Way Industry Bozena-5 Flail Test and Evaluation...Original signed by William Roberts William Roberts...

Defence Research and Recherche et développement Development Canada pour la défense Canada

Way Industry Bozena-5 Flail Test and Evaluation

Defence R&D Canada

Technical Report

DRDC Suffield TR 2007-279

December 2007

W.C. Roberts, R.W. Fall, and J.L. Eagles


W.C. Roberts, R.W. Fall, and J.L. Eagles Defence R&D Canada – Suffield

Defence R&D Canada – Suffield Technical Report DRDC Suffield TR 2007-279 December 2007

Author Original signed by William Roberts

William Roberts

Approved by Original signed by Dr. Chris Weickert

Dr Chris Weickert

Head, Military Engineering Section

Approved for release by Original signed by Dr. P. D’Agostino

Dr. P. D’Agostino

Chair, Document Review Panel

© Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Minister of National Defence, 2007

© Sa majesté la reine, représentée par le ministre de la Défense nationale, 2007

Abstract

An International Test and Evaluation Program trial of the Way Industry Bozena-5 Midi Mine Clearance System (flail) was performed in May and June 2006 at the Croatian Mine Action Center (CROMAC) Centre for Testing, Development, and Training (CTRO). Canada, Sweden, and Croatia cooperated to conduct this trial. The project was conducted to the methodology specified in the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) Workshop Agreement “CEN Workshop Agreement 15044; Test and Evaluation of Demining Machines” available at the International Test and Evaluation Website (www.itep.ws).

Résumé

Un programme international d’essais et évaluation du système de déminage (fléau) Bozena-5 Midi de Way Industry a été effectué en mai et juin 2006 au Centre de déminage croate (CROMAC) d’essais, de développement et de formation. Le Canada, la Suède et la Croatie ont collaboré pour conduire cet essai. Le projet a été conduit conformément à la méthodologie spécifiée par « l’Accord du groupe de travail 15044 du Comité européen de normalisation (CEN); Essais et évaluations des machines de déminage » disponible sur le site Web d’Essais et évaluations internationaux (www.itep.ws).

DRDC Suffield TR 2007-279 i

This page intentionally left blank.

ii DRDC Suffield TR 2007-279

Executive summary

A trial of the Way Industry Bozena-5 flail was conducted with Canada, Sweden, and Croatia as test partners under the auspices of the International Test and Evaluation Program (ITEP). The methodology outlined in ‘CEN Workshop Agreement 15044; Test and Evaluation of Demining Machines’ available from the International Test and Evaluation Website (www.itep.ws) was used to conduct this trial.

The Bozena-5 was tested at the Croatian Mine Action Center (CROMAC) Center for Testing, Development, and Training (CTRO) facilities outside of Karlovac, Croatia during May and June 2006. Both performance and survivability (acceptance) tests were conducted as part of this effort. The performance tests utilised the CCMAT-developed Wirelessly Operated Reproduction Mine (WORM) system to evaluate the effectiveness of the Bozena-5 against anti-personnel landmine targets. Survivability and vegetation cutting tests were part of the CROMAC-led acceptance test. The CROMAC acceptance test is used for certification in both the Republic of Croatia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The Bozena-5 is a well-built machine that appears to be easy to operate and maintain. Way Industry seems to have incorporated the experienced gained from their previous models in the design and construction of the Bozena-5.

The Bozena-5 has adequate power for both ground penetration and vegetation cutting.

The mine neutralisation performance of the Bozena-5 ranged from a low of 42/50 to a high of 50/50 targets neutralised. The tests with the poorest performance had several unrecovered targets that were assumed to be live.

The Bozena-5 had good survivability against several AP and one AT mine detonated by the flail. The damage from the AP mines, including the fragmentation mines, was primarily cosmetic. The damage from the TMM-1 AT mine would have required approximately 15 minutes to repair.

No major issues were noted with the design or performance of the Bozena-5. Although a potential debris-trap may exist on the skids of the flail, this would be easily corrected through the use of a thin angular shield. As with all flails, the Bozena-5 did scatter some of the debris from the test lane outside of the test area. Some debris scattering may be an inherent limitation of flails. Neither the potential debris traps nor scattering of debris are critical issues with this machine.

The Bozena-5 is a capable machine with good performance characteristics. The suitability of this machine for a particular operation would best be determined by a local acceptance test as suggested by the CEN Workshop Agreement CWA 15044.

Roberts, W.C., R.W. Fall, and J.L. Eagles (2007). Way Industry Bozena-5 Flail Test and Evaluation. (DRDC Suffield TR 2007-279). Defence R&D Canada – Suffield.

DRDC Suffield TR 2007-279 iii

http://www.itep.ws/

Sommaire

Un essai a été conduit sur le fléau Bozena-5 de Way Industry, en partenariat entre le Canada, la Suède et la Croatie, sous l’égide du Programme international d’essais et évaluations. On a utilisé la méthodologie soulignée dans « l’Accord du groupe de travail 15044 du Comité européen de normalisation (CEN); Essais et évaluations des machines de déminage » disponible sur le site Web d’Essais et évaluations internationaux (www.itep.ws), pour conduire cet essai.

Le Bozena-5 a été testé aux installations du Centre de déminage croate (CROMAC) d’essais, de développement et de formation, à l’extérieur de Karlovac en Croatie, durant les mois de mai et juin 2006. Les deux essais de rendement et de surviabilité (de réception) ont été conduits dans le cadre de cet effort. On a utilisé le système de mines de substitution, opérées par le réseau sans fil et mises au point par le Centre canadien de technologie de déminage (CCTD), pour évaluer l’efficacité du Bozena-5 contre les cibles consistant de mines terrestres antipersonnel, durant les tests de rendement. Les essais de surviabilité et de fauchage de la végétation faisaient partie de l’essai de réception dirigé par le Centre de déminage croate. Cet essai de réception est utilisé à but d’accréditation dans la République de Croatie et en Bosnie Herzégovine.

Le Bozena-5 est une machine bien construite qui semble facile à opérer et à maintenir. Way Industry semble avoir incorporé son expérience acquise avec les modèles antécédents dans sa conception et sa construction.

Le Bozena-5 a assez de puissance pour pénétrer le sol et faucher la végétation.

Le rendement du Bozena-5 variait entre un faible rendement de 42/50 cibles neutralisées et un haut rendement de 50/50 cibles neutralisées. Les essais ayant le plus faible rendement consistaient en plusieurs cibles non recouvrées que l’on a présumées non déclenchées.

Le Bozena-5 a eu une bonne surviabilité contre plusieurs mines antipersonnel et le fléau a déclenché une mine AC. Le dommage causé par les mines antipersonnel, y compris les mines à fragmentation, était principalement superficiel. Le dommage causé par une mine antipersonnel TMM-1 aurait requis une réparation d’environ 15 minutes.

On n’a remarqué aucun problème majeur avec le concept ou le rendement du Bozena-5. Il se peut cependant qu’il existe un problème de rétention des débris sur le longeron du fléau qui pourrait être facilement corrigé en utilisant un mince écran angulaire. Le Bozena-5, comme tous les fléaux, a répandu quelques débris, provenant de la voie d’essai, à l’extérieur de la zone des essais. Cette dispersion de débris peut être un défaut inhérent à ces fléaux. Ni la possibilité de rétention ni la dispersion de débris ne posent de problèmes majeurs par cette machine.

iv DRDC Suffield TR 2007-279

http://www.itep.ws/

Le Bozena-5 est une machine efficace possédant de bonnes caractéristiques de rendement. Les essais de réception locaux, tels que suggérés par l’Accord du groupe de travail 15044 du Comité européen de normalisation (CEN), seront le meilleur moyen de juger de la pertinence de l’utilisation de cette machine pour une opération particulière.

Roberts, W.C., R.W. Fall, and J.L. Eagles (2007). Way Industry Bozena-5 Flail Test and Evaluation. (DRDC Suffield TR 2007-279). R & D pour la défense Canada – Suffield.

DRDC Suffield TR 2007-279 v


vi DRDC Suffield TR 2007-279

Table of contents

Abstract........................................................................................................................................ i

Résumé ........................................................................................................................................ i

Executive summary ................................................................................................................... iii

Sommaire................................................................................................................................... iv

Table of contents ...................................................................................................................... vii

List of figures ............................................................................................................................ ix

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1

2. Machine Description ..................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Bozena-5 Flail .................................................................................................. 2

3. Trial Description............................................................................................................ 4 3.1 Test Team ......................................................................................................... 4 3.2 Trial Conditions................................................................................................ 4

4. Test Results ................................................................................................................... 6 4.1 Effects Against Mine Targets ........................................................................... 6

4.1.1 Tabular Data and Explanations ........................................................... 6 4.1.2 Statistical Treatment of Data ............................................................... 7 4.1.3 Debris and Scatter ............................................................................. 10

4.2 Depth and Consistency of Penetration Across The Path ................................ 14 4.2.1 General .............................................................................................. 14 4.2.2 Depth and Consistency of Penetration in Sand ................................. 15 4.2.3 Depth and Consistency of Penetration in Gravel............................... 17 4.2.4 Depth and Consistency of Penetration in Topsoil ............................. 19 4.2.5 Depth and Consistency of Penetration – Discussion ......................... 21

4.2.5.1 Sand ............................................................................... 21 4.2.5.2 Gravel ............................................................................ 21

DRDC Suffield TR 2007-279 vii

4.2.5.3 Topsoil ........................................................................... 22 4.2.5.4 General........................................................................... 22

4.3 Depth Consistency Along the Path................................................................. 22 4.4 Mobility .......................................................................................................... 22 4.5 Survivability Test ........................................................................................... 22 4.6 Vegetation Cutting.......................................................................................... 28 4.7 Other Observations......................................................................................... 30

4.7.1 Remote Control System..................................................................... 30 4.7.2 Logistics ............................................................................................ 30 4.7.3 Speed ................................................................................................. 30 4.7.4 Flail Shroud Design........................................................................... 31 4.7.5 Debris Traps ...................................................................................... 31 4.7.6 Flail Wear .......................................................................................... 32

4.8 Manufacturer Comments ................................................................................ 33

5. Conclusions and Recommendations............................................................................ 34 5.1 Positive Observations ..................................................................................... 34 5.2 Areas Requiring Attention.............................................................................. 34 5.3 Recommendations .......................................................................................... 34

6. References ................................................................................................................... 35

Annex A – Trial Description .................................................................................................... 37

Annex B – Bozena-5 Manufacturer Brochure .......................................................................... 47

Annex C – Soil Test Procedures............................................................................................... 57

Annex D – Test Data Sheets..................................................................................................... 61

Annex E – Manufacturer Comments ........................................................................................ 71

List of symbols/abbreviations/acronyms ................................................................................. 72

viii DRDC Suffield TR 2007-279

List of figures

Figure 1. Bozena-5 ..................................................................................................................... 2

Figure 2. Bozena-5 Flail Head.................................................................................................... 3

Figure 3. Bozena-5 Remote Control........................................................................................... 3

Figure 4. Performance Data – Statistical Treatment................................................................... 8

Figure 5. Machine Comparison Based on Performance Data..................................................... 9

Figure 6. Examples of intact, undamaged WORMs. ................................................................ 10

Figure 7. Examples of slightly damaged WORMs................................................................... 11

Figure 8. Examples of WORMs with fuzes removed (mechanically neutralised). .................. 11

Figure 9. Examples of mechanically neutralised WORMs....................................................... 12

Figure 10. Debris from all tests. ............................................................................................... 13

Figure 11. Debris of Interest – Gravel, 10 cm DOB................................................................. 13

Figure 12. Debris Thrown by Flail During Processing............................................................. 14

Figure 13. Depth of Penetration in Sand With Mines at 0 cm DOB ........................................ 15

Figure 14. Depth of Penetration in Sand With Mines at 10 cm DOB ...................................... 16

Figure 15. Depth of Penetration in Sand With Mines at 15 cm DOB ...................................... 16

Figure 16. Depth of Penetration in Gravel With Mines at 0 cm DOB ..................................... 17

Figure 17. Depth of Penetration in Gravel With Mines at 10 cm DOB ................................... 18

Figure 18. Depth of Penetration in Gravel With Mines at 15 cm DOB ................................... 18

Figure 19. Depth of Penetration in Topsoil With Mines at 0 cm DOB .................................... 19

Figure 20. Depth of Penetration in Topsoil With Mines at 10 cm DOB .................................. 20

Figure 21. Depth of Penetration in Topsoil With Mines at 15 cm DOB .................................. 21

Figure 22. Mechanically Neutralised PMA-2........................................................................... 25

Figure 23. Paint Chipping on Side of Flail Arm from PMR-2A .............................................. 25

DRDC Suffield TR 2007-279 ix

x DRDC Suffield TR 2007-279

Figure 24. Minor Dent in Bozena-5 Flail Arm from PROM-1................................................. 26

Figure 25. Mechanically Neutralised PROM-1 ........................................................................ 26

Figure 26. Damage to Bozena-5 from TMM-1 ........................................................................ 27

Figure 27. Vegetation Cutting While Ground Processing ........................................................ 29

Figure 28. Potential Debris Trap Location ............................................................................... 32

List of tables

Table 1. Soil conditions for each test. ........................................................................................ 5

Table 2. Targets Triggered ......................................................................................................... 7

Table 3. Mine Targets Triggered or Neutralized ........................................................................ 7

Table 4. Survivability Tests...................................................................................................... 24

Table 5. Speeds Achieved ........................................................................................................ 30

1. Introduction

With Canada, Sweden, and Croatia as test partners, an International Test and Evaluation Program (ITEP) trial of the Way Industry Midi Mine Clearance System Bozena-5 flail was conducted. The project was guided by the methodology outlined in ‘CEN Workshop Agreement 15044; Test and Evaluation of Demining Machines’ [1].

Canada completed a pre-trial assessment of the Bozena-5 at the Way Industry factory in Slovakia in September 2005. The Bozena-5 was found to be suitable for further examination.

During the weeks of 2-5 May and 12-16 June 2006, the Bozena-5 was tested at the Croatian Mine Action Center (CROMAC) Center for Testing, Development, and Training (CTRO) facilities outside of Karlovac, Croatia. This part of the project included the performance and survivability (acceptance) tests. The methodology called for performance testing against antipersonnel mine targets, and survivability testing using both antipersonnel and antitank mines.

The acceptance tests were part of the certification procedures for use against anti-personnel and anti-tank mines in Croatia by CROMAC.

An overall description of the test facilities, the test targets and the test methods is given in Annex A. This information is relevant to almost any machine tested at this site. It is summarized briefly in Section 3 along with information that is specific to this particular evaluation of the Bozena-5. Annex B provides descriptive information about the machine and contact information for the manufacturer, who can be contacted at

Way Industry, j-s.Co.

Priemyselná 937/4

963 01 Krupina

SLOVAKIA

Annex C contains information on soil test procedures, Annex D contains the test data and Annex E contains the manufacturer comments.

DRDC Suffield TR 2007-279 1

2. Machine Description

2.1 Bozena-5 Flail

The Bozena-5 flail is reported to weigh 11.72 tonnes. It has an overall width of 3.58 metres and an active width (the width across the chain-hammer section of the flail head) of 2.88 metres. A machine this size is generally classed as a medium flail. Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3 provide general views of the Bozena-5, the flail head and the remote control system.

The machine is equipped with a Tatra T3A-928-30 diesel engine rated at 170kW (231hp). The flail head is fitted with 52 chains with 1 kg hammers along a shaft rotating at up to 600 rpm depending on the soil conditions. The chains and hammers are arranged in a double helix around the shaft and extend to a diameter of 1780mm.

Figure 1. Bozena-5

The remote control system provides wireless operation of the machine to a distance of several kilometres (line of sight). While a camera is available as an option, this was not tested in detail.

Annex B contains a brochure from the manufacturer describing the Bozena-5 in detail.

2 DRDC Suffield TR 2007-279

Figure 2. Bozena-5 Flail Head

Figure 3. Bozena-5 Remote Control


3. Trial Description

3.1 Test Team

The trial team for this portion of the project included the following personnel:

• Canada – William Roberts (CCMAT); Russ Fall (CCMAT); Dan Roseveare (CCMAT) Capt Gerald Deveau (Land Force Trials and Evaluation Unit)

• Sweden – Maj Göran Danielsson (SWEDEC); Lt Tommy Karlsson (GÖTA Engineers)

• Croatia – Ivan Steker (CTRO); Tomislav Blašković Vondraček (CTRO)

3.2 Trial Conditions

The Bozena-5 trial was conducted using the techniques and procedures specified in CWA 15044. Mine targets were placed at three depths in each of three prepared soil conditions. The burial depths were 0mm, 100mm, and 150mm. The three soil conditions were sand, gravel, and a local topsoil. Three fiberboards were placed across each of the nine test lanes at the start, middle, and end of the test section in order to determine the digging profile of the machine at these intervals.

CCMAT has developed a type of target called the Wirelessly Operated Reproduction Mine (WORM) that was used for this trial. Additional detail on these test targets is provided in Annex A . These test targets were evaluated based on four categories; ‘live,’ ‘live damaged,’ ‘mechanically neutralised,’ and ‘triggered.’

A complete description of the test areas, the facilities and tools, and the test procedures can be found in Annex A. As the CTRO test site had not been used to conduct a performance test prior to this trial, the soil preparation procedures were still under development. There were some deviations during the earlier tests in the series from the subsequently established procedures for test lane soil preparation.

A summary of soil conditions for the Bozena-5 flail test are shown in Table 1.


Table 1. Soil conditions for each test.

Series Date Lane & Sample

Worm Depth Of

Burial Moisture %

Wet Density kg/m³

Dry Density kg/m³

1 2-May-06 Gravel "A" 10cm 8.0% 1267 1173

2 2-May-06 Gravel "B" 10cm 6.6% 1664 1562

3 2-May-06 Gravel "A" 0.0cm 8.4% 1112 1026

4 2-May-06 Gravel "B" 0.0cm 4.9% 1646 1569

5 3-May-06 Gravel "A" 15cm 5.7% 1863 1762

6 3-May-06 Gravel "B" 15cm 6.5% 1682 1580

7 3-May-06 Sand "A" 10cm 11.8% 2053 1836

8 3-May-06 Sand "B" 10cm 9.7% 1638 1556

9 3-May-06 Sand "A" 15cm 11.7% 1705 1526

10 3-May-06 Sand "B" 15cm 10.6% 2056 1859

11 4-May-06 Sand "A" 0.0cm 10.3% 1760 1596

12 4-May-06 Sand "B" 0.0cm 11.1% 1945 1750

13 12-Jun-06

Topsoil "A" 15cm 2089

14 12-Jun-06

Topsoil "B" 15cm 1920

15 13-Jun-06


16 13-Jun-06


17 13-Jun-06


18 13-Jun-06



4. Test Results

4.1 Effects Against Mine Targets

This section summarizes the performance of the machine as tested using the mine targets. In addition to simply tabulating numbers, the data is given a statistical treatment as recommended by the CEN Workshop Agreement.

4.1.1 Tabular Data and Explanations

Table 2 shows the number of targets triggered, mechanically neutralised, live damaged or live, at each depth, and in each soil condition. The notes following the table provide additional, amplifying information for each case.

The aggregate neutralisation effectiveness (triggered and mechanically neutralised) is shown below in Table 3.

The data shown in these tables is derived for the data sheets found at Annex D. Note that in this case, ‘fuse removed’ is considered one form of mechanical neutralisation.

Following each test run, an effort was made to recover all targets. A review of the data gathered during the test determined how many targets were not triggered. All visible targets on the surface of the test lane and those thrown outside the test lane were gathered. A metal detector was used in an attempt to locate targets buried in the test lane. To augment the process, workers with shovels worked through the lane starting at one end and digging through the loose soil of the lane looking for targets. The process continued until all targets were located or it was determined that any remaining targets would not be found in a reasonable time frame. These were termed ‘Not Recovered’. Although it is desirable to find all of the targets, those that were not recorded as triggered were considered a priority in order to determine their status. Of the nine tests completed, all targets were located in six tests; four targets could not be found in one test; three targets could not be found in one test; and one target could not be found in the remaining test. It is not possible to state the condition of the missing targets. As such, it cannot be stated with complete certainty that the missing targets were either intact or destroyed. The data in the following tables assumes that missing targets were not triggered or neutralized. Footnotes are added to this effect.


Table 2. Targets Triggered 1

SOIL TYPE

DEPTH (CM)

EMPLACED TRIGGERED MECHANICALLY NEUTRALIZED

LIVE-DAMAGED

LIVE NOT RECOVERED

Sand 0 50 35 14 0 0 1

Sand 10 50 50 0 0 0 0

Sand 15 50 49 1 0 0 0

Gravel 0 50 16 31 3 0 0

Gravel 10 50 38 10 2 0 0

Gravel 15 50 49 0 1 0 0

Topsoil 0 50 24 21 2 0 3

Topsoil 10 50 36 13 0 1 0

Topsoil 15 50 36 6 0 4 4

1 This material is taken from the data sheets contained in Annex D. All targets triggered are digitally recorded during the test run. In some cases, targets that are not digitally recorded are deemed to be triggered by the physical evidence gathered through visual inspection of the target. Targets ‘Not Recovered‘ are those which did not register on the computer and could not be found to verify their physical condition.

Table 3. Mine Targets Triggered or Neutralized

0 CM 10 CM 15 CM

Sand 49/501 50/50 50/50

Gravel 47/50 48/50 49/50

Topsoil 45/502 49/50 42/503

This table combines triggered targets with those that were mechanically neutralized. There were 50 targets in each test condition.

1 One target could not be found. If this target was neutralized, the value would be 50/50.

2 Three targets could not be found. If these targets were neutralized, the value would be 48/50.

3 Four targets could not be found. If these targets were neutralized, the value would be 46/50.

4.1.2 Statistical Treatment of Data

As suggested in Figure 1 of the CEN Workshop Agreement, a collection of machine test data is simply an estimate of the actual performance of the machine. The more tests you do, and the more data points you collect, the more confident you can be in the estimate. Intuitively this makes sense; you can have much more confidence in a machine that has neutralized 950/1000 mines than you can have in a machine which has neutralized 3/3, even though the second machine appears to have achieved 100% compared to 95% for the first machine.


To aid in understanding the confidence with which the Bozena-5 results can be interpreted, the confidence intervals are shown in Figure 4. The upper and lower confidence intervals illustrate the anticipated range of the actual performance of the machine. Note that the upper and lower boundaries of the confidence interval shown on the graph are valid for sets of 50 test targets only.

Statistical Confidence in Results

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Number of Test Targets Neutralised (/50)

Stat

istic

al C

onfid

ence

Per

cent

age

Lower IntervalUpper IntervalA. topsoil 15 cm DOBB. topsoil 0 cm DOBC. gravel 0 cm DOBD. gravel 10 cm DOBE. gravel 15 cm DOBE. sand 0 cm DOBE. topsoil 10 cm DOBF. sand 10 cm DOBF. sand 15 cm DOB

A

BC

DE

F

Note:* Not all targets were recovered, error bar lower limit assumes none of unrecovered mines were neutralised; upper limit assumes all unrecovered mines were neutralised.

example of note (*)

Figure 4. Performance Data – Statistical Treatment

To illustrate the interpretation of Figure 4 consider the data for gravel at 10cm DOB (48/50). You can state that there is a 95% probability that the actual performance of the machine in gravel at 10cm DOB lies between 86% and 100%. The statistical confidence for the worst performance (topsoil at 15cm) falls into a band between about 71%-98%. The large range of statistical confidence for this test is due to the four unrecovered targets.

There is often a desire to compare machines based on their performance data. Comparing the overall number of neutralised mines out of 450 total test targets does not provide useful or meaningful comparison. The results for each condition must be examined independently. The graph shown in Figure 5 has been prepared to assist in this evaluation. For each condition, Figure 5 can be used in the following way:


• For the machine which apparently has the better performance, enter the test number of mines triggered/neutralized out of 50 on the horizontal axis and draw a line vertically upward.

• For the machine which apparently has the worse performance, enter the test number of mines triggered/neutralized out of 50 on the vertical axis and draw a line horizontally to the right.

Machine Comparison (95% Confidence Level for a data set of 50 targets)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Machine with apparent higher performance

Mac

hine

with

app

aren

t low

er p

erfo

rman

ce There is no significant difference between the

machines

There is a significant difference between the

machines

Figure 5. Machine Comparison Based on Performance Data

• If the two lines meet above the thick blue curve, there is a 95% probability that there is no significant difference between the performance of the two machines for that soil and depth condition. If the two lines meet below the thick blue curve, there is a 95% probability that there is a significant difference between the two machines. For example, a machine that neutralises 40/50 test targets in a particular test condition is not significantly different from a machine that neutralises 27/50 test targets in those same test conditions.


4.1.3 Debris and Scatter

When a machine such as the Bozena-5 engages a mine target it may leave the mine in a number of different conditions. As described in Annex A, the target may be left intact and fully functional or it may be intact but damaged. It may be lightly damaged or completely broken apart. Finally, it may be triggered, leaving only a ‘smoking hole’ with a scattering of inert debris.

After each test in the series, the test lanes were searched as described in Section 4.1.1, and the materials of interest were assembled and inspected. The study of debris was required in order to account for the status of mines that were not triggered. Materials of interest ranged from parts of WORM targets to nearly complete WORMs to completely intact and unaffected WORMs having their inert main charge intact.

The images in Figure 6 through Figure 11 show some of the debris collected following the tests. The test data sheets contained in Annex D describe the status of each WORM target. The reader is invited to draw his or her own conclusions about the type of the debris left in and around the area where the Bozena-5 has been used.

Figure 6. Examples of intact, undamaged WORMs.


Figure 7. Examples of slightly damaged WORMs

Figure 8. Examples of WORMs with fuzes removed (mechanically neutralised).


Figure 9. Examples of mechanically neutralised WORMs


Figure 10. Debris from all tests.

Figure 11. Debris of Interest – Gravel, 10 cm DOB


Many other items were recovered from the test lanes; the photos above only provide an indication of the type of debris remaining.

The Bozena-5 did move some of the targets from their emplaced positions, generally pushing them forward of the machine. There was also some scattering of test targets to the sides of the test lane. An example of debris throwing is shown in Figure 12.

Along with the items shown above, remains from the targets which were completely destroyed could be found in and around the test lanes.

Figure 12. Debris Thrown by Flail During Processing

4.2 Depth and Consistency of Penetration Across The Path

4.2.1 General

As described in Annex A, fibreboards were used to measure the depth and consistency of penetration across the path of the vehicle. Note that the grid on the paper behind the fiberboard in each of the photographs measures 2cm x 2cm. For situations where most of the fiberboard is missing, the photograph was taken from a shorter distance; the grid in the background is still 2cm x 2cm.


4.2.2 Depth and Consistency of Penetration in Sand

The fibreboards in Figure 13, Figure 14 and Figure 15 show an even depth penetration of 12cm or deeper. The fibreboards for the test lane at 0cm show the poorest performance; the remainder of the test lanes show somewhat better digging performance. There is no other apparent evidence of skip zones or lateral inconsistency in this test.

Only one out of three boards for the 10cm sand test lane was intact. The other two boards in the test lane were only partially recovered. There are at least two explainations for the remainder of the fibreboard being missing. The first explanation is that the fibreboard may have been pulled out (rather than cut) due to lack of compaction in the trench where it was placed. The second explanation is that the machine may have dug to a greater depth than the fibreboard.

Figure 13. Depth of Penetration in Sand With Mines at 0 cm DOB


4.2.3 Depth and Consistency of Penetration in Gravel

The fibreboards in Figure 16, Figure 17 and Figure 18 show an even depth penetration of 16cm or deeper. The test lane with the targets buried at 10cm showed the least penetration, with the 0cm and 15cm test lanes recorded better performance. There is no other apparent evidence of skip zones in this test.

Only one out of the three boards in each of the 0cm and 10cm test lanes were recovered intact; the rest of the boards were not recovered intact.

Figure 16. Depth of Penetration in Gravel With Mines at 0 cm DOB


4.2.4 Depth and Consistency of Penetration in Topsoil

The fibreboards in Figure 19, Figure 20 and Figure 21 show an even depth penetration of 10cm or deeper. The test lane with the targets buried at 0cm showed the least penetration, penetration in the 10cm lane was similar to 0cm, while the performance in the 15cm lane was significantly better. There is no other apparent evidence of skip zones in this test.

Unlike the sand and gravel test lanes, all of the fiberboards were recovered intact and the depth of penetration could be seen on all of the fiberboards.

Figure 19. Depth of Penetration in Topsoil With Mines at 0 cm DOB



4.2.5 Depth and Consistency of Penetration – Discussion

Based on the photographic evidence in the previous sections, the following points may be made.

4.2.5.1 Sand

The machine appears able to penetrate consistently and uniformly to a depth of 12cm or greater in the sand conditions used in these tests. There was no evidence of skip zones in the sand.

4.2.5.2 Gravel

The machine also appears able to penetrate consistently and uniformly to a depth of 16cm or greater in the gravel conditions used in these tests. Again, there was no evidence of skip zones.


4.2.5.3 Topsoil

The machine also appears able to penetrate consistently and uniformly to a depth of 10cm or greater in the topsoil conditions used in these tests. Again, there was no evidence of skip zones. Digging performance in the 15cm lane was significantly better than in the other topsoil test lanes, although mine neutralisation performance was worse. The reason for this is unknown.

4.2.5.4 General

Examining the digging depth alone does not appear to explain the differences in the neutralisation performance of the Bozena-5 in different soil conditions. Although the topsoil lane with the targets at 15cm had the best depth performance of the topsoil lane, it had the poorest neutralisation performance. This could be partially be accounted for by the depth of the targets, although the digging depth of the Bozena-5 in this lane was at least 20cm.

4.3 Depth Consistency Along the Path

The depth consistency along the path of the Bozena-5 is reasonably good. The automatic depth control utilizes the skids on either side of the flail head to control the height of the flail unit from the ground surface. The automatic depth control system on the machine works well except when the skids sink in very loose ground. Two effects may result from this:

1. The penetration in previously flailed ground may be much deeper than intended, requiring a slow forward speed to ensure that the flail does not stall.

2. Overlapping passes on undisturbed ground may result in the overlapping side of the flail sinking in while the other side is well supported. This will result in an inclined cut profile across the width of the machine.

Neither of the above two issues had significant impacts during these tests.

4.4 Mobility

The mobility of the Bozena-5 was not directly tested during this trial series. The Bozena-5 did not have any problems moving around the test site.

4.5 Survivability Test

The CEN Workshop Agreement methodology calls for survivability testing using antipersonnel and/or antitank mines. Antipersonnel mines are required to test all machines for susceptibility to damage from normal operational conditions created by triggering of antipersonnel mines. Machines which are advertised for use against


antitank mines are also required to be tested against antitank mine charges to ensure that they are able to absorb antitank mine blasts without undue levels of damage. Finally, any machine with a human operator onboard is required to be tested against antitank mines to ensure the safety of the operator.

CTRO conducted survivability tests of the Bozena-5 as part of this trial. The results of the explosive tests are shown in Table 4. Some photographs of the damage from the tests are shown in Figures 22 to 26.

The damage from all of the survivability tests was minimal. The TMM-1 anti-tank landmine test resulted in the most damage, although the machine could have been operational with approximately 15 minutes of repairs following that test.


Table 4. Survivability Tests

Test

No.

Min

e

Expl

osiv

e C

onte

nt

Num

ber

Empl

aced

Dep

th

Det

onat

ed

Mec

hani

cally

N

eutr

alis

ed

Damage to Machine Comments 1 5 cm yes - nil

1 10 cm yes - nil

1 10 cm yes - nil

1 15 cm yes - nil 1 PMA-3 35 g

1 20 cm yes - nil

1 5 cm yes - nil

1 10 cm yes - nil

1 10 cm yes - nil

1 15 cm yes - nil 2 PMA-1A 200 g

1 20 cm yes - nil

1 5 cm yes - nil

1 10 cm yes - nil

1 10 cm yes - nil

1 15 cm no yes nil mine left in small pieces 3 PMA-2 70 g

1 20 cm no yes nil mine left in small pieces

4 PMR-2A 100 g 1 stake yes - nil trip wire placed towards

machine

5 PMR-2A 100 g 1 stake yes - paint chipped, no major

damage mine placed to the side of

machine

6 PROM-1 425 g 1 surface yes -

• minor denting on side arms

• some small dents in shroud

• no effect on machine operability

• trip wire placed towards machine

• machine wrapped trip wire around axle before detonation

7 PROM-1 425 g 1 surface no yes -

• didn’t detonate after two passes

• machine removed fuze including outside igniter

• not likely to trigger under normal conditions

8 TMM-1 5.6 kg 1 slightly buried yes -

• 1 hammer lost • 1 complete chain lost • 3 chain attachment

bars bent but serviceable

• half of sheet metal flail shroud needed to be bent back and new bolts installed.

• approx 15 minutes repair time anticipated


Figure 22. Mechanically Neutralised PMA-2.

Figure 23. Paint Chipping on Side of Flail Arm from PMR-2A


Figure 24. Minor Dent in Bozena-5 Flail Arm from PROM-1

Figure 25. Mechanically Neutralised PROM-1


Figure 26. Damage to Bozena-5 from TMM-1


4.6 Vegetation Cutting

A basic examination of the vegetation cutting ability of the Bozena-5 was conducted. Two tests were conducted – one test of the ability to cut down trees and one test with the flail processing the ground while cutting vegetation.

A tree was selected with a diameter of in excess of 20cm. Although it took approximately 1-2 minutes to cut the tree down and process the ground including the roots, the Bozena-5 did not experience any difficulty in completing this task. One flail hammer was lost in the process, requiring a few minutes to repair.

An area at the CTRO test site was selected with a mix of trees with up to a 10cm diameter. The Bozena-5 cut the vegetation while simultaneously processing the ground with the included tree roots. The results of the processing of this area are shown in Figure 27. The Bozena-5 had no difficulty cutting this vegetation while processing soil at the same time. No notable damage to the machine occurred during this test.

As these vegetation cutting tests were conducted in Croatia, hammer loss in tropical environments with more resilient tree species may be more frequent, but this is unknown.


Figure 27. Vegetation Cutting While Ground Processing


4.7 Other Observations

4.7.1 Remote Control System

The remote control system appears to be well designed and no problems were noted during these tests. The operator was not required to provide an excessive amount of control input to the machine to complete the assigned tasks. The stationary armoured operator cabin was not examined as part of this study.

The available remote camera system functioned acceptably, although would be of limited use during flailing in dusty conditions.

4.7.2 Logistics

The Bozena-5 is modular and the flail head is easily removed from the machine for transportation. The lift arms of the Bozena-5 are capable of lifting the flail head quite high, so loading onto a high-decked trailer would not be a problem.

The additional accessories available for the Bozena-5 including pallet forks and buckets would make loading extra equipment and spare parts onto a trailer a simple task.

4.7.3 Speed

The operator selected the speed based on what was felt to be the most appropriate for the conditions in the test lanes based on his experience in commercial operations. Average speeds were calculated by measuring the time to complete the 25m pass through the test area, and are shown below in Table 5. The speeds used during these tests were reasonable for a ground-engaging machine.

Table 5. Speeds Achieved

0 CM DOB 10 CM DOB 15 CM DOB

metres/hour metres/hour metres/hour

Sand 327 359 338

Gravel 327 261 359

Topsoil Data not available 229 230


4.7.4 Flail Shroud Design

The shroud design of the Bozena-5 contained most of the debris thrown by the flail to the area in front of the machine. Some movement of debris to the side of the machine was noted. Further enclosing the flail to prevent this may result in greater damage during blast events, so some debris throwing by the Bozena-5 (as with any other flail) may be unavoidable.

4.7.5 Debris Traps

Debris traps were not a significant problem with the Bozena-5. No WORM parts were carried out of the test lanes on the machine during the trial. There are two conceivable locations where potentially hazardous debris could collect, however.

As the top of the flail arms are relatively level during operation, parts of mines or UXO could collect at this location. This location is easily visually checked by the operator, so is not a significant concern. If hazardous debris is found at that location, the flail head could be raised in the air. The debris would fall off without requiring manual removal.

The second location where hazardous debris could potentially collect is on the flail skids. A photograph of this location is shown in Figure 28. It will be more difficult to remove hazardous debris from this location, although raising the flail may be successful. This area should be visually checked by the operator prior to leaving a minefield. A simple design modification to include a piece of sheet metal or even plastic angled across the skid would ensure that debris would not collect at this location.

Both potential debris traps are relatively small and can be easily checked by the operator so are not a significant concern.


Figure 28. Potential Debris Trap Location

4.7.6 Flail Wear

Flail hammer wear did not appear to be excessive following use on the test lanes, although total machine usage was less than one hour. Hammer wear during soil engaging operations will be highly dependent on the local soil conditions, so users will need to determine their own requirements.

If this machine is to be used extensively for vegetation cutting, local usage would indicate if hammer loss is a significant problem.


4.8 Manufacturer Comments

Way Industry has provided feedback to a draft version of this report. This response is contained in Annex E. Changes to the text of this report have been incorporated where appropriate.


5. Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1 Positive Observations

The Bozena-5 is a ruggedly built machine and has been designed for ease and maintenance. Clearly the experiences learned by Way Industry through the development and fielding of the Bozena-1, Bozena-2, Bozena-3, and Bozena-4 has influenced the development of this machine.

Although not examined as part of this trial, the availability of additional tools for the Bozena-5 may be useful for many users.

This machine had sufficient power for the task of ground penetration at the forward speeds observed during the tests.

The mine neutralisation effectiveness of the Bozena-5 was quite good. Although a few tests had poorer performance, this was partially due to the number of targets that could not be recovered and the prudent assumption that missing mines have not been neutralised.

5.2 Areas Requiring Attention

No significant deficiencies with the Bozena-5 were noted. The minor issue of potential debris traps could be addressed with some shielding. Hammer loss during vegetation cutting may require further examination in a local environment if this is to be a primary task.

5.3 Recommendations

The Bozena-5 is a capable machine with good performance characteristics. The suitability of this machine in a particular operation will be best determined by local acceptance testing as suggested by the CEN Workshop Agreement CWA 15044.


6. References

1. Anon (2004). Test and evaluation of dmining machines (CWA 15044). European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium. Available online at http://www.itep.ws/pdf/CWA_demining_machines.pdf


Annex A – Trial Description

The following material provides an overall description of the test facilities, the test targets and the test methods. This information is relevant to almost any machine tested at this site. It is summarized briefly in the main body of this report along with information that is specific to this particular machine evaluation.

Test Facilities and Tools The CTRO test facilities outside of Karlovac, Croatia, have been used to test several pieces of equipment in recent years. This site includes three soil environments specifically for performance tests. Parallel test lanes 4 m wide and 75 m long provide compacted sand, compacted gravel and compacted topsoil. The sand and gravel lanes are easily replicated almost anywhere. As the characteristics of topsoil may vary from one location to the next, data from the topsoil lane may not be quite as repeatable.

The soil in each test lane was prepared as follows. Prior to a test, the soil was loosened with a piece of ground engaging equipment, such as the flail or tiller under test. The soil was then levelled using a grader and compacted using the vibratory compacter as shown in Figure A-1. The soil compaction and moisture content were monitored to ensure consistent test conditions.

Figure A-1. Soil Preparation – Grading and Compacting The Soil



Figure A-2. Soil Cone Penetrometer

Soil Conditions The maintenance of consistent soil conditions for each passage of the machine was critical to ensure that useful test data was collected. During the soil preparation operations, a cone pentrometer was used to determine the consistency of the soil. An example of a cone penetrometer is shown in Figure A-2. Cone index readings in excess of approximately 100 psi were considered acceptable to proceed with the trial as soil conditions with lower cone index readings would not be trafficable by a significant number of vehicles. Excessively low cone index readings generally occurred when the moisture content of the soil was very high; these test areas were left to dry until higher cone index readings were obtained.

Compaction and moisture content were measured using manual methods described in Annex C. Photographs of the soil drying are shown in Figure A-3. For each test lane, three samples were taken.

Figure A-3. Soil Drying Using a Microwave

Test Targets The test targets used in this trial were developed by CCMAT to be a low cost, inert target suitable for use anywhere in the world. The Wirelessly Operated Reproduction Mine (WORM) system uses a small, low power radio frequency electronic transmitter board. The plastic body and trigger force (10-15 kg) have been designed to meet the specification in the CEN Workshop Agreement CWA 15044. A cut-away view of a WORM target is shown in Figure A-4. An assembled WORM target is shown in Figure A-5.

When the trigger force is reached, the WORM sends out a 0.5 second signal consisting of a target-specific serial number repeated 200 times. This signal is received by a specialised receiver through a high-gain antenna, and recorded to a computer running Windows-based software. The target-specific serial number is permanently marked on the transmitter board as well as at several locations on the exterior of the plastic body.

Prior to burying the test targets, it was necessary to manually trigger each target in order of lane placement. This baseline test ensured that each target was functional and recorded the original order in which the targets are buried.

During the machine trial, signals from the triggered WORMs were recorded on the computer. Following the completion of that test lane by the machine, it was then necessary to recover the test targets. The key recovery priority was test targets from which no radio frequency signal was received. These targets were examined for further categorization.


Test targets that were mechanically damaged to the point of being non-functional were recorded as mechanically neutralised. Test targets that were damaged but still functional were recorded as live damaged. Occasionally, examination of the recovered target indicated that the target should have initiated based on damage to the switch or plunger, but no signal was received. These targets were recorded as neutralised. Test targets that were recovered intact, with no damage and from which no signal was received, were considered live.

Figure A-4. Cut-away View of WORM Test Target

For the trial, 50 targets were buried at each depth, in each soil. Based on three depths in each soil type, this translated to 450 individual mine targets for a complete trial. To simplify the test procedures and data collection, each test comprised 50 targets, all at a single depth. Once that test was completed, another 50 targets were placed at a different depth or in a different soil.

The targets were located approximately 0.5 m apart to minimize the possibility of more than one target triggering at once. They were laid in a path whose width was approximately 50% of the width of the machine working tool. In other words, a machine with a 2 metre wide tool would have targets spread approximately 0.5 m on either side of the machine centreline, for a total path width of 1 metre. The layout of the test targets is shown in Figure A-6.


Figure A-5. WORM Antipersonnel Mine Surrogate

Figure A-6. WORM Test Lane Layout

Mine Target Burial In all cases, the mines were buried as shown in Figure A-7. The depth of burial (DOB) was measured from the top surface of the mine (not the top surface of the fuze), to the ground surface. Hence, a burial depth of 0 cm is illustrated in 7 To minimize soil disturbance, a small hole was drilled with the tool shown in Figure A-8. The final hole was adjusted by hand and the target placed in the ground. Soil was then placed over top of the target to fill the hole and lightly packed to provide more realistic soil conditions.


DOB – Subsurface DOB – Surface (flush) Figure A-7. Depth of Burial For All Mine Targets

Figure A-8. Mine Target Burial Tool To Minimize Soil Disturbance


Mine Target Level of Damage In accordance with the CEN Workshop Agreement, the results of the tests against mine targets were evaluated as follows.

• Live, undamaged: Targets in this condition have not been damaged in any way, and remain fully functional.

• Damaged, functional: Targets in this condition have been damaged by the machine but remain functional. This could include mines which have had part of the main explosive charge broken away, but where the fuze/initiation train remain attached to remaining explosive material.

• Mechanically neutralised: Targets in this condition have not been triggered, but have been broken apart to the point where they can no longer function. This may be as simple as having removed an intact, functional fuze from an intact mine body, or it may be a complete mechanical shredding of all components of the mine and fuze.

• Triggered: Mines in this category are known to have been triggered by the machine. The electronic record captured by the computer and those recovered WORMs from which no signal was received that have an obvious indication of the plunger impacting the switch are in this category.

The flowchart in Figure A-9 illustrates the criteria used to evaluate the status of each WORM following a trial.


Figure A-9. WORM Status Evaluation

Witness Boards Along with the mine targets, witness boards were installed at three locations across each lane. At the 0 m, 12.5 m and 25 m point of each test lane, 3 mm thick, 400 mm tall fibreboards were installed across the full width of the tiller head. The witness panels were buried flush with the surface of the ground as shown in Figure A-10, in order to record the consistency of penetration of the tiller across the width of the machine.

A narrow trench was dug by hand across the width of the test area to accommodate the witness boards. The width of the trench was kept to a minimum to reduce the effects of the softer replacement soil on tiller penetration. The fiberboard was placed against the side of the trench nearest the start line of the machine. This technique reduces the chances of the witness board being removed by the tool rather than simply cutting into it. Figure A-10 illustrates a trench being dug.


Figure A-10. Witness Board Installation

The witness board was buried flush with the surface, acting as a witness panel to record the depth of penetration of the tool. A photograph of a partially excavated witness board is shown in Figure A-11. No direct indication of the force or neutralisation effectiveness of the tool at any depth is provided, however a clear indication of the consistency of soil cutting is provided. This indicator is obviously only useful for soil penetrating machines such as flails and tillers and cannot be used for low-disturbance tools such as rollers.

Figure A-11. Witness Board Partially Excavated


Test Methods Following preparation of the soil in the test lanes, and installation of the mine targets and witness boards as described above, the machine was prepared for a test run. The machine was positioned about 2-3 metres before the start of the test lane to allow the operator to get the machine operating in a consistent, stable manner prior to the start of the lane. The computer recording the WORM trigger signals was started, cameras operators positioned, and personnel moved from the debris –throwing path of the machine.

The machine operator began the test lane once all personnel were ready. The machine was operated through the test area containing 3 witness boards and 50 mine targets and the time of passage was recorded.

After the passage of the machine through the test area, the computer recording of WORM trigger signals was stopped. The test lane was examined and visible test targets removed. The computer operator began developing a table of data, such as those shown at Annex D. Recovered test targets were examined to establish status. Other personnel continued to recover test targets using a metal detector to locate them. Once the target recovery team had been through the test lane once, the computer operator noted the targets from which no signal had been received and no status determined. Special attention was given to recovering these targets.

Finally, the witness boards were recovered, labelled, and photographed.

Figure A-12. Locating Test Targets After Passage of the Machine


Annex B – Bozena-5 Manufacturer Brochure

The following material is included by permission of Way Industry, the machine manufacturer. While not all of the details included herein were independently verified by the test team, the brochure is believed to be representative of the machine tested.

The contact information for the manufacturer is:

WAY INDUSTRY, a.s. BOZENA department Jašíková 2 821 03 Bratislava Slovakia

Tel.: +421-2-48 291 320 +421-2-48 291 354 +421-2-48 291 264

Fax: +421-2-43 337 529

E-mail: [email protected]

Internet: www.way-industry.sk


http://www.way-industry.sk/

Annex C – Soil Test Procedures

Soil Density Apparatus:

Digging tools – Shovel or trowel, screwdriver or heavy knife.

Containers for storing samples

Non-porous material, e.g.: poly bag

Graduated container or container of known volume

Container of water

Scale

Marking implement – felt marker, grease pencil etc.

Method:

1. Weigh the sample container

2. Mark the weight of the container weight on the sample container

3. Mark the container with the sample number and location

4. Place non-porous material on ground next to location of hole while turning soil ensutre that none gets flung out

5. Place sample container on non-porous material

6. Using shovel or trowel, excavate hole ensuring that ALL material from the excavation is placed in the sample container

7. Seal the sample container and weigh the container immediately

8. Mark the container with the gross weight

9. Smooth the sides and bottom of the excavation with the trowel or knife, without removing any additional material

10. Place non-porous material in the excavation, ensuring that it is in contact with the sides and bottom

11. Fill the graduated container from the water container

12. Note the amount of water in the graduated container


13. Pour water from the graduated container into the lined excavation. Fill the excavation with water as close as possible to ground level without overflowing

14. Note the amount of water left in the graduated container. (NOTE: Alternately, the non-porous material can be removed from the hole, being careful not to spill any water. This water is than poured into a container and weighed. This mass can be converted into volume.)

15. Subtract the amount remaining from the starting amount. The difference is the amount in the excavation and represents the volume of the excavation

16. Mark this on the sample container

Calculations:

Soil density refers to the mass per unit volume. For our purposes, density, ρ, is given in kilograms per cubic metre.

ρ = m/V = kg/m3

Example: A soil sample has a wet mass of 1174.75 grams; the excavation the soil was removed from has a volume of 500ml or 500cm3.

ρ = m/V

= 1174.75g/500ml

= 1.17475kg/0.0005m3

= 2349.5kg/m3

In this example, the object is to convert the mass of the sample from grams to kilograms and the volume of the excavation from millilitres to cubic metres .

Moisture Content Apparatus:

Shallow containers with lids

Scale

Heat source (hot plate, heat lamp or oven etc) or microwave

Spatula

Fan (optional)


Standard Method:

1. Weigh a shallow container and record the weight

2. Place the soil from one of the sample containers in a shallow container

3. Place the shallow container on the heating element of the hot plate or in the oven. DO NOT OVER HEAT. Small pieces of paper mixed with the soil will act as an indicator and turn brown if overheated.

4. If heated on a hot plate, frequently turn the soil with a spatula during heating

5. Drying time will vary. (Check weighing should be done to determine the minimum drying time necessary.)

6. Remove the shallow container from the heat, cover and allow to cool

7. The container can be weighed as soon as it is cool enough to handle

8. Record this weight

9. Reheat cool and weigh the sample until the weight no longer changes.

Microwave method:

Method remains similar to standard method above. Heat the sample five minutes each time on medium heat. Weigh the sample once. Ensure that the sample is cool enough not to affect electronic scale. Reheat and reweigh until no change in mass is recorded. Soil is then dry.

Calculations

The moisture content of a soil is expressed as a percentage of the dry mass:

moisture content, w = loss of moisture/dry mass x 100%

In the above example of soil density calculations, the wet mass was 1174.75g. Suppose that, after drying the soil, the mass was 1147.65g. Moisture content can then be calculated by:

w = (wet mass – dry mass)/dry mass x 100%

w = (1174.75g – 1147.65g)/1147.65g x 100%

w = 27.1g/1147.65g x 100%

w = 0.0236 x 100%

w = 2.36%


Annex D – Test Data Sheets

The tables that follow show the data collected from the WORM test targets. This data is the source for the tables and analyses in the main body of this report. Note that ‘fuze removed’ is considered a subset of ‘mechanically neutralised’ and thus these two categories were added together for the final result.


pret

est

POST

TES

T

CO

UN

T

FIR

ST

OC

CU

RA

NC

E

LAST

O

CC

UR

AN

CE

TIM

E D

IFFE

REN

CE

FOU

ND

CO

MM

ENTS

FUZE

REM

OVE

D

Trig

gere

d

Mec

hani

cally

N

eutr

alis

ed

Fuze

Rem

oved

Live

Dam

aged

Live

, Fun

ctio

nal

Unk

now

n

Acc

ount

ed F

or

0 - - - - - X DESTROYED 0 1 05 5 204 60938 61719 781 X DESTROYED 1 0 06 - - - - - X DESTROYED 0 1 08 - - - - - X DESTROYED 0 1 0

0A - - - - - X DESTROYED 0 1 00E - - - - - X DESTROYED 0 1 0

13 13 34 89297 89360 63 X DESTROYED 1 0 020 - - - - - X DESTROYED X 0 1 023 - - - - - X X 0 0 1

2F 2F 26 105063 105141 78 X INTACT/TRIGGERED 1 0 033 - - - - - X DESTROYED 0 1 034 - - - - - X X 0 0 1

3F - - - - - X DESTROYED 0 1 041 41 71 123000 123141 141 X TRIGGERED X 1 0 046 - - - - - X DESTROYED 0 1 056 56 154 132407 132844 437 X DESTROYED 1 0 0

5E - - - - - X DESTROYED 0 1 05F - - - - - X X 0 0 1

60 60 29 146719 146813 94 X DESTROYED 1 0 061 61 1 151063 - 1,146,572,500,968.00 - 1,146,572,652,031.00 1 0 0

6A - - - - - X X 0 0 164 - - - - - X DESTROYED 0 1 0

7A 7A 48 168735 168860 125 X INTACT/TRIGGERED 1 0 095 - - - - - X X 0 0 1

9C - - - - - X LIVE/DAMAGED 0 0 0 19D - - - - - X LIVE/DAMAGED 0 0 0 1A8 - - - - - X DESTROYED 0 1 0AA - - - - - X DESTROYED 0 1 0AC - - - - - X DESTROYED 0 1 0BB - - - - - X LIVE/DAMAGED 0 0 0 1BA - - - - - X DESTROYED 0 1 0BC BC 19 219500 219594 94 X DESTROYED 1 0 0BD - - - - - X DESTROYED 0 1 0BF - - - - - X DESTROYED 0 1 0C1 - - - - - X DESTROYED 0 1 0C3 C3 19081 39844 240610 200766 X DESTROYED 1 0 0C4 C4 1143 211078 246625 35547 X DESTROYED 1 0 0C5 - - - - - X DESTROYED 0 1 0C6 - - - - - X X 0 0 1C7 - - - - - X X 0 0 1C9 C9 44 269047 269250 203 X INTACT/TRIGGERED 1 0 0CA CA 18 273719 273844 125 X INTACT/TRIGGERED 1 0 0CB - - - - - X DESTROYED 0 1 0CD - - - - - X DESTROYED 0 1 0D4 D4 20 290657 290875 218 X X 1 0 0D5 D5 25 296438 296578 140 X DESTROYED 1 0 0D9 - - - - - X X 0 0 1DD - - - - - X DESTROYED 0 1 0E1 E1 23 309328 309532 204 X DESTROYED 1 0 0E3 - - - - - X DESTROYED 0 1 0

TOTAL 16 23 8 3 50

Figure D-1. Test Data Sheet, Gravel, 0 cm


pret

est

post

test

coun

t

first

oc

cura

nce

last

oc

cura

nce

time

diffe

renc

e

foun

d

com

men

ts

fuse

rem

oved

Trig

gere

d

Mec

hani

cally

N

eutr

alis

ed

Fuze

R

emov

ed

Live

D

amag

ed

Live

, Fu

nctio

nal

Unk

now

n

Acc

ount

ed

For

0 0 191 96031 96703 672 x destroyed 1 0 01 1 335 104031 105375 1344 x destroyed 1 0 02 2 610 116968 120406 3438 x destroyed 1 0 03 3 89 134406 134843 437 x destroyed 1 0 04 4 235 166593 167359 766 x destroyed 1 0 05 5 250 174140 175203 1063 x destroyed 1 0 06 6 189 185484 185984 500 x destroyed 1 0 0

68 68 256 194187 195218 1031 x destroyed 1 0 09 9 226 201562 202781 1219 x destroyed 1 0 0

0A 0A 423 206937 208297 1360 x intact/triggered 1 0 00C 0C 12 213984 214093 109 x destroyed 1 0 00E 0E 307 227234 228672 1438 x broken/triggered 1 0 0

10 10 540 233703 235765 2062 x intntact/triggered x 1 0 011 11 59 241578 241625 47 x destroyed 1 0 012 12 214 246062 247250 1188 1 0 084 84 159 220625 221218 593 x destroyed 1 0 0

BE BE 245 250859 251890 1031 x destroyed 1 0 015 15 611 255500 258453 2953 x destroyed 1 0 016 16 464 261406 263218 1812 x destroyed 1 0 017 17 397 268468 270312 1844 x destroyed 1 0 018 18 765 275578 277640 2062 x destroyed 1 0 019 19 16 280937 282078 1141 x destroyed 1 0 0

1A 1A 410 288203 291000 2797 x destroyed 1 0 01B 1B 308 293843 295328 1485 x destroyed 1 0 01C 1C 97 299812 300500 688 x destroyed 1 0 01D 1D 83 304875 305203 328 x destroyed 1 0 01E 1E 160 309093 310156 1063 x destroyed x 1 0 01F 1F 72 313109 314187 1078 x destroyed 1 0 0

20 20 155 318890 320593 1703 x destroyed 1 0 021 21 624 323218 326703 3485 x intact/triggered 1 0 022 22 80 329437 330328 891 x intact/triggered 1 0 023 - - - - - x destroyed 0 1 024 24 87 341375 342953 1578 x destroyed 1 0 025 25 74 346015 346578 563 x destroyed 1 0 026 - - - - - x live/damaged 0 0 0 127 27 12 357187 357250 63 x intact/triggered 1 0 029 29 122 361937 363484 1547 x intact/triggered 1 0 0

2A 2A 58 366328 367437 1109 x destroyed 1 0 02B - - - - - x destroyed 0 1 02C 2C 10 376406 376828 422 x intact/triggered x 1 0 0

30 - - - - - x destroyed 0 1 031 - - - - - x destroyed 0 1 0

DF - - - - - x destroyed 0 1 034 34 65 398687 398937 250 x intact/triggered 1 0 035 - - - - - x destroyed 0 1 036 - - - - - x destroyed 0 1 037 - - - - - x destroyed 0 1 038 - - - - - x destroyed 0 1 039 - - - - - x destroyed 0 1 0

3A - - - - - x live/damaged 0 0 0 1TOTAL 38 10 0 2 50



pret

est

post

test

coun

t

1st o

ccur

ence

last

occ

uren

ce

time

diffe

renc

e

foun

d

com

men

t

fuse

rem

oved

Trig

gere

d

Mec

hani

cally

N

eutr

alis

ed

Fuze

R

emov

ed

Live

Dam

aged

Live

, Fu

nctio

nal

Unk

now

n

Acc

ount

ed

For

3B 3B 610 71234 73734 2500 x damaged 1 0 03C 3C 187 76359 76922 563 x x 1 0 03D 3D 400 83531 84922 1391 x intact/triggered 1 0 0

33 33 470 91047 92891 1844 x damaged 1 0 03F 3F 559 95625 98078 2453 x destroyed 1 0 0

40 40 524 100484 102656 2172 x intact/triggered 1 0 041 41 462 106922 108156 1234 x intact/triggered 1 0 043 43 433 111656 113063 1407 x destroyed 1 0 045 45 342 116016 118094 2078 x destroyed 1 0 047 47 542 122797 125234 2437 x intact/triggered 1 0 048 48 148 129172 129578 406 x x 1 0 0

C4 C4 590 132516 134672 2156 x destroyed 1 0 04C 4C 513 138500 140313 1813 x intact/triggered 1 0 04D 4D 417 145125 146359 1234 x destroyed 1 0 04F 4F 316 151609 152641 1032 x destroyed 1 0 0

53 53 272 156250 157313 1063 x intact/triggered 1 0 054 54 473 162672 164453 1781 x destroyed 1 0 055 55 620 168516 170703 2187 x intact/triggered 1 0 056 56 434 172781 174406 1625 x destroyed 1 0 057 57 200 178250 178797 547 x destroyed 1 0 059 59 256 183297 184375 1078 x x 1 0 0

5A 5A 661 187219 189531 2312 x intact/triggered 1 0 05C 5C 498 192703 194703 2000 x intact/triggered 1 0 05E 5E 1068 198203 202266 4063 x destroyed 1 0 05F 5F 152 205547 206094 547 x damaged 1 0 0

61 61 401 211891 213125 1234 x destroyed 1 0 062 62 306 219141 220016 875 x destroyed 1 0 063 63 352 225375 227281 1906 x x 1 0 064 64 389 229906 230969 1063 x destroyed 1 0 0

6B 6B 194 235672 236141 469 x destroyed 1 0 06C 6C 455 239625 241469 1844 x destroyed 1 0 0 1

71 - - - - - x fuse damaged 0 0 074 74 343 246844 247984 1140 x intact/triggered 1 0 075 75 483 250078 251844 1766 x intact/triggered 1 0 078 78 129 254031 254375 344 x x 1 0 0

7A 7A 215 257641 258375 734 x intact/triggered 1 0 07B 7B 349 260234 263828 3594 1 0 07C 7C 302 264813 266156 1343 x intact/triggered 1 0 0

79 79 562 268125 270094 1969 x destroyed 1 0 07F 7F 204 272188 273078 890 x intact/triggered 1 0 0

80 80 394 276250 277625 1375 x intact/triggered 1 0 081 81 475 279609 280875 1266 x x 1 0 082 82 386 283281 284656 1375 x damaged 1 0 083 83 376 287609 289359 1750 x destroyed 1 0 085 85 565 291547 293719 2172 x x 1 0 087 87 315 296344 297500 1156 x destroyed 1 0 089 89 495 300563 302422 1859 x intact/triggered 1 0 0

A4 A4 391 305594 306906 1312 x destroyed 1 0 0A5 A5 504 309922 312016 2094 1 0 00B 0B 578 316828 319797 2969 x intact/triggered 1 0 0

49 0 0 1 50



pret

est

post

test

coun

t

1st

occu

renc

e

last

oc

cure

nce

time

diffe

renc

e

foun

d

com

men

t

fuse

re

mov

ed

Trig

gere

d

Mec

hani

cally

N

eutr

alis

ed

Fuze

R

emov

ed

Live

D

amag

ed

Live

, Fu

nctio

nal

Unk

now

n

Acc

ount

ed

For

A1 - - - - - x destroyed 0 1 0A2 - - - - - x destroyed 0 1 0A3 A3 166 52687 53125 438 x damaged 1 0 0A4 A4 82 57281 57594 313 x x 1 0 0AB - - - - - x triggered x 1 0 0A5 A5 59 70484 70578 94 x destroyed 1 0 0A9 - - - - - x triggered 1 0 0BB BB 200 81047 81625 578 x x 1 0 0BE - - - - - x triggered 1 0 0B5 - - - - - x triggered 1 0 00F - - - - - x destroyed 0 1 0B7 - - - - - x destroyed 0 1 0B8 - - - - - x destroyed 0 1 0B9 B9 80 114890 115125 235 x destroyed 1 0 0A0 A0 58 119140 119297 157 x destroyed 1 0 0CF CF 47 124625 124703 78 x x 1 0 0C2 C2 3 129047 129047 0 x destroyed 1 0 0DB DB 60 134359 134578 219 x destroyed 1 0 0DC DC 39 138484 138703 219 x destroyed 1 0 0DA - - - - - x destroyed 0 1 0DF DF 131 147531 148125 594 x destroyed 1 0 0D0 D0 160 151844 152234 390 x destroyed 1 0 0

7 - - - - - x destroyed 0 1 0D3 - - - - - x triggered x 1 0 0D6 - - - - - x triggered 1 0 0D7 - - - - - x destroyed 0 1 0D9 D9 12 180125 180234 109 x destroyed 1 0 0E0 - - - - - x destroyed 0 1 0E2 - - - - - x triggered 1 0 0F8 F8 172 193640 194140 500 x destroyed 1 0 0D8 D8 66 197640 197875 235 1 0 00C 0C 168 202781 203172 391 x destroyed 1 0 0

12 12 519 121890 207609 85719 x destroyed 1 0 013 - - - - - x destroyed 0 1 0

3B - - - - - x destroyed 0 1 04F - - - - - x destroyed 0 1 0

42 42 105 229594 229953 359 x fuse damaged 1 0 043 43 30 235969 236031 62 x destroyed 1 0 045 45 1 243219 -1.14673E+12 -1.14673E+12 x destroyed 1 0 059 59 31 248859 248984 125 x damaged x 1 0 06 6 2 254640 254640 0 x destroyed 1 0 0

6B - - - - - 0 0 0 16D 6D 137 267719 268047 328 x destroyed 1 0 0

62 - - - - - x destroyed 0 1 063 63 137 278203 278687 484 x destroyed 1 0 066 66 13 283187 283297 110 x destroyed 1 0 069 69 214 288515 289109 594 x destroyed 1 0 072 - - - - - x destroyed 0 1 0

9C 9C 1 305719 -1.14673E+12 -1.14673E+12 x destroyed 1 0 09E - - - - - x triggered 1 0 0

35 14 0 0 0 1 50

Figure D-4. Test Data Sheet, Sand, 0 cm


pret

est

post

test

coun

t

1st o

ccur

ence

last

occ

uren

ce

time

diffe

renc

e

foun

d

com

men

t

fuse

rem

oved

Trig

gere

d

Mec

hani

cally

N

eutr

alis

ed

Fuze

Rem

oved

Live

Dam

aged

Live

, Fu

nctio

nal

Unk

now

n

Acc

ount

ed F

or

F2 F2 173 66110 66750 640 1 0 0EF EF 264 68282 69266 984 found intact/triggered 1 0 0EC EC 194 72985 73532 547 x destroyed 1 0 0DF DF 313 77578 78391 813 x destroyed 1 0 0D6 D6 198 82985 83453 468 x destroyed 1 0 0D5 D5 305 87907 88797 890 1 0 0D3 D3 200 93500 94016 516 x x 1 0 0D2 D2 232 98078 98672 594 x intact/triggered 1 0 0D1 D1 1 105125 -1.14675E+12 -1.14675E+12 x destroyed 1 0 0CD CD 372 108907 110407 1500 x destroyed 1 0 0CB CB 89 115438 115735 297 x destroyed 1 0 0CA CA 109 120422 120875 453 1 0 0C8 C8 255 126563 127594 1031 x destroyed 1 0 0C7 C7 200 131203 131782 579 x destroyed 1 0 0C5 C5 200 138235 138844 609 x destroyed 1 0 0

54 54 271 144532 145610 1078 x destroyed 1 0 0C1 C1 255 150063 151157 1094 x destroyed 1 0 0BD BD 291 155313 155985 672 x destroyed 1 0 0BC BC 42 160578 160657 79 x destroyed 1 0 0B9 B9 389 166391 167719 1328 x destroyed 1 0 0B8 B8 200 173094 174032 938 x destroyed 1 0 0B5 B5 78 177203 177500 297 x destroyed 1 0 0B1 B1 200 182953 183563 610 x destroyed 1 0 0B0 B0 330 188703 189969 1266 x destroyed 1 0 0AF AF 200 194453 194969 516 x damaged 1 0 0A8 A8 200 199688 200235 547 1 0 0A5 A5 474 203172 204938 1766 x destroyed 1 0 0A2 A2 457 208438 209844 1406 x x 1 0 09F 9F 529 213344 215282 1938 x intact/triggered 1 0 09A 9A 200 218125 218610 485 1 0 0

78 78 343 222875 224032 1157 x destroyed 1 0 077 77 408 226000 227282 1282 x intact/triggered 1 0 076 76 174 232203 251110 18907 x intact/triggered 1 0 074 74 131 235344 235875 531 x destroyed 1 0 070 70 232 240203 241578 1375 x 1 0 0

6E 6E 169 244203 245188 985 x destroyed 1 0 068 68 261 249344 250532 1188 x destroyed 1 0 067 67 36 254500 254657 157 x intact/triggered 1 0 065 65 161 258250 258735 485 x destroyed 1 0 047 47 76 263000 263422 422 x intact/triggered 1 0 046 46 57 268000 268219 219 x destroyed 1 0 044 44 398 271594 273719 2125 x x 1 0 043 43 45 277453 277625 172 x destroyed 1 0 037 37 124 282188 283282 1094 x 1 0 036 36 287 286891 288453 1562 x intact/triggered 1 0 035 35 118 291078 291688 610 1 0 0

3C 3C 199 296391 297000 609 x intact/triggered 1 0 01A 1A 52 300047 300485 438 x destroyed 1 0 0

10 10 120 147141 303844 156703 x destroyed 1 0 00F 0F 33 307125 307594 469 x destroyed 1 0 0

50 0 0 0 50



pret

est

post

test

coun

t

1st o

ccur

ence

last

oc

cure

nce

time

diffe

renc

e

foun

d

com

men

t

fuse

rem

oved

Trig

gere

d

Mec

hani

cally

N

eutr

alis

ed

Fuze

R

emov

ed

Live

Dam

aged

Live

, Fu

nctio

nal

Unk

now

n

Acc

ount

ed

For

F3 F3 247 77593 79187 1594 x x 1 0 0F5 F5 414 84328 86484 2156 x x 1 0 0FC FC 451 90093 91562 1469 x x 1 0 0FD FD 1 99109 -1.14666E+12 -1.14666E+12 x intact/triggered 1 0 0FF FF 991 106172 110093 3921 x intact/triggered 1 0 0

1 1 477 111734 113875 2141 1 0 03 3 549 117047 119093 2046 x destroyed 1 0 04 4 359 122375 124562 2187 x destroyed 1 0 06 6 68 130359 130578 219 x destroyed 1 0 07 7 874 133828 136812 2984 x intact/triggered 1 0 08 8 491 142828 144984 2156 x destroyed 1 0 0

0A 0A 226 149797 151172 1375 1 0 00C 0C 932 156203 159078 2875 x intact/triggered 1 0 00D 0D 200 163781 164359 578 x destroyed 1 0 00E 0E 397 169718 171218 1500 x destroyed 1 0 0

10 10 399 179968 181172 1204 x destroyed 1 0 011 11 192 186750 187593 843 x x 1 0 012 12 741 193187 195609 2422 1 0 0

DE DE 387 198906 200218 1312 x destroyed 1 0 014 14 265 205797 207281 1484 x destroyed 1 0 015 15 412 210562 212297 1735 x x 1 0 016 16 386 216562 217984 1422 x destroyed 1 0 017 17 225 222593 223734 1141 x destroyed 1 0 018 18 379 227906 228875 969 1 0 019 19 86 234468 235453 985 x destroyed 1 0 0

1A 1A 419 240375 242156 1781 x destroyed x 1 0 01B 1B 469 248390 250468 2078 x destroyed 1 0 01C 1C 66 257031 257437 406 x x 1 0 01E 1E 500 261922 263843 1921 x x 1 0 01F 1F 188 265484 266703 1219 x intact/triggered 1 0 0

20 20 162 269875 270343 468 x intact/triggered 1 0 021 21 231 273078 274265 1187 x x 1 0 022 22 282 275906 277922 2016 x destroyed 1 0 023 23 129 280000 280937 937 x destroyed 1 0 024 24 422 284015 297750 13735 x intact/triggered 1 0 025 25 819 289687 298640 8953 x x 1 0 026 26 13 293375 293718 343 1 0 027 27 66 296968 297328 360 x destroyed 1 0 0

2C 2C 208 301593 302562 969 1 0 031 31 298 304422 305656 1234 1 0 034 34 95 309265 309828 563 x destroyed 1 0 035 35 95 311687 311968 281 x intact/triggered 1 0 0

3B 3B 414 313828 315718 1890 x destroyed 1 0 07D 7D 154 317578 318109 531 x destroyed 1 0 03E 3E 70 321937 322359 422 x destroyed 1 0 03F 3F 101 323890 324906 1016 x destroyed 1 0 0

45 45 4 327640 327843 203 x intact/triggered 1 0 04F - - - - - x destroyed 0 1 05A 5A 6 335593 335718 125 x intact/triggered 1 0 05C 5C 1 340156 -1.14666E+12 -1.14666E+12 x destroyed 1 0 0

49 1 0 0 50



pret

est

post

test

coun

t

1st o

ccur

ence

last

occ

uren

ce

time

diffe

renc

e

foun

d

com

men

t

fuse

rem

oved

Trig

gere

d

Mec

hani

cally

N

eutr

alis

ed

Fuze

Rem

oved

Live

Dam

aged

Live

, Fun

ctio

nal

Unk

now

n

Acc

ount

ed F

or

96 96 132 69782 70094 312 x 1 0 097 97 42 72922 73032 110 x 1 0 098 98 427 77922 79547 1625 x 1 0 099 - - - - - damaged x 0 0 1

9A 9A 50 91797 91907 110 x 1 0 09B - - - - - destroyed 0 1 09C 9C 10 102266 102266 0 x 1 0 09D 9D 107 107360 107704 344 x 1 0 09E 9E 138 112266 112610 344 1 0 09F 9F 1 117188 -1.1502E+12 -1.1502E+12 x 1 0 0A0 - - - - - destroyed 0 1 0A1 A1 13 126875 126969 94 1 0 0A2 - - - - - 0 0 0A3 - - - - - damaged x 0 0 1A4 A4 162 139688 140141 453 x 1 0 0A5 A5 32 145735 145938 203 x 1 0 0A6 A6 253 149532 150188 656 x 1 0 0A7 A7 84 155329 155610 281 1 0 0A8 - - - - - destroyed 0 1 0A9 A9 146 165079 165500 421 x 1 0 0AE AE 13 169985 170000 15 x 1 0 0AF AF 198 174438 174954 516 x 1 0 0B0 - - - - - destroyed 0 1 0BF BF 193 184141 184594 453 x 1 0 0C0 - - - - - destroyed 0 1 0C9 - - - - - destroyed 0 1 0CB - - - - - destroyed 0 1 0CC - - - - - damaged x 0 0 1D1 - - - - - destroyed 0 1 0D4 - - - - - damaged 0 1 0DE DE 3 220688 220688 0 x 1 0 0E1 - - - - - damaged/intact 0 0 0 1E2 - - - - - damaged/intact 0 0 0 1E3 - - - - - destroyed 0 1 0E7 E7 13 240985 241032 47 x 1 0 0E9 - - - - - x 0 0 1F0 - - - - - destroyed 0 1 0F2 F2 32 255438 255500 62 x 1 0 0F3 - - - - - 0 0 0F4 F4 21 266313 266469 156 x 1 0 0F5 - - - - - damaged x 0 0 1F6 F6 47 276188 276719 531 1 0 0F7 - - - - - fuse broken 0 0 1F8 - - - - - destroyed 0 1 0F9 F9 7 288094 288110 16 x 1 0 0FA - - - - - 0 0 0FB - - - - - destroyed 0 1 0FC - - - - - destroyed 0 1 0FE FE 1 307204 -1.1502E+12 -1.1502E+12 x 1 0 0FF - - - - - destroyed 0 1 0

TOTAL 24 15 6 2 47

Figure D-7. Test Data Sheet, Topsoil, 0 cm


pret

est

post

test

coun

t

1st

occu

renc

e

last

oc

cure

nce

time

diffe

renc

e

foun

d

com

men

t

fuse

re

mov

ed

Trig

gere

d

Mec

hani

cally

N

eutr

alis

ed

Fuze

R

emov

ed

Live

D

amag

ed

Live

, Fu

nctio

nal

Unk

now

n

Acc

ount

ed

For

3C 3C 60 62844 62953 109 1 0 03D 3D 418 71219 74078 2859 x 1 0 03E - - - - - x destroyed 0 1 03F 3F 336 98032 99953 1921 x 1 0 0

40 - - - - - x damaged x 0 0 141 41 120 127516 127875 359 1 0 042 42 394 135860 138407 2547 x 1 0 043 43 323 149453 150453 1000 x 1 0 044 44 78 159750 159891 141 x 1 0 045 45 583 167625 170391 2766 x 1 0 046 46 198 175860 176328 468 x 1 0 048 48 178 185188 185657 469 x 1 0 049 49 200 194078 194563 485 x 1 0 0

4B 4B 1298 199500 203344 3844 x 1 0 04F 4F 283 207625 208391 766 x 1 0 0

50 50 730 214516 216672 2156 x 1 0 052 52 1652 220500 225969 5469 1 0 054 54 742 227938 231219 3281 x 1 0 055 55 283 237235 238641 1406 x 1 0 057 57 305 244657 246485 1828 1 0 058 58 15 251516 253063 1547 1 0 059 - - - - - x damaged 0 1 0

5C 5C 65 262688 465266 202578 x 1 0 067 67 120 269016 271641 2625 x 1 0 068 68 403 276235 278813 2578 x 1 0 069 69 18 284078 284313 235 x 1 0 0

6A 6A 169 289766 290485 719 x 1 0 06B - - - - - x destroyed 0 1 06C 6C 288 305907 307719 1812 x 1 0 06D - - - - - x destroyed 0 1 06E 6E 11 317907 318328 421 x 1 0 06F 6F 16 322719 323641 922 x 1 0 0

70 70 54 332610 333063 453 x 1 0 071 71 16 339750 340094 344 1 0 072 72 176 344469 346438 1969 x 1 0 073 73 7 351032 351657 625 x 1 0 074 - - - - - x destroyed 0 1 075 75 3 365438 365860 422 x 1 0 076 76 220 373172 375344 2172 x 1 0 077 77 145 381250 382828 1578 x 1 0 078 78 3 387422 388813 1391 x 1 0 079 - - - - - x damaged x 0 0 1

7A 7A 553 403375 535328 131953 x 1 0 07B - - - - - x damaged x 0 0 1

7C - - - - -

Note: It was discovered, while rolling the test lane in preparation for the nextg trial, that 7C remained alive. 0 0 0 1

7E - - - - - x destroyed 0 1 085 - - - - - x x 0 0 1

8B - - - - - x x 0 0 194 - - - - - x damaged x 0 0 195 - - - - - x destroyed 0 1 0

36 7 6 0 1 50




6

pret

est

post

test

coun

t

1st

occu

renc

e

last

oc

cure

nce

coun

t

foun

d

com

men

t

fuse

rem

oved

Trig

gere

d

Mec

hani

cally

N

eutr

alis

ed

Fuze

R

emov

ed

Live

D

amag

ed

Live

, Fu

nctio

nal

Unk

now

n

Acc

ount

ed

For

0 0 1198 85782 90813 5031 x 1 0 01 1 600 93657 96344 2687 x 1 0 02 2 851 104328 107422 3094 x 1 0 03 3 522 119453 120938 1485 1 0 04 4 799 130453 133047 2594 x 1 0 05 - - - - - x destroyed 0 1 08 8 134 151860 152125 265 x 1 0 09 9 1053 158672 164032 5360 1 0 0

0A 0A 193 168969 169485 516 1 0 00B 0B 200 180328 180875 547 1 0 00C 0C 200 189860 190391 531 x x 1 0 00D - - - - - 0 0 00E - - - - - 0 0 00F 0F 421 209422 211907 2485 x 1 0 010 10 217 216938 218000 1062 x 1 0 011 11 1320 222813 230485 7672 1 0 012 - - - - - 0 0 013 13 49 246453 246578 125 x 1 0 014 14 596 252125 254297 2172 x 1 0 015 15 393 261297 264750 3453 1 0 016 - - - - - x x 0 0 117 17 437 278203 280578 2375 1 0 018 18 199 286157 286735 578 x 1 0 019 19 433 292750 295688 2938 1 0 0

1A 1A 25 299516 299891 375 x 1 0 01B 1B 97 305344 307813 2469 x 1 0 01C - - - - - x x 0 0 11D 1D 277 320828 322532 1704 x 1 0 01E 1E 156 327235 328219 984 1 0 01F 1F 79 332485 332985 500 1 0 020 20 232 340407 341453 1046 x 1 0 021 21 485 346703 348860 2157 1 0 024 24 375 356078 357407 1329 x 1 0 025 25 1175 362891 367766 4875 x 1 0 026 26 29941 371703 548000 176297 x 1 0 027 - - - - - x damaged 0 1 028 28 278 388610 390344 1734 1 0 029 29 1 390875 -1.1501E+12 -1.1501E+12 1 0 0

2A 2A 66 398860 400766 1906 x 1 0 02B 2B 19 405469 405922 453 x 1 0 02D 2D 29 410641 411094 453 x 1 0 02E 2E 64 420907 421219 312 1 0 02F - - - - - x intact/active 0 0 0 130 - - - - - x damaged 0 1 032 32 1 437844 -1.1501E+12 -1.1501E+12 x 1 0 036 - - - - - x intact/active 0 0 0 137 - - - - - 0 0 038 - - - - - x damaged 0 1 039 - - - - - x intact/active 0 0 0 1

3A - - - - - x intact/active 0 0 0 136 4 2 0 4 4


Annex E – Manufacturer Comments

The following material was received from the machine manufacturer in response to a draft version of this report.

Way Industry comments to be published in Annex E: Way Industry Company considers the ITEP trials conducted according to CWA 15044 to be the most comprehensive and objective testing currently used for comparison of available mechanical demining assets. But we also agree with statement that the objective comparison can be done only in similar or fully comparable environmental conditions for each testing and we had accepted the fact that the CRTO test site still needed some improvements to be done in this regard, especially for lanes with local topsoil. Inconsistent topsoil conditions together with quite high number of lost targets (7 pcs in topsoil) which "could not be found" had some negative influence on Bozena-5 performance results on surrogate WORM targets. In contrast with these results, all nineteen (19) anti-personel mines (PMA 1A, 2, 3, PMR-2A, PROM-1) and one (1) anti-tank mine (TMM-1) used during survivability test, all of them were reliably destroyed hence 100% effectiveness on live mines have been reached by Bozena-5 during this ITEP trial. Notwithstanding to our above mentioned notes, Way Industry company fully coincides with ITEP team´s Conclusions and Recommendations stated in this report and, as always, Way´s designers will utilize them for further improvements of Bozena flail machine´s design and performance characteristics. Valer Repko Director of BOZENA Department WAY INDUSTRY, a.s. Mailing address: Jasikova 2, 82103 Bratislava, Slovakia HQ address: Priemyselna 937/4, 96301 Krupina, Slovakia GSM:+421-903-544018 Tel: +421-2-48291320; Fax: +421-2-43337529 E: [email protected]; web: www.way-industry.sk Skype: valer1971

Manufacturer Feedback to DRAFT Report


mailto:[email protected]

http://www.way-industry.sk/


List of symbols/abbreviations/acronyms

CCMAT Canadian Centre for Mine Action Technologies

CROMAC Croatian Mine Action Center

CTRO Centre for Testing, Development, and Training

hp Horsepower

km/h Kilometres per hour

DOB Depth of burial – see Figure A-7 in Annex A

Kg Kilogram

cm Centimetre

dm Decimetre

N/A Not Applicable

kW Kilowatt(s)

m Metres

R&D Research and Development

CEN Comité Européen De Normalisation (European Committee for Standardisation)

ITEP International Test and Evaluation Program

mm Millimetres

rpm Revolutions per minute

TNT Tri-nitrotoluene

WORM Wirelessly Operated Reproduction Mine

UNCLASSIFIED SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF FORM (highest classification of Title, Abstract, Keywords)

DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA (Security classification of title, body of abstract and indexing annotation must be entered when the overall document is classified)

1. ORIGINATOR (the name and address of the organization preparing the document. Organizations for who the document was prepared, e.g. Establishment sponsoring a contractor's report, or tasking agency, are entered in Section 8.)

Defence R&D Canada – Suffield PO Box 4000, Station Main Medicine Hat, AB T1A 8K6

2. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION (overall security classification of the document, including special

warning terms if applicable)

Unclassified

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).


4. AUTHORS (Last name, first name, middle initial. If military, show rank, e.g. Doe, Maj. John E.)

Roberts, William C; Fall, Russ W; and Eagles, John Leslie

5. DATE OF PUBLICATION (month and year of publication of document)

December 2007

6a. NO. OF PAGES (total containing information, include Annexes, Appendices, etc) 84

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

1

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.)

Technical Report

8. SPONSORING ACTIVITY (the name of the department project office or laboratory sponsoring the research and development. Include the address.)

Canadian Centre for Mine Action Technologies

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 Suffield TR 2007-279

10b. OTHER DOCUMENT NOs. (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)

( X ) Unlimited distribution ( ) Distribution limited to defence departments and defence contractors; further distribution only as approved ( ) Distribution limited to defence departments and Canadian defence contractors; further distribution only as approved ( ) Distribution limited to government departments and agencies; further distribution only as approved ( ) Distribution limited to defence departments; further distribution only as approved ( ) Other (please specify):

12. DOCUMENT ANNOUNCEMENT (any limitation to the bibliographic announcement of this document. This will normally corresponded 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 UNCLASSIFIED SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF FORM

UNCLASSIFIED SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF FORM

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) or (U). It is not necessary to include here abstracts in both official languages unless the text is bilingual).

A test of the Way Industry Bozena-5 Midi Mine Clearance System (flail) was performed in a cooperative International Test and Evaluation Program trial in May and June 2006 at the Croatian Mine Action Center (CROMAC) Centre for Testing, Development, and Training (CTRO). Canada, Sweden, and Croatia cooperated to conduct these trials. The project was conducted to the methodology specified in the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) Workshop Agreement “CEN Workshop Agreement 15044; Test and Evaluation of Demining Machines” available at the International Test and Evaluation Website (www.itep.ws).

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. Identifies, 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.) Bozena-5, Way Industry, flail, humanitarian demining, mechanical assistance equipment

UNCLASSIFIED SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF FORM

http://www.itep.ws/

Defence R&D Canada R & D pour la défense Canada Canada's Leader in Defence

and National Security Science and Technology

Chef de file au Canada en matière de science et de technologie pour la défense et la sécurité nationale

www.drdc-rddc.gc.ca

Way Industry Bozena-5 Flail Test and Evaluation...Original signed by William Roberts William Roberts...

Documents

Transcript of Way Industry Bozena-5 Flail Test and Evaluation...Original signed by William Roberts William Roberts...