0
RESEARCH PAPERS: Launch Dynamics

Statistical Comparisons Between Qualification Tests for Gun-Fired Projectiles

[+] Author and Article Information
J. A. Cordes

 U.S. Army Armament Research Development and Engineering Center, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000jennifer.cordes@us.army.mil

J. Lee, T. L. Myers, G. Hader, L. Reinhardt, C. Kessler, N. Gray, M. A. Guevara

 U.S. Army Armament Research Development and Engineering Center, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000

J. Appl. Mech 77(5), 051602 (Jul 01, 2010) (6 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4001697 History: Received August 12, 2009; Revised April 27, 2010; Posted May 04, 2010; Published July 01, 2010; Online July 01, 2010

The U.S. Army uses several types of tests to increase the reliability of gun-fired munitions. Systems, subsystems, and components are gun fired to assess reliability. When failures are found, root-cause investigations are completed and parts may be redesigned. For instance, the 155 mm projectile Excalibur uses several types of tests to find failures and build reliability. Components are tested in a rail gun, a new soft-catch gun, and in soft recovery vehicles. With the rail gun, test projectiles are fired from a worn gun tube into a trough of water. The soft-catch gun, a hybrid system using both air and water, has a standard cannon tube and a series of catch tubes to stop a projectile. The third type of test, a soft recovery vehicle, uses a modified tactical Excalibur with a parachute for a soft landing. All three types of tests have on-board recorders to capture ballistic accelerations. Accelerometer data are used in failure investigations, redesign parts, and to design new projectiles. The purpose of this paper is to compare accelerations from different types of ballistic tests. Comparisons were done to determine if the tests were in the same statistical family. Comparisons are made for a United States MACS 5 charge. The maximum axial forces were the same for the soft-catch gun and the soft recovery vehicle. In the balloting directions, the rail gun and soft recovery vehicle had similar forces. The set forward forces differed in all three cases, reflecting the different catch mechanisms for the projectiles. Comparisons of g-forces were also made using shock response spectra. The shock response indicated that the damage potential is greatest for the rail gun tests, consistent with an increase rate of failures for some electronics.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2010 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Comparison of axial muzzle-exit (set forward) shock response spectra

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Comparison of axial setback shock response spectra

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Schematic of shock response spectrum curve

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Comparison of accelerations for soft recovery vehicle launches, MACS 5 charge

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Comparison of accelerations for soft-catch gun launches, MACS 5 Charge

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Typical accelerations from a soft recovery vehicle launch

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Typical accelerations from a soft-catch gun launch

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Typical accelerations from a ballistic rail gun launch

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Ballistic rail gun test configuration

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In