Takata Inflator Rupture Root 

Cause Summary Report

Submitted to:

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

September 2016

Submitted by:

Orbital ATK for the Independent Testing Coalition
Inflator Rupture Root Cause Summary Report

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 1

Investigation Scope ..................................................................................................................... 1

Technical Approach Overview.................................................................................................... 1

Statistical Analysis...................................................................................................................... 4

Modeling and Simulation............................................................................................................ 7

Laboratory Experiments............................................................................................................ 18

Root Cause ................................................................................................................................ 21

Continuing Efforts..................................................................................................................... 23

Addenda .................................................................................................................................... 24

A. Sources of Information and Acknowledgements............................................................... 24

B. ITC Membership and Purpose ........................................................................................... 24

C. Orbital ATK Relevant Qualifications and Background..................................................... 24
Inflator Rupture Root Cause Summary Report

ii

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. Overarching Project Process........................................................................................... 4

Figure 2. Failure Rates in PSPI-L for a Single Vehicle Model in Florida..................................... 5

Figure 3. Wafer Outer Diameter, Crimp (case) Outer Diameter and Failure Probability 

for PSPI-L for a Single Vehicle Model........................................................................................... 6

Figure 4. Summary of Similarities and Differences for Passenger Inflators. ................................ 8

Figure 5. Comparison and Contrast of Major Design Differences in Takata Driver and 

Passenger Dual Chamber Inflators.................................................................................................. 9

Figure 6. Typical Ballistic Traces................................................................................................ 10

Figure 7. Similarities in Operating Features of Takata Driver and Passenger Inflators. ............. 11

Figure 8. Schematic Representation of Burn Rate and Pressure Plot.......................................... 12

Figure 9. Potential of Ignition and Auto Ignition Propellants to Cause an ED. .......................... 13

Figure 10. Closed Pore Impact on Burning Surface. ................................................................... 14

Figure 11. Change in High Pressure Regime Slope..................................................................... 16

Figure 12. Impact of Porosity and Permeability. ......................................................................... 17

Figure 13. Potential Leak Paths in Takata Inflators..................................................................... 18

Figure 14. Passenger Inflator Primary Crimp Data. .................................................................... 18

Figure 15. Headspace Moisture Above 2004 and 3110 Propellants with Moisture Added 

as a Function of Temperature. ...................................................................................................... 19

Figure 16. Examples of Fused Wafers and Tablets. .................................................................... 20

Figure 17. Density Measurements for 2004 Propellant Wafers................................................... 21

Figure 18. Real Time Radiography Still Images. ........................................................................ 22

Figure 19. Summary Fault Tree. .................................................................................................. 23

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1. Summary of the Five Major Fault Tree Branches Developed and 

Investigated on This Study.............................................................................................................. 3

Table 2. Field Return Failure Rates in PSPI-L. ............................................................................. 7

Table 3. Moisture Competition Experiment for 2004 and 3110 Propellants 

in a Closed System........................................................................................................................ 20
Inflator Rupture Root Cause Summary Report

iii

GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS AND ACRONYMS 

Burning Rate ..............a measure of the rate at which propellant is combusts

Burning Rate Slope ....a measure of the change in burn rate as a function of pressure

Deliquescent...............the term for a chemical that can absorb enough water from the air 

to become a liquid solution

Desiccant....................the term for a chemical that can function as a drying agent

°C ...............................degrees Celsius

ED ..............................energetic disassembly

Fault Tree ...................a structured, deductive approach to failure analysis

Fishbone.....................a structured approach to determining cause and effect, also called

Ishikawa Diagrams

g..................................gram

Gas pycnometer .........a lab instrument that uses gas displacement to measure density 

HAH...........................high absolute humidity

Haystack.....................a description of the general shape in a pressure-time trace with a gentle,

rounded curve typical of a regressive burn 

ITC.............................Independent Testing Coalition

Mdot...........................mass (gas) generation rate 

MEAF ........................Master Engineering Analysis File

Mm.............................millimeter

NHTSA ......................National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

OD..............................outer diameter

OEM...........................original equipment manufacturer

Progressive burning 

surface area ................a geometry where the surface area available to burn increases over time

Regressive burning

surface area ................a geometry where the surface area available to burn decreases over time 

PSAN .........................phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate

PSPI-L........................Takata nomenclature for a type of air bag inflator

RTR............................real time radiography, effectively an x-ray movie that allows visualization

of real time events using x-rays
Inflator Rupture Root Cause Summary Report

1

Executive Summary

Orbital ATK has conducted an independent investigation on behalf of the Independent Testing 

Coalition (ITC) and found that certain inflators made by Takata are adversely affected by three 

factors - all of which contribute, and are required to be present, in order to cause rupture when 

initiated. 

These factors are:

 The presence of pressed phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate (PSAN) propellant without 

moisture-absorbing desiccant

 Long-term exposure to repeated high-temperature cycling in the presence of moisture, 

and 

 An inflator assembly that does not adequately prevent moisture intrusion under 

conditions of high humidity

This investigation applies solely to inflators subject to National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) recalls 15E-040 to 15E-043. These recalls account for approximately 

23 million inflators installed in vehicles in the U.S. from ten auto manufacturers.

The thirteen-month investigation involved more than 20,000 hours of testing and analysis by 

experienced scientists, engineers and technicians. The methodology followed a disciplined 

approach to investigate every potential factor, contributor or cause. It began with a detailed 

fishbone analysis and included detailed documentation on the adjudication of over fifty unique 

fault tree blocks.

It was deemed critical to thoroughly understand root cause prior to commencing aging and 

surveillance studies. To begin such a study without an understanding of the critical factors, and 

their approximate contribution to the failure, runs the risk of a result that may empirically match 

a limited data set or reproduce a few field results but be inaccurate for the broader application to 

the universe of relevant inflators and conditions. A carefully designed accelerated aging test 

program, based on understanding of the root cause and contributing factors, is the focus of the 

next phase of the Orbital ATK investigation.

Investigation Scope

The investigation focused on determining the root cause of inflator failures covered by Takata 

recalls 15E-040 to 15E-043. These studies were directed towards identifying long-term changes 

that could give a higher probability of failure based on the design of the inflators, rather than 

manufacturing problems. This does not mean that manufacturing problems do not play a role in 

failures, but these were not the emphasis of our investigation. Rather, our emphasis was on 

determining changes due to environmental aging, including changes influenced by inflator

design differences and routine manufacturing variation. Ongoing work will examine newer 

inflators that contain PSAN produced by Takata, including those not under recall by NHTSA 

which contain desiccant.

Technical Approach Overview

Based on the complexity of this problem, we felt that a disciplined, patient and well-designed 

approach that would provide archival documentation of each conclusion was required. A 

fishbone analysis was completed to ensure complete coverage of all possible factors. The items 
Inflator Rupture Root Cause Summary Report

2

from the fishbone then were used to generate the top-level fault tree and serve as a check for 

completeness (Figure 1). Next, the overall fault tree architecture was developed. In all, over 50 

unique fault tree elements that went as deep as six levels on some branches were investigated and 

adjudicated through a formal process. Each block was assigned to one of five categories:

A. Cause – Sufficient

B. Contributor – Necessary

C. Contributor – Modifier

D. May Be a Contributor

E. Not a Contributor

No items were left simply as open at the end of the root cause analysis. One fault tree block on 

the driver inflator fault tree was designated as “may be a contributor” due to insufficient test data 

on the driver inflator failures. All other blocks were closed with detailed documentation in one of 

the other four categories. The fault tree was used to define technical scope of detailed 

investigations and reduced the amount of nonproductive or duplicative experimentation and 

investigation. A summary of the five top-level fault tree branches along with supporting and 

refuting evidence is given in Table 1.

The technical scope of the effort was designed to use three complementary technical approaches 

to serve as checks on each other, increasing the probability of an accurate result. This threelegged stool of statistical analysis, engineering analysis and laboratory experiments involved 

over 2,000 different materials, inflator parts and inflators (see summary in Figure 1).
Inflator Rupture Root Cause Summary Report

3

Table 1. Summary of the Five Major Fault Tree Branches Developed and Investigated on This Study.

This disciplined approach includes documenting key supporting and refuting data for each fault tree block. This report provides interim and 

summary data. This table provides a brief overview of the key arguments for and against each fault tree block being a cause or contributor to the 

rupture event. Compare to final fault tree in Figure 19 at the end of this report.

Case Structural 

Subsystem Ballistic Subsystem Seal Subsystem External Environment Vehicle Model

Description

Ruptures occur below 

design pressure

Higher gas flow results in higher 

pressure

Seal system allows 

moisture to find its way to 

the main propellant where 

grain growth occurs

High ambient humidity and 

temperature cycling from 

moderate to high 

temperature 

Differences in vehicles 

change the environmental 

conditions experienced by 

the inflator

Key Supporting 

Evidence

Pressure data from 

Takata reports some 

ruptures below max 

operating pressure for 

both primary and 

secondary

Normal pressure traces show a 

rounded, “haystack” profile. We 

know of no ruptures with a 

haystack profile, even if the 

haystack profile exceeds 

maximum expected operating 

pressure. All rupture profiles show 

a steep pressure increase prior to 

rupture, indicating a change in 

ballistics. Testing in heavyweight 

hardware has validated higher 

pressures.

Passenger and driver 

inflators have multiple leak 

paths. Takata data shows 

inflators take on moisture 

over time. Original 

equipment manufacturer 

(OEM) testing showed 

every possible leak path 

did leak for aged inflators. 

Tolerance stack up for 

older passenger closure 

seal allows for below 

design O-ring 

compression.

Overwhelming percentages 

of failures both in field ED 

events and in field returns 

are from areas of high 

absolute humidity and high 

temperature. Mechanisms

for wafer growth, which also 

correlates with ED events, 

require moisture and 

temperature cycling such as 

in High Absolute Humidity 

(HAH) areas. 

Examples of the same 

prefix inflator show 

significantly different ED 

rates from field returns.

PSPI AB shows a higher 

rate in one vehicle model, 

lower rates in three others, 

and a zero rate in two 

more models. Different 

vehicles reach different 

maximum temperatures 

under same test 

conditions.

Key Refuting 

Evidence

Detailed structural 

analysis of inflators and 

materials of construction 

showed full capability. 

Examination of test 

equipment shows 

possibility for low 

measurement. Every 

failure shows a 

distinctive "runaway" 

pressure trace 

regardless of reported 

pressure.

Not aware of refuting evidence.

Have not reviewed every single 

ED pressure trace measured.

Inflators pass helium leak 

check. Simple ingress of 

moisture and moisture 

level necessary to cause 

ED are not clearly known.

There are a few specific 

examples of ED events that 

were not from vehicles in 

the HAH areas.

Environment is within what 

would be predicted for these 

areas and system should 

have met expected 

conditions.

Failures cluster in prefixes 

whether there are multiple 

platforms or not. Even in 

exception examples, wafer 

OD correlates with ED rate 

suggesting another 

mechanism. PSPL-L FD 

for a sedan model shows a 

significant variability in ED 

rate by month of 

manufacture while still 

correlating with higher 

crimp and wafer OD.

Conclusion Not a contributor Necessary Contributor Necessary Contributor Necessary Contributor Contributor - Modifier
Inflator Rupture Root Cause Summary Report

4

Figure 1. Overarching Project Process. 

The disciplined process for root cause started with an industry-standard fishbone which was used to populate an 

extensive fault tree. A multi-disciplinary approach serves as checks on each other to reduce probability of errors. Full 

documentation of the fault tree including a formal closure process will provide a complete record for future reference.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis primarily focused on the Master Engineering Analysis File (MEAF) which is 

the definitive set of Takata test information related to the investigation. We also reviewed 

databases of field failures and further information gathered by several automakers. We searched 

extensively for any significant correlations in the databases using standard statistical tools and 

techniques. As expected, the statistical conclusion reached by others regarding geographical 

distribution was confirmed. At a higher granularity, some of the geographical differentiations are 

striking, including failure rate differences between generally similar environments such as north 

and south Florida (Figure 2). Other items of significant interest included correlations with 

probability of failure based on wafer diameter and outer crimp diameter (Figure 3). Statistical 

analysis also shows failure rate differences across multiple vehicle platforms for the same 

Fault Tree Block 2.0: Case Structure

Subsystem Causes Rupture Likelihood: Not a contributor Cause Statement: Case ruptures due to decreased capability Data supporting Block 2.0 as a cause/fault Data refuting Several cases have ruptured at indicated pressure well below minimum burst capability

Indicated pressure is not reliable, since data acquisition system is not capable of capturing pressure when pressure changes rapidly. We have not examined every known rupture pressure trace. All rupture traces have exhibited a runaway pressure trace. Case capability can not cause a change in the pressure trace. Limited number of driver failures have been evaluated No known ruptures when the pressure trace has a normal profile, even if the pressure exceeds MEOP

FEM analysis shows strength in line with design

LAT data suggests PSDI and PSDI-4 with different strength have similar capability Actions/Data needed to close None Closure lead: Tom Weidner Closure date Closure Signatures

Fishbone Complete Working Fault Trees

Complementary 

Capabilities

Fault Tree Block Closure Format

Some Inflators Rupture after Environmental Aging

2: Case Structure Subsystem Causes rupture

1: Ballistic Subsystem

Causes rupture 

Cause

Maybe Not a cause Open

Contributor

1.2: Reduced vent area 1.1: High mass flow rate 2.1: Corrosion

• Stress corrosion

• Galvanic corrosion

• Other corrosion

2.2: Thermal loading Changes due to Environmental aging

• No Delay

• With Delay

1 2

3: Environmental Protection

Subsystem causes rupture 

1.3: CSTAR Efficiency

Increase

• Enhanced combustion

• Reduced heat losses

Fault Tree Block 2.0: Case Structure

Subsystem Causes Rupture Likelihood: Not a contributor

Cause Statement: Case ruptures due to decreased capability

Data supporting Block 2.0 as a cause/fault Data refuting 

Several cases have ruptured at indicated 

pressure well below minimum burst 

capability

Indicated pressure is not reliable, 

since data acquisition system is not 

capable of capturing pressure when 

pressure changes rapidly. We have not examined every known 

rupture pressure trace.

All rupture traces have exhibited a 

runaway pressure trace. Case 

capability can not cause a change in 

the pressure trace.

Limited number of driver failures have been 

evaluated

No known ruptures when the 

pressure trace has a normal profile, 

even if the pressure exceeds MEOP

FEM analysis shows strength in line with 

design

LAT data suggests PSDI and PSDI-4 

with different strength have similar 

capability

Actions/Data needed to close 

None

Closure lead: Tom Weidner

Closure date

Closure Signatures

TIRRC-001 V2
Inflator Rupture Root Cause Summary Report

5

inflator design (Table 2). The clear age-related factor should not be understated. As others have 

noted, none of the issues in the recalled inflator families arise immediately or in the short term1

Many of the correlations were found to have considerable scatter, indicating that multiple 

variables may affect failure probability, such as manufacturing variability, differences in the 

specific conditions that individual inflators experience (even between two inflators in the same 

vehicle platform and the same geographic area) and differences in the designs of various Takata 

inflators, as examples. A significant focus going forward will be to understand multiple variable 

 

1

An excellent summary is available at http://www.safercar.gov/rs/takata/takata-events.html under the 22 

October 2015 heading

Figure 2. Failure Rates in PSPI-L for a Single Vehicle Model in Florida.

The significant difference of failure rates even within Florida is striking.

TIRRC-002 V1

AL GEORGIA Escambia

0/13=0%

Lake

1/85=1.2%

Washington

Lafayette

Walton

Jefferson

Wakulla

Jackson

0/1=0%

Volusia

3/150=2.0%

Indian River

0/22=0%

Union

Holmes

Taylor

Hillsborough

9/326=2.8%

Suwannee

Highlands

1/12=8.3%

Sumter

Hernando 0/1=0%

0/5=0%

Seminole

5/155=3.2%

Hendry

Sarasota

7/144=4.9%

Hardee

Santa Rosa

Hamilton

Saint Lucie

4/51=7.8%

Gulf

Saint Johns

1/64=1.6%

Glades

Putnam

Gilchrist

Polk

4/120=3.3%

Gadsden

1⁄2=50%

Pinellas

8/225=3.6%

Franklin

Pasco

6/150=4.0%

Flagler

Palm Beach

25/362=6.9%

Osceola

Duval

3/192=1.6%

Orange

11/379=2.9%

Dixie

Okeechobee

DeSoto

Okaloosa

0/36=0%

Nassau

Collier

10/126=7.9%

Monroe

0/5=0%

Clay

Miami-Dade

45/544=8.3%

Citrus

0/36=0%

Martin

0/61=0%

Charlotte

3/133=2.3%

Marion

2/100=2.0%

Calhoun

Manatee

1/57=1.8%

Broward

55/645=8.5%

Madison 

Brevard

5/98=5.1%

Liberty

Bradford

Levy

0/1=0%

Bay

1/59=1.7%

Leon

1/56=1.8%

Baker

Lee

7/141=5.0%

Alachua

2/60=3 .3%

< 20 Tested in County

0 to 3% Failure Rate

No Tests in County

>6% Failure Rate

3 to 6% Failure Rate
Inflator Rupture Root Cause Summary Report

6

interactions. The statistical analysis was vital to 1) frame the problem, 2) define areas to explore 

in a controlled laboratory or modeling environment, and 3) provide anchoring points for 

investigation results. The interaction of external environment (weather and geography) with the 

internal vehicle environment (platform and what the actual inflator experiences) is an area where 

further investigation will be done in the next phase of the effort to develop aging models for nonrecalled inflators. 

Figure 3. Wafer Outer Diameter, Crimp (case) Outer Diameter and Failure Probability for PSPI-L 

for a Single Vehicle Model.

The amount of data scatter seen here is typical of many of the statistical relationships but shows a trend.

TIRRC-003 V1

30.0

29.8

29.6

29.4

29.2

29.0

28.8

28.6

28.4

LD Primary Wafer OD Avg

Scatterplot of LD Primary Wafer OD Avg against LD Primary Crimp OD (mm)

Florida and Puerto Rico for One Platform

LD Primary Wafer OD Avg = -7.6336+0.6968*x

51.9 52.0 52.1 52.2 52.3 52.4 52.5 52.6 52.7 52.8 52.9

LD Primary Crimp OD (mm)
Inflator Rupture Root Cause Summary Report

7

Table 2. Field Return Failure Rates in PSPI-L.

Data replicated show the range of failure rates for similar or the same inflator design in different vehicles 

(platforms). These data are an argument for vehicle model as a contributor. It also highlights the 

challenge as there are convoluting and complicating factors including age of inflators.

Prefix Platform Number Tested That 

Failed Total Tested Failure Percentage

FD

A 188 6452 2.91%

B 12 1698 0.71%

C 0 9264 0.00%

D 0 1787 0.00%

TBD/Other 0 159 0.00%

JD

A 151 13862 1.09%

E 2 398 0.50%

B 10 3303 0.30%

D 2 1611 0.12%

F 1 1889 0.05%

TBD 2 4125 0.05%

G 14 30190 0.05%

H 0 3230 0.00%

I 0 244 0.00%

J 0 116 0.00%

Other 0 187 0.00%

WQ TBD/Other 0 87 0.00%

Modeling and Simulation

Physics-based modeling and simulation is one of the three main legs of the investigation; 

complementing the statistical analysis and laboratory testing (Figure 1). The Takata family of 

inflators is complex in design, manufacture and operation. Orbital ATK employed a broad range 

of design and analysis capabilities to help understand normal operation and causes for abnormal 

operation. Our modeling and simulation efforts employed the best available ballistic, metal 

structures, propellant structures, seals and computational fluid dynamics/heat transfer codes and 

analyses to help understand these inflators.

In order to find design similarities and differences that could correlate with failure rate 

differences, Orbital ATK developed a family tree based on type and prefix and a part-by-part 

inflator comparison. Because of the large number of family members, we also looked for designs

that are functionally similar and different (Figure 4).
Inflator Rupture Root Cause Summary Report

8

Figure 4. Summary of Similarities and Differences for Passenger Inflators.

These summaries guide where more detailed engineering analysis and testing will be most likely to 

identify root causes and contributors. The rupture rate on field return tests is shown for each inflator 

chamber superimposed on that chamber.

Analysis of the passenger branch showed a common case design, seal system design and igniter 

design with eight unique ballistic designs. Since the main hardware designs are the same but 

ballistic designs are different, this suggests a focus on ballistic differences will help to 

understand differences in energetic disassembly (ED), or rupture rate. This analysis shows that 

designs that superficially appear similar can be quite different in the ED rate. Detailed analysis is 

yielding insights on these differences. Each of these points is a clue in understanding the root 

cause.

Detailed design analysis and comparison was also done for the driver branch of inflators. This 

allowed us to examine the driver and passenger designs for similarities and differences (Figure 5) 

that could account for the order of magnitude higher passenger-branch failure rate. Key 

differences include: 2004 propellant geometry, igniter closure seal design, igniter design and 

screen pack design.

TIRRC-005 V1

BC & MK AB, DL, & HE

AJ DH

JD FD

• Number of case designs: 1

• Number of igniter designs: 1

• Number of seal system designs: 1

• Number of ballistic designs: 8

• Number of Unique Failure Rates: 10

• PSPI-L FD: 1 inflator, 2 failure rates

• PSPI-L JD & FD Secondary: 1 ballistic design, 2 failure rates

• SPI AJ vs DH: 2 ballistic designs, 2 very different failure rates

• PSPI-L FD Primary and SPI AJ: highest number of thick wafers 

and largest failure rates

• SPI-DH (and SPI-YP) have medium wafers, and low failure rate

13/7553=0.17% 68/7553=0.90%% 43/4288=1.00% 84/4288=1.96%

1/4769=0.02% 0/4769=0% 18/5995=0.30% 7/5995=0.12%

99/4926=2.01% 1/1826=0.01%

Florida ED Rates

Greater than 1%

Greater than 0
Inflator Rupture Root Cause Summary Report

9

Figure 5. Comparison and Contrast of Major Design Differences in Takata Driver and Passenger 

Dual Chamber Inflators.

While functionally similar (see Figure 7), understanding these differences is relevant to understanding

differences in ED rates.

Detailed structural analysis was done for both driver and passenger inflators. In general, we 

found the design minimum capability to be in line with reported values from Takata lot 

acceptance testing. In the driver design, we searched for stress concentrations, particularly those 

that align with bends and joint welds. We examined the possibility of locations where ingested 

water could collect and cause corrosion, especially when coupled with propellant dust. We 

performed thermal analysis looking for the potential for strength reduction of the secondary 

chamber due to heat soak. In no case were the contributions deemed large enough to reduce the 

pressure capability sufficiently to be a contributor to increased ED probability.

Although we have no evidence of structural failure at normal pressure, there is data showing ED 

events are associated with runaway ballistics (Figure 6). While some of the failure traces indicate 

failure below design capability, a separate analysis showed this is likely due to the capability of 

the data acquisition system.

TIRRC-006 V1

Weld vs. 

O-ring in 

Crimp Vicinity

Igniter Design

O-ring Bore Seal: 

Unaffected by Crimp

Mesh vs. 

Rolled/Welded 

Screen Pack and 

Propellant/Screen 

Pack Geometry

Thin Batwings vs. 

Thick Wafers
Inflator Rupture Root Cause Summary Report

10

Figure 6. Typical Ballistic Traces.

Shown here are typical pressure-time traces for nominal operation and runaway pressure of an ED. The 

rounded, “haystack” of the nominal operation is indicative of regression normal to the propellant surfaces.

The unique shape of the ED trace provides information regarding what ballistic effects could lead to this 

shape of trace.

We conducted a wide range of ballistic modeling to help understand potential causes for ED. We 

modeled both driver and passenger inflators, but studied the passenger inflators in greatest depth.

We chose this approach because 1) driver and passenger inflators are functionally similar (Figure 

7), and 2) the PSPI-L primary chamber has a wealth of ED data. First, we conducted ballistic 

analysis to gain an understanding of normal operation for these complex inflators. We then 

looked at deviations from normal operation that could result in the pressure trace associated with 

ED. This pressure trace typically shows an initial pressure rise followed by a short “pause” 

where the pressure rise rate slows followed by a rapidly increasing rate of pressure rise to a 

pressure that causes a rupture of the inflator housing. This sort of rapid pressure increase is often 

associated with a progressive burning surface or one that is increasing in the amount of available 

surface area to burn. This is consistently and strikingly different from the rounded or “haystack”

pressure trace associated with normal operation (Figure 6). This kind of “haystack” trace is 

typical of what would be expected in a normal burn of wafers or tablets of the kind in these 

inflators. This “haystack” is referred to as a regressive surface area trace due to the wafers or 

tablets having the highest surface area at the time of ignition followed by a consistent reduction 

of the available burning surface area as they get smaller burning from the outside in.

TIRRC-007 V1

0

90,000

85,000

80,000

75,000

70,000

65,000

60,000

55,000

50,000

45,000

40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

kPa

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08

Time

Shallower Slope: 

Chamber Divider 

Fails

FDHN4130374

FDMP1270966

FDMP1291342

FDMP3241126

FBDMC3T0052

FDHN4072226

FDMP1100724

FDMP1130542

FDMP3050234

FDHMC050139

LTBMD3R2407

Primary Chamber

Runaway 

Pressure

Normal Pressure 

Trace
Inflator Rupture Root Cause Summary Report

11

Figure 7. Similarities in Operating Features of Takata Driver and Passenger Inflators. 

While there are certain differences (Figure 5), there are many similarities in propellants, materials and 

designs for the inflators under recall. These similarities allow conclusions regarding both designs to be 

reached on several key parameters.

We performed significant ballistic modeling to understand normal operation to develop a 

foundation for understanding higher pressure and ED events. We started with the basics: burn 

rate and surface area of the main 2004 propellant. Burning rate in propellants is described by the 

equation here, referred to as St. Robert’s Law:

r = aP

n

In this equation, r is the burn rate, a is a constant, P is the pressure and n is the pressure exponent 

often referred to as the burn rate slope. Since it is an exponential equation, typical plots are done 

as log of the burn rate versus log of the pressure which results in a straight line (Figure 8) for a 

typical combustion process. Changes in the exponent, or slope, have a profound effect on the 

burn rate. Burn rate combined with available surface area determines the rate that gas is 

produced. An ED occurs when gas is generated faster than it can move through the screens and 

out the vents built in the inflator.

TIRRC-008 V1

Aluminum 

Closure

Retention 

Sprint

EPDM O-ring

2004 Propellant 

Tablets/Grains

Annulus

Seal

Initiator

AI-1 Auto-Ignition 

Propellant

3110 Booster

Propellant

Annulus

Retention Spring

Filter Pack

Steel Pressure Vessel 

with Multiple Throats

Metal/Adhesive 

Tape Seal

EPDM O-ring

Initiator Seal

Aluminum 

Closure
Inflator Rupture Root Cause Summary Report

12

Burn rate data for virgin wafers showed a high 

burn rate slope (~0.8) at low pressure. In the 

pressure range near the maximum achieved in 

normal operation, a lower slope (~0.5) is 

observed. This is discussed in further detail 

below. These properties are critical to normal 

operation of these inflators and relevant to 

understanding the reasons for ruptures. At low 

pressures, this propellant burns very slowly and 

can extinguish. At a higher pressure, the 

burning rate is sufficient to generate gas at the 

right rate to inflate the air bag. If the pressure 

increases significantly beyond design, the 

burning rate also increases resulting in more 

gas, more pressure and an eventual ED. This 

iterative pressure/burn rate building results in 

the typical shape of the pressure-time curve for 

an ED (Figure 6). These measured burn rate and 

slope data are the input used for modeling the behavior of this system. We used the lower slope 

in our baseline modeling because it is the pressure exponent near the maximum pressure. 

Wafers break into smaller pieces on ignition. We conducted multiple studies on this breakup. All 

breakup models resulted in regressive surface area versus distance burned. Variation in breakup 

strongly influenced peak pressure, but did not change the basic haystack profile. More breakup 

resulted in higher peak pressure and lower tail-off pressure. Sufficiently high break-up 

(essentially pulverizing wafers at the extreme) results in an overpressure event.

We examined the potential of the ignition propellants to cause ED. Specifically, we looked at the 

PSPI-L secondary chamber because of the relatively high ratio of ignition propellant weight to 

2004 wafer weight (Figure 9a). We found that 1) we could double the ignition propellant mass 

flow rate without a significant change in peak pressure, and 2) if we added all the auto ignition 

propellant at peak pressure we could not increase pressure enough to cause ED (Figure 9b). This 

important finding helped focus our propellant investigation on the 2004 main propellant.

We examined four theoretical potential causes for ED: 1) increasing burning surface area, 

2) increasing burn rate, 3) throat blockage, and 4) increasing combustion efficiency. Mechanisms 

for increasing burning surface are: a) continued breakup after ignition, and b) burning of interior 

fractures, cracks and pores. Continued breakup remains a possible cause, but we were able to 

rule out interior (closed) pore burning (Figure 10) as a primary contributor.

Figure 8. Schematic Representation of Burn 

Rate and Pressure Plot. 

Propellants combust following an exponential 

relationship of pressure and burn rate. With a high 

slope of the line, burn rate rises rapidly with 

increasing pressure. Such propellants exhibit 

larger changes in burn rate and gas production 

than those with lower slopes.

TIRRC-009 V1

Log Pc

Log r
Inflator Rupture Root Cause Summary Report

13

Figure 9. Potential of Ignition and Auto Ignition Propellants to Cause an ED.

These two figures show data from gas or pressure generation studies (Mdot, gas generation rate) on the 

potential of the igniter closure 3110 propellant (top) or the auto ignition propellant (bottom) to cause an 

ED. Even under extreme cases, these propellants cannot of themselves cause an ED. This focused our 

studies on the main 2004 propellant.

TIRRC-010 V1

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 Pressure (MPa)

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1

Time (sec)

PSPI-L JD Secondary Chamber

Ignition Propellant Mdot Sensitivity Study

2x Gas Generation 

of Normal 3,110 

Tablets

Auto Ignition Propellant Added at 0.01 to 0.02 sec

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1

Time (sec)

42

35

28

21

14

7

0 Pressure (Mpa)

Late, Fast Edition 

of Auto-Ignition 

Propellant

Baseline

Auto Ignition Added
Inflator Rupture Root Cause Summary Report

14

Figure 10. Closed Pore Impact on Burning Surface.

Calculations were done matching the lowest wafer density from field returns by adding closed pores to 

otherwise nominal wafers. With this matched density, closed pores are insufficient to explain the surface 

area increase needed to result in an ED event. It may contribute, however. This analysis does not apply 

to connected pores where there are potential gas paths as discussed below.

Our investigation identified throat blockage as a potential contributor, but not a cause. Several 

inflators showed abnormal flame plumes at the throats prior to ED and several filter packs 

showed buckling under the throats in post-test inspection; these observations are consistent with 

the thermal-structural analysis that showed concentrated heating under the throats. However, the 

filter packs show little pressure drop even when pressed against the case inner wall. In order to 

block a throat, the filter pack would have to get hot enough and weak enough to compress into a 

throat, without being weak enough to blow through the throat under the high pressure associated 

with ED.

Combustion efficiency is associated with the actual pressure level achieved compared to the 

theoretical pressure level reached from burning the propellant completely in the absence of heat 

losses. Heat losses to the filter pack are significant and result in lower combustion efficiency.

Closed bomb testing indicates combustion efficiency may increase with pressure. If the inflator 

is on the way to ED, then increasing combustion efficiency will aggravate the pressure increase 

by producing more gas for a given amount of 2004 propellant burned. Going forward, we intend 

to examine combustion efficiency changes with pressure using our heavyweight test hardware.

We examined multiple potential causes for the apparent increase in 2004 burn rate. We looked at 

a number of phenomena known to the ballistics technical community including: oscillatory 

burning, high base burn rate, erosive burning, burning due to preheating the propellant and 

permeable burning. Of these causes examined, permeable burning showed potential to contribute 

to ED.

TIRRC-011 V1

Pores Sized to Match

Density of Aged Wafers

1,500

1,300

1,100

900

700

500

300

100

-100

-300

-500

Surface (mm2

)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Distance (mm)

PSPI-L 2004 Wafer Delta Surface vs. Distance

Max Delta Surface

Due to Modeled

Voids = 282 mm2
Inflator Rupture Root Cause Summary Report

15

Orbital ATK and Penn State data2showed the potential for low-density 2004 propellant to have 

a slope increase at high pressure compared to the normal slope at high pressure (Figure 11).

Modeling the effect of slope change shows that increasing slope from the baseline value of 0.5 to 

0.8 is enough to reach ED pressure levels. This ballistic change most likely is caused by the 

permeable and porous burning noted below.

Permeable burning is a mechanism that can increase burn rate by preheating the propellant. 2004 

propellant burn rate increases with temperature until the auto-ignition temperature is reached. If 

the propellant is porous (volume is available for hot gas to fill) and permeable (hot gases can 

flow to the free volume), then hot gas has the potential to preheat the propellant to the depth the 

permeability extends (Figure 12). This can express itself in what appears to be “in-depth” 

burning as the hot gases ignite more surface area of the propellant below the normal advancing 

surface. In a parametric studies completed to test this phenomenon, 2% porosity is typical of 

virgin propellant, and 10% porosity is similar to aged propellant. For the study, three values for 

the permeability constant, Gamma, were chosen that span the range likely for this material and to 

model the potential impact from a change in permeability. This example showed the potential for 

a 50% burn rate increase due to changes in porosity and permeability. This theoretical 

underpinning may serve to explain the empirically measured “Integrated Burning Rate” data 

reported by Takata. Understanding the mechanism will allow validation of appropriate aging 

models.

 

2

 Essel, J.T., Boyer, E., Kuo, K.K., and Zhang, B., “Transient Burning Behavior of Phase-stabilized 

Ammonium Nitrate Based Airbag Propellant”, Int. J. of Energetic Materials and Chem. Propellants, Vol. 11, 

pp. 473-486, 2012
Inflator Rupture Root Cause Summary Report

16

Figure 11. Change in High Pressure Regime Slope.

Data at several locations have shown similar data as depicted here from Orbital ATK (top) and Penn 

State (bottom). This change in apparent slope at higher pressure is consistent although graphically 

represented several different ways. Several phenomena can result in this apparent slope change as 

noted below.

TIRRC-012 V1

49

Burn Rate (mm/s)

0

Pressure (Mpa)

Comparison of Burnrates Between Aged

and Virgin Quarter Wafers

44

39

34

29

24

19

14

9

4

-1

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Task 2 – Analysis of Data

1,000 10,000

5

6

7

8

9

10

20

30

40

50

Burn Rate (mm/s)

3 10 100

Pressure (Mpa)

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Lack of Downward

Slope Break at Higher

Pressure Range

Penn State 

data for static 

burning rate at 

normal and 

low density

Pressure, Mpa

40

50

Burning Rate for 1.71 g/cc

30.94

35.14

Burning Rate for 1.61 g/cc

38.97

47.77

Increase, %

26.0

35.9

Applying their curve fits, and calculating the burning rate at 40 Mpa (typical of PSDI and 

many other 2004 containing inflators), we obtain the following:
Inflator Rupture Root Cause Summary Report

17

Figure 12. Impact of Porosity and Permeability.

These four figures graphically depict the dramatic effect on in-depth heating and burning rate with 

increasing porosity and permeability to hot gases. Each graph shows data for no heating and for 

increasing levels of permeability (gamma). This in-depth heating along gas paths is consistent with the 

real time radiography, pycnometry data and ED event ballistic traces.

Analysis of the seal systems showed that each driver and passenger inflator has multiple 

potential leak paths (Figure 13). The leak path of greatest concern is the passenger closure O-ring 

seal (Figure 14). Based on nominal dimensions for the closure, O-ring and case (away from the 

crimp zone), O-ring squeeze is excellent. Unfortunately, the closure crimp footprint overlays the 

O-ring sealing footprint. This design/manufacturing feature allows the possibility of no O-ring 

squeeze at the maximum engineering-allowed crimp outer diameter (OD) of 52.65 mm. In 

addition, many inflators were built with crimp ODs that exceed the allowed value. These paths 

result in greater moisture movement in and out of inflators than what would be calculated based 

on diffusion through a rubber O-ring and is consistent with reports from Takata, Fraunhofer ICT 

and original equipment manufacturers (OEM) of higher moisture levels in field return inflators.

This moisture movement is critical to generate the observed growth in wafer diameter.

TIRRC-013 V1
Inflator Rupture Root Cause Summary Report

18

Figure 13. Potential Leak Paths in Takata Inflators.

Several different seals are present in both passenger and driver inflators (marked by red arrows). While a 

great deal of emphasis has been placed on the passenger crimp and O-ring, every seal is a potential path 

for moisture to enter the inflator and must be considered in any valid moisture transport model.

Figure 14. Passenger Inflator Primary Crimp Data.

The table on the left presents results from analysis using a proprietary tool developed by Orbital ATK to 

be a more accurate measure of O-ring squeeze. The tool was developed due to the criticality of O-ring 

seals in rocket motors. The data on the right show that manufacturing in the time frame of interest for 

these recalls (2003 and 2004 shown here), that a measurable percentage of all primary crimp diameters 

exceeded the engineering allowed maximum of 52.65 mm (marked by the red arrow).

Laboratory Experiments

There was a wide range of activities that we broadly grouped under laboratory experiments. The 

range is from detailed chemical analysis of raw materials to metallurgical investigations of 

inflator hardware to heavyweight ballistic analysis to static and dynamic x-ray analyses. The 

specific work performed was driven by the needs derived from the fault tree closure efforts.

Several noteworthy conclusions can be drawn from our laboratory experiments:

Total Throats Closures Squibs Squib Gaskets

12-14 6-8 2 2 2 PSPI-L

PSPI

SPI

Total Throats Closures Squibs Squib Gaskets

16 10 2 2 2

16 10 2 2 2

10 6 2 1 1

TIRRC-014 V2 TIRRC-015 V1

Parameter

Concentric

Crimp

Max Squeeze (%)

Minimum Squeeze (%)

Nominal

Yes

No

28.7

17.4

Tolerance Stack Up

No Yes No

No Yes Yes

29.3 15.5 29.3

16.8 0.9 0

Passenger Side – Inflator O-ring Squeeze 30.0

29.8

29.6

29.4

29.2

29.0

28.8

28.6

New LD Primary Wafer OD Avg

New LD Primary Crimp OD (mm)

52.0 52.1 52.2 52.3 52.4 52.5 52.6 52.7 52.8

PSPI-L Florida Corolla Primary

Wafer OD by Primary Crimp Diameter
Inflator Rupture Root Cause Summary Report

19

1. There is no significant chemical degradation or chemical composition change occurring 

to a sufficient degree in the 2004 propellant or in the 3110 propellant after field exposure 

which could contribute significantly to the failure rate. That is, PSAN is still the same 

chemical when aged under the conditions typical in the subject inflators. While the 

chemical constituents do not change, in contrast, changes in the shape and size and 

growth in pores, cracks or fissures in pressed wafers, tablets or batwings are observed.

2. Moisture transport inside an inflator follows expected behavior of the hydroscopic, 

desiccating and deliquescing behaviors that would be expected for these materials based 

on general principles of chemistry. That is, sodium bentonite, which is a component of 

both the 2004 and 3110 propellants, can function as a drying agent and PSAN can absorb 

significant amounts of moisture if available. There are not dramatic cliffs but rather 

gradual changes as a function of temperature, as shown in the experiments conducted by 

Fraunhofer ITC and confirmed by our efforts. However, these cumulative changes over 

the temperature range to which the inflator is exposed appear to be significant. Figure 15

and Table 3 report critical lab data describing moisture transport.

3. The 2004 propellant wafers in passenger inflators grow after repeated temperature 

cycling with moisture present (transitioning in and out of propellant grains). This effect 

was observed in both wafers and tablets in primary and secondary chambers of passenger 

inflators (Figure 16). The growth results in reduced envelope density but very little 

change in pycnometry density, suggesting that the increased volume is void spaces that 

are connected (Figure 17). These connected pores, flaws or fissures allow hot gas 

penetration resulting in increased mass flow when ignited (porous and permeable 

burning). 

Figure 15. Headspace Moisture Above 2004 and 3110 Propellants with Moisture Added as a 

Function of Temperature.

In each case, the change in the amount of water that is available is dramatic when transitioning from 30°C 

to 70°C. This suggests transport is much more likely at the higher end of the range. The 3110 propellant 

shows a modest increase in propensity to give up moisture compared to 2004. This variability gives rise 

to the “x-graph” when suitably drawn although the effect is not as dramatic as suggested in some 

depictions.

TIRRC-016 V1

150,000

100,000

50,000

0

150,000

100,000

50,000

0

30C 70C

30C 70C

1,600,000

1,400,000

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000

600,000

400,000

200,000

0

0.71% 2.29%

GC Counts (water)
Inflator Rupture Root Cause Summary Report

20

Table 3. Moisture Competition Experiment for 2004 and 3110 Propellants in a Closed System.

Data reported here are percent moisture in the propellant. The initial conditions were six open vials 

containing dried 3110 propellant and 2004 with a known percentage (2%) of moisture. They were first 

allowed to equilibrate for 5 days at ambient. A significant amount of moisture moved from the moist 2004 

propellant to the dry 3110. Cycles at higher temperature with two additions of small amounts of water 

mimicking HAH conditions followed by simple heating showed slow movement back towards the 2004 

from the 3110. This matches the data in Figure 15 and quantifies the mobility under these relevant 

conditions. Further experiments at 50°C and 60°C along with smaller amounts of water are planned.

Mass Propellant 1.14 g 

2004

1.90 g 

2004

3.08 g

2004

0.18 g 

3110

0.32 g 

3110

0.2 g 

3110

Start 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

5 days ambient 1.4 1.7 1.6 3.1 2.4 2.6

Add 0.1 g water, heat to 70°C and let cool 

over night 3.6 2.7 2.3 8.5 6.2 5.2

Add 0.07 g water, heat to 70°C and let cool 

over night 5.6 3.7 2.6 12.1 8.5 6.7

Heat to 70°C and let cool over night 6.2 4.0 2.5 9.5 7.6 6.5

Heat to 70°C and let cool for 6 hours 6.3 4.1 2.5 8.8 5.9 5.9

Figure 16. Examples of Fused Wafers and Tablets.

Both tablets and wafers are often fused in inflators where there has been significant diameter growth in 

the wafer consistent with a process similar to Ostwald ripening. The kinetics of such processes are 

relevant to any aging models.

TIRRC-017 V1

Primary Wafers and Tablets Secondary Wafers and Tablets
Inflator Rupture Root Cause Summary Report

21

Real time radiography (RTR) provided 

remarkable insight into the processes involved 

in both a nominal burn and during over-pressure 

events. This technique showed the typical 

fracture of wafers during ignition. In a nominal 

deployment, the regular burning normal to all 

surfaces is apparent. However, in an ED, the 

initial state shows less distinct wafers, 

consistent with wafers expanding into direct 

contact with each other. Fracture occurs on 

ignition, although perhaps less pronounced than 

in a nominal deployment. Initial burning is 

followed by a transition to a much higher mass 

consumption, consistent with ballistic traces 

and penetration of combustion gases through 

void spaces resulting in increased surface area

(Figure 18).

Root Cause 

The root cause statement is summarized in 

Figure 19. When all three necessary, mutually 

synergistic conditions are present, they combine 

to result in a single sufficient failure condition.

The case, or enclosure, structural integrity was 

not found to be a contributor. The particular 

vehicle model or platform was found to be a 

contributing modifier. The magnitude of that 

effect will be examined in the next phase of the program as part of the aging and surveillance 

testing effort.

Figure 17. Density Measurements for 2004 

Propellant Wafers. 

Shown here are measurements of a large number 

of propellant wafers with increasing OD. Outer 

diameter has been correlated with likelihood of an 

overpressure event. These data show two different 

density measurement techniques. The envelope 

density method gives an overall geometrical 

density while the pycnometry density method 

allows gas penetration, yielding a result that 

remains constant due to accessibility to gas to the 

majority of low-density spaces or voids in the 

propellant. These data show that the low-density

voids generally allow gas to pass from one to the 

next, suggesting connected or communicating 

voids. 

TIRRC-018 V1

1.74

1.72

1.70

1.68

1.66

1.64

1.62

1.60

1.58

1.56

1.54

Density (g/cc)

28.4 28.6 28.8 29.0 29.2 29.4 29.6 29.8

Wafer Outer Diameter (mm)
Inflator Rupture Root Cause Summary Report

22

Figure 18. Real Time Radiography Still Images.

Shown above are individual frames from two RTR experiments with PSPI-L FD inflators showing the primary chamber. Stills 1-3 are from test #98553,

which was a nominal firing. Stills 4-6 are from test #95179, which was an ED. The time sequence is from left to right. In the first pictures (1 and 4), 

differences can be seen with the distinct individual wafers with space between wafers in #1 and less distinct boundaries in #4 reflecting the wafer 

growth in #4. In pictures 2 and 5, the ignition has occurred and flame spread has begun. The typical fracturing of wafers is visible. Space between 

wafers from flame intrusion is now clear, which is not seen in the baseline (picture 4) for test #95179. In #3 and #6, radical differences are clear. In #3, 

regression of the surfaces, reducing wafer size but maintaining integrity, is observed. In #6, combustion at a much higher rate and in depth in the wafers 

is visible although some integrity remains as would be expected. Rupture occurred shortly thereafter attributed to excessive chamber pressure.

TIRRC-019 V2

1 2 3

4 5 6
Inflator Rupture Root Cause Summary Report

23

Figure 19. Summary Fault Tree.

The first level fault tree with the summary of the root cause is shown here. Please note the color key in 

the upper left. Compare to the summary of the supporting and refuting evidence shown in Table 1.

Continuing Efforts

Our activities are moving into the next phase of the investigation, namely to focus on the 

performance of all inflators that are being used as replacement parts for current recalls, as well as 

desiccated inflators being used in existing vehicles. A primary question is whether the newer 

inflator designs are susceptible to failure under conditions that have resulted in ED events with 

inflators currently under recall.

 Includes O-rings, 

grease, gaskets, 

shim tape, igniter 

burst foil, autoignition cup, squib, 

welds, crimps, case

 All paths that 

moisture could get to 

the 2004 propellant

 Moisture finds its way 

to the propellant

TIRRC-020 V1

Some Takata Inflators Subject to NHTSA Recalls 

15E-040 to 15E-043 Rupture Upon Deployment 

After Long Term Environmental Aging

Case Structural 

Subsystem

Sealing

Subsystem

Ballistic

Subsystem

External

Environment

Vehicle

Model

Combined Effect of Ballistic, 

Sealing and External 

Environment Subsystems

 Includes igniter, auto 

ignition cup, 2004 

tablets, 2004 wafers, 

2004 batwings, 

throats, shim tape, 

screen pack

 2004 propellant 

changes under 

prevalent conditions

 Higher gas mass flow 

results in higher 

pressure

 Includes case, 

closures, bulkhead, 

welds, crimps

 Ruptures occur at 

pressures above 

nominal operation

 Includes areas of 

higher humidity and 

temperature

 Cycling many times 

from moderate to 

high temperature in 

an environment

 Predominant high 

humidity acting as a 

source for moisture

 This is the vehicle 

that the inflator is in

 Variation from 

vehicle to vehicle for 

a single prefix shows 

this is a factor

 Variation within 

platform for a single 

prefix shows not 

primary cause

Root Cause Statement: In the subject Takata inflators, the non-desiccated PSAN propellant is affected 

by repeated high temperature cycling in the presence of moisture and it is contained in an inflator 

assembly that does not adequately prevent moisture intrusion under conditions of high humidity.

Cause – Sufficient

Contributor – Necessary

Contributor – Modifier

Maybe

Not a Cause

Open

+ +
Inflator Rupture Root Cause Summary Report

24

Addenda

A. Sources of Information and Acknowledgements

The scope of the project as presented to Orbital ATK by The Independent Testing Coalition 

(ITC) was to pursue root cause and ramifications using all available information. The 

investigation was not limited in focus or scope. There was not any direction given by the ITC.

No limitations were imposed on avenues of the investigation or scope of questions asked. We 

received consistently strong support from each member of the ITC. Each ITC member willingly 

shared relevant data they had.

We received critical support from Takata. They supplied proprietary engineering drawings to 

support our modeling. Takata provided aged and new inflators as well as inflator hardware, raw 

materials and access to their engineering and manufacturing facilities. Takata met with us on 

several occasions to respond to our questions. Takata also provided access to their Master 

Engineering Analysis File (MEAF).

We also met with individuals from Fraunhofer ICT as arranged by Takata and with faculty from 

Penn State to discuss their studies. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

personnel provided relevant information regarding their in-house investigations and from their 

review of efforts by all other parties. 

We considered all the data we gathered as relevant to the investigation and sought to include 

every possible source in our work. We independently verified data from all sources to ensure that 

we could stand by all the critical data we cite as relevant to our investigation.

B. ITC Membership and Purpose

Formed in December 2014, the ITC has as its sole purpose to conduct an independent and 

comprehensive investigation of the technical issues associated with Takata airbag inflators. The 

ITC comprises ten automakers that have Takata airbags subject to the noted recalls in their 

passenger and light truck vehicles: BMW, Fiat Chrysler Automotive, Honda, Ford, GM, 

Mitsubishi, Mazda, Nissan, Subaru and Toyota. 

C. Orbital ATK Relevant Qualifications and Background

The Orbital ATK team was primarily located within our Propulsion Systems Group in Utah. We 

called on expertise relevant to the project from across the company and outside of our company 

for specific technical capabilities and for real time radiography and computed tomography image 

analysis. The core team has extensive experience in the design, research and development, 

testing and manufacture of propellants, explosives and pyrotechnics including many years of 

experience with automotive inflators. Orbital ATK is not involved in the inflator business today 

and, as such, is well positioned to serve as an objective investigator on this project. We were and 

are fully committed to providing the best technical personnel and using the best of the tools at 

our disposal to provide an accurate and objective assessment.