Electrical Vehicle Stopper

Evaluation, Phase III—Jaycor

ARL-TR-2273 October 2000

Mark Berry, Todd Turner, and Christian Reiff

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.
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.
ARL-TR-2273 October 2000

Army Research Laboratory

Adelphi, MD 20783-1197

Electrical Vehicle Stopper

Evaluation, Phase III—Jaycor

Mark Berry, Todd Turner, and Christian Reiff

Sensors and Electron Devices Directorate

National Institute of Justice

810 Seventh St., NW

Washington, DC 20531

Sponsored by

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.
This report discusses the results of the Electrical Vehicle Stopper

Evaluation (EVSE) program phase III evaluation of the Jaycor Auto

Arrestor vehicle stopper device. The Auto Arrestor directly injects a

large current pulse into the underside of the vehicle and stops the

vehicle by damaging the electrical components. This report also

discusses the field evaluation of safety, ease of use, and effectiveness

of the device.

Abstract

ii
iii

Contents

1. Introduction 1

2. Experimental Description 3

3. Description of Device 5

4. Human Hazard 8

5. Experimental Results 9

6. Conclusions 10

References 11

Appendix. Test Plan for Electrical Vehicle Stopper Evaluation

 Program, Phase III 13

Distribution 17

Report Documentation Page 19

Figures

1. Driver training facility highway track ....................................... 2

2. Driver training facility urban track .......................................... 2

3. Experiment layout for direct injection field test ........................... 3

4. Jaycor Auto Arrestor device ................................................... 5

5. Jaycor Auto Arrestor large device ............................................. 6

6. Jaycor Auto Arrestor small device ............................................. 6

7. Road plate electrodes ............................................................ 6

8. Vehicle passing over road plate ................................................ 7

9. Field levels produced at 5 ft ................................................... 8

A-1. Field test layout ............................................................... 14

Table

A-1. Test plan template ............................................................ 15
1

1. Introduction

The U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL) and the National Institute of

Justice (NIJ) conducted an evaluation of contractor-developed devices that

claim to stop vehicles in a nonlethal manner. This evaluation was conducted

under a four-phase program called the Electrical Vehicle Stopper Evaluation (EVSE) program. In phase I, a Commerce Business Daily (CBD) notice

was posted that requested submissions of proposed concepts or devices to

electrically stop commercial vehicles. Phase II consisted of a laboratory evaluation of a subset of the submitted devices and/or concepts on a chassis

dynamometer. (A chassis dynamometer is a set of rollers on which the

vehicle’s drive wheels are placed, and the vehicle can be driven with a remote control at highway speeds.) Phase III, described in this report, is a

field test evaluation of vehicles on a roadway. Phase IV will be an evaluation by law enforcement personnel. Phase I was documented in the report

Electrical Vehicle Stopper Evaluation—Phase I, by Berry and Brisker [1]. Phase

II, for Jaycor, was documented in the report Electrical Vehicle Stopper Evaluation: Jaycor, by Berry, Turner, and DeTroye [2]. The overall phase II report

was the Electrical Vehicle Stopper Evaluation—Phase II Final Report, by Berry

et al [3].

The EVSE program is being conducted so that law enforcement agencies

can end high-speed chases and protect public and military facilities. In the

previous laboratory experiments, Jaycor participated in the evaluation under its own internal funding. For the phase III field test, NIJ funded Jaycor

for continued development of its system and field test participation.

We conducted the phase III field test evaluation at the Maryland Police and

Correctional Training Commission’s driver training facility in Sykesville,

MD. The site has two track test areas in which the phase II tests were conducted. The first test area is a large (approximately 1 mile) loop track, called

the highway track. A drawing of the highway track is shown in figure 1.

The track is paved and has a long straight section (speeds up to 90 mph can

be achieved on the straight section). The track also has short straight sections of roadway inside the track, which simulate highway exit and entry

ramps. The second test area is a city-type arrangement. A drawing of the

city area is shown in figure 2. The city track contains curbing, streetlights,

stop signs, etc, which are designed to simulate urban driving scenarios.

During the Jaycor evaluation, only the highway track was used.

In this evaluation, ARL, NIJ, and Jaycor coconducted the experiments. Jaycor

was responsible for providing its device and personnel to operate its device, drive the vehicles, and consult on the test conduct. The test plan for

the experiments is in the appendix. Deviations from the test plan occurred

during the experiments because of device failures. The Jaycor device did
2

not survive the test series and was only tested against one vehicle—the 1991

Ford Taurus. A contract mechanic repaired and examined the vehicle in the

local area of the test site before the test period to ensure that it was operating properly. The mechanic also examined and repaired the vehicle after

the test series to determine the damage created by the device.

Skid

pan

Skills

pan

Brown Ave

Brown Ave

Brown Ave

Allegany Ave

Washington Ave

Garrett

Frederick Terr

Howard

Frederick

Talbot

Ct Worcester Way

Wicomico

Howard Ave

Caroline

Brown Ave

Howard

Somerset

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

West

end

East

Y end

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

P

E

P

E

PE

EP

P

E

EP

P

E

#

c

4

c

6

c

5

c

3

c

1

c

2

c

Stop

Yield

Pavement ends

Bleachers

Cameras

Key:

Fenced

lot

OB

tower

N

Figure 1. Driver training

facility highway track.

Figure 2. Driver

training facility urban

track.
3

Device under test

Exclusion zone

Direction of

travel

2. Experimental Description

The experiments were conducted from 19 to 21 June 2000. Two shots were

fired during the test period at the target vehicle. The test layout is shown in

figure 3. As the figure depicts, the vehicle was driven over the test device.

Since the reaction of the vehicle and driver could not be predicted beforehand, a safety zone was set up around the test device. This safety zone was

hyperbola-shaped (marked by orange traffic cones) to keep people away

from the device as well as the vehicle path. Two test scenarios were used

during the test period: constant speed and standing start. (The test plan in

the appendix shows a third scenario that was not used because of device

failures.) We chose these two scenarios because they answer law

enforcement’s goal to end high-speed chases (constant-speed scenario) and

stop vehicles at border crossings (standing-start scenario). The response of

the vehicle electronics should be the same in both scenarios. The device was

tested in a dry configuration only during the test period.

For the constant-speed scenario, the vehicle was tested at 60 mph. The vehicle was accelerated to 60 mph and was driven over the test device. If the

vehicle survived the experiment, it was used for a second run. We measured the vehicle speed using the vehicle’s speedometer and up to three

X-band SpeedChek Personal Sports Radars.

For the standing-start scenario, the vehicle was stationed approximately

45 ft from the stopping test device and was accelerated from a standing

start and driven over the device. The speed at the device was measured

with a SpeedChek Personal Sports Radar.

Field measurements were taken outside the vehicle during the test period.

During the test runs, a field probe was placed near the direct injection device to determine the radiated field levels to which a pedestrian near the

device might be exposed (approximately 5 ft from the device). Internal measurements were taken on one vehicle during phase II of the program

Figure 3. Experiment

layout for direct

injection field test.
4

(in phase III, radiated field levels were not measured inside the vehicle because the device did not survive long enough for those measurements to be

conducted). The same field probe that was used in phase II, as well as a

monopole probe, was also used to measure the field levels outside the vehicle at the 5-ft location to determine the exposure levels for a pedestrian or

operator. All the experiments were documented with a video camera as

well as with a digital camera.

Four types of effects on vehicles were possible during the experiment. The

first is no effect, which means the Auto Arrestor had no effect on the vehicle. The second effect is a stumble, which is a momentary response that

lasts as long as the interaction between the Auto Arrestor and the vehicle.

The third effect is a soft kill, which is when the vehicle engine is stopped

but can be restarted by either a hot restart (key not turned off first) or by

resetting the key (key cycle). A vehicle that has experienced a soft kill can be

restarted even with the vehicle still rolling. The fourth effect is a hard kill—

the vehicle is stopped and cannot be restarted.
5

3. Description of Device

Jaycor proposed a technique to stop moving vehicles that involved the direct injection of electrical current into the subframe and engine of a vehicle.

The Auto Arrestor is shown in figure 4. The device is considered to be in the

brass-board stage of development. The electrodes on the road plate were a

fixed length (about 14 in.) and were not adjustable. The electrodes (negative and positive) touch the subframe and engine and transmission of the

car. When a connection is made, the device arcs to the subframe and engine

and transmission, delivering current into the vehicle.

Two versions of the Auto Arrestor were brought to the phase III test site.

The first device was the same one that was brought to ARL in phase II of the

program. This device was driven about 25 percent harder (two-stage Marx

generator at a higher voltage of about 180 kV) than it was in phase II. The

second device was a smaller unit with a three-stage Marx generator. Each

capacitor was charged to about 60 kV, providing a 180-kV pulse out of the

unit. Both devices used the same road plate to interact with the vehicle.

This road plate was a single-lane, rigid device that was not portable. As

part of the development program, Jaycor designed and built a multilane

road plate that could be rolled up and placed in the trunk of a car. This

device was not used and was found by Jaycor to be too inductive to be used

to stop vehicles (the inductance limited the current delivered to the vehicle,

especially in the far lane). Figure 5 shows the larger device, and figure 6

shows the smaller device.

The Auto Arrestor is a stationary, one-man-lift semiportable device that is

activated by an operator just before the target vehicle passes over the device. It is hoped that the spring-loaded electrodes, depicted in figure 7, will

Auto Arrestor

high-voltage pulser

Vehicle stopping

electrodes

Road plate

Vehicle trigger

(air hose)

Figure 4. Jaycor Auto

Arrestor device.
6

Figure 5. Jaycor Auto

Arrestor large device

(laboratory version).

Figure 6. Jaycor Auto

Arrestor small device

(preprototype).

Figure 7. Road plate

electrodes.

Electrode mount Electrodes
7

contact the vehicle between the frame and the engine as the vehicle passes

(fig. 8) (although contact is not necessary since enough voltage exists to

cause arcing to those areas), causing current to be induced in electrical components in the engine. The device is armed when the operator pushes the

arming switch, but the road plate is not armed until the vehicle crosses over

the device trigger. There is no voltage on the electrodes until an air-actuated switch (triggered by the vehicle driving over an air hose placed in front

of the device) causes a switch to close and energize the electrodes.

Figure 8. Vehicle

passing over road

plate.
8

4. Human Hazard

We used an EG&G ACD-7 field probe antenna to do the external field mapping on the runs with the Ford Taurus. Field measurements were taken at

approximately 5 ft from the device. The IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with

Respect to Human Exposure to RF Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz,

states that for a single pulse, the field level cannot exceed 100 kV/m [4].

The radiated field levels outside the vehicle were approximately 1.5 to

3 kV/m, which is well below the IEEE standard. Figure 9 shows the field

levels for the three shots on the Taurus. These levels are much lower than

those levels that were measured during phase II. This difference is probably because, in phase II, the fields were measured in a metal room with a

large metal dynamometer under the vehicle. There is still, however, some

concern of a potential hazard because the voltage electrodes may remain

charged until shorted, which is when the device is armed. An unwary individual who touches these electrodes when the device is armed may receive

a hazardous shock. The contractor stated that the electrodes are not armed

unless the operator energizes the unit and the vehicle passes over the device trigger.

Figure 9. Field levels

produced at 5 ft.

2000

1500

1000

500

0

–500

–1000

–1500

–2000

–2500

–3000

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Time (s)

Field level (V/m)

× 10–5

60 mph

60 mph

Standing start
9

5. Experimental Results

Because of device failures, only three shots were taken on the 1991 Ford

Taurus during the experimental period. The first shot was taken at a constant speed of 60 mph, and the trigger for the device (air-hose actuator) was

placed between the positive and ground electrodes. There was no effect

during the first shot. Before the second run, the trigger was moved to approximately 6 in. in front of the road plate. During the second shot, a stumble

and soft kill was obtained during a 60 mph run. The vehicle was upset and

had only enough power to maintain a 40 to 45 mph speed. The vehicle was

brought to a stop, and the key was turned off. The vehicle was then restarted and operated as it did before it was tested (i.e., normal operation).

For the third shot, the Taurus was driven over the device from a standing

start (speed of about 20 mph obtained). In this run, the Taurus suffered a

hard kill and was not restartable. The vehicle was sent to be repaired and

was found to suffer damage to the ignition module as well as the electronic

engine control (EEC) unit.

After the three test runs, the large Auto Arrestor device was broken (sparkgap problems) and the second (small device) was installed to be tested. The

small suffered three burned-out charging resistors in the Marx generator

and could no longer be repaired during the test period. The contractor stated

that the units were designed to operate in a high-altitude climate (Colorado

Springs is Jaycor’s office, and it is 6000 ft above sea level) and that the sparkgap pressures and gaps were not appropriate for an altitude of 500 ft above

sea level.
10

6. Conclusions

It was hoped that the Jaycor device would survive the experimental test

period and would complete the test runs on all the vehicles. At this point,

insufficient data exist to properly evaluate the Jaycor Auto Arrestor. The

device seemed to effectively stop the Ford Taurus (once the trigger was properly placed). The device also generated electric fields that were well below

the IEEE standard. It is recommended that the device be reworked for field

use and reevaluated.
11

References

1. M. Berry and H. Brisker, Electrical Vehicle Stopper Evaluation—Phase I, U.S.

Army Research Laboratory, ARL-TN-87, April 1997.

2. M. Berry and T. Turner, Electrical Vehicle Stopper Evaluation: Jaycor, U.S. Army

Research Laboratory, ARL-TN-85, April 1997.

3. M. Berry, T. Turner, G. Tran, C. Lazard, S. Kaplan, and H. Brisker, Electrical

Vehicle Stopper Evaluation—Phase II Final Report, U.S. Army Research Laboratory, ARL-TR-1374, May 1997.

4. IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to RF Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., IEEE Std C95.1, 1999.
12
13

Appendix. Test Plan for Electrical Vehicle Stopper Evaluation Program,

Phase III

Background: As part of phase II of the electrical vehicle stopper evaluation

(EVSE) program, the U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL) evaluated two

direct injection and three microwave concepts or devices with respect to

effectiveness, ease of use, and safety. These evaluations were conducted in

the laboratory on a chassis dynamometer. For phase III, ARL will evaluate

systems in the laboratory (if required), as well as in the field. Two contractors responded to the request for proposals (RFP) published by the National

Institute of Justice for phase III. Both contractor devices were evaluated at

ARL and were found to be safe and effective. According to the first contractor, the device has not changed from the device that was evaluated in phase

II. The second contractor’s device will have an increased output of about

25 percent. The increase in output should increase the measured field levels

by the same factor. With this in mind, we will not need further laboratory

evaluation of either contractor’s device as the field levels will not increase

more than 25 percent (i.e., they are still below relevant standards). During

the experimental series, up to 20 vehicles will be used for each contractor’s

device. Once a vehicle is damaged, attempts will be made to repair the vehicle during the test period.

Test location: The field test for phase III will be conducted at the Maryland

Police and Correctional Training Commission’s driver training facility in

Sykesville, MD. The site has two areas in which the test series may be conducted. The first area is a large (approximately 1 mile) loop track. The track

is paved and has several straight sections (speeds up to 90 mph can be

achieved on the straight sections). The track also has approximately 1⁄4-mile

straight sections in between. The second test area is a city-type arrangement. At the site, available support includes automobile repair shops, gasoline fuel, and generators for powering data acquisition equipment. There

are also hotel accommodations within 30 miles.

Test period: Each contractor will be given a week to test up to 20 vehicles.

The actual number of test runs during that time will depend on the reliability of the contractor-provided test device, the amount and severity of vehicle damage, and the vehicle-repair turnaround time. At this time, the

amount of damage or the repair turnaround time cannot be predicted. A

minimum of three different vehicles will be used for each test scenario.

Test layout: The field test layout is shown in figure A-1. As the figure depicts,

the vehicles will be driven over the test device. Since the reaction of the

vehicle and driver cannot be predicted, a safety zone will be set up around

the test device. This safety zone will be hyperbola-shaped to keep people

away from the device as well as the vehicle path.
14

Test vehicles: At least 15 vehicles will be used during the test series for each

contractor. Table A-1 is a template for the planned test series. The vehicles

listed in the template are for illustration only (the actual vehicles tested

may be different). The effect of the test device on the target vehicle and a

detailed list of any vehicle parts damaged will be noted for each test in the

series.

Test scenarios:

1. Constant speed: A minimum of three vehicles will be used for each of

the speed experiments. Each vehicle will be accelerated to 60 mph

and will be driven over the device. If the vehicle survives the experiment, a second run will be conducted in which the vehicle will be

accelerated to 40 mph. If the vehicle survives again, it will then be

tested at 20 mph. The vehicle speed will be measured by the vehicle’s

speedometer. If the speedometer is not functional, the speed will be

measured with a portable radar speed detector. (A total of at least

nine vehicles will be used for the constant-speed test series.)

2. Standing start: A minimum of six vehicles will be used for this experimental series. The vehicle will be stationed approximately 50 ft

from the stopping device and will be accelerated from a standing start

and driven over the device.

3. Wet direct injection device: The devices will be tested to determine if

they are affected by rain. Once most of the testing is complete and if it

has not rained during the test period (i.e., the device has not been

tested wet), the device will be soaked with water. The device selfbreakdown will be examined first. The device will be energized to its

operating voltage to determine if water causes it to break down. If

the device does not break down, then the underside of one test vehicle will be soaked with water and the vehicle will be driven over

the device.

Field measurements: Once a vehicle is damaged and cannot be easily repaired,

it will be used for field measurements. The vehicle will be parked over the

direct injection device and will be pulsed. The same field probe that was

used in phase II will be used to measure the fields inside the vehicle at each

passenger position. It will also be used to measure the fields on the outside

of the vehicle at 3, 10, 20, and 50 ft to determine the exposure levels for a

pedestrian or operator. The experiments will be documented with a video

camera as well as with a digital camera.

Device under test

Exclusion zone

Direction of

travel

Figure A-1. Field test

layout.

Appendix
15

Vehicle Standing start 20 mph 40 mph 60 mph

1990 Toyota Corolla

1988 Toyota pickup

1998 VW Jetta

1987 Mercedes 300E

1989 Dodge Dakota

1988 Chevy Blazer

1989 Ford Probe

1993 Cadillac Fleetwood

1990 Ford Taurus SHO

TBS (additional vehicles)

TBS = To be specified

Table A-1. Test plan

template.

Appendix
17

Distribution

Admnstr

Defns Techl Info Ctr

Attn DTIC-OCP

8725 John J Kingman Rd Ste 0944

FT Belvoir VA 22060-6218

Jaycor

Attn B Stewart

25 N Cascade Ave Ste 300

Colorado Springs CO 80903-1644

Natl Inst of Justice Techlgy Dev

Attn A Young (15 copies)

810 Seventh Stret NW

Washington DC 20531

US Army Rsrch Lab

Attn AMSRL-CI-AI-R Mail & Records Mgmt

Attn AMSRL-CI-AP Techl Pub

Attn AMSRL-CI-LL Techl Lib (3 copies)

Attn AMSRL-SE-D E Scannell

Attn AMSRL-SE-DS M Berry (6 copies)

Adelphi MD 20783-1197
1. AGENCY USE ONLY

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

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

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

 AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

6. AUTHOR(S)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. SUBJECT TERMS

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

(Leave blank)

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

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 of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson

Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

 OF REPORT

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

 OF THIS PAGE

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

 OF ABSTRACT 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18

298-102

Electrical Vehicle Stopper Evaluation, Phase

III—Jaycor

October 2000 Final, 19–21 June 2000

This report discusses the results of the Electrical Vehicle Stopper Evaluation (EVSE) program

phase III evaluation of the Jaycor Auto Arrestor vehicle stopper device. The Auto Arrestor

directly injects a large current pulse into the underside of the vehicle and stops the vehicle by

damaging the electrical components. This report also discusses the field evaluation of safety, ease

of use, and effectiveness of the device.

Direct injection, vehicle stopper

Unclassified

ARL-TR-2273

9NY1YY

622120.H16

N/A

62120A

ARL PR:

AMS code:

DA PR:

PE:

Approved for public release;

distribution unlimited.

21

Unclassified Unclassified SAR

810 Seventh St., NW

Washington, DC 20531

U.S. Army Research Laboratory

Attn: AMSRL-SE-DS mberry@arl.army.mil

National Institute of Justice

19

Mark Berry, Todd Turner, and Christian Reiff

email:

2800 Powder Mill Road

Adelphi, MD 20783-1197