Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
AD-A147 868 TEST TO DETERMINE THE FEASIBILITY OF CONTROLLING i/iFRAGMENTATION FROM THE D.(U) BALLISTIC RESEARCH LABSABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD P M HONE ET AL. OCT 84
UNCLRSSIFIED BRL-MR-3387 SBI-RD-F30 494 F/G 19/4 NL
I||IouIumauIuBEBEAEiDDDB
fI'2 -
.1.
_!.25
MICROCO -RESOUINTS HRNAIONA Oliii If STNDRD -63
11111- 6.
.~ .3. ..6
AD-A 147 808
R MEMORANDUM REPORT BRL-MR-3387RS
TEST TO DETERMINE THE FEASIBILITY OFCONTROLLING FRAGMENTATION FROM THEDETONATION OF COLLOCATED MUNITIONS
Philip M. HoweDavid L Collis
October 1954
AOW VO OR MUC RELEA SE; MMMUTON UNWIITED.
US ARMY BALLISTIC RESEARCH LABORATORYABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLAND
84 11 01 079
o- -
Destroy this report when it is no longer needed.Do not return it to the originator.
Additional copies of this report may be obtainedfrom the National Technical Information Service,U. S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, Virginia22161.
o.
0
The findings in this report are not to be construed as an officialDepartment of the Army position, unless so designated by otherauthorized documents.
The use of trade names or manufacturers, names in this reportdoes not constitute indorsement of any commercial product.
...........................................
. . . . . . . ..°
UNCLASSTFTPDSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE tI,.u 001 B3WmS
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE ____________________I. REIPORT N UMMER GOVT ACCESSIN NO S. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER
MEMORANDUM REPORT BRL-MR- 3387_____________4. TITLE (and aauta*) L. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED
Test to Determine the Feasibility of ControllingFragmentation from the Detonation of CollocatedMurnit ions S. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER
7. AUTNOR) 4. COTRACT 0 GRANT NUMSEXj'.)
Philip M. HoweDavid L. Collis*9 . PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 0AME AND AORESS 10. PGM 9UT.% PROJECT. TASKUS Army Ballistic Research Laboratory At~~ktI UURATTN: AMXBR-TBDAberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5066 IN665804DE9111I. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT OATS
*US Army Ballistic Research Laboratory October 1984A TTN: AMXBR-OD-ST 12. NUMBER OF PAGESAberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5066 514. MONITORING AGENCY NAME SADDRESIfiffhVmI dl C.e" Office) IL. SECUR)ITY CLAS. (of Ol.f.t )P
Unclassified .IS. DEfrASIICATION4/00WNGRADING
IS. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (Of &W&. *.Pmi)
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of M SVO Gnk intw at** ofe N. 0 kamE i Rewmf
IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
*New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, TERA Group
19. KEy WORDS (Cieutnc an everee side Ifoaceeary m gtlfy1p biceasmbe)
* Explosions, fragment impact, ammunition storage, mass detonations,fragment shielding
A series of tests was run to determine the effectiveness of earthen bar-* ricades in reducing fragment hazards from the detonation of collocated stores
of ammnunition. Each test used three M106 8 inch artillery projectiles, deto-nated simltaneously, as the fragmentation source. The 8 inch projectile waschosen, as it represents essentially a worst case fragment hazard. Simultaneousdetonation of a linear array of projectiles in contact (at the rotating bandcovers) creates an exceptionally severe fragment spray - much more severe
0017 "Mi or IW WV'O O 8 a NsSS MSLS UNCLASSIFIEDS~CURITY CLAMPCATO OF TNIS PAGE (RNin DMIa UeM6
sWCUN'i' C 1 LiI THInS PA@(Mb@ Dift &bus
20. ABSTRACTr (continued)
than that produced by three separately detonating, non-interacting rounds.Results showed that a 2 ft thick earthen barrier will permit reduction ofthe hazardous fragment radius from the standard 1250 ft to well below the170 ft which was chosen as the objective of this study.
UNCLASSIFIED
auCUMTV CLAWII ICAIOM OF T1415 PA6g9whm OMt 801Mg
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS .. ............... . 5 *1
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7
II. SHIELDING TESTS .. . . .o.o.o. . . . o 7
III. DISCUSSION . .. .. . . . . . . . . .. .. ... 8 .
IV CONCLUSIONS o o o o . . . . o o o o o . . . . . o
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . o . . . . . . . . ... .. . 9
DISTRIBUTION LISTo ..... .... ..... ... .. 49 -
z Z..
".i:.n
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
1.* Test JBA1122A3 . . . . . . . . . . ... ***...***. 1
2.* Test JBA1123A3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3. Test JBA1128A3. . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . .* . . . . 19
4.* Test JBA1129A3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
*5. Test JBA113OA3 . . . . . . . . . . . .* . . . . . . . 28
6. Test JBA113083 . . .. ......... . . *.. ............... . . 32 -
7. Test JBA12O1A3 ..... . . . . ... . ................ 36 -
8. Test JBA1201B3 . .* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
9. Test JBA1202A3 . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~42
10. Test JBA12O2B3. ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 S
Sb
I. INTRODUCTION
New construction of military facilities is subject to Department ofDefense Explosive Safety Board review and must comply with the intent of DOD
Standard 5154.4s, which specifies explosive safety quantity-distance stand-ard. Failure to generate solutions which comply with these criteria willeither delay or prevent the construction of needed facilities. The currentcriteria which form the limits of the quantity-distance criteria are: (1) ablast overpressure not to exceed a specified peak pressure (1 psi for in-habited buildings, 2.3 psi for R&D facilities involving explosive operations),and (2) hazardous fragments (defined as having 58 ft-lb (78.6 J) or moreenergy not to exceed a density of more than one per 600 sq ft (55.7 squaremeters). The arcs associated with these criteria are not intended to provideabsolute safety, but are intended to provide an acceptably low level of riskto personnel and material.
The construction of facilities to house explosives operations can followdifferent design philosophies. One approach involves using sufficiently ro-bust construction that, in the event of an explosion, the structure Will sur-vive the blast loading, will prevent excessive blast overpressures external tothe building, and will prevent escape of hazardous fragments. If no other .alternative is possible, this is an excellent way to go. However, for signif-icant amounts of explosive, the material and structural requirements can be-come prohibitively high in cost. Under these circumstances, a feasible ap-proach is to design the buildings without the constraint that the buildingssurvive the blast loading. Explosive safety criteria can still be met if thebuilding prevents the escape of hazardous primary fragments, if the building,in the collapse process, does not itself become a source of secondary haz-ardous fragments, and if the blast overpressures are not excessive. Thislatter approach offers the significant advantage that it is generally much,much less expensive to construct buildings using this approach than buildingswhich completely contain fragments and blast. However, this approach suffersfrom the fact that engineering guidelines for construction are not readilyavailable.
For the facilities of interest, the blast criteria could be met bylimiting explosion size. No attempt was made to take advantage of blast
focussing, and buildings could be made of any economically and functionallyfeasible construction, with the provison that sufficient shielding be providedto prevent escape of an unacceptable number of hazardous fragments. To thisend, a series of tests was conducted to establish an acceptable thickness ofshielding.
II. SHIELDING TESTS
Soils such as clays and wet sands are low resistance materials which re-quire several projectile lengths of penetration to exert any strong effectupon the velocity of penetration. Gravels offer slightly more resistance, but
7
• %°'
• *",-°.% . .. " .° . %. ... %" .. V. , .', .'% . .. .. % %% " °%% %% " ., , ,, %% % " .% ." ,
the differences are not strong. The trajectories of spherical or chunky frag-
ments can be predicted with reasonable accuracy using the Ponoelet1 relation
or the Sandia Laboratory's equations.2 However, fragmenting artillery shellsgenerate a large number of long, sliver-like fragments. These fragments areinherently unstable In penetration, and predictions of required materialthickness for stopping are not currently possible. Our problem is complicatedfurther by the fact that the distribution of fragment masses and velocities isquite broad. This latter rL, ult arises partially from the nature of the frag-mentation process for the individual round and partially from the interactionbetween rounds, which leads to extremely large fragments travelling at veryhigh velocities (velocities of the order of twice the fragment velocities gen-crated by detonation of an individual round). We therefore decided to rely onresults of experimental testing rather than attempt to use theoretical ap-proaches.
Experiments were conducted using three N106 8 inch artillery shells asthe source of fragmentation. In each test, the three rounds were arrangedcollinearly, with the separation between rounds determined by the rotatingband covers. All three rounds were detonated simultaneously, to insure theworst possible fragmentation hazard. Shield materials were placed 12 ft(3.6 meters) from the centerline of the three rounds, as this distance is com-mensurate with the planned distances from explosive source to walls in theproposed building configurations. A 0.62 inch (1.6 ,) steel witness platewas used in each test to determine the number of fragments (see figures forschematics of test configurations). Results are summarized in Table 1 and areoutlined in Figures 1-10.
III. DISCUSSION
As noted earlier, the most hazardous fragments are generated in the
interaction zones between rounds in contact. Powell, et al, in their studiesof the fragmentation generated by detonation of stacks of ammunition, showedquite clearly that the number of high velocity fragments generated by deto-nation of a stack of ammunition is directly proportional to the number ofinteraction zones. Our tests, involving three 8 inch projectiles in a row,
faithfully reproduce the worst fragmentation hazards for a single pallet of8 inch projectiles. The fragmentation hazards associated with larger arraysof 8 inch projectiles can easily be inferred by enumerating the interactionzones.
1W. Allen. et al, "Dynamics of a Projectile Penetrating Sand, Part I," J.Appl.Phys. 28, pp 370-376; "Dynamics of a Projectile Penetrating Sand, Part2 11.1--T-ppl. Phys. 28, pp 1331-1335.C. Yound, "Low Velocity Earth Penetration Study," Wendover Operation, Sandia
Labs SC-TM-66-2611, Sandia, NM (1967).J. Powell, et al, "Fragment Hazard Investigation Program: Natural Com-munication Detonation of 155 mm Projectiles," NSWC TR-81-54, Naval SurfaceWeapons Center (1981).
8
* * * * *.**%** % q.*.~ . * .*. ** .***.. .*.,
Examination of the test data shows that several of the tested shieldconfigurations provide acceptable fragment protection, given that the haz-
ardous fragment distance can be as large as 170 ft (50 meters) for thefacilities of interest. Thus, it appears that a 2 ft (61.0 cm) thick earthbarrier, with a steel retaining wall as thin as 0.016 inches (0.4 m) thick,will provide adequate fragment protection for simultaneous detonation of three8 inch M106 projectiles. By inference, the same statement can be made for twopallets of 8 inch projectiles, or two pallets of 155 mm projectiles, or forany other munitions array with less severe fragmentation.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
We conclude, on the basis of a small series of tests, that relativelyinexpensive and relatively thick earth barriers are adequate to reduce frag-ment hazards resulting from detonation of arrays of large caliber projectiles.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This effort was performed for Mr. Richard Baily, Materiel TestingDirectorate, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, and was supported with fundsprovided by Materiel Testing Directorate.
9
. .:
K Table 1.* FRAGMENTATION TESTS
Wall Earth EarthTest No. Front Back alWall Fill Results ___
JBA1122A3 0.4 -m corrugated 30.5 cm - Witness sheet found in twosteel pieces, nuerous holes.
*JBA1123A3 0.4 mmu corrugated 91.4 cm - Witness sheet receivedsteel holes at top and bottom
edges
*JBA1128A3 0 -m corrugated 61.0 cm - Witness sheet receivedsteel several holes at left
center.
JBA1129A3 4.1 am wood/ - 61 .0 cUa Witness sheet received4.1 cm wood three holes.
JBA113OA3 14.0 cm light concrete - - Witness sheet found in two0.64 cm plywood sheeting pieces, nuerous holes.
JBA113OB3 4.1 cm wood/ - 76.2 cm Witness sheet received one4.1 cm wood hole in upper right
corner.
JBA12O1A3 43.2 cm light concrete -- Witness sheet received0.64 cm plywood sheeting numerous holes.
*JBA12O1B3 0.64 cm steel/ - 45.7 cm Witness sheet received one0.64 cm steel hole at lower left edge.
JBA1202A3 20.3 cza reinforced 30.5 cm - Witness sheet undamaged.concrete/0.54 cia plywood
*JBA12O2B3 0.32 cm steel/ shoig - 61.0 cm Witness sheet received one0.32 cm steel hole at upper center.
* 10
TEST: JBA1122A3 pDATE: 22 NOVEMBER 1983TIME: 12:05 'MST
IMAGAZINE STORAGETEST .
WITNESS SHEET: CORRUGATED STEEL ROOFING MATERIAL:
1.6m TK STEEL, 1.2m x 2.4m 0.4., TK, 1.2m x 2.4mON 2" x 4" LUMBER FRAME ON A 2" x 6" LUMBER FRAME ..
EARTH-FILLED BAG WALL: 30.5cm
1. 2mK
91.0cm L 3.6m
2.4m
DONORS:8-INCH, TNT-FILLEDPROJECTIES
8H TNTLOT #lOP-13-11PROJ. M106, W/SUPPL. CHG.D680 USH-1-222
RESULTS: 59-8-IN-Ml06, 3 each* TARGET WALL DISINTEGRATED. WITNESS
SHEET RECOVERED IN TWO PIECES-.WITHNUMEROUS FRAGMENT PERFORATIONS.DAMAGE CONCENTRATED IN CENTER OFSHEET.
Figure 1. Test JBA1122A3
* d .. **. * * . . . . .* .. . -.... " .-....
~ . .. ~ .--.. "
TEST: JBA1122A3DATE: 22 NOVEMBER 1983TIME: 12:05 MST
I40-
OVERALL VIEW SHOWING SETUP - BEFORE TEST
CLOSEUP OF TARGET WALL AND WITNESS SHEETBEFORE TEST
Figure 1. Test JBA1122A3 (continued)
12
.7 %
TEST: JBA1122A3DATE: 22 NOVEMBER 1983TIME: 12:05 MST
13'
I !.
Fue1.TS JBA112A (cotiue)"
•
TEST: JBA1122A3DATE: 22 NOVEMBER 1983TIME: 12:05 MST
WITNESS SHEET DAMAGE -AFTER TEST
Figure 1. Test JBA1122A3 (continued)
14
TEST: JBA1123A3DATE: 23 NOVEMBER 1983TIME: 08:45 MST
MAGAZINE STORAGE TESTWITNESS S'-EET: CORRUGATED STEEL ROOFING MATERIAL:1.6nun TK STEEL. 1.2mn x '.4mn O.4nni TK, 1.2mn x 2.4mON x 4' LUMBER FRAME ON A 2" x 6" LUMBER FRAME
- EARTH-FILLED BAG WALL: 91.4ci
1.O- 3.6
- -J
1D
2.4m 8ODONORS:8-INCH, TNT-FILLED
PROJECT IES8H TNTLOT #10P-13-11PROJ. M106, W/SUPPL. CHG.D680 USH-1-22259-8-IN-M106, 3 EACH
RESULTS:
TARGET WAL DISINTEGRATED. WITNESSSHEET RECOVERED WITH SLIGHT DAMAGE.SEVEN PEP=ORATIONS ALONG TOP ANDBOTTOM EDGE. APPEARED THAT MOST OFTHE PERFORATIONS WERE FROM LOWVELOCITY FRAGMENTS.
Figure 2. Test JBA1123A3
TEST: JBA1123A3DATE: 23 NOVEMBER 1933TIME: 08:45 MST
OL•
OVERALL VIEW SHOWING SETUP - BEFORE TEST
CLOSEUP OF TARGET WALL AND WITNESS SHEET - BEFORE TEST
Figure 2. Test JBA1123A3 (continued)
16
....... . .. ... .... ... * * i• • l , °4 ,• p
mi% , % ° • - - . .°" ° - " "• """."." " • . . " ,• ". . .
TEST: JBA1123A3DATE: 23 NOVEMBER 1983TIME: 08:45 MST
~@L
CLOSEUP OF TARGET WALL CONSTRUCTION DETAILBEFORE TEST
Figure 2. Test JBA1123A3 (continued)
17
TEST: JBA1123A3DATE: 23 NOVEMBER 1983TIME: 08:45 MST
WITNESS SHEET DAMAGE -AFTER TEST
Figure 2. Test JBA1123A3 (continued)
18
TEST: JBA1128A3DATE: 28 NOVEMBER 1983TIME: 09:53 MST
I.MAGAZINE STORAGE TEST
WITNESS SHEET: CORRUGATED STEEL ROOFING MATERIAL:1.6mm TK STEEL, 1.2m x 2.4m 0.4am TK, 1.2m x 2.4mON 2" x 4" LUMBER FRAME ON A 2" x 6" LUMBER FRAME, SIDES
AND TOP ONLY, BOTTOM REMOVED
EARTH-FILLED BAG WALL: 61.0cm
1.2m -.
I'-.
2.4m D
DONORS:8-INCH, TNT-FILLEDPROJECTILES
8H TNTLOT #10P-17-69,10-71PROJ. M106, W/SUPPL. CHG.D680 CSK-1-130, 19718-IN-M106, 3 EACH
RESULTS:
TARGET WALL DISINTEGRATED. WITNESSSHEET RFCOVERED WITH NUMEROUS FRAGMENTPERFORATIONS 'ND IMPACTS. SOME IMPACTDENTS HAD CRACKS IN CENTER.
Figure 3. Test JBA1128A3 .-...
19"" "
TEST: JBA1128A3DATE: 28 NOVEMBER 1983TIME: 09:53 MST
OVERALL VIEW SHOWING SETUP -BEFORE TEST
CLOSEUP OF TARGET WALL AND WITNESS SHEET -BEFORE TEST
Figure 3. Test JBA1128A3 (continued)
20
TEST: JBA1128A3DATE: 28 NOVEMBER 1983TIME: 09:53 MST
CLOSUP O TAGET ALL ONSRUCTON DTAI
BEFOR TES
Figue 3 Tes JB11283 (ontiued
21.
TEST: JBA1128A3DATE: 28 NOVEMBER 1983TIME: 09:53 MST
WITNESS SHEET DAMAGE -AFTER TEST
Figure 3. Test JBA1128A3 (continued)
22
TEST: JBA1129A3 7DATE: 29 NOVEMBER 1983TIME: 16:18 MST
MAGAZINE STORAGE TESTWITNESS SHEET: WOOD WALL, FRONT AND BACK,1.6nun TK STEEL, 1.2m x 2.4m MADE OF 2" x 6" LUMBER,ON 2" x 4" LUMBER FRAME 1.2m x 2.4m, 4.1cm TK
....... .EARTH-FILL: 61.0cm
1. 2m....
- . .~........I.. .~. ~....-9 1.oc- 61. Ocnjj 3. 6m
2. 4mD
DONORS:8-INCH, TNT-FILLED
PROJECTILES8H TNT
.2.2 LOT #10P-17-69,10-71PROJ. M106, W/SUPPL. CHG.D680 CSK-1-130, 1971
RESULTS: 8-IN-M106, 3 EACH
TARGET WALL DISINTEGRATED. WITNESSSHEET RECOVERED WITH THREE FRAGMENTPERFORATIONS AND ONE PARTIAL PENETRA-TION.
Figure 4. Test JBA1129A3
23
TEST: JBA1129A3DATE: 29 NOVEMBER 1983TIME: 16:18 MST
CLOSEUP OF INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION DETAIL OF TARGET WALL,
PRIOR TO EARTH FILL - BEFORE TEST
Figure 4. Test JBA1129A3 (continued)
24
......................................... ..-...
TEST: JBA1129A3DATE: 29 NOVEMBER 1983TIME: 16:18 MST
k.
CLOSEUP OF TARGET WALL CONSTRUCTION DETAIL
AFTER EARTH FILL WAS ADDED-BEFORE TEST
Figure 4. Test JBA1129A3 (continued) L---
25
TEST: JBA1129A3
DATE: 29 NOVEMBER 1983TIME: 16:18 MST
I!p
OVERALL VIEW SHOWING SETUP -BEFORE TEST
* t ~ 'Lq. ,
CLOSEUP OF TARGET WALL AND WITNESS SHEET -BEFORE TEST
Figure 4. Test JBA1129A3 (continued)
26
71 77 pr-f -!5
TEST: JBA1129A3DATE: 29 NOVEMBER 1983
TIME: 16:18 MST
WITNESS SHEET DAMAGE -AFTER TEST
CLOSEUP OF PARTIAL PENETRATION OF WITNESS SHEET
AFTER TEST
Figure 4. Test JBA1129A3 (continued)L
27
* ~ .*.**.*f*.*... . .
TEST: JBA113OA3DATE: 30 NOVEMBER 1983TIME: 11:29 MST
MAGAZINE STORAGE TEST
WITNESS SHEET: CONCRETE WALL: COMPOSITION-i PART1.6nui TK STEEL, 1.2m x 2.4m CEMENT, 2 PARTS SAND, 4 PARTS ZONO-ON 2" x 4" LUMBER FRAME LITE, 14.0cm TK, 1.2m x 2.4m, ON A
2" x 6" LUMBER FRAME. BACK IS 0.64cmTK, 1.2m x 2.4m WOOD, FRONT IS OPEN.
1. 2m
1491.ocm--' 3. 6m -
2.4m D. -
DONORS:8-INCH, TNT-FILLED
PROJECTILES8H TNTLOT #10P-17-69,10-71PROJ. M106, W/SUPPL. CHG.D680 CSK-1-130, 19718-IN-MI06, 3 EACH
RESULTS:
TARGET WALL DISINTEGRATED. WITNESSSHEET RECOVERED IN TWO PIECES WITHNUMEROUS FRAGMENT PERFORATIONS.
Figure 5. Test JBA113OA3
TEST: JBA113OA3DATE: 30 NOVEMBER 1983TIME: 11:29 MST
4.7-
OVERALL VIEW SHOWING SETUP -BEFORE TEST
CLOSEUP OF TARGET WALL AND WITNESS SHEET -BEFORE TEST
Figure 5. Test JBA113OA3 (continued)
29
-. - -. . . --. . . - -. . . . . . .. , - . - . .! .- L-
TEST: JBA113OA3DATE: 30 NOVEMBER 1983TIME: 11:29 MST
CLOSEUP OF TARGET WALL CONSTRUCTION DETAIL -BEFORE TEST
Figure 5. Test JBA1130A3 (continued)
30
TEST: JBA1130A3DATE: 30 NOVEMBER 1983TIME: 11:29 MST
WITNESS SHEET DAMAGE -AFTER TEST
Figure 5. Test JBA113OA3 (continued)
31
TEST: JBA113OB3DATE: 30 NOVEMBER 1983TIME: 16:15 MST
MAGAZINE STORAGE TEST
WITNESS SHEET: WOOD WALL, FRONT AND BACK,1.6nun TK STEEL, 1.2m x 2.4m MDE OF 2"1 x 6" LUMBER, 1.2m x 2.4m,ON 2" x 4" LUMBER FRAME 4.1cm TIC
EARTH FILL: 76.2cm
1.2m I
9 1. K A __ 762n_ .
2. 4mD
DONORS:8-INCH, TNT-FILLEDPROJECTILES
8H TNTLOT #10P- 17-69,10-71PROJ. M106, W/SUPPL. CHG.D680 CSK-1-130, 1971
RESULTS: 8-IN-M106, 3 EACH
TARGET WALL DISINTEGRATED. WITNESSSHEET RECOVERED WITH ONE FRAGMENT71PERFORATION.
Figure 6. Test JBA113OB3
k .32
TEST: JBA1130B3DATE: 30 NOVEMBER 1983TIME: 16:15 MST
II
CLOSEUP OF INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION DETAIL OF TARGET WALL
PRIOR TO EARTH FILL - BEFORE TEST
• ..° t
CLOSEUP OF TARGET WALL CONSTRUCTION DETAIL- AFTER EARTH
FILL WAS ADDED - BEFORE TESTFigure 6. Test JBA1130B3 (continued)
33
;.- -.-'- .'.- -". -" ..-'-"'-...'' :.. -. ."."-"..---".-,-. .- ..--- ,... ,'..',.- . . .. .. . .. .'-, .•: . •.. -.-. . ."- 'I
TEST: JBA113OB3DATE: 30 NOVEMBER 1983TIME: 16:15 MST
OVERALL VIEW SHOWING SETUP -BEFORE TEST
CLOSEUP OF TARGET WALL AND WITNESS SHEET -BEFORE TEST
Figure 6. Test JBAI13OB3 (continued)
34
TEST: JBA113OB3DATE: 30 NOVEMBER 1983TIME: 16:15 MST
WITNESS SHEET DAMAGE -AFTER TEST
I
CLOSEUP OF WITNESS SHEET DAMAGE
• .~.
AFTER TEST
FRAGMENT PERFORATION SHOWN BY ARROW .Figure 6. Test JBAI13OB3 (continued)
35
-.- "
TEST: JBA12OIA3DATE: 1 DECEMBER 1983TIME: 12:00 MST
MAGAZINE STORAGE TEST
WITNESS SHEET: CONCRETE WALL: COMPOSITION 1 PART1.6mm TK STEEL, 1.2m x 2.4m CEMENT, 2 PARTS SAND, 4 PARTS ZONO-ON 2" x 4" LUMBER FRAME LITE, 43.2cm TK, l.2m x 2.4m ON A
2" x 18" LUMBER FRAME. BACK IS 0.64cmTK, 1.2m x 2.4m WOOD, FRONT IS OPEN.
1.2m
91.c--- 3.6n..
~. D
* .. • .•
2.4m
V..: &_D
..••.DONORS:
8-INCH, TNT-FILLEDPROJECTILES
8H TNTLOT #IOP-17-115,4-74PROJ. M106, W/SUPPL. CHG.D680 CSK-1-180, 1974
RESULTS:8-IN-M106, 3 EACH
TARGET WALL DISINTEGRATED. WITNESSSHEET RECOVERED WITH NUMEROUS FRAGMENTPERFORATIONS.
Figure 7. Test JBA12O1A3
36 •
TEST: JBA1201A3DATE: 1 DECEMBER 1983
TIME: 12:00 MST
OVERALL VIEW SHOWING SETUP -BEFORE TEST
1
CLOSEUP OF TARGET WALL AND WITNESS SHEET -BEFORE TEST
Figure 7. Test JBA12O1A3 (continued)
37
. . ..
Ly.
TEST: JBAI2O1A3DATE: 1 DECEMBER 1983TIME: 12:00 MST
WITNESS SHEET DAMAGE -AFTER TEST
Figure 7. Test JBA12OlA3 (continued)
38
TEST: JBA12O1B3DATE: 1 DECEMBER 1933TIME: 16:45 MST
MAGAZINE STORAGE TESTWITNESS SHEET: STEEL WALL, FRONT AND BACK,1.6nuu TK STEEL, 1.2m x 2.4m 0.64cm TK, 1. 2m x 1.2mON 2" x 4" LUMBER FRAME
EARTH FILL: 45.7cm
1. 2m
K 91. Ocm .I45- bI~ 3. 6m........ .D
D
DONORS:U 8-INCH, TNT-FILLED
PROJECTILES8H TNTLOT #10P-17-115,4-74
RESULTS: D680 CSK-1-180, 1974FRONT STEEL PORTION OF WALL 8-IN-M106, 3 EACHRECEIVED EXTENSIVE DAMAGE. BACKWALL HAD ONE FRAGMENT PERFORATION.WITNESS SHEET RECOVERED WITH ONEFRAGMENT PERFORATION.
Figure 8. Test JBAl2OlB3
39
TEST: JBA1201B3DATE: 1 DECEMBER 1983TIME: 16:45 MST
• f.I.I
OVERALL VIEW SHOWING SETUP - BEFORE TEST
CLOSEUP OF TARGET WALL AND WITNESS SHEET - BEFORE TEST
Figure 8. Test JBA12OIB3 (continued)
40
"" " """ '"" "' " ' "" " "' " ' """' - " "" ' '"" ' . " " " .'" ' " .-' ? *" "' "" " ." "" ' ' "" " ' " " " " " ' " "" '" " ""'
TEST: JBA12O1B3DATE: 1 DECEMBER 1983
TIME: 16:45 MST
L
WITNESS SHEET DAMAGE -AFTER TESTFRAGMENT PERFORATION SHOWN BY ARROW
Figure 8. Test JBAl2O1B3 (continued)
41
TEST: JBA1202A3DATE: 2 DECEMBER 1927.0
TIME: 11:15 MST
MAGAZINE STORAGE TESTWITNESS SHEET: CONCRETE WALL: STANDARD REINFORCED,1.6m TK STEEL, 1.2m x 2.4m /24.1 MPa, 20.3cm TK, 1.2m x 2.4m.ON 2" x 4" LUMBER'FRAME /
BACKED BY EARTH-FILLED BAG WALLA 30.5cm TK and 0.64cm TK WOOD,
1.2m x 2.4m
91.0c 50.8cn -3.6
4 0a
D •
2.4m•.
DONORS:8-INCH, TNT-FILLED
PROJECTILES*8H TNTLOT #10P-17-115,4-74D680 CSK-1-18O, 19748-IN-M106, 3 EACH
RESULTS:
TARGET WALL BROKE UP INTO SEVERAL LARGEPIECES. THOSE WHICH WERE RECOVERED FROMORIGINAL PLACEMENT OUT TO 22.8m WERELARGER THAN 5cm IN DIAMETER, WHILE THOSERECOVERED FROM 22.&n to 53.3m WERESMALLER THAN 5cm IN DIAMETER. WITNESSSHEET RECOVERED UNDAMAGED.
Figure 9. Test JBA1202A3
42
2. m:' . ** **
I-o
TEST: JBA1202A3DATE: 2 DECEMBER 1983TIME: 11:15 MST -
I,- :I
IiI
OVERALL VIEW SHOWING SETUP - BEFORE TEST
CLOSEUP OF TARGET WALL AND WITNESS SHEET -BEFORE TEST
Figure 9. Test JBA12.2A3 (continued)
43
TEST: JBA12O2A3DATE: 2 DECEMBER 1983TIME: 11:15 MST
CLOSEUP OF TARGET WALL CONSTRUCTION DETAIL -BEFORE TEST
Figure 9. Test JBA12O2A3 (continued)
44
TEST: JBA12O2A3DATE: 2 DECEMBER 1983TIME: 11:15 MST
WITNESS SHEET DAMAGE -AFTER TEST
Figure 9. Test JBA12O2A3 (continued)
45
77.
TEST: JBA12O2B3DATE: 2 DECEMBER 1983TIME: 15:15 MST
MAGAZINE STORAGE TESTWITNESS SHEET: STEEL WALL, FRONT AND BACK,1.6nun TK STEEL, 1.2m x 2.4m 0.32cm TK, 1.2m x 1.8m.ON 2"0 x 4" LUMBER FRAME
EARTH FILL: 61.0cm
1. 2m
91.Oc 61.0c. -3.6
DONORS:8-INCH, TNT-FILLED
PROJECTILES8H TNTLOT #10P-17-115,4-74D680 CSK-1-180, 1974RESULTS: 8-IN-M106, 3 EACH
FRONT STEEL PORTION OF WALL RECEIVEDEXTENSIVE DAMAGE. BACK WALL HAD ONEFRAGMENT PERFORATION. WITNESS SHEETRECOVERED WITH ONE FRAGMENT PERFORATION.
---
Figure 10. Test JBA12O2B30
2~ .4
t. . . * *.*. 46
TEST: JBA12O2B3DATE: 2 DECEMBER 1983TIME: 15:15 MST
OVERALL VIEW SHOWING SETUP - BEFORE TEST
CLOSEUP OF TARGET WALL AND WITNESS SHEET - BEFORE TEST
Figure 10. Test JBA12O2B3 (continued)
47
TEST: JBA1202B3DATE: 2 DECEMBER 1983TIME: 15:15 MST
WITNESS SHEET DAMAGE - AFTER TEST
Niw
CLOSEUP OF WITNESS SHEET DAMAGE - AFTER TESTFRAGMENT PERFORATION SHOWN BY ARROWFigure 10. Test JBA1202B3 (continued)
48
. . . ... .°"
DISTRIBUTION LIST
No. of No. ofCopies Organization Copies Organization
12 Administrator 1 CommanderDefense Technical Info Center Armament R&D CenterATTN: DTIC-DDA US Army AMCCOMCameron Station ATrN: SMCAR-LCN, Dr. P. HarrisAlexandria, VA 22314 Dover, NJ 07801
1 Chairman 1 CommanderDOD Explosives Safety Board US Army Armament, Munitions &ATTN: Dr. T. Zaker Chemical CommandRoom 856-C AfTN: AMSMC-LEP-LHoffman Bldg I Rock Island, IL 61299 .2461 Eisenhower Avenue sAlexandria, VA 22331 1 Director
Benet Weapons LaboratoryCommander ARDC, US Army AMCCOMUS Army Materiel Command ATTN: SMCAR-LCB-TLATTN: AMCDRA-S' Watervliet, NY 121895001 Eisenhower AvenueAlexandria, VA 22333 1 Commander
US Army Aviation Researchand Development Command
1 Commander ATTN: A1 SAV-EArmament R&D Center 4300 Goodfellow BoulevardUS Army AMCCOM St. Louis, MO 63120 1.ATTN: SMCAR-TDCDover, NJ 07801 1 Director
US Army Air Mobility ResearchCommander and Development LaboratoryArmament R&D Center Ames Research CenterUS Army AMCCOM Moffett Field, CA 94035 LATTN: SMCAR-TSSDover, NJ 07801 1 Commander
US Army Communications RschCommander and Development CommandArmament R&D Center ATTN: AMSEL-ATDDUS Army AMCCOM Fort Monmouth, NJ 07703ATTN: SMCAR-LCE, Dr. P.F. WalkerDover, NJ 07801 1 Commander
US Army Electronics ResearchCommander and Development CommandArmament R&D Center Technical Support ActivityUS Army AMCCOM ATTN: AMN)SD-LATTN: SMCAR-LCE, 9r. N. Slagg Fort Monmouth, NJ 07703Dover, NJ 07801
HQDA I CommanderDAMA-ART-M US Army Development & EmploymentWashington, DC 20310 Agency
ATTN: MODE-TED-SAB49 Fort Lewis, WA 98433
L
S~ ~ -. •__-___
DISTRIBUTION LIST (Continued)
No. of No. ofOrganization Copies Organization
1 Commander 1 CommanderUS Army Missile Command Naval Sea Systems CommandATTN: AMSMI-P ATTN: Mr. R. Beauregard,Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898 SEA 64E
Washington, DC 203601 Commander
US Army Missile Command 1 CommanderATTN: AMSMI-YDL Naval Explosive OrdnanceRedstone Arsenal, AL 35898 Disposal Facility
ATTN: Technical Library
1 Commander Code 604US Army Missile Command Indian Head, MD 20640ATlN: AMSMI-RK, Dr. R.G. RhoadesRedstone Arsenal, AL 35898 1 Commander
Naval Research Lab
1 Commander ATTN: Code 6100US Army Tank Automotive Washington, DC 20375Command
ATTN: AMSTA-TSL I CommanderWarren, MI 48090 Naval Surface Weapons Center
ATTN: Code G13I Director Dahlgren, VA 22448
US Army TRADOC SystemsAnalysis Activity 9 Commander
ATTN: ATAA-SL Naval Surface Weapons CenterWhite Sands Missile Range ATTN: Mr. L. Roslund, R122NM 88002 Mr. M. Stosz, R121
Code X211, Lib1 Commandant E. Zimet, R13
US Army Infantry School R.R. Bernecker, R13ATTN: ATSH-CD-CSO-OR J.W. Forbes, R13Fort Benning, GA 31905 S.J. Jacobs, R1O
K. Kim, R131 Commander Dr. C. Dickinson
US Army Research Office Silver Spring, MD 20910ATTN: Chemistry DivisionP.O. Box 12211 4 CommanderResearch Triangle Park, NC 27709 Naval Weapons Center
ATrN: Dr. L. Smith, Code 32051 Commander Dr. A. Amster, Code 385
Office of Naval Research Dr. R. Reed, Jr., Code 388ATTN: Dr. J. Enig, Code 200B Dr. K. J. Graham, Code 3835800 N. Quincy Street China Lake, CA 93555Arlington, VA 22217
50
* - - .- *-.. .---- w---.----.--.-,
DISTRIBUTION LIST (Continued)
No. of No. ofCopies Organization C Organization S
Commander Aberdeen Proving GroundNaval Weapons StationNEDED Dir, USAMSAAATfN: Dr. Louis Rothstein, Code 50 ATTN: AMXSY --Yorktown, VA 23691 AMXS¥ -MP, II. Cohen
Cdr, USATECOM SCommander ATn; AMSTE- TO-FFleet Marine Force, Atlantic Cdr, APGIATTN: G-4 (NSAP) ATTN: STEAP-PE.Richard BailyNorfolk, VA 23511 Cdr, CRDC, AMCCOM
ATTN: SMCCR-RSP-A
1 Commander SMCCR-MU -AFRPL SMCCR-SPS-ILATTN: Mr. R. Geisler,
Code AFRPL MKPAEdwards AFB, CA 93523
1 AFWL/SUL pKirtland AFB, NM 87117
Director -
USA Ballistic Missle DefenseAdvanced Technology Center
ATTN: Dr. David C. SaylesP.O. Box 1500Huntsville, AL 35807
1 DirectorLawrence Livermore LaboratoryP.O. Box 808ATTN: Dr. M. FingerLivermore, CA 94550
1 DirectorLos Alamos Scientific LaboratoryATrN: John Ramsey SP.O. Box 1663Los Alamos, NM 87544
I DirectorSandia National LabATTN: Dr. J. KennedyAlbuquerque, NM 87115
I New Mexico Institute of Mining -'and Technology
ATTN: TERA, Mr. David L. CollisSocorro, NM 87801
51 "'*""
USER EVALUATION SHEET/CHANGE OF ADDRESS
This Laboratory undertakes a continuing effort to improve the quality of thereports it publishes. Your comments/answers to the items/questions below willaid us in our efforts.
1. BRL Report Number Date of Report
2. Date Report Received_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _
3. Does this report satisfy a need? (Comment on purpose, related project, orother area of interest for which the report will be used.)_ _ _ _
4. How specifically, is the report being used? (Information source, designdata, procedure, source of ideas, etc.)_ _ _ _ _ _ _
5. Has the information in this report led to any quantitative savings as faras man-hours or dollars saved, operating costs avoided or efficiencies achieved,etc? If so, please elaborate.____
6. General Comments. What do you think should be changed to improve futurereports? (Indicate changes to organization, technical content, format, etc.)
Name
OrganizationCURRENT
ADDRESS Address
City, State, Zip
7. If indicating a Change of Address or Address Correction, please provide theNew or Correct Address in Block 6 above and the Old or Incorrect address below.
Name _
OLD OrganizationADDRESS
Address
City, State, Zip O
o-..
(Remove this sheet along the perforation, fold as indicated, staple or tapeclosed, and mail.)
wo .o . .. 0.-.0 .- o ... p ., ,•o ,oO ,-.. . .o p-. e • o .o'-'€ *' "- • ' . . • , •'. ,,- n,,l, o .. ••* .o% ,, kN "o % '. °.o'.
* .. *.. •- " .-..
L
FOLD HERE-----US Army Ballistic Research Laboratory NO POSTAGE
ATTN: AMXBR-OD-ST I NECESSARY "
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5066 IN THE D
UNITED STATES L
OFFICIAL BUSINESS "RLS"PENALTY FOR PRIVAE Use. $no BUSINESS REPLY MAIL
FIRST CLASS PERMIT NO 12062 WASHINGTOINOC iPOSTAGE WILL E PA)D BY DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
DirectorUS Army Ballistic Research LaboratoryATrN: ANXBR-OD-STAberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-9989
-o-
"---- --- --- -FOLD HERE -- - --- -
% %-
,,.~~~ ' .
lw 4L
P4~y RNAJ-
fg
4 '9 ~*hr x.
4~ ~4. '?~'it.