People at Risk

QUARTERLYVolume 6, Number 4

A M P T I AC is a DOD Info rmation Analys is Cente r Adm inis te red by the De fense In fo rmation Systems Age n c y, De fense Te chn ica l Information Cent er and Opera ted by Alion Science and Te ch n o l o g y

Special

Issue:

P ro t e c t i n g

People at Risk:

How DOD Research Reducesthe Impact of Terrorism

Issue focus:

How DOD Research Protects

People and Buildings

US Government Initiatives Reduce Terrorist Threat to Personnel and Structures … 5

Wade Babcock and David Rose, AMPTIAC, Rome, NYThe US Government has been addressing the issue of protecting people and stru c t u res from terrorist attacks for many years. T h i sa rticle provides an introduction to the federal coordinating group which directs these activities, and the DOD agency that focuseson military issues. This article also features insight from some of the key people within DOD who direct and take part in these effort s .

The TSWG – Closeup … 8

Protecting Personnel at Risk:

DOD Writes Anti-Terrorism Standards to Protect People in Buildings … 11

Colonel Joel C. Bradshaw III, PE, Chief of Military Construction Programs, Office of Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment), The Pentagon, Washington, DCThe DOD takes the issue of protecting its personnel very seriously and has recently completed the codified anti-terrorism stan-dards which began a few years ago as guidance and interim directives. Colonel Bradshaw is in a unique position to explain someof the critical steps and policy issues that drove this process, as well as the top-level directives and initiatives that are contained inthe document.

DOD Protective Design Manuals Have Wide Application … 17

Patrick Lindsey, PE, Protective Design Center, US Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha, NEFactors such as site selection, building location on the site, use of fences and clear space, as well as vegetation and structural rein-forcements are all critical to protecting a building and its occupants from various threats. Incorporating protection into a facility’sdesign is the best way to achieve a desired level of protection at a reasonable cost. Patrick Lindsey of the Protective Design Centersummarizes many of the key features and considerations to be accounted for, and introduces the DOD resources available.

Homeland Security vs. Homeland Defense… Is there a difference? … 24

Polymer Composite Retrofits Strengthen Concrete Structures … 25

Robert Odello, Director, Waterfront Structures Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Services Center, Port Hueneme, CAThe Navy is using composite materials to strengthen pier decks and support columns. Some of these structures were not designedfor current load requirements and therefore need to be upgraded while others are deteriorating and the retrofits can bring themback to full service. The systems outlined in this article are also being considered for use in buildings to increase both dynamicshock-induced load capability and the ability to withstand negative loading. Robert Odello describes a program that is proving thatcomposite systems offer viable, serviceable, and cost effective ways of strengthening real-world concrete structures. These programsare also educating both the government and industry on how to specify, install and maintain them. Lessons learned in these Navyprojects will help further advance the protection and hardening of land-based structures.

Blast Retrofit Research and Development:

Protection for Walls and Windows … 31

David Coltharp and Dr. Robert L. Hall, Geotechnical and Structures Laborator y, US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MSConventional building components are highly vulnerable to terrorist vehicle bomb attack. Common annealed glass windows breakat very low blast pressures and the resulting flying glass fragments are a major cause of injuries in many bombing incidents. Masonryin-fill walls are also weak elements and another source of hazardous debris. Through the combined research and development effortsof multiple DOD agencies and the State Department, significant advances have been made since 1996 in improving methods for protection of conventional military and government facilities. David Coltharp presents some of the unique and innovativemethods that have been developed for retrofitting windows and walls, and describes how they increase the blast capacity of thesevulnerable components, decrease standoff requirements, and improve protection for personnel.

Mark Your Calendar … 38

The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 6, Number 4

A M P T I AC is a DOD Information Analysi s Cente r Admin iste red by the Defense Information Systems Age n c y,

D e fense Te chnica l Informat ion Cente r and Opera ted by A lion Sc ience and Te ch n o l o g y

MaterialEASE: Materials for Blast and Penetration Resistance … 39Richard Lane, Benjamin Craig, and Wade Babcock, AMPTIAC, Rome, NYIn 2001 AMPTIAC was tasked by the Office of the Secretary of Defense to summarize the research efforts and data compiled onblast and penetration resistant materials (BPRM), including monolithic materials and novel combinations of materials. As a service to the uninitiated, we have provided this “primer” so that those less familiar with material and security matters may develop a well-rounded perspective of the topic. In turn, this may afford you, the reader, a greater appreciation of the relevance andimportance of the topics discussed within this issue of the AMPTIAC Quarterly.

Polymer Coatings Increase Blast Resistance of Existing and Temporary Structures … 47Dr. Jonathan Porter and Robert Dinan, Materials and Manufacturing Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory, Tyndall AFB, FLDr. Michael Hammons and Dr. Kenneth Knox, Applied Research Associates, Inc.The DOD has banned the use of selected concrete masonry infill building techniques because they don’t hold up to blast overpressures and present a serious risk to occupants in the event of a blast. Additionally, the extensive use of temporary, portablestructures presents another unique blast protection problem. This Air Force program is looking for ways to retrofit these thousandsof structures in a quick and cost effective manner, while adding a significant level of fragmentation protection.

Designing Blast Hardened Structures for Military and Civilian Use … 53

Bruce Walton, PE, Protective Design Center, US Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha, NECenturies ago castles and moats addressed the need to keep a facility safe from an attacker. From those massive stone and woodstructures, to the hardened reinforced concrete and sophisticated intrusion detection systems of the present, the principles of hardened structures have fundamentally remained the same: Identify the baseline threat and keep it at a safe distance, or create astructure as impervious as possible to that threat. Bruce Walton provides a broad, overall perspective on the problem of designinga hardened structure, and describes some of the techniques, fundamentals, and resources available.

Design Example – Exterior Blast Upgrade … 56

IAC Program Addresses Homeland Security … 60

Very-High-Strength Concretes for Use in Blast- and Penetration-Resistant Structures … 61

Dr. J. Donald Cargile, Impact and Explosion Effects Branch; Ed F. O’Neil and Billy D. Neeley, Concrete and Materials Division;Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory, US Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MSYou may be thinking that there is nothing we can tell you about concrete that won’t cure insomnia, but you’d be wrong. How doesadvanced concrete 4 to 5 times stronger than standard concrete sound? The folks at ERDC are working to drastically improve thisubiquitous material, both in its general compressive strength and its resistance to fragmentation in impact events. Donald Cargileand his colleagues present the experimental data and demonstrate that concrete has a lot of development potential left in it.

The AMPTIAC Quarterly is published by the Advanced Materials and Processes Technology InformationAnalysis Center (AMPTIAC). AMPTIAC is a DOD sponsored Information Analysis Center, operated by Alion Science and Technology and administratively managed by the Defense Information Systems Agency(DISA), Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC). The AMPTIAC Quarterly is distributed to morethan 25,000 materials professionals around the world.

Inquiries about AMPTIAC capabilities, products and services may be addressed to David H . RoseDirector, AMPTIAC3 1 5 - 3 3 9 - 7 0 2 3E M A I L : a mp t i a c @ a l i o n s c i e n c e . c o m

U R L : h t t p :/ / a mp t i a c . a l i o n s c i e n c e . c o m

We welcome your input! To submit your related articles, photos, notices, or ideas for future issues, please contact:

AMPTIACATTN: WADE G. BABCOCK201 Mill StreetRome, New York 13440

PHON E: 315 .339 .700 8FA X: 315 .339 . 710 7

E M A I L : a mp t i a c _ n ew s @ a l i o n s c i e n c e . c o m

Editor-in-Chief

Wade G. Babcock

Creative Director

Cynthia Long

Information Processing

Judy E. Tallarino

Patricia McQuinn

Inquiry Services

David J. Brumbaugh

Product Sales

Gina Nash

Training Coordinator

Christian E. Grethlein, P.E.

CLARIFICATION: The cover story for our last issue described the Army’s exciting Mobile Parts Hospital project. Within thatarticle, a technology called Laser Engineered Net Shaping™ was presented which can fabricate replacement parts using acombination of computational design templates, a computer-controlled laser, and powder metallurgy. Laser Engineering NetShaping™ and the LENS® acronym are registered trademarks and service marks of Sandia National Laboratories andSandia Corporation.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

One of the greatest threats during a bombing attack comes fro mfragmentation – pieces of walls, windows, equipment, and ve h i-cle debris flying at high speeds can result in extensive injury anddeath. (See Fi g u re 1) A key tactic to defeating this threat is toe n s u re that the exterior wall of a building can surv i ve the bombblast without contributing to the fragmentation problem. W h i l ethis is typically accomplished in existing buildings by addings t rength and mass to the wall (usually with concrete and steel),this is often difficult to implement, time-consuming, heavy, ande x p e n s i ve. The Materials and Manufacturing Di rectorate of theAir Fo rce Re s e a rch Laboratory (AFRL/ML) at Tyndall Air Fo rc eBase Florida is pioneering simpler, lighter, and more expedientpolymer re t rofit solutions to introduce ductility and re s i l i e n c einto walls. The premise of the re t rofit technique is to apply anelastomeric coating that bonds to the wall forming a tough elas-tic membrane. Although fracture of the wall may occur, thepolymer membrane will not ru p t u re and can effectively containthe debris.

Expedient Retrofit Techniques

The Force Protection Branch of AFRL at Tyndall Air ForceBase has been developing expedient retrofit methods for un-reinforced infill concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls in existingbuildings, and for lightweight temporary structures. (CMUsare commonly referred to as “concrete blocks,” the hollow-core,pre-cast blocks used for construction.) In many parts of theworld, the most common exterior construction technique forbuildings is to use steel or concrete frames (vertical columnsand horizontal beams) to carry the gravity loads, and fill theopen areas with stacked CMUs to form walls. (Hence the term“CMU infill” walls.) Unreinforced construction is composed ofCMUs with no embedded steel. When overloaded by airblast,unreinforced CMU walls typically fracture into pieces that arepropelled at high velocity into the interior of the structure, possibly causing severe injury or death. As a result of the threatposed, this wall type has been prohibited for new military con-struction in the recently released DOD Minimum AntiterrorismStandards for Buildings. Many buildings utilizing this type of

construction, however, are still occupied andin use, resulting in the need for effective retro-fit solutions.

Fiber-Epoxy Composite Initial research effortsto develop expedient re t rofits produced afield-made composite of high-strength fabric(aramid or glass) in an epoxy matrix that isbonded to the entire interior face of the CMUwall as shown in Figure 2. The composite isextended beyond the edges of the CMU walland overlapping the concrete frame, whichhelps it to resist the applied blast pressure. Toenhance shear strength at the connections,

Figure 1. Debris Hazard.

The AMPTIAC Quarterly, Volume 6, Number 4 47

Dr. Jonathan R. Porterand

Mr. Robert J. DinanMaterials and Manufacturing Directorate,

Air Force Research LaboratoryTyndall Air Force Base, FL

Dr. Michael I. Hammonsand

Dr. Kenneth J. KnoxApplied Research Associates, Inc.

additional layers of composite can be used to reinforce the con-nection points. In the event of an explosion, the compositeenhances the bending strength of the wall and prevents brokenpieces of the wall from entering the protected space and caus-ing injury to the occupants. While this method of increasingwall ductility and strength is an option, the application methodis time consuming and difficult.

In order to improve upon the composite re t rofit, a search foran easier and faster re t rofit technique was undertaken. Coupledwith trying to reduce the difficulty and time re q u i red for instal-lation, was a desire to introduce significant resiliency into thes t ru c t u re - even at the expense of strength and stiffness. T h i sshift in philosophy was founded on the premise of containingthe fragmentation and eliminating the debris hazard to occu-pants, rather than pre s e rving the structural integrity of the walli t s e l f. Fi g u re 3 shows some engineering stress-strain curves fortypical building materials and re t rofit materials and demon-strates the shift from stiffer, stronger materials like steel and glassfibers to those with more ductility like polymers. Although thex-axis is truncated at 0.5% strain, many polymers can undergoup to 100% elongation without rupturing. As a result, elas-tomers we re investigated as potential re t rofit materials becausethey are easy to apply, cure ve ry quickly, and could intro d u c esignificant ductility and resilience into the wall system.

Po ly m e rs In the fall of 1999, AFRL began evaluating spray-on polymer coatings as an expedient re t rofit technique fornon-load bearing CMU walls. The material that was used isan elastomer that is ductile, tough, and has modest stre n g t h .The material is sprayed directly onto the interior surface ofthe wall and cures almost instantly, as shown in Fi g u re 4. T h ethickness of application is re l a t i vely easy to control, and thepolymer bonds to a wide variety of surfaces. This re t ro f i ttechnique takes advantage of the toughness and resiliency ofmodern elastomers to effectively deform and dissipate theblast energy, while containing shattered wall fragments.Although the re t rofitted walls may shatter in a blast eve n t ,the elastomer does not ru p t u re and effectively contains thed e b r i s .

ELASTOMERIC MATERIALS

The resilience and large strain capacity of elastomers can beexploited to absorb blast energy and contain building debris.Elastomers are composed of long polymer chains, usuallyc ross-linked or connected by chemical bonds. Cro s s - l i n k i n gmakes elastomers re versibly stretchable within a significantrange of deformations. In the unstretched state, the polymerchains are oriented in random directions. When stretched, thepolymer chains become elongated and ord e red along the

Figure 3. Typical Stress-Strain Curves.

Figure 2. Composite Retrofit.

Figure 4. Application of Elastomeric Retrofit.

Table 1. Polymer Characteristics.

Property Value Test Standard

Secant Modulus1 24,000 psi ASTM D638

Elongation at Rupture 90% ASTM D638

Maximum Tensile Strength 2000 psi ASTM D638

Flammability Flame resistant; ASTM E119

2-hr fire rating ASTM E84

Toxicity Nontoxic after curing Review MSDS

1 The slope of a straight line drawn from the stress-strain diagram’s origin to a pointon the curve at 60% of maximum tensile strength.

Polyurethane

Polyurea

Concrete

CFRP

E-Glass

Steel

0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

Strain


deformation direction. When no longer stretched, the cro s s -links guide the elastomer back to its original shape as thechains once again randomize .

The elastomer used in this study was a two-componentsprayed-on polyurea. Polyurea elastomers do not require a cat-alyst to accelerate the chemical reaction when the two compo-nents are mixed. The polyurea material must be applied at highp re s s u re and temperature, with 1:1 mixing of the hardener andresin occurring just beyond the spray gun to minimize clogging.Te m p e r a t u re does not affect curing of polyurea. With pro p e rtraining and equipment, the polymer material can be safelyapplied to wall surf a c e s .

Material Properties

Polyureas are characterized by high elongation, high tearstrength, and superior modulus of elasticity. Typical physicaland mechanical properties of the polyurea used in this study areindicated in Table 1.

Emissions and Fire Performance The polyurea material wasevaluated to determine the type and amount of volatile organ-ic emissions off-gassing from polymer-coated aluminum platesat room temperature (70°F) and at 95°F to simulate a warmcondition. The rate of emission for each compound identifieddecreased as a function of time and most of the emissions wereundetectable one week after application. With adequate venti-lation provided, the levels of emitted compounds will be belowNational Institute for Occupational Safety and He a l t h(NIOSH) time weighted averages (TWA) for continuous 10-hour exposures one day after application.

Two performance tests were conducted to evaluate the haz-ard resulting from a fire in a retrofitted structure. The first testwas performed on a CMU wall in accordance with ASTME119-00, “Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of BuildingConstruction and Materials.” The second test was performedon a polymer specimen in accordance with ASTM E84-00,“Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics ofBuilding Materials” (NFPA 255, ANSI/UL 723 and UBC 8-1).The wall assembly coated with the polymer met the tempera-ture and structural requirements of ASTM E119-00 for a peri-od of 120 minutes, and did not have a significant negativeimpact on the assembly’s fire rating. The polymer specimen wasdetermined to be a Class III material according to the 1997Uniform Fire Code with relatively large smoke generationpotential. In practical applications, the smoke hazard can be

mitigated by alternate material formulations or by using anadditional intumescent (swells and chars when exposed toflame) coating on the retrofit.

Engineering Properties The polyurea was much stiffer thanmany other candidate materials. This initial stiffness helps toreduce wall deflections in response to a lateral load such as air-blast. The high elongation at rupture provides the toughnessand ductility to contain the debris and fragmentation, even iflarge deformations occur. Based on the engineering propertiesdetermined from uniaxial tensile tests, dynamic models of thewall system can be used to predict response to airblast loads.While simple single-degre e - o f - f reedom models have beendeveloped, higher fidelity models are required to fully under-stand the effect that varying the retrofit material properties willhave on dynamic performance of the wall system. Currentpractice, therefore, relies on laboratory and full-scale explosiveexperiments to validate retrofit performance.

LIGHTWEIGHT TEMPORARY STRUCTURES

Because of the promise shown by the elastomeric retrofit con-cept and the common use of lightweight temporary structures,AFRL developed methods for increasing the survivability ofthese facilities, which are characterized by timber stud walls,exterior aluminum siding and interior veneer-plywood panel-ing. Since these walls are load bearing and provide support forthe roofing system, the elastomeric retrofit technique was com-bined with additional lightweight framing to prevent collapseof the structure once the load bearing capacity of the walls isdiminished. A series of full-scale tests was conducted at TyndallAir Force Base Florida and, as part of an international cooper-ative research and development program, in Israel to validatethe performance of the retrofit method. Figure 5 shows a typi-cal test result, where the unretrofitted half of the trailer wasdestroyed and the retrofitted half is intact. This test article wascoated on the interior and exterior to evaluate where the retro-fit material was most effective. While the exterior coating mayprovide some load distribution benefits, the interior coating iscritical because it forms the tensile membrane that contains thewall fragments.

Based on this series of tests and analytical results from single-degree-of-freedom models, retrofit design criteria were estab-lished that can reduce standoff distances required for protectionby up to 50 percent. The recommended retrofit consists of a1/2-in thick coating on interior wall surfaces, or both interiorand exterior coatings each 1/8-in thick.

CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT (CMU) WALLS

A series of explosive performance tests of full-scale unreinforcedCMU walls were conducted at Tyndall Air Force Base and inIsrael. The wall aspect ratios and boundary conditions were var-ied, as were the blast loadings. Some walls were retrofitted onthe interior only, while others were retrofitted on the interiorand exterior. Three unretrofitted control walls were also includ-ed in the test series. In each test, peak displacement was meas-ured using an active displacement gauge or a passive indicator(scratch gauge).

Figure 5. Retrofitted Lightweight Temporary Structure.



Typical pre-test and post-test photographs are shown inFigure 6. In general, post-test observations indicated that theexterior faces of the CMU were shattered at least half waythrough the CMU, with the interior faces of the CMU remain-ing adhered to the polymer liner. However, in all but a one case,the polymer liner remained intact and effectively contained the fragmentation from the fractured CMU. In several cases,particularly in the tests in Israel, peak dynamic deflections werenear two feet, which are likely unacceptable in a real world situation. These deflections can be controlled by material for-mulations with greater initial stiffness or by increasing thethickness of the membrane.

The data from the blast performance tests and analyticalresults from single-degre e - o f - f reedom models we re used tod e velop design criteria for buildings consisting of a concrete orsteel frame with non-load bearing CMU infill walls. The criteria we re developed assuming an 8-inch nominal CMUthickness and a wall height of 12 feet and connected on onlytwo opposing edges (one-way action). These criteria will bec o n s e rva t i ve for walls connected on all four edges (two-wayaction), shorter walls, and for walls with thicker CMU. Asdescribed earlier for temporary stru c t u res, the re c o m m e n d e dCMU wall re t rofit consists of a 1/2-in thick coating on interi-

or wall surfaces, or both interior and exterior coatings each1/8-in thick.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Un re i n f o rced CMU in-fill construction and lightweight t e m p o r a ry stru c t u res are particularly vulnerable to ove r l o a d i n gf rom bomb-induced airblast. Many such buildings are c u r rently in use with inadequate standoff from ro a d w a y s ,p a rking lots, or protected perimeters. The spray-on polymerre t rofit technique offers one solution that decreases the vul-nerability of occupants of these common building types. T h i si n n ova t i ve re t rofit technique takes advantage of the toughnessand resiliency of modern polymer materials to deform ande f f e c t i vely dissipate the blast energy while containing the s h a t t e red wall fragments.

Blast load capacities for unre i n f o rced non-load bearingCMU walls retrofitted with polyurea are presented in terms ofcharge weight versus standoff distance in Figure 7. In the chart,charge weight is the equivalent weight of TNT and the stand-off distance is the distance from the center of the charge to theoutside face of the wall. The curves represent the threshold offailure, defined as collapsed walls with objects thrown into theinterior space, such that serious injury and/or death would be

Figure 6. Unretrofitted and Retrofitted CMU Walls.

expected. These curves show that the polymer retrofit tech-nique for CMU walls can reduce standoff distances required tolimit serious injury and death by as much as 80 percent. Similarcharts for lightweight temporary structures show that the tech-nique can reduce standoff distances by as much as 50 percent.

Ongoing efforts are focused on extending the philosophy ofintroducing resilience to other building components such asdoor and window frames, with the goal of providing a retrofit-ted building system with balanced resistance to airblast loads.Figure 8 shows the results of a test in which a blast resistantwindow was connected to the wall system with the polymerretrofit. By connecting the window frame to the retrofit ratherthan only to the structural wall components, the tolerance fordeformation is greatly enhanced. Conventional retrofits thatincrease mass and strength result in limited deflection of the

wall, which makes adequate connections for windows anddoors even more problematic. By exploiting the resilienceafforded by the polymer retrofit technique, the entire wall sys-tem can be held together, providing an expedient retrofit thatgreatly reduces the probability of casualties in the event of a ter-rorist bomb attack.

GENERAL REFERENCES

Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency (2000). “AirblastProtection Retrofit for Unreinforced Concrete Masonry Walls”,Air Force Engineer Technical Letter ETL00-09

Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency (2002) “AirblastProtection Polymer Re t rofit of Un re i n f o rced Concre t eMasonry Walls” Air Force Engineer Technical Letter ETL02-04

Figure 7. Charge Weight versus Standoff

for Unreinforced CMU Walls.

Figure 8. Retrofitted CMU Wall with Window Retrofit.

Nonretrofitted

CMU Wall

Polymer-Coated

CMU Wall

10 100 1000 10000 100000

10000

1000

100

10

Yield (lb TNT)


Dr. Jonathan Porter is a Senior Research Engineer with the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Materials and

Manufacturing Directorate (AFRL/ML). He is currently detailed to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force

(Science, Technology & Engineering) as the Program Element Monitor for the Air Force’s Materials Science

and Technology Program. Prior to this assignment, Dr. Porter led the Engineering Mechanics Group of

AFRL/ML’s Force Protection Branch located at Tyndall AFB FL. The group develops technologies based on

advanced materials to mitigate the effects of terrorist weapons on the occupants of buildings and to charac-

terize the effects of terrorist improvised explosive devices on deployed personnel and structures.

Jon earned a B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. in Civil Engineering from Vi rginia Po ly te chnic Inst i t u te and Sta te

Un i ve rs i t y. He has auth o red numerous pre s e n tations, te chnical re p o rts and papers on blast mitigation, th e

application of novel mate rials for antite rro rism and fo rce protection, and the ch a ra c te rization of ge ote ch n i c a l

m a te ri a l s .

Mr. Robert Dinan is a Senior Research Engineer with Air Force Research Laboratory at Tyndall AFB, FL, and

Group Leader for the Engineering Mechanics Group of the Force Protection Branch, Airbase Technologies

Division. Before joining AFRL, Mr. Dinan was a research engineer with the US Army Corps of Engineers for 19

years. He leads research efforts in explosive characterization, blast response of structures, force protection, and

physical security. During his 20 year career, Mr. Dinan has conducted numerous experimental and analytical

studies to determine the behavior of a variety of structural types and components subjected to blast loading.

Dr. Mike Hammons is a Principal Engineer with Applied Research Associates (ARA) and Group Leader for the

Applied Mechanics Group of the Engineering Science Division. He supports the Air Force Research Laboratory

at Tyndall AFB, FL, where he leads research efforts in force protection, physical security, robotics, and explosive

characterization. He has conducted experimental and analytical studies to develop engineering criteria for

expedient retrofit systems for structures subjected to blast loading. Dr. Hammons supports the DOD’s Security

Engineering Working Group in developing force protection construction criteria. He served as structural engi-

neer on Vulnerability Assessment Teams for the US Air Force and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and as

instructor for workshops to train Combatant Commands, Services, and Major Command staffs charged with

direct planning and programming responsibilities for security engineering aspects of military construction. Before

joining ARA, Dr. Hammons was a research engineer with the US Army Corps of Engineers for 17 years.

Dr. Kenneth J. Knox, P.E. joined Applied Research Associates (ARA) in 1998 following his retirement as an Air

Force civil engineering officer. During his 20-year USAF career, he directed civil engineering research; man-

aged design and construction of airbase facilities; taught engineering at the Air Force Academy; and helped

develop the force protection program for the Defense Special Weapons Agency (now the Defense Threat

Reduction Agency). A recognized expert in force protection and antiterrorism, Dr. Knox is currently conducting

Air Force Research Laboratory research in protective construction and retrofits, weapons effects, and blast miti -

gation. He also continues to advise military installations on ways to improve their protection from terrorist attack.


Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency (2002). “AirblastProtection Retrofit of Lightweight Manufactured Structures”Air Force Engineer Technical Letter ETL02-10

Department of Defense (2002). “Department of DefenseMinimum Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings” UnifiedFacilities Criteria UFC 4-010-01

Hammons, M.I., Knox, K.J., and Porter, J.R. (2002) “Polymer

Materials for Blast Retrofit of Masonry Construction” 30thDOD Ex p l o s i ve Safety Se m i n a r, De p a rtment of De f e n s eExplosive Safety Board

Knox, K.J., Hammons, M.I., Lewis, T.T., and Porter, J.R.(2000) “Polymer Materials for Structural Retrofit” 29th DODExplosive Safety Seminar, Department of Defense ExplosiveSafety Board

AMPTIAC Directory

G ove rnment Pe rs o n n e l

TE CH N I CA L MA NAG E R/ COT R

Dr. Lewis E. Sloter IIStaff Specialist, Materials & StructuresODUSD(S&T)/Weapons Systems1777 North Kent St., Suite 9030Arlington, VA 22209-2110(703) 588-7418, Fax: (703) 588-7560Email: [email protected]

DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER

(DTIC) POC

Melinda Rozga, DTIC-AI8725 John J. Kingman Road, STE 0944Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060-6218(703) 767-9120, Fax: (703) 767-9119Email: [email protected]

AS S O C I AT E COT RS

ORGANIC STRUCTURAL MATERIALS &ORGANIC MATRIX COMPOSITES

Roger GriswoldDivision ChiefUS Air ForceAFRL/MLS2179 Twelfth St., Bldg. 652Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7702(937) 656-6052, Fax: (937) 255-2945Email: [email protected]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

& SPECIAL FUNCTION MATERIALS

Dr. James MurdayNaval Research Laboratory4555 Overlook Ave., S.W. Code 6100Washington, DC 20375-5320(202) 767-3026, Fax: (202) 404-7139Email: [email protected]

DI R E C TO R, AMPTIAC

David Rose201 Mill StreetRome, NY 13440-6916(315) 339-7023, Fax: (315) 339-7107Email: [email protected]

DE P U TY DI R E C TO R, AMPTIAC

Christian E. Grethlein, P.E.201 Mill StreetRome, NY 13440-6916(315)-339-7009, Fax: (315) 339-7107Email: [email protected]

TE CH N I CA L IN Q U I RY SE RV I C E S MA NAG E R

David Brumbaugh201 Mill StreetRome, NY 13440-6916(315) 339-7113, Fax: (315) 339-7107Email: [email protected]

Alion Science and Te chnology Pe rs o n n e l

AMPTIAC Celebrates Its 6th Birthday

On November 1st, AMPTIAC’s staff took a few minutes out of their busy day to mark the IAC’s

sixth birthday. The six years have flown by, but are replete with accomplishments. We are proud

of our success serving the DOD materials and processes community and look forward to contin-

ued service in the future.


People at Risk

Documents

Transcript of People at Risk