DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. 

Approved for public release; 

distribution is unlimited.

DEFENSE STANDARDIZATION PROGRAM

CASE STUDY

Body Armor Test Methods Standardization Program

Source: http://assist.dla.mil -- Downloaded: 2021-02-09T17:06Z

Check the source to verify that this is the current version before use.
This case study describes a joint effort by the 

U.S. Army, the National Institute of Justice 

(NIJ), and the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST) to harmonize the test 

method standards and related standards 

applied to ballistic-resistant protective gear, 

such as helmets and vests. Each test method 

and related definitions in use at the start of this 

program had evolved to meet that community’s 

(law enforcement or military) unique needs; as 

a result, standards and practices across the 

communities have been somewhat inconsistent. 

The technical insights and lessons learned from 

this multi-agency partnership can be carried over 

into standards efforts for other personal armor 

systems or other standards harmonization work.

Source: http://assist.dla.mil -- Downloaded: 2021-02-09T17:06Z

Check the source to verify that this is the current version before use.
7

• The armor item being tested (e.g., 

protective vest, helmet) 

• Additional items. 

Figure 1 depicts these items in a photograph 

of a body armor test range. 

Depending on the threat and the product being 

tested, different configurations of protective garments and armor plates are used. 

Background

When an agency procures body armor to protect its personnel in the field, it needs to know 

that the armor will perform as expected and will 

meet requirements. The best way to provide that 

assurance is to have a robust testing program. To 

test personal body armor, it must be subjected to 

the attacks that it would be subjected to in the 

field; in the case of body armor for the Army and 

NIJ, the armor needs to be shot under controlled 

conditions. To conduct such a test, the lab needs 

a test range that includes the following:

• A way to consistently fire the projectile at 

known speed (velocity) 

• Equipment that measures

- the actual speed of the projectile;

- conditions of the test, such as temperature, humidity, and distance the 

projectile traveled; and

- the damage done to the model of a 

human body area—how much was 

the model behind the armor deformed 

or damaged?

• A method to mount the test item to 

receive the projectile, on a model of 

the human body part that is capable 

of recording damage (these are 

predominantly made of a specific 

modeling clay) 

Defense Standardization Program Case Study

Body Armor Test Methods Standardization 

1

Figure 1. A Body Armor Test Range at Aberdeen 

Testing Center (National Academy of Science, 2012)

Source: http://assist.dla.mil -- Downloaded: 2021-02-09T17:06Z

Check the source to verify that this is the current version before use.
1

Problem

The U.S. Army and NIJ, with the support of 

NIST, have developed body armor standards and 

requirements in response to the needs of the 

communities they serve; each has responded to 

changes in threats as well as technology advances according to its own timetable and standards 

development processes. For example, changes 

in threats may require a new standard for performance required of body armor, while a technology change may affect both performance and 

the assessment/testing processes for body armor 

components. So, from the 1970s until recently, 

the Army was using its unique specifications and 

standards, while NIJ was using those contained 

in its standard, “Ballistic Resistance of Personal 

Body Armor Standard 0101”, and NIST was providing support in areas such as initial test methods. The Defense community and the Justice 

community worked independently and used test 

specifications that were very similar—but they 

were not identical. Further, the different military 

services within DoD used different criteria for 

testing body armor. 

Need for Harmonization

In the early 1970s, the law enforcement community needed a standard not only to define the 

physical requirements of body armor, but also to 

specify testing criteria to ensure that equipment 

met those requirements. The first standard for 

law enforcement body armor was published by 

the National Institute of Law Enforcement and 

Criminal Justice (NILECJ), the predecessor to 

NIJ, in March 1972, based on work conducted 

by the National Bureau of Standards (as NIST 

was known at that time). The NILECJ funded 

numerous projects, including some work involving DoD that correlated backface measurements 

(damage to the model) to blunt trauma and survivability data. The original NILECJ standard 

has been updated 5 times, with version 0101.06 

published in 2008. 

In DoD, the Army’s Program Executive 

Office–Soldier (PEO Soldier) is responsible for 

body armor specification, procurement, and 

testing. In the 1970s–1990s, armor was built to 

Army specifications, which were very prescriptive. In the late 1990s, PEO Soldier worked with 

the Army’s Natick Soldier Center to develop a 

performance-based purchase description (PD) 

for the next-generation Interceptor body armor. 

That PD included how PEO Soldier would test 

the products delivered, and it was continually 

improved with advances in technology made 

over the next 9 years. When Interceptor deliveries began in 2004, the Army did not have a lab 

with experience in the type of testing needed; 

PEO Soldier used the Army’s Aberdeen Test 

Center (ATC) facilities and NIJ’s first approved 

test lab, HP White. Inconsistencies existed 

within and between labs, and there was a need 

for faster fielding to troops in Afghanistan and 

Iraq. The General Accountability Office (GAO), 

the DoD Inspector General (DODIG), and the 

National Research Council (NRC) all wrote 

reports regarding needed improvements in DoD 

body armor testing. One recommendation was 

that DoD develop a test operations procedure 

for body armor ballistic inserts and ensure that 

the procedure was implemented DoD-wide. 

Another recommendation was for an indepen2 Source: http://assist.dla.mil -- Downloaded: 2021-02-09T17:06Z

Check the source to verify that this is the current version before use.
7

dent assessment of First Article Testing data and 

an external peer review of the ATC facilities, 

instrumentation, and test protocols. In 2013, 

PEO Soldier started its collaboration with NIST 

and NIJ, and the ATC started participating in the 

collaboration soon after that. 

Improving Standards

Throughout this time NIST was working with 

both the military and law enforcement users of 

body armor—the Department of Justice established a Law Enforcement Standards Laboratory 

(LESL) at the National Bureau of Standards 

(now known as NIST) in the early 1970s. The 

LESL’s purpose was to recommend performance 

standards as voluntary aids for the selection of 

equipment by law enforcement agencies, and to 

develop standard test methods and procedures, 

so available armor products could be evaluated 

by those agencies. Since 2009, NIST laboratories 

have been working with the ATC to evaluate 

metrology techniques (e.g., using laser scanners) 

and analysis software. NIST even developed 

backface deformation artifacts to be used as a 

check standard, to ensure a lab’s measurement 

system is performing properly. 

Because of this history of working together, a 

collaboration between NIJ, the U.S. Army, and 

NIST to harmonize body armor standards was an 

obvious step toward improving those standards.

Approach 

As mentioned above, there were studies by 

GAO, the DODIG, and the NRC; in a 2010 

report, the NRC recommended that the community convene a nationally recognized group to 

establish a single national standard for handling 

and validating the clay used in testing. 

In 2013, the U.S. Army, the National Institute 

of Justice, and the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology began a partnership to harmonize, 

to the greatest extent possible, the standards and 

their implementation for ballistic-resistant vests 

and helmets. The team members are working 

together to develop and revise standard test 

methods and practices. 

ASTM International, a private-sector, American 

National Standards Institute–accredited standards 

developing organization (SDO), through its 

International E54 Committee on Homeland 

Security Applications, is the focal point in 

improving and validating methods, increasing 

consistency between test laboratories, and 

ultimately increasing confidence in ballisticresistant equipment. Participants on the ASTM 

E54 Committee include representatives from 

federal agencies, law enforcement agencies, 

manufacturers, testing laboratories, and research 

organizations as well as body armor wearers. 

The Dimensional Metrology Group in NIST’s 

Physical Measurement Laboratory has completed 

a three-phase task for the Army ATC at Aberdeen 

Proving Ground, MD. All three phases were related to the specification and verification of the body 

armor plates worn by U.S. soldiers in battle. As 

these armor plates are critical to the safety of our 

soldiers, strict adherence to measurement standards can literally mean the difference between 

life and death. NIST delivered calibrated back3 Source: http://assist.dla.mil -- Downloaded: 2021-02-09T17:06Z

Check the source to verify that this is the current version before use.
1

face deformation check standards for ballistics 

testing of the body armor, calibrated surrogate 

body armor check standards for the armor’s 

dimensions and geometry, and also provided 

technical improvements to geometric dimension 

and tolerance drawings (essentially blueprints) 

of the armor’s dimensions. 

Use and Development of 

Consensus Standards 

The 1996 National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act directs that all federal 

agencies use technical standards developed 

by voluntary consensus standards bodies, 

where possible, as opposed to using government-unique standards. Further guidance is 

provided by Office of Management and Budget 

Circular A-119 on implementation of the act and 

establishes federal policy on the development 

and use of voluntary consensus standards. Many 

SDOs in the United States operate under guidelines from the American National Standards 

Institute, the official U.S. representative to the 

International Organization for Standardization. 

Federal agencies working with SDOs to develop and implement voluntary consensus standards can receive such benefits as the following: 

• Saving the costs of developing government-unique standards, while participating in the development of standards that 

serve national needs

• Simplifying the acquisition of goods and 

services procured by the government, 

promoting greater efficiency and economic competition

• Decreasing the cost of goods and services 

procured by the government

• Promoting efficiency and economic competition and encouraging long-term growth for 

U.S. enterprises 

• Furthering the government policy of 

reliance upon the private sector to supply 

goods and services needed by the federal 

government, including standards.

The next section, “Benefits of This Approach,” 

discusses the specific benefits of harmonizing 

body armor standards via the private-sector voluntary consensus development process.

The Army, NIJ, and NIST partnered in 2013 

with the aim of harmonizing both the standards 

and their implementation for ballistic-resistant 

vests. NIST is a critical partner, because it is the 

point of coordination for all body armor standards 

work, on behalf of NIJ and the Army. The partners 

determined that ASTM International’s E54 Committee on Homeland Security Applications was 

the group to work with to develop and maintain 

standards and other guidance for ballistic-resistant 

equipment. As mentioned earlier, the committee 

would focus on test methods and practices for the 

purpose of improving and validating methods, 

increasing consistency between test laboratories, 

and ultimately increasing confidence in 

ballistic-resistant equipment. 

First, the Army NIJ and NIST partners guided 

the analysis of the corpus of documents used 

by NIJ and the Army, to identify those that 

contained test methods and practices. Then they 

determined which of those would be candidates for 

harmonization. For example, some documents were 

4 Source: http://assist.dla.mil -- Downloaded: 2021-02-09T17:06Z

Check the source to verify that this is the current version before use.
7

properly 

unique to 

either NIJ or the Army because of unique threats 

and test item or performance requirements. 

Other documents could be harmonized because 

they dealt with standards and practices shared 

by both—for example, the terminology used, 

configuring a test range, the specification for the 

clay used, and the procedure for building it up 

for use behind the armor plate. 

ASTM International provides the forum 

and infrastructure to enable all interested 

stakeholders to collaborate. In addition 

to the Army, NIJ, and NIST, the larger 

committee includes people representing other 

federal agencies, law enforcement agencies, 

manufacturers, testing laboratories, research 

organizations, and body armor wearers. This 

holistic approach involving all interested 

stakeholders not only produces high-quality 

standards, but also creates a community that 

works well together for the improved protection 

of law enforcement officers and soldiers.

Benefits of This Approach 

Harmonizing body armor standards via the 

consensus development process is yielding many 

benefits for stakeholders: 

1. The community’s development of standard 

terminology enables effective communication, shared understanding, and a 

common approach to talking about issues. 

Before having this standard terminology, 

body armor terms had multiple and different meanings depending on who was using 

the term, leading to possible confusion and 

impaired communications. 

2. Working through an SDO provides 

openness, transparency, and a forum for 

stakeholder discussions, maintaining a 

balance of interests and due process. The 

SDO and its processes are trusted, which 

leads to greater buy-in from the community. 

This is the first time that all stakeholders, 

including manufacturers, have been 

invited to the table to participate in the 

development of standards for NIJ and the 

Army. As a result, federal agencies are now 

able to tap into the collective knowledge of 

all participating stakeholders, end users, 

manufacturers, and test laboratories that 

benefit from having a stronger voice in the 

standard development process. 

3. There is increased consistency of testing 

with decreased testing costs. This is a 

result of reducing the number of unique 

standards. For example, both NIJ and the 

Army need the preparation and verification 

of the clay backing placed behind armor 

during ballistic testing; however, they have 

been using different methods, equipment, 

and requirements for verifying that the 

clay is ready for use. Moving forward, both 

agencies will use the same ASTM method, 

where they can be continually reviewed and 

5 Source: http://assist.dla.mil -- Downloaded: 2021-02-09T17:06Z

Check the source to verify that this is the current version before use.
61

updated according to the state of the art 

for body armor testing and the emerging 

needs of end users. ASTM standards 

follow a 5-year cycle and may be revised 

as often as the stakeholders deem 

necessary. 

4. An unanticipated benefit is that the 

community of stakeholders has carried 

its experience with body armor standards 

harmonization into the development of an 

ASTM test method for ballistic helmets 

that is applicable to both law enforcement 

and soldiers. It is likely that this harmonization will continue to propagate into 

standards development in other fields. 

5. PEO Soldier has seen big gains overall. 

There has been a reduction in complaints 

from contractors, a quicker response to 

soldiers’ needs, and improved consistency 

in the product. Products have improved 

and armor is fielded faster. The faster 

delivery of consistent armor products 

means that more soldiers’ lives are saved. 

Current Status and Future Plans

The first two in a family of about 15 standards 

have been published:

• ASTM E3004-15, “Standard Specification 

for Preparation and Verification of Clay 

Blocks Used in Ballistic-Resistance Testing of Torso Body Armor” (ASTM International, 2015)

• ASTM E3005-15, “Standard Terminology 

for Body Armor” (ASTM International, 

2015).

Another dozen items identified for harmonization are currently under development as ASTM 

work items, and several will be maintained independently (not harmonized) by the Army or by 

NIJ, as shown in Figure 2.

Each of these items is in a different stage of 

development, but the overall goal is to publish 

all harmonized ASTM body armor standards by 

the end of 2017. Not all documents will be harmonized; those on the left in Figure 2 are better 

maintained as organization-unique standards. 

As each of the harmonized standards is published, NIST will assist the Army and NIJ with 

integration of the ASTM standards into the documents they will be independently maintaining. 

Once the standards have been integrated, the 

NIST National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation 

Program will begin to accredit test laboratories 

to the standards. The harmonization process is 

already benefiting the body armor community, and 

the benefits will continue to be realized for years 

to come. 

Lessons Learned

Many lessons have been learned; the first was 

that there were multiple parallel efforts to develop 

standards that covered very similar topics. This 

revealed the need to work together to develop joint 

standards. Next, the organizations learned how 

the SDOs’ standard development process could 

accommodate different organizations, agencies, 

and technical areas. 

SDOs establish groups of subject matter experts 

(SMEs) on a particular topic or practice. Participation in a group is open to members who 

have both an interest and expertise in that topic/

Source: http://assist.dla.mil -- Downloaded: 2021-02-09T17:06Z

Check the source to verify that this is the current version before use.
7

practice and who have time to volunteer for the 

standard effort. A standard’s development typically begins with group discussions to determine 

what is in or out of bounds of the standard being 

developed. 

As part of that boundary discussion, a group 

must consider how “atomic” the topic is—can 

it be broken into constituent parts? Then, can 

standards be written at the level of each part—for 

example, can test methods be separated from performance requirements and be treated separately 

from threats? If so, there are advantages to these 

separate standards: 

• An organization can more easily adopt those 

parts that apply to its overall process. 

7

Figure 2. Items That Will Remain Unique and Items That Will Be Harmonized

Maintained NIJ and U.S. 

Army Unique Documents

Test Threats

Test Item Requirements 

Performance Requirements

Standards, Test Methods 

and Procedures, and 

Practices Appropriate for 

Harmonization

Standard Terminology for Body Armor

Clay Block Backing Material Specification

Test Range Configuration

Hard Armor Conditioning Procedures

Backface Deformation Measurement

Procedure for Clay Build-Up behind

Nonplanar Soft Armor for Females

Procedure for Clay Build-Up behind Hard 

Armor Plates

VSO Ballistic Limit Test

Perforation-Backface Deformation Test

Projectile Velocity Measurement

Labeling Specification

Workmanship Requirements

Carrier Specification

Source: http://assist.dla.mil -- Downloaded: 2021-02-09T17:06Z

Check the source to verify that this is the current version before use.
18

• An individual standard can be updated 

in response to changes in its environment 

(technological change, etc.). 

• Updating a given standard is easier when 

it treats one standalone topic—the standard is smaller and more focused.

The groups will then draft the standards based 

on current practices—discussing what is considered “best practice” in their respective organizations. Over time, this results in a distillation 

of the best practices, documented in a way that 

they can be tailored to each unique organization; 

this is the draft standard. It will continue to be 

developed and revised until the group decides it 

has a final draft. 

This process is, by its nature, deliberate and 

therefore not quick; it may take months to more 

than a year to develop a standard that is ready 

for release. Depending on the SDO, the standard 

may be approved by votes from members of other SME groups who are knowledgeable about the 

topic (this is part of the consensus process) or 

released after an effort to gather and incorporate 

comments from others. No matter the mechanism 

for consensus, there is a way to have review and 

comment from SMEs outside the standard developer group before release. 

The organizations have also learned that the 

bigger challenges in this work are not technical 

but are relational. This is not meant to imply 

that there are no technical issues, because there 

are complex issues that require research and 

testing to address. But it is more challenging 

bringing together people whose organizations are 

competitors in the marketplace—while having 

them set that aside and contribute their intellectual capital for the good of the community. 

Coming to consensus requires that individuals 

learn to listen to and value different perspectives, overcoming the temptation to argue against 

or vote down contrary perspectives. This is often 

challenging for experts who have vast knowledge 

and experience. Over many months of meetings 

and discussions, the individuals involved began 

to grasp this concept and have evolved into a 

team in which the members value each other’s 

perspectives. 

A final lesson learned is that, by listening with 

an open mind to how other organizations manage 

similar challenges, an organization can improve 

its own internal processes. Often participants 

in the standard development group bring back 

fresh perspectives not only on the group topic, 

but on how related practices can be improved. 

This is a benefit, but also an example of how 

competitor company representatives carefully 

discuss their practices without giving away any 

proprietary information, while still contributing 

to a rich dialogue and discussion. Over time, 

a standards group will evolve into a gathering 

point for some of the best, tested, most knowledgeable information on the topic.

Source: http://assist.dla.mil -- Downloaded: 2021-02-09T17:06Z

Check the source to verify that this is the current version before use.
7 Source: http://assist.dla.mil -- Downloaded: 2021-02-09T17:06Z

Check the source to verify that this is the current version before use.
DEFENSE STANDARDIZATION PROGRAM OFFICE

8725 John J. Kingman Road, STOP 5100

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6220

703-767-6888

dsp.dla.mil Source: http://assist.dla.mil -- Downloaded: 2021-02-09T17:06Z

Check the source to verify that this is the current version before use.