Static structures (e.g. – buildings) – Specified terranean relationship – Subterranean enclosure with portal opening; e.g. – storm or...
Patent
1995-06-15
1997-08-12
Friedman, Carl D.
Static structures (e.g., buildings)
Specified terranean relationship
Subterranean enclosure with portal opening; e.g., storm or...
52 86, 52 88, 109 15, E02D 2900, E04H 912, E04B 132
Patent
active
056553382
DESCRIPTION:
BRIEF SUMMARY
This invention relates to explosion resistant shelters for munitions storage, bomb shelters for military personnel and equipment storage including aircraft.
Until now, explosion resistant shelters have generally comprised heavily reinforced concrete structures with upright walls and a flat roof or arched reinforced concrete with upright end walls.
Although a structure having an arched roof should provide a greater degree of structural integrity in resisting the forces of nearby explosions, rectangular box-like reinforced concrete shelters are more commonly used as they are less expensive to construct.
A major difficulty in the construction of arched reinforced concrete structures is the time and cost in erecting a support framework and the arched formwork required to support the steel reinforcing mesh and to support the mass of concrete subsequently poured thereon. After pouring the concrete in several stages, the structure must then be allowed to cure for a substantial period of time before the supporting framework and formwork can be removed. As the framework and formwork must be removed from within the structure it is not possible to employ cranes which may have been used initially to erect the framework and formwork.
One prior art proposal comprised a series of arcuate corrugated panels pressed or rolled from heavy steel plating. These panels were able to be erected by bolting together adjacent panels along longitudinal edges and across transverse edges through aligned apertures in the panels to form an arcuate structure.
Although the arcuate structure so formed was self supporting when completed, a support framework or scaffolding was necessary in the erection of the individual panels. The main disadvantage of this system as a supporting framework/formwork for cast in situ reinforced concrete structures is the very high cost of the steel panels and the cost of labour in installation thereof. It is believed that there is little difference between the cost of erecting a conventional arched concrete structure with removable framework and formwork and erecting an arched concrete structure with the heavy corrugated steel panels described above. Moreover, once the outer layer of concrete has cured, there is no contribution by the formwork to the mechanical properties of the reinforced concrete arch as in effect, the concrete layer simply rests on the corrugated steel formwork and is able to move relative thereto, at least in the direction of curvature of the arch, due to differing thermal expansion properties of the steel sheeting and the concrete mass.
Another disadvantage of prior art explosion proof shelters is the cost of providing an effective electrical earthing system to avoid static electricity discharges within the structure. Where munitions, fuel etc. are stored within such structures it is usually a requirement to line the interior of the roof/wall structure with interconnected copper strips which are electrically earthed. This structure is known as a Faraday cage.
While the prior art bolted corrugated panels should of themselves provide a Faraday cage, electrical connection between adjacent panels is ineffective when the panels are coated with a corrosion resistant paint or the like or if untreated steel panels are bolted together, corrosion therebetween diminishes electrical contact.
With traditional arched or "block house" type explosion resistant shelters there is a serious risk of internal spalling due to shock waves from nearby explosions. Due to dissipation of shock waves in the structure it is not uncommon for fragments of concrete to separate from internal wall and roof surfaces at high velocity. These high velocity projectiles cause damage to aircraft and other equipment as well as posing a great danger for personnel.
Yet another serious disadvantage of prior art structures is the difficulty in preventing ingress of moisture by seepage. Traditional concrete block houses or arched structures require an internal and/or external waterproof membrane of prevent water seepage. Similarly, the
REFERENCES:
patent: 3276171 (1966-10-01), Brown
patent: 3832958 (1974-09-01), Hiorth
patent: 3902288 (1975-09-01), Knudson
patent: 4085555 (1978-04-01), Mann
patent: 4094110 (1978-06-01), Dickens et al.
patent: 4759159 (1988-07-01), Blazley
patent: 4896466 (1990-01-01), Blazley
patent: 5084244 (1992-01-01), Barbier
patent: 5393173 (1995-02-01), Morello
Armco Barracks for Every Service Condition The Armco International Corp. Middleton, Ohio, USA 19 pages 1942.
Blazley Designs Pty Ltd.
Canfield Robert J.
Friedman Carl D.
LandOfFree
Explosion resistant building structures does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Explosion resistant building structures, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Explosion resistant building structures will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-152932