UN Series 6C External Fire Test Issues with consistent conduct of the test and interpretation of assessment criteria Frank Eder Technical Manager Australian Munitions

Australian Munitions (AM)  Subsidiary of Thales  Manufacturer of World class Ammunition, Propellants and SA Weapons since 1880  Largest supplier of Explosive Ordnance to the ADF  Three manufacturing plants:  Mulwala, NSW – Propellant, Explosives & Chemicals  Benalla, Vic - Ammunition and Bombs  Lithgow, NSW - Small Arms Weapons  Exporter of propellants to US sporting shooters market for 25 years  Expanding commercial sales of sporting and military ammunition internationally  Significant experience with conduct of UN Series 6 testing

UN Series 6C Test  Competence  Judgement Suggest that UN Series 6C Test acceptance criteria be reviewed to remove as much ambiguity or requirement for CA judgement

Test Assessment: Assignment of 1.4S: the problematic paragraph The paragraph:  If none of the events occur which would require the product to be assigned to Division 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 or 1.4 other than Compatibility Group S, the thermal blast or projection effects would not significantly hinder fire fighting or other emergency response efforts in the immediate vicinity, and if hazardous effects are confined within the package, then the product is assigned to Division 1.4 Compatibility Group S. Experience of CA interpretation:  1.4S can only be achieved when hazardous effects including projections are contained within the package during the UN Series 6C bonfire test Authors interpretation:  Safe for fire-fighters to fight a fire in close proximity to the fire without significant risk. 1.4S Requires clarification which leads the CA to assign 1.4S if all requirements of are met  If none of the events occur which would require the product to be assigned to Division 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 or 1.4 other than Compatibility Group S, the thermal blast or projection effects would not significantly hinder fire fighting or other emergency response efforts in the immediate vicinity, and if hazardous effects are confined within the package, then the product is assigned to Division 1.4 Compatibility Group S.

Consequences: Assignment of 1.4S: the problematic paragraph The consequences: Insistence that 1.4S can only be achieved when hazardous effects are fully contained during UN Series 6C test  Typical 1.4S Ammunition fibreboard packaging  To contain all projections fibreboard packages must be contained in UN pack test compliant outer steel cage  Requirement for containment of hazardous effects for UN Series 6C test not uniformly applied for 1.4S  Solution makes all up product/packaging cost non competitive  Need a consistent application of assessment criteria

Test Conduct: Fire Construction  The various methods have advantages and disadvantages:.  Liquid fuel: C reached quickly, significant smoke, site rectification issues.  Wood fuel: Fuel is relatively easy to source, burns with little smoke. Site clean up is easy. Can achieve up to C  Gas fuel: Clean burning, can stop fire at any stage, reaches C quickly. No site clean up due to fire  Competent Authorities( CA) are using the examples provided in the Manual of Tests and Criteria as the only way fuel fires can be constructed Suggest that the examples be removed and in place a general requirement for fires to burn for 30 minutes & achieve C during that time

Test Conduct: Affect of Radiant Heat on Witness Screens  Uncooled witness screens are subjected to temperatures exceeding C  At these temperatures the aluminium alloy will be less resistant to denting and perforation Witness screen cooling system Source: AM Technical Report TR-2148

Test Conduct: Affect of Radiant Heat on Witness Screens  Depth of dents increase with impact energy and witness screen temperature Suggest use of a water application system for cooling witness screens to remove variability of impact results due to heat Calculated impact energy J Dent Depth (mm) Screen temperature 30 o C Screen temperature 100 o C Screen temperature 150 o C Screen temperature 200 o C Sample Type: 1100-O Aluminium Alloy, Ballistic Threat:.308 Projectile, Mass 10.7 g, Impact Angle: Complete Penetration & PenetrationsNot Tested Complete PenetrationNot Tested Testing by Ballistic & Mechanical Testing on 12/3/13 BMT Test report 4189/13 Drop Weight Test Rig

Test Assessment: Dent Measurement-Discrete vs Non Discreet Measurement Non Discrete :Measure dent & screen deformation Discrete :Measure dent signature only  Dent measurement method may seem self evident  CA expect non-discrete measurement ie: Worse case  Discrete dent measurement measures dent signature only Suggest clarification on approach to dent measurement

Test Assessment: Impact Criteria ResearcherProjectileSpecimen Energy Density (J/cm 2 ) JourneeLead sphereHuman skin & muscle20.99 MattooLead sphereSkin & muscle of thigh20.21 Di Maio et al.177 air rifle pelletLower extremity skin & muscle18.14 Di Maio et al.38 calibre bulletLower extremity skin & muscle12.75 Di Maio et al.38 calibre bulletLower extremity skin & muscle19.03 Reference: Journal of Forensic Science 2007 Title :Skin Penetration of Less lethal Kinetic Energy Munitions Cynthia.A.Bir PHD  From the literature, the 20J criteria seems based on the likelihood of skin penetration by a projectile.  Mr Ben Barrett has shown that hand thrown objects can perforate a witness screen  Basis for the 8J criteria is less clear

Test Assessment :Dent Assessment for 308 Calibre projectiles For.308 projectiles:  4mm dent criteria did not correlate with 8J  Impacts of up to 30J did not perforate the witness screen  Some CA rigidly enforce the 4mm requirement for 1.4S others do not Energy Level (J) Measured Velocity (m/s) Calculated Energy (J) Dent Depth (mm) Method 1 Method 2 4J J J J J Testing by Ballistic & Mechanical Testing on 12/3/13 BMT Test report 4189/13 Drop Weight Test Rig Witness screen dent results can be affected by many factors Suggest consideration be given to a review of the witness screen dent and perforation criteria based on further evidence

Main Points  The suggested method for bonfire construction is being strictly applied  Witness screens are severely impacted by radiant heat during a bonfire test  Energy limits and proximity assumption for the UN 6C test are very conservative  The varying interpretation of the assessment criteria may lead to inconsistent assignment of HC particularly 1.4S  Inconsistent interpretation is leading to different HC assignment in different domains Suggested changes to methodology and assessment criteria will provide greater consistency in assignment of Hazard Classifications

QUESTIONS Questions?