DIANA 44T Test and EvaluationSWEDISH EOD AND DEMINING CENTRE Number: 13 345:60629 Page 13 In all cases, the AP blast targets were buried as shown in Figure 8. PROM 1- and PMR2A-targets

1SWEDISH ARMED FORCES Date: 2003-11-18

SWEDISH EOD AND DEMINING CENTRE Number: 13 345:60629

Page 1

Göran Danielsson, SWEDEC and Peter Blachford, Qinetiq

DIANA 44T Test and EvaluationAugust 2003



Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1. INTRODUCTION 4

2. MACHINE DESCRIPTION 5

3. TRIAL DESCRIPTION 7

3.1. CEN Workshop Agreement 7

3.2. Test Facilities and Tools 7

3.3. Soil Specifications 93.3.1. Soil Compaction 93.3.2. Soil Particle Size Distribution 10

3.4. Test Targets 11

3.5. Witness Boards 14

3.6. Test Methods 15

4. TEST RESULTS 18

4.1. Effects Against Mine Targets 18

4.2. Depth of Penetration 18

4.3. Other Observations 214.3.1. Mobility 214.3.2. Conturing system 224.3.3. Hydraulic system 244.3.4. Design issues 24

4.4. Survivability Test 27

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 28

ANNEX A – DIANA 44T – MANUFACTURER’S BROCHURE 29

ANNEX B – PHOTOGRAPHS – DIANA 44T IN OPERATION 41

ANNEX C – TEST DATA SHEETS 44

TEST PROTOCOL, sand 0 cm 45





Page 3

TEST PROTOCOL, gravel mix 0 cm 48



TEST PROTOCOL, topsoil 0 cm 51





Page 4

1. Introduction

During the weeks of August 18-29 2003, the DIANA 44T mini-flail was supposed to be testedat the SWEDEC facilities outside of Eksjö, Sweden. Because of a one week delay in theSlovakian customs the DIANA 44T, only the performance test was run during August 25-292003.

This trial was planned and facilitated by SWEDEC, but also included participation andassistance from the ITEP community. The test team was put together as follows:

Maj Göran Danielsson, SWEDEC

Lt Tommy T Karlsson, Gota Engineers

Mr Peter Blachford, Qinetiq, UK

Cpl Nord, Gota Engineers

Cpl Blomqvist, Gota Engineers

The trails of the DIANA 44T was conducted as an ITEP project. The results will be publishedin the ITEP network.

The trial plan called for performance, or effectiveness testing against antipersonnel minetargets, and survivability testing using live mines. The survivability test is focused ondetermining the level of damage to the machine under the effects of a live antitank mine blastunder the flail head and a number of AP blast mines as well as an anti personel fragmentationmine As the machine is operated by remote control, there was no requirement to test foroperator survivability.

The test was aborted before the last run in the performance test because main failure of thediesel engine.



Page 5

2. Machine description

The DIANA 44T is a mini flail deigned to be operated by a remote control in line of sight. Themachine is powered by a 80,5 kW PERKINS engine which supports not only the hydralicflailsystem but also the hydrostatic transmission system of the vehicle. The total weight of theDIANA 44T is about 5100 kg (data recorded from the manufacturers brochure Annex A).

The base machin HL 1100 is a wheeled vehicle. The steel caterpillar tracks are thereforpossible to disamble. The HL 1100 is a multi purpose vehicle which can carry several differentengineering tools

The widht of the flail head is 2100 mm and the overall widht of tracks is 2050 mm. That meansthat the clearance between cleared path and tracks is only 25 mm on each side. Only very smallsteering corrections during clearing can be executed. It is also a matter of presicion for theoperator to reverse the machine in already cleared path.

The flail head is fitted with 34 chaines with casted “elephant foot” hammers along a rotatingshaft at a maximum of 600 rpm.

Figure 1 and Figure 2 provide general views of the DIANA 44T and the flail head. Annex Acontains a brochure from the manufacturer describing the DIANA 44T in detail.



Page 6

Figure 1. DIANA 44T

Figure 2. DIANA 44T flail head



Page 7

3. Trial Description

3.1. CEN Workshop Agreement

SWEDEC will host two European Standardization Committee (CEN) workshops relating to thetest and evaluation of mechanical equipment for demining applications in the close future.While the CEN workshops have not yet produced official standards for testing machines, thetrial plan was established to conform to the intent of the workshops.

3.2. Test Facilities and Tools

The test facilities at Norra Kulla, just outside of Eksjö, have been used to test several pieces ofequipment in recent years. This site includes three soil environments specifically forperformance tests. Parallel lanes 8 m wide and 100m long provide compacted sand, compactedgravel and compacted topsoil. The sand and gravel lanes are easily replicated almostanywhere. As the characteristics of topsoil may vary from one location to the next, data fromthe topsoil lane may not be quite as repeatable, but the variation is not expected to besignificant.

The soil in each test lane is prepared as follows. Prior to a test the soil is loosened withordinary agricultural or construction equipment (see Figure 3). It is then compacted using thevibratory compacter shown in Figure 4. The soil compaction and moisture content aremonitored until the compaction reaches the defined level (shown below) for that soil type.Compaction and moisture content are measured using the CPN International model MC-3Portaprobe shown in Figure 5. Ideally the soil would be compacted to virtually 100%, or itstheoretical maximum level of compaction. This is very difficult to achieve, and depends on themoisture content of the soil. The compaction level selected allows testing over a range of soilmoisture contents, and is a reasonable and practical approximation of well compacted soil.

Along with the test lanes, the facilities at Norra Kulla provide office and administration space,warehouse and storage space, and basic workshop facilities.



Page 8

Figure 3. Soil Preparation – Loosening the Soil

Figure 4. Soil Preparation – Compacting the Soil



Page 9

Figure 5. MC-3 Portaprobe for Measuring Soil Compaction and Moisture Content

3.3. Soil Specifications

3.3.1. Soil Compaction

Ideally the soil would be compacted to virtually 100%, or its teoretical maximum level ofcompaction. This is hard to achive because it depends on the moisture content in the soil.Based on the results of soil analyses conducted for SWEDEC, the compaction levels shownbelow were selected to allow testing over a range of soil moisture contents and wheatherconditions, and are reasonable and practical approximations of well compacted soil.

• Sand: 90 % of maximum (1,8 kg/dm³)

• Gravel mix: 94 % of maximum (2,0 kg/dm³)

• Topsoil: 85% of maximum (1,7 kg/dm³)



Page 10

An example of soil analysis for the topsoil is shown in Figure 5.5. The horizontal axis refers tothe moisture content while the vertical axis shows the density, with a maximum occuring at2,024 kg/dm³. By compacting the lane to 85% of its theoretical maximum, tests can beperformed in most wheather conditions.

Figure 5.5. Soil Analysis - Topsoil

3.3.2. Soil Particle Size Distribution

Samples from the sand, gravel and topsoil lanes were analysed to determine particle sizedistribution, with Figure 5.6 showing the results.

1,50

1,60

1,70

1,80

1,90

2,00

2,10

2,20

2,30

2,40

2,50

0,0% 2,0% 4,0% 6,0% 8,0% 10,0% 12,0% 14,0% 16,0% 18,0% 20,0%

Vattenkvot, %

Torr

skr

ymde

nsite

t, kg

/dm

³

Packningskurva: Eksjö, Minröjbana, Matjord Vattenmättn., korndens = 2.65 Vattensepartion

85%



Page 11

Figure 5.6. Soil Particle Distributions

3.4. Test Targets

The test targets used in this trial were the standard SWEDEC mine surrogates shown in Figure6 and Figure 7. The AP blast targets make use of live fuzes from the m/49 B anti personnelmine, installed in inert, plaster-filled plastic bodies. These targets closely replicate manytypical, small, antipersonnel landmines which a flail might be expected to encounter. The APfragmentation targets also makes use of modified live fuzes from the PROM 1 mine. The fuzeis installed in an inert metal body, either on a pole like the PMR2A or buried like a PROM 1.



Page 12

Figure 6. SWEDEC Antipersonnel Mine Surrogates

Figure 7. SWEDEC Antipersonnel Mine Surrogates Ready For Testing



Page 13

In all cases, the AP blast targets were buried as shown in Figure 8. PROM 1- and PMR2A-targets were only used in one of the tests (0 cm topsoil). The depth of burial (DOB) wasmeasured from the top surface of the mine (not the top surface of the fuze), to the groundsurface. Hence, a burial depth of 0cm of the AP blast targets is illustrated in Figure , above.To minimize soil disturbance, the tool shown in Figure 9 was used to pull out a soil core justslightly larger than the mine body. The live fuzes were installed only just before the testbegan.

Figure 8. Depth of Burial For AP blast Targets

Figure 9. Mine Target Burial Tool To Minimize Soil Disturbance.

surface

DOB



Page 14

3.5. Witness Boards

Along with the mine targets, so called witness boards were installed at three locations acrosseach lane. At the start, middle and end of each test area, 3mm thick, 300mm high oil-hardened(water resistant) fibreboards were installed across the flail head. Buried flush with the surfaceas shown in Figure 10, the boards act as witness panels to record the depth of penetration of theflail hammers. This technique does not record the force with which the hammers strike, but itdoes give a clear, unambiguous indication of depth of penetration. Figure 11 shows a typicalexample of the witness boards after a test when some of the neighbouring soil has beenremoved to expose the boards.

Figure10. Witness Board Ready For Test



Page 15

Figure 11. Witness Board After Test

3.6. Test Methods

Following preparation of the soil in the test lanes, and installation of the mine targets andwitness boards as described above, the machine was prepared for a test run. The machine waspositioned about 5 metres before the start of the test lane to allow the operator to get themachine operating in a consistent, stable manner prior to the start of the lane. Cameras werestarted and personnel were put in place to count detonations from the triggered fuzes.

A manufacturer’s representative was used as a machine operator to ensure that the machinewas operated in the most effective manner possible. When all was ready, the machine operatorwas signalled to begin, and the machine was operated through the test area containing 3witness boards and 50 mine targets. With two or three people counting fuze detonations, thenumber of ‘triggered mines’ could easily be determined.

Following the test, metal detectors were used to locate any untriggered fuzes and also the metalwashers in the plaster-filled bodies. In this way, the untriggered fuzes could be examined andultimately discarded in a safe manner, and any untriggered or undamaged surrogate minebodies could be inspected to determine the probable level of damage inflicted by the machine.



Page 16

In Figure 13, the first figure shows intact, functional targets missed by a machine (Live). Thenext two pictures shows targets which do not work as supposed but fuze is still in the body(Live Damaged). Third picture shows an example of a target where the fuze has beenseparated from the mine body without triggering (Mechanically Neutralized), more than 50 %of the plaster is left (the main charge in a real mine). The fourth picture shows an example of atarget where only the metal washer with less than 50% of the explosive is left.

Finally, with remaining fuzes removed from the area, the witness boards were removed.

Figure 12. Locating Untriggered Fuzes After The Machine



Page 17

Figure 13. Samples of Targets After Test



Page 18

4. Test Results

4.1. Effects Against Mine Targets

The performance test was aborted before the last run in the test series. The diesel engine startedto vibrate before it stopped. The manufacturer tried to restart the diesel engine after the stop butfailed. The machine was towed out from the testlane. The DIANA 44T was shipped back toSlovakia before the failure was examined.

Table 1. Mine Targets Detonated/Neutralized

0CM 10CM 15CM

Neutralised SeparateFuzes



Gravel 47/50 16 49/50 5 N/A 1 N/A

Sand 50/50 16 50/50 2 50/50 2 9

Topsoil 48/50 7 43/50 10 37/50 8

This material is taken from the data sheets contained in Annex C. This table combines detonated mines withmechanically neutralized (broken up to be incapable of functioning) mines. There were 50 targets in each testcondition.

Notes to Table 1:

1) 15 cm test in gravel was cancelled because of main diesel engine failure

2) Targets were buried at a depth of 20 cm (DOB) on request of manufacturer

4.2. Depth of Penetration

The poor terrain following and inconsistent speed control combined to give variable flailingability. Witness boards were buried on edge in each lane, flush with the surface, so as toindicate whether the flail chains were clearing adequately. It soon become apparent that areasof soil in the topsoil lane were being left untouched by the chains as can be seen in the figurebelow (Figure 14 and Figure 17). This is caused by the flail not turning quickly enough to keepthe chains moving in a straight line through the soil (Figure 16), either due to a too highforward speed or the flail being forced too deep. If the momentum of the chains is insufficientto make them cut straight through the soil, they will follow an easier route – usually byspreading sideways and passing through soil already broken up by another chain. The lowpower of the engine will have contributed to this poor flailing ability, especially in the heavier



Page 19

soil. Figure 15 shows witness boards from an earlier run in the sandlane with a flail operatingcorrectly.

Figure 14. Witness boards showing untouched areas



Page 20

Figure 15. Witness boards showing correct operation

This was confirmed by the observation of ridges formed in the soil where the flail had beenoperating, as can be seen in Figure 16 and Figure 17.

Figure 16. Figure shows untouched ground due to chain spreading in topsoil



Page 21

Figure 17. Ridges formed in soil due to flail chains spreading in topsoil

The DIANA 44T provides a smooth, even cut down to its maximum depth, with no evidence ofskip zones in the gravel lane and in the sand lane. The performance in the topsoil shows thatthe machine have problems to work in more heavy material like topsoil. This is likely due to itswidely spaced chains, and its level of power output to the flail head. Forward speed, rotatingspeed of the flail and penetration depth are also items that matters in this case.

4.3. Other Observations

Apart from the statistics collected from the mine targets and the measurements from thewitness boards, there were several other observations made during the trial period.

4.3.1. Mobility

The machine appeared to be well designed for mobility, having wide pneumatic tyres ontowhich metal tracks were fitted. However on soft or uneven ground it frequently encounteredproblems. The very short wheelbase (relative to its length) meant that even small groundundulations caused it to pitch considerably. With the flail operating, soil would sometimesbuild up in front of the tracks, as can be seen in the Figure 18. The front wheel would then haveto climb over this soil, lifting the front of the vehicle.



Page 22

Figure 18. Build up of soil in front of tracks during flailing

The tracks often lost traction, particularly when the vehicle was attempting to climb over aridge of soil. This tended to slew the vehicle round as usually one side lost traction before theother. It is likely that redesign of the track links could improve this.

4.3.2. Contouring system

Tests were conducted using surrogate mines buried at various depths (from flush to 15 or20cm) in three soil types – sand, topsoil and gravel. Each time the machine was attempting toflail to a constant depth; no above-surface flailing tests (i.e. for vegetation clearance) wereattempted.

The machine is designed to maintain a constant depth of flailing by the use of skids under thesides of the flail unit. Initially these skids proved inadequate for supporting the weight of theflail and they sank into the soil. This was improved by welding on extra steel plates to widenthem.

It was understood that during normal flailing operation the hydraulic actuators used to lift theflail unit would be left ‘floating’ so that the unit would rest on the skids. It appeared that duringtesting this did not function correctly as the skids were often seen to be clear of the ground(sometimes on one side only). It was not however obvious whether this was due to a fault oroperator error. This can be clearly seen in Figure 19 below, where the near-side skid is clear ofthe ground.



Page 23

Figure 19 Skid lifted clear of ground

At other times the skids were seen to ‘dig in’ to the soil, as can be seen below. It is likely thatthis was partly caused by the flail being pushed from behind from a relatively high position –any resistance at the skids would result in a moment tending to push the front of the flail down(Figure 20).

Figure 20: Skid digging in to soil



Page 24

These problems with following the terrain (on what was very easy, flat ground) would havebeen considerably worse on realistic uneven terrain and hence were a particular concern.

This was exaggerated by difficulty in maintaining a steady forward speed. Occasionally themachine would slow down, sometimes to a standstill, and then suddenly start moving again. Itmay have been that the wheel motors were not capable of the fine level of control needed tooperate at the very low speeds necessary for flailing.

4.3.3. Hydraulic system

The machine had several break downs because of the hydraulic system. Several hydraulichoses had to be changed because of bad assembled hydraulic fittings. One hydraulic pipe hadto be welded because of leakage.

4.3.4. Design issues

One feature of the design that raised concern was the arrangement of the flail chains on theshaft. The chains are attached in a single helix as shown i Figure 21.

Figure 21: Single helix chain arrangement, resulting in poor balancing



Page 25

This gave rise to substantial dynamic out-of-balance forces, as each chain is only counter-balanced by one on the other side of the shaft quite a distance further along it. The effect of thiswas clearly seen with the flail turning as the whole vehicle experienced large vibrations, whichwould inevitably lead to accelerated wear of bearings and structural components.

One way of reducing this effect that can be seen on a number of flails is to arrange the chainsin three offset helices, as shown in Figure 22. Whilst this does not result in perfect balance,each group of three chains are only offset from each other by a few centimetres and hencenearly balance each other.

Figure 22: Triple helix flail arrangement, resulting in much improved balance

The machine appeared to be well designed for protection from the effects of blast andfragmentation, although this was not specifically assessed during the course of the trial. Themost vulnerable components such as hydraulic hoses and cables were well protected behindarmour plate.

The air intake and cooling system were located at the rear of the vehicle which helpedminimise clogging from dust being drawn in. However there was a considerable amount ofdebris thrown in all directions by the flail, due to its very open design. This meant thatoccasionally intact mines or fuses were thrown considerable distances, into areas which in areal operating scenario may have already been cleared Figure 23.



Page 26

Figure 23: Debris and dust thrown around because of the open design

The operator’s remote control (Figure 24) interface appeared to be very rugged and welldesigned, as shown in the figure below. It seemed to provide precise and simple control of alldriving functions (although low speed control was a problem, as discussed above) as well asenabling monitoring of key system information (pressures, temperatures etc).



Page 27

Figure 24: Remote control unit

4.4. Survivability Test

The survivability test, planned for August 25 and 26, was not performed, because of latearrival.



Page 28

5. Conclusions and RecommendationsThe main areas of concern are the poor ability of the vehicle to maintain a constant flailingdepth and a constant speed. This gives rise to unreliable clearance ability, especially as theengine power is believed to be inadequate for the flailing depth that the manufacturer claims isfeasible. It is vital for a remotely controlled machine to maintain the flail at the correct heightand to control its forward speed so as to prevent the flail slowing down. This is because theoperator is likely to have very limited feedback as to what the machine is doing, due to theneed to operate it from a safe distance. He therefore cannot easily make the fine adjustmentsnecessary for good clearance performance but instead has to rely on a high level of automaticcontrol.

The use of fixed skids to control the flail height is simple but inflexible. There may besituations where the flailing depth needs to be varied e.g. where the machine is only to be usedfor clearing vegetation and surface objects. The Diana offered no mechanism for adjusting thedepth, although this could be incorporated by simple mechanical means e.g. a range ofpositions in which the skids can be bolted. The ideal solution would be an ability to adjustheight in real time from the remote controller, but mechanical adjustment may be preferred asit eliminates the possibility of the depth being changed accidentally part way through anoperation. The operators did temporarily modify the skids so as to raise the flail and reduce thedepth of clearance – this resulted in improved performance indicating that the standard positionis too low for the power available.

The vehicle suffered from excessive pitching on uneven ground due to its short wheelbase.This increases the difficulty in maintaining a constant flailing depth. Poor traction meant that itoften struggled to climb over quite small undulations and would slew round when one tracklost traction before the other. It should be possible to improve the traction quit easily bymodifying the track links

During the tests the DIANA 44T had problems with the hydraulic hoses and pipes. Severalhoses had to be changed and one hydralic pipe had to be welded.

The single helix arrangement of chains on the flail shaft resulted in large out-of-balance forces,sending severe vibrations through the entire machine. This was likely to lead to rapid wear andfatigue of components, but could easily be reduced by the use of a triple helix arrangement.



Page 29

Annex A – DIANA 44T – Manufacturer’s Brochure

The following material is included by permission of HONT stav, the machine manufacturer,and is believed to be representative of the machine tested.



Page 30

DIANA 44T Brochure



Page 31

DIANA 44T Brochure



Page 32

DIANA 44T Brochure



Page 33

DIANA 44T Brochure



Page 34

DIANA 44T Brochure



Page 35

DIANA 44T Brochure



Page 36

DIANA 44T Brochure



Page 37

DIANA 44T Brochure



Page 38

DIANA 44T Brochure



Page 39

DIANA 44T Brochure



Page 40

DIANA 44T Brochure



Page 41

Annex B – Photographs – DIANA 44T in Operation

In the photographs that follow, the images show the various conditions used in testing theDIANA 44T.



Page 42

Figure B-1.Operator from HONT stav Figure B-2. Flailhead

Figure B-3. Flail about to hit a target Figure B-4. Target and flail in sand lane

Figure B-5. Targets in topsoil lanes Figure B-6.Test of modified skies



Page 43

Figure B-7. Manufacturers meeting Figure B-8. DIANA in work



Page 44

Annex C – Test Data Sheets

The tables that follow show the data collected from the SWEDEC test mines. This data is thesource for the tables and analyses in the main body of this report.



Page 45

TEST PROTOCOL, sand 0 cm

MachinetypeDIANA 44T

ManufacturerHONT stav

Date2003-08-26

WheatherSun

Temperatur15°C

Test number/1:1 Clear in sand

Deployment depth0 cm

TestlaneSand

Rate of compaction90,9 %

Water content6,2 %

Clearing depth20-25 cm

Time/30 m8.54.00

Clearing speed202 m/h

AP blastPMA2

AP bouncePROM1

AP fragPMR2A

AT blastTMM1

Deployed: 50

Mech. Neutralised<50%:

44

Mech. Neutralised>50%:

4

Live Damaged: 2

Live: 0

Total: 50

Detonations 32

Comments:Single fuses AP blast: 16 of which 5 were damagedSingle fuses AP : of which were damaged

Accounted for AP blast : 100 % (detonations+single fuses+uneffected+damaged)Accounted for AP bounce: %Accounted for AP frag: %Accounted for AT blast: %

Throw outs:Two single fuses were found 1 m beside cleared path to the leftOne single fuse was found 1 m beside cleared path to the right



Page 46




Date2003-08-26

WheatherSun

Temperatur15°C



TestlaneSand


Water content6,2 %


Time/30 m12.54.00


AP blastPMA2

AP bouncePROM1

AP fragPMR2A

AT blastTMM1

Deployed: 50


50


0

Live Damaged: 0

Live: 0

Total: 50

Detonations 48



Throw outs:One single fuse was found 12 m beside cleared path to the right



Page 47




Date2003-08-26

WheatherSun

Temperatur15°C



TestlaneSand


Water content6,2 %


Time/30 m10.19.00


AP blastPMA2

AP bouncePROM1

AP fragPMR2A

AT blastTMM1

Deployed: 50


45


3

Live Damaged: 0

Live: 0

Total: 48

Detonations 39



Throw outs:One single fuse was found 25 m beside cleared path to the rightOne single fuse was found 35 m beside cleared path to the leftOne single fuse was found 35 m behind the machine in the cleared path



Page 48

TEST PROTOCOL, gravel mix 0 cm



Date2003-08-28

WheatherSun

Temperatur15°C

Test number/2:1 Clear in gravel mix


TestlaneGravel mix

Rate of compaction93.0 %

Water content6,6 %


Time/25 m6.34.00


AP blastPMA2

AP bouncePROM1

AP fragPMR2A

AT blastTMM1

Deployed: 50


44


1

Live Damaged: 0

Live: 3

Total: 48

Detonations 29



Throw outs:One unaffected mine was found 1 m beside cleared path to the right



Page 49




Date2003-08-28

WheatherSun

Temperatur15°C



TestlaneGravel mix


Water content6,6 %


Time/25 m7.24.00


AP blastPMA2

AP bouncePROM1

AP fragPMR2A

AT blastTMM1

Deployed: 50


46


2

Live Damaged: 0

Live: 1

Total: 49

Detonations 44



Throw outs:One single fuse was found 0,1 m beside cleared path to the left



Page 50



ManufactorHONT stav

Date2003-08-28

WheatherSun

Temperatur15°C



TestlaneGravel mix


Water content6,6 %

Clearing depth Time/25 m Clearing speedm/h

AP blastPMA2

AP bouncePROM1

AP fragPMR2A

AT blastTMM1

Deployed:



Live Damaged:

Live:

Total:

Detonations

Comments:Single fuses AP blast: of which were damagedSingle fuses AP : of which were damaged

Accounted for AP blast : % (detonations+single fuses+uneffected+damaged)Accounted for AP bounce: %Accounted for AP frag: %Accounted for AT blast: %

Test could not be performed because of hydraulic and main engine failure. Themachine was towed out of the testlane.



Page 51

TEST PROTOCOL, topsoil 0 cm



Date2003-08-27

WheatherCloudy/Rain

Temperatur7°C

Test number/3:1 Clear in topsoil


TestlaneTopsoil


Water content16,4 %

Clearing depthN/A

Time/25 mN/A

Clearing speedMachine failure m/h

AP blastPMA2

AP bouncePROM1

AP fragPMR2A

AT blastTMM1

Deployed: 50 5 5


45 5 5


3 0 0

Live Damaged: 0 0 0

Live: 2 0 0

Total: 50 5 5

Detonations 41



No throw outs

Hydraulic failure in flail system about 5 m from starting point. New start from thatpoint after repair.



Page 52




Date2003-08-27

WheatherCloudy/Rain

Temperatur7°C



TestlaneTopsoil


Water content16,4 %

Clearing depthRidges Figure 1

Time/25 m8.56.00


AP blastPMA2

AP bouncePROM1

AP fragPMR2A

AT blastTMM1

Deployed: 50


43


0

Live Damaged: 0

Live: 7

Total: 50

Detonations 33



No throw outs



Page 53




Date2003-08-27

WheatherRain

Temperatur7°C



TestlaneTopsoil


Water content16,4 %

Clearing depthRidges Figure2

Time/25 m9.56.00


AP blastPMA2

AP bouncePROM1

AP fragPMR2A

AT blastTMM1

Deployed: 50


34


3

Live Damaged: 0

Live: 13

Total: 50

Detonations 29



No throw outs



Page 54

Figure C 1:Witnessboards from 10 cm run in topsoil. Notice the rigdes



Page 55

Figure C 2:Witnessboards from 15 cm run in topsoil. Notice the rigdes

Documents

DIANA 44T Test and EvaluationSWEDISH EOD AND DEMINING CENTRE Number: 13 345:60629 Page 13 In all cases, the AP blast targets were buried as shown in Figure 8. PROM 1- and PMR2A-targets