Professional Documents
Culture Documents
By:
John E. Crawford, P.E.
Mark Weaver, S.E.
Zach Smith, P.E.
Presented to:
ACI 2018 Spring Convention
Background
Masonry walls are widely used in building construction
They afford little in the way of protection from a terrorist bombing
or accidental explosion
However, their blast resistance is easily enhanced with FRP
Topics covered
Response of conventionally designed masonry walls to blast loads
Description of one way (i.e., FRP catcher system) to enhance blast
resistance of masonry walls
Discuss issues related to such designs
Discuss analysis methods for selection of design parameters
Bomb at 8 ft
Bomb at 50 ft
Terrorist Bombing at the Pakistan Marriott
(20 September 2008) B-18-08
pg 4
No major structural
collapse
Crater 20 m wide
x 6 m deep
Security
checkpoint
About 600 kg
Vehicle bomb
Secured perimeter
Part 1B: Blast Tests of Masonry Walls Provided Data to
Quantitatively Study the Behavior of these Types of
B-18-08
Façades when Subjected to Blast pg 5
DB6 post.mpg
Part 2: Observations as to the Threat Posed by
Unreinforced (or Lightly Reinforced) Masonry Walls
B-18-08
Exposed to Blast Loads pg 7
Also of key import is that these walls are usually not major
components of the structural system
This means their damage is important only in so far as the resulting debris
is prevented from entering the occupied spaces
Masonry retrofit
FRP panel
Lifeshield Panel
Section Modeled
13"
SLAB
7"
behaviors of catcher system
17"
(E) RIBBED SLAB w/
CLAY INSERTS
Here, a foam core with only one (E) CONCRETE
ENCASED
skin (on its interior face) is SPANDREL BM
(TYP) (E) SUSPENDED
used, as depicted CEILING
STEEL SHEET,
11'-2"
(E) BRICK WALL THICKNESS t p
Time = 10 ms Time = 19 ms
Responses Predicted by Simplified HFPB Model:
Use to Study Behaviors B-18-08
pg 15
Simplified Model
Elastic shell
elements used Foam Model
to model FRP
skins
Contact Force
Lumps of mass
used to model Crushing at constant
masonry of wall stress
Contact Stoke
A load deflection
model is used to
approximate
influence of foam
core
Deformation Plots Show Characteristic
Kink Wave B-18-08
pg 16
T = 0 ms T = 3.5 ms
Results for Case 57: Depicts Tensile Force at
Support Compared to Mid-Span Deflection B-18-08
pg 17
40 0
30 -20
Tension in panel remains
near constant, related to in-
20 -40 plane forces and lack of
bending resistance
exhibited by panel
10 -60
0 -80
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
Time, s Time, s
Shear at Support: Critical Aspect of Design: Spike in
Shear Force can Range from ~20 to 300 kips/ft Depending
B-18-08
Closeness of Charge, and Anchorage and Panel Design pg 18
After this R&D phase, we develop design tools for use in the
parameter selection required in the deployment of these
designs and two forms of design tools are considered here: one
based on conservation of energy, the other on SDOF modeling
For the Energy Based Model, the Design of a TPC
System is Predicated on Five Basic Assumptions B-18-08
pg 20
Assumptions
Assumption 1. The sheet is composed of a bilinear material
Assumption 2. The final deformed shape may be represented by a triangular
form
Assumption 3. The debris generated from the breakup of a masonry wall or
window may be computed from rigid body mechanics— vdebris = I/mw
Assumption 4. The energy involved in the wall’s response and breakup is
negligible as compared to the kinetic energy of the debris
Not so critical since the method provides an upper bound estimate of the response.
Assumption 5. The strains in the panel are fairly uniform over its area and
through its thickness at the time of the peak deflection
Debris velocity
Deformed shape at peak 35
deflection
Test data
max
30
H/2 25
I/M line
depicting rigid
body response
15
H/2
10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Impulse (psi-ms)
Im pulse (psi-m s)
Panel Composed of Bilinear Material B-18-08
pg 22
Polymer on FRP
Bilinear elastic-plastic
behavior assumed for sheet
E2
y 1
E1 Steel
1
0
Design of Method Based on Equating the Internal
Energy of the Panel at the End of the Event B-18-08
to the Kinetic Energy of the Window/Wall Debris pg 23
1
dV t pWH E2 2 2 E1 E2 0 E1 E2 02
2
The kinetic energy of the wall debris is
2
1 1 I
k .e.debris M w vdebris
2
Mw
2 2 mw
Equating energies results in an expression for the panel’s
displacement
H
max max max 2
2
where
E1 E1 E1 2 wtw vdebris
2
max 1 0 1 0
E2 2
E 2
E E2t p
For Design of the Anchorage, the
Forces are Calculated from εmax B-18-08
pg 24
Anchorage forces
F2 Fp sin
F1 Fp cos
Tan 1/ 2 H / max
Bolt forces
R1 F2 w / w1 F1h / w1 in tension
F1 in shear
Part 6: Validation of Design/Analysis
Concepts B-18-08
pg 25
H
max max max 2
2
where
E1 E1 E1 2 wtw vdebris
2
max 1 0 1 0
E2 E2 E2 E2t p
Boundary fixed
in plane
Comparison of LS-DYNA Results with
those Computed using max Equation B-18-08
pg 28
Retrofit
Existing
Deformed Shape and Material Damage Fringes Shown as a
Function of the Pressure Load (Applied p in psi = time
B-18-08
t/100);Wall Retrofit with 4-layers CFRP pg 32
Damage fringes
through mid-width
section.