Recoil Measurement of Improvised Explosive Devices...

Recoil Measurement of Improvised Explosive Device Disruptors Lightweight AB Precision Ltd. – Pigstick and Hotrod

Matthew Ceh Tyson Josey DRDC – Suffield Research Centre

Defence Research and Development Canada Scientific Report DRDC-RDDC-2016-R223 November 2016

Template in use: (2010) SR Advanced Template_EN (051115).dotm

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of National Defence, 2016

© Sa Majesté la Reine (en droit du Canada), telle que représentée par le ministre de la Défense nationale, 2016

DRDC-RDDC-2016-R223 i

Abstract

Introduction or background: Recently, new lightweight water jet disruptors manufactured by AB Precision Ltd (ABP) were purchased for the CF to aid EOD operators in defeating Improvised Explosive Devices (IED). These light weight disruptors (LWD), like their predecessors, can be mounted on Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROV) or deployed by an EOD operator on stands. Existing designs of ROV holders may be incompatible due to the anticipated increased recoil resulting from modifications of the design and material of the new disruptors. In order for new holders to be developed, the recoil force (impulse) is required for design requirement formulation. This testing was initiated and sponsored by the Director of Combat Systems Equipment Management (DCSEM).

Results: Results for three different disruptors (Pigstick, Hotrod, and SBA Hotrod) were gathered for water, gel, and slug loads. The results were presented in terms of force-time and impulse-time histories for a total of six different configurations. The disruptor configuration with the highest impulse was the Hotrod with the gel load.

Future plans: It is recommended that, once a prototype holder for these disruptors is manufactured, additional trials be completed to observe the holder in action. High speed video could be used to record the disruptor functioning, and load cells used to record the recoil reduction from the holder design.

Significance to Defence and Security

The results of this project will allow for a set of design requirements to be established for present and future Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROV) holder designs. The use of ROVs with mounted disruptors allows for effective improvised explosive devices (IED) neutralization, while maintaining a safe operating distance for the EOD Operator. Additionally, the test procedures developed in past projects, and improved on here, can be utilized in future disruptor testing.

ii DRDC-RDDC-2016-R223

Résumé

Introduction ou contexte : Récemment, de nouveaux dislocateurs légers à jet d’eau fabriqués par AB Precision Ltée (ABP) ont été achetés pour les FAC afin d’aider les spécialistes en neutralisation d’explosifs et de munitions (NEM) à rendre les dispositifs explosifs de circonstance (IED) inopérants. Ces dislocateurs légers, tout comme les anciens modèles, peuvent être montés sur des véhicules téléguidés (VTG) ou déployés par un spécialiste en NEM en position. Les modèles existants de support pour VTG pourraient être incompatibles en raison de l’augmentation prévue du recul résultant des modifications apportées à la conception et au choix du matériau du nouveau dislocateur. Pour mettre au point de nouveaux supports, il faut tenir compte de la force de recul (impulsion) dans l’élaboration des critères de conception. Cet essai a été entrepris et parrainé par le Directeur – Gestion de l’équipement d’appui au combat (D Gest EAC).

Résultats : On a recueilli les résultats de trois dislocateurs (Pigstick, Hotrod et SBA Hotrod) pour des charges d’eau, de gel et de balles. Les résultats ont été présentés en fonction des historiques temporels de la force et de l’impulsion pour un total de six configurations. La configuration du dislocateur ayant la plus grande impulsion était celle du Hotrod à charge de gel.

Recherches futures : Dès que le prototype de support pour ces dislocateurs sera fabriqué, on recommande de procéder à d’autres essais afin de l’observer en action. On pourrait utiliser une caméra à grande vitesse pour enregistrer le fonctionnement du dislocateur et des cellules de pesage pour mesurer la réduction du recul grâce au modèle de support.

Importance pour la défense et la sécurité

Importance : Les résultats de ce projet permettront d’élaborer un ensemble de critères de conception pour les prochains modèles de support pour VTG. L’utilisation de VTG avec dislocateurs montés permet la neutralisation efficace des IED, tout en assurant une distance de travail sécuritaire pour les spécialistes en NEM. De plus, les procédures d’essai élaborées lors de projets antérieurs et améliorées depuis pourront être employées durant les prochains essais de dislocateurs.

DRDC-RDDC-2016-R223 iii

Table of Contents

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i Significance to Defence and Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i Résumé . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii Importance pour la défense et la sécurité . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 Disruptor Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2.1 Pigstick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2.2 Hotrod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.3 Previous Disruptor Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.4 Test Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.1 Test Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.2 Trial Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.3 Apparatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.4 Trial Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.5 Data Acquisition and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3.1 General Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3.2 Force and Impulse Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4.1 Trial Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4.2 Issues Encountered During Trail Execution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4.2.1 Disruptor Breech Malfunction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4.2.2 SBA Hotrod Gel Trials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

4.2.3 SBA Hotrod Cutter Trials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

5.1 General Comments on Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

5.2 General Comments on High Speed Video . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

5.3 Further Work in Recoil Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

5.4 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Annex A Trial Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Annex B Load Cell Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

iv DRDC-RDDC-2016-R223

List of Figures

Figure 1: Pigstick and accessories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Figure 2: Hotrod, SBA Hotrod, and accessories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Figure 3: Trial site configuration.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Figure 4: Trial apparatus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Figure 5: Pigstick Disruptor in holder with load cells preloaded. . . . . . . . . . . 6

Figure 6: Sample load cell data from M13203B (Pigstick with water). . . . . . . . . 8

Figure 7: Mean and extremes of peak force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Figure 8: Mean and extremes plot of peak impulse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Figure 9: Force and impulse plot from five trials Hotrod with slug load. . . . . . . . 12

Figure 10: Cutter travel distance from the disruptor, indicated by a red circle. . . . . . 13

Figure 11: Unburned propellant, indicated by a red circle. Cutter indicated by a red arrow. 13

Figure A.1: Pigstick with water load. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Figure A.2: Pigstick with gel load. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Figure A.3: Hotrod with water load. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Figure A.4: Hotrod with gel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Figure A.5: Hotrod with slug. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Figure B.1: Load cell specifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

DRDC-RDDC-2016-R223 v

List of Tables

Table 1: Pigstick specifications as measured by DRDC Suffield. . . . . . . . . . . 1

Table 2: Hotrod specifications as measured by DRDC Suffield. . . . . . . . . . . 2

Table 3: Trial matrix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Table 4: Summary of force and impulse results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

vi DRDC-RDDC-2016-R223

Acknowledgements

The author is very much appreciative of the time and energy dedicated to this project by the trial support staff, Dan Roseveare, Andy McFaul and those from FOS. The months of planning and preparation for these trials, combined with last minute requirements, required flexibility and technical competence—both of which the trial support staff has in volumes.

DRDC-RDDC-2016-R223 1

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

Recently, new lightweight waterjet disruptors manufactured by AB Precision Ltd (ABP) were purchased for the CF to aid EOD operators in defeating Improvised Explosive Devices (IED). These light weight disruptors (LWD), like their predecessors, can be mounted on Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROV) or deployed by an EOD Operator on stands. Existing designs of ROV holders may be incompatible due to the anticipated increased recoil resulting from modifications of the design and material of the new disruptors. In order for new holders to be developed, the recoil force and impulse is required for design requirement formulation. This testing was initiated and sponsored by the Director of Combat Systems Equipment Management (DCSEM).

1.2 Disruptor Description

The LWD suite, as delivered to DRDC Suffield, are of similar design and function as previously tested disruptors from ABP. These latest disruptors are capable of firing different loads including water, gel and de-armer tools. The disruptor suite consists of a 20 mm inner diameter model, the Pigstick, and two larger inner diameter models, the Hotrod (30 mm) and De-armer Hotrod (25 mm). The lightweight characteristic of these latest models is achieved through the use of titanium rather than stainless steel, and a reduction in outer diameter.

1.2.1 Pigstick

The “Pigstick”, depicted in Figure 1, was designed to disrupt a wide range of IED by injecting a high velocity (approx. 300 m/s) water jet projectile. This water jet projectile dynamically separates key components within the IED, offering a high probability of neutralization without a high order explosion. The disruptor is powered by an electrically initiated cartridge (propels the water), which is supplied together with a piston (pushes the water out the barrel) and closure cap (retains the water in the barrel). The injector is fired remotely utilizing a firing line and exploder. The Pigstick can be used with water for close-up operations or with a water substitute (gel) for Stand Back Attacks (SBA) [1].

This lightweight version, at roughly 800 grams, is just over three and a half times lighter than the regular Pigstick with a mass of 2950 grams. Specifications are provided in Table 1.

Table 1: Pigstick specifications as measured by DRDC Suffield.

Dimension Value

Serial Number 11/ABP/003

NSN 1385-99-599-0926

Combined Mass (g) 807

Length with Breech (mm) 483

2 DRDC-RDDC-2016-R223

Figure 1: Pigstick and accessories.

1.2.2 Hotrod

The Hotrod, or Improved Disruptor, depicted in Figure 2, was designed to defeat larger and hard-cased IED, such as those housed in suitcases and similar sized packages. It operates in a similar manner to the Pigstick, with the use of an electrically initiated cartridge, together with piston and closure cap. The Hotrod can be used with water for close-up operations or with a water substitute (gel) for Stand Back Attacks (SBA). With the use of a separate barrel and different projectiles, the Hotrod can be used for de-arming and long-range operations [2].

The original Hotrod, with a mass of 6500 grams, is over four times the mass of the lightweight version with a mass of less than 1500 grams. Specifications are provided in Table 2.

Table 2: Hotrod specifications as measured by DRDC Suffield.

Dimension

Hotrod Hotrod De-armer

Value

Serial Number 10/ABP/003 11/ABP/001

NSN 1385-99-725-9255 1385-99-250-2245

Combined Mass (g) 1222 1466

Length including Breech (mm) 465 535

SBA Loading Stick

Loading Stick

Pigstick

Breech


Figure 2: Hotrod, SBA Hotrod, and accessories.

1.3 Previous Disruptor Testing

DRDC Suffield has extensive test experience with disruptors. Much of the testing was the result of requests for validation of disruptor candidates in a large EOD equipment purchase through Project 1111 in 2007 [3, 4]. The disruptors were tested against performance criteria, formulated by DLR and DRDC staff, to validate against a wide variety of targets such as small hard and soft packages up to large vehicles.

Additional testing was recently completed for validation of long-range disruptors for use in SBA operations [5]. Here, a method for recoil measurement was first developed. The method used in this current report was formulated through these long-range disruptor tests, with improvements made to address test data validity. The high impulse of these LWD required a more robust load cell and experimental setup.

1.4 Test Requirements

Test requirements were provided by DCSEM with the goal of accessing disruptor recoil data for the LWD suite in use with water, gel, and solid projectiles. DRDC Suffield was requested to provide: 1) force-time histories of disruptor events with the intent of translating this information into the impulse experienced by a holder used by an ROV, and 2) high speed video for visual confirmation of disruptor use and performance.

De-armer Hotrod

Hotrod SBA Loading Stick

Loading Stick

Common Hotrod Breech

Slug and Chisel Loading Stick

Cutter

Slug


2 Method

2.1 Test Description

A trial matrix (see Table 3) was designed to allow five repeats of six configurations for the provided disruptors for a total of 30 trials. Additional trials (not shown in the matrix) were completed prior to the official trial series to test the setup and trial site configuration.

Table 3: Trial matrix.

Disruptor Configuration Number of Trials

Hotrod Water 5

Hotrod (SBA) Cutter 5

Slug 5

Gel 5

Pigstick Water 5

Gel 5

The trials made use of a DRDC Suffield designed apparatus, which was based on a design used in previous disruptor trials [5].

2.2 Trial Site

Trials were conducted at DRDC Suffield on the Experimental Proving Ground (EPG) at the Mine Effects Site. The disruptors were fired remotely from a control room using a Reynolds firing system, which was controlled by DRDC Suffield staff. A berm was used as a backstop to provide an impact area for fired projectiles (see Figure 3).


2.4 Trial Procedure

The trial procedure was as follows:

1. The disruptor was inspected, cleaned, and assembled.

2. The load cells were secured to the holder with bolts.

3. The holder was clamped to the test frame and load cells preloaded.

4. Instrumentation was checked for valid connections.

5. The disruptor was loaded with the appropriate cartridge and payload according to the operator’s manual.

6. The disruptor was connected to the remote Reynolds firing system.

7. The disruptor was secured to the holder by tightening four nuts onto bolts.

8. Personnel were cleared from the area and the disruptor was fired remotely.

9. Upon a successful firing, the target area was cleared.

10. Once the area was cleared, the recoil forces were noted and the high-speed video analyzed to ensure proper functionality of the disruptor and rig.

11. The disruptor was removed from the holder and prepared as in #1.

2.5 Data Acquisition and Analysis

During an experiment, sensor data was received through cables to a Pacific data acquisition system in a control building. Once received, the data was converted into DPlot [7] formatted files.

Data from the two load cells (modules A and B) were added together to provide the total force applied by the disruptor recoil (see Figure 6). Once a total force-time history was found for the experiment, an integral was calculated to find the impulse-time history. Max values for both force and impulse were recorded.

Some corrections to the data were made to improve display or accuracy of calculations. Examples of corrections are:

Truncation of data prior to the force event (removal of detonation spike and sensor drift and noise) to improve the calculation of the impulse for total force.

Shifting of the baseline data to improve the calculation of max values and impulse.

No filtering or smoothing of the data was performed.


Figure 6: Sample load cell data from M13203B (Pigstick with water).

Peak Force

Detonation Spike

Peak Impulse

Load Cells A and B


3 Results

3.1 General Comments

The issues encountered during the trials are highlighted in the Discussion section of this report. Of those issues, the most problematic involved the use of the cutter in the SBA Hotrod. The original trial matrix (see Table 3) included a cutter using the Hotrod, which is omitted in these results due to the author’s belief that the procedure for using the cutter is inadequate or the cutter design produces unintended results.

3.2 Force and Impulse Results

Results of the trials are summarized below in Table 4 as average peak values for force and impulse for each setup. Plots of individual trial force-time and impulse-time histories grouped by configuration are provided in Figures A.1 to A.5 of Annex A.

Figure 7 displays the mean and extreme values for the force results for each configuration. Figure 9 displays a similar diagram for impulse results.

Table 4: Summary of force and impulse results.

Disruptor Configuration Average Peak Force

Standard Deviation

Average Peak Impulse

Standard Deviation

(N) (N) (Ns) (Ns) Pigstick Water 13318 771 34.2 3.4

Gel 21985 4335 55.4 12.5

Hotrod Water 34145 6242 96.9 14.1

SBA Hotrod Slug 33694 1977 139.6 30.3

Gel 80345 10691 167.4 36.7

0.E+00

1.E+04

2.E+04

3.E+04

4.E+04

5.E+04

6.E+04

7.E+04

8.E+04

9.E+04

1.E+05

Water Gel Water Gel Slug

Pigstick Hotrod SBA Hotrod

Forc

e (N

)Mean

0.0E+00

5.0E+01

1.0E+02

1.5E+02

2.0E+02

2.5E+02

Water Gel Water Gel Slug

Pigstick Hotrod SBA Hotrod

Impu

lse

(Ns)

Mean


4 Discussion

4.1 Trial Results

The Hotrod disruptors experienced the widest variation in results. It’s believed that the large recoil experienced during use causes the trial apparatus to elastically deform, resulting in an increased variability in results. Evidence of this can be seen in the HSV of these trials. The Pigstick presents less recoil, and therefore it is assumed that the results have less variance due to the reduced elastic deformation of the frame.

4.2 Issues Encountered During Trail Execution

4.2.1 Disruptor Breech Malfunction

During the use of the Pigstick and Hotrod breech, the firing wire leads would fall out of the connector clamp resulting in a potential misfire situation. The Field Trial Officer (FTO) was uncomfortable with the situation and suspended the trials until a solution could be found.

It is the author’s belief that the gauge of the leads used by the Reynolds firing system is too small, which results in improper connection. Replacing the mechanical components of the lead connections, and doubling the lead over upon itself seemed to relieve the issue allowing the trials to commence.

Additionally, issues surrounding the firing pin resulted in sporadic cartridge firing times. Response time delays and one miss fire are believed to be the result of this issue. Replacing the electric ground insulating post (see Figure 9) resulted in increased reliability of the disruptor firing times and eliminated misfires.

The implications of these issues are that 1) proper guidance in the SOPs provided may be required for appropriate wire gauge use, firing pin lifetime values (in number of uses) or replacement schedules, and 2) there is a need for replacement parts located in the field bag. This may help in reducing the number of misfires encountered in the field.


5 Conclusion

5.1 General Comments on Data

The data collected from the data acquisition system can contain noise and occasionally a baseline shift. Caution is recommended in processing the raw signals since these issues can affect the overall force-time and impulse-time results. However, the authors believe that the data is of sufficient quality to inform design considerations for use with non-recoilless disruptors.

5.2 General Comments on High Speed Video

Every trial included a high-speed video capture. These videos are intended to provide a visual indication of disruptor function. However, additional data such as jet velocity and form can be obtained.

5.3 Further Work in Recoil Measurement

Once the new holder for these disruptors is manufactured, it would be beneficial to repeat these trials to observe the holder in action. High-speed video could be used to record the disruptor functioning, and load cells used to record the recoil reduction from the holder design.

5.4 Recommendations

There are some recommendations in the event that further work in this area is required:

1. Initiate further rig modifications (e.g., increase rigidity) to reduce elastic deformation, therefore reduce variation in the results.

2. Perform additional trials to create a high population of results for each configuration.

3. Redesign the apparatus to include only one load cell, thereby reducing moments and uneven force distribution about the two load cells.


References

[1] Department of National Defence. (2011). Operator/Repair Manual for the Barrel Disrupter Kit, EOD, Cased, Pigstick (L) and Stand Back Attack (SBA).

[2] Department of National Defence. (2011). Operator/Repair Manual for the Barrel Disrupter Kit, EOD, Cased, Hotrod (L), Stand Back Attack (SBA) and De-Armer.

[3] Ceh, M. and Dunning, M. (2010). The Test & Evaluation of IED Disrupter Equipment: Large Targets. Defence Research and Development. DRDC Suffield TR-2010-288.

[4] Ceh, M., Dunning, M., Pollock, C., and Macleod, T. (2011). The Test and Evaluation of IED Disrupter Equipment: Small Targets. Defence Research and Development Canada. DRDC Suffield TR-2011-120.

[5] Josey, T. (2012). Long Range Capability of Disruptors – Preliminary Investigation. Defence Research and Development Canada. DRDC Suffield TR-2012-155.

[6] PCB Piezotronics Inc. (2013). Model 200C50 ICP® Force Sensor Installation and Operating Manual. (online). https://www.pcb.com/contentstore/docs/PCB.../ForceTorque/.../Manuals/200C50.pdf.

[7] Hydesoft Computing (LLC). (2010). DPlot, Edition 2.3.0.3. Downloadable Software for Scientists and Engineers. (online). http://www.dplot.com/index.htm.


This page intentionally left blank.

DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA (Security markings for the title, abstract and indexing annotation must be entered when the document is Classified or Designated)

1. ORIGINATOR (The name and address of the organization preparing the document. Organizations for whom the document was prepared, e.g., Centre sponsoring a contractor's report, or tasking agency, are entered in Section 8.) DRDC – Suffield Research Centre Defence Research and Development Canada P.O. Box 4000, Station Main Medicine Hat, Alberta T1A 8K6 Canada

2a. SECURITY MARKING (Overall security marking of the document including special supplemental markings if applicable.)

UNCLASSIFIED

2b. CONTROLLED GOODS

(NON-CONTROLLED GOODS) DMC A REVIEW: GCEC DECEMBER 2013

3. TITLE (The complete document title as indicated on the title page. Its classification should be indicated by the appropriate abbreviation (S, C or U) in

parentheses after the title.) Recoil Measurement of Improvised Explosive Devices Disruptors: Lightweight AB Precision Ltd. Pigstick and Hotrod

4. AUTHORS (last name, followed by initials – ranks, titles, etc., not to be used) Ceh, M.; Josey, T.

5. DATE OF PUBLICATION (Month and year of publication of document.) November 2016

6a. NO. OF PAGES (Total containing information, including Annexes, Appendices, etc.)

34

6b. NO. OF REFS (Total cited in document.)

7 7. DESCRIPTIVE NOTES (The category of the document, e.g., technical report, technical note or memorandum. If appropriate, enter the type of report,

e.g., interim, progress, summary, annual or final. Give the inclusive dates when a specific reporting period is covered.) Scientific Report

8. SPONSORING ACTIVITY (The name of the department project office or laboratory sponsoring the research and development – include address.) DRDC – Suffield Research Centre Defence Research and Development Canada P.O. Box 4000, Station Main Medicine Hat, Alberta T1A 8K6 Canada

9a. PROJECT OR GRANT NO. (If appropriate, the applicable research and development project or grant number under which the document was written. Please specify whether project or grant.)

9b. CONTRACT NO. (If appropriate, the applicable number under which the document was written.)

10a. ORIGINATOR’S DOCUMENT NUMBER (The official document number by which the document is identified by the originating activity. This number must be unique to this document.) DRDC-RDDC-2016-R223

10b. OTHER DOCUMENT NO(s). (Any other numbers which may be assigned this document either by the originator or by the sponsor.)

11. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY (Any limitations on further dissemination of the document, other than those imposed by security classification.)

Unlimited

12. DOCUMENT ANNOUNCEMENT (Any limitation to the bibliographic announcement of this document. This will normally correspond to the Document Availability (11). However, where further distribution (beyond the audience specified in (11) is possible, a wider announcement audience may be selected.)) Unlimited

13. ABSTRACT (A brief and factual summary of the document. It may also appear elsewhere in the body of the document itself. It is highly desirable that the abstract of classified documents be unclassified. Each paragraph of the abstract shall begin with an indication of the security classification of the information in the paragraph (unless the document itself is unclassified) represented as (S), (C), (R), or (U). It is not necessary to include here abstracts in both official languages unless the text is bilingual.)

Introduction or background: Recently, new lightweight water jet disruptors manufactured by AB Precision Ltd (ABP) were purchased for the CF to aid EOD operators in defeating Improvised Explosive Devices (IED). These light weight disruptors (LWD), like their predecessors, can be mounted on Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROV) or deployed by an EOD operator on stands. Existing designs of ROV holders may be incompatible due to the anticipated increased recoil resulting from modifications of the design and material of the new disruptors. In order for new holders to be developed, the recoil force (impulse) is required for design requirement formulation. This testing was initiated and sponsored by the Director of Combat Systems Equipment Management (DCSEM).

Results: Results for three different disruptors (Pigstick, Hotrod, and SBA Hotrod) were gathered for water, gel, and slug loads. The results were presented in terms of force-time and impulse-time histories for a total of six different configurations. The disruptor configuration with the highest impulse was the Hotrod with the gel load.

Future plans: It is recommended that, once a prototype holder for these disruptors is manufactured, additional trials be completed to observe the holder in action. High speed video could be used to record the disruptor functioning, and load cells used to record the recoil reduction from the holder design.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Introduction ou contexte : Récemment, de nouveaux dislocateurs légers à jet d’eau fabriqués par AB Precision Ltée (ABP) ont été achetés pour les FAC afin d’aider les spécialistes en neutralisation d’explosifs et de munitions (NEM) à rendre les dispositifs explosifs de circonstance (IED) inopérants. Ces dislocateurs légers, tout comme les anciens modèles, peuvent être montés sur des véhicules téléguidés (VTG) ou déployés par un spécialiste en NEM en position. Les modèles existants de support pour VTG pourraient être incompatibles en raison de l’augmentation prévue du recul résultant des modifications apportées à la conception et au choix du matériau du nouveau dislocateur. Pour mettre au point de nouveaux supports, il faut tenir compte de la force de recul (impulsion) dans l’élaboration des critères de conception. Cet essai a été entrepris et parrainé par le Directeur – Gestion de l’équipement d’appui au combat (D Gest EAC). Résultats : On a recueilli les résultats de trois dislocateurs (Pigstick, Hotrod et SBA Hotrod) pour des charges d’eau, de gel et de balles. Les résultats ont été présentés en fonction des historiques temporels de la force et de l’impulsion pour un total de six configurations. La configuration du dislocateur ayant la plus grande impulsion était celle du Hotrod à charge de gel. Recherches futures : Dès que le prototype de support pour ces dislocateurs sera fabriqué, on recommande de procéder à d’autres essais afin de l’observer en action. On pourrait utiliser une caméra à grande vitesse pour enregistrer le fonctionnement du dislocateur et des cellules de pesage pour mesurer la réduction du recul grâce au modèle de support.

14. KEYWORDS, DESCRIPTORS or IDENTIFIERS (Technically meaningful terms or short phrases that characterize a document and could be helpful in cataloguing the document. They should be selected so that no security classification is required. Identifiers, such as equipment model designation, trade name, military project code name, geographic location may also be included. If possible keywords should be selected from a published thesaurus, e.g., Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms (TEST) and that thesaurus identified. If it is not possible to select indexing terms which are Unclassified, the classification of each should be indicated as with the title.) Disruptor; recoil; ROV; impulse measurement.

Recoil Measurement of Improvised Explosive Devices...

Documents

Transcript of Recoil Measurement of Improvised Explosive Devices...