National Academies Press: OpenBook

Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III (2012)

Chapter: Appendix L Phase II Recommendations

« Previous: Appendix K Phase I Findings
Suggested Citation:"Appendix L Phase II Recommendations." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×

Appendix L

Phase II Recommendations

This appendix contains the Phase II study recommendations. Phase II resulted in nineteen findings and one overarching finding that were submitted to the Office of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation in the Phase II letter report (NRC, 2010). The recommendations are summarized in Box L-1 and listed here in full:

Recommendation 1: The Army’s medical and testing communities should be adequately funded to expedite the research necessary both to quantify the medical results of blunt force trauma on tissue and to use those results as the updated mathematical underpinnings of the back face deformation (BFD) body armor testing methodology.

Recommendation 2: The Army should develop ballistic testing performance specifications and properties that will lead to a short-term, standard replacement for the current Roma Plastilina #1 oil-based modeling clay.

Recommendation 3: Rheological and thermogravimetric measurements should be carried out to better understand the properties and behaviors of clay as it is being prepared and worked.

Recommendation 4: If it is demonstrated to achieve improved part-to-part consistency of the clay compared to hand preparation procedures, a mechanical compounding machine for clay preparation should be acquired, experimented with, and used by the Aberdeen Test Center.

Recommendation 5: In-box mechanical conditioning might obviate the need for precise temperature control and reduce the need for hand working of the clay. Mechanical working methods should be tested.

Recommendation 6: Since oil-based modeling clay is time and temperature sensitive, a post-drop calibration test is needed to validate that the clay remains within specification at the end of a body armor test. The Army should add this requirement for a post-drop calibration test of the clay to its Test Operating Procedure (TOP 10-2-210).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix L Phase II Recommendations." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×

Recommendation 7: The spatial variation of modeling clay is significant and three-dimensional. The response of the clay appears to depend on temperature, shear history, and proximity to the edge. Given the confounding effect of box geometry, the Aberdeen Test Center should perform a systematic set of column-drop performance tests as experiments to assess the consequence of variation due to the shape and size of the frame that defines the clay box. These tests should determine if a circular box of approximately the same area as the current box reduces the spatial variation that affects ballistic testing, or if a larger box area eliminates the clay edge effects that affect ballistic testing.

Recommendation 8: As an alternative to the current column-drop performance test the Army should quickly develop and experiment with a gas gun calibrator, or equivalent device, that delivers impactors to the surface of clay boxes and that determines local variation within a clay box at speeds and depths corresponding to those involved in the generation of the backface deformation. These experiments should be used to estimate as accurately as possible the variation of backface deformation measurements both within a given box and between boxes, under realistic testing conditions using existing test protocols.

Recommendation 9: While the committee applauds the Aberdeen Test Center efforts to understand and attempt to measure the dynamics associated with the creation of a backface deformation, the signal-to-noise ratio of the flash x-ray cineradiography approach should be thoroughly analyzed to determine if the desired spatial and temporal resolution can be achieved.

Recommendation 10: To better understand and measure the forces that create the backface deformation the Army should experiment with inserting microscopic temperature and displacement sensors into the clay near the site of the backface deformation.

Recommendation 11: The Army should consider experimenting with high-speed photographic analysis of backface deformation in ballistic gelatin as an alternative for providing needed information on the forces that shape the backface deformation.

Recommendation 12: The Army should conduct rheology and other studies on ballistic gelatin as a mid-term alternative to modeling clay due to its properties, which include the ability to directly record BFD using high-speed photography and the elimination of the effects of shear history, time, and temperature on the response of the backing material. However, correlation studies and tests are needed to better understand the differences in the extent of deformation and dynamics among gelatin and alternative clay formulations.

Recommendation 13: The Army should perform rheology and other evaluations on microcrystalline wax mixtures as a possible long-term replacement for Roma Plastilina #1 as a backing material for ballistic testing. Studies are needed to

Suggested Citation:"Appendix L Phase II Recommendations." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×

optimize the composition of the mixtures to produce the desired properties. In addition, correlation studies are needed to compare the response of the microcrystalline wax mixtures to the current material and/or ballistic gelatin.

Recommendation 14: The ad hoc clay working group should be empowered and adequately resourced to gather information, influence research, and develop working-level consensus across body armor testing organizations for the uniform application of National Institute of Justice standards across participating test organizations.

Recommendation 15: The Department of Defense Director of Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E) and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), in collaboration with the military services, unified commands, other governmental organizations, NIJ-certified laboratories, and appropriate nongovernmental and commercial organizations should convene a nationally recognized group to review all appropriate considerations and develop recommendations that could lead to a single national body armor testing standard to achieve more uniform testing results.

Recommendation 16: Before adopting the proposed statistically based protocol, the Department of Defense Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E), should explicitly compare the risks of the proposed protocol and those of the existing Army and U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) protocols, in order to establish which test plan increases soldier safety while balancing the manufacturer’s risk and incentives to overdesign. The committee notes that the USSOCOM first article test protocol may not be intended as a comprehensive technical test, and clarifying this issue would also help in the comparison of the protocols.

Recommendation 17: The committee recommends that testers and statisticians continue to work together as a team (1) to quantify in a statistically rigorous manner the amount of variation in backface deformation attributable to the testing process and that attributable to the plates, and (2) to ensure these results are appropriately reflected in an updated protocol. In particular, the statisticians involved with developing and implementing the statistically based protocol should be involved with the experimentation recommended in Recommendations 2-8. It would be helpful for statisticians to be part of the process of understanding and quantifying test system variation.

Recommendation 18: The Department of Defense should develop standard statistically based body armor Lot Acceptance Testing (LAT) protocols that incorporate aspects of MIL-STD-1916, particularly those related to quality control and improvement and switching procedures. Adopting and incorporating modern statistical process control methods into the manufacturing processes is specifically recommended so that plate quality can be managed and assessed prior to lot acceptance testing. This could potentially reduce testing effort and costs. Note

Suggested Citation:"Appendix L Phase II Recommendations." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×

that while MIL-STD-1916 states that the “sampling plans and procedures of this standard are not intended for use with destructive tests,” these aspects of the military standard are relevant to body armor LAT testing.

Recommendation 19: The Department of Defense (DoD) Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E) should provide briefings to and receive feedback from all stakeholders in DoD (military service Program Executive Officers, testers, users) and non-DoD organizations (National Institute of Justice, National Institute of Standards and Technology, certified private testing laboratories, vendors) concerning the statistically based protocol. This feedback, as well as the results of the experiments and analyses proposed in this report, should be used as due diligence to carefully and completely assess the effects, large and small, of the proposed statistically based protocol before it is formally adopted across the body armor testing community. DOT&E should act on feedback from the community to improve the proposed protocol as necessary, to ensure that testing terms and concepts make sense to a nontechnical audience, and it should promote the use of statistically based protocols in future national standards for body armor testing, as appropriate.

Overarching Recommendation: The committee applauds DOT&E for assuming a national-level leadership role in bringing the body armor test community together. The committee recommends that the DOT&E (1) work with Congress, DoD, the military services, and other organizations to find the resources necessary to implement the recommendations described in this report and summarized in [Box L-1] and (2) oversee, review, track, and assist designated action organizations with implementing these recommendations. This approach should result in more consistent test results that will provide equally survivable but lighter-weight body armor to our military service members and civilian police forces.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix L Phase II Recommendations." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×

Box L-1 Phase II Recommendations to Improve Body Armor Testing

Achieving Greater Part-to-Part Consistency in Clay

1.   Quantify the Medical Results of Blunt Force Trauma on Tissue and Incorporate Results into the BFD Methodology

2.   Determine Short-Term Standard Clay Specification

3.   Conduct Rheological and Thermogravimetric Measurements

4.   Procure and Experiment with a Clay Compounding Machine

5.   Examine Technologies for “In Box” Mechanical Clay Working

6.   Modify TOP 10-2-210 Procedures to Add a Post-calibration Drop (ATC, 2008)

7.   Experiment with Various Clay Box Sizes and Shapes

8.   Develop and Experiment with a Gas Gun Calibrator or Equivalent Device

Analyzing Backface Deformation Dynamics

9.   Analyze the Signal-to-Noise of Flash X-Ray Cineradiography

10. Experiment with Microscopic Temperature and Displacement Sensors in Clay

11. Experiment with the High-Speed Photographic Analysis of BFD Creation in Ballistic Gelatin

Determining Possible Replacements for Modeling Clay

12. Study Ballistic Gelatin as a Mid-Term Alternative to Modeling Clay

13. Study Microcrystalline Waxes as a Long-Term Alternative to Modeling Clay or Ballistic Gelatin.

Achieving a Single National Clay Standard for Body Armor Testing

14. Empower and Resource the Ad Hoc Clay Working Group

15. Convene a Nationally Recognized Group to Establish a Single National Standard for Handling and Validating Clay

Implementing Statistically Based Protocols

16. Compare the Proposed Statistically Based Protocol with the Existing USSOCOM Protocol

17. Quantify the Variation in the Body Armor Test Process and Incorporate in the Protocol

18. Develop a Statistically-Based LAT Protocol

19. Conduct Due Diligence Before Implementing and Formally Adopting a Set of Statistically Based Protocols

SOURCE: NRC, 2010

Suggested Citation:"Appendix L Phase II Recommendations." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×

REFERENCE

NRC (National Research Council). 2010. Phase II 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.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix L Phase II Recommendations." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×
Page 317
Suggested Citation:"Appendix L Phase II Recommendations." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×
Page 318
Suggested Citation:"Appendix L Phase II Recommendations." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×
Page 319
Suggested Citation:"Appendix L Phase II Recommendations." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×
Page 320
Suggested Citation:"Appendix L Phase II Recommendations." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×
Page 321
Suggested Citation:"Appendix L Phase II Recommendations." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×
Page 322
Next: Appendix M Estimating the Accuracy and Precision of the Digital Caliper and Faro Laser »
Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $65.00 Buy Ebook | $54.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

In 2009, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released the report Warfighter Support: Independent Expert Assessment of Army Body Armor Test Results and Procedures Needed Before Fielding, which commented on the conduct of the test procedures governing acceptance of body armor vest-plate inserts worn by military service members. This GAO report, as well as other observations, led the Department of Defense Director, Operational Test & Evaluation, to request that the National Research Council (NRC) Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences conduct a three-phase study to investigate issues related to the testing of body armor materials for use by the U.S. Army and other military departments. Phase I and II resulted in two NRC letter reports: one in 2009 and one in 2010. This report is Phase III in the study.

Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III provides a roadmap to reduce the variability of clay processes and shows how to migrate from clay to future solutions, as well as considers the use of statistics to permit a more scientific determination of sample sizes to be used in body armor testing. This report also develops ideas for revising or replacing the Prather study methodology, as well as reviews comments on methodologies and technical approaches to military helmet testing. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III also considers the possibility of combining various national body armor testing standards.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!