Protecting People and Buildings from Terrorism: Technology Transfer for Blast-effects Mitigation (2001)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

D Workshop Synopsis SUMMARIES OF PRESENTATIONS This appendix provides brief summaries of the presentations made at the November 2000 workshop. Following each summary is a locator key1 indicating where the full presentation appears in PDF format on the CD- ROM that is included with this report.2 Welcoming Remarks Richard Little, National Research Council Richard Little, on behalf of the National Academies, welcomed the workshop participants, presented the background and agenda, and out- lined the operational details for the workshop. He also summarized NRC publications in the area of protective design approaches, objectives of blast effects research, and a strategy for technology transfer. (9/801) 1For example, the locator designation (9/801) indicates that the presentation begins on page 9 of the PDF document. 2The workshop presentations were reproduced as submitted by their authors and were neither reviewed nor edited by the National Research Council. 66 

APPENDIX D 67 DOD/DTRA Role in Blast Mitigation Design Jay Davis, Defense Threat Reduction Agency Dr. Davis’s keynote address is included in this report as Appendix C. (14/801) The Blast Mitigation for Structures Program Douglas Sunshine, Defense Threat Reduction Agency Douglas Sunshine described the general nature of the experimental blast studies currently underway. He cited DTRA’s desire for NRC advi- sory and oversight efforts relating to the project and noted that this effort was a valuable part of the overall program. He expressed the hope that other workshop participants through their presentations, as well as the general discussion by all participants, would contribute to advancing the DTRA effort. He noted that at this time the experimental program consists of four major, focused investigations: debris hazard, prevention of progres- sive collapse, injury modeling, and mailroom testing. Among the major objectives of the work is defining what information is necessary for the typical engineer and what form it should be in for ease of use. He pointed to releasability of data as one of the difficult problems associated with the experimental program, involving how to reconcile the potential advantage terrorists may gain from having access to knowledge, with the need for knowledge to enhance protection. Information on vulner- ability assessment, design guidance, and test data are needed for force protection and to ensure overall federal, military, and commercial building protection. He discussed the extensive glazing-related test program that has been carried out, described the complex and dangerous role of blast debris generally, and reviewed the structures program, with reference to walls and columns. One goal is to develop retrofitting techniques, better column design, and approaches for component blast validation (assess- ment of performance). (21/801) Charge to the Workshop Attendees Eugene Sevin, Consultant Eugene Sevin commented first on the diversity of the workshop’s at- tendees, namely building owners, users, architects, designers, and members of allied professions of many types; he noted that this diversity was a definite plus for the success and usefulness of the workshop. He described the role of the workshop panels, as it encompassed panel participant pre- sentations and discussion, pointing out that the focus should be on infor- mation needs, test gaps, and technology transfer approaches. He empha- 

68 PROTECTING PEOPLE AND BUILDINGS FROM TERRORISM sized the importance of the moderator summaries to be delivered verbally and in writing at the end of the workshop. (88/801) Security Sensitive Building Design for Urban Settings Wade Belcher, General Services Administration Wade Belcher centered his presentation on four topics common to GSA building and construction activities, namely multiple risks, competing goals, myriad constraints, and the application of reasonable, probable, and cer- tain measures. He reviewed reports, major panels, Department of Justice report recommendations, GSA security design criteria, and the many other actions taken by the agency to improve practice and comply with Federal Executive Order 12977, Enhancement of Security in Federal Buildings. (90/ 801) Consequence Management Needs Joseph A. Barbera, George Washington University Joseph Barbera presented an overview of the human impact of large explosions, the need for understanding the factors important to minimizing injuries and death as a primary action, maximizing rescuer safety as a secondary action, and maximizing response effectiveness. He noted that the hazards are many and complex—for example, blast effects, shrapnel and falling or flying objects, structural collapse, smoke, fire, toxic gases, and hazardous materials and dust. (117/801) Protecting People and Buildings from Bomb Damage from the Commercial Owner’s Perspective Douglas G. Karpiloff, World Trade Center Douglas Karpiloff began his presentation by describing the magnitude of the World Trade Center complex. For example, 100,000 people per day traverse the complex and the 11 million square feet of office space house 450 tenants with 50,000 employees. Of special interest was his description of the approaches adopted to accommodate car and van access to services, and the personnel management activities. He listed the challenges con- fronting the owners at the time of the blast in 1993 and described a sam- pling of the measures adopted to achieve their security objectives. (152/ 801) 

APPENDIX D 69 U.S. Department of State–Facilities Abroad–- Office of Foreign Building Operations Patrick Collins, U.S. Department of State Patrick Collins addressed four topics: current issues, design challenges, some current design approaches, and new methods and tools employed. He outlined the appropriations and capital funding provided for his unit’s activities over a period of years. Of great technical interest were cost comparisons for standoff distance and relative hardening in the most gen- eral sense, followed by breakdowns of the costs for roofs, walls, and secu- rity items. He indicated an immediate need for new bollard design tools, refined standoff design concepts, existing building renovation solutions, better window glazing products, forced entry improvements, and new ma- terials research and implementation. (172/801) Insurance Perspectives Paul Senseny, Factory Mutual Global Paul Senseny began by listing the kinds of insurance that insurance companies generally offer, for example, property, casualty, and liability insurance. Factory Mutual offers global insurance on commercial, indus- trial, and residential property. Terrorism is covered, with the exception of nuclear events. He presented the concept of highly protected risk (HPR), which is incorporated in policies written for situations involving prudent risk management, and also spoke about pricing. Typically such insurance is written for property damage, business disruption (examples being loss of market share, corporate image, public image, reputation for reliability, and ability to retain employees), and uninsurable losses. He summarized with four points: (1) property insurance is a conduit for identifying such matters as uninsurable losses; (2) the underwriting industry needs a loss expectancy methodology; (3) design standards need improved mitigation technology; and (4) approved products used by the insurance industry need some test protocols. (203/801) Protective Design Guides Ed Conrath, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Protective Design Center Ed Conrath described the activities of the U.S. Army Corps of Engi- neers, Protective Design Center, which consist generally of force protection (for example, physical security and antiterrorism) and guidance for hard- ened structures (including design against conventional and nuclear weap- ons effects, C/B/R design, and explosive safety design). He described some of the government tools that are used by his group. (215/801) 

70 PROTECTING PEOPLE AND BUILDINGS FROM TERRORISM Navy Technology Developments Robert Odello, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center Robert Odello described the design technology used in the new high- performance magazine facility; the relationship of these design principles to bomb damage protection; and examples of technical implementation. (244/ 801) Petrochemical Industry Design Experience Quentin A. Baker, Wilfred Baker Engineering, Inc. Quentin Baker described the numerous explosive hazards that exist in the chemical and petroleum refining industry, such as vapor cloud explo- sion, runaway reactions in a condensed phase material, bursting pressure vessels, and terrorist threats. He described in some detail the risk manage- ment (and assessment) philosophy employed by these industries with re- spect to design and operation, as opposed to the philosophy of governmen- tal regulation. (263/801) Commercial Structure Design Experience Jeremy Isenberg, Weidlinger Associates, Inc. Jeremy Isenberg provided examples of terrorist attacks in recent years and described some of the principles basic to experimental testing and computational simulation and assessment. He stated his belief that 75 percent of the design effort could be accomplished by so-called simplified methods, while the remainder required advanced computation and model- ing. He described in some detail the capabilities of the Weidlinger program, FLEX. (277/801) Counter Terrorist Protective and Security Measures for Government Buildings in the United Kingdom Christopher Veale, U.K. Government Christopher Veale discussed the incorporation of protective design fea- tures into standard measures (those applied to all government buildings) and enhanced measures (those applied in specific cases). Standard mea- sures apply, for example, to structure, glazing protection, bomb shelter area accommodation, access control, counter-terrorist contingency plans, and x- ray screening. He also provided examples of the disciplines affected by such measures to indicate the complexity and cost of such actions. Of particular interest was his description of glazing damage that has occurred 

APPENDIX D 71 in the United Kingdom, and information provided on protective measures. (307/801) Architectural Challenges for Protective Design John Corkhill, American Institute of Architects John Corkhill discussed alternatives for protective design in the context of the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House. He presented an alternative design for a blast barrier to provide the requisite level of protection. He stressed the need for consideration of all options for protective design solutions. (No written presentation was provided.) Protecting People and Buildings from Bomb Damage Vivian Loftness, Carnegie Mellon University Vivian Loftness described the practical difficulty of addressing chemi- cal and/or biological threats in building design. As counterpoint, she pre- sented an interesting compendium of deaths from a range of hazards, fol- lowed by a description of “sick buildings” currently being constructed. She concluded with several examples that could lead to improved building design. (340/801) Protective Glazing Design Darrell Barker, EQE International Darrell Barker provided detailed insight into the problems associated with glazing design and performance under blast conditions. His presenta- tion covered a range of subjects, such as loading, protection requirements, protective glazing options, design considerations, and resources. (361/801) Blast Resistant Technology That Architects Need John W. Chapman, Kern Charuhas Chapman & Twohey John Chapman described the blast protection parameters typically ap- plied to buildings designed by his firm; 30 psi to 140 psi blast pressure for new buildings and 3 psi to 15 psi blast pressure for building retrofits. His presentation focused on the blast protection problems confronting archi- tects and the need for a range of possible solutions. He particularly noted the desire for product test results and performance standards for various aspects of blast-resistant design. (418/801) 

72 PROTECTING PEOPLE AND BUILDINGS FROM TERRORISM Structural Retrofit for Blast Protection Reed Mosher, U.S. Army Engineering Research and Development Center Reed Mosher said that the objective of blast-related research being carried out at the Engineering Research and Development Center is pre- venting structural damage, property damage, and human injury and loss of life. The test and analysis programs center on studies of structural collapse and blast debris. He presented some data from tests and described the capabilities of several computational tools, such as HAZL, and others. (446/801) Needs of the Average Engineer for a Concerned Owner’s Building Loring A. Wyllie, Jr., Degenkolb Engineers Loring Wyllie summarized issues arising during the planning of a com- mercial building that affect protective design. These issues include the owner’s desire to prevent incidents, the need to be customer-friendly and to minimize barriers and other security-related constraints, real estate limita- tions, and cost factors. The design options available to the typical design engineer are seismic-resistant design or enhancements of structural integ- rity. He emphasized the need for additional design guidance. (514/801) Critical Facility Design Needs (U.S. Department of Energy) . . . An Architectural Surety Perspective R.V. Matalucci, Sandia National Laboratories Mr. Matalucci indicated that the Department of Energy is both a user and a developer of security protection techniques and products. Sandia National Laboratories specializes in vulnerability assessment coupled with the use of applicable risk-reduction procedures. He provided some general examples of ongoing activities. (522/801) Code Considerations for Protective Design K.M. Schoonover, BOCA International, Inc. Mr. Schoonover noted at the outset of his presentation that commercial building codes do not include consideration of blast-resistant design. He discussed in some detail the overlapping, and differing, nature of provisions in the codes and provisions for blast design and addressed some cost issues. (533/801) 

APPENDIX D 73 Cost Considerations for Decision Making Douglas Mitten, Project Management Services, Inc. Douglas Mitten described the critical role that cost plays in decision making for protective design and presented a number of cost models for displaying and analyzing options. He emphasized that designers and deci- sion makers can improve their understanding and handling of protective design measures by examining accurate models of initial costs, operations and maintenance costs, and benefit costs. The models enable comparison of countermeasures with other investment alternatives. (535/801) Bomb Blast Mitigation Robert Smilowitz, Weidlinger Associates Robert Smilowitz described a process for the integration of the four essential aspects of blast design: (1) definition of the threat, followed by risk analysis, (2) coordinated comprehensive protective design, (3) analysis and design of structural systems and components, and (4) design documenta- tion. (544/801) Epidemiology of Blast Injuries Sue Mallonee and Sheryl Brown, Oklahoma State Department of Health Sue Mallonee and Sheryl Brown summarized data from six major stud- ies of the Murrah Building bombing in Oklahoma City. The data surveyed included hospital medical records, physicians’ records, building occupant records, newspaper records, governor’s records, and survivor memories and records. Their presentation demonstrated that thorough epidemiologi- cal analysis can improve the physical design of facilities subject to terrorist bombings. (555/801) Khobar Towers Bombing Injury Epidemiology Sheryl Brown, Oklahoma State Department of Health Sheryl Brown presented the results of the injury epidemiology study for Khobar Towers. This survey was carried out through a confidential mail survey, review of medical records, and injury mapping. Data was presented on the types and causes of injuries. (583/801) Building-related Issues and Injury Control Eric K. Noji, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Eric Noji presented the results of several studies of earthquake damage 

74 PROTECTING PEOPLE AND BUILDINGS FROM TERRORISM sustained throughout the world. Better understanding of the building fac- tors associated with various types of excitation that lead to structural col- lapse can be used to reduce potential injuries and death in buildings subject to bombing attack. (604/801) Data Needs for Emergency Preparedness Josephine Malilay, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Josephine Malilay described the many factors involved in emergency preparedness and the role of planning in reducing injuries and death. She also described data needs, multidisciplinary roles of the planning and re- sponse team, the need for coordination and management, and the value of epidemiological methods. (669/801) Blast Mitigation for Structures: Facilitating Search and Rescue Anthony Macintyre, Fairfax County Urban Search and Rescue Task Force Anthony Macintyre described his experiences onsite at the Nairobi embassy bombing. He described two classes of victim and rescuer in these situations and the need to relate rescue methods to the likely levels of injury. (692/801) Blast Resistant Potential Issues for Civilian Steel Construction James Harris, J.R. Harris & Co. James Harris made some general qualitative comments about blast issues associated with buildings and then described the activities of the American Institute of Steel Construction’s committee on blast-resistant de- sign of steel buildings. This committee is attempting to develop guidelines for steel construction and is focusing on blast sources, structural compo- nents affected (cladding/glazing) and load transmission, risk issues, and cost and effectiveness of addressing the hazard. (696/801) Technology Transfer Activities at the American Concrete Institute Stanley C. Woodson, U.S. Army Engineering Research and Development Center Stanley Woodson discussed the activities and plans of American Con- crete Institute Committee 370, Shock and Vibratory Load Effects. His presentation addressed design philosophy, types of structures, materials, loads and deformations, design requirements, and openings. Committee 

APPENDIX D 75 370 plans to write a design guideline document with commentary. (715/ 801) Technology Transfer Activities at the American Society of Civil Engineers’ Structural Engineering Institute Joseph W. Tedesco, University of Florida Joseph Tedesco reviewed recent and upcoming conference activities, committee reports, and technology-transfer initiatives of the Shock and Vibratory Effects Committee of the American Society of Civil Engineers’ Structural Engineering Institute to address blast effects on structures. That committee is also considering the possibility of preparing independent codes, standards, or design manuals and incorporating some of this type of mate- rial into ASCE 7-98, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. (727/801) Technology Transfer at the Federal Emergency Management Agency James Grinar, FEMA James Grinar described technology transfer mechanisms used by FEMA and a recent conference focused on technology for hazard mitigation. He indicated that future funding for these activities had not been identified. (736/801) Technology Transfer Experience for Earthquake Engineering Christopher Rojahn, Applied Technology Council Christopher Rojahn provided a short overview of earthquake engineer- ing in the United States that touched on its history, the impetus for technol- ogy transfer, institutional players, mechanisms and formats, and examples of products and successful technology transfer efforts. The Applied Tech- nology Council has played an important role in technology transfer in the earthquake engineering field. (737/801) A Center for Building-Vulnerability Sciences Lawrence C. Bank, University of Wisconsin The goal of the proposed center for building-vulnerability sciences fo- cuses on reducing the vulnerability of buildings to technological hazards through the development of structural and architectural systems, air-han- dling and ventilation systems, water distribution systems, and communica- tion and power systems that improve building performance. The organiza- 

76 PROTECTING PEOPLE AND BUILDINGS FROM TERRORISM tional and operating concept for the center is to treat the building as a living organism. (753/801) PANEL AND PLENARY SESSION SUMMARY REPORTS Owner/User Perspectives and Needs Building System Designer Needs Stuart Knoop, Moderator, Oudens and Knoop, PC Stuart Knoop began his summary of the two panels’ presentations and discussions by pointing out that terrorist bombing is a very low probability event, which makes it difficult to justify protective design measures to a commercial or civilian government building owner. Budgets are rarely large enough to fund all protective measures, and the insurance industry will not provide incentives. One way of addressing this issue is to seek multihazard solutions that address seismic and extreme wind events in addition to blast. This approach will enhance the benefit/cost ratio and make implementation of blast-related improvements more likely. Research is needed on site perimeter issues such as the effectiveness of various types of vehicle barriers and their cost-effectiveness versus other types of perim- eter control. Information on how to design building openings such as doors and windows, what products meet performance standards, and how clad- ding behaves in a blast environment are also candidates for research. Col- lateral effects such as debris hazards, lifeline systems, and blast field effects on adjacent structures were also identified. Finally, there is a need for a unified approach for protective design that is well-understood and accepted by the design professions. (764/801) Structural Designer Needs Robert Kennedy, Moderator, RPK Structural Mechanics Consulting Robert Kennedy pointed out the overriding interest in obtaining access to protective design guidelines, with an emphasis on obtaining up-to-date technical design manuals that are in the public domain. There is also an interest in obtaining simplified design guidance for cost-effective approaches to providing lesser to moderate levels of blast protection. This includes specific guidance on approaches to and criteria for providing reasonable protection against progressive collapse from moderate-size events and cost- effective glazing of window glass, methods for attaching glass to the frame, and techniques for attaching the frame to the wall. A great deal of empha- sis was placed on the need for tested products that meet well-understood and accepted performance standards. Test data should also be available. Risk management techniques for performing tradeoff analysis were also identified as desirable. (769/801) 

APPENDIX D 77 Emerging Medical and Rescue Needs Erik Auf der Heide, Co-moderator, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Joseph Barbera, Co-moderator, George Washington University The problems identified during this panel session included (1) failure to collect perishable injury and health data that may be used to save lives in future incidents; (2) difficulty obtaining data that has been compiled on past bombings; (3) buildings that are designed with little consideration for the needs of search and rescue; (4) lack of knowledge about a building’s design, utility shutoffs, the locations of occupants, and hazards as impeding search and rescue; and (5) the dependence of successful search and rescue efforts on rapid on-site assessment of the building’s structural integrity. Several possible solutions to these problems were put forward by this panel, including establishing a multidisciplinary rapid response (health and engi- neering) data collection team (analogous to the National Transportation Safety Board’s postcrash investigation team) and defining standardized data collection methods and data elements for these teams to use; establishing a national or international clearinghouse for past and future data on bomb blast incidents; and establishing a process for developing and disseminating best practices in building design with input from the public safety commu- nity. Also needed is up-to-date information on building services, such as water and natural gas shutoff valves, or the presence of asbestos, and a process for identifying this information and making it available to rescuers. There is also a need to provide training in rapid, postimpact structural assessment. (772/801) Technology Transfer for Protective Design William J. Hall, Moderator, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign The primary issue to be addressed by the workshop—how to expedite the transfer of significant militarily derived blast loading and blast resis- tance information, plus related information, into the public sector—in- cludes such typical areas of concern as threat levels, dynamic loading pa- rameters, resistance schemes, modeling, analysis, radiation protection (if applicable), construction, quality assurance and quality control, inspection, maintenance, protection of occupants (humans and equipment) from airblast and shock, and ingress and egress (including emergency escape). Overall design considerations include simplicity and protection against multiple hazards (earthquakes, wind and tornado, debris, and storms with a potential for causing flooding). The tools for accomplishing technology transfer and/or educating professional staff in blast design include manuals, guidelines, and miscellaneous publications; video (live and tape); distance 

78 PROTECTING PEOPLE AND BUILDINGS FROM TERRORISM learning courses and lectures (available from universities and corporations); workshops, seminars, short courses, and self-study (through the use of manuals and video resources); and consultants (when special help is re- quired). The role of education and training in multihazard facets of design for architects and engineers was discussed at several points in the presenta- tions and discussion and was suggested as a way to incorporate some basic education about topics related to blast design. Examples might include blast/shock, wind/tornado, seismic, volcanic dust, rain/ice/snow and flood- ing, toxic contamination, and biological and chemical hazard consider- ations. With respect to the DTRA program, and activity underway or to be undertaken in the future, it was observed by several participants that it might be most profitable to concentrate on small pieces of the overall program and issue summary studies related thereto. Examples might in- clude siting, land, and facility features; safe haven aspects of building de- sign; security issues, including access; other design concerns such as ingress/ egress, blast doors, air supply and protective blast vents, floor, roof, walls and frames (if applicable); and glazing and supporting frames. (795/801)