ARL-TR-7990 ● APR 2017

US Army Research Laboratory

The Cylindrical Component Methodology 

Evaluation Module for MUVES-S2

by David S Butler, Marianne Kunkel, and Brian G Smith

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.
ARL-TR-7990 ● APR 2017

US Army Research Laboratory

The Cylindrical Component Methodology 

Evaluation Module for MUVES-S2

by David S Butler, Marianne Kunkel, and Brian G Smith

Survivability/Lethality Analysis Directorate, ARL

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (delete if not FOUO)
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)

April 2017

2. REPORT TYPE

Technical Report

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

1 October 2015–31 March 2016

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

The Cylindrical Component Methodology Evaluation Module for MUVES-S2

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

David S Butler, Marianne Kunkel, and Brian G Smith

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

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

US Army Research Laboratory

ATTN: RDRL-SLB-D

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5068

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

ARL-TR-7990

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

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

The US Army Research Laboratory’s Survivability/Lethality Analysis Directorate Aviation Team has developed an evaluation 

module (EM) for MUVES-S2 for computing the probability of component damage given a hit (pcd/h) for ballistic threats versus 

cylindrical components. The EM is called the Cylindrical Component Methodology (CCM). The methodology is based on a 

fraction of circumference removal kill criterion and is applicable to both hollow and solid cylindrical components (e.g., 

control tubes, drive shafts). The EM directly computes the pcd/h for each encounter, eliminating the need to use predetermined 

pcd/h tables for these component types. The CCM EM was integrated into the latest version of MUVES-S2 in fiscal year 2016.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

cylindrical component methodology, evaluation module, MUVES-S2, Pcd/h, circumference removal criteria

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:

17. LIMITATION

OF ABSTRACT

UU

18. NUMBER

OF PAGES

90

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

David S Butler

a. REPORT

Unclassified

b. ABSTRACT

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

410-278-6316

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

iii

Contents

List of Figures v

List of Tables vi

1. Introduction 1

2. Background Information 1

3. CCM EM Description 2

4. Manual Calculation 3

5. Using the Cylindrical_component EM in MUVES-S2 9

5.1 Effective Size Method 9

5.2 Direct Hit Methodology 10

5.3 No Preference Method 10

5.4 Perforation 10

5.5 Maximum Incidence Angle 11

5.6 Hole Growth 11

5.7 Intermediate Results File Information (.ir) 11

5.8 Log File Information (.log) 12

6. MUVES-S2 Inputs for the Cylindrical_component EM 13

6.1 Session File 13

6.2 Target Description File (.g) 14

6.3 Threat File (Initial) 14

6.4 Component Category Map (ccmap) file 15

6.5 Damage Evaluation Selection (des) File 15

6.6 Component Properties (prop) File 16

6.7 Environ File 17

7. Conclusions 18
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

iv

8. References 19

Appendix A. Cylindrical Component Probability of Component Damage 

Given a Hit (pcd/h) Method Based upon Fraction of Circumference 

Removed 21

Appendix B. MUVES-S2 Test Cases for Cylindrical_component Evaluation 

Module (EM) 35

Appendix C. BRL-CAD Datum Attributes for Cylindrical_component 

Evaluation Module (EM) 77

List of Symbols, Abbreviations, and Acronyms 81

Distribution List 82
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

v

List of Figures

Fig. 1 Threat impact at 0.000-inch shot line height .........................................3

Fig. 2 Minimum shot line height......................................................................4

Fig. 3 Maximum shot line height .....................................................................5

Fig. 4 Vulnerable regions for sample case .......................................................6

Fig. 5 Direct hit pcd/h vs. component diameter (0.4 failure criteria).................7

Fig. 6 Effective size pcd/h vs. component diameter (0.4 failure criteria) ..........8

Fig. 7 Direct hit effects of threat hole growth (1.0-inch tube, 0.4 failure 

criteria)...................................................................................................8

Fig. 8 Effective size effects of threat hole growth (1.0-inch tube, 0.4 failure 

criteria)...................................................................................................9

Fig. 9 Direct hit damage packet in .ir file.......................................................11

Fig. 10 Near-miss damage packet in .ir file .....................................................12

Fig. 11 Log data output by cylindrical_componentDebug...............................12

Fig. 12 Log data output by CylindricalCompDamageDebug ..........................13

Fig. A-1 Diagram for computing pcd/h when the projectile diameter is greater 

than the cylinder diameter....................................................................23

Fig. A-2 Diagram for computing pcd/h for the minimum 2-hole shot when the 

projectile diameter is less than the cylinder diameter..........................25

Fig. A-3 Diagram for computing pcd/h for the maxiumum 2-hole shot when the 

projectile diameter is less than the cylinder diameter..........................26

Fig. A-4 Diagram for computing pcd/h for a C-shot when the projectile diameter 

is less than the cylinder diameter.........................................................27

Fig. A-5 Diagram for computing pcd/h for the typical 2-hole shot when the 

projectile diameter is less than the cylinder diameter..........................28

Fig. A-6 Python program for computing baseline case pcd/h ..............................33

Fig. B-1 BRL-CAD test target for CCM EM: internal cylindrical components36

Fig. B-2 BRL-CAD test target for CCM EM: external cylindrical 

components..........................................................................................42

Fig. B-3 A 7.62-mm API (0.31-inch diameter) vs. 0.5-, 1.0-, and 2.0-inchdiameter external tubes pcd/h.................................................................45

Fig. B-4 Log file error message: no cylindrical radius datum found .................70

Fig. B-5 Log file error message: OUTSIDE_DIAM is not defined...................71

Fig. B-6 Log file error message: CYLINDRICAL_KILL_CRITERIA is not 

defined..................................................................................................75
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

vi

List of Tables

Table 1 Sample fraction of Cr criteria ................................................................2

Table B-1 A 7.62-mm API (0.31-inch diameter) vs. 0.5-, 1.0-, and 2.0-inchdiameter internal tubes pcd/h .................................................................39

Table B-2 A 14.5-mm API (0.59-inch diameter) vs. 0.5-, 1.0-, and 2.0-inchdiameter internal tubes pcd/h .................................................................40

Table B-3 A 30-mm API (1.18-inch diameter) vs. 0.5-, 1.0-, and 2.0-inchdiameter internal tubes pcd/h .................................................................41

Table B-4 A 7.62-mm API (0.31-inch diameter) vs. 0.5-, 1.0-, and 2.0-inchdiameter external tubes pcd/h.................................................................45

Table B-5 A 14.5-mm API (0.59-inch diameter) vs. 0.5-, 1.0-, and 2.0-inchdiameter external tubes pcd/h.................................................................46

Table B-6 A 30-mm API (1.18-inch diameter) vs. 0.5-, 1.0-, 2.0-inch-diameter 

external tubes pcd/h................................................................................47

Table B-7 A 7.62-mm API with 8% hole growth (0.335-inch diameter) vs. 0.5-, 

1.0-, and 2.0-inch-diameter internal tubes pcd/h....................................50

Table B-8 A 14.5-mm API with 8% hole growth (0.637-inch diameter) vs. 0.5-, 

1.0-, and 2.0-inch-diameter internal tubes pcd/h....................................51

Table B-9 A 30-mm API with 8% hole growth (0.335-inch diameter) vs. 0.5-, 

1.0-, and 2.0-inch-diameter internal tubes pcd/h....................................52

Table B-10 A 14.5-mm API vs. 1.0-inch tube pcd/h with core penetration...........54

Table B-11 A 7.62-mm API vs. 2.0-inch tube pcd/h; threat does not completely 

penetrate...............................................................................................57

Table B-12 A 14.5-mm API vs. 2.0-inch tube pcd/h; shot line incidence angles 

exceed maximum .................................................................................61

Table B-13 Sample SC, KE, EFP, JTCG frag, FATEPEN frag, Thor Frag vs. 

1.0-inch external tube pcd/h ...................................................................63

Table B-14 Sample HEI vs. 1.0-inch tube pcd/h; HEI detonation before tube......65

Table B-15 Sample HEI vs. 1.0-inch tube pcd/h; HEI detonation after tube.........67

Table B-16 Sample HEI vs. 1.0-inch external tube pcd/h; HEI detonation after 

external cylinder...................................................................................69

Table B-17 A 14.5-mm API vs. 1.0-inch tube pcd/h; no preference cylinder 

method (OUTER_DIAM defined; datums not defined)......................73

Table B-18 A 14.5-mm API vs. 1.0-inch tube pcd/h; no preference cylinder 

method (datums defined; OUTER_DIAM not defined)......................74
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

1

1. Introduction

This report documents the development of an evaluation module (EM) for 

MUVES-S2 for computing the probability of component damage given a hit (pcd/h) 

for ballistic threats versus cylindrical components. The EM is called the Cylindrical 

Component Methodology (CCM). The methodology is based on a fraction of 

circumference removal kill criterion and is applicable to both hollow and solid 

cylindrical components (e.g., control tubes, drive shafts). The EM directly 

computes the pcd/h for each encounter, eliminating the need to use predetermined 

pcd/h tables for these component types.

2. Background Information 

The Survivability/Lethality Analysis Directorate (SLAD) Aviation Team currently 

uses pcd/h tables for cylindrical components that are based on cylindrical component 

methodology originally developed in the 2009–2012 timeframe. This version of the 

methodology was a spreadsheet-based program, which computed pcd/h values using 

the percentage of component circumference removed by a given threat diameter, 

regardless of penetration. These “baseline” pcd/h values were then adjusted for 

penetration based on threat velocity. The methodology evaluated 2 types of 

damage: single-aperture slicing shots near the component edge (C-shot) and 

double-hole shots through the middle (2X-shot). These 2 damage types were 

combined to get a single probability of kill. Additionally, the methodology 

considered threat hole diameter growth due to impact with the component and

nonaligned shots due to yaw. Documentation of this methodology is provided in a 

separate technical report.

1

In 2014, the SLAD Methodology Team updated the cylindrical component 

methodology, producing a stand-alone version written in C++. The new 

methodology was still based on percentage of circumference removed (Cr) but 

differed somewhat from the original version. First, the original version only 

considered the direct hit condition, which occurs when the center of the threat 

projectile impacts the target. The new methodology expanded on this to include 

impacts due to the entire diameter of the threat projectile. This approach, referred 

to as effective size, was accomplished by defining an effective component diameter,

which is the actual component diameter plus the diameter of the threat. Second, the 

new methodology did not consider the effects of threat hole size growth and yaw. 

Initial comparisons of pcd/h computations between the old and new methodologies 

yielded significant differences. Comparisons improved when the effects of hole 
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

2

size growth and yaw were taken into account. However, using an effective 

component diameter for the newer methodology still resulted in consistently lower 

pcd/h values when compared with the original. Subsequently, an update to the new 

methodology was developed to allow computation of direct hit pcd/h also. The CCM 

EM is based on this latest methodology. 

3. CCM EM Description

A detailed derivation of the CCM EM is provided in Appendix A. The initial

algorithm is for the effective component diameter condition, which considers a 

strike to occur as soon as any portion of the threat impacts the component. To do 

so, the diameter of the threat is added to the component diameter to arrive at the 

effective component diameter. Two cases are examined: a threat diameter greater 

than the component diameter and a threat diameter less than the component 

diameter. Expressions for pcd/h are derived for each case based on component and 

threat geometries and the circumference removal criteria. The pcd/h computed is 

based on a random hit on the component: both C-shot and 2X-shot damage types

are taken into consideration. Appendix A also includes modifications made to the 

methodology to account for the direct hit condition. 

The CCM EM is treated like any other evaluation module in MUVES. Components 

are assigned to it in a similar manner. Two methodology options are available:

effective size and direct hit. For the effective size methodology, changes to certain 

attributes must also be made in the BRL-CAD target description file for the 

applicable components. Either methodology requires a cylindrical kill criteria 

value, which is the fraction of Cr resulting in failure. Sample criteria for some 

common cylindrical components are given in Table 1.

Table 1 Sample fraction of Cr criteria

Component type Material Dia.

(inches) Cr

Thin-walled control tubes Aluminum

0.5 0.30

0.75 0.40

1.0 0.45

1.25 0.47

1.5 0.48

1.75 0.51

2.0 0.54

Main rotor output shaft Steel 1.5 0.30

Tail rotor output shaft Steel 2.4 0.35
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

3

Another option available is threat hole growth, which is expressed as a percentage 

increase of the threat diameter. A threat often leaves a slightly larger hole than its 

actual diameter after penetration due to petaling effects of the component metal and 

other factors. Finally, an option is available to set the maximum incidence angle, 

which is measured between the shot line and the longitudinal axis of the component 

(0° = perpendicular, 90° = tangential). This option allows one to only consider 

damage within a certain portion of the component length. The reason for this is that 

the circumference removal criteria only apply to localized damage (e.g., 2 holes 

located at opposite ends of the component are not equivalent to a 2-hole shot 

aligned perpendicularly to the component axis).

The CCM EM has been tested for the following threat types: armor piercing (AP), 

armor-piercing incendiary (API), kinetic energy (KE), shaped charge jet (SCJ), 

explosively formed penetrator (EFP), and fragments. For the high-explosive 

incendiary (HEI) threats, each fragment that hits the component is evaluated and 

the total are survivor summed to compute the final pcd/h. Detailed test case results 

are provided in Appendix B. For verification purposes, manual pcd/h calculations 

were made and compared to results from the CCM EM. A description of the manual 

calculations along with an example follow in Section 4. 

4. Manual Calculation

This section demonstrates a manual evaluation of the CCM methodology for a 

1-inch-diameter tube, a 0.5-inch threat diameter, and a 40% failure criteria. The 

40% failure criteria results in 144° of the tube’s circumference being removed to 

cause a failure. Figure 1 shows the projectile just grazing the top of the tube. The 

orange region defines the amount of tube circumference required to be removed to

fail the tube. As shown in Fig. 1, at a height of 0.000 inches, the threat does not 

remove a sufficient amount of the tube’s circumference to meet the failure criteria. 

Fig. 1 Threat impact at 0.000-inch shot line height
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

4

The minimum shot line height, Fig. 2, required to achieve the 40% failure criteria 

is calculated in Eq. 1. The 72° angle is one half of the 144○ failure criteria.

Fig. 2 Minimum shot line height

RT = Tube Radius (0.5 inch)

R

p = Projectile Radius (0.25 inch)

x = Shot Line Height

cos 72° = RRTT −(xx+RRRR)

RRTT

(1)

cos 72° = 0.5 − (xx + 0.25)

0.5

xx = 0.096"

For this example, the projectile diameter is equal to the tube radius. Therefore at a 

shot line height of 0.25 inch, the projectile will remove 50% of the tube’s 

circumference. Shot line heights greater than 0.25 inch will result in a doubleaperture hole rather than a slicing shot. A double-aperture hole can still achieve the 

40% failure criteria. The following text calculates the maximum shot line height, 

Fig. 3, which can still achieve the 40% failure criteria (Eqs. 2 and 3).
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

5

z

Fig. 3 Maximum shot line height

RT = Tube Radius (0.5 inch)

R

p = Projectile Radius (0.25 inch)

Shot Line Height = RRTT + zz − RRRR

The top angle can be defined as

sin(72° − ∅) = 2RRRR−zz

RRTT

. (2)

Solving for z

0. 5sin(72° − ∅) = 0.5 − z

zz = 0.5 − 0.5(sin(72° − ∅)).

The lower angle can be defined as

sin ∅ = zz

RR . (3)

Solving for z:

zz = 0.5sin∅.

Setting both equations equal to each other, ∅ can be solved as

0. 5sin∅ = 0.5 − 0.5(sin(72° − ∅))
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

6

sin∅ + sin(72° − ∅) = 1.

Based on the Fundamental Identities Equations,

sinα + sinβ = 2sin(

1

2

(αα + ββ)) ∗ cos(

1

2

(αα − ββ))

2sin �1

2

�∅ + (72° − ∅)�� ∗ cos(1

2

�∅ − (72° − ∅)� = 1

2 sin 36° ∗ cos(∅ − 36°) = 1

cos(∅ − 36°) = 0.851

Solving for ∅ yields 2 solutions:

∅ = 4.283°, ∅ = 67.717°

sin 4.283° = zz

RR sin 67.717° = zzRR

zz = 0.037 inch zz = 0.463 inch

with zz = 0.037 inch with zz = 0.463 inch

Shot line height = 0.287 inch Shot line height = 0.713 inch

The vulnerable region in this example ranges from 0.096 to 0.287 inch in shot line

height, resulting in a vulnerable height of 0.191 inch for the top region (Fig. 4). The 

second shot line height of 0.713 inch is the beginning of the vulnerable region in 

the lower portion of the tube. By symmetry, the lower region has the same 

vulnerable height as the top region. 

Fig. 4 Vulnerable regions for sample case
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

7

For this example, the vulnerable height is assessed as 0.382 inch and the presented 

height is 1.000 inch, resulting in a pcd/h value of 0.382 for the direct hit

methodology. The effective size methodology begins to evaluate the component at 

a height that includes the threat’s radius, so the presented height is increased to 

1.50 inches. Since the failure criteria was not met until the threat was 0.095 inch 

below the top of the tube, there is no need to evaluate shot lines between the threat 

centerline and the top of the tube. In this example, the pcd/h value is 0.255 for the 

effective size methodology.

Results from the manual calculations and the CCM EM matched. Sample output 

for several tube diameters is provided in Figs. 5 and 6. The effects including threat 

hole growth for a 1.0-inch tube are shown in Figs. 7 and 8.

Fig. 5 Direct hit pcd/h vs. component diameter (0.4 failure criteria)
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

8

Fig. 6 Effective size pcd/h vs. component diameter (0.4 failure criteria)

Fig. 7 Direct hit effects of threat hole growth (1.0-inch tube, 0.4 failure criteria)
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

9

Fig. 8 Effective size effects of threat hole growth (1.0-inch tube, 0.4 failure criteria)

5. Using the Cylindrical_component EM in MUVES-S2

5.1 Effective Size Method

To use the effective size method to compute the pcd/h for a critical cylindrical 

component, the user must add a cylindrical_radius and a cylindrical_axis datum 

attribute to the BRL-CAD model of the component in the target description (.g file).

The cylindrical_radius and cylindrical_axis datum attributes types are recognized 

by MUVES-S2 specifically for use with the cylindrical_component EM. Datum 

attributes are used to pass data about an object from BRL-CAD to MUVES. First, 

datum objects must be created for each critical cylindrical component in BRLCAD. Each datum object contain points and vectors that define the position in space 

and dimensions of the cylindrical component. The cylindrical_radius and 

cylindrical_axis attributes are then set to the names of their respective datum 

objects. See Appendix C for more information on creating/editing datum objects 

and defining datum attributes in BRL-CAD.

The EM will use the cylindrical_radius datum attribute to obtain the radius of the 

cylinder. It will also use the cylindrical_axis datum to determine which shot lines

are a near miss. For every threat shot line, the code computes the distance of closest 

approach between 2 line segments (the one represented by the cylindrical_axis 

datum and the one for the shot line) for each critical cylindrical component. If that 

distance is less than the sum of the cylinder radius plus the threat radius then the 

shot line is considered a near miss. The threat radius is computed using the 
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

10

(circularized) presented area of the threat accounting for yaw. The threat radius will 

also take into account hole growth if the user plays this option (see Section 6.6). A 

pcd/h will be computed for near-miss shot lines and for direct hit shot lines 

accounting for the effective size of both the threat and the cylinder. 

5.2 Direct Hit Methodology

To use the direct hit method to compute the pcd/h for a critical cylindrical 

component, the user must only add the OUTSIDE_DIAM component property in 

the MUVES-S2 prop file to the component. The EM will use the OUTSIDE_DIAM 

component property to compute the radius of the cylinder. The threat radius is 

computed using the (circularized) presented area of the threat accounting for yaw. 

The threat radius will also take into account hole growth if the user plays this option. 

Pcd/h’s will only be computed for shot lines that directly hit the cylindrical 

component. 

5.3 No Preference Method

If no_preference is the method chosen to compute cylindrical component pcd/h’s, 

the direct hit method is employed if the OUTSIDE_DIAM property is set for the 

component. If the OUTSIDE_DIAM property is not set, the effective size method 

is employed if datums are present for the component. If both OUTSIDE_DIAM 

and datums are present, the direct hit method takes precedence over the effective 

size method. If neither OUTSIDE_DIAM nor datums are specified for the 

component, MUVES-S2 will terminate on the run and a fatal error will be reported. 

If a method is not chosen by the user, no_preference is the default.

5.4 Perforation

For the direct hit method and effective size method, MUVES-S2 will only compute 

pcd/h’s for direct hit shot lines that completely perforate the critical cylindrical 

component. 

For the effective size method, a pcd/h for the cylindrical component will only be 

computed for a near miss shot line if it perforates the adjacent component 

(component “near” the cylindrical component that the near-miss shot line passes 

through). However, on a near-miss shot line the code cannot determine whether 

complete perforation would have actually occurred with the threat and cylindrical 

component. Therefore, it is possible to get a pcd/h > 0 on a near-miss shot line but 

get a pcd/h = 0 on a direct hit shot with the same threat and cylindrical component 

under the same conditions (i.e., impact velocity, yaw). 
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

11

5.5 Maximum Incidence Angle

As an option, the user can set the CYLINDRICAL_MAXIMUM_INCIDENCE 

component property to critical cylindrical components. The incidence angle is 

measured between the shot line direction vector and the cylindrical_axis datum 

vector (0o = perpendicular, 90o = tangential). This option allows one to only 

consider damage within a certain portion of the component length. It limits damage 

to shot lines that have an incidence angle less than the maximum value specified. 

This option can be used with either the direct hit or effective size method; however, 

in addition to setting the component property, the cylindrical_axis datum attribute 

must also be set in the BRL-CAD model of the component. If the component 

property is defined, but not the datum, the angle check is not performed.

5.6 Hole Growth

As an option, the user can set the CYLINDRICAL_HOLE_GROWTH component 

property to critical cylindrical components to grow the hole diameter created by the 

threat. This addresses the fact that a threat often leaves a slightly larger hole size 

than its actual diameter after penetration due to petaling effects of the component 

metal and other factors.

5.7 Intermediate Results File Information (.ir)

For shot lines that directly hit the critical cylindrical components, the code will 

create a cylindrical_component damage packet if the shot line perforated the 

cylindrical component and if the shotl ine has an incidence angle less than the 

maximum (if maximum is specified). When a damage packet is created, a pcd/h is 

computed for that shot line for that cylindrical component. 

If a damage packet is created, the damage packet is output to the TD: (trace damage) 

line of the critical cylindrical component in the .ir file. The cylindrical_comp 

damage packet contains the name of the critical cylindrical component, the threat 

hole diameter (millimeter), and –1, which indicates that the shot line is a direct hit. 

The threat hole diameter is adjusted for the yaw of the projectile and hole growth if 

that option is played. In Fig. 9, a damage packet is created for a shot line that 

directly hit the critical cylindrical component “tube2”, the effective threat diameter 

is 7.91562 mm, and the –1 indicates the shot line is a direct hit.

Fig. 9 Direct hit damage packet in .ir file
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

12

When the effective size method is used, the code will create a 

cylindrical_component damage packet for a near-miss shot line if it perforates the 

component adjacent to the cylindrical component and if the shot line has an 

incidence angle less than the maximum (if maximum is specified). When a nearmiss damage packet is created, a pcd/h is computed for that shot line for that 

cylindrical component. 

If a near-miss damage packet is created, it will show up on the TD: line for the 

adjacent component on the shot line. In the example shown in Fig. 10, the adjacent 

component is MUVES_target_gap. The cylindrical_comp damage packet contains 

the name of the cylindrical component, the effective threat diameter (millimeter), 

and the near-miss distance (millimeter).

Fig. 10 Near-miss damage packet in .ir file

Additionally, all computed near-miss distances for the shot line and the respective 

cylindrical components were added to the TG: (trace geometry) line of the adjacent 

component in the .ir file. In the example shown in Fig. 10, the near-miss shot line

enters adjacent component “MUVES_target_gap” and the near_miss_list produced 

shows a near-miss distance of 16.51 mm with cylindrical component “tube2”. 

5.8 Log File Information (.log)

Two new environment variables were added for the cylindrical_component EM. 

1) cylindrical_componentDebug: when set to any value, additional log 

messages are output by the cylindrical_component EM. 

Figure 11 shows the names of the components (tube2, tube1) that are evaluated by 

the cylindrical_component EM and the computed cumulative probability of kill 

(pk) value for each component. The values r, R, and criteria are the threat radius 

and cylinder radius of the first damage packet evaluated. Criteria is the cylindrical 

kill criteria specified for the component. 

Fig. 11 Log data output by cylindrical_componentDebug
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13

2) CylindricalCompDamageDebug – when set to any value, additional log 

messages are output by the cylindrical_comp damage function. 

Figure 12 shows .log file output for a near-miss shot line using the effective size

method. The log file output shows the shot line had a near miss with cylindrical 

component “tube2” (near-miss distance < max distance), but the shot line exceeded 

the max incidence angle of 45°. A near-miss damage packet was not created, and 

the analyst can verify why it was not created by using information output to the log 

file.

Fig. 12 Log data output by CylindricalCompDamageDebug

6. MUVES-S2 Inputs for the Cylindrical_component EM

This section describes the MUVES-S2 inputs and formats required for using the 

CCM EM. The inputs can vary depending on whether the analyst wants to compute 

the pcd/h based on the effective size method or the direct hit method. The inputs 

required for each method for each input file are specified in the following sections. 

6.1 Session File

A cylinder_method modkey was added to MUVES-S2, which provides the user 

with 3 choices to compute the cylinder pcd/h: 1) effective_size, 2) direct_hit, and 3) 

no_preference.

The user must specify the method for computing the cylindrical component pcd/h. 

There are 2 ways to accomplish this:

• Using the MUVES GUI “method preferences” pull down menu, select 

“Method for computing cylindrical component pcd/h”. Then select 

“effective_size”, “direct_hit”, or “no_preference”.

• Alternatively, in the session file, set the modkey, cylinder_method, to 

effective_size, direct_hit, or no_preference.

Example: modkey cylinder_method effective_size

If no_preference is selected, the EM will check for inputs needed for the direct hit

method first. If not found, effective size method will be used. If all the inputs for 
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

14

the effective size method are not specified, an error message is reported, and 

MUVES will terminate.

If the method preference or modkey is not specified, MUVES will default to 

no_preference.

6.2 Target Description File (.g)

If the user wants to use the direct hit method to compute the cylindrical component 

pcd/h, there are no modifications to the .g file.

If the user wants to use the effective size method to compute the cylindrical 

component pcd/h, the user must set the cylindrical_radius and the cylindrical_axis 

datum attributes for each critical cylindrical component in the target description (.g 

file). The cylindrical_radius and cylindrical_axis attributes are associated with 

datum objects. The cylindrical_radius and cylindrical_axis datum attributes are set 

to the datum’s object name using the BRL-CAD editor, mged.

The following are example command lines to be used in mged:

attr set tube1.r cylindrical_radius tube1.radius

attr set tube1.r cylindrical_axis tube1.axis,

where tube1.radius and tube1.axis are the names of datum objects that each contain 

a point and direction vector that describe the radius and height of tube1.r, 

respectively.

See Appendix C to see how to create the cylindrical _radius and cylindrical_axis 

datum objects in mged.

6.3 Threat File (Initial)

The threat file does not require any modifications for use with the 

cylindrical_component EM. 

However, the cylindrical_component EM has been tested to work with the 

following threat types: 

AntiAirArmorPiercingProjectile (AP, API)

HighExplosiveIncendiary (HEI)

KineticEnergyPenetrator (KE)

ShapedChargeJet (SCJ)
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

15

ExplosivelyFormedPenetrator (EFP)

MassVelocityFragment (Thor/MVF fragments)

JTCGFragment (JTCG [Joint Technical Coordinating Group] fragments)

FATEPENFragment (FATEPEN [Fast Air Target Encounter 

PENetration]fragments)

For an HEI threat, a cylinder component pcd/h is computed for each fragment that 

interacts with the cylinder using the method and inputs specified by the user. The 

pcd/h’s from each individual fragment are survivor summed to compute a final pcd/h

for the cylinder.

6.4 Component Category Map (ccmap) file

A new cylindrical component category has been created as an option to the analyst. 

The analyst can decide whether to use the component category name in the des file, 

or use a qualifier instead. If the analyst uses the component category name, 

cylindrical, then in the des file the analyst should list the names of all the MUVES 

components to be evaluated by the cylindrical_component EM under the cylindrical

category name in the ccmap file.

Example:

cylindrical

tube1

tube2

6.5 Damage Evaluation Selection (des) File

The name of the EM that invokes the CCM methodology is 

cylindrical_component and is specified in the des file.

Example 1:

Using the component category name, cylinder:

cylinder cylindrical_component

Example 2: 

Alternatively, using a qualifier:

:[cylinder] cylindrical_component
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

16

6.6 Component Properties (prop) File

There are 4 component properties associated with the cylindrical_component EM; 

some are required, some are optional.

1) CYLINDRICAL_KILL_CRITERIA (required data for effective size

and direct hit methods):

CYLINDRICAL_KILL_CRITERIA is a required component property for 

each critical cylindrical component. The kill criteria is the fraction of 

circumference removed, which is the criterion for component damage. As 

an example, if 30% of the circumference of a control tube needs to be 

removed to cause it to fail, then the CYLINDRICAL_KILL_CRITERIA 

should be set to 0.3.

2) OUTSIDE_DIAM (required for direct hit method only):

The outside diameter component property specifies the outside diameter of 

the cylindrical component in units millimeter. Note: If no_preference is 

selected as the cylinder_method and OUTSIDE_DIAM is defined for the 

component, the direct_hit methodology will be used even if the component 

has datums defined in the target description.

3) CYLINDRICAL_MAXIMUM_INCIDENCE (optional for effective 

size and direct hit methods)

This property can only be used with a MUVES cylindrical component that 

has the cylindrical_axis datum attribute defined. The incidence angle is the 

angle between the shot line and the cylindrical axis datum vector, where 0°

is a perpendicular shot and 90° is a tangential shot in the same direction of 

the cylinder’s axis. If the incidence angle is greater than the 

CYLINDRICAL_MAXIMUM_INCIDENCE, no damage is produced. 

This option would be used to prevent the cylindrical component 

methodology from being used in a case where the damage from a 2-hole 

shot are spread too far apart along the length of the tube.
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

17

Examples:

tube2 MATERIAL Steel_BHN_300

 THICKNESS_FACTOR 1.00

 OUTSIDE_DIAM 12.7 # units mm

 CYLINDRICAL_KILL_CRITERIA 0.30

 CYLINDRICAL_MAX_INCIDENCE 45 # units degrees

4) CYLINDRICAL_HOLE_GROWTH (optional for effective size or 

direct hit method)

This property allows the user to define the percentage of threat diameter 

increase due to penetration of thin-walled material. As an example, if the 

hole growth is 8%, CYLINDRICAL_HOLE_GROWTH would be set to 8, 

and the threat hole diameter would be multiplied by 1.08.

Example:

tube1 MATERIAL Steel_BHN_300

 THICKNESS_FACTOR 1.00

 OUTSIDE_DIAM 12.7 # units mm

 CYLINDRICAL_KILL_CRITERIA 0.30

 CYLINDRICAL_HOLE_GROWTH 8 # percent increase

6.7 Environ File 

The cylindrical_component EM provides for 2 debug options that are set as 

environment variables. Diagnostics are output to the .log file.

In the session file, include this line:

env Cylindrical_ComponentDebug integer 

to output diagnostics from the cylindrical_component EM

env CylindricalCompDamageDebug integer

to output diagnostics from the cylindrical_component damage function.

Alternatively, in the environment file, include this line and set this environment 

variable when using the MUVES GUI:

Cylindrical_ComponentDebug = integer

CylindricalCompDamageDebug = integer
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

18

7. Conclusions

SLAD developed the CCM EM during fiscal year 2015–2016 for computing the 

pcd/h for ballistic threats versus cylindrical components. As part of the development 

process, it has been rigorously tested and compared to independent results from 

manual calculations. The CCM EM will be integrated in MUVES-S2 version 2.45

as software change request (SCR) number 2115 and a corrective for HEI threats 

was integrated in MUVES-S2 version 2.46 as SCR 2202.

Two methods to calculate cylindrical component failure are included in this EM: 

direct hit and effective size. The direct hit methodology is consistent with other 

methodologies used by the US Army Research Laboratory’s (ARL’s) Aviation 

Analysis Team to analyze aircraft vulnerabilities. The direct hit EM method uses 

the current MUVES-S2 methodology of modeling a projectile’s centerline path as 

a single nondimensional ray. When the ray impacts a component, MUVES-S2 

calculates that component’s vulnerability based on threat characteristics, 

penetration equations, and component vulnerability characterization data. By not 

including the projectile’s diameter in the shot line calculations, this approach 

ignores the potential component vulnerability caused by a projectile grazing a

component. The alternative to representing the threat as a single ray is to use a 

bundle of rays aligned around the projectile’s diameter. This approach includes all 

possible impacts of the threat to components near or on the shot line. Since bundled 

rays are not part of the current standard MUVES-S2 analysis process the effective 

size methodology attempts to capture the near-miss vulnerabilities. Rather than 

including the threat’s diameter through bundled rays, the effective size

methodology grows the cylindrical component’s diameter by the projectile’s 

diameter. The cylindrical component’s presented area is increased and therefore the 

component’s vulnerability is analyzed on more shot lines, thus possibly increasing 

that component's contribution to the overall system vulnerability results. MUVES 

cannot determine whether perforation would have occurred with the threat and 

cylindrical component on a near-miss shot line. To partially compensate for this 

limitation, MUVES only computes a pcd/h on a near-miss shot line if it perforates 

the adjacent component.

ARL’s Aviation Analysis Team prefers the direct hit methodology. It is consistent 

with how other components are being assessed in aircraft ballistic vulnerability 

analyses. The effective size methodology has merits; however, there are currently 

no means available to apply this methodology to the many other types of 

components within an aircraft.
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

19

8. References

1. Walther R. The cylindrical component Pcd/h method. SURVICE Engineering 

Company, Belcamp, MD; 2012 Jul. Report No.: SURVICE-TR-12-005.
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

20

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

21

Appendix A. Cylindrical Component Probability of Component 

Damage Given a Hit (pcd/h) Method Based upon Fraction of 

Circumference Removed
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

22 

A complete mathematical derivation of the Cylindrical Component Probability of 

Component Damage Given a Hit (Pcd/h) Method based upon fraction of 

circumference removed is provided below.1

Notation: 

ܦ diameter of cylindrical tube 

ܴ ܦ/2, radius of cylindrical tube 

݀ effective diameter of projectile 

ݎ ݀/2, effective radius of projectile 

ܥ 2ݎߨ, circumference of cylindrical tube 

݂ܿ fraction of circumference removed, which is used as the criterion for 

component dysfunction 

ܾ impact parameter, minimum distance between center of cylinder and center 

of projectile 

This methodology is based upon “The Cylindrical Component Pcd/h Method” by 

Robert Walther.2 The kill criterion of this methodology is based upon the fraction 

of the circumference removed by the impacting projectile. The methodology 

described here uses the same kill criterion but also provides documentation for 

developing a C++ program that automates the probability of component damage 

given a hit (pcd/h) computation. At the same time, this description addresses a 

shortcoming of the Cylindrical Component Pcd/h Method, which will be pointed out 

for the case when the projectile diameter is less than the cylinder diameter. 

Taking into account the finite size of the projectile, the effective diameter of the 

cylinder is ܦ൅݀, so it is important to recognize that the effective size of the 

cylindrical tube varies with the incoming projectile. 

What we are considering here is what Walther calls the baseline case, where we are 

only concerned with geometry but not penetration. We derive pcd/h formulas based 

purely upon the geometry of the encounter without worrying about the penetration. 

Penetration is treated separately and will reduce the pcd/h values established here. 

 1 Saucier R. Cylindrical component pcd/h method based upon fraction of circumference removed. 

Aberdeen Proving Ground (MD); 2014 Dec. ARL-SLAD white paper. 

2

 Walther R. The cylindrical component Pcd/h method. SURVICE Engineering Company; 2012 Jul. 

Report No.: SURVICE-TR-12-005. 
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

23

There are 2 distinct cases to consider: when the projectile diameter is greater than 

the cylinder diameter and when the projectile diameter is smaller than the cylinder 

diameter.

A.1 Case 1: Projectile Diameter Greater Than Cylinder Diameter: dd ≥ DD

First consider the case where the fragment diameter is greater than the cylinder 

diameter. We have the situation shown in Fig. A-1.

Fig. A-1 Diagram for computing pcd/h when the projectile diameter is greater than the

cylinder diameter

Shown is an end-on view of the cylinder with the projectile traveling upward. When 

the center of the projectile is anywhere in the shaded region, it will result in a hit to 

the cylinder, and since pcd/h is the probability of damage given a hit, this is the 

effective size of the cylinder for this projectile. The arc length shown in red is the 

amount of the cylinder circumference that is removed from this encounter, 

assuming that the projectile penetrates through the cylinder (baseline case). The 

impact parameter b is the minimum distance between the center of the projectile 

and the center of the cylinder for this encounter.

The impact parameter b characterizes the impact conditions. If 0 ≤ bb ≤ rr − RR, then 

the projectile completely overlaps the cylinder, and if bb > rr + RR, it will miss the 

cylinder. (Because of symmetry, it is only necessary to consider bb ≥ 0). When b 

lies between these 2 extremes, the fraction of the total circumference removed is
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

24

ffff = 2SS

CC = 2θθ2ππ = θθππ . (A-1)

From Fig. A-1 and using Eq. A-1,

bb = RR cccccc + rr = RR cos(ππ ) + rr (A-2)

so ffff is given by

ffff = �

1 ii 0 ≤ bb ≤ rr − RR

1

π cos−1 �

bb−rr

RR � ii rr − RR ≤ bb ≤ rr + RR

0 ii rr + RR ≤ bb

. (A-3)

Whether or not any particular impact constitutes a kill will depend upon the kill 

criterion, as specified by the value of ffff, and which we label as ffffkkkkkkkk. At bb = 0, 

the projectile would remove the entire circumference of the cylinder, which means 

the kill criterion will always be satisfied. Therefore,

bbmm mm = 0, (A-4)

regardless of the kill criterion. As b increases, we reach a point where

ffff = 1

ππ cos−1 �bb − rrRR

� = ffffkkkkkkkk . (A-5)

This is guaranteed to occur since ffff = 1 at bb = 0 and ffff = 0 at bb = RR + rr. The 

maximum distance, beyond which the kill criterion is not satisfied, is given by

bbmmmm = RR cos(ππffffkkkkkkkk) + rr . (A-6)

The range of b that results in a hit is

bbh ii = RR + rr . (A-7)

And since the probability of component damage given a random hit is (bbmmmm −

bbmm mm)/bbh ii, we have

PPcccc⁄h = RR cos(ππff kkkkllll)+rr

RR+rr (A-8)

for the case where dd ≥ DD.

A.2 Case 2: Projectile Diameter Less Than Cylinder Diameter: dd ≤ DD

The case where the projectile diameter is smaller than the cylinder diameter is 

slightly more complicated. In this case the minimum value of ffff occurs when

bb = 0, and this impact is shown in Fig. A-2.
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

25

Fig. A-2 Diagram for computing pcd/h for the minimum 2-hole shot when the projectile 

diameter is less than the cylinder diameter

The total circumference removed in this case is 4S, so the fraction of the total 

circumference removed is 

ffffmm mm = 4SS

CC = 4�

ππ

2−θθ�RR

2ππ = 1 − 2θθ

ππ (A-9)

where the angle θ is given by

cos = rr

RR

. (A-10)

Therefore,

ffffmm mm = 1 − 2

ππ cos−1 �

rr

RR

� (A-11)

or

rr

RR = cos �

ππ

2 − ππ2 ffffmm mm� = sin �

ππ

2 ffffmm mm� (A-12)

so that

ffffmm mm = 2

ππ sin−1 �

rr

RR

�. (A-13)

This is the minimum fractional circumference that would be removed, and it may 

or may not satisfy the kill criterion. But notice that this is not the only place where 
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

26

a “2-hole” shot can occur. Figure A-3 depicts the maximum 2-hole shot when the 

impact parameter is bb = RR − rr, the limit value for a 2-hole shot.∗

Fig. A-3 Diagram for computing pcd/h for the maxiumum 2-hole shot when the projectile 

diameter is less than the cylinder diameter

The fraction of the total circumference removed is

ffffmmmm = 2SS

CC = 2θθ2ππ = θθππ (A-14)

where the angle θ is given by

cos = RR−2rr

RR = 1 − 2rrRR . (A-15)

Therefore,

ffffmmmm = 1

ππ cos−1 �1 − 2rrRR � (A-16)

or

1 − 2rr

RR = cos(ππffffmmmm ) = 1 − 2 ss2 �

ππ

2 ffffmmmm � . (A-17)

The Cylindrical Component Pcd/h Method only evaluates ffffmm mm, and if this falls 

below the kill criterion, concludes that there are no 2-hole shots that satisfy the kill 

criterion. This is not necessarily true and we provide a counter-example in Fig. 3 of 

the main report.

 ∗ This value for the impact parameter also gives the maximum ffff for a C-type shot.
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

27

Therefore

ffffmmmm = 2

ππ sin−1 ��rrRR

� . (A-18)

The maximum 2-hole shot is also the maximum C-type shot. From this point on, as 

b increases from R − r to R + r, we continue to get C-type shots but ffff decreases 

from its maximum value ffffmmmm to ffff = 0. This geometry is shown in Fig. A-4, and

we see that

bbmmmm = RR cos(ππffffkkkkkkkk) + rr, (A-19)

which is the maximum value of the impact parameter that satisfies the kill criterion.

Fig. A-4 Diagram for computing pcd/h for a C-shot when the projectile diameter is less than 

the cylinder diameter

Now let’s return to a typical 2-hole shot, as shown in Fig. A-5.
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

28

Fig. A-5 Diagram for computing pcd/h for the typical 2-hole shot when the projectile diameter 

is less than the cylinder diameter

The baseline case consists of computing the amount of the cylinder circumference 

that would be removed (shown in red) if the projectile passes completely through 

the cylinder.

The fraction of the total circumference removed is

ffff = 2SS

CC = 2RR(θθ2−θθ1)

2ππ = θθ2−θθ1

ππ (A-20)

where the angles from Fig. 5 are seen to be given by

cosθ2 = bb−rr

RR

aa cos 1 = bb+rr

RR . (A-21)

Therefore,

ffff = 1

ππ �cos−1 �

bb−rr

RR � − cos−1 �

bb+rr

RR �� (A-22)

for 0 ≤ bb ≤ RR − rr.

This can be solved for b by making use of the trig functions in the complex plane. 

Let zz = cos , so that = cos−1 zz. Then
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

29

ee = cos + ii sin = zz + ii√1 − zz2 (A-23)

and

cos−1 zz = = −ii ln�ee � = −ii ln�zz + √1 − zz2� . (A-24)

Making use of this in Eq. A-21, we have

ππ = −ii ln �

bb−rr

RR

+ ii�1 − �

bb−rr

RR �

2

� + ii ln �

bb+rr

RR

+ ii�1 − �

bb+rr

RR �

2

�

= −ii ln �

bb−rr

RR + �1−�

bb−rr

RR �

2

bb+rr

RR + �1−�

bb+rr

RR �

2�

= −ii ln ��

bb−rr

RR

+ ii�1 − �

bb−rr

RR �

2

��

bb+rr

RR − ii�1 − �

bb+rr

RR �

2

�� , (A-25)

so that

ee = cos(ππ ) + ii sin(ππ ) = �

bb−rr

RR

+ ii�1 − �

bb−rr

RR �

2

��

bb+rr

RR − ii�1 − �

bb+rr

RR �

2

�. (A-26)

Taking the real part of both sides gives

cos(ππ ) = �

bb−rr

RR � �

bb+rr

RR � + �1 − �

bb−rr

RR �

2

�1 − �

bb+rr

RR �

2

, (A-27)

so that 

�1 − �

bb−rr

RR �

2

��1 − �

bb+rr

RR �

2

� = �cos(ππ ) − �

bb−rr

RR � �

bb+rr

RR ��

2

. (A-28)

Solving this for b, while making use of the trig identities

 1 − cos = 2 sin2 θθ

2

, 1 + cos = 2 cos2 θθ

2

, and sin = 2 sin θθ

2

cos

θθ

2

, (A-29)

we get

bb = cot �

ππ

2 ffff� �RR2 sin2 �

ππ

2 ffff� − rr2 (A-30)

where ffffmm mm ≤ ffff ≤ ffffmmmm . Using Eqs. A-12 and A-17, it is easily checked that 

this formula gives bb = 0 when ffff = ffffmm mm and bb = RR − rr when ffff = ffffmmmm .

Putting all this together, we use the following procedure for computing the pcd/h

when dd ≤ DD:
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

30

• If ffffmmmm < ffffkkkkkkkk, then Pcd/h = 0.

• On the other hand, if ffffmmmm ≥ ffffkkkkkkkk, then we use Eq. A-19 to set

bbmmmm = RR cos(ππffffkkkkkkkk) + rr. (A-31)

Next we calculate the value of bbmm mm. First we test the value of ffffmm mm, which occurs 

in the following when bb = 0:

• If ffffmm mm ≥ ffffkkkkkkkk, then we set bbmm mm = 0.

• On the other hand, if ffffmm mm < ffffkkkkkkkk, then we use Eq. A-30 to set

bbmm mm = cot �

ππ

2 ffffkkkkkkkk� �RR2 sin2 �

ππ

2 ffffkkkkkkkk� − rr2 . (A-32)

Then

PPcccc⁄h = bbmmmmmm−bbmm mm

RR+rr . (A-33)

Example 1 with DD = 1, dd = 1.25, ffffkkkkkkkk = 0.35

Since rr ≤ RR, we apply Eq. A-7 and we get

PPcccc⁄h = RR cos(ππff kkkk )+rr

RR+rr = 0.757. (A-34)

Example 2 with DD = 1, dd = 0.75, ffffkkkkkkkk = 0.35

Since rr ≤ RR, we need to apply Eq. A-33. First we compute

ffffmmmm = 2

ππ sin−1 ��rrRR

� = 0.667 (A-35)

and since this value exceeds ffffkkkkkkkk = 0.35, we know that Pcd/h > 0. Next we 

compute

bbmmmm = RR cos(ππffffkkkk ) + rr = 0.602 . (A-36)

Also,

ffffmm mm = 2

ππ sin−1 �

rr

RR

� = 0.540, (A-37)

and since this also exceeds 0.35, we set bbmm mm = 0 and therefore,

PPcccc⁄h = (bbmmmmmm−bbmm mm)

RR+rr = 0.688. (A-38)

Example 3 with DD = 1, dd = 0.5, ffffkkkkkkkk = 0.40

Since rr ≤ RR, we need to apply Eq. A-33. First we compute
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

31

ffffmmmm = 2

ππ sin−1 ��rrRR

� = 0.5, (A-39)

and since this value exceeds ffffkkkkkkkk = 0.40, we know that Pcd/h > 0. Next we 

compute

bbmmmm = RR cos(ππffffkkkkkkkk) + rr = 0.405. (A-40)

Also,

ffffmm mm = 2

ππ sin−1 �

rr

RR

� = 0.333, (A-41)

and since this falls below 0.40, we need to compute bmin using Eq. A-32

bbmm mm = 0.213. (A-42)

Finally,

PPcccc⁄h = (bbmmmmmm−bbmm mm)

RR+rr = 0.256. (A-43)

A.3 Direct Hit Modification to Cylindrical Component Pcd/h Method

Up to this point the pcd/h that we have been calculating is the probability of a kill, 

given a hit,

PPcccc⁄h = PPkk

PPh ii

(A-44)

where a hit is “metal on metal” contact, even if it is just a grazing shot. On the other 

hand, let Pdhit be the probability of a direct hit in which the center or the projectile 

hits somewhere on the tube. These would also be the shots that raytracing would 

flag as hits. Then

PPcccc⁄h = PPkk

PPddh ii

PPddh ii

PPh ii

. (A-45)

Or, rearranging

PPkk

PPddh ii

= PPcccc⁄h

PPh ii

PPddh ii

. (A-46)

If D is the tube diameter and d is projectile diameter, then

PPh ii

PPddh ii

= DD+

DD = 1 +DD . (A-47)

So that
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

32

PPkk

PPddh ii

= PPcccc⁄h �1 +

DD� . (A-48)

Since the probability can not be greater than 1, it should be

PPkk

PPddh ii

= mm �PPcccc⁄h(1 + dd⁄DD), 1� . (A-49)

A.4 Hole Enlargement

Another modification that could be made is to take into account that the hole in the 

target tends to be greater than the presented area of the projectile. The crater 

diameter when a projectile impacts semi-infinite metal is greater than the diameter 

of the projectile and is also a function of velocity. But even in the case of finite 

thickness metal, the hole diameter tends to be larger, and a value of 8%–10% was 

suggested. If we are conservative and use an 8% value, then we only need to make 

the replacement 

dd ⇒ 1.08dd (A-50)

in the equations for PPcccc⁄h and PPkk⁄PP h ii.

A sample Python code for implementing all the key equations, and the 

modifications for direct hit and hole enlargement is shown in Fig. A-6.
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

33

Fig. A-6 Python program for computing baseline case pcd/h
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

34

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

35

Appendix B. MUVES-S2 Test Cases for Cylindrical_component 

Evaluation Module (EM)
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

36

B.1 Developmental Test 1

B.1.1 Test Definition and Purpose

For Test 1, a test case matrix was developed to test the Cylindrical Component 

Methodology Evaluation Model (CCM EM) for 3 threats against 3 targets. The 

threats were 7.62-mm armor piercing incendiary (API), 14.5-mm API, and 30-mm 

API. Each target consisted of 2 tubes and a plate contained in a simple box (i.e., the 

tubes represented internal target components). The tubes were MUVES 

components with the cylindrical_component EM assigned. The 3 targets differed 

only in the diameter size of the tubes, which were 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 inches, 

respectively (Fig. B-1).

Fig. B-1 BRL-CAD test target for CCM EM: internal cylindrical components

Tube1 ran horizontally and tube2 ran vertically and intersected the plate. Each tube 

in each target description had the BRL-CAD datum attributes, cylindrical_radius 
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

37

and cylindrical_axis, created and set. The OUTER_DIAM component property was 

also set for each tube for each analysis according to the diameter of the tubes in 

each target. The box surrounding the tubes and plate imparted yaw on the threat,

which tested the MUVES calculation of effective threat hole diameter using the 

circularized presented area of the threat.

A view file was created with 4 shots: 

1. A direct hit 2-hole shot on tube2 (a shot that intersects 2 walls of the tube 

and the hollow area inside the tube).

2. A direct hit grazing shot on tube2 (a shot that enters and exits outer wall of 

tube; does not enter hollow area of tube).

3. A “near-miss” shot on tube2 (a shot that would impact the tube if the size 

of the threat was taken into account).

4. A “complete miss” shot on tube2 (a shot that would miss the tube if the size 

of the threat was taken into account).

The cylindrical kill criteria used were 0.30, 0.45, and 0.54 for the 0.5-, 1.0-, and 

2.0-inch-diameter tubes, respectively. The CYLINDRICAL_KILL_CRITERIA 

component property was set in the prop file accordingly.

One session file was created for each threat versus target combination for a total of 

9 sessions. Four analyses were developed for each session file. Each analysis 

invoked a different modkey setting for cylinder_method:

• effective_size method 

• direct_hit method 

• no_preference

• cylinder_method modkey not set

The purpose of the test matrix was to exercise the CCM EM for various projectile 

diameter versus tube diameter combinations, various methods for computing the 

cylinder’s probability of component dysfunction given a hit (pcd/h), various shot line

conditions, and various MUVES settings. The test matrix has 36 test cases for the 

CCM EM.

The following session files are located on /n/king/muves/analysis/SCR2115

_Testing: 

1. 7.62 mm_v_0.5in_tube

2. 7.62 mm_v_1.0in_tube
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

38

3. 7.62 mm_v_2.0in_tube

4. 14.5 mm_v_0.5in_tube

5. 14.5 mm_v_1.0in_tube

6. 14.5 mm_v_2.0in_tube

7. 30 mm_v_0.5in_tube

8. 30 mm_v_1.0in_tube

9. 30 mm_v_2.0in_tube

B.1.2 Test Results Verification

Manual calculations of cylinder component pcd/h were performed using the effective 

size and direct hit method. Manual calculations of cylinder component pcd/h’s for 

the various test cases were compared to calculations generated by the CCM EM. 

Manual calculations and CCM EM calculations of pcd/h’s are contained in Table B-1 

for the 7.62-mm API threat, Table B-2 for the 14.5-mm API threat, and Table B-3 

for the 30-mm API threat. Manual calculations and CCM EM calculations are in 

agreement.
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

39

Table B-1 A 7.62-mm API (0.31-inch diameter) vs. 0.5-, 1.0-, and 2.0-inch-diameter internal 

tubes pcd/h

Threat: 7.62mm API

Threat Diameter: 0.31 in

Cylindrical Kill Criteria: 0.30 (for 0.5-in tube), 0.45 (for 1.0-in tube), 0.54 (for 2.0-in tube)

Cylinder Method: Effective Size (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 7.917 0.746 0.746 7.916 0 0 7.914 0 0

cshot 7.917 0.746 0.746 7.917 0 0 7.917 0 0

near miss 7.874 0.746 0.746 7.874 0 0 7.874 0 0

total miss none none none none none none none none none

Cylinder Method: Direct Hit (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 7.917 1 1 7.916 0 0 7.914 0 0

cshot 7.917 1 1 7.917 0 0 7.917 0 0

near miss none none none none none none none none none

total miss none none none none none none none none none

Cylinder Method: No preference (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 7.917 1 1 7.916 0 0 7.914 0 0

cshot 7.917 1 1 7.917 0 0 7.917 0 0

near miss none none none none none none none none none

total miss none none none none none none none none none

Cylinder Method:No selection (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 7.917 1 1 7.916 0 0 7.914 0 0

c shot 7.917 1 1 7.917 0 0 7.917 0 0

near miss none none none none none none none none none

total miss none none none none none none none none none

Tube Diameter (in)

7.62mm_v_0.5in_tube.2.ir 7.62mm_v_1.0in_tube.2.ir 7.62mm_v_2.0in_tube.2.ir

7.62mm_v_0.5in_tube.3.ir 7.62mm_v_1.0in_tube.3.ir 7.62mm_v_2.0in_tube.3.ir

Tube Diameter (in)

0.5 1.0 2.0

SCR2115 Testing Results

0.5 1.0 2.0

Tube Diameter (in)

0.5 1.0 2.0

Tube Diameter (in)

0.5 1.0 2.0

7.62mm_v_0.5in_tube.0.ir 7.62mm_v_1.0in_tube.0.ir 7.62mm_v_2.0in_tube.0.ir

7.62mm_v_0.5in_tube.1.ir 7.62mm_v_1.0in_tube.1.ir 7.62mm_v_2.0in_tube.1.ir
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

40

Table B-2 A 14.5-mm API (0.59-inch diameter) vs. 0.5-, 1.0-, and 2.0-inch-diameter internal 

tubes pcd/h

Threat: 14.5mm API

Threat Diameter: 0.59 in

Cylindrical Kill Criteria: 0.30 (0.5-in tube), 0.45 (1.0-in tube), 0.54 (2.0in-tube)

Cylinder Method: Effective Size (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 14.995 0.811 0.811 14.995 0.27 0.27 14.995 0 0

cshot 14.995 0.811 0.811 14.995 0.27 0.27 14.995 0 0

near miss 14.986 0.811 0.811 14.986 0.27 0.27 14.986 0 0

total miss none none none none none none none none none

Cylinder Method: Direct Hit (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 14.995 1 1 14.995 0.43 0.43 14.995 0 0

cshot 14.995 1 1 14.995 0.43 0.43 14.995 0 0

near miss none none none none none none none none none

total miss none none none none none none none none none

Cylinder Method: No preference (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 14.995 1 1 14.995 0.43 0.43 14.995 0 0

cshot 14.995 1 1 14.995 0.43 0.43 14.995 0 0

near miss none none none none none none none none none

total miss none none none none none none none none none

Cylinder Method:No selection (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 14.995 1 1 14.995 0.43 0.43 14.995 0 0

c shot 14.995 1 1 14.995 0.43 0.43 14.995 0 0

near miss none none none none none none none none none

total miss none none none none none none none none none

Tube Diameter (in)

0.5 1.0 2.0

Tube Diameter (in)

0.5 1.0 2.0

14.5mm_v_0.5in_tube.3.ir 14.5mm_v_1.0in_tube.3.ir 14.5mm_v_2.0in_tube.3.ir

Tube Diameter (in)

0.5 1.0 2.0

14.5mm_v_0.5in_tube.2.ir 14.5mm_v_1.0in_tube.2.ir 14.5mm_v_2.0in_tube.2.ir

0.5 1.0 2.0

14.5mm_v_0.5in_tube.1.ir 14.5mm_v_1.0in_tube.1.ir 14.5mm_v_2.0in_tube.1.ir

Tube Diameter (in)

14.5mm_v_0.5in_tube.0.ir 14.5mm_v_1.0in_tube.0.ir 14.5mm_v_2.0in_tube.0.ir
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

41

Table B-3 A 30-mm API (1.18-inch diameter) vs. 0.5-, 1.0-, and 2.0-inch-diameter internal 

tubes pcd/h

B.2 Developmental Test 2

B.2.1 Test Definition and Purpose 

The same test case matrix developed for Test 1 was used for Test 2 except the target 

geometry was modified. The exterior box around the tubes was removed from the 

3 targets so the tubes would represent external components. Test 2’s purpose is to 

Threat: 30mm API

Threat Diameter: 1.18 in

Cylindrical Kill Criteria: 0.30 (0.5-in tube), 0.45 (1.0-in tube), 0.54 (2.0-in tube)

Cylinder Method: Effective Size (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 29.980 0.877 0.877 29.980 0.613 0.613 29.980 0.036 0.036

cshot 29.980 0.877 0.877 29.980 0.613 0.613 29.980 0.036 0.036

near miss 29.972 0.877 0.877 29.972 0.613 0.613 29.972 0.035 0.035

total miss none none none none none none none none none

Cylinder Method: Direct Hit (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 29.980 1 1 29.980 1 1 29.980 0.057 0.057

cshot 29.980 1 1 29.980 1 1 29.980 0.057 0.057

near miss none none none none none none none none none

total miss none none none none none none none none none

Cylinder Method: No preference (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 29.980 1 1 29.980 1 1 29.980 0.056 0.057

cshot 29.980 1 1 29.980 1 1 29.980 0.056 0.057

near miss none none none none none none none none none

total miss none none none none none none none none none

Cylinder Method:No selection (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 29.980 1 1 29.980 1 1 29.980 0.056 0.057

c shot 29.980 1 1 29.980 1 1 29.980 0.056 0.057

near miss none none none none none none none none none

total miss none none none none none none none none none

Tube Diameter (in)

0.5 1.0 2.0

Tube Diameter (in)

0.5 1.0 2.0

30mm_v_0.5in_tube.3.ir 30mm_v_1.0in_tube.3.ir 30mm_v_2.0in_tube.3.ir

Tube Diameter (in)

0.5 1.0 2.0

30mm_v_0.5in_tube.2.ir 30mm_v_1.0in_tube.2.ir 30mm_v_2.0in_tube.2.ir

0.5 1.0 2.0

30mm_v_0.5in_tube.1.ir 30mm_v_1.0in_tube.1.ir 30mm_v_2.0in_tube.1.ir

Tube Diameter (in)

30mm_v_0.5in_tube.0.ir 30mm_v_1.0in_tube.0.ir 30mm_v_2.0in_tube.0.ir
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

42

ensure near-miss damage packets are created even if the shot line misses the 

cylindrical components when they are external to the target. The same threats were 

used: 7.62-mm API, 14.5-mm API, and 30-mm API. Each target consisted of 2

tubes and a plate. The 3 targets differed only in the diameter size of the tubes, which 

were 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 inches, respectively (Fig. B-2).

Fig. B-2 BRL-CAD test target for CCM EM: external cylindrical components

Tube1 ran horizontally and tube2 ran vertically and intersected the plate. Each tube 

in each target description had the BRL-CAD datum attributes, cylindrical_radius,

and cylindrical_axis, created and set. The OUTER_DIAM component property was 

also set for each tube for each analysis according to the diameter of the tubes in 

each target. 

The same view file used in Test 1 was used for Test 2. The 4 shot lines are as 

follows:
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

43

1. A direct hit 2-hole shot on tube2 (a shot that intersects 2 walls of the tube 

and the hollow area inside the tube).

2. A direct hit grazing shot on tube2 (a shot that enters and exits outer wall of 

tube only; does not enter hollow area of tube).

3. A near-miss shot on tube2 (a shot that would impact the tube if the size of 

the threat was taken into account).

4. A complete miss shot on tube2 (a shot that would miss the tube if the size 

of the threat was taken into account).

The cylindrical kill criteria used were 0.30, 0.45, and 0.54 for the 0.5-, 1.0-, and 

2.0-inch-diameter tubes, respectively. The CYLINDRICAL_KILL_CRITERIA 

component property was set in the prop file accordingly.

One session file was created for each threat versus target combination for a total of 

9 sessions. Four analyses were developed for each session file. Each analysis 

invoked a different modkey setting for cylinder_method:

• effective_size method 

• direct_hit method 

• no_preference

• cylinder_method modkey not set

The purpose of the test matrix was to exercise the CCM EM for various projectile 

diameter versus tube diameter combinations, various methods for computing the 

cylinder’s pcd/h, various shot line conditions, and various MUVES settings. The test 

matrix is a set of 36 test cases for the CCM EM.

The following session files are located on /n/king/muves/analysis/SCR2115

_Testing:

1. 7.62mm_v_0.5in_tube_ext

2. 7.62mm_v_1.0in_tube_ext

3. 7.62mm_v_2.0in_tube_ext

4. 14.5mm_v_0.5in_tube_ext

5. 14.5mm_v_1.0in_tube_ext

6. 14.5mm_v_2.0in_tube_ext

7. 30mm_v_0.5in_tube_ext
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

44

8. 30mm_v_1.0in_tube_ext

9. 30mm_v_2.0in_tube_ext

B.2.2 Test Results Verification

Manual calculations of cylinder component pcd/h were performed using the effective 

size and direct hit method. Manual calculations of the cylinder component pcd/h’s

for the various test cases described in Section B2.1 of the main report were 

compared to calculations generated by the CCM EM. Manual calculations and 

CCM EM calculations of pcd/h’s are contained in Table B-4 for the 7.62-mm API 

threat, Table B-5 for the 14.5-mm API threat, and Table B-6 for the 30-mm API 

threat. Manual calculations and CCM EM calculations are in agreement.
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

45

Fig. B-3 A 7.62-mm API (0.31-inch diameter) vs. 0.5-, 1.0-, and 2.0-inch-diameter external 

tubes pcd/h

Threat: 7.62mm API

Threat Diameter: 0.31 in

Cylindrical Kill Criteria: 0.30 (0.5-in external tube), 0.45 (1.0-inexternal tube), 0.54 (2.0-in external tube)

Cylinder Method: Effective Size (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 7.874 0.746 0.746 7.874 0 0 7.874 0 0

cshot 7.874 0.746 0.746 7.874 0 0 7.874 0 0

near miss 7.874 0.746 0.746 7.874 0 0 7.874 0 0

total miss none none none none none none none none none

Cylinder Method: Direct Hit (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 7.874 1 1 7.874 0 0 7.874 0 0

cshot 7.874 1 1 7.874 0 0 7.874 0 0

near miss none none none none none none none none none

total miss none none none none none none none none none

Cylinder Method: No preference (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 7.874 1 1 7.874 0 0 7.874 0 0

cshot 7.874 1 1 7.874 0 0 7.874 0 0

near miss none none none none none none none none none

total miss none none none none none none none none none

Cylinder Method:No selection (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 7.874 1 1 7.874 0 0 7.874 0 0

c shot 7.874 1 1 7.874 0 0 7.874 0 0

near miss none none none none none none none none none

total miss none none none none none none none none none

Tube Diameter (in)

0.5 1.0 2.0

7.62mm_v_0.5in_tube_ext.0.ir 7.62mm_v_1.0in_tube_ext.0.ir 7.62mm_v_2.0in_tube_ext.0.ir

Tube Diameter (in)

0.5 1.0 2.0

Tube Diameter (in)

0.5 1.0 2.0

Tube Diameter (in)

0.5 1.0 2.0

7.62mm_v_0.5in_tube_ext.3.ir 7.62mm_v_1.0in_tube_ext.3.ir 7.62mm_v_2.0in_tube_ext.3.ir

7.62mm_v_0.5in_tube_ext.1.ir 7.62mm_v_1.0in_tube_ext.1.ir 7.62mm_v_2.0in_tube_ext.1.ir

7.62mm_v_0.5in_tube_ext.2.ir 7.62mm_v_1.0in_tube_ext.2.ir 7.62mm_v_2.0in_tube_ext.2.ir
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

46

Table B-4 A 14.5-mm API (0.59-inch diameter) vs. 0.5-, 1.0-, and 2.0-inch-diameter external 

tubes pcd/h

Threat: 14.5mm API

Threat Diameter: 0.59 in

Cylindrical Kill Criteria: 0.30 (0.5-in external tube), 0.45 (1.0-in external tube), 0.54 (2.0-in external tube)

Cylinder Method: Effective Size (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 14.995 0.811 0.811 14.995 0.27 0.27 14.995 0 0

cshot 14.995 0.811 0.811 14.995 0.27 0.27 14.995 0 0

near miss 14.986 0.811 0.811 14.986 0.27 0.27 14.986 0 0

total miss none none none none none none none none none

Cylinder Method: Direct Hit (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 14.995 1 1 14.995 0.429 0.43 14.995 0 0

cshot 14.995 1 1 14.995 0.429 0.43 14.995 0 0

near miss none none none none none none none none none

total miss none none none none none none none none none

Cylinder Method: No preference (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 14.995 1 1 14.995 0.429 0.43 14.995 0 0

cshot 14.995 1 1 14.995 0.429 0.43 14.995 0 0

near miss none none none none none none none none none

total miss none none none none none none none none none

Cylinder Method:No selection (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 14.995 1 1 14.995 0.429 0.43 14.995 0 0

c shot 14.995 1 1 14.995 0.429 0.43 14.995 0 0

near miss none none none none none none none none none

total miss none none none none none none none none none

Tube Diameter (in)

0.5 1.0 2.0

14.5mm_v_0.5in_tube_ext.0.ir 14.5mm_v_1.0in_tube_ext.0.ir 14.5mm_v_2.0in_tube_ext.0.ir

Tube Diameter (in)

0.5 1.0 2.0

Tube Diameter (in)

0.5 1.0 2.0

Tube Diameter (in)

0.5 1.0 2.0

14.5mm_v_0.5in_tube_ext.3.ir 14.5mm_v_1.0in_tube_ext.3.ir 14.5mm_v_2.0in_tube_ext.3.ir

14.5mm_v_0.5in_tube_ext.1.ir 14.5mm_v_1.0in_tube_ext.1.ir 14.5mm_v_2.0in_tube_ext.1.ir

14.5mm_v_0.5in_tube_ext.2.ir 14.5mm_v_1.0in_tube_ext.2.ir 14.5mm_v_2.0in_tube_ext.2.ir
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

47

Table B-5 A 30-mm API (1.18-inch diameter) vs. 0.5-, 1.0-, 2.0-inch-diameter external tubes

pcd/h

B.3 Developmental Test 3

B.3.1 Test Definition and Purpose

The same test case matrix developed for Test 1 was used for Test 3 except 

CYLINDRICAL_HOLE_GROWTH was set to 8% for both tubes in the prop file. 

The purpose of Test 3 is to verify the CCM EM is calculating the pcd/h of the 

Threat: 30mm API

Threat Diameter: 1.18 in

Cylindrical Kill Criteria: 0.30 (0.5-in external tube), 0.45 (1.0-in external tube), 0.54 (2.0-in external tube)

Cylinder Method: Effective Size (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 29.972 0.877 0.877 29.972 0.613 0.613 29.972 0.035 0.035

cshot 29.972 0.877 0.877 29.972 0.613 0.613 29.972 0.035 0.035

near miss 29.972 0.877 0.877 29.972 0.613 0.613 29.972 0.035 0.035

total miss none none none none none none none none none

Cylinder Method: Direct Hit (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 29.972 1 1 29.972 1 1 29.972 0.056 0.056

cshot 29.972 1 1 29.972 1 1 29.972 0.056 0.056

near miss none none none none none none none none none

total miss none none none none none none none none none

Cylinder Method: No preference (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 29.972 1 1 29.972 1 1 29.972 0.056 0.056

cshot 29.972 1 1 29.972 1 1 29.972 0.056 0.056

near miss none none none none none none none none none

total miss none none none none none none none none none

Cylinder Method:No selection (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 29.972 1 1 29.972 1 1 29.972 0.056 0.056

c shot 29.972 1 1 29.972 1 1 29.972 0.056 0.056

near miss none none none none none none none none none

total miss none none none none none none none none none

Tube Diameter (in)

0.5 1.0 2.0

30mm_v_0.5in_tube_ext.0.ir 30mm_v_1.0in_tube_ext.0.ir 30mm_v_2.0in_tube_ext.0.ir

Tube Diameter (in)

0.5 1.0 2.0

Tube Diameter (in)

0.5 1.0 2.0

Tube Diameter (in)

0.5 1.0 2.0

30mm_v_0.5in_tube_ext.3.ir 30mm_v_1.0in_tube_ext.3.ir 30mm_v_2.0in_tube_ext.3.ir

30mm_v_0.5in_tube_ext.1.ir 30mm_v_1.0in_tube_ext.1.ir 30mm_v_2.0in_tube_ext.1.ir

30mm_v_0.5in_tube_ext.2.ir 30mm_v_1.0in_tube_ext.2.ir 30mm_v_2.0in_tube_ext.2.ir
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

48

cylindrical component correctly when the cylindrical hole growth percentage is set 

in the prop file.

The same threats were used: 7.62-mm API, 14.5-mm API, and 30-mm API. Each 

target consisted of 2 tubes and a plate. The 3 targets differed only in the diameter 

size of the tubes, which were 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 inches, respectively (Fig. B-1).

Tube1 ran horizontally and tube2 ran vertically and intersected the plate. Each tube 

in each target description had the BRL-CAD datum attributes, cylindrical_radius 

and cylindrical_axis, created and set. The OUTER_DIAM component property was 

also set for each tube for each analysis according to the diameter of the tubes in the 

target. 

A new view file was created for Test 3 to account for hole growth for near misses 

and complete misses. The following are the 4 shot lines:

1. A direct hit 2-hole shot on tube2 (a shot that intersects 2 walls of the tube 

and the hollow area inside the tube).

2. A direct hit grazing shot on tube2 (a shot that enters and exits outer wall of 

tube only; does not enter hollow area of tube).

3. A near-miss shot on tube2 (a shot that would impact the tube if the size of 

the threat including hole growth was taken into account).

4. A complete miss shot on tube2 (a shot that would miss the tube if the size 

of the threat including hole growth was taken into account).

The cylindrical kill criteria used were 0.30, 0.45, and 0.54 for the 0.5-, 1.0-, and 

2.0-inch-diameter tubes, respectively. The CYLINDRICAL_KILL_CRITERIA 

component property was set in the prop file accordingly.

One session file was created for each threat versus target combination for a total of 

9 sessions. Four analyses were developed for each session file. Each analysis 

invoked a different modkey setting for cylinder_method:

• effective_size method 

• direct_hit method 

• no_preference

• cylinder_method modkey not set

The following session files are located on /n/king/muves/analysis/SCR2115

_Testing:
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

49

1. 7.62mm_v_0.5in_tube_hg

2. 7.62mm_v_1.0in_tube_hg

3. 7.62mm_v_2.0in_tube_hg

4. 14.5mm_v_0.5in_tube_hg

5. 14.5mm_v_1.0in_tube_hg

6. 14.5mm_v_2.0in_tube_hg

7. 30mm_v_0.5in_tube_hg

8. 30mm_v_1.0in_tube_hg

9. 30mm_v_2.0in_tube_hg

B.3.2 Test Results Verification

Manual calculations of cylinder component pcd/h were performed using the effective 

size and direct hit methods and accounted for an 8% increase in threat hole size. 

Manual calculations of cylinder component pcd/h’s for the various test cases 

described in Section B3.1 of the main report were compared to calculations 

generated by the CCM EM that accounted for an 8% increase in threat hole size. 

Manual calculations and CCM EM calculations of pcd/h’s are contained in Table B7 for the 7.62-mm API threat, Table B-8 for the 14.5-mm API threat, and Table B9 for the 30-mm API threat. Manual calculations and CCM EM calculations are in 

agreement.
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

50

Table B-6 A 7.62-mm API with 8% hole growth (0.335-inch diameter) vs. 0.5-, 1.0-, and 2.0-

inch-diameter internal tubes pcd/h

Threat: 7.62mm API

Threat Diameter: 0.31 in

Cylindrical Kill Criteria: 0.30 (0.5-in tube), 0.45 (1.0-in tube), 0.54 (2.0-in tube)

Hole Growth Percentage: 8

Cylinder Method: Effective Size (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 8.550 0.754 0.754 8.549 0 0 8.547 0 0

cshot 8.550 0.754 0.754 8.550 0 0 8.550 0 0

near miss 8.504 0.753 0.753 8.504 0 0 8.504 0 0

total miss none none none none none none none none none

Cylinder Method: Direct Hit (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 8.550 1 1 8.549 0 0 8.547 0 0

cshot 8.550 1 1 8.550 0 0 8.550 0 0

near miss none none none none none none none none none

total miss none none none none none none none none none

Cylinder Method: No preference (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 8.550 1 1 8.549 0 0 8.547 0 0

cshot 8.550 1 1 8.550 0 0 8.550 0 0

near miss none none none none none none none none none

total miss none none none none none none none none none

Cylinder Method:No selection (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 8.550 1 1 8.549 0 0 8.547 0 0

c shot 8.550 1 1 8.550 0 0 8.550 0 0

near miss none none none none none none none none none

total miss none none none none none none none none none

Tube Diameter (in)

0.5 1.0 2.0

Tube Diameter (in)

0.5 1.0 2.0

7.62mm_v_0.5in_tube_hg.3.ir 7.62mm_v_1.0in_tube_hg.3.ir 7.62mm_v_2.0in_tube_hg.3.ir

Tube Diameter (in)

0.5 1.0 2.0

7.62mm_v_0.5in_tube_hg.2.ir 7.62mm_v_1.0in_tube_hg.2.ir 7.62mm_v_2.0in_tube_hg.2.ir

0.5 1.0 2.0

7.62mm_v_0.5in_tube_hg.1.ir 7.62mm_v_1.0in_tube_hg.1.ir 7.62mm_v_2.0in_tube_hg.1.ir

7.62mm_v_0.5in_tube_hg.0.ir 7.62mm_v_1.0in_tube_hg.0.ir 7.62mm_v_2.0in_tube_hg.0.ir

Tube Diameter (in)
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

51

Table B-7 A 14.5-mm API with 8% hole growth (0.637-inch diameter) vs. 0.5-, 1.0-, and 

2.0-inch-diameter internal tubes pcd/h

Threat: 14.5mm API

Threat Diameter: 0.59 in

Cylindrical Kill Criteria: 0.30 (0.5-in tube), 0.45 (1.0-in tube), 0.54 (2.0-in tube)

Hole Growth Percentage: 8

Cylinder Method: Effective Size (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 16.195 0.819 0.819 16.195 0.397 0.397 16.194 0 0

cshot 16.195 0.819 0.819 16.195 0.397 0.397 16.194 0 0

near miss 16.185 0.819 0.819 16.185 0.395 0.397 16.185 0 0

total miss none none none none none none none none none

Cylinder Method: Direct Hit (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 16.195 1 1 16.195 0.649 0.649 16.194 0 0

cshot 16.195 1 1 16.195 0.649 0.649 16.194 0 0

near miss none none none none none none none none none

total miss none none none none none none none none none

Cylinder Method: No preference (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 16.195 1 1 16.195 0.649 0.649 16.194 0 0

cshot 16.195 1 1 16.195 0.649 0.649 16.194 0 0

near miss none none none none none none none none none

total miss none none none none none none none none none

Cylinder Method:No selection (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 16.195 1 1 16.195 0.649 0.649 16.194 0 0

c shot 16.195 1 1 16.195 0.649 0.649 16.194 0 0

near miss none none none none none none none none none

total miss none none none none none none none none none

14.5mm_v_0.5in_tube_hg.3.ir

Tube Diameter (in)

0.5 1.0 2.0

14.5mm_v_1.0in_tube_hg.3.ir 14.5mm_v_2.0in_tube_hg.3.ir

14.5mm_v_0.5in_tube_hg.2.ir 14.5mm_v_1.0in_tube_hg.2.ir 14.5mm_v_2.0in_tube_hg.2.ir

Tube Diameter (in)

0.5 1.0 2.0

14.5mm_v_0.5in_tube_hg.1.ir 14.5mm_v_1.0in_tube_hg.1.ir 14.5mm_v_2.0in_tube_hg.1.ir

Tube Diameter (in)

0.5 1.0 2.0

0.5 1.0 2.0

14.5mm_v_0.5in_tube_hg.0.ir 14.5mm_v_1.0in_tube_hg.0.ir 14.5mm_v_2.0in_tube_hg.0.ir

Tube Diameter (in)
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

52

Table B-8 A 30-mm API with 8% hole growth (0.335-inch diameter) vs. 0.5-, 1.0-, and

2.0-inch-diameter internal tubes pcd/h

Threat: 30mm API

Threat Diameter: 1.18 in

Cylindrical Kill Criteria: 0.30 (0.5-in tube), 0.45 (1.0-in tube), 0.54 (2.0-in tube)

Hole Growth Percentage: 8

Cylinder Method: Effective Size (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 32.378 0.884 0.884 32.378 0.629 0.629 32.378 0.100 0.1

cshot 32.379 0.884 0.884 32.378 0.629 0.629 32.378 0.100 0.1

near miss 32.370 0.884 0.884 32.370 0.629 0.629 32.370 0.100 0.1

total miss none none none none none none none none none

Cylinder Method: Direct Hit (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 32.378 1 1 32.378 1 1 32.378 0.163 0.163

cshot 32.379 1 1 32.378 1 1 32.378 0.163 0.163

near miss none none none none none none none none none

total miss none none none none none none none none none

Cylinder Method: No preference (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 32.378 1 1 32.378 1 1 32.378 0.163 0.163

cshot 32.379 1 1 32.378 1 1 32.378 0.163 0.163

near miss none none none none none none none none none

total miss none none none none none none none none none

Cylinder Method:No selection (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 32.378 1 1 32.378 1 1 32.378 0.163 0.163

c shot 32.379 1 1 32.378 1 1 32.378 0.163 0.163

near miss none none none none none none none none none

total miss none none none none none none none none none

30mm_v_0.5in_tube_hg.3.ir 30mm_v_1.0in_tube_hg.3.ir 30mm_v_2.0in_tube_hg.3.ir

Tube Diameter (in)

0.5 1.0 2.0

30mm_v_0.5in_tube_hg.2.ir 30mm_v_1.0in_tube_hg.2.ir 30mm_v_2.0in_tube_hg.2.ir

Tube Diameter (in)

0.5 1.0 2.0

30mm_v_0.5in_tube_hg.1.ir 30mm_v_1.0in_tube_hg.1.ir 30mm_v_2.0in_tube_hg.1.ir

Tube Diameter (in)

0.5 1.0 2.0

0.5 1.0 2.0

30mm_v_0.5in_tube_hg.0.ir 30mm_v_1.0in_tube_hg.0.ir 30mm_v_2.0in_tube_hg.0.ir

Tube Diameter (in)
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

53

B.4 Developmental Test 4

B.4.1 Test Definition and Purpose

The purpose of Test 4 is to verify that the CCM EM is using the correct diameter 

given the state of the projectile when it enters the cylindrical component. In this test 

case, the target material and line-of-sight thickness of the box surrounding the tubes

was modified so that the projectile’s jacket was stripped during penetration of the 

box. The core of the projectile entered the tube. The 14.5-mm API threat against a 

1.0-inch tube was tested. 

Each tube in the target description had the BRL-CAD datum attributes, 

cylindrical_radius and cylindrical_axis, created and set. The OUTER_DIAM 

component property was also set to 1.0 inch (25.4 mm). 

The view file for Test 4 had 4 shot lines:

1. A direct hit 2-hole shot on tube2 (a shot that intersects 2 walls of the tube 

and the hollow area inside the tube).

2. A direct hit grazing shot on tube2 (a shot that enters and exits outer wall of 

tube only; does not enter hollow area of tube).

3. A near-miss shot on tube2 (a shot that would impact the tube if the size of 

the threat was taken into account).

4. A complete miss shot on tube2 (a shot that would miss the tube if the size 

of the threat was taken into account).

The cylindrical kill criterion used was 0.45 for the 1.0-inch-diameter tube. The 

CYLINDRICAL_KILL_CRITERIA component property was set in the prop file 

accordingly.

One session with 4 analyses was developed for this test case. Each analysis invoked 

a different modkey setting for cylinder_method:

• effective_size method 

• direct_hit method 

• no_preference

• cylinder_method modkey not set

The session file is located on /n/king/muves/analysis/SCR2115_Testing named 

14.5mm_v_1.0in_coreperf.
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

54

B.4.2 Test Results Verification

The intermediate results file from each analysis was used to verify that the core was 

impacting the tube and that the correct hole diameter was used for the CCM EM 

calculations. When the effective size method is used, the near-miss shot line had a 

slightly larger effective threat size than the direct hit shot lines (2-hole shot and 

C-shot). The reason the effective threat size is larger for the near-miss shot line is 

because ProjPen is computing yaw for the next component on the shot line. The 

yaw of the projectile is the yaw at the exit of the airgap space. Since the airgap is 

larger for the near miss than the direct hit shot lines, the projectile yaw is greater, 

resulting in a larger effective threat size. Manual calculations and CCM EM 

calculations of pcd/h’s are contained in Table B-10 for the 14.5-mm API threat 

against the 1.0-inch tube for a core penetration. Manual calculations and CCM EM 

calculations are in agreement.

Table B-9 A 14.5-mm API vs. 1.0-inch tube pcd/h with core penetration

Threat: 14.5mm API

Threat Diameter: 0.59 in Core diameter: 0.49 in

Cylindrical Kill Criteria: 0.45

Core penetration into tube

Cylinder Method: Effective Size (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 12.616 0.109 0.109

cshot 12.617 0.109 0.109

near miss 14.986 0.27 0.27

total miss none none none

Cylinder Method: Direct Hit (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 12.616 0.163 0.163

cshot 12.617 0.163 0.163

near miss none none none

total miss none none none

14.5mm_v_1.0in_coreperf.0.ir

1.0-in Tube Diameter 

14.5mm_v_1.0in_coreperf.1.ir

1.0-in Tube Diameter
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

55

Table B-10 A 14.5-mm API vs. 1.0-inch tube pcd/h with core penetration (continued)

B.5 Developmental Test 5

B.5.1 Test Definition and Purpose

The purpose of Test 5 is to verify that the CCM EM does not create a damage packet 

for the cylindrical component if the threat does not completely perforate the 

cylindrical component. The 7.62-mm API threat against a 2.0-inch tube was tested. 

The 7.62-mm API threat velocity was lowered to 1000 ft/s to reduce penetration. 

The 2.0-inch tube in the target description had the BRL-CAD datum attributes, 

cylindrical_radius and cylindrical_axis, created and set. The OUTER_DIAM 

component property was also set to 2.0 inches (50.8 mm). 

The view file for Test 5 had 4 shot lines:

1. A direct hit 2-hole shot on tube2 (a shot that intersects 2 walls of the tube 

and the hollow area inside the tube).

2. A direct hit grazing shot on tube2 (a shot that enters and exits outer wall of 

tube only; does not enter hollow area of tube).

Cylinder Method: No preference (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 12.616 0.163 0.163

cshot 12.617 0.163 0.163

near miss none none none

total miss none none none

Cylinder Method:No selection (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 12.616 0.163 0.163

c shot 12.617 0.163 0.163

near miss none none none

total miss none none none

14.5mm_v_1.0in_coreperf.3.ir

1.0-in Tube Diameter

14.5mm_v_1.0in_coreperf.2.ir

1.0-in Tube Diameter
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

56

3. A near-miss shot on tube2 (a shot that would impact the tube if the size of 

the threat was taken into account).

4. A complete miss shot on tube2 (a shot that would miss the tube if the size 

of the threat was taken into account)

The cylindrical kill criterion used was 0.54 for the 2.0-inch diameter tube. The 

CYLINDRICAL_KILL_CRITERIA component property was set in the prop file 

accordingly.

One session file with 4 analyses was developed for this test case. Each analysis 

invoked a different modkey setting for cylinder_method:

• effective size method 

• direct hit method 

• no_preference

• cylinder_method modkey not set

The session file is located on /n/king/muves/analysis/SCR2115_Testing named 

7.62-mm_v_2.0in_noperf.

B.5.2 Test Results Verification

The intermediate results file from each analysis was used to verify that 1) the threat 

did not completely penetrate the cylindrical component, 2) damage packets were 

not created for the cylindrical component, and 3) the pcd/h for the cylindrical 

component is zero. Results for the 4 analyses are given in Table B-11.
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

57

Table B-10 A 7.62-mm API vs. 2.0-inch tube pcd/h; threat does not completely penetrate

Threat: 7.62mm API

Threat Diameter: 0.31 in

Cylindrical Kill Criteria: 0.54

Threats do not completely penetrate cylindrical component

Cylinder Method: Effective Size (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot none none none

cshot none none none

near miss 7.874 0 0

total miss none none none

Cylinder Method: Direct Hit (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot none none none

cshot none none none

near miss none none none

total miss none none none

7.62mm_v_2.0in_noperf.0.ir

2.0-in Tube Diameter 

7.62mm_v_2.0in_noperf.1.ir

2.0-in Tube Diameter
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

58

Table B-11 A 7.62-mm API vs. 2.0-inch tube pcd/h; threat does not completely penetrate

(continued)

For effective size method analysis, the direct hit shot lines (2-hole shot and C-shot) 

do not completely penetrate the tube, MUVES does not create a damage packet, 

and the pcd/h for the tube is equal to zero. However, for the near-miss shot line a 

damage packet is created, and the pcd/h for the tube turns out to be zero. This is a 

limitation of the effective_size method. On a near miss, MUVES cannot determine 

whether complete perforation would occur with the threat and cylindrical 

component. Therefore, it is possible to get a pcd/h > 0 on a near-miss shot line but 

get a pcd/h = 0 on a direct hit shot that does not completely perforate the cylindrical 

component for the same threat and cylindrical component. For the complete miss 

shot line, MUVES does not create a damage packet for the cylindrical component 

and the pcd/h = 0. 

For the direct hit method analysis, the direct hit shot lines (2-hole shot and C-shot) 

do not completely penetrate the tube, MUVES does not create a damage packet, 

and the pcd/h for the tube is equal to 0. Since the direct hit method does not account 

for near misses, MUVES does not create a damage packet, and the pcd/h for the tube 

is zero. For the complete miss shot line, MUVES does not create a damage packet 

for the tube and the pcd/h = 0. 

Cylinder Method: No preference (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot none none none

cshot none none none

near miss none none none

total miss none none none

Cylinder Method:No selection (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot none none none

c shot none none none

near miss none none none

total miss none none none

7.62mm_v_2.0in_noperf.3.ir

2.0-in Tube Diameter

7.62mm_v_2.0in_noperf.2.ir

2.0-in Tube Diameter
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

59

For the 2 analyses where the modkey is set to no_preference or is not set at all, the 

results are the same. Since datums and the OUTER_DIAM property are set, 

MUVES invokes the direct hit method since the OUTER_DIAM property overrides 

the datum properties. The direct hit shot lines (2-hole shot and cshot) do not 

completely penetrate the tube, MUVES does not create a damage packet, and the

pcd/h for the tube is equal to zero. Since the direct hit method does not account for 

near misses, MUVES does not create a damage packet, and the pcd/h for the tube is 

zero. For the complete miss shot line, MUVES does not create a damage packet for 

the tube, and the pcd/h = 0.

So for Test Case 5, CCM EM calculations and manual calculations match, and the 

CCM EM performs as expected. In the case of the near-miss shot line for the 

effective size method, the CCM EM performs as expected. The pcd/h will be 

calculated according to the effective size method; however, there is no way to verify 

the penetration of the threat with the cylindrical component, which is a limitation 

of the effective size method.

B.6 Developmental Test 6

B.6.1 Test Definition and Purpose

The purpose of Test 6 is to verify that the CCM EM does not create a damage packet 

for the cylindrical component if the incidence angle that the shot line creates with 

the cylindrical_axis datum vector exceeds the CYLINDRICAL_MAXIMUM

_INCIDENCE component property if set. Test 6 verifies that MUVES does not 

create a damage packet and the pcd/h for the cylindrical component is zero. 

The 14.5-mm API threat against a 2.0-inch tube was tested. The 2.0-inch tube in 

the target description had the BRL-CAD datum attributes, cylindrical_radius and 

cylindrical_axis, created and set. The OUTER_DIAM component property was 

also set to 2.0 inches (50.8 mm). The CYLINDRICAL_MAXIMUM_INCIDENCE 

component property for the tube was set to 45°. 

The view file for Test 6 had 3 shot lines:

1. A direct hit 2-hole shot on tube2 (a shot that intersects 2 walls of the tube 

and the hollow area inside the tube).

2. A direct hit grazing shot on tube2 (a shot that enters and exits outer wall of 

tube only; does not enter hollow area of tube).

3. A near-miss shot on tube2 (a shot that would impact the tube if the size of 

the threat was taken into account).
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

60

The cylindrical kill criterion used was 0.54 for the 2.0-inch-diameter tube. The 

CYLINDRICAL_KILL_CRITERIA component property was set in the prop file 

accordingly.

One session file with 2 analyses was developed for this test case. Each analysis 

invoked a different modkey setting for cylinder_method:

• effective_size method 

• direct_hit method 

The session file is located on /n/king/muves/analysis/SCR2115_Testing named 

max_incid_1.

B.6.2 Test Results Verification

The intermediate results file from each analysis was used to verify the incidence 

angle for each of the 3 shots on the cylindrical component, that damage packets 

were not created for the cylindrical component when the incidence angle exceeded 

the CYLINDRICAL_MAXIMUM_INCIDENCE, and the pcd/h for the cylindrical 

component is zero when the incidence angle exceeds the maximum. Results for the 

2 analyses are given in Table B-12.
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

61

Table B-11 A 14.5-mm API vs. 2.0-inch tube pcd/h; shot line incidence angles exceed 

maximum

For effective size method analysis, the 2-hole shot had an incidence angle of 78.35°,

which exceeded the maximum set at 45°; the CCM EM did not create a damage 

packet, and the pcd/h for the tube was equal to zero. The C-shot (grazing shot) had

an incidence angle of 25°. Since this did not exceed the maximum (45), a damage 

packet was created. The pcd/h was calculated using the effective size methodology 

and was equal to zero. The near-miss shot line had an incidence angle of 85.23°,

which exceeded the maximum and the CCM EM did not create a damage packet; 

thus, the near-miss shot line had a pcd/h of zero.

For the direct hit method analysis, the 2-hole shot had an incidence angle of 78.35°,

which exceeded the maximum set at 45°; the CCM EM did not create a damage 

packet, and the pcd/h for the tube was equal to zero. The C-shot had an incidence 

angle of 25°. Since this did not exceed the maximum (45), a damage packet was 

created. The pcd/h was calculated using the direct hit methodology and was equal to 

zero. Since the direct hit methodology does not account for near misses, the CCM 

EM did not create a damage packet for the near-miss shot line, thus, the pcd/h = 0.

Threat: 14.5mm API

Threat Diameter: 0.59 in

Cylindrical Kill Criteria: 0.54

Cylindrical maximum incidence: 45 degrees

Cylinder Method: Effective Size (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

Shotline incidence 

angle

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 78.35 none none none

near miss 85.23 none none none

Cylinder Method: Direct Hit (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums present)

RUN

Shotline incidence 

angle

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 78.35 none none none

near miss none none none none

max_incid.1.ir

max_incid_1.0.ir

2.0-in Tube Diameter 

2.0-in Tube Diameter
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

62

So for Test Case 6, CCM EM calculations and manual calculations matched, and 

the CCM EM performs as expected. 

B.7 Developmental Test 7

B.7.1 Test Definition and Purpose

The purpose of Test 7 is to verify that the CCM EM can be used with threat classes 

other than AntiAirArmorPiercingProjectiles. The CCM EM was tested with 6

MUVES sample threat files for a Shaped-Charge (SC) Munition, Kinetic Energy 

(KE) Penetrator, Explosively Formed Penetrator (EFP), Joint Technical 

Coordinating Group (JTCG) fragment, Fast Air Target Encounter PENetration

(FATEPEN) fragment, and Thor fragment.

All threats were tested against a 1.0-inch tube. The 1.0-inch tube in the target 

description had the BRL-CAD datum attributes, cylindrical_radius and 

cylindrical_axis, created and set. The OUTER_DIAM component property was 

also set to 1.0 inch (25.4 mm). 

The view file for Test 7 had 4 shot lines, which were used to test all 6 threats. 

Depending on the threat size, the shot lines were direct hits, near misses, or

complete misses.

The cylindrical kill criterion used was 0.45 for the 1.0-inch-diameter tube. The 

CYLINDRICAL_KILL_CRITERIA component property was set in the prop file 

accordingly.

One session file with 2 analyses was developed for this test case. Each analysis 

invoked a different modkey setting for cylinder_method:

• effective_size method 

• direct_hit method 

The session file is located on /n/king/muves/analysis/SCR2115_Testing named 

other_threats_v_1.0in_tube_ext.

B.7.2 Test Results Verification

The intermediate results file from each analysis was used to verify direct hit shots, 

near misses, and complete misses on the cylindrical component and to obtain 

effective threat diameter from damage packets that were created for the cylindrical 

components. Results for the 2 analyses are given in Table B-13.
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

63

Table B-12 Sample SC, KE, EFP, JTCG frag, FATEPEN frag, Thor Frag vs. 1.0-inch

external tube pcd/h

Threat: Sample Shaped-Charge (SC), Kinetic Energy (KE) Penetrator, Explosively Formed Penetrator (EFP),

 JTCG Frag, FATEPEN frag, Thor frag

Threat Diameter: varies

Cylindrical Kill Criteria: 0.45

Target: External 1.0-in tube

RUN

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

direct hit 73.018 0.782 0.782 73.018 1 1

direct hit 73.009 0.782 0.782 73.009 1 1

complete miss none none none none none none

complete miss none none none none none none

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

direct hit 69.319 0.774 0.774 69.319 1 1

direct hit 69.318 0.774 0.774 69.318 1 1

near miss 69.333 0.774 0.774 none none none

near miss 69.333 0.774 0.774 none none none

shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

direct hit 66.675 0.767 0.767 66.675 1 1

direct hit 66.675 0.767 0.767 66.675 1 1

near miss 66.675 0.767 0.767 none none none

near miss 66.675 0.767 0.767 none none none

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

direct hit 32.079 0.627 0.627 32.079 1 1

direct hit 32.101 0.627 0.627 32.101 1 1

near miss 32.079 0.627 0.627 none none none

near miss 32.079 0.627 0.627 none none none

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

direct hit 54.732 0.733 0.733 54.732 1 1

direct hit 54.732 0.733 0.733 54.732 1 1

complete miss none none none none none none

complete miss none none none none none none

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

direct hit 2.762 0 0 2.762 0 0

direct hit 2.846 0 0 2.846 0 0

complete miss none none none none none none

complete miss none none none none none none

Direct Hit

other_threats_v_1.0in_tube_ext.0.ir other_threats_v_1.0in_tube_ext.1.ir

Sample Thor Fragment

Sample Explosively Formed Penetrator (EFP)

Sample JTCG Fragment

Sample FATEPEN Fragment

Effective Size

Sample Shaped-Charge Munition (SC)

Sample Kinetic Energy Penetrator (KE)
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

64

For effective size method analysis, damage packets were created for direct hit and 

near-miss shots. Damage packets were not created for complete miss shot lines. 

Effective threat diameters were obtained from the damage packets and the effective 

size methodology was used to calculate the cylinder component pcd/h’s.

For the direct hit method analysis, damage packets were created for direct hit shot 

lines only. Effective threat diameters were obtained from the damage packets and 

the direct hit methodology was used to calculate the cylinder component pcd/h’s.

CCM EM calculations and manual calculations match for Test 7, and the CCM EM 

performed as expected.

B.8 Developmental Test 8

B.8.1 Test Definition and Purpose

The purpose of Test 8 is to verify that the CCM EM can be used with the highexplosive incendiary (HEI) threat class that specifically fuzes prior to an internal 

cylinder component. The CCM EM was tested with a sample HEI threat file that 

was modified for the purposes of the test. The fuze_distance parameter was 

modified so the HEI detonated 5.5 inches before the internal cylinder; the 

nose_to_cg distance was set to 0.0. The fragment_initial_mass was increased by 

100 g to make fragments large enough to achieve a near-miss fragment for testing 

purposes. Finally, all fragment zones except Zone4 Group2, and Zone4 Group3 

frags were removed to reduce the number of manual pcd/h calculations. The internal 

cylinder was a 1.0-inch tube, which had the BRL-CAD datum attributes, 

cylindrical_radius and cylindrical_axis, created and set. The OUTER_DIAM 

component property was also set to 1.0 inch (25.4 mm). 

The view file for Test 8 had one shot line that set the detonation 5.5 inches directly 

in front of the tube. 

The cylindrical kill criterion used was 0.45 for the 1.0-inch diameter tube. The 

CYLINDRICAL_KILL_CRITERIA component property was set in the prop file 

accordingly.

One session file with 2 analyses was developed for this test case. Each analysis 

invoked a different modkey setting for cylinder_method:

• effective_size method 

• direct_hit method

The session file is located on /n/king/muves/analysis/SCR2115_Testing named 

hei_fuze_prior_v_1.0in_tube.
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

65

B.8.2 Test Results Verification

The intermediate results (.ir) file from each analysis was used to verify the direct 

hit and near-miss fragments and their complete penetration through the cylinder. 

Results for the 2 analyses are given in Table B-14.

Table B-13 Sample HEI vs. 1.0-inch tube pcd/h; HEI detonation before tube

For the effective size method analysis, damage packets were created for the direct 

hit and near-miss fragments. Effective threat diameters were obtained from the 

damage packets and the effective size methodology was used to calculate the pcd/h 

for the cylinder from each fragment. To calculate the final pcd/h for the cylinder, the 

pcd/h’s from each fragment were survivor summed.

For the direct hit method analysis, damage packets were created for direct hit 

fragments only. Effective threat diameters were obtained from the damage packets

and the direct hit methodology was used to calculate the pcd/h for the cylinder from 

each fragment. To calculate the final pcd/h for the cylinder, the pcd/h’s from each 

fragment were survivor summed. 

CCM EM calculations and manual calculations match for Test 8, and the CCM EM

performed as expected.

Threat: Sample High Explosive Incendiary (HEI)

Threat Diameter: fragment diameters vary

Cylindrical Kill Criteria: 0.45

Target: 1.0-in tube

RUN

frags effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

direct frag 156.844 0.882 0.882 156.844 1.000 1.000

near miss frag 30.081 0.614 0.614 none none none

direct hit frag 49.565 0.714 0.714 49.565 1.000 1.000

0.987 0.987 1.000 1.000

High Explosive Incendiary

tube2 Pk tube2 Pk

hei_fuze_prior_v_1.0in_tube.0.ir hei_fuze_prior_v_1.0in_tube.1.ir

Effective Size Method Direct Hit Method
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

66

B.9 Developmental Test 9

B.9.1 Test Definition and Purpose

The purpose of Test 9 is to verify that the CCM EM can be used with the HEI threat 

class that specifically fuzes after passing through an internal cylinder component. 

The CCM EM was tested with a sample HEI threat file that was modified for the 

purposes of the test. The fuze_distance parameter was modified so the HEI 

detonated 2.5 inches after passing through the internal cylinder; the nose_to_cg 

distance was set to 0.0. The internal cylinder was a 1.0-inch tube that had the BRLCAD datum attributes, cylindrical_radius and cylindrical_axis, created and set. The 

OUTER_DIAM component property was also set to 1.0 inch (25.4 mm). 

The view file for Test 9 had 3 shot lines: 

1. A direct hit on tube2 (HEI projectile completely penetrated the tube).

2. A “near-miss” shot on tube2 (a shot that would impact the tube if the size 

of the threat was taken into account).

3. A “complete miss” shot on tube2 (a shot that would miss the tube if the size 

of the threat was taken into account).

The cylindrical kill criterion used was 0.45 for the 1.0-inch-diameter tube. The 

CYLINDRICAL_KILL_CRITERIA component property was set in the prop file 

accordingly.

One session file with 2 analyses was developed for this test case. Each analysis 

invoked a different modkey setting for cylinder_method:

• effective_size method 

• direct_hit method 

The session file is located on /n/king/muves/analysis/SCR2115_Testing named 

hei_fuze_after_v_1.0in_tube.

B.9.2 Test Results Verification

The intermediate results (.ir) file from each analysis was used to verify the complete 

penetration of the direct hit HEI projectile, direct hit fragments, and near-miss

fragments. Results for the 2 analyses are given in Table B-15.
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

67

Table B-14 Sample HEI vs. 1.0-inch tube pcd/h; HEI detonation after tube

For the effective size method analysis with a direct hit shot line, damage packets 

were created for the direct hit HEI projectile, direct hit fragments, and near-miss

fragments. 

SCR 2202 made a correction for the effective size method analysis with a near-miss

shot line. A damage packet is now created for the HEI projectile. Damage packets 

were created for the direct hit fragments. There were no near-miss fragments. For 

the effective size method analysis with a complete miss shot line, a damage packet 

was not created for the HEI projectile since it completely missed the cylinder, but 

damage packets for the direct hit frags were created. There were no near-miss

fragments. Effective threat diameters were obtained from the damage packets and 

the effective size methodology was used to calculate the pcd/h for the cylinder. To 

Threat: Sample High Explosive Incediary (HEI)

Threat Diameter: fragment diameters vary

Cylindrical Kill Criteria: 0.45

Target: 1.0-in tube

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

direct hit HEI 31.750 0.625 0.625 31.750 1.000 1.000

direct hit frag 11.775 0.060 0.060 11.775 0.087 0.087

direct hit frag 11.971 0.071 0.071 11.971 0.105 0.105

direct hit frag 8.546 0.000 0.000 8.546 0.000 0.000

near miss frag 29.159 0.607 0.607 none none none

tube2 pk 0.871 0.871 1.000 1.000

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

near miss HEI 31.750 0.625 0.625 none none none

direct hit frag 13.099 0.139 0.139 13.099 0.210 0.210

direct hit frag 10.117 0.000 0.000 10.117 0.000 0.000

direct hit frag 12.549 0.105 0.105 12.549 0.157 0.157

direct hit frag 8.290 0.000 0.000 8.290 0.000 0.000

direct hit frag 61.998 0.755 0.755 61.998 1.000 1.000

tube2 pk 0.929 0.929 1.000 1.000

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

direct hit frag 15.148 0.283 0.283 15.148 0.452 0.452

direct hit frag 12.239 0.087 0.087 12.239 0.128 0.128

direct hit frag 8.305 0.000 0.000 8.305 0.000 0.000

direct hit frag 6.679 0.000 0.000 6.679 0.000 0.000

direct hit frag 49.384 0.713 0.713 49.384 1.000 1.000

tube2 pk 0.812 0.812 1.000 1.000

hei_fuze_after_v_1.0in_tube.1.ir

Effective Size Method Direct Hit Method

RUN hei_fuze_after_v_1.0in_tube.0.ir

Shotline

Direct Hit Method

near miss

threat

direct hit

Shotline threat

Effective Size Method

Shotline threat

Effective Size Method Direct Hit Method

complete miss
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

68

calculate the final pcd/h for the cylinder, the pcd/h’s from the HEI projectile and each 

fragment were survivor summed.

For the direct hit method analysis with a direct hit shot line, damage packets were 

created for direct hit HEI projectile and direct hit fragments only. For the direct hit

method analysis with a near-miss shot line, a damage packet was not created for 

the HEI projectile since it was a near miss. Damage packets were created for the 

direct hit fragments. For the direct hit method analysis with a complete miss shot 

line, damage packets were only created for the direct hit fragments. Effective threat 

diameters were obtained from the damage packets and the direct hit methodology 

was used to calculate the pcd/h for the cylinder from the HEI projectile and each 

fragment. To calculate the final pcd/h for the cylinder, the pcd/h’s from the HEI 

projectile and each fragment were survivor summed. 

CCM EM calculations and manual calculations match for Test 9, and the CCM EM

performed as expected.

B.10 Developmental Test 10

B.10.1 Test Definition and Purpose

The purpose of Test 10 is to verify that the CCM EM can be used with the HEI 

threat class that specifically fuzes after passing through an external cylinder 

component. The CCM EM was tested with a sample HEI threat file that was

modified for the purposes of the test. The fuze_distance parameter was modified so 

the HEI detonated 2 inches after passing through the external cylinder; the 

nose_to_cg distance was set to 0.0. The external cylinder was a 1.0-inch tube that

had the BRL-CAD datum attributes, cylindrical_radius and cylindrical_axis, 

created and set. The OUTER_DIAM component property was also set to 1.0 inch

(25.4 mm). 

The view file for Test 10 had 3 shot lines: 

1. A direct hit on tube2 (HEI projectile completely penetrated the tube).

2. A near-miss shot on tube2 (a shot that would impact the tube if the size of 

the threat was taken into account).

3. A complete miss shot on tube2 (a shot that would miss the tube if the size 

of the threat was taken into account).

The cylindrical kill criterion used was 0.45 for the 1.0-inch-diameter tube. The 

CYLINDRICAL_KILL_CRITERIA component property was set in the prop file 

accordingly.
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

69

One session file with 2 analyses was developed for this test case. Each analysis 

invoked a different modkey setting for cylinder_method:

• effective_size method 

• direct_hit method 

The session file is located on /n/king/muves/analysis/SCR2115_Testing named 

hei_fuzedist_v_1.0in_tube_ext.

B.10.2 Test Results Verification

The intermediate results (.ir) file from each analysis was used to verify the complete 

penetration of the direct hit HEI projectile, direct hit fragments, and near-miss

fragments. Results for the 2 analyses are given in Table B-16.

Table B-15 Sample HEI vs. 1.0-inch external tube pcd/h; HEI detonation after external 

cylinder

For the effective size method analysis with a direct hit shot line, damage packets 

were created for the direct hit HEI projectile and direct hit fragments. There were 

no near-miss fragments. For the effective size method with a near-miss shot line, a 

damage packet was created for the near-miss HEI projectile. There were no direct 

hit or near-miss fragments. For the effective size method with a complete miss shot 

Threat: Sample High Explosive Incediary (HEI)

Threat Diameter: fragment diameters vary

Cylindrical Kill Criteria: 0.45

Target: External 1.0-in tube

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

direct hit HEI 31.7501 0.6250 0.625 direct hit HEI 31.7501 1

direct hit frag 11.9051 0.0670 0.067 direct hit frag 11.9051 0.099

direct hit frag 14.9460 0.2660 0.266 direct hit frag 14.9460 0.423

direct hit frag 8.7298 0.0000 0.000 direct hit frag 8.7298 0

tube2 pk 0.743 0.743 1 1

s

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

near miss near miss HEI 31.7500 0.6250 0.625 none none none

tube2 pk 0.625 0.625 0 0

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

complete miss none none none none none none none

tube2 pk 0 0 0 0

threat

Effective Size Method Direct Hit Method

Shotline

threat

Effective Size Method Direct Hit Method

direct hit

Shotline

RUN hei_fuzedist_v_1.0in_tube_ext.0.ir hei_fuzedist_v_1.0in_tube_ext.1.ir

Shotline threat

Effective Size Method Direct Hit Method
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

70

line, no damage packets were created for the HEI projectile because it missed. 

There were no direct hit or near-miss fragments. Effective threat diameters were 

obtained from the damage packets and the effective size methodology was used to 

calculate the pcd/h for the cylinder from the HEI projectile and each fragment. To 

calculate the final pcd/h for the cylinder, the pcd/h’s from the HEI projectile and each 

fragment were survivor summed.

For the direct hit method analysis with a direct hit shot line, damage packets were 

created for direct hit HEI projectile and direct hit fragments only. There were no 

near-miss fragments. For the direct hit method analysis with a near-miss shot line, 

a damage packet was not created for the near-miss HEI projectile. There were no 

direct hit or near-miss fragments. For the direct hit method analysis with a complete 

miss shot line, a damage packet was not created for the HEI projectile since it 

missed. There were no direct hit or near-miss fragments. Effective threat diameters 

were obtained from the damage packets and the direct hit methodology was used to 

calculate the pcd/h for the cylinder from the HEI projectile and each fragment. To 

calculate the final pcd/h for the cylinder, the pcd/h’s from the HEI projectile and each 

fragment were survivor summed. 

CCM EM calculations and manual calculations match for Test 10, and the CCM 

EM performed as expected.

B.11 Developmental Test 11

B.11.1 Test Definition and Purpose

The purpose of Test 11 is to verify that the CCM EM outputs an error message to 

the log file and terminates the analysis run when the effective size methodology is 

requested, but the cylinder radius or cylinder axis datum attributes do not exist in 

the target. 

The CCM EM was tested with a 7.62-mm API threat file against the internal 

cylindrical components test target depicted in Fig. B-4. The cylinder targets did not 

have the cylinder radius and cylinder axis datum attributes defined. The 

cylinder_method requested in the session file was effective size. 

Fig. B-4 Log file error message: no cylindrical radius datum found
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

71

The session file is located on /n/king/muves/analysis/SCR2115_Testing named 

310.

B.11.2 Test Results Verification

The log file from the analysis was used to verify error message was output.

B.12 Developmental Test 12

B.12.1 Test Definition and Purpose

The purpose of Test 12 is to verify that the CCM EM outputs an error message to 

the log file and terminates the analysis run when the direct hit methodology is 

requested, but the OUTER_DIAM component property is not set for cylinder 

component in the prop file. 

The CCM EM was tested with a 14.5-mm API threat file against the internal 

cylindrical components test target depicted in Fig. B-5. The cylinder targets did not 

have the OUTER_DIAM component property defined in the prop file. The 

cylinder_method requested in the session file was direct hit. 

Fig. B-5 Log file error message: OUTSIDE_DIAM is not defined

The session file is located on /n/king/muves/analysis/SCR2115_Testing named 

316.

B.12.2 Test Results Verification

The log file from the analysis was used to verify error message was output.

B.13 Developmental Test 13

B.13.1 Test Definition and Purpose

The purpose of Test 13 is to verify that the CCM EM uses the direct hit method 

when 1) “no_preference” is selected as the cylinder_method, 2) the cylinders do 

not have datum attributes defined, and 3) the OUTER_DIAM component property 

for the cylinders are defined.

The CCM EM was tested with a 14.5-mm API threat file against the 1.0-inch

internal cylindrical components test target depicted in Fig. B-3. The cylinder targets 
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

72

did not have the cylinder radius or cylinder axis datum attributes defined in the 

target .g file. The cylinder targets did have the OUTER_DIAM component property 

defined. The cylinder_method requested in the session file was “no_preference”. 

The view file used contained 4 shot lines:

1. A direct hit 2-hole shot on tube2 (a shot that intersects 2 walls of the tube 

and the hollow area inside the tube).

2. A direct hit grazing shot on tube2 (a shot that enters and exits outer wall of 

tube only; does not enter hollow area of tube).

3. A near-miss shot on tube2 (a shot that would impact the tube if the size of 

the threat was taken into account).

4. A complete miss shot on tube2 (a shot that would miss the tube if the size 

of the threat was taken into account).

The cylindrical kill criterion used was 0.45 for the 1.0-inch-diameter tube. The 

CYLINDRICAL_KILL_CRITERIA component property was set in the prop file 

accordingly.

The session file is located on /n/king/muves/analysis/SCR2115_Testing named 

317.

B.13.2 Test Results Verification

The intermediate results (.ir) file from the analysis was used to verify the direct hit

methodology was used. Results for the analysis are given in Table B-17. For the 

direct hit shot lines, the direct hit methodology was used to calculate the cylinder 

pcd/h. Since the direct hit methodology does not account for near misses, the nearmiss shot line produced no damage packets nor a pcd/h for the cylinder. There were 

no damage packets generated, nor pcd/h’s calculated for the complete miss shot line

as expected.
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

73

Table B-16 A 14.5-mm API vs. 1.0-inch tube pcd/h; no preference cylinder method 

(OUTER_DIAM defined; datums not defined)

B.14 Developmental Test 14

B.14.1 Test Definition and Purpose

The purpose of Test 14 is to verify that the CCM EM uses the effective size method 

when 1) “no_preference” is selected as the cylinder_method, 2) the cylinders have 

datum attributes defined, and 3) the OUTER_DIAM component property for the 

cylinders are not defined.

The CCM EM was tested with a 14.5-mm API threat file against the 1.0-in internal 

cylindrical components test target depicted in Fig. B-3. The cylinder targets had the 

cylinder radius and cylinder axis datum attributes defined in the target .g file. The 

cylinder components did not have the OUTER_DIAM component property 

defined. The cylinder_method requested in the session file was “no_preference”. 

The view file used contained 4 shot lines:

1. A direct hit 2-hole shot on tube2 (a shot that intersects 2 walls of the tube 

and the hollow area inside the tube).

2. A direct hit grazing shot on tube2 (a shot that enters and exits outer wall of 

tube only; does not enter hollow area of tube).

3. A near-miss shot on tube2 (a shot that would impact the tube if the size of 

the threat was taken into account).

Threat: 14.5mm API

Threat Diameter: 0.59 in

Cylindrical Kill Criteria: 0.45

Cylinder Method: No Preference (OUTER_DIAM specified; datums not present)

RUN

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 14.995 0.43 0.43

cshot 14.995 0.43 0.43

near miss none none none

complete miss none none none

317.0.ir

1.0-in Tube Diameter 
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

74

4. A complete miss shot on tube2 (a shot that would miss the tube if the size 

of the threat was taken into account).

The cylindrical kill criterion used was 0.45 for the 1.0-inch-diameter tube. The 

CYLINDRICAL_KILL_CRITERIA component property was set in the prop file 

accordingly.

The session file is located on /n/king/muves/analysis/SCR2115_Testing named 

320.

B.14.2 Test Results Verification

The intermediate results (.ir) file from the analysis was used to verify the effective 

size methodology was used. Results for the analysis are given in Table B-18. For 

the direct hit shot lines, the effective size methodology was used to calculate the 

cylinder pcd/h. Since the effective size methodology does account for near misses, 

the near-miss shot line produced a damage packet and a pcd/h for the cylinder. There 

were no damage packets generated, nor pcd/h’s calculated for the complete miss shot 

line as expected.

Table B-17 A 14.5-mm API vs. 1.0-inch tube pcd/h; no preference cylinder method (datums 

defined; OUTER_DIAM not defined)

Threat: 14.5mm API

Threat Diameter: 0.59 in

Cylindrical Kill Criteria: 0.45

Cylinder Method: No Preference (datums defined; OUTER_DIAM not defined)

RUN

Shotline effective threat 

diam (mm)

CCM EM 

Calculation

Manual 

Calculation

two hole shot 14.986 0.27 0.27

cshot 14.986 0.27 0.27

near miss 14.986 0.27 0.27

complete miss none none none

320.0.ir

1.0-in Tube Diameter 
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

75

B.15 Developmental Test 15

B.15.1 Test Definition and Purpose

The purpose of Test 15 is to verify that the CCM EM outputs an error message to 

the log file and terminates the analysis run when the cylinder component

methodology is requested, but the CYLINDRICAL_KILL_CRITERION

component property is not set for cylinder component in the prop file. 

The CCM EM was tested with a 14.5-mm API threat file against the internal 

cylindrical components test target depicted in Fig. B-6. The cylinder targets had the 

cylindrical_radius and cylindrical_axis datum attributes defined. The cylinder 

component had the OUTER_DIAM component property set in the prop file.

Fig. B-6 Log file error message: CYLINDRICAL_KILL_CRITERIA is not defined

The cylinder_method requested in the session file was direct hit. 

The session file is located on /n/king/muves/analysis/SCR2115_Testing named 

321.

B.15.2 Test Results Verification

The log file from the analysis was used to verify error message was output.
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

76

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

77

Appendix C. BRL-CAD Datum Attributes for

Cylindrical_component Evaluation Module (EM)
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

78

Creating cylindrical_radius datum object for a cylinder component

To create a cylindrical_radius datum for cylinder region tube1.r in MGED:

Step 1. Set units

 units mm

Step 2. List out cylinder region tube1.r to get solid name

 l tube1.r

tube1.r: REGION id=1001 (air=0, los=100, GIFTmater=1) --

u tube1.s

- tube1.in

Step 3. List out tube1.s 

 l tube1.s

tube1.s: truncated general cone (TGC)

V (-254, 0, 0)

Top (254, 0, 0)

H (508, 0, 0) mag=508

H direction cosines=(0, 90, 90)

H rotation angle=0, fallback angle=0

A (0, 0, 12.7) mag=12.7

B (0, 12.7, 0) mag=12.7

C (0, 0, 12.7) mag=12.7

D (0, 12.7, 0) mag=12.7

AxB direction cosines=(180, 90, 90)

AxB rotation angle=180, fallback angle=0

Step 3. Create the datum object “tube1.radius”

 in tube1.radius

Enter solid type: datum

Enter a datum type (point|line|plane): line

Enter X,Y,Z for a point on the datum line: –254 0 0 (Enter vertex of 

tube1.s)

Enter X,Y,Z of the datum line direction vector: 0 0 12.7 (Enter A, B, C 

or D of tube1.s)

Alternatively as a single command:

 in tube1.radius datum line -254 0 0 0 0 12.7

This creates a line datum named tube1.radius with a point at (–254, 0, 0) and a 

direction vector of <0 0 12.7>. Given units are in millimeters, this would yield a 

datum line describing a 12.7-mm radius. The point of the line is set to the vertex of 
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

79

the cylinder. The direction vector is pointing radially from the vertex, perpendicular 

to height vector.

Creating cylindrical_axis datum object for a cylinder component

To create a cylindrical_axis datum for cylinder region tube1.r in MGED:

Step 1: Set units

 units mm

Step 2: Create datum object “tube1.axis”

 in tube1.axis

Enter solid type: datum

Enter a datum type (point|line|plane): line

Enter X,Y,Z for a point on the datum line: –254 0 0 (Enter 

vertex of tube1.s)

Enter X,Y,Z of the datum line direction vector: 508 0 0 (Enter H of 

tube1.s)

Alternatively as a single command:

 in tube1.axis datum line –254 0 0 508 0 0

This creates a line datum named tube1.axis with a point at (–254, 0, 0) and a 

direction vector of <508, 0, 0>. Given units are in mm, this would yield a cylinder 

axis 508-mm in height. The point of the datum line is the vertex of the cylinder. 

The direction vector is pointing axially from the vertex, perpendicular to the radius 

vector.

Setting the datum attributes

 attr set tube1.r cylindrical_radius tube1.radius

 attr set tube1.r cylindrical_axis tube1.axis

This sets the cylindrical_radius datum attribute for region tube1.r to the newly 

created datum tube1.radius, and it sets the cylindrical_axis datum attribute for 

region tube1.r to the newly created datum tube1.axis.
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

80

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

81

List of Symbols, Abbreviations, and Acronyms

AP armor piercing

API armor-piercing incendiary

ARL US Army Research Laboratory

CCM Cylindrical Component Methodology

Cr circumference removed

EFP explosively formed penetrator

EM evaluation module

FATEPEN Fast Air Target Encounter PENetration

HEI high-explosive incendiary

JTCG Joint Technical Coordinating Group

KE kinetic energy

pcd/h probability of component damage given a hit

SCJ shaped charge jet

SCR software change request

SLAD Survivability/Lethality Analysis Directorate

TD trace damage

TG trace geometry
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

82

1 DEFENSE TECHNICAL

(PDF) INFORMATION CTR

DTIC OCA

2 DIRECTOR

(PDF) US ARMY RESEARCH LAB

RDRL CIO L

IMAL HRA MAIL & RECORDS

MGMT

1 GOVT PRINTG OFC

(PDF) A MALHOTRA

3 DIR USARL

(PDF) RDRL SLB D

D BUTLER

M KUNKEL

B SMITH