Design Procedures and Details For Reinforced CR in ES

PARTV.
DESIGN
AND CONSTRUCTIONOF PROTECTIVE
STRUCTURES
DESIGN PROCEDURES AND DETAILS FOR
REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURES UTILIZED
IN EXPLOSIVE STORAGE A N D MANUFACTURING FACILITIES*
E. Cohen and N. Dobbs

Ammann and Whitney
Consulting Engineers
New York. N . Y .
INTRODUCTION
Over the last 60 years, criteria and methods based upon the results of catas-
trophic events, have been used for the design of high explosive storage and
manufacturing facilities. These criteria and methods did not include a detailed
or reliable quantitative basis for assessing the degree of protection afforded by
the protected facility and, therefore, extensive research and development pro-
grams have been undertaken to establish adequate procedures for current and
future design requirements.
Modern methods of manufacturing and storing explosives and explosive mate-
rials which include many common and exotic chemicals, fuels, and propellants,
allow less space for a given quantity of material than previously permitted. Such
concentrations of explosive materials increases the possibility of propagation,
where one accidental explosion initiates detonatoin of other explosive materials.
It is evident that a requirement for more accurate design techniques has become
essential. This paper describes a rational method of design for structural protec-
tion and corroboratory test data.
This method accounts for the close-in effects of a detonation, including asso-
ciated high pressures and nonuniformity of the blast loading on a protective
structure or barrier. The dynamic response of reinforced concrete structures is
calculated and details developed to provide the properties necessary to supply
the proper strength and ductility. Development of these procedures was directed
primarily towards blast load analysis and protective barrier design for explosive
systems contained in cubicle-t) pe structures. However, this approach is general
and has application to design for other explosive environments as well. Addi-
tional testing and analysis is presently underway to more fully define the blast
environment and/or the structural response.
EXPLOSIVE PROTECTIVE SYSTEM
The three components of an explosive protective system that must be defined
in order to assess the safety of the overall system (FIGURE1 ) include: ( 1 ) the
donor system (explosive material) which produces the damaging output; (2) the
protective structure, walls and/or distances which reduce the donor output to
a tolerable level; and, (3) the acceptor system, which may be personnel, valuable
equipment, or other explosives.
The potential output of the donor system includes blast pressures, primary
missiles from the casing, and secondary effects, consisting of heat and electro-
magnetic pulse. The pressures are the most significant factor in the design of a
protective structure. However, fragmenp may be of equal importance in the
The design techniques reported here have been developed by Ammann & Whitney under
Contract DA-28-017-AMC423(A) with Picatinny Arsenal as part of their Supporting Safety
Studies Program for the Armed Services Explosive Safety Board.
452
Cohen & Dobbs: Design Procedures and Details 453
0 BARRIERS
& STRUCTURE
maowm ACCLPTOR
LWlPYtNl CWOZ
454 Annals New York Academy of Sciences
design of the entire system. Secondary effects are seldom governing factors in
a design.
Depending upon the mass of the intervening concrete, high-velocity, heavy-
primary fragments may penetrate or be ricocheted to the acceptor side of a
barrier. Lightweight fragments seldom penetrate through a concrete barrier,
although in many cases they may ricochet beyond the barrier and thereby
damage the acceptor systems. Therefore, to provide protection against primary
missiles, sufficient concrete thickness must be provided to prevent full penetra-
tion, and the configuration of the facility must be designed to prevent fragments
from ricocheting in the direction of the acceptor.
Analytical treatment of blast effects varies with the location of the structure
relative to the explosion. For close-in effects, where the pressures acting on the
protective structure are extremely high and are further amplified due to their
reflection by the barrier, the structure may be designed for dynamic impulse
loading rather than for the peak pressures, as required for the relatively long-
duration associated with nuclear explosions. Protective structures more distant
from an explosion (far-range) may be sensitive to both the pressures and im-
pulse associated with the blast output or to pressure alone. The structural sensi-
tivity will depend on the magnitude and duration of the applied blast loads, and
on the response of the structure to these loads. The dynamic characteristics of
individual elements of a structure may differ. Therefore, some elements of the
structure may be affected by both the pressures and impulse whereas other
elements are sensitive to the pressure only. Pressure-sensitive protective struc-
tures may be designed using procedures developed for structures to resist the
effects of a nuclear explosion.
Protective structures may be classified as: (1) shelters, and (2) barriers. Pro-
tective shelters are used to house personnel and/or valuable equipment, while
barriers are used for protection of explosives and other items against direct
effects of missiles and pressures.
Shelters are defined as structures enclosing the personnel or other items that
require protection. Entrances and other openings may be sealed with blast door,
blast valves, and shields, and, depending on the traffic flow, they may require
blast locks. Criteria for protected openings will depend on the magnitude of the
pressure acting on the structure, the location of the openings in the structure
relative to the explosion, the size of the openings, the pressure fill-time within the
structure, and the sensitivity of the inhabitants and equipment.
Barriers may be either simple barricades (cantilever walls) or cubicles where
one or more surfaces of the structure are open to the atmosphere or frangible.
Igloos (earth covered magazine) and below-ground silos with open or frangible
roofs may also be classified as barriers. Because these structures are usually used
in the storing, manufacturing, or processing of explosives or explosive materials,
they will be subjected to the close-in loadings of the blast output.
In this paper, primary consideration will be given to the response of protective
structure to close-in blast effects of high-explosive detonations, with particular
emphasis towards explosions in cubicle-type structures. The donor and acceptor
systems are discussed only as they relate to the protective structure portion of the
explosive system.
Blast Environment of Explosive Materials
Explosive materials may be classified according to their physical state, as (1)
solids, ( 2 ) liquids, and ( 3 ) gases. Solid explosives are primarily high-explosives,
although other materials such as fertilizers, chemicals, propellants, etc., may
also be classified as potential explosive materials. Liquids and gaseous explosives
will encompass a wide variety of materials used in the manufacture of chemicals,
fuels, pharmaceutical products, propellants, etc. The blast environments will
not only vary among the different materials but may also differ for any one par-
ticular material. Such factors as methods and procedures used for the manu-
facture, storage and handling, in addition to specific individual physical and
chemical characteristics may alter the blast output of an explosive material.
Of all, the blast environment for solid materials is best known. This is particu-
larly true for high-explosive materials. Here, the blast pressures, impulse, dura-
tions and other parameters of the blast output have been well established. These
parameters are contained in many references, of which Reference 1 is one.
Unlike high-explosive materials, other solid, liquid and gaseous explosive
materials will exhibit a variation of their explosive output environment. A deto-
nation of these materials will in many cases be incomplete, with the initial reac-
tion not proceeding throughout the material. This discontinuance is produced by
physical and chemical properties of the material, including its bimolecular struc-
ture, combining of the various physical states, ineffective combining of the fuel
and oxidizer, etc. Tests of some propellant liquids and hydrocarbon mixtures
have indicated that the equivalent concentrated yield is approximately constant
except for the close-in ranges, where it decreases for the peak pressure variation
and may increase for the total positive phase impulse variation.
Quite often, only a small amount of the mass of an explosive material will be
involved in the detonation process, the remainder being consumed by deflagra-
tion. Therefore, a large amount of the material's chemical energy will be dissi-
pated as thermal energy, resulting in the formation of a large fireball.
In general, no clear-cut high-explosive equivalent may be utilized to define
the blast output of explosive materials other than high-explosives. Each material,
in its own environment, should be analyzed and then related to the output of a
high-explosive at the range of interest to obtain its equivalent. For blast-resistant
design, the equivalent should be based on a pressure-impulse relationship.
DESIGN
BASISFOR STRUCTURAL
Modes of Structural Response
The response and the required dynamic resistance of a protective structure
and its elements to an explosive loading depends on, (1) the properties of the
donor system, (2) the sensitivity of the acceptor system, and (3) the physical
properties and configuration of the structure itself. The donor system determines
the loading on the structure's surfaces, whereas the acceptor system and the
physical characteristics of the structure govern. the required resistance to the
applied loads. The protective capabilities can be expressed in terms of two modes
of response of the structure: (1) the ability to deflect under the applied loads
(ductile mode), and (2) a brittle mode, which is awociated with partial or total
failure of the structure.
Examination of the results of previous t e ~ t s ~of, ~conventionally
,~ reinforced
concrete full- and scale-model cubicles and slabs indicated that the individual
elements were able to undergo deflections of less than one-fiftieth of their spans
with well defined cracking (FIGURE 2a) before collapse and fragmentation (FIG
URES 2a and b). The magnitude of the deflection prior to failure (FIGURE 3) and
the type of failure were found to be a function of the type, amount, and details
of the reinforcing steel. It was observed that when the elements involved rein-
FIGURE 2. Dynamic failure of Concrete. (a) Cracking of leeward (acceptor) surface of

slap. (b) and (c) Propagation of concrete fragments. Elapsed time (a) to ( c ) : 7 milliseconds.
forcement of the design used for a standard Substantial Dividing Wall5 (herein-
after referred to as Standard Wall), the ductility of this steel, and therefore the
ductility of the individual members (their ability to deform) was not fully de-
veloped to the ultimate capacity. As a result of the limited deflection, less energy
absorption (area under the resistance-deflection curve, (FIGURE 3) occurred prior
to failure.) Moreover, a major portion of the fragments were small, indicating
spalling of the concrete cover over the reinforcement and a break-up of the
concrete (FIGURE 5) between the tension and compression layers of the reinforce-
ment. This fragmentation of the concrete contributed to the reduction in ductility
and eventually resulted in total collapse. It may be noted that, in these tests,
elements with welded wire fabric reinforcement exhibited brittle failure (FIGURE
6) and smaller deflections prior to failure than those elements which utilized
hot-rolled reinforcing bars or annealed wire. This reduced deflection was at-
tributed to the decreased ductility of the cold-drawn wire fabric compared to
the ductility of the other types of reinforcement. Also, a strength reduction of the
reinforcement at the heat-affected zones of the steel adjacent to the welds of the
fabric, contributed to a decrease in the energy absorbed before failure.
To fully develop a ductile response mode, relatively large bending strains
(both tension and compression) must be developed. To assure this behavior,
sufficient amounts of reinforcement, properly detailed, must be provided; other-
wise, failure will occur well below the ultimate energy capacity of the element.
.I
t
I I ,
DLTUCKWI
FIGURE
3. Resistance-deflection curve.
FIGURE
4. Undeveloped reinforcement.
5. Example of concrete break-up.

FIGURE
FIGURE 6. Failure characteristics of welded reinforcement: 1. Low ductility of reinforce-

ment; 2. Loss of strength in heat-affected zone adjacent to welds.
Also, unless adequate strength is afforded against the high shear stresses in the
region of the supports, the element may fail either in direct shear or diagonal
tension. In addition, high local shears exist at the interior portions of the elements
due to the nonuniformity of the applied impulse loads. If adequate reinforcement
is not provided, these shears may produce local failure of the elements, which
in turn will spread and endanger the integrity of the entire structure. It will be
shown that, with properly detailed reinforcement, local shear (punching) failure
can be obviated.
Spalling of the concrete surfaces and formation of concrete fragments may
result from blast overload (applied blast loads exceeding the capacity of the
element). Spalling results from a concrete tension failure (normal to the ele-
ment’s surface) and dynamic disengagement of the concrete cover over the
flexural reinforcement. Two types of spalling may occur, namely: (1) direct
spalling at the free surface, resulting from the reflection of the high pressures of
the shock wave being transmitted through the concrete, and (2) scabbing, pro-
duced by large strains in the flexural reinforcement.
Direct spalling is usually of concern only in those facilities where personnel
protection is required, because resulting fragments are usually small in mass,
with low velocities (50 fps or less). If the element’s velocity exceeds those
of the spalled fragments, the fragments will be accelerated by the motion of
the element. The velocities produced by this acceleration may be in the order of
several hundred feet per second or higher. These fragments than will be of
concern for both personnel and explosive acceptor protection. Velocities of
fragments formed by scabbing are not dependent upon the shock pressures
transmitted through the element; therefore, the scabbing fragment velocities
will be a function only of the accelerating effects of the element. Because the
scabbed fragments are produced by the large strains in the reinforcement, the
time to form these fragments after the initial onset of the blast pressures will be
longer than the formation time of the direct spalling fragment. During the time
interval between the formation of the two types of spall fragments, the element
will usually be decelerating, Therefore, the velocities of the scabbed fragments
will be less than the velocities of the direct spalling fragments produced by
the element’s acceleration. Fragments formed during total failure of a structure
may have velocities even higher than those of direct spalling and scabbed frag-
ments. Magnitudes may be in the order of thousands of feet per second,
depending on the magnitude of the blast overload.
New Construction Techniques

After the review of existing data, tentative design procedures were estab-
lished and a series of one-third-scale slabse and scaled-model cubicle^^.^ were
designed and tested. The data obtained from these tests provided a basis for
further development of the design and method of reinforcement.
To insure ductile action, full development of the flexural strength, and
reduction in the quantity and velocity of the concrete fragments of the
members used in this test, it was necessary to make a radical change in the
steel bar reinforcement from that specified for Standard Walls. The quantity
(size and numbers) of straight steel bars was substantially increased. The straight
bars on both faces of the wall and the intervening concrete were laced together
with continuous bent diagonal bars. The system of bent lacing (FIGURE 7a) was
developed for the following reasons: ( 1 ) to more fully develop the ductility of
the straight flexural steel, including the strain hardening region (FIGURE 3 ) ,
0. NEW METHOD OF REINFORCEMENT

USING LACING STEEL
b. TYPICAL WALL REINFORCEMENT

FicunE 7. Laced reinforcement.
(2) to maintain the integrity of the reinforced concrete cross section despite
severe cracking of the concrete, (3) to restrain the compression reinforcement
from buckling, ( 4 ) to resist high-shear stresses at the supports, ( 5 ) to prevent
local shear failure, and (6) to reduce the quantity and velocities of fragments.
The lacing reinforcement accomplished the first three of the above items
by tying together the straight bar flexural reinforcement on the two (tension
and compression) faces of the wall. Disengagement and outward buckling of
the flexural reinforcement is prevented by the lacing, which also confiines the
cracked concrete between the two outer layers of steel. This confinement of
the concrete also prevents inward buckling of the reinforcement in the com-
pression region of the elements after yield in the later stages of distortion.
The idealized Resistance-Deflection curve shown in FIGURE 3 illustrates the
results of installing lacing reinforcement to prevent premature failure.
The element is able to deflect, without loss of strength, until failure occurs
by rupture of the flexural reinforcement. With Standard Wall reinforcement,
cracking separation and dislodgment of the concrete from between the rein-
forcement layers and buckling of the compression steel produces failure of the
Cohen & Dobbs: Design Procedures and Details 46 1
element long before the ultimate strength of the reinforcement and the maximum
energy is attained. Minor reduction in the strength of an element may occur
even with laced reinforcement by crushing and/or spalling of the concrete in
the compression region of the element. As the concrete on the compression face
fails, the stresses are transferred from the concrete to the reinforcement with a
reduction in the internal lever arm. The magnitude of this strength reduction
is a function of the concrete cover. Therefore, by holding the concrete cover
over the s~eelto a minimum, this strength reduction is also minimized.
Unless adequate shear strength (equal to or greater than the flexural capacity)
is provided, failure (FIGURE 3 ) due to high shear stresses will occur at the
support of an element. Lacing reinforcement provides this required strength by
its own strength and by developing the dowel action of the flexural steel and the
remaining strength of the concrete. Extension of lacing reinforcement into the
supports (FIGURE 7b) affords the anchorage required to prevent diagonal tension
failure. Also, because of the continuity of the lacing, direct shear failure as may
8. Typical direct shear failure.

FIGURE
(-hint of Ym. Dofl.

9. Formation of plastic hinges.
FIGURE
occur between individual stirrups (discontinuous) is prevented. FIGURE8 illu-
strates a direct shear failure with individual loop stirrup reinforcement.
The continuity of the lacing reinforcement throughout the element also
provides resistance against the high shear stresses, caused by the nonuniformity
of the impulse loads, at the interior portions of the element.
The failure characteristics of an element with laced reinforcement differ from
those of elements without lacing reinforcement. The number and size of major
fragments for elements with laced reinforcement are determined from the
boundaries resulting from regions of maximum stress in the element, i.e., the
plastic hinges or yield lines formed after yield (FIGURES 3 and 9). After failure,
the sections between the hinge lines will usually remain intact. On the other
hand, in elements without lacing, fragments are usually in the form of concrete
rubble. Test results show that the maximum velocities of the larger failed
sections (intact between the hinges) are approximately equal to 20 to 50 percent
of the maximum velocity of the rubble where lacing is not used. Although some
small fragments are produced at the hinge lines, their volume is negligible in
comparison to that of the larger failed sections, and their velocities are con-
siderably less than the velocities of the rubble of unlaced elements.
Five specimens with lacing reinforcement and significantly larger amounts of
flexural reinforcement than used in Standard Walls were The first three
specimens were one-third-scale reinforced concrete slabs spanning in one direc-
tion while the fourth and fifth specimens were one-tenth-scale and one-eighth
scale cubicles, respectively. Specimens one, two and five illustrate full develop-
ment of the ductile response mode prior to failure, whereas specimens three and
FIGURE
10. Test results of reinforced concrete slab.
11. Test results of composite slab.

FIGURE
four are examples of the mechanism by which laced-reinforced elements fail.

Specimen one (FIGURE 10) developed a large deflection (11 inches, or 46%
of span) at the center, on a two-foot span. Both the reinforcement and the
interior concrete remained intact, although scabbing did occur at both surfaces
of the slab. Plastic hinges were formed at both supports and at the center of the
slab. Because the specimen was unrestrained at its ends, it moved inward towards
its center resulting in the large deflection-to-span ratio. With monolithic con-
struction, the lateral movement would be restrained and the deflection-to-span
relationship would be somewhat less than that observed in this test.
In specimen two, the end sections of the composite slab (two concrete panels
separated by sand fill - FIGURE 11) provide lateral restraint for the interior
panel sections which were the loaded portions of the specimen. Also the end
sections provided the restraint to fully develop fixity on the ends of the interior
panels. Although the deflection-to-span ratio at incipient failure (on verge of
collapse) was less than in the previous test, the rotations ( 8 ) achieved by the
individual panels at their supports were in the order of 12 degrees. Restrained
specimens without lacing have been observed to fail with support rotations of
less than 2 degrees. It should be noted that in this test the sand fill served as a
mechanism to absorb by compression and to transfer, to the acceptor panel, a
portion of the applied blast not absorbed by the donor panel. The acceptor
surface of the donor panel was scabbed while that of the acceptor panel was not.
It appears that the reduced loading and the action of the sand in spreading out
the high peaks of the applied load on the donor panel prevented spalling of the
acceptor panel.
12. Failure at plastic hinges of laced member.

FIGURE
FIGURE
13. Backwall failure of cu6icle with laced reinforcement.
Cohen 8r Dobbs: Design Procedures and Details 465
Specimen three (FIGURE 12) illustrates failure at the plastic hinges developed
in the element, after yield. It can be seen that, even though the member has
failed, the sections between the hinges remained intact with only minor rubble
occurring at the points of failure. The compression reinforcement at the points
of failure remained intact, preventing the failed sections between the hinges from
being detached from the rest of the specimen.
Specimen four (FIGURE 13) also illustrates the effects of lacing reinforcement
and flexural ductility on the failure pattern of an element. In this test, the back
wall of a cubicle collapsed, resulting in a failure analogue to a swinging door
(FIGURE 13). Although both the tension and compression reinforcement at
midspan and the tension reinfoncement at the supports failed, the compression
steel at the supports and the concrete sections between the hinges remained intact.
After failure, the compression reinforcement at the supports served as hinges to
produce rotational motion rather than translation of failed sections. Energy,
which would ordinarily result in translational velocity was, in this case, tranferred
to the ground adjacent to the structure where the failed sections came to rest.
The magnitude of the blast overload was not sufficient to completely detach the
failed sections from the remainder of the structure. In other similar tests, with
larger charge weights, separation of the failed sections did occur and the detached
sections came to rest several feet from the point of initial impact. In these
cubicle tests, small fragments produced at the center hinge of the wall were
of negligible volume relative to the major detached sections and of low velocity
relative to fragments observed in tests of Standard Walls.
FIGURE 14 illustrates a full capacity test performed on a one-eighth-scale model
of the bay structure used in the Scaling Testss A preshot analysis of this structure
predicted a prototype capacity of 7,000 pounds of uncased T N T explosive when
detonated at the center of the structure (FIGURE 14a). Test results indicated an
actual explosive capacity, prior to failure, approximately 10 percent higher than
that predicted. In this test, the back wall, which was of composite construction,
was the critical element of the structure, and its overall damage approached an
incipient failure condition. The tension reinforcement at the supports (back wall
panels supported at the base slab and at the two side walls of the cubicle) and
at the center of the donor panel failed with the compression steel at these sections
still remaining intact. It may be noted, in FIGURE 14b, that a typical concrete
yield crack pattern was formed. The acceptor panel of the back wall remained
intact, although the magnitude of the panel’s deflection indicated that this
portion of the wall was on the verge of collapse. Spalling of the acceptor surface
of the acceptor panel occurred at the supports (FIGURE 14c). This spalling was
attributed to the high compression forces which crushed the concrete cover of
the compression reinforcement. Spalling of other portions of the rear of the
acceptor panel was prevented, despite the high-peak pressures of the blast loads.
TABLE 1 illustrates the test set-up and results of six one-third-scale reinforced
concrete slab tests previously mentioned. The first three slabs listed in TABLE 1
were single concrete panels, while the latter three specimens were composite
slabs. All specimens were one-way spans and were restrained at both supports.
Both cubicle and simple barrier arrangements were used in the test set-up. To
simulate a cubicle arrangement, structural steel plates were utilized as the cubicle
side walls, while the test specimen simulated the back wall.
As seen from TABLE 1, good agreement has been obtained between calculated
values of the charge capacities (W,) of the specimens and the charge weights
(W,) used in the tests. The deflections of the individual specimens as obtained
FIGURE
14. One-eighth-scale bay structure test.
1
TABLE
COMPARISON
OF CALCULATED CHARGE WEIGHT CAPACITYWITH RESULTS OF
R. C. SLABE ~ L O S ITESTS
VE
I Slab Prop. I Charge Prop. I Cubicle Prop, I Charge Wt. Comparison
No. L T W R 1 '1 L' lL'/R Test

I I )4/v~ Cal.
(in,) (in.) (lb.) (in.) (ft. / l b . n (in.) (in.)
1 1
I 24 4 20 33. 0 1.00 1 12.0 24.0 0.73 20 19.0 0.95
2 24 4 20 33. 0 1.00 2 29.5 59.0 1.78 20 18.5 0.93 U

0
e
3 24 6 30 18. 7 0.50 2 18.5 37.0 2.00 30 30.0 1.00 Ef
..
1
4(l) 24 4(6)4 30 29.5 0.80 1 12.0 24.0 1.23 30 30.0 1.00

t
5(') 24 4(12)4 60 23. 5 0. 50 1 12.0 24.0 1.02 60 62.0 1.03
6(') 24 6(8)6 60 19.5 0.42 2 17.0 34.0 1.75 60 60.0 1.00

1
I Standard Deviation I 9.770t E

e
* Results of An8ly.i. of 40 R . C. Slab Tents
NOTE: See Table 3 for Reinf.
and Deflections.
P
o\
Type I: Simple Barrier Type 2: Cubicle Back Wall 4
Slab Prop. Long. R e i d . Prop. (70) Deflection Rotation
Slab
No. L T Donor Acceptor Lacing XM xE %/XE (degree) Remarks
(In.) (In.) Surface Surface (In.) (In. 1
1 24 4 0. 65 0. 65 0. 15 3. 38 0.029 115.0 15.7 Heavy Damage

El
2 24 4 0. 65 0.65 0. 15 3. 86 0. 029 132.0 17.8 Incipient Failure F
3 24 6 2.70 2.70 1.20 3.10 0.024 130. 0 14. 5 Incipient Failure 3
$
4(*) 24 4(6)4 0. 65 0.65 0. 15 :::: 0.029 37. 4. Medium Damage 4
Medium Damage
%
5") 24 Y12)4 2.70 2.70 1.20 2*25 0.050 45.5 10.9 Panel Failed P
1. 28 0.050 25. 0 5.9 Medium Damage 0
P,
* 12. 0 Panel Failed %

6") 24 6(8)6 2.70 2.70 O' 024 62' 3
1. 44 6.8 Medium Damage Y
3
0
c
a
v;
3
from the test results were used to calculate the values of W,. These deflections
are given in TABLE 2. The data in TABLE 1 give typical results. The ratio average
of (W,WT) and standard deviation for 40 response tests performed on one-
third-scale reinforced concrete slabs were 1.09 and 9.7 percent, respectively.
OF TESTS
COMPARISON UTILIZING
STANDARD
AND
NEWCONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES
The difference in results obtained using existing Standard Wall construction
and the new construction techniques in blast resistant design described in this
paper is illustrated by two similar explosive cubicle tests.
The structure used in the first test series was the Full-Scale C-13 Cubicle
utilized in ASESB Phase C Cubicle Program.s This structure was built using
modified Standard Wall cubicle construction, while the second structure
(FIGURE 15, One-Third-Scale Modified C-13; Reference 10) consisted of a
one-third-scale model of a revised design utilizing the type of laced reinforce-
ment previously described.
The full-scale cubicle (FIGURE 16a) consisted of three reinforced concrete
composite walls, with Standard Wall reinforcement, supported on a reinforced
concrete base slab. The fourth side and the roof were open to the atmosphere. The
dimensions of the interior floor area of 6.e cell were 10 ft, 6 in. long by 8 ft,
5 in. wide and the clear height between the floot slab and the top of the walls was
9 ft. Each wall had an overall thickness of 5 f t consisting of a 3-ft layer of sand
sandwiched between two 1-ft concrete panels.
The floor dimensions and total wall thickness of the model (FIGURE16b) were
equal to one-third those of the full-scale structure. The walls of the model were
slightly higher to accommodate the wire bridge strands used to support the
top of the side walls. Although the overall scaled thickness of each wall of the
model was the same as the thickness of each wall of the full-scale cubicle, the
individual wall components differed. In the model, the scaled-up thickness of
each reinforced concrete panel was 18 inches, and the thickness of sand was
24 inches, compared with the respective 12- and 36-inch thicknesses of the full-
scale structure. The panel steel at each surface was 2.7 percent for the model as
compared with 0.16 percent for that of the full-scale structure. In addition, the
flexural reinforcement of the model was fully laced.
The scale-model was built with wall and floor slab extensions to simulate the
restraint afforded by adjacent cells on the cell containing the explosion. The
inclusion of such extensions would have had negligible effect on the results of
the full-scale structure test.
Both structures were tested with the same equivalent scaled charge of 1,640
pounds located near the floor slab and at the center of the cell.
The difference, in the results of the two tests, is apparent from FIGURES 16a
and b. The full-scale cubicle was completely demolished except for the floor
slab, which was cratered below the donor charge. The debris formed by the
collapse of the walls consisted of concrete rubble and was dispersed over a wide
area of the test range. The model structure approached incipient failure conditions
with permanent angular rotations of the concrete panels in the order of 12 de-
grees. Although scabbing of the acceptor sides of the model walls did occur, the
velocities were small and would not have been a source of danger for explosive
acceptor systems.
W
B
.s
'u
B
.s
I WCTlLE Y O M
QIIRITTLE YODE
SHEAR
I
f
SENSITIVE
EXPLOSIVES
FIGURE
17. Design procedure for explosive protective structures.
NEWDESIGNPROCEDURE FOR
EXPLOSIVE-PROTECTIVE
SYSTEMS
The relationships between the three components in the design of an explosive
system must be defined in order that a safe design may be achieved (FIGURE 17).
Initially, the donor system is analyzed and the output in terms of the primary
missiles and blast pressures is determined. The protective structure (shelter or
barrier) is then selected to afford the required protection for the acceptor system
(personnel, equipment, or another explosive).
Once the loading and the structural configuration are determined, the struc-
ture’s elements are designed for ductile response. Here, the bending resistance,
deflections, and shear capacity are computed based on the predetermined re-
sponse range of the structure, i.e., ( 1 ) limited deflections, (2) incipient failure,
or (3) total destruction with limited fragment velocities or trajectories (FIGURE
17).
Deflections may be limited for structures that are designed to withstand the
additive effects of more than one explosion and/or if increased protection is
desired for the structure’s contents. The limited deflection criteria is usually used
for design of personnel and/or valuable equipment shelters.
Incipient failure criteria is utilized in the design of protective structures that
are subjected to close-in effects of the blast output. Such structures may be
either protective shelters for personnel or barriers for explosive acceptor systems.
Where personnel is involved, provisions must be made to provide protection
against direct spalling and scabbing of the concrete surfaces. Ground shock
effects and pressure leakage should also be congidered.
Once the capacity of the protective structure is known, an analysis may be
performed to determine the velocities of secondary fragments produced by a
blast overload. The magnitude of the fragment velocities must be controlled
in the design as specified by the sensitivity of the acceptor system.
DESIGN
PROCEDURES FOR DUCTILE
MODERESPONSE
Dynamic Analysis
The dynamic response of a structure or element to an applied dynamic loau
may be obtained in terms of either stress of displacement, if the structure re-
mains elastic. Since for most facilities subjected to accidental explosions it is
uneconomical to design for completely elastic action, it is usually more ap-
propriate to permit deflections well beyond yield. The required member resistance
is obtained by equating the initial kinetic energy resulting f r o m the applied blast
impulse to the potential energy of the element. This potential energy is expressed
in terms of the ductility of the element (its ability to deflect) and its strength
(resistance).
In the case of the single-degree-of-freedom system shown in FIGURE 18a, the
response is obtained by application of the basic equation of motion:
F = ma (1)
where a = acceleration of the mass
m = mass of the moving body
F = applied force as a function of time
P
LOAD 4
P
b. IDEALIZED PRESSURE -TIME

Translatlonol Force System AND RESISTANCE-TIME CURVES
RESISTANCE
4
ELASTO-
PLASTIC
xt 4 xu
0 . BASIC ANALYSIS C. IDEALIZED RESISTANCE -

FOR SIMPLE SYSTEMS DEFLECTION CURVE
18. Method of analysis.
FIGURE
when expressed with time:
where
I
I = Fdt = total impulse (area under
pressure-time curve- ( FIGURE 18b)
dv = change in velocity
Therefore, the momentum is equal to the impulse:
mV=I (3)
Knowing the momentum, the equation for the initial kinetic-energy may be
expressed in terms of the applied impulse and the mass, as:
The potential energy of an element is a function of the ductility and strength

of the element and numerically equal to the area under the resistant-deflection
curve (FIGURE 18c) :
P.E.= S(RX) (5)
By equating the energies, the basic relationship of the analysis becomes:
I:= 2 m X(RX) (6)
where I, is the total impulse capacity of the element. For an incipient failure
condition, the impulse capacity is equal to the impulse of the applied blast load.
The above solution of the impulse capacity is valid when the time to reach
yield (ty - FIGURE 18b) of the element and the positive phase duration (Yo -
FIGURE 27) of the applied loads are small in comparison to the time to reach
maximum deplacement (t,,, - FIGURE 27).
Structural Behavior
When a blast load is applied to a structural element, the element deforms and
at any instant exerts a resistance to motion that is a function of the amount of
deformation (elasto-plastic behavior). Under idealized conditions, once the
maximum resistance of an element has been developed, this resistance remains
constant until one or more sections of the element fail and a portion of the
total resistance is lost. This loss of resistance will continue as the various sections
fail until complete collapse occurs.
To illustrate the idealized flexural action of an element as designed above,
consider a panel supported on three sides, having one of its longer sides un-
supported, a length-to-width ratio greater than two, and having uniform rein-
forcement. The panel will initially be stressed elasto-plastically until the maximum
resistance at final yield of the reinforcement occurs at a deflection XE (FIGURE
18). It is assumed that this maximum resistance is maintained until the initial
failure occurs along the supported long side of the panel, at which time a loss in
resistance will occur. After initial failure, the panel is assumed to span between
the two opposite short supports until these sections fail and complete collapse
occurs.
The above illustration is typical of statically redundant two-way elements,
whereas simple elements spanning in one direction will usually exhibit complete
collapse at the time for initial failure. Other physical properties of the element
will also affect the type and number of intermediate failures that occur before
complete collapse. These include dimensional arrangement, initial and secondary
support conditions, structural detailing, and percentage and distribution of re-
inforcement. Criteria for defining intermediate and final collapse will be dis-
cussed in the following sections.
Flexure
Resistance to Binding
For uniformly loaded, one-way elements, the maximum resistance developed
may be expressed in terms of the ultimate moment capacity of the members,
such as:
where Mu = ultimate capacity of the cross section

1 = span
C1 = moment coefficient defined by support
condition and distribution of reinforcement.
In members where elastic distribution of reinforcement is used, the maximum
resistance is based upon the moment capacity of the member at first yield,
while for members with non-elastic distribution of reinforcement the maximum
resistance is based upon the capacity at first yield plus the added capacity
due to subsequent yeilding. TABLE3 is a list of the moment coefficients for
typical one-way elements.
In the design of two-way panels, it is not necessary to accurately determine
the stress distribution during the initial and intermediate stages of loading, since
the ultimate load capacity can be readily determined by use of "yield-line
procedures." The yield-line method assumes that, after initial cracking of the
TABLE3
RESISTANCE
COEFFICIENT
FOR ONE-WAY
SPANS
Dist.
1 Type of Support
Shear*
Cantilever 112
Fixed-Simple 118 5/64 (3164)
Cantilever 112 112
-d
a
m
Simple -Simple
Fixed-Fixed
118
1/16
1/16
1/32
Fixed-Simple 1/12 71144 (51144)
Numbers in parentheses are coefficients for the shear at simple support.

concrete at points of maximum moment, yielding spreads until full moment
capacity is developed along the length of the cracks on which failure will take
place.
Although the simplified yield or failure lines for two-way panels as illustrated
in FIGURE 19a differ slightly at failure from the actual yield lines the error in-
volved is slight. The corner sections of a two-way panel usually are stiff in
comparison to the remainder of the member, therefore, straining of the rein-
forcement associated with reduced rotations at these sections will be less. To
account for the corner effects, the design of any one particular sector of a panel
should consider a variation of the moment capacity across its failure lines rather
than a uniform distribution. The idealized distribution of the bending moments
is illustrated in FIGURE 19a where AM1 and AM2 are the unit moment capacities
acting along the yield lines.
FIGURE 19b presents an example of the method of computing the resistance of
triangular sector of the above two-way panel. The total resistance of the entire
panel is the sum of the resistances of the individual sectors. The yield line
locations and the angle P (FIGURE 19a) may be determined by the energy
method or equilibrium method, the latter being the more simple for the cases
considered in this paper. With the equilibrium method and a uniform load, the
angle /3 is obtained simply by solving the simultaneous equations of equilibrium
for the various segments (or by trial and error) considering all segments to have
the same unit resistance.
Shear
The maximum shear at the support may be expressed as a function of the
total resistance expressed in terms of the ultimate moment capacity of the
member, such as:
where C z is the shear coefficient which is defined by the support condition

and the distribution of the reinforcement (TABLE 2). For two-way panels, the
unit shear will vary along the supports. For design purposes, the magnitude of
the unit shears acting along the supports may be assumed to be proportional to
the unit moments as shown in FIGURE 19a.
When computing the diagonal tension shear resistance of and element, it may
be assumed that the maximum shear occurs at a distance, d (defined below),
from the face of the support. The section at the support should be checked for
direct shear only.
Ultimate Strength o f Reinforced Concrete Sections

General
The ultimate strength of reinforced concrete may be calculated in accordance
with ultimate strength design methods of Reference 12 but omitting load and
construction factors which have been established for conventional static ,load
conditions. Safety or reliability for blast loading is inherent in the establishment
of the magnitude of the donor charge and in the criteria for deflection or frag-
ment velocity. Other permissible departures from the criteria for static or quasi-
static are described below.
Although certain formulas are given in the following sections, more detailed
information and design aids are given in the references as noted.
EDGE
1.S AM, 8 AM2
a . YIELD LINE AND OlSTRleUTION OF MOMENTS
SUPPORT--,
"U,N + %.P
C
WHERE :
MU,N * TOTAL ULT. MOMENT OF NEG.REIWF.
Yu,p * TOTAL ULT. MOMENT (F POS. MW.
R = TOTAL RESISTANCE O f SECTION
C = CEWTROIDAL DISTANCE
b. RESISTANCE OF TRIANGULAR SECTOR
FIGURE
19. Symmetrical reinforced two-way panel (three sides fixed and one side free).
Ultimate Moment Capacity
Although methods of calculation of the moment capacity of reinforced concrete
sections is well defined in References 11 to 16, the effects of spalling and/or
crushing on the compression surface of the section must be included.
Where spalling or crushing occurs, the effective depth of a section is reduced
progressively, resulting in a reduced moment capacity. By minimizing the concrete
cover, the strength loss to spalling or crushing is also minimized.
As large deflections are encountered, the concrete may be severely cracked
and incapable of providing the required compression forces. Unless lacing re-
inforcement is provided, the crushed concrete will be disengaged and the element
disintegrated. With lacing, the concrete is confined between the layers of flexural
steel and the compression reinforcement is prevented from buckling, allowing
the reinforcement to resist the compression stresses. As a result, in elements
with less compression than tension reinforcement, the flexural resistance in the
later stages of response may be greatly reduced. On the other hand, symmetrical
reinforced elements will sustain their resistance until rupture occurs in the tension
reinforcement. For symmetrical reinforcement, the final ultimate resisting
moment may be taken as:
M u= Asfdsd’ (9)
where
Mu = ultimate resisting moment
A, = area of the compression or tension
reinforcement
fas = dynamic stress in reinforcement
d’ = distance between the centroids of the
compression and tension reinforcement
Ultimate Shear Capacity

The ultimate shear stress at any section is computed from
v u
vu = - (10)
bd
where: vu = shear stress carried by element
V, = total shear at section
b = width of compression face of the flexural member
d = distance from extreme compression fiber to
centroid of tension reinforcement
The diagonal tension shear stress permitted on an unreinforced web of an
element should not exceed that as specified by Reference 13 or:
v, = 1.7dr42100 - __ PVd
(11)
M
where v, < 3 . v q a n d M < Vd
and
ftC= static compressive strength of concrete
M = moment capacity at distance, d
p = percent reinforcement
The above shear capacity equations are applicable only to those elements
where the maximum deflection to span ratios is relatively small (X/e < 1/50).
Substantially larger deflections may be attained with the use of lacing reinforce-
ment to maintain the element's integrity and to fully develop its potential energy.
Where the applied loadings produce shear stresses that are equal to or greater
than twice that of the capacity of the concrete, lacing reinforcement should be
provided to carry the excess. However, it is recommended that for the high
pressures associated with close-in detonations, a minimum area of lacing should
be provided with a shear capacity equal to that of the concrete.
The required area of the lacing reinforcement is calculated using:
As = _- 1.2 - Vf,,S (12)
+
f,d (sin a cosa)
where: V f , ,= shear in excess of the concrete strength
As = total area of lacing reinforcement in tension within a dis-
tance, d, measured in a direction parallel to the longitudinal
axis of the element
f, = static yield strength of the lacing reinforcement
S = spacing of lacing in a direction parallel to the longitudinal
reinforcement
a = angle formed by the plane of the lacing reinforcement and
the plane of the longitudinal reinforcement.
If spalling is anticipated, then the value of d in the above equations should be
replaced by the distance (df) between the centroids of the compression and
tension reinforcement.
As previously mentioned, by making the laced reinforcement continuous
throughout the element, direct shear failure is prevented. For design purposes,
if properly detailed lacing reinforcement is used, local shear or punching failure
need not be considered.
Ultimate Static and Dynamic Strength

The behavior of structural elements, subjected to close-in high-explosive
detonations, depends on the ultimate strength and ductility of elements. The
required strength of ductile elements, which can maintain their peak or near
peak strengths through large strains, will be considerably less than that necessary
for brittle elements, which fail abruptly with little energy absorbed in the plastic
range. Reinforced concrete with well tied and anchored ductile reinforcement
may be classified as ductile material.
Reinforcing steel, as designated by the American Society for Testing and
Materials as A-15 and A-432 may usually be considered to have adequate duc-
tility in sizes up to No. 1 1 bars. For the larger size bars (Nos. 14 and 18), the
desired ductility may often not be available. Bends, lapped or welded splices,
etc. near points of maximum stress are also undesirable because of the reduced
ductility.
For calculating the ultimate static resistance of reinforced concrete elements,
the stress-strain relationship of the reinforcement may be utilized to calculate
an average static stress of the peak yield and peak ultimate stresses.
Under the rapid rates of strain that occur in an element loaded by blast forces,
Cohen & Dobbs: Design Procedures and Details 48 1
both steel and concrete exhibit higher strengths than in the case of statically
loaded elements. These increased stresses or dynamic strengths should be used
to calculate the element’s resistance to the blast loading. The dynamic increase
factor (ratio of dynamic to static stresses capacity) depends on the rate of strain,
and it increases as the rate of strain increases. For the typical strain rates en-
countered by elements subjected to blast loads, the following dynamic strengths
have been recommendedI7 for reinforced concrete elements :
Concrete
Compression (Axial or Flexure) 1.25 f’c
Direct Shear 0.20 f’c
Reinforcing Steel (ASTM 15 & 432)
Tension and Compression 1.10 f,
where f, is the average value of the yield and ultimate stresses.
It is recommended that no dynamic increase be considered for concrete in
diagonal tension and bond nor steel used for lacing or other web reinforcement.
Equivalent Mass for Dynamic Analysis

Members with uniformly distributed masses which bend or rotate under the
load (beams, slabs, and other flexural members) actually have an infinite number
of degrees of freedom. However, for design purposes, the equation of motion
for a single degree of freedom (lumped-mass system) may often be used if the
actual mass is replaced by an equivalent mass, (mp). For the case where the
deform actions are predominantly inelastic, it is sufficiently accurate to consider
only the equivalent mass associated with the motion of the member in its plastic
range.
It can be assumed, in the simplified approach, that the post-yield bending
resistance at the hinge points is constant. Consequently, neither the moment nor
the curvature changes along the length of the member which acts as a series of
rigid links supported at the ends (FIGURE 9). For uniformly loaded elements,
the ratio of equivalent mass to the entire mass (equivalent mass factor) varies
between 0.5 for triangular sectors of a panel (FIGURE 19) and 0.667 for one-
way members, while the ratio for tropezoidal sections will fall between the above
limits. A more detailed discussion of equivalent mass factors is given in Refer-
ences 11 and 13. The calculation of the mass should include the reduced thick-
ness of the elements when spalling of an element is anticipated.
Deflection Criteria
Laced reinforced elements can sustain larger deflections, prior to failure than
unlaced elements. For symmetrically reinforced elements, deflections at failure
are a function of the ductility of the reinforcement and the span to thickness
ratio of the member.
The deflection at failure may be expressed in terms of angular rotation. In the
previously mentioned scale model slab tests, one element with an A-15 steel
reinforcement spanning in one direction, fixed at both ends and having a span-
to-thickness ratio of 6, achieved a 17.8 degree rotation (TABLE 2). The rotation
of another element whose span was four times its thickness was 14.7 degrees.
In both these cases, incipient failure was imminent. Damage sustained by the
other slabs presented in TABLE 2, was less than incipient failure conditions.
However, their permanent deflections were somewhat larger than those which
could be incurred by unlaced elements.
At the present time, another series of tests is underway to define more closely
the magnitude of the incipient failure rotation of symmetrically reinforced laced
members as a function of the span-to-thickness ratio, percent reinforcement and
variation of the support conditions. In the interim, based on present data, it
appears permissible that a 12-degree rotation be used as the criterion for incipi-
ent failure for flexural members prior to failure. This recommended maximum
permanent rotation has been achieved in .a past series of model-cubicle test^^-^
where the models remained intact.
Based on present test data, the use of the ductility ratio (ratio of final deflec-
tion, XM,to deflection at yield, X,) does not appear to be a useful criterion for
incipient failure. TABLE 2 indicates very large ductility ratios which have been
found to be typical.
The resistance-deflection curve for an element spanning in one direction may
be approximated by a constant resistance in the plastic range, while the re-
sistance-deflection “curve” for two-way elements requires a stepped relationship
(FIGURE 18c). The break in the “curve” indicates a loss in resistance after a
failure at one of the element’s plastic hinges points.
Composite Construction
The method of calculating the impulse capacity of composite elements (two
concrete panels enclosing a layer of sand) is similar to that for single concrete
elements except that the impulse of the blast absorbed by the sand must be
included, which may be approximated from FIGURE20.
An empirical procedure for estimating the charge capacity of a composite
wall or other similar elements is as follows:
1. Assume ch2rge weight, W.
T,
2. Calculate T, and T, (where equals scaled thickness of the concrete and
T, equals scaled thickness of the sand).
3. Calculate i, (scaled unit impulse capacity) for each concrete panels.
4. Use FIGURE 20.7
a. Enter ordinate at value of;,, (scaled impulse capacity of acceptor
panel). - . -
b. Proceed horizontally fr%m iC&o T,.
c. Proceed vertically from T, to-T,. -
d. Proceed horizontally from T, to i, [sum of scaled unit impulse of the
acceptor panel and ImpulsLabsorbed by the sand).
-
5. Calc_ulate the Summation of iCd(scaledimpulse capacity of donor panel)
and i, to give it (total unit impulse capacity of element).
References 1 0 ~ 1 8 .-- -
6. Determine the scale unit impulse of the applied blast load ( i d from
7. Compare it and ib (it = ib for incipient failure condition).

8. If the impulse capacity of the element is not equal to the blast impulse,
then steps 1 through 7 must be repeated for another assumed charge
weight.
In the above procedure, the mass of the sand is assumed to act with that of
the concrete. Therefore, for computing the impulse capacities of each panel, the
total effective mass of each panel is taken as the mass of the concrete plus one-
half the sand mass times the effective mass factor.
Cohen & Dobbs : Design Procedures and Details 483
I
0
0
0
0
d 0
0 0 N
0 *
0 *
The resistance and maximum deflection of each panel is computed as for
individual elements.
Construction Details for Cubicle-Type Structures

Flexural Reinforcement
Although continuous symmetrical flexural reinforcement on both the tension
and compression surfaces has been found to be effective, tests to determine the
effects of discontinuing and splicing reinforcing bars are being planned. Rein-
forcement in various areas and directions may vary, depending upon support
conditions and geometry. Except as specified for top bars in Reference 19, full
tension splices have been used for all flexural reinforcement. Splices of adjacent
bars, should be staggered and made in areas of low computed stress. Mechanical
splices, which are capable of developing the ultimate strength of the reinforce-
ment, are often useful for larger size bars.
Lacing Details
All flexural reinforcing bars are tied with continuous diagonal lacing rein-
forcement. At any particular section of an element, the main tension and com-
pression flexural reinforcement is placed to the interior of the secondary flexural
reinforcement which, in turn, is tied by the diagonal lacing (FIGURE 21). Several
alternate details may be used to achieve full confinement of the flexural steel,
the appropriate method depending on the amount of lacing required. Several
details are illustrated in FIGURE 21. Also illustrated is a method for the splicing
of lacing bars. FIGURE 22 presents typical lacing details at wall intersections.
Typical Wall Elevation

FIGURE 23 illustrates typical reinforcement details for three types of wall
construction, namely, (1 ) single wail, (2) composite wall open at the top, and
(3) composite wall closed at the top. The latter detail has been used when the
wall is supported at the top by cables, beams, or other tie systems.
For a wall that is free at the top and supported at its sides and/or at the floor
slab, the vertical lacing may be made continuous from approximately the mid-
height of the wall above the floor (or haunch) to the bottom of the wall. In the
upper half of the wall, the horizontal lacing reinforcement is continuous the
full length of the wall and is anchored in the side supports. A portion of the
wall should extend below the bottom of the floor slab for a distance not less
than that required to anchor the flexural reinforcement. If adequate resistance
is not afforded by the soil, then additional horizontal reinforcement must be
added to the lower portion of the cubicle back wall to resist vertical bending
induced by the blast loads acting on the floor slabs adjacent to the wall.
Another type of wall construction consists of two reinforced concrete panels
separated by sand. Details of each panel are similar to those described for single
walls. Tie reinforcement is continuous across the base of both panels and ter-
minated in the floor slab. Where the upper section of the wall is used as a support
for an external tie system, it is solid and reinforced to resist the torsion and
bending induced by the ties and the panels.
Haunches may be provided at the base of the walls to reduce amplification
of the blast pressures due to multiple corner reflections and to increase the
bending and shear capacity.
SECTION A-A
SECTION e-B
Lacing Details
Lacing Splices
. FICURe 21. Construction details for laced reinforcement.
Both Wails Continuous One Continuous And One

Discontinuous W a l l
22. Laced reinforcement details at wall intersections.
FIGURE
Horiz. Locing
I -Provide Raq'd
Length tor Full
Development
SINGLE WALL COMPOSITE WALL COMPOSITE WALL

(Open 01 Top1 (CID8.d 01 TOPI
23. Typical wall details.

FIGURE
Floor Slab and Side Supports

Sufficient strength must be afforded by the floor slab and side supports to
develop the wall capacity. Usually lacing reinforcement has not been used in
floor slabs.
Single and Multicubicle Details

Horizontal tension reinforcement, in addition to that provided for bending, is
required in floor slabs and back walls of single cells and of end cells of multi-
cubicle structures to resist tension forces produced in these elements by the
applied blast loads acting on the side walls. In the interior cells of a multi-cubicle
complex, the mass and base friction of adjacent cells provides the lateral restraint
to resist the side wall loads in the donor cell.
Where cell cross walls exist on only one side of the longitudinal back wall,
extension of the cross walls past the back wall may be used to fully anchor the
cross wall horizontal reinforcement.
SECONDARY
FRAGMENTS
Spalling
Although for close-in bIast loads spalling cannot be prevented, the magnitude
of the spalled fragments may be minimized.
The use of composite construction, where the high peak applied pressures are
attenuated by the sand, reduces not only the quantity, but also the velocities of
direct spalls. Because the formation of scabbed fragments will depend on the
magnitude of the strains in flexural reinforcement of the acceptor panel, the
presence of the sand fill will not reduce the quantity or velocities of scabbing
fragments. However, an element may be designed to limit the strains of the
acceptor panel and thereby prevent scabbing of the acceptor panel. In this case,
if the donor panel does scab, the fragments will be restrained by the sand and
the acceptor panel.
Minimizing the concrete cover over the flexural reinforcement also reduces
the size and mass of direct and scabbed spalls but does not necessarily produce
a reduction of the initial fragment velocities.
Even though spalling is often not critical where the acceptor is another ex-
plosive, the occurrence of spalling should be a design consideration for personnel
protection. In personnel shelters, where spalling of the interior concrete surfaces
may occur, a supplementary shield may be used to protect the occupants from
the spalled fragments. An air gap between the protective wall and the shield
prevents direct transmission of the blast shock to the shield. This gap can be of
sufficient size to prevent contact between the wall and shield as the wall deflects
under the applied load. The shield must be designed to resist all stresses induced
by the overall motion of the shelter.
Post-Failure Fragments
When unlaced reinforced concrete structures collapse due to substantial over-
loading by the blast output, concrete rubble is formed and displaced at high
velocities. The fragments may be a source of danger to acceptor systems, depend-
ing upon the velocity-mass sensitivity characteristics of the systems.
The velocity of individual fragments varies and depends upon: ( 1 ) the magni-
tude of excess impulse defined as the blast impulse minus the impulse capacity
of the barrier; (2) the mass of the fragment; ( 3 ) the location of the fragment
prior to collapse; and (4) the interaction between the fragments during their
flight. Although velocities of individual fragments will differ, the average velocity
of all the rubble can be approximated from the excess impulse and the total
mass of the barrier. In other words, the momentum of the wall after collapse is
numerically equal to excess impulse:
I, = mV (16)
where
I, is the excess impulse,
m is the mass of the wall, and
V is the average fragment velocity.
Maximum fragment velocities, obtained from results of cubicle tests20 in
which concrete rubble was formed from unlaced elements, have been compared
to average velocities calculated by the above method. The test structures afforded
negligible structural resistance to the blast loads in these tests.
4
TABLE P
00
00
COMPARISON
OF CALCULATED
AND TESTFRAGMENT
VELOCITIES
- .
2. 0' 0.36 1.25 0. 5 0. 25 145. 6 670 21.7
1.5' 0.45 0.80 0.5 0.25 359.0 804 44.5
1. 0' 0. 36 1. 25 0. 5 0. 25 291.2 2230 13. 1
I I I I I
1.0' 0.33 2.22 0. 5 0. 25 134.4
1. 0' 0. 40 2.22 0.31 0.25 90.0 zf+ 200 24.0
1. 0' 2.07 0.425 0.31 0.25 .o
1. 0' 0.40 2. 22 0. 3 1 0. 25 90. 0 500 118.0 I

1.0' 2.07 0.425 0. 31 0 . 2 5 48.0 ZOO 24.0
2. 0' 0.36 1.25 0. 5 0.25 143.6 700 20.8
1.5' 0.45 0.80 0.5 0.25 359.0 800 45.8
2. 0' 0. 41 1. 25 0.4 0.25 114.5 430 26.6
1.5' 0.41 1.00 0.5 0.25 265.0 480 55.2
1.5' 0. 41 1. 25 0. 4 0.25 152.6 590 25.9
Avg. V A I N (70) 20.6 48.5

(I) ZB/ZA = L/2R
(2) Side W a l l S. W .
-
B8Ck W d l B.W .
-
The ratio of the calculated average velocity ( V ) (using the impulse loads
from References 1 or 18) to the maximum velocity (VM)of the rubble was
calculated as 0.206 and 0.485 (TABLE 4) for the side and back walls, respec-
tively. This variation of the ratios of the two walls, may be due to the more
uniform blast loads on the back wall in comparison to those on the side walls,
which are affected by the open surfaces at the top and front of the test cubicles.
When overloaded, laced elements tend to fail at the hinge lines, thus breaking
into a small number of large sections. The magnitude of the maximum velocity
of failed sections has been found to be in the order of 1.5 times the average
rubble velocity. The reduced maximum velocity of the large failed section in
comparison to the maximum velocity of the rubble is an important factor in the
design of barriers to afford protection for velocity-sensitive explosive acceptors.
REFERENCES
1. DOBBS,N., E. COHEN& S. WEISSMAN.1967. Blast pressures and impulse loads for use
in the design and analysis of explosive storage and manufacturing facilities. This volume.
2. PATTON,L. M. & D. P. ANKENEY.1964. Tests of camera techniques for obtaining wall
fragments velocity, ID. P-1954 United States Naval Ordnance Test Station, China Lake,
Calif.
3. PATTON,L. M. & D. P. ANKENEY.1964. Wall response testing of one-third-scale balanced
design slabs, Tech Note 302-2, United States Naval Ordnance Test Station, China Lake,
Calif.
4. COHEN,E. & N. DOBBS. 1965. Supporting studies to establish safety design criteria for
storage and processing of explosive materials-interim report no. 1, summary of one-
third-scale reinforced concrete slab tests. Technical Memorandum C-1, Ammann &
Whitney, New York, N. Y. Prepared under Contract DA-28-017-AMC-423(A) for
Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, N. J.
5. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY. 1961. Army materiel command safety manual AMCR 385-
224. Washington, D. C.
6. COHEN,E., N. DOBBS& R. RINDNER.(To be published.) Supporting studies to establish
safety design criteria for storage and processing of explosive materials-interim report
no. 2, summary of one-third-scale reinforced concrete slab tests, Ammann & Whitney,
New York, N. Y. and Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, N. J.
7. SCHWARTZ, A., E. COHEN & N. DOBBS. 1966. Supporting studies to establish safety
design criteria for storage and processing of explosive materials - report no. 6, summary
of one-tenth-scale reinforced concrete bay structure. Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, N. J.,
and Ammann & Whitney, New York, N. Y.
8. COHEN,E., N. DOBBS& S. WACHTELL.(To be published.) Supporting studies to estab-
lish safety design criteria for storage and processing of explosive materials-final report,
summary of full- and model-scale reinforced concrete bay structure series. Ammann &
Whitney, N. Y., and Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, N. J.
9. COHEN,E. & N. DOBBS. 1966. The design of more-effective cubicle-type protective
barriers for explosive storage and manufacturing facilities. Proceedings of the Eighth
Annual Explosive Safety Seminar of the Armed Services Explosive Safety Board. Wash-
ington, D. C.
10. COHEN,E., N. DOBBS& S. WACHTELL.(To be published.) Supporting studies to estab-
lish safety design criteria for storage and processing of explosive materials-summary
report of one-third-scale modified phase C-13 reinforced concrete cubicle, Picatinny
Arsenal, Dover, N. J. and Ammann & Whitney, New York, N. Y.
11. WHITNEY, C. S., B. G. ANDERSON & E. COHEN.1955. Design of blast resistance construc-
tion for atomic explosions. J. Arner. Concrete Inst., Proceedings, 53.
12. WHITNEY, C. S. 1942. Plastic theory of reinforced concrete design. Paper No. 2133,
Transactions. J. Amer. SOC.Civil Engineers 107. New York, N. Y.
13. AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE. 1965. American Concrete Institute Standard building
code requirements for reinforced concrete. Report by ACI Committee 318-63. Detroit,
Mich.
14. EVERARD, N. & E. COHEN.1964. Ultimate strength design of reinforced concrete col-
umns, Publication SP-7, Interim Report of ACI Committee 340. American Concrete
Institute, Detroit, Mich.
15. WHITNEY,C. S. & E. COHEN. 1956. Guide for ultimate strength design of reinforced
concrete, Proceedings. J. Amer. Concrete Inst. 53.
16. AMMANN & WHITNEY(Consulting Engineers). 1963. Industrial engineering study to
establish safety design criteria for use in engineering of explosive facilities and opera-
tions. A report prepared under contract DA-28-017-501-ORD-3889 for Picatinny
Arsenal, Dover, N. J. New York, N. Y.
17. AMMANN & WHITNEY (Consulting Engineers). 1965. An introduction to protective design
for nuclear weapons effects. PM 100-5, a report prepared for Office of Civil Defense,
Department of the Army, Washington, D. C., New York, N. Y.
18. COHEN,E., N. DOBBS & S . WACHTELL.(To be published.) Supporting studies to establish
safety design criteria for storage and processing of explosive materials-blast pressures
and impulse loads for use in design and analysis of cubicle type explosive facilities.
Ammann & Whitney, New York, N. Y.,and Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, N. J.
19. American concrete institute reinforced concrete design handbook. 1965. Publication
SP-3, ACI Committee 3 17. American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Mich.
20. RINDNER, R. & A. SCHWARTZ. 1965. Establishment of safety design criteria for use in
engineering of explosive facilities and operations-report No. 5. Technical Report No.
3267, Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, N. J.

Design Procedures and Details For Reinforced CR in ES

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design Procedures and Details For Reinforced CR in ES

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PARTV.

E. Cohen and N. Dobbs

FIGURE 2. Dynamic failure of Concrete. (a) Cracking of leeward (acceptor) surface of

5. Example of concrete break-up.

FIGURE 6. Failure characteristics of welded reinforcement: 1. Low ductility of reinforce-

New Construction Techniques

0. NEW METHOD OF REINFORCEMENT

b. TYPICAL WALL REINFORCEMENT

8. Typical direct shear failure.

(-hint of Ym. Dofl.

11. Test results of composite slab.

four are examples of the mechanism by which laced-reinforced elements fail.

12. Failure at plastic hinges of laced member.

I Slab Prop. I Charge Prop. I Cubicle Prop, I Charge Wt. Comparison

No. L T W R 1 '1 L' lL'/R Test

I 24 4 20 33. 0 1.00 1 12.0 24.0 0.73 20 19.0 0.95

2 24 4 20 33. 0 1.00 2 29.5 59.0 1.78 20 18.5 0.93 U

4(l) 24 4(6)4 30 29.5 0.80 1 12.0 24.0 1.23 30 30.0 1.00

5(') 24 4(12)4 60 23. 5 0. 50 1 12.0 24.0 1.02 60 62.0 1.03

6(') 24 6(8)6 60 19.5 0.42 2 17.0 34.0 1.75 60 60.0 1.00

I Standard Deviation I 9.770t E

1 24 4 0. 65 0. 65 0. 15 3. 38 0.029 115.0 15.7 Heavy Damage

* 12. 0 Panel Failed %

b. IDEALIZED PRESSURE -TIME

0 . BASIC ANALYSIS C. IDEALIZED RESISTANCE -

The potential energy of an element is a function of the ductility and strength

where Mu = ultimate capacity of the cross section

Fixed-Simple 118 5/64 (3164)

Cantilever 112 112

Fixed-Simple 1/12 71144 (51144)

Numbers in parentheses are coefficients for the shear at simple support.

where C z is the shear coefficient which is defined by the support condition

Ultimate Strength o f Reinforced Concrete Sections

1.S AM, 8 AM2

a . YIELD LINE AND OlSTRleUTION OF MOMENTS

Ultimate Shear Capacity

Ultimate Static and Dynamic Strength

Equivalent Mass for Dynamic Analysis

7. Compare it and ib (it = ib for incipient failure condition).

Construction Details for Cubicle-Type Structures

Typical Wall Elevation

Both Wails Continuous One Continuous And One

SINGLE WALL COMPOSITE WALL COMPOSITE WALL

23. Typical wall details.

Floor Slab and Side Supports

Single and Multicubicle Details

2. 0' 0.36 1.25 0. 5 0. 25 145. 6 670 21.7

1.5' 0.45 0.80 0.5 0.25 359.0 804 44.5

1. 0' 0. 36 1. 25 0. 5 0. 25 291.2 2230 13. 1

1. 0' 0. 40 2.22 0.31 0.25 90.0 zf+ 200 24.0

1. 0' 2.07 0.425 0.31 0.25 .o

1. 0' 0.40 2. 22 0. 3 1 0. 25 90. 0 500 118.0 I

2. 0' 0.36 1.25 0. 5 0.25 143.6 700 20.8

1.5' 0.45 0.80 0.5 0.25 359.0 800 45.8

2. 0' 0. 41 1. 25 0.4 0.25 114.5 430 26.6

1.5' 0.41 1.00 0.5 0.25 265.0 480 55.2

1.5' 0. 41 1. 25 0. 4 0.25 152.6 590 25.9

Avg. V A I N (70) 20.6 48.5

You might also like