameter is illustrated with emphasis placed on the magnitude of anchor shear and tension design forces. The distribution of anchor forces is obtained numerically. Anchor forces and distributions are compared with those observed experimentally. Design force distribution along the perimeter of window frames is recommended for use in design. The paper provides the results of numerical simulations illustrating the significance of design parameters on anchor design force levels and their distributions.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".