Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Volume 6, Number 4
Special
Issue:
P ro t e c t i n g
People at Risk:
How DOD Research Reduces
the Impact of Terrorism
A M P T I AC is a DOD Info rmation An alys is Ce nte r Adm inis te re d by th e De fense In fo rmation Syste ms Age n c y, De fe nse Te chn ica l Inform atio n Cent er a nd Opera ted by Alion S cience an d Te ch n o l o g y
The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 6, Number 4
Issue focus:
How DOD Research Protects
People and Buildings
US Government Initiatives Reduce Terrorist Threat to Personnel and Structures …5
Wade Babcock and David Rose, AMPTIAC, Rome, NY
The US Government has been addressing the issue of protecting people and structures from terrorist attacks for many years. This
article provides an introduction to the federal coordinating group which directs these activities, and the DOD agency that focuses
on military issues. This article also features insight from some of the key people within DOD who direct and take part in these efforts.
The TSWG – Closeup …8
Protecting Personnel at Risk:
DOD Writes Anti-Terrorism Standards to Protect People in Buildings … 11
Colonel Joel C. Bradshaw III, PE, Chief of Military Construction Programs, Office of Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Installations and Environment), The Pentagon, Washington, DC
The DOD takes the issue of protecting its personnel very seriously and has recently completed the codified anti-terrorism stan-
dards which began a few years ago as guidance and interim directives. Colonel Bradshaw is in a unique position to explain some
of the critical steps and policy issues that drove this process, as well as the top-level directives and initiatives that are contained in
the document.
A M P T I A C is a DOD Info r m ation A naly si s Ce nte r Ad min ist e re d by t he De fe ns e Inf or m ation S yst em s A ge n c y,
D e fe ns e Te ch nic a l I nfor mat i on Cent e r and O pe ra t ed by A li on S c ienc e and Te ch n o l o g y
MaterialEASE: Materials for Blast and Penetration Resistance … 39
Richard Lane, Benjamin Craig, and Wade Babcock, AMPTIAC, Rome, NY
In 2001 AMPTIAC was tasked by the Office of the Secretary of Defense to summarize the research efforts and data compiled on
blast and penetration resistant materials (BPRM), including monolithic materials and novel combinations of materials. As a
service to the uninitiated, we have provided this “primer” so that those less familiar with material and security matters may
develop a well-rounded perspective of the topic. In turn, this may afford you, the reader, a greater appreciation of the relevance and
importance of the topics discussed within this issue of the AMPTIAC Quarterly.
CLARIFICATION: The cover story for our last issue described the Army’s exciting Mobile Parts Hospital project. Within that
article, a technology called Laser Engineered Net Shaping™ was presented which can fabricate replacement parts using a
combination of computational design templates, a computer-controlled laser, and powder metallurgy. Laser Engineering Net
Shaping™ and the LENS® acronym are registered trademarks and service marks of Sandia National Laboratories and
Sandia Corporation.
Editor-in-Chief The AMPTIAC Quarterly is published by the Advanced Materials and Processes Technology Information
Wade G. Babcock Analysis Center (AMPTIAC). AMPTIAC is a DOD sponsored Information Analysis Center, operated
by Alion Science and Technology and administratively managed by the Defense Information Systems Agency
Creative Director (DISA), Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC). The AMPTIAC Quarterly is distributed to more
Cynthia Long than 25,000 materials professionals around the world.
Information Processing Inquiries about AMPTIAC capabilities, products and services may be addressed to
Judy E. Tallarino David H. Rose
Di r ec t o r , A M PT IA C
Patricia McQuinn 315-339-7023
EMAIL: a mp t i a c @ a l i o n s c i e n c e . c o m
Inquiry Services URL: h t t p : / / a mp t i a c . a l i o n s c i e n c e . c o m
David J. Brumbaugh We welcome your input! To submit your related articles, photos, notices, or ideas for future issues, please contact:
Product Sales AMPTIAC
ATTN: WADE G. BABCOCK
Gina Nash 201 Mill Street
Rome, New York 13440
Training Coordinator
Christian E. Grethlein, P.E. P H O N E: 3 1 5 . 3 3 9 . 7 0 0 8
FA X: 3 1 5 . 3 3 9 . 71 0 7
EMAIL: a mp t i a c _ n ew s @ a l i o n s c i e n c e . c o m
Dr. Jonathan R. Porter
and
Mr. Robert J. Dinan
Materials and Manufacturing Directorate,
Air Force Research Laboratory
Tyndall Air Force Base, FL
6000
5000
Figure 4. Application of Elastomeric Retrofit.
4000
Polyurethane
Polyurea
3000 Concrete
CFRP
E-Glass Table 1. Polymer Characteristics.
2000 Steel
Property Value Test Standard
1000
Secant Modulus1 24,000 psi ASTM D638
0 Elongation at Rupture 90% ASTM D638
0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005
Maximum Tensile Strength 2000 psi ASTM D638
Strain
Flammability Flame resistant; ASTM E119
Figure 3. Typical Stress-Strain Cur ves. 2-hr fire rating ASTM E84
Toxicity Nontoxic after curing Review MSDS
1
The slope of a straight line drawn from the stress-strain diagram’s origin to a point
on the curve at 60% of maximum tensile strength.
additional layers of composite can be used to reinforce the con- Polymers In the fall of 1999, AFRL began evaluating spray-
nection points. In the event of an explosion, the composite on polymer coatings as an expedient retrofit technique for
enhances the bending strength of the wall and prevents broken non-load bearing CMU walls. The material that was used is
pieces of the wall from entering the protected space and caus- an elastomer that is ductile, tough, and has modest strength.
ing injury to the occupants. While this method of increasing The material is sprayed directly onto the interior surface of
wall ductility and strength is an option, the application method the wall and cures almost instantly, as shown in Figure 4. The
is time consuming and difficult. thickness of application is relatively easy to control, and the
In order to improve upon the composite retrofit, a search for polymer bonds to a wide variety of surfaces. This retrofit
an easier and faster retrofit technique was undertaken. Coupled technique takes advantage of the toughness and resiliency of
with trying to reduce the difficulty and time required for instal- modern elastomers to effectively deform and dissipate the
lation, was a desire to introduce significant resiliency into the blast energy, while containing shattered wall fragments.
structure - even at the expense of strength and stiffness. This Although the retrofitted walls may shatter in a blast event,
shift in philosophy was founded on the premise of containing the elastomer does not rupture and effectively contains the
the fragmentation and eliminating the debris hazard to occu- debris.
pants, rather than preserving the structural integrity of the wall
itself. Figure 3 shows some engineering stress-strain curves for ELASTOMERIC MATERIALS
typical building materials and retrofit materials and demon- The resilience and large strain capacity of elastomers can be
strates the shift from stiffer, stronger materials like steel and glass exploited to absorb blast energy and contain building debris.
fibers to those with more ductility like polymers. Although the Elastomers are composed of long polymer chains, usually
x-axis is truncated at 0.5% strain, many polymers can undergo cross-linked or connected by chemical bonds. Cross-linking
up to 100% elongation without rupturing. As a result, elas- makes elastomers reversibly stretchable within a significant
tomers were investigated as potential retrofit materials because range of deformations. In the unstretched state, the polymer
they are easy to apply, cure very quickly, and could introduce chains are oriented in random directions. When stretched, the
significant ductility and resilience into the wall system. polymer chains become elongated and ordered along the
Typical pre-test and post-test photographs are shown in or wall surfaces, or both interior and exterior coatings each
Figure 6. In general, post-test observations indicated that the 1/8-in thick.
exterior faces of the CMU were shattered at least half way
through the CMU, with the interior faces of the CMU remain- SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
ing adhered to the polymer liner. However, in all but a one case, Unreinforced CMU in-fill construction and lightweight
the polymer liner remained intact and effectively contained temporary structures are particularly vulnerable to overloading
the fragmentation from the fractured CMU. In several cases, from bomb-induced airblast. Many such buildings are
particularly in the tests in Israel, peak dynamic deflections were currently in use with inadequate standoff from roadways,
near two feet, which are likely unacceptable in a real world parking lots, or protected perimeters. The spray-on polymer
situation. These deflections can be controlled by material for- retrofit technique offers one solution that decreases the vul-
mulations with greater initial stiffness or by increasing the nerability of occupants of these common building types. This
thickness of the membrane. innovative retrofit technique takes advantage of the toughness
The data from the blast performance tests and analytical and resiliency of modern polymer materials to deform and
results from single-degree-of-freedom models were used to effectively dissipate the blast energy while containing the
develop design criteria for buildings consisting of a concrete or shattered wall fragments.
steel frame with non-load bearing CMU infill walls. The Blast load capacities for unreinforced non-load bearing
criteria were developed assuming an 8-inch nominal CMU CMU walls retrofitted with polyurea are presented in terms of
thickness and a wall height of 12 feet and connected on only charge weight versus standoff distance in Figure 7. In the chart,
two opposing edges (one-way action). These criteria will be charge weight is the equivalent weight of TNT and the stand-
conservative for walls connected on all four edges (two-way off distance is the distance from the center of the charge to the
action), shorter walls, and for walls with thicker CMU. As outside face of the wall. The curves represent the threshold of
described earlier for temporary structures, the recommended failure, defined as collapsed walls with objects thrown into the
CMU wall retrofit consists of a 1/2-in thick coating on interi- interior space, such that serious injury and/or death would be
Nonretrofitted
CMU Wall
Polymer-Coated
CMU Wall
1000
10
10 100 1000 10000 100000
Yield (lb TNT)
expected. These curves show that the polymer retrofit tech- wall, which makes adequate connections for windows and
nique for CMU walls can reduce standoff distances required to doors even more problematic. By exploiting the resilience
limit serious injury and death by as much as 80 percent. Similar afforded by the polymer retrofit technique, the entire wall sys-
charts for lightweight temporary structures show that the tech- tem can be held together, providing an expedient retrofit that
nique can reduce standoff distances by as much as 50 percent. greatly reduces the probability of casualties in the event of a ter-
Ongoing efforts are focused on extending the philosophy of rorist bomb attack.
introducing resilience to other building components such as
door and window frames, with the goal of providing a retrofit- GENERAL REFERENCES
ted building system with balanced resistance to airblast loads. Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency (2000). “Airblast
Figure 8 shows the results of a test in which a blast resistant Protection Retrofit for Unreinforced Concrete Masonry Walls”,
window was connected to the wall system with the polymer Air Force Engineer Technical Letter ETL00-09
retrofit. By connecting the window frame to the retrofit rather Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency (2002) “Airblast
than only to the structural wall components, the tolerance for Protection Polymer Retrofit of Unreinforced Concrete
deformation is greatly enhanced. Conventional retrofits that Masonry Walls” Air Force Engineer Technical Letter ETL02-04
increase mass and strength result in limited deflection of the
Dr. Jonathan Porter is a Senior Research Engineer with the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Materials and
Manufacturing Directorate (AFRL/ML). He is currently detailed to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
(Science, Technology & Engineering) as the Program Element Monitor for the Air Force’s Materials Science
and Technology Program. Prior to this assignment, Dr. Porter led the Engineering Mechanics Group of
AFRL/ML’s Force Protection Branch located at Tyndall AFB FL. The group develops technologies based on
advanced materials to mitigate the effects of terrorist weapons on the occupants of buildings and to charac-
terize the effects of terrorist improvised explosive devices on deployed personnel and structures.
Jon earned a B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. in Civil Engineering from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University. He has authored numerous presentations, technical reports and papers on blast mitigation, the
application of novel materials for antiterrorism and force protection, and the characterization of geotechnical
materials.
Mr. Robert Dinan is a Senior Research Engineer with Air Force Research Laboratory at Tyndall AFB, FL, and
Group Leader for the Engineering Mechanics Group of the Force Protection Branch, Airbase Technologies
Division. Before joining AFRL, Mr. Dinan was a research engineer with the US Army Corps of Engineers for 19
years. He leads research efforts in explosive characterization, blast response of structures, force protection, and
physical security. During his 20 year career, Mr. Dinan has conducted numerous experimental and analytical
studies to determine the behavior of a variety of structural types and components subjected to blast loading.
Dr. Mike Hammons is a Principal Engineer with Applied Research Associates (ARA) and Group Leader for the
Applied Mechanics Group of the Engineering Science Division. He supports the Air Force Research Laboratory
at Tyndall AFB, FL, where he leads research efforts in force protection, physical security, robotics, and explosive
characterization. He has conducted experimental and analytical studies to develop engineering criteria for
expedient retrofit systems for structures subjected to blast loading. Dr. Hammons supports the DOD’s Security
Engineering Working Group in developing force protection construction criteria. He served as structural engi-
neer on Vulnerability Assessment Teams for the US Air Force and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and as
instructor for workshops to train Combatant Commands, Services, and Major Command staffs charged with
direct planning and programming responsibilities for security engineering aspects of military construction. Before
joining ARA, Dr. Hammons was a research engineer with the US Army Corps of Engineers for 17 years.
Dr. Kenneth J. Knox, P.E. joined Applied Research Associates (ARA) in 1998 following his retirement as an Air
Force civil engineering officer. During his 20-year USAF career, he directed civil engineering research; man-
aged design and construction of airbase facilities; taught engineering at the Air Force Academy; and helped
develop the force protection program for the Defense Special Weapons Agency (now the Defense Threat
Reduction Agency). A recognized expert in force protection and antiterrorism, Dr. Knox is currently conducting
Air Force Research Laboratory research in protective construction and retrofits, weapons effects, and blast miti-
gation. He also continues to advise military installations on ways to improve their protection from terrorist attack.