SANDIA REPORT

SAND88 - 2338 • UC - 35
Unlimited Release
Printed October 1988

Explosive Shaped Charge

Penetration Into Tuff Rock

M. G. Vigil

Prepared by
Sandia Natiqnal Laboratories
Ai~uquerque, New Mexico 87185 and Livermore, California 94550
for the United States Departmen~ of Energy
under Contract DE-AC04-76DPOO789

When printing a copy of any digitized SAND

Report, you are required to update the
markings to current standards.

SF2900Q(S-S1)
Issued by Sandia National Laboratories, operated for the United States
Department of Energy by Sandia Corporation.
NOTICE: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an
agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Govern-
ment nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, nor any of their
contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, makes any warranty, express
or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy,
completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process
disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by
trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily
constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the
United States Government, any agency thereof or any of their contractors or
subcontractors. The views and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily
state or reflect those of the United States Government, any agency thereof or
any of their contractors or subcontractors.

Printed in the United States of America

Available from
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
NTIS price codes
Printed copy: A04
Microfiche copy: AOI
 SAND88~2338 UC-35
Unlimited Release

Printed October 1988

EXPLOSIVE SHAPED CHARGE PENETRATION INTO TUFF ROCK

Manuel G. Vigil

Explosive Subsystems Division

Sandia National Laboratories
Albuquerque, NM 87185-5800

ABSTRACT

Analysis and data for the use of E~plosive Shaped Charges (ESC) to generate holes
in tuff rock formation is presented. The ESCs evaluated include Conical Shaped
Charges (CSC) and Explosive Formed Projectiles (EFP). The CSCs vary in size from
0.158 to 9.1 inches inside cone diameter. The EFPs were 5.0 inches in diameter.
Data for projectile impact angles of 30 and 90 degrees are presented. Analytically
predicted depth of penetration data generally compared favorably with experimental
data. Predicted depth of penetration versus ESC standoff data and hole profile
dimensions in tuff are also presented.

3
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to thank those persons who contributed to this study, namely,
Donnie Marchi, 2512, for fabrication of test setup hardware, obtaining all test
measurements, and involvement in conducting the tests. Duane Smith, 7173, and
Dave Kessel, 7173, coordinated the scheduling, setup of safety procedures and
arming and firing for these tests.

4
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction.................................................................... :.......................................... 8

II. Development .............................................................................................................9

Tuff Rock Formation ........... ,....................... ,............... :....................................... ,... 9

Conical Shaped Ch~rges ~ ........................................................................................ 9
Predicted esc Jet Penetration ............. ,.... ,. .......................................................... 10
CSC Test Results ......................................................................................................10
Explosive Formed Projectile .................................................................................. 10
Predicted EFP Slug Penetration ............................................................................ 11
EFP Test Results ...................................................................................................... 12

III. ' Summary .; .................................................................................................................. 13

IV. References ..................................................................................................................14

Tables ..................................................................................................................................... 16

Figures ..... ,....................................................................... ,.... ;................................................22

Distribution ......... :.......... ,.. ;.................................. ,.................................................................. 83

5
 TABLES

I Historical Background for Conical Shaped Charges (CSC) .............................. 16

II Explosive Shaped Charge Parameters .................................................................. 16
III Shaped Charge/Tuff Penetration Tests at Tonopah .................... ;.................... .18
IV EFP Parameters ....................................................................................................... 19
V Explosive Formed Projectile Slug Parameters ................................................... .20
VI Predicted CSC Jet Penetration in Tuff ........... :.................................................... .21

FIGURES

Figure

1 General Explosive Shaped Charge tuff Target Configuration.......................... 22

2 General Explosive SHaped Charge Configuration .. ~ ..................................... :.... 23
3 Hydrocode Simulation of a 42 Conical Shaped Charge,
0

Initial Liner Configuration, and Jet Slug Formation

at 40 and 60 j.LS ..........................................................................................................24
4 Hydrocode Simulation of Jet Formation From a Hemispherical
Shaped Charge For the Point-Initiated Case at
Three Times After Detonation .............................................................................. 25
5 Slug Shape for 5 Inch-Diameter EFP at 200 j.LS After Detonation .................. .26
6 Steel, Hollow Tube with High Pressure Hose Attached
For Cleaning Holes in tuff Formation .................................................................. 27
7 Steel Tape Used to Measure Hole Depth ............................................................ 29
8 Solid Steel Rod Used to Measure Hole Depth ................................................... 31
9 General Conical Shaped Charge Cross-Section Parameters ............................ 33
10 Basic Conical Shaped Charge Cross-Section ....................................................... 34
11 Optimized Conical Shaped Charge Configuration ...................................... ....... 35
12 Conical Shaped Charge Configuration ................................................................. 36
13 CSC Development Test Housing Configuration ................................................ .37
14 3.86 Inch Diameter CSC Cross-Section ................................................................38
15 4.66 Inch Diameter CSC Cross-Section ................................................................ 39
16 M2A3 Conical Shaped Charge Coniguration ..................................................... .40
17 M3 9.125 Inch Diameter CSC Cross Section ...................................................... 41
18 Conical Shaped Charge Copper Jet ...................................................................... 42
19 Film Cassette #2 Showing Jet Tip at 201 j.LS from Detonation ........................ .43

6
 Figures cont'd

20 Flash X-Ray Triple Exposure of Cassette #1.. ................................................... .44

21 0.158 Inch Diameter CSC Penetration Versus Standoff................................... .45
22 3.86 CSC Jet Penetration Versus Standoff for a TuffTarget.. ......................... .46
23 4.66 CSC Jet Penetration Versus Standoff for a Tuff Target.. ......................... .47
24 6.986 Inch Diameter M2A3 CSC penetration Versus Standoff....................... .48
25 9.125 Inch Diameter M3 CSC ................................................................................ 49
26 Conical Shaped Charge Jet Penetration into Welded
Tuff Formations at Tonapah Test Range ............................................................ .50
27 Shaped Charge Orientations Relative to Tuff
Formation Surface ................................................................................................... 51
28 3.86 Inch Diameter CSC Test Configuration ...................................................... .53
29 3.86 Inch Diameter CSC Generated Hole in Tuff.. ........................................... .55
30 4.66 Inch Diameter CSC Test Configuration .......................................................57
31 4.66 Inch Diameter CSC Generated Hole in Tuff.. ........................................... .59
32 7.0 Inch Diameter CSC Test Configuration ......................................................... 61
33 7.0 Inch Diameter CSC Generated Hole in Tuff.. .............................................. 63
34 9.125 Inch Diameter CSC Test Configuration ..................................................... 65
35 9.125 Inch Diameter CSC Generated Hole in Tuff............................................ 67
36 Conical Shaped Charge Jet Entrance Hole Diameter
in Tuff as a Function of CSC Cone Inside Diameter ......................................... 69
37 Conical Shaped Charge Jet Bottom Hole Diameter in
Tuff as a Function of CSC Cone Inside Diameter ............................ ~ ................. 70
38 Explosive Formed Projectile Configuration ........................................................71
39 EFP Copper Liner for 5.0 In~h Inside Diameter EFP .......................................72
40 JTI Explosive Formed Projectile Measured Penetration
into Steel (RHA) Target Versus Standoff ........................................................... 73
41 Projectile Penetration to Length Ratio Versus Square
Root of Projectile Density and Target.. ................................................................ 74
42 EFP Test Configuration for 90 Degree Impact of Tuff Target.. .......................75
43 EFP Slug Generated Hole in Tuff Target.. .......................................................... 77
44 EFP Test Configuration for 30 Degree Impact of Tuff Target.. ....................... 79
45 EFP Slug Generated Hole in Tuff Target.. .......................................................... 81

7
 EXPLOSIVE SHAPED CHARGE PENETRATION INTO TUFF ROCK

I. Introduction

Explosive Shaped Charges (ESC) were used to generate holes in tuff rock formations.
This ESC technology has application in the mining industry!, road construction,
demolition, excavation, petroleum industry and general rock barrier penetration
work. Several Conical Shaped Charges (CSC) and one Explosive Formed Projectile
(EFP) were evaluated. The CSCs vary in size from 0.158 to 9.1 inches inside con~
diameter. The EFPs were 5.0 inches in diameter. ESC generated hole profiles in tuff
are presented. Analytically predicted ESC depth of penetration data are compared
to experimental data. Predicted CSC penetration versus standoff data are included.

The general ESC -- tuff target configuration for this study is shown in Figure 1. The
general explosive shaped charge configurations considered for this study are shown in
Figure 2.

The three ESCs shown in Figure 2 produce three different projectiles as illustrated in
Figures 3 - 5 for a conical shaped charge (CSC), hemispherical shaped charge (HSC)
and explosive formed projectile (EFP), respectively. For any homogeneous target
material that will flow under high dynamic pressure impact conditions, a CSC will
produce the smallest diameter and deepest hole. The EFP will produce the largest
diameter and sha'llowest hole in the target. The HSC should prod~ce a hole profile
where diameter and depth of penetration are between the CSC and EFP lin;lits. Only
CSCs and EFPs were used in this study. I .

After each test, a small di~meter hollow tube, with a high pressure air hose attached,
was inserted into the hole to blowout or clean the hole as shown in Figure 6. A
measuring tape as shown in Figure 7 or a solid, steel rod about 0.375 inches in
diameter, as shown in Figure 8, were used to measure the hole depth. An
inclinometer along with the steel rod were used to measure the hole angle (0:)
relative to the target surface. Different diameter, wooden spheres on threaded
aluminum rods were used to measure the hole diameter at a given depth. Other
methods for measuring hole profile proved to be too expensive.

8
 II. Development

Tuff Rock Formation

The ESC tests were conducted in the welded tuff formations at Tonopah Test Range
in Nevada. The density of the tuff is 1.85 grams per cubic centimeter and the
unconfined compression strength is 23 megapascals or 3338 pounds per square inch.
The porosity of the tuff is about 5 percent.

Conic,!' Shaped Char&es

A detailed historical background for the development of conical shaped charge

(CSC) technology is presented in Reference 1. A brief summary of major historical
CSC events is listed in Table I and References 2 -- 19. Reference 19 lists 99
references on the tbeory and operation of conical shaped charges. General
configurations for CSCs are shown in Figure 9 -- 10. Figure 9 illustrates the large
number (20) of variables involved in the design of a eSc. An optimized CSC cross-
sectipn is illustrated in Figure 11. It is assumed that the reader has some knowledge
of the functioning 19 of CSCs.

The cross-sections for the CSCs evaluated in this study are shown in Figures 12 -- 17.
Figures 12 and 13 show the cross-section and steel housing for the 0.158 inch
diameter CSC, respectively. Figures 14 -- 17 illustrate the configurations for 3.86,
4.66,6.986, and 9.125 inch inside diameter CSCs.

The ESC liner inside diameter, liner material, apex angle, explosive type, explosive
weight and tamping material are listed in Table II. The eleven ESC tests conducted
in this study are listed in Table III. The first nine tests involved CSCs.

Radiographs for the 0.158 inch diameter CSC jet are shown in Figure 18 at one
microsecond intervals. The jet diameter aft of the tip is about 0.025 inches and the
jet length just before breakup is about 0.5 inches. The measured jet tip velocity is 5.5
millimeter per microsecond. Figures 19 and 20 show radiographs of the 9.125 inch
diameter CSC (M3) jet. Three flash X-ray heads were used to expose the two films
shown in Figures 19 and 20. The three jet paths indicated on the radiographs are a
result of each of the three different X-ray heads projecting the jet profile onto three
different hejghts on the film. The jet had not arrived along the top path in Figure 19
film which was located down stream of the film of Figure 20 relative to the jet tip.
The jet diameter aft of the tip is about 0.70 inches and the jet length before breakup
is about 30 inches. The measured jet tip velocity was 7.1 millimeters per
microsecond.
9
Predicted esc Jet Penetration

The Shaped Charge Analysis Program (SCAP)20.21 code developed at Sandia

National Laboratories was used to predict the CSC jet penetrations in Tuff. This
code uses a hydrodynamic model for target penetration. The model works well for
targets that flow hydrodynamically under high dynamic pressure loading conditions.
It was assumed that the tuff rock material would flow like metallic target materials.
Figures 21 -- 25 show the SCAP code predictions of jet penetration versus standoff
for the 0.158, 3.86, 4.66, 6.986, and 9.125 inch diameter CSCs, respectively. The
SCAP code predicted and measured jet penetration versus CSC cone inside diameter
data are compared in Figure 26.

esc Test Results

esc tests were conducted at 30 (shallow impact) and 90 (normal impact) degrees
relative to the tuff target surface as illustrated in Figure 27. The standoffs were
varied as shown in Table III. The 3.86 and 4.66 inch diameter CSC tests \\,fere
conducted with relatively short (7 inch) and with relatively long (27 and 36 inches,
respectively) standoffs.

Figures 28, 30, 32, and 34 show the test configuration for the 3.86, 4.66, 7.0, and
9.125 inch diameter CSCs. Figures 29, 31, 33, and 35 show the CSC generated holes
in the tuff rock for the above CSCs, respectively. All CSC tests shown are for .
90 degree orientations of the CSC relative to the tuff surface. The measureq CSC
standoff (S.O.), jet penetration (P), entrance hole diameter (De), hole bottom
diameter (Db)' surface crater depth (He) and hole center line to target surface angle
(0) data are listed in Table III for all tests. .

The target entrance hole diameter (De) as a function of CSC diameter is shown in
Figure 36 for CSCs with copper liners. The bottom of the hole diameter versus CSC
diameter is shown in Figure 37 for CSCs with copper liners.

Explosive Formed Projectile

The dimensions for the EFp22 used in this study are shown in Figure 38. The EFP
explosive, copper liner, and tamping (casing) parameters are listed in Table IV. The
EFP slug or projectile parameters are listed in Table V. The upper liner is shown in
Figure 39. The EFP projectile penetration into rolled homogeneous armor (RHA)
versus standoff is shown in Figure 40.

10
Predicted EFP Slug Penetration

The only simple prredictive tool for projectile penetration is the following modified
Bernoulli equation: 23

where,
U = projectile penetration velocity
YP = projectile strength factor
Rt = target strength factor
P~ =t,\rget density
Pp :;: projectile density
V p :;:: projectile velocity

The SCAP code can~ot model EFPs. Hydrodynamic codes wouJd require equation
of stat~ parameters for the tuffmaterial which are not readily known. Modeling the
collapse of the EFP disk could present some qifficulties in addition to the expense.

Since th~ strength f~ctors (YP' R t ) for the tuff and copper were not known, these
terms were dropped in the above equation resulting in the familiar square root
density lawl9 for high velocity impact:

The above equation was used to estimate the EFP penetration (P) in the tuff target:

where,
L :;:: 10.0 inches (Table V) := projectile length
Pp = 8.96 g/cc
Pt =;= 1.85 g/ cc

Thus,
P = 22.1 inches
A second similar method was also used. Since the EFP slug penetration in steel
(RHA)22 is known, and shown in Figure 40, then for the same EFP, the following
relationship can be derived:

11
from Figure 40,
at Standoff = 12 inches
P Steel = 9.2 inches
PSteel = 7.86 g/cc
P TUFF = 19 inches
The above two methods predict EFP slug penetrations into tuff of 19 -- 22.1 inches.
The square root density law relationship for projectile (slug) penetration to slug
length ratio as a function of square root of projectile density for various target
materials including tuff is shown in Figure 41.

The EFP slug velocity was calculated using the Taylor Piston model 24 for barrel
tamped flyers:
Vs = DA[(Z-l)/(Z+ 1)]

where,
VB = maximum slug velocity = 3.4 mm/microsecond
A = [8/(G2-1)]o.5 = 1.0
Z = [1 + (32 Ce /27M)]O.5 = 2.24
D = detonation velocity = 8.8 mm/microsecond
G = explosive detonation product gas exponent = 3.0
Ce = discounted or effective explosive
weight = C(ALPHA) = 945g (Ref. 24)
ALPHA = explosive discount factor = 0.35
M = liner weight = 280g
C = actual explosive weight = 2700g
The calculated EFP slug velocity was 3.4 millimeters per microsecond which agrees
well with the measured values of 3.83 (slug tip) to 2.4 (slug tail) millimeters per
microsecond (average velocity = 3.1).22

EFP Test Results

EFP tests were conducted at 30 and 90 degrees relative to the tuff target surface as
illustrated in Figure 27. The standoffs were varied as shown in Table III.

Figures 42 and 44 show the test configurations for 90 and 30 degree impacts,
respectively. Figures 43 and 45 show the EFP slug generated holes in the tuff rock.
The measured EFP standoff (S.O.), slug penetration (P), entrance hole diameter
(De), bottom of the hole diameter (Db)' surface crater depth (He) and hole centerline
to target surface angle (Q) data are listed in Table III for both tests.

12
 III. Summary

Conical shaped charges (esc) and explosive formed projectiles (EFP) have been
shown to be useful in generating holes in tuff rock. {::SCs varying in diameter from
0.158 to 9.125 inches and an EFP of 5.0 inch diameter were used to generate holes in
tuff w,th parameters in the following ranges (for 90 degree impacts and excluding the
O.15~ inch eSC):
Penetration depth: 23.5 - 55 inches
Entrance hole diameter: 1,2 - 5.5 inches
Bottom of hole diameter: 0.5 - 2 inches
Surfac;e crater diameter: 6 - 23 inches
Depth of surface crater: 1 - 8 inches

The C~Cs generated the maximum depth of penetration with the 4.66 inch diameter
C,SC producing a 55 inch hole in the Tuff. The EFP generated the largest diameters
with 5.5 inches at the entrance and 2.0 inches at the bottom.

The S~AP code predictions of esc jetpenetration in tuff versus standoff were
gener~lly in ~ood a~reement with the experimental data, as illustrated in Table VI.
The simple hydrodynamic square root density law relationship for EFP slug
penetra~ioQ predictions were in reasonable agreement with the ex;perimental data.
Ther~fore, hydrodynamic theory describes the CSC jet and EFP slug penetration in
~uff reasonably well.

13
 IV. References

1. C. F. Austin, Lined - Cavity Shaped Charges and Their Use in Rock and
Earth Materials. New Mexico Institute of Mining & Technology,
Bulletin 69, 1959.

2. C. E. Munroe, Modern Explosives. Scribners Mag., v. 3, p. 563-576, 1888.

3. C. E. Munroe, The Application of Explosives. Pop. Sci. Monthly, v. 56, p.

444-455, 1900.

4. R. W. Wood, Optical and Physical Effects of High Explosives. Roy. Soc.

Proc., v. 157, p. 249-260, 1936.

5. F. A. Korolev and G. I. Pokrovskii, Investigation of the Jet Action of

Explosives by an Optical Method. Doklady Akad. Nauk. (U.S.S.R.), v.42, p.
266-267, 1944. .

6. V. Torrey, Bazooka's Grandfather. Pop. Sci. Monthly, v.. 146, p. 65-69,

211-216, 1945.

7. V. Torrey, Shaped Charge. Munroe Effect. Explosives Eng., v. 23, p . .

160-163, 1945. ..

8. J. B. Huttl, The Shaped Charge for Cheaper Mine Blasting. Eng. Min. J., v.
147,p.58-63,1946.

9. R. S. Lewis and G. B. Clark, Application of Shaped Explosive Charges to

Mining Operations: Tests on STeel and Rock. Univ. of Utah Bull. 5, p.
1-37, 1946.

10. H. C. Draper, J. E. Hill, and W.. G. Agnew, Shaped Charges Applied to

Mining. Part I. Drilling HOles for Blasting. U. S. Bur. Mines Rpt. Inv. 4371,
1948.

11. G. Birkhoff, D. P. MacDougall, E. M. Pugh, and G. Taylor, Explosives with

Lined Cavities. J. Appl. Phys., v. 19, p. 563-582, 1948.

12. L. S. Byers, The Multiple Jet Shaped Blasting ChargenWhy it Functions, Pit
and Quarry, v. 41, p. 98-102, 1949.

13. L. S. Byers, New Plurajet Shaped Blasting Charges Ready for Industry. Pit
and Quarry, v. 42, p. 79-81, 1950.

14
14. J. T. Gardiner, Use of Shaped Charge Process for Open Hole Shooting,
World Oil, v. 131, p. 99-103, 1950.

15. M. P. Lebourg and G. R. Hodgson, A method of Perforating Casing Below

Tubing, Am. Inst. Min. Met. Eng., Pet. Br., Trans., v. 195, p. 303-310, 1952.

16. M. P. Lebourg and W. T. Bell, Perforating of Multiple Tubingless

. COIflpletions, Am. Inst. Min. Met. Eng., Soc. Pet. Eng., 34th annual fall
meeting, Paper 1298-G, 1959.

17. V. C.Davis, Taconite Fragmentation, U. S. Bur. Mines Prt. Inv. 4918, 1953.

18. R. M. Hyatt, Bazooka at Work, Pop. Mech., v. 112, p. 115-117,208,1959.

19 P. C. Chou and W. J. Flis, Recent Developments in Shaped Charge

. Technology, Propellants, Explosive, Pyrotechnics. 11,99-114, 1986.

20. M. G. Vigil, Optimized Conic,!l Shaped Charge Design Using the SCAP
Code, SAND88-1790, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM,
Allgust 1988.

21. A. C. Robinson SCAP-A Shaped Charge Analysis Program - User's Manual

for SCAP 1.0. SAND85-0708, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque,
NM, April 1985.

42, Design and Fabrication of EFP Assemblies, Final Report, Dyna East
C::orporation, Report No. DE-TC-87-01, February 17, 1987.

23~ A. Tate, Long Rod Penetration Models - Part II. Extensions to the
Hydrodyn,\mic Theory of Penetration, Int. J. Mech, Sci. Vol. 28, No.9,
pp. 599-612, 1986.

24. R. A. Benham, Analysis of the Motion of a Barrell-Tamped Explosively

Propelled Plate, SAND 78-1127, Sandia National Laboratories,
September 1978.

15
I--'
0\ Table I. Historical Background for Conical Shaped Charges (CSC)

Year Person Discovery Reference

1888 Charles E. Monroe Unlined cavity effect 2,3

1910 Egon Neumann Unlined cavity effect
1936 R. W. Wood Lined cavity/high velocity jet 4
1944 Korolev & Pokrovski High velocity copper jet (No.8 blasting cap) 5
1945 Voltra Torrsy First unclassified publications on military CSCs 6,7
1946 J. B. Ruttl First publication on CSC use in mining 8
1947 Lewis, Clark, Brunckner Additional -publications on CSC uSe in mining 9
1948 H. C. Draper, J. E. Hill . CSCs applied It o mining, drilling holes for blasting 10
W.G.Agnew
1948 Birkoff, MacDougal, First paper on jet formation 11
Prigh, Taylor and penetration theory
1949 L. S. Byers CSC marketed for mining 12,13
1950 J. T. Gardiner CSC use in Petroleum industry 14
1952 M. P. Lebourg, esc use in Petroleum industry . 15,16
G. R. Hodgson
1953 v. C. Davis Publication on ese for mining 17
1959 R. M. Hyatt Bazooka at work 18
1986 p. C. Chou, W. J. Flis Recent development in ese technology 19
 Table II. Explosive Sbaped Charge Parameters

Liner Apex Explosive Explosive . Tamping

Type Diameter Material Angle ~eight Material
(deg) (lb)
--
CSC 0.158 Copper -47 LX-13 0.002 Steel
CSC 3.860 Copper 42 Octol 3.500 Aluminum
CSC 4.660 Copper 60 Octol 5.330 Aluminum
CSC 6.986 Glass 60 CompB 9.500 Fiberglass
CSC 9.125 Steel 60 CompB 30.000 Steel
EFP 5.000 Copper LX-14 5.95 Steel

~
-...J
I-"
00 Table III. Shaped Charge/Tuff Penetration Tests at Tonopah

Hole Profile
P
Test Shaped D S.O. Depth De Db Dc He ex
No. Charge Dia. (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (in) (deg)

1 CSC 0.15 0.16 0.92 0.12 0.07 0.84 0.13 90

2 CSC 3.86 24 27.0 1 1.20 ? 10.0 7.5 90
3 CSC 3.86 7 37.5 3.0 7.02 8.5 2.8 87
4 CSC 3.86 24 43.0 1.13 0.5 29.0 6.0 31
5 CSC 4.66 36 53.0 1.50 0.5 9.0 8.0 90
6 CSC 4.66 7 55.0 3.5 16.42 6.0 1.0 89
7 CSC 4.66 36 52.5 1.50 0.5 35.0 7.0 28
8 M2A3/CSC 7.0 14 46.0 3.50 44.02 14.5 4.0 88
9 M3/CSC 9.13 20 50.0 5.50 40.02 23.0 4.0 89
10 JTI/EFP 5.0 12 23.5 5.50 23.02 14.0 3.0 90
11 JTI/EFP 5.0 12 13.5 7.003 40.0 6.5 30

D = shaped charge diameter (1) = unable to clean hole out with air compressor
S.O. = standoff (2) = Depth for 2 inch diameter ball
P = penetrating depth (3) = EFP projectile ricochet
De = hole entrance diameter
Db = hole bottom diameter
CSC = conical shaped charge
EFP = explosively formed projectile
NA = not applicable
ex = impact angle
Dc = surface crater diameter
He = surface crater depth
 Table IV. E{?P Parameters

Explosive 22

Lx~14
2.7 Kg (S.95Ib)
p = 1.83 gjcc
Detonation velocity = 8.8 mmjmicrosecond
CQPPer Liner22

Weight = 280 grams

Casing/Tampi ng 22

Stainless Steel
Weight = 3357.2 g

19
 Table V. Explosive Formed Projectile Slug Parameters

Slug Parameters 22 Value

1. Diameter 0.75 inches

2. Length 10.0 inches
3. Tip Velocity 3.83 mm/microsecond
4. Tail Velocity 2.4 mm/microsecond
5. Mass 280 grams
6. Energy 1.35 megajouls
7. Breakup Time 255 microseconds at 43.3 inches

20
 Table VL -Predicted esc Jet Penetration In-Tuff

CSC Impact Standoff (in) Penetration (in)

Diameter Angle Measu-red SCAP Measured SCAP % Diff.
(deg).

0.158 90 0.2 -0.2 0.92 - 1.2 30

3.860 90 24 24 27.0* 51
3.860 30 7 7 43.0 41 10
4.660 90 36 36 53.0 54 4
4.660 30 7 1 52.5 49 7
6.986 90 14 14 46.0 54 17
9.125 90 20 20 50.0 43 13

* = Unable to clean hole

tv
"""'"
 Shaped Charge

r
Surface Spallation
Crater

-I Dc

HOLE PROFILE MEASUREMENTS

Figure 1. General Explosive Shaped Charge

Tuff Target Configuration

22
 CONICAL HEMISPHERICAL EXPLOSIVE FORMED
SHAPED SHAPED CHARGE PROJECTILE
CHARGE

~
Figure 2. General Explosive Shaped Charge Configurations

'"
w
IV

"'" - .::k'.

I•
EL..LL,I "t,\,\w1
100 140

M
I.
SLUG
",I~ .JET

I•

•1

•L
I. - I.
4'" I' ..

• • 100 110 100 110 140 r., no JOG

I _____ l
JIO '40
~ ____ I
HO _ _
.,- .re

, •
t· • ."..

IIIIiiI
II'
E ._ _~ __.__
---i JET

s' ~ t I' ..
...... a
01

•
I
eo 100
I
RO
I
140 .., ...
I I
roo
I
no
1,-
•
'40
I
rIO
I
reo
- - - .,-
I I
,.
I
HU
I I
400 4re

Figure 3, Hydrocode Simulation of an 42 Conical Shaped Charge, Initial Liner

0

Configuration, and Jet Slug Formation at 40 and 60 pS

 ORIGINAL - ..... I . . . . . . . . . ~

--....J. .........1'• •1 ...a-t_ ..........

-".-at'-.

t. 40".

t • 46".

t. 56",

Figure 4. Hydrocode Simulation of Jet Formation From A Hemispherical Shaped Charge

For The Point-Initiated Case at Three Times After Detonation

tv
lJ1
tv
0'1

EXPLOSIVE FORMED PROJECTILE

CONFIGURATION

0.375,1=
5.725 •
I
DETONATOR T
5.000
I ,

5.625
.- ROL~ REGION
SLUG

END PLATE

EXPLOSIVE LINER RADIAL TAMPiNG

@)

Figure 5. Slug Shape for 5 Inch-Diameter EFP at 200 "'s Mter Detonation
 ,.'~

. • .
\
.'
•l . "

~ .:' (. :.,

"

' .., .,
H .
-

Figure 6. Steel, Hollow Tube With High Pressure Hose Attached For Cleaning Holes in
Tuff Formation 27-28
N
\0
I
V)
o

Figure 7. Steel Tape Used to Measure Hole Depth

Figure 8. Solid Steel Rod Used to Measure Hole Depth
31-32
 TAMPER
t
HH
,
I
1
EXPLOSIVE
I

I I
- - - -lTC _
_I
RLI ... LINeR INNER RADIUS I
RLO ... LINER OUTER RADIUS
RCI ... CONFINEMENT/SHEATH INNER RADIUS
RCO ... CONFINEMENT/SHEATH OUTER RADIUS
HI . ... '-INER INNER HEIGHT
HA ... LINER ACTUAL HEIGHT
H ... LINER THEORETICAL APEX HEIGHT
HCI ... CONFINEMENT ISHEATH INNER HEIGHT
HCO'" CONFINEMENT/SHEATH OUTER HEIGHT
HE ... EXPLOSIVE HEIGHT . .
HH ... EXPLOSIVE HEIGHT ABOVE APEX
TL ... LINER THICKNESS
TC ... CONFIN~MENT/SHEATH THICKNESS
R 1 ... LINER INNER APEX RADIUS
R2 ... LINER OUTER APEX RADIUS
8 1 ... LINER INNER APEX HALF ANGLE
82 "'. LINER OUTER APEX HALF A,.GL.E
8~ . . CONFINEMENT/SHEATH INNER APEX HALF ANGLE
84 ... CONFINEMeNT ISHEATH OUTER APEX HALF ANGLE

Figure 9. General Conical Spaped Charge Cross-Section Parameters

33
 EXPLOSIVE

H
LINER

~TC
~--D

~---We---~

TARGET STANDOFF

Figure 10. Basic Conical Shaped Charge Cross-Section

34
EXPLOSIVE

TAMPER

LINER 20

I~ ----.1
~O.02D
I 0 1

~1.0D"'1.40~
20-60
TARGET

Figure 11. Optimized Conical Shaped Charge Configuration

35
W
0\

I '4 0.478" .. I

0.322"

0.015" ~ I. ~ I 0.158"

I
0.375" 0.190" •
0.158"
t
! COPPER CONE/CYLINDER
(0.005 inches THICK) LX-13 EXPLOSIVE

LEXAN INSPECTION/ ALIGNMENT/PROTECTION

CYLINDER

Figure 12. Conical Shaped Charge Configuration

 HOLDER; SHAPE CHARGE
SHAPE
0.700
CHARGE -

1.000
TOP VIEW

SIDE VIEW
LX-I3
EXPLOSIVE

f
1.2S0
/
DETONATOR, RP-2
LEADS TO
I-~---- FIRESET

ASSEMBLY

VJ
-....l

Figure 13. CSC Development Test Housing Configurations

 TOTAL ASSEMBLY WEIGHTz5 Ib
' - - - - 4.75"----1

f'=""":=i
O.'8"_'II=i!·.~rlIJ
t O.U
o

[T

7.75"

4.75"
COPPER
CONICAL
5.18"
LHER

Figure 14. 3.86 Inch Diameter esc Cross-Section

38
 I

COPPER 5 ..,8·
CONICAL I 4.10·

~ER ~-;--I~..L~~_ _ _~.--'-----"--~

-Lf ...----4.86' I
---4.a7·:"'---~ '1\
O.o6S'!..,..., --
~ -~ -i
---5.0·;;...., X- 0.105'

Figure 15. 4.66 Inch Diameter CSC Cross-Section

39
 r= 7.188"::-1 0.87S"

TOTAL ASSEMBLY WEIGHT =14.5 Ib

I :=- s" ~-I !
STANDOFF 4.0"
t t
Ft BERGLASS 4 •3 --1 {sn
o.S"~~

FIBERGLASS 11.7S n
TAMPER~

~~
GLASS
CONICAL
LINER
,t 6.25'
4.08 n
600~

I
I ·

1.0"[ .I. . --:-___ ~-.....

~._ s.On
-+-_ _
.1 I \0.OS_4"
0.101H---'~6.986" •
. . . - - - - - 7 . 1 8 8 · - - -.......
X O• 1 •

Figure 16. M2A3 Conical Shaped Charge Configuration

40
 15.5"

'"

Sn:EL
CONICAL 7.0"
LINER

1----- ::!~::'__
8.5&3"
'll \).Y
-lF

0.158"

Figure 17. M3 9.125 Inch Diameter CSC Cross-Section

41
i!3

Figure 18. Conical Shaped Charge Copper Jet

(Liner/I.D.- 0.158", Apex Angle =45°,
Thickness =- 0.005", Stamped)
~
~

Figure 20. Flash X-Ray Triple Exposure of Cassette #1

Showing Jet Tip At 140.5 p'S
 MC3920TUFF.DAT 5-AUG-88 13:11:36
XSCAP 2.0 [CiN]
5

LEGEND
o = SCAP MODEUNG
4

~
g
3
Z
0
~

~
.~
~
~
z
~
2l ~
.~

.{
1~

~
VI
041--------~------~--------~------~------~------~
o 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
STANDOFF (eM)

Figure 21. 0.158 Inch Diameter esc Penetration Versus Standoff

~
0\

200
~
I
LEGEND
~ 175 t- 0= SCAP MODELING
E
U
........ 150
1130 em = 51" = 4.3'
Z
-
0
l-
~
125

100
~I

I
a: I
I-
W
z
75
I
w 50 I
Q.
I
25 l- I
157 .em = ~2.4" ~. 1.9"
O·
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 · 175 200

STANDOFF (em)

Figure 22~ 3.86 esc Jet Penetratimi Versus Standoff for a Tuff Target
 (j)
200

.......
175 ·~ o = SCAP
LEGEN-D
MODELING
E
(.) 150
~

Z 125
0
-
I-
<t 100
a:
I- 75
-W
Z 50
W
a.
25
75 em = 29.5"
1 t
= 2.5'
t

0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
~
-.l STANDOFF (em)

Figure 23. 4.66 esc Jet Penetration Versus Standoff for a Tuff Target
 M2A3TUFF.DAT - 5-AUG-88 - 14:25:15 - XSCAP 2.0
""'-
00

175
0]
LEGEND
150 o = SCAP MODELING

125
S?
g

-
Z
0

~
~
100

~ 75
~
Z
~
~
50

25

O'I--------.-------~------~-- I I I
a 50 100 150 200 250 300
STANDOFF (eM)
Figure 24. 6.986 Inch Diameter M2A3 esc Penetration Versus Standoff
 M3TUFF.DAT - 5-AUG-88 - 12:58:00 XSCAP 2.0

200l
~
175~ LEGEND
{3 = seAP MODELING
150

5?
g 125
Z
0
.......
~ 100
~
E-t
~
Z 75
(:Ll
0...
50

25
-+:>.
\0

u4---
o
I
50
-- I
100
I
150
I
200 250
I I
300
STANDOFF (eM)
Figure 25. 9.125 Inch Diameter M3 esc
V\
o

'"
It 149 CONICAL SHAPED CHARGES
D
L Cu CONES, 42-60 deg APEX ANGLES
U
C
H.E.CCOHP B, OCTOL, & LX-13)
'"
I
129
TARGETCWELDED TU~~, 1.82 g/cc,TTR) •
lr..
lr.. leB
:J
t-

....Z BB
z
....ot-
a: 69
0:=
t- P-12.69D-0.80
W
Z C~IT ~OR SCAP DATA ONLY)
W
a.. 49
t-
...,w
u 29 o- SCAP .CODE
(1)
U • - EXPERIMENTAL DATA
I
9
a.. 2 4 6 B 19
9
D - CSC CONE INSIDE DIAMETER - Ctnches)
~IGURE 26. CONICAL SHAPED CHARGE JET PENETRATION INTO
WELDED TU~~ ~ORHATION$AT TONAPAH TEST RANGE
 SHAPED" CHARGE

T
S.o.
WELDED
it'
0° ""~
TUFF

Figure 27. Shaped Charge Orientations Relative to

VI Tuff Formation Surface
,
~

VI
N
Ul
W
I
Ul
~

Figure 28. 3.86 Inch Diameter CSC Test Configuration

 TEST: '3 DATE: 3/ "/Be
SIDEWINDER WELDED TUFF
S I TE @ TTR _ _- - - -_ _

SHAPED CHARGE: -' - -,

DIA. (IN): ::) _ 8 to
STANDOFF (IN): 7- 0'"
(DEG.): 90
0
Il\1PACT ANGLE

Vl
Vl
I
Vl
0\

Figure 29. 3.86 Inch Diameter esc Generated Hole in Tuff

57-58
 TEST: ~DATE: 3/ :2/88
SIDEWIN DER WELDED TUFF
SITE @ TTR- -- ------;--

SHAPED CHARGE: --=---==-=-

DIA. (IN): 6 6 .. 4-.
STANDOFF (IN): 70'1 o
IMPACT ANGLE (DEG.): 90

VI
\0
I
0\
o

Figure 31. 4.66 Inch Diameter esc Generated Hole in Tuff

 •
T£ST :_~DATE:~-J!-J 8 8_
lDEWlNOER WELDED Tu rF
lTE @ TTR _ _ _ _ _- -

SHAP ED CHARGE : M 2.~~JC ~C

mA o ( I N): -'.0 "
ST \ ~n()FF ( I" ) : J 4-
1'11' \ CT \ 'lG I.E (DEC . ): 90 "
•

0\
.......
I
0\
N

Figure 32. 7.0 Inch Diameter esc Test Configuration

 • •
TEST: <0 DATE : "3 ,'0 8a
1
SIDEWINDER WELDED TUFF
SITE @ TTR- - -- - - -

SHAPED CHARGE: M2.~7:J/C~C,

-'.0
DIA. (IN): ---'~=-------
II

STANDOFF (IN): 14"

IMPACT ANGLE (DEG.): soQ

0\
W
I
0\
~

Figure 33. 7.0 Inch Diameter esc Generated Hole in Tuff

 II I 5 11111 ~ I / 88
IIlI II I 1111 ~ 11111111 I II
," I I II
, II 11 ' 1 111 11 11",f M 3 /c,~"
III I II I .9. \ '5
1 1,,"lft d" ;20 '0'
,\ ". 1.1 1 1II I I t J
1\l I " l l

Figure 34. 9.125 Inch Diameter CSC Test Configuration 65-66

 • 1...,'1 l>ATE :_3/ 1o I 88
..... 1 iJ.'WI\ DER " .LDED TU I· F
'TI rTI

dAPED CHARGE: M 3 J ~-~~

or". (r l\ 1 -E--alS~
STANDOFF (IN ):--.2 _____ _
IMPACT ANG LE (DEC .) : 90·
')
a

0\
,
-.l
0\
00

Figure 35. 9.125 Inch Diameter esc Generated Hole in Tuff

 .,'" CONICAL SHAPED CHARGES
L
U 5 Cu CONES, 42-68 des APEX ANGLES
-
~
c
I f H.E.(COMP B, OCTOL, " LX-t3)
w
I-
W
1:
a:
.
H
Q

W
...J
0 3
:J:
W
U
Z
a:
~
I- 2
Z
W
~
.,
W
1
It
C

0
0
2 . 6 8 10
D - CSC CONE INSIDE DIAMETER - Cinches)

0\
\Q

FIGURE 36. CONICAL SHAPED CHARGE JET ENTRANCE HOLE DIAMETER

IN TUFF AS A FUNCTION OF CSC CONE INSIDE DIAMETER
--.l
o

.,
D
I CONICAL SHAPED CHR~?C,S
.c 1.4
u Cu CONES, 42-60 de~ rlPEX ANGLES

~
c
-I
1.2
J H.E.(COMP B, OCTOL, & LX-13)
w
I-
W
1:
n: 1
.....
c
W
...J
0 .8
J:
1:
0
l- .6
I-
IS)
aI
I- .4
...,w I /" '-- Db-. 007+. 118D
I
.0 .2
c

o
2 4 6 8 10
o
D - CSC CONE INSIDE DIAMETER - (Inches)
FIGURE 37. CONICAL SHAPED CHARGE ~ET BOTTOM HOLE DIAMETER
IN TUFF AS A FUNCTION OF CSC CONE INSIDE DIAMETER
 EXPLOSIVE FORMED PROJECTILE
CONFIGURATION

0.375 ~jJ.-

DETONATOR
5.000
I I
5.625

END PLATE

.
EXPLOSIVE LINER RADIAL TAMPING
~
-..l
>-'

Figure 38.
 C\I
o
q o .
Lf)
.
l!'\
LJ")
o
~
q
72
 • EXPLOSIVE. ~ORMED PRO~ECTILECE~P'
u
c
0
.£:.
15
t .1TI/E~PI 5.8 tn. I.D •
LINER: COPPERtO~E), 288 9
EXPLOSIVE. LX-14.1.83g/cc •• 883cm/ua
mHPER: STEEL, .3125 tn. THICK
TARGET I STEEL(RHA)
Z
0
H
t-
a: 19
Q!:
t-
W
Z
W
D-
W
..J
H
1-
U
w
..., 5
0
It:
D-
f
D-
O - EXPERIMENTAL DATA
-.J
VJ
9
2B 4B 6B BB IBB
B
50 - 5TANDOrr - tnches
~IGURE 40. ~TI EXPLOSIVE ~ORHED PRO~ECTILE MEASURED
PENETRATION INTO STEELCRHA) TARGET VERSUS STANDO~r
-....l
~

SQUARE ROOT DENSITY LAH

o (P/L) - [G(RHOp/RHOt)A0.S]
H
I- 4 G-INITIAL TO PENETRATING AREA RATIO-l
a:
r:t:
J:
I-
~
Z
W
...J 3
o
I-
Z
o
H
I-
a: 2
r:t:
I-
W
Z
W
n..

,... 1
,
...J
n..
....,

e
1 2 3 4
e
SQUARE ROOT OF PROJECTILE DENSITY-(g/cc)A.5
rIGURE 41. PROJECTILE PENETRATION TO LENGTH RATIO VERSUS
SQUARE ROOT Or PROJECTILE DENSITY AND TARGET
 3' 9
\

", "n '£.t

t.. r
J

\2
ct

-..)
Vl
I
-..)
0\

Figure 42. EFP Test Configuration for 90 Degree Impact of Tuff Target
 .-' ,

"
l -.
I

'. '\~
4

•
3/8/&
~

TEST: 1 DATE:
SIDEWINDER WELDED TUFF
SITE @ TTR- - -- - --

SHAPED CHARGE: J'TI/E_EP

DIA. (IN): 5 .0"
"
STANDOFF (IN):~2_____ _
o
IMPACT ANGLE (DEG . ): _90
-..)
-..)
I
:<',,: .•..'1.t!
'l'...ii",.rp. W •
I
-..)
00

Figure 43. EFP Slug Generated Hole in Tuff Target

 " 1Of"'tII!'oDER 'tIU.DED TI ' n-
,l fF ·TTR

,\I 'I'nl (, \l\RCf:.~J1/ErP

hi' "'1' S .0 ::"
"lo"\~ II') \2."
\i \, I ,,-,,I \ Ill~.(' ): 30·

.
-...l
\0
00
o

Figure 44. EFP Test Confi guration fo r 30 Degree Impact of Tuff Target
 TEST: --
2 DATE:
SlDEWINDER WELDED TUFF
r,
3/9/88
SITE @ TTR
------
SHAPED CHARGE: J'TI/E'EP
" ,
DrA. {IN ):-.30 ~___
S~."-'O
STANDOFF (IN): ,2. "
IMPACT ANGLE (DEG .): 30-

-'
L

00
r--'
I
00
N \;

Figure 45 . EFP Slug Generated Hole in Tuff Target

 Distribution:

Honeywell, Inc. (2)

Aerojet Ordnance Co. Defense Systems Group
Attn: J. Carleone Attn: J. Houlton
2521 Michelle G. R. Johnson
Tustin, CA 92680 10400 Yellow Circle Drive
Minnetouba, MN 55343

Ballistic Research Lab (10)

Aberdeen Proving Ground Lawrence Livermore National Lab (6)
Attn: . D. Dietrich Attn: M. Finger
R. J. Eichelberger J. D. Immele
F. Grace. J. L. Levatin
J. T. Harrison M.J. Murphy
R. Jameson M. Van Thiel
K. Kimsey M. L. Wilkins
M. Lampson P. O. Box 808
S. B. Seglete~ Livermore, CA 94550
W. P. WaIter
S. K. Golaskie
Aberdeen, MD 21005 Los Alamos National Lab (12)
Attn: J. D. Allen, G787
R. Carver, B265
Joseph Ba<;kofen E. H. Farnum, G756
P. O. Box 1925 M. Ginsberg, J960
Washington, DC 20013 L. W. Hantel, F668
J. Hopson, F664
R. Karpp, P940
B;,tttelle Colum!'us Laboratory (2) J. Repa, J960
Attn: 1. Whl te . P. Studt, F668
D. R. Trott R. J. Young, F664
505 King Avenue J. M. Walsh, P940
Columbus, OH 43201 R. McCormick, P950
P. O. Box 1663
Los Alamos, NM 87545
Ctr for Explosives Tech. Research
New Mexico Technical Institute
Attn: Per-Anders Persson Naval Weapons Center
Socorro, NM 87801 Materials Eng. Branch
Attn: G. A. Hayes
China Lake, CA 93555
. Dyna East Corp (3)
Attn: P. C. Chou
R. C. Ciccarelli
W. J. Flis
3132 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104

83
 Teledyne (3) Unidynamics/Phoenix, Inc. (2)
Attn: B. Heideman Attn: R. Smith
D. F. Elliott J. Fronabarger
W. B. Richardson P. O. Box 2990
3601 Union Road Phoenix,PLl 85062
Hollister, CA 95023

Ensign-Bickford Co (4)
U.s. Army Armament Research Aerospace Division
and Development Center Attn: L. .Mecca
Attn: A. Garcia B. Boggs
Building 354 K. PuIs :
Dover, NJ 07801 E. ·Tarca
660 Hopmeadow St.
Simsbury, CT 06070
E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co, Inc.
Attn: F. C. Sawyers
3520 Pebble Beach Dr Jet Research Center, Inc.
Farmers Branch, TX 75234 P. O. Box 246
Arlington, TX 76010

Explosive Technology (2)

Attn: M. D. Anderson Lockheed Missiles & Space Co (5)
J. E. Kennedy Attn: W. E. Moffatt
P. O. BoxKK R. Weinheimer .
Fairfield, CA 94533-0659 J.Meeks
J. P. Beck
N. Markovich-Cottong
Mason & Hanger (6) 1111 Lockheed Way
Silas Mason Co., Inc Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Pantex Plant
Attn: D. Garrett
R. Slape Southwest Research Institute
D. Hilleary Attn: A. B. Wenzel
D. Schaffer 6220 Culebra Road
P. Kramer PO Drawer 28510
C. A. Campos San Antonio, TX 78284
P. O. Box 30020
Amarillo, TX 79177
Strategic Systems Project Office
Department of the Navy
Allied-Signal Aerospace Co Attn: D. Kenemuth, 27314
Kansas City Div. Washington, DC 20376
Attn: G. Oswald
P. O. Box 1159
Kansas City, MO 64141

84
Distribution:

1131 B. Morosin 3141-1 C. L. Ward (8)

1413 G. G. Weigand For DOEjOSTI
1500 W. Herrmann 5120 W. R. Reynolds
1510 J. W. Nunziato 5121 D. F. McVey
1512 J. C . Cummings 5121 O. R. Berg
1513 D. W. Larsen 5121 D. L. DeWerff
1521 R. D. Krieg 5121 M. M. Plugge
IS22 R. C. Reuter 5128 B. E. Bader
1523 J. H. Biffle 5128 K. E. Mead
1524 D. B. Longscope , 5165 S. D. Meyer
1530 L. W. Davison 5165 R. K. Thomas
1533 P. Yarrington 5165 N. R. Hansen
1533 M. E. Kipp 5165 W. J. Errickson
1533 . A. C. Robinson 5165 W. J. Patterson
2500 D. B. Hayes, Actg 5165 L. B. Traylor
2510 . D. H. Anderson 5251 T. A. Sellers, Actg
2512 J. G. Harlan 5251 L. A. Suber
2512 D. R. Begeal 5262 J. W. Kane
2512 S. G. Hallett 6230 W. C. Luth
2512 R. G. Jungst . 6320 J. E. Stiegler
2512 D. L. Marchi 6321 R. E. Luna
2512 M. G. Vigil (15) 6321 R. P. Sandoval
2513 D. E. Mitchell 6322 J. M. Freedman
25i3 S. G, Barnhart 6323 G. C. Allen
2513 T. L. Garcia 6323 H. R. Yoshimura
2514 P. L. Stanton 6400 D. J. McCloskey
2514 L. L.Bonzon 6416 R. M. Cranwell
2515 P. D. Wilco~ 6416 E. L. Emerson
2515 M. R. Kopczewski 6416 J. S. Philbin
2515 V. M. LoyolC;l 7130 . J. D. Kennedy
2542 W. N. Sullivan 7133 O. L. Burchett
2600 L. D. Bertholf . 7133 P. W. Cooper
3141 S. A. Landenberger (5) 7133 S. R. Kurowski
3151 W. I. Klein (3) 7170 R. D. Bentley
7173 G. L. West
7173 H. D. Smith
. 7533 F. H. Mathews
7533 J. P. Weber
7535 D. C. Bickel
8524 P. W. Dean

85