THE FEASIBILITY OF CONTROLLING i/i FROM THE I ... - DTIC · habited buildings, 2.3 psi for R&D...

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 %


13'

I !.

Fue1.TS JBA112A (cotiue)"

•


WITNESS SHEET DAMAGE -AFTER TEST


14


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.



OL•


CLOSEUP OF TARGET WALL AND WITNESS SHEET - BEFORE TEST


16

....... . .. ... .... ... * * i• • l , °4 ,• p

mi% , % ° • - - . .°" ° - " "• """."." " • . . " ,• ". . .


~@L

CLOSEUP OF TARGET WALL CONSTRUCTION DETAILBEFORE TEST


17




18


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"" "


OVERALL VIEW SHOWING SETUP -BEFORE TEST

CLOSEUP OF TARGET WALL AND WITNESS SHEET -BEFORE TEST


20


CLOSUP O TAGET ALL ONSRUCTON DTAI

BEFOR TES

Figue 3 Tes JB11283 (ontiued

21.




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.


23


CLOSEUP OF INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION DETAIL OF TARGET WALL,

PRIOR TO EARTH FILL - BEFORE TEST


24

......................................... ..-...


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


* t ~ 'Lq. ,



26

71 77 pr-f -!5

TEST: JBA1129A3DATE: 29 NOVEMBER 1983

TIME: 16:18 MST


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. -


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


4.7-



Figure 5. Test JBA113OA3 (continued)

29

-. - -. . . --. . . - -. . . . . . .. , - . - . .! .- L-


CLOSEUP OF TARGET WALL CONSTRUCTION DETAIL -BEFORE TEST


30



Figure 5. Test JBA113OA3 (continued)

31

TEST: JBA113OB3DATE: 30 NOVEMBER 1983TIME: 16:15 MST


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




Figure 6. Test JBAI13OB3 (continued)

34



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


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


1


Figure 7. Test JBA12O1A3 (continued)

37

. . ..

Ly.

TEST: JBAI2O1A3DATE: 1 DECEMBER 1983TIME: 12:00 MST


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



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•.


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.


42

2. m:' . ** **

I-o

TEST: JBA1202A3DATE: 2 DECEMBER 1983TIME: 11:15 MST -

I,- :I

IiI



Figure 9. Test JBA12.2A3 (continued)

43

TEST: JBA12O2A3DATE: 2 DECEMBER 1983TIME: 11:15 MST

CLOSEUP OF TARGET WALL CONSTRUCTION DETAIL -BEFORE TEST


44

TEST: JBA12O2A3DATE: 2 DECEMBER 1983TIME: 11:15 MST



45

77.


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


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




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.

THE FEASIBILITY OF CONTROLLING i/i FROM THE I ... - DTIC · habited buildings, 2.3 psi for R&D...

Documents

Transcript of THE FEASIBILITY OF CONTROLLING i/i FROM THE I ... - DTIC · habited buildings, 2.3 psi for R&D...