Blast Barrier Design and Testing

By John E. Crawford and Shengrui Lan

Karagozian & Case

2550 N. Hollywood Way, Suite 500, Burbank, CA 91505
Phone: 818-240-1919, Fax: 818-240-4966
 Presented at the
2006 Structures Congress St. Louis

BLAST BARRIER DESIGN AND TESTING

John E. Crawford and Shengrui Lan
Karagozian & Case, USA
2550 N. Hollywood Way, Suite 500, Burbank, CA 91505 USA

Abstract

Two new design concepts are presented for constructing barriers that provide protection
from blast. These concepts have performed well in blast tests, remaining relatively
undamaged when struck with the blasts from large amounts of explosives placed near
them. The two barriers use radically different concepts to achieve their purpose. One
concept employs a structural panel composed of two sheets of steel plate with a concrete
core placed between. The panel is supported by a steel posts sunk into the ground
around 10 feet. Depending on the configuration and threat, panels range in size from 1
to 2 feet in thickness, with steel plates of inch to 1 inch thick with heights ranging from
4 to 16 feet. The other barrier represents a new and effective use of soil and sheet metal
materials. Here, the sheet metal is used to form cells that are then filled with soil. A
simple pinning mechanism is used to attach adjacent sheets to one another. No
foundation is required. A range of wall configurations have been developed, some with
wall heights up to 80 feet. Karagozian & Case has developed high-fidelity physics-based
finite element models for these barriers that are used to select design parameters for
specific threats and deployment options. This paper describes some of the designs,
analytic results, and verification tests that have been developed. This paper also
describes the features needed by such barriers and how the features of these designs
contribute to their success.

Keywords: Blast barrier, vehicle bombs, perimeter defense, high-fidelity physics-based

model, blast wall

INTRODUCTION

This paper presents two new and quite different design concepts for constructing barriers that
provide protection from blastthat is, these barriers deflect blast loads away from the region behind
them. Both conceptsone by RSA (RSA Protective Technologies LLC) and one by CMI (Corrugated
Metals Inc.)represent a family of devices that provide modularity and scalability to facilitate achieving
an effective solution for a wide range of threats, and cost and site constraints. Because these are
prefabricated systems, they require minimal site preparation work, their installation is quite rapid, and
disruption on site is minimal.
 Both concepts have performed well in blast tests. In the blast tests, both barriers remained
relatively undamaged when subjected to blast loads from a nearby large charge (i.e., comparable to those
generated by a large car bomb). In addition, neither barrier produced the highly injurious debris that
might be expected from such an intense blast load.

RSA blast barrier. This barrier (Figure 1) employs a structural panel composed of two sheets of
steel plate with a concrete core placed between. The panel is supported by steel posts sunk around
10 feet into the ground. The space around the posts is backfilled with soil or soil matching grout with the
deliberate intent of leaving the posts flexible enough to preclude shear failure at their interface with the
ground surface. Depending on the configuration and threat, panels range in size from 1 to 2 feet in
thickness, with steel plates of inch to 1 inch thick. The core is composed of reinforced or unreinforced
concrete, and wall heights range from 4 to 16 feet.

CMI blast barrier. This barrier (Figure 2) represents a new and effective use of soil and sheet
metal materials. Here, the sheet metal is used to form cells that are then filled with soil. A simple pinning
mechanism is used to attach adjacent sheets to one another. The advantages offered by this wall were
amply demonstrated in a test of the blast barrier using a 5,000-pound charge placed as close as 20 feet
to some of the test walls. A range of wall configurations have been developed, some with wall heights up
to 80 feet (Figure 2a).

Existing systems. Existing blast barriers are likely to be so intrusive at a site that their use is
often prohibited. Some examples of these more intrusive blast barriers are shown in Figure 3; these have
a decidedly utilitarian look.

Design Considerations

In providing protective devices for extreme hazards, there seems to be a tenancy to substitute
brut strength for design elegancein spite of the well known dictum that function follows form. In
deploying devices, to ensure blast loads are deflected away from occupied spaces, form and function
both seemed to have been abandoned for expedient, poorly-functioning devices that appear to only
address the issue we have to do something. Not only is the capability of these devices to do the job
often in question but of even more importance is the false sense of security with which they may be
imbued. For example, poorly designed blast barriers can generate debris that is more injurious to the
facilities beyond them than the airblast itself, thus enhancing the potential risk for the facility it supposedly
is protecting.

Design considerations pertinent to using blast barriers are complicated by the difficulty of
determining their behavior in what is likely to be an intense blast load environment and the benefits
achieved by their use. Moreover, for such devices, there is little impetus for their development and
marketing. Another complicating factor is the lack of an effective simplified means to design or evaluate
the use of blast barriers and a lack of appreciation of the benefits that may be achieved, which may be
part of the reason that there seems to be little demand for these type of protective devices.

Objective of Paper

This paper is intended to bring a little light to the process of designing blast barriers. Two families
of protective barriers are presented to illustrate some of the design issues that must be addressed. Both
of the barriers presented function well and can be designed to achieve an attractive appearance. The
intent of this paper is to illustrate that a better design process is available, and that architects, owners,
and landscape architects may need to perform more sophisticated design studies to achieve an effective
balance between capability and the desire to use protective barriers having appropriate aesthetic
treatments, reasonable costs, and minimal difficulty of installation.

High-fidelity physics-based finite element models provide the sophistication needed to combine
aesthetics with capability. These types of models allow selecting design parameters specific to the site

2
and its threats. This allows the barrier designs to be more closely tailored to meet the specific needs of a
site in terms of aesthetics, cost, and capability.

This paper describes a few designs, analytic results, and verification tests to illustrate the issues
involved. This paper also describes the features needed by such barriers and how the features of these
designs contribute to their success.

RSA BARRIERS

RSA markets a class of blast barriers [1] that are composed of steel panels supported by posts.
Sandwich construction is used for the panel, which is made with a concrete core faced with non-
composite steel plates.

Design Description

The baseline design concept for the RSA barrier consists of a 20- to 40-foot long by 3- to 16-foot
high panel. The posts supporting the panel may be placed behind the wall or embedded in it. The panel
is composed of a steel and concrete non-composite sandwich panel, this design is illustrated in Figure 4.

The barrier is supported by 10- to 20-foot tall structural tube posts that are sunk into the ground 8
to 10 feet. The hollow core of the posts and panels are filled with concrete on-site. The front face (i.e.,
on the blast side) and the rear face of the panels are composed of - to -inch and - to 1-inch thick
steel plates, respectively, with a 12- to 24-inch thick concrete core placed between them. Typically, the
panels are tied together with rebar or welded cover plates to make a continuous wall. Horizontal plates
(Figure 4c) may be welded to the face plates to provide confinement for the concrete core as well as add
torsional resistance to the wall. The bottom plate provides a convenient means to hold the concrete core
when poured while addition of the top plate is related to the requirement for torsional resistance.

The RSA concept employs a novel footing design that eschews the continuous reinforced
concrete trench footing of the traditional bollard design and instead uses post footings (at 20- to 40-foot
spacings) extending deeply into the ground to achieve the needed support from the soil. The posts are
backfilled with soil or soil matching grout to minimize the chance of their being sheared off at their base,
allowing both the post and walls to move under the load. These types of foundations require little
excavation and cause little disruption to the subsurface (i.e., they minimize disruption to utilities, trees,
plants, etc.) and perform better than those where concrete or other more rigid footings are employed.

Variations of the baseline design to achieve both reductions in costs, accommodate site
conditions, or provide different looks are easily made. Posts can be place relatively arbitrarily allowing
subsurface obstructions to be avoided, which allows an important flexibility in meeting specific site
conditions.

Wall panel variations include changes in thickness and strength of the front and rear faces of the
wall panel, different configurations of the panel sections, different heights of post (for the shorter posts, an
anchor plate may be attached to its foot as a means to prevent pull-out), and placing the wall with a clear
space underneath (e.g., for drainage). Variations in wall panel shapes are easily constructed since the
whole module is fabricated in the shop and trucked to the site as a unit, which reduces field work to a
minimum. Wall panels can be fabricated to provide, for example, various corner angles, radius turns, and
indentations to accommodate site conditions. Some of these are illustrated in Figure 1b.

Design philosophy. The non-composite nature of this wall allows it to provide very high blast
resistance by employing the following mechanisms:

The front face steel plate receives the airblast and spreads the load over the concrete core
encouraging crushing and shearing mechanisms. Near the support this plate inhibits direct shear
behavior in the concrete core.

3
 The concrete core plays two key roles. Its mass greatly reduces the velocity of the wall generated
by the blast. Its strength and breakup can absorb some energy too, especially near the supports.
The concrete is not bonded to steel, which reduces the reaction loads reaching the posts.
The steel plate of the panels back face plays the key role in resisting the blast/impact. Its primarily
membrane behavior provides a most efficient mechanism for stopping the motion of the wall,
requiring much less material than a wall employing flexural resistance to achieve the same capacity.
The steel-concrete-steel non-composite sandwich in effect applies an early time high confinement to
the concrete core, which significantly enhances its shear strength, which is useful in preventing wall
breaching when attacked with satchel charges.
In addition to absorbing energy by its own deformation, the posts buried deeply in soil can effectively
transfer the impact energy to the earth through the interaction between soil and post and prevent the
wall system overturning.
Top and bottom horizontal plates may be welded to the panels face plates to provide added
torsional resistance, which in turn allows for wider post spacing or for higher blast loads.
Testing wall. A test of the RSA blast wall is shown in Figure 5. As shown the results from
detonation of a close in large charge cause little damage to the panels not opposite the charge and
produced little in the way of debris. The response illustrates one of the main features of this design,
which is the compliance (i.e., the permanent tilt) of its support posts, which minimizes the risk of their
fracturing at the base of the wall.

Design model. A high-fidelity physics-based (HFPB) finite element model for this blast barrier
was developed at K&C [2] using LS-DYNA to provide a means to select design parameters.

CMI BARRIERS

In some applications, long lengths of blast barriers are needed (e.g., miles of fencing around
petrochemical manufacturing and storage facilities). Also in some situations (e.g., the downlinks shown in
Figure 2a), very tall barriers are needed to protect the facilities behind them from the effects of airblast or
projectile weapons. In these situations, costs are likely to be a dominate factor. Recently CMI [3] has
developed a barrier under the Metalith brand name to address these types of situations.

Design Description

This barrier uses a novel configuration of corrugated sheet metal to form cells, which are then
filled with soil to provide a blast barrier. A simple pin device provides a rapid means to attach sheets to
one another. Some applications of this product are shown in Figures 2, 6, and 7.

The basic Metalith design easily lends itself to a variety of alterations and alternative
applications as suggested in the figures. In particular, the Metalith barrier shown in Figure 2a uses a
fabric or metal screen to extend its height sufficiently to cover the downlinks shown, which have a height
of around 100 feet. The screen can be made opaque and strong enough to deflect some airblast and
projectiles.

Another application for the concept is as a replacement for chain link fencing and Jersey barriers,
as shown in Figure 7, which provides both blast protections and prevents vehicle entry. The Metalith
system requires no excavation and can be easily removed, which makes it useful as a temporary barrier
as well.

Tests and Analytic Results

Results from analytic predictions of the response of the barrier to nearby blasts are shown in
Figure 8. These were computed using LS-DYNA models. Results from a blast test are shown in

4
Figure 9. This test demonstrates the nature of debris that may be potentially generated from such a wall
(i.e., sand and sheet metal), which does not propagate far from the wall.

Design Features

One of the best features of the Metalith wall is that even in a monstrous blast environment,
where the wall is significantly damaged; it does not generate the highly injurious debris that often
accompanies the breakup of blast walls, as illustrated in Figure 9. This is because both of its constituents
(i.e., sheet metal and sand, that is, the fill material) are poorly configured aerodynamically and cannot fly
efficiently or far in the air due to drag. The soil offers other advantages: its ability to attenuate blast loads
even for contact charges, and its large mass means that energy transmitted to it results in little velocity of
the sand itself, thus reducing the level of kinetic energy imparted to the wall by the airblast.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper showed two classes of barriers that have blast-resistant features that make them ideal
for blast wall applications. For each of these barrier classes, results from HFPB dynamic finite element
models that simulated actual blast events were used to provide the basis for selecting design parameters.
Special attention was focused on the aesthetics of the barrier designs to achieve an appearance (e.g.,
Figures 1b and 2b) that was not divorced (e.g., as shown in Figure 3) from the normal appearances of
fences and other devices found along a sites perimeter.

These devices offer new approaches for securing the perimeters of sites housing potentially
dangerous materials and high value assets. Chain link or even high tech fencing is just not good enough,
since it can be so rapidly breached by a large truck and provides no protection from a blast.

REFERENCES:
[1] www.rsaprotect.com
[2] Crawford, J. E., "Design and Test of Adler Blast Wall," Karagozian & Case, Burbank, CA, TR-03-16.4,
October 2003.
[3] www.thermetalith.com
[4] Crawford, J. E., Magallanes, J. M. and S. Lan, Study of the Application of Corrugated Metal Products for
Mitigating Blast Effects and Providing Anti-ram and Ballistic Protection, Karagozian & Case, Burbank, CA, TR-
04-37.1, October 2004.

5
 (a) Blast barriers to deflect airblast from the (b) Low level blast barrier for use at airports,
equipment within. primarily to trap debris; also inherently provides
anti-ram capacility.
Figure 1. RSA blast barrier: examples of different layouts.

(a) Tall barriers of up to 100 feet in height. (b) Barriers that have aesthetics appeal.
Figure 2. CMI blast barrier: examples of different configurations.
Reinforced
concrete panels

Wide
flange
sections

Support
pedestal
(a) Blast wall built with Hescon baskets. (b) UK blast wall.
Figure 3. Existing blast barriers usually have a hearty utilitarian appearance and are often
downright intrusive.

6
(a) Finished appearance of wall; precast concrete (b) Supporting posts, which are placed out-of-
panels and other amenities added to sight inside barrier.
provide improved appearance.

Holes allow concrete

fill to be added at
site

Horizontal plates
add to torsional
resistance to panel

(c) Wall shown with removal of one of the steel (d) Taller walls provide for protection from airblast.
face plates; the interior cavity of the panel
and post are filled with concrete on site.
Figure 4. RSA barrier details, soil omitted to show posts.

7
 8 feet

7 feet

15 feet
6 feet

(a) Test setup; center of charge 6 feet from wall. (b) Test results, wall pushed over by angle of 15.
Bomb crater

(c) View of panel opposite charge.

Figure 5. Test of RSA blast barrier.
L W
L W
L
L
L
H

(a) Rendering. (b) Photo of deployed Metalith wall.

Figure 6. CMI barrier: blast barrier composed of corrugated sheet metal panels which form cells
that are filled with soil.

8
 Entrance

Pins Cutaway shows

interior of facility

(c) Close-up of pin connection. (d) May also be deployed to provide rapidly
deployable protection for personnel.
Figure 6. CMI barrier: blast barrier composed of corrugated sheet metal panels which form cells
that are filled with soil (Continued).

Metalith
wall

Existing wall

(a) View from public road, showing chain link (b) Depicts Metalith wall as a replacement for
fencing and Jersey barriers used to deny access. existing perimeter control devices (e.g., chain link
fencing), which also provides protection from blast.
Figure 7. Using Metalith walls as replacement for chain link fencing to achieve both anti-ram
and blast resistance along the perimeters of large facilities.

9
 Steel sheets equivalent to
Metalith sheet

Fill with soil

Two layers of Metalith

steel sheets

(a) Corrugated sheet metal portion of model.

Vmax = 4.1 mph Vmax = 18.8 mph

3.1 mph 14.5 mph

10 mph
1.7 mph
5.9 mph

(b) Results for blast loading from 500 pounds TNT (c) Results for blast loading from 4,000 pounds
at 5 feet, velocity fringes at 10 ms. TNT at 5 feet, velocity fringes at 10 ms.
Figure 8. CMI barrier: LS-DYNA model and predicted results.

Figure 9. CMI barrier: test results from blast tests.

10