UFC 3-340-01 "Design and Analysis of Hardened Structures to Conventional Weapons Effects"

[Bill Polhemus]

I am doing a blast analysis of a structure located in a refinery, using
SBEDS which is an Excel-based software solution maintained by the USACE.
In a couple of places in the documentation, they references the manual
as stated in the SUBJECT line of my message.

However, this publication isn't available online, unless you're a U.S.
Gov't contractor actively working on government jobs. This is
problematic, since much of the methodology in SBEDS is contained therein.

For example in one place they reference "the ultimate moment capacity of
a reinforced concrete beam-column ... as defined by equations in Chapter
10 of UFC 3-340-01." I would seriously love to examine those equations
but cannot as far as I know, because, again, I'm not privy to this
information.

Has anyone run up against this or something like it, and how do you
LEGALLY get around this restriction? Strange that a program in the
public domain should be based on methodology that is literally a
"federal secret."

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
* Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
*
* This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
* Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
* subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
* http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seai...@seaint.org. Remember, any email you
* send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
* without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
* site at: http://www.seaint.org
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********

[Padmanabhan Rajendran]

In 2006, I attended a seminar on the design of structures to resist blast loads. The instructor told the participants that a few of the UFC/UASCE manuals which were available for download until 2002 or 2003 were removed from the list of manuals that could be downloaded  with "no questions asked". However, he said, that anyone interested in a  restricted manual could seek permission from UFC/UASCE for  the download. I believe the identity of the individual requesting the download requires to be documented, considering the nature of information  contained in the manuals.

The following link has a place for you to register. Once you register, you may be able to access the document.
https://pdc.usace.army.mil/forums/ufc/3-340-01

Rajendran

---

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

[Marius Tomutza]

I'm looking to get a software to assist me in the Lateral Analysis (seismic and wind) design for Light Wood frame constructions.
Any sugestions?

Thanks,

Marius N. Tomutza MNT Design Ventura, California

---

Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

[Marlou Rodriguez]

Woodworks.

[Thomas Davidson]

 

I am new to this blast analysis and was kind of thrown a project.  But, I was wondering, since this thread came up; if I could get some advice on how to analyze bolted connections.  I went a conservative route; I got the peak overburden pressure and applied it as a wind pressure on the structure itself and the "structure" works, the connections however fail miserably.  Because the load is only going to be applied for a few milliseconds is there a justified Dynamic Increase Factor (DIF) for bolts?  Or is there some way I can justify that the bolts will not fail? 

 

Thanks

Thomas Davidson

 

---

From: Padmanabhan Rajendran [mailto:raka...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 12:12 PM
To: sea...@seaint.org
Subject: Re: UFC 3-340-01 "Design and Analysis of Hardened Structures to Conventional Weapons Effects"

[David Topete]

Are you looking at bolted connections of steel?  The 9th edition ASD steel manual allowed a 200% load duration factor for impact loads.  Don't know off-hand if ACI has a similar "strength" factor...  good luck.

--
David Topete, SE

[Glen Pappas]

On Jan 9, 2008 1:57 PM, Thomas Davidson <TDav...@atlasengineering.com>
wrote:
> I am new to this blast analysis and was kind of thrown a project.  But, I
> was wondering, since this thread came up; if I could get some advice on how
> to analyze bolted connections.  I went a conservative route; I got the peak
> overburden pressure and applied it as a wind pressure on the structure
> itself and the "structure" works, the connections however fail miserably.
> Because the load is only going to be applied for a few milliseconds is there
> a justified Dynamic Increase Factor (DIF) for bolts?  Or is there some way I
> can justify that the bolts will not fail?
>
> Thanks
>

> *Thomas Davidson*

Thomas, based on what you've described/asked, I strongly recommend that you 'kind of throw the project back' in the direction from whence it came, & start reading up on blast design (i.e., if think you'd like to actually work on a future one of these thrown your way). 

Off the top of my head, Structural Design for Physical Security, State of the Practice, ASCE, 1999, would be a good, readily-available place to start.  And the documents referenced therein are all of the 'important' ones.

For recent developments search archives of the following magazines:  Modern Steel Construction, Structure, Civil Engineering, The Military Engineer, & Structural Engineer.  They've published many good articles on blast design & related topics, some specific to structural steel, since 2003.

Finally, be on the look-out for the soon-to-be published, Blast Protection of Buildings, by ASCE; this will be the 1st national standard on this issue.

Glen

Glen Pappas, Ph.D., PE, SECB, BSCP
Los Alamos National Laboratory
ES-DE
Technical Staff Member
Phone: 505-665-1221
Fax: 505-665-4728
MS M791
TA-00-0786
gpa...@lanl.gov

[Joseph R. Grill]

Glen,

That is O.K. unless "back in the direction from whence it came" is your boss, employer, payroll check signer.  I've been there before.  You don't always have a choice.

Joe Grill

[Harold Sprague]

Thomas,
Based on the title of this thread, I assume that you have a copy of the UFC 3-340-01 (AKA TM 5-855-1).  You should be looking at Section 10.8.5.  The structural steel section is a bit thin based on the amount of research done at the time this publication was developed.  Structural steel connections are the last thing you want to fail in a blast design.  They should be designed to remain elastic for most all blast resistant conditions. 

The rise time of a blast load, the fact that high strength bolts are relatively brittle, and the nature of connection failures make conservativism for connection blast design very prudent.  A properly designed window jamb connection for AT/FP is a sight to behold. 
 
There has been some testing done and anecdotal evidence in "normal" structural steel connections subjected to accidental blast loading.  You may feel that you are being overly conservative, but when you see the damage in a real incident, you will be comforted by conservativism.  Incipient failure is best evidenced in a flexural member not in the connection.  Otherwise the flexural member becomes a blast borne missile. 
 
If this (blast engineering) is something in which you are new, I would strongly suggest a peer review by someone seasoned and skilled in blast design.  Blast engineering is post-steroidal dynamic design.  You may want to check into attending the next SAVIAC conference to learn from the people who really know the topic...  (I am not worthy to carry their calculators)

Regards,
Harold Sprague

---

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:09:15 -0700
To: TDav...@atlasengineering.com
From: gpa...@lanl.gov

Subject: RE: UFC 3-340-01 "Design and Analysis of Hardened Structures to Conventional Weapons Effects"

CC: sea...@seaint.org

On Jan 9, 2008 1:57 PM, Thomas Davidson <TDav...@atlasengineering.com>
wrote:
> I am new to this blast analysis and was kind of thrown a project.  But, I
> was wondering, since this thread came up; if I could get some advice on how
> to analyze bolted connections.  I went a conservative route; I got the peak
> overburden pressure and applied it as a wind pressure on the structure
> itself and the "structure" works, the connections however fail miserably.
> Because the load is only going to be applied for a few milliseconds is there
> a justified Dynamic Increase Factor (DIF) for bolts?  Or is there some way I
> can justify that the bolts will not fail?
>
> Thanks
>
> *Thomas Davidson*

---

Put your friends on the big screen with Windows Vista® + Windows Live™. Start now!