ML20087E245
| ML20087E245 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 09/30/1977 |
| From: | Jankov Z, Shanahan J, White M STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20087E232 | List: |
| References | |
| EMTR-801, SWECO-7703, NUDOCS 8403160096 | |
| Download: ML20087E245 (223) | |
Text
--
i SWECO 7703 EMTR-801 L I SEPTEMBER 197/
I MISSILE - BARRIER INTERACTION A TOPICAL REPORT O ""*"'o av STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
_,& & $f n e iW f Z.D. JAN[OV J.A. SHANAHAN M.P. WHITE CONSULTANT SENIOR STRUCTURAL CONSULTANT TO ENGINEERING MECHANICS ENGINEER STONE L WEBSTER DIVISION ENGINEERING MECHANICS i DIVISION l
2 C. - - .
6 000 h-i l R.P. WESSEL 5.8. JACOBS
! CHIEF LICENSING CHIEF ENGINEER ENGINEERING MECHANICS ENGINEER DIVISION O
Copyright 1977 by Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. - All Rights Reserved ,
o! ooc 2- l
~ PDR 3 l
,a STONE 6 WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION
) 245 SUMMER STREET. B o STo N. M ASS ACH USETTS ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO P.O. BOX 2325. BOSTON. M A SS. 02107
" " ' " * * "f"' "
1
== ===-
<=ai~ir u a grgA,~ D. on soo,.
W ASHINorON. D C.
Mr. John F. Stolz, Chief September 23, 1977 Light Water Reactors Branch No. 1 Division of Project Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Dear Sir:
STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION TOPICAL REPORT - SWECO 7703 MISSILE-BARRIER INTERACTION We are submitting, under separate cover, 50 copies of Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation (S&W) Topical Report, SWECO 7703. A copy of
,O this transmittal letter is attached to each report copy.
v.) In accordance with procedures outlined in your Elements of the Regulatory Staff Topical Report Review Program, S&W submits S&W Topical Report, SWECO 7703, " Missile-Barrier Interaction" for review and approval.
If you or members of your staff have questions or require clarification, please contact Mr. W. F. Bradley, Jr., of our Boston Office at 617-973-8092.
Very truly yours, e adre -
S. B. Jacobs Chief Licensing Engineer Enclosures WFB:jmm ry v
4 SWECO 7703 O
4 ABSTRACT SWECO 7703, " Missile-Barrier Interaction," presents data of the missile barrier test program carried out at the Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute under the direction of
' Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation. Methods are presented for design of both local and overall structural effects of missile impact on reinforced concrete barriers. The method of l
design for local effects is intended to prevent the phenomenonThe of scabbing, which is caused by movement .of a shear plug.
method for overall structural response uses a single mass, single I degree of freedom model to conservatively predict the response of the barrier.
2 J
i d
i 1
l.
i-
, - .- --, -,,,. -.-. u- ,:,,,.. , . . a. .
. . - .. .- . . ~. - - . - .
SWECO 7703 I
i 1
DISCIAIMER OF RESPONSIBILITY Neither Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation nor any of the o>ntributors to this doctament makes any warranty or representation (expressed or implied) with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained in this document. Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation assumes no responsibility for liability or. damage which may result from the use of any of the information contained in this document.
9
'I 1
i I
e 11
- 4 g r. , e n --r--.. , ,--.m.. , - ,n --r--,-,, ,-.-n- -, ., ~ , - , . .l-,,',m , s
SWECO 7703 1
'd TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Pace 1.0 PURPOSE . ...... .. .. .. . .1 2.0
SUMMARY
....... .. .. .. . .. 1 3.0 ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF TEST DATA . . .. . . . . .. .. .. .2 4.0 RECOMMENDED DESIGN PROCEDURES . . . .3 4.1 Design for IDcal Barrier Damage . . .3 4.2 Design for Barrier Overall Structural Response . . ....... 3 S.0 CONCLUSIONS . ... . . . .. .. .. .4
6.0 REFERENCES
. .. . . . . ..... . ..S 7.0 DEFINITIONS . .. ....... . . .5 Appendix A -
TEST DATA AND INTEhPRETATION k B -
EMPIRICAL DESIGN POR LOCAL RESPONSE C -
TIME-HIS'IT)RY ANALYSIS FOR OVERALL STRUCTURAL.
RESPONSE
NOTE This report has been previously printed by Stone & Webster' Engineering Corporation and referenced in technical literature as ENTR-801, missile-Barrier Interaction,"
an Engineering Mechanics Division Technical Report.
ACIQ40WLEDGhMENT The' authors wisa to' acknowledge the assistance given in. the preparation of this .;eport by- Milton Nuswum of the Illinois Institute or Technology Research 2
(, Institute.
iii
l l
SNBCD 7703 4
?
f MISSILE-BARRIER INTERACTION l
i 1.0 PURPOSE Two considerations involved in . barrier design are treated in this report, namely, 4 The purpose of this report is to present scabbing and- overall structural I
missile barrier test data and to develop deflection. Scabbing is discussed in methods of analysis for local barrier Appendix B primarily- on the basis of the damage and overall structural response. S&W-ITFRI quarter--scale test program, but l Specifically, the report has beei with supporting verification drawn from 1 developed to provide, in separately usable full-ecale tests.' The result is a method Appendices, unified simple procedures for of determining sufficient -barrier designing barriers to withstand impact- thickness to prevent scabbing caused by.
from those industrial missiles of concern impact from various missiles.
to the nuclear power industry. Alternatively, ' missile barriers can be designed with a thickness less than that 2.0 SUMARY required for no acabbiry. He concrete coming off the back of the barrier can be The need to ~ design nuclear plants for contained by a acab plate. Appendix B impact by various kinds of missiles has also presents a method for designing steel
, long been recognized. Until recently, scab plates.
however, the only availablo information for designing protection or for evaluating the threat has been the terminal ballistic The structural deflection of ba$diers due
' O data from tests of military projectiles against reinforced. concrete structures. Unfortunately, applicability of military test data to protective the to missile -impact Appendix C. The is simultaneous loads. such as static -cr dynamic pressure:
treated influence -of other .-
differentials in is industrial missiles is very limited. Such included. Ttso methods, a time history tests consist of firing capact, integration process and an analytical nondeforming, pointed projectiles at solution of the equations of motion, ^ are -
relatively high velocities (generally presented.
2,000 - 3,000 fps) against thick i reinforced concrete' (six to 12 times ~ the The- limit of barrier deflection is equal-thickness of .. the missile diameter). to or less than ten times the yield Industrial missiles, on the other hand, are normally of complex shape, frequently deflecti n of the barrier when either of i not compact, and not solid, so that they the following conditions oxist:
may deform during impact.- Their i velocities are usually in the range of 1. Mere is only .one barrier'
!- 50--300 fps and seldom over 60C fps. 5etween the missile and a missile protected zone, and Recognition of the importance of' the I
problem created by this difference'is the
' reason for. undertaking this study. The 2. . The barrier is required to carry barriers. needed to protect nuclear plants other loads.
from most industrial missiles range from. -
less than 0.5 times the missile diameter *If a second- barrier exists, 'able :to for a tornado-borne automobile to 5 times stop possible secondary missiles, and the missile diameter for. high energy if .the. barrier is ._ not required-turbine fragments. to carry other loads, the first ' barrier ispected -by the missile.can be designed Appendix A presents a' detailed report on' the for structural response using a tension .'
extensive quarter-scale . testing- resisting mechanism. ' In this case the program carried . out at the ~ Illinois mariansa barrier deflection ' is determined-Institute of Technology Research Institute - .by the 'allouable' tension strain in the, (IITRI) under the -direction of Stone S; robar. The allowable.~ tension : strain in' Webster Engineering Corporation - -(SSW). -reber for reinforced concrete: barriers-Also in Appendix A is a' report of a static acting in tension is - half ~ the ultimate: l
- [ penetration testing program which- _ uniform - strain
- of the rebar. - inis limit g . supplemented the SSW-IITRI tects. These _ is the same as- that: for -pipe ~ Ewhip _
l tests were performed at the University _of _rer.traints .. acting'. -in : . tension, Massachusetts.- .i NUREG-75/007, Section 3.6.2. N
-1
, -- , %. 3 , - , c -a. - -
,. .-% -- 1
l
- SWECO 7703 l
l 3.0 ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF TEST DATA to withstand missile impact l without scabbing is based on the !
barrier's kinetic energy I The initial objective of the SSW-IITRI testing program was to collect enough data absorption capacity, rather than l to allow the design or evaluation of on the depth of penetration as l reinforced concrete missile barriers that defined by ths Modified Petry would withstand impact by tornado-borne formula. ,
industrial missiles, especially steel pipes and wood poles. The final test 3. What role is played by the wall program, however, included not only thickness of a pipe missile approximately scaled representations of striking end-on?
the 13.5 in. diameter utility pole, the 12 in. diameter Schedule 40 and the 6 in. These tests show that wall diameter Schedule 40 steel pipes required thickness plays a very important by the Nuclear Regulatory role; a thick-walled pipe is far Commission (NRC) W as design basis tornado more damaging than a thin-walled missiles but also certain additional pipe of equal total weight, missiles. These additional missile types, velocity, and diameter. This in all cases more damaging than the design shows that tests with pipe basis tornado missile's, were chosen to try missiles can be misinterpreted to document the capacity of barriers to unless this effect is con-resist a broad range of -issiles. sidered.
In this program, described in detail in 4. How important is the material Appendix A, 48 missiles were fired against strength of the missile?
22 reinforced concrete barriers of three different designs. There were nine These tests show that if the missile types, three of which represented material strength is such that the three most damaging of the NRC steel deformation or disintegration of pipe and wood pole missiles. Since the the missile occurs during principal area of interest was the impact, the threat of scabbing reabbing threshold, most of the missile is greatly reduced.
thots were chosen so as to determine scabbing threshold velocities for different missile-barrier. combinations. 5. What is the role of ccmcrete The tests showed that pipes are more strength?
damaging than wood missiles of equal weight and cross sectior, and that, with this question is not resolved by respect to scabbing, the most damaging of this program since no consistent variation of concrete strength the family of pipe and wood missiles cpecified as potential tornado threats by was investigated in the dynamic the NRCto is the 12 in. diameter 743 lb tests. However, the static Schedule 40 pipe. penetration testa reported in Appendix A indicate that the A general method of design and analysis is effect of concrete strength on preferable to an ad hoc approach. In missile-barrier behavior 'is order to develop a general method, answere secondary.
to certain specific questions needed to be obtained, the more important of which are 6. What is the importance of the the following: barrier reinforcing steel ratio on barrier performance?
- 1. Is back-face barrier scabhing by industrial missiles related to the formation of shock waves and The results of these tests their reflections within the indicate that the scabbing barrier, or to the formation and threshold appears to be displacement of a shear plug independent of the reinforcing extending through the barrier? ratio in the range of 0.3 to 1.0 percent, each way in each These tests indicate the latter face. However, it is possible to be the mechanism involved. that the scabbing performance will be affected by changes in
- 2. Does back-face scabbing, the size, spacing, and depth of especially near the acabbing concrete cover of the back-face threshold, correlate with mis- rebars. It is found that levels sile momntum, kinetic energy, of damage above the scabbing or some other parameter 7 threshold are affected by the reinforcement ratio. Moreover, For these tests, which corres- the analyses in Appendix C for pond to actual design structural response show that.
conditions, the kinetic energy the amount of steel reinforcing is shown to be the controlling and its strength play a direct parcmeter. Consequently, the role in determining structural estimate of a barrier's ability response.
2
SWECO 7703
- 7. How reliable are reduced, scale- given and include:
tests of missile-barrier inter--
h)
- U actions?
These and other testing programs
- 1. Comparison predicted results.
of observed full-scale and test show that if all significant scaling relationships are 2. Tabulations of required barrier satisfied, including the coarse thickness for both the NRC-aggregate of the concrete, model specified 743 lb 12 in. Schedule predictions are reliable. 40 pipe and the 4,000 lb Evidence for this conclusion is automobile for a range of the very close agreement between striking velocities.
predictions based on these tests and the results of full-scale Appendix B also considers the corrections tests by others (especially the which may be necessary to compensate for Bechtel-Calspan data which is barrier concrete weaker than that of the discussed in Section B.3.1 of testing program; however, there is as yet Appendix B). no experimental evidence as to the necessity for such corrections.
4.0 RECOMMENDED DESIGN PROCEDURES The characteristics of secondary missiles 4.1 Desion for Local Barrier Darage, (scab fragments) for impact above the scabbing threshold are treated, as is the Appendix B dealt with the prevention and design of scab plates, to control these control of Ic, cal damage, i.e., back-face secondary missiles.
scabbing of reinforced concrete barriers under impact by various industrial type 4.2 Desion for Barrier overall Structural missiles. The missiles specifically Response considered are:
Appendix C develops a method for
- 1. Tornado-borne pipes calculating overall structural response to
- 2. Tornado-borne automobile missile impact using a single equivalent
- 3. Whipping pipes mass and a nonlinear spring to model the
- 4. Aircraft engine dynamic response characteristics of the
- 5. Turbine rotor segment barrier. Numerical and analytical solutions for the barrier equation of (p) Wooden missiles, such as the NRC utility pole, are not included since they are
. motion are presented.
calculating These methods of structural response use a v shown by the tests described in Appendix A to be less capable of causing scabbing square wave of force versus time to transfer the momentum of the mi1sile to than pipe missiles; specifically, the NRC- the barrier when the missile takes the specified 743 lb 12 in. Schedule 40 pipe same order of time or longer to stop in is more able to cause local damage than comparison with the time it takes the the 1500 lb utility pole. barrier to reach maximum deflection due to missile impact. The same method could be All scabbing design computations are based used for missiles which take a short time on a single design diagram (Fig. B.3-1) . by comparison. However, in this case, This figure presents relationships among considerable calculational effort is saved the following quantities: if the momentum is transferred to the barrier instantaneously, i.e., in zero
- 1. Missile kinetic energy time, thus giving the barrier an initial velocity. The barrier is brought to rest
- 2. Missile diameter by its own structural stiffness.
- 3. Average impact pressure (for At the present time, an analysis developed whipping pipes and other by Williamson and Alvyt 0 is used by the i
missiles, except end-on pipe NRC(23 for calculating structural missiles) and pipe wall response. This report shows that the thickness (for end-on pipe Williamson and Alvy method is too missiles) conservative in the case of non-penetrating missiler such as the frame and
- 4. Barrier thickness body of _the tornado-borne auto and whipping ruptured pipes. For short span l The design level corresponds to the barriers (10-15 ft) under impact by a scabbing threshold with some added tornado-borne ' automobile, the structural conservatism on account of expected response ~ predicted- by the- method in scattering of field or experimental data. Appendix C is less by a factor of 10 or In other words,.on the average, Fig. B.3-1 'more than that predicted by Williamson and somewhat overpredicts damage and Alvy. The Williamson and Alvy methoi for.
underpredicts missile energy (or velocity) non penetrating missiles. is,' in' fact, p to cause scabbing of <a- given thickness identical to the instantaneous momentum i i barrier. transfer method used ~-- here for missiles
\j with shortD stopping time compared to the-Illustrative examples- for all missiles . time it takes the barrier to reach raximum listed - above except ' whipping - pipes are deflection. -
4 3
l l
SWECO 7703 l
l A particular objective of this report was ductility ratio of 10 for the to investigate the adequacy of a 2 ft standard Stone & Webster '
thick reinforced concrete barrier with exterior missile barrier wall.
No. 11 rebar, Grade 40, spaced each way This is reinforced , concrete and on each face of the barrier at 10 in. 2 feet thick with No. 11 size on center for protection against the rebar 10 in. on center each way horizontal motion of tornado-borne on each face. The specified missiles. The governing zone 1 tornado material strengths are 3 kai at missile for structural response is the 28 days for concrete and 40 kai 4,000 lb automobile travelling at 59 yield strength for rebar.
meters per second as specified in NUREG-75/087 Section 3.5.1.4(a). It is 2. The principal type of local considered to have a 650 lb engine which damage of concern to the transfers its momentum instantaneously and designer is scabbing. A e 3,350 lb body and frame considered to anservative method of designing transfer its momentum through a 300 kip to protect against scabbing for square wave. The ductility ratio of the moving objects striking 2 ft thick barrier with a 10 ft span is reinforced concrete at nuclear 4.56; with a 15 ft span, 1.47; and with a plants is provided in 30 ft span, 0.50. We ductility ratio of Appendix B. Scabbing is the same barrier and missilu using controlled by using either a williamson and Alvy is; for a 10 ft span, barrier thick enough so that it 68.42; for a 15 ft span, 19.14; and for a does not scab or a thinner 30 it span, 2.02. The 2 ft thick tarrier barrier; with a steel scab plate is adequate in structural response for a on the far face of the barrier.
10 ft span. For 15 f t and 30 f t span barriers, less steel may be used and still 3. A conservative method of remain below a ductility of 10. predicting the structural' deflection caused by moving The excessive conservatism of Williamson ob'jects striking reinforced and Alvy in predicting structural response concrete at nuclear plants is of certain non-penetrating missiles is provided in Appendix C. The evident in the case of the 4,000 lb auto barrier deflection is limited to given above. Both methods used in this a ductility of 10 or less when; report for calculating structural a) there is only one barrier response, namely a square wave of force between missile and missile versus time and an instantaneous transfer protected zone, or b) the of momentum give the same results as barrier is required to carry Williamsom and Alvy when the missile other loads.
stopping time is short co:rpared to the time it takes the barrier to reach maximum If there ia more than one deflection due to the missile impact. barrier separating missile from missile protected zone, the All other missiles or moving objects primary barrier can be designed striking reinforced concrete barriers at using its tension-resisting nuclear power plants may also be analyzed mechanism, if it is not required for structural response by using a square to carry other loads. The wave of force versus time to transfer the strain of the rebar in the missile momentum to the barrier. In the barrier in a tension-resisting case where a missile or component of a mechanism is permitted to go to missile transfers its momentum in a short half the ultimate uniform strain time compared with the time the barrier of the rebar.
takes to reach - 4 == deibection, the calculational effort is simplified by 4. Penetration into concrete by giving the mass of the barrier plus the industrial missiles of mncern mass of the missile or component a to nuclear power plants is more velocity so that its momentum is equal to varied for the range of missile the initial momentum of the missile. his types and less predictable than instantaneous transfer of momentum is done is the penetration of military in place of applying a square wave of type missiles. Penetration, force versus time to the barrier. This therefore, is not used as a method of analyzing structural response measure of predicting scabbing, to missile impact is used for whipping as is done in the military pipes, dropped equipment, flying pieces of formulas. Also, it is not used equipment, aircraft, and tornado missiles. to determine structural response, as is done in
5.0 CONCLUSION
S Williamson and Alvyts)(a3 l The principal conclusions of this report 5. The method, given intn(ca3 to are: determine structural response
- 1. Tornado-generated missiles as for missiles which do not specified by the NRCE33 do not penetrate is too conservative cause scabbing or structural when the missile stopping time response greater than a is a large fraction of the time 4
SWECO 7'703 to maxistne barrier displacement. Pen 6tration O
Q Therefore, the method given in Appendix C is used to evaluate The passage of the nose of a missile past the structural deflection to the front face of a barrier.
missile impact.
Perforation
6.0 REFERENCES
ne passage of the nose of a missile past-(*) Williamson, R.A. and Alvy, R.R., the rear face of a barrier.
" Impact Effect of Fragments Striking Structural Elements," Scabbing Holmes and Narver, Inc., Revised November, 1973. The separation of concrete from the back face of a barrier due to missile impact.
(2) NUREG-75/087, Section 3.5.3,
" Barrier Design Procedures," Scabbina Threshold U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cbaunis-sion. The stage when the shear piug is moved from its original position and forced (3) NUREG-75/087, Section 3.5.1.4, against the back-face reinforcing bars J
" Missiles Generated by Natural causing the separation of the fragments of Phenomena," U.S. Nuclear Regul- concrete from the back-face of the barrier atory Co:mnission. with small initial velocities (up to 4-5
(*) NUREG-75/087, Section 3.6.2,
" Determination of Break location and Dynamic Effects Associated Scabbine Threshold Velocity with the Postulated Rupture of Piping,* U.S. Nuclear Regulatory The velocity of a given missile which Commission. causes a given barrier to reach the 7.0 DEFINITIONS
- Shear Plue Formation He stage of an impact event when the
- The maximum applied load from a missile causes the ratio of the barrier
.j displacement to the displacement at the effective yield point of the barrier. '
formation of a truncated conical plug of concrete in front of the missile.
l -
5 J
T
SWECO 7703 EMTR-801 September 1977 APPENDIX A TEST DATA AND INTERPRETATION O
l l
I l 4 O Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation
I SNECD 7703 4
TABLE OF CDIPIT2fTS I
Pace Tjtie Page Section Title Section A.1 PURPOSE. .. ...... . . A-1 A.8 SCALED REPLICA MODEL TESTING. . ... . . . . . . A-4 A.2 SiDetARY. ... ..... . . A-1 A.8.1 Scaling Relations. . . . . . A-4 A.3 MISSILE-BARRIER TESTS. . . . A-1 A.8.2 Reasons for Scaled Model A.3.1 Missiles . . . . . ... . . A-2 Testing of Missile Barriers . . . . . . . . . . A-5 A.3.2 Barriers . ....... . . A-2 A.8.3 Cosparisoa of Quarter-A.3.3 Primary Rit Data and scale and Full-scale Photographs. . . . . ... . . A-3 Wsts. . . . . . . .-. . . . A-5
- A.3.4 Primary Hit Ioad Cell A.S.4 Full-scale Extrapolation Time Histories . . . . . . . A-3 of the IITRI Test Data . . . A-5 A.3.5 Multiple Hit Data and A.9 INTERPRETATION OF TEST Photographs. . .... . . . A-3 DATA . . . . . ... . . . . A-5 t
i A.3.6 Multiple Hit Load Cell A.9.1 General Remarks. . . . . . . A-5 Time Histories . . . .. . . A-3 A.9.2 Mechanism of Scabbing . . . A-5 A.4 MATERIALS TESTS AND i SPECIFICATIONS POR Scabbing Threshold
' MISSTTE Ate BARRIERS. . . . A-3 A.9.3 correlation with Impact Parameters. . . . . . A-4 A.4.1 Barrier Concrete . . . . . . A-3 Barrier Rebar. . . . . . . . A-3 A.9.4 Scabbing Threshold A.4.2 Dependence on Pipe A.4.3 Wood Missiles. . . . . . . . A-3 Wall Thickness . . . . . . . A-6 A.4.4 Pipe Missiles.'. . . . . . . A-4 A.9.5 .Effect of Concrete Strength . . . . . . . . . . A-6 A.5 BARRIER STATIC PUNCHING SHEAR TESTS. .. ... . . . A-4 A.9.6 Effect of Missile Strength . . . . . . . . . . A-6' A.6 STATIC PENETRATION OF i CONCRETE BY STEEL 'A.9.7 Role of Reinforcement l PUNCHES. .. .. .... .-. A-4 Ratio of Barrier . . . . . . A-6 l
A.7 DYNAMIC PENETRATION OF A.10 CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . A-7 CONCRETE BY STEEL MISSILES . ...... . . . A-4 A.11 REFERENCES . ..... . . ~ . A-7 .
I t
n A-l'
SWECD 7703 O
LIST OF TABLES Table Table Number Title Numler Title A.3.1-1 IITRI Quarter-scale A.3.5-1 Multiple Hit Missile Barrier Missile Data Test Data A.3.1-2 NRC Full-scale Missile Data A.3.5-2 Multiple Hit Missile Barrier Damage Dimensions A.3.2-1 IITRI Quarter-scale A.8.2-1 Comparison Data for IITRI Barrier Data Quarter -scale and Sandia Full-scale 12 In. Pipe Missile A 3.2-2 Full-scale Prototype Barrier Barrier Tttsts Data A.3.3-1 Primary Hit Missile Barrier Test Data A.8.4-2 Multiple Hit Full-scale Data A.3.3-2 Primary Hit Missile Barrier A.9.2-1 Scabbing Thresho1Ld Velocities Damage Dimensions Deduced from Test Data s O LIST OF FIGURES Figure Figure Number Title Title
_ Number A.3.3 Primary Hit Tests A.5-10 Force Deflection Curves, A.3.3-29 Movement of Shear Plug in 4.5 in. Thick Rein-A.3.4 Ioad Cell Data forced Cor. crete Barriers A.3.4-29 A.3.5 Multiple Hit Tests A.6 Stat.ic Penetration Resis-A.3.5-19 A.6-17 tance Tttats A.3.6 Load Cell Data A.3.6-19 A.8.2 Cbeparison of IITRI One-A.8.2-6 Quarter Size with SanMa A.5 Static Punching Shear Tests Full-Size Missile-Barrier A.5-9 Tests O
A-il
. . . . . . . --. - . , . . _ _ ~ .- -
~ - . -.
SWECO 7703 i-1 APPENDIX A TEST DATA AND INTERPRETATION i
J A.1 PURPOSE missiles and barriers, the validit y of l linear scaling for ~ missile-barrier The purpose of this Appendix is to ' interaction testing is Am=rastrated. This present, analyze, and evaluate data from a is done by ,using comparisons of the
'i series of quarter-ecale missile-barrier full-scale and one-tenth scale teste interaction tests in order to establish a performed by the United States ' Naval basis for the design -of reinforced weapons I,aboratory (USNWL) ( 13, and the concrete missile barriers for nuclear. full-scale tests performed by the Sandia facilities. Corporationt:3 and Calspan(83 with the quarter-scale tests performed by II1RI.
l Another objective of this Appendix is to demonstate the validity of linear- scaling Finally, the effer.cc of the most damaging 4 for missile-barrier tests. tornado missiles specified for nuclear
- a. facilities by the Nuclear ~ Regulatory 3
A.2
SUMMARY
nn-miasion (MRC)(s3.are evaluated in terms of the SSW-IITRI tests.
- Data from three series of tests are i presented in this Appendix
- 1) A.3' MISSILE-BARRIER TBSTS'
! interaction tests of wood pole, steel pipe, and solid steel slug missiles with The Illinois-- -Institute- of Technology
!" reinforced -concrete barriers, 2) static Research Institute (IITRI) performed a punching shear tests of barriers, and 3) _ series of . missile-barrier impact tests for -
, tests of static penetration of concrete by SSW at' . ' ITTRI 's Gary, Indiana-' testing steel punches. Tabular, photographic, and . facility in August of 1975.
graphic presentations of these tests are included. The. testa yielded data about the '
following:
The first series consisted of 48 tests . . . .
that involved the firing of quarter-scale 1. Missile . velocity ' to initiate back-
- missiles at' similarly scaled reinforced _ ' face scabbing concrete panels. Among the missiles were -
s .
, several . chosen ' to represent the tornado-
- 2. ~. Missile deformation generated missiles ccasidered in the 4-design- of nuclear facilities. 'the 3. Barrier resistance to initial barriers were similarly scaled - so : as to penetration represent the 18 in. and 24 in. reinforced' .
ii concrete panels currently used as missile 4.- Missile perforation of_ barrier barriers at nuclear facilities. <
-5. velocity of scabbing particles-i In the second series, nine tests were made - .
to evaluate the static punching load 6.xSise of barrier rear-face. crater capacity of the . reinforced . concrete .
barriers. .Two barriers, one representing 7.s Size of. barrier front-face crater-
- . the current Stone & Webster Engineering 1 Corporation's ' (SSW) 24 in. design :for' ' 8 3 Barrier support reactionsj Category I -walls = and-- the; other . . .
representing an-18.in. wall, were used: in- Forty-eight _ missile-barrierc tests were these testa.- J made usingl22 barriers. The'first shot at -
each barrier was generally a . - missile 1 -
- The third series of tests, performed at ; traveling either in the' order of 200
- fps' the University of Massachusett% consisted or at ~ a velocity near the -estimated
, . of seventeen static penetrations. of- -scabbing threshold.,-The second shot at- a.
! concrete by solia and - hollow cylindrical barrier was either-'an ~ exploratory shot 4
steel punches. .. Patch diameters varied- with a now kind of. missile or a shot aimed f. .
from one-quarter in. to 1 in. and concrete at investigating the barrier's perforation-strength from about-3-kai to 7.4 kai.
l- -limit. ,-
Since the dynamic tests presented in this_ Twenty-nine of the -48 tests are classified-4 Appendix were performed with quarter-sciale 'as primary hits ?becausextheD results.of-f A-1. W I
g .* - Y^
,,y e ...,,,,..,y. ,4 -
-.*v-# -+k - m [- ._
SWECO 7703 these tests were not significantly NRC 12 in. Schedule 40 pipe and affected by previous hits on the same had one sixty-fourth its weight.
barrier. The primary hit test results are The outside diameter and wall given in Table A.3.3-1. thickness of the NRC 12 in. pipe are 12.75 in. and 0.375 in.,
The other nineteen tests are classified as respectively. The diameter and multiple hits because previous hits had wall thickness of test missile significantly damaged the barrier. The No. 4 at full size would be 12 multiple hit test results are given in in. and 0.48 in., respectively.
Table A.3.5-1. Thus, at full size, the wall t.hickness of test missile No. 4 It is important to note that the pipe is 28 percent greater than that taissiles in the test program were not of the NRC 12 in. pipe, and the scaled exactly to the NRC pipe missiles, difference in steel areas is 19 but had somewhat greater wall thicknesses. percent.
Consequently, the corresponding NRC missiles are less damaging than the 5. Missile No. 5 was approximately scaled-up test missiles. double the weight of test missile No. 4 with the same cross A.3.1 Missiles section. At full size, it would approximate a 30 ft low pipe The missiles listed in Table A.3.1-1 were missile 12 in. in diameter.
selected because of their similarity to the three missiles (listed and described 6. Steel Pipe (3.50 in. OD, 11.25 in Table A.3.1-2) specified by the NRC as Ib) : This missile had among those which the structures within a approximately one quarter the nuclear facility must withstand. The outside diameter of the NRC 12 similarities and differences between the in. Schedule 40 pipe. ne nine test missiles and the three NRC- outside diameter and wall specified missiles are as follows: thickness of test missile No. 6 at full size would be 14.00 in.
- 1. Wood pole (3.375 in. diameter, and 0.864 in., respectively. ne 23.4 lb) : This missile had wall thickness and cross-approximately one quarter the sectional area of test missile linear dimensions and one sixty- No. 6 are, respectively, 112 and fourth the weight of the NRC 127 percent greater than those of utility pole listed in Table the NRC 12 in. pipe.
A.3.1-2. The test missile was machined from yellow pine to 3.75 7. Missile No. 7 was a solid steel in. in diameter and was about slug with the same weight and 11.25 f t long. diameter (3 in.) as test missile No. 4 and approximately the same
- 2. Steel pipe (1.69 in. OD, 4.6 lb) : weight as test missile No. 6.
This missile had approximately one-quarter the outside diameter 8. Missile No. 8 was a solid steel and one sixty-fourth the weight slug twice the weight of test of the second NRC missile listed missile No. 7 with the same cross in Table A.3.1-2. The outside section.
diameter arx1 wall thickness of the NRC 6 in. pipe are 6.625 in. 9. Missile No. 9 was a special and 0.28 in., respectively. At missile. Unlike all the other full size, missile No. 2 would test missiles, it had an impact i
have a 6.75 in. OD and a wall diameter greater than the barrier j thickness of 0.48 in. Thus, the thickness. Its weight was four wall thickness and cross- times that of the heaviest of the sectional area of test missile eight other missiles. At full No. 2 are about 70 percent size, its weight would be 6,976 greater at full size than the NRC lb with an impact diameter of 40 6 in. P i pe. Therefore, tests in. It was essentially a non-with missile No. 2 should produce deforming missile and, therefore, more barrier damage than a provided basic information on the missile that is scaled to exactly upper boundary of barrier damage one quarter of the NRC 6 in, for other missiles of the same pipe. weight, diameter, and velocity.
- 3. Missile No. 3 was about double A.3.2 Barriers the weight of missile No. 2 with the same cross section. At full Historically, the Category 1 SSW exterior size, it would approximate a 30 wall barrier for tornad W rne missiles ft long pipe missile. has been 24 in. thick with No. 11 A615 Gr 40 reinforcing bars placed 10 in. on
- 4. Steel pipe (3.0 in. OD, 12.3 lb) : center (OC) each way and in each face This missile had approximately (EWEF) with 2 in. of concrete cover. This one quarter the diameter of the corresponds to 0.757 percent steel DfEF.
A-2
l SWECO 7703 Three quarter-scale three foot square A.3.4 Primary Hit Load Cell Time barriers designated Types I, II, and III histories were used in the tests. hey were
( designed with the specifications shown in The time histories of the load cells
< Table A.3.2-1. At full size, they would supporting the primary hit barriers are have the specifications listed in T.21e given in Figs. A.3 4-1 through A.3.4-29.
A.3.2-2.
A.3.5 Multiple Hit Data and Photocraphs The Type I barrier had No. 3 rebar 2.5 in.
OC, EWEF with 1/2 in. of cover. The steel Nineteen of t'* 48 missile barrier tests percentage was 0.859 EWEF. were multiple 7 tests (i.e., the tests were influen v . by previous hits on the Type II was 4.5 in. thick with No. 2 same barrier) . Data from these tests is undeformed rebar, 3 in. OC, EWEF, giving a listed in Table A.3.5-1. The table is r steel percentage of 0.444 EWEF. At full organized according to missile type, esize, this cx>rresponds to an 18 in.
missile velocity, and barrier type. He barrier damage details are listed in Table barrier with No. 8 rebar at 12 in. OC, A.3.5-2.
EWEF, with 0.444 percent steel ENEF. He Type III barrier was 6 in. thick with the Photographs of the front and rear face of same rebar as in Type II giving a steel the barrier, profile of rear rebar or percentage of 0.317 EWEF. This concrete, profile of back crater, and corresponds to a 24 in. barrier with No. 8 missile damage for each multiple hit test rebar at 12 in. OC with 0.317 percent are shown in Figs. A.3.5-1 through A.3.5-steel EWEF.
19.
For all barriers, the specified concrete Multiple Hit Load Cell Time cylinder compression strength fe* was 3.0 A.3.6 kai. However, the actual concrete Histories strength at testing was higher (see Section A.4.1) . The 3/8 in. coarse The time histories of the load cells l aggregate used in the concrete was supporting the multiple hit barriers are approximately one qturter the size used in given in Figs. A.3.6-1 through A.3.6-19.
I i full-scale construction.
A.4 MATERIAL TESTS AND SPECIFICATICMS A.3.3 Primary Hit Data and Photocraphs FOR MISSILES AND BARRIERS I Twenty-nine of the 48 missile barrier A.4.1 Barrier Concrete b tests were primary hits (i.e., not affected by previous hits); the data froe The specified' concrete compressive these tests is listed in Table A.3.3-1. strength for all barriers at 28 days was This table is organized according to 3.0 ksi. The tested strength for the Type missile type, missile velocity, and I barriers averaged 4.3 kais for the Type barrier type. The barrier damage details II barriers, 3.2 ksig and for the Type III are given in Table A.3.3-2. barriers, 3.9 kai. The split cylinder strength for Type I averaged 0.433 ksi; Photographs of the front and rear face of for Type II, 0.345 kais and for Type III, the barrier, profile of rear rebar or 0.360 kai. Rese tested strengths- of concrete, profile of back crater af ter concrete are for t.he day of missile impact excavation, and missile damage for each which ranged from 40 to 60 days after the primary hit test 'are shown in Figs. A.3.3- concrete was poured.
I through A.3.3-29. The profiles of the
- rear rebar or concrete and the back crater A.4.2 Barrier Rebar show a white board with seven black lines on it for scale. He black lines are 0.5 The specified yield strength for the No. 2 in. wide and 0.5 in. apart. This shows and No. 3 rebar was 40 ksi. The No. 2 the amount of outward movement of the rear rebar in Types- II and- III had a yield concrete surface or the rear rebar and stress of 56 ksi and an ultimate stress of the depth of the back crater. In the back 80 kai. The No. 3 rebar in Type I had a crater photographs, the nails shown were tested yield stress of 80 kai and an held in place by two eye hooks and then ultimate stress of 115 kai.
pushed 'in until the tips touched the surface of the back crater. The heads of A.4.3 Wood Missiles the nails then give the profile of the back crater. The nails were spaced one The wood missiles had an average ultimate in. apert. static compression stress of 6.9 ksi. He strength of the wood missiles during ispect is determined. by equating . the
+
The same white board with 0.5 in. black kinetic -energy of the missile to the work stripes was used as a scale in the missile done in permanent distortion of the wood.
Ov photographs. The missile was positioned so that the original front end of the missile would be at the edge of the board.
Thus, the amount of deformation is This can only be done when penetration, shear plug movement, and large barrier deformations do- not occur. The strength of the wood missiles during missile impact recorded in the photograph. was 3.0 kai. H is.was determined by A-3
SWECO 7703 equating the kinetic energy of the wocd a = average penetration resistance missile, 24.6 ft-kips, to the irreversible stress of concrete work done in deforming the missile 11 in.
The missile has a cross-sectional area of A = cross-sectional area of missile 8.94 sq in.
d = depth of penetration A.4.4 Pipe Missiles A certain amount of information on The 1.69 in. diameter pipe had a tensile penetration resistance of concrete yield stress of 24 kai and an ultimate barriers to impacting pipe and slug stress of 90 kai. The 3 in. diameter pipe missiles can be drawn from the S&W-IITRI had a tensile yield stress of 52 ksi and test program. However, great caution is cn ultimate stress of 61 kai. The 3.5 in. required in doing this, since most of diameter pipe had a tensile yield stress those tests involved not only missile of 36 kai and an ultimate stress of 61 penetration but also shear plug kai. displacement and missile deformation, so that application of Eq. A.7-1 to these The static strength of the pipe missiles cases would give spurious results.
was determined by cutting out a section of the missile, flattening it, and then The use of Eq. A.7-1 on tests which had testing it in tension. The 1.69 in. . shear plug movement would give apparent diameter pipe had the greatest curvature resistances well below the actual End, therefore, underwent more deformation penetration resistance. Consequently, in being flattened prior to tension tests. these tests have not been used to This contributed to the low yield calculate the average penetration strength, 24 kai, of the 1.69 in. diameter resistance stress. However, an pipe missiles. approximate correction for missile deformation (by a ccrresponding increase A.5 BARRIER STATIC PUNCHING SHEAR TESTS in d) can be applied to Eq. A.7-1.
Two barriers were not used during the Rotztan gives penetration resistances of 48 dynamic tests so that static load 55 kai for 1 in. was and 57 kai for 8 in.
capacity evaluations could be performed. slugs. An independent analysis of that These were one Type I barrier, 6 in. data using Eq. A.7-1 gives values of 48 thick, and one Type II barrier, 4.5 in. ksi for both cases. A value of 50 kai is thick. Both barriers were quartered to used in this report.
provide multiple samples. Fourteen in.
and 3.5 in. (inside) diameter ring dies A.8 SCALED REPLICA MODEL TESTING provided two support conditions.
A.8.1 Scaling Relations Composite photographs illustratirq the ctatic punching tests are presente d in Scaled models have been used for many Figs. A.5-1 through A.5-9. years for investigating the statie and dynamic behavior of all kinds of The force-deflection curves for e 3 in. mechanical systems subjected to a wide pundt as it moved the shear plug inth the assortment of loadings. The reliability Type II barriers are shown in Fig. A.5-10. of predictions based on model studies is generally ackno wledged. In a scaled A.6 STATIC PENETRATION OF CONCRETE BY model, all significant lengths bear a STEEL PUNCHES constant ratio to corresponding lengths in the prototype; this ratio is the length Seventeen static penetration tests were sca".e facter, usually called the scale made on massive concrete by 1/4 in. to 1 factor, A . A replica model uses in. in diameter solid and tubular materials with the same physical cylindrical steel penetrators (see Figs. properties as in the prototype.
A.6-1 to A.6-17). Concrete compressive strengths ranged from 3.0 kai to 7.4 kni. An obvious condition for validity of a model test is that model and prototype behave alike. This requirement can be satisfied by use of various approaches A .7 DYNAMIC PENETRATION OF CONCRETE BY (e .g. , the Buckingham Pi Theoremc a s te . STEEL MISSILES Another method is to specify that all the significant forces that control the If the missile does not deform and a shear response of the model bear a mmstant plug is riot formed, all of the kinetic relationship to the corresponding forces energy is dissipated by the work of in the prototype this defines a force penetration. This can be expressed by the scale factor, Ap . One can define other following equation scale factors velocity ratio,A , time scale factor, A T, etc. V KE =cxAxd (A 7-1) In the case of missile-barrier where interaction, the significant forces are the internal forces due to deformations of KE = kinetic energy of missile all kinds and the inertia forces due to A-4
- .. . ~~ . _ _ . - . ..
i SWECO 7703 accelerations within the system. The testing. The ability to obtain large
. internal forces are equal to internal amounts of data (due to decreased costs) i stresses as functions of unit strain, c(c), was especially attractive since it was multiplied by area. This gives Lp = possible to explore the effect'of changing i cA2 . The inertia forces equal material parameters such as velocity, missile density, p , multiplied by volunei L3, dimensions, barrier reinforcement and and by acceleration, L/ra. This gives dimensions, etc. Another factor in the Ap = pA"/A . Combining relations gives decision was that the other barrier o/p =A */A T 8 .T Since model and prototype are programs in process or planned were at composed of the same materials, it follows full scale and would provide full-scale that the time scale equals the length data which could furnish comparison and scale (AT =A). Other scale factor verification of model test data. . relationships can be developed as 1 required. For- the quarter-scale tests A . 8 .3 Comparison of Quarter-scale and
. reported here, the scale f actor relations Full-Scale Tests are given below: } Figures A.8.2-1 through A.8.2-6 allow Length A = 1/4 comparison between full-scale . missile-barrier tests made by the Sandia-Time A =A = 1/4 C rPoration for EPRI(a3 and nearly T one-quarter scale ' tests comparable 2 t Force A =A = 1/16 conducted by IITRI (see Section A.3) . F These photographs indicate a gcod degree Velocity A y=A, =1 of mrrelation between the two groups of test results. The characteristics of
-4 missiles and barriers for this ' comparison Acceleration A3 = A-1 are given in Table A.8.2-1. See also In other words, model lengths and model Section B.3-1.
times ara one quarter prototype lengths and times; model forces are one sixteenth A.8.4 Full-Scale Extrapolation of the those in the prototype; model and IITRI Test Data prototype velocities are equal; and model 4 accelerations are four times those of the Full-scale extrapolations for the primary
~
prototype. hit tests in Table A.3.3-1 are given in Table A.8.4-1. Obviously, sufficient care must be taken . to be sure that all significant forces in Full-scale extrapolations for the multiple
} model and prototype have been considered hit tests in Table A.3.5-1 are given" in d in making up the scaling factors. For Table A.8.4-2.
exanple, if the force of gravity had also been of importance, problems would arise A.9 INTERPRETATION OF TEST DATA since the gravity forces have the form ogLs which is not compatible with the A.9.1 General Remarks relations derived here.
) . Although the tests utilized a considerable d
It is also essential that all significant range of velocities' for most of .the characteristics of the prototype be missf.les, and produced levels of damage correctly scaled in the model. This from slight to extreme, the major' concern' condition is illustrated by World War -II was to determine the scabbing threshold experience with terminal ballistic studies velocity for'a given missile.and .a given i of concrete penetration and perforation by barrier, and the dependence of that projectiles. It was discovered that large velocity on the various .~ parameters of projectiles did not behave as was missile and barrier. predicted by simple scaling, since they. j-penetrated further than expected. The cxanclusions rearon for this apparent violation of the It is emphasized drawn from. these tests that any. are valid .only scaling laws is simply that the coarse within the ' limits of the dimensionless
- aggregate used in the small caliber and parameters of the tests.
I large caliber tests was not scaled in *
. proportion to the projectile caliber. A.9.2 Mechanism of Scabbino-This has been 'shown by USNWLt ) in 'a program of full-scale and one-tenth scale If scabbing were the result of shock-wave projectile penetration firings- against reflection at the bacs face of a barrier,--
concrete barriers of the same strength but there. would generally- be- *" ;+1 with scaled coarse aggregate. In these- concrete in the middle between the front
- tests, the
- small and- large scale data crater and the scabbed area..This is not-coincided, when striking ~ velocity .-was the cases excavation of the back faces of plotted against dimension 5ss penetration barriers after ispact- showed that above
- into massive concrete.- some velocity level (but considerably'
-lower than the scabbing threshold) a shear
, A.8.2 Reasons for Scaled Model Testina plug is fermed in the form of a frustum of
'of Missile Barriers a cone. The maall end of the shear plug i
near the barrier front face'is the size of-Model testing is generally less expensive; the ispecting missile, and the total angle and less time-consuming than full-ecale at the apex of the cone is apprestimately : A-5 t 9 4 _ y ' ev -<- -4 y, y v+
- y -yy -y y w w e4 ,e er - * -= hr
- SWECO 7703 120 deg. As the velocity is increased, scaled exactly to the NRC pipe m!.ssiles, the shear plug is displaced. Cracks on but had somewhat greater wall thic'enesses.
the back face of the barrier define the Consequently, the NRC pipe missiles would larger end of the shear plug. Eventually, be less damaging than the scaled-up test et the scabbing threshold velocity, missiles. scabbing occurs. A.9.5 Effect of Cbnerete Strength Estimates were made of scabbing threshold velocities for those missile-barrier The question of the effect of concrete combinations for which enough data was strength is nct answered by the test data, obtained and these velocities are listed since no systematic variation of fe was in Table A.9.2-1. included in the program. There was a considerable difference between the Scabbing Threshold Ccrrelation strengths of the 4.5 in. barrier (f = A.9.3 with Impact Parameters 3.2 kai) andthetwo6lu.barrierskfc
- 3.9 and 4.3 Asi) but no conclusions can be Examination of the scabbing threshold drawn from the data. The static velocities for light and heavy slugs (Nos. penetration tests indicate relatively 7 and 8) and for light and heavy 3 in. little difference between the resistance P i pe (Nos. 4 and 5) in Table A.9.2-1 shows of 3.0 kai and 7.4 kai concrete that, under the conditions of these tests, (Firm. A.6-1 through A.6-17) .
for a given type and size of missile, scabbing occurs at a given level of A.9.6 Efiect of Missile Strencth kinetic energy, not momentum. It is clear that missile strength (i.e., A.9.4 Scabbina Threshold Dependence material strength combined with end on Pipe wall Thickness geometry) is an important factor in missile performance. The wood missile Comparison of scahbing threshold with about 3.3 times the kinetic energy of velocities for steel missiles of about the the short 3 in. pipe accomplished far less same weight and diameter but with barrier damage as shown by comparison of different cross sections (slugs, thin- and Testa 1, 2, 3, and 4. How much of the thick-walled pipes - Nos. 4, 6, and 8 in difference in performance between missiles Table A.3.1-1) shows that pipe wall 4 (3 in. pipe) and 6 (3.5 in. pipe) is due thickness Plays a very strong role in to their different diameters and wall missile performance. For example, the 3.5 thickness, and how much to the crunpling in. pipe (No . 6) requires about 50-60 of the former, is uncertain. However, it percent higher velocity than the 3 in. is to be expected that local missile slug (or well over twice the kinetic distortion will reduce back face damage, energy) to reach the scabbing threshold. The thinner-walled 3 in. pipe (No. 4) A.9.7 Role of Reinforcement Ratio of requires about 80 percent higher velocity Barrier than the 3 in. slug for the same effect on the berrier. (A small difference in the These testa revealed no apparent value of TfD has little effect on the difference of scabbing threshold damage level.) velocities for barrier Types I and III (both 6 in. thick, but with steel The 3.5 in. pipe is not significantly percentages of 0.859 and 0.317, deformed during impact, except at points respectively) . This is not unexpected of contact with rebars. The difference since ceabbing occurs with very little between its performance and that of a displacement of the shear plug. In other solid slug is that the latter only words, at the scabbing threshold the slightly penetrates the barrier and is, difference between the two levels of therefore, brought to rest more quickly reinforcing has little effect. However, a cnd in a shorter distance than the pipe. barrier with no reinforcing steel at all Consequently, the slug exerts a greater might well break up under moderate impact. peak force on the barrier than the pipe On the other hand, under severe impact End produces equal damage at a lower resulting in a high degree of damage, velocity. including extensive shear plug displacement or disintegration, the With the thin-walled 3 in. pipe, the quantity of steel plays an important role. sffect on scabbing threshold velocity would be greater than with the thicker It is possible that a considerable effect walled pipe, but the situation is on the acabbing threshold might result complicated further by the simultaneous from changing the number of rear face crumpling of the nose of the missile. The reinforcing bars without changing the ecxnhined effect is to increase even percentage of steel, further the duration of the impact process rnd to decrease the peak force on the Tack welds were used at several points to barrier, hence requiring still greater connect rebar of different layers to velocity and more kinetic energy to reach facH itate construction. of the targets. r the scabbing threshold. For levals of damage above the scabbing threshold but below the perforation limit It is important to note that the pipe (i.e., significant movement of the shear ciasiles in the test program- were not plug) , the rear-f ace rebar was ruptured at A-6
SWECO 7703 the weld points. This effect would tend photo labeled, " Barrier Rear Face," in h to decrease the strength of the barrier Fig. A.3.3-16. The data in Fig. A.3.3-16 for overall structural response. and the photo labeled, " Barrier Rear Face" nerefore, as reconumended in ACI 318 (
- 3 show that the pipe missile impacted the and ACI 349(73, tack welds of rebar shall barrier at the scabbing threshold not be used in the missile-barrier velocity. The photo labeled, " Profile of construction. Back Cratera shows a black and white profile gage recording the crater left by A.10 CONCLUSIONS removing the shear plug. In the lower left quarter of the photo is the solid )
For a particular missile type and barrier shear plug which was easily removed after type, the scabbing threshold corresponds cutting the rear face rebar. l to a given kinetic energy of missile, not j its momentum. His means that the If stress waves had caused scabbing ! scabbing threshold velocity varies particles to come off the rear face of the ! inversely with the square root of the mass barrier, this concrete pAug would not be of the missile. solid. For pipe missiles that neither buckle nor A.11 REFERENCES
- crush, the acabbing threshold velocity decreases as the ratio of missile wall ( O U.S. Naval Weapons Laboratory thickness / radius (2t/D) increases. The Technical Report 2057
- Development of acabbing threshold velocity increases when a Scaling Law and Techniques to
- 1) the missile nose crushes or buckles, Investigate Penetration in Concrete",
and 2) the entire missile buckles. If the J.A. Caulfied and I.G. Clator, 1966. material of the missile yields or disintegrates during impact, the scabbing (O Stephenson, A.E., " Full-Scale 'Ibrnado-threshold velocity increases. Missile Impact Testa", Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI NP-148 The scabbing threshold velocity appears to Interim Report, April, 1976. be unaffected by changes in the reinforcement ratio within the range of ( M Rotz, J.V., "Results of Missile Impact 0.3 to 1.0 percent each way in each face. Tests on Reinforced Concrete Panels", However, this conclusion does not apply to Second ASCE Epecialty Conference on higher levels of damage. Structural Design of Nuclear Power i f 1 The concrete strength referred to in this Plant Facilities, December, 1975. Appendix is the average strength of test ( O Langhaar, Henry L.,
- Dimensional cylinders on the day of missile test. The Analysis and Seory of Models", John variation of missile-barrier strengths in Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1954.
the Sf,W-IITRI tests and the variation of strength of the static penetration tests, ( s3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ra="ission mentioned in Section A.6, indicate that Standard Review Plan, NUREG-73/087, the scabbing threshold velocity is not Section 3.5.1.4 " Missiles Generated by sensitive to changes in concrete strength Natural Phenomena.* Rev. 1. from 3 kai to 5 kai. (O ACI Standard 318-71,
- Building Cbde Scabbing of concrete on the rear face of Requirements for Reinforced Conmete."
the barrier is caused by formation and movement of a shear plug. For an CM ACI Standard 349-76 and Coassentary, illustration of this, see the photo " Code Requirements for Nuclear Safety labeled, " Profile of Back Crater," and Related Concrete Structures." l v i I A-7 L 1
- _ _ , - - ,,.g ,y-
O t O TABLE A.3.1-1 IITRI QUARTER-SCALE MISSILE DATA Outside Wall Wall Thickness / Missile No./ Type Diameter (in.) Weight (lb) Thickness (in.) Eadius (2t/D)
- 1. Wood Pole 3.375 23.42 Solid 1.000
- 2. Steel' Pipe 1.69 4.60 0.12 0.142
- 3. Steel Pipe 1.69 10.40 0.12 0.142
- 4. Steel Pipe 3.00 12.30 0.12 0.080
. Steel Pipe 3.00 26.50 0.12 0.080
- S.
- 6. Steel Pipe 3.50 11.25 0.216 0.123
- 7. Steel Slug 3.00 12.60 Solid 1.000
- 8. Steel Slug 3.00 23.50 Solid 1.000
- 9. . Composite Missile
- Pipe 3.50 76.00 0.216 1.000 Plate 10.00 33.00 Solid 1.000 109.00**
- Welded assembly
** Total weight of pipe and plate .
s 1 of 1
O O O TABLE A.3.1-2 NRC FULL-SCALE MISSILE DATA Outside Wall Wall Thickness / Missile Diameter (in.) Weight (lb) Thickness (in .) Radius (2t/D) 4
, :1. 13.5 In. Utility Pole 13.5 1,490 Solid 1.000
! 2. 6 In. Sch. 40 Steel Pipe 6.625 285 0.28 0.085
-3. 12 In. Sch. 40 Steel Pipe 12.75 743 0.375 0.059 t
4 4 . l 1 of 1
O O O TABLE A.3.2-1 IITRI QUARTER-SCALE BARRIER DATA 28 da.y Specified Day of Test Concrete Rebar Concrete 100 A s Spacing Barrier Strength Strength Rebar E __ bd Size No. (in.) Type (psi) (psi) Barrier Dirnensions 3,000 4,300 6.0*x3e-0*x3*-0" 0.859 3 2.5 I-3,000 3,200 4.5=x3*-0"x3*-0" 0.444 2 3 II 3,000 3,900 6.0*x3*-O"x3*-0* 0.317 2 3 III
-o d =' barrier thickness minus cover ** niinus one rebar diameter.
00 cover-= 0.5 inches. 1
]
- 1 of 1
O O O TABLE A.3.2-2 FULL-SCALE PROTOTYPE BARRIFR DATA 28 day Specified Concrete Rebar
- Barrier Strength ' A s Rebar Spacing P _ Ed
- 100 Type (psi)- Barrier Dimensions Size No. (in.)
I 3,000 24" x 128 x 12' O.757 11 10" II 3,000 18" x 128 x 128 0.44 8 12" III -3,000' 24" x 12' x 12' O.31 8 12" 1.of 1
~
=. . . _ . - - - ., . . _ _ 2
e i 1 ( TABI q
\ PRIMARY FIT MISE l
Ba Velocity, Thickness, Line No. Missile Description (fps) Location (in.)- ( WOOD POLE 1 3 375" OD Wood Pole, 23.42 lb, Solid 258 Rebound 4.5 2 3 375" OD Wood Pole, 23.42 lb, Solid 265 Rebound 6.0 SINGLE LENGTH PIPE 3 1.69" OD Steel Pipe, 4.6 lb, 0.12" Wall 313 Rebound 6.0 4 1.69" OD Steel Pipe, 4.6 lb, 0.12" Wan 394 Rebound 6.0 5 1.69" OD Steel Pipe, 4.6 lb, 0.12" Wan 470 Rebound 6.0 r 6 3.0" OD Steel Pipe, 12.3 lb, 0.12" Wall 159 Rebound 4.5 2 7 3 0" OD Steel Pipe, 12.3 lb, 0.12" Wall 195 Rebound 4.5 8 3.0" OD Steel Pipe, 12 3 lb, 0.12" Wall 211 Rebound 4.5 9 3 0" OD Steel Pipe,12.3 lb, 0.12" Wan 317 Perforated' 4.5 10 3 0" OD Steel Pipe,12.3 lb, 0.12" Wall 403 In Target 4.5 n 3 0" OD Steel Pipe,12 3 lb, 0.12" Wall 207 Rebound _ 6.0 12 3.0" OD Steel Pipe, 12.3 lb, 0.12" Wall 245 Rebound 6.0 13 3.0" OD Steel Pipe, 12.3 lb, 0.12" Wall 211 Rebound 6.0 14 3.0" OD Steel Pipe, 12 3 lb, 0.12" Wall 244 Rebound 6.0
- 15 3 5" OD Steel Pipe,11.25 lb, 0.216" Wan 131 Rebound 45
!' 16 3 5" OD Steel Pipe, n.25 lb, 0.216" Wan 206 Rebound 6.0-l 17 3 5" CD Steel Pipe,11.25 lb, 0.216" Wan 203 Rebound 6.0 i l I
,f , y g
3 4-l' vp I <~ m
E A.3 3-1 ILE BARRIER TEST DATA Rear Face Scabbing Rear Face Rear Face Particle Scabbing rritr Characteristics Scabbing Distance Particle Test Nos. of Rebar Rebar Particle from Cube Previous G?'c p=A/s fy, Spacing, Velocity, Barrier, Dimension, Impact -Test lsi) k bd x 100 (ksi) (in.) (fps) (ft) (in.) on Same Target No. 32 0.W4 56 3.o None None NA None 3 39 0.317 56 30 None None NA None 1 4.3 o.859 80 25 None None NA None 35 4.3 o,859 80 2.5 None None NA 35 36 4.3 o.859 80 25 1 1 o.6 39 40 32 0.4% 56 3.0 1 1 0.6 None 41 32 0.W4 56 30 50 60 09 None 28 3.2 0.W4 56 3.0 None None NA None 7 3.2 0.4% 56 30 llo 250 1.2 None 12 3.2 o.W4 56 3.0 105 220 13 None lo 39 o.317 56 3.0 None None NA 1 2 39 o.317 56 3.0 1 1 0.8 None 30 4.3 o.859 80 25 None None Ni None 5 4.3 o.859 80 25 1- 1 0.7 None 22 32 0.W4 56 3.0 1- 1 0.8 None 43 39 o.317 56 30 1 1 09 None 21 4.3 0.859 80 25 None None NA None 39 , Also Available On Aperture Card 8 4 0.316 0 0 9 6 -D I $ tt 2 A?a:.LIhe e CARD 4
=
1 l um
- PR] NARY HIT MISSILE Be Line Velocity, Thickness,
_No . Missile Description (fps) Location (in.) ( DOUBLE LENGTH PIPE 18 1.69" OD Steel Pipe, 10.4 lb, 0.12" Wall 383 In Target 6.0 19 3 0" OD Steel Pipe, 26.5 lb, 0.12" Wall - 160 In Target 6.0 20 3.0" OD Steel Pipe, 26.5 lb, 0.12" Wall 193 In Target 6.0 21 3.0" OD Steel Pipe, 26.5 lb, 0.12" Wall 162 Rebound 6.0 22 3 0" OD Steel Pipe, 26 5 lb, 0.12" Wall 200 In Target 6.0 SINGLE LENGTH STEEL SLUG 23 3.0" OD Ste31 Slug, 12.6 lb, Solid 89 Rebound 4.5 24 3 0" OD Steel Slug, 12.6 lb, Solid 101 Rebound 6.0 25 3.0" OD Steel Slug, 12.6 lb, Solid 135 Rebound 6.0 26 3 0" OD Steel Slug, 12.6 lb, Solid 205 Rebound 6.0 27 3.0" 03 Steel Slug,12.6 lb, Solid 183 Rebound 6.0 DOUBLE LEIKITH STEEL SLLU 28 3 0" OD Steel Slug, 23.5 lb, Solid 95 Rebound 6.0 29 3.0" OD " teel Slug, 23 5 lb, Solid 128 Rebound 6.0 9 , l
I k E At3:3-1 BARRIER TEST DATA (CONF'D) Rear Face Scabbing Rear Face Rear Face Particle Scabbing
,rrirr Characteristics Scabbing Distance Particle Test Nos. of Rebar Rebar Particle from Cube Previous @'c p=As/ fy, Spacing, Velocity, Barrier, Dimension, Impact Test ksi) bd x 100 (ksi) , (in.) (fps) (ft) (in.) On Same Target No.
b.3 0.859 80 25 30 30 1.2 35, 36, 37 38 h9 0 317 56 3.0 25 20 13 None 47 h9 0 317 56 30 65 95 13 None 32 h.3 0.859 80 25 None None NA None 26 h.3 0.859 80 25 25 20 2.4 None 45 h2 0.444 56 30 1 1 0.6 41 42 h9 0 317 56 30 None None NA 14 15 h9 0 317 56 30 None None NA None 19 h9 0 317 56 3.0 25 20 13 None 14 b.3 0.859 80 25 1 1 1.2 None 24 L9 0 317 56 30 1 1 1.2 None 17 L9 0 317 56 30 15 10 13 17 18 liso hvailable On Aperfure Card 1 i 8403160096-OE I l . ., @ of 2 A?iT HE CAR)
I l
, ,s N
Front Face Sketch Dbnensions a b c d Barrier Thickness Diam Of (In.) Loose Barrier Rebar Concrete Neck Neck Depth To Line (Size,To.and At Surface Diam Depth Solid Plue No. Spacing (In.)) (In.) _ (In.) (In.] (In.) _ Wood Pole 1 4.5 0.0 0 0.0 0 2 at 3 2 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 2 at 3 ' Single Length Pipe 3 6.o 8.0 2.0 1.2 1 50 3 at 2 5 4 6.o 6.0 1.8 15 1 75 3 at 2 5 5 6.0 90 30 15 1.89 (_ 3 at 2 5 6 4.5 4.5 32 o.7 2.00 2 at 3 7 4.5 50 4.0 'O.5 2.45 2 at 3 8 4.5 6.2 4.0 0.6 1.25 2 at 3 9 4.5 6.2 4.2 3 .0 Plug gone 2 at 3 lo - 4.5 70 4.0 1.0 Plug gont 2 at 3 11 6.0 6.7 30 1.4 1 50 2 at 3 12 6.0 55 35 1.o 1.87-2 at 3 13 6.0 55 35 1.2 1.87 3 at 2 5 14 6.0 6.0 35 15 -1 50 3 at 2 5 4 15 4.5 6.0 4.0 09 o.75 2 at 3
- c. T f il A?Eg M E 1 CMD I
.e h
TABLE A.3 3-2 PRIMARY HIT MISSILE BARRIER DAMAGE DIMENSIONS Rear Face e f g h e Diam Of Rear Tbtal Loose Diam Sur- Rear Angle Volume Of Concrete Of face Rebar Of Rear Crater Robar At Surface Plug Moved Moved Rebar Plug To Neck (c) Test Broksn Hit (In.) (In.) ,In.) ( (In.} Broken Hit (Deg) (cu Ft) No. O O 20.6 None 0.0 0.0 0 0 60 0.16 3 0 0 0 None 0.0 0.0 0 0 None None 1 1 2 None None 0.0 0.0 0 0 No data No data 35 taken taken 0 1 None None 0.0 0.0 0 0 No data No data 36 taken taken 0 4 18.0 None 0.0 0.0 0 0 None None 40 0 3 24 9 12 0.8 0.8 0 0 50 0 32 41 1 2 29 7 14 0.8 0.6 0 0 50 0.21 28 0 1 22.0 13 0.0 0.0 0 0 60 0.43 7 2 2 23 5 Gone Gone 25 1 2 55 0 32 12 2 2 29 9 Gone Gone 33 1 3 60 0 33 1c 0 1 16.7 None 0.0 0.0 0 0 None None 2 0 2 29 3 14 05 05 0 0 55 0.47 30 0 3 24.7 None 0.0 0.0 0 0 55 0 51 5 0 2 None None 0.0 0.0 0 0 None None 22 0 3 23 0 17 0.2 0.2 O O 50 0.20 43 Also lvallable On Aperture Card 1 of a 8403.I'60096 -0,3 i t
o I i
~ y
( . Front Face Sketch Dimensions a b c d Barrier Thickness Diem of (In.) Loose Barrier Rebar Concrete Neck Neck Depth To Line (Size, No. and At Surface Diam Depth Solid Plug No. Spacing (In.)) (In.) (In.) (In.) (In.) 16 6.0 6.0 35 15 1.12 2 at 3 17 6.0 6.5 4.0 1.0 1.25 3 at 2 5 Double Length Pipe 18 6.0 70 2.0 2.0 Not avai3a' 3 at 2 5 19 6.0 5.0 35 15 2 50 2 at 3 20 6.0 7,0 35 1.1 30 2 at 3 21 6.0 50 30 2.0 2.00 3 at 2 5 22 6.0 51 33 1.0 2.25 3 at 2 5 Single Length Steel Slug 23 4.5 4.0 1.2 1.0 0.19 2 at 3 24 6.0 65 25 1.2 0.15 2 at 3 25 6.0 - 35 07 0.13 2 at 3 26 6.0 70 35 09 0.43 2 at 3 27 6.0 30 30 0.2 0.37 3 at 2 5 Double Length Steel Slug 28 6.0 30 30 0.2 0.19 2 at 3 29 6.0 6.7 30 0.4 0 37 2 at 3 7 li f g%didd - CAO L
TABLE A. 3. 3-2 i RDIARY HIT MISSILE BARRIER DIMENSIONS (CONT'D) Rear Face e f g h e Diam Of Rear Total Icose Diam Sur- Rear Angle Volume Of Concrete Of face Rebar Of Rear Crater
~ _ __ R b ar At Surface Plug Moved Moved Rebar Plug To Neck (c) Test Brok'n Hit (In.) (In.) (In.) (In.) Broken Hit (Deg) (Cu Ft) No.
o 3 28.5 17 0.2 0.2 0 o 60 0 58 21 0 3 22 5 17 0.0 0.0 o o None None 39 >19 0 2 24.0 12 05 05 0 0 50 0 33 38 2 2 28.0 12 0.6 0.6 0 0 50 0.44 47 2 3 28 9 17 2.2 2.2 0 0 55 0 50 32 0 2 30.2 17 0.0 0.0 0 0 60 0 53 E6 0 3 22 5 15 07 o.7 0 0 45 Ib data 45 taken o 1 19 2 lo 0.2 0.2 0 0 55 0.15 42 0 1 None None 0.0 0.0 o O None None 15 0 1 27 1 None 0.1 0.1 0 o 60 0 39 19 0 2 21.4 8 05 05 0 2 55 0.21 14 I o 0 25 3 16 o.3 03 0 0 No data No data 24 taken taken 0 0 20.0 12 0.0 0.0 0 0 None None 17 0 0 23.4 12 03 03 0 0 50 0.27 18 le ' - E 84 0 316 0 0 9 6 -O Y a of a d
I I n ( E s. MULTIPLE HIT K Barr: Line Velocity, Thickness, f No. Missile Description (fps) _ Location (in.) g WOOD POLE 1 3 375" OD Wood Pole, 23.4E lb, Solid 426 In Target 4.5 ~. 3 2 3 375" OD Wood Pole, 23.42 lb, Solid 378 In Target 6.0 3-SINGLE LENGTH PIPE 3 1.69" OD Steel Pipe, 4.6 lb, 0.12" Wall 215 Rebound 6.0 3 4 1.69" OD Steel Pipe, 4.6 lb, 0.12" Wall 517 ' Rebound 6.0 hl 5 3" OD Steel Pipe, 12 3 lb, 0.12" Wall 216 Rebound 4.5 3 6 3" OD Steel Pipe,12 3 lb, 0.12" Wall 296 Perforated 4.5 3 7 3" OD Steel Pipe,12 3 lb, 0.12" Wan 329 Perforated 4.5 3 8 3" OD Steel Pipe,12 3 lb, 0.12" Wan 399 In Target 4.5 3 9 3" OD Steel Pipe,12.3 lb, 0.12" Wan 403 Rebound 4.5 10 3" OD Steel Pipe, 12.3 lb, 0.12" Wall 403 In Target 4.5 3l 3 n 3" OD Steel Pipe, 12.3 lb, 0.12" Wall 343 Rebound 6.0 4 12 3" OD Steel Pipe,12.3 lb, 0.12" Wall 369 Rebound 6.0 4I 13 3 5" OD Steel Pipe, n.25 lb, 0.216" Wan 208 Rebound 6.0 3 14 3 5" OD Steel Pipe, '11.25 lb, 0.216" Wan 413 Rebound 6.0 4 DOUBLE LENGDI PIPE 15 1.69" OD Steel Pipe,10.4 lb, 0.12" Wan 373 In Target 6.0 3 16 3" OD Steel Pipe, 26 5 lb, 0.12" Wan 329 Perforated 6.0 3 17 3" OD Steel Pipe, 26.5 lb, 0.12" Wan 340 Perforated 6.0 4 SINGLE LENGTH STEEL SLUG 1 18 3" OD Steel' Slug, 12.6 lb, Solid 207- In Target 6.0 3 (X)MPOSITE STEEL PIATE AND PIPE 19 10" OD Steel Plate with Pipe - 200 In Target 6.0 t See Table A.3.4-1, p 109 lb, Solid- I lL i A?EN I CAD k'
ILE A.3 5-1 3SILE BARRIER TEST DATA Rear Face Scabbing Rear Face Rear Face Particle Scabbing cr CharReteristics Scabbing Distance Particle Test Nos. of R.ebar Rebar Particle from Cube Previous c p=As/ fy, SP acing, Velocity, Barrier, Dimension, Impact Test Q bd x 100 (ksi) (in.) (fps) (ft) (in.) On Same Target No. ,2 .W4 56 3.0 55 70 17 h3 W ,9 317 56 30 30 30 2.6 32 33 ,9 317 56 30 None None NA 33, 32 34 ,3 .859 80 25 Missile Tumbled on Impact 35, 36 37 ,2 .4% 56 30 30 30 2.1 3 4 ,2 .4% 56 3.0 100' 200 23 28 29 ,2 .44 56 30 100 200 17 12 13 ,2 .W4 56 30 105 220 13 10 11
,2 .4% 56 3.0 None Hit Edge of Target NA 7 8 ,2 .4% 56 30 105 220 1.0 8, 7 9 ,3 .859 80 2.5 50 60 2.1 5 6 ,3 .859 80 25 65 100 0.8 22 23 ,9 .317 56 30 25 20 1.3 19 20 ,3 .859 80 25 80 145 1.6 24 25 ,9 317 56 3.0 70 110 2.0 47 48 ,9 317 56 30 110 2% 2.4 30 31 ,3 .859 80 25 105 230 19 26 27 ,9 .317 56 30 Hit Edge of Target 15, 14 16 ,3 .859 80 25 115 260 15 45 46 Secondary Particles Stopped by 3/u" Plywood Behind Barrier Also Available'On . .
Aperture Card '" 8403160098- 0 5
i E Front Face Sketch Dimensions a b c d Barrier Thickness Diam Of (In.) Loose Barrier Rebar Concrete Neck Neck Depth To Line (Size, No. and At Surface Diam Depth Solid Plug No. Spacing (In.)) (In.) (In.) (In.) (In.) Wood Pole 1 4.5 4.0 4.0 0.0 N/A 2 at 3 2 6.0 3,4 3.4 0.6 N/A 2 at 3 Single Length Pipe 3 6.0 37 1.8 1.2 1.25 2 at 3 4 6.0 6.0 2.0 0.8 1.62 3 at 2 5 5 4.5 75 37 1.0 2 75 2 at 3 6 4.5 6.0 4.0 07 Plug gone 2 at 3 7 4.5 72 4.0 1.0 Plug gone 2 at 3 8 4.5 12.0 50 1.0 Plug gone 2 at 3 9 4.5 70 4.7 - 1.1 Hit edge 2 at 3 of target 10 4.5 70 4.1 09 Plug gone 2 at 3 11 6.0 5.6 4.0 07 2.00 3 at 2 5 12 6.0 11 5 4.5 15- Not available l 3 at 2.5 13 6.0 6.2 0.2 07' 1.00 2 at 3 14 6.o 8.5 4.0' 15 2 75
.3 at 2 5 I
i
o TABLE A.3.5-2 , , ,TIPLE HIT MISSILE BARRIER DAMAGE DIMENSIONS Rear Face e f g h 9 i Diam Of Rear Total Loose Diam Sur- Rear Angle Volume Of 1 Concrete Of face Rebar Of Rear Crater R;bar At Surface Plug Moved Moved Rebar Plug To Neck (c) Test ' Brok:n Hit (In.) (In.) (In.I (In.) Broken Hit (Deg) (Cu Ft) flo. O 4 28.3 N/A N/A N/A O O 55 0.19 44 0 2 28.8 N/A N/A N/A O O No data No data 33 taken taken 2 2 None Nono 0.0 0.0 O O No data No data 34 taken taken O O None None 0.0 0.0 O O No data Ib data 37 taken taken 2 2 20.8 10 15 15 0 0 55 0.26 4 2 3 28.0 Gone Gone 35 2 3 55 0.28 29 2 2 24.5 Gone Gone 30 1 2 55 0.29 13 2 2 29 5 Gone Gone 2.8 1 3 55 0.28 11 2 2 Hit edge N/A N/A N/A 2 3 None None 8 of target O 1 24.0 Gone Gone 25 O O 65 0.45 9 0 3 24.7 13 05 05 O O 55 0.66 6 2 4 25 7 13 Gone 1.4 1 0 50 0 50 23 0 2 24 9 12 0.1 . O.1 0 0 45 0.47 20 3 3 22 7 17 Gone 17 1 0 55 0 53 25 l p Xvailable On Aperture Card A3ETUE 1 ,, , CARD 840sisooge_ g ,
e , l l n.
- MTM Front Face Sketch Dimensions a b c d Barrier Thickness Diam of (In.) Loose Depth To Barrier Rebar Concrete Neck Neck Line (Size,No.and At Surface Die Depth Solid Plug
- No. Spacing (In.)) (In.) (In.) (In.) (In.) Double Length Pipe I 15 6.0 50 2.2 1.4 1.25 2 at 3 J i 16 6.o 7.0 4.5 15 Plug gone 4 2 at 3 17 6.0 6.0 4.0 13 Plug gone 3 at 2 5 li Single Length Steel Slug j i 18 6.0 3.0 3.o 0.6 o.62 l 2 at 3 j
- Composite Steel Plate and Pipe 19 6.o 10 5 10.5 o.5 Plug gone 3 at 2 5 4
2 4 5 f v I I I~ L .
TABLE A.3.5-2 B HIT MISSILE BARRIER DAMAGE DIMENSIONS (CONT'D) Rear Face e f g h e Diam Of Rear Total Loose Diam Sur- Rear Angle Volume Of Concrete Of face Rebar Of Rear Crater R;bar At Surface Moved Moved Rebar Plug To Neck (c) Test Brot n Hit (In.) Plug) (In. (In.) (In.) Broken Hit (Deg) (Cu Ft) No. 0 0 21.4 N/A N/A N/A 2 2 50 0 30 48 2 2 26.6 Gone Gone 30 2 2 60 0.45 31 2 2 30 5 Gone Gone 0.8 3 3 45 0 32 27 4 0 0 14.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 None None 16 8 7 29 7 Gone Gone 6.0 5 7 No data No data 46 taken taken i 80 Ava;I,y;,9 ,
' Perture Gg 1
A3E R E CAD 8 4 0 316 0 0 9 6 -6"J 2 of 2 ,
r y I.-% \ i L. , d d TABLE A.8.2-1 COMPARISON DATA FOR IITRI QUARTER-SCALE
. AND SANDIA FULL-SCALE 12 INCil PIPE MISSILE-BARRIER TESTS Barrier rear face Test Results Missile Data Barrier Data scabbing Con- particles Diameter of Peak force 12 in. Steel Pipe Vel- Thick- Rebar crete Edge travel barrier back at barrier edge 18 in. Barrier Diameter Weight ocity ness percen- Rebar fc Beam distance face crater beam Test No. fin.) 2t/D fibs) (fps) ( i r. . ) tage (ksil (ksil Type fft) fin.) (kips)
IITRI-7 3.0 .080 12.3 211 4.5 .444 568 3.2a 6112.5* 03 30.5 25.5
-IITRI-28 3.0 .000 12.3 195 4.5 .444 56: 3.28 6112.5* 60 30.6 23.8 Sandia-4 12.75 .059 743.0 202 18.0 .438 602 3.68 1'x3*RCS 49.5 99.0 400 12 in. Steel Pipe 24 in. Barrier Test No.
IITRI-2 3.0 .080 12.3 207 6.0 .317 568 3.98 6112.5* O None 27.9 IITRI-30 3.0 .080 12.3 245 6.0 .317 56s 3.9 6112.54 0 None 25.1 Sandia-8 12.75 .059 743.0 202 24.0 .313 60: 3.68 1*x3'RCS O None Not Available NOTES
- 1. measured material strength, concrete strength on day of test
- 2. specified material strength
- 3. IITRI Test 7 had identical rear face damage pattern to IITRI Test 28 and Sandia Test 4. The loose concrete at the perimeter of the shear plug in IITRI Test 7 is ready to come of f and, it it did, would travel as fast as the particles in IITRI Test 28 and Sandia Test 8.
- 4. I = structural steel shape
- 5. RC = reinforced concrete 1 of a j
e 1 1
- TABLE Pam nrI Missile Characteristics Pipe Wall Line Missile Test Weight, Length, Velocity, Thickness, Thickn No. Description No. (1b) (ft) (fps) (in.) (in.
WOOD POLE 1,499 35 258 Solid 18 1 13.5" OD Wood Pole 3 2 1 1,499 35 265 Solid 24 13 5" OD Wood Pole SITULE LENGTH PIPE 3 6.75" OD Steel Pipe 35 294 15 313 0.48 21 4 6.75" OD Steel Pipe 36 294 15 394 0.48 24 5 6.75" OD Steel Pipe 40 294 15 470 0.48 21 6 12.00" OD Steel Pipe 41 787 15 159 0.48 13 7 12.00" OD Steel Pipe 28 787 15 195 0.48 2B 8 12.00" OD Steel Pipe 7 787 15 211 0.48 18 9 12.00" OD Steel Pipe 12 787 15 317 0.48 18 10 12.00" OD Steel Pipe 10 787 15 403 0.48 ' 18 11 12.00" 09 Steel Pipe 2 787 15 207 0.48 24 12 12.00" OD Steel Pipe 30 787 15 245 0.48 24 13 12.00" OD Steel Pipe 5 787 15 211 0.48 24 14 12.00" OD Steel Pipe 22 787 15 244 0.48 24 15 14.00" OD Steel Pipe 43 752 15 131 0.86 18 16 14.00" OD Steel Pipe 21 720 15 206 0.86 24 17 14.00" OD Steel Pipe 39 720 15 203 0.86 24
*0btained from one-quarter scale t material properties constant, per
** Test number of previous missile i k
(
s A.8.4a1 IULL SIZE DATA
- r Rear Face Rear Face Scabbing ;
Barrier Characteristics Scabbing Particle Rebar Rebar Particle Cube Previous ** tls , f'c p=As/ fy, 3 pacing, Missile Velocity, Dimension, Missile I (ksi) bd x 100 (ksi) (in.) Location (fps) (in.) Impacts 32 0.4% 56 12 Rebound None NA None 39 0 317 56 12 Rebound None NA None 4.3 o.859 80 lo Rebound None NA None 4.3 o.859 80 lo Rebound Hone NA 35 4.3 0.859 80 10 Rebound 1 2.4 39 3.2 0.44 56 12 Rebound 1 2.4 None 32 0.W4 56 12 Rebound 50 3.6 None 3.2 0.W4 56 12 Rebound None NA Hone 32 0.W4 56 12 Perforated Target 110 4.8 None 32 o.E 56 lo. In Target 105 52 None 39 0.317 56 12 Rebound None NA 1 39 0.317 56 12 Rebound 1 32 None 4.3 0.859 80 10 Rebound None NA None 4.3 0.859 80 10 Rebound 1 2.8 None 32 0.4% 56 12 Rebound 1 32 None 1 39 0 317 56 12 Rebound 1 3.6 None 4.3 0.859 80 10 Rebound None NA _ Nere I M80 Available On Apertura Card jat data by multiplying di:nensions by four, keeping yentaga cf rebar constant, and velocity constant. upect 1 l 84031600ge_gg l l ... j i k'* A 3 T F-CARD , l
*r '#
k [ rqby,qy-'u**-T t7&'
i 1 ( PRDIARY HIT I Miscile Characteristics
' Pipe Wall Line Missile Test Weight, Length, Velocity, Thickness, Thickne No. Description No, (1b) (ft) (fps) (in.) (in.)
DOUBLE LENGTH PIPE 18 6.75" OD Steel Pipe _ 38 668 30 383 0.48 24 19 12.00" OD Steel Pipe 47 1,6% 30 160 0.48 24 12.00" OD Steel Pipe 1,696 0.48 24 20 32 30 193 21 12.00" OD Sta.el Pipe 26 1,6% 30 162 0.48 24l 22 12.00" OD St.e 1 Pipe 45 1,696 30 200 0.48 24-SINGLE LENGTH STEZL SLUG, 23 12.00" OD Steel Slug 42 806 2.1 89 Solid 18 - 24 12.00" OD Steel Slug 15 806 2.1 101 Solid 24 .
, 25 12.00" OD Steel Slug 19 806 2.1 135 Solid 24 i !
s 26 12.00" OD Steel Slug 14 806 2.1 205 Eolid 24 i 27 12.00" OD Steel Slug 24 805 2.1 183 Solid 24 ' ! DOUBLE LENGDI STEEL SLUG i 28 12.00" OD Steel Slug 17 1,504 39 95 Solid 24 j 29 12.00" OD Steel Slug 18 1,504 39 126 Solid 24 i I 3 a 4 't I f , I L
TAB Q A.8.4-1 _rm3_sIzz mm* (men) Rear Face Rear Face Scabbing Barrier Characteristics Scabbing Particle Rebar Rebar Particle Cube Previous ** s, f'c p=A,/ fy, Spacing, Missile Velocity, Dimension, Missile (ksi) bd x 100 (ksi) (in.) Location (fps) (in.) Depacts 4.3 0.859 80 lo In Target 30 4.8 35, 36, 37 39 0 317 56 12 In Target 25 52 None 39 0 317 56 12 In Target 65 52 None 4.3 0.859 80 lo Rebound None NA None 4.3 0.859 80 lo In Target 25 96 None 32 0.444 56 12 Rebound 1 2.4 41 39 0 317 56 12 Rebound None NA 14 39 o.317 % 12 Rebound None NA None 39 0 317 56 12 Rebound 25 52 None 4.3 o.859 80 lo Rebound 1 4.8 None 39 0 317 % 12 Rebound 1 4.8 None 39 o.317 56 12 Rebound .15 52 17 Also Xvailable On Aperture Card l l 1 8403160096 - 6 9 ! T/ 2 .f 2 APERTugg CARD
i
. m ICLTIPLE H Line Velocity, Thickness, No. Missile Deceription (fps) Location (in.)
WOOD POLE 1 13 5" OD Wood Pole,1,499 lb, Solid 426 In Target 18 2 13 5" OD Wood Pole, 1,499 lb, Solid 378 In Target 24 SI!ULE LEIUDI PIPE 3 6.75" OD Steel Pipe, 294 lb, 0.48" Wall 215 Rebound 24 4 6 75" OD steel Pipe, 294 lb, 0.48" Wall 517 Rebound 24 5 12.00" OD Steel Pipe, 787 lb, 0.48" Wall 216 Rebo nd 18 6 12.00" OD Steel Pipe, 787 lb, 0.48" Wall 296 Perforated 18 7 12.00" OD Steel Pipe, 787 lb, 0.48" Wall 329 Perforated 18 8 12.00" OD Steel Pipe, 787 lb, 0.48" Wall 399 In Target 18 9 12.00" OD Steel Pipe, 787 lb, 0.48" Wall 403 Rebound 18 10 12.00" OD Steel Pipe, 787 lb, O A8" Wall 403 In Target 18 11 12.00" OD Steel Pipe, 787 lb, 0.48" Wall 343 Rebound 24 12 12.00" OD Steel Pipe, 787 lb, 0.48" Wall 369 Rebound 24 13 14.00" Steel Pipe, 720 lb, 0.86" Wall 208 Rebound 24 14 14.00" Steel Pipe, 720 lb, 0.86" Wall 413 Rebound 24 DOUBLE LENGTH PIPE 15 6 75" OD Steel Pipe, 668 lb, 0.48" Wall 373 In Tarsat 24 16 12.00" OD Steel Pipe, 1,696 lb, 0.48" Wall 329 Perforated 24 17 12.00" OD Steel Pipe,1,6% lb, 0.48" Wall 340 Perforated 24 SINGLE LENGTH STEEL SLUG 18 12.00" OD Steel Slug, 806 lb, Solid 207 Rebound 24 COMPOSITE STEEL PIATE AND PIPE 19 40" OD Steel Plate with Pipe - 200 In Target 24 See Table A.3 1-1, 6,976 lb, Solid Nose r ..,
\
iL
; A?EURE 1 CAO i
i s
- .E Ar8ek-2 1
[T IULL SIZE DATA Rear Face Rear Face Scabbing Barricr Characteristics Scabbing Particle Test Nor. of Rebar Rebar Particle Cube Previous f'c p == Ag / fy, Spacing, Velocity, Dimension, Impact Test (ksi) bd x 100 (ksi) (in.) (fpe.) (in.) on Same Target No. 32 .4% 56 12.0 55 6.8 43 W 39 .317 56 12.0 30 10.4 32 33 39 317 56 12.0 None None 33, 32 34 4.3 .859 80 10.0 Missile Tumbled 35, 36 37 3.2 .4% 56 12.0 30 8.4 3 4 3.2 .4% 56 12.0 loo 92 28 29 3.2 .W4 56 12.0 100 6.8 12 13 32 .W4 56 12.0 los 52 lo 11 32 .uk 56 12.0 None Hit Edge of Target 7 8 32 .W4 56 12.o los 4.0 8, 7 9 4.3 .859 80 10.0 50 8.4 5 6 4.3 .859 80 lo.o 65 32 22 23 39 317 56 12.0 25 52 1) 20 4.3 .859 80 10.0 80 6.4 24 25 39 317 56 12.0 70 80 47 48 39 317 56 12.0 llo 92 3o 31 4.3 .859 80 10.0 los 7.6 26 27 39 317 56 12.0 Hit Edge of Target 15, 14 16 4.3 .859 80 10.0 115 6.0 45 46 Secondary Particles - Stopped l by Plywood 3/4" Thick Behind Also Available On Barrier Aperture Card a 8 4 0 316 0 0 9 8 -1D
~ ,~ (v,,b (v )5 W TABLE A.9.2-1 SCABBING THRESHOLD VEIDCITIES DEDUCED FROM TEST DATA Barriers I and III, T = 6 in. Br.rrier II, T = 4.5 in. Kinetic Rinetic Missile No. Velocity Momentum Energy Velocity Momentum Energy Figure No. Missile Type (fps) _( kip-sec)_ _(kip-in.)_ (fps) _( kip-sec). _(kip-in . )_ 2 1.69 in. Pipe >470 0.07 189.3 - - - A.3.3-5 a.6 lb 3 1.69 in. Pipe <380 0.12 279.8 - - - A.3.3-18 10.4 lb 4 3.0 in. Pipe 240 0.09 132.0 150 0.06 51.6 A.3.3-14 12.3 lb . 5 3.0 in. Pipe 165 0.14 134.4 - - - A.3.3-21 26.5 lb 6 3.5 in. Pipe 205 0.07 88.1 130 0.05 35.4 A.3.3-16,17 11.25 lb 7 3.0 in. Slug 135 0.05 42.8 80 0.03 15.0 A.3.3-25 12.6 lb 8 3.0 in. Slug 95 0.07 39.5 - - - A.3.3-28 23.5 lb 1 of 1
_ 5 P"* I a
=.:
I Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face i
~
4! -
~,g; J 5::. - t lq 'K G9
.. l p % ;j
.;f i :
l !y{
< ' 4 5~=
,,*
- g * ~d ? ' y; , '.
. - e - p, ;, l l
. l: FN ,- : I, .
k
- l M, I O %
~
!c < i+ l--] u i
,E . r *]*~.
. 7 d
; i :l 3 !
U d3 " J "" " ! f~h ,' .'-! ? ' J i l Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crat_er ' or Concrete l l Final Missile Location Rebound No Secondary Concrete Missiles P Eto V = 258 fps Taken Particle size NA in. Particle traveled NA ft Particle velocity NA fps O 3.375" OD Wood Pole 23.42 lb Solid Barrier Thickness 4.5 in. Missile Rebar # 2 at3.0 in. Figure A.3. 3-1 Primary Hit Test No. 3 Table A.3.3-1 Line 1
. Q: TGl '#;.1 .;,n
~ cu p p , -
[ *\, l'- ? T:
%f[h .
e
,. .-s.. ;
. .. v. t@
l_ .i . .
-+
. gQs
~
.(93 9
. Q, .n
*1.
l ,
+'i 1T
- +d,, ~ 's, .-
l ~* sf. '* f'~Q' s
,Ob ki,ihd , t4.
r; , , . .y ; -:
~
,,,3 *
[<* ,CN bbi
. ::;to s
.. - Li . .
i Barrier Front Face Barrier Pear Face i i l y.. ,r' 7t :.j-j+: mgg? t , [ m;: sg
. -u g No crater formed p-.; .
Q!fn N!l 7 l Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater ~~ i or Concrete \ Final Missile Location Rebound Secondary Concrete Missiles V = 265 fps
'M Particle size NA in.
Particle traveled NA ft Particle velocity NA fps 3.375" OD Wood Pole Barrier 23.42 lb Solid Thickness 6.0 in. Missile Rebar 5 2 at3.0 in. Figure A.3.3-2, Primary Hit Test No. 1 Table A.3.3-1 Line 2
, s-
. .:. s !Lt&am?a .i *
)
l Q 5" _ i . r. - y , l ^jlJ .3.
~
,qw,y i'3'h;5 i
. a.
O ,
,(,.
e
.. .: 1: e, a
- - 'i
~i-5 .
E; .. .t c: , 7 i' *: .n - .t Yb O -- '
.._h '
- 5! *[;' ,j
, ?, i c..
k,?,cias ., 4 ' w ;e T 'y;;q.! l, a y:.?.+~ ~ % n. , :; ' '{f-QT
,.a, f
;, L ,
~
. ' p y;. ; ;D. ('[J[
*y
- i , ; ~
.. .(--
Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face n n5@ R y, l Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete t l l Final Missile Location Rebound 3 , Secondary Concrete Missiles i P V = 313 fps 35 / Particle size NA in. Particle traveled NA ft Particle velo:lty NA fps 1.69" OD Steel Pipe Barrier O 4.6 lb 0.12" Thick Thickness 6.0 in. Missile Rebar # 3 at2. Sin. 1 l l l Figure A.3.3-3 Primary Hit Test No. 35 Table A.3.3-1 Line 3
^- e. i:1 4 2 5 3' d q a ;
- , :,: a
~
w
* :.I) '
ll : . > ' ' 9 y. , ,
,, f' j . gt ,,
^
g .: w . x .. -: A .. ff- , l
. ,3 -
* ~
,. p. -!
y eqlj i y . 3 , - ,_c,
.., ..' '/L * ,M
=;
lf , 7
]*. . .T- _ ' ,k -
,- fe,_.
- m, ., 3 .
l -- .[, % ., $b 0 1[ h * ' a[n , , g gjw as192&l&,4 Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face No crater formed Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete Final Missile Location Rebound Secondary Concrete Missiles V = 394 fps
* , Particle size NA in.
,. Particle traveled NA .# t Particle velocity NA fps l 1.69" OD Steel Pipe Barrier i 4.6 lb 0.12" Thick Thickness 6.0 in.
Missile Rebar # 3 at2. Sin. Figure A.3.3-4 Primary Hit Test No. 36 Table A.3.3-1 Line 4
~~
] yy . " ..I
'QT
, J ,
lg- ? *
,. y
.s; . .3 - .
; ' : - D mm;e
,; V
\ ~? :;, ' ;,- Nq$',j.'.i , ?h Ge.r .
. >r.
,,gp g ,
7
- a. ,. spo,, , -
m ;3-
. we, ,
~~ . 4: ^
4
! ~
l Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face ! i i t e i
.b :
- a
., r.- ,,
,, y-[,' ,k, No crater formed
*]y.]
1 .I r Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete i Final Missile Location Rebound Secondary Concrete Missiles
- i. V = 470 fps l-
'40) 4 Particle size 0.6 in.
3 Particle traveled 1 ft fj Particle velocity 1 fps i i l'.69ODSteelPipe 1 e Barrier 4.6 lb 0.12" Thick Thickness 6.0 in. I Missile Rebar # 3 at2.51n. Figure A.3.3-5 Primary Hit Test No. 40 Table A.3.3-1 Line 5
,, . ~ .
g .- - . -. .__ _ ._ , y , , J[
] ~~,,
f /" [-[
~
r n
.;- sy
. . , .L .. .n
,5 -
q.;- ,-
,M , g- j; . ,
- c. ,
- z. .
f;i z ;, -w j.; h
~
at .: ,_ Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face
... ?'e ,'
, ' ' '_ , . . j,. -
, Vqy n
. . . 3 . 4
# s. 'TA l
h
^
.h' -
. :w .m . ',g
;w.~+; '&& g y sys .
4 . c < - 41 s < y - Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete Final Missile Location Rebound Secondary Concrete Missiles
- 41. , Particle size 0.6 in.
==
Particle traveled Particle velocity 1 1 ft fps O i 3" OD Steel Pipe Barrier O 12.3 lb 0.12" Thick Thickness 4.5 in. Missile Rebar 4 2 at10_in. Figure A.3.3-6 Primary Hit Test No. 41 Table A. 3. 3-1 Line 6
l h[; .
.g _
- j T
;x, g s.-,p;y y ; r o
~
p, _.,, ? ,
' l=,;5 &..v&?t&T
- .', . K s-'
s a ..
~ .+; '
n pf n ty .; 'ls i i.
. . r, v. 3f, ~ ; [*7 ~ ,? v i
\ ]:I$> ;y.- ; .:-c.l
; . m i;f."TaT
., ,, p. . ';d'- ja i, R'" r ': ' :r[ .' t _, ,,l.; g l ,
' . , . .gu
=1 Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face
- , \
^[
, cc 1 1
2
~
a>:w t ! 3
, p 3
],.
I. - g E %gTrli,f ,
.Q 1
l Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back _' rater l or concrete i a Final Missile Location Rebound
}
Secondary concrete Missiles t 28 . V = 195 fps 5 = Particle size 0.9 in.
."= Particle traveled 60 ft g*. . t_
Particle velocity 50 fps O 3" OD Steel Pipe 12.3 lb 0.12" Thick Barrier Thickness 4.5 in. Missile Rebar # 2 at 3.0in. Figure A.3.3 7 Primary Hit Test No. 28 Table A.3.3-1 Line 7
l .I
' ?- J ., j f, j' *
.. - 7g iT' p;[
j. f
'r .
;) , &.
<g-f axxx
. *f'
;C .,.;r. ~f y- .
f., ;
.. v,g ;m j , .
,7 l, g m;. . ,
Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face
- i. ..
^.- ~~ +
{lp:rev-.yl
- n ;rr. :.: m,r n2 e n. ;- 3(..,? ; '. _ .~i * . g .:. $ $ :3 e,n= R- W~_n_y_ ? . ;.e:u_.,.,5 .n_ r_ _% _e . m)r : g
~ :; .."J; .; 1~ v :g. psy)
L, .. -. 2 l,j
~ ~ "
i Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete Final Missile Location Rebound 6 O Secondary concrete Missiles , g, V = 211 fps ; 3 Particle size NA in. Particle traveled NA ft Particle velocity NA fps O 3" OD Steel Pipe 12.3 lb 0.12" Thick Barrier Thickness _ 4.5 in. ' Missile Rebar 4 2 at 3.0in. Figure A.3.3-8 Primary Hit Test No. 7 Table A. 3. 3-1 Line 3
r4 yn-Q hllf('hrl l'1l:f h O ,W 'T "R*{1:' ' - v a &.: a &-
.- + ...- .
..,g e ,
J ;e. .' jd? ; i. y y ,' ,
~
aws.: V.. 1 l .2. . s n' wh 3 2i :En a Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face
' ~
Wi '
' '. ..'e'.*
, s .9 's
.)
4' . g
/ ;
f .. __ c, ,
= ' y- ' ~ ~ ~ S'f!' ",! lllll = ':11 0!" :";;"
x .. 1::.............
*::', .; ::',*. ' .:.:.:'M '.:::::::: :.
O k 4.c Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete Final Missile Location Perforated Secondary Concrete Missiles
" Particle size 1.2 in.
250 l Particle traveled ft Qq Particle velocity 110 fps 3" OD Steel Pipe Barrier l O 12.3 lb 0.12" Thick Thickness 4.5 in. Missile Rebar 5 2 at 3.0in. Figure A.3.3-9 Primary Hit Test No. 12 Table A.3.3-1 Line 9
, x n wg.<w- . . .
~'
I, .( Qg .[ f _ 'l?$ '! ' # ', _
~^m 4 i . .gggg
,. e;; l
- j. .) '_ .c.')9
' ? h[ '~175,
~
bQ": e y 5 ,, f1
/ n. i
; y . s --
l T;;
, t.
Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face
.- 3:3 E,_-
..__........m WD O
. " ;"" :: .Z :2 : . .. C. C :Z:: --
h u N& p kk' ' ' jO Profile of Rear Rebar- Profile of Back Crater or Concrete Final Missile Location In Target Secondary concrete Missiles 0K V = 403 fps Particle size 1.3 in. l 4 Particle traveled 220 ft l Particle velocity 105 fps 3" OD Steel Pipe Barrier O 12.3 lb 0.12" Thick Thickness 4.5 in. Missile Rebar # 2 at 3.0in. l l
\
Figure A.3.3-10 Primary Hit Test No. 10 Table A.3.3-1 Line 10 j
; 4 ,4 1 ( 2.,
. Q.
, p, ..
;r w-4
. ( $h-- , UJ.b. h,
.; 4,, * * ' '
'y *
.,~ . , ! L { , - . . .,
y ,*
./ - l
..9 V f,, JW; , l i
\, S .
, . . ;> z.
,g ,l,,j ; -,. W 2 .3 '-
g
, w; - . ,/v ,9
.s. A, '
yg% ,\ % !!C
. .sy l
Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face l 1 l i
,4 ,a g/c / 2 ?,5-;M W A; .
vi ^!ir', g w.-
-~ ~ . . . 4 7 : J. '. Y No crater formed p.pn ;i a,r3 fj;ff, , f; ,
O
-4 ; : -
.;,' W -Q@)
} '
t' 2 9 g,w, - j Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete Final Missile Location Rebound Secondary Concrete Missiles V = 207 fps i 2[< Particle size NA in. Ai ~ Particle traveled NA ft
% Particle velocity NA fps 3" OD Steel Pipe Barrier O 12.3 lb 0.12" Thick Thickness 6.0 in.
Missile Rebar 4 2 at 3.0in. Figure A.3.3-ll Primary Hit Test No. 2 Table A.3.3-1 Line 11
i 5
;g;;
8 . L ,.
-l k .h
, g 7 l
,-a.
~_ l Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face
~
h (( p ~ .s -f jj j j r _;.c ~
'. j L* ,.;, ll Id .
h 'I O ; v'-
-J "
j 7' l , W
. j ', _
9 , I e i - : 3
. !:!:U: .
_ ,.'. f ).. f t .. ,, F::::: Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete Final Missile Location Rebound l Secondary concrete Missiles V = 245 fps Lg[j' C Particle size Particle traveled Particle velocity 0.8 1 1 in. ft fps 3" OD Steel Pipe Barrier O 12.3 lb 0.12" Thick Thickness 6.0 in. Missile Rebar # 2 at 3.0in. Figure A.3.3-12 Primary Hit Test No. 30 Table A.3.3-1 Line 12
'~
r . /, l L~ p; y 4 bed ,
.gy 4.a g
_,N f a; .
}
;, 4<;<> x I
x Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face
-w.
y 3 >p y ev . - 5t: 2
., g- .,
- ' . h.'h' .. , g] f ,l . Y{ 7;
;'jp,hl:' . ;,;}e.['.f'-(.!ffl.tg.)
~ '
!! ! ! g 1.) f
/M ,
.ie Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete Final Missile Location Rebound Secondary Concrete Missiles g d' V = 211 fps 5'- f % Particle size NA in.
Particle traveled NA ft Particle velocity NA fps s 3" OD Steel Pipe Barrier 12.3 lb 0.12" Thick Thickness 6.0 in. Missile Rebar # 3 at 2.51n. Figure A.3.3-13 Primary Hit Test No. 5 Table A.3.3-1 Line 13
~
;; }r
,. . . .. 3
.**, .in .,
. , ' - .j, W $t l.4, . V- ;
q((v y . . . , ..; y [.;3 . r l I . ' ,' f.* _. _
. c : .a w Q ,
., r; , _ , . . ;:: }-'..
.. ' 9.. - . ,;, .. .
..y ,
Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face b, Profile of Rear Rebar or Concrete N_o, o Profile of Back Crater crater formed i , as. Final Missile Location Rebound i Secondary Concrete Missiles 22 V = 244 fps Particle size 0.7 in.
."j -
me Particle traveled 1 ft Particle velocity 1 fps ,O 1 3" OD Steel Pipe Barrier N./ 12.3 lb 0.12" Thick Thickness 6.0 in. Missile Rebar # 3 at2.S in. Figure A.3.3-14 Primary Hit Test No. 22 Table A.3.3-1 Line 14
t
.;. .;,. : m,:. .y q .. ? c. , ~
* .*Tm
.e?.4;
,- ": i .. ,ff A f-) ; ~
w
. f,'l
. ? ;/5 r-:. pf ,; _ . .
i w;,L rx;. ; z; q . s . . . g. * ~ J.,s 3 1 - ydigN[*M'$O8 $+3y. o-~ ty,jf. s [%;,fMi;*[0) q+ ' , _ :;y ~+ m Q; , G C. ',/ y C , $ _lyr j"- i 3
.. ".7 " -.- .
.f (
?. W~ ;f$5 .]
4 ; ),f
- - 2 Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face
~7-7 .y
, j
, .L.sI
, . l '$.
. i '" ' *
; ,f.f .
a;1 :! d.h.. O x ty 7 4- {' , i.L-
. s.m i wa
~
x _3_
, , , _ S:'
l Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete Final Missile Location Rebound Cecondary Concrete Missiles 7- V = 131 fps
?\ Particle size 0.8 in.
I'~ Particle traveled 1 ft Particle velocity 1 fps a 3.5" OD Steel Pipe Barrier O 11.25 lb 0.216 " Thick Thickness 4.5 in. Missile Rebar # 2 at 3.0in. Figure A.3.3-15 Primary Hit Test No. 43 Table A.3.3-1 Line 15
^
i ;%iN.H]f?A u l ((M**NO
- I
.97 a :. .J ,
r; 3 m ;;
.m -
m _ wp ;, '
; y) 4pc a ;;w . .-
~-
2 l , U
.-r ht
'?
4
? ':l$ fg4j
. . ;~ - -i' M Q, .
MQ@j";c.P;
-e : Lye; ' . b3 -&-
7ljg p 7. . . . - cyg g y, ; f
. n,; s Q ./ V 2.;- t: M.,
ig;p;s w 'M }j; ba ', t qq:; . .-
=
p',,q.7g gy p : g' *gjs d a ; f a l?
- x. b [' ,. .
';;; . ' g. q . ; g
'7;
@ gg /a ;.
u ,f:t.+ _ _ _f
;,.pF t
_;%,y.&thg&.A 1.Q s -y,4 '1 .
.: t_____
_ - 4{},[% Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face [- l 4
- 2 !!!!:
%w..
A..'3 "4. s t y
~ ..... .
.[.
~ ;;; An. . . r
~
,. . I'. . (b . i* @,t .e
[; t
. <u, g&j V', r 4 ,v
.:ii lS f. .
~-A r. .;;;;
)?
2, .
. g. .,,
5b55) Y, > Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete A7 Final Missile Location Rebound r1 Secondary Concrete Missiles 2 E '- / V = 206 fps Particle size 0.9
/ Particle traveled Particle velocity 1
1 in. ft fps 3.5" OD Steel Pipe Barrier 11.25 lb 0.216" Thick Thickness 6.0 in. Missile Rebar # 2 at 3.0in. Figure A.3.3-16 Primary Hit Test No. 21 Table A.3.3-1 Line 16
~
m, y W- . . - t,*,#G N -
' < } 9' g .y({'[y
_' - f ';.
., /- .. ,
e-
" l Q g,
[;^q Gi t. N. 4 a -p q.*;- :n ,. x
.XI
*1"'% i ae A, - -s. . ,, ,
[; -. <f NG -
. - 1i,c,f . -
f
.. <. 3
%. . ',:g, ;. f,-Q:
' ~
'g, 'z -
h
.. .,w
. 4 : ~gu _,
s a. n -: ~ n.
.j G: #uy:...',s7f,y
,4 PC. '. u, d*
7 t4.~ > h.- n 1
. .%j ; .
, a- ,[/hdi~^g )
W y .,+ yn;: .
-M.,
. ? W,2@
n P.n,#{% g .ze
...a ,__ y . ' '
'e^- t \
i 4- ' ?. . , . A : *< .< P; l, ^$ $ $ N ? ..,.. , - .* M M l
,. v2 T z~
,%:p: -/g ~* h(kl((f
~
l l Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face 1
=
l 1 l
,3 3 .'
,; 4 -
g 7'
-No crater formed b'.- .-
Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete l l Final Missile Location Rebound Secondary Concrete Missiles V = 203 fps i B_,.,. 4 Particle size Particle traveled Particle velocity NA NA NA in. ft fps l 3.5" OD Steel Pipe Barrier 11.25 lb 0.216" Thick Thickness 6.0 in. Missile Rebar #3 at 2. Sin. l l l Figure A.3.3-17 Primary Hit Test No. 39 Table A.3.3-1 Line 17 l
.g I ,: -
~_ ,
' ~ll . I
': 'h *;.5.. '
, .: /.
$l
. . N ' f^ , .
lg?;:' u . ^Y-
.j;
; , f . .
l
- g
,,. 13 : .[,-6f.h a <'
.y.,,-
jyY_ [ 43.
+ ?l*~
2 ,tf,, nc-. l ;,t
- 5. l 1 ..
i (N : idE 5 I - Is Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face
.c .l- I
[* - - r =
^
fG j@ - - i
),uvA :
f
/ ggt.. e Ni pe--- 4 r>* * ,
y
. a %vi ! --
' ~
W :
.,M _
h O .' q
&:%,g3
%.i
~.
, Vf ,- >
l
,,, . mt .
i
? I
- ,fg:k l >
A .;
- 4. 4 l"t~
g i Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater ' or Concrete Final Missile Locr. tion In Target
" Secondary Concrete Missiles x V = 383 fps 7 Particle size 1.2 in.
y-w Particle traveled 30 ft
, Particle velocity 30 fps O 1.69" CD Steel Pipe 10.4 lb 0.12" Thick Barrier Thickness 6.0 in.
Missile Rebar a3 at 2.51n. Figure A.3.3-18 Primary Hit Test No. 38 Table A.3.3-1 Line 18
l Q; O <
.2
. , -n M. ,.
^+
r j i, r
%yp, g ,f m r <- u s.
^
*A- r M,,
M, .!4 . s y-
- g. . . .
.x . .
~ +
, w+ g .. .c
.y N ,j '
' :- :11_ ^
}} Q. ..
'5';,
. a. . ...
zj - 6 -" r: c, A y. , . , s. ..
~ *
.o.... =yraf- ' !.
f
' V' ,
_ m. :='M ,;6, _
- A'L5;M
'y i'
c- i [. ,m ,b 21 :..M . T _? '-- Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face
~ -'
. L 1-[; .
~ ,J ' .i. .; 9 . . ,, ,
I m/p '
- !" i . n; 47 ;;;; u
- ,::i r ,
o . s ...
% J l .l \
\ ;i; =
o id/J I:: l' > w.n .... , 6..;; . '!. TElhJ
".%~4a
-{$- 2 3
~~
i . ;;".
- i
- 47 : '
3 ::::: ' - i
= . . ; w :::::
Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete ' 1 l Final Missile Location In Target 4 g Secondary Concrete Missiles
, Particle size 1.3 in.
$ Particle traveled 20 ft Particle velocity 25 fps 3" OD Steel Pipe Barrier O 26.5 lb 0.12" Thick Thickness 6.0 in.
I Missile Rebar #2 at3.0in. Figure A.3.3-19 Primary Hit Test No. 47 Table A.3.3-1 Line 19
. M'MildEl.fid24
. h' ' . .: .'
,- .T .a .
.?
e
- g. . .
TfiE lJ t
, . ~y
-l , \n '
fQ:., . ^
& "l yy K y,. _
- f; .f:n ip;
- A o
9
.g.
Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face y, - .- [.:UL I Nf' F _ E% *
. r, t.* -
r, - - - N :-. 4
. mwb
- d. ,
O -
'~
(j!'O.( Afb [ p' )j 32 Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete Final Missile Location In Target r Secondary Concrete Missiles V = 193 fps
, Particle size 1.3 in.
Particle traveled 95 ft
" ' Particle velocity 65 fps ,
Barrier O 3" OD Steel Pipe 26.5 lb 0.12" Thick Thickness 6.0 in. Missile Rebar # 2 at 3.0in. Figure A. 3.3-20 Primary Hit Test No. 32 Table A.3.3-1 Line 20
,E }; ,
~
5i , . b 9'- * ;f$ :.l
.l ",, I );b..p. ;-
O ." r
~.!11.M
' g .b 1lN I
? ?i ?nqN
; e l ;
I Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face b!! ;-[ L( 4 [*' -j
^'
li .. lA i i _'h O
. ,sF~.-
} f h' ). . .-
es g
' p' : ; -
_C
,,. . (i' Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Bcck Crater or Concrete Final Missile Location Rebound Secondary Concrete Missiles E,,p , Particle size Particle traveled Particle velocity NA NA NA in.
ft fps 3" OD Steel Pipe Barrier O 26.5 lb 0.12" Thick Thickness 6.0 in. Hissile Rebar #3 at 2.51n. Figure A.3.3-21 Primary Hit Test No. 26 Table A.3.3-1 Line 21
~-
v& .< R. .. ,
%(ll$,]+i
$ k'$ ' , [
O . .. v-y g
. -u +
7- -' l; j $ '- h .4.Wd h0 [if' .. y +f,g' _- e 3
. , yc .
er IQ t. >: P f
- * (h ~~ ...
N' ~, '
,p, e
,. ...... ... ~ . .wa w
\ .
@N- g d ,Wl 1. .xM
' ?S ,
l Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face l l l l l l Test 45 data Test 45 data destroyed by Test 46, destroyed by Test M O Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete ' F Final Missile Location In Target Secondary Concrete Missiles ' V = 200 fps A54 ~^
. Particle size 2.4 in.
Particle traveled 20 ft
.- Particle velocity 25 fps a
3" OD Steel Pipe Barrier O 26.5 lb 0.12" Thick Thickness 6.0 in. Missile Rebar #3 at 2.51n. Figure A.3.3-22 Primary Hit Test No. 45 Table A.3.3-1 Line 22
, .-_ w - . .;, ,
' I ~
-t
;- .s .
U 7 ,, , , N;,,0vn -- -m . :'*,_ . . ;
')
~ '
' if/f. V '
%; * ,( . . ..
-.s v
.),
ki j.~ , Qk
.c .
jig a g . .. E h,-gij, [ g i
%: g. em ,:_s s u s
's Aa ' n e;4M '(g Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face
# '. .3 y pga,n
?(-1."].' '. % %.p %
'~
,t' ,, ,1[ # ,- 'A,l g - - . _ _ _
Jc ., .
~~
r *
. ' ). .'. . 7- .
l
- ,lO **
'i.
- d,4 ,
- 9% ;
a ^ * .. fk ' pe?m
-I,~ b l, , q, f ..
t}..- c .,' A* p n + .gg l , 4 Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete aus , summa Final Missile Location Rebound g ~ m 42 mumme Secondary Concrete Missiles em ~ summe V = 89 fps num suma Particle size 0.6 _in. m 'g Particle traveled 1 ft Particle velocity 1 fps 3" OD Steel Slug Barrier O 12.6 lb Solid Thickness 4.5 in. Missile Rebar 4 2 at 3.0in. Figure A.3.3-23 Primary Hit Test No. 42 Table A.3.3-1 Line 23
l l l . . ','y . -
. '. 't A . , .
i.,c . Q, -
-. , ':'. )
e - i q '
's ,t---
.y:
p I. .
^*D }
( ?- $ 4;' ,
) i ..- . ..; i -
"f y _3 un , ,~ '~
L Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face
? [
. Tr -
E fc:f y- V
..g . ; .'. ., .
)' ,
, p y;, ; _ - f.' f
, f t.: '
- .r i
. ,9 a_ a j, -
n E ..;,.g i ~ ;,f . L j;
. i T3-
>~
Q Pm
-I.5 .[N"s.3 ,
s
~
. : 3; s' vr ti e texe" i ..- ,if g ' f'.
r e e e e s. [4;,. :' '
.f
- .;y
,wi ~ . , d. i ; .
Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete 1 l l
,mumme _;, ummum Final Missile Location Rebound l nmund inuiii manss] 'g mangue Secondary Concrete Missiles mamma among V = 101 fps mammen
' spun Particle size NA in.
g Particle traveled NA
'A -
Particle velocity NA ft fps 3" OD Steel Slug Barrier O 12.6 lb Solid Thickness 6.0 in. Missile Rebar # 2 at 3.0in. Figure A.3.3-24 Primary Hit T.at No. 15 Table A.3.3-1 Line 24
~
;r . .
g .
,1; I ..? '
N," , 4 .. i s,;\ '~i4 J w,
'T
. :. . . ,o Y '. , i. '/y '( -d g
~
x . . , , 3
' h. , ; .
sc.,. f' ~ !. f :\ %.g ' f i . L.; , 3 9 . ~ ' (
^
,J % ;
~ -
l Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face
) '
. nmm 3-
. . . . 5 ..
W 19
- s. iii::
_ ~ ::: eEz N 7 . 4 2 t 4 s i . s jv. wry l i t
\
1888 - 4 %W - v-
'.. -T L
! V ..... _'. : p ..... t .. r 'r b mu ; , ; J ,
"'*: i^
Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete i l I r Final Missile Location Rebound
}"
g - ' f ,g Secondary Concrete Missiles
- ,, V = 135 fps e Particle size NA in.
Particle traveled NA ft Particle velocity NA fps
- w_., e a 3" OD Steel Slug Barrier 12.6 lb Solid Thickness 6.0 in.
Missile Rebar 5 2 at 3.0in. Figure A.3.3-25 Primary Hit Test No. 19 Table A.3.3-1 Line 25
l g pQ:$
; h w . $# gf .'
j%;g %u.
- +;,;h
.,_1sW ' '
, ; [ Pf }. ;i . ;; _.
- Y ,) .
- l3,. '
;g"~ ~ ' ' -
~
9,- . ft ,
'A4?
't,l.fgse w{:S$5 fh l
L:.iw r t.c.,C?
?: .-
. C7 s% .@t,'.
y;yl, .g5pj
! , w ,4 g
~
l ! hk:h,$$Y M "
- z. ~&End a:MJ2<Y
_u .. a Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face i 2
, 2 I
l ;.. L . , L _' 14 , q Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater I or Concrete Fina'. Missile Lccation Rebound g 14 g Secondary Concreto Missiles V = 205 fps m . Particle size ___l.3 in.
" Particle traveled 20 ft Particle velocity 25 fps 3" OD Steel Slug Barrier O 12.6 lb Solid Thickness 6.0 in.
Missile Rebar # 2 at 3.0in. Figure A.3.3-26 Primary Hit Test No. 14 Table A.3.3-1 Line 26
./# . i~ '
y ,..- -4
. 'l -
y '* - .. 9 .{?'
=
[ c*s;'sAf 7
. sh_ ,
. 6 i Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face l
"~
l g . _ .
. o ,,
l .
, w -IO-No data taken l
, m
.. Yo P.~
Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete
)
l Final Missile Location Rebound ; ummui 2
,4 .
V = 183 fps 1.2 Particle size in.
- M Particle traveled 1 ft Particle velocity 1 fps t_...
3" OD SEecl Slug Barrier O
- Thickness 6.0 in.
Missile Rebar 4 3 at 2.51n. Figure A.3.3-27 Primary Hit Test No. 24 Table A.3.3-1 Line 27 I
l
, 1
', . ' J O .M , g w ? 1. : 7 s ... R.,' t, l
~ p
*Q Q,i:? - .. . .
3qeP e cro
~
s - {s ,
- e. g -
e a .. l Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face I N y::
. d, . k (( I$~>
+- y.; 7 l -No crater formed
- Oa -
e Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete Final Missile Location Rebound sum . _ J a, amm murW! sum Secondary Concrete Missiles an' , ' f see V = 95 fps um / lame Particle size 1.2 in, um% Seme Particle traveled 1 ft k mg Particle velocity 1 fps l 3" OD Steel slug Barrier 23.5 lb Solid Thickness 6.0 in. Missile Rebar 4 2 at 3.0in. Figure A.3.3-28 Primary Hit Test No. 17 Table A.3.3-1 Line 28
i r,= w ---
,q dkM~ . .g
- .e.... .x
- g l 5 .h g 'Y- Y ,
- O Aw ,
18
~
t. an,ap : .y';, n' , ; yz& :. ~
~
9_. , c
'% ug: -: Q;-/
'. . a- -
&},,:
, , , .e _ .
' 'cy. . .
+ .+ __
< l n. 54 f ,t.;3.y
m ,* Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face
'(
. . . 6..... . , . .
e , 19 . 18 !!! u... U ,*;# ' [~g ,
' i h";; ~ ~ , * ; y Q 7,' y oww r , --r m,_ .. -_..- e (p' .- i b7 .' '
f' " q . shf*
, i . b O
wz
.g_yyss. - 7-- a.x .o g ,
=
g
.s -
g 4 .;l;, fp ^ i .- 8
?"*: .f!.
e #_
~ ~~
~,
ggggggl . ?
~
Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete
"' ~ T Final Missile Location Rebound e
Secondary Concrete Missiles
,' e- V = 128 fps
)18 ) Particle size 1.3 in.
Particle traveled 10 ft
" 15 Particle velocity fps
)
' F'ob~~dNel Slug Barrier 23.5 lb Solid Thickness 6.0 in.
Missile Rebar 32 at 3.0in. Figure A. 3. 3-29 Primary Hit Test No. 18 Table A.3.3-1 Line 29
7-m c.
- 82. '-
r r
- 29. ' '
m
+
C 16. ' ' m
^
l j
@8.
o . I J cr @ . u - 2 o _____ __.. .._..__.__. _. _ ._ ._ J
...3. ~ 6~. ~ S. ~ 12~. ~1F.18~. 21~. ET. 2 7. 37. 38~. 86~. 39~._
MS-C _ E 17.1 MAX KIPS] m 82. o_ w r r
-29.'
1-
+
$ 16. ' '
- 8. '
o
._ t O. '
q a. Q. a g,
~
~6 .
- 9 .
- 8.15.15. 21*. 24*. 8f. 88. ~88. 36*. SW.
MSEC L 22.2 MAX KIPSJ 4 0. '- A w
& S0. ' '
r l l fc 20. ' ' ! O J i 10. '- J . ! C i & l
'^ ~
3.* 6.* 8. :g.1k. '1 h. k'i*. 24. 51. St. ~B8. '86. 88.
~
'h - uJ MS-C _ S. MAX KIPSJ Figure A.3.4-1 Load Coll. Data, Experiment Number 3
= _. ._ _ .
l ( w 28. o a. r
- 20. '
E
+
C 12. ' w
@4.
o J g -9. " u 1 o ~ - -- - -- --- - - -- J $.* '6.* 3.* 1 N. ~15.18~. 21. 29~. 2T. 8W. 35. B6'. :3Y. MSEC E 19.9 MAX KIPS 3 w 28. '- c m r r, 20. ' ' 7
+
$ 12. '
w O e o 4. J g -4. W O_
^ ^
38 3 3N 3 - g:6.=3'MSk'i.iN.21.24.214.4 MAX KIPS]
- 29.
4 w 0- 16.
~
fT 8. ' o J
- 0. '
J - V E o -8. F- , l l . .. . ..- -- - g) L S.' 6. 8. MS k"
~
". ~1
~
I ~1
~ ~ ~
. \
Figure A.3.4-2 Ioad Cell Data, Experiment Number 1 i ,
m e9. '
- b s
n m
' 16. ' ' {l-
+ '
f) o C 8. Il m \ kO. 'n l o ' \\ 1 f U x -8. o J YS .
- 9'.
MS
'h'hA9 'gh . S . 36* ST.~
m c_
- 29. o
$ 4
- 16. '-
T d 8. I h m n ' t U @0. o _1 m -8. E 4 c. s.* 7 g g. 8 8. S'6*. S i. 3 6'.* 9.* : .1 .- . 1: ,
- 56.
m S 90. a. Y j i fC 29. ' ' o
" 8. '- 1 1
b 1 0 -8. <' l
}
3.* 6'.* 9. : .1 . . i =, 7 g, :gg, :SB*. SV. Figure A.3.4-3 Load Cell Data, Experiment Munber 35
q m 28. ' u - r
- 20. '
m .
+ Note Zero shift of 1 kip C 12. o
<n Qy o 5 -y-2 -
O J ' ^
* ^
T 6.* 9. : .1 . 8. 61* . T 8 0*.T. '36. 39*. m 28. o k . f r g 20. e T
~
N f
" 12 ~ ' -
, Note Zero shift of 1 kip f
o V a 8- 4 J e -4. LJ ' CL a-3
~_ -_ _ -
- 3. ~ 6. S.
~ h"6 Ak[*kI
~ ~ ~
MSk'
- 28. o (n }
(L 20. '- T l r -
.gg,, f Note Zero shift of 2 kips 8 -
I J ' 4 f _j - I
) N g
o -4. f
,V J
. g,W f. M. ^3g. ss=,
^
B .
- 6 . *. 'S b
f. Figure A.3.4-4 Ioad Cell Data, Experiment Number 36
w S2. ' O m o. r n - 24. o m -
+ \
a 16. < w
@8. '
o " J , xu 0.
- d 2
o J 8.* 6~.* 8.*MS-C
- g.15 20. 18E1". 29*. KIPSJ ET. 58. 58. ss. 55.~
_ L .8 MAX w 82. o o_ W 4 r - n 24. " r
+ .
$ 16. '-
w
@8. ',
o J e u
- 0. ' t Q
- a. ^
3 3.* 6.* 8.* f. 1 5. 1 8. p1*. 5 9. 8 1. s g. s g. s p. s p. MSEC E 10.8 MAX KIPSJ
- 82. o 4
m S 24. '- r - ! fm 16. {
\
o J g, ,, _J ( 1 o
- 0. '
d t i, - Y l . . . . - .- . . . . .. _
'-- 3.' 6~.' 9.' : X.18.. . .i ff 21~. 29~. 2T. SF. 3 i. 36~. ST.
l/T ! MS A L 2S.0 MAX KIPSJ V
. Figure A.3.4-5 Ioad cell Data, Experiment Number 40' I
,,-y - - , , _ _
l l O m 82. o c_ r n- 29. '- m <
+
C 16. ' ' m
@8. '
o '
._)
o O. < u < , 3 o g,: g:,0 g,
.J MS ,ECg',E:gg, 1o.3 g ,MAX g g:, gq , pf, gg, gg, gg, gg, KIPSJ m
a_
- 92. o
~
r r, 24 . o r
+
$ 16. '-
- 8. '
o
._)
c' @ . o_ o_ 3 s.* 6.* 8.* MS .LCf.15.18.L ni . E4*. 9.1 MAX Ef. Sg. 58*. 35. '89*. KIPSJ
- 92. o w
Q- 24. ' s Y- < j d16'- T A o ' a g, ,. _J ^ T I
- 0. ' I i
l .. - ... . ... . .. . .
- 3. ~ 6. ~ 9. : .1 . ~. T .. ._0~. B S~. S6~. S S~.
. {1-
\J Figure A.3.4-6 Load Cell Data,. Experiment Number 41 l
G m S2. o O r
- 29. '-
n m -
+
C 1E. '
~
m
@8. <-
o - J a: e . - u) ' 3 o a ^ g, :6'." 'S~. MS
. .1 ' g*. .8 Ei".
MAXE9*. KIPSJ ET. W8. Si.TK w S2. o o_ r '
- 29. ' '
n ' f -
+
$ 18. o .
m O e 8. o
}e.
a M .- yyA - O. .
~ --
a ~
'S . 6'.
- 9 . :
^' -
~ =
MSEC f.1 Y.18. 14.221*. MAX 29. KIPSJ 21. '8478'i. 86. S97 S2. ' . ' < a_
~
29 . .- . r - s g iG. ' i c - o . , J ' ' ~
- 8. ' -
+
C M
~
- 8. 6.~ 9.' : L21.18,18~.21~. ~24~. 2 7. 30i SS~. S6i 39'. '
l MS R C 28. 8 MAX KIPSJ
/ __:. , / ! ,
l Figure A.3.4-7 Load Cell Data, Experiment Number 28 ' ,,
/
> s f .y 4 ,- "_ _ ,
f p J m 28. k - r ' g 2@. m -
+
C 12. '- m
@ 4.
o
-9.
u 3: o
' T* '6.* 9.* j.1T. '18'. 21*. 84*. 87. 88. 88. 88. 85.
MS-C_ L 18.1 MAX KIPS] m 28. a. r g 20.' r
+
$ 12. '
@ 4.
o ' _J e -4. w O. O
- g,: :6.* 9.*
- ~
3 ii. 'ip'.18 MSEC L 14.8 MAX KI#SJ21. 84*. 8V '88. 88. 88. 85. 2 8 . g A 0 e ee. < N r - g* 12. ' c . o {
4.
J t;
-9. '
_h___._ ____ .__ ...._.
- 8. ~ 6. ' 9.' 2~. 1 __________. _18~ 21~. 2W. 27. SW. 35. 86'. BY.
) MS .EC 25 5 MAX KIPSJ-Figure A.3.4-8 Imd Cell Data, Experiment Number 7 '
1
- 28. < l g 20. <
m
+
c 1e. . m e 9. .. 3_y. :. X m 2 O n = s A ifs iY if ife= Le7 hey = ## *s= ##- 1 m 28. ' S . x
; 20. <
T
$ te.
- O 84 . fi
$ [. ;-
*1 g_ -
g 4 a C o
- w. = s .= w.;s:gg. 1y. 3 g. y eg=. ;e;7;jj=. gg. =se. gs=.
2 8 . '- 1 m
& 20. f x }
a* 12. '- C < j o d 4. '- I J ' E G -9. ;-
" } ;I 3.- 6.~ S. . 15 . . i' ~, 7 g . SF. 36~. 39'.
I ! Figure A.3.4-9 Load Cell Data, Experiment Number 12 l l l i- ' l
m 28. r g ee. - m ,
+
C 12. < w O 4
,e-y. t
~
^ ~
2 7 8 8.=8 g. 8 6*.'8 8.
=
3
- 6 . * '9' . * . 1 ". 1 . 1 .
W 28. ' r g 20. < f '
$ te. --
p w h 9. o k a x .- 4 . , Y < 3.~ 6. 9.-
-~~
.i 2 2 T 88.~8g.36.38.~
~
,{,1 .
Se. ' w
& en. '
r , j f18.'. C , o
'J
- 8. '
{ _.J C l l l
$e-d ,
g
^
- 3. 6. 9. 1 .1 . , 1 . T 80. Sg. ~g'6=. 39*.
Figure A.3.4-10 Load Cell Data, Experiment Number 10
~
w 92. a.
- r
; 24. .
r.
+
C 16. o w
@8.
O t @. o LJ 2 ' cj .g,= g,. g,=
=
ns ii,1Y lE $ 1, e9=. nexe1.sies=a,'#. =as. si. =a#. w S2. o o_ I I rm
- es. .
~T* <
+
e 18. < O ie O L
^
1 g e. 1 W 0-o s._ 6- .. -s .g g. 4.=;g.p=gg=.;e,rgs,s.we.=se. s s gs=.- es. < g
$ 20. '
r 4 fC 12. ' , l' o 1
'n. <
6 N o _4. l M S. 6. S. g gp? ~Sd. 36. 39. j- Figure A.3.4-11 Load Cell Data, Experiment Number 2 l l l y -p5- e
4 m 32. " O a r
- 29. '
m ,
+ .
u 18. ' '
@8. }
O J w @. l u
- 2 O
J T 6. s.q{.}.'fjYg. g g 8. M. M. M.~ i W 32.' S r
- 29. '
?
~
$ 16. '
m
- 0. @8.
O J g @. o u kU ! 8. 6. 8. .1 . . i=
. T 8.88.56* 38.
- 28.
~
w
$ 20. ' '
Y < g
- 12. '
J h
- 9. '-
J i C
]l t; -9. '
~
S.* 6.* 9. 2 MS kI.1"k. .~..121*. MAX24*. KIpSJe f 58. 98.T.T Figure A.3.4-12 Load Cell Data, Experiment Number 30 1 N ~
{ 28. ' g
; ee. '
/ f'0 c 1e. '-
m
! "- W(,'
m -9. ' u S s.= =s.= =s.;g. 4y. g. p=g=.;e7gs;c. =s=s=.w.x y e8. ee. ' ' (, c 12. ' ; 3 a9 Il I cJ' $- J a { e -9. j w g . .d. .. . .. .. . .-
- s. s. s.gg. 47. g. pg.gg. se. =ss=. =sv.
- 35.
$ e5. )
r . g 15. ' ' l h J 5. '-
-5.
u/' T 6. s. .1 . . 1*
. T s[.Ss'.s6.sg.
^~
Figure A.3.4-13 Load Cell Data, Experiment Number 5
m 28. ' a. O.- r d . a m ee. '
+
C 12. ' m
@ 9.
O H m -9. < w - 2 O J T 6'.* 5.* 'J27. '15. ~.18. 51*. 54*. 2 f 58. 58.T.T.~ L 29.8 MAX KIpSJ MS:.C m 28. ' k r
- 20. -
T
$ 12. '
O 4. '
/
e -9. ' l u Q. Q.. o y :6.* 5.*'17.~1$.#. '1 '8 MSEC C 1 2.7. MAX E 1*.KIPSJ 2 4*. E f. 3 8. 3 8 . 5 6*. S T . S2. m o_ ey , '-
- Y -
g is. ' x l O J , 8. '- t e. J
^
5.* 6.* 5. : f.15. 6. 21*. 24. 7 38. 58. 5s. SS. MS.C E 9.6 MAX SJ Figure A.3.4-14 Ioad Cell Data, Experime'nt Number 22 l l l o
m 82. '- Om e r a es. . m
+ f C 16. f w
@ 8.
O J g e. a q O rs.=8.=g.1;=.;g=.geg=.y3gg.=gi.ge.=gg. w S2. a. m r r, 2 9 . ' 7" <
+
l $ 16. ' m O ee. O J o C. '% ! LJ <- ,1 (L Q_ l 2 =s. s. s.gs:g. 47. g. p=j=.j;jj=. =ge. =3g. =gg.-
- 32. o
~
w & S 29. - r - f f 16. ' c O J
- 8. '- ;
J ' l T
& 4 o 0.
t.'
- :': : :es- : Nf 51MN{psFas si si- s O
Figure A.J.4-15 Load Cell Data, Experiment Number 43
(% w 28. o k r
- 20. <
m
+
C 12. ' . m
@ 4.
S , m -9. '- u ' 3: o J T ~6'.
- 8 .
- g . ~1 5 . ~1 8 ' E 1 . 5 T . 2 1 5 8 . T . 5 8 . 5 5 .~
MS-C_ C 29.8 MAX KIPS] w o_ es. < r
- 20. ' '
n 1
+
$ 12.
< t i O 4
( -
~
x w
-n . c f
A , CL CL a g, 6.* 8.* 18.18.15. 51*. E4. 2f. 58. 38. 55. 59*. MSEL L 16.5 MAX KIPSJ.
- 40. o 1
. Q- 8 0 . )
2 - j ) g" 20 . C , O J
- 10. '
J 0. V T 6. 3.
"s i-i$.1Y'. 61 5. 31. 5T. 2f's 338. 38. 35,5Y.
O l
- "ex ste Figure A.3.4-16 Load Cell Data,-Experiment. Number 21 i
l
es m 40. o B; ( r
- 30. a m -
+
C 20. ' m f
@ 10. '
o J x @. } u . 2 o a 7:6.* 5.*Uf MS'1T.l'8".9
;.C L 16 MAX KIPSJ21*. 24*. df. '88. 85. '85. '85 m 40. <-
c r r, 80 . '
.T
+
$ 20. '-
m
@ 10. '
o , J e u
- 0. 'm Q_
Q.. 3 S.* 6.* 9.* : 7. "15. 'id. P 1. 84*. Ef. 88. ~S8. 'Ss.T MSLC C 29.7 MAX KIPSJ
- 64. '-
H m Q- 48. ' ' r" - f g 32. '- e , o L J l 16. < j i a , E o
- 0. <
~
S.* ~6.* n.* : O r.J MSEC8.1T'.18*.G L 46. MAX KIPSJ21. 84. Ef. 88. 38. 85. '8 l I Figure A.3.4-17 Load con Data, Experiment Number 39 h
ll
/^T m 32. '- -
U S r
- 24. .
m
+
C lb. ' m k8. O 1 J t @. ' W
- 3; O
,~ s.= w.;g.sy.g=.g1;gg=.j,9jf.33=.ws=. =3y.- .
m 32. '- a. w x g 24. ' x
+
$ 16. '
O sO e. .
.1 m e. ,
J w
- CL CL - _ -
3 :s:. s .: s:.d: - Y N PWEdf, ss= *s= =s#-
- 32.
m S 24. ' ' r fx 16. ' , \ O J g, i. io. '
]
Mw 3 8 . V 6*. 3 9". 6 . ~ s b 5 E h Y ' N ".l h k h k I h s [ . C) L ! Figure A.3.4-18 Ioad Cell Data, Experiment Number 38 l l
n v g ee. . Y a m es. . ,
+
C 16. .- w h8. O A J ge. ' 2 O a = i
=
s.= s.= s.;sg.1y.p=. g1=gg=.;eg;3;,=. gg.=3g. gg.- m Se. ' o. x a
-r-es. . . +
3 Is. - , s
- 8.
O " J m e. LJ J O 1
= ._. _ ._ _
s.s.3.gg.=17.g=.g1=j=.;eg;3;,=.gg.sg.gg.
- 32. '
4 m b 24. ' r d 16. ' e , O ' a e. ., J f c v 1 ! o 0. ' m
" e O
#4sI ti# r diLeithe seie se-Figure A.3.4-19 Load Cell Data, Experiment Number 47
r
- 29. '
m
+
C 16. -- m
@ 8.
o ' J x 0. ' ql (J - r 2 o ' l J T '6.* 5. :Y.'1h'.i8*"21*.E9*.#f.'ag.=88.Sp.'as. ' MS-C_ L iS 3 MAX KIPSJ w S2. ' k , r l g 29. ' T l
$ 16. ' '
O w d @8. o J m O. 'm , La
- Q.
o.. 3 7 gg, gg,:gg, :gg, T 6.* s. . . '1 . . 1 .
- 32.
~
w e e9. " 0 f f<c 16. '- o J
- 8. '
J
- 0. 9 T 6.* 5. g: . 15. . 1 =, 7 gg=,.gg,g6*.35.
]
Figure A.3.4-20 Imad Cell Data, Experiment Number 32
1 I . 1 i i I l l Data not Obtained O i i Figure A.3.4-21 Load Cell Data, Experiment Number 26 0
l p G w 28. k r 2e. ' m
+
c 12. < l w Q C U= o . _J 7 e -9. u 2 - o
- d. 6.* 8. ie.1W.18.Mi*.24*.81.'8g.38,=Sp.=8g.
^ ^
J MSEC E 19.3 MAX KIPSJ w 28. ' O.. r g ee. e
- r
+
$ te. '
p w
@ 4. a s
e -4. u # Q.
$ ^ ^ ^
7 6.
- 5. *MSEh l'k. ' ~b. i .121*. MAX24*KIPSJ ei. 'ag af. ap. ~3g.
- 40. '
4 m h 30. p r / g 20. ' .' C 4. o
' 10. '-
J . C H O ~ w B . * '6 . * 'S . 9{ f. . . gI sf.BSW. 'S6*. SS*.
%s Figure A.3.4-22 Ioad Cell Data, Experiment Number 45
_m _ _ . h_
n { SE. ' U 2
,- 2 4 . '
m
+
C 16. '
- l
@ 8.
o ' _J x e. '
"gj y - y o
g,::6'.*~9.*:f.15.1d.21*.29.DT.'88.'88.'Si.88.
^
_J MS-C _ E 12.6 MAX KIPS] m 82. o k . r
,; e9. . .
+
ej is. -- m O 88-
\
fe. m Q J' h
=
s.=6.=s.g.43q.geg=.g,sg.sg.=sc.ss=.
- 28. '-
)
m
& ee. '
r - fc 12. ' . O J
- 9. '
i _J C s" -9. .- 8.* 6.* 9. . 21*. E9* kf. sg. sg. Sp. sp. MS . i{. .1 MAX K PSJ. i Figure A.J.4-23 Load Cell Data, Experimerit Number 42' <_ 1
i 1 1 Data not Obtained l l l 1 l Figure A.3.4-24 Lead Cell Data, Experiment Number 15
O w 28. o a. r g 20. ' g a> -
+
C 12. ' w '
@ 9. <
a
]
x -9. '
)
w 2 < O J
- 5.
- 6'.
- 1 *. 1* . T 8 0*.W. 8 6*. SY.
. 'i {.
(n a. 28 . ' r' g ee. ' i I r -
+
$ te. '
f O s 9. . 3 - x -9. l w a. Q - - 3 . _ . . _ . . . _ _
. _ ~
8 . : 6 . : :9:. : E. i r. ~18. d, r. 2W. 2 7. 30'. SS'. B6'. S S . MS-C _ Y 29.5 MAX KIPSJ
- 69. o (n
S 98. ' r - I d 32 f C o J
- 16. '- f
_J
- T
'W l
t - ._ _- ._. q 8:. : 6:. : :9.- 21~. ev. e 7. ee . Bs . 36. 33.
) K.is.i8:.3 MS.C
_ L 93. M9X KIPSJ Figure A.3./.-25 Load cell Data, Experiment Number 19 L
i
' w S6. '
1 r n
' 4 0. '
m
+
G 29. '
< Note the Zero Shift c 8. ,
of 12 kips O
" N
-8 3 ~^ ~ ~
'~~'
=g, = g, : :g ,MS tk.17.18.
E 18.2 '21*. MAX 29*. KIF SE '5 Y. 33*. '36. '36. w 56. ' o. r n- 9 0. '
.r d 29 ' b t
tn (n) @8. o J W e -8. La Q
@ ^ ^ ~^
g : :6 .
- S . *MSEk.~1k.b.~h1*.29*.81.'88.38.'85.88.~
. MAX KIPSJ 9 8. '-
1 (n
& S2. [
r < [ d 16. Note the Zero Shift g < of 12 kips J-0..' 1 - l %
- 16. ' y i I p 3. E'. H.MS_[C.
' 'iY. ~1Y,21'.
lgg L 45.5 MAX'2V. KIFdSJ-5 / 3F. Bd. 3N. 35. ' Figure A.3.4-26 Load Cell Data, Experiment Number 14
w 69. ' O k r
- 98. '
m
+
C se. . m
@ 16. <
, O '
.J
& @. ' M ta V
.2 O -
. _ _ . ~
J
- ": : :ms: : t . Y W: 214N{dy 3s asm-w 89. '
sM g 98. < ' i f
$ se. .
, w C, e O is. < ' J , 5 1
*- NV e%
1 _ 3
- s - -
. s . 3 .;. _ s g. sy.g. g1=j=.67hf *# =3# *#-
- 70. <-
- I w
a se. < r < a 80. o T O J
- 10. '-
$~ -10.'
i -.. i S. s.~ 9. .1 . .1 . 7 g g=, g g , g g, g g, Figure A.3.4-27 Load Con Data, Experiment Number 24
w c. SS . 1 x s g es. . m
+
C 15. -- O 4 es. O _.J m -s. . U E; 1 . . . .
- s. sc s.gsg.1y.g.y1=gy.j;;37. sg. 3g. 3g.-
m 95. ' s . r g 25. -
-r
+
S is. - O ss. O J e -s. ' w 0. CL -
"3 : .
s s-:::s::egg-. q. tyg1 _g y.jg ,ay.eg.gc.gg.-
- 35. '
en S e s . O.' r , f is, '
<r O
' s. <
~
g -s. . k
\~s4= f M=.s =d#= aerass*= ss= se 8v.~
O t Figure A.3./.-28 Icad Cell Data, Experiment Number 17
w 28. ' O s x a ee. ' m -
+ i a 12. ' !
w e s. ' f O
._J m -4. '-
LJ
- 2 O '
J T'6. s. :{.1{. Q. j1*g'.[T 8c. 68.$5. sT.~ w 28. ' s h r n g ee. ' T
$ 12. '
w O e O
- 9. '
.J m -4. '
LJ ' CL O a w.=t=.=s.;g.q.g.gg.g7;s;e.=sv.sr.=s=s=. S
- 82. *
~
w h e es. ' x - fC 18. ' O J
- 8. '-
.J t
H o 0. < D. 6. s. 1 . 1
. T 8.88.55.85.
. 1 {. ~
Figure A.3.4-29 Ioad cell Data, Experiment Number 18
l a N 'g' j, ,,.,-; . 9 . . ' ,, 3 ,.,7 . r.. - . . pr. {*...,. l2) [s ' . , ;; * - _ M,, ' o "93L'l g(.?J2 (3g[ Q y!
-o . .
agg php 4:. ,. ;u p ., j ; ,, p[g. 'e
. toe
~ --
a a. P
~
.g *,1 .. E.::.h% hi;*: ~*~u g
-(
if ji). ,
t
'. : [r _
{, ,. ; 2 b" id..; h aA*d s * '
../.-
Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face
~
~
,. ;n- -
, kn .M. I. ',A 3
. y%.'."n.14
'- - {; -
7pf.yj
?]; ' _] . .e s ,. : ,
. r.
gf. y
-gir j
- il $ *
- j 7' .p)/
O j' - Slt?
.?
=
=
3 .
Q-
! Yi' y
.mQ ,4 y g :."a
~'p 89 .
'3 . ,s .. ; tw ,
V., i
,,f .
9 y
?- .
R %. . s s:[p,
+ r~
%M ; .
- . ,9 .
g . __ l Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face .
~
I,- _3 &2 r. No data taken l u
, 'n
. .. .!A Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrote l
l Final Missile Location In Target ,
'M Secondary Concrete Missiles Mg4 V = 378 fps Particle size 2.6 in.
Particle traveled 30 ft i Particle velocity 30 fps 3.375"OD Wood Pole O 23.42 lb Solid Barrier Thickness 6.0 in. Missile Rebar 4 2 at 3.0in. Figure A.3.5-2 Multiple Hit Test No. 33 Table A.3.5-1 Line 2
. - _..____.. - -.-- - . - -.- - - . - - -...- . _ _ - . ._ _ _.- - - _ .._ _- ___-___-_.____1
l 1
~
~ .-*
.;;\ i'' . '/W '
+
o[-Sus.c, u 32 -Z ; :
;g3 -
y w es '"~ pra . Ecil. t- .w - 24
.4
, oJ
- l. l l
Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face i
.r - 4
-No data taken 0 .
- n i u, \ = .. -
l Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete Final Missile Location Rebound s Secondary Concrete Missiles V = 215 fps 7 NA
, s. Particle size in.
Particle traveled NA ft
.35 ., Particle velocity NA fps sA, '
O 1.69" OD Steel Pipe 4.6 lb 0.12" Thick Barrier Mi r.ile Rebar # 2 at 3.0in. Figure A.3.5-3 Multiple Hit Test No. 34 Table A.3.5-1 Line 3
.\ :.1 Wh&'LE I .'*'
ys . -1 L
%['.
a . ;. ._.. ._ .ig. O '
~ g7- * , j+. , 3
^
;- ,, .? f . " 2[:*5 g.
~
't ' ; ,.
. ;,, ' h ,*l J ) b - E v, , , . 9
' ~ 3 ; ,. ,
, a, . ,. ,,
^lG
. t. ') ..
Yt t 's . ;, .
=^^ ^'
h % h n d ii i lli Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face Missile tumbled on impact Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete Final Missile Location Fibound
,1 38 ' Secondary Concrete Missiles V := 517 fps Particle size Missile in.
Particle traveled Ttznbled ft Particle velocity on Impact fps 1.69" OD Steel Pipe Barrier O 4.6 lb 0.12" Thick Thickness C.0 _in. Missile Rebar # 3 at 2. Sin. j Figure A.3.5-4 Multiple Hit Test No. 37 Table A.3.5-1 Line 4
I ,w =. m g g;,-.r- .- l
, je ~ '.%l* .,w%f, ,
%+.
z w.
.. . -> r o.
3~'i 1 O y .
' ?g, s ..
g'p .'y.
%? l lg' , .. , L^ )g. V . r
,(l-[ ,N f _).?Q
,i. !
k,m b.s _fo[** . b - l
, l , _ , _ -f ., r, q
. $:n,,; , w QJ e -. -,
- ,.v5?.,hh;M,.,,S[N:vN;g
[U d;fh.- 4 'dy
.e - , 3j
- 7. a r . j e .. .
. =
- W e$ *.6,. .4 Ae - Y - *^
Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face
~
v] . ; ;< - ? [h' [W' j jiil g'x. I I e . .. h
- Ii. J . .-
.* cm.~ - :.....&m e- : , pl, II y th 'j 5'! .h I { .. ew I .
, g O I i
II' 1 ... l . .
',1l !~j-
., l. - iic: i %, e
M ca cs
. ...e wa .
I l Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete l Final Missile Location Rebound 1 i Secondary Concrete Missiles xrg2 V = 216 fps 7.' '4 .^ ' ~ Particle size 2.1 in. l Particle traveled 30 ft i Particle velocity 30 fps I 3" OD Steel Pipe Barrier O 12.3 lb 0.12" Thick Thickness 4.5 in. Missile Rebar 42 at 3.0 in. Figure A.3.5-5 Multiple Hit' Test No. 4 Table A.3.5-1 Line 5
I WNt g Y w YN :.--s { .?! l .
,...e.,,.- We -
- r-~ a ;. *N
% w.(( .M.4 Y ~ [ Ff,' ,
U? R-b. j,; . ;,7qy :- :- g i3M$ qp;-E ;y - g
,2 .
. $% 5 ~ '- -= 9 f'
wq w, -%:
~ ._
>Q .. , d :.> .
~
7 ';$ ..
~ '~ _ M , A D hr_ lii% . ,
Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face
.y. , .
s,.. . r' ri , ' 3 i $I
~
j h < ' i
,N5 ihd , i ,[
O _3
!.5 1di!w#:Bi:
e e,
.ET r(.
.aq; a; -
g _ . " .4
~
;q__;
9 t r ~2: 'J: _i . Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater , or Concrete
-w Pinal Missile Location Perforated i&d Secondary Concrete Missiles
'k PN V = 296 fps
[ Particle size 2.3 in.
=
** Particle traveled 200 ft Particle velocity 100 fps
~M 3" OD Steel Pipe O 12.3 lb 0.12" Thick Barrier Thickness 4.5 in.
Missile Rebar # 2 at3.0 in. 5-6 "" *** * "i' '**t N . 29 Table A. 3.5-1 Mne 6 __ fi'""" ^ -
l
~
' Ini FRONT -
T~ "=X1 f~.1 mm} l
$i . -l
. , . . . s' *' ' N G ' , i. - a_:". v- "' '
Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face
? ~ ~ '
- ;i,..* .
j f.C > ;, 13 [: ;;' u a
.- s ;;;;:. '
. i. ';;;"
; i.:
- -
- met,J 2BL -
lO c
~
Ni;al,q l , m g.. . o. . II4 R J .h _ E:(([ <
'-'~~, i' Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete Final Missile Location Perforated l
Secondary Concrete Missiles V = 329 fps Particle size 1.7 in. Particle traveled 200 ft Particle velocity 100 fps 3" OD Steel Pipe Barrier O 12.3 lb 0.12" Thick Thickness 4.5 in. Missile Rebar 8 2 at 3.0in. Figure A.3.5-7 Multiple Hit Test No. 13 Table A.3.5-1 Line 7
l t
'r '
4r q, , s ,- l g g .', , , . ,
' W y -_ g ~Re-i '. y ., :. .$&.. .
y ?"gi," /t"}J. ' ' h O h~ - Q. -
$85 Y
,, .n
'M 3:%:M ; ,.1 ejs y r.< - J .
g'grg ,, m
~
gf -
.., s-a ,
m
- - - #4 c .. ,
id. .1 = _ . . . . ?-
* )
Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face r* [& f,. ' ..
- f. '3 ,
er
. . y- -
,y . a ,
l fd .' ' 3 [.e ..
,-V .1 !,., .
7; . 5.' ~ l f',:.'f~. _
, d '
.. .a. , . .., ........ ...............
2 . l. ;* k1 l ll g 4 ~M~. v. . ><
^ ' '
~
p , W & - D
'N.s . -
l l Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete I Final Missile Location In Target Secondary Concrete Missiles V = 399 fps
"[ Particle size 1.3 in.
g . Particle traveled 220 ft Particle velocity 105 fps O O 3" OD Steel Pipe 12.3 lb 0.12" Thick Barrier Thickness 4.5 in. Missile Rebar 4 2 at 3.0 in. Figure A.3.5-8 Multiple Hit Test No. 11 Table A.3.5-1 Line 8
~ .. .-...-_. -- - - - . . - - . . . . - . _ . _ _ - _ . _
.~V'{i j 3, , , ~...- -
l
, ' f.-
0' i ..
~
~:, 7. . ~
t M .
- 4)
4 -
. ,8
~
, 'A'. :.;'> Nabs ~
~
Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face No data No data Missile hit at edge beam Missile hit at edge beam O Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete
-] Final Missile Location Rebound Secondary Concrete Missiles Particle size Hit in.
Particle traveled Edge ft gbM Particle velocity of Target fps l 3" OD Steel Pipe Barrier l O 12.3 lb 0.12" Thick Thickness 4.5 in. I Missile Rebar 4 2 at 3.0in. Figure A.3.5-9 Multiple Hit Test No. 8 Table A.3.5-1 Line 9
i 9 . . 4"}D'W.75W . 'y
'i? ~h'
- y ,.
wp;
,, 7 .
--f
,(
...= [ k4 '
.,, ~
.c..
, :> : 1 n Y , K)f
;< zy
. I. -
.l*f :: s.. y . f 7.[f) w'
. , , 7 ; 'W .. /
+
~
. 4 2 A s
~ +' 'g x 6.{.
~; :9 c '
Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face . l R c T 8 4 ~ r. . ! 9{O 1 9 8
- ". . ". : n 4 . c'.: : :".:::
............. : : : : : : ; . .m. _ . . .;..: :':.':. :. :.':. :. :. .':.
. . . . ,~r n
,. I,,1 N w' ; , -& +.:.,,4 ,
j ** 46
- Q.j ., '-f'&
i Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete Final Missile Location In Target s
- Secondary Concrete Missiles '
*! V = 403 fps h
Particle size Particle traveled 1.0 220 in. ft Particle velocity 105 fps 3" OD Steel Pipe Barrier 12.3 lb 0.12" Thick Thickness 4.5 in. Missile Rebar 42 at 3.0in. Figure A.3.5-10 Multiple Hit Test No. 9 Table A.3.5-1 Line 10
~ ~P L- -
- n. t. ~a ? W i M W"'vi R W.*&. @ "C ~ -
- [, Y/fMhk*
D$Nh!hy
! V,_,.: Kn.m -
. % ll;z .i
. 1 .
% ,g g 3-- J.&.M 4,.g ,,
f PNeiTL.9h!)$, ~ M alS?? N,
%y..
y.
'J gn 4 ~g:%y g my[k.se%
u ly ,u &a w .
; h~ury y n.
.tg;;
N' kkkki, b b' pf%[ d '. ' j dN hbwaM@Masm. agfg- v'g Q - 1
%.4,5A.
s p-
$M*q m
C ..
Q . .
(;;fjQQi;; g.;7' Ybh$[A?$$,l. ,:lChf$ Q au d:!jb}'.fyy$ly Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face
. g ,
. f , ; ?!,,
tj , y.h/ , , g ? ki.g'gN ' f
~
h
-w.
'Qf)?
2-
. _ _ %-34
. %.gp$ %. ,.
? ~;
_c. - Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete i 1 7 Final Missile Location Rebound Secondary Concrete Missiles V = 343 fps Particle size 2.1 in. Particle traveled 60 ft Particle velocity 50 fps J 3" OD Steel Pipe Barrier 12.3 lb 0.12" Thick Thickness 6.0 in. Missile Rebar # 3 at 2. Sin. Figure A.3.5-11 Multiple Hit Test No. 6 Table A.3.5-1 Line 11
w
. , - ,-p
.. , 9 F '.
k3,V. "
. . I-: . ,-
ap, q i &J',; :
- u V %' G 2 ;
b " .' . ' ~ ' h y's g
- ~ ,~ fN f' .,. ,} [g
~
g [ .i ?
"i h'? '!F -, . . . . ..
; e -
3 Sg ,,m>7, i , {
. t k
'. ~l_
5't , g.-
> ..~- 4. , ; . . .m .
Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face l llll' I '
?
2 liiiii
- w e >.
-5 ;;
*;;;i::
3 s- i 1 J i A c :J f i-,
- 7 * ;"
g ; l8 ~ ' '
.i ,
l C
~
\
4 Y i - k ' Nj \ 255 ? , __ i .'
.W l i- - 4 + _-
If - l 6 ::: h'd d , l-4- -5555b .8 ~ Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete Final Missile Location Rebound No Secondary Concrete Missiles P Eto V = 369 fps Taken Particle size 0.8 in. Particle traveled 100 ft Particle velocity 65 fps 3" OD Steel Pipe Barrier O 12.3 lb 0.12" Thick Thickness 6.0 in. Missile Rebar # 3 at 2. Sin. Figure A.3.5-12 Multiple Hit Test No. 23 Table A.3.5-1 Line 12
I
- ' ,,"@f N "+ T*c=ggs1ve.us======== wf c.; ~ce T%/ng~9;7 fg y.,- ~s-~' -
' , y ,,
m.;
- '- p. 9 . : m~ ,,
.f ,
r.;~.f
;: h .. . w, 2:s 's c&:,-, s .-D
. ' =>;j6$ 7f fy ~
_I, *. ; 4', p x,, ;n ' v)fi v-n.. ,. n - y' e O.
'y., . .;
by _
~ ,~
j-1p n sfW y 4.. r.e,f
."C 'm qW$.tlV a, ., - s
,;/j ,g'
,; per:. ,
s % _y
- ? '- .
. r. .
-) ' > ,m n.'9; : w -a (
*y
';.;'a .
l'JEn / +
'~
- N
' 3. -
;Q
.. j. . :
e-( Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face j.
~
- 'l li . f",[ I E e f.>[sys[. j~.
, % 7. E -[' !!! : ~ .
. b . _,) _
.t
, ?k [
EV '
.y r :: '< r
'. , ) l.. , 'gy O
Em3 - i Y .: y 3 20i
. f.} , .
g6 .
. . j 0. j jY ,
.. .c ...
A@
~
CCI
^ .. y y;r
- t. _
Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete
,, Final Missile Location Rebound 20 # Secondary Concrete Missiles
.s .. 9 V = 208 fps l' f* Particle size 1.3 in.
e Particle travcled 20 ft Particle velocity 25 fps w 4 3.5" OD Steel Pipe Barrier O 11.25 lb 0.216" Thick Thickness 6.0 in. Missile Rebar # 2 at 3.0in. Figure A.3.5-13 Multiple Hit Test No. 20 Table A.3.5-1 Line 13
. w.- .
^
~.<.-
-g . . ..
A, c, $ 3 %. k' ' 7 .. ' O *
^
c 4a
, un g.a ;
a % (4 #/' 'J / , ' ' . J
.; f.' 3, , . C- '4-
-{+
9 - i .. . n . .. .
+
4-
- . ., _g
\ 4 ,, r .
'. , . . , s
! ? ' tj
~
4 h f '
.,M
^
. .... , . .- ((-
Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face
~ '
4 "N.'~~ m .- a -
".llll
=II"*
f, -
- - - - - t -
;y .
~
5 92
- i. ..
!!E e. . I
- A ~--
1
'~
~
- l. l _
- ,. . g y 1;
.g'f 3- .
. .g-
-.s
~
1
?, ,
1 i ', :: ;75 b .. i
<s . . . . et Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater i or Concrete v4
- r. p Final Missile Location Rebound 1 25. .i. Secondary Concrete Missiles
': . t .- e V = 413 fps
' 1.6 Particle size in.
Particle traveled 145 ft Particle velocity 80 fps ' 3.5" Steel Pipe Barrier 11.25 lb 0.216" Thick l Thickness 6.0 in. ( Missile Rebar # 3 at2. Sin. Figure A.3.5 Multiple IIit Test No. 25 Table A.3.5-1 Line 14
.-.____________.__._-14
m
~ ~ ~
(A
~
. em
~: 3< g
~-
.3,,. ~..
f l. ], _ i- W ': y. - y, '
. .. ud
-n,. .
'; yw ~ .i.
,M Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face P: F'? "**;] Q ....
f
)
i
'--- llll$ ' .I -
r I ! ..L E-I
....h
*:~ 8 u
O i a l !g
..+
r ! 1 48 . ,- n: : . f F ::' . a1 * :::: Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater i or Concrete Final Missile Location In Target Secondary Concrete Missiles V = 373 fps
, Particle size 2.0 in.
Particle traveled 110 ft Particle velocity 70 fps O 1.69" OD Steel Pipe 10.4 lb 0.12" Thick Barrier Thickness 6.0 in. Missile Rebar # 2 at 3.0in. Figure A.3.5-15 Multiple Hit Test No. 48 Table A.3.5-1 Line 15
,. - r >
'JS ST ?- ,}
LLl $ i b. h jl;} g If-O ,s
**<a.
xh ...f l :.4 t:p \'.O
*~
, W h$hhk) [khI I
,~ a -
i e +n u;4 ;,:3s . n;i;, t
'}@
. 1%%;p: , ii.sW::gg :;in ,y ;
, y 4, '
t I l
\
Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face f f t e. .- - -
. . ..+ ,
T. .-
}ys<a
> ~d .aA T
'* \4 l b *1 ',
'f W :
O a; ; p .: [ , m < Tg,,
. .) I', ,
I . b fat a Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete Final Missile Location Perforated Secondary Concrete Missiles V = 329 fps Particle size 2.4 in. D # Particle traveled 240 ft Particle velocity 110 fps Barrier O 3" OD Steel Pipe 26.5 lb 0.12" Thick Thickness 6.0 in. Missile Rebar #2 at 3.0 in. Figure A.3.5-16 Mul tiple Hit Test No. 31 Table A.3.5-1 Line 16
~ '
[.Q ("I ' ,.y )$. iN$$ ge 9 q ! l~}h?
$$ "'.[4"
p . . , . s r.u!:
~Q O f'.~C S[
,;'.:. , 3 :;3
; $'n h58
%Q ,, =.,g -
~1 .
g l l wgp tcR ?.Q. . iG'
/ M[$5p ['i,7f ,. m. ; $Nyf
, .y g: 2 ~:yw . -3
!?
'D_;;- W$ ., 43 1 m. ag _;g:ggy Q. ~; p:
a> ;. i g., ;33;+
,7Qs': 4 _n:' Q Na7,
;dmdi; "S , ;
h nr
" jf-(?
s t, -
. n z ..
sl,Y3 ' ' jy,:%fMl'TM , . [$I Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face ar y , l *
' . . 1.' ,,
{4 *
. l t 4
Q. i , I. : .? .f t ;. ; .. Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete Final Missile Location Perforated Secondary Concrete Missiles E* V = 340 fps Particle size 1*9 in. , Particle traveled 230 ft Particle velocity 105 fps l 3" OD Steel Pipe Barrier
- 26. 5 lb 0.12" Thick 6.0 Thickness in. '
Missile Rebar #3 at2.5 in. Figure A.3.5-17 Multiple Hit Test No. 27 Table A.3.5-1 Line 17
- ~
pg* ~p ~ ,- a. . 4 l' .
., k,l .:
if . .
- Ed .
fj A p
$g's >
'3',q'
.D % - -,L.
. ... Is Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face i,
p-
~No profile taken
- '.* r
, h'.If- cr.M p *
.d . .,u_..
Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete 1 ~
't
}5 Final Missile Location In Target g 16 Secondary Concrete Missiles
,, V = 207 fps y e Part.icle size in.
, Particle traveled _ Edge ft g g Particle velocity of Target fps 3" OD Steel Slug Barrier O 12.6 lb Solid Thickness 6.0 in.
Missile Rebar 5 2 at3.0in. Figure A.3.5-18 Multiple Hit Test No. 16 Table A.3.5-1 Line 18
L :gfj TM. ,;. ,, ' ;. , ~ : . . ' :, 'i . *'j- .
~~
' ~
n- '
) ..,,L ,t a YN~C2,. % ,a' ' = , . ;'3:.Sif'*, *g ^,{~< [' 11 ~ ~~;;- L 1.f[u ll}~;\ p F ,. ; r '}~%;jy>(;5.ll$
^
C. l [i _ Lt ?_; 'p;cs - a.i:--?' 4+.g yli
'm-
~
,. ;: % . . ,, t-
;.~. q r. :.'.; I,'u'f .':F, X . ,[~ .1 /* I ~ t . f. k
??? f 4 .. ; & 4 %v..~ p]M
' " ~ ~ ~'
~ . p 5_ n ,
*8 Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face
((sesset , 1[Ni l Y i. .4 \;.W
.?;;,,'
. . i i .
, )
- , No profile taken
, Y. ' i 4
'f'
.k ,i!I' ., '
^ wg ,j q
~..
) .
Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete F Final Missile Location In Target Secondary Concrete Missiles V = 200 fps Particle size 1.5 in. Particle traveled 260 Q v Particle velocity 115 ft fps
+
10" OD Steel Plate Barrier O with Pipe Thickness 6.0 in. Missile Rebar # 3 at 2.51n. Figure A.3.5-19 Multiple Hit Test No. 46 Table A.3.5-1 Line 19
m 28. S -. r
- 20. '
m
- 12. ' i m
h 9. ' o . J
._)
g -9. La ' 2 O * ~~ ^ g~
- 6~*5'MS3_k1k.~bb.1.NHNT585Y853Y-. MAX KIPSJ m 28.'
h r 4 2 0 . T p h
$12.' 1 1
1 O e 9. . e al
-4. ,
CL S g , = =6 .
- 9 . 5.1
^
38.88.55 55-MS.C_ . b . Ei .84. Y.9 MAX KIPSJ
- 69.
~
m S 98. '- r l fc S2. ' , q I o t t
' 16. ' l L
d a; e. ' s afj - l g,2 6.
- 5.MSE(
- i f.1 k'. b8. 8.981*.
MAX89'. 87. s8. ni. sf. si.' KIPSJ l Figure A.3.6-1 Ioad Cell Data, Eyriment Number 44 7-
I w 82. o O) r 24 o t m -
+
C 16. q w j
@8. [
O 1
._J or O .
- LJ
- r {
3 - - -
- ~
=
77-. :g:,: 3,:MSk' _1 f' ik". h'i MAX . =29. KIPSJ'2'f. =30. 3#. '3=6*. 3V. w 32. o r n- 29. " I '
$ 16. (
O
- 8. "
O
- _1 oc 0.
LJ
- Q.
O_ ^ U 3. 6. S. : .1 . . 1* . T 0*. 38. 36=. SN.
- 90. o
+
(n 0- 8 0 . ' 0 E < a 20. o e - O d O
- 10. '
y . y Ho @. 's 3. 6.' S. .1 . . i' '. T ____.__.__0~. 3 3~. 3 6~. S S~. w/ Figure A.3.6-2 Ioad Cell Data, Experiment Number 33-
i O \ i i l Data Not Obtained O l Figure A.3.6-3 Load Cell Data, Experiment Number 34
pg m 28. V S r
- 20. '
m
+
[ 12. ' i m ,
' l
@ 9.
o J m -9. ' u r , o l J g , g ,2 g, MS ECg, E gg,21.8
- g g,MAX pg:, gQ:, gy, gg, pg, gg, gg, KIPSJ m
Q.
- 28. o 0
r g 20. '-
- r -
+
- $ 12. ' '
l 3 m o
) @ 9.
o i , J m -4. d u Q_ Q_ 3 S .
- 6 .
- S'. * . E MS C8.1V.~18.81*.89*.87.si.Sg.ss.si.
1 25.9 MAX KIPSJ G4. o m S 98. ' r - g 32. e . o J
- 18. <
J e o @.
~
U ~ 8.*6.*b.*:2.~1{.g.g1*.84*.87.si.88.si.SW. MSEC MAX KIPSJ Figure A.3.6-4 Load Cell Data, Experiment Number 37
l l l l
- 32. '
r
- 29. ' '
m .
+
C 16. '- m
@8.
o J e O. ' La - 2 o J g, :6.* 5.* 1 p.15. '18. p1*. 29*. 21. Bg. BW. =36. =38. MSEC E 19.8 MAX KIPSJ m 32. ' o_ M 4 r r,- 29 . o x -
+
$ 16. '
@8.
o -. x LJ
- 0. ' ,
O_ 1 .. . . .. .._.. _.._.. 3 .._ _. _B . ' 6. ~ S . ~ J. ~1F. ~1 Er. 21~. E9~. 2T. 30~. 38~. 36~. 89~. MS -C _ E 19.2 MAX KIPSJ
- 90.
en 0- 30. r < I g ee. <- , e o J
- 10. '-
J c i t; e. Q ' b
$.* 6.* 5.* :f.15.~16. Mi*. 29. 21. 88. Sg. Bg 89*.
^
s MS;C E 28.8 MAX KIPSJ Figure A.3.6-5 Icad cell Data, Experiment Number 4
O r e8 1 2 3
., 20. l' m .
+
[ 12. ' f' w e 9' . B .~ J e W
-9. -
2 1 S L-r
.y 3=,=
MS d, =r[, =5, =71=,.
=
MAXeq=, =ef gO=, y.y gg, 33. KI#S] w o_ 28 ' r
- 20, '
r'
.T <
\
+ 1
$ 12. ' f c
- y. .
3 - w A -. e u
-9. ' k CL CL o
T g=, = g , = 1 g=, ig=, = 1 g=, =21*. 24*. =2 f. =SY.T.^T@.T MSEC E 16. 7 MAX KIPS 3
- 90. '
in b 30. ' i i r -
)
fc 20. ' < [ l O I J
- 10. '
J < C y e. 'V y i l _ T 5. 5. .
.1 . .T , 7 O*. 38,"T. 39'.
Figure A.3.6-6 Load Cell Data, Experireent Number 29
O w 19. ' ( 1 r n 16. < 5
$ ^
\ Y c 6. -
~
m { x -2. ' f N ~ 3 '- - I* =6=. ' =s MSE. = =i E k.9.9=iV. =ii.KIPSJ MAX Wi=. =e9*. 21. =st. =si. =e6. sf w 19. o_
"r l
- 10. ' I n
3*
+
$ 6. '
x w
@2.
o Q w e -2. ' ? N La
- Q Q- . _. .__. ... . _..__ _.. .... _ ._.._
3 3 . ~ 6. ' SMSEC . ~ ~1 E. E ~15. 12 6 1MAX E'. 21 KIPSJ
~. '2W. 2 7. SW. 35. 36'. 3 9' S2. '
w
& 29.
r ' l fC 16. '- - o
' 8. '-
_J E' ' h .
~
O v T 6.*8.*'18.'15.'bl.9 MSEC E MAX KIPSJW.81*.'24*.nf.Bt.38.36*.SV Figure A.3.6-7 Load Cell Data, Experiment Number 13
1 w 12. '- O k r
- 8.
j l m
+
[ 9. 4
@0. 3 o
J e -9. u
.2 o * -
g ^ ---- - - - -
- B ~
S"MSLCi 2.18 'i 6 MAX KIPSJ21'. 29'. 27. Sif. HS~. 36~. 39' 8. e 12. - S r r, 8 . x -
+
- 39. '
\
0 h**'%' J k* w e -4. ' i
,1 CL (
S ^
~8.~
6.~ 9.g.1{.1f. E1* .h[8. si. 86. si.
- 32. '
i a S 29. ' ' r g 16. ' l c 4 i o
._J g, ,,
J c < h
~^~ ~
s g,: :6.
- 8.*MS:L C2*.15"fi L 15,7 8. 23*.
MAX 29*.21.~88.58.36.56.. KIPSJ ! {O Figure A.3.6-8 Load Cell Data, Experiment Number 11 1
m 64. ' O O. r
- 48. ' '
m ,
+
C 82. '- m '
@ 16. ' '
O f J Oc @ . ta 2 o J g,: :g:, g,2 :g g, :g g, :g g, pg:, gq:, gf, :gg, :gg, :gg, :gg. MSEC E 82.@ MAX KIPS] m 64. o_ m r r, 9 8 . * - c-
+
$ 82. '-
p m d @ 16. ' o "
.J
- 6. ' d '
1 ._ ._ ._ ___ 3
.._.. _B . ~ ~6 . ~ 9 . ' : 21' 29~. 2 7. 87. 3:T. 36~. 39~.
MS-C 5. 15~. _ ~ 1.8~'. E 52 AAX5 KIPSJ
- 56. '-
1 m .i k 9@. r < fe 29. ' , o p l J g, ,, f i J m J l y ._ g , i
^'
B.* 6.* 9.MSl'C.15. E 99.8 ~18. MAX n1*. KIPSJ 29*. af. 88. 38. Bs. SW. Figure A.3.6-9 Ioad Cell Data, Experiment Number 8 l
w 16. < ' o_ v/ - r
- 12. '
Y P [ 8. w 1 e e 9. -1 ( o . C. ' {
.2 o
' $.*'6'.* $.* t i. 1 5. 1 5. 21*. $4*. Y i. 8 5. $ $. S W. $ $.
MSEC E 10.2 MAX KIPS] w 16. ' o r
- 12. '-
.7 -
+
$ 8. I w
I h O e o
- 9. ' '
4 C. c "j
- g ,
^ ^
- 6'.
- 9. * :MSEk.'ik.'tg.$1".E9".$^'ag.ag.%*,'gy.
12.9 MAX KIPSJ
- 96. '
w S 28. ' r < g 20. '- \ e . o J
- 12. '- i
_i C o 9. J w
.._. _.._8. 6. ' ~9. ~ Z. ~15~. ~18~. 21. 29~. 21. 88. $8. 56*. 85.
l 7 n) (%.) MS:C L 16.9 MAX KIPSJ l Figure A.3.6-10 Load Cell Data, Experiment Number 9 i
s w 28. o {d b r g 20. '- co -
+
C 12. ' w
@ 9.
S m -9. u
+
'[
2 o J
- 3. * '6 .
- S . if.15.18*. 81*. =24*. ET. '88. '38. '85. 56.
MS-C_ E 17.9 MAX KIPSJ w 28. ': 3 r
- 20. ' '
x -
+
$ 12. '-
- 9. '-
o ' J x -4. u ' Q S ~^ ^ ^ g:,= 6 .* 3 MS .* .[ b 'i k7. k. i p.4 1*.'2 4*.KI MAX 2 h S J38. '88. Ss. 'ag.
- 90.
w
- S 30. ' '
- r j' f 20. '.
<t , I o p J
- 10. '- f)
J \ o C. s I T 6.* s.* 1 f. 'if.18. E1. 24*. Ef. $8. 38. 'Sp. 'a#, (g w) MSEC C 39.1 MAX KIPSJ v Figure A.3.6-11 Load Cell Data, Experiment Number 6 a-~ y
m 69. k . r n -98.' m -
+
[ 32. '
~
m
@ 16. '
o ~ J e 0. u o 2 O J T g,: g ,: g,:1v,1g,g1:,gq:,gy,gg,gg,gg,gg, MSEC 1 97.5 MAX KIPSJ m 69. S - r g 98. ' T
$ S2. '
16. O < J m O. u Q. a.. 3 8.* 6'.* 5.* g.15. '18. E1*. 24*. 87 88. s8. 56*. 58. MS-C _ L 98.2 MAX KIPSJ
- 69.
4 t S 98. r < g 32. '- 8 J
- 16. '
n9 V1 0 . d-
~
8.* s.* 5.* 18.15?. 'is. si . 54*. 27. '88. si. '8s. si.
./ !- MSEL L 92.8 MAX KIPSJ Figure A.3.6-12 Ioad Cell Datag Experiment Number 23
O m 82. ' Q-C/ r
,- 2 9 . '
m -
+ \
C 16. ' w
@ 8.
O
.J e
u
- 0. '
N 2 O
' 3.* 6.* s.* :
MSEC I.'15.~20.7 E MAX KIPSJ18*.Pi*.29*.sf.38.58.36*.5T. m 82. ' a_ r g 29. ' i
$ 16. '
8. o - _) [0-a.
$ ./
o_ 3 s. 5.* 5. :g*. '1{.
- T 3 8. 5 8. 56*. 3 6.
*.}i*
- 90. '.
tn \ S 30. ' r - g 20. ' 8 - J
- 10. '
w - 1\ O 0. ' - T 6.* 5. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ wJ S . A. I Figure A.3.6-13 Load Cell Data, Experiment Number 20
m 85. S A r ri
- 25. <
T a 15. < w
@5. o
/
o J e -5. LJ
- 2 o .____.__ .____.._. __ ___. .._.. .. .._
J 8 . ~ 6~. ~ 9 . ~ J.1E.18~. P i~. 29~. 2T. Bi2T. BS~. BB~. SS~. MS.C _ L 81.7 MAX KIPSJ w 85. " k . r g 25. '- T l $ 15. '- i - O e5. o - a. Y m -5. o E < h o_ a g,=6'.* 21".29.5f.88.38.36*.'85. 5 9.*18.~15.15 MSEC E 21. 7 MAX KIPSJ 69 o
~
e S 98. o b r < g 32. 8 J i 16. ' J
~
)
B . * '6 .
- 8.
- MS f.15.g.E1.24.Ef.38.S8.'85.s9*.
/ C .4 MAX KIPSJ Figure A.3.6. Load Cell Data, Experiment Number 25
{ 16. ' s
,_ 12 . '
m .
+ ;
C 8. ' f) w l
@ 9.
3 -
$* kh P/b N 3 ^ ~~ ~
#~
-3 , : :6 .
- 9'.MSEhL15*.1'8*.
- 19. k1*. 24*.
MAX KIPSJ2' ^ S'0*. 'S'$*. 'S'6*. 3 9 * { 18. o e
~
g 12.
? )
$ 8. '. L h
4 p w
\., 9.
f '
~
__I j*' 9 j A % 3 *
- T 88, 98, S'6=. 39*.
^~
- 3. 6. 9. .1 . . 1* .
se. '
~
w k 89. r - g 16. ' o a e. .. ' f) 1 i
~
T 6.* 9. S
.gf
.T IF5 Figure A.3.6-15 Load Cell Data, Experiment Numb $r.48 l
l l~ j , i
m 32. i a. r
- 29. '-
m .
+
C 16. ' w
@8.
o ' J O. 2 o J 8.*'6." 5.* f.15.1(c'.W
- MAX i KIPSJ$ . 29*,2 7. 8 8. 7 7. 8 s. 5 8.
MS-C _ Ci m 32. ' O w < r r, 24 . '
- 1
+
ei is. ,
- 8. '
j _J a ta
- 0. '
M
- a. <-
CL 3 5.*6.*5.*'g.15[.15.M1*.t4*.87.'98.'95.'S5.si. MS-t
- 19.1 MAX KIPSJ S2.
(n r e s . ', fC 16. '. < o i J
- 8. '
_J ' C o 0. N.* 6.* s.
- 7 ap. =gg, g6. SW.
~
. Ei* ,
- {. ~1{..
Figure A.3.616 Load Cell Data,- Experiment Number 31
m 28. Os ; -
- 20. '
T a te. '- m e 9. '- i O '
.J
_; e -4 . '- t.a 1 O ( a 2 s.= w.;s:g. ig.jg.g1=ggy.g;;sy.we.=ss=.we.- m 28. k , r
,_; 20. e T
ej i e. '
. l 4
O 89. O J m
.g
-4. '
~
o
=s.= s.= w.4s:nY AI i "s#f Whif *# *6' 48=-
82.' 5 (n S 29. ' r -
*18.'
c s g, , _J
- e. '
$. * ^6'. * 'S . S'Y' Y' Y'. YAkY'kl SY' Figure A.3.6-17 Imad Cell Data, Experiment Number' 27 y -- i w-
- 69.
x A
, 9 8. <
m
+ .
C 82. ' m I
@ 16.
o 4 J (r @ . LJ l 1 ' l o , s.*'6.* 9. M.15,18.El'.h4#. sf. 'B#. 38. '86. 88.
^ ^
J l MSEC C 58.9 MAX KIPSJ m 69. < rz w r r, 9 8. ' 7 - 4
$ se.'-
p w 'k 16. ' o - J
- 6. '
- Q-CL.
3 T 6. * 'S . ~ ~
- AkX"klSY*
MS 1 '.
- 69.
i m )
$ 48. ' l Y <
g 32. ' C - d 16. f} J c C. ' A 3.'6.~9)1gg.}.gg.gigX'kIPb*.. . g . *
- Figure A.3.6-18 Ioad Cell Data, Experiment Number 16.
m 80. '- Os k r g 60. ' w ,
+
a 9e. < w f e ee. . O a < I l [l
^
x 0. W 2 4 h, V O a s w.= w.= w.;sg.4.g. gig =.;e;gs;e=.we.=se.we. m 80. o
~
2 f g 80. ' 1 T 3 se. ' n m 1) I V @ 20. ' J \ x u
- 0. '
Q.
. w1* g. T 88. Be. Si. 86.
~
3 .
- D . * ~'a . :
- g. . '1{.
180.' w e 19e." r fe 100.o g O J
- 80. o J '
C i o 20. o J 3.' 6~.~ 9. gg.~{.g.21g.{TS0~.35.36~.39~. i 1 l l Figure A.3,6-19 Load Con Data, Experiment Number 46
i I l l I I ' s :2, , cax,' w . z: _ ~d ;> 3 ,. r ;s c: . . J
'"< .. * * * * ***#. : ?
< I*
y !:. l [ ' D u?'r~;& f.:. ' aj N.,, '
. ,. 7. ' ,
&;$ ' fiX~'Q+.s" - y% 3 i) '
- l c,fY WT
. , . , . sg .u. p 9., ,a e; s': > ,
L*, :l
.'Omt ,,.' .'.s \. g.
.l 3 ;;. g:3,,. ~,.. +.,~-. ~ . .s . , d < .- - 1
..wn l
\
! .,:
- ig ,x m ;. t ; A .v, s t.,+ <3
- t. ,
3 . -- 3 / ,'
;1.5i3 e. . f1 , .
V*
- ~' M,[.g 4 e
, *[. - , / . * ' .
- g 4q A.tw . j. " l w,ve;j ,e , %:.6,. ., u. N ; * ,[ , %,,g.
3- . , , , ,~... i
-[hY,h.n. x y
; r E,n' .(.,
- y. ;'
*$}
v.p'g$4' $h. e b ; .' e. I l Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face l
, 2 _ u. 1
#g-
; a. v,
. .). 3 ,.
...~.A *" I ll 5 5 - 1. 5
_ 5_ 5 U. 4 _5V ,U
.e -wm,q. . M.T i '. 7: - .e,; ':s p -- - -
- a .
. + S~;; * .>,.- . ,
*p, at *.
A. c 95.8:{i3, 9
- 2. . , . .r-,.n,. -%i, f. . .e.. .;,
c.- ?.d'It'.O,?.'h.p/f , .t , , . , , ' - f __ -r
.. , n
- i
_- - r J
.. y.- ,
I i l Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater I or Concrete PUNCHING SHEAR DATA Maximum Punching Shear Stress: 235 psi Maximum Static Punching Load: 28.3 kips Diameter of Applied Lovd: 3.0 in. Diameter of Plug in Rear Face: 14.0 in. BARRIER CHARACTERISTICS Length: 1.5 ft; Width: 1.5 ft; Thickness: , 4.5 in.; Rebar Size: #2 ,
; Rebar Spacing, EWEF: 3 in.
Figure A.5-1 Static Punching Shear Test Number 1
m m .-_m-_ - _ m _ . . _ . . _ _ _ ;._.- 2 _ m...A_. E i i i 1 i .
- n. - .n _. _ a=v * , w#
461, ,,
- :jp -q ,y u. ;[n, ' .h -. ' '
i 4 . h.
. + ' - ;#* *;$-7 *',
y s n".- - 1;
'g n_' e
...s
%,3 nt .-N%.... .4. y-
' "^L),;. ? n lR, ' Do ,;4,.slsjf._ e, r / C
..sg'Xffy%],ga[:;$.SN Q$,, $~
c.uf-;,y+1?;?H ; ;fy, , -
;;..? 6, ,q3.;m, a
y Ju;f .7%
~
m' s 'gyt 4 y 3 r.; N U , w ?IM,t,.8f$56YM.. ' ?[a[fY.'D,'ntf,a)9. .g es ;u,.; i 2, y;r. r,s, , g .m,. :p.;;yv g 1 xs m >, :
'44 *;' W;%
' bQ. c
-2.5;%%T v'.y,R W? * '~' sS:'J '? W M. m,s n ,.
*I'
*'* 1 '
- _%,%.},3.W,d,:j/ . E2'3-l Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face
( > :. g. ; T i 0 . l
~
I !
- my v . c 7...
Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete i PUNCHING SHEAR DATA Maximum Punching Shear Stress: 324 psi Maximum Static Punching Load: 39.0 kips Diameter of Applied Load: 3.0 in. Diameter of Plug in Rear Face: 14.0 in. BARRIER CHARACTERISTICS Length: 1.5 ft; Width: 1.5 ft; Thickness: 4.5 in.; Rebar Size: #2 ; Rebar Spacing, EWEF: 3 in. Figure A.5-2 Static Punching Shear Test Number 2
l l l
- u. -;., r ,. . , , ...,s
-~qgy
.p _ g .7**p ,, .
L;.,, ;-} 7~~:~;f! T &, &x. q , h
,' -[fl7f -f
~~* - .,
y t
* , c.y;';
{g t - p-. . l +J_
- 5. . -+ <:., J " ,yc , ' , . . . ..v+., .
> l
- / :. , s
, s,- , ., .j g
~ ,
a -
,9l '.
d# i y-s: . ' - :~ m g.n. ;.4;. ~r p ;
.; pg :
. ~ m ;, . .<!,
3
't .L, ,
- pi ,,
y -
,..; , ,, ..~. y- w , .,. .;..w y y- ,
- y ,, . ~ k f .g:p,u: * .
l~ Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face s i _ - . _ - . _ _ .
.- .2-----
. ,. . . s e , ,. .; ,. . .
. * ~ " ~k
' .< f . .
E E
- 9. , > '
. M 1. k,g-'.,q.. Mj
, : n .e , * ./. , ; . Y:.,. . e. . . . - ,,;,. , .> ~ c.- ~.. .- ~- --m.-..,
rw.-.- s v.y .y '
.~
,? -x*
. r .u ?.-
s,.i,i, ,, .>> . ~,y- . r,,. y.'-. *.
-5
.c
,g n. w
..; pf. ,,n.
- l . . . 'Q{&QM[ fQ;.:e yq - }~>;, f .' ,l '
_p y < ~:: ..~ u . g :;g R g. I l Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete PUNCHING SHEAR DATA Maxim 2m Punching Shear Stress: 311 psi Maximum Static Punching Load: 37.4 kips Diameter of Applied Load: 3.0 in. Diameter of Plug in Rear Face: 14.0 in. BARRIER CHARACTERISTICS l Length: 1.5 ft; Width: 1.5 ft; Thickness: 4.5 in.; Rebar Size: #2 ; Rebar Spacing, EWEF: 3 in. Figure A.5-3 Static Punching Shear Test Number 3
,jf - - , . _ . . .
;r...'
.g.e L;.. -; ykW+r, .r- T Y. ,@;. %~ $ T. yTy..; ?. NyaY5?*J h ;. P'c 4 - . . . .
r = e ti. m , m.y -.
.n,9. ,,, 3 f 5^ ifE;
- ~ =: . w ;. v.
, M,
~ , ;( pl8)3'95y M3 g y( , ,%w;'q VAw
.i, p.
#7....;p[?;,7;;.a;.
v !' ' 4kiQM _,, T 'j;.l't%,2
%,f%3; I"A 3$l-jf,lf, * ^. - ?{!)} ); y$ '
,3 ..
; - a gny .. .
. # , , y $p,g)1, ,;4 , ;%
~ ss g&Q[g,jf -' a ~
s'
~k b l l
?.
Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face p , 1.y,
~
n-- - - . - - - - , , , - - ~ - _ - 4 .
~m == N
, , hpi.? %*r ,, L2 uJ. I i n ,
. cz.3 &,~ py::c,~: ,y. v=~? w ~ v.s.,m-9 1 Q }g,l g:, ' " 4% - :& Q,, , ,
,* , jf ;
n 2 a %. , i
- t. w -.
h *.p. ,-
- wc _ -
3 y 1 '
.gt, <w y ,-
-'.k s; A :
I i l Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater i _ or Concrete PUNCHING SHEAR DATA 1 1 i Maximum Punching Shear Stress: 256 psi ; l Maximum Static Punching Load: 30.8 kips l Diameter of Applied Load: 3.0 in. l Diameter of Plug in Rear Face: 14.0 in. BARRIER CHARACTERISTICS Length: 1.5 ft; Width: 1.5 ft; Thickness: 4.5 in.; Rebar Size: #2 ; Rebar Spacing, EWEF: 3 in. Figure A.5-4 Static Punching Shear Test Number 4
Y'
~,,. .
c-
- y . s.g . y ; g-A
.h g- Y R, N .'. - '^
- ) l
,y
. ~j. . .,
~
s ?
.,.. ._,-a ,,
Y- t;. - , I l l I l Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face j I l c -
- b Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete l'
PUNCHING SHEAR DATA Maximum Punching Shear Stress: 430 psi Maximum Static Punching Load: 69.0 kips Diameter of Applied Load: 3.0 in. Diameter of Plug in Rear Face: 14.0 _ in . BARRIER CHARACTERISTICS Length: 1.5 ft; Width: 1.5 ft; Thickness: 6. 0 in. ; Rebar Size: #3 ; Rebar Spacing, EWEF: 2.5 in. Figure A.5-5 Static Punching Shear Test Number 5
rw- . w: ,., m m _ x - -~ : w w : x m . - - s.
, . T:. zc1 _f.
~
g::
,, _. l N
V W~.W Y' yvs, f.(; Q M M A : ? C,..h. , y . f.f 2 ;;Q. .'a .$ . , 4h . t'
.;_.a,.
, *r y ,< ~ w J.,,,~w 4 r 7 ; i-;, { .
9
. ~ , .
, , _ [(* ,
f' gF
^I '
'/ %MME .
- x; f.: L . .a,. . ,p vf. . r E, _.
,g
.: t wir ,.
4 f ' '
.), . ., - ..
g.
;w- h
.gg
_ r.,b
% Y,%y#W
.t.
* ^
k..gbh.h *
;f ,,: :f-l f,Ly' ,,%.:,2'lMY
~ . . - . .. y.7'*f.Y_~m Q f:N9,f., . ::t .
!z:
W" '. g'h s. ', ~.......g~ e 6 _ .f l ' i"l'.%. Q;:-m .' QM t f'1Q?9j$
, . t..
'. . . } Vy r
- ; 3 .','
..y ,
J?.~. ,.
;I -. ? Q ..
s* A La <t .4.. ~h. .
- Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face i
, -=- -
, /"f*, #.+ .r 3' , . *- v - , yy y - _
.II yI!
L,' * . ' -T u :.. Wl$* v. gww: ,g,.
- e. m:
. ...;. l v g,.;;,=.;' :-
~ .
. . . --:: + + ;
9 n - ?:, , , 45-f% e 4 . ;' ; ;;; p y. u %. ., n 6 % cq(u
.: .. M%
% &' peg %54{Rf$<& ,
ih'@M
. jf QML Q
;Q-l' ' .,
=d . ,
- =Q. m =. y .
p j g y, t.;. %...e%y 2, e., .f - I Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete l PUNCHING SHEAR DATA Maximum Punching Shear Stress : 427 psi Maximum Static Punching Load: 68.5 kips Diameter of Applied Load: 3.0 in. Diameter of Plug in Rear Face: 14.0 in. BARRIER CHARACTERISTICS Length: 1.5 ft; Width: 1.5 ft; Thickness: 6.0 in.; Rebar Size: #3 ; Rebar Spacing, EWEF: 2.5 in. t l Figure A.5-6 Static Punching Shear '%st Number 6
- , _ , _ ~ .
m._ M,O - l
~:~,x '
;[. J.
;,,y.
c r~ .i .- -,
. -;4 e's t 1 y
s_. e . f. y;t. m .: 6.c 2 -2ex " " . A w
.h. j yG Wp (j , p-,l d "$<+ -
o
~w.?Ac;W'f?f.p,;@, .,
@;-. 4 a
D.? ( ~ Mpl'_(.$yw;;%';TQZg. ' eva . ;. .
,x , ~;b m,
~ *%y ~
. ...: s. o .. w . r s. --
;;ccfg . . 1
~.
p.ty? . [$,%.g i J g* e ,
"e. ,
% _(? . ,, ' -
I
.2[. ,.3 '. %:' , n . r
; , .. _ .p
i"?
e , : aw L .A ., Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face u
..-~_...,y ,,.. . my .
, r : yz ., n - ., . .,
.,; e
- )-l ~ g .,t- . .[35p; g
*g*h. n ~Q Qg9 ' r _,
?.. t
.' ! .,. ;".. ; ,Y +
~
;%' . t &tV . .
T'-
;Q']?&Q iiaQ.3y:.,,-3W
. l&.
Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete PUNCHING SHEAR DATA Maximum Punching Shear Stress: 474 psi Maximum Static Punching Load: 76.0 kips Diameter of Applied Load: 3.0 in. Diameter of Plug in Rear Face: 14.0 in. BARRIER CHARACTERISTICS Length: 1.5 ft; Width: 1.5 ft; Thickness: 6.0 in.; l h Rebar Size: #3 ; Rebar Spacing, EWEF: 2.5 in. Figure A.5-7 Static Punching Shear Test Number 7
vm
- . ' - ' - e.-,.[4y e; Y 2. . ..
w w. . 7-
,, ,, p. ,; yf
. ,-;. ::,.s -;s . - ;, y . 9 .'
1. M *% 7 g;Q vy ,%, t%
- r* % . ; - y% f f -
h*w" - ,g'[}gl$,j.
. vr _
t 3.g.. M'j-f! l A . - - Q,. ' ,;;; Fi t.Y;)
'y 5, . a< M* '
l . i I l I i l
)
Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face l m n n_ n E - i a s
-- [
r _
'd,_,E._c_iB_ EB_m,,,B,,
Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete PUNCHING SHEAR DATA Maximum Punching Shear Stress: 477 psi Maximum Static Punching Load: 76.5 kips Diameter of Applied Load: 3.0 in. Diameter of Plug in Rear Face: 14.0 in. BARRIER CHARACTERISTICS Length: 1.5 ft; Width: 1.5 ft; Thickness: 6.0 in.; Rebar Size: #3 ; Rebar Spacing, EWEF: 2.5 in. O Figure A.5-8 Static Punching Shear Test Number 8
.3. 3 .7. A; _ . ge-
,,.g,. -
O -
-h ,
/ i; m , ":3n '.;jr
~ ;; '
.g : - >I ;i. *[h.j , __
^
k ['.. r - e,,*
~
~
d'
. :. g .
, ,ty ._ ...
7nu y?$ hec:.;y .T;f;:cy; ' - .:Qfg9 y -
;6 :bh Barrier Front Face Barrier Rear Face 1
I 4 I k. l . i i i i Profile of Rear Rebar Profile of Back Crater or Concrete l ', PUNCHING SHEAR DATA Maximum Punching Shear Stress: 2600 psi Maximum Static Punching Load: 147.0 kips Diameter of Applied Load: 3.0 in. Diameter of Plug in Rear Face: 3.5 in. BAPU "" CHARACTERISTICS
'ungth:
. 1.5 ft; Width: 1.5 ft; Thickness: 6.0 in.;
Rebar Size: #3 ; Rebar Spacing, EWEF: 2.5 in. Figure A.5 -9 Static Punching Shear Test Number 9
a <,,---- -n n- .m.w-e L- ,m-A A-+an-6s a s e,-6 -AA ~ - ~ - - -z - - _, 40
/
/ f yga gq
~
\ l If i \ .
g l
\s N
l
; e-j' s ,x O
e l} u N li li
,I io - I
~ g[ j A TEST FIG. A.5-l l
B TEST FIG. A.5-2 _ lf C TEST FIG. A.5-3
,l ----D TEST FIG. A.5-4 l
Ir 1 I lii o O lfi i i i i O.1 i i i i 0.2 l ie ii 0.3 DISTANCE (INCH) O FIGURE A.5-10 FORCE-DEFLECTION CURVES MOVEMENT OF SHEAR PLUG IN 4.5 IN. THICK - ! REINFORCED CONCRETE -BARRIERS
O O O , 300,000 l I h ( D:
--- _- 0.240 in.
200000 - Penetrator S e 100,000 - NOTES Drop in resistance probably due to sudden forma-tion of front-face spall adjacent to punch. fe ' = M psi (estimated) Reinforcement : None 0 ' I I O 1 2 3 4 (8/D)
- FIGURE A.6-1 STATIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE - TEST I
O O O 300:000 I I h( __ D:
- -.--- 0.250 in.
200,000 - Penetrator 9 Se v 100,000 - NOTES Drops in resistance probably due to front. face spall adjacent to punch. f c' = 3000 psi (estimated) Reinforcement : None O I ' ' O 1 2 3 4 (8/D) FIGURE A.6-2 STATIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE - TEST ll
O O O 300,000 I I h ( _ D=
-= ~ 0254 in.
~
Penetrator s se w l j 1 I i00,000 - .l NOTES o Test stopped at about 1.3 diameters penetration. J load removed, and then loading resumed. Large
/ drop in resistance due to spalling around punch.
f c' = 3000 psi (estimated) Reinforcement: None O I ' O 1 2 3 4 (8/D) FIGURE A.6-3 STATIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE - TEST 111
O O O l 300,000 I I 3 ( l _ D: 0.240 in. 200,000 - Penetrator 9 3 o 'I o 100,000 - NOTES 2 Drops in resistance due to formation of spalls adjacent to punch. f e' = 3000 psi (estimated) Reinforcement: None O ' ' O 1 2 3 4 (8/D)
; FIGURE A.6-4 STATIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE - TEST IV i
O O O 300,000 NOTES f e' = 3000 psi (estimated) First three drops in resistance due to successive " '***" "* l spalling adjacent to punch. Final drop due to l cracking of concrete. I _ D:
--- 0.250 in.
200,000 - Penetrator t E 100,000 - 4 . O I ' I O 1 2 3 4 (8/D)
- FIGURE A.6-5 STATIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE - TEST V
O O O 300,000 I I h ( o=
-~ ~ 0.280 in.
200,000 - Penetrator 5 52 . 100,000 - O O
- NOTES Drops in resistance due to formation of spalls.
f c' = 4000-5000 psi Reinforcement: None O I I I O 1 2 3 4 (8/D) FIGURE A.6-6 STATIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE - TEST VI
O O O 300,000 6 I I h( p= 200,000 - Penetrator e 100,000 - 1 f c' = 4000-5000 psi Reinforcement: None l 0 i i i 0 1 2 3 4 (8/D) FIGURE A.6-7 STATIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE - TEST Vll 1
j O O O 300,000 I I . 3 ( I -
~ ~ 0.500in.
200,000 - Penetrator 1 4 5 e 1 1 100,000 - 4 f c' = 4900 psi ! Reinforcement: None i I I I O . 0 1 2 3 4 (8/D) FIGURE A.6-8 STATIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE - TEST Vill
l l O O O 300,000 l ( f e' = 4900 psi ( Reinforcement: None g g NOTES (
] ( Drop in resistance due to sudden formation of crack connecting test sites Vill and IX and edge of stab.
_ D=
* =--- 0.500 in.
200,000 - Penetrator se A I r , O I 2 3 4 (8/D) FIGURE A.6-9 STATIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE - TEST IX
; O O O 300 f c' == 7400 psi Reinforcement: 1/4 in. bars @
2 in. each way l l near loaded face 250 - NOTES Spall about 3.5" dian;eter x 1/8" to 1/4" formed early in test and probably caused drop in _ resistance.
*
- 0.500 in.
200 - Penetrator , 5 150 - _us o l 4 100 - 50 - O ' ' ' O 1 2 3 4 l < (8/D) FIGURE A.6-10 STATIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE - TEST X
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = _ _ . _ _ _ _
O O O 300,000 fc ' = m psi Reinforcement: None NOTES l l l Cracks developed extending to test sites Vill and ) [ IX and probably caused low resistance. _ D:
- .-- 0.750 in.
200,000 - Penetrator
- M k
l 2 1 100,000 - O I I I O l 2 3 4 (8/D) FIGURE A.6-11 STATIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE - TEST XI
1 300 f c' = 7400 psi Reinforcement: 1/4 in. bars @ 2 in. each way l l near loaded face 250 - [ NOTES Small crack developed connecting this and test X I cation and edge of slab. _ D-
- - 0.750 in.
200 - Penetrator n
=
100 - - F e 4 u so - I I I 0 4 2 3 O 1 (8/0) FIGURE A.6-12 STATIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE - TEST XII
O O O 350 NOTES c' " N PSI Reinforcement: 1/4 in. bars @ 2 in. each way g Test continued _t_o 8/D =5.6. near loaded face l coefficient dropped 3 g to 206 ksi. 300 -
- D=
~l' b 0.25 in.
250 - Penetrator 2 g 200 - ' 150 - i 1 i ' 100 - I i e , ' ' 50 ' I 2 3 4 (8/D) FIGURE A.6-13 STATIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE - TEST Xill
O O O 300 Penetrator I c' = 7400 psi ? Reinforcement: 1/4 in. bars @ 2 in. each way near loaded face
- 0.0305 in.- NOTES Tip of punch squeezed together. Test ended when punch bulgect at midlength.
l---0.999 in.M 200 - 2t/D: DMO 2 _=. w 100 - (~ if (8/t) 10 20 30 , O l 1 I g i g g g g g g g g, g g ; ; g g g g g 0.1 0.2 0.3 ' O.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 (8 / D) FIGURE A.6-14 STATIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE - TEST XIV
O O O 300 Penetrator f c' = 7400 psi Reinforcement: 1/4 in. bars @ 2 in. each way near loaded face NOTES
~ ~
Tip of punch squeezed together. Test ended when circumferential bulge developed in punch. Closely resembled punch in Test XIV. . H 0.7635 H 2 - 2r/o=.o602 A e 100 - - V ( 8/t ) 10 20 30 l I I O , , , y y , g g i , g g i g i , g , 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0. 5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 (8/D) FIGURE A.6-15 STATIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE - TEST XV
~ O O O i J 300 , Penetrator f c' = 7400 psi Reinforcement: 1/4 in. bars @ 2 in. each way near loaded face 0.0155 - NOTES Tip of punch squeezed together. Test ended when circumferential bulge developed in punch. Closely resembled punch in Tests XIV and XV. h 0.499 H 200 - 2t/D=.062
~
x 3 w n 100 - I i i 10 (8 /t ) 20 30 0C , y' ' ' + g i y g , y y , g ; g y , g O.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.3 (8/D) FIGURE A.6-16 STATIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE - TEST XVI
O O O 300 Penetrator I c' = 7400 psi Reinforcement: 1/4 in. bars @ 2 in. each way near loaded face 0.04's5 - -
,w~
H 1.002 H 2t/D=.OS30 200 - 1 NOTES Tip of punch not squeezed together, only slightly deformed caused by contact with reinforcing bar
- at 1 in depth. Test ended when circumferential g bulge developed in punch.
C. 100 - i (8/t) 10 20 30 l O , , , , , , , , , , , , ,y , , I, ; , g g g g g i O.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2 (8/D) l FIGURE A.6-17 STATIC PENETRATION RESISTANCE - TEST XVil
o i I 6 l m., _ m..
. ,=. _-',. , ,_ _ y ,
- g.r g;;y nw.. ~~
^
y -g g hyti: ,- *l ;,.gestk 7 x.: y; -
.:q ,r.-.s .
i-t F<r,". llif;%.
\ Q!;
s.'- ; , WM? s i j 4 p ha. ' ~ '%
.G a .:4
? $ .
.i'"
. .,a ~: .
y;> 3 g:1;: , , * -' vl>
- j', f 4
-- & a. .
( A. IITRI - One-Quarter Size B. IITRI 1 Test 2 V = 207 fps Test 30 BARRIE - t l l
\ l t
i b
- g. - - W. __ ,
4- : e- , , h . . _JK
"...._ .. - y6 '
- ~, u .
Q* g i-N'
- g. ' 'p.
e r. . . y N C 4.. . , ,. t k :.'. . 57 S. .
~
f _ r
- f. ;. ~
-1
.g
,, 29.3" :. Yk One-Quarter Size C. Sandia - Full Size V = 245 fps Test 8 V = 202 fps t FRONT FACE ry __,
i .Also Ivailable On f ,, Anerrirre Card I pdTURE ( 'h, 8403160096-\\ FIGURE A.8.2-1 COMPARISON OF IITRI ONE-QUARTER SIZE WITH SANDIA FULL SIZE MISSILE BARRIER TESTS - 61N. AND 24 IN. BARRIERS , I l
I i 4 I s t ( l l
'g WA "d
. f#h:
(;gh ' f[r .i([: 7 9,g %r ! . 4 s, 8 43d ~
- t. *h
- m 3
A
. .: .e wq / a y,. .
C} m 3 ' .>.,*a- '
, . mm ' , ,
.. .- e ', f .
.. ::4 .:* f; - n' i
T7.r . .
\
hN ?..] Agj s DQ,l.Ni '] cj , ( . . . . D. IITRI - One-Quarter Size Test 2 V = 207 fps l El l BARRIEd 1 l l( : 1 4 1
r l n w- -wm es F. Sandia - Full Size Test 8 V = 202 fps AoituRE CARD
, IITRI - One-Quarter Size Test 30 V = 245 fps Also Available On Aperture Card t REAR FACE .
8 4 0 3 l e o o g g , , 7,,, FIGURE A.8.2-2 COMPARISON OF IITRI i ONE-QUARTER SIZE WITH SANDIA FULL SIZE MISSILE BARRIER TESTS- ' 61N. AND 241N. BARRIERS r
>{
i ! 1
- .. G
y _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 9 I -
,r'-
A' Af: '..;:
?i
'! g *
.m/...
G. IITRI - One-Quarter Size H. IITRI Test 2 V = 207 fps Test 1 [ 1 i l l l
1 i
;c , ; , w ~' ~?
, "%T
- 4. v \ $
~-
- w:.e-- Q ' .~ a .
~. .,.
') ;< .
ly+
- - . j . , . --
, x( =4
. . 5f
- u. n ..
,l
- s
- i e, . ',
s-Q~ q lQhl4% 22 . . nwa .
- One-Quarter Size I. Sandia - Full Size ] V = 245 fps Test 8 V = 202 fps Alao Available on ilSSILES Aperture Card
- 11. -
WERTURE 8403160096-13 FIGURE A.8.2-3 COMPARISON OF IITRI ONE-QUARTER SIZE WITH SANDIA FULL SIZE MISSILE BARRIER TESTS - 6lN. AND 24 IN. BARRIERS
{
.l
. y,. , . - ,. , .
, ;av , 2 o . e m ,_
".l 3 0 * ~*
*1
'#T-l+
. Mwn
- jQy%
go., , .g
. .s ?.,[W; . ,-
s
;f' w 0
.q 'f" . " ', . . , . , ,
, , RJ'i}\g%g
{ ,h
,{
.e 5 ,#y n . - a
.g a.
.p.
f ' . . s 9.t g
; 'c ,
.uw
* '};.
r #,'?,}
' , s. ( ),in . ,4
.. i 1
._ r k
~
'( J. IITRI - One-Quarter Size K. IITRI i Test 7 V = 211 fps Test 21 BARRIE (. u i
l
~~ ,a ,, ,
, g'~8m y3;g_,
. ;~ ~ y., ;y;:g e ,n .
'n; g .m4:w:
.jj m x.n m%fy:.;,.g , ;;
, " v. ;j;;. -- ~
~
- 8:n. . s '
- Q K , , - Qr.
- - f &3.O::: -; 9[.:... K'ki;; :*Q ^'
fi .
' 4 Q;1[^' ~: A., . . '
~
,. . f. . ~ .', '1,, 1c,%.
- g%
ry+;; e.g .
. r 1x;;0!O~ .y
*T-l$$*Yj 6$?$Q e 21"
&;%g'.;y ['., y:yz.,
g* , ~ ' o -Q.( l t. 47: %,
$g 1 N4- c- M 12.75"
..n s :m - . ,
- ?b'k. .w*y R %? .
a
~'
* ' . ~
Ono-Quarter Size L. Sandia - Full Size l V = 195 fps Test 4 V = 202 fps R FRONT FACE Also AvaHable & herture Card 84031go99g_\ l g3-- ,a T g 'j FIGURE A.8.2-4 COMPARISON OF IITRI ONE-QUARTER SIZE WITH SANDIA FULL SIZE MISSILE BARRIER TESTS - 4.51N. AND 18 IN. BARRIERS l , I s
s l I e r
\
.v-,,,u . M ,'
c.) f ~ ' ;
.=. ..
_9fki_& ' n~3_
~n ,
n .. '
^
,. c;i .;W hhl b .~
h-l~ U' - ff. ~ e'; ..: J ;j% :% . %X s. , - w G
-: ~ o. p,, L&g,.-
s
*w,-
- tw e 4, .e ,.
~ - Q__ c.h.,g a,m , 49 .
-r - , ,.1.,
- %i .
3"
,og *&] u s' _'jM
,MiF.i;de 'I'?
g; ,. .; ..,.s d
,s,. f *.~, p1 f '- .= - t( N{. , '- ' ,
K-; Wd ]f TM$M: %%g# vqi r** '^ '.s., -1
~<J &
V: :i Q ;p a :L b ::. W:g.ej;t i "q % %A x:x ~" m+w
-/
w.,m vA. -tLN;M
- - Q n r .g 2 .. et;.y 3iny e < -y;62. W' 2 c; :q -
da M3
;s pj N ,g y d g, :n-A /~;,q; ;.;, yg;.,g:l ; :g., .ygy ; ,y l . t s-y: n.,
a y ma. ..n a. , n n, . .p ,s. ; s;;3,-o- ... y m> . . w ,,_f;4
-s o ..
Q q. ' . ' $-. -; 'fN. .~ . .%. '
~
- w. '. gj_.
- d. ,. g{i:[- :3{;' *. .
_ w .c . - i i'j I v
' d
.e u u. . .
. s . .-
. $. . n, . -
i . . . . 1 1 1 1 M. IITRI - Ona-Quarter Size N. IITRI q i Test 7 V = 211 fps Test 2@ BARRIE 1 l l
}
.s
l l l l g gpw r.~cm - e g. g.nf ca. .L. - N. / EQ $ 9 h $5f N' * ~ ,; . x :l, <
%;k-- 2
} + lI; ) j% "f.; r ijk !$^ $'s n N0:f,R -k;r?.4 <
D
* -- ~
(f ;v ; - ..f .- ' p;q.p'M; ,; W^ <
; 'g'; "
+
N y 7 g:, ;., n.g6 ,, Y ' [;g
- 7 .z , - 3 :
r} m a ;, w Ox v '
.c , ; ye.x ,. .- o . '-??;:-w;34yy .. , 39pp u) ;jby;q}.; s
;..: s y+ il . , "y:'}p'E c
- s, .
1 i 9
., :c
- C 4--3 00' 'id4j(-, s,..
1 -
% ;~g
+
)q l -
j . 9
- d19 '
( / . .i b.- , 4
. .gf -
.?. -
l P. IITRI - One-Quarter Size Q. IITRI Test 7 V = 211 fps Test 28 M i i ( - t
l 5 l l
- c. ~ ;- w e g,. n f 7 - it y G( '
p X k QQT;;f e j
- M4 -
O f
- CTQ
..s Y _ . 4%~ i*6
- .,. g, .pj
,, g
$ i .. 4 f.h.
un . a Rb
..,. r.
r1 6 2.9 7 9...epitf
-Q 4
}l,a; Y'%.
'<a;.n -p*: ~ g,, g.;
g.,;y;i ~?
,. ~ !f L % 7 * -
,,)...
n ??6 . %^ ' P !. _
"' ~' "
j ?qfdk{yt m.
, m..ajk w. $w],,,. v:-Y},
t s;; , M'i'. . . gdj l k - t (4 i l {l .- . . . . . One-Quarter Size R. Sandia - Full Size V = 195 fps Test 4 V = 202 fps Also ^vallable On ISSILES Aperture Card 84031600gs 4 FIGURE A.8.2-6 COMPARISON OF IITRI
-r ONE-QUARTER SIZE WITH ii SANDIA FULL SIZE MISSILE 7 y BARRIER TESTS -
A:)4TlU.,- ,,
, 4.5 IN. AND 18 IN. BARRIERS CAD '
[ A
SWECO 7703 EMTR-801 September 1977 , O APPENDIX B EMPIRICAL DESIGN FOR LOCAL RESPONSE 4 i i I i i i i i O Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation , l l i l
SWECO 7703 O i TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page Section Title Pace B.1 PURPOSE. . .. . ......B-1 B.7 TURBI. MISSILES . ... . . B-8 B.2
SUMMARY
. . . . . .. . . . . B-1 B.8 SECX)NDARY CONCRETE MISSILES . ... . . . . . . B-9 B.3 EVALUATION FOR LOCAL DAMAGE TO REINM)RCED B.8.1 Secondary Missiles at CONCRETE BARRIERS. . . . . . B-2 Impacts above the Scabbing Threshold. . . . . . . . . . B-9 B.3.1 Comparison of Fig. B.3-1 Predictions with Full- B.8.2 Scab Plates. . . . .. . . . B-10 Scale Test Data. . . . . . . B-3 B.8.3 Back-fact Phenomena - B.3.2 Allowance for Barrier Analysis of W at Data. . . . B-10 Concrete Strength Variation. ... ... . . . B-3 B.8.4 Recommendations back-f ace Kinetic Energy . . . . . . . B-11 B.4 TORNADO MISSILE-BARRIER DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . B-4 B.d.5 Scab Plate Deflection. . . . B-11 B.4.1 Tornado-borne Pipe B.8.6 Recommended Design Missiles . . . . . . . .. . B-4 Procedure. ... . ... . . B-12 B.4.2 Turnado-borne Autrunnbile . . B-4 B.9 CONCLUSIONS. .. ... . . . B-13 B.S PIPE WHIP. ..... . . . . B-6 B.10 REFERENCES . . .. .. . . . B-14 B.6 AIRCkAFP ENGINE IMPACT . . . B-8 LIST OF TABLES s Table Nisaber Title B.3-1 Comparison of Bechtel - Calspan Data with Fig. B.3-1 Predictions B.3-2 Comparison of EPitI-Sandia Data with Fig. B.3-1 Predictions B.8-1 BacK-face Phenomena LISP OF FIGURES Fiqure Title s B.3-1 Scabbing Limit-Steel Pipes or i Slugs on Reinforced Concrete
! Barriers w/
B.8-1 Deformed Shape and Forces on Scab Plate B-1
SWECO 7703 d APPENDIX B EMPIRICAL DESIGN FOR LOCAL RESPONSE B.1 14rnPOSE - conservative procedure for designing reinforced concrete barriers against The purpose of this Appendix is to present scabbing under pipe whip loading. a design diagram, Ficure B.3-1, and procedures for determining reinforced An illustration of how to apply Fig. B.3-1 concrete barrier thickness that will to impact froin aircraf t engines is given 4 preclude scabbing caused by missiles of in Section B.6. The method is similar to concern to the nuclear power industry. An that for the engine of a tornado-borne additional purpose is to provide a method automobile. for designing scab plates to mntain secondary concrete missiles. In design for turbine missile impact, the approach used in Section B.7 is to replace B.2 SUM!tARY a turbine missile (with its complicated geometry) by an equivalent solid cylinder Section B.3 describes the process of (slug). This cylinder has a contact area scabbing for barriers with thicknesses 1.5 that is the mean between the actual to 3 times the missile diameter. Also contact area of the missile and that of a describet is the design dia gram, circle circums ribing the contact area. Fig. B.3-1, and its use in establishing The equivalent cylinder has the same mass, s thickness of reinforced concrete barriers striking velocity, and kinetic energy as
) to prevent scabbing. the actual missile. The barrier design V . process then becomes identical with that The tigure is based primarily' on the for slug impact and is based on Fig. B.3-quarter--scale S&W-IITRI missile barrier 1.
test program. However, the accuracy and reliability of the design diagram curves Figure B.3-1 allows the design of concrete for full-scale predictions are established barriers for the above categories of steel by comparison with full-scale test data, industrial missiles. The parameters of especially' the data obtained in the primary importance on the figure are the Bechtel-Calspan programca). The level of missile kinetic energy, barrier thickness, protection furnished corresponds to the missile wall thickness, and missile barrier scabbing threshold.. The curves outside diameter. The applicability of shown are also represented approximately this figure is limited to -certain ranges by the empirical formulas .given- in of these parameters as shown on the Fig. B.3-1. Another method described figure. allows for %e- influence of concrete Section B.8 provides a method for strength when it is less than the strength . characterizing secondary concrete missiles used in the testing programs. when the primary missile is traveling at a velocity in excess .of the scabbing The design diagram is then,- in . threshold velocity. It also presents a Section B.4, applied to tornado-borne pipe method for designing scab plates to and automobiles. (Wood missiles fall contain secondary concrete missiles, if outside the range of. this diagram. h they should occur.- wood utility pole is eliminated as a missile which may ' cause scabbing' as a This AppendixLconcludes that Fig. b.3-1, result of. the tests in Appendix A.) a) . enables conservative design of - barriers for no scabbing, b) takes into account the The procedure 'in Section B.5 .for the average or characteristic pressure between design of pipe whip. barriers uses the missile and barrier, and _ c) is more kinetic energy of the pipe at impact to reliable and economical when used. for determine .the effect on the~ barrier. missiles similar to those tested than when Kinetic energy is absorbed by crushing of used for other industrial missiles such'as ,. the pipe . (possibly up to complete whipping ' pipes where this method produces ! tlattening). The degree of flattening less economical designs. - This method of ( l (n)
-(/
determines. both the area of between pipe and barrier and the final contact designing reinforced concrete barriers to prevent- scabbing -- .is ;a significant i -impact force ~ on the barrier. This improvement over the .various- methods i- information -and the available ' kinetic previously used -by ;the' nuclear powar !- energy are used with Fig. B.3-1 to give a industry. for the following reasons
-B-1
SWECO 7703 s
- 1. Unlike procedures using military Figure B.3-1 defines the impact conditions formulas (Petry, NDFC, etc) , it for the scabbing threshold for end-on is based on tests of industrial strikes of pipe and solid cylindrical missiles - pipes and slugs, missiles on reinforced concrete barriers.
rather than solid shaped The limiting conditions of applicability projectiles - at the velocities are indicated in the figure. The curves characteristic of such missiles. are ceaservative in that they correspond to the lower liait of the observed data
- 2. Unlike the procedure described in an n mean va s.
Rotz,(23 this method is size independent (i .e . , it is not limited to missiles and barriers of dimensions close to those os The series of converging straight (dashed) the test program) and makes lines for 0.255 T/D 51.0 in Fig. B.3-1 proper allowance for pipe wall represents a very conservative assumption thickness and average impact for the effects of large missiles for force, which play a very which no test data now exists. It is significant role in producing highly important to get experimental data scabbing. for this T/D band since it is cignificant in pipe whip and may possibly be in other B.3 EVALUATION FOR IOCJJ DAMAGE TO situations. REINFORCED CONCRETE BARRIERS Figure B.3-1 applies to steel pipe or slug The irteraction mechanics of end-on pipe missiles or the equivalent. It presents impact agains: a reinforced concrete the relationships of four parameters: barrier from 1.5 to 3 missile diameters in missile kinetic energy /(barrier thic% ess are as follows: thickne ss) 3 = KE/T3, barrier thickness / missile diameter = T/D, missile wall At low velocities, either the pipe wall thickness / missile radius = 2t/D, and the impact force / gross area of impact = c av-buckles and deforms (if thin and weak) or The lowest curve is for solid slugs and it penetrates the concrete a certain distance. In the latter case, the the others for pipes of different wall penetration dis tance can be predicted thickness / radius ratios. Note that all fairly accurately by assuming the concrete lengths are in inches. The scabbing to have a penetration resistance of 50 ksi threshold velocity of a given missile-over the net pipe cross-sectional area. barrier combination can be obtained The penetration distance is found by directly as follows: from the ratios T/D dividing the striking kinetic energy of and 2t/D, a point is' located on the figure the missile by the resisting force (50 ksi (generally involving interpolation) and multiplied by its net cross-sectional the ordinate of that point gives the area). At low velocities, there is no corresponding value of KE/T3 With T damage to either the interior or the back known, the required missile kinetic energy face of the barrier. can be found; and from it and the mass of the missile and the scabbing threshold A ;. some velocity, the barrier begins to velocity of the missile can be obtained. cxperience internal damage. A shear plug On the other hand, finding the required in the form of a frustum of a cone of barrier thickness for given impact total internal angle about 120 deg is conditions involves trial and error. formed. The smaller end of the shear plug First, assume a barrier thickness and find coincides with the bottom of the the corresponding kinetic energy. Compare penetration hole of the pipe missile, or it with the missile energy, and then with the circle of contact if the missile correct the thickness and repeat the deforms instead of penetrating. The Process until a satisfactory design larger end of the shear plug is outlined results, by a rough circle of cracks on the rear face of the barrier. In Fig . B . 3- 1, no dependence on either barrier reinforcement or concrete strength As the striking velocity is increased, the is shown, provided both lie within ahear plug is displaced more and more and conventional design limits (as indicated cventually its motion causes scabbing (at on that figure). This is because both first only the reinforcement cover). The these parameters appear to have only scabbing threshold velocity is the primary secondary influence on the acabbing cubject of this Appendix. threshold velocity of a particular barrier. For example, in the one-quarter The testing that has been performed and on scale S6W-IITRI tests there were two types which the present procedure is based of 6 in. barriers with reinforcement covers a certain range of striking ratios of 0.32 percent and 0.86 percent velocities, a limited range of ratios of each way in each face, respectively. In barrier thickness to missile diameter, analyzing the test data, it was found etc. The ranges of the experimental impossible to differentiate between the programs generally correspond to acabbing thresholds for the two conditions encountered in design. reinforcement levels. (However, there is However, care should be taken not to a difference in behavior at higher cxtrapolate much beyond the testing velocities and more severe levels of limits. damage.)- B-2
f SWECO 7703 The influence of concrete strength (or the (214 - lb, 8 in. diameter slugs against U absence of such influence) is not clearly 12 in. barriere) . , established since there were no systematic
- vaelations of concrete strength with a T/D = 1.5. From the slug curve of j given barrier thickness in the SSW-IITRI Fig. B.3-1, KE/Ta = 0.16 ksi. Then KE
- program. However, there are the following = 0.16 x 1728 = 276 k-in. ne i indications
- a) in static penetration predicted scabbing velocity is given i tests of concrete by solid and hollow by Va = 276 (64.4)/(0.214 x 12) = 6934, cylindrical punches, there was no apparent and V =83 fps.
correlation between penetration resistance I and concrete strength when the latter calculation II: Scabbing velocity for varied over the range of 3.0 kai Bechtel-Calspan Tests 15F and 16F of 7.4 ksi; b) in the dynamic tests on model Table B.3-1 (202 lb, 8 in. Schedule 40' I
. barriers, the 4.5 in. barriers P ipe against 12 in. barriers) .
(3.2 kai concrete) and the 6 in. barriers (3.8 ksi i - 4.2 kai concrete) showed no - consistent. T/D = 12/8.625 = 1.4; 2t/D =2x difference in the initial penetration 0.322/8.625 = 0.075. From Fig. B.3-1, resist.ance; c)' as shown in Section B.3.1, KE/T3 = 0.58 kai. Then KE = 0.58 x the predictions of the full-scale tests 1728 = 1002. The scabbing velocity is using Fig. B.3-1 (3.2 kai - 4.0 kai given by va = 1002 (64.s)/(0.202 x 12) 1 concrete) . agreed well with the measured = 26,621 and V = 163 fps.
- data of the Bechtel-Calspan testa (4.4 ksi 1 - 5.8 kai concrete) . A second full-scale test program has been -
conducted by Sandia Corporation under i For these reasons, it is considered contract with Electric Power Research undesirable to make any allowance for Institute (EPRI)(s). This. program concrete strengths greatet than those of utilised the NRC 743 lb 12 in. the S6W-IITRI tests when using Fig. B.3-1 Schedule 40 pipe missile against .. 12 in., , (3.2 kai for T/D = 1.5 and 4.0 kai for 18 in., and 24'in. reinforced concrete-(3.35 kai-4.69 kai TfD = 2.0) . On the other hand, pending. barriers concrete) . ~ experimental determination of the effect while no special attempt was made to of lower concrete strength, a conservative establish threshold scabbing velocities allowance for a lower strength can be made for these barriersi the test results are in the analysis as is discussed in Section compatible with. the predictions of B.3-2 of this Appendix. Fig. B.3-1. For example, against the s 24 in. barrier a 202 fps velocity caused B.3.1 Comparison of Fio. B.3-1 .only. cracks. The predicted scabbing Predictions with Full-scale 'tWst velocity is 269 fps. For the _18 in.' Data barrier, velocities close to 200 fps in . four shots all caused scabbing, while two ) The Bechtel-calspan program contained 17~ shots at' about 155 fps only resulted in full-scale tests in which 8 in. slugs and back face flaking (see' comment in pipes were fired at 12 in., 18 in., . Table B.}-2) . 'the predicted scabbing and 24 in. . reinforced concrete threshold velocity is -170 fps.. - For the-barriers (*). For neerly ' every missile- 12 in. barrier, an impact at 98 fps caused barrier combination, there were two .or acabbing while another at 92 fps resulted-three tests in which damage levels ranged in flaking.- The predicted scabbing from no or light scabbing to moderate or threshold velocity is 87 fps. Table B.3-2 f severe scabbing. Since this data was not Presents .the EPRI-Sandia . data' together used in preparing- Fig. B.J-1,. a good with Fig. B.3-1 predictions. indication of the full-scale reliability of that figure is 'obtained by cosparing These consistently . conservative .
, its predictions -with the Bechtel data. discrepancies' between the . predicted Table B.3-1, wttich is partially taken from scabbing threshold. velocities and those Rotzta3, permits this comparison. In observed in full-scale tests are 'to . be
- Table B.3-1 the next to the last' column expected since Fig. B.3-1 is based on the gives the scabbing velocities deduced froy . lower limits of observed data and' not on -
the Bechtel test data by' the authors of mean=~ values. - This is because Fig. B.3-1
- that. report. The last
- colunut- of is intended-as a set of design ' curves and i Table B.3-1 gives the - scabbing threshold therefore,' expected, on the average, j'- velocities predicted by Fig. B.3-1. It is,,overpredict ; damage 'and underpredict to
- can be- seen that the Fig. B.3-1 scabbing- threshold- velocity. The i predictions . a) agree. well with the remainder of. Section B.3 gives examples of l
measured data, and b) except'in one case the use of Fig. B.3-1.' . ' ~ of close agreement,-are more conservative by 6 to 17 percent than; the velocities B.3.2 Allowance for Barrier Concrete-deduced from the. test data. Strenoth Variation - i. ! -The- following calculations are typical of Figure B.3-1 is 'believedt to give those used to obtain the numbers appearing -conservative missile. -barrier, . scabbing-in the final coluna of Table B.3-1. . protection ^ for concreta strengths between 3.0 kai and 4.5 kai., However, . _ there has : Calculation -I: Scabbing velocity for not been .any' systematic: experimental-Bechtel-Calspan Tests -4F,-:3F, and 1F determination of the-influence of' barrier s B-3
SWECO 7703 concrete strength on scabbing phenomena. B.4 TORNADO MISSILE-BARRIER DESIGN Pending such a study, it is recomended B.4.1 Tbrnado-borne Pipe Missiles that, for additional conservatism, corrections be introduced for concrete The calculation procedure using the curves strengths lower than those on which of Fig. B.3-1 to determine the barrier Fig. B.3-1 is based. However, it is thickriese for a given missile and velocity recommended that no allowance for higher is as i>llows: assume a value of barrier calculate the corresponding strengths be made without experimental thickne u T, justification. The conservatism inherent ratios, T/D and 2t/D. From Fig. B.3-1, in both pipe whip and turbine missile read off the value of KE/T3, calculate the design is so great that any correction for kinetic energy (KE) , then determine the barrier strength variation is probablY missile velocity and compare it with the unwarranted. specified velocity. A sample calculaton is sumarized below. In Fig. B.3-1, the ordinates are missile For a 12 in. Schedule 40 pipe weighing kinetic energy divided by barrier 743 lbs, determine the barrier thicknesses thickness cubed (KE/T3). This has the to prevent scabbing over a range of impact dimension of stress (ksi) . The ordinate velocities assuming f. 2 4.0 kai. (Note can be made dimensionless by dividing it that this pipe is the most damaging of the by a stress that is characteristic of the NRC-specified wood and steel cylindrical scabbing phenomenon. Probably, the most tornado missiles.) The 2t/D ratio is 0.06 logical stress to use for this purpose is and the highest of the curves of the punching shear strength of the barrier Fig. B.3-1 applies. concrete which is customarily assumed to vary as the square root of its cylinder Calculation of Scabbino Threshold Veloc3,ty strength. However, a more conservative of 743 lbs 12 in. Schedule 40 Pipe for assumption is tu divide KE/T3 by the - 4.0 kai Barriers of Given Thicknesses cylinder strength fe ' itself, making the new ordinate dimensionless of the form T KE/T3 (ksi) KEkips) (in .- V V (KEff c'T3) . It is not proposed to redraw (in.) T (Fig. J B.3-1) -(f ps) (mph) Fig. B.3-1 on this basis since the change is simply a device for making a 12 0.9 .61 1,050 87 59 conservative allowance for concrete strength and, at this time, has no other 13 1.0 65 1,420 101 69 justification. Instead, the suggested allowance for smaller strengths can be 14 1.1 *66 1'800 114 78 made simply by assuming barrier thickness cubed to vary inversely with concrete 15 1.2 .67 2,250 127 87 strength relative to test program strength. 16 1.3 .67 2,760 141 96 In Fig. B.3-1, data points at T/D = 1,5 17 1.3 .68 3,350 155 106 are for Mrriers of about 3.2 ksi concrete, and those at T/D = 2 are for 18 1.4 .69 4,020 170 116 4.0 kai barriers. For example, if Fig. B.3-1 indicates that a certain 19 1.5 .70 4,770 186 127 thickness, T, is needed for T/D = 2, a corrected thickness, T', for a 3.0 ksi 20 1.6 .70 5,620 201 137 barrier would be 21 1.6 .71 6,560 218 148 T' = T (4.0/3.0) t/s = 1.1T 22 1.7 .71 7,610 234 160 On this basis, noting that fe'= 3.2 kai 24 1.9 .73 10,040 269 184 f or T/D = 1.5 on Fig. B.3-1, the following table of corrections has been developed. 27 2.1 .74 14,620 325 222 Concrete Strength Correction Factors for According to these calculations, the Thicknesses from Fiq. B . 3 -1
- NRO--specified tornado missile velocities require the following barrier thicknesses for scabbing protection against the 12 in.
T/D = 1 1.5 2 2.5 Schedule 40 pipe: Barrier fe'= 3.0 1 1.05 1.10 1. i5 V V KE(in.- T 3.2 1 1 1.10 1.15 NRC Eones (trph) (fps) kips) (in .1 3.5 1 1 1.05 1.10 24.0 1 1 1 1.05 Zone 1 105 154 3,300 17
*An alternative method of allowing for Zone 2 63 92 1,200 13 dif ferences in concrete strengths in to maintain the punching shear capacity of a B.4.2 Tornado-borne Autorx> bile barrier. The resulting multiplying factors are found to be very slightlk The engine of an automobile *. hat strikes a reinforced concrete barrier exerts a strallet than thosa presented.
B-4
SWECO 7703 concentrated loading of short duration Therefore, the equivalent impact area is (~~s which is capable of causing scabbing. The body, chassis, etc. contribute to 3.84 ft* and has a diameter of 2.21 ft. Calculate the scabbing threshold velocity structural response but not to scabbing. for barrier thicknesses from 12 in. to The engine applies its loading through 24 in. assuming f 24.0 kai. whatever is in front of it (bumper, radiator, air conditioner, timing gear The short block and the head are assumed mechanism, etc.) so that the loading is to be the only portions of the engine not instantaneous much as that of a slug. whida contribute to its longitudinal Moreover, an engine As not a solid block compressive strength and are assumed to of metal or a slug. Any transverse weigh 335 lbs. section through an engine will contain a . large proportion of voids. y = 0.11 av = 335/(1.5 x 2. x 2. x 490) The ability of a missile to cause scabbing Assuming that the compressive yield stress depends on the magnitude of the force it of the engine is 100 ksi, is capable of exerting during impact, as is illustrated by the difference between y = 0.11 x 100 kai/50 kai = 0.22 slugs and pipes, and by the difference [ Note that this corresponds to e = 11 ksi) between thick-walled and thin-walled av pipes. In the case of an engine, this For the calculation of the kinetic energy, force is determined by the dynamic the entire weight of the engine (650 lbs) crushing strength of the weakest cross is used and the results are given below. section toward the front of the engine. The weakest section is most likely to be Calculation of Scabbina Threshold Velocity one which has the smallest solidity of 650 lb Engine of 4000 lb Automobile ratio,y, and the dynamic crushing strength would equal the net area of that section for Barriers of Given Thicknesses
- multiplied by the compression yield stress, or something slightly higher.
T KE/T3 (ksi) KE (in.- V V fin.) tag} (Fiq. B.3-1) kips) (fps) (mnh) Since-solidity ratios vary from section to section, a very conservative assumption is to use the average solidity ratio, Y ID 12 0.5 .17 300 49 34 calculating the crushing strength. ave The 13 0.5 .19 410 58 40 average solidity ratio tor all cross
/g sections can be found by dividing the 14 0.5 .20 550 67 46
(' l weight of the engine by the weight of an
- ' equal volume of solid metal. Only those portions of the engine which contribute to 15 0.6 .21 720 77 53 its strength in longitudinal compression should be included in this calculation.
16 0.6 .23 940 88 60 On this basis, the average impact stress, c av, is determined for use in Fig. B.3-1 17 0.6 .24 1,190 99 68 by multiplying Yav times the compression 76 yield 18 0.7 .26 1,500 111 stress of the material of the eng ine . For use of the equation given in Fig. B.3-1, y = Yav X oomPression yield 19 0.7 .27 1,860 124 os stress /50 kai. This is because the figure is const ructed for missiles producing 20 0.8 .29 2,290 137 94 impact forces equal to 50 ksi times the cross-sectional area. 21 0.8 .30 2,780 152 103 The calculation of barrier thickness to * * * ' resist automobile engine-induced scabbing proceeds ' as tollows. The missile weight 23 0.9 .33 4,000 182 124 is that of the engine plus whatever is 24 .34 4,740 198 firmly attached to it. The diameter of 0.9 135 the equivalent cylindrical missile is
- Note that these numbers include no calculated as for the turbine missile (see allowance for the cushioning effect section B.7) . A barrier thickness is of components ahead of the engine.
dssumed and verified by use of Fig. B.3-1, in which the appropriate cutve is the one According to these calculations, the NRC-corresponding to the 'av found specified tornado missile velocities above. require the following barrier thicknesses i for scabbing protection against the j Example 4,000 lb automobile.* l Assume that the engine (and those parts . KE which are firmly attached to it) of a l
/
n)
\/
4,000 lb automobile weighs 650 lbs and has a rectangular impact area 1.5 ft by 2.0 ft NRC Zones V V (in . - T Dwahl (fps) kips) fin .) with a length of 2.0 ft. The Zone 1(wall) 132 194 4,540 24 circumscribed circle has -a diameter of 2.50 ft and an area of 4.91 fta. Zone 2 (wall) 116 171 3,500 23 B-5
SWECO 7703 Zone 1(roof) 93 136 2,250 20 pipe velocity. In the latter case the maximum energy per length is three times Zone 2 (roof) 82 120 1,750 19 the average. The energy per unit length is a necessary input to the design o See note under previous table. process. On the other hand, the impacting pipe may In tests at Sandia Laboratories (*), a 1968 contain a "hard mass" such as an elbow, Ford Falcon (3,330 lbs) was impacted into tee, or valve. It is then necessary to a 16 in. thick concrete wall at a velocity treat this "hard mass" as a separate of 52 mph. It was observed that although missile to be designed for, since the the car crushed 26 in., the barrier attached piping, being lighter and experienced no cracking on either front or structurally weaker, may possibly be less rear face, which would indicate that a damaging. As before, the total kinetic shear plug was not formed. energy of the system is obtained from tha In connection with this test, the work of the jet force up to impact. Fro'c following calculation can be made. Assume the distribution of mass and velocity that the engine weighs 400 lbs and has throughout thO system, the energy of the dimensions of 1 ft x 2 ft x 2 ft, enr1 that "hard mass" is fcund. the short block and the head weigh 275 lbs. The two different situations that have been described, namely, "hard massa and y,y = 275/(1 x 2 x 2 x 490) = 0.14 uniform pipe impact, require sanewhat Y = Y av x 100 kai/50 ksi = 0.28 different treatments. The "hard mass" is D = 1.89 ft (see Section B.4-2) handled as a missile in the pipe-slug category, the analysis being directly Criculate the scabbing threshold velocity based on Fig. D.3-1, as follows: for the 16 in. barrier. From Fig. B.3-1 T/D = 0.71, KE/T3 = 0.217, KE = 888 in.- For certain "hard masses," such as pipe kips and V = 109 fps = 74 mph, elbows, the crushing behavior has been determined in the forzc of relations among The above calculation is believed to give the following parameters: crushing force, a conservative estimate of the scabbing crushing distance, flattened contact area, threshold velocity. However, due to the and energy absorbed as function of paucity of the data, it is recontuended distance crushed.(83 In general, the that conservative estimates of scabhine force-deflection curve is concave upward threshold velocity be used until further and approaches a vertical asymptote at the ttsts have been made. point of complete flattening, so that only a certain amount of energy can he absorbed B.5 PIPE WHIP up to that condition. No dynamic tests involving pipe whip have In case the kinetic energy of the "hard been made. In the absence of such mass" is less than that for complete information, one must make judicious use flattening, the crushing distance of available related data. Such data corresponds to the point where the includes: available energy is absorbed in crushing the "hard mass." '1his condition
- 1. Missile barrier test data from determines the final crushing force and the S&W-IITRI and other programs; the area of the contact surface between missile and barrier. The force divided by
- 2. Static test data on the pipe the area yields an average contact components involved in pipe pressure, c ay , and the essentially whipt 83 elliptical contact surface can be transformed into an equivalent circle of The mechanics of pipe whip are assumed to the same drea, giving an equivalent b2 as follows: In a high pressure line a diameter D. Fig. B.3-1 can then be used brcak occurs, either transverse or in the for barrier design since the kinetic form of a longitudinal split. The jet energy (KE) , the average contact pressure force of the escaping fluid accelerates (o ), and the equivalent diameter of th2 pipe against a barrier intended to th,ey missile -(D) are known. A barrier protect against such an event. The thickness (T) is assumed, giving T/D. At irpacting pipe,may be a simple run of this T/D and for the curve for the piping which will flatten either partially calculated c av (or an interpolated or completely if it has sufficient energy. curve), the ordinate KE/Ta is read from In cavnplete flattening it ends up as the figure. Using the assumed T, the c entially a long solid slug of thickness allowable kinetic energy is calculated and twice that of the pipe wall and width compared with that which is available.
approximately half the circumference. The The cycle would be repeated as necessary. tork done by the fluid jet up to impact 'on the barrier becomes the kinetic energy of If the available energy exceeds that for the pipe which may be uniformly complete flattening, the following di;tributcd along its length, or in case procedure is used. Let KE be the energy of rotation about a support, the energy absorbed by the "hard mass" at complete will be distributed as the square of the flattening, and KE the balance of the B-6
SWECO 7703 available energy. The crushing force would give rise to a long, narrow shear F and the contact area (A). for wedge instead of cone, botn the side area complete flattening are known. Then F' /A and the volume of the plug in relation to k =oy and the area A determines an the impact contact area, are materially equivalent contact diameter (D). 'Mie smaller than is the case for the circular energy KE is assumed to act on the shear plug. Consequently, for a given barrier as though applied by a missile of contact pressure between missile and contact pressure C av, while the energy barrier, less kinetic energy is required KE, is assumed to act as though applied by to reach the scabbing threshold for strip 4 a solid slug (o = 50 kai). The design loading than for loading on a circle. process is as fo ows : This reduction in required kinetic energy can be allowed for by introducing an
- 1. Assume a barrier thickness (T) adjusting factor for reducing the ordinates of Fig. B.3-1 for use with strip
- 2. At the corresponding T/D in loading.
Fig. B.3-1, read two ordinates, y, and ya, the first for the The assumption is made that the correcting j calculated cav and the second factor for kinetic energy is of the same for tha slug curve (o av = 5 0) . order as both the ratio of shear plug surface areas and that of shear plug 4
- 3. Calculate the quantities KE /Ts voltanes of linear and of circular plugs and KE /T3, using the assumed having the same ispact areas. For 45 deq value of T. shear plug side slopes the two ratios, comparing the truncated cone to the
- 4. If KE /T' KE /T' truncated wedge, are, respectively, 6 Y
+ '
~<1 (side area) and 3.4 (volume) for T/D = 2.
Y, Since for the severe impacts of pipe whip loading the volume effect is probably the the assumed T is adequate. The more significant (see above), an energy cycle may be repeated with adjustment ratio of 5 is considered improved assumptions for T for conservative. This factor divides the adequacy or for economy, as the ordinates of Fig. B.3-1 when strip loading case may be. by a length of pipe is considered. Additional geometric cxprrection factors Impactino Length of Pipe are required in going from circle to strip and from total kinetic energy to energy The ttriking kinetic energy per unit per unit length of strip. The final length of pipe is known. If not uniformly result, including the adjustment factor of 4 distributed, the maximum is used. Since 5, is I the impact area is a long, narrow band KE, = W5w) (T8 /My instead of a circle, Fig. B.3-1 cannot be used directly, as was done for the "hard In this expression, keg = allowable energy per inch of pipe, T = barrier thickness mass" impact. (in.) , D = width of strip (in.) , and y = Scabbing depends on two distinct internal mechanisms within a barrier. Firs t, a With the adjustments just described, the shear plug must be formed, and then the design process is basically similar to shear plug must acquire a- certain amount that outlined for the "hard mass." Force-of motion. Shear plug formation occurs flattening relations for pipe ' exist m when the contact force during impact which allow determination of absorbed exceeds for- some required time the energy and contact width for deflections resistance to shearing failure on the up to. complete flattening. If the sides of the plug. This mechanism is available energy is less than -the maximum therefore related to the side area of the. that can be absorbed ir pipe flattening plug. . On the other hand, the initial then the maximum force per unit length and movement of the plug is resisted by its the final contact width (D) are known. The mass, proportional to its voltane. - Rus, - final average- contact pressure -is the the resistance to acabbing under missile ratio of those quantities. impact depends on both the side area and ! the volume of the formed shear plug. Me l relative importance of the two resisting Fig. B.3-1 is used as follows: A barrier mechanisms probably depends on the thickness T is assumed and T/D calculated. intensity of the . loading, the inettia This T/D and the contact pressure (cav ) l' (volume related) effect being- the . define an ordinate on the figure. Using controlling one for severe loads of short the' correcting multiplier- (4T8/5sD) - duration, since the shearing mechanism developed earlier, one finds the alloumble (area related) is probably the more kinetic energy per unit length of. pipe and . important- for smaller loads of longer compares it with that available. duration.' On the other hand, if the available j These same mechanisms are present, of kinetic energy per unit length exceeds the d course, in the scabbing due - to ispact maximum that can. be absorbed in applied over 'a narrow contact strip. flattening, this maximum absorbable energy However, in the case .of a , strip which 'is designated keg and the balance is KE2
- B-7 i
SWECO 7703 The force F and the contact width at B.7 TURBINE MISSILES complete flattening are known, and from them c av = F /D is found. A barrier Turbine missiles are characterized by thickness T is assumed and T/D calculated. irregular shape, uncertain orientation at impact, high impact velocity, large mass, Then, in Fig . B . 3-- 1, two ordinates are d ;termined, yi for the calculated T/D and The shapes are typically sectors of for cav, and Y, for the same T/D and for turbine rotors with linear dimensions from ugs. The assumed thickness is adequate one to five feet, and projected areas of 1.5 fta to 5 ft* (depending on orientation) . Weights range from 4 kips KE KE, to 8 kips, and , impact velocities from 4T8
+
uT' 11 300 fps to 600 fps. Kinetic energies are 5,000 ft-kips to g yy in the range of Sn D 3 {5w D)Y a 45,000 ft-kips. (For comparison, the kinetic energy of the NRC 12 in. B.6 AIRCRAFT ENGIh5 IMPACT Schedule 40 pipe at 210 fps is only 1,000 ft-kips.) The engine is assumed to weigh 1.5 kips Fig. B.3--I shows that and to atrike at 150 fps. Assume for Examination of illustration that it can be represented as within the range of parameters given, the c) a solid steel slug 2 ft in diameter, greater the area of missile contact with b) a solid steel slug 3 ft in diameter, or the barrier the less kinetic energy is c) a 3 ft circular cylinder of average needed to initiate scabbing. For this crushing strength 10 kai over the entire reason, the assumed impact orientation of cross section. (This implies an engine a complex missile should be the one cross section that is roughly 20 percent offering the greatest contact area. (This rolid assuming a compressive yield stress orientation produces the largest possible of 50 ksi.) It is important to note that contact force with the shortest possible the above models of the aircraft engine duration, a condition for maximum scabbing tre chosen for the purpoce of potential.) If scabbing, under the worst demonstrating the design method and do not orientation, is prevented, no other necessarily represent a real engine. orientation of the missile is expected to result in perforation.
- 1. D = 2 ft. Kinetic energy = 1.5 x .
1502 x 12/b4.4 = 6,2R9 in.- The missile is modeled as an equivalent kips. Assume a barrier thickness solid cylinder having the same weight, of 3 ft. Then T/D = 1.5. From vel city, and kinetic energy as the the slug curve of Fjo. B.3-1, the missile. This equivalent cylinder has a allowable value of KE/T3 = 0.16 circular contact area which is the ksi. Then, KE 0.16 x 363 = geometric mean of the actual contact area 7,408 in.-kips."11 =ince S this and the area of the circle circumscribed exceeds the kinetic energy about the actual contact area. (The available, the thickness is geometric mean is the square root of the adequate. product of the two areas.)
- 2. D = 3 ft. Kinetic energy = The above information (the kinetic energy 6,289 in.-kips. Assume a barrier and the effective diameter of the equivalent cylindrical slug) is used with thickness of T = 3 ft. Then T/D = Fig. B.3-1 to find the barrier thickness
- 1. From the slug curve of Fig. B.3-1, KE/T3 = 0.12. Then, required to prevent scabbing. In this case, especially, a check should be made KEall = 0.12 x 363 = inadequate. 5,692 in.-
to determine if and to what extent the kips. This is Assume T = 37 in.7 rom the slug limitations of applicability of that curve of Fig. B.3-1, KE/T3 = 0.13 figure are exceeded. (It is recognized hai. Then, KEall = 0.13 x 37a = that the possible 600 fps velocity of a 6,291 in.-kips. This is turbine missile is itself a violation of acceptable. the limits.)
- 3. D = 3 f t. The average crushing stress c "" = 10 kai. Kinetic Example - Turbine Missile Barrier Design energy = 6,289 in.-kips.
Figure B.3-1 contains eight Missile: Westinghouse 44 in. 90 degree curves corresponding to different segment, weighing 4.25 kips, having a average missile contact stresses. velocity of 600 fps. The maximum For 10 ksi, interpolate between projected area is approximately a 9.5 and 12 ksi. Assume a barrier rectangle 2 f t x 2.4 f t and has an area of thickness of 2.5 ft (T/D = 0.83) . 4.7 fta. The circumscribed circle has a From Fig. 9.3-1, a value of KE/Ts diameter of 3.1 ft and an area 7.7 fta,
= 0.34 is calculated. Then Therefore, the equivalent solid slug has a KEall = 0.34 x 303 = 9,257 in.- contact area which is the geometric mean kips. This is adequate for the between 7.7 fta and 4.7 fta, or a contact assumed loading condition. area 6.0 fta with a diameter 2.8 ft.
B-8
SWECO 7703 - The kinetic energy of the missile is 4.25 excess.) In two-thirds of the O (600) a 12/64.4 = 285,100 in.-kips. In SWEC-IITRI cases, the ratio of . Fig. B.3-1, assume KE/Ta = 0.2 (an average the momentum of the heaviest ordinate of the slug curve) . Then scabbing fragment to the momentum excess was between 0.004 and T3 = 285,000/0.2 = 1,425,000 in.a and 0.007. The largest ratio T = 113 in, observed was 0.011. T = 9.4 ft
- 4. There is very little data about Check: T/D =
9.4/2.8 = 3.4. In the missile perforation. However, figure, the lowest curve extrapolated to all the perforations that this point will have an ordinate somewhat occurred in the SWEC-IITRI tests ' above 0 .2 . However, for conserva tism, were at velocities approximately this small correction is not considered twice the scahbing threshold and the value already calculated will be velocity. Moreover, there was kept. one case of no perforation at a velocity of 1.5 times the , y) $ B.8 SECONDARY CONCRETE MISSILES scabbing threshold velocity. Q_'? .. Therefore, it is recommended that B.8.1 Secondary Missiles at Impacts above until more information is , dT the Scabbing Threshold obtained, the perforation ^f velocity should be conservatively ; 3.f.m 's Eighteen to twenty of the SWEC-IITRI tests taken as 1.5 times the scabbing 4g in which the scabbing threshold was threshold velocity for 1.0 5 T/D .. g. definitely exceeded have been examined in 53.0. . _ f.d order to draw some conclusions about barrier perforation by the missile and This information will be useful in y'4.f about the characteristics of the secondary situations where a level of damage more 3 missiles (e.g., acabbing fragments severe than that of scabbing thereshold may be allowed in the design of a barrier. y
.f' produced). In spite of considerable g.
apparent scatter among the data, the (For example, when a second barrier is . following conclusions are suggested. located behind the main barrier or any equipment behind the main barrier either
% mi
- 1. There is a correlation between has a significant level of resistance to %
the weight of the impa cting scabbing particles or is located far i P." missile and the weights of the enough away.) - lC ' heaviest scabbing fragments % produced by it. In more than Example - Secondary Missile ,4\ half the cases examined, the cha acteristics - ratio of the weight of the m heaviest fragment to the weight An aircraft engine weighing 1.5 kips, { J of the missile was between 0.007 three feet in diameter, having a velocity and 0.009. In three quarters of of 150 fps, strikes a 30 in. reinforced the cases, the ratio - as between concrete barrier. Behind the barrier is a 0.004 and 0.009, and the maximum 1.5 in. steel radiation containment shell. observed ratio was 0.011. In this illustration, the engine is Reference to Table B.8-1 shows assumed, very conservatively, as discussed ; some correlation between missile in Section B.4-2, to be equivalent to a i weight and the total weight of solid slug. i l scabbed material. l The missile has a kinetic energy of t
- 2. There is a correlation between 6,289 in.-kips. The ratio, T/D, equals the maximum fragment velocity and 0.83, and from the slug curve of the " velocity excess" of the , Fig. B.3-1 the scabbing threshold value of ;
striking missile. (The velocity KE/T3 = 0.10. men, at the scabbing l i excess is the difference between threshold, the striking velocity armi the . scabbing threshold velocity.) In KEall = 0.10 (30)3 = 2,745 in.-kips 70 percent of the cases, the ratio of the fragment velocity to This is considerably under the available the velocity excess was between kinetic energy. The scabbing threshold 0.4 and 0.7. Examination of 8 of velocity is calculated: . the Bechtel-Calspan tests with 8 in. pipes and slugs shows that 2745 = 1.5 (12) Va/64.4 in half of them the ratio was with the result, V = 99.1 fps also between 0.4 and 0.7. , The velocity excess is 50.9 fps.
- 3. There is a correlation between the momentum of the heaviest From the previous discussion of scabbing scabbing fragment and the fragments and perforation, the following
= momentum excess = of the striking estimates can be made:
missile. (The momentum ex as is the product of the mass of the 1. The heaviest fragment of barrier striking missile and the velocity concrete probably weighs betweea B-9
SWECO 7703 6 lbs and 14 lbs, and possibly as The design process consists of the I much as 15 lbs-20 lbs. following steps:
- 2. Fragment velocities probably lie 1. Prediction of the amount and within the range of 20 fps - areal distribution of the kinetic 36 fps. energy leaving the rear face of the barrier; this is a function
- 3. The maximum momentum of of barrier and missile parameters individual fragments is probably and of the difference between the in the range of 0.01 k-see to impact velocity and the scabbing 0.02 k-sec, with a possible threshold velocity.
maximum of 0.03 k-sec.
- 2. Prediction of the amount and
- 4. Perforation of the 30 in. pattern of the resulting reinforced concrete barrier by deformation produced in the the aircraft engine is a plate, including the maximum possibility. The solution to Plastic strain. This this problem requires a moderate determination is very dependent thickening of the outer barrier n the following parameter.
or determination that possible secondary missiles, including the 3. Determination of the ratio of the engine, are acceptabic. anchor resistance (size and spacing of anchors) to the yield B.8.2 Scab Plates strength of the plate.
- 4. Comparison oi the maximt a strain Sc:b plates have long been used in produced in the plate s ith the military structures to protect personnel maximum allowable strain.
And equipment against flying pieces of concrete set in motion by projectile B.8.3 Back-Face Phenomena - Analysis of impact on the outside surface. Their design has been by rule of thumb, based on Test Data experience. In nuclear protective The following information is sought: structures, scab plates may also play a role, for example when it becomes necessary to upgrade existing
- 1. The energy or momentum leaving construction. A rational approach to the the rear face of a barrier (or the weight and velocity of daign of scab plates has been developed and is presented in the following scabbed material) as a function paragraphs. First, consider the physical of impact conditions beyond the basis of the proposed design method. acabbing threshold.
- 2. The areal distribution of this A missile striking a reinforced ccmcrete energy, momentum, or scabbed barrier at a velocity above the scabbing material.
threshold velocity causes separat_ ion of pieces of rear-face concrete. With Ten of the 56W-IITRI quarter-scale tests increasing severity of impact the weight, can be used for this analysis. They are velocity, momentum, and kinetic energy of reported in Table B.8-1, which also th$ scabbed material all increase. At the summarizes the analysis. The data are perforation threshold, the missile itself arranged in order of the ratio of the can pass through the barrier, either going impact velocity to the scabbing threshold between the reinforcing mesh or rupturing velocity (V/V ) e . Columns 21, 22, 23 and enough rebars to make way for itself. The 24 present the information required for role of the scab plate is to stop these scab plate Cesign, namely, the traction of secondary missiles and, it necessary, the the impact kinetic energy present in the attacking missile as well. The scab plate acabbed concrete, the fraction in the l is attached to the barrier by means of a missile (if it perforates), and the size l pattern of anchors to which it is normally of the region where all this energy is welded. In the following development it concentrated. Getting that information is assumed that the strength of the requires knowledge of scabbing weights and enchors, or the connection to ther, is velocities and missile exit velocity. lu s than the strength of the plate, so Itese data can only be roughly estimated that the plate can lift away from the from observations taken during the barrier over a certain region surrounding S&W-IITRI test program. However, in order the irpact location. This has the to verify and improve the accuracy of that (dvIntage of causing the energy that has' data, advantage was taken of the fact that to be absorbed to be distributed over a the momentum leaving the face can be cignificant area of plate beyond the determined in two ways: (1) by rctual loaded area. The anchor resistance consideration of scabbing weights and is a critical parameter of the system. If velocities and missile exit velocity, as too large, the effect is to concentrate mentioned above, and (2) frcm the the energy absorption within a small plate difference between the missile impect crr, with more likelihood of failure of momentum and the impulse recorded at the the plate. barrier support. Columns 9 and 17 of B-10
b SWECO 7703 Table B.8-1 show the two set's of results. velocit.ies above the acabbing It must be mentioned that the close threshold. Pbr missile
, agreement in most of the cases involving velocities near the acabbing barrier perforation is not proof of thresholc' , as mentioned in exactness, but rather is the result of Section A.).7, Appendix A, the I adjustments made in the scabbing weights reinforcement ratio is not and velocities. The justification for significant. Comparison of lines making these adjustments is to improve the M16 and M17 in Table D.8-1 shows calculation of back-face kinetic energies that heavy reinforcement (0.86 as much as possible. When perforation did percant) reduces all scabbing not occur, the scabbing particle mcseentum measurements, especially weight was so maall that it could not be measured of material, momentum, and by means of the support impulse, kinetic energy, in comparison to light reinforcement (0.32 Any conclusions drawn from Table B.8-1 are percent). The overall ' reduction subject to several restrictions that are in kinetic energy is about 25 due to the limited range of parameters of percent. It should be emphasized the test program: that the majority of the tests analyzed were on barriers with
- 1. Barrier thickness / missile diam- 0.44 percent reinforcement so eter ratio (T/D) 1.0 < T/D < 3.0 that these conclusions are expected to be conservative when
- 2. Missile velocity not more than applied to the standard S&W 2.5 times the acabbing threshold tornado barrier with approximately twice as much
- 3. Barrier reinforcement between 0.3 steel.
. and 1.0 percent each way in each ! . face B.8.4 , Pecomendations - Back-Face Kinetic j Enercry
- 4. Concrete strength between 3.0 and 4.5 ksi. The following is recommended for reinforced concrete barriers wi *.h with these restrictions, the following reinforcemant ratios greater than' O.5 conclusions can be drawn: percent each way in each face:
- 1. The perforation threshold VMe = 1.0-1.5 1.5-2.0- 2.0-2.5 velocity is approximately twice the scabbing threshold velocity for pipe missiles (Line M6 in Q = 0.025 (0.45VW C - 0.65) 0.23 Table B.8-1) . B = D+1.5T D+0.7T. D
- 2. Below the perforation threshold, Here V and V are actual and scabbing the back-face kinetic energy is velocities, KE c "# ~ "#* * *#
only one to two percent of the energy, and KE R impact energy. 7 striking energy.
. Note: For.reinforcemant r&tios between 0.3
- 3. Above the perforation threshold, and 0.5 percent,-~ increase KE the weight of scabbed material percent. R increases by a factor of two or more and there is a much greater B.8.5 Scab Plate Deflection increase in the kinetic energy.
i The scab plate is assumed to be pushed' When perforation occurs, exiting. away from the barrier to which it is missile kinetic energy and the anchored by a force consisting of a more scab material energy can be of or less uniform pressure applied over a the same order of magnitude, each circular area of diameter B. 'The effect on the order of ten percent of is to separate the plate from the barrier the missile impact energy. over a somewhat larger circular area,. within which the plate anchors- have
- 4. Without- perforation, the scab -failed. Restraint -is provided, by. the material comes from a circle of innermost line of unbroken anchors. Se diameter B, between two and three deformed plate is stretched plastically.
times the barrier- thickness," he energy absorbed in plastic deformation (basically the rebar cover) and of the plate is equal to the work done by with a fairly' uniform velocity.' the uplifting force. If it- is assumed , with perforation, the damaging that this static -configuration is kinetic energy comes from the approximately the same as that produced by - core of the shear plug within-a 1the back-face kinetic- energy, then that w circle of diameter 1.2 to 1.5 the Jenergy can~ be ' equated to .the- absorbed , barrier thickness. static plastic work. 4
- 5. -The reinforcement ratio has a Fig. B.8-1 shows 'a cross section of
- very significant influence on deformed plate. The total. lifting force back-face phenomena -for missile .is P., h e, stress in the radial direction B-11 t .
b o d . -
%q..,
,-- ,. ,R . m_.,c - . > . - _ , , ,. , , e **
SWECO 7703 is the plate yield stress, #y . Taking any Then the energy absorbed in plastic horizontal cross section of the deformed deformation is plate and summing vertical forcea gives the relation E=2 mat /crdr=watc dr y y P = 2n r o t sin $. or no t e r we t c Y y g E= in 2 c*8 Buttan$=-[=-v'. Then 2 l" g -1 2 k P = -2w o trv'/(1 + v' 8) ~ (B.8-1) c' Letting c = P/2n o t (B.8-2) plastic deformation within the region the previous equation becomes inside the radius, a. If that circular 2 % area of radius, a, is bulged into a
- y. = - c/(r* - c 3 spherical segment of a dome having the same base radius, it can be shown that the and v/c = cosh , b/c - cash , r/c (B.8-3) absorbed energy is of the order "otc2 . For the conditions envisaged The parameter c has the dimension of her[, this energy is small compared to length and it corresponds physically to that given in Eq. B.8-7 and is ignored.
that radius at which the clope of the equilibrium surface of the deformed plate, The maximum strain is found at radius a continued inward, would become with the help of Eq. B.8-6. It is if vertical. Therefore c must always be less than a. 1 em = 8-8) The distance b, where liftoff ceases, is 2 (*2-) 2
-1 determined by the ratio of anchor strength c to the yield strength of the plate. Let the strength of each anchor connection be This maximum resulting strain must not Q and the average spacing of anchors exceed the specified allowable strain, a cround the b-circle be s. (Note: if a is function of the plate material and also of small compared to b then it is the strains in the two other principal approximately equal to 1.18 times the directions - circumferential and thickness rectangular spacing of anchors.) From directions. Note that in plastic Fig. P.8-1, Q = o yt s. sin $ def rmation there is essentially b conservation of vnlume so that the sum of the three principal strains equals zero.
where tan $b "-Vb
- I / 0
- The design strain limit for acab plates is From equilibrium 0.5 of the ultimate uniform strain of the scab plate material. This limit is analagous to the limit of pipe whip E.- = 1 + g2 restraints acting in tension as specified (ost)2 O (B.8-4) in NUREG-75/087 Section 3.6.2( 0 symmetric biaxial tensile loading with two Pbr principal stresses equal, as occurs in a Then the liftoff boundary rad [us, b, is spherical shell under uniform pressure, found by substituting 8= from the perpendicular strains in the plane of Eq. B.8-4 into B.8-2 with V3 the surface are equal but their value at l the onset of instability is approximately
# ts one-half the ultimate load strain in b y E " /1+B' " g (B .8-5) simple tension. For this reason, the permissive value of E m from Eq. B.8-8 should not exceed one half the strain at h n Eq. B.8-3 becomes ultimate stress in simple tension.
~ -
(B.8-3') B.8.6 Recommended Design Procedure f = cosh
- Q - cosh 'r/c
- 1. Determine the back-face kinetic The approximate energy absorbed in plastic energy and its areal deformation can be found by assuming that distribution. For barriers with all points on the scab plate displace reinforcement ratios greater than vertically, with zero radial displacement. 0.5 percent each way in each The only strain in the plane of the plate face, use:
is in the radial direction and equals c = Q~i[ _j which is approximately V/Vc = 1.0-1.5 1.5-2.0 2.0-2.5 (0.45V/V 0.25 KE:R/EE 7 = 0.025 e - 0.65) c =vta/2 " gg (B.8-6) B = D+1.5F U D+0.7T B-12
SWECO 7703-(For barrier reinforcement ratios Next try an alternative arrangement. Let O 2. between 0.3 and 0.5 increase E by 10 percent.) For the interior region of the t = 0.155 in, and a = approx)aately, b = 28.25 in. and Q = 11 kips 12 in. Sen , barrier, design the scab plate and its anchors by the following The exact formulas give for the last process. The quantities e y , Em, assumptions and a = B/2 are known. Assume reasonable values of plate b = 28.5 in. and Q = 10.2 kips thickness, t, and anchor spacing
- s. Find b, the limiting radius It is important to observe that this of plate liftoff by combining calculated value of Q is an uppe.r limit.
Eqs. B.8-5 and B.8-7, e.g. Increasing it will result in plate strains above the allowable 0.035, and vice versa. For example, if Q is reduced to 8 kips E (1+2c,) while e, t,E, and y o are unchanged, there (2 c, + ey taac m, ) a j
= (B.84 phs
() 1+2c m The required anchor strength, Q, is found from a combination of Eqs. B.8-4 P .1 (Note that Q is bond strength, tensile B.8-8, e.g. strength, or plate connection strength, whichever is least.) oy tsa jF, . Q= (B.R-10) (b) 12-in. Barrier. Ve = 87 fps and V/Ve = b 2.43. Perforation is expected. Then the
/1+2c m back-face kinetic energy E = 1550 in-kips and B = 12.75 in., so that a = 6.375 in.
The process can be repeated with different Plate material characteristics are the assumed values of t and a until a same as before. satisfactory and economical result is reached. For a preliminary design, the above equations can be approximated by Assume t = 2 in. and a = 18 in. From the approximate expressions E b 2x oyt a2cm b = 55.7 in. and Q = 43.6 kips
-=c (B.8-11)
Next try +. = 1.5 in. and a = 18 in. Then,
~
approximately, o tsa U" b (B.84 2) b = 115 in. and Q = 15.9 kips
- 3. Near a barrier boundary,,to allow By the exact equations, the last asstanp-for the reduced area of plate tions give available for absorb 3ag energy, the back-face kinetic energy is b = 135.8 in. and Q = 13.4 kips doubled (i .e . , two E) in calculating thickness, anchor B.9 CONCLUSI0tes design, and uplift radius, b'.
For interior (>b' from boundary) e Procedures .are presented for missile use E to d* sign anchors and barrier design for scabbing protection. calculate b. Fig. B.3-1 is based on the results of the S6W-IITRI test program. Consequently, the Example: Given a 743-1b 12-in. Schedule 40 accuracy and economy is greater for 1 pipe ' at 211 fps. with 6,200 in-kips missiles similar to those tested than for energy. Design scab plates for interiors missiles with significantly different characteristics. Design for tornado-borne pipe missiles is dependable 'and 4' of (a) 18-in. and (b) 12-in. barriers, economical. Both pipe whip design and assuming impact to occur away from a turbine missile design involve certain barrier boundary. assumptions which- increase the.. (a) 18-in. Barrier. Ve = 170 fps and V/Vc conservatism and consequently reduce the-economy of the resulting designs.
= 1.24. Therefore, the back-face kinetic energy F = 0.025 (6200) = 155 in-kips and B = 12 + 1.5 (18) = 39 in., so that' a = mis method, using Fig. B.3-1 to design i 19.5 in. Let the barriers to prevent scabbing, is an (
o = 40 kai and c"**plata characteristics be improvement over' the existing methods (ss. 0.035. i Y because it takes into consideration pipe Assune t. = 0.25 in. and a = 12 in. Then wall thickness and the average pressure from the approximate expressions (11) and between missile and. barrier which have (12) been shown to have a significant role in the ability of the missile to.. produce b = 23.5 in. and.9 = 26.4 kips. scabbing. B-13
, w,
SWECO 7703 0.10 REFERENCES Facilities, Vol. 1A, New Orleans , 1975. (8) Peech, J.M., Roemer, R.E., Pirotin, S.D., East, G . l! . , Goldstein, N.A., ta) Stephenson, A.E., " Full-Scale Tornado-alocal Crush Rigidity of Pipes and Missile Ittpact Tests", November 19, Elbows", Transactions of t.he 4th 1976. International Cbnference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, San s*3 Stephenson, A.E., "M rnado Francisco, California, 15-19 August Vulnerability Nuclear Production 1977. Facilities", April, 1975. (53 NUREG-75/087, Section 3.6.2 tal Rotz, J.V. "Results of Missile Irrpact " Determination of Break Locations and Tests on Reinforced Concrete Panels", Dynamic Effects Associated with the Second ASCE Speciality Conference on Postulated Rupture of Piping." U.S . Structural Design of Nuclear Plant Nuclear Regulatory Coinr.ission. O O D-14
(
%) .
TABLE B.3-1 COMPARISON OF BEOTTELMSPAN DATA WITTY FIG. 5.3-1 PT:CDICTIONS
- 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Scaccing Velocities Derived Scabbing Velo-l i . barrier Missile from Bechtel cities Predie-Test Missile Missile Wt Mickness velocity Spall Test Data ted f rca Fig. B.3-1 No. Type fibst fin.1 ffest be:hace ffps) (fos]
'4F. Slug 214 12 122 Moderate 3F . Slug 214 12 214 Severe (hole) 100 83 . 1F Slug 213 12 340 SeverelFerf.)
17F Slug 213 18 161 None l 18F Slug 213 18 207 incipient 200 174 2F Slug 213 18 337 Severe 11F Slug 213 24 295 tene 12F slug 215 24 377 Light 350 288 15F Pipe 202 12 135 None 180 159 16F Pipe 202 12 209 Light l. SF Pipe 205 18 210 None 320 302 6F Pipe 209 18 319 Incipient 7F Pipe 209 24 370 None 470 477 SF Pipe 208 24 470 Incipient 9F Pipe 210 24 475 Incipient 19F Pipe 132 18 370 None 400 379 20F Pipe 132 18 455 floderate coliaans 1 through 6 frosi Table 2 of Ref. 2. Column 7 from Ref. 2. i 1 of 1 L - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
TABLE B.3-2 O COMPARISON OF EPRI-SANDIA DATA WITH FIGURE B.3-1 PREDICPIONS DAMAGE TO REINFORCED CONCRETE BARRIERS DUE TO 743 LB 12 IN. SCHEDULE 40 PIPE Predicted Scabbing Threshold Barrier Concrete Velocity Thickness Strength Velocity (Fig . B.3-1) Tiin.) fc 8 (ksi) V(fps) Damage V (fps) 24 3.8 202 Cracks 269 18 3.4 202 Scabbing 170 18 3.6 198 Scabbing 170 18 4.5 203 Scabbing 170 18 4.7 213 Scabbing 17 0 18 4.3 157 Flaking
- 170 18 4.2 152 Flaking
- 170
() 18 4.3 143 Cracks 17 0 12 3.7 143 Perforation 87 12 3.6 98 Scabbing 87 12 3.4 92 Flaking
- 87
- Note that the term ' flaking
- is used to indicate extensive back-face cracking with small particles of cement falling off with no velocity. This level of damage occurs after shear plug formation but before the scabbing threshold has been reached.
1 of 1
. _ . . - . . _ . . . _ . _ _ - . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - . _ _ ._. _ m _
- O 1 \)
. (O TAPLE B.6-1 EAS FACE PEIX3G:rA 1 2 :3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 u 12 13 lb 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1.ine Test T W V e YNe a fMt 7-8 A eow Weov We 5 *13 Yse Ya Man E se KE, ng f y-P7' 28 4.5 P 13.5 195 150 1.3 81.8 79 0 - 120 5.2 52 o 5.2 50 0 8.1 202 o 7, 771 .025 o 2.7 2.0
- P29 - 18 6L S 23 5 128 95 1.35 93.4 101.0 -
130 6.0 6.0 0 6A 15 o 2.8 21 o 5,F79 .00t* O 2.2 1.7 N5' 4 4.5 P 12.35 216 150 1.kk 82.8 82.6 - 120 5.2 52 o 52 30 0 k.8 73 o 8,947 .008 o 2.7 2.0
. P2C lb LL 8 12.7 205 135 1.5 80.8. 110.0 -
135 6.0 6.0 0 6.o 25 0 4.7 58 o 8.268 .007 0 2.2 1.7
.C6- 29 4.5 P ' 12.0 .296 150 2.0 - HO.3 61.o k9 0 340 15 0 50 95 1k.5 100 10 A8.8 2,251 19 16,325 .1k .001 1.5 .83 M16 31' 6L P. 28.2 329 160 2.6 288.0 96 0 190.0 500 21.7 7.2 20.0 27.2 110 no 199 0 5.no 5,296 47,397 .11 .11 1.5 1.0
. P9 12 k.5 P 12.5 317- 150 2.1 123 1 67.5 55.6 300 13 0 4. 3 9o 13 3 110 40 61 0 2,k99 311 19,505 .13 .02 1.4 .73 M17 27 (H P 29.25 340 160 2.1 298.3 1k3 0 155.0 410 17.8 59 14.0 19 9 105 105 157.o 3.407 4,836 50,710 .07 .10 1.t .7
" M7 13 4.5 P 12.6 329 150 2.2 n8.5 37 5 81.0 270 12 0 h.0 94 13.4 100 100 W.0 2,081 1,301 19,471 .11 .o9 1.45 .s
! P10 10 h.5 P 12 35 403 ?50 2.7 154.6 105 0 50.0 300 13 0 4.3 90 13.3 105 o 43.'e 2,277 o 31,145 07 o 1.4 .73 Estes: In yirst Colan, P = primary shot at barrier, M = second er third shot at barrier. Line and test no. 5 refer to Tables A.3 3-1, A.3 3-2, 3 5-1 3.5-2 in Appsodix A
. l cel. 3 2' ' marrier thickness T, and for 6 in. whether light (L = 0 32 percent) 13: Weight of shear plus material actually lost d' ring impact, Ib !
Lor heavy (H = 0.86 percent) reinforcasent. 4.5 in. have o.Lk percent. 14: Total effective weight of scabbed material,11 2: : P . standard 3 in. pipe with 0.122 in. wall; s = 3 in, slug 15: >=ri== velocity of scabbed am*.erials as deduce ( viza maxima distance thrown, fps 3: Missue weight, it - 16: Missue exit veloetty as deduced from distance o: travel ami fr= velocity b;- Missile velocity, fps of seabbed material, fps 17: Calmisted extt momenttaa. Ib-see: cols. Ik x 15 + 3 x 16 e by g. 5: Seabblag threshold velocity, fps - 001. 6: Yeleity ratio - t 7: Missile numentun, Ib-ace compare with col. 9 8: Impaise of force-time record at barrier sgport, ib sec. note 18,19: Einetic energy of seacbed concrete and of perforating missile from esta of
. that P26 record is questionable, cals. 3,14,15, and 16, ft-lb 9: ' missile impact m e ent e , Ib-see - so port impulse = n e stssa 20: original missile kinette energy fresa cols. 3 and b ft-Ib: col. 21:22:
leaving back of barrier Batios of seabbing and missile exit energy to original missile energy 23: B = diameter of scabbing material carrying mos*, of the kinette energy, in.
. 10, n: Area of back-fhee robar exposed, in.2 aat @t of o.5 in.
reber cover lost, Ib 2k: This shows the dependence of 3 on both missile diameter (c) ami barrier 12: Effective weight of lost rebar cover, ansmed same for thickness (T). Note the influence of reinforcing ratio in comparing lines a.* m and for kinette energy, Ib M16 and m 6. i
. l ot i r + - - - --w --m
O.8
= 0.06
/
666 s 0.7 g ps l = 0.08 0.6 ! h l I 2t
- / 3 = 0.10 O I A O o
( 0.5 ' 9
/ /
/ = 0.125
= ,
!j'l , -56* / 5 '**
}"^ lll / /s**
Q llll,/ / %=o as j( l l ,l = 0.5 I/ 'lj'/ / f ** l / at US O'2 1/j ; I' #
/ '
' l ,
SO t.oGS
/ D=lo
/ '7 f
/ / [* * 'go 6 l,,ij//,
O.I /i i !l '
/;;;
p ', ' , /, /
/
&j O.0 -
O.25 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 T/ D BASED ON TEST DATA t = PIPE WALL (IN.) __,,_, _ A CO N S E R VAT IV E D = PIPE O.D. (IN.) EXTRAPOLATION fc = (3-4.5 KSI) CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE SOLIDITY - STRENGTH AT TIME OF MISSILE IMPACT 7_ 2t D ( ~ 2t D I _ (RATIO) MISSILE VELOCITY (75-250 FPS) O KE : KINETIC ENERGY (IN- KIPS) BARRIER REBAR PERCENTAGE > 0.3 a
- A NET T : BARRIER THICKNESS (IN.) ce
- IMPACT GROSS AREAFORCE A GROSS FIGURE B.3-1 SCABBING THRESHOLD LIMIT-STEEL PIPES OR SLUGS ON REINFORCED CONCRETE BARRIERS
O cry ts
*-- 8 a 2 o ---*-
STEEL SCAB PLATE h.46.EN b ' g } ..r.>-
@b' =
SCAB PLATE ANCHORS op}.,a
!.a# . . .
,9
. .,- v
. I[>?:
< , . q E. i
.e. .A
/~ q _j 4
= bl -
. y ,4
*4 ,.y. -
? . -
.'. Y.'j, *
.- *h.
% ..y
. . . . , . %.. W.<69 ..,; .
.ps. 2:
. : +.. >. p .- To O REINFORCED CONCRETE BARRIER
-e-- MISSILE h
b) V FIGURE B.8-1 DEFORMED SHAPE & FORCES ACTING ON . SCAB PLATE
SWECO 7703 EMTib801 September 1977 1 i O 1 APPENDIX C TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS FOR OVERALL STRUCTURAL RESPONSE O . O Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation
SWEco 7703 I TABLE OF CONTprFS Page Section Title g Section Tih C.1 PURPOSE. . . . . . . . . C-1 C.3.5 Numerical Solution for Equation of Motion . . . C-4 C.2
SUMMARY
. . . . . . . . . C-1 C.3.6 Analytjcal Solution for C.3 SINGLE MASS TIME Equation of Motion . . . C-5 HISTORY ANALYSIS OF e BARkIER STRUCTURAL C.3.7 Willia ==an and Alvy RESPONSE .'. . . . . . . C-1 Solution . . . . . . . . C-7 C.3.1 General Description. . . C-1 C.3.8 Comparison of Numeri-cal and Analytical C.3.2 Allowable Barrier Methods with Willian-Deflection . . . . . . . C-2 son and Alvy kesults . . C-8 C.3.3 Barrier Equilibrium C.3.9 Applicatica to Other Equation and Trans- Missiles . . . . . . . . C-9 formation Factors. . . . C-3 ' C.4 CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . C-9 C.3.4 Missile Force for Imad Type 3. . . . . . . C-4 C.5 REFERENCES . . . . . . . C-10 LIST OF TABLES
; Table Table Nhr "alllf Number 7.1111 C.3-1 4000 lb Auto V = 59 Meters /Sec - C.3-5 40C0 lb Auto V = 59 Meters /Sec Instantansot e Mn==ntum Transfer 650 lb Engine 3350 lb Body and Span = 10.0 ft Frame Span = 15.0 ft C.3-2 4000 lb Auto V = 59 Meters /Sec - C.3-6 4000 lb Auto V = 59 Meters /See a
Instantaneous Momentum Transfer 650 lb Engine 3350 lb Body and Span = 15.0 it Frame Span = 30.0 ft C.3-3 4000 lb Auto V = 59 Meters /Sec - C.3-7 Barrier Deflection and Ductility Instantaneous Momentum Transfer for Tbrnado borne Missiles Plus Span a 30.0 ft 360 mph Tornado Wlad C.3-4 4000 lb Auto V = 59 Meters /See C.3-8 t'amparison of Barrier Ductility 650 lb Engine 3350 lb Body and Predicted by Analytical and l Frame Span a 10.0 ft Numerical Methods with William-son and Alvy Method LIST OF FIGURES Figure - Number Title C.3-1 Effect of Tensile Membrane Action on supported Circular Slab C-1
SWECO 7703 APPENDIX C TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS FOR OVERALL STRUCTURAL RESPONSE C.1 PURPOSE compression, and shear, is defined as the The purpose of this Appendix is to develop ratio of the maximum- acceptable mettods for determining overall barrier displacement xm to the displacement at the deflection due to missile igaet, static effective yield point xy in bending. loads, and other dynamic loads acting together in a load combination equation. Whero' barriers are required to carry other loads or. where there is only ono C.2
SUMMARY
barrier provided to stop a missile and The deflection of a barrier due to missile protect against secondary missiles, the-impact, static loads and other dynamic maximum allowable ductility is 10 or less loads- acting together in a load depending on -how shear and comprassion combination equation is determined by influence the flexural response of the solving the oquation of motion for the barrier. barrier by two independent methods which give the same results and employ the same Where reinforced concrete barriers are not assunptions. required to carry other loads and where a second~ barrier such as a wall or floor is The equation. of motion for a barrier is located between the primary barrier and. solved; a) by ntsmerical integration and, the missile protected area, the primary p b) in closed analytical form. In both barrier may be designed to act in tensior:, a solutions the barrier is represented by an similar to a mechanical pipe whip equivalent mass and a nonlinear spring' restraint. In this case, the maximum whida can describe the barrier force barrier deflection is based on half of the deformation relationship. ultimate uniform strain in the .rebar. This limit for reinforced concrete-The missile is characterized by its mass barriers acting in tension is the same as and striking velocity. In addition, the the limit for pipe whip restraints. average impact force between missile and .. . barrier is required. C.3 SINGLE MASS TI)3 HISTORY ANALYSIS-OF BARRIER STRUC1 TRAL RESPONSE. The missile-barrier contact force acts to decelerate the missile and to accelerate- C.3.1 General Description the barrier, and continues to act until a common velocity at the impact point in Structural response to missile impact is attained. Thereafter, missile and barrier calculated here using a single equivalent . nove together until they come to rest 'at mass and a nonlineer (elasto-plastic) - I the maximum barrier deflection. spring to model: the dynamic response characteristica of the barrier. The If the duration of the impact-interval (to aing1e equivalent ' sass in the equation of achieve a common velocity) is very short motion for - the barrier is the sum of the ' compared to the time in which the barrier barrier equivalent mass plus any missile-. comes to maximum displacement, the impact mass in contact- .with',the -barrier, can be treated on .the- basis -of an traveling at 'the same. velocity as the instantaneous impulse between missile . and barrier.: When the impulse -is short barrier, ' considerably. simplifying ~.the compared with.the duration of the barrier
-analysis.- The representation. of the response, the . barrier . mass, not the'.
missile as an . instantaneous impulse is . barrier; structural resistance to deforma-realistic only when the durstion of impact tion,. stops the missile. is short compared to the time it takes the . In this case, . structural response is based : barrier to come to maximum displacement.- upon an initial impulse of zero duration Otherwise, the instantaneous. ' impulse Edescribedi below. This produces the sene: method is too conservative. and a square structural response. as -obtained by
. wave of force versus- time is. used to . willia..n,s.and Alvyta3, Eq. (14).
transfer the missile momentum to the g barrier. . .On the other hand, when the impulse of the v ' missile acting on the barrier-is not short:
.The-' permissible: ductility ratio, u,- enough to be treated as-instantaneous, the limiting barrier deflection for-- bending, ' interaction between missile and barrier is C-1
- g
- SWECO 7703 represented by means of a constant force having kinetic energy which is dissipated acting for a finite time. The magnitude in producing further deflection. A of that force is determined by the somewhat different physical process can crushing resistance of the missile or the sometimes occur when the plntic penetration resistance of the barrier, structural resistance is larger than the '
whichever governs. The force remains constant missile contact force. In that constant until either the missile and case, the barrier may come to rest before barrier have reached the same velocity or the missile and the harrier reach a common the barrier has come to rest. In the velocity. former case, the combined system - missile with barrier - continues to deflect until C.3.2 Allowable narrier Deflection brotqht to rest by the barrier's resistance to deformation. Depending on Where only one barrier is placed between a the parameters of the system, the final missile source and a missile protected deflection obtained for an interaction of zone or where a barrier is required to finite duration may be considerably carry other loads, the maximum barrier smaller than when the entire momentum deflection is expressed in terms of a trans f er is assumed to take place ductility ratio, u = X m/Xy. The mxianum inetantaneously, as is illustrated later. allowable ductility ratios for different loaggconditionssre NRC specified by the The analytical and numerical methods presented here can take into account four types of static and dynamic loadings, as The maximum allowable ductility ratio of required by the load combination equation 10 or less, specified by the NRC, can be a in the SAR. small fraction of the deflection capacity of a barrier. The limit of 10 is based on Load Type 1: static loads (static tests of simply supported beams such as pressure differential or those re rted by Gaston, Siess, and weight Newmark'p. t of a horizontal k rrier) Simply supported two-way slabs, end , Load Type 2: dynamic suddenly applied restrained two-way slabs, and end constant load (fluid jet, restrained beams all have considerably l or dynamic pressure more deflection capacity to failure than l' do simply supported beams. This is dif ferential) because the reinfcrcing bars act in Load Type 3: square wave impulse of catenary tension after the flexural hinge finite duration (force of capacity is exhausted. For two-way slabs, penetrating or crushing there is an additional resisting force due missile) to the formation of compression rings in the barrier about the point of applied' Load Type 4: initial impulse of lead. Anderson, Hansen, Murphy, Newmark essentially zero duration and White (s*3 described the additional (i.e., very much shorter capacity of these barriers in design of than the duration of the Section 8-7 of barrier structural blastresistantst{uctures. Anderson et al.(18 states
- response)
"Th6 Catenary Effect. The yield line The mass of tne missile which applies its theory gives only a partial explanation of load to the barrier via a square wave, the behavior of a plate or slab supported Load Type 3, is M i. The mass of the on more than two opposite sides and, loaded missile associated with an instantaneous laterally. In addition to the bending trans fer of momentum, Load Type 4, is t"..
action that has been discussed, there is a complex membrane action as well. The physical mechanism of the missile-barrier interaction is as follows: In the case of a square plate with four-The impact force decelerates the missile side support, the bulging at the center and accelerates the barrier. The tends to pull opposite sides of the plate deflection of the barrier is aided by any toward each other. This effect is static and dynamic forces normal to its strongest for a central strip and does not surface and by any initial impulses the exist for a strip adjacent to a supported barrier deflection is opposed by the edge. As a consequence, the middle area barrier's structural resistance, initially of the plate is in tension and the' outer clastic and finally plastic, represented parts in compression. This has two by a bilinear resistance-deflection effects: a) the membrane action supplies relation. The constant plastic resistance some load carrying capacity, and b) the is determined by yield-line theory, taking tension and cornpression fields alter the no credit for any catenary or curvature plastic hinge moments to be used in the influence. The missile and barrier yield aine theory. It should be noted continue to move under the action of the that the membrane action, just mentioned, various forces, usually until both have is not confined to two-way slabs. A cchieved a coar.non velocity. After that, similar effect willibe encountered in one- . the missile and barrier are assumed to way slabs and beams the ends of which are form a single degree of freedom system so anchored as to prevent movement toward C-2
t f SWECO 7703 each other during flexure. In tais case,
~
- a = barrier acceleration
, ~O
.the lengthening of the member as it ?,= stas of static and dynamic forces l- h deflects gives rise. to tension carries a part of the applied load, thus which or equivalent forces causing changes of motion increasing the load capacity of the R,= equivalent barrier resistance to member, especially at large deflections." deforcation
.i
. Wood ( O describes membrane tension in two- Prior to missile mass M and barrier +
way elabs. Figure C.3-1 taken from reaching a common velocity,8F, equals Wood ( 3 shows that two-way slabs have considerably increased force capacity and + F* = F'8 + F** F deflection capacity above that determined using bending yield line analysis and a where Fei, Fez and Fe, are equivalent ductility of 10 based on simply aupported forces for load types one, two, and three
, beams. in Section C.3.1. After missile mass M, and barrier reach .a common velocity, ,
The tension mechanism described above for F, equals , two-way slabs and beams anchored at their' ends is used in barrier design when: F, = F, , + F, ,
- 1. There is. a second barrier Load Type 4 from Section C.3.1 is a'very between the primary barrier high . force. from a hard missile or acting in tension and the component which is on the barrier for a i missile protected area. The very short interval of time. This force
. second barrier is designed to causes the barrier equivalent mass, Mbe stop scabbing particles from the plus the missile mass M. to have an primary barrier, initial velocity _before loads F , or F,3 cause any motion. Thisvelocity$s
- 2. the primary barrier is not required to carry other loads, V, = IyM g, M ,)
- 3. the missile _ geometry is such Load.. Type 4 is not applied to the barrier
[ 'that it cannot slip between the explicitly.. Rather, the barrier is given rebar pattern, and an initial velocity which results from the impulse I of load F .. The impulse is
- 4. the rebar is continuous in the applied to the.cEmbined mass of the barrier and ~ fully developed in- . barrier and the missile M. since they are the barrier support, assumed to. travel together after impact.
The sawimum deflection of reinforced Imad ' Type 1 is a static load which causes concrete barriers acting in tension is the barrier to have an initial. determined by the maximum allowable strain displacement before- loads Fze and F in the rebar. For barriers -acting in cause any motion. This displacement is ,: d tension, mee ting the conditions (1.) through (4.) above, the maximum allowable X,-= F,8 Ky/R,y rebar strain is half of the ultimate uniform strain of the -rebar.1 -This is where Xy and Rey are the displacement and
- ~
analagous to the maxistaa strain permitted resisting force of the -barrier at its- & by the NRC( a s ) for mechanical pipe whip effective yield point. restraints.- In order ~ to : know when the missile force J C.3.3 Barrier mauilibritus Ecuation and Fez terminates, it is necessary to monitor IgagLsforination Factors the velocity of the. missile mass M,. 'Miis . is done as follows The basic equation of motion of the. barrier is- Vi = (I, -[ F dt)/M, Maa e F,- Re. _ (C.3-1) decreases to-g When the velocity.the missile of the velocity barrier, V,the -maso M, where
~
no longer pushes on the barrier with force
. .. . : Fe s . Free this time on, the barrier and M,= Mbe + M.: Prior to the missile. missile M, are'assuand to travel together
- i. and barrier reaching a common until the barrier . stops. I .is. the velocity, M equals barrier original momenttaa of missile mass M,.
equivalent mass M b e plus the-- . , associated with the Although the ' barrier deflection pattern mass, initialM, impact of zero duration,- takes on different configurations in the Ioad Type 4. ' . Thereatter, elastic - and plastic stages, ' the values -
- M g=Me*Ms b *M*
- After missile . used for the mass.and load.transforsation and barrier reach a .veloc = factors,^K -and K ar ity, M equals the sum of the plastic coIfigurah,on :e since determined thec barrier for the.
barrie ,r equivalent mass Mbe Plun- deflection.is predominantly in the plastic
- the missile mass f rom I,oad Types ' range. The barrier' equivulent mass ? Mgis 3 and 4. determined from
. C-3 1 r
aw , - e v + -w 'r - n -n 1 - t % v , r,n- w -m, r
- w.- ~r n"w-
swrco 7703 Mbe = KmMb (C.3-2) movement compared with missile deformation in actual tests. where
- 2. If actual test data for (1.)
Mb = total mass in barries yield above are not available, then mechanism the Ioad Type 3 for constant cross-section missiles is the Xm = mass transformation factor so lesser of missile material yield that the model and prototpype stress or 50 kai confined barriers have the same kinetic concrete bearing stress times , energy and same displacement the net cross-sectional area of the missile. E m =[mb $ dA/Mb (C . 3-3)
- 3. If the missile does not maintain where a constant cross-section at the point of impact, Load Type 3 is mb = mass per unit area of barrier set equal to the peak of a e = normalized displacement of f ree-crush curve for the barrier missile, where the area under the curve equals the kinetic dA = increment of barrier area energy of the missile. If the area under the force-crush curve The equivalent forces acting on the is less than the kinetic energy barrier from the missile, other dynamic f the missile, the momentum loads and static loads are determined as c rresponding to the balance of follows the energy is applied as ins *antaneous impulse, Ioad Type Fe "# F (C.3-4)
L C.3.5 Numerical Solution for Equation where of Motion ermin hat he mod an The numerical solution for the barrier prototype forces do the same equation of motion is performed starting work on the barrier assuming from an instant of time when the same displacements for model and displacement and velocity of -the barrier prototype barriers. and the missile and the forces acting on them are known. The numerical solution of dA/F the barrier equation of motion given here XL= f (C .3-5) is accomplished in a manner similar to where Biggs(*3, Chapter 1. The differences are: a) the barrier has an initial velocity f = force per unit area of barrier from an instanteous impulse of high force mechanism capacity missile components, b) the applied force of the missile remains on F = total force on barrier the barrier until missile and barrier come to a common velocity; then it is taken A different equivalent force is determined off, and c) the mass of the high force for each load acting on the barrier. capacity missile components M, and the mass M, of the lower force capacity The lurrier equivalent resisting force R missile components which penetrate or e crush significantly are added to the is determined from equivalent mass of the barrier after they R, a R attain a common velocity with the barrier. (C .3-6) when Equation C.3-1 establishes the acceleration. Le velocity and position R = barrier resisting force for a f the barrier at the end of a time concentrated load producing a interval dt are specified displacement Vn
- Vn-1 + a dt (C.3-7)
C.3.4 Missile Force for Load Type 3 The missile force for Load Type 3 in Section C.3.1 is determined by one of the where following methods: Vn = velocity at end of time
- 1. The force for load Type 3 is interval de equal to the kinetic energy of the missile divided by the Vg = velocity at beginning of distance the missile permanently time interval dt deforms. This method is used when there is no significant Xn = barrier displacement at penetration or shear plug end of time interval dt C-4
1 ShTCO 7703 X = barrier displacement at 30 ft. Two different load conditions are beginning of time interval dt considered for each span. They are:
\ a = barrier acceleration assumed 1. 4,000 lb auto body and auto constant during time interval engine considered as applying a zero duration impulse (Load Type 4). This gives identical dt a time increment for numerical results to Williamson and Alvy integration of the equations of Equation 14.
motion. It is set between 2 and 20 microseconds depending on Irpulse: 24 kip-sec. the time duration of missile force. 2. auto body with 20.15 kip-see momentum considered as applying The example used for illustratioa is an a square wave impulse with crush automobile weighing 4,000 lb (1,810 kg) force of 300 kips (Ioad Type 3) , which strikes a 2 ft reinforced concrete and auto engine with barrier at 194 fps (59 meters per second), 3.85 kip-sec momentum considered NRC(73 The engine and transmission are as a pure impulse (Load Type 4) . anstroed to weigh 650 lb and asamed to be a rigid component which applies a The top half of each table gives the data concentrated impulse to the barrier of on missile, barrier, and other loads 3.85 kip-sec. The remaining 3,350 lb of acting on the barrier. The bottom half body and chassis carry a momentum of presents a summary of the numerical 20.15 kip-sec. The crushing resistance of integration of the barrier equation of this component is assumed to be 300 kips motion. and to be essentially constant as long as crushing continues. Table C.3.7 gives the deflection and ductility of tornado-borne missiles listed in NUREG-75/087, Section 3.5.1.4 W . This The assumption of body-chassis crushing table shows that the ductility is less strength is based on the results of a test than 10 for all missiles when the barrier performed by Sandia Laboratories (*). ne is loaded simultaneously with tornado test consisted in projecting an automobile wind. head-on against a reinforced concrete p barri er. The following data describe the C.3.6 Analytical Solution for Equation test: of Motion Weight of auto: originally 2,715 lb, This analytical solution is presented to modified for test to verify the numerical solution in-3,330 lb section C. 3. 5 and to offer an alternative to a computer program for the single mass Impact velocity: 76.3 fps time history analysis of barrier deflection. Damage to barrier: none The analysis predicts the structural Damage to automobile: 26 in. crushing response of an elasto-plastic missile barrier to any combination of the four The average crushing resistance of the kinds of loads given in Section C.3.1. body and chassis can be determined by calculating their kinetic energy and. Load Tyys 2 - 4 are specifically treated dividing that energy by the crushing in the' analytical development that distance. Assuming 16 percent of the follz's, and in which the static loading original weight to be engine and is an umed to be zero. TPe result is a transmission this calculation givest sysmem of formulas which permit the t* termination of both the maximum 26 R/12 = (3.3 - 2.715x.16) 76.3a/64.4 a'ructural deflection xm and the ductility R= M9.6 kips Y' tiO V*Xm/e, where e = the elastic limit deflection of the barrier. The Since the automobile used in the example duration of the impact phase ' of the is heavier than the one tested, process can also be found'if required. the crushing resistance R is greater. Asstuning resistance proportional to The effect of a simultaneous static weight, there resulta loading is determined _by means .of a correction of the results of the purely R= 119.6 x 4000/2714 = 176 kips dynamic loading analysis, as is - discussed later. For conservatism, this is increased to 300 kips for the example. -
-(V G}' Two diiferent situations occur, according Table C.3-1 through C.3-6 give ~ the results to whether the elastic limit is reached of the numerical solution for 24 in.. before. or after the end of the impact barriers with spans.of 10 ft, 15 ft, and phase.
C-5
SWECO 7703 The impact phase ends when the missile and . F'e I the barrier (at the point of impact) have x = 7 sinAt A + g coslt the same velocity. Following that time the missile and barrier are assumed to Find time t Then cos (At + when y) = x(1-R/F
= e by) cos setting x = e.
3 remain in contact and to decelerate y 1 together until motion ceases. Under some conditions, the barrier comes to rest where (C.3-9) before the missile does. 'Itiis happens for ~ high momentum missiles where the force y = tan ' BRmV/F' /5Fe = tan " G
~
ctopping the missile (Load Type 3) is less than the barrier resistance, R. If (1-R/F') cos y 5 - 1, the barrier remains elastic. The final result of the analysis is cxpressed in terms of u , the ratio of the The condition for Case A to occur is: final deflection to the elastic limit d;flection of the barrier. sin At, + G cosAt +h"(At) (C.3-10) The following symbols are used: , , Stage 2: This stage ends when y = x. e ( = xy ) = elastic limit deflection of barrier (ft) Equations of motion (new time origin) are F = constant missile impact force (lbs) , Ioad Type 3 F' = F+P
- y=V-F (t + t) x= F'-R G = BRmV/F' /Efe = tan y 3 I = Initial impulse (Ib-sec) =
miV = SnM, Ioad Type 4 ; ,F*eA sinAt + 1 cosAt Nbe = equivalent mass of barrier R M i (slugs) (Eq. C. 3-1) M = Meb + mi + P'-R m = missile mass associated n t with force F(=M,) mi = missile mass associated + it with initial impulse I(=M ) * * * + P'ent R sinnt) g coslt n e + mi = total impacting mass P = suddenly applied constant , F8-R ta force of indefinite duration 2M Ioad Type 2 (Eq.C.3-3) Q = equivalent static force, Then, equating Ic = y find ta from R = cnt plas c valent At = 8 8 I (C.3-11) resistance of barrier 1 + MF/mF' - F/F' (Eq. C.3-f) t = time (sec) llowever, if R > F' thy barrier mass,M m.3y t, t ... = durations of successive come to rest at time ta before y = x. To 3 8 determine if this happens (only possible V = stages of response impact velocity _ _ lle of mise if R > F8) calculate tl , from (fps) sinAt + G cosAt x = deficction of barrier (ft) At' a
= 3 M,-1 I
(C.3-11 A) x , x ... = deflection at ends of 8 8 successive stages , x y (=e) = elastic limit deflectionn If t 5 At2 or if At f rom Eq. C 3-11 is y = displacement of missile negative, then motion ceases at tj mass m after impact
. - u=1+p,R ,
(At ) sinAt + G coslt x, y... = dx/dt, dy/dt;... , g i 6 = m /in At (C.3-12A) A' " y = tan-8 G
+ (1-P/F') j- -
p = final deflection /e " Ifowever, if F' > R or 11 At' >Ata, then ductility ratio . Stage 3 follows, in which masses M and m move together until they come to rest at a final barriar deflection x, . Case A. ELASTIC LIMIT IS REACTIED DURING PENETRATION /O USHING STAGE During Stage 3 the deceleration is
. . .. R-P Stage 1: 05 x se, y > x -x = g;g Equations of motion are At the beginning of Stage 3, velocity and deflection are Stage 2 final values = -F/in x + Rx/Me = P'/Fr I plp --
x,=yeR et y = V - Ft/tn x = 7'e I I
+
R I
- IN sinAt sinAt, + g coslt 7, t C-6
I l I 1 I SWECO 7703
,, It I '
s x=e+7 p. ,At sinAt + 7 cosAt +FR g t, j 2 1 j u = 7 + (Fe ) _1 -cosAt, + sinAt, + G + y G: The final deflection x =x + (A ) 8 /2x, 2 s a a and + (sinAt, + G cxdt ) (C . 3-16.) p = - 1 = 1 + U ( At ) sinAta+ G cosAt e R , 3 The limiting condition for Case B occurs with only an initial impulse I = miv and
, gj , , no force F. Then, since M = Mg, + mi, p
=f(1+ 1/(1-h) (C.3-17)
# sinAt + G cos k The results that have been presented for 2 0 R") R ) l :
dynamic response with no accortpunying R .: static loading can be corrected as follows
+ (1 p) At (C.3-12) when a static load Q also acts.
A uniformly distributed constant static 1+m - loading can be represented for the dynamic and At, = g+R sinAt ' 1 g 7_(F') analysis by means of an equivalent concentrated constant force Q, acmrding to Eq. C.3-3. Since this force is capable
+ G cosAt + (1-R/F') At 2 of doing work during a structural 1 displacesent it contributes to the final deflection of the system. Its importance Case B: PENETPATION/CRUSLING STAGE ENDS depends on its magnitude compared to the DEFORE EIASTIC LIMIT IS REACHED structural resistance (R) of the barrier.
Staqe 1: Ends when y = x, x< e Allowance for the effect of Q on maximum Ceflection is made as follows: The force Equations of motion are the s'ame as for Q alone produces in the barrier an elastic Stage 1 of Case A. deflection Qe/R which uses up a fraction p) Stage 1 end at time t when y, =x. , Q/R of its elastic limit deflection e, (V This time is given by the equation leaving what can be psuedc>-elastic limit deflection e' Qe/R). Likewise, the presence called of (=e - a Q I" nduces the remaining ava n able plastic sin At: + G cos At + F m (At a ) = m8 E (C.3-13) resistance from the value R to R - Q = R', where R' can be termed the psuedo-plastic The condition for case B to occur is resistance. cosAt - Gsin A t 3 3 21 -[ (C.3-14) The dynamic loads can next be applied to the new substitute system characterized by Velocity and deflection at the end of e' and R' instead of the actual e and R. Stage 1 are The calculations lead to a value of x' m (Eq. C.3-12, C.3-12A, C.3-15, or C.3-T6
; F'eA I as the case may be) which is the final R
sinAt +
'M cosAt deflection of the system beyond or in i
addition to the starting deflection e' x = DR (1-cos At ) + M'T I A sinkt : caused W Q. Mnally, the actual maxim deflection of the barrier relative to its unstrained configuration is Stage 2: Ends when barrier comes-to rest. Use erk and energy principle. At the end of Stage 1, the strain and kinetic g=x'+e' energies are and the ductility ratio is x' M+m + Rx!/2e and (A ) 8 , respectively. At U " *m!*
- e the end of She 2 the strain surgy = R(x,
-e/2) , and the kinetic energy = 0. Then C.3.7 Williamson and Alwy Solution Rx /2e + Mp (xla=R (x,-e/2) 8 g
The..Williamson and Alvyts) method of calculating structural response is broken and then down into, (a) the case with missile x - a penetration and (b) the case with no [ u=g=fft.+(F,)2 - (1-oasAt + G sinAta) penetration. This method is used as a (' ~ basis of comparison by the NRCte), yhe
, tornado missile which produces the most
" (C.3-151 structural response is the 4,000 lb auto
' + U +M) (sinAt + G cosAt ) -
which does not penetrate the barrier. s C-7'
SWECO 7703 Therefore, the case of no penetration in where the barrier stiffness k is defined by Williamson and Alvy in discussed here in detail. Because the penetration of XY = R/k and X, = pX Y (C .3 -22) d esiles of concern to nuclear power plant design varies so widely for the spectrum The period T of the system is of missiles and because the penetration of f i rny given desicm basis missile is not T = 2n j (Mbe * "m) /k l y ' (C.3-23) documented, structural response is not ( ) based on penetration. Rather, it is based The resisting force of the barrier R on the force of the missile on the then becomes barrier. Equation 14 in Williamson and Alvy R= 2 * "m n [ 1 h catablishes how much reinforcing steel is needed in a barrier of given thickness for T (2u-1/ (C.3-2 4) o missile with momentum equal to M_ times Equation C.3-24 is the same as Vm. This method of calculating stfuctural Equation 14 i. Niiliamson and AlvytH. response does not necessarily predict ctructural response for moving ob jects Equation Ce3-24 produces the same striking barriers at a nuclear facility. deflection as Load Type 4 for the missile where the momentum of the missile is Equacion 14 is derived here in a more transferred to the barrier as an initial direct way than given in Williamson and velocity before the barrier offers any Alvy (5). structural response. The kinetic energy and momentum of the C.3.8 Cmparison of Numerical and nissile are Analytical Methods with Williamson and Alvy Pesults KE" = .5 Mm V" The method proposed by Williamson and Alvy Momentum = M, V, for predicting the structural response of a missile barrier to impact by a The velocity of the barrier after impact nonpenetrating missile is based on the is determined by assu:ning that the missile ass m ption that the duration of the impact tnd barrier remain together after impact. is very short compared to the time ny conservation of momentum, the velocity required for the barrier to reach its of the barrier and missile moving together maximum deflection. The loading is efter impact is treated as a concentrated impulse. This assumption is too conservative, as is V (C.3-18) evident from consideration of the data
* = V* M*/ (Mm*Mbe ) presented in the Table C.3-8.
ne kinetic energy af ter impact is A missile having a certain finite crushing a y a /gMm strength will exert a total force of KEm+b m *Mk) (C.3-19) approximately that amount during the where impact interval. The duration of the crushing process is then determined from Mm = mass of missile consideration of the initial momentum. Vm = velocity of missile When that crushing or loading interval is Mbe = equivalent mass of barrier not extremely short ccanpared to the total velocity of missile and barrier reaction interval, consideration of that vb+m = traveling together af ter impact fact is necessary. The methods of analysis presented here take account of the fact that the crushing and/br The ninetic energy of the system after penetrating interval is of finite impact is absorbed by structural response. duration. that all the results The structural properties are presented in(Note Table C.3-8 use the same data given in Tables C.3-1 through C.3-6.) R = equivalent barrier plastic resisting force The reason for conservatism in the Williamson and Alvy method is that it only Xy = barrier yield displacement allows the equivalent of Ioad Type 4 in Xm = mximum turrier displacement Section C.3.1. In this load case, the p = ductility defined by Xm/Xy mmentum of the missile is transferred to the barrier before the barrier offers Equating the energy of structural response structural resistance. to the kinetic energy of the system after impact gives In Table C.3-8, Ioad Type A is a zero duration impulse, Ioad Type 4, which gives results identical to those of ;filliamson g .5 RXY
= .5 ( Vj/(% + g) (C.3-20) and Alvy. Load B is the combination of an initial rigid mass impulse of 3.85 kip-sec with a square wave impulse of 20.15 kip-na (u .5)/k = .5 42 Vm /0h + g) (C.3-21) see and force 300 kips, Toad Types 3 and C-8 l
SWECO 7703 )
- 4. It is apparent in Table C.3-8 that for barrier. The- two Type 4 loads span difference is representing the front and rear surfaces O)
(
%/
the short the considerable but that it remains very significant for the longer spans as well. of the pipe impacting the barrier applied for simplification are and conservatism at the beginning of the C.3.9 Amlication to other Missiles impact process. The method of determining barrier C.4 CONCLUSIONS structural deflection to missile impact loads, static loads, and other dynamic The conclusions to be drawn from this loads required by a load combination Appendix are: equation, given in Sections C.3.1 through C.3.4, has many possible applications for 1. A 2 ft thick reinforced concrete predicting the effects of missiles barrier with No. 11 rebar at striking reinforced concrete barriers at 10 in., on centers each way and nuclear power plants. each face, having concrete strength of 3 ksi and rebar An example is a whipping ruptured pipe yield strength 40 ksi can striking a reinforced concrete barrier. withstand the impact of the tornado-generated missiles given The whipping pipe motion during impact is in NUREG-75/087, Section considerably more complicated than the 3.5.1.4(F3 combined with tornado head-on impact of an auto or tornado wind. Se ductility is less driven pipe striking end-on. A whipping than 10. pipe may strike a barrier near the pipe elbow. It nay also strike sequentially 2. The methods of analysis along a line when a long section of pipe formulated in this Appendix can impacts the barrier. In the first ca se, be used to conservatively design structure deflection is calculated using barriers for structural a circular yield mechanism around the response. These methods apply point where the elbow strikes. In the to tornado-generated missiles, second case, structural deflection is' whipping pipes, airezaft, calculated using a rect.mgular yield dropped equipment, and ruptured mechanism surrounding the line of impact. components from pressurized and rotating systems and equipment. m As a whipping pipe strikes a barrier, the [V I metal on the impact side of the pipe exerts a large force to bring it to a sudden stop. Then a lower force is
- 3. Structural response is limited to a ductility of 10 or less if the barrier is carrying other exerted on the barrier as the pipe loads or if it is the only crushes. If the pipe has sufficient barrier separating the missile energy, it will not be stopped by the time from a missile prutected zone.
the back surf ace of the pipe arrives at the barrier. In this case a second force 4. Reinforced concrete barriers are of large magnitude is exerted on the designed to go into the tension barrier to stop the rear surface of the resisting mechanism for anchored, pipe. beam barriers and membrane tension of two-way slab barriers The momentum of the iront surface of the when there is a second barrier pipe in the impact area is assumed to act downstream of the primary , like Load Type 4 in Section C.3.1, an barrier which can stop secondary instantaneous impulse. The crushing of a concrete missiles and when the pipe is represented by Load Type 3 where primary barrier is not required the magnitude of the square wave is the to carry other loads. The maximum force from force deflection crush maximum barrier tension strain curves for pipes, from peech et al.(SD, in this case is the same as is needed to absorb the energy of the permitted for pipe whip whipping pipe. ne energy of a whipping restraints, NUREG-75/087, pipe used to determine the maximum force section 3.6.2.(na) from crush curves is the total kinetic energy of a whipping pipe less the kinetic 5. Estimating structural response energy of the initial impact surface of for barriers at nuclear power the pipe, given above as an instantaneous facilities using the method for impulse. non penetrating missiles in Williamson and Alvy(8) is too If the total crush energy of the elbow, conservative. The method defined by Peech et u .(s) is not presented in this Appendix is used by Stone & Webster. sufficient to absorb the kinetic energy of the whipping pipe, remaining after the . O front surf ace of the pipe has impacted the 6. The method of calculating (d s l barrier as an instantaneous impulse, the structural response given in excess kinetic energy is absorbed as an this Appendix is the same instantaneous impact, Load Type 4, of the whether the missile penetrates rear side of the pipe impacting the or not, and does not depend on a C-9
l SWECO 7703 determination of the depth of International Conference on penetration. Since penetration Structural Mechanics in Reactor of concern to w chnology, San Francisco, of missiles nuclear power plants is not well California, 15-19 August 1977. doctznented , the method of determining structural response ta> Biggs, J .M. , " Introduction to given in this Appendix is used Structural Dynamics", McGraw-Hill by Stone & Webster instead of px k Company, 1964. the method given in Williamson (73 NUREG-75/087, Section 3 .5 .1. 4 , and Alvy for penetrating " Missiles Generated by Natural missiles. Phenomena", U.S. Nuclear Regulatory as kn. C.5 REFERENCES to) NUREG-75/087, Section 3.5.3, " Barrier Design Procedures", U .S . Nuclear (13 Wood, R.H., " Plastic and Elastic Design of Slabs and Plates", he Regulatory Comunission. Ronald Press Co., New York, N.Y., .,3 Gaston, J.R., Siess, C.P., and 1961. Newmark, N.M., "An Investigation of ta) ' ASTM-A615-75, " Standard Specification the Ioad-Deformation Characteristics of Reinforced Concrete Beams Up to for Deformed and Plain Billet S the Point of Failure", Civil Bars for Concrete Reinforcement.. teel Engineering Strdies, Structural eaa Williamson, R.A., and Alvy, R.R., Research Series No. 40, University of
" Impact Effecta of Fragments Striking Illinois, December 1952.
Structural Elements," Holmes & le) Anderson, F.E., Hansen, R.J., Mttrphy,
, California, H.L., Newmark, N.M., and White, M.P. ,
R=vi e b " Design of Structures to Resist A.E., " Tornado Nuclear Weapons Effects", (*) Stephenson, Vulnerability Nuclear Production ASCE-Manuals of Engineering Facilities," Sandia Laboratories, Practice-No. 42, American Society of Environmental test Department, April Civil Engineers, 1961.
,D
- c:a3 NUREG-75/087, Section 3.6.2, " Deter-and ts3 Peech, J.M., Roemer, R.E., Pirotin, mination of Break location S.D., East, G.H. and Goldstein, N.A., Dynamic Effects Associated with the
" Local Crush Rigidity of Pipes and Postulated Rupture of Piping," U.S .
Elbows", Transactions of the 4th Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 4 O C-10 l l
O C O TABLE C.3-1 4,000 LB AUTO V=59 METERS /SEC** INSTANTANEOUS MOMENTUM TRAL' TER SPAN = 10.0 FT
...eu.....ee.....e....me.......... e..seneemme ........ mee.e.neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee....eeeeeeen . sones........
DATA ON MISSILE. BARRIER, AND LOAD COMINATION EQUATIO4 eeeeeeeeeeee.unseeeeeeeeeeeeeene..................... ............. eeemseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen. BARRIER YIELD MECHANISM SPAN 2 10.0 FT me BARRIER THICKNESS a 24.0 P s 0.007632 = AS/(B*D) = STEEL RATIO en DEPTH TO CENTROID OF TENSION STEEL' = 20.44 FC = 3.0 KSI e. FY = 40. KSI e* YIELD LINE FCetCE = 12.6*MP 0.0 KIPS EQUIVALENT STATIC F0kCE em LOAD 1 0.0 KIPS EQUIVALENT CONSTANT DYNAMIC FORCE *e LOAD 2 0.0 KIP-SEC MISSILE IMPULSE RESISTED BY FORCE AT BARRIER SUPPORT PLUS BARRIER INERTIA DURING MOMENTUM TRANSFER em toad 3 24.000 KIP-SEC MISSILE IMPULSE RESISTED ONLY BY BARRIER INERTIA DURING NOMENTLR1 TRANSFER *e LOAD 4 97.5 FPS BARRIER INITIAL VELOCITY DUE TO LOAD 4 BARRIER MISSILE MISSILE BARRIER BARRIER BARRIER EQUIVALENT WEIGHT WEIGHT PLASTIC EFFEC. YIELD PERIDO WEIGHT LOAD 3 LOAD 4 FORCE DEFLECTION KIPS KIPS KIPS KIPS FT SEC 3.927 0.000 4.000 1482.2 0.0116 0.0061 eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesomeenseeeeeeeeeeeeuweeeeeeeemmemusemeeuweneseemmensmeneemmenemmeensesomusenemoneseenene RESULTS OF TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS FOR NISSILE IMPACT WITH OTHER LOADS esseemeneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeennesseeeeeeeeeenseeenemmeneemmenemoneeeeeeeeeeeeeenseeeeeeeeeemmeneeseenemaneaumenen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TIME DURATION MISSILE FORCE AT TIME OF MAX MAXIMUM MAXIttJM MAXIMLR1 FINAL BARRIER HISTORY OF FORCE BARRIER BARRIER BARRIER BARRIER BARRIER RESISTING MECHANISM NuteER LOAD 3 LOAD 3 SUPPORT DEFLECTIDH DEFLECTION DUCTILITY VELOCITY SEC KIPS KIPS SEC FT FT/SEC 1 0.0 0.0 1482.2 0.016258 0.7%0 68.42 97.49 'MEfSRANE TENSIDH I W 1 of 1
.. nn .-
11 i e ~ V TABLE C.3-2 4,000 LB AUTO V=59 METERS /SEC** INSTANTANEOUS MOMENTUM TRANSFER SPAN = 15.0 FT DATA ON MISSILE. BARRIER. MC LOAD COMBINATI0H EQUATION BARRIER YIELD MECHANISH SPAN = 15.0 FT .. BARRIER THICKNESS = 24.0 " P a 0.007632
- AS/tB*0) = STEEL RATIO *. OEPTH TO CENTROID OF TENSIQ4 STEEL = 20.44 "
FC = 3.0 KS! .* FY = 40. KSI .. YIELD LINE FCRCE = 12.6.NP 0.0 KIPS EQUIVALENT STATIC FORCE .. LOAD 1 0.0 KIPS EQUIVALENT CONSTANT DYNAMIC FORCE .. LOAD 2 0.0 KIP-SEC MISSILE IMRILSE RESISTED BY FCRCE AT BARRIER SUFFCRT PLUS BARRIER INERTIA DWING NOMENTUM TRANSFER .. LOAD 3 24.003 KIP-SEC MISSILE Ir*#ULSE RESISTED ONLY Bf BARRIER INERTI A EtJRING MONENTUM TRANSFER .* LOAD 4 60.2 FPS BARRIER INITIAL VELOCITY DUE TO LOAD 4 BARRIEW MISSILE MISSILE BARRIER BARRIER BARRIER EQUIVALENT WEIGHT WEIGHT PLASTIC EFFEC. YIELD PERIOD - WEIGHT LOAD 3 LOA 3 4 FORCE DEFLECTION KIPS KIPS KIPS KIPS FT SEC 8.835 0.000 4.000 1482.2 0.0262 0.0138 e............................................................................................................... RESULTS OF TIME HISTORT ANALYSIS FOR MISSILE IMPACT WITH OTHER LOADS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TIME DWATION MISSILE FORCE AT TIME OF MAX MAXIf2 MAXIt2 MAXIMUM FINAL BARRIER HISTORY OF FORCE BARRIER BARRIER BARRIER BARRIER BARRIER RESISTING MECHANISM NUr2ER LOAO 3 LOAD 3 SUPPORT DEFLECTION DEFLECTIDH DUCTILITY VELOCITY SEC KIPS KIPS SEC FT FT/SEC 1 0.0 0.0 1482.2 0.016398 0.5011 19.14 60.21 MEPBRANE TENSICH
~~
- 1 of 1
.. .m
ll (). % G V TABLE C.3-3 4,000 LB AUTO V=59 METERS /SEC** INSTANTANEOUS MOMENTUM TRANSFER SPAN 30.0 FT se. .ee...e.eeeeee.e.es....ee.eme......massemeensenes.eemmeneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.eeeeeee. . DATA ON MISSILE. BARRIER, APC LOAD CorSINATION EQUATION seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenes...eeeeeeeeeeeeeeemseemeene........me... easemeeeeeeeeuwesenseeeeeeeeeeeeeee BARRIER YIELD MECHANISM SPAN
- 30.0 FT ** BARRIER THICKNESS z 24.0 "
P = 0.007632 = AS/f B*D 3 = STEEL RATIO em DEPTH TO CENTROID OF TENSICH STEEL
- 20.44 "
FC = 3.0 KSI am FY = 40. KSI e. YIELD LINE FORCE = 12.6eMP 0.0 KIPS EQUIVALENT STATIC FORCE ** LOAD 1 0.0 KIPS EQUIVALENT CONSTANT DYNAMIC FORCE se LOAD 2 0.0 KIP-SEC MISSILE IMPULSE RESISTED BY FORCE AT BARRIER SUPPORT PLUS BARRIER INERTIA DURING MOMENTtR1 TRANSFER em LOAD 3 24.000 KIP-SEC MISSILE IMFULSE RFSISTED ONLY BY BARRIER INERTaA DURING MUMENTtR1 TRANSFER me LOAD 4 19.6 FPS BARRIER INITIAL VELOCITY DUE TO LOAD 4 BARRIER MISSILE MISSILE BARRIER BARRIER BARRIER EQUIVALENT WEIGHT WEIGHT PLASTIC EFFEC. TIELD PERIOD WEIGHT LOAD 3 LOAD 4 FORCE DEFLECTION KIPS KIPS KIPS KIPS FT SEC 35.342 0.000 4.000 1482.2 0.1047 0.0553 eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee**eeeeeeeeeeeeeesseeeeeeeeeeeeeeuweneeemmesesseemseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesessessee RESULTS OF TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS FOR MISSILE IMPACT WITH OTHEP LOADS e eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemeneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TIME DURATIDH MISSILE FORCE AT TIME OF MAX MAX 1 MUM MAXIMUM MAXIMUM FINAL BARRIER HTSTORY OF FORCE BARRIER BARRIER BARRIER BARRIER BARRIER RESISTING MECH.NISM NLRSER LOAD 3 LOAD 3 SUPPORT DEFLECTION DEFLECTION DUCTILITY VELOCITY SEC KIPS KIPS SEC FT FT/SEC 1 0.0 0.0 1482.2 0.018938 0.2115 2.02 19.64 BDeING YIELD LINE m W 1 of 1 JYL. _ __. __ ___ - -
O O TABLE C.3-4 4,000 LB AUTO V=59 METERS /SEC** 650 LB ENGIN3 - 3,350_LB BODY AND FRAME SPAN = 10.0 FT seeen.e.mossamme.es.emessessee..eese .........wene. nee.nasseeeeeeeeeees.eeeeeeeen.eeeeeeeeeeeeeen.es.eee.nessee. DATA ON MISSILE, BARRIER. AFC LOAD COMBINATION EQUATION seseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeessammeneeseeeeeeeeeeeemmenneenansweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemmeneouseneseene BARRIER YIELD MECHANISPl SPAN a 10.0 FT se BARRIER THICKNESS = 24.0 " P = 0.007632 s AS/(bed) = STEEL RATIO em DEPTH TO CENTROID OF TENSION STEEL = 20.44 " FC = 3.0 KSI ** Fy 40. KSI == YIELD LINE FORCE = 12.6eMP 0.0 KIPS EQUIVALENT STATIC FORCE se LOAD 1 0.0 KIPS EQUIVALENT CONSTANT DYNAMIC FORCE se LOAD 2 20.150 KIP-SEC MISSILE IMPt;LSE RESISTED BY FORCE AT BARRIER SUPPORT PLUS BARRIER INERTIA DURING MOMENTLM TRANSFER we LOAD 3 3.850 KIP-SEC MISSILE IMPULSE RESISTED ONLY BY BARRIER INERTIA DURING MONENTtM TRANSFER se LOAD 4 27.1 FPS BARRIER INITIAL VELOCITY DUE TO LOAD 4 BARRIER MISSILE MISSILE BARRIER BARRIER BARRIER EQUIVALENT WEIGHT WEIGHT PLASTIC EFFEC. YIELD PERIOD WEIGHT LOAD 3 LOAD 4 FORCE DEFLECTION KIPS KIPS KIPS KIPS FT SEC 3.927 3.350 0.650 1482.2 0.0116 0.0061 see . eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemanneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeuwseeeeeeeeee**eeeeeeeeeeeeeennemanneesenemones RESULTS OF TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS FOR MISSILE IMPACT WITH OTHER LOADS messeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesen*weeneseeeeeeeeeeeeemmenessmanneneemseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemeneeseeeeeeeeemenemme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TIME DURATION MISSILE FORCE AT TIME OF MAX MAXIM #t MAXIMUM MAXIMLRt FINAL BARRIER HISTORY OF FORCE BARRIER BARRIER BARRIER BARRIER BARRIER RESISTING MECHANISM NUPSER LOAD 3 LOAD 3 SUPPORT DEFLECTION DEFLECTION DUCTILITY VELOCITY SEC KIPS KIPS SEC FT FT/SEC 1 0.003520 300.0 1482.2 0.003520 0.0517 4.45 27.20 BENDING YIELD LINE W l of 1 _H _ _
r m ~ TABLE C.3-5 4,000 LB AUTO V=59 METERS /SEC** 650 LB_EILGINE - 3,350 LB BODY AND FRAME SPAN = 15.0 FT
....se.......... .... ...*..................... ................................................e...............
DATA ON MISSILE 6ARRIER. AND LOAD CCMBINATION EQUATION e........es..e................................................... .....................so....................... BARRIER YIELD MECHANISM SPAN = 15.0 FT se BARRIER THICKHESS = 24.0 " P s 0.C07632 = AS/tB.D) a STEEL RATIO e. DEPTH TO CENTROID OF TENSION STEEL = 20.44 " FC = 3.0 KSI ** FY = 40. KSI se YIELD LINE FORCE = 12. 6.t1P 0.0 KIPS EQUIVALENT STATIC FORCE .. LDAD 1 0.0 KIPS EQUIVALENT CONSTANT DYNAMIC FCRCE se LOAD 2 20.150 KIP-SEC MISSILE IMPULSE RESISTED BY FORCE AT BARRIER SUPPORT PLUS BARWIER INERTIA DURING MONENTut TRANSFER se LOAD 3 3.850 KIP-SEC MISSILE IMPULSE RESISTED ONLY BY BARRIER INERTIA DURING MOMENTUM TRANSFER ** LOAD 4 13.1 FPS BARRIER INITIAL VELOCITY DUE TO LOAD 4 BARRIER MISSILE MISSILE BARRIER BARRIER BARRIER EQUIVALENT WEIGHT WEIGHT PLASTIC EFFEC. YIELD PERIOD WEIGHT LOAD 3 LOAD 4 FORCE DEFLECTION KIPS KIPS KIPS KIPS FT SEC 8.835 3.350 0.650 1482.2 0.0262 0.0138 eeeeeeeemes.e.... seas.ees.o..ee...see..e.es.... .............mes. e.4.... ......................e. ..e.e.....we RESULTC OF TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS FOR MISSILE INPACT WT7H OTHER LOADS esseeeeeeees.o.ne..e m ....e.e m ees m omen.e.e.e.een...eese m ..s m m ... m ...e... m .......seene...... m ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 TIME DURATION MISSILE FORCE AT TIME OF MAX MAXIMUM MAXIMUrt MAXIMUM FINAL BARRIER HISTORf 0F FORCE BARRIER BARRIER BARRIER BARRIER BARRIEW RESISTING MECHANISM NUPSER LOAD 3 LOAD 3 SUPPORT DEFLECTION DEFLECTION DUCTILITY VELOCITY SEC KIPS KIPS SEC FT FT/SEC 1 0.004540 300.0 1482.2 0.004540 0.0378 1.45 13.28 BEM3ING YIELD LINE 1 of 1 II - _ - - - _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
im (v) (m) J TABLE C.3-6 4,000 LB AUTO V=59 METERS /SEC** 650 LB ENGINE - 3,350 LB BODY AND FRAME SPAN = 30.0 FT DATA ON MISSILE. BARRIER. MC LOAD COMBINATION EQUATION om..nmmunemmmmm.mmm.mn.....un..m.m.nu m mm......m.m.mmmm BARRIER YIELD MECHANISM SPAN
- 30.0 FT .. BARRIER THICKNESS
- 24.0 "
P = 0.007632 = AS/(B.DI = STEEL RATIO .. OEPTH TO CENTROID OF TENSION STEEL's 20.44 " FC s 3.0 KSI .* FY z 40. KSI .. YIELD LINE FORCE = 12.6.MP 0.0 KIPS EQUIVALENT STATIC FORCE .. LOAD I 0.0 KIPS EQUIVALENT CONSTANT DYNAMIC FORCE .. LOAD 2 20.150 KIP-SEC MISSILE IMPULSE RESISTED BY FCRCE AT BARRIER SUPPORT PLUS BARRIER INERTIA DLRING MOMENTUM TRANSFER .. LOAD 3 3.850 KIP-SEC MISSILE IMPULSE RESISTED ONLY BY BARRIER INERTIA DURING t10 MENTUM TRANSFER .. LOAD 4 3.4 FPS BARRIER INITIAL VELOCITY DUE TO LOAD 4 BARRIER MISSILE MISSILE BARRIER BARRIER BARRIER EQUIVALENT WEIGHT WEIGHT PLASTIC EFFEC. YIELD PERICO
- NEIGHT LOAD 3 LOAD 4 FORCE DEFLECTION KIPS KIPS KIPS KIPS FT SEC 35.342 3.350 0.654 1482.2 0.1047 0.0553
. . ... . . .. ..... ....n o. ... m m u m .. m ... .... m ..........
RESULTS OF TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS FOR MISSILE IMPACT WITH OTHER LOADS
.. m .. .. ........... ... . . m .... m ...... m ............ m m .... m o.......... ... ....
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l TIME DURATION MISSILE FORCE AT TIf1E OF 11AX MAXINLM MAXIt1UM MAXIMUM FINAL BARRIER HISTORf 0F FORCE BARRIER BARRIER BARRIEP BARRIER BARRIER RESISTING MECHANISM MJrSER LOAD 3 LDAD 3 $UPPORT DEFLECTION DEFLECTION DUCTILITY VELOCITT SEC KIPS KIPS SEC FT FT/SEC 1 0.019338 300.0 827.7 0.019338 0.0585 0.56 4.19 ELASTIC 1 of 1 UL-----_--___________________ _ __ _ _____
O O O TABLE C.3-7 BARRIER DEFIECTION AND DUCTILITY FOR
'IDRNADO-BORNE MISSILES PLUS 360 MPH TORNADO WIND
- Velocity Barrier Barrier (seeters per. Momentum Span Deflection Barrier Missile second) kip-sec (ft) (ft) Ductility 114.6 lb wood plank 83 0.97 10 0.0038 0.33 114.6 lb wood plank 83 0.97 30 0.0121 0.12 286.6 lb 6 in. Sch 40 pipe 52 1.52 10 0.0034 0.30 286.6 lb 6 in. Sch 40 pipe 52 1.52 30 0.0162 0.16 8.8 lb 1 in. steel rod 51 0.05 10 0.0004 0.04 i
- 8.8 lb 1 in. steel rod 51 0.05 30 0.0048 0.05 1124.4 lb utility pole 55 6.30 10 0.0114 0.98 t 1124.4 lb utility pole 55 6.30 30 0.0523 0.50 749.6'1b 12 in. Sch 40 pipe 47 3.59 10 0.0125 1.08 749.G lb 12 in. Sch 40 pipe 47 3.59 30 0.0327 0.31 4000.0 lb auto 59 24.00 10 0.0520 4.47 4000.0 lb auto 59 24.00 30 0.0629 0.60
- Barrier data: 2 ft concrete fc ' = 3 ksi No.11 rebar Grade 40 10 in. on center each way and each face ,
l l l 1 of 1
O O O TABLE C.3-8 CG4PARISON OF BARRIER DUCTILITY RATIOS PREDICTED BY ANALYTICAL AND NUMERICAL METHODS WI'Hf WILLIAMSON AND ALVY MEPHOD Missile: Auto: weight = 1810 kg, velocity = 59 mps Barrier: 24 in. concrete No. 11 rebar at 10 in. on center each way and each face
~
Missile Line Span Load Analytical Numerical Williamson & Alvy No. (ft) , Type _ Method Method Method 1 10 A* 68.42 68.42 68.42
'2 10 B** 4.56 4.45 N.A.
3 15 A 19.14 19.14 19.14 4 15 B 1.47 1.45 N .A. 5 30 A 2.02 2.02 2.02 6 30 B 0.56 0.56 N.A.
*A 24 kip-sec initial'. impulse for auto body and engine
**B 3.85 kip-sec initial impulse for engine and 20.15 kip-sec square wave for
. auto body with 300 kip crush strength 1 of 1
i ( ': 4.0 -
.6r
.Tr .B r F / /7 A_. -f
.9r 3.0 -
olg E , O
! o
/
' EO -
/ '/ /
EQUATIONS 217 6 218 v CENTRAL PLASTIC MEMBRANE o AND OUTER CONE 5
/ / / ,,
d 4 ( T TO E TRA f o MEMBRANE Q/g/ / r O l.c p N EMBRANEI TIALLY) 0 ' ' l.O 2.0 3.0 Wo , CENTRAL OEFLECTION d THICKNESS OF SLAB l FIGURE C.3-1 f ps. . EFFECT OF TENSILE MEMBRANE ACTION ON SUPPORTED CIRCULAR SLAB (From Fig. 86a in Wood'*3)}}