Design and Analysis of a Fuze-Configurable Range Correction Device for an Artillery Projectile

Michael S.L. Hollis Fred J. Brandon

ARL-TR-2074

DECEMBER

1999

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

Macor@ is a registered trademarkof Dow-Corning.

..~.

The findings in this reiort are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless so designated by other authorized documents. Citation of manufacturers 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.

Army

Research

Laboratory
December1999

Aberdeen ProvingGround,MD 21005-5066 ARL-TR-2074

Design and Analysis of a Fuze-Configurable Range Correction Device for an Artillery Projectile
Michael S.L. Hollis Fred J. Brandon
Weapons andMaterialsResearch Directorate

Approvedfor public release; distributionis unlimited.

--.

Abstract The primary purpose of the low cost competent munitions (LCCM) program was to improve the effectivenessof indirect fire support from cannonartillery (DAmico 1996). With the advances in microelectronics, sensortechnology,andpackagingdesign,the reality of a rangecorrection devicefor artillery is conceivable.Oneof the main objectivesof the range correctiondeviceconceptwas to containall the mechanical and electrical components within a fuze-like envelope, while maintaining certain constraints that would allow the fuze to fit into a variety of artillery shells usedby North Atlantic Treaty Organization(NATO) countries. Another objectiveof the rangecorrectiondeviceconceptwas to avoid any changes within the ogiveof any of the projectiles in the existingstockpile. This report is a culminationof many designiterations,numericalanalyses, shock tests, and actual cannonlaunchings. Most of the designiterations and numericalanalyses are not mentionedin this report simply because they were steppingstonesthat led to the final design. Structuralanalyses indicatedthat the overallprototypedesignwas durableenough to withstand the most severeartillery cannonlaunchingavailabletoday. The design shouldbe capableof withstandinga 15,000g inertial set-backload with 150,000rad/s2of angularacceleration.In addition, the designshouldbe capableof deployingwhile the projectile has velocity of 650 m/s and is spinningat 250cyclesper second.The next stepwould be to fabricateand test the designin order to truly verify the integrity of the structure andto determinethe overall effect of the deployeddrag bladeson the range of flight.
.

;..-

,:,.

a ;,..;-

,-\

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

. .

The authorswould like to thankthe following peoplefor their helpandexpertise. Mrs. Lisa (Jara)Paolucci is acknowledged for hermathematical talents. Messrs.Eugene Ferguson and David Vasquez arecommended for the actualfield testinganddatareductionof the SO-mm D-ring dragsterprototype,which was fired at the NationalAeronautics andSpace Administration WallopsIslandfacility. Messrs.Ferguson andCraig Myers arealsoto be commended for their novelelectronic packaging design andfabrication for the flight test. In addition,the authors would like to thank Mr. David Hepnerfor his continualuseof the windshieldproductwhich further validates the design. Also, Messrs.GeorgeEckstein andFredOliver arethankedfor providingparts anddrawingsof the multi-optionfuze artillery (MOFA).

...

111

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT

BLANK

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.

vii ix 1 3 4 6 7 7 8 11 12 14 14 16 16 19

LISTOFTABLES...........................................
.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DESIGNCRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DRAG BLADE DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANALYSIS OF THE DRAG BLADES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANALYSIS OF THE HEXAGONAL SPLINE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOUNDARY CONDITIONS FOR THE HEXAGONAL SPLINE ANALYSIS . RESULTS................................................. DESIGN OF THE DRAG BLADE RELEASEDEVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF THE WINDSHIELD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOUNDARY CONDITIONS OF THE WINSHIELD FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS................................................ RESULTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TESTING OF THE WINDSHIELD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REFERENCES..............................................

. APPENDICES . A. Schematics for RangeCorrectionConcept With VariableDeploymentD-rings B. Photographs of Flight Test Hardware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DISTRIBUTION LIST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 41 55 59

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK

vi

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. RangeCorrectionConceptWith the D-ringsDeployedto 80 mm ............ RangeCorrectionConceptWith the D-ringsDeployedto 100mm ........... Electra-Mechanical Assemblyof the RangeCorrector,Gun-Launched Prototype. ThePrototypeAssemblyfor the Drag BladesandGuides. ................ LowermostBladeGuideandthe UppermostBladeGuide................. A LowermostDrag BladeandanUppermostDrag Blade ................. SimplifiedGeometries of the LowermostandUppermostBladeGuides ....... TheFinite ElementModel of the Assembled LowermostandUppermost BladeGuides............................................... Von MisesStress ContourPlot of the Hexagonal Spline .................. Von Mises Stress Contour Plot of the UppermostGuidePlate ............. Exploded View of the DragBladeRelease Device. ...................... An IsometricView of a CrankArm Fromthe Drag BladeRelease Device Assembly ................................................. Schematic of the Nylon Windshield................................ Schematic of the CeramicNoseTip ................................ BoundaryConditionsandRestraintsof the Windshield Model ............. FiniteElementModel of the Windshield............................. Axial Stress ContourPlot of the Windshield Model ..................... The M773 MOFA anda Possible Incorporationof the RangeCorrectorDevice . . &g 2 2 3 5 5 6 8 8 10 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 16 17

* .

vii

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK

VI11

...

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. 2. 3. ........................................................ Material Properties Usedfor the Finite ElementAnalysis................. Material Properties of Surveyed Plastics ............................ &gg 4 9 13

I . I .

ix

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK

DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF A FUZE-CONFIGURABLETRAJECTORY CORRECTION DEVICE FOR AN ARTILLERY PROJECTILE

1. INTRODUCTION

The primary purposeof the low cost competent munitions(LCCM) programwas to improvethe effectiveness of indirectfire supportfrom cannon artillery (DAmico 1996). With the advances in microelectronics, sensor technology, andpackaging design, the reality of a range correctiondeviceis conceivable. A previousreportentitledPreliminaryDesignof a Range CorrectionModulefor anArtillery Shell(Hollis 1996)demonstrated a possibleconceptcalled the D-ring rangecorrectiondevice. Oneof themainobjectives of therangecorrectiondevice conceptwasto containall themechanical andelectrical components within a fuze-likeenvelope, while maintainingcertainconstraints that would allow the fuze to fit into a variety of artillery shellsusedby North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries. Another objectiveof the rangecorrectiondeviceconceptwasto avoidany changes within the ogiveof any of the projectilesin the existingstockpile. Rangecorrectionis achieved by a mechanism that symmetricallydeploysfour D-shaped havebeenmadeof the blades, or dragblades, with the solepurpose of increasing drag. Estimates percentchange in dragasrelatedto increases in frontal area. Beforedeployment of the drag blades, the frontal areaof the fuze wouldbe the largestdiameterof the f%ze geometry,which is approximately 60.7mm. Whendeployed, the frontalareawill resemble figure (a) in Figure1. The deployed D-rings, with a spread of 80 mm, will increase the frontal areaby 1.63times. In an effort to improvethe rangecorrectionconcept, the D-ringsareextended a centimeter farther to a deployment diameter of 100mm, asseen in Figure2. Theincrease in frontal areais 2.39 times. An initial studyby BrandonandJarahasindicated that reasonable maneuver authoritiescanbe achieved for frontal areas of 7.3 in* (47.1cm*) and 10.7in* (69.0cm*), which corresponds, respectively, to the 80-mmand 100~mm deployment diameters. Thisreport describes the final design for a prototypegun-launched rangecorrectiondevice for an artillery shell. Thedesignconsidered the future of artillery launching platforms,suchas Crusader, andincorporated the possible launchandflight conditions.Thewindshield,or radome, wasdesigned to withstandartillery cannon launching andaerodynamic heatingfrom a Mach 3 flight. Themechanisms involvedin the deployment of the D-rings aredesigned to take the abusivelaunch,flight conditions, anddeployment phases of cannon-launched artillery projectiles. In addition,the designalsoallowedflexibility in deployment diameters of the blades.Depending on the desireddeployment diameter,80 mm or 100mm, onecouldassemble the devicewith
1

different blades. The 80-mm deployment diameter version would require blade stops and would deploy the blades to the 80-mm diameter, whereas the 100~mm deployment diameter version would simply require a different stop. The stops would be located only on the blades so that no further modifications of the rest of the drag device would be necessary. This report discussesthe final design and the structural analysesinvolved. Figure 3 displays the gun launch configuration of the prototype.

69

(b)

Figure 1. Range Correction Concent With the D-Rings Denloved to 80 mm.

(a>

0)

Figure 2. Range Correction Concent With the D-rings Denloved to 100 mm.

D-RING DRAGSTER CUT-AWAY

bfACORHEAT SHIELD [03139ao21
.

--NYLON

WINDSHIELD

S-BAND

TRANSMITTER

EXTRA VOLUME IN TEIE FORWARD RADOMECOMPARTMENT EIiECTRICAL CONDUIT

BLADES

DEPLOYMENTDEVICE VOLUME FOR ELECTRONICS INTERNAL POWFZ CONNECTOR EXTERNAL POWERCONNECTOR LWE FOR BATTERIES
NDITIONING CIRCUITS

ELECTRONIC HOUSING
[040188141

Figure3. Electra-Mechanical Assembly of the RangeCorrector.Gun-Launched Prototvne. 2. DESIGN CRITERIA Thethreemain criteria for the prototypearestructuralintegrity during launchandflight, size,androom for supporting electronics.Thecannon-launching environment would producethe conditionsshownin Table 1.
.

The criterionfor room is to keepthe extension of the deviceto a minimum. Whenthe projectileis fitted with the device,the assembly shouldbe no longerthan 1 meterlong. The device alsocannotprotrudetoo far into the ogivesothat it interfereswith existinghardwarein the projectile. However,this beinga prototype,the lattercriterion is relaxedto allow for relatively large, off-the-shelf electronics that would supportthe prototypedevice. Figure3 displaysthe amountof available volumefor supporting electronics.Themaximumvolumetotals 8.7 ins.

Table1. Conditions of the Cannon-Launching Environment Condition muzzlevelocity muzzleexit spinrate inertialset-back loadmaximumangular acceleration Quantity
&$ldS

300Hz (1885rad/s) 15,000 gs 150,000 rad/s*

3. DRAG BLADE DESIGN

Show me your successes; dont showme your failures (anonymous 1997). The prototype assembly for the dragblades andthe guides is depicted in Figure4. It is the intent of this design, for the uppermost bladeguidebulkhead andthe dragblades to stackon top of the lowermostblade guidebulkhead.Thehexthin nut wouldthenthreadontothe circularbosson the lowermostguide thuslocking the assembly together. Theblades canslideoutwardalongthe grooves providedin the uppermost andlowermostguides. Theuppermost andlowermostguidesaredepicted in Figure5a andb, respectively.During the pre-deployment part of flight, the lowermostbladeswould be lockedin placeby two pins (not shown). The pinswould protrudethroughholesin the lowermost guideandinto holesin the lowermostblades.Figure6adepictsa lowermostblade,while Figure6b showsan uppermost blade. Notice that on the uppermost bladeis a smallwedge-shaped projectionthat fits into a notched regionon the lowermostblade,as seenin Figure6a. Whenthe blades areassembled, anda high spinrateis applied, centrifugal forcesarepullingthe blades outward. The uppermost blades arerestrained because the wedgeprojectionon eachbladeis trying to force the lowermostbladesapart. However,the lowermostbladesarelockedin placeby pins. Therefore,with the pinsin place,the blades arelockedinto positionfor gun launchandfree flight. Several designiterations werenecessary to develop a viablesolutionfor the dragblade design. Early concepts incorporated extrapartssuchasa camplateandguidepins asa means of restrainingandsynchronizing the ejectionof the blades.However,with the possibilityof faster muzzlevelocitiesandmore abusive boundary conditions, thesepartsrequiredfurther structural scrutiny. Quasi-static, finite elementanalyses revealed weaknesses in the designof the camplate andthe guidepins. Similaranalyses that wereperformedon the currentdesignindicated significantlyimprovedperformance duringthe launchandfree flight conditions.

EJ
.
c

TRANSMITTER NACBLLE to4oLQSo71

7/l&20

tEX TRIN NUT

l040108061

-lP!L

V-LOWERMOSTDRAGBLADE t040198051

LOWERMOST BLADE CUIIiE EULRHSAD tO40193031

Figure4. The PrototvueAssemblvfor the Drag Bladesand Guides.

Groove

Groove

60
Figure 5. UnDermost BladeGuideandthe LowermostBladeGuide.

Notch

to lock uppermost

blade

Figure6. A LowermostDrag BladeandanUppermostDrag Blade.

Thedesignfor the uppermost andlowermostguides,asseen in Figure5, requireda few iterationsandstructuralanalyses.In orderfor the device to survivethe torqueloadingof gun launchandalsointegrate the relativelylargedragblades, a hexagonal splinewasrequired.The hexagonal splineon the lowermostguide,coupled with a hexagonal holein the uppermost guide, allowedenoughsurfaceareato effectivelytransmitthe torqueproduced by the 150,000 rad/s* angular acceleration.Thisangular acceleration, combined with the predicted momentof inertiaof the upperportion of the dragdevice,0.79lb-in* (2.3 x 10-4 kg-m*), produces a torqueof 307.5 lb-in. (34.7N-m). As a result of a quasi-static finite element analysis (FEA), the lowermost guidewas requiredto bemadeof steelwith a minimumyield strengthof 150,000 psi, andthe uppermostguideis to be madeof aluminum7075-T65 1 that hasa yield strengthof 73,000psi (503 MPa). TheFEA is discussed in detaillater in the report.
4. ANALYSIS OF THE DRAG BLADES

Several analyses wereperformedon the blades in an effort to determine the effectsof variousloadingconditions.A possible worst casedeployment scenario occurswhenthe are projectilehasa velocity of 650 m/s anda spinrate of 250 Hz. The detailsof this analysis presented in Hollis (1998). Thisreport documents an earlierdesignof the blades that are locked in placeby guidepinsthat connectthe blades to a centralcamplate. Theresultsof Hollis (1998) indicatedthat the blades,deployed to 100mm in diameter,with the 250-Hz spinrate andan

aerodynamic loadapplied,would remainstructurallyintact. However,analysis of the same bladesduringthe pre-deployment conditionsof 300Hz showedstructuralproblems. The analysis indicated that the guidepinswerebending andthe dragbladeandthe camplatewere possiblyplasticallydeforming. The final bladedesign, asseen in Figure6, were the most successful in handlingthe loadsattributable to the high spinrate. 5. ANALYSIS OF THE HEXAGONAL SPLINE The purposeof the hexagonal splineis twofold. The first is to provide supportto the upperportion of the dragdeviceduringlaunchandfree flight. Thelaunchforcesincludea 15,000-g inertial load&d a torqueloadof 307.5lb-in (34.7N-m). Secondly, the splinemustbe smallenough to allow the dragblades to bethe desired size. 6. BOUNDARY CONDITIONS FOR THE HEXAGONAL SPLINE ANALYSIS As mentioned previously, the loadson the splineduringlaunchare 15,000gs of inertial loadingand304.5lb-in (34.7N-m) of torqueloading.Theinertialloadingis of concern,sincethe loadhasto be absorbed by a smalllip at the top of the hexagonal portion of the lowermostblade guidebulkhead (seeFigure5). Handcalculations foundthat this surface areawaslargeenough to withstandthe inertialloadof 9660lb. This amountis derivedfrom multiplying 15,000gs by the intended weight of the uppermost regionof the dragdevice. If relativelylargedisplacement of the uppermostguideoccurred,it wasassumed that the dragblades would aid in support. Therefore, this boundaryconditionwas not analyzed with the finite elementmethod,but the torqueloadwas. Figure7 showsthe geometrythat wasusedto performa three-dimensional, quasi-static, finite elementanalysis of the hexagonal spline. Thegeometries havebeensimplifiedto allow the analysis to focuson the hexagonal spline. Noticethat the splinein the lowermostbladeguideis hollow. Commonengineering practicedictates that the besttorque-transmitting geometryis a hollow tube, which alsoprovidesa conduitfor wires. Figure8 showsthe finite elementmodelof the assembled lowermostanduppermost bladeguides.The modelconsists of 11,088linear quadrilateral brick elements, 13,824 nodes,and384lineartransientcontactelements.The contact elements areusedto simulatethe contactbetween the sidesof the splineandthe hexagonal hole. The splinegeometryhasthe materialproperties of steel,whereas the upperplatethat contains the hexagonal holeis madeof aluminum7075-T65 1. Thedensityof the ring that is attached to the upperplatehasbeentailoredsothat the momentof inertiawould matchthe intended moment

. .

of inertiafor the entireupperregionof the dragdevice. Thematerialproperties of interestfor the FEA areshownin Table2. FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF THE HEXAGONAL SPLINE

6-4

@I

of the LowermostandI-Innermost BladeGuides. Figure7. SimnlifiedGeometries

Steel elements

Surface of elements

restrained

in all 6 d.o.f.s

LowermostandUnnermostBladeGuides. Figure 8. TheFinite ElementModel of the Assembled

.

7. RESULTS The resultspresented arebased on the von Misesstresscriterion. This theory specifies that plastic(deformable) yieldingwill occurwhenthe combined stresses of a bodyequalor

exceed the tensilestress of a metal. Thevon Misesstress failure criterionhasbeenvalidated by previousempiricalstudies(Sorenson 1992). Table2. MaterialProperties Usedfor the Finite ElementAnalysis Material GenericIsotropicSteel Aluminum 7076-T65 1 TailoredMass YoungsModulusof Elasticity psi [MPa] 30x106 [207] 10x106 [69] 10x106 [69] Specific Gravity 7.83 2.79 133.58 Poissons Ratio .29 .33 .29

Von Misesstress, cr, canberepresented by the following equation:

in which cr,, cr,, and 0, are the principalstresses and 0, >

02> 03.

Plasticyieldingis predicted to occurwhenthe von Misesstressis equalto or greaterthan the yield stress, o),~~,~,, of thematerial. If the design hasextensive areas of plasticyielding,thenit is likely to suffer unacceptable deformations andpossiblyevenfracturein service. However,if only small,localized regionsof yieldingarepredicted, thenit is presumed that some redistribution of materialthroughplasticflow will alleviatethese high stressareas (Hollis 1997). Figure9 showsa cut-awaycontourplot of the hexagonal spline. Notice that the largestvon Mises stressis 77 ksi andis localized to the verticesof the hexagon.This stress is of no concern because the verticeswould eitherbe chamfered or filleted,andthe choiceof steelwould havea yield strengthof approximately150ksi. Figure 10 showsa contourplot of the von Mises stresses on the uppermost bladeguidebecause of the torqueloading. Notice that the maximum von Misesstressis 76 ksi, which is 3 ksi higherthanthe yield strengthof aluminum7075-T65 1. This doescausesomeconcern; however,the stresses arelocalized to the verticesof the geometry. Again,the verticeswould not existbecause the fabrication process would call for the cornersto be replaced with smallfillets, thuseliminatingthe stress riser effect of corners.

Figure 9. Von Mises Stress Contour Plot of the HexaPonal Soline.

Von Mises

stress

(psi)

31.8

7,850

15,400

22,900

30,400

38,000

45,500

53,000

60,600

68,100

75,600

Figure 10. Von Mises Stress Contour Plot of the Uppermost Guide Plate.

10

8. DESIGN OF THE DRAG BLADE RELEASEDEVICE Figure 11 displays the dragbladerelease deviceandthe components, which would retract the pins from the lowermostdragblades.The deviceis a simplelevertype mechanism, in which a micro-miniaturepistonactuator(MMPA) pushes the crankarm sliderandthe crank arm alignment pin. The crankarm slider,which candnly translate in onedirectionbecause of the alignmentpin, is linkedto two crankarms. The crankarm, as seen in Figure 12,rotatesaboutthe pivot point while maintaininga connection with the release pin. Therelease pin is limited to one .degree of freedom,which is a translation only because the pinsmust slidethroughguideholesin the release devicebulkhead.In addition,the pivot pointsaremaintained in the release device bulkhead.Thenacellehouses the entiremechanism, protectingit from electricalpotting compound.The MMPA is capable of producinga 604bf impulse. The force of the impulseis distributedby the crankarm sliderto the crankarms. The crankarm represents a 2.7:1 lever ratio, which amplifiesthe impartedforce of the crankarm slider. A devicesimilartb this was successfully usedin benchtestsin late 1996andin anactualflight test at WallopsIslandin January1997.

RELEASE PIN t040198111

/CRANK

MUI CONNECTOR PIN 1040198131

Figure11. Exnloded View of theDrag BladeRelease Device.

11

Figure 12. An Isometric View of a Crank Arm From the Drag Blade Release Device Assembly.

9. DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

OF THE WINDSHIELD

With the future of artillery projectiles being launched at higher muzzle velocities, i.e., Mach 3, there comes the concern about aerodynamic heating. At Mach 3, there is a possibility of a stagnation temperature of 600 to 700 F (589 to 644K) occurring on the nose of the windshield. Thorough aerodynamic heating and heat transfer analyses are beyond the scope of this report. Therefore, the design was intentionally over-compensated to handle possible aerodynamic heating for flights with an initial muzzle velocity of Mach 3. Since this design intended to have hardware that telemetered data, the material of the windshield neededto allow for the transmission of radio frequencies. Therefore, a high strength, heat-resistant plastic was chosen. Table 3 lists plastics that were surveyed. This report focuses on the use of Nylon 66 as the polymer of choice. Nylon 66 is relatively strong, has a high melting point and has the lowest cost. Since none of the plastics surveyed had a melting temperature high enough to withstand the stagnation temperature of 3 16 to 371 F, a ceramic nose tip was designed. The ceramic of preference was Macorm, which is produced by Dow Corning. Macor@ is a machinable ceramic that can withstand temperatures as great as 1000 C and has a thermal conductivity of 1.46 w/m/C. Both the nylon windshield and the Macor@ nose tip are shown in Figures 13 and 14. The nose tip merely screws into the windshield. This design was intended to survive the angular acceleration and inertial loading conditions used in the hexagonal spline analysis mentioned earlier. A quasi-static, linear analysis was performed on the assembly of the windshield and the nose tip. Even though the windshield is nylon, the analysis was intended to determine how much linear deformation the windshield would incur. If the deformation and the stressesdiverged from the linear regime, then the

12

analysis would not be valid. On the otherhand,if the analysis remained linear,the assembly would then be fabricatedandtestedon a shocktable. Table3. MaterialProperties of Surveyed Plastics
Polymer Description gt 73 F Tensile Strength (psi) Compressive Strength, 10% Deformation (psi) Tensile Modulus (psi) Melting Point (F) Tg-Glass Transition (F) I Dielectric Constant, lo6 Hz Relative Cost Nylon 101 Type 66 11,500 12,500 Untilled Polycarbonate 10,500 11,500 Untilled Polyetherimide 16,500 22,000 Polyphenylene Sulfide 13,500 21,500 Unfilled Polyehterether Ketone 16,000 20,000 Polyamideimide 18,000 28,000

425,000 500 n/a 3.6 s

320,000 n/a 293 3.17 $$

475,000 n/a 419 3.15 $$$

500,000 540 n/a 3.0 %$$$

500,000 644 n/a 3.3 $$$$$

600,000 n/a 527 3.9 $$$$$

UNC 28

14 TPI-2 MAJOR 01.610

R l/32 t-2.603-.003--

Figure13. Schematic of the Nylon Windshield.

13

.375-.003 --.125-.002 .204 MIN THD LENGTH

3/8-16

UNC 2A

Figure 14. Schematic of the Ceramic Nose Tin.

10. BOUNDARY

CONDITIONS

OF THE WINDSHIELD

FINITE ELEMENT

ANALYSIS

The loads that were used in the hexagonal spline analysis were also used in this analysis. Figure 15 depicts how the loads were applied to the geometry. The inertial set-back load of 15,000 gs is applied along the centerline axis, while an angular acceleration of 150,000 radLs2 is also applied along the positive senseof this axis. In addition, the surface where the threads are to be located is restrained in the axial, radial, and theta directions. The bottom surface of the windshield is also restrained in the axial direction. Figure 16 representsthe finite element model used to evaluate the windshield assembly. The nodes at the threaded interface between the nose tip and the windshield were merged to simulate the threads. Four hundred twenty (420) transient contact elements were . used to model the interface between the bottom of the insert and the top of the windshield. The model incorporated 13,260 linear quadrilateral brick elements and 18,872 nodes.

11. RESULTS The axial, radial, and hoop stresseswere used to evaluate the windshield assembly. Figure 17 displays the axial stressesthat were present in the finite element model. One can seethat the maximum stressis approximately -2070 psi (-14.3 MPa) with a maximum axial displacement of -0.0056 inch (-0.14 mm). The axial deflection is on the order of 0.2% of the overall length, and the level of stress is well below the 12,000-psi compressive strength of Nylon type 66.

14

Threaded

region restrained

Flat sutfa&axially

restrained

Figure15. BoundarvConditionsandRestraints of the WindshieldModel.

Figure 16. Finite Element Model of the Windshield. Theradial andhoopstresses were muchlower in magnitude of stress thanthe axialcomponent. Themaximumradialcomponent of stress was 1,450psi (10 MPa) andthe maximumcomponent of the hoop stresswas 860 psi (6 MPa).

15

-2070

-1540

-1010

-483 47 % ::: ,:,,:I,,::.,7:-i, I??,~.. \-:i.~

577 I

Figure 17. Axial Stress ContourPlot of the Windshield Model. 12. TESTING OF THE WINDSHIELD In additionto the structuralanalysis, the windshieldassembly was shocked on an Impac shocktest machine. Two separate windshieldassemblies weretested. Thetest applied15,000 gs for approximately 0.01millisecond.No noticeable permanent deformation was witnessed, thus verifying the inertial loadingpart of the analysis.However;onewill arguethat nylon is a rate-dependent materialandthat this analysis doesnot coverthis topic. This much is true. The scopeof this report wasto estimate the viability of the design usinglinearnumericaltools. Since the shocktabletesting,several windshield assemblies havebeenfabricated andsuccessfully flight tested. To date,the fastestlaunchwas from a smoothbore, 120~mm guntube at Mach 3. The fastestartillery gun launchto datewas Mach 2.4 with a spinrate of approximately 250 Hz. 13. CONCLUSION This report is a culminationof manydesigniterations,numerical analyses, shocktests,and actualcannon launchings.Most of the design iterations andnumericalanalyses arenot mentioned in this report simply because they were steppingstones that led to the final design. Structural analyses indicatethat the overallprototypedesignis durableenough to withstandthe most severe artillery cannon launching available today. Thedesign shouldbe capable of withstanding 15,000gs of inertial set-back loadswith 150,000 rad/s*of angularacceleration. In addition,the designis alsocapable of deployingat a velocityof 650m/s while spinningat 250 cyclesper second.The next stepwould be to fabricatethe designin orderto truly verify the integrity of the structureandto determine the overalleffect of the deployed dragblades on therangeof flight.

16

Furtherdevelopment would be to incorporate the dragmechanism into an actualfuze. Figure18 displaysthe M773 multi-option fuze artillery (MOFA) anda layout of the incorporation of the range correctorconceptwithin the MOFA. This figure demonstrates that the rangecorrector-MOFAcould be a possibility. A portion of the fuze would be extended enough to insertthe drag-producing blades andto re-routewiresvia a centralconduitwhich the rangecorrectorprovides.

XM782 with ARL D-Rings

M773 MOFA

Exploded View
Figure 18. TheM773 MOFA anda Possible Incornorationof the RangeCorrectorDevice.

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT

BLANK

18

REFERENCES DAmico, W. Low-cost Competent Munitions (LCCM) Self-CorrectionDevices-AnInitial Studyand Status,ATL-TR-1178,U.S. Army Research Laboratory,Aberdeen Proving Ground,Maryland, 1996. Hollis, M. Preliminary Designof a RangeCorrectionModulefor an Artillery Shell, ARL-MR298, U.S. Army Research Laboratory,Aberdeen ProvingGround,Maryland, 1996. Hollis, M. Structural Analysisof the DeployedDrag Surfaces of a RangeCorrectionModule conceptfor Low Cost CompetentMunitions (LCCM), ARL-TN-103, U.S. Army Research Laboratory,Aberdeen ProvingGround,Maryland,1998. Sorenson, B. Design andAnalysisof Kinetic energyProjectileUsing Finite-Element Optimization, Proceedings of the,ANSYSfifth International conference andExhibition,Vol 3, 1992.

19

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK

20

APPENDIX

SCHEMATICS FOR RANGE CORRECTION CONCEPT WITH VARIABLE DEPLOYMENT D-RINGS

I .

21

, .

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK

22 .

23

II

3 L

Inwf? kn .._. .-.

ISW I *w - . .I

I
I REVISIONS DESCRIPTICN I

A
t

I
II Ivc II
1 n

TRANSMITTER NACELLE

i/16-20

HEX THIN NUT SECONDARY ORTHOGOMAL CONDUCTOR

-yUPPERhfOST DRAG BLADE

4+
\-LOWERMOST DRAG BLADE

1MEDIAL CONDUCTORFUNDAMENT

01.506+.005 432 0 fl IS.001 @IAl I.OO2lAl

VIEW

A-A

.163-.005
1 -

0.070

NAX 1

HO RUN OUT

* 140-.003

fLl
.180-.OD3 1 __?__T O.O!jO*.OJS TM0 RELIEF YiTERIAL:STEEL MIN YIELD: I 150.000 PSI -lM wscw,mllm

7/16-20
/ 10

UNF 2A 6

/0.002@1A[

NOTE:

NEED

;7/16-20

HEX

THIN

NUT GRADE 8-5

UNITS

ks

IIll

U
LCWERMDST 0 BLADE ICUIOE BULKHEAD

-ITT-

04019SOs

LA

26

z
I

REvlSlals

4
DATE APFSilV~D

DESCRIPTICN

I
R1/64

D
.438-.003-.035 TYP x 450 PLACES

Rl.

195-.005 pcJ

? -I
.028+.002

+ I is I I
&

-I

.087-.003

28

REYlSlM ZDNE REV I DESCRlPllCN DATE APPROVED

D
RELEASE PIN

l-j/RELEASE --CRANK
0

DEVICE BULKHEAD ARti Pli'OT PIN CRANK ARki

\ ,

m
0 0

C
--.----CRANK ARM CONNECTOR PIN

s: -i
+

+
CRANK ARM SLIDER ARM ALIGNMENT PIN

-CRANK

B
5-FNACELLE

G b *

REVISIONS ZONE REV 0EScRIP1IDN I DATE APPROVED

12.0'+.2"

I
I I I I I

29.8-+.1*
I

t-P
1 1, ,

.070-.003 &128+.002 I -AI

.050-. -c- 1 t I---+-.134-.003

L. loo-.003

-.050+.Od3

MATERIAL:STEEL

4340

CRANK ARM SLIDER

I
REVISIONS ZONE REV DESCRIPTIDN DATE

V. IRE

APPROVED

.!i# -ll.050-,002 RELEASE PIN

7
RQ. 062
TYP l .OOJ 2

lm. w. I

ISH IREV.
I I

I
I

A1
REYlSloM
OATE APQRWEO

ZONE REV

0EScRIP1Im4

PLACES

I RO.O62+.oos 7

>
I.651
I l .003
-A /

-R0.031

I
0.063+.002 I+H 1110.097*.002

PLACES

. ..

+.oos

TYP 2 PLACES

C
151 80.136+.002 r-B-J .35
+.003 1 +.oos -.003

I --I

t-y-o.401

.901-.005

lc

I
A

Y
0.295-.003

A
04019812A SCALE

1.

cm?. No.

SH REV.
REVISIDHS ZONE REV DESCRIPIION I

4
DAK APPROVED

1 + 1 .OOl @.O;;; PLACES tit r /-

@lBl ;HRU

.199f.002 ~.503-~oo3

f0

Iti.001

@jBl

A r
.125+.003

D
VIEW A-A

II ; y I, t -4 ,

?LACES
$J.99l3*.002

TYP

t e

I .OOl

OIBI

050

* .003

C
.I50 003

.569+.003,-

.650-.003

-A-lP

4-

loo-.003

ATE ?...I

.=

IYISH LIYILU) TO n. II ULCW

-mlra

DRAG BLADES RELEASE DEVICE BULKHEAD mc NJ. 040198128 SHEET A

J
1:

SIIL YYY ND. BI SCALE I I

Y-

01IF. REVISIONS

No.

Is

IRE V.

ZM

1 REV 1

MScRIPTIoN

OAfE

APPROVED

SLIOER ALIGNMENT PIN 1 PER ASSEMBLY 4.1285 . 1 lo-,003

t-t

%F: LONG DOWEL PINS 2 PER-ASSEMBLY

DEPLOYMENT DEVICE ALIGNMENT PINS CRANK ARM PIVOT PIN 2 PER ASSEMBLY 1

CRANK ARM CONNECTOR PIN 4 PER ASSEMBLY

ASSORTED PINS

nrc.

No.

SH

REV.

I
ZONE REV
I

4
REV1SIcM
DESCRIPIION DATE APPKWED

1 /-

l/2-20 10

UN 1@.002@jAj

28

LH

2-12 m

UNS

1A

.635+.005 .900+.005

B
p-------2.892-.005,------q A-A

VIEW

. r .

I REVISIUdS ZM REV OESCRIPTIffl I DATE

-0

r1

l/2-20

UN 2A LH

VIEW A-A

CLATUIE
icRIPlIo( I

UATERIM SPEClFlCArlON

I TEL No

; LIST

MATERIAL:
mAcTloNs 2 00
WiEAtuNr

ALUMINUM 7075-T651 END CAP

MClvrCS .xx= .xxxNOT SCALE

WGLES ORAWlk CNCXLO 5lZE ISSUE0 FW No. UQR0VAl.S OATE

FINISN

Al
5cM.E I

04019815 ISHEET

#42

HOLE TYP 7 PLACES

[ 4+ 16.001 @lEIl

A
/

@l .550_~O05 fol

I-B-I .457
163 la.001

A y/,/q /&$I-AI - _

- nnq
@lBl

.WV

+.003

41 .250?.002

R ,Arl+.oo2
TYP 7 PLACES

DETAIL

70+ .003

m-

nn-1

T
39

&
ZONE REV OEScRIPTIoN .

m.
REVISloNS

No.

I
DATE

V.

APPROVED

NOTE: BLADE

ALL DIMENSIONS COEjCERNlNG THE FABRICATION ARE GOVERNED BY DWG#04019805

OF THIS

I OTY REOO

FUY No

PART a? lMN1lFYlNo

No No.

wuENcLAnJRE OR oE!sCRIPTIoN

UATERIAI. SPECIFICATION

111 N

PARTS LIST
uWSS OlNfRNISf SPEClFlLO 0lu3sloNs UK IN IHMS Tc4ERAwfS AM: FRICTIONS OECIUALS ANGLES .xx= . c 00 NOT G:;E ORAYflNo ?RAllENT CONTRACT

APPRovMs ,,*-.

DATE

TITLE

-ImA-

LOWERMOST DRAC ; BLADE 80 m-n ASSEMBLY

SIZE IFSCU ~0. la; No. 1

FINISH ISSUE0

IA1
f

U4UlYt5lti

.-*-a.-

APPENDIX B PHOTOGRAPHSOF FLIGHT TEST HARDWARE

41

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK

42

PHOTOGRAPHSOF FLIGHT TEST HARDWARE

In earlyJanuary1997,a D-ring rangecorrectionconcept with an 80-mmdeployment diameterwas testedat WallopsIslandNationalAeronautics andSpace Administration(NASA) flight test facility. Four 155~mm M483A1,inert artillery shellswere fitted with D-ring range correctiondevices that deployed the dragplatesat specified timesin the flights. Thedevices were instrumented with a timing circuit, a deployment sensor, andtelemetryelectronics.After beingsuccessfully cannon launched, the mechanisms were deployed at either lo- or 20-second intervals,depending on the timing circuit setting(Hollis 1998). This appendix presents photographs of the hardwarethat was flown for that test.

43

Figure B-2. A TOP-down View of the Range Correction Device With the Drag Blades Fullv DePloyed..

45

Figure B-3. An Isometric View of the Range Correction Device With the Drag Blades Fully Denloyed..

46

Figure B-4. A Side View of the Range Correction Device With the DraczBlades Fullv DeDloved..

,, . c .: :.,I. . . : : * , .: __ ,,::; .% . . :. * ,.

-.

Figure B-6. An Isometric View of the Lower Blade Guide for the Range Correction Device.

49

,. ,

Figure B-7. An Isometric View of the Ton of the Cam Plate Housinszfor the Range Correction Device.

50

of Isometric View Figure B-S. An Correction Device.

51

J-1 I II I I 1 I II I I 11 II I I llIl[
1

Figure B-9. A Pre-assemblv View of the Blade Lockinn Device That Allowed the Blades to DePlov at the Desired Time.

Figure B-l 0. An Assembled View of the Locking Device for the Ranne Correction Device.

52

FigureB-l 1. An IsometricView of theBladeLocking: DeviceWithout the Cover.

53

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK

NO. OF COPIES 2

ORGANIZATION ADMINISTRATOR DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFO CENTER ATTN DTIC OCP 8725 JOHN J KINGMAN RD STE 0944 FT BELVOIR VA 22060-62 18 DIRECTOR US ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY ATTN AMSRL CS AS REC MGMT 2800 POWDER MILL RD ADELPHI MD 20783- 1197 DIRECTOR US ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY ATTN AMSRL CI LL TECH LIB 2800 POWDER MILL RD ADELPHI MD 207830-l 197 DIRECTOR US ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY ATTN AMSRL DD 2800 POWDER MILL RD ADELPHI MD 20783-l 197 DIR US AIR FORCE WRIGHT LAB ATTN WLIMNAV GREGG ABATE 101 N EGLIN BLVD SUITE 219 EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE FL 32542-6810 CDR US ARMY ARDEC ATTN AMSTA AR AET A AMSTA AR AET C AMSTA AR SCF D PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ M AMORUSO S LONG0 G ECKSTEIN 07806-5000

NO. OF COPIES 1

ORGANIZATION NAWCIWPNS ATTN CODE 543200E GARY BORGEN BLDG 311 POINT MUGU CA 93042-5000 PRIMEX ATTN JOSEPH BUZZETT 10101 9TH ST NORTH ST PETERSBURG FL 33 7 16 ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS ATT-N MN1 1-1428 C CANDLAND 600 SECOND ST NE HOPKINS MN 55343-8384 NATIONS INC ATTN ROBERT CARPENTER 12249 SCIENCE DRIVE ORLANDO FL 32826 STRICOM ATTN STRICOM EL R COLANGELO 12350 RESEARCH PARK ORLANDO FL 32826-3276 TACOM ARDEC ATIN MIKE DONOFRIO ADELPHI MD 20783-l 197 DIRECTOR US ARMY RTTC ATTN STERT TE F TD R T EPPS K WHIGHAM BLDG 7855 REDSTONE ARSENAL AL 35898-8052 TAP/AIRCRAFT INSTRUMENTATION ATTN R FAULSTICH 5.4.2 UNIT 1 47765 RANCH ROAD NAVAL AIR WARFARE CTR AIRCRAFT DIVISION PATUXENT RIVER MD 20670- 1469 IOA INST FOR DEFENSE ANALYSIS ATTN JOHN FRASIER 1801 N BEAUREGARD ST ALEXANDRIA VA 223 1 1- 1772 COMMANDER NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CTR ATT-N J FRAYSEE D HAGEN 17320 DAHLGREN RD DAHLGREN VA 22448-5 150 DIV

1 1

AUBURN UNIVERSITY ATTN RONALD BARRETT 211 AEROSPACE ENGINEER ST AUBURN UNIV AL 36849-5338 RICHARD BEATTIE ATTN DRA FT HALSTEAD-SEVENOAKS KENT ENGLAND TN14 7BP

1 2 APL ATTN RBENSON D WICKENDEN 11100 JOHNS HOPKINS ROAD LAUREL MD 20723-6099 1 ROBERT BODENSCHATZ 2001 N BEAUREGARD ST ALEXANDRIA VA 223 11 SUITE 800

55

NO. OF COPIES 3

ORGANIZATION ARROW TECH ASSOCIATES INC ATTN W HATHAWAY JOHN WHYTE R WHYTE 1233 SHELBOURNE RD STE D8 SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 COMMANDER USA YUMA PROV GRND ATTN STEPY RS EL A HOOPER YUMA AZ 85365-9110 CDR US ARMY ARDEC ATTN AMSTA FSP A V ILLARDI R SICIGNANO PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806-5000 IMI INC ATT-N THOR JUNEAU 2 140 SHATTUCH AVE BERKELEY CA 94703 DIRECTOR US ARMY RSRCH LAB ATTN AMSRL SS SM A LADAS 2800 POWDER MILL RD ADELPHI MD 20783-l 145 ANALOG DEVICES ATTN ROBERT MEISENHELDER 804 WOBURN ST WILMINGTON MA 0 1887-3462 CDR US ARMY ARDEC ATTN FUZE DIVISION F OLIVER PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806-5000 DAVID PAREKH 7220 RICHARDSON RD SMYRNA GA 30080 DARPA ATTN ALBERT PISANO 3701 N FAIRFAX DRIVE ARLINGTON VA 22203-l 7 14 ANALOG DEVICES ATTN ROBERT SULOUFF 21 OSBORN STREET CAMBRIDGE MA 02139-3556 RALPH TADDEO 10101 9TH STREET NORTH ST PETERSBURG FL 33716

NO. OF COPIES 1

ORGANIZATION JACK THALHEIMER 1911 NORTH FT MEYER DR SUITE 800 ARLINGTON VA 22209 CDR US ARMY ARDEC ATTN WILLIAM VOGT BLDG 171A PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806-5000 ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

DIRECTOR US ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY ATTN AMSRL CI LP (TECH LIB) BLDG 305 APG AA US ARMY ATC ATTN STEAC TC E BLDG 400 DIR USARL ATTN AMSRL WM B BLDG 4600 K MCMULLEN

1 1

A W HORST JR

15

DIR USARL ATTN AMSRL WM BA F BRANDON TBROWN LBURKE J CONDON W DAMICO B DAVIS T HARKINS D HEPNER M HOLLIS (5 CYS) V LEITZKE A THOMPSON BLDG 4600 DIR USARL ATTN AMSRL WM BB H ROGERS R VON WAHLDE BLDG 1121 DIR USARL ATTN AMSRL WM BB TVONG BLDG 1120A DIR USARL ATT-N AMSRL WM BC B GUIDOS P PLOSTINS D LYONS S WILKERSON BLDG 390 DIR USARL ATTN AMSRL WM BD B FORCH BLDG 4600

56

NO. OF COPIES 1

ORGANIZATION DIR USARL ATTN AMSRL WB BF J LACETERA BLDG 120 DIR USARL ATTN AMSRL WM BR C SHOEMAKER BLDG 1121 DIR USARL ATTN AMSRL WM MB B BURNS L BURTON BLDG 4600 ABSTRACT ONLY

DIRECTOR US ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY ATTN AMSRL CS EA TP TECH PUB BR 2800 POWDER MILL RD ADELPHI MD 20783-l 197

INTENTIONALLY

LEFT

BLANK

58

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 tnstructions, searching existing data Sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments re arding thus burden esbmate or any other aspect Of this collection of information, mcluding suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate 9or Information Operations and Report% 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Anington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0189), Washington, DC 20503.

I. AGENCY

USE ONLY

(Leave

blank)

2. REPORT

DATE

3. REPORT

TYPE AND DATES

COVERED NUMBERS

December 1999
1. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Final
5. FUNDING

Design and Analysis of a Fuze-Configurable Range Correction Device for an Artillery Projectile
3. AUTHOR(S)

PR: lL162618AH80

Hollis, M.S.L.; Brandon, F.J. (both of ARL)

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

U.S. Army Research Laboratory Weapons & Materials Research Directorate Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 2101 O-5066
1. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS

US. Army Research Laboratory Weapons & Materials Research Directorate Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5066
Il. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

ARL-TR-2074

l2a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY

STATEMENT

12b.

DISTRIBUTION

CODE

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. ABSTRACT

(Maximum

200 words)

The primary purpose of the low cost competent munitions (LCCM) program was to improve the effectiveness of indirect fire support from cannon artillery (DAmico 1996). With the advances in microelectronics, sensor technology, and packaging design, the reality of a range correction device for artillery is conceivable. One of the main objectives of the range correction device concept was to contain all the mechanical and electrical components within a fuze-like envelope, while maintaining certain constraints that would allow the fuze to fit into a variety of artillery shells used by North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries. Another objective of the range correction device concept was to avoid any changes within the ogive of any of the projectiles in the existing stockpile. This report is a culmination of many design iterations, numerical analyses, shock tests, and actual cannon launchings. Most of the design iterations and numerical analyses are not mentioned in this report simply because they were stepping stones that led to the final design. Structural analyses indicated that the overall prototype design was durable enough to withstand the most severe artillery cannon launching available today. The design should be capable of withstanding a 15,000 g inertial set-back load with 150,000 rad/s2 of angular acceleration. In addition, the design should be capable of deploying while the projectile has ve!ocity of 650 m/s and is spinning at 250 cycles per second. The next step would be to fabricate and test the design in order to truly verify the integrity of the structure and to determine the overall effect of the deployed drag blades on the range of flight.

4. SUBJECT

TERMS

15. NUMBER

OF PAGES

analysis fuze configurable

7. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF REPORT

projectile range correction

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF ABSTRACT

70
18. PRICE CODE OF ABSTRACT

20. LIMITATION

Unclassified
NSN 7540-01-280-5500

Unclassified 59

Unclassified
Wanrl~rrl Fnrm 2X? \. ,Rav ,.RQ, -~--.... --.-.. --,

Prescribed 298-i 02

by ANSI Std. 239-18