Response of Anchored and Embedded Reinforced Concrete Barriers Subjected to Blast Loads
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
Protecting important buildings and preserving human lives is an essential requirement in present era as explosions represent a real danger which must be confronted.Current study analyzes the behavior of different eight (8) reinforced concrete barriers subjected to blast loads.The models are divided into barriers anchored in the base and barriers with a base embedded into soil.In addition, the models feature different geometries as there are concave barriers with front angles 49 and 58.Also, different weights of TNT charges 450 kg, and 1800 kg are used.The study concluded that anchored barriers subjected to TNT charge of 450 kg, barriers with a front angle 49 have the best performance in terms of the pressure values behind the barrier.These barriers have approximately 61% lower pressure values at the center point of barrier back compared to other types of barriers.The best performance is for barrier with front angle 58 in case of TNT charge weighted 1800 kg.These barriers have approximately 41% lower pressure values at the bottom point of the barrier back compared to other types of barriers.In case of embedded barriers, the performance of barriers having front angle 58 is better than the other barriers in case of TNT charge of 450kg.These barriers have approximately 49% lower pressure values at the center point of barrier back compared to other types of barriers.In case of TNT charge of 1800kg the best performance was for barriers having front angle 58.These barriers have approximately 52% lower pressure values at the center point of barrier back compared to other types of barriers.Overall, the embedded barriers demonstrate a better performance rather than the anchored barriers across all TNT charges from pressure values behind the barrier perspective.
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