kinetic energy non-lethal weapon

Kinetic Energy Non-Lethal Weapon Development of a Constant Force Projectile Concept

Tim Bayne Benoit Anctil

Prepared by: Biokinetics and Associates Ltd. 2470 Don Reid Drive Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 1E1 Canada

PWGSC Contract Number: W7701-061933/001/QCL (AT69)

Contract Scientific Authority: Daniel Bourget, Defence Scientist, 418-844-4000 ext.4228

(U) The scientific or technical validity of this Contract Report is entirely the responsibility of the Contractor and the contents do not necessarily have the approval or endorsement of the Department of National Defence of Canada.

Defence Research and Development Canada Contract Report DRDC-RDDC-2017-C002 April 2013

Template in use: SR Advanced_Oct_Release_EN_V.03.02_2015-08-12-V02_WW.dot

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of National Defence, 2017

© Sa Majesté la Reine (en droit du Canada), telle que représentée par le ministre de la Défense nationale, 2017

Principal Author

Original signed by Tim Bayne

Tim Bayne

Project Engineer - Biokinetics and Associates Ltd.

Approved by

Original signed by Daniel Bourget

Daniel Bourget

Defence Scientist Defence R&D Canada - Valcartier

Approved for release by

Original signed by Dennis Nandlall, Ph. D.

Dennis Nandlall, Ph. D.

Section Head, Weapon Effects ad Protection, Defence R&D Canada - Valcartier

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of National Defence, 2013

© Sa Majesté la Reine (en droit du Canada), telle que représentée par le ministre de la Défense nationale,

2013

This page intentionally left blank.

i

Abstract ……..

Kinetic Energy Non-Lethal Weapons (KENLWs) are very similar to standard firearms, however,

their projectiles differ in that the impact with the intended target is meant to cause incapacitating pain rather than serious penetrating injury and/or death.

The objective of the project was to substitute the impacting face of existing KENLW projectiles

with crushable materials to see whether the impact force on an instrumented load plate could be kept constant within the operational range of potential impact energies/velocities.

Fifteen material/density combinations were evaluated using two different test methodologies: a

quasi-static compression test, and, a low velocity drop test. Based on the performance of the

materials in these tests, the materials were down selected to two materials at two densities for each. The final four test configurations, along with two commercial-off-the-shelf KENLW

projectiles were evaluated using a high velocity, free flight impact test. For all of the tests

conducted, the transmitted forces were measured and documented.

The performance of the high velocity free flight test samples were compared to the imposed force

limits of 5000-8000 N. To varying degrees these targets were achieve.

ii

Executive summary

Kinetic Energy Non-Lethal Weapon: Development of a Constant Force Projectile Concept

Tim Bayne; Benoit Anctil; DRDC Valcartier CR [enter number only: 9999-999]; Defence R&D Canada – Valcartier; April 2013.


their projectiles differ in that the impact with the intended target is meant to cause incapacitating

pain rather than serious penetrating injury and/or death. Commercial-off-the-shelf KENLW

projectiles used by the Canadian military are fired from a 40 mm grenade launcher and are made up of two components: a base, and a nose which strikes the subject. The base is manufactured

from a thermoplastic material and the nose is manufactured from a compliant foam material. The

operational impact velocity range of the projectile is 68 m/s to 102 m/s.

Given the wide range in impact velocities, current KENLW projectiles could cause various

degrees of both pain and injury depending on the flight distance of the projectile to the target.

The objective of the project, therefore, was to assess whether the compliant foam nose from an

existing KENLW projectile could be substituted with another material and have the impact force of the projectile remain constant throughout the operational range. With the force of impact

remaining the same, whether the target is in close proximity to the shooter or further away, the

injury potential of the projectile would remain the same.

Fifteen different material/density combinations were evaluated using three different test

methodologies: a quasi-static compression test, a low velocity drop test, and; a high velocity free

flight test where the impact forces were measured. Based on data collected using the quasi-static and the low velocity drop tests, the materials/density combinations were down selected to two

materials at two densities for continued high velocity, free flight testing. Additionally, two

commercial-off-the-shelf KENLW projectiles were also evaluated under the high velocity, free

flight testing.

Two densities of a polyurethane material and two grades of an aluminum honeycomb material

were selected from the original fifteen materials/density combinations. Of these four

combinations, two fell below the 5000-8000 N impact force limit targets imposed by the statement of work.

With a redesigned KENLW projectile that uses one of the two materials identified as having peak

forces below the proposed limit, it will be possible for law enforcement personnel using these weapons to be less concerned about the proximity of a target and the potential unintended injuries

that may result.

Further effort is required to advance the development of the projectiles to a point where they can

be used commercially. This include, but is not limited to, further research into the pain/impact force relationship, localized pressure distribution and skin laceration potential, evaluating

projectiles against a biofidelic test apparatus for trauma assessment, aerodynamics stability and

targeting accuracy, and evaluation of the prototypes under extreme operational temperatures.

iii

��

Abstract …….. ............................................................................................................................ i

Executive summary .......................................................................................................................... ii Table of contents ............................................................................................................................. iii List of figures..... .............................................................................................................................iv

List of tables .................................................................................................................................. vi

1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1

2 Samples/Materials for Testing ............................................................................................... 2

2.1 COTS KENLW Projectiles......................................................................................... 2

2.2 Crushable Raw Materials ........................................................................................... 3

3 Test Equipment Setups.......................................................................................................... 9

3.1 Quasi-Static Crush Testing ......................................................................................... 9

3.2 Low Velocity Drop Testing ...................................................................................... 10

3.3 High Velocity, Free Flight Testing ........................................................................... 12

4 Results and Discussion........................................................................................................ 15

4.1 Quasi-Static Testing – Raw Materials ....................................................................... 15

4.1.1 Results ....................................................................................................... 15

4.1.2 Discussion .................................................................................................. 19

4.2 Drop Testing – Raw Materials .................................................................................. 20

4.2.1 Results ....................................................................................................... 20

4.2.2 Discussion .................................................................................................. 26

4.3 High Velocity, Free Flight Testing ........................................................................... 30

4.3.1 COTS KENLW Projectiles ......................................................................... 30

4.3.1.1 Results ..................................................................................... 30

4.3.1.2 Discussion ................................................................................ 34

4.3.2 Raw Materials ............................................................................................ 34

4.3.2.1 Results ..................................................................................... 35

4.3.2.2 Discussion ................................................................................ 39

5 Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 41

6 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 42

7 Future Work ....................................................................................................................... 43

References ..... ........................................................................................................................... 45

.. Quasi- Static Plots .................................................................................................... 47 Annex A

... Low Velocity Drop Test Plots .................................................................................. 56 Annex B

... High Velocity Segemented Plate Test Plots .............................................................. 71 Annex C

List of symbols/abbreviations/acronyms/initialisms ................................................................... 79

iv

List of figures

Figure 1: Defense Technologies Inert round (Model #: 6323). ..................................................... 2

Figure 2: Defense Technologies eXact round (Model #: 6325). .................................................... 3

Figure 3: Ideal force vs. displacement plot (courtesy of ERG Duocel). ........................................ 4

Figure 4: a) 3.5 pcf EPS, and; b) 4.5 pcf EPS. .............................................................................. 6

Figure 5: Impaxx 700. ................................................................................................................ 6

Figure 6: a) PU 6, b) PU ,8 and; c) PU 10. ................................................................................... 7

Figure 7: a) HC3/16-5052-0015, b) HC3/16-5052-002, and; c) HC1/8-5052-0015. ..................... 7

Figure 8: a) 6-8% RD, b) 9-11% RD, and; c) 11-13% RD. ........................................................... 8

Figure 9: a) 10 ppi, b) 20 ppi, and; c) 30 ppi. ............................................................................... 8

Figure 10: Quasi-static crush apparatus. ...................................................................................... 9

Figure 11: Sample in quasi-static tester before and after testing. ................................................ 10

Figure 12: Test sample placed under falling impactor on drop tower. ........................................ 11

Figure 13: Air powered cannon. ................................................................................................ 12

Figure 14: Segmented load plate. .............................................................................................. 13

Figure 15: Free flight of a projectile just before impact. ............................................................ 14

Figure 16: Quasi-static testing – energy absorbed. .................................................................... 17

Figure 17: Quasi-static testing – crush distance. ........................................................................ 17

Figure 18: EPS 3.5 quasi-static plot. ......................................................................................... 18

Figure 19: PU 6 quasi-static plot. ............................................................................................... 18

Figure 20: HC 3/16-5052-0015 quasi-static plot......................................................................... 19

Figure 21: HC 1/8-5052-0015 quasi-static plot. ......................................................................... 19

Figure 22: EPS 3.5, 75 J drop test. ............................................................................................. 23

Figure 23: PU6, 75 J drop test. .................................................................................................. 23

Figure 24: PU 6, 125 J drop test. ................................................................................................ 24

Figure 25: PU 6 (wrapped), 125 J drop test. .............................................................................. 24

Figure 26: HC3/16-5052-0015, 75 J drop test. ........................................................................... 25

Figure 27: HC3/16-5052-0015, 125 J drop test. ......................................................................... 25

Figure 28: HC3/16-5052-002, 75 J drop test. ............................................................................. 26

Figure 29: HC3/16-5052-002, 125 J drop test. ........................................................................... 26

Figure 30: PU 6, fully crushed in quasi-static test. ..................................................................... 27

v

Figure 31: a) 75 J impact on PU 6, b) 125 J impact on PU 6. ...................................................... 27

Figure 32: Wrapped PU 6 sample after impact. ......................................................................... 28

Figure 33: HC3/16-5052-0015 after and before impact: a) 75 J impact, b) 125 J impact. ............ 29

Figure 34: HC3/16-5052-002: a) 75 J impact, b) 125 J impact. ................................................... 29

Figure 35: DT6325 segmented load plate response, 68 m/s. ...................................................... 32

Figure 36: DT6325 segmented load plate response, 102 m/s. ..................................................... 32

Figure 37: DT6323 segmented load plate response, 68 m/s. ....................................................... 33

Figure 38; DT6323 segmented load plate response, 102 m/s. ..................................................... 33

Figure 39: PU 8 segmented load plate response, 68 m/s free flight test. ...................................... 36

Figure 40: PU 8 segmented load plate response, 102 m/s free flight test. .................................... 36

Figure 41: HC 3/16-5052-0015 segmented load plate response, 68 m/s free flight test. ............... 37

Figure 42: HC 3/16-5052-0015 segmented load plate response, 102 m/s free flight test. ............. 37

Figure 43: HC 3/16-5052-002 segmented load plate response, 68 m/s free flight test. ................. 38

Figure 44: HC 3/16-5052-002 segmented load plate response, 102 m/s free flight test. ............... 38

Figure 45: PU 8 projectile, left to right: untested, 68 m/s test and 102 m/s test. .......................... 39

Figure 46: HC3/16-5052-0015 projectile, left to right: untested, 68 m/s test and 102 m/s test. .... 40

Figure 47: HC3/16-5052-002 projectile, left to right: untested, 68 m/s test and 102 m/s test. ...... 40

Figure 48: Differences in impact surface area. ........................................................................... 43

vi

List of tables

Table 1: Raw materials selected for testing. ................................................................................ 5

Table 2: Quasi-static test results. .............................................................................................. 16

Table 3: Low velocity drop test results. ..................................................................................... 21

Table 4: COTS projectile test results.......................................................................................... 31

Table 5: Raw material projectile test results. .............................................................................. 35

DRDC Valcartier CR [enter number only: 9999-999] 1

1 Introduction


their projectiles differ in that the impact with the intended target is meant to cause incapacitating

pain rather than serious penetrating injury and/or death. KENLWs are generally used by law

enforcement officers needing to quickly gain control of crowds or individuals in situations of unrest and aggressiveness.

Although other crowd and personal control measures exist, KENLW projectiles are commonly

used. These come in two main form factors; projectiles shot from a 12 gauge firearm or a 40 mm grenade launcher. Both form factors can launch a very large number of different projectile types,

for example, rubber projectiles of varying hardness, wood projectiles, foam tipped projectiles of

varying stiffness, bean bags, projectiles containing liquids like paints or powders such as cayenne pepper, and many others.

As previously mentioned, the primary function of the KENLW projectile is to impart a large

degree of pain to the recipient but not to cause serious injury or death. While this may be the

intended outcome of the projectile, the reality is that injury does occur depending on the region of the body that is being impacted. Additionally, the degree of pain and/or injury imparted is also

governed by the distance between the shooter and the target; the closer the target is to the shooter,

the greater the amount of kinetic energy the projectile has and conversely, the farther the target is away from the shooter, the slower the projectile is due to aerodynamic losses and therefore has a

lower kinetic energy. It should be noted that most KENLW projectiles have an operational range

in which they are to be used; too close and the projectile has too much energy with an associated certainty of injury, and; too far and target accuracy is low as is its effectiveness.

It has been observed that some of the KENLW projectiles can impart an impact force reaching

26,000 N. The objective of the project described herein is to design a new projectile that limits

the imparted impact force to 5,000-8,000 N1 within a velocity range of 68 m/s to 102 m/s (the

operational range of the KENLW2 used by the Canadian Military). The design of the new

projectile will incorporate the use of crushable raw materials in the nose of the projectile to limit

the impact force and will be based on the form factor of the DT6325 KENLW projectile, that is, the base (the rear plastic component of the projectile) of the DT6325 projectile will be used as the

base for the newly designed projectiles.

It should be noted that there are commercial-of-the-shelf KENLW projectiles that have crushable

elements built into the impact face of the projectile; however, the imparted impact force has not been documented. Therefore, two different projectiles were purchased and tested at the low and

high impact velocity, 68 m/s and 102 m/s respectively, to evaluate the impact force imparted.

Five different materials at three different densities were selected based on their ability to manage dynamic impacts. Through testing using a quasi-static compressive test apparatus and low

velocity drop testing, these 15 material combinations were down selected to two materials at two

different densities. The down selected materials, along with two commercial-off-the-shelf KENLW projectiles were evaluated under a high velocity, free flight tests against a segmented

load plate to measure the imparted impact force at two different velocities.

1 This force limit range was provided by DRDC-Valcartier 2 Defense Technology, XM1006 eXact iMpact Sponge Round (Part No. 6325)

2

2 Samples/Materials for Testing

2.1 COTS KENLW Projectiles

The statement of work outlined the testing of two commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) kinetic

energy non-lethal weapons (KENLW) that have been designed with a crushable element built into

the nose. These were the:

1. Defense Technologies Direct Impact, Inert Round (Model # 6323),

2. British designed AEPL60A1.

In the case that one of the above mentioned projectiles were unavailable, one of the following was

proposed to be used:

1. MK Ballistics 40 mm Elastomeric Baton,

2. Sage 40, 40 mm KO48 Soft Tip Baton,

3. NLT MP-40-FXR Foam Impact Round.

At the time of testing, two weeks prior to the contract end date, Biokinetics’ was unable to

acquire any of the above projectiles except for the Defense Technologies, Direct Impact, Inert

Round (Model #: 6323), a picture of this round can be seen Figure 1a. Figure 1b is a sectional

view through the middle of impact material showing that there is void in the centre of the nose of the projectile.

a) b)

Figure 1: Defense Technologies Inert round (Model #: 6323).

All of the other samples were either no longer manufactured or had a lead time that fell beyond the contract end date. To fulfil the contract obligations of testing two materials, it was decided to

test the Defense Technologies, eXact iMpact Sponge Round , Model#: 6325 (here on in identified

as the DT6325) as this projectile is the accepted KENLW for the use by the Canadian Military. A

picture of this round can be seen in Figure 2a. Figure 2b shows a sectional view through the middle of the impact material showing that the nose of the round is solid.

3

a) b)

Figure 2: Defense Technologies eXact round (Model #: 6325).

All of the above projectiles use the 40 mm grenade launcher weapon and therefore all have a 40 mm outside diameter.

2.2 Crushable Raw Materials

As noted previously, the objective of this project is to determine whether a material can be added

to the front of the DT6325 plastic base and offer a consistent impact force within a wide range of impact velocities/energies. Constant crush force materials, known for their ability to deform at a

certain threshold or force were the best type of material for this particular application. An ideal

plot of a constant crush force material can be seen in Figure 3. The figure shows how the force

(stress) increases quickly upon initial loading but then flattens out and reaches a steady state as the displacement (strain) increases until material densification occurs (transition from the light

green area to the dark green area). Once densification begins, the force climbs exponentially until

the sample material can no longer deform. Constant crush force materials have this response to loading because the structure plastically deforms in a controlled manner under load and generally

will not rebound or return to its original thickness when the load is removed.

4

.

Figure 3: Ideal force vs. displacement plot (courtesy of ERG Duocel).

The intent of this project was to source readily available raw materials that can be easily modified

and packaged in a way that can be mounted to the DT6325 projectile and not to design a complex system that can offer the response shown in Figure 3.

The statement of work required, for the initial phase of evaluation, five different materials at three different densities, for a total of 15 different test samples. For this project, six materials were

sourced, four of which had three different densities. Of the remaining two materials, one had two

densities and one material was only evaluated at one density, for a total of 15 different test samples. The following table, Table 1, documents the materials that were selected.

5

Table 1: Raw materials selected for testing.

The vast majority of the raw materials ordered and received for the testing as outlined above

arrived in large sheets of varying thickness which required the material to be cut down and

repackaged for testing purposes.

All samples for the quasi-static and the low velocity drop testing were cut into rectangular prisms having a length, width, and height of approximately 35.5 mm, 35.5mm, and 75 mm respectively.

The cross sectional area of the samples (35.5 mm x 35.5 mm) was 1260 mm2. These dimensions

were selected to match the cross sectional area of the DT6325 projectile which had a 40 mm diameter and therefore had a cross sectional area of 1257 mm

2. The 75 mm height was selected

based on cursory calculations knowing variables such as impact velocity, impact energy and

permitted peak impact force.

Material Manufacturer Material Name/ModelNominal Density

(pcf)

EPS-3.5 3.5

EPS-4.5 4.5

Extruded Polystyrene Dow Corning Impaxx 700 3.3

FR3706 6.0

FR3708 8.0

FR3710 10.0

3/1-5052-0015 4.4

3/1-5052-002 5.7

1/8 5052-0015 6.1

Duocel 20 ppi, 6-8% RD 13.4*

Duocel 20 ppi, 9-11% RD 18*

Duocel 20 ppi, 11-13% 20*

IC10 ppi 35.4*

IC20 ppi 32*

IC30 ppi 39.4*

* measured density rather than reported density

Reticulated Ceramic Induceramic

General Plastics

Expanded Polystyrene

(EPS)Polymos

Reticulated Alulminum

Foam

ERG Aerospace

Corporation

Aluminum honeycombHexcel

Corporation

Rigid Polyurethane (PU)

6

In order to achieve the 75 mm height, many of the materials had to be laminated. In some instances, such as for the reticulated ceramic, layers of aluminum were inserted in between each

laminate to offer a smooth and even distribution surface. The aluminum honeycomb HC1/8-

5052-0015 material could only be found in 38 mm thickness and therefore it had to be laminated as well.

It should be noted that the aluminum honeycomb samples prepared for testing were all pre-

crushed by approximately 1-2 mm. The pre-crushing of this material removes an initial load spike which in some instances can be double the force plateau.

Below are pictures showing all of the samples that were prepared for this testing described herein.

Expanded Polystyrene:

a) b)

Figure 4: a) 3.5 pcf EPS, and; b) 4.5 pcf EPS.

Extruded Polystyrene (Impaxx 700):

Figure 5: Impaxx 700.

7

Polyurethane:

a) b) c)

Figure 6: a) PU 6, b) PU ,8 and; c) PU 10.

Aluminum Honeycomb:

a) b) c)

Figure 7: a) HC3/16-5052-0015, b) HC3/16-5052-002, and; c) HC1/8-5052-0015.

8

Reticulated Aluminum:

a) b) c)

Figure 8: a) 6-8% RD, b) 9-11% RD, and; c) 11-13% RD.

Reticulated Ceramic:

a) b) c)

Figure 9: a) 10 ppi, b) 20 ppi, and; c) 30 ppi.

9

3 Test Equipment Setups

Three different test setups were used for the evaluation, down selection and final confirmation of

performance of the energy absorbing materials. For the COTS KENLW projectiles, only the high

velocity, free flight testing was performed while for the raw materials, the following three tests

were conducted: the quasi static crush and low velocity drop testing were used to down select the best two materials and densities to be used for high velocity, free flight testing.

3.1 Quasi-Static Crush Testing

Quasi-static testing permits the measurement of a material’s ability to manage a loaded force and

manage energy absorption. For the quasi-static testing conducted herein, the compression rate of the moving platen was 25 mm/minute. All of the raw materials at the various densities as noted

in Table 1 were subjected to a quasi-static crush test and force and displacement metrics were

recorded and plotted. A picture of the quasi-static test apparatus is shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10: Quasi-static crush apparatus.

All samples were placed in the tester and the moving platen was lowered until it was just touching the top of the test sample as shown in the left hand picture of Figure 11. Upon initiation of the

test, the platen head moved downward at a rate of 25 mm/minute, compressing the test sample.

During the test, the supporting load and the displacement of the moving platen were measured and recorded. Compression continued until the sample had been compressed to a point of

densification and the peak force had reached 6500 N, see right hand picture in Figure 11.

Fixed platen support by 4 load cells

Moving platen – 25 mm/minute

10

Figure 11: Sample in quasi-static tester before and after testing.

3.2 Low Velocity Drop Testing

The low velocity drop test uses a constrained free fall test apparatus having a known mass that

falls onto the test sample from a predetermined drop height commensurate with a desired impact

velocity/energy. Samples were placed on a flat surface and were impacted by a flat-faced falling impactor, as seen in Figure 12. Attached to the impact face is a uni-axial accelerometer that

measures the acceleration/time history of the impact. The accelerometer is rated to 1000 G and

its output is passed through a 1 kHz low pass filter before being collected by a data acquisition

system sampling at a rate of 10 kHz. Also connected to the impact assembly is a flag that passes through a velocity gate which measures the velocity of the impactor right before the impact

occurs.

11

Figure 12: Test sample placed under falling impactor on drop tower.

Similar to the quasi-static testing, the low velocity drop test applies a load to the test sample with

the primary differences being the rates at which the loads are being applied and the amount of

energy that can be applied given the mass of a free falling impactor.

Knowing the mass and the impact velocity the impact energy can be determined and, from the

acceleration trace, the imparted force can be calculated and peak force determined.

Samples were tested at impact energies of 75 J and 125 J. These values were selected based on the energy absorbed by each sample in the quasi-static testing. The two impacts energies were

chosen to help identify materials that offered consistent peak force responses across different

impact energies.

Flat impactor with accelerometer

Flat support

12

3.3 High Velocity, Free Flight Testing

The high velocity free flight testing best replicates the dynamics that the COTS KENLW projectiles experience when striking a target. The test setup is comprised of a compressed air

powered cannon, a velocity gate and a segmented load plate to measure the force/time history.

The air cannon consists of a pressure vessel, a fast acting dump valve, a long barrel (40 mm internal diameter) and a velocity gate. The test sample is inserted into the barrel and positioned at

the rear end of the barrel. The air pressure is increased to a predetermined value that will result in

an approximate exit velocity of the projectile given its mass. Upon firing of the system, the

projectile is accelerated down the barrel, through the velocity gate and out of the barrel toward the target. A picture of the air cannon can be seen in Figure 13.

Figure 13: Air powered cannon.

The segmented load plate is comprised of seven individual load cells all of which are topped with

hexagonally shaped impact/distribution pads. A picture of the segmented load plate can be seen in Figure 14. Each load cell has a capacity of 22 kN. The load cell data is passed through a

47 kHz analog filter and collected by a data acquisition system sampling data at 100 kHz. The

data is then post processed using a 4500Hz digital filter.

Pressure vessel

Barrel Valve

Velocity gate

13

Figure 14: Segmented load plate.

As the projectile exits the air cannon, it travels approximately 50 cm before striking the

segmented load plate. A picture of a projectile in free flight just before impact taken from the high speed camera is shown in Figure 15. During the impact, the force of each load cell is

recorded with respect to time. The summation of each load cell at each time step is calculated

resulting in a cumulative or total impact force/time history.

Seven hexagonal pads and load cells with cables

14

Figure 15: Free flight of a projectile just before impact.

High speed video was collected for all of the high velocity free flight testing and can be viewed in

the client supplied CD. The high speed video was collected at 3000 frames/second.

Segmented load plate Projectile

15

4 Results and Discussion

The following sections document the final results for the various tests that were conducted. Only

sample plots for the recorded force/displacement and force/time histories have been provided.

All of the plots are provided separately.

4.1 Quasi-Static Testing – Raw Materials

4.1.1 Results

Table 2 documents the test results collected from the quasi-static testing using the equipment

described in Section 3.1. Plots of the peak energy absorbed and crush distance for each of the

raw materials tested and their respective densities are shown in Figure 16 and Figure 17 respectively.

16

Table 2: Quasi-static test results.

Material

Name/ModelNominal Density

Crush Material

Height*

Crush Material

Mass*Repeat

Peak Energy

Abosroption***Peak Crush***

- pcf mm g - J mm1 83 682 80 683 78 68

Average 80.3 68.01 101 662 101 663 101 66

Average 101.0 66.01 104 692 95 693 110 69

Average 103.0 69.01 125 632 126 633 124 63

Average 125.0 63.01 161 552 162 553 161 55

Average 161.3 55.01 190 492 191 493 190 49

Average 190.3 49.01 124 642 143 653 137 64

Average 134.7 64.31 184 602 200 603 191 61

Average 191.7 60.31 244 602 254 593 240 59

Average 246.0 59.31 135 552 119 583 109 59

Average 121.0 57.31 189 442 186 443 185 44

Average 186.7 44.01 177 412 171 403 175 40

Average 174.3 40.31 68 602 55 673 64 52

Average 62.3 59.71 42 582 55 583 45 58

Average 47.3 58.01 66 582 70 563 68 55

Average 68.0 56.3

** measured density rather than reported density.

*** measured from Force vs. Displacement data.

3.5

4.5

3.3

EPS-3.5

EPS-4.5

Impaxx 700

* some materials required aluminum plates in between sections to build up to desired heith; plates were not included in height or mass

4.4

5.7

3/16-5052-0015

3/16-5052-002

6

8

10

FR3706

FR3708

FR3710

20**

1/8-5052-0015 6.1

20 ppi, 6-8% RD 13.4**

30 ppi 39.4**

675

75 8

76 5

10 ppi 35.4**

20 ppi 32**

20 ppi, 9-11% RD 18**

20 ppi, 11-13% RD

75 7

75 9

75 11

76 10

76 15

76 18

75 53

75 48

75 59

75 20

75 27

75 30

17

Figure 16: Quasi-static testing – energy absorbed.

Figure 17: Quasi-static testing – crush distance.

The following force vs. displacement and energy absorbed plots are examples of the data

collected under the quasi-static testing for the materials described in Table 2. All of the force vs.

displacement plots and energy absorbed plots are shown in Annex A.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

En

erg

y A

bso

rbe

d (

J)

Sample

Quasi Static Loading - Energy Absorbed

EPS 3.5

EPS 4.5

Impaxx 700

PU 6

PU 8

PU 10

HC 3/16-0015

HC 3/16-002

HC1/8-0015

DC 6-8%

DC 9-11%

DC 11-13%

IC 10ppi

IC 20ppi

IC 30ppi

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Cru

sh D

ista

nce

(m

m)

Sample

Quasi Static Loading - Crush Distance

EPS 3.5

EPS 4.5

Impaxx 700

PU 6

PU 8

PU 10

HC 3/16-0015

HC 3/16-002

HC1/8-0015

DC 6-8%

DC 9-11%

DC 11-13%

IC 10ppi

IC 20ppi

IC 30ppi

18

Figure 18: EPS 3.5 quasi-static plot.

Figure 19: PU 6 quasi-static plot.

0

50

100

150

200

250

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Wo

rk (

J)

Fo

rce

(N

)

Displacement (mm)

EPS 3.5

Test #1

Test #2

Test #3

Work-1

Work-2

Work-3

Force vs. Displacement

0

50

100

150

200

250

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Wo

rk (

J)

Fo

rce

(N

)

Displacement (mm)

PU6

Test #1

Test #2

Test #3

Work-1

Work-2

Work-3


19

Figure 20: HC 3/16-5052-0015 quasi-static plot.

Figure 21: HC 1/8-5052-0015 quasi-static plot.

4.1.2 Discussion

The aluminum honeycomb: HC1/8-5052-0015 material absorbed the greatest amount of energy

while the 20 ppi reticulated ceramic absorbed the lease as shown in Figure 16. Figure 17 shows

the amount that each sample compressed before the 6500 N load was achieved. An optimal material would fully stroke over the available 75 mm distance and not exhibit early onset of

densification. Impaxx 700 had the highest crush distance at 69 mm while the Duocel 11-13%

0

50

100

150

200

250

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Wo

rk (

J)

Fo

rce

(N

)

Displacement (mm)

HC 3/16-5052-.0015

Test #1

Test #2

Test #3

Work-1

Work-2

Work-3


0

50

100

150

200

250

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Wo

rk (

J)

Fo

rce

(N

)

Displacement (mm)

HC-1/8-5052-.0015

Test #1

Test #2

Test #3

Work-1

Work-2

Work-3


20

reticulated aluminum foam only compressed 40.3 mm which is less than half of the overall stroke length.

Figure 18 through Figure 21 depict examples of the force vs. displacement plots that were

collected from the quasi-static testing. They exhibit similar features to the ideal force vs. displacement plot shown in Figure 3. The primary differences between these plots are the force

(crush) plateau values and the onset of densification. Figure 18 had an approximate average force

plateau of 700 N, Figure 19 had an approximate average force plateau of 1500 N, Figure 20 had an approximate average force plateau of 2000 N and Figure 21 had an approximate average force

plateau of 4250 N.

Figure 19, the polyurethane PU 6 material, clearly shows that at approximately 30 mm, the force

plateau ceases to be constant and this marks the point where densification begins, albeit slowly at first. At approximately 50 mm of compression, densification begins to exponentially increase.

Conversely, the aluminum honeycomb material, HC3/16-5052-0015, had a very consistent

average force plateau up to 60 mm of compression where immediate densification was reached.

4.2 Drop Testing – Raw Materials

4.2.1 Results

Table 3, shown below, documents the impacts conducted on all of the raw materials using the

equipment described in Section 3.2. In some cases, additional tests were carried out to explore modifications made to the samples such as wrapping them in tape to constrain lateral expansion.

It should be noted that the 125 J test was not conducted on the EPS 3.5 sample because the

sample bottomed out at 75 J. All three grades of the reticulated ceramic samples were only tested at 50 J due to their inability to absorb significant energy, as shown by the quasi-static test results.

21

Table 3: Low velocity drop test results.

Material


Crush

Material

Height*

Crush

Material

Mass*

Measured

Impact

Velocity

Measured

EnergyRepeat

Peak

Acceleratio

n

Peak Force Notes

- pcf mm g m/s J - G N

5.5 77.9 1 93.1 4704.55.51 78.2 2 103.7 5240.15.51 78.2 3 93.9 4744.9

Average 96.9 4896.5

5.51 78.2 1 54.5 2754.05.51 78.2 2 55.7 2814.65.51 78.2 3 53.8 2718.6

Average 54.7 2762.4

7.05 128.0 1 169.1 8544.87.04 127.6 2 156 7882.97.05 128.0 3 164.3 8302.3

Average 163.1 8243.3

5.51 78.2 1 40.3 2036.45.51 78.2 2 42.1 2127.45.51 78.2 3 42.8 2162.7

Average 41.7 2108.8

7.05 128.0 1 155.8 7872.87.04 127.6 2 211.3 10677.37.03 127.3 3 272 13744.5

Average 213.0 10764.9

7.05 128.0 1 121.3 6129.4 wrapped in duct tape7.04 127.6 2 135.9 6867.2 wrapped in duct tape7.04 127.6 3 145.7 7362.4 wrapped in duct tape

Average 134.3 6786.4

5.49 77.6 1 42.8 2162.75.48 77.3 2 43.5 2198.15.51 78.2 3 42.4 2142.5

Average 42.9 2167.8

7.04 127.6 1 252 12733.97.04 127.6 2 114.2 5770.77.02 126.9 3 134.9 6816.7

Average 167.0 8440.4

7.04 127.6 1 83.1 4199.2 wrapped in filament tape7.05 128.0 2 82 4143.6 wrapped in duct tape-tape tore 7.05 128.0 3 80.4 4062.7 wrapped in duct tape-tape tore

Average 81.8 4135.1

5.52 78.5 1 75.3 3805.05.51 78.2 2 70.7 3572.65.5 77.9 3 73.9 3734.3

Average 73.3 3703.9

7.03 127.3 1 80.2 4052.6 wrapped in duct tape-2 layers7.04 127.6 2 77.5 3916.2 wrapped in duct tape-2 layers7.03 127.3 3 78.8 3981.9 wrapped in duct tape-2 layers

Average 78.8 3983.6

5.5 77.9 1 106.6 5386.65.51 78.2 2 106.4 5376.55.5 77.9 3 107.4 5427.1

Average 106.8 5396.7

7.03 127.3 1 109.3 5523.17.26 135.7 2 110.9 5603.9 wrapped in duct tape-2 layers7.02 126.9 3 109.4 5528.1 wrapped in duct tape-2 layers

Average 109.9 5551.7* some materials required alumium plates in between sections to build up to desired heith; plates were not included in height or mass measurments

1576

10

76 18

FR3708 8.0

FR3706 6.0 76

FR3710 10.0

EPS-3.5 3.5 75 6

Impaxx 700 5763.3

EPS-4.5 4.5 75 8

22

(low velocity drop test results continued)

The following force vs. time plots are examples of the data collected under the low velocity drop testing for the materials described in Table 3. Samples of the force vs. time plots are shown in

Annex B.

Material


Crush

Material

Height*

Crush

Material

Mass*

Measured

Impact

Velocity

Measured

EnergyRepeat

Peak

Acceleratio

n

Peak Force Notes

- pcf mm g m/s J - G N5.51 78.2 1 50.8 2567.05.51 78.2 2 49.2 2486.15.5 77.9 3 49.4 2496.2

Average 49.8 2516.5

7.04 127.6 1 50.6 2556.97.04 127.6 2 51.2 2587.27.03 127.3 3 49.2 2486.1

Average 50.3 2543.4

5.51 78.2 1 83.1 4199.25.51 78.2 2 72.9 3683.75.51 78.2 3 80.2 4052.6

Average 78.7 3978.5

7.04 127.6 1 77.4 3911.17.04 127.6 2 76.6 3870.77.07 128.7 3 82.7 4178.9

Average 78.9 3986.9

5.51 78.2 1 101.2 5113.85.51 78.2 2 106.4 5376.55.51 78.2 3 101.4 5123.9

Average 103.0 5204.7

7.06 128.4 1 103.2 5214.87.04 127.6 2 97.3 4916.77.05 128.0 3 103.4 5224.9

Average 101.3 5118.8

5.5 77.9 1 68.7 3471.55.51 78.2 2 66.2 3345.25.51 78.2 3 58.3 2946.0

Average 64.4 3254.2

7.04 127.6 1 148.1 7483.7 Sample bottomed outNA NA 2 NA NA No Test NA NA 3 NA NA No Test

Average 148.1 7483.7

5.51 78.2 1 82.3 4158.75.5 77.9 2 82.4 4163.85.5 77.9 3 87.6 4426.5

Average 84.1 4249.7

7.03 127.3 1 89.6 4527.67.04 127.6 2 93.1 4704.57.05 128.0 3 92.6 4679.2

Average 91.8 4637.1

5.5 77.9 1 92.1 4653.95.49 77.6 2 93.6 4729.75.5 77.9 3 93.2 4709.5

Average 93.0 4697.7

7.04 127.6 1 104.2 5265.47.04 127.6 2 104.4 5275.57.04 127.6 3 104.9 5300.7

Average 104.5 5280.5

4.47 51.5 1 105.7 5341.24.46 51.2 2 114 5760.64.48 51.7 3 117.5 5937.4

Average 112.4 5679.7

4.48 51.7 1 72.7 3673.64.48 51.7 2 126.6 6397.34.48 51.7 3 79.2 4002.1

Average 92.8 4691.0

4.48 51.7 1 129.8 6559.04.47 51.5 2 205.9 10404.44.47 51.5 3 144.7 7311.9

Average 160.1 8091.7* some materials required alumium plates in between sections to build up to desired heith; plates were not included in height or mass measurments

3/16 5052-0015 4.4

18.0

20 ppi, 6-8% RD 13.4

1/8 5052-0015

20 ppi, 11-13% RD 20.0

20 ppi, 9-11% RD

6.1 75 11

75 20

7

75 27

75 30

75

75 93/16-5052-002 5.7

IC30 ppi 39.4

IC10 ppi 35.4

IC20 ppi 32

75 53

75 48

75 59

23

Figure 22: EPS 3.5, 75 J drop test.

Figure 23: PU6, 75 J drop test.

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Fo

rce

(N

)

Time (ms)

Force vs. Time

EPS 3.5 @ 75 J

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Fo

rce

(N

)

Time (ms)

Force vs. Time

PU 6 @ 75 J

24

Figure 24: PU 6, 125 J drop test.

Figure 25: PU 6 (wrapped), 125 J drop test.

-2000

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Fo

rce

(N

)

Time (ms)

Force vs. Time

PU 6 @ 125J

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Fo

rce

(N

)

Time (ms)

Force vs. Time

PU 6 (wrapped) @ 125 J

25

Figure 26: HC3/16-5052-0015, 75 J drop test.


-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Fo

rce

(N

)

Time (ms)

Force vs. Time

HC3/16-5052-0015 @ 75 J

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Fo

rce

(N

)

Time (ms)

Force vs. Time

HC 3/16-5052-0015 @ 125 J

26



4.2.2 Discussion

As with the ideal force vs. displacement plot from a quasi-static test, one would expect to see a

similar response in terms of having a constant force plateau for the low velocity drop testing.

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Fo

rce

(N

)

Time (ms)

Force vs. Time

HC 3/16-5052-002 @ 75 J

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Fo

rce

(N

)

Time (ms)

Force vs. Time

HC 3/16-5052-002 @ 125 J

27

However, the differences in the loading rates begin to affect the behaviour of some materials tested. For example, Figure 30 shows the PU 6 sample in the quasi-static test apparatus in a fully

crushed state while Figure 31 a) and b) show the same material after being impacted at 75 J and

125 J respectively. The differences in the failure mode between the two different loading methods are quite evident. As such, the response of some of the samples between quasi-static and

the drop testing do differ, however, some materials behave in a similar manner.

Figure 30: PU 6, fully crushed in quasi-static test.

a) b)

Figure 31: a) 75 J impact on PU 6, b) 125 J impact on PU 6.

The response of the EPS 3.5, as shown in Figure 22, presents the characteristics of bottoming and

its inability to manage the impact energy. Given the crushable nature of the material, there is the characteristic rapid loading followed by a brief constant force plateau, however, after the force

plateau, densification occurred at a point where the impact face was continuing to move

downward and this caused the force to rapidly increase to a total of near 4700 N at an impact energy of only 75 J.

Sample before impact

Sample after impact

28

Figure 23, Figure 24 and Figure 25 show the response of the polyurethane material PU 6 at drop energies of 75 J, 125 J and 125 J with a modified sample. Figure 23 shows a desirable force

plateau without any densification occurring, suggesting that this material is more than capable of

managing the imparted impact energy. However, if the impact energy is increased to 125 J, it is evident that the material was unable to manage this increase in impact energy. Figure 24 shows

similar characteristics to that of the EPS 3.5 material in Figure 22 with densification occurring.

Figure 31 b) shows the state of the sample after the 125 J impact with the sample flattened and unable to effectively manage the energy over the available stroke length. In an effort to prevent

flattening of the sample, another test was performed where the sample was wrapped in a very

high tensile strength tape which effectively constrained the sample to a column during the impact

event. The resulting plot for the test can be seen in Figure 25 and a picture of the sample after the impact is shown in Figure 32. The tape wrapping greatly increased the stability of the sample and

consequently the peak force was reduced but it still appears that this material is not able to fully

manage the 125 Joules of impact energy.

Figure 32: Wrapped PU 6 sample after impact.

Figure 26 through Figure 29 are the test results for the aluminum honeycomb, HC3/16-5052-0015 at 75 J and 125 J, and HC3/16-5052-002 at 75 J and 125 J. The first observation that can be made

from these graphs is that they all have the same shape of trace with a rapidly rising force upon

impact which increases to a force plateau and then dropping back to zero after the impactor has

been arrested. None of the samples experienced any densification at either of the two impact energies. Most importantly, with respect to the project objective, the peak forces for each sample

are the same between the two different impact energies. The HC3/16-5052-0015 material had a

peak force just over 2500 N for both the 75 J and the 125 J impact and the HC3/16-5052-002 material had a peak force around 4000 N for the 75 J and the 125 J impact. Figure 33 shows the

amount of crush that occurred for each impact energy; note how for the 75 J impact, the sample

only crushed half way but for the 125 J impact, the sample has crushed almost all of the way suggesting that if the energy were any higher, densification would have occurred and the peak

force at the end of the trace would have greatly increased.

29

a) b)

Figure 33: HC3/16-5052-0015 after and before impact: a) 75 J impact, b) 125 J impact.

Figure 34 shows the amount of crush that occurred with the HC3/16-5052-002 for each impact energy. Note the differences in the crush heights between Figure 33 and Figure 34. The HC3/16-

5052-002, after the 125 J impact test has been crushed half way suggesting that the sample could

have absorbed more energy before densification occurred. The trade-off with the stiffer grade of material when compared to the HC3/16-5052-0015 is a peak force that was approximately

1500 N higher.

a) b)

Figure 34: HC3/16-5052-002: a) 75 J impact, b) 125 J impact.

Based on the results from the quasi-static tests and the low velocity impact testing of the raw

material samples, two materials at two densities were selected for the high velocity, free flight tests. The following three parameters were used in the down selection:

1) Mass of the sample. This was chosen as a parameter because the mass of the sample

needed to be accounted for in the calculation for the total impact energy when used as a

projectile. A heavier the sample requires more impact energy to be absorbed.

2) Peak impact forces near the 5000-8000 N force for the low velocity drop testing at both

impact energies.

30

3) Consistency in the peak force between the two different impact energies conducted in thelow velocity drop tests. This parameter is important because the performance and

consistency of the material at the low velocity testing hopefully will extrapolate to the

high velocity, free flight testing when the samples are used as projectiles.

While the data collected using the quasi-static test apparatus were not used in the down selection,

it supported the data gathered by the low velocity drop testing. Based on the parameters noted

above, the polyurethane PU 6 and PU 8 was the first combination selected and the second selected was the aluminum honeycomb HC3/16-5052-0015 and HC3/16-5052-002.

4.3 High Velocity, Free Flight Testing

Upon post-test evaluation of the data, it was discovered that the velocity measured by the air

powered cannon system was reading approximately 13%-19% too slow (velocity was verified

using the collected high speed video). It was theorized that that when the projectile being fired from the air powered cannon passed through the first light beam

3, the projectile continued to

accelerate until it reached the second beam because there were no holes in the barrel for the air

pressure to bleed off. The continued acceleration of the projectile results in a faster moving projectile than what was measured using the cannon’s velocity gate. The velocity data presented

for the high velocity free flight testing, is as measured by the air powered cannon system and has

not been adjusted.

4.3.1 COTS KENLW Projectiles

4.3.1.1 Results

Table 4 outlines the test results collected from the high velocity, free flight testing of the COTS projectiles. Five repeats were conducted at each impact velocity.

3 The air powered cannon system uses a two light beam velocity gate; when the first beam is broken, a

timer is started and when the second beam is broken by the projectile, the timer is stopped. Knowing the

distance between the beams, a velocity can be calculated.

31

Table 4: COTS projectile test results.

The following force responses, collected from the segmented load plate are examples of the data

collected under the high velocity, free flight testing for the projectiles described in Table 4. Examples of the segmented load plate force vs. time plots for each configuration listed in Table 4

are shown in Annex C. The remaining plots can be found on the client supplied CD.

Material

Name/Model

Crush

Material

Height

Total

Mass*Repeat

Target

Impact

Velcity

Measured

Impact

Velocity

Measured

Energy

Total

Peak

Force

Load Cell

#1

Load

Cell #2

Load

Cell #3

Load

Cell #4

Load

Cell #5

Load

Cell #6

Load

Cell #7Notes

mm g m/s m/s J N N N N N N N N -

1 68 66.9 60.4 15159.7 3797.8 589.7 409.6 776.2 4141.5 5885.1 1257.9

2 68 67.9 62.2 15612.5 5521.4 1315.1 2156.1 3054.9 1803.8 1751.1 942.0

3 68 68.1 62.6 15504.6 4476.6 3301.4 4418.8 1726.3 666.2 1323.6 1208.2

4 68 69.3 64.8 17182.9 5150.3 1342.7 1692.4 2091.8 2276.9 3478.3 1578.1

5 68 68.0 62.4 18153.2 5699.3 3320.7 2178.8 1329.3 1024.2 2173.6 2794.0

Avg. 16322.6

1 102 109.3 161.3 25693.6 7622.4 2327.2 1639.1 1904.8 3638.2 6748.2 4084.1

2 102 106.9 154.3 28081.4 9474.6 2296.2 2025.6 3190.2 4042.2 6574.4 3264.2

3 102 109.0 160.4 26554.6 9294.7 2321.8 2312.5 3092.6 2987.2 4822.0 3346.9

4 102 103.9 145.7 26537.0 9029.6 2285.3 2278.5 2957.6 3915.0 4817.1 2720.2

5 102 105.8 151.1 25757.1 10800.4 1494.4 569.9 1967.5 4577.9 5166.9 3002.5 Data loss on HS video

Avg. 26524.8

1 68 66.6 77.6 9587.2 5260.9 1446.5 809.7 373.1 329.3 649.6 946.8

2 68 67.6 80.0 9071.7 5103.0 1100.3 724.5 372.0 391.2 584.1 910.4

3 68 67.0 78.6 10672.7 5916.3 636.8 595.3 713.3 878.6 1157.0 818.2

4 68 66.2 76.7 9398.8 4950.7 1079.1 662.3 444.0 428.6 908.8 1047.2

5 68 66.5 77.4 9975.1 5538.1 902.8 803.9 538.8 449.7 806.6 993.3

Avg. 9741.1

1 102 112.4 221.1 26713.5 13828.0 3653.8 2864.9 1381.7 898.4 1610.3 2522.6

2 102 106.9 200.0 24409.7 12788.4 3318.9 2569.3 1319.5 861.0 1301.5 2253.7

3 102 109.4 209.4 25667.6 13774.1 3047.3 1854.9 966.8 1087.0 2032.3 2907.9

4 102 108.6 206.4 26734.9 13739.2 3415.6 1259.0 603.6 969.0 2770.3 4049.5

5 102 109.2 208.7 25832.3 12700.7 2230.9 814.3 663.2 1440.1 3985.6 4093.8

Avg. 25871.6

* Total mass includes rear plastic part from DT6325

35DT6323 35

27 DT6325 28

32

Figure 35: DT6325 segmented load plate response, 68 m/s.


-500

1500

3500

5500

7500

9500

11500

13500

15500

17500

19500

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Fo

rce

(N

)

Tims (ms)

Force vs. Time

Segmented Load Plate

LC#1

LC#2

LC#3

LC#4

LC#5

LC#6

LC#7

TOTAL

Sample:

Repeat: 4

DT6325

Velocity (m/s)= 69.3

-500

4500

9500

14500

19500

24500

29500

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Fo

rce

(N

)

Tims (ms)

Force vs. Time


LC#1

LC#2

LC#3

LC#4

LC#5

LC#6

LC#7

TOTAL

Sample:

Repeat: 3

DT6325

Velocity (m/s)= 109

33


Figure 38; DT6323 segmented load plate response, 102 m/s.

-500

1500

3500

5500

7500

9500

11500

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Fo

rce

(N

)

Tims (ms)

Force vs. Time


LC#1

LC#2

LC#3

LC#4

LC#5

LC#6

LC#7

TOTAL

Sample:

Repeat: 5

DT6323


-500

4500

9500

14500

19500

24500

29500

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Fo

rce

(N

)

Tims (ms)

Force vs. Time


LC#1

LC#2

LC#3

LC#4

LC#5

LC#6

LC#7

TOTAL

Sample:

Repeat: 3

DT6323


34

4.3.1.2 Discussion

Figure 35 and Figure 36 show the results of the individual forces measured by the segmented load

plate as well as the total force as described in Section 3.3 for the nominal 68 m/s and 102 m/s

impact velocities of the Defense Technologies 6325 sponge tipped projectile. It can be observed that the peak total force exceeded the 5000-8000 N target that was imposed as the upper limit for

either impact velocity. The impact duration for both tests were very short suggesting that there

was limited ride down distance experienced by the projectile which only has a standoff distance of 28 mm. In most cases, the blue sponge nose of the DT6325 projectile delaminated from the

base at some point during the impact.

Figure 37 and Figure 38 show the measured loads from the segmented load plate for the DT6323

inert round. The total peak force, although not high as the DT6325, still exceeded the 5000-8000 N impact force limit. The impact durations were only slightly longer than DT6325

projectile suggesting that its standoff distance was slightly greater. The standoff distance for the

DT6323 was measured to be 35 mm. In all of the tests, the nose of the DT6323 projectile crushed and broke up into many small pieces and often crumbled into powder as a result of the severity of

the impacts.

4.3.2 Raw Materials

Table 5 outlines the test results collected from the high velocity free flight testing of two

materials at two densities that were down selected. All of the polyurethane samples were

wrapped with a high tensile strength tape.

35

4.3.2.1 Results

Table 5: Raw material projectile test results.

The following force vs. time plots, collected from the segmented plate are examples of the data

collected under the high velocity free flight testing for the projectiles described in Table 5. Examples of the segmented plate force vs. time plots for one of the repeats as shown in Table 5

are shown in Annex C. The remaining plots can be found on the client supplied CD.

Material

Name/Model

Crush

Material

Height

Total

Mass*Repeat

Target

Impact

Velcity

Measured

Impact

Velocity

Measured

Energy

Total

Peak

Force

Load Cell

#1

Load

Cell #2

Load

Cell #3

Load

Cell #4

Load

Cell #5

Load

Cell #6

Load

Cell #7Notes

mm g m/s m/s J N N N N N N N N -

1 68 67.3 72.5 2669.3 926.8 346.4 340.1 314.0 300.4 260.1 244.7

2 68 62.7 62.9 2399.7 886.0 245.3 252.3 232.7 296.4 374.6 215.7

3 68 67.6 73.1 2461.5 907.3 275.3 313.0 283.4 246.5 372.1 251.8

Avg. 2510.1

1 102 105.6 178.4 12722.1 7385.2 1246.6 752.9 604.9 721.2 1197.8 1064.5

2 102 105.4 177.7 12715.3 7163.5 1685.4 1201.4 577.9 542.4 813.2 1177.6

3 102 103.5 171.4 11552.0 6759.7 969.8 637.9 568.7 627.8 1204.3 1041.6

Avg. 12329.8

1 68 64.5 74.9 3679.6 1272.9 561.5 419.4 213.4 202.7 502.6 606.3

2 68 65.5 77.2 3595.9 1337.4 578.7 548.4 291.2 256.7 388.7 409.3 Data loss on HS video

3 68 68.1 83.5 3887.6 1326.0 821.7 816.8 389.1 143.6 245.7 364.6

Avg. 3721.0

1 102 108.9 213.5 10547.5 4120.0 1357.1 865.1 455.8 622.4 1492.9 1728.8

2 102 107.3 207.2 10287.1 4288.8 1418.5 1092.7 709.6 407.7 1025.0 1420.5

3 102 108.6 212.3 10172.2 4024.9 1552.5 1040.7 577.0 442.7 1156.8 1461.9

Avg. 10335.6

1 68 68.6 68.2 2538.8 1152.8 72.3 251.8 331.0 538.0 445.2 101.9 31 mm crush

2 68 66.5 64.1 2626.3 1218.3 288.3 251.1 249.6 285.1 282.9 240.7 31 mm crush

3 68 65.1 61.5 2729.2 1124.5 431.7 444.7 212.6 160.1 264.1 236.2 30 mm crush

Avg. 2631.4

1 102 108.8 171.6 4309.6 1951.4 843.6 364.8 219.4 679.7 937.8 528.1Data loss on HS video - 65

mm crush - full crush

2 102 109.0 172.3 4117.8 1894.9 743.3 806.0 279.7 180.8 1245.9 825.1 66 mm crush - full crush

3 102 108.5 170.7 4222.7 1893.5 467.6 493.1 392.0 365.9 594.2 808.0 64 mm crush - full crush

Avg. 4216.7

1 68 68.1 74.2 3965.8 1905.5 665.5 470.2 285.9 192.3 174.9 339.3 28 mm crush

2 68 66.8 71.4 3995.0 1748.8 412.0 227.1 297.8 465.3 562.8 320.7 27 mm crush

3 68 67.6 73.1 3865.5 1705.8 399.1 382.6 221.1 204.0 517.6 486.6 28 mm crush

Avg. 3942.1

1 102 108.6 188.7 6116.7 2175.4 1231.7 293.7 54.6 276.4 670.9 1770.5 46 mm crush

2 102 110.3 194.7 5779.8 2658.7 523.2 811.6 735.7 462.1 398.5 387.3 49 mm crush

3 102 109.2 190.8 5583.6 2646.4 390.9 555.3 549.6 513.3 604.5 451.6 49 mm crush

Avg. 5826.7

* Total mass includes rear plastic part from DT6325

** The crushable component of the projectile was wrapped in tape

29

75 36

3/16-5052-002 75 32

3/16-5052-0015 75

FR3708**

FR3706** 3275

36

Figure 39: PU 8 segmented load plate response, 68 m/s free flight test.

Figure 40: PU 8 segmented load plate response, 102 m/s free flight test.

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Fo

rce

(N

)

Tims (ms)

Force vs. Time


LC#1

LC#2

LC#3

LC#4

LC#5

LC#6

LC#7

TOTAL

Sample:

Repeat: 2

PU 8


-500

1500

3500

5500

7500

9500

11500

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Fo

rce

(N

)

Tims (ms)

Force vs. Time


LC#1

LC#2

LC#3

LC#4

LC#5

LC#6

LC#7

TOTAL

Sample:

Repeat: 3

PU 8


37

Figure 41: HC 3/16-5052-0015 segmented load plate response, 68 m/s free flight test.


-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Fo

rce

(N

)

Tims (ms)

Force vs. Time


LC#1

LC#2

LC#3

LC#4

LC#5

LC#6

LC#7

TOTAL

Sample:

Repeat: 3

HC 3/16-5052-0015


-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Fo

rce

(N

)

Tims (ms)

Force vs. Time


LC#1

LC#2

LC#3

LC#4

LC#5

LC#6

LC#7

TOTAL

Sample:

Repeat: 2

HC 3/16-5052-0015

Velocity (m/s)= 109

38



-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Fo

rce

(N

)

Tims (ms)

Force vs. Time


LC#1

LC#2

LC#3

LC#4

LC#5

LC#6

LC#7

TOTAL

Sample:

Repeat: 2

HC 3/16-5052-002


-500

500

1500

2500

3500

4500

5500

6500

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Fo

rce

(N

)

Tims (ms)

Force vs. Time


LC#1

LC#2

LC#3

LC#4

LC#5

LC#6

LC#7

TOTAL

Sample:

Repeat: 2

HC 3/16-5052-002


39

4.3.2.2 Discussion

Table 5 shows that the polyurethane PU 6 performed well at the nominal impact velocity of

68 m/s, however, the material was unable to manage the energy at the nominal 102 m/s impact

velocity. Peak average forces for the 68 m/s and the 102 m/s impact velocities were 2510 N and 12330 N, respectively. It should be noted that the PU 6 samples that were tested were wrapped in

an identical manner to that described in the low velocity testing to maintain integrity of the

projectile during the impact event.

Figure 39 and Figure 40 show plots from the polyurethane PU 8 striking the segmented load plate

at a nominal impact velocity of 68 m/s and 102 m/s respectively. Peak forces for the 68 m/s and

the 102 m/s impact velocities resulted in average peak forces of 3721 N and 10336 N,

respectively. The peak total force for the elevated impact velocity was close to three times that of the 68 m/s impact velocity which does not meet the objective of this project. Figure 45 shows the

PU 8 sample before and after being shot at 68 m/s and 102 m/s. The PU 8 sample was wrapped

in tape in a similar fashion to what was done in the low velocity drop tests to maintain integrity of the projectile during the impact event.

Figure 45: PU 8 projectile, left to right: untested, 68 m/s test and 102 m/s test.

Figure 41 and Figure 42 show plots from the aluminum honeycomb HC3/16-5052-0015 striking

the segmented load plate at a nominal impact velocity of 68 m/s and 102 m/s, respectively. Peak

average forces for the 68 m/s and the 102 m/s impact velocities resulted 2631 N and 4217 N,

respectively. It can be noted that there is a difference of 1586 N between the nominal 68 m/s test and the 102 m/s tests. The difference can likely be attributed to strain rate sensitivity of the

material. It should be noted, however, that the peak total force for the nominal 68 m/s test was

very close to the same peak force for the low velocity drop testing as shown in Figure 26 and Figure 27 and that the impact forces for both impact velocities fell below the 5000-8000 N

threshold.

The HC 3/16-5052-0015 sample crushed an average of 30.7 mm at the nominal 68 m/s impact velocity and crushed an average of 65 mm at the 102 m/s impact velocity. The crushed samples

can be seen in Figure 46. It should be noted that the samples tested at 102 m/s did not have any

remaining amount of crushable material.

40

Figure 46: HC3/16-5052-0015 projectile, left to right: untested, 68 m/s test and 102 m/s test.

Figure 43 and Figure 44 show plots from the aluminum honeycomb HC3/16-5052-002 striking

the segmented load plate at a nominal impact velocity of 68 m/s and 102 m/s respectively. Peak forces for the 68 m/s and the 102 m/s impact velocities resulted in average peak forces of 3942 N

and 5827 N respectively resulting in a difference in the peak total force of approximately 1885 N.

It should be noted that the impact forces for both impact velocities fell below the 5000-8000 N threshold.

The HC 3/16-5052-002 sample crushed an average of 27.6 mm at the nominal 68 m/s impact

velocity and crushed an average of 48 mm at the 102 m/s impact velocity. The crushed samples

are presented in Figure 47. The sample tested at the 102 m/s impact velocity still had some crushable material remaining.

Figure 47: HC3/16-5052-002 projectile, left to right: untested, 68 m/s test and 102 m/s test.

DRDC Valcartier CR [enter number only: 9999-999] 41

5 Discussion

The data collected during the quasi-static testing identified materials that had the capability to

absorb large quantities of energy and those that could not, such as EPS 3.5, Impaxx 700 and the

reticulated ceramics. While the quasi-static data was useful for initial down selection it did not

clearly identify materials that could manage dynamic impact energies. This was where the low velocity drop testing results provided real value in determining the most suitable materials to be

used in the high velocity projectile testing.

As noted previously, the force responses of materials behaved differently depending on the rate at which the load was applied. This was identified with the polyurethane PU 6 material that

flattened out and burst during the impact event. This material characteristic was modified by

wrapping the sample with a high tensile strength tape which constrained the sample to column like buckling. This approach of wrapping the polyurethane test samples was also implemented

for the high velocity free flight testing.

The high velocity free flight testing represented the third and final phase of testing conducted, it

also was the testing that best replicated the dynamics of a projectile being fired from a 40 mm grenade launcher. Both of the Defense Technologies projectiles resulted in very large impact

forces on the segmented load plate. By comparison, the four raw material solutions tested had

impact forces far less than the COTS rounds. It should be pointed out, however, that this is not a fair comparison due to the fact that the standoff distances are different between the COTS

projectiles and the raw material projectiles. The DT6325 and the DT6323 had tip standoff

distances of 28 mm and 35 mm respectively, while the raw material projectiles had a tip standoff of 75 mm. The nominal 102 m/s impact of the HC3/16-5052-0015 aluminum honeycomb sample

shown in Figure 46 resulted in the entire crushable element being consumed and, therefore, the

overall length of the sample could not be reduced and still maintain the same peak impact forces.

However, the overall length of the HC3/16-5052-002 sample as shown in Figure 47 could be reduced by 27 mm as it only crushed 48 mm at the nominal 102 m/s impact while maintaining the

same peak impact force. Although not explored, stiffer versions of the aluminum honeycomb

could be used4 to further reduce the tip standoff with the obvious consequence of having higher

impact forces due to the increased stiffness.

It can be seen in Figure 15 that the projectile was not going to impact the segmented load plate

normal to the surface. A review of the high speed video revealed that the majority of the impacts

were not normal to the surface. A closer look at Figure 47 shows the tip of the aluminum honeycomb material being deformed at an angle, providing further evidence that there is

projectile yaw/pitch at impact. It should be noted that although most of the samples did not

impact the segmented load plate normal to the surface, the samples did not tip over or tumble as a result and the crushable element of the samples tested performed their function as intended. This

result is encouraging since it is not likely encounter a target with a perfectly flat surface or be

square to the projectile’s line of travel in the real world.

4 Example: HC1/8-5052-0015 was evaluated in the low velocity testing but not carried forward due to

having a higher density and higher peak forces than its counterparts.

42

6 Conclusions

The following is a list of conclusions reached through the work carried out herein:

1. Quasi-static testing is a good measure of a crushable materials ability to absorb energy,

however, it cannot predict how well samples will perform in dynamic impact events.

2. Low velocity drop testing is a good measure of a crushable materials ability to absorbenergy. This could be used in future work to cost effectively evaluate other materials that

wish to be considered as the crushable element for a force limiting projectile.

3. High velocity free flight testing using an air powered cannon represented the mostrealistic replication of the dynamics of a projectile from a velocity/energy perspective.

4. The segmented load plate provided reliable impact force data. The use of a single load

plate as opposed to a segmented one would probably have resulted in similar responsesprovided that the measurement bandwidths were similar.

5. The following materials tested to the high velocity free flight testing fell within the 5000-

8000 N force limit at both of the tested impact velocities: aluminum honeycomb

HC3/16-5052-0015 and HC3/16-5052-002.

6. The peak responses of the materials identified in Note 5 were not the same at the different

impact velocities tested. The aluminum honeycomb HC3/16-5052-0015 material had a

difference in peak force of 1586 N between the nominal 68 m/s and the 102 m/s tests.The aluminum honeycomb HC3/16-5052-002 material had a difference in peak force of

1586 N between the nominal 68 m/s and the 102 m/s tests.

43

7 Future Work

The following is a list of various tasks that require further research in order to create a load

limiting projectile that is ready for wide spread use:

1. The objective of the KENLW projectile is to cause pain, not injury. Research needs to be

conducted to determine, for a given body region, what impact force is required to achievedifferent degrees of pain. The data collected from this research will better define the

upper force limits required so as to minimize the potential for serious injury while still

being effective.

2. The high velocity, free flight tests had projectiles striking a segmented load plate which

had a hard, non-deformable surface. The interaction of the projectile and the segmented

load plate during the impact in terms of localized pressure is unknown and thereforefurther research needs to be conducted to evaluate the potential for skin laceration as a

result of the impact. For example, the impact surface area of the aluminum honeycomb is

extremely small compared to that of the polyurethane as seen in Figure 48. The resulting

pressure of the aluminum honeycomb acting on a human target will likely causelaceration at the impact forces that have been recorded. Therefore, compliant or rigid

distribution plates will need to be implemented in the projectile to reduce this possibility.

Figure 48: Differences in impact surface area.

3. It is suggested that in addition to evaluating prototypes against a rigid load plate,

evaluations with biofidelic test systems such as the Blunt Trauma Torso Rig should beconducted as this testing will offer further insight on the interaction between the

projectile and a compliant material, and hence, more realistic assessment of insult.

4. All of the testing that was carried out was performed at ambient temperatures. Further

testing will be required to evaluate proposed projectiles at both the hot and cold extremesto reflect the range of temperatures in which the projectile may be used.

5. As noted previously, it is unlikely that a target will present itself in an ideal manner, that

is, it won’t always be square to the projectiles line of travel. Further testing ought to beconducted to look at what minimum angle between the projectile and the target surface

44

will result in continued effective crushing of projectile. The unintended effects of oblique impacts can also be assessed.

6. The raw material projectiles will require additional effort for packaging and integration

with the DT6325 base for use with a grenade launcher.

7. As previously discussed, there is a difference between the overall length of the COTS

projectiles that were tested and the raw material projectiles. Further testing is required to

evaluate whether these longer projectiles will be stable during flight to ensure targetingaccuracy.

45

References .....

Non Available

46


47

��-�� Annex A

The force vs. displacement plots and energy absorbed plots shown below were collected using the

quasi-static test apparatus.

48

0

50

100

150

200

250

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Wo

rk (

J)

Fo

rce

(N

)

Displacement (mm)

EPS 3.5

Test #1

Test #2

Test #3

Work-1

Work-2

Work-3


0

50

100

150

200

250

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Wo

rk (

J)

Fo

rce

(N

)

Displacement (mm)

EPS 4.5

Test #1

Test #2

Test #3

Work-1

Work-2

Work-3


49

0

50

100

150

200

250

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Wo

rk (

J)

Fo

rce

(N

)

Displacement (mm)

Impaxx 700

Test #1

Test #2

Test #3

Work-1

Work-2

Work-3


0

50

100

150

200

250

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Wo

rk (

J)

Fo

rce

(N

)

Displacement (mm)

PU6

Test #1

Test #2

Test #3

Work-1

Work-2

Work-3


50

0

50

100

150

200

250

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Wo

rk (

J)

Fo

rce

(N

)

Displacement (mm)

PU8

Test #1

Test #2

Test #3

Work-1

Work-2

Work-3


0

50

100

150

200

250

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Wo

rk (

J)

Fo

rce

(N

)

Displacement (mm)

PU10

Test #1

Test #2

Test #3

Work-1

Work-2

Work-3


51

0

50

100

150

200

250

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Wo

rk (

J)

Fo

rce

(N

)

Displacement (mm)

HC 3/16-5052-.0015

Test #1

Test #2

Test #3

Work-1

Work-2

Work-3


0

50

100

150

200

250

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Wo

rk (

J)

Fo

rce

(N

)

Displacement (mm)

HC 3/16 - 5052-0.002

Test #1

Test #2

Test #3

Work-1

Work-2

Work-3


52

0

50

100

150

200

250

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Wo

rk (

J)

Fo

rce

(N

)

Displacement (mm)

HC-1/8-5052-.0015

Test #1

Test #2

Test #3

Work-1

Work-2

Work-3


0

50

100

150

200

250

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Wo

rk (

J)

Fo

rce

(N

)

Displacement (mm)

DuoCel 6-8%

Test #1

Test #2

Test #3

Work-1

Work-2

Work-3


53

0

50

100

150

200

250

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Wo

rk (

J)

Fo

rce

(N

)

Displacement (mm)

DuoCel 9-11%

Test #1

Test #2

Test #3

Work-1

Work-2

Work-3


0

50

100

150

200

250

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Wo

rk (

J)

Fo

rce

(N

)

Displacement (mm)

DuoCel 11-13%

Test #1

Test #2

Test #3

Work-1

Work-2

Work-3


54

0

50

100

150

200

250

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Wo

rk (

J)

Fo

rce

(N

)

Displacement (mm)

InduCeramic 10 ppi

Test #1

Test #2

Test #3

Work-1

Work-2

Work-3


0

50

100

150

200

250

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Wo

rk (

J)

Fo

rce

(N

)

Displacement (mm)

InduCeramic 20 ppi

Test #1

Test #2

Test #3

Work-1

Work-2

Work-3


55

0

50

100

150

200

250

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Wo

rk (

J)

Fo

rce

(N

)

Displacement (mm)

InduCeramic 30 ppi

Test #1

Test #2

Test #3

Work-1

Work-2

Work-3


56

�� Annex B

The force vs. time plots shown below are only for the first repeat test from Table 3. All of the

other plots can be viewed on the CD supplied to the client.

57

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Fo

rce

(N

)

Time (ms)

Force vs. Time

EPS 3.5 @ 75 J

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Fo

rce

(N

)

Time (ms)

Force vs. Time

EPS 4.5 @ 75 J

58

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Fo

rce

(N

)

Time (ms)

Force vs. Time

EPS 4.5 @ 125 J

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Fo

rce

(N

)

Time (ms)

Force vs. Time

Impaxx 700 @ 75 J

59

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Fo

rce

(N

)

Time (ms)

Force vs. Time

Impaxx 700 @ 125 J

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Fo

rce

(N

)

Time (ms)

Force vs. Time

Impax 700 (wrapped) @ 125 J

60

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Fo

rce

(N

)

Time (ms)

Force vs. Time

PU 6 @ 75 J

-2000

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Fo

rce

(N

)

Time (ms)

Force vs. Time

PU 6 @ 125J

61

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Fo

rce

(N

)

Time (ms)

Force vs. Time


-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Fo

rce

(N

)

Time (ms)

Force vs. Time

PU 8 @ 75 J

62

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Fo

rce

(N

)

Time (ms)

Force vs. Time


-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Fo

rce

(N

)

Time (ms)

Force vs. Time

PU 10 @ 75 J

63

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Fo

rce

(N

)

Time (ms)

Force vs. Time

PU 10 @ 125 J

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Fo

rce

(N

)

Time (ms)

Force vs. Time

HC3/16-5052-0015 @ 75 J

64

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Fo

rce

(N

)

Time (ms)

Force vs. Time

HC 3/16-5052-0015 @ 125 J

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Fo

rce

(N

)

Time (ms)

Force vs. Time

HC 3/16-5052-002 @ 75 J

65

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Fo

rce

(N

)

Time (ms)

Force vs. Time

HC 3/16-5052-002 @ 125 J

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Fo

rce

(N

)

Time (ms)

Force vs. Time

HC 1/8-5052-0015 @ 75 J

66

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Fo

rce

(N

)

Time (ms)

Force vs. Time

HC 1/8-5052-0015 @ 125 J

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Fo

rce

(N

)

Time (ms)

Force vs. Time

DuoCel 6-8% @ 75 J

67

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Fo

rce

(N

)

Time (ms)

Force vs. Time

DuoCel 6-8% @ 125 J

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Fo

rce

(N

)

Time (ms)

Force vs. Time

DuoCel 9-11% @ 75 J

68

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Fo

rce

(N

)

Time (ms)

Force vs. Time

DuoCel 9-11% @ 125 J

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Fo

rce

(N

)

Time (ms)

Force vs. Time

DuoCel 11-13% @ 75 J

69

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Fo

rce

(N

)

Time (ms)

Force vs. Time

DuoCel 11-13% @ 125 J

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Fo

rce

(N

)

Time (ms)

Force vs. Time

IC 10 ppi @ 50 J

70

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Fo

rce

(N

)

Time (ms)

Force vs. Time

IC 20 ppi @ 50 J

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 25 50 75 100 125 150

Fo

rce

(N

)

Time (ms)

Force vs. Time

IC 30 ppi @ 50 J

71

�� Annex C

Given the number of tests conducted, only one example for each grouping of tests conducted is

shown below. All of the plots are available on the CD supplied to the client.

72

-500

1500

3500

5500

7500

9500

11500

13500

15500

17500

19500

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Fo

rce

(N

)

Tims (ms)

Force vs. Time


LC#1

LC#2

LC#3

LC#4

LC#5

LC#6

LC#7

TOTAL

Sample:

Repeat: 4

DT6325


-500

4500

9500

14500

19500

24500

29500

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Fo

rce

(N

)

Tims (ms)

Force vs. Time


LC#1

LC#2

LC#3

LC#4

LC#5

LC#6

LC#7

TOTAL

Sample:

Repeat: 3

DT6325

Velocity (m/s)= 109

73

-500

1500

3500

5500

7500

9500

11500

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Fo

rce

(N

)

Tims (ms)

Force vs. Time


LC#1

LC#2

LC#3

LC#4

LC#5

LC#6

LC#7

TOTAL

Sample:

Repeat: 5

DT6323


-500

4500

9500

14500

19500

24500

29500

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Fo

rce

(N

)

Tims (ms)

Force vs. Time


LC#1

LC#2

LC#3

LC#4

LC#5

LC#6

LC#7

TOTAL

Sample:

Repeat: 3

DT6323


74

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Fo

rce

(N

)

Tims (ms)

Force vs. Time


LC#1

LC#2

LC#3

LC#4

LC#5

LC#6

LC#7

TOTAL

Sample:

Repeat: 3

PU 6


-500

1500

3500

5500

7500

9500

11500

13500

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Fo

rce

(N

)

Tims (ms)

Force vs. Time


LC#1

LC#2

LC#3

LC#4

LC#5

LC#6

LC#7

TOTAL

Sample:

Repeat: 2

PU 6


75

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Fo

rce

(N

)

Tims (ms)

Force vs. Time


LC#1

LC#2

LC#3

LC#4

LC#5

LC#6

LC#7

TOTAL

Sample:

Repeat: 2

PU 8


-500

1500

3500

5500

7500

9500

11500

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Fo

rce

(N

)

Tims (ms)

Force vs. Time


LC#1

LC#2

LC#3

LC#4

LC#5

LC#6

LC#7

TOTAL

Sample:

Repeat: 3

PU 8


76

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Fo

rce

(N

)

Tims (ms)

Force vs. Time


LC#1

LC#2

LC#3

LC#4

LC#5

LC#6

LC#7

TOTAL

Sample:

Repeat: 3

HC 3/16-5052-0015


-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Fo

rce

(N

)

Tims (ms)

Force vs. Time


LC#1

LC#2

LC#3

LC#4

LC#5

LC#6

LC#7

TOTAL

Sample:

Repeat: 2

HC 3/16-5052-0015

Velocity (m/s)= 109

77

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Fo

rce

(N

)

Tims (ms)

Force vs. Time


LC#1

LC#2

LC#3

LC#4

LC#5

LC#6

LC#7

TOTAL

Sample:

Repeat: 2

HC 3/16-5052-002


-500

500

1500

2500

3500

4500

5500

6500

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Fo

rce

(N

)

Tims (ms)

Force vs. Time


LC#1

LC#2

LC#3

LC#4

LC#5

LC#6

LC#7

TOTAL

Sample:

Repeat: 2

HC 3/16-5052-002


78


79

List of symbols/abbreviations/acronyms/initialisms

COTS Commercial-off-the-shelf

DRDC Defence Research & Development Canada

KENLW Kinetic Energy Non-Lethal Weapon

R&D Research & Development

kinetic energy non-lethal weapon

Documents