National Academies Press: OpenBook

Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III (2012)

Chapter: Front Matter

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

Testing of Body
Armor Materials

Phase III

Committee on Testing of Body Armor Materials for Use by the U.S. Army—Phase III

Board on Army Science and Technology
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

and

Committee on National Statistics
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu

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

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS     500 Fifth Street, NW     Washington, DC 20001

NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.

This material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. SES-0453930, Amendment #012. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

International Standard Book Number ISBN-13: 978-309-25599-8

International Standard Book Number ISBN-10: 0-309-25599-6

         
Limited copies of this report are available from: Additional copies are available from:
         
Board on Army Science and Technology The National Academies Press
National Research Council 500 Fifth Street, NW
500 Fifth Street, NW, Room 940 Keck 360
Washington, DC 20001 Washington, DC 20001
(202) 334-3118 (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313
http://www.nap.edu

Copyright 2012 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

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

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.

www.national-academiesorg

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

COMMITTEE ON THE TESTING OF BODY ARMOR FOR THE U.S. ARMY – PHASE III

LARRY G. LEHOWICZ, MG, U.S. Army (retired), Chair, Quantum Research International, Arlington, Virginia

CAMERON R. BASS, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina

THOMAS F. BUDINGER, E.O., NAE/IOM,1 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California

MORTON M. DENN, NAE, City College of the City University of New York

WILLIAM G. FAHRENHOLTZ, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla

RONALD D. FRICKER, JR., Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California

YOGENDRA M. GUPTA, Washington State University, Pullman

DENNIS K. KILLINGER, University of South Florida, Tampa

VLADIMIR B. MARKOV, Advanced Systems and Technologies, Inc., Irvine, California

JAMES D. McGUFFIN-CAWLEY, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio

RUSSELL N. PRATHER, Survice Engineering Company, Bel Air, Maryland

SHELDON WIEDERHORN, NAE, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland

ALYSON GABBARD WILSON, Institute for Defense Analyses, Alexandria, Virginia

Staff

BRUCE A. BRAUN, Director, Board on Army Science and Technology

ROBERT LOVE, Study Director

HARRISON T. PANNELLA, Senior Program Officer

NIA D. JOHNSON, Senior Research Associate, Board on Army Science and Technology

JAMES MYSKA, Senior Research Associate, Board on Army Science and Technology

DEANNA P. SPARGER, Program Administrative Coordinator, Board on Army Science and Technology

ANN LARROW, Research Assistant

JOSEPH PALMER, Senior Program Assistant

ALICE WILLIAMS, Senior Program Assistant (until September 10, 2010)

CONSTANCE CITRO, Director, Committee on National Statistics

DENNIS CHAMOT, Acting Director, National Materials Advisory Board

JAMES P. McGEE, Director, Laboratory Assessments Board

________________________

1NAE/IOM, National Academy of Engineering/Institute of Medicine.

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

BOARD ON ARMY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

ALAN H. EPSTEIN, Chair, Pratt & Whitney, East Hartford, Connecticut

DAVID M. MADDOX, Vice Chair, Independent Consultant, Arlington, Virginia

DUANE ADAMS, Independent Consultant, Arlington, Virginia

ILESANMI ADESIDA, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

MARY E. BOYCE, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

EDWARD C. BRADY, Strategic Perspectives, Inc., Fort Lauderdale, Florida

W. PETER CHERRY, Independent Consultant, Ann Arbor, Michigan

EARL H. DOWELL, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina

JULIA D. ERDLEY, Pennsylvania State University, State College

LESTER A. FOSTER, Electronic Warfare Associates, Herndon, Virginia

JAMES A. FREEBERSYSER, BBN Technology, St. Louis Park, Minnesota

RONALD P. FUCHS, Independent Consultant, Seattle, Washington

W. HARVEY GRAY, Independent Consultant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

JOHN J. HAMMOND, Independent Consultant, Fairfax, Virginia

RANDALL W. HILL, JR., University of Southern California Institute for Creative Technologies, Playa Vista

JOHN W. HUTCHINSON, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

MARY JANE IRWIN, Pennsylvania State University, University Park

ROBIN L. KEESEE, Independent Consultant, Fairfax, Virginia

ELLIOT D. KIEFF, Channing Laboratory, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts

WILLIAM L. MELVIN, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Smyrna

ROBIN MURPHY, Texas A&M University, College Station

SCOTT PARAZYNSKI, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston

RICHARD R. PAUL, Independent Consultant, Bellevue, Washington

JEAN D. REED, Independent Consultant, Arlington, Virginia

LEON E. SALOMON, Independent Consultant, Gulfport, Florida

JONATHAN M. SMITH, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

MARK J.T. SMITH, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

MICHAEL A. STROSCIO, University of Illinois, Chicago

DAVID A. TIRRELL, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

JOSEPH YAKOVAC, JVM LLC, Hampton, Virginia

Staff

BRUCE A. BRAUN, Director

CHRIS JONES, Financial Manager

DEANNA P. SPARGER, Program Administrative Coordinator

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

COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL STATISTICS

LAWRENCE D. BROWN, Chair, Department of Statistics, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania

JOHN M. ABOWD, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University

DAVID CARD, Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley

ALICIA CARRIQUIRY, Department of Statistics, Iowa State University

CONSTANTINE GATSONIS, Center for Statistical Sciences, Brown University

JAMES S. HOUSE, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan

MICHAEL HOUT, Survey Research Center, University of California, Berkeley

SALLIE ANN KELLER, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

LISA LYNCH, Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University

SALLY C. MORTON, Department of Biostatistics, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh

RUTH D. PETERSON, Criminal Justice Research Center, Ohio State University

EDWARD H. SHORTLIFFE, Columbia University and Arizona State University

HAL STERN, Donald Bren School of Information and Computer Sciences, University of California, Irvine

JOHN H. THOMPSON, National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago

ROGER TOURANGEAU, Westat, Rockville, Maryland

Staff

CONSTANCE CITRO, Senior Board Director

JULIA KISA SHAKEER, Financial Associate

JACQUI SOVDE, Program Associate

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

Preface

This report is the final volume of a three-phase study commissioned by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) of the Department of Defense (DoD) to assist in addressing shortcomings that had been reported by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the DoD Inspector General in DoD’s body armor testing process. Independent committees were empanelled for the three study phases. Each committee produced an independent report, although this final Phase III report builds on the results of the letter reports delivered in Phases I and II, both of which provided findings and recommendations on key issues that required near-term resolution by DOT&E. The study was conducted under the auspices of the National Research Council (NRC) Board on Army Science and Technology (BAST) and Committee on National Statistics.

The Phase I letter report, released in January 2010, addressed the adequacy of laser instrumentation for evaluating ballistics tests in clay material. The Phase II report, released in May 2010, focused on the behavior of ballistics clay used as a recording medium during live-fire testing. The Phase III committee had more time for meetings and data gathering than the two previous committees and was able to use the substantial amount of data collected throughout the entire study. As a result the committee was able to delve more deeply into all available data than had been possible in the earlier phases of the effort.

This Phase III report provides a wide range of recommendations designed to help enable the entire body armor community to utilize an effective testing process leading to fielding the best equipment possible that meets performance specifications while reducing the weight burden placed on soldiers in training or combat.

The Phase III committee deserves special thanks for its hard work. Several committee members went well beyond the norm in interviewing numerous experts, assessing the pertinent issues, and developing recommendations to address the many demands of the committee’s statement of task. In particular, committee member Thomas Budinger deserves special credit for leading the Phase III ad hoc instrumentation committee subgroup that produced a thoughtful review of the data and information related to instrumentation. The committee is also grateful to the many DoD, Army, Marine Corps, industry, and contractor personnel engaged in body armor testing for the useful information they provided.

Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×

Finally, the committee also greatly appreciates the support and assistance of the NRC staff members who assisted the committee in its fact-finding activities and in the production of the three separate committee reports. In particular, thanks are due to the BAST staff, principally Bruce Braun, Margaret Novack, and Robert Love, who ably facilitated the committee’s work.

Larry Lehowicz, Chair

Committee on Testing of Body Armor

Materials for Use by the U.S. Army—Phase

III

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

Acknowledgment of Reviewers

This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report:

Morris E. Fine (NAE), Northwestern University

John S. Foster, Jr. (NAE), GKN Aerospace Transparency Systems

David Higdon, Los Alamos National Laboratory

Peter Matic, Naval Research Laboratory

Erik Novak, Veeco Instruments,

Henry Smith (NAE), Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Leslie J. Struble, University of Illinois

Stephen F. Vatner, New Jersey Medical School

Emmanuel Yashchin, IBM Watson Research Center

Laurence R. Young (NAE/IOM), Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Lawrence D. Brown, NAS, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, and Arthur H. Heuer, NAE, Case Western Reserve University. Appointed by the National Research Council, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.

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

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×
Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×

3-2    Blunt deformation profiles into gelatin using seven-ply K29 armor samples mounted on gelatin and tested with the .38-cal LRN bullet at 213 m/sec (800 ft/sec)

3-3    Deformation depth vs. time of candidate materials in a goat thorax using a blunt impactor at 55 m/sec

3-4    Logistic regression model of death vs. deformation for blunt impact into goat chests

3-5    Logistic regression model of death vs. deformation for blunt impact into clay using deformation response into goat chests and clay

3-6    Clay deformation behind hard armor with rifle round threats

3-7    Variation of clay penetration depth with velocity for behind-body armor deformation (7.62-mm NATO round, UHMWPE body armor)

3-8    Variation of clay penetration area with velocity for behind-body armor deformation (7.62-mm NATO round, UHMWPE body armor)

4-1    A schematic illustration of the stress-strain curves for two idealized solids

4-2    A contour gage in use

4-3    Column drop test as performed at ATC

4-4    The results of drop tests on clay boxes allowed to naturally cool from 40°C in a room at normal room temperature (roughly 23°C)

4-5    Drop test results using the standard Army right-circular cylinder with a solid hemispherical cap (44.5 mm [1.75 in.] in diameter with a mass of 1 kg [2.2 lb]), a similar non-standard double-length cylinder of the same diameter with the same type of hemispherical cap, and sphere with the diameter specified in the National Institute of Justice Standard (NIJ), 63.5 mm (2.5 in.) in diameter

4-6    Spatial pattern used in a series of experiments to determine the effect of position on the size of the cavity produced during a drop test

4-7    Illustrative results from a study on the effect of radial position on depth of penetration during a drop calibration test

4-8    A clay box used for .32-cal rubber sting ball testing

4-9    Results of sting ball experiments with projectiles ranging from 55 m/sec (180 ft/sec) to 168 m/sec (550 ft/sec)

4-10  A schematic illustration of the “thixotropic cycle” of a two-phase system

4-11  Optical micrographs of a three-dimensional network of spherical latex particles

4-12  Road map showing suggested near-term actions, medium-term research needs, and a long-term goal to develop a more consistent backing material and a more reliable process for evaluating hard armor

5-1    Digital calipers used in armor testing

5-2    Faro Quantum laser scan arm

6-1    USSOCOM FAT shot pattern

Page xvii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×

6-2    Plot of the actual coverage level achieved by a lower confidence bound calculated according to the Clopper-Pearson method for n = 60 and various Pr(nP)

6-3    Probability a lot passes LAT first shot requirements for Pr(nP) for the S-4 and S-3 inspection levels for various lot sizes and an AQL of 4 percent

6-4    Probability a lot passes LAT second shot requirements for Pr(nP) for the S-4 and S-3 inspection levels for various lot sizes and an AQL of 4 percent

6-5    Plot of the manufacturer’s risk for various Pr(nP) under the DOT&E protocol

6-6    Risk comparisons for BFD assuming in the left plot that the manufacturer’s true mean BFD is 38 mm and in the right plot is 40 mm; the associated fraction of variation is shown on the x-axis

7-1    Effective momentum of high-rate ballistic impacts at muzzle velocity and low-rate football impact

7-2    Ballistic impact injury timescales

7-3    Likeness of a deformed personnel armor system for ground troops helmet

7-4    Cadaver instrumentation overview

7-5    Neck injury assessment value for 9-mm FMJ test round at various velocities into helmeted human cadavers

7-6    Residual head/neck velocity from momentum transfer to the helmet/head system

7-7    Impact energy for helmet standards

7-8    Ballistic (high-rate) skull fracture data vs. impact injury criteria for typical blunt injury

7-9    NIJ sagittal penetration head form

7-10  Army clay head form

7-11  ATC head form with clay

7-12  Head form clay conditioning by analogy

7-13  Test impact locations

7-14  Test frame

7-15  H.P. White head form

7-16  Peepsite head forms: different head forms for different shot directions

7-17  Left, UVA head form; right, risk assessment

7-18  BLS head form

7-19  Arrangement and dimensions of load cells in the BLS head form

8-1    Initial energy and momentum for ballistics and other blunt impacts

8-2    Superimposed high speed X-rays of the initial shock wave and deformation of the thorax during a 7.62 mm projectile live-fire test in a pig protected by hard body armor

8-3    Development of surrogate injury model

8-4    Volunteer experimentation

Page xviii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×

8-5    Human upper torso

8-6    Threshold pressures and exposure times needed to damage drosophila larvae using various loading devices

8-7    Threshold damage for various tissues

8-8    ASII values versus peak inward chest wall velocity

8-9    Overpressure/duration blast injury criteria

8-10  Kinetic energy vs. injury severity

8-11  Time of delivery of wounded to the CMH (average 1983-1984)

8-12  Severity of wounds for patients delivered to the CMH (average 1983-1984)

8-13  Lateral dog thorax impacted by nonpenetrating missiles

8-14  Impact energy (scaled to a 75 kg man) vs. increased lung mass

8-15  Body armor for Oksbøl trials

8-16  Average first and second peak pressure, Oksbøl trials

8-17  Average postmortem lung mass, Oksbøl trials

8-18  Oksbøl first peak on Bowen curve

8-19  Animal fatalities during monitoring period

8-20  BABT flash X-ray

8-21  Relationship between area of lung surface contusion and maximum back-face deformation of body armor

8-22  Relationship between area of lung surface contusion and pressure 6 cm from point of impact

8-23  Examples of BABT assessment devices and methodologies

8-24  DERA BABT simulator displacement sensor system

8-25  DERA tissue viscoelastic stimulant concept as described by Mirzeabassov et al., 2000

8-26  Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy

8-27  ATM with mounted body armor; ATM instrumented response element with padding; oblique view within torso

8-28  Human CT scan; finite-element model

8-29  AUSMAN upper torso

8-30  AUSMAN thorax with body armor in place, prior to testing

8-31  Road map showing suggested near-term and medium-term research needs, and a long-term goal to provide the fundamental medical basis for injury risk assessment behind helmets and hard body armor

9-1    Road map showing suggested near-term actions, medium-term research needs, and a long-term goal to develop a more consistent backing material and a more reliable process for evaluating hard armor

9-2    Flow chart showing suggested near-term and mid-term research needs, and a long-term goal to provide the fundamental medical basis for injury risk assessment behind helmets and hard body armor

9-3    Schematic of conceptual approach used by both testers and researchers showing a projectile impacting normally onto hard body armor (A), soft body armor (B), and a recording medium surrogate for a human body (C)

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

9-4    Schematic of the dynamic measurement method

9-5    Schematic of stakeholder relationships

G-1    Plot of normally distributed BFDs from a design that just meets the 90 % upper tolerance limit requirement with μpop = 42.7 mm and σpop = 1 mm

G-2    The consequence of measurement error on the apparent depths of BFDs

G-3    The relationship between measurement error and the overall variance in armor testing

G-4    How improving the performance of armor relates to the probability of passing FAT assuming a lot size of 60 plates

G-5    Plot of the difference between the two FAT failure curves

G-6    Photograph, laser scan, and cross section of cavity in RP #1 produced by armor testing

G-7    Digital calipers used in armor testing

G-8    Two images of typical BFD cavities in RP #1 produced by the Faro laser scanner

G-9    The probability a manufacturer will pass the first article, first shot BFD test (solid line) for various population mean BFD levels (μ) versus the probability that a plate will have a BFD greater than 50 mm from the same population (dotted line)

H-1  Ninety-fifth quintile distribution

J-1    Comprehensive protocol for live-animal live-fire tests

M-1  Plot of the paired BFD measurements made by ATC

M-2  Plot of the paired BFD measurements made by Chesapeake Testing

M-3  Absolute value of offsets for caliper measurements from Realistic Clay III

BOXES

S-1    Statement of Task

1-1    Statement of Task

L-1    Phase II Recommendations to Improve Body Armor Testing

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

This page intentionally left blank.

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

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AIS abbreviated injury scale
AP armor piercing
AQL acceptance quality level
ARDS adult respiratory distress syndrome
ARL U.S. Army Research Laboratory
ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials
ATC U.S. Army Aberdeen Test Center
ATD anthropometric test device
ATM anthropomorphic test module
   
BABT behind-armor blunt trauma
BFD backface deformation
BLS ballistic load sensing
   
CMH central military hospital
CMM co-ordinate measuring machine
   
DAI diffuse axonal injury
DERA Defense Evaluation and Research Agency
DGA Délégation Générale pour L’Armement
DoD Department of Defense
DOT&E Office of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation
DREV Defense Research Establishment Valcartier
   
ECG electrocardiogram
ESAPI enhanced small arms protective insert
   
FAT first article testing
FMJ full metal jacket
   
GAO Government Accountability Office
   
HIC head injury criteria
   
IG Inspector General
ISS injury severity score
   
kPa kilopascal
Page xxii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×
LAT lot acceptance testing
LRN lead round nose
   
MPa megapascal
   
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NIJ National Institute of Justice
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
NRC National Research Council
   
PEO-S U.S. Army Program Executive Office Soldier
   
RCC right circular cylinder
RP #1 Roma Plastilina #1
   
TAB trauma-attenuating backing
TBI traumatic brain injury
TOP test operating procedure
   
UHMWPE ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene
USSOCOM United States Special Operations Command
UVA University of Virginia
   
XSAPI X Small Arms Protective Inserts
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×
Page R12
Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×
Page R13
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×
Page R14
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×
Page R15
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×
Page R16
Page xvii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×
Page R17
Page xviii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×
Page R18
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×
Page R19
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×
Page R20
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×
Page R21
Page xxii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 2012. Testing of Body Armor Materials: Phase III. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13390.
×
Page R22
Next: Summary »
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!