Investigation of a Bulk Metallic Glass as a 

Shaped Charge Liner Material 

by William P. Walters, Laszlo J. Kecskes, and Justin E. Pritchett 

ARL-TR-3864 August 2006 

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. 

DESTRUCTION NOTICE⎯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-3864 August 2006 

Investigation of a Bulk Metallic Glass as a 

Shaped Charge Liner Material 

William P. Walters, Laszlo J. Kecskes, and Justin E. Pritchett 

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)

 August 2006

2. REPORT TYPE 

Final 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 

 May 2004 to December 2004 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 

5b. GRANT NUMBER 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

 Investigation of a Bulk Metallic Glass as a Shaped Charge Liner Material 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER 

 622105.AH84 

5e. TASK NUMBER 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

 William P. Walters, Laszlo J. Kecskes, and Justin E. Pritchett (all of ARL) 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

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

U.S. Army Research Laboratory 

Weapons and Materials Research Directorate 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5069

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

 REPORT NUMBER 

ARL-TR-3864

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 

A study was conducted to explore a zirconium-based bulk metallic glass, Vitreloy 106, as a jetting material. In the past, bulk

metallic glass alloys (e.g., Vitreloy 106) have been used for other applications such as the binder for kinetic energy penetrators. 

These alloys are a homogeneous mixture of several metals. Based on the experiments described herein, it was concluded that 

this zirconium-based bulk metallic glass behaves more like a shaped charge liner, which is fabricated from pressed powder 

metals, than a pure glass liner. In the extreme conditions during the formation and flight of the jet to the target, the bulk 

metallic glass liner disperses and its effectiveness is greatly diminished. It is conceivable that improvements in liner geometry, 

composition, and fabrication may result in an improved jet. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

 bulk metallic glass; shaped charge 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

 William P. Walters 

a. REPORT 

Unclassified

b. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE 

Unclassified 

17. LIMITATION

OF ABSTRACT 

SAR

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

45 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) 

 410-278-6062

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

 Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
iii

Contents 

List of Figures iv

List of Tables vi

Acknowledgments vii

1. Introduction 1

2. Experimental Program 1

2.1 Shaped Charge Liner Geometry......................................................................................1 

2.2 Firing Program ................................................................................................................4 

2.3 Sample Analysis..............................................................................................................5 

3. Results and Discussion 6

3.1 Jet Radiography and Overall Target Plate Appearance...................................................6 

3.1.1 Shot 3618.............................................................................................................6 

3.1.2 Shot 3619.............................................................................................................8 

3.1.3 Shot 3620...........................................................................................................12 

3.2 Analysis of the Target Plate Surfaces............................................................................18 

3.3 Erosion Mechanism of the Metallic Glass Liner Material ............................................25 

4. Conclusions 26

5. References 27

Appendix A. Close View of Each of the Witness Plates 29

Distribution List 33 
iv

List of Figures 

Figure 1. X-ray radiograph of a typical Vitreloy 106 shaped charge liner.................................... 2 

Figure 2. Schematic of the test setup for shot 3618. (Shot 3618 was performed September 21, 

2005 at EF-9. Charge 23 had a charge mass of 2780 g. Stand-off distance was 2845 mm. 

Charge location was 12.7 mm [0.5 inch] behind the edge of the barbette.) .......................... 4 

Figure 3. Schematic of the test setup for shot 3619. (Shot 3619 was also performed September 

21, 2005 at EF-9. Charge 25 had a charge mass of 2675 g. Stand-off distance was 1401 

mm [55 inches]. Charge location was 63.5 mm [2.5 inches] behind the edge of the 

barbette.) ................................................................................................................................. 5 

Figure 4. Multi-exposure flash x-ray radiograph of shot 3618...................................................... 6 

Figure 5. Key section of the jet from shot 3618. (Note the extensive particulation, dispersion, 

and diffusion of the jet.).......................................................................................................... 6 

Figure 6. First witness plate for shot 3618 with its front shown in 6(a) and rear shown in 6(b)... 7 

Figure 7. Closer view of the lower left corner of the first witness plate for shot 3618. ............... 8 

Figure 8. Multi-exposure flash x-ray radiograph of shot 3619...................................................... 9 

Figure 9. Hole geometry for shot 3619.......................................................................................... 9 

Figure 10. Entrance and exit hole macro photographs for shot 3619. (Figure 10(a) and (b) show 

the front and rear of the first witness plate, respectively. Figure 10(c) and (d) show the front 

and rear of the second witness plate, respectively. Note again the bluish discoloration from 

the liner residue adhering to the surface.)............................................................................. 10 

Figure 11. Closer view of the entrance holes into the two witness plates from shot 3619. 

(Figure 11(a) and (b) provide an overview of the hole in the first plate and the partially 

penetrated second plate. Figure 11(c), (d), (e), and (f) magnify the damage to the first 

plate. Figure 11(g) and (h) show the partial penetration to the second plate.)..................... 11 

Figure 12. Entrance 12(a) and exit 12(b) holes of the first witness plate. ................................... 13 

Figure 13. Entrance 13(a) and exit 13(b) holes of the second witness plate. .............................. 13 

Figure 14. Entrance 14(a) and exit 14(b) holes of the third witness plate................................... 14 

Figure 15. Entrance 15(a) and exit 15(b) holes of the fourth witness plate................................. 14 

Figure 16. Entrance 16(a) and exit 16(b) holes of the fifth witness plate.................................... 15 

Figure 17. Entrance 17(a) and exit 17(b) holes of the sixth witness plate................................... 15 

Figure 18. Entrance 18(a) and exit 18(b) holes of the seventh witness plate. ............................. 16 

Figure 19. Entrance 19(a) and exit 19(b) holes of the eighth witness plate................................. 16 

Figure 20. Entrance 20(a) and exit 20(b) holes of the ninth witness plate. ................................. 17 

Figure 21. Entrance 21(a) and exit 21(b) holes of the tenth witness plate................................... 17 

Figure 22. Side A of the cross-sectional view of the target block showing the penetration profile 

produced by the Vitreloy 106 shaped charge....................................................................... 18 
v

Figure 23. Side B of the cross-sectional view of the target block showing the penetration profile 

produced by the Vitreloy 106 shaped charge....................................................................... 18 

Figure 24. Secondary electron micro graph of a subsurface region of the A-2 witness plate is 

displayed. .............................................................................................................................. 20 

Figure 25. Secondary electron micro graph of a subsurface region of the A-2 witness plate 

displayed in figure 24, with the corresponding energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopic 

analyses for the top intermix layer....................................................................................... 21 

Figure 26. Secondary electron micro graph of a subsurface region of the A-2 witness plate 

displayed in figure 24, with the corresponding energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopic 

analyses for penetrating Vitreloy 106 alloy. ......................................................................... 21 

Figure 27. Secondary electron micro graph of a subsurface region of the A-2 witness plate 

displayed in figure 24, with the corresponding energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopic 

analyses for the steel substrate.............................................................................................. 22 

Figure 28. Backscattered electron micro graph of a surface region on the A-3 witness plate from 

appendix A is displayed. ....................................................................................................... 23 

Figure 29. Backscattered electron micro graph of a surface region on the A-3 witness plate from 

appendix A is displayed with a higher magnification image of the fine structure. .............. 23 

Figure 30. Backscattered electron micro graph of a surface region on the A-8 witness plate is 

displayed. .............................................................................................................................. 24 

Figure 31. Backscattered electron micro graph of a surface region on the A-8 witness plate 

displayed in figure 30 with a higher magnification image of the fine structure from Region 

A............................................................................................................................................ 24 

Figure 32. Backscattered electron micro graph of a surface region on the A-8 witness plate 

displayed in figure 30 with a higher magnification image of the fine structure from region 

B............................................................................................................................................ 25 

Figure 33. Backscattered electron micro graph of a surface region on the A-8 witness plate, from 

appendix A, showing penetration of the steel....................................................................... 26 

Figure A-1. Matching halves of the cross-sectional view of the first witness plate. ................... 29 

Figure A-2. Matching halves of the cross-sectional view of the second witness plate. .............. 29 

Figure A-3. Matching halves of the cross-sectional view of the third witness plate................... 30 

Figure A-4. Matching halves of the cross-sectional view of the fourth witness plate................. 30 

Figure A-5. Matching halves of the cross-sectional view of the fifth witness plate.................... 30 

Figure A-6. Matching halves of the cross-sectional view of the sixth witness plate................... 31 

Figure A-7. Matching halves of the cross-sectional view of the seventh witness plate. ............. 31 

Figure A-8. Matching halves of the cross-sectional view of the eighth witness plate................. 31 

Figure A-9. Matching halves of the cross-sectional view of the ninth witness plate. ................. 32 
vi

List of Tables 

Table 1. Gauging data for liner 25................................................................................................. 3 

Table 2. Gauging data for liner 18................................................................................................. 3 

Table 3. Gauging data for liner 23................................................................................................. 3 

Table 4. Hole profile data for shot 3620...................................................................................... 12 

Table 5. Elemental analysis of line 18......................................................................................... 19 
vii

Acknowledgments 

The authors would like to thank Mr. Kenneth Willison of the U.S. Army Armaments Research, 

Development, and Engineering Center, Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey, for providing us with the 

metallic glass liners. We would also like to extend our thanks to Mr. Steven Aubert of the 

U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL) for performing the compatibility test between Vitreloy 

106 and for loading the OCTOL1 explosive charges as well. Additional kudos are due to Messrs. 

David Weeks, Jack Koontz, and the technical staff of experimental range facility 9. The authors 

further thank Mr. George Dewing of ARL for the sectioning and cleaning of the target plates, 

and Mr. Daniel Lozier of ARL for metallographicly preparing the the target sections. Special 

thanks to Amy Siegfried of ARL for assistance with figures 2 and 3; Ben Huntzinger of ARL for 

assistance with figure 9; and Richard Summers of ARL for an excellent technical review. 

 1OCTOL is a mixture of octogen and trinitrotoluene.
viii

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 
1

1. Introduction 

Vitreloy 106 is a zirconium-based bulk metallic glass (BMG) with an intended composition of 

Zr57Nb5Cu15.4Ni12.6Al10, given in atomic percents, or Zr67.95Nb6.07Cu12.79Ni9.66Al3.53 in weight 

percents. It has a density of 6.7 g/cm3. With ultrasound measurements, it was determined that 

this BMG has a longitudinal wave velocity of 5350 m/s, a shear wave velocity of 2420 m/s, and 

thus a bulk sound velocity of 4562 m/s (1). For comparison, copper has a density of 8.9 g/cm3

and a bulk sound velocity of 3980 m/s. At present, Vitreloy 106 and its higher density derivatives are candidate materials for use as the binder matrix for tungsten-reinforced composite 

kinetic energy penetrators. However, the material was never investigated regarding its potential 

use as a shaped charge liner material. 

The use of a material as a shaped charge liner means that it will be subjected to extremely high 

strains, strain rates, pressures, and temperatures (2). In general, the behavior of any material 

during these conditions is not known. Historically, the best shaped charge liner materials are pure 

metals (2). On one hand, alloys of metals, with a few exceptions, do not form ductile coherent 

jets, and the jet is diffuse or spreads over time. On the other hand, jets that are fluid in nature do 

not particulate or break into particles as most metallic jets do. Simple oxide glass liners also 

perform well, but their penetration is low because of the low density of the jet. Shaped charge 

liners fabricated from pressed powders (usually a tungsten, copper, graphite mixture), as those 

used in the oil well industry, are coherent but tend to dissipate over time (3). For the oil well 

industry, this is not a major problem since the jet engages the target at short stand-off distance. 

Vitreloy 106 was assumed to behave somewhat like a powder liner because of its composition. 

The current study was an attempt to determine the exact nature of the jetting behavior from a 

shaped charge liner of Vitreloy 106. 

2. Experimental Program 

2.1 Shaped Charge Liner Geometry 

Several conical shaped charge liners were fabricated by injection molding at Howmet Corporation 

(4) for the U.S. Armament Research, Development, and Engineering Center several years ago but 

were never tested. Two sets of liners were obtained from Howmet; one set was made from 

Vitreloy 1, and the other set was made from Vitreloy 106. Because Vitreloy 1 contains about 3 

weight percent (wt %) beryllium, we decided not to test it as a shaped charge liner. Therefore, the 

study was conducted to determine the suitability of Vitreloy 106 as a possible jetting material only. 
2

The conical liners were typically 86.9 mm (3.42 inches) in outer diameter with a nominal 42-degree 

apex angle. The liners had an altitude of 106.1 mm (4.178 inches). The conical liners had a 

cylindrical knob or plug at the apex which was 8.3 mm (0.325 inch) high and 12.8 mm (0.504 inch) 

in diameter. The liners proved to be “non-precision” in that the outer base diameter varied as much 

as 0.25 mm (0.01 inch) and the apex angle varied by as much as 0.5 degree among the three liners. 

Three Vitreloy 106 liners were available, and some were reported to have pores or voids near the 

apex but no macro flaws. This claim was not verified for each of the three liners. However, 

previously, a fourth Vitreloy 106 and another Vitreloy 1 liner were examined by X-ray radiography 

to detect pores, voids, or other flaws. As shown in figure 1, the primary flaw for the Vitreloy 106 

liner (indicated by the red arrow and barely visible as a dark blemish) is concentrated at the plug at 

the apex of the cone. There are no apparent voids in the walls. 

Figure 1. X-ray radiograph of a typical Vitreloy 106 shaped charge liner. 

The wall thicknesses of the other liners were gauged and were again typical of a non-precision 

part. The wall thickness was measured every 90 degrees around the circumference of each liner 

and inward from the base. The wall thickness varied in the longitudinal and transverse planes. 

The typical uniform wall thickness was 3.25 mm (0.128 inch) or a 3.75% wall based on liner 

diameter. Tables 1 through 3 present the gauging data for each of the liners tested. 

86.9 mm (3.4 inches)

void
3

Table 1. Gauging data for liner 25. 

Depth From Base 

Into Liner (mm) 

0 degreesWall 

Thickness

(mm) 

90 degreesWall 

Thickness

(mm) 

180 degreesWall 

Thickness

(mm) 

270 degreesWall 

Thickness

(mm) 

At Base 3.327 3.251 3.327 3.327 

19.050 3.327 3.251 3.327 3.378 

22.225 3.327 3.251 3.353 3.378 

25.400 3.302 3.251 3.353 3.378 

34.925 3.251 3.175 3.353 3.378 

41.275 3.251 3.150 3.353 3.378 

44.450 3.175 3.150 3.353 3.302 

50.800 3.175 3.099 3.353 3.302 

63.500 3.175 3.124 3.378 3.302 

73.025 3.175 3.124 3.480 3.327 

76.200 3.175 3.150 3.480 3.378 

Table 2. Gauging data for liner 18. 

Depth From Base 

Into Liner (mm) 

0 degreesWall 

Thickness

(mm) 

90 degreesWall 

Thickness

(mm) 

180 degreesWall 

Thickness

(mm) 

270 degreesWall 

Thickness

(mm) 

At Base 3.251 3.200 3.124 3.302 

25.400 3.302 3.200 3.124 3.302 

31.750 3.302 3.175 3.124 3.302 

38.100 3.302 3.124 3.124 3.226 

41.275 3.251 3.124 3.124 3.226 

50.800 3.200 3.124 3.048 3.226 

53.975 3.200 3.048 3.048 3.226 

63.500 3.251 3.048 3.099 3.302 

76.200 3.302 3.048 3.124 3.353 

Outer diameter = 86.868 mm (3.420 inches); (1 inch = 25.4 mm).

Table 3. Gauging data for liner 23. 

Depth From Base 

Into Liner (mm) 

0 degreesWall 

Thickness

(mm) 

90 degreesWall 

Thickness

(mm) 

180 degreesWall 

Thickness

(mm) 

270 degreesWall 

Thickness

(mm) 

At Base 3.200 3.226 3.302 3.226 

19.050 3.200 3.226 3.353 3.226 

22.225 3.200 3.302 3.353 3.226 

31.750 3.200 3.302 3.353 3.175 

38.100 3.200 3.302 3.302 3.175 

44.450 3.200 3.302 3.302 3.124 

50.800 3.073 3.302 3.302 3.048 

56.515 3.073 3.302 3.251 3.048 

63.500 3.124 3.302 3.251 3.048 

76.200 3.124 3.404 3.251 3.048 

Outer diameter = 87.122 mm (3.430 inches); (1 inch = 25.4 mm). 
4

2.2 Firing Program 

The liners were loaded with 65/35 finely grained OCTOL2 and were vacuum cast. The charge 

diameter was 101.6 mm (4.0 inches) and the cylindrical billet of OCTOL was 190.5 mm (7.5 inches) 

high. The total warhead weight varied from 2675 to 2780 g. The warhead did not have a case. 

The first two shots were designed to determine the free-flight jet characteristics, and the final shot 

was for penetration. The tests were conducted at the experimental range facility (ERF)-9 at the U.S. 

Army Research Laboratory (ARL). ERF-9 used two 150-kilo-electron-volt (keV) X-rays for the 

early flash times with orthogonal flashes and three 450-keV X-rays for the later times. 

Shot 3618 had flash times, measured from the detonator, of 58.14 μs for the orthogonal flashes, and 

74.18, 174.16, and 274.44 μs for the later flash times. 

Liner 23 was the first round tested. The warhead weight was 2780 g. Figure 2 shows the location 

of the charge in a protective barbette (the charge was located 12.7 mm (0.5 inch) behind the edge 

of the barbette) and the relative distances to the X-ray tube heads. The barbette, which surrounds 

the charge, is on the right, and the witness pack (residual armor) is on the far left. The result was a 

splatter on the first witness plate. 

0.555 0.750 0.750 0.550 0.24

X-ray head locations denoted by 

Dimension given in meters (m).

Figure 2. Schematic of the test setup for shot 3618. (Shot 3618 was performed September 21, 2005 at EF-9. 

Charge 23 had a charge mass of 2780 g. Stand-off distance was 2845 mm. Charge location was 

12.7 mm [0.5 inch] behind the edge of the barbette.) 

Shot 3619 was the second free-flight radiography test designed to examine the jet more closely 

now that the tip velocity was accurately known. This test used liner 25 and the warhead weight 

was 2675 grams. The variation in warhead weight from liner 23 was attributable to the lack of 

precision in the liner. Figure 3 shows the location of the charge in a protective barbette (the charge 

 2OCTOL is a mixture of octogen (cyclotetramethylene-tetranitramine) and trinitrotoluene.

X-ray Tube Heads Barbette

Target 
5

was located 63.5 mm (2.5 inches) behind the edge of the barbette) and the distances to the x-ray 

heads. The flash times were 67.1, 124.2, 149.3, and 174.5 μs. The barbette, which surrounds the 

charge, is on the right, and the witness pack (residual armor) is on the far left. The result was 

perforation of the first witness plate. 

0.212 0.207 0.207 0.475 0.300

X-ray head locations denoted by

Dimension given in meters (m).

Figure 3. Schematic of the test setup for shot 3619. (Shot 3619 was also performed September 21, 2005 at EF-9. 

Charge 25 had a charge mass of 2675 g. Stand-off distance was 1401 mm [55 inches]. Charge 

location was 63.5 mm [2.5 inches] behind the edge of the barbette.) 

The final shot 3620 was designed only for penetration at a shorter stand-off distance. Again, the 

witness plates (target) consisted of a stack of 25.4-mm-thick (1-inch-thick) rolled homogeneous 

armor (RHA) plates. The stand-off distance was 203.2 mm (8 inches) or two charge diameters 

(CDs). 

2.3 Sample Analysis 

After the completion of the three firing tests, the plates were photographed and sectioned to 

examine the interaction surface between the steel and the Vitreloy 106 liner material. Sectioned 

pieces were further cut, cleaned of rust, and sequentially polished for scanning electron microscopy and trace elemental identification by energy dispersive X-ray analysis. 

Barbette

X-ray Tube Heads

Target 
6

3. Results and Discussion 

3.1 Jet Radiography and Overall Target Plate Appearance 

3.1.1 Shot 3618 

The flash radiographs from shot 3168 are shown in figures 4 and 5. In figure 4, the jet travels 

from right to left. The first appearance of the jet at the earliest flash time shows the jet with a 

large bulb-like tip. In the next flash, the jet bifurcates or comes apart at the tip and begins to 

dissipate at later times. At the last or longest flash time, 274.44 μs, the jet nearly disappears. 

This is typical of powder jets. Figure 5 shows an enlarged version of the jet, at 74.18 μs. There 

were gaps or hollow regions in the jet which may indicate the presence of voids in the liner. 

Another effect of void or non-uniformity in the cast liner is manifested in the large variation of 

particulate size in the jet. The stand-off distance was 2845 mm or 28 CD and the penetration 

was small. The jet impacted the lower left-hand corner of the witness plate and the maximum 

hole depth was 19 mm. The jet tip velocity was measured to be 8.3 km/s. 

Figure 4. Multi-exposure flash x-ray radiograph of shot 3618. 

Figure 5. Key section of the jet from shot 3618. (Note the extensive particulation, dispersion, and diffusion 

of the jet.) 

This result is consistent with the flash X-ray in that the jet was not straight and was diffuse. 

Figure 6 shows the impact region 6(a) on the first witness plate. The lack of any bulging on the 
7

rear of the plate, shown in 6(b), testifies to the incompleteness of the penetration into the plate. 

As apparent, very little penetration was observed. It is difficult to discern the damaged region of 

the front side of the plate in the macro photographs. Note the bluish-black discoloration of the 

impacted surface. Figure 7 shows a closer view of the sectioned lower left corner with a clear 

demonstration of fragments peppering the plate surface without any appreciable penetration. 

A higher magnification view of the damaged surface is shown in figure 7. The random pitting 

pattern is caused by the incoherent jet breaking into fragments and impacting the plate surface. 

Most of the pits are shallow and about 1 to 3 mm in diameter, although some of the pits are 

larger (12 to 15 mm in diameter). In some cases, the pit damage overlaps. Proportional to their 

size, the corresponding pits are also deeper. The bluish discoloration is from staining and 

adhesion of possibly molten liner material. The surface erosion is uneven. Generally, the larger 

pits contain liner material. 

 

Figure 6. First witness plate for shot 3618 with its front shown in 6(a) and rear shown in 6(b). 

6(a) 6(b)
8

Figure 7. Closer view of the lower left corner of the first witness plate 

for shot 3618. 

3.1.2 Shot 3619 

Figure 8 shows the flash radiographs of the jet from shot 3619. Again, the jet exhibits a 

“powdery” appearance with evidence of voids in the jet. The jet dissipates at later times and is 

not straight. The stand-off distance was lowered to 1401 mm or 13.8 charge diameters. The 

penetration was greater than 25.4 mm (1-inch), i.e., the jet penetrated the first 1-inch-thick 

witness plate and entered the second plate. The depth of the hole in the second plate was about 

15 mm. Figure 9 shows the measured hole profiles. Note that the hole shape is irregular because 

of the diffuse nature of the jet. Also, multiple impacts are present because of the bifurcation of 

the jet. Figure 10(a) through (d) show the macro photographs of the entrance and exit holes from 

both plates. 

Figure 11(a) through (b) show close views of the hole patterns in the first and second witness 

plates, as well as higher magnification views of the interior of the cavity walls (figure 11[c] 

through [h]) in the front plate after it was sectioned. The inside surface of the wall is quite rough 

with clear evidence of liner material adhering to it. There is no discoloration of the very small 

pits, less than 3 mm in diameter. Fine blue-colored debris is found to coat the walls of the very 

large holes in the first witness plate. The cavities in the second plates are similar and small, blue 

particle remnants are found at their bottoms. 
9

Figure 8. Multi-exposure flash x-ray radiograph of shot 3619. 

Shot 3619

Dimensions

in

mm

1F 1R 2F

37 28

38

11 12

34

25

39 33

18

11

11

Crater 38 x 65 No Bulge or Marks

On Back of Plate

Figure 9. Hole geometry for shot 3619. 
10

 

 

Figure 10. Entrance and exit hole macro photographs for shot 3619. (Figure 10(a) and (b) show the front and 

rear of the first witness plate, respectively. Figure 10(c) and (d) show the front and rear of the 

second witness plate, respectively. Note again the bluish discoloration from the liner residue 

adhering to the surface.) 

10(a) 10(b)

10(c)

10(d)
11

 

 

 

 

Figure 11. Closer view of the entrance holes into the two witness plates from shot 3619. 

(Figure 11(a) and (b) provide an overview of the hole in the first plate and the partially 

penetrated second plate. Figure 11(c), (d), (e), and (f) magnify the damage to the first 

plate. Figure 11(g) and (h) show the partial penetration to the second plate.) 

11(a) 11(b)

11(c) 11(d)

11(e) 11(f)

11(g) 11(h)
12

3.1.3 Shot 3620 

In the final shot 3620, the jet penetrated nine 25.4-mm (1-inch) plates and 4 mm into the tenth 

plate for a total penetration of 232.6 mm (9.16 inches) or 2.3 CD. This penetration depth is not 

impressive but indicative of powder jets in that the best penetration is achieved at short standoff. 

Table 4 lists the hole profile data and figures 12 through 21 display photographs of the entrance 

and exit holes for each witness plate. The entrance hole (first target plate) was relatively large 

(about 52.0 mm [2 inches]), and the holes were nearly circular. 

Table 4. Hole profile data for shot 3620. 

Plate Number X(mm) Y(mm) 

1 Entrance 57 52 

 Exit 33 32 

2 Entrance 33 26 

 Exit 28 29 

3 Entrance 24 28 

 Exit 28 29 

4 Entrance 20 19 

 Exit 27 28 

5 Entrance 18 20 

 Exit 28 23 

6 Entrance 20 12 

 Exit 24 17 

7 Entrance 13 13 

 Exit 21 23 

8 Entrance 13 14 

 Exit 15 15 

9 Entrance 15 15 

 Exit 8 10 

10 Entrance 12 13 (4 mm penetration) 

 Exit 0 0 

Examination of the hole profiles in each of the target plates revealed that unlike those seen in the 

previous two shots, the last shot produced a considerably smoother surface finish. Moreover, 

while the erosion surfaces were again discolored, the coloration was less intense, indicative of 

less residual Vitreloy 106 liner material adhering to the walls. The plates were cut and figures 22 

and 23 illustrate the penetration profile of the jet. A closer view of each of the witness plates is 

provided in appendix A. 
13

 

Figure 12. Entrance 12(a) and exit 12(b) holes of the first witness plate. 

 

Figure 13. Entrance 13(a) and exit 13(b) holes of the second witness plate. 

12(a) 12(b)

13(a) 13(b)
14

 

Figure 14. Entrance 14(a) and exit 14(b) holes of the third witness plate. 

 

Figure 15. Entrance 15(a) and exit 15(b) holes of the fourth witness plate. 

14(a) 14(b)

15(a) 15(b)
15

 

Figure 16. Entrance 16(a) and exit 16(b) holes of the fifth witness plate. 

 

Figure 17. Entrance 17(a) and exit 17(b) holes of the sixth witness plate. 

16(a) 16(b)

17(a) 17(b)
16

 

Figure 18. Entrance 18(a) and exit 18(b) holes of the seventh witness plate. 

 

Figure 19. Entrance 19(a) and exit 19(b) holes of the eighth witness plate. 

18(a) 18(b)

19(a) 19(b)
17

 

Figure 20. Entrance 20(a) and exit 20(b) holes of the ninth witness plate. 

 

Figure 21. Entrance 21(a) and exit 21(b) holes of the tenth witness plate. 

20(a) 20(b)

21(a) 21(b)
18

Figure 22. Side A of the cross-sectional view of the target block showing the penetration profile produced 

by the Vitreloy 106 shaped charge. 

Figure 23. Side B of the cross-sectional view of the target block showing the penetration profile produced 

by the Vitreloy 106 shaped charge. 

3.2 Analysis of the Target Plate Surfaces 

A small section from one of the Vitreloy 106 liners was subjected to chemical analysis to verify 

its compositional integrity and detect any impurities that may affect its glass-forming ability. It 

is well known that oxygen and carbon interstitials in a bulk metallic alloy strongly affect how 

readily the alloyed bulk material can be quenched into a vitreous state (5). Table 5 presents the 
19

intended and measured atomic and weight fraction of the elements in the metallic glass liner. All 

metallic elements were measured with direct current plasma emission spectroscopy, carbon with 

combustion infrared detection, whereas oxygen and nitrogen were measured with inert gas 

fusion. 

Table 5. Elemental analysis of line 18. 

Element Intended 

Composition 

(Atomic %) 

Actual 

Composition 

(Atomic %) 

Intended 

Composition 

(Weight %) 

Actual 

Composition 

(Weight %) 

Zirconium 57 50.4 67.95 63.0 

Niobium 5 3.10 6.07 3.95 

Copper 15.4 15.7 12.79 13.7 

Nickel 12.6 13.1 9.66 10.5 

Aluminum 10 14.1 3.53 5.22 

Oxygen - - 0.076 

Nitrogen - - 0.007 

Carbon - - 0.025 

Titanium - 2.06 - 1.35 

Hafnium - 0.009 - 0.023 

Vitreloy 106 has an intended composition of Zr57Nb5Cu15.4Ni12.6Al10, given in atomic percents, 

or Zr67.95Nb6.07Cu12.79Ni9.66Al3.53 in weight percents. As the chemical analysis shows, the liner 

only marginally meets the intended composition. Trace quantities of Ti and Hf were detected, 

and considerable amounts of the interstitials were found as well. 

After the witness plates from the experimental program were sectioned, regions near the erosion 

surfaces and underlying steel substrates were examined with scanning electron microscopy and 

energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy. 

Results show that in the first two experimental shots, early dispersion of the jet during the initial 

collapse and flight caused the Vitreloy 106 alloy material to be less effective by the time it 

reached the target stack (witness plates). Consequently, in shot 3618, most of the damage was 

imparted to the shallow top layer of the first witness plate, with relatively little erosion and minor 

pitting only. Small pits were either empty or discolored with a thin coating of the Vitreloy 106. 

Generally, deeper pits contained small but heavily oxidized liner fragments. 

The depth of penetration from the liner in shot 3619 was much improved. The damage was more 

extensive, but the appearance of the affected surfaces was similar to those described previously. 

Additionally, some of these fragments had rounded edges and a molten appearance. Finer 

particulate debris was found to adhere on larger erosion surfaces. These surfaces were clearly a 

result of a combination of particulate erosion, impact, and dynamic flow. 

Unlike the first two diagnostic tests, the third test, shot 3620, generated much smoother erosion 

surfaces. Although no large-scale debris or particulate matter was found on these surfaces, the 

tell-tale bluish discoloration was still present. Regions from witness plates A-2, A-3, and A-8 of 

figure 22 were scrutinized to a greater extent. (See appendix A for a close view of each 

sectioned witness plate.) 
20

In this shot, by the elimination of the large stand-off distance, excessive dispersion of the liner 

material was circumvented. Consequently, more of the kinetic energy was converted into 

penetration. As the jet particulates erode the surface and come to rest in the target cavity because 

of subsequent latent heating in the target and depending on the available heat, the metallic glass 

undergoes partial or complete melting. Typically, when a vitrified metallic glass is heated above 

its glass transition temperature, its viscosity decreases several orders of magnitude. Then, it is 

not unreasonable to expect that this viscous solid could easily flow over the free surface of the 

steel target. As presented in figures 24 through 27, in certain areas, the bulk metallic glass liner 

at some time flowed, coated, and alloyed with the steel witness plate. In such a region, following 

this erosion process, the molten and resolidifying metallic glass intermixed and alloyed with the 

steel. The intermixed region contained voids and mostly large crystalline structures. Qualitative 

analysis of this intermixed region on the surface consisted of the elemental components of the 

bulk metallic glass and steel. Within the alloy material, there was less iron present, whereas, in 

the subsurface steel region, analysis revealed iron and manganese, consistent with the 

composition of the RHA plate. Note the presence of cracks along the interface between intermix 

region and the primary metallic glass layer that likely formed because of the strong differences 

between thermal properties of the materials during cooling. 

Figure 24. Secondary electron micro graph of a subsurface region of the A-2 witness plate is displayed. 
21

Figure 25. Secondary electron micro graph of a subsurface region of the A-2 witness plate displayed 

in figure 24, with the corresponding energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopic analyses for 

the top intermix layer. 

Figure 26. Secondary electron micro graph of a subsurface region of the A-2 witness plate displayed in 

figure 24, with the corresponding energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopic analyses for penetrating 

Vitreloy 106 alloy. 
22

Figure 27. Secondary electron micro graph of a subsurface region of the A-2 witness plate displayed in 

figure 24, with the corresponding energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopic analyses for the steel 

substrate. 

Similar examination of a section from the A-3 witness plate shows the intermixing of the steel 

with the molten metallic glass. Figures 28 and 29 illustrate that in this region, the bulk metallic 

glass, alloyed more with iron from the steel plate, is in a completely devitrified state. This is 

quite expected because even though the required high cooling rates may be present on the free 

surface to quench into an amorphous state, the shift away from the intended alloy composition 

would likely degrade the alloy’s glass-forming ability. Note that the dissolution of the iron from 

the steel would lower the melting point of the metallic glass. The higher magnification image 

reveals a heterogeneous, interpenetrating dendritic structure. Additional images of the A-8 

witness plate in figures 30 through 32 further exemplify that the dendritic regions are strongly 

affected by the composition and local cooling rates. It is purely speculative, but the dendrites in 

figure 31 most likely nucleated on the central particle cluster and the undercooling, required for 

solidification, was such that they could grow to fairly large dimensions. In contrast, closer to the 

steel plate (see figure 32), cooling was faster; therefore, the crystal size is somewhat smaller and 

more equiaxed. 
23

Figure 28. Backscattered electron micro graph of a surface region on the A-3 witness plate 

from appendix A is displayed. 

Figure 29. Backscattered electron micro graph of a surface region on the A-3 witness plate from 

appendix A is displayed with a higher magnification image of the fine structure. 
24

Figure 30. Backscattered electron micro graph of a surface region on the A-8 witness plate is displayed. 

Figure 31. Backscattered electron micro graph of a surface region on the A-8 witness plate 

displayed in figure 30 with a higher magnification image of the fine structure from 

Region A. 

Region A

Region B 
25

Figure 32. Backscattered electron micro graph of a surface region on the A-8 witness plate 

displayed in figure 30 with a higher magnification image of the fine structure from 

region B. 

3.3 Erosion Mechanism of the Metallic Glass Liner Material 

As revealed by flash X-ray radiographs and relatively poor penetration results in shots 3618 and 

3619, it was surmised that the liner particulates in a highly nonuniform manner. This may be 

attributed to poor quality of the liner dimensions, trapped porosity, imprecise composition, and 

possibly high oxygen content. The high oxygen content of the liner is indicative that the as-cast 

liner was most likely not fully amorphous. 

As was seen in shot 3620, when the distance between the detonating charge and target was 

reduced, penetration effectiveness improved. The smooth surface of the penetration tunnel from 

shot 3620 indicated that unlike the long stand-off scenarios of shots 3618 and 3619, the erosion 

by the dispersed jet was more effective. Figure 33 illustrates a fine channel generated by a 

metallic glass particle penetrating into the steel target plate. The atomic number contrast in the 

channel is indicative of post-penetration alloying of the metallic glass with steel. 
26

Figure 33. Backscattered electron micro graph of a surface region on the A-8 witness plate, from 

appendix A, showing penetration of the steel. 

4. Conclusions 

An experimental study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of a bulk metallic glass as a 

shaped charge liner. Results show that the zirconiam-based Vitreloy 106 liner behaved similar to 

particulating jets made from pressed powder liner materials. It was found that the liners were 

non-precision quality which contributed to their unremarkable performance. Jet formation was 

asymmetric and the particles in the jet were nonuniform in size and dispersion. 

These preliminary tests revealed key aspects of the fundamental penetration behavior of bulk 

metallic glasses in a shaped charge configuration. The interaction between the metallic glass and 

steel plate is undergoing continued investigation. Similarly, additional tests with higher quality 

liners including better dimensional tolerances, alternate geometries (to subject the liner to lower 

strains, strain rates, pressure, and temperature) and lower impurity levels are being considered. 
27

5. References 

1. Hao Li, unpublished results, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI, July 2005. 

2. Walters, W. P.; Zukas, J. Fundamentals of Shaped Charges, CMC Press, Baltimore, MD, 

1998. 

3. Walters, W. P.; Peregino, P.; Summers, R.; Leidel, D. A Study of Jets From UnsinteredPowder Metal Lined Nonprecision Small-Caliber Shaped Charges; ARL-TR-2391; U.S. 

Army Research Laboratory: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, February 2001. 

4. Howmet Corporation, now a division of ALCOA, private communication, Whitehall, MI, 

no date. 

5. Johnson, W. L. Bulk Glass-Forming Metallic Alloys: Science and Technology, MRS 

Bulletin October 1999, 24 (10), 42-56. 
28

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 
29

Appendix A. Close View of Each of the Witness Plates 

Figure A-1. Matching halves of the cross-sectional view of the first witness plate. 

Figure A-2. Matching halves of the cross-sectional view of the second witness plate. 
30

Figure A-3. Matching halves of the cross-sectional view of the third witness plate. 

Figure A-4. Matching halves of the cross-sectional view of the fourth witness plate. 

Figure A-5. Matching halves of the cross-sectional view of the fifth witness plate. 
31

 

Figure A-6. Matching halves of the cross-sectional view of the sixth witness plate. 

 

Figure A-7. Matching halves of the cross-sectional view of the seventh witness plate. 

 

Figure A-8. Matching halves of the cross-sectional view of the eighth witness plate. 
32

 

Figure A-9. Matching halves of the cross-sectional view of the ninth witness plate. 
33

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION

 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 STE 400 

 AUSTIN TX 78759-5316 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 IMNE ALC IMS 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRD ARL CI OK TL 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 2 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRD ARL CS OK T 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 OFC OF NAVAL RESEARCH 

 J CHRISTODOULOU 

 ONR CODE 332 

 800 N QUINCY ST 

 ARLINGTON VA 22217-5600 

 1 DARPA 

 L CHRISTODOULOU 

 3701 N FAIRFAX DR 

 ARLINGTON VA 22203-1714 

 4 NIST 

 F BIANCANIELLO 

 S RIDDER 

 S MATES 

 100 BUREAU DR 

 GAITHERSBURG MD 20899 

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION

 1 GA TECH RESEARCH INST 

 GA INST OF TCHNLGY 

 N THADHANI 

 ATLANTA GA 30392 

 3 CDR US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSTA AR WEE C E BAKER 

 A DANIELS 

 R FONG 

 B3022 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806-5000 

 2 CDR US ARMY AVN & MISSILE CMD 

 AMSAM RD PS WF S CORNELIUS 

 S HOWARD 

 REDSTONE ARSENAL AL 35898-5247 

 3 CDR US ARMY RESEARCH OFFFICE 

 S F DAVIS 

 K IYER 

 A RAJENDRAN 

 PO BOX 12211 

 RTP NC 27709-2211 

 1 CDR NAVAL WEAPONS CTR 

 N FASIG CODE 3261 

 CHINA LAKE CA 93555 

 1 CDR NAVL SURFACE WARFARE CTR 

 DAHLGREN DIVISION 

 W E HOYE G22 

 17320 DAHLGREN RD 

 DAHLGREN VA 22448-5100 

 4 CDR NAVL SURFACE WARFARE CTR 

 DAHLGREN DIVISION 

 R GARRETT G22 T SPIVAK G22 

 P WALTER F ZERILLI 

 17320 DAHLGREN RD 

 DAHLGREN VA 22448-5100 

 1 AIR FORCE ARMAMENT LAB 

 AFATL DLJR 

 D LAMBERT 

 EGLIN AFB FL 32542-6810 

 3 DARPA 

 L CHRISTODOULOU 

 W SNOWDEN 

 S WAX 

 3701 N FAIRFAX DR 

 ARLINGTON VA 22203-1714 
34

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION

 2 LOS ALAMOS NATL LAB 

 P HOWE MS P915 

 J KENNEDY MS P915 

 PO BOX 1663 

 LOS ALAMOS NM 87545 

 1 LOS ALAMOS NATL LAB 

 L HULL MS A133 

 PO BOX 1663 

 LOS ALAMOS NM 87545 

 2 SANDIA NATL LAB 

 DOCUMENT PROCESSING MS0617 

 R BELL MS0836 9116 

 D CRAWFORD MS0836 9116 

 PO BOX 5800 

 ALBUQUERQUE NM 87185-0100 

 3 SANDIA NATL LAB 

 DOCUMENT PROCESSING MS0617 

 E HERTEL MS0836 9116 

 S SILLING MS0820 9232 

 D PRECE MS 0819 

 PO BOX 5800 

 ALBUQUERQUE NM 87185-0100 

 3 DIR LLNL 

 D BAUM L099 

 M MURPHY 

 C SIMONSON MS 

 PO BOX 808 MS L35 

 LIVERMORE CA 94550 

 2 SOUTHWEST RSCH INST 

 C ANDERSON 

 J WALKER 

 PO DRAWER 28510 

 SAN ANTONIO TX 78228-0510 

 2 AEROJET 

 J CARLEONE 

 S KEY 

 PO BOX 13222 

 SACRAMENTO CA 95813-6000 

 1 ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS INC 

 R TOMPKINS 

 5050 LINCOLN DR 

 EDINA MN 55436 

 1 CMPTNL MECHS CNSLTNTS 

 J A ZUKAS 

 PO BOX 11314 

 BALTIMORE MD 21239-0314 

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION

 3 DETK 

 R CICCARELLI 

 W FLIS 

 M MAJERUS 

 3620 HORIZON DR 

 KING OF PRUSSIA PA 19406 

 1 TEXTRON DEFENSE SYSTEMS 

 C MILLER 

 201 LOWELL ST 

 WILMINGTON MA 01887-4113 

 1 D R KENNEDY & ASSOC INC 

 D KENNEDY 

 PO BOX 4003 

 MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 94040 

 1 LOCKHEED MARTIN ELECTRONICS 

 & MISSILES 

 G W BROOKS 

 5600 SAND LAKE RD MP 544 

 ORLANDO FL 32819-8907 

 4 GD OTS 

 C ENGLISH T GRAHAM 

 D A MATUSKA J OSBORN 

 4565 COMMERCIAL DR A 

 NICEVILLE FL 32578 

 2 GD OTS 

 D BOEKA 

 N OUYE 

 2950 MERCED ST SUITE 131 

 SAN LEANDRO CA 94577 

 1 ZERNOW TECHNICAL SVS INC 

 L ZERNOW 

 425 W BONITA AVE STE 208 

 SAN DIMAS CA 91773 

 1 PM JAVELIN PO 

 SSAE FS AM EG 

 C ALLEN 

 REDSTONE ARSENAL AL 

 35898-5720 

 1 PM TOW 

 SFAE TS TO 

 J BIER 

 REDSTONE ARSENAL AL 35898-5720 
35

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION

 1 HALLIBURTON ENERGY SVCS 

 JET RESEARCH CENTER 

 D LEIDEL 

 PO BOX 327 

 ALVARADO TX 76009-9775 

 1 DIR LLNL 

 R VAROSH L149 

 PO BOX 808 

 LIVERMORE CA 90550 

 3 INST FOR ADVNCD TECH 

 S BLESS H FAN 

 W REINECKE 

 3925 W BRAKER LN STE 400 

 AUSTIN TX 78759-5316 

 1 NORTHROP GRUMMAN 

 DR D PILLASCH B57 D3700 

 PO BOX 296 

 1100 W HOLLYVALE ST 

 AZUSA CA 91702 

 1 INTRNTL RSRCH ASSOC 

 D ORPHAL 

 4450 BLACK AVE 

 PLEASANTON CA 94566-6105 

 1 JIM VAROSH 

 TELEDYNE RISI INC 

 PO BOX 359 

 TRACY CA 95378 

 ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL CI OK (TECH LIB) 

 BLDG 4600 

 45 DIR USARL 

 AMSRL WM 

 E SCHMIDT 

 J SMITH 

 AMSRL WM M 

 S McKNIGHT 

 R DOWDING 

 AMSRL WM MB 

 L BURTON 

 W DRYSDALE 

 W DEROSSET 

 L KECSKES (15 CPS) 

 M STAKER 

 R WOODMAN 

 ARSRD ARL WM MD 

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION

 J ADAMS 

 E CHIN 

 AMSRL WM T 

 T HAVEL 

 AMSRL WM TA 

 M BURKINS 

 W GOOCH 

 M KEELE 

 J RUNYEON 

 AMSRL WM TB 

 P BAKER 

 J STARKENBERG 

 R BANTON 

 AMSRL WM TC 

 R ANDERSON 

 G BOYCE 

 R COATES 

 T FARRAND 

 M FERMEN-COKER 

 K KIMSEY 

 L MAGNESS 

 D SCHEFFLER 

 S SCHRAML 

 B SCHUSTER 

 B SORENSEN 

 R SUMMERS 

 C WILLIAMS 

 A. SIEGFRIED 

 W WALTERS (6 CPS) 

 AMSRL WM TD 

 T BJERKE 

 Y HUANG 

 E RAPACKI 

 T WEERASOORIYA 

 S SEGLETES 

 M RAFTENBERG 

 AMSRD-ARL-SL-BE 

 A PRAKASH 
36

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION

 1 TNO DEFENSE SECURITY & SAFETY 

 E. CARTON 

 LANGE KLEIWEG 137 

 P.O. BOX 45 

 2280 AA RIJSWIJK 

 THE NETHERLANDS