The greatest numbers of casualties resulting from terrorist bombings of buildings are generated by failed glass assemblages through shard laceration and glass lite induced blunt trauma. Current test methods for glass assemblies provide procedures for the validation of glazing assembly performance. Likewise, computer algorithms such as the Corps of Engineers' HazL software and GSA's WINGARD software predict structural/mechanical and post-break response remarkably well. Test methods and analytical predictions quantitatively evaluate glass performance but only qualitatively evaluate injury potential, however. Situations often arise where specific performance levels cannot be met, or threats to predict these levels are unknown and investment to achieve reduction in risk must be based on a quantitative assessment of risk. This paper describes the benefits of a combined performance evaluation and risk/injury quantification approach for the design of glass assemblies to mitigate the effects of blast loads.

No abstract

No abstract

<p>Progressive collapse design approaches typically incorporate direct and indirect methods. Direct design techniques include the Alternate Path and Specific Local Resistance methods, in which collapse is explicitly considered during the design process. In indirect design, resistance to progressive collapse is incorporated implicitly through prescriptive requirements for strength and continuity, typically in the form of Tie Forces. These methods were recently re-evaluated and revised, in support of revisions to the Department of Defense Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 4- 023-03<i>Design of Buildings to Resist Progressive Collapse</i>. The research and analyses for revisions to the indirect and direct methods are reported in this paper.</p>