Vented Fixture Modeling 

by Paul Conroy 

ARL-TR-2952 April 2003 

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 21005-5066 

ARL-TR-2952 April 2003 

Vented Fixture Modeling 

Paul Conroy 

Weapons and Materials Research Directorate, ARL 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
ii

Abstract 

Vented fixtures have been used extensively for erosion/erosivity investigation for many years. 

The fixtures can assist in quickly assessing materials/propellants and interactions as well as 

understanding mechanisms of erosion. In this report, two fixtures are modeled—a 37-mm 

fixture at the U.S. Army Research Laboratory and a 200-mm3 bomb with a 1-mm vent hole, 

located in Canada. Both fixtures erode a nozzle-type insert. The 37-mm fixture is designed to 

maintain a steady erosion quantity over repeated firings, with relatively small throat crosssectional area change, which enables some insight into possible mechanisms. Each interior 

ballistic model required modifications to the interior ballistic code to enable a variable throat exit 

for the orifice. The Canadian fixture has a 1-mm vent hole, which has a tendency to enlarge 

considerably during firing. The dominant erosion mechanism for the Canadian fixture is shown 

to be melt wipe, while for the 37-mm fixture, it is primarily thermochemical. A redesign of the 

Canadian fixture to permit a larger exit orifice with a rupture diaphragm would enable 

thermochemical differences in the propellants to reveal themselves better. 
iii

Acknowledgments 

Thanks goes to Drs. France Beaupré and Louis-Simon Lussier of the Defence Research 

Establishment of Valcartier, Canada, for graciously permitting my use of their experimental 

findings in this report. Thanks also to Mr. Charles Leveritt for the U.S. Army Research 

Laboratory experimental data. 
iv

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
v

Contents 

Acknowledgments iii

List of Figures vii

1. Introduction 1

2. Experimental/Numerical Results 1

3. Discussion 7

4. References 11

Report Documentation Page 13
vi

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
vii

List of Figures 

Figure 1. ARL 37-mm erosion test fixture showing test nozzle and rupture diaphragm................2 

Figure 2. Photograph of ARL 37-mm vented fixture. ....................................................................2 

Figure 3. Numerical and experimental pressure for ARL 37-mm vented combuster firing 

73.2 g of M30 propellant. ..........................................................................................................3 

Figure 4. Numerical and experimental pressure for ARL 37-mm vented combuster firing 

67.3 g of EX99 propellant..........................................................................................................3 

Figure 5. Cartoon describing the erosion model.............................................................................4 

Figure 6. Numerical prediction of ARL 37-mm vented fixture nozzle recession firing 

M30 and EX99 propellant..........................................................................................................4 

Figure 7. Canadian erosion grain vented vessel..............................................................................5 

Figure 8. Schematic of the vented vessel plug containing the erosion grain..................................6 

Figure 9. Experimental and numerical pressure for Canadian erosivity fixture firing 

no. 63 with 30.2 g of EX99 propellant.......................................................................................6 

Figure 10. Experimental and numerical pressure for Canadian erosivity fixture firing 

no. 83 with 40.2 g of M30 propellant. .......................................................................................7 

Figure 11. Numerical prediction of Canadian vented fixture nozzle recession firing M30 

and EX99 propellants, with corresponding ballistic pressures provided in Figures 9 

and 10.........................................................................................................................................8 

Figure 12. Before and after photos of Canadian nozzles firing M30 propellant (after 

Beaupré and Lussier [2002])......................................................................................................8 
viii

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
1

1. Introduction 

The vented fixture has been applied to gun tube erosion since WWII (Ritchie 1942). Vented 

fixtures typically consist of an initially closed vessel, which has a vent port and diaphragm. 

Upon ignition of the propellant in the fixture, the pressure rises until the rupture pressure is 

reached and the diaphragm is ejected. The flow of combustion products past a test sample is 

then used to gage the erosivity of a particular propellant or erosion resistance of a particular 

material or coating through measurements such as diametral change, sample mass loss, etc. 

This current study focuses upon the modeling of various vented fixtures, namely the U.S. Army 

Research Laboratory (ARL) 37-mm fixture, and a Canadian fixture using two radically different 

propellants—M30 (triple base) and M43, and nitramines in each fixture. Finite rate chemistry 

has been incorporated into the ARL Gun Tube Erosion code (ATEC) and reported (Conroy and 

Nusca 2001; Conroy et al. 2000). Previously, there was a melt-wipe model (Weinacht and 

Conroy 1996), followed by a generalized equilibrium model (Conroy et al. 1997, 1998, 1999). 

The melt-wipe description enabled very severely eroding systems to be modeled (Conroy et al. 

1997, 1999); however, it did not account for the effects seen in spite of the lower adiabatic flame 

temperature of the M43 to that of the M30. The erosivity of the M43 is typically higher (Ward et 

al. 1981). This behavior conflicts with previously held beliefs and correlations, which were 

based only upon flame temperature. 

2. Experimental/Numerical Results 

Beginning with the modeling efforts focused on the 37-mm ARL erosion fixture, a general 

diagram is presented in Figure 1, and a similar photograph is presented in Figure 2. Note that 

there is a rupture diaphragm downstream of the experimental test section shown in Figure 1. The 

material used in the experiment is from an M68 tank cannon. 

As was stated, both M30 and M43 propellants were fired in this fixture, and the resulting 

pressure-time curves, along with matching Express Kinetics Traveling Charge Code (XKTC) 

calculations (Gough 1990), are presented for both M30 and M43 propellants in Figures 3 and 4, 

respectively. 

The chamber volume for the 37-mm ARL fixture is 356 cm3

, with 73.2 g of M30 resulting in a 

loading density of 0.205 g/cm3 for the M30 firing and a loading density of 0.189 g/cm3 for the 

M43 firing. These loading densities were determined by Leveritt et al. (2000) to produce enough 

pressure to rupture the diaphragm at “burn-out.” 
2

Figure 1. ARL 37-mm erosion test fixture showing test nozzle and rupture diaphragm. 

Figure 2. Photograph of ARL 37-mm vented fixture. 

The model to predict erosion has been previously described (Conroy and Nusca 2001; Conroy 

et al. 2000). The model includes independent heat and mass transport to the surface, avoiding 

assumptions concerning molecular weights of species being the same. It also has subsurface heat 

and mass transport, along with substrate stress calculations, including surface coating effects and 

their interfacial stresses. This enables cracks to be formed. Thermally variable material 

properties are included. At the interface between the gas and solid phase, a true finite rate 

kinetics calculation is performed using reactions and rates. The user may supply as many 

reactions and rates as desired. Beneath the surface and equilibrium reaction, calculation is 

performed to react the diffused gas phase species with the condensed materials. This results in 

new species with differing properties than that of the original gun material. Figure 5 provides a 

cartoon of the model. 
3

Time (ms)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Breech Pressure (MPa)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

M30

Numerical

M30

Experimental/

Numerical

Figure 3. Numerical and experimental pressure for ARL 37-mm vented combustor firing 73.2 g of M30 

propellant. 

Time (ms)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Breech Pressure (MPa)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

EX99

Numerical

EX99

Experimental/

Numerical

Figure 4. Numerical and experimental pressure for ARL 37-mm vented combustor firing 67.3 g of EX99 

propellant. 
4

Figure 5. Cartoon describing the erosion model. 

Using the interior ballistic output as input to the model for both the EX99 and M30 firings 

resulted in the erosion prediction shown in Figure 6. It is interesting that even though both the 

loading density and adiabatic flame temperature were higher for the M30, the erosion was 

greater for the EX99 propellant. 

Figure 6. Numerical prediction of ARL 37-mm vented fixture nozzle recession firing M30 and EX99 

propellant.

y

Axial Location (in)

9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5

Erosion Depth (μm)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

Nozzle Dimension (in)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Original Nozzle 

Contour Design

M30

EX99

Ave. Exp.

Values
5

Figure 6 also includes a contour of the original nozzle shape. The maximum erosion can be seen 

to occur in the entrance portion of the nozzle. The erosion is minimal where the axial gas 

velocities are low, such as at the entrance edge of the nozzle. The integrated material mass loss 

was very close to that of the experiment. 

The second vented fixture examined numerically was the Canadian fixture, which is a different 

configuration than the ARL fixture (Beaupré et al. 2001). Figure 7 shows a schematic of the 

fixture, and Figure 8 shows a photograph including the erosion grain. The specifications of the 

chamber are 200 cm3, no rupture disk, and an erosion grain, which chokes the flow. The erosion 

grain is 20 mm long H 19 mm in diameter, with a 1-mm hole drilled through, made of an agreed 

upon material from an M68 tank cannon. Firings were performed with both M30 and EX99 

propellants. A representative firing for each was chosen for modeling purposes. (Note: 

experimental data and photos were included with permission from Dr. Louis-Simon Lussier of 

the Defence Research Establishment of Valcartier, Canada).

The EX99 firing, of which the pressure time plot is presented in Figure 9, was performed using 

30.2 g of EX99, with a loading density of 0.15g/cm3, and had a maximum pressure of 199 MPa. 

The numerical representation of the fixture, which matches the experimental pressure well even 

through the blow-down period after peak pressure, is also presented in Figure 9. 

The M30 firing result chosen for modeling purposes is presented in Figure 10, where 40.2 g of 

M30 were fired, creating a loading density of 0.20 g/cm3, which resulted in a maximum pressure 

of 268 MPa. Again, the numerical results are presented and match reasonably well. 

Figure 7. Canadian erosion grain vented vessel. 
6

Figure 8. Schematic of the vented vessel plug containing the erosion grain. 

Time (s)

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40

Chamber Pressure (MPa)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

EX99

Shot #63

EX99 #63

XKTC

Figure 9. Experimental and numerical pressure for Canadian erosivity fixture firing no. 63 with 30.2 g of 

EX99 propellant. 
7

Time (s)

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40

Chamber Pressure (MPa)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

M30

Shot #83

t86.in XKTC of Shot #83

XKTC

Figure 10. Experimental and numerical pressure for Canadian erosivity fixture firing no. 83 with 40.2 g 

of M30 propellant. 

The Canadian fixture did not include a rupture diaphragm and therefore had continuous mass 

flux through the orifice for the entire ballistic cycle. Also, the vent opening was not contoured to 

provide an optimal entrance region for the flow. Figure 11 shows the resulting computed and 

average experimental erosion values plotted along the vent plug. Interestingly, the computed 

erosion shows that a curved entrance will result, as seen experimentally in Figure 12 (Beaupré 

and Lussier 2002). Again, in this fixture, the EX99 shows higher erosivity than that of the M30, 

even though the M30 had a much higher loading density and resulting peak pressure. 

3. Discussion 

The model is versitile enough to handle vented erosion fixtures. The numerical results are in 

good agreement with the experimental results both quantitatively and analytically. The EX99 

propellant erodes more than the M30 propellant, even at lower peak pressures and loading 

densities. Similar results were seen by Ward et al. (1981). 
8

Axial Location (cm)

6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 8.0 8.2

Erosion Depth (mm)

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

2.25

2.50

M30

Chemistry

EX99 

Chemistry

Original Nozzle 

Contour Design

Ave. Exp.

Values

Figure 11. Numerical prediction of Canadian vented fixture nozzle recession firing M30 and EX99 

propellants, with corresponding ballistic pressures provided in Figures 9 and 10. 

Figure 12. Before and after photos of Canadian nozzles firing M30 propellant (after Beaupré and Lussier 

[2002]). 

The mechanism exercised in the ARL fixture was primarily chemistry-driven modified material 

melt wipe in which the material had a considerably lowered melt temperature from that of the 

virgin gun steel. The mechanism in the Canadian fixture involved both chemistry as well as 

melting of the bulk material at the peak of the ballistic cycle. The reason for the higher mass loss 

of EX99 over M30 is due to the composition of EX99, resulting in more carbon monoxide (CO) 
9

production than that of M30. This is evident in both the Canadian and ARL fixtures. The 

CO/carbon dioxide (CO2) ratio for EX99 is 7.78, while that for the M30 is 3.1 (Leveritt et al. 

2000). This additional CO makes more CO available on the surface for dissociation. The 

dissociated CO then provides free carbon for absorption into the steel lattice, which then forms 

iron carbides with a much reduced melt/softening temperature, 1423 K, than that of the virgin 

material with a melt/softening temperature of about 1723 K. 
10

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
11

4. References 

Beaupré, F., L.-S. Lussier, C. Nicole, and M. Hébert. “Evaluating the Erosivity of New Gun 

Propellant Formulations.” Proceedings of TTCP KTA 4-26, Defence Research 

Establishment of Valcartier, 2459 Pie-XI North Blvd., Val-Bélair, Canada, April 2001. 

Beaupré, F., and L.-S. Lussier. “Canadien Venter Fixateur.” Proceedings of TTCP KTA 4-26, 

Defence Research Establishment of Valcartier, 2459 Pie-XI North Blvd., Val-Bélair, 

Canada, March 2002. 

Conroy, P. J., and M. J. Nusca. “Gun Tube Erosion and Surface Kinetics.” Proceedings of the 

10th Gun Tube Dynamics Symposium, Austin, TX, 23–26 April 2001. 

Conroy, P. J., M. J. Nusca, C. Chabalowski, and W. Anderson. “Gun Tube Erosion Macroscopic 

Surface Kinetics (Initial Studies).” CPIA Publication 701, vol. I, pp. 57–67, November 

2000. 

Conroy, P. J., P. Weinacht, and M. J. Nusca. “120-mm Gun Tube Erosion Including Surface 

Chemistry Effects.” ARL-TR-1526, U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving 

Ground, MD, 6 October 1997. 

Conroy, P. J., P. Weinacht, and M. J. Nusca. “Erosion: A Parametric Study—Flame 

Temperature.” ARL-TR-1954, U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, 

MD, June 1999. 

Conroy, P. J., P. Weinacht, M. J. Nusca, and K. Rice. “Analytical Thermal and Erosion 

Investigation of the Extended Range 5" Navy Gun.” Proceedings of the 35th JANNAF 

Combustion Subcommittee Meeting, Tucson, AZ, December 1998. 

Gough, P. S. “The XNOVAKTC Code.” BRL-CR-627, U.S. Army Ballistic Research 

Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, February 1990. 

Leveritt, C. S., P. J. Conroy, and A. J. Johnson. “Characterization of the Erosivity of Advanced 

Solid Gun Propellants.” CPIA Publication 701, vol. II, pp. 111–115, November 2000. 

Ritchie, S. B. “Conference on Gun Tube Erosion.” The Pentagon, Reporting Unit, ext. 2511, 

General Office Administration, Arlington, VA, 4 August 1942. 

Ward, J. R., T. L. Brasseau, R. P. Kaste, I. C. Stabie, and B. Bensinger. “Erosivity of LOVA 

Propellants.” BRL-TR-02368, U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving 

Ground, MD, September 1981. 
12

Weinacht, P., and P. J. Conroy. “A Numerical Method for Predicting Thermal Erosion in Gun 

Tubes.” ARL-TR-1156, U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, 

July 1996. 
13

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)

April 2003 

2. REPORT TYPE 

Final

3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 

October 2000–October 2001 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 

5b. GRANT NUMBER 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Vented Fixture Modeling 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER 

622618.H80 

5e. TASK NUMBER 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

Paul Conroy 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

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

U.S. Army Research Laboratory 

ATTN: AMSRL-WM-BD 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5066 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

 REPORT NUMBER 

ARL-TR-2952 

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 

Vented fixtures have been used extensively for erosion/erosivity investigation for many years. The fixtures can assist in quickly 

assessing materials/propellants and interactions as well as understanding mechanisms of erosion. In this report, two fixtures are 

modeled—a 37-mm fixture at the U.S. Army Research Laboratory and a 200-mm3

 bomb with a 1-mm vent hole, located in 

Canada. Both fixtures erode a nozzle-type insert. The 37-mm fixture is designed to maintain a steady erosion quantity over 

repeated firings, with relatively small throat cross-sectional area change, which enables some insight into possible mechanisms. 

Each interior ballistic model required modifications to the interior ballistic code to enable a variable throat exit for the orifice. 

The Canadian fixture has a 1-mm vent hole, which has a tendency to enlarge considerably during firing. The dominant erosion 

mechanism for the Canadian fixture is shown to be melt wipe, while for the 37-mm fixture, it is primarily thermochemical. A 

redesign of the Canadian fixture to permit a larger exit orifice with a rupture diaphragm would enable thermochemical 

differences in the propellants to reveal themselves better. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

erosion, heat transfer, surface kinetics, wear, vented fixture, vented bombs, M30, EX99 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

Paul Conroy 

a. REPORT 

UNCLASSIFIED 

b. ABSTRACT 

UNCLASSIFIED

c. THIS PAGE 

UNCLASSIFIED

17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT 

UL 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

24 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) 

410-278-6114 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
14

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

1

 2 DEFENSE TECHNICAL 

 INFORMATION CENTER 

 DTIC OCA 

 8725 JOHN J KINGMAN RD 

 STE 0944 

 FT BELVOIR VA 22060-6218 

 1 COMMANDING GENERAL 

 US ARMY MATERIEL CMD 

 AMCRDA TF 

 5001 EISENHOWER AVE 

 ALEXANDRIA VA 22333-0001 

 1 INST FOR ADVNCD TCHNLGY 

 THE UNIV OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN 

 3925 W BRAKER LN STE 400 

 AUSTIN TX 78759-5316 

 1 US MILITARY ACADEMY 

 MATH SCI CTR EXCELLENCE 

 MADN MATH 

 THAYER HALL 

 WEST POINT NY 10996-1786 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRL D 

 DR D SMITH 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRL CS IS R 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 3 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRL CI OK TL 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 3 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRL CS IS T 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

 2 DIR USARL 

 AMSRL CI LP (BLDG 305) 
NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION

2

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

 28 DIR USARL 

 AMSRL WM BD 

 W R ANDERSON 

 R A BEYER 

 A L BRANT 

 S W BUNTE 

 C F CHABALOWSKI 

 L M CHANG 

 T P COFFEE 

 J COLBURN 

 P J CONROY 

 R A FIFER 

 B E FORCH 

 B E HOMAN 

 S L HOWARD 

 P J KASTE 

 A J KOTLAR 

 C LEVERITT 

 K L MCNESBY 

 M MCQUAID 

 M S MILLER 

 A W MIZIOLEK 

 J B MORRIS 

 J A NEWBERRY 

 M J NUSCA 

 R A PESCE-RODRIGUEZ 

 G P REEVES 

 B M RICE 

 R C SAUSA 

 A W WILLIAMS 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

3

 2 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY RSRCH OFC 

 TECH LIB 

 D MANN 

 PO BOX 12211 

 RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK NC 

 27709-2211 

 1 PM US TANK AUTOMOTIVE CMD 

 AMCPM ABMS 

 T DEAN 

 WARREN MI 48092-2498 

 1 PM US TANK AUTOMOTIVE CMD 

 FIGHTING VEHICLES SYSTEMS 

 SFAE ASM BV 

 WARREN MI 48397-5000 

 1 COMMANDER 

 RADFORD ARMY 

 AMMUNITION PLANT 

 SMCAR QA HI LIB 

 RADFORD VA 24141-0298 

 1 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY NGIC 

 AMXST MC 3 

 2055 BOULDERS RD 

 CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22911-8318 

 1 COMMANDANT 

 USAFAC&S 

 ATSF CD 

 COL T STRICKLIN 

 FT SILL OK 73503-5600 

 1 COMMANDANT 

 USAFC&S 

 ATSF CN 

 P GROSS 

 FT SILL OK 73503-5600 

 4 COMMANDER 

 NAVAL RSRCH LAB 

 TECH LIBRARY 

 CODE 4410 

 K KAILASANATE 

 J BORIS 

 E ORAN 

 WASHINGTON DC 20375-5000 

 1 OFFICE OF NAVAL RSRCH 

 CODE 473 

 J GOLDWASSER 

 800 N QUINCY ST 

 ARLINGTON VA 22217-9999 

 1 OFFICE OF NAVAL TECHLGY 

 ONT 213 

 D SIEGEL 

 800 N QUINCY ST 

 ARLINGTON VA 22217-5000 

 6 COMMANDER 

 NSWC 

 TECH LIB 

 T C SMITH 

 S MITCHELL 

 C WALSH 

 J CONSAGA 

 C GOTZMER 

 INDIAN HEAD MD 20640-5000 

 1 COMMANDER 

 NSWC 

 GUNS & MUNITIONS DIV 

 CODE G30 

 DAHLGREN VA 22448-5000 

 1 COMMANDER 

 NSWC 

 GUNS SYSTEMS DIV 

 CODE G32 

 DAHLGREN VA 22448-5000 

 1 COMMANDER 

 NSWC 

 TECH LIB 

 CODE E23 

 DAHLGREN VA 22448-5000 

 1 COMMANDER 

 NSWC 

 R HUBBARD 

 DAHLGREN VA 22448-5000 

 2 COMMANDER 

 NAVAL AIR WARFARE CTR 

 CODE 388 

 C F PRICE 

 T BOGGS 

 CHINA LAKE CA 93555-6001 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

4

 1 COMMANDER 

 NAVAL AIR WARFARE CTR 

 INFORMATION SCIENCE DIV 

 CHINA LAKE CA 93555-6001 

 1 WL MNME 

 ENERGETIC MATERIALS BR 

 2306 PERIMETER RD 

 STE 9 

 EGLIN AFB FL 32542-5910 

 2 HQ DTRA 

 D LEWIS 

 A FAHEY 

 6801 TELEGRAPH RD 

 ALEXANDRIA VA 22310-3398 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 SANDIA NATL LABS 

 M BAER DEPT 1512 

 PO BOX 5800 

 ALBUQUERQUE NM 87185 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 SANDIA NATL LABS 

 COMBUSTION RSRCH FACILITY 

 R CARLING 

 LIVERMORE CA 94551-0469 

 2 DIRECTOR 

 LLNL 

 L 355 

 A BUCHINGHAM 

 M FINGER 

 PO BOX 808 

 LIVERMORE CA 94550-0622 

 1 MILLERSVILLE UNIV 

 PHYSICS DEPT 

 C W PRICE 

 MILLERSVILLE PA 17551 

 4 PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV 

 DEPT OF MECHANICAL ENGRG 

 V YANG 

 K KUO 

 S THYNELL 

 G SETTLES 

 UNIVERSITY PARK PA 16802-7501 

 1 CIA 

 J BACKOFEN 

 RM 4P07 NHB 

 WASHINGTON DC 20505 

 7 ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS INC 

 R E TOMPKINS 

 J BODE 

 C CANDLAND 

 L OSGOOD 

 R BURETTA 

 R BECKER 

 M SWENSON 

 600 SECOND ST NE 

 HOPKINS MN 55343 

 2 ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS INC 

 ALLEGHENY BALLISTICS LAB 

 W B WALKUP 

 T F FARABAUGH 

 PO BOX 210 

 ROCKET CENTER WV 26726 

 6 ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS INC 

 RADFORD ARMY AMMO PLANT 

 L GIZZI 

 D A WORRELL 

 W J WORRELL 

 C CHANDLER 

 S RITCHIE 

 A ZEIGLER 

 RADFORD VA 24141-0299 

 1 ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS INC 

 AEROSPACE 

 R CARTWRIGHT 

 100 HOWARD BLVD 

 KENVILLE NJ 07847 

 1 GENERAL DYNAMICS ARM SYS 

 J TALLEY RM 1305 

 LAKESIDE AVE 

 BURLINGTON VT 05401 

 1 PRIMEX 

 BADGER ARMY AMMO PLANT 

 F E WOLF 

 BARABOO WI 53913 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

5

 1 DIRECTOR 

 BENET WEAPONS LAB 

 AMSTA CCB O 

 TECH LIB BLDG 40 

 1 BUFFINGTON ST 

 WATERVLIET NY 12189 

 4 PRIMEX 

 E J KIRSCHKE 

 A F GONZALEZ 

 J DRUMMOND 

 D W WORTHINGTON 

 PO BOX 222 

 SAINT MARKS FL 32355-0222 

 2 PRIMEX 

 N HYLTON 

 J BUZZETT 

 10101 9TH ST NORTH 

 ST PETERSBURG FL 33716 

 2 ROCKWELL INTRNTL SCIENCE CTR 

 DR S CHAKRAVARTHY 

 DR S PALANISWAMY 

 1049 CAMINO DOS RIOS 

 PO BOX 1085 

 THOUSAND OAKS CA 91360 

 1 G & A KELLER 

 84 WEST WALNUT ST 604 

 ASHEVILLE NC 28801-2816 

 1 PRIMEX 

 DIR LARGE CAL R&D 

 E STEINER 

 PO BOX 127 

 RED LION PA 17356 

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

 1 CDR USAATC 

 STECS LI 

 R HENDRICKSEN 

 10 DIR USARL 

 AMRSL WM 

 B RINGERS 

 AMSRL WM B 

 A HORST 

 AMSRL WM BD 

 M NUSCA 

 AMSRL WM BC 

 P PLOSTINS 

 M BUNDY 

 J GARNER 

 P WEINACHT 

 AMSRL WM MC 

 J MONTGOMERY 

 J BEATTY 

 AMSRL WM MB 

 L BURTON