XM982 155-mm Artillery Projectile Container Support 

System: Finite-Element Model Development and Analysis 

by Michael Minnicino 

ARL-TR-3619 September 2005 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
NOTICES 

Disclaimers 

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless 

so designated by other authorized documents. 

Citation of manufacturer’s or trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the 

use thereof. 

Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator. 
Army Research Laboratory 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5069 

ARL-TR-3619 September 2005 

XM982 155-mm Artillery Projectile Container Support 

System: Finite-Element Model Development and Analysis 

Michael Minnicino 

Weapons and Materials Research Directorate, ARL 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
ii 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering 

and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of 

information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 

1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty 

for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

September 2005 

2. REPORT TYPE 

Final 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 

March 2004–February 2005 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 

5b. GRANT NUMBER 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

XM982 155-mm Artillery Projectile Container Support System: Finite-Element 

Model Development and Analysis 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER 

2152040H80 

5e. TASK NUMBER 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

Michael Minnicino 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

U.S. Army Research Laboratory 

AMSRD-ARL-WM-MB 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5069 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

 REPORT NUMBER 

ARL-TR-3619 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) 

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT 

 NUMBER(S) 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

14. ABSTRACT 

The XM982 Excalibur container support system is intended to protect the Excalibur munition during transportation by 

mitigating shock and vibration loadings in addition to performing other functions such as supplementing insensitive munition 

capabilities. The development of a finite-element (FE) model is a valuable tool for investigating design modifications to the 

container-foam support system without the need for expensive experimental tests. The FE model facilitates the determination 

of any design issues and provides insight for future design iterations. The FE model also enables the estimation of the loading 

conditions the Excalibur munition experiences during drop and vibration events. The focus of this report is the containermunition system response due to container-base-down (CBD) drop events as specified by International Test Operations 

Procedure. Of the CBD drop events, the 2.1-m CBD, commonly called the 7-ft CBD drop, test is considered the most severe 

and is investigated in this effort. The developed FE model results compares well to experimental data only after significantly

altering the foam stress-strain curves to account for the strain-rate effects. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

container, foam, modeling 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

Michael Minnicino 

a. REPORT 

UNCLASSIFIED 

b. ABSTRACT 

UNCLASSIFIED

c. THIS PAGE 

UNCLASSIFIED

17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT 

UL 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

 36 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) 

410-306-1919 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
iii 

Contents 

List of Figures iv

List of Tables v

1. Introduction 1

2. Three-Dimensional (3-D) Model Development 1

3. Foam Material Model and Properties 7

4. Drop Simulation 8

4.1 Initial Condition Setup ....................................................................................................8 

4.2 Large Deformation Considerations .................................................................................9 

4.3 Results ...........................................................................................................................11 

5. Conclusions and Recommendations 14

6. References 15

Distribution List 16 
iv 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Excalibur container support system solid model.............................................................1 

Figure 2. Cross section of the full FE model. .................................................................................2 

Figure 3. Corresponding quarter-symmetric FE model. .................................................................2 

Figure 4. Container FE grid and anatomy.......................................................................................3 

Figure 5. Cover (a) solid model geometry and (b) corresponding FE grid.....................................3 

Figure 6. Slug-foam system cross section and anatomy.................................................................4 

Figure 7. Detailed anatomy of ogive foam system. ........................................................................5 

Figure 8. Detailed anatomy of warhead foam.................................................................................5 

Figure 9. Slug nose (a) perspective view and (b) side view. ..........................................................6 

Figure 10. The 9-lb foam stress-strain curves at various temperatures and rates (vertical 

orientation).................................................................................................................................8 

Figure 11. Initial velocity problem setup........................................................................................9 

Figure 12. Element erosion process that creates spurious peaks in acceleration data: (a) 

before erosion, (b) time-step before erosion, and (c) new contact surface at time-step after 

erosion......................................................................................................................................10 

Figure 13. Unfiltered axial-direction projectile acceleration measurements for cold 7-ft CBD 

drop. .........................................................................................................................................11 

Figure 14. The 1.5-kHz low-passed axial-direction projectile acceleration measurements and 

simulated response for 7-ft CBD drop.....................................................................................12 

Figure 15. Experimentally measured stress-strain curves comparison with modified stressstrain curves to get presented results for 9-lb vertical direction foam.....................................12 

Figure 16. Experimentally measured stress-strain curves comparison with modified stressstrain curves to get presented results for 9-lb extruded direction foam...................................13 

Figure 17. Experimentally measured stress-strain curves comparison with modified stressstrain curves to get presented results for 20-lb foam. ..............................................................13 

Figure 18. Comparison of (a) experimental ogive foam after 7-ft CBD test to (b) simulated 

ogive foam at maximum displacement. (c) Experimental and simulated results overlaid 

for qualitative comparison. ......................................................................................................14 
v 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Container material properties (plain mild steel). ..............................................................4 

Table 2. HDPE and foam material properties.................................................................................6 

Table 3. Slug material properties (aluminum). ...............................................................................7 

Table 4. Erosion parameters. ........................................................................................................10 
vi 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 
1 

1. Introduction 

The XM982 Excalibur container support system shown in figure 1 is intended to protect the 

Excalibur munition during transportation by mitigating shock and vibration loadings in addition 

to performing other functions such as supplementing insensitive munition capabilities. The 

development of a finite-element (FE) model is a valuable tool for investigating design 

modifications to the container-foam support system without the need for expensive experimental 

tests. The FE model facilitates the determination of any design issues and provides insight for 

future design iterations. The FE model also enables the estimation of the loading conditions the 

Excalibur munition experiences during drop and vibration events. The focus of this report is the 

container-munition system response due to container-base-down (CBD) drop events as specified 

by the International Test Operations Procedure (1) The commercial FE software LS-DYNA is 

used for the drop simulations (2). 

Rim 

Body 

Window Bracket 

Polymer Window 

Rings 

Base End 

Cover End 

Container Cover 

and Locking 

Mechanism 

Ogive Foam 

Assembly 

Warhead Foam 

Assembly 

Base Foam 

Assembly 

Pull-out Strap 

Figure 1. Excalibur container support system solid model. 

2. Three-Dimensional (3-D) Model Development 

The analysis of the container system during the 7-ft CBD drop orientation is the primary 

objective of this effort, since prior experiments indicate this orientation has the highest 
2 

probability for the munition to impact the container and become damaged. The FE model uses 

quarter symmetry, thus allowing a more computationally efficient analysis of the CBD drop 

orientation. The full and quarter-symmetric FE models are shown in figures 2 and 3, 

respectively. The new 44.5-in container FE mesh is adapted from the previous 49.79-in 

container FE mesh. The foam system of the FE model is created independently using drawings 

received from the U.S. Army Armament Research, Development, and Engineering Center 

(ARDEC) located at Picatinny Arsenal, NJ. The munition FE mesh is identical to the munition 

mesh of the 49.79-in container configuration FE model. 

Figure 2. Cross section of the full FE model. 

Figure 3. Corresponding quarter-symmetric FE model. 

The defeatured container FE model, figure 4, does not include the container windows, window 

brackets, fasteners, nor cover locking assembly. The complex stamped geometry of the 

container cover is modeled as a simple circular plate with a uniform 0.060-in thickness 

(figure 5). Since the simulation effort focuses on the 7-ft CBD drop and the container cover is 

distant relative to the area of interaction, it is assumed that the container cover has little effect on 

the event. The window and window brackets were not included in the FE model due to their 

geometric complexity in addition to unknown window material properties. From the previous 

49.79-in container FE analyses, it was observed that omission of the windows is an adequate 
3 

Figure 4. Container FE grid and anatomy. 

Figure 5. Cover (a) solid model geometry and (b) corresponding FE grid. 

assumption for CBD drops as the results matched well with the experimental data (3). The 

container mesh is created on the corresponding mid-surfaces of the solid-model. The container 

is modeled with shell elements and has a uniform thickness of 0.060 in. This uniform thickness 

does not capture the thickness increase of the container body at the rim and ring attachments but 

is a reasonable approximation since the increase in thickness has an insignificant effect on the 

load experienced by the munition during the impact. The container is modeled with shell 

elements with an elastic-plastic kinematic hardening material model, LS-Dyna material model 

*MAT_ELASTIC_PLASTIC. The shells have the appropriate thickness values except at the 

ring and rim “attachment flanges” where the rim and rings are affixed to the container body. The 

container material properties are listed in table 1. 

(a) (b) 

 

Container body 

Container cover

Container ring

Container rim 
4 

Table 1. Container material properties 

(plain mild steel). 

Property Value 

ρ 7.25 E-04 lb-s2

/in4

E 3.00 E+07 psi 

ν 0.3 

σy 4.00 E+04 psi 

Etan 2.01 E+05 psi 

The foam-projectile slug assembly is modeled using hexahedral (brick) elements. A cross 

section is shown in figure 6. The foam is modeled using LS-Dyna’s *CRUSHABLE_FOAM 

material model. This material model behaves like a nonlinear elastic-plastic material constitutive 

model in that it does not unload to zero strain, but rather to an effective plastic strain. This is 

because the crushable foam material model unloads at a rate equal to the largest modulus in the 

stress-strain curve. Due to this experimentally unmeasured behavior, the solution is questionable 

after the projectile reverses direction (i.e., crosses zero velocity) and the foam begins to unload. 

Figure 6. Slug-foam system cross section and anatomy. 

The ogive foam assembly shown in figure 7 consists of (from left to right) 9-lb foam, 

20-lb foam, HDPE, and 9-lb foam oriented in its extruded direction relative to the container 

centerline axis. The foams are assumed to be homogeneous orthotropic materials; however, only 

the extruded direction is distinguished from the remaining two orientations due to its relatively 

larger increased stiffness (4). Additionally, there is a HDPE annulus located on the munition 

ogive for the purpose of transferring the load to the 9-lb foam at a location away from the 

sensitive and highly-stressed section due to the CBD drops on the munition nose. The Warhead 

foam assembly consists of alternating annuluses of 6-lb foam and HDPE as shown in figure 8. 

The foam is orthotropic; however, the *MAT_CRUSHABLE_FOAM material model is the 

constitutive law for an isotropic material. Therefore, the dominate properties of the foam relative 

to the load direction are used to represent the isotropic response of the foam. For example, the 

extruded 9-lb foam found between the HDPE plate and the container bottom is modeled as if it is 

isotropic with properties of the extruded direction. The parameters used for the HDPE and foam 

material models are listed in table 2. 

Base Foam Warhead Foam Ogive Foam Slug 
5 

9-lb foam--extruded

orientation

9-lb foam-Vertical 

orientation

HDPE annulus 20-lb foam HDPE plate

Figure 7. Detailed anatomy of ogive foam system. 

Figure 8. Detailed anatomy of warhead foam. 

The slug used in the drop tests is aluminum and is machined to have the profile of the Excalibur 

munition. Additionally, the slug is ballasted to have the same mass properties as the Excalibur 

munition. The FE mesh of the slug nose is shown in figure 9. The projectile “slug” is modeled 

as a rigid body with the properties of aluminum using LS-Dyna’s *MAT_RIGID material model. 

This was done to easily specify the body’s mass properties, e.g., its center of gravity, 

translational mass, and principal moments of inertia. As an additional benefit, the rigid body 

assumption also improves computational efficiency. If the slug is modeled as a deformable 

aluminum body, the time-step may be limited by the small hexahedral elements in the nose of the 

slug as shown in figure 9, which results in a longer run time. Lastly, this rigid body assumption 

HDPE Sleeve 

6lb Foam 

Sleeve 
6 

Table 2. HDPE and foam material properties. 

Property Value 

(a) HDPE 

ρ 8.97 E-05 lb-s2

/in4

E 3.00 E+05 psi 

ν 0.33 

(b) Foam 6 lb

ρ 9.00 E-06 lb-s2

/in4

E 1.00 E+05 psi 

ν 0.01 

Stress-strain curve: modified 6 lb (original 9-lb stressstrain curve) 

(c) Foam 9 lb 

ρ 1.35 E-05 lb-s2

/in4

E 8.00 E+03 psi 

ν 0.01 

Stress-strain curve: modified 9 lb 

(d) Foam 9 lb extruded 

ρ 1.35 E-05 lb-s2

/in4

E 5.50 E+04 psi 

ν 0.01 

Stress-strain curve: modified 9 lb extruded 

(e) Foam 20 lb 

ρ 1.35 E-05 lb-s2

/in4

E 5.50 E+04 psi 

ν 0.01 

Stress-strain curve: modified 20 lb 

is reasonable since relative to the foam, the aluminum slug is approximately rigid. This implies 

that the internal strain energy stored by deformation of the slug is negligible in comparison to the 

strain energy stored in the rest of the system. The material parameters for this rigid material 

model are listed in table 3. 

Figure 9. Slug nose (a) perspective view and (b) side view. 
7 

Table 3. Slug material properties 

(aluminum). 

Property Value

ρ 2.59 E-04 lb-s2

/in4

E 1.00 E+07 psi 

ν 0.3 

Xc 22 in 

Yc 0 in 

Zc 0 in 

Tm 2.72 E-01 lb-s2/in4

Ixx 1.37 lb-s2/in4

Ixy ~0 lb-s2/in4

Ixz ~0 lb-s2/in4

Iyy 21.5 lb-s2/in4

Iyz ~0 lb-s2/in4

Izz 21.5 lb-s2/in4

3. Foam Material Model and Properties 

Initial foam material properties were obtained from Dow Chemical’s customer support group (4). 

Dow Chemical supplied the load-displacement and stress-strain curves for the Ethafoam HS 900 

tested at room temperature, 70 °F (23 °C), at a crosshead rate of 39.37 in/s (1.0 m/s). 

Additionally, Dow provided a table consisting of five data points along these curves. 

The foam material was modeled in LS-Dyna using the *MAT_CRUSHABLE_FOAM 

constitutive model (2). The necessary material properties for this constitutive model for a given 

temperature are 

• density, 

• Poisson’s ratio, 

• stress-strain curve, 

• modulus of elasticity (initial), and 

• tensile strength. 

The Dow information provides density, tensile strength, and a limited number of stress-strain 

curve data points, all of which are at room temperature. In order to adequately characterize the 

foam, in-house material testing was conducted to determine the foam’s compressive stress-strain 

curves at 170 °F (77 °C), –60 °F (–51 °C), and 70 °F (21 °C) (5). Poisson’s ratio could not be 

determined due to the porosity of the foam, so a value of 0.01 is assumed in the following 

analyses. This Poisson’s ratio value was obtained from reference (6), which has data for similar 

foams. Also, a small parametric study was conducted in which the Poisson’s ratio was varied 

from 0.01 to 0.10 and was found to have little influence on the foam response (7). 
8 

The average 9-lb and 9-lb extruded foam stress-strain curves for all temperatures are shown in 

figure 10. The stress-strain curves agree with intuition since the cold curves have both a larger 

initial modulus of elasticity and yield strength than compared to curves obtained at warmer 

temperatures. Notice for the room temperature curves that the 9-lb foam stress-strain curves 

agree well with the plotted Dow data points. Two strain rates were used to load the foam 

specimens: a slow strain rate of 2.1 m/m-s and a higher strain rate of 18-30 m/m-s. 

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

700.00

800.00

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0

Strain (%)

Stress (psi)

 21 C 9 lb, Low Rate

 77 C 9 lb, Low Rate

-51 C 9 lb, Low Rate

 21 C 9 lb, High Rate

 77 C 9 lb, High Rate

-51 C 9 lb, High Rate

-51 C 9 lb Extruded, Low Rate

 77 C 9 lb Extruded, Low Rate

-51 C 9 lb Extruded, High Rate

 77 C 9 lb Extruded, High Rate

Dow Data Points

Figure 10. The 9-lb foam stress-strain curves at various temperatures and rates (vertical orientation). 

4. Drop Simulation 

4.1 Initial Condition Setup 

The FE model is setup for a 7-ft CBD drop simulation using the cold foam material properties. 

The drop simulation is formulated as an initial velocity problem since the response before impact 

is irrelevant and its calculation is unproductive. To calculate the relevant impact response, the 

model is defined so the container system is slightly offset (0.005 in) from a user-defined rigid 

surface at a user-defined orientation with a uniform initial velocity as illustrated in figure 11. 

Gravity is not included in the analysis. However, the initial impact velocity is determined by 

considering gravity and the drop height. Thus, the effect of gravity on the rebound of the 

container is not considered. For the impact event, this is acceptable. The model is conservative 
9 

since it does not include friction. Friction is not included because the appropriate foamaluminum coefficient of friction value is unknown. This model represents a worst-case scenario 

since the inclusion of friction between the slug and foam will increase the dissipation of energy 

and reduce the overall displacement of the slug. The initial impact velocity is determined by 

considering conservation of energy 

 mgh = 1

/2mv

2

 or v = sqrt(2gh), (1) 

where v is initial impact velocity, m is the system mass, g is gravity, and h is the drop height. 

For example, a 3-ft drop results in an initial impact velocity of 167 in/s. 

Figure 11. Initial velocity problem setup. 

4.2 Large Deformation Considerations 

Difficulties are encountered when simulating a CBD drop test due to excessive distortion of the 

ogive foam elements located near the slug nose. These difficulties are the result of the foam 

being relatively soft (see Foam Material Model and Properties section). At low-to-moderate 

strain rates, the 9-lb foam does not begin to significantly resist compressive load until a 

compressive strain of ~0.85. At these large strains, the FE mesh can become severely distorted, 

which causes numerical issues in the solution. Thus, in order to capture the foam deformation, a 

very fine mesh is needed to alleviate or prevent element distortion. The avoidance of severe 

element distortion is important for three main reasons. First, severe element distortion causes the 

Jacobian to approach zero, and results in a runtime error, causing the solver to halt. Secondly, 

excessive element distortion causes contact definitions between entities to become ineffective 

(loss of contact), thereby enabling the slug to move freely into the ogive foam region where the 

elements are highly distorted. The third reason is that severe element distortion causes the 

elements critical time-step to become very small, resulting in longer run times. 

A simple and often utilized method to prevent element distortion is to remove, or erode, elements 

prior to the elements reaching a highly distorted state. The FE erosion sequence is shown in 

figure 12. Although this method can conserve energy at the cost of computational efficiency, it 

was implemented in this analysis such that the eroded element and its associated mass and 

36 in v0=167 in/s 
10 

energy are omitted. Therefore, once an element meets or exceeds a user-defined failure criteria, 

the element has no further effect on the subsequent system behavior. For light and relatively 

slow moving materials, such as the foam, omitting the mass and energy loss is a reasonable 

approximation. The 9-lb extruded direction foam material was not permitted to erode. It is 

observed that element erosion allows the simulation to reach completion, and the results appear 

reasonable during the compression phase of the impact event. The erosion parameters are listed 

in table 4. 

 ti-1 ti ti+1 

 (a) (b) (c) 

Figure 12. Element erosion process that creates spurious peaks in acceleration data: (a) before 

erosion, (b) time-step before erosion, and (c) new contact surface at time-step after 

erosion. 

Table 4. Erosion parameters. 

Property Value 

Foam 9 lb 

σvm 2000 psi 

ε1 — 

τ — 

Foam 9 lb extruded 

σvm — 

ε1 — 

τ — 

Foam 20 lb 

σvm 45 ksi 

ε1 0.5 in/in 

τ 1.95 in/in 

Also, interior contact was implemented to further improve the element behavior under large 

deformation. Interior contact is a new type of contact model in LS-Dyna version 970 specifically 

developed for enclosed foams (2). Interior contact attempts to prevent highly localized element 

distortion by creating additional contact surfaces within each element. For soft material slave 

elements, such as the foam, traditional contact loading will significantly deform the slave 
11 

element closest to the master contact element and leave interior slave contact elements virtually 

undeformed. However, using interior contact surfaces effectively distributes the contact load to 

the adjacent slave contact elements. This contact is seen to help prevent element distortion and 

is used in the analyses. See reference (2) for more information. 

4.3 Results 

Drop tests were conducted at ARDEC and the results are presented in Bahia et al. (8). The cold 

7-ft CBD drop experimental acceleration-time histories of the slug at the Fuze Safe and Arm 

(FSA) and Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) are shown in figure 13, measured with Endevco 

accelerometers models 7259 and 7270, respectively. The source of high-frequency content in the 

acceleration-time histories is unknown. Simple rigid body momentum calculations reveal that 

the peak acceleration is ~66-131 G, depending on the assumed waveform shape (square, halfsine, or triangular waveforms). The acceleration-time histories are subsequently digitally lowpass filtered using a 4th-order Butterworth filter with a cutoff frequency of 1.5 kHz. The filtered 

acceleration-time histories are shown in figure 14. The FSA and IMU have peak accelerations of 

~110 G and 140 G, respectively, and are in the range of the expected peak values based on 

simple momentum calculations. 

Figure 13. Unfiltered axial-direction projectile acceleration 

measurements for cold 7-ft CBD drop. 

For the quarter-symmetry model results, the rigid slug maximum displacement is 1.350 in. The 

projectile crossed zero velocity at ~8.2 ms. The maximum deceleration of the projectile is about 

138 G. The simulated rigid body acceleration-time history for the slug is shown with the 

experimental plots in figure 14. The modified foam stress-strain curves (6-lb foam stress-strain 

curve is not modified), relative to the experimentally determined stress-strain curves, that are 

used to get the acceleration-time history are shown in figures 15–17. The primary reason the 

stress-strain curves are significantly different from their original curves is due to the foam’s 
12 

Figure 14. The 1.5-kHz low-passed axial-direction projectile acceleration 

measurements and simulated response for 7-ft CBD drop. 

9lb Foam Vertical Direction

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

Strain (%)

Stress (psi)

Experimental

FE

Figure 15. Experimentally measured stress-strain curves comparison 

with modified stress-strain curves to get presented results 

for 9-lb vertical direction foam. 

strain-rate dependence and the lack of stress-strain curves at the strain rate of the drop event—

LS-Dyna predicts a strain-rate, given the modified stress-strain curves, of approximately an order 

of magnitude higher than the tested 20–30 m/m-s for most of the foam system and a strain rate of 

several hundred for the foam near the slug nose. Lack of real stress-strain curves at these high 

strain-rates prevents accurate simulation of the drop event. Lastly, a cross section of the ogive 

foam is after a 7-ft drop test is shown in figure 18(a). The quarter-symmetric cross section of the 
13 

ogive foam of the simulation is shown in figure 18b at maximum displacement. The net ogive 

foam system deformation is seen to be similar to the simulated maximum displacement as shown 

in 18c. 

9lb Foam Extruded Direction

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Strain (%)

Stress (psi)

Experimental

FE

Figure 16. Experimentally measured stress-strain curves comparison with 

modified stress-strain curves to get presented results for 9-lb 

extruded direction foam. 

20 lb Foam

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Strain (%)

Stress (psi)

Experimental

FE

Figure 17. Experimentally measured stress-strain curves comparison with 

modified stress-strain curves to get presented results for 20-lb 

foam. 
14 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

Figure 18. Comparison of (a) experimental ogive foam after 7-ft CBD test to (b) simulated ogive foam at 

maximum displacement. (c) Experimental and simulated results overlaid for qualitative 

comparison. 

5. Conclusions and Recommendations 

The 3-D quarter-symmetric FE model is developed in addition to the full 3-D FE model in LSDyna for the drop simulations. The quarter-symmetric FE model was developed for quicker 

solution times. The quarter-symmetric model can be used only for symmetric loading 

conditions: nose-down and base-down orientations. The symmetric loading condition assumes 

that the container perfectly impacts the rigid surface. The full FE model is required for 

horizontal, diagonal, and edgewise (nonsymmetric) oriented simulations. 

The 7-ft CBD drop simulation compares well to experimental data only after significantly 

altering the foam stress-strain curves to account for the strain-rate effects. To better predict the 

system response, the foam behavior at these high strain-rates is required. It is recommended that 

the full-field behavior of the system be determined during the drop event as the acceleration-time 

histories do not provide a unique solution. This may be achieved by using photogrammetry and 

removing a pie or wedge-shaped volume from the container-foam to allow for visual inspection 

of the slug-foam behavior during the drop event. 
15 

6. References 

1. International Text Operations Procedure (ITOP) 4-2-602. AD No. B220218. Rough 

Handling Tests, 11 October 1996. 

2. Livermore Software Technology Corporation. LS-DYNA Keyword User’s Manual, version 

970; Livermore, CA, April 2003. 

3. Minnicino, M. Status of Container Stress Model, First Configuration. Oral presentation. 

Picatinny, NJ, February 2004. 

4. Dow Chemical Research Center. Ethafoam; Dow Data Sheet; Product Performance Lab: 

Midland, MI, 4 December 2003. 

5. Leadore, M.; Lieb, R. Foam Characterization Data; private empirical data distribution, 

December 2003. 

6. Hassan, J.; Schuser, P.; and Frederick, G. Polyurethane Material Models for Simulating 

Leg-Form Impact in Explicit Transient Dynamics. 6th International LS-DYNA Users 

Conference Simulation 2000, Dearborn, MI, April 2000. 

7. Minnicino, M. Container Stress Model, Second Configuration. Oral presentation. Picatinny, 

NJ, January 2005. 

8. Bahia, A.; Guevara, M.; Vega, J. Container Test; experimental data brief; U.S. Army 

Armament Research, Development, and Engineering Center: Picatinny Arsenal, NJ, 

December 2004. 
NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION 

16 

 1 DEFENSE TECHNICAL 

 (PDF INFORMATION CTR 

 ONLY) DTIC OCA 

 8725 JOHN J KINGMAN RD 

 STE 0944 

 FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-6218 

 1 US ARMY RSRCH DEV & 

 ENGRG CMD 

 SYSTEMS OF SYSTEMS 

 INTEGRATION 

 AMSRD SS T 

 6000 6TH ST STE 100 

 FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-5608 

 1 INST FOR ADVNCD TCHNLGY 

 THE UNIV OF TEXAS 

 AT AUSTIN 

 3925 W BRAKER LN 

 AUSTIN TX 78759-5316 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 IMNE ALC IMS 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 3 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRD ARL CI OK TL 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 3 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRD ARL CS IS T 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

 1 DIR USARL 

 AMSRD ARL CI OK TP (BLDG 4600) 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

17

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRD ARL SE DE 

 R ATKINSON 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 5 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRD ARL WM MB 

 A ABRAHAMIAN 

 M BERMAN 

 M CHOWDHURY 

 T LI 

 E SZYMANSKI 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY MATERIEL CMD 

 AMXMI INT 

 5001 EISENHOWER AVE 

 ALEXANDRIA VA 22333-0001 

 2 PM MAS 

 SFAE AMO MAS MC 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSTA AR CC 

 COL JENKER 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSTA AR FSE 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSTA AR TD 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 13 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSTA AR CCH A 

 F ALTAMURA 

 M NICOLICH 

 M PALATHINGUL 

 D VO 

 R HOWELL 

 A VELLA 

 M YOUNG 

 L MANOLE 

 S MUSALLI 

 R CARR 

 M LUCIANO 

 E LOGSDEN 

 T LOUZEIRO 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSTA AR CCH P 

 J LUTZ 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSTA AR FSF T 

 C LIVECCHIA 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSTA ASF 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSTA AR QAC T C 

 J PAGE 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSTA AR M 

 D DEMELLA 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

18

 3 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSTA AR FSA 

 A WARNASH 

 B MACHAK 

 M CHIEFA 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 2 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSTA AR FSP G 

 M SCHIKSNIS 

 D CARLUCCI 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 2 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSTA AR CCH C 

 H CHANIN 

 S CHICO 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSTA AR QAC T 

 D RIGOGLIOSO 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 US ARMY ARDEC 

 INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST 

 AMSTA AR WEL F 

 M GUERRIERE 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 9 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSTA AR CCH B 

 P DONADIA 

 F DONLON 

 P VALENTI 

 C KNUTSON 

 G EUSTICE 

 K HENRY 

 J MCNABOC 

 R SAYER 

 F CHANG 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 PM ARMS 

 SFAE GCSS ARMS 

 BLDG 171 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSTA AR WEA 

 J BRESCIA 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 PM MAS 

 SFAE AMO MAS 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 PM MAS 

 SFAE AMO MAS 

 CHIEF ENGINEER 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 PM MAS 

 SFAE AMO MAS PS 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 2 PM MAS 

 SFAE AMO MAS LC 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY TACOM 

 PM COMBAT SYSTEMS 

 SFAE GCS CS 

 6501 ELEVEN MILE RD 

 WARREN MI 48397-5000 

 1 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY TACOM 

 AMSTA SF 

 WARREN MI 48397-5000 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 AIR FORCE RESEARCH LAB 

 MLLMD 

 D MIRACLE 

 2230 TENTH ST 

 WRIGHT PATTERSON AFB OH 

 45433-7817 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

19

 1 OFC OF NAVAL RESEARCH 

 J CHRISTODOULOU 

 ONR CODE 332 

 800 N QUINCY ST 

 ARLINGTON VA 22217-5600 

 1 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY TACOM 

 PM SURVIVABLE SYSTEMS 

 SFAE GCSS W GSI H 

 M RYZYI 

 6501 ELEVEN MILE RD 

 WARREN MI 48397-5000 

 1 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY TACOM 

 CHIEF ABRAMS TESTING 

 SFAE GCSS W AB QT 

 T KRASKIEWICZ 

 6501 ELEVEN MILE RD 

 WARREN MI 48397-5000 

 1 COMMANDER 

 WATERVLIET ARSENAL 

 SMCWV QAE Q 

 B VANINA 

 BLDG 44 

 WATERVLIET NY 12189-4050 

 

 2 HQ IOC TANK 

 AMMUNITION TEAM 

 AMSIO SMT 

 R CRAWFORD 

 W HARRIS 

 ROCK ISLAND IL 61299-6000 

 2 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY AMCOM 

 AVIATION APPLIED TECH DIR 

 J SCHUCK 

 FORT EUSTIS VA 23604-5577 

 1 NSWC 

 DAHLGREN DIV CODE G06 

 DAHLGREN VA 22448 

 2 US ARMY CORPS OF ENGR 

 CERD C 

 T LIU 

 CEW ET 

 T TAN 

 20 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW 

 WASHINGTON DC 20314 

 1 US ARMY COLD REGIONS 

 RSCH & ENGRNG LAB 

 P DUTTA 

 72 LYME RD 

 HANOVER NH 03755 

 13 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY TACOM 

 AMSTA TR R 

 R MCCLELLAND 

 D THOMAS 

 J BENNETT 

 D HANSEN 

 AMSTA JSK 

 S GOODMAN 

 J FLORENCE 

 D TEMPLETON 

 A SCHUMACHER 

 AMSTA TR D 

 D OSTBERG 

 L HINOJOSA 

 B RAJU 

 AMSTA CS SF 

 H HUTCHINSON 

 F SCHWARZ 

 WARREN MI 48397-5000 

 14 BENET LABS 

 AMSTA AR CCB 

 R FISCELLA 

 M SOJA 

 E KATHE 

 M SCAVULO 

 G SPENCER 

 P WHEELER 

 S KRUPSKI 

 J VASILAKIS 

 G FRIAR 

 R HASENBEIN 

 AMSTA CCB R 

 S SOPOK 

 E HYLAND 

 D CRAYON 

 R DILLON 

 WATERVLIET NY 12189-4050 

 1 USA SBCCOM PM SOLDIER SPT 

 AMSSB PM RSS A 

 J CONNORS 

 KANSAS ST 

 NATICK MA 01760-5057 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

20

 1 NSWC 

 TECH LIBRARY CODE B60 

 17320 DAHLGREN RD 

 DAHLGREN VA 22448 

 2 USA SBCCOM 

 MATERIAL SCIENCE TEAM 

 AMSSB RSS 

 J HERBERT 

 M SENNETT 

 KANSAS ST 

 NATICK MA 01760-5057 

 2 OFC OF NAVAL RESEARCH 

 D SIEGEL CODE 315 

 J KELLY 

 800 N QUINCY ST 

 ARLINGTON VA 22217-5560 

 1 NSWC 

 CRANE DIVISION 

 M JOHNSON CODE 20H4 

 LOUISVILLE KY 40214-5245 

 2 NSWC 

 U SORATHIA 

 C WILLIAMS CODE 6551 

 9500 MACARTHUR BLVD 

 WEST BETHESDA MD 20817 

 2 COMMANDER 

 NSWC 

 CARDEROCK DIVISION 

 R PETERSON CODE 2020 

 M CRITCHFIELD CODE 1730 

 BETHESDA MD 20084 

 8 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY NGIC 

 D LEITER MS 404 

 M HOLTUS MS 301 

 M WOLFE MS 307 

 S MINGLEDORF MS 504 

 J GASTON MS 301 

 W GSTATTENBAUER MS 304 

 R WARNER MS 305 

 J CRIDER MS 306 

 2055 BOULDERS RD 

 CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 

 22911-8318 

 1 NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS CMD 

 D LIESE 

 1333 ISAAC HULL AVE SE 1100 

 WASHINGTON DC 20376-1100 

 7 US ARMY SBCCOM 

 SOLDIER SYSTEMS CENTER 

 BALLISTICS TEAM 

 J WARD 

 W ZUKAS 

 P CUNNIFF 

 J SONG 

 MARINE CORPS TEAM 

 J MACKIEWICZ 

 AMSSB RCP SS 

 W NYKVIST 

 S BEAUDOIN 

 KANSAS ST 

 NATICK MA 01760-5019 

 7 US ARMY RESEARCH OFC 

 A CROWSON 

 H EVERITT 

 J PRATER 

 G ANDERSON 

 D STEPP 

 D KISEROW 

 J CHANG 

 PO BOX 12211 

 RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK NC 

 27709-2211 

 1 AFRL MLBC 

 2941 P ST RM 136 

 WRIGHT PATTERSON AFB OH 

 45433-7750 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 LOS ALAMOS NATL LAB 

 F L ADDESSIO T 3 MS 5000 

 PO BOX 1633 

 LOS ALAMOS NM 87545 

 8 NSWC 

 J FRANCIS CODE G30 

 D WILSON CODE G32 

 R D COOPER CODE G32 

 J FRAYSSE CODE G33 

 E ROWE CODE G33 

 T DURAN CODE G33 

 L DE SIMONE CODE G33 

 R HUBBARD CODE G33 

 DAHLGREN VA 22448 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

21

 1 NSWC 

 CARDEROCK DIVISION 

 R CRANE CODE 6553 

 9500 MACARTHUR BLVD 

 WEST BETHESDA MD 20817-5700 

 1 AFRL MLMP 

 R THOMSON 

 2977 HOBSON WAY 

 BLDG 653 RM 215 

 WRIGHT PATTERSON AFB OH 

 45433-7739 

 2 AFRL MLMP 

 F ABRAMS 

 J BROWN 

 2977 HOBSON WAY 

 BLDG 653 RM 215 

 WRIGHT PATTERSON AFB OH 

 45433-7739 

 5 DIRECTOR 

 LLNL 

 R CHRISTENSEN 

 S DETERESA 

 F MAGNESS 

 M FINGER MS 313 

 M MURPHY L 282 

 PO BOX 808 

 LIVERMORE CA 94550 

 1 AFRL MLS OL 

 L COULTER 

 5851 F AVE 

 BLDG 849 RM AD1A 

 HILL AFB UT 84056-5713 

 1 OSD 

 JOINT CCD TEST FORCE 

 OSD JCCD 

 R WILLIAMS 

 3909 HALLS FERRY RD 

 VICKSBURG MS 29180-6199 

 3 DARPA 

 M VANFOSSEN 

 S WAX 

 L CHRISTODOULOU 

 3701 N FAIRFAX DR 

 ARLINGTON VA 22203-1714 

 1 OAK RIDGE NATL LAB 

 R M DAVIS 

 PO BOX 2008 

 OAK RIDGE TN 37831-6195 

 1 OAK RIDGE NATL LAB 

 C EBERLE MS 8048 

 PO BOX 2008 

 OAK RIDGE TN 37831 

 3 DIRECTOR 

 SANDIA NATL LABS 

 APPLIED MECHS DEPT 

 MS 9042 

 J HANDROCK 

 Y R KAN 

 J LAUFFER 

 PO BOX 969 

 LIVERMORE CA 94551-0969 

 1 OAK RIDGE NATL LAB 

 C D WARREN MS 8039 

 PO BOX 2008 

 OAK RIDGE TN 37831 

 4 NIST 

 M VANLANDINGHAM MS 8621 

 J CHIN MS 8621 

 J MARTIN MS 8621 

 D DUTHINH MS 8611 

 100 BUREAU DR 

 GAITHERSBURG MD 20899 

 1 HYDROGEOLOGIC INC 

 SERDP ESTCP SPT OFC 

 S WALSH 

 1155 HERNDON PKWY STE 900 

 HERNDON VA 20170 

 3 NASA LANGLEY RESEARCH CTR 

 AMSRD ARL VT 

 W ELBER MS 266 

 F BARTLETT JR MS 266 

 G FARLEY MS 266 

 HAMPTON VA 23681-0001 

 1 FHWA 

 E MUNLEY 

 6300 GEORGETOWN PIKE 

 MCLEAN VA 22101 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

22

 1 USDOT FEDERAL RAILROAD 

 M FATEH RDV 31 

 WASHINGTON DC 20590 

 3 CYTEC FIBERITE 

 R DUNNE 

 D KOHLI 

 R MAYHEW 

 1300 REVOLUTION ST 

 HAVRE DE GRACE MD 21078 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 NGIC 

 IANG TMT 

 2055 BOULDERS RD 

 CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 

 22911-8318 

 2 3TEX CORP 

 A BOGDANOVICH 

 J SINGLETARY 

 109 MACKENAN DR 

 CARY NC 27511 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 DEFENSE INTLLGNC AGNCY 

 TA 5 

 K CRELLING 

 WASHINGTON DC 20310 

 1 COMPOSITE MATERIALS INC 

 D SHORTT 

 19105 63 AVE NE 

 PO BOX 25 

 ARLINGTON WA 98223 

 1 JPS GLASS 

 L CARTER 

 PO BOX 260 

 SLATER RD 

 SLATER SC 29683 

 1 COMPOSITE MATERIALS INC 

 R HOLLAND 

 11 JEWEL CT 

 ORINDA CA 94563 

 1 SIMULA 

 R HUYETT 

 10016 S 51ST ST 

 PHOENIX AZ 85044 

 2 PROTECTION MATERIALS INC 

 M MILLER 

 F CRILLEY 

 14000 NW 58 CT 

 MIAMI LAKES FL 33014 

 2 FOSTER MILLER 

 M ROYLANCE 

 W ZUKAS 

 195 BEAR HILL RD 

 WALTHAM MA 02354-1196 

 1 ROM DEVELOPMENT CORP 

 R O MEARA 

 136 SWINEBURNE ROW 

 BRICK MARKET PLACE 

 NEWPORT RI 02840 

 2 TEXTRON SYSTEMS 

 M TREASURE 

 T FOLTZ 

 1449 MIDDLESEX ST 

 LOWELL MA 01851 

 1 O GARA HESS & EISENHARDT 

 M GILLESPIE 

 9113 LESAINT DR 

 FAIRFIELD OH 45014 

 1 MILLIKEN RESEARCH CORP 

 M MACLEOD 

 PO BOX 1926 

 SPARTANBURG SC 29303 

 1 CONNEAUGHT INDUSTRIES INC 

 J SANTOS 

 PO BOX 1425 

 COVENTRY RI 02816 

 1 ARMTEC DEFENSE PRODUCTS 

 S DYER 

 85 901 AVE 53 

 PO BOX 848 

 COACHELLA CA 92236 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

23

 3 PACIFIC NORTHWEST LAB 

 M SMITH 

 G VAN ARSDALE 

 R SHIPPELL 

 PO BOX 999 

 RICHLAND WA 99352 

 1 ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS INC 

 4700 NATHAN LN N 

 PLYMOUTH MN 55442-2512 

 1 APPLIED COMPOSITES 

 W GRISCH 

 333 NORTH SIXTH ST 

 ST CHARLES IL 60174 

 1 CUSTOM ANALYTICAL 

 ENG SYS INC 

 A ALEXANDER 

 13000 TENSOR LANE NE 

 FLINTSTONE MD 21530 

 1 AAI CORP 

 DR N B MCNELLIS 

 PO BOX 126 

 HUNT VALLEY MD 21030-0126 

 1 OFC DEPUTY UNDER SEC DEFNS 

 J THOMPSON 

 1745 JEFFERSON DAVIS HWY 

 CRYSTAL SQ 4 STE 501 

 ARLINGTON VA 22202 

 3 ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS INC 

 J CONDON 

 E LYNAM 

 J GERHARD 

 WV01 16 STATE RT 956 

 PO BOX 210 

 ROCKET CENTER WV 

 26726-0210 

 1 PROJECTILE TECHNOLOGY INC 

 515 GILES ST 

 HAVRE DE GRACE MD 21078 

 1 PRATT & WHITNEY 

 C WATSON 

 400 MAIN ST MS 114 37 

 EAST HARTFORD CT 06108 

 5 NORTHROP GRUMMAN 

 B IRWIN 

 K EVANS 

 D EWART 

 A SHREKENHAMER 

 J MCGLYNN 

 BLDG 160 DEPT 3700 

 1100 W HOLLYVALE ST 

 AZUSA CA 91701 

 1 BRIGS COMPANY 

 J BACKOFEN 

 2668 PETERBOROUGH ST 

 HERNDON VA 22071-2443 

 1 ZERNOW TECHNICAL SERVICES 

 L ZERNOW 

 425 W BONITA AVE STE 208 

 SAN DIMAS CA 91773 

 2 GENERAL DYNAMICS OTS 

 FLINCHBAUGH DIV 

 K LINDE 

 T LYNCH 

 PO BOX 127 

 RED LION PA 17356 

 1 GKN WESTLAND AEROSPACE 

 D OLDS 

 450 MURDOCK AVE 

 MERIDEN CT 06450-8324 

 5 SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT 

 G JACARUSO 

 T CARSTENSAN 

 B KAY 

 S GARBO MS S330A 

 J ADELMANN 

 6900 MAIN ST 

 PO BOX 9729 

 STRATFORD CT 06497-9729 

 1 AEROSPACE CORP 

 G HAWKINS M4 945 

 2350 E EL SEGUNDO BLVD 

 EL SEGUNDO CA 90245 

 2 CYTEC FIBERITE 

 M LIN 

 W WEB 

 1440 N KRAEMER BLVD 

 ANAHEIM CA 92806 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

24

 2 UDLP 

 G THOMAS 

 M MACLEAN 

 PO BOX 58123 

 SANTA CLARA CA 95052 

 2 UDLP 

 R BRYNSVOLD 

 P JANKE MS 170 

 4800 E RIVER RD 

 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55421-1498 

 1 LOCKHEED MARTIN 

 SKUNK WORKS 

 D FORTNEY 

 1011 LOCKHEED WAY 

 PALMDALE CA 93599-2502 

 1 NORTHRUP GRUMMAN CORP 

 ELECTRONIC SENSORS 

 & SYSTEMS DIV 

 E SCHOCH MS V 16 

 1745A W NURSERY RD 

 LINTHICUM MD 21090 

 1 GDLS DIVISION 

 D BARTLE 

 PO BOX 1901 

 WARREN MI 48090 

 2 GDLS 

 D REES 

 M PASIK 

 PO BOX 2074 

 WARREN MI 48090-2074 

 1 GDLS 

 MUSKEGON OPER 

 M SOIMAR 

 76 GETTY ST 

 MUSKEGON MI 49442 

 1 GENERAL DYNAMICS 

 AMPHIBIOUS SYS 

 SURVIVABILITY LEAD 

 G WALKER 

 991 ANNAPOLIS WAY 

 WOODBRIDGE VA 22191 

 6 INST FOR ADVANCED 

 TECH 

 H FAIR 

 I MCNAB 

 P SULLIVAN 

 S BLESS 

 W REINECKE 

 C PERSAD 

 3925 W BRAKER LN STE 400 

 AUSTIN TX 78759-5316 

 1 ARROW TECH ASSOC 

 1233 SHELBURNE RD STE D8 

 SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 

 05403-7700 

 1 R EICHELBERGER 

 CONSULTANT 

 409 W CATHERINE ST 

 BEL AIR MD 21014-3613 

 1 SAIC 

 G CHRYSSOMALLIS 

 8500 NORMANDALE LAKE BLVD 

 SUITE 1610 

 BLOOMINGTON MN 55437-3828 

 1 UCLA MANE DEPT ENGR IV 

 H T HAHN 

 LOS ANGELES CA 90024-1597 

 1 UMASS LOWELL 

 PLASTICS DEPT 

 N SCHOTT 

 1 UNIVERSITY AVE 

 LOWELL MA 01854 

 1 IIT RESEARCH CTR 

 D ROSE 

 201 MILL ST 

 ROME NY 13440-6916 

 1 GA TECH RESEARCH INST 

 GA INST OF TCHNLGY 

 P FRIEDERICH 

 ATLANTA GA 30392 

 1 MICHIGAN ST UNIV 

 MSM DEPT 

 R AVERILL 

 3515 EB 

 EAST LANSING MI 48824-1226 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

25

 1 PENN STATE UNIV 

 R S ENGEL 

 245 HAMMOND BLDG 

 UNIVERSITY PARK PA 16801 

 1 PENN STATE UNIV 

 C BAKIS 

 212 EARTH ENGR 

 SCIENCES BLDG 

 UNIVERSITY PARK PA 16802 

 1 PURDUE UNIV 

 SCHOOL OF AERO & ASTRO 

 C T SUN 

 W LAFAYETTE IN 47907-1282 

 1 UNIV OF MAINE 

 ADV STR & COMP LAB 

 R LOPEZ ANIDO 

 5793 AEWC BLDG 

 ORONO ME 04469-5793 

 1 JOHNS HOPKINS UNIV 

 APPLIED PHYSICS LAB 

 P WIENHOLD 

 11100 JOHNS HOPKINS RD 

 LAUREL MD 20723-6099 

 1 UNIV OF DAYTON 

 J M WHITNEY 

 COLLEGE PARK AVE 

 DAYTON OH 45469-0240 

 5 UNIV OF DELAWARE 

 CTR FOR COMPOSITE MTRLS 

 J GILLESPIE 

 M SANTARE 

 S YARLAGADDA 

 S ADVANI 

 D HEIDER 

 201 SPENCER LAB 

 NEWARK DE 19716 

 1 DEPT OF MTRLS 

 SCIENCE & ENGRG 

 UNIV OF ILLINOIS 

 AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN 

 J ECONOMY 

 1304 W GREEN ST 115B 

 URBANA IL 61801 

 1 MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIV 

 DEPT OF AEROSPACE ENGRG 

 A J VIZZINI 

 MISSISSIPPI STATE MS 39762 

 1 DREXEL UNIV 

 A S D WANG 

 3141 CHESTNUT ST 

 PHILADELPHIA PA 19104 

 3 UNIV OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN 

 CTR FOR ELECTROMECHANICS 

 J PRICE 

 A WALLS 

 J KITZMILLER 

 10100 BURNET RD 

 AUSTIN TX 78758-4497 

 1 SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INST 

 ENGR & MATL SCIENCES DIV 

 J RIEGEL 

 6220 CULEBRA RD 

 PO DRAWER 28510 

 SAN ANTONIO TX 78228-0510 

 3 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRD ARL WM MB 

 A FRYDMAN 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

 1 US ARMY ATC 

 CSTE DTC AT AC I 

 W C FRAZER 

 400 COLLERAN RD 

 APG MD 21005-5059 

 88 DIR USARL 

 AMSRD ARL CI 

 AMSRD ARL O AP EG 

 M ADAMSON 

 AMSRD ARL SL BA 

 AMSRD ARL SL BB 

 D BELY 

 AMSRD ARL WM 

 J SMITH 

 AMSRD ARL WM B 

 CHIEF 

 T KOGLER 

 AMSRD ARL WM BA 

 D LYON
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

26

 AMSRD ARL WM BC 

 J NEWILL 

 P PLOSTINS 

 AMSRD ARL WM BD 

 P CONROY 

 B FORCH 

 M LEADORE 

 C LEVERITT 

 R LIEB 

 R PESCE-RODRIGUEZ 

 B RICE 

 A ZIELINSKI 

 AMSRD ARL WM BF 

 S WILKERSON 

 AMSRD ARL WM M 

 J MCCAULEY 

 S MCKNIGHT 

 AMSRD ARL WM MA 

 CHIEF 

 L GHIORSE 

 E WETZEL 

 AMSRD ARL WM MB 

 J BENDER 

 T BOGETTI 

 J BROWN 

 L BURTON 

 R CARTER 

 K CHO 

 W DE ROSSET 

 G DEWING 

 R DOWDING 

 W DRYSDALE 

 R EMERSON 

 D GRAY 

 D HOPKINS 

 R KASTE 

 L KECSKES 

 M MINNICINO 

 B POWERS 

 D SNOHA 

 J SOUTH 

 M STAKER 

 J SWAB 

 J TZENG 

 AMSRD ARL WM MC 

 CHIEF 

 R BOSSOLI 

 E CHIN 

 S CORNELISON 

 D GRANVILLE 

 B HART 

 J LASALVIA 

 J MONTGOMERY 

 F PIERCE 

 E RIGAS 

 W SPURGEON 

 AMSRD ARL WM MD 

 B CHEESEMAN 

 P DEHMER 

 R DOOLEY 

 G GAZONAS 

 S GHIORSE 

 M KLUSEWITZ 

 W ROY 

 J SANDS 

 D SPAGNUOLO 

 S WALSH 

 S WOLF 

 AMSRD ARL WM RP 

 J BORNSTEIN 

 C SHOEMAKER 

 AMSRD ARL WM T 

 B BURNS 

 AMSRD ARL WM TA 

 W BRUCHEY 

 M BURKINS 

 W GILLICH 

 B GOOCH 

 T HAVEL 

 C HOPPEL 

 E HORWATH 

 J RUNYEON 

 M ZOLTOSKI 

 AMSRD ARL WM TB 

 P BAKER 

 AMSRD ARL WM TC 

 R COATES 

 AMSRD ARL WM TD 

 D DANDEKAR 

 M RAFTENBERG 

 S SCHOENFELD 

 T WEERASOORIYA 

 AMSRD ARL WM TE 

 CHIEF 

 J POWELL 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

27

 1 LTD 

 R MARTIN 

 MERL 

 TAMWORTH RD 

 HERTFORD SG13 7DG 

 UK 

 1 CIVIL AVIATION 

 ADMINSTRATION 

 T GOTTESMAN 

 PO BOX 8 

 BEN GURION INTRNL AIRPORT 

 LOD 70150 

 ISRAEL 

 1 AEROSPATIALE 

 S ANDRE 

 A BTE CC RTE MD132 

 316 ROUTE DE BAYONNE 

 TOULOUSE 31060 

 FRANCE 

 1 DRA FORT HALSTEAD 

 P N JONES 

 SEVEN OAKS KENT TN 147BP 

 UK 

 1 SWISS FEDERAL ARMAMENTS 

 WKS 

 W LANZ 

 ALLMENDSTRASSE 86 

 3602 THUN 

 SWITZERLAND 

 1 DYNAMEC RESEARCH LAB 

 AKE PERSSON 

 BOX 201 

 SE 151 23 SODERTALJE 

 SWEDEN 

 1 ISRAEL INST OF TECHLGY 

 S BODNER 

 FACULTY OF MECHANICAL 

 ENGR 

 HAIFA 3200 

 ISRAEL 

 1 DSTO 

 WEAPONS SYSTEMS DIVISION 

 N BURMAN RLLWS 

 SALISBURY 

 SOUTH AUSTRALIA 5108 

 AUSTRALIA 

 1 DEF RES ESTABLISHMENT 

 VALCARTIER 

 A DUPUIS 

 2459 BLVD PIE XI NORTH 

 VALCARTIER QUEBEC 

 CANADA 

 PO BOX 8800 COURCELETTE 

 GOA IRO QUEBEC 

 CANADA 

 1 ECOLE POLYTECH 

 J MANSON 

 DMX LTC 

 CH 1015 LAUSANNE 

 SWITZERLAND 

 1 TNO DEFENSE SECURITY & SAFETY 

 R R IJSSELSTEIN 

 PO BOX 96864 

 2509 JG THE HAGUE 

 THE NETHERLANDS 

 2 FOA NATL DEFENSE RESEARCH 

 ESTAB 

 DIR DEPT OF WEAPONS & 

 PROTECTION 

 B JANZON 

 R HOLMLIN 

 S 172 90 STOCKHOLM 

 SWEDEN 

 2 DEFENSE TECH & PROC 

 AGENCY GROUND 

 I CREWTHER 

 GENERAL HERZOG HAUS 

 3602 THUN 

 SWITZERLAND 

 1 MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 

 RAFAEL 

 ARMAMENT DEVELOPMENT 

 AUTH 

 M MAYSELESS 

 PO BOX 2250 

 HAIFA 31021 

 ISRAEL 

 1 B HIRSCH 

 TACHKEMONY ST 6 

 NETAMUA 42611 

 ISRAEL 
NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION 

28

 1 DEUTSCHE AEROSPACE AG 

 DYNAMICS SYSTEMS 

 M HELD 

 PO BOX 1340 

 D 86523 SCHROBENHAUSEN 

 GERMANY