Composite stud wall panel assembly

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 11299886
  • Patent Number
    11,299,886
  • Date Filed
    Wednesday, April 24, 2019
    5 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, April 12, 2022
    2 years ago
  • Inventors
  • Original Assignees
    • PROTECTIFLEX, LLC (Callicoon, NY, US)
  • Examiners
    • Mattei; Brian D
    • Ahmad; Charissa
    Agents
    • Cassan MacLean IP Agency Inc.
Abstract
A composite stud wall panel assembly, which can be used alone as a blast panel or as a module for wall or roof structures, comprises a frame including a plurality of spaced apart metal studs and metal crossbars interconnecting the studs; and a cementitious aggregate panel, one side of the metal studs being embedded in and permanently connected to the panel along the length of the studs.
Description
FIELD OF THE INVENTION

This invention relates to a composite stud wall assembly.


More specifically, the invention relates to a stud wall assembly, which can be used as protection against blast, ballistic, forced entry, impact, weapons effects, fire and seismic loads. The assembly can be used alone as a blast panel or as a wall or roof panel for modular unit assemblies such as guard booths, trailers and other assemblies for resisting blast, ballistic and/or forced entry loadings.


BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

In general, prefabricated blast or building panels are made of reinforced concrete, which is heavy and subject to fragmentation under extreme loads. An object of the present invention is to provide a stud wall panel assembly which is relatively lightweight and provides greater ballistic protection for a given thickness.


SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

According to one aspect the invention relates to a composite stud wall assembly comprising a frame including a plurality of spaced apart metal studs and metal crossbars interconnecting said studs at locations proximate the ends and at least one location between said ends; and a cementitious aggregate panel, one side of the metal studs being embedded in and permanently connected to the panel along the length of the studs.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The invention is described in greater detail with reference to the accompanying drawings, which illustrate a preferred embodiment of the invention, and wherein:



FIG. 1 is an isometric view of a composite stud wall panel assembly as seen from the front and one side in accordance with the invention;



FIG. 2 is an isometric view of the stud wall panel assembly of FIG. 1 and seen from the rear and the other side; and



FIG. 3 is a cross section taken generally along line 3-3 of FIG. 2.





DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

With reference to the drawings, the composite stud wall assembly includes a frame indicated generally at 1. The frame 1 is defined by a plurality of spaced apart, vertical metal studs 2 partially embedded in a rectangular panel 3 of a composite material. The studs 2 are braced by horizontal metal crossbars 4 extending between the studs 2 and abutting the panel 3. The crossbars 4 can be embedded in the panel 3. The crossbars 4 are located at the centers and proximate the ends of the studs 2. Generally U-shaped metal straps 5 extend between the ends of the studs 2 and are connected thereto by bolts 6 and nuts (not shown). A 0/90°, 1.5×1.5 inch metal or fiber polymer composite mesh 7 reinforcement (FIG. 3) is molded into the panel 3 at mid-depth and tied to the studs 2 by ¼ inch shear studs 8 (FIG. 3).


Preferably the studs 2 are steel C-beams, the crossbars 4 are steel C-beams, and the straps 5 are steel. However, other metals can be used for the studs 2, the crossbars 4 and the straps 5. The panel 3 is formed of rubber pieces with embedded fibers in a cementitious matrix. A preferred embodiment of the material comprises, in a dry state, 25% by weight blended cement, 15% by weight rubber pieces with embedded polymeric macro reinforcing fibers, 50% sand and 10% crushed stone (see Table 1, which also lists the ingredients used to produce the panel).













TABLE 1








Kg/m3 of Mix
% by dry



MATERIAL

weight
weight



















Cement (Blended 80:20)
450
25%



Rubber Shred
272
15%



Sand
877
50%



Stone (10 mm crushed
176
10%



aggregate)














Total Dry Weight
1775
kg.












Water
167













STRUX BT-50 fiber or
1.18
kg




equivalent






3 in 1 Mid Range Water
1.8
liters




Reducer (WRDA ® PN) or






equivalent






Air Entraining Agent






(DAREX AEA ®) or equivalent










STRUX® BT-50 is a registered trademark for polymeric macro reinforcing fibers, which is included in panels with thicknesses of less than 6 inches. WRDA® PN is a registered trademark for an aqueous solution of polycarboxylate and carbohydrates, and DAREX AEA® is a registered trademark for an aqueous solution of a complex mixture of organic acids. Other reinforcing fibers, water reducers and air entraining agents can be used.


The ingredients can be present in the following percentages by dry weight: cement—20 to 30, rubber—10 to 20, sand—40 to 60 and stone—5 to 15.


The composition of panels used in blast and ballistic testing are listed in Tables 2 and 3.









TABLE 2







Panel Composition












Specific
Percent
Weight in
Volume in


Material
Gravities
by Volume
Pounds
Cubic Feet














Rubber
1.07
25.56
461
6.90


⅜″ Stone
2.78
6.41
299
1.73


Sand (UWP)
2.76
31.96
1486
8.63


Cement
3.15
10.63
564
2.87


Flyash
2.28
5.14
200
1.39


Water
1.00
16.77
283
4.53


Entrapped Air

3.53

0.95
















TABLE 3







Panel Composition












Specific
Percent
Weight in
Volume in


Material
Gravities
by Volume
Pounds
Cubic Feet














Rubber
1.07
28.77
530
7.77


⅜″ Stone
2.78
3.20
150
0.86


Sand (UWP)
2.76
31.96
1486
8.63


Cement
3.15
10.63
564
2.87


Flyash
2.28
5.14
200
1.39


Water
1.00
16.77
283
4.53


Entrapped Air

3.53

0.95









An eight foot by four foot stud wall panel assembly described above was subjected to blast and ballistic testing. The blast test specimens consisted of four six inch deep vertical cold-formed steel studs 2 (C-beams) embedded in a three inch thick aggregate panel 3 having the composition listed in Table 1. The 0/90 degree, 1.5 inch by 1.5 inch carbon fiber mesh was placed in the panel 3 at mid-depth and tied to the vertical studs 2 using the ¼ inch shear studs 8 spaced twelve inches on center. The vertical studs 2 were braced with horizontal crossbars 4 in the form of 2.5 inch deep steel I-beams located at mid-panel height and approximately ten inches from the top and bottom of the frame. One quarter inch bent steel straps 5 were attached to the top and bottom ends of the studs 2 by two one-half inch diameter bolts 6 on each end and nuts (not shown). The assemblies were connected to steel framing. Ammonium nitrate/fuel oil, a widely used bulk explosive mixture was used as the explosive material to develop blast loads in each test.


Two composite stud wall panel assemblies were subjected to three non-simultaneous explosive shots of the same explosive weight (representative of a car bomb) at varying standoffs. The goal of the three shots was to provide composite panel response data at different blast loading conditions as a means of validating the newly developed blast mitigation composite panel system and to compare the system response to that of conventional wall construction materials utilized in the protective design industry.


In addition, a ballistic resistance testing evaluation of the precast panel assembly was conducted within an indoor range at Oregon Ballistic Laboratories in Salem, Oreg. for various thicknesses of the precast panel in accordance with UL 752 and NIJ-STD-0108.01 testing standards. The muzzle of the test barrel was mounted at selected distances from the target and positioned to produce 0-degree obliquity impacts.


US Army Corps of Engineers Protective Design Center Technical Report PDC-TR 06-08 (Revision 1 dated 7 Jan. 2008—APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE) describes damage levels and levels of protections (LOPs) that can be used to classify the responses for each test. Table 4 provides descriptions for each component damage level and the corresponding building LOP considering the component as a secondary (i.e., non-load bearing) structural element.









TABLE 4







Component Damage Level Descriptions per PDC-TR 06-08









Component

Building Level


Damage Level
Description
of Protection *





Blowout
Component is overwhelmed by
Below



the blast load causing debris
Antiterrorism



with significant velocities.
Standards


Hazardous
Component has failed, and
Very Low (VLLOP)


Failure
debris velocities range from




insignificant to very significant.



Heavy Damage
Component has not failed, but
Low (LLOP)



it has significant permanent




deflections causing it to be




unrepairable.



Moderate
Component has some permanent
Medium (MLOP)


Damage
deflection. It is generally




repairable, if necessary,




although replacement may be




more economic and aesthetic.



Superficial
Component has no visible
High (HLOP)


Damage
permanent damage





* Level of protection corresponding to given damage level for a secondary structural component.






The results for three blast test, 1-3 using the same quantity of ammonium nitrate/fuel oil (ANFO) representative of a car bomb, at standoffs varying between 40 feet (12.2 m) and 100 feet (30.5 m) are summarized in Table 5.









TABLE 5







Blast Test Results Summary
















Positive





Charge
Peak
Phase



Test
Specimen
Standoff
Pressure
Impulse
Post-Test Notes





1
1
100 ft 
 9-10 psi
49-46 psi-ms
No observable




(30.5 m)
(63-70 kPa)
(340-390 kPa-ms)
permanent damage or







permanent deflection.







Response categorized







as Superficial Damage/







HLOP


2
1
60 ft
28-31 psi
 96-109 psi-ms
Cracking of panel 3




(18.3 m)
(200-215 kPa)
(660-750 kPa-ms)
noted on interior face







at interface with







rightmost vertical stud







2. Minor hairline







cracking noted else-







where. Minor observed







deformation and inden-







tations to the vertical







and horizontal steel







studs 2. Response







categorized as Moderate







Damage/MLOP)


3
2
40 ft
64-93 psi
153-178 psi-ms
Extensive cracking




(12.2 m)
(450-640 kPa)
(1050-1225 kPa-ms)
of panel 3 noted on







interior face near







interface with three







rightmost vertical







studs 2. Cracking







also visible on exterior







face of panel 3. A







small amount of panel







debris projected inward







up to 5 feet (1.5 m).







Minor observed deforma-







tion and indentations







to the vertical and







horizontal steel studs







2. Response categorized







as Heavy Damage/LLOP.









The ballistic resistance testing evaluation was conducted within an indoor range at the Oregon Ballistic Laboratories for various thicknesses of the precast panel in accordance with UL 752 and NIJ-STD-0108.01 testing standards. The muzzle of the test barrel was mounted at selected distances from the target and positioned to product 0-degree obliquity impacts.


All panel assemblies tested for both ballistic testing standard had overall dimensions of 3 feet (910 mm) wide by 3 feet (910 mm) tall with thickness ranging from 3 inches (76 mm) to 10 inches (254 mm). The two panel composition listed in Tables 2 and 3. For panels with thicknesses less than 6 inches (152 mm), a synthetic macro fiber reinforcement labeled as STRUX BT50® was utilized in the design of the panel assemblies. For panels with thicknesses of 6 inches (152 mm) or greater, carbon-fibre reinforced polymer (C-FRP) rebars labeled as C-BAR® were utilized instead.


Tables 6 and 7 summarize the performance ballistic ratings for the ProtectiFlex precast systems evaluated. Based on the ballistic testing results, a 3-inch (76 mm) thick ProtectiFlex precast panel (as used for the blast-tested composite stud wall system) is rated as UL 752 Level 2 and NIJ-STD-0108.01 Level II.









TABLE 6







UL 752 Ballistic Rating Summary for


the ProtectiFlex Precast Panel System










ProtectiFlex





Specimen
Designated
Thickness
UL 752 Level


Number
OBL Number
in (mm)
Rating














1
17758
3
(76)
Level 2


2
17761
4
(102)
Level 6


3
17762
6
(152)
Level 8


5
17856
10
(254)
Level 10


6
17760
3
(76)
Level 2


7
17926
8
(203)
Level 9


8
18066
8
(203)
Level 8


10
18067
8
(203)
Level 8
















TABLE 7







NIJ-TD-0109.01 Ballistic Rating Summary


for the ProtectiFlex Precast Panel System










ProtectiFlex





Specimen
Designated
Thickness
NIJ-STD-0108.01


Number
OBL Number
in (mm)
Level Rating














1
17758
3
(76)
Level II


2
17761
4
(102)
Level III


3
17762
6
(152)
Level IV


4
17812
8
(203)
Level IV


5
17856
10
(254)
Level IV


6
17760
3
(76)
Level II


7
17926
8
(203)
Level IV









Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 4-023-7 (dated 7 Jul. 2008 with Change 1 from 1 Feb. 2017—APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE) provides design guidance to resist direct fire weapons effects. A UL 752 Level 5 rating can be satisfied with approximately 4 inches (102 mm) of reinforced concrete or 8 inches (203 mm) of fully grouted CMU or brick.


As described above, the stud wall panel assembly of the present invention responded with a High Level of Protection (HLOP) at a standoff of 100 feet (30.5 m), a Medium Level of Protection (MLOP) at a standoff of 60 feet (18.3 m), and Low Level of Protection (LLOP) at a standoff of 40 feet (12.2 m) for the same car bomb-sized explosive charge. As a basis of comparison, UFC 4-010-01 presents conventional construction standoff distances (CCSDs) for various common construction types that would be capable of achieving an LLOP for a similarly sized explosive threat (W I). Representative CCSDs for no-load bearing walls are provided in Table 5.


It can be observed that the standoff required to achieve an LLOP for the stud wall panel assembly of the present invention is similar to that of reinforced concrete (26 feet/8 m) and reinforced masonry (30 feet/9 m), noting that the 40-ft (12.2 m) tested standoff is not necessarily an upper limit for LLOP panel response).


With reference to Table 8 below, comparing the minimum wall weights in Table 8 to the 34 psf (160 kg/m2) for the tested panel, the stud wall assembly provides a 60% weight reduction compared to reinforced concrete (based on a 6-inch/150 mm thick wall with 10-psf/50-kg/m2 insulating materials) and a 40% weight reduction compared to reinforced masonry (based on an 8-inch/200-mm thick wall grouted every fourth cell with 10-psf/50-kg/m2 insulating materials). Excluding the insulating materials, these weight reductions are 55% and 28%, respectively. This significant weight reduction for the stud wall assembly can be advantageous in construction to meet non-blast design requirements. In any case, the tested performance of the stud wall assembly is a significant improvement over conventional unreinforced masonry or metal stud construction, which would require a standoff of well over 100 feet (30.5 m) to achieve an LLOP. Therefore, the testing stud wall assembly can be considered to be a viable construction option for blast design applications.









TABLE 8







Conventional Construction Standoff Distances


per UFC 4-010-01 for W I Explosive Threat














CCSD for LLOP
Minimum Weight



Conventional Wall

Non-Load
per Unit



Construction Type

Bearing ft (m)
Area psf (kg/m2)
















Metal Studs w/Brick
207
(63)
45*
(220)



Veneer







Metal Studs w/EIFS
420
(128)
11**
(54)



Reinforced Concrete
26
(8)
85**
(415)



Reinforced Masonry
30
(9)
57**
(280)



Unreinforced Masonry
125
(38)
47**
(230)





*Value includes 44 psf (215 kg/m2) for weight of brick veneer.


**Value includes 10 psf (50 kg/m2) for weight of EIFS or other insulating materials.





Claims
  • 1. A composite stud wall panel assembly comprising: a frame including a plurality of spaced apart metal studs and metal crossbars interconnecting said studs at locations proximate the ends and at least one location between the ends of the studs; anda reinforced cementitious aggregate panel, one side of the metal studs being embedded in and permanently connected to the panel along the length of the studs,wherein said reinforced cementitious aggregate panel contains, by dry weight, 20-30% blended cement, 10-20% rubber pieces with embedded fibers; 40-60% sand and 5-15% crushed stone, wherein the rubber pieces are embedded with polymeric fibers, andwherein the composite stud wall panel assembly is capable of withstanding an extreme loading.
  • 2. The composite stud wall panel assembly of claim 1 including a mesh molded into the panel at mid-depth extending between and connected to the studs.
  • 3. The composite stud wall panel assembly of claim 2, wherein said mesh is a metal or carbon fiber mesh.
  • 4. The composite stud wall panel assembly of claim 2 including shear studs connecting said mesh to the frame studs.
  • 5. The composite stud wall panel assembly of claim 1, wherein said frame studs are steel C-beams, and said crossbars are steel C-beams abutting or embedded in an inner side of the cementitious panel.
  • 6. The composite stud wall pan& assembly of claim 1, wherein said cementitious aggregate panel contains a mixture of 450 kg/m3 of cement, 272 kg/m3 of rubber pieces with embedded fibers; 877 kg/m3 of sand and 176 kg/m3 of crushed stone.
US Referenced Citations (51)
Number Name Date Kind
917478 Noble Apr 1909 A
1530662 Hensel Mar 1925 A
1992937 Bodenstein Mar 1935 A
2245688 Krueger Jun 1941 A
2934934 Berliner May 1960 A
3353322 Guddal Nov 1967 A
3466825 Guddal Sep 1969 A
3484999 Van Der Lely Dec 1969 A
3812636 Albrecht May 1974 A
3867995 Sanders Feb 1975 A
4185437 Robinson Jan 1980 A
4517782 Shamszadeh May 1985 A
4602467 Schilger Jul 1986 A
4633634 Nemmer Jan 1987 A
4972537 Slaw, Sr. Nov 1990 A
5048257 Luedtke Sep 1991 A
5311629 Smith May 1994 A
5335472 Phillips Aug 1994 A
5391226 Frankowski Feb 1995 A
5493833 Irimies Feb 1996 A
5526629 Cavaness Jun 1996 A
5758463 Mancini, Jr. Jun 1998 A
6000194 Nakamura Dec 1999 A
6026629 Strickland Feb 2000 A
6041561 LeBlang Mar 2000 A
6209603 Kanenari Apr 2001 B1
6216405 Smith Apr 2001 B1
6578343 Dumler Jun 2003 B1
6708459 Bodnar Mar 2004 B2
6754992 Byfield Jun 2004 B1
7757454 Smith Jul 2010 B2
8176696 LeBlang May 2012 B2
8671637 LeBlang Mar 2014 B2
8877329 Ciuperca Nov 2014 B2
9074379 Ciuperca Jul 2015 B2
9156315 Deal Oct 2015 B2
9290939 Ciuperca Mar 2016 B2
10155693 Spreen Dec 2018 B1
10161132 Maslehuddin Dec 2018 B1
10435887 Spreen Oct 2019 B2
20010010140 Ritter Aug 2001 A1
20040074183 Schneider, III Apr 2004 A1
20060191232 Salazar Aug 2006 A1
20060272251 Hatzinikolas Dec 2006 A1
20090224134 Smith Sep 2009 A1
20090314186 Rodgers Dec 2009 A1
20110225915 Swartz Sep 2011 A1
20130119576 Ciuperca May 2013 A1
20140087158 Ciuperca Mar 2014 A1
20160060865 Lee Mar 2016 A1
20180313055 Ames Nov 2018 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (11)
Number Date Country
103899039 Jul 2014 CN
2524045 Sep 2015 GB
2529396 Feb 2016 GB
01075752 Mar 1989 JP
08004147 Jan 1996 JP
11112190 Apr 1999 JP
WO 0133006 May 2001 WO
WO-2004060827 Jul 2004 WO
WO 2016024135 Feb 2016 WO
2017086932 May 2017 WO
2018213402 Nov 2018 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (2)
Entry
Machine Translation of CN 103899039 A obtained from the European Patent Office on Apr. 21, 2020 (Year: 2014).
Derwent Abstract for CN 103899039 A by Han et al. (Year: 2014).
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20200340244 A1 Oct 2020 US