Blast Response of Lightly Attached Concrete Masonry Unit Walls

Baylot, James T.; Bullock, Billy; Slawson, Thomas R.; Woodson, Stanley C.

doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(2005)131:8(1186)

Cited by 99 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Little analysis was given to the failure mechanism as only a pass or fail result was desired. SDOF predictions calculated by Baylot et al [25] were shown to be in agreement with the experimental data. The SDOF method was also used by several others [17,26,27] to predict the response of FRP retrofitted walls but no comparison to experimental data was provided.…”

Section: Frp Retrofitted Concrete Wallssupporting

confidence: 66%

“…Of the spray-on materials seven polyureas were selected for further evaluation based primarily on their stiffness and ductility. This concluded that spray-on polyureas were most suitable even though [14,15] 1995, 2003 RC columns Explosive Crawford et al [10] 1997 RC columns DYNA3D Crawford et al [16] 2001 RC columns Explosive PRONTO3D Crawford et al [16] 2001 RC columns Static Ross et al [5] 1997 LWHS slabs Explosive REICON Mosalam and Mosallam [20] 2001 RC slabs DIANA Lawver et al [18] 2003 RC slabs Explosive FLEX Muszynski et al [14,15] 1995, 2003 RC walls Explosive Oswald and Wesevich [30] 2001 CMU walls Shock tube Crawford et al [28,29] 2002, 2003 CMU walls DYNA3D Carney and Myers [6] 2003 CMU walls Static Muszynski and Purcell [9] 2003 RC walls Explosive Muszynski and Purcell [9] 2003 CMU walls Explosive Myers et al [7,8] 2003, 2004 CMU walls Explosive Tan [21] 2003 CMU walls DIANA Davidson et al [12] 2004 CMU walls Explosive Baylot et al [25] 2005 CMU walls Explosive Davidson et al [13] 2005 CMU walls Explosive DYNA3D Urgessa et al [24] 2005 CMU walls Explosive [14,15] Columns X X Crawford et al [10] Columns X Crawford et al [16] Columns X Ross et al [5] Slabs X Mosalam and Mosallam [20] Slabs X Lawver et al [18] Slabs X X Muszynski et al [14,15] Walls X X Oswald and Wesevich [30] Walls X Crawford et al [28,29] Walls X X Carney and Myers [6] Walls X GFRP rods Muszynski [9] Walls X A/G hybrid Myers et al …”

Section: Choice Of Retrofitting Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Baylot et al [25] explosively tested 1/4-scale masonry walls to investigate the effect of various wall parameters. The limitation of the tests was in scaling effects having to be considered in interpreting the results.…”

Section: Frp Retrofitted Concrete Wallsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Blast resistance of FRP composites and polymer strengthened concrete and masonry structures – A state-of-the-art review

Buchan

Chen

2007

Composites Part B: Engineering

243

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Frp Retrofitted Concrete Wallssupporting

confidence: 66%

Section: Choice Of Retrofitting Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Blast resistance of FRP composites and polymer strengthened concrete and masonry structures – A state-of-the-art review

Buchan

Chen

2007

Composites Part B: Engineering

243

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Some of these contributions include Klaus (1985); Beshara et al (991, 1993);Kraus et al (1994); Krauthammer et al (1994; Murray (1997); Lok et al (1999); Mays et al (1999);and Baylot et al (2005), among others. However, the research of Dennis et al (2002) and Eamon et al (2004) is particularly relevant here, which concerns the specific blast loads and CMU walls considered in this study.…”

Section: Resistance Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability of Concrete Masonry Unit Walls Subjected to Explosive Loads

Eamon

2007

J. Struct. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study discuses the development of a procedure that can be used to assess the reliability of concrete masonry unit infill walls subjected to personnel-delivered blast loads.Consideration is given to maintain reasonable computational effort for both the structural analysis and reliability models. Blast load and wall resistance models are developed based on experimental and analytical data, and resistance is evaluated with a large strain, large displacement transient dynamic finite element analysis. A sensitivity analysis is conducted to identify significant random variables and a reliability analysis conducted with a feasible level of computational effort. Reliability indices are estimated for two wall types and three design blast load levels in terms of wall failure as well as occupant injury, over various load frequency-ofoccurrence times.---------------------1 Associate Professor,

show abstract

“…The aim of this joint study was to determine the magnitude of overpressure caused by explosion in different periods of time. The results of this joint work are known as a benchmark experimental data on blast and used as a validation case in different studies (Baylot et al, 2005;Rickman & Murrell, 2007;Son & Lee, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A parametric study on the effects of surface explosions on buried high pressure gas pipelines

Adibi¹,

Azadi²,

Farhanieh³

et al. 2017

10.5267/j.esm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Underground gas pipelines are one of the vital parts of each country which surface blasts can break down such pipelines, making destructive explosions and threatening the safety of neighborhood structures and people. In this paper, to enhance the safety of these lines, response of a buried 56-inch diameter high pressure natural gas pipeline to a surface blast was numerically investigated. Besides, the effects of: i) explosive mass, ii) pipeline thickness, iii) burial depth and iv) concrete protective layer on pipeline deformation were parametrically studied. To simulate the problem according to actual explosion events, geometries were modeled in real scales, pipeline properties were predicted with Johnson-Cook strength and failure model and soil strength was determined by Drucker-Prager model. Also, explosive charge and natural gas were modeled with JWL (Jones-Wilkins-Lee) and ideal gas equation of states. For validation of the numerical method, three bench mark experiments were reproduced. Comparison of the numerical results and the experimental data confirmed the accuracy of the numerical method. Results of parametric studies indicated that by increasing the burial depth from 1.4 to 2.2 m, deformation of the pipeline was reduced about 71%. By analyzing the deformation plots, it was found that in a constant explosive mass, burial depth has a greater effect than pipeline thickness on pipeline deformation reduction. It was also shown that using a concrete protective layer may act reversely and increase pipeline destruction. In other words, to enhance the safety of pipelines, a certain thickness of concrete must be used.

show abstract

Blast Response of Lightly Attached Concrete Masonry Unit Walls

Cited by 99 publications

References 2 publications

Blast resistance of FRP composites and polymer strengthened concrete and masonry structures – A state-of-the-art review

Blast resistance of FRP composites and polymer strengthened concrete and masonry structures – A state-of-the-art review

Reliability of Concrete Masonry Unit Walls Subjected to Explosive Loads

A parametric study on the effects of surface explosions on buried high pressure gas pipelines

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About