The U.S. Army uses several types of tests to increase the reliability of gun-fired munitions. Systems, subsystems, and components are gun fired to assess reliability. When failures are found, root-cause investigations are completed and parts may be redesigned. For instance, the 155 mm projectile Excalibur uses several types of tests to find failures and build reliability. Components are tested in a rail gun, a new soft-catch gun, and in soft recovery vehicles. With the rail gun, test projectiles are fired from a worn gun tube into a trough of water. The soft-catch gun, a hybrid system using both air and water, has a standard cannon tube and a series of catch tubes to stop a projectile. The third type of test, a soft recovery vehicle, uses a modified tactical Excalibur with a parachute for a soft landing. All three types of tests have on-board recorders to capture ballistic accelerations. Accelerometer data are used in failure investigations, redesign parts, and to design new projectiles. The purpose of this paper is to compare accelerations from different types of ballistic tests. Comparisons were done to determine if the tests were in the same statistical family. Comparisons are made for a United States MACS 5 charge. The maximum axial forces were the same for the soft-catch gun and the soft recovery vehicle. In the balloting directions, the rail gun and soft recovery vehicle had similar forces. The set forward forces differed in all three cases, reflecting the different catch mechanisms for the projectiles. Comparisons of $g$-forces were also made using shock response spectra. The shock response indicated that the damage potential is greatest for the rail gun tests, consistent with an increase rate of failures for some electronics.

1.
Cordes
,
J. A.
,
Carlucci
,
D. E.
,
Kalinowski
,
J.
, and
Reinhardt
,
L.
, 2006, “
Design and Development of Reliability Gun-Fired Structures
,” U.S. Army Armament Research Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC) Technical Report No. ARAET-TR-06009.
2.
Chakka
,
V.
,
Trabia
,
M. B.
,
O’Toole
,
B.
,
Sridharala
,
S.
,
,
S.
, and
Chowdhury
,
M.
, 2008, “
Modeling and Reduction of Shocks on Electronic Components Within a Projectile
,”
Int. J. Impact Eng.
0734-743X,
35
(
11
), pp.
1326
1338
.
3.
Lee
,
J.
,
Groeschler
,
S.
,
Geissler
,
D.
, and
Armstrong
,
B.
, 2008, “
Simulation Analysis of Impact Delay Module
,” ARDEC Technical Report No. ARMET-TR-08021.
4.
Cordes
,
J. A.
,
Vega
,
J.
,
Carlucci
,
D.
,
Chaplin
,
R.
, and
Peterson
,
W. S.
, 2005, “
Structural Loading Statistics on Live Gun Firings for the Army’s Excalibur Projectile
,” ARDEC Technical Report No. ARAET-TR-05005.
5.
Cordes
,
J. A.
,
Vega
,
J.
,
Carlucci
,
D.
, and
Chaplin
,
R.
, 2005, “
Design Accelerations for the Army’s Excalibur Projectile
,” ARDEC Technical Report No. ARAET-TR-05008.
6.
Myers
,
T.
,
Geissler
,
D.
,
Ellis
,
B.
,
Cordes
,
J. A.
, and
Vega
,
J.
, 2007, “
Statistical Comparison Between Component Level and System Level Testing for the Excalibur Projectile
,”
23rd International Symposium on Ballistics
, NDIA, pp.
427
434
.
7.
Myers
,
T.
,
Carlucci
,
D.
, and
Cordes
,
J. A.
, 2005, “
Rail Gun Test Projectile for Improved Developmental Testing of Precision Munition Electronics
,”
22nd International Symposium on Ballistics
, NDIA, pp.
427
434
.
8.
Carlucci
,
D.
,
Cordes
,
J. A.
,
Morris
,
S.
, and
Gast
,
R.
, 2006, “
Muzzle Exit (Set Forward) Effects on Projectile Dynamics
,” ARDEC Technical Report No. ARAET-TR-06003.
9.
Carlucci
,
D.
,
Cordes
,
J. A.
,
Hahn
,
J.
, and
Frydman
,
A.
, 2005, “
Electronics and the Gun Environment
,”
Invited Paper, U.S. Army Workshop on Advanced Active Thin Film Materials for the Next Generation of Meso-Micro Scale Army Applications
.
10.
1993, International Test Operations Procedure 4-2-504(1), Ad No. A274371.
11.
DSP Development Corporation, 2007, DADISP 6.0.
12.
PredictionProbe, Inc.
, 2008.
13.
,
G. P.
, and
Bryan
,
J. G.
, 1960,
Introduction to Probability and Random Variables
,
McGraw-Hill
,
New York
, Chap. 8.
14.
Mikulski
,
H.
15.
Kelly
,
R.
, and
Richman
,
G.
, 1969,
Principles and Techniques of Shock Data Analysis, SVM-5
,
The Shock and Vibration Information Center, United States Department of Defense
,
Washington, D.C.
16.
Irvine
,
T.
, 2009, “
An Introduction to the Shock Response Spectrum
,” Revision Q, http://www.vibrationdata.com/SRS.htmhttp://www.vibrationdata.com/SRS.htm