Structures Congress 2011 © ASCE 2011 1552

Modeling and Testing of Laminated Window Systems under Blast Loading

B. Lusk1, H. Salim2, K. Perry1, M. Nawar2, W.C. Wedding1, S. Kiger2,

and A. Ibrahim3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Teknik Universitesi on 07/15/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1
Department of Mining Engineering, 234-D Mining and Mineral Resources Building,
University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, 40506-0107, USA
2
Department of Civil Engineering, E2509 Lafferre Hall, University of Missouri,
Columbia, MO 65211-2200, USA
3
Civil Engineering and Construction Department, 206 Jobst Hall, Bradley University
Peoria, IL, 61625, USA

ABSTRACT
Dynamic modeling and field testing of full-scale window systems using a shock tube
are presented in this paper. The modeling includes numerical simulations using LS-
DYNA. The dynamic response in terms of the center deflection as well as the
dynamic reactions around the window frame is measured and compared to the
modeling results. In addition to the positive phase of the blast loading, the response of
the window system to negative phase is also investigated. The modeled dynamic
deflections and reactions correlated well within the first few peaks of the measured
response of the window systems. The results of this study can be used to improve the
existing methods for predicting the dynamic response of windows under blast and to
provide affordable design recommendations.

INTRODUCTION
Design of civilian structures to resist blast loading has received much attention over
the past several years. The behavior of glazing is of particular interest since it is
estimated that the majority of injuries from blasts result from airborne glass
fragments from glazing (Hinman, 1995). Upon failure due to a blast, sharp fragments
of glass can be propelled into a building, resulting in the injury or death of occupants
(Norville and Conrath, 2001 and 2006).
In recent years, blast design of window and curtain wall systems made benefit of
conventional materials and systems through the use of laminated glass that is properly
attached to a window frame and mullion system. To counter the effects of flaws in
annealed glass, tempered and/or heat-strengthened glass, which exhibit high
compressive residual stresses at the surface of the glass (Amstock, 1997), are often
used for blast resistance applications. Laminated glazing is generally fabricated from
two or more layers of tempered/heat-strengthened glass with an elastic material
between each two layers. Over short durations and at low strains, this interlayer can
be treated as a linear elastic material with a Poisson’s ratio approaching 0.5 and

Structures Congress 2011

 Structures Congress 2011 © ASCE 2011 1553

stiffness obtained from shear modulus using solid mechanics equations (Wei and
Dharani, 2005). The elastic interlayer layer allows the glazing to undergo large
deformations, and thus resulting in large dynamic reactions around the edges of the
window frame. In addition, insulated laminated architectural glazing systems, which
may include an annealed glass layer separated from the laminated glass with an air
gap, can provide added blast resistance through the creation of a “sacrificial” layer.
These layers are also used to meet other design criteria such as thermal and sound
insulations.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Teknik Universitesi on 07/15/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The large-deflection response of the glazing system under blast loads generates
dynamic reaction parallel and perpendicular to the plane of the glazing. The dynamic
reactions are transmitted to the supporting mullion and/or structural frame. This paper
present a numerical simulation and field testing program aimed at evaluating the
dynamic response of laminated windows, including dynamic reactions, under blast
loads as well as comparison of models to measured data for dynamic reactions at the
connections.

MODELING
The numerical modeling is performed in this paper using the commercial code LS-
DYNA (2009), which is commonly utilized by the blast research community. The
glass layers and interlayer polymer are modeled as separate layers within single
composite elements using the LS-DYNA material model 32 “MAT-
_LAMINATED_GLASS”. This material model uses multiple through-thickness
integration points to account for multiple layers of glass and polymer within a single
shell element, Chung et al. (2010). The glass layers are modeled by isotropic
hardening plasticity with failure based on exceeding a specified level of plastic strain.
Neither the entire element nor the entire sub-layer is deleted at this specified level of
plastic strain but there is a redistribution of internal stress to the remaining glass and
polymer sub-layers. This polymer sub-layer material which the glass is bonded is
assumed to stretch plastically without failure. Each integration point is flagged with a
zero if the layer is glass and with a one if the layer is polymer, LS-DYNA user’s
manual (2009). The input data for glass layers includes the mass density, Young’s
modulus, Poisson’s ratio, yield stress and plastic strain at failure. The input data for
polymer layer includes Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, yield stress and plastic
hardening modulus.

VERIFICATION USING FIELD EXPERIMENTS

Three laminated window systems were tested in the field using a full-scale shock tube
(Figure 1). The laminated windows were 1.22 m wide × 1.68 m high. The three
windows were made up of 3 layers of glazing and an aluminum frame. Table 1 shows
the relevant information of the three windows evaluated in this study, and Figure 2
shows one of the window samples inserted in the test frame before and after test. The
measured pressure and impulse are shown in Table 1, and sample gage readings
during the shock tube tests of one of the windows is shown in Figure 3.
The pressure-time history recorded from the field experiments was used as the
input loading function to the LS-DYNA model, which accounted for all positive and

Structures Congress 2011

 Structures Congress 2011 © ASCE 2011 1554

negative loading phases. The center deflection of the glazing and dynamic reactions
transmitted to the aluminum frame are recorded during the experiments and are
compared to the numerical modeling results.
The numerical dynamic responses of the windows are compared to field results as
shown in Figures 4. The plastic strains contours predicted using the numerical model
are compared to glazing failure profile observed in the experiment for window
sample #1 as shown in Figure 5. The numerical predictions correlate closely with the
field results.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Teknik Universitesi on 07/15/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 1. Shock tube.

Table 1. Field Data of Window Systems.

Laminated Pane Constituents Measured Average Blast Loading
Window Outer Positive
Sample Layer Inner Pressure Impulse Phase
Interlayer
# (blast Layer (kPa) (kPa-msec) Duration
side) (msec)
3.2 mm 1.0 mm 3.2 mm
1 29 152 30
Annealed Uvekol-A Annealed
3.2 mm 1.5 mm 3.2 mm
2 * 49 308 59
HS Uvekol-S HS*
6.4 mm 1.0 mm 6.4 mm
3 55 306 54
Annealed Uvekol-A Annealed
*
HS = High Strength

Structures Congress 2011

 Structures Congress 2011 © ASCE 2011 1555
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Teknik Universitesi on 07/15/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

Figure 2. Window sample: (a) before test; (b) after test.

40 Pressure 160
Impulse

30 120

Impulse (kPa-msec)
Pressure (kPa)

20 80

10 40

0 0

-10 -40
-25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Time (msec)
Figure 3. Sample pressure-time history.

Structures Congress 2011

 Structures Congress 2011 © ASCE 2011 1556

2 50
Experimental
1 LS-DYNA 25

0 0

Mid-span Deflection, mm
Mid-span Deflection, in

-1 -25
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Teknik Universitesi on 07/15/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

-2 -50

-3 -75

-4 -100

-5 -125

-6 -150

-7 -175

-8 -200
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time, msec
Figure 4. Center deflection comparison for window system #1.

Figure 5. Plastic strains (right) showing predicted failure (left) shown in

experiment for window #1.

Structures Congress 2011

 Structures Congress 2011 © ASCE 2011 1557

The dynamic response prediction of window samples 2 and 3, including the

dynamic reactions along the aluminum window frames are shown in Figures 6 - 9.
The dynamic deflection prediction for window sample 2 matches closely the first two
peaks field response, while the results deviate after 40 milliseconds as shown in
Figure 6. On the other hand, the dynamic response prediction of window sample 3
matches closely the field response for the first three peaks as shown in Figure 7.
The dynamic reactions for both windows along the vertical (long) edges of the
aluminum frames are shown in Figures 8 and 9. The dynamic reactions shown are the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Teknik Universitesi on 07/15/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ones perpendicular to the plane of the window, i.e., along the blast wave direction. In
general, the dynamic reaction predicted by the numerical model matched closely the
field dynamic reactions recorded during the blast event. The dynamic reactions for
window sample 2 are shown in Figure 8, while the results for window sample 3 are
shown in Figure 9. Similar results were also observed for the dynamic reactions along
the horizontal (short) edges of the aluminum window frame.
The predicted and measured dynamic reactions can be used to evaluate the
existing united facilities criteria (UFC) requirement, which specifies that the loading
transmitted to the supporting structure of a laminated window to be eight times the
glazing resistance determined by the ASTM standards (ASTM, 2003, 2004, and
2007). Additional numerical modeling and field testing results can be used to develop
a probabilistic value for the dynamic reactions experienced by the supporting
structure. Alternatively, closed-form solutions of the resistance function of the
glazing system can be incorporated into a single degree of freedom (SDOF) dynamic
model to calculate analytically the dynamic reactions for a specific window system
and blast loading.
1 24
Experimental
0.5 LS-DYNA 12

0 0
Deflection (mm)
Deflection (in)

-0.5 -12

-1 -24

-36
-1.5

-48
-2

-60
-2.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Time (msec)
Figure 6. Center deflection comparison for window system #2.

Structures Congress 2011

 Structures Congress 2011 © ASCE 2011 1558

0.2 5

0 0

Deflection (mm)
-0.2 -5
Deflection (in)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Teknik Universitesi on 07/15/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

-0.4 -10

-0.6 -15

-0.8 -20

-1 Experimental -25
LS-DYNA
-1.2 -30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Time (msec)
Figure 7. Center deflection comparison for window system #3.

8000
32000
LS-DYNA
6000 Experiment
Dynamic Reaction (lbs)

Dynamic Reaction (N)

24000

4000
16000

2000 8000

0 0

-2000 -8000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (msec)
Figure 8. Total dynamic reaction acting on long edge of aluminum frame for
window sample #2.

Structures Congress 2011

 Structures Congress 2011 © ASCE 2011 1559

10000
LS-DYNA 40000
8000 Experiment
32000
Dynamic Reaction (lbs)

Dynamic Reaction (N)

6000
24000
4000
16000
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Teknik Universitesi on 07/15/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2000 8000

0 0

-2000 -8000

-16000
-4000
-24000
-6000
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Time (msec)
Figure 9. Total dynamic reaction acting on long edge of aluminum frame for
window sample #3.

SUMMARY
Numerical modeling was used to predict the dynamic response of the window
systems and were verified using field tests under blast loading performed using a full-
scale shock tube. The numerical simulations using LSDYNA predicted well the
dynamic response and total dynamic reactions. The results of this study can be
extended to develop engineering-level analytical models for the design of window
systems and their supporting structures. The measured dynamic response from the
shock-tube experiment, in terms of the center deflection, compared relatively well
with the numerical models developed in this paper for all three windows. In addition,
the measured total dynamic reactions perpendicular to the window compared well
with the numerical models.
It is recommended that additional numerical modeling supported by field testing
be performed to develop a probabilistic factor, similar to the recommended by the
UFC for predicting the dynamic reactions for blast design of the supporting system of
laminated glazing. Since the static resistance and the mechanical properties of the
materials that makeup the window system are the most important inputs to the
analytical and numerical models, it is recommended that material, component, and
full-scale static testing of various window systems be performed.

Structures Congress 2011

 Structures Congress 2011 © ASCE 2011 1560

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors acknowledge the financial support and technical advice provided by Mr.
Gantt Miller, Kurtis Suellentrop, and Larry Frost of Winco Window Company, St.
Louis, MO, USA.

REFERENCES
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Teknik Universitesi on 07/15/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Amstock, J. (1997). Glass in construction. New York: McGraw Hill.

ASTM. (2007). ASTM E 1300 - 07 Standard practice for determining load resistance
of glass in buildings. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
ASTM. (2004). ASTM F 1642 - 04 Standard test method for glazing and glazing
systems subject to air-blast loading. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM
International.
ASTM. (2003). ASTM F 2248 - 03 Standard practice for specifying an equivalent 3-
second duration design loading for blast resistant glazing fabricated with
laminated glass. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.
Chung, J.H., Consolazio, G.R., Dinan, R.J. and Rinehart, S.A. (2010). “Finite-
Element Analysis of Fluid-Structure Interaction in a Blast-Resistant Window
System” Journal of structural Engineering, Vol. 136, No. 3.
Hinman, E. (1995). “Lessons from ground zero.” American Society for Industrial
Security: Security Management, October 1995, 26–35.
Livermore Software Technology Corporation. (2009). LS-DYNA KEYWORD
USER’S MANUAL, Version 971, May 2009.
Norville, H., and Conrath, J. (2006). “Blast-resistant glazing design”. Journal of
Architectural Engineering, 12 (3), 129-136.
Norville, S., and Conrath, E. J. (2001). “Considerations for blast-resistant glazing
design.” J. Archit. Eng., 7(3), 80–86.
Unified Facilities Criteria (2007). UFC 3-010-01: DOD Minimum Antiterrorism
Standards for Buildings. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense.
Wei, J., and Dharani, L.R. (2005). “Fracture mechanics of laminated glass subject to
blast loading.” Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, 44(2), 157-167.

Structures Congress 2011