ADl4OO6 176
~1 o
ofCOtfaucToR rzvnO RT A-DCCR-L1
BLAST CAPACITY EVALUAT ION OF GLA~SS
WINDOWS AND ALUMIIrUM WVINDOW FRAM IES
4 A4MMAWN WHJrfl"
I ~iCtrc S LAIDER `1'"ý-
Reproduced FromBest Available Copyt
R~EAD IN'ST~UIXrIoNS .
ARLCD-CR-78016
Plast apacity iauton of ilass~Iindows/ Fiale '
7. AUT8 C014TRACT OR GRAN1 NUMBER(-)
- -alPrc DAMA 21-76-C-pý25y
9. PERFORMING ONGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT. TASK
Ammiann & Whitney', Consulting EngineersTwo World Trade CenterNlew York, flew York 10048 ______________
11. CONTR34LLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS N
U.S. Army ARRADCOt4 _________________
ATTN: DRDAR-TSS 1"
IS.MONTORNGAGENCY NAME 41 AOORESS(iI diffeent, from Contfroling. Office) 1S. SECURITY CLASS. (*I'his e vpt)US. Army Armament Research A Development UcasfeConwand, Large a. ber Weapons Sytm nlasfeLaboratory, Dover, New Jersey 07ui 1S. 1" ECL ASSIF1 CATION/ODOWN4GRADING
16. 04STRIGUTION STATEMENT (@(Aklio Roporl)
Approved for public release; distribution iinlimited.
17. OISTRIU11UTION STATEMENT (of Ch abstatoforeeefnt~. Block 20, II dilleen frstea Reim.f
14. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES [N M_)LU
it. KEY WORDS (Cetil.. towe~vrs* olds, If necessary arid identify by b~lock Immobet)
Windows Blast-resistant buildings Personnel protectionGlass Blast-resistant capacityTempered glass Aluminum window frames
20. ABSTRACT (Comlinvo an rpwinso ldo It mescoodw and IdentEity by clock nuw~b.)
Sseries of static and dynamic tests were performed to evaluate theblast-resistant capacity of tempered and reguldr glass windows and alumninumwindow frames used in buildings at Army Ammnunition Plants. The test resultsindicate a maximum blast capacity of 30.3 kPa (4.4 psi) incident over-pressure from 900 kg (2,000 lb) of explos 'ives for 6.355-ni (1/4-in) thicktempered glass panes mounted in rigid frames with a glass area of 1.86 sq m,(20 sq ft) or less. For tempered glass mounted in aluminum window frames,
Pr) ~ l~ * .. ~ I.)' I. I* UCLASIFIED
~~cZ ~ 0~8 04 007,
I INCLASS IFTIEDItCLJC ITY C A' '.IFI( AT ION OF T IS P AG F(:flhn V-,, 1i'nfred)
",.-the blast capacity was reduced due to frame distortions to 8.27 kPa (1.2
psi) for standard frames, and 17.9 kPa (2.6 psi) for strengthened frames.Oesign criteria developed based on the test results are presented and rec-or;::endations are jwado for testing of thinner glass windows.e..
ACCESSION for
NTIS White Section >6JDOC Butf Section 0
UNAAkIONC1Nrn 0JUSTIr1CA: ION .
........ ...... ... .
BY
iT :1I/ARMY C:1S
UNCLASSIFIED 0SECURITY CLASSIFICATION Of THIS /PAME((Wh71 0D00 "Wo*
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to express their sincere appreciation tothe following persons for their assistance and guidance duringthe test program and/or report preparation: Messrs. PhilipMiller and Alfred Keetch of The U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground,Utah, and Drs. Albert Ammar, John Healey and Kirti Gandhi, andMessrs. Ram Arya and Michael Dede of Ammann & Whitney, Consult-ing Engineers, New York, N.Y.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUW9ARY I
INTRODUCTION 3
Background 3Purpose and Objectives 3Format and Scope of Report 4
STATIC LOAD TESTS 5
General 5Regular and Tempered Glass 5Al umi nium Wi ndow Frame 5Wooden Frame 6General Test Setup 6Aluminum Window Frame Tests 7
Test No. 1 - Direct Loading 7Test No. 2 - Direct Loading Using
Intermittent Supports 8Test No. 3 - Direct Loading with
Strengthened Window Frame 8Test No. 4 - Reverse Loading on Window Latch 8Test No. 5 - Reverse Loading on Window Frame 9
Tempered and Regular Glass Tests 9Test No. 6 - Tempered Glass in Wooden Frame 9Test No. 7 - Tempered Glass in Wooden Frame 10Test No. 8 - Regular Glass in Wooden Frame 10
Tempered Glass in Aluminum Frame Tests 10Test No. 9 - Direct Loading 10Test No. 10 - Direct Loading 10Test No. 11 - Direct Loading with
Strengthened Window Frame .10Summary of Static Test Results 11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
DYNAMIC LOAD TESTS 13
General 13Regular and Tempered Glass 13Wooden Fraime 13Alumninum Window Frame 14Test Structures 14Explosives 15Instrumentation 15Photographic Coverage 15General Description of Tests 16Test Series I 16
Test No. 1 - Tempered Glass in Wooden Frame 11Test No. 2 - Tempered Glass in Wooden Frame 17Test No. 3 - Tempered Glass in Wooden Frame 17Test No. 4 - Tempered Glass in Wooden Frame 17Test No. 5 - Tempered Glass in Wooden Frame 18
Test Series 11 18Test No. 1 - Regular Glass in Wooden Frame and
Tempered Glass in Aluminum Frame 18Test No. 2 - Regular Glass in Wooden Frame and
Tempered Glass in Aluminum Frame 18Test No. 3 -Regular Glass in Wooden Frame and
Tempered Glass in StrengthenedAluminum Frame 19
Test No. 4 - Tempered Glass in StrengthenedAluminum Frame 19
Summary of Dynamic Test Results 20
EVALUATION OF TEST RESULTS 21
*General 21Comparison of Static and Dynamic Test Results 21Comparison of Test Results with Other Data 22
Blast Tests on Regular Glass 22Wind Load Capacities 22
Recommnended Design Criteria 23
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMM4ENDATIONS 25
TABLE OF CONTENTS(Continued)
Page
REFERENCES 26
TABLES
Table 1 Summary of static test results 27Table 2 Summary of glass specimens for
dynamic tests 28Table 3 Summary of blast overpressure and
duration data - Test Series I 29Table 4 Summary of blast overpressure and
duration data - Test Series II 30Table 5 Summary of dynamic test results 31Table 6 Comparison of static and dynamic
failure loads 32Table 7 Tests on windows from ESKIMO II event 33Table 8 Tests on witdows from ESKIMO IHr event 34Table 9 Recommended design criteria for
maximum blast pressure capacityfor glass mounted in rigid windowframes 35
Table 10 Recommended design criteria formaximum blast pressure capacityfor glass mounted in aluminumwindow frames of the type tested 36
FIGURES
Fig 1 Aluminum window frame 37Fig 2 Plan and details of wooden frame for
static tests 38Fig 3 Steel support framework - plan view 39Fig 4 Instron testing machine 40Fig 5 Test setup for testing aluminum
window frame 41Fig 6 Test setup for testing glass in
wooden frame 42Fig 7 Test setup for testing glass in
aluminum window frame 43Fig 8 Cross-section of aluminum window frame
with glass test setup 44
it.
t S -./' '
TABLE OF CONTENTS(Continued)
Page
Fig 9 Failure of aluminum window frame 45Fig 10 Deformed aluminum glazing bead 46Fig 11 Test setup with intermittent supports 47Fig 12 Cross-section of aluminum glazing bead
strengthened with screws 48Fig 13 Window latch before test 49Fig 14 Window latch failure 50Fig 15 Test setup for reverse loading on
aluminum window frame 51Fig 16 Tempered glass breakage and wooden
.frame damiage 52Fig 17 Regular glass breakage 53Fig 18 Tempered glass breakage in strengthened
aluminum window frame 54Fig 19 Test Structure AFig 20 Test Structure B 5Fig 21 Cross-section of wooden frame mounted
in test structure 57Fig 22 Cross-section of aluminum window frame
mounted in test structure 58Fig 23 Interior framework of test structure 59Fig 24 Structure A being pulled to the test site 60Fig 25 Identification of window openings in
test structures 61Fig 26 Explosive charge 62Fig 27 Explosive charge in plywood container 63Fig 28 Detonation 64Fig 29 Pressure gages mounted on pipes along
blast line 65Fig 30 Layout of test structures ar~d pressure
gages 66Fig 31 Holes cut in plywood an, styrofoam
backing in small window 67Fig 32 Holes cut in plywood and styrofoam
backing in large window 68Fig 33 Broken tempered glass 69Fig 34 Damage to window backing 70Fig 35 Typical recorded pressuree-time curve 71Fig 36 Broken regular glass in Structure A
windows 72Fig 37 Close-up of front face window showing
Jagged nature of broken regular glass 73Fig 38 Broken tempered glass and deformed
aluminum frame 7
TABLE OF.CONTENTS(Concluded)
ftte
Fig 39 Wind load capacity of Herculite 75tempered glass (Ref 7)
Fig 40 Wind load capacity of regular glass(Ref 7) 76
APPENDIX ENGINEERING DRAWINGS 77
DISTRIBUTION LIST 91
SUMMARY
In many Army Ammunition Plants, non-operational, acL:inistra-tion and other support buildings containing personnel are locatedat inhabited-building distance or greater from buildings contain-ing explosives. In general, such buildings can withstand, or aredesigned to withstand, a blast overpressure of 8.3 kPa (1.2 psi)or less, with little or no damage except for windo-,, breahr.ae.Moreover, operational buildings containing personnel can be lo-cated closer than inhabited-building distance which presents anadditional hazard if windows are provided.
Glass breakage presents a severe hazard to personnel and hasrequired that blast-resistant windows be specified in the de•_sirgnof buildings containing personnel, particularly where many peopleare involved. In order to evaluate the blast capacity of window,.iglass and frames, a test program was undertaken by the 11inufactur-ing Technology Division of the Large Caliber leapons Systm.ms Lab-oratory, U.S. Army Armament Research and Development Command(ARRADCOM).
Since window breakage with regular glass was known to haveoccurred at relatively low overpressure levels, i.e., less than3.4 kPa (0.5 psi), it was of particular interest to evaluate theincreased blast capacity offered by "safety" glazing materialsunder uniform loading. In addition, it was cons 4 dered irportantto evaluate the effect that metal frames of the type used inmodern office and industrial buildings may have on the capacityof such windows. The resulting test program consisted of staticand dynamic tests of tempered and regular glass panes and alumi-num frames. The results of the static tests were used as a basisfor establishing pressure loadings and modifications of the win-dow frames used in the dynamic tests.
Eleven static tests were conducted at ARRADCOI utilizing anhydraulic testing machine. The dynamic tests were perforý--d atDufway Proving Ground, Utah, under the direction of APBRFCC>1 andconsisted of nine explosive tests utilizing 900 kg (2,CCO lb) ofexplosives. Electronic gages were utilized to record the blastpressures for the dynamic tests. Still and motion picture covwr-age of the dynamic tests and still pictures of the static tcstswere provided for documentation purposes.
The static tests included tests on aluminum windoa frae:ýs.6.35-mm (1/4-in) thick tempered and regular glass mounted inrigid wooden frames, and 6.35-nm (1/4-in) thick tcrlred glassmounted in standard and strengthened aluminum window frae:ýs.
i1
The dynanmic tests included tests on 6.35-mm (1/4-in) and 9.52-mm(3/8-in) thick tempered and regular glass mounted in rigid woodenframes, and 6.35-mm (1/4-in) thick tempered glass mounted in stan-dard and strengthened aluminum window frames. The 9.52-mm (3/8-in) thick glass was included in these tests in case the 6.35-mm(1/4-in) thick glass did not have adequate capacity.
The test results indicate a maximum blast capacity of 30.3-kPa (4.4-psi) incident overpressure from 900 kg (2,000 lb) ofexplosives, for 6.35-mm (1/4-in) thick tempered glass motinted inrigid fra,-.s with a glass area of 1.86 sq r, (20 sq ft) or less.For tempered glass mounted in aluminum window frames, the blastcapacity was reduced, due to frame distortions, to 8.27 kPa (1.2psi) for standard frames and 17.9 kPa (2.6 psi) for strengthenedframes.
Thuis, the window fram.e was found to be the critical elementant it will be necessary in many cases to provide special framedesigns to develop the blust capacity of the glass. The equiva-lent triangular load duration of the incident pressure for thedynamic tests was approximately 40 milliseconds. There was goodcorrelation between the static and dynamic test results when thestatic failure loads were adjusted to equivalent blast pressuresin accordance with calculated dynamic load factors.
The test results for the regular glass indicate a maximumblast capacity of 5.38-kPa (0.78-psi) incident overpressure for6.3S-nm (1/4-in) thick glass mounted in rigid frames with a glassarea of 1.86 sq m (20 sq ft) or less. Regular glass was nottested in aluminum window frames.
There were no failures of the 9.52-mm (3/8-in) t6ick tem-pered alass when subjected to repeated overpressures up to 30.3kPa (4.:. psi) at 40-msec equivalent triangular load duration.There was one failure of a 9.52-mn (3/8-in) regular glass panewhen subjected to 10.8 kPa (1.56 psi) reflected pressure at a20-msec equivalent triangular load duration.
Design criteria for maximum blast capacity versus blastload duration and glass type and thickness have been developedbased on the test results. It is recommended that thes crlteriabe utilized in the design of buildings at Army Ammunitiol Plants.Additional tests are recommended to evaluate the blast capacityof 3.18-nm (1/8-in) thick glass windows.
2T
INTRODUCT ION
Background
Window breakage represents a major hazard to personnel inadministration and other support facilities at Army AmmiunitionPlants. In past incidents, glass breakage has been the majorcause of injury even at buildings located at distances greaterthan inhabited-building distance from the explosion. Moreover,there may be requirements for windows in buildings located at lessthan inhabited-building distance. It was therefore necessary toinvestigate the blast capacity of strenigthened glazing, includingtempered safety glass and glass panes thicker than those used inconventional buildings.
Tempered glass consists of regular glass whose propertieshave been proportionally controlled andwhich has been rapidly cooledfrom near the softening point (annealed) to increase its mech-anical and thermal endurance.
In order to obtain data related to the blast capacity of tem-pered glass windows compared to regular glass windows, a series oftests were undertaken by the Manufacturing Technology Division ofthe Large Caliber Weapons Systems Laboratory, ARRADCOM, as part ofits overall Safety Engino~ering Support Program for the ProjectManager for Production Base Modernization and Expansion. Thisrepor.'. which was prepared with the assistance of Ammann & Whitney,Consulting Engineers, summnarizes and evaluates the test resultsand presents recommended criteria for the design of blast-resistant windows.
Purpose and Objectives
The overall purpose of the test program was to determine theincreased blast-resistant capacity afforded by tempered glass win-dows compared to regular glass windows. The objectives of the testprogram are summarized below:
1. To evaluate the blast capacity of 6.35-mm (1/4-in) and9.52-mm (3/8-in) thick tempered and regular glass panes.
2. To evaluate the effect of the strength and flexibilityof aluminum window frames on the blast capacity of thewindows.
3
Format and Scope of Report
The following two sections describe the static and dynamicload tests, respectively, including the test procedures and re-sults. These sections are followed by a section which comparesand evaluates the static and dynamic test results and developsrecomm~ended design criteria. The last section presents the con-clusions and recommnendations. The appendix contains reproductionsof the engineering drawings of the test structures and testingplans.
Since future standards of measurement in the Uniited Stateswill be based upon the SI Units (International System of Units)rather than the United States System now in use, all measurementspresented in this report will conform to those of the SI System.However, for those persons not fully familiar with the SI Units,United States equivalent units of particular test data are pre-sented in parentheses adjacent to the SI Units.
4
STATIC LOAD TESTS
General
Static load tests were performed on tempered plate glass panesand aluminuin window frames. In addition, a regular glass pane wastested for comparison with the tempered glass.
These tests were performed at ARRADCOM in April and June of1975 and were conducted in three stages. In the first stage, tie.strength of the alum~inum window frame was tested independently ofthe glass; while in the second stage, tempered and regular glasspanes were loaded to failure in a specially designed wooden frameto determine ultimate glass capacities independently of the alu-minumi frame. In the last stage, a full assemblage of alumninumwindow frame and tempered glass was tested to evaluate the staticstrength of the combined unit.
The aluminumt window frame attachment to a building and thelatch closure mnechanism were also tested under a simulated reboundcondition which would be produced as a result of an explosion.Modifications to strengthen the window frames were made as the testprogram progressed.
This section describes the materials tested, the test pro-cedure and the test setup, and presents and discusses the resultsof each test. The engineering drawings in Appendix A may be re-ferred to for additional details of the test design. A further'evaluation of the static test results in conjunction with the dy-namic test results is presented later in the report.
Regular and Tempered Glass
Regular and tempered safety glass panes were tested underuniform loading conditions. The size of the glass in both caseswas 0.72 m x 1.10Gm x 6.35 mmt (26-3/8 in x 43-1/4 in x 1/4 in).The tempered glass met the American National Standards Institute(ANSI) Specifications Z97.1 1972. It was manufactured by PPGIndustries, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and marketed under the tradename of "Herculite". The regular glass pane tested was cut froma glass pane on hand at ARRADCOM, which was not a tempered orspecial safety glass.
Aluminurm Window Frame
The alumin~um window frames tested were of two different sizes:
1.Small size frames with outer dimensions of 0.72 m x1.10 m (28-3/8 in x 43-1/4 in).
2. Large size frames with outer dimensions of 0.84 m x1.22 m (33-1/4 in x 48 in).
The small size window frames were used to test the strengthof the frames; whereas the large size frame5 were used to test theassembly of the frame and the glass. The frames were aluminum-projected windows, Series 7500, PA-2 HP, manufactured by the Lox-creen Company, Inc., West Columbia, South Carolina, and furnishedby Pipes and Drafts, Inc., West Columibia, South Carolina. Theframe consisted of two parts: an outer stationary part which i 'sattached to the building, and an inner movable part containingthe glass, which opens outward. The frame was a standard conven-tional design with no strengthening for blast resistance. A pho-tograph of the frame is shown in Figure 1.
Wooden Frame
A plan view and details of the wooden frame designed for theglass tests are shown in Figure 2. It was anticipated that thealuminum window frame, although adequate for conventional windload design, would fail before the tempered glass reached its ulti-mate capacity. This was later shown to be true. The wooden framewas designed to test the strength of the glass alone by providinga continuous rigid support. It was felt that distortions and de-viations from straightness in the alumninum frame, resulting fromthe high intensity loading. would induce stress concentrations inthe glass edges during the loading process and cause chipping orfailure of the glass before its true-capacity was attained.
General Test Setup
The basic steel framework shown in Figure 3 was designed tosupport the small size aluminum window frame in the first stageof testing. The framework provided support along the long sidesof the frame which represented the head and sill of the windowframe. The steel framework was later modified to accommodate thelarge size window frame and glass assembly. Top and bottcmflanges of the main beam of the supporting steel framework werecut on one side to avoid interference with the vertical post ofthe Instron Testing Machine. The testing machine with its re-corder unit is shown in Figure 4.. Efforts were made to distrib-ute the load applied by the testing machine as uniformly aspossible to the window frame, glass, and the assembly of thewindow frame and gliss, in order to simulate a blast-loadingcondition.
In the tests of the small aluminum window frame, a 6.35-mm(1/4-in) thick steel plate was used in lieu of a glass pane. Theload was transferred by two built-up bearing structures And two25-mm (1-in) thick plywood planks. The top wooden structu,,e wasconstructed by nailing 3-in x 6-in pieces together and usingblocking pieces perpendicular to the 3-in x 6-in pieces. The bot-tom unit was constructed from 2-in x 4-in pieces and blocking.One plywood plank was placed between the two wooden strictures,and the other was placed below the bottom wooden structure.A 25-mm (1-in) thick polyurethane pad was added between the lowerplywood plank and the 6.35-mm (1/4-in) steel plate. This testsetup is shown in Figure 5.
The test setup was similar for testing the glass panes. Theglass was-mounted in the wooden frame illustrated in Figure 2.To provide additional cushioning between the glats-and the 25-num(1-in) thick polyurethane pad, fibre pads with a total thicknessof 0.15-m (6-in) were added as shown in Figure 6. For the alu-minum window frame and tenpered glass assembly tests, the glasswas mounted in the large aluminum window frame. As shown in Fig-ure 7, additional fibre pads were used to assure a uniform dis-tribution of the load in the test.
Figure 8 is a cross-section illustrating the glass (or steelplate) held in place by the glazing bead and mounted in the alu-minum frame, which was in turn supported by the steel test frame-work. The glazing bead is snapped in place and held by notchesin the frame. A 3.18-mm (1/8-in) thick glazing tape was used as
J the glazing compound.
Still photographs were taken before and after each test todocument the test setup and record the damage, in addition to handmeasurements ahd visual observation. The loads applied to eachtest specimen were recorded by the Instron Testing Machine.
Aluminum Window Frame Tests
Five testsiwere performed on the small aluminum window frame,three of which tested the frame in direct loading and two in re-bound or reverse loading. These tests are described below:
Test No. 1 - D rect Loading
The load was transferred from the machine to the window frameby a 6.35-mm (1/4-in) thick steel plate (see Figure 5 for generaltest setup). The combined weight of the wooden bearing structureand the steel plate was 57 kg (125 lb). This weight was added tothe load registered by the testing machine to obtain the totalapplied load.
7
In this test, the glazing bead holding the steel plate inplace was deformed and popped out of the notches, causing thesteel plate to ftl1 out (Fig 9). The deformed glazing bead isillustrte& In 'Figure 10. The failure load, expressed as a uni-form pressur, ...oplied te tne lo3ded area of the plate, was 19.79kPa (2.87 psi).
Test No. ,'" - Direct Loading U.sin. Intermittent Supports
Aluminum window frame installations in conventional buildingsutilize supports at two or three points alur.g the head and sill(long sides) of the frame. An example of such supports is the useof metal straps attached to the frame and nailed to wood blockingor other building framework. It was felt that this type of attach-ment is not adequate to resist the direct and rebound blast loads.Test No. 2 was designed to evaluate intermittent supports, a condi-tion between a continuous support (Test No. 1) and point supports.These intermittent supports were provided by clamping one 86-mmwide x 6.35-mm thick x 0.18-m long (3-3/8-in wide x 1/4-in thick x7-in long) plate at each end, and an 86-mm wide x 6.35-mm thick x0.31-m long (3-3/8-in wide x 1/4-in thick x 12-in long) plate inthe middle of the long sides of the window frame support (Fig 11).The total pressure resisted by the window frame when the glazingbead popped out was 19.37 kPa (2.81 psi), which was about the samefailure load as that for Test No. 1. From this test, it was con-cluded that there wvas no reduction in the frame capacity underdirect loading, due to the intermittent supports.
Test No. 3 - Direct Loading with Strengthened Window Frame
From the first two tests, it became obvious that the glazingbead was popping out and thereby limiting the capacity of the frame.To remedy this inherent weakness, three screws (one at each endand one in the middle) were used to secure each glazing bead to thewindow frame (Fig 12). The test setup was identical to Test No. 1(Fig 5). The failure load more thar doubled compared to Test No. 1and reached a pressure of 41.02 kPa (5.95 psi).
Test No. 4 - Reverse Loading on Window Latch
This test was conducted to simulate the rebound effects dueto a blast loading. The frame was turned over to apply the loadfrom the opposite direction. In this configuration, the glassrests directly against the frame and hence, the reaction is nottransferred through the glazing bead, as it is under direct load-ing. Thus, distortion of the glazing bead is not a problem forreverse loading.
8
The latch did not fail, but excessive deformation in thevicinity of the latch caused the latch to open at a pressure of7.10 kPa (1.03 psi). Figures 13 and 14 show the test setup beforeand after the test, respectively. It is felt that this conditiondoes not represent a true failure since it would merely cause thewindow to open outward but still remain attached to the hinges.However, if no blast pressure leakage can be permitted in a par-ticular building design, or total closure of the windows is re-quired, it will be neceqsary to modify the latching mechanism toprovide at least the rebound strength of the frame.
Test No. 5 - Reverse Loading on Window Frame
To test the capacity of the window frame and its connectionsto the building for rebound loading, it was necessary to renderthe latch mechanism inoperable. This was achieved by connectingthe movable part of the frame to the stationary part with 6.35-nm(1/4-in) diameter bolts spaced at 0.1 m (4 in) on center. Thismodification prevented the window from opening.
The window frame was attached to the supporting structuralsteel frame using a structural steel angle. Attachment of thewindow frame to the angle was accomplished by 12 blind rivets alongeach long side of the frame (Fig 15). The locations of the rivetscorrespond to the intermittent supports of Test No. 2. It was ob-served from this test that the capacity of blind rivets is con-siderably greater than that of the window frame. There was no welldefined failure load; but at 19.37 kFa (2.81 psi), the test wasstopped due to excessive deformation of the frame. This load wasthe same as the failure load of the unmodified frame under directloading (Tests Nos. 1 and 2).
Tempered and Regular Glass Tests
Teap~ered and regular glass panes mounted in a wooden frame(Fig 2) were tested. Three tests were performed, two on temperedglass and one on regular glass, as described below:
Test No. 6 - Tempered Glass in Wooden Frame
As previously indicated, glass tests were performed to deter-mine the strength of the glass independent of the aluminumi frame.The load wes increased gradually until the glass broke (see Figure6 for the test setup). The wooden frame and broken glass are Il-lustrated in Figure 16. The failure pressure was 59.16 kPa (8.58psi). It is seen that tempered glass breaks into many small pieceswhich is characteristic of safety glass. Some splitting of thewooden frame occurred; however, it is felt that this did not con-ýtribute significantly to the glass failure.
9
Test No. 7 - Tempered Glass in Wooden Frame
This was a confirmatory test identical to Test No. 6. Thefailure pressure was 51.23 kPa (8.30 psi) which verified Jiecapacity of the tempered glass.
Test No. 8 - Regular Glass in Wooden Frame
The failure pressure in this test was only 4.48 kPa (0.65psi). The breakage of the regular glass produced large jaggedpieces, shown in Figure 17, which are considered to be more haz-ardous to personnel than the small fragments associated with thebreakage of tempered glass. The test setup for this test wassimilar to that for the tempered glass (Fig 6).
Tempered Glass in Aluminum Frame Tests
Three tests as described below were performed on temperedglass mounted in large aluminum window frames:
Test No. 9 - Direct Loading
In this test, the glazing bead snapped. out at a pressure of7.03 kPa (1.02 psi) with no damage to either the glass or the win-dow frame. This was considered a premature failure due to an in-adequately secured glazing bead. Figure 7 illustrates the testsetup.
Test No. 10 - Direct Loading
Care was taken to fit the glazing bead properly in the frame.The load was increased to a pressure of 15.38 kPa (2.23 psi) whenthe glass broke. The glazing bead remained in place; however,it was concluded that the failure of the glass was due to distor-tion of the glazing bead. It is noted that the failure load wasabout 80 percent of the load at which the glazing bead popped outin Test~s Nos. 1 and 2.
Test No. 11 - Direct Loading with Strengthened Window Frame
The glazing beads were secured and stiffened by attachingthem to the window frame with three screws in each bead (Fig 12)similar to Test No. 3. The failure occurred at 30.54 kPa (4.43psi) due to deformation of the glazing bead, but developed a ca-pacity twice that of Test No.. 10. Figure 18 shows the failure ofthe glass and indicates the location of the screws. The screwsprevented popping out of the glazing beads; however, it is feltthat with the provision of an additional screw along each long
10;
side of the frame, deformation of the glazing bead would be fur-ther reduced. This modification was used in the dynamic test ofthe strengthened frame.
Summary of Static Test Results
Table 1 presents a summary of the results of the static tests(tics. 1 through 11). The key results are summarized below. Theseresults are further evaluated later in the report in conjunctionwith results of the dynamic load tests.
1. The capacity of the windows tested was controlledby the capacity of the aluminum frame.
2. The direct load capacity of the aluminum framewithout modification was approximately 20 kPa(2.9 psi) which was controlled by the distortionand popping out of the glazing bead.
3. Strengthening of the aluminum frame (glazing beadsecured with screws) doubled the direct loadcapacity to about 40 kPa (5.9 psi).
4. The capacity of the tempered glass, independentof the aluminum frame, was approximately 58 kPa(8.5 psi).
5. The capacity of the tempered glass mounted in thealuminum frame without modification was about 15kPa (2.2 psi), in which case failure of the glasswas initiated by distortions of the glazing bead.
6. The capacity of the tempered glass mounted in thestrengthe Ad aluminum frame was doubled to about30 kPa (4.4 psi). These results are also consistentwith the capacity of the strengthened small aluminumframe.
7. The capacity of window latch in a simulated reboundmode was about 7 kPa (1.0 psi) and the capacity ofthe frame in rebound was about 19 kPa (2.8 psi).The rebound mode is not considered to be criticalsince the flexibility and release of the latch wouldtend to reduce the rebound response. In addition.any glass breakage would be towards the exteriot ofthe building. However, if it is necessary that thewindows remain closed, modification of the latchdesign would be re-quired.
8. The capacity of the regular glass mounted In arigid wooden frame was about 5 kPa (0.7 psi),which is about 10 times less than that of thetempered glass. It is noted that only one regularglass test was performed and the specimen usedwas of unknown origin.
12
DYr:ArIIC LOAD TESTS
General
Dynamic load tests were performed on regular and temperedplate glass at White Sage East Test Facility Range of DugwayProving Ground (DPG), Utah, under the direction of ARRADCOM.Test Series I, consisting of five tests, was performed in Juneand September of 1975. The tests were completed when Test SeriesII, consisting of seven tests, was conducted in February 1976.Four out of these latter seven tests involved window frames andglass and hence, are covered in this report. The test specimensincluded glass and frames of the same type and size as those ofthe static tests in order to compare the results of the dynamictests with the static tests. In addition, thicker glass and alarger glass pane size were tested.
Regular plate glass and tempered safety glass panes, mountedin wooden frames, were tested. Tempered glass panes, mounted inaluminum frames, were also tested. The test strLctures used tosupport the test specimens consisted of two wooden box structures(A and B) shown in Figures lV and 20. Blast loads were producedby exploding propellants anJ Composition C-4 used as explosiveand booster, respectively. References 1 and 2, which describethe two test series, were prepared by Dugway Proving Ground fordocumentation purposes and were used freely in the preparationof this section of the report.
Regular and Tempered Glass
Regular glass was of no specific brand; whereas the temperedglass met the requirements of ANSI Specification Z97.1 1972."Herculite" brand tempered glass manufactured by PPG Industries,Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and "Dura.afe" brand tempered glassmanufactured by Falconer Plate Glass Corporalion, Falconer, NewYork, were tested. The Herculite tempered glass was also testedin the static tests. Table 2 sminarlzes the types and sizes ofglass dnd frames that were tested.
Wooden Frame
Two sizes of wooden window frames were used corresponding tothe small and large size glass panes tested (Table 2). Mountingof the glass inside the frame was similar to that of the statictests and provided a rigid supporting frame to test the capacityof the glass independent of an actual metal frame. Additional
13
wooden frames were constructed, fitted with glass, arid wereavailable at the test site to replace any broken windows. Across-section of the wooden frame mounted in the test struc-ture is illustrated in Figure 21.
Aluminum Window Frame
The aluminum window frame for the static tests had an innermovable and an outer stationary piece (Fig 1). The movable piececontains the glass. The stationary piece was removed from theframe for the dynamic tests since the box structure opening wasnot large enough to accommodate the entire window frame. Elimi-nation of the outer frame was not considered to have a significanteffect on the test results since the frame behavior in the statictests indicated that the outer frame was not a factor in theframe/glass capacity.
The glazing bead was snapped into place in two tests; whereasin two other tests, it was fastened to the frame using screws.The screw fastening was provided to restrain the glazing bead andthereby increase the glass capacity, as indicated by the resultsof the static tests. A cross-section of the aluminum window framefitted into the wooden structure is illustrated in Figure 22.Only 6.35-mm (1/4-in) thick Durasafe tempered glass was tested inaluminum frames.
Test Structures
Two box-like structures constriicted of wood (Figs 19 and 20)were used as support structures for tie dynamic tests. Each struc-ture was 4.88 m long, 2.13 m wide anid 2.44 m high (16 ft long, 7 ftwide and 8 ft high), and was designed to withstand approximately27.6 kPa (4 psi) overpressure. One of the test structures, desig-nated as Structure A, was designed to accommodate two large andthree small glass panes. The orientation of Structure A relativeto the blast was such that the two large and two small glass paneswere subjected to side-on pressures and the remaining small panelto reflected blast pressures. The other structure, designated asStructure B, was identical to Structure A except that the openingfacing the blast wave was designed to accept a cold-formed steelpanel. The roof of each structure was also designed to accept acold-formed steel panel. In Test Series 1, the cold-formed steelpanels were riot provided; but Test Series II did include steelpanels on the roof of each structure and on the front face ofStructure B. The results of the dynamic load tests on cold-formedsteel panels are presented in a separate report.
The engineering drawings for the test structures are reproducedin Appendix A. A photograph of the interior framework taken during
14
construction of one of the test structures is shown in Figure 23.The two structures were built in the shop and pulled to the testsite using a tractor (Fig 24). They were positioned on the testsite, and the window openings were labeled for identification asillustrated in Figure 25.
Explosives
The explosives used in this test program were M26E1 artillery-type propellant as the prihary cherge and Composition C-4 as thebooster charge (Fig 26). The M26E1 propellant is multi-perforatedwith a web of 0.97 mm (0.038 in). The combined weight of the pri-mary charle and the booster in each test was approximately 900 kg(2,000 lb) with the booster weighing approximately 20 kg (45 lb).The propellant used was delivered to the site in fibreboard ship-ping containers with a net weight of approximately 73 kg (160 lb)each.
The total explosive charge was held in a 1-m (39-in) cubecontainer (Fig 27) constructed from 19-rnm 3/4-in) thick plywood,two by fours, and strengthened by 13-rm (1/2-in) wide steel strips.The Composition C-4 booster was primed with two electric detona-tors, which initiated detonation of the entire charge as illus-trated in Figure 28.
The structures were located based on blast pressure predic-tions developed from TNT equivalency tests performed on M26E1propellant by the IIT Research Institute for ARRADCOM (Ref 3).
Ins trumen tati on
Instrumentation for the dynamic tests consisted of a Sus-quehanna ST-7 transducer housed in an integral ballistic probeto measure side-on blast overpressures. Each instrument wasmounted in an adjustable pipe stand, as illustrated in Figure 29,to facilitate positioning and orientation. Five instruments wereused to form a blast line from which the overpressure at eachstructure was determined. The transducers were connected to Bio-mation transient-wave recorders and Quad-Systems recording in-struments for collecting and recording pressure-versus-time data.
Photographic Coverage
Two high-speed motion picture cameras operating at speeds upto 1,000 frames per second were used to document any unusualeffects or transient motions of the test structures produced bythe explosion and the resulting blast loads. In addition, stillphotographs were taken before and after each test to document
15
L
the test setup and to record glass breakage and damage to the test
structure and aluminum frame.
General Description of Tests
There were five tests perfor,':)d in Test Series I and fotirtests in Test Series 11. The test structures were positioned onopposite sides of the blast line at predetermined distances fromthe explosive charge to achieve the desired blast loading on tineglass panes. The explosive charge weight and location of groundzero were held constant for all the tests, with the test structuresrelocated to vary the overpressure level. Figure 30 illustratesthe orientation and general location of the gages, test structuresand windows with respect to ground zero.
In the first test series, only the peak positive pressureswere obtained; whereas in the second test series, pressure-timehistories were recorded. Tables 3 and 4 summiarize the blast over-pressure data for Test Series I and 11, respectively. Since theamount of explosive used in both series and in each test was essen-tially the same, it was felt that the presiure-time records fromTest Series 11 would also be representative for Test Series 1.Table 5 presents a summiary of the dynamic test results for bothtest series and lists the types of glass panes tested, the blastoverpressures experienced in Structures A and B, and the extent ofglass damage.
After each detonation, the glass panes and test structureswere inspected for damage, diameter and depth of resulting crater-were measured, and the test area was examined for residual pro-pellant and other damage. Still photographs were also taken todocument damage and glass breakage.
Preparation of the site and the test structures for each sub-sequent test included replacing the broken glass panes, repairingthe test fixtures, filling the crater created by the explosion,and leveling ground zero. The blast gages were fixed into newpositions and the measuring instruments were checked and calibratedfor a new pressure range. The test structures were moved closerto ground zero after each test in order to subject the windows togradually increasing overpressures.
Test Series I
Both Herculite and Durasafe tempered glass in wooden frameswere tested in this series. These tests are described below:
16
Test No. 1 - Tempered Glass in Wooden Frame
7• Structure A contained three 6.35-mn (1/4-in) and two 9.52-mm(3/8-in) thick glass windows and Structure B had two 6.35-mm (1/4-in) and two 9.52-mm (3/8-in) thick glass windows. All window glassfor this test was Herculite tempered glass. The expected blastoverpressures were 6.9 kPa (1.0 psi) at Structure A and 13.8 kPa(2.0 psi) at Structure B. However, the actual blast pressuresproduced by the explosion were 5.5 kPa (0.8 psi) and 9.7 kPa (1.4psi) for Structures A and B, respectively. There was no resultingdamage to the glass.
Test No. 2 - Tempered Glass in Wooden Frame
Structures A and B, with the same glass specimens as TestNo. 1, were moved closer to ground zero to increase the overpres-sure level. The blast pressures recorded were 17.2 kPa (2.5 psi)and 22.8 kPa (3.3 psi) for Structures A and B, respectively, com-pared to predicted cverpressures of 13.8 kPa (2 psi) for Struc-ture A and 24.1 kPa (3.5 psi) for Structure B. Again, there wasno damage to the glass.
Test No. 3 - Tempered Glass in Wooden Frame
The Herculite glass panes in Structure A were replaced withDurasafe panes and the structure was left at the same location asthat of Test No. 2. The Herculite glass was left in Structure Band the structure was relocated to obtain an expected overpressureof 27.6 kPa (4 psi). Actual overpressures were 8.3 kPa (1.2 psi)and 29.6 kPa (4.3 psi) on Structures A and B, respectively. Therewas no damage to any of the windows.
Test No. 4 - Tempered Glass in Wooden Frame
None of the windows suffered any damage in this test. Bothstructures, with the same glass specimens as those of Test No. 3,were moved closer to ground zero, each at the same distance fromground zero and symmetrical about the gage line. The recordedblast overpressure at the location of tt structures was 44.8 kPa(6.5 psi) compared to an estimated pressure of 31.0 kPa (4.5 psi).The validity of the high measured pressure is questionable; how-ever, based on the overpressure recorded in Test NG. 5 at the samelocation, it is assumed that a pressure of at least 30.3 kPa(4.4 psi) occurred.
17
9-/
Test No. 5 - Tendered Glass in Wooden Frame
Since there was no glass breakage in the first four tests,it was suspected that an air cushion may have developed as theglass deflected between the glass pane and the plywood plank beck-ing which could have the effect of reducing the net loading on theglass. The original glass pane and the plywood backing can be seenin Figure 20. To alleviate this possible air-cushion effect, twoholes were cut in the small window backings and three holes weremade in the large window backings. The size of each hole is 0.18 m(7 in). As shown in Figures 31 and 32, the holes were cut in theplywood and in the styrofoam padding which was placed in betweenthe glass and plywood to retain broken glass fragments.
A large pane of Durasafe glass, 6.35 mm (1/4 in) thick, inWindow No. 4 of Structure A, shattered in the test. The blastoverpressure recorded was 30.3 kPa (4.4 psi) which is almost thesame as the anticipated pressure of 31 kPa (4.5 psi). Brokenglass is shown in Figure 33 and the damage to the window backingis illustrated in Figure 34. The glass breakage into many smallpieces is similar to that which occurred in the static tests(Fig 16).
Test Series I1
In this test series, regular glass in wooden frames and Dura-safe tempered glass in aluminum frames were tested. Regular glasswas tested in Structure A and Durasafe tempered glass in aluminumframes was tested in Structure B. Only one window position inStructure B was used in this test series.
Test No. 1 - Regular Glass in Wooden Frame and Tempered Glass inAluminum Frame
There were two 6.35-mm (1/4-in) and three 9.52-nm (3/8-in)regular glass windows in Structure A. Structure B had a Durasafewindow in a standard aluminum frame. The expected pressures were3.4 kPa (0.5 psi) and 13.8 kPa (2.0 psi) for Structures A and B,respectively. The actual pressures obtained were 2.07 kPa (0.3psi) for Structure A and 5.89 kPa (1.0 psi) for Structure B, whichare considerably lower than the expected values. The blast loaddurations were 42 ms for Structure A and 48 ms for Structure B.There was no damage to any of the windows.
Test No. 2 - Regular Glass in Wooden Frame and Tempered Glass inAl umi num Frame
All window specimens in this test were the same as for TestNo. 1 and the structures were moved a little closer to groundzero in a second attempt to obtain pressures of 3.4 kPa (0.5 psi)
18
J J i /
and 13.8 kPa (2.0 psi) for Structures A and B, respectively.The actual overpressures recorded were 2.14 kPa (0.31 psi) and8.27 kPa (1.2 psi) for Structures A and B, respectively. Theblast duration was 43 ms for Structure A and 50 ms for Structure B.The Durasafe glass mounted in the standard aluminumi frame brokein this test. The aluminum frame was also damacjad. The glazingbeads holding the glass were compressed and deformed, and couldnot be reused. Based on the static test results, it is theorizedthat the failure of the frame caused the glass breakage. Thepressure-time curve for Gage No. 2 is illustrated in Figure 35.The shape of this curve is typical of the other test'records.
Test No. 3 - Regular Glass in Wooden Frame and Temp~ered Glass ir~Strengthened Aluminum Frame
Structure A, with the same regular glass panes as .those inTests Nos. 1 anid 2, was relocated closer to ground zero at anexpected overpressure level of 4.8 kPa (0.7 psi). Since WindowNo. 2 of Structure B broke in the previous test at 8.27 kPa (1.2.psi), using a standard aluminum frame, a strengthened frame wasprovided by securing the glazing bead to the frame with threescrews along each short glazing bead as was done in the StaticTests, and four screws along each long glazing bead (refer toFigure 22). Structure B was located at an expected overpressurelevel of 20.7 kPa (3.0 psi). The actual pressures realized were5.38 kPa (0.78 psi) and 15.86 kPa (2.3 psi) for Structures A andB, respectively. The load durations were 44 ms for Structure Aand 50 ms for Structure B. No damage was done to the temperedglass in the strengthened frame; however, one small pane and onelarge pane of regular glass were broken in Structure A. A post-test photograph of Structure A is shown in Figure 36. A close-upview of the small window in Figure 37 provides details of thejagged nature of the broken regular glass compared to the finepieces produced by broken tempered glass (Fig 33). This glassbreakage is also similar to that which occurred in the static testof regular glass as shown in Figure 17.
'rest No. 4 - Tempered Glass in Strengthened Aluminum Frame
Since the blast capacity of the regular glass was reached inTest No. 3, no further testing of regular glass wais performed;therefore, Structure A was not used in Test No. 4. Structure Bwith the same strengthened aluminum frame specimen as that of TestNo. 3 was moved closer to ground zero at an expected blast over-pressure of 27.6 kPa (4.0 psi). The actual recorded pressure was21.37 kPa (3.1 psi) and the window was broken. The deformed alu-mi num window frame and tempered glass breakage are shown in Fig-ure 38.
19
Summary of Dynamic Test Results
Table 5 presents a summary of the results of the dynamic tests(Test Series I, Test Nos. 1 through 5 and Test Series II, Tests Nos.1 through 4). The significant information derived from these testsare summarized below. These results, in conjunction with the staticload test data, are further evaluated in the following section:
1. The blast capacity of the windows tested wascontrolled by the capacity of the aluminum frame.
2. The blast capacity of the 6.35-mm (1/4-in) thicktempered glass (large dane) independent of thealuminum frame was about 30 kPa (4.4 psi).There was no breakage of the small panes of 6.35-mr(1/4-in) thick tempered glass subjected to blastpressures up to 30 kPa (4.4 psi).
3. The blast capacity of the 6.35-mm (1/4-in) thicktempered glass mounted in the aluminum frame with-out modification was between 6.9 kPa (1.0 psi)and 8.3 kPa (1.2 psi).
4. The blast capacity of the 6.35-mm (1/4-in) thickglass mounted in the strengthened aluminum framewas more than doubled to between 16 kPa (2.3 psi)and 21 kPa (3.1 psi).
5. There was no breakage of the 9.52-mm (3/8-in)thick tempered glass mounted in a rigid wooden framesubjected to blast pressures up to 30 kPa (4.4 psi).
6. The blast capacity of the 6.35-mm (1/4-in) thickregular glass- (large pane) mounted in a rigid woodenframe was between 2.1 kPa (0.3 psi) and 5.4 kPa(0.8 psi). There was no breakage of the small panesof 6.35-mm (1/4-in) thick regular glass subjected toblast pressures up to 5.4 kPa (0.8 psi).
7. The blast capacity of 9.52-mm (3/8-in) thick regularglass mounted in a rigid worden frame was between4.2 kPa (0.6 psi) and 11 kPa (1.6 psi). This windowwas on the front face of the box structure and thesepressures are calculated reflected pressures whichwould have an effective duration considerably lessthan that of the incident pressure.
20 I+:-I, ,
EVALUATION OF TEST RESULTS
Gen.oral
This section compares and discusses the results of the staticand dynamic glass and frame tests presented in the previous sec-tions. In addition, data relative to conventional glass capacityfor wind loads and data from blast tests performed by others arecompared with the test results. Recommendations for design cri-teria based on the evaluation of the test data are also presented.
Comparison of Static and Dynamic Test Results
Tables 1 and 5 presented a summary of the test resultb forthe static and dynamic tests, respectively. In order to comparethese results, it is necessary to consider the dynamic load fac-tors associated with the blast load tests. The dynamic loadfactor is the ratio of the required static resistance of the ele-ment to the peak blast overpressure. This ratio is a function ofthe natural period of vibration (of the glass pane), duration ofthe blast load, and ductility ratio (ratio of maximum deflectionto peak elastic deflection). Asstuning elastic action, upperbounds of the dynamic load factors were computed (Chapter 6, Ref 4)as summarized below. An equivalent triangular blast load durationof 40 ms was used based on the durations recorded in Dynamic Test'Series No. 2 (Table 4). For larger explosive weights, dynamicload factors would be somewhat greater. In calculating the periodof vibration of the glass, a weight for the 6.35-mm (1/4-in) thickglass of 15.82 kg/sq m (3.24 psf) and a modulus of elasticity of69 x 10 kPa (10' psi) were used.
Glass Pane* Dynamic Load Factor (Ns)
HS2, DS2, RS2 1.70FDS2, FFDS2
HS3, RS3 1.75
HL2, DL2 1.30
HL3 1.50
* Refer to Table 2 for glass pane designations
Table 6 is a summary of the pressures at which failure occurred* for the aluminum frame, glass in a wooden frame and glass in an
21
aluminum frame test specimens. The static pressure's have beendivided by the appropriate dynamic load factor for comparison withthe dynamic blast capacities. It is seen from Table 6 that thereis very good correlation between the static and dynamic test re-sults, particularly for the tempered glass and tempered glass inaluminum frame tests. The failure load of the regular glass inthe dynamic tests was considerably greater than that of the statictest. However, as discussed previously, only one regular glasspane of unknown origin was tested in the static test. Based onthe dynamic test results, the blast capacity of tempered glassis about 5 to 6 times that of regular glass.
With regard to rebound, the static capacity of the aluminumframe under reversed loading (Table 1, Test No. 5) was about thesame as that under direct loading (Table 1, Tests Nos. 1 and 2).This is more than adequate since the response in rebound would beless than that in direct loading. For the dynamic tests, reboundwas automatically accounted for by the blast loadings.
Comparison of Test Results with Other Data
Blast Tests on Regular Glass
Pertinent data reported from the reso-:'ts of ESKIMO 11 andESKIMO III high explosive tests (Refs ý and 6) are summiarized inTables 7 and 8. These tests were conducted on standard (untem-pered) plate and sheet glass panes mounted in fixed and non-fixedframes. Pane size,; were 1.14 m by 1.14 m (45 in by 45 in); 1.07 mby 0.51 m (42 in by 20 in); 0.86 m by 1. 22 m (34 in by 48 in);and 1.22 m by 2.29 m (48 in by 90 in) Panes were approximately6.35 imm (1/4 in) and 3.18 mmi (1/8 in) thick. All of the windowsfaced ground zero and were, therefore, subjected to reflectedoverpressure. Based on the ESKIMO III test data, the blast capac-ity for regular glass lies between 3.03 kPa (0.44 psi) and 5.72kPa (0.83 psi). The ESKIMO III data suggests that the upper limitis closer to 4.13 kPa (0.60 psi). The ARRADCOM failure load of5.38 kPa (0.78 psi) (Table 6) recorded for the dynamic test onregular glass falls within this range and represents good corre-lation with the ESKIMO II and III data.
Wind Load Capacities
For conventional design, most glass manufacturers publishdata for glass capacity under wind loading. Such data for Hercu-lite tempered glass (obtained from Ref 7) is illustrated in Fig-ure 39. The large glass size tested has an area of about 1.86sq m (20 sq ft). For this area and 6.35-mm (1/4-in) thick glass,
22
the wind load capacity is approximately 12.5 kPa (1.80 psi or 260psf) with a safety factor of 2.5. The capacity with a safetyfactor of unity would be 2.5 x 12.5 kPa or 31.2 kPa (4.5 psi)This value is almost identical to the failure load of 30.3 kPa(4.4 psi) from Table 6, although some adjustment would have to bemade for the relative dynamic load factor between the blast andwind load condition.
Figure 40 shows corresponding wind load capacity data forregular glass (Ref 7). In this case, for 6.35-mni (1/4-in) thickglass and 1.86-sq m (20-sq ft) area, the wind load capacity is2.73 kPa (0.396 psi or 57 psf) with a safety factor of 2.5. Thiscorresponds to a capacity of about 6.9 kPa (1.0 psi) for a safetyfactor of unity, which is a little less than one-fourth the valuefor tempered glass. This value is greater than the failure load
- of 5.38 kPa (0.78 psi) from Table 6. It should be noted that asafety factor of unity in the glass industry terminology corres-ponds to the wind load at which the probable number of panes thatwill break is 50 percent of the number subjected to the load.For a safety factor of 2.5, the probable number of panes thatwill break reduces to 8 out of 1,000 subjected to the load.
Recommended Design Criteria
In order to provide facility designers with specific guide-lines for protective window designs used in buildings at ArmyAmmnunition Plants, the design criteria in Tables 9 and 10 havebeen prepared. These tables are described below.
Table 9 presents the peak design blast pressure for variousblast load durations versus glass type Ad thickness. The peakpressure is either the Incident or reflected pressure, depending
__ on the orientation of the window with respect to the blast wave.The blast load duration is the duration of an equivalent triangularblast load. Procedures for calculating equivalent triangularload duration are described in Chapter 4 of Reference 4.
The peak pressures in Table 9 are maximum design values forglass panes mounted in rigid window frames, where continuous sup-port for direct load and rebound is provided for the glass similarto that provided by the wooden frames used in the static and dynamictests (Figs 2 and 21). In the tests performed with glass mountedIn aluminum window frames, the capacity of the windows was greatlylimited even where a strengthened frame was used. It will be nec-essary to evaluate the particular frame design selected for usesince there are considerable variations in frame types and details.Depending on the design overpressure level, the frame may requiremodification or it may be necessary to specify a special frame
23
design which will provide sufficient strength and rigidity todevelop the capacity of the glass. Table 10 presents the maximumblast pressure capacities for glass mounted in aluminum windowframes of the type tested. Where this type of frame is used, thelower value -5f the peak pressure obtained from either Table 9 or10 should be used.
The design criteria presented in Tables 9 and 10 are applic-able to glass areas of 1.86 sq m (20 sq ft) or less which was therange covered in the tests. As indicated by the strength data forwind loading in Figures 39 and 40, the glass capacity reduces con-siderably with increased glass area, although this reduction maybe mitigated due to reduced dynamic load factors associated withlarger glass panes subjected to short duration blast loads. ForArmy Ammunition Plant buildings, windows larger than 1.86 sq m(20 sq ft) would generally not be required nor desirable.
The blast pressure capacities in Tables 9 and 10 were devel-oped based on the results of the static and dynamic tests andconsideration of comparisons with other data. The equivalent tri-angular load duration for the tempered and regular glass tested inthe dynamic tests was approximately 40 ms for incident pressure and20 ms for reflected pressure. Blast capacities for the range ofdurations in Tables 9 and 10 were extrapolated based on the relativedynamic load factors. Blast capacities for 3.18-mm (1/8-in) thickglass were extrapolated from the test results based on relativestrength under wind loading (Figs 39 and 40) and relative dynamicload factors. The recommendations (see following section) of thisreport include testing of 3.18-mm (1/8-in) thick glass and it isexpected that the results will verify or establish the conservatismof the criteria presented for this thickness.
24
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
The results of these tests indicate a maximum blast capacityof 30.3-kPa (4.4-psi) incident overpressure from 900 kg (2,000 lb)of explosives for 6.35-mm (1/4-in) thick tempered glass panesmounted in rigid frames with a glass area of 1.86 sq m (20 sq ft)or less. For tempered glass mounted in aluminum window frames,the blast capacity was reduced due to frame distortions to 8.27 kPa(1.2 psi) for standard frames and 17.9 kPa (2.6 psi) for strength-ened frames. Thus, the window frame is the critical element andit will be necessary, in many cases, to provide special frame de-signs to develop the blast capacity of the glass.
The use of regular (untempered) glass is limited to blastoverpressures of about 3.4 kPa (0.5 psi). In addition, the sizeand shape of the glass fragments resulting from glass breakage ofregular glass would represent a greater hazard to personnel thanthat of tempered glass.
Thick glass, 9.52 mm (3/8 in), is considerably stronger than6.35-mm (1/4-in) thick glass and wouid generally not be requiredexcept for higher pressure levels.
Recommendations
It is recommended that the design criteria developed from thetest results as presented in Tables 9 and 10 be utilized in thedesign of blast-resistant windows for buildings located at ArmyAmmunition Plants or other explosive manufdcturing, storage andinspection facilities.
It is recommended that additional tests be performed to verifythe blast capacity of 3.18-mm (1/8-in) thick glass windows.
25
REFERENCES
1. KEETCH, Alfred K., "Blast Load Capacity of Tempered PlateGlass, Document No. DPG-LR-C985A-2, U.S. Army DugwayProving Ground, Utah, January 1976.
2. KEETCH, Alfred K., "Testing of Windows and Cold-FormedSteel Panels", Document No. OPG-FR-C998A, U.S. ArmyDugway Proving Ground, Utah, June 1976.
3. SWATOSH, J.J., COOK, J.R., and PRICE, P.D., "Blast Parametersof M26EI Propellant", Technical Report 4901, PicatinnyArsenal, Dover, New Jersey, December 1976.
4. "Structures to Resist the Effects of Accidental Explosions(with Addenda)", T74 5-1300/NAVFAC P-397/AFM 88-22,Department of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force,Washington, D.C., June 1969.
5. FLETCHER, E.R., RICHMOND, D.R., and JONES, R.K., "AirblastEffects on Windows in Buildings and Automobiles on theESKIMO II Event", Minutes of the Fifteenth ExplosivesSafety Seminar, Department of Defense Explosives SafetyBoard, Washington, D.C., September 1973.
6. FLETCHER, E.R., RICHMOND, D.R., and JONES, R.K., "AirbiastEffects on Windows in Buildings and Automobiles on theESKIMO III Event", Lovelace Foundation for Medical Educationand Research, Albuquerque, New Mexico, June 1974.
7. "Architectural Glass Products", Publication No. G-602,PPG Industries, January 1976.
26
n -
IV 01a
r0
C. 0 C 00 0 0 4.0
M, W2 "0 . w0i w t I 0 0 -
C.0
0= C4 .4pq4. 0 0 -
.2 f, 4)
4) .0u 1) .4
.0 41 4 1 1C 4 W 4
N~~4 C-4-C.A
in 40 -, 8 - o 0 (D4- c 0 c00 co
OA a
I; r0.4, N.- NO 01 N... 00 EI g m l to-I
N0 w M) Anl -P'0 .f 4)
01. 044 .- n N-. CN 01 O 0 I-271) 2,
4J @- @3ý
0 r P~- r-I- F-F I3 1 @3=w wc c F-F 43J 4J 4--) 4
L. L. 4- 4-4- 4- 5-
a) tflfUm f m EU5 L S.ioS-o L. L. L.F-
0 wxc F--FF im AM Q~
E ) 0coco0 c c o 0 0 c (J30 D00
c CU M CO~C) C.j C'~i. cm cn C~iCV
Lo fC'J LC) C%J &LnLt) Lc)LO LO UCM LC)C%jon .C (~fCn n (n en cv) m (V) V)L'E - * . *
toJ o'w(,A;0 ;nCA_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
00 co 9l% IýI Io r00 cco-I I P-'
C~, ON~ ONJ J C~J~'. (M (%JJCY14- E Pý rl l - l
4mJwO ChJ~% (n(%M t a ( 0J%J0
40OFF 0 n o 0 40 40OOn
~~~~~ 9A~ .- %.* s~ . tn %i %C ~ ~ i F--U - - F-
.~ I I, II Ili8
*w w toGO a atO06O 40*a.
4a F% 4N f" I ci t P a0P ~
wl - Ad CIA- N.M.- m0 M~1.
4-J-
El ~ ~ ~ t I-I Q aN0 0 0 I O %f 0 10 00c~ f rýI
I-- Ln0% P, 00 Fý t~ Cy (')I ; ~Cý -Z a1P
4J -W w w w vw)m 0q in - m w vw-.-N v w - 4A0
.. 7
0,0
All~
a 0 ýw
006to CY4 C
U4.
41 - - - - -1
ft f" 0 'I.-~~o -A_ _ - .
.0 -s29
.U C~j I~L000 00a(D ( C D000D 00000D4-A4J 4) M IV 10.0
: I/ 0 V. "* C. C* *q co* or-u w 0 )e#A 4A 00 LO 0 7 Or0O0CQ 4 Jp- 0'- CI)00 q-r r-.to
CA. V.O~r u toJOM
(d) r- -V C~j 4wr--ne-
4.)
41
I-
41J en ~ .
CM Un md- ~O'() r-. o- @--o~( CD n 4 M Ot CML0n
V- *.-
.0 a V .
011 nU .) L kn tnU aI0~' E Lin-IaU0 Ln 0 a i
1- 41 % % % LO V %CC w P n % D t D tM1 Ln'4 coMLOr uQM nC
41L4 ~t0. C3
41
(M CM enOJn C na lr nd
4.)
4M. a$mc_4
4J~ 0) 0)
cCY
30
/&
atax"i, a ;a :a a :a , ,
S- a
a~e 4 eA e n n f
y ' o
434
S• . . . . gI.
22 9 2222 2
S I
S.a
t4 a .4 .-.
t - -0
90 L
cpa - ~ a a a ow
T6.
31N
.9- . *% L- n ONOu (
CL
00. . .
-j 0 Uý O 4m CV
P- NY
EnCV (n Ou00 . .t
-a 0% en. W ~ .M 0o SA
Iid ON f-. ~ ,- L( N
EUl
09 toa a i 'EU~L Ou * *
Va "a
cu r- W '. 0 C CL) 0 fI EE I. * * .
4- 4- at do W-EU
u d w--
C acv
to (A
9-"C 4-0 2.
'DC Cý CC Cat
I a 9- .a. ~ 9-32~
1- -0
10 x
#A .9 "- W , I= I V
O~4J *.0 0
c- u cU CL"-" "- -" + #X
4.) co Lro 00to
0
cn -. v -- E 4'
u co
CV 4- 4-
41-
I- U
CL
oo u ~ r 0 N c00.0 io n 0l 0Dz '
D0 - 41
idn C 4J 0n
%-0 %0 %00
av (A Nmen
CL. P6 U 10
33
W- S3C
0)0
203 E to0 0. c)
4. D.=- a)C 1 Or4-1 4 (0 C, LA.
4-~C u~. 4
cm 00 (00 (0 (: 4E p C -C
4-) . 0 co 0c t wo -etC 00- S- co 0)
ci *- 0 -0 -- $
Qo o~~ o~- --- ov)(
.- CoCLO*0
0f LO "0-m4-- C_ 4 C iuj
Li.) () (L) 41) 40o 4-W)~ d) 4J - 4-E =3 4. .~ 4-
4) 0 r,- 0-'- o0ar- S-.w =. ciC Cr
00--Co04-) r-_.0+ 4-) t M (0
C 40 e
0~. u C C=U C.() O to0+j 4-ul CIA C\J 0 > 4-
F- -n .0
c) 4) :
CL CJ . V ) 0)~
S£ 0. 4- '.05 to0 00 en) 0. Oa0.. Cto (4 co a
0- 4* a 4 ) r--~a C .C4-J 0~
C1i U ( Ij-0 0) 4-.J
____ ____ ____ ____ 9- - itU 4- S- 4.'
Cdi
.9- d) Cv'o) L94 - -
M.iU C)'C CD (0-. (A 0 0
.14 *rt2~ 0- a. 41)
____ ___ ___ ___ ___ 'ti.0 u
34
141
(A C!
-~4 N 0
A~~c 0n .01 .
a.A n 06a
06 an in in 40- 0n a a a
id aC. a- a- N
W #A~ 4 440 ~ 4~ en a 0 61 1 4A
CA -v*C2 co 06
4' t" 4 301
're 4 a 40 ofw
4.bC a. a-a a .4
4~4A
35
0 0 ko c0
EU 41)
En EnEto E
Q. O 03
to ('1 CA x
4J 4
4) . r- 4-4A ti 0 0 W.
.9-n 3 c r- C',4 - r- EU (Uto t
1o wU to (a
4D 44D CD 4% -0
to~ CM 48
"0.c CD MJ .- C',
EU~~t L t E
.05-L r.=, ~EU4 m 4
En4JFm 0L 4J 4J
ZI cl0 _ l~ C'L CL~
w ~ EU a r-
,. 431.
E- 0c ro0
- - 0
* .9-EU 36
INNER MOVABLE PART¼ OUTER STATIONARY PART
Fig I Aluminum window frame
37
3.-m
EE
V'. -- 0 o
ým 0 "
A 41
00 cu
00j
E WI-
E. 4-
on0
E ZI.
.1 (U
0-0 0
10. I ~
p. Iim*N oa
"F.I
V/1 -) WWV w 90 WW*
3_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ (M6
_ ,057m
DINVISION VAQIIISML I 2"x ex I/4" Jil SOTTIED
HOLESINII Ii ANGLE
II II!ii IIII IIII I,
IH IISII
II- - II
II
-• "- IIU, I
II IIII IIII II .
II III I OESNII L 2"x 211 /4" I! ANGLE -
Fig 3 S'6--31 suport frc7-:.rk - plan view
3).1 '
44
39
40
4-A
4-0
44..
LL.
41
L.-
41
428
4m
43.
iti-
4A
E 4j
EED
41.
w OD> z 0
z4
I.- 0
44
0F0 *1-
I0
w CL X
:)C0"
Ij~ E. 0E0 o U
-y
w1
E.44
- - - - -- -- - - - -- -- - -
Fig 9 Failure of aluminum window frame a
45
.2
14
00
461.
4,
47 '
• #12 x 32mm (0-1/4")
FRAME TAPPING SCREW(THREAD CUTTING)
-GLAZING BEAD
jV 6.35 mm (1/4")
GLAZING TAPE GLASS
Fig 12 Cross-section of aluminum glazing bead strengthened with screws
48
* Fig 13 Window latch before test
4.4 49
7 7 t
ts=
so9
.676 m
(26-5/8")
ALUMINUM FRAME
(t 23 -1/2!"1 x (38 -1/2") 12BI NDT
- -
RIVETS•
Fig 15 Test setup for reverse loading on aluminum window frame
51
alMC
52D
4,
I/a ,,
C CC
'.4 -
I C3
N IL
I
a*1�
Sa,I
I',U,U
a,
&I
U-.
a,
LI-
- _______--
54 4.
A 4'¶ 1 r-r4IV
P 44
I '4
1-0
-r -- - ..
40
56.
WOODEN TEST STRUCTURE
64 mm 64mm STYROFOAM
z (2-1/27) (2-1/21)
GLAZINGTAPE
SPACING BLOCK
Fig 21 Cross-section of wooden frame mounted in test structure
57
64mmWOODEN TESTSTRUCTURE (- -2-1/2") -
LI
GLAZING _
TAPE----' 41.3ram 12.2m
(7/8"
ADDITIONAL 12 x 32mm(I-I/4") STYROFOAMSELF TAPPING SCREWS ES O
(FOR WINDOW TEST o CvFFDS2 ONLY)
ALUMINUMSPACING FRAME,
BLOCKS
S-SPACING BLOCKS-- 4; •; --
Fig 22 Cross-section df aluminum window frame mounted in test- sructure
SR
ýW--
-1 -
4A.in~
F* - - - i -- --- '. ,'Y4--
4J
VI
S SL
60....-.
600
I. III II-
46 4, ;y
Tk A
~ ~do
.1o ~
61 .- ,
IY
a.~
Zo.
62
(r~ ~ r - '7
41? 0
,-, ,I of
63
64
4t1- cm
CD. - . t
LJSJA9
Ch
*4 0
65-
* AE 5 LP x LARGE PANEL
SP= SMALL PANEL
*GAGE 4 DA ?:DS z BUILDINGDISTANCESFROM GZ
LP LP
(NOTE: IN TEST SERIESNO. Ito BUILDING DISTANCESARE TO THE CENTER OFSIpS THE TEST STRUCTURES)
SID-PGGSTRUCTURE A .AE
LP LP
SP
STRUCTURE 8
'GAGE I
',BLAST LINE
EXPLOSIVE
GROUND ZERO (GZ)" -
Fig 30 Layout of test structures and pressure gages
66
39
67
Iw68-
69
Fig 34 DAMAge to window backing
70
NN .. " .......
EST SERIES W.o.IAGE 2
j -
, 4-.-I .... .... . .. ...... . . . . . . . . . . .S(i.9)w0 .
CL
aa
0 25.- 51.2 7i.8 1 -2.4 12+
TIME (ms(c)
• Fig 35 Typical recorded pressure-time curve
; /1i0
0 -
ta
/
.1 ______________
* a.-.-._________________________________________________ Et �.j.41 '1' $�'
P�4� 1A�I
ji . c�-� o 0A A
.� -�
0
43
- -- -- V� �aI �
A�¶ I
p I______ 4
.. .
A. -
&. p � Ph'-
p Ob41�
y.4' -�* *1
, 1*
72 SI.
CA
NIm
r 06
ILI
17 tA '
73
'142
uoI-
< 4!50
tja a I
74.
PPG HERCULITE TEMPERED GLASSTO MEET WIND LOAD REQUIREMENTS
WIND LOAD KP0
1.9 4.8 9.6 14 24 36 96
sPE IFI+ED I I300' PROBABILITY O 28
FAILURE zS PER 1000~200 - 19
100. 9.3
-°i u 1aa[ 1
S60 Il
,ol r, , .N IN N Io30, 0.9
40 100 200 300 500 800 2000
SPECIFIED I-MINUTE WIND LOAD-POUNDS PER
SQUARE FOOT
"Fig 39 Wind load capacity of Herculite tempered glass (Ref 7)
Is
* f ,i.. " .- .. 1•.
PPG FLOAT GLASSTO MEET WIND LOAD REQUIREMENTS
WIND LOAD KPa0.5 0.7 1.0 1.4 2.4 3.8 7.2 14
SPCFIED TF200- PROBABILITY OF _--9
FAILURE =8 PER 1000w 14
w Th w
-9
30 N. -2.
76ý
00 co'N ,2
APPENDIX
ENGINEERING DRAWINGS
77
APPENDIX
ENGINEERING DRAWINGS
The following pages contain reduced-size copies of the en-gineering drawings prepared for the construction of the teststructures and support framework for the static and dynamic tests.Drawing No. 129, Sheets Nos. 1 and 2 pertain to the static tests.Drawing No. 128, Sheets Nos. I through 5, and Drawing No. 1310,Sheets Nos. 1 through 3 pertain to the dynamic tests.
The dynamic tests of the window glass and aluminum frameswere performed in conjunction with tests of cold-formed steelpanels, thus construction data related to the cold-formed steelpanel tests are also included on Drawings Nos. 128 and 130.
ISM
/7
i; -j
'11; F.11 _
NJJ~c==~-JIM
K f:~( t j ~y~-f0
I U
_ _ _io"
- &
81
- a .t .,.L A a •x~
* - ... - .. ... I.* - - - •waa *.-fy.. V. .
a....--,v-,a.- .- * -. M. ... - .--.. - y_
S*
* . 4 ,. ,.e - ,. - ,-. 4-n m-e w . ,,a* v . a - aa.o.ao-
4*n a m,•• • A e* *rv4aoe• a.o . a, 4o in. ......
* * n~r - - =vI
-,_ __ _ ar a a• 6-- - -- -
I ! .,
'I I
S.• •1Ih1 1 'L II
11
*, 0
83Ifi' -l
1�.dl
II
I.,, lb
4- 15ill I.I �I -
..- I
-I
84
Lli
A? .. 'h-
7 T"
o ! ,.7
.. \
--- • --- I I l [ 4 I
•r M iI lowi r
- -~ 4
86i
All
tit 4
I__ 4 11-74iW -O f7-U
A L AP Am1
ITI~ I-ILA i i
N ~ T 7 "T ~
9 m11]h oil.UH
r I_
89
DISTRIBUTION LIST
CommanderU.S. Army Armament Research and
Development CommandATTN: DRDAR-CG
DRDAR-LCM-EDRDAR-LCM-S (24)DRDAR-SFDRDAR-TSS (5)
Dover, N.J. 07801
Chairman (2)Dept. of Defense Explosive Safety BoardPoffman Bldg., No. 1, RO011 856C2461 Eisenhower AvenueAlexandria, Va. 22331
AdministratorDefense Documentation CenterATTN: Accessions Division (12)Cameron StationAlexandria, Va. 22314
CommanderDepartment of the ArmyOffice, Chief Research, Development &
AcquisitionATTN: DAMA-CSM-P
Office, Chief of EngineersATTN: DAEN-MCZWashington, D.C. 20314
CommanderU.S. Army Materiel Development &
Readiness CommandATTN: DRCSF
DRCDEDRCRPDRCIS
5001 Eisenhower AvenueAlexandria, Va. 22333
91
DISTRIBUTION LIST
CommanderDARCOM Installations & Servicss AgencyATTN: DRCIS-RIRock Island, Illinois 61201
DirectorIndustrial Base Engineering ActivityATTN: DRXIB-tiT & ENRock Island, Illinois 61201
CommanderU.S. Army Materiel Development &
Readiness CommandATTN: DRCPM-PBM
DRCPM-PBM-SDRCPM-PBM-L (2)DRCPM-PBM-E (2)
Dover, N.J. 07801
CommanderU.S. Army Armament Materiel
Readiness CommandATTN: DRSAR-SF (3)
DRSAR-SCDRSAR-ENDRSAR-PPIDRSAR-PPI-CDRSAR-RDDRSAR- ISDRSAR-ASF
Rock Island, Illinois 61299
DirectorDARCOM Field Safety ActivityATTN: DRXOS-ES i )Charlestown, Indiana 47111
g2Ii'
Commnandert.[S- Army Engineer DivisionATTN: HNDEDP.O. Box 1600, West StationHuntsville, Alabama 35809
CommianderRadford Army Anmmunition PlantRadford, Va. 24141
CommnanderBadger Army Ammnunition PlantBaraboo, Wisconsin 53913
CommnanderIndiana Army Anmmunition PlantCharlestown, Indiana 47111
* ~CormmanderHolston Army Ammnunition PlantKingsport, Tennessee 37660
CommnanderLone Star Army Ammnunition PlantTexarkana, Texas 75501
CommnanderMilan Army Ammnunition PlantMilan, Tennessee 38358
CommnanderIowa Army Ammunition PlantMiddletown, Iowa 52638
CommnanderJoliet Army Ammnunition PlantJoliet, Illinois 60436
ConunanderLonghorn Army Ammnunition PlantMarshall, Texas 75670
93
CoflirakiderLouisiana Army Ammunition PlantShreveport, Louisiana 71130
CommanderCornhusker Army Ammunition PlantGrand Island, Nebraska 68801
CommanderRavenna Army Ammunition PlantRavenna, Ohio 44266
CommanderNewport Army Ammunition PlantNewport, Indiana 47966
CommanderVolunteer Army Ammunition PlantChattanooga, Tennessee 37401
CommanderKansas Army Azmmunition PlantParsons, Kansas 67357
District EngineerU.S. Army Engineering District, MobileCorps of EngineersP.O. Box 2288Mobile, Alabama 36628
District EngineerU.S. Army Engineering District, Ft. WorthCorps of EngineersP.O. Box 17300Ft. Worth, Texas 76102
District EngineerU.S. Army Engineering District, OmahaCorps of Engineers6014 U.S. P.O. and Courthouse215 North 17th StreetOmaha, Nebraska 78102
94
District EngineerU.S. Army Engineering District, BaltimoreCorps of EngineersP.O. Box 1715Baltimore, Maryland 21203
District EngineerU.S. Army Engineering District, NorfolkCorps of Engineers803 Front StreetNorfolk, Virginia 23510
Division EngineerU.S. Army Engineering District, HuntsvilleP.O. Box 1600, West StationHuntsville, Alabama 35807
CommanderNaval Ordnanc,: StationIndianhead, Maryland 20640
CommanderU.S. Army Construction
Engineering Research LaboratoryChampaign, Illinois 61820
CommanderDugway Proving GroundDugway, Utah 84022
CommanderSavanna Army DepotSavanna, Illinois 61704
Civil Engineering LaboratoryNaval Construction Battalion CenterATTN: L51Port Hueneme, California 93043
CommanderNaval Facilities Engineering Command(Code 04, J. Tyrel1)200 Stovel StreetAlexandria, Virginia 22322
95
CommanderSouthern DivisionNaval Facilities Engineering CormmandATTN: J. WattsP.O. Box 10068Charleston, S.C. 29411
CommanderWestern DivisionNaval Facilities Engineering CommandATTN: W. MooreSan Bruno, California 94066
Officer in ChargeTRIDENTWashington, D.C. 20362
Officer in Charge of ConstructionTRIDENTBangor, Washington 98348
ConmmanderAtlantic DivisionNaval Facilities Engineering ComandNorfolk, Virginia 23511
CommanderNaval Ammunition DepotNaval Ammunition Production
Engineering CenterCrane, Indiana 47522
96
