Custom Search
|
|
|
||
 MIL-HDBK-1013/1A
Table 19
Reinforced Concrete Wall Designs For Very High Threat Levels
+)))))))))))))))))0))))))))))))))))))))0))))))))))))))),
*
*Rebar layers - No. 6*
*
*
* (19 mm) on 6-Inch *
*
Concrete
Minimum
* Thickness
* (150-mm) Centers * Penetration *
*
*
*Time (min.)(a) *
in. (m)
Each Way
/)))))))))))))))))3))))))))))))))))))))3)))))))))))))))1
*< / = 8(< / =0.2)*
*
</=1 *
1
/)))))))))))))))))3))))))))))))))))))))3)))))))))))))))1
*
*
*
*
12 (0.3)
2
2
/)))))))))))))))))3))))))))))))))))))))3)))))))))))))))1
* 18 (0.46)
*
*
*
3
3
/)))))))))))))))))3))))))))))))))))))))3)))))))))))))))1
*
*
*
*
24 (0.6)
4
4.5
/)))))))))))))))))3))))))))))))))))))))3)))))))))))))))1
*
*
*
*
36 (0.9)
6
8
/)))))))))))))))))3))))))))))))))))))))3)))))))))))))))1
*
*
*
*
48 (1.2)
8
13
*
*
*
*
.)))))))))))))))))2))))))))))))))))))))2)))))))))))))))-
(a) Use of bulk explosives to remove the concrete
and power thermal tools to cut the rebar.
5.5.3.2
Low-Severity Threat. In general, it is not practical to attack
walls using only a limited set of low-observable hand-held tools. A low
level threat would more likely attack the doors, windows, or other more
vulnerable part of the facility rather than the walls. Any wall construction
can be considered adequate for this threat level.
5.5.3.3
Medium- and High-Severity Threat. CMU, conventional, and steel-
fiber-reinforced concrete wall construction options and corresponding minimum
penetration times for medium- and high-security threat levels are summarized
in Figures 31 through 34 and Tables 21 and 22. Note in Figures 31, 33, and
34 that the minimum penetration times are presented as a function of the
thickness of the cross section and the size and spacing of reinforcing.
Different combinations of reinforcing size and spacing are reflected in the
family of curves identified by A, B, C, etc. These combinations are
summarized in Table 21 for masonry and Table 22 for reinforced concrete. In
general, a required penetration time can be achieved either by providing a
thicker cross section and/or by adding more reinforcing. Which is more
appropriate may be decided by structural or other considerations. Note also
in Figures 31, 33, and 34 that the penetration times are minimum values based
on the proper selection and optimal use of the attack tools. In this regard,
the region identified as the "medium-severity threat level" assumes that only
hand-powered tools and some limited battery-powered tools are used. For
these cases, the thickness and/or rebar combination required is less than the
"high-severity threat level" where power and thermal tools also may be used.
If the threat is of medium severity and the delay time requirement is within
the
123
|
 
|
|
|
||
