Sympathetic Reaction Prepared by Hazard Assessment & - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Insensitive Munitions Industry Contribution for the New STANAG-AOP 4396 Ed. Of Sympathetic Reaction

Prepared by Hazard Assessment & Classification IMEMG’s Expert Working Group Presented by Carole FOURNIER (Chairperson) www.imemg.org

» IMEMTS – October 24th, 2019, Seville, Spain

2

EWG Membership

Carole FOURNIER (Chaiperson) Thales LAS France France Yves Guengant ArianeGroup France Malcom Cook AWE UK David Simmons BAE-System Land UK UK Alexandre Lefrançois CEA-DAM France Michel Vivès MBDA France France Sean Randall MBDA UK Ltd UK Frédéric Nozères Nexter Munitions France Laurent Bonhomme Roxel France France David Leipold Carina Klefer Diehl Defence Germany Luigi D’Angelo RWM Italia Italy

October, 24th, 2019

IMEMG Presentation

Hazard Assessment & Classification EWG

3

Table of content

Hazard Assessment & Classification EWG Contribution for the new STANAG-AOP4396 ed. of Sympathetic Reaction

October, 24th, 2019

IMEMG Presentation

EWG OBJECTIVES

1

AIMS OF THE STANAG-AOP 4396

2

PERFORMING A SR TEST Configuration Initiation Mode Instrumentation / IM assessment

3

ISSUES AND RECOMMANDATIONS

4

CONCLUSION

5

4

Hazard Assessment & Classification EWG

HA&C Expert Working Group objectives:

October, 24th, 2019

IMEMG Presentation

Survey NATO and UN regulation

• Standardized mandatory threats
• Maximum response to vulnerability test
• Hazard division procedure

Exchange on various national implementation in European countries Define common position on document revision and publicize IMEMG position

5

Hazard Assessment & Classification EWG

STANAG-AOP 4396 – Sympathetic Reaction Why working on this STANAG ? – Current ed.2 is being update by national experts of the NATO AC326 Group IMEMG HA&C EWG has decided to timely carry out its

• wn review of the AOP with the aim of expressing the

European Industry shared view.

October, 24th, 2019

IMEMG Presentation

6

STANAG-AOP 4396 – Sympathetic Reaction

Aim of the STANAG → extract

October, 24th, 2019

IMEMG Presentation

sympathetically react reaction Most likely sensitivity of munitions Single, Packaged, Multiple packages safety barriers in-service situation worst case credible

7

STANAG-AOP 4396 – Sympathetic Reaction

Aim of the STANAG → questions raised:

October, 24th, 2019

IMEMG Presentation

Sympathetic reaction / sensitivity

• Not only

detonation!

 Item designed to detonate.  Roquette motors and propellant powders.  Others.

Worst case credible reaction

• How to define

it? Multiple situations!

• Could be an

endless and expensive work!

In-service situation

• THA by
• perational and

national experts is needed.

• Life cycle

analysis could be necessary.

Configuration

• Safety barrier
• Single munition
• Packaged

munitions

• Multiple

packages of munitions

8

STANAG-AOP 4396 – Sympathetic Reaction

Performing a SR test:

October, 24th, 2019

IMEMG Presentation

Configuration

• Packaged / unpackaged
• Storage or tactical configuration
• With confinement or without confinement

Donor initiation mode

• Item designed to detonate
• Rocket motors and propellant powder
• All others

Measure / IM assessment

• Blast pressure
• Fragmentation
• Other

Performing a SR test (1/3) → configuration:

9

STANAG-AOP 4396 – Sympathetic Reaction

Performing a SR test (1/3) → configuration:

October, 24th, 2019

IMEMG Presentation

If a storage stack If a protection device Outer confinement = inert munitions or sand bags Use it Replace some live items by inert items → generally not acceptable Must be approved by authorities Packaging Storage / transport configuration Stack volum > 0,15 m3 Number of acceptors 2 acceptors Preferrably 3 acceptors (2 are required) Within a package Total volum of packages > 0,15 m3 Perform a THA If donor or acceptor package > 0,15 m3 If donor or acceptor package > 0,15 m3

10

❑ ““2 tests shall be performed” ➢ One tests without confinement

 Life cycle analysis?  Worst case acceptor reaction?

➢ One test with confinement

 Inert munitions (IM test)  Or package filled with sand (IM and UN test)

STANAG-AOP 4396 – Sympathetic Reaction

Performing a SR test (1/3) → configuration:

October, 24th, 2019

IMEMG Presentation

Smallest individual package Unpacked ? In launchers ? UN / IM harmonization? Need for: THA / Life cycle analysis / Test: could be expensive and complicated How to define the worst case ? Ennemy threats / human error ? How to perform measurments?

11

❑ Donor / 2 acceptors

STANAG-AOP 4396 – Sympathetic Reaction

Performing a SR test (1/3) → configuration:

October, 24th, 2019

IMEMG Presentation

STANAG is not clear on package, stack of package, confinement and inert items

« Additional storage arrangement – storage ramp » « Munition stacks »

« not appropriate to use inert items […] simulating the unconfined situation »

Example: configuration approved by national authorities

Inert Donor Acceptors Package

« within a package […] generally not acceptable to replace live items with inert items »

12

❑ Confinement:

→ “Where stacks

• f

munitions, unpacked or packed are to be used, […] inert munition […] may also be used to

• btain

a reasonable simulation of confinement” → “Confinement may be simulated with sand bags […] stacked around the test at least 1m thick in all direction” → “Within a package, it is generally not acceptable to replace live items with inert items”

STANAG-AOP 4396 – Sympathetic Reaction

Performing a SR test (1/3) → configuration:

October, 24th, 2019

IMEMG Presentation

UN test harmonization → ST/SG/AC.10/11/Rev.5_Test – 6(b) Stack Test ?

Example of a test performed with confinement

How to perform measurements and IM assessment in this configuration ?

13

❑ UN test for transportation:

→ Orange book : ST/SG/AC.10/11/Rev.5_Test – 6(b) Stack Test

STANAG-AOP 4396 – Sympathetic Reaction

Performing a SR test (1/3) → configuration:

October, 24th, 2019

IMEMG Presentation

Total volum must be > 0,15m3 Individual volum > 0,15m3 Yes No Position resulting in SR between individual products is known Use one acceptor Yes Use several acceptors No

In the condition they are

• ffered for transport

A stack of packaged articles A stack of unpackaged article Confinement packages filled with sand, thickness > 1m in every direction

Article provided with their own means of initiation or ignition Use it or use a stimulus having the same effects Yes Cause the article to function in the design mode Or replace it by another article which can be caused to function with the same effects No

Configuration for UN test ↔ Configuration for confined IM test? Not the same threat for a peace time transport and an in-service situation

!

14

❑ UN test for transportation:

→ Orange book : ST/SG/AC.10/11/Rev.5_Test – 6(b) Stack Test → Harmonization of: ❖ NATO regulation for IM ❖ with UN regulation for transportation:

▪ Why? ▪ How?

STANAG-AOP 4396 – Sympathetic Reaction

Performing a SR test (1/3) → configuration:

October, 24th, 2019

IMEMG Presentation

Criteria for 1.1 = Explosion of more than one package:

• Crater > crater of one package
• Damage to the witness plate > damage of one package
• Blast > blast of one package
• Violent disruption of the confinement

IM Type I Type II ~ Type III

For regulation simplification and clarification To save money and time!

• Perform UN test with IM instrumentation?
• Threats → not the same for a transport in peace time and for an

in-service situation! → consequences on the initiation mode

3 tests

15

STANAG-AOP 4396 – Sympathetic Reaction

Performing a SR test:

October, 24th, 2019

IMEMG Presentation

Configuration

• Packaged / unpackaged
• Storage or tactical configuration
• With confinement or without confinement

Donor initiation mode

• Item designed to detonate
• Rocket motors and propellant powder
• All others

Measure / IM assessment

• Blast pressure
• Fragmentation
• Other

Performing a SR test (2/3) → Donor initiation mode:

16

❑ Difficulties:

• How to defined a credible threat ?
• How to determine the worst case donor reaction ?

STANAG-AOP 4396 – Sympathetic Reaction

Performing a SR test (2/3) → donor initiation mode:

October, 24th, 2019

IMEMG Presentation

NOT TRUE: → For exemple, IM assessment for SR

• n smoke and illuminating

ammunition is required by customers.

THA? FMECA? Perform tests? Life cycle analysis? Could be an expensive and endless work!

17

❑ ““if designed to detonate, detonate in the design mode”

• Is it representative to the worst credible threat?

▪ IM munitions: double security fuze ▪ Credible threat: SCJ, Fragment, Heat and fire

• Worst case donor reaction:

▪ Detonation in the design mode

• Real fuze? → cope with double sécurity!
• Specific device representative of the fuze? → define what is

“representative” (IM is hard to initiate)

• Effects → fragments shape and velocity: not necessarily similar

to effects produced by an initiation with SCJ or fragment impact

• n the side of the body

STANAG-AOP 4396 – Sympathetic Reaction

Performing a SR test (2/3) → donor initiation mode:

October, 24th, 2019

IMEMG Presentation

Design mode SCJ initiation

Initiation by the fuze is not a credible case (probability = 10-9) Depends on the in-service situation Does it produce the worst donor reaction?

18

❑ ““For rocket motors or gun propellant, initiate the donor with a credible threat (for example, SCJ) that produces the worst donor reaction”

• SCJ → produce the worst reaction for gun propellant (pellets)?
• What is the worst reaction for propellant (pellets or solid)?
• What is a credible threat?

 Related to THA?  Or to life cycle?

STANAG-AOP 4396 – Sympathetic Reaction

Performing a SR test (2/3) → donor initiation mode:

October, 24th, 2019

IMEMG Presentation

Everybody will manage to detonate a propellant if he really wants to!

Demonstrate the detonation could never happen? Propellant reaction is very pressure dependant! Worst case depends on → the threat → the configuration which depends on:

Package Confinement → stack of package → warehouse

Need for a THA / life cycle analysis + tests: expensive / complicated

19

STANAG-AOP 4396 – Sympathetic Reaction

Performing a SR test:

October, 24th, 2019

IMEMG Presentation

Configuration

• Packaged / unpackaged
• Storage or tactical configuration
• With confinement or without confinement

Donor initiation mode

• Item designed to detonate
• Rocket motors and propellant powder
• All others

Measure / IM assessment

• Blast pressure
• Fragmentation
• Other

Performing a SR test (3/3) → Instrumentation/IM assessment

20

STANAG-AOP 4396 – Sympathetic Reaction

Performing a SR test (3/3) → Instrumentation/IM assessment

October, 24th, 2019

IMEMG Presentation

❑ Air blast pressure

▪ “Pressure gauge may be used to measure the air shock” ▪ “Blast pressure records (strongly recommended for unconfined tests only)” – From a physician point of view:

• Important to concentrate instrumentation on blast in the far field:

– It is a witness of detonation reaction – It is a very well known function – It depends on the TNT equivalent

– But: a reference test has to be done to characterize the blast of the donor:

• The confinement plays a role on the blast wave development
• The shape of the blast wave depends on the position of the ignition point and of the shape
• f the ammunition.
• If several device detonates, the blast wave will not be symmetric in the close field, Mach

wave, reflective wave, etc.

– Difficulties in performing the measurement:

• Most of the time, the blast measurements are not usable
• Fragments may impact on the support, the electric cables, the sensor
• Flyby phenomenon
• Wave reflection on the ground

Blast → not relevant for confined test! → except with a reference test?

21

STANAG-AOP 4396 – Sympathetic Reaction

Performing a SR test (3/3) → Instrumentation/IM assessment

October, 24th, 2019

IMEMG Presentation

❑ Air blast pressure – example for a confined test

Pressure gauge Distance [m] Pmax [mbar] Pmax ref. / naked [mbar] Relative difference [%] P1 5 75 264

• 72%

P2 10 33 143

• 77%

P3 15 26 110

• 77%

Confined article Pressure gauge P1 Pressure gauge P2 Pressure gauge P3 1 3 4 5

• How to conclude?
• Reference test would have been done for the

confined configuration?

22

❑ Fragmentation:

▪ “Photographs of witness plates” ▪ “Fragment map (not required or practical for confined tests)” ▪ “Number and depth of penetration in fragment recovery panels (if used)”

– Fragment mass distribution is a clear indication of detonation – But: Fragmentation depends on the nature of the casing

• Fragmentation of the acceptor casing could results in the action of the donor without any

reaction of the acceptor

• A reference test is necessary

– Difficulties:

The donor fragments fly all over the test site

• What about using deflecting device and specific witness plate for the donor and the

acceptor?

Difficulties to differentiate between the fragments of the 2 donors

• Colour identification is needed

– Proposition: Velocity of the fragments could also be a clear indication

• Only for unconfined tests

STANAG-AOP 4396 – Sympathetic Reaction

Performing a SR test (3/3) → Instrumentation/IM assessment

October, 24th, 2019

IMEMG Presentation

23

❑ Fragmentation – example for an unconfined test

− Importance of a reference test:

STANAG-AOP 4396 – Sympathetic Reaction

Performing a SR test (3/3) → Instrumentation/IM assessment

October, 24th, 2019

IMEMG Presentation

Fragments → live acceptor Fragments → inert munition / reference

On this example:

• Fragments of live acceptors are quiet small
• Reference test shows that fragments are small

even for an inert acceptor !! Risk of making a mistake in the IM assessment.

24

❑ Fragmentation – example for a confined test

STANAG-AOP 4396 – Sympathetic Reaction

Performing a SR test (3/3) → Instrumentation/IM assessment

October, 24th, 2019

IMEMG Presentation

How recovering all fragments of live acceptors ?! → witness plate under acceptors are the only chance to assess the reaction type

High speed video of a confined test After test residues Witness plate under donor and acceptors

25

❑ Other instrumentation specified in the STANAG:

▪ “The nature of any reaction by the test item” ▪ “High speed video and sound track” ▪ “A record of events versus time” ▪ “Photographs of after test residue and debris” → Could be interesting to measure the fragment velocity of the live acceptor: ▪ High speed video with steel witness plate ▪ Barrier to prevent donor’s fragment from impacting the acceptor witness plate

− Difficult in packaged configuration − Impossible in confined configuration

→ Mass of active and inert parts recovered from the acceptor

▪ The STANAG could specify a special paint resisting to fire ▪ g

STANAG-AOP 4396 – Sympathetic Reaction

Performing a SR test (3/3) → Instrumentation/IM assessment

October, 24th, 2019

IMEMG Presentation

Example of painted items

26

❑ Proposition → fragment velocity measurement:

STANAG-AOP 4396 – Sympathetic Reaction

Performing a SR test (3/3) → Instrumentation/IM assessment

October, 24th, 2019

IMEMG Presentation

Impacts from donor / acceptor

Witness plate under donor and acceptors Fragments Fragments impacting the witness plate Fragments

Who is who?

27

❑ The STANAG is not clear on the configuration ❑ The initiation mode of the donor is a great issue:

• Could significantly modify the response of the acceptor
• Could result in difference in IM assessment between

countries and industries

• Depends on the aim of the test

❑ THA and life cycle analysis are interesting but:

• It could results in difference of interpretation between

countries and industries

• It could lead to endless discussion with national authorities
• It could be an endless expensive work!

STANAG-AOP 4396 – Sympathetic Reaction

Issues and recommendations (1/2)

October, 24th, 2019

IMEMG Presentation

28

❑ Measurements are quiet difficult to perform:

• Especially in confined configuration
• It is difficult to differentiate between the effects of the donor

and the effects of the acceptors

• A reference test could be interesting to perform
• According to the type of ammunition (small caliber,

artillery or missile), this could be expensive

❑ IM / UN harmonization seems to be relevant (save money and time):

• If the STANAG includes indications on how performing the

measure on confined configurations

• But: how to deal with the different threats: peace time

transport and in-service situations?

STANAG-AOP 4396 – Sympathetic Reaction

Issues and recommendations (2/2)

October, 24th, 2019

IMEMG Presentation

29

• be more accurate on configuration (package and confinement)
• deal with the issue of donor initiation in case of article not designed to

detonate

• deal with UN/IM harmonization
• be as simple as possible and not exposed to interpretation

The responses to these questions finally depend on the aim of the STANAG?

❑ Establish a classification of munitions according to IM response to SR test (I, II, III, IV, V, VI) ?

• Information for manufacturers and national authorities

▪ THA and life cycle analysis are not necessary

❑ Inform the Forces of worst case credible reaction in the worst in-service situation likely to produce a sympathetic reaction ?

• Information for the Forces

▪ THA and life cycle analysis seems necessary ▪ How using correctly this information on the battlefield (storage, tactical situations, etc.)

STANAG-AOP 4396 – Sympathetic Reaction

❑ Conclusion: STANAG 4396 new ed. has to:

October, 24th, 2019

IMEMG Presentation

30

October, 24th, 2019

IMEMG Presentation

Thank you for your intention!