20011026 november,056 1980

DOE/TIC-11268

A MANUAL FOR THE

PREDICTION OF BLAST

AND

FRAGMENT LOADINGS

ON STRUCTURES

Reproduced From Best Available Copy

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A Approved for Public Release

Distribution Unlimited

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

ALBUQUERQUE OPERATIONS OFFICE

AMARILLO AREA OFFICE

AMARILLO, TEXAS

20011026 056 November, 1980

Change 1-15 August 1981 Change 2 - 1 April 1982

UNCLASSIFIED- 5ECUBITY r, Ä5SIPIQTION0FTHISP* r,t fWhrn D»r« Enl»rrd;

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. BEPORT NUMBER

DOE/TIC-11268

J2 COVT ACCESSION NO

READ INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

4 TITLE (and Subtitle)

A Manual for the Prediction of Blast and Fragment Loading on Structures

7 AUTHORf«;

W. E. Baker, J. J. Kulesz, P.. S. Westine, P. A. Cox and J. S. Wilbeck

5 TYPE OF REPORT 6 PERIOD COVERED

Final Report 1/30/79 - 9/30/80

6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

02-5594 T CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBERS

DACA87-79-C-0091

V PERFORM.NO OR0AN,ZAT,ON NAME AND ADDRESS

Southwest Research Institute 6220 Culebra Road San Antonio. TX 78284

10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT .TASK AREA ft WORK UNIT NUMBERS

II. CO 'NTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS

U. S. Army Engineer Division, Huntsville P*. 0. Box 1600 West Station

]LEl£Xi^-^-^r-ADDRESSri/ Cerent ,»-. Co„,rol,.n. OH.C.T I* MONITOR! NO AGENCY NAME » A

12. REPORT DATE

November. 1980 13. NUMBER OF PAGES

738 15. SECURITY CLASS, (ol thf report)

UNCLASSIFIED. IS« DECLASSiFlCATION DOWNGRADING

SCHEDULE

NA .

16 DlS TRIBUTION STATEMENT (olthiz Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

1T-^T^T^1T7-T-EMENT (O, «.. — * i- ...c» ». „ * ' - —J

IB SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

lT-KT71^DT7^^r. on re * .l-.c.«y - ■*""* * «-«* —<>

High Explosives Air Blast Waves Air Blast Loading Explosion Venting

Explosive Cratering Ground Shock Fragmentation Debris in Explosive Accidents

Explosives Accidental Explosion Damage Mechanisms Explosion Hazards

,0 ABSTRACT ,C.n,,nu. or, d. »;.«....„ -* ,d.n,M, », Mo,> nu-b.O

ir»?:.^ rUSJr.« «cidStii'j,*»!.« i» °<«««-» ««=«««. THe Mnual i. c-pl«..t.ry «. «'-in8 structural ^jS —^ «"^

_-. FORM iAT> tDlTl0N OF 1 NOV«S IS OBSOLETE UNCLASSIFIED DD 1 JAN 73 Wi SECURITY CLASS.F.CAT.ON OF TH.S PAGE ,HT..n U„. tn,.,.d)

itCV

r si LASS ii tin Z, T Y c i. » i sir^«TiQN o>J % i»»(..LfWT»««» £>•'• tnffl)

19. (Con't)

Explosives Properties Single Explosion Sources Multiple Explosion Sources Explosive Charge Shape Effects Explosion Containment Free-Field Blast Waves Reflected Blast Waves Normal Reflection. Oblique Reflection Internal Blast Loading Hazards to Personnel from Air Blast Effects of Ground Motion on Buildings and Equipment

Primary Fragments Secondary Fragments Fragment Dispersion •" Fragment Range Fragment Impact Effects Explosive Initiation by Fragments Dynamic Properties of Materials Energy-Absorbing Properties of Materials Dynamic Structural Design Dynamic Analysis Dynamic Design

20. (Con't)

. .nn Another objective was to aid in the assessment of the explosion rSirtant'captoilitie^of existing buildings at the Pantex Plant near

Amarillo, Texas.

The „onual Is specific for new or existing *•*"%•*« *«SSS'.SS'"

factors are used.

UfiOASSHIED ^ a.m fc,,.,^,

;•■

<

o 10

Id V> _J 3 a 5

UJ >

u w

Z g < 3 O

UJ >

to o 0.

Q UJ

M? 10

-.-' -rrr-; -4 - -rrf-3 T~ ;

tin t&ipt ipxirxni tTTTTiin1"

■ IB

10* 10',

[rS,Frfflf f$Y* W$M ^'4-(***fy :.^f^f^^ :^T".rt"J'|^ :I~&

4 6 HAZARDS TO PERSONNEL FROM AIR BLAST

explosions were better understood. Since that time n „echan-

rllrS.«^^.^^ - TutüoTZsl "own „ni,ue environ-

which may dissipate the energy of the blast "*™ °*tr^latlonal ,act0ra i„-

ss rn s sssÄJrs; f£ v=b sa SETA United set of blast damage criteria will be J"^ *ere ™^°t and leJel

"receiver" will be assumed to £ »«£™8 in £££«££„ re£lectcd wava

arv effects involving fragment impact by missiles from theexp * lerated

Abwich Ät^e Ä5i==rS.rbe disced in Chapter 6.

A 6.1 Primary Blast Damage

Priory blast effect are associate.1-£^^^^^^'«£7^

s^^SJSÄ «f~ «i-aS^ SÄrs. pressure after arrival of the bias: wave «* *%£™!™B°a Bajor role (Refs. (Ref. 4.61). Specific impulse of the ""' ™£ *^° a^tent o£ biast injury 4.62 and 4.63). Other parameters which *e"™1™ ™ f„f animal, and possibly are the ambient atmospheric pressure, the sUe «™ '"«f°;reIlcM in de„sity of age. Parts of the body where ther«, are th greatest diH« (Re£s ^

I*^"and1 tos" •SL^'ii^SiSU tissues of the lungs are more sus- ceptible to primary blast than any other vital organ (Ref. 4.66).

Pulmonary "injuries directly or indJ«"ly cause „any of the patbophysi-

doglcal effects of blast in ury (Ref 4 67). Injuri = £' /(Ref. ,.„,, hemorrhage and edema (Refs. 4.61 and 4 67) ™P»" ( f 4 6l) losa air-embolic insult to the heart and «*"£""£!'£"foci. or fine scars,

and various other portions of the body (Ref. 4.61).

4-161

tent of damage from the blast wave are the ^«^J1^ including its ambient atmospheric pressure, and the type °f ^imal J nearb object8

mass and geome trie °rientatio n r el. tive "f*™*^ later »!„, et al. (Ref. 4.62). Although Richmond, et al. (Ref. 4•«> tendency of the Ref. 4.62), both from the Lovelace foundation, "9f"" ?;uratlon Jla8t lethality curves to approach isopressure lines for long " duration waves, their lethality curves demonstrate dependence on .pr.« ^^ alone. Since specific impulse is dependent onpressu ^ o_

pressure-impulse lethality or survifbi^\'"™" *P*urves to approach asymp- priate. The tendency for pressure-impuI«« lethal*£ <U™^thema

PPcal ^mt

totic limits is also very aesthetically *W»l£*™£a\ at . specified dis- of view. Also, since both pressure an^f Erectly using methods described tance from most explosions can be «^^^at pressure-impulse lethality in this document, it is especially •P^^J^"^ done and is described (or survivability) curves be developed This has be here ag Figure in Reference 4.59. These curves and their use are r P

4.68. i n„„ iauo in such a manner that only the Simplifying Lovelace's scaling laws in such a at fche

human species or large animals are considered, one following relationships or scaling laws.

1. The affect of incident overpressure is dependent on the ambient atmospheric pressure. That is,

p .Is. (*-70> s P o

where P, is scaled incident peak overpressure, Ps is peak incident overpressure, and Po is ambient atmospheric pressure.

2 The effect of blast wave positive duration is dependent on ambient atmospheric pressure and the mass of the human target. That

is,

Tn 1/2

T_TPQ (4.71)

T 1/3 m

where T is scaled positive duration, T is positive duration, and

m is weight of human body.

4-162

1

u 3 to m 01 u o. u 0) > o •o V

rH « Ü

Scaled Impulse T s 1/2 1/3 p m , psil/2sec/lbJ

Fi gure 4.68 Survival Curves for Lung Damage to Man

4-163

3. Impulse is can be approximated by

*.- 2

V (4.72)

Equation (4.72) assumes a triangula*: - ^ape jnd J^™^

from an injury standpoint, or "^ ^ °^e^fic impulse required for square wave shapes because it und«"^f f ^'^ approximation for "short" dur- a certain percent lethality. It is also a close pp^ ^ ^ ^ peak QVer. ation blast waves which characteristically ha^ he total waVe shape

arrive at a scaling law for specific impulse.

1-- (4.73) i -7*T

s 2 s

uhere T is «.1- specific impulse. Fro. Rations (,.71), («.7», and C*.73> J

_ 1 s

Ps^_ (4.74) 1

Pm r

1 _ 2 1/2 1/3

>r from Equation (4.72)

is (4.75) is " —1/2 1/3 D m

*o

ttu.. as indicated by Elation («-»^«^^'Llrt«^. " ^"^ on ambient atmospheric pressure and the mass of the nu

Reconstructed curves from Reference 4.59 are .,,0™ ^J^re 4 68 It

should be noted that these curves «'""«'»^^^"^«"«vlior.. Pre-

4-164

aUitudes with different atmospheric: jr...ur« •«^^ and specific im-

human bodies. Once one det^"^^f ^g Equations (4.70) and (4.75) pulse for an explosion, they can * ™J«° ^sf gfor\he scaling can be acquired Vhe proper ambient atmospheric pressure to use decreases with increas- fromVgure ..69, which shows how a mo pheric pr.-.« ^ ^ weigh d in ing altitude above sea level <*«•*;"'• composition of the particular the scaling is determined by the demographic camp babies, £aTndeAnvestigation. It is recommen ed tha 11»^ ^ ^ ^

55 lb for small children 121 ^«^lies in\his case are the most suS- It should be noticed that the smallest u ceptible to injury.

4-165

(0 D.

0) H 3 0) (0 V i-l p-

u •H M a)

4-1

<:

L 3 2

1 i 1 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Altitude, thousands of ft

Figure 4.69 Atmospheric Pressure as a Function of Altitude Above Sea Level

4-166

EXAMPLE PROBLEM 4.14

pR0BLEM - Assess lung damage to humans at an appropriate distance from a given

. - explosive source.

GIVEN: VJ ■ explosive charge weight R « distance from center of explosive charge

Altitude (no symbol) m «= weight of body of human subject

FIND: Probability of survival

REFERENCE SOLUTION- 1. Determine peak incident overpressure — SStSliiL. and specific impuise is for given

charge weight W and distance R rig. . 2. Determine ambient atmospheric pres- ^ ^

sure from altitude 3. Calculate scaled incident overpres- (4.70)

sure Ps 4. Choose weight of the lightest human

exposed at distance R .„ » 7n 5. Calculate scaled specific impulse is Eq. </»./:>, 6. Plot Ps and is and determine proba- A6g

bility of survival

CALCULATION

GIVEN: W «= 100 lb " R = 100 ft

Altitude - 4000 ft m - 130 lb

FIND: Percent survival

SOLUTION: 1. R/W1/3 = 100/1001/3 - 21.5 ft/lb1^ " " Enter Figure 4.5 and read Pg - 1.» psi

and i /VT/J - 2.55 X 10 psi-sec/lb s

"Unseale" to determine i

*s . wl/3 . 2-55 x 10"3 X 101/3 - 5.49 X 10'3 psi-sec

w 2. From Figure 4.69 for 4000 ft altitude,

p « 12.6 psi o

4-167

3. From Equation (4.70), P - 1.8/12.5 - 0.144 s

4. Given m - 130 lb 5. From Equation (4.75), .^2

T __^L— - _J^9JL10±- - 1.08 X IQ'3 PSl 1/33eC

'^^V75 12.61/2X1301/3 lb1/3

6. From Figure 4.68, enter with Pg = 0.144 and

i - 1.08 X 10-3. The point lies well below g the threshold for lung damage. So, there is no injury and survival is 100%

^

4-168

A.6.2 Tertiary Blast Injury

act vitTTTinnîy-^^^ and subse- l.ted. Tertiary blast da«.ge involves this wholJbody P^ ^^ ^ quent decelerative impact (Ref. *•«-). ™~* ° a, *£ k 68). The extent of

body involved (Ref. A .61) .

Althou8h the head ^ri^\?llZ°l£l°A ^ri"oSf ^

li'tSi da^merla should he hased on sUulH=;=^

and random body impact orientation, will be considered.

Because of the many ^^^^M^^f^ll^^lJ^^ assumptions will be made. First •* f i'^îS.^8^damaging case occur during decelerative impact »^ * ha'd ^[^ onto only hard surfaces (Ref. 4.69). Another assumption is that since imp velocity. is being considered, translatxon damage will depend only ° J considering This is, impacting only one type of »»^^"äJa Lsu^lon, however, is

^"EtSJîS wJenh:nbe0dcyonsid^rgs STtn. lompressib'lity'of various portions of the body can vary considerably.

Whit. (Refs. A.61 and 4.62) and Clemedson et: al (Ref 4.69) agree^ that the tentative «Iteriaf« ternary da^ge^decelerati p ^^ head should be those presented in Table 4 11. ^ [ &re summarized

f^:ti?uirur^z^^^ IL^^ *-*• velocity criteria for each type of impact condition are identxcal.

i (vof L «m have developed a method for predicting the Baker, et al. (Ref. 4.59) *»ave deve P ions which will trans- blast incident overpressure and specific impulse preSented in late human bodies and propel them at the crltica ion curves are repro- Tables A.11 and 4.12. This method and associated predict

duced here.

FlE„re 4.70 contains the pressure-seeled Impulse ^^°f Äf

4-169

Table A.11 Criteria For Tertiary Damage (Decelerative Impact) To The Head (References A.61, A.62, and A.69)

Skull Fracture Tolerance

Mostly "safe,r

Threshold

50 percent

Near 100 percent

Related Impact Velocity ft/sec

10

13

18

23

Table A.12 Criteria For Tertiary Damage Involving Total Body Impact

(Reference A.62)

Total Body Impact Tolerance

Mostly "safe"

Lethality threshold

Lethality 50 percent

Lethality near 100 percent

Related Impact Velocity ft/sec

10

21

5A

138

A-170

en

u 0) to I

n c

PI

0) u 3 *J Ü a u

3

o

u n 3 a B

u r-l a a en

0) u 3 BO

. 8

A-171

e o

01 e a u H

O S3

<U

O

5 e 0 n

a)

V4 3 00

Tsd « d

4-172

lmpulSe coitions retired to produce * ^^[«^ ^evel. r „ -r lot-Vi^litv from whole body impact {.bee xacne H.X«./ =■-

Tu^s Kr otnorSHSe'rd°i£for only sUghtly fro. the see Xevel curve,.

4-173


PROBLEM - Predict possible tertiary blast damage to humans at a specified dis- - tance from a given explosive source.

GIVEN: W = explosive weight R = distance from center of explosive charge m = weight of body of human subject

FIND: Probability of injury

SOLUTION: 1.

2.

Determine peak incident overpressure Ps and specific impulse is for given charge weight W and distance R Determine the lightest representative weight of an exposed human, and calcu-

, . 4 / 1/3 late ic/m

1/3 Locate P and i /m on graphs for s s

skull fracture and lethality for whole body translation, and read impact velocities Determine degree of injury for appropriate impact velocities

REFERENCE

Fig. 4.5

Fig. 4.70 & Fig. 4.71

Table 4.11

CALCULATION

GIVEN: W = 100 lb R = 100 ft m = 130 lb

FIND: Tertiary blast injury, based on skull fracture and whole body translation

SOLUTION: R/W173 = 100/100173 - 21.5 ft/lb1/3

Enter Figure 4.9 and read P = 1.8 psi and 5

i /VL/2 = 2.55 X 10~3 psi-sec/lb s "Unscale" to determine i i 8

-J73 ' W1/3 = 2.55 X 10"3 X 1001/3

Given m - 130 lb. Calculate

ig/m1/3 - 1.18 X 10_2/1301/3 "3

1.18 x 10 pai-rsec

- 2.33 X 10~3 psi-sec/lb1/3

Change 1-15 August 1981 4-174

3. Enter Figure 4.70 with Ps - 1-8 and

i /m1/3 - 2.33 X Hf3. This is off the left side

of the Figure, but well below the lowest curves for skull fracture. So, V « 10 fps. Enter Fig A 71 with the same numbers. Again, V « 10 tps

L Referring to Table 4.11 for correlation of velo- 4' ciies with injury, we find that for either the

skull fracture or whole body impact criteria the^ impact velocities are well below the mostly safe velocities. So, no injury would occur. NOTC: Had the values for ordinate and abscissa in

Figures 4.70 and 4.71 been Pg - 1 psi, i-J* '

1 psi-sec/lb1/3, the velocities for s^* frac£u" velocity would have been V - 15 fps, and for whole velocity w°u v - 13 fos Skull fracture injury

proLbluty wSdVlIe".SUn threshold and 50%, vhüe lethality due to whole body translator.would lie between mostly "safe" and the threshold for iethat^y! So, the human would have a relatively high probability of skull fracture, but a low probability of death. Whether this level of ^ury would or would not be acceptable could only be ad dressed in separate safety criteria.

A_175 Change 1 - 15 August 1981

A.6.3 Ear Damage Due To Air Blast Exposure

The ear, a sensitive organ system which converts sound waves into nerve impulses, responds to a band of frequencies ranging from 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz. This remarkable organ can respond to energy levels which cause the eardrum to deflect less than the diameter of a single hydrogen molecule (Ref. 4.70). Not being able to respond faithfully to pulses having periods less than 0.3 milli- second, it attempts to do so by making a single large excursion (Ref. 4.70). It is this motion which can cause injury to the ear.

The human ear_is divided into the external, middle, and inner ear. The external ear amplifies the overpressure of the sound wave by approximately 20 percent and detects the location of the source of sound (Ref. 4.70). Rup- ture of the eardrum is a good measure of serious ear damage. Unfortunately, the state-of-the-art for predicting eardrum rupture is not as well developed as that for predicting lung damage from blast waves. A direct relationship, however, has been established between the percentage of ruptured eardrums and maximum overpressure. Hirsch (Ref. 4.67) constructed a graph similar to that shown in Figure 4.72 and concluded that 50 percent of exposed eardrums rupture at an overpressure of 15 psi. White (Ref. 4.61) supports this conclusion for "fast" rising overpressures with durations of 0.003 second to 0.4 second occurring at ambient atmospheric pressure of 14.7 psi. Hirsch (Ref. 4.67), also concluded that threshold eardrum rupture for "fast" rising overpressures occurs at 5 psi, which is also supported by White (Ref. 4.61) for the range of duration and at the atmospheric pressure mentioned above.

At lower overpressures than those required to rupture eardrums, a temporary loss of hearing can occur. Ross, et al. (Ref. 4.70), have produced a graph of peak overpressure versus duration for temporary threshold shift (TTS). Below the limits of the graphs, a majority (75 percent at least) of those exposed are not likely to suffer excessive hearing loss. According to Ross, et al. (Ref. 4.70), their curves should be lowered 10 dB to protect 90 percent of those exposed, lowered 5 dB to allow for a normal angle of incidence of the blast wave, and increased 10 dB to allow for occasional impulses. In sum, to assure protection to 90 percent of those exposed and to allow for normal incidence to the ear (the worst exposure case) of an occasional air blast, their curves should be lowered 5 dB.

Limits for eardrum rupture and temporary threshold shift, as presented above, are dependent on peak incident overpressure and duration. Since specific impulse is dependent upon the duration of the blast wave and since both peak incident overpressure and specific impulse at a specified distance from an explosion can be calculated using methods in this document, it is especially appropriate that pressure-impulse ear damage curves be developed from the pressure-duration curves. Assuming a triangular shape for the blast wave allows for simple calculations which are conservative from an injury standpoint.


98 T—i—r—r-rT i r TT

u « w

OJ V 3 u o. 3 (a

c 0) u 01 P-

95

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10 —

1 L I ' ' » '

10

1 1 i I I J

4 6 8

Peak Overpressure P , Psi

Figure 4.72 Percent Eardrum Rupture as a Function of Overpressure

4-177

The ear damage criteria presented in Figure 4.73 were developed from the criteria for eardrum rupture developed by Hirsch (Ref. 4.68) and White (Ref. 4.61) and from the criteria for temporary threshold shift developed by Ross, et al. (Ref. 4.70). Equation (4.72) was used to calculate specific impulse, and temporary threshold shift represents the case where 90 precent of those exposed to a blast wave advancing at normal angle of incidence to the ear are not likely to suffer an excessive degree of hearing loss. The threshold for eardrum rupture curve is the location below which no ruptured ears are expected to occur and the 50 percent of eardrum rupture curve is the location at which 50 percent of ears exposed are expected to rupture.

4-178

co

CM

— IT»

CM u OJ n

CM «rt 1 01 O f-4 a

m

in T<

a CO u

i-i 3

CM a e CO M

O U TH iH

«4-4 •H U

U"> a> a.

Cft CO

CM

l

CO

I o

E M O 55

00

l-l

ü

(0 0) 33 4-t U to C « H

rH pa ««

o o 0)

iw i-4 ec

0) c to <:

« o

n w c CO

CO

■psd« d ainss3JdJ3A0 auap-p«!

4-179


PROBLEM - Find the probability of ear injury at a given distance from a specified explosive source.

GIVEN: W « explosive charge weight R = distance from center of explosive charge

FIND; Probability of ear injury ' REFERENCE

SOLUTION: 1. Determine peak incident overpressure Ps and specific impulse is for given charge weight W and distance R Fig. 4.5

2. Determine degree of injury by plotting Ps and is on human ear damage curve Fig. 4.73

CALCULATION

= 100 lb (free air) GIVEN: W R = 100 ft

FIND: Level of ear injury

SOLUTION: 1. R/W1'3 - 100/100 1/3 a 1/3 = 21.5 ft/lb '

Enter Figure 4.5 and read P * s

> 1.8 psi

and i /W1/3 - 2. 55 X IQ"3 psi- ■sec/lb1/3 s

"Unscale" to obtain i s

1s . „1/3 „ « „ ,„-3 „ ,„JL/3 , ,Q „ ,„-2

^ 3 W = 2.55 X 10 X 100 = 1.18 X 10 psi-sec

2. Plotting P and i on Figure 4.73, one s s

finds that the point lies well above the curve for TTS, but below the curve for threshold of eardrum rupture. So, humans would suffer temporary hearing loss, but no serious ear injury. NOTE: When comparing ear injury, primary blast damage, and tertiary blast damage for the same source, as has been done in Example Problems 4.14, 4.15, and 4.16, one invariably finds that ear injury occurs at a greater distance than the other, more serious, types of blast injury. So, if


safety criteria include an ear damage limit, one can be assured that no more serious blast injury will occur at the distances corresponding to the ear damage limit.

4-181

A.10 REFERENCES

4.1 Baker, W. E., Explosions In Air, University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas,

1973.

4 2 Structures fo Resist the Effects of Accidental Explosions, Department of ' the Amy Technical Manual TM 5-1300, Department of the Navy Publication

NAVFAC P-397, Department of the Air Force Manual AFM 88-22, Department of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, June 1969.

4 3 "Suppressive Shields Structural Design and Analysis Handbook," U. S. Army ' Corps of Engineers, Huntsville Division, HNDM-1110-1-2, November 1977.

4 4 Swisdak, M. M., Jr., "Explosion Effects and Properties: Part I - Explo- sion Effects in Air," NSWC/WOL/TR 75-116, Naval Surface Weapons Center, White Oak, Silver Spring, MD, October 1975.

4.5 Goodman, H. J., "Compiled Free Air Blast Data on Bare Spherical Pento- lite," BRL Report 1092, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, 1960.

4.6 Strehlow, R. A. and Baker, W. E., "The Characterization and Evaluation of Accidental Explosions," Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 2_, 1,

pp. 27-60, 1976.

4.7 Glasstone, Samuel and Dolan, Philip J., "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons " United States Department of Defense and U. S. Department of Energy, 1977.

4 8 U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration Albuquerque Opera- tions Office, "Report of Investigation of the Explosion with Fatal In- juries in Bldg. 11-14A on March 30, 1977, at the Pantex Plant-Amarillo,

Texas," June 1977.

4 9 U.S. Army Material Command, "Engineering Design Handbook, Explosive Series Properties of Explosives of Military Interest," AMCP 706-177, Headquarters, U. S. Army Material Command, January 1971.

4 10 Dobratz, Brigitta M., "Properties of Chemical Explosions and Explosive Simulants," UCRL-51319 Rev. 1, U. S. Atmoic Energy Commission Contract No. W-7405-Eng-48, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, University of Cali- fornia, Livermore, California, July 1974.

4.11 Johansson, C. H. and Persson, P. A., Detonics of High Explosives, Aca- demic Press, London and New York, 1970.

4.12 Engineering Design Handbook, Principles of Explosive Behavior AMCP 706- 1807~Headquarters, U. S. Army Material Command, Washington, D. C, 1*/^.

4.13 Hopkinson, B., British Ordnance Board Minutes 13565, 19L5.

4-206

)

4.14 Cranz, C, T^rhueh der Ballistik, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1926.

4.15 Sachs, R. C. "The Dependence of Blast on AmbientPressure and Tempera- cure," BRL Report A66, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, 1944.

A 16 Kennedy W. D., "Explosions and Explosives in Air," in Effects of Impact 4-16 anltpiosipn/M. l! White (ed.) .Sugary Technical Report of Div. 2,

NDRC, Vol. 1, Washington, D. C, AD 221 586, 194b.

A T„~,4«= r v "An Experimental Study of the Shock Wave in 4-17 ST«/;™ s&V-u/S.'Sr«- «/«. »W- ».«- «.*- Atomic Energy Authority, AWRE Report No. 0 1/73, 1973.

cal Report ARBRL-TR-02057, U. S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory,

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, April 1978.

A 19 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, IL^^^f™fere» 1976, NOAA-S/T 76-1562, U. S. Government Printing Office, October 1976.

A 20 Jack W. H. Jr. and Armendt, B. F. Jr., "Measurements of Normally Re- A' flexed Shock Parameters under Simulated High Altitude Co^xtio« BRL

Report No. 1280, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, AD A6901A, April 1965.

A 21 Devey J. M., Johnson, 0. T. and Patterson, J. D., II, "Mechanical Im- pulse Measurements Close to Explosive Charges," BRL Report No. 1182, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, November 1962.

A.22 Johnson, 0. T., Patterson, J. D., II and Olson. *. C.. -A Simple Mechani- cal Method for Measuring the Reflected Impulse of Air Blast Waves, Report No. 1099, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, July iy:>/.

A 23 Jack W H., Jr., "Measurements of Normally Reflected Shock Waves from Explosive Charges," BRL Memorandum Report No. 1499. Aberdeen Proving

Ground, MD, AD A22886, July 1963.

A.24 Wenzel, A. B. and Esparza, E. D., "Measurements of^J"^8..11^^68

at Close Distances from Explosive Charges Buried and in Air Jinal Be^ port on Contract No. DAAK 02-71-C-0393 with U.S. Army MERDC, Ft. Belvoir,

VA, 1972.

A.25 Baker, W. E., "Prediction and Scaling of Reflected Impulse from Strong Blast Waves," int. Jour. Mech. Sei., 9, pp. A5-51, 1967.

A 26 Doering, W. and Burkhardt, G., "Contributions to the Theory of Detona- Hon »Translation from the German as Tech. Report No. F-TS-122/-IA (J,DAM A9-T-AG)! headquarters, Air Material Command, Wright-Patterson AFB,

Ohio, May 19A9.

A-207

California, DeceTnber 1977.

, . J, A A »Fluid Dynamics An Introductory A.28 Harlow, F. H. and Amsden, A. A., FluidDynami of California,

Text," LA 4100, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, February 1970.

A 29 "internal Blast Damage Mechanisms Computer Program," JTCG/ME-73-3,

F08635-71-C-0199, April 1973. T n TT "Some Effects of

A.30 Dewey, J. M.. Johnson, 0. T' -^^^om'Expiosives," BRL Report No. Light Surrounds and Casings on the Blast trom w* 1218, (AD 346965), September 1963.

April 9, 1974. u w »Characteristics of Blast Waves Obtained

A.32 Wisotski, J. and Snyer, W H., <*aracter nve Denver

from Cylindrical High Explosive Charges, University Research Institute, November 1965.

4.3< MaMaa. ,. C. and <—, Ha ^^^ °loT if^^ "' Different Shapes and Compositions, BRL Report «

E^si^e7~slfety Board, pp. 271-288.

u^ Tamo= N and Sperrazza, Joseph, "Cora- A.36 Adams, Channing L., Sf™3"!^^'.^Charges of Different Shapes,"

parison of the Blast from ^P1"^? ?££ Jroving Ground, MD, Report Ballistic Research Laboratories, Aberdeen rroving

No. 681, January 1949.

. T v »Effects of Charge Composition and Surface Conditions A.37 Trancreto J. E., "f,e£" *C !£L^^

on Blast Environment, Minutes nr me -»-v—, ' ,oV, voll! Hollywood, FL, pp. 301-334, September 1974.

1969.

4-208

4.39 Reisler, R. ... Kennedy, L V. and Keefer J B.. ^jfJ^Delonatlon's), burst Air Blast Phenomena (Simultaneous and Non-Simultaneous ueton VS. BRL Technical Report No. ARBRL-TR-02142, February 1979.

4.40 Armendt, B. R., Hippensteel R G.. f «riotlve'spne^'Bail^kcTe- Air Blast Fron, Simultaneously Detonated Explosive Spheres, » search Laboratories, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, BRL Report

1294, August 1960.

A Ai A^pnrft B F Hippensteel, R. G., Hoffman, A. J.,' Keefer, J. H., "Pro- 4,1 wttnite'lr be: Air Blast. From Simultaneously Detonated Large Scale

Explore Charges," Ballistic Research Laboratories Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, BRL Report No. 1145, September 1961.

4 A2 Armendt B. F., Hippensteel, R. G., Hoffman, A. J., Schlueter, S. D., k'kl ê A-; Ilast'Fro^Simultaneously ônated Explos ve Spheres Part II

Optimization," Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland Ballistic «JJJ*J^ Laboratories, Department of the Army Project No. 503-04-002, BRL Memor

dum Report No. 1384, January 1962.

4.43 Hokanson, J. C, Esparza, E. D. and Wenzel A. B^«Ref^^^Ä surements Around Multiple Detonating Charges, Minutes ot the feigns "r"^yM Safety Seminar, Vol. I, pp. 447-471, September 1978.

4 44 Gregory, F. H., "Analysis of the Loading and Response of a SuPPre"fe

Shield When Subjected to an Internal Explosion," Minutes of the 17th Explosive Safety Seminar, Denver, Colorado, September Vi/b.

4 45 Baker W. E., "The Elastic-Plastic Response of Thin SP^1^,5^18^. Internal Blast Loading," Jour, of APPI. Mech., 27, Series E, 1, pp. 139

144, March 1960.

4 46 Baker W E Hu, W. C. L. and Jackson, T. R., "Elastic Response of Thin Sptericai Shells to Axisymmetric Blast Loading," Jour, of APPI. Mech,, 33, Series E, 4, pp. 800-806, December 1966.

4.47 Kingery, C. N., Schumacher, R. N. and Ewing, wV ^^^^TetrllTul sures from Explosions in Suppressive Structures, BRL Interim ne Report No. 403, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, June iyo.

4.48 Schuber, K. N.. Kingery. C. «"««i.»^*"! stpprî^Snie»," Structural Response Testing of a 1/4 Scale category YY BRL Memorandum Report No. 2623, May 1976.

, ,„ n v n Baker V E and Oldham, G. A., "Blast Pressures Inside '•4? SAM; »Ä» it™S...." Edôod Arsenal Contractor Report

EM-CR-76042, Report No. 8, December 1975.

4-209

, , j„ partiallv Closed Chambers at 4.50 Welbull. H. R. W'* ''P"ST?fJ£;0of the\^S^SHL£li£aS^. Explosion of TNT Charges," Anna]s of the New to

152, Art. 1, PP. 256-361, October 1968. , -c a„A mipr W S "A Computerized Technique for Blast

4.51 Proctor, J. F. and Filler, V. s;,» * ^ P ^ Ammal Explosives

4.52 Keenan, «. A. - ^ î/anu' rar "£„ teuôaS aÄw clt^^SSS^.^ ^Construction Battalion Center, Port

Hueneme, CA, November 1975.

4.53 Zilliacus, S.. Phyillaier, W. E and ^"»-/„iJ-^lf tfJonfTneoT,- ter Report 3987, "The Response of Clamped Circular riai plosiveLadings," NSRDC, Bethesda, MD, February 1974.

„ B r «, vur Technical Memorandum 2448, "Vent- 4.54 Kinney, G. F. and Sewell, R. G. S., NWC *ecnnx ^^

ing of Explosions," Naval Weapons Center, China Lafce, UA,

Jnl., r a »Fstimates of Blowdown of Quasi-static 4.55 Baker, W. E. and Oldham, G. A., Ebtimês oz contractor Report EM-CR-

Pressures in Vented Chambers," Edgewood Arsenal Contract 76029, Report No. 2, November 1975.

4.56 0«.«*. J- A., ---nt*. of Gas Dynamics, Int. Te„tbook Co., Scranton,

PA, 1964.

4.57 Rules,, a. 3., Moseley. P. K ^/trLbop'VlT^RePOrt "^ TJt;Tl^\TXVZTJ^lZ-J^^ Center. Contract

No. N00014-77-C-0658, November 1978.

J T, 4 r v »velocities of Fragments from Bursting 4.58 Taylor, D. B. and Price, C. F., Velocities or » f Industry, Gas Reservoirs," AOtr Transactions. Journal_oOnîneering

November 1971. „^ , D T? Rpccev R. L., Westine, P. S.,

4.59 Baker, W. E., Kulesz, J. J-, Ricker R. E.' B"^ti p^ssure Wave and Parr, V. B. and Oldham, C .A., "Workbook ^âs

gStorage Vessels,"

Fragment Effects of Exploding Propellent Tanks ana NASA CR-134906, November 1975.

n A Ttirula P.. "Effects of Air 4.60 Kot. C. A., Valentin, R. A., McLen"a"- °;nt«s " Argönne National Labora-

Blast on Power Plant Structures and C°™p°"'"i\ »boratory, 9700 South Cass tory Report No. ANL-CT-78-41 A,rgonne, National £«£ ». ^^

trS:;dt!'P0?r^ .fT«.Ü.tS.39D^S?^t. 0. S. Nuclear Regulator, Co.- mission, October 1978.

4-210

, L, uu<+ r «; "The Scope of Blast and Shock Biology and Problem Areas in

Arademy of Sciences, Vol. 15/, Art. i, pp. "' i"-fc»

„ „ >. v r Fletcher. E. R. and Richmond, 4.62 White, C. V.. Jones R. K »™- "^^ä Report to Defense Nu-

n R "The Biodynamics of Air Blast, lecnnicax i\eyv, „,..,„„ a„A cieaV Agency, DNA 2738T, Lovelace Foundation for Medical Education and Research, AD 734-208, July 1971.

of Sciences, Vol. 152, Art. 1, pp. 103-121, October 1968.

4.64 Damon, E. G., Yelverton, J T ^"•^^^î'p^S.rL- of the Respiratory System Following Blast Injury, £££ Foundation for port to Defense Atomic Support Agency, DASA 2580, L°vâce ro

Medical Education and Research, AD 618369, October 1970.

, ^ ^ n T G Fletcher E. R., Richmond, D. R., "Estimate of Man's Toler- 4.65 Bowen, I. G., tietcner, r.. «••»*• '„ Tprhnical Report to Defense

tion and Research, AD 693105, October 1968.

JNA 3314F, Lovelace Foundation for Medical Education and Research, AD

785259, July 1974.

*■" Äe-rc^r,^^

4 M Hirsch A E., "The Tolerance of ten to Impact," Annals of the Mew York 4'6 ""H^ of Sciences, Vol. 152, Art. 1, pp. 168-171, October 1968.

4.69 Uemedson, C. J.. Wl.tr». G. and Lingren S ITâ'A'^ of the Head. Thorax, and Ahdo-en to Blunt Trao^ A^lôf_t _ Academy of Sciences, Vol. 152, Art. 1, PP- lö'f.

4.70 Ross, R.. et al.. "Criteria ^r Assessing He ari ^SS^lnJ'SoSS:1^ y Noise Exposure," Human Engineering Laboratory, Aberdeen rro B

"^ AD 666-206, August 1967.

«.,1 Reed. ,.».. Rape, B. J.. Minor, a ' êHart R C "Evaluatiôf^

Vol. 152, Art. 1, PP- 565-584, October 1968.

4-211

*t ■^

4.74 »«it». ,. «.. "0^- Dynamic ^ J^»^..^^ Under Blast Loading," CEL TN No. N 1W«. «ava

Center, Port Hueneme, CA, July 197/-

4 , 4 r M "Desien of a Maze Structure to 'Attenuate Blast Waves," 4.75 Bacigalupi, C. M., D^ign or a Livennore, CA, March 1980.

UCRL-52921, Lawrence Livennore Laboratory,

)

A-212

20011026 november,056 1980

Documents