D- A±4 348 BLOM- OLDED PL STIC CONT INER DEVELOPMENT PRO R

AN FOR 1/1LARGE CALIBER AHMNNUM(U) RNV ARINANENT RESEARCH ANDDEVELOPMENT CIENTER DOVER NJ RNANE.

NCLSSIIEDK EFLANAGAN ET AL NOV 86 RAED-TR-627 F/G 13/4 N

*MENMmn uu

-'N-

Jo= 'I 111112.2

* IIIII,8&.; 11111.-2-5 l' n.... -, -'-

A - 1111= 1111

S.MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS T96T-A

d" q':

J'ql

N '

',:.,.-

.,,.-.* ., .r'..

o- .* ...

I~mrsii AD-E40 597 .

TECHNICAL REPORT ARAED-TR-86027

BLOW-MOLDED PLASTIC CONTAINER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMFOR LARGE CALIBER AMMUNITION

KAREN E. FLANAGANROBERT L. FORTUNATO DTIC

[:LFCTENOV 2 1986 j

NOVEMBER 1986

U. S. ARMY ARMAMENT RESEARCH, DEVEOPMENT AND ENGEENG COER

USARME ARMAMENT ENGINEERING DIRECTORATEM U N M T O N S ' - " ;

CHEMICAL COMMAND DOVER, NEW JERSEYAAfWEN RDE CENTER

APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION IS UNLIMITED.

OTIC FILE COPY

66 11 25. .. :.:-

The views, opinions, and/or findings contained inthis report are those of the author(s) and shouldnot be construed as an official Department of theArmy position, policy, or decision, unless sodesignated by other documentation.

The citation in this report of the names ofcommercial firms or commercially availableproducts or services does not constitute officialendorsement by or approval of the U.S.Government.

Destroy this report when no longer needed by anymethod that will prevent disclosure of contents orreconstruction of the document. Do not return tothe originator.

'4

9 -4

.'4

i-

UNCLASS IFlEDSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (w~hen Date Enfered) __________________

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONSL EPR NMER2.GVTACESINNO 3EFORE COMPLETING FORM . 4_ ~

I. RPORTNU ER 2GOV ACCSSIN No 3.RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

Technical Report ARAED-TR-86027 / 4 t4L ____

4. TITLE (and Subtitle) 5 TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOr COVIERF-T -

BLOW-MOLDED PLASTIC CONTAINER DEVELOPMENTFnlPROGRAM FOR LARGE CALIBER AMMUNITION 1983_to __98

6~ PERFORMING ORG RLPORiT NUEl LI

. %

7. AUTHOR(@) S. CONTRACT OR GRANT t4UMBFRr.)

Karen E. FlanaganRobert L. Fortunato

S. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS $0. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASK(a ~ .

ARDEC AEDAREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERSAREC AED~ *

1. CO*TROLLI

II CNTOLIG OFFICE NAM7 AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE .7d

November 1986STNODv(MA-S)13. NUMBER OF PAGES :

Dove, NJ0780-A013014. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADORESSI different fromi Controllting Office) 15. SECURITY CLASS. (o1 tha. report)

Unclassified

15.DECL ASSI FIC ATION/ DOWNGRADI NGSCHEDULE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report) P.

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17. O)ISTRIDUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract enfered in Block 20, II different from Report)

Of. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

19. KEY WOROS (Continue on reverse side it necessary and identify by block number)

Plastic packagingBlow moldingHigh density polyethyleneTank round containerSealed container

2& a7TRC andem wnei I-..~m idemnty, by block number)A research and development program for determining the feasibility of designinga plastic container for packaging 105-mm tank ammunition was conducted. The -

selected approach incorporated the blow molding manufacturing process in con-junction with the use of high density polyethylene.

Described in this report is a start-to-finish account of the development of the

plastic tank round container. Included are the design changes which were made(cont)

DD rim 1M EDITIO OF I OV 69,ISOBSOLETE UNCLASSIFIED .

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THI1S PAGE (Whren bet. Entered) 5

a.~:7 .- .~ .*~ .*. . . . . . .. . .

UNCLASSIFIEDSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(Ohan Data Entered) .

* 20. ABSTRACT (cont)

pas unforeseen problems arose, as well as the results of the tests conducted on

the final prototype container. The results show the ability of the plastic %

container to withstand severe impacts over a wide range of temperatures while

incurring no damage.

The minor problems which remained unresolved are currently being addressed in

a follow-on plastic 155-mm propelling charge contn 4ner program which is

scheduled for completion in FY 87.-_

%% •

• : .~-.'-'

N ~.

- . _ --

* .o•2;o

• U~~VNC LAS S IF I F "!)."

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGEV'14?,en Dlel r.flred) I

Mkk. .k2 . .:s. . .. ..k.. .......~ ~ -'-- .. -.. .. J

CONTE .rs

Introduction %

Results

Design 1 A/dDesign 2Design 3

Conclusions

Recommendations

% ~Appendix--Thermal Shirinkage Program %6

Distribution List 2j

U, F ,

4..CT NT ISe. NOV 2 51986 '.

F.

%- I

Design2 2 ''".De i n P.', .

Concl sion ,, ,.x -

Reoredatn 5., .,',K..'

0.a AV

TABLES '.

Page

1 Test conducted on design 3, 3-ft drop-ambient 7

2 Test conducted on design 3, 3-ft drop-cold 7

3 Test conducted on design 3, 7-ft drop-ambient 8

4 Test conducted on design 3, 7-ft drop-cold 8

FIGURES 'a

I Blow molding 9

2 Initial design 10

-3 -ring-in-compression design 11

4 0-ring-in-shear-design 12 a-"

..%

5 Modified cover design 13

6 Three psi seal 14

7 Final cover design 15a, 7

8 Final design--view 1 16

9 Final design--view 2 17

I() Pallet configuration 18

a,,,

%

"iisk

i .',,.

-'.'" a."".'" ''-:"'a, S. ?- . . ...... . . . . . . .

on

INTRODUCTION

There recently has been an increased interest, wi thin the Armv, in l.;s!2 i cIpackaging for ammunition. The motivation for a chancre f )in (,,dlimet.[ l to pl,, : i,

resulted from the desire for lighter weight packaging which is les. lahor ir.-sive to fabricate, NBC decontaminable, and less Tht Arv | i ! i-ated a research ad development program to detelni)), the feasihi lity )f div,,]Vp-ing a plastic container capable of meeting Jiti stringent military ammuitionpackaging requicements.

The first plastic container, fielded during the Vietnam War, packaged )-mmand 81-mm mortar rounds. Due to the contractor's failures to follow fabricationspecifications, however, these containers experienced stress cracking faibmrt-resulting in the need for complete repackaging of the rounds in jungle wrappedfiber tubes and wood boxes. This initial experience cost the Government a greatdeal of money and gave plastic packaging a bad reputation.

The only plastic container fielded since the 81-mm container is the M621 forshipping and storage of 25-mm ammunition for the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The .M621 container is currently receiving criticism because of its marginal sealcapabilities. Therefore, a Product Improvement Program has been initiated to %correct this deficiency.

The selected testing vehicle for the R&D program was the M490 105-mm tankround. Considering the potential size of the container required to package this

round, blow molding was selected as the fabrication approach. Although consid- "ered the optimal approach, there are inherent problems associated with the blow "'

molding process; specifically, inconsistent wall thickness and difficulty inholding dimensional tolerances. ,.,.

In extrusion blow molding, thermoplastic pellets are loaded into a hopperand fed through an extrusion screw where they are plasticized. The plastic ispumped downward through a die and core which forms a hollow plastic tube known asthe "parison." The parison drops down between two open mold halves which closearound it, pinching off the top and bottom. A blow pin inserted into the sealedparison injects pressurized air (approx. 100 psi) which forces the molten plasticinto the shape of the mold. Cooling begins at the instant the plastic contactsthe mold surface, and after a designated cycle time (2 to 4 min), the mold opensand the part is removed.

A Scope of Work was prepared and solicited for the design and development olthe plastic tank round container that included a material specification [highdensity polyethylene (HDPE)], a preliminary design concept, an internal supportsystem design, and the testing program which included acceptance criteria. Theassociated research, de,,eopment, and fabrication contract (DAAK1O-83-C-0241) wasawarded to Airmold Division, w. R. Grace, on September 28, 1983.

Extrusion blow molding is a technique used for fabricating hollow, onepiece, thin walled, plastic containers and is applicable to containers with vol-

umes ranging from a few ounces to as much as 500 gal. To illustrate this moldingtechnique, figure 1 depicts the fabrication of a plastic milk container.

I. ::: ",

There are a few disadvantages associated with the blow molding process.Primarily, it is difficult to attain constant wall thickness and tight toler-ances. The wall thickness varies as a function of the variations in the cross-sectional diameter of the mold. Walls are thickest at the areas of minimum diam-eter and thinnest at the areas of maximum diameter. Tolerances are primarilydependent upon shrinkage which occurs as a part cools. The degree of shrinkagevaries with wall thickness, being greatest where the material is thickest. Inextreme cases, variations in material thickness can result in warpage of thepart. To control the wall thickness and, therefore, the shrinkage to some de- den

gree, blow molds are designed to have large radius corners and relatively con-stant cross-sectional diameters.

RESULTS

Design 1

The first molded prototype containers (fig. 2) were similar to the conceptpresented in the Scope of Work with the addition of interlocking features incor-porated to improve pallet stability. The closure design incorporated an outside,double-walled cap with an O-ring-in-compression seal in which the O-ring wascompressed between the top stacking section of the container body and the bottomedge of the cap (fig. 3). However, the design had no provision on the containerneck for a positive stop for the cap lugs. The tightness of the cap, therefore,retied solely on the upward pressure exerted by the O-ring which forced the caplugs up against the lugs on the container neck.

The prototype containers underwent preliminary testing at Alrmold's facil-

ity. They were exposed to 3-ft and 7-ft drops at -20°F and an underwater submer-

geence at a depth of 7 ft. The container proved successful during the drops,iTlcrring no damage at 3 ft and only minor dents to the outside cap wall at 7ft. However, during submergence, the container's seal failed and the containerI i l led wi th water.

Test results indicated that the compression seal was ii.,dequate. Following- echilcl.-( discussions, it was concluded that a compression seal was not feasible

lnd should not be purs ued any further. Therefore, the closure and seal designreqiired modifications which resulted In a second design.

Design 2

nr. I ie, incorporate in 0-ring-in-shear, 1 0 , !11 , 1 i 10 1e t Ii eel neck to accommodate a neoprene 0-

: i' ', A , whem , pr's!d against the insid, wall of the cap, resulted in anml r AilonQ Sm,. A[,)mr with the 0-ring groove, lug stops were added to the neckI provide I more positive closure (fig. 4). The container cap was also modifiedo ijrovi , htt, r ii.idla t I Itv by molding addit ional depressions on the topt .

S%......-.. ".-........- - . . ..---

S, %

A sequence of drops was performed at ARI)EC to t .t tli Ilnpj)W,'4.d desi;n.Before dropping, the contai ners underwent a 3--p,;t pr,- ;stre rot,.nt itn t ost At,air tight seal was achieved; however, the cap was ver dirt ic lt t, pi t , ."Tremove. Following a 3-ft drop series (6 ortentatiou.n), the 4,aL wai rctt-.td ildremained air tight to a pressure of 3 psi (fig. 6). A,: ;i !* -;il' ,t th i-I.drops, cracks were incurred in the outside wall of Lhe cap ilid ptOVtbld a iea- -

age path through the blow pin hole to ie iLsioe j: ii . rc ly plthe hole with hot melt adhesive, the seal was no 1 wi.r compr-.imlbcd I. , , . ..-

the outside wall oF the double-walled cap.

The handleability of the container cap, despite modifications, remailedinadequate. Additional modifications were required to provide a heter grippiti,surface and a gasket which would create less friction against the cap wail. ...

Design 3

A clay model of the modified cap (3rd iteration) %,,;is made in order to test.its handleability before finalizing the cap design. After examination of the .'

modified cap model, the cap mold was cut to incorporate these final changes (1i,;.

7).

To reduce the friction between the cap and the gasket, an alternate to theneoprene O-ring was rpouired. Initially, silicon was considered; however, it wasdiscovered to have inadequate chemical resistance and a history of causing stresscracks in polyethylene. After consulting an O-ring manufacturer, an ethylene-propylene O-ring was selected. The final container design is shown in figures 8and 9.

Containers, incorporating all of the modifications, were fabricated anddelivered to ARDEC for testing. The test program was a modified version thatreflects the testing/acceptance criteria for ammunition packaging. The test,;that were selected and performed were considered the most rigorous; includingdrop tests under low temperature conditions as well a:- conmpressioii tests. Tie..-containers underwent pressure retention checks before and after the drop series.Detailed test results are shown in tables I through 4.

Approximately 90% of the containers tested before drops passed the 3-psi .. _.....

pressure retention test. The assemblies that did not hold an air tight seal hadslightly ovalized neck sections which created gaps between the gasket and thecap. Following the seal check, each container was dropped from a height of 3 ftonto a metal plate at six orientations. The only daiiige incurred was to the cap,as a result of direct impact. Very ranll crack: , along with minor dents,appeared on the outer wall of the double-wall c:.n which did not affect the sealor the ammunition. Tlo 7-ft drop test results were similar. The cranks anddents incurred were more ;tvere, but still did not affect the seal or amminitio,.in most cases. Even after a 40-ft drop, the container retained its integrity andonly the outside cap walls were damaged. .' .

.e

. - ; ;'- -,'-'.-', ... , '-.' "-,.v- .v..- .- ?." . " -'.' .'-:-- . "..."."" " -- "" . ". -..--. , v-.. -..- - --- "- - ..... - ....~~.... ....•, . ..... .. .<.,... .......-.

Compression tests showed that, even at ambient temperature, the containercould not support the required stacking load of 1,300 lb. The maximum load sup-ported by the container and resulting in no deformation was 950 lb which would besignificantly reduced at increased temperature. ..' .

Dur'ng loose cargo testing, no dents or cracks were incurred.

Another problem that had not been anticipateu was unequal shrinkage of thecap and neck at low temperature conditions which resulted in a loosely fittingcap. A separate study was performed to determine specifically which dimensions -

* changed and created the loose f it at low temperature (app).

Tests were performed on containers that incorporated an antistatic additive -

used to reduce the surface resistivity of the HDPE to eliminate the potentialthreat of static buildup and electrostatic discharge. A series of drops wasperformed on seven containers conditioned to -60 0 F. All of the containers were .-severely damaged during the ,-ft drop series, incurring large cracks and in some

cases complete severing of the container neck and body. The damage was independ- ..*,-.ent of the orientation. Further analysis of these containers was discontinued. -

To determine the dynamic properties of the container when subjected to var-ous drops at different temperatures, a series of drop tests were conducted andphotographed with high speed film. Containers were dropped from 3, 7, and 40 ftat -60'F, ambient, arid 160°F. These tests were conducted with inert M490 tank.cartridges. Three-psi pressure tests were not conducted after the drops. Theresults of the test showed that the damage to the containers after the 3- and 7- . .ft drops was limited to minor dents to the cap and scuffing. Increased dentingto the cap and scuf[ing was observed after the 40-ft drops but the containersexperienced no si;nificant damage. An analysis of the high speed film indicatedthe ability of the container to absorb energy and provide protection to the pack-aged itern.

CONCLUS IONS

was concl mdd t0at. an outside cap design would not b. pursued any furtherhAised primarily ,tpon th,. ,xtra cube which such a design requires. Presently,,m-;ide cap deL;igns are heing investigated in a number of follow-on programs.

Aside from redmchng the cootainer cube, the inside cap design will enable the Cl,' ;ft-455 the rmmuds from palleti/.ed containers (fig. 10) with greater ease. -.

l' rf.,ra iLetr (t th, probl.ems associated with the plastic container, whichhi,. c biii riststwi alo with tho Improved cap design, incluhc the following:

IAm ~. , r- .ior,, :-esulting in a poor seal

.t;,i , v m n ij' II ,(d remov ng time cover as a result of poor thread

.44

'5 ,

'75

;% .,,*5..

, - -

". ,° , - -- .. - % " -", o. -° %" " ° "• " , °%' * % * * ° "%. " %, *°*•, ' . . ,-* . * * . ** . " .. . - . °

3. Inability of the 0-ring-in-shear desi-n to provide an .1i r tinght s-Il* under normal atmospheric conditions

4. Inability of the container to sup)port the roqui redi stackin, 1g Iii ot1,300 lb r .

5. Unsatisfactory performancd of contai ne rs incorpriting ;-arii ~ t

additive

All of tioe information obtained from this plastic 105-mmi tiiik round cnn--tamner program is currently being applied to a plastic 155-mm propel L4ng charg,±

*container program. It is anticipated that the inadequacies of the tank rotnd* container will be overcome with the use of an improved closure design and thle

addition of stacking reinforcements. Additionally, the seriousness of the safetythreat imposed by electrostatic buildup on a plastic ammunition container and alist of alternative .iatistatic additives are currently being determined.

a ~RECOMMENDATIONS '.

Based on the favorable results of this program and the potential cost sav-ings involved, it is recommended that further investigation be conducted with

* respect to the use of plastics for ammunition packaging.

-N- N'7 '

Table 1. Test conducted on do--ugn i, 3-t: !iw-

Or ien ta t i on r;*Container 1p Bottom Side Side Tm 1,'.

2 + - i

3 + %

4 + NJo

5 + -- -- N~'.I_

* 6 + - + -Nts

- -No damage.+ = Slight denting of cap.++ = Slight denting and cracking of cap.

* =Minor crack in bottom of container.

Table 2. Test conducted on design 3, 1 -Ft drop-cold

Orientation Pre-ssure --'s

-Container Top Bo)t tom Side S id e Top ed~ e Bottomn_edge

* 2 + / - - ++ --

3 + 4-t t No tto-;t

.4 -- +-+ No Lets'

5 + - -NO t

*6 + - f+- No t c t

- No damage. -

4- = Slight denting of cap.++ = Denting and cracking of cap.# = Loosening of cap.

*= Cracking of body.

7

V..

Table 3. Test conducted on design 3, 7-f~t drop-ambient

Orientation Pressure testContainer Top Bottom Side Side Top edge Bottom edge

F

2+ P

4 -F

5 No test

6 No test

- -No damage.+ =Denting of cap).

++ = Denting and cracking of cap.

Table 4. Test conducted on design 3, 7-ft drop-cold

Orientation Pressure testContainer Top_ Bottom Side Side Top edge Bottom edge

I ++ P

2 ... F

3No test No test

4No test No test

SNo test No test

6 No test No test

- -- ------ ---- ca

%'..

I'*.VIN WIR .-.6WT 17V-7XN--TT- 7

.'-.4

]Drive Heaters R%

'.4.'.

open

.: Die 4.,e

00%4

close

." J,bosparison - 'e

mold halves

onopen con! 4 .'

for rewOVal

-'."4 , -'.

Figure I Blow molding

9s rs.-,

mnld halves ,..'.open I ;-::xis ready •

for rmova i €,,e4 ,

'P °

o:..'Fiue4.Bo4odng,-..

44. %

%

A6V

I

10~

I,

4

.4.-~

~~

4~4444*

'.4...-

*~

4. li-i

#4..41

v-P4-i

4. .~~AL.~

.4. .d

44 .~,

-. 4-.. .~.

.4~4

* V.

.4

4-

.4.

44

4% .4. ....

-4..

.4

.4

.4

.4,

~iq

*44~

Figure 3. 0-ring-in-compression design.4.4

44

.4.

.4 114.

.44

4. .d'~.444~4

- - - - - - - A -. . . - . - . - . . - .

- -'-A ~

-- j

C.

S.)

-JSq

C.

-5-

'A

F.

S.

P .-. q~

'5

S.

S.

.1-4

.5.

54'

-A

.~C. ICC

C5*

Figure 4. 0-ring-in-shear design

.4

12C'

.~ ~

., *Cq

'4C..

A. - C-.

A.,

- - -~ ~ ~? ~? - - . '.% ~. 'C.*S. *. *.*'.*~'*~*-'~ ~ .C.%~%

- - - - . , . S.. . a -- * p

%

S. *%*..~ .S~*J.

.5.-*': ~'.

S.

* ... S...

9.

S. -S.-

-~

S.-~SS

i ~.. .*.54.

-'-S

5,.

?

/

-S

.4

* /5

.5 /5'

-S

-S5, 4.

* 5..*.

'-5'-

v-.45*

5,*

- S

Figure 5. Modified cover design

S...

13

1%*

-4

'*5

~ ~* '

-. .~

-p

.1 -

-. U ______

- 'p... -

.4..

* ~ S

4% -.

I

j . . I

4.4I

-I.

a..

I'..,

.4

a,

*1

a.

p1.4*

Figure 6. Three psi seal

44

14*0

*0

-I ~ .- . a I -

- -' -. -. - -~

K el#6' 4*-a-I *8

a ~ -~ -

NV-s tV4'

4.

AI.p.4.

4., .. 4

4--.

.1

4-br

-A.

4

r

.4

Figure 7. Final cover design

.1

4p

154

A4....

-....... *.r4- . .4at. at. a -. .2 .* .A S 2 2 AJ P .PSt...E -A .0 S ~SS~ ~A2- t ~ C

'A %p

4.e

4Jr

Figure~~~~4 8.Fnl ein-ve

Ad. 16

1..

tf

CN .

bo

-4

.44

g%

17.1

-%\ . .

Figure~~~ ~ 10. PaltCnfgrto

18..

APPENDIX

THERMAL SHRINKAGE STUDY -

--

19

t.............52.........

The plastic blow molded 105-mm taink rind ca J ir hii .aI 'iIof tests including a series of dron) te-,-a ;it amhik-at tald )Id -itures. Under cold conditions, the container caij bc' cs h r

specific reason fur the loosening, ra seri es Otr,. -i-- aiK

container tinder ainhienit and cold conudit inns.*

* ~To obtain data, conitaine-r no-. cK diaMt,-rrs wer- il,c :- Iabove the gasket , 1.- ow the. gasket , 'id on t he (Ik t e1 t*

measurements w. i ,taken at each lbc a n , one from Ii a-h 1 i - ti ii K ii

4(thickest sect ion) and two ither random locat inns . Two ca)'t a Vsw - t - :one with an 0-ring gasket and the other wi th a Fjta-riat as....It () t I it'

-containers were measured at ambient and later at -6t)' F. The in i oc !i iint- r-r t I

two container calls were also measured, bitt dn11 to i' aarolaa oaitril' Jl III ithe results wcre insiiaif icatit .

The dat a oht:. ed fromn the nk:eastireme n ts ( t Alli~ A-1I) Sit ut 'Cd (1,1 t wit pa

tant phenomena otctrred at c-old tetnperat tres. Firs;t wnas tlie vti iat Liaort in hrik

* a~ge between the thick sectio~n (plinchli)ad h ret4tnritirti.The shrinkage was significantly greater at the pi nch linItcr-s ill~ litn iit i I -

ity to hold tolerances- with the containter cap whicit shait d shir ink ini t arnly Ti* lother observation was that the gasket, specifically tt; 0-ring, Jittttnk iar(a tliaa

*the container neck. Both of the shrinkage phenomenai observed resulted in aloecaap at -60 0 1F and must he corrected so that the cutntainet fieuts ttie scat cr ti-ri;a.

".21

a)-

C )

'- N 00 0 00lcJ.0 0 0 0

0 ~ 0 ,1- ec, C'Jr-'Jt o-~ IDa --

-~r -t ' -44

N-, N- -' r. rn (:IN

)o CD''. ~ f~-

rn 0

C)j

%

I-

To necGasket

Topto neck

Gasket

Figure ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oto neck5mmtn oudcnaie ek eto

.123

I* A,

Command e rArmament Research, Development and P

Engineering CenterU.S. Army Armament, Munitions

and Chemical C)mmandATTN: SMCAR-MSi (5)

SMCAR-AEP (4)SMCAR-AFED VSMCAR-CCL-SESMCAR-A :,VsMCAR-LMC

SMCAR-AET-DYSMCAR- FS A-MWTSMCAR- FSA-IMSMCAR-AAE-WW

Dover, NJ 07801-5001

CommanderU.S. Army Armament, Munitions

and Chemical CommandATTN: AMSMC-GCL(D)Dover, NJ 07801-5001 '. -

AdministratorDefense Technical Information Center

ATTN: Accessions Division (12)Cameron StationAlexandria, VA 22304-6145 -'

DirectorU.S. Army Materiel Systems

Analysis ActivityATTN: AMXSY-MPAberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5066

Commander 777Chemical Research and Development CenterU.S. Army Armament, Munitions

and Chemical CommandATTN: SMCCR-SPS-ILAberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5423

CommanderChemical Research and Development Center ,%-%

U.S. Army Armament, Munitionsand Chemical Command

ATTN: SMCCR-RSP-A.".Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5423

25

i. ..... * .. .. * .% -..,- %* . .

A. mm

.. . .'

DirectorBallistic Research LaboratoryATTN: AMXBR-OD-ST

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5066

ChiefBenet Weapons Laboratory, CCACArmament Research and Development CenterU.S. Army Armament, Munitions ".....

. and Chemical Command , . ".r..

ATTN: SMCAR-CCB-TLWatervliet, NY 12189-5000

CommanderU.S. Army Armament, Munitions

and Chemical CommandATTN: SMCAR-ESP-LRock Island, IL 61299-6000

Director, U.S. Army TRADOC Systems"14 .

Analysis Activity %ATTN: ATAA-SLWhite Sands Missile Range, NM 88002

Project ManagerAmmunition LogisticsATTN: AMCPM-AL

Dover, NJ 07801-5001

DirectorU.S. Army Defense Ammunition Center

and SchoolATTN: SMCAC-DEVSavanna, IL 61074-9639

Commander

U.S. Army Armament Research andDevelopment Center

A'r'rN: SMCAR-ESKAMSMC-AS I

- Rock Island, IL 61299-6000

4' O :h,801.'" "('Jnm 1( , (

CoI * ,siw'k, N.1 07722

26 .d.

:ZZ

~ ~ ~ *.. . * *. ~ ~ ~ * *.~ ...-.-~-. ,..' :-

Commanding OfficerNaval Weapons Support CenterATTN: Code 505Crane, IN 47522

CommanderNaval Sea Systems CommandATTN: Code SEA-05G53Washington, DC 20362 . .

SF

27.,oa *

* a °

a.-

4..

4.? , a ~ a.J % a,,.V *. % '

- -~ ~=-- . - - -

I

NN

.4-4

41 4.,

V

4.,

4' .44%

*1

-d

j-.4 I.4.

.44'

- A

.4

d

4,'

4

N

* 'I.'lip.'

~4~

.Y. 'Ci..~ .Y. * *.-. *~* ~L* ~ 4 w re .W.W~ V - r. ~ ~ .44 5 I