Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 20
PREPUBLICATION DRAFT—SUBJECT TO EDITORIAL CORRECTION
1
Introduction
This chapter provides the study context and task statement. It also
describes the purpose and scope of the study and how the report is organized.
BACKGROUND
The National Research Council (NRC) consists of several boards and their
associated committees that bring the complexities of protection materials science
research and applications into focus for Department of Defense (DoD) sponsors.
These include the Board on Army Science and Technology, the National
Materials Advisory Board, and the Army Research Laboratory Technical
Assessment Board of the NRC’s Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
and the Committee on National Statistics of the NRC’s Division on Behavior and
Social Sciences and Education.
In 2009, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report
that commented on the conduct of the test procedures governing acceptance of
body armor vest-plate inserts worn by military service members (GAO, 2009).
The GAO report, as well as other observations (for example, the Army Audit
Agency report to the Program Executive Officer Soldier on Body Armor Testing
(AAA, 2009), led the DoD Office of the Director, Operational Test and
Evaluation (DOT&E) to request that the Division on Engineering and Physical
Sciences conduct an ad hoc study to investigate issues related to the testing of
body armor materials for use by the U.S. Army and other military departments.
Study Tasks
Box 1-1 contains the statement of task for the three-phase study. Phases I
and II were completed in 2009 and 2010 respectively and resulted in two NRC
letter reports (NRC, 2009 and 2010).4 This report is the Phase III report. To
ensure wide dissemination, no classified or restricted information is contained in
the reports. The sponsor also specifically requested that the NRC report
emphasize the science rather than the policy aspects of the body armor testing
issues.
4
Findings and recommendations from the Phase I and Phase II reports are in Appendixes
K and L respectively.
20
OCR for page 21
PREPUBLICATION DRAFT—SUBJECT TO EDITORIAL CORRECTION
Box S-1 Statement of Task
The National Research Council will convene specialists in committee form to consider the
technical issues relating to the testing of body armor. To do this the National Research Council
shall conduct a 3-phase study:
In Phase I a committee will comment on the validity of using laser -profilometry/ laser-
interferometry techniques to determine the contours of an indent made by a ballistic test in a non -
transparent clay material at the level of precision established in the Army’s procedures for testing
personal body armor. If laser -profilometry / laser-interferometry is not a valid method, the
committee will consider whether a digital caliper can be used instead to collect valid data. The
Committee will also provide interim observations regarding the column drop performance test
described by the Army for assessing the part to part consistency of a clay body used in testing
body armor. The committee will prepare a letter report documenting the findings from its Phase I
considerations. This is a six week effort beginning November 1 2009 and ending mid December
2009.
In Phase II a committee will consider in greater detail the validity of using the column drop
performance test described by the Army for assessing the part -to-part consistency of a clay body
within the level of precision that is identified by the Army test procedures. The committee will
prepare a letter report documenting the findings from its Phase II considerations. This is a three
months effort beginning November 1 2009 and ending early February 2010.
In Phase III a committee will consider test materials, protocols and standards that should be used
for future testing of personal armor by the Army. The committee will also consider any other
issues associated with body armor testing that the committee considers relevant, including issues
raised in the Government Accountability Office Report---Warfighter Support, Independent Expert
Assessment of Body Armor Test Results and Procedures Needed Before Fielding (GAO -10-
119).The committee will prepare a final report. This is a 14 -months effort beginning November 1
2009 and ending January 2011.
The final report will document the committee’s findings pertaining to the following issues that are
of particular immediate concern to DOT&E including the following:
The best methods for obtaining consistency of the clay, and of conditioning and calibrating the
clay backing used currently to test armor.
The best instrumentation (e.g., laser scanning system, digital caliper, etc.) and procedures to
use to measure the back face deformation (BFD) in the clay.
The appropriate use of statistical techniques (e.g., rounding numbers, choosing sample sizes, or
test designs) in gathering the data.
The appropriate criteria to apply to determine whether body armor plates can provide needed
protection to soldiers; this includes the proper prescription for determining whether a test results in
a partial or complete penetration of body armor, including, as appropriate, the soft armor
underlying hard armor.
The final report will also document the committee’s findi ngs regarding any other issues regarding
body armor testing that the committee found relevant. The study team will have access to all data
with respect to body armor testing that the team needs for the conduct of the study.
21
OCR for page 22
PREPUBLICATION DRAFT—SUBJECT TO EDITORIAL CORRECTION
The last task for Phase III of the study was to document in its final report
any other issues regarding body armor testing that the committee found relevant.
In response, this Phase III report also attempts to do the following:
Provide a roadmap to reduce the variability of clay processes and show
how to migrate from clay to future solutions.
Consider the use of statistics to permit a more scientific determination
of sample sizes to be used in body armor testing.
Develop ideas for revising or replacing the Prather study methodology;
Review and comment on methodologies and technical approaches to
military helmet testing.
Consider the possibility of combining various national body armor
testing standards.
Appendix C contains the specific tasks that were identified for the Phase
III portion of the study. A matrix relating the statement of task to specific sections
of the report is included as Appendix D.
STUDY CONTEXT
From the outset, the committee recognized that the body armor testing
community exists in a charged environment where the lives of service members
and law enforcers are at risk. Efforts to improve body armor testing processes
should lead to the fielding of more effective body armor and helmets for our
servicemen and women. To be most effective, body armor and helmets should be
in the “sweet spot” where there is a balance between survivability and light
weight. The broad purposes of the study were to verify and validate current test
procedures for body armor plates, to investigate longstanding issues related to the
testing processes, and to recommend approaches that will improve future testing
methodologies and procedures.
Study Implementation
As directed by the task statement, the study was divided into three phases.
The Phase I letter report focused on the validity of using laser-based
measuring techniques to determine the contours of an indent made in a
nontransparent clay material by a ballistic test. The report offered
interim observations on the column drop performance calibration
technique being used by the Army’s Aberdeen Test Center for
assessing the part-to-part consistency of a clay body used in testing
body armor. It also provided immediate feedback on issues raised by
the GAO report (GAO, 2009). The specific findings contained in the
Phase I letter report are listed in Appendix K.
22
OCR for page 23
PREPUBLICATION DRAFT—SUBJECT TO EDITORIAL CORRECTION
The Phase II letter report focused on the use of clay as a backing
material during body armor testing. It examined in detail the validity
of using the column drop performance calibration and recommended
alternatives for future backing materials. Additionally, the report
discussed use of statistically based protocols in body armor testing and
described an approach to developing a single national body armor
testing standard. The recommendations of the Phase II committee are
contained in Appendix L.
In this final report, the Phase III committee has carried out the Phase
III tasks and consolidated and expanded on information contained in
the two earlier letter reports. This final report provides a road map to
reduce the variability of clay processes and eventually migrate from
methods based on clay to other methodologies. It also develops ideas
for revising the medical basis for testing procedures and addresses
technical approaches to military helmet testing.
To complete the study, the Phase III committee conducted data-gathering
sessions at the U.S. Army Aberdeen Test Center in Maryland and at the National
Academy of Sciences Keck Center in Washington, D.C. The chair assigned
committee members to working groups in the following task areas: clay and
instrumentation; body armor testing methodologies; statistics; and helmet testing.
To facilitate the study, the separate working groups conducted individual data-
gathering sessions, teleconferences, and, in two instances, site visits. The leaders
of the working groups coordinated the gathering of data and consolidated written
inputs into chapters for the overall report. Appendix B provides a list of the
committee briefings and activities.
Report Organization
Chapter 1 (Introduction) provides background and context for the study,
and Chapter 2 (Overview of Body Armor) provides a detailed description of the
body armor testing processes and facilities.
Chapter 3 (Historical Basis for Current Body Armor Testing) reviews the
foundational basis for the testing methodology that has been used since the late
1970s. Chapter 4 (Clay and Backing Materials) assesses the use of clay in testing
and describes how the variability inherent in the backing material may be
incorrectly attributed to variability in the armor. Chapter 5 (Instrumentation and
Procedures for Measuring an Indent in the Backing Material) offers insights into
measuring devices.
Chapter 6 (Statistical Considerations in Body Armor Testing) discusses
findings on the statistical aspects of body armor testing with a focus on body
armor plate testing, and Chapter 7 (Helmet Testing) extends the discussion of
testing to the testing of combat helmets and provides ideas for future
improvement.
Chapter 8 (A Medical Basis for Future Body Armor Testing) describes the
current lack of a medical basis for body armor testing and recommends a direction
23
OCR for page 24
PREPUBLICATION DRAFT—SUBJECT TO EDITORIAL CORRECTION
for future medical research and analyses. Finally, Chapter 9 (Future
Improvements in Testing Methodology) looks to the future of body armor testing
and describes what is needed to improve or replace the methodology that has for
decades underpinned body armor testing.
The report includes several appendixes as described in the chapters and
listed in the contents.
REFERENCES
AAA (U.S. Army Audit Agency). 2009. Body Armor Testing. A-2009-0086-
ALA. Alexandria, Va.: U.S. Army Audit Agency.
GAO (Government Accountability Office). 2009. Warfighter Support:
Independent expert assessment of army body armor test results and procedures
needed before fielding. GAO-10-119. Washington, D.C.: Government
Accountability Office.
NRC. (National Research Council). 2009. Phase I Report on Review of the
Testing of Body Armor Materials for Use by the U.S. Army: Letter Report.
Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
NRC. 2010. Phase II Report on Review of the Testing of Body Armor Materials
for Use by the U.S. Army. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
24
