DOE/TIC-11268

A MANUALFOR THE PREDICTION OF BLAST

FRAGMENT LOADINGS ON STRUCTURES

PRWEHTY !, S. m OF
STIh- :: . : : :-:: Ba, @hi QL El005

U. S. DEPARTMENT ENERGY OF ALBUQUERQUE OPERATIONS0,FFICE AMARILLO AREA OFFICE AMARILLO, TEXAS

November, 1980 Change 1 - 15 August 1981

LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES Total number of pages in this manual is 768, consisting Page No. 81 81 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 81 80 80 81 81 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 81 81 80 81 80 81 81 80 81 80 of the following: # Change No. & Date 15 01 15 01 15 01 15 01 15 15 15 01 15 01 01 15 15 15 01 15 01 15 01 01 15 01 15 01 15 01 15 01 15 01 15 01 Aug Nov Aug Nov Aug Nov Aug Nov Aug Aug Aug Nov Aug Nov Nov Aug Aug Aug Nov Aug Nov Aug Nov Nov Aug Nov Aug Nov Aug Nov Aug Nov Aug Nov Aug Nov 81 80 81 80 81 80 81 80 81 81 81 80 81 80 80 81 81 81 80 81 80 81 80 80 81 80 81 80 81 80 81 80 81 80 81 80

Page No.

i/ Change No. & Date 15 15 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 15 01 01 15 15 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 15 15 01 15 01 15 15 01 15 01 Aug Aug Nov Nov

Nov

Title .................. ..l A ...................... ..l Foreword ............... ..O . Blank .................... Preparation ............ ..O Blank .................. ..O Acknowledgements.. ....... . Blank .................. ..O i thru xxiii ............. OBlank .................. ..O l-l thru 1-7 ........... ..O Blank .................. ..O 2-l thru 2-11 .......... ..O 2-12 ..................... . 2-13 ................... ..O 2-14 ................... ..O 2-15 ..................... . 2-16 ................... ..l 2-17 thru 2-23 ......... ..O Blank .................. ..O 3-l thru 3-19 .......... ..O Blank .................. ..O 4-1 thru 4-19/20 ....... ..O 4-21/22 ................ ..O 4-23/24 ................ ..O 4-25 thru 4-28 ......... ..O . 4-29 ..................... 4-30 ................... ..l 4-31 thru 4-42 ......... ..O 4-43 ................... ..l 4-44 ..................... . . 4-45 ..................... 4-46 ................... ..l 4-47 thru 4-54 ......... ..O 4-55 ................. ..a.1 4-56 thru 4-89 ......... ..O -

Nov
Nov

Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov

Nov

Aug Nov Nov Aug Aug Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov Aug Aug Nov Aug Nov Aug Aug Nov Aug Nov

4-90 ............... ..l 4-91 thru 4-107 .... ..O 4-108 .............. ..l 4-109 thru 4-132 ... ..O 4-133 .............. ..l 4-134 thru 4-145 ... ..O 4-146 .............. ..l 4-147 thru 4-173 ... ..O 4-174 .............. ..l 4-175 .............. ..l 4-176 .............. ..l 4-177 thru 4-179 ... ..O 4-180 .............. ..l 4-181 .............. ..O 4-182 .............. ..O 4-183 .............. ..l 4-184 .............. ..l 4-185 ...... ..a.......1 4-186 thru 5-1 ..... ..O 5-2 ................ ..l 5-3 thru 5-5 ....... ..O 5-6 ................ ..l 5-7 ................ ..O 5-8 ................ ..O 5-9 .. ..a.............1 S-10 ............... ..O 5-11 ............... ..l 5-12 ............. . ... . 5-13 ............... ..l 5-14 ............... ..O 5-15 ................. . 5-16 thru 5-19 ..... ..O 5-20 thru 5-25 ..... ..l 5-26 thru 5-28 ..... ..O 5-29 ................. . S-30 thru 5-35 ..... ..O page.

I/ Zero in the No. column indicates

an original

LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES (Cont'd) Page No. 5-36 thru 5-39 ......... 5-40 thru 5-43 ......... 5-44 ................... 5-45 thru 5-47 ......... 5-48 ................... 5-49 ................... 5-50 ................... 5-51 ................... 5-52 ................... 5-53 thru 5-59 ......... 5-60 ................... 5-61 thru 5-72 ......... 5-73 ................... 5-74 ................... 5-75 ................... 5-76 ................... 5-77 ..................... 5-78 ..................... 5-79 ................... 5-80 thru 5-82 ......... 5-83 thru 6-4 .......... 6-5 .................... 6-6 thru 6-8 ........... 6-9 ...................... 6-10 thru 6-13 ......... 6-14 ..................... 6-15 ................... 6-16 ................... 6-17 ..................... 6-18 ................... 6-19 ................... 6-20 ................... 6-21 ................... 6-22 thru 6-24 ......... 6-25 thru 6-27 ......... 6-28 thru 6-36 ......... 6-37 thru 6-40 ........... 6-41 thru 6-44 ......... 6-45 ................... 6-46 ................... 6-47 thru 6-54 ......... 6-55 ................... 6-56 ................... # Change No. & Date ..l ..O ..l ..O ..l ..O ..O ..l ..l ..O ..l ..O ..l ..O ..O ..l O. ..O ..l ..O ..l ..O . ..O . ..O ..l . ..O ..l ..O ..l ..O ..l ..O . ...O ..l ..l ..O ..l ..O 15 01 15 01 15 01 01 15 15 01 15 01 15 01 01 15 01 15 01 15 01 15 01 15 01 15 01 15 01 01 15 01 15 01 15 01 15 01 15 15 01 15 01 Aug Nov Aug Nov Aug Nov Nov Aug Aug Nov Aug Nov Aug Nov Nov Aug Nov Aug Nov Aug Nov Aug Nov Aug Nov Aug Nov Aug Nov Nov Aug Nov Aug Nov Aug Nov Aug Nov Aug Aug Nov Aug Nov 81 80 81 80 81 80 80 81 81 80 81 80 81 80 80 81 80 81 80 81 80 81 80 81 80 81 80 81 80 80 81 80 81 80 81 80 81 80 81 81 80 81 80 Page No. # Change No. & Date 15 01 15 01 15 01 15 01 15 01 15 01 15 01 15 01 15 01 15 01 15 01 15 01 15 01 15 01 01 01 15 01 15 01 15 01 15 01 15 01 15 01 15 Aug Nov Aug Nov Aug Nov Aug Nov Aug Nov Aug Nov Aug Nov Aug Nov Aug Nov Aug Nov Aug Nov Aug Nov Aug Nov Aug Nov Nov Nov Aug Nov Aug Nov Aug Nov Aug Nov Aug Nov Aug Nov Aug 81 80 81 80 81 80 81 80 81 80 81 80 81 80 81 80 81 80 81 80 81 80 81 80 81 80 81 80 80 80 81 80 81 80 81 80 81 80 81 80 81 80 81

6-57 ................. . 6-58 thru 6-91 ....... . 6-92 thru 6-94 ..... ..l 6-95 thru 6-97 ....... . 6-98 ............... ..l 6-99 thru 6-110 .... ..O 6-111 .............. ..l 6-112 thru 6-116 ... ..O 6-117 .............. ..l 6-118 thru 6-121 ..... . 6-122 ................ . 6-123 .............. ..O 6-124 ................ . 6-125 thru 6-134 ..... . 6-135 .............. ..l 6-136 thru 6-139 ... ..O 6-140 thru 6-142 ..... . 6-143 ................ . 6-144 .............. ..l 6-145 .............. ..O 6-146 .............. ..l 6-147 .............. ..O 6-148 .............. ..l 6-149 thru 6-151 ..... . 6-152 ................ . 6-153 thru 6-162 ..... . 6-163 thru 6-165 ..... . 6-166 thru 6-188 ... ..O 6-189 Blank ........ ..O 7-l thru 7-3 ......... . 7-4 ................... 7-5 thru 7-8 ......... . 7-9 .................. . 7-10 ............... ..O 7-11 ............... ..l 7-12 thru 7-36 ..... ..O 7-37 ............... ..l 7-38 thru 8-5 ........ . 8-6 ................ ..l 8-7 thru 8-11 ...... ..O 8-12 ............... ..l 8-13 thru 8-41 ..... ..O 8-42 ............... ..l

LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES (Cont'd) Page No.

8-43.....................1 8-44 thru 8-60...........0 8-61 Blank.... . ..........

I! Change No. & Date - 15 Aug 81 - 01 Nov 80

. O-

A-l thru A-24. A-25 Blank.... B-l thru B-50. B-51 Blank.... C-l thru C-6.. DD 1473 (Front DD 1473 (Back)

..........

01 Nov 80 80
01 Nov

..........

.......... . ..........
.......... i .......... . ..........

01 . - 01 . - 01 O- 01 O- 01 . - 01
O-

Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov

80 80
80

80 80 80

FOREWORD

The purpose of this manual is to provide Architect-Engineer (AE) firms guidance for the prediction of air blast, ground shock and fragment loadings on structures as a result of accidental explosions in or near these structures. Information in this manual is the result of an extensive literature survey and data gathering effort, supplemented by some original analytical studies on various aspects of blast phenomena. Many prediction equations and graphs appear in the manual, accompanied by numerous example problems illustrating their use. The manual is complementary to existing structural design manuals and is intended to reflect the current state-of-the-art in prediction of blast and fragment loads for accidental explosions of high explosives at particularly for explosions within the Pantex Plant. In some instances, blast-resistant structures of complex geometry, rational estimation of these loads is beyond the current state-of-the-art, and tests or analyses to supplement existing data or analysis methods are recommended. Although the manual is specific for the Pantex Plant, most tion methods are general enough to apply to other safety structures in high explosives operations. This manual was prepared for the Department Area Office, Amarillo, Texas by Southwest Research under contract with the U. S. Army Engineer Texas, (USAEDH), Huntsville, Alabama. Comments for or organizations of Energy, Institute, Division, predicused

Amarillo San Antonio, Huntsville

duals

corrections and improvements are invited in industry and the U. S. Government. Department of Energy Albuquerque Operations Amarillo Area Office Facilities and Maintenance P. 0. Box 30030 Amarillo, Texas 79120 Phone: FTS No.: 806/335-1581, 572-2161 Ext.

from indiviContact:

Branch

2161

STATEMENT ON MANUAL PREPARATION This manual was sponsored by the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE), Amarillo Area Office, to satisfy the need to provide a design tool for architect-engineer firms engaged in work for the Pantex Plant. The manual provides state-of-the-art information and example problems for blast and fragment load predictive techniques for structures at the plant. At the request of the Engineer Division, Huntsville manual by providing contracting contracted expertise DOE Amarillo Area Office, the U. S. Army (USAEDH) undertook the development of the services as well as technical guidance. Texas, was its renowned

Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), San Antonio, to prepare the manual. SwRI was selected for in the field of blast engineering.

Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc. the Operating Contractor for the U. S. Department of Energy, Pantex Plant, provided input for development of manual scope, chapter formulation, and content. Technical review throughout all phases of preparation was conducted by the personnel from this agency.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This manual has been prepared by the staff of Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas. Many staff members helped in its preparation, and we cannot name them all. The principal authors were: Dr. Mr. Mr. Dr. Mr. Wilfred Peter James James Phineas E. Baker S. Westine J. Kulesz

Chapters Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter 5 6 7 8

1,

2, 3,

and 4

S. Wilbeck A. Cox

Other staff members who contributed significantly to the literature search, analysis and technical writing included Mr. Mark G. Whitney, Mr. Gerard J. Friesenhahn, Ms. Patricia K. Moseley, Dr. James L. Rand, Mr. John P. Riegel III, Ms. Deborah J. Stowitts and Mr. Van B. Parr.

0 -

Throughout the preparation of the manual, the authors were aided by extensive guidance and review by staff members from the U. S. Army Engineer Division, Huntsville; Amarillo Area Office, Albuquerque Operations, Department of Energy; and Mason and Hanger-Silas Mason Company, Inc., Pantex Plant, Amarillo. The support of the following individuals is gratefully acknowledged.

Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Dr. Mr.

Charles Murray Lawrence Bob L. Chester

Huang, Burnette,

U. S. Army Engineer U. S. Army Amarillo Area Engineer Area Office,

Division, Division, Office, DOE

Huntsville Huntsville DOE

M. Paradee, Slater, Amarillo

E. Canada, Mason

Mason

and Hanger-Silas Mason

Mason Company

Company

A. G. Papp,

and Hanger-Silas

CONTENTS

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 1.2 Purpose Scope 1.2.1 1.2.2 l-2.3 1.3 2 References Topics Covered Related Topics Organization in This Covered Manual in Other Manuals and Objective

Page lllllll1 1 1 1 2 4 6

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 2.1 2.2 Introduction General Buildings 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 2.2.5 2.2.6 2.2.7 2.2.8 2.3 Procedure for Design or Evaluation of Subjected to High Explosive Hazards Determination of Characteristics Determination of Determination of Cratering Determination of teristics Determination of Personnel Response Determination of Personnel Response Determination of Personnel Response Iterative Design Buildings Explosion Source

2- 1 2- 1 2- 3 2- 3 2- 3 2- 3 Fragment Charac2- 4 Building, Equipment and to Blast Loading Building, Equipment and to Ground Shock Building, Equipment and to Fragment Impact of Explosion-Resistant 2- 4 2- 4 2- 4 2- 5 2- 5 2- 5 2- 5 2- 9 2- 9 2-16 2-16

Air Blast Loading Ground Shock and

Impact of Safety, Security and Other Regulatory Requirements on Blast-Resistant Design 2.3.1 Typical 2.3.1.1 2.3.1.2 2.3.1.3 2.3.2 2.3.3 Building Configurations

Above-Ground Buildings Earth-Covered Buildings Venting Schemes

Impact of Blast and Fragment Safety Regulations on Design and Spacing Impact of Security Requirements on Design and Spacing

,-._ a
CONTENTS(continued) Chapter 2.4 2.5 3 Applicability Manual References and Limits of Applicability of Page 2-16 2- 22 33331 1 1 1

EXPLOSIVESAND DAMAGE MECHANISMS Introduction 3.1 3.2 General Aspects of Explosive Hazards 3.2.1 Explosion Phenomena Blast from Bare Explosives in 3.2.1.1 Air Air Blast and Ground Shock from 3.2.1.2 Surface Bursts Ground Shock and Cratering from 3.2.1.3 Buried Explosives Explosion of Cased Explosives 3.2.1.4 3.2.2 High Explosive Sensitivity 3.2.2.1 Shock Initiation 3.2.2.2 Impact Initiation 3.2.2.3 Thermal Initiation Friction 3.2.2.4 Static Electric Discharge 3.2.2.5 TNT Equivalence Venting Effects

3- 1 3-2 3- 3 3- 3 3- 4 3- 4 3- 6 3-10 3-11 3-14 3-14 3-14 3-16 3-16 3-17 3-17 3-18 3-19 4- 1 4- 1 4- 2

3.3

3.4 4

3.2.3 3.2.4 Damage Mechanisms 3.3.1 Air Blast Loading and Response 3.3.2 Fragment Impact Effects 3.3.3 Cratering and Debris Ground Shock 3.3.4 References

AIR BLAST Introduction 4.1 General 4.2

ii

CONTENTS (continued) Page 4.2.1 4.2.2 Classes of Explosives 4.2.2.1 4.2.2.2 4.3 Blast 4.3.1 Waves Single 4.3.1.1 4.3.1.2 4.3.2 Multiple 4.3.2.1 4.3.2.2 4.4 Effects 4.4.1 of from Explosions Considered Types of Geometry, Casings Single Explosion Considered Explosives Density 4- 2 4- 5 4- 5 and 4- 7 Sources 4- 7 4-10 4-17 4-55 4-68 4-68 4-81 4-90 4-90 Shocks Directional 4-90 4-98 4-117 4-118 4-135 4-135 4-135 4-140 4-140 4-140 4-140 4-145 4-145 4-145 4-148 4-1.49 4-161 4-161 4-169 4-176

Chapter

and Multiple Source

Spherical Geometry Non-Spherical Geometry Explosion Sequential Simultaneous Sources Detonation Detonation

Containment Within

and Venting Structure

Effects 4.4.1.1 4.4.1.2

* Initial and Reflected Quasi-Static Pressures for

4.4.2 4.4.3 4.4.4

Effects Outside Structure Venting Effects of Vent Closures Applications to Specific 4.4.4.1 4.4.4.2 4.4.4.3 4.4.4.4 4.4.4.5 Single Cubicles Multiple Bays Tunnels Connected Blast Doors New Facilities Blast Loading

Configurations

to

Chambers

c 4.5
<

Methqds 4.5.1 4.5.2 4.5.3 4.5.4 4.5.5

of

Predicting

i i 4.6

Frangible Panels Blast-Resistant Panels Corridor Walls Blast Doors Air Blast Spalling of Concrete to Personnel Primary Blast Tertiary Blast Ear Damagedue from Air Blast Injury Injury to Air

Walls

Hazards 4.6.1 4.6.2 4.6.3

Blast

Exposure

-- .-

CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter 4.7 4.8 4.9 Recommended Comprehensive List of Symbols Tests or Analyses Examples

Page 4-182 4-183 4-201

Illustrative

4.10
5

References

4-206 5- 1 5- 1 5- 3 5- 3 5- 6
Motion

CRATERING AND GROUND SHOCK

5.1 5.2

Introduction Soil Mechanics Overview

5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.4 5.3

Effects 5.3.1

General Discussion Soils at Pantex Facility Relationship Between Ground and Loads Determination of Wave Length of Ground Shock

5- 7 5-10
5-12 5-12

5.3.2 5.3.3 5.4 5.5 5.6

Coupling Explosive

Theoretical Wave Propagation Through Soil Approximate Buried Explosive Ground Motion Relationships Screening of Propagated Surface Waves Between Cratering on Buildings, EquipExplosive and Soil

5-22 5-30 5-30 5-40 5-53 5-53 5-68 5-68 5-74 5-77 5-83 5-84 5-86 5-90

Effects of Ground Motion ment, and Personnel 5.6.1

5.6.2

Shock Spectra Structural Loading

from

Ground Wall Pipe

Shock

5.6.2.1 5.6.2.2 5.6.3 5.7 5.8 5.9

5.10 Future Flow List of Approximate Needs Diagram Symbols

Load Load

on Buried on Buried

Buried

Structural

Solutions

References

iv

CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter 6 FRAGMENTATION 6.1 6.2 Introduction General Phenomena Primary 6.2.1.1 6.2.1.2 6.2.1.3 Fragments Velocities Mass Distributions Size and Shape Fragments Unconstrained ments Constrained Secondary Secondary Conditions and FragFragments

Page

6-

6.2.1

Distributions

6.2.2

Secondary

6- 1 6- 1 6- 4 6- 5 6- 7 6- 14 6- 23 666624 41 48 52

6.2.2.1 6.2.2.2 6.2.3 6.2.4

Building Fragmentation Trajectories and Impact 6.2.4.1

6.2.4.2 6.2.4.3 6.3

Missile 6.3.1 Dispersion

Trajectories . Impact Mass Distribution Impact Range Distributions Impact Kinetic Energies

6- 52 6666657 71 71 71
79

6.3.2 6.4
Methods

Experimentally-Based Analytically-Based for Assessing

Methods Methods Fragment Impact Damage

6.4.1

Impacts 6.4.1.1

on Metal

Structures

6- 79 6- 79

6.4.1.2
6..4.1.3

General Solution for Penetration of Metal Targets by Fragments Penetration of Steel Targets by Wooden Rods Penetration of Steel Targets by Compact Steel Fragments on Concrete and Masonry Structures Steel Pipe Missiles Utility Pole Missiles Rod Missiles Steel Plate Approximation for Concrete Target Armor-Piercing Fragments Other Fragments

6- 79 6- 84 6- 84 6-100 6-100 6-101 6-101 6-105 6-105

6-109

6.4.2

Impact

6.4.2.1 6.4.2.2 6.4.2.3 6.4.2.4 6.4.2.5 6.4.2.6

-.---

CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter

Page

6.4.3 6.4.4 6.4.5

Impacts Impacts Fragment 6.4.5.1

on Interior on Roofing Penetration

Walls Materials

6-117 6-120 6-123 6-123

6.4.5.2 6.4.5.3 6.5

Hazards 6.5.1 to Personnel

Cohesive Soil Penetration Sand Penetration Penetration in Miscellaneous Materials from Fragments

6-$30 6-135 6-144 6-144 6-147 6-155 6-155 6-J-56 6-166 6-166 6-166 6-170 6-171 6-174 6-183 7- 1 7- 1

6.5.2 6.6
Explosive 6.6.1

Primary Fragment Injuries Secondary Fragment Injuries Initiation by Fragments

6.6.2 6.6.3 6.7

Assessment 6.7.1

Bare Explosive Cased Explosives Crush, Impact and Skid of Confidence in

Initiation Methods

Prediction

6.7.2

Identification of Assumptions and Uncertainties Recommended Tests and/or Analyses to Validate Assumptions or Reduce TJncertainties for Symbols Performing a Fragmentation Analysis

6.8 6.9 6.10 7

Procedure List of References

DYNAMIC PROPERTIES OF MATERIALS 7.1 Introduction properties of Materials Dynamic Loading of Construction Under

7.2

7.2.1

Properties

of Metals Static Behavior Dynamic Behavior of Concrete and Masonry Static Behavior Dynamic Behavior

7.2.1.1
7.2.1.2

7.2.2

Properties 7.2.2.1

7.2.2.2

7- 2 7- 5 7- 5 7- 7 7-10 7-11 7-13

vi

CONTENTS (continued) Chapter

7.2.3

Page Properties 7.2.3.1

7.2.3.2 7.2.4 7.3

of Woods Static Behavior Dynamic Behavior of Frangible Properties of Materials Materials

7-19

7-19
7-20 7-24 7-25 7-27 7-29 7-31 7-37 7-40 7-40 7-40 7-43 7-45 7-46 7-49

Properties

Energy-Absorbing
7.3.1 7.3.2 7.3.3 7.3.4 7.3.5

Soil or Sand Fill Wood Plastic and Metallic Composite Material Discussion of Dynamic Mechanical Metals Mechanical Additional of Symbols . Material Properties Properties References

Foams

7.4

Tables
7.4.1 7.4.2 7.4.3

Properties of of Structural Structural Woods

7.5 7.6

List

References

STRUCTURAL DESIGN
8.1 8.2

88-

Introduction Elements 8.2.1

8.2.2 8.2.3

1
3 3 7 8 8

of Dynamic Transient Material Structural

8.2.3.1 8.2.3.2 8.2.3.3 8.2.3.4 8.2.3.5 8.2.3.6 8.2.3.7 8.2.3.8

Response

Analysis Loads

888888-10 8-20 8-20

and Quasi-Static Behavior Behavior

Elastic-Plastic Behavior Effect of Loading History on Structural Response Structural Response to Ground Shock Effect of Damping Coupling in Multi-Degreeof-Freedom Systems Approximate Modal Solutions One-Degree-of-Freedom Equivalent System Transient Solutions

8- 21 8-24 8-24 8-24

vii

CONTENTS (continued) Chapter 8.3 Available 8.3.1 8.3.2 8.4 Analysis

8.4.1 8.4.2 8.4.3 8.4.4

Page Methods Simplified Numerical and Design for Dynamic Response

8-25 8- 25 8-26 8-31 8-32 8-32 8-33 8-34 8- 34 8-35 8-35 8- 36 8- 36

Methods Methods Procedures

Design Requirements Structural Configuration Preliminary Sizing for Dynamic Analysis

8.4.4.1 8.4.4.2 8.4.4.3

Dynamic

Loads

Dead Loads Effect of Axial Loads Bracing and Shear Walls

8.4.5 8.4.6

Design Iteration Flow Charts

8.4.6.1 8.4.6.2

Design Design

for for

External Internal

Loads Explosions

8- 41 8-51 8-54 8-56 8-58

8.5 8.6 8.7

List

of

Symbols References

Annotated References

Appendix A B C PROPERTIES OF FXPLOSIVES SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY UNIT CONVERSION TABLES A- 1 B- 1 c1

viii

ILLUSTRATIONS Page Aerial Aerial Aerial Typical Plant, Typical Plant, Plan ment View View View of of of Pantex Zone 11, Zone 12, Plant Pantex Pantex Plant Plant Building Building at at Pantex

Figure 2.1

2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6

2.7a 2.7b

2- 6 2- 7 2- 8 2-10
Pantex 2-11

Unbarricaded Building 11-5

Above-Ground

Barricaded Above-Ground Building 11-20 View of Building West Sector at Pantex Operations

for an Above-Ground Contain(New HE Machining Facility) Structure Structures at at Pantex,

2-12 2-13

Typical Building Typical 4-101,

Mounded FS-11

Mounded Staging 4-102 and 4-103

at Pantex, Pantex,

Buildings

2-14
Building

2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11

3.1

Typical Underground Structures 12-44 (Gravel Gerties) Detail Detail for Venting Roof Wall Design Panel

(Building (Building

11-14)
11-20) Maze

of Venting

2-15 2-17 2-18 2-19

Plan View Venting Card

of New Design Arrangement Card

Containment

Bay with

Gap Test of of

3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

Schematic Schematic The Susan Schematic Electrostatic Pantex Pantex Ideal

Gap Test

Apparatus Impact Test

for

Liquids Machine

a Drop-Weight

Projectile of Friction Discharge New Production Disposal Test Apparatus Test Process Apparatus Flow

Spark

Plant

Weapons Blast

Wave Structure Blast Wave Scaling for Bare, Spherical TNT Wave Properties

Hopki*lson-Cranz Side-On Blast at Sea Level

3- 5 3- 7 3- 8 3- 9 3-12 3-15 4- 4 4- 6 4-12 4-16 4-19

ix

ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 Normally Spherical Blast Bare, Regular Wall Reflected TNT at

(continued)

Page Blast Wave Properties Sea Level for Bare, 4-21 Loading; 4-23 from a Rigid 4-34 from a Rigid Wall of Reflection for Regular Reflection of Angle for Position Charge Different 4-38 Scaled Single for 4-39 of o-40 Methods for Predicting for Case Effects Spherical Pentolite Pentolite Pentolite 60/40 4-44 Spherical Spherical 60/40 4-45 60/40 4-46 4-42 Shocks 4-36 of 4-37 4-34

Wave Properties for Drag and Diffraction Spherical TNT at Sea Level Oblique Reflection of a Plane Shock

Mach Reflections

Angle of Incidence versus Angle of Different Strengths Undergoing Reflected Incidence Overpressure for Various

Ratio as a Function Side-On Overpressures Scaled Position

Peak Overpressure Scaled Distances Scaled Different Explosive Position Various

versus

Specific Impulse versus Scaled Distances for Charge Loading

on a Wall

as a Function

Peak Side-On Overpressure with Light, Brittle Case Scaled Side-On Impulse for with Light, Brittle Case

Scaled Reflected Impulse for with Light, Brittle Case

Comparison of Experimental Peak Side-On Overpressure (solid curves) with Values Calculated from Equation (4.35) (dashed curves) as a Function of Azimuth Angle 0 and Scaled Distance (R/Wl/3) from the Charge, for Cylindrical Charges with L/D Ratio of l/4. As in Figure 4.19, to Those Calculated As in Figure 4.19, to Those Calculated Comparison of from Equation Experimental (4.34), L/D Values = 1 Values = 6

4-58 4-59 4-60

4.20 4.21

Comparison of Experimental from Equation (4.34), L/D

ILLUSTRATIONS

(continued) Page

Figure

4.22

Ratio, Equivalent Spherical Mass to Cylinder Mass, (0 = 0" and 180") Based on Experimental Peak Side-On at Sea Level Ambient Conditions Overpressure, Ratio, Equivalent Spherical Mass to Cylinder Mass, (0 = 90") Based on Experimental Peak Side-On Overpressure, at Sea Level Ambient Atmospheric Conditions Ratio, Equivalent at for Peak Peak Peak

4-61

4.23

4-62

4.24

(0 = 45" and 135")

Overpressure, Conditions

Spherical Mass to Cylinder Mass, Based on Experimental Side-On Sea Level Ambient Atmospheric Explosion for for for for for for a 1:2 a 1:2 a 2:l a 1:l a 1:l a 2:1 Tests Charge Charge Charge Charge Charge Charge of Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio Zaker

4.25 4.26 4.27 4.28 4.29 4.30 4.31 4.32

Schematic Lateral Axial Lateral Axial Lateral Axial

Sequential Pressure Pressure

Pressure

4-63 4-70 4-71 4-72 4-73 4-74 4-75 4-76

Peak Pressure Peak Pressure Peak Pressure

Transducer Arrangement (a) Single Charge, (b) and (d) Vertical Array, Peak Overpressure Impulse for for Specific Schematic Interior

and Charge Placement for the Grouped Array, (c) Horizontal Array Tests Vertical Vertical Array Array Tests Tests

4.33 4.34 4.35 4.36

4-82 4-83 4-84

4-92

Representation of Walls of Cylindrical

Shock Reflections from Containment Structure Pressure Containment Pulse Struc-

Comparison of Predicted at Point on Sidewall of ture Elastic Schematic Spring-Mass of Repeated

and Measured Cylindrical

4-93 4-95 Loading Maximum Impulse Displacement (N = 1, for 4-97 R/L = 0.25 4-99 4-96

4.37 4.38 4.39 4.40

System Blast

Envelope of Solutions for Triple Pulse Blast Loading Scaled Average Unit Blast and 0.75, h/H = 0.25)

xi

----

ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 4.41 4.42 4.43 4.44 4.45 4.46 4.47 4.48 4.49 4.50 4.51 4.52 4.53 4.54 4.55 4.56 4.57 4.58 4.59 4.60 Typical Surface Simplified Time History of Suppressive Gas Venting of

(continued)

Page Internal Structure Pressure for versus TNT Explosion Scaled Maximum 4-109 Impulse Area Behind versus Ratio Scaled for Initial 4-110 Various 4-112 Sidewall of Sidewall Small of S-120 4-128 4-129 Scaled Duration, 4-130 versus in Building 12-65 Cubicle Building in 11-20 11-60 Blast in Gravel Doors Gertie 4-143 Door in Bay 3, Building 11-20 4-144 in 4-142 Blast Door Building 12-65 Scaled 12-44 Pressure, 4-131 4-136 4-137 4-138 4-139 4-141 Three4-119 in 4-108 Duration Pressure at Inner 4-102 4-106

Peak Quasi-Static Chambers Scaled Blowdown Pressure

Pressure

Scaled Gas Pressure Pressure Definition Structural Peak Wall Scaled Small Plot of Various Positive Cubicle of Effective Elements

Pressure with Roof

Peak Positive Impulse Behind Three-Wall Cubicle with Roof Scaled Scaled

Pressure versus Scaled Duration, Masses of Vent Covers(M), for H = 0 Gas Impulse Fi = 0 Pressure E = 0.6 versus Scaled Pressure,

Plot of Scaled Various M, for Plot of Scaled Various M, for Plot of Scaled Various M, for Vertical Plan Plan Plan Inside Gravel Outside Cell Blast View View View Elevation Section of

versus

Gas Impulse E = 0.6 of Cell in

Bays

Building of

of Earth-Covered of Portion of Portion

of Building

View of Equipment Gertie Cell View of Equipment

and Personnel

Xii

ILLUSTRATIONS

(continued)

Figure 4.61 4.62 4.63 4.64 Portion 12-24 of Bay-Corridor of Bay-Corridor 12-44 Configuration Configuration Cell 1 Showing in Building

Page 4-146 in Build4-147 Blast 4-150

Second Type ing 12-24

Plan View of Building Doors and Corridor

a) Superposition of Stresses During Reflection Process for a Triangular Pulse Striking a Wall, and b) Maximum Stress versus Position for a Triangular Wave Form Spa11 Threshold for Blast Waves Loading Walls Displacement

4-152 4-155 4-156

4.65 4.66 4.67 4.68 4.69 4.70 4.71 4.72 4.73 4.74 4.75 4.76 4.77 4.78 4.79 5.1 5.2

Comparison Velocities

of Maximum Spa11 and Wall with Standoff Distance Velocities Lung Damage

Scaled Concrete Wall Air Blast Loading Survival Atmospheric Sea Level Skull Lethality Percent Fracture from Eardrum Whole Curves for Pressure

due to to Man

Impulsive 4-157 4-163 Above 4-166 4-171

as a Function

of Altitude

Body

Translation of Overpressure at

4-172 4-177 4-179

Rupture

as a Function for Blast

Human Ear Damage Curves Normal Angle of Incidence Sketch Applied Peak Applied Peak of Room Loaded Pressure Specific Pressure by

Waves Arriving Blast Along Along Wall Wall

Internal Impulse Along Wall Impulse Along Wall

4-187 4-190 4-191 4-192 4-193

Reflected Reflected Reflected Reflected

Specific

Geometry Reflected Intergranular

of Procedure Impulse Stress

to Calculate on Area

Average

Specific 4-194 5- 4

Radial Displacement History ment History (b) from Point tic Medium

(a) and Vertical Source at Surface

Displaceof Elas5-13

xiii

ILLUSTRATIONS

(continued)

Figure 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 Schematic Illustration Energy Source Dimensionless R-Wave Velocity Effect Velocity Effect Displacement of the Waves Propagated Depth Ratios from for an

Page

5-14
versus Propagation Wave Propagation Motions versus versus Scaled Energy

of Wave Front of Layering of Layering

5-16 5-16 5-17 5-18 5-24

Scaled for Energy Buried for Release

on Increasing on Particle

5.8 5.9
5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13

Radial Maximum Displacement Release in Rock and Soil Radial Particle Velocity in Rock and Soil Equivalent Effective tions Inside a Cavity

5-25
Release Particle Radial Detona-

Energy

5-32
Velocity Soil Coupled

Observed versus Predicted Buried Detonations Observed versus Coupled Buried Mode of Apparent Apparent Apparent Maximum Qualitative Response Crater Crater Crater Ejecta Predicted Detonations

5-34
Displacement for

and Nomenclature Radius Volume Depth Radii RA/d Vi13/d versus versus W

5-35 5-41 7124/d in Alluvium

W7/24/d in in Alluvium Alluvium

5.14
5.15

5.16
5.17

DA/d versus forLarge Soil

W7/24/d Chunks

5-45 5-46 5-47 5-48 5-53 5-56 5-58

5.18
5.19

Ground for

Oscillation Ground

Model Vibrations

Human Thresholds Shock Spectra

5.20
5.21

Diagram versus Frequency, Combined Safe Blasting Criteria for Damage Imparted of Within a Structure from a Buried to a Pipe Wall Data with

Displacement Recommended Shock Example Assumed Spectra of

5.22 5.23 5.24

a Load

to a Strip Impulse Imparted

Distribution

5-61 5-64 5-69 5-75

xiv

.-

ILLUSTRATIONS

(continued)

Figure 5.25 5.26 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7a 6.7b 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 6.14 6.15 6.16 6.17 6.18 6.19 6.20 6.21 Normal Flow Stresses Diagram for in Beam-Like of Pantex Fragment Ground Fragment Fragments of Metal as a Function of Loading Members Shock Velocity Problem Analysis with Distance Trajectory

Page 5-78 5-85 6- 3 666Shapes Fragment Wave with Weight Irregular Pressure and Fragment 6-17 of Blast Object on Object Variables Shapes NonI During 6-25 6-28 6-29 6-30 6-32 6-33 for Constrained Cantilever 6-45 and Barricades for Fragment Range Prediction Fragment Fragment Points for (Drag 6-54 Distribution, Distribution, Percentage Map Pattern versus Fragments Weight Range (lb) (ft) 6-62 6-63 6-66 of 6-73 Nondimensional Nondimensional Fragments Velocity 6-82 6-83 6-50 6-25 6-16
6

Nomenclature Variation Velocity

of Primary of Primary Velocity

8 9

Dimensionless Factor W/W, Primary Relationship Diameter Interaction

Fragment

Between

Time History of Net Transverse Passage of a Blast Wave Pictorial Drag Explanation

of Appurtenance CD, for Various

Coefficient,

Nondimensional dimensional Target Specific Scaled Beams Magazine

Object Velocity 7 as a Function of Pressure p and Nondimensional Impulse for Velocities Unconstrained Tests Impulse

Orientation Acquired Fragment

Scaled Curves Fragments) Cumulative Cumulative Approximate Example Fragment

Probability Probability Probability Sectored Density Missile

(n - 19) Measurement

Nondimensional for "Chunky" Nondimensional Thickness for

Deflection Crushable

Limit Velocity versus "Chunky" Non-Deforming

ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 6.22 6.23 6.24 6.25 6.26 6.27 6.28 6.29 6.30 6.31 6.32 6.33 6.34 6.35 6.36 6.37 6.38 6.39 6.40 6.41 6.42 6.43 Prediction of Penetration versus for of

(continued)

Page Steel Area Pipes Plate Ratio for Drilled

6-

6-

86 89

Perforation Factor Hole Patterns Scabbing Threshold crete Panels Scabbing Reinforced Sketch of Threshold Concrete a Fragment

Vent Steel

on Reinforced Impacting

Con6-102

for Solid Panels Impact

Rod Missiles

6-104 6-104 Impacts (Various Projec6-106 and Perforation Fragment Velocity after for Perforation Specific 6-122 Displacements Velocity Retarding Flat-Nosed in Force Penetrators Soil Primary 6-133 6-134 Upon Perforation Fragment Impact Impact of Sand 6-136 Area/Weight (Abdomen (Serious for Iso6-145 and Limbs) Injury 6-151 6-157 Including lo Error 6-158 6-150 6-127 6-128 6-129 6-131 6-132 6-108 6-110

Spa11 Threshold tile and Target Limits Residual of Concrete Velocity

for Fragment Materials) Spalling of Primary

Fragment Mass versus Striking Damage to Roofing Materials Normalized Normalized Normalized Scaled Depth Solution Solution Solution for for for

Transient Transient Transient for

Maximum of Pointed

Penetration Projectile into Shapes Velocity

Penetration Sand by Standard

Depth of Penetration Fragment Primary Residual Layers Fragment Fragment

Ballistic Limit (V50> versus lated Human and Goat Skin Personnel Personnel Threshold) I versus V5C versus Bands Response Response Ep for Mp for Bare Bare to Fragment to Fragment Explosives

Explosives

xvi

ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 6.44 6.45 6.46 6.47a 6.47b 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.10 7.11 7.12 7.13a 7.13b 7.14 750 versus h, Light 10 Error Bands 750 la -I/h lcr Flow Flow Typical versus k, Heavy Error Bands versus k, Heavy Error Bands Chart Chart (Continued) Curves of Explosive Explosive Explosive

(continued) Page Confinement Confinement Confinement Including 6-160 Including 6-161 Including 6-162 6-172 6-173 for Engineering Alloy Steel Concrete Strength Rate of of fJ Load7-14 fd with with "Weak" "Strong" with with Rate Steels at Materials and Struc7- 6 Strain 7- 9 7-12 7-12 7- 3

Stress-Strain Curves Properties

Stress-Strain tural Aluminum Stress-Strain Rates Typical Effect Increase ing for

Typical of Mild

Various

Stress-Strain of Compressive Concrete Compressive

Curves

for

of Age on Concrete

Compressive Strength Strength

Increase of for Concrete

Strain 7-15

Typical Stress-Strain E = 10.1 set-1 Typical E = 6.7 Variation pressive Variation Strength The Three Direction Typical Spruce Stress-Strain set-1

Curves Curves

for for

Concrete, 7-16 Concrete, 7-16 Dynamic the Respect Com7-18 Dynamic 7-18 to Grain 7-19 Sitka 7-21 Maple 7-21 7-22

of Dynamic Secant Modulus Strength for Concrete of Dynamic for Concrete Strain Energy

Principal Axes of Wood with and Growth Rings Curves Curves Strength for for with

Stress-Strain Specimens

Two Matched Iwo Matched Rate of Strain

Typical Stress-Strain Specimens Variation of Crush

xvii

ILLUSTRATIONS

(continued)
Page

Figure 7.15 7.16 7.17 7.18

7.19 Variation of Maximum with Strain-Rate The Immediate Effect Strength Crush of Strength of Various Woods

7-23
Temperature to the versus on the Modulus Value at 68OF Direction for Standard of

Elasticity
Impact Honeycomb Honeycomb Tension

of Wood Relative
Crush Strength Material Distribution

Bending

versus

Wood Fiber Density

7-30 7-32 7-34

Along

Reinforcements and Time for Bending to Maximum of Response

7-39

8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 8.10 8.11 8.12a 8.12b 8.13 8.14

Dynamic Load Factors (DLF) (tm> for Different F(t)'s Elastic-Plastic Beams Solution

8- 5 8- 6

Blast-Loaded System with Building a

Displacements of One-Degree-Of-Freedom Bi-Linear Resistance Function Elastic and Inelastic Frame Subjected to

8- 9 8-11
Gas P-i

Responses of Iwo-Story Sinusoidal Support Motions History Rise Finite from Vessel in Times Rise Confined

Schematic Overpressure-Time or Dust Explosion Comparison Diagram Effect Effect Recorded Schematic Effects Effect Load Design Design of for for of Zero in and Finite tr/td for

8-13 8-14 8-16 8-17 8-18 8-18

8-19

on the

of Change of Plasticity

Time Loading Spheres Vessel

Pressure-Time of Blast of Loading Support External Internal Which

Histories Loading from

Bursting
Burst

Characterizes on Maximum Structures

a Bursting Displacements

Stiffness Flexible Explosions Explosions

Transfer

Through

8-22 8-23 a-37 8-40

xviii

TABLES

Table 2.1 4.1 DOE Protective Pantex Properties "Correction Atmospheric Mission of Explosives for and Explosive Blast Parameters Chemicals for for Altitude Factors" Conditions Design Requirements by Type of Activity

Page

4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6

2-20 4-3 4-8 4-28

Normally Reflected Blast Wave Overpressures ard Sea-Level Ambient Conditions Test Conditions and for Impulses Loading Parameters Terms on Wall Tertiary Tertiary Damage Damage (Decelerative Involving Total Sequential for Over Affecting for Vented Explosions Single Plate Venting Chamber and Multiple

Stand-

Pressures Non-constant Physical

Charges

4-32 4-69 4-88 4-116 4-123 4-124 4-158

Dimensionless Blast Criteria to the Criteria Loading for Head for

Impact) Body X, for Impact Mini4-196 4-197

4-170 4-170

Blast Loads mum Standoff "Blowout Gurney

as a Function of Wall = 18 ft, W = 300 lb Blast for Loads Various for Energy

Position

Panel" Energies

Explosives Mild Steel Casings U/TAR and

6-

10

Mott Scaling Constants Various Explosives Variations Data Base in for Strain Building

6- 12
Coefficients 6- 42
6-

Fragmentation for Plotting Fragment Weights and

58
61

Cumulative Ranges

Percentiles

6Deviations, and "W" for Weights and 6Linear Regression

Listing of Estimated Means, Standard Statistics for Log-Normal Distributions Ranges of Fragments Resultant Analysis Coefficients on Missile from Multiple Dispersion

65

6.7

6- 74

xix

TABLES (continued) Table 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 6.14 6.15 6.16 6.17 6.18 6.19 6.20 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 8.1 8.2 List of Plates Parameters for for Penetration Penetration of Metal of Metal Sheets Sheets and 6Terms and 66Predicting Targets Compact Compact Targets Fragment Fragment 6(6.60) 88 6-109 for Damage Equations for Roofing (6.59) and 6-118 6-121 6-125 6-138 in Equations of Glass (6.69), Fragments Blast Concrete Materials at 40 Percent,, 7-35 Properties Properties of of Values of General Most Suitable Purpose Computer 8-28 Programs for 8-29 Steel 6061 Aluminum Alloy Sheet and 7-42 7-44 of Capabilities 7-41 (6.70) and (6.71) Ab6-148 Indirect for Effects from Non6-148 7-13 6-139 Penetrating Materials Limit 688 81 85 81

Page

' Nondimensional Plates Material Empirical Velocity Empirical Residual Penetration Ranges Fragment of

Properties Constants for for Mild Steel

Constants for Predicting Velocity for Mild Steel Factors Velocity Impact Factors

Nose Shape

THOR Constants Range of Variables

50 Percent Probability dominal Cavity Tentative penetrating Dynamic Properties Deformation Mechanical Mechanical Plate Clear Comparison Programs Criteria for Fragments Increase Factors of Energy

Dissipation

Wood Strength

Additional Features of the Elastic-Plastic Behavior

xx

FXAMPLE PROBLEMS Problem

4.1

Page Limit of Regular Shock Reflection for Oblique Shock Burst HE Cased Shocks HE Cylindrical Detonated for Simultaneously for Vent Vented HE Charges HE Blast

4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10

4.11

Reflected Comparison Parameters Blast Blast

Overpressure of Free-Air for for for for

4-48 4-48 4-49 4-51 4-52 4-53 4-64 4-65 4-79 4-87 4-113

and Ground Steel-Cased Brittle Strong Cylindrical for

Parameters Parameters Factor

Reflection

Peak Overpressure Equivalent Blast Sphere for

Weight

Pressures

Sequentially

Blast Pressures and Impulses Detonated Charges Internal Structure Vented Effects Concrete Lung Tertiary Ear Blast Blast Loading IGas Pressures Spa11 from Size Air Damage

Parameters Including and Velocity Blast to Humans 4.7 from to

4.12
4.13 * 4.14 4.15

Cover

Mass

Damage

Blast Injury

4.16 4.17
4.18

to Humans Through to Predict This Slab Manual Air

4-132 4-158 4-167 4-174 4-180 4-183

and 4-186

Use of Figures 4.5 Blast Parameters Internal Blast TM 5-1300 Pressure Rayleigh Vertical Maximum Velccity Maximum
Velocity

Predictions Imparted

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5

and Impulse Wave Properties Particle Radial Radial for Soil Soil
Cavity

on Grade

5- 9 5-11
5-19

Displacement Displacement Displacement Charge

and R-Wave and Particle and Particle

Velocity

5-28 5-37

xxi

EXAMPLE PROBLEMS (continued)

Problem

Page
Crater Ejecta Ground Pressures Ground Stress Stresses Initial Fragment Primary Fragment Velocity Fragment Velocity Fragment in Type Radius Shock Shock Effects Loading in Hardened on Buried on Buried Beam from Pipe from Velocities Ground Ground Structure Beam Pipe Shock Shock and Dimensions

5.6 5.7 5.8

5.9

and Impulses Elastic in Buried

5.10
5.11 5.12

5-50 5-51 5-66 5-72 5-76 5-80 5-81 6-18

6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 6.14 6.15 6.16

and Striking Fragment Presented of Near-Field of Far-Field

of Primary
6-19

Weights Area

and Numbers

6-21
Unconstrained Unconstrained Secondary Secondary Secondary Secondary

6-36 6-38

Velocity of Intermediate Velocity Maximum Fragment sion Fragment Source Sheet Limit Plate Limit Limit Plate Residual Residual of

Unconstrained Distance Constrained Range and Density in Sector

Fragment Fragment

at 6-39

6-46 6-55
Explo-

Fragment Number Density

for About

Building Explosion

6-68 6-76
6-92 for for for Rigid Wooden Steel Velocity Weight Fragment Impact on Steel 6-93 Velocity Rod Striking Fragment Striking Steel Plate Steel 6-95 Fragment Fragment 6-96 6-98 6-94

Denting Velocity

Velocity

xxii

EXAMPLE PROBLEMS (continued) Page Concrete Concrete Concrete Metal Scabbing Scabbing Spalling Fragment of Into Into for for for Impact Interior Cohesive Sand to Stop Steel Fragment Steel Steel Pipe Impact 4-111

Problem

6.17 6.18 6.19 6.20 6.21 6.22 6.23 6.24 6.25 6.26 6.27 6.28 6.29 6.30

Rod Impact

Wood Rod Impact on Concrete Walls Soil

6-112 6-113 6-114 6-119 6-140 6-141 6-142 6-152 6-152 6-153 6-153 6-163 6-164

Perforation Penetration Penetration Thickness Fragment

of Aluminum Penetration Injury Injury of from from Head by

of Human Skin Fragment Fragment Effects Impact Impact Impact Impact

Human Head Human Body Lower Limit

Impact

HE Initiation HE Initiation

Fragment

by Fragment

xxiii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this manual is to provide Architect-Engineer (AE) firms ground shock and fragment loadings guidance for the prediction of air blast, of structures as a result of accidental explosions in or near these structures. The primary objective is to develop a manual which is complementary to existing structural design manuals and can be used (in combination with other manuals) by AE firms to design new buildings which are resistant to blast and fragmentation effects of an accidental explosion. Another objective is to aid in the assessment of the explosion-resistant capabilities of existing buildings'at the Pantex Plant. The manual is specific for new or existing facilities at the Pantex However, most data and prediction methods are presented in general and can be applied to other high explosive facilities if proper modifactors are used. SCOPE Topics These
l

Plant. terms fying 1.2 1.2.1

Covered topics

in are:

This

Manual

General hazards I Explosives

l

considerations in high-explosive and damage from blast

affecting blast, facilities mechanisms explosions structures walls

ground

shock,

and fragment

Air blast external blast blast

accidental loading of of to

resulting

in both

internal

and

e Air 8 Air
l

spalling hazards

concrete personnel shock,

Cratering and ground ment, and personnel

including

effects

on buildings,

equip-

including methods Fragmentation, iatics, trajectories, dispersion Hazards to personnel from fragments l-l

for predicting fragment and impact effects

charact?r-

a Explosive crushing, 0 Dynamic 9

l

initiation pinching, properties of dynamic

by fragments, etc. of materials structural

overpressures,

heat,

friction,

of construction analysis and design methods explosives, an ex-

Overview

tensive

Included in bibliography,

appendices are tables of properties of and an SI metric conversion table.

Methods and procedures included in the manual are intended to be applied by an engineer with a working knowledge of structural dynamics, with the aid of, at most, a desk calculator. Example problems are included for all prediction graphs. Confidence levels for prediction methods are cited throughout and needs for design verification by proof tests or experimental research are identified where appropriate. General theory or fundamenqal principles are and advanced concepts and theories identified, in the manual. Related Topics Covered in Other Manuals given for each topic but not rigorously if

needed, treated 1.2.2

The complementary nature of this manual requires its use in conjunction with other references (1.1~1.20), rather than as a single comprehensive manual, if one wishes to cover all aspects of loading from accidental exploresponse to and damage from such explosions, and design for resistance sions, Related items which are not to or survival under accidental explosions. covered in depth in this manual, but are well treated in other general references, are the following: 8 Basic
l l l

physics

of

air

blast for elastic-plastic and ground dynamics shock missiles of structures

Detailed Fundamental Exterior* over wide Fundamentals

analysis studies

methods of

cratering

and terminal ballistics ranges of missile and of physics references (Ref. 1.2). is the science dynamic properties

of fragments and accident target properties of materials

0 Detonation

(Ref.

Two good general 1.1) and Swisdak 'ballistics

on basic physics of air Both of these references of flight of high-speed

blast are Baker also include objects through

*Exterior the air.

l-2
.

extensive explosives.

tables

and

graphs

for

prediction

of blast

wave

properties

for

high

There are a number of good references which present detailed analysis We recommend Biggs methods for elastic and plastic dynamics of structures. (Ref. 1.3), Norris, et al. (Ref. 1.4), "Suppressive Shields" (Ref. l.5), Crawford, et al. (Ref. 1.6), TM5-1300 (Ref. 1.7), or Cox, et al. (Ref. 1.8). All references present approximate methods for dynamic structural response Refs. 1.3 through 1.7 use essentially the same which are well validated. approximation methods, while Ref. 1.8 employs a somewhat different approach. Cratering and ground shock from buried or ground contact explosions Of these, good general references, are covered in a number of references. available only for ground shock processes, are Richart, et al. (Ref. 1.9) and The reader is referred to Chapter 5 for cratering referBarkan (Ref. 1.10). ences, which are scattered throughout the literature. Studies of flight and impact of fragments and missiles from accidental explosions and planned detonations are relatively few, particularly when the majority of the fragments are secondary ones such as pieces of equipment or Similarly, structure which were at some distance from the explosive source. there are few comprehensive references for impact effects of relatively Refs. 1.11 and 1.12 have the most massive secondary fragments or missiles. complete studies, but they refer to fragments from liquid propellant exploThe most complete study for secondary debris sions and gas vessel bursts. hazards from accidental HE explosions is contained in Chapter 6 of this manual. There are many references giving dynamic properties of structural On the other metals. Ref. 1.13 is a good general reference on this topic. hand, there are few such references for dynamic properties of concrete, earth or gravel, and frangible materials which form a large part of structures at the Pantex Plant. Chapter 7 contains a distillation of data which are available for these materials. The physics of detonation of high explosives has been studied for many There are several good reference texts years, both in the U. S. and abroad. on this subject, with perhaps the best and most readable being Johansson and Other good references on this topic are an Army manual Persson (Ref. 1.14). 1.15), and a set of symposium proon principles of explosive behavior (Ref. ceedings on behavior and utilization of explosives in engineering design (Ref. 1.16). A good working knowledge of this topic is very useful in prediction of such topics as fragment velocities and masses, and explosive initiation by fragment impact.
E

There are also several general references which contain background TM5-1300 (Ref. material useful in more than one area related to this manual. 1.7) and "Suppressive Shields" (Ref. 1.5) certainly are in this category, but one can also glean much useful information from a summary report on research l-3

during World War II in many aspects of ballistics (Ref. 1.17), and a translation of German ballistic research studies from the same era (Ref. 1.18). ?X The minutes of explosives safety seminars for the Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board (DDESB) are also quite useful, and will be cited many times in the reference lists, The final general reference Lontaining good background material appearsin an unlikely source, the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, as the proceedings of a 1968 seminar on explosive safe lr topics (Ref. 1.19). 1.2.3 Organization and supporting appendices. and contains no technical oriented.

This manual is organized into eight chapters This first chapter serves as a brief introduction, details, but all following chapters are technically

Chapter 2 covers general considerations in explosive safety and design at the Pantex Plant. It covers the scope of explosive safety in a general way, describes general procedures for designing or evaluating buildings subgives typical building configurations, and jected to high explosive hazards, discusses impact of safety regulations and procedures on explosion-resistant design. The applicability and limits of applicability of the manual are noted. Chapter 3 gives qualitative discussions of the predominant aspects of explosive hazards and damage mechanisms associated with accidental explosions. The effects are also limited to those which could conceivably occur from accidental explosion of HE or chemicals used in processing of HE at Pantex. This chapter serves as a preview of Chapters 4, 5, and 6. Chapter 4 gives relatively detailed coverage of air blast from those classes of accidental explosions which could conceivably occur in the Pantex Topics covered include blast waves from single and multiple sources, Plant. effects of containment and venting, methods of predicting blast loads on structures for both internal and external explosions, air blast spalling of concrete walls, and air blast hazards to personnel. Basic phenomena Cratering and ground shock are covered in Chapter 5. are discussed, and methods are given for prediction of explosive cratering, and effects of ground motion on buildings, equipment, and ground shock waves, personnel. L Chapter 6 covers fragmentation and its effects for explos.ions which General phenomena are discussed, followed by methods could occur at Pantex. for predicting fragment characteristics, flight, and impact effects. A of explosive initispecial topic included in this chapter is the prediction ation by fragment impacts. Chapters 4, 5 and 6 are but they are supported the longest and most detailed chapters by two relatively short chapters giving l-4 in the

manual,

detailed information. Chapter 7 gives data on dynamic properties of construction which are or could be used in explosives facilities Pantex Plant while Chapter 8 gives an overview of design methods tures typical at Pantex. In each chapter giving or more example problems for of symbols and a list of all Ancillary of unit conversion and an extensive

materials at the for struc-

of

prediction methods, there is a section each method. Each chapter also contains references cited in the chapter. in from the manual are appendices SI metric units, explosive

with one a list

material included tables to and bibliography.

giving a set properties,

l-5

1.3 1.1

REFERENCES Baker, Texas, W. E., 1973. Explosions in Air, University of Texas Press, Austin,

1.2

Swisdak, M. M., plosion Effects ter, White Oak,

Jr., "Explosion Effects and Properties: Part I - Exin Air," NSWC/WOL/TR 75-116, Naval Surface Weapons CenSilver Spring, Maryland, October 1975. Dynamics, McGraw-Hill Book S.

1.3 1.4

Biggs, J. M., Introduction to Structural Company, New York, New York, 1964.

Norris, C. H., Hansen, R. J., Holley, M. J., Biggs, J. Design for Dynamic Loads, and Minami, J. V., Structural Book Company, New York, New York, 1959. "Suppressive Army Corps

M., Namyet, McGraw-Hill

1.5

of

Shields Structural Design and Analysis Handbook," U. S. Engineers, Huntsville Division, HNDM-1110-l-2, 1977.

1.6

Crawford, Robert E., Higgins, Cornelius, J., Bultmann, H., "The Air Force Manual for Design and Analysis of Hardened Structures," Report No. AFWL-TR-74-102, Contract No. F29601-74-C-0018, Civil Nuclear Systems Corporation, Albuquerque, New Mexico, October 1974, Second Printing October 1976. Structures to Resist the Effects of Accidental Explosions, Department of the Army Technical Manual TM 5-1300, Department of the Navy Publication NAVFAC P-397, Department of the Air-Force Manual AFM 88-22, Department of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, June 1969. Cox, P. A., Westine, P. S., Kulesz, J. J., and Esparza, E. D., "Analysis and Evaluation of Suppressive Shields," Edgewood Arsenal Contractor Report, ARCFL-CR-77028, Report No. 10, Contract No. DU15-75-C-0083, Edgewood Arsenal, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, January 1978. Richart, F. E., Jr., Soils and Foundations, 1970. Hall, J. R., Prentice-Hall, Jr., and Woods, R. D., Vibrations of Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, McGraw-Hill Book

1.7

1.8

1.9

1.10 1.11

of Bases and Foundations, Barkan, D. D., Dynamics Company, New York, New York, 1962.

Baker., W. E., Kulesz, J. J., Ricker, R. E., Bessey, R. L., Westine, P. S ., Parr, V. B., and Oldham, G. A., 'Workbook for Predicting Pressure Wave and Fragment Effects of Exploding Propellant Tanks and Gas Storage NASA CR-134906, NASA Lewis Research Center, November 1975. Vessels,"

l-6

t T*

1.12

Baker, W. E., Kulesz, J. J., Ricker, R. E., Westine, P. S., Parr, V. B., for Estimating the Effects Vargas, L. M., and Moseley, P. K., "Workbook of Accidental Explosions in Propellant Handling Systems," NASA Contractor Report 3023, Contract NAS 3-20497, NASA Lewis Research Center, August, 1978. Huffington, Norris J., Jr., (Ed,), Behavior Loading, The American Society of Mechanical York, 1965. Johansson, C. H. and Persson, P. A., Detonics demic Press, London and New York, 1970. of Materials Engineers, Under Dynamic New York, New

1.13

1.14

of

High

Explosives,

Aca-

1.15

U. S. Army Material Command, Engineering Design Handbook: of Explosive Behavior, AMC Pamphlet AMCP 706-180, 1972. "Behavior and Utilization of Explosives chemical Principles Applied to Chemical ~Mechanical 12th Annual S Mexico Section, March 1972. Office of Explosion," Committee, Scientific Research Summary Technical Washington, D.C.,

Principles

1.16

in Engineering Design Medicine," Proceedings Engineers,

and Bioof the New

1.17

and Development, Report, National 1946. AD 221 586

"Effects Defense to

of Impact Research

and

1.18

Doering, W. and Burkhardt, G., "Contributions tion," Translation from the German as Technical IA (GDAM A9-T-4G), Headquarters, Air Material AFB, Ohio, May 1949. AD 77863

the Theory of DetonaReport No. F-TX-1227Command, Wright-Patterson of MuniNew York

1.19

"Prevention of and Protection Against Accidental Explosions tions, Fuels, and Other Hazardous Mixtures," Annals of the Academy of Sciences, Vol. 152, Art. 1, October 1968. "Fundamentals Army Technical of Protection Design Manual, TM 5-855-1, (Non-Nuclear)," Department of the

1.20

Department of the Army, July 1965.

l-7

CHAPTER 2 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

2.1

INTRODUCTION subject complex Building in and to high explosive hazards, an AE firm problem into a series of general steps Designs buildings of explosives in each cell or

In designing buildings would normally divide this disciplines, as follows: A. Develop 1. 2. Conceptual

or

Consider Determine unit. the

operations types Explosion explosion air blast

quantities

B.

Define 1. 2.

Environment source loads characteristics from single or multiple explosion

Determine Determine sources Determine

3. 4.

possible

ground

shock

and/or

cratering from casings structures. Response

effects for explo-

Determine characteristics sive materials and nearby Building, Equipment, response response response Design to air

of fragments objects and and Personnel blast loading shock impact.

C.

Predict 1. 2. 3.

Determine Determine Determine Iterative

to ground to fragment to Provide

D.

Perform

Explosion

Resistance

We will present in this manual data and design information which will with the exception of Step D, which aid an AE firm in all of these steps, To assist in the planning of should be readily available in other manuals. is presented in Chapter 8 which provides a procedure Step D, a flow chart for the analysis and design of structures (existing and new). In many instances, quantities of explosives which can be present in the types of explosives or other hazardous various facilities at Pantex, materials which can be stored or worked on together, distances between

2-l

buildings and areas, and many other resistant building design are fixed and other regulatory requirements. tions or manuals in effect are: 1. 2. ERDA Facilities Seismic Facility Hazard (Ref. General.

factors which impinge directly or limited by existing safety, At Pantex, some of the pertinent Handbook (Ref. Behavior 2.1) at the

on blastsecurity regula-

Design

and .Building 2.2)

Structure

Pantex

3.

Development of Design Basis Tornadoes Pantex Plant Site (Ref. 2.3) AMCR 385-100, TM 5-1300, (Ref. 2.5) Safety Structures Manual to (Ref. 2.4) the

and Design

Manual

for

the

4. 5.

Resist

Effects

of Accidental

Explosions

6. 7.

DOD Ammunition Pantex Plant

and Explosives Design Criteria

Safety Manual

Standards (Ref. 2.7)

(Ref.

2.6)

Reference 2.1 in particular includes a number of other regulations and guides by reference, including References 2.4 and 2.5. This design criteria handbook also defines three high-explosive hazard classes, with decreasing potential for explosive accident as the class number increases. An AE firm involved in design of protective construction at Pantex should review this handbook, and the other references cited here, to insure compliance. Some of the implications of the regulations are discussed in this chapter. The existing facilities at the Pantex Plant include many types, conThere are a number of abovestructed or modified from 1944 to the present. ground buildings, both with and without barricades; mounded, earth-covered buildings; shallow-buried buildings; storage igloos; and containment strucThese buildings have various designs for venting explosion pressures tures. and varying degrees of blast resistance. Planned new designs cover the same spectrum of building types, barricading or lack of barricading, and venting Examples are given later in this or containment as do existing buildings. chapter. References 2.1 through 2.9 are documents which design of structures to be resistant to explosions This manual is not a criteria document, nor is it Rather, it is a design aid for predicting design. ing from accidental explosions, and it is intended to other structures design manuals. establish criteria for and natural phenomena. a manual for structural blast and fragment loadfor use as a complement

2-2

.--.

-__

-_.-

2.2

GENERAL PROCEDURE FOR DESIGN OR EVALUATION HIGH EXPLOSIVE HAZARDS Determination of Explosion Source

OF BUILDINGS

SUBJECTED TO

2.2.1

Characteristics

Potential accidental explosion sources at the Pantex Plant consist primarily of high explosives (HE), in one of several forms, and in various Because some explosives synthesis is done at states and configurations. Pantex, potentially explosive liquid chemicals are also present in some facilities. The state of the solid explosives can be pressed HE, bulk (loose) HE, or cast HE. Although most explosives are m-based, RDX-based, or TATB pressed explosives, older types of castable explosives such as TNT or CompoThe older types are usually sition B are also present in some facilities. Chapter present in larger quantities of 100 to 500 pounds as single items. 4 and Appendix A give much more detail on types and properties of explosion sources. Air blast source characteristics for all types of explosives can be determined using these data. 2.2.2 Determination of Air Blast Loading

Once the type, quantity and configuration of the explosion sources are defined, the next step in the definition of the explosion environment is the The general phenomena and qualitative definition of the air blast loading. discussions of explosions are covered in Chapter 3, while much more detailed phenomenology of air blast is covered in Chapter 4. In particular, one first determines free-field blast wave characteristics for the specified explosion and then determines actual internal and external blast source or sources, loading on structures or parts of structures. Details of these procedures, with example problems, appear in Chapter 4. 2.2.3 Determination of Ground Shock and Cratering coupling of significant the explosion ground shock to or

In some accident scenarios at Pantex, the ground may be efficient enough to develop These include: to cause craters to be formed. 1. 2. 3. These three sion to the for prediction ter, together *See Chapter ment. Explosion Explosion Surface ground. in in an earth-covered a strong, with buried explosive

storage containment source

igloo cell* in contact with floor or

explosion

situations represent different degrees of coupling of the exploEach is discussed in detail in Chapter 5, and methods ground. of ground shock and cratering effects are given in that chapwith a number of example problems. 5, Section 5.,1, for discussion of buried structures and contain-

2-3

2.2.4

Determination

of

Fragment

Characteristics

Many accidental explosions cause extensive fragmentation, and the resulting high-speed fragments in turn cause much of the-damage from the explosion. Those fragments which are generated by the casings or containers which surround explosive sources are termed primary fragments. Secondary fragments are formed by pieces of equipment near explosive sources and pieces of the structures in which the explosion occurred. The definition of the characteristics and impact effects of both primary and secondary fragments one could expect in explosions in Pantex facilities is a major topic in this manual. Chapter 6 covers this topic, and gives many graphs and formulas for prediction of fragmentation. Example problems are given in that chapter. 2.2.5 Determination Loading of Building, Equipment, and Personnel Response to Blast

Once the explosion environment is defined for a design basis explosion at Pantex, the first step in the prediction of building and equipment response is to determine response to air blast loading. This response can be toppling or translation, elastic structural response, or elastic-plastic response up to rupture or complete failure. We reiterate that this manual does not contain detailed procedures for such response prediction. But, Chapter 8 does give an overview of dynamic structural design and reviews various manuals and references which can be used for such design. 2.2.6 Determination Shock of Building, Equipment, and Personnel Response to Ground

Ground shock motions can be similar to seismic disturbances for surface structures, shallow-buried structures, building equipment, and personnel. Intense ground shocks can also displace and damage buried piping. These effects are treated at some length in this manual, because they are not readily available elsewhere. The detailed treatment, and a number of example problems, appear in Chapter 5. 2.2.7 Determination ment Impact of Building, Equipment, and Personnel Response to Frag-

Primary fkagments from HE explosions are generally numerous, metallic, small (less than a pound in weight), and high velocity (up to 9,000 feet per second), They are efficient penetrators of most building materials, and efficient for killing or seriously wounding humans. Secondary fragments are usually relatively few, can be quite massive (up to tons in weight), are usually slower than primary fragments (hundreds of feet per second), and can consist of a variety of materials, including chunks of relatively weak materials such as wood or concrete. They are usually poor penetrators, but can cause damage to structures and humans by simple momentum transfer during impact. Much more is known about response to primary fragment impact than is known for secondary fragment impact.

2-4

Chapter 6 covers our current state of knowledge for predicting impact effects of both types of fragments. Terms commonly used in this field, such as penetration, perforation and spalling, are defined and procedures are given for determining impact effects on structures, people, and HE. A number of example problems on fragment impact effects appear in Chapter 6. 2.2.8 Iterative Design of Explosion-Resistant Buildings

An AE firm, in designing explosion-resistant buildings for the Pantex facility, will usually find that for most parts of the building, the limiting response to one or more of the explosion environment conditions will far outweigh other design considerations, such as response to seismic disturbances, and tornadic winds (Refs. 2.2, 2.3, 2.8, and 2.9) but the first design will The AE must then often prove to be seriously overdesigned or underdesigned. redesign, and check to determine whether the new design, which may now be optimized for air blast resistance, is adequate for ground shock, fragment impact resistance, and other design loadings. The detailed procedures for such iterative design are not given in this manual, but Chapter 8 gives a flow chart to indicate the steps an AE firm may have to follow during the iterative design process. 2.3 2.3.1 IMPACT OF SAFETY, SECURITY AND OTHERREGULATORY REQUIREMENTS BLASTON RESISTANT DESIGN Typical Building Configurations

There are many types of buildings existing or planned for the Pantex Plant. Figure 2.1 gives an aerial view of the entire plant, and Figures 2.2 and 2.3 show the complexes of buildings in Zone 11 and Zone 12, respectively. One can see in these photos a number of above-ground buildings, both barri.caded and unbarricaded; and also several types of earth-covered buildings. 2.3.1.1 Above-Ground Buildings These are of four types:
l

Unbarricaded Barricaded . Controlled

l

venting

Vented

Most of the above-ground buildings in Zones 11 and 12 are multipleThe majority of buildings in both zones are wood or steel bay buildings. masonry block or brick walls and reinforced concrete, framed with clay tile, Some of the blast-resistant buildings are vented. blast-resistant walls.

2-5

ties

A typical unbarricaded of HE, is Building 11-5,

building, shown in

used for Figure 2.4.

testing

with

small

quanti-

Figure 2.5 shows an above-ground barricaded building, Building This multi-bay building is used for HE pressing, and has a double-revetted barricade placed on one side to arrest fragments and pieces of blowout in the event of an explosion in a bay.

11-20. panels

Few of the existing buildings are designed for complete or nearly complete explosion containment, but a new design for a high explosives machining facility (Refs. 2.10 and 2.11) is essentially a containment structure, with minimal explosion venting and complete fragment containment being feaFigure 2.6 is a plan view of the west sector of this tures of the design. facility. 2.3.1.2 Earth-Covered These
l

Buildings are of three types:*

buildings

Mounded

structures structures structures structure is Building and has an explosive FS-11, Figure 2.7a. limit of 400 pounds. storing various magazines are in Figure 2.7b.

. Shallow-buried
l

Underground

This

An example of a mounded building is used for gaging In

quantities examples

Zone 4 is a series of service magazines for of HE, up to 9,000 pounds in one bay. These They are visible of shallow-buried structures.

In Zone 12, there is a series of underground containment cells, or designated Building 12-44. These cells have a reinforced Gravel Gerties, concrete cylindrical wall and a roof of 17 feet or more of gravel, supEach cell and adjacent staging bays ported by a cable support system. Access is through equipment and personnel blast-resistant form one facility. doors. There are presently seven such cell facilities located close to each other (Figure 2.8). 2.3.1.3 Venting Schemes buildings employ some scheme for explosion ventare relatively light roofs and outside walls in Some new designs will employ mazes buildings. of buildings are somewhat as buried structures. arbitrary.

Many of the Pantex The most common types ing. multi-bay explosion-resistant *The distinctions In Chapter 5, all

between these types are simply classed

2-9

Corridor

Light 27 Partitions ,(typ) Process Waste Water Treatment

b
Spa11 Plate

Reinforced Concrete bYd -L Ualls

Op:
Scale in feet View of West Sector for an Above-Ground Containment Pantex "(New HE Development Plachining Facility)

Figure

2.6 Building

Plan at

and open passageways over larger equipment containment buildings fragments.

for venting, and will use blast-resistant blowout covers openings. The Gravel Gertie structures are designed as which should attenuate blast waves, as well as arrest vent.ing venting in Figure Safety roof construction wall panel in 2.11. Regulations is Figure shown 2.10. and in FigMaze Spacing 1

'a&

An old design for light, ure 2.9, and a design for a light, venting in a new design is shown 2.3.2 Impact of Blast

and Fragment

on Design

In most instances, proximity of explosive storage and handling facilities to each other, to inhabited buildings, to roadways, etc., is dictated by current explosives safety regulations such as AMCR 385-100 (Ref. 2.4), which gives quantity-distance standards. These standards are based partly on accident data, partly on limiting air blast overpressures, and partly on very approximate fragment safety distances. If one can prove by test or conservative analysis that all fragments are contained in an explosive facility, safety distances can sometimes.be drastically reduced. If one can prove by test or conservative analysis that blast pressures are completely contained or strongly attenuated, one can also reduce safety distances. In the Pantex Plant, radiological safety considerations often must be considered together with explosives safety, because the HE is often present in close proximity to plutonium, or in the same assembly. Reference 2.1 specifies various types of protec,tive design, dependent on the class of the explosion hazard (Class I being severe, Class II moderate, and Class III minimal hazard), whether HE is present alone or with plutonium, and whether the HE-Pu combination is cased or uncased. Table 2.1 summarizes these requirements. An AE firm involved in design at Pantex should be certain to check References 2.1, 2.4 and 2.13 to assure compliance with these requirements. 2.3.3 Impact of Security Requirements on Design and Spacing

In an explosives facility like the Pantex Plant, security is necessarily very strict. Needs for surveillance, control of access, prevention of theft or sabotage, etc., may in many cases dictate facility configuration or spacing which may conflict with explosive safety requirements. The AE will be given guidance as required by DOE. 2.4 APPLICABILITY AND LIMITS OF APPLICABILITY OF MANUAL

This manual is specific for helping define blast, ground shock, and fragment hazards for the Pantex Plant. We reiterate that it is not a structural design manual, but should aid structural designers in defining their dynamic input loads for various facilities within the plant. Effects are emphasized in example problems for typical quantities of HE that would be present in various Pantex facilities.

2-16

Built-up Tar and Gravel Roof (20 year Over 1 inch Insulation Board, 2 Inch Gypsum Deck and 1/2 inch Gypsum Board High Gravel Cornice Lkt. / Guard. See

specification) Poured Perlfted Pow

Pilled Lintel #s Top L3x3x4 Ha Weld to GI-& 8815 Purlins

1 Concrete Haydite Block8 and Botto

Icrete Purlins

Styrofoam \

insulation 6T 12.5 unvay Beam

6 inch

Haydice

Block

Figure

2.9

Detail

for

Venting

Roof

Design

(Building

11-14)

5582

t 2x2x3/16

Wall Between Rooms to Be Dust Tight

l/2 in. Non-combustible Board. Tape All Joints Openings.

Wall And

Figure

2.10

Detail

of

Venting

Wall

Panel

(Building

li-20)

2-18

Fl

Blast

Doors

Maze - Acts as a Fragment Stop Industrial Door

Figure

2.11

Plan View of New Design Bay with Maze Venting

Containment

2-19

Table

2.1 DOE Protective By Type Of Activity

.a

Design (Ref.

Requirements 2.1)

Type of Activity Class HE-Pu HE Only Cased Uncased Cased Uncased Cased Uncased HE Only HE Only HE-Pu HE-Pu Supporl Area I HE Class II HE Class III HE

Protective Design Required

AMCR 385-100 For Activity X X X X X X For OccuX a E a E zj X z E I3 52 X X X X

Requirements Involved

Explosion Protection Personnel in Other pied Areas Including Adjacent Bays

Explosion Protection For All Personnel (Remote Operation) X

Control of Plutonium In The Event of an Explosion

High Level Protection From Natural Phenomena From X X

Normal Natural

Protection Phenomena

Radiological tions.

ConsideraX X

Although this manual is specific for the Pantex Plant, much of ial is quite general and should be applicable to many high explosives ties other than Pantex. But, AE firms are cautioqd that it should outside of Pantex only if proper modifying factors are applied.

materfacilibe used

the

2.5 2.1 2.2

REFERENCES "ERDA Manual ERDA, Division URS/John Structure Amarillo Appendix 6301, of Construction Facilities Planning General Design Criteria Handbook," and Support, March 1977. "Seismic prepared Hazard and Building for U. S. ERDA,

A. Blume and Associates, Engineers, Behavior at the Pantex Facility," Area Office, April 1976.

2.3

Department of Civil Engineering, Texas Tech University, "Final Report. Development of Design Basis Tornadoes and Design Manual for the Pantex Plant Site," prepared for U. S. AEC, Amarillo Area Office, August 1975. AMCR 385-100, "Safety. Department of the Army, HeadquarSafety Manual," ters, U. S. Army Material Development and Readiness Command. (Basic document dated April 1970, but revisions through January 1977). TM?&1300, Department Structures to Resist of the Army Technical the Effects of Manual, 1969. Accidental Explosions,

2.4

2.5 2.6

DOD 5154.45, "DOD Ammunition and Explosives Safety Standards," Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower, Reserve Affairs and Logistics), January 1978. "Pantex tion. Plant Design Criteria Manual," (PDCM Vol. I & II), Design prepared current edi-

2.7 2.8

URS/John A. Blume and Associates, Engineers, "Seismic ings and Sprinkler Systems for the Pantex Facility," ERDA, Amarillo Area Office, April 1976. Department of Civil for Tornado Resistant U. S. AEC, Amarillo Engineering, Structures Area Office, Texas Tech University, at the Pantex Plant November 1974.

of Buildfor U. S.

2.9

"Design Manual Site," prepared for

2 .lO Booker

Associates, Inc., "Title I Design Analysis, placement of High Explosives Machining Facility," Texas, January 1979.

Volume I of Pantex Plant,

II. ReAmarillo,

2.11 Booker

Associates, Inc., "Title II Design Analysis, Volume II of IV. Structural Calculations. Replacement of High Explosives Machining Facility," Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas, September 1979. Associates, Inc., "Title II Design Analysis. Volume III of IV. Structural Calculations. Replacement of High Explosives DevelopMachining Facility," Pantex Plant, Amarillo; Texas, September 1979.

-2.12 Booker
More ment

2-22

2.13

"Interim Facilities," Operations

Safety Criteria for the Design of Production Available from U.S. Department of Energy, Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Plant Explosive Albuquerque

2-23

CHAPTER 3 EXPLOSIVES AND DAMAGE MECHANISMS

3.1

INTRODUCTION

The topic of explosives and damage mechanisms is extensive, and we give in this chapter primarily qualitative discussions of the predominant charateristics and effects associated with accidental explosions. The effects are also limited to those which could conceivably occur at Pantex. This chapter serves as a preview of more detailed and explicit discussions and quantitative effects in Chapter 4, 5 and 6. 3.2 3.2.1 GENERAL ASPECTS OF EXPLOSIVE HAZARDS Explosion Phenomena general characteristics and of the air blast and their transmission of explosions of solid or waves or ground shocks genthrough air or earth.

liquid erated Aspects

Here we discuss the explosive materials, by such explosions, covered are:

l

Blast Air

from blast

bare and

explosives ground shock

in from

air surface buried including bursts explosives, blast including and fragmentation. effects

Ground of air . Explosion

shock space of

and cratering from around explosives cased explosives, in

3.2.1.1

Blast

From Bare

Explosives

Air

Bare, solid explosives must detonate to produce any explosive effect other than a fire. The term detonation refers to a very rapid and stable chemical reaction which proceeds through the explosive material at a speed D, called the detonation velocity, which is supersonic in the unreacted explosive.* Detonation velocities are of the order of 25,000 ft per set for most The detonation wave rapidly converts the solid or liquid high explosives. explosive into a very hot, dense, high-pressure gas, and the volume of this gas which had been the explosive material then is the source of strong blast waves in air. Only explosives about one-third is released 3.1 or 3.2 for of in the total chemical energy available the detonation process. The remaining general discussion of the detonation in most two-

high

*See Reference process.

good

3-l

thirds ducts effect tion.

is released more slowly mix with air and burn. on blast wave properties

in explosions in air as the detonation proThis afterburning process has only a slight because it is so much slower than detona-

When the detonation front reaches the surface of abare explosive, it is transmitted into the surrounding air as an intense shock wave, which propagates outward at hypersonic speed.* The pressure, temperature, and density behind the shock front are very high, and there is also a strong outward flow of detonation products and air.* The shock front slows very rapidly as it diverges outward, and decays rapidly in strength (pressure), temperature, density, and outward flow. Eventually, the wave becomes so weak that it behaves like a sound wave. Then, the transmission speed is constant at sound speed (Mach l), the changes in pressure and all other physical parameters from the ambient air are very small, and the wave can cause no damage. For an AE firm considering damaging effects of air blast waves at Pantex, this "far-field" regime is of little interest, except for possible blast wave focusing at great distances by inhomogeneous atmospheric effects.f More complete discussion of air and prediction graphs and equations, all is a good general reference on this topic 3.2.1.2. Air Blast and Ground Shock from blast waves, definitions of terms, appear in Chapter 4. Reference 3.3 for background reading. Surface Bursts

An explosive source detonated on the ground surface will generate both intense air blast waves and also ground shock waves of moderate strength. The partitioning of the explosion energy between air and ground shock is, to determined by the characteristics of the surface in the immedisome extent, ate vicinity of the explosive and the explosive configuration. A heavily reinforced concrete slab will, for example, act as a better reflector than a But, any solid surface is a fairly efficient reflector, soft bed of sand. so the majority of the explosive energy drives the air blast wave. The effective energy for air blast will always be at least 1.7 times the energy for an explosion in "free-air" away from the ground (See Reference 3.4). In this manual, we do not present separate curves and formulas for air blast from surface explosions, but show in Chapter-4 how to use the free-air blast curves for this situation. Ground shock from surface explosions is discussed in more detail in Chapter 5. *At the surface of TNT explosive detonated in air, the initial is about twenty-six times the speed of sound (Mach 26), and flow velocity is about Mach 22. TFocusing is not discussed in this manual. shock speed the initial

3-2

3.2.1.3

Ground

Shock

and Cratering

From Buried

Explosives

An explosion from a buried explosive drives a wave into the ground The characteristics of this wave are very which is called a ground shock. Initial pressures are much higher, but the different from an air blast wave, wave velocity is very little more than the velocity of a compression wave (P Particle velocities are low, and the time wave) in a seismic disturbance. histories of velocity and displacement in the ground resemble seismic disturbances, with an initial strong pulse followed by several decaying, oscillating pulses. The character of the ground shock pulse is profoundly affected by the presence of the ground surface and by layering, or differences in soil properties, If the exploas it propagates outward from the explosion source. sion occurs in an underground cavity with some air space around the explosive, the ground shock pulse can be drastically attenuated, compared to explosions in intimate contact with the soil, A buried explosion will invariably form some kind of crater, or The type of crater is dependent on total explosion cavity in the ground. For shaldepth of burial, and to a lesser extent, the type of soil. energy, low-buried explosions, the explosive gases vent through the ground surface, and there can be considerable ejecta thrown up and out, with some falling back into the crater. Below some burial depth, the explosive gases will not vent, and a more or less spherical cavity, called a camouflet, is formed. Chapter 5 covers the detail. Methods are given in teristics for explosions which of example problems. Methods and dimensions of craters, in problems also appear in Chapter 3.2.1.4 Explosion of Cased topics of ground shock and cratering in some Chapter 5 for prediction of ground shock characcould occur in Pantex facilities, with a number are also given for prediction of cratering mode, Cratering example the form of scaled curves. 5.

Explosives

When an explosive is contained in a casing, the casing affects the blast wave generated by an explosion and provides a source of damaging, highspeed fragments. For a casing made of a ductile material, rapid expansion occurs when the very high pressure detonation products impinge on the inner When the casing has expanded to about 1.5 times its surface of the casing. original diameter, it ruptures into many fragments, and the explosion gases The blast wave forms, and outruns escape between the gaps in the fragments. the fragments for a time. But air shock speed decays much more quickly than fragment speed, and the fragments eventually pass through and outrun the blast wave. The character of both the blast wave and the fragmentation are affected by overall geometry of the casing and explosive, the mass of each, and Thin, light casings can actually enhance the blast the casing materials. while heavy casings usually wave, for reasons that are not entirely clear, Fragment velocities, numbers, and mass distributions attenuate the blast.

3-3

are strongly affected by casing material usually numerous, and can have velocities

and thickness. The fragments as high as 9,000 ft per sec.

are

Chapter 6 is devoted to fragmentation, and gives methods for predicting fragment velocities and masses for cased explosives. Predictions for attenuation or enhancement of air blast by casings appear in Chapter 4. Example problems are given for prediction curves and equations in both chapters. 3.2.2 High Explosive Sensitivity centers on those stimuli which can initiate violent in high explosives and chemicals used in explosive tests for sensitivity are identified and discussed include:

This discussion reactions or detonations processing. "Standard" briefly.* The stimuli . Shock . Impact
l

initiation initiation initiation

Thermal

9 Friction 9 Static 3.2.2.1 Shock electric Initiation discharge.

High explosives can always be detonated by sufficiently strong shock waves, because this is their mode of initiation in normal use. In accidental explosions, the source of the strong shock can be a detonating explosive or high-speed fragments launched by an explosion. All secondary high explosives are relativelyt insensitive to shock initiation, for safety in use, transportation, and storage. The most,commonly used test to determine card gap test (See Refs. 3.5 and 3.6). The test ure 3.1. A donor explosive charge is detonated, through a series of inert cards which fills a gap acceptor charge being tested. Detonation of the steel witness plate has a clean hole blown through shock sensitivity is the arrangement is shown in Figand drives a strong shock between the donor and an acceptor is assumed if the it. The number of cards

*The word "standard" is in quotations because there are many variations of some of the tests, dependent on the agency which developed each test and on the agency or laboratory conducting the tests. Tests described may or may not accurately reflect those conducted at Pantex. ?-Safe relative to primary or initiating explosives.

3-4

Engineera

Special

Blaeting Wood Block

CAP (J-2) ------A

panto1ita

Booatar

Cagd Gap CeUulose

Aptate Card9

0.01

inch

mch

Pmpellant.or Exploriven compositioa Samph Cardboard Steel Tube Tube

Figure

3.1

Card

Gap Test

Arrangement

(Ref.

3.5)

3-5

is varied from no detonation.

test

to

test

until

limits

are

determined

for

detonation

and

An instrumented version of the card gap test is used to determine shock sensitivity for liquids (see Figure 3.2 and Ref. 3.7). Here, the detonation velocity in the liquid is measured by a resistance probe running the length of the tube used to contain the liquid. The resistance wire in the center of a very light, thin-walled aluminum tube is shorted by the collapsing tube, and gives a continuous measure of detonation or shock front location. If the velocity of the front continuously decays, there is no detonation. If it reaches and sustains a fixed, high value, detonation has occurred. Another standard shock sensitivity test is the No. 8 blasting cap test (Ref. 3.5). A 2-inch cube of explosives is placed on a lead cylinder 1.5-inches in diameter by 4-inches high, which is in turn placed on a mild steel plate, 0.5-inches thick by 12-inches square. A No. 8 blasting cap is positioned with its flat end in coptact with the center of the surface of the explosive cube opposite the lead cylinder. Mushrooming of the lead cylinder is considered evidence of detonation. The test is conducted a minimum of five times, or until detonation occurs. 3.2.2.2 Impact Initiation

The most common type of impact test for initiation is a drop weight test. There are a bewildering number of such tests, but all are similar in impacting a quite small sample of test material on an anvil or base with a relatively massive guided drop weight. Height of drop is varied in some systematic manner until an average height is obtained for achieving a violent reaction of the material. Figure 3.3 shows a schematic of one drop weight impact test apparatus (Ref. 3.6). This test involves placing the sample on a fixed anvil in a restricted but unconfined state. The sample thickness is~similar in dimension to that occurring in processing. A hammer of known contact area is positioned above the sample and the weight is raised to a predetermined height and dropped. Normally, sample initiation is detected by audible, visual, sensory means or by infrared analysis of selected decomposition products. A test is comprised of twenty "no initiation" trials at a given input and at least one initiation at the next higher interval (i.e., 25% greater The energy delivered to the sample is measured with a force energy input). gage. A higher velocity and larger scale impact test (Ref. 3.8). The Susan Sensitivity test is a projectile The weight of explosive projectile shown in Figure 3.4. The target is armor-plated steel. head is about 1 lb. tests ara expressed in terms of a "sensitivity" curve in released by the explosive "point-source detonation energy" impact is plotted against the velocity of the projectile. is the Susan test impact test with the in the projectile The results of the which the relative as a result of the The relative

3-6

0
@ @ @ @ 0 @

CAP
FIANCES I BOLTS NOT SHWN CCikANT BRASS DIAPHRAGM THERMOCOUPLE. CHROMEL-CO(SIANTAN TEST GAS INLET TEST GAS WTID I JACKEI. 20 GAUGE SHEET METAL, 1 in. FOAM INSUUTIOH

@
@ @

CMXING
VEloCllY

COIL FOR llPUl0

PROBE

NITROGB(

BOOSTER WEll

Figure

3.2

Schematic

of

Gap Test

Apparatuk

for

Liquids

(Ref.

3.7)

4
VARIABLEDIBTANCEOFDROP-w.

I
RODSTOGUIDEWEIGRT

FALL~GWBIGHT(VAR~BLEMAS~) (STANDARD = 4.4 LBS.)

INTERMEDIATEHAMMER (VARIABLE) (STANDARD= 2.3 ms.1 -GUYDECOLL$R

VARIABLEGAPDISTANCE

MACHINEBASE

CONCRETE

Figure

3;3

Schematic

of a Drop-Weight

Impact Test Machine (Ref.

3.6)

0 a

Aluminum

cap

Figure

3.4

The Susan

Projectile

(Ref.

3.8)

point-source detonation energy can be derived from a transit-time measurement of the air shock from the point of impact to a pressure gauge 10 ft away. The results determined in this manner are somewhat subjective, particularly when the reaction level shows a large but relatively slow increase with time. The preferred way to get at the "point-source detonation energy" at present is to relate it to the overpressure measured 10 ft from the impact. This,results in much more reproducible data and is not subject to many of the errors of the transit-time measurements. The energy scale is set to range from zero for no chemical reaction to approximately 100 for the most violent detonation-like reactions (all explosive consumed) for the most energetic explosives. Less violent burning reactions that appear to consume all of the explosive can give values on the scale as low as 40; the energy equivalent of TNT fully reacted as a point source, would register at 70 on the scale. For each explosive considered, comments are made on the details of the impact process that seem to bear on the impact safety of an explosive. Remarks about probabilities of large reactions are relevant to unconfined charges in the 25-lb class. Smaller unconfined charges show a trend of decreasing reaction level as the charge size gets smaller. 3.2.2.3 Thermal Initiation of Sev-

explosives, eral such

There are a number of standard tests of the thermal stability which can also indicate sensitivity to thermal initiation. tests, as described in Reference 3.8, follow.

Thermal changes in explosive materials can be measured in several ways, qualitatively and quantitatively. For high explosives (HE), one generally uses differential thermal analysis (DTA), thermogravimetric analysis CRT or vacuum stability) that measure the amount (TGA) and tests (pyrolysis, of gas evolved when an HE is heated for a stated period bf time at elevated Heating rates are lO'C/min. temperature. a. Differential Thermal Analysis (DTA), In the usual DTA analysis, identical containers are set up (one containing the sample and the other containing a standard reference substance) in identical thermal geometries with temperature sensbrs arranged so as to give both the temperature of each container and the difference in temperatures.between containers. The data are displayed as a DTA thermogram in which the temperature difference is plotted against the temperature of the sample. The standard reference material chosen is one whose thermal behavior does not change rapidly. Such a plot is almost a straight line if the sample also has no rapidly changing thermal behavior (or if it is very similar to the standard material). Excursions above and below a background line are due to endo- or exothermic (heatabsorbing or heat-releasing) changes. The DTA analyses permit interpretation for phase changes, decomposition and kinetic information, melting points, and thermal stability. Sample sizes are of the order of 20 mg.

3-10

b. Pyrolysis. The sample is placed in a pyrolysis chamber which is then flushed with helium. When the air has been swept out, the temperature Gas evolution is measured as a of the chamber is raised at a constant rate. function of temperature by a bridge formed by two thermal conductivity cells. Sample sizes are of the order of 10 mg. The objective in a TGA is to c. Thermogravimetric Analysis (TGA). determine whether there are any weight changes in a sample, either when it is held at a fixed temperature or when its temperature is changed in a programmed linear fashion. The data are generally plotted as weight versus temperature or time or as weight change versus temperature or time. The TGAs are useful for only a limited number of physical property investigations, e.g., vaporization phenomena, but they are extremely useful for obtaining information on chemical properties such as thermal stability and chemical reactions. They are also useful for obtaining kinetic data. Sample sizes are of the order of l!l mg. d. The sample is heated at 120C (393K) LLL Reactivity Test (CRT). A two-stage chromatography unit is used to measure the indifor 22 hours. vidual volumes of N2, NO, CO, N20 and CO2 evolved per 0.25 g of explosive The test is used principally to determine the reactivity during this period. When operated as a simple test of exploof explosives with other materials. the results are expressed in terms of the sum of these volsive stability, umes. A crude follows: "(1) Place a 2-inch sample on a bed of kerosene-soaked ignite the sawdust with an electric match-head form this test twice. sawdust and igniter. Perthermal initiation test is specified in Reference 3.5, as

(2)

Place four 2-inch samples end to end in a single row in tact with each other on a single bed of kerosene-soaked dust and ignite the sawdust with an electric match-head igniter at one end. Record results under Ignition and Unconfined Burning

consaw-

(3)

Test." of this as a did seconds

The sample summary data test are to be recorded or did not explode. If is recorded. 3.2.2.4 Friction

sheet in Reference 3.5 shows under "Ignition and Unconfined burning only occurs, average

that the results Burning Test" burning time in

A standard friction test described in Reference 3.6 employs qui,te The apparatus is shown schematically small samples of explosive material. This test simulates friction conditions occurring in the in Figure 3.5.

3-11

FRICTION FRXTION
FORCE

FORC

NARY

WHEEL

Figure

3.5

Schematic of Friction

TFst Apparatus" (Ref.

3.6)

3-12

process when an explosive is subjected to a frictional force between moving components, such as in the mixer, or during disassembly, machining and material handling. The sample is placed on the anvil, a known force is applied and a pendulum is,used to propel hydraulically through a stationary wheel, Northe sliding anvil at a known velocity perpendicular to the force vector. mally, sample initiation is detected by audible, visual, sensory means or by infrared analysis of selected decomposition products. A valid test is comprised of 20 consecutive "no initiations" and at least one initiation at Force levels are decreased by 25 percent the next higher test interval. intervals, and velocity levels are reduced 1 ft per set whenever an initiForce is measured ation is obtained at 10 lb force at a given velocity. by hydraulic gauges and velocity by a sliding potentiometer. friction tory. A relatively test is the A description large-scale test which can probably skid test used at Pantex and Lawrence from Reference 3.8 follows. be classed Livermore as a Labora-

"Results from a sliding impact sensitivity test (skid test) with large hemispherical billets of HE have proved valuable for evaluating the plant-handling safety of HEs. The test was developed at AWRE in England. In the LLL-Pantex version of this test, the explosive billet, supported on a pendulum device, is allowed to swing down from a preset height and strike at an angle on a sand-coated steel target plate. Impact angles employed are 14 deg (0.24 rad) and 45 deg (0.79 rad) (defined as the angle between the line of the billet travel and the horizontal target surface; the heights vary). The spherical surface of the billet serves to concentrate the force of the impact in a small area; the pendulum arrangement gives the impact both a sliding or skidding component as well as a vertical one. The results of the test are expressed in terms of the type of chemical event produced by the impact as a function of impact angle and vertical drop. Chemical events are defined as follows: 0 1 2 No reaction; Burn or scorch charge marks retains integrity. target; charge retains integrity.

on HE or

Puff of smoke, but no flame or light visible in high-speed photography. Charge may retain integrity or may be broken into large pieces. Mild low-order and scattered. Medium low-order consumed. Violent Detonation deflagration; reaction with flame or light; charge broken up

3 4

reaction

with

flame

or

light;

major

part

of HE

5 6

virtually

all

HE consumed.

3-13

The sliding-impact test results are significant indications of planthandling safety because the drop heights and impact angles used in the test are quite within the limits one might find for the accidental drop of an explosive billet. The test is used not only to evaluate the relative sensitiva of different explosives using the sand-coated target as a reference surface,but also to evaluate typical plant floor coverings, using LX-10 as's reference explosive." 3.2.2.5 Static Electric Discharge

A human can, in the low humidity environment which often prevails at Pantex, build up enough electrostatic charge to generate a significant electric spark on touching an electrically grounded object. A test to simulate this hazard and to determine the effect on a small explosive sample has been developed (Ref. 3.6). The electrostatic test apparatus is shown in Figure 3.6. The sample to be tested is placed on a special holder which assures that electrostatic discharge will pass through the sample. A capacitor is charged with a 5000 volt potential. The discharge needle is lowered until a spark is drawn through the sample. menty consecutive failures at a given discharge energy level with one initiation at the next higher input constitutes an electrostatic discharge sensitivity test. A new sample is used for each trial. Secondary high explosives ar.e considered insensitive from humans; they may be sensitive to discharges from TNT Equivalence liquids which are high extheir own oxidants, all in character. The strengths explosive materials may have different densities. Befor TNT explosive, one can equivalent weight or mass These procedures are deA includes TNT equivalence to static equipment. dis-

charge 3.2.3

When explosion sources consist of solids or plosives or similar energetic materials containing will generate blast waves which are quite similar and durations of the waves may differ because the different heats of detonation and combustion, and cause of the preponderance of measured blast data make an approximate conversion for other explosives of TNT, based on comparative heats of detonation. scribed in more detail in Chapter 4, while Appendix numbers for many explosives. 3.2.4 uncovered nal blast vents. Venting Effects

An explosion occurring within a chamber which is vented, either with or lightly covered vent openings, will generate internal and exterloads which can be affected by the degree and configuration of the

3-14

HIGHIMPEDANCE ELECTROsTATIC VOLTMETER

0 - 30,000

VOLTS

CONDENSER!BANK

SAFE=

SWITCH
.

NEEDLE ELECTRODE .H

TIP

0.00005 to 0.44fd.

- ,-SAMPLE

HOLDER

CONSTANTVOLTAGE POWER SUPPLY

5000 VOLTS

-CHARGE SWGCB

Figure

3.6

Electrostatic (Ref. 3.6)

Discharge

Spark

Test Apparatus

Within a vented enclosure, the initial air blast ior surfaces of the enclosure will be mostly unaffected even very light vent closures are present. Open vents effect on the first reflected internal shock load, but later reflected shocks.

loading on the interby the vents if will have minimal may somewhat attenuate

As shocks reverberate within a vented enclosure, they will dissipate after several reflections, but the thermal energy available from the explosion will heat the air and may cause a rise in gas pressure in the enclosure before venting can reduce this pressure. The processes decay are described graphs and equations example problems. of shock reflection and subsequent gas pressure rise in more detail in Chapter 4. This chapter also gives for predicting the shock and gas loads, and a number and of

When an explosion occurs in a vented enclosure, the venting proce,ss can allow some escape of the initial blast wave, particularly if the vents are open. The shock emitted from the vents can be highly directional, and can be intense enough to damage nearby structures or injure people nearby. Directional venting is discussed in Chapter 4; but, for prediction for a variety of vented enclosure configurations, the majority of the prediction curves appear in Reference 3.9. An AE firm is referred to this reference for prediction of blast pressure and impulses outside directionally -vented enclosures. For uniformly vented enclosures see Reference 3.10. 3.3 3.3.1 DAMAGE MECHANISMS Air --Blast Loading and Response

The blast wave generated by an explosion in air and being transmitted through the air is characterized primarily as noted earlier, by its transmission velocity U, by a peak overpressure Ps, by a positive phase duration and by a specific impulse is, which is the integral of the overpressure td* over the positive phase duration. When this wave interacts with any solid object or surface, it reflects from the surface, and diffracts around the object, producing pressure loads which vary rapidly in time, and loads which usually differ markedly from the free-field properties mentioned earlier. In this introductory chapter, we will not discuss these processes in detail, bccausc they are discussed in Chapter 4. Prediction curves and example problems also occur in Chapter 4. Reference 3.3 also gives good general discussions of the reflection and diffraction processes. We merely note here that the blast wave properties important in structural loading are usually reflected overpressure P,, reflected specific impulse ir, peak drag pressure than the free-field properties. b, rather Q, and decay-constant Structures, equipment, and personnel loaded by air blast respond to these rapidly varying pressures in a complex manner. istic response times for these "targets" are very important in waves often Characterdetermining

3-16

If the response which blast loading parameters govern response or damage. specific impulse and the inertia times are long compared to loading time, If the response times are (mass per unit area) of the target usually govern. peak overpressure and loaded area dominate in short compared to loading time, -If the response and loading times are similar, all of determining response. The important facet of the rethe parameters mentioned must be considered. sponse for an AE firm to remember is that these problems are -alwz dynamic and only in isolated instances can the ,inertia of the response problems, structure and relative loading and response times be ignored. This manual does not cover dynamic structural response in detail, but elements of such calculation are outlined in Chapter 8. The dynamic response and injury or death to personnel subjected to blast loading are discussed in some detail in Chapter 4, and prediction graphs for effects of blast waves on personnel are included in that chapter, together with example problems. 3.3.2 Fragment Impact Effects fragment and secondary fragment were defined in Secprimary fragments are usually small, numerous and can cause damage to structures by penetration or kill personnel by the same processes. They can also explosive and consequent escalation of a minor exploone. ,These effects are discussed in Chapter 6.

The terms primary tion 2.2.4. Recall that have high velocity. They perforation and injure or cause initiation of high sive accident into a major

Secondary fragments, on the other hand, are usually large, few in number, and have low velocity. They can also be of relatively weak, crushable They can penetrate or perforate light material such as concrete or wood. structures, but are much more apt to cause damage or injury by non-penetrating impact. The state of knowledge for impact effects of the larger and more crushable secondary fragments is poor, but such prediction methods and equations as are available are presented in Chapter 6. As is true to illustrate Cratering throughout this manual, use of all prediction and Debris Chapter methods. 6 also gives example prob-

lems 3.3.3

Close to buried explosions, the ground is violently displaced and craters are formed. For shallow burial, there can be considerable ejecta Buried or surwhich rains down in the vicinity and back into the crater. face structures located close to or within the crater radius, or directly over camouflets (deep, buried explosion cavities), can suffer severe damage by being violrntly displaced. Usually, one simply assumes destruction of any structure within the crater radius for a shallow-buried explosion. Graphs and equations for predicting cratering effects appear in Chapter 5, toget'her with example problems.

3-17

3.3.4

Ground

Shock

At distances from buried or surface explosions beyond crater radii, ground shock damage can occur to buildings, personnel, and equipment, including buried pipes. Ground shock pulses travel at seismic velocities and are characterized by transient displacements and velocities which look like heavily damped sine waves. Depending on the response time for the structure subjected to ground shock, either the peak velocity or the peak displacement in the ground shock wave may more nearly correlate with maximum response or damage. Response to ground shock waves is discussed in some detail in Chapter 5,with prediction equations and example problems given in that chapter.

3-18

3.4 3.1

REFERENCES Johansson, C. H. and Persson, P. A., Detonics demic Press, London and New York, 1970. Engineering Design 180, Headquarters, 1972. Baker, Texas, W. E., 1973. Handbook, Principles U. S. Army Material in Air, of High Explosives, Aca-

3.2

of Explosive Behavior, AMCP 706Command, Washington, D. C., April of Texas Press, Austin,

3.3

Explosions

University

3.4

Kingery, C. N., "Air Blast Parameters Versus Distance for TNT Surface Bursts," BRL Report No. 1344, Aberdeen Proving land, September 1966.

Hemispherical Ground, Mary-

3.5

"Explosives Hazard Classification Procedures," Department of the Army Technical Bulletin TB 700-2, Department of the Navy Publication NavOrd Inst. 8020.3, Department of the Air Force Technical Order TO llA-1-47, Defense Supply Agency Reg. DSAR 8220.1, May 19, 1967. Hazards of Chemical Rockets Rocket Propellant Processing, 194, May 1972, (AD 870 258). Ribovich, J., AIAA Journal, Watson, R., 5, 7, 1968, and Propellants Handbook, Volume II, Handling, Storage and Transportation, Solid CPIA/

3.6

3.7

and Gibson, F., pp. 1260-1263.

"Instrumented

Card-Gap

Test,"

3.8

Dobratz, Brigitta M., "Properties of Chemical Explosives and Explosive UCRL-51319 Rev, 1, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Contract Simulants," W-7405-Eng-48, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, University of CaliNo. fornia, Livermore, California, July 31, 1974. Keenan, W. A., and Tancreto, J. E., Environment from Fully and Partially Civil Engineering Laboratory, Naval Hueneme, California, November 1975. "Suppressive U. S. Army Shields Structural Corps of Engineers, Technical Report No. R828, "Blast Vented Explosions in Cubicles," Construction Battalion Center, Port Handbook," (1977), HNDM-1110-l-2.

3.9

3.10

Design and Analysis Huntsville Division,

3-19

CHAPTER 4 AIR BLAST

4.1

INTRODUCTION

Almost by definition, any accidental explosion which occurs above ground drives an air blast wave into the surrounding atmosphere. This wave can interact with and load the walls of any containment structure; or can exit through venting panels and load nearby structures or other "targets" such as vehicles, humans, etc.; or can load nearby targets if it occurs in the open. It is often the primary source of damage from accidental explosions, and it is allpervasive, interacting with everything in its path and even being heard as a "bang" or "boom" at distances too great to be damaging. The Pantex Plant is used as a basis for this ials presented are general enough to be applicable similar to the operations at Pantex. study. However, the materto facilities handling HE

The physics of air blast generation and interaction with targets is comand is the topic of voluminous literature. Some basic references on plex, this topic for supplemental reading, which provide an understanding of basic air blast physics for single and multiple explosion sources and effects of containment and venting are listed below: Reference 4.1 Topics Covered

Basic air blast physics and theory, computational methods, blast scaling, diffraction and reflection, experimentation, instrumentation, scaled-blast wave properties, blast transducers, photography, and data reduction methods Scaled curves of blast wave properties

4.2 4.3

Blast environment within vented and unvented protective structures, blast waves outside vented structures Blast blast physics for explosions wave properties in air, scaled properties

4.4

4.5 4.6

A compilation of scaled blast for bare, spherical Pentolite

wave

General description of accidental explosions, and blast waves from such explosions 4-1

Reference 4.7

Topics Description of blast weapons explosions listed in.the

Covered waves from nuclear

cited

Many more references in this chapter. This chapter:

bibliography

(Appendix

6) will 0

also

be

(1) presents prediction graphs and methods for determining free-field and reflected blast wave properties, and the manner in which these basic properties can be applied to predicting time-varying loads on various structures typical of those in the Pantex Plant; (2) accidents contains in the data on properties Pantex Plant; of explosives which could be involved in

(3) presents prediction methods for some damage effects related to air blast wave characteristics, including spalling and the damaging effects of air blast on humans; and (4) 4.2 provides illustrative example problems.

which are directly of concrete walls

GENERAL

This section includes general information about the classes of explosions and explosives pertinent to potential accidents at the Pantex Plant. Table 4.1 gives the current mission of the Pantex Plant. All but one of the line items in this mission, manufacture of mock high explosive, involve some potential for explosive accidents. 4.2.1 Classes of Explosions Considered conceivably, briefly. occur in various operations

Accidental so we first review

explosions could, these activities

In conducting their mission for new production, the Pantex staff receives potentially explosive and inert chemicals and unbonded or loose high explosives, mixes and presses the raw materials, conducts inspections, maassembles explosives components into assemblies, chines the pressed explosives, This does more inspections, and finally packages and ships the final product. process flow is shown in Figure 4.1. The potential for chemical explosions exists at many stages of this process, including transport and storage of various quantities of high explosives and explosive chemicals, either in containers or bare or with some type of outer casing or container. . surplus ents. In performing their mission of weapons disposal, Pantex staff receives of the componweapons, inspects them, disassembles them, and disposes This process flow is shown in Figure 4.2. Until the high explosive 4-2

Table

4.1

Pantex

Mission

To manufacture high explosives plied components, perform final

(HE) and other components and, assembly of nuclear weapons.

with

sup-

To manufacture mock HE components form final assembly of type units programs.

and, with supplied components, perfor DOE and DOD testing and training

To perform new material cations and repair work nuclear war reserve.

and stockpile laboratory necessary on all existing

tests, weapon modifiweapons within the

U.S.

To dispose

of weapons

which

are

surplus

to stockpile

requirements.

To provide fabricate

technical explosive

support in the field device components for

of high explosives the design agency

and to laboratories.

To maintain activities.

active

portions

of

the

plant

facilities

for

the

above

4-3

Figure

4.1

Pantex

Plant

New Production

Process

Flow

components have dental explosion figure.

been disposed of by burning, during storage, transport

there and the

is the potential operations shown

for acciin the

Because the potential for accidental explosions in the Pantex Plant involves primarily high explosives, the classes of explosion we must consider in the manual are quite limited. From Reference 4.6, we see that there are many classes of accidental explosions, including such events as simple pressure vessel bursts, runaway chemical reactions in vessels, vapor cloud explosions, molten metal and water reactions, and finally munitions explosions. Even munition explosions often involve violent reactions of solid or liquid So, our task of defining propellants which are not true high explosives. explosion sources for potential accidents at Pantex is somewhat simpler than for accidental explosions in general. We can basically restrict ourselves to high explosive sources. Elaborate safety precautions are taken at Pantex and other facilities which manufacture high explosives and munitions containing high explosives. Furthermore, only secondary (e.g., relatively insensitive) explosives are handled in potentially damaging quantities in such facilities. But in spite of all precautions and safety regulations, severely damaging explosive accidents have occurred at the Pantex Plant and similar facilities. The most serious accident at Pantex occurred in 1977 during an explosive machining operation in a bay of Building 11-14A (Ref. 4.8), with the detonation of two sizeable pieces of pressed high explosive. Three deaths and severe structural damage resulted. Probably the most spectacular explosion at a facility like the Pantex Plant occurred in 1963 at Medina Facility with detonation of 111,500 pounds of high explosive in a storage magazine (Ref. 4.71). There were no deaths or injuries, but damage at a distance (primarily broken windows) was extensive. In explosive safety studies, there have been a number of tests simulating HE explosive accidents, on both full and model scale. These tests are but we note that many are reported in too numerous to discuss in detail here, the Minutes of the Explosives Safety Board (DDESB). Specific studies pertinent to this manual are cited in references in various chapters and in the bibliography. 4.2.2 potential A number 4.2.2.1 Explosive& This Considered

section includes a discussion of the types of high explosives and explosives which are or could be present within the Pantex Plant. of properties of these explosives are given in Appendix A. Types of Explosives

Most of the types of explosive which could accidentally explode in the Pantex Plant are secondary high explosives which are solid at normal ambient temperatures. Also, all explosives fabrication involves pressing and machining rather than melt casting. So the explosives only exist in the solid 4-5

Figure

4.2

Pantex

Weapons

Disposal

regardless of their stage in the processes carried out in the plant. state, the explosives can be in granular or flake form, either mixed Although solid, or they can be consolidated by with inert bonding materials or by themselves, Some potenNo primary explosives are processed in the facility. pressing. tially explosive liquid and solid chemicals can be present in those parts of In the plant, explosives, or hardthe plant devoted to explosive synthesis. ware containing explosive components, are not normally married to other marginally explosive materials such as solid or liquid propellants. These limitations on the operations and classes of explosives employed in the Pantex Plant narrow the list of materials we need to consider. But there is still an extensive list of high explosive chemical compounds or mixtures of these compounds which are handled in the plant. We give here tables of data available in several references for a number of these explosives and chemicals for ready reference. Primary data sources are References 4.9, 4.10 and 4.11. Because the data are rather voluminous, they are given in tables The types of data are indicated in Table 4.2. in Appendix A. 4.2.2.2 Geometry, Density and Casings

Explosives are present in the Pantex Plant in a wide variety of geometries. Densities range from the average density of loose, flake or granular explosive as it comes from a commercial manufacturer or from the in-house synthesis facility up to densities after pressing, which are close -to crystal density for the HE. They can be bare, in light containers for transport about the plant; in packing containers for bulk HE, with one or more metal or other high strength outer casings in a weapon ; or with several layers of strong outer casing when a weapon is in a shipping container. To some extent, these variations parallel the possible geometries, densities, and casing variations found in conventional HE weapons manufacture, transport and storage. One notable difference is that the primary damage mechanism for many conventional HE warheads -involves high-speed rrabentation. This is not normally-the case for the weapons at the Pantex Plant, so the primary fragment hazards should be less severe than at a LAP (Load, Assembly and Pack) plant for fragmentation ordnance. 4.3 BUST WAVES FROM SINGLE AND MULTIPLE SOURCES

In accidental explosions involving HE, some stimulus usually initiates an explosion in one piece of HE. If this piece is isolated or shielded in some manner so that no other high explosives in the vicinity can be initiated by blast or fragments from the first explosion, then the blast waves come from a single explosion source. But high-speed primary or secondary fragments* can impact other nearby pieces of high explosive, or the intense air shock wave *Fragmentation is discussed in detail in Chapter 6.

4-7

Table

4.2

Properties

of Explosives

and Explosive

Chemicals

'

-0

ITEM 1 PHYSICAL

PROPERTY PROPERTIES

CommonName Chemical Name Formulation Color Physical State Theoretical Maximum Nominal Density Molecular Weight Melting Point Vapor Pressure Toxicity CHEMICAL PROPERTIES Common Name Heat of Formation Heat of Detonation Heat.of Combustion SENSITIVITY AND INITIATION

Density

Comon Name Drop Weight Test Skid Test Friction Pendulum Test Explosion Temperature Rifle Bullet Impact Test Susan Test Gap Test MECHANICAL PROPERTIES Common Name Density Hugoniot Intercept Hugoniot Slope Range of Data

4-8

C. 0

Table

4.2

Properties ITEM 5

of

Explosives

and Explosive

Chemicals

(Con't)

PROPERTY THERMAL PROPERTIES Common Name Thermal Conductivity Thermal Expansion Specific Heat Thermal Stability

Coefficients

PERFORMANCE Common Name Detonation Velocity Chapman-Jouget Detonation Explosive Energy Equation of State TNT Equivalence Critical Energy

Pressure

from the first explosion can load these same pieces or low-speed skidding and impact can cause initiation and result in deflagration or detonation. The delay time between explosions of multiple sources can be so short that the entire sequence of explosions can be considered as a single simultaneous explosion. On the other hand, for widely separated sources, delays can be great enough that the sequential explosions can be considered to be ,eparate events. In between is a "gray area" where the multiple explosions may or may not be treated as a single explosion. Our understanding of single-source explosions and the available data and methods for prediction of blast waves characteristics is vastly superior to our knowledge and data for multiple-source explosions. Similarly, our knowledge of blast waves for spherical single sources is superior to our knowledge for other explosion source geometries. For spherical single-source explosions, we present graphs of scaled compiled data which will allow prediction of many blast parameters, from the surface of the source out to distances-where the blast wave is so weak that it Close to cylindrical blast sources, we give some data on the is a sound wave. Limited data on sequentially detonated and simuleffect of source geometry. Implications of blast taneously detonated multiple sources are also presented. wave scaling are discussed, without proof. 4.3.1 Single Explosion Source

When a single, high explosive source is initiated by some stimulus, it Detonation is by far the most severe reacmay burn, deflagrate, or detonate. tion, so in this manual devoted to explosive safety hazards, we will henceforth assume that the explosive detonates. The physical processes occurring in detonations in high explosives been exhaustively studied, and are well described in general references as 4.11 and 4.12. We will discuss these processes only insofar as they blast wave properties. have such affect

A detonation wave is a very rapid wave of chemical reaction which, once travels at a stable supersonic speed, called the detonation it is initiated, Typically, detonation velocities for pressed velocity, in a high explosive. As the detonation or cast high explosives range from 22,000 - 28,000 ft/sec. wave progresses through the condensed explosive, it converts the explosive within a fraction of a microsecond into very hot, dense, high pressure gas. Pressures* immediately behind the detonation front range from 2,700,OOO 4,900,OOO psi. The most characteristics *These pressures important of high are single explosives parameter is the for total determining air blast heat of detonation, pressures. wave This E.

called

Chapman-Jouget, 4-10

or CJ,

directly proportional to the total weight W or mass M quantity is, in general, Any given explosive has a specific heat of detonation, AH of the explosive. calculated from chemical reaction per unit weight or mass, which can be either formulas or measured calorimetrically (see References 4.11 and 4.12). So E for AH for many exploequals WaAH or M-AH, depending on units for AH. Values sives are given in tables in Appendix A. the detonation wave propagates out the detonating explosive is bare, into the surrounding air as an intense shock or blast wave, and is driven by If it is enthe expanding hot gases which had been the explosive material. cased, the detonation wave simply overpowers the casing material, and drives it outward at high velocity until the casing fragments. The high pressure gases then vent out past the casing fragments and again drive a strong blast wave into the surrounding atmosphere. If As and slows reaction with the the blast wave expands, it decays in strength, lengthens in duration, down, both because of spherical divergence and because the chemical as the hot explosion products mix is over, except for afterburning, surrounding air. of air here is blast waves paraphrased appear in from Refer-

Good descriptions of the characteristics The description References 4.1, 4.4, and 4.7. ence 4.1.

As a blast wave passes through the air or interacts with and loads a rapid variations in pressure, density, temperature and structure or target, The properties of blast waves which are usually de-, particle velocity occur. fined are related both to the properties which can be easily measured or observed and to properties which can be correlated with blast damage patterns. It is relatively easy to measure shock front arrival times and velocities and Measurement of density variations and entire time histories of overpressures. time histories of particle velocity are more difficult, and no reliable measurements of temperature variations exist. Classically, the properties which are usually defined and measured are those of the undisturbed or side-on wave as it propagates through the air. Figure 4.3 shows graphically some of these properties in an ideal wave (Reference 4.1). Prior to shock front arrival, the pressure is ambient pressure L. At arrival time t,, the pressure rises quite abruptly (discontinuously, PoThe pressure then decays to amin an ideal wave) to a peak value P$ -t po. bient in total time t, + ti, drops to a partial vacuum of amplitude Pi, and The quantity Pz is usueventually returns to p. in total time t, + t$ -I- ti. or merely the peak overpressure. ally termed the peak side-on overpressure, The portion cf the time history above initial ambient pressure is called the positive phase, of duration ti. That portion below po, of amplitude PS and Positive and negative specific duration tz is called the negative phase.

l
S-11

P; + P0

POSITIVE PHASE

po P, - p; 0
0 t

+t

ta f

+ t;

Figure

4.3

Ideal

Blast

Wave Structure

4-12

impulses*,

defined

by
t .+ +t +

d [p(t)

- p,ldt

(4.1)

and

[PO p(t)ldt
respectively, shown by the are also significant cross-hatched areas blast wave parameters. of Figure 4.3. These impulses

(4.2)

are

In most blast studies, the negative phase of the blast wave is ignored because P$ >> G and i$ >> is, and only blast parameters associated with the positive phase are considered or reported. The positive superscript is then dropped and the parameters without superscripts represent the positive phase. The ideal side-on parameters almost never represent the actual pressure loading applied to structures or targets following an explosion. So a number of other properties are defined to either more closely approximate real blast loads or to provide upper limits for such loads. (The processes of reflection and diffraction will be discussed later in this chapter.) Properties of freefield blast waves other than side-on pressure which can be important in structural loading are: Density Particle Shock Dynamic p velocity front velocity u U g = p u2/2 b

pressure

Time constant

*The units of i$ and is are force times time divided pressure times time. They are, therefore, specific unit area, rather than true impulse, which has units

by length squared, or impulse or impulse per of force times time.

4-13

Because of effects and target In some instances

the importance tumbling, it drag specific

of the is often impulse

dynamic pressure q in drag or wind reported as a blast wave property. id, defined as

+t

d ,dt=;

d p u2 at a

id

= / ta

(4.3)

is

also

reported. it is is possible to define the potential or kinetic energy in not customary in air blast technology to report or compute For underwater explosions, the use of "energy flux density" This quantity is given approximately by

Although blast waves, it these properties. is more common.

d [p(t) a where p
0

- po12 dt

(4.4)

and a

are

density

and sound

velocity

in water

ahead

of

the

shock.

At the shock front in free air, a number related through the Rankine-Hugoniot equations. tions most often used are (Reference 4.1): Ps OJ - us) = PO u 2

of wave properties The two of these

are interthree equa-

(4.5)

Ps OJ - us>

+ p, = PO u2 + p 0

In these the ideal

equations, subscript shock front, and

s refers

to peak

quantities

immediately

behind

Ps =

Ps f p,

(4.7)

4-14

Scaling of the properties of blast waves from explosive sources is a and anyone who has even a rudimentary knowledge of blast common practice, technology utilizes these laws to predict the properties of blast waves from Similarly, large-scale explosions based on tests on a much smaller scale. results of tests conducted at sea level ambient atmospheric conditions are routinely used to predict the properties of blast waves from explosions detoIt is not the purpose in this manual nated under high altitude conditions. to review or derive laws for scaling of blast wave properties, which are adeBut, we will state the implications of quately summarized in Reference 4.1. the laws most commonly used. The most common form of blast scaling is Hopkinson-Cranz or "cube-root" This law, first formulated by B. Hopkinson (Reference 4.13) and inscaling. that self-similar blast waves dependently by C. Cranz (Reference 4.14), states are produced at identical scaled distances when two explosive charges of similar geometry and of the same explosive, but of different sizes, are detonated in the same atmosphere. It is customary to use as a scaled distance a dimensional parameter, Z = R/E1'3

(4.8)

or Z = R/W 113

(4.9)

where R is the distance from the center of the explosive source, E is the total heat of detonation of the explosive and W is the total weight of a standard explosive such as TNT. The correct equation, Equation 4.8 or 4.9, will be apparent in the problem. Figure 4.4 shows schematically the implications of Hopkinson-Cranz blast wave scaling. An observer located at a distance R from the center of an explosive source of characteristic dimension d will be subjected to a blast wave with amplitude P, duration td, and a characteristic time history. The integral of the pressure-time history is the impulse i. The Hopkinson-Cranz scaling law then states that an observer stationed at a distance >,R from the center of a similar explosive source of characteristic dimension hd detonated in the same atmosphere will feel a blast wave of "similar" form with amplitude P, duration Xtd and impulse. Xi. All characteristic times are scaled by the same factor as the length scale factor X. In densities and velocities. are unHopkinson scaling, pressures, temperatures, changed at homologous times. Hopkinson's scaling law has been thoroughly verified by many experiments conducted over a large range of explosive charge energies. A much more complete discussion of this law and a demonstration of its applicability is given in Chapter 3 of Baker (Reference 4.1).

4-15

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

AR1

Egure

4.4

Hopkinson-Cram

Blast

Wave Scaling

The blast scaling law which is almost universally used to predict characteristics of blast waves from explosions at high altitude is that of Sachs (Reference 4.15). Sachs' law states that dimensionless overpressure and dimensionless impulse can be expressed as unique functions of a dimensionless scaled distance, where the dimensionless parameters include quantities Sachs' which define the ambient atmospheric conditions prior to the explosion. scaled pressure is F = (P/p,) Sachs' scaled impulse is defined 7 l = El/3 ia ;2/3
0

(4.10)

as* (4.11)

These quantities where a0 is ambient sound velocity. sionless scaled distance, defined as* l/3

are a function

of dimen-

(4.12)

Both scaling side-on parameterst. 4.3.1.1 Spherical

laws apply to reflected Geometry

blast

wave parameters,

as well

as

Most of the souxces of compiled data for air blast waves from high explosives are limited to bare, spherical explosives in "free-air," i.e., distant from the nearest reflecting surface, or hemisphere in contact or nearly in contact with a good reflecting surface such as the ground. We present here scaled curves for a variety of side-on and normally reflected parameters. The curves are scaled according to the Hopkinson-Cranz (or cube-root) law, and are specific for spherical TNT explosive charges detonated under standard sea level conditions of p. = 14.696 psi and a, = 1116 ftlsec.

*Note that, if charge weight have dimensions. ?-See Section 4.4.1.1

W is used instead of blast 4-17

of energy E, these parameters wave reflection.

for a discussion

The data are given in three large-scale curves, Figures 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7. All three curves employ weight-scaled distance, Z = R/W113 as abs-cissae. The subscript "TNT" will The usage of 'W" refers to TNT-equivalent weights. henceforth be dropped. Figure 4.5 presents the scaled form of the following parameters: Peak side-on overpressure, impulse, time, ta td previously. overpressure, impulse, ir Figure 4.4 presents Pr the Ps is

Side-on specific Shock arrival Positive These quantities parameters: have all

phase duration, been defined reflected

Peak normally Normally

reflected

specific

These quantities are defined in exactly the same manner as the corresponding side-on parameters, but are greater because of pressure enhancement caused by arresting flow behind the reflected shock wave, Durations td for the positive phases of normally reflected waves are essentially the same as for side-on waves. Figure 4.7 gives other parameters which are helpful in determining loads on drag-type objects. These quantities are: Peak scaled particle Peak dynamic pressure, Scaled shock velocity, Time constant velocity,us Q g = U/a0 = Us/a0

for pressure decay, b The quantity Q is the

The quantities us and U have already been defined. maximum value for dynamic pressure q, i.e.,
Q = p&*/2

(4.13j

where ps is peak density immediately behind the shock front. The "time constant" b is determined-from fitting data to the empirical modified Friedlander equation [See Chapter 1 of Baker (Reference 4.1)], p(t) = P, + Ps (1 - t/td) 4-18 -bt/td e (4.14)

This equation approximates the fitting is described in Chapter for b in that reference are in plotting Figure 4.7. The use of 4.17. Figures 4.5,

positive phase 6 of Reference error and have

in Figure 4.3. The method of 4.1, but the numerical values been recalculated correctly in

4.6

and 4.7

is

given

in

Section

4.8

in

Example

Problem

One can use the curves in Figures 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7 for ground burst explosions* by adjusting the total charge weight W in the ground burst to account for blast wave strengthening due to ground reflection. For a perfect reflecting surface, the weight is simply doubled, i.e., W' = 2w

(4.15) explosives reflection detonated factor.

For significant while resting suggest then

cratering, as normally occurs for high on the ground, fits to data give a lower that W' = 1.8~

We

(4.16)

These new effective weights are then used directly with Figures 4.7 to predict blast wave properties for ground bursts. A more cussion of surface reflection is given later in this section.

4.5, 4.6 complete

and dis-

a, Effect of Type of Explosive. Strictly speaking, Hopkinson-Cranz scaling and the curves in Figures 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7 are only valid for spherical TNT explosive. But the character of the blast waves from all condensed high explosives are remarkably similar. Work during World War II (Reference 4.16) gave two different equivalence factors based on comparisons of peak side-on overpressures and side-on specific impulses from a number of different explosives in existence then. The explosive Composition B (60% TNT, 40% RDX by weight) was used as a standard for this work. Swisdak (Reference 4.4) gives "YK cquivalcncc" curves for scvcral hi& cxplosivcs based on air hLa.st measurements, including a number of cast explosives with and without aluminum. He also gives average TNT equivalence numbers for overpressure and separate numbers for impulse. In a series of very careful free-air blast measurements

*TM 5-1300 has separate sets of air blast curves for air burst and ground burst. Those curves will yield essentially identical blast wave properties Figures 4.5, 4.6 and if one uses the reflection multipliers suggested here. 4.7 contain later data than comparable curves in TM 5-1300, and should supplant them. 4-2.5

of TNT and Composition B, Potter and Jarvis (Reference 4.17) found that they could use the equivalence factor 1.0 lb of Composition B = 1.5 lb of TNT over For four plastic-bonded explosives, a rather wide range of overpressures.* PBX-108, PBX-109, AFX-103 and AFX-702, Goodman and Giglio-Tos (Reference 4.18) determined equivalent weight factors compared to 50/50 Pentolite, using values obtained from overpressure and impulse measurements. There have been very few measurements of air blast for detonations of loose or granular high explosives. One can conservatively assume that this material is in its cast or pressed state, but the degree of conservatism is unknown. In general, the equivalent weight factors found by comparing air blast data from different high explosives vary little with scaled distance, and also vary little dependent on whether peak overpressure or side-on impulse SO we feel that a single number to adjust for is used for the comparisons. explosive type will yield quite adequate predictions for the purposes of this manual. (This procedure isused in References 4.3 and 4.12.) When actual comparative blast data exist, as in References 4.4, 4.17 or 4.18, these data can be used to determine a single number for TNT equivalence by averaging. When no such data exist, comparative values of heats of detonation AH for TNT and the explosive in question can be used to predict TNT equivalence. These values are given for various explosives in tables in Appendix A. scaling law indicated by Equab. Modified Sachs' Scaling. Sachs' tions 4.10, 4.11 and 4.12 can be used to predict the variation of blast wave properties with ambient conditions other than the sea-level conditions for which Figures 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7 were prepared. The Pantex Plant is located about 3500 ft above sea level, so the mean ambient conditions differ measurably from those at sea level. To apply Equations 4.10, 4.11 and 4.12, the ambient atmospheric pressure and sound velocity must be known. Since sound velocity is a function of temperature, it would suffice to know ambient pres~ sure and temperature. An adequate estimate of their value can be obtained, provided the altitude is known, from Reference 4.19:

288.15 p = 14.6965 - 1.9812

X 1O-3 H

-5.25588 (psi) (4.17)?

*See Appendix

A for

present

recommended

value. to allow calculation One should round to no

?Many significant figures are given in Reference 4.19 with fair accuracy over very large altitude changes. more than four significant figures after calculation.

4-26

-.

a = 65.77 '[ where H is altitude relative

288.15

- 1.9812

X 10e3 in "U.

1
l/2

Cf t/set)

(4.18)*

to sea level, represent the

feet. S. Standard Atmosphere, 1976."

The equations

For the Phntex Plant located at an altitude of 3500 feet, p. and a0 would have calculated standard values of 12.93 psia and 1103 feet per second, respectively, in contrast to the standard sea level values of 14.70 psia and 1116 feet per second. All blast parameter values for bare, spherical HE can be determined from Figures 4.5 through 4.7 with the aid of Sachs' scaling law for atmospheric conditions other than those at sea level. The following computational procedure should be used: 1. Calculate Hopkinson-scaled distance,

Z = R/W 113 ft/lb1'3. 2. Calculate mospheric Z* value a "corrected" pressure p at altitude l/3 to account H: for ambient

(4.19) at-

z* = Z(P/PD)

3.

Utilizing through to the Multiply factor" justed

the proper blast parameter 4.7), find the blast parameter Z* value.

curve (Figures 4.5 value corresponding

4.

the value obtained in (3) by the proper from Table 4.3 to obtain a blast parameter to atmospheric conditions at altitude H.

"correction value ad-

Example problem 4,.17 #in Section 4.8 illustrates the above procedure for all blast parameters in Figures 4.5 through 4.7. This calculation shows that the corrections for the blast parameters side-on pressure and sideon specific impulse are less than 10 percent for all scaled distances. So, an AE firm need not formally apply this correction for design of pantex facilities.

*Many significant figures are given in Reference 4.19 with fair accuracy over very large altitu'de changes. more than four significant figures after calculation. 4-27

to allow calculation One should round to no

Table

4.3 for

"Correction tititude

Factors" Atmospheric

for

Blast Parameters Conditions

Parameter

Correction

Factor?

Side-on Reflected Dynamic

overpressure, overpressure, pressure, Q

P
S

P/PO
Pr

PIP PIP,

Side-on

specific

impulse,

is

(P/Po)23 I

. 0

Reflected

specific

impulse,

wPo)23 l/3
PO

. 0

>

Time of

arrival,

a - 0 a a

)l

-F
p

1 l/3

Duration Shock Peak Decay

of velocity,

overpressure, u velocity, b u
S

td (

-TP I( 1 1 1

particle constant,

Scaled

distance,

0
E
PO

l/3

tp and a are ambient ambient atmospheric # psia PO = 14.6965 K

a0

atmospheric conditions

conditions at at sea level.

altitude

H, while

p. and a,

are

= 1116.4

ft/sec

4-28

Equations 4.17 and 4.18 yield standard accepted estimates of the pressure and sonic velocity at an altitude H. The actual pressure and sonic velocity will vary about the standard accepted values according to local meteorological activity at time of explosion. Extreme meteorological activity severe thunderstorms, abnormal temperature variations) could appreciably (e.g., change the ambient atmospheric conditions from the standard accepted values at a given altitude. But, these variations are much less than the variation due to altitude alone, and no corrections need be made by an AE firm, if he also ignores altitude correction.
C. Normal Reflection. An upper limit to blast loads is obtained if one interposes an infinite, rigid wall in front of the wave, and reflects the wave normally. A11 flow behind the wave is stopped, and pressures are considerably greater than side-on. The pressure in normally reflected waves is usually designated p,(t), and the peak reflected overpressure, P,. The integral of overpressure over the positive phase, defined in Equation (4.21), is the reflected specific impulse i,. Durations of the positive phase of normally reflected waves are almost the same as for side-on waves, td' The parameter i, has been measured closer to high explosive blast sources than have most blast parameters.

[Pr(t)

- P,I dt

(4.21)

The Hopkinson-Cranz scaling law described earlier applies, to scaling of reflected blast wave parameters just as well as it does to side-on waves. That is, all reflected blast data taken under the same atmospheric conditions for the same type of explosive source can be reduced to a common base for comparison and prediction. Sachs' law for reflected waves fails close to high explosive blast sources but it does apply beyond about ten charge radii. The literature contains considerable data on normally reflected bare spheres of Pentolite or blast waves from high explosive sources , usually TNT [Goodman (Ref. 4.5), Jack and Armendt (Ref. 4.20), Dewey, et al. (Ref. 4.21), Johnson, et al. (Ref. 4.22), Jack (Ref. 4.23), Wenzel and Esparza (Ref. So, from these sources, it is possible to construct scaled curves for 4.24)]. P and i for specific condensed explosives over fairly large ranges of scaled drstancef Figure 4.6 shows one such pair of curves. Measurements for reflected specific impulse extend in to smaller scaled distances, i.e., closer to the blast source, than do measurements of reflected pressure because a much simpler measurement technique suffices for specific impulse measurement (Ref. 4.22) and Dewey, et al. (Ref. 4.21)]. Furthermore, [Johnson, et.al. reflected specific impulses can be predicted in to the surface of a condensed spherical explosive source, using a simple formula applicable in the strong shock regime given by Baker (Ref. 4.25).

4-29

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

(2MTEy2 i

(4.22)
4~rR'

where

MT = ME + MA

(4.23)

is total mass of explosive ME plus mass of engulfed air MA, and R is distance Very close to the blast source, ME >> MA, and Equation from the charge center. (4.22) gives a simple l/R2 relation for variation of i, with distance, for This relation is also noted by Dewey, et al. (Ref. 4.21). strong shocks. Equation (4.22) is used to plot the dashed portion of the curve for scaled ir in Figure 4.6. for explosive sources other than bare spheres,of Unfortunately, very little data exist for normally reflected pressures solid high explosives, and specific impulses. For shock waves weak enough that air behaves as a perfect is a fixed and well-known relation between peak reflected oiwrpressure gas, there and peak side-on overpressure [Doering and Burkhardt (Ref.. 4.26), Baker (Ref.

4.01,

=2Fs+

(Y + 1)
(Y - 1) Ps + 2y

(4.24)

where

Fr
and

= FJP,

(4.25)

F = Ps/P S

(4.26)

At low incident overpressures (Fs + o), the sure approaches the acoustic limit of twice the incident one were to assume a constant y = 1.4 for air for strong limit would appear to be Fr = 8Fs. But, air ionizes and the strengths increase, and y is not constant. In fact, Change 1 - 15 August 1981

reflected overpresoverpressure. If shocks, the upper dissociates as sho real upper limit

4-30

known, but is predicted by Doering and Burkhardt (Ref. as 20. Brode (Ref. 4.27) has also calculated this ratio for normal reflection of shocks in sea level air, assuming air dissociation and ionization. His equation, given without noting its limits of applicability, is, for P, in psi,

ratio

is not

exactly

4.26) to be as high

P g=
S

2.655 X 10-3p
8

l-2+
X lo-'Ps2

1 + 1.728

X 10-4~s

I- 1.921

4.218

X 1O-3 1 + 7.997

+ 4.834 X 10-2Ps x 10-3~s i- 3.844

+ 6.856 X 10 -6

X 10 -6 P

Ps

2 (4.27)

We have calculated this ratio, and have used Figure 4.5 to determine corresponding scaled distances, for a wide range of side-on overpressures. Results are tabulated in Table 4.4. They reach the proper low pressure asymptote of twice side-on peak overpressure, and agree remarkably well with the empirical fit to data for P, in Figure 4.6. The ratio for the perfect gas, Equation (4.24) is also included for comparison. One can see that, above P, = 100 psi and standard atmosphere conditions, the latter equation is increasingly in error and should not be used. Brode's equation gives a maximum reflection factor at the surface of a spherical HE charge at sea level of P,/P, = 13.92. Use of this formula is an improvement over predictions from TM 5-1300, and should be used in preference to that reference at small-scaled distances. d. Oblique Reflection. Although normally incident blast wave properties usually provide upper limits to blast loads on structures, the more usual case of loading of large, flat surfaces is represented by waves which strike at oblique incidence. Also, as a blast wave from a source some distance from the ground reflects from the ground, the angle of incidence must change from normal to oblique. reflection processes There have been many theoretical studies from plane surfaces, and some experiments. are well described in References 4.1, 4.16 of oblique shock wave The general physical and 4.28.

We will summarize their work here and present curves which can be used to estimate some of the properties of obliquely reflected waves; usually shock front properties and geometry only.

4-31

Table 4.4 Normallk Reflected Blast Wave Overpressures for Standard Sea-Level Ambient Conditions

R/WTNT ,
ftllbl'3 33.64 11.88 7.765 3.612 2.793 1.425 0.8931 0.2611 0.1471 0.1272*

l/3

ps9psi
1 5 10 50 100 500 1,000 5,000 10,000 12,040

Prf ps (Brode)
Eq. (4.27) 2,055 2.250 2.478 3,862 4.930 7.565 8.559 11.96 13.60 13.92

Pr, Psi Based On Eq. (4.27) 2.055 11.25 24.79 193.1 492.8 3,783.0 8,559.0 59,800.O 136,000.0 167,600.O

PJJy
Perfect Gas Eq. (4.24) 2.058 2.278 2.532 3.962 4.958 (6.976) (7.440) (7.879) (7.939) (7.949)

* Denotes scaled distance -k Parentheses in this to be used.

corresponding

to surface

of spherical

TNT charge. in error

column indicate

values which are too greatly

4-32

Oblique reflection is classed as either regular or Mach reflection, dependent on incident angle and shock strength. Geometries of these two cases are shown in Figures 4.8 and 4.9. In regular reflection, the incident shock travels into still air (Region One) at velocity U, with its front making the angle of incidence aI with respect to the wall. Properties behind On contact with the this front (Region %o) are those for a free air shock. wall, the flow behind the incident shock is turned, because the component normal to the wall must be zero, and the shock is reflected from the wall at a reflection angle aR that is different from aI. Conditions in Region Three inA pressure transducer flush-mounted in the dicate reflected shock properties. wall would record only the ambient and reflected wave pressures (direct jump from Region One to Region Three) as the wave pattern traveled along the wall; whereas, one mounted at a short distance from the wall would record the ambient pressure, and finally the reflected wave presthen the incident wave pressure, sure, Some interesting properties of this regularly reflected shock, given by Kennedy (Ref. 4.16) are as follows:

1.

For a given strength cal angle of incidence tion described above

of incident shock, there is some critiaextreme, such that the type of refleccannot occur for aI > "extreme.

2.

For each gaseous medium there is some angle ol\such that for aI z a' the strength of the reflected shock is greater than it is for head-on reflection. For air (approximated as an ideal gas with y'= 1.40), a* = 39O23'. For a given strength for aI = amin such Pr/po is a minimum. of that incident shock, the strength of there is some value the reflected shock,

3.

4.

The angle of reflection tion of the angle of

aR is incidence

an increasing aI.

monotonic

func-

As noted in the discussion of regular oblique reflection, there dependent on shock strength, above which is some critical angle of incidence, In 1877, Ernst Mach showed that the incident regular reflection cannot occur. Because of the and reflected shocks would coalesce to form a third shock. geometry of the shock fronts, they were termed the Mach V or Mach Y, with the single shock formed by the coalesced incident and reflected shocks normally The geometry of Mach reflection is shown in Figure 4.9. called the Mach stem. In addition to the incident and reflected shocks I and R, we now have the Mach shock M; the junction T of the three shocks is called the triple point. between regions of difIn addition, there is also a slipstream S, a boundary ferent particle velocity and different density, but of the same pressure. When aI in Figure 4.8 exceeds aextreme, the Mach wave M is formed at the wall and grows as the shock systems mOve along the wall with the locus of the triple point being a straight line AB.

4-33

Fi'gure 4.8

ReguIJar Oblique Reflectipn From A'kigid Wall (Reference 9 .J

Of A Plane Shock 4.16) .

P

Figure

4.9

Mach Reflections From A Rigid (Reference 4.16)

Wall

Harlow and Amsden periment on regular reflection also the start of Mach reflection). given here. Figure 4.10 gives of incidence "I in the regular as

(Ref. 4.28) present a resume of theory and exand the limit of regular reflection (which is Two useful curves from their paper are angle of reflection "R as a function of angle The parameter 5 is defined reflection regime.

E=,?
S PO

(4.28)

[Harlow and Amsden the inverse of the the relation

(Ref. shock

4.28) call strength.]

5 the shock strength, Inverting Equation

but (4.28)

it

is, in fact, we also have

(4.29)

A set of curves from the literature (Ref. 4.7) is Figure 4.11 to allow prediction of reflected peak pressure for These curves give Pr/Ps as a function of Ps and CQ for incident pressures P, up to 50 psi.

included as oblique shocks. shock over-

There are some recent data for strong blast waves reflected from a nearby wall which include both normal and oblique reflections (Refs. 4.24 and 4.43). The test arrangement includes a number of flush-mounted pressure transducers in the wall. The data are shown in Figures 4.12 and 4.13. In these figures, X is the horizontal distance from the normal to the wall through the charge center and R is standoff, measured to the charge center (See Figure 4.14). These data are at much greater pressures than the data in Figure 4.11, but do not cover all shock front obliquities. There are curves given as Figure 4-6 in TM 5-1300 which show reflection factors for both strong and weak The lower curves in that figure agree well shocks as a function of obliquity. with Figure 4.11, but the origin of the curves for strong shocks is not known. The sharp drops in all of the upper curves in that figure at "1 = 45" do not agree with the data in Figure 4.12. The AE is cautioned that there are significant diction of pressures and impulses for oblique reflections, experiments and code calculations are needed to fill these specific problem at Pantex, DOE will provide guidance. e. Effect of Casing on Air Blast. sensitivity, most HE in weapon systems or case. Experimental data indicate data gaps in preand that additional gaps. In a

tion shell

Because of fragility and initiais encased in a tough, exterior that blast parameters of cased HE

4-35

A/,

20'

10 0

Y //c\
\E

E = 0.20 = 0.00

for

Figure 4.10 Angle of Shocks of Different

Incidence Strengths (Reference

versus Angle of Reflection Undergoing Regular Reflection

4.28)

4-36

-._ -

INCldENT

C ERPl

--

0 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90

Angle Figure 4.11

of

Incidence

aI Reflected Overpressure Ratio as Function of Angle for Various Side-On Overpressures (Reference 4.71 of Incidence

100,000 50,000

rl FL ; 10,000 PI E : i 8 2,000 1,000 500 4 CI : w" d 3 2 200 100

1

20,000

5,000

I 1 2

II II II

II

II

I 3

I 4

I
I

5 Scaled Position X/R

Figure

4.12

Peak Overpressure Distances for

versus Scaled Position Single Charge (Reference L

for Different 4.43)

Scaled

li

4 . c
5 6 7 0.8 1.3 1.7 3.0

Scaled

Positlou

X/R

Figure

4.13 Scaled for Different

Specific Impulse versus Scaled Position Scaled Distances for Single Charge (Reference 4.43)

l
I
4-39

EXPLOSIVE CHARGE
/

Figure

4.14

Explosive a Function

Charge Loading of Position

on a Wall

as

4-40

a
are significantly different from those determined for bare charges, as obThe addition of casing to an explosive tained from Figures 4.5 through 4.7, charge changes the functional format of the blast parameters; no longer are they simply a function of scaled standoff (R/W1/3), but they become functions of other variables. Additional variables which could be important, besides standoff distance R and charge weight W are: 1. 2. 3. 4. case case case weight, material thickness, properties such as detonation velocity and density. Wc, properties such as toughness and density,

explosive

Charge shape and ambient atmospheric conditions could also be imthese variables complicate the analysis and are treated in portant; however, The cased charges discussed in this section will, thereseparate sections. fore, be assumed spherical in shape with mean sea level atmospheric conditions. The addition of a large number of independent variables to the functional format for blast parameters has the undesirable effect of increasing the difficulty of determination of the contribution of any single variable. The net result is the need for a large amount of experimental data of the "proper" that is, in a test matrix in which the contribution of each variable is type, investigated systematically. With such a large number of variables, assumptions have been made by various investigators to simplify matters. One approach is to assume that the only variable significantly contributing to the blast parameters other than charge weight W and standoff R, is casing weight, Wc. An equivalent bare charge weight, W*, can then be defined. An equivalent scaled distance, 2' = R/(W*)1'3

(4.30)

is calculated from Figures W' have been (4.31) giving

and the blast parameters are obtained as previously described Various functional formats for determination 4.5 through 4.7. suggested by different investigators (Ref. 4.30), with Equation the best fit for steel-cased explosives.

of

W'= [

0.2+

(1 +o$W)

1
w

(4.31)

Figure 4.15 is a plot of this equation, points. The data points for steel-cased well. But, the remaining data points very poorly with the equation.

with experimental explosives fit for other materials

data plotted as equation (4.31) rather can be seen to agree

4-41

2.45
l-r11 I I I I I 1 t I
l

1.8

Steel

Case
l

0
l l

l q

Al Case* Tungsten Case* Al 356-T6

0
l

0
l

1.6

W Cast *

A Al Oxide* Cast Magnesium AZ92 ~6 Lead Case* Silicon Carbide* (Crystolon 600)
l

i A 0
0

&
l

1.4

0
l

0 A 0

5 &

1.2 *All these materials in particle form, bonded with plastic.

l l

4
A
A

Oo

l A a
0

OO

0.6

0.4

10 Case Weight/Charge

1 Weight WC/W

0.1

Figure

4.15

Various

Methods

For

Predicting

Case

Effects

4-42

The remaining data were obtained from a test program conducted at The purpose of the test program was to deterBRL [Dewey, et al. (Ref. 4.30)]. mine a more accurate functional format for determination of blast parameters for cased charges in order to obtain maximum lethality at close scaled standThe legend in Figure 4.15 indicates off distances (1 < R/Wl/3 i 3 ft/lb1/3). and W' is generally greater that a variety of-materials were used as casings, All materials used as casings were highly brittle than W, the charge weight. It was also found by or were held together with a brittle matrix material. Dewey, et al. (Ref. 4.30) that W' itself is dependent on R for a given charge scaling did not apply to charges cased with light, weight W and that Sachs' suggested an alternative functional format frangible materials. Dewey, et al. which seemed to fit the data particularly well for reflected specific impulse. A modified scaled distance is defined: R (W + wcJ1'3

(4.32)

The blast parameters are then calculated as previously stated per Figures 4.5 through 4.7. Equation (4.32) effectively adds the casing mass as additional HE. Specific impulse retains the same energy scaling factor (W0)1/3 as do duration and arrival time. The data from BRL (Dewey, et al.) and also from a test program conducted by NOL [Filler (Reference 4.31)] are used as the basis for Figures 4-16 through 4.18. -The data extend to a maximum scaled The individual data points are not distance of 15 ft/lb1/3 Pentolite. a data range is plotted together plotted (except for steel casing); rather, with a solid curve for bare HE. Pentolite 60/40 was used in both test programs, and hence, W is in pounds of Pentolite 60/40, Note that the steelcased charges (circles in Figure 4.18) produce the greatest discrepancy in accord with the results of Figure 4.15. Various explanations have been proposed for the increase in the effective explosive weight W' over bare charge weight W. One proposed explanation is that the casing prevents spallation of HE from the surface of a charge during detonation, effectively increasing the effective charge weight W' over bare charge weight W. Another theory is that a mechanical efficiency is involved, or "impedance matching" between the explosion gases and the casing material. There is an obvious need for more experimental investigation in this subject area. In addition to a specific impulse from ing, from the momentum in its fragments, imparts an specific impulse. The total specific impulse which structure is the sum of the specific impulses from fragments. Although these separate specific impulses air blast, the shell casadditional structural must be resisted by a air blast and from do not arrive at the

4-43

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

Bare Spherical

Pentolite

60/40

Y/M

Data Spread for Spherical Pentolite 60/40 With Brittle C-b3

10

2 10 l/3 60

R'(Wpentolite

+ wc'l'3'

ft/lb

pentolite

Figure

4.16

Peak Side-On Overpressure for Spherical 60/40 with Light, Brittle Case

Pentolite

4-44

70

lilil

Bare, Spherica Pentolite 60/&O

Dara Spread For Sphedcal Pentolite

10

a 5 %Y
H

1 RI (U pentolite + WC) 113 , ftllb l/3 pentolite

20

Figure

4.17

Scaled Side-On Impulse for 60/40 with Light, Brittle

Spherical Case

Pentolite

l
4-45 Change l.15 August 1981

Spherical

Pentolite

60/40

Spherical Data Spread--For Pentolitd 60140 With Bdttle Casing

Circles are Steel-Cased Pentolite o 60140 Spherical Charges 0

10 0.4 1

R'(Wpentolite

+ 'c)

l/3 ,

ftllb

l/3 pentolita

Figure

4.18

Scaled l2eflected Impulse for Spherical 60/40 with Light, Brittle Case

Pentolite

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

4-46

same time, structural calculations are conservative if this assumption is made. Should one wish to make a more detailed analysis, the times of arrival can be determined separately by using Figure 4.5 to compute the air blast arrival time and by dividing the standoff distance by fragment velocity to estimate the arrival time for fragments. Chapter 6, Fragmentation, describes approximate relationships for estimating fragment velocities or distributions. These relationships are used to determine the average specific impulse from the many fragment casing particles which strike a structure (plate). Particularly critical in this estimation process is determination of fragment distribution and the Gurney equation (See Table 6.1) in Chapter 6 for fragment velocity. The average reflected specific impulse i,, imparted to the plate from fragment impacts is estimated using Equation (4.33). Area i r =

m(A)Vf A cost3 da plate (4.33)

where i r is is is is the the the the reflected area1 average surface angle of specific mass distribution fragment area of velocity the with plate, 90 degrees defined as normal impulse, of the using fragments, Gurney equations,

m(A)

vf
Aplate 0

is the impact.

impact

An expression must be determined for m(A), the area1 mass distriThe expression will depend on charge shape and plate bution of fragments. a centrally detonated spherical-cased charge would location. For example, while a cylinder would produce a produce an isotropic fragment distribution, The impact obliquity factor, cos0, also narrow beam width fragment spray. The impulse standoff, and plate orientation. will depend on charge geometry, thus computed will be an average value over the entire plate and, fragment impact being a discrete phenomenon, any small section of plate could experiThis would be true in particular for ence a much hi.gher specific impulse. one must also design Hence, casings that produce large, chunky fragments. against spallation and perforation by fragments (See Chapter 6, Fragmentation).

4-47

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 4.1 PROBLEM*Find the maximum angle a given shock strength P s = peak = ambient
PO

uI at which regular reflection would occur inverse 5, and reflection angle aR for this

for u . I

GIVEN:

side-on

overpressure pressure REFERENCE

atmospheric

FIND: SOLUTION:

aI and uR 1. 2. 3. 5 =
PO

ps + P 0 to the calcu-

Eq.

(4.28)

Read a Extreme corresponding lated 5 Read uR for given 5 and c1I

Fig. Fig.

4.10 4.10

CALCULATION GIVEN: Ps = 25 psi

pO

= 14.7 and oR 1. 2. 3.

psi

FIND: SOLUTION:

aI

5 = 251-;74

7 = 0.37

Entering Figure 4.10, the maximum angle a1 for regular reflection is found to be 41' Also, from Figure 4.10, the reflectionangle aR isw

*The primary use of Figure 4.10 for an AE is to determine the value of shock The figure also gives obliquity for which the Mach stem starts to form. angle of reflection for given angle of incidence and shock strength, but this is of much less practical use for an AE interested in surface loading. EXAMPLE PROBLEM 4.2 PROBLEM - Determine the blast wave of GIVEN: uI
pS

peak reflected intermediate incidence of

overpressure strength. blast wave of blast

for

an obliquely

reflected

= angle = peak

of

(degrees) wave

side-on

overpressure

4-48

FIND: SOLUTION:

Pr 1. Determine 'r"s 2. Calculate 'r reflected

CPs)

REFERENCE reflected overpressure ratio Fig. pressure Eq. Eq. 4.11 (4.25) (4.26) &

= (Pr/Fs>

CALCULATION GIVEN: aI P FIND: SOLUTION: s = 60" = 50 psi

Pr 1. 2. Entering P r Figure 4.11 P,/P

S

= 1.8

= (1.8)(50)

= 90 psi EXAMPLE PROBLEM 4.3 . 9

PROBLEM - Determine the blast parameters using Figure 4.5 for a spherical free-air blast; and compare to a ground burst of same explosive weight, at sea level atmospheric conditions. GIVEN: R = distance from center of (standoff [ft]) W = weight and type of HE Free-Air 1. 2. 3. Ground 1. 2. 3. Blast Equivalent TNT explosive weight W = Explosive weight times TNTequivalency factor Calculate Hopkinson-scaled distance l/3 Z = R/W Determine the corresponding Burst Find With adjusted required to Z blast parameters Fig. 4.5 explosive source

FIND: SOLUTION:

REFERENCE Appendix A for TNT Equivalencies Eq. (4.19)

FIND: SOLUTION:

Cratering TNT weight W' = 1.8 W TNT Eq. (4.16)

Calculate Hopkinson-scaled distance Z' = R/W--1/3 Determine the required blast parameters corresponding to 2'

Eq. Fig.

(4.19) 4.5

4-49

CALCULATION GIVEN: R = 20 ft W = 58.6 lb Free-Air 1, 2. 3.

Composition

FIND: SOLUTION:

Blast W = (58.6)(1.092) = 64 lb z = 20/64 l/3 = 5 ft/lb l/3 Enter Figure P = 24 psi

S

4.5

for

Z = 5 ft/lb

l/3

and

read:

= 1 x lo-2 td q73 t $3 For = 1.5

psi-set/lb sec/lb1'3 l/3

l/3

= 1 38 X 1O-3 '

X 10m3 set/lb and impulse,

times l/3 by W i
S

multiply

scaled

values

= (1 X 10-2)(641'3) = (1.38 X 10-3)(641'3)

psi-set set

= 4 X 10m2 psi-set = 5.52 X 10B3 set

"d

-3 = (1.5 X 10-3)(641'3) set = 6.0 X 10 set ta These values can be compared to corresponding obtained in Section 4.8 for effect of altitude FIND: SOLUTION: Ground 1. 2. 3. Burst With Cratering

values

W' = 1.8 W = (1.8)(64) = 115.2 lb Z'= 201115.2 l/3 = 4.11 ft/lb l/3 Enter Figure P = 37 psi
S

4.5

for

Z = 4.11 l/3

ft/lb

l/3

and read:

i + W td 7

= 1.2

x-lo-2

psi-secflb

= 1 25 X 10m3 sec/lb113 *

4-50

= 1.04 X 10B3 set/lb l/3 173 W multiply For times and impulse, l/3 by 'TNT i
S

scaled

values

= (1.2 = (1.25 = (1.04

X 10-2)(115,21'3) x lo-3)(l15.21'3) x 10-3)(115.21'3)

psi-set set set

= 5.84 = 6.08 = 5.06

X 10s2 -3 -3 set set

p si-set

td t a

X 10 X 10

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 4.4 PROBLEM - Determine the peak side-on overpressure, side-on impulse, and reflected impulse GIVEN: R = distance from center of (standoff [ft]) W = weight and type of HEW = casing weight
C

for

reflected overpressure, steel-cased HE.

explosive

source

FIND: SOLUTION:

P,,

P,,

is,

and i,

REFERENCE Table 6 of Appendix. A weight Eq. (4.31)

1. 2.

Equivalent TNT explosive weight W = (W)(TNT Factor) Calculate an adjusted explosive

W =

LO.20

+ (lo;~c,w)l

3.

4.

Calculate modified Hopkinson-scaled distance 2' = R,W-1'3 Determine the required blast parameters corresponding to Z

Eq. Fig. Fig.

(4.30) 4.5 & 4.6

CALCULATION GIVEN: R = 20 ft w = 9.16 lb W = 5 lb

C

Composition

FIND: SOLUTION:

Ps,

P,, 1.

is,

and i, = 10 lb

W = (1.092)(9.16)

4-51

2.

W' = [0.20 W' = 7.3 lb

(1 z/lO,J = 10.3 4.5 ft/lb

lo

lb l/3

3. 4.

Z' P
S

= 2017.3 l/3 Figure psi

Enter

and find

Ps and

i /W l/3 s

= 5.6

is,$/3 Multiply i s

= 5 X 10m3 psi-secjlb scaled side-on impulse ) psi-set

l/3 by W' l/3 = 9.7 X 10 -3 psi-set

= (5 x 10-3)(7.3l'3 Figure 4.6

Enter P

and find

Pr and i /W l/3 1: l/3 by W' l/3 = 2.7 x 10 -2 psi-set

= 15 psi = 1.4 scaled x 10 -2 psi-secjlb

ir,wl/3 r Multiply i r = (1.4

reflected

impulse psi-set

X 10-2)(7.31'3)

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 4.5 PROBLEM - Determine the overpressure, mented casing GIVEN: peak side-on and reflected material. overpressure, impulse, for explosive side-on impulse, reflected HE cased in brittle or frag-

R = distance from center of (standoff [ft]) W = weight and type of HE = casing weight of brittleWC p
S

source

material REFERENCE

FIND:

SOLUTION:

* p =s9 r, and i r 1. .Equivalent TNT explosive weight W = Explosive weight times TNTequivalency factor 2. Calculate modified Hopkinson-scaled distance 2 = R/(W I- Wc) l/3 3. Determine the corresponding required to Z' blast parameters

Table 6 of Appendix A

Eq. Fig. Fig.

(4.32) 4.5 4.6 &

4-52

CALCULATION GIVEN: R = 20 ft W = 10 lb WC = 5 lb Ps, 1. 2. is, Pr,

of

TNT

FIND: SOLUTION:

and i, = 10 lb

WTNT = (l)(lO)

Z' = 20/(10 + 5)1'3 Z' z 8.1 ft/lb l/3 Enter P

S

3.

Figure psi = 6.5

4.5

and find

Ps and is/Wl'3

= 8.8 l/3

is/W

X 10m3psi-set/lb side-on impulse psi-set

l/3 by d'3 = 1.4 X 10B2 p si-set

Multiply i
S

scaled

= (6.5

X 10-3)(101'3> 4.6 and find

Enter P r

Figure

Pr and ir/W l/3

= 25 psi = 1 . 8 X low2 scaled psi-sec/lb1'3 impulse = 3.9 by Wl/3 -2 X 10 psi-set

i /Wl'3 r Multiply %

reflected ) psi-set

= (1.8)(101'3

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 4.6 PROBLEM - The reflection factor (Pr/Ps> close to an explosive charge may not be calculable from Figure 4.6, but instead one may have to use Equation (4.27) for these strong shocks. The problem is to determine reflection factor (Pr/Ps) and P, close in to a charge. GIVEN: FIND: SOLUTION: Z = scaled Pr 1. Determine if scaled distance is that where the Pr curve extends 4.6. If not, read value of Pr. below in Figure Fig. 4.6 distance (R/Wl'3) REFERENCE

4-53

c
2. 3. 4. CALCUMTION GIVEN: FIND: 2 = R/W113 = 2.0 x 10-1 Pr Examining Figure 4.4 shows that does not extend into 2 = R/Wl/3 = 2.0 x 10-1 Using Figure 4.5 = 7.0 x lo3 psi ps Using Equation (4.27)
P r, P 8 1 + 1.728 4.218

If not on Figure 4.6, read value of Ps from the curve in Figure 4.5 (which extends to cha,rge surface) Use Equation (4.27) to solve for reflection factor Use results of Step 3 to obtain P,

Fig.

4.5

Eq. (4.27)

SOLUTION: 1.

the P, curve

2. 3.

2.655 X 10 -3 ( 7.0 x 103) x lo-4 (7.0 x 103) +1.921 x 1o-g

+2+ (7 x 103j2

X 1O-3 + 4.834 X 1O-2 (7.0 X 103) f 6.856 X 10 -6 ( 7.0 x 10312 1 + 7.997 x 1c3 (7.0 x 103) + 3.844 x 1o-6 (7.0 x 103)2

Pr/Ps = 12.82 = Reflection P = (Pr/Ps) r

Factor

X Ps = 12.82 X 7.0 X lo3 = 8.97 X lo4 psi

Q
4-54

4.3.1.2

Non-Spherical

Geometry

A bare high explosive, when properly initiated in free air, will undergo an extremely rapid chemical decomposition with release of energy, in the form of a "detonation wave." The detonation wave, with origin at the site of initiation, will propagate radially through the explosive at a characteristic If the explosive charge is initiated at "steady state" detonation velocity. the detonation wave should reach its center of mass and is spherical in shape, the entire charge surface at the same instant or within a few microseconds of the same time. A shock wave will travel through the surrounding air, its strength a function of radial standoff from the center of the mass of the explosion. The techniques developed for estimation of blast parameters assumed a hemispherical charge resta spherical charge in free air, or equivalently, ing on a surface that is a perfect reflector of blast waves. Most ordnance devices are non-spherical in shape. For a non-spherical charge, a shock wave will not enter the surrounding air as a spherical The shape and wave, nor at the same instant over the entire charge surface. strength of the shock wave entering the air will depend both upon charge geoThe blast metry, and upon the relative location at which initiation occurred. parameters will be functions not only of radial standoff, but also of azimuth There exists.no easily determtned "correction factorU and possibly elevation. as was the case, for example, for high altitude ambient atmospheric conditions. Experimental programs have been conducted by various individuals at various organizations for determination of the blast field around non-spherical explosives of simple, regular geometries (cylinders, cubes, cones, etc.) Several observations were common to the (See References 4.34 through 4.38). One was that the largest overpressure always occurred in the investigators. direction of the charge face with greatest presented surface area, and another, that multiple pressure "peaks" occurred in the initial positive overpressure phase. Short-duration photographs showed that the multiple pressure peaks correspond to multiple shocks, produced along edges of explosive charges where detonation waves from different faces of the charge interface and form what is termed a "bridge wave" analogous to the Mach stem formed with reflected blast waves (Reference 4.34). The secondary shocks tend to overtake and coalesce with the leading shocks as radial standoff from the charge is increased. Experimentally it has been found that the use of hemispherical end caps on cylindrical charges will eliminate the formation of bridge waves. For a charge of a particular non-spherical geometry, as standoff increases, the blast wave becomes more spherical and only small errors are induced by neglecting charge shape. A large quantity of experimental investigators. obtained from a test program and Snyer (Reference 4.32). data for Plooster conducted The curve cylindrical charges has been amassed by (Reference 4.33) has curve-fit the data at Denver Research Institute by Wisotski fit is of the functional form P, = f

4-55

Change 1 - 15 August 1981

(2, L/D, 0) where Ps is peak side-on overpressure, Z is the scaled radial standoff from the cylinder, L/D is the cylinder length to diameter ratio, and 0 is the azimuth angle (see Figure 4-22 for definition). The data base for the curve fit consisted of Comp B cylinders with length-to-diameter ratios ranging from l/4 to 10/l. The average ambient atmospheric pressure was 12.03 psia. Peak side-on overpressure values ranged from 2 to 100 psig. Two equations resulted from the curve fit: For charges L/D 11 - 0.1146X + (0.1285 cos - 0.0342X) 20 + (-0.0029 cos0 + 0.0304X) cos 30

y = [2.0467 + (0.0621

- 0.3280X) - 0.998x) + 0.1422X

+ (-0.1532 + 1-2.1617 + (-0.4178 i- (-0.3484 + [0.4366 + (0.1178 + (0.3123 and for disc-shaped y = [2.0467 + (0.0621 - 0.1534 + [-2.1616 f (-0.4178 + (-0.3484 + [0.4366

cos 401 + (-0.2079 cos f 0.1161x) 20 + (-0.1372 X cos0 - 0.043X) cos 30 (4.34) cos0 + 0.0648X) cos 30

+ 0.3686X) + 0.1191X)

cos 401

+ 0.0418X

+ (0.0138

+ 0.0983X)

+ 0.1451X) + 0.1616X) (L/D

cos 20 + (0.2556 cos 401 h2, < 1): + 0.0728X) 20 + (-0.0029

charges

- 0.1753X

+ (0.1285 cos

cos0 + 0.0079X) cos 30

- 0.2503X) cos 401 f

+ 0.0464X

(-0.2079

- 0.2174X)

cos0 - 0.1171X) cos 30

+ 0.3426X) - 0.3449X)

cos 28 + (-0.1372 cos 401 x

+ 0.0053X

+ (0.0138 cos

+ 0.0006X) 20 f (0.2556 A2

cosQ + 0.2072X) cos 38 (4.35)

+ (0.1178 + (0.3123

- 0.2656X) - 0.2140X)

cos 401

a 4-56

where:

x= Iln(L/D) x
= Rn(0.0893 R/W1'3) Ps = 1.22ey

(4
(b) (c) (4.36)

Y = Rn Ps - 0.20; The original calculations at equations standard

allow

presented sea level

by Plooster have been modified to conditions with TNT as the explosive.

Empirical curve fits are generally valid only within the range of the data base of the curve fit, and thus, Equations (4.34) and (4.35) should be utilized with the limitations of the data base listed above. Figures 4.19 through 4.21 are plots comparing the curve fit to the actual data (Ref. 4.32). A frequent convention used in presenting data is "equivalent spherical weight" for a non-spherical charge at a particular location relative to the charge. Figures 4.22 through 4.24 are plots of the ratio of equivalent spherical charge weight to cylinder charge weight , as a function of scaled standoff azimuthal location, and L/D ratio. Some data exist for explosions of non-spherical charges on the ground (see Ref. 4.35). But, these data are not extensive enough to develop curves and equations such as Equations (4.34) and (4.35). The prean extensive and massive reflecting surface such as the ground or the an explosive bay complicates blast wave prediction for non-spherical in two ways: (1) the complex shape of the blast waves from the nonsource are made even more complex by reflection from the reflecting and (2) most reflecting surfaces are not ideal and assumptions must on energy absorption by the surface.

surface prediction sence of floor of charges spherical surface, be made

For estimation of blast parameters for non-spherical charges on the or on floors on grade, it is recommended that, unless specific data ground, such as in Reference 4.35 are available for the particular charge shape, the charge be assumed to be of hemispherical shape located on the surface. A reflection factor of 1.7 to 2.0 should then be used as multiplier for the charge weight to obtain an equivalent free-air sphere weight, which is then used to enter Figures 4.5 through 4.7 for prediction of blast wave properties. If non-spherical geometry meters in Pantex Plant applications, Where necessary, this information significantly affect blast wave paraDOE will provide guidance to the AE. will be given in the design criteria. will

4-57

6 .80

.32

11

= 19.43 ft/lb

l/3

2
0

30

60
0,

90
degrees

120

150

180

Figure 4.19 Comparison of Experimental Peak Side-on Overpressure (solid curves) with Values Calculated from Equation 4.35 (dashed curves) as a Function of Azimuth Angle 0 and Scaled Distance (R/W1/3) from the Charge, for Cylindrical Charges with L/D Ratio of l/4. Numbers at Right Indicate Scaled Distance for Each Pair of Curves

4-58

1OC 1
I

. .

LID - l/l

5.79

6.75 7.72

+
9.26

c
1.12

5.44

= 19 30 f

/lb l/3

1 0 30 60 90 120 150 180

0, degrees

Figure 4.20 As in Figure 4.19, Comparison Values to Those Calcuiated from Equation

of Experimental 4.34, L/D = 1

4-59

1 0

30

60
0,

90 degrees

120

150

180

Figure 4.21 As in Figure 4.19, Comparison Values to Those Calculated from Equation

of

Experimental

4.34, L/D = 6

4-60

10

I
L/D = l/4 -L/D = l/2

IL/D

= 6

\I

'\I .

Defon at --Dashed Curves 18C , Solid Curves 0' I 0.1 1 Scaled Distance 10 R/&3, ft/ll~~'~ 100 i

Figure 4.22 Ratio, Equivalent Spherical Mass to Cylinder Mass, (0 = 0' and 180") Based on Experimental Peak Side-On Overpressure, at Sea Level Ambient Atmospheric Conditions

4-61

I
4.0

I I-

I 3.5 o&Lt
180"

L/D = 6\

i/D

= l/L)

Scaled Distance

R/Wl/3 , ft/lb1j3

Figure

4.23 Ratio, Equivalent Spherical Mass to Cylinder Based on Experimental Peak Side-On Overpressure, at Ambient Atmospheric Conditions

Mass, (0 = go"), Sea Level

4-62

, -_\i/--t
Detonation , --1-

180
at 180' IlDashed Curves 135' Solid Curves 45O

0.4

Scaled Distance

R/WL'3,

ft/lb113

Figure 4.24 Ratio, Equivalent Spherical Mass to Cylinder Mass, (0 = 45' and 135") Based on Experimental Peak Side-On Overpressure, at Sea Level Ambient Atmospheric Conditions

4-63

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 4.7 PROBLEM - Determine peak side-on air HE explosion. GIVEN: overpressure around source a bare, cylindrical free-

R = distance from center of explosive (standoff [Et]) W = weight and type of HE (lb) 0 = Azimuth angle in through 4.24) L/D = length-to-diameter degrees ratio (See of

Figures charge

4.22

FIND: SOLUTION:

1.

2. 3.

Equivalent TNT explosive weight W = Explosive weight times TNTequivalency factor Calculate Hopkinson-scaled distance Z = R/W1'3 Calculate modified distance X = Qn (0.08932) Calculate modified X = Qn (L/D) Calculate Ps Hopkinson-scaled

REFERENCE Table 6 of Appendix A for TNT Equivalencies Eq. (4.19)

Eq. L/D ratio Eq.

(4.36b) (4.36~1)

4. 5.

Obtain y from Equation (4.34), then substitute y into Equation (4.36~) ps CALCULATION GIVEN: R = W = 0 = L/D p, 1.
2. 3.

Eq. Eq.

(4.34) (4.36~)

&

= 1.22

ey

25 ft
52.6

lb Comp B 0, 45, 90 degrees = 1

FIND: SOLUTION:

Equivalent TNT explosive weight W = (1.092)(52.6) = 57.4 lb l/3 2 = 25157.4 113 = 6.48 ft/lb X = Qn(0.0893 X 6.48) = -0.547

4-64

4.

x = an(l) = 0 For 0 = 0'

y - L2.0467 t-2.1617 (-0.567) 0.3123 + 0.1285 - 0.2079 + [0.4366 COS(O)] cm(O) + 0.0621 COB(O) - 0.0029 cm(O)
cos(O)

- 0.1532

cos(O)] co9 + (O)]

+ X

cos(0) - 0.4178 + 0.0138 cm(O) - 4.211

cm(O) - 0.1372 + 0.1178 cos(0)

- 0.3484 + 0.2556 cm(O)

x (-0.457)*

= 82.3

psi
+ 0.1285 coe(45) - 0.2079 cos(45) + [0.4366 + 0.0621 cos(90) - 0.4178 cos(90) cos(45) - 3.299 - 0.0029 coe(135) - 0.1372 ~~(135) coe(90) + 0.2556 - 0.1532 - 0.3484 ~~(135) coa(lF!O)] cos(MO)] + + X

For

0 = 45"

y - [2.0467 r-2.1617 (-0.547) 0.3123

+ 0.0138 x (-0.547)2

+ 0.1178

= ps 33.0 .3-g Ps = psi

1.22

cos(l8O)l

For
y I

0 = 90"
[2.0467 [-2.1617 (-0.547) 0.3123 + 0.1285 cos(90) - 0.2079 cos(90) + rO.4366 cos(360)] X (-O.547)2 + 0.0621 cos(l80) - 0.4178 cos(l80) coa(90) - 3.165 - 0.0029 ~~~(270) ~~(270) + 0.2536 - 0.1372 + 0.1178 coa(180) - 0.1532 - 0.3484 cos(270) cos(36O)l cos(36O)l + + X

+ 0.0138

= 1.22
S

.3-165

P = 28.9 psi s (These values could have been obtained but with one to two digit accuracy.) -LE PROBLEM - Determine charge. GIVEN: the equivalent PROBLEM 4.8 spherical weight

from

Figure

4.20,

(TNT)

for

a cylinder

R = distance from center of explosive source (standoff [ft]) W = weight and type of HE (lb) 0 = azimuth angle in degrees (See Figures 4.22 through 4.24) L/D = length-to-diameter ratio of charge Equivalent 1. Spherical Equivalent equivalency Calculate Weight REFERENCE Table 6 of Appendix A Eq. (4.19)

FIND: SOLUTION:

w = explosive

2.

TNT explosive weight weight times TNTfactor Hopkinson-scaled distance

4-65

3. 4.

Obtain the ratio, Equivalent Spherical Mass/Cylinder Mass directly from Figures 4.22 through 4.24 The equivalent spherical weight of TNT is found by multiplying the ratio from Step 3 by the cylinder weight W Equivalent spherical weight (TNT) = W X ratio

Fig. Fig. Fig.

4.22, 4.23, 4.24

&

CALCULATION GIVEN: R = W = 0 = L/D 25 ft 52.6 lb Comp B 0, 45, 90, 135, = 6 Spherical

180 degrees

FIND: SOLUTION:

Equivalent 1. 2. 3.

Weight weight lb

Equivalent TNT explosive W = (1.092)(52.6) = 57.4

4.

z = 25/57.4 l/3 = 6.48 ft/lbl'3 From Figure 4.22: For 0 = 0" Ratio = 0.4 For 0 = 180' Ratio = 1.3 From Figure 4.23: For 0 = 90' Ratio = 1.6 From Figure 4.24: For 0 = 45' Ratio = 1.3 For 0 = 135' Ratio = 1.3 The equivalent spherical weight below in tabular form, for 2 = 6.48 -0 0 45 90 135 180 ft/lb l/3 , L/D Equivalent = 6 Spherical 23.0 74.6 91.8 74.6 74.6

is

listed

-Ratio 0.4 1.3 1.6 1.3 1.3

Weight

(lb)

4-66

These equivalent weights can dictate wall design, for explosions of large L/D cylindrical charges, even at considerable standoffs. The ratio of 1.6 at 90' azimuth angle applies at a rather large scaled distance for accidents in explosive bays.

4-67

4.3.2

Multiple

Explosion

Sources

When a multiple explosion occurs, blast characteristics can be very different from that measured for either a single charge of the total charge weight or any one of the separate charges treated alone. In between two or more charges detonated at the same time or close in time, shock waves will interact through reflection and cause high peak pressures. Outside an area including two or more charges, blast waves can coalesce for some standoff range into a single blast wave with enhanced overpressure. In the following sections methods for predicting blast wave parameters for both sequential and simultaneous detonations are discussed and conservative assumptions in areas where there is a lack of information are given. To date, there appear to be no examples of use of multiple explosion source data in actual facility design. Specific recommendations appear in the following sections. 4.3.2.1 Sequential Detonation

There exist little blast data which can be used to characterize blast The bulk of the work done was by Zaker waves from sequential detonations. His work was directed toward (Ref. 4.38) in a two-part study on the subject. safety studies concerning blast effects near (but not between) both two and Zaker notes that an explosion in a three sequentially detonated charges. single bay of a multiple unit storage facility can cause the initiation of a second explosion in another bay (through fragment impact, for example) with the result that blast characteristics away from the explosion can be similar to blast from an explosive weight of the total of all charges involved inAlthough there is a delay in initiation, trailing stead of any one charge. shock waves can overtake and coalesce with leading shock waves. The lead shock passes through air and compresses the gas, heats it and imparts a momentum to the gas particles. As a second shock travels through this disturbed medium, it will have an increased shock velocity because sound speed increases with temperature, the medium is denser, and there is momentum flow in the direction of shock velocity (Ref. 4.38). Zaker's work included development of a- finite-difference computer model (called BLOWUP) used to determine numerically pressure fields about sequential detonations of spherical charges. Small scale experiments of two and three sequentially detonated equal and unequal charges were conducted for comparison with numerical predictions. This section concentrates on the twocharge experiments. The experiments included 16 two-spherical charge tests with a total charge weight of 2 lb of C-4 explosive separated by a plate at a distance of 10 inches, center to center. This is equivalent to 2.5 lb of TNT.* The test combinations of charges and delay time are shown in Table 4.5. Figure 4.25 shows the test setup which includes pressure measurements along lines both lateral and axial to the charge centers, and a dividing wall between charges (to prevent sympathetic detonation), The data were presented in scaled curves which are reproduced in Figures 4.26 through 4.31. These include time .-is

9cAccording

to

Zaker,

which

not

the

same relationship
4-68

listed

in

Appendix

A.

Table

4.5

Test

Conditions

for

Sequential

Explosions
-

(Reference

4.38)

CHARGE RATIO*

SCALED TIME DELAYS tdelay,

ms/lb1'3

1:l

0.60,

1.07,

1.58,

2.14,

2.59,

3.17,

3.65,

and 4.11

2:l

0.58,

1.16,

1.62,

and

2.57

1:2

1.0,

1.64,

2.14,

and

3.22

*Ratio

of

the

two

charges:

1:l 1:2

= 1 lb C-4 each, = 213 and k/3 lb

2:l = 4/3 C-4

and 2/3

lb

C-4,

4-69

>R Axial + e 6.5 Top View 9.0 loo Scaled Distance From Charge Center Of Mass = R 'TOTAL 113 0 13.6 0 20.9 0 37.1 0 42.0 I ft lb1j3 + + f 4 + Pressure Gages

-El

Scaled S l/3 'TOTAL = 0.614

Distance

Between ft 11Y3

Charges

Figure

4.25

Schematic of Zaker

for Sequential Explosion (Reference 4.38)

Tests

I I E delay

I I - 3.22

ms/lb

l/3 End of Dam

./

.8 .7
I I I

Scaled

Distance

Z, ft/lb113

Figure

4.26

Lateral

Peak

Pressure

for

a 1:2

Charge

Ratio

4-71

de1ay

- Total, 1.10, 1.164, and 2.14 ma/lbl/3

10 9

c4 ri m

rn

6 5

2
End of

Oaca

78910 Scaled Distance 2,

20 ft/lb l/3

30

40

Figure

4.27

Axial

Peak

Pressure

for

a 1:2

Charge

Ratio

4-72

Start

of

Data

20
0.58 !- L, __.I
ma/lb

I 113

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3

I\LT>,,,..

- 2.57

ma/lb13

\ \

Total

1 .9
I I I

-r
5 6 7 8 910 Scaled Distance

delay

- 1.62
I

20 2, ft/lb l/3

30

40

50

Figure

4.28

Lateral

Peak Pressure

for

a 2:l

Charge

Ratio

4-73

20

10 9 8 7 6 5 4

213 Total

8910 Scaled Distance

20 2, ft/lb

30 113

40

50

60

Figure

4.29

Axial

Peak

Pressure

for

a 2:l

Charge

Ratio

4-74

10 9 8
I lelay

- 1.58 I

m/lb

113

l/2

Total

and

Tdelay

1 .9 .8 5 Scaled 10 Distance

mm/lb

3.65,4.11 113

\ \ \ -

20 2, ft/lb 113

30

40

50

Figure

4.30

Lateral

Peak

Pressure

for

a 1:l

Charge

Ratio

4-75

20

10

9
8

7 6 5

End

of

Data

7 8910
Scaled Distance Z, ft/lb113

Figure

4.31

Axial

Peak

Pressure

for

a 1:l

Charge

Ratio

4-76

delay isoclines of peak pressure as a function of standoff for direction and charge ratio. 'Ibis peak pressure is the highest corded of either shock (but not both peaks) or of the coalesced conclusions were:

a particular pressure reshock. Zaker's

The effect of firing the charge farthest from the axial line first and the effect of the dividing wall reduces the time delay in axial direction by about 1.3 ms/lbl13 compared to that in the lateral direction. These same two conditions can cause the peak pressure of the to be less than expected for first shock, when uncoalesced, For long delay times, the a singlecharge with no barrier. second shock may travel within the negative phase of the first, thereby causing lower peak pressure in the second shock. If then neither peak pressure of the these two events combine, two pulses would be as high as the expected peak pressure of the larger of the two charges detonated by itself with no wall. The trailing pulse parable to that of weight. When coalescence reference curve in the uncoalesced wave the reference curve for the total peak pressure charge weight. close in the total follows is comcharge the total

occurs, for the

For 1:l ratio charges in the lateral direction, there is no tendency for shocks to coalesce within the data limit for time delays larger than 3.2 ms/lbl/3. In the axial direction for l:l, all time delays resulted in coalescence including the longest of 4.11 ms/lbl/3. When considering the previously mentioned reduction in time delay of 1.3 ms/lbl/3 for axial direction, then adding this to the 3.2 ms/lbl/3 (laLera1 coalescence time), the coalescence is expected to occur up to 4.5 ms/lb1/3 in the axial direction. Coalescence 2:l ratio. occurs more readily for 1:Z ratio than for the

For 2:l and 1:2 ratios, there is no tendenc of coalescence for lateral delays greater than 2.6 ms/lb 13 and 3.7 ms/lbl/3, f respectively. A reduction of 1.3 ms/lbl/3 occurs for both 2:l and 1:2 threshold coalescence times in the axial direction relative to the lateral direction.

4-77

The scaled curves in Figures 4.26 through 4.31 should only be used for scenarios involving similar scaled charge spacing and over the scaled distances shown in the graphs. Although this limits the use of the curves, an alternate approach exists. This approach is to consider the total charge weight in determining peak pressures when sequential detonations are being considered. Specific impulse is not discussed in Zaker's work. A conservative method for predicting impulse would be to calculate the impulse of each charge separately and then sum for a total impulse. This is as opposed to using the total charge weight for determining impulse. The following example shows why: Consider ir at Figure ir at two 0.5-lb charges of TNT. 'I3 (See

-2 a standoff of 10 ft for 1 lb is 1.5 X 10 psi-set/lb 4.6). This gives an i, = 1.5 X 10V2 psi-sec. a 10 ft standoff for 0.5-lb TNT is 1.1 X 10h2

psi-sec/lb1/3.

This relates to an i, of 8.73 X lo-3 psi-sec. Considering twice this amount gives i,(TOTAL) = 1.75 X 10-2 psi-set which is greater than that from 1 lb of TNT. This occurs because the factor of 2 is not taken to the one-third root in This can be important when considering the scaling for the two 0.5-lb charges. The two pressure waves could arrive una structure with a ;low response time. within a time span which is short compared to the coalesced at the E-ructure When the structural response time, and theatotal impulse should.be included. spacing between pulses is similar to the response time of the structure, reso(Structural resonance for multiple nance or anti-resonance is possible. pulses is discussed in Section 4.4.)

4-78

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 4.9 blast pressure from two equal sequentially PROBLEM - Determine charges separated by a short dividing wall. Compare diction for a single charge of the total weight. GIVEN: W = single charge weight =(1/2)WToTAL = (l/2) Total detonated with pre-

charge weight R = standoff S = separation distance = time delay in tdelay FIND: SOLUTION:
ps

detonation REFERENCE

1.

2,

Determine if scenario matches that of experimental work; i.e., charges on ground, separated by the correct scaled distance, and with similar scaled time delay If scenario is the same, determine scaled l/3 ) and use Figures distance (R/WToTAL 4.30 and 4.31 for obtaining and ground pressure reflection factor

Fig. Fig.

4.30 4.31

&

3.

lJse 'TOTAL with Figure same or for

4.5 if scenario comparison with

is not the Step 2

Fig. 4.5 Ps Curve

CALCULATION GIVEN: w = 50 lb W = 100 lb TOTAL R = 100 ft S = 2.85 ft t = 9.90 ms delay Ps 1. Scaled Scaled separation delay time = S/WToTAL l/3 t delay = 2.85/100 l/3 = 0.614 = 9.90 ft/lb"" =

FIND: SOLUTION:

= ' delay/WToTAL1'3

ms/1001'3

2.

2.13 ms/lb1'3 These scaled values are such that the curve delay of 2.14 ms/lbl/3 f or the equal double can be used Scaled standoff Z = R/WToTAL l/3 = loo/loo1'3 From Figure 4.30, lateral 4-79 pressure = 2.0 psi

for the time charge curve = 21.5 ft/lb l/3

3.

From Figure 4.31, axial pressure = 2.7 psi For comparison with a single charge of weight equal to W use a ground reflection facTOTAL' tor of 2 W' = 2 X WTOTAL = 200 lb Calculate scaled distance = 17.1 ft/lb1'3 4.5 to obtain R' = R/W-1'3 = 100/2C01'3 Using Ps curve in Figure

P' = 2.55 psi Note that for this example problem, the blast overpressure obtained using the doubled single charge approximation is essentially the same as the larger of the two pressures for separated charges. For relatively large scaled distances, then, an AE can simply use a single charge with the total weight of the pair of charges. Had the values for t and Z been delay different, say 3.17 and 15 respectively, reduction in peak overpressure would have been sigSo, simply summing the charges nificant. weight would be very conservative in this other case.

4-80

4.3.2.2

Simultaneous

Detonation

This section includes a discussion on blast wave interactions and methods for predicting blast field parameters for two or more HE charges detonated simultaneously. There exist little or no data for unequal charges detonated simultaneously. Some equal charge data are available as a result of scaled nuclear blast field enhancement studies. The kill area of a total charge weight has been shown to increase by simultaneously detonating several There is blast field enhancement smaller charges instead of one large charge. between charges where blast waves meet and result in reflective pressures. Outside the line of center of the charges, blast waves coalesce to act as a single total weight charge. Several reports including data on this type of work are reports on the Dipole West test program [Reisler, et al. (Ref. 4.39)] and White Tribe program [Armendt, et al. (Refs. 4.40, 4.41, and 4,42)], The Dipole West program included two-charge tests of vertically and horizontally separated large-scale charges. The White Tribe experiments concentrated on three-charge tests in a triangular array. Most tests were run with large charges although some small scale tests were made with good comparison. Also, Brode (Ref. 4.27) discusses numerical methods for predicting blast wave enhancement between simultaneously detonated charges. Several of these reports use computer model predictions for comparison in their work. Work by Hokanson, Esparza, and Wenzel (Ref. 4.43) was done to characterize blast wave parameters on a reflecting surface from simultaneous detonations. In this work, three charges were arranged in three different configurations: grouped, horizontal, and vertical arrays (Figure 4.32) above a A series of single charge near-perfect reflecting surface (the ground). tests of total the three charge weights was conducted to establish a baseline for comparison. The results are given in Reference 4.43 in scaled form using the total charge weight for scaling purposes. Standoff (R/WTOT&~) was measured from the reflecting surface to the center of mass of the three charges and charge weight equal to the total weight of the three charges. Scaled charge size was held relatively constant at 0.0425 c r/R < 0.154 where r = charge radius, R = normal distance from charge to wall, and hence, the use of this work should be limited to situations within this range. The data presented in Reference 4.43 include peak pressure, scaled specific impulse, scaled positive duration, and scaled time of arrival as a function of scaled position. The data curves are drawn from data points which are an average of two measureare too voluminous for inclusion in this ments. The data, even in scaled form, manual. But, two useful figures for single-charge data from this and other references are included, Figures 4.12 and 4.13, where X is distance along the reflecting surface measured from charge center of mass projection on wall and (See Figures 4.14 and 4.32). These can be used for prediction z = R/WToTAL l/3 of strong shock loads on walls supplementing Figure 4.11 for weaker shocks. Figures 4.33 and 4.34 are examples of the many empirical curves from Reference 4.43. These figures give pressures and scaled specific impulses versus scaled distance along the reflecting surface for three equal and evenly spaced charges at a scaled standoff of 1.29 ft/lb113. The scaled charge spacing S/r is 2.28 (where r is the charge radius).

4-81

Figure 4.32 (a) Single

Transducer Charge, (b) (d) Vertical

Arrangement and Charge Placement for the Grouped Array, (c) Horizontal Array and Array Tests (Reference 4.43)

4-82

10000 600 400 200 1000 600 400 200 100 60 40 20

10 L

Singie Charge fiata (Ref: Figure 4.,34)

'

I 1.00

I
2.00 X/R

I
3.00

I
4.00 5.00

Figure

4.33

Peak

Overpressure (Reference

For

Vertical

Array

Tests

4.43)

4-83

1000 600

Test Data with Error Bands

al rl L s WY 4

WY CI

u z1 ;: K

10

'Single

Charge Data

2t-tM-H
X/R Figure 4.34 Specific Impulse For Vertical (Reference 4.43) Array Tests

4-84

Hokanson,
l

et al.

(Ref.

4.43)

concluded

as follows:

The pressure and impulse for grouped arrays at sma$l scaled distances are lower than for single charges. The disparity between grouped array and single charge pressures is more pronounced than for impulses. For horizontal arrays, regions exist where the pressure and impulse exceed what would be expected from a single charge. The location of maximum response is dependent on the charge spacing and the standoff distance, but generally is found halfway between charges. Other regions of enhanced pressure and impulse exist just beyond the outside charge. For very wide charge spacings, the pressure and impulse are nearly constant over the entire range in X/R. For very narrow charge spacings, the regions of enhanced pressure are less pronounced than for intermediate charge spacings. Only one combination of charge spacings and standoff distances The results indicated that was investigated for vertical arrays, two regions of enhanced pressure and impulse exist, one directly under the vertical array and another for X/R > 1.5. The tests conducted verified the expectation that at large scaled distances, the blast parameters measured for multiple charges The distance at which could approach those of a single charge. the curves begin to coalesce is apparently the greatest for widely spaced horizontal arrays and the smallest for grouped arrays. above observations, the following recommendations are made:

Based

on the
l

Where applicable, these measurements can be used to obtain a more rational design for munition processing plants, particularly if the expected accidental explosion configuration falls within the range of scaled data in Ref. 4.43. Caution should be exercised, however, when extrapolation of these results is required beyond scaled distances, positions, or charge sizes tested. Only one combination of scaled distance vestigated for vertical arrays. These determine whether the trends described exist for other values of Z and X/R. '. and charge spacing was intests should be repeated to in the conclusions will

The gage placement for the horizontal array tests resulted in poor resolution of the variation in response as a function of S/r, particularly in the region between charges. Should tests of this nature be repeated in the future, more measurement positions should be provided in this critical region.

4-85

Computer programs which could predict the pressure and impulse acting on a barrier due to multiple charge detonations do not exist at the present time. A three-dimensional program would be required, and even if available, would be very expensive to run. A cheaper and probably as accurate prediction technique can be devised, based on empirical observation. However, the data are probably insufficient to accomplish this goal. Therefore, further multiple detonation tests should be conducted and an attempt should be made to generate empirical prediction techniques.

4-86

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 4.10 PROBLEM - Determine blast pressure and specific impulse on a reflecting surface due to three equal spherical charges in a vertical array (see Figure 4.33). Compare with pressure and impulse from one charge of equal weight of the sum of the three on the same surface. Assume charges are located on the ground. The charges are detonated simultaneously. GIVEN: R = perpendicular distance center of mass of the W = charge weight S = charge spacing X = distance along surface p = densi-ty of HE
p r and

from three

surface charges

to

FIND: SOLUTION:

ir Determine radius of charge and determine if r/R is within acceptable limits Use ground reflection factor of 2 and total weight of three charges to obtain an effective (Weff). Use Weff to determine scaled standoff (2) Use charge radius to determine scaled separation distance (s> Use Figures 4.33 and 4.34 to determine pressure and impulse for various X/R for the separated charges Use Figures 4.12 and 4.13 to determine pressure and impulse for various X/R for the single charge

REFERENCE

1.

0.0425

< ;

< 0.154

2.

W eff

=2X3XW l/3

Z = R/Weff

3. 4.

S=
Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

S/r

4.33 4.34 4.12 4.13

&

5,

&

CALCUIATION GIVEN: charges WTOTAL = three = 150 lb total R = 8.7 ft lb/in3 = 0.06 of 50 lb of TNT each

SE

S = 1.11 ft X = various

4-87

FIND: SOLUTION:

PK and ir 1. Determine r = ($yi3 r-R - 8.7 2. Use the w=w Use z = 3. radius of any one spherical charge = 5.84 in of 50 lb: ft

= (4,0~~$;~~14j)l'3 5.84 in X 12 in/ft

or Cl.487

= 0.056 which is within range of 0.0425 < r/R a ground reflection factor of 2 and total three charges to obtain an effective =w X 2 = 2 X 150 = 300 lb TOTAL eff W to solve for Z R 8.7 ft = 1.3 ft/lb1'3 Veffl/3 = (300>1/3 ft S = 1.11 ftl0.487 = 2.28

acceptable < 0.154 weight of

Calculate ?- = t

4.

5.

Figures 4.33 and 4.34 are applicable for this Z value and the s value Using Figures 4.33 and 4.34, several values of X/R were evaluated for pressure and impulse from separated charges, on a reflecting surface. The values are listed in Table 4.6 Using Figures 4.12 and 4.13, several values of X/R corresponding to Step 4 were evaluated for pressure and impulse from a single charge, on a reflecting surface. The values are listed in Table 4.6 Pressures and Impulses for Single and &ltiple From Step 5, Charges Single Charge

Table

4.6

From Step

4, Multiple r psi-msec 1b113 200

Charges

X K

ft 0 4.35 8.7 17.4

0 3.5 1.0 2.0

3
P psi 7 x LO3 1 .5 x lo3 7 .5 x lo2 55 42 3 .8 x lo2 42

i psi-set 1.1 0.29 0.22 0.22 5.5 4.2 1.7 3.0

P psi x lo3 X lo3 x lo3 x lo2

T 1 psi-msec 1b113 130 92 55 17

i psi-set 0.69 0.49 0.29 0.090

4-88

In this case, pressures and impulses are greater for the multiple charges than for the single charge with the same total weight at X = 0 and X = 17.4 ft, but One would have to intethis pattern reverses at the intermediate distances. grate these values over the wall area to compare total impulses applied to the wall.

4-89

4.4

EFFECTS OF CONTAINMENT AND VENTING

Explosions which occur within structures normally develop a very complex pressure-time history at any position both inside and outside the structure. Although this complex loading cannot be predicted exactly, approximations and model relationships have been developed which can be used to define blast loads with a great deal of confidence. This section discusses these methods which include determination of blast loads due to initial and reflected shocks, quasi-static pressure, directional and uniform venting effects, and vent closure effects. Also, blast load prediction methods are applied to specific configurations. Example problem 4.11 illustrates the techniques developed in this section. 4.4.1 Effects Within Structures

The loading from a HE detonation within a vented or unvented structure consists of two almost distinct phases. The first phase is the reflected blast loading, which consists of an initial high pressure short duration reflected wave plus perhaps several later reflected pulses. The second phase is a quasi-static pressure pulse. These two phases of loading are discussed in this section. 4.4.1.1 Initial and Reflected Shocks

Initial and reflected shacks consist of the initial high pressure, short duration reflected wave , plus perhaps several later reflected pulses arriving at times closely approximated by twice the average time of arrival at the chamber walls. These later pulses are usually attenuated in amplitude because of an irreversible thermodynamic process, and they are complex in waveform because of the complexity of the reflection process within the structure, whether vented or unvented. The simplest case of blast wave reflection is that of normal reflection of a plane shock wave from a plane, rigid surface. In this case, the incident wave moves at velocity U through still air at ambient conditions. The conditions immediately behind the shock front are those for the free-air shock wave discussed above. When the incident shock wave strikes the plane rigid surface, it is reflected from it. The reflected wave now moves away from the surface with a velocity Ur into the flow field and compressed region associated with the incident wave. In the reflection process, the incident particle velocity us is arrested (us = 0 at the reflecting surface), and the pressure, density, and temperature of the reflected wave are all increased above the values in the incident wave. me overpressure, at the wall'surface is termed the normally reflected overpressure and is designated Pr. estimated reflection Maxima for the initial internal blast loads on a structure can be from scaled blast data or theoretical analyses of normal blast wave from a rigid wall (discussed in Section 4.3). " Change 1 - 15 August 1981 4-90

Following initiaI shock wave reflection from the walls, the internal blast pressure loading can become quite complex in nature. Figure 4.35 from Gregory (Ref. 4.44) shows a stage in the loading for a cylindrical, vented of the cap, base and cylindrical structure. At the instant shown , portions surface are loaded by the reflected shock and the incident shock is reflecting obliquely from all three internal surfaces. The oblique reflection process can generate Mach waves (Figure 4.9), if the angle of the incidence is great enough, and pressures can be greatly enhanced on entering cdrners or reflecting near the axis of a cylindrical structure. In box-shaped structures, the reflection process can be even more complex. Following the initial internal blast loading, the shock waves reflected inward will usually strengthen as they implode toward the center of the structure, and re-reflect to load the structure again. As noted earlier, the second shocks will usually be somewhat attenuated, and after several such reflections, the shock wave phase of the loading will be over. The shock wave loading can be measured with suitable blast measuring systems, or it can be computed for systems possessing some degree of symmetry. In a spherical containment structure, the loading can be relatively easily predicted for either centrally located or eccentric blast sources [Baker (Ref. 4.45), Baker, et al, (Ref. 4.46)]. In a cylindrical structure, existing (but complex) two-dimensional computer programs can be used to predict actual pressure-time loads for blast sources on the cylinder atis [See Figure 4.36 taken from Gregory (Ref. 4.44)]. For geometries normally encountered in actual facilities, prediction of accurate pressure-time loads is much more difficult, so approximate solutions have been used or measurements made. Kingery, et al. (Ref. 4.47) and Schumacher, et al. (Ref. 4.48) contain most of the internal blast measurements for uniformly vented structures, for cubical and cylindrical geometries, respectively, the initial and reflected air shock loadings on the As just noted, interior surfaces of structures are quite complex for all real structural geometries. But, simplified loading predictions can often be made rather easily from scaled blast data for reflected waves and several approximate equations. The first approximation we will use is to assume that the incident and reflected blast pulses are triangular with abrupt rises, i.e., = Ps (1 - t/Ts), = 0, t 2 Ts 0 -< t -< Ts (4.37)

p,(t) p,(t)

and

~0 I

4-91

3 *; . I,*.

ExplosFveCharge

'7

! L

i.;& ..-e-q.* ...Concrete ..: Cap ... r-.,r . . . *. ..+.,, p.,.. 4 I-8 3 I,\ 8 8 / Reflected

10ft , I f

Distribution

P
I-Beam
/-

2.25 x 5.0 Fn. Steel Bands

5.61 ft-

Of Shock Reflections Figure 4.35 Schematic Representation From Interior Walls Of Cylindrical Containment Structure (Reference 4.44)

4-92

2.5

2
1 I

Predicted --Experimental

1.5

I I I

1 Quasi-Static 0.s

0
0 0.8 1.6

2.4

3.2

4.0

4.8

Time, ms

Figure 4.36 Comparison Of Predicted And Measured Pressure Pulse Af: Point On Sidewall Of Cylindrical Containment Structure (Reference 4.44)

4-93

PrW pr(t)

= pr = 0,

(1 - t/T,), t 2 Tr

0 2 t 5 Tr

(4.38)

The durations tions T, but

of these pulses are instead are adjusted

not the same as the actual blast to preserve the proper impulses,

wave i.e.,

dura-

T =s ?s
2 ir T r =P

2is

(4.39)

(4.40) r simplifying approximation.

These

two

equations

constitute

our

second

A third simplifying approximation is that the initial internal blast loading parameters are, in most cases, the normally reflected parameters, even for oblique reflections from the structure's walls, provided the slant range is used as the distance R from the charge center to the location on the wall. For strong shock waves, this is almost exactly true up to the angle for limit of regular reflection of slightly greater than 39', and for weak waves the' For angles beyond the limit of limit is as great as 70" (See Figure 4.11). regular reflection, Ps = (Psjpo) can be calculated as usual for that standoff For structure designs which are boxand Pr determined from Equation (4.27). like with length-to-width ratios near one, shock reflections from the walls will be regular almost everywhere and no Mach waves will be formed. In enclosed structures, shock waves a. Centrally Located Detonation. In certain conreflect and re-reflect several times, as discussed earlier. figurations and over limited areas of the inner surface, the reflected waves but generally they are attenuated considerably before again can reinforce, striking the walls, floor or ceiling. For a centrally located detonation, it can be assumed that the second shock was half the amplitude and impulse of the initial reflected shock, the third shock has half the amplitude of the second shock, and that all later reflections are insignificant. The later two reflected pulses are often ignored in estimating the internal blast loading, because the pressures and impulses are much lower than in the initial pulse. Because the combined loads from all three pulses are only 1.75 times those

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

4-94

from the initial pulse, a design simplification can be employed for structures This with response times much longer than the longest time in Figure 4.38. simplification is simply to combine all three pulses, and multiply the ampliWe suggest that an AE use this protude (and equally the impulse) by 1.75. The procedure using the comcedure for centrally located explosive sources. bined triple pulse is documented and recommended for use in Suppressive Shields (Ref. 4.3). For either vented or unvented structures with response times much shorter than the initial shock wave duration, a simplification can be made by considering only the initial pulse and ignoring the latter two reflected pulses. For structures with response times in the range of the reverberation time (2 ta), structural resonance may occur and no one simple approximation ran be employed. The triple pulse problem has been solved for a simple elastic system in order to determine a method for defining the effects of structural resonance. The results of the solution follow. Consider a simple elastic spring-mass blast pressure pulses, Figure 4.37. system loaded by repeated tri-

angular

AREA, A LOAD, p(t)

Figure

4.37

Elastic

Spring-Mass

System

4-95

Here,

p(t)

is

shown

schematically

as Figure

4.38.

p(t)

ta

Tr

2t

a t

2t,+

Tr

4t

4ta+

Figure

4.38

Schematic

of Repeated

Blast

Loading

maximum

scaled

This system response

can be solved

by classical

or computer

methods

for

xmax
as a function of scaled time

= Xk/PA

(4.41)

= %

WT

= (k/M)1'2T

1:

(4.42)

The solution

is

shown

graphically

in Figure

4.39.

.,7 The scaled maximum response, Xmax, always lies between the response for the first pulse as a single pulse, and another single pulse consisting of the three repeated pulses combined in amplitude, i.e., having an amplitude of 1.75 P. These envelopes are shown 9 Figure 4.39. One solution is shown graphically in Figure 4.39. This figure reveals that the true triple pulse can cause maximum deflections in resonance (peaks in the solid curve) as great as the combined triple pulse (upper curve). Hence, this upper limit should be used for a conservative limit. This resonance solution can also be used to

4-96

0.010.02

0.05

0.1

0.2

0.5

1.0

10

20

50

100

200

500

1000

Figure

4.39

Envelope of Solutions for Maximum for Triple Pulse Blast Loading

Displacement

4-97

determine in Figure

the transition from resonance to 4.39 (See Example Problem 4.11).

the

lower

single

pulse

curve

shown

b. Off-Center Detonation. For explosions near a wall, floor, or roof, the initial reflected blast loads can be predicted for spherical sources processes within a chamber using Figures 4.12 and 4.13. But, the reflection are as complex, or more complex, than the processes described in the previous section on centered detonations. Methods are given in TM S-1300 for predicting average impulse on walls and roofs for various chamber sizes, ratios of numbers of enclosing walls and roof, and standoff from the length to height, nearest reflecting surface. In TM 5-1300, an impulse is chosen from one of 180 graphs depending on the number of reflecting surfaces (walls, floor, and Each graph has roof), charge position in structure, room size, and standoff. six isoclines of standoff (~/Wl/3) between which interpolation must be made if An example of these curves is given in Figthe exact standoff is not given. ure 4.40. The impulse value obtained is used in cases where the ratio of the times of maximum structural response t, to blast duration to is very small. If the pressure duration is long compared to the component response time, the blast pressure time history is assumed triangular and a "fictitious" peak pressure Pf is solved for by: P

= 2 X impulse/t

where

t o is calculated

by methods

given

in

Tti-1300.

No mention of structural resonance (when to and the component response time are similar) is made in TM 5-1300. For initial shock loading of a nearby wall, Figures 4.12 and 4.13 can provide an estimate of both peak pressure distribution and reflected impulse distribution. There are no verified procedures for estimating reflected shock pressures on other surfaces for offcenter detonations, but the methods described in TM S-1300 (Ref. 4.2) do give procedures for predicting average specific impulses, and should be used by an AE. There are also computer programs for calculation of average reflected impulses documented in References 4.73 and 4.74. A comparison of the methods presented in this manual and TM 5-1300 (Kef. 4.2) is given in Example Problem 4.18. 4.4.1.2 Quasi-Static Pressures

When an explosion from a high explosive source occurs within a structure, the blast wave reflects from the inner surfaces of the structure, imThe amplitude and re-reflects one or more times. plodes- toward the center, of the re-reflected waves usually decays with each reflection, and eventually the pressure settles to a slowly decaying level, which is a function of the

4-98

Figure

4.40

Scaled

Average

Unit

Blast

Impulse (Reference

(N = 1, R/L = 0.25
4.21

and 0.75,

h/H

= 0.25)

OOT-9

SCALED

UNIT

BLAST

IMPULSE

(psi-m/lb!)

volume and vent area of the structure and the nature and energy release of the explosion. A typical time history of pressure at the wall of a vented structure is shown in Figure 4.41. The process of reflection and pressure buildup in either unvented or poorly vented structures has been recognized for some time, dating from World War II research on effects of bombs and explosives detonated within enclosures. More recently, study of these pressures has revived because of interest in design of vented explosion chambers. Esparza, et al. (Ref. 4.49) is the most recent work in this area. Weibull (Ref. 4.50) reports maximum pressures for vented chambers of various shapes having single vents with a range of vent areas of (Av/V2/3) He fitted a single straight line to his data, but Proctor and < 0.0215. Filler (Ref. 4.51) later showed that fitting a curve to the data, with asymptotes to lines related to heat of combustion for small (W/V) and to heat of detonation with no afterburning for large (W/V), was more appropriate, Additional data on maximum quasi-static pressures and on venting times have been obtained by Keenan and Tancreto (Ref. 4.52) and by Zilliacus, et al. (Ref. Concurrent with experimental work which preceded applications to sup4.53). 4.51) developed a theory for pressive structures, Proctor and Filler (Ref. predicting time histories of quasi-static pressures in vented structures. Kinney and Sewell (Ref. 4.54) did likewise, and also obtained an approximate formula for this time history. Converted to scaled parameters, this equation is:

&n p = Rn '1

- 2.130

(4.43)

Here,

F and Fl

are

scaled

absolute

pressures

given

by

F
Fl

= P(t)/Po,

(4.44)

= (P gs + P,)/P

and PQS is For venting

the quasi-static given by

pressure.

The quantity

is

a dimensionless

time

(4.46)

4-101

500 400 300

f

REFLECTED SHOCKS

200 A-

APPROXIMATE QUASl-STATIC PRESSURE

100 0
t

-100 -200 0 0.004 0.008 0.012

max

0.016

0.020

Time,

set

Figure

4.41

Typical Surface

Time History of Internal Pressure of a Suppressive Structure (Reference 4.47)

at

Inner

a
In this equation, a, is an effective vent is internal surface area of the structure, ture, t is time, and a, is sound velocity ale for use of these scaled parameters is 4.55). Equation (4.43) gives a value for area ratio to be discussed later, As V is internal volume of the strucThe rationof air in the structure. developed by Baker aEd Oldham (Ref. scaled venting time T of Qn Fl (4.47)

-r =

0.4695

The problem of blowdown from a vented chamber Owczarek (Ref. 4.56), given initial conditions isentropic expansion through the vent area.

is also in the

solved theoretically chamber but assuming

by

In the suppressive structures program, sufficient data have been recorded for this class of structure to add significantly to the measurements for other types of vented or unvented chambers [Kingery, et al. (Ref. 4.47), In comparing such data with either previous Schumacher, et al. (Ref. 4.48)]. data or theory, there are several questions raised by the general physics of the process and by the differences in venting through single openings in walls. Referring to Figure 4.41, one can see that the maximum quasi-static pressure is quite difficult to define because it is obscured by the initial shock and several reflections must occur before first few reflected shocks. Obviously, irreversible processes attenuate the shocks and convert their energy to quasistatic pressure. It, therefore, seems inappropriate to call point A in Figure although this is the point used by Kin4.41 the peak quasi-static pressure, gery, et al. (Ref. 4.47) to compare with code predictions from Proctor and A better Filler (Ref. 4.51) and the Kinney and Sewell equation (Ref. 4.54). approach is to allow some time for establishing the maximum pressure, such as point B in Figure 4.41. Figure 4.41 also illustrates another problem inherent in reduction of vented pressure data, i.e., accurate determination of duration of this pressure. When the pressure traces approach ambient, the shock reflections have largely decayed. But, they approach the baseline nearly asymptotically, so that the duration is quite difficult to determine accurately. A possible duration t,, is.shown in the figure. Based on a scaling law by Baker and Oldham (Ref. 4.55) and a theoretical analysis of chamber venting by Owczarek (Ref. 4.56), one can show that P = (P/p,) is a function of ratio of specific heats y and the scaled time 7 (See Equation (4.46)), F = f2 (p,, T, y)

(4.48)

4-103

The initial pressure shown to be related

& for structures to another scaling

with no venting term,

or small

venting

can be

F = f3 (E/poV) 1
where E is a measure of total energy released by the explosion. For with explosives of the same type and no change in ambient conditions, mensional equivalent of Equation (4.49) is

(4.49)

tests a di-

p1 = f4 where W is charge sure-time histories scaled gas impulse

(W/V)

(4.50)

weight (lb) and V is chamber volume (ft3). The scaled presduring the gas venting process can be integrated to give Fg. This parameter is defined as

y g

= i

(4.51)

Equations

(4.43)

and

(4.49)

can be shown

to

give

(4.51a)

divided

For a single by the total

layer structure, area of the wall,

the vent area ratio and the product

oe is

the

vent

area

olA = A, e s For a multi-layer wall, however, the following N 1 -= a e z i=l 1 c IL relationship is used.

(4.52)

(4.53)

4-104

It reaches provides a Definition vented panel verification. suppressive

the appropriate limits for large and small number of plates, and relative measure of venting for a variety of panel configurations. of the individual values of ai for each layer in a multi-layered requires careful study of the panel configuration and experimental Specific formulas and methods for predicting a, for various structure panels are presented by Esparza, et al, (Ref. 4.49).

In spite of complexities in the venting process, gas venting pressures and their durations can be predicted with reasonable accuracy, particularly if one differentiates between these relatively long term and low amplitude pressures and the internal blast pressures resulting from blast wave impingement and reflection. Figure 4.42 shows the simplified form for the gas venting pressures which can be assumed. In this simplified form, the gas venting pressure low the solid curve and rise linearly from zero time until tl a curve which is decaying exponentially from an initial The decay then follows the time history is assumed to it reaches in maximum value foltime of Pl.

P(t) = PI e

-ct

(4.54)

until it reaches ambient pressure po at time t = t,,. The exponential decay is shown to agree well with experiment [Kingery, et al. (Ref. 4.47), SchumachThe cross-hatched area under the overpressure curve (Ref. 4.48)]. er, et al. as is defined as the gas impulse, ig, and is given mathematically

max [P(t)

- po]

dt

max (Pl

eBct

- po)

dt

(4.55)

4-105

Figure

4.42

Simplified

Gas Venting

Pressure

4-106

The time

t1 we will

assume

to be the

end of

the

internal

blast

loading

phase.

= 5 ta + Tr

(4.56)

where Tr is the duration of a triangular is identical to the end of the triple-pulse t, added for first shock arrival.*

pulse with loading

correct P, and i,. This in Figure 4.38, with time

The maximum value for the overpressure in the gas venting phase of the loading is the static pressure rise which would occur in an unvented enclosure before heat transfer effects attenuate it, P Qs- From data and analyses in several references, the curve of Figure 4.43 has been shown to yield good predictions of P S, if the quantity of explosive W and the internal volume of the structure s are known. Other gas venting parameters than PQS> or PI easily predicted using plots or equations for some of described earlier. The quantity c in Equation (4.54) accuracy by
= PQS + p.

can be most the scaled'parameters is given with reasonable

c = 2.130

(4.57)

For

air

at

standard

sea level

conditions,

a,

= 1117

ftfsec,

and

oA e s c = 23 J 7 (see-l)

(4.58)

for A, f; ft2 and V in ft3. As indicated, units of c in this last equation are set . Figvres 4.44 and 4.45 give scaled durations of gas overpressure and scaled gas impulse 7 as functions of scaled initial pressure 71 = <ax g PllPo.

*This rise-time applies primarily for explosion For off-center charges, ter. it still gives charge is simply assumed to be centered when

sources near a good estimate, estimating t,.

the chamber cenprovided the

4-107

103

7 5 3
2

lo2

If
1o-4

2 5 7 1o-3

5 7 lo-'
u/V, lb/d

5 7 10-l

5 7 loo

Figure

4.43

Peak

Quasi-Static

Pressure

for

TNT Explosion

in

Chambers

102

loo 0 2.5

Figure

4.44

Scaled Blowdown Duration

versus

Scaled Maximum Pressure

4-109

1 I

20
f

4.

10 W1/P,) = (PQS + P,)/P,

20

40

60

1 =
Figure 4.45 Scaled

Gas Pressure

Impulse

versus

Scaled

Initial

Pressure

sponding

Equations dimensional

for

the scaled parameters quantities, as follow:

can be inverted

to

give

the

corre-

(4.59)

t lWX
Self-consistent units must be used when "unsealing" using these equations.

(4.60)

The effective vent area ratio cr, is calculated for the walls and roof of the structure. the vent area ratio is the For single layer panels, For multi-layer vent area divided by the total area of the walls and roof. If the structure consists of panels made of panels, use Equation (4.53). angles, zees, louvres, or interlocked I-beams, oe is determined by using the information in Figure 4.46. Panels of nested angles which have approximately one opening per projected length are about twice as efficient as a perforated plate in breaking up the side-on peak pressure as it vents (N = 2). For closer nested angles such that there are about two openings per projected length, the angles seem to be four times as efficient as a perforated plate More details on use of this procedure are given in Suppressive (N = 4). Shields (Ref. 4.3). If more conventional open vent areas are used, then the quantity ueAs is replaced by vent area A. In Reference 4.52, the terms "partially vented" and "full vented" are defined according to values of the scaled vent area ratio A/V 273. If this parameter is greater than 0.60, gas venting times should be less than initial shock loading durations, and the chamber is fully vented, i.e., gas pressure parameters can be ignored. But, if it is less than or equal to 0.60, the chamber is partially vented, and gas pressure parameters must be considered. Figures 4.43 through 4.45 should give conservative (upper limit) predictions compared to data in Reference 4.52.

l
4-111

A vent E P N A L c1 wall

= = = = =

n aEgi/N 1 length projected 2

Or

A of element length text) of angle A a

vent

acg. 1 l

wall

LM A v /A w

4 (see

LM length A vent of wall 'Awall Angles (b)

(a)

Nested

Side-By-Side

Angles

Or Zees

F a. 1 A vent a. 1 A
a

-4 IA area of louvre A A 1:4

/A w

a. 1 = = 2Rp a. 1 1 A v3 = 21; c. 1 f --I-Beams = 2tC i

= =

n C ai/2 1 open LM

\ 1 \

n b. 1

wall

A v

Y (c) Louvres (d)

*QAw

Interlocked

Figure 4.46 Definition Various Structural

Of Effective Area Elements (Reference

Ratio 4.49)

For

4-112

EXMQLE PROBLEH4.11 PROBLEM Calculate reflected shock and quasi-static pressure along with blowdown time and gas impulse in a vented, contained bay. GIVEN: W = charge weight of PBX 9404 V = room volume =aA = vent area AV e s R = standoff from nearest wall po = atmospheric pressure a0 = speed of sound in air FIND: Pr, ir,
2.

or surface

PQS' &'

ig'

combined pulse parameters

REFERENCE Appendix A Fig. 4.43

SOLUTION: 1. 3.

I 0

4.

5.

Calculate TNT equivalent weight W Calculate W/V ratio Obtain value of Pas Calculate PQs/p 0 Obtain value of scaled blowdown time: ;=(~)($)

Fig.
L *

4.44

6.

Solve foc*x: = blowdown time aolA oes Obtain value of scaled gas pressure imuulse:
t =

IIMX

7.

Fig.
8.

4.45

Solve for gas pressure

impulse:

9.

10.

.Determine scaled distance from surface in question (wall, roof, etc.) 2 = R/W1'3 Determine pressure loading on surface (reflected). If Z is large and surface is small such that pressure is fairly constant across surface, use P, from Figure 4.6 for entire surface. This would give worst case. If 2 is small and surface is large, use Figure 4.12

Eq. (4.16)

Fig. Fig.

4.6 & 4.12

4-113

11.

12.

Determine specific impulse to surface If Z i&large and sur(reflected). face is small such that specific impulse is fairly constant across surface, use i, from Figure 4.13 to obtain i, and calculate i =iW l/3 . Calculate T = F

Fig. 4.6 & Fig. 4.13 Eq. (4.39) & Eq. (4.40)

CALCULATION- Using the HE treatment room and a wall surface (consider a wall surface within the HE treatment room of the High Explosives Development Machining Facility): GIVEN: W = charge weight 423 lb of PBX 9404 V = 12,500 ft3 Av = ",A, = 19.8 ft2 from 2.83 ft X 7 ft R=3ft = 14.7 psi pO a = 1116 ft/sec
0

door; no other vents

FIND:

Pr' ir, PQS tmax' ig' combined pulse parameters . SOLUTION: 1. W = (charge weight)(TNT equivalent) = (423) (1.107) = 468 2. W/V = 468 lb/12500 ft3 = 0.0374 lb/ft3 3. 7;; Figure 4.43, PQS = 150 psi and Pl = PQs + p, = 164.7 4* = 164.7/14.7 = 11.2 lo 5. From Figure 4.44

6.

Solving

(1.13)(12500 ft') TV = 0.64 set t max = aoceAs = (1116 ft/sec)(l9.8 ft2>

= 3.9

for-tmax:

7.

From Figure 4.45:

8.

Solving i g = 1_

for i : = 32 psi-set = 3 ft/(468 1b)1'3 = 0.386 ft/lb l/3

9.

z = p&Y3

4-114

10.

11. 12. NOTE:

of X to cover the wall are much For this case, values greater than R, and the loading will not be constant over the entire wall. The values of pressure listed in Table 4.7 are obtained from Figure 4.12 for various X/R. The value of Z is not one of the isoclines on Figure 4.12, hence, interpolation is necessary As with pressure, the values of i (from Figure 4.13) and i (specific impulse) are listed in Table 4.7 T = 2i/P is calculated and is listed in Table 4.7 One can use the data in Table 4;7 directly to define nonconstant pressures and impulses over a wall. One can also integrate the impulse values over the surface of the wall to obtain total impulse imparted to the wall. This is done in Example Problem 4.18. Results of this Example Problem will be used in Example Problem 4.13 to predict spall.

4-115

Table 4.7

Non-constant

Loading over Plate

.X/R 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.25

X -ft 0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 9.0 9.75

P psi 7.0 x lo4 5.5 x lo4 2.0 x lo4 8.0 X lo3 4.0 x lo3 2.5 X lo3 2.0 x lo3 1.5 x lo3

psi-set/ 1b113 1.50 0.90 0.50 0.22 0.12 0.065 0.040 0.028

i psi-set 12.0 7.0 3.9 1.7 0.93 0.51 0.31 0.22

T set 3.5 x 10 -4 -4

2.5 X 10

3.9 x 1o-4 -4 4.3 x 10 4.6 X 10-4 4.1 x lo-4 3.1 x 10 -4 -4

2.9 x 10

*Using methods in TM 5-1300 (Ref. 4.2), average impulse over this See Example Problem Wall is calculated to be ib = 3.392 psi-sec. 4.18 for determination of average wall impulse using methods in this manual.

4-116

4.4.2

Effects

Outside

Structures

for

Directional

Venting

When an explosion occurs in a vented structure, the blast wave outside can be attenuated. The way in which the blast wave is affected depends on the This section discusses the effect that vent characteristics of the structure. directional venting has on blast wave parameters outside of a structure with an internal explosion. A directionally vented chamber is one with vent openings which are not uniformly provided around all sides of the structure, venting on only one or two walls, a roof, a wall and a roof, etc. of venting was investigated by Keenan and Trancreto (Ref. 4.52), This section model tests and the formation of prediction curves. their work. Because their report should be readily available to we include only a few of their curves to show the manner of data or panels such as This type including discusses an AE firm, presentation.

Six directionally vented chambers were tested with venting on various faces which included roofs alone, walls and roofs, and walls alone. The vents were open areas which could be the entire 'face.or only part of the face. The tests included the detonation of a single HE charge inside a structure and blast measurements made both inside and outside the structure for three difOnly external blast parameters shall ferent charge weights in each structure. be discussed in this section. Keenan and Trancreto (Ref. 4.52) distinguish between a "partially vented" and a "fully vented" chamber. A fully vented chamber has a vent area large enough compared to the chamber volume that the duration of the shock pulse (T) is greater than the duration of the gas pulse (blowdown duration, Tb, see Section 4.4.1.2). A partially vented chamber has a vent area such that Tb > T. It is expected that a fully vented chamber will have larger external peak pressures and specific impulses for the same standoffs than a partially This relationship was shown by Keenan and Trancreto (Ref. vented chamber. 4.52) for roof-vented chambers. Thus, the exterior blast parameter prediction curves for a fully vented chamber are conservative for the design of partially vented chambers. When an explosion occurs within a chamber with one open side, part of the initial shock wave will escape outside through the vent. Internally, as the remaining shock wave reflects back and forth, secondary shock waves escape through the vent and follow the initial pulse. These trailing shocks can overtake .and merge with the lead shock for the same reasons as the coalescing of shocks in simultaneous and sequential detonations (explained in Section Whether trailing shocks coalesce with leading shocks depends on shock 4.3.2). strength and the separation of shocks. Coalescing of shocks was evident for both chambers being considered. For very long rooms with small explosive

4-117

weights, coalescing may not occur, due to large separation of shocks and low curves would be conservative. For charge weight, and hence, use of prediction verg narrow rooms with large explosive weight, coalescence could occur more quickly than measured for the two chambers and cause higher pressures close in Therefore, it is suggested that predicthan prediction curves would indicate. tion curves be used only for the ranges of scaled distances shown (Ref. 4.52). The two test chambers used had open faced vents as opposed to blowout shock wave (and possipanels or doors. For blowout panel venting, the initial bly some following shocks depending upon response time) does not escape but is reflected by the blowout panel. Hence, shocks that do escape the chamber are weaker reflections and the peak pressures outside the chamber are not expected to be as high as that from open vented chamber. It is suggested that exterior blast prediction curves can be used as a conservative upper limit for chambers Figures 4.47 and 4.48 are examwith blowout panel type venting (Ref. 4.52). ples of the many blast parameter prediction curves given in Reference 4.52. They include'peak positive pressure and specific positive impulse for front, back, and side directions. Included on the graphs are W/V (charge weight/ These curves should not chamber volume) quantities used for the experiments. be used for W/V values outside these limits (large chamber: 0.009 lb/ft3 I SW/V I 0.250 lb/ft3). The W/V 10.055 lblft3; small chambers: 0.063 lb/ft3 charge type used was Composition B, which has a TNT energy equivalency of 1.092. In terms of TNT energy, the W/V limits will be 9.0099 lb/ft3 LW/V i 0.060 lb/ft3 for the large 'chamber and 0.069 lb/ft3 SW/V 5 0.273 lb/ft3 for the dmall chamber. Duration of the positive phase (td) of the blast wave can be approximated by considering a triangular-shaped pulse. Keenan and Tancreto (Ref. 4.52) suggest this as follows 2i 'd = p 4.4.3 Effects of Vent Closures (4.61)

Many vented, explosion-resistant structures must have vents.cov&ed by closures to maintain proper internal atmospheric conditions, or for other reasons. These closures are usually intended to be frangible and rapidly displace or fragment under the effects of internal explosions. In this section, we discuss the probable effects of closures on the venting process, and give some prediction curves for the gas venting phase of the internal explosions, based on exercise of a relatively simple gasdynamic computer code. Typical frangible covers for cells in an explosion-resistant building at Pantex are made of light, commercially available panels mounted on light metal support frames, with weight per unit area of about 6 lb/ft2. They form the outer walls of bays in the building, with all other walls, roof, and floor

4-118

/ : -T
Mark -Unconfined ,Isurface burst (Fig. 21 i

-W/V

0.5

I-_,- I -._. ,--.---__ -__ ,----. - _.-.- -------.-I----.-.--:I F

I 20

Scaled Distance

R/d'3,

ft/lb113

Figure 4.47 Peak Positive Pressure Behind Sidewall Of Small Three-Wall Cubicle with Roof (Reference 4.52)

4-119

\ 1

l 0.60 0.003 m 1.00 0.125 A 2.00 0.2M

scaled

Distance

B/ tii3,

ft/lb

l/3

Figure

4.48

Scaled

Peak Positive

Impulse

Beh$nd (Reference

Sidewall 4.52)

of

Small

Three-Wall

Cubicle

with

Roof

being much heavier reinforced concrete construction, with weights per unit area of at least 160 lb/ft2. When an internal explosion occurs, the first reflected shock loading on both the blast resistant parts of the structure and the frangible vent wall are essentially the same as for an unvented chamber of the same geometry, i.e., the maximum applied pressure is P, and the maximum applied specific impulse is ir. But, the frangible vent wall fails within a few milliseconds and moves outward as free body with a velocity u. approximated by the impulse-momentum theorem,

U 0

=-

iA r M and M is mass (not weipht) of

(4.62)

where A is tire wall.

loaded

area

of

the

vent

wall

the

en-

Even though the vent wall is accelerated and propelled outward by the initial reflected blast wave, no venting can occur initially, and the wave is reflected back into the chamber with very little attenuation in strength, because of the finite inertia of the wall. In some chambers at Pantex, the vent wall must move several feet before it clears the vent opening in the cell, so no true venting can occur until the wall has moved that far. By this time, several shock reflections will have occurred within the cell, and their strengths attenuated by irreversible processes so that the gas venting phase The vent cover will continue to accelerate bediscussed earlier will start, cause of the quasi-static gas pressure, but this pressure can now be vented around the open edges of the cover. the quasi-static pressure Eventually, within the chamber decays to atmospheric pressure, and the gas venting process ends, corrugated fiberglass sheetEven a very light vent cover such as thin, ing used for patio roofing, will not attenuate the initial reflected shock loading. But, the lighter the cover (the lower its M/A), the more rapidly it opens under both initial shock and quasi-static pressures, thus attenuating the gas venting phase of the internal explosion process. There have been essentially no measurements of internal explosion pressures for vented chambers with covers, and very few past analyses. But, a relatively simple computer code can be used to follow the venting process for covers of various masses per unit area (M/A), various chamber volumes, and We have used such a various internal explosive charge we,ights (or energies). code to generate predictions of gas venting pressures, and present them here.

4-121

The computer code* which we developed is composed of three sections in order to incorporate the three distinct phases of venting for the Pantex faThe first phase represents the case where a vent cover travels a cility. finite distance, such as through a tunnel or the thickness of a thick wall, before any venting takes place. During this phase of venting, we used the technique demonstrated by Kulesz, et al. (Ref. 4.57) for accidental explosions on board a Navy submarine tender. For this analysis, an equation of motion is developed which describes the effect of the quasl-static pressure on the velocity of the vent panel, and pressure decreases due to simple adiabatic expansion as the volume of the room changes. During the second phase of venting, the vent panel has cleared the tunnel or wall and the room begins to vent into The energy of the gas is divided among energy expended during the atmosphere. gas expansion, the kinetic energy of the vent panel and energy losses due to the gas flowing around the vent panel.. To perform this phase of the analysis, our computer program uses a modified version of the technique developed by Taylor and Price (Ref. 4.58), Baker, et al. (Ref. 4.59) and Kulesz, et al. The third'phase of venting occurs after the vent panel is suffi(Ref. 4.57). ciently far from the vent opening that it no longer interrupts the flow of the exiting gas. During this phase of venting, we,use a gas venting computer code which considers gas venting through an orifice based on the ideal gas law and sonic or subsonic gas flow, depending upon the relative pressures between the room and the atmosphere. This portion of the venting process uses the methods described by Owczarek (Ref. 4.56), Baker and Oldham (Ref. 4.55), and Esparza, et al. (-Ref. 4.49). The venting computer program developed for this analysis allows one to vary the quasi-static pressure, volume, vent area, vent height, vent width, vent mass, initial vent velocity acquired from blast wave loading, .the vent tunnel length, ambient pressure, ambient temperature, discharge coefThe computer code also ficients, and time increments during the calculations. considers cases where the vent panel is a,djacent to the ground or high enough 'above the ground that gas flow is not affected by the ground surface. > A model analysis was performed to determine the functional format of The list of physical the parameters involved in the gas venting process. 'parameters is presented in Table 4.8. The dimensionless terms are presented Observe that in Table 4.9, with V, p. and a, used as "repeating" parameters. all response terms, p(t), Uf, ig, and 7 can be obtained if p(t), the scaled pressure history, is known. Some dimensionless terms can be eliminated to simplify the analysis. The ratio of specific heats, y, cap be eliminated, as its value is constant. Th_escaled quasi-static pressure, Pl, is a function of scaled charge energy, E (See Figure 4.43). Hence, knowledge of the value *The computer code which we developed is a combination of several codes previously published by SwRI. It is described in more detail in Ref. 4.72, The code is only available from SwRI.

4-122

Table

4.8

Physical

Parameters

Affecting

Venting

Symbol

Description

Units

E v
A *1 Y H po a
0

Energy Volume Vent area pressure specific heats (absolute)

FL L3 L2 F/L2

Quasi-Static Ratio Wall Ambient Speed of Mass of Initial of

thickness pressure sound vent panel velocity in air

L F/L2

L/T
FT2/L

M
U 0

L/T
T

Time Pressure (Pressure time) history as a function of

p(t)

F/L2

Gas impulse (Integral of Duration internal Final

FT/L2 pressure stage history) of T

Td

of vent explosion panel velocity

uf

L/T

4-123

Table

4.9

Dimensionless

Terms

for

Vented

Chamber

Y ii

ii

Z=

U 0 =-

()
U 0

= (

ta $3 )

i & 2.+ i 1
POV

4-124

of one of these dimensionless terms implies knowledge of the value of the other, and z was eliminated. By a similar process, the term Lo, initial scaled panel velocity, can be eliminated. The initial panel velocity, for a panel of given mass, will be determined by the initial shock loading (reflected impulse) imparted to the panel (See Figure 4.6). The magnitude of the impulse will be determined by the charge energy (weight) and the geometry (charge shape, orientation, and location inside cubicle). The charge energy is implicitly exThe same geometry was pressed in PI, and the scaled wall panel mass is 8. used in all calculations with the following simplifying assumptions: 1. 2. A bare spherical of a cubicle. charge was located in the geometric center

No reflection factor was added for interaction with the cubicle floor. (This is conservative reflected shocks can further accelerate the

of blast waves because later vent panel.)

3.

The standoff from the charge was assumed to be constant over the entire vent panel (instead of calculating a slant range); hence, producing a specific impulse independent of location on vent panel. were made because the addition of several more The problem is outlined for the pressure history gas venting dimensionless in Example becomes, problem is alterms to Problem 4.12 at after the above

These simplifications ready complicated without specify geometry effects. the end of this section. The functional simplifications,

format

= f(A,

p1,

H, M, :)

(4.63)

The gas impulse, the gas venting:

ig,

is

the

time

integral

of p(t)

over

the

duration,

Td,

of

(4.64)

4-125

&-

=+
POV

= fl(A, p1 ii, ii)

(4.65)

Similarly,

Td,

the

scaled

duration

of

gas venting

is

Tdao = E (A p
Td = vl/3 2 ' 1'

K, ii)

(4.66)

The computer code was run separately for cases where the vent panel was located on the ground and for cases where the panel is off the ground (i.e., It was found that for where the gas flow is not disturbed by the ground). cases where the vent panel is the whole wall, there is no difference in the resul ts . In the limit of small vent panel areas, however, ~20% of the wall area, the results are unclear at this time due to insufficient numbers of computational runs. The parameter values used in the computations scanned several orders of magnitude, as follows: . Charge Cubicle Vent Wall area thickness pressure weight of vent energy volume 1 - 1000 1000 lb TNT ft3 area of one wall

- 30,000

20% - 100% of 0-6ft 14.7 psi

Ambient Specific panel Speed of

0 - 300 lb/ft*

sound coefficient

1116 0.6

ftlsec

Discharge

simply velocity

Observe that the results can be used at altitudes by using the proper values for ambient atmospheric in calculating the scaled values.

other than sea level pressure and sonic

4-126

The results of the calculations are presented in Figures 4.49 through 4.52. These curves for K = 0 are similar to those obtained by Esparza, et al. Figures 4.49 and 4.50 incorporate the effect of a real vent panel (Ref. 4.49). with mass, but are for scaled wall thickness of zero. Figures 4.51 and 4.52 incorporate the effect of having a wall thickness or several wall thicknesses for the vent panel to traverse before actual venting can begin. No attempts were made to depict the final vent panel velocities graphically, as the parameter is not essential for structural des-ign, although it may be desirable to Additional work is needed to develop know for fragment hazard determinations. the curves presented in Figures 4.49 through 4.52 fully, to determine final velocities of the vent panel, and to determine errors induced by ignoring or When using these figures, one must simplifying the geometry of the explosion. use a consistent set of units so that the dimensionless terms are truly dimensionless.

4-127

a0 t-l PI II 12

lo1 7 5

3 2

-0-l

loo

101

lo- 7

-TdaoA TdA = v

Figure

4.49 Various

Plot of Scaled Pressure versus Scaled Scaled Masses of Vent Covers (M), for
f

Duration, E = 0

4-128

30.00

25.00

20.00

15.00

10.00
5.00

0.00

loo

lo1 = Pl/Po

10'

Figure 4.50

Plot

of Scaled Gas Impulse versus Scaled Pressure Various X, for Ti = 0

4-129

3 2

0
loo
2 3 5 7

10 lo1 -=dA
:2 3 5 7

lo2

Figure

4.51

Plot

of Scaled Pressure versus Various M, for E = 0.6

Scaled

Duration,

4-130

Figure

4.52

Plot

of

Scaled Various

Gas Impulse versus M, for E = 0.6

Scaled

Pressure,

4-131

EX&@LE.PROBLEM PROBLEM - Calculate duration GIVEN:'

4.12

the gas impulse imparted to the walls of a cubicle and the using Figures 4.49 through 4.52. of the venting phase,

Charge type and weight Area of vent panel A Mass of vent panel M Volume of cubicle V Ambient atmospheric pressure Ambient sonic'velocity a, Vent panel wall thickness H PQs, 1. ig3 and Td

p.

FIND: SOLUTION:

Equivalent TNT explosive W = (W) (TNT Factor) Calculate Determine (Psig) W/V quasi-static

weight

REFERENCE See Table 6 of Appendix A for TNT Equivalencies Fig.

2. 3. 4.

overpressures

4.43

Calculate scaled pressure PS+P 0 pL= Q

pO

'QS

quasi-static

5.

Calculate Man2
-0

scaled

vent

panel

mass

6. 7. a. 9.
10.

Calculate Calculate

scaled scaled

wall vent

thickness area Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

A = A/V213 Determine scaled ix Dztermine TdA Descale zgr scaled

gas impulse vent duration

4.50 & 4.52

4.49 4.51 &

ig = igA

--

4-132

11.

Descale ?d

CALCULATION GIVEN: A bare charge of 135 lb of PBX 9404 is handled in a bay having a volume of 38,000 ft3 and a venting wall with area 861 ft2. The venting wall is 10 inches20f concrete with a weight per unit area,of 120.lb/ft . Ambient conditions are standard-sea level cond%t$ons, A = 861 ft2 M = (120 lb/ft2)(861 = 267 lb sec2/in. V = 38,000 ft3 P = 14.7 psi
0

ft2)(&

sec2/ft)&

ft/in)

a = 13,400 in/set Ho= 10 in FIND: Vented gas pressure w = parameters, = 150 lb PQS, i , and Td g

SOLUTION: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

(135)(1.108)

W/V = 150/38,000 = 3.95 lb/ft3 From Figure 4.43, P = 40 psi QS P1 = 40 + 14.7 = 3 *-7 14.7 267 X 13,4002 '1 = 50 14.7 X 38,000 x 12= ii = 10/[(38,000)1'3 X 121 = 0.025 = 0 x = 861/38,0002'3 = 0.764 Use Figures 4,49 and 4.50 since E Z 0 From Figure 4.50, Fgx = 3.3 M=

i = 3.3 ig = 1.192 psi-set

x 12 )( 0.764 1 1

4-133

Change 1 - 15 August 1981

11.

Td =2.0 T d = 0.079

38,0001'3 13,400 set

x 12

The example presented was also run using the computer code. A special case was selected in which the charge was resting on the floor. In calculating the reflected impulse required to obtain an initial vent panel velocity, the charge weight was doubled to account for reflection off the floor, and slant range was used to determine the average specific impulse imparted to the vent panel. The values obtained for duration differed by about 20 percent and the value obtained for impulse differed by about 3 percent. The procedure given here has not yet been validated by experiment. has been used to predict the effect of varying the mass per unit area of vent panel for one explosives facility at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. feel that the predictions give conservative (upper limit) values for the pressure parameters, and can be used by an AE in design. It the We gas

4.4.4 existing

Applications Containment or planned

to

Specific

Configurations is important in a large number of structures

and venting at Pantex.

Example problems for prediction loads appear throughout the chapter. and give building sections for each 4.4.4.1 Single Cubicles

of initial shock Here, we describe of several categories

loads and gas venting one or more buildings of structure.

These are structures sufficiently isolated or strong enough that inThere are no ternal blast loading should be decoupled for each structure. interconnecting passageways strong enough to transmit internal blast from or into these structures from explosions in the cells or in nearby structures. One such type of structure is an assembly cell in Building 12-44. Figure 4.63 gives a plan view of one such cell, and Figure 4.53 a vertical section. Double equipment blast doors, a revolving personnel door, and gravel pockets shown in Figure 4.63 should isolate or slowly vent any internal blast coming from the donor assembly room so that no nearby structure feels internal blast. The "roof" of an assembly room, shown in Figure 4.53, is a thick layer of gravel on steel cable supports. An internal explosion will throw the gravel roof upward, eventually venting an internal explosion. But, there is no in-.. ternal blast communicated to an adjacent cell, so again this structure can be treated as a single cubicle for prediction of internal blast loading. A second type of structure with enough isolation between bays so that each can be considered a single cubicle is Building 12-65. Figures 4.54 and 4.55 show a plan view and an elevation. Here, each bay is an earth-covered, corrugated steel arch structure. The earth cover and separation between individual bays prevent significant direct internal blast communication between walls and doors (if closed) of each bay are strong enough bays, and the front to contain the blast loading down the corridor in the event of an explosion in an adjacent bay. 4.4.4.2 Multiple Corridors and vented Bays and doors gas pressures are located in these structures can communicate from one bay so that internal to another.

blast

An example of this type of structure is Building 11-20, shown in plan view in Figure 4.56. Here, a number of bays open into a common corridor, so that blast waves from an explosion in one bay can reflect and diffract around The prediction of internal blast and vented corners and into adjacent bays. gas pressures is further complicated by frangible walls in each bay.

0
4-135

With
Gravel l/Z Graded Gravel=lO-2' 5 Layers 2 Layera Wire Bridge

& Earth Cover Covered Inch Thick "Culf~eal" i

1 Layer Felt Uetueen Mesh 6 Membrane Mesh

Wire

Strand

Cab1

37 9

iieinforcrd Concrete nl

Figure

4.53

Vertical

Section

of Assembly

Cell

in

Building

12-44

4-136

kinforced Retaining

Concrete Wall

EARTH

COVEW

.:p. .
;:. Corrugated Archee Concrete r A Reinforced llead MeI1 Steel I :*: . *. . lb:

Figure

4.54

Plan

View

of

Bays in

Building

12-65

Steel Rubbed fFinish

Earth-Covered Corrugated Arch

Concrete

Grade/ Overburden

on all
With Asphalt

Fuces

Covered and Top Liners

Figure

4.55

Elevation

of Earth-Covered

Cubicle

in

Building

12-65

I Ll u u u

8 I
Corridor

Figure

4.56

Portion

of Building

11-20

Showing

Multiple

Bays Accessed

by One Corridor

4.4.4.3

Tunnels

Connected

to

Chambers to one or more

chambers,

Blast waves generated in a tunnel can communicate or vice versa, in this type of structure.

Building 12-60 is an example of this shows a plan view of part of this building. which provides access via short side tunnels of work bays and control booths. The entire possible, prediction of initial shock loads figuration than in the multiple bay structures 4.4.4.4 Blast Doors

type of structure. Figure 4.57 The main access ramp is a tunnel, through blast doors to a number building is earth covered. If is even more complex in this conof Figure 4.56.

These doors can be either personnel or equipment access doors, can be located in bays or cells or at the ends of tunnels. Blast doors Pantex have been designed to withstand either internal loads, or external loads, or both. Two examples are given. side views of an equipment blast Figure 4.58 also shows a revolving, tion of these doors in a cell is Building 4.4.4.5 The second 11-20. It Planned

and at

Figures 4.58 and 4.59 show inside and outdoor in a cell in Building 12-44, while The locablast-resistant personnel door. shown in Figure 4.63. door 4.60. is a flat
metal

example of a blast is shown in Figure

door

in

a bay in

New Facilities be designed as complete containment inward opening blast doors, etc. The Machining Facility shown in Figures 2.6 bays in this facility are designed blast doors to prevent blast from Light doors which are not blastbays. walls, and open into a maze which alto arrest fragments. In some cases, into outer walls. These are designed strong as the walls which support them.

Some of these facilities may structures, with no or minimal venting, example we show is the HE Development and 2.11. Individual laboratories and with air locks and double, inward-opening entering corridors and then into other resistant close vent openings in outer lows partial venting, but is designed steel access equipment panels are set to be blast-resistant and at least as 4.5 METHODS OF PREDICTING

BLAST LOADING methods several for predicting reflected structural components of shock Pantex loads struc-

In this section, we present and quasi-static pressures, for tures.

4-140

Steel Arch

Tunnel (Main Access Ramp)

Control

Booth

Figure 4.57

Plan View Of Buried Tunnels Connected To Chambers, Building 12-60

4-141

4.5.1

Frangible

Panels*

The initial reflected blast pulse loading for frangible panels is essentially identical to the loading on stronger and more massive blast-resistant panels. The methods for predicting the loads on such panels are given in Section 4.4.1.1, and are not repeated here. But, the frangible panel will be fragmented and/or accelerated to significant velocity by the initial reflected impulse [See Equation (4.62)], and may also have moved a significant distance before being struck by repeated reflected shocks within the structure. So, one should only consider the first reflected pressure pulse, and not the repeated reflected pulses shown in Figure 4.36 and idealized in Figure 4.38. The methods for predicting quasi-static pressures for frangible panels given in Section 4.4.3. Example Problem 4.12 for prediction of blast loadof a frangible panel is given in that section. Blast-Resistant Panels

are ing 4.5.2

Blast-resistant panels are invariably strong and massive, and can be The methods treated as rigid walls under initial and reflected shock loading. outlined in Section 4.4.1.1 can be used directly for predicting loads on these for effects of internal panels, including the 1.75 multiplier for i, to account shock reflections, when explosives are centrally located, or nearly so (See Example Problem 4.18). For blast resistant panels in either vented or unvented chambers, the peak quasi-static pressures, PQS, can be estimated using the methods given in Section 4.4.1.2, and in particular, from Figure 4.43. If the vents in the chamber are open (uncovered), the same section gives prediction methods and curves for time history of vented gas pressure (Equation (4.63)), venting time, and Figure 4.44) , and gas impulse, ig (Equation (4.51a) (Equation (4.47) tmaX9 For vents covered by frangible panels, the prediction and Figure 4.45). curves in Section 4.4.3 should be used for these parameters. Example Problem 4.11 on a typical blast-resistant 4.5.3 Corridor Walls for shock wave wall panel is and quasi-static given in Section pressure 4.4.1.2. loading

There are a number of facilities at Pantex which have multiple work bays for high explosive operations within the same building complex, with the Two such configurations from a single bays opening into connecting corridors. building complex are shown in Figures 4.61 and 4.62.

*These

panels

are

frangible

according

to

the

definition

in

TM 5-1300

(-Ref.

4.2)

4-145

60

-19

. II t PI

*
250160

150

I c

-14

Notes: 1) 2) Underlined numbers are bay numbers

Other numbers are HE weight limits. For example, 250/60 indicates 250 lb staying HE limit and 60..lb oper+Mn& HE limit. If no HE or plutonium are allowed a bay, the word "inert" appears. in

3)

Figure 4.61 In Building Change 1 - 15 August 1981

Portion 12-24,

Of Bay-Corridor Configuration Showing Bays 13 Through 19

4-146

n
240 -34 240 240 250

-28 -32 -33 150 120 37 -30 11 -31

-29 150

II

Figure

4.62 Second Type Of Bay-Corridor Configuration In Building Bays 28 Through 34, 37 And 38 (See Notes In Figure 4.61)

12-24,

Accidental expiosions are possible either within individual bays, or cells during operations, or in corridors during transport from one operation to another, or to and from storage. Predictions of loads on floors, walls, and roofs in the immediate vicinity of such an explosion is usually possible using the methods discussed previously in this chapter. But, in general, the current state-of-the-art for prediction of either initial or reflected shock wave loading is quite inadequate for general blast loading predictions in corridors of structures having such complex geometry. The suggested method of approach, if one must accurately predict blast pressures at some distance from the explosion center, is to test on model scale, using strongly built geometric models carefully instrumented with flush-mounted blast pressure transducers. The scale-model test results can be readily scaled to the full-size structures. The testing could be supported by limited computer code predictions, but these predictions are only feasible for the gas phase part of the blast loading. Because of the complexity of this loading prediction problem, no example problem is given. Referring to Figure 4.62, we can predict the loading on all surfaces in Bay 31, if an explosion were to occur in that bay. We could not, however, make any rational estimates of the blast loads in Bay 37. Multiple shock reflections and diffractions through openings and around corners would occur before the shock front arrived there, and the geometry is too complex to predict these processes. model-scale tests have indeed been used to obtain data on In the past, transient loads in complex geometry chambers. As an example, a maze entry to cells in the High Explosives Application Facility for Lawrence Livermore Laboratory has been tested in small scale to determine blast loads on surfaces in the maze (Ref. 4.75). For such complex geometries, guidance will be provided an AE by DOE, or included in the design criteria. 4.5.4 Blast Doors cells 4.58 in the through Pantex 4.60. facilities are of These types are: outward personnel three general

types,

Blast doors used in typified by Figures 1.

Flat metal doors opening inward'or or bays. These doors provide both access to the cell. (Figure 4.60)

into test cells and equipment

2.

Large metal equipment doors to Gravel Gertie cells (Figures 4.58 and 4.59). These doors have main strength members of curved steel, intended to withstand blast by membrane tension when blast-loaded from the inside. Small, revolving, personnel access doors used in Gravel These doors are very strong Gertie cells (Figure 4.58). and should present significant blast wave and massive, venting at all times, even when being used.

3.

4-148

For doors of the first same manner as any wall panel on these doors is no different

the closed door is loaded in exactly the type, The methods for predicting loads in the cell. from the methods discussed in Section 4.5.2.

Figure 4.63 shows a plan view of a Gravel Gertie cell showing the locaAs was true for other celltions of the second two types of blast doors. the internal geometry of this corridor configurations (Figures 4.56 and 4.61), cell and the corridors leading to the blast doors is so complex that rational prediction of initial blast loads for explosions occurring in the cell itself Adequate prediction of gas is not possible with the current state-of-the-art. phase pressures can probably be made using a relatively simple gasdynamic computer code (Refs. 4.49 and 4.51), but the calculations would have to be made for this specific geometry to account for gas flow processes from the cell The motion of the Gravel Gertie roof into the corridor system properly. should be accounted for in the code calculations. If accurate definition of blast loads on doors in strong containment cell systems such as the Gravel Gerties is needed, the recommended procedure is careful scale model testing, supplemented by limited computer code calculaThe scale model testing will tions with a relatively simple gasdynamic code. define the initial and first several shock wave loads, while the gas dynamic code will predict the longer term quasi-static pressures. In the past, estimates of shock loading have been made using path lengths from the explosion center through the structure to given walls or other surfaces as a radial distance R, and free-field blast charts such as Figures 4.5 through 4.7 are then used to predict either side-on or reflected The accuracy of this procedure is very overpressures and specific impulses. doubtful, and unfortunately, may not be conservative and predict upper limits to actual loads. So, we reiterate that appropriate model scale testing is probably the best alternative available to an AR for determining shock loads in complex and interconnected chambers. No example problems are given for loading of blast doors, because the flat doors in box-shaped cells are loaded in exactly the same manner as blastresistant wall panels, and the corridor configuration in Gravel Gertie cells is too complex for rational prediction of the shock phase of blast loading. 4.5.5 Air Blast Spalling of Concrete Walls

There exists little information concerning air blast spalling of concrete walls. The work which has been done in this area is analytic in nature. The phenomena associated with air blast produced spa11 and the determination of spa11 size and velocity are very complex and simplification in analysis is One simplification used by all investigators to date is that a necessary. compressive stress wave travelling through a wall is nor attenuated in strength.

l 4-149

Gravel Pocket A

. f*

.Yl ..I . .I

Earth Cover

Corridor Earth Cover

Inerr

Inert r
L

Inert
I

4
/Gravel
it.

Pocket

Equipmen Blast Doors

Rooms !mic htry Personnel Blast Door

: ,K

1'.

Figure

4.63

Plan View of Building 12-44, Showing Blast Doors and Corridor

Cell

1,

4-150

0 I

Spalling is the direct consequence of interference near a free surface between the tail of an oncoming incident compressive wave (not yet reflected) and the reflected tensile wave. If a compressive wave strikes a free surface normally, it will be reflected as a tensile wave of equal strength. Oblique reflections are much more complex; however, a tensile wave will be generated that is lesser in magnitude. When portions of the incident compressive wave and other portions of the reflected tensile wave interfere with one another, a stress distribution results which can be conducive to fracture. An example of wave superposition is illustrated in Figure 4.64a, a triangular pressure pulse of intensity P and duration T. In this figure, half of the wave has been reflected. As the wave continues to reflect and move inward, the reThe maximum tensile stress that can ever be sulting tension A B increases. attained equals P. This stress will be reached in this example at a distance Should the fracture equal to or greater than UT/~ from the free surface. stress of the material (for practical purposes, its ultimate strength uu> be less than P, fracture will occur. If P just equals tensile uu, fracture will occur at a distance UT/~ from the free surface. For strong stress waves, fracture will occur progressively closer to the free surface. It will occur wherever the stress resultant first exceeds u,. Multiple spalls can also occur as new free surfaces are produced by preceeding spalls and as the incident wave continues to dissipate. The maximum stress which can ever be attained by a triangular wave as in Figure 4.64a at each particular point in a material is plotted in Figure 4.64b. Figure 4.64b is a function of position in the material, wave length and stress intensity for points near the free reflecting surface. A solution for the threshold of spa11 can be determined by relating blast wave parameters (pressure, impulse and duration) to material properties in the concrete Co,). Several assumptions are made which include:
.

Uniform loading of the wall with peak reflected and reflected positive specific impulse i,. The pressure time history in shape and its duration

overpressure

Pr

of the wave is assumed to be triangular shall be T=p 2 ir r

The pressure which is not tribution is the wall as

wave transmits a stress pulse through the concrete attenuated through the wall (i.e., the pressure disassumed the same in magnitude at the back face of at the front face, only displaced in time).

0
4-151

Incident

Front Face

b.

Reflected TensileWave a. Note:

+
U

The wave applied to the front face will pressure amplitude P and duration T.

have

Figure

4.64

a.)

Superposition of Stresses During Reflection Process for a Triangular Pulse Striking a Wall Maximum Stress versus Position a Triangular Wave Form for

b.)

4-152

. The

stress

wave will

travel

through

the

wall

at

velocity

(E = Young's wave transit is

The time for modulus, p = density). (from front to back face then return

one complete to front face)

2H -ET
V

where Should ture.

ThUS

H is wall Pr be greater

thickness. than ou of the concrete, the material will frac-

T T

vi =P< HPr-

P 1 for:> - 1.0

On the other hand, comis a criterion for determining the threshold of spall. pressive pressures will still be applied to the front of a wall when the iniif tial wave front returns if T is greater than P. Under these conditions,

prthen spa11 is gular pressure predicted pulse) to occur. gives: P

p(t)

' cf u P, (1 - t/T) for p(t)

(4.67)

Substituting

(trian-

rt

(4.68)

v11m0

Finally, substituting 2ir/P, for the blast wave transit time & gives the relationship tion air blast waves.

wave for

duration T and 2H/v spa11 threshold for

for the long dura-

4-153

pr-Hpr-> 1.0 vi
U

for

vi 1: > 1.0 H Pr -

(4.69)

The spa11

thresholds

discussed

above

are

presented

graphically

in

Figure

4.65.

The above analysis can be used to determine if concrete spa11 due to blast loading is predicted to occur; however, it does not give spa11 size or velocity, In work done by Kot, et al. (Ref. 4.60), spalling of concrete was investigated and analytical solutions were derived for predicting concrete spa11 size and velocity. This work was done for safety studies concerning air blast effects on power plant structures. In this report, large, thick concrete structures (containment structures) are blast loaded. The size of the structure, compared to charge weights led to the consideration of a non-uniform blast loading, P, I, where P and I are functions of wall position as shown in Figure 4.14. Blast wave parameters were obtained from TM 5-1300 for use in this report. Spalling of concrete at normal and oblique incidence was considered, except for incident angles greater than 45" where no spa11 was expected to occur. A set of scaled curves is given which includes variations of spa11 depth and velocity with charge standoff and number of spalls, variation of spa11 depth and velocity with spa11 number at various standoff distances, effect of concrete wall thickness on spa11 depth and velocity, and the effect of angle of incidence on spa11 depth and velocity. Also considered by Kot, et al. (Ref. 4.60) are wall displacements due to impulsive loads. The comparison between maximum spa11 and wall displacement velocities is made and it is shown that wall displacement velocities in some cases dominate spa11 velocities, particularly for heavy spa11 debris (See Figure 4.66). It is, suggested that the most severe concrete spallation from blast loads therefore, may be due to a coupling of spa11 formation to gross wall motion. Kot, et al. (Ref. 4.60) suggest a simple method of a "first cut" estimate of spa11 hazard, which is to limit spa11 mass to the thickness covering the exterior layer of The velocity can be reinforcing and to the 45' cut-off mentioned earlier. equated to that for wall motion produced by an impulsive load (velocity = A curve of wall velocity due to impulsive loading total impulse/wall mass). versus scaled standoff is provided in the report and is reproduced here (see Figure 4.67). This graph is intended for very large walls and is conservative for small walls. For more details see Reference 4.60.

4-154

100.0 /

5.0

I---+

3.0 2.0

10.0 I 5.0 I

I l/I
3.0 2.0

INWALL

NO SPALL

0.1

0.01

0.02 0.03 0.05

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.5

1.0

2.0

3.0

5.0

10.0

20

30

100

Figure

4.65

Spa11

Threshold

for

Blast

Waves

Loading

Walls

I
2
1st Max.

Layer Wall

Spa11 Velocity

Velocity

lo3

a w - Scaled Incident I

Wall Thichess Angle = 0 I

Scaled

Standoff

Distance,

ftllb

113

Figure 4.66 Displacement

Comparison Velocities (Kot , et al.,

of Maximum Spa11 and Wall with Standoff Distance Reference 4.60)

4-156

LO3
5 3 2

v - Wall Velocity,

ft/s

m - Mass per Unit Area, Slugfft' W- Charge Weight, lb I I I I I

102 Pelocity
5 3 2

at Spa11 Limit

lo1 Rotation
5 3 2

1 1O01 0.2

0.6

1.0

1.4

1.8

2.2

2.6

3.0

Scaled Standoff

Distance,

ft/lb113

Figure

4.67 Scaled Concrete Wall Velocities Due to Impulsive Air Blast Loading (Kot, et al., Reference 4.60)

4-157

EXAMPLE'PROBLEM

4.13 near a hazard

PROBLEM - Calculate concrete spa11 size and velocity for an explosion wall. This calculation should indicate the potential debris in an adjacent bay or corridor. GIVEN: Blast loading (pressure and impulse) on surface under consideration Wall dimensions and reinforcing location 0 = tensile strength of concrete EU= Young's = density
PC

modulus of concrete of concrete size and velocity REFERENCE Fig. 4.65

FIND: SOLUTION:

Concrete 1. 2.

spa11

3.

Determine if concrete will spa11 due to blast loading and spa11 limits If spalling will,occur, determine spa11 velocity by using Figures 4.65 or 4.66 and using the gross wall velocity curves which will give an upper velocity Determine spa11 mass using 45' cutoff and thickness from outside wall to rebar layer or cutoff where end of spa11 occurs (< 45O)

Fig. Fig.

4.65 4.66

or

CALCmTION

- Use results of Example Problem 4.11, loading on a wall in the HE treatment sives Development Machining Facility. Blast shown loading on wall in Table 4.10 Table r:
0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 9.0 9.75 7.0 5.5 2.0 6.0 4.0 2.5 2.0 1.5

which gives the blast room of the High Explo-

GIVEN:

for

a 468 lb

charge

at a 3-ft

standoff

as

4.10 pr pi

Blast

pal-eec 12 7.0 3.9 1.7 0.93 0.51 0.31 0.22

Loading It
3.5 2.5 3.9 4.3 4.6 4.1 3.1 2.9

on Wall set
x lo4 x lo4 x lOA x 1o'4 X lo-' x 1o-4 x 10 -4 x 10-4 T

x 104 x lo4 x lo4 x 103 x 103 x lo3 x lo3 x lo3

4-158

Wall

dimensions

3'6"

J- 7 /-25
20'

III
3/4" Rebar location

= 0.0625' = 2.3 X 10 -4

Y2 0 E
U

lb-sec2/in4 = 300 psi tensile (assumedp = 4 x lo6 psi (assumed)

FIND: SOLUTION:

Concrete 1.

spa11

size

and velocity

Spalling will occur due to the first shock of multiple shocks in an enclosed structure. Thus for determining if spa11 occurs one needs Pr of the first shock only, which is in contrast to summing repeated shocks as one, with 1.75 P, and 1.75 ir for structural response or gross wall motion. Using Figure 4.65, i, and P, max (at X = 0) -- r _ 7.0 X 104 = 233 Y 011 300 v =fl=da=
C
l

1.32 2 1.32 X lo5 (42 in./sec in.)

X lo5

in/set

-=r prH

iv

12 lb-&c/in. 7.0 X lo4

= o . 54

lb/in.2

*This value was obtained using a typical value for compressive ultimate strength, and dividing by ten. It differs significantly from values assumed by Kot, et al. (Ref. 4.60). See Chapter 7, Dynamic Properties for further discussion of this point. of Materials,

4-159

L-

From Figure 4.65 spa11 will occur at X = 0. The largest X where spa11 will occur corresponds to 45' off normal or X = 3 ft. If not, Here we determine if spa11 will occur. one must go to less than 45" to find extent of spa11 here: 'r -= Q
U

2 ' lo4 300

= 66 . 7

2.

irv 3.9 (1.32 X 105) = o 61 -= 2 X lo4 (42) 'rH From Figure 4.65 spa11 will occur at X = 3 ft (45O) Thus, spa11 limit = 3 ft radius Using Figure 4.66 wall thickness = 3.5 Scaled wall thickness = 4681/3 = o*45 Wl/3
l

ft lb113

Scaled

distance

= 0.386 4.66 first

3.

468'13 Interpolating from Figure : 150 ft/sec velocity Spa11 volume involved (to V = (TI 32 x .0623) Spa11 mass = 1.77 ft3 ft3

ft: lb113 gives spall rebar layer)

I I I e

= 1.77

ft3 2 ) = 8.5 1b;spc2 or slugs

(4.8lbmsec ft4 ft/lb l/3 = 320

Spall weight = 270 lb Using Figure 4.67 Scaled distance = 0.386 From Figure 4.67 Scaled wall velocity = $

m = p concrete 16 8 lb-sec2 . ft3 Hence, = 16.8 wall lb-set ft3

times or slugs ft2 and spa11

wall

thickness

= 4.8

lb-sec2 ft4

x 3.5

ft

velocity ftlsec

W1/3 = 320 X m

= 320 X 7.76

1b1'3

= 148

4-160

4.6

HAZARDS TO PERSONNEL FROM AIR BLAST

Literature concerning the harmful effects of blast on humans has been published as early as 1768. However, knowledge of the mechanisms of blast damage to humans was extremely incomplete until World War I, when the physics of explosions were better understood. Since that time, numerous authors have contributed considerable time and effort in the study of blast damage mechanisms and blast pathology. Each accident situation has its own unique environment with trees, buildings, hills, and various other topographical conditions which may dissipate the energy of the blast wave or reflect it and amplify its effect on an individual. Because of these different variational factors involved in an explosion-human body receiver situation, only a simplified and limited set of blast damage criteria will be included here. The human body "receiver" will be assumed to be standing in the free-field on flat and level ground when contacted by the blast wave. Excluding certain reflected wave situations, this is the most hazardous body exposure condition. Air blast. effects can be divided into four categories: primary blast effects, tertiary blast effects, ear damage, and blast generated fragments (Ref. 4.61). Secondary effects involving fragment impact by missiles from the exploding device itself or from objects located in the nearby environment which are accelerated after interaction with the blast wave (appurtenances) shall be discussed in Chapter 6. 4.6.1 Primary Blast Damage

Primary blast effects are associated with changes in environment pressure due to the occurrence of the air blast. Mammals are sensitive to the incident, reflected and dynamic overpressures, the rate of rise to peak overpressure after arrival of the blast wave, and the duration of the blast wave (Ref. 4.61). Specific impulse of the blast wave also plays a major role (Refs. Other parameters which determine the extent of blast injury 4.62 and 4.63). the size and type of animal, and possibly are the ambient atmospheric pressure, Parts of the body where there are the greatest differences in density of age. adjacent tissues are the most susceptible to primary blast damage (Refs. 4.61, 4.64, and 4.65). Thus, the air-containing tissues of the lungs are more susceptible to primary blast than any other vital organ (Ref. 4.66). Pulmonary injuries directly or indirectly cause many of the pathophysiInjuries include pulmonary ological effects'of blast injury (Ref. 4.67). hemorrhage and edema (Refs. 4.61 and 4.67), rupture of the lungs (Ref. 4.61), air-embolic insult to the heart and central nervous system (Ref. 4.61), loss of respiratory reserve (Ref. 4.61) and multiple fibrotic foci, or fine scars, of the lungs (Ref. 4.64). Other harmful effects are rupture of the eardrums (to be discussed later) and damage to the middle ear, damage to the larynx, and radicles of the spinal nerves trachea, abdominal cavity, spinal meninges, and various other portions of the body (Ref. 4.61).

4-161

Bowen, et al. (Ref. 4.65) and White, et al. (Ref. 4.62), have developed pressure versus duration lethality curves for humans which are especially amenable to this document. Some of the major factors which determine the extent of damage from the blast wave are the characteristics of the blast wave, ambient atmospheric pressure, and the type of animal target, including its mass and geometric orientation relative to the blast wave and nearby objects (Ref. 4.62). Although Richmond, et al. (Ref. 4.63) and later White, et al. (Ref. 4.62), both from the Lovelace Foundation, discuss the tendency of the lethality curves to approach isopressure lines for "long" duration blast waves, their lethality curves demonstrate dependence on pressure and duration alone. Since specific impulse is dependent on pressure as well as duration, pressure-impulse lethality or survivability curves appear to be more appropriate. The tendency for pressure-impulse lethality curves to approach asymptotic limits is also very aesthetically appealing from a mathematical point of view. Also, since both pressure and specific impulse at a specified distance from most explosions can be calculated directly using methods described appropriate that pressure-impulse lethality in this document, it is especially This has been done and is described (or survivability) curves be developed. in Reference 4.59. These curves and their use are reproduced here as Figure 4.68. Simplifying Lovelace's scaling laws in such a manner that only the human species or large animals are considered, one is able to arrive at the following relatfonshipsor scaling laws: 1. The affect of incident atmospheric pressure. overpressure That is, is dependent on the ambient

P Fs = $
0

(4.70)

where P, is scaled incident peak overpressure, P, is peak incident overpressure, and p. is ambient atmospheric pressure. 2. The effect of blast wave positive duration is dependent on ambient atmospheric pressure and the mass of the human target. That is,

(4.71)

where ? is scaled positive duration, m is weight of human body.

T is positive

duration,

and

4-162

lo2

I 1% 10% I I l/r YO:: ----50% Sumlval

1 I

.o-3 2
Scaled

1o-2 Impulse

2 is =

10-l
i

loo

lo1

l,25m1/3' psil'2sec/lb1'3
PO

Figure

4.68

Survival

Curves

for

Lung

Damage

to Man

4-163

3.

Impulse

is

can be approximated

by

=- psT
2

(4.72)

Equation (4.72) assumes a triangular wave shape and is conservative, from an injury standpoint, for "long" duration blast waves which approach square wave shapes because it underestimates the specific impulse required for a certain percent lethality. It is also a close approximation for "short" duration blast waves which characteristically have a short rise time to peak overpressure and an exponential decay to ambient pressure, the total wave shape being nearly triangular. Applying the blast scaling developed at the Lovelace Foundation for peak overpressure and positive duration to the conservative estimate for specific impulse determined by Equation (4.72) above, one can arrive at a scaling law for specific" impulse:
-

+y

s From Equations (4.71), (4.72), and

(4.73)

where

is

is

scaled

specific

impulse.

(4.73)

=- 1
2
PO

PT (4.74)

or from

Equation

(4.72)'@

(4.75)

by Equation Thus, as indicated on ambient atmospheric pressure should scaled senting

(4.75), scaled specific impulse T and the mass of the human target.

is

dependent

Reconstructed curves from Reference 4.59 are shown in Figure 4.68. It be noted that these curves represent percent survivability, and higher pressure and scaled impulse combinations allow fewer survivors. Prethe curves in this fashion is advantageous since they apply to all

,A ,,' ,I,' lll_lll

4-164

altitudes with different atmospheric pressures and all masses (or sizes) of human bodies, Once one determines the incident overpressure and specific impulse for an explosion, they can be scaled using Equations (4.70) and (4.75). The proper ambient atmospheric pressure to use for the scaling can be acquired from Figure 4.69, which shows how atmospheric pressure decreases with increasing altitude above sea level (Ref. 4.19). The value for body weight used in the scaling is determined by the demographic composition of the particular area under investigation. It is recommended that 11 lb be used for babies, 55 lb for small children, 121 lb for adult women, and 154 lb for adult males. It should be noticed that the smallest bodies in this case are the most susceptible to injury.

4-165

I 3 2 4

I 6 Altitude, 8

I 10 thousands 12 of

I 14 ft 16

I 18 20

Figure

4.69

Atmospheric Altitude

Pressure as a Function Above Sea Level

of

4-166

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 4.14 PROBLEM - Assess lung damage explosive source. GIVEN: to humans at an appropriate distance from a given

W = explosive charge weight R = distance from center of Altitude (no symbol) m = weight of body of human Probability 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. of survival

explosive subject

charge

FIND: SOLUTION:

Determine peak incident overpressure Ps and specific impulse is for given charge weight W and distance R Determine ambient atmospheric pressure from altitude Calculate scaled incident overpressure Fs Choose weight of the lightest human exposed at distance R Calculate scaled specific impulse xs Plot Fs and is and determine probability of survival

REFERENCE Fig. Fig. Eq. 4.5 4.69 (4.70)

Eq. Fig.

(4.75) 4.68

CALCULATION GIVEN: W = 100 lb R = 100 ft Altitude = 4000 m = 130 lb Percent 1. survival l/3 = 100/1001'3 = 21.5 ft/lb1'3 R/W Enter Figure 4.5 and read Ps = 1.8 and is/W l/3 "Unscale" i $3'" 2. l/3 = 2.55 X 10 -3 i
S

Et

FIND: SOLUTION:

psi l/3

psi-secllb

to determine = 2.55 for

X 10 -3 x 101/3 4000 ft

= 5.49

X 10s3

psi-set

From Figure 4.69 = 12.6 psi

pO

altitude,

4-167

3. 4. 5.

From Equatfon P = 1.8/12.5

s

(4~70),
= 0.144

Given m = 130 lb From Equation (4.75),

i i

5.49

x 1o-3

-3 psi"'

set lb113

l/L/3

= 12*61/2

x 1301/3

= l--O8 X I0

6.

$0 m From Figure 4.68, enter with Fs = 0.144 and i = 1.08 X 10-3v The point lies well below s the threshold for lung damage. So, there is no injury and survival is 100%

4-168

4.6.2

Tertiary

Blast

Injury

During whole-body displacement, blast overpressures and impulses-interact with the body in such a manner that it is essentially picked up and translated. Tertiary blast damage involves this whole-body displacement and subsequent decelerative impact (Ref. 4.61). Bodily damage can occur during the The extent of accelerating phase or during decelerative impact {Ref. 4.68). injury due to decelerative impact is the more significant (Ref. 4.69), however, and is determined by the velocity change at impact, the time and distance over which deceleration occurs, the type of surface impacted, and the area of the body involved (Ref. 4.61). Although the head is the most vulnerable portion of the body to mechanical injury during decelerative impact, it is also the best protected (Ref. Because of the delicate nature of the head, many may feel that trans4.67). lation damage criteria should be based on skull fracture or concussion. However, since body impact position is likely to be randomly oriented after others may feel that this factor should be taken into account in translation, determining expected amounts of impact damage. In an effort to satisfy proponents of each point of view, both types of impact, essentially head foremost and random body impact orientation, will be considered.

I-

Because of the many parameters involved in decelerative impact, a fewassumptions will be made. First of all, translation damage will be assumed to occur during decelerative impact with a hard surface, the most damaging case (Ref. 4.69). Another assumption is that, since impact onto only hard surfaces is being considered, translation damage will depend only on impact velocity. This is, impacting only one type of surface precludes the need for considering change in velocity of the body during impact. This assumption, however, is not entirely valid when one considers that the compressibility of various portions of the body can vary considerably. White (Refs. 4.61 and 4.62) and Clemedson, et al. (Ref. 4.69), agree that the tentative criteria for tertiary damage (decelerative impact) to the head should be those presented in Table 4.11. White's (Ref. 4.62) recently revised criteria for tertiary damage due to total body impact are summarized It is beneficial to note that the mostly "safe" velocity in Table 4.12. criteria for each type of impact condition are identical. Baker, et al. (Ref. 4.59) have developed blast incident overpressure and specific impulse late human bodies and propel them at the critical Tables 4.11 and 4.12. This method and associated duced here. a method for combinations velocities prediction predicting the which will transpresented in curves are repro-

Figure 4.70 contains the pressure-scaled impulse combinations required to produce the velocities for various expected percentages of skull fracture while Figure 4.71 contains the pressure-scaled (See Table 4.11) at sea level,

4-169

Table

4.11 Criteria For Tertiary Damage (.Decelerative Impact) To The Head (References 4.61, 4.62, and 4.69)

Related Skull Fracture Tolerance

Impact ftlsec

Velocity

Mostly Threshold

"safe"

10

13 18 23

50 percent Near 100 percent

Table

4.12 Criteria For Tertiary Damage Involving Total Body Impact (Reference 4.62)

Related Total Body Impact Tolerance

Impact ftisec

Velocity

Mostly Lethality Lethality Lethality

"safe" threshold 50 percent near 100 percent

10 21 54 138

4-170

2 10 5 2 10-l 5 2
-

1o-2 10-2 2 5 10 Scaled 2 -1

loo

2 Impulse Ts = is/m

5 l/3

lo1

2 , psi-set/lb

5 l/3

lo2

Figure

4.70

Skull

Fracture

2 101 5

2 v = 138 fps -

10-l 2 Impulse Scaled

5 i

10 O
S

2
S

lo1 = i /m 113 , psi-set/lb

2 l/3

Figure

4.71

Lethality

From Whole

Body

Translati

on

impulse combinations required to produce the velocities for various expected percentages of lethality from whole body impact $3ee Table 4.12) at sea level. Curves for other altitudes differ only slightly from the sea level curves.

4-173

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 4.15 blast damage to humans at a specified PROBLEM- Predict possible tertiary tance from a given explosive source. GIVEN: W = explosive weight R= distance from center of explosive m = weight of body of human subject Probability of injury charge REFERENCE dis-

FIND :

SOLUTION: 1. 2.

3.

4. CALCULATION GIVEN:

Determine peak incident overpressure Ps and specific impulse is for given charge weight W and distance R Determine the lightest representative weight of . an exposed human, and calcuI^ late i,/ml'3 LocateuP S and i S /m1'3 on graphs for skull fracture and lethality for whole body translation, and read impact velocities Determine degree of injury for appropriate impact velocities

Fig.

4.5

Fig. Fig.

4.70 & 4.71

Table 4.11

W = 100 lb R = 100 ft m = 130 lb Tertiary blast injury, based on skull and whole body translation fracture

FIND:

SOLUTION: 1.

R/Wlf3 = loo/loo1'3 = 21.5 ft/lb113 Enter Figure 4.9 and read Ps = 1.8 psi and i /W1'3 = 2.55 X 10-3 psi-secllb l/3 S "Unscale" to determine i w1/3 = 2.55 x 10-"3 x 1001/3 = 1.18 x lO-2 pti~sec

2.

Given m = 130 lb. Calculate i /m1'3 = 1.18 X 10-2/1301'3 S

= 2.33 X 10m3 psi-sec/lb1'3

Change 1 - 15 August 1981

4-174

3.

Enter Figure

4.70 with

Ps = 1.8 and

This is off the left side i /nP3 = 2.33 X lo-3. S of the Figure, but well below the lowest curves -for skull fracture. So, V cc 10 fps. Enter Fig4.71 with the same numbers. Again, V << 10 fps 4. Referring to Table 4.11 for corre$tion of velocities with injury, we find that for either the skull fracture or whole body impact criteria, the impact velocities are well below the mostly "safe" velocities. So, no injury would occur. NOTE Had the vaGes for ordinate and abscissa in : Figures 4.70 and 4.71 been Ps = 1 psi, is/m 113 = l/3 1 psi-se&b the velocities for skull fracture velocity would iave been V = 15 fps, and for whole body translation V = 13 fps. Skull fracture injury probability would lie between threshold and SO%, while lethality due to whole body translation would lie between mostly "safe" and the threshold for lethality. So, the human would have a relatively high probability of skull fracture, but a low probability of death. Whether this level of injury would or would not be acceptable could only be addressed in separate safety criteria.

4-175

Change 1 - 15 August 1981

4.6.3

Ear

Damage

Due To Air

Blast

Exposure

The ear, a sensitive organ system which converts sound waves into nerve impulses, responds to a band of frequencies ranging from 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz. This remarkable organ can respond to energy levels which cause the eardrum to deflect less than the diameter of a single hydrogen molecule (Ref. 4.70). Not being able to respond faithfully to pulses having periods less than 0.3 millisecond, it attempts to do so by making a single large excursion (Ref. 4.70). It is this motion which can cause injury to the ear. The human ear is divided into the external, middle, and inner ear. The external ear amplifies the overpressure of the sound wave by approximately 20 percent and detects the location of the source of sound (Ref. 4.70). Rupture of the eardrum is a good measure of serious ear damage. Unfortunately, the state-of-the-art for predicting eardrum rupture is not as well developed A direct relationship, as that for predicting lung damage from blast waves. however, has been established between the percentage of ruptured eardrums and maximum overpressure. Hirsch (Ref. 4.67) constructed a graph similar to that shown in Figure 4.72 and concluded that 50 percent of exposed eardrums rupture at an overpressure of 15 psi. White (Ref. 4.61) supports this conclusion for "fast" rising overpressures with durations of 0.003 second to 0.4 second T occurring at ambient atmospheric pressure of 14.7 psi. Hirsch (Ref. 4.67), also concluded that threshold eardrum rupture for "fast" rising overpr.essures occurs at 5 psi, which is also supported by White (Ref. 4.61) for the range of duration and at the atmospheric pressure mentioned above. At lower overpressures than those required to rupture eardrums, a.temporary loss of.he,aring can occur. Ross, et al. (Ref. 4.70), have produced a graph of peak overpressure versus duration for temporary threshold shift (TTS). Below the limits of the graphs, a majority (75 percent at least) of those exposed are not likely to suffer excessive hearing loss. According to Ross, et al. (Ref. 4.70), their curves should be lowered 10 dB to pratect 90 percent of those exposed, lowered 5 dB to allow for a normal angle of incidence of the blast wave, and increased 10 dB to allow for occasional impulses. In sum, to assure protection to 90 percent of those exposed and to allow for normal incidence to the ear (the worst exposure case) of an occasional air blast, their curves should be lowered 5 dB. Limits for eardrum rupture and temporary threshold shift, as presented above, are dependent on peak incident overpressure and duration. Since specific impulse is dependent upon the duration of the blast wave and since both peak incident overpressure and specific impulse at a specified distance from an explosion can be calculated using methods in this.document, it is especially appropriate that pressure-impulse ear damage curves be developed from the pressure-duration curves. Assuming a triangular shape for the blast wave allows for simple calculations which are conservative from an injury standpoint.

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

4-176

98 95

II

Ill

90

80 70 60 50 40 30 20

10

2 1 3 4 6 101 2 4 6 8

Peak

Overpressure

Ps,

psi

Figure

4.72

Percent Eardrum Rupture Function of Overpressure

as a

4-177

The ear damage criteria presented in Figure 4.73 were developed from the criteria for eardrum rupture developed by Hirsch (Ref. 4.68) and White (Ref. 4.61) and from the criteria for temporary threshold shift developed by Ross, et al. (Ref. 4.70). Equation (4.72) was used to calculate specific impulse, and temporary threshold shift represents the case where 90 precent of those exposed to a blast wave advancing at normal angle of incidence to the ear are not likely to suffer an excessive degree of hearing loss. The threshold for eardrum rupture curve is the location below which no ruptured ears are expected to occur and the 50 percent of eardrum rupture curve is the location at which 50 percent of ears exposed are expected to rupture.

0 .
4-178

lo2
5 3 2

! ! !
50% Eardrum

!
I I I I I

! ! !

! ! !

Rupture

lo1
5 3 2 10 5 3 2 10-l

I I I I

1o-5
2 3 5 2 3 5

lo-4

lo-3

2 Impulse

5 is,

1o-2 psi-s=

235

10 -l

loo

Specific

Figure

4.73

Human Ear Damage for Blast Waves Angle of Incidence

Arriving

at Normal

EXWPLE.PROELEM4.16 PROBLEM Find the probability of ear injury fied explosive source. GIVEN: FIND: at a given distance from a speci-

W = explosive charge weight R = distance from center of explosive Probability of ear injury

charge REFERENCE

SOLUTION: 1. 2. CALCULATION GIVEN: FIND:

Determine peak incident overpressure Pi and specific impulse is for given charge weight W and distance R Determine degree of injury by plotting Ps and is on human ear damage curve

Fig. Fig.

4.5 4.73

W = 100 lb (free R = 100 ft Level

air)

of ear injury R/W1'3 = 100/100"'3 = 21.5 ft/lb1'3 Enter Figure 4.5 and read P = 1.8 psi
S

SOLUTION: 1.

and i /W1'3 = 2.55 X 10m3 psi-sec/lb1'3 S "Unscale" to obtain is i S wl/3 = 2.55 X 1O-3 x 100l/3 = 1.18.x
l w113

10

-2

psi-see

2.

Plotting P and i on Figure 4.73, one 8 finds that the poynt lies well above the curve for TTS, but below the curve for threshold of eardrum rupture. So, humans would suffer temporary hearing loss, but no serious ear injury. NOTE: When comparing ear injury, primary blast damage, and tertiary blast damage for the same source, as has been done in Example Problems 4.14, 4.15, and 4.16, one invariably finds that ear injury occurs at a greater distance than the other, more serious, types of blast injury. so, if

Change 1 - 15 August 1981

4-180

safety criteria include an ear. damage limit, one can be assured that no more serious blast injury will occur at the distances corresponding to the ear damage limit.

4-181

4.7

RECOMMENDED TESTS OR ANALYSES We have found a number of areas in air blast technol,ogy which are defiwhen applied to definition of loading of structures typical of the Pantex A listing of the more important such areas follows:
l

cient Plant.

Definition of air shock loading of interiors of and cell-corridor combinations. cells, corridors, typical Pantex configurations should be tested, scale.

complex geometry A number of in small model In particupoorly de-

I Definition of blast loads from lar, both side-on and reflected fined or completely undefined.
l

non-spherical sources. specific impulses are

Air blast from such sources.

bulk

(uncompressed)

HE.

No data

at

all

exist

for

Mechanism of failure and venting Past studies omitted vent covers are badly needed, for comparison in this chapter.

of light, frangible vent covers. Experimental data altogether. with theoretical curves given

Determination of blast wave properties for those explosives for Currently, we aswhich these measurements have not been made. sume TNT equivalence based on calculated comparative heats of detonation, rather than on comparison of air blast data. Systematic measurements of heats of detonation and combustion These form the basis for of explosives of interest at Pantex. determining TNT equivalence for shock loads and vented gas pressure loads. Measurement and code calculation of pressures and impulses for shock waves of intermediate strength from spherical sources These should supplement data in located near flat surfaces. Figures 4.11, 4.12, and 4.13. Tests nearly exists of charges of other geometries than in contact with reflecting surfaces. for cylindrical charges in contact spherical in contact or Only one set of data with the ground.

Tests to determine thresholds of spalling for reinforced concrete walls. Methods in this manual are probably quite conservative, but spalling can cause significant hazards to personnel in bays adjacent to those in which an explosion occurs.

4-182

4.8

COMPREHENSIVE ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES EXAMPLE PROBLEM 4.17

PROBLEM Determine all side-on and normally reflected blast parameters for a This problem illustrates use of the bare spherical HE explosion. graphs in Figures 4.5 through 4.7 and altitude correction factors. GIVEN: R = distance from center of explosive source (standoff [ft]) W = weight and type of HE (lb) H = altitude where explosion occurs (ft) All possible blast parameters REFERENCE See Table 6 in Appendix A for TNT Equivalencies Eq. (4.19) H Eq. (4.20)

FIND:

SOLUTION: i. 2. 3.

Equivalent TNT explosive weight W = (weight of explosive)(TNT Factor) Calculate Hopkinson-scaled Z =R/W l/3 Calculate
z* = z (P/P,)

distance

corrected l/3

Z* for altitude

4. 5. 6. CALCULATION GIVEN:

where p is the ambient pressure at H -5.25588 288.15 P = 14.6965 Psi -7 L288.15 - 1.9812 X lo-' H_j Determine the required blast parameters Fig. 4.5 corresponding to the Z* value Fig'. 4.7 Calculate sound speed at altitude H

1
H

a = 65.77[288.15 - 1.9812 X 10-3 H] Correct blast parameters for altitude

112

ft/sec

Eq. (4.18) Table 4.3

R = 20 ft Charge weight H = 3500 ft All possible

is 58.6 lb of Composition blast parameters

FIND:

SOLUTION: 1. 2.

w = (58.6)(1.092.) ;I,"" lb = 20/4 = 5 ft/lb113 Z = R/r;113 = 20/64

4-183

Change 1 - 15 August 1981

3.

a).

p = 14.6955 p = 12.93

288.15 288.15 - 1.9812 X 1O-3 x 3500 psi (rounded to four significant U3 = 4.791 ft/lb l/3 = 4.79 l/3

C
I

-5.25588 Psi

figures)

b)

4.

a).

Enter Figure 4.5 for Z* = R/W l/3 P* = 26.0 psi s l/3 ii/W = 1.05 X low2 psi-set/lb tyw t,/W l/3 l/3 = 1.35 = 1.40 X 10B3 x 10 -3 secllb set/lb l/3 l/3

and read:

For times i = 1.05

S

and impulses, multiply scaled values x 1o-2 X 4 = 4.2 X 10 -2 psi-set X 4 = 5.4 X 4 = 5.6 for X 10e3 X 10 -3 set set

by W,113

b) .

= 1.35 x 1o-3 td t = 1.40 x 1o-3 a Enter Figure 4.6 P* = 112 psi i:/w113 r For i2 = 3.30 = 3.30

Z* = 4.79

and read:

X 10e2 multiply

psi-sec/lbl'3 scaled Z* = 4.79 impulse by Wl/3

impulse,

X 10m2 X 4 = 1.32

X 10-lpsi-sec. and read:

cl.

Enter Figure 4.7 for " = 13.0 psi U* = 1.57 (Mach No.) t; = 7.6 X 10-l (Mach

No.)

b* ,= 1.85 5. 6. a = 65.77 [288.15 - 1.9812 X 10e3 X 35001 l/2 ftlsec a = 1102.9 ft/sec Enter Table 4.3 and determine values of correction factors. The correction factors will be: Pressures = 0.880 PIP, = 12.93/14.70 Impulse
(so/a> (P/P~)~~ %= (1116.4/1102.9)

(12.93/14.70)2'3

= 0.93

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

r ;mes (so/a) (po/p)13 =

(1116.4/1102.9)

(14.70/1293)1'3 will be:

= 1.06

The values of the blast parameters Ps = Pi X 0.88 = 26.0 X 0.88 P i i s s

S

= 22.9 = ii = ~-, 3.91 = t;

psi X 0.93 x 10 x 1.06 -3 = 1.05 -1 X 10 -2 x 0.93

psi-Csccx 1O-3 X 1.06 set

td td t t a

= 5.4 set = 5.6 set

5.7 x 10 = = t; X 1.06 = 5.9

X 1O-3

X 1.06

set

x 10 -3

pa = P* X 0.88 r psi Pr = 9i.6 i i r = ig X 0.93

= 112 X 0.88

psi

= 1.32

X 10

-1

X 0.93

psi-set

= 1.23 X 10-l psi-set r Q = Q* X 0.88 = 13.0 X 0.88 4 = 11.4 psi u = 1.57 u = 7.6 X 10-l

psi

bS= 1 85 LThis is simply a demonstration problem for use of scaled curves for blast wave parameters. Very seldom will an AE need to determine all of the parameters from all three of the sets of prediction curves in Figures 4.5 through 4.7. The most commonly needed ones are P td, Pr, and ir. i s' s'

Change

1. - 15 August

1981

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 4.18 The procedures for predicting initial and reflected blast pressures and impulses and quasi-static pressures on the walls of a conventional rectangular parallelepiped room or bay, for an internal HE explosion, are different in this manual and in TM 5-1300 (Ref. 4.2). This example problem provides a comparison of the methods and predicted loads using the two different sources. When there are substantial differences in the results, recommendations are given for choice of the preferred method, PROBLEM - Determine the blast loading parameters on walls and roof of a rectangular parellopiped structure with an internal explosion of a specified explosive source at a specified location within the structure. One entire wall is a blowout wall intended to vent the explosion. Room dimensions and explosive charge location are shown in Figure 4.74. GIVEN: W = explosive charge weight Room interior dimensions Charge location w = area1 density of blowout Blast 1. loads on walls and roof.

wall REFERENCE

FIND: SOLUTION:

Determine reflected blast wave pressures and impulses applied to rear wall, side walls and roof for charge weight W in geometry in Figure 4.74. Using methods in this manual 4 .

b) . Using
2. Determine for given ume V, and and area1 Using a>.

methods

in

TM 5-1300

Fig. 4.12 & Fig. 4.13 Sections 4-9 4-10 in Ref. 4.2

&

quasi-static pressure loads charge weight W, room volblowout wall with area A density w methods in this manual methods in TM 5-1300

b) . Using
CALCULATION GIVEN: W =

Figs. 4.44 Fig. Ref.

4.43, & 4.45 4-65 in 4.2

Rear Wal

bplosive 24'

Charge

Figure

4.74

Sketch Of Room Loaded By Internal

Blast

4-187

FIND: SOLUTION:

Blast 1.

loads a).

on walls

and roof.

Reflected parameters for walls and roof using methods in this manual. Determine effective charge weight relative to each wall and roof W' = w x 2.0 W' = 150 X 2.0 = 300 lb TNT for all surfaces Due to proximity of charge to floor, charge weight is doubled. It is important to note that the charge weight is not always doubled, but only occurred in this problem due to charge location.* Determine normal (minimum) charge standoff forall surfaces (R). For rear and side walls and roof, minimum charge standoff is 18 ft. For "blowout" panel, the minimum charge standoff is 26 ft. Determine scaled minimum charge standoff Z' = R/W' l/3 For 18 ft, Z' z!Y2.7 ft/lb113 For 25 ft, Z' = 3.88 ft/lb1'3 l/3 l/3 If 0.3 Et/lb 5 Z' 2 3.0 ft/lb use Figure 4.13 to determine specific reflected impulse along the wall, and Figure 4.12 to determine peak reflected pressure along wall. Thus Figures 4.13 and 4.12 were used for all surfaces except the "blowout panel," where l/3 Z' = 3.88 ft/lb Inspection of 4.13 indicates Figures 4.12 that for and

Eq.

(4.15)

Fig.

4.74

Eq.

(4.9)

*The charge is much closer to the floor than other reflecting surfaces, with the nearest other surface being three times as far away. Mach waves so most of the walls and the roof "feel" impact of the form very quickly, We assume conservatively that the Mach waves load coalesced Mach waves. all of these surfaces.

4-188

Z = 2.7 St/lb l/3 interpolation is required. A &ble and graph were generated for the case of R = 18 ft and W' = 300 lb. This allowed specific reflected impulse and scaled position to be "descaled." Because of internal reflections of shocks inside the cubicle, a "reflecting" factor of 1.75 is applied to reflected impulse, and is termed "applied impulse." Peak reflected pressure, reflected impulse, and "applied impulse" are tabulated for various values of wall position X. These quantities are also plotted as a function of wall position X, Figures 4.75 through 4.78. To obtain an "average" value of specific impulse, various methods can be used; the sophistication depending upon the degree of accuracy required. It was observed that straight line represented reflected impulse as a function of wall position quite well. An equation representing the line of best "eyeball" fit through the data was determined (See Figure It was of the form: 4.75). i(X) =mX+b where i(X) = applied specific impulse m = slope of line b = Y intercept The average specific impulse is then: (See Figure 4.79) Area i(X) dA = Jr i A av or expressed in polar coordinates a, o>*

Table 4.13 Fig. 4.75 Fig. 4.76

Fig. Fig.

4.12 4.13

&

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

4.14, 4.75, 4.76, 4.77 4.78

&

Fig.

4.75

(4.76)

*This

caordinate

system

convention

is

illustrated

in

Figure

4.14

as

(X,

a).

4-189

0.6

applied

= -0.0233 [Equation A]

x + 0.7

-.0183 X + .65 For Xmax > 18

[Equa B]

l "Eyeball" 0.2 Linear Curve

Calculated

Values Fits

rl

a 2

W' = 300 lb TNT Normal Distance to Wall

= 18 ft

0.1 0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 Distance 16.0 Along Wall 20.0 X , Ft 24.0 28.0

Figure

4.75

Applied

Reflected

Specific

Impulse

Along

Wall

103
-

lo2 0.0 4.0

-I

8.0 Distance

12.0

16 .o Along Wall X , Ft

20.0

24

.o

28

.o

Figure

4.76

Peak

Reflected

Pressure

Along

Wall

.5

.G .iY5 .3 -.0060& X [Equathn Z]

.2

.1 :J - = 300 lb TNT Normd Mstance ,s Gall = 26 Et

Figure

4.77

Applied

Reflected

Specific

Impulse

Along

Wall

4-192

200

I.-

180

160

140

120

100

W = 300 lb TNT ?Iormal Distance = 26 ft

60 0

I 4

I a Distance

I 12 Along Wall

I 16 S , Ft

I 20

I 24 28

Figure

4.78

Peak

Reflected

Pressure

Along

Wall

4-193

i =()
2

'arc

tan

(Y/U)

U/cos@ (m (
0

av

2YU
r/2

+ b)

XdXdO +

I,
0

arc tan(Y/U) 0 where Y and U are defined in Figure 4.79. The integration of the above expression gives the following equation for the average impulse over a wall or roof surface sin

Y/sin@ (mX + b) XdXdO .

(4.77)

cos
mY -3 3

@ + mu3 log 3

tan

(n/4

+ @/2)

a
mY (log tan
a/2)

cos sin
2

0 - $

+ 2bYU

where Cp = arc tan (Y/U) The average'values of reflected specific impulse thus calculated are listed at the bottom of each data table.
113 If Z' > 3.0 ft/lb use slant range Figure 4.11 to calculate reflected impulse and pressure along the wall or roof (ignore angle of obliquity). This procedure was used to calculate the blast load on the "blowout panel." The slant range is defined in the same manner as in TM 5-1300, i.e.,

(4.78)

(4.79)

and

R-=dT The scaled slant Figure 4.11 is

range

for

use in

14.80)

l/3 Z* = R'/W' l/3 ft/lb These calculations are tabulated in Tables 4.13 and 4.14 and are also graphed as applied reflected impulse and peak reflected pressure versus wall distance X. Again, a straight line was fitted through the plot of

4-194

The geometry of Equations (4.76) through (4.79) is illustrated in Figure 4.79. Fortunately, for the Example Problem, there was Borne geometric symmetry becnuHe of charge location. The rear and front wnlle required only one calculation of average specific impulse, and the rooF and aideR required two calculatione. For the general .cnee, however, four calculations may be required, one for each quadrant, The overall average impulse on the wall ia then
i

av

lnv

Al + i 2av h2 + i3av A3 + i4av A1 + A2 + A3 + A4

*4

Figure

4.79

Geometry Specific

of Proctldurc to Calculate Reflected Impulse

Average

4-195

Table

4.13

For

Blast Loads As A Function Minimum Standoff - 18 ft,

Of Wall Position W - 300 lb

X,

psi-set X/R 0
0.25 0.5 0.75

lb1'3
0.57 0.52 0.41 0.31 0.24

X ft
0.0 4.5 9.0 13.5 18.0 22.5 27.0

pr Psi 1000.
880. 530. 310. 210. 150. 115.

i psi-aec
0.38 0.35 0.27 0.21 0.16

- 1.751* applied psi-set --0.67 0.61 0.47 0.37 0.28 0.23

1.0
1.25 1.5

0.19
0.155

0.13 0.10 --, -----.

0.18

*Average

Impulse

Over

Different

Wall ElemcntR

Rear i av

Wall - 0.556 psi-set [Equation A wed.

SW Figure 4.753

Side i av

Walls
= 0.548

psi-set

[Equation

B used.

see I'igurc

4.751

Roof f av
- 0.540 psi-set

[Equation

l3 used.

Set

Figure

4.751

4-196

Table

4.14

"Blowout

Panel"

Blast

Loads

Slant x ft +R-

Range

z* = d$;3x2 ir psi-set Pr psi ir applied* psi-set

ft2

ft/lb

113

0.

26.0 26.4 27.5 29.3 31.6 34.4 37.5

3.88 3.94 4.11 4.38 4.72 5.14 5.60

0.268 0.265 0.254 0.241 0.224 0.204 0.184

190

0.469

4.5
9.

185 165 145 120

95

0.462 0.444 0.422

0.392

13.5 18. 22.5 27.

0.357 0.322

85

*Average

Impulse

Over

Blowout

Panel

i av = 0.448

psi-set

[Equation

C used.

See Figure

4.771

4-197

b).

i versus X, and an average specific impulse was thus obtained (See Figures 4.77 and 4.78). No attempts were made to compute an average peak reflected pressure over the wall surface. This was because the fictitious number developed would have little meaning in contrast to average specific impulse. However, if an "average" peak reflected overpressure value is required, it is suggested that one use the procedure illustrated in TM 5-1300 (also See 1.b. of this Example Problem). It is assumed that the reader has access to and has read the TM 5-1300 manual. The details of the procedures used in TM S-1300 will not be repeated in this manual. From the data given, the following parameters are determined.* N=4 W = 150 lb H = 44 ft L = 36 ft h = 18 ft Q = 18 St R = 18 ft A h/H = 0.409 Q/L = 0.5 L/RA = 2.0 L/H = .818 W* = W X 1.20 = 180 lb

= 3.2 ft/lb113 zA It can be seen that to determine ib, the average scaled specific impulse, interpolation is required in h/H and L/H, and extrapolation in ZA using Figures 4.59 and 4.62 of the TM 5-1300 manual*. The average reflected impulse values thus obtained are: Rear wall T 0.79 psi-set %= *The nomenclature used here is that of TM 5-1300. meanings from similar symbols in this manual. Some terms have different

4-198

Side Roof

walls

ib

= 0.63 psi-set

psi-set

L$ = 0.74

The "average" peak reflected pressure on the walls was also calculated (See page 4-12 of TM 5-1300 The values obtained were: Manual). Rear wall: Pr = 145 psig Side Roof: walls: P_ = 57 psig Pr = 67cpsig

2.

a).

Observe that TM 5-1300 does not yield load for a franthe effects of a blast gible wall. Calculate quasi-static pressure load. This problem has already been worked in Example Problem 4.11. The values obtained will be restated below. = 40 psig ' = 1.192 psi-set I& Td = 0.079eec

'QS

b) .

The quasi-static pressure inside the room is calculated in TM 5-1300 to be 51 psig (See page 4-60 of TM 5-1300 Manual). No blowdown time Td (time to return to ambient) or can be obtained from g TM 5-1300. The procedure developed above (1.a. and 2.a.) assumes that the only tools available to the user are paper, pencil, and a simple, nonprogrammable calculator. To a large extent, one must work the above problem in "reverse." First, one must decide what type of structural analysis procedure will be used. Then, depending upon the degree of sophistication of the structural analysis procedure, a "forcing" function or 'blast" load of corresponding sophistication is developed. The methods developed in Sections 1.a. and 2.a. allow one to tailor the "blast load" or "forcing function" to his own needs. In contrast, the methods of i for pressure gas impulse

4-199

TM 5-1300 allow less flexibility and supply less information, particularly about quasi-static pressure loads. Unfortunately, both methods are limited by lack of data in some regions. The results obtained by TM 5-1300 were more conservative for this particular example, although the answers in general were numerically quite close.

0
4-200

4.9

LIST A A plate

OF SYMBOLS loaded surface internal vent sound area velocity fluid constant sound for decay velocity air blast constant wave for gas pressure charge area area of an impulsively area of loaded plate

As A a a b
C 0 V

surface

a chamber

ambient decay

an exponential diameter total energy wall specific dynamic gas phase

D E Ef H i 54 I8 i ii r + s' s

of a cylindrical explosive flux source density in

explosive energy air blast

wave

thickness impulse pressure positive specific specific specific specific specific for impulse impulse impulse impulse impulse simple in in in reflected side-on side-on system air blast blast

positive phase blast wave positive wave negative wave spring length mass of phase phase constant of

mechanical

a cylindrical mechanical

explosive system

charge

simple

4-201

mass of mass of

air

engulfed

behind

a shock

front

explosive and air to air engulfed blast forms of behind

total mass of explosive a strong shock front m P, i, R, S, etc. weight barred various maximum maximum peak ps+ side-on side-on absolute ambient peak peak of human quantities physical absolute gage subjected

are nondimensional quantities gas pressure

pl 'QS pr Ps' %P PO

gas pressure overpressure air air blast blast overpressure volume

reflected peak peak

pressure atmospheric pressure in in air of shock air blast wave wave

Ps
Q c!
R

absolute dynamic

pressure pressure in center

blast wave

dynamic distance radius

pressure from of

explosive

source charge

r Ratio

a spherical equivalent charge

explosive spherical mass or multiple

ratio of cylindrical spacing duration

charge charges

mass to

S Td

of of

double

gas. venting

overpressure

4-202

duration reflected duration side-on time

of equivalent blast of equivalent blast

triangular

pulse,

Ts
t t

triangular

pulse,

a + td

shock duration duration

wave of of

arrival positive negative between

time phase phase sequentially of of air air blast blast detonated wave wave

td' td

tdelay

time delay explosives end of time venting blast shock velocity particle for

5 tm
t max 'tb

internal maximum time duration front of

blast

loading

phase response

structural

t0 U ur u
U S

for velocity reflected in velocity

internal of air

blasts blast front wave blast

from wave

TM!5-1300

wave air in

velocity particle of

blast air

peak volume

wave

chamber velocity for spalling

vf

average stress total effective weight

fragment wave velocity explosive charge of charge

W W' wc

weight weight casing

4-203

characteristic dimension of chamber; horizontal distance reflected blast waves parameters dimensional scaled scaled effective angle angle ratio specific ambient.air peak peak of of of in cylindrical distance for for

uniformly vented off normal for

x9 Y 2 2 2* a e

charge

data

fits

scaled

distance distance vent incidence reflection specific heat

modified corrected area ratio for for heats of detonation

casing altitude

effect

oblique oblique for

shock shock

reflection reflection

"R Y AH @o Or 0 x s

a gas of an explosive

temperature behind behind reflected incident shock shock wave wave

temperature temperature

a general geometry; fit inverse density ambient peak peak of in

scaling factor; scaling parameter in cylindrical

factor for charge data

shock air

strength blast wave

fluid density density

density behind in shock reflected front shock wave

wave-induced

stress

4-204

ultimate
U

tensile venting

strength time for simple mechanical system

scaled circular

frequency

4-205

4 .lO REFERENCES 4.1 4.2

Baker, 1973. W. E., Explosions in Air, University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas,

Structures to Resist the Effects of Accidental Explosions, Department the Army Technical Manual TM 5-1300, Department of the Navy Publication NAVFAC P-397, Department of the Air Force Manual AFM 88-22, Department of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, June 1969. "Suppressive Shields Corps of Engineers, Structural Huntsville Design Division,

of

4.3
\ !

and Analysis Handbook," U. S. Army HNDM-1110-l-2, November 1977. Part I - ExploWeapons Center,

4.4

"Explosion Effects and Properties: Swisdak, M. M., Jr., sion Effects in Air," NSWC/WOL/TR 75-116, Naval Surface White Oak, Silver Spring, MD, October 1975. Goodman, H. J., "Compiled Free Air Blast lite," BRL Report 1092, Aberdeen Proving Strehlow, Accidental pp. 27-60,

4.5 4.6

Data on Bare Spherical Ground, MD, 1960.

Pento-

R. A. and Baker, W. E., "The Characterization and Evaluation Explosions," Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 2, 1976.

of 1,

4.7 4.8

Glasstone, Samuel and Dolan,' Philip United States Department of Defense U. S. Energy Research and Development tions Office, "Report of Investigation juries in Bldg. 11-14A on March 30, Texas," June 1977.

J., "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons," and U. S. Department of Energy, 1977. Administration Albuquerque Operaof the Explosion with Fatal In1977, at the Pantex Plant-Amarillo,

4.9

Design Handbook, Explosive U. S. Army Material Command, "Engineering Series Properties of Explosives of Military Interest," AMCP 706-177, Headquarters, U, S, Army Material Command, January 1971. Dobratz, Brigitta M., "Properties of Chemical Explosions and Explosive Simulants," UCRL-51319 Rev. 1, U. S. Atmoic Energy Commission Contract No. W-7405-Eng-48, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, University of California, Livermore, California, July 1974. C. H. and Persson, P. A.. Detonics -- of London and New Pork, 1970. Handbook, Principles U. S. Army Material Ordnance Board High Explosives, Aca-

4.10

4.11 Johansson,
demic 180, 4.13 Press,

4.12 Engineering
Hopkinson,

Design Headquarters, B.,

of Explosive Behavior, AMCP 706Command, Washington, 13. C., 1972. Minrltes 13565, 1915.

British

4-206

4.14 4.15 4.16

Cranz, Sachs, ture,"

C.,

Lehrbuch

der

Ballistik,

Springer-Verlag,

Berlin,

1926. and Tempera-

R. G., "The Dependence of Blast BRL Report 466, Aberdeen Proving

on Ambient Pressure Ground, MD, 1944.

and Explosives in Air," Kennedy, W. D., "Explosions Summary Technical and Explosion, M. T. White (ea.), D. C., AD 221 586, 1946. NDRC, Vol. I, Washington, Potter, R. and Jarvis, Free Air from Spherical Atomic Energy Authority,

in Effects of Impact Report of Div. 2, Wave in Kingdom

4.17

Study of the Shock C. V., "An Experimental Charges of TNT and 60/40 RDX/TNT," United AWRE Report No. 0 l/73, 1973. Weight Factors for AFX-103 and AFX-702," Research Laboratory,

4.18

"Equivalent Goodman, H. J. and Giglio-Tos, L., Plastic Bonded Explosives: PBX-108, PB-109, cal Report ARBRL-TR-02057, U. S. Army Ballistic Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, April 1978.

Four Techni-

4.19

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1976, NOAA-S/T 76-1562, U. S. Government Printing

U. S. Standard Atmosphere, Office, October 1976.

4.20

Jack, W. H. Jr. and Armendt, B. F. Jr., "Measurements of Normally Reflected Shock Parameters under Simulated High Altitude Conditions," BRL Report No. 1280, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, AD 469014, April 1965. Dewey, J. M., Johnson, 0. T. and Patterson, J. pulse Measurements Close to Explosive Charges," Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, November 1962. Johnson, 0. T., Patterson, cal Method for Measuring Report No. 1099, Aberdeen D., II, "Mechanical Im BRL Report No. 1182,

4.21

4.22

J. D., II, and Olson, W. C., "A Simple Mechanithe Reflected Impulse of Air Blast Waves," BRL Proving Ground, MD, July 1957. Normally Reflected Report No. 1499, Shock Aberdeen Waves from Proving

4.23

Jack, W. H., Jr., "Measurements of Explosive Charges," BRL Memorandum Ground, MD, AD 422886, July 1963.

4.24

Wenzel, A. B. and Esparza, E. D., "Measurements of Pressures and Impulses at Close Distances from Explosive Charges Buried and in Air," Final Report on Contract No. DAAK 02-71-C-0393 with U. S. Army MERDC, Ft. Belvoir, VA, 1972. Baker, Blast W. E., Waves," "Prediction Int. Jour. and Scaling Mech. Sci., of Reflected 9, pp. 45-51, Impulse 1967. from Strong

4.25 4.26

Doering, W. and Burkhardt, G., "Contributions to the Theory of Detonation," Translation from the German as Tech. Report No. F-TS-1227-IA (GDAM A9-T-4G), Headquarters, Air Material Command, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, May 1949.

4-207

4.27

Brode, H. L., "Quick Estimates of Peak Overpressure from Two Simultaneous Blast Waves," Defense Nuclear Agency Report No. DNA4503T, Contract No. DNAOOl-78-C-0009, R&D Associates, KDA-TR-107006-008, Marina Del Rey, California, December 1977. Harlow, F. H. and Amsden, A. A., "Fluid Dynamics---An Introductory 4100, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, University of New Mexico, February 1970. Damage Mechanisms April 1973. Computer Program," JTCG/ME-73-3, California,

4.28

4.29

"Internal Blast F08635-71-C-0199,

4.30

Dewey, J. M., Johnson, 0. T. and Patterson, J. D., II, "Some Effects of Light Surrounds and Casings on the Blast From Explosives," BRI, Report No. 1218, (AD 346965), .September 1963. Filler, W. S., "The Effect of A Case on Air Blast Friable Inert Cases," NOLTR 74-62, Naval Ordnance April 9, 1974. of Wisotski, 5. and Snyer, W. H., "Characteristics from Cylindrical High Explosive Charges,'" University Research Institute, November 1965. Measurements, Laboratory, Part I, White Oak,

4.31

4.32

Blast Waves Obtained of Denver, Denver

4.33

Plooster, M. N., "Blast Front Pressure From Cylindrical Explosives,"' Naval Weapons Center Technical Memorandum Contract No. N00123-76-C-0166, Denver Research Institute, Makino, Differen? R. C. and Goodman, H. J., Shapes and Compositions,"
V

Charges of High No. 3631, Navy September 1978. of

4.34 4.35

"Air Blast Data on Bare Explosive BRL Report No. 1015, 1956. Minutes of 14th 1972, Department

Yield Criteria," Reisler, R. C., "Explosive Safety Seminar, New Orleans, 8-10 November Explosives Safety Board, pp. 271-288.

Explosives of Defense

4.36

Adams; Channing L.,, Sarmousakis, James N. and Sperrazza, parison of the Blast from Explosive Charges of Different Ballistic Research Laboratories, Aberdeen Proving Ground, No. 681, January 1949.

Joseph, "ComShapes," MD, Report Conditions Sm ,

4.37

of Charge Composition and Surface Trancreto, J. E., "Effects Minutes of the 16th Explosives Safety on Blast Environment," Vol. I, Hollywood, FL, pp. 301-334, September 1974. Zaker, T. A., "Blast Institute, Chicago, 1969. Pressures Illinois, From Sequential Phase Report II,

4.38

Explosions," IIT Research Project 56166, March 25,

4-208 1.

4.39

Reisler, R. E., Kennedy, L. W. and Keefer, ,I. H., "High Explosive Multiburst Air Blast Phenomena (Simultaneous and Non-Simultaneous Detonations), February 1979. U. S. BRL Technical Report No. ARBRL-TR-02142, Armendt, B. R., Hippensteel, Air Blast From Simultaneously Aberdeen search Laboratories, 1294, August 1960. Armendt, B, F., Hippensteel, ject White Tribe: Air Blast Explosive Charges," Ballistic Ground, Maryland, BRL Report R. G., Hoffman, A. J., Kingery, C. N., "The Detonated Explosive Spheres," Ballistic ReProving Ground, Maryland, BRL Report No.

4.40

4.41

R. G., Hoffman, A. J., Keefer, J. H., "ProFrom Simultaneously Detonated Large Scale 'Research Laboratories., Aberdeen Proving No. 1145, September 1961.

4.42

Armendt, B. F., Hippensteel, R. G., Hoffman, A. J., Schlueter, S. D., "The Air Blast From Simultaneously Detonated Explosive Spheres: Part II Optimization," Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, Ballistic Research Laboratories, Department of the Army Project No. 503-04-002, BRL Memorandum Report No. 1384, January 1962. Hokanson, surements Explosives J. C., Esparza, Around Multiple Safety Seminar, E. D. and Wenzel, A. B., "Reflected Blast MeaDetonating Charges," Minutes of the Eighteenth Vol. I, pp. 447-471, September 1978.

4.43

4.44

of the Loading and Response of a Suppressive Gregory, F. H., "Analysis Shield When Subjected to an Internal Explosion," Minutes of the 17th Explosive Safety Seminar, Denver, Colorado, September 1976. Baker, W. E., "The Elastic-Plastic Internal Blast Loading," Jour. 144, March 1960. Response of Appl. Mech., Thin Spherical Shells 27, Series E, 1, pp. "Elastic Jour. to 139-

4.45

of

4.46

Baker, W. E., Hu, W. C. L. and Jackson, T. R., Spherical Shells to Axisymmetric Blast Loading," Series E, 4, pp. 800-806, December 1966.

Response of Thin of Appl. Mech., 33,

4.47

Kingery, CA N., Schumacher, R. N. and Ewing, W. O., Jr., "Internal Pressures from Explosions in Suppressive Structures," BRL Interim Memorandum Report No. 403, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, June 1975. Schumacher, R. N., Kingery, C. N., Ewing, W. O., Jr., "Air Blast Structural Response Testing of a l/4 Scale Category I Suppressive BRL Memorandum Report No. 2623, May 1976. Esparza, E. D., Baker, W. E. and Oldham, G. A., "Blast and Outside Suppressive Structures," Edgewood Arsenal EM-CR-76042, Report No. 8, December 1975. Pressures Contractor and Shield," Inside Report

4.48

4.49

4-209

. 0
4.50 Weibull, Explosion 152, Art. H. R. W., "Pressures Recorded in Partially of TNT Charges," Annals of the New York -. 1, pp. 256-361, October 1968. Closed Chambers at Academy of Sciences,

4.51

Proctor, J. F. and Filler, W. S., "A Computerized Technique for Blast Loads from Confined Explosions," Minutes of the 14th Annual Explosives Safety Seminar, New Orleans, Louisiana, pp. 99-124, 8-10 November 1972. Keenan, W, A. and Trancreto, "Blast Environment from Fully Civil Engineering Laboratory, Hueneme, CA, November 1975. J. E., Tech. Report TR-828, Army MIPR 51-027, and Partially Vented Explosions in Cubicles," Naval Construction Battalion Center, Port

4.52

4.53

Zilliacus, S., Phyillaier, W. E. and Shorrow, P. I., Naval Ship'R&D Center Report 3987, "The Response of Clamped Circular Plates to Confined Explosive Loadings," NSRDC, Rethesda, MD, February 1974. Kinney, ing of G. F. and Sewell, Explosions," Naval R. G. S., NWC Technical Weapons Center, China Memorandum 2448, "VentLake, CA, July 1974. Quasi-static Report EM-CR0

4.54

4.55

Baker, W. E. and Oldham, G. A., "Estimates of Blowdown of Pressures in Vented Chambers," Edgewood Arsenal Contractor 76029, Report No. 2, November 1975. Owczarek, PA, 1964. J. A., Fundamentals of Gas Dynamics, Int. Textbook

4.56

Co.,

Scranton,

4.57

Kulesz, J. J., Moseley, P. K. and Baker, W. E., "Fragment and Blast Hazards From Explosions in a Tender Torpedo Workshop," Vol. 1, Final Report Prepared for the David Taylor Ship Research and Development Center, Contract No. N00014-77-C-0658, November 1978. Taylor, D. B. and Price, C. F., "Velocities Gas Reservoirs," ASME Transactions, Journal November 1971. of of Fragments Engineering from Bursting for Industry,

4.58

4.59

Baker, W. E., Kulesz, J. J., Ricker, R. E., Bessey, R. L., Westine, P. S., Parr, V. B. and Oldham, for Predicting Pressure Wave and G. A., "'Workbook Fragment Effects of Exploding Propellant Tanks and Gas Storage Vessels," NASA CR-134906, November 1975. Kot, C. A., Valentin, R. A., McLennan, D. A., Turula, P., "Effects of Air Argonne National LaboraBlast on Power Plant Structures and Components," tory Report No. ANL-CT-78-41, Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, Illinois, 60439, Prepared for Division of Engineering W. S. Nuclear Regulatory ComStandards, Office of Standards Development, mission, October 1978.

4.60

4-210

4.61

White, C. S., "The Scope of Blast and Shock Biology and Problem Areas Relating Physical and Biological Parameters," Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 152, Art. 1, pp. 89-102, October 1968. White, C. W., Jones, R. K., Damon, E. G., Fletcher, E. R. and Richmond, Technical Report to Defense NuD. R., "The Biodynamics of Air Blast," clear Agency, DNA 2738T, Lovelace Foundation for Medical Education and Research, AD 734-208, JULY 1971.

in

4.62

4.63

Richmond, D. R., Damon, E. G., Fletcher, E. R., Bowen, I. G. and White, C. "The Relationship Between Selected Blast Wave parameters and the ReS Annals of the New York Academy s&se of Mammals Exposed to Air Blast," of Sciences, Vol. 152, Art. 1, pp. 103-121, October 1968. Damon, E. G., Yelverton, J. T., Luft, U. C. and Jones, R. K., "Recovery of the Respiratory System Following Blast Injury," Technical Progress ReDASA 2580, Lovelace Foundation for port to Defense Atomic Support Agency, Medical Education and Research, AD 618369, October 1970. Bowen, I. G., Fletcher, E. R., Richmond, D. R., "Estimate of Man's TolerTechnical Report to Defense ance to the Direct Effects of Air Blast," Atomic Support Agency, DASA 2113, Lovelace Foundation for Medical Education and Research, AD 693105, October 1968. Damon, E. G., Richmond, D. R;, Fletcher, E. R. and Jones, R. K., "The Final Report to Defense Nuclear Agency, Tolerance of Birds to Air Blast," DNA 3314F, Lovelace Foundation for Medical Education and Research, AD 785259, July 1974. von Gierke, H. E., "Biodynamic Medical Research Laboratory, Hirsch, Academy A. E.; "The of Sciences, Models and Their Applications," Aerospace Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, AD 736-985, 1971. the New York 1968.

4.64

4.65

4.66

4.67 4.68 4.69

Tolerance of Man to Impact," Annals of Vol. 152, Art. 1, pp. 168-171, October

Clemedson, C. J., Hellstrom, G. and Lingren, S., "The Relative Tolerance of the Head, Thorax, and Abdomento Blunt Trauma," Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 152, Art. 1, pp. 187+, October 1968. "Criteria for Assessing Hearing Damage Risk from ImpulseRoss, R., et al., Noise Exposure," Human Engineering Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, AD 666-206, August 1967. Reed, J. W., Pape, B. J., Minor, J. C. and DeHart, R. C., "Evaluation of Window Pane Damage Intensity in San Antonio Resulting from Medina Facility Annals of the New York Academyof - Sciences, Explosion on November 13, 1963," Vol. 152, Art. 1, pp. 565-584, October 1968.

4.70

4.71 4

4-211

4.72 Kulesz,
Minutes

J. of S.,

J. and Friesenhahn, the 19th Explosives

G. J., Safety

"Explosion Seminar,

(to

Venting in Buildings.," be published). Average Blast May 1970. Concrete Slabs Engineering

4.73 Levy,
Impulse 4.74

"An Improved Computer Program to Calculate the Loads Acting on a Wall of a Cubicle," PA-TR-4070, of Reinforced Naval Facilities

Ferritto, J. M., "Optimum Dynamic Design Under Blast Loading," CEL TN No. N-1494, Center, Port Hueneme, CA, July 1977. Bacigalupi, UCRL-52921, of C. M., "Design Lawrence Livermore

4.75

a Maze Structure to Attenuate Blast Waves," Laboratory, Livermore, CA, March 1980.

4-212

CHAPTER 5 CRATERING AND GROUND SHOCK

5.1

INTRODUCTION

types of ground If an accidental explosion occurs , many different The ground shock is capable of causing soil shock problems can arise. craters to be formed; walls, floors, and roofs of adjacent structures to fail; explosives, equipment, and personnel inside adjacent structures to be vibrated; and off-site neighbors to be disturbed because of cracked All of these problems are caused by walls and physically felt tremors. ground shock and any subsequent cratering. At interline standoff distances, buildings are usually safe from ground shock related damage, but this should be checked. At the Pantex Plant, at least three different ground shock related accident scenarios can be envisioned. The first problem can be described as an explosion in an earth-covered storage this problem can be idealized igloo. If explosives fill most of the igloo, as a buried detonation without a gap between the explosive and the soil. A crater will be formed as ejecta are flung into the air and a strong ground shock will be propagated away from the scene of the accident as the coupling between the explosive and the soil will be extremely strong. The second type of accident can be described as an explosion caused by impact when a charge accidentally falls on a floor or walkway, thus Only minor causing a contact explosion on the surface of the ground. cratering will occur near the point of contact from a contact explosion, Deep in the ground but a shock wave will be propagated through the soil. directly beneath the explosion, the ground shock will be small, but near the surface, Rayleigh-type shock waves can result in ground motion of significant amplitude. The third accident scenario can be envisioned as an accidental explosion in a building such as Building 12-44, a Gravel-Gertie type bay. Such an accident is a buried detonation; however, a large air gap or void now exists between the explosive charge and the soil behind the walls of the bay. The ground shock transmitted into the soil will be greatly reduced because *a large air gap results in decoupling the explosive charge from the ground, thereby having an effective energy release which is Another subproblem which much smaller than the actual energy release. exists in this third accident scenario is breeching of the roof. All of these possible which subsequently result major difference in these In addition with the soil. accidents involve direct-induced ground shock The in structural damage or injured personnel. solutions involves the coupling of the blast source to the directly induced ground shock, air-

5-1

induced ground motions are possible* tions such as those associated with energy releases. For the design of does not have to consider air-induced energy releases are too small to be explosives. This plants. in the in the

, especially for extremely large detonanuclear weapons or the equivalent Pantex-type buildings, an A-E firm ground shock because the possible significant for conventional chemical

report was written to aid A-E firms in If an accidental explosion occurs, total near field. Therefore, emphasis is placed far field rather than close to the donor.

the design destruction on ground

of

ammunition often occurs shock effects

In Section 5.2, a general discussion of what makes soil different from other continua is presented. This discussion includes how sands differ from clays, what is effective stress, and why continuum solutions are used even though pore air and pore water pressures influence results. We discuss how soil particle velocity is related to shock front pressure P and how maximum soil displacement X is related to the impulse in a shot E wave is. In addition, this section discusses what soils should be expected at the Pantex plant site, and references a report for obtaining additional onsite soil details. Section 5.3 is a general discussion of ground shock. Subjects discussed in this section include: 1) wave propagation through a homogeneous, isotropic, semi-infinite elastic medium, 2) a sketch of typical ground motiontime history, 3) the distinction between P-waves, S-waves, and R-waves, 4) insight into the effects of layering on wave propagation, 5) insight into how waves are damped, and 6) references on trenches and other screening devices. Finally, an approximate graphical solution is given for predicting the radial soil displacement X and the maximum soil particle velocity U from tamped buried explosive charge detonations. Section 5.4 presents a coupling solution for modifying the buried detonation ground motion analysis so detonations in the middle of a cavity can be analyzed. This coupling solution yields an effective energy release Weff which can then be substituted into ground motion solutions to obtain soil particle velocity and radial displacement. Section a camouflet true craters, detonation. 5.5 gives explosive cratering results for determining: 1) if or crater is formed, 2) the size and volume of apparent craters, camouflets, and 3) the maximum range of ejecta from a buried All of these solutions are empirical curve fits to test data.

In Section 5.6, the effects of ground motion on buildings, equipment, and people are discussed. This is accomplished by deriving shock spectra criteria with a qualitative model and then presenting various criteria which historically have been used to limit the amplitude of ground motions. Other approximate solutions are presented for estimating stresses due to 2) beam-like strips out of buried buried explosions for: 1) buried pipe, bunkers, and 3) buried cylinders or spheres.

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

5-2

Section 5.7 identifies.some special problems which need further development. Among the problems in need of additional data and the development of better analysis procedures are screening of ground shock, P-wave prediction, and shock propagation through walls and soil into maximum ejecta radius, adjacent bays. In order to make this manual more useful example problems are presented throughout the guiding designers to the appropriate sections on ground shock and cratering is presented in symbols in Section 5.9 and a list of references this section of the design guide. 5.2 5.2.1 SOIL MECHANICS OVERVIEW General Discussion to design personnel, different text. A flow diagram for and illustrative examples Section 5.8. A list of in Section 5.10 complete

To study the state of stress in the various constituents of soil, consider a cross section through two soil grains as in Figure 5.1. The total cross-sectional area subject to load P is the total area A. The two grains are only in actual physical contact over a very small area of solid contact As. In additiontothe soil grains, the voids or pores in the medium can be filled with a combination of water and air. If the soil is not saturated so that water does not fill all of the void, the water generally forms a meniscus in the narrow cracks near the grain bonndaries. This means that one can speak of the area of fluid-solid contact A and W the area of gas-solid contact A
2

Stresses or in the water, and above atmospheric equilibrium gives:

pressures p 2 in the pressure.

in the three phases are p in solid, pw gas. All of these are ove:pressures which Requiring that the sum of forces be in

are

In If

equation we define

P = UA = psAs + pwAw + P A gg (5.1), u is the total stress averaged over the total A As the ratio A to be a and the ratio F to be x, then as: i- (1 - a - x) p

(5-l) area. the total

stress

o can be written

8 The quantity a is very small as the granular contacts generally occur at a point. This observation means that a is much less than both 1 and x. The quantity aps is not insignificant, however, because ps can be very The quantity ap, is the effective large. stress i? in soil mechanics. As can be seen in equation (5.2), effective stress is related to intergranular pressure, but it is not equal to intergranular pressure because

u = aps + xp,

5-3

IL

Total

Area

A
. .
l . I . l l

Soil
f

AJea of Solid-SC Contact 'Soil Grain

Area of Fluid-Solid Contact

A

A L
W

t-

Area

of Gas-Solid contact

Figure

5.1

Intergranular

Stress

on Area

5-4

of the contact area ratio a. As far as soil failure is concerned, effective stress E (or ap,) is important and not the total stress u, because movement will occur when the grains move or displace relative Instead of using a total stress versus strain constitutive one another. soil mechanics classically requires an effective stress relationship, versus strain constitutive relationship. If equation we make the approximations (5.2) can be written as: u = G -I- xpw f When a soil is 100 percent o=o+p Equation (5.3a) is the classical all introductory soil mechanics (5.3a) is based on 100 percent saturation, which would give: a=Z+p saturated,
W

to

which

have

just

been

described,

(1 - x)

g 1 and equation (5.3)

(5.3) becomes (5.3a) taught in equation 0.0 percent

x equals (100% saturated)

relationship which is generally courses. As should be emphasized, saturation. The other extreme is

(0.0% saturation) (5.3b) g Both extremes show that the effective stress is the total stress minus the The conclusion drawn is that the pores can be filled with pore pressures. or with a very compressible a relatively incompressible fluid such as water, state of effective fluid such as air. In either case, the instantaneous stress depends upon the pore pressures which will also be increased when a soil sample is loaded. Statically, equations (5.3) and these interrelationships cause no problems; however, dynamically, experimenters have not been very successful in separating out pore pressure and effective stress. Whereas, static pitot tubes can be used to measure pore pressures, dynamic instrumentation which might be inserted into these extremely small pores, either fail to have proper response time or give a poor impedance match. The point of this discussion is that pore pressures are important, but dynamically we do not understand them. Unfortunately, this is only the first problem in any a'ttempt to understand soil behavior. The second major problem in understanding soils is that even in soils include many types of medium. At the absence of pore pressures, oneextreme are the coarse, large-grained materials which include sands and gravels. These materials are composed of particles so large that no significant interparticle forces exist. In the absence of interparticle forces, these granular materials develop their strength from gravitational effects, or from the overburden. To penetrate a granular material or the other particles have to be shoved aside. A penetrometer shear it, pushed into a dry sand has a linearly increasing total stress versus depth

5-5

relationship because more and more overburden is being mustered as greater depths are obtained. Another illustration of this same behavior is walking on a sandy beach. Up in the dunes one sinks in above the ankles until enough overburden is obtained to resist penetration. Down at sea level where the sandissaturated, a walker sinks only a few millimeters because the pore water pressures are carrying the person's weight. If the walker stands still at the water's edge, the pore pressures flow away from the loaded area and the person begins to sink as the effective stresses must carry more and more of the load with time. Eventually the standing person will sink to a finite depth when the overburden of sand and water are adequate to support him. This behavior illustrates both the behavior of a gravitational medium and the role pore pressures play, especially if a soil is saturated. The other extreme in soil behavior is with clays. These materials are effectively colloids (often with a characteristic size of microns). In these materials, interparticle forces dominate and gravitational effects are insignificant. A penetrometer pushed into a heavily overconsolidated clay will show no change in strength with depth. Such a. materia.1 ha.s inherent constitutive strength in the classical sense, provided one speaks of an effective stress versus strain relationship. Of course, few soils are an in-between medium exhibiting silts, and all types of mixtures be layered from the contributions a pure clay or a pure sand. Silts are both behaviors, and sandy clays, clayey can exist. In addition, a soil site can of different geological eras.

In this section of the design guide, the reader will find soils treated as continua and as single phase media. This treatment is not necessarily correct; it is what everyone does out of ignorance concerning better ways of treatment. So although soil is not a continuum, total The results are often subject to judgments stress solutions are used. based on insight provided by this background information. 5.2.2 Soils at Pantex Facility

As part of a seismic hazard evaluation, URS and John Blume and Associates (Ref. 5.1) made a geological evaluation of the area around the Pantex facility. While most of this evaluation involves strata far deeper than the strata of interest in accident evaluations, the following information can be used for approximate initial evaluations. Any careful in-depth study should use bore log information or more on-site evaluations of local conditions. The uppermost layer at Pantex varies from 7 to 12 ft in thickness and has a compressive P-wave velocity c of from 950 to 1300 ft/sec. Generally, this medium is topsoil. The next layer down is a moist clay with lenses of caliche from 10 to 20 ft in thickness. The P-wave velocity

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

5-6

in this layer ranges from 1500 to 1900 ft/sec with lenses as fast as 2100 The third zone begins at a depth of about 30 ft and to 2700 ft/sec. exhibits velocities of from 3400 to 5000 ft/sec. This third zone can be some 20 ft thick and is a very stiff to hard clay with some caliche content. In all cases, the ground water table is not a factor as 300 ft depths and greater are typically experienced. If average values are used for P-wave velocities, these should be towards the slower limits, perhaps, 950 ft/sec in the top soil, 1550 ft/sec in the second zone, and 3800 ft/sec in the third zone. All of the following computations will use wave velocity ad soil density as input parameters defining soil properties. Although the URS/ John Blume report does not report soil densities, 114 lb/ft3 is an assumed representative weight density for all three layers, probably accurate to within + 15 percent. 5.2.3 Relationship Between Ground Motion and Loads disimpulse a V,

Often it is desirable to go from ground motion such as soil placement X and particle velocity U to the maximum pressure Ps and i This conversion can be done using theRankinein a ground shock. For Htgoniot relationships for conservation of mass and momentum. stationary coordinate system with a shock front moving at velocity the Rankine-Hugoniot equations are: -PsV = P, (u - V)

(5.4a)

PsV2 ps + Pa (U - VI2 =
where pa is the density behind the shock front, ps is the mass density Multiplying is the peak side-on overpressure. undisturbed soil, and Ps sides of equation (5.4a) by (U-V) and then subtracting the two equations of both gives:

Eauation (5.5) shock density, incompressible front propagatidn seismic velocity which will be

states that peak overpressure is the product of soil and peak particle velocity. In a fairly front velocity, medium such as soil with its massive particles, the shock velocity V very rapidly decays to the compressive P-wave cp. This final substitution ofcpfor V gives a relationship used many times to approximately relate Ps and U.

ment X, Because

To relate side-on one can treat P the time integrsl

impulse i and the maximum radial soil displaceand integrate equation (5.4). and cp aszonstants of pressure is impulse and the time integral of

a
5-7

velocity

is

displacement,

Integrating i
S

equation = PsCpX

(5.6j

gives: (5.7)

Equations (5.6) and (5.7) will be used repeatedly to relate ground In developing any solution for loads motions to loads from ground shock. the ground motions U and X will be predicted on any adjacent structure, first (see Section 5.3.2) and then related to the loads Ps and i S by using these relationships.

5-8

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 5.1 PROBLEM - Assume that other calculations given in Section 5.3.2 give the maximum radial soil velocity and maldmum radial soil displacement. What will be the side-on pressure P and side-on impulse i imparted to a slab on grade in the Pktex top soil where thesP-wave velocity cp and the soil*'s mass density are given in Section 5.2.2? GIVEN: = P-wave velocity (in. set) i /in.4) (lb-set ip = Mass density Us= Soil particle velocity (in./sec) X = Soil displacement (in.) Side-on 1. pressure and impulse (psi) Eq. (psi-set) (5.6) REFERENCE

FIND:

SOLUTION:

Side-on pressure = PsCpU pS Side-on impulse i S = PsCpX

2.
CAIDJLATION GIVEN: cp P Us X

Eq. (5.7)

= 11,400 in./sec = 1.71 x 10-4 lb-sec2/in.4 = 2.0 in./sec =O.lin. pressure and impulse

FIND:

Side-on 1.

SOLUTION:

Ps = pscpU Ps = (1.71 x 10-4) psi x 10-4) psi-set (11,400) (0.1) (11,400) (2.0)

2.

pS is

= 3.90 = (1.71 = 0.195

= PsCpX
S S

i i

5-9

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

5.2.4

Determination

of

Wave Length

Another calculation which will be required when the depth of Rayleigh-type R-waves (see page 5-12) and the effects of layering are discussed, is the determination of wave length L. If one knows the maximum displacement X and the peak particle velocity U (see Section 5.3.2), as well as the seismic compression P-wave propagation velocity cp, an approximate wave length is known for the P-wave. if the propagation Similarly, velocity, particle velocities and displacements are associated with either a shear or Rayleigh wave, then the wave length is known for the wave being described. By assuming undamped harmonic motion, the maximum velocity U is related to the period T and the displacement X through the equation: T to the

p&x

(5.8) period T and propagation velocity c

The wave length L then through the equation

relates

L = CT Eliminating T from equations (5.8) and (5.9) and solving for L gives:

(5.9)

z,=27T;x

(5.10)

these apply for any of No subscripts are placed on c, TJ, X and L because three types of waves (P-wave, S-wave and R-wave) which will be described in Section 5.3.1. Equation (5.10) gives the wave length as a function of For most accidents, this wave length is fairly long, typically c, X and U. The importance of this long wave length on the order of hundreds of feet. will become apparent in subsequent discussions. be given To relate frequency to period, one uses equation by many texts on simple harmonic motion. (5.11) as would

(5.11)

5-10

EXAWLE

PROBLFY

5.2

PROBLEM - Assume that other calculations maximum radial soil velocity ment. What will be the wave Rayleigh waves for a Rayleigh Section 5.3.1 for the Pantex GIVEN:

given in Section 5.3.2 give the and maximum radial soil displacelength, period, and frequency of wave velocity determined in top soil given in Section 5.2.2? is is caused caused by

U = Peak particle velocity (in./sec) (assume this by R-wave) X = Maximum soil displacement (in.) (assume this R-wave) velocity (in./sec> =R = R-wave propagation Wave length, 1. period the CR the period (set) and frequency and frequency wave length (in.)

FIND :

REFERENCE

SOLUTION:

Determine L=2lTuX

Eq.

(5.10)

2.

Determine f(sec-1) T = L/cR f = l/T

Eq. Eq.

(5.9)
(5.11)

CALCULATION
GIVEN :

U
X

= 2.0 = 0.1

CR FIND:

in./sec in. = 7,600 in./sec period LR (0.1)/2.0 and frequency

Wave length, 1.

SOLUTION:

L=2lTrX

2.

L = 2~ (7,600) in, T = L/cR

L = 2,388

T T f f

= = = =

2,388/7,600 0.3142 set l/T 3.183 HZ --

5-11

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

5.3 5.3.1

EFFECTS OF GROUND SHOCK Theoretical Wave Propagation Through Soil

To solve wave propagation problems in soils, one uses models which Usually, the simplest case is applied are but approximations of reality. semi-infinite elastic with the soil treated as a homogeneous, isotropic soils are multi-phased, nonisotropic, and layered solid. In reality, media. Elastic constants depend upon the state of stress in the ground, and deformations may in turn affect the initial internal stresses which always exist. Fortunately, for the purposes of design, a precise theory of wave propagation is not required. A disturbance near the surface of the ground will emit compression P-waves, shear S-waves, and Rayleigh surface R-waves in a semi-infinite elastic medium. Deeply buried disturbances will emit only P-waves and Swaves, but in the far field, interface effects will result in R-waves being produced. For all of these wave types, the time interval between wave front arrivals becomes greater and the amplitude of the oscillations Figure becomes smaller with increasing standoff distance from the source. 5.2 (Ref. 5.2) presents (a) radial displacement and (b) vertical displacement time histories at a surface location in an elastic half space. Figure 5.2 shows that the.first wave to arrive is the P-wave, the second the S-wave, and the third the R-wave. Lamb (Ref. 5.3) refers to the P-wave and S-wave as minor tremors, as these waves are followed by a much larger oscillation when the R-wave arrives. The R-wave is the major tremor because: 1) two-thirds of the total energy at the source goes into the R-wave, and 2) the R-wave dissipates much less rapidly with distance than either the less energetic P-wave or S-wave. P-waves and S-waves dissipate with distance r to a power of r-l to-5-2. At the surface, Pwaves and S-waves dissipate with distance as r , while R-waves dissipate with distance as r -0.5. The greater energies being transmitted by Rwaves and the slower geometric dissipation of this energy causes R-waves to be the major tremor, the disturbance of primary importance for all Figure 5.3 is a schematic drawing of the disturbances on the surface. The Love wave motion wave motions propagated from a buried detonation. shown in Figure 5.3 does not occur in unlayered media, but it will be discussed later in this section. The locus of surface particle motion for an R-wave describes a retrograde ellipse in the plane of the radial from the source as shown in Figure 5.3. The motion begins by raising the surface slightly and moving towards the source. Eventually, the surface moves away and down. In the absence of layering, there is no transverse motion in the horizontal plane; hence, no third axis is shown in Figure 5.2. All R-waves travel extensively near the surface as they dissipate rapidly with depth. Figure 5.4 (Ref. 5.2) presents scaled plots of the radial and vertical R-wave amplitudes as functions of scaled depth. As can be observed, the vertical 5-12

(a)

radial P-Wave

displacement

history

(+ away) I S-Wave R-Wave

I(b) vertical

Minor

Tremo+&jbr

Trem6j

displacement

history

(+ down

Figure 5.2 Radial Displacement (b) from Point Source at Surface

History (a) of Elastic

and Vertical Displacement Medium (Reference 5.2)

History

5-13

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

r-l

SOURCE

TRANS. PATH I

RECORD. SITE

Love Wave, Rayleigh he

Figure

5.3.

Schematic Illustration of the Waves Propagated from an Energy Source

5-14

of approximately 0.16 wavedisplacement component is a maximum at a depth At depths up to approximately 0.4 wavelengths, the vertical compolengths. At depths greater than 0.5 nent of the R-wave changes relatively little. wavelengths, the vertical displacement decays rapidly (almost exponentially) The radial R-wave displacement component begins to decay with added depth. At depths greater than immediately with increased depth from the surface. the particle motion associated with the R-waves changes 0.2 wavelengths, from describing a retrograde ellipse to describing prograde motion, motion which begins by raising the particle and moving away from the source and The negative signs in Figure 5.4 finally moves towards the source and down. mean that motion has changed from retrograde to prograde motion. Figure 5.5 presents the relationship between P-wave, S-wave, and R-wave velocities of propagation in a plot of wave velocity divided by the S-wave velocity as a function of Poisson's ratio. All of these wave velocities are functions of m (where G is shear modulus and p is density) As is also apparent in Figure and are a function of Poisson's ratio v. 5.2, the P-wave travels much faster than other waves, the R-wave travels the slowest, but it travels at just under the S-wave velocity of propagation. The shear wave velocity of propagation c is related to the shear modulus of elasticity G and the mass density p, 'by equation (5.12). (5.12)

C S

JGIPS

Vibration measurements around sources show that the disturbance is not confined to the vertical plane through the radial line from the Waves transverse to the vertical plane generally arise from layersource. ing or various strata in a soil.' The appearance of another soil layer causes at least two different phenomena. The first phenomenon is the appearance of another type of surface wave called the Love wave or L-wave. The L-wave causes transverse horizontal oscillations to occur as seen in Figure 5.3, and is sustained by repeated multiple reflections between the surface and underlying layer. For an L-wave to arise, the shear modulus of underlying layer must be greater than the shear modulus of the overlaying layer. The L-wave will not occur if the covering layer is stiffer. The velocity of an L-wave is between the shear wave velocities of the covering and the underlying layers. Barkan (Ref. 5.4) has an excellent discussion of the L-wave phenomenon. The second phenomenon that occurs in a layered system is a distortion in R-wave propagation velocity and in the elliptical trajectories associated with particle motion. Figure 5.6 from Reference 5.4 is a plot of the scaled increase in propagation velocity ca/c as a function of the shear modulus G = E/2(l+v) (Gl in the top layer and G in the bottom layer) and the scaled layer thickness in wavelengths H/L. If H/L is larger than 0.5, the influence of a second underlying layer is minimal in Figure 5.6. On the other hand, when H/L is less than 0.5, an intense increase occurs

5-15

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

Amplitude Amplitude 0 0.2

at Depth z at Surface 0.4 0.6 0.8

1.0

1.2

0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

I I

1.4

Figure

5.4

Dimensionless Displacement versus Ratios for R-Wave (Ref. 5.2)

Depth

3 (0 Y 2

piy=--

0.1

0.2 Poisson'e

0.3 Ratio. v

0.4

Figure

5.5

Velocity of Wave Front Propagation (Ref. 5.2)

5-16

in wave propagation velocity wavelength. The coefficient modulus ratio; it increases overlying layer.

with this change of proportionality as the underlying

almost proportional depends upon the layer grows stiffer

to the shear than the

2. ,20

2, 1. 80 60

2 u

1.

1. 1. 0 Figure 5.6 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Wave H/L Layering Velocity

Effect of Propagation

on Increasing (Ref. 5.4)

Figure 5.7 shows the change in the ratio of radial to vertical displacements on the surface of an upper layer when a stiff underlying For short waves with L/H < 2.0, the ratio of radial layer is present. For wavelengths and vertical displacement components change very little. in layer thicknesses between around 2.0 and 4.0, the ellipse of particle motions becomes elongated in the vertical direction, and when the waveare elongated in the radial lengths grow larger than 4.0, these ellipses direction.. Larger differences in the shear moduli G cause enhanced changes in the ratio of radial to vertical displacement.

5-17

1.4 c 1.2 1.0 0.8

0.6 0.4 0.2 0

I !

Gl = 5Q _I

1
0

I
2

I
4

I
6

I
8

I
10

1
12

I
14

I
16

I
18

I
20

J 22

L/H
Figure 5.7 Effect (Ref. of Layering 5.4) on Particle Motions

5-18

EXAMPLEPROBLEM5.3 PROBLEM Borings show that a soil 14 ft deep overlies a very deep subMeasured P-wave propagation velocity in the top layer layer. What will is 950 ft/sec and in the bottom layer is 1645 ft/sec. be: 1) the R-wave velocities in each medium, 2) the effective R-wave propagation velocity in the top layer, and 3) the maximum if calculations in Section 5.3.2 vertical particle displacement, show that the radial maximum soil displacement equals 0.001 ft? Assume that the wavelength of the disturbance is 199 ft, and Poisson's ratio equals 0.3. GIVEN: H = depth of top layer of soil (ft) L = wavelength (ft) XR = radial soil displacement (ft) = P-wave velocity in top layer (fps) =p1 = P-wave velocity in underlying layer cp2 u = Poisson's ratio R-wave velocities in each layer, in top layer because of layering, displacement. Obtain the ratios

(fps)

FIND:

effective R-wave velocity and vertical soil particle REFERENCE

SOLUTION: 1.

2 and2
2. cS cS Obtain cR for both layers CR = ($(cp)@ Determine the ratio of the thickness top layer to the wavelength H/L Calculate cs and cs 1 2 cs = (cp)@ Calculate the shear moduli

Fig.

5.5

3. 4.

of the

5.

ratio Eq. (5.12)

5-19

REFERENCE 6. Determine velocity a c Calculate

C

the effective wave propagation relative to actual propagation

velocity Fig. 5.6

7.

c aR-wave

8.

9.

aR-wave Rl Determine the ratio of the wavelength to the thickness of the top layer L/H Determine the ratio of radial to vertical maximum particle displacements 33 Fig. $ 5.7

0
C c

10.

$ Calculate

CALCULATION GIVEN: H = 14 ft L = 199 ft 0.001 %=

ft

FIND: soLOTIuN:

v = 0.3 C. = 950 fps Pl = 1645 fps =p2 R-wave velocities if because of layering, 1. =R = 0.94 cS

unlayered, R-wave velocity in and maximum vertical particle

top layer displacement.

2.

3.

5 = 1.86 =S CR = (0.94)(950)/(1.86) 1 = (0.94)(1645)/(1.86) CR2 H/L = 14/l99 = 0.070

= 480 fps = 831 fps

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

5-20

4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

=s,=
C C

(950)/(1.86) = 3.0

= 511 fps

-'a = 1.65 = (1.65)(480) aR-wave L/H = 199/14 = 14.2 -% = 0.93 Eb Y+ = 0.001/0.93 = 792 fps

= 0.001075 ft

5-21

Change 1 - 15 August 1981

5.3.2

Approximate

Buried

Explosive

Ground

Motion

Relationships

TO predict the extent of damage from underground detonations, one needs to determine the radial ground motions - radial maximum soil displacement X and radial maximum particle velocity U. The basis for prediction of the displacement X and velocity IJ are empirical relationships for buried HE charges in contact with the soil. These empirical equations predict the ground motion maximums created by contributions from all of the wave forms. As has been discussed, the R-wave is probably the major source of excitation; nevertheless, in:using these and other empirical relationships, investigators do not consider which wave might be most important. The wave speed used to characterize the strength of the soil is the P-wave propagation velocity. Although R-wave propagation velocities would more logically be used with R-wave ground motions, the P-wave velocity can be used because the two velocities only differ by a constant if Poisson's ratio v is constant (see Figure 5.5).

At locations very deep in the ground or directly under the explosive source where R-waves cannot form, this empirical solution and others are not valid. This restriction is not that serious for most Pantex-type operations because the wavelengths associated with most of these waves are long. For example, a 600-lb explosive charge might result in a wave which is from 200 to 600 ft long. If one refers back to Figure 5.4, he will see that Thus, for very significant R-waves exist at depths of 0.8 of a wavelength. depth of interest in the area of 160 to 480 ft or less, the R-wave is the Most Pantex-type operations are at shallow depths relative major disturbance. to these. Even a 60-lb charge can have a corresponding large wavelength of from 100 to 300 ft. The R-wave and its propagation are the major ground shock interest in any potential Pantex accidents. This R-wave solution is subsequently extended to account for coupling when a charge and the soi1 have an air gap between them. The relationships which we will use for R-waves from detonations (Ref. 5.5) are given by equation (5.13), radial ment, and equation (5.141, radial particle velocity. buried displace-

o.04143(psc~R3)l*105 (5.13) tanh15 ,,.24(nscFR3) o*2367]

u --

ipo)l,2~6.169x10-3(psc~R3)O*8521 2 (5.14) tanh p6.03(nsc:R3) o.so]

"p nscp

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

5-22

where

X U R W

maximum radial soil displacement peak radial soil particle velocity standoff distance explosive energy release = mass density of the soil or rock Y3 seismic P-wave velocity in the soil atmospheric pressure. Any self-consistent set terms; of units (p,/p

= = = =

or rock

may be used

in

applying

these

and c 2 > 12 9 u/c (Po/PsCp) 2 '12, sP W/psc2R3 are nondimensional. Test data on explosize sources ranging from 0.03 Pb to 19.2 kilotons (nuclear blast equivalency) will be used in subsequent discussion to demonstrate the validity of these relationships. The data used to substantiate these results cover nine orders of magnitude explosive energy from W/pscgR3 of 4.4 x lo-l1 to 4.4 x 10e2 in scaled release. relationships for all X/R are plots of nondimensionalized Figures 5.8 and 5.9 respectively, displacement and nondimensionalized velocity as given by equations (5.13) and(5.14). Because the data appear to collapse into a unique function, these Scatter exists; however, no experiments results give a graphical solution. or test site appears to yield systematic errors. The continuous lines placed through the data in Figures 5.8 and 5.9 were presented as equations (5.13) and (5.14). Both are the result of For an approximate rather than least-squares curve fit to test data. the observed values of scaled displacethe data in Figures 5.8 and 5.9, ment and particle velocity were divided by their respective predictive values to obtain a large sample of data around a mean value of 1.0. In both figures, one standard deviation computed from this enlarged data Although straight lines can be fitted to segments of the base is + 0.50. the rate of change for either X or U with results in Figures 5.8 and 5.9, depending upon the scaled charge weight respect to either W or R varies, W/p c 2R3. These variations are reasonably close toethose given by others andsw!ll be discussed. This discussion is not presented because we advocate the use of any of these procedures; it is presented so that those with backgrounds in this field will understand that the procedure which has been advocated is an inclusive analysis procedure. equations (5.13) and (5.14) may appear to be At first glance, different from some of the other empirical relationships in the literature; however, these two equations are more general and can be shown to encompass Equations (5.13) and (5.14) are not log linear as most other results. the test da a base covers many orders of are many other relationships, 2 lj2 is multiplied by the scaled magnitude, and a coupling term (po/pscp) The presence of atmospheric pressure in the displacement and velocity. prediction relationships does not mean atmospheric pr?ssure is a physical The quantityH;gc&,i;hz ~E;IE;;,o~ phenomenon influencing the results. the compressibility of the shock propagation media. 0 5-23 Change 1 - 15 August 1981

1 iii

iii

iii

iii

iii

iii

iii

,v#v 0,@o1 iii 0rl-40

Figure

5.8

Radial Energy

Maximum Release

Digplacement in Rock,and

versus Scaled Soil (Reference

5.5)

W p c2R3 SP Figure 5.9 Radial Release Particle in Rock Velocity and Soil versus Scaled Energy (Reference 5.5)

is a standard compressibilities

(compressibility for different

of air) media

and introduces empirically such as soil and rock.

relative

Two different groups of ground shock propagation procedures have been used in the past and are in the literature for empirical relationships interrelating charge weight, standoff distance, and ground motion. A statistical approach generally used is a propagation law of the form A = mNwRNR where A = the peak amplitude N's= constant exponents K = a constant. is popular because for either velocity or displacement (5.15)

This format to obtain:

the

logarithm

can be taken

of both

sides

[J-u

= [RnK] + NWIRnWl + NR[RnR]

(5.16)

Because this equation is linear, a least squares curve fit- could be made to obtain the three coefficients RnK, N and N . The weakness of this approach is that this format is assumed';egardlgss of what happens physically. The resulting equations are dimensionally illogical. A serious problem is the use of an incomplete expression. Other parameters enter the ground shock propagation problem, especially soil properties, which are ignored. Because these properties are ignored, the definition of the problem is incomplete, and the results do not represent a general solution. By using equation (5.16), various investigators obtain different results depending upon the amount and range of their data. Typical values found in the literature (Refs. 5.6 through 5.15) have a range for NW from 0.4 to 1.0 and for NR from -1 to -2 with A as particle displacement or velocity. This situation arises because investigators use data from different segments of the curve as given by equations (5.13) and (5.14). The second group of investigators, the old Atomic Energy Commission (ARC) Energy (DOE), present their results in usually those associated or newly named Department the format: with of

(5.17)

(5.18)

5-26

This approach is an extension of the Hopkinson-Cranz scaling law for air version of a model analysis. blast waves, and is a dimensional If soil are treated as constants and atmospheric pressure properties such as P andc does not vary significant Py, then equations (5.13) and (5.14) in functional format can be written as equations (5.15) and (5.16). An example (Ref. 5.16) of curve fits for displacement and velocity to equations (5.17) and (5.18) is: UR1.65 WO.55 - = constant (5.19)

XR1. 5
W0.833

= constant

(5.20)

All of the data in equations (5.19) and (5.20) explosive detonations in Halite (salt domes), weight W/p,c$R3 over three orders $f magnitude. given by equations (5.17) and (5.15) does not tional over all regions as shown.

wece taken for chemical and cover scaled charge The general format have to be directly propor-

By using equations (5.13) and (5.14) we are encompassing domains for most of the previous empirical equations. Those interested in understanding the coupling term (po/pscg) better, should read Westine This solution should not be used for predicting ground (Ref. 5.5). motions from P-waves or S-waves. Kneed exists to predict these waves except when a point of interest is either directly over or directly under the explosive source. This situation is not a critical Pantex one so it will not be pursued further. After radial ground motion has been determined, vertical ground motion, the effects of trenching, and the influences of layering can all be approximated by using some of the other qualitative discussion in this section of this manual.

5-27

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 5.4 PROBLEM - Assume that the soil's density and P-wave propagation velocity For a known buried energy release, determine have been measured. the maximum radial soil displacement and maximum radial particle velocity. GIVEN: p cp R p_ = = = = soil mass density (lbsec2/ft4) P-wave propagation velocity standoff from charge (Et) atmospheric pressure (1b/ft2) yield weight (ft-lb) of the

(ft/sec)

W" = explosive lb times FIND:

[for TNT equals charge]*

1.7

1O+6 ft-lb/
REFERENCE

The maximum radial soil radial particle velocity 1. Calculate P p,=+,m= P c sP Calculate the

displacement

and maximum

SOLUTION:

following W

nondimensional

quantities

2.

the

P c2R3 sP scaled displacement. 0.04143 (fi)1*105 Eq. (5.13)

x (Q12
R 3. Calculate g (po)1/2
C

the

tanh1'5[18.24(@"'2367] Fig.Of.8 scaled velocity. (i)"*8521 Eq. (5.14) = 6.169 tanh x 1O-3

[26.03(w)"'30] Fig.OT.9

CALCULATION GIVEN: p, = 3:54 lb-sec2/ft4

= 950 ft/sec =P R =40ft W = 20 lb (1.7 x lo6 = 14.7 psi = 2,117 pO

ft-lb/lb) lb/ft2

= 3.4

x lo7

ft-lb

*In Table 2, Appendix A, the value This is a calculated 106 ft-lb/lb. given in this problem.

of heat value.

of detonation The experimental

for

TNT is 1.97 value is as

5-28

FIND:

Maximum 1.

radial P ?
0

soil

displacement

and velocity

SOLUTION:

= - 0 P c2 sP = 2,117 3*54(950)* i3 VpR = 6.63 x 1O-4

p'
0

w=

w x 2.-oq

= P

3.4
112

x lo7 403

= 1.66

x 1o-4

3.54(95012 =

o.04143(w)1*105

tanhla5 [18.24(~)"'2367] R i FC ) sP 0 ' 04143 (1 * 66 x 10-4)1*105 x (6.63 x 10-4)1/2 = R tanhlm5 [18.24(1.66 x 10-4)o*2367] X - = 1.10 x lo-4 R X =.4.4 x 10B3ft = 0.0528 be used x 10 -3 [26.03(R)0'3] = 6.169 tanh x 10-3(l.66 [26.03(1.66 x 10-4)o*8521 x 10-4)o*30] in. to solve this equation

Figure 5.8 graphically. 3. 1 (Fo)l/2 cP !J (6.63 =P

can also = 6.169 tanh

0.8521 (W)

x 10-y2

U - = 1.51 x 10 -4 cP U = 0.143 ft/sec Figure 5.9

= 1.72

in./sec to solve this equation graphically.

can also

be used

5-29

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

5.3.3

Screening

of Propagated

Surface

Waves

In order to decrease vibrations in structures from ground shocks or vibrations which are moderately too intense, one can erect either Some success and in other cases a total lack trenches or barricades. has been encountered when either sheet piling or trench of success, barriers has been placed between the vibration source and the receiver. barriers which are placed Two types of barriers have been used, active and passive barriers which are placed close to the close to the source, receiver. Off hand, for either type of barrier, one would expect a This may or may void to be more effective than a solid or fluid barrier. not be the case because a trench cannot always be constructed without Ground motion reduction threat of collapse or filling with rain water. factors'(soi1 displacement divided by soil displacement without a barrier) have been observed to be a factor of l/8; however,generally the reduction is less. Two major problems exist besides expense in using barriers to Both of these reasons shield ground shocks from explosive detonations. are associated with the reflection and diffraction process of wave fronts striking barriers. Although the intensity may be reduced in some regions, in other regions wave fronts can be focused and shock levels one cannot always be sure of .where increased. In the case of accidents, This factor means that the designer must try the detonation will occur. to shield a region (some structure) from shock waves that can travel from anywhere in another region (anywhere the accident can occur). To accomplish this objective without having increases in shock strength at an undesirable location is very difficult under some sets of circumstances. The second problem with barriers is that they must be very deep; The length at least 0.5 wavelengths in width and depth, if not larger. of waves associated with accidental buried detonations typically are hundreds of feet in length. This means that very large barriers are needed. Most of the work that has been done to date on barriers is empirical. No good generalized solution exists yet. Because the use of barriers is probably unattractive for Pantex operations, we will not pursue this subject to any greater extent. Those interested in studying this subject further should read Barkan (Ref. 5.4), who has done more than anyone else in evaluating the effectiveness of all types of barriers. R. D. Woods (Ref. 5.17) in the USA, has generated some experimental test results on the effectiveness of trenches. 5.4 exists COUPLING BETWEEN EXPLOSIVE AND SOIL If an explosive between the charge is placed in a cavity, so that charge and the walls of the cavity, the an air radial gap soil

S-30

particle velocity and displacement may be much less than for a buried tamped charge. This large reduction is caused by inefficient coupling between the explosive and the soil when a cavity is present. To account for the reduced coupling whenever charges are detonated in a buried cavity, an effective energy release W can be determined which then can be used to calculate radial maxim%fsoil particle velocity and radial maximum displacement using the tamped buried explosive ground motion solutions, Figures 5.8 and 5.9. Figure 5.10 is a graphical solution for determining this effective energy release Weff. The lower insert to Figure 5.10 illustrates the actual An explosive charge with energy W is centered in the middle ground cavity of radius R and at atmospheric pressure p . surrounding this cavity ig a homogeneous isotropic mediG of and seismic P-wave velocityc First, the scaled abscissa P.3 P' calculated using any self-consistent set of units, resulting dimensional quantity. By entering Figure 5.10 for any given scaled ordinate [(Weff/W) (~,c~~/P~)~*~~] is read. The extra represents a coupling term between the compressibility P&;/PO the compressibility of air in the cavity. Finally, the ratio obtained by multiplying the scaled ordinate by [(p,/ps~$)~~~~]. effective energy release can be used to calculate either soil velocity or displacement or the associated soil shock front impulses associated with these corresponding ground motions. problem. of an underThe ground mass density W/p R 3 is in aon&abscissa, the term of soil and (Weff/W) is This particle pressures and

Figure 5.10 comes from a curve fit to only one segment of the peak reflected pressure versus energy release curve, For this reason it is only valid for values of W/p,Ra between 1 and 1000 as given in Figure 5.10. The ratio W,ff/W is often near unity in soft soils, but this ratio can be a small number like l/100 in hard rock. If a number slightly larger than 1.0 is calculated for W,ff/W, this is a mathematical quirk associated with the approximations being used. A maximum value of 1.00 should be used Figure 5.10 has only been developed for a detonation in a for Weff/W* cavity; it should not be used to estimate shock transmission from soil into air. We have no data on shock transmission from soil into air, and Figure 5.10 is not intended for such use. To demonstrate the validity of this solution, test data (Ref. 5.16) obtained by detonating various size explosive charges in cavities of 6 ft or 15 ft radius, are plotted in Figures 5.11 and 5.12. Figure 5.11 1.,3 is a plot of observed divided by predicted particle velocity versus R/Weft , and Figure 5.12 is a plot of observed divided by predicted maximum soil displacement versus R/W,ff l/3 . Ideally, both solutions would collapse Because the shape of into single horizontal lines at a value of 1.0. symbol denotes amount of energy release,.and the shaded or unshaded symbols denote size of cavity, variations in the energy release, cavity size, and standoff distance have all been included in these figures. The conclusion to be drawn from Figures 5.11 and 5.12 is that Figure 5.10 works, but the accuracy is only plus and minus a factor of about 2.0.

5-31

400
: , . es.,. .

. I PsC P .

.: eff 6

375

271 Actual Problem &

25(

Figure

5.10

Equivalent

Effective

Release

3 PR 0 0 for Buried

Detonations

Inside

a Cavity

Actually, this much scatter is to be expected because the solutions for a continuous medium given by Figures 5.8 and 5.9 have essentially the These observasame degree of accuracy as these coupled ground motions. tions concerning scatter mean that an appropriate factor of safety should be used whenever these results are applied. We should discuss the The curvein Figure 5.10 is a calculated one. principles behind the calculations so the procedure could be used if Basically, offoff-center charges were to be detonated in a cavity. center charges could be evaluated by making R the distance between the charge and the wall. Figure 5.10 is based up& coupling a shock wave First, in the air to the wave which would be transmitted into the ground. for the distance from the center of the quantity Ro/W1j3 was determined the charge to the interface between the cavity and the soil. Then Figure 4.6 in Chapter 4 was used to determine the peak reflected pressure P . This reflected pressure would be the one transmitted to an infinitel$ the soil is not an infinitely rigid shell of inner radius R . In practice, rigid shell because the soil jarticles are unrestrained and the cavity grows. This means that the shock wave transmitted into the soil will have a shock front pressure P which is less than P . Based upon the empirical results shown in Figures 5.11 and 5.12, we ha$e assumed that the shock front pressure transmitted into the soil equals P,/2. Another method of stating this assumption is that a gauge in a shell which cannot move will have twice the pressure of a gauge at the surface of the cavity which is free to move with the soil particles. Next, by using the formula P, = soil particle velocity U can be calculated. PsCpU, the maximum radial Then Figure 5.9 is used by forming the scaled quantity (U/c) (po/pscp2)1/2. Reading W/psc 2R03 from the graph in Figure 5.9 or computing it from equation (5.14P allows W to be calculated after multiplying by pscp 2R o 3 . The quantity W,ff repre%s an equivalent charge size detonated in a continuous medium. Had reflected impulse and radial and soil displacement as in Figure 5.8 been used rather than reflected pressure and soil particle velocity to determine the effective equivalent energy release ratio Weff/W, essentially the same numerical values would have been obtained. Figure 5.12 substantiates this conclusion. A word of caution is in order in using other procedures from the literature for soil coupling procedures. One approach determines the energy in a quasi-static pressure buildup with a cavity of volume (4/3) IT We do -not recommend using this procedure, because the ground motions R3. a% caused by shock waves and not the quasi-static pressure buildup. Another procedure uses the acoustic transmission factors for different density media such as:
pT -= 5

2 (5.21a) 1+pIcI 'TCT

5-33

w 0 A
0 0 9

0 ic

200 lb
500 lb 1000 lb 20 lb 100 lb 1000 lb 1903 lb

1s

15 ft 15 ft 6 ft 6 ft 6 ft 6 ft

q
v

2 l-i PO 3 3 Y -v
-

M
A

cL-

A %
0
0 0 $ 8

R -.

q w 0

O $8
l

44
0

0.2 R W

0.4

l/3' eff Velocity

Figure

5.11

Observed versus Predicted Particle for Coupled Buried Detonations

5-34

0 10.0 A 0

200lb 500 lb 1000 lb 1000 lb 1003 lb

&: 15 ft 15 f: 6 ft 6 ft

l
v 4.0

X0

: ;;I
X0

2.0

R W l/3' eff Figure 5.12

ft (ft-lb)1'3 Soil Displacement

Observed versus Predicted Radial for Coupled Buried Detonations

l
5-35

For impedance matches where is the transmitting medium, becomes

air the

is the incident ratio pIcI/pTcT

medium and soils or rock << 1.0, and equation (5.21a).

pT -- PI

(5.21b)

The impedance match predicts that the shock medium will be only twice the shock pressure The approach used in this handbook does not

pressure in the soil transmitting in the incident air medium, give this same conclusion.

Another coupling factor which needed to be developed, but for which much less data exist, is for calculating U and X for a charge lying on the surface of the ground. Experimental test results from Project Essex (Ref. 5.18) and from the Navy Civil Engineering Laboratory (Ref. 5.19) were plotted and compared to the radial R-wave velocity and displacement results in Figures 5.8 and 5.9. This comparison established that within the scatter in Figures 5.8 and 5.9, no distinction can be made in R-wave velocity and displacement between buried and surface detonations. This observation means that A-E's can assume that the coupling factor for R-wave propagation from a surface detonation equals 1.0, and can use Figures 5.8 and 5.9 directly for surface as well as buried detonations. For problems None of this discussion has considered P-wave propagation. such as bomb detonations on the roof of a buried shelter, where no R-wave propagation occurs, the results given in Figures 5.8 and 5.9 should not be used. For Pantex-type facility accidents, P-waves should not be a serious consideration. If for some unforeseen reason, a surface detonation 0ccur.s directly over the roof of a buried structure, P-waves will dominate, and use of these R-waves results is incorrect.
If a P-wave should happen to be inovolved in a completely buried circumstance, we would use the entire energy in the e losive, and the T results in Figures 5.8 and 5.9 only for values of W/PC R3 greater than 10-h. The change in slope in Figures 5.8 and 5.9 is probably caused by changing from a region where P-waves dominate in close to where R-waves dominate at large standoffs. Should a charge happen to be tangent to the surface and P-waves dominate, we would use W/11 for the energy release, and the approximate P-wave results, provided W/pc2R3 was greater than 10-4, as has already been stated. For larger standoffs where W/pc2R3 might be less than 10-4, we have provided no results, but in this region the shock loadings are not very severe.

Change

I - 15 August

1981

5-36

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 5.5 PROBLEM - Assume that one wishes to determine the maximum radial soil displacement X and the peak particle velocity U at some standoff distance R resulting from detonation of a buried The cavity is of radius R. charge within a spherical cavity. and the soil has a mass density of p and a P-wave propagation calculation ?h e soil can be assumed to velocity of cp. In this be unlayered. GIVEN: R W
PO %

= standoff (ft) = explosive yield jft-lb) = atmospheric pressure

(lb/ft2)

= mass density (lb-sec2/ft4) = propagation velocity (ft/sec) cP R. = radius of cavity (ft) FIND: Equivalent displacement 1. energy releases and velocity the 2 and maximum radial soil REFERENCE

SOLUTION:

Calculate p=PO

following ;=A?-

nondimensional

quantities

P c sP Obtain the

quantity

poRo3 from

Figure

5.10 Fig, 5.10

3. 4. 5. ALTERNATE SOLUTION:

Multipl; W effjW Multiply

result result

step of

2 by step

(p) 0.76

to

obtain Weff 5.4

3 by W to

obtain

Continue at step in Section 5.3.2 Ro/W l'3

2 of Example Problem to find X and U (ft/lb1'3)

la. 2a. 3a. 4a. 5a.

Compute Half

Read Pr off

of graph P Ps b; rearranging Equation (5.6)

Fig.

4.6

Pr to obtain U from
I/*

Compute

Eq.

(5.6)

Make up the

quantity

5-37

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

6a. 7a. 8a. 9a.

Compute Multiply Divide Continue Section

Weff/psc

from

figure

5.9 Wiff 5.4 in

REFERENCE Fig. 5.9

by p c 3 RZ to obtain Weff sP o by energy equivalency to obtain at step 5.3.2 to 2 of find Example Problem X and U

CALCULATION
GIVEN :

R = 40 ft w = 3.4 x 10 +7 ft-lb = 2117 lb/ft2

PO

(this

is

equivalent

to

20 lb

of

TNT)

Ps = 3.54 lb-sec2/ft4 = 950 ft/sec C P R = 20 ft

0

FIND:

Equivalent

energy
PO

displacement SOLUTION: 1.

release and velocity

and maximum 2117 = 6.63

radial

soil

? = -= P c 2 sP

x 1O-4

(3*54)(950)2 = 2.01

3. 4m ALTERNATE
SOLUTION: la.

W eff y--= 'eff

RO

(239)(6.63 = (0.918)(20)
=

x 10 -4)0.76 = 18.4 lb

= 0.918 TIQ

w1/3

(20;i,3
psi

= 7.37

2a. 3a. 4a.

Pr = 34.5
P

=2

'r
pS

= 17.25

psi

= 2484

lb/ft2 ftlsec

2484 (3.54) (950) = 0.739

u=-=

P c sP

a
Change 1 - 15 August 1981 5-38

(6.63 x 10-4)12 = 2.00 x 10-5

6a. 7a* 8a. 5 or 9a.

W eff = 1.20 x 1o-3 pc2R3 sP 0 = 3.06 x 1O+7 ft-lb 'eff = (1.20 x 10-3)(3.54)(950')(203) .Weff = 3.06 x lo+' = 18.0 lb TNT 1.7 x lo& Calculate U and X by using Figures 5.8 and 5.9 U= 0.132 ft/sec = 1.58 in./sec at R = 40 ft X = 3.96 x 1O-3 Et = 0.0475 in. at R = 40 ft

5-39

Change 1 - 15 August 1981

5.5

EXPLOSIVE

ClUTERING

Whenever a buried explosive charge is detonated, a cavity or void If the energy release is relatively close is formed within the soil. the cavity or void vents to the atmosphere and a crater to the surface, Large amounts of ejecta are flung upwards and outwards if is formed. Some of this ejecta falls back into the cavity vents to the atmosphere. whereas other amounts of itsettle on the lip of the crater. the cavity, Because large quantities of ejecta settle into the cavity, two different the apparent crater formed by the surface of craters can be discussed: the ejecta and the true crater formed by the crater boundaries without shown graphically in Figure 5.13, Illustrations, regard to the ejecta. depict the differences in true and apparent craters. Although Figure 5.13 and some investigators (Ref. 5.21) treat craters venting to the atmosphere as two separate and distinct modes of response dependent upon whether the craters are somewhat hemispherical or cylindrical in shape, we will make no such distinction. Any void venting to the atmosphere will be treated as responding in the cratering mode. If, on the other hand, the energy release is deep within the ground, the cavity or void is created without any appreciable venting to the atmosphere. This mode of response, as shown in Figure 5.13, is termed the camouflet mode. A large spherical void (or camouflet) is formed beneath the surface of the soil. Because different physical phenomena can be important dependent upon whether: 1) craters or camouflets, or 2) true or apparent crater contours are of interest, any empirical relationship must be applied only to the appropriate mode of response. For engineering analysis, soil properties such as the density of soil ps and seismic P-wave propagation velocity c are of secondary importance in determining either true or apparent crater size. All of the approximate empirical relationships which we will present are for sand, clays, or rock both wet and dry. None of these curves fits based on experimental test results will have soil properties, but those with an interest should read Reference 5.22. the Essentially, format all cratering is prediction a function formuli Wll3 of 7 can be written in

Response

WU4 and d

(5.22)

where W is the explosive weight in pounds and d is the charge burial in The response in Equation (5.22) can be the scaled radius R/d, the feet. scaled depth D/d, the scaled volume Vi/3/d in apparent craters or true craters in the camouflet or cratering mode. In fact, the term response can also mean mode of response, camouflet or crater. Naturally, the functional format will vary dependent upon response to be predicted. An equation such as Equation (5.22) is a three-parameter space which interrelates the response to the ratio of: 1) energy release relative to the

3ri::inal

Surface

Apparent

Crater

Apparent

Crater

True

Crater Trre Crater

E
CR\TERIX XODES

True

Cratrr

CAHOUFLET

MODE

Figure

5.13

Modes

of Response

and Nomenclature

5-41

soil's compressibility effects W'13/d, and 2) the energy release relative to gravitational effects Wl/h/d. Remember that the soil properties p, and cp are considered to be constants as in the acceleration of gravity If W1/3/d w as cubed and transformed into the nondimensional ratio W/ 8. p c2d3 the statement that the energy release is related to soil compressibzlgty'effects becomes apparent. Similarly, the term Wl/b/d can be transformed into the ratio W/psgd4 which emphasizes that the energy release is being related to gravitational effects. Various formuli and graphs state that a response is related to only W1/3/d or only to W1i4/d. Whenever the observation is made that only W113/d matters, the results infer that gravitational effects are of secondary importance. Similarly, if only Wli4/d matters, the soil's compressibility effects are of secondary importance. Finally, some relationships state that W7/24/d is important, which is equivalent to saying all effects matter and that Wl/3/d and w1/4/d empirically combine as multiples to give W7/12/d2 (this quantity equals W7/24/d when the square root is taken). Now that this background discussion has been presented, we are ready to discuss various empirical relationships. The first thing is to determine whether a given charge and soil overburden combination results in a crater or camouflet being formed. This calculation comes first because the mode must be known before the damage can be described by using the appropriate cratering or camouflet formuli. The curve fit for mode of response data (Ref. 5.23) with explosive charge of C-4 to 750-lb bombs. Two quantities X = 4.605 comes from a compilation of test weights ranging from 5.0 grams X and Y must be calculated: wl/4 f Rn 7 (5.23) 7 Rn w1/3

where

W is d is

the the

d tanh5 2.00 + 0.4343 + 1.398 Rn -wl/3 explosive weight in pounds and depth of burial in feet.

1 1
camouflet cratering

(5.24)

If the quantity quantity X is In mathematical

X is greater than Y, a camouflet will be formed. less than Y, the response will be in the cratering format this statement means.
X>Y X<Y

If the mode. (5.25a) (5.25b)

mode mode

The result X equal to Y means that the response is at the threshold of shifting from one mode to the other mode. The energy release W is actually supposed to be in equivalent pounds of C-4; however, relative to the differences in yields for chemical explosives do not vary scatter,

5-42

enough to matter, especially when such taken. For Pantex safety studies, the be converted to a standard explosive. (Ref. formuli The same experimental 5.23) was employed are given by: in

weak exponents energy release

as l/3 and L/4 are does not have to

data base used curve fits of 0.865

for determining mode of true crater dimensions.

response The

(5.26a)

(5.26b)

(5.26~)

One standard deviation calculated from experiments equals essentially 12 percent for all normalized dependent variables in Equation 5.26 with the exception of RT/d which has a standard deviation of approximately 20 percent. This scatter is very reasonable especially when secondary effects such as soil con itions are not included. Observe also that a true crater follows a W1 3 3/d law which infers that gravitational effects are insignificant as was discussed previously. This observation is not true for apparent craters. In replaced the camouflet mode, Equations (5.26) for with Equations (5.27) for true camouflet true crater size. must be

Camouflet Radius Camouflet Depth v l/3 T 7 = 1.718

(5.27a) > (5.27b) > (5.27~)

5-43

One standard deviation for all of these scaled tru& camouflet dimensions Notice now that gravitational effects also equals essentially 12 percent. so a W7/24/d 1 aw is followed. and compressibility effects both matter, Apparent crater dimensions also follow a W7'24/d law. Because apparent craters can be either cylindrically shaped or hemispherically shaped, the prediction equations are not log-linear relationships. Figures 5.14, 5.15, and 5.16 show graphically obtained relationships for R /d, VA 1/3/d, and DA/d as functions of W7/24/d. The test data compi 4 ation used in these figures came from Reference 5.24. The greater depth of burial craters with W7/24/d less than 0.4 in these figures represent cylindrical as opposed to hemispherical craters. Although it is not shown in this compilation with different quantities of explosive in one soil (a desert alluvium), other soils including sand, clays, and rock also scatter randomly about the prediction lines given in Figllres 5.14 through 5.16. We present no prediction procedure for determining apparent camouflet size. The differencesin true and apparent craters are much more difficult to determine in a camouflet as essentially all the soil in a camouflet is True crater dimensions compressed rather than flung into the air as ejecta. are a reasonable accurate measure of the extent of ground damage in a, camouflet. Historically the early work in the 1940's and 1950's advocated both Another early W1'4/d and W1i3/d scaling laws for apparent crater. 5.24), suggested a Wl/3*4/d scaling investigator, Albert Chabai (Ref. If only small law, but for practical purposes, W7/24/d equals W1/3.4/d. variations in charge weight were involved, using either the l/3 or l/4 exponent was sufficiently close to l/3.4 for no apparent error to arise. Only in the mid-1960's after some nuclear cratering data became available to extend the range over which W had been varied, did the l/3.4 or 7/24 exponent on energy release become universally accepted. A final crater ejecta problem of interest is the determination of the This information is obtained maximum distance that ejecta will be flung. by scaling test results from References 5.18 and 5.25. Only a limited amount of data exist, but Figure 5.17 is for the maximum ejecta radius so that less than one missile per square foot exists beyond the radius given in Figure 5.17. For purposes of definition, a missile is defined as a soil chunk greater than approximately 2.0 in. in diameter. Notice that Figure 5.17 follows a W7/24/d rule as both gravitational and constitutive effects are important. Although some ejecta are flung beyond the distance given by Figure 5.17, we are forced to use these results as an approximation Any absolute determination of the end of to the end of the ejecta field. any ejecta field is impossible and would be a subjective opinion with different investigators.

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

5-44,

10.0

6.0 4.0

2.0

-0

1.0

2 0.6 W ( Ibs iT )

+ x 0.1

1,000,000 200,000,000

0.4

0.6

4.0

6.0

Figure

5.14

Apparent

Crater

Radius

RA/d

versus

W7124 Id in

hlluvhm

5-45

6.1 4.c

2.1

.P m . "2

1.t 0.t 0.1

I$1

I-

Ii

--2.560

256

l-

0.2

0. I

0.2
5.15 Apparent

0.4
Crater

0.6
J/24

1.0 Id J llP'/ft
VA 1'3/d

2.0

4.0

6.0

Figure

Volume

versus

bJ7'24/d

in Alluvium

5-46

4.0

2.0 ~

1.0

0.6

0.1

0.06 0.04

0.02 0.1 0.2* 0.4

J/24

0.6

1.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

Id, lb7'24/ft
Depth DA/d versus 7/2$ W in Alluvitrtn

Figure a-

5.16

Apparent

Crater

5-47

Source Da,:a Ref. 5.18

20

7 5

2 a.2 0.5 1.0 2.0

w7/24

5.0

10.0

p;/24$1/3$1/8d

Figure

5.17

Maximum Ejecta

Radii

for Large Soil

Chunks

Change 1 - 15 August 1981

5-48

Although we have not discussed the subject of cratering from surface bursts or cratering from air bursts, some empirical results can be found in Reference 5.26. For small conventional high explosive charges detonated nuclear energy above ground, cratering is insignificant. Generally, releases are needed for above-ground cratering to become significant. To the best of our knowledge, no data or prediction procedure exists for estimating crater size or ejecta patterns when charges are detonated inside cavities within the earth. Further work is required in this area if a prediction procedure is to be developed.

5-49

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 5.6 PROBLEM - Assume that one wishes to determine * is formed when a buried charge is true crater/camouflet and apparent should be calculated. GIVEN: W = charge weight d = depth of burial Crater/camouflet 1. 2. Calculate X = 4.605 Calculate Y = (lb) (ft) and dimensions REFERENCE whether a crater or a camouflet detonated. In addition, the crater/camouflet dimensions

FIND:

modes

SOLUTION:

X WU4 + Rn ~ d Y + 1.398

Eq.

(5.23)

Eq. + 0.4343 3. Rn Eq. Eq.

(5.24)

4.

Determine if a 'armed. a. If X is less than 1: a crater is formed. Continue at Step 4. b. If X is greater than Y a camouflet is formed. Continue at Step 5. Calculate the true irater dimpnsions. a. k d 2 155 (scaled (scaled radius) depth)

(5.25b) (5.25a)

1 0 I

Eq. Eq.

(5.26a) (5.25b)

(scaled 5 . . Calculate the true camouflet dimensions. (scaled

volume)

Eq.

(5.26~)

rsdius)

Eci.

(5.27a)

(scaled (scaled 6. Obtain apparent crater dimensions.

depth) volume)

Eq. Eq. Figs. .5.15,

(5.27b) (5.27~) 5.14, 5.16

5-50

CALCULATION GIVEN: W = 500 lb d = 15 ft Crater/camouflet mode and dimensions

FIND:

SOLUTION:

1.

X = 4.605 + Rn ( 1; !;:8 . X < Y, therefore

5ool'4 15
)

= 3.45 k.0 formed. + 0.4343

2.

+ 1.398

;1'"$'31tanh5 crater is

kn(i"$3)]

DT - = 2.312 15
DT = 22.45 v l/3 ft

T 15

= 2.046 dimensions:

6.

= 6,456 ft3 vT Apparent crater = 17.25 ft RA DA = 7.8 ft VA = 3,375 St3

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 5.7 PROBLEM - Assume that one also wishes to determine the maximum radius where significant amounts of ejecta will fall. The same charge and depth of burial can be used as in Example Problem 5.6. GIVEN: W = charge yield (ft-lb) cp= propagation velocity = mass density (lbsec % g = gravity (ft/sec') d = depth of burial (ft)

ft/sec) 1 /ft4)

5-51

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

FIND:

Maximum 1.

radius

for

crater the

ejecta abscissa for Figure 5.17.

REFERENCE

SOLUTION:

Calculate

w7/24

2.

7124 l/3 g1/8 d ts =P Find the value of the maximum range.

ordinate

and determine

the

Fig.

5.17

CALCULATION

GIVEN:

W = 8.5 x lo8 ft-lb cp= 950 ft/sec = 3.54 lb-sec2/ft4

%

(500

lb

of

explosive)

g = 32.2 ft/sec2 d = 15 ft FIND:

Maximum radius
1. p 7124
S

for
w7/24

crater gi/8

ejecta d = 1'22

SOLUTION:

cl/3 P

2.

g=

15.5;

R = 465 ft

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

5-52

5.6 5.6.1

EFFECTS OF GROUND MOTION ON BUILDINGS, Shock Spectra

EQUIPMENT AND PERSONNEL

Much work has been done on deciding when ground shocks are annoying to individuals and damage structures. Unfortunately, no overall concise criteria have arisen. Each investigator in the past has been concerned within narrow bounds that pertain to his particular problem. On occasion, the results from various investigators conflict with one another. In addition, there has been a tendency to mix sinusoidal or cyclic oscillations from machinery, traffic and railways with impulsive single-pulse sources such as explosions. In spite o,f these problems, some insight into the various criteria can be obtained by studying a single-degree-of-freedom, linearly elastic oscillator. The oscillator system seen in Figure 5.18 can be used to represent the effects of surface waves on a structure or person.

k T/T* Figure 5.18 Qualitative L y = Y. sin Ground w t Model

Oscillation

Usually one wishes to limit the maximum force imparted to the mass in this oscillator to values less than some specific threshold force, if buildings are not to be damaged and people are not to be annoyed. Because the maximum force in this oscillation equals k(x-y)max, a maximum difference in displacement criterion can also be used as being equivalent to a limiting force, provided that limiting value is specified for each type of accident. to certain magnitudes so exploHence, we will proceed by limiting (~-y)~~x sives will not be jarred off of tables, plaster in buildings will not crack, or people will not be annoyed. The equation of motion for this oscillator is: m -d2x + k x = k y. sinwt dt2 t = 0, x and dx/dt = 0, the difference (x-y) = ci<21 sinwt (5.28) in displacements will (5.29)

If at time be given by:

5-53

the particular solution in Equation (5.29) has two parts to the solution: which the natural frequency Jklm of the oscillator predominates and the complementary solution where the frequency of the excitation w predominates. Which sine term is most important depends upon two things: 1) damping, which we have not included in this solution, and 2) the nature of the If the system whether it is a pulse or harmonic oscillation. excitation, were to include damping and be heavily damped so that the particular or excited harmonically with insignificant solution is unimportant, the complementaty solution dominates and Equation start-up transients, (.5.29) becomes: complementary Solution only For low frequency (x-y) becomes:
(5.30)

excitations

with

w/a

<< 1.0,

the

maximum

value

for

i 0

(x-Y)max = 1.0 (yow2) for

w << 1.0 F m

complementary solution only 1 (

(5.31)

On the other hand, if the amount of damping is insignificant or the excitation is a short pulse so that start-up transients are important, then the particular solution dominates and Equation (5.29) becomes:

particular solution only

(5.32)

Which

when w/G

-CC 1.0

has a maximum

absolute

value

for

(x-y)

of:

(5.33)

Equation (5.33), when the particular solution dominates, is a whereas Equation (5.31), when the maximum particle velocity criterion, is a maximum acceleration criterion. complementary solution dominates, Because both criteria relate to the maximum force imparted to the mass, one can see that, dependent upon the character of the excitation and amount of damping, either velocity or acceleration of the ground can be the proper criterion for deciding when ground shock damages structures or disturbs people.

5-54

(5.30)

If w/Gr:,l.O, the complementary dominates and the maximum value of (x-y),,, = 1.0
YO

solution (x-y) is

given given

by Equation by:

w for >> 1.0 (5.34)

Equation (5.34) shows that for high frequencies the criterion can become a displacement criteria. For oscillations, this situation is seldom encountered as engineers usually design structures with U/G < 1.0 so no resonance will be experienced should higher harmonics be excited. Naturally, when accidents occur, w/&6 can be unintentionally greater than 1.0, and a displacement criterion might arise. Those interested in learning more about shock spectra and their derivation should read Reference 5.27. These can be shown structures or shock spectra for some band were criteria computations for the response of a linear-elastic oscillator graphically using shock spectra as criteria for damaging annoying people because of ground shock. All of these present a limiting velocity, acceleration, or displacement of excitation frequencies. Some of the earliest of these for annoying people,

Various investigators have inferred that people begin to perceive vibration, clearly perceive vibrations, or are annoyed based on a ground velocity of vibration criteria. Plotted in Figure 5.19 are vibration data summarized by Steffens (Ref. 5,28) for vibrations from traffic, railways, pile driving, and machinery. As can be seen, Steffens would conclude that ground velocities between 0.01 to 0.03 in./sec are just perceptible, 0.03 in./sec and 0.10 in./sec are clearly perceptible, and over 0.10 in./sec are annoying. The frequencies are fairly low in Figure 5.19 (less than 80 Hz) and would indicate that our qualitatively derived velocity criterion for constant differences in displacement of the ground and c-g. of the responding system are correct. Because our system is a linearelastic oscillator, the criterion of a constant difference in displacements is also a statement that the peak force imparted to the mass is a constant, and that the peak acceleration experienced by the mass is also constant. Reiher and Meister (Ref. 5.29) would concur with the results given in Figure 5.19. Actually, Steffens followed Reiher and Meister and decided that their conclusions covered reasonably well all values given by others. Reiher and Meister indicate that a peak ground velocity of 0.01 in./sec is the threshold of being barely noticeable; whereas, 0.10 in./sec is the threshold of being troublesome.

~0
5-55

1.0

---. I 0

I Q PAINFUL q ANNOYING

0.6 0.2
q

0 CLEARLY PERCEPTIELE TO ANNOYING v CLEARLY PERCEPTIBLE Q JUST PERCEPTIBLE ANNOYING

i 2 0.06 .?I

CLEARLY PERCEPTIBLE

d
0.04

0 0

0
8

JUST PERCEPTIBLE

0.01

40
f, Hz

60

Figure

5.19

Human Thresholds

for

Ground

Vibrations

(Reference

5.28)

5-56

In 1943 RausA (Ref. 5.30) presented steady-state vibration criteria for safe operation of machinery. At very low frequencies below 33 Hz Rausch's criterion is a peak velocity one of 1.0 in./sec (Equation 5.33, particular solution); however, at slightly higher frequencies over 33 Hz, he uses a peak soil acceleration criterion of 0.5 g (Equation 5.31, complementary solution). Because machinery involves steady-state vibrations in which the complementary solution definitely becomes important, an acceleration criterion makes sense. A convenient method of presenting various investigators' vibration data on annoying people is a shock spectra diagram as seen in Figure 5.20. This diagram simultaneously shows limiting displacement, velocity, and acceleration values and the associated frequencies. Points falling above limiting values violate "failure" criterion, while points falling below represent satisfactory conditions, Figure 5.20 gives the limiting conditions of: 1) Reiher and Meister for shocks being barely noticeable to people and for being troublesome to people, 2) Rausch for vibrating machines and machinery foundations; and 3) the U. S. Bureau of Mines for blasting, even though their limits were generated using vibrators. The existence of very low frequency velocity response criteria and higher frequency acceleration criteria are apparent in Figure 5.20. the damaging of buildings can be an imBesides annoying people, portant, and for some scenarios more important, accidental explosion consideration. Numerous investigators have conducted experiments and This work will be reviewed proposed criteria for protecting structures. so that these efforts can be brought into perspective. The Bureau of Mines (Ref. 5.14) conducted experiments in 1942 because of damage and litigation arising from the detonation of buried explosive charges. Because the Bureau had difficulty locating structures which could be blast loaded to damage, 13 tests were conducted using a Force and frequency were mechanical vibrator with an unbalanced rotor. The adjusted with upper limits of 1000 pounds and 40 Hz, respectively. Bureau report based upon these results recommended an acceleration criterion with no damage at less than 0.1 g's, minor damage between Q,l and 1,Q These Bureau of Mines and major damage at greater than 1.0 g's. g's, results were later to become a subject of controversy as Duvall and Fogelson (Ref. 5.31) used these same data to show statisticaily that major damage correlated with acceleration. In the Boston Society of Civil proposed a constant velocity criterion blasting. His lower limit for caution peak ground velocity of approximately Engineers (Ref. 5.32), Crandell for protecting structures from to structures corresponds to a 3.0 in./sec, Crandell used test

5-57

Ln c M c

Frequency, Figure 5.20 Shock

Hz Spectra Diagram

5-58

results to relate this velocity (he calls it an energy ratio) and a ground transmission constant. distance, charge weight, codes are based upon this work.

to standoff Many state

interim blasting standards promulgated by In the State of Texas, the U. S. Department of the Interior and published in the Federal Register on December 13, 1977, were tentatively adopted by the Texas Railroad Commission in February of 1978. The U. S. Department of the Interior made the interim blasting standard final in the Federal Register of March 13, 1979. Final adoption by the Texas Railroad Commission was made in November 1979 in Coal Mining Regulations for the Surface Mining Division. Both the interim and final blasting standards limit maximum peak particle velocity of the ground motion in any direction to one in./sec at the' location of any usable building. Arguments at the pre-adoption hearing for a two in./sec "limiting" velocity were presented, but were rejected. Both the interim and the final permanent regulations use a form of Morris' equation (Ref. 5.11) to relate the charge weight (W in pounds of explosive) and the standoff distance (D in feet). (5.35) This equation need not be used where a seismograph has been installed to monitor particle velocity, which still should not exceed one in./sec. Inside the grounds owned or leased by the party doing the blasting, that person does not have to adhere to the maximum peak particle velocity limitation. This regulation is to protect neighboring parties and not the blaster himself from the consequences of ground shock. In Sweden (Ref. 5.33) a large data base was accumulated during a Because large reconstruction project requiring blasting near buildings. blasts were desired for economy of operation, a policy was adopted whereby minor damage, which could be replaced at moderate cost, was acceptable. Thus, these investigators were able to record and analyze a large amount of data on actual damage to buildings from more than 100 blasting tests. By and large, these Swedish frequencies were higher than those recorded elsewhere, 50 to 500 Hz. Once again, particle velocity became Velocities of 2.8 in./ the best damage criterion for failure of plaster. set resulted in no noticeable damage, 4.3 in./sec in fine cracking and fall of plaster, 6.3 in./sec in cracking, and 9.1 in./sec in serious cracking. 5.34) conducted controlled blasting Edwards and Northwood (Ref. tests on six residences slated for removal for the St. Lawrence River Power Project. Acceleration, particle velocity, and displacement were all measured for charges ranging from 47 to 750 lb buried at depths of 15 to 30 ft at various distances from their buildings. Frequencies ranged

5-59

from 3 to 30 Hz. They concluded that damage was more closely related to velocity than displacement or acceleration, and that 4 to 5 fn./sec was likely to cause damage. A safe vibration limit of 2.0 in./sec was recommended based on this study. In Czechoslovakia (Ref. 5.35), Dvorak published results for buried explosive charges of 2 to 40 lb placed 16 to 100 ft from one to two-story brick buildings. His frequencies were in the range of 1.5 to 15 Hz. Dovak concluded that threshold damage occurred at particle velocities between 0.4 to 1.2 in./sec, minor damage at 1.2 to 2.4 in./sec and major damage above 2.4 in./sec. Now that all these building damage threshold criteria have been For ground discussed, the question arises as to which are best. shock from blasts or impacts, a velocity criterion is most appropriate in the low frequency domain. Of the criteria discussed, only Rausch (Ref. 5.30) and Bureau of Mines (Ref. 5.14) have an acceleration domain. Both of these groups of experiments were largely based upon vibrations, either from machinery or from vibrators. The point which we would make is that steady-state vibrations can result in the complementary solution. being dominant. We have shown that the complementary solution in Equation (5.29) can lead to an acceleration criterion. On the other hand, single pulses should have a significant particular solution. A particular solution leads to a velocity criterion in the low frequency domain. All of the other data bases with explosions as a source for test results have velocity criteria. This result seems correct, and one should not be disturbed by different velocity criteria having been obtained by different investigators. Equation (5.33) shows that (x-y) is not a function of only velocity (y w), but rather it is a functi%xof (y u)/=. Naturally, different LOocations and structural configurations'can have a variety of natural structural frequencies G. One of the best summaries of low frequency blasting criteria was put together by Nicholls et al. (Ref. 5.36). Basically, Nicholls took the three best data sources--Thoenen and Windes (Ref. 5.14), Langefors and Edwards and Northwood (Ref. 5.34)--to show a et al. (Ref. 5.33), composite plot of displacement amplitude versus frequency data. Three degrees of structural damage severity were considered:. no damage, minor damage such as new crack formation or opening of old cracks, and major damage such as serious cracking and fall of plaster. These data cover a wide range in frequencies from a low of 2.5 to 28 Hz for the Edwards and Northwood St. Lawrence Project to a high of 46 to 450 Hz for the Langefors et al. Swedish data. The Thoenen and Windes Bureau of Mines data fall in between at 7 to 40 Hz. Figure 5.21 shows this displacement versus frequency plot of Nicholls. Notice that after conducting a regression analysis, the slope of the lines for the different degrees of damage are all constant velocity curves. The magnitude of the particle

Change

1 - 15 Augu,st

1981

5-60

IS .e A
.4

.2

.I ,0e B .06 d g .04

domage #nor damoge

v=?.6 in/set ~~5.4 ink

s 5 02 0 ; 01 .008 -006 -004

Q 0 0
l

~~2.0

in/see

.002
-

8 *

Bureou of Mines Longefors Edwards and Northwood Bureou of Mines Longefors Edwards ond Northwood

Mojor

damage

data

Minor >

domoge

doto

FREQUENCY, Hz

Flglme

5.21

Displacement versus Frequency, with Recommended Safe Blasting (Ref. 5.35)

Combined Criterion

Data

5-61

velocity for major damage is 7.6 in./aec. The minor structural damage threshold velocity of 5.4 in./sec is based almost exclusively on the Swedish,data (Ref. 5.33) as the results of others were found to be statisticallyinconclusive. Both major and minor damage results in Figure 5.21 would reject a displacement slope of 0 or acceleration slope of -2. In Figure 5.21, the outer limit for safe blasting could not be obtained statistically, but the safe zone particle velocity of 2.0 in./sec recommended by Duvall and Fogelson (Ref. 5.31) is shown and seems reasonable. The results shown in Figure 5.21 are reconnnended for use in Pantex safety studies as they are based upon an evaluation of the largest data base and the results reach the correct theoretical limit for low frequency ground shock from blasting. In using the results in Figure 5.21 remember that the criterion actually involves both the velocity (you) and the natural frequency of the structure (a). In Figure 5.21, the upper frequency bound is 450 Hz; however, this bound is based upon buildings in Sweden as tested by Langefors (Ref. 5.33). If the buildings of interest have other natural frequencies, the upper frequency could be either greater or less than 450 Hz in other buildings. In addition to the structural thresholds presented in Figure 5.21, we would add the thresholds for annoying people or for being perceptible given in Figure 5.19. The thresholds given in Figure 5.19 are not dangerous ones; however, circumstances can arise where, in the interest of public relations, the threat of bothering neighbors should be avoided. For personnel exposed to air blast, ground shock is not a critical injury-producing mechanism. Even for those within shelters, ground shock should not be critical as both minor and major damage will be imparted to structures before direct injury is imparted to individuals. Even though the average human being is a very strong structure for resisting blast, both the indirect and the direct injury scenarios must be the concern of designers. One shock spectrum mechanism which has not been discussed is the effect of ground shock on mechanical or electrical equipment within strucEquipment within a structure fails because of its own properties tures. and the loads which are transmitted through the structure to the casing of the equipment itself. This problem is further complicated by the fact that the equipment can be shock mounted or isolated through the proper design of mounts. We will not solve this complicated problem in this manual. One very approximate procedure does exist whereby free-field shock spectrum are used rather than the shock spectra for individual equipment items. This approach has the advantage of being simple, but accuracy will suffer accordingly,

5-62

Ode110 and Price (Ref. 5.37) present an elementary free-field response spectrum diagram for damaging internal equipment when shocks tire transmitted through a foundation. Figure 5.22 presents this shock spectrum which describes the capability of the base excitation to excite systems of various natural frequencies. All three domains (acceleration, velocity, and displacement) can be found in Figure 5.22. Ode110 and, Price call the excitations pseudo-velocity, pseudo-displacement and pseudo-acceleration to emphasize that these bounds are approximate spectral bounds rather than true motions. To evaluate the response spectrum bounds for equipment vulnerability in blast-hardened structures, the authors recommend that: 1) the displacement boundary be increased by a factor of 1.6, 2) the velocity boundary be increased'by a factor of 1.8, and 3) the acceleration boundary be increased by a factor of 2.0 whenever Figure 5.22 is used. Both the soft structure and hardened structure boundaries are shown in Figure 5.22. Whenever data are available on the response spectra of specific equipment of concern, this information should be used rather than Figure 5.22 as these data should be more accurate. The information contained in Figure 5,22 is for equipment with specific natural frequencies. Equipment can be designed with springs that change the frequency or energy absorbing materials to dampen the response. Another simplifying assumption associated with Figure 5.22 is that structures tend to move with and experience the same shock levels as the ground. The nature of a building's foundation could significantly alter the soil-structure interaction and make this assumption invalid. Figure 5.22 should only be used as an approximate guide OK indicator that equipment damage might be possible. The shock wave forms are too complex and the structure with internal equipment is too complicated to solve this problem in this manual by using other techniques. Very little information is available on shock spectra for high frequency excitation. Generally, structures found on the surface of the earth are in a low frequency domain; however, buried bunkers, buried arches, and buried pipe can respond to displacement (a high frequency criterion) because a large mass of earth combines with the mass of the structure to give a large value for (a w). Although not cast in the format of shock spectra, some results for these buried structures will be presented in subsequent sections. Those interested in further discussion of shock spectra should In addition to a generalized read Eubanks and Juskie (Ref. 5.38). discussion, this reference contains shock test information for various equipment items such as fasteners, compressors, fans, heat exchangers, motors, pumps,valveq batteries, circuit breakers, fuseboxes, relays, It also contains a disrectifiers, switchboards, oscilloscopes, etc. cussion on two-degree-of-freedom systems as would exist when an isolator

5-63

100 Frequency, Figure 5.22. Shock Spectra for a Structure (Ref. Damage 5.37)

1,000 Hz Within

10,000

5-64

is inserted in series with the equipment and the source. A number of Corps of Engineers studies (Refs. 5.39, 5.40, 5.41 and 5.42) have also been conducted to determine the effects of ground shock on equipment inside missile silos for the Safeguard Program. The reports from these studies may be valuable if the possibility exists that internal equipment can be damaged. Further details on shock isolation design are not presented as they are beyond the scope of this manual.

5-65

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 5.8 PROBLEM - Assume that one wishes to determine whether: 1) structural damage, 2) disturbance of personnel, and 3) equipment damage inside hardened structures can occur due to a buried explosive detonation. GIVEN: Uv = peak vertical vertical particle velocity (in./sec) (in.) as described in Sections

Xv = maximum

displacement may be determined

'NOTE: These values 5.3.1 and 5.3.2. FIND: Effects 1. of ground

shock the period (5.8).

X v

REFERENCE by rearranging Eq. (5.8)

SOLUTION:

Calculate Equation
T+
V

2. 3. 4. 5.

Calculate the frequency. f = l/T Determine whether structural damage will occur. Determine whether personnel will be disturbed by the shock. Determine whether damage will occur within the structure.

Eq. Fig. Fig. Fig.

(5.11) 5.21 5.19 5.22

CALCULATION GIVEN: UV = 1.978 Xv = 0.0607 FIND: Effects 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. of in./sec in. ground shock set

SOLUTION:

.T = 2 u
V

Xv = 0.193

f = l/T = 5.19 Hz No damage will occur, but Figure 5.21 indicates that we are extremely close to the threshold for blasting safety. Figure 5.19 shows that the shock exceeds the threshold for annoying people. This case is marked on Figure 5.22 as a circled point at U = 1.98 in./sec and f = 5.2 Hz, which falls below the

5-66

threshold for both weak unhardened structures and hardened structures. This means that no damage would be expected for equipment in either unhardened or hardened structures. This solution is a very approximate accidents might yield other results. one; therefore, actual

5-67

5.6.2

Structural

Loading

from

Ground

Shock

Before stresses in a buried wall, pipe or shelter can be estimated by using structural response procedures as discussed in Chapter 8, the loads imparted to a buried structure have to be estimated. Although the loads and the resulting structural response are not decoupled problems, in this section we will treat them as decoupled by assuming that the buried object being loaded is rigid. In Section will be presented approximate "order in Section 5.6.3. intermediate step stresses in buried 5.6.2.1 Load 5.6.3, some approximate stress calculation procedures which bypass this procedure of estimating loads. Only of magnitude" answers will be obtained using the results These procedures for estimating loads are needed as an when more sophisticated procedures are used to determine structures. Wall

on buried

Earlier discussions showed how to estimate soil particle velocity U and soil displacement X in the free field. Once the ground motion U and X are known, the free-field pressure Ps and is are also known using Equations (5.6) and (5.7), respectively. A structure buried in the ground does not "feel" the free-field pressures and impulses; it "feels" the reflected pressures and impulses. This process is directly analogous to a structure in air feeling reflected pressures and impulses rather than side-on or free-field ones. The major difference is that over a much larger range, the normally reflected pressures and impulses imparted to a buried object in soil will be much closer to the lower acoustic limit of 2.0 times free-field ones. This effect is caused by soil particles being much denser than air. For all practical buried structure applications, a factor of 2.0 will be used automatically so no nonlinear approximations need to be developed. The other major difference in studying structural response buried structures is that a large mass of earth will move along with walls of a shock-loaded buried structure. Generally, this mass of far exceeds any mass in the structure itself. As a rule of thumb, mass of earth moving with the structure can be approximated as that of earth between' the charge and the structure itself. This rule of applies for detonations both overhead and off to the side. in the earth the mass thumb

Probably the best way of illustrating the load imparted to a buried structure is to use an example. This will be done by estimating the load imparted to a beam-like strip out of a wall loaded with a buried detonation as in Figure 5.23. The load imparted to the strip will not be uniform as the standoff distances differ and only at mid-span is the loading normal to the beam. Assuming that the soil's partfcle motion is arrested by the beam, the peak reflected pressure for a target normal to a radial line from the charge is given by:

5-68

Figure

5.23

Example of a Load Imparted Strip from a Buried Wall

to a

5-69

and because

U is

given

by:

u -- po 112 = P pscp2 i )
C

(5.37)

The reflected

pressure

for

a normally

oriented

target

is:

- 'r = P c2 SP

(5.38)

But targets are component of the This assumption angle equals 90 will not occur, imparted to the

typically not normally oriented. At any point x, the normal load to the beam is approximated by us& the direction cosine. is not strictly valid especially when the> degrees; however, in any practical problem this condition After substituting JR2+x2 for r, the peak pressure P(x) beam at any point x is given by: 7 l/2 \ 0.852

P(x) PsP c2

(5.39)

determined.

In a similar manner, the The major difference

impulse distribution would be that

can also

be

and

i r = 2&&x

(5.40) 1.105

0.04143 _x r --PO CL ( P sP 4 112 = tanhl'5

i ,)
psc2r3 . b8:4q

w2 3 Vpr )

o*237 I

(5.41)

5-70

At

any point

x the

impulse

i(x)

imparted W p,c; (R2+x2)

to the

beam is

given

by:

(5.42) W p,c; A (R2+x2)3'2

tation extra

The only other consideration is the addition of an added mass per unit length of strip

in any structural mass for soil. -In would equal:

response computhis example, this

Because psbR is often much where b is the loaded width of strip. than PbeamA, the added mass of earth is the important mass to the of a buried structure. Both frequency and amplitude of response estimated much more accurately when this large effective mass is

larger response will be used.

Should the load sweep over the roof of the buried structure, side-on or incident pressures and impulses should be used just as one The most difficult would consider orientation for air blast loadings. problems involve shielding of a portion or segment of a buried shelter. When shielded so complex wave patterns are formed, we do not know the actual loading and should the circumstances arise, tests have to be performed. Full-scale expensive tests do not have to be performed; small subscale replica model tests should work excellently and can give ground shock loads with adequate accuracy for design purposes.

5-71

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 5.9 PROBLEM - Assume that one wishes to determine the peak reflected pressures and impulses at mid-span where a buried strip is normally loaded and at an arbitrary point on a beam strip. The geometry of where a buried charge is located relative to a strip from an outer wall of a buried bunker is illustrated in Figure 5.23. GIVEN: W = explosive yield (ft-lb) R = standoff (ft) X = distance from point of normal loading (ft.) = propagation velocity (ft/sec) cP = mass density of soil (lb-sec2/ft4) % " = atmospheric pressure (lb/ft')
pO

to

point

of

interest

FIND:

Loading 1.

on a buried Calculase ~2cP+

pO

beam the following W quantities. W I il = the

REFERENCE

SOLUTION:

2.

p c(R~+X~)~~ y;R3 SP Calculate the peak reflected pressure at center of the strip. P 1.234 x 10 -Z ($/2(ti)0.852 r

Eq. the

(5.38)

3.

P c2 SP Calculate center of -= 1:
%cpR i

tanh the the

[26.03(w)"*30] peak strip. reflected impulse at

o.08286(P)1~2(ipo5 tanh1'5[18.24(@o'237] the peak pressure at an arbitrary

Eq.

(5.42)

4.

Calculate point (x).

p (x> = 1.234
P c2
SP

x 10-2(@1'2 tanh [26.03(cl)"'30] impulse at

(w )0.852 1 Eq. (5.39)

5.

Calculate point (x). -

the

peak

an arbitrary

i(x)

0.08286 =

(p>1'2

(il)1'105 Eq. (5.42)

%cpR

tanh1*5[18.24(cl)0'237]

5-72

CALCULATION GIVEN: W = 6.84 x lo7 ft-lb R = 50 ft X = 10 ft %3 = 3.54 lb-sec2/ft4 = 950 ft/sec Ep = 2,117 lb/ft2 0 Loading on buried beam

FIND:

SOLUTION: 1.

p' = psc;/Po = 1,509 i = W/p&R3 = 1.71 x 10-4 ii1 = W/p&R 2+x 2) 312 = 1.61 x 1O-4 =I-1.234 x lO-2 (1509) 1'2 (1.71 x lo-4)o-852 tanh [26.03 (1.71 x 10-4Y0'301 = 6.85 psi = 0.8286(1509)1'2 (1.71 x 10-4+105 tanhla5 [18.24(1.71 x 10-4)o'2371

2.

P r 3.54(950j2

pr= 986 lb/ft2

3. ir (3.54)(950)(50)

4. 5.

i = 38.3 lb-sec/ft2 = 0.266 psi-set P;x = 10 ft) = 921 lb/ft2 = +.40& i(x = 10 ft) = 35.9 lb-sec/ft = 0.249 psi-set

5-73

Change 1 - 15 August 1981

5.6.2.2

Load

on Buried

Pipe

Many pipes are buried in ground and can be deformed or fractured from buried accidental detonations. Actually, pipes are generally very tough structures; nevertheless, to analyze them, a load distribution is needed. Figure 5.24 from Reference 5.43 shows an assumed impulse distribution imparted to buried pipe. At the front of the pipe, the impulse and pressure will be normally reflected ones equal to 2 i or 2 P . At the top and bottom of the pipe, these loads will be i&dent 08 sideon ones. Although the exact distribution is not known between the front and top of the pipe, a convenient mathematical expression which can approximate this distribution and which goes to the correct limits is given by: . l=i $ (1+$% for for 0 < 0 < IT/~ 0 < 0 r: n/2 (5.44) (5.45)

P = Ps (1+?)

The back side of the pipe will also be loaded by the shock wave diffracting around the pipe. At 13 = -n/2 on the very rear surface of the pipe, the impulse exceeds i , but is probably less than 2 is. In Reference 5.43, this was solvedsby assuming the applied impulse equaled (1 f m) i where m was some number between 0 and 1 which was to be obtained later fro: experimental test results. The test data in this reference indicate that the best value for (1 + m) is 1.78. This same reflection factor can be used for pressures as well as for impulse. If a similar assumed distribution is used over the back of the pipe, the impulse and pressure relationshipscan be estimated byi i=is(l-7)
p = p
S

1.560
(1 - lssheY

for for

0 > 0 > -IT/~ 0 > e > -IT/~

(5.46) (5 * 47 1

The negative sign appears in Equation (5.46) and (5.47) because the angle 0 is measured in a negative direction. Although this solution was developed for pipes, it can also be used to determine the load distribution on buried arches.

5-74

i,

for

O<e<

n 2

i = i,

l 71,569 n

for

0)

e>-+

Figure

5.24

Assumed

Distribution

of

Impulse

Imparted

to a Pipe

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 5.10 PROBLEM - Assume various GIVEN: LJ = = % = 2 = Ground 1. 2. that one wishes points around to determine a buried pipe the maximum pressure subjected to ground (ft/sec) > in Figure 5.24 REFERENCE at shock.

peak radial mass density

particle2velgcity (lb-set /ft

propagation velocity (ft/sec) angle to point of interest as defined shock pressure on buried pipe

FIND:

SOLUTION:

Calculate side-on ps = PsCpU

pressure. Eq. at various for points around Eq. Eq. (5.46) (5.47) (5.6)

Calculate the pressure the pipe. a. P = Ps(1 + $) b. p = Ps(l

0 2 0 2 IT/~

or 0 > 0 1 -IT/~

CALCULATION GIVEN: U % ip FIND: = 0.125 ft/ses = 3.54 lb-set = 950 ft/sec = +90", +45", shock 1. 2.

/ft4 O", -45", -90" pipe = 420 lb/ft2 = 2.92 psi

Ground

pressure

on buried

SOLUTION:

Ps = (3.54)(950)(0.125) = 5.84 psi P(~=IT/~) P(m/4) = 4.38 psi P(0) = 2.29 psi P(-r/4) = 4.06 psi P(-~/2) = 5.20 psi

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

5-76

5.6.3

Approximate

Buried

Structural

Solutions

Now that the loading can be approximated, structural calculations can be made on any buried structural configuration. The type of structural engineering analysis which is required can depend upon what accuracy is needed and how well the source is defined. The most sophisticated and expensive analysis would be a finite element or finite difference multidegree-of-freedom computer program. The least sophisticated solutions, but yet sufficiently accurate for some applications, involve either onedegree-of-freedom equivalent oscillators (called Bigg's Method) or energy We will not describe any of these techniques in detail as solutions. this information is found in Chapter 8; however, some approximate graphical solutions will be given which can provide first-order engineering estimates. The first of these solutions is shown in Figure 5.25 for detonating First a buried charge at some standoff near a buried beam-like member. the Q/R ratio is computed so that the value of Y can be graphically determined. Then this value of Y is set equal to one of scaled-stress or strain quantities given in the insert to Figure 5.25. The proper Y 1) an elastic-bending solution, 2) a quantity depends upon whether: or 3) an elastic extensional solution rigid plastic bending solution, is being evaluated. Provided a self-consistent set of units is used, any system is acceptable because thenscaled-stress and strain quantity Y is nondimensional. To use this solution, be sure to convert the energy release over to energy units. If a cavity exists around the charge, be sure to convert the energy release to Weff before substituting into this solution. The insert to Figure 5.25 gfaphically shows the problem being solved if This solution has not been uncertainty exists from this description. the details of a similar solution derived in any publications; however, for a surface burst are presented in the appendix to Baker, Garza, and Westine (Ref. 5.20). The American Gas Association is interested in the stresses in Some curve fits to experimental buried pipes from underground blasting. test data given in Reference 5.43 can be used to estimate maximum elastic caused by buried detonations. longitudinal and circumferential stresses The solutions are conducted by first computing a quantity called g. ;' where R W E h is is is is 46.53 & standoff (ft) charge weight (lb) elastic modulus of pipe pipe thickness (in.) fi R2*5 (W) (5.48)

(psi)

11
5X

2X

lx 5X Y
2X

lx
5X

2x

lx

TABLE FOR Y Type Response I Elastic Bending I2 Ps Plastic Bending

596 oo :A d-76

Quantity I 11 c1.52 R2.2S (0, Kb + pb A)

h2 b2

z L =1.52

R2.2a
$.76 b2

(Ps Rb f pb A)
h

p 0.2s
a

Elastic

Extension

4050

02

A a c:*52 E p 0.24 a

R2*28 $.76

(pa b2

Rb + pb

A)

Figure

5.25

Normal

Stresses

in

Beam-Like

Members

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

5-78

Then for a c 2675, the circumferential are given by: u cir = 1.0 G = 0.253 Olong the circumferential

and

longitudinal (s - 2675 <

stresses

in

psi (5.49a)

for

;; la304 - z
and longitudinal

(5.49b) stresses in psi are

For (r 12675, given by:

cir

= 21.7

;740

- 47.55

c7o.584 for a 12675

(5 -5Oa.) (5.50b)

along

= 47.55

$584

This solution gives only the elastic stress contribution from a buried detonation. If the pipe is pressurized or loaded through other mechanisms, these stresses would have to be superimposed on the blasting ones before the total state of maximum stresses could be determined in a pipe. These curve fits could also be used for detonations in a buried cavity or for a surface detonation; however, the appropriate coupling factors would have to be determined so that the equivalent buried charge could be determined. The approximate solutions'for determining stresses and strains in buried structures are only for simple rudimentary configurations such as beams and pipes. This is naturally so as other more complicated configurations associated with doors, connections, irregular structural configurations, and internal equipment do not lend themselves to idealized generalizations. The loading principles discussed in this section can still be used to understand the loading of these more complicated shapes, but more complex computational methods using multi-degree-of-freedom computer programs will be needed to determine stresses and strains adequate under these conditions.

0
5-79

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 5.11 PROBLEM - Assume that one wishes to compute the elastic in a beam-like strip taken from a buried wall a buried charge is detonated. GIVEN: R = W = I = b = h = ;P =
S

bending stress which results

when

standoff (in.) explosive yield (ft-lb) moment of inertia of area beam width (in.) beam thickness (in.) soil propagation velocity2(in./sec) soil mass density (lb-set /in.4) (psi) (lb-sec2/in.4) of beam beam from for (in. 2> shock 5.25. REFERENCE

R E 'b A FIND:

= length of beam (in.) = modulus of elasticity = mass density of beam = cross-sectional bending l. 2. 3. stress the area in

Elastic

ground Figure

SOLUTION:

Calculate R 2R Find Y. Solve for

abscissa

Fig. omax. 1.52 R2.28 b,Rb + pbA) 'p 0.24 w1.76 h2 b2 759 E p I '
S

5.25

Y=

cl2 max

Fig.

5.25

CALCULATION GIVEN: W = R = I = b = h = cp=

PS

40 lb (1.7 x lo6 ft-lb/lb) 840 in. 5832 in. 4 12 in. 18 in. 11,400 in./s c. = 1.707 x lo- ? lb-sec2/in.4

x 12 in./ft

= 8.16

x lo8

in..lb

R = 300 in. E = 5 x 106 psi 'b = 7.33 x 10s4 A = 216 in. 2

lb-sec2/in.'

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

S-80

FIND:

Elastic 1. 2. 3.

bending

stress

in

beam from

ground

shock

SOLUTION:

PJ2R = 0.178 Y = 5.6 x 10 -3

5.6

x 10 -3

_ n2max (5RD2)(3no)(ll,~nn)'~52(R~,o)2~2R~1.707
759 (5 x l& (I..707 x 1.0 -b ) 0.24

x IO-(AhO)(12) (8.16 x 10R)1*7h

(216)(7.31 (12)2

x IO-)1

(1.FJ2

max

= 5396

psi

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 5.12 PROBLEM - Assume that one wishes longitudinal stresses loading from a buried GIVEN: R W E h = = = = to estimate the in a buried pipe explosive charge. circumferential and subjected to blast

standoff (ft) charge weight (lb) elastic modulus of pipe pipe thickness (in.) in buried pipe a. ~6 (W) from

(psi)

FIM):

Stresses 1.

ground

shock

REFERENCE Eq. 5.48

SOLUTION:

Calculate ; = 46.53

2. 3.

4.

diT R2-5 If z < 2675, continue -If o > 2675, continue u cir = 1.0 o = 0.253 ; 1.304 along u cir = 21.7 ; 0.740 ;; 0.584 along = 47.55

at at _ ;;

Step Step

3. 4.

Eq. Eq. Eq. Eq.

5.49a 5.49b 5.50a 5.50b

47.55

0 o-584

CALCULATION GIVEN: R W E h = = = = 70 ft 40 lb 30 x lo6 psi 0.344 in. in buried pipe from ground shock

FIND:

Stresses

5-81

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

SOLUTION: 1. 2. 3'

5 = 46 * 53 (30 x 106)1'2 (40) (o.344>1'2 (7o)2m5 2 = 424 424 < 2675, continue at Step 3. 'cir = 1.0 rr 0 cir = 424 psi - 1.304 _ 0 %ng = 0.253 G %ng = 251 psi

Change 1 - 15 August 1981 5-82

5.7

FUTURE NEEDS contained in this section of the manual, we can which could be improved. The importance of each upon the application; hence, the order in which are presented is insignificant. Shock Waves

From the material see six problem areas area differs dependent these recommendations

1) Screening

of

This problem can be calculated using large computer programs; The informahowever, the AE may not have such a computer program. Testing was for tion presented in this text is limited in scope. a specific condition without the corresponding effort to generalize A need test results so they could be more universally applied. exists for further work in this area if screening is to be used, but it is not considered to be effective at this time.
2)

P-Wave

Propagation

The solution which has been presented for R-waves is very inclusive and easy to use. A corresponding solution for P-waves should be possible and capable of development along similar the development of such a solution is of lines. For Pantex, less importance than it.would be for soil mechanics in general. However, if detonations ever occur directly over a roof or directly under a structure, this P-wave solution would be essential. 3) Ejecta Radius

The data in Figure 5.17 are very limited in scope. The variation in explosive charge weight is not even one order of magnitude. Some extremely small scale tests (using gram charges) were performed at the University of Dayton, but the method of establishing the maximum crater radius was not the same. On an extremely ejecta can also become confused with dust on the small scale, floor. A thorough study might establish that 25 percent, 50 percent, 75 percent, 95 percent, etc. of the ejecta was within To the best of our a scaled radius of some specific number. this detailed mapping has not been performed. The knowledge, f/24 scaling rule used on the current maximum ejecta radius in Figure 5.17 is based upon what the writer theoretically believes to be correct rather than a careful testing over a wide range in charge weight. 4) Cratering in a Cavity

A problem area which occurs at Pantex is cratering when the charge is within a cavity. The reader should notice that all cratering solutions were for charges in contact with the surrounding earth. Model tests might be possible to obtain the required data less 5-83

expensively, accompany 5) Explosive

but the development any test program. Coupling

of

an analysis

procedure

should

The solution which was presented for coupling appears to work well; however, other viewpoints have been in existence. Unfortunately, this manual could not become a research project to evaluate all approaches and decide which is best. We have advocated one approach that looks reasonable. The solution which was presented as Figure 5.10 could also be made more A log linear approximation to the air blast reflected accura.te. pressure versus scaled standoff R/W113 curve was made in the region for the data in Figures 5.11 and 5.12 This approach leads to a simple solution which is valid in the correct domain, but the user can misuse the solution by applying it outside the domain in which it is valid. The use of a more complicated functional relationship for relating PR to R/W1j3 would lead to a plot similar to that in Figure 5.10, but the function could be made more accurate. 6) Shock Passage into Adjacent Bays

The actual problem of an accidental explosion in an underground bay is a complex one. An air blast will load a concrete wall which in turn will transmit a shock on into soil that eventually will load another concrete wall, and finally will transmit a shock into the adjacent air-filled room, The resulting effects of this shock on equipment, parts, explosive, and personnelarethe final answer to a complex series of phenomena. Although this scenario can represent an actual accident, it is not explicitly answered using computations. At best, we crudely ignore the presence of concrete walls and use shock spectra as an estimation of internal adjacent bay conditions. If engineering calculations are to be made more accurately, model testing and associated work on analytical calculations will be required to study shock transmission into adjacent bays. 5.8 FLOW DIAGRAM

Many different ground shock and cratering subproblems have been presented and illustrative examples solved throughout this chapter. To aid the analyst in gathering this information into a logical sequence, Figure 5.26 is presented. Figure 5.26 is a flow diagram which begins at the top with the definition of a Pantex ground shock problem and leads throughout a series of yes-no questions and analysis blocks. Each analysis block refers to some subsection in this section of the manual where an analysis procedure and an example problem can be found. If the arrows are followed into and out of each box in Figure 5.26, the subsequent analysis should lead to an acceptable engineering design.

5-84

IT

LAYERED

SECTION 5.3.1 EFFECTS OF LAYERING ON WAVES I

SECTION 5.3.2 ESTI:,LATE u AND X AT LOCATIONS OF INTEREST

SECTION 5.2.4 DETEREllNE WAVE LENGTH f SECTION 5.3.1 N VERTICAL ION FROM Al. "OTTON SECTION 5.6.1 USE SHOCK SPECTRA NO A

SECTION 5.6.3 USE APPROXIMATE ANALYSIS PROCEDURES I

SECTION 5.3.3 SEE REFERENCES ON SCRl?ENING

,SECTIOLltS.2 36 ,yliEi+AC.
YES I SECTION PREDICT P&i 5.6.2 LOADS + CHAPTER 6 USE DESIGN MANUALS OR APPROPRIATE PROCEDURES + I I REDESIGN

t SECTION 5.5 EVALUATE CFYVTERING

f
I

Figure

5.26

Flow

Diagram

of 5-85

Pantex

Ground

Shock

Problem

5.9 A A g As AW a b
C

LIST OF SYN0OLS peak amplitude for velocity contact contact contact of AS/A or displacement; total area

area of gas-solid small area solid area of fluid-solid contact area; ratio

loaded beam width propagation velocity velocity velocity; velocity; Rayleigh wave Shear wave by simple layer wave velocity

cP CR
C S

P-wave propagation R-wave propagation S-wave propagation

c,/c DA/d DT/d d E f G g H/L h I

effective wave velocity divided because of a layered media scaled apparent crater scaled true crater depth

depth

depth of burial

in soil

modulus of elasticity frequency (Hz)

shear modulus gravity thickness thickness second moment of area of top soil divided by wavelength

5-86

i K k

impulse constant spring natural wavelength wavelength length mass constant

load

in

a shock

wave

constant frequency

k/m L
L/H R

divided of beam

by thickness

of

top

soil

M N P

exponent

pr ps
P g

peak shock stress

reflected front

pressure pressure, in peak gas side-on overpressure

or pressure pressure

po
pw
R
RJd

atmospheric stress standoff scaled scaled radius distance time time period

or pressure distance apparent true of crater cavity

in

water

crater radius

%da

5-87

thickness

of gravel soil particle velocity volume particle velocity velocity

U Uv v VA '13/d VT1'3/d W W eff

W

maximum r'adial peak vertical shock.front

scaled apparent crater scaled true crater explosive effective ratio A,/A soil

volume charge yield; effective explosive weight

energy release; energy release;

explosive

weight

X
%

maximum radial

displacement motion must

maximum radial soil displacement, used when radial be separated from vertical motion maximum vertical position displacement 5.23

on beam in Figure

Yo

maximum displacement nondimensional Figure 5.25 stress as defined in the table associated with

Greek Symbols a 0
V

constant angle Poisson's ratio

mass density mass density behind the shock front

'a

5-88

Ps
w

mass density effective circular

of the soil

stress frequency (rad/sec)

5-89

5.10 5.1 5.2

REFERENCES URS/John A. Blume & Associates, "Seismic Hazard and Building Structure Behavior at the Pantex Facility," April 1976. Richart, F. E. Jr., Hall, J. R. Jr., Soils and Foundations, Prentice-Hall, Jersey, 1970. and Woods, R. D., Vibration af Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New

5.3

Lamb, H., "On the Propagation of Tremors Over the Surface of an Elastic Solid," Philosophical Transactions of Royal Society London, Series A, Volume 203, September 1904. Barkan, D. D., Dynamics of Bases and Foundations, co., New York, NY, 1962. McGraw Hill Book

5.4 5.5

Westiae, P. S., 'Ground Shock from the Detonation of Buried Explosives," Journal of Terramechanics, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 69-79, 1978
l

5.6 5.7

Carder, D. S., and Cloud, W. K., "Surface Motion from Large Underground F,xplosions,' J. Geophys. Res., 64, 1471-1487, 1959. Crandell, F. J., "Transmission Coefficient for Ground Vibrations Due to Explosions,' J. Boston Sot. Civil Engineering, 47, 152-168, 1960. Habberjam, G. M. and Whetton, J. T., "On the Relationship Between Seismic and Amplitude and Charge of Explosive Fired in Routine Blasting Operations," Geophysics, 17, 116-128, Jan., 1952. Hudson, D. E., Alford, J. L., and Iwan, W, D., "Ground Accelerations Caused by Large Quarry Blasts,' Bull. Seismic Sot., A, 51, 191-202, 1961. Ichiro, I., 'On the Relationship Between Seismic Ground Amplitude and the Quantity of Explosives in Blasting,' Reprint from Memoirs of the Faculty of Engineering, Kyoto University, 15, 579587, 1953.b from Blasting Morris, G., 'The Reduction of Ground Vibrations Operations,' Engineering, pp. 460-465. April 1957. Ricker, N., 'The Form and Nature of Seismic Waves and the Structure of Seismograms," Geophysics 5, 348-366, 1940. Teichmann, G. A., and Westwater, R., 'Blasting and Associated Vibrations,' Engineering, pp. 460-465, April 1957.

5.8

5.9

5.10

5.11 5.12 5.13

5-90

5.14 5.15

Thoenen, J. R., and Windes, S. L., 'Seismic Effects of Quarry Bureau of Mines Bulletin, 442, 83, 1942. Blasting," Ground DisplaceWillis, D. E. and Wilson, J. T., 'Maximum Vertical ment of Seismic Waves Generated by Explosive Blasts," Bulletin Seismic Safety of America, 50, 455-459, 1960. Murphey, B. F., "Particle Motions Near Explosions in Halite," Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 66, No. 3, March 1961, pp. 947-958. Woods, R. D., "Screening of Surface Waves in Soils," Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, American Society Civil Engineers, Vol. 94, No. SMS, pp. 951-979, July 1968. of

5.16

5.17

5.18

Harvey, William, Dishan, John III, and Thomas, Tami, "Near-Surface Cratering Experiments, Fort Polk, Louisiana,' U. S. Army Waterways Experiment Station, Livermore, CA, AFWL-TR-351, November 1975. Ferritto, J. J. and Forrest, J. B., "Ground Motion from Pacific Cratering Experiments l,OOO-Pound Explosive Shots: Data Supplement," U. S. Navy Civil Engineering Laboratory Technical Report R 8085, January 1975. Baker, E. J., Garza, L. R..and Westine, P. S., "Development of a Design of a Relocatable Commandand Control Bunker," Waterways Experiment Station Contractor Report N-77-1, March 1977. Kvammen, Asbjom Jr., Pichumani, Raman and Dick, James L. Jr., "Pavement Cratering Studies," Univ. of New Mexico, Eric H. Wang Research Facility Report for Air Force Weapons Laboratory, 1973. Westine, Peter S., "Explosive VII, 2, pp. 9-19, 1970. Cratering," Journal of Terramechanics,

5.19

5.20

5.21

5.22 5.23

Westine, Peter S., "Bomb Crater Damage to Runways," Southwest Research Institute Contract F29601-72-C-0053 for Air Force Weapons Laboratory, February 1973. SCChabai, Albert J., "Crater Scaling Lbws for Desert Alluvium," 4391, Sandia Corporation, Albuquerque, New Mexico, December 1965. Rooke, AllenD. Jr., 'Essex-Diamond Ore Research Program, Apparent Crater Measurements for Simulated, Low Yield Nuclear Explosions Project Essex I, Phases 1 and 2," Waterways Experiment Station, WES MP N-78-3, March 1978. Anon, "Effects of Air Blast, on Hardened Structures," Air 500-8, January 1976. Cratering, Ground Shock, and Radiation Force Systems CommandManual, AFSCM

5.24 5.25

5.26

5-91

5.27 5.28

Thomson, W. T., NY, 1948.

Mechanical

Vibrations,

Prentice-Hall,

New York,

Steffens, R. J., "The Assessment of Vibration Intensity and Its Application to the Study of Building Vibrations," National Building Studies Special Report No. 19, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Building Research Station, London, England, 1952. Reiher, H. and Meister, F, J., "Die Empfindlichkeit gegen Erschutterungen," Forsch. Gebiete Ingenieur No. 11, pp. 381-386, 1931. der Menschen wesen, Vol. 2,

5.29

5.30 5.31

Rausch, E., Maschinenfundamente Und Andere Dynamische Bauaufgaben, Vertrieb VDE Verlag G.M.B.H. (Berlin), 1943. Duvall, Wilbur I. and Fogelson, D. E., "Review of Criteria Estimating Damage to Residences from Blasting Vibrations," of Mines Report of Investigation 5968, 1962. Crandell, F. J., "Ground Vibrations Due to Blasting Effect Upon Structures," Journal Boston Sot., Civil Vol. 36, p. 245, 1949. for Bureau

5.32

and Its Engineers.

5.33

Langefors, Ulf, Kihlstron, B. and Westerberg, H., 'Ground Vibrations in Blasting,' Water Power, pp. 335-338, 390-395, 421-424, Feb. 1958. Edwards, A. T. and Northwood, T. D., "Experimental Studies of the Effects of Blasting on Structures," The Engineer, V. 210, pp. 538-546, September 30, 1960. Dvorak, A., 'Seismic Effects of Blasting on Brick Houses," Proce Geofyrikeniha Ustance Ceskoslavenski Akademie, Vol. No. 169, Geofysikalni Sbornik, pp. 189-202, 1962. Nicholls, R. W., Johnson, C. F. and Duvall. Vibrations and their Effects on Structures,' Bulletin 656, p. 105, 1971. W. I., "Blast Bureau of Mines

5.34

5.35

5.36

5.37

Odello, R. and Price, P., "Ground Shock Effects from Accidental Explosions," Picatinny Arsenal Technical Report 4995, November 1976. Eubanks, R. A. and Juskie, B. R., "Shock Hardening of Equipment," Shock and Vibrations Bulletin, No. 32, Part III, December 1963. Batchelder, F. E., et al., "Hardness Program - Non-EMP, Hardness Program Plan for Safeguard Ground Facilities," Vol. 1, Management and Technical Plan, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntsville Division, HNDDSP-73-153-ED-R, 16 August 1974.

5.38 5.39

5-92

5.40

Meireis, Hardness Safeguard Engineers, 1973.

E. C. and Wright, A. R., "Hardness Program - Non-EMP, Program Plan for Safeguard Ground Facilities," Vol. 2, Structures and TSE Description, U. S. Army Corps of Huntsville Division, HNDDSP-73-153-ED-R, November

5.41

Anon., "Hardness Program Non-EMP, Subsystem Hardness Assurance Report for Safeguard Ground Facilities," Vol. 1, Executive Summary, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntsville Division, HNDDSP72-156-ED-R, 30 June 1975. Hardness Assurance Anon., "Hardness Program Non-EMP, Subsystem Report for Safeguard Ground Facilities," Vol. 2, Final Report, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntsville Division, HNDDSP-72156-ED-R, 30 June 1975. Westine, P. S., Esparza, Testing of Pipe Response Final Report for American E. D., and Wenzel, to Buried Explosive Gas Association, A. B., "Analysis Detonations," July 1978. and SwRI

5.42

5.43

5-93

CHAPTER 6 FRAGMENTATION

6.1

INTRODUCTION

Most discussions, testing, accident investigations, and explosive accident predictions involve studies of blast waves and their effects. But often, significant damage in accidental explosions is caused by the impact of fragments or objects which were -generated during the explosions and hurled against targets (or"receivers") at high speed. Fragments from equipment or machinery in contact with or very near a detonating explosive charge can be accelerated to very high velocities and pose a threat to nearby personnel and equipment. Fragments can impa.ct a nearby high explosive charge with sufficient velocity to cause it to detonate and cause further damage and destruction. If the detonating explosive charge is of sufficient size to dismember the surrounding bay area or building, large numbers of fragments of various sizes can be hurled into nearby work areas and buildings and cause considerable destruction and possible personnel fatalities. In this chapter, we first define some of the terms used in studying missile generation and impact effects. We discuss the generation of fragments from objects in contact with the detonating high explosive, their velocities, mass distributions, and size and shape distributions. We then discuss the development of fragments from objects which are not in direct contact with the detonating explosive charge such as nearby machinery, both unconstrained and constrained, or portions of the surrounding building. We then include methods for calculating fragment trajectories and impact conditions. Next appear techniques for assessing fragment impact damage, including explosive initiation by fragments. This is followed by an assessment of the confidence in the prediction methods. Finally, we recommend tests and analyses to validate the assumptions or reduce uncertainties. Example calculations appear throughout the chapter to clarify the use of the text. 6.2 basic GENERAL PHENOMENA Let us first define some basic terminology. Definitions terms involved with fragmentation and impact effects
l

of follow.

some

Primary

Fragments denotes a fragment from a casing or or a fragment from an object in contact is a true high explosive, the container

The term "primary fragment" container for an explosive source with an explosive. If the source

6-1

or casing usually ruptures into a very large number of small primary fragments which can be projected at velocities up to several thousand. feet per second by the explosion (Ref. 6.1). For bomb and shell casings, typical masses of damaging fragments recovered in field tests are about OiOO2 lb (Ref. 6.1). These primary fragments, although irregular, are usually of "chunky" geometry, i.e., all linear dimensions are of the same order of magnitude.
l

Secondary Fragments

Containers or casings which fragment or burst during accidental explosions are not the only sources of fragments and'missiles. The blast waves from severe explosions can interact with objects located near the explosion source, tear them loose from their moorings if they are attached, and accelerate them to velocities which can cause impact damage. The objects could be pieces of machinery, small tools, materials such as pipes and lumber, parts of buildings and other structures disrupted by the explosion, large pieces of equipment such as autos or portable generators, etc. The usual terms for these potentially damaging objects are "secondary missiles" or "secondary fragments."
l

Drag-type

and Lift-type

Fragments

Once fragments or missiles have been formed and accelerated by the explosion, they will move along a specific trajectory until they impact a target (receiver), or the ground. The forces acting on the fragments and affecting their trajectories are inertia, gravitation, and fluid dynamic forces. The fluid dynamic forces are determined by the instantaneous velocity of the fragment at each instant in time. Generally, fragments are quite irregular in shape and may be tumbling, so a completely accurate description of the fluid dynamic forces during flight is difficult, if not impossible. In the trajectory analysis for fragment flight, one usually resorts to some simplified description of the fluid dynamic forces, and uses the concepts from aerodynamics of division of these forces into components called drag (along the trajectory or normal to the gravity vector) and lift (normal to the trajectory or opposing gravity). Then, the force components are given at any instant by FL = CL AL (l/2) and FD = CD $) W-2) PV2 (6.2) where CL and CD are lift and drag coefficients determined empirically as a function of shape and orientation with respect to the velocity vector, and the magnitude of the velocity V (see Figure 6.1). In the equations, p is air density and q = (l/2) pV2 is termed the dynamic pressure. If a fragment is of chunky shape, so that CD >> CL for any flight orientation, it is called a drag-type fragment. If, on the other hand, CL 1 CD for 0" (6.1)

6-2

M-Mass

Figure

6.1.

Nomenclature

for

Fragment

Trajectory

Analysis

some flight orientation, the fragment is called a lifting-type fragment. We will discuss in Section 6.2.4 the methods of trajectory predictions for drag-type fragments.
l

Terms Relating

to Fragment and Missile

Impact Effects

Trajectory analyses and test results can give predictions of fragment ranges, masses, impact velocities, and even the probability of striking a given target (see Refs. 6.1 - 6.3). Impact effects determine the degree of missile hazards. We will define here a number of terms related to missile impact effects. An impacting fragment can cause damage to a multitude of types of receivers by striking and either penetrating or rebounding without penetrating. The term penetration usually means that the fragment or missile disrupts or displaces some of the target material during impact, but does not pass through the target. The missile may or may not remain lodged in the target. On the other hand,'if the missile passes entirely through, the target is said to have been perforated. Impacting missiles may damage a target by simple momentum transfer, and various wave transmission effects. The term "spalling" will be used to indicate the process by which impact-induced compression waves in solids cause failures in tension.after wave reflection from a free surface. The process is quite well described by Rinehart (Ref. 6.4). In brittle materials such as concrete or plaster, spalling can occur for missile impacts at relatively low velocities, less than 300 feet per second (Ref. 6.5). There is much confusion in the literature concerning definitions for "spalling" and "scabbing." Often, the two terms are used interchangefor one of the terms which ably, or one author will use a definition another author would use for the other term. TM5-1300 (Ref. 6.6), which is a document widely used by design engineers, defines "direct spalling" as the dynamic disengagement of the concrete surface of an element, resulting from a tension failure in the concrete normal to its free surface, caused by shock pressures of an impinging blast wave being transmitted through the element. The same document defines "scabbing" as the dynamic disengagement of the concrete surface of an element, resulting from a tension failure in the concrete normal to its free surface, caused by large strains in the flexural reinforcement. 6.2.1 Primary Fragments

A large number of primary fragments are generated when a high explosive source detonates within and in contact with a metal casing which cannot contain the explosion. The fragments which result from bomb and

6-4

shell casings containing high explosives are usually small, less than 0.002 in shape, and have initial velocities of nearly ten thousand lb, "chunky" The size and shape of the fragments will feet per second (Ref. 6.1). depend greatly on the metallographic history of the casing, its physical or internal cracks or flaws), condition (such as dents, grooves, bends, The pages which and the condition of joints, most notably weld joints. follow discuss methods for determining velocities, mass distributions and size and shape distributions for primary fragments. 6.2.1.1 Velocities

The fragment velocity of major concern is the velocity with which the "design fragment(s)" (the worst fragment which the structure must be designed to withstand) strikes the protective structure (Ref. 6.7). This striking velocity is expressed as

vs
where V = fragment detonation V. = initial
S

= v e-l2kvR 0
a distance velocity of detonation R from the center of the (ft/sec) (ft)

(6.3)

velocity (ft/sec) (maximum)

at

fragment

R
kV

= distance = velocity

from the center decay coefficient

The velocity where A/Wf

decay coefficient is kv = (A/Wf) YoCD = fragment form factor, the ratio of the presented area of the fragment (in.2) to the fragment weight (see Section 6.2.1.3) in lb. = specific weight of air (4.438 x 10m5 Ib/in.3) YO = drag coefficient (dimensionless) CD (0.6 for V B 1100 ft/s for spinning, chunky fragments, Ref. 6.8) Figure 6.2 shows the variation of primary fragment velocity with distance. The term initial velocity refers to the maximum fragment velocity as Due to the extremely high rates the fragment is ejected from the charge. of fragment acceleration, this velocity is considered to be attained by the fragment prior to moving appreciably from its initial position. The most common technique for calculating the initial velocity of fragments in contact with an explosive charge is the Gurney Method This work was originally done for cylindrical and spherical (Ref. 6.9). 6.10) later derived additional formulas for other geometries. Henry (Ref. Gurney's original work consisted primarily of a theoretical geometries. analysis for predicting mean velocities of fragments from various types He demonstrated that his analysis (Ref. 6.9) could of military ordnance. successfully predict mean fragment velocities from a grenade containing 1.5 oz of HE to a bomb containing 3000 lb of HE. However, the literature does not address limitations in terms of the ratio W/W, for the use of the it has been customary to use the Gurney formulas Gurney formulas. Hence, for all values of W/W,.

6-5

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

6 5
3 2

Numbers next to curves indicate distance traveled by fragment (ft)

0.4

0.5

0.6

0,.7

0.8

0.9 Vs/V 0 6.2.1.3.

Striking

Velocity/Initial

Velocity,

NOTE: Standard Fragment Shape Assumed, See Section

Figure

6.2.

Variation of Primary Fragment Velocity with Distance (Ref. 6.7)

6-6

Change

1 - 15 August 1981

Gurney found that the initial velocity of primary fragments resulting from the detonation of a cased explosive was a function of the explosive output of the explosive and the-ratio of the explosive charge weight to the casing weight (Ref. 6.7). Figure 6.3 contains Gurney formulas for some simple geometries (Ref. 6.7). These equations assume that the conversion from chemical energy to "Gurney" energy is accomplished with no losses (Ref. 6.11). However, the Gurney energy E' is a specific kinetic energy, determined experimentally by measuring the maximum velocity of primary fragments, and as such, the energy conversion efficiency appears limited. The time required to transfer energy across an expanding gas cloud to a moving metal plate (fragment) increases rapidly as the gas density decreases. The energy transfer process is eventually terminated by losses in any real system before the transfer is completed (Ref. 6.11). It is useful to recognize that the chemical energy is simply the heat of detonation, AH, and that by expressing E' and AH in the same units an energy conversion efficiency can be defined. The ratio of Gurney energy to chemical energy, E-/AH, represents the conversion efficiency (Ref. 6.11). Note then, that if E' is unknown for a particular explosive, and AH is known, E'/AH may be determined for a similar explosive (i.e., similar density AH), and the value used to estimate the Gurney energy (Ref. 6.11). Figure 6.4 contains a plot of velocity versus charge to casing weight ratio for various geometries. The term J2E'which appears in each formula is known as the "Gurney Constant," or Gurney characteristic velocity, and is a constant for a given explosive as shown in Table 6.1 (Ref. 6.11). As shown in the formulas, the ratio of final metal velocity V to the characteristic velocity J2E' is an explicit function of the charge to metal mass ratio, W/W,. The Gurney characteristic velocities in Table 6.1 were calculated using maximum velocity data from carefully conducted experiments in which end losses and gas leakage through fractures in the metal were minimized. The effective value of m may decrease by as much as 20 percent if end losses or fracturing of the driven metal occur early in the acceleration period (Ref. 6.2). 6.2.1,2 Mass Distribution

Upon detonation of an encased explosive, the casing breaks up into a large ntlmber of high velocity fragments with varying weights and velocities. The destructive potential of these fragments is a function of their kinetic energy distribution. Therefore, through testing or analysis the velocity and weight of the "worst case" fragment must be determined and utilized as a design criterion for fragment shields.

6-7

Type

CrossSectional Shape

Initial Fragment Velocity v

Maximum

Zylinder

sphere

,Steel

cored cylinder

1 Plate

Sandwich plates

Figure

6.3

Velocity

of Primary

Fragments*

*See Table 4-3, TM%1300, for

remarks on use of these formulas.

6-8

0.4

0
.1

.2

.4

.7

1.

10

Figure

6.4,

Dimensionless Velocity of Metal as a Function Loading Factor We/w (Ref. 6.10)

of

6-9

Table

6.1

Gurney

Energies

for

Various

Explosives

(Ref.

6.9)

Specific lb/in3 0.0639

Weight Explosive RDX ftls

m
9600

0.0578 0.0588

Conposition TNT

C-3

8a30 8000

0.0621

Tritonal* (m~/Al Composition (RJX/T-NT)

7600 =

80/20)
B 9100

0.0621

0.0682 0.0664 0.0585 0.0581 0.0411 0.0635 PBX-9404 Tetryl TACOT Nitromethane PETN duPont 0.0527 0.0563 0.0397 *Denotes NOTE: Corrections discussed calculating nonideal. were applied to the data on Refs. Ref. 6.13 to estimate true speed Gurney energy, E'. EL506D Sheet:

9750 9500 8200 7000 7900 9600

8200

EL506L Trimonite No. l*

7200 3400

in

6.10 and 6.12 as of metal before

6-10

The Mott equation (Ref. 6.7) yields estimates of the fragment mass distribution resulting from the high-order detonation of evenly distributed explosive within a uniform thickness cylindrical casing for naturally fragmenting casings and the Gurney equation (Section 6.2.1.1) predicts velocities. Mott's equations do not hold for casings designed to fragment in a specific manner. The Mott equation is: Rn Nx = Rn (C'MA) where Nx = the C' = = = WC M = Wf =
n

- M/MA weight greater than Wf

(6.4)

number

of

fragments

with

fragment distribution constant WC/ ( OMAN> total casing weight (lb) (Wf)l/2 fragment weight (lb) distribution i 'I3 parameter (1 + t /d- > c i thickness diameter (Table of (in.) casing 6.2) (see (in.) Section 6.7.2)

M, = fragment = B t '16,
C t C

= average = average = explosive

casing inside

di B

constant

The Mott equation assumes that the fragments result from the highorder detonation of a uniform thickness cylindrical casing filled with evenly distributed explosive. Since actual weapons do not conform to these ideal conditions, the resulting fragment sizes and velocities vary in angular orientation with respect to the projectile nose (Refs. 6.14 and 6.15). There is noexact procedure for predicting the fragment mass distribution from a non-cylindrical container. Consequently, such cases are approximately treated by considering the casing as a series of equivalent cylindrical containers (Ref. 6.9). A number expressing the of relationships Mott equation N or by substituting for c'
X

by

(Eq.

and design 6.4) in

equations can be obtained the following form: (6.5a.)

= C*MAe-"'MA /and M = (W,)l/z,

= Wc/(2MA3)

(6.5b) Setting the fragment weight Wf to zero, total number of fragments NT is obtained:

the

following

expression

for

the

6-11

Table

6.2

Mott Scaling and Various

Constants Explosives

for Mild Steel (Ref. 6.16)

Casings

Explosive (lb 1'2

B inches -716 1

Beat

of

Detonation*

ft-lb/lb 1,036,OOO 2,150,OOO 2,198,OOO 1,292,ooo 1,286,OOO 1,228,OOO 1,722,OOO

Baratol Comp B Cyclotol H-6 HBX-1 mx-3 Pentolite PTX-1 PTX-2 TNT Camp A-3 (95/S) b X/WAX (50/50) (75/25)

0.128 0.0554 0.0493 0.0690 0.0639 0.0808 0.0620 0.0554 0.0568 0.0779 0.0549

1,526,OOO

2,114,OOO

Tetryl

*These

are

empirical

values

used

by Mott.

6-12

NT = Wc/2MA2 Hence, the average particle weight wf Equation (6.5b) can then wf can be found:

(6.6)

= WC/NT = 2MA2 as:

(6.7)

be expressed N
X

= NT e-%MA

(6.8b)

The ratio which have distribution particles indicated sponds to fragments average.

Nx/NT represents that fraction of the total number of fragments predicts a continuous a weight greater than Wg. The Mott equation of fragments ranging in size from a large number of lightweight This is to a small number of very heavy casing fragments. by the observation that the average fragment weight (2Mi) correimplying that 75.7 percent of all primary an Nx/NT value of 0.243, generated by the detonation have weight less than the overall

a confidence level CL, where (0 < CL < L), For design purposes, can be defined as the probability that the weight, Wf, is the largest The expression for the design fragment weight weight fragment released. corresponding to a prescribed design confidence level (CL) is given as (Ref. 6.9): -JisT /MA CL = 1 - Nx/NT = 1 - e (6.9a) or -q e /MA = 1 - CL (6.9b)

Then,

taking

the

logarithm

and squaring - CL)

both

sides

of

the

equation, (6.9c)

wf'"A or

2 = I.n2(1

Wf = Mi lln2(1

- CL)

(6.9d)

6-13

Equation (6.9d) can then be used to calculate the design fragment weight for a prescribed design confidence level. Note that Equation (6.9d) uses an infinite distribution to describe a physical phenomenon which has a finite upper limit. Equation (6.9d) may be used for CL 5 0.9999. If CL > 0.9999, use: Wf = I$ Rn2 1 -CLl-e [ ( -q/MA

)I

(6.10)

Fragment masses for primary fragments from several explosions reported in the files at DDESB could be estimated using Mott scaling. However, this formula can only be employed to calculate masses of primary fragments which evolve from accidents involving an explosive detonation within a container of some sort, like a casing, storage tank, or a confining piece of machinery such as a centrifuge or press. Masses of fragments created as a result of a given quantity of explosive detonating while being machined or in unconfined space within a building must be estimated using other methods. Some of these methods are discussed in Sections 6.2.2, 6.2.2.1, 6.2.2.2, 6.2.3 and 6.2.4.2. 6.2.1.3 Size and Shape Distributions

In order to determine the damage potential of primary fragments, it is necessary to evaluate the caliber density and shape of the fragments, as well as the previously described weight and striking velocity (Ref. 6.7). When a container fragments, a random distribution of fragment shape results. Section 6.2.1.2 contained a method for detemining the mass distribution of primary fragments. From the mass of the fragment and shape of the containment vessel, one can estimate the size of .individual fragments. This section discusses a method for performing an engineering estimate of a standard design fragment(s) for use in fragment impact damage. The influence is expressed in terms defined as: where of the fragment weight of the caliber density to fragment diameter ratio D of the fragment which is

D = Wf/d3 W = total fragment weight (lb) f d = fragment diameter (in.) The nose shape factor N is defined as follows: where n = caliber nose radius N = 0.72 of the + 0.25 tangent & - 0.25 ogive of the assumed fragment

(6.11)

(6.12)

densities

Two possible fragment and nose factors are

shapes with their corresponding shown in Figure 6.5. The blunt

caliber fragment

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

6-14

shape in Figure 6.5 is considered as the standard fragment in the design While the standard fragment charts presented in the following section. has a milder nose shape than the alternate fragment, the standard fragment (a) only a is generally considered appropriate for use in design since: small number of fragments will strike the structure nose-on; and (b) only a small fraction of these fragments will have a more severe nose shape the length-to-diameter ratio of than the standard fragment. In addition, these fragments is felt to be more representative of an average fragment a plot of fragment weight in pounds configuration. For convenience, versus fragment diameter for these two fragment shapes is given in Figure 6.6 (Ref. 6.9).

6-15

n = 0.5 N =-0.845 Volume Wf = = 0.654d3 0.186d3 lblin.3

D = 0.186 A = =d2/4

(a)

Standard

Fragment

Shape

& 0.88d

-,

1.126

_ n = 1.5 N = 1.00 Volume = 1,2d3 2 = 0.34d3 wf D = 0.34 lb/in." A = nd2/4

(b)

Alternate

Fragment

Shape

NOTE:

N = Nose

shape

factor

- 0.72 tangent

f 0.25 ogive

of frag-

n = Caliber radius of ment nose = R/d D = Caliber A = Presented velocity (Calculations a specific Figure 6.5. density

= Wf/d3 in striking with

area for use determinations are weight Primary for steel of 0.283 Fragment

fragmgnts lb/in. ) Shapes

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

6-16

cn c -J
n-1
v.-

-2
I

I
2 3 4 5 6 7 0.1

I I WA
Fragment

III11 1.0

0.01

Weight

(lb)

Figure

6.6.

Relationship and Fragment

Between Diameter

Fragment

Weight

EXAMPLEPROBLEM6.1 PROBLEM- Determine the initial (maximum velocity) Vo and strikfng velocity * Vs of a primary fragment ejected from a spherical casing containing
TNT l

GIVEN: W = weight of explosive (lb) W = weight of casing (lb) c JaE'= Gurney energy (ft/aec) = Specific weight of air (lb/in.3) 5 (dimensionless) cD = drag coefficient R = distance from center of charge to target wf = weight of fragment (lb) FIND: V0' Vs SOLUTION: 1. Calculate the initial W " 3w I 2. l+5w 3
112

impact location

(ft .>

REFERENCE

fragment velocity.

*V0 =dZ

3.

4.

Determine the presented area of the fragment. (Assume a standard fragment shape as defined in Figure 6.5 unless information on the actual shapzd;s availab$tjQ wf A z-;d2= 4 o.1862'3 *W213 f 2/3 A= = 2.41 Wf (4)(0.186>2'3 Calculate the velocity decay coefficient kv' kV = (A/Wf 1 yoCD Calculate the striking velocity at some distance R. = v .-12kvR
vs 0

Fig. 6.3 for equation, Table 6.1 for Gurney energy

Fig.

6.5

Eq. (6.3)

Eq. (6.3)

6-18

CALCULATION GIVEN: w w iF= Yo CD R Wf = 100 lb of TNT = 10 lb of steel 8000 ft/sec 4.438 x 10" lb/in.3

= = 0.6

= 30 ft = 0.01 lb design shape fragment

Standard

/ a 1

FIND: SOLUTION:

Vo,

V 1.

V. = m
112
vO

= 8000

V. = 9560 2. 3, A = 2.41 W:l3 2 A = 0.112 in. k = (A/Wf) yoCD k" = (0.112 in.2/0.01 k" = 2.98 x 10B4 vv = v ,-12kvR in.-' -12(2.98 V x 10 -4 . Ill?) (30 ft)

lb)

(4.438

x 10e5

lb/in.3)

(0.6)

4.

I / I I

= 8590

ftlsec EXAMPLE PROBLEM 6.2

PROBLEM - Determine the average fragment weight w for a primary fragment ejected from a uniform cylindrical stee f casing containing Composition B; the total number of fragments NT ejected; and the design fragment weight Wf; the number Nx of fragments weighing more than the design fragment.

6-19

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

GIVEN:

Comp B explosive tc = average casing di = average inside

thickness diameter of

(in.) casing 6.9) REFERENCE (in.)

w, = total casing weight (lb) CL = confidence level (see Equation FIND: SOLUTION: tif, NT, Wf, 1. 2. Nx

Determine Composition Determine

the explosive constant B. fragment distribution

B for parameter MA.

Table

6.2

3.

= B t5'6 d1'3 (1 + t /d ) MA c i C i Determine the average weight of wf' if = 2M;

Eq. the fragments Eq.

(6.4)

(6.7) (6.6)

4. 5. 6.

Determine the NT = Wc/ZMi Determine the

total design

number fragment

of

fragments weight

NT. Eq. wf' Eq. (6,9d) or (6.10)

Wf = Mi !Z.n2 (1 - CL) Determine the number of fragments Nx which weigh more than the design fragment.
Nx -= e -T/MA

Eq.

(6.8b)

NT Nx Nx = N ' NT rF CALCULATION GIVEN: Comp B explosive = 0.25 in.

5

di
WC

= 6.0

in. lb

= 16.34 CL = 0.995 NT, Wf,

FIND:

if,

Nx

6-20

SOLUTION: --

1. 2.

Using

Table

6.2, dU3

B = 0.0554 (l + t ,+> :6)1/J

1b/2

lb1'2/in.

716 for

Comp B

exp10;i;?/6 MA =

MA = (0.;554):0.25)5'6 -2 MA = 3.303 x 10 3. tif= 2M; Wf = 2.182 4. NT= Wc/2M;

[l

-I- (0.25/6)1

x 10 -3 lb

NT = 16.3412.182 NT = 7490 5. fragments

x 1O-3 (total)

M; PA2 (1 - CL) Wf = Wf = (3.303 x lo-2)2 lln2 Wf = 3.063 x 10 -2 lb

(1 - 0.995)

6.

N -=X NT N c=

e-""F/M, e-0.175/3.303 x 10 -2 e- J3.063x,3.303 x lcr2

N* -= (100 x 5 x 1oT3 = 0.5% 5 x 1o-3 NT are heavier than the design fragment) N = (0.005)(7490)
X

of

the

fragments

NOTE:

= 37 to 38 fragments heavier than the design fragment An alternate (and simpler) method for determining the number of fragments which are heavier than the design fragment would be to use Equation (6.9a). That is CL = 1 - Nx/NT N
X

= (1 - CL)

(NT) = 37 tc 38 fragments

NX

= (1 - 0.995)(7490)

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 6.3 PROBLEM - Determine target. GIVEN: -Wf = weight Shape of the the area presented by a design fragment striking a

of

the

fragment (i.e.,

(lb) standard or alternate)

fragment

6-21

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

FIND: SOLUTION:

A 1. 2. Choose design Determine the d = Wl'3/0.341'3 d = lf433 3. Find A = +; A = 1.61 the 2 Wf113 presented area d2 = w:/3/o.342/3 $I3 shape (alternate diameter of the shaped fragment assumed)

REFERENCE Fig. Fig. 6.5 6.5

Fig.

6.5

CALCULATION GIVEN: FIND: SOLUTION: W, = 0.03 II A 1. 2. ~s"u~,;~t;r~~e d 1 1:433 (:.03)l'3 shape. lb

A = 0.155

in.

6-22

6.2.2

Secondary Fragments

The explosion of HE during some manufacturing or forming process (.i. e. , nitration, centrifuging, pressing, machining on lathe, etc.) can result in a large number of secondary fragments which vary greatly in size, velocity, and range. Each of these parameters affects the shape, initial damage potential of an accidental explosion and, therefore, should be considered in the design of protective structures. The current state-of-the-art for assessing damage potential requires that the design engineer estimate the conditions which are likely to exist at the time of the accident, and perform a structural assessment of any equipment which will be involved. Some of the initial factors to consider are:
l l l

Type and amount of HE Configuration (i.e., sphere, cylinder, cased, uncased, etc.) Location of HE (i.e., attached to lathe, resting on support table, contained in centrifuge, proximity to walls and other equipment, etc.) Type of propagation after initiation (i.e., high order, burning, partial detonation, etc.)

As an example of predicting the fragmentation of a machine, the explosion which occurred at the Pantex Plant in Building 11-14A on March two billets of HE were involved: 30, 1977 is considered. In this incident, ~75 lb of LX-09-O and $75 lb of LX-14, both plastic-bonded explosives with a TNT equivalence of 1.3. A consequent investigation concluded that the following conditions may have existed at the time of the accident. The LX-09-O was attached via a vacuum holding fixture to a Monarch lathe The lathe was and was in the process of being rough cut or centered. adjacent to a 3-ft concrete wall analyzed to withstand an impulse of 2100 psi-ms. The billet of LX-14 was approximately 15 ft from the LX-09-0, and was resting on a granite table adjacent to a masonry block wall. Both billets were 3 to 4 ft above the floor. The investigation suggested that the billet on the lathe may have detonated first and that missiles generated at the lathe subsequently led to the detonation of the LX-14 (Ref. 6.17). Both explosions were high-order detonations. When the initial explosion occurred at the lathe, secondary fragments were ejected in all directions. In general, the elements of the lathe bolted, welded, etc.) allowing us were interlocked with each other (i.e., Therefore, to consider individual fragments as having been constrained. a finite amount of energy released by the explosion was utilized in "tearing Fairly massive and heavily constrained parts such as apart" the lathe. the cam lock spindle adapter and the cam lock spindle nose, which were among the closest parts to the charge, sustained substantial plastic deformation or melting before being torn free from the lathe. The missile

6-23

maps which were constructed of the accident scene indicate fragment distribution which resulted (Ref. 6.17).

the area1

In general, the smallest fragments originated closest to the charge. This may be explained, in part, by considering those parts of the lathe adjacent to the charge to be primary fragments. The difficulties that arise from assuming that these elements are primary fragments stems from a lack of total encasement (i.e., very few parts of the lathe are in actual contact with the HE); variations in the amount of constrainment of the machine parts; and a varying mass distribution (i.e., the charge may be contacted by a virtually unconstrained cutter on one side and the heavily constrained spindle assembly on another side). The situation is further complicated in that a relatively small force acting on a part from one direction may cause it to fragment while a much larger force acting along some other line of action may not result in fragmentation. If the fragmentation pattern varies with the initial conditions, the Architectural Engineer must examine several likely scenarios to evaluate the damage potential. To estimate the weight, shape, and velocity of fragments which result from detonation of an HE during a manufacturing or forming process, one would perform the following steps: 1) 2) 3) 6.2.2.1 Determine distance (Ri) from the center of the explosive to the ith point of interest on the machine (refer to structural details of the machine). Determine the size and shape of the expected fragment (refer to structural details of the machine). Determine the fragment velocity (refer to Sections 6.2.2.1 and 6.2.2.2). Unconstrained Secondary Fragments

To predict velocities to which objects are accelerated by explosions, one must consider the interaction of blast waves with solid objects. Figure 6.7a (Ref. 6.3) shows schematically in three stages the interaction of a blast wave with an irregular object. As the wave strikes the object, a portion is reflected from the front face, and the remainder diffracts around the object. In the diffraction process, the incident wave front closes in behind the object, greatly weakened locally, and a pair of trailing vortices is formed. Rarefaction waves sweep across the front face, attenuating the initial reflected blast pressure. After passage of the front, the body is immersed in time-varying flow field. Maximum pressure on the front face duringthis "drag" phase of loading is the stagnation pressure.

6-24

Object Exposed to Blast Wave Reflected \ Vortices

Blast

Wave Blast of Blast Wave Wave

Figure

6.7a

Interaction

of

Blast

Wave with

Irregular

Object

Pressure

(t)

CD q (t) = CD -

1 !IF!;l;i

Figure (See

G.7b Section

Time History Object During 4.3.1.1 For

of Net Transverse Pressure Passage of a Blast Wave Definitions 6-25 of Parameters) Change

on

1 - 15 August

1981

To predict the effect of a blast wave on the object, it is necessary to examine the net transverse pressure on the object as a function of time. This loading, somewhat idealized, is shown in Figure 6.7b. After time of arrival t the net transverse pressure rises linearly from zero to a maximum peak &flected pressure Pr in time (T For an 1object with a flat face nearest the approaching blast wave, this time Pressure then falls linearly to drag pressure in time interval is zero. - T1) and decays more slowly to zero in time (T3 - T2). (T2
ta> l

Once the time history of net transverse pressure loading is known, the prediction of the object's velocity can be made. The basic assumptions for unconstrained secondary fragments are that the object that none of the energy in the blast wave is behaves as a rigid body, absorbed in breaking the object loose from its moorings or deforming it elastically or plastically, and that gravity effects aan be ignored during The equation of motion of the obthis acceleration phase of the motion. ject is then A p(t) where A p(t) K" M The object = = = = = is = MX the to blast front Figure 6.7b (6.13)

area of the object presented to net transverse pressure according displacement of the object acceleration of the object mass of the object assumed to be at x(0) rest = 0, initially, G(O) = 0

so that

Equation (6.13) tions and Figure

can be integrated directly. 6.7b, this operation yields,

L3

With for

use of the appurtenance

initial condivelocity,

%(T3) where i d = total drag

= $

p(t)dt impulse

= $ id

(6.14)

ta and diffraction

A = velocity of the object The integration in Equation (6.14) can be performed explicitly if the pressure time history is described by suitable mathematical functions, or performed graphically or numerically if p(t) cannot be easily written in function form. In either case, Equation (6.14) yields the desired result-a pr'edicted velocity for an object. The integral in Equation (6.14) is merely the area under the curve in Figure 6.7.

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

6-26

side-on Equation develops

< 3.5 where P is For shocks of intermediate strength, P /p overpressure and p is atmospheric pres&rg , - the solution'of (6.14) can be fougd in Reference 6.3. A rather long equation in which

(,,,h: xJ
is

a function

of (5)

and (&g+

(0.15)

or, in abbreviated
where M v a
0

form,

v is a function of F and 3 = mass of object = velocity of object = velocity of sound in air

pressure PO = atmospheric A = mean presented area of object K = constant (4 if object is on the gound or reflecting and 2 if object is in air) H = minimum transverse dimension of the mean presented object from the front of object to location of X = distance cross-sectional area = peak incident overpressure
pS

surface area i.ts of

largest

CD = drag is = incident

coefficient specific impulse

A pictorial explanation of the appurtenance parameters A, H, and X is shown in Figure 6.8. Values for drag CD can be gound in Hoerner (Kef. 6.18) for In addition, a value of drag coefficients for obvarious shaped objects. Since this analysis is jects of various shapes is given in Figure 6.9. the object is not in a highappropriate for objects "far" from the charge, For velocity flow field (i.e., subsonic) and CD is essentially a constant. example, for a standoff distance (distance from the center of the expl.osive charge to the nearest surface of the object) of 33 charge radii, the peak particle velocity equals the speed of sound in air and decreases rapidly For computational purposes, Equation with increasing standoff distance. (6.15) is presented in Figure 6.10 where T = Ps/po, 5 is the nondimensional The term containing is, and iiis the nondimensional term containing V. figure contains several curves for different values of V and is quite useWhen using the figure, the vaI.ues ful. for the range of p and r presented. This figure can be used in of P, r and V must have no dimensional units. most cases where the distance in charge radii from the object and center is normally considered to of a spherical charge is greater than 20, which For objects at closer scaled standoff distances, be "far" from the charge. one can calculate the specific impulse imparted to the target.

6-27

Change

1 - 15 Sugust

I.981

Object Exposed to Blast Wave

Incident Blast Wave Distance from Front of Object to the Largest f Sectional Area r Normal to the Plane of the Shock Front
/

Isometric

View of Object

Mean Presented Area = A

Minimum Transverse Dimension of Mean Presented Area

Front View of Object

Figure

6.8

Pictorial

Explanation

of Appurtenance Variables

6-28

Right Circular Cylinder (long rod), side-on

Sphere

Rod, end-on

Disc,

face-on

Cube, face-on

Cube, edge-on

Long Rectangular face+2

Member,

Long Rectangular edge-on

Member,

Narrow S:rip,

face-on

Figure

6.9

Drag

Coefficient,

(Baker, Kulesz,

et al., 6-29

CD, for Ref.

Various

Shapes

6.3)

2 10S

2 lo5 2 lo5

lo-'

5 10"

5 lOA2 I-

5 lo4 2 s 'D 'I =D Ppi + X)

10'2

lo4

io=2

s lib

Figure 6.10 Nondimensional Object Velocity v as a Function Nondimensional Pressure p and Nondimensional Impulse f

of

6-30

To calculate the specific impulse imparted to the target, Westine (Ref. 6.19) conducted a model analysis for a target aligned parallel to a line charge which is larger than the target as shown in Figure 6.11. After eliminating terms which are invariant under similar atmospheric conditions such as the density of air , atmospheric pressure and the speed of sound and assuming that the effect of length of the target relative to the radius of the explosive is relatively insignificant, one has i is a function of (i--J +p (k) We specific acquired impulse (lb - s/ft2) nondimensional shape factor of the target radius of the explosive (Et) standoff distance (ft) target radius (ft) length of explosive line (ft) (6.16)

where i = B = Re = R = Rt = 'e = An experimental program was conducted at the Ballistic Research Laboratories to determine empirically the functional format for Equation (6.16). In order to determine the specific impulse applied to a target when a blast from a line charge occurs, tests were conducted in which small spheres and cylinders were placed at various standoff distances from the center line of various size cylindrical explosive Comp B charges as shown in Figure 6.11. The test procedure was to-detonate an explosive line charge and The measure the resulting velocity imparted to unconstrained targets. specific impulse imparted to the target could then be determined from I== Mv (6.17) where M = mass of object V = velocity of object A = projected area of object The results of the curve fit to the experimental data are shown by the top curve in Figure 6.12. The ordinate in this figure has a quantity called sff in it instead of Re(ke/Re)0.333. This quantity Reff stands for the effective radius of the equivalent sphere of explosive which could be formed from a cylinder of Radius Re and length II e . The term Reff is related to Re and Re through II 0.333 Cylindrical Spherical charge: charge: Reff = 0.9086 Reff = Re F 0 e Re (6.18a) (6.18b)

The existence of two straight line regions for values of R/I$ less than and greater than 5.25 (cylindrical charges) is apparent in Figure 6.12. In the near field where R/R, is less than 5.25, the slope of the line

6-31

d r Re L
f3 = 1.0 (a) Exposed Flat Face

Cylindrical Explosive

w-s--u

(b) Exposed Cylindrical Surface

(c) Exposed Spherical Surface

--I-

-0

Figure

6.11

Target

Orientation

for Unconstrained

Tests

6-32

100

60 50 40

Oco I
l m G $ I,

30

NI 2 x
00 1.
0

20

10

I
1 2 3 5

10

R/R

Figure

6.12.

Specific Acquired Impulse (Explanation of Symbols Appear on Following Page)

6-33

for cylindrical charges in Figure 6.12 is minus 1.0 which means that (i/&ff times (R/R ) equals a constant for invariant Re/Rt. The normally reflected specific i#pulse close to the line charge is thus caused primarily by momentum of the explosive products. In other words, the impulse close to the charge is caused by adding up the mass times the velocity products of all the particles from the explosive, casing, and engulfed air. Because the specific impulse i is caused by momentum in explosive products, it decays with-standoff distance inversely as the surface area of a cylinder enclosing the line source, which equals ~ITU,. Only as standoff distances grow larger do the effects of momentum loss through air drag and gravitational effects reduce this phenomenon sufficiently for shock wave phenomena to become more important and the slope of the line to change, as shown by the top curve in Figure 6.12. A similar relationship holds for objects exposed to nearby spherical charges of Comp B as shown by the bottom curve in Figure 6.12 which was determined by directly applying Westine's relationship to the data developed by Kineke (Ref. 6.20) for cylinders exposed end-on to spherical charges. Because the specific impulse i imparted to a target close to the charge is caused by momentum in explosive products, it decays with standoff distance inversely as the2surface area of a sphere enclosing the spherical source, which equals ~ITR . (Standoff distance is the distance of the center of the charge to the nearest face of object.) The area of this sphere of engulfed*air is larger than the area of the cylinder of engulfed air described above whenever R > lie. Therefore, the specific impulse i imparted to objects exposed to spherical charges should decrease more rapidly with distance (for R > a,) for objects exposed to cylindrical charges oriented as in Figure 6.11. This relationship is demonstrated by the steeper slope of the bottom curve (spherical charge) in Figure 6.11. When R equals R+, the target is in contact with the charge and specific impulse imparted to the target should approach the same value for spherical and cylindrical charges. If one extends the curves in Figure 6.11 to R/R, equal to one, one can observe that this relationship holds within the scatter of the data. Baker (Ref. 6.21) performed a similar analysis in order to predict normally reflected impulses close to spherical explosive charges He experimentally determined that the scaling law applies for distances corresponding to a mass of engulfed air which is considerably less than (approximately one-tenth) the mass of the explosive. For a spherical Comp B explosive source, this would correspond to l/3 (0.1) Pex l R -= = 5.07 P Re [ Examining the bottom curve in Figure 6.12, one will notice a transition in the curve near R/R, equal to 5.07. However, lack of sufficient data hinders the determination of an accurate experimental transition point.

PI

6-34

Thus, the curves in Figure 6.12 should not be used at distances beyond those shown by the lines in the figure. For longer distances from theexplosive charge, Figure 6.10 can be used. The straight lines plotted in equation form. These predictive Cylindrical charges: 0.158 Re R = 8.40 x lo3 0R for ~2 5.25 e 0.158 =2.92x104 0 R 1.75 R $ for ~2 5.25 e (6.19) in Figure 6.12 can easily equations are: be put

(6.20)

Spherical

charges: = 6.86 x lo3 R for R-r e 5.07 (6.71)

The units for the expression on the left-hand (6.20) and (6.21) are lb.sec/ft3.

side in Equations

(6.19),

If an explosive other than Composition B is used, the value for impulse i obtained from Figure 6.12 and the previous three equations need to be adjusted as follows:

=Comp B =

(6.22)

where AH is energy (heat of detonation) per unit mass, p is density, subscript "Camp B" represents Composition B explosive, subscript "expl" represents explosive being used, and icomp B is the value of i obtained from Figure 6.12 or the previous three equations. (NOTE: This equation was derived by Mr. Peter S. Westine of Southwest Research Institute using a model analysis.)

6-35

EXAMPLEPROBLEM6.4 PROBLEM- Determine the velocity V of an unconstrained object close to an exploding HE charge (See Figure 6.11). For illustrative purposes, assume that a spherical charge of RDX explodes while being held in a lathe. A cylindrical tool holder made of steel is resting (unconstrained) on the lathe bed such that its longitudinal axis is perpendicular to the radial line from the charge to the target. GIVEN: W R r weight and type of HE (lb) e distance from center of explosive source to the surface of object (standoff distance) (ft) R, = radius of explosive (ft) = radius of target (ft) Rt = shape factor for target B e mass of target (lb-eec2/ft) M = mean presented area of target (ft2) A AH = energy factor for explosive (same units as AH expl Camp B) AHComp B = energy factor for Comp B explosive (same units as AH expl > density of explosive (same units as pComp B1 Pexpl = 'Camp B = density of Comp B explosive (same units as pexpl ) V Calculate the ratio of standoff distance R and radius of explosive Re -e If R/R, is less than 10 for cylindrical charges or less than 5 for spherical charges, determine the imparted impulse. If the explosive is not Comp B adjust impulse by multiplying the impulse imparted to the target by the energy/density ratio. [[Tom p By l/2 AH expl Compl pexpl of the unconstrained Eq. (6.17) 1 (iexpl > REFERENCE

FIND:

SOLUTION: 1. 2. 3.

Fig. Fig,

6.11 6.12

Table 6 of Appendix A (Physical ~~~~>s

l .

i Comp B = 4.

Calculate the velocity object. iexpl V= A I3 M

6-36

CALCULATION GIVEN: a spherical w = 10 lb R = 1.0 ft

Re =($yi3 =

charge

of

RDX

[+--.i

r--,

(10

lb) c~n/l".)~(12 in./fd3

(1.806

p,/cm.)(l

1h/456

pJ(2.54

= (1.0 t B = T/4 = 5.89

in.)

(1.0

ft/12

in.)

= 0.083

ft

1
l/3

= 0.28

ft

M A

= (qr2p,)p
x

= ~(1.0 in.)2(8.0 10-3 lb-sec2/in,

in.)

(7-36x10--4

lb-sec2/in.4) ft2

AH

= (2.0 in.)(8.0 in.)(l.O ft2/144 in.2) = 0.909 (TNT equivalent weight) RDX AH = 0.881 (TNT equivalent weight) Comp B = 1.806 g/cm3 'RDX = 1.74 g/cm3 'Camp B

= 0.11

FIND: SOLUTION:

V 1. 2. R/ Re = 1.0 ftf0.28 ft = 3.6

R/R, is less than 5 (spherical charge). Vertical axis of Figure 6.12 has a value of ~12 lb-s/ft2. Therefore,. i = 12 g~'(~,/~,)O-158 x 102 where R' = R, for spherical charges. ($)(0.28 ft) @:yi3 z:),,,, x lo2 lb s/ft3 = 185 lb s/ft2

i =

(121bfi3

')

Note that one could values into Equation for i. r

have substituted the (6.22) to determine

appropriate the value

3-

'RDx iRDx=

w @.909)1'2 (0.881)"2 195 lb (1.806 (1.74 - s/ft2 (0.11 = (12 in./ft)(5.89 ft2) (Z/3) (195 g/cm g/cm') >

(%om, 185 lb I

B) s,ft~ =

A Bimx
4.v= M

lb -

s/ft2) = 202 ft/s

x 10S3 lb-sec2/in.)

6-37

Change

1 - 15 -August

1981

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 6.5 PROBLEM - Determine the velocity V of an unconstrained object far from an exploding HE charge (R/R >> lO)(see Figure 6.8). For illustrative purposes, ass&e that a spherical charge of RDX explodes while being held in a lathe. A cylindrical tool holder made of steel is resting (unconstrained) on a nearby table next to the lathe such that its longitudinal.axis is perpendicular to the radial line from the charge to'the target. GIVEN: M A K H X cD
a 0

= mass of object (lb-sec2/ft) = mean presented area of object (ft2) = constant (4 if object is on the ground or reflecting surface and 2 if object is in air) = minimum transverse distance of the mean presented area object (ft) = distance from the front of object to location of its largest cross-sectional area (ft) = drag coefficient = velocity = atmospheric incident specific = incident of sound pressure in air (psi) (psi) (psi-set) impulse (ft/sec)

of

PO

E's = peak
iS

overpressure

FIND: SOLUTION:

V 1. Calculate F- = PJP, nondimensional pressure.

REFERENCE P from Cffapter 4 (as function of standoff distance R and charge weight W) nondimensional impulse. Fig. 6.9, i from Chapte? 4 (as function of standoff dista.nce R and charge weight W)
CD from

2.

Calculate

'Disao i = P&(KH+x)

Change

1 - 15 August

.981

6-38

3. 4.

Locate the point (I, F> on Figure determine nondimensional velocity Calculate the velocity o-f object. VpoA(KH+X) V=
MaO

6..10 7.

and Fig. 6.10

Fig.

6.10

CALCULATION GIVEN: example problem 6.4, R, = 0.28 ft. For this problem, let 10 ft and !J = 10.28 lb of RDX. Thus R/R = lo/O.28 = 36. = 7.07 x 10-2 lb-sec2/ft (see example problem 6.4) = 0.11 ft2 (see example problem 6.4) = 4 (object on ground or reflecting surface) = 0.17 ft (diameter of object in this case - see example problem 6.4) X = 0.083 ft (radius of object in this case - see example problem 6.4) CD = 1.20 (figure 6.9 for cylinder loaded perpendicular to axis) a 0 = 1100
PO

In R= M A K H

ftjsec psi Chapter 4 (scaled distance 10 fit/(l0.28 lb x 1.149)1/3 R/W 113 = = 4.39 ft/lbl/3

= 14.7

s = 33 psi i S = 0.025 psi-set

>

FIND.: SOLUTION:

V 1. 2. 3. 4. p=
pSPO

= 33 psill4.7

psi

= 2.24 ft/sec) ft)] = la3'

i= V= V= 7 (7.07

D =s ao (1.20)(0.025 psi-sec)(llOO Ps(KH+X) ,= (33 .psi) [(4)(0.17 ft)+(0.083 5.0 7 p, A(KH+X) Ma )(144 3 7 in,'/ft")(O.ll lb-sec2/ft)
0

= (5.0)(14.7

lb/in.'

? ftL)[(4)(0.17 (1100 ft/sec)

ft)

+ (0.083

ft)]

x lo-2

=11.4

ft/sec EXAMPLE PROBLEM 6.6

PROBLEM - Same as the -_ is slightly

example greater

problem 6.5 than 10.

in

this

section

except

R/R,

6-39

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

CALCULATION GIVEN: In example problems 6.4 and 6.5, R = 0.28 ft. For illustrative purposes, assume that the standoff'distance R is 3.0 ft. Thus, R/Re = 3.0/O-28 = 11. W = 10.28 lb of RDX M = 7.07.x 10-2 lb-sec2/ft (see example problem 6.4) A = 0.11 ft2 (see example problem 6.4) K = 4 (object on ground or surface) H = 0.17 ft (diameter of object in this case) X = 0.083 ft (radius of object in this case) CD = 1.20 (figure 6.9 for cylinder loaded perpendicular to axis) a
0

= 1100

ft/sec R/W l/3)= 1'3 = 1.32 ft/lb l/3

= 14.7 psi PO Ps = 560 psi i FIND: SOLUTION: V 1. 2. 3. F = Pslp

0

Chapter psi-set 3.0

4 (scaled lb

distance x 1.149)

= 0.0342
S

ft/(10.28

= 560 psil14.7

psi

= 38.1 ft/sec) ft)] = '*lo6

'D is ao = (l-20)(0.0342 ,1 - Ps(~~+X) (560 psi)

psi-sec)(llOO [(4)(0.17 ft)+(0.083

Since the point (i, ?) is outside the range of Figure 6.10, one is unable to calculate the~velocity accurately. One can overestimate the velocity by assuming that the object is closer to the charge and using Figure 6.12 for R/R, = 5.0 (see example problem 6.4).

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

6-40

6.2.2.2

Constrained

Secondary Fragments

Westine (Ref. 6.19) has developed an engineering procedure for estimating secondary fragment velocities when objects are exposed to This objective was accomplished by dividing the explosive detonations. problem into two parts. The first part concerned estimating the specific impulse imparted to unconstrained flat, cylindrical, and spherical secondary fragments in the vicinity of cylindrical explosive charges. The second part concerned estimating the velocity of constrained beams of any material and cross-sectional area which could become secondary fragments because of this impulsive load. The first half of Westine's analysis, consisting of predicting the specific impulse imparted to objects in the vicinity of cylindrical explosive charges, was described in the previous section. A method for predicting the specific impulse imparted to objects in the vicinity of spherical explosive charges is also given in the previous section. For unconstrained objects, values of imparted specific impulse can be used directly to determine velocity. The second half of Westine's analysis consisted of the development of a method to determine the amount of energy consumed in freeing the constrained object from its moorings. The strain energy U consumed in fracturing a cantilever beam was estimated by assuming a deformed shape and substituting the appropriate mechanics relationships for different modes of response in both ductile and brittle beams. A number of different solutions resulted which had sufficient similarities to permit generalization after the strain energies were developed. To develop the analysis, Westine determined the strain energy at fracture by assuming a deformed shape with appropriate boundary conditions. Westine performed the analysis using ductile bending, brittle bending, shear failure modes and various shapes of beam ductile shear, and brittle The results of the analysis appear in Table 6.3. In this cross sections. table, U is strain energy, T is toughness (the area under the stress-strain curve), A is the cross-sectional area of the beam, and R is the length of the beam. Also, 7. is the plastic section modulus, h is the depth of the beam, S is the elastic section modulus, and v is Poisson's ratio. The major point which should be made from these solutions for strain energy for the four different modes of failure is that, no matter what mode of failure is hypothesized, the strain energy at failure equals (TAR) times a constant. For some modes of failure, the constant may be a weak function of the cross-sectional shape of the fragment (a function Table 6.3 demonstrates of S/Ah or Z/Ah), but this constant varies little. the limited variation in these constants.

6-41

Table 6.3

Variations

in Strain

Energy Coefficient8

$-

Duetile

Brittle

Ductile

Brittle

General Solution Circular Solid Solid

kz IT Ah 0.270 0.318 %I ~0,637

S Ah 0.125 0.167 % %0.500

1. 2 0.500 0,500 0.500

1 2(1+v1 0.385 0,385 0.385

Rectangular I-Beam

The second major conclusion ia that toughneea T appears to be the only mechanical property of importance. All four solutions give the result that this area under the stress-etrain curve timee the volume of the specimen times a constant equals the etrain energy U expended in fracturing the specimen. For analysis purposes theee conclusions indicate that the mode of failure does not have to be determined. The eolution can proceed by assuming that strain energy is given by Equation (6.19) and that the constant C can be obtained from experimental teat results. UC(TAR) (6.23)

The use of a different deformed shape will not change the conclusions that U is directly proportional to (TM); however, a different shape will result in a slightly different numerical proportionality constant C. Because C is determined experimentally, the qualitative conclusions still can be applied in the development of a solution. All four modes of failure were developed for failure in a cantilever beam. Other boundary conditions such as clamped-clamped, simply supported, etc., will give similar qualitative results: however, the proportionality coefficient C is a function of support conditions (Ref. 6.19). constraint Using the conservation of momentum and allowing the structural to reduce the imparted impulse by an amount Ist, one has I - Ist = mV (6.24)

6-42

where I is the total impulse acquired by the target. for Is, and rearranging terms yields the conservation
ship I iiF= fi+@

Substituting G of momentum relation(6.25)

-m

Total impulse I equals ibR where b is the loaded width, R is the loaded length, and total mass m of the fragment equals p AC where p is the density of the constrained object and A is its &s-section% area in the plane perpendicular to the long axis of the target. Substituting these relationships and the strain energy U as given by Equation (6.23) into Equation (6.25) one has iba QG? = a+ (6.26) &zr b,M) (CTu) or after reduction ib --m+JpBTA %V (6.27) JT

Equation (6.27) is a two-parameter space for nondimensional energy ratios. If the term v'p V/fi is squared, this group is the ratio of fragment kinetic energy per'unit volume to strain energy expended per unit volume. The square of the term i b/A m represents the energy put into the fragment per unit length divided by the strain energy expended per unit length of fragment. This solution infers that the constrained secondary fragment velocity is independent of beam length a. Test results show that this conclusion is not quite accurate. After concludad that curve fitting the velocity to experimental data, Westine (Ref. 6.19) of the constrained fragment could be described

4p
fi

= -0.2369 + 0.3931

for

(gA)(c)Oa3

~0.602

(6.28)

V = 0

for

(GA)($-ra3

10.602

6-43

where V Ps T b R A i

= = = = = = =

fragment velocity fragment mass density toughness of fragment material loaded width of beam length of target cross-sectional area specific impulse

This pair of equations works for cantilever beams of any materials and any cross-sectional area. To estimate the velocity, the specific impulse i imparted to the beam is an estimate from the standoff distance and line charge geometry using the technique described in the previous section. Substituting this impulse, beam properties and beam geometry into Equation (6.28) ives the fra ment velocity (see Figure 6.13). If the quantity (i b/d A)(L/b/2)0*5 is less than 0.602, the fragment will not break free; he&, its velocity is zero. An equation similar in format to Equation (6.28) but with different coefficients for slope and intercept can also be used for beams with other boundary or support conditions. Although Westine did not have a large quantity of data available to demonstrate this observation, enough data existed on clamped-clamped beams to show that the coefficients -0.6498 instead of -0.2369 and 0.4358 instead of 0.3931 work better for this boundary condition.

6-44

3J

2/
A Tr A x

2,! 2024-T3AL 12

5
ib -- / -R \Oa3 (*)A ibD)

Figure

6.13

Scaled

Fragment

Velocities

for

Constrained

Cantilever

Beams

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 6.7 PROBLEM - Determine the velocity V of a constrained object close to an exploding HE charge. For illustrative purposes, assume a spherical charge of RDX explodes while being held in a lathe. A cylindrical tool holder made of steel is clamped (constrained cantilever) to the lathe bed such that its longitudinal axis is perpendicular to the radial line from the charge to the target. (See example problem 6.4 of section 6.2.2.1 for numerical values to be used in this problem.) GIVEN: p = fragment mass density (lb-sec/in4) T = toughness of fragment material (in.-lb/in.3)(toughness the area under the true-stress vs true-strain curve) R = length of object (in.) b = loaded width of object (in.) A = cross-sectional area of the member (An.2) i = specific impulse imparted to object (psi-set) boundary condition = cantilever or clamped-clamped V 0.3 SOLUTION: -1. REFERENCE Eq. 6.28

is

Find:

CALCULATION GIVEN: p T b R A i = = = = = = 7.324 x 10B4 lb*s!Jin4 17,000 in.-lb/in. 2.0 in. 8.0 in. (2.0 in.)(8.0 in.) = 16 in. 2 (195 lb sec/ft )(l.O ft2/144 in.2) (see example problem 6.4 in section

= 1.35 lb-set/in. 6.2.2.1)

FIND:

V 1. (16 in.2) 0.3

SOLUTION:

= 0.0892

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

6-46

2. V = 0 (object does not break loose) NOTE: An implicit assumption is that the lathe will remain intact. This may or may not be true. The AE should consider all reasonable failure modes.

6-47

6.2.3 structure several

Building

Fragmentation design when considerations, subjected to the manner(s) an internal blast, in which involves a

Estimating, for will fragment considerations. The AE should

l

take

into

account: of explosive; charge; and

&
l

type and configuration location and size of structural strength.

The type of explosive is considered in order to estimate the probability of a high-order detonation. Note that if a deflagration is expected instead of a detonation, it may be possible to achieve blast attenuation through the proper use of vent panels (see Chapter 4). The configuration of the charge (i.e., cased, uncased, shaped charge, etc.) is considered as a means of predicting the occurrence and possibly the direction of primary fragments. Note that the location and size (weight) of the charge is important to estimate overpressure and impulses at various points on the structure. This information is also helpful in estimating any blast enhancement which may occur as the shock wave reflects within the structure. The structural strength of the building is the primary consideration for predicting fragment distributions. The AE should evaluate the most likely failure mode(s) (i.e., spalling, shear, bending, etc.) for various points of the structure. His evaluation should be based on the expected blast and fragment parameters as determined in the first two considerations and the strength of the structure in the various modes of failure. For illustrative purposes, general observations of the response of specific structures involved in accidental explosions, safe-separation studies, and a protective design experiment follow. The cases considered include the free-standing building involved in an accidental detonation at the Pantex plant on March 30, 1977 (Ref. 6.17), full-scale igloo tests (Ref. 6.22), and the Swedish protective structure tests (Ref. 6.23). These illustrative examples were included to give the AE an idea of some of the things to look for when predicting building fragmentation.
l

Pantex

Plant in this section occurred at the he should read of the manual Pantex Plant. Reference 6.17: is If a the

The information contained summary of an HE accident which AE needs additional information, The area March. 30, 1977, resistant walls. of the building may be viewed These walls

involved in the accidental explosion on as a free-standing cubicle with three blastwere 3-ft, l-ft, and l-ft thick concrete,

6-48

They were analyzed after the accident and determined capable of sustaining impulsive loads of 2100, 415 and 350 psi-ms before failure (values differ due to reinforcement variations). The fourth wall was constructed of concrete blocks with no dowels extending into the foundation, allowing to act as a blow-out wall" (Ref. 6.17). The 1-ft thick concrete it 'I... walls experienced shear failure at the floor and wall intersections, as would be predicted using TM5-1300 (Ref. 6.6). The 1-ft wall closest to the charge was discovered to have a 4-ft diameter hole in an area essentially perpendicular to the charge. The block wall "exploded" outward perpendicular to its original position. The poured lightweight roof was ejected as fragments in a rough hemisphere in response to the orientation of the charge within the structure (Ref. 6.17). The explosion at the Pantex Plant caused several modes of structural The apparent failure resulting in a disparate distribution of fragments. shearing and subsequent motion of the l-ft concrete walls resulted in large short range fragments which inflicted extensive damage on the walls Overpressure also caused extensive damage throughout of neighboring bays. the building.
l

Igloo

Tests

The Eskimo igloo test series was conducted to determine the minimum permissible spacing between earth-covered, steel-arch magazines As a result, very little data were collected with regard (Ref. 6.22). to the manner in which a donor structure fragmented, although in one case a limited survey was made of the fragment dispersion. This test involu?d a steel-arch igloo constructed of one-gage corrugated steel, in accordance with the Office of the Chief of Engineers Specification 33-15-64-62, and covered with a compacted earth mound, 2-ft The igloo was 14-ft, thick at the top with side slopes of one in two. An earth 4-in. high inside, 25-ft wide at the curbs, and 59-ft long. with a distance of 25 ft barricade was constructed in front of the igloo, between the igloo and the toe of the barricade. The barricade was 3-ft thick at the top, about 14-cft high, had side slopes of one in two, and was long enough to subtend a full 60" angle to the door of the igloo. The only compaction of the soil was that incidental to the passage of earth-moving equipment during construction (Ref. 6.22). Similar igloos, without a barricade in front, were constructed on either side of the donor igloo. These igloos were separated from the donor igloo by 58 ft and 70 ft, corresponding to 1.25 x Wl13 and 1.5 x W1'3, respectively. The three igloos were connected via a concrete headwall designed to shear between the igloos as shown in Figure 6.14. The donor of Composition B, packed in charge consisted of 100,000 lb (Wl/3 = 46.4) in each 2,106 sealed, 9.5-in. cubical cans,. with 47.5 lb of explosive container (Ref. 6.22).

6-49

Detonation of the 100,000 lb charge resulted in complete destrucA limited survey revealed that four main tion of the donor magazine. These included fragments of types of fragments were thrown long ranges. steel reinforcing bars, steel arch, concrete, and clods of earth. The The clod which travelled maximum range of soil fragments was 3300 ft. this distance weighed approximately 15 lb before impact and broke into This size was typical of many other clods. The smaller pieces at impact. 50 percent to 80 percent of a complete panel, larger pieces of steel arch, were limited to a radius of 1600 ft, with one 24-in, x 24-in. fragment Mast of the larger concrete being found 2900 ft in front of the igloos. fragments were scattered to 800 ft in front of the igloos, with the main The earth concentration in zones of 25" to 50" from the igloo center line. barricade effectively intercepted most of the steel door fragments and limited their travel to approximately 200 ft beyond the barricade. However, a few small door to door-frame fragments were found 2000 to 2450 ft in front of the magazines. a Protective Structures are designed for use in three ranges

Swedish protective structures of explosive quantity (Ref. 6.23):

Class Class Class

A - 1 to 20 lb of TNT B - 21 to 200 lb of TNT C - 201 to 2000 lb of TNT

Structures containing less than 20 lb of TNT are designed to remain intact Structures containing explosive quantities in the event of an explosion. in the Class B or C range are expected to fail, but are designed to fail allowing safety zones to be well defined. in a specific manner, In the range from approximately 20 lb to 200 lb of TNT, a "kinematic chain design" has been used to some extent in Sweden. This design is based on varying the strength of the joints between adjoining plate elements. The weak connections have short pins through construction joints, supplying enough strength to place the failure threshold due to ripping forces just The strong connections have continuous beyond the wind and snow load. some of which are specially fashioned to provide an reinforcing bars, all the walls are connected unimpeded hinge effect. In the general design, The roof is similarly hinged to to the foundation by strong hinges. These hinged joints one of the walls and all other connections are weak. limiting the building debris to the immediate allow the building to unfold, vicinity. Also, since the response of the heavy plate elements is slow with respect to the velocity of most "primary" fragments emanating from around the charge, many will be stopped by the structures (Ref. 6.23).

6-51

similar is that Instead, so that 6.2.4 6.2.4.1

For structures involving approximately 200 to 2000 lb of TNT a design procedure is followed. The major difference in this design hinges are no longer used to try to restrain the walls and roof. connection between plates are built to fail at different strengths fragments may be directed in predetermined zones (Ref. 6.23). Trajectories Trajectories and Impact Conditions

After a fragment has acquired an initial velocity, that is, the fragment is no longer accelerated by an explosion or pressure rupture, two These are gravitational forces act on the fragment during its flight. Fluid dynamic forces are usually subforces and fluid dynamic forces. divided into drag and lift components (see Figure 6.1). The effect of drag and lift will depend both on the shape of the fragment and its direcThe fluid dynamic force tion of motion with respect to the relative wind. components of drag and lift at any instant can be expressed as:

FD = c, s
and FL = CL %

O/2)

P v2

(6.29)

(l/2)

P v2

(6.30)

coefficients determined empirically where CD and Ch are drag and lift as a function of shape and orientation with respect to the velocity vector and AD and AL are drag and lift areas, respectively. V is the velocity of the fragment and p is the density of the medium. Most of the fragments generated during explosives accidents described in this manual will be "chunky" drag fragments. fragment written In a simplified is considered for acceleration The acceleration -, trajectory problem (Ref. 6.16), where the to move in one plane, equations of motion can be in the X and Y direction. in the Y direction (drag only) is:

A CD p (X2 f i2> .. y = -g 2M and for the X direction

.*

sin

c1

(6.31)

(drag

only):

xc-

A CD p (X2 + G2) 2M CO6 a

(6.32)

6-52

where

A = area C,, = drag

of fragment coefficient

att=O

. x = Vi CO6 ui . y = vi sin %
V = initial i a.1 = initial velocity trajectory angle

(6.33) (6.34)

where

The equations shown above can be solved simultaneously using the Runge-Kutta method and can be used for fragment velocities up to Mach 1 for standard conditions. Baker, Kulesz, et al. (Ref. 6.3) have exercised the FRISB program to determine fragment range for a number of conditions. Some of this work was duplicated by Baker, Kulesz, et al. (Ref. 6.16) and Figure 6.15 summarizes the results for put in a more convenient form. fragments affected only by drag forces. The curve in Figure 6.15 was developed by first performing a model to generate dimensionless parameters which describe the general There the computer code FRISB was used to determine ranges for cases, and to plot results. It should be noted that, in generatcurve, several initial trajectory angles were used in the analysis the maximum range for the respective fragments. Thus, one does to know the initial trajectory angle of the fragment in order to 6.15. should be chosen for each of the axes have dimensionless units. CD for various simple geometries. fragments can be acquired from range

analysis problem. selected ing this to obtain not need use Figure

When using Figure 6.15, units parameters such that the terms on the Figure 6.6 contains drag coefficients If needed, maximum ranges for lifting curves in Reference 6.20.

6-53

10.0

1.0

0.1

0.01

I 1

I I 1.0 GPDt

IIll 10.0 100.0

0.01

1111 0.1

I I

IIlL 1000 .O

MS
6.15. Scaled Curves for Fragment Range Prediction (Drag Fragments)

Figure

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 6.8 PROBLEM - Determine purposes, GIVEN: p, the maximum range R of a fragment. assume a cube of concrete is hurled of air (2.378 x 10 6.9) -3 For illustrative face-on.

= mass density coefficient area (ft2) velocity

lb-sec2/ft4)

CD = drag AD = drag M = mass V. = initial & FIND: SOLUTION: R 1. = gravity

(Figure

(ft/sec) (32.2 ft/sec2) REFERENCE

constant

Calculate ij=

nondimensional 2 C AV po D D o Mg

velocity. Fig. range R Fig. 6.15 6.15

2.

Read the value of from Figure 6.15. R= '0 'D AD R M maximum fi

nondimensional

3.

Calculate R=

range.

CALCULATION GIVEN: -The cube

PO

of

= 2.378

concrete has an edge 1 1 4 x lo-= lb-s"/ft x 6.0 lb/in.3)(6.0 in. (1.0 in.)3 ft2/144

dimension

of

6.0

in.

= 1.05 cD AD = 6.0 in. M = (0.084

in.2)

= 0.25

ft2 ft)]

[(1/32.2)(lb-sec2/lb

vO

= 0.56 lb -sec2/ft = 100 ft/sec = 32.2 ft/sec2

g FIND: R

6-55

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

SOLUTION: p,

1.

Nondimensional lb-

velocity. sec2/ft4)(l.05>(0.25 ft2)(100 ft/sec) 2

CD "a Vo2 = (2.375~10-~ Mg

(0.56 lb-sec2/ft)(32.2 ft/sec*) = 0.35 2. Enter Figure 6.14 and read nondimensional 3. Calculate maximum range. R= T!!r (2.378~10-~ = 270 ft lb -sec2/ft4)(1.05)(0.25
pO

range

E = 0.30.

M ii % 50 (0.30)(0.56

lb-

sec2/ft) ft2)

a
6-56

6.2.4.2

Impact

Mass Distributions

and Impact

Range

Distributions

A thorough fragment data base was created from a literature search through the available files at the Department of Defense Explosive Safety Board for accident reports containing fragmentation data from accidental Extracted explosions in structures such as those at the Pantex plant. data include characteristics of the explosion source, building descriptions Those and characteristics of fragments, such as weight, size and range. references which had the most useful information-were selected as a data base and were separated into three groups by estimated energy of the exploTable 6.4 summarizes the explosion source and sion or explosive yield. The one building characteristics fox seven references in the data base. reference in Group A consisted of an explosion with estimated energy of Group 13 explosions had explosive energies approximately 1.6 x 107ft-lb. on the order of 5 x lo8 ft-lb. lOGroup C consisted of three sources with ft-lb. Fragment characteristics for explosion energies near 1 x 10 each group were extracted from associate missile maps or calculated from descriptions given in the references. Statistical analyses have been performed on fragment weight, range, nondimensionalized range (by area)and nondimensionalized energy. These useful relationships between the parameters allow one to predict fragment scatter in weight and range following an accidental explosion of a given energy in a building similar to those buildings described in this data base. A discussion of the statistical analyses performed to determine impact weight, range and size distributions is given below. This is followed by a procedure for using the graphs presented to estimate fragment weight and range for similar explosions. The fragment weight and range data for each of the energy levels were sorted in ascending order. The total number of fragments for all of the accidental explosions in each energy level were counted. The ordered data (by weight and range) for explosions from each energy level were then divided into groups containing 5 percent of the total number of fragments. Thus, the data were subdivided into groups from the 5th through the 95th For example percentile by number of fragments as shown in Table 6.5. (see Table 6.5), for those explosions having an energy of 1.6 x 107 ft-lb, 5 percent of the fragments had a weight below 0.22 lb, 10 percent below 0.58 lb, 15 percent below 0.87 lb, etc. Also, 5 percent of the fragments were in the 0.22 - 0.58 lb range, 5 percent in the 0.58 - 0.87 lb range, etc. Figures with an "eyeball" logarithm (to the was estimated (Ref. logarithms of the 6.16 and line fit base e) 6.24) 90th and 6.17 are plots of the percentile points along to the points. The mean was estimated as the of the 50th percentile. The standard deviation as two-fifths of the difference between the 10th percentiles.

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

Table

6.4

Data

Base

for Building (Group A)

Fragmentation

EXPLOSION

SOURCE

BUILDING

CHARACTERISTICS

1 Orientation
Shape Slurry On second floor of Bldg 3045 in feeder to centrifuge
F0Llr story ret tangular 36 ft x 72

Reference 1.6 x 10'

Material

Quantity (lb) To Bldg

Shape

Estimated EWTgy (ft.lb) Dimensions

Construction/Material

m clr, co

> 10 lb for Fesultant damages to have occurred analysis con-

ft x 33 ft high (11 ft between floors)

cluded

10.81

Explosion in Nitration Bldg 3045 Radford Army Ammunition Plant, VA ll-W-78 lh

: 28,512 ft3 per floor; however, an opening was provided in third floor above centrifuges up to fourth so volume of thf rd floor is increased to include Fourth; volume of system involved = 995 ft3.

Steel frame with reinforced concrete slab floors, separated by steel I-section columns; brick mnsunry endwalls; arcylic plastic glazed side walls (unbarricaded); dimensions of bricks in end walls: Inner coursex 3-T/16 in. x 2-l/2 in. T-3/4 in. Outer - 2-l/2 in. x 3-518 in. x 8 in.

e 0 0
Table 6.4 (Continued) (Group B)

EXPLOSION

SOURCE

BUILDING

IHIARACTERISTICS

Reference

Material

Quantity (lb)
Shape Slurry

Orientation To Bldg Shape Retangular Dimensions 5.2 x lo*

Estimated Energy <ft.lb)

Volume d)

Construction/Material

Rocket propelland slurry mix (VCA)

350.0

Bacchus PLant Accident Report WA No. 112, Contract AF 04(647) -243, Hercules Powder Company Magna. Utah IO--05-61

Three sides - 12 in. reinforced concrete One side - wood frame; wood floors; asbestoe shingle roof; no fire walls or doors; three concrete sides backed up with earth mound. Front protected by a 12 in. sand filled, WOOL constructed bullet shield. 15.6 15.6
height

Hercules Coml?sny, in
broken down

Powder VA,

in

8.4

x lo8

Box-like

ft ft; given;
porch

x
not

Explosion

Bldg

Nitrocellulose for M-5 Formulation

Inside, (fairly centered)

Wood tion; long

on

frame on asbestos

concrete shingle

foundaroof

3560,

Breaker Area.

in Block C-line

130.0 equipment; 440.0 buggy

Blocks of nitrocellulose to be mechanically

front

LX-09 LX-14

76.0 75.0 151.0 Total R0ugh billets to be machined

3.4

x lo8

One-story rectangular

151 ft x 63 ft x 18 ft high

171.234

Concrete

Explosion at Pantex Plant, Amarillo, TX 03-30-77 (Two detonations of two different H.E.

Within Bay 8, along south wall of Bldg 11-14A

explosives.

cavity-wall type block; interior steel frame consisted of 4 H.E. machining an H.E. remote operatim bays, a remote control roots, bay. metrology lab work area, a staging and material storage area and an office.

Table

6.4 (Contfnued) (Group C)

EXPLOSIVE BUTLDFNT: CHAMZTERTSTICS

olrrmt

SOIlRCE

----__
Quantity Ilh) orientation To Bldg F.t3) 70,91 Constructlonl Materjal Lstlmated Ellcrgy (ft-u.)

-~-

Reference

HatErIn

Incident

Allezhany tjcs Lab

at Ballis-

iLFour Polaris A3 Second Stn~e Fiher-

04 .27-63 (Iierrul c2.s Povclcr CXitpCtIlY) 3 4,8Jfl Ih

glass cased Mntors; t~YO2 Nitrogl ycerjn Casting Sfllven L;

Energy

jig11 113::: Ii ft x 42 Et I 4R ft high. imnller building: 32 FL x i2 Et x 20.67 tt high.

&High

-3 ?h 9 30 lb 250 lb

865 lb

casting

PC-Wder ;

&scrap cast lng Solvent (above) ; >Rrsiduol CantIng Solwnt

-4,200 9.3 x 109 lb 62.5 ft x 37. ft approxtmated from

drawfng;brlgh la approxmiarr

Nitroglycerin

1Y 15 it from First floor t, ceI ling; base

mrnt in bldg.

MDtor lk tonated HIqh Order

Zehls

Ihlriq

RLstfC

One Hike sustainer mot01

Within Bny in stand

Rorth test

1.2 -i do

Trqting; Aeds t on<, rirscnal ,

18 in. Ipinforced concrete walls, bnrriradrd on North and

Sout.h walls 12 in. reinb\

Al ahana.

08-19-59 Rldg 7337

6891 lb of Petrin Arylate in Battleship Hardware. (loaded wight of motor and nozzle = 10,654 lh)

forced cnucrete furtl1-r reloforwd by earth cnvered WI th mini rmIfn width of 23 Ft and minimum depth of 3 It; roof was t8 in. reinforced ccrcte slab -.
OVPT test hays

Table

6.5

&mulative

Percentiles for Weights and Ranges

Plotting

Fragment

Percentile

E = 1.6 x 10' ft-lb Weight (lb) Range (ft)

-0.22

E - 5.0 x lo* ft-lb Weight (lb) Range (ft) 0.20 0.40 0.65 0.88 1.20 1.68 2.26 2.72 3.65 4.90 6.72 9.08 10.50 13.08 21.90 29.58 45.48 84.00 172.10 44 58 70 89 103 113 118 125 132 141 147 159 170
180

E = 1.0 x lOlo ft-lb Weight (lb) Range (ft)

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95

0.58 0.87 1.02 2.18 2.61 3.92 4.35 5.22. 7.61 8.70 10.44 11.55 15.37 24.?6 31.32 50.20 104.40 187.90

6 7 9 11 11 11 11 11 12 14 16 19 24 28 32 46 52 77 146

193 207 233 266 324

0.054 0.082 0.120 0.160 0.220 0.300 0.410 0.490 0.650 0.870 1.260 1.520 2.000 2.670 4.200 5.440 10.000 16.320 ,50.000

218 270 32s 375 410 460 496 532 566 616 672 710 780 832 920 1000 1080 1218 1485

6-61

99.9

99.5 99

98

95

90

80

20

10

0.5

0.1 10 Weight, Hi

101

Figure

6.16

Cumulative

Probability

Distribution,

Fragment

Weight

(lb)

99

98

ZXERGYLEVEL

95

0 1.6 x 10' ftmlbs

90

80

20

10

2
1

1 2

6 7 8 910'

5 6 7 8 910'

2 Range, ft

5 6 7 8 910=

Figure

6.17

Cumulative

Probability

Distribution,

Fragment Range (ft)

Table 6.6 is a listingofthe estimated means and standard deviations for the log.normal (to the base e) distributions. A "WP"stati.stic (Ref. 6.24) for goodness of fit was calculated for each of the distributions. The approximate probability of obtaining the calculated test statistic, given that the chosen distribution is correct, was then determined. These results are also shown in Table 6.6. Figure 6.18 is a graph of the probability percentage points of the "W" statistic. As it is customary to consider values of probability for the "W" statistic exceeding 2 to 10 percent as adequate grounds for not rejecting the hypothesis that the data the fits for all data except the range belong to the chosen distribution, data for an energy of 1.6 x 107 ft-lb are much more than adequate. The "W" statistic for ranges in that energy level is slightly less than 10 percent and, thus, is still adequate. Figure 6.16 can be used to estimate the percentage of fragments (for a. given energy level) which will have a weight, W, equal to or less if we wished to estimate the percentage than a particular W. For example, of fragments which would have a yeight equal to or less than 10 lb for an energy level of 1.0 x lOlo ft-lb, we would refer to Figure 6.16 and on the weight axis (abcissa) at 10 lb go upward to.the intersection of the line for 1.0 x lOlo ft-lb. Then, at the intersection point read the value from the ordinate, which is 86 percent. Conversely, if we wanted to estimate what weight 90 percent of the fragments would not exceed, we would enter the chart on the 90 percent line, go over to the intersection with the curve and read downward to 'the weight axis the value 16 lb. Estimates for percentage of fragments between two weights can be made by determining the difference between corresponding percentage points. Figure 6.17 can be used in the same manner for the range. Statistical analyses were also perforpled for nondimensionalized range g (R/a) a, I nondimensionalized energy E (RMg/E). However, they were not included in this-manual since they do not add any additional useful information for building fragmentation at the present time. Before these nondimensionalized terms can be fully used, more data need to be accumulated. Cumulative frequency distributions and statistical analyses for goodness of fit for nondimensionalized range and energy can be found in Reference 6.25. It is interesting to almost parallel. That is, the all the log normal distributions. if more experimental data are levels, it may be possible to and magnitude which is related Figure 6.17, the plot for the note that the lines on Figure 6.16 are standard deviations are almost equal for This leads to the speculation that acquired in the future at various energy derive a scale factor from the energy ratios to the mean of the weight distribution. range percentiles, is an exception to this

6-64

Table

6.6 Listing of Estimated Means, Standard Deviations, and "WI' Statistics for Log-Normal Distributions for Weights and Ranges of Fragments

Weight

Estimated Energy Level (ft-lb) 1.6 5.0 1.0 x 10' x lo8 x 1o1O Estimated
Mean Standard

It W1,

Deviation 2.11 2.12 2.22

Range Estimated

Statistic 0.992 0.990 0.981

Probability 0.999 0.996 0.935

1.94 1.64 0

Energy Level (ft-lb) 1.6 x IO7 5.0 x lo8 1.0 x 1o1O

Estimated Mean 3.0204 4.9900 6.4052

Standard Deviation 0.9611 0.5487 0.6305

'W Statistic 0.915 0.980 0.989

* Probability 0.095 0.922 0.994

* See Figure

6.18

6-65

90

80

3J 6o 2 u C ! d

40

20

10

1 0.86 0.90 0.92 "14" Statistic 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.0

Figure

6.18

Approximate (n-19)

Probability

Percentage

Points

6-66

speculation due distance (11 ft) (see Ta.ble 6.5). were included at the distribution distributions of

to the large number of fragments collected at one close-in from the explosion with an energy of 1.6 x lo7 ft-lb. It should be noted that data from only one accident A larger data base may have caused this energy level. to shift to a position more nearly parallel with the range for the other two energy levels. for estimating will fall within is as follows: the number of fragments a given distance from of a given an explosion

A procedure mass interval which source in a building

1) Estimate MB = total destroyed weight of-the building This estimate (portion of the building which has fragmented). will depend mainly upon the amount of explosive stored or machined in the building at any given time and the building structure and shape. (This document does not discuss methods This for determining the total mass of the building destroyed. calculation will have to be performed using other sources.) 2) Using the weight distribution in Figure 6.16, obtain the average weight of a fragment from the explosian, Ma, by reading it off the appropriate curve at the 50th percentile. The total number of fragments
% Nf = M

from

the

explosion

is

then (6.35)

a. 3) Using percentage increments fragments, the range distribution in Figure 6.17, take equal increments (O-10%, lo-20%, etc.) or equal range (O-10 ft, lo-20 Et, etc.) and find the number of Nf , in each increment. (If equal percentage number of fragments in each increment

increments weFe taken, the is, of course, the same.)

4) Again using the weight distribution in Figure 6.16, determine the percentage of fragments in a particular weight interval. The total numbers of fragments in each range interval have already been calculated (Step 3). Thus, the number of fragments of a particular mass in a particular range interval (distance out from the source) can be determined.* *The major assumption made in this procedure tributed log normally in a given interval of for no correlation between weight and range, since weight is log normally distributed over covers the 'entire range), there is no reason log normally distributed within a given range is that all weights are disSince we could find range. a given energy level and each energy level (which to assume that weight is not increment.

6-67

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 6.9 PROBLEM - Determine the estimated number of fragments of a given % from an explosion distance Using this number, pk over the area covered (lb) (total weight N

weight which will fall within a given source of a given yield in a building. determine an average fragment density within that distance. GIVEN:
*I

M, = total destroyed weight of the building of the debris) E = energy of the explosion source (ft-lb) Ri = range of fragments under consideration Mi = weight of fragments under consideration

(Et) (lb)

FIND: -

N%
1.

Pk
Determine average weight Ma of a fragment from the explosion. This number is read off the curve for the desired energy, E, at 50%. Calculate the total number of fragments from the explosion. MB Nf = M 3. Takingaequal percentage increments (O-10%, lo-20%, etc.) or equal range increments (O-10 Et, lo-20 ft, etc.), find the number N of fragments in each range increment, fi' Nf i = (%> (Nf) Determine the percentage particular weight interval Determine particular interval, the number weight in Rk. REFERENCE Fig. 6.16 (Weight Distribution)

SOLUTION:

2.

Eq.

(6.35)

Fig. 6.17 (Range Distribution)

4.

of of

fragments concern.

in

the

Fig. 6.16 (Weight Distribution)

5.

of fragments a particular

of the range ) k defined

= (% in weight 6. Calculate the range interva.1, area 9s.

interval)(Nf of the ring

by the

a
where 7. RR is bounded by radii the interval and 5"l %2' Determine average fragment density over the entire range interval (ring).

CALCULATION GIVEN: 10,000 lb %= Q E = 5 x 10" ft-lb R1 = 90-100 ft 1 R2 = 150-170 ftJ Ml = 5-1.0 lb FIND: -NR (90-100 1. 2. ft) Ma at

Due to structures and personnel in the number of fragments these areas, which will land here is of concern.

' NR the

(150-170

ft)

' p(90-loo for

ft)'

p(150-170

ft) equals

SOLUTION:

50th

percentile

E = 5 x 108 ft-lb

5.1 lb. Total number of fragments. 10,000 lb MB = 1,961 Nf=M= 5.1 lb a 3. Number of fragments in each of = (29% - 22%)(1,961) = 137 Nfl = (66% - 58%)(1,961) = 157 Nf2 4. Percentage of fragments weighing 64% - 50% = 14% Number of 5-10 lb fragments in 5. intervals. = (14%)(137) = 19 fragments . NR 1 N = (14%)(157) = 22 fragments R2 6. Area of each circular interval. Al = ~(100~ A2 = ~(170~ - 902> = 5970 - 1502) = 20100 ft2 ft2

the two fragments fragments 5-10 each of

range

increments.

lb. the two range

6-69

7.

Average fragment evenly over the 9 = 13715970

= 157/20100

densities (if fragments area of the ring). ft2 ft' = 0.023 = 0.0078 could intervals fragmentsIft fragments/ftL

distributed .-b

P2 NOTE: The above solution weight and range missile map.

be repeated for different to generate a complete

6-70

6.2.4.3

Impact

Rinetic

Energies

Recall that kinetic energy is one-half the product of mass and velocity squared (MV2/2). From the accident reports mentioned previously, we have been able to describe statistically the weight and range distributions from which the mass can be determined. However, none of the accident reports contained any information on impact velocities or imIn order to acquire such information, it would pact kinetic energies. be necessary to simulate an accident, probably in model scale for cost effectiveness, and measure fragment impact masses and velocities either Information of this type has photographically or by damage indicators. been acquired in the vicinity of various ordnance explosions in order to define kill probabilities but this information is not appropriate Impact velocities of primary and for the purposes of this handbook. secondary fragments can be determined using the initial trajectory parameters of the fragments and trajectory computer codes such as FRISB (Ref. 6.3) which give fragment impact conditions. An impact damage criterion for humans which is widely used by the military is the 58 ft-lb criterion; that is, it is assumed that the onset of serious injury occurs when a fragment striking an individual has an impact kinetic energy equal to or greater than 58 ft-lb.* Figure 6.16 shows that 50 percent or mDre of the fragments have masses of 1 lb A l-lb fragment would only have to fall 58 ft or a 58 lb or greater. fragment fall 1 ft in order to equal the 58 ft-lb impact damage criterion. Therefore, it is not difficult to conclude that many of the fragments from buildings subjected to internal accidental explosions which strike individuals will cause serious injuries. 6.3 6.3.1 MISSILE DISPERSION Based Methods

Experimentally

as well Different complete persion,

complete missile maps which indicate missile dispersion Accurate, as range are limited in the data base for accidental explosions. research teams pick up and map different fragments; thus, a to make accurate predictions of dismap, which is necessary is rare. The missile maps which make up the data base described

*Much more accurate measures of impact injury are also quite complex. We do not recommend but refer the reader instead to the literature effects of penetrating fragments on humans.

are possible, but they the 58 ft-lb criterion, on impact trauma and (See Sections 6.5.1 and 6.5.2).

6-71

in Section 6.2.1 were used to extract fragment positions in relation to the position of the charge in the building. The area surrounding an explosion was divided into eight coarse sectors of 45" each. The sectors were numbered consecutively clockwise with angular sector number 1 being centered directly in front of the explosive charge where the fragments are most dense (see Figure 6.19 for an example of a sectored missile map pattern). Angles are measured from the zero-line indicated in Figure 6.19. These angular sectors were then further divided by range increments of 40 ft. Fragments were counted and a density of fragments per square foot was calculated for each sector. In will land regression of 5 x 108 is of the order to formulate a model for predicting where a fragment after an accidental explosion occurs, a multiple linear analysis was performed on fragment density data from energies ft-lb and 1 x 1010 ft-lb. In both cases, the fitted model form Rnz=a where z = density (fragments/square x = angle (radians) y = distance (feet) o -+ alx foot) + a2y (6.36)

The coefficients ai and partial correlation coefficients v for each case are listed in Table 6.7. High correlation w% between fragment density and distance as indicated by the vyz however, the correlation between density and angle (dispersion), acceptable as a statistical value in the analysis, was quite data would allow better prediction of dispersion patterns for of the type described in this manual.

and v foundYZ values; while low. More explosions

Fragment densities in sectors 1 through 4 (0 < x 5 3.14) were used in the regression analysis since the densities increased as the angle increased. A different pattern was observed for sectors 5 through 8 (3.14 < x < 6.28); thus, a different equation would result using those data in a regression analysis. It should be stressed that the equations and correlation coefficients derived from this analysis are based on the limited dispersion data available at this time. Thus, this dispersion analysis can provide an estimate of how fragment density can vary with angular position around a building such as those located at the Pantex facility. Further data would be beneficial in order to refine the analysis. Some recent model scale tests performed in Switzerland and Sweden (Ref. 6.23) indicate distinct dispersion patterns for explosions occurring in buildings. The model buildings were of reinforced concrete structure with different-sized charges centered inside. Upon detonation

6-72

Zero
/

Line

I I

I I

Figure

6.19.

Example Sectored Missile Measurement of Fragment

Map Pattern Density

for

6-73

Table

6.7 Resultant Coefficients from Multiple Regression Analysis on Missile Dispersion

Linear

E = 5.0 aO
al a2

x lo8
= -2.23 = -0.363 = -0.0348

ft-lb
V XZ

= -0.268

YZ

= -0.924

E = 1.0 aO al
a2

x 1O1' = -4.79 = -0.417

ft-lb
V XZ

= -0.276

= -0.00729

Y=

-0.792

6-74

of the charge, resultant debris was concentrated in highly directional In comparison, very little paths perpendicular to each of the four walls. debris was scattered in the diagonal direction out from the corners of However, This was not the case in the accident data. the building. dispersion was a major concern in the performance of these model tests; therefore, great care was taken to collect, weigh, and record all possible debris. If more accurate missile maps were available from accidental a more in-depth study of disperson could be performed to explosions, However, compare results with the results of these model scale tests. a direct comparison between these model scale tests and the accidental explosions described earlier cannot be made because the building types for the scale models are vastly different from the building type in the accidental explosions.

6-75

--

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 6.10 PROBLEM - Estimate the density zk of fragments located in a given angular source. (Due to the limited sector outward from an explosion data on dispersion, the calculations presented here will only be applicable with explosive energies of 5.0 x lo8 ft-lb and 1.0 x 10" ft-lb. Also, the prediction model used here is only applicable for densities in sectors 1 through 4. See Figure 6.19 for sector identification.) GIVEN: E
X

Nfk e aO al a2 FIND: SOLUTION: zk

= energy of explosion source = angular position of the sector in relation to the explosion source (radians)(see Figure 6.19) = distance outward from the explosion source, i.e., the midpoint of a range interval Ri (ft) (see example problem 6.9 in section 6.2.4.2) = total number of fragments within range interval (see example problem 6.9 in section 6.2.4.2) = subtended angle of the sector under consideration (radians) regression parameters (Table 6.7) for particular energy level

REFERENCE 1. With parameters aO, al, a2 defined for the desired energy level, calculate estimated fragment density, zi. f alx + a2y aO in each of the four sectors 1 through 4, Sum the densities z., i = 1,4. Determine percentage p. of th; total density zT for each sector.= PI = Zi/ZT Determine density defined by angle sion source. of fragments and distance Rnzi = Eq. a (6.36)

0 1

2.

3.

in the sector from the explo-

Zk = Pk
Nfk

6-76

CALCULATION GIVEN: E
X

Y Nf2 8 aO al a2 FIND: SOLUTION: 'k

= 5 x lo8 ft-lb = 1.5708 radians (90" - sector 2 on Figure 6.19) = 160 ft [midpoint of interval R2 in example problem 6.9 in section 6.2.4.2 (150-170 ft)] = 157 fragments (from example problem 6.9 in section 6.2.4.2) = 0.7854 radians = -2.23 = -0.363 = -0.0348

1.

Qntil

= -2.23

+ (-0.363)(0.785)

(-0.0348)(160)

Qnzl

= -8.08 fragments/ft2 (-0.363)(1.57) + (-0.0348)(160)

= 0.000310 Y Qnz2 = -2.23 f Qnz2 = -8.37

= 0.000233 fragments/ft2 z2 (-0.363)(2.32) mz3 = -2.23+ Qnz3 = -8.64 fragments/ft2 =3 = 0.000178 Qnz4 = -2.23 + (-0.363)(3.14)

-t (-0.0348)(160)

I- (-0.0348)(160)

Rnz4 = -8.94
z4 4 c = 0.000132 fragments/ft2

2.

z = 0.000853 fragments/ft2 i i=l Percentages of fragments located thus, p1 = 0.000310/0.000853 = 0.363 p2 = 0.000233/0.000853 p3 = 0.000178/0.000853 = 0.000132/0.000853 p4 Density of fragments and 170 ft from the = 0.273 = 0.209 = 0.155 in the explosion

in

each

sector

are,

3.

second sector between 150 described in example

6-77

problem

6.9

in

section

6.2.4.2

would - 1502)

be =

22 = (0.273)(157/0.785)(1702 = 0.0085 fragments/f&2 NOTE:

If one compares this density for the second sector between 150 and 170 ft (0.0085 fragments/ ft2) with the average density over the same range interval obtained in example problem 6.9 in section 6.2.4.2 (0.0078 fragments/ft2), one finds that there is a higher than average concentration of fragments in the area described in this problem. Due to the limited amount of fragment dispersion data, we recommend that section 6.2.4.2 be used to determine fragment density for most situations. This method is more accurate for "frontal" fragments (Sector 1).

6-78

6.3.2

Analytically

Based

Methods

there are no suitable analytically based At the present time, solutions for predicting missile dispersion. We presented a solution based on our accident data base in the previous section which could be used to estimate dispersion from an explosion in a building similar to the ones in the data base. Thus, that solution is extremely limited in its application. Both experimental and analytical work needs to be performed to predict missile dispersion more accurately. We recommend that model tests in conjunction with a nondimensional analysis be performed in the future in order to better define missile dispersion characteristics. 6.4 METHODS FOR ASSESSING FRAGMENT IMPACT DAMAGE

Structures which can be damaged by fragments include light to frame or masonry structures, heavy industrial buildings, office buildings, ca.rs, and many others. Damage can be superficial, such as denting of But, massive fragments can metal panels or breakage of panes of glass. cause more extensive damage such as perforation of wooden roofs, severe crushing of small buildings and cars, etc. Most of the fragments will be nonpenetrating and will cause damage by imparting impulsive loads during impact. The impacts will almost certainly be of short enough duration to be purely impulsive for almost any "target" structure or structural component. Impact conditions with large fragments which can be certain to cause significant structural damage can probably also be established by equating kinetic energy in the fragment to energy absorption capability for typical roof panels, roof supporting beams, etc. Most experimental data and prediction methods for fragment penetration or perforation are limited to the worst-case normal impact obliquity. Impacts of other obliquities present a greater thickness of material to and at great enough obliquity, will cause richochet. For be penetrated, richochet has been studied extenbullets and other military projectiles, But, fragment richochet has been studied in only a cursory way, sively. and insufficient data are available for inclusion in this manual. 6.4.1 Impacts on Metal Structures and of the and apply

The structures tnat are considered here are metal plates sheets. There does not appear to be any effect of the curvature therefore, it is reasonable to use data for flat targets target; them to any general shape that may be of interest. 6.4.1.1 General Solution for Penetration of Metal Targets

by Fragments

The methods which follow (Ref. 6.3) are based upon an examination of data of fragment and hailstone impact upon metal sheets and In these studies, synthetic hail6.6, 6.22 and 6.23). plates (Refs.

6-79

stones (ice spheres) were fired at target sheets of aluminum alloys, and various shapes of fragments were fired at steel targets. A model analysis using the methods described by Baker, Westine and Dodge (Ref. 6.26), gives the parameters of interest listed in Table 6.8. This analysis is concerned with plastic deformation, which makes the yield strength at more important than the modulus of elasticity of the target material. Also, the fragment is assumed to be either a rigid body,'or a very weak, crushable body, which makes the strength of the fragment an unnecessary parameter. The model analysis and a stud of the data result in the nondimensional terms in Table 6.9. When (Ah/a I > is plotted versus (ppV/<)). the data follow a straight line with some scatter in the po!ntg (see Figure 6.20) as shown by the shaded area of the figure. The line intersects the horizontal axis at a positive value of velocity. This is expected because thereisa finite fragment velocity below which no permanent target deflection occurs. For given fragment properties, of fragment velocity, 6 .can fragment velocities, there is a given target, and a given be obtained. Of course, for no permanent deflection. normal

component very low

This method was developed of a sheet or plate. For fragment sheet or plate, the deflection may otherwise expected from use of the

for impacts not very close to the edge impact near the unsupported edge of a be twice the deflection that would be figure.

The V53 limit velocity is defined as the velocity at which a projectile will have a 50 percent chance of perforating a given target. Given the properties of the projectile (fragment) and the target, V5(i can be obtained from Figure 6.21. The solid line in Figure 6.21 gives the relationship between limit velocity and target thickness. As the graph shows, there is uncertainty in this relation. For hard fragments which are less likely to deform, a lower nondimensional limit velocity (more conservative) should be chosen. For softer fragments, a higher limit velocity can be used. At this time, of h/a greater it is not known whether than about 2.2. this relationship holds for values

This method is good for the impact of a fragment with its velocity normal to the target surface. According to one report (McNaughtan and for oblique impacts the penetration velocity is Chisman, Ref. 6.29) minimum at an angle of 30" from the normal direction. The difference between the penetration velocities at 0" and at 30" may be as great as 20 percent. Therefore, if oblique impact is expected, the penetration velocity obtained by use of Figure 6.21 should be multiplied by 0.8.

6-80

Table

6.8.

List of of Metal

Parameters for Penetration Sheets and Plates

radius thickness velocity permanent oP Ot a t density density yield

of

fragment of of target fragment

(assuming

spherical

shape)

deflection of of fragment target of target

of

target

at point

of

impact

(projectile)

stress

material

a
Table 6.9 Nondimensional Metal Sheets Terms for and Plates Penetration of

dimensionless

projectile

velocity

dimensionless

target

deflection

dimensionless

target

thickness

0.1

0 ._':

gpm

0.2

0.1

0
U-1

U.3

u-4

0.6

ppv I-

Figure

6.20

Nondimensional "Chunky"

Deflection Crushable

versus Nondimensional Fragments

Velocity

for

6-82

12

10

2 h -

I 1.4

1.6

I 1.8

t 2.0

2.2

Figure

6.21

Nondimensional

Limit Velocity Non-Deforming

versus Nondimensional Fragments

Thickness

for

"Cllunky,"

This analysis has been formulated for spherical fragments To apply this to fragments of-other shapes, let a = [m/P (4?r/3)]1/3, where m is the mass of the fragment. More research must bePdone to determine other effects of fragment shape. Table 6.10 is a list of the important properties (density and yield stress) of a few selected fragment and target materials. 6.4.1.2 Penetration of Steel Targets by Wooden Rods

6.5) have conducted a number Baker, Hokanson and Cervantes (Ref. of experiments in which solid wooden cylinders with length-to-diameter ratios of 31:l were impacted end on into thin mild steel targets. Fitting a curve to the data, they came up with the following penetration equation: -I- 144.2 where V
S

($(;~I
(Vso)

(6.37)

Ot = striking = density = yield

velocity of the

for projectile of the

50% perforation

pP
Ot

strength

target

h R d 6.4.1.3

= thickness of the target = length of the projectile = diameter of the projectile Penetration of Steel Plates by Compact Steel Framents

Another recommended method for predicting compact steel fragment penetration of steel plate(s) is based on the procedures of References 6.28 and 6.29, and is shown in outline form in Figure 6.22. The prediction method and quantities required for its utilization are discussed further below: Input are:
l l

Parameters:

Quantities

needed

to begin

the

procedure

l l l l

plate thickness, t inches; angle of obliquity = angle between line of flight and the normal to the plate surface, 0 degrees; orientation angle = least angle between any flat surface and the plate surface, $ degrees; fragment length-to-diameter ratio, L/D; fragment area presented to plate, Ap in.'; fragment striking weight, W lb; fragment striking velocity,sVs fps. will either be known or can be estimated Otherwise, they must be assumed. for

of

fragment

fragment

These quantities of interest.

the

problem

6-84

Table 6.10

Material

Properties* Specific Weight Y Yield Stress u (lb /ft3) (psi) 489 50,000-65,000 53,000

MateridL Steel 1015 1018 1020 (large 1020 (sheet) A36 Aluminum Alloys2024-O 2024-T3 2024-T4 6061-T6 Titanium Alloy 6AR4V (sheet) grained)

64,000 45,000 173 36,000 12,800 53,000 53,400 282 35,000 160,000

* t

Refer to Chapter 7, Section 7.4, (structural steels and others). To obtain a nondimensional nondimensio al parameters, lb- sec2/ft r: by multiplying

for properties

of other materials

term for use in plots or equations In olving it may be necessary t3 convert lb /ft 3 to density by 1 lb-set 132.2 lb /ft.

6-85

I I
I

Calculate

Residual Velocity Eq. (6.40)

CrItIcal

I I

Ompute

Angle for Shatter 4,, Eq. (6.41)

t--

1
Corner Impact 4 ' 9,

ute Carrelational

I<

I
,,,,-te Residual Mass Using Shatter Mass Loss Eqv(6.43) 4 1

Eq, (6.44) . V co 2 700 r - %

I
.

I 4 2500 Compute Residual Mass Using Eq. (6.45) 1

Repeat Procedure For Next Plate

Figure

6.22

Prediction

of Penetration

of Steel

Plate

6-86

Ballistic Limit Velocity: The ballistic limit velocity is defined as the lowest striking velocity that results in perforation of the target with zero residual velocity. The ballistic limit velocity for compact fragments striking mild steel targets can be estimated as: A. VI1 = o A" (t set 0)" (6.38) TP where V defined'in is the ballistic Table 6.11; limit and the velocity in fps; A , m and n are constants other terms are as Freviously defined. to perforated the perforation plates with factor. The

Equation (6.38) is also applicable the substitution of R2A for AR, where R is perforation factor is defined as R=l - dp/hp

(6.39) and hR is the average centerValues of the perforation factor hexagonal and square hole the plate, residual velocity a quantity

where d is the diameter of the perforations to-ce&r distance between perforations. as a function of vent area ratio, oe, for patterns are shown in Figure 6.23. Residual Velocity: In a fragment that has perforated

of

order to predict a mild steel

is computed first limit velocity.

where Then 'r

V '

is

xc---- vs v l !2 the striking 2 +bx+c& x+1

velocity

and V I? is

the

ballistic

= VaB

ax C

1
3 (should take account

(6.40)

but where

Vr ZV f3 =

1
l/2

for

L/D 2 2

B- 1 for L/D > 2 y = density of the target plate, lb/in, of holes for perforated plates) a,b.c = constants from Table 6.12

A fragment which has perforated Critical Angle for Shatter: mild steel plate may or may not lose mass depending upon the orientation If 4 is small angle 4 between any flat fragment face and the target. enough, the impact is essentially flat, or $ 2 $,, where 4, is the critical orientation angle in degrees for shatter.

6-87

Table Empirical Limit Constants Velocity

6.11 Compact Targets Fragment

for Predicting for Mild Steel

* R is the perforation see Equation (6.39).

factor

for

perforated

plates;

Table Empirical Constants for Residual Velocity

6.12 Compact Fragment Steel Targets

Predicting for Mild

Constant
a b

L/D

< 5

L/D

2 5

1.12 0.52 1.29

1.10 0.80 1.45

6-88

d 0 a# 0
6 0-e 0

Hexagonal Array

"Unit

Cells" Square
Array

i-a-4

0.9

0.6

'Vent Area Ratio Single Perforated

exe Plate

Figure

6.23

Perforation Drilled

Factor Bole

versus Patterns

Vent

Area

Ratio

for

6-89

+c = arcsin where c = sonic velocity the itnpkt is considered velocity as

(Vs cosO/cp) = 18,010 or edge fps for impact. steel, Define If a

of the plate to be a corner

~~iti~~i
(6,421

+ ? 4J

vCT=
Then, for a flat impact with the critical velocity, i.e.,

2000

fps/cose velocity equal to or greater

a striking

than

the fragment will be in the shatter mass loss mode. of the fragment for this case is determined by Wr = ws [l where all terms For flat i.e., are - 0.002063tQ~138 as previously with wz'074 defined. a striking velocity (-sece) 0.143

The residual VO.761

weight (6. 4 3.)

impacts

less

than

the

critical

velocity,

vS cv cr
and for all corner or edge impacts, i.e.,

the fragment is in the deformation mass loss mode. fragment residual mass for this mode, a correlation first. The correlation velocity in fps is defined

To determine velocity is as

the computed ( 6 . m&i)

'Co

=I

+ i:61$ops;

o.151

where For

all

terms

are

as previously wr = ws

defined.

Then,

V co 5 700 f,ps: V

wr= Ws [1-0.002063t0~138Ws0*074(sec~)0*143V o'761] > 2500 fps: co .s,, 700 fps < Vco i 2500 fps: Wr = Ws[l - O.O00015l(V - 700)1'4L] (6.45) co

6-90

The penetration prediction method outlined above can be expected conservative results, particularly for fragment residual mass estimates. Two further assumptions can be made when investigating multilayer panels that will increase the conservatism of the method and reduce the number of calculations required. These are: 1) to set f3 = 1 in Equation' (6.40), If the panel and 2) to neglect any fragment loss of mass. defeats the fragment with the resulting known higher residual velocity and larger mass, it is clearly If the fragment defeats the panel with safe. these two assumptions, the calculations should be repeated using more accurate fragment residual velocity and mass. to give

6-91

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 6.11 PROBLEM - Determine is struck purposes, panel, GIVEN: M pP % the deflection 6 which by a "chunky" cruslikble assume that a piece of results when a metal sheet For illustrative fragment. concrete strikes an aluminum

= mass of = density = density yield

the fragment of fragment of target (nominal) of target

= Ot h = v = (use FIND: SOLUTION: S 1.

stress

thickness of target striking velocity any self-consistent

units) REFERENCE

Radius

of

fragment vol P

(a)

(assume

spherical

shape)

= M/vol; pP 3 a = 3M/4np a = 3aQGq 2. 3. 4.

= (4/3)aa3

galculate nondimensional v= Pp vm Determine Calculate 3 6h/a2

velocity. Table x. Fig. 6.9 6.20

dimensionless deflection actual deflection.

Table

6.9

6 = za2/h CALCULATION GIVEN: M pP = 3.1 = 3.7 x lo-3 lb-sec2/ft lb-sec2/ft4

% =: 5.4 lb-sec2/ft4 ISt = 7.63 x lo6 lb/ft h V FIND: SOLUTION: 6 1. = 2.5 x lO-3 = 200 ft/s ft

Change

1 - 15 August

1981 6-92

3 3.1
a= ( -

1+

l/3

3.7

a = 0.058
2.
V=p

ft

V/G
7.63
x

3.

? = (3.7)(200)/ $teri.ng Figure f= and calculate 6 0.026 6 = xa2/h

1095.4)

0.12

6.20, determine actual deflectibn

nondimensional 6.

deflection,

6 = (0.026)(0.058)2/(2.5
6 = 3.5 x 10 -2 ft = 0.42

x 10 -3) in.

EX0IPLE

PROBLEM 6.12

PROBLEM - Determine the limit velocity V50 for a "chunky" nondeforming This is an example to show fragment striking a metal plate. whether existing metal plate siding on a building tiill or will not be perforated by a steel fragment. GIVEN: h a P = target = radius = density thickness of fragment of fragment stress of of target set of units) REFERENCE 1.
2. 3.

(assume

spherical)

P 0 t = yield % (use FIND:

v50

target

= density any

self-consistent

SOLUTION:

Calculate dimensionless c = h/a Find dimensionless limit

%O

target velocitv.

thickness. Table Fig. 6.9 6.21 6.9

Calculgte
v50

limit

velocity Table

= vso JotPt/P P

CALCULATION GIVEN: h = 0.03 in. a = 0.031 in.-4 p-LJ = 7.33 x 10

% =

lb-sec2/in.4 lbsec2/in.
4

2.6

10

-4

cf

= 53,000

lb/in.2

6-93

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

FIND: SOLUTION:

v50
1. G = h/a ii = 0.03/0.03 h=l Entering Figure velocity, ?50iso = 3.5 actual limit velocity V50. Calculate

2.

6.21,

determine

nondimensional

limit

3.

v50 = ~50(+&,)
= (3.5)/(53,000)(2.6 v50 = 1.77 x lo4 in./sec v50 = 1477 ft/s x 10-4)/(7.33 x 10 -4>

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 6.13 PROBLEM - Determine the thickness, make the striking velocity limit velocity. GIVEN: Vs = P = P 0 = t 9, = d = (use h 1. Rearrange Equation (6.37) to solve for h. striking density yield velocity of fragment of target h, of a mild steel of a wooden rod plate equal required to the to

strength

length of projectile diameter of projectile any self-consistent

set

of

units) REFERENCE

FIND: SOLUTION: -

Eq.

(6.37)

NOTE: This is the solution Only the positive solution

to a quadratic for h is valid.

equation.

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

6-94

CALCULATION GIVEN: vs = 1000 P P = 1.55 ft/s lb-sec2/ft4 lb/f?

% = 7.2 x lo6 R = 2 ft d = 0.1 ft FIND: SOLUTION: .h= h

!+5$&?$(4)(~(.%$)
(2) (93

h= J h= h= 1.67 0.20 x 1O-2 in. ft

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 6.14 PROBLEM - Determine fragment GIVEN: the ballistic limit striking a mild steel striking weight velocity target. (lb) (V,) for a compact

Ws = fragment

t = plate thickness (in.) degrees) 0 = angle of obliquity Ap = presented area (in. 1 ) L/D = length-to-diameter FIND: SOLUTION: 5 1. 2. Find empirical A , m, n, t/RfiCzlculate V,= (Ao/fis) the A; constants. Table bzllistic (t set limit 0)" velocity (ft/s). Eq. (6.38) 6.11 ratio of fragment REFERENCE

6-95

CALCULATION GIVEN: Ws = 0.1 lb = 0.25 in. e = 0" CI Ap = 0.5 in.L L/D FIND: SOLUTION: V.
L

= 0.586

(0.25) = (l>m

1.

RC

= 0.35
for (t)/[(R)T]

TJsiig Table 6.11 and the value and L/D, find Ao, m and n. Ao = 1414 m n = 0.295 = 0.910 = (A /K

2.

A"

(t

set

e)n

(0.25 set 0") 0.910

VR = 1032 ft/sec EXAMPLE PROBLEM 6.15 PROBLEM - Calculate striking GIVEN: the residual a mild steel striking velocity, target. weight (lb) Vr, for a compact fragment

Ws = fragment t 0

plate thickness (in.) I angle of obliquity (degrees) presented area (in.2) AP = L/D = length-to-diameter ratio Vs = striking velocity (ft/s) specific weight (lb/in.3) Y = target FIND: SOLUTION: Vr 1. Calculate the ballistic limit velocity VR. REFERENCE Example Problem

6.14 2.
Find empirical a, b, c constants. Table 6.12

6-96

3.

Calculate x=7-1 B= vs R

the

following

quantities. Eq. ; L/D < 2 (6.40)

1 11 + ~APtlWs]l'*

4.

B = 1; L/D > 2 Calculate ',he residual

ve4ocity. Eq. (6.40)

f3 ax vr = VR 1
CALCULATION GIVEN: Ws = 0.1 t 0 A P L/D vs Y FIND: SOLUTION: vr 1. 2. From example problem VI1 = 1032 ft/sec a = 1.12 b = 0.52 c = 1.29 1500 x = VQ - 1 = -1o32 vs B= [l v r
vr

lb

= 0.25 in. = o" 2 = 0.5 in. = 0.886 = 1500 ft/s = 0.283 lb/in.3

6.14

3.

- 1 = 0.453 = [l 1 + (0.283)(0.5)(0.25)/(0.1)11/*

1 + vApt/Ws]l'* B II
= (1032)

= 0.859 4. =v

ax2+bx+c& x+1 1
x (o.s5g)

1
+ ~~.x;y) + o.m1

(1.12)(0.453+

6-97

EXAMPLEPROBLEM6.16 PROBLEM- Determine

penetrated the residual a mild steel weight, plate. Wr, of a fragment which has

GIVEN:

0 = angle

vs

of obliquity angle = orientation = striking velocity of

(degrees)(see (degrees) (ft/sec) plate (lb) (ft/sec)

beginning

of

section

6.4.1.3)

sonic velocity cP = ws = fragment weight

t = plate thickness specific ; I presented weight area

P FIND: Wr Calculate $c = sin 2. 3. -1

(in.) of plate (in. >

(lb/in.

3,

REFERENCE
critical shatter angle. Eq. Eq. (6.&l.) (6.4')

SOLUTION: 1.

(Vs cose/cp)

Calculate critical velocity. V = 2000 (ft/a>/cose cr Determine mass loss mode. l If ($ 2 $c> and (Vs 1 V&
l

th en shatter
or $ 3, $ ,
C

mode.

Continue at Step If (4 2 9,) and deformation residual

4. (Vs < Vcr)

4.

5.

6.

mode. Continue at Step 5. weight. 0.138w 0.074 0.143v 0.761 Wr = Ws 1 - 0.002063t (sece) s s [ Eq. Calculate the correlation velocity. V S vco= Eq. cos e ' +/0.6tyA p + 0.15 W S i i )I Determine the proper equation to use for calculating the residual weight. l IfV co 2 700 ft/s, then Wr = Ws
l

then Calculate

(6.43) (6.44)

If

Vco 12500

ft/s,

wr = Ws[l

- 0.002063t

then 0.13Sw
S

0.074

(sece)

0.143v
S

0.761 Eq.

(6.4'3)

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

6-98

If

700 ft/s

< Vco < 2500 - 1.51

ft/s,

then - 7oo)l*421 Eq. (6.45)

wr = ws [l CALCULATION GIVEN: e = 0" $I = 20' vs = 1500 cP

ws

x 10-5(vco

ftjsec ft/sec lb 3

= 18000
= 0.116

t y FIND: SOLUTION: Wr

= 0.25 in. = 0.283 lb/in. = 0.5 in.2

1.

$I= = sin-l(Vs

c0S8/Cp)

2. 3. 4.

Vcr

= sin [(1500)cos(0")/(18000)] = 2000/c0s(0") = 2ooo/cose therefore, at Step Vuse deformation 5.

= 4.8" = 2000 ft/s mode equation and

4 > $c; continue omit.

6,

Vco 5 700 ft/sec, residual striking weight weight of of

therefore, the the fragment fragment.

Wr = Ws. is the

That

is,

the.

same as the

6-99

6.4.2

Impact

on Concrete

and Masonry

Structures

Several tests by various researchers have been conducted to examine the problem of penetration of concrete targets by low-velocity projectiles. Most of these tests were conducted to examine the possibility of tornado-borne missiles damaging concrete nuclear reactor containment walls. Baker, Hokanson and Cervantes (Ref. 6.5) performed several experimental tests in which model wooden utility poles or model schedule 40 pipe were impacted normal to the center of concrete test panels. As was the case for their tests with sheet steel impact&, the targets were sufficiently large to confine residual deformation to the central portions of the target. Deformation profiles were somewhat irregular, with discontinuities near fracture planes, but were quite similar in nature to profiles reported by Vassal0 (Ref. 6.30). Although the limited number of tests conducted precluded repeat shots, the formation of spa11 oraters and fragments appeared to be consiStent from test to test. Ba.ker, Hokanson and Cervantes (Ref. 6.5) later reviewed available test data obtained both in the United States and abroad, and summarized the available data. Their summary is included here. 6.4.2.1 Steel Pipe Missiles

Prediction curves are based on a total of 66 tests in which steel pipe missiles were impacted against concrete panels. Nine tests for short pipes (6.06 < R/d < 9.74) were reported by 'Gassalo (Ref. 6.30). Stephenson (Ref. 6.31) and Stephenson et al. (Ref. 6.32) present the results of 14 full-scale tests in which long pipes (13.8 < a/d < 36.3) were propelled The most complete series of by a rocket sled into concrete panels. tests is reported by Jankov et al. (Ref. 6.33), where the results of 36 quarter-scale (4.5 < R/d i 24.3) missile penetration tests are presented. Unfortunately, about half of these tests were conducted against panels which had been impacted previously. The remaining seven tests were reported by Baker, Hokanson and Cervantes (Ref. 6.5). This series of tests is unique in that the panels are thought to be more representative of actual concrete containment'structures than the panels in any of the previously cited reports. This is because the rebars were spaced very close together. The model pipe missile not only could not pass between the rebars, but impacted against at least four of them. Three of the tests were for pipe missiles with a 30" nose angle. The results of these three tests indicate that a considerable amount of the projectile kinetic energy is expended in deforming the nose of the missile, leaving less energy to deform the target. Apparently, blunt-end pipe missiles represent the most severe threat to concrete panels. pipe Figure 6.24 presents the scabbing threshold missiles penetrating reinforced concrete panels. for blunt-end The format steel of the

6-100

figure is the same as originally presented by Jankov et al. (Ref. 6.33); Note that the scaled kinetic energy versus scaled target thickness. The data are grouped into three sets vertical axis is dimensional. depending on the wall thickness to diameter ratio (2tw/d) of the missile. The lines of the figure are prediction curves, with scabbing predicted above the curves and not below. Because of the limited amount of data, prediction of the scabbing threshold of pipe missiles impacting concrete Futher efforts panels is limited to the regions shown in the figure. in this area of research should include systematic investigations of the At the significance of the influence of different amounts of rebar. present time, calculations should be limited to conditions specified in Figure 6.24. Rotz (Ref. 6.34) has presented a simple empirical equation for the thickness of threshold of spalling, t , for steel pipe missiles. We do not include this formula here, beca&e it is dimensional, and can be shown to give inaccurate predictions for tests conducted at scales other than the small series on which Rotz based the equation. In later unpublished work, however, Rotz has modified his equation to make it dimensionally homogeneous. predicting 6.4.2.2 Utility Pole Missiles

There is a total of 15 tests in which model utility poles were fired against concrete panels. Nine tests are reported by Vassal0 (Ref. 6.30), Stephenson (Ref. 6.31), Stephenson et al. (Ref. 6.32) and Jankov et al. (Ref. 6.33); while four tests are given by Baker, Hokanson and Cervantes (Ref. 6.5). The remaining tests are for composite concrete and steel panels reported by Ting (Ref. 6.35). Spa11 damage of any level was observed in only three tests. Two of these tests [Jankov et al. (Ref. 6.33)] were conducted at velocities well above the postulated veloctty of a tornado-accelerated utility pole. The other test in which spallation occurred [Baker, Hokanson and Cervantes (Ref. 6.5)] was the only one in which the projectile did not fail. on impact. Apparently, the utility pol.e missile is not a threat to heavily reinforced concrete
walls.

6.4.2.3

Rod Missiles

We have located 66 tests in which solid steel rod projectiles Twenty-six of these with long L/d ratios were fired at concrete targets. tests were conducted in the United States by Barber (Ref. 6.36), Vassal0 (Ref. 6.30), Ting (Ref. 6.35), Stephenson (Ref. 6.31) and Jankov (Ref. 6.33). Ting and Stephenson's data are for long R/d (15<E/d<40) rods, Barber, 6.38) presents 22 and Goldstein (Ref. 6.39) presents 18 short Fiquet (Ref. The panels from these three references had much heavier L/d rod tests. In many cases, reinforcing than did the panels of other researchers. each layer more closely spaced than the five layers of rebar were used, The influence of the heavier rebar layers found in the American panels.

6-101

2
Scaled Target Thickness, h/d

Figure

6.24

Scabbing Threshold for On Reinforced Concrete

Steel Pipes Panels

6-102

is to raise the scabbing threshold. The require considerably more kinetic energy which are lightly reinforced. The lines lines for heavily and lightly reinforced

more densely reinforced panels to induce scabbing than do panels on Figure 6.25 are prediction panels.

Westine and Vargas (Ref. 6.40) have developed a model to predict incipient spallation from targets which are struck by fragments whose cross-sectional width at impact is much less than the lateral dimensions In their analysis, they consider as a worst case a of the target. cylindrical fragment strikes a plate normally (at a zero angle of obliquity) as shown in Figure 6.26. The high pressures associated with this impact process send a stress wave into the material in a fashion similar to that described for the air blast wave. The major differences in this impact are that the time histories of the stress waves are not Waves now propagate through the fragment as necessarily triangular. well as into the target, and some wave dissipation occurs because the loading is applied l.ocally, rather than uniformly, to a surface. Mathematically the solution to this probl.em is not an easy one; however, dimensional analysis, physical reasoning and test data can be applied to develop an empirical solution which designers can use to determine the threshold of spall. determined Using dimensional from i where is analysis, the threshold of spa11 can be

a function

of

P = peak contact pressure u = ultimate strength of the target material i = specific impulse imparted to the target a = speed of sound in the target material h2 = target thickness dl = impact diameter of the fragment

(&)and -

(2)

(6.46)

This relationship states essentially that the peak stress wave relative to the ultimate strength of the target material is some function of the duration of loading (i/P) relative to the transit time (h/a) for a wave through the material; and, for nonuniform loadings as in Figure 6.26, a function of the relative dimensions of the fragment and the target The ratio (ia/Ph) is the number of transits of the wave through (dl/h2). the target material before the fragment comes to rest. Using dimensional analysis, into ordered pairs of nondimensional pressure p where ia 2 T PA ==2Ph2=2p2h2 experimental test data were impulse y and nondimensional , 1+p2"2 Plal 1 ( cast

(6.47)

6-103

7000 5000 f 3000 \, 2000 \ I

Scaled

Target

Thickness,

h/d

Figure

6.25 Scabbing Threshold for Solid Rod Missiles Impacting Reinforced Concrete Panels (Reference 6.39)

h2 I

4 I- + RPlv a
P ljal p2 a2 Sketch of 6-104

Figure

6.26

a Fragment

Impact

and

P F=a (6.48)

where

p2 = density P1 al = density = speed of

of

target in in the the rod target

of rod of sound sound

= speed a2 VP = impact RI = length

velocity of rod of F versus s as obtained from Baker et al. threshold of spa11 for rod missiles impacting targets were made o_f various materials. 40, the value for P for threshold of spa11 for Concrete Target

Figure 6.27 contains a plot (Ref. 6.41) which shows the Missiles and plate targets. For values of ? greater than is approximately 5.25. 6.4.2.4 Steel Plate

Approximation

For a very quick and crude rule-of-thumb estimate of the effectiveness of reinforced concrete panels in resisting penetration by steel fragments, it can be assumed that 1 in. of mild steel is equivalent to 9 in. of concrete, i.e., if it is known that a l-in. thickness of mild steel will defeat a particular fragment threat, it can be estimated that 9 in. of reasonable quality reinforced concrete will also defeat the When more realistic estimates of concrete penetration are fragment. desired, the methods from Reference 6.6 summarized below can be utilized. 6.4.2.5 Armor-Piercing Fragments

A certain amount of experimental data analogous to primary fragment penetration has been accumulated in connection with projects to determine the effects of bomb and projectile impact on concrete structures. These data were analyzed and relationships developed where the amount of fragment penetration into concrete elements could be expressed in terms of the physical properties of both the metal fragment The general expression for the maximum and the concrete (Ref. 6.28). penetration Xf in inches of a compact armor-piercing fragment was derived in terms of the fragment weight Wf in pounds and striking velocity Vs in fps, i.e., Xf = 4.91 x 10 -6 WO.4 g-8 f S (6.4Y)

6-105

"1 Aa1 h2 p2 a2

I 4I ?- + v PI a
P SPALL L'HFESBOLI) OF

SPALL 7

iPALL

NO
SPALL

4 i Figure

10

20

40

6.27 Spa11 Threshold (Various Projectile

for Fragment Impacts and Target Materials)

Equation (6.49) is based on a concrete compression strength f' equal to 5,000 psi and its limits in terms of fragment weight and velo:ity and target penetration thickness is unknown. Maximum penetrations of fragments in concrete of other strengths may be obtained by multiplying the value of Xf of Equation (5.45) by the square root of the ratio of 5,000 psi to the compressive strength of the concrete in question. The limiting thickness of concrete at which perforation will occur can be obtained from Figure 6.28 and is a function of the fragment weight, striking velocity, and maximum penetration and the dilatational velocity C of the elastic wave through concrete where
S c S

= 5.16

E112
C

(ft/sec> to be (psi) lb/ft 3 of concrete, psi

(6.50)

and the

modulus

of

elasticity E
C

Ec is = 33 y:'5 of concrete,

defined <

(6.51)

where

y fi

= specific = static

weight unconfined

compressive

strength

(6.52) and the equation for the lower line L2.52) is ($Jl'3]1*25 (6.53)

Cl = 0.100

residual tude of defines concrete,

Fragments which perforate a concrete element will have a velocity Vr which may endanger the receiver system. The magnithis velocity may be approximated from the expression which the velocity of the fragment at any time as it penetrates the i.e., Wr/Vs)1'8 = 1 - (Tc/Xf) element, fragment in. as it leaves concrete element, than two fps two

where

= thickness

of

concrete of

Vr = residual Equation fragment fragment

velocity

(6.54) applies when the depth of penetration is greater diameters. If the depth of penetration Xf is less than diameters d, Healey et al. (Ref. 6.7) recommend

(vr/vs)1*8= 1 Plots of the ratio Vr/Vs against Tc/Xf

(Tc/Xf12 are given in Figure 6.29.

(6.54)

6-107

I I

m . VI

0.5

I II

Limit of Perforation

0.2 -

I 4C: -21 I

0.1

0.02

I A

I1111

&f
I

I
T/l

1 I Illll
I I lllll

III

pi
0.002

I Illlrll

YI II I

I
I

I
I

0.01

0.02

0.04

0.1 2.52

0.7 113

0.4

1-o

2.0

4.

wf xf

Figure

6.28

Limits

of

Concrete (Reference

Spalling 6.6)

and Perforation

6-108

The above analysis applies to compact armor-piercing For irregular shapes, one can calculate an equivalent fragment from l/3 d= + ;,T wp 1 where M = mass of the fragment, lb-sec2/in. lb-sec2/in.4 Pp = its mass density Other Fragments

fragments. diameter

(6.56)

6.4.2.6

To estimate the concrete penetration of metal than armor piercing, a procedure has been developed to penetrating capabilities of such fragments to those of fragments. This relationship is expressed in terms of hardness (the ability of the metal to resist deformation) and is represented by constant C2 in Equation (6.57)(Ref. x; where X.' = maximum penetration f than armor-piercing The numerical values of C2 for are listed in Table 6.13. Table '5.13 in = C2Xf concrete of of metal the more

fragments other relate the concrete armor-piercing relative metal and density, 6.6) (6.57)

fragments

other metals

several

common casing

Penetration

Factors c2

Type of Material Armor-piercing Mild steel Lead Aluminum steel

1.00 0.70 0.50 0.25

0
6-109

1.0

0.8

0.6

c u EC 0.4 When Tc is equal to or greater than Xf, vr is equal to zero. ' d = fragment diameter Modify Xf for variation of f; and fragment mater-ial.

0 .d *

0.4
Vr/V
S

U.b

Figure

6.29 after

Residual Perfor.a:fon
C

Velocity of Primary Fragment (Ref. 6,23 and 6.26) = 5000 ps1)

6-110

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 6.17 PROBLEM - Determine if scabbing impacts a reinforced GIVEN: h = target d = missile Ws = missile Vs = striking t FIND:
W

will occur when concrete panel. (in.) (in.) (lb) (in./sec) of missile (in.)

a steel

pipe

missile

thickness diameter weight velocity thickness of

= wall

Probability 1. 2.

scabbing the scaled target thickness.

REFERENCE

SOLUTION:

Calculate i = h/d Calculate

Fig. scaled kinetic energy. Fig.

6.24

3. 4.

KE WsVs2 -= h3 (2) (386)h3 of scaled kinetic energy are psi.) (NOTE : Units Calculate the quantity (2t,/d) and determine the appropriate surve on Figure 6.24. Plot the point (h, KE/h3) on Figure 6.24 and determine if scabbing will occur. Note that points above the appropriate (2t jd) curve are above the scabbing threshold?

6.24

CALCULATION GIVEN: h d ws = 10 in. = 4 in. = 5 lb

= 10000 in./sec vs t = 0.2 in.

W

FIND: SOLUTION:

Probability 1. 2. 3. 4.

of I; = h/d KE/h3 2tw/d Scabbing

scabbing = 10/4 = 2.5 = (5)(10000)2/[(2)(386)(10)31 = 0.1

= WsVs2/[(2)(386)h3] = 648 psi = (2)(0.2)/(4) will occur.

6-111

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 6.18 PROBLEM - Determine if scabbing will missile impacts a reinforced GIVEN: h = target d = missile Ws = missile
vS

occur when concrete

a solid, panel.

rod-type

thickness (in.) diameter (in.) weight (lb) velocity of scabbing the scaled kinetic target thickness. energy. (in-/s) REFERENCE

= striking

FIND:

Probability
1.

SOLTJTION:

2.

_Calculate h = h/d Calculate

scaled

3. 4.

KE ws vs2 -z!z h3 (2)(386)h3 (NOTE: Units of scaled kinetic energy are psi.) Plot the point (h, KE/h3) on Figure 6.25. Determine if scabbing will occur. Note that points above the appropriate curve are above the scabbing threshold.

Fig.

6.25

CALCULATION GIVEN: (light reinforcing) h =18in. d =6in. Ws = 20 lb Vs = 6000 FIND: Probability 1. in./sec of scabbing = 3 WV 2

SOLUTION:

ii = h/d f-i = 1.8/6 KE

= (20) WOW2 (2) (386) (W3

3.
4.

= 160 psi Find point on Figure 6.25. No scabbing should occur.

6-112

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 6.19 PROBLEM - Determine a concrete GIVEN: dl = impact = density = density = ultimate if spalling panel. diameter thickness of of target fragment of target materials material target will of occur fragment when a wood projectile strikes

h2 = target p2 % o2

strength

= speed of sound in a2 VP = striking velocity a. = speed of sound in 1 = length of fragment 5 (or use any self-consistent FIND: Probability 1. of Calculate 5 PA 1=-(1+-) 2p2h2 Calculate spalling scaled

fragment

set

of

units) REFERENCE

SOLUTION:

impulse. PZa2 Eq. (6.47)

2.

plal scaled pressure. Eq. (6.48)

3. comparing determine CALCULATION GIVEN: dl h,

p, L

it if

with the spalling

on Figure threshold of occurs.

6.27 spa11

and curve,

= 0.5 = 1.5 = 4.67 = 2.17

ft ft lb-sec2/ft4 lb-sec2/ft4 lb/ft2

p1

c2 = 7.2 x lo5 = 4000 ft/s "2 V = 200 ft/s P

6-113

=1 =
5 FIND:

1000

ft/s

= 9 ft of spalling

Probability 1.

SOLUTION:

(4.67)(4000) (2.17) (1000)

=13.4
2.

Pl =

Cdl/h21 P2a2V Oa4

o2 ( 1+-

P2a2
p1=1 )

= (0.644)(4.67>(4000>(200)

0.348

3.

No spalling occurs. Plotting the point (1-F) = 13.4, 0.348) on Figure 6.27, one can see that it falls well below the spa11 threshold line, Therefore, no spalling will occur. Note that the curve in Figure 6.27 asymptotically approaches a limit as the value of 7 increases. Thus, if P' remains constant, increasing just ? will never cause the panel to spall. EXAMPLE PROBLEM 6.20

PROBLEM - For a metal perforation, GIVEN: fi

fragment spalling,

striking concrete, determine and residual velocity. of (lb) (ft/sec) of concrete (in.) (lb/ft3) concrete (psi)

penetration,

= compressive

strength weight velocity weight of

= fragment wf Vs = striking = specific yc Tc = thickness d = fragment

concrete (in.)

diameter

6-114

FIND: SOLUTION:

Xf , probability 1.

of perforation

and spalling, (in.)

Vr for

REFERENCE

Calculate maximum penetration armor-piercing steel fragment. -6 W0.4 +.8 xf=4*91xlo f $ Note that for concrete targets compressive strength different psi, Xf must be multiplied by

Eq. with from (psi) Table a 5000

(6.49)

2. 3.
I.

J5000 psi/strength Determine C2. Calculate fragment. the

of maximum

concrete penetration

6.13

of

a metal Eq. (6.57)

4.

xi = c2 xf Calculate the wave (ft/sec). C

S

dilatation

velocity

of

the

elastic Eq. (6.50) (6.51) 6.28

= 5.16

E;12 47
C

where EC = 33 yclv5 5. Determine occurs. Abscissa if (psi) and/or spalling Eq. Fig.

perforation W1/3

= 2.52fx; + 0.877 W;'3 '3

Ordinate 6.

= x; velocity.

Calculate residual if X;/d > 2 a)

Eq. b) 'if-X:/d < 2 T 1. -xf CALCULATION GIVEN: Steel fragment f,' = 6000 psi 2 2 Eq.

(6.54)

(6.55)

6-115

= 0.5 wf Vs = 1500 y, "150 = 18 in. Tc d = lin. FIND: SOLUTION: Xf, probability 1. xf

lb ft/sec lb/ft3

of perforation x 10 -6 w0.4 f x 10 -6 w0.4 f in.

and spalling, v1.8 v!.8 s J (for 5000/6000

Vr f' C = 5000) (for f; = 6000)

= 4.91

Xf = 4.91 2. 3. 4. = 1.77 c2 = 0.70

X; = C2 Xf = (0.7)(1.77) C
S

= 1.24

in.

= 5.16

$I2 lq I = (33)(150) x 106)l'2 ft/sec (w1'3/x-) (Of5l/3:1.24) + 0.877 x; W;'3 = 1.61 1*5m = 4.70 x lo6

EC
cS

= 33 ya.5 = (5.16)(4.70 = 1.12

x 10' = 2.52 = 2.52

5.

Abscissa

6.

= (18) + (0.877)(0.5)1'3 1.24 [ = 27.5 Figure 6.28 predicts that no perforation will occur. 1.24 x; -= = 1.24 d 1

or spalling

(q*8=q..$)
There X;iT. is no residual
C

velocity

in

this

case

because

e
6-116

6.4.3

Impacts

on Interior

Walls

To date, penetration studies involving target materials which might be used in interior wall construction have been extremely limited. As a result, this section will only deal with two materials, strawboard and fiberboard. Strawboard is a material with a specific weight of about 45 Fiberboard is a similar material with lb/ft3, similar to that of white oak. specific weights ranging from 16 to 28 lb/ft3 (Ref; 6.42). Some common tradenames for fiberboard are Celotex, Plastergon, Insulite, Flintkote and Smoothlite. For both target materials and impact by steel following functional form was empirically fit to the (Ref. 6.42): fragments, available the data

- 5 v=c(hA) a,#
where V = ballistic limit (ft/s) h = thickness of target (in.) A = estimated average impact area Wf= weight of the fragment (lb) determined c, 01, S are empirically of fragment (in. for

2> each material

constants

Note that by inputting the fragment striking velocity for the ballistic limit, the equation may be rearranged to solve for the target thickness, h. This value defines the target thickness for which there is a 50 percent probability that the fragment will perforate the material (Ref. 6.42). Equating this predicted target thickness to the depth of penetration yields conservative penetration values if the target is thicker than the thickness associated with the ballistic limit (Ref. 6.43). The empirically fitted v = 59,010 and the equation for fiberboard equation (ti3m606 is: (h7i)o'75 (7000Wf)-o'75 ( 6 . 5c.j) 6.14 (6.60). for strawboard is:

(7ooow,f)-0*674

V = 44,740 where gives the the

terms are defined previously for Equation (6.58). Table experimentally validated ranges for Equations (6.59) and

6-117

Change

1 - 15 August

-981.

Table Specific Weight Y (lb/ft3) 43 + 46 16 -f 28 0.013 -+ 8 0.01 0.21 -f 4.3 0.8 - 21 - 16 Target Thickness h (in.)

6.14

Ranges

of Velocity for Equations (Reference 6.42)

(6.59)

and

(6.60)

Target Material 0.0023 0.00036 - 0.034 - 0.03

Fragment Weight Wf (lb)

EA (E = 3112'~) A = Fragment Impact Area

Striking Velocity v (ftls) 500-2800 400-4900

Angle of Obliquity 0" 0"

Strawboard

Fiberboard

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 6.21 PROBLEM - Determine the depth of and the wall thickness of the time. Interior thick and are used on GIVEN: penetration, h, into an interior wall required to stop the same fragment 50% wallboard materials are usually 0.5 in. both sides of an interior wall.

V = striking velocity (ft/s) A = fragment impact area (in.2) Wf= weight of fragment (lb) wall material = strawboard h 1. 2. Ballistic v = 59,010 Rearrange 5g,010 h= 60.606~7000wf)-o~674 limit to equation. Eq. 606 (6.59) REFERENCE

FIND: SOLUTION:

(h7i)-"'606(7000w~)-o'674 solve for h. ' .T = hu'

~0.606;700(w60.674

l/O.606

CALCULATION GIVEN: v = 2000 ft/s i = 0.207 in. Wf= 0.02 lb h 1. h =

FIND:

j?sQlJJTION:

2.

h=

2000

x o.02)-"'674 [ 59.010(o.207)"*606(7000 h = 4.42 in. Since interior walls usually have a sheet of wallboard material on each side of the wall (combined thickness of 1.0 in.), the fragment should easily perforate the interior wall.

l/O.606

*When using Equations (6.59) and (6.60) the actual fragment impact area should be used for x if it is known. Otherwise, the estimated presented area of the fragment should be used.

6-119

6.4.4

Impacts

on Roofing

Materials

An analysis for impact upon metal targets leads one to believe that the important projectile property 1s momentum. Until more information is obtained, it must be assumed that momentum is also important in impact upon roofing materials. [The following discussion is based upon data by Greenfield (Ref. 6.44) in which synthetic hailstones were projected at roofing-material targets. The velocities in the tests correspond to the terminal fall velocities of hailstones of the particular sizes used.] Because of the many kinds of roofing and the 'scarcity of data on fragment impact upon roofing materials, this discussion will be kept as general as possible, presenting only the lower limits of damage for groupings of roofing materials, with the understanding that these are not known very accurately. The roofing materials can be separated into three categories: asphalt shingles, built-up roofs (alternate layers of bitumen and reinforcing membranes, often topped with pebbles or crushed stone), and miscellaneous materials (asbestos cement shingles, slate, cedar shingles, clay tile, and sheet metal). Lower limits of fragment momentum for serious damage to common roofing materials are given in Table 6.15. Portions of the data given in Table 6.15 areapresented in Figure 6.30. Figure 6.30 can be readily used to obtain the striking velocity which a fragment of known mass (M) must have to exceed the minimum fragment momentum required to produce serious damage. In general, any fragment which strikes a roofing material will This probably exceed the momentum required to produce serious damage. is true because most of the fragments will be large, drag-type fragments, experiencing little or no lift which might allow it to "settle" on the roof. To determine the vertical component of the striking velocity V Yf is greater than 0, the following for the simple case where y = yf and V
0

equation

may be used: V yf = -T mass constant vertical sin[ian-l :.

YO
> I

( Vy
0

hi-#

(6.61)

where

M g V
YO

= fragment = gravity = initial = CD+)P12 where

component

of velocity

CD = drag area
%= PO

coefficient presented of air in the vertical direction

= density

6-120

Table

6.15

Fragment Impact (Greenfield, Minimum for

Damage
Ref.

for Roofing 6.44) (mV>

Materials

Fragment Serious

Momentum Damage

Roofing Asphalt

Material shingles

lb-set 0.159 1.37 crack damage crack

Comments shingle deck tar flood coat conroof of

Built-up

roof

10.159 0.451

crack surface of ventional built-up without top layer stones

>0.991

with a 2.867 lb/ft2 top layer of slag, there was no damage up to 0.991 ftjsec, which was the maximum momentum of the test

Miscellaneous l/8-inch cement l/4-inch cement l/4-inch l/G-inch l/2-inch shingles 3/4-inch tile Standing metal asbestos shingles asbestos shingles green grey cedar red clay slate slate 0.159

0.285

0.285 0.159 0.159 0.285 0.991 plywood deck cracked

seam terne

6-121

Deck

Damage

(Standing

Seam

Terne

Metal)

, /I ,

(Asphalt

Shin&

Robf)

-+A

Cracked

0.1

and

Shingles ?Iiscellaneous

0,. 01

0.1

1.0

10

100

vs. ft/sec

Figure

6.30

Fragment Specific

Mass versus Striking Velocity Damage to Roofing Materials

for

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

6-122

Impact conditions for other approximations to solve the 6.4.5 Fragment Penetration

cases may be estimated equations of motion.

using

numerical

This section is divided into three subsections: Cohesive Soil Penetration; Sand Penetration; and Penetration of Miscellaneous Materials. The need for this division arises because different methods are used to derive the equations for predicting penetrations in these materials. 6.4.5.1 Cohesive Soil Penetration*

In this section, the results of a combined analytical and experimental evaluation of penetration in cohesive soils is presented (Ref. 6.45). The development of both fundamental (Ref. 6.45) and empirical (Ref. 6.46) penetration equations are based on Newton's equation of motion. The gravitational force term and the mass of the soil translated by the projectile are assumed to be negligible, resulting in the following form of Newton's equation (Ref. 6.45): dx = M(VdV/F) where V = velocity of projectile F= force resisting movement M = mass of the projectile x = depth of penetration (NOTE: VdV/dx is acceleration) (6.62)

Empirically derived equations evolved from the assumption that The functions soil is a single-phase medium (Ref. 6.45 and Section 5.2.1). included here utilize a resisting force which also accounts for pore Note air and water pressure within the voids between the soil grains. that granular soils are not covered by these functions as they have a significant strength variation with depth caused by gravitational effects and are much more dependent on the void ratio (Ref. 6.45). The final set of equations which by substituting the following symbols for (Ref. 6.45):"" will be presented recurring groups
are simplified of parameters

(6.63a) (6.63b) *This topic

--_

is

also

discussed

in

Chapter

7,

Section

7.3.

** men using Equations (6.63a-e) one must use a self-consistent set of Symbols with a bar over them are dimensionless. V,, has dimensions units. squared/time squared. of length/time, too of the time/length and coo of length

6-123

(6.63c)
(6.63d)

(6.6%)
where M = projectile N p x V. mass cross-sectional area = projectile nose shape factor = soil mass density = depth of penetration = projectile impact velocity of the soil

A = projectile

PO

unconfined compressive strength CI Y= S = degree of saturation = ambient atmospheric pressure

t = time a = 58.27

I3 = y = 6 = E=

0.75 0.031 93.06 -35.24

These coefficients were determined by curve fitting theoretical equations to experimental data. They do not vary with different-shaped projectiles or different cohesive soil conditions (Ref. 6.45).

Notice that the preceeding five-parameter grsups have physical significance: x is an effective displacementx; Voois an effective velocity of impact V ; 0 too is zn effective time t; Do0 is an effective resisting soil stress related to total stress divided by soil density; and F is an effective force F. The parameter to C. W. Young's (Ref. for various penetrator by Westine (Ref. 6.45). Having defined can be presented. N is shapes a nondimensional are given in

6.46) nose performance

nose shape factor proportional coefficient. Values of N Table 6.16 and were determined

x,

motion

Voo, too, uoo, and F, the equations Transient displacement is given by:

for

transient

(6.64)

*The limitations on the various nondimensional and minimum values of the curves in Figures

6.31,

groups are the maximum 6.32 and 6.33.

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

6-124

Table 6.16
(Ref.

Nose Shape Factors

6.45)

Shape Penetraror Flat

2.2

N Coefficient 1.00 1.47 1.79 1.99 2.16 1.93

2.36

Nose CRH*Tangent Ogive

6.0 CRH Tangent Ogive 9.25 CRH Tangent Ogive 12.5 CRH Tangent Ogive Cone; E/at
= 2

Cone, R/d = 3 Conic Step, Cone Plus Cylinder Biconic, E/d - 3 Ogive, L/d.= I?/d = 3
head

Plus Cone

2.29 2.34

Short Inverse Inverse Ogive,

* Caliber

1.84 2.36

radius

t L/d is the nose length divided major diameter

by the projectile

6-125

The transient

velocity

V is

given

by:

$2 . V -= V 00 1-F tan 00 V $2 00 is tan (oiL2t (oiL2t 00 ) * (6.65) 00 )

l+ The transient force

given l-00

F=

u oo+ V2 00

[ l? 0

Equations (6.64), (6.69, and (6.65) are presented in Figures 6.31, 6.32, and 6.33. The contours of constant V~,/u,, present graphically the transient response for a given impac velocity into a given soil Note that the time axis u.42 too has been divided by ;?;;u;;;lh in Figures 6.31 through 6.33. In addition to the transient solutions, equations are presented for predicting residual response. The nondimensional maximum residual penetration xmax is given by:

cf 1 00
u
12

by:

tan

V2 v;"

(0 00 too)

112

l/2

(6.66)

tan

(0 oo1/2too)

max

=Rn

v2 * ( )
l-k-$@00 V in Equation is given by: (6.65) equals = F

(6.67) zero.

The time

Motion stops tf associated

when the velocity with this event

tan

(JL2tf)

(1
00

v 2

l/2

* (6.68)

*The limitations on the various nondimensional and minimum values of the curves in Figures

groups are the maximum 6.31, 6.32 and 6.33.

6-126

10

10-l

a -

10-I

lo-

I u

I 34t 1,; 00

0.2

0.4
00 v

0.6

0.8

Figure

6.31

Normalized

Solution

for

Transient

Displacements

6-127

0.8

0.6

00

A N cm

0.4

0.2

0 0.1 0.2 0.3

0

0.4 314, 00 00 v 112

00

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Figure

6.32

Normalized

Solution

for

Transient

Velocity

lo2k

VooL/uoo

= 0.01

F
-I

00

2/u

00

= 0.03

v00% 00 = 0.1

v oLl~oo

= 0.3

CT 314, 00 00 v 112 00 Figure 6.33 Normalized Solution for Transient Retarding Force

6-129

The maximum

force

Fmax occurs

at

time

t = 0 and

Fmax =

(
=F

1 + 00 v2 00

equals:

1
before motion stops. is presented in Figures 6.34

(6.69)

This force decays Ff is given by:

until

it

reaches

F, an instant I 0

Ff

(6.70) 00

The maximum and 6.35. 6.4.5.2

penetration

[Equation

(6.67)]

Sand Penetration

A number of reports have been published describing the relationship between the depth of penetration in sand and the fragment striking velocity (Ref. 6.6, 6.7, 6.14, and 6.48). Unfortunately, the non-homogeneous nature of sand makes the results extremely dependent on the density, compaction, saturation, and grain size (Ref. 6.7). As a result, there is much discrepancy in the predicted depths of penetration (Ref. 6.7). A penetration equation which represents an average of the results of several experiments is Reference 6.7: Z = 19D Rn 1 + 2160 Vi > ( velocity (kfps) penetration in caliber density projectile (lb/in.3> diameters weights (6.71)

where

V 2 D

= striking = depth of = fragment

Figure 6.36 and striking corresponds residual following:

contains a plot velocities for to the standard

of this equation for a range of fragment the caliber density 0.186 lb/in.3. This design fragment shown in Figure 6.37. the sand layer is can be conservatively completely perforated, determined from * the

In the event that fragment velocity

the

vr/vs = (1 - t/t s ) 0.555

(6.72)

*Figures (6.72).

6.36

and 6.38

indicate

the

valid

range

of

Equations

(6.71)

and

6-130

0.2

0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 v 2 00 0 .oo 0.6 1.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 10.0

0.04

0.06

Figure

6.;4.

Scaled

Maximum

Penetration

for

Flat-Nosed

Penetrators

4.0

2.0

1.0

0.5

0.2

0.1

0.05

100

200

300

QOU 500
v,

m
(FPS)

7!N

so0

go0

1oo!l

llfl0

Figure

6.35

Depth

of Pointed (Reference

Projectile Penetration 6.43 & 6.44)

in

Soil

10

50

75 00

30 Maximum Note : Figure 6.36 Numbers next to

40

50 Penetration, curves indicate

60 in.

70

80

90

fragment Depth of Standard Penetration into Primary Fragment

weight Sand by

(02)

(a)

Standard

Fragment

Shape

(b)

Alternate

Fragment

Shape

Figure

6.37

Primary

Fragment

Shapes

6-134

where

t L

= depth of penetration obtained from Figure = actual thickness of 6.38 contains a plot

(in.) calculated 6.36 sand layer (in.) (6.72). Materials

from

Equation

(6.71)

or

Figure 6.4.5.3

of Equation

Penetration

in Miscellaneous

The materials included in this section have military significance, but they do not necessarily constitute primary targets (Refs. 6.43 and The equations which will be presented in this section have been 6.49). constructed empirically, They are founded on the assumption that the resistance of a material to perforation by steel fragments can be related to the losses in weight and velocity sustained by the fragment during The data base used in developing these equations penetration (Ref. 6.43). was limited to cases where perforation was achieved, and the residual velocity and residual weight were recorded. These measurements refer to the largest piece of the original fragment which perforates the target material (Ref. 6.43 and 6.49). The empirical THOR equations, based on a large series of tests performed over 29 years ago, were presented for metallic target materials in 1961 (Ref. 6.50) and for nonmetallic materials in 1963 (Ref. 6.43). Greenspon (Ref. 6.49) summarized the results of the THOR reports and put the data in nondimensional graphical form in 1976. The most extensively used of the THOR equations are those for ballistic limit ,velocity, residual velocity, and residual mass. The ballistic limit velocity, is the minimum velocity that a fragment must have to perforate a 5 target plate of given material and thickness. The THOR equation given for ballistic velocity is as follows:

5
where V R

= 10c1(hQ"1(700DWs)~l limit velocity in ft/s

(set

e)yl

(6.73)

= ballistic = target = average = weight

h A
ws

plate thickness impact area of of the original

in in. the fragment fragment in

in lb

in.'

e = angle
to Cl*q,BlrYl

between the trajectory of the fragment and the normal the target constants which are dependent on the = empirical plate material to be perforated (Refs. 6.50, 6.43, and 6.49) (see Table 6.17) for residual velocity '(set is O)YVsA (6.74)

The THOR equation 'r

= vs-ioC(hA)a(7000\~s)

6-135

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

0.8

Q4

0.4
0.4
Vr/Vs Residual

0.6

0.8
Velocity

Velocity/Striking

Figure

6.38

Residual Perforation

Fragment Velocity of Sand Layers

Upon

6-136

where V1: = residual velocity of the fragment (in ft/sec after perfdration of the target occurs velocity of the fragment before perforating the target % = initialft/sec) (in t,A,Ws,B =parameters given above constants similar to those defined for c,a,B*-Y,X = empirical ballistic limit velocity (Refs. 6.50, 6.43 and 6.49) (.see Table 6.17). The THOR equation for residual weight is c2 (7000Wr) = (7OOOWs)-10 (hA) c12 (7000Ws)B2(set 0) y2v s x2

(6.75)

where (7000Wr) = residual weight of the largest piece of fragment, (in grains) after perforation of the target occurs = parameters given above t,A,Ws,O,V s = empirical constants similar to those defined for C2&2*B2Y23, ballistic and residual velocity(Refs. 6.50, 6.43, (see Table 6.17) and 6.49) The values of the constants in Equations (6.73), (6.74), and (6.75) are given in Table 6.17. The ranges of variables for each material is given in Table 6.18. The constants which appear in Table 6.17 are for no particular fragment shape. Greenspon's (-Ref. 6.49) nondimensionalized forms are not included here since they are in graphical form and would require a much larger number of pages to present.

6-137

Table

6.17 THOR Constants (Reference 6.51)

1 5
0.340 6.1135 10.153 7.552 7.694 4.523 6.601 14.065 10.955 14.773 5.006 7.689 7.329 6.913 11.468 5.581 6.991 1.3i6 -1.351 0.750 -0.745 3.537 -2.871 2.274 0.673 1.289 1.377 -1.364 1.415 1.814 -1.652 1.948 -6.275 -2.342 -5.344 -10.401 -5.926 1.B83 -1.593 1.222 -13.601 0.035 0.480 1.402 0.437 0.115 0.305 O.il9 -0.563 -.852 -7.538 -0,067 3.393 -3.510 5.037 -3.379 0.560 0.447 0.903 0.175 0.465 -0.137 0.169 0.343 0.429 2.735 -2.753 3.590 -1.856 0.506 0.350 3.436 -3.667 4.270 -5.489 0.340 0.568 1.422 0.771 0.640 -0.351 O.WS 1.171 0.674 0.620 0.706 0.747 0.906 -0.963 1.266 -2.264 0.346 0.629 0.327 O.BBO 1.650 0.934 1.381 1.717 3.451 1.765 1.324 I.683 2.906 1.619 0.906 -0.963 1.286 -2.507 0.138 0.635 0.143 0.761 1.191 -1.397 1.747 -1.195 0.234 0.744 0.469 0.483 1.325 -A.314 1.643 -2.31B 1.086 0.746 1.327 0.459 2.186 -2.204 2.156 -9.303 0.162 0.673 2.091 2.710 0.903 -0.341 1.096 -6.663 0.227 0.694 -0.361 1.901 1.w4 -1.016 .66a -S-WI 0.2a5 o.aor -0.172 I.519

C a
1.092 1.029 1.042 1.103 0.674 0.889 0.889 0.678 0.499 0.583 0.82ll -0.162 0.392 0.603 0.242 0.686 -0.362 0.465 0.835 1.144 0.720 1.044 1.112 1.021 0.705 -0.723 0.690 -1.014 0.917 -0.903 0.715 -1.035 1.073 -0.657 0.773 -0.96B 0.743 -0.654 0.990 -0.603 0.865 -0.502 0.655 0.818 -0.730 0.848 0.802 -0.945 1.262 0.019 -0.945 1.262 0.019 -0.791 0.999 0.434 -1.095 1.369 0.167 -1.051 I.028 0.523 -1.072 1.251 -0.139 -1.170 1.050 -O.W?

a1

*1

c2

a2

B2

Y2

I2

UqnMirn ~lmdvxil (20247-3) Clot Titanium Pace Hard. stem1 Mild Homog.6.399 steel Hard Hmog.6.475 Steel Copper Lead Tuballoy Unbondcd Nylon * Banded Nylon * 2.908 5.243 3.605 7.600 3.743 Lexan Picxiglaa: a* cast Stretched Plcxfglaa DOrOll au11mt 4.672 5.616 2.533 1.999 2.78s 4.356 6.292 Iron 4.840 3.047

l.004

Rashtant
the to mu
the

ohma

* Within fragments than neceseary

establish

ranger break obtainable to this material. in up considerably upon laboratory

giwm

in

Ieble

6.22,

thin impact.

material Higher vould be

did

not striking required

cau8e

the velocities. to produce

steel

those information for

the
a satisfactory

set

of

constants

for

the

m r equations

Range

of

Table 6.18 Variables in Equations (6.69), (6.70), [References (6.50 and 6.52)]

(6.71)

-PC us tori al
Magnesium

Obliqtiq Range e (degrees) 0.05-3.00 0.02-2.00 o.a4-1.20 0.19-0.56 0.14-0.50 0.03-1.00 0.06-1.00 0.07-1.00 0.10-0.20 0.02-3.0 0.43-2.0
0.125-1.0

SwMll& Vmlocicy RamV c& 500-10500 1200-11000 700-10400 1099-6100 2.500-9800 600-12000 1100-11400 500-10400 4500-10100
30040000

O-80 0.3-29 1.0-28 7.0-21 5.0-20 1.0-40 3.0-46 4.0-57 10-19 0.1-12.5 2.1-9.7 0.86.2 1.2-6.7 0.36.4 OS-U.6 2.6-21.2 O-80 O-80 o-45 O-70 O-70 O-70 O-70 O-60 O-70 O-70 O-70 O-70 O-70 O-70 O-70

l.SxlO1 5.0~10~ 3.0~10~ 1.5x101 1.5x101 5.0xlo" 1.5x101 1.5x101 3.0x101 7.14xlo

- 2.40x102 - 2.40~10~ - 2.40x102 * 2.40x102 - 2.40~10~ * 8.25X102 - 2.40x102 - 2.40~10~ - 4.75x102 -4 -2.96x10 -2

Alloys 4lumilll.Lm (2024T-3 Titanium Alloys Cast Iron Face-liardened Steel Homogeneous S tee1
copper

Lead Tuballoy
UUbOadd

Nylon Bonded Nyloa

1000-12000 1000-11500 200-9500 500-11000

500-llooo

7.14xlo-4--

3.43x10 -2

PlfdglUS as cust

0.20-1.1 0.05.1.0 0.05-1.5 0.20-1.65

Stretched Pled&as
DOron

Blue tEhristant
Qass

200-10000

2.14~10-~

-6.79~10

-2

6-139

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 6.22 PROBLEM - Determine fragment penetration illustrative purposes, assume into an earth barrier. GIVEN : M A x into cohesive that a steel rod soil. For is hurled

= fragment mass = fragment presented area = unconfined compressive strength IsY or assumed) mass density P = soil V. = impact velocity
S pO

of

soil

(o

has to be measured

= degree = ambient

of saturation atmospheric

pressure set of units) REFERENCE

Fragment shape (or use any self-consistent FIND: x 1. 2.

SOLUTION :

a) Nose shape factor N b) ~9 B, ~1, 6, E Calculate effective velocity.

Table 6.16 Eq. (6.63a-e)

Eq. 3. Calculate ooo = " 4. Calculate

X

(6.63b)

effectiv (;) + >

' (;-=$$1':.:-&) effective

' Eq. penetration. Eq. (6.67)

(6.63d)

maximum

mX

5.

actual MN x = Xmax 2BpA

Calculate

penetration. Eq. (6.63a)

CALCULATION GIVEN: M A OY
P
vO S pO

= 0.016

lb-sec2/ft

= 0.01 f,2 = 288 lb/ft2 = 3.1 lb-sec2/ft4 = 1500 ft/sec = 0.5 = 2120 lb/ft2

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

6-140

Flat nose a diameter FIND: soLuTIoN: x 1.

fragment of 1.33

(The fragment .is in. and a length

a flat-faced of 1.2 in,)

cylinder

with

N = l;Co

u = 58.27, E = -35.24 2.

B = 0.75,

y = 0.031,

6 = 93.06

v 00 =l_yA3/2pV MN* ) O ( (0.031) (0.01) 3':(3*1)1 = l(0.016)(l) v = 1 90 ft/s

00

r $

(1500)

3.

= 00

= 33600 ftz/sec2 4.
-

X'max

;2 00 000 -3
(1490)2

(33600)

(0.016)(1.00) x = (4'21) (2)(0.75)(3,1)(0.01) x = 1.45 ft

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 6.23 For illustrative PROBLEM - Determine fragment penetration, x, into sand. assume a steel fragment with "standard" fragment purposes, shape strikes a sand barrier. GIVEN: = fragment wf Vs = striking Fragment FIND: x weight velocity (lb) (kft/sec)

shape [in diameter

(d) 1 (in.1

6-141

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

SOLUTION:

1.

Calculate D = Wf/d3

caliber

density.

REFERENCE Fig. 6.5

2.

Calculate Calculate x = Z'd

caliber actual

penetration. Vs2) (x). Eq.

Z = 19D Rn(1 3.

-t 2160

(6.71)

penetration

CALCULATION GIVEN: Wf = 2 lb Vs = 1.2 kft/sec d FIND: SOLUTION: x 1. D = Wf/d3 = -(2) = 0.0741 lb/in. =3in.

3
Vs2)

(3)3 2.
Z = 19D Rn(1 + 2160

= (19)(0.0741) = 11.32 3.
x = 2-d x = (11.32)(3) x = 34 in.

Rn[l + (2160)(l.2>2]

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 6.24 PROBLEM - Determine the thickness, stop a steel fragment. GIVEN: Vs = striking
velocity

h,

of

aluminum

(2024T-3)

required

to

(ft/sec>

(In

this

problem

Vs = vR.)

A = fragment impact area (in.) = weight of fragment (lb) Ws 9 = angle between the trajectory normal to the target FIND: SOLUTION: h 1. Determine aluminum Cl' al' the penetration (2024T-3). Bl' Y1

of

the

fragment

and the

REFERENCE constants for Table 6.17

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

6-142

REFERENCE Solve for thickness h required to prevent penetration. = loci &A)al (7OOOw)8l (set 0) y1 % S l/o1 Rearrange Eq. (6.71)

h=;
[ CALCULATION GIVEN:

Sl 10c1 (7OOOWs) (set 9) 3 3

vs = V& = 2000 ft/sec A = 0.11 in.' = 0.01 lb wS 9 = 0 Note that for this problem, the steel fragment can be For illustrative purposes, we chose a cubical fragment weight of 0.01 lb and an edge length of 0.33 in. The impacts the plate face forward with an impact area'of (0.33 in. x 0.33 in.). h 3 = 6.85

any shape. with a fragment2 0.11 in.

FIND:

SOLUTION: 1.

al = 0.903 B, = -0.941 y1 = 1.098 2. h=$

vR [ 10Cl
(7000Ws) Sl (set 8) 9

l/al 1
l/O.903 Isec(0")11*0g8 >

. h = (0.L) h = 0.49 in.

(2000) 06*"85[(7000)(0.01)J~o*g41

6-143

6.5

HAZARDS TO PERSONNEL FROM FRAGMENTS

Injuries to'personnel due to fragment impact can be divided into two categories, fragment and secondary fragment injuries. a rimary Primary fragment$ are normally small, high-speed fragments which cause injury by penetration and perforation of vital areas of the body. Secondary fragments are normally larger and have less velocity upon impact and can cause nonpenetrating blunt trauma. Both of these injury categories are discussed below. 6.5.1 Primary Fragment Injuries

A great deal of research ha.s been conducted to produce classified wound ballistics equations for the military. Although thorough unclassified equations of this type do not exist, some publicly available body penetration data~have been accumulated in recent times and some relatively simple analyses have been perfqrmed. More reliable damage criteria will undoubtedly be produced as the state of the art improves. Sperrazza'and Kokinakis a ballistic limit velocity V50 the striking velocity at which They to perforate an object. areato weight ratio, that is (Ref. 6.51) concerned themselves with The V50 velocity is for animal targets. one expects half the impacting missiles found that this velocity depended on the A 50 o: w

(6.76) f where A is cross+sectional area of the projectile along the trajectory, andwf is the weight of the projectile. They fired steel cubes, spheres and cylinders of various masses up to 0,033 lb into 0.11%in. thick isolated skin (human and goat) to establish a ballistic limit. One of their assumptions was that, if the projectile penetrates the skin, its residual velocity would be sufficient to cause severe damage. This cautious assumption is appropriate for establishing a certain margin of Their conclusions were tha.t, in the range of safety in the calculation. V 5. depended their data for steel cubes, spheres-and cylinders, linearly Specificall , on projectile A/Tff ratio. ~ for A/q: where V v lb = 836 -ft-set 50 and for A I- 72.3 Wf 13 wf 5 0.033 lb, ft/sec (6.77)

50

0.44 ft2/lb is in ft/sec

Kokinakis,(Ref. 6.52) fired plastic sabots end-on into 20 percent gelatin that was 0.4-in. thick. The sabots were fired end-on since this represents the worst case, and 20 percent gelatin was used because this ballistically simulates isolated human skin. The linear relation Vso versus A/&formulated by Sperrazza and Kokinakis (Ref. 6.51) is plotted in Figure 6.39. The average values for these experiments are located on this graph. Circles on the figure represent the initial

of

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

6-144

s: z 8 Lll 0 8 0 8

r.l

VI

Ln

6-145

'experiments using steel cubes, spheres and cylinders weighing up to 0.033 lb and each average value represents as many as 30 data points. The line drawn Jon the graph is a least squares fit to these average values. Upward pointed triangles represent the average values for the subsequent experiments with end-on plastic sabots. These average values also lie near the line drawn for the prior study, thus adding a degree of confidence in the analysis. Unfortunately, other authors have not presen-ted their penetration data in the same form as Sperrazza and Rokinakis, 'Glasstone (Ref. 6.53) expressed the probability of glass fragments penetrating the abdominal cavity in termsof the mass of the glass fragments. To compare Glasstone's conclusions with that of Sperrazza and Kokinakis, it is necessary to make a few assumptions. The first assumption is that the glass fragment velocity for 50'percent probability of penetration of the abdominal cavity is biologicallyiequivalent to the ballistic limit velocity V50 for penetrating isolated human skin. Glasstone only specifies the mass of the glass required for penetration and does not give its cross-sectional area, thickness or density. For the purpose of comparing the conclusions of Glasstone with those of Sperrazza and Kokinakis it was assumed that glass fragmentsiare propelled edge-on, which is probably the worst case, and that they are square with thicknesses of l/8 in. to l/S in. It was assumed that the glass fragments have an average specific weight of 154.3 lb/ft3 (Ref. 6.54). With these assumptions, it is not difficult to has a thickness, t, and edge length calculate A/Wf. ~ If the glass fragment y, then for volume

.$= y2t
where V = volume of the y = edge Iength t = thickness the weight Wf of fragment

(6.78)

Thus,

the

fragment wf=

is yy2t the glass. Rearranging Equation

(6.79)

where gives

y is the the edge

specific length,

weight

of

(6.79)

Y= The area-to-weight ratio A/Wf,

4 T "Yt assuming

(6.80)

edge-on

impact,

is
(6.sl.)

or from

Equations

(6.79),

A -=JY 3 wf (6.30) and (6.81),

W f Change 1 - 15 August :1981

A=

fn

(6.82)

6-146

Glasstone's criteria for 50 percent probability of glass fragments penetrating the abdominal cavity are shown in Table 6.19. This table also contains The the estimates for A/Wf for glass thicknesses of l/S in. and l/4 in. velocity values and calculated values for S/tJfwhich fall in the range of values used by Sperrazza and Kokinakis are plotted as squares in Figures 6.39. The dashed lines indicate a range ofA/Wfvalues for thickness values from l/8 in. to l/4 in. Even with the crude assumptions the calculated points fall very near the line drawn mentioned above, on Figure 6.39. White (Ref. 6.55) the masses of impacting laceration occurred when propelled into the body of steel is 495 lb/ft3, also related skin penetration velocity to fragments. He concluded that slight skin spherical bullets with weight 0.0191 lb were at 190 ft/sec. Assuming that the specific weight the A/W, ratio can be calculated from A where r is the radius of the q=wespherical A -xWf 2 (6.83) penetrator, or (6.84)

IT h 3M 2'3 Wf ( 4TP )

Using Equation (6 84) and the mass and density mentioned above, A& becomes 0.0723 ft2/lb. The velocity value given above (190 ft/sec) and the calculated value for A/tJfare plotted on Figure 6.39 as a downward pointed triangle. This point appears to be a little higher than expected, especially since only slight skin laceration is expected at these velocities instead of 50 percent penetration. Custard (Ref. 6.56), like Glasstone, specifies velocity as a function of mass only for 50 percent penetration. Making the assumptions that the thickness of the glass can vary from l/8 in. to l/4 in., that the fragments travel edge-on and are square, and that the density of glass is 154.3 lb/ft3, A&was calculated from Equation (6.84). The results are plotted on Figure 6.39 as diamonds and agree fairly well with the conclusions of Sperrazza and Kokinakis. Thus, for values of A/Wf up to 0.44 ft2/lb and values of Wfup to 0.033 lb, the functional relationship expressed in Equation (6.84) and drawn as a solid line in Figure 6.39 is an adequate representation of 50 percent probability of skin penetration by a projectile that can result in serious wounds. 6.5.2 Secondary Fragment Injuries

Very limited information for body damage from nonpenetrating objects is contained in Table 6.20. It should be noted that according to the table, damage is dependent on fragment mass and velocity only. The table also only contains one fragment mass value. One can logically

6-147

Table

6.19

50 Percent Probability of Glass Penetrating Abdominal Cavity (Glasstone, (Ref. 6.55)

Fragments

Weight Frart

of

Glass

Impact Velocity ftlsec 410 275 245 180

l/8

A/Wf in. thick ft2/lb 0.555 0.248 0.175 0.0552

A/Wf

l/4

in.
ft'/lb,

thick

2 x 1o'4 1 x 10-3 2 x 1o'3 2 x 1o'2

0.783 0.350 0.248 0.0781

Table (Ahlers,

6.2?

Tentative Criteria for Illdirect Mast Effects from Nonpenetrating Fragments Ref. 6.57; Clemedson, Ref. 6.58; White, Ref. 6.59)

Weight

:I- Event Cerebral Concussion I I Skull Fracture

Extent of Dazrwa Mostly Threshold Mostly Threshold Near 100% "safe" "safe"

Impact

Velocity

10 ftlsec 15 ft/sec 10 ft/sec 15 ft/sec

10 lb

23 ftlsec

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

6-148

assume that larger table will produce

weights propelled more damage than

at the same velocities shown in the the 10 lb weight presented in the table.

Figures 6.40 and 6.41 contain personnel fragment impact damage criteria as presented by Ahlers (Ref. 6.57). For fragment weights greater than 10 lb, the criteria for threshold head impact injuries are slightly lower (more conservative) than those of Table 6.20. The percentage next to a particular curve in Figure 6.40 denotes the percent of people (for a large sample) that would die if subjected to any of the impact conditions detailed by the curve. The serious injury threshold curves on Figures 6.40 and 6.41 specify the debris velocity and weight combinations below which no serious injuries are expected to occur.

6-149

0 .3 d

6-150

6-151

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 6.25 PROBLEM - Determine the velocity at which a fragment (defined by a ratio of area to weight) will 50% o,f the time and cause serious injury. GIVEN: FIND: SOLUTION: A/Wf v50 A area i 1.~ Determine estimated A/Wfratio on graph, equation fitted ~ v50 = k(A/w,$ + b ~ v V50 by locating appropriate or by calculation using the by Sperrazza and Kokinakis. Fig. 6.39 to weight ratio of fragment of a given penetrate size human

skin

(ft2/lb) REFERENCE

50

I where

k = 836 b = 72.3

lb /ft-set ft/sec

CALCULATION GIVEN: A piece of a steel lat,he tool which is 5 in. long and l/2 square on end. Assume it flies off edge-on, i.e., the cross-sectional area of the fragment along its trajectory 2.5 ih.2. The fragment weighs 0.35 lb. A -= W f FIND: SOLUTION: V50 1. 0.017 ft2 0'.35 lb ; in. is

=0.050

ft2/lb

v50 = 114 ftlsec v50

= (836

lb/ft-sec)!0.05Cft2/lb)

+ 72.3

ft/sec

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 6.26 PROBLEM - Determine the extent of human head by a 10 lb non-penetrating fragment GIVEN: FIND; SOLUTION: V = fragment Wf = fragment Probability 1. velocity weight of human (fps) (lb) head injury of a cerebral of skull concussion REFERENCE Table Table 6.20 6.20 injury resulting traveling at from a given impact velacitJ

Determine the extent ' which would result. 2. ~ Determine the extent

fracture.

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

6-152

CALCULATION GIVEN: V = 14 ftlsec % = 10 lb Probability 1. of human head injury

FIND : SOLUTION:

2,

A fragment with an impact velocity of 14 ft/sec would be just under the threshold for causing cerebral concussion. According to the data, it would not cause cerebral concussion. Again, the velocity is near the threshold, but one would conclude that skull fracture would probably not occur.

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 6.27 -. PROBLEM - Determine the percent of people in a large group who would -if subjected to impact by a fragment of particular weight impacting at a given velocity (in the area of the abdomen or limbs). GIVEN: Wf = weight V = debris Probability 1. of fragment (lb) velocity (fps) of injury

die

FIND : SOLUTION:

REFERENCE Fig. 6.40

Locate point on graph defined by the weight of the fragment and the debris velocity. Estimate kill probability or injury from curves given.

CALCULATION GIVEN; FIND: SOLUTION: wf = 1 lb v = 50 fps Probability 1. of injury

The point lies near the 10% kill/go% injury probability line. Less than 10% of the sample of people would die, but greater than 90% would be seriously injured by the impact of a l-lb fragment at 50 fps. EXAMPLE PROBLEM 6.28

PROBLEM - Determine the head injuries of debris.

impact velocity, will occur from

V, below which no serious impact of a particular weight

6-153

GIVEN: FIND:

Wf= v

debris

weight

(lb) REFERENCE

SOLUTION:

1.

Locate point on appropriate curve corresponding to desired debris weight. Read debris velocity from vertical scale.

Fig.

6.41

CALCULATION GIVEN: FIND: SOLUTION: Wf= V 2 ,lb I 1. ( Below 24 ft/sec ~ from impact of no serious head a 2-lb fragment. injuries would result

6-154

6.6

EXPLOSIVE

INTTLATION

BY FRAGMENTS

Most severe accidental explosions involving high explosives are escalated from explosions of a single piece of explosive or single explosive component in a weapon or munition by the subsequent impact of high-speed fragments on other pieces of explosive or weapons which Thus, the literature contains many reports of safetyare located nearby. related studies which give test results for initiation of bare and cased explosive charges by high-speed projectiles which stimulate fragments. To collate this mass of data and generate prediction equations, we have reviewed the data from these references which contain enough raw data, calculated values of impact velocities which have a 50 percent probability of causing explosive initiation (V50), and conducted a similitude analysis to scale the data and determine appropriate dimensionless scaling factors for correlating data from different sources. We were able to obtain firm or tentative correlations for several types of bare explosives, and heavily cased explosives. Data are limited, lightly cased explosives, Within however, to steel-cased explosives and steel simulated fragments. the scaled data limits, some prediction curves were developed which can be used for prediction of V50 values for a variety of fragment masses, for several types of bare explosives, and for cased explosives having a wide range of scaled casing thicknesses. The results are reported in Reference 6.60, which is the basis for prediction methods given in this section. 6.6.1 Bare Explosive

Test data for explosive initiation of Tetryl and Composition B explosives were obtained by Slade and Dewey (Ref. 6.61), using gunlaunched, steel and brass flat-faced projectiles to simulate fragments. Later McLean and Allan (Ref. 6.62) used an explosive projection technique to launch steel rectangular parallelopiped simulated fragments into Pentolite and Cyclotol bare explosive receptors. Finally, Petino and Leondi (Ref. 6.63) report data using the same explosive launch method and steel fragments for Amatex explosive. Time delays after impact for detonation of bare explosives are very short, of the order of microseconds. All of these data are reduced to obtain mean values of V5C and standard deviations for each data set. and are reported in Reference 6.62. The scaling and scaled data correlation in that reference showed good correlations between several scaled parameters, when plotted as functions of scaled mass per unit area of the projectiles, (6.25)

6-155

where

M = projectile P P = density P A = frontal which

mass of projectile area of the material flat-faced were v v50 = a 50 P (6.37) (6.89 9 (6.8ti) fragment simulator.

The parameters

correlated

F=M
and E= where a = sour&velocity ,P I = scaled impact E = scaled impact in

- - 2 Mp v50 2 material

50

projectile

momentum kinetic energy.

Plots of T and V Prediction curves'are forming one group, The Amatex group. spread was insufficient hence is not she@ of tests are shown 6.6.2 Encased

versus M are given in Figures 6.42 and 6.43. drawnpin these figures, with Tetryl and Pentolite Comp B and Cyclotol another group, and Amatex a third curve is shown in Figure 6.42; however, the data for conclusions for a t50 versus Ep curve and in Figure 6.43. Error bands for individual groups in Figure 6.43.

Explosives that heavily encased* react differently to explosives.

The study~reported in Reference 6.60 showed explosives, such,as artillery projectiles (shells) fragment impact than more lightly cased or confined

Explosives which were tested with simple cover plates on the impacted side, or with weak containers which would rupture under low internal pressures seemed to be initiated in somewhat the same manner as bare explosives, i.e., probably primarily by shock transmission. Perforation of the cover plate was necessary before initiation could occur, so thresholds were somewhat raised. Test data were not as extensive as for bare explosives, conststing of limited series by Slade and Dewey (Ref. 6.61) on Tetryl, Petino et al. (Ref. 6.64) on Composition B, Petino and Leondi (Ref. 6.63) on Amatex, and Frey et al., (Ref. 6.65) on Varia.tions were small in the independent Composition B and Octal. scaled parameter'
c

*"Cased" L

explosive I

and

"encased"

explosive

ire

used

interchangeably.

6-156

(6.89)

Best data correlation was achieved where h is steel casing thickness. by V5C, which is shown plotted against h in Figure 6.44. Tentative ranges for values of V50 for Comp B and Amatex, a;~e~~ri~e;l;~cn~fOctol as two separate groups are shown in the figure. variation of K in the test data, and additional tests are needed. Whenever initiations occurred in these tests, time delays were also relatively short, tens of microseconds. For heavily encased explosives, initiation of violent reactions which would fragment the casing often occurred with long delays (seconds), below velocities which would shock initiate. Test data were from two sources, Reeves (Ref. 6.66) and the Tera Group report (Ref. 6.67), with both using right circular cylindrical fragment simulators gun launched In these tests, initiaagainst Composition B loaded artillery shells. tion often seemed to correlate well with ballistic limit (V50) values for the casing alone, although this criterion seemed to fail for low values of h. The comparisons for this class of testing in Reference 6.48 are shown in Figures 6.45 and 6.46. Either set of curves, V5() or of critical scaled impact S/ii versus h, can be used for prediction For the latter criterions, values are relatively constant conditions. Data scatter shown in these curves indicate confidence for K > 0.7. limits for the predictions. Very little or no data exist for many of the pressed explosives on these explosives are definitely curves given here. for fragment impact initiation present in the Pantex plant, so tests needed to supplement the prediction

6-157

10

1.0 IH 0.2

0 . 1.

0.05

0.02

0.03. 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2 5 1.9 20 50 II.00

Figure

6.42

f versus

h P

for

Bare

Explosives

6-158

12

16

18

20

24

ii P

Figure
6.43

vso versus

fip for

Bare

Explosives

Including

10 Error

Bands

0.5

0.4

0.4

I>

0.3

0.2

Tentative Range of Scaled Impact 7

0.1

Figurk

6.44

vso

versuS

h Light lu Error

E XP 1 OSiVe Bands

Confinement

Including

6-160

0.6

0.5

0.4

0 L? IP

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.4

0.8 ii

I.2

1. ,6

Figure

6.45

v50

versus

h, la

Heavy Error

Explosive Bands

Confinement

Including

6-161

0.8

0.4

0.2

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

Figure

6.46

?/c

versus

K, Heavy la Error

Explosive Bands

Confinement

Including

6-162.

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 6.29 PROBLm - Determine if a fragment of velocity can cause initiation confinement, heavy explosive A P M = presented fragment = density of fragment = mass of projectile area specified dimensions, mass, and of HE in light explosive confinement and for bare explosive.

GIVEN:

VP = fragment velocity a = speed of sound in hP = casing thickness Explosive type Probability 1. of explosive

projectile

FIND : SOLUTION:

initiation

REFERENCE -_II Eq.

(6.36), (6.W

2.

Calculate the various nondimensional terms required to use Figures 6.42, 6.43,-6.44, 6.45, and 6.46. The terms are tip, V, I, and h. Use the same equations for V 50 but use V given. Use Figures 6.42, 6.43, 6.44, 6.45, and 6.46 to determine comparison with V50 curves and uqe judgment to determine if initiation will occur.

(6.85), , (6.87),
3

(6.89) Fig. 6.46 6.42,

CALCULATION GIVEN: Explosive type: Comp B Fragment steel type: A = 1 in.' 4 P = 7.36 x 1012 lb-secg/in. M = 7.36 x 10 lb-set /in. P = 12000 in./sec V = 1000 ft/sec = 2.00 x lo5 in./sec aP Consider three cases: h = 0 in, for uncased h1 = 0.25 in. for light cased h2 = 1.2 FIND: SOLUTION: Probability 1. i P in. for of ="p= p A3j2 P 7.36 heavy explosive cased initiation 7.36 x 10 -4 = 1 x 10-4(1)3'2

6-163

Change

I - 15 August

1981

f=V= a ? = iip? iiv 2.00

12000 x lo5 = (1)(6.0

= 6.0 x 10-2)

x 1O-2 = 6.0 x 1O-2

' Light Cased ~ El = L!.+Z = 0.25 I Heavy Cased 1.2, also c = 6.0 li2 of course, - 6.46, the x 10 1.2 -2 = 5 x 10 -2

~ for bare explosive, Using Figures 6.42

no c exists. following is

~ Bare HE Figure 6.42 - The_ point (E I) or (1, 6.0 x 10S2) is below Comp B I line and'ias a low but+unknown probability of exploding. I Figure 6.43 - Point ($,, 7) or (1, 6.0 x 10q2) is below the Comp B isoline. I Light Explosive Confinement Figure 6.44 - Point (G, is below the vso line. ~ Heavy Explosive Confinement Figure 6.45 - Point (h2, is below the 7 5o line, Figure 6.46 - Point is below the curve. ~ In summary, very low. the (h2" v) or (0.25, 6.0 x 10B2)

7) - I/h2) of

or

(-1.2,

6.0

x 10m2)

or

(1.2,

5 x 10B2) is always

probability

an explosion

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 6.30 PROBLEM - Rework velocity. CALCULATION GIVEN: This $ame in./sec. Probability problem is now reworked with V = 4000 ft/sec = 48,000 Example Problem 6.29 using another value for impact

FIND:

of

explosive

initiation

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

6-164

SOLUTION:

1.

M. = A = 1 p ;3,2 P P v = $ 48,000 = 0.24 2. OxlO

: = iinii =(1)(0.24)
-r= Mp =

= 0.24
= 0.12

(1)(0.24) 2

Light Cased i;, = 0.25 Heavy Cased h2 = 1.2 also

0.24 = 12 = 0.2 h2 * For bare explosive, of course, no h exists. Using Figures 6.44 - 6.48, the following is noted: Bare HE Figure 6.42 - Point (G f) or (I, 0.24) is above the Comp B isoline and, "therefore, the HE has a greater than 0.5 probability of detonating.

i -

2.

Figure 6.43 - Point the Comp B isoline.

(!?

P'

?)

or

(1,

0.24)

is

above

Light Explosive Confinement Figure 6.44 - Point (hl, v) or within the lcerror band thus HE detonation is likely. Heavy Explosive Confinement Figure 6.45 - The point (f;,, below the curve and outside Figure 6.46 at the T/h2 of detonation

or of

(0.25,

the

0.24) is near Comp B region and

v) the

or (1.2, lo-error or

0.24) band.
(1.2, 0.2)

is

- The point (h2, f/i;2> curve and hence predicts occurrence.

a 0.50

falls probability

In summary, the probability of the bare explosive detonating is high (75%). Detonation of the lightly cased explosive also has a probability of about 50%, because it lies within the lu error band for this The results for a heavily confined charge are inconclusive, probability. because the two initiation criteria give different answers. To be safe, one should assume the more dangerous result, i.e., that, in this case, the explosive also has a 50% Probability of detonating.

6-165

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

6.6.3

Crush,

Impact,

and Skid

Initiation

A number of tests have been conducted on explosive materials to determine their sensitivity to specific initiation methods (Ref. 6.70). Unfortunately, these tests have failed to yield a workable data base on explosive sensit+vity. Inconsistencies in the test procedures and a lack of reporting on pertinent variables are two reasons why attempts to develop functional relationships between the various tests have so far been unsuccessful. Therefore, the results of sensitivity tests (see Appendix A, Properties of Explosives) should be used only as a determination of the relative sensitivities of explosives to specific initiation methods. Do not 'attempt to estimate the results of one test from the results of another; i.e., the results of the skid initiation test cannot be predicted based on the results of the drop-weight test. 6.7 ASSESSMENT dF CONFIDENCE IN PREDICTION METHODS

Because of 1,imited information from accidents and experiments, the accuracy of the prediction methods will be affected. Specific limitations on the use of the prediction methods have been discussed in the respective~ sections of this chapter. The sections which follow, however, will givk an overview, in general terms, of the assumptions and uncertainties in 'the prediction methods and will list recommended tests and analyses to vhlidate assumptions or reduce uncertainties. 6.7.1 Identificabion of Assumptions and Uncertainties and chapter.

This uncertainties

section describes, in phe fragment Prediction of

in general terms, the assumptions damage scenario presented in this Primary Fragments (Section 6.2.1.1)

Velocity

Calculation of velocities of primary fragments is based on the Gurney Method. This method, which gives maximum velocities, was developed for cases where an HE completely fills the inside of a cylinder There are also of uniform wall thickness and a few other geometries. limits on the typks of explosives for which the Gurney energy was determined. Velocities for containers of different shapes and approximations of Gurney energies for different explosives should be used with appropriate reservation. Mass Distr;ibution (Section 6.2.1.2) I Calculation of the mass distribution be accurately made for uniform cylinders,

only HE.

using the Mott equations can completely filled with

6-166

Primary Choice and alternate Secondary

Fragment

Shape

(Section

6.2.1.3) The standard worst-case fragments.

of fragment shape is somewhat arbitrary. fragment shapes represent conservative Fragment Shape (Section 6.2.2)

With the current state make an engineering assessment or equipment will break apart. actual breakup pattern, it is reasonable breakup patterns. Velocity Prediction of

it is necessary for the AE to of the art, of the manner in which a piece of machinery Because of uncertainty in determining the beneficial for the AE to consider all

Secondary

Fragments-

(Section

6.2.2.1)

The analytical solution for determining the velocity of unconstrained objects far from the explosive charge should be fairly accurate for many object shapes. Irregular object shapes will have to be evaluated by approximating them by the object shapes mentioned in the section. When it is best to examine the variance in unconstrained object this is done, velocity with changes in drag coefficient and object dimensions. Experimental data for determining the velocity of unconstrained objects near the explosive charge are limited but accurate. Estimation of velocities for other object shapes will vary dependent on the shape factor and area used. The shape factors in Figure 6.11 vary by as much as 50 percent. Since velocity is directly proportional to the shape factor, a choice of an intermediate shape factor for an irregular object could produce an error in calculated velocity of about 25 percent. The experiments were also performed using spherical and cylindrical Comp B charges. Other shapes of types of explosives will yield uncertain results. However, adjustment of an actual HE charge to an equivalent Comp B charge using the heat of detonation of the explosives should yield accurate results. (Section 6.2.2.2)

Calculation of constrained object velocities near an explosive charge is limited to cantilever and clamped-clamped boundary conditions Velocity is not too dependent on the type of failure. and uniform beams. Thus, velocity calculations are accurate for these two conditions. Building Fragments (Section 6.2.3)

Building fragmentation depends on a number of factors and can vary Because of limited inforsignificantly from one building type to another. the AE will be forced to make numerous engineering mation on this subject, it will be necessary to produce alternate assessments. In some cases, scenarios in order to assure an adequate amount of conservatism in design.

6-167

Fragment

dange

and Impact

Conditions

(Section

6.2.4)

Fragment range for individual fragments is dependent on initial conditions and fragment characteristics. Once these are known, maximum range calculations for a "chunky" fragment should have an accuracy of within 10 percent. (Section 6.,2.4.2)

Impact mas,s and range distribution functions for fragmenting buildings have a high degree of credibility from a statistical point of view. If similar buildings and explosive charge energies are being considered, a statistically accurate missile map can be constructed. If other building types axe being considered, the use of these data may yield inaccurate 'predictions. If the building characteristics are the same but the char~ge energy varies, some degree of accuracy can be maintained through interpolation within the energy range in the figures. Extrapolation outside the energy range shown in the figures is not recommended. (Section Size distribution statistical relevant 6.2.4.3) can be approximated from the type of building materials. are involved , average sizes fragments. mass Since are more

of building fragments and knowledge of the distribution functions than siz+s of individual 6l.2.4.4)

(Section

Due to then mass of building fragments and the range over which impact kinetic energies will be high and cause a large they travel, amount of damage !to objects which they strike. Of more importance are the mass and ;range distributions of building fragments which are discussed in previous sections.

(Section

61.3.1)

Missile dippersion equations should be used for buildings of similar size and construction and HE charges of similar energies to those used in then analysis. Correlation coefficients for the curve fits to the data are discussed in the text. Dam$ e ---F Impact damnge conditions specified on experimental dpta Impact (Section 6.4.1)

structures is well defined for the to metal The equations and curves are in this section. and represent a best-fit tothe data.

based

(Section

6.4.2) data, penetration is quite accurate. of fragments into

concrete

Within the range of the and masonry structures (Section 6.4.3)

Very limited but included for strawboard small range of fragment the range of the data is (Section 6.4.4)

accurate penetration characteristics and fiberboard. The data are limited masses and velocities. Extrapolation not recommended.

are to a outside

It is difficult to know with a high degree of confidence what fragment impact momentum will be without running a trajectory code program. provide a good indication of fragment The impact damage criteria, however, momentum required for damage. Also, the velocity direction provides a useful indication of how velocity varies with drop height. (Section 6.4.5) sand is based on when used in of fragments into are restrictions to types of targets. applications and accidents.

Fragment penetration into cohesive soils and experimental studies and should provide good results the range of the data. When determining penetration other materials as discussed in this section, there small fragment sizes, and specific steel fragments, The equations were empirically developed for military naturally provide limited information for explosion (-Section 6.5.1)

Primary fragment injury criteria and provide accurate results within the (Section derived 6.5.2)

were experimentally range of the data.

derived

Secondary fragment injury criteria are also experimentally and provide accurate results within the range of the data. Explosive Initiation (Section 6.6.1) test data were performed to of bare &plosives by within the range of data degree of accuracy.

A model analysis and an analysis of develop the criteria for explosive initiation The criteria are accurate fragment impact. but cannot be extrapolated with a predictable

6-169

(Section fragment

6.6.2) for explosive initiation of accurate within the confines encased of the explosives data. by

The criteria impact ?re (Section 6.6.3)

derived provide 6.7.2

Very littie objective explosive sensitivity from the crush, impact, and skid initiation a subjective comparison between explosives. Recommended Tests Reduce Uncertainties and/or Analyses to Validate

information tests.

can be These tests or

Assumptions

The subjects of fragmentation and impact damage are extremely broad and may never be fully understood. Fragmentation heavily depends upon the type of loading, positions of loaded objects relative to the source and other ~objects, material properties, construction design, etc. Fragment impact damage depends on the characteristics of the projectile (material properties, mass, shape, velocity, impact angle, etc.) and of the target (material properties, thickness, constraints, etc.). Because of the large number of parameters involved, it is not difficult to develop an untenable number of subproblems. There are, however, a number of areas which cduld be examined.which would provide major advances in understanding and dealing with the whole problem of fragmentation and impact damage. Some fruitful areas for future work are: a Studies of fragmentation patterns of HE process and measurement of fragment velocities. machinery

Translqtion velocities of unconstrained and constrained objects of vari~ous shapes and materials subjected to blast loads from HE charges of several types, shapes and configurations. Fragmeyt patterns for structures, similar to those at the Pantex ;facility, subjected to internal or external HE explosi~ons. Carefully planned model tests would be appropriate. I Missile' maps of fragments from-structures, similar to those at the Pantex facility, subjected to internal explosions. Measureinents subjected to of impact internal velocities explosions. of fragments from structures

Fragment penetration of building materials and panels. These include at least concrete fragments impacting earth fill and composite building panels, fiberboard, etc.; and steel or other

6-170

'

metal fragments impacting and masonry. clay tile,

l

some of

the

same materials

and brick,

Explosive

initiation

due to

impact

from

large,

crushing

objects.

6.8

PROCEDURE FOR PERFORMING A FRAGMENTATION ANALYSIS

This chapter discusses many different aspects of a fragmentation analysis. Throughout the chapter, we have included illustrative examples of various fragmentation subproblems. To aid the analyst in performing a fragmentation analysis, we have developed the flowcharts contained in Figures 6.47a and 6.47b. To use the flowcharts, one begins at the top of Figure 6.47a and follows the arrows through the appropriate Yes-No answers and analysis blocks (note that Figure 6.47a is linked to Figure 6.47b through the "A" connector). Each analysis block refers to some subsection in this chapter of the manual where an analysis procedure and an example problem can be found. Since many fragments usually need to be considered in a fragmentation analysis, Figure 6.47b leads back to the start of the flowchart in Figure 6.47a. Thus, one iterates through Figures 6.47a and 6.47b until the fragmentation analysis is complete. Figure 6.47a distinguishes between non-building secondary fragments and building fragments. Non-building secondary fragments include pieces of machinery, furniture, tools, and miscellaneous objects near the explosion source. Building fragments are~pieces from the structure itself, such as portions of walls and ceilings.

6-171

START

DETERMINE VELOCITY SECTION 612.1.1

DETERMINE MASS SECTION 6.2.1.2

-c

DETERMINE SIZE AND SHAPE SECTION 6.2.1.3

Figure

6.47a

Flow

Chart

NO

DETERNINE EXTENT OF DAMAGE SECTlON 6.4.1

DETERMINE EXTENT OF DAMACE SECTTON 6.4.3 I

YES

DETERMINE EXTENT OP MMAGE SECTIONS 6.5.1 6 6.5.2

Figure

6.47b

Flow

Chart 6-173

(Continued)

6.9 A

LIST

OF SYMBOLS presented area for use in striking velocity determinations; presented area of an object exposed to a blast wave; crosssectional area of a beam; projectile cross-sectional area; fragment average presented area; average fragment impact area; cross-sectional area of projectile along its trajectory; fronta.1~ area of flat-faced fragment simulator drag area area of~ring defined by the range interval compact R i fragment

An A. A,
A -P A a

empirical velocity fragment

constant for for mild steel area presented

predicting targets to plate

limit

estimated average impact area of fragment radius of fragment; empirical constant for predicting compact fragment residual velocity for mild steel target; speed of sound in target material velocity sound constant constant fragment of velocity in sound in fragment in air material equation equation; speed of sound in

a a

projectile density density

aO

al a2 B b C

in fragment material

constant in fragment target material explosive empirical velocity constant; penetration confidence drag lift constant constant for mild target level for steel

density

equation;

speed

of

sound

in

predicting targets constant

compact

fragment

residual

material

for

steel

fragment

CL cD cL CS 5

coefficient coefficient velocity material constant for 6-174 steel fragment penetration

dilatatIona target

c2

constant for maximum penetration target other than armor-piercing; fragment penetration fragment empirical velocity equation; tion distribution constant

in concrete of metal fragments material constant for steel

C
C

constant for predicting compact fragment residual constant in penetration for mild steel targets; target material constant for steel fragment penetra-

sonic diameter; fragment

velocity

of

target caliber diameter core

plate density of rod inside projectile shell inside

D d d di d co

fragment diameter; of a steel

diameter outside diameter

an HE containment shell; plate average

diameter of HE containment of casing of perforations of fragment for concrete impact in a target

diameter impact modulus

dl
EC

diameter of

elasticity energy; of target

E E* E' F FD FL F

nondimensional area1 Gurney face drag lift density energy resisting force force force of time

scaled

kinetic

energy

movement

effective function static gravity minimum steel target

F t compressive strength of concrete

f(t)
f'c & H h

unconfined constant transverse casing

dimension

of mean presented of a beam;

area thickness

of

object of

thickness-;.thickness

6-175

average target target scaled

center-to-center plate thickness steel casing

distance

between

perforations

in

h2 ii I Id 5 I I i st

thickness;

dimensionless

target

thickness

impulse~imparted total incident drag

to a target impulse

and diffraction specific impulse

impulse;absorbed nondimensional momentum specific target constant

by a deforming side-on specific

target impulse; scaled impact to a

acquired impulse; specific from an impacting rod missile

impulse

imparted

K K k Y

constant velocity kinetic length

for decay #energy ~

free-falling coefficient of

body

KE L R

an impacting

projectile

length of a beam; pipe missile length length Mott of, explosive of fragment parameter; distribution mass of destroyed

length

of

rod

Projectile;

length

of

Re 5
M

line

mass of

an object;

mass of

projectile

MA. Ma %
Mi M
P

fragment! average total

parameter a fragment mass of a building fragments

a particular projecils

mass of mass

building

6-176

Fl
m

scaled empirical velocity projectile total number number interval total number

mass per constant for mild nose number of of

unit

area

of

a projectile compact fragment limit

for steel shape

predicting targets factor

N Nf Nf. NC NT N n
X

fragments in of a particular a particular range increment the range

fragments

of fragments 5c number of

mass in

fragments with weight greater ogive of predicting targets than Wf

of fragments

caliber radius nose; empirical limit velocity peak j

0

of the tangent constant for for mild steel pressure of

the assumed fragment compact fragment

P P P P

contact

rod missile

ambient atmospheric maximum peak

atmospheric pressure peak reflected

pressure

pressure

ps F p(t)

incident

overpressure side-on pressure pressure center factor of detonation; standoff distance; overpressure

nondimensional net peak transverse dynamic

Q
R

distance from the range; perforation radius effective a particular lower bound of the

Re
R eff Ri R 3

explosive radius interval range interval of explosive

spherical range of

a particular

6-177

R12 %
R t it R' r S T TC T1 T2 T3 t

upper

bound

of

a particular interval

range

interval

a particular ta.rget #radius

range

nondimensional effect+ve radius elastic toughness thickness time time of of

range spherical a spherical modulus; radius of explosive

penetrator degree of saturation

section

concrete peak reflected ambient fragment;

element reflected pressure pressure depth of is pressure falls to drag after pressure passage time; plate of

of maximum at which

time at which a blast wave thickness thickness of

reached

penetration;

t t t

a
C

time

of

arrival casing thickness of sand layer

average

.s

actual,thickness wall thickness time

tw F U u v v co

of pipe t

missile

effectfve strain,energy particle velocity; correl?tion critic?1 initiat

velocity ballistic velocity velocity velocity

of blast limit

wave velocity; velocity of projectile

vcr vi

6-178

v
vO

ballistic initial

limit fragment velocity residual concrete

velocity velocity; of projectile velocity; element residual velocity of fragment as projectile impact velocity

impact

vr vs
V Yf
v YO v

fragment it leaves striking vertical initial

velocity;.fragment component vertical of striking

striking velocity of velocity

velocity

component

50

ballistic limit a 50% probability nondimensional dimensionless weight function weight weight weight weight fragment residual fragment area1 of

velocity; fragment impact velocity of causing explosive initiation velocity; limit velocity a type shell inside of of a metal a metal an HE containment plate plate sandwich sandwich shell of statistical distribution effective velocity of

which impact V

has

i v50 W W
C

explosive;

of HE containment of of of steel core

W co W
Cl

one side one weight weight striking of side

containing containing

HE HE

W c2 wf

wr
W s
W

the weight

fragment

density

of target front of area

(density object to

x thickness) location of its largest

X i .. X xf

distance from cross-sectional horizontal horizontal maximum

velocity acceleration penetration of armor-piercing fragment

6-179

maximum,penetration armor-ptercing
ii
X

in

concrete
X

of

metal

fragments

other

than

effective

displacement

displacement of an object; dispersion equation; depth of penetration velocity acceleration vertica$ vertical edge vertical vertical plastic fragment a length of an object of velocity acceleration of impact drop section density fragment; height height modulus; caliber distance in an object

angle

in

fragment

density

. X . . X

+ . * Y

fragment

density

equation

Yf Yo
Z

penetration

trajectofy angle; constant in for cohesive soil penetration; steel fragment penetration vent initial target area ratio trajectory material angle constant for

penetration equation; constant target material constant for

a a

e i

"1 B

steel

fragment

penetration

nondimensional in penetration target m+terial target target specific target target mhterial mhterial weight; mpterial I material

shape factor; penetration parameter; constant equation; constant for cohesive soil penetration; constant for steel fragment penetration constant constant constant constant constant for for steel steel fragment fragment penetration penetration penetration; penetration penetration

for cohesive soil for steel fragment for steel fragment

Y2 -(c Yo AH 6

target specific specific heat of

material weight weight detonation

constant of of concrete air

for

steel

fragment

penetration

permanent deflection for cohesive soil dimensionless constant subtended fragment target for

of target penetration

at

point

of

impact;

constant

deflection cohesive soil penetration angle between surface steel steel fragment fragment line of flight of

angle of a sector; and normal to plate material material ratio coefficient constant constant for for

penetration penetration

x2
V

target Poisson's

x2

partial correlation dispersion angle partial distance density; B density weight density average density density density density density density correlation peak of density

between

fragment

density

and

YZ

coefficient of blast

between wave; soil

fragment

density

and

mass density

%omp PC
P

Comp B explosive of concrete

density

expl

of explosive fragment of of of of of of air fragment density _ (projectile)

object

'i
pO

over

a range

interval

P P % % % p2

a constrained target fragment target

material material 6-131

ultimate yield cohesik effective divide+

strength stress yield of

of target strength

target

material

material of soil stress related to total stress

resisting soils by soil density between any flat

least angle surface critical

fragment

surface

and the

plate

orientation

angle

for

shatter

6-182

6.10 6.1

REFERENCES Zaker, T. A., No. 12, Dept. A013 634. "Fragment of Defense and Debris Explosives Hazards," Safety Technical Board, July Paper 1975,

AD

6.2

Program for Predicting Casualties Zaker, T. A., "Computer and Damage from Accidental Explosions," Technical Paper No. 11, of Defense Explosives Safety Board, May 1975, AD A012 847. Dept. Baker, W. E., Kulesz, J. J., Ricker, R. E., Bessey, R. L., Westine, I?. s., Parr, V. B. and Oldham, G. A., "Workbook for Predicting Pressure Wave and Fragment Effects of Exploding Propellant Tanks NASA CR-134906, NASA Lewis Research and Gas Storage Vessels," Center, September 1977. Rinehart, Santa Fe, J. S-9 NM. Stress Transients in Solids, Hyperdynamics,

6.3

6.4

6.5

Baker, W. E., Hokanson, J. C. and Cervantes, R. A., Model Tests of Industrial Missiles," Final Report, SwRI Project OZ-9153001, Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, TX, May 1976. Structures Dept. of Publication of Dept. Healey, "Primary Barriers," Whitney, to Resist the Effects of Accidental Explosions, the Army Technical Manual TM 5-1300, Dept. of the Navy of the Air Force Manual AFM 88-22, NAVFAC P-397, Dept. the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, .June 1979. J., Werner, H., Weissman, S., Dobbs, N., Price, P., Fragment Characteristics and Impact Effects on Protective Picatinny Arsenal Technical Keport No. 4093, Amman and Consulting Engineers, New York, NY, December 1975. on Damage by Ground, MD, Bombs, Laboratory, for

6.6

6.7

6.8

Thomas, L. l-l., "Computing the Effect of Distance Fragments," Report No. 468, BRL, Aberdeen Proving May 1944. Gurney, R. W., "The Initial Velocities Shells and Grenades," Report No. 648, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, September Henry, I. G., High-Explosive Hughes Aircraft

6.9

of Fragments from Ballistic Research 1947.

6.10

"The Gurney Formula and Related Approximations Deployment of Fragments," Report No. PUB-189, Co., Culver City, CA, 1967, Ad 813 398.

6.11

"Behavior and Utilization of Explosives in Engineering Design and Biomechanical Principles Applied to Chemical Medicine," Proceedings of the 12th Annual Symposium American Society of Mechanical Engineers, March 1972.

6-183

6.12

Kury, J. W. 'et al., "Metal Acceleration by Chemical Explosives," Fourth Symposium (International) on Detonation, ONR ACR-126, January 13, '1965. Kennedy, J. ,E., "Eurney Energy of Explosives: Velocity and Impulse Imparted to Driven Metal," SC-PR-70-790, December 1970. "Effects of Impact and Explosion," Research and Development, National Washington, DC, 1946. Estimation of Sandia Report the

6.13

6.14

Vol. 1, Office of Scientific Defense Research Committee,

6.15

Johnson, C. 'and Moseley, J. W., "Preliminary Warhead Terminal Ballistic Ha.ndbook, Part 1, Terminal Ballistic Effects," NAVWEPS Report No. 7'673, U. S. Naval Weapons Laboratory, Dahlgren, VA, March 1964. Baker, W. E.', Kulesz, J. 3.;Ricker, R. E., Westine, P. S., Parr, v. B., Vargas, L. M., and Moseley, P. K., "Workbook for Estimating the Effects of Accidental Explosions in Propellant Handling Systems," NASA Contractor Report 3023, Contract NAS 3-20497, NASA Lewis Research Center, August 1978. U. S. Energy Research and Development Administration Albuquerque Operation Office, "Report of Investigation of the Explosion with Fatal Injuries in Bldg. 11-14A on March 30, 1977 at the Pantex Plant - Amar~illo, Texas," June 28, 1977. fioerner, S. F. Fluid-Dynamic Drag, Midland Park, NJ, 1958.

6.16

6.17

6.18 6.19

Westine, P. S. and Kineke, J. H. Jr. (1978), "Prediction of Constrained 'Secondary Fragment Velocities," The Shock and Vibration Bulletin 48,~ Part 2, Isolation and Damping, Impact, Blast, A publication ~of the Shock and Vibration Information Center, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, September 1978. Kineke, J. Explosives: Explosives H. Jr., "Secondary Fragment Speed with Unconfined Model and Validation," Minutes of the Seventeenth Safety Seminar, Vol. II, September 1976. and Scaling Int. Jour. of Reflected Mech. Sci., Impulse 1967,

6.20

6.21

Baker, W. E.~, "Prediction from Strong 'Blast Waves,"

9,

pp.

45-51.

6.22

Weals, F. H.~, "Tests to Determine Covered Magazines," Annals of the Vol. 152, Arlt. 1, October 1968.

Separation New York

Distances Academy of

of EarthSciences,

6-184

6.23

Bergman, S. G. A., "Swedish Protective Structures for Manufacturing Units Constituting Explosion Hazard in the Range 1 - 2,000 Pounds of TNT," Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 152, Art. 1, October 1968. Hahn, G. J. and Shapiro, S. S., Statistical John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY, Methods 1967. in Engineering,

6.24 6.25

Kulesz, J. J., Moseley, P. K., and Parr, V. B., "Prediction of Weight and Range Distributions from Accidental Explosions Inside Buildings," to be presented at the Nineteenth DOD Explosives Safety Seminar, September 9-11, 1980. Baker, W. E., Westine, P. S., and Dodge, Methods in Engineering Dynamics: Theory Modeling, Spartan Brooks, Rochelle Part, F. T., Similarity and Practice of NJ.

6.26

Scale

6.27

McNaughtan, I. I. and Chisman, S. W., "A Study of Hail Impact at High Speed on Light Alloy Plates," Proceedings of the Ninth Annual National Conference on Environmental Effects on Aircraft and Propulsion Systems, Naval Air Propulsion Test Center, October 7-9, 1969, pp. 16-19. "Suppressive Shields Structural HNDM-1110-l-2, U. S. Army Corps Huntsville, AL, November 1977. Design and Analysis Handbook," of Engineers, Huntsville Dpvision,

6.28

6.29

Ricchiazzai, A. J. and Barb, J. C., "A Tentative Model for Predicting the Terminal Ballistic Effects of Blunt Fragments Against Single and Spaced Targets: A Comparison of Predicted and Experimental Test Results," BRL MR 2578, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, January 1976. Vassallo, Concrete Buffalo, F. A., "Missile Impact Panels," Calspan Report NY, January 1975. Testing of Reinforced No. HC-5609-D-1, Final Report,

6.30

6.31

Stephenson, A. E., Tests," EPRI-NP-440, Research Institute,

"Full-Scale Tornado-Missile Project 399, Final Report, Palo Algo, CA July 1977.

Impact Electric

Power

6.32

Stephenson, A. E., Sliter, G. and Burdette, E., 'FullScale Tornado-Missile Impact Tests Using a Rocket Launcher," Second ASCE Specialty Conf. on Structural Design of Nuclear Plant Facilities, Vol. l-A, New Orleans, LA, December 1975, pp. 611-636. Jankov, Z. D., Shananhan, J. A., and White, M. P., "Missile Tests of Quarter Scale Reinforced Concrete Barriers," Proceedings of the Symposium on Tornadoes, Assessment of Knowledge and Implications for Man, Texas Tech University, June 22-24, 1976, pp. 608-622.

6.33

6-185

6.34

of Rotz, J. V., "Results Second Concrete Panels," of Nuclear Plant Facilities, 1975, pp. 720~738.

Missile Impact Tests on Reinforced ASCE Specialty Conf. on Structural Design Vol. l-A, New Orleans, LA, December

6.35

and Composite Steel Panels Ting, R, M. L'., "Non-Composite for Tornado Missile Barrier Walls," Second ASCE Specialty Conf. on Structural Design of Nuclear Plant Facilities, Vol. 18, New Orleans, LA, December 1975, pp. 663-687. Rod/Concrete Slab Impact Test (ExperiBarber, R. B.', "Steel Technical Development Program, Final Report, mental Simulation)," Job No. 90142, Scientific Development, Bechtel Corp., October 1973. Gueraud, R., Sokolovsky, A., Kavyrchine, M. and Astruc, M., "Study of the Perforation of Reinforced Concrete Slabs by Rigid Missiles - General Introduction and Experimental Study, Part I;" Nuclear Engineering and Design, No. 41, 1977, pp. 97-102. Fiquet, G. and Dacquet, S., "Study of the Perforation of Reinforced Concrete by Rigid Missiles - Experimental Study, Part II," Nuclear Engineering and Design, No. 41, 1977, pp. 103-120. Goldstein, Reinforced Part III," 121-128. of S. and Berriaud,' C., "Study Concrete Slabs by Rigid Missiles Nuclear Engineering and Design, the Perforation - Experimental No. 41, 1977, of Study, pp.

6.36

6.37

6.38

6.39

6.40

Guide for Armoring Westine, P. S. and Vargas, L. M., "Design Critical Aircraft Components to Protect From High-Explosive Contract F33615-77-C-3006, U. S. Projectiles," Final Report, Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory, August 1978. Baker, W. E., Cox, P. A., Westine, P. S., Kulesz, J. J., and Hazards Evaluation, Strehlow, R. A., A Short Course on Explosion Copyright 1978, Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, TX. "A Comparison of Various Materials in Their Resistance to Perforation by Steel Fragments, Empirical Relationships," TR#25, Ballistics Research Labdratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, July 1956. "The Resistance of Various Non-Metallic Materials by Steel Fragments, Empirical Relationships for TR#Sl, Ballistics Velocity and'Residua1 Weight," Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, April 1963. Greenfield, S. H., Dept. of Commerce. Series 23, August, "Hail Resistance National Bureau 1969. of Roofing of Standards, to Perforation Fragment Residual Research Laboratory, Products," Building U. S. Science

6.41

6.42

6.43

6.44

6-186

6.45

of Fragment Displacement Velocity Westine, P. S., "Prediction Force on Projectiles Penetrating Cohesive Soils," Journal of Mechanics, Vol. 12, No. 3/4, December 1975, pp. 14-70. Young, C. W., "The Development Depth of an Earth-Penetrating Sandia Laboratory, May 1967. Thompson, tiles," Sandia L. Texas Corp., J., of Empirical Projectile," Equations Report No.

and

Terra

6.46

for Predicting SC-DR-67-60,

6.47

A . 9 "The Effects

Ferguson, G. H. III, Murff, of Soil Parameters on Earth A&M Research Foundation Report July 1969.

V. D., and Cetiner, Penetration of ProjecNo. PB 186074, for

6.48

of a High-Velocity Powder Gun and Butler, D. K., "Development Analysis of Fragment Penetration Tests into Sand," Miscellaneous Paper S-75-27, ADA 017056, Soils and Pavements Laboratory, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MI, October 1975. Nondimensional Greenspon, J. E., "An Approximate the THOR Equations," U. S. Army Materiel Systems TR#173, October 1976. Ballistic Analysis Laboratory, Johns Hopkins of Various Metallic Materials to Perforation Empirical Relationships for Fragment Residual Weight," Institute for Cooperative Research, Report No. 47, April 1961. Sperrazza, Clothing," Laboratories, Laboartories, Representation of Analysis Activity,

6.49

6.50

University,"The Resistance by Steel Fragments; Velocity and Residual Project THOR Technical

6.51

J. and Kokinakis, W., "Ballistic Limits of Tissue and Technical Note No. 1645, Army Ballistic Research RDT&E Project No. lP025601A027, Ballistic Research January 1967. "A New Methodology the 16th Explosive for Wounding and Safety Criteria," Safety Seminar, September 1974,

6.52

Kokinakis, W., Proceedings of pp. 1209-1226. Glasstone, Government

6.53 6.54

S. , The Effects Printing Office

of Nuclear Weapons, U. S. Revised Edition, April 1962. Responses Research Laboratory, Ohio, AD 740-438,

Thoracic Fletcher, E. R., "A Model to Simulate Aerospace Medical to Air Blast and to Impact," Paper No. 1, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, December 1971.

6.5'5 White,

C. S., Bowen, I. G., Richmond, D. R., and Corsbie, R. L. "Comparative Nuclear Effect of Biomedical Interest," CEX58.8, Civil Effects Study, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, January 1961. 6-187

6.56

Custard, Storage Contract Explosive

G. OH. and Thayer, J. R., "Evaluation of Explosive Safety Criteria," Falcon Research and Development Co., DAHC 04-69-C-0095, March 1970; also "Target Response to Blast," September 1970. Study," Minutes of the Eleventh 1, Armed Services Explosives Safety 1969.

6.57

Ahlers, E. B., "Fragment Hazard Explosives Safety Seminar, Vol. Board, Washington, DC, September

6.58

Clemedson, C,. J., Hellstrom, G., and Lingren, S., "The Relative Tolerance of the Head, Thorax, and Abdomen to Blunt Trauma," Ann& of the New York Academy of Sciences, 'Vol. 152, Art. 1, pp. 187+, October 1968. White, C. S!, "The Nature of the Problems Involved in Estimating the Immediate Casualties from Nuclear Explosions," CEX-71.1, Civil Effects Study, IJ. S. Atomic Energy Commission, DR-1886, July 1971. Baker, W. E., Whitney, M. G., and Parr, V. B., "Scaling Initiation of Explosives by Fragment Impact," (submitted Shock and Vibration Symposium). Slade, D. C. and Dewey, J., "High Order Initiation Explosives by Projectile Impact," BRL Report No. Proving Ground, MD, July 1957, AD 145868. of to 50th

6.59

6.60

6.61

of Two Military 1021, Aberdeen

6.62

McLean, D. G. and Allan, D. S., "An Experimental Program to Determine the Sensitivity of Explosive Materials to Impact by Regular Fragments," Final Report;, Contract DA-19-020-ORD-5617, Picatinny Arsenal, December 29, 1965, AD 477875. Petino, Amatex 78011, G. Jr. and Leondi, M. F., "Sensitivity of Molten and Solid Charges to Impact by Primary Steel Fragments," ARLDC-CR ARRADCOM, Dover, NJ, April 1978.

6.63

6.64

Petino, G. Jr., Demella, D., and Rindner, R. M., "Sensitivity of Cased Chargers of Molten and Solid Composition B to Impact by Primary Steel Fragments," PA-TR-4975, Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, NJ, June 1976. Frey, R. B., Howe, P. M., of Explosives by Projectile BRL, June 1979. Reeves, H. J'., of HE Munitions Army Ballistic Trimble, Impact," J., and Melani, Draft Technical G., "Initiation Report, USA

6.65

6.66

'"An Empirically Based Analysis on the Respanse to Impact by Steel Fragments," BRL MR 2031, U. S. Research Laboratory, March 1970, AD 508607.

6.67

TERA Group, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, "Vulnerability of 105 mm HE Projectiles to Fragment Impact," U. S. Ballistic Final Report for Contract No. DAAD05-76-C-0789, Research Laboratory, August 1978. Dobratz, B. M., "Properties Simulants," University of (UCRL-51319). of Chemical Explosives California, Livermore, and Explosive CA, July 1974

6.68

6-189

CHAPTER

DYNAMIC PROPERTIES OF MATERIALS

7.1

INTRODUCTION

It is well known that materials behave differently under dynamic loading than under static conditions. For most materials, the deformation during loading is not only a function of the amplitude of the applied force but also the rate of applicationand duration of the force. Optimized design of structures and utilization of materials requires an adequate description and understanding of the material properties at the appropriate rates of loading (or rates of deformation, i.e., strain rates). Various procedures have been developed to study and quantify the response of materials to dynamic (o,r impulsive) loads. The principal variables measured in these tests include the stresses and strains produced during loading and the energy absorbed by the specimen. These tests divide naturally into two diverse groups since the stress and strain measurements may be considered properties of the material being studied whereas the energy measurements are related to the geometry of the specimen as well as a variety of the specimen's material properties. The main purpose of this chapter is to present a review of the material properties which are of interest to the structural engineer, with special emphasis on those which vary with the rate of loading. This information is given in Section 7.2. In Section 7.3, a discussion is given of various measures of a material's ability to absorb energy under dynamic loading. Pertinent material properties are considered. Finally, properties of the materials commonly used in construction are tabulated Included in these properties are those dynamic values in Section 7.4. based on rates of loading applicable to design of structures for blast loads. Under dynamic loads associated with explosion, strain rates in If the actual materials may be in the range of 1 to 100 in./in./sec. strain rate is known, increases in the material strength can be obtained using the dynamic relationships given in Section 7.2. These relationships If the are especially useful in conjunction with numerical methods. actual rate of strain is not known, the dynamic properties must be based on some average or minimum value of strain rate. Section 7.4, which tabulates properties of various structural materials, includes minimum values of dynamic strength for strain rates of 1 and 100 in.lin./sec. For typically behavior the design of structures subject to blast loading, engineers use a dynamic increase factor (DIF) to account for the dynamic Values of DIF for various materials used in of materials.

7-1

facility construction are given in authoritative design manuals or codes. Since this manual is not intended as an independent design guide for DIF, engineers should consult these applicable design manuals or coaes for the selection of appropriate DIFs for their design. 7.2 PROPERTIES OF MATERIALS OF CONSTRUCTION UNDER DYNAMIC LOADING

A variety of 'materials is used in the construction of typical blast-resistant structures. These include: (1) the structural metals, steel and aluminum* concrete and masonry, including reinforced consuch as'southern yellow crete, clay tile b;,bi' , and brick; (.3) woods, pine and Douglas fir; and (4) weak, brittle materials, such as insulating roof panels and wallboard. Each of these types of materials displays strain-rate sensitivity in its response to loading. For that reason, a review of each material type is presented in this section. A general review will be made of material properties whichare of interest to the structural designer along with a brief discussion of those properties which may vary wit!h the rate of loading. The material ~properties most commonly used in design are obtained from "static" uniaixia.1 tension and compression tests. [So-called static strain rates are commonly on the order of 0.0001 in./in./sec (1r4 see-l)]. It is customary to plot the results in the form of a stressVarious properties strain diagram, such as the one shown in Figure 7.la. can be seen in this figure. An initial regicll is shown in which the stress is linearly proportional to strain. The material behaves in an essentially elastic manner in this region, and the slope of the stressstrain curve is &led the modulus of elasticity, E. The termination of the elastic regime is impossible to obtain experimentally since the measurement of sli,ght amounts of plasticity would require perfect instrumentation. The beginning of plastic flow is more practically defined in terms of the stress required to cause some measurable amount of plastic strain-~ The yield strength, uyy is defined often as the stress at which material exhibits a specified deviation from the proportionality Ofi stress to strain. In Figure 7.la, the yield strength is ta.ken to be the' stress at which the strain is offset 0.2. percent from the proportional& strain. The ultimate stress, o,, is the maximum stress sustained by the material. The elongation, e, is the strain sustained by the material at! failure, The existences of an elastic region varies with materials. Figure 7.lb shows the uni'axial compression curve for materials such as wood and concrete in wh~ich little or no proportional region is detectable. For these materials, various definitions are used for modulus of elasticincluding: ~(1) the tangent modulus, ET, which is the slope of the ity * stress-strain curve at a given stress, normally the origin; (2) the

7-2

0 .01.02 Strain a) General E Curve Stress-Strain

s r

Strain b) Typical Concrete Curve for

Strain

E Low-Car'bon,

Wood OK

cl

Typical Structural

Curve for Steel

Figure

7.1.

Typical

Stress-Strain

Curves

for

Engineering

Materials

7-3

secant modulus E ~, which is the slope of the secant drawn from the origin to any specifiedS@oint on the stress-strain curve; and (3) the chord modulus, EC,. which is the slope of the chord drawn between any two specified points on the stress-strain curve. For a region to attain shown in and OY ' stkss-strain greater a few ma~terials, notably the low carbon structural steels, exists a'fter initial yield in which the amount of stress required a unit increase in strain actually decreases. This behavior, Figure 7!.lc, results in the existence of an upper-yield stress, a lower-yield stress, o Subsequent to this behavior, the YR * curve rises to an ultimate stress which is substantially than either yield stress.

For brittle materials, sporadic results often occur in uniaxial tension tests. For materials such as wood or concrete, it is very difficult to clami, typical design tensile specimens. Therefore, tensile properties for these materials are often obtained from standard flexural or bend tests. 1i-1 these tests, the specimen is supported at two points and loaded at a third point. Loading is continued until failure occurs. The specimens are designed so that they will fail in tension at the outer surface. Based on the various dimensions of the specimen and test setup and th!e load required to cause failure, several material properties are determined. The modulus of rupture, R, is calculated using the relation (7.1) where M = maximums bending moment due to the load C = one-hal~f the depth of the beam T = moment 'of inertia of the cross section

Theexact signific~ance of this parameter is not clear. Equation (7.1) is the equation f'or calculating the outer fiber tensile stress in an elastic beam under load. If the stress-strain relationship of the specimen were linear to the point of failure, R would correspond to the ultimate tensile stress. However, most of the materials tested in this fashion disp1l.a.y a stress-strain curve similar to Figure 7.lb in For this reason, the modulus which little or n,o proportionality exists. of rupture should be used more as a qualitative measure of a material':s ductility or brit,tleness than as a quantitative number to be used directly in design. The material properties which are normally sensitive to the rate of loading are th,e material strengths and the total elongation at The pro~perty most often studied is the yield stress of the failure. material. It is not uncommon for the yield stress to be double the static value for strain orates of 100 set-I. An increase in ultima.te stress often occurs, although not as dramatically as for the yield stress.

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

Measurements of the total elongation to failure are very hard to obtain strain rates greater than 1 set-I. for very high rates of loading, i.e., Thus, some reported values of elongation or toughness (area under the stress-strain curve) may be questionable for these high rates of loading. These values will only be given in this section for those cases where there is a high confidence in the accuracy of these data. 7.2.1 Properties of Metals

In the construction of blast-resistant structures, steel and Various grades of steel aluminum are the only metals normally used. are utilized based on the application. A discussion of both the static and dynamic properties of these grades of steel is given in this section. Information on aluminum 6061 is also provided. 7.2.1.1 Static Behavior curve for a steel depends and temperature history. are given in Figure 7.2. upper and lower yield point is considered to heat-treated steels do not

The shape of the static stress-strain upon the exact alloy content and the stress Stress-strain curves of typical alloy steels The curves for the low carbon steels display points. For design purposes, the lower yield represent the practical yield strength. The display these double yield points.

The low carbon steels are preferred for use-in construction because of their high ductility. For many years the most common steel This used was a low-carbon steel designated by ASTM Specification A7. was the predominant steel used in the construction of buildings. This steel has now been supplanted by ASTM A36 as the all-purpose construction steel. There are, however, 13 ASTM specifications for structural steels currently approved for use in building construction (Ref. 7.1). Of these 13, those most commonly used in the construction of buildings are ASTM A36, ASTM A529 structural carbon steel, ASTM A440 high-strength structural steel, ASTM A570 hot-rolled carbon steel sheet and strip, ASTM A441 and A572 high-strength low-alloy structural steels, ASTM A242 and A588 corrosion-resistant high-strength low-alloy structural and ASTM A514 quenched and tempered alloy structural steel plate. steels, The standard specifications for J-Series and H-Series open-web 7.1) states that the manufacture of chord and web steel joists (Ref. sections shall conform to one of the previously mentioned ASTM specificaThe steel used tions or to ASTM A611, Type 2, cold-rolled carbon sheet. for J-Series joists shall have a minimum yield point of 36,000 psi in The design the hot-rolled condition prior to forming or fabrication. of chord sections for H-Series joists shall be based on a yield point The design of web sections for H-Series joists shall be of 50,000 psi. based on a yield point of either 36,000 psi or 50,000 psi.

7-5

16C

14c

120

60

Lower

Yield

Point

40

20

0.004 Strain, in/in

0.008

0.012

Figure 7.2. Stress-Strain Curves of Typical Alloy Steels and Structural Aluminum

7-6

In billet-steel 40,000 psi

the reinforcement of concrete, ASTM A615 deformed and plain bars are used. Grade 40 has a minimum yield strength of and Grade 60 a minimum yield strength of 60,000 psi.

Aluminum 6061 combines good strength with relatively good ductility. It is usually used in a heat-treated condition designated by T4,with a minimum ultimate tensile stress of 30 ksi and T6, with minimum tensile ultimate stress of 42 ksi. The minimum static tensile properties and aluminum are given in Section 7.4. Dynamic Behavior for both the structural

steels 7.2.1.2

Under dynamic loading conditions, the strength properties of many structural steels will be altered. In general, the yield strengths and ultimate tensile strengths are higher under the high strain rates associated with blast loads (& = 1 to 100 set-I) than under slowly applied "static" loads. In view of the uncertainties involved in determining the blast response of structures, however, great precision in evaluation of strain rate effects is not normally justified. It is generally accepted that strain rate effects resulting from air blast loading can be estimated to increase the static tensile yield strength of structural steels by a minimum of 10 percent (Ref. 7.2). Under certain conditions the increase in yield strength may be much greater. The higher strength steels (uy >60,000 psi), without defjnite yield points and pronounced plastic ranges, have not been found to exhibit as high an increase as other structural steels. Unless the actual strain rates can be determined, it is recommended that the dynamic yield strengths of high strength steels be taken equal to their static values. Similarly, without knowledge of actual strain rates, the dynamic ultimate strengths for all steels should be taken equal to their static values. The dynamic shear yield strengths for all steels are normally taken equal to 0.55 times the dynamic tensile yield strengths. The modulus of elasticity is effectively unchanged with rate of strain. If the actual strain rates in a structure can be accurately determined, more accurate estimates can be made of the material strengths for purposes of design. To this end, relationships between the rate of strain and the strengths of various structural steels will now be given. A large amount of high-rate testing has carbon steels (Refs. 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, and 7.6) and A typical set to many of the structural steels. A review of all data on low carbon Figure 7.3. been conducted on low should be applicable of data is shown in steels results in the

7--7

following rate:

relationship I ad y CT ~ A 1.3

between

the

dynamic

yield

stress

and the

strain

+ 0.25

log

(1 < i: < 100 se/l)*

(7.2)

where the dynamic yield stress is denoted by ody and the static value This equation is a conservative estimate of the data given in by oy. od /oy of 1.3 for Reference 7.5 and results in yield strength ratios, . E = 1 set-l and 1.8 for i: = 100 set". There is much 1 ess dramatic effect on the ultimate tensile strength. The relationship between ultimate tensile strength and strain rate may be expressed: odT -1 =~l.lO -I- 0.1 log t (1 i i: i 100 set ) (7.3) uT which gives tensile stren th ratios, odT/oT, of 1.10 for & = 1 set -1 7 . In the work by Vialock and 1.30 for t = 100 set(Ref. 7.4), the total deformation in a compression test was seen to increase with strain rate. However, this increase was small and it is not clear that it would occur during a tensile test. For these reasons, it is recommended that the total elongation be assumed independent of strain rate. These rel4tionships were developed for data of annealed lowcarbon steels and should be applicable for ASTM A7, A36, A529, A440, However, A611 Grade E is a cold-rolled steel with a A570, and A615. minimum yield strength of 80 ksi. Zased on studies of two similar materials (Ref. 7.3), a conservative estimate of the relationship for A611, Grade E may be written: od ti 7 1.0 + 0.1 log Y given on the variation t (1 < i: i 100 set-') of tensile strength with strain rate.

No data

were

Although most of the structural steels are low-carbon steels, including ASTM A242, A441, A572, A588, several are low-all,oy steels, and A514. Of this group, tests have been conducted on A242 (Ref. 7.3). In these tests, the yield strength ratio was seen to fit the relationship most closely.

3 _~ - 1.2
uv No data *In this were text, given log for

+ 0.2 the

log

i: (1 i i < 100 set of tensile

-1

> with strain

(7.5) rate.

variation 1oglOA.

strength

A denotes

Material : Mild Steel Source : M. J. Manjoine Method : Flywheel Impact Mode : Tension Temperature : 70 F

0 10- lo-

1o-4

10-l
Strain Rate, set -1

10

Figure

7.3

Stress-Strain

Properties

of Mild

Steel

at

Various

Strain

Rates

No other data for the low-alloy steels have been found. However, a review of the 'literature (Ref. 7.7) has shown that alloying tends to decrease the rate sensitivity of steel, a.s was seen for A242 relative to a conservative estimate of the the low-carbon steels. For this reason, variation of strength with strain rate must be used. For A441, A572, and A588 which h,ave minimum yield stresses varying from 42 to 65 ksi, the yield streng,th ratio will be assumed to have the form:
3y= cs

1.1

+ 0.1

log

E (1 < E < 100 set

-1

>

(7.6)

Y The ultimate tensile strength for these steels will be assumed independent of strain rate, For A514 with a minimum yield strength of 100 ksi, both strengths should1 be assumed independent of strain rate. Because'of its extensive use in aircraft and spacecraft construction, a great deal of research has been conducted on the strain rate sensitivity of aluminum. Extensive work on Aluminum 1100, summarized in Reference 7.6, has demonstrated moderate strain rate sensitivity. Similar studies (Ref. 7.8) of annealed 6061 (-0 condition) have demoystrated a very slight increase of yield stress for strain rates above 1 set . However, for structural grades of 6061 (-T4, -T451, -T6, -T651), numerous studies (Refs. 7!8, 7.9, and 7.10) have indicated that the yield stress incf?ases less than 5 percent over the range of strain rates of lOA set to lo2 set". Thus, properties of these structural grades of aluminum should be considered independent of strain rate. 7.2.2 p

Concrete may be considered to be a particulate reinforced composite material made up'of fine and coarse stone aggregate in a matrix material made from portland cement and water. Its physical properties depend upon many factors, including such things as the properties of the cement and the aggregate portions of each, the size and distribution of aggreamount of water used, amount and quality of mixing, and age. Since gate, it is often hard'to control each of these when fabricating a structure, it may not be possible to predetermine the exact properties of the concrete. In the design process, the designer must assume some realistic values for the properties and make an effort to assure that the design properties are attained, In the fabrication process, samples of concrete must be taken to make te t specimens for later determination of actual static 4 properties.

7-10

7.2.2.1

Static

Behavior

The most commonly used property of concrete is its compressive strength, f.', which is measured in compression tests of standard cylinders. Since concrgte gains strength as it ages, a time of 28 days has been established as the standard duration of aging prior to test. Typical data from compression testing are given in Ffgure 7.4. Maximum compressive strength is seen to occur at a strain of about 0.2 percent, and failure The effects of aging on the stress-strain curve occurs near 0.4 percent. can be seen very explicitly in Figure 7.5. It should be noted in Figure 7.4 that the slope of the stressstrain curve is continually decreasing from initial I-oading up to the ultimate stress. Concrete has neither a definite proportional limit nor an elastic limit. Thus, various definitions have been given for the modulus of elasticity, as was explained in the introduction to Section 7.2. Various forms of the modulus were displayed in Figure 7.lb, including the tangent modulus, the secant modulus, and the chord modulus. In compression testing, the only ASTM standard test methods for static modulus of elasticity of concrete, C469, stipulates the use of a chord modulus, with the lower point on the curve near the origin (E = 0.00005) and the upper point corresponding to a stress equalling 40 percent of the strength of the concrete at the time of loading. The lower point is close to the origin but far enough removed to he free of possible irregularities in the strain readings caused by seating of the test machine plotters and strain measuring devices. The upper point is taken near the upper end of the working stress range assumed in design. For concretes comm0nl.y employed in construction, the compressive strength, q, For is normally in the range of 2,000 to 5,000 psi. typical values for the modulus of structural lightweight concrete, elasticity measured in compression range from 1 to 3 x 10b psi and for norr,,al A modulus of the values range from 2 to 5 x TOG psi. weight concretes, elasticity for concrete with unit weight of 90 to 155 pounds per cubic foot can be estimated with the empirical relationship (Ref. 7.12) E
C

= 33~~'~

JfE psi

where

w fi

= unit weight of concrete, lb/ft' = specified compressive strength

of

conctete,

psi

Since structural concrete is designed principally to be loaded very little emphasis has been placed on determining the in compression, There is no standard response of concrete to uniaxial tensile loading. The normal tension test used test technique for attaining these data. with metals does not work well due to difficulties in holding the test

7-11

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

6 I

f, 6600 psi

0.002 Strain, in./in. Figure 17.4. Typical Stress-Strain (Ref. 7.11)

0.003

Curves for Concrete

14

28

Days

Months

Years

Figure

7.5.

Effect of Age on Concrete Compressive Strength f,: (Ref. 7.11)

7-12

specimen, which may result in failure at the attachments or a nonuniform state of stress in the specimen. The most common method used to obtain tensile data is the three-point bend test, from which the modulus of rupture (tensile strength in flexure) is computed. An explanation of the modulus of rupture is given in the introduction to Section 7.2. Tests have shown that the values obtained for the modulus of rupture are substantially larger than those obtained from uniaxial tension tests. This discrepancy may be due to the incorrect assumption of stress linearity over the cross-sectional area of the beam used in the three-point bend test. As a rule, the modulus of rupture is roughly 10 to 15 percent of the compressive strength (Ref. 7.13). 7.2.2.2 Dynamic Behavior

Concrete possesses a rather high sensitivity to the rate of load application. Thus, the properties of concrete depend strongly on the strain rate. For those cases of design for which the rate of strain is not known, the generally accepted practice is to assume a 25 percent increase in the unconfined compressive strength of concrete due to rapid loading (Ref. 7.13). Similarly, a 10 percent increase is recommended in the direct shear strength of members due to rapid loading. strength increase Table It is recommended that no increase in diagonal tension or bond be allowed for rapid loading. Table 7.1 summarizes dynamic factors (DIF) for stres$es in concrete members for rapid loading. 7.1 Dynamic Increase Factors for Concrete (Ref. 7.12)

Stress Compression Tension Diagonal Direct Bond Tension Shear

Dynamic

Increase

Factor

1.25 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0

If the actual strain rateg in the structure can be accurately determined, more accurate estimates can be made of the material strengths for purposes of design. To this end, a discussion will now be presented of the relationships between the rate of strain and various properties of concrete.

7-13

A survey of the effects of loading rate on mechanical properties (Ref. 7.14) found a considerable increase in compressive strength, modulus of elasticity, andmmodulus of rupture. Figure 7.6 presents a compilation of data demonstrating the increase of compressive strength with rate of stressing.
I 8 by 16-h. I Cylinders Cylinders Cylinders Cylindrts 7 Days 28 bays I

6 by 12-h. 6 by 6 by lo-Cl11 2-i.n. 1.0 by 2 and 12-h. 12-1~. Cubes cubes 211-m 3-h.

Cyllndars Cubeu

Figure 7.6 ~ Increase of Compressive Strength, fc, Rate of Loading for Concrete (Normalized Relative Loading Rate of 30 psi/set) (Reference 7.14)

with to a

The work by Watstein (Ref. 7.15) appears to be the most complete and informative program conducted on concrete. His work covered a wide range of strain rates and considered several properties of concrete. In his study, Watstein considered two concretes having approximate compressive strengths of 2500 ind 6500 psi. The maximum ratio of dynamic to static compressive strengths was about 1.8 for rates of strain of 10 see-'. The values of the secant moduli of elasticity increased significantly with the rate of application of load; the maximum ratio of dynamic to static modulus was 1.47 for the "weak" concrete and 1.33 for the "strong" concrete. Resistance of the concrete to impact as measured by its ability to absorb strain energy also increased with strain rate, Figure 7.7 is a plot of compressive strength, f', and secant modulus of elasticity, E , as a function of srain rate. TypCical stress-strain curves for static ' t and dynamic tests 4re given in Figures 7.8 and 7.9 (data recording ceased after the compressive strength was reached). InlFigure 7.5, results are given for static tests (strain rate of 1O-6 set ) and dynamic tests (10.0 set -I) of the "weak" conE!ete and in Figure 7.9, resultslare given for the static tests (10s6 set ) and dynamic tests (6.69 set ) of the "strong" concrete.~ Watstein also compared the increase in the secant modulus of elasticity with the corresponding increase in compressive strength. These data are presented in Figure 7.10. Watstein commented

7-14
,

1.4

1.2

1.0
0

"Weak" "Strong"

Concrete Concrete

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

I
1o-6

10 -5

10-4

10-3 Strain-Rate

10-Z E,

lo-l set -1

10

Figure

7.7

Increase of Strain

of Compressive for Concrete

Strength with (Ref. 7.15)

Rate

7-15

o DYNAMIC l STATIC

St&n, Figure 7.8. Typical Concrete,

k-l. /P*. Stress-Strain $ = 10.1 Curves for "Weak" (Ref. 7.15)

sec'l

. STATIC

Figure

7.9.:

Strain, Typical ~ Concrete,

in.lin. Stress-Strain i = 4.7

set-l

Curves (Ref.

for "Strong" 7.15)

7-16

that there was no significant concrete test specimens in

the

difference dynamic

in the manner of and static tests.

failure

of the

It is apparent from Figures 7.8 and 7.9 that maximum stress occurs The obvious at comparable strains for both the static and dynamic tests. conclusion from this fact is that the strain energy to failure (area under the stress-strain curve up to the maximum stress) is much greater for the dynamic case. This point is shown in Figure 7.11 in which Watstein plots the ratio of the dynamic to static strain energy, W, versus the ratio of the dynamic to static strength ratio. In this figure, an increase in the strain energy on the order of 2.2 was recorded for both the highstrength and low-strength concretes at strain rates on the order of 10 set-l , In general, it appears that the properties of various-strength concretes are affected similarly by an increase in strain rate. A good approximation of the increase in compressive strength with strain rate can be given by the relation:
fiC

-7f A conservative obtained from

= 1.5

+ 0.2

log the

E (1o-2 increase in

< t -c lo2 modulus

set -3 of elasticity

(7.3) can be

estimate of the relation:

Ed = 1.1 E The increase in strain -'d = 1.7 W

-t- 0.1 energy,

log

i: (10

-6

i ; < lo2

set -3 by the -1 relation:

(7.9)

W, can be approximated

0.4

log

t (1 < 6 < 100 set

(7.10)

As stated earlier, it is very difficult to obtain true tensile data for concrete. It is almost impossible to measure the dynamic tensile Initial efforts to measure the tensile properties properties directly. are given in Reference 7.16. In this program, the dynamic tensile strength was obtained from impact tests in which the spa11 threshold was determined. The reported dynamic tensile strength was about ten times the usual static tensile strength; the dynamic shear and compaction strengths were .The results are somewhat questionable about double the static values. It is because of the inherent assumptions made in reducing the data. recommended that the values given in Table 7.1 be used until further studies have been conducted on the dynamic tensile properties of concrete.

7-17

Figure

7.lp.

Variation of Dynamic Secant Modulus with Dynamic Compressive Strength for Concrete (Ref. 7.15)

2.6 2.4-

o WEAK CONCRETE l STRONGCONCRETE

Figure

7.1~1.

Variation of Dynamic Strain Energy with The Dynamic Strength for Concrete (Ref. 7.15)

7-18

Because of the difficulties material properties in general, high to only a few classes of materials. data do not exist for such materials hollow clay tile block and brick. 7.2.3 Properties of Woods

inherent in the generation of dynamic strain rate testing has been limited For this reason, high strain rate as prestressed concrete, masonry,

Wood is used extensively in construction because of its relative availability, high strength to weight, and good insulating low cost, Its use in construction is dominated by the anisotropy characteristics. that is, it has unique and independent mechanical of its properties; properties in three orthogonal (perpendicular) directions--longitudinal, radial, and tangential. The longitudinal direction is along the axis of the fibers (along the grain), the radial direction is perpendicular to and the tangential direction the grain in the radial (outward) direction, is perpendicular to the grain and tangent to the growth rings. These axes are shown in Figure 7.12.

?AN&TIAL LON6ITUDINAL

Figure

7.12.

The Three Principal Axes of Wood with Grain Direction and Growth Rings

Kespect

to

Mechanical properties of woods are obtained from tests of small pieces of wood termed "clear" and "straight grained." These specimens characteristics such as knots, cross grain, do not contain "inhomogeneous" checks or splits. An extensive presentation of the mechanical properties of various species of wood is given in Reference 7.17. This reference also includes the influence of growth characteristics such as knots, and moisture content on the properties. 7.2.3.1 Static 'Behavior interest to the designer (or modulus of rupture), Since wood is an the direction of loading.

The material properties of wood of most are the compressive strength, the tensile strength the modulus of elasticity and the shear strength. anisotropic material, these properties vary with

7-19

The compresseve strength of most importance is obtained from compression parallel to the grain (longitudinal direction) and is reported in terms of the maximum crushing strength, uc. This property varies for seasoned woods from 4,000 to 10,000 psi. The compressive strength perpendicular to the grain is reported in terms of the fiber stress at proportional limit and varies ~from 300 to 2000 psi. Because ,of difficulties in measuring the tensile strengths of wood specimens, as discussed in the introduction, the modulus of rupture, R, is often substituted for the tensile strength in the longitudinal direction. This property represents the maximum load-carrying capacity of the member and is proportional to the maximum moment borne by the specimen. Typical values for seasoned wood range from 6,000 to 20,000 psi. When! these values are substituted for the tensile strength, they can be considered as conservative or low estimates. Of the small amount of longitu$inal tensile data which does exist, values ran 10 to 40 percent higher! than the corresponding modulus of rupture. The modulus of elasticity, E,I is also measured in bending and ranges in value from 0.8 to 2.3 million psi. (Values of the modulus of elasticity which are measured in bending must be increased by 10 percent to correct for the effect of+shear deflection.) It should be pointed out that many of the properties of wood, when measured along the grain axis, compared very favorably with all other structural materials, including structural steel and aluminum. For example, the stiffness to weight of a structural member made from Southern pine is approximately equal to that,of a member made from steel, based on the ratio of the modulus of elasticity to the density. The strength-to-weight ratio of the Southern pine is several times greater than that of structural steel, based on both the crushing strength and modulus of rupture of pine relative to the ultimate strength of A36 steel. 7.2.3.2 Dynamic Behavior

It has l&g been known that the stress-strain relationship for wood is sensitive to the rate of strain. However, except for one recent study, the properties of wood have not been studied at the rates of strain which'occur during explosions. Typical of past test programs was an extensive &udy conducted by Markwardt and Liska (Ref. 7.18) in which two softwood and two hardwood species were included in investigations made to evaluate the effect of "rapid" loading on the compressive and flexural strength properties of wood. Of most importance were their studies of Sitka spruce and maple which they tested in compression parallel to the grain. Typical curves from these tests were given in The'strain rates observed in these tests were: (a) Sitka Figure 7.13. spruce, E: = 1.3 xmlr5 .sec-l for the standard compression test, and

7-20

Fvl
0 a001 a002

0003

0.004

0 105

Strain,

in./in. Curves for Spruce Specimens

Figure

7.13a.

Typical Stress-Strain Two Matched Sitka (Ref. 7.18)

6000

I 0002

I 0004

0.006

I Om6

I 0.010

0012

Strain, Figure 7.13b.

in./in. Curves Specimens for

Typical Stress-Strain Two Matched Maple (Ref. 7.18)

E = 3.6 x lO-3 set -' for the "rapid" loading test; and (b) maple, set-I. Several features i = 1.3 x 10-S Isec-1 and k = 5.6 x 1r3 of these tests c'an be seen in Figure 7.13. Althoughthe modulus of elasticity varied little with the increase in strain rate, the ultimate (crush) strength increased dramatically. Similar results were found in the bending tests conducted pn Douglas fir and birch specimens (Ref. 7.18) in which a substantial inFrea.se in the modulus of rupture was observed. Recently, and Yew (Ref. 7.?9) was the first to! be resistant structures. so that the data,are the United States. to increase with'strain 7.13a and 7.13b.i studies have been conducted in Australia by Ferguson at strain rates exceeding 100 sec'l. This study reported with data useful for design of blastHowever, the woods tested were from Australia, not directly related to structural woods used in In this study, the ultimate crush strength was seen rate in a fashion similar to that seen in Figures

1.

Figure 7.14 displays data for a variety of Australian pine tested with varying moisture content. Data for strain rates above i: = 1 set-l should probably be ignored due to probable errors caused by inertial Ieffects during testing.

3 In-

10.:

10-J

lo-'

10-l

10

lo'

10'

Strain Figure 7.14. Variation of Crush

Rate, Strength

set -1 with Rate of Strain (Ref. 7.19)

In Figure 7.15 the data from References 7.18 and 7.19 are compiled IEach specimen has a moisture content of 11 to 12 percent. for comparison. The curves represent a best fit to the data and extend over the range of strain rates tested. It is evident that each of these curves can be fit by an equation of the form:

7-22

12

I m

lo->

1o-4

10Strain-Rate E,

10

-2 set -1

10-l

Figure.

7.15

Variation of Maximum Crush Woods with Strain-Rate 7-23

Strength

of

Various

-5 which is similar ~to that

'ac C

= K1 -I- K2 log earlier for

: steel and concrete. in Figure design should

(7.11)

used

Because 'of the limitation of available data, the data 6.15 must be generalized to cover the entire wood family. For the upper and lower bound values of the crush strength purposes, be taken as: 'Lower
Bound

'dc 7
C

= 1.35

-I- 0.080

log

(7.12)

supper Bound

'dc 7
C

= 1.50

-I- 0.115

log

&

(7.13)

These values should be conservative estimates of the crush strength for typical structura;l woods, such as Douglas fir and yellow pine. The lower bound relationship should be used when designing to prevent failure, whereas the uppers bound relationship should be used when faillire is desired. As noted' earlier, there is no apparent increase elasticity with &rain rate. There are also insufficient to determine the rate sensitivity of the tensile strength 7.2.4 Properties, of Frangible Materials* in modulus of data available for wood.

In the construction of the Pantex facility, various frangible materials have been used. These include roof and wall board materials such as Cemesto, Thermo-Bord, gypsum board (Sheetrock) and insulating roof panels. Since these materials are often used in the design of structures which may be subjected to blast loads, the response of these materials to highs rates of loading is of interest. To our knowledge, no studies have been conducted on the rate sensitivity of these materials. However, some relevant comments can be made for frangible materials in general. In the use, of frangible materials as blow-out panels, the designer is interested in the toughness of the material as a measure of its ability to absorb'blast energy prior to failure. In static testing, frangible materials have high strength but low ductility, resulting in little toughness (or strain energy to failure). It is clear that under high rates of loading associated with blast, the material strength may be increased &ith no increasein ductility. Thus, the toughness of a frangible materbal may increase by a factor of two or three. It should *In this context,' frangible materials refers construction, as defined in the glossary of to materials used in TM 5-1300 (Ref. 7.12)./ frangible

7-24

be noted toughness,

that is

the dynamic still small

toughness, relative

to

though that

large relative for more ductile

to static materials.

An example of this type of behavior is the response of glass to high strain rates. It has been reported (for example, Ref. 7.20) that the strength of glass may increase by as much as a factor of three or In both the static and dynamic case, the more under dynamic loads. implying a similar increase strain is essentially elastic until failure, of three or more in the failure strain under dynamic loads. Thus, the toughness of glass at high rates may be greater by a factor of ten or more. For typical glass, this results in a toughness on the order of 30 to 3,000 psi, which is well below that of the more ductile building materials, such as steel, which has toughness values on the order of 10,000 psi. For this reason, the due to high rates of loading, the design of blast-resistant designer. 7.3 increase in toughness of frangible materials though large, is relatively unfmportant in structures, and should be ignored by the

ENERGY-ABSORRING PROPERTIES OF MATERIALS

Impact properties of materials and structures need not be limited to the influence of rate of loading on their constitutive relations or stress-strain response. A common objective in all impact testing is to determine the energy absorbed in fracturing a particular test piece under high-speed loading. The energy of rupture is considered a measure of the impact strength of a material. Actually, the strain energy per unit volume required for complete rupture of a material is termed the "toughness" and is given by the area under the stress-strain curve. As a result, a variety of testing techniques has been developed to characterize qualitatively the response of materials and structures to impact loading. In this section, a discussion will be presented of the various test techniques used to assess a material's energy absorption capability. Tests will be described which are commonly used to assess steels, woods, plastics, etc. This discussion is oriented to help the designer determine the usefulness of these tests and their results in the design process. An effort is also made to describe the information currently available to the designer for the determination of a structure's ability to absorb energy or to prevent fragment perforation. In general, the essential features of an impact test are: (a) a (b) a support system on which the test specimen is specimen; to receive the blow of a moving mass; (c) a moving mass of known energy sufficient to deflect (and normally to break) the specimen

suitable placed kinetic

7-25

placed in its path; and (d) a device to measure the residual energy in the moving mass. :Falling weight, Charpy and Izod impact tests are typical of this type of measurement. However, there are a host of other dynamic testing devices which have been developed for certain unique materials, structures or environments. In the tensile impact test, either a variable speed flywheel or a pendulum delivers an impact loading to a smooth specimen similar to a tensile specimen or to a similar specimen with a circumferential notch. A test of this nature permits the study of impact strength of a material under a uniaxial itress condition. The specimen shape may be controlled to produce additional effects. A short specimen will have a high strain rate and produce d brittle fracture. Longer gage lengths at the same impact velocity will result in lower rates of strain and possibly ductile failures (Ref. 7.21). Charpy and Itiod tests are considered to be bending impact tests. Unfortunately, due to the presence of a stress raising notch or keyway, this test is more of a measure of notch sensitivity than material impact strength or energy absorbing capability. One of the most significant uses of the Charpy, and Izod impact tests is in the determination of the transition temperature. If the mode of failure is observed, the transition temperature is that temperature where the mode of failure changes from ductile to brittle,. Since this does not occur abruptly, an arbitrary value (15 ft-lb) may be used to establish transition (Ref. 7.22)'. Some of the many other $efinitions of transition temperature currently being used are: (a) the lowest temperature at which the specimen exhibits 100 percent fibrous fracture; (b) the te mperature where the fracture shows a 50 percent crystalline and a 50 percent fibrous appearance; and (c) the temperature corresponding to the energy value 50 percent of the difference between'values obtained at 100 percent and 0 percent fibrous fracture (Ref. 7.24). It should be pointed out that the energies measured in these impact tests are actually related to the failure of a particular Therespecimen geometry subjected to a particular condition of loading. fore, although different materials are not compared to each other regarding the effects of heat treatments and their energy-absorbing capability, alloying elements on a given material may be evaluated. The Charpy impact test is a simply supported rectangular or circular beam containing a backward facing keyway, V-notch, slot or sawcut (Ref. 7.23). The striking edge of the moving mass is attached to a pendulum and positioned to htrike the beam directly in the center. The procedure is used not only for metallic materials but also plastics and electrical insulating materials (Ref. 7.24). The Izod impact test is a cantilevered beam with either a rectangular or circular cross section. A variety of standard notches are used and may be tested as either forward facing or backward facing depending on the impact resistauce. As in the case of the Charpy test, this is more

7-26

of a measure of notch sensitivity and is commonly used to identify the The energy values determined are transition temperature of a material. quantitative comparisons on a selected specimen but cannot be converted into energy values that would serve for engineering design calculations. The results from this type of test are sensitive to the notch size and shape, specimen size, testing conditions (particularly temperature), and the velocity of straining. A similar test on block-type insulating materials utilizes an unmatched specimen to determine the "apparent impact strength" (Ref. 7.25). In this case, however, the "equivalent impact strength" is defined as a unit impact strength and can be used to compare the strengths of a material when the dimensions differ by a modest amount. A variety of other impact tests has been defined by ASTM for a variety of special applications. Although the testing of panels for building construction (Ref. 7.24) is typical, the ASTM currently lists Standard Methods for 14 drop tests and over 30 impact tests to verify the specifications of a variety of specimens from football headgear to railway axles. 7.3.1 Soil or Sand Fill

The ability of soil or sand to absorb energy is of utmost importance in the design of structures to absorb the energy of a blast wave or to stop a penetrating fragment. Design for these cases is based on various empirical relationships described elsewhere in this manual. A review of these relationships will now be presented along with those properties of soil which must be obtained for use in these relationships. In Section 6.4, the equations developed by Westine (Ref. 7.27) for predicting transient and residual displacements and velocities of projectiles penetrating cohesive soils were presented. The soil prope:r,ties which must be considered in these equations are: the soil mass density; the cohesive yield strength of the soil; and the degree of In addition, the ambient atmospheric pressure is required saturation. to account for the pore air and water pressures within the voids between the soil particles. Note that granular soils are not covered by these equations as they have a significant strength variation with depth caused by gravitational effects and are much more dependent on the void ratio relative to the critical void ratio (Westine, Ref. 7.27). The critical void ratio is defined as the ratio at which no net change in the void volume occurs during missile penetration. The only exceptions would be horizontal penetration through a vertical barricade or penetration through a sloped mound in which the penetration path is parallel to the surface. In

7-27

these cases, the gravitational a constant overburden. For the cake of projectile have been developed empirically (Ref. 7.28). Poncelet assumed is:

dependence

is

eliminated

by maintaining

penetration into sand, equations assuming the form proposed by Poncelet that the resisting force on a projectile

F = CO -t C2v2 where the coefficients C (Ref. 7.27). By substittting motion: and C are functions E$uation (7.14) of A, the presented area into Newton's equation of

(7.14)

dx = m s dv and integrating x from the surface of the soil at x = 0 to the maximum depth of penetration x and v from the impact velocity V. to rest at IMX v = 0 yields:

(7.15)

(7.16) where m = mass of'projectile V. = impact~velocity CO*C2 = empirical constants gravitational and the pore force, the mass of the air and water pressures soil are

This procedure as&nes that accompanying the projectile, negligible (Ref. 7.27).

The penetrytion equation for sand presented in Section 6.4 represents an ave?age of the Poncelet results obtained for a number of This average was calculated making the further tests (Ref. 7.28); assumption that depth of penetration is equal to the total curved length of the missile pa$h (.Ref. 7.28). As a result of these allowances, the equation presented in Chapter 6 may he considered conservative for safety in virtually ever+ case, and tests within a candidate sand should, therefore, be conducted before utilizing it as a fragment barricade. Additionally, any use of soils or sands to absorb the energy in a blast wave shou 1 d be b.zsed on the mass of the material. Designs based on the tensile stiength of the material would be overly dependent on the degree of sat&ration, the internal angle of friction, grain size, compaction, and other physical properties which may vary with age, weather, and cylic loading.

7-28

Because of the variability of soil and sand properties no properties will be given in this section. It and depth, that the designer obtain properties for the specific material Section 5.2 discusses the soil mechanics in more detail. 7.3.2 Wood

is

with location important to be used.

The everyday use of timber in its multitudinous forms has led to the establishment of standard methods of testing selected specimens of wood. The technique for testing is documented as ASTM D143 (Ref. 7.29) and the results tabulated in the Wood Handbook (Ref. 7.17). Two properties of interest which merit discussion are: (a) the "work to maximum load in bending"; and (b) the "impact bending strength." The work to maximum load is a measure of the energy absorbed by a specimen as it is slowly loaded to failure. Under these conditions, state of stress is not uniform and the failure of the specimen will depend on the distribution of stress. Therefore, the energy absorbed cannot be considered to be a property of the material but more of a qualitative measure of different materials when subjected to similar forms of static bending. The impact bending strength is related to the energy absorbed The data take the form of when subjected to a rapid or falling load, the height of drop in a carefully controlled test onto a standard specimen. Again, the results are a qualitative measure of the response of a particular specimen and cannot be used as a material property in engineering design. The specimen is 2 x 2 x 30 in., supported so as to have a span of 28 in. and positioned to receive a load at center span in a HattTurner or similar impact machine. A 50-lb hammer is dropped and the height to cause complete failure or a 6-in. deflection of the specimen is recorded. The impact bending strength obtained as described above has a "coefficient of variation" of 25 percent (Ref. 7.17) regardless of This characteristic of wood is a function of many moisture content. parameters, both geometric and environmental. The most significant environmental conditions are moisture content and temperature. For this reason, impact bending strength is tabulated under standard conditions of 12 percent moisture content and 68F. Data are not available on the variation of this particular property; however, the influence of moisture and temperature on modulus of elasticity is shown in Figure 7.16. Similar variations would be expected for modulus of rupture and probably impact bending strength. direction direction The geometric parameter which is of primary significance is the of the grain (or natural axis of the fiber) relative to the Strength properties in directions ranging from of the stress.

7-29

::

Tempmroturo,

Figure

7.16 The Immediate Effect of Temperature on the Modulus of Elasticity of Wood Relative to the Value at 68F

7-30

parallel to perpendicular Hankinson-type formula:

to

the

fibers

can be approximated

using

N -5 P

Q/P
sinn8 + Q/P
~0~~0

(7.17)

in which N represents the impact bending strength at an angle 0 from the fiber direction, Q is the strength across the grain, P is the strength parallel to the grain, and n is an empirically determined constant. It has been found experimentally that the impact bending values fall close to the curve for Q/P = 0.05 and n = 1.5. This equation is shown in Figure 7.17 along with data tabulated in Keference 7.17. Woods are used to form structures such as floors, roofs and walls. The energy-absorbing characteristics of whole structures may be evaluated by using the standard testing techniques described in ASTM E72 (Ref. 7.26). In this particular test, the initial and residual energies are used to determine the energy absorbed by a particular panel, either vertical or horizontal. Unfortunately, the resulting value of energy absorbed is unique to the particular panel tested and to the particular technique of loading. Extension of these data for engineering design is not recommended. Based on the review just given, it should be apparent that the results from the various impact tests are of questionable value to the designer. It is recommended that the design be based on established procedures using the dynamic values of the strength discussed in Sections 7.2 and 7.4. The fragment penetration resiitance of wood is so low that it is not normally considered in design studies. For this reason, no ballistic penetration data exist for the various woods. The only data available have been developed for materials frequently used in the collection of fragments in arena tests and residual projectiles in ballistic perforation tests. These include celotex and strawboard, for which empirical penetration equations are given in Chapter 6. For design purposes, it is recommended that the penetration resistance of wood be ignored. 7.3.3 Plastic and Metallic Foams

Cellular structures possess a great capacity for energy absorption The through the collapse of the cells which comprise the structure. crush strength, fCr, may be engineered with some precision over a wide range of values and may be either directional or isotropic. Materials used in such systems may vary from paper and plastic to metallicexpanded material or foam. In each case, the objective of the designer is to produce a medium which will have some desirable force-deflection A constant force versus displacement characteristic characteristics.

7-31

Impact
0
l N * o\ Q, b . . .

Bending
0 0 0

Strength P

Ratio

- N/P

is very attractive since it maximizes the energy dissipated for a given However, an increasing force with displacement rate of deceleration. will produce even greater energy dissipation per pound of material, provided deceleration rate is not critical. The design of a suitable energy-absorbing system is relatively straightforward. The energy to be absorbed must be specified along with the area and distance available to accomplish the event (Ref. 7.30). This information is sufficient to establish the necessary crush strength of the material. In order to prevent "bottoming out" of the energyabsorbing system, it is customary to assume that only 70 percent of the Standard honeycomb thickness is available for energy dissipation. materials are available in a variety of strengths, densities and cell aiies (Ref. 7.31) as shown in the Figure 7.18. Likewise, plastics in the form of low-density rigid foams, such as polystyrene, may be used as a core material to form a cellular structure capable of energy absorption. The force exerted by a rigid plastic foam is limited by either the critical stress for collapse of the cells or the yield stress of the polymer itself (Ref. 7.32). As in the case of expanded honeycombs, the crush strength is a function of the density of the foam which is determined from the density of the polymer as well as the cell size. For very low-density foams this may be approximated by the expression: 8T2E (c - 1)3 f (7.18) cr 6(1-vp2) 01 where

Here the subscripts f and p refer to the foam and polymer, respectively, while E and v are Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio. It should be noted that Young's modulus of the polymer, Ep, is a function of the foam deneity. Metal matrix cellular materials may also be used as an energyof the open absorbing medium. The size, shape and eize distribution cells in the structure can be controlled with precision and the scope for alloy selection covers a wide range of materials. The material is manufactured by the infiltration of a porous substance with molten metal. For light alloys a suitably graded aggregate of rock salt (NaCR) is After solidification, the soluble component sintered into the metal. is removed by leaching and the cellular metal structure remaine (Ref. 7.33). Materials manufactured in this manner have been tested to determine their energy-absorbing characteristics which are shown in Table 7.2. The specific energy, E, may be considered to be a material property and defined as: 0.40 (7.19)

7-33

4000

3200

2400

z u cn

1600

800

0 28 Honeycomb Density Figure 7.18 pa lb/ft3 for Standard

Honeycomb Crush Strength versus Density Honeycomb Material (Reference 7.31)

Table 7.2.

Properties of Energy Dissipation at 40 Percent Deformation (Ref. Specific Energy at 40% Deformation (ft-lb/lb) 7,600 3,000 6,800 5,800 1,750 5,600 3,500 3,000 3,000 2,850

Materials 7.33) Loading Ratioa 2.06 1.66 2.15 2.85 4.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 1.66 2.30

Material Alloy 7075-T6 7075-T6 2024-T6 195-T62 195-T62 220-T4 220-T4 122-T6 43c AIC Cell Structure

Std distr Mixedb Std distr Std distr Mixedb Std distr Mixedb Mixedb 20 mesh 20 mesh

aLoad (40% Def)/Load (Initial Yielding) bEqual parts by weight of 6, 8, 10, 20, 30, and 48 mesh 'Kanamite filled

7-35

Inherent absorbing

in this system

relationship occurs for

is the deflections

fact

that greater

bottoming out of than 40 percent.

the energy (Ref. 7.33).

The most with a standard achievable with of commercially

efficient material shown is 7075-T6 aluminum alloy matrix cell structure. This indicates that 7,600 Et-lb is cellular aluminum which is comparable to the efficiency avhilable aluminum honeycombs.

Design of a~ cellular structure to prevent penetration of projectiles is relatively strakghtforward. Inherent in the use of a cellular material is the fact that the projected area of the projectile onto the structure must be large relative to the cell size. Thus, it is recommended that the cell size chosen for the structure be at least five times smaller than that of the expected projectile. The thickness of cellular material required to stop a~ projectile may be calculated by equating the energy per unit projectedmarea of the projectile to the energy absorption capability of the cellular material per unit area. For the honeycomb material given in Figure 7.18 or the plastic foam described by Equation (7.18), the energy absorption, capability, Ear is simply the work required to crush the material over the available thickness, ta, i.e., ta E = J f cr dt (7.20) I a
0

For the f is E&tion

honeycomb materials and the plastic approximately constant through the (7.20) becomes Ea = fcr ta

foams, crushing

the crush process,

strength, so that

(7.21) energy energy of material

(7.22)

If f is given in'terms of psi, then the E is the available Equgting the kinetic absog$ion capability per square inch. the projectile to energy absorption capability of the cellular

where Ap is the projected the From this relation;

KE -A = Ea = fcr ta P area of the projectile onto the material. required material thickness can be obtained
t

KE f
cr

(7.23)
P

per

unit

For the metallic foams discussed, the area is obtained from the relation

energy

absorption

capability

7-36

Ea = p E ta
and the required thickness to stop a projectile KE
PEA

is (7.25)

ta =
Pressure 7.3.4 Composite attenuation Material data are

P available for these materials.

not

Composite constructions, both in buildings and in barricades, are often designed to absorb energy and to prevent ballistic perforation. This design process uses accepted design practices and the properties of the various construction materials used. The properties of the materials most often used have been discussed in other portions of this we will briefly review the design section. For the sake of completeness, of composite structures. Composite construction of buildings or barricades utilizing layering of materials (i.e., steel-concrete-soil) may be treated sequentially to evaluate penetration resistance. The procedure required that a fragment be traced through the media, calculating its residual velocity at each interface and assuming that this is the striking velocity into the next medium. Conservatively, the fragment should be considered to remain intact, experiencing no loss of mass. Contrary to the case of fragment penetration, determination of the energy absorption capabilities of a composite material must consider any synergistic "properties" which may develop. This is particularly earth." noticeable in "reinforced Reinforced earth is a composite material of earth and reinforcements, the latter generally consisting of metal strips arranged horizontally and capable of withstanding high tensile stresses (Ref. 7.34). The principal phenomenon in reinforced earth is the transmission of stresses which develop in the earth to the reinforcements. The reinforcements are thereby placed in tension, and the composite material develops a pseudocohesive strength which is directly proportional to the tensile strength of the reinforcements and acts in the direction of their placements (Ref. 7.35). The design or analysis of reinforced earth structures consists of considering the local equilibrium between the facing elements and the reinforcing strips under the assumption that the reinforced volume is in a state of limit equilibrium and that the principal directions of the stresses are vertical and horizontal (Ref. 7.35). Unlike a retaining

7-37

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

the tensile stress in the layer of reinforcewall anchored with tie rods, The distribution of stresses at a ments is not a maximum at the face. given level have the following characteristics (Ref. 7.34): a) The traction force on the flexible, vertical face is a fraction (usually small) of the maximum traction force in the reinforcement. Therefore, the face plays only a local mechanical role.8 The points of maximum tension in the different layers of reinforcement lie on a parabolic curve which separates the an active mass 'into two zones as shown in Figure 7.19: (1) zone ,located near the face in which the tangential stress exerted by the earth on the reinforcement is directly toward the face; and (2) a resistant or passive zone in which the tangential stress is directed inward. In this zone, the earth analogous to the anchoring tends to retain the reinforcements, zone in the case of a tie rod. The tangential earth on each component, -cc, of the face of a reinforcement 1 dT T=2iT2b where b = length of reinforcement T = tensile stress in the ~ R = abscissa of the point ment reinforcement considered stress is: exerted by the (7.26)

b)

c>

along slope

the of the

reinforcecurve

It of

is~ therby directly stress distribution

proportional to the in the reinforcement.

d) The doefficient,

f* = T/U, of friction mobilized along a reinforcement in the active zone is close to the value of the coefficient of friction, f, between earth and reinforcement. In the passive zone, its value varies along the reinforcement and depends primarily on the length of the reinforcement in this #zone. This is called the adherence length: the shorter it is, the greater the mean friction mobilized. The active zone,! which can be equated to a thrust wedge, is of smaller dimensions that the thrust wedge which would be mobilized behind a retaining wall in a nonreinforced fill of the same geometry and characteristics (Ref. 7.34). the use of a composite material that model testing and analysis to full-scale implementation. as an energy-absorbing of the structure Conservatively, the

In generall, medium will require be conducted prior

AE

7-38

7-39

may initially assume that energy-absorbing chpabilities to composite materials is approach may be inadequate are 7.3.5 not The pressure known. Discussion

no composite properties develop to enhance the of the structure. However, since the move often made for economy and efficiency, this to achieve a final design. characteristics of composite structures

attenuation

materials

A large number of dynamic impact tests have been developed for the of interest. However, the results of these tests are of limited This is due to the fact that the results usefulness to the designer. of these tests are normally a function of the geometry of the specimen of' stress in the specimen, and the details of the impact used, the state load. In general, a designer must conduct a structural analysis using the material properties given in Table 7.2 in order to determine a structure's ability to absorb energy. For soil and sand, the material properties are so variable from one location to the next that they must be measured for the exact soil or sand to be used. A discussion was presented and sand and plastic and metallic exist for project&e penetration, the penetration resistance of wood 7.4 TABLES OF DYNhIC MATERIAL of projectile penetration into soil foams. For the case of wood, no data and the recommendation was made that be neglected.

PROPERTIES 6061 Those those values

The mechanical properties of various structural steels, and structural woods are presented in this section. aluminum, properties most useful to the designer are given, including which differ under~high rates of loading. 7.4.1 Mechanical Properties of Structural Metals

Table 7.3 lists the mechanical properties of all structural types of steel commonly used in the construction of an explosives facility. All properties given are for plate, thickness < 3/4 in., or bar, diameter < 314 in. Values for other thicknesses and diameters can be obtained in the Annual ASTM'Standards,.Part 4 (Ref. 7.36). The properties given are the minimum values designated by ASTM. Table 7.4 lists the mechanical properties As noted in Section 7.2.1, these (Ref. 7.37). independent of strbin rate. of 6061 properties aluminum are assumed

7-40

Table

7.3.

Mechanical

Properties

of

Steel

(Ref.

7.36,

Part

4)

Tensile
Stress oT

Ultimate
or
ou (Minimum*)

static

ASTM E Grade Type Steel

103psi

Tensile Yield Stress - oy (Minimum) i = 1 set -1 i = 100 set -1 103pd 103psi static 103PSi
75.4-114.4 78.0-110.5 20 19 18 19

i = 1 set -1 103psi t = 100 set 103psi

-1

Percent Elongatione (Minimum) in a in. in 2 in.

23

Carbon
Carbon Carbon

42.9 46.8 54.6 65.0 39.0 42.9

46.8 al.0 91.0 63.7 67.6 68.9 71.5 78.0 84.5

59.4 64.8 75.6 90.0 54.0 59.4 64.8 72.0 90.0 45.0 54.0 59.4 72.0 96.0

18
17 16 14 12

21 25 23 22 21

18
17 26 24 22 20

A? A36 AS29 h44O** A570 30 33 36 40 45 50 52.0 58.5 65.0 32.5 39.0 42.9 52.0

A611

A B c D E

80.0 80.0
65.0 54.6
58.5 65.0

A242

A441 A572
Low Alloy

la 18
20 19 24 22

Low Low Low Low Low Low Lou Lou Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Carbon carbon Carbon Carbon Carbon Carbon Carbon Carbon Carbon Carbon Carbon Carbon Alloy Alloy Alloy Alloy
54.6 58.5 62.4 67.6 96.0 70.0 70.0 60.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0

21
20 16

ia 17 80.0
70.0 110-130

42 45 50 55 60 65
100.0

15
1.8

18
17 21 18

ma

A514
Carbon

60.0 55.0 56.2 49.5 55.0 60.5 66.0 71.5 55.0

A615

40

Alloy Alloy Aljoy Alloy Alloy Carbon Carbon

91.0

A616 Carbon Carbon Carbon

60 50 60

Ml7

40

60

Low Low Low Lou tow Low Low Low Low Low Low 52.0 78.0 65.0 78.0 52.0 78.0

33 36 42 50 30 33 56 40 45 50 25 30 33 40 80 50 50 42 45 50 55 60 65 50 100 40 60 50 60 40 60 71.5 70.0 84.5 65.0 100.0 72.0 108.0 90.0 108.0 72.0 108.0 58-80 60-85 70 49 52 53 55 60 65 42 45 48 52 82 70 70 60 60 65 70 75 80 70 110-130 70 90 80 90 70 90
117.0 104.0 117.0 91.0 117.0

63.8-88.0 66.0-93.5 '17.0 53.9 57.2 58.3 60.5 66.0 71.5 46.2 49.5 52.8 57.2 02.0 70.0 70.0 60.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 70.0 110-130 77.0 99.0 88.0 99.0 77.0 99.0

12 9 6 6 12

*All the in

values for acceptable

tensile range 1979

ultimate of values

are minimum are given.

values

except

A36,

A529,

and A514

for

which

**Discontinued

Table

,7.4.

Mechanical Properties Alloy Sheet and Plate Yield Stress minimum) OY ( psi 16 16 16 16 16 35 35 35 35 35 35 35

of 6061 Aluminum (Ref. 7.37) Ultimate Stress uT (minimum) psi 30 30 30 30 30 42 42 42 42 42 42 40 Percent Elongation in 2 in. e (minimum) 14 16 18 16 16 8 10 9 8 6 6 6

Condition

Thickness I in. 0.010-0.020 0.021~0.249 0.250-1.000 1.001-2.000 2.001-3.000 0.010~0.020 0.021~0.499 0.500-1.000 1.001~2.000 2.001~3.000 3.001~4.000 4.001;6.000

T4

T451

T6

T651

Modulus Density

of

Elasticity

E = 9.9 x lo6 psi ~ p = 0.098 lb/in.3

T4 T451 T6 T651

Solution Solution Solution Solution

heat heat hear, heat

treated treated treated treated,

and stress relieved and artificially aged stress relieved, and artificially

aged

7-42

7.4.2

_Mechanical

Properties

of

Structural

Woods

Lumber of any species and size, as it is sawed from the log, Pieces may differ in is quite variable in its mechanical properties. strength by several hundred percent. For simplicity and economy in use, pieces of lumber of similar mechanical properties are placed in a Explanations of the stress grading single class called a stress grade. process and the derivation of mechanical properties for visually graded lumber are given in the Wood Handbook (Ref. 7.17). The derivation of mechanical properties of visually graded lumber is based on clear wood properties and on the lumber characteristics allowed by the visual sorting criteria. The influence of the sorting criteria is handled with "strength ratios" for the strength properties of wood and with "quality factors" for the modulus of elasticity. From piece to piece, there is variation both in the clear wood and in the occurrence of the property-modifying characterThe influence of this variability on lumber properties is handled for strength than for modulus of elasticity.

properties istics. differently

Once the clear wood properties have been modified for the influence of sorting criteria and variability, additional modifications moisture content, The composite for size, and load duration are applied. of these adjustments is an "allowable property." Each strength property of a of the clear wood strength ratio. The strength ratio of a piece of lumber with to its strength if those piece of lumber is derived from the for the species and the limiting is the hypothetical ratio of the visible strength-reducing characcharacteristics were absent.

product strength strength teristics

Strength ratios derived using similar ASTM ~-245 (Ref. 7.36, measuring the various

for all knots, shakes, checks, and splits are concepts. Strength ratio formulas are given in The same reference contains rules for Part 22). growth characteristics.

The range of strength ratios in a grade, and the natural variation in clear wood strength, give rise to variation in strength between pieces in the grade. To account for this variation, and provide for safety in design, it is intended that any strength property associated with a grade be less than the actual strength of at least 95 percent of the pieces in the grade. In visual grading according to ASTM D-245, this is handled by using a near-minimum clear wood strength value, and multiplying it by the minimum strength ratio permitted in the grade to obtain the grade strength property. The near-minimum value is called the 5 percent exclusion limit. ASTM D-2555 (Ref. 7.36, Part 22) provides clear wood strength data and gives a method for estimating the 5 percent exclusion limit.

7-43

Table

7.5

Unadjusted Clear Wood Strength Values: and Variability, Size, Moisture Content, (ASTM D-2555, Ref. 7.36, Part 22)

for Sorting Criteria and Load Duration

Wdulus
Strength

of her

Rupture=

Modulus

of Elasticityb

Conlpression to Grain. strength,

Parallel crushing max.

Shear

Compression,
PerpendicFlar to Grain; Pi-

Specific Stress at

Gravity

Iroportiona~

Species or Retion, or Both Variability Avg., 1000 psi

Avg., Psi tion, Psi Psi VariaStanIndex psi

Limit Variabilfty Avg., bility Index dard DeviaVariability Index

Deviation,

Avg.. Psi
Index tion,

Standard DevialDo0 psi

Standcrd

Avg.,

Jaria-

Stan-

Standard Deviation, Psi

Avg., Psi

standard Deviation.

Psi Psi

bility Index

dard
Deviatio.1

fir
1317 1560 382 107

Douglas coast Interior 1.05 1.03

1.04

7665

west 1.01

7713

418
356 337

Interior

Interior
321 295
268

North South

7438 6784

1322 1163 906

1513 1409 1162

1.05 1.04 1.04 1.00

315 324 274 200

3784 3872 3469 3113

1.05 1.04 1.04 1.01

734 799 602 489

904 936 947 953

1.03 1.02 1.03 1.00

131 137 126 153

117 100 94

0.45 0.46 0.45 0.43

,.. .., .., ...

0.057 0.058 0.049 0.045 0.057

0.069 964

Southern

Pine 1.08 1.07 1.04 1.09 295 in depth. shear values are span based to depth of on standard 14. test data only. values values strength perpendicular to grain are applicable at a ratio of are applicable to material 2 In. 1199 1305 1167 112? 1402 1586 1388 1532 1.08 1.07 i.04 1.08 3511 4321 3527 3823 1.09 1.07 1.05 1.07 612 707 564 547 863 1041 905 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 112 120 125 128 389 479 353 529 109 134 99 148 0.47 0.54 0.47 0.54 1.06 1.05 1.05 1.09 0,052 0.062

Loblolly Longleaf Shortleaf Slash

7300 a538 7435 8692

%odulus

of

rupture

bt4odulus

of

elasticity

'All

maxlmm

crushing

of wood

The method for determining the modulus is also described in ASTM D-245.

of

elasticity

of

a piece

Woods are also stress graded mechanically. Mechanical stress grading is based on an observed relation between modulus of elasticity and bending strength, tensile strength, or compressive strength parallel to the grain. The modulus of elasticity of lumber thus is the sorting criterion used in this method of grading. The mechanical properties associated with lumber quality, for the stress grading method, are adjusted to give allowable unit stresses and an allowable modulus of elasticity suitable for most engineering uses. Adjustments are made to each strength property to account for the effects of size, moisture, and duration of load. The specific adjustments are described in ASTM D-245. For a given design application, ASTM D-245 and D-2555 should be consulted to determine the static strength and elastic modulus for the wood to be used. The strengths should be increased for dynamic applications according to the discussion in Section 7.2.3. Table 7.5 provides the clear wood strength data given in ASTM D-2555. 7.4.3 Additional References is not intended as an independent design guide, the various design handbooks and manuals for further design practices. References 7.38 - 7.44 cover interest.

Since this manual engineers should consult information on appropriate most of the materials of

7-45

7.5 A P b %
C

LIST OF SYMBOLS projected length c2 area

of reinforcement constants the'depth in Poncelet's of a span under near static capability loading Equation

empirical one-half

E Ea Ec Ed
ES

modulus of elasticity energy absorption chord modulus

dynamic modulus of elasticity secant modulus I tangent modulus specific energy

under near static

loading

ET E e F f f cr

maximum elongation force coefficient of friction (crush

fE f'dc I JG J+ R M m N

static ultimbte strength of a material in compression strength) ( I static comprbssive strength of concrete dynamic compressive moment of inertia strength of concrete

of a cross section for wood considered along the reinforcement

K2 material 'constants abscissa of 'the point

maximum bending moment due to a load mass of projectile impact bending strength of a wood specimen

7-46

n P

empirically strength strength modulus tensile thickness velocity initial static dynamic empirical strain rate angle Poisson's density stress ultimate
C

determined parallel across of rupture. in to the the

constants grain

Q R
T

grain

stress

reinforcement available for crushing (energy absorption)

ta
V

of material

v.
W 'd a
E

impact strain strain

velocity energy energy of a material of a material

constant

i:

of

strain the ratio fiber direction

0
V

from

u
u

strength crush ultimate ultimate yield of ultimate ultimate

of

a material

in

compression

(crush

strength)

adc odT odu % rs

0

dynamic dynamic dynamic dynamic strength static static

strength strength strength strength a material strength strength of a material of a material in tension

of a material at a strain of a material of a material rate of 1 set in tension

-1

uT uU

7-47

static lower upper

yield yi?ld yield

strength stress stress component

of

a material

tangent&l

of

stress

exerted

on reinforcement

7-48

7.6 7.1

REFERENCES AISC Specification for the Design, Fabrication and Erection Structural Steel for Buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction, New York, NY, February 1969. "Suppressive Shields Structural U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, November 1977. Design Huntsville and Analysis Division, of

7.2

Handbook," HNDM-1110-l-2,

7.3

of Methods of Analysis for Plastic DeformaSymonds, P. S., "Survey tion of Structures under Dynamic Loading," Final Report to Naval No. BU/NSRDC/l-67, Contract Ship Research and Development Center, No. 3248, June 1967. Winlock, J., "The Influence of the Rate of Deformation on the Tensile Properties of Some Plain Carbon Sheet Steels, Transactions, AIME, Journal of Metals, Volume 197, pp. 797-803, June 1953. Manjoine, M. J., "Influence of Rate of Strain and Temperature Yield Stresses of Mild Steel," Journal of Applied Mechanics, pp. A211-A218, December 1944. Lindholm, Strength Materials U. S. and Bessey, R. L., Properties of Materials," Laboratory, Am-TR-69-119, "A Survey of Rate Dependent Final Report to Air Force April 1969. on

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

Kraft, J. M., "Correlation of Plane Strain Crack Toughness with Strain Hardening Characteristics of a Low, a Medium, and a High Strength Steel," Applied Materials Research, Vol. 3, p. 88, 1964. Holt, D. L., Babcock, S. G., Green, S. J., and Maiden, C. J., "The Strain-Rate Denendence of the Flow Stress of Some Aluminum Alloys," Transactions of the American Society of Metals, Vol. 60, p. 152, 1967. Steidel, R. F. and Makerou, C. E., "The Engineering Materials at Moderate Rates pp. 57-64; July 1960. Lindholm, Tension 1968. Tensile Properties of Some of Strain," ASTM Bulletin,

7.8

7.9

7.10

U. S. and Yeakley, L. M., "High Strain-Rate Testing: and Compression," Experimental Mechanics, Vol. 8, p.

1,

7.11

"Systems Applications of Nuclear Technology: Effects of Air Blast Cratering, Ground Shock and Radiation on Hardened Structures," AFSC Manual 500-8, Department of the Air Force, Chapter 8, January 1976.

7-49

7.12

Structures of Devt. Publication of Dept.

the

to Resist the Effects of Accidental Explosions (1969), Army Technical Manual TM 5-1300, Dept. of the Navy of the Air Force Manual AFM 88-22, NAVFAC P-397, Dept. the Army, Navy, and Air Force, June 1979. Building
Section

7.13

American Concrete Institute forced Concrete (AC1 318-77)

Code Requirements
10.2.

for

Rein-

7.14

of Data on Effect of Speed McHenry, D. and Shideler, J. J., "Review Symposium on Speed of Testing in Mechanical Testing of Concrete," NJ, (ASTM Special Technical of Non-Metallic Materials, Atlantic City, Publication No. 185>, pp. 72-82, June 29, 1955. Watstein, D., '"Effect of Straining Rate on the Compressive Strength Journal of the American and Elastic Properties of Concrete," Concrete Institute, pp. 729-744, April 1953. Response of Reinforced Gupta, Y. h. and Seaman. L., "Local to Missile Impact," EPRI NP-1217, Research Project 393-1, Report, October 1979, U. S. Forest Products Engineering Material, ture Handbook No. 72, Concrete Final

7.15

7.16

7.17

Laboratory, Wood Handbook: Wood as an U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricul1974.

7.18

Markwardt, L.mJ. and Liska, J. A., "The Influence of Rate of Loading on the Strength of Wood and Wood-Base Materials," Symposium on Speed of Testing of Non-Metallic Materials, Atlantic City, NJ (ASTM Special Technical Publication No. 185), pp. 3-17, June 29, 1955,. Ferguson, W. G. and Yew, F. K., "The of Deformation to the Yield Behavior Sciences. Application of Wood," of the Rate Theory Journal of Materials

7.19

7.20

"The Effect of Speed of Testing on Glass," Symposium Ritland, H. N., on Speed of Testing of Non-Metallic Materials, Atlantic City, NJ (ASTM Special Tehcnical Publication No. 185), pp. 19-29, June 29, 1955. Tensile-Impact Materials," Smith, Prentice "Notched Energy ANSI/ASTM to Break Plastics D 1822-68. and Electrical Insulating

7.21

7.22

C. O., Hall,

The Science of Engineering Inc., p. 187, 1977. Testing

of Metallic

Materials,

Second

Edition,

7. 23

BarImpact

Materials,

ASTM E23-72.

7-50

7. 24

"Impact Resistance ANSI/ASTM D256-78. "Apparent Materials," 'Conducting ANSI/ASTM

of Plastics

and Electrical

Insulating

Materials,"

7. 25 7. 26 7.27

Impact Strength of Preformed Block-Type ANSI/ASTM C 589-68, (Reapproved 1975), Strength E 72-77, Tests of Panels for Building

Insulating Constructfont" Velocity. Journal of -

Westine, P, S., 'Prediction of Transient Displacement, and Force on Projectiles Penetrating Cohesive Soils," 12 314, pp. 149-170, December 1975. Terramechanics, Healey, "Primary Barriers," Whitney, "Small

7.28

J., Werner, H., Weissman, S., Dobbs, N.. Price, P., Fragment Characteristics and Impact Effects on Protective Picatinny Arsenal Technical Report No. 4903. Amman and Consulting Engineers, New York, NY, December 1975, Clear Specimens of Timber," ASTM D 143-52 (Reapproved Energy 1972).

7.29 7.30

"Design Data for the Absorption Systems,"

Preliminary Selection of TSB 122, HEXCEL, 1964. Honeycomb

Honeycomb

7.31

'Mechanical Properties of Hexcel HEXCEL, Winter 1979 Revision. Matonis, V. A., "Elastic Structural Applications," pp. 1024-1030, September Lipson, S., "Cellular Systems," NASA CR-93, Behavior Society 1964. Aluminum September

Materials,"

TSB 120,

7.32

of Low-Density Rigid Foams in of Plastics Engineering Journal,

7.33 7.34

for Use in 1964.

Energy

Dissipation Earth," Francois Construction Earth Safety

"Recent Results in Trench Research on Reinforced Schlosser and Nguyen-Thank Long, Journal of the Division ASCE, September 1974. 'Tests on the Walls," Victor Seminar, Vol. Effects of Explosive Elias, Minutes of 1, September 1978.

7.35

Charges on Reinforced the Eighteenth Explosives for

7.36

Annual Book of ASTM Standards, American Society Materials, Parts l-48, Race Street, Philadelphia, 1978.

Testing and PA, 19103,

7-51

7.37 7.38

Metallic Military

Materials and Elements for Aerospace Vehicle Structures: Standardization Handbook, MIL-HDBK-5C, 15 September 1976. Parts (Current 1, 2, and Edition). Association, Concrete, Edition). 3, American

AC1 Manual ofi Concrete Practices, Concrete Inst~itute, Detroit, MI Aluminum Standards %'Y (Current Edition). PCI Design Handbook: Concrete Institute, and Data, Precast, Chicsgo,

7.39 7.40 7.41

The Aluminum Prestressed (Current

New York, Prestressed

IL

Specifications for the Members, American Iron Edition). Standard Arlington, Specifications VA (Current

Design of and Steel

Cold Formed Steel Structural Institute, Washington, DC (Current

7.42 7.43

and Load Edition). Portland

Tables, Cement

Steel

Joist

Institute, Chicago, Committee, Edition).

Concrete Masonry Handbook, IL (Current Edition). Masonry Masonry Design Institute

Association, Advancement CA (Current

7.44

Masonry Industrial Manual, of America, Los Angeles,

7-52

CHAPTER 8 STRUCTURAL DESIGN

8.1

INTRODUCTION

The contents of this Chapter are intended for use in understanding design philosophy; the contents are not intended to replace existing design sources. The purpose of this Chapter is to provide general guidance in the application of analysis methods for the design of structures to resist the effects of dynamic loads. The aim is to increase the analyst's understanding of dynamic response and make him aware of analysis methods from which he can select a method that is appropriate for his design problem. blast In general resistance 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Establish Size terms are: the steps general static that are building loads. of accidentai explosions and establish taken when designing and the a building design criteria. for

siting, for

layout,

members

Determine potential sources their location and magnitude. Calculate Define Calculate Calculate against Define Perform loads. Perform Redesign criteria. the the blast loads for from

on the which

building. the building must be designed.

fragments loading

fragment from at earth

impact. ejecta if site. the structure for the blast cratering throws earth

thg the

the loading building. ground shock

8. 9.

the building to size simplified

a preliminary an analysis or resize

analysis using the either

10. 11.

or numerical to meet the

methods. design

structure

as required

Design of a building usually involves interaction between several disciplines. An architect engineer (AE) is usually responsible for the siting and general layout of the building. The AE may also size structural members of the building to resist conventional loads. Conventional loads will include dead weight,

8-1

equipment operating loads, and loads associated with natural phenomena such as tornado, fire, and earthquake. Safety and process engineers may define the location and energy of potential explosions that will produce overpressures, fragments, and ground shock for which the building must be designed. Using Chapter 4 of the handbook, and energy in an explosion, predict which the building'must be designed. handbook, the designer can estimate the building. the designer can, knowing the location the blast loading (p(t) or P and i) for Also, using Chapters 5 and 6 af the ground shock and fragments that may strike

Once the building has been designed for conventional loads and the blast loads on the building have been established, the analyst is ready to apply Chapters 7 and 8 with existing design aids to evaluate the strength of the b&ding for these loads. Chapter 7 gives the material properties that the designer and analyst should use in sizing the members. Usually some allowance can be taken for the fact that dynamic loading will cause the building to respond with a strain rate that is high enough to increase the material yield strength. Using the appropriate material properties and load, this chapter provides the analyst with guidance on how to analyze the structure and set the dimensions (sizes) of structural members in the building. Because analytical methods for structural design have already been developed and documented, this chapter identifies applicable methods and provides some guidance for a choice of method and for its application. Analysis methods described here have simplified~ methods and numerical gories: definitions will be: Simplified mations solution tegration been divided methods. In into this two general discussion catethe

Methods: Refers to single or two-degree-of-freedom approxito the, dynamic behavior of structural elements. Most often the is presented in graphical or in closed form, but numerical inis used to obtain solutions in some cases.

Numerical Methods: Refers to sophisticated multi-degree-of-freedom solutions for the response of structural elements or of complex structural systems.' A digital computer is required for these solutions, and the cost can bc high if plasticity is included and a dynamic solution is obtained. Typical "simplified methods" for the design of structures to resist dynamic loads are contained in manuals such as TM5-1300, "Structures to Resist the Effects of Accidental Explosions" (Ref. 8.1), in books such as Introduction to Structural Dynamics by Biggs (Ref. 8.2), and in papers such as "Energy Solutions for Predicting Deformations in Blast Loaded Structures" by Westine and Baker (Ref. 8.3). Numerical methods are characterized by large multi-purpose finite element (F.E.) computer programs such as ADINA (Ref. 8.4), 8.6), and a limited number of special purpose ANSYS (Ref. 8.5), MARC (Ref.

8-2

codes (both finite element and finite difference) such as DYWA (Ref. 8.7) and PETROS4 (Ref. 8.8). Additional explanation and some comparisons between the various methods are included in Sections 8.3.1 and 8.3.2. 8.2 8.2.1 ELRMENTSOF DYNAMICRESPONSE ANALYSIS Transient and Quasi-Static Loads

By their very nature, accidental explosions produce transient loads on buildings. To design for blast resistance, the effect of these transient loads on the response of the building must be determined; however, what seems to be very brief to the observer in real time can be quite long in terms of the vibration periods of a structure so that the loads are classified as short (impulsive), or long (quasi-static) relative to the structural vibration periods. The intermediate region between impulsive and quasi-static, where periods are about the same as loading times, is called the pressure-time region. The types of loads considered ing by an explosion are:
l

herein

that wave

can be produced on a build-

overpressures

produced by the blast if

9 a long term gas pressure 9 ground shock

l

the explosion

is confined

fragment

impact if cratering occurs

impact from soil

The most important load in design is usually the overpressure produced by the blast wave. This load $11 always occur unless the explosion is confined and no venting is produced. Ground shock will also occur unless the explosion is confined and isolated from the ground; however, ground shock is usually of The increase in long term pressure occurs only when there secondary importance. is confinement, and the creation of fragments or soil ejecta will depend upon the position of the explosion relative to the ground and adjacent structure. Each of these loads can be classified as impulsive, pressure-time, or quasi-static relative to a specific structural component. If the period of the fundamental vibration of the component is very short, all of the loads may be quasi-static (long duration relative to the structural period). If the period of vibration is long (low frequency), then all of the loads may structures, imbe impulsive for that component. Even so, for most building pact loads produced by fragments and earth ejecta are idealized as an impulse or initial velocity and the gas pressure increase is usually quasistatic. It is easy to see that the same load may be classified differently for different components in a building.

813

The way a load affects the structure depends not only upon its duration An example of the effect of but upon its rise time and general shape as well. different load pulse shapes for an elastic oscillator is given in Figure 8.1. This figure gives the dynamic load factor (DLF) and the time (tm) at which the maximum response occurs for a rectangular force, a triangular force with zero rise time, and a ramp function to a constant load. Notice that the maximum DLF is always a function of the ratio between some characteristic time of the loading (td or tr) and the fundamental period (T) of the one-degree-of-freedom oscillator. is the ratio of the maximum response of the structure (DLF),, (maximum deflection, stress, etc.) relative to the maximum response produced by a static load of the same magnitude. Notice that all of the forces give about the same peakvalue of DLF (approximately 2.0). For the rectangular and triangular force pulses, this occurs when the duration is long (both have zero rise times), and for the ramp function to a constant load it occurs when the rise time is short. 'These cases all equal or approach the DLF for a step It is well known that DLF = 2.0 for a step funcfunction to a constant load. tion with td/T > 5.6 (Ref. 8.2). Loading from#a blast wave from high explosive (HE) charges can be If the closely approximated by the triangular pulse with zero rise time. very different forcing funcexplosion is produced by vapor or dust clouds, Curve shapes for quasi-static tions can occur as explained in Section 8.2.3. pressure loadings are closely approximated by the ramp function to a constant value or, conservatively, by using long duration rectangular or triangular force pulses with zero rise time. ' When the forces on the building are either impulsive or quasi-static, simplifications in the analysis are possible. Impulsive loads can be replaced by an initial velocity imparted to the structure. As explained in Chapter 4 of Ref. 8:9, this is done by equating the total impulse to the change in momentum of the structure. From the initial velocity, the initial Equating the initial kinetic energy to the strain kinetic energy is obtained. energy absorbed by the structure during deformation (elastic or plastic) will For many structural compogive the impulsive asymptote for the structure. nents, equations can be derived to give this asymptote. When the forces are quasi-static then, for elastic behavior, a static true only for very slowly applied analysis can be used. This is strictly loads; however, forsuddenly applied constant loads (step function), the reIf .the masults of the static analysis, multiplied by two, are also valid. terial deforms plastically, the quasi-static asymptote can be obtained by equating the work done by the load as the structure deforms to the strain As for impulsive loads, simple formulas that give energy of deformation. the quasi-static asymptote can be derived for many structural components. Figure 8.2 from Reference 8.9 gives a P-i (pressure-impulse) diagram for beams. The ordinate and abscissa are nondimensional terms so that the results In this example the curves are are applicable to beams of different geometry. for different values of maximum strain in the beam. Note that four different boundary conditions are permitted by the proper choice of the constants $.

8-4

I A I .I

u 0.5 tdiT 0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 5 10

0.05

0.X

0.2

3.0

4.0

0.50

0.45

10 6

O.&O

P
I f

0.35

<; u

2
-

0.30

lE

0.25

AdbJudd
0 1 2

(a) Dynamic Load

Triangular and rectangular pulses with zero rise time

force Factors (DLF) and Time to Maximum

(b)

Constant time Response

force (tm) for

with

finite Different

rise F(t)'s

Figure

8.1

. UP-I

00

or. 413

u 0

c-4 . 0

4 0

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

8-6

In Figure 8.2 the vertical asymptote is the quasi-static one. Increasing the impulse (load duration) along this asymptote does not change the result. Likewise, the horizontal Only a change in pressure will increase the strain. asymptote is for impulse. Increasing the pressure along this asymptote does not change the result. The intermediate, curved portion of the curve is Here the beam response is a function of both prescalled the dynamic realm. sure and impulse, and the problem must be solved dynamically. To enter Figure 8.2, the nondimensional terms on the ordinate and abscissa are evaluated from the load parameters (p & i), the beam material properties and the beam geometry. These coordinates will fall on or near a curve which gives the value of the nondimensional group for maximum strain. From this value, &x can be determined. Using emax, the center displacement can be found from the equation in the lower left-hand corner of Figure 8.2. Ground shock produced by an explosion is difficult to define. For linear problems it can be represented by a response spectrum. Approximate methods of defining such a spectrum are discussed in paragraph 5.6.1, Chapter 5 of this manual, and in Reference 5.36 and Reference 8.2. In nonlinear response problems, ground shock is most conveniently represented as a displacement-time history that is applied to the base of the building. 8.2.2 Material Behavior

Under dynamic loads associated with explosions, strain rates in materials will be in the range of 1 to 100 in./in./sec. These rates are high enough to increase the yield strength of some structural materials above static values. Data on strain rate effects in structural steels, concrete, and other materials are given in Chapter 7. continuous variations in strain rate When using numerical methods, that occur in the materials can be included in the analysis. In such cases the approximate formulas given in Chapter 7 that relate yield stress to strain rate are useful; however, when using simplified methods, a simpler way of accounging for strain rate is required. Norris, et al. (Ref. 8.10), suggests that some average value be used which is based upon the time required to reach the yield stress. Following this approach, the authors cite average strain rates of 0.02 to 0.2 in./in./sec, and for ASTMA7 structural steel recommend an increase in the yield stress from about 38,000 psi to 41,600 pi. A similar increase is probably warranted for other structural steels, but a choice for any material can be made if the strain rate data are available and if 0.2 in./in./sec is accepted as a reasonable average for structural response to blast loads. Numerical results reported by Cox, et al. (Ref. 8.11), showed that strain rate is very important for rings that are subjected to uniform dynamic internal pressures. Including the effect of strain rate reduces peak strains to about one-third. For beams in the same structure, strain rates had very

8-7

little effect on calculated peak strains, but the peak strains in the beam were only slightly above yield, and in bending only the surface experiences the maximum strain rates. For rings, the rate of straining is unifoirm over. the total cross sect on of the component; high strain rates significantly increase the total yie,d loads and, thus, significantly f reduce the total strain. Strain rate effects should be included in numerical methods if it can be done conveniently, particularly when membrane action (significant stretching of the material at the neutral axis) is predominant in the response. For simplified methods, some increase in the yield stress above static values is also warranted. Of course, ignoring strain rate entirely leads to conservative results. Material damping (the hysteresis which occurs in the stress-strain diagram when a material,is subjected to cyclic loads) is small and can be ignored in blast related response problems. Only the first few cycles of response are of interest and the effect of material damping will be insignificant. Overall structural damping will be higher, but it too will be small compared to the damping effects of sdructural plasticity. Thus, for transient response problems involving material plasticity, ignoring damping will lead to a slightly conservative result. ~ I 8.2.3 Structural Behavior c This section qll give a brief when subjected to trdnsient loading. plasticity, load hisdory, and damping single and multiple degree-of-freedom 8.2.3.1 Elastic-Pla J tic Behavior overview of the behavior of structures It covers the effects of such things as on structural behavior and discusses solutions.

Normal operqting loads for a building are far below those which can Loads from the explosion can be be produced by an acclidental explosion. thought of as overlodds, and if the building is designed for elastic behavior ctin be at these overload codditions, then a massive, overdesigned structure the result. It is adceptable design practice to permit some permanent deforIf the amount of permanent deformation mation in the building at overload. is small, the building can be reused after the accident. If large permanent deformation occurs, the building cannot be reused. I has been For a one-deigree-of-freedom system, the effect of plasticity Figure 8.3 compares two systems demonstrated by Bakea, et al.' (Ref. 8.9). with equal stiffness,~ but one is 33 percent stronger than the other. The displacement-time history for the s,tronger system is not shown but it oscillated about zero with an amplitude equal to t&at given by the dashed line labeled is stressed "elastic solution." Under equal dynamic loads, the strong,spring just to yield (elastic solution) and the weaker spring yields, as shown by the displacements. The s~ignificant point is that the peak deformation of the weaker spring was very neiarly the same as for the stronger spring (elast& solution).

Resistance, R

/-R

LElasticPlastic Case Resistance-Displacemen Function Elastic Solution

1.20 ----

----------

--------

0 .80

.d CI

o.oc

-0.4c 0.20 0.40 0.60 Time, Sec. 0.80 1 .oo 1.20 E-l

Figure

8.3

Displacements of One-Degree-f-Freedom System with Bi-Linear Resistance Function (Ref. 8.9)

8-9

This occurs because only a slight increase in deformation is required in the The ductilweaker system to eqbal the strain&energy in the stronger system. ity ratio, p, is a kommon criterion for evaluating plastic behavior in strucIt is the total deformation divided by the tures (Refs. 8.1, 81.2 and 8.3). For the weak spring this ratio is deformation at whicp yielding occurs.

A ductility ratio 0; three generally is acceptable for reusable structures, [See if other criteria such as hinge rotations and lateral sway are met. Refs. 8.17 and 8.19 for a discussion of design criteria for steel construction and Refs. 8.1 and 8i.10 for a discussion of design criteria for concrete construction.] Thus, it is apparent that a substantial reduction in strength still produces an acceptable design for peak overloads when even modest plasticity is permitted. The effect of plasticity on the response of a two-degree-of-freedom model (simulating a two-story frame building) subjected to sinusoidal ground In this example, the motions has been demonstrated by Biggs (Ref. 8.2). strength of the building was reduced to 50 percent of the peak force experienced by the structure for elastic behavior. The stiffness was unchanged. Figure 8.4 repeated,from Ref. 8.2 work, shows that the peak deformations in both the first and second stories of the building are reduced when plasticity is permitted. This behavior is somewhat unusual, but can occur because plasticity prevents the'resonance that can occur in a structure under sinusoidal excitation. From these simple examples, one cannot predict what might happen in every problem, but,, in general, the designer will find that economies in desigh will result when modest plasticity is permitted, and only small increases relative to an elastic system, will occur. in the deformation,, 8.2.3.2 Effect of Loading History on Structural Response

The effects of three different load pulses on the response of a singledegree-of-freedom oscillator were shown in Figure 8.1. These pulse shapes can be used to approximate "conventional" types of blast loads such as that produced by shock waves from a high explosive or a change in ambient pressure within a confined volume. In this section the effects of load histories that chaiacterize vapor +nd dust explosions and bursting pressure vessels are shown. Gas and dust explosions are not normala. Gas ori Dust Explosions. ly a problem at Pantex but the phenomena are discussed herein for completeness. The loadings1 on a structure or structural element caused by an internal gas or dust explosion are in many cases different from the loadings proOverpressures produced by condensed explosives duced by condensed explosives.

8-10

50 I I = 240 rc1 2 :: 0 2 2 ,'/r// 25'

in.4

psf = 4000 in.4 12'

80 psf I = 5oco I = 450 irL4 in.4 -t 15'

Bent

spacing

(a)

two

story

frame

t-J* P
M2=0.177 (b) tvo-degree-of-freedom model

kip-sec2/in.

kip-sec2/in.

(c)

support

motion

Figure

8.4 Frame

Elastic and Inelastic Subjected to Sinusoidal

Responses Support

of Two Story Building Motions (Ref. 8.2)

8-11

c .z

1.0

*-

Elas to-p1 stic

A /\ I

Cd)

top

story

1.z

(e)

bottom

story

Figure

8.4

(Continued)

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

8-12

are characterized by very short rise times and exponential decay. Often a triangular approximation is assumed. For vapors or dust explosions, the loading is characterized by a finite rise time and a different shape. In fact, many researchers performing gas or dust explosion experiments give, as their results, the peak value of the overpressure, Pm, a rate of pressure rise, dpldt, and, in case of venting, some duration, td, (see Figure 8.5).

p(t)
t

'rn

td

-t in formula:

Figure The loading

8.5

Schematic Overpressure-Time History Confined Gas or Dust Explosions approximately by the follo+ng

can be described

p(t)

= Pm

- +y sin t2lTt r

t<t r ry<t -d

(8.1)

(8.2)

The pressure

rate defined

as the slope at t = t,/2 2P em t 1:

will

then be:

!g (t +

(8.3)

For this loading, the influence of the finite rise time and the shape of the loading on structural response were investigated using a one-degree-of-freedom elastic-plastic mass-spring system as a calculation model for the structural response. The calculated P-I diagram is given in igure 8.6. For comparison, the P-I curve for exponential decay (P = P-e T' I 1) is also shown.

8-13

50

b1 Loading A X maxml X Y

t/l,
r Loading B B
A

5.0 h 2 * 1.0 0.5

0.05

Loo.0

10.0

I xy

Figure

8.6

Comparison of Zero and Finite on the P-i Diagram

Rise

Times

8-14

Two important

obse.rvations (1)

can be made from

these

results:

The pressure asymptote for a finite rise time loading is 1.0 (equivalent to a static loading), whereas the pressure asymptote for a loading with zero rise time is 0.50 (equivalent to twice the static loading). In the region 1.15 c x
llElX

(2)

I a-i

< 5.5,

the

loading

with

finite

rise time is mDre severe than the loading with zero rise time. This behavior is produced by resonance between the loading rate and the structural frequency. Results differ only slightly if the ratio of tr/td is shifted within reasonable limits. This is shown in Figure 8.7 where the curve in ure 8.6 (tr/td = 0.40) is compared to a loading width of tr/td = 0.20. Influence of the ductility ratio is shown in Figure the loading is identical to A in Figure 8.7, but in one case, the responds elastically, and in the other the structure experiences plasticity. The effect of the plasticity is to damp the dynamic that occurs elastically and to shift the curve to the right. The because it takes more energy to deform the structure plastically. elastic, perfectly plastic behavior was assumed. Fig-

8.8. Here structure significant overshoot shift occurs Note that

b. Pressure Vessel Burst. The.loading on a structure or structural element caused by a pressure vessel burst is somewhat different from that associated with a high explosive (Loading A, Figure 8.6) or with dust or gaseous vapor explosions (Loading B, Figure 8.6). The principal difference is that a large, long duration negative pressure (the so-called negative phase) occurs in vessel bursts, and there are usually multiple shock waves. Figure 8.9 gives an actual rerorded pressure-time history from a vessel burst, taken from Esparza and Baker (Ref. 8.12). In order to investigate the influence of this different loading, the loading is approximated as in Figure 8.10. Using this zation of the loading, the data from Ref. 8.13 are well approximated 0.24, B = 0.76, i = -0.85, and 6 = 0.8. type of schematiwhen cx =

The response of structures to this kind of loading can now be examined and compared to the usual loading types. As for dust and vapor explosions, this was done by replacing the structure with a one-degree-offreedom elastic-plastic spring mass system. Results are given in Figure 8.11. As can be seen from the graph, there is a region of tdl/T where the triangular approximation based on the first positive pressure pulse greatly underestimates the true loading. This region is approximately bounded by 0.05 -C tdl/T < 10.0. The contribution of the negative phase of the loading is important in this region, as well as the presence of the second positive peak. The contribution of the negative pressure can be explained by the fact that the mass

8-15

/ 50
-

IJ =-

X max zt 1 X Y

5.0 Sk I

A:

Vd

= 0.4

0.5

0.05

0.1

1.0

10.0

100.0

1000.0

Figure

8.7

Effects of Change in tr/td

For Finite

Rise Time Loading

8-16

A:

(t /t > = 0.4, r d (t,/t d 1 - 0.4,

p 11

B:

v m3

Figure

8.8

Effect

of

Plasticity

8-17

Figure

8.9:

Recorded

Pressure-Time (Ref.

Histories 8.12)

from

Bursting

Spheres

whsra

dl

- a td3

and

td2

5 td3

=;

tdl

Figure

8.10

Schematic

of Blast

Loading

from

Vessel

Burst

8-18

100.0

a - 0.25 8 - 0.0 'I - 0.85 b - 0.0

1.0 0.S 0.1

0.01 0.1 1.0 10.0

Figure 8.11 Effects

of Loading which Characterize

a Bursting

Vessel

8-19

acceleration has a negative v+ocity, ing phase starts.: Assuming the first that: velocity acceleration both < 0 v < 0 ----+ a < 0 tl

or both response

at the time the to be impulsive,

negative loadit appears

T/4 t 2 T/8

T/4 -< t -< T/2

We conclude from these values and the P-l diagram that the influence of the negative phase is the worst when l/4 c tdl/T < l/2 for the stated values of ~1, B, y and 8, and only for the extremes in tTl/T can the blast loading from a vessel burst be accurately modeled by single triangular pressure pulse. 8.2.3.3 Structural Response to Ground Shock

The response of a two-story building frame to ground displacement, as given in Section ~8.2.3.2, shows the effect of plasticity on building displacements when the base is excited by two cycles of sinusoidal motion. Displacements were obtained by numerical integration of the two-degree-of-freedom model in Figure 8.4. This is the only practical approach for solving nonlinear problems with ground motion. Graphical solutions, such as those obtained for the elastic-plastic behavior of simple systems under direct loading (See Section 8.2.'3.8), have not been developed for ground shock. For simple models, the numer~ical integration procedure in Ref. 8.2 can be followed. For more complex probllems, multi-degree-of-freedom numerical methods that have provisions for time-displacement boundary conditions are available (See SecI tion 8.3.2). With ela~stic behavior, the dynamic load factors, DLF, such as presented in Section 8.2.1, can be used if the ground shock is specified as a time-dependent acceleration. For one-degree-of-freedom models, the forcing function is simplb the mass multiplied by the base acceleration. Note that the time history of the acceleration must match that of the force in order to use the DLF. All other parameters are unchanged. In a multi-degree-offreedom model, the modal contributions can be found from the DLF's and combined as explaine'd in Section 8.3.3.6. This is equivalent to using a shock spectrum to obtain the modal contributions. Many of the numerical methods described in SectIon 8.3.2 have provisions.for elastic solutions to shock spectra by modal superposition. 8.2.3.4 Effect of Damping

The effect of material damping was discussed in Section 8.2.1. For inelastic behavior, it was concluded that material damping and even total structural damping can be ignored without significantly affecting the results. For elast!c behavior, damping is more significant. Baker, et al. (Ref. 8.9), show that for a simple elastic oscillator, excited by a short

duration transient load, 10 percent critical damping attenuates the peak response by 14 percent and rebound by 37 percent. Typically, shock spectra and earthquake spectra are given for different levels of damping, and 2 to 5 percent of critical damping is a reasonable range to use for most blast-resistant buildings. When damping is ignored, a conservative result is obtained. 8.2.3.5 Coupling in Multi-Degree-Of-Freedom Systems

When a simple model is used to represent a complex structure, some coupling that can occur in the structure is usually ignored. For example, when a roof joist is analyzed, the loading is applied to the joist through flexible roofing and the joist is supported by a flexible beam that rests on beam columns. Each of these systems is coupled together, and for dynamic conditions, this coupling can affect the load transfer through the structure and the response of each component. Conceptually, multi-degree-of-freedom numerical methods can treat this problem with sufficient accuracy to account for all of the coupling that occurs; however, practically it may not be economical to perform such an analysis. Certainly when one-degree-of-freedom approximations for various components are used, then the coupling must be ignored. For this case, one usually assumes that the load is transferred, undiminished, through the structure and that each component is rigidly supported. Baker, et al. (Ref. 8.9), give an example that illustrates the effect that coupling can have on Structural response. Using simple models, the effect of the support on the response of the supported structure and also the effect of the supported structure upon the response of the support are shown. The results, given in Figures 8.12a and 8.12b were obtained using spring mass systems in which the spring constants were varied to change the period ratios. Masses were constant at 16 lb-sec2/in. In Figures 8.12a and 8.12b, K2 was 140,000 lb/in and Kl was varied. A triangular force pulse with zero rise time and a duration of YC'Lwas used in the calculations. Tl and T2 are the uncoupled frequencies of the systems. Results in Figure 8.12a show that as the support stiffness increases, the response of the supported structure approaches that which is obtained when rigid support is assumed, i.e., the displacement ratio approaches 1. The dip at T2/Tl = 0.8 corresponds to a 3 to 1 ratio of the frequencies in the coupled system. Figure 8.12b shows that the load transfer is a maximum over a range that bounds T2/Tl = 1.0. It also shows that the load transfer is higher for long duration loads and that the load can be "amplified," but this effect is small. but they do give some guidance when These results are not general, Generally, it will be contreating single-degree-of-freedom approximations. servative to neglect flexibility in the support when analyzing secondary structure and to assume full undistorted load transfer from secondary structure when analyzing the supports.

8-21

1.1

0.30

1.0

m----m------

-----_

T2 L T2 --I

-----0 075 -

(.y*plz)
x 21 lllil x

-I mix

<

0.2

0 0 0.4 0.8
Period

1.2
Ratio T2/T1

1.6

2.0

2.4

Figure,

8.12a Maximum

Effect

of

Displacements

Support Stiffness (Ref. 8.9)

on

8-22

1.1

1.0

0.8

F(t)

0.2

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

Period

Ratio

T./T1

Figure

8.12b

Load Transfer Structure (Ref.

Through 8.9)

Flexible

8-23

8.2.3.6

Approximate

Modal

Solutions

Approximate modal solutions provide good estimates of peak response when only elastic behavior is considered. This method permits the analyst to use a shock spectrum or dynamic load factors to make response calculations for multi-degree-o,f-freedom models. This method is possible because in mode superposition analysis, each normal mode responds to the loading independently as a one-degree-of-freedom system. The general procedure for an applied force is given in Referehce 8.2. 8.2.3.7 One-Degrek-Of-Freedom Equivalent System

To derive' one-degree-of&eedom "equivalent" systems for what are normally regarded as multi-degree-of-freedom structural elements, deformation patterns must be assumed for the elements. With this assumption, displacements, velocities, and accelerations at all points in the structural element can be defined in terms of the displacement, at a single point. Various choices for the deformation pattern can be made, e.g., the fundamental rmde shape, the static deformed shape for the load distribution of the dynamic loading, or simply, some approximate shape which resembles the fundamental mode or static deformed shape and matches the appropriate boundary conditions. One-degree-of-freedom approximations have been derived for many different structural elements and for different loading conditions. For example, in Reference 8.1, F.2, 8.10, and'8.16 approximations can be found for + simply
l l l l

supported

beams

clamped'beams propped one-and' two-way cantilevers two-way slabs slabs with interior column supports

Because the one-degree-of-freedom approximations have been derived on the the maximum displacement computed by this method basis of kinetic similarity, is accurate. shears and strains, which depend upon derivatives of Moments, the assumed deformation pattern, are less accurate. Reference 8.10 gives some comparisons between one-degree-of-freedom results and multi-degree-ofTo obtain better approximations, freedom results for a simply supported beam. requires the use of multi-degree-ofparticularly for strains and shears, freedom models. ~ 8.2.3.8 be obtained Transient Solutions for the one-degree-of-freedom equations of motion equivalent numerically, systems can or by seeking

Transient'solutions by integrating

8-24

If nonlinearities are preclosed-form solutions if the behavior is elastic. is preferred. For a one-degree-of-freedom sent, then numerical integration system the numerical integration is very straightforward (as explained in Refs. 8.2 and 8.9) and can be done easily by hand calculations or solved on any programmable calculator. Equations for one-degree-of-freedom approximations have been solved and the results presented graphically in References 8.1, 8.2, 8.10, 8.16, and 8.18; however, because these graphical solutions apply to both elastic and plastic behavior for many different structural components, a further approximation is introduced when both elastic and plastic behavior occurs. For this case the transformation factors which define theonedegree-of-freedom approximation must be chosen as some average of those given for elastic behavior and those given for plastic behavior. The only advantage to a transient solution for the one-degree-of-freedom equivalent system is that the transformation factors do not have to be approximated when both elastic and plastic behavior is occurring. For multi-degree-of-freedom systems with dynamic loads and nonlinear behavior, a transient solution is required. These solutions are performed in much the same way as for a one-degree-of-freedom system; however, the solution time increases rapidly as the number of degrees of freedom increases. Many of the numerical methods described in Section 8.3.2 have provisions for Results from these solving the equations for nonlinear transient behavior. calculations will be displacements, strains, and reactions in the structures at many points in time during the transient solution. 8.3 8.3.1 AVAILABLE METHODS FOR DYNAMIC RESPONSE Simplified Methods

The basis for all simplified methods is an assumption about how the structure will deform when subjected to blast loading. Two basic approaches have been taken in the development of these methods. One approach, described in Section 8.2.3.7, is based upon the derivation of a one-degree-of-freedom approximation which is kinetically equivalent to the real structure. This equivalent system is then solved (numrically or in closed form) to give the time-history of the displacement. From such solutions, graphs have been deThese soluveloped that give peak displacements for selected force pulses. tions include both elastic and plastic behavior and apply for any one-degreeSome additional approximation is involved in of-freedom equivilent system. the use of the graphs. This approximation arises because changes in the transformatiqn factors when yielding occurs are different for different components, yet: the graphs are applied to all components. Once the peak displacement has been obtained, strains can be calcuStrains lated from this displacement and the assumed deformation pattern. involve the second derivative of the deformation pattern and are much less Note also that shears can be calculated for accurate than displacements. elastic behavior by taking the third derivative of the displacements, but,

8-25

again, accuracy ispoor. Separate expressions (derived from a free body diagram) are given'for the peak reactions which occur. These expressions provide reasonable accuracy when the duration of the loading is greater than the fundamental period,of the structure. For short ,duration loads, the error is high. This approach to blast resistant design is used in References 8.1, 8.2, 8.10, and 8.15 through 8.20. Specific comments on selected references are given in the annotated bibliography. The other approach used to derive simplified methods is based upon the development of P-i,(pressure-impulse) diagrams for the structural component. As shown in References 8.3 and 8.19, fairly simple relationships can be obtained to define the pressure and impulsive asymptotes of the structure. Behavior in the intermediate (dynamic) realm between the two asymptotes is approximated or determined numerically as explained by Baker, et al., in Ref. 8.9. An example of this type of solution was given in Figure 8.2. Often it is unnecessary to determine the complete P-i diagram. If the loading is impulsive, then only the impulsive asymptote is required. Similarly, if the loading is quasi-static, only the quasi--static asymptote is needed. Combinations of impulsive and quasi-static loads, applied simultaneously , can also bemtreated in this way. Equations which include impulsive plus quasi-static loads are given in Refs. 8.11 and 8.16. Using this approach to develop one-degree-of-freedom approximations, Ihe peak displacement is given dithe displacement history is not obtained. result can be obtained. As in rectly or, in a P-i diagram, a fail/no-fail the other approach, strains and shears (for elastic behavior) can be calculated from the peak-displacements and assumed deformations patterns. Again, of this approach for blast accuracy of these values is poor. Applications resistant design are explained in References 8.3, 8.9, 8.11, and 8.21 through 8.23. Codents on selected references are given in the annotated bibliography. Two-degree-of-freedom methods have also been derived using each of equivalent these two approaches. Westine has derived two-degree-of-freedom systems for the elastic behavior of two-story frames (Ref. 8.11) and for the Because these elastic behavior of plates supported by beams (Ref. 8.24). methods are for elastic behavior only, its use is limited for blast resistant design. A two-degree-of-freedom solution for rigid-plastic behavior is also given by Cox, et al. (Ref. 8.11) and applied to the problems of beams supsolutions ported by rings .and plates supported by beams. These rigid-plastic were compared to e4perimental and finite element results and were found to give good estimates of residual strains. 8.3.2 lize Numerical Methods here refer difference to computer programs that utimethods, or some combination of

Numerical methods described finite element methods, finite

:
8-26

the two. Most finite element programs use finite elements sentation of the structure and finite differences in time. codes use finite differences in both space and time.

for spatial repreFinite difference

A very large number of structural mechanics computer programs exist, as evidenced in the surmnaries by Fenves, et al. (Ref. 8.25), Pilkey, et al. (Ref. Here, only the most 8.261, and by Perrone and Pilkey (Refs. 8.27 and 8.28). general and readily available computer programs will be discussed along with a few programs that appear to be particularly well suited to blast resistant design. Fourteen widely used finite element computer programs that include provisions for static and dynamic structural behavior are listed in Table 8.1. Of these, the first seven permit metal plasticity and five of these permit a nonlinear transient solution to be performed. This is the type of analysis that is needed for the most general type of calculation for blast loaded structures. Three of the codes that permit a nonlinear transient solution also permit time dependent boundary displacements. This feature is required for the nonlinear analysis of structures subjected to ground shock. Thus, these three codes permit a nonlinear calculation to be performed for combined blast loading, fragment impact, and ground shock. Additional features of the four most MARC, and NASTRAN, are given in Table 8.2. four codes is found in References 8.4, 8.5, general programs, ADINA, ANSYS, Additional information on these 8.6, and 8.29.

Four other programs, which offer unique capabilities for nonlinear analysis, are included in this review. These programs were developed specifically for nonlinear behavior, but they are not as well known and widely distributed as the codes above. The four codes are:
l

AGGIE I DEPROSS DYNFA PETROS 4 four codes, the response AGGIE I is of ppecific the most general. types of structures The other codes to transient were develloads.

Of these oped for

This finite element code is an extenAGGIE I (Refs. 8.30 and 8.31). It includes provision to the SAP and NONSAP codes included in Table 8.1. Nonlinearities sions for a nonlinear transient solution with all elements. Element types include a threeinclude material and large displacements. two-dimensional Qoparametric solid, and a three-dimensiondimensional truss, al isoparametric solid. The three-dimensional isoparametric solid can represent a thick shell. Time dependent displacements are not now permitted.

8-27

=: 5:

K#oQ#OK

s ::

w g K#OKKKX #MO 0 0 000 0X00X

;4 E

~Q

LF

Pi

s # K 0 ,Q K K x Lc K 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x K e 0

% ~ L r*O~QrXX XX0 0 0 000 OKOOK

K#OXmZXX

KKO

000

OKOOX

3 ks

XKKXXKX

II

K z

1-Z

N K K K

iX

ry W K 0 K 0 # 0 K 0 Q K 0 X

KKK;KKKX

tc

KXK

XX&XX

N 3+ KKOQKYQ XKK

P 0 K KOK OQXOO

XKXXX#K

XK#

#XX

OKXKX

MKK;KKXO

O#X

.O

XXQ

OQKOO

a-28

Table

8.2

Additional

Features

of

t?e

Yost

Suitable

Trogram

fcr

Elastic-Plastimz

32havior

HEFSAP

@F PROCRAM

ELEHENY LIBRARY MTERIAL TREATMENT

GENlznAL GMERAL ISOTROPIC HARDENING. RINMTIC HARDENING. KAHBERC-OSGDDD DR ANY OTHER FOUER-LAW REPRESENIATION WAVE WNY
EASY

GMEML HODERATEW
ISoTRoPtc RINEHATIC

GENERAL GEHERAL GENERAL ISOTROPTC KINEHATIC RARDl?NING, liAltDENINc

CMERAL GENERAL I.WTROPIC KXNEMTIC HARDENING, MRDENXNG

PLASTICITY

THEZQRY

HAKL-JEHIHG, tIAlUENING

HETfK)D OF SOLVING LINEAR EQUATIONS

EASE OF USE

PARTITIDNWG
WY

CAWSXAN

ELMZNATION

SKYLINE MmERATE LMITIXI X 0 X X X 0 x

HDDCRATE EXTENSIVE x 0 x x X SINGDl.ARLTY EIJ2WJT POFMJLATIIlW x REQUIRrs Ew-PROCESSOR EXPENSIVE X

WCDHENTATION RESTART SUBSlYUJC'IVRIHG MDLT~POINT CCWS'IRAIN'CS I TYKNG NODES) mAND FUST-PROCESSORS CHECKS

!!xTE?iSIVE X x X X 0 SINCUMRITY mFMJuTION X DOES KIT RElWf5ER NODES TNTERNALLY

AVERAGE ELmEm

WTMSIVE x x 0 X X 0 0

EQUKKBRIUH

KElWDDOF2-DcRnCK ANALYSIS AWTCQIATIC KESH GMEMI'XS

NODE NUn5ERING
COST OF RUN

AVERAGE X I

AYKMGG X

PROPRIETARY

X: 0:

AVAIlABLE OR YES WnT AVAILABLE OR m!

DEPROSS (Ref. 8.32). These programs calculate the elastic-plastic response of impulsively loaded, simple structures. The structures are represented by discrete masses connected by massless lengths. Extensional deformation is distributed in the lengths, and bending deformation is concentrated at the.joints (mass points). The beam cross sections are further idealized by a number of flanges separated by material that carries only shear and no' axial stresses. The equations of motions of the mass points are cast in fi-' nite difference form, and the time history of the response is found by a stepwise integration process, Material behavior is inelastic strain hardening, Brief descriptions of the three proand strain rate effects can be included. grams are given below. DEPROSS 1 1 This program calculates the dynamic response of beams and circular rings that are subjected to axisymmetric impulsive loading. Beams can be simply supported or clamped and rings clamped or free. The program requires that the cross sections be rectangular and uniform. DEPROSS 2 - The dynamic response of unbonded, concentric circular rings is calculated by this program. As for DEPROSS 1 the ring section must be rectangular and uniform, and the impulse loading must be axisymmetric. The concentric rings Mayo consist of different materials and have different thicknesses but must be the same width. In addition, the two*rings must be initially concentric but not necessarily in contact. DEPROSS 3 L This lar plates and spherical Shells must be clamped. uniform, and the impulse program is similar to DEPROSS 1 but applies to circushells. Plates can be simply supported and clamped. Again the thickness of the plates or shells must be loading must be axisymmetric, 1

DYNFA (Ref. 8.7). This program was designed specifically for the analysis of frame structures subjected to blast loading. The program is based upon standard matrix methods of structural analysis and a lumped parameter representation of the frame. Numerical integration by the linear acceleration method is used to solve for frame displacements. Inelastic behavior of theframe members is included by the formation of plastic hinges at the nodes whenever the combined axial load and bending moment capacity of a member is exceeded. The recommended modeling procedure is to include nodes at the quarter points of a beam or column member, resulting in five nodes and four elements per member., Although the program is limited to two-dimensional frames, the use of four elements per member can result in a fairly large number of elements and degrees-of-freedom, even for fairly simple frames; however, such a representation is necessary in order to study the combined effect of local beam and column response (to local handling) and gross frame motions. In addition to metal1 plasticity, nonlinear effects which are accounted for in the program include the P-A effect produced by large sway of axially loaded members. 'This effect is accounted for by the,addition of a shear couple to the loading.

8-30

The PETROS4 program was developed to predict PETROS4 (Ref. 8.8). the arbitrarily large deflection, elastic-plastic transient responses of arbitrary initial shape, thin, multilayer, variable thickness shells, with temperature distributions, undergoing various types of deformation in response to arbitrary initial velocity distributions, transient loads, and temperature histories. Strain-hardening and strain-rate sensitive material behavior are taken into account. The program is based upon a finite-difference solution to the governing shell equations. Displacement boundary conditions can be very general and include time-dependent translations. Applied forces can vary arbitrarily in Up to nine different types of shells can be analyzed by both space and time. PETROS4, including shells with variable thickness, multilayer, multimaterial shells, with hard or soft bonding, and shells whose thicknesses vary with time. 8.4 ANALYSIS AND DESIGN PROCEDURES to design into five

There are many steps in the procedure which must be followed buildings for blast resistance. The steps can be loosely divided major areas: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Design requirements Structural Prelimirtary configuration sizing for dynamic loads

Dynamic analysis Design iterations

The important points to consider in each of these five areas are described in the following sections; however, the emphasis of this chapter is on the analysis of structures for blast loading and not the establishment of design requirements, the layout and siting of a building, or the design for static loads. Results of these tasks are provided as input to the analyst. Of course, interaction should take place between all parties involved in the building design. Interaction early in the design stage may alter the building location, orientation, and structural configuration in ways that improve its blast resistance. Flow charts are provided in Section 8.4.6 that show the important steps These steps cover all important areas in in the design/analysis procedure. the design process, but they are not specifically keyed to the five major more detailed in some areas listed above. The flow charts are substantially An explanation of each block in the charts is of the areas than in others. also given. I

8-31

8.4.1

Design

Requirements the structure are usually established by the engineer, or by some procuring agency. Often requirements are established. As a minimum, include: which the in suffiimpacts, can be impulse, analyst. after will

Design requirements for safety engineer, qrchitectural very extensive facility design the design requirements should
l

A complete description of the accidental explosion for structure is to be designed. This description must be cient detail so that blast wave overpressures, fragment earth ejecta, and ground shock that affect the building determined. Alternately, the design loads (pressures, fragment ,impacts, etc.) can just be specified for the The level of protection and serviceability the design accident must be-specified. allow the analyst to determine whether - glass - siding,or - fragment - the primary accident breakage is permitted must is is remain permitted to be reusable after the in place

of the building This information or not

sheathing penetration structure

"design"

8.4.2

Structural

Configuration

For many buildings, the location, orientation, and basic structural configuration will be set by the operational functions that it must perform. These will be dictated principally by architects and production personnel. In certain cases, such as for containment vessels, the primary function is blast containment,i and here the design configuration may be dictated by the of whether this information is provided by designer/analyst. i Regardless others or is determined by the analyst, it should include: a building
l

~location of

and orientation surrounding terrain and neighboring buried, steel structures panel and frame,

identification type steel

of structure, i.e., shell, reinforced

above ground, concrete

0 general
l

duilding
of primary loads

layout and secondary structural members designed for

details static

8-32

8.4.3

Preliminary

Sizing

for

Dynamic

Loads is usually members for by perform-

Before detailed analyses are performed on the structure, it advantageous to establish preliminary sizes of the main structural the dynamic loads. For frame structures, this is most easily done ing a two-dimensional mechanism analysis.

A mechanism analysis requires that the dynamic load factor be estimated for the loads acting on the building. Usually only the air blast loads (the primary loads) are considered because dynamic load factors are difficult to establish for ground shock or fragment impact. Once the equivalent load has been determined, different collapse mechanisms are checked to find the one that governs the design of the frame. In the analysis, work of the external loads (product of force and distance) is equated to strain energy (products of the plastic moments and hinge rotations). The procedures for mechanism analysis, such as given in Ref. 8.7, provide guidance for the choice of a mechanism that will produce an economical design. A mechanism analysis will establish the minimum required plastic yield moment in the frame members from which the member dimensions can be established. Mechanism analyses for dynamic loads are usually limited story frames. The reason is that an equivalent static loading to establish for two-story buildings. Mechanism analyses for under static loads are described in Ref. 8.34. to singleis difficult two-story frames

After a mechanism analysis has been performed, dynamic one-degree-offreedom analyses and/or numerical methods can be used to check and refine the structural members. If numerical methods are used, it is recommended that the members' sizes first be determined as accurately as possible using simplified methods. This includes the use of a mechanism analysis, one-degree-of-freedom dynamic analyses, and even small multi-degree-of-freedom numerical models. The purpose is to reduce the design iterations (number of analyses) required with the more sophisticated numerical model. These analyses are very costly, and the number of cases run should be minimized. Before a non-linear transient analysis is performed, it is suggested that an estimate of the cost for such a calculation be made. A good source of cost information is the code developer. The developer is usually aware of similar problems,which have been solved with the code (although nonlinear transient solutions are not common place) and he knows the code operations which are required for a solution. Thus, after the analyst has selected a code to be used for the calculations and has formulated the problem in specific terms, he should contact the code developer for data on which to base the estimate. It is also possible that the developer can put the analyst in touch with users who have solved similar problems, even though the developer can seldom release information directly. We further suggest that a small test problem, with only a few degrees-of-freedom but which uses all of the code features which will be required in the calculations, first be solved to check the cost-estimating procedure and confiG the estimate.

8-33

8.4.4

Dynamic

Analysis numerical methods for in Section 8.3. With loads and even secondary effects must be approximultiple loads simul-

Both simplified methods and more sophisticated performing nonlineAr dynamic analyses were described numerical methods, the analyst can usually treat all effects readily. With simplified methods, secondary mated or ignored, and it is often difficult to treat taneously. Some questions loads are: How are What is dead that must be considered when

analyzing

buildings

for

blast

loads

treated? of combined shear axial walls and bending and bracing loads in in beam-columns? blaseresistant

the,effect practice

Is it good design? The answers to ysis performed; 8.4.4.1

to use

these questions depend however, some general

to a large guidelines

extent upon the can be given.

type

of

anal-

Dead Loads

Dead loads are often ignored in blast-resistant design. There are three main reasons,for neglecting their effects. One is that the dead loads are usually small relative to the loads produced by an explosion. Thus, if the dead loads do reduce the strength of the structure, the percentage reduction will be small. Another reason is that dead loads are almost always associated with mass that is placed on or in the building. This additional mass can be beneficial to the structure for dynamic loads if it is well This effect tends to offset initial stresses associated with their attached. The third,reason is that if the mass is not attached, but is free to weight. move, its true effect is very difficult to evaluate. If dead loads are important in the blast-resistant design, and they can be for multi-story,buildings or buildings designed for low overpressures, then their effect should be included. For simplified analyses, the common way of treating dead loads is to account for their effect on the bending capacity of the structural members. This is done by reducing the allowable plastic moments because of the initial static moments and axial loads. If numerical then the dead loads should be included as added methods are being used, masses or concentrated forces. If masses, representing equipment, etc., are then they can be approximated by free to move relative to the building, fixed (or moving fqrces) and their mass ignored in the response calculations.

8-34

8.4.4.2

Effect

of

Axial

Loads load8 will reduce the allowable the dead load8 are usually small, is sometimes used a8 a convenient simplified analyeee. In nonlinear loads is included directly because onset of yielding.

static axial As discussed above, plastic momenta in beam-columns. Because this effect should be small also, but it of including the effect of dead loade in numerical analyses, the effect of axial stress criterion is used to predict the

way a

Dynamic axial loads will also occur in the members. Thie effect is ignored in simplified analyses. Because the axial response of beam-columne usually occurs at much higher frequencies than the lateral or bending response, In nonlinear nuneglecting the effect of dynamic axial load8 is justified. merical method8 the effect of dynamic axial force8 on the members is automatically included unless this mode of behavior is eliminated (by node coupling, etc.). 8.4.4.3 Bracing and Shear Walls

Shear walls and bracing, when properly used, can result in efficient structures for resisting blast loads; however, there are two principal objections to these components that keep them from being used frequently. One objection i8 that they can be subjected to lateral loads (brace8 are often combined with a wall panel) that may cause premature failure or at least reduce the in-plane strength. Another objection is that, when these components fail, the failure tends to be sudden and catastrophic, not gradual and progressive. If these component8 are used, the designer must take care to assure that these components do not fail. When designing with shear walls or cro88 bracing, the yst must recognize that these components are very stiff relative component8 in the building for load8 applied in their plane. lateral loads on the building, which act parallel to the ehear This of the bracing, tend to be reacted by these components. the loads on the component and upon connections to the remainder ture, The designer must assure that these component8 and the react the total lateral load8 with a high margin of safety and to protect them from blast load8 normal to their surface. designerianalto most other Thus, all wall or plane concentrate8 of the strucattachment8 can also take steps

The designer/analyst should also be aware that buildings with shear The main walls or bracing are difficult to treat with simplified methods. difficulty is in the calculation of vibration periods. Formulas are not available for estimating frequencies in the plane of these components, and Thus, numerical numerical methods are required for accurate calculation. If simplified methods must method8 are needed for good design calculations. be used, then a conservative approach would be to design the braced panel8 or shear walls for twice the total load on the building or bay as appropriate; however, because of the uncertainty in load transfer through the structure, a multi-degree-of-freedom model ie recommended.

8-35

8.4.5

Design Iteration

In order to assure that the design requirements are met, the designer/ analyst must set criteria or design allowables for the structure. These criteria may include maximum allowable stress, strain, deformation, or joint rotation. Recommended criteria for blast-resistant design are given in References 8.1, 8.7, and 8.9. The criteria are seldom met on the first attempt, and so design iterations are required. Iterations should be performed using simplified methods such as a mechanism analysis or one-degree-of-freedom equivalent system. Design Iterations with complex numerical methods should be avoided, if possible. Guidance for changing the resistance of the structure must be obtained by examining the results of previous response calculations. 8.4.6 Flow Charts ~

The flow charts in Figures 8.13 and 8.14 outline procedures for the blast-resistant design of a building or structure. Figure 8.13 applies to buildings that are subjected to external loads. Figure 8.14 applies to buildings that are subjected to internal loads. Information in these flow charts is intended to give the AE guidance in the design of blast-resistant structures and not to supplant other design manuals. dental As noted earlier, explosion are:
l

external

loads that can be produced from an acciwave

overpressures

from the blast

s ground shack I impact from soil 0 impacts if cratering occurs

from fragments

When the explosion :occurs internally, additional loads are produced by an increase In the ambient pressure, but ground shock and cratering are not usually significant loads. ) All of these loads may act Independently or they may occur In combination, depending upon the nature of the accident and the position of the building relative to the explosion. Treatment of multiple loads acting on the structure is covered in the procedure. Nomenclature used in Figures 8.13 and 8.14 is equally applicable to Dashed lines are used to steel frame and reflnforced concrete structures. suggest optional feedback loops or information exchange that should occur. Phantom lines enclose blocks that are not active tasks, but that contain comments, instructions, or conclusions. Each block in the flow charts is identified and specific comments on each block are given in Sections 8.4.6.1 and 8.4.6.2. When it is suggested that an analysis be performed using numerical methods, a nonlinear transient

AlmwmCN~ ESTABLISH SITING GENERAL BUILDIWG UYOW

AND FOHCN IWULSE ON

TOTAL

prJ

+ UPmiTE ARRIVAL

TINES MD DDRATt(*IS OF THE DIPFBRWT

ESTIHATB Fu?mAHmTAL VIBRATION PBRIOM OF THE BIIILIIIHG IN LATSML B"AY MD OF STR"CMplp0NmTs ImImI ARE SllBJScIm m WJLrlPLE

Figure

8.13

Design

for 8-37

External

Explosions

SIMPLIFIED

METHODS

NUMERICAL METHODS

El r --

CHECK DESIGN OF SECONDARY STRUCTURE -SIDING ~ -ROOFING I -DOORS -WINDOWS ~ 5-m 1-1

---

FOR LOCAL LOADING -EXTERIOR WALL COLUMNS : ! -ROOF BEAMS -BUCKLING OF INTERIOR COLUMNS -9 -I

1 J

I--

CHECK DESIGN OF

-1

I I D

OPTION 1 OPTION 2 ,L,

?i

LOAD FACTOR THE BUILDING IN LATERAL

PERFORM A MECHANISM ANALYSIS

Figure,

8.13

Design

for

External

Explosions

(Con't)

8-38

El
IDEALIZE THE STRUCTURAL COMPONENT AS A ONE DEGREE-OF-FREEWM IDEALIZE THE STRUCTURE AS A MOLTI-DEGREE-OF FREEWM SYSTEM

El CALCULATE F(t) AT APPROPRIATE NODAL POINTS IN THE STRUCTURE I

DISPLACEMENT FROM DESIGN CHARTS OR BY NUbfERIchL INTEGRATION

El
DISPLACEMENTS? JOINT ROTATIONS? REVISE STRUCTURE To INCREASE THE RESISTANCE

APPLY PROPER BOUNDARY CONDITIONSDISPLACEMENT BOUNDARY CONDITIONS MAY BE REQUIRED FOR GROUND SHOCK

CALCULATE By NUMERICAL INTEGRATION: -DISPLACEbIENTS -STRAINS -STRESSES

Figure

8.13

Design

for

External

Explosions

(Con'&)

8-39

m ESTABLISH BUILDING :"."" I f -

PRODUCTION DEPT./ SAFETY ENGINEER DETERMINE LOCATION ANDMAGNITUDE OF POTENTIAL EXPLOSIVE SOURCES

1 I I I I

-A

PRESSURE AND SPECIFIC IMPULSE OR P(t) ON

POSED To T WAVE i

BE

CRBATED BY THE

SIZE THE VENTS AND/OR BLOW-OUT WALLS FOR TRE,BUILDfNG CH. 4 1 IF7 IDBALIZE THE FRAGMENT LOADING ON THE SHIELDS AS AN INITIAL IMPULSE FRAGMENT PENETRATION

CONPWTE QUASI-

STATIC PRESSURE BUILPIJ'P AND 0 DECAY CH. 4

TO AVOID PENETRATION TREBLASTAND PRAGKENT LOADS

ON THE WALLS ON INITIAL IHY'ULSE

CONTAINMENT

MADING

AS

BOUNDARY FOR TRE @ST WAVE OVEBPRESSIJRES. QWASI-STATIC PRBSSURRS

Figure

8.14

Design

for

Internal

Explosions

B-40

type of calculation is intended. Simplified sients or other types of approximations. 8.4.6.1 Design for External Loads (Figure

methods

can be nonlinear

tran-

8.13)

[XI These two blocks are considered as basic input to the analyst or designer/analyst who will be responsible for assuring that the building meets the requirements for blast resistance that have been placed upon it. Although the source ofthese input data will vary within each organization, for purposes of the flow chart it has been assumed that it is provided by the architectural and production departments in consultation with the safety engineer. Within some companies, a single design department may perform the entire job, but the architectural engineering work and the prediction of probable accidents are not covered in this handbook. Data provided to the analyst should include:
l

position facilities building

and orientation

of

the

building

relative

to

other

plan

and elevation

drawings

that

give

exterior

dimensions members

detail drawings that have been

giving the primary and secondary structural sized to meet the static design loads of the must energy release in postulated be designed to withstand service that the

location and magnitude dents which the building of protection provide

acci-

a level must

and post-accident

building

I] Overpressures and specific impulse on the building can be calculated by knowing the energy release in the accident, whether detonation or deflagration occurs, and the distance from the accident to the loaded face of the building. Ground reflection at the accident location and local blast wave reflection on the building must be considered in the calculations. Note that each surface of the building may have a different p(t) and that both the reflected shock wave and the "wind" behind the shock will impart loads to the building. /A31 Procedures for calculating the distribution and energy in fragments that may occur in an accidental explosion are covered in Chapter 6. To avoid penetration, the "worst case" fragment that can strike the building must To account for the loading on the building, i.e., the forcebe determined. time or impulse that the fragments can impart to the building, the total energy in the fragments (mass, velocity, and number) that strike the building must Usually the energy imparted to a building by fragments is small be known. relative to the energy imparted to the building by overpressures; however, for individual building components it may be a significant part of the applied load.

8-41

IA4 A'nearby explosion at or below ground level can cause earth ejecta to be thrown against the building. This loading can be a significant part of the total load on the building and perhaps the major load for some building components. In this case, individual fragments are usually not important, but the'total mass and velocity of the soil impacting the building must be known. $eans of estimating the loading produced by earth ejecta from cratering are provided in Chapter 5. ITI Ground shock occurs in every explosion, whether it is above or below the ground surface, but usually the effect of the shock is small compared to the effect of the air blast; however, for some explosions this will not be the case, ~particularly for subsurface ones. Also, some buildings may be underground and only subjected to the ground shock loads. m Siting and orientation influence the loads on the building and, if possible, these two factors should be selected to reduce the loads on the building to some iminimum value. Feedback between load estimates and the building placement and orientation is necessary to accomplish this objective. m From the overpressure and specific impulse, the' total forces and impulses on the different faces of the building and for various structural components can be calculated. For lateral sway of the building, it is customary to neglect; the pressures on the side of the building opposite the explosion, but these pressures can easily be included when using numerical methods. Depending upon the frequency of the response of the building and the arrival times of lthe loads, the "back side" pressure can increase, but it usually decreased, the response. /A8( Loading from both the fragment impacts and the earth ejecta thrown against the building can be idealized as an impulse or as an initial velocity imparted to the building. These estimates are based upon change in momentum, and when penetration occurs, residual fragment velocities can be taken as the find1 velocity if the fragment does not strike another part of the building. 14 is conservative and customary to neglect the residual velocity. I d is often difficult to determine the displacement, d(t), or ITI acceleration, a(t), produced at the building by ground shock. When these values are not well known, a good approximation of a shock spectrum can still be obtained as explained in Reference 8.2. A shock spectrum is adequate for calculat>ing the elastic response of the building using mode superposition; however, for a nonlinear dynamic analysis, the ground displacement must be applied. I Al0 A'single accident will very likely produce air blast, fragments, all of which can excite the structure. It is necesand ground shock, sary to consider imultiple loads from either a single or multiple explosion and.to decide hod they must be applied to the structure for design purposes.

Change

1 - 15 August

1981

1 All 1 Arrival times and durations of the different loads that act on the building must be determined. Data are readily available to make this calculation for air blast, but only estimates are available for ground shock and fragments. Because fragment loads are treated as an initial impulse, their duration is zero. (-1 To determine the effect of multiple loads on the building, the fundamental period of vibration must be estimated for the building in lateral Refersway and for building components that are subjected to multiple loads. ences 8.1, 8.2, 8.14, and any vibration textbook contain formulas for computing fundamental periods of vibration for structural components. I/ If multiple loads act on the building at the same time, then simplified methods may not be appropriate. Because impact loads are reprethey have no duration. If the arrival times of two sented as an impulse, separate loads, one of which is an impact load, are within one half-period of the fundamental mode of vibration of the structure, then the loads should be treated as acting at the same time. I] If multiple loads are acting at the same time and the arrival times are approximately in phase with the fundamental periods of vibration, then the loading can be idealized as acting simultaneously for purposes of performing a simplified analysis (see Chapter 4). If they are not approximately in phase, then numerical methods must be applied to compute the structural response of the building (see Ref. 8.2). vj Even if the loads act together and the arrival times are approximately in phase with the vibration period of the structure, there is no simple method of combining ground shock and fragment or air blast loading. For this combination of loads, numerical methods are again recommended (we know of no structures designed for these combined loads to date). wl Even if the loads are not acting at the same time, the loads should be treated together if loads after the first are applied while the structure is still vibrating. A separation time of three times the fundamental vibration period has been chosen as a criterion for deciding whether or not to treat the loads together or separately. After three periods of vibration have passed, damping has reduced the amplitude substantially, particularly if plastic straining has occurred, and treating the loads separately will permit a simplified analysis to be performed and should give a good estimate of the maximum response. Al7 At this point it has been determined that the together; yet loads after the first are applied within a time If times the fundamental vibration period of the structure. are approximately in phase with the period of the structure, For this case numerical methods should be applied together. so that proper phasing of the loads can be accounted for. If times are not in phase with the structural period, then it is loads do not act equal to three the arrival times then the loads are recpm ended the R .val usually safe to

8-43

Change 1 - 15 August

1981

treat the loads independently and use simplified Chapter 4 and Refs. 8.2 and 8.18).

methods

of

analysis

(see

Simp.l.if:ied Methods. When using simplified methods, individual m' components of the building and the building itself are idealized as a one- (or possibly two-) degree-of-freedom system. The response of each one-degree-offreedom system isthen Fou,nd for the assumption that coupling between the various parts of the structure does not occur, i.e., the support for each component is treated as rigid and no alteration of the loading occurs as it passes through the structure. This approach usually yields conservative results. Because the procedure of idealizing the parts of the structure as a one-deg,ree-of-freedom is repeated many times for different parts of the building, it has been treated in a separate flow diagram n,nd referred to as 1. This part of the flow chart Functions as a subroutine that is entered and used, and it then returns control back to the location from which it was entc-red . Contents are described. under Subroutine m. [rj As ~the first step in the simplified analysis of a building, the secondary structure is analyzed and sized for blast and fragment loads. Design of secondary ~structure is performed first because its mass must be inOnly significant cluded in frcqucnoy calculations for the primary structure. which may occur subsequently during changes, such as changes in frame spazing, the analysis 01 the primary structure, will require redesign of the secondary structure. When the secondary structure is analyzed first, it is also pos-siblc to compute boundary reactions and apply them as loads to the primary structure. This approach is not recommended for simplified analysis because the boundary reactions cannot be determined accurately. Secondary structure Wall panels are usually doors. Each component mus,t be analyzed the decking and roof joists, and so . Doors and winidows that are Frames also must bje checked for I/ structure sllould includes wall panels, roofing, windows, and constructed with siding, girts, and purlins. Roofing includes both for the applied loads. each of these components must be checked alblast resistant require strong supports so the adequate strength. has been designed, This includes: the primary

After the secondary structure .bb cllc!t:kcd for local loads.

l

exterior interior

columns columns beams panels that are for for part of the primary structure in lateral result in sway, then some over-

0 roof
l

wnll

If the building any incrense in

is; first designed the above members

adequate strength local loading will

8-44

if the above members are first sized for design of the building. However, local loads, then any additional strength that may be required for these loads will also contribute to the strength of the building in lateral sway. the building is checked for side At this point in the analysis, El sway. If one axis of the building is oriented along the direction from the then side sway in only one direction may need to bc building to the explosion, checked. If this is not the case or if the building is irregular in shape, When biaxial then side sway must be checked in two perpendicular directions. bending of the columns occur, the bending capacity in each direction must bc reduced accordingly. Reference 8.7 gives Formulas for the reduction of bcnding capacity under these conditions. Columns can also be sub:jccted to combined axial and lateral loads; however, the frequency of the c:o.l.umn response in compression is much higher than the response of the building in I.atcral. Even so, Rcf crunr:c 8.7 sway so coupling for these loads can be neglected. gives formulas for reducing the allowable fully plastic bending moment [or combined bending and axial loads. ITI If only air blast loads are acting on the btlilding, side sway can be checked using either a mechanism analysis or by one-degree-of-freedom methods. Impulsive loads from fragment impact cannot be easily treated in a mechanism analysis because it requires that a dynamic: load factor be cstabSuch a load factor is difficult to obtain for lished for the applied load. impact loading. B5 [Tj Option 1 is to use one-degree-of-freedom methods and proceed to E? ; Option D 2 is to perform a mechanism analysis. A mechanism analysis is also an iterative process, but this is inherent in the method and so As the first step in the analno looping to increase the resistance is shown. ysis, dynamic load factors must be determined for the roof loads and for lateral loads. These loads are a function of the structural frequencies and the nature of the loading. Reference 8.7 gives guidance for determining the dynamic load factors and for performing the mechanism anal.ysis. 1'1 If only simplified methods are being used, then the analysis is If numerical methods will also be used to confirm or rcEine the complete. then the results obtained from the amplified methods will be used ;IH design, Preliminary sizing by simplified methods input for the more exact analyses. is always recommended before undertaking a more complex and expensive numerical analysis. The flow chart for numerical methods inNumerical Methods. El ) that is utilized more than once, and so cludes a section (identified as Section moutlines, in it has been separated from the main flow diagram. the process of performing a multi-degree-of-freedom analysis general terms, of a structure or structural component. This section is referred to twice because it is suggested in the flow diagram that the primary and secondary The reason for performing structures of the building be analyzed separately. separate analyses is to minimize the degree-of-freedom that must be included

8-45

in the model. If one attempts to analyze an entire structure with one model, the model size (degree-of-freedom, number of elements, etc.) would be large and the analysis might not be economically feasible. The primary structure alone can be represented by a model of+reasonable size. Models of individual components would be, used to analyze the secondary structure. Alternately, some combination of numerical and simplified methods can be used. For example, the primary structure can be analyzed with numerical methods and secondary structure with simplified methods. Regardless of which approach is used, it is recommended that, before numerical methods are used to analyze a structure or structural componen't, preliminary sizing of the structure be made using simplified methods. ml As for simplified methods, analysis and sizing of secondary structure have been~placed ahead of the analysis of the primary structure. Secondary structure: is analyzed first so that the mass of these components will be known and so that the boundary reactions can be used as the applied loads for the primaky structure. This approach has merit when numerical methods are used because the boundary reactions are more accurate than those obtained with simplified methods; however, even with numerical methods the reactions are still abproximate because flexibility of the primary structure is neglected in the anUysis. Thus, this approach is optional and the approach taken with simplified methods can be used, whereby flexibility of the secondary structure is i ored when loads for the primary structure are computed. Refer to paragraph l?l Bl under Simplified Methods for additional comments. The steps in setting up; a multi-degree-of-freedom model and computing the transient response of a structure are covered in Subsection=. 1-1 Primary structure of the building can be analyzed in total using multi-degree-of-freedom methods or it can be analyzed in parts. How the structure is analyzed will depend upon the structural symmetry and the symmetry of the loading. For example, a multi-frame structure with a loading direction parallel :to the plane of the framework can be analyzed by treating individual frames. This assumes that the frames are identical except for the outside ones, or have small variations. For non-symmetric structures with loading from arbitrary directions, a three-dimensional analysis is required. Loading on the primary structure is often transferred through secondary structure. The exceptions are concrete slab or cylindrical structures where the walls provide the strength and the covering'. When the loading is transferred through secondary structure, the analyst has three choices: (1) analyze the coupled problem (include primary and secondary structure in the model), (2) use support reactiops from separate analyses of the secondary structure, or (3) assume that the' loading is unaltered by the secondary structure. The simplest choice is (3) and it most often results in conservative results (see Figure 8.12). In the most general case, the loading on the structure will not be uniform or simultaneous. Variations in the magnitude, arrival time, and duration of the loads can be readily treated with numerical methods but computing the loading at multiple points on the structure is tedious. Note that when the third approach is used, the secondary structure is represented as an added mass on the primary structure. When the second approach is chosen, the mass of' the secondary structure is ignored in.the model. 8-46

This part of the flow chart D One Degree-of-Freedom Analysis. functions like a subroutine in a FORTRANprogram in that it is entered from different parts of the flow chart and returns control to the position from which it was entered. This part of the flow chart is entered fromm, Simplified Methods (Figure 8.13) and from Figure 8.14. mb vj References 8.1, 8.2, 8.10, and 8.15 through 8.18 contain transformation factors for deriving one-degree-of-freedom approximations for distributed systems. Factors are generally given for beams and plates with different boundary conditions and different loads. Solutions for elasticplastic behavior are contained in design charts such as Figure 2.25 of Reference 8.2 or they can be obtained by numerical integration procedures that are outlined for tabular solution in References 8.2, 8.16, and others. Derivation of the transformation factors is explained briefly in Section 8.2.3.7 and described more fully in Reference 8.9. References 8.21 through 8.23 use a similar, but slightly different approach for finding a one-degree-of-freedom solution. This approach gives solutions for the asymptotes of the response for quasi-static and impulsive loads and also gives procedures for approximating the intermediate (dynamic) region of response. The result is a P-i (pressure-impulse) diagram for the one-degree-of-freedom system. If the deformation pattern (or failure mode) assumed is the same for the two methods, very similar reAsymptotes of the response are expressed in equation sults are obtained. form so that graphical or numerical methods are not required to obtain a soluon the transient nature of the tion; however, as a consequence, no information Solutions for the simultaneous application of a long response is obtained. duration pressure pulse and an impulse are given in References 8.11 and 8.16. ml One-degree-of-freedom equivalent systems are developed to give displacements that are the same as the maximum displacement in the distributed information that can be obtained is the dissystem. Thus, the most reliable This displacement can be compared to the displacement at which placement. yielding occurs in the structure and a value for the ductility ratio, p, which is the ratio of the maximum deflection to the deflection at yield, can for design, and recommended debe computed. This is one suitable criterion sign values are given in References 8.1 and 8.9. From the assumed deformation additional information can be obtained, pattern and the maximum displacement, These too can be used as desuch as the maximum strain and joint rotations. sign criteria, but the values obtained from the one-degree-of-freedom approximation are less reliable than the displacements. Accurate values for the maximum reactions at supports are difficult to obtain from these simple methods; however, estimates are given in References 8.2 and 8.15 for the maximum reaction at the support as a function These estimates are good for of the applied load and the system resistance.

8-47

loads of-long duration relative to the fundamental period of the structure, but can be nonconservative for loads of very short duration and high intensity. m If the design criteria are not satisfied at this stage, then design modification of the structure is necessary. A logical step is to increase the resistance of the structure. Alternatives to increasing the resistance would be to reduce the loading or relax the criteria, but it is assumed at this point in the design that these values are set. II Increasing the resistance of the structure to satisfy the design criteria is an iterative process; however, the previous calculation and response charts (if they are being used) provide guidance for selecting a new resistance. Because the frequency changes with changes to the structure, estimates of the proper resistance to provide a given ductility ratio are only approximate, but do provide good estimates. From the resistance chosen, values of the yield mment, etc., and thus the size of the structural member, can be obtained. When the design criteria are met, the design is satisIFI, I factory and, if the analyses of all components have been completed, the job is ended; otherwise, the analyst returns to the position in the flow diagrams from which the subroutine was entered. E Multi-Degree-Of-Freedom Analysis. This part of the flow chart is entered repeatedly from different points in Figures 8.13 and 8.14. Return is to the point in the flow chart from which it was entered. It outlines the steps in setting up and performing a multi-degree-of-freedom analysis. I[ To berform a multi-degree-of-freedom numerical analysis, the structure or component to be analyzed must first be represented by an analytical model, just as for simplified methods. In this case the model can be Every model much more detailed and represent the structure mre accurately. will be a compromise between accuracy and cost. When designing structures to resist accidental explosions, plasticity is usually permitted (so that a more efficient structure is obtained), and, because the loading is dynamic, a nonlinear transient solution is required. This type.of analysis is very costly in terms of computer time, and so it is extremely important that large models be avoided. Also, a detailed (fine mesh) model should be avoided for this type of analysis because flow rules for metal plasticity are not exact, and uncertainty existsmin the loads which are applied to the structure. Modeling structures for multi-degree-of-freedom analyses must be learned by experience. To keep the model small, the analyst must take If one plane of advantage of symmetry in the structure and in the loading. symmetry exists in the structure and if the loading is also symmetric about this plane, then only one-half of the structure need be included in the model. If this same condition exists for two planes of symmetry, then only onefourth of the structure need be modeled. This condition can easily occur for structures loaded internally, but will seldom occur for external loads. 8-48

'Because of the complexity and expense associated with a nonlinear dynamic analysis., three-dimensional problems are often treated in only two dimensions. Reference 8.7 provides guidance for the modeling of frame type structures in two dimensions when using the program DYNFA. This program is suitable for,two-dimensbnal frame structures acted on by a general blast loadFinite element programs, such as MARC (Ref. 8.6) and ANSYS (Ref. 8.5), ing. can be used for modeling mDre general configurations and for three-dimensional problems. Example problems have been solved using these programs, and the 'problem manuals should be consulted before attempting to prepare a model for either code. The user is again cautioned to keep models as small as practical and also to solve a very small sample problem first, using the features of the before attempting to solve the program that will be required in the analysis, actual problem. I[ The applied forces, which will be a function of time, must be calculated and applied at selected nodal points on the model. If the blast wave travels perpendicular to the wall, normal reflection will occur and reflected values of pressure and/or impulse must be used when computing the forces. For surfaces loaded by normal blast waves, the loading is applied simultaneously to all nodes and will have the same duration. For surfaces loaded by oblique blast waves or side-on blast waves that sweep across the surface (such as the roof), the loads arrive at different times at different nodes. These loads will also have slightly different magnitudes and durations. An adequate approximation is to assume a linear variation of arrival times, durations, and pressure magnitudes over the building surfaces. Chapter 4 provides the analyst with sufficient information to calculate side-on and reflected values of precsure and impulse, arrival times, durations, and the drag phase of the loading. Impulsive loads associated with fragment or soil impact should be applied as an initial velocity or as an impulse. An alternative way of applying an impulse is with a very short duration, but high intensity load. The load duration should be shorter than about one-fourth of the shortest hisperiod in the model. Shock loads will be applied as a displacement-time tory at the base of the building for a nonlinear analysis. p[ Normal boundary conditions are specified by setting to zero those displacements on the model that are fixed (do not move) in the building is or structural component. These will usually be points where the building If the foundation is included in the model, then attached to the foundation. some points on the foundation must either be fixed or it must be attached to points in the soil which are in turn attached at some point in the model. As a minimum, sufficient displacements must be set to zero to prevent rigid body motions of the model in translation and rotation. When planes of symmetry in the structure (refer to FEl)) are used to reduce the size of the model, then the symmetry boundary conditions

8-49

1 .

must be applied at these model boundaries. As an example, if the plane of then the boundary conditions require that no symmetry is the X-Y plane, translations occur in the Z-direction and no rotations occur about the X- and Y-axes. Grdund shock is applied to the model as a displacement-time history at points~corresponding to the building foundation. These will be vertical or lateral displacements or a combination of both. Without ground shock, these points would normally be fixed points in the structure. v/ When analyzing structures with numerical methods, a computer program is used that solves the analytical nrodel based upon the input data provided. With such a code, detailed procedures are followed in the preparation and coding of input data for the multi-degree-of-freedom model developed inJrJ. Instructions are provided in the user's manual for the program. Once the input data have been coded, the load case is run to obtain displacements, strains, and stresses. To obtain the solution for a nonlinear transient problem, a numerical integration in time is performed with a specified time step, and, when yielding occurs, iterations to obtain convergence are sometimes required within the time step. These elaborate integration and convergence procedures require substantial computation time. Specification of the integration time step is the choice of the user, but guidance is provided in the user's manual. Again, some compromise between accuracy and cost~is often sought, If the integration time step is too large, excessive numerical damping or instability can result. If the integration time step is too small, costs can be excessive. A few trial funs with different time steps may be required before the correct choice can be made. Because each program uses ~a somewhat different approach to numerical integration, recommendations in the user's manual should be followed. Frdm the numerical results, displacements, strain, and stresses are obtained at points within elements or a nodal point in the mdel. any programs offer graphical output of datathatare very valuable in evaluating the results, which are often voluminous. m Results from the numerical solution criteria to determine whether or not the design is plastic structures, these will usually be maximum tions, rotations, or boundary reactions at points required I] with If (the design criteria a moidified design. are compared to preset satisfactory. For elasticallowable strains, translaof attachment. then an iteration is

are not satisfied,

[rl If ~the design criteria are not satisfied, it is increase the resis~tance of the structure, alter the loading or sign criteria. It is assumed that the latter two possibilities properly treated e$rlier in the solution and are not considered creasing the stren~gth or resistance also changes stiffness and

necessary to change the dehave been here. Infrequency.

increasing frequency will sometimes offset an increase For elastic structures, in strength because the load amplification is increased by the increase in frequency. For elastic-plastic behavior, this factor is not so important because of the substantial damping produced by structural yielding. Little guidance can be offered the analyst in selecting ways to increase the resisIt depends upon the type of structure and the type of "failure," The tance. analyst must depend upon the results of the previous analysis in order to select the best alteration to increase the structural resistance. In some situations (with simple models), it may be helpful to consider the additional energy that must be absorbed within a specified strain or displacement in order to determine how much the resistance should be increased. I, I] When the design criteria have been satisfied, then the design is satisfactory and control is returned to the main flow diagram at the point from which mwas entered. If the primary structure has been analyzed, then the design for blast resistance is complete. 8.4.6.2 Design for Internal Explosions

The flow diagram of Figure 8.14 pertains primarily to containment type structures. It references parts of the flow chart in Figure 8.13. In this design procedure, it is assumed that the structure is designed to contain fragments that may be generated by the accident; however, this may not always be the case for structures with blow-out walls. It is also assumed that the foundation will be designed to contain the explosion and prevent cratering. No reference is made to secondary and primary structures in the design for internal explosions. AI1 structure in the containment boundary is considered to be primary structure. FJ specifications cluded in the teria. I\ It is assumed that general building layout and design have been provided the AE. If a factor of safety is to be indesign of the building, it will be included in the Design Cri-

1F3-1 If the explosion involves high explosives, then data are readily available for determining the peak pressures, specific impulse, and arrival times, both at standard atmospheric conditions and for reduced pressures. It the distance from the explosion, is only necessary to know the energy release, the angle of incidence of the surface exposed to the blast wave, and the ambient pressure. If the explosion is not produced by a high explosive, the HE data can still be used once an equivalent amount of HE is defined for the accident. For vapors or dusts, different conditions exist inside the dust or Chapter 4 explains how the overpressures and impulses are devapor cloud. If detonation does not occur, then termined for vapor and dust explosions. In this case a quasionly a low intensity shock or none at all may occur. static pressure buildup can still occur from the burning process. ml structures are Fragments may be created by the accident if machines Chapter 6 gives guidance located near the explosion. or other and

8-51

information bution of

necessary to these fragments.

determine

the the

mass,

velocity,

directions,

and

distri-

If #venting occurs in I time and peak value of the quasi-static Predictions for vented gas pressures, given in Chapter 4.

structure, it will affect the decay pressure produced in the enclosure. with and without vent closures, are

Fl If venting does occur, then the vent areas and blow-out walls The rate at which the vent opens (for blow-out must be properly designed. walls) and the total effective vent area are the important parameters, and are covered in Chapter 4. Venting is most effective for deflagration processes such aswith burning propellant. For these relatively slow processes, both the peak pressure produced in the enclosure and the decay time can be significantly reduced. For high explosives, the chemical reactions are very fast and very large vent areas, without covers, are The decay time can be shortened, required to attenuate the peak pressure. however, and this can be important in the design of some types of structures. In general, initial shock and peak quasi-static pressure loads on the structure cannot be significantly reduced by venting when the explosion is produced by a high, explosive charge. The~quasi-static pressure in a confined volume is produced by the heating of the air and the release of explosive products. It is affected by venting and by the availability of sufficient oxygen for complete combustion. Graphical solutions are provided in Chapter 4 for the maximum pressure and the decay timeifor HE explosions in enclosures with small vents. For the maximum pressure is estimated from the products of the other explosives, chemical reaction.' Graphical solutions are also provided for vent times with and without blow-out walls. These data were generated by a computer program that is described and documented. IF81 Sometimes it is more economical to provide fragment shields in some locations than to design a large containment boundary to avoid fragment penetration. Also, some types of containment structures should not be used to both contain the explosive and stop the fragments. This applies primarily to single skin steel structures where stress risers produced by fragment impact can cause fracture of the stressed steel skin at lower than normal deReinforced concrete, layered steel, or frame and panel consign stresses. struction is recommended when the primary containment boundary must resist both the blast load~s and fragment impacts. m Loadling on the shields from fragment impacts can be idealized When the fragments are stopped by as an initial impullse for design purposes. This the shield, their momentum is converted to an impulse on the structure. approach assumes th!e inelastic impact occurs and that the fr,agment is fully If the fragment imbeds in the shield, then its mass arrested by the shiield. should be included 'when computing the initial shield velocity. If fragment rebound occurs, thek an initial shield velocity can be estimated by considering elastic impact with1 a low coefficient of restitution. II

wj The shields must be designed, not only to avoid penetration, but also to remain in place when the explosion occurs. (They must not'become fragments themselves.) Thus, the penetration resistance of the shields must be designed for the worst case fragment and the shield support must be designed to resist the blast and fragment loads. Either simplified methods or numerical methods can be used for this design analysis. I[ If shielding is not used and if the fragments are to be contained, then it is necessary to size the walls and ceiling of the structure to prevent fragment penetration. The thickness required to prevent penetration can be calculated for various materials from the equations in Chapter 6. The thickness set by penetration requirements may be larger or smaller than that required to resist the blast and fragment loading. 1 F12)As for the shields, the ing are idealized as an initial impulse and no residual fragment velocity. fragment for the loads on the walls and ceilconditions of inelastic impact

1x1 Once the fragment penetration criteria have been satisfied, the primary containment boundary is designed to withstand the blast loading ressure and impulses from the blast wave and the quasi-static pressure) and i:e fragment loads . For internal explosions, multiple reflections of the blast wave are usually assumed as explained in Chapter 4. For HE charges, the quasi-static pressure reaches its peak very quickly and can be assumed to occur simultaneously with the blast wave. This is particularly convenient for simplified analysis. For numerical analyses this assumption is not necessary. Dead loads are usually small relative to the blast loading and can be omitted in the analysis. Arrival times of the blast wave and fragments can be calculated to establish their phasing; however, it is acceptable for simplified analyses to apply them simultaneously. It is often found that the fragment loads are small relative to the blast and quasi-static loads and can be neglected. Either simplified or numerical methods can be used to analyze Symmetric shell and concrete slab structures can usually be the structure. analyzed conveniently with one-degree-of-freedom models. The analysis of penetrations through the boundary of shell structures can be difficult, and off-the-shelf door designs should be used when possible (if it has been established that they can withstand the applied loads). Penetrations through the boundary are mDre straight-forward for reinforced concrete or frame and panel construction.

8-53

8.5

LIST OF SYMBOLS A b ~ beam cross-sectional beam width dynamic load factor, E F1 Nt) H I i k,Kl SK2 R,L m P,P R Re Rm T t td tm t r elastic modulus load applied to the structural maximum dynamic load factor area

magnitude of the total component time-dependent beam depth moment of inertia specific spring impulse stiffness force

of the beam cross-sectional

area

beam length mass of single-degree-of-freedom of the structural component peak pressure resistance resistance of the structural of the equivalent component system component system; total mass

maximum resistance fundamental time duration period

of the structural of elastic vibration

of the applied

load is reached

time at which the maximum displacement rise time of the applied load

8-54

lateral
0

displacement at at some location on the structural the point of maximum displacement

lateral displacement component, usually position along the of

beam single-degree-of-freedom of systems 1 and occurs component or single-degree2 systems

x1'x2 Xl~J2~ X Y
Y

displacements maximum

displacements at which

displacement displacement of-freedom

yielding

of a structural system at which yielding

el

displacement maximum plastic constants pressure

occurs

Y max Z

displacement section modulus of a beam blast waves from bursting

used to characterize vessels strain ratio in the (yW/yel) beam

EMtlx
u
P
d

maximum ductility

mass density Y yield stress defined for beams with different boundary

vplp,~~~

constants conditions

8-55

8.6

ANNOTATED REFERENCES
l

Design of Structure... (Ref. 8.15) ~

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers

This volume of a multi-volume design manual was one of the first to present simplified dynamic design procedures for plastically deforming structures. It was prepared by staff at MIT. The methods reported in this manual reappear in many later manuals, with no or minimal change.
l

Norris,

et al.

.(Ref. 8.10)

This book first appeared &s a set of course notes for a short course taught by MIT staff. Procedures carry over directly from an earlier U. S. Army Corps of Engineers manual. As with the Army manual, these methods reappear in many later manuals.
l

Biggs (Ref.

8.2)

This is an excellent introductory text for any engineer engaged in dynamic structural design. Biggs is one of the authors of the earlier Army Corps of Engineers manual, and Norris, et al. (Ref. 8.10). This book draws heavily on the earlier work, but adds considerable material. Presentation ,is very clear and understandable.
l

Structures

toi Resist,...

TM 5-1300 (Ref. 8.1)

This design manual is the "Bible" for most structural engineers involved in blast-resistant design in reinforced concrete. Its strengths are in presentation of detailed procedures for estimating blast loading for internal 'explosions, failure modes for reinforced concrete, structural elements, and design of reinforcing. Some of the blast loading and fragment impact data in this manual are, however, now outdated and should be supplanted by later information. Basic structural design procedures ark identical to those presented earlier by MIT authors.
l

Suppressive

Spields....

(Ref. 8.18)

Chapter 5 in ~this manual is directed primarily to simplified methods for dynamic elastic and elastic-plastic design of steel structures subjected to internal blast loading. The primary methods are those previously developed by the MIT staff and by Newnrark, but special attention is baid to response to loading pulses for initial shock loads and gas venting pressures for the structures with small or no venting which typify suppressive shields. More sophisticated dynamic design methods are identified, but not used.

8-56

*Baker (Ref. 8.35), Baker (Ref. 8.36), Lee & Martin (Ref. 8.37), Kaliszky (Ref. 8.38), Symonds (Ref. 8.39), Symonds & Chon (Ref. 8.40), Synronds & Chon (Ref. 8.41) These are all survey papers that discuss approximate methods for dynamic plastic deformations of impulsively loaded structures. The methods are not always applicable to blast-loaded structures because not all such structures respond impulsively. But, these papers should give the reader a good grasp of the open literature on this topic, throughout the world.
l

Greenspon (Ref. 8.23), & Cox (Ref. 8.21)

Westine 6 Baker (Refs.

8.42 and 8.43),

Westine

A number of dynamic structural: design equations and graphs for quick estimation of response to blast loads have been developed in recent years. The referenced reports are the principal original references. All use the scaled P-i (pressure-impulse) concept for relating response to loading and give predictions for beams, plates, shells, and . other structural elements. Many of the results are collected and discussed in Baker, Cox, et al. (Ref. 8.9), which also covers Biggs/Newmark's simplified methods for structural response.

8-57

8.7 8.1

REFERENCES

Structures to Resist the Effects of Accidental Exploaione, Department of the Army Technical Manual TMS-1300, Department of the Navy Publication NAVFAC P-397, Department of the Air Force Manual AFM 88-22, June 1969. Biggs, J. M., Introduction pany, New York,,l964. to Structural Dynamics, McGraw-Hill Book Com-

8.2 8.3

Westine, P. S. and Baker, W. E., "Energy Solutione for Predicting Deformations in Blast Loaded Structures," Minutes of 16th Annual Explosion Safety Seminar, Department of Defense Safety Board, 1974. Bathe, K. J., "ADINA, A Finite Element Program for Automatic Dynamic Incremental Nonlinear Analysis," Report 82448-1, Acouetics and Vibration Lab, Med. Eng. Dept., MIT, 1976. DeSalvo, G. J. And Swanson, J. A., ANSYS Engineering Analyeie Syatems, User's Manual, Swanson Analysis Systems, Inc., Houston, PA, 1979. Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis Manual, MARCAnalyeis Corporation Program Volume I: Ueers Information and Control Data Corpordion, 1975.

8.4

8.5

8.6 8.7

Stea, W., Tseng,i G., Kossover, D., Price, P., and Caltagirone, Jr., "Nonlinear Analysis ,of Frame Structures Subjected to Blast Overpreeeuree, Contractor Report ARLCD-CR-77008, U. S. Army Armament Research & Development Command, Large Caliber Weapon Syatems Laboratory, Dover, NJ, May 1977. Pirotin, S. D., 'Berg, B. A., and Witmer, E. A., "PETROS 4: New Developments and Program Manual for the Finite-Difference Calculation of Large Elastic-Plastic,; and/or Viscoelastic Transient Deformations of Multilayer Variable-Thickness (1) Hard-Bonded, (2) Moderately-Thick Hard-Bonded, or (3) Thin Soft-Bqnded Shells," BRL Contract Report No. 316, MIT, September 1976. Baker, W. E,, Cqx, P. A., Westine, R. A., A Short Course on Explosion Institute, San Antonio, TX, 1978. P. S., Kulesz, J. J., and Strehlow, Hazards Evaluation, Southwest Research

8.8

8.9

8.10 Norris, C. H., Hansen, R. J., Holley, M. J., Jr., Biggs, J. M., Namyet, Structural Design for Dynamic Lo&da, McGraw-Hill S., and Minami, iJ. K., ---_ Book Company, New York, 1959.

8-58

8.11 CQX, P. A., Westine, P. S., Kuleez, J. J., and Esparza, E. D., "Analyeie and Evaluation of Suppressive Shielda," Final Technical Report, Edgewood Arsenal Contractor Report, ARCFL-CR-77028, Report No. 10, January 1978. 8.12 Eeparza, E. D. and Baker, W. El, "Measurement of Blast Waves from Bursting Frangible Spheres Preseurlzed with Flash-Evaporating Vapor or Liquid," NASA Contractor Report 2811, Contract NSG-3008, National Aeronautics and Space Adminletratlon, November 1977. 8.13 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulation Vibrations, Guide 1.92. 3rd Pdltlon, McGraw-Hill Book

8.14 Den Hartog, J. P., Mechanical Company, New York, 1947.

8.15 Design of Structures to Resist the Effects of Atomic Weapons, TM 5-856, 1 through 9, Department of the Army, U. S. Army AG Publications Center, 1655 Woodson Road, St. Louis, MC 63114, March 1965. [This Is an updated version of the U. S. Army COE,Manual EMllO-345-415, March 1957.1
8.16

"Shelter Design and Analyala, Volume 4, Protective Conetructlon for Sheltere," Defenee Civil Preparednees Agency, TR-20, (Reviewer's Draft), July 1972.
Crawford, R. E., Higgins, C.. J,., and Bultmnn, E. H., 3'ile Air Force Maaunl for D&&n and Analyoia of tkrdcned Structures, AFWL-TR-75-102, Air Force Weapons Lab., Eirtland AFB, NM; October 1974.

8.17

8.18 Suppreaeive Shields Structural Design and Analysis Handbook, HNDM-lllOl-2, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntsville Division, November 1977.
8.19

Healey, J., Ammar, A., Vellozzl, J., Pecone, G., Welesman, S., Dobbs, N., and Price, P., "Design of Steel Structures to Resist the Effects of HE Explosions," Technical Report 4837, Picatinny Araenal, Dover, NJ, August 1975.

8.20.Taeng, G., Weissman, S., Dobbs, N., antI Price, P., "Design Charte for Cold-Formed Steel Panels and Wide-Flange Beams Subjected to Blast Loading," Technical Report 4838, Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, NJ, August 1975. 8.21 Weatlne, P. S. and Cox, P. A., "Additional Energy Solutions for PredictEdgewood Arsenal Contractor Report EM-CRing Structural Deformations," 76031, Report No. 4, Southwest Research InBtiLute, November 1975.
8.22

Westlne, P. S., "R-W Plane Analysis for Vulnerability of Targets to Air Blaet," The Shock & Vibration Bulletin, Bulletin 42, Part 5, pp. 173-183, January 1972.

8.23 Greenepon, J. E., "Energy Approaches to Structural Vulnerability with Application of the New Bell Stress-Strain Laws," BRL Contract Report No.
291, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, March 8-59 1976.

8.24

Baker, W. E., Cox, P. A., Esparza, E. D., and Westine, P. S., "Design Study of a Suppressive Structure for a Melt Loading Operation," Edgewood Arsenal Contractor Report EM-CR-76043, Report No. 9, December 1975. Fenves, S. J., 'Perrone, N., Robinson, A. (Editors), Numerical and Computer Methods demic PressTNew York, 1973. Pilkey, W., Saczalski, K., and Schaeffer, Mechanics Computer Programs_, University ~---ville, VA, 1974. Perrone, Series, 1977. Perrone, Series, 1978. N. and Pilkey, W. (Editors), Volume ~I, University Press of R., in and Schnobrich, W. C. Structural MecLanics, Aca-

8.25

8.26

H. (Editors), Structural Press of Virginia, CharlottesStructural Virginia, Mechanics _--.__ Software Charlottesville, VA, Mechanics Software ---. Charlottesville, VA,

8.27

8.28

N. and Pilkey, W. (Editors), Volume 'II, University Press

Structural of Virginia,

8.29

McCormick, C. WI. (Editor), Neal-Schwendler' Corporation, May 1976.

"MSC/NASTRAN 7442 North

User's Manual," Figueroa Street,

MSR-39, The Los Angeles,

WC-

CA,

8.30

Haisler, W. E.,i "AGGIE I - A Finite Element Program for Nonlinear Structural Analysis,!' Report TEES-3275-77-1, Aerospace Engineering Department, Texas A&M University, Sune 1977. Haisler, W. E.,, "Status Report Report No. 3275178-2, Aerospace sity, April 1978. of AGGIE I Computer Program," Technical Engineering Department, Texas A&M Univer-

8.31

8.32

wu, R. W-H and tiitmer, E. A., "Finite Element Analysis of Large Transient Elastic-Plastic1 Deformations of Simple Structures, with Application to the Engine Rotor Fragment Containment/Deflection Program," NASA CR-120886, ASRL TR 154-4, Aeroelastic and Structures Research Laboratory, MIT, Cambridge, MA, JrinlIary 1.972. Neal., B. G., Plastic Methods London, England; 1977. of Structural Analysis, Chapman & Hall,

8.33

8.34

Baker, W. E., "4pproximate Techniques tures Under Imptilsive Loading," Shock 107-117, 1975. ~

for Plastic and Vibration

Deformation DiLest,

of 1,

Struc(7), pp.

8.35

Baker, W. E., "+pproximate Techniques for tures Under Imp{llsive Loading, II, "Shock ppw 19-24, 1979t

Plastic Deformation of Strucand Vibration Digest, II, (7),

8-60

8.36

Lee, L. S. S. and Martin, J. B., "Approximate Loaded Structures of a Rate Sensitive Material," 21, pp. 1011-1032, 1970. Kaliszky, Structures S., "Approximate and Continua," Solutions Intl. J.

Solutions of Impulsively Z. Agnew. Math. Phys., Loaded Inelastic 5, pp. 143-158, 1970. Loaded StrucMath., 25, (3),

8.37

for Impulsively Nonlin. Mech.,

8.38

Symonds, P. S., "Approximation tures of Rate Sensitive Plastic pp. 462-473, 1973.

Techniques Behavior,"

for Impulsively SIAM J. Appl.

8.39

Symonds, P. S. and Chon, C. T., "Bounds for sively Loaded Structures with Time-Dependent Solids Strut., 11, pp. 403-425, 1975.

Finite-Deflections Plastic Behavior,"

of ImpulIntl. J.

8.40

Symonds, P. S. and Chon, C. T., "Approximation Techniques for Impulsive Loading of Structures of Time-Dependent Plastic Behavior with FiniteDeflections," Mechanical Properties at High Rates of Strain, J. Harding, Ed., Inst. Physics (London), Conf. Ser. No. 21, pp. 299-316, 1974. Westine, P. S. and Baker, W. E., "Energy Solutions for Predicting DeforEdgewood Arsenal Contractor Report mations in Blast-Loaded Structures," EM-CR-76027, Report No. 6, Southwest Research Institute, November 1975. Westine, P. S. and Baker, W. IX., "Energy Solutions for Predicting Deformations in Blast Loaded Structures," Minutes of 16th Annual Explosion Safety Seminar, Department of Defense Safety Board, 1974.

8.41

8.42

8-41

APPENDIX A PROPERTIES OF EXPLOSIVES

This appendix includes could be present or used in rate tables arc given for: a a
l

various various

properties facilities

of of

explosives the Pantex

which Plant.

are or Sepa-

Physical Chemical Sensitivity Hugoniots Thermal

Properties Properties

of

Explosives

of Explosives

of Explosives for Unreacted HE's

Properties

of Explosives

Performance

of Explosives

Rlanks in the tables indicate that property for the listed explosive. are used to identify each explosive. becical order in each table.

we were unable to find the specific Common abbreviations or contractions Explosives are listed in alpha-

1. 2.

Ilr~~~~erties M. Dobratz,

of Chemical 1974.

I'+osives

and Explosive

Simulants,

Rrigitta

Engineering ,,. --Des-l _,".. sjvcs _" _.--.-- of Military -.---.--_,_

~landbook;.F:xplosives _ _-.-Interest, 1971.

Series;

Properties II.-- of

Ex&o-

A-l

Table

l(a)

Physical

Properties

of Explosivesa

T
Hglm3
lb/in3

T
Mdm3
lhlin 2.60 2.61 9.39 9.42 3 9.50 x lo-2 x 1o-2 X lU2 5.49 1.53 x Jo-z 5.53 5.56 6.76 x IO 2 x IO-2 x 1c2 -2 1.71 6.18 K 10 6.87 X lO-2 1.87

TNT - 267. 8a(Nn3)2 Sol id 76X 2.h3

mT - 401 Rnrlc Acid Sntid - 6,oZ Solid 1.901 1.52 hNh*6 APX - fiox TNT - 40% Sol Ld 1.14 6.29 x RDX - 912 Piasticimr 9x 10-j

I.59

5.74

x 1o-2

RDX mr Solid 1.77 c H N 0 65Sfi Cryntdb bnlid 1.837

75% 252

6.39

x 1o-2

1.75

1.76

6.32 h.3h 6.64 x 1o-2 1.79 h.b7

X lo- x 10-Z x 10-t

Di mrdnn Trini t rnhrnzene Cl z&A 2

1.?9

h.h7

x 10-2

1.3 - Piaminn2.2, 4,4, h,h Hraanftrnhipheny! CbH8N20h SoJid

2.2 - ninitrnFroprlztrrylate

1.47

5.31

K lo-2

Liquid

1.28

6.hZ

10-Z

315 (2.2 ninitrtr - 2 Flnum-Ethyl) G4HIIN6 (NO 1 7 4 C

Liquid

1.607

5.11!

1o-2

%lid

1.90

h.Rh 6.50 Sol id 1.799

x w2 x JO -2

L.R?

h.N3

x 10

-2

HA0 12 4 R I?

?,? , 4.b , Hernnltm+tilh~nc h,6 lb C

HUD h h 12

Sol fd

I .74

6.29

x Jo-2

1.72

6.21

x 1n-2

Table

l(a)

Physical

Properties

of Explosivesa

iCon't)

CUtDlON ItlYRICnt TllEbRBTICAL SPF.CKFIC WlXIMRI UEICHT HoHlWAl. SPECIFIC UEIGltT STATE

HAti8

CHEMICAL COLl-IR

HAKE

T
wgtm
lb/in3 1.43 1.44

1
x 1o-2 x 10-2

lh/jn3

LX-01 Clear
Liquid 4-u x Ko-2

1.23

tu4 - 51.7% Twtl - 33.22 1 - Nitrapropnm lS.12 Buff Putty-like

1.44 5.20 x Io-2 Solid PRlw - 73.51 Butyl Rnbber 17.6% Acetyltrlhutyl citrnte - 6.9X CAB-O-Ml - 2% WR R5X

LX-02-1

5.17 5.20

LR-04

Ye1l.w
SnI id 1.889

6.82

x 10-2 6.84 5.20 x lo-2 x 10-2

1.116

1.81

viton
tom - 90% viton A - IOf: PETN - 63.711 Sylgerd - 34.X CAB-o-S11 - 23 Putty-llke

A - 15z orange
SolId 1.892 1.86 - I.81

6.72 6.76 6.72 6.16

X IO-2 X lO-2 X LO-' R

3p
BlWZ
I .439

Lx-07

10-Z
-> 1.L2 5.13 x ll3-2

LX-08

LX-094 Solid

hrpL-2

1.867

6.74

x lo-2

1.837-1.84

m-R - 93% IDNPA - 4.6X FEFO - 2.41

DlWJ-

6.64 6.67

x 1o-2
X W2

Lx-lo-o 1m viton sz
Green

95x h -

SolId

1.896

6.85

Ii 1O-2

1.858-1.M

6.71 6.75

X lo-'
X 10-2

Spota
CJ White

Lx-11
IOtX - 80X vitnn A MX

Nhite ViOht
F-l spots

Solid

1.117

1.87

6.76 6.78 Smlid 1.A49 6.6R x 1o-2 1.834 6.62

x 10-2 X IV2

LX-14 m - 95.52: R~tnnc 5702 4.54:

X 1O-2
%te

NT:

Clear

Liqwid

1.59

5.714

Lo-=

10-J

Cl"4N4a2

UhiLP

1.72

6.21

x Jo-2

1.55

5.60

X IO

-2

Table
I I I COLOR I

l(a)
FORMUIATION FHYSICAL TUEORETICAL FLAXIMUtl SPECLFIC WEIMIT NOHINAL SPECIFTI: WETGHT Hglm 3 lb/Lo3 lhlin' STATE

Physical

Properties

of

Explosivesa

(Con't)

CHFAICAL

NAME

c
IMX - 75% m-I - 25% 6.61 1.80 1.66 ~~~ - 1.82 6.13 X~10-2~ X 113-~ RDX --90x Rosin - 0.42 PoIystyrenc - 9.1% Di-2-Ethylexylphtlla1nte - 0.x RDX - 90% Solid SOlid Solid 1.72 6.21 1.795 h.48 x 1o-2 x lo-* I.822 6.58 X JO-2
KRL P - 10%

RllFf --solid

Solid

1.85

h.50 6.57 6.00

x lO-2 x 10-Z X JO--m

uh1te
OlfIlhite Uhite

1.789

6.46

X 1O-2

RDX - 90x Estane - 10% Rex - 92% Polyatyrenc - 6Z Di-2-Ethylhexylphthnlate - 2X white or Blue Solid 1.81 mtx - 94% NC - 3x Trria-B-Chloroethylphosphate .3x IMX - 94% Exon 461 - 6X
mtx - 95%

Solid

1.865

6.74

X 1O-2

1.855

6.70

X 1O-2

Bstane - 2.5% BD?3PA - 1.25X BDXPP - 1.2SX PUN - 50% INT - 50X white Nhitc Solid Solid Solid 1.71 1.77 l.tlo6 6.59 6.52 X IO- x 1o-2 1.76 6.36 X 1O-2

Pentaerythrito1 Tetranl trmte

Cyclotrfaethylene TrLnitramine

Table
PoF3mAT10N I I I COLOR

l(a)
PIIY s IChI. I STATE 1 NoMlNhL SPPXCIFIC

Physical

Properties

of

Explosivesa

(Can't)

CX-IMN~~NNAME

cHI.WlChL

NAME

TlIEOHETICAI. KAXIlIIM IP!xTC . .._._ - uElclll r ..- _....

WEICtrT

TAT0

I
Trlnitrobenzene

Trimnina 2, 4, ii Solid 1.73

4.25 x Lo-*

I, 5,4 - .
C6t16Na06 So11n / 1.94 ( 7.0, x 10-2 1 1.88

I
1.71 Colorlesn Crystal 1.7ab

Yellow

6.79

K 1o-2

Tt3ttYl.

TrinLtrophenyfHetbylnitremine 2,
Trinltrnethyl

6.18

x 1o-2

TNETtJ h, 4, 4 Trinitmbutyrate TrInitrotdUene

2,

2 -

6.43

X LO-

MT

C,e5NYo6

fluff

Solid

1.654

5.98

x 1o-2

Cast
1.55

Cast
Pressed 1.635 5.60 x 1o-2 Pressed 5.91 x 1o-2

a.

Taken

from

Properties

of

ChemScal

Explosives

and Explosive

Simulants

by Brlgitta

H.

Dobrety,

L974,

unless

othervise

Indicated.

h.

Taken
Design Properties of

from

Engineering

Handbook;

Explosives Series;
Explosives based on:

of

ffllitary

Intea

1971.

c.

W-,lccular

vefght

of

mixture

calculated

vhere

Mu* = trrta1

molecular

weight

of

mixture:

NM

= molecular

vcight

of

,Ch

constituent;

and

aN

= weight

percentaRe

nf

thr

,th

constituent.

Cntrrrlntcd

Values

Table
NOLEClllRIt
TOXICITY
hnnl

l(b)

Physical
MELTING
C

Properties
POINT Pa lb/in2 'F
VhPQA PRESSURE

of

Explosivesa

CQHNON NhME

UEJGllT

r
T
100 212 .o 79.0 ml.0

kp,
4.20

HhRArnC

253.0=

I 1o-25 1.93 x Lo-3 x IO -25

79.0 174.2 80.0

174.2 - 176.0

- 176-D

13.3

BDRACITOL
117.0=

1.94 4,lO
m19s.o - 2oo.q

-DTF -~!~.O-,-J92.0-172.bb176.0 224 .Oc 3.72 %222.0C

~~~

-252.1

x IO

-25 78.0 fm.0

CCHPB 3.69 3.71

79.0 2FI6.0 304 .o 579.2. - 290.0 546.0 80.0 17h.2 1.93

x iD-25
x 1o-25 x 1o-25 x 10-25 x 10-25 x ldZ5 - 554 .O - 176.0 13.3 x 1o-3
100

cow
223.bC 243.0

c-4

Moderate 212.0

CICLQTQL 4.03
7.54

75125

OhTNBlDATB

DIPAH
204.1 220.2 3.66 5.31

454.1 3.39

Moderate

DNPA

EDNP
-6 .o 11.3 X2.9 345.0 $19.0 52.34 21.2

X 1O-25
x 1o-23 x 1o-25 x 1Q-25 71.10-2s 313.0 -54.0 65.2 595.6 215.0 - 216.0 - 4to.a 1.33 1.33
3.87

FEFO
296.2

320.1 G.92 7.51

7.47

- 55.22 - 548.6 h.00 x lo-' x 10

0.02854

4.14
5.80 -5 1.95

x 10-6 X 1.O-t x 10-v

25

77.0

HlBh 100 100

212.0 212 .o

NNX 452.21
450.3

285.0

- 287.0

Slight SllSht x 10-7 x lo3

I.93 5.61

HNAB

HNS

x to-' X 10-l

loo
25

212.0 77.0

Slight

LX-01

LX-OZ279.8

LX-O.4

8.64
4.74

x 1o-2s x 1o-25
Decomposes > 250.0 Decomposes 129.0 - 135.0

LX-07
m5.3=

Decnmposes > 402.0

LX-08 3.78

228.0

x 1o-25

Decomposes
264.2

- 275.0 Deroinposes > 536.0

LX-09-o -25

LX-IO-O
291 .Q=

b.tJS

x IO

Table

l(b)

Physical

Properties

of

Explosivesa

(Can't)

T
MF.LTlNC POlNT VAlWR

PRESSIIHC

hmu -Pn *C

=c

"F

lb/i?
qF

LX-11 nrcom~nPn > 250.0 nccompnser > 270.0 227.1 IO4.1 1.73 x IO-= Twromposea 246.0 - 247.0 79.0 lkcnmpnaes > 200.0 21l.C 7.51 x Io-2s wcnmponcs ) 392.0 80.0 174.2 176.0 13.3 Decmpnsea 474.8 - 476.6 3.77 x t0-2s 13.2 55.7h 0.2 20 Dccom~sen , 482.0

2?4.4=

4.56 K 1o-25

LX- 14

NC

IX.0

Vrry Slight

HCgh

0CTOL

75125

275.5=

4.57

x 1o-25

1.93

x 1R

-3

100

212.0

POX-9007

PRX-9010

PlIX-9011 ') 482.0 Dccnmponcs > 392.0

Decomposes P 2JO.O lkroapnses > 200.0 Dec.omp3sses > 250.0 341.3c > 392.0 5.67 X 1O-2s nccomposcs > 200.0 Decomposea > 240.0

neromposes

PRX-9205

PDX-9404

nx-9407

DETOmpO.WS

PDX-9501

PENTriLITE 316.2 222.1 250.2 4.2R x Io-25 3.69 x 10-2s 205.0

50150

271.f
4.51 76.0 139.0 - 142.0

x lo-25 x lo-25

13.3 282.2 GO1 .o DSX@mp0SeS > 617.0 - 287.6

1.93 1.10
0.87

x lo-? x lo-' 1.55 1.26 x Lo-7 x 10 -4

100 100

212.0 212.0 Ilip,h

PETN

5.25

RDX

111

231.8

Slight

TATR

TE;'IRYL 287.0 336. ob 6.41 X 1O-25 4.77 x 1o-25

1.33.0 93.0

X6.0 1.99 .bb 3.07 18.6 4.45 2.7D x Li!-F X lo-'

lligh

TNETP

100
120

212.0 248.0

A-8

Table

Chemical

Properties

of

Explosivesa

flt?AT OF F(IWU\TION (SEE NOTE I) HFAT OF CDtlRUSTION

IIMT

OF lWlWNATIOW (SW NOTE 2)

ft-lhllh I W/kg

tt-lb/lb ft-lb/lb

RAAATOL -9.076 x lo5

-2.952 3.10 1.67 7.07

X IO6 x lo6 I.17 x Idb

x 12 1.04 5.59 2.37

2.15

x LO6 x In5

AORAC ITOL

-1.076 -3.6(10 0.02b

1 .94 x

x 104 X 106 X 10' x loJ 104 6.65 6.57 1.10 5.27 5.65 4.44 5.15 6.07 6.78 6.15 5.94 7.20 5.94
5.91

BTF

2.399 5.?R 1.39 1.38 4.62

-1.68 X

x 103 x 101 x lo2 X 10' X 104 105 1.89 l.hEl 1.72 2.03 2.27 2.06 1.99 2.41 1.99 1.99 6.23 X HI5 X 10 -4.38 -4.302 2.10 x LO4 x l.OJ 11 lo4 a.27 6.69 6.49 5.77 6.5) 2.08 2.77 2.2b 2.17 1.72 2.20 x lo6 X 10' X IO' X LO6 x lo6 x LO6 X IO6 x IO6 x lo6 x 10~ X IO6 x lo6 X lo6 X lo6 x lob 9.88
b

cnw

6.44 2.22 2.20 1.7b x lo6 X lo6 x lo6 x IO6 X ld

W/kg =I=
3.91 X 10' b b 3.68 X 106
b

COWP c-4

4.65

X lo4

CYCLOmL -5.03 -1.85 -6.19 -7.544 -8.899 -7.762 8.46 1.79 4.32 -3.854
-6.069 X IO5

75izs x IO2 x lo2 x X lo4 x lo5 x 10' X lo5 X x LO4 x LO5 x IO4 x lo= x 103 X lo3 x x 10' X 10' x lo2
x IO2

nhTl3iDAms DhiaiDATNB

DIPAM

DWh

-2.255 -2.660 -2.320 2.53 5.35 1.29 -1.152 -2.053 -9.01 -3.01 -1.73 -6.219 2.55 x lo4 x IO5 -5.17 -1.859 7.61 -1.31 -1.286 6.28 x 101 X 103 lo3 x IO2 x IO1 x IO3 x IO2 x lo2 X x lo3 x 10'

EDWP

FEFO

Htlx

3.31

X lo6 b

IlNhB

HNS

LX-01

LX-OS1

LX-04

LX-07

LX-OR

LX-09-n

LX-10-O

LX-11

LX- 14

Table

Chemical

Properties

of

Explosivesa

(Con't)

CoFlUON NAM (SEP. NMF 2)

lIEAT nl; FORFlhTlON (Sl?E NOTE 1)

tIEAT OF DETONATION lIEAT OF EOHBl~STIOK

k.l/kg Ft-Jh/lh

It-lb/lb NJ/ku tt-lb/lb MJ/kg

UC

-1.673
2.22 1.49 mmu.3> ~~ 1.79 2.20 2.18 2.06 2.16 2.04 X lo6 x IO6 x lo6 X 10 x IOh x Job h x lob ii.76 2.26

x 103 x lo2
-3.17 3.98 9.97 x 12 6.53 X lo4 6.57 4.44

-5.597 x lo5 l.j.6 X IO1 b 3.81

x lo5

h.h5

X Ill6 XmIOb

MQ
1.19 2.98 -3.29 -1.70 2.43 X IO2 R.13 x IO4 6.11 x lo2 -5.69 x IO4 6.40 X IO2 X IO2

-9.49 x lo2

OCWL

70/30

x 12

PRX-9007

FRX-7010

-1.10

x 12

6.15

Pax-9oll

PBX-9205 3.31
4.84 9.54 -9.937 x lo* 3.19 -3.32 -5.69 X X lo5 6.40 6.90 6.78 2.14 2.31 2.27 x IO4 6.65 2.22 x lo2 1.62

FBX-9404

1.11 X lo5
6.69 2.24

x lo3 x lob x lo6

x lob

6.53

2.18

x lo6

PBS9407

PAX-9501 x lo2 X 103

X IO2 X lo1 x lo3 x IO2 -9.50 x IOh -4.28 2.23 x lo4

PENMLITE

SO/SO -1.702
2.771 6.66 -1.28 -2.A4

PETN 9.27
6.32

lo5

x lo6
x IOb

A.20 9.56

b
h

2.70 3.20

X IO6

HDX

x lo6

X 106 b 2.11 x IOh 1.22

6.99

TETRYL X lo5 b
5.90

X IO1 b b
1.97

4.08
2.34

X lo6 X 10' x lo6 1.51 X lOI b 5.05 X lo6

TNETB

b
b

TNT

a.

See

h.
fnrmation by (-1) the

See v~lurs taken to retain

from the ~lneeriog nl~n conventinn

Tahlc Tah1.e

1. 1. Erpl~sive
that Design llnndbook Mt-- is negative f when the

EhITE I:

Heat of multiplted

Series
reaction

Properties

of
1s exothermic.

Explosives --

have

been

Table

3(a)

Sensitivity

of

Explosivesa

SKtD

TEST

T
N6lGIlT
HEIGlIT
In

T
AWGLE OF IHPACT DEG In

Wdght,

fh

In

RhRhMl. 37.4 , 69.68 4.33 17.72 5.0 5.0 5.0

5.0

11 .I)
0.950 > 1.770

AlmACIToI,

tl.O 11.0 11.0 0.450 0.110

RTF

unaf

Fcctei

unaf tected anaffectei unaffected

unaflected

5.0

11.0 0.330
12.99 > 69.60 37.4 > 69.613 , 0.950 > 1.770 1.77n Ii .o

IJwlffected

IMTU/llATflO 5.n 5.0 5.0

nmw

11.0 II .n

own

WNP 5.0

FEPO 11.0
0.280 0.330 5.0

11.024 12.99

wx

tl.O

HNAB

IINS

1.x-01 4.99 4.99

tx-02-l

11.0 11.0

0.800

31.5 0.410 16.14 1.30

L.52

LX-Oh

lh
45 0.380

Inu
(Mild)

169.3 59.R 14.96

1.760 Z.lhIl 29.9 85.0

Order

1.X-07 4.99

11.0

14 Explodes

45 Explodes

LX-08 b.99

3.x-09-o

Il.0

0.320

12.6

1.38 I.52

15.0 59.8

14 45

Explode% Explnrlee

Table
SKJD FRICTlON PE.NDIII.DM TEST TEST

3(a)

Sensitivity

of Explosivesa

(Can't)

CnhWON NtWE

DRI)P WEJGIIT TEST

ShMP1.F. kg Wrl Ebt , Ib m In m in IlF:IGHT STEEL SIIOE FIBER

HElCIIT
ANC1.E OF IMPACT DEG

SHOE

Mass,

1,X-I D-D cl.590 23.23

4.99

11 J-l

o.no

13.76
J .Q7 42.1

LX-11

m-1 2.l-l 4.4

NG

0.150 > 1 .??Q 0.410 0.350 0.340

14 .o

5.91 > b?.G8 16.14 13.78 11.81 17.32 16.54 13.39 12.94 17.32 3.05 3.05 120.1 120.1 14 hu Rrdfr 45 Nrrthiq
0.381

explodes unafrected unaFEected unaf fectcd unaffected

w 4.99
4.99

4.99 11 .o 11.0 11.0 11.0 11 .o 11.0 11.0 1J .o

11.0 0.350

11.0

DCTOL 75/25

PM-?I?07

I-RX-9010 6.99 6.99 4.99 0.330 O.hbO 0.340 0.420 0.3111 0:760 1 .O? 0.440 6.10 t-9.10 2b0.2 240.2 15.0 29.9
15.0

b.99

Q.YIl

14

lhpJodes

PRX-9DJl

14 rnlff 45 Nn Renrtim 14 Puf F 45 Tnw Or,lcr 42.1 14 Ewplodos 45 EaplndcR

PRX-9205

IwG9404

PRX-9407 4.99
4.99

4.99

FDX-9501

PWTCILITE

50/50

13.78
4.311 11.02

wnnftected crnckl es

w-oaf fectrd
unaIfccted

PE?N

4.99 11 .o 0.28ll

11.0

O.JlO

RDX

4.99

rnpldra

unaflected

TATA 4.99 11 .O 0.280 11 .Q2

crackt CR llnatrected

TF.TRYl.

TNCrn t1 .fl

rtn

4.99

0.800

31.496

unaffwted

unaffected

A-13

cd

Table

3(b)

Sensitivity

of

Explosivesa

(Con't)

CXPLOS~ON TEMPERATURE (5 SRC)

511SAN

H1Fl.A RULLET

TTIPACT TEST

TAST

f-..P TEST

PXPlllDE (I)
RUUN

FARTIAL (2) IX)

wsec ftlnec 1

mRRSHoLn

VEL.

PROBABILITY OF AehCTIOA
in

'C
F

P~~ToLITE
12 20 220 4211.0

SO/JO

Decompnsen

Decmposes

cast

cast 0.030 7.62 x 16 9.65 X 1O-4 Hot Pressed 2.70 x 10-j

- 0.036

Not
0.106

Remed
- 0.142

3.61 DecolQposes
225
DCCOmpUSeS Decom~scs 100

x 10-J

mm
437.0

Decnnpser

loo

RDX
260 5tH.O

TATR

l.ooo

> 3281.0

s.00
2.clo

x lo-5 x lo-4

2.320

- 0.100

TBTRYL
Ignites Ignites

13 b

54

10

251 225
DeCOnprJSe8 IkC~~pIX?CZS 40

494.6 437.0 0.072

TNETR 475 887.0

mT

235 .O

2.12 4.10

x 1o-4
x IO-4

7.90 1.60

x 10-3 x ID-2

R.

See Table

1.

b.

See Table

1.

A-17

Table

Hugoniots

for

Unreacted

HE's

(Con't)

km/am _-- _

El-N

2.10

1.59

4593 6103 6201

1.93 0 E = 2.A

4.19 2.58
1.60

< " < 7021 - s5 41; &-8695 2 u 6-- c 6399

nx
1.64 0.70
1.8

0.67 4.11 2.67

co J 2.8

1.61

1.43
1.K)

2.58 2.20
2.63 < u c 4.17 B-

5 Ilg 5 4.1.6 5 Ifg 5 4.07

2.16 I.61 2.17 2.36 2.41

= 1.10

7.09 ce = 1.13 c= = I.36 c= = 1.66 cl - 2.04 5.29 7.11 7.75 8.12

x lo3 x 10

c =,@j ce=jj*

1.97 1.50 1.60 1.70 3.08 2.86 -< " B- -z 4.25 --z u B- c 4.17

1.40

1.62

X lo3 x IO' x IO'

c:-446 c z54.4 cI=b67

1.53

I..42

NaIn

NT

2.65 1.614 1.63 I.582 1.62 1.693 - I.648

I.62

<

J2140

2.27 .c 12140 9955 --c 1,'s- : 17763 2.99 2.39 2.57 2.52 3.09 2.37 f cl = 2.3 c e co = 2.57 E = 2.57 ce = 2.57 e = 2.3

7.461X11? 9.800X IO' 7.M x 1'2 8.268X

1.0 lo3 x IQ4

~~-153 co-R43

1.36

2.05 1.88

1.69

1.29

2.16

7.7R2X1"8

A-19

'iable
<Len rj

3(a)

mermal

rroperzles

or

axploslves

CfHmN

NAnf?

T
I)fERflAL CONDUCTTVITY

LINEAR
WPANSIDN

THER?4AI.

CTrF:lTICTlST

1
-24
74

It-lh/hr-ft-F
cm/cm-C)

wm-K
0.363 46.11 26.9h 31.00 @ < -29.2 F > -29.2 48.50 55.80 @ -c -34 @ > -340 @ 10.4+ 165.2 83.00 C -12-4

(Io-6 in/in-F)
31.11 @ -65.P+ -1l.Y 56.00 C -54+

(1o-6

Lx-11

1.633

X 10

LX-14

NG

NQ

OCTOL 7OlNl

PBX-900

FBX-9010

9,667 X ld
0.215 0.41R 20.72 37.28 @ -65.20+ @ -31.0*+ -40 165.2 51.70 67.10 36.67 66 .oo

MX-9011

1.88 x lo2

@ -540, e -3P+

-40 74

FBX-9 205 1.9m x lo2 0.422 28.11 32.20 @ -65-t+ -31 50.60 @ -s4*+ 58 .DO Q -24+ -35 74

PBX-9404

@ -11.20-r

165.2'

FBX-9407 2.032 x lo2 0.452

PBX-9501

30.61

@ -19.6O+

lS9.8'

55.10

e -47+

71"

PEMvLITE
42.5 f-20.1-

50150
49.9 194) @ 68 83.0 (-2p 63.6 35.33

FEIN

9Q) 20

RDX I.313 X 106 p-1.533 Hg/m3

0.209 0.292

1.300 x lo6 p-1.263 3f&

TATB

TETWL
1.285 X 16 pd.528 Fig/m

1.093

X 106

p=1.394 Mgl2

0.243 O.Z%i

TNETB

MT

1.053 x IO6 p-1.54 1.166 x 106 p-1.6

2.297
p=l

np,!/?? Hgh?
.b7 El*h3

x l@

0.234 0.260 0.511

30.00

Q -4O.Ip+

140

54 .OO Q -40=-r

60

Table

5(b)

Thermal

Properties

of Explosivesa

VOLME

THERMAL EXPANS101

COEPQICTEWT

SQEclPIC THtWiAL STAB1LJl-t

lIEAT

(lo-6in3/in3-F)
(IO4 ft-lb/lb /F J/kgfK *Q m' at cm 3 Icm3-C) oc In3 *t STP 122.09

STP

RARATUL

156.31 313.hO lh9.31 .0117 - .0245 2.4 182.75 171.09 194.42 292.bO 242.63
b

657 6.41 169 803

86 122 158 181-212

30 50 70 83-100

.ow92

.llOlZ

1.5

x 1Q-8 - 2.0

x lo-8

MRACIW3L

NW

x lo-? 5.1 x 10-B

- 4 .o x lo-7

CmlP

8
983 920 1046 1573 1305 m1s9
-103

-103 32 17 167 212

-75 0 2s 75 100

.00312

COUP C-6

2.6 .OW85? - .00245 1.4

X lo-' x lo-8 - 4.0 x lo-8

CYcLolvL 32 77 167 212

75125

f71.09 17b.97 197.53 273.74 272.96

920 941 1063 1473 lh69

25 15 1M)
-c .OOlRO

DAT8lDATN8

< 3.015

x lO-8

DIQAM

DNQA

.W245

- .Ou367

4.015

x lo4

- 6.014

x Id8

EmD

Fun

194.42 219.957
365.500

1046 1yM 1966 177.31 2Q6.86 229 .bl 244.96 954 1113 1234 1316

-99.6 77 260.6 32 b 122 212 302

-73 25 127 0 50 loo 1M

.W245

- .W6124

4.015

x 1o-8

- 1.004

x 1o-7

ma
I -2P-r 158' 162.50 @ -3lQ-r 70'

90.19

< .OW6124

IUUAB 311.06 1674 68 20 ~300612 .lOl Q 176' 1.003 1.80 x m-8 X lOi Q 80'

MNS

1.x41

Table

S(b)

Thermal

Properties

of

Explosives"

(Con't)

cobwnfd
COEPPICIENT

MIME STECI FIG HFAT THERHAL STARrLIlT in3

I

VOLD?Wt TIIHERHAL AXlANSIOI4

3

T
1
at STP X 1O-7 x lo-11
F

(lo-6 I/kg 1"l *C at STP

cm ' /cm Ii -"Cl

CC-lb/lb

/"r

LX42-1 225.52 3.0 1.003 x 1o-8 .0024 .037 x 10 -7 - 6.0 - 4.0 233.30 225.52 20 ~~ 20 68 .DO18 .00122 .00612 .oD122 - .00294 - JO24
b8

213.89 1213 1255 1213 1172 1130 1112 20 m m 35- 20 .a3122 209.97 1130
llJ2

@ -22.0*+ ,018 .00612 163.4 158' 565 .oo 209.97 217.7h 241.08 1297 1130 1490 95-392 68 68 209.97 276.85 217.74 182.90 @ -29'+ 70' 228.20 20 @ -XV-r 70'

158'

385.00

@ -He+

JO*

LX-06

126.78

C -18.4'+

LX-O?

101.61

@ -20.2'+

LX-08

313.89

LX-09-O

3.0 1.999 1.0 2.0

x 10 -8 - 7.0 x 1o-8 x 10 -8 - 4.0 x 10-R

x lo-*

Lx-lo-0

LX-11

x 10 -a

LX-14

NC

NO

- .ooYm

2.0

x If8

- 5.0

x 1o-8

OcrnL

70/.30

68 68 68
68

20 20 20 20 .0018 .oD12 .00147 - .0063 - .0024 3.0 2.0 2.409 x lo-8 - 1.0 x 10 -8 - 6.0 X HI-' x 1o-8 x 10-S

PrIX-9007 209.97 1130 lIY0

IIJ2 1130

217.75

PBX-9010 209.97 217.15 m9.97 m9.97 209.97 202.19 158' L91.00 e 20' !69.19 @ -zoo+ 70' 202.19 213.08
221 .b4

PRX-'Ml1

PBX-9205

68 68 68

20 20 20

.00153 .022 .DD%7 .OZbS

2.507 3.605
b.0

X lo-' x iow7 - 4.015 x IO-'

PRX-9404

mx-9407

1130 1190 1088 1088

PLIX-9Ml

68 68 68

20 20 20

.DD429

7.030

x 1o-8

PENMLITE

SOi

PEnI

L58.44

@ -22 .o'+

.006124 .t-l0122 224.75 227.86 1146 1192 1209 1226 68 122 15A 212 20 50 70 110

- .00857 - .DD153

I.004 2.0

x 1o-7

- 1.404 x 10 -a - 2.50

x lo-7 x 10 -8

RDX

L06.11

C 680'

rhTm

Table

5(b)

Thermal

Properties

of Explosivesa

(Con't)

VOLUME

TllEWl~l.

EXPANSI(H

CORFFICIEM

T
SPFLIFIC HFAT TIlERHAL STMIILITY

(lOAin/in-F)
1 at STP
15s .532 164.064 X73.416 103.528 -50 0 50 100 837 887 933 987 -58 h 32 122 140 a022

88.89
1293

C 80.6* 1372 1417 Is65

XX*

240.30 255.07 274.51 290.85 32 68 122 176 0 20 WI 80 I. -

.0(1073

0.

- i.2

x lo-*

R.

See Table

1.

COE1MON NAtlE

r
r
CIUF'MM-JOIIGET DETONATION PRRSSURE TM CRlTICAL ENERGY EQUIVALENT WLIGW

T
1
1.03 x lo5

BARATOL
15,978 4.87 2.n3 x lOh

1.m \-_ 0.283

x lo4

0.525

BORACITOL
4.86 8.48 1.99 6.04 8.30 6.85 2.59 x lo4 7.52 3.76 x 12 3.73 4.28 X lOh 2.95 2.57 3.15 x lo4 4.26 x lob* 2.94 X IO4 27,838 26,214 26.378

15.945 1.198 1.092 1.129 1.115 0.693 0.959 0.752

0.87b * 5.61 X LO 3.87 x lo4

BTE

COHP 8

x 104 1.m X 10'

x 18

Cow 75125
27.231 24,6?2 24,278 20,013 20. h69 23,622 29,FRB 24,934 22,966 7 .po 7.60 9.11 7.20

c-4 4.58 x 10'

x loh*

CYCWTOL

DATR/DAnW

DIPAFI FJ.10* 4.30* 1.149 1.042 1.044 1.009

2.2h X

DNPA

EDNP

FEFO

FOlX

HNAR

HNS

9.73

x lo4 @ p=1:555 1.222

1.42

X 18 p=1.555

LX-01
22.441 6,84

106. ,1.5h

I.
24.180 27,756 28,346 21,522 6.56 8.81 5.47 5.44 4.50 x lob 3.77 1 28.937 27,294 28,991 8.32 28,904 8.46 4.08 7,.37

,. x ld x loh*
3.50 3.4h

x IO4 .' x 104

x 10 4

LX:OZ-1

1.009
1.0071.058 1.406

,,
7.47 x IO4 1.09

IX-04 a.44 5.02

x lo6

LX-07

Lx-08

L&09-

R lo6 x lo6
x loh*

1.136

6.59

R IO4

9.82 3.75 3.10 k *04 x lo4 1.101 0.874

x LO5

LS-10-O

a.82

IA-11-O

LX-14 ar?
based

8.84 heats of detonation

5.37

x 12

3.70

x .104

1.119 --

,'-.,

'Values

on calculated

Table

Performance

of

Explosivesa

(Can't)

T
T

-I'INT F,qU LVALENT UEIcwr t

lb/in -1lPn rt-lh/tt

1
J/m2

rt/ner

kmisrr:

NC

25,262 x LO6 0.752 4.96 3.84

2.65 X IO4

7.70 2.53 X lo4 7.65 8.48 II.09 0.37 a.50 a.17 8.80 7.91 8.83 7.61 11.26 x lo6 x 12 3.40 3.40 R.70 4.90 4.93 x lo4 x lo4 4.06 x IOh 1 2.80 x lo4 I 4.16 x lo6 2.87 X 1R4 1.136 1.129 1.085 1.169
1.189

3.67

1.136

NO

ZS.OPA 27.821 26,542 27,460 4.76 4.70 4.M 5.44 x lo6 3.75 x 101 1.108 x LO6 1 .?.I18 x L04, 1.037 x LO6 3.20 x lo4 1.087 X 1U6 3.28 x IO4 27,887 26,804 28,871 25,951 28.970 SO/SO 27,099 28,543 24.508 1.044 x loh 1.108 x lo6 3.42 x lo4 1.113

OCTOL ?0/30

lxx-9007

PBX-9ojo

PBX-9011

PRX-9205

PRX-9404

PRX-9407

PBX-9SOl

PENTOLITE

PETN

%I.14

x lo4

1.67

X 10'

RDX

TATR 25,754 7.85 3.77 x 12 2.60 X IO4 1.071

6.10

x lo5 2.m x lo4 @ ~=I.655

9.50 4.20

x LO6 X 105

TETRYL

TNETLI 22.736 27,198 6.93 8.29

2.76

X lo6

1.90

x IO4 1.0 2.AR x lo4 Cast 9.73 x 104 PrPnsed 4.20 X IO6 cast 1.42 X LO6 Pressed

TNT

a.

See Tahl~

1.

* RTE based

C.llculated on calculnted heats of detonatjon

Vahes

APPENDIX B BIBLIOGRAPHY The references cited in this appendix were acquired from a number of sources. Journal articles were usually copied from the journals in a technical library. The majority of the references were U. S. Government technical reports, and these were ordered from National Technical Information Services (NTIS), using accession numbers listed in the NTIS catalogs. In some instances, the accession numbers are missing from our citations because we are on the mailing lists for explosives safety and explosives effects reports for a number of government agencies and obtained these reports directly. Reports and standards for materials, structural member properties, and codes were obtained from the appropriate industrial associations. General Department of Energy codes and regulations, and those specific for the Pantex Plant, were obtained from Amarillo Area Office, Department of Energy. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntsville Division, furnished a number of reference reports and design manuals. Some reports giving results of related work in Europe were obtained through our contacts with the appropriate European laboratory or agency. If an AE needs to obtain specific he should use the sources noted above. references from the Bibliography,

B-l

Abbott, P. A., "Hand'Solution of One-Dimensional Inelastic Wave Propagation Problems," The Eric H. Wang Civil Engineering Research Facility, University of New Mexico, AFWL-TR-67-69, Air Force Weapons Laboratory, October 1967. Abrahamsson, Eddy, "Blast Loaded Windows," 18th Explosive Safety Seminar sponsored by the Department of Defense Explosive Safety Board, Swedish Publication SAI Report Dnr 605/7131-75, Solna, Sweden, October 1978. Abrahamsson, Eddy, "Dome Action in Slabs with Special Loaded Concrete Slabs," Stockholm, Sweden, 1967. Abrahamsson, Eddy, "Operation Block," Report No. 119:5, fications Administration, Stockholm 80, Sweden, 1974. Abrahamson, of Critical Menlo Park, pp 35-46. Reference Royal to BlastSwedish Forti-

G. R., and Lindberg, H. E., 'Peak Load-Impulse Characterization Pulse Loads in Structural Dynamics," Stanford Research Institute, California, Nuclear Engineering and Desiw, Vol. 37, January 1976 Practices, Parts Redford Station,

AC1 Manual of Concrete tute, P. 0. Box 19150,

1, 2, and 3, American Concrete InstiDetroit, Michigan (current edition).

"A Comparison of Various Materials in Their Resistance to Perforation by Steel Fragments, Empirical Relationships,' Technical Report No. 25, U. S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md, July 1956. Adams, Channing L., Sarmousakis, James, N., and Sperrazza, Joseph, of the Blast From Explosive Charges of Different Shapes," Ballistic Laboratories, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., Report No. 681, January Ahlers, Safety D. C., E. B., "Fragment Hazard Study," Seminar, Vol. 1, Armed Services September 1969. Minutes Explosives of the Eleventh Safety Board, "Comparison Research 1949.

Explosives Washington,

Ahrens, T. J., AFCP,L-67-0529, sure Research,

"Stre$s Wave Propagation in a Prestressed Medium," Report No. Stanford Research Institute, Poulter Laboratory for High PresMenlo !Park, California, October 1967. for the. Design, Fabrication and Erection ,Americsn Institute of Steel Construction, of Structural New York, NY,

AISC Specification Steel for Buildings-, February 1969.

Albright, G. H., Beck, E. J., LeDoux, J. C., and Mitchell, R. A., 'Evaluation of Buried CorrugateddSteel Arch Structures and Associated Components, Operation Plumbbob-Project 3.3," Headquarters, Field Command Defense Atomic Support Agency, Sandia Base, Albuquerque, New Mexico, February 1961. Albritton, G. E., "Deep Slabs Subjected to Static and Blast Loading," Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 95, No. STU, November 1969, pp 2449-2462.

B-2

Altman, Warhead

F, D., "Model Studies and Terminal Ballistics

of

Explosive Laboratory,

Storage Cubicles," May 1964. Association, Concrete,

Report

No.

1917, New 10.2,

Aluminum Standards and Data, The Aluminum York, NY 10017, (current edition). Building Code Requirements for The American Concrete Institute. Reinforced

750 Third AC1 318-77,

Avenue, Section

Anderson, J. H. B., "A Study of the Flow The Ground," PCN-2lICO1, Defense Research Alberta, Canada, April 1978. Anderson, J. H. B., "A Study of the the Ground," Paper presented at the tary Applications of Blast Simulation, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Parts l-48, American Society Philadelphia, Pa, 19103.

Field Induced Establishment,

by an Explosion Near Suffield, Ralston,

Flow Field Induced by an Explosion Near 5th International Symposium on the MiliStockholm, Sweden, May 23-26, 1977. Society for Testing and Materials, and Materials, 1916 Race Street, on Hardened 1976.

for

American Testing

Anon. "Effects of Airblas.t, Cratering, Ground Shock and Radiation Structures," AFSCM 500-8, Air Force Systems Command Manual, January Anon. "Hardness Safeguard Ground U. S. Army Corps

Program Non-E?@, Subsystem Hardness Assurance Report for Facilities, Vol. 1, Executive Summary," HNDDSP--72-156-ED-R, of Engineers, Huntsville Division, June 1975. Subsysteu.Hardness 2, Final Report," Division .' June Assurance Report HNDDSP-72-156-ED-R, 1975. for U. S.

Anon. "Hardness Program Non-m, Safeguard Ground Facilities, Vol. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntsville Anon. Corps "Overpressure of Engineers, Effects Huntsville

on Structures," HNDTR-75-23-ED-SR, Division, February 1976. Behavior at the

U. S. Army Pantex Materials," Facility, ANSI/

Anon., Seismic URS/John Blume

Hazard and Building Structure and Associates, April 1976. of Preformed 1975).

"Apparent Impact Strength ASTM C 589-68, (reapproved

Block-Type

Insulating

Armendt, B. F., Hippensteel, R. G., Hoffman, A. J., and Reefer, J. H., " Project White Tribe: Air Blast from Simultaneously Detonated Large Scale Explosive Charges," BRL Report No. 1145, U. S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratories, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., 1961. Armendt, B. G., Hippensteel, Air Blast from Simultaneously 1294, U. S. Army Ballistic 1960. R. G., Hoffman, A. J. and Ungery, C. N., The Detonated Explosive Spheres," BRZ. Report No. Research Laboratories, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.,

B-3

Arrnendt, B. F., Hippensteel, R. G., Hoffman, A. J. and Schlueter, S. D., "The Air Blast from Simultaneously Detonated Explosive.Spheres: P-art II-Optimization," BRL Memorandum Report No. 1384, U. S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratories, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., January 1962. Army-Navy Technical Explosives Paper No. Safety Board, "The 2, ,December 1945. Missile Hazard from Explosions," Pro-

Arvidsson, T. and Eriksson, L., "Fragmentation, Structure and Mechanical perties of Some Steels land Pure Aluminum After Shock Loading," Forsvarets Forskningsanstalt (FOA)!, National Defence Research Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, 1974.

Arya, R., Ammar, A., Dobbs, H., Weissman, S. and Price, P., "Blast Capacity Evaluation of Below-ground Structures," hann & Whitney Report No. ARLCDCR-77006 for U. S. Army Armament Research and Development Command Large Caliber Weapon Systems Laboratory, Dover, New Jersey, May 1977. Ashcraft, Division, R. W., "Mathematical Analysis of.HE Data," MHSMP-73-43R, Development Mason & Hanger, Silas Mason Co., Inc., July-September 1973. Table of Distances of Explosives , The Blast Waves," AIAA

Assheton, R., History of Explosions on Which the American Was Based, Including Other Explosions of Large Quantities Institute of Makers of Explosives, 1930. Bach, G. G. and Lee, .T. H. S., "An Analytic Journal, Vol. 8, 1970, 'pp 271-75. Bach, G. G. and Lee, Waves," AIAA Journal, Solution for

J. H. S., "Higher Order Perturbation Solutions Vol. 7 No. 4, April 1969, pp 742-744. of a Maze Structure Laboratory, Livermore, to Attenuate CA, March Blast 1980.

for

Blast

Bacigalupi, C. M., "Design 52921, Lawrence.Livermore

Waves,"

UCRL-

Baker, C. F. and Mullins, R. K., "Design Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Loading," Livermore, California, June 1973. Baker, E. J., Garza, L.' R. and Westine, Relocatable Command Andy Control Bunker," March 1977. Baker, W. E., Under Impulsive pp 107-117. Baker, Under 1979, "Approximate LOadin&tf

of a Building UCID-16275,

Wall Subject Univerlity of

to Blast California, of a Station,

P. S.,,"Devel.opment of A Design CR N-77-1, Waterways Experiment Structures 7, 1975,

Techniques for Plastic Deformation of Shock and Vibration Digest, Vol. 7 No.

Techniques for Plastic W. E., "Approxi&te Impulsive Loading, II," Shock and Vibration pp 19-24. I B-4

Deformation of Structures Digest, Vol. 11, No. 7,

Baker, 1973.

W. E.,

Explosions

in

Air,

University

of Texas

Press,

Austin,

Texas,

Baker, W. E., "Prediction and Scaling of Reflected Waves," International Journal of Mechnical Science,

Impulse from Strong Blast Vol. 9, 1967, pp 45-51.

Baker, W. E., "Scale Model Tests for Evaluating Outer Containment Structures for Nuclear Reactors," Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Enerpy, United Nations, Geneva, Vol. II, 1958, pp 79-84. Baker, W. E., 'The nal Blast Loading, 1960, pp 139-144. Elastic-Plastic Response of Journal of Applied Mechanics, Thin Spherical Shells to InterVol. 27, Series E, 1, March Pressures Ground,

Baker, W. E. and Oldham, G. A., 'Estimates.of in Vented Chambers," EM-CR-76029, Edgewood Md., November 1975.

Blowdown of Quasistatic Arsenal, Aberdeen Proving

Baker, W. E. and Westine, P. S., "Methods of Predicting Loading and Blast Field Outside Suppressive Structures," Minutes of the 16th Annual Safety Seminar, Department of the Defense Explosives Safety Board, 1974. Baker, W. E. and Westine, P. S., 'Methods of Predicting Blast Loads Inside and Outside Suppressive Structures,' EM-CR-76026, Report No. 5, Edgewood Arsenal, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., 1975. Baker, W. E., Cox, P. A., Esparza, E. D. and Westine, P. S., "Design a Suppressive Structure for a Melt Loading Operation," EM-CR-76043, 9, Edgewood Arsenal, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., December 1975. Study Report of No.

Baker, W. E., Cox, P. A., Westine, P. S., Kulesz; J. J. and Strehlow, R. A., A Short Course on Explosion Hazards Evaluation, Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas, Copyright 1978. Baker, W. E., Esparza, E. D., and Kulesz, J. and Reactions," Proceedings of 2nd Znternational and Safety Promotion in the Process Industries, 1977. Baker, W, E., Hokanson, J. C. and Cervantes, Missiles," Final Report SwRI Project 02-9153, San Antonio, Texas, May 1976. J., 'Venting of Chemical Explosions Symposium on Loss Prevention Heidelberg, Germany, September of Industrial Institute, SpherVol.

R. A., "Model Tests Southwest Research

Baker, W. E. Hu, W. C. L., and Jackson, T. R., "Elastic Response of Thin ical Shells to Axisymmetric Blast Loading," Journal of Applied-Mechanics, 33, Series E, 4, December 1966, pp 800,806.

B-5

Baker, W. E., Kulesz, J. J., Ricker, R. E., Bes.sey, R. L., Westine, P. S., Parr, V. B., and Oldham, G. A., "Workbook for Predicting Pressure Wave and Fragment Effects of Exploding Propellant Tanks and Gas Storage Vessels," NASA CR-134 906, NASA Lewis Research Center, September 1977. Baker, W. E. Kulesz, J. J., Ricker, R. E., Westine, P. S., Parr, V. B., Vargas, L. M. and Moseley, P. K., "Workbook for Estimating the Effects of Accidental Explosion$ in Propellant Handling Systems," NASA CR 3023, NASA Lewis Research Center, August 1978. Baker, W. E., Parr, Vt. B., Analysis of Fragmentation the 15th Explosives safety Board, Washington, D! C., I Baker, W. E., Parr, V. B., Analysis of Fragmentation 134538, NASA Lewis Research Bessey, Data for Seminar, Vol. II, Bessey, Data for Center, R. L. and Cox, P. A., "Assembly and Liquid Propellant Vessels," Minutes of Department of Defense Explosives Safety September 1973, pp 1171-1203. R. L., and Cox, P. A., "Assembly and Liquid Propellant Vessels," NASA CR Cleveland, Ohio, January 1974. P. A., and Young, D., "Methods of Computing to Weapons' Muzzle and Breech Blast," Bulletin 40, Part 2, pp 227-241, December

Baker, W. E., Silverman, S., Cox, Structural Response df Helicopters The Shock and Vibration Bulletin, 1969.

Baker, W. E., Westink, P. S. and Cox, P. A., "Methods for Prediction of Damage to Structures from Accidental Explosions," Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Loss Prevention and Safety Promotion in the Process Industrtes, Heidelberg, Germany, September 1977. P. Baker, W, E., Westine, neering Dynamics: Theory Rochelle Park, NJ, 1973. Baker, W. E., Whitney, Explosives by Fragment posium). S., and Dodge, F. T., and Practice of Scale Similarity Modeling, Methods in EngiSpartan Books, of Sym-

M. G. and Parr, V. B., "Scaling of Initiation (submitted to 50th Shock and Vibration Impact,"

Baladi, E. Y., et al;, "Ground Shock Calculation Parameter Study, Report 3, Influence sf Typebof~Constitutive Model on Ground Motion Calculations," Army Engineer-Waterways Ekperiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, April 1974.. Baladi, G. Y., Zelasko, J. S., George, M. E. and Wehl, R. E., "Effects of Depth of Burst and Geology on Calculated SMB Peak Stress Environments," Soils and Pavements Laboratory, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss., September 1976. Balemans, A, W. M., bnd van de Putte, T., "Guideline for Explosio.n-resistant Control Buildings inithe Chemical Process Industry," 2nd International Symposium on Loss Prevehtion and Safety Promotion in the Process Industries, Heidelberg, Germany ,~ September 1977, pp 215-222.

B-6

Barber, R. B., "Steel Technical Development ment, Bechtel Corp.,

Rod/Concrete Slab.Impact Program, Final Report, October 1973. of Bases

-Test (Experimental Simulation)," Job No. 90142, Scientific DevelopMcGraw Hill Book Co., New

Barkan, D. D., Dynamics York, NY, 1962. Barnard, Response England, Barnard, Loading," September

and Foundations,

A. J. and Sharman, of Plates to Blast October 1973. A. J. and Sharman, European Research 1972.

P. W., "The-Elasto-Plastic Loading," Loughborough P. W., Office, "Elasto-Plastic United States

and Large-Displacement University of Technology, Response of Plates Army, London W.l., to Blast England,

Barnett, R. L., Costello, J. F. and Feinstein, D. I., "Debris Formation and Translation," IIT Research Institute, Technology Center, Chicago, Illinois, November 1966. Bartknecht, 45-53. W., "Explosion Pressure Relief," s 73, 9, September 1977, pp

of Investigations Bartknecht, W., "Report of Flanxnable Dusts in Vessels," Central (translated by H. Burg). Basler & Hofmann Ingenieure Projektlerte Laborieraflage Zurich, Switzerland, June

on the Problem of Venting Explosions Safety Service TS 3, February 10, 1974, "Modellversuche Munitionsfabrik Fuer Die Altdorf, Fuer UnterflurB726-1,

and Planer, A. G., Der Eidgenoessischen 1978.

B877-2,

Basler & Hofmann Ingenieure and Planer, A. G,, "Modellversuche magazine, Teil I, Konzeption and Durchfuhrung Der Modellversuche," Zurich, Switzerland, May 1976. Basler 6 Hofmann Ingenieure and Planer, A. magazine, Teil III, Ausvertung der Daten," land, November 1976. Basler & Hofmann Unterflurmagazine, 1976. G., "Modellversuche B555.2-35, B726-6,

Fuer UnterflurZurich, SwitzerFuer June Plan U. S.

A. G. Inguenieure and Planer, A. G., "Modellversuche Teil II, Versuchsdaten," B726-2, Zurich, Switzerland, Program Plan,"

Batchelder, F. E., et al., "Hardness Program, Non-E@, Hardness for Safeguard Ground Facilties, Vol. 1, Management and Technical Army Corps of Engineers, Huntsville Division, August 1974.

Bathe, K. J., "ADINA, A Finite Element Program for Automatic Dynamic Incremental Nonlinear Analysis," Report 82448-1, Acoustics and Vibration Lab, Med. Eng. Department, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1976.

B-7

Bdzil, J. B. and Davis, W. C., Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory,

"Time-Dependent -Detonations,".LA-5926-MS, Los Alamos, New-Mexico, June 1975.

"Behavior and Utilization of Explosives in Engineering Design and Biomechda-. ical Principles Applied to Chemical Medicine,' Proceedings of the 12th Annual Symposium of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, MaTch 1972. Benedick, W. B, and~Danie1, C. J., "Explosion States Patent 4,0551247, October 1977. Bergman, S. G. A., "Swedish Protective Constituting Explosion Hazard in the of the New York Academy of Sciences, Containment Device,".United

Structures for Manufacturing Units Range 1 i 2,000 Pounds of TNT," Annals Vol. 152, Art. 1, October 1968. BRL Memorandum Aberdeen Proving R. E.., Laboratory,

Bertrand, B. P., "Suppressive Shielding: Scenario Definition," Report No. 2704. U. S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratories, Ground, Md., December 1976. Bethe, H. A,, Fuchs; K. Hirschfelder, and vonNeumann, J.,#"Blast Wave," August 1947. Bethe, H. A., Hydrodynamics Biggs, J. M., New York, NY,

H. O., Magee, J. L., Perierls, LASL 2000, Los Alamos Scientific R., and Penny, 19.44. McGraw-Hill

Fuchs, K., vonNeumann, J.,Perierls, and Blast Waves," AECD 2860, October Introduction 1964. ~ to Structural R. F., and McArdle, Fragment Projector," Force Base, Florida, Dynamics,

W. G., Book

'%hock

Company,

J. F., Brandt, zation of an Aluminum Laboratory, Eglin Air

Black,

K. T., "The Design and CharacteriAFATL-TR-76-44, Air Force Armament April 1976.

Boger, R. C. and Waldman, G. D., "Blast Wave Interactions from Multiple Explosions," Paper #%II;Proceedin&s of the Conference on Mechanisms of Explosion and Blast Waves, J.,Alstor, Editor, sponsored by the Joint Technical Coordinating Group for Air Launched. Non-Nuclear Ordnance Working Party for Explosives, November 1973. Booker Associates, of High Explosives 1979. Inc., 'Title I Design Analysis, Volume I of Machining Facility," Pantex Plant, Amarillo, II, Replacement Texas, January

Booker Associates, Inc., 'Title II Calculations. Replacement of High Amarillo, Texas, September 1979. Booker Associates, Inc., Structural Calculations. Pantex Plant, Amarillo,

Design Analysis, Volume II of IV,. Structural Explosives Machining Facility," Pantex Plant, IV, More Facility,"

"Title II Design Analysis, Volume III of Replacement of High Explosives Machining Texas September 1979.

B-8

Bowen, I. G., Fletcher, E. R. and Richmond, D. R., "Estimate of Man's Tolerance to the-Direct Effects of Air Blast," Technical R&port to Defense,.Atomic Support Agency, DASA 2113, Lovelace Foundation for Medical Education and Research, October 1968. Bowen, I. G., Fletcher, E. R., Richmond, D. R., Hirsch, F. G. and White, C. S., "Biophysical Mechanisms and Scaling Procedures Applicable in Assessing Responses of the Thorax Energized by Air-Blast Overpressures or by Non-Penetrating Missiles," Contract No. DA-49-146-Z-372, Lovelace Foundation for Medical Education and Research, Albuquerque, New Mexico, November 1966. Bradley, Vessels. Bradley, Vessels, 255. D. and Mitcheson, A., "The Venting of-Gaseous Explosions in Spherical I- Theory," Combustion and Flame, Vol. 32, 1978, pp 221-236. D. and Mitcheson, A., "The Venting of Gaseous Explosions in Spherical II. Theory and Experiment," Combustion and Flame, Vol. 32, 1978, pp 237of Shock Waves,"

Brinkley, S. R. and Kirkwood, J. G., "Theory of the Propagation Phys. Rev., Vol. 71, 1947, p. 606.

Brinn, L. G., "A Select Bibliography on Explosions in Industrial Plant with Particular Reference to Design Aspects of Explosion Containment and Relief," SM/BIB/851, British Steel Corporation, 1974. Brode, H. L., 1959, 217. Brode, H. L., Physics, Vol. "Blast Wave From a Spherical Charge," Physics of Fluids, Blast Waves," Journal Vol. 2,

:Numerical Solutions of Spherical 26, 1955, pp 766-775.

of Applied

Brode, H. L., "Quick Estimates of Peak Overpressure from Two Simultaneous Blast Waves," Final Report for Defense Nuclear Agency, DNA4503T, R&D Associates, RDATR-107006-008, Marina Del Rey, California, December 1977.
NO. N-68-6,

Brogan, J. T. and Murrell, D. W., "Shock Isolation By Discontinuities," Paper U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MI., November 1968. Bronowicki, A. J., and Evensen, D. A., "Modeling the Dynamic Response of Slabs to Overpressure," Final Report No. 4535F for Defense Nuclear Agency, S. H. Wiggins Company, Redondo Beach, California, December 1977.

Brooks, W. B., "Transient Pressures Induced on a Slender Body Under Oblique Blast Wave Interception," Aeroelastic and Structures Research Laboratory, Departof Technology, ment of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute Cambridge, Massachusetts, July 1967. Brown, C. J. and Ricchiazzi, A. J.-, "Fragment Penetration Estimates for the 8lmm Suppressive Shield," Minutes of the Sixteenth Explosives Safety Seminar, Vol. II, September 1974. B-9

Brown,
tion

J. A. and Collknsti M., "Explosion Phenomena and Detonations," Esso Research and Engineering October 1967.

Intermediate Company,

Between DeflagraLinden, New Jersey, Fragment Impact," MI, 1970. to Defeat Waterways NASA-2485,

of Selected Materials to High-Speed Brown, J, W., "Response U. S. Army Engineer W/aterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,

Bucci, D. R. and Mlak@r, P. F., "Design of Earth-Covered StructuresContact Burst Rounds," Technical Report N-76-7, U. S. Army Engineer Experiment Station, V$cksburg, MI, June 1976. Burenin, Techtran P. I., "Effect of Shock Waves," Corporation, March 1974. Final Report on Contract

"Hazardous Materials.Reguiations of the Bureau of Explosives, portation by Air, Rail, Highway, Water--.&d Military Explosives ing Specifications fo,r Shipping Containers," R. M. Graziano's Association .o-f-American Railroads, Washington, D. C., March 1,
Butler, D. K., 'Development of a HighiVelocity ment Penetration Tests into Sand," Miscellaneous ments Laboratory, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways MI, October 1975. Butlin, R. N., ing Buildings. Note No. 1054,

Department of Transby Water IncludTariff No. 31, 1977.

Powder Gun and,Analysis of FragPaper S-75-27, Soils and PaveExperiment Station, Vicksburg,

"Estimation of Maximum Explosion Pressure from Damage to SurroundExplosion at Mersey House, Bootle-28 August, 1975,' Fire Research Fire Research Station, England, July 1976. on Experiments Concerning the Venting Research Note No. 1026, Fire Research Produced by Gas Explosions in Fire Research Station, England, a Vented Sept-

Butlin, R. N., "A Review of Information of Gas Explosions in Buildings," Fire Station, England, February 1975. Butlin, R. N. and Tonkin, P. S., Compartment," Fire Research Note ember 1974. Caggiano, AD-775-422, Carder, Journal T.,

'Pressures No. 1019,

"Calculation of TNT Air-Blast Equivalencies for Surface Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, New Jersey, December 1973. Underground

Bursts,' Explosions,"

Motion from Large D. S. and Cloud, W. K., "Surface Geophysical Research, Vol. 64, 1959, pp 1471-1487.

Carmichael, J. B. and von Gierke, H. E., "Biodynamic Applications Regarding Isolation of Humans froi Shock and Vibration," Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, AD 770-316, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, September 1973. Carpenter, H. J., IYOu Nuclear Height-of-Burst Airblast at High Overpressure," Final Report for Defense Nuclear Agency, Contract DNAOOl-75-C-0057, R&D Associates, January 1975.

B-10

the Generation Carpuchin, I. A. and Bobolev,V. K., "The Law Governing Explosipn of Solid Explosive Mixtures," Report No. FTD-MT-24-0138-73, Systems Command, U..S. Air Force, Wright Patterson AFB, OH., 1970. Cassen, B. and Stanton, J. Naval Ordnance Test Station, S.., "The Decay of Shock Inyokern, California, Laws for December Desert 196.5. Waves," Report No. March 29, 1948. SC-4391,

of Impact Air Force

1011,

U. S. Corpora-

Chabai, A. J., llCrater Scaling tion, Albuquerque, New Mexico,

Alluvium,"

Sandia

Char, W. T., "Simplified Approach Explosions," 18th Explosive Safety ville Division, September ,1978. Chayla, sives," Proving

for Design of Buildings Containing Accidental Seminar, U.~ S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntsof Projectile Impact Research Laboratory, on ExploAberdeen Ground No. -2551, July 1977. ExploCanada, Waves

M. S. and Frey, R. B., "A Numerical Study BRL Report No. 2741, U. S. Army Ballistic Ground, MD, April 1977.

Cherry, J. T., Barker, Motion from Free-Field AD A 055 141, Advanced Chiu, K., Lee, J., sions," Department 1976.

T. G., Day, S.'M. and Coleman, P. L., "Seismic and Underburied Explosive Sources," ARPA Order Research Projects Agency, -La Jolla, California, R., "The Engineering, .-.

and Knystautas, of Mechanical

Blast Waves from Asymmetrical McGill University, Montreal, Calculation of Blast 5, 1967, pp 618-723.

R. R. and Huangy S-. L., "Numerical Chou, P. C., Karpp, by the Method of Characv?ristics," A&4 Journal, Vol.

Christoffersen, Oivind, "Investigation of Underground Explosions with Model Tests System Description and scrue Implementation Details," Teknisk Notat S-498, Torsvarers Torkingsinstitutt, Norwegian Defence Research Establishment, Kjeller, Nomay, February 1978. Laboratory Procedures for Determining Sensitivity, Clear, A. J., "Standard sance, and Stability of Explosives," Report No. 3278, Propellants Laboratory, Feltman Research Laboratories, Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, New Jersey, April Bri1970.

Clemedson, C. J., Hellstrom, G. and Lingren, S., "The Relative Tolerance of the Head, Thorax, and Abdomen to -Blunt Trauma," Annals of -he New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 152, Art. 1, October 1968, p 187. Cohen, E. and Dobbs, N., "Supporting Studies to Establish Safety Design Criteria for Storage and Processing of Explosive Materials," Contract No. DA-28-017-AMC423A, Ammann & Whitney, New York, NY, June 1965. Cohen, E. and Saffian, L. W., "Prevention of and Protection Explosion of Munitions, Fuels and Other Hazardous Mixtures," York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 152, Art. 1, October 1968, Against Annals pp l-913. Accidental of the New

B-11

Coleburn, N. L., "Chapman-Jouguet NOLTR-64-58, U. S. Naval Ordnance Collett, Technical

Colton,

Pressures Laboratory,

of

Several Pure and Mixed Explosives," White Oak, MD., June 1964. Projectile," July 1976. for 1971.

R. W., "Half-Scale Memorand 2206, J.

Tests for Containment of a Fragmenting Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, New Jersey,

Detasheet
Concrete

D., "Measurement of Pressure, AFWL-TR-71-23, L Explosive,"

Impulae, and Detonation Velocity Stanford Research Inrtitute,.April Association, Building Explosion 33 West Grand

Chicago, "Conducting pp 72-77. Constance, neering,

Masonry Handbook, Portland Ill. (current edition). Strength 3. D., September Tests "Pressure 1971. of Panels Ventilate

Cement for for

Avenue, E, Engi-

Construction," Protection,"

ANSI/ASTM Chemical

Coulter, G. -A., "Translation and Impingement of Furniture Debris in a Model Apartment House Shelter," Report No. ARBRL-MR-02835, U. S. Army Ballistic &search Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD., May 1978. Cowan, Safety from M., "Measurements TID-4500 (31st edition), Gravel Gertie Tests," Sandia Corporation, SC-R-64-127, July 1964. Structure Safety Health and

Cox, P. A. and Esparza, E. D., "Design of a Suppressive Loading Operation," 'Minutes ofthe 16th Annual Explosion ment of the Defense Safety Board, 1974.

for a Melt Semitir, Depart"Analysis Report Arsenal, and ARCFL-CRAberdeen

Cox, P. A., Westine, P. S., Kulesz, 3. J. and Esparza, E. D., Edgewood Arsenal Contractor Evaluation of Suppressive Shields," 77028, Report No. 10, Contract No. DAAA15-75-C-0083, Edgewood Proving Ground, MD., January 1978. Crandell, Journal Crandell, Journal Cranz,
F.

J.,

Boston

"Ground Vibrations Due to Blasting Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 36, Coefficient Engineers,

and Its Effect i949, p. 245.

Upon Structures,"

F. J., "Transmission Boston Soc&$ty of Civil C., Lehrbuch der Ballistik,

for Ground Vibrations Due to Blasting," Vol. 47, 1960, pp 152-168. Berlin, 1926.

Springer-Verlag,

Crawford, R. E., Higgins, C. J. and Bultmann, E. H., "The Air Force Manual for Design and Analysis of Hardened Structures," Report No. AFWL-TR-74-102, Civil Nuclear Systems Corporation, Albuquerque, New Mexico, October 1974. (second printing October 1976). Criswell, M. E., "D&ign Slab System," Technical ment Station, Vicksburg, and Testing of a Blast-Resistant Reinforced Concretb Report No. N-72-10, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways ExperiMI, November 1972.

Criswell,

M. E., "Strength -and Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Slab-Column Connections Subjected to Static and Dynamic -Loadings," Technical Report N-70-1, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MI, December 1970.
to Sonic Booms," Journal

Cracker, 1'1. J. and Hudson, R. R., "Structural Response Vol. 9, 1969, pp 454-468. of Sound and Vibrations, Cubbage, P. A. and Marshall, rence to Plant Design, Vol. l-15, Institute of Chemical Custard,

M.,,R., "Chemical Process Hazards 1,"Chemical Engineering Symposium Engineers, London, England.

with Special RefeSeries No. 39, Safety CriteCompany, Falcon

ria,"
March

G. H. and Thayer, J. R., Contract DAHC-04-69-C-0095, 1970. G. 8. and Thayer, J. R., and Development Company,

"Evaluation bf Explosive Storage Falcon Research and Developmeat "Target Response September 1970. to Explosive

Custard, Research

Blast,"

Damon, E. G., Henderson, E. A. and Jones, R. K., "The Effects of Intermitt.ent Positive Pressure Respiration on Occurrence of Air Embolism and Mortality Following Primary Blast Injury," Final Report to the Defense Nuclear Agency, DNA 2989F, Lovelace Foundation for Medical Education and Research, Albuquerque, New Mexico, January 1973. Damon, E. G., Richmond, D. R., Fletcher, E. R. and Jones, R. K., "The Tolerance of Birds to Airblast," Final Report to Defense Nuclear Agency, DNA 3314F, Lovelace Foundation for Medical Education and Research, Albuquerque, New Mexico, July 1974. Damon, E. G., Yelverton, J. T., Luft, U. C., and Jones, R. K., "-Recovery of the Respiratory System Following Blast Injury," Technical Progress Report to Defense Atomic Support Agency, DASA 2580, Love1ac.e Foundation for Medical Education and Research, Albuquerque, New Mexico, October 1970. Damon,E. G., Yelverton, J. T., Luft, U. C., Mitchell, K., and Jones, R. K., "The Acute Effects of Air Blast on Pulmonary Function in Dogs and Sheep," Technical Progress Report to Defense Atomic Support Agency, DASA 2461, Lovelace Foundation for Medical Education and Research, Albuquerque, New Mexico, March 1970. Den Hartog, NY, 1956. Department Technical Manual," J. P., MechnicalVibrations, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc. New York, Hazards," User's Systems,"

of Defense Explosives Safety Board, Paper No. 12, Washington, D.C., July Swanson Analysis

"Fragment 1975.

and Debris System 1977.

DeSalvo, G. J. and Swanson,

"Design Data for TSB 122, HEXCEL,

Analysis J. A., "ANSYS Engineering System, Inc., Elizabeth, PA., March Selection of Honeycomb Energy

the Preliminary 1964.

Absorption

B-13

"Design Manual for Department of Civil 1974.

Tornado Resistant Structures.at the Engineering, Texas Tech University,

Pantex Plant Site,'! Lubbock,..Texas, November

Design of Structureslto Resist the Effects of Atomic Weapons, TM 5-856, 1 through 9, Department of the,Army, U. S. Army AG Publications Center, St. Louis, MO., March 1965. (This is an updated version of the U. S. Army COE Manual EMllO-345415, March 1957). "Development Department 1975. of Design Basis Tornadoes of Civil Engineering, Texas and Design Mmual Tech University, for Pantex Plant Site," Lubbock, Texas, August Pressure and TemperaResearch Laboratories,

Dewey, J. M. and Sperrazza, J., "The Effect of Atmospheric ture on Air Shock," BRL Report No. 721, U. S. Army Ballistic Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD., 1950. Dewey, rounds Ballistic

J. M., Johnson, 0. T., and Patterson, J. D., "Some Effects of Light Surand Casings on the Blast From Explosives," BRL Report No. 1218, U. S. Army Laboratories, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD., September 1963.

Dewey, J. M., Johnson, 0. T., and Patterson, J. D., "Mechanical Impulse Measurements Close to Explosive Charges," BRL Report No. 1182, U. S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratories, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD., November 1962. Diepold, Handling W., Pfortner, of Explosive H., and Hommel, H., "Safety Distances Matters," Explosivstoffe, Vol. 18, No. in
2,

the
1970,

Storage and pp 25-39. Missiles ProWaterways

Dishon,.J. F. III, "Investigation duced by Cratering Experiments," Experiment Station,mLivermore,

of Intermediate and Maximum Range Report No. MP E-74-2, Army Engineer California, March 1974.

Capacity Evaluation of Dobbs, N., Ammar, A., Weissman, S. and Price, P., "Blast Single Reverted Barricades," DAAA-21-76-C-0125, Ammann & Whitney Final Report for Picatinny Arsenal, Manufacturing Technology Directorate, Dover, New Jersey, November 1976. ~ W. J., Jr., and Shubin, L. D., "An Evaluation of Summary Report," Law Enforcement Standards Program No. LESP-RPT-OlOl.Ol~, National Institute of Law-Enforcement and Criminal Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, U. S. Department of Justice, 1975. Dobbyn, R. C., Bruchey,

Police
Report Justice, August

Handgun Ammunition.:

Dobratz, Brigitta, M., "Properties of Chemical Explosions and Explosive Simulants," UCRL-51319, Rev. 1, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Contract No. W-7405-Eng-48, Lawrence Livermore Lnboratory, University of California, July 1974. I Doering, W. and Burkhardt, G., "Contributions to the Theory of Detonation," Translation from the German as Technical Report No. F-TS-1227-IA, Headquarters, Air Material Command, Wrkght Patterson Air Force Base, OH., Mary 1949,

B-14

Dolling, Blast,"

J. C., "Fragmentation of Underground Metallic United States Patent 3,404,797, October 1968.

Silos

Subjected

to Internal

Donahue, J. D., "Evaluation of Explosives Storage Criteria," and Development Company, Denver, Colorado, March 1970.

Falcon Research Loading on AFB, New

Doughty, Capt. Jerry S., "An Investigation of Airblast Diffraction Simple Structural Shapes," Air Force Weapons Laboratory, Kirtland, Medico, January 1976.

Dow Chemical Company, "Fire and Explosion, Dow's Safety and Loss Prevention Guide, Hazard Classification and Protection," prepared by the Editors of Chemical Engineering Progress, American Institute of Chemical Engineering, New York, 1973. Doyle, W. H., "Estimating Texas, April 1970. Doyle, W. H., "Industrial pp. U-17. Losses," Explosions paper presented at CSSCI Meeting in Houston, and Insurance," Loss Prevention, Vol. 3,

Draper, E. and Watson, R. R., "Collated Data on Fragments From Stacks of High Explosive Projectiles, " Report No. TM 2170, Directorate of Safety (Army), London, England, March 1970. Dutton, S. R. and Katsanis, D. J., ')Computer-Aided Design of Suppressive Shields,' EM-CR-76080, AA1 Corporation, Baltimore, Md., report for Edgewood Arsenal, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD., June 1976. Duvall, W. I. and Fogelson, D. E., "Review of Criteria for Estimating Damage to Residences from Blasting Vibrations," Bureau of Mines Report of Investigation 5968, 1962. Dvorak, A.. "Seismic Effects of Blasting on Brick Houses," Proce geofyrikeniha Ustance Ceskoalavenski Akademie, Vol. 169, Geofysikalni Sbornik, 1962, pp 189-202. DYNOIndustrier A. S., "Double-Walled Explosives Factories," June 1978. Steel Houses as Production Buildings for

Studies of the Effects of Edwards, A. T. and Northwood, T. D., 'Experimental Blasting en Structures," The .Engineer, Vol. 210, September 1960, pp 538-546. "Effects of Impact and Explosion," Vol. 1. Office of Scientific Research and Development, National Defense Research Committee, Washington, D. C., 1946. Vapor Phase Explosions on TransEichler, T. V. and Napadensky, H. S., "Accidental portation Routes Near Nuclear Plants," IITRI Final Report 56405, Argonne National Laboratory, April 1977. Calculations on the'shock Intiation Eaig, .J.,. and ,Metcalf, F. T.,. "Theoretical NOLTR62-160, United States Naval Ordnance Laboratory, of Solid Explosives," White Oak, Maryland, August 1962. B-15 .

Enig, J. W. and Petrone, F, J., "On Equations blems," Report No. N?LTR 64-182, U. S. Naval Silver Spring, Maryl?nd, May 1965. Esparza, Edgewood Aberdeen Esparza, Frangible tractor stration, E. D., Arsenal Proving

of State in Shock Ordnance Laboratory.,

Initiation White

ProOak,

"Estimating External Blast Loads from Suppressive Structures," Contract Report EM-CR-76030, Report No. 3, Edgewood Arsenal, Ground, Md., November 1975.

E. D., and Baker, W. E., "Measurement of Blast Waves From Bursting Spheres Pressurized with Flash-Evaporating Vapor or Liquid," NASA ConReport 2811, Contract NSG-3008, National Aeronautics and Space AdminiNovember 1977.

Esparza, E. D., Baker, W. E. and Oldhsm, G. A., 'Blast Pressures Inside and Outside Suppressive Structures," Edgewood Arsenal Contractor Report EM-CR-76042, Report No. 8, Edgewood Arsenal, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., December 1975. Ethridge, N. H., "Blast Diffraction Loading.on the Front and Rear Surfaces of a Rectangular Parallelop~iped,'BRL Memorandum Report No. 2784, U. S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratories, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, September-1977. Eubanks, Vibration "Explosives Washington R. A. and Juskie, B. R., "Shock Hardening of Equipment," Bulletin, No. 32, Part III, December 1973. Accident/Incident D. C., October Abstracts," 1967. Armed Services Explosives Shock and Board,

Safety

"Explosives Hazard Classification Procedures," Department of the Army Technical Bulletin TB 700-2, Department of the Navy Publication NavOrd 8020.3, Department of the Air Force Technical Order TO llA-1-47, Defense Supply Agency Reg. DASR 8220.1, May 1967. 'Facilities General stration, Division 6301, March 1977. Design Criteria," of Construction Energy Research and Development Planning and Support, ERDA Manual AdminiAppendix

Feinstein, D. I., 'Fragmentation Minutes of the 14th Explosives Department of Defense Explosives Feinstieni Fragments,"

Hazard Evaluations and Experimental Verification,' Safety Seminar, New Orleans, 8-10 November 1972, Safety Board, pp 1099-1116. Study: Grading and Analysis of Chicago, Ill,,October 1972. 15mm Yma Test III. IIT

D. I,, "Fragment Hazard IIT Research Institute,

Feinstein, D. I. and INagaoka, H. H., "Fragmentation Hazard Study Phase Fragment Hazards from Detonation of Multiple Munitions in Open Stores," Report No. J-6176, IIT Research Institute, Chicago, Ill., August 1971. Fenves, S. J., Perrone, Numerical and Computer NY, 1973.

N., Robinson, -A. R. and Schnobrich, W. C., (Editors), Methods in Structural Mechanics, Academic Press, New York,

B-16

Ferguson, W, G. and Yew/F. K., to the Yield Behavior of Wood," Ferritto, Annex," Center,

"The Applicatiouof Journal of Materials

the Rate Theory Sciences.

of Deformation

Tests of Blast Cell, J. M., "Explosive No. TR-823, Civil Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme, CA, May 1975. J. M., "Optimum Note No. N-1518, 1978. Dynamic Design-of Naval Construction

Naval Torpedo Station, Bangor Naval Construction Battalion Plates Under Blast Loading," Center, Port Hueneme, Concrete Laboratory, Slabs Under Blast Naval Facilities

Ferritto, Technical CA, March Ferritto, Loading," Engineering

Nonlinear Battalion

J. M., "Optimum Dynamic Design of Reinforced Technical Note No. N-1494, Civil Engineering Center, Port Hueneme, CA, July 1977.

Ferritto, J. M. and Forrest J. B., "Ground Motion from Pacific Cratering ExperiReport R 8085, Naval Civil ments 1,000 Pound Explosive Shots: Data Supplement," Engineering Laboratory, January 1975. Filler, Inert W. S., "The Effect Cases," NOLTR 74-62, of a Case on Airblast'Measurements, Naval Ordnance Laboratory, White Part 1, Friable Oak, April 1974. Study," Center, EvaluDepart-

Filler, W. S., "The The Sixth Symposium White Oak Laboratory,

Influence of Inert Cases on Airblast: (International) on Detonation, Naval Silver Spring; Md. August 1976.

An Experimental Surface Weapons Effectiveness Safety Board,

J. M. and Walsh, H. R. J., "Barricade Filler, W. S., Rossi, Armed Services ated From Records of Accidental Explosions," ment of Defense, Washington, D. C., July 1966. Fiquet, By Rigid No. 41, Fishburn, nautica, G., and Dacquet, Missiles-Experimental 1977, pp 103-120. S., "Study of the Study, Part Perforation II," Nuclear from Fuel-Air

of Reinforced Engineering Explosives,"

Concrete and Design, Acta Astro-

of Blast Barry D., "Some Aspects Vol. 3, April 1976, pp 1049-1065.

Fisher, J. D., uation of Blast Chester, PA,

Irvine, B. W., Kopenhaver, R. L., and Lunger, Waves by Barricades," School of.Engineering,

W. D., "The AttenWidener College,

Thoracic Fletcher, E. R., "A Model to Simulate Impact," Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Force Base, Ohio, December 1971.

Responses to Air Blast and To Paper No. 1, Wright Patterson

Air

Loads for Reinforced Concrete Bunkers," Florence, A. L., "Critical Report NO. DNA 4469F, Stanford Research International, Menlo Park, 1977.

Defense Nuclear CA. November

B-17

Forbes, D. J;, Plants," paper and Maintenance,

"Design of Blast-Resistant Buildings presented at API 1976 Autumn Meeting, October 1976.

in Petroleum Subcommittee

and Chemical on Facilities

Ford, M. B., "Correlation of Impact and Explosively Created Ground Shock Phenomena," Report No. N-f6-10, Weapons Effects Laboratory, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experimetit Station, Vicksburg, MI, June 1976. Fortifikationsfoervaltiningen, Kungliga,-"List cal Notes Issued by the Research Department Administration (RSFA),"September 1973. of Unclassified Reports and Techniof the Royal Swedish Fortifications Spherical Blast 46, No. 3, March Theory Including 1975, pp 1171-

Freiwald, D. A. and Axford, R. A., "Approximate Source Mass," Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 1174. Freund, H. U. and Geiger, of a Detonating Cylindrical April 1974, pp 405-416. W.,

"Velocity and Density Fields in Reaction Products Charge," Acta Astronautica, Vol. 1, No. 3-4, Marchand Melani, G., "Initiation Report, U. S. Army Ballistic of Explbsives Research AFATLOrlando,

Frey, R. B., Howe, 'P. M., Trimble, J., by Projectile Impact," Draft Technical Laboratory, June 1979. Fuehrer, TX-78-92, Florida,

of Buried Concrete Structures," H. R. and'Keeser, J. W., "Breach Air Force Armament Laboratory Report by Orlando Technology Inc., August 1978. of Buried Concrete Technology, Inc.,

Fuehrer, H. R. and Keeser, J. W., "Response AFATL-TR-77-115, Orlando ground Explosions," September 1977. ~

Slabs to UnderOrlando, Florida,

Fugelso, L,. E. and Rathmann, C. E., "Effect of Earth Cover General American Research Division, General Distribution," Corporation, Niles, 111, December 1973.

on Far-Field Fragment American Transportation

L. M. and Schiffman, T. H., "A Computation Aid for Fugelson, L. E., Weiner, Estimating Blast Damage from Accidental Detonation of Stored Munitions," Minutes of the 14th Explosives Safety Seminar, New Orleans 8-10 November 1973, Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board, pp 1139-1166. Fugelso, L. E., Weiner, L. M. and Schiffman, Aids," Final Report GARD Project No. 1540, General American Tdansportation Corporation, Effects Computation T. H., "Explosion General American Research Division, June 1972. Department 1965. of the Army Technical

Fundamentals of Prqtection Design (Nonnuclear), Manual, TM5-855-1, ~Deparrment of the Army, July

Report Gabrielsen, B. and ;Wilton, C., "Shock Tunnel Tests of Arched Wall Panels," No. URS 7030-19, Ddfense Civil Preparedness Agency Contract No. DAHC20-71-C-0223, DCPA Work Unit 11236, URS Research Company, San Mateo, California, December 1974. I
I

B-18

Gabrielsen, B. L., 1399, ASCE National 19-23, 1971.

"Response Structural

of Wall Panels Subjected to Blast Loading," Engineering.Meeting, Baltimore,.Maryland, Analysis: Fundamentals, Prentice Hall,

Preprint April Englewood

Gallagher, R. H., Finite Element Cliffs, New Jersey, 1975. Gallo, School, J. G., "Shock Induced Monterey, California,

Structural Response," March 1978.

ADA 105 387 Naval

Postgraduate

Gastrich, H. G., Hartlove, C. F. and Schroeder, F. J., "Rotating the Sliding Personnel Door in the Category 4 Shield Test Report," Contractor Report No. EM-CR-76018 ER-8407, September 1975. Gibson, N. and Harris, G. F. P., "The Calculation cal Engineering Progress, November 1976, pp 62-67. of Dust Explosion

Product Door and Edgewood Arsenal Vents," Chemi-

Gill, H. L., "Active Arching of Sand During Dynamic Loading--Results of an Experimental Program and Development of an Analytical Procedure," Report NO. R541, Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme, California, September 1967. Glasstone, S., Revised Edition, Glasstone, Printing The Effects of Nuclear April 1962. P. J., Edition, Weapons, U. S. Government Weapons, Printing Office

S. and Dolan, Office, Revised

The Effects 1977.

of Nuclear

U. S. Government

Goldstein, S. and Berriavd, C., "Study Slabs by Rigid Missiles--Experimental Design, No. 41, 1977, pp 121-128.

of the Perforation Study, Part III,"

of Reinforced Concrete Nuclear Engineering and BRL

Goodman, H. J., "Compiled Free Air Blast Data- on Bare Spherical Pentolite,M Report No. 1092, U. S. Army Ballistics Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., 1960. Goodman, H. J. and Giglio-Tos, L., Bonded Explosives: PBX-108, PB-109, ARBRL-TR-02057, U. S. Army Ballistic Md., April 1978.

"Equivalent Weight Factors for Four Plastic AFX-103 and AFX-702," Technical Report Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Navy Projectiles," Dahlgren, VA., of of Weather Investigation Report 1979. No.

Velocities of Service Gorman, 5. W., "Base Fragment 1201, Final Report E1551J1, Naval Weapons Laboratory, Grant, mission 1967. R. L., Murphy, from Explosive J. N. and Bowser, M. L., Shots," Bureau of Mines "Effects Report

on Sound Trans6921,

"R. M. Graziano's Tariff PublishingHazardous Materials Regulations of ment of Transportation Including Specifications for Shipping Containers," of Explosives, Association of American Railroads, March 1977.

the DepartBureau

Green, L. G., Nidick; E. J. and Walker, F. E., "Critical Shock Initiation of PBX-9404, A New Approach," UCRL-51522, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, sity of California, January 1974. Greenfield,
Commerce,

Energy Univer-

S. H., "iail Resistance of Roofing Products," U. S. Department of National Bureau of Standards, Building Sciences Series 23, August 1969. Representation of the Thor Activity, October -1976.

Greenspon, J. E., "An Approximate Nondimensional Equations," Il. S. Amity Materiel Systems Analysis

Vulnerability with Application Greenspon, J. E., "Energy Approaches to Structural of the New Bell Streds-strain Laws," BRL CR No-. 291, U. S. Army Ballistics Research Laboratory, /Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md. March 1976.
Gregory,

F. H., "Analysis of the Loading and Response of a Suppressive Shield When Subjected to anInternal Explosion," Minutes of the 17th Explosive Safety Seminar, Denver, Colo., September 1976.

Gregory, F. H., "Blagt Loading Calculations and Structural Response Analyses of the l/4 Scale Category I Suppressive Shield," BRL Report No. 2003, U. S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory,! Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., August 1977. on Head and Brain Injuries,' Gross, A. G., "A Bibliography Englewood, California, January 1966. Protection, Inc.,

Gueraud, R., Sokolovsky, A., Kavyrchine, M., and Astruc, M., "Study of the Perforation of Reinforced Concrete Slabs by Rigid Missiles--General Introduction and Experimental Study, Part I," Nuclear Engineering and Design, No. 41, 1977, pp 97-102. Gupta, Y. M. and Sea$an, L., "Local Response of Reinforced Concrete to Missile Impact," EPRI NF-1217, Research Project 393-1, Electric Power Research Institute, October 1979. und theoretische Untersuchungen zur Wechselwirkung von Gurke, G., "Experimentelle LuftstoBwellen mit qderachnittverengenden Einbauten (Drosselstellen) in Kanalen," Ernst-Mach Institut, ~Freiburg i. Br. Eckerstrabe 4, Bericht Nr. 9170, November 1970.
Gurney,

R. W., "The Initial Velocities of Fragments From Bombs, Shells, and Grenades," Report No.'648, U. S.. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory', Aberdeen Proving Ground, Mh., September 1947. Habberjam, G. M. and Whetton, J. T., "On the Relationship Between Seismic Amplitude and Charge of Eylosive Fired in Routine Blasting Operations," Geophysics 17, pp 116-128, January 1952.

Hage, K. G., "Dynamic Tensile Strength of Explosive Materials,' Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, University of California, Atomic Energy Commission. Haisler, W. E., "AGGIE I- A Finite Element Program for Nonlinear lysis," Report TEES-3275-77-1, Aerospace Engineering Department, versity, June 1977. B-20 Structural AnaTexas A&M Uni-

Haisler,

W. E., "Status Report of AGGIE I Computer Program," Technical No. 3275-78-2, Aerospace Engineering Department,.Texas A&M University, 1978.

Report April

Hahn, G. J and Shapiro, S. S., Statistical and Sons, Inc., New York,NY, 1967.

Methods in Engineering,

John Wiley

Hanes, L. D., and Canada, C. E., "Unreacted Hugoniots and Detonation Sensitivity of HNS I," MHSMP-75-25, Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, AprilJune 1975. Hardesty, D. R. and Lysne, P. C., "Shock Initiation and Detonation Homogeneous Explosives;" SLA-74-0165, Sandia Laboratories, 1974. Harlow, F. H. and Adeuasdea,A. A., "Fluid Dynamics--An Introductory 4100, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, University of California, New Mexico, February 1970. Harper, M. J., Hawkins, S. J. and Hicks, J. A., "Explosively sure Waves for Structural Forcing," Journal Sound Vibration, February 1970, pp 217-224. Harrell, J. D., "HE Pressing," Development Division, co., Inc. October-December 1973.
Mason

Properties Text," LA Los Alamos,

of

Generated Air PresVol. 11, No. 2, & Hanger, Silas Mason

Harvey, W., Dishan, J. and Thomas, T., "Near Surface Cratering Experiments," CA AFWL-TR-351, Fort Polk, Louisiana, U. S. Army Watemays Experiment Station,

Livermore,

CA, November 1975. i

Response of Square Hashmi, M. S. J. and Al-Hassani, S. T. S., "Large-Deflection Frames to Concentrated Impulsive Loads," Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, Vol. 19, No. 6;1977, pp 243-250.
Hawkins, S. J. &d Hicks, J. A., "Acoustic Approximation of Far-Field Blast From International Congress on Acoustics, Spatially Distributed Explosive Charges," 6th,.Tokyo, Japan, August 21-28, 1968, pp 201-204.

Hayes, E. B., and Mitchell, D. E., "Shock Sensitivity SAND77-1363, Sandia Laboratories, December 1977.

of Porous HNS Explosive,"

"Hazardous Materials Regulations of the Department of Transportation by Air, Rail, Highway, Water and Military Explosives By Water Including Specifications for Shipping Containers," Prescribed under the act of September 6, 1970, Department of Transportation, March 1977. "Hazards Propellant of Chemical

Processing,

Rockets and Propellants Handbook, Volume Il., Solid Rocket Handling, Storage and Transportation," CPIA/194, May 1972.

Healey, J., Armnar, A., Vellozzi, J., Pecone, G., Weissman, S., Dobbs, N., and Price, P., "Design of Steel Structures to Resist the Effects of HE Explosions," Technical Report 4837, Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, New Jersey, August 1975. B-21

Healey, J., Werner, ment Characteristics Arsenal Report No. December 1975. Henry, G. A., "Blast

H., Weissman, S., Dobbs, N., and Price, P., land Impact Effects on qrotective Barriers," 4C93, Ammann &. Whitney, Consulting Engineers, Injuries of the Ear," Laryngoscope 55,

"Primary FragPicatinny New York, NY, 1945.

pp 663-672,

Henry, I. G., "The Gurney Deployment of Fragments," CA., 1967. Hiesing, 114, No. C., 17,

Formula and Related Report No. PUB-189,

Approximations Hughes Aircraft

for High-Explosive Co., Culver City, Gluckauf, Vol.

'Betriebserfehrungen September 1978,

mit dem Entspannungssprengen," pp 754-757.

Highter, W. H., "Comparison mic Testing and Constitutive Engineering, Clarkson College Air Force Office of Scientific

of Soil Moduli Obtained from Non-Destructive DynaEquations," Department of Civil and Environmental of Technology, Potsdam, New York, Final Report Research Grant No. AFOSR 77-3364, June 1978. of the New York of Academy the LaboraNew

Hirsch, A. E., "The Tolerance of Man to Impact," .Annals of Sciences, Vol. 152, Art. 1, October 1968, pp 168+. Hirsch, F. G., "Effects of Overpressure York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 152, Art. Hodge, D. C. and Garinther, G. R., "Noise tory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., June Hoerner, Hokanson, Detonating September S. F., Fluid Dynamic Drag, Midland

on the Ear--A Review," Annals 1, October 1968, pp 147+. and Blast," 1973. Park, Human Engineering 1958.

New Jersey,

J. C. and Wenzel, A. B., "Reflected Charges, ' IMinutes of the Eighteenth 1978, pp 447-471.

Blast Measurements Explosives Safety C. J., "The Transactions

Around Multiple Seminar, Vol, Strain-Rate of the

I,

Holt, D. L., Babcock,~ S. G., Dependence of the Flow Stress ican Society of Metals, Vol.

Green, S. J. and Maiden, of Some Aluminum Alloys," 60, 1967, page 152.

&uer-

Holzer, S. M., Somerd,, A. E. and Bradshaw, AFWL-TR-76-192, Vol. 1, Department of Civil Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Hopkinson, B., "British Ordnance Board

J. C., "Reliability Study of Singer," Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic VA., January 1977. 13565," 1915. Explosives," Propel-

Minutes

Hornberg, H., "State lants and Explosives,

of the Detonation of Products of Solid Vol. 3, No. 3, June 1978, pp 97-106.

"Catastrophic Reaction of Compartmentalized AmmuniHowe, P. M. and Frey, R. B. tion--Causes and Preventive ieasures," U. S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, June 1978.

B-22
V

Huaag, S. L. and Chou, P. C.," Calculations of Expanding Shock State Equivalence,"FinalReport Contract No. DA-18-OOl-AMC-876, Drexel Institute of Technology, Philadelphia, PA, April 1968. Hubich, pressive Arsenal, H. 0. and Kachinski, R. L., "Explosive Shields," Edgewood Arsenal Contractor Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., August J. L. Bulletin and Iwan, W: D., of the Seismic

Waves and LateReport 125-12,

Waste Removal Systems for SupReport No. EM-CR-76002, Edgewood 1975. "Ground Society, Accelerations A. 51, 1961, Under Dynamic NY, 1965. Caused By pp 191-202. Loading, ,The

Hudson, D. E., Alford, Large Quarry Blasts," Huffington, American

N. J. Jr., (Ed)., Society of Mechanical

Behavior of Materials Engineers, New York,

Huffington, N. J. and Robertson, S. R., "Containment Structures Versus Suppressive Structures," Ballistic Research Laboratory Report No. 2597, U. S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD., February 1976. Humphrey, Livermore J. R., "Lx-lo-l: A High-Enirgy Plastic-Bonded Explosive," Laboratory, University of California, July 1974. Seismic Memoirs Ground of the Lawrence

Ichiro, I., "On The Relationship Between of Explosives in Blasting," Reprint from Kyoto University, 15, 1953, pp 579-87.

Amplitude and the Quantity Faculty of Engineering Launch Environments," Pacific Missile ANSI/ASTM on Sound pp 405-411. in No.

'Impact Design Criteria for Blockhouse Subjected to Abortive Technical Publication, PMR-TR-70-2, Mechanical Research Inc., Range, Point Mugu, CA, July 1970. 'Impact D256-78. Resistance 'A of Plastics of of the the and Electrical Influence Acoustic Insulating

Materials,' Conditions Vol. 25,

Ingard, U., Propagation," Ingram, Soil," N-77-6, "Interim Available querque, "Internal
Isley, R.,

Review Journal

of.Meteorological Society of America,

J. K., "Cerise Explosion Test U. S. Army Engineer Waterways December 1977.

Program: Report 2, CENSE 2, Explosions Experiment Station, Technical Report

Safety Criteria for the Design of Production 'from U.S. Department of Energy, Albuquerque New Mexico. Blast Safety Damage Mechanisms Computer Program,"

Plant Explosive Facilities," Operations Office, AlbuJTCG/ME-73-3, Armed April Services 10, 1973. Explo-

sives

"Glass and Plaster Damage from Small Board, AD 637 835, March 1.5, 1950.

Explosions,"

"Measurements Jack, W. H., Jr., Charges," BRI, Memorandum Report

of Normally Reflected Shock Waves From Explosive Proving Ground, Md., July 1963. No. 1499, Aberdeen

B-23

Jack W. H., 'Jr. and Armendt, B, F., Jr., Parameters Under Simulated High Altitude Proving Ground, MD., April 1965.

"Measurements of Normally Reflected Shock Conditions," BRL Report No. 1208, Aberdeen

Jackson, R. K., Greeni L. G., Barlett, R. H., Hofer, W. W., Kramer, P. E., Lee, and R. S., Nidick, E. J.,; Jr., Shaw, L. L. and Weingart, R. C., "Initiation Detonation Characteribtics of TATB," Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Livermore California, U. S. Eaekgy Research and Development Administration, 1978. Jameson, R. L. and Habkins, A. I.., "Detonation Preasure Measurements in TNT and Octal," U. S. Ad Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., 1970. Jankov, 2. D., Shananhan, J. A. and White, M. P., "Missile Tests of Quarter Scale Reinforced Concrete Barriers,"' Proceedings of the Symposium on Tornadoes Assessment of Knowledge and Implications for Man, Texas Tech University, June 22-24, 1976, pp 608-622. Janson, B., "Retardation of Fragments in Air," Royal Aircraft Establishment, Sweden, FOA 2 Report A, 2539-44, Crown Copyright, Forsvarets Forskningsanstalt, January 1973. Jarrett, D. E., uDerivation of British the New York Academy of Science, Vol. Explosive Safety Distances," Annals of 152, Art. 1, October 1968, pp 18-35.

Jezek, B. W., "Suppressive Shielding for Hazardous Munitions Production Operations," Technical Report No. ARCSL-TR-77020, U. S. Army Armament Research and Development Command, Chemical Systems Laboratory, herdeen Proving Ground, Md., April 1977. Johansson, C. H. and Persaon, P. A., 3 London and New York, '1970. Academic Press,

Johnson, C. and Mose&ey, J. W., "Preliminary Warhead Terminal Ballistic Handbook, Part 1, Tenninal,Ballistic Effects," NAVWEPS Report No. 7673, U. S. Naval Weapons Laboratory, Dahlgren, VA., March 1964. Johnson, H. D., "Mechanical Properties No. .260-009, April-June 1974. of High Explosives," MHSMP-74-19-D, SANL

Johnson, 0. T., "A'Blast-damage Relationship," BFU Report No. 1389, If. S. Army Ballistic-Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., September 1967. Johnson, 0. T., Patterson, J. D. and Olson, W. C., "A Simple Mechanical Method for Measuring the Reflected Impulse of Air Blast Waves," BRL Report No. 1099, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., July 1957. Jones, 0. E., "Metal ~ResponaeUnder Explosive Loading," 12th Annual Symposium of Behavior and Utilization of Explosives in Engineering Design, Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque, 'New Mexico, March 1972, pp 125-148.

B-24

Kachinski, R. I,., Schnepfe,, R. W., Horn, W. R., Russell, K., and Kineke, J. H., "Technical Feasibility of Suppressive Shields for Improved Hawk .Launch Sites," Edgewood Arsenal Contractor Report No. EM-CR-76057, February 1976. Kaleps, I. and von Gierke, H. E., "A Five-Degree-of-Freedom Mathematical Model of the Body," Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Paper No. 8, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH, 1971. Kaliszky, S., "Approximate Solutions for Impulsively Loaded Inelastic Structures and Continua," International Journal of Nonlinear Mechanics, Vol. 5, 1970, pp 143-158. Kalkbrenner, D. K. and Swider, E., "Secondary Fragment Impact Sensitivity of Various Munitions," Engineering Research Division, Report No. 56375, IIT Research Institute, Chicago, IL., December 1977. Kangas, P., "Hailstone Impact Tests on Aircraft Structural Components," Civil Aeronautics Administration Technical Development and Evaluation Center Report No. 124, Indianapolis, In., September 1950. Raplsn, K., "Dangers of Secondary Missiles," Safety Seminar, Vol. II, September 1976. Minutes of the Seventeenth Explosives

Katona, H. G.. Thompson, R. and Smith, J., "Efficiency Study of Implicit and Explicit Time Integration Operators4for Finite Element Applications," Technical Report No. R-856, Civil Engineering Laboratory, Naval Construction Battalion Center, Port Hueneme, CA., July 1977. Katsanis, D. J., "Safety Approval of Suppressive Shields," Edgewood Arsenal Technical Report No. EM-TR-76088, Edgawood Arsenal, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., August 1976. Katsanis, D. J. and Jezek, B. W., "Suppressive Shielding of Hazardous Ammunition Production Operations," Technical Report No. EM-TR-76015, Edgewood Arsenal, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD., December 1975.
Keefer,

J. H. and Reisler, R. E,, "Multiburst Environment--Simultaneous Detonations Project Dipole West," BRL Report No. 1766, U. S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., March 1975.

Keenan, W. A., "Strength and Behavior of Laced Reinforced Concrete Slabs Under Static and Dynamic Load," Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory Technical Report No. R-620, Port Hueneme, CA., April 1969. Keenan, W. A. and Tancreto, J. E., "Effects of Venting and Frangibility of Blast Environment from Explosions in Cubicles," Minutes of the 14th Explosives Safety Seminar, New Orleans, November 1972, pp 125-162. Keenan, W. A. and Tancreto, J. E., "Blast Environment from Fully and Partially Vented Explosions in Cubicles," Technical Report 51-027, Civil Engineering Laboratory, Naval Construction Battalion Center, Port Hueneme, CA., February 1974. B-25

Kennedy, J. E., "Explo5ive Behavior and Utilizatibn Albuquerque, New Mexico, Kennedy, Impulse Kennedy, Document J. E., Imparted

Output for Driving Metal," of Explosives in Engineering March 1972, pp 109-124.

12th Annual Symposium of Design, Sandia Laboratories, and 1970. Impact," 1974.

"Gurney Energy of Explosives: Estimation of the Velocity to Driven Metal," Sandia Report SC-PR-70-790, December
A. C.,

J. E. and Sctiarz, No. SLA-74-5073,

Sandia

"Detonation Laboratories,

Transfer By Flyer Plate Albuquerque, New Mexico,

Kennedy, W. D., "Explosions and Explosives sion, M. T. White (Ed.'), Summary Technical -. Washington, D. C., 1946. Kiger, Loads,"

in Air," Effects of Impact and ExploReport of Division 2, NDRC, Vol I, Structures 1978. to Blast

of Shallow-Buried S. A. and Balsara, J. P., "Response Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MI., June

Investigation of Initial Surface Particle Motion Kimberly, F. V., "Experimental Resulting from Small Subsurface Explosions in Dry Ottowa Sand," Air Force Institute of Technology, School of Engineering, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH, June 1972. "Secondary Fragment Speed with Unconfined Explosives: Kineke, J. H. Jr., and Validation," Minuqes of the 17th Explosives Safety Seminar, Vol. II, ber 1976. Kingery, Surface C. N., Bursts,"
"Air

Model Septem-

Blast Parameters BRL Report No. 1344,

Versus Distance Aberdeen Proving

for Hemispherical TNT Ground, Md. September

1966.

Loading on Model Earth Kingery, C. N., "Blast Report NO. ARBRL-TR-02092, U. S. Army Ballistic Proving Ground, Md., August 1978. Kingery, C. N., Parametric Air Blast," BRL Reporr No. Kingery, Plates," Aberdeen

Covered Magazines," Technical Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Nuclear and High Explosive Ground, Md., February 1968.

Analysis of Sub-Kiloton 1393, Aberdeen Proving

C. N, and Coulter, G., "Shock Wave Attenuation by SinglePerforated BRL Memorandum Report No. 2664, U. S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Proving Ground, Md., August 1976. of Pressure Through U. S, Army Ballistic 1978. PerfoResearch

Kingery, C. N. Coulter, G. and Pearson, R., "Venting rated Plates," Technical Report No. ARBRL-TR-02105, Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., September Kingery, in Model Ballistic

C. N., Coulter, G. and Watson, G. T., Blast Parameters From Explosions Earth Covereb Magazines," BIU Memorandum Report No. 2680, U. S. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., September 1976. R. and Coulter, G., "Shock Wave Attenuation by Perforated Sizes," BRL Memorandum Report No. 2757, U. S. Army Readiness Command, Alexandria, VA. June 1977.

Kingery, C. N., Pearson, Plates with Various Hole Materiel Development ind

B-26

Kingery, C. N., Schumacher, R., and Ewing, in Suppressive Structures," BRL Memorandum Armament Research and Development Command, Kinney, Center, Kinney, Kinney, randum

W., "Internal Pressure from Explosions Report No. ARBRL-m-02848, U. S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., June 1978. NWC TP46.54, New York, Naval Weapons

G. F., "Engineering Elements of Explosions," China Lake, CA, November 1968. G. F., Explosive Shocks in Air, MacMillian,

NY, 1962. Memo-

G. F. and Sewell, R. G. S., "Venting of Explosions," NWC Technical 2448, Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, CA., July 1974. Wounding September and Safety Criteria," 1974, pp 1209-1226.

for Kolcinakis, W., "A New Methodology of the 16th Explosive Safety Seminar,

Proceedings

Korobeinikiv, V. P., Mil'nikova, N. S. .and Ryazanov, Y. V., The Theory of Point Explosion, Fizmatgiz, Moscow, 1961; English Translation, U. S. Department of Commerce, JPRS: 14,334, Washington, D. C., 1962.
Kot, C.

A.,

Division,

"Spalling of Concrete Walls Under Blast Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL.

Load,"

Components

Technology MemoBlast

Kot, C. A. and Turula, P., "Air Blast randum ANL-CT-76-50, Argonne National
Kot,

Effect on Concrete Walls," Laboratory, Argonne, IL.,

Technical July 1976. of Air R5,

C. A., Valentin, R. A., McLennon, D. A. and Turula, on Power Plant Structures and Components," NUREG/CR-0442, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL., October 1978.

P., "Effects ANL-CT-78-41,

Kraft, J. M., "Correlation of Plane Strain Crack Toughness with Strain Characteristics of a Low, a Medium and a High Strength Steel," Applied Research, Vol. 3, page 88, 1964. Kramer,
M8SOn

Hardening Materials

P. E., "Sensitivity Development Co., Inc.,

and Performance Testing Division, Endeavor No.

of HE," Mason & Hanger, Silas 231, MHSMP-75-4OS, July-Sept. Development April-June Develop3,266,203,

1975. Kramer, Division, 1974.

Kramer,

P. E., "Sensitivity & Performance Testing of High Explosives," Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Company, Inc., Endeavor No. 216,

ment

P. E. Division,

and Ashcraft, R. W., "Reduction of C-J Pressure Test Data," Mason & Hanger, Silas Mason Co., Inc., December 1972. for Atomic Blast Resistance," (filed May 3, 1966). U. S. Patent No.

Krantz, Patented

F. M., "Structure August 16, 1966,

Krauklis, P. and Bedford, A. J., "Fragmentation for Mass and Number Distributions and Effects of Australian Defence Scientific Service, Materials 549, Maribyrnong, Victoria, Australia, November

Data Analysis, I. Computer Program Errors on Mass Distributions," Research Laboratory, Report No. 1974.

B-27

Kulesz, J. of the-19th

J, and Friesenhahn, Explosives Safety

G. J., Seminar,

"Explosion,Venting (to be published).

in

Buildings,"

Minutes From the

Kulesz, J. J., Moseley, P. K. and Baker, W. E., "Fragment and Blast Hazards Explosions in a Tender Torpedo Workshop," Vol. 1, Final Report Prepared for David Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center, November 1978. Kulesz, J. J., Moseley, P. K. and Parr, Y. B., Distributions from Accidental Explosions Inside the 1980 Explosive Safety Seminar, 1980. Kury, J. W., International "Prediction Buildings,"

of Weight and Range to be presented at Symposium

"Metal Atceleration by Chemical Explosives,' Fourth on Detonation, ONR ACR-126, January 13, 1965.

Kusher, A. S., Gilrrud, M. E., Lehto, D. L. and Ward, J. M., "Recommended Design and Analysis Procedures for Suppressive Shield Structures," Technical Report No. NSWCIWOLJTR 76-112, N&al Surface Weapons Center, White Oak Laboratory, White Oak, Silber Spring, Md., March 1977. Kvarmnen, A., Pichumani, R. and Dick, J. L.," Pavement Cratering sity of New Mexico, Eric H. Wang Research Facility Report for Laboratory, 1973. Studies," Air Force UniverWeapons Damage College

Ladegaard-Pederson, Al and Dally, J. W., "A Review of Factors Affecting In Blasting," Mechanical Engineering Department, University of Maryland, Park, Maryland, January 1975.

Lamb, H., "On the Propagation of Tremors, Over the Surface of an Elastic Solid," Philosophical Transactions of Royal Society London, Series A, Volume 203, September 1904. Langefors, U., Kihlstron, Water Power, Februaryl958, Laporte, 0. Strong Blast ber 1970. B. and Westerberg, H., "Ground Vibrations pp 335-338, 390-395 and 421-424. Expressions for State University, for Limiting in Blasting," Behind Novem-

and Changb T. S., "Exact Waves," North Carolina 'Design

Curved Characteristics Report No. TSC-70-3, Explosion Damage,'

Lawrence, W. and Johnson, E., Engineering, January 1974.

Chemical Department Loaded 1970, pp

Lee, J. H., Knystautas, R. and Bach, G. G., of Mechanical Engineering, McGill University, Lee, L. S. S. and Martin, J. Structures of a Rate sensitive 1011-1032. B.,

"Theory of Explosions," Report 69-3090, 1969.

"Approximate Solutions of Impulsively Material," 2. Agnew. Math. Phys., 21,

B-28

Lehto, D. L. and Larson, from Explosions in Air," 1969.

R. A., "Long NOLTR 69-88,

Range Propagation of Spherical Shock Waves Naval Ordnance Laboratory,, White Oak, Md., to Sonic Boom," of Toronto, July UTIAS 1974.

Leigh, B. R., "Lifetime Concept of Plaster Panels Subjected Technical Note 91, Institute for Space Studies, University Leondi, M. F., "Dynamic Modeling of the Post Failure Concrete Elements Subjected to Blast Overpressure," Dover, New Jersey.

Conditions of Reinforced ARRADCOM, LCWSL, MTD, STB, Impulse Arsenal, Academic Barrier," Inc.,

Computer Program to Calculate the Average Blast Levy, S., "An Imrpoved Loads Acting on a Wall of a Cubicle," Ammunition Engineering, Picatinny Dover;. New Jersey, May 1970. Lewis, Press, B. and von Elbe, G., New York; NY, 1961. Combustion, Flames and Explosions Sensitive of Gases, Explosion

Liebman, I., U. S. Patent Liepmann, New York,

Carry, J. and Richmond, J. K., No. 3,958,644, May 1976. A., "Ferro Elements Cement

"Pressure

H. W. and Roshko, NY., 1967.

of Gasdynamics, Panels," Consulting

John Wiley Engineers,

and Sons,

T, Y. Lin and Associates, CA, November 1968.

Van Nuys,

Lindberg, H. E., Anderson, D. L., Firth, R. D. and Parker, L. V., "Response of Reentry Vehicle-Type Shells to Blast Loads, Final Report SRI Project FGD-5228, P. 0. 24-14517, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA., September 1965. Lindholm, U. S. and Bessey, Final Report of Materials," Lindholm, pression," R. L., to Air "A Survey of Rate Dependent Force Materials Laboratory, Strength Properties April 1969. Tension Systems," Pergamon and ComNASA CR-93,

U. S. and Yeakley, L. M., "High Stain Rate Testing: Experimental Mechanics, Vol. 8, 1968, page 1. Aluminum Matrix Methods for of Use in Energy Structural Dissipation Analysis,

Lipson, S., "Cellular September 1964. Livesley, 1964. Loxley, sives," R. K.,

and MacMillan,

T. E., "Large AD 350 648-L,

Scale Sample Drop Testing of Castable Plastic Bonded ExploU. S. Naval Weapons Laboratory, Dahlgren, VA., June 1944.

Versus Experimental Results for Air Blast From One-Pound Lutsky, M., llTheoretica1 Spherical TNT and Pentolite Charges at Sea Level Conditions," Report No. NOLTR 65-57, U. S. Naval Ordnance Laboratory, White Oak, Silver Spring, Md., September 1965.

B-29

McCormick, Schweqdler McGuire, Building National

C. W. (Ed.), Corporation,

"MSC/NASTRAN User's Manual," Los Angeles,CA, May 1976.

MSR-39,

The Mac-Neal

W. and Leyehdecker, Response to'lAbnorma1 Bureau of Standards,

of Non-Reinforced Masonary E. V., "Analysis Loading and Resistance to Progressive Collapse," November 1974.

of Speed in Mechanical McHenry, D. and Shideler, J. J., "Review of Data on Effect Testing of Concrete,!' Symposium on Speed of Testing of Non-Metallic Materials, Atlantic City, NJ, (ASTM Special Technical Publication No. 1851, June 1955, pp 72-82. G. L. and Koger, D. M., "Mound Laboratory Pyrotechnic McIntyre, F. L., M&own, Transport Container,!' National Space Technology Laboratories, Computer Sciences Corporation EngineerFng and Science Services Laboratory, NSTL Station, MI, June 1978. Blast McKown, G. L., "Neari Field Technical Report No-~ EM-TR-77002, Maryland, January 19~77. Effects From Bare Edgewood Arsenal, Charges," Aberdeen Edgewood Arsenal Proving Ground,

McKown, G. L., McIntyre, F. L. and Price, P., "TNT Equivalency of Composition A-S;" Contract No. MIPR 816B602101F4W5, Manufacturing Technology Directorate, Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, New Jersey, June 1976. McLean, D. G. and Allan, D. S., "An Experimental Program to Determine tivity of Explosive #Materials to Impact by Regular Fragments," Final Contract DA-19-020-ORD-5617, Picatinny Arsenal, December 1965. McNamara, J. F., "Sdlution Scheme for Problems of Non-Linear Paper No. 74-PVP. 30, Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, of Mechanical Engineers, 1975. McNaughtan, Light Alloy Environmental Test Center, Macek, I. I. and Plates," Effects October Structural American the SensiReport Dynamics," Society

Chisman, S. W., "A Study of Hail Impact at High Speed on Proceedinps of the Ninth Annual National Conference on on Aircraft and Propulsion Systems, Naval Air Propulsion 7-9, 1969, p 16. of Fxplosives," Chem. Rw. 62, pp 41-62. von Explosionder Wiener, 74, Vessels 1965. of Different Research

A., "Sensititity

Mach, E. and Sommer~ J., "Uber die Fortpflanzunggeshwindigkeit schallweilen," Akademie Der Wissenschaften, Sitzangberichte 1977. I Mackenzie, A., Dalymple, for Confining Explosives," E. W. and Schwartz, Picatinny Arsenal,

F., "Design of Pressure Dover, New Jersey, July

Makino, R. C. and Goodman, J. J., "Air Blast Data on Bare Explosives Shapes and Compositions," BRL Report.No. 1015, U. S. Army Ballistic Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., 1956.

B-30

Mainstone, Research September

R. J., "The Breakage of Glass Windows by Gas Explosions," Building Establishment Current Paper CP 26/71, Building Research Establishment, 1971.

Mainstone, R. J., "The Hazard of Explosion, Impact and Other Random Loadings on Tall Buildings," Building Research Establishment Current Paper CP 64174, Building Research Establishment, June 1974. Mainstone, R. J., "The Hazard of InternHl Blast Establishment Current Paper CP-11/73, Building Mainstone, Research Garston, Majid, K. and Sons, Makino, and Its Manjoine, of Mild R. J., "The Response of Buildings Establishment Current Paper 24/76, Watford, England, April 1976. I., Non-Linear Structures, Inc., New York, NY, 1972. in Buildings," Building Research Establishment, Research April 1973.

to Accidental Explosions," Building Building Research Establishment, A Division of Spherical April 1951. of John Wiley Shock Waves

Wiley-Interscience, Theory of Propagation BRL Report No. 750,

R., "The Kirkwood-Brinkley Comparison with Experiment,"

M. J., "Influence of Rate of Strain Steel," Journal of Applied Mechanics, Corporation and Control Program Volume I: Users

and Temperature December 1944,

on Yield Stresses pp A-211-A-218. Finite Ele-

MARC Analysis mant Analysis

Data Corporation, "Non-Linear Information Manual," 1975.

Markwardt, L. J. and Liska, 3. A., "The Influence of Rate of Loading on the Strength of Wood and Wood-Base Materials," Symposium on Speed of Testing of NonMetallic Materials, Atlantic City, New Jersey, (ASTM Special Technical Publication No. 185), June 1955, pp 3-17. Masonry Design tute of America, Matonis, cations," Manual," Masonry Industrial Los Angeles, CA., (current Advancement edition). Committee, Masonry Insti-

V. A,, "Elastic Behavior of Low-Density Rigid Foams in Structural AppliSociety of Plastics Engineering Journal, September 1964, pp 1024-1030. of Hexcel Honeycomb Materials," TSB 120, Hexcel, Winter

"Mechanical Properties 1979, Revision.

Damage Criteria for Low-Rise Structures Subjected to Medearis, K., "Rational Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers, Part 2, Blasting Vibrations," No. 6.5, November 1978, pp 611-621. Medenica, W. V., "Blast Shields Testing," NASA TN D-4894, November 1968.

Program-Non-m Hardness Program Meireis, E. C. and Wright, A. R., "Hardness Vol. 2, Safeguard Structures and TSE DescripPlan for Safeguard Ground Facilities, tions," U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntsville Division, November 1973.

B-31

Mellsen, Research

S, B., "Drag Establishment,

on Free Flight Cylinders .in a Blast Wave," Suffield, Ralston, Alberta, Canada.

Defence

Mente, L. J., and Lee, W. M., "DEPROP- A Digital Computer Program for Predicting Dynamic Elastic-Plastic Response of Panels to Blast Loading," Kaman AviDyne, A Division bf Kaman Sciences Corp., Burlington, MA., June 1976. Metallic Materials and Elements for Aero_space Vehicle Structures: Standardization Hdndbook," MIL-HDBK-SC, September 1976. Meyer, Ministry Safety, tindon, R., Explosives, Verlag Chemie, Weinheim, New York, 1977. Military

"Guide of Labour, Health and Welfare 1965.

to the Use of Flame Arresters Series No. 34, Her Majesty's Safety Seminar, Board, September Vol. 9-10,

and Explosion Reliefs," Stationery Office, I, Conducted 1969. II, by the of Services

Minutes of the Armed Services Minutes Defense

Eleventh Explosives Explosives Safety

of the Fourteenth Explosives Safety the Thirteenth Safety Board,

Explosives Safety Seminar, Vol. Board, November 8-10, 1972. Annual Explosives September 14-16, Safety 1971. Seminar,

Department The Armed Systems,"

Minutes of Explosives Moore, Nuclear

C. V., "The Engineering

Design of Barricades and Design, Vol. 5,

for Hazardous Pressure 1967, pp 81-97.

Morales, W. J., the Engineering Engineers, Vol. Morris, G., Engineering, Murphey, physical

"Displacement Bounds for Blast Loaded Structures," Mechanics Division, Proceedings of the American 98, No. EM4, August 1972, pp 965-974. Vibrations from Blasting

Journal of Society of Civil Operations," Journal of Geo-

"The Reduction of Ground April 1,950, pp 430-433.

B. F., "Particle Research, Vol.

Motions Near Explosions in Halite," 66, No. 3, March 1961, pp 947-958..

Motiaxi and Stress Measurements, Project LN 302, OperaMurrell, D.W. , "Earth tion DIAL PACK," Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report N-74-3, U, S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MI, April 1974. Napadensky, H. S., Swatosh, J. Minutes of the 14th Explosives pp 289-312. J., and Morita, Safety Seminar, D. R., "TNT Equivalency New Orleans, November and Penetration of Technology, Studies," 8-10, 1972,

Nara, H. R. and Deniington, R. J., "Ricochet Clay and Sand Soils," TM-E7, Case Institute October 1954.

of Steel Spheres in Project DOAN Brook,

B-32

National 1973. National National

Fire Fire Fire

Protection,Association, Protection Association, Codes, Vol. 13, 1975.

"Explosion "Guide for

Prevention Explosion

Systems,"NFPA Venting,"

No. 69, 68,

NFPA No.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric S/T, 76-1562, U. S. Government Neal, B. G, The Plastic England, 1977. Nelson, Arsenal Ground, K. P., "Spherical Technical Report Md., March 1977. Methods

Administration, Printing Office, of Structural

U. S. Standard October 1976. Analysis, Chapman

Atmosphere, and Hall,

NOAALondon,

Shields for the No. EM-T&76096,

Containment of Explosions," Edgewood Arsenal, Aberdeen

Edgewood Proving

Nelson, K. P., "The Economics Improved Conventional Munition nical Report No. EM-TR-76087, January 1977.

of Applying Suppressive Shielding Loading, Assembling, and Packing Edgewooh Arsenal, Aberdeen Proving Dynamics," Engineering Engineers,

to the M483Al Facility," TechGround, Md., The Office Mechanics July 1959, of pp

for Structural Newmark, N. M., "A Method of Computation Naval Research, Department of the Navy, Journal of the Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil 67-94. Nicholls, Effects

R. W., Johnson, C. F., and Duvall, W. I., "Blast Vibrations Bureau of Mines Bulletin 656, p. 105, 1971. on Structures,"

and Their

NMAB Committee, "Response of Metals and Metallic Structures to Dynamic Loading," Academy of Sciences, NMAB-341, National Materials Advisory Board, National Washington, D. C., May 1978. Nonaka, Loading," Norrie, cations, Norris, J. V., 1959. "Notched Nuclear T., "Shear and Bending Ingenieur-Archiv 46, Response S.35-52, of a Rigid-Plastic 1977. Element 1973. Method: Beam to Blast-Type Fundamentals and Appli-

H. and de Vries, Academic Press,

G., The Finite New York, NY,

C, H., Hansen, R. J.;Holley, Structural Design for Dynamic Bar Impact Regulatory Testing Commission, of Metallic

M. J., Biggs, J. M., Namyet, S. and Minsmi, Loads, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY, Materials," Guide 1.92. Effects from Accidental 1978, pp 145-150. ASTM E23-72.

Regulation

O'Brien, J., Explosions,"

"U. S. Regulatory Requirements Nuclear Engineering,and Design,

for Blast Vol. 46,

B-33

Odello, R. and Price,;P., "Ground Shock Effects from Accidental Explosions," Picatinny Arsenal TechnicaL Report 4995, Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, New Jersey, November 1976. Oertel, F. H., "Evaluation of Simple Models for the Attenuation of Shock Waves by Vented Plates," BRL Report No. 1906, U. S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., August 1976. Office of Scientific Research and Development, National Defense Research Committee, Division 1946. "Effects of Impact and Explosion," 2, Washington, D. C., AD 221 586, Levels From Confined of Investigation BM-RI-

L. R., "Airblast-0verpressure Olson, J. J., and Flecher, Underground Production Blasts," Bureau of Mines Report 7574, 1971. Oppenheim, A. K., Introduction Notes 1148, CISM, Udine, Italy, Oppenheim, Exposition Mechanics, to Gas Dynamics Springer-Verlag,

of Explosions, Course Lecture New York, NY, 1972, p- 43. M. M., Journal "A Systematic of Applied Mason PA.

A. K., Lundstrom, E. A., Kuhl, of.the Conservation Equations December 1?71, pp 783-794. Inc.,

A. L. apd Kamel, for Blast Waves,"

Osborn, A. G. and Stallings, & Hanger, Silas Mason~Co. Owczarek, Palmer, J. K. N., A. Fundamentals Dust

T. L., "PBX Processing,ll Development Division, SANL 260-002, October-December 1973. of Gas Dynamics, and Fires, Int. Textbook zizd Hall, Co., Ltd., Scranton, London.

E&plosions

Chapman

Palmer, K. N., "Loss Engineering Progress, Pei, R., "A Design tures," Department No. YTC-02-08-76-413,

Prevention: Relief Venting Vol. 70 No. 4, April 1974,

of Dust Explosions," pp 57-61.

Chemical SturcReport 1975. Yields

Aid and Cost Estimate Model for Suppressive Shielding of,Safety Engineering, USAMC Intern Training Center, Red River Army Depot, Texarkana, Texas, December

Penny, W. G., Samuelsj D. E. J, and Scorgie, G. C., "The Nuclear Explosive zt Hiroshima and Nagasaki," Phil. Trans. Royal Society, 266, 1970, p. 357. Perret, W, R. and Bass, R. C., Explosions," Sandia Laboratories, PCI Design Handbook: tute, Chicago, Ill., Perrone, University
N. and Pilkey,

"Free-Field Ground Motion Induced By Underground Albuquerque, New Mexico, November 1975. Prestressed edition). Concrete, Prestressed Concrete Series, InstiVol. I,

Precast, (current

Press

W. (eds.), Structural of VFrginia, Charlottesville,

Mechanics Software VA., 1977.

B-34

Perrone, University

N. and Pilkey, W., Press of Virginia,

(eds.), Structural Charlottesville,

Mechanics VA, 1978.

Software

Series,,Vol.

II,

Perkins, B. J. and Jackson, W. F., "Handbook for Prediction of Air Blast Focusing," BRL Report No. 1240, U. S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., 1964, p. 100. Perry, G. L. E., Hudson, C. C. and Loring, B. P., and Prediction Techniques from the Pre-Dice Throw 75OC-0023, and DNAOOl-76-C-0376, General Electric New Mexico, March 1977. Peterson+ F. H., Lemont, C. J. and Vergnolle, Air Force Weapons Laboratory Technical Report Weapons Laboratory, Kirtland APB, Mew Mexico, "Analysis of Ground Motion Data II Events," Contract No. DNAOOlCompany, TEMPO, Albuquerque, Test,"

R. R., "High Explosive Storage No. AFWL-TR-67-132, Air Force May 1968.

Peterson, F. , Lemont, C. J. and Vergnolle, R. R., "High Explosive Storage Test Big Papa," Technical Report No. AFWL-TR-67-132, Air Force Weapons Laboratory, Air Force Systems Command, Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, May 1968. Petino, G., and Leondi, M. F., "Sensitivity of Molten to Impact by Primary Steel Fragments," ARLCD-CR-78011, Jersey, April 1978. and Solid Amatex Charges ARRADCOM, Dover, New

Petino, G., DeMella, D. and Rindner; R. M., "Sensitivity of Cased Charges of Molten and Solid Composition B to Impact by Primary Steel Fragments," PA-TR-4975, Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, New Jersey, June 1976. Pilkey, W., Saczalski, Programs,~University Pinney, E., "The sity of California, K. and Schaeffer, Press of Virginia, H., (eds.) Charlottesville, in Structural VA., Mechanics 1974. Medium," Computer Univer-

Early Effect of NONR-222-04,

an Explosion 1965.

a Multi-layered

Pirotin, S. D., Berg, B. A. and Witmer, E. A., "PETROS 4: New Developments and Program Manual for the Finite-Difference Calculation of Large Elastic-Plastic, and/or Viscoelastic Translent Deformations of Multilayer Variable Thickness, (1) Thin Hard-Bonded, (2) Moderately-Thick Hard-Bonded, or (3) Thick Soft-Bonded by MIT Aeroelastic Shells," ASRL TR 152-6, BRL Contract Report No. 316, prepared and Structures Research Laboratory, Cambridge, MA, September 1976. Plooster, M. N., "Blast Front Pressure from Cylindrical sives," Naval Weapons Center Technical Memorandum No. tute, Denver, Colorado, September 1978. Potapov, V. A., Translated from pp 18-20. "Investigation Osnovaniya, Charges of High Explo3631, Denver Research Insti-

of the Explosion-Induced Vibration of Buildings," Fundamenty i Mekhanika Gruntov, No. 3, May-June 1974,

Potter, R. and Jarvis, C. V., "An Experimental Study of the Shock Wave in Free Air from Spherical Charges of TNT and 60/40 RDX/TNT," AWRE Report No. 0 l/73, United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, 1973. B-35

"Prediction Environmental

of Ground Motion Characteristics of Underground Nuclear Detonations," Research~ Corporation, NVO-1163-239, Las Vegas, Nev.ada, March 1974. Containment Conference September Vessels," on Structural 1971. CONF-710903-3, Mechanics in paper preReactor Techon StrucCenter,

"Problems of Explosions Inside sented at First International nology held in Berlin,,Germany,

Proceedings of the Ax-& Symposium on Solid Mechanics, 1978-Case Studies tural Integrity and Reliability, Army Materials and Mechanics Research Watertown, Mass, September 1978. Proctor, Confined Orleans, Proctor, Report J. F. and Filler, W. S., "A Computerized Technique Explosions, Minutes of the 14th Annual Explosives Louisiana, a-TO November 1972, pp 99-124. Blast Damage Mechanisms J. F., "Internal No. 61, JTCG/ME-73-3, April 1973. Theory ~ of Matrix Structured Computer Analysis,

for Blast Loads from Safety Seminar, New Program," McGraw-Hill, JTCG/ME Inc.

Przemieniecki, J. S., New York, NY, 1968.

Raghavan, K. S. and Sundararajan, V., "Transient Nonlinear Response of Beam Columns," Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India, Noise, Shock and Vibration Conference, Mona+ University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 1974. J. Ramsey, R. T., Powell,: Program," NSWC/DL TR-3664, Raouf, Z. A., Fiber-Reinforced of Mechanical Al-Hassani, Cement Engineering G. and Smith, W. D., "Fragment Naval Surface Weapons Center, Hazard October Investigation 1978.

S. T. S. and Simpson, Composites," Department at UMIST. Relief, Institute

J. W., "Explosive Testing of of Building and the Department of Chemical Engineering, Verrrieb Plant, Solids Aprl.1 Under Vol. VDE, 1965.

Rasbash and Rogowski, 1, p 58-68, 1961.

:Explosion

Rausch, E., Maschinenfiundamente Und Andere Verlag G.M.B.H., Berlin, Germany, 1943. "RDX, HMX and Explosive "Containing 1970, pp. Compositions," Ballistic 51-60.

Dynamische

Bauaufgaben,

Holston Fragments,"

Army Ammunition Engineering

Recht, R. F., H. Pugh (ed.),

Pressure,

Reed, J. W., "Distant 'Blast Predictions Explosives Safety Semilnar, Department Washington, D. C., 1973.

for Explosions," Minutes of the 15th of Defense Explosives Safety Board, $ of Window Pane Damage Explosion on November 13, 152, I, 1968, pp. 565-584.

J.i C. and DeHart, R. C., "Evaluation Reed, J. W., Minor, Intensity in San Antonio Resulting from Medina Facility 1963," Annals of the New York Academy of Science, Vol.

B-36

Reeves, H. J., "An Empirically Based Analysis on the Response Impact By Steel Fragments," BRL MR 2031, U. S. Army Ballistic Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., March 1970. R&her, ungen," Reisler, Seminar, H. and Meister, Forsch Gebiete F. J., Ingenieur "Die Empfindlichkeit wesen, Vol. 2 No.

of HE Munitions to Research Laboratory,

der Menschen gegen Erschutter11, 1931, pp 381-386. the 14th Explosives Safety

R. C., "Explosive Yield Criteria, New Orleans, November 8-10, 1972,

Minutes of pp 271-288.

Reisler, R. E. and Kennedy, L. W., "Air Blast Dynamic Pressures From Silmultaneous and Non-Simultaneous Multiburst Detonations," BRL Report No. ARBRL-TR-02043, U. S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., Feb. 1978. Reisler, R. E., Kennedy, L. W. and Keefer, J. H., "High Explosive Multiburst Airblast Phenomena (Simultaneous and Non-Simultaneous Detonations)," BRL Technical Report No. ARERL-TR-02142, U. S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., February 1979. Reisler, R. E. and Pettit, 8. A., "Project Dipole West-Multiburst Environment (Non-Simultaneous Detonations),,," BRT Report No. 1921, U. S. Army Ballistic Kesearch Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., September 1976. Ribovich, J. and Watson, R. W., "Active List of Permissible Explosives and Blasting Devices Approved Before December 31, 1972," Bureau of Mines Information Circular 8597, June 1973. Ribovich, J., Watson, R. and Gibson, Vol. 6, No. 7, 1968. pp 1260-1263. Ricchiazzi, Category Ballistic F., "Instrumented Card-Gap Test," AIAA Journal

A. J. and Barb, J. C., "Test Results for 608 Gram Fragments Against I Suppressive Structures," BRL Memorandum Report No. 2592, U. S. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., February 1976. J. R. and Woods, Englewood Cliffs, R. D., Vibrations New Jersey, 1970. of Soils and Foundations,

Richart, F. E., Hall, Prentice-Hall, Inc.,

Richmond, D. R., Damon, E. G., Fletcher, E. R., Bowen, I. G. and White, C. S., "The Relationship Between Selected Blast Wave Parameters and the Response of Mammals Exposed to Air Blast," Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 152, Art. 1, October 1968, pp 103-121. Ricker, grams," N., "The Form and Nature of Seismic Geophysics, Vol. 5, 1940, p 348-366.
Waves

and the

Structure

oE Seismo-

and Utilization of a Versatile Rindner, R., Cohen, E. and Dobbs, N., "Description of Safety Design Criteria Slab-Support Test Facility, Report No. 7, Establishment for Use in Engineering of Explosive Facilities and Operations," Report No. 3445, Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, New Jersey, October 1966.

B-37

Rindner, R.M. 'and Schwartz,. A. H., "Establishment of Safety Design Criteria for Use in Engineering ~of Explosive Facilities and Operations," Technical Report No; 3267, Armed Services Explosives Safety Board, Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, New Jersey, June 1965. Rindner, R. M., Stanley, W. and Saffian, L. W., "Establishment of Safety Design Criteria for Use in Engineering of Explosive Facilities and Operations,"' Technical Report No. 11, Armed Services Explosive Sgfety Board, Technical. Report 3712, Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, New Jersey, September 1968. Rinehart, 1975. Rinehart, American Ritland, Testing Technical J. S., Stress Transients in Solids, Hyperdynamics, Under Santa Impulsive Fe, New Mexico, The

J. S. and Pearson, Society of Metals, H. N., "The of Non-Metsllic Publication

J., "Behavior of Metals Cleveland, Oh., 1954.

Loads,"

Effect of Speed on Testing on Glass," Symposium on Speed of Materials, Atlantic City, New Jersey, (ASTM Special No. 1851, June 1955, pp 19-29. of Soils; Report Soil Targets," Experiment Station, McGraw-Hill 2,

Robani, B., "Fragment and Projectile Penetration Resistance High-Velocity Fragment Penetration into Laboratory-Prepared Miscellaneous Paper S-71-12, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Vicksburg, .MI, June 1973. Robinson, C. S., Explosions, co., New York, NY, 1944. Robinson, Subjected Their Anatomy and Destructiveness,

Book

Bound Principle for Elastic-Plastic D. N., "A Displacement to Blast Loading," Journal of Mech. Phys. Solids, Vol. M., "Investigation ~~-61, Torsvarets Kjeller, Norway, of Underground Torskingsinstitutt, August 1978.

18,

Structures 1970, pp 65-80. With Model Defence

Rollvik, S. and Vigstad, Tests," Intern Rapport Research Establishment, Rollvik, Tests: Sinstitutt,

Explosions Norwegian

S. and Vi&tad, M., "Investigation of Underground Explosions With Model Intern Rapport VM-60, Forsvsrets Forskning Measurements in the Tube," Norwegian Defence Research Establishment, Kjeller, Norway, March 1978.

"Essex-Diamond Ore Research Program, Rooke, A..D., Apparent Crater Measurements for Simulated, Low Yield Nuclear Explosions Project Essex I, Phase 1 and 2," Waterways Experiment Station, WES MP N-78-3, Vicksburg, MI., March 1978. Pre-Buggy Rooke, A. D. and Davis, L. K., "Project Explosive Charges and Crater Measurements," Paper Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, for Assessing Hearing Ross, R., "Criteria AD 666-206, Human Engineering Laboratory, 1967. Emplacement No. l-663, Vicksburg, and Firing of High U. S. Army Engineer MI, February 1965. Impulse-Noise Ground, Md., Exposure," August

Damage Risk from Aberdeen Proving

B-38

Ross, C. A., Sterakowski, R. L., Ebcioglu, I. K., Schauble, C.. C. and Yen, C. F., "Studies on the Failureof Stiffened Cylindrical Shells Subjected to Dynamic Loads," U. S. Air Force Office of Scientific AFOSR-TR-78-0697, University of Florida, Research, December 1977. Ross, Metal Office R. L. and Hoover, J.,W., "Studies on the Failure of C. A., Sterakowski, Mechanical Joints Subjected to Dynamic Loads," AFOSR-TR-78-0078, IJ. S. of Scientific Research, Eglin AFB, FL., September 1977.

Explosives and Initiators---A Rossi, B. D. and Pozdnyakov, 2. G., "Commercial Handbook," Promyshlennyye Vzryvchatyye Veshchestva i Sredstva Vzryvaniya--Spravochnik, Moscow, "Nedra" Press, Report No.. FSTC-HT-23-587-73, October Rotz, J. V., llResults Second ASCE Specialty Vl, l-A, New Orleans,

1973.

of Missile Impact Tests on Reinforced Concrete Panels," Conference on Structural Desi8;n of Nuclear Plant Facilties, La., December 1975, pp 720-738.

of Shockwaves from Condensed Explosives in Air, Part Rudlin, L., "On the Origin 2, Measurements of Air Shock Pressures from g-lb TNT Spheres of Various Densities NOLTR 63-13, DASA-1360, Naval Ordnance Laboratory, Airat Ambient Pressures," Ground Explosions Division, Explosion Research Department, October 1963. Runes, E., "Explosion Venting," Loss Prevention, Vol. 6, pp 63-67.

Sachs, R. G., "The Dependence of Blast on Ambient Pressure and Temperature," BRL Report 466, U. S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., 1944. Safety Manual, Chemical Propulsion U. S. Army Material Command. Sakurai, A., "Blast Morris Bolt (ad.), Information Agency, AMCR 385-100, Headquarters, Vol. I,

Wave Theory,O .Basic Developments in Fluid Academic Press, New York, NY, pp 309-375. of Mass Concrete," Waterways Experiment

Mechanics,

Saucier, K.. L., "Dynamic Properties Report NO. 18, U. S. Army Engineer tory, Vicksburg, MI, June 1977.

WES-MP-C-77-6, CTIAC Station, Concrete Labora-

Schlenker, G., "Economic Systems Perspective Applied to Explosive Hazards," Report No. SAO Note 20, U. S. Army Armament Command, Systems Analysis Office, Rock Island, Ill., March 1975. Schlosser, F., forced Earth," Schemer, Spectrum Research and Nguyen-Thank, L., "Recent Results Journal of the Construction Division in Trench Research On ReinASCE, September 1974.

Amplitude and P. D., Goff, R. J., and Little, L. M., "The Statistics-of Vol. I, Construction Engineering of Blasts Propagated in the Atmosphere," Laboratory, Report No. N-13, November 1976.

of Amplitude and R. J. and Little, 1;. M., "The Statistics Schemer, P. D., Goff, Vol. II, Appendices C through Spectrum of Blasts Propagated in the Atmopshere," E, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Report No. N-13, November 1976. B-39

Schraeder, F-J., Kachinski, R. L., Schnepfe, R. .W., Koger, D. M., J. L., -and Jezek, 8. W., "Engineering Design Guidelines, Drawings cations for Support Engineering of Suppressive Shields," Edgewood tractor Report No.1 EM-CR-76097, Edgewood Arsenal, Aberdeen Proving December 1976. ~

McKivrigan, and SpecifiArsenal ConGround, Md.,

Schumacher, R. N.,, "Air Blast and Structural Response Testing of a Prototype Category III Suppressive Shield," BRL Memorandum Report No. 2701, U; S. Army Ballistic Research,Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., November 1976. Schumacher, R. N. and Ewing, W. O., "Blast Attenuation Outside Cubical Enclosures Made Up of Selected Suppressive Structurks Panel Configurations," BRL Memorandum Report No. 2537, U. S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., September, 1975. Schumacher, R. N.,'Kingery, C. N. and Ewing, W. O., "Air Blast and Structural Response Testing of a l/4 Scale Category I Suppressive Shield," BRL Memorandum Report No. 2623, Vi S, Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., May 1$76. Schuring, D. J., Shale Pergmon Press, Oxford, Models in Engineering, England, 1977. Fundamental8 and Applications,

Schwartz, A., Cohen, E. and Dobbs, N., "Test of l/l0 Scale Bay Structure, Report No. 5, Establishment of Safety Design Criteria for Use in Engineering of Explosive Facilities and Operations," Report No. 3439, Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, New Jersey, July 1966. Settles, J. E., "Deficiencies in the Testing and Classification Materials," Annals,of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 1968, pp 199+. Sewell, R. G. S., and Kinney, G. F., "Internal Explosions Chambers," Minutes~of the 14th Explosives Safety Seminar, 8-10, November 1973, pp 87-98. 152, of Dangerous Art. 1, October

in Vented and Unvented New Orleans, November

&well, R. G. S. and Kinney, G. F., "Response of Structures to Blast: A New Criterion," Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 152, Art. 1, October 1968, pp 532-547. Sharma, S. K., 'Dynamic Response Engineering Research Laboratory, of Reinforced Concrete Structures," Champaign, IL, July 1978. Construction BRL Report Ground, Md.,

Shear, R. E., "Incident and Reflected Blast Pressures for Pentolite,' No. 2162, U. S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving September 1964. Shear, R. E. and Arbuckle, A. L., "Calculated Selected Explosives," Annex of the Explosive I 70-10, 1971,

Explosive and Blast Properties for Steering Committee, NOL 61-JTCG/ME-

B-40

Shear, R. E. and Wright, E., "Calculated Peak Pressure---Distance Curves Pentolite and TNT," BRL Memorandum Report No.. 1423, U. S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., August 1962. "Shelter Defense Design and Analysis, Vol. Civil Preparedness Agency, 4, Protective TR-20, July Construction 1972. for Shelters,"'

for

Shumacher, R. N., Kingery, C. N. and Ewing, W. O., "Air Blast and Structural Response Testing of a l/4 Scale Category I Supressive Shield," BRL Memorandum Report No. 2623, U. S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., May 1976. Simmons Vol. 1, Sisemore, Lawrence and Cubbage, "Explosion 1961, pp 69-77. Relief," Institution of Chemical Engineering, Mine Blast," CA, July 1973.

C. J., "Analyzing of Surface-Motion Data from Livermore Laboratory, University of California,

Old Reliable Livermore,

Siskind, D. E., "Ground and Air Vibrations from Blasting, Subsection 11.8,:' SME and Mining Engineerin& Handbook, A. 8. Cummings and I. A. Given, (eds.), Sot. of Mining Engineering of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and Petroleum Engineering Inc., New York, NY, pp 11-112. Siskind, D. E. and Smers, Bureau of Mines Environmental Department of the Interior, Noise C. R., "Blast Research Program, May 1974. Standards Technical and Instrumentation," Report No. 78, U. S.

Skjeltorp, A. T., Hegdahl, T. and Jennsen, A., "Underground Ammunition Storage, Blast Propagation in the Tunnel System Report V A,, Connected Chamber Storage NOTAT 83-72, Forsvarets Bygningstjeneste, Blast Load on Doors in Three Sites," July 1976. Slade, D. C. and Dewey, J., "High Order Initiation of Two Military Explosives by Projectile Impact," BRL Report No. 1021, U. S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., July 1957. "Small Smith, Inc., Clear Specimens of Timber," ASTM D 143-52, Materials, (reapproved Second 1972). Edition, Prentice Hall,

C. O., The Science 1977, p. 187. for the Institute,

of Engineering

"Specifications Iron and Steel Spencer, pressive Proving Sperrazza, Vibration,

Design of Cold Formed Steel Structural Washington, D. C., (current edition).

Members,"

American

Design Procedures for SupA. F. and McKivrigsn, J. L., "Preliminary Shields," Technical Report No. EM-TR-76089, Edgewood Arsenal, Aberdeen Ground, Maryland, December 1976. J., "Modeling (W, E. Baker, of Air Blast," Use of Modeling and Scaling in Shock ed.), ASME, New York, NY, November 1963, pp 65-78. and

B-41

Sperrazza, J. and'Kokinakis, W., "Ballistic Technical Note No+ 1645, U. S. Army Bal1isti.c Proving Ground, Md., January 1967. "Standard (current Specifi&ations edition): and Load Tables,"

Limits of Tissue and Clothing," Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Steel Joist Institute, Arlington, VA.

Stea, W., Tseng, G., Kossover, D., Price, P. and Caltagirone, J., "Nonlinear Analysis of Frsme~Structures Subjected to Blast Overpressures," ARLCD-CR-77008, U. S. Army Armament Research and Development Cornman d, Large Caliber Weapons Systems Laboratoe, Dover, New Jersey, May 1977. Steffens, R. J., 'FThe Assessment the Study of Building Vibrations," No. 19, Department of Scientific London, England, 1952. Steidel, Materials R. F. and Makerou, at Moderate Rates of Vibration Intensity and Its Application to National Building Studfes Special Report and Ind. Research, Building Research Station,

C. E., II The Tensile Properties of Some Engineering of Strain," ASTM Bulletin, July 1960, pp 57-64. EPRI-NP-148, ProPalo Alto, CA.,

Stephenson, A. E.! "Full-Scale Tornado-Missile Impact Tests," ject 399, InterimiReport, Electric Power Research Institute, April 1976.

Stephenson, A. E./ Sliter, G. and Burdette, E., "Full-Scale Tornado-Missile Impact Tests Usind a Rocket Launcher," Second ASCE Specialty Conference on Structural Desi&n~of Nuclear Plant Facilities, Vol. l-A, New Orleans, LA., December, 1975, pp 611-636. Stevenson, J. D. and Havers, J. Fully-Buried Personnel Shelters," Chicago, IL, September 1965. A., IIT "Entranceways and Exits for Blast-Resistant Research Institute, Technology Center,

Stirrat, W. M., wMinlmum Nonpropagation Distance of Open Rubber Buckets Containing Explosive Composition A5," Report No. ARLCD-TR-78045, 0. S. Army Armament Research and Development Command, Large Caliber Weapons Laboratory, Dover, New Jersey, August 1978. Stirrat, W. M. and,Rindner, R. M., sive," U.-S. Army ~Armament Research pons Laboratory, Dover, New Jersey, "Critical Depth and Development January 1978. Tests of Bulk TNT Flake Command, Large Caliber ExploWeaScranton, NY, 1968.

Strehlow, R. A., Fundamentals of Combustion, PA., reprinted by~Robert E. Krieger Publishing Strehlow, Technical 1974.

International Textbook Co., Co:, Box 542, Huntington,

R. A. and Adamczyk, A. A., "On The Nature of Non-Ideal Report AAE 74-2, UILU-ENG-740502, University of Illinois,

Blast Waves," Urbana, IL.,

B-42

Strehlow, R. A. and Baker, W. E., "The Characterization dental Explosions," NASA CR 134779, NASA Lewis Research June 1975. Strehlow, R. A. and Baker, W. E., "The dental Explosions,' Progress in Energy 1976, pp 27-60. Stricklin, J. A. and Haisler, Static and Dynamic Analysis," Structural Mechanics, Detroit, Characterization and Combustion

and Evaluation of AcciCenter, Cleveland, OH., and Evaluation of AcciScience, Vol. 2 No. 1,

W. E., "Survey of Solution Proceedings SAE International MI, March 1974..

Procedures for Nonlinear Conference on Vehicle

Structures to Resist the Effects of Accidental Explosions, Department of the Army Technical Manual TM5-1300, Department of the Navy Publication NAVFAC P-397, Department of the Air Force Manual AFM 88-22, Department of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, June 1969. Stubbs, I. R. and Benuska, K. L., Response of Box-Type Structures," December 1966. Stull, 1977, D. R., p. 124. Fundamentals of Fire "A Computer Program for T. Y. Lin and Associates, and Explosion, the Dynamic Consulting Blast Engineers, 73, 10,

AIChE Monograph

Series,

Suko, M. and Adams, P. F., "Dynamic Analysis of Multibay Multistory Frames," Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Vol. 97, No. SXO, October 1971, pp 2519-2533. Engineers, Sullivan, B. R. and Bombich, A. A., "Evaluation of Methods of Attenuating Pressures on Walls," No. 6-856, U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MI., November 1966. "Suppressive Shielding,' AA1 Corporation, Cockeysville, U. S. Army Armament Research and Development Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., April 1977. 'Suppressive Shields Structural U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Design and Analysis Huntsville Division, Blast Station,

Md., DAAA15-75-C-0120, Chemical Systems Laboratory, HNDM-1110-1-2, Ala., November

Handbool-," Huntsville,

1977.

Swihart, G. R., "Study to Determine the Optimum Section Beams Subjected to Blast Loads," Naval Civil Engineering CA., February 1959. Swisdak, M. M., "Explosion Air," NSWC/WOL/TR 75-116, Md., October 1975. Effects and Properties: Naval Surface Weapons

of Reinforced Laboratory,

Concrete Port Hueneme, Effects in Silver Spring,

Part I--Explosion Center, White Oak,

Symonds, P. S., 'Approximation Techniques for Rate Sensitive Plastic Behav.ior," SIAM Journal 1973, pp 462-473.

Impulsively Loaded Structures of Applied Mathematics, Vol. 25, No.

3,

B-43

Symonds, P. S., "Survey of Methods of Analysis for tures under Dynamic Loading," BU/NSXDC/l-67, Naval Center, June 1967. :

Plastic Deformation Ship Research,and

of StrucDevelopment Loadind of

Symonds, P. S. and Chon, C. T., "Approximation Techniques for Impulsive of Structures of Time-Dependent Plastic Behavior with Finite-Deflections," Mechanical Properties at High Rates of Strain, J. Harding, Ed., Institute Physics, London, Conf. Ser. No. 21, pp 299-316, 1974.

Symonds, P. S. and Chon, C. T., "Bounds for Finite-Deflections of Impulsively Loaded Structures with Time-Dependent Plastic Behavior," International Journal Solids Structures, vol. 11, pp 403-425, 1975. "Systems Applications of Nuclear Technology: Effects of Airblast, Cratering, Ground Shock and Radiation on Hardened Structures," AFSC Manual 500-8, Department of the Air Force, Chapter 8, January 1976. Tpi, T. M., "Analydis of Ground-Motion Peak Particle Velocities from Cratering Experiments at Trinidad, Colorado," U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Explosive xcavation Research Laboratory, Livermore, California, May 1972. 7 Tancreto, J. E., "Effects of Charge Composition and Surface Conditions on Blast Environment," Civil~Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme, California. Taylor, voirs," 981-985. D. 8. and Price, ASME Transactions, C. F., "Velocities of Fragment From Bursting Journal of Engineering for Industry, 93B, Intense Gas Reser1971, pp

Taylor, G. I., "The~Formation of a Blast Wave by a Very Proceedings Royal Society, A201, 1950, p. 159.

Explosion,"

Taylor, N. and Alexander, S. J,, "Structural Damage in Buildings Caused by Gaseous Explosions and Othe? Accidental Loadings," Building Research Establishment Current Paper CP 45/74,, Building Research Establishment, March 1974. Teichmann, G. A. &I neering, April 1957, "Tensile-Impact Energy ANSI/ASTM D 1822-68. Westwater, pp 460-465. to Break R., "Blasting and Associated Vibrations," Materials," of 105 Laboratory, Minutes Engi-

Plastics

and Electrical

Insulating

TERA Group, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, mm HE Projectiles to Fragment Impacts," U. S. Army Ballistic Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., August 1978. "Tests of the

"Vulnerability Research Walls, 1978.

on the Effec,ts of Explosive Charges on Reinforced Earth Eighteenth Explosives - Safety Seminar, Vol. 1, September

"The Resistance of Various Metallic Materials to Perforation by Steel Fragments; Empirical Relationships for Fragment Residual Velocity and Residual Weight," Institute for Cooperative Research, Project Thor Technical Report No. 47, April 1961. B-44

"The Resistance of Various Non-Metallic Materials to Perforatipn by Steel Fragments; Empirical Relationships for Fragment Residual Velocity and Residual Weight," BRL Technical Report No. 51, Project THOR, U. S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., April 1963. Thoenen, of Mines J. B. and Windes, Bulletin No. 442, S. L., "Seismic 83, 1942. Effects of Quarry Blasting," Bureau

the Thomas, L. H., "Computing No. 468, U. S. Army Ballistic May 1944.

Effect of Distance Research Laboratory,

on Damage by Fragments," Report Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., of Simple Aberdeen Shape," Proving BRL Ground,

Thomas, L. R., "Theory of the Explosion of Cased Charges Report No. 475, U. S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Md., July 1944. Thomson, W. T., Mechanical Vibrations, Prentice-Hall,

New York,,

NY, 1948.

Thompson, L. J., Ferguson, G. H., Murff, V, D. and Cetiner, Soil Parameters on Earth Penetration of Projectiles," Texas tion Report No. PB 186074, July 1969. Thornhill, C. K., "Explosions and Development Establishment, Timoshenko, S., Vibration New York, NY, 1928. Ting, R. M, L., Barrier Walls," Plant Facilities, in Air," England, Problems in ARDE Memo (B) 57/60, 1960. Engineering,

A., llThe Effects of A&M Research FoundaArmament Research Company, Inc.,

D. Van Nostrand

"Non-composite and Composite Steel Panels for Tornado Missile Second ASCE Specialty Conference on Structural Design of Nuclear Vol. IA, New Orleans, IA., December 1975, pp 663-687. Compartments," Symposium on Vulto Explo-

Trott, B. D. and White, J. J., "Design of Ammunition Storage Battelle Columbus Laboratories, paper presented at the Fourth nerability and Survivability, March 1979. Ts'ao, H-S., sive Blast,"

Headwall Response Reddy, D. P. and Dowdy, R. W,, "Magazine Agbabian Associates, El Segundo, CA., January 1974.

Charts for Cold-Formed Tseng, G., Weissman, S., Dobbs, N., and Price, P., "Design Steel Panels and Wide-Flange Beams Subjected to Blast Loading," Technical Report 4838, Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, New Jersey, August 1975. Tyler, L. D., SC-R&68-430, Uemura, 196.5. S., "Numerical Results Sandia Laboratories, "Explosion-Resistant of Blast Wave Propagation Albuquerque, New Mexico, Construction Designs," in Tunnel September Intersections," 1968. Japan,

University

of Tokyo,

B-45

United States Army Materiel Command, "Safety-Safety 100 DARCOM Change No. 3, Department of the Army, iel Development and#Readiness Command, Alexandria, "Seismic URSfJohn A. Blume and Associates, vior at the Pantex Facility," April 1976. URS/.Tohn A. Blume a<d Associates, "Seismic tern for the Pantex Facility," April 1976. U. S. Army Corps of#Engineers, Huntsville Division, Handbook," U. S. Army Corps Atomic Weapons," U. S. Army Corps ED-SR, Huntsville of ;Engineers, EM'lllO-345-415, ofiEngineers, Division, "Suppressive Huntsville, "Design of 1975. Hazard Design

Manual," DARCOM C3, AMCR-385Headquarters, U.. S. Army MaterVA., January 1977. and Building of Building Structural November to Resist Structure and Sprinkler Design 1977. the Behagys-

Shields Alabama, Structures

and Analysis of

Effects

"Overpressure Effects on Structures," Huntsville, Alabama, February 1976.

HNDTR-75-23-

U. S. Army MateriallCommand, "Engineering DesignHandbook: Explosions in Air, Part I," AMC Phamphlet No. 706-181, Department of the Army, Headquarters, United States Army Material Command, Alexandria, VA., July 1974. U. S. Army Material~Command, "Engineering Design Handbook: Explosives Series, Properties of Explosives of Military Interest," AMCP 706-177, Headquarters, Department of the Army, Alexandria, VA., January 1971. U. S. Army Material:Command, sive Behavior," AMC,Pamphlet Alexandria,.VA., 1972. "Engineering Design 706-180, Headquarters, Handbook: Principles Department of the of ExploArmy,

U. S. Energy ResearLh and Development Administration, Albuquerque Operations Office, "Report of Investigation of the Explosion with Fatal Injuries in Building ll-14A on March 30,:1977 at the Pantex Plant-Amarillo, Texas," June 28, 1977. U. S. Forest Products Laboratory, U. S. Department of:Agriculture, Wood Handbook: Wood as an Engineering Agriculture Handbook No. 72, 1974. on the Ear and Hearing Material,

of Gun Explosions Vadala, A. .I., "Effkcts Milit Surg. Vol. 66, 1930, pp 710-822.

Mechanism,"

Van Dolah, R. W., Gibson, F. C. and Murphy, J. N., tic Detonation," Report of Investigation No. 6903, the Interior, Bureau of Mines, 1966. Vassallo, F. A., "Missile Report No. HC-5609-D-1, Impact Calspan, Testing Buffalo,

"Further United

Studies on SympatheStates,Department of Calspan Blast and 3,804,017,

of Reinforced NY, January "Method United

Concrete.Panels," 1975. for Mitigating States Patent

Venable, D., Taylor, R. W. and Rogers; B. T., Shock Transmission Within a Confined Volume," April 1974.

B-46

Vigstad, M. and Skarbovik, -K., "Investigation of Underground Explosions with Model Tests, The Experimental Set-up," Teknisk N&at VM-309, Fotsvarets ForskningSinstitutt, Norwegian Defense Research Establishment, Norway, April 1978. Voight, Including H. W., Gulbierz, Linear Shaped J. and Yeazwood, Charges," United C., "Blast Shield for States Patent 3,712,221, Applications," Base, Ohio, Explosive January Devices 1973. Medical Medical

von Gierke, H. E., Research Laboratory, von Gierke, H. E., Research Laboratory, von Gierke, Laboratory,

"Biodynamic Models Wright-Patterson

and Their Air Force

Aerospace 1971. Aerospace

"Dynamic Characteristics Wright-Patterson Air

of the Herman Body," Force Base, Ohio,.l973.

H. E., "Man to Model or Model to Man," Aerospace Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 1973. "Medical Behavior Wright-Patterson!Air of Biological Systems," Force Base, Ohio,

Medical Aerospace September

Research Medical 1967. Aerospace 1971.

von Gierke, H. E., Research Laboratory,

von Gierke, H. E., "On The Dynamics of Some Head-Injury Medical Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force

Mechanisms," Base, Ohio,

von Neumann, J., and Goldstein, H., "Blast Wave Calculation," Communication on Pure Applied Mathematics, Vol. 8, pp 327-353, reprinted in John von Neumann Collected Works, (A. H. Taub, ad.), 'Vol. VI, Pergamon Press, New York, NY, pp 386-412. Vortman, L. J., "Airblast From Project Trinidad Detonations," SC-RR-710056, 4500 UC-35, Nuclear Explosions, Peaceful Applications, Underground Physics sion, Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, June 1971. Wallace, J. G. and Fowler, J., menology," U. S. Army Engineer Paper No. N-73-2, March 1973. Warren, A., "Blast Pressures "Fundamental Ejcperiments in Waterways Experiment Station, from Distant Explosions," TID Divi-

Ground Shock PhenoVicksburg, MI, 1958.

ARDE Memo 18-58,

Watson, J. and Huestis, E., "A Method for Evaluating Long Explosive Charges," Suffield Memorandum 60/67, Defense Research Establishment, Suffield, February Watson, R. W. and Hay, U. S. Bureau of Mines, PA, February 1974. Watstein, D., Properties of pp 729-744. R B-47 J. E., "Continuous Pittsburgh Mining Rate the Explosive and Safety

the Performance of Very DRB Project No. DS2-99-10-40, 1968. Fragmentation Techniques," Research Center, Pittsburgh, Strength Institute, and Elastic April 1953,

"Effect of Straining Concrete," Journal

of

on the Compressive American Concrete

Weals, F. H., "Tegts to Determine Separation Distance of Earth-Covered Magazines," Annals-of the New'York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 152, Art. 1, Qctober 1968. Weibull, H. R. W., "Pressures Recorded in Partially Closed Chambers at Explosion of TNT Charges," Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 152, Art. 1, October 1968; pp 256-361. Weissman, S., Dobbs, N., Stea, W., and Price, P., "Blast Capacity Evaluation of Glass Windows and Aluminum Window Frames;" Aunnannand Whitney, Consulting Engineers, June 1978. Wenograd, tivity of Chemistry September J., 'Sensitivity of Explosives IV-The Correlation of the Impact SensiOrganic High Explosives with Their Thermal Decomposition Rates," Research Department, U. S. Naval Ordnance Laboratory, White Oak, Md., 1957.

Wenzel, A. B. and Bessey, R. L., "Barricaded and Unbarricaded Blast Measurements," Contract No. DAHC04-69-C-0028, Subcontract l-OU-431, Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas, 1969. Wenzel, A. B. and,Esparza, E. D., "Measurements of Pressures and Impulses at Close Distances from Explosive Charges Buried and in Air," Final Report on Contract No. DAAK 02-71-C-0393, U. S. Army MERDC, Ft. Belvoir, VA., 1972. West, G. T., "Classification of Explosives," Development Division, Mason and Hanger, Silas Mason Co., Inc., Endeavor No. 216, January-March 1976. Westine, P. S., "Bomb Crater Damage to Runways," Southwest Research Institute, Contract F29601-72-C-0053, Air Force Weapons Laboratory, February 1973. Westine, P. S., "ExPlosive pp 9-19. Cratering," Journal of Terramechanics; VII, 2, 1970, Journal

Westine, P. S., "Ground Shock from the Detonation of Buried Explosives," of Terramechanics, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1978, pp 69-79. Westine, P. S., "Prediction of Transient Projectiles Penetrating Cohesive Soils," 3-4, December 1975, pp 149-170.

Displacement, Velocity and Force on Journal of Terramechanics, Vol. 12, No.

Westine, P. S., "R-W Plane Analysis for Vulnerability of Targets to Air Blast,' The Shock and Vibration Bulletin, Bulletin 42, Part 5, January 1972, pp 173-183. Westine, P. S. and Baker, W. E., "Energy Solutions for Predicting Deformations in Blast Loaded Structures," Minutes of the 16th Annual Explosives Safety Seminar, Department of the Defense Safety Board, 1974. Westine, P. S. and Baker, W. E., "Energy Solutions for Predicting Deformations in Blast-Loaded Structures,!' EdgewoodArsenal Contractor Report EM-CR-76027, Report No. 6, Edgawood Arsenal, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., November 1975.

B-48

Westine, P. S. and Cox, 5. A., "Additional Energy Solutions for Predicting Structural Deformations," Edgewood Arsenal Contract Report No; EM-CR-76031, Report No. 4, Edgewood Arsenal, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., November 1975. Westine, P.\ S. and Esparza, E. D., "Analysis and Testing of Pipe Response to Buried Explosive Detonations," Interim Report, 1976 Annual Report, Southwest Research Institute Project No. 02-4300 for the American Gas Association, January 1977. Westine, P. S. and Kineke, J. H., "Prediction Velocities," The Shock and Vibration Bulletin, Impact, Blast, Bulletin 48, September 1978. of Constrained Secondary Fragment Part 2. Isolation and Damping,

Westine, P. S. and Vargas, L. M., "Design Guide for Armoring Critical Aircraft Components to Protect From High Explosive Projectiles," Final Report, Contract No. F33615-77-C-3006, U. S. Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, August 1978. Westine, P. S., Esparza, E. D. and Wenzel, A. B., "Analysis and Testing of Pipe Response to Buried Explosive Detonations," SwRI Final Report for the American Gas Association, July 1978. White, C. S., "The Nature of the Problems Involved in Estimating the Immediate Casualties from Nuclear Explosions," CEX71.1, Civil Effects Study, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, DR-1886, July 1971. White, C. S. ,11 The Scope of Blast and Shock Biology and Problem Areas in Relating Physical and Biological Parameters," Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 152, Art. 1, October 1968, pp 89-102. White, C. S., Bowen, I. G. and Richmond, D. R., "The Relation Between Eardrum Failure and Blast-Induced Pressure Variations-," Lovelace Foundation for Medical Education and Research, Report No. DASA-2064, Albuquerque, New Mexico, August 1967. White, C. S., Bowen, I. G., Richmond, D. R. and Corsbie, R. L., "Comparative Nuclear Effect of Biomedical Interest," CEX 58.8, Civil Effects Study, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, January 1961. White, C. S., Jones, R. K., Damon, E. G., Fletcher, E. R. and Richmond, D. R., "The Biodynamics of Airblast,!' Technical Report,to Defense Nuclear Agency, DNA 2738T, Lovelace Foundation for Medical Education and Research, Albuquerque, New Mexico, July 1971. Whitham, G. B., "The Propagation pp 571-581. of Spherical Blast," Proc. Royal Society, A203,

Wiehle, C. K., "Summary of Shelter Entranceways and Openings,".Public Works Systems, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA., September 1967. Willis, D. E. and Wilson, J. T., "Maximum Vertical Ground Displacement of Seismic Waves Generated By Explosive Blasts," Bulletin of the Seismic Society of America, Vol. 50, pp 455-459, 1960. B-49

Willoughby, A, B.j Wiltoa, ,C., Grabrielsen, of Loading, Strucfural Response, and Debris Office of Civil Defense Contract No. 11618, Company, Burlingame. CA., July 1969. Wilton, C. and Gahrielson, Explosives Safety Seminar,

B. L. and Zaccor, -J. V., "A Study .Char&teristics of Wall Panels," OCD Work Unit 1123D, URS Research of the 14th

B., "House Damage Assessment," Minutes New Orleans, LA., November 1972.

Wilton, C., Gabrielsen, B., Edmunds, J., and Bechtel, S., "Loading and Structural Response of Wall Panels," IJRS Research Company; San Mateo, CA, November 1969. Winlock, J., ?I'he,Influence of Some Plain She.$t Steels," June 1953, pp 797-803. Wisotski, Cylindrical Institute, November J. of the Rate Transactions, of Defbrmation on the Tensile Properties AIME, Journal of Metals, Vol. 197, of Blast Waves Obtained From of Denver, Denver Research Ground Explosions Division, Journal Engineers, of Soil Mechanics Vol. 914, No. SM4,

and Snyer, W. H., "Characteristics High Explosive Charges," University Air U. S. Naval Ordnance Laboratory, 1965. of Surface American

Woods, R. D., "Scfeening and Foundations Division, July 1968, pp 951A979.

Waves in Soils," Society of Civil

Wu, R. W-H., and Witmer, E. A., "Finite Element Elastic-Plastic Dgformations of Simple Structures Rotor Fragment Containment/Deflection Program," Aeroelastic and Structures Research Laboratory, Technology, Cambridge, MA., January 1972.

Analysis of Large Transient with Application to the Engine NASA CR-120886, ASRL TR 154-4, Massachusetts Institute of

Wu, J. H. T., Archer, R. D. and Moelder, S. M., "Shock Propagation in a TwoDimensional Symmetric Logarithmic Spiral Chanhel," International Shock Tube Symposium, 9th, Proceedinffs,, Stanford University, CA., pp 604-612. Yamada, Y., Kawaii T. and Yoshimura, N., Proceedinns of Matrix Methods in' Structural Mechanics, AFFDL-TR-68-150, the 2nd Conference 1968. on

Yang, L. C. and Menichelli, V. J., "Laser Initiation of Insensitive sives," The Sixth,Symposium (International) on Detonation, California of Technology, Pasadena, CA.; August 1976. Yao, C., "Explosion Venting Prevention, Vol. 8, American Yeager, tection Training of Low-Strength Institute of

High ExploInstitute

Equipment and Structures," Loss Chemical Engineers, Neti York,NY,

1974.

H. H., "Ihvestigation of Possible Kevlar Department of Structurei Applications," Center, Red River Army Depot, Texarkana,

Utilization in Explosion ProSafety Engineering, USAMC Intern TX., December 1975. Plant Hardness Phase II," Aerospace Company, P. 0. Box

York, E, N., Holze, D. H. and Malone, E., "Industrial Defense Nuclear Agency Report No. DNA 4549F, Boeing 3999, Seattle, Washington, April 1978. B-50

Young, c. w., "The an Earth-Penetrating May 1967. Zaker, tute, T. A., Chicago, "Blast ILL,

Development Projectile,"

of Empirical Equations for Report No. SC-DR-67-60, Explosions,"

Predicting Depth San&a Laboratory, IIT Research

of

Pressures From Sequential March 1969. for

Insti-

Zaker, T. A., "Computer Program Accidental Explosions," Technical sives Safety Board, May 1975.

Predicting Casualties Paper No. 11, Department

and Damage from of Defense ExploNo. 12, Deparbnent McGrawof Clamped MD., February

Zaker, T. A., llFragment and Debris Hazards," Technical of Defense Explosives Safety Board, July 1975. Zenkiewicz, 0. C., The Finite Hill, London, England, 1971.
Zilliacus,

Paper

Element

Method

in

Engineering

Science,

Circular 1974.

S., Plates

Phyillaier, to Confined

W, E. and Shorrow, P. K., "The Reponse Explosive Loadings," NSRDC, Bethesda,

B-51

APPENDIX

UNIT CONVERSION TABLES

Conversions are given from English (customary) units to SI. To convert from SI to English, divide by conversion factors, rather than multiply. Dimensions in a mass, length, angle, time (M, L, 0, T) system are also given, as are common abbreviations. Exponential notation is used, e.g., E -02 means multiply by 10-Z.

C-l

Acceleration To Convert Angular degree revolution squared revolution squared Linear centimeter squared foot gravity, fall inch per (in/s2) per (ft/s2) (G or g) second squared (e/T2): per second per minute (r/min:) per (r/s2) ~ second I siuared ~ standardifree meter meter meter meter per per per per second *1.000 k3.048 *9.806 *2.540 650 E-02 E-02 E-01 squared squared squared squared Area square square centimeter' foot [U.S.; (in2)~ kkm2) (yd2)' (an2) survey] square square square square square (L2) meter meter meter meter meter (m2) (m2) (m2) (m2) (m2) *1.000 9.290 *6.451 kl.000 8.361 274 341 600 E-04 E-02 E-04 E+o6 E-01 second radian radian radian per per per second (rad/s2) second (rad/s2) second (rad/s2) 6.283 185 1.745 329 E-03 1.745 329 E-02 squared squared squared From To Multiply by

squared

(L/T2): per second (cm/s2)

(m/s2)
second (m/s2j second (m/s2) second (m/s2)

W2) square inch square square * Exact yard

kilometer

conversion

c-2

Density To Convert gram per (g/cm3) pound pound slug per per per (slug/f& Energy: British calorie erg foot-pound foot-poundal kilowatt ton watt watt hour second hour thermal [IT] unit (calIT) Work - Thermal (mean] joule joule joule force (ftwlbf) joule joule joule joule joule joule Force (ft*pdl) (kW*h) cubic cubic cubic inch foot foot (lb/in3) (lb/ft3) cubic From

(M/L3) To Multiply per per per per cubic cubic cubic cubic *1.000 2.767 1.601 5.153 990 846 788 by E-+03 E+O4 E+Ol E+O2

centimeter

kilogram meter kilogram meter kilogram meter kilogram meter

(kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) OfL/T2) 1.055 *4.186 *1.000 1.355 4.214 *3.600 4.184 "3.600 *1.000 818 011 E-02 E+o6 E+O9 Et03 870 800 E-07 E+O3

- Electrical (J) (J) (J) (J) (J) (J) (J) (3) (J) (PiL/T2) (N) (N) (N) (N) (N) (N) (N)

@turn>

[TNT equivalent] (Wah) (W-s)

dyne (dyn)kilogram kilopond kip pound poundal ton force conversion force (pdl) (lbf) force (kgf)

newton newton newton newton newton newton newton

*1.000 *9.806 kg.806 4.448 4.448 1.382 8.896 650 650 222 222 550 444

E-05

E+O3 E-01 E+O3

* Exact

c-3

Inertia To Convert
Area

From.

To

Multiply

by

(L4): inch4 foot4 (in4) (f$+) (mm4) (in33 (ft3) cubed squared I squared i squared (mm3) ~ meter4 meter4 meter4 meter meter meter kilogram (kg-m2) kilogram meter squared squared
2.926 397

(m4) (m4) (m4) (m3) (m3) (m3) squared

4.162 8.630 *1.000 1.638 2.831 *1.000 4.214

314 975

E-08 E-03 E-12

millimeter" Line (L3): inch foot cubed cubed

cubed cubed cubed

706 685

E-05 E-02 E-09

millimeter Mass (ML2) : pound pound slug foot inch foot

meter

011

E-02 E-04

(lb*ft2) (lb-in2) (slug.ft2)

(kg-m2) kilogram meter (ks*m2 1 Length (L) (m) (m) (m) (m)
(m)

1.355

818

centimeter foot inch (in)

(cm) (ft) ~ ~

meter meter meter meter meter meter meter meter (mi) meter

*1.000 *3.048 *2.540 *1.000 *2.540 *1.000 *1.000 *2.540 1.609 344

E-02 E-01 E-02 E+O3 E-08 E-06 E-06 E-05 E-l-03

[international] (km) (rrin) (urn)

kilometer microinch micrometer micron mil mile * (mil)

(m) (m) (m) (m)

[obsolete, replaced by micrometer] [internation&]

Exact

conversion

c-4

Mass (If) To Convert From grain ii=- (8) kilogram force-second squared per meter (kgf&m) mewgr= Of& metric ton (t) milligtaIa (mg) pound [avoirdupois] slug ton [short] tonne (t) kilogram kilogram kilogram kilogram kilogram kilogram kilogram kilogram kilogram kilogram Tli (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (M/LTz) 1.013 250 E+O5 *1.000 EM5 *1.000 E-01 2.988 980 E+O3 *9.806 3.386 3.376 2.490 2.488 6.894 4.788 *1.000 1.333 650 380 850 817 400 757 026 E+Ol Ei-03 E+O3 E+O2 FM2 M-06 EM4 E+O6 220 E+O2
&ltiQly

by

6.479 891 E-05 *1.000 E-03 *9.806 *1.000 *1.000 *1.000 4.535 1.459 9.071 *1.000 65-O EH-03 EN03 E-03 924 E-01 390 FM1 847 HO2 ES03

(lb)

Pressure - Stress atmosphere [standard] (atm) bar dyne per square centimeter (dynh2) foot of water [4OC] gram force per square centimeter (gf/cm") inch of mercury [O*C] inch of mercury [16'C] inch of water [4'C] inch of water [16'CJ kip per square inch (kip/in2) kip per square foot (kip/ft2) megapascal (MPa) millimeter of mercury ]O"C] (m(W) * Exact conversion

pascal (Pa) Pascal (Pa) pascal (Pa) Pascal (Pa) pascal Pascal Pascal Pascal Pascal Pascal Pascal Pascal Pascal (Pa) (Pa) (Pa) (Pa) (Pa) (Pa) (Pa) (Pa) (Pa)

c-5

Presaura - Stress To Convert Prom mllllmeter

bmluy~)

(M/LT2) TO

(Continued) I&ll.tiply 9.806 365 *1.000 4.788 026 E+Ol 6.894 757 Ei-03 1.488 164 by

of'water

[4*C]

Pascal (Pa) pascal pascat Pascal Pascal (Pa) (Pa) (Pa) (Pa)

~ newton'par square meter (N/m2) pound per square (lbJft2) pound per square inch (lb/ln2) poundal per square foot.(pdl/ft2)

m,ster

Velocity huglar (6/T): ' degree per second revolution (f/mid revolution per minute : per second

- Speed 1.745 329 E-02 1.047 198 E-01 6.283 185

(r/s)
Linear (L/T): foot per second (ft/s) inch per second (Us) kilometer per hour (km/h) lcuor [nautical;miles per hour] (kn) mil per hour (mi/hj

radian per second (rad/s) radian per second (rad/s) radian per second (?ad/s) meter per second (m/s) meter per second (m/s) meter per second (m/s) meter per second (m/s) meter per second (m/s) (L3) (m3) (m3) (m3) (m3) (m3)

*3.048 E-01 *2.540 E-02 2.777 778 E-01 5.144 444 E-01 4.470 400 E-01

Volume - Capacity cubic cubic cubic liter quart * centimeter (cm3j foot (ft3) ~ inch (in3) ~ IL) [U.S., liquid] cubic cubic cubic cubic cubic meter meter meter meter meter

*1.000 E-06 2.831 685 E-02 1.638 706 E-05 *1.000 E-03 9.463 529 E-04

Exact conversion

C-6

,ECURlTY

CLASSIFICATION

OF THIS

PAGE

(m-n

oafa

Entered)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION .JhGE

I. REPORT NUMBER 2. GoVT ACCESSION NO. 3.

READ INSTRUCTIONS BEFORECOMPLETINGFORM

RECIPIENTS CATALOG NUMBER

DOE/TIC-11268
1. TITLE (and Subtllle) 5. TYPE OF REPORT h PERIOD COVERED

A Manual l?ragment

for the Loading

Prediction of Blast on Structures

and
6.

,%~7?=-po~;30,80
PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

W. E. Baker, J. J. Kulesz, P. A. Cox and J. S. Wilbeck

5. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND

P. S. Westine, DACA87-79-C-0091
ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT, AREA & WORK UNIT PROJECT, NUMBERS TASK

Southwest Research Institute 6220 Culebra Road San Antonio, TX 78284

Il. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND AOdRESS 12. REPORT DATE

U. S. Army Engineer Division, P. 0. Box 1600 West Station Htintsville, AL 35807

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME 5 ADDRESS(if

Huntsville
13. different from Confrofling Ofiicel 15.

November,
NUMBER OF

1980
PAGES CLASS. (ol thla report)

738
SECURITY

UNCLASSIFIED
15e. DECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE

16.

DISTRIBUflON

STATEMENT

(of

this

Report)

Approved

for

public

release;

distribution

unlimited.

17.

DISYRIBUTIDN

STATEMENT

(of

fhe sbalrect

entered

In Block

20,

If dfffsrsnl

from

RepoH)

16.

SUPPLEMENTARY

NOTES

19.

KEY

WORDS

(Conrinua

on mvm84

aids

If necessary

and Idsn!lfy

by block

number)

Explosives Accidental Explosion Damage Mechanisms Explosion Hazards !O. ABSTRACT

(conllnus in IOV~B# aldc

High Explosives Air Blast Waves Air Blast Loading Explosion Venting
Ii nscsaswy and ldsntliy by block number)

Explosive Cratering Ground Shock Fragmentation Debris in Explosive

Accidents

This manual was prepared to provide Architect-Engineer (AE) firms guidance for the prediction of air blast, ground shock and fragment loadings of structures as a result of accidental explosions in or near these structures. The manual is complementary to existing structural design manuals and can be used in combination with other manuals by AE firms to design new buildings which are resistant to blast and fragmentation effects of an accidental

DD 1:::M73 1473

EDITION

OF

1 NOV

65 IS OBSOLETE SECURITY

UNCLASSIFIED
CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Wham

Date

enter0dl

SECURITY

CLASSIFICATION

of

THIS

PAGEWM

Dora

En--d)

\ 1

19. (Con't) Explosives Properties Single Explosion Sources Multiple Explosion Sources Explosive Charge Shape Effects Exploslon Containment Free-Field Blast Waves Reflected Blast Waves Normal Reflection Oblique Reflection Internal Blast Loading Hazards to Perkonnel from Air Blast Effects of Grotind Motion on Buildings and Equipment Primary Fragments Secondary Fragments Fragment Dispersion Fragment Rangel Fragment Impact Effects Explosive Initiation by Fragments Dynamic Properties of Matkrials Energy-Absorbing Properties of Materials Dynamic Structural Design Dynamic Analysis Dynamic Design

20.

(kn't) explosion. Ather objective was to aid in the assessment-of the explosion resistant capabilities of existing buildings at the Pantex Plant near Amarillo; Texak. The manual is specific for new or existing facilities at the Pantex Plant., However, most. data and prediction methods are presented in general terms and can be applied to other high explosive facilities iP proper edifying factors are used*