US20140137727A1 - Blast-resistant reinforced cementitious panels and reinforcing structures for use therein - Google Patents

Blast-resistant reinforced cementitious panels and reinforcing structures for use therein Download PDF

Info

Publication number
US20140137727A1
US20140137727A1 US14/072,497 US201314072497A US2014137727A1 US 20140137727 A1 US20140137727 A1 US 20140137727A1 US 201314072497 A US201314072497 A US 201314072497A US 2014137727 A1 US2014137727 A1 US 2014137727A1
Authority
US
United States
Prior art keywords
wire grid
panel
wire
exterior
reinforcing structure
Prior art date
Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
Abandoned
Application number
US14/072,497
Other languages
English (en)
Inventor
Michael A. Riley
Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.)
Hipertex Armor Group LLC
Original Assignee
Hipertex Armor Group LLC
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by Hipertex Armor Group LLC filed Critical Hipertex Armor Group LLC
Priority to PCT/US2013/068560 priority Critical patent/WO2014120311A2/fr
Priority to US14/072,497 priority patent/US20140137727A1/en
Publication of US20140137727A1 publication Critical patent/US20140137727A1/en
Abandoned legal-status Critical Current

Links

Images

Classifications

    • F—MECHANICAL ENGINEERING; LIGHTING; HEATING; WEAPONS; BLASTING
    • F41—WEAPONS
    • F41H—ARMOUR; ARMOURED TURRETS; ARMOURED OR ARMED VEHICLES; MEANS OF ATTACK OR DEFENCE, e.g. CAMOUFLAGE, IN GENERAL
    • F41H5/00—Armour; Armour plates
    • F41H5/02—Plate construction
    • F41H5/04—Plate construction composed of more than one layer
    • F—MECHANICAL ENGINEERING; LIGHTING; HEATING; WEAPONS; BLASTING
    • F41—WEAPONS
    • F41H—ARMOUR; ARMOURED TURRETS; ARMOURED OR ARMED VEHICLES; MEANS OF ATTACK OR DEFENCE, e.g. CAMOUFLAGE, IN GENERAL
    • F41H5/00—Armour; Armour plates
    • F41H5/02—Plate construction
    • F41H5/04—Plate construction composed of more than one layer
    • F41H5/0442—Layered armour containing metal
    • E—FIXED CONSTRUCTIONS
    • E04—BUILDING
    • E04H—BUILDINGS OR LIKE STRUCTURES FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSES; SWIMMING OR SPLASH BATHS OR POOLS; MASTS; FENCING; TENTS OR CANOPIES, IN GENERAL
    • E04H9/00—Buildings, groups of buildings or shelters adapted to withstand or provide protection against abnormal external influences, e.g. war-like action, earthquake or extreme climate
    • E04H9/04—Buildings, groups of buildings or shelters adapted to withstand or provide protection against abnormal external influences, e.g. war-like action, earthquake or extreme climate against air-raid or other war-like actions
    • E—FIXED CONSTRUCTIONS
    • E04—BUILDING
    • E04C—STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS; BUILDING MATERIALS
    • E04C2/00—Building elements of relatively thin form for the construction of parts of buildings, e.g. sheet materials, slabs, or panels
    • E04C2/02—Building elements of relatively thin form for the construction of parts of buildings, e.g. sheet materials, slabs, or panels characterised by specified materials
    • E04C2/04—Building elements of relatively thin form for the construction of parts of buildings, e.g. sheet materials, slabs, or panels characterised by specified materials of concrete or other stone-like material; of asbestos cement; of cement and other mineral fibres
    • E04C2/044—Building elements of relatively thin form for the construction of parts of buildings, e.g. sheet materials, slabs, or panels characterised by specified materials of concrete or other stone-like material; of asbestos cement; of cement and other mineral fibres of concrete
    • E—FIXED CONSTRUCTIONS
    • E04—BUILDING
    • E04C—STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS; BUILDING MATERIALS
    • E04C2/00—Building elements of relatively thin form for the construction of parts of buildings, e.g. sheet materials, slabs, or panels
    • E04C2/02—Building elements of relatively thin form for the construction of parts of buildings, e.g. sheet materials, slabs, or panels characterised by specified materials
    • E04C2/04—Building elements of relatively thin form for the construction of parts of buildings, e.g. sheet materials, slabs, or panels characterised by specified materials of concrete or other stone-like material; of asbestos cement; of cement and other mineral fibres
    • E04C2/06—Building elements of relatively thin form for the construction of parts of buildings, e.g. sheet materials, slabs, or panels characterised by specified materials of concrete or other stone-like material; of asbestos cement; of cement and other mineral fibres reinforced
    • F—MECHANICAL ENGINEERING; LIGHTING; HEATING; WEAPONS; BLASTING
    • F41—WEAPONS
    • F41H—ARMOUR; ARMOURED TURRETS; ARMOURED OR ARMED VEHICLES; MEANS OF ATTACK OR DEFENCE, e.g. CAMOUFLAGE, IN GENERAL
    • F41H5/00—Armour; Armour plates
    • F41H5/02—Plate construction
    • F—MECHANICAL ENGINEERING; LIGHTING; HEATING; WEAPONS; BLASTING
    • F41—WEAPONS
    • F41H—ARMOUR; ARMOURED TURRETS; ARMOURED OR ARMED VEHICLES; MEANS OF ATTACK OR DEFENCE, e.g. CAMOUFLAGE, IN GENERAL
    • F41H5/00—Armour; Armour plates
    • F41H5/02—Plate construction
    • F41H5/04—Plate construction composed of more than one layer
    • F41H5/0414—Layered armour containing ceramic material
    • F41H5/0421—Ceramic layers in combination with metal layers
    • F—MECHANICAL ENGINEERING; LIGHTING; HEATING; WEAPONS; BLASTING
    • F41—WEAPONS
    • F41H—ARMOUR; ARMOURED TURRETS; ARMOURED OR ARMED VEHICLES; MEANS OF ATTACK OR DEFENCE, e.g. CAMOUFLAGE, IN GENERAL
    • F41H5/00—Armour; Armour plates
    • F41H5/24—Armour; Armour plates for stationary use, e.g. fortifications ; Shelters; Guard Booths

Definitions

  • the present invention relates to blast-resistant reinforced cementitious panels, and more particularly relates to concrete and other types of cementitious materials containing reinforcement structures that provide improved blast performance.
  • the present invention provides reinforcing structures for concrete and other cementitious material panels that provide improved blast performance.
  • the reinforcing structures may be pre-formed prior to the addition of the cementitious material to the reinforcing structure.
  • the blast-resistant cementitious panels may be pre-cast, cast-in-place or tilt-up panels.
  • An aspect of the present invention is to provide a reinforcing structure for a blast-resistant cementitious panel comprising a first wire grid assembly comprising an exterior wire grid and an interior wire grid spaced from the exterior wire grid, a second wire grid assembly spaced from the first wire grid assembly comprising at least an exterior wire grid, and a plurality of connecting wires attached to the wire grids of the first and second wire grid assemblies.
  • Another aspect of the present invention is to provide a reinforced blast-resistant cementitious panel comprising a cementitious material, and a reinforcing structure in the cementitious material.
  • the reinforcing structure comprises a first wire grid assembly comprising an exterior wire grid and an interior wire grid spaced from the exterior wire grid, a second wire grid assembly spaced from the first wire grid assembly comprising at least an exterior wire grid, and a plurality of connecting wires attached to the wire grids of the first and second wire grid assemblies.
  • a further aspect of the present invention is to provide a method of making a reinforced blast-resistant cementitious panel comprising introducing a flowable cementitious material to a pre-formed reinforcing structure and allowing the cementitious material to cure, wherein the reinforcing structure comprises a first wire grid assembly comprising an exterior wire grid and an interior wire grid spaced from the exterior wire grid, a second wire grid assembly spaced from the first wire grid assembly comprising at least an exterior wire grid, and a plurality of connecting wires attached to the wire grids of the first and second wire grid assemblies.
  • FIG. 1 is an isometric view of a pre-formed reinforcing structure for a blast-resistant cementitious panel in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention.
  • FIG. 2 is a partially schematic end sectional view of a reinforced blast-resistant concrete panel in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention.
  • FIG. 3 is a partially schematic end sectional view of a reinforced blast-resistant concrete panel including an interior foam layer in accordance with another embodiment of the present invention.
  • FIG. 4 is a partially schematic front view of a wire grid of a reinforcing structure in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention.
  • FIGS. 5A-5C are photographs illustrating reinforced panels that have been subjected to blast testing.
  • FIGS. 6A-6C are photographs illustrating reinforced panels that have been subjected to blast testing.
  • FIGS. 7A-7F are photographs illustrating reinforced panels that have been subjected to blast testing.
  • FIGS. 8A-8C are photographs illustrating reinforced panels that have been subjected to blast testing.
  • FIGS. 9A-9C are partially schematic side views of panels illustrating blast deformation characteristics.
  • FIGS. 10A and 10B illustrate crack patterns for panels subjected to blast testing.
  • FIGS. 11A-11F are graphs of deflection versus time and bottom support reaction versus time for panels subjected to blast testing.
  • FIGS. 1-4 illustrate reinforced cementitious panels and reinforcing structures for use therein in accordance with embodiments of the present invention.
  • FIG. 2 is an end sectional view showing a reinforced blast-resistant cementitious panel 10 including a cementitious material 12 with a reinforcing structure 20 embedded therein. The multiple arrows above the reinforced panel 10 in FIG. 2 represent the force of an explosive blast that the panel could be subjected to.
  • FIG. 1 is a perspective view of the reinforcing structure 20 . As shown most clearly in FIG. 2 , the reinforcing structure 20 includes a first wire grid assembly 21 near one exterior face of the cementitious material 12 , and a second wire grid assembly 25 near the opposite exterior face of the cementitious material 12 .
  • the first wire grid assembly 21 includes an exterior wire grid 22 and an interior wire grid 23 .
  • the exterior and interior wire grids 22 and 23 are located relatively close to each other, and lie in planes that are substantially parallel with each other.
  • FIG. 4 is a front view illustrating a portion of the exterior wire grid 22 , which includes multiple horizontal wires 22 a and multiple vertical wires 22 b. The multiple vertical wires 22 b are also shown in the sectional end view of FIG. 2 .
  • the second wire grid assembly 25 includes an exterior wire grid 26 and an interior wire grid 27 .
  • Each of the exterior and interior wire grids 26 and 27 of the second wire grid assembly 25 , as well as the interior wire grid 23 of the first wire grid assembly, may be of the same or similar construction as the exterior wire grid 22 of the first wire grid assembly 21 , as shown in FIG. 4 , i.e., each wire grid 23 , 26 and 27 may comprise multiple horizontal wires and multiple vertical wires.
  • the reinforcing structure 20 includes multiple connecting wires 30 extending between, and connected to, the first and second wire grid assemblies 21 and 25 .
  • each of the connecting wires 30 are attached to the exterior and interior wire grids 22 and 23 of the first wire grid assembly 21 , as well as the exterior and interior wire grids 26 and 27 of the second wire grid assembly 25 .
  • the connecting wires 30 may only be connected to the interior wire grids 22 and 27 , or the exterior wire grids 23 and 26 .
  • each of the first and second wire grid assemblies 21 and 25 may be pre-formed by first attaching their respective exterior and interior wire grids together by connecting wires or rods (not shown), followed by attaching the first and second wire grid assemblies together with the connecting wires 30 .
  • the connecting wires 30 are attached to the various wire grids by welding.
  • the connecting wires 30 , exterior and interior wires 22 and 23 of the first wire grid assembly 21 , and exterior and interior wires 26 and 27 of the second wire grid assembly 25 may be made of steel that is electro-welded at some or all of the points of contact between the various wires.
  • the reinforcing structure 20 also includes multiple reinforcing rods 42 and 44 .
  • the first set of reinforcing rods 42 are engaged with the first wire grid assembly 21 by placing the reinforcing rods 42 in the space between the exterior and interior wire grids 22 and 23 .
  • the second set of reinforcing rods 44 are engaged with the second wire grid assembly 25 by placing the reinforcing rods 44 in the space between the exterior and interior wire grids 26 and 27 .
  • the reinforcing rods 42 and 44 may be held in place by frictional engagement or contact with the wires of their respective first and second wire grid assemblies 21 and 25 .
  • the reinforcing rods 42 and 44 may be attached within the first and second wire grid assemblies 21 and 25 by any other suitable means such as welding, mechanical fasteners, wire ties, fabric ties, or the like.
  • the configurations, sizes and spacings of the various components of the reinforcing structure 20 are selected in order to produce desirable blast-resistance performance when the reinforcing structure 20 is used in a cementitious panel.
  • the wires of the first and second wire grid assemblies 21 and 25 may have typical diameters of from 1 to 7 mm, for example, from 1.5 to 6 mm, or from 2 to 5 mm.
  • the connecting wires 30 may have typical diameters of from 1 to 7 mm, for example, from 1.5 to 6 mm, or from 2 to 5 mm.
  • the reinforcing rods 42 and 44 may have typical diameters of from 8 to 40 mm, for example, from 10 to 30 mm, or from 12.5 to 25 mm.
  • the first and second wire grid assemblies 21 and 25 may be spaced apart a distance S A that may typically range from 1 to 20 cm, for example, from 4 to 18 cm, or from 7 to 15 cm.
  • the exterior and interior wire grids 22 and 23 may be spaced apart a distance S G , which may typically range from 8 to 40 mm, for example, from 10 to 30 mm, or from 12.5 to 25 mm.
  • the exterior and interior wire grids 26 and 27 may be spaced apart the same distance S G as described above for the first wire grid assembly 21 .
  • the grid spacings S G shown in FIG. 2 are the same for both the first wire grid assembly 21 and second wire grid assembly 25 , it is to be understood that different grid spacings S G may be used if desired.
  • the exterior wire grid 22 of the first wire grid assembly 21 includes multiple horizontal wires 22 a that are spaced apart a distance of D H .
  • the horizontal wire spacing D H may typically range from 20 to 200 mm, for example, from 30 to 150 mm, or from 40 to 100 mm.
  • the exterior wire grid assembly 22 includes multiple vertical wires 22 b that are spaced apart a distance of D V .
  • the vertical wire spacing D V may typically range from 20 to 200 mm, for example, from 30 to 150 mm, or from 40 to 100 mm.
  • the horizontal and vertical wire spacings D H and D V may be the same or different.
  • the interior wire grid 23 of the first wire grid assembly 21 as well as the exterior and interior wire grids 26 and 27 of the second wire grid assembly 25 , may have similar horizontal and vertical wire spacings D H and D V as those of the exterior wire grid 22 .
  • the reinforcing structure 20 has an overall thickness T R that may typically range from 6.5 to 30 cm, for example, from 8 to 20 cm, or from 10 to 15 cm.
  • the reinforced blast-resistant cementitious panel 10 has an overall panel thickness T P that may typically range from 7 to 40 cm, for example, from 8 to 30 cm, or from 10 to 20 cm. While these ranges of the reinforcing structure thickness T R and overall panel thickness T P may be suitable for certain applications, it is to be understood that the thicknesses T R and T P may be varied depending upon the particular use of a panel and its desired blast-resistance properties.
  • the reinforced blast-resistant cementitious panels of the present invention may be provided in any desired heights and widths.
  • the panels may have heights of from 1.5 to 10 m, for example, from 8 to 10 m, or from 2.5 to 7 m.
  • the panels may have widths of from 1 to 5 m, for example, from 1.2 to 4 m, or from 1.4 to 3 m. While reinforced panels having substantially flat external surfaces are primarily described herein, it is to be understood that the reinforced panels of the present invention may include other shapes such as rounded or bent surfaces.
  • the reinforcing structure 20 is embedded within the reinforced blast-resistant panel 10 .
  • the first wire grid assembly 21 is embedded a distance of D E from the surface of the cementitious material 12 on one exterior face of the panel 10
  • the second wire grid assembly 25 is embedded a distance of D E from the surface of the cementitious material 12 on the opposing exterior face of the panel 10 .
  • the embedded distance D E may typically range from 0.25 to 7.5 cm, for example, from 0.5 to 4 cm, or from 1.5 to 3 cm. While the embedded distance D E shown in FIG. 2 is the same for both the first wire grid assembly 21 and the second wire grid assembly 25 , it is to be understood that different embedded distances D E may be used if desired.
  • FIG. 3 illustrates another embodiment of the present invention in which a reinforced blast-resistant cementitious panel 110 similar to the panel 10 shown in FIG. 2 is provided, with the addition of a layer of foam 116 contained within the panel 110 .
  • the reinforced blast-resistant cementitious panel 100 includes a first layer of cementitious material 112 and a second layer of cementitious material 114 sandwiching the foam core layer 116 therebetween.
  • the layer of foam 116 may be made of any suitable material such as expanded polystyrene (EPS), extruded expanded polystyrene (XEPS), polyisocyanurate (PIMA), and the like.
  • EPS expanded polystyrene
  • XEPS extruded expanded polystyrene
  • PIMA polyisocyanurate
  • the thickness of the foam layer 116 may be adjusted as desired, and typically is less than or equal to the spacing distance S A between the first and second wire grid assemblies 21 and 25 . In accordance with the embodiment shown in FIG. 3 , the use of the foam layer 116 may decrease the overall weight of the panel 110 , and may improve the thermal insulation properties of the panel 110 .
  • the foam layer 116 could be replaced or combined with other types of lightweight and/or thermally insulating materials.
  • wire grid assemblies 21 and 25 may be included as part of the reinforcing structure 20 , or may be provided as a separate reinforcing structure within the blast-resistant panels.
  • a third wire grid assembly (not shown) similar to the first and second wire grid assemblies 21 and 25 may be located between the first and second wire grid assemblies 21 and 25 in a plane substantially parallel with the planes of the other assemblies.
  • the third wire grid assembly may be attached to the connecting wires 30 by welding or any other suitable means.
  • the cementitious material 12 , 112 and 114 may comprise any known type of cementitious material such as Portland cement, pozzolanic cement, coal fly ash, ground granulated blast furnace slag, and the like.
  • the cementitious material may comprise concrete, mortar, and other known types of materials.
  • the cementitious material may include sand, stone, aggregate and other materials that are conventionally added to cement.
  • the cementitious material may be reinforced with fibrous materials.
  • the reinforcing fibers may include carbon fibers, aramid fibers, polymeric fibers, nylon fibers, polypropylene fibers, kevlar fibers, basalt fibers or any other known type of fibrous material.
  • the fiber reinforcements are discontinuous and may have typical lengths of 1.25 to 15 cm, or from 2 to 10 cm. Alternatively, continuous fiber reinforcement materials may be used in place of, or in addition to, discontinuous fiber reinforcements.
  • continuous fibers may be provided in the form of woven fiber applied to the various components of the reinforcing structure 20 , e.g., the continuous fibers may be wound around, or woven between, the various wires and/or reinforcing rods of the reinforcing structure 20 .
  • the amount of fiber reinforcements contained in the cementitious material may be varied as desired. For example, when discontinuous fibers are used, they may be present in an amount of from 0.05 to 2.5 weight percent, or from 0.1 to 2 weight percent, based on the total weight of the cementitious material. In certain embodiments, effective amounts of discontinuous fiber reinforcements may be less than 2 weight percent, or less than 1 weight percent, while providing sufficient blast-resistance properties.
  • the reinforced panels have desirable compressive strengths for improved blast-resistance.
  • the reinforced panels may have compressive strengths of greater than 5,000 psi, for example, greater than 10,000 or 12,000 psi.
  • the reinforced panels may have compressive strengths ranging from greater than 15,000 psi up to 20,000 psi, 24,000 psi, or higher.
  • PSM HP 80 8-inch thick Single Polystyrene High Performance structural wall panel consisting of a 4-inch thick EPS foam core straddled with 2-inch thick concrete on each face. Both concrete layers were reinforced with two layers of electro-welded 3 mm wire mesh having an approximate spacing of 2.8 inches.
  • PSM HP 160—RB#5 113 ⁇ 8-inch thick Single Polystyrene High Performance structural wall panel consisting of a 6-inch thick EPS foam core straddled with 2.5-inch thick concrete on each face. Each concrete layer was reinforced with the same two layers of electro-welded 3 mm wire mesh and #5 longitudinal reinforcing bars spaced 5 inches on center placed between the wire mesh reinforcement.
  • PC HP 80—RB#5 6-inch thick Precast High Performance structural wall panel with electro-welded 3 mm wire mesh with an approximate spacing of 2.8 inches. #5 longitudinal rebar was placed between the wire mesh at 6 inches on center, which is slightly more than the 5-inch spacing for the PSM HP 160 panels. The concrete in this panel was reinforced with two different types of short and long synthetic fibers.
  • Table 1 summarizes the panel dimensions and properties used for the structural analysis.
  • the shock tube is a compressed air-driven test apparatus that consists of two major sections, a driver section and an expansion section. Blast pressures are generated when an aluminum rupture disk placed between the two sections fails, due to pressure in the driver section. A shock wave then travels down the expansion section and loads the test specimen at the end of the expansion section.
  • the driver was baffled to reduce the effects of reloading by the reflections that exist in the shock tube.
  • Each flat wall panel was mounted into a reaction structure that provided simple supports to the panel while allowing for reaction load measurement at the bottom support.
  • the specimen spans vertically 8 feet.
  • Load cells are used to measure support reactions at the bottom of the specimen. The load cells provide the only lateral restraint of the bottom channel that supports the panel.
  • the test load was measured using a total of three dynamic pressure transducers located on each side wall and the floor of the shock tube adjacent to the target end of the shock tube.
  • the load reported for each test is the average of the three gauges and represents the load applied to the wall specimen.
  • Two quartz force ring dynamic load cells were used to measure panel end reactions. Initially, the dynamic mid-span displacements were monitored using a laser distance meter positioned at mid-span and offset from the panel. However, due to damage sustained to the gauge during the initial tests as a result of significant deflections, accelerometers were subsequently used and mounted to the panel at mid-span to capture the panel acceleration, which was differentiated to obtain the mid-span displacement. High speed video was focused on a mid-span scale background to confirm the active measured panel displacement data.
  • Pre-test analytical models were derived for each panel type based on single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) methodology in order to predict the flexural response of each panel prior to testing.
  • Initial estimates of the first test load were selected to obtain a low to moderate damage response.
  • the experimental response was compared to the predicted response and the model was then adjusted to represent the observed response.
  • the revised model was then used to determine the magnitude of blast loads for subsequent tests with increasing levels of damage.
  • the objective of this process was to obtain experimental results for varying pressure and impulse combinations in order to define acceptable response limits with respect to peak applied pressure and impulse.
  • Table 2 presents a summary of the test program providing the panel type, specimen number, peak pressure, impulse, and test duration for each test.
  • the observed damage was qualitatively less than what was designated by ASCE response criteria. For example, Test 3 for the PSM HP 80 Panel II, would be characterized as failure whereas the panel achieved a maximum deflection and survived the applied blast loading without failure.
  • Test 1 resulted in a peak deflection of 2.6 inches at 73 ms, corresponding to a High response criterion as defined by ASCE.
  • Test 2 was a re-test of Specimen I and resulted in clean break of the panel at a pressure of 4.8 psi where fracture of the mesh wire was the primary failure mechanism with minimal concrete spalling on the compression face.
  • Test 3 subjected a new test panel to a slightly higher blast load resulting in a peak deflection of 5.0 inches. This response corresponds to a support rotation of 5.9 degrees and exceeds a High response according to ASCE criteria (Failure), even though the panel did not fail and fall out of the testing frame.
  • Test 16 applied a blast load similar to Test 3 (PSM HP80) in order to obtain a direct correlation between the two panel types.
  • the panel responded elastically to the blast load with a peak deflection of 0.36 inches and had no residual surface cracking, thus exhibiting a significant increase in blast resistance in comparison to the PSM HP80 panels.
  • Test 17 was a retest of Specimen I with in increased blast load of 10.7 psi resulting in a peak deflection of 2.8 inches as shown in FIGS. 6A-6C .
  • damage was observed at the bottom right support, which was attributed to the mesh being wrapped around the outside edges of the pane that caused the cover concrete to spall due to rotation at the supports.
  • Initial signs of concrete spallation at mid-span were also observed on the loaded face.
  • Tests 18 and 19 subjected new test panels to peak applied blast pressures of 15.3 psi and 21.9 psi, respectively, and both resulted in heavy damage approaching incipient failure. In addition to the primary flexural hinge formed at mid-span, each panel also sustained significant shear failure at their supports causing the panels to unseat from the supports as shown in FIGS. 7A-7E . Tests 18 and 19 indicated permanent deformations of 8.75 inches and 6.5 inches at midspan, respectively; with an overall reduction in panel thickness of 1.63 inches and 0.625 inches due to compression of the foam core, respectively. Test 20 subjected a new test panel to a reduced blast pressure of 12.1 psi resulting in a peak deflection of 3 inches. Signs of incipient concrete spall were observed on the right side of the loaded face as shown in FIG. 7F . Post-test measurements indicated a permanent displacement of 3.6 inches at mid-span, and an overall reduction in panel thickness of 0.375 inches due to foam crushing.
  • Tests 7 through 9 were conducted on Specimen I with increasing blast pressures, in which Test 9 had a peak applied blast pressure of 16.6 psi and impulse of 1,528 psi-ms. This resulted in a peak deflection of 1.5 inches and corresponds to a Medium response criterion in accordance with ASCE.
  • FIGS. 9A-9C illustrate the difference between full-composite and non-composite behavior.
  • Full-composite action assumes that the dowel rods and foam core connecting the two concrete layers have sufficient strength and stiffness to transfer in-plane shear flow between the layers such that the entire section remains plane.
  • non-composite action assumes that no in-plane shear flow is transferred between layers such that the panel response can be defined as the superposition of the each sub-panels response.
  • the actual response of these panels will be a partially composite response that is a function of the ratio between the shear flow and flexural capacities; where the shear flow capacity is provided by the wire dowels and foam core connecting the concrete layers, and the flexural bending capacity is provided by the longitudinal reinforcement.
  • a simplified modeling approach was initially adopted for the analytical modeling of these panels using a Single-Degree-of-Freedom (SDOF) model to evaluate the nonlinear dynamic response of each panel when subjected to the averaged blast pressure-time history from each test. The following section describes the SDOF model used for each panel, and compares the SDOF model results to the experimental results.
  • SDOF Single-Degree-of-Freedom
  • PSM HP 80 Panel The flexural capacity is provided by the longitudinal mesh only and was relatively balanced with the shear flow capacity provided by the wire dowel connectors and foam core. Therefore, the blast capacity was better captured by the full-composite model; however, because the wire dowel connectors are embedded in the foam, the stiffness was better captured using the non-composite model.
  • the SDOF model results were within 16% agreement with the experimental results, which was reasonable considering the level of complexity involved with modeling these panels.
  • PSM HP 160—RB#5 In comparison to the PSM HP 80 Panels, the flexural capacity of the PSM HP 160 Panels is significantly increased with the inclusion of the #5 rebar; however, the shear flow resistance provided by the wire dowel connectors remained unchanged. Post-experimental analysis concluded that the blast capacity of the panel was on the order of halfway between the full- and non-composite model due to the fractional amount of shear flow transferred by the dowel wires and foam core. This approximation resulted in comparisons within 43% of the experimental results regarding the measured reactions; however, the observed displacements had a much greater deviation. The deflections measured for Tests 18 and 19 are not representative of the flexural response anticipated, due to the shear failure sustained at the panel supports.
  • PC HP 80—RB#5 The SDOF model for this panel was derived using a moment-curvature relationship of the doubly reinforced concrete section, assuming standard flexural theory. Standard concrete constitutive material models were assumed for this model as no material test data was available for the fiber reinforced concrete used in the construction of these panels. When compared to the experimental results, the analytical model consistently over predicted the deflections up to 13%, and under predicted the reactions no more than 38%. One possible explanation for these differences may be due to the additional stiffness provided by the concrete fibers under high strain-rate effects.
  • DYNA-3D Finite Element Models were developed for these two panel types. Hexahedral (solid brick) elements were used to represent the concrete and foam core, while structural beam elements were used to model the reinforcing steel. Strength Increase Factor (SIF) and Dynamic Increase Factor (DIF) were applied to all material strengths per guidelines in the Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC). Concrete element size was generally 0.50 ⁇ 0.50 ⁇ 0.40 inch in the PSM HP 160—RB#5 model, and 0.50 ⁇ 0.50 ⁇ 0.30 inch in the PSM HP 80 model.
  • SIF Strength Increase Factor
  • DIF Dynamic Increase Factor
  • the reinforcing steel beam elements shared nodes with the concrete and foam mesh (i.e., no provision for bond-slip between rebar and concrete). Physical properties for the foam were not available, so typical properties were assumed. A contact surface was applied over the top and bottom 2 inches of the panels providing a free span of 96 inches between simple supports. The panels were not allowed to develop vertical in-plane deflection resistance at the supports such that no arching or membrane behavior could occur.
  • the concrete was modeled using the Applied Engineering Cap Model with Three Invariants (AEC-31, implemented into DYNA-3D).
  • AEC-3I models material plasticity with a unified shear yield and cap surface that can harden from an initial yield position to ultimate strength and then soften to residual surfaces under continued loading.
  • Decohesion algorithms model the formation of crack planes with defined orientation and controlled growth based on material fracture energy, which is specified as a user input. Crack growth is represented with decohesion strain components resulting in anisotropic material behavior. Orientation of crack plane initiation is based on principal-stress Rankine criteria that are characteristic of brittle-fracture materials.
  • the test program provided test data showing reasonable blast capacity of the reinforced foam core panels when compared to the tested solid core panels, although significantly less blast damage was observed for the solid panels under similar blast loading.
  • the PSM HP 80 Panel II (Test 3) showed moderate to heavy damage when subjected to 5.1 psi/210 psi-ms compared to the PC HP 80—RB#5, Panel I (Test 7) that showed light damage when subjected to 5.2 psi/224 psi-ms.
  • the PSM HP 80 panel had much less flexural reinforcement and was a third lighter compared to the PC HP 80—RB#5 panel.
  • PSM HP 160—RB#5 Panel III (Test 19) that showed heavy damage when subjected to 21.9 psi/445 psi-ms and the PC HP 80—RB#5 Panel V (Test)) that show moderate damage when subjected to 23.6 psi/496 psi-ms. Although both panels had similar reinforcement, the PSM HP 160—RB#5 panel was almost 20 lighter than the PC HP 80—RB#5 panel.
  • the reinforced cementitious panels of the present invention provide several advantages. Lighter inexpensive cladding building systems can be implemented into building blast hardened construction. A cost-effective reinforced concrete foam core panel may take advantage of increased section depth with minimal effect on panel weight.
  • the reinforced panels may use high-strength concrete specifically designed for in-situ applications either before or after installation of the panel units, and the connecting wires provide shear reinforcement.
  • the present system may improve constructability for applications where access is difficult, as well as providing enhanced thermal characteristics.

Landscapes

  • Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • Architecture (AREA)
  • General Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • Civil Engineering (AREA)
  • Structural Engineering (AREA)
  • Ceramic Engineering (AREA)
  • Chemical & Material Sciences (AREA)
  • Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
  • Emergency Management (AREA)
  • Environmental & Geological Engineering (AREA)
  • Working Measures On Existing Buildindgs (AREA)
US14/072,497 2012-11-05 2013-11-05 Blast-resistant reinforced cementitious panels and reinforcing structures for use therein Abandoned US20140137727A1 (en)

Priority Applications (2)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
PCT/US2013/068560 WO2014120311A2 (fr) 2012-11-05 2013-11-05 Panneaux en ciment renforcés résistants aux explosions, et structures de renfort utilisables dans ceux-ci
US14/072,497 US20140137727A1 (en) 2012-11-05 2013-11-05 Blast-resistant reinforced cementitious panels and reinforcing structures for use therein

Applications Claiming Priority (2)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
US201261722504P 2012-11-05 2012-11-05
US14/072,497 US20140137727A1 (en) 2012-11-05 2013-11-05 Blast-resistant reinforced cementitious panels and reinforcing structures for use therein

Publications (1)

Publication Number Publication Date
US20140137727A1 true US20140137727A1 (en) 2014-05-22

Family

ID=50726704

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
US14/072,497 Abandoned US20140137727A1 (en) 2012-11-05 2013-11-05 Blast-resistant reinforced cementitious panels and reinforcing structures for use therein

Country Status (2)

Country Link
US (1) US20140137727A1 (fr)
WO (1) WO2014120311A2 (fr)

Cited By (8)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US20150322664A1 (en) * 2014-05-07 2015-11-12 Strong Built Structures, Inc. Method for fabricating six-sided concrete modules
US9376815B1 (en) * 2015-07-31 2016-06-28 Patrick J. Santini Structural concrete panel
WO2018028975A1 (fr) * 2016-08-11 2018-02-15 Groz-Beckert Kg Ensemble plaque de protection et procédé de réparation d'une telle plaque de protection
RU182756U1 (ru) * 2017-02-28 2018-08-30 Владимир Андреевич Бахмисов Бетонная панель с комбинированным армированием
RU184150U1 (ru) * 2018-06-05 2018-10-17 Олег Евгеньевич Петров Стеновая панель
US10377527B2 (en) 2015-06-22 2019-08-13 Bastian Solutions, Llc Composite concrete pallet
WO2020056276A1 (fr) * 2018-09-13 2020-03-19 Baker Engineering & Risk Consultants, Inc. Abri de sécurité d'urgence résistant à la projection de fragment, à la surpression, aux rayonnements et aux produits toxiques
US11939107B2 (en) 2022-06-01 2024-03-26 Artistic Composite Pallets Llc Pallet with impact resistant and strengthened composite legs

Citations (5)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US5058345A (en) * 1990-07-17 1991-10-22 Martinez Manuel J Reinforced structural panel and method of making same
US7067588B2 (en) * 1993-06-02 2006-06-27 Evg Entwicklungs- U. Verwertungs-Gesellschaft M.B.H. Building element
US7562613B2 (en) * 2003-12-19 2009-07-21 The Cooper Union For The Advancement Of Science And Art Protective structure and protective system
US7748307B2 (en) * 2006-08-04 2010-07-06 Gerald Hallissy Shielding for structural support elements
US20140157710A1 (en) * 2012-08-16 2014-06-12 Darrel V. Potter Structure Formed From Panels Joined With Universal Clamping Brackets

Family Cites Families (1)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
GB0212687D0 (en) * 2002-05-31 2002-07-10 Composhield As Reinforced composite panel

Patent Citations (5)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US5058345A (en) * 1990-07-17 1991-10-22 Martinez Manuel J Reinforced structural panel and method of making same
US7067588B2 (en) * 1993-06-02 2006-06-27 Evg Entwicklungs- U. Verwertungs-Gesellschaft M.B.H. Building element
US7562613B2 (en) * 2003-12-19 2009-07-21 The Cooper Union For The Advancement Of Science And Art Protective structure and protective system
US7748307B2 (en) * 2006-08-04 2010-07-06 Gerald Hallissy Shielding for structural support elements
US20140157710A1 (en) * 2012-08-16 2014-06-12 Darrel V. Potter Structure Formed From Panels Joined With Universal Clamping Brackets

Cited By (13)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US9499984B2 (en) * 2014-05-07 2016-11-22 Strong Built Structures, Inc. Method for fabricating six-sided concrete modules
US20150322664A1 (en) * 2014-05-07 2015-11-12 Strong Built Structures, Inc. Method for fabricating six-sided concrete modules
US10377527B2 (en) 2015-06-22 2019-08-13 Bastian Solutions, Llc Composite concrete pallet
US9376815B1 (en) * 2015-07-31 2016-06-28 Patrick J. Santini Structural concrete panel
WO2018028975A1 (fr) * 2016-08-11 2018-02-15 Groz-Beckert Kg Ensemble plaque de protection et procédé de réparation d'une telle plaque de protection
DE102016114927A1 (de) * 2016-08-11 2018-02-15 Groz-Beckert Kommanditgesellschaft Schutzplattenanordnung und Verfahren zur Reparatur einer solchen Schutzplattenanordnung
DE102016114927B4 (de) * 2016-08-11 2018-04-12 Groz-Beckert Kommanditgesellschaft Schutzplattenanordnung und Verfahren zur Reparatur einer solchen Schutzplattenanordnung
RU182756U1 (ru) * 2017-02-28 2018-08-30 Владимир Андреевич Бахмисов Бетонная панель с комбинированным армированием
RU184150U1 (ru) * 2018-06-05 2018-10-17 Олег Евгеньевич Петров Стеновая панель
WO2020056276A1 (fr) * 2018-09-13 2020-03-19 Baker Engineering & Risk Consultants, Inc. Abri de sécurité d'urgence résistant à la projection de fragment, à la surpression, aux rayonnements et aux produits toxiques
US11274464B2 (en) * 2018-09-13 2022-03-15 Baker Engineering & Risk Consultants, Inc. Fragment-, overpressure-, radiation-, and toxic-resistant emergency safety shelter
US20220251864A1 (en) * 2018-09-13 2022-08-11 Baker Engineering & Risk Consultants, Inc. Fragment-, overpressure-, radiation-, and toxic-resistant emergency safety shelter
US11939107B2 (en) 2022-06-01 2024-03-26 Artistic Composite Pallets Llc Pallet with impact resistant and strengthened composite legs

Also Published As

Publication number Publication date
WO2014120311A3 (fr) 2014-10-23
WO2014120311A2 (fr) 2014-08-07

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
US20140137727A1 (en) Blast-resistant reinforced cementitious panels and reinforcing structures for use therein
Koutas et al. Out-of-plane strengthening of masonry-infilled RC frames with textile-reinforced mortar jackets
Portal et al. Bending behaviour of novel Textile Reinforced Concrete-foamed concrete (TRC-FC) sandwich elements
Tsantilis et al. Innovative seismic isolation of masonry infills using cellular materials at the interface with the surrounding RC frames
Garcia-Ramonda et al. In-plane shear behaviour by diagonal compression testing of brick masonry walls strengthened with basalt and steel textile reinforced mortars
Furtado et al. Experimental tests on strengthening strategies for masonry infill walls: A literature review
Dizhur et al. Out-of-plane strengthening of unreinforced masonry walls using near surface mounted fibre reinforced polymer strips
Wu et al. Seismic behavior of steel reinforced ECC columns under constant axial loading and reversed cyclic lateral loading
Brodsky et al. Resistance of reinforced concrete frames with masonry infill walls to in-plane gravity loading due to loss of a supporting column
Zhang et al. Low‐seismic damage strategies for infilled RC frames: shake‐table tests
Ghezelbash et al. Shake table test of a masonry building retrofitted with shotcrete
Frank et al. Experimental testing of reinforced concrete and reinforced ECC flexural members subjected to various cyclic deformation histories
Song et al. Structural behavior of SRC beam-to-column joints subjected to simulated fire including cooling phase
Cox et al. Lumped GFRP star connector system for partial composite action in insulated precast concrete sandwich panels
Frank et al. Experimental testing of reinforced ECC beams subjected to various cyclic deformation histories
Yuksel et al. Behavior of tunnel form buildings under quasi-static cyclic lateral loading
Yılmaz et al. Experimental and numerical investigation of impact behavior of RC slab with different opening size and layout
Baghi et al. Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete beams with Hybrid Composite Plates (HCP) technique: Experimental research and analytical model
Yang et al. Dynamic response and collapse resistance of RC flat plate structures subjected to instantaneous removal of an interior column
Rajai Behavior of two-way slabs subjected to drop-weight
Yu et al. Structural behavior of steel-concrete-steel and steel-ultra-high-performance-concrete-steel composite panels subjected to near-field blast load
Mercedes et al. Bending and compression performance of full-scale sandwich panels of hemp fabric reinforced cementitious matrix
Colombo et al. Precast TRC sandwich panels for energy retrofitting of existing residential buildings: full-scale testing and modelling
Tran et al. Impact Response of Prestressed Prefabricated Segmental and Monolithic Basalt-FRP-Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete Beams
Joseph et al. Shake-table testing and numerical simulation to select the FRCM retrofit solution for flexure/shear deficient RC frames

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
STCB Information on status: application discontinuation

Free format text: ABANDONED -- FAILURE TO RESPOND TO AN OFFICE ACTION