AD-A277 071

[AD

TECHNICAL REPORT ARCCB-TR-93043

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND FATIGUE TEST

OF THE
RANGER ANTI-ARMOR/ANTI-PERSONNEL
WEAPON SYSTEM
(RAAWS)

THOMAS E. O'BRIEN
JAMES A. NEESE
CHRISTOPHER S. RINALDI
DANIEL J. CORRIGAN SL CID
'mELECTE

.1* B

DECEMBER 1993

US ARMY ARMAMENT RESEARCH,

DEVELOPMENT AND ENGINEERING CENTER
CLOSE COMBAT ARMAMENTS CENTER
BIN9T° LABORATORIES
WATERVLIET, N.Y. 12189-4050

APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED

94-08337
94 3 14 041
 DISCLAIMER

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official

Department of the Army position Unless so designated by other authori:ed

documents.

The use of trade name(s) and/or manufacturer(s) does not constitute

an official indorsement or approval.

DESTRUCTION NOTICE

For classified documents, follow the procedures in DoD 5200.22-M,

Industrial Security Manual, Section 11-19 or DoD 5200.1-R, Information

Security Program Regulation, Chapter IX.

For unclassified, limited documents, destroy by ny method that will

prevent disclosure of contents or reconstruction of the document.

For unclassified, unlimited documents, destroy when the report is

no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator.
 REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE FA8o, 070p-0188
Pubiecredodting burden for this colliection of information is estimated to average I our dier resoonse. including the time for reviewing instructions, sear-'.-; e. st-mq'ata sources.
the collection of information send comments regarding this ourden estimate or ino ,tier isoect Of
and
oletooaen
of inMformation. the daet&
mainitaining nrcluaoing needd, man
suggestions coralieting
for this reviewing
reducing and ourdenr to Nasnirigton .ieaclcuarters Services. Directorate for 'nformation Doteration% "no aecicrs, t2, erferson
Oavutmigtiwav. Suite 1204. Arlington. ViA22202-002. and to the Office of Management and Budg~et. Paoerwpris Iediuction Project (0704-0 154), vasnington DCZ0503
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Ledvo Wa~nk) I2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
I December 1993 Final
AL TIT~f
LE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS
ANALYSIS AND FATIGUE TEST OF THE
RANGER ANIS-ARMOR/ANTI-PERSONNEL WEAPON AMCMS: 6126231BL0.OAR
SYST'EM (RAA WS) PRON: IA,*2ZPWWNMSC
6. AUTHOR(S)
"Thomas E. O'Brien. James A. Neese,
Christopher S. Rinaldi, Daniel J. Corrigan

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND AODRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGAN1Z.A7!CN

U.S. Army ARDEC REPORT NUMBER
Benit Laboratories, SMCAR-CCB-TL ARCCB-TR-93043
Watervliet, NY 12189-4050

9. SPONSORING/ MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING MONITORONG

U.S. rmy RDECAGENCY REPORT NUMBER
Close Combat Armaments Center
Picatinny Arsenal. NJ 07806-5000

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a. DISTRIBUTION/I AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

The Ranger Anti-Armor/Anti-Personnel Weaplon System (RAAWS) was investigated to determine its structural strength and
fatigue life. The RAAWS is an 84-mm lightweight, shoulder-fired recoilless weapon produced by FFV Ordnance, Sweden. The
tube consists of a thin steel rifled liner overwrapped with a graphite/epoxy composite jacket. This investigation includes a finite
element stress analysis, firing tests laboratory strain and material property tests. and fatigue tests to determine the interim safe
fatigue life for the weapon.

'4U 6 2M~rAt-esne Weapon System (RAAWS), Recoilless R~ifle. 15. NUBBE R CF PA GE S

Composite Gun Tube, Fatigue Tests, Finite Element Stress Analysis, Firing Tests, 1.PIECD
Strain Measurements, Material Tests, Chemical Analysis, Thermogravimetric Analysis,.6 RIECD
Differential Scanning Calorimetr
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 118. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OP ABSTRACT
UNCLASIFIED UNCLASSIffED UNCLASSIFIED UL
NSN 7S40-01-280-S500 Standard Form 298 (Rev 2-89)
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRO DUCTIO N ................................................................ 1

Background ............................................................... I
Description ............................................................... 1

STRESS ANALYSIS .............................................................. I

Procedure ................................................................ 1
Results .................................................................. 1

FIRING TEST ............................................................... 2

Procedure ............................................................... 2
R esults .................................................................. 2

L BORATORY MATERIAL TESTS ................................................. 2

Procedure ................................................................ 2
R esults ......... ................. ...... .......... ... ...... ..... ..... .... . 3

LABORATORY STRAIN TESTS .................................................... 3

Procedure ............................. ................................ 3
Resu lts . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

FATIG UE TESTS ................................................................ 4

Procedure ................................................................ 4
R esults .................................................................. 4

CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................. 4

A PPEN D IX .................................................................... 25

Tables

1. Muzzle Velocity/Chamber Pressure (FFV Data) ........................................ 5

2. Firing Test Strain Data .......................................................... 6

3. Calculated Pressure ............................................................. 8

4. Chemical Analysis of Steel Liner ................................................... 8

5. Image Analysis Results .......................................................... 9

6. Laboratory Test Strain Data ..................................................... 10

7. Fatigue Test Results ........................................................... 11

Dist _
 List of liustratioes

1. Carl Gustaf M3 recoilless rifle, left side ............................................. 12

2. Carl Gustaf M3 recoilless rifle, right side ............................................ 12

3. Tube profile ................................................................. 13

4. Pressure profile ............................................................... 14

5. Stress analysis of steel liner ...................................................... 15

6. Stress analysis of composite jacket ................................................. 16

7. Strain gage locations ........................................................... 17

8. Photomicrograph of steel liner ................................................... 18

9. Thermogravimetric analysis of composite jacket ....................................... 19

10. Differential scanning calorimetry of composite jacket .................................. 20

11. Composite jacket, hoop fiber cross section .......................................... 21

12. Composite jacket, steel liner interface ............................................. 21

13. Fracture surface, tube SN 14003 ................................................. 22

14. Fracture surface, tube SN 14002 ................................................. 22

15. Fracture surface, tube SN 14002 (150X) ........................................... 23

16. Fracture surface, tube SN 14002 (8000X) .......................................... 24

Al. Tube cutting plan drawing ..................................................... 26

A2. Breech fatigue specimen drawing ................................................ 27

A3. Muzzle fatigue specimen drawing ................................................ 28

A4. Muzzle specimen assembly drawing ............................................... 29

AS. Breech specimen assembly drawing ............................................... 30

ii
INTRODUCTION

Background

The U.S. Army, under the Ranger Anti-Armor/Anti-Personnel Weapon System (RAAWS)
Program, purchased the Carl Gustaf M3 recoilless rifle from FFV Ordnance, Sweden for use by the 75th
Ranger Regiment. A review of the contractor-supplied fatigue test data determined that this data did not
meet U.S. Army requirements. Therefore, it was determined that Bendt Laboratories should conduct a
fatigue test of two tubes in accordance with the International Test Operations Procedure (ITOP) 3-2-829
in order to establish an interim safe service life for the weapon. Normal procedure for fatigue life testing
requires that the tubes be fired prior to laboratory hydraulic cycling in order to produce metallurgical
damage, i.e., small cracks at the bore surface (heat checking) that initiate the fatigue process. Since the
manufacturer's recommended life for this weapon is 500 rounds, it was decided that the two tubes selected
for fatigue testing (Serial numbers (SN) 14002 and 14003) would each be fired with 500 rounds by FFV at
the Hugelsta Proving Ground, Sweden, and then shipped to Benet Laboratories for hydraulic fatigue
testing. These rounds were not used in the calculation of the interim safe service life of the weapon
because they were fired below the extreme service condition pressure.

Description
The 84-mm Carl Gustaf M3 is a lightweight shoulder-fired recoilless-type weapon (see Figures 1
and 2). The barrel consists of a thin steel liner overwrapped with a composite jacket made of carbon fiber
in an epoxy matrix. The steel venturi is attached to the rear of the barrel by the axis pin and the fastening
strap. The steel liner's rifling is Imm (0.039 in.) deep, and the liner itself is 0.5 mm (0.20 in.) thick. The
tube has several brackets and mounting lugs held in place to its outer surface by adhesive bonding and
additional circumferential composite windings.

STRESS ANALYSIS

Procedure

A stress analysis using an ABAQUS finite element computer code was performed. The analysis
calculates von Mises stress as a function of internal pressure. Figure 3 represents the geometry of a tube
profile. Figure 4 is an overlay of the pressure profile of the FFV 651 round conditioned at 140°F plus 3.1
standard deviations.

Results

Figure 5 is the calculated maximum stress at the inner diameter of the steel liner. Th1.analysis
indicates a maximum von Mises stress of 113 Ksi. According to FFV, the minimum yield strength of the
steel is also 113 Ksi. It is important to note that the liner was designed for minimum weight. In a
conventional all-steel tube, this design would be considered marginal The difference between an all-steel
tube and the Carl Gustaf M3 structure is that the metal liner is only intended to provide rifling and act as
a protective barrier from the hot propellant gases. Pressure containment is the function of the composite
jacket.

Figure 6 is the calculated maximum stress at the inner diameter of the composite jacket. Unlike
the liner, the composite jacket is designed with a high margin of safety. The analysis indicates a maximum
von Mises stress of 85.2 Ksi. The tensile strength of the jacket material is approximately 240 Ksi. This
gives a safety factor of 2.8, almost twice the required value of 1.5.
FIRING TEST
Procedure
In order to determine the down bore pressures and proper strain level for fatigue testing, a
weapon provided by FFV was strain gaged and test fired to measure strains at the outer surface of the
tube and venturi in the circumferential (hoop) direction. A total of 18 strain gages were mounted on the
tube at the locations shown in Figure 7. Axial locations I through 5 are measured from surface E on
drawing F1303-009160E. Location 6 is measured from the rear surface of the venturi. The weapon was
then test fired by FFV at the Hugelsta Proving Ground and strain data were collected. The pressure at
which this tube should be tested is the extreme service condition pressure (ESCP), which for this weapon
is the pressure of the type 651 round fired at the maximum service temperature of +60*C (140°F).
However, the rounds tested were the 551 type, which were heated to +60°C prior to firing, producing a
maximum chamber pressure of 65.9 MPa (9555 Psi). A maximum of seven channels of data can be
recorded at one time, therefore, the test was run using three groups of six channels each. The first group
used gages 1,4,8,11,14, and I(V), the second group used gages 2,5,9,12,15, and 2(V), and the third group
used gages 3,6,10,13,16, and 3(V). For each group, three rounds were fired, and data for each of the
gages were collected.
The strain gages used were Micro-Measurements Model CEA-06-25OUT-120 provided by Benet
Laboratories. The data were collected on a Racal Store 7.5-inch tape recorder and later transferred to a
Nicolet oscilloscope where it was stored on a disk. This disk was later supplied to Benet Laboratories
where the data were reduced to determine the strains at the various locations as a function of internal
pressure.

Results
In order to ensure that the correct pressures were achieved, the muzzle velocity of each round was
measured and compared to the known velocity of 289.5 meters per second (see Table 1). Results of the
strain data are given in Table 2 with average values calculated for each location on the tube. This data
was then used to determine the internal pressure at each of the gage locations using the ABAQUS finite
element code (Table 3). In order to calculate these pressures, the elastic modulus of the composite jacket
must be known. The modulus calculated from the known chamber pressure (9555 Psi) and the strain data
at the chamber outer diameter at 205 mm was determined to be 20.0 Msi using an average of both this
firing test and the laboratory strain tests.

LABORATORY MATERIAL TESTS

Procedure
The steel liner was too thin to take tensile or Charpy specimens, however, some physical
properties of the materials used in the fabrication of the weapon were determined. Hardness was
measured and a section was analyzed to determine the chemical composition. The filament/resin ratio of
the composite material was determined by both chemical and optical methods, and the glass transition
temperature of the resin was also measured. Micrographs were taken of the various cross sections of the
tube to study the microstructure of the materials used.

2
Results
Chemical analysis of the steel liner is shown in Table 4. The material was found to have a lower
percentage of molybdenum and vanadium and a higher percentage of sulfur than normally found in our
gun steel. The hardness of the steel liner was 28 to 33 measured on the Rockwell C scale, which indicates
an approximate tensile strength of 145 Ksi. This is lower than that normally used in U.S. tubes, however,
it was probably done to increase the ductility of the liner since most of the tube's strength is provided by
the composite jacket. Figure 8 is a photomicrograph of a cross section of the steel liner that shows the
microstructure to be tempered martensite. Such a structure promotes good tensile strength, ductility, and
toughness.

Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) of the compotite jacket (Figure 9) showed that it has an
average resin content of 32.22 percent by weight. Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) of the jacket
material (Figure 10) revealed no further curing exotherm, thus the material was totally cured. The glass
transition temperature of this material was 146.2 t 0.90 C measured at a scanning rate of 20.0 deg/min.
Analysis of the composite jacket using a Cambridge Olympus Q-10 Image Analysis System (Table 5)
showed a resin content of 41.4 percent by volume for tube SN 14002. This converts to 33.5 percent by
weight, which is in very close agreement to the TGA figure of 32.2 percent. This analysis also showed
extremely low void contents of 0.172 percent and 0.045 percent for the two tubes, which indicates that the
winding and curing process for the composite jackets was of very high quality. This is further shown by
Figure 11, a photomicrograph of a typical cross section of the hoop fibers that shows a well-compacted
void-free composite. Figure 12 shows a section of the interface between the composite jacket and the steel
liner. This photograph shows a tight interface free of any gaps indicating a good bond at this surface.

LABORATORY STRAIN TESTS

Procedure

After the two weapons each had 500 rounds fired on them, they were then shipped to the
Experimental Mechanics Branch of Benet Laboratories where they were disassembled and the tubes cut
according to Figure Al (see Appendix) to produce a breech and muzzle test specimen for each tube. The
specimens had seal pockets machined in each end (Figures A2 and A3) and were then assembled with
their respective end caps and seals for testing (Figures A4 and AS). Tube SN 14003 had three strain gages
applied to the outside diameter at 205-mm from the rear face of the tube (RFT). These gages were
Micro-Measurements CEA-06-250UT-120 applied in the hoop direction only. The specimen was then
placed in a high capacity press to contain the end cap load and was hydraulically pressurized in steps to a
maximum of 9600 Psi. Pressure and strain measurements were taken at each step. Similarly three gages
were applied to the muzzle specimen of the same tube at the 715-mm location from the RFT and
pressure/strain measurements were taken.

Results
The strain data are given in Table 6 for the two specimens tested. The strains at the 205-mm
location were in very good agreement between the Biring test (2370) and the laboratory te.t (2510). This
confirmed that our laboratory test was closely duplicating the actual firing pressures. The strains at this
location also show an excellent correlation of within 1.65 percent deviation between the laboratory test and
the theoretical results. When interpolating to a pressure of 9555 Psi, the strain result based on average
data is 2497, which is within 0.26 percent deviation of the theoretical result of 2504. This agreement
indicates an excellent experimental procedure in the modulus calculation and test setup process. However,
from Table 3, the maximum chamber pressure of 9555 Psi at the 205-mm location produces a hoop strain

3
of 22370. Based on this strain, the ABAQUS code predicted a pressure of 9045 Psi. Hence, the
laboratory setup duplicates the actual firing pressure within 5.34 percent. The strains at the 715-mm
location show a very good correlation of within 4.7 percent deviation between the laboratory test and the
theoretical results. At the muzzle location, however, the laboratory equipment was not able to produce a
pressure low enough to duplicate the firing pressure.

FATIGUE TESTS

Procedure
After the strain tests were completed, the specimens were assembled in the press where they were
hydraulically fatigue cycled to the required test pressure until failure. The breech specimens were cycled
to a maximum pressure of 9600 Psi. The rear of the muzzle specimens was 600 mm from RFT. The
pressure at this point, which would normally be the maximum test pressure, was found to be 2800 Psi
based on the pressures calculated from the firing strain tests. However, the decision was made to increase
the maximum test pressure to 3800 Psi for the following reasons. The critical factor in fatigue testing is
the difference between maximum and minimum pressure. The test equipment used has a minimum
pressure limit of approximately 1000 Psi. Therefore, in order to maintain a pressure difference of 2800
Psi, the maximum pressure was increased to 3800 Psi. At this higher maximum pressure, stresses
remained in the safe range for this material.

Results
The pre-test inspection of the specimens using fiber optics and magnetic particle inspection
showed no indications of cracks, wear, erosion, or heat checking on the bore. Results of the fatigue tests
are given in Table 7. The specimen with the shortest life was the breech specimen of tube SN 14002,
which failed at 7090 cycles. The tests of the two muzzle specimens were stopped at 14,280 cycles-twice
the maximum breech specimen. Muzzle SN 14002 showed no indication of failure; SN 14003 had a 0.6-
inch long crack along the radius of the rifling groove at the muzzle end.

The two breech specimens had failures of the steel liners. SN 14003 had a 1 1/2-inch crack along
the edge of a rifling groove at the muzzle end. A section was cut from the tube and then split to reveal
the fracture surface (Figure 13). SN 14002 had a similar 1-inch crack along the edge of a rifling groove
near the muzzle end. A section was also cut from this tube and then split to reveal the fracture surface, as
shown in Figure 14. A scanning electron microscope was then used to magnify the surface (up to 8000X)
to more clearly show the fatigue striations (Figures 15 and 16).

CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS

Close inspection and analysis of these two weapons as described in this report indicate a high
quality of materials and workmanship in the manufacturing process. The stresses calculated by the finite
element analysis were in close agreement with those measured in the composite jacket during testing.
These stresses were low compared to the normal tensile strength of this type of material The bore
surfaces showed no indications of erosion after firing 500 rounds. The interim fatigue life resulting from
these tests is one-third of the lowest number of cycles or 2360 rounds. This is over four times the
recommended life of 500 rounds. However, if a fatigue life greater than 500 rouuds is to be established,
we recommend that four additional weapons (total of six) be tested to establish a full safe service life.

4
 Table 1. Muzzle Velocity/Chamber Pressure (FFV Data)

Round Muzzek chamber Ammunition

Number Velocity Pressure Temperature
M/sec MPa
1 290.7 61.6 +60C
2 285.6 63.4
3 290.1 66.9
4 290.2 64.5
5 284.8 63.9
6 290.3 67.8
7 286.1 64.2
8 288.6 64.2
9 292.7 68.2
10 290.9 67.5

11 290.8 67.7
12 292.7 70.0
13 289.4 67.0
Average 289.5 65.9
(9555 Psi)

5
 Table 2. Firing Test Strain Data
(551 Round at 60C)

Gage Round Strain Gage Round Strain

Number Number x. 10 Number Number x 10'

1 1 2200 8 1 1100
2 2300 2 1100
3 2300 3 1100
2 4 2300 9 4 1200

5 2100 5 1100
6 2400 6 1300

3 7 2500 10 7 1100

8 2700 8 1100

9 2500 9 1100
Average 2370 Average 1130

4 1 1800 11 1 1400
2 1800 2 1000
3 1700 3 1100
5 4 1600 12 4 800

5 1600 5 900
6 1800 6 800

6 7 1700 13 7 900

8 1700 8 900

9 1700 9 900
Average 1710 Average 970

6
 Table 2. Coatinued

Gage Round Strain Gage Round Strain

Number Number x 10 Number Number x 10'
14 1 1000 I(V) 1 1200
2 800 2 1600
3 700 3 1200
15 4 600 2(V) 4 1300
5 700 5 1200
6 700 6 1500
16 7 700 3(V) 7 1600
8 700 8 1400

9 700 9 1500
Average 730 Average 1390

7
 Table 3. Calculated Pressure

Gage Location Hoop Strain Test Pressmre Caluated Pressure

mm RFr x 10' Psi Psi
205 2370 9555 -
360 1710 7178
480 1130 3969
715 970 2002
800 730 1229

Table 4. Chemical Analysis of Steel Liner

Chemical Analysis Report

Analyte 1 Carbon = 0.331/0.339/0.330

Analyte 2 Manganese = 0.617/0.646/0.630.
Analyte 3 Phosphorus = 0.007/0.008/0.007

Analyte 4 Sulfur = 0.017/0.027/0.017

Analyte 5 Silicon = 0.273/0.31210.281
Analyte 6 Copper = 0.042/0.055/0.043
Analyte 7 Nickel = 2.931/2.924/2.955
Analyte 8 Chromium = 1.130/1.115/1.138

Analyte 9 Vanadium = 0.009/0.016/0.009

Analyte 10 Molybdenum = 0.191/0.182/0.194

8
 Table 5. Inage Analysis Results

Tube SN 14002
Sectioned 19.5 Inches From RFT

Summations

Total Fields = 10
Mean Volume Fraction - Phase I = 41.401 (Resin)

Standard Deviation - Phase I = 1.172

Mean Volume Fraction - Phase 2 = 58.471 (Fiber)
Standard Deviation - Phase 2 = 1.171

Mean Volume Fraction - Phase 3 = 0.127 (Voids)

Standard Deviation - Phase 3 = 0.066

Total Area Surveyed = 274604 Square Microns

Tube SN 14003
Sectioned 19.5 Inches From RFT

Summations

Total Fields = 10
Mean Volume Fraction - Phase 1 = 44.002 (Resin)

Standard Deviation - Phase 1 = 2.380

Mean Volume Fracture - Phase 2 = 55.953 (Fiber)

Standard Deviation - Phase 2 = 2.378
Mean Volume Fraction - Phase 3 = 0.045 (Voids)

Standard Deviation - Phase 3 = 0.033

Total Area Surveyed = 274604 Square Microns

9
 Table 6. Laboratory Test Strain Data
(in.mn.xlo')

hO RecojillesiSM 14003 Ercech Section

Gaps Location: - 205 -m RFr
Pressure (Ksi)
Gage 5.0 7.0 9.0 9.6 0.0

1 1288 1799 2310 2489 0

2 1321 1844 2373 2558 0
3 1273 1773 2276 2455 0

1 1322 1862 2336 0037

2 1360 1923 2402 0050
3 1295 1847 2304 0040

1 1357 1852 2380 2540 0

2 1387 1891 2427 2594 0
3 1292 1768 2271 2424 0

1 1376 1899 2374 0050

2 1410 1947 2419 0065
3 1298 1810 2251 0040

Average 1332 1851 2344 2510 0047

Calculated 1310 1834 2358 2515
% Deviation 1.65 0.918 0.600 0.200

10
 Table 6. Continued

M3 RecofllessSN 14003 MuzI. Section

Gage Location - 715 mm RFa

Pressure (Ksi)

Gage 4.5 0.0 4.5 0.0

1 2547 0142 2550 0155

2 2568 0165- 2565 0172

3 2454 0168 2439 0174

Average 2523 0158 2518 0167

Calculated 2405
% Deviation 4.7 4.5

Table 7. Fatigue Test Results

Test
Specimen Pressure (si) Fatigue Cycles
14002 Breech 9600 7090
14002 Muzzle 3800 14,280
(No failure)
14003 Breech 9600 7140

14003 Muzzle 3800 14,280

11
Figure 1. Carl Gustaf M3 recoilless rifle, left side.

Figure 2. Carl Gustaf M3 recoilless rifle, right side.

12
 iiiiiiii

,.q

°.,--

,ca

QFQ

o°° . .... o o • ..-.-

13~

w-,o
I

(RillH
V3,L."+ D
1ad
 CD

/ ad

KJ
CD

CA

S==

CD

14
 ...........

cm,

/ C

adA

rU,

;.

.+.).................. S...........
,".. .. °°...
.................
.
.............. .. ......... °. ..... ....................... ...=)°)-).......... ca

92 1 1 1. 1

I.-

(ISd) SSHIS SHSIN NOA

is
 cm

.. . . .

** L
C3

0 8
E-s
00 uM

\ €
CD --

. ....................................

.......... .........
S.............°°°.. . .. ............... .. ..... .. .... :......° ....... 0......

(lSd) SS3•S S3SIK1 MtOA

16
 IL
a -, m, a-7
a-' U

a.)).

-j LL C' ri c, -

b- CD - -j

I- .

-jw

In-U

17
 4 %
". S

-sic -t

Figure~~~
Phtmcorp ~ ~~ fsellnr ..

18#
 4 I-

I -L

cl
0a

BE %

Ku

I-c

in
CU14 UC

anIn 0 IA
W to CY)
0 .... tofG

L04

19 1
 00

0 41

A..9

-e 0U
0 0
K
1
In L -,
m m inM L) I

LL C3-
C).
C9CD.-.

P: a

*s In ~ W
"L 4-1

~b20
 ~tg-

V'.

.Z

~
Figure ~
opstejcehopfbrcos 11 ~ setin

! = -!P fl -

*MM
I ~ .

Figure 12. Composite jacket,hooplfiber cntross eto.

21I
 Figure 13. Fracture surface, tube SN 14003.

5 6 7 89

Figure 14. Fracture surface, tube SN 14002.

22
Figure 15. Fracture surface, tube SN 14002 (15OX).

23
la:

Figure 16. Fracture surface, tube SN 14002 (8000X).

24
APPENDIX

25
 U-~ II 4

*IT:I
I:!

CL
------
- - --

liiiW Tj r

CD a co
264
 IN..

Q11

I-A
0zu

IMi

272
 4c
O IL

I- a

ini
21

A A

of'

0I L) t2 8 0I
 NN

MM

U.n

aa

2 ,tn
NI ;l .
c
N,

IL za

Za-

*uN
NM

22
 In.in

ILIZ 4.1" i
2.2.

a~ . 1A
:: \U,

tooI!1
cc'

WA Utz

m 41

wE a E

CU dI

w 38
 TECHNICAL REPORT INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION LIST

NO. OF
COPIES

CHIEF, DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION

ATTN: SMCAR-CCB-DA 1
-DC 1
-OI 1
-OR 1
-DS (SYSTEMS) 1

CHIEF, ENGINEERING SUPPORT DIVISION

ATTN: SMCAR-CCB-S 1
-SD 1
-SE

CHIEF, RESEARCH DIVISION

ATTN: SMCAR-CCB-R 2
-RA 1
-RE 1
-RM 1
-RP 1
-RT 1

TECHNICAL LIBRARY 5
ATTN: SMCAR-CCB-TL

TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS & EDITING SECTION 3

ATTN: SMCAR-CCB-TL

OPERATIONS DIRECTORATE 1
ATTN. SMCWV-ODP-P

DIRECTOR, PROCUREMENT DIRECTORATE 1

ATTN: SMCWV-PP

DIRECTOR, PRODUCT ASSURANCE DIRECTORATE 1

ATTN: SMCWV-QA

NOTE: PLEASE NOTIFY DIRECTOR, BENET LABORATORIES, ATTN: SMCAR-CCB-TL, OF

ANY ADDRESS CHANGES.
 TECHNICAL REPORT EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION LIST

NO. OF NO. OF
COPIES COPIES

ASST SEC OF THE ARMY COMMANDER

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ROCK ISLAND ARSENAL
ATTN: DEPT FOR SCI AND TECH 1 ATTN: SMCRI-ENM
THE PENTAGON ROCK ISLAND. IL 61299-5000
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20310-0103
MIAC/CINOAS
ADMINISTRATOR PURDUE UNIVERSITY
DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFO CENTER 12 P.O. BOX 2634
ATTN: DTIC-FDAC WEST LAFAYETTE. IN 47906
CAMERON STATION
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22304-6145 COMMANDER
US ARMY TANK-AUTMV R&D COMMAND
COMMANDER ATTN: AMSTA-DDL (TECH LIB)
US ARMY ARDEC WARREN, MI 48397-5000
ATTN: SMCAR-AEE 1
SMCAR-AES, BLDG. 321 1 COMMANDER
SMCAR-AET-O, BLDG. 351N 1 US MILITARY ACADEMY
SMCAR-CC 1 ATTN: DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICS
SMCAR-CCP-A 1 WEST POINT, NY 10996-1792
SMCAR-FSA 1
SMCAR-FSM-E 1 US ARMY MISSILE COMMAND
SMCAR-FSS-O, BLDG. 94 1 REDSTONE SCIENTIFIC INFO CTR 2
SMCAR-IMI-I (STINFO) BLDG. 59 2 ATTN: DOCUMENTS SECT, BLDG. 4484
PICATINNY ARSENAL, NJ 07806-5000 REDSTONE ARSENAL, AL 35898-5241

DIRECTOR COMMANDER
US ARMY BALLISTIC RESEARCH LABORATORY US ARMY FGN SCIENCE AND TECH CTR
ATTN: SLCBR-DD-T. BLDG. 305 1 ATTN: DRXST-SD
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MD 21005-5066 220 7TH STREET, N.E.
CHARLOTTESVILLE. VA 22901
DIRECTOR
US ARMY MATERIEL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ACTV COMMANDER
ATTN: AMXSY-MP 1 US ARMY LABCOM
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, ND 2.1005-5071 MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY LAB
ATTN: SLCMT-IML (TECH LIB) 2
DIRECTOR WATERTOWN, MA 02172-0001
US ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY
ATTN: AMSRL-WT-PD (DR. B. BURNS) 1
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MD 21005-5066

NOTE: PLEASE NOTIFY COMMANDER, ARMAMENT RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND ENGINEERING

CENTER, US ARMY AMCCOM, ATTN: BENET LABORATORIES, SMCAR-CCB-TL,
WATERVLIET, NY 12189-4050, OF ANY ADDRESS CHANGES.
 TECHNICAL REPORT EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION LIST (CONT'D)

NO. OF NO. OF
COPIES COPIES

COMMANDER COMMANDER
US ARMY LABCOM, ISA AIR FORCE ARMAMENT LABORATORY
ATTN: SLCIS-IM-TL 1 ATTN: AFATL/MN
2800 POWDER MILL ROAD EGLIN AFB, FL 32542-5434
ADELPHI, MD 20783-1145
COMMANDER
COMMANDER .- AIR FORCE ARMAMENT LABORATORY
US ARMY RESEARCH OFFICE ATTN: AFATL/MNF
ATTN: CHIEF, IPO 1 EGLIN AFB, FL 32542-5434
P.O. BOX 12211
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27709-2211

DIRECTOR
US NAVAL RESEARCH LAB
ATTN: MATERIALS SCI & TECH DIVISION 1
CODE 26-27 (DOC LIB) 1
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20375

NOTE: PLEASE NOTIFY COMMANDER, ARMAMENT RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND ENGINEERING

CENTER, US ARMY AMCCOM, ATTN: BENET LABORATORIES, SMCAR-CCB-TL,
WATERVLIET, NY 12189-4050, OF ANY ADDRESS CHANGES.