tb. - Defense Technical Information · PDF filetb. I• Dennis D. Kaisand Jerry M. Manross Chamberlain Manufacturing Corporation East 4th and Esther Streets ... Projectile Testing

THIS DOCUMENT IS UNCLASSIFIED

DOCUMENT NO. C8152.PR-012 LEVDESIGN, DEVELOPMENT AND FABRICATION OF TRAINING ROUNDTO SIMULATE PROJECTILE, 155-MM, HE, M107 (XM804) (PHASE I)

tb.

I• Dennis D. KaisandJerry M. Manross

Chamberlain Manufacturing CorporationEast 4th and Esther StreetsWaterloo, Iowa 50704

FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT FOR PERIOD 9 FEBRUARY 1978 - 28 FEBRUARY 1979

CONTRACT DAAK10-78-C-0072

_____ DDCDISTRIBTU7TO -STATEMEN4T a r'P~ ~-~

,•Approvq fef public releaw"

I ~~~Digtributioni Unlimited NV917

LAA

Prepared For:

U. S. ARMY ARMAMENT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COMMAND (ARRADCOM)Dover, New Jersey 07801

CChhamiberlain Manu,. ctu.in,.orporatio79Research and Developmen2 D0v41ion

"7.9 09 25 041

DISCLAIMER NOTICE

THIS DOCUMENT IS BEST QUALITY

PRACTICABLE. THE COPY FURNISHEDTO DDC CONTAINED A SIGNIFICANTNUMBER OF PAGES WHICH DO NOT

REPRODUCE LEGIBLY.

UNCLA~SSIFIlEDSICuRITY CLASSIFICATION Or TNIS PAGE tWAM Do@. E.enee. _________________

REPORT DOCUMENTATIOW PAGE stotCMLFZFGZoI. 49PORT NUM9IER Il. *VT ACCESSION NO.I 11TIT 01T11 CTYY!ALOG U&~1n01

DS.IPNDREVNLOPMANI NTIO AND~ FABRIATIO OF. POGAM TELCMNIC. PROCTS

CHrAMBRIN MANUFAC TOIURING CORPORATION, A55- 1 9 OR UFeT N97 UMO8 eb S

Wateroo Iowa 50705THA

II.COTROLLINGe OVIE AEAN6DRES. CEONRAT DNWANTE NU11

Dover, New Jersey 07801 12

II. PENRTORMING ORANIZTIN NAME IC AWORS5 ADDRESS iu.gee Oiaf Is. SRCURITY CLASS1TP11,1C. TASKle

DEFENSERLI CONTRACTSUADING CORPTO SRATICES ARCEASSIFIEDly0111199

Esute 1400,h 200 Fisthe Streets.EIS.CkAIIATOO0NRIGCaedrlRaid, Iowa 524015/

11. CONTROI~ING STIC ATMEANT A0096 8. REPOR DAT

IS ANUPP EMENTR NOTES

N/A

IS. KEY WORDS (Coalla -sc~eifwr olde, it oi do OWe. Idoonliffr4 6104 MabeSe)

M107 M739 Hydro-Cal C1340 Steel Sand-CastingXM804 M747 155-mm C1046 Steel MoldProjectile Testing M409A1 C1064 Steel Cr

u.Inert Heavy-Wall Pressure- siting (Continue).20. AISSIRAC T (Covotoowo an toaes sidef "doU a see., IdoitV* IV OfI mwA")

On 9 February 1979 Chamber ,ai Manufacturing Corp ation received the sub-j e ~t. c ont i t T .e wdcz-W1 -5 develop a 155-mm Train ng Projectile (XM804)

od-hic h would be similar to the standard 155-mm, HE, M 'j Projectile but(wFould be significantly more economical to manufacture -The following fourd'esign approachei~swere investigated:

N~ A forged body with 'Theavyr¶ walls,,,,Contued

DO ~ 147 EDIIONPIN~SSIOSS.EEUNCLASSIFIED

,/ -SCUMITY CLASSIFICATION Of ?Ril PAGE (111 qs wie*

UNCLASSIFIEDSICUgITY CLSSIFICATION OF THIS PAGWSflu. Daao

19. Key Words (Continued)

Reynolds Engineering .Reliable Pattern and Foundry CompanyVulcan Foundry

20. Abstract (Continued)

An inert-filled (forged) M107 shell

(3) A pressure-cast shell

&#] A sand-cast shell.,

'The sand casting approach was eliminated early in the program based onpreliminary studies w ch indicaved that this method would not be cost-effective. A forged 'heavy wall XM804 'training Projectile design was -1developed which simulated the HE-loaded M107 Projectile ballistically andwould withstand firing at Charge, Zone 7 as evidenced by dynamic tests.(Charge, Zone 5 is considered the maximum charge for training purposes.)Dynamic tests also showed that the inert wax load in the standard 155-mm,M107 Projectile can be replaced by the lower-cost inert Hydro-Cal load.A raethod for manufacturing the XM804 Projectile by pressure-casting wasde,-ionstrated successfully.

±Calculations based on this investigaton indicaved that the ct-t savingsfor the forged and the pressure-cast 'heavy wall), XM804 Projectile would -*

be 41% and 48%, respectively, under the standard round cost.

I',•

UNCLASSIFIED6tCURITY CLAM FICATION Of THIS P AQC(tV40 D0e S4m'.e•0

1z

.. '

CHAMBERLAIN MANUFACTURING CORPORATION

FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT

'II

DISCLAIMER!SI Trade names cited within this report are used in order to describn uniquely

and precisely all research, development, test or evaluation situations forthe purpose of reproducing the exact conditions of manufacture and evalua-

S5tion. The citation of these trade names does not constitute an official* endorsement or approval of the use of those products.

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Depart-

ment of the Army position, unless so designated by the authorized documents.

Li

I


ABSTRACT

On 9 February 1979 Chamberlain Manufacturing Corporation received the sub-ject contract to design and develop a 155-mm Training Projectile (XMS04)which would be similar to th6 standard 155-mm, liE, W07 Projectile butwould be significantly more economical to manufacture. The followiugEcoir design approaches were investigated:

. A forged body with "heavy" walls* An~~~~~ inr-_l,- (f ,g ,, t'410, sholU

* A pressure..cast dnell

e A sand-casit shell

The sand casting approach was eliminated early in the program based onpreliminary studies which indicated that this method would not be cost-effective. A f-irgd "heavy wall" XMS04 Training Projectile design wasdeveloped which simulated the liE-loaded N107 Projectile ballistica lly andwould withstand firing at Charge, Zone 7 .,,s evidenced by dynamic tests,(Charge, Zone 5 is considered the maximum charge for training purposes.)Dynamic tests also showed that the inert wax load hn the standard 155-,,m,

1M07 Projectiles can be replaced by the lower-cost inert Ilydro-Cal load.A mechod for manufacturing the D1804 Projectile by pressure-casting wasdemonstrated successfully.

Calculations based on this investigation indicated that the cost savitngsfor the forged and the pressure-cast "heavy wall" XM804 Projectile wouldbe 41% and 48%, respectively, under the standard round cost.

L ••-•'• • • 7 7,7 Z 771

ICHAMBERLAIN MANUFACTURING CORPORATION

CV

S i F D 1TABLE OF CONTENTS

SectionPae

FORM DD 1473

SI FOREWORD

" ~~~ABSTRACT •-•

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1

2. CONCLUSIONS 2

3. RECOMIIENDAT IONS 3

S4. DESIGN APPROACHES 4

5, XM804 FORGED BODY DEVELOPMENT 9

5.1 Manufacture of Bodies 9

5.2 Mechanical Properties 9

6. XM804 PRESSURE-CAST BODY DEVELOPMENT 13

6.1 General 136.2 Process Description 136.3 Pressure-Casting of XM804 Bodies 20

7. DYNAMIC TESTING 26

7.1 Forged XM804 Projectiles 267.2 Metal Parts Security Tests 26S7.3 Ballistic Match/Metal Parts Security Tests 267.4 Tests of XM804 Projectile With XM747 Fuze and M107 32

Projectiles

S8. COST ESTIMATES 36

SAPPENDIX A - XM804 FORGED PROJECTILE PROCESS DRAWINGS 38

APPENDIX B - XM804 PROJECTILE STRESS ANALYSIS 91

APPENDIX C - XM804 PROJECTILE COST ESTIMATES 110


•j F INAL TECHNICAL.REPORT

[ 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

A1.1 On 9 February 1978 Chamberlain was awarded the subject contract to

design and develop a 155-mm Training Projectile, XM804, which would be 40%

to 50% more economical to manufacture than the 155-nm, M107 HE Projectileand still meet the following requirements:

* Have the same exterior configuration as the M107 Projectile.

. Match the MI07 Projectile ballistically.

9 Withstand the Charge, Zone 5 gun firing environment.

; 1.2 An estimated quantity of more than 200,000 each inert M107 Projec-tiles per year is needed to train and maintain the proficiency of fieldartillery crews. The expense of using the standard HE M107 round for this

, Vpurpose might restrict adequate training. The development of an inexpen-sive inert facsimile of the M107 round wbich had ballistic similitudewould assure the maintenance of fully trained artillery crews.

1.3 This initial phase of the program included estimates of initialcasting facility costs and rationale plus full scale forged and castunit production cost and rationale based on quantities of 200,000 unitsper year for five years.

(1~

Ii

[I



2. CONCLUSIONS

2.1 The objectives of the subject contract were met or exceeded by theaccomplishment of the following work:

* A design was developed for the forged 155-mm, XM804 "Heavy-Wall,"Empty, Projectile. NOTE: The "heavy wall" design simulates theHE loaded projectile by utilizing a heavier steel wall to replacethe HE.

* Because post-heat treatment is not required to obtain the re-quired physicals, the XM804 heavy-wall projectile can be fabri-cated from AISI C1340 steel at lower cost than from theoriginally specified AISI C1046 steel.

* Dynamic firing of 155-mm, XM804 Projectiles and standard 155-mm,M107 Projectiles showed that the XM804 round had the requiredballistic similitude. U]

* Metal Parts Security Tests showed that the XM804 Projectilewould withstand the environment imposed by firing at Charge,Zone 7. (Charge, Zone 5 would be the normal maximum chargefor training purposes.)

* Production cost estimates showed that the forged training roundrepresents a 41% savings in manufacturing costs. ii

o The results of dynamic firings indicated that the inert "Hydro-Cal" load may be a substitute for the inert wax load in thestandard 155-mm, M107 Projectile.

o A method for manufacturing the XM804 Projectile by pressure-casting was demonstrated successfully. Further development isnecessary to improve the quality of the castings.

2i I2 .


FINAL TECHNICAL REPO.R

3. RECOMMENDATIONS

LI 3.1 The following recommendations were based on the results of work

accomplished during the performance of the subject contract.

9 It is recommended that the forged 155-mm, XM804 "heavy-wall".

projectile be type classified and placed in the inventory as

soon as possible.

9 It is recommended that additional work be performed to improvethe pressure casting method of manufacturing the XM804Projectiles.

* It is recommended that the three cast XM804's now at Yuma ProvingGround be gun fired as soon as possible to verify their struc-tural integrity.

Dynamic firings at Charge, Zone 7 should be conducted on the"Hydro-Cal" loaded M107 Projectile to prove the suitability ofthis load.

Li



4. DESIGN APPROACHES I

4.1 The program was initiated with cost studies for the purpose of select- Ling one forged projectile concept and one cast projectile concept whichwere to be developed upon Government approval. The following types ofbody designs were investigated:

* A forged body with "heavy" walls

* An Inert-filled M107 shell (forged type) LI* A pressure-cast shell

' A sand-cast shell. LIOf these four approaches, the sand casting approach was eliminated earlyin the program based on preliminary studies which indicated that it wouldnot be cost effective. The estimated cost of the rough casting, itself,was considerably higher than the estimated cost of the forging, The sandcast version of the projectile could be completed only as a two-pieceassembly which would have generated additional costs and potential pro- Uduction problems.

4.2 The standard M107 Projectiles currently are made from AISI C1046heat treated steel; however, AISI C1064 heat treated steel is specifiedas an alternate material and is available at lower cost. Theref're, thecheaper alternate 1064 steel was considered in the XM804 cost estimates.Because a porosicy seal was not required for inert rounds, the Base Cover(Ordnance Drawing No. 10535928) was omitted from the XMS04 and inspectionof the inside cavity for pits and subsequent reclaim operations wereeliminated. In addition, the loading nose plug (lifting eye) wasomitted and the nose threads were to be protected by a thin plasticplug cover.

4.3 The following design parameters were established for both the castand the forged XMS04 Projectile:

* Weight: 94.7 lbs. ± 1,3 lbs. (Weight Zones 4 and 5)

* Center of Gravity: 9.36 inches from base

* Moments of Inertia: Polar - 499.2 lbs.-in. 2

Transverse - 4,311 lbs.-in.2

The nose fuze was included in all of the above calculations. .1


LFINAL TECHNICAL REPORT

[] Drawing No. J8152-1 on the following page shows a "heavy-wall," 155-mmXM804 Projectile Body design which was completed during this program. Also

u completed were the associated body assembly design and the projectile mark-LI ing diagram which are shown by Drawing Nos. J8152-2 and -3, respectively,

on Pages 7 and 8. An exterior ballistics study was performed on the heavy-wall, 155-mm, XM804 Projectile design described above and the standard[j 155-mm, M107 Projectile. This study was based on the "Engineering Hand-book for Control of Projectile Flight Characteristics" (AMCP Pamphlet No.706-242). Tabulated below are the data from this study:

BALLISTIC ESTIMATES

M107 DATA (THEORETICAL DATA)

CetrPER ARRADCOM *M107 **XM804

Weight (Lbs.) 95.00 95.03 94.91• H Center of Gravity (Inches

from Base) 9.36 9.41 9.38

Polar Moment (Lbs.-In. 2 ) 499.2 492.1 514.7

I Transverse Moment (Lbs.-In. 2 ) 4,311.0 4,181.6 4,309.6

Polar Moment 2

Transverse Moment (Dimensionless) 57.81 57.91 61.47

Stability Factor (Dimensionless) 1.50 1.51 1.60

* Based on Mean Dimensions.

** Heavy-Wall Projectile Based onDrawing No. J8152-2.

I'

-I

f

7kg". [I�

4

I ... a LI'� *1 Lii'Id 4.4

H H(�L �

\ (I' III.I LI

LI

�: I Ii

K UIi I*1

� I

- - - - - � i �;' '

042 ' I� ��

\ \ iiI I A

-� � �...II �*

'II B.,. II1 6

• i4•-• 4-

p j/

~Jlb

'L II •

4-w I I -

Sil •

U; W.A -

t. , 9-

J20OX

IZ

10

2 2*2



5. XM804 FORGED BODY DEVELOPMENT

5.1 Manufacture of Bodies

5.1.1 To ensure provision of the required quantity of 300 acceptableXM804 forgings, 400 of these forgings were manufactured at Chamberlain'sNew Bedford Division under Chamberlain Purchase Order No. B54726, dated 5May 1978. The process illustrated by the drawings in Appendix A was devel-oped by New Bedford for the manufacture of these projectiles and was basedon the design shown by Drawing No. J8152-1 (Rev. A), Page 6. WithARRADCOM's permission, these forgings were manufactured from AISI C1340steel to eliminate the post heat treatment which would have been necessaryto obtain the required physicals with C1046 or C1064 steel. Some diffi-culty was encountered in developing the nose section contour of the forg-ing to provide the desired interior cavity volume. However, this problemwas solved by adjusting the amount of material machined from the open endof the drawn can before nosing. No other problems were encountered inpruducing these forgings and the quantity of 400 was allocated as follows:

QUANTITY PROCESS STAGE DISPOSITION20 Final-Machined Metal Parts Security Tests

[ Projectiles

60 Final-Machined Ballistic Match Tests[i Projectiles

100 Final-Machined Fuze/Spotter PerformanceProjectiles Tests

L 120 Cold Drawnt Stored at New Bedford forUse in Future

100 Nosed Used in Nosing Experiments

5.2 Mechanical Properties

l 5.2.1 The mechanical properties and hardness of a typical XMg04 Projectileforged during the program were determined by laboratory analysis and areshown on Drawing Nos. J7952-2B and -3B on the following two pages. The"cold draw" yield strength of the AISI 1340 steel body in the projectilerotating band area ranged from 105,600 to 110,900 psi. According to cal-culations, the most severe stress encountered by the XM804 during gun firing

Z Il I

gj~

)Z 0 i It e

ii I i~: II 0

EAl

o Im' I_ _

10 id,

0 6 I iV.q


___________________FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT

W thestrenth ofthe projecti',e body in the rotating band area is sufficientto wthsandthespeifie Chrge Zoe 5gun firing environment with a

wid mrgn f afty A frterevidence of the projectile's strength,[1thi anlyss aso ncldedgunenvironments up to Charge, Zone 7. The

resuts ndiatedtha th proectle lsowouldwihtn tisevrenvionmnt nd ubseuen gu fiingtests at Charge, Zone 7 confirmed

on the XM804 Projectile during this frogrm.asrs nlsspromd[~

S..... .. ..


U __________FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT

6. PRESSURE-CAST XM804 BODY DEVELOPMENT

LI •6.1 General

6.1.1 The pressure casting method was selected for the manufacture of the

SU cast XM804 Projectile, the design of which is shown by Drawing No. J8152-4

(Rev. A) on the following page. This method has been used successfully asan economical method of manufacturing a variety of non-ferrous parts but,to the best knowledge of ARRADCOM and Chamberlain personnel, has not beenused to produce ferrous items as large as the XM804. The high risk of thepressure casting method was recognized mutually by ARRADCOM and Chamberlainpersonnel, but it was agreed that the feasibility of this concept shouldbe investigated during the performance of the subject contract because ofindications that this method could be developed into a lower cost methodf of producing the XM804 round (See Cost Estimates, Section 8). On May

1978, Chamberlain Purchase Order No. B54641 was issued to Reynolds Engi-neering, Inc., Saratoga, California, to pressure-cast 50 each XM804 bodies,This work was performed with Reynolds' equipment at Vulcan Foundry, Oakland,California, with some materials and services being purchased from Vulcan.

"6.2 Process Description

U •6.2.1 Photograph No. C3283, Page 15, shows an overall view of a pressure-casting machine, designed and developed by Reynolds Engineering, which wasused to pressure-cast the XM804 body. The XM804 mold, core box and cores

SU were manufactured by Reliable Pattern and Foundry, San Jose, California.An open view of the water-cooled, split aluminum mold (with a core in

• •place) mounted on the casting machine is shown by Photograph No. C3284,Page 16, and typical cores are shown by Photograph No. C3285, Page 17.

6.2.2 Figure 1, Page 18, shows a schematic of the previously-descrabedScasting machine. Initially, the mold is swung away from the machine and a

cover containing an observation hole is installed over the crucible inplace of the feed tube shown in the schematic. The metal is heated andmaintained at a temperature of approximately +2,900*F in the crucible withB •the induction heating coils. The metal temperature is monitored frequentlyby a device which is thrust into the molten metal, Samples for carbonanalysis are obtained by a glass tube with a rubber bulb. A vacuum pumpsystem evacuates trapped gas and air from the molten metal. When themetal is free of air and gases, as evidenced by cessation of turbulencein the metal, the cover is removed, the feed tube is installed, and the

13

_ _ik

2 l

Ii 'for H • _jj

~ _ IIL

4 t it

U iN

14i] f',i--_ _.. ..' Hu .

L 2J

4 -x

Chambel7

PHOT NOj-38

OVRLIIWO RSUECSTN AHN SDT RDCTH 5-MCS M0 RIIGRUD

PHOT NO I38

16Al

IR

AlI~

I IHOLD-DOWN CAP ON MAST(HYDRAULIC DRIVE)

CORE PILOT

THREADED CORE ROD

SAND/RESIN SHELL CORE

/,---,SPLIT ALUKfLNUM MOLDI PORT TO T-LINE (WATER- COOLED)FOR VACUUM AND

IREFRACTORY LV ETRMLRINGHOLD- DOWN CLAMPS

CASTINGMACHINE

~ RTV SEALCOVER PLATEI

0 4W14MOLTEN

STEEL

CRUCIBLE \ INDUCTION HEATING4

I:CASTING ',-ACHINE

MTRLREFRACTORY

FIGURE 1.: Schematic of Reynolds Pressure Casting Machine.

18



mold is set in position. The molten metal then is forced upward throughthe feed tube into the water-cooled mold under 12 psi inert (argon) gaspressure, which is applied for from five to six minutes to assure completefilling of the mold. During tnis cycle, the resin in the core is burned"out by the hot metal, leaving only the core sand with the casting. Pres-sures which are generated within the mold are vented through the porouscore and the parting line in the two-piece mold. The argon gas pressurewhich forces the molten metal into the mold then is released, allowing themolten metal remaining in the feed tube to return to the crucible. Themold is swung away from the machine on the mas t , the mold is parted, and

the casting is removed. Immediately upon removal, the casting is placedin an insulated barrel to retard cooling, thereby avoiding cracking andbrittleness. After the casting has cooled, the residual core sand isemptied through the nose opening.

6.2.2.1 In conducting the above process the following variables werenoted which would require further resolution prior to establishing a pro-duction process:

* Temperature of the molten metal at time of mold filling.

* Duration of the 12 psi mold filling pressure to assure solidifi-cation of metal in casting.

e Amount of vacuum required to evacuate trapped air and gases fromthe molten metal.

* Chill size and cooling rates/temperature.

6.2.3 The casting machine feed tube is a special refractory, selected forr its thermal shock resistance and impermeability. It is preheated to

_approximately 2000°F to reduce the thermal s 1 ock when it is inserted intothe molten steel. The interior of the aluminum mold and the exterior ofthe sand core are prepared for casting by painting with a mold paintwhich contains zirconium in an alcohol base. The painted surfaces aredried with an acetylene torch immediately after painting and the mold sub-sequently is carbon-coated by decreasing the oxygen supply to the torch.The purpose of the paint is to cushion the mold and core, while the carboncoating is used to provide lubrication.

[ 19



6.3 Pressure-Casting of XM804 Bodies U6.3.1 Beginning with a lengthy search required to find a suitable foundryfacility, w-ny time-consuming problems were encountered in setting up uequipment and manufacturing the initial quantity of castings. Beforebeginning operation, a complete overhaul of the casting machine and in-strumentation was necessary. During a preliminary warm-up period, the[machine's resistance heaters failed, necessitating extensive disassemblyto gain access to the heaters and subsequent reassembly. The resistanceheaters were replaced with induction heaters as part of this repair. [16.3.2 Several trial bodies were cast in attempts to produce bodies whichwere completely formed. Original plans under this program required pro- (1curement of 50 each cast XM804 Projectiles to be allocated as follows: L

QUANTITY ALLOCATION jj30 Laboratory Tests (Structural, Metallurgical and

Dimensional)

10 Gun-Fired Metal Parts Security Ii10 Gun-Fired Ballistic Match

However, the problems discussed heretofore prevented the completion ofthe original plans. Toward the en4 of the contract period, 19 each XM804castings were received byi Chamberlain. Each of these castings was com-pletely formed except for the base defect shown by Figure 2 on the follow- iing page. Typical castings from this group are shown by Photograph No.C3330 on Page 22. To provide cast XM804 Projectiles for testing, five ofthe above 19 bodies were salvaged by cutting out the area around the basedefect and inserting a steel plug which was secured in place by weldingas shown by Drawin,.Nn. 38152-5, Page 23. Photograph No. C3331, Page 24,shows this plug being inserted in the projectile base. One body in whicha nose defect was found was cut for tensile specimens and analysis.

One other body was scrapped when radiographic inspection revealed severevoids in the projectile walls. Three completed projectiles were shippedto Yuma Proving Ground to be gun-fired for structural tests. All threeprojectiles had interior cavities that were not concentric with theexterior surface, a condition which precluded any ballistic match testing.This "out of balance" condition, however, would not influence metal partssecurity (structural) tests.

6.3.3 Before producing the next group of castingsl ýossible causes ofthe base defect were investigated. The first approach was to shorten thecore chill from 12 inches to six inches. Several sample bodies were castusing the shorter chill but the base defect still was present. One body

III

.• FIGURE 2: Representative Sketch of Base Defect

in XMS04 Pressaure CastingsI

4-,

C:

2c •

mL

7 nI , aq.iu

1 ChamerlaiCmbIaFi Na~Ich.n Coipo.tIT

Iljpio * I

(IIo0o IF(-F

41T

, !IOo

* diII 04I0

-j4

U0

Al 1~- 11

I itI;9,

ChamberlainCh....b.d.4n Men.dactwifig C�.po.aUon

II

#1IIIIIIIIIIIII

PHOTO NO. C.3331

I PLUG BEING INSERTED IN BORED BASE OF PRESSURE - CAST 155-MM.XM804 TRAINING ROUND TO CORRECT BASE DEFECT.

1 24

2

ICHAMBERLAIN MANUFACTURING CORPORATION

_ _FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT

i was cast without using the chill but the base of this body failed to solidify.Later, it was theorized that the base defect and base porosity resulted from

m gas entering the casting at this point during mold filling. To identifyand correct this leakage, the original casting machine feed tube, which waspotted into the plate, was replaced by a feed tube which had a flange at itsinterface with the mold. All of the castings produced with this revisedfeed tube were free of base defects. These experiments resulted in theconclusion that the critical factor in eliminating the base defects inthese projectiles was the feed tube, A further conclusion was that a corechill was required but satisfactory castings would be produced with eitherthe six-inch or the 12-inch long chill.

6,3.4 At the end of the contract period. 30 castings were received fromreynolds; 20 of which had solid bases. Although the problem with the basedefect was solved, the preliminary X-ray photographs of the raw castingsindicated that the sidewalls still contained some voids. These voids couldbe the result of gas bubbles and/or non-uniform solidification shrinkage.Additional experimentation will be required to determine the cause of thesevoids and to develop a satisfactory solution. Possibly, wall voids are

i • acceptable in the cast XN804 Projectile and this determination can be made|! by firing the three rounds which were stored at Yuma Proving Ground at the

time this report was written.

125

'I]



7. DYNAMIC TESTING

; j7.1 Forged XM804 Projectiles

7.1.1 On 12 through 14 September 1978, 65 each XM804 Projectiles withforged bodies (Round Nos. 1 through 65) were fired dynamically at YumaProving Ground (YPG). All projectiles were fabricated according to Draw-ing No. J8152-3, Rev. A, on Page 8 and were shipped to YPG on 30 June 1978as Lot CG078G001001. All projectiles were fired from the 155-mm, MIO9A1 LWeapon system under the conditions described in the tabulation on the fol-

lowing page. A quantity of 20 each (Round Nos. 1 through 20) were firedin metal parts security tests and the remaining 45 (Round Nos. 21 through65), in combined ballistic match and metal parts security tests asdescribed in the following paragraphs. The tests were witnessed byrepresentatives of ARRAtiCOM, Ft. Sill (Oklahoma) Artillery TrainingSchool, and Chamber'ain R&D.

7.2 Metal Parts Security Tests fi7.2.1 All 20 rounds were fired at Charge, Zone 5 and were recovered froman impact area of approximately 200 squc-re meters as determined by guncrew observers. Preliminary data obtained at the Proving Ground are tabu-lated on Page 28. All 20 rounds were structurally sound when recoveredand all rotating bands had remained in place. The rounds had sustainedonly minor damage upon impact. Half of these rounds were tested with liveM739 spotter fuzes but !.t was not known at the time of this writing whetherthe fuze signature (flash) was observable upon ground impact. Based onthe results of this test, it was concluded that the XM804 Projectile withforged body would survive the Charge, Zone 5 gun firing training environment.

7.3 Ballistic Match/letal Parts Security Test

7.3.1 Round Nos. 21 through 65 were fired at Charge, Zones 1, 2 and 7 asindicated by the data on Pages 29 through 31. The chief purpose of thesetests was to determine the ballistic similitude between the 155-mm, XM804Projectile and the standard 155-mm, M107 Projectile "or which the XM804 wasto be a ballistic match. An additional purpose was to determine the metalparts security of the XM804 Projectile in the Charge, Zone 7 firing environ-ment. Preliminary data obtained from these tests at the Proving Ground areincluded on Pages 29 through 31. The muzzle velocity and range of the X1M804Projectile compared closely to the muzzle velocity and range of the standard

26

0 N

I (Q.4'f

I -

LI

rTUI °

P4 H v4 4N P4-4 r C 0N4 r -c <~: < < C 4 .

pi

1- Ln t° LM°°°°°°°°tmin tZ f V C - v N -

in 0 z~

K0 000

LP4

04 04

4) ML1n 270 N 4 0

FFE "ýj

to 41$i~ 0

tC 4 44

V.-4 U) 4 0 i. (A

co 4j 0 $C0) f4 0 4)a C4 4 600%

N "4in cc W 0 w C"N N .g P4 0 .r4 u 41 r4

000 0 0 0000000 00000 L

01 ;

E-4.

(A4 Lnr 00 -4P t nN%

00

4~~1OO 4 4 D 444 44 4g4 4 4 4 40

Iu 04&

0 0M "4 nu i mi UiL n %A kn fl n L Nul Mt

U2(nC* 04 NLf '04 Cq Nm 4 C4 " M C-4 M 4cn m cn 4

r4 1-4 F .4H P 4 4V-4 P 4P " 4"4 E-4 T4 ".4V-4 " . -4H

>I

[.1110 00 V0

S i> 4> >

A 0N 4) 0 N %> n> InN( >p4

0N @0 00

000 00ccr

4 ca

-A-

AUQ

IU14 Nc-t ~ ~ t'O 0 0 A )

gJ r4 N'CC. inC4N C cn m aci V LnclUlic l ) cri L

Li 29

0~ 0

4) 004) - 4 -0

41 r%. 4)V1

0 M 00 P4i

%10 -4N Cnf41 N s- ,

InN 0 'o 'N ,

%0 0 % 0 f - N00 co (00(*-0 0 0 0 041

j.P4

OR 14 %Lo N r..

"ji ,-4e.4s-4u:r -4N:r C.4

L-4 4 - 4 , ,

03

. .......

0 V) 0 * * 0

0 00

u 04 NO 44 u044

0 4 ) k4 0 ) 0 a

0t%%1 4~.%0 41 0Nc4

OO

C.CA

- 04

I.'4

Bn -t% f- N f P.4-Vp4 W4 r4"4 .N C4N .*4

co'.

IA 0

d9400000 00000 00000 0) "e4

P- 4" 4 4 v1P 4 4P 4i1 4r4P 41* -e00 1

4)0

C44

ST



Tentative conclusions based on available information were that the XM804

Projectile should be a ballistic match to the M107 Projectile. Preliminaryrange and deflection data also showed that the XM804 Projectile remained LIstructurally sound under the Charge, Zone 7 firing environment, which im-poses the most severe conditions this projectile is expected to encounter.

7.4 Tests of XM804 Projectile with XM747 Fuze and N107 Projectiles

7.4.1 On 29 January through 8 February 1979, dynamic firings were con-ducted at Yuma Proving Ground for the following purposes:

9 To determine the ballistic similitude between the forged 155-mm,XM804 Projectile and the standard 155-mm, M107 Projectile. [

o To test the performance of Hydro-Cal (Inert) Loaded M107Projectile, f]

• To observe the performance of the XM747 (Modified M739)Training Fuze.

These fuzes were tested as part of efforts by ARRADCOM to develop a train- [1ing fuze which would have less critical safe-handling requirements than theexisting M739 Fuze. These tests were witnessed by representatives of iARRADCOM, Ft. Sill (Oklahoma) Artillery Training School, and Chamberlain flResearch and Development Division.

7.4.2 Following is a description of the projectiles which were tested: jQUANTITY TYPE LOT NO.

115 Forged XM804 Projectiles (Drawing No. CGO78GO01001J8152-3, Rev. A)

139 Standard Inert-Loaded M107 Projec- --

tiles with M577 Fuzes

24 "Hydro-Cal"-Loaded M107 Projectiles YCC78KOOOEO01

The quantity of 24 each M107 Projectiles were manufactured by Chamberlain'sScranton Division under Purchase Order No. B55155, dated 27 September 1978.Subsequently, these projectiles were shipped to Carter-Pol DevelopmentCorporation, Moscow, Pennsylvania, where they were inert-loaded withHydro-Cal under Chamberlain Purchase Order No. B55156, dated 27 September1978. Hydro-Cal is an inert-load mixture consisting of gypsum in a plasticbinder and is reported to be a lower-cost load than the inert wax loadwhich currently is the established inert load for the M107 Projectile.The Hydro-Cal loaded projectiles were included in this test to check

32 j32



their performance against the wax-loaded version. Following is a descrip-tion of the modified XM739 Fuzes (designated XM747 Training Fuzes) whichwere included in this test:

1UANTITY TYPE MODIFICATION

S27 XM747 Mod. A, SW-59 (Smoke)

37 XM747 Mod. B, SW-466 (Smoke)

40 XM747 Mod. C, SW-521 (Smoke)

30 XM747 Mod. PF, Photoflash

I Also included as a control group were five each M577 Fuzes, each of whichI ~ had a T2 Booster Charge.

7.4.3 The total quantity of rounds was divided into 28 groups which were

equipped with various modified fuzes and fired according tc the test matrixon the following page. To facilitate comparison of performance, XM804rounds were fired alternately with standard M107 rounds. The weapon sys-tem consisted of the M185 Gun and the M185 Tube mounted on the Ml09AI MotorCarriage. To record the flight of every XM804 Projectile, a smear camerawas positioned 25 feet from the gun muzzle at a 90° angle to the line offire. For four of the test groups, 16-mm color movie film coverage wasobtained. Also color TV camera coverage was obtained on at least oneround from each group.

7.4.4 Preliminary data from the tests of XM804 and M107 Projectiles fromGroup Nos. i through 16 are tabulated on Page 35. Data from the remaininggroups (Nos. 17 through 28) were not available at the time this report waswritten. Tentative conclusions were that the XM804 "heavy wall" projec-tile and the standard M107 Projectile had adequate ballistic similitude.Firm conclusions will be based on complete data analysis conducted byARRADCOM's Aero-Ballistic Section in the future. Also based on preliminarydata analysis, it was concluded that the M107 Projectiles which were inert-loaded with Hydro-Cal at Carter-Pol Development Corporation would performsuccessfully during firing at Charge, Zone 5 or below. Proof testing byfiring at Charge, Zone 7 is recommended before final acceptance of thisround.

7.4.5 Performance of the XM747 Training Fuze was assessed by audio andvisual interpretation of the fuze signature upon ground impact of theround. Observations by personnel at the target site were confirmed byTV video tape and 16-mm movie film obtained during the test. The testresults of the various fuze configurations are being evaluated by theresponsible agencies.

III 33 •

XM804/M107 PROJECTILE TEST MATRIX

AmiENT T•". COND. GROUP SIZES AND TYPES OF FUZES

TRAINING CHARGE PROPELLANT Q.E. Q.E. Q.E. Q.E. Q.E.PROJECTILE ZONE TYPE 350 550 750 950 1100

HEAVY WALL 1 MW3AIXM804-FORG.D

2 SEA 6EA *SEA2C,2B,IPF 4C,1PF, IA,IB,2C,__ _ _I1M557 1PF

U3 - 5EA-lA, 6KA-1A, 5EA-2B,IB,2C,lPF 3C,IPF, 2CII'?p__-_ _ _ 1 HM57

'3 " M4A2 6EA-1A,3C, 1P1',

""4 6EA-411,IPF,

0-_ 11M557"" SEA-IA, 6EA-4C, SEA

29.1.1, It', 4B, P11F

X,4804 W/INKRT 5 "LOADED.I M107 BOY

+140"F TEMP. CONDITION flHEAVY WAL.L I. MWA SEA-IA,XMSO4 FORED 2B,C,1,IP'*

"U " 32 " 4A A3C1, IPF

"O WN3' 54EA /.,

S 107 OD 3 H4A2 4'A ,/ _ { __

hEAV WIl. I N3 E/INI l 5 A1,XM804 W/NR 5 5 EA 5 .LOADED M107 BODY I14B, 1PF 4(;tl l.: '

-40*F TEMP. CO}NDITION {

,S . 3 " SEA4A,. 11I" I

" " 3 M4A2 __

" U 4 to 4EAN-3B. LIPF

" U 5 5FA 4EA SEA SEA , SEA, IA

14A, IPF 3B, 11'F 41B, IPF 4A, IPFI 2B,IC,IPF\84WNET 54 EA SEA SEA

MLADED M107311, BD'F 4C, IPF 4A, Ivy

"'*16.M COLOR MOVIE FILM QH-HILS. , NI:T TEST

•....34

PRELIMINARY DATA FROM TESTS OF -8XM84 AND M107 PROJECTILES

(AVERAGE OF GROUPS)

AVG.AVG. MUZZLE AVG. AVG.

TEST RD QE PROP. WGT. VELOCITY RANGE DEFLECTGROUP DATE TYPE _(MLS) ZONE CHGG. TEMP.. (FT/SEC) (METERS) ýMETERS)

1 29 JAN 79 XM804 350 5 M4A2 94.56 +70°F 1273 6,872 23R.SM107 350 5 M4A2 94.14 +70*F 1271 6,867 23R.

2 29 JAN 79 XM804 1100 2 M3AI 94.72 +70"F 717 3,631 219R.M107 1100 2 M3AI 94.18 +70"F 718 3,625 219R.

|| 3 30 JAN 79 XH804 350 1 M3AI 93,36 +140"F 608 2,072 34R,H M107 350 1 M3AI 94.4 +140OF 614 2,120 44R.

4 30 JAN 79 '*W04 1100 5 M4A2 93.32 -40OF 1268 8,210 425R.M107 l100 5 M4A2 94.12 -40OF 1259 8,224 385R.

INERT-LOADED5 30 JAN 79 \M804/M107 1100 5 M4A2 95.28 -40OF 1270 8,340 373R.

M107 1100 5 M4A2 94.56 -40°F 1262 8,252 384R.

6 1 FEB 79 XM804 750 4 M4A2 94.91 +70"F 1079 8,743 111R.M107 750 4 M4A2 94.52 +70OF 1075 8,681 67R.

7 1 FEB 79 \M804 750 5 M4A2 94.55 +70°F 1270 10,292 230R.M107 750 5 M4A2 94.25 +70°F 1266 10,280 200R.

8 1 FEB 79 01804 750 5 M4A2 93.02 -40°F 1251 10,080 185R.M107 750 5 M4A2 94.28 -,40°F 3238 9.998 175R.

INERT-LOADED9 1 FEB 79 'KM8O4/M107 750 5 M4A2 95.46 -40OF 12h9 10,080 182R,.

K107 750 5 M4A2 94.30 -40°F 1244 10,017 181R.

2: INERT-LOADED10 1 FEB 79 XM804/M107 950 5 M4A2 95.48 +140OF 1284 10,156 337R.

M107 950 5 M4A2 94.44 +140OF 1279 10,088 331R.

I 11 2 FEB 79 XN804 950 5 M4A2 93.46 -40°F 1251 9,552 202R.M107 950 5 M4A2 94.04 -40OF 1235 9,470 246R.

INERT-LOADEDM12 2 FEB 79 1804/M107 550 5 M4A2 95.40 ÷140OF 1284 9,245 OR.SM107 550 5 M4A2 94.28 +140OF 1280 9,214 12R.

13 2 FEB 79 XM804 1100 5 M4A2 92.86 +70OF 1275 8,555 377R.M107 100 5 M4A2 94.54 +70°F 1266 8,568 344R.

14 2 FEB 79 01804 1100 . M4A2 93.45 -40OF 107. 7,125 319R.M107 1100 4 M4A2 94.00 -40°F 1061 6,990 295R.

INERT-LOADED15 2 FEB 79 01804/M107 350 5 M4A2 95.28 -404F 1259 6.756 9R.

M107 350 5 M4A2 94.55 -40"F 1240 6,648 SR.

16 2 FEB 79 XM804 350 5 M4A2 93.2 -40°F 1252 6,678 OR.4,107 350 5 M4A2 94.5 -40"F 1239 6,639 JR.

35


_______FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT

8. PRODUCTION COST ESTIMATES

8.1 Costing and feasibility studies were conducted on the following four

* Standard M107 round with inert fill.

* Heavy-wall XM804 forging.

* Pressure-cast XM804. [I* Sand-cast XM804.

Cost estimates for each of these designs are summarized on the followingpage and complete details thereof are included in Appendix C. Productioncost estimates for the casting process were based on an .,ni:,.al :ate of200,000 projectiles per year for five years (1,000,000 rcunds) at currentprices considering: unit price, background costs identifie~d, current labc-rates, and facilities cost. One of the pressure casting pro.4uction esti-mates includes a facility estimate but the facility was omitted from theforging production estimate, The forging cost estimates were to assume .current production at Scranton and New Bedford plus the 200,000 XM804forgings per year. Chamberlain was to establish the optimum yearly quan-tity of XM804 forgings at each facility. In all cases, the current pro-duction levels or facility usages are assumed to exist concurrently withthe XM804 production and these conditions would continue to exist over aperiod of five years (1,000,000 rounds). A cost estimate for the standardM107 Projectile from the New Bedford Division was not obtainable becausethis round was not being produced at Chamberlain's New Bedford Divisionat the time of this writing.

8.2 Figures provided by ARRADCOM showed that in 1977 it cost $26.78 toLoad the standard M107 with explosive and an additional $53.40 for themetal parts not including the fuze. The total 1977 cost for the M107 Pro- I

jectile and load was $80.18. The forged heavy-wall XM804 average esti-mated cost (see the next page) in 1978 is $47.34 (43.60 + 51.75 + 46.67)/3.Disregarding all possible escalations, the heavy-wall forging is 59%(47.34/80.18 x 100) of the standard round cost representing a 41% savings.The cast heavy-wall XM804 average estimated cost is $41.53 ($43.13 + $39.92)/2.A cast projectile is 52% (41.53/80.18 x 100) of the standard round represent-ing a 48% savings.

36

IXM804 PRODUCTION COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY

(17,000 RDSJMONTH - 204,000 RDS./YEAR)

(TOOLING COSTS AMORTIZED OVER 1,000,000 RDS.)

DATE OF $ COST/EA.ORIGINAL MANUFACTURING FACILITY, FOR 1,000,000 FORGING MACHINING CASTINGESTIMATE TYPE OF RD. & RATE RDS. COST COST COST

4 6-26-78 CMC NEW BEDFORD,HEAVY WALLM 5 PROJECTILE

@ 25,000 RDS./MONTH 43.60 32.84 10.76 --

6-26-78 CMC SCRANTON (AAP) HEAVYWALL PROJECTILE@ 17,000 RDS./MONTH 51.75 37.78 13,97 --

@ 22,000 RDS./MONTH 46.67 32.70 13.97 --

6-26-78 CMC SCRANTON M107 MODIFIED+ $2.37 INERT LOADING@ 17,000 RDS./MONTH 55.44 41.47 13.97 --

@ 22,000 RDS./MONTH 49.23 35.26 13.97 --

5-1-78 REYNOLDS ENG. INC. HEAVYWALL CASTING@ 17-22,000 RDS./MONTH 26.82* -- 13.97 12.85@ 25,000 RDS./MONTH 23.61* -- 10.76 12.85

10-17-78 CMC R&D CASTING ESTIMATE--HEAVY WALL@ 17-22,000 RDS./MONTH 43.134 -- 13.97 29.16@ 25,000 RDS./MONTH 39.92@ -- 10.76 29.16

4-14-77 LYNCHBURG FOUNDRY SAND-CASTING (HEAVY WALL)

W/PLUG@ Q 17-22,000 RDS./MONTH 49.97 MIN. -- >13.97 36.00@ 25,000 RDS./MONTH 46.76 MIN. -- )10.76 36.00

I*Capital Equipment Costs Included/3.000,O00 Rds.*Facility Costs Not Included

3

I 3

APPENDIX A

XM804 FORGED PROJECTILE PROCESS DRAWINGS

Il

T"-S

~0

H z

IIi

to 8. 1-

10

w a

I-I38

...........

zo 6o-Jow

00

000LC')

v10

0N

-Mel1 -~ 4:f

zK

b39

I -lN~'a~d 03

... . . .. .n

- 0

ZDQ rzIi 0[IA

U) L

V., .,.

40

: : 0

z~ -

-3

000 ai

uJu

w 0 1

Ozz

4 Z41

It --

- --

vl.

K - .. 'aCIO

(h2.~:Z~

PrI -. ¶

(k U3 J .

Li -

42I

LdrlI

01 He-

LU E

43[j

W E

N 0 0

LIZ

NZN

Ii I

100

~p44

OM4

In*'~., .

- - -. -

wrw

hi L

0

wow

00

-a45

f,4

41 0

414

Iii

Z%.O

800

zi

- 2vt

6w z -ý0

[U 46

-_- - -'-

;ýkn

w-I' 'o'.~s mI --- U00

rI:'- - LILO

- I- L& ,~-ilk

... , z

r i .. iiiiiiiiI4

W6Wci

.0 z -

411 "0)

W=D WI-U

~Dj~r.4

~' ~ I 0 48

J LI

~0

t .

xz-

.0L~249

zz

~ 1' 4.t~ V I ~t)

u t

for4

501

Lli

Fii

I uiit LA

00

51 .

IIJ

LCi0~

1411

I LO 0 0

W.<.

5<52

kP--

3r

Wz ~w_

-w 0

0 jw*

ILi

*0

IL00

353

iQZ o

LI1 - 7a

Z(Li*fI .m

V) I

wb"-4

Hw

u5

0-

LlL LI

LLIL w W

-- o' ... o a

UJ 004

s[1.Le~o~.

L

""444

O(ni'cn -. U

oF) in0

.1 a

1Q)I",4

I VI0-4N

N Iz i A J

-' i6

13 (ILIK]1ýLLI

Is-

- IV

U0-~ I[l

0 -1 57

0 ~00

o LA00

~~LIN

I2i

yg k

CA L

4~ILJ

424

* d

I ______________________________________5 8_

MR.7

ILL<0A

- - Ll

z-0 C)

Iv L1WO,

wV) ;Z Z

z51.4-1-13d ot2f n -

133

LI0LLI

z

Li OO60

- 40

z ~ '

zloco~ .q

01Io -

eel-

4:, . HL

VozZ~

o-..

fo. LL

w ri

IO 0

041 to7

tieV

z I

- 00

ac fl JL

~5)*j' 4

t fl:Z 0 N L- v--oL

.~~~ . .i - 4 .z

It-

I I ~ z

2.1

-W U

z020I

u* 0

-7.

*zz C\44% : I -$t

t . 't4t

+o

*51

Pii

4v .

-. %

~el ,* *

.

NO N4, lot 2p

*-:~~*-j1

IjR

U S "

I I*1K

t 0000

2i -- 10

Ii 02

~ * LI 166

LI,

k--

a .y

wj I

/ hiM ~ [

0-4iz I

67N

Fit

LiL W

-< 3:pv~JJ- 0-1%~ 1~I{) <~- QLLu I

001.

AAO Lu -<t u _ _ _ _ _ _

-' Won ~ ~~ z

~~\ _N*FY)

sRj

im Z I os 4;kYN~''I~Q

o~. ~68

Ell LU00 1-

- -- +1 +1

K- -i

'cb ; L4

Z) U- to[

N0U z vH

to t-43

cII

I-I

06 -

69 I

IiV *0Z<) w

VI IL

4.L

z

vs U

C, -,( 0-!

-lrw Lh<H ~ -Li VIA2* V) Q 2

-4 I 4

70-

I]

.0+

CLJ

QI. .. + - - !

(% 'A I I'++l':+

o* . ,. 1-..0 1 I' <

+I., , -I s

010

u1..,,:I . Ih JQ.

41• : . .. . !`• ... .-/-- I i,!

•-+ .Ie+ o

0 " " :I

LU Zil

7i

Ldim7].

II

I d ( f l " "

Szz

--4.. *°

'Ic'NN I - 1••, N

' 4 .Z"-3

- I ,• . I. ..2,

•.?.- •.:'-. '- -- " =' . ;- •. ,

,.,- ,• - . . . .. . . ,. = ," .. . -.. , .. - . " • •

IZ3

NJ o: 0

'6< k) 17,

4- Q

I t N

N sHSk

,~ N KxN

10 \- .q\c I Z

N IN

N~ N~

- 0k

ýN~

wzy~w

II

o

v Z INDo

iiN

21

z

744

"R 0

(NZ

*wo

7... LV

wN

LI I:4

CL6z VzK 2Ž

1�

N

iii k-,

•11; LS-' � N

-'3

i�i 6 I-'('� z

K

lal�1

KK)C-'-S

- 0

a. -. � r.�I.r7�

V

aW

XI i4 j [1

OQ \0

Z- -Z.

t2 L4 1>1 1ZNVZ

~~NZ,

t<iz

0

0

6 N

IIN0

1~Ix,

flitl. UNjWK

*0-4L[OW 12 z:

IN.]

NjN

3%.

14NJ

car

e 0 4U. -V*

o'-J I "

w z\

z titsY

00

*L1

3: v)Ts

,"4n,

lbl

I'L)

z

(1z

28

Lq 4

NR

NOO

kim

•I. .-•! ,k c " •L i

NN! ;:x ,

F.--•• w j 3;••<•-' ' .-•,, ",• ., , . , " . ..ol#.;•'f•..,• _

"00 AN

OZ0

S0;

a-A4.

yN

0 NII[1

,�1� U,.4� ,� *r I �

I] ii:

II

Li I'

-�

N

U �Lo�)

A (1

I�I K

( i

�

1

B

0

N? 'V

-B

�80 ZZ�, 0

rJa�

Hz

�:I V

Lq

44 0

zNPROJ XMI L

ILCGO t I H0 1

U.~

VJJ

104S fOwMA

LIri

'2�'�-� t%'-4 A - -

� -� � � - -

-'IK 9.

N P. .. eJ

. , t dw�* III0 [1

. IAl'

4 Fl1�%tQ :.

�%ZNS Fl

. [IICI 'I *13

Ii. Zo U0U 11

. ... U= N) a

- N) �.. -H0. LI

- * z. *0

0 H. *.U Li

�i:� j*u. **��L� .x. .:..* � LI- -- I

--- : �*-.-

j

II* tIN

-

I

so�4JI

1'H �

�I \J

A

II

I.NJ*

I LU

- N -

I

I

NiI1I,�I

II APPENDIX B

I) XM804 PROJECTILE STRESS ANALYSIS

4III

4:1in A

I73II

CHAMBERLAIN MANUFACTURING CORPORATIONRESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

Document No. C8152-ED-001

Issue Date: 29 June 1978• []Revision A: 14 July 1978

STRESS ANALYSIS

I] 155-tM, )01804 TRAINING PROJECTILE

u

LI

DATE REV DATE REV DATE REV

I'_ Prepared by: • •,•••.=.• 7- 14-78 A

Reviewed by: yl-... ,,,.•S H Approved:

LlSTRESS ANALYSIS L

XM804 155 MM Training Round

DRAWING NO. J8152-2 Ii

DATE: 9 May 1978

CONTRACT: DAAKl0-78-C-0072

REPORT: J. Manross uINTRODUCTION:

An analysis was performed to verify that the XM804 "heavy wall" projectile, IJ8152-2, will safely withstand the gun environment associated with a Charge

Zone 5 firing. Because it may some day become desireable to fire this LIprojectile at a higher Charge Zone, the analysis was extended to include

Charge Zone 7 conditions. 1j

The Hencky-Von Mises (maximum distortion energy) theory was used to resolve {Jthe major principal stresses permitting a direct comparison with the material

yield strength to determine if plastic deformation will occur. To be sure

that the applied procedures, assumptions, and theories were reasonable, the stand-

ard M107 H.E. projectile was analyzed at the point where the highest stress con-

dition is predicted in the XM804. I

Based on the analysis, the XM804 design (fabricated from non-heat treated AISI I1340 steel) should withstand a Zone 5 firing with a wide margin of safety. It

appears that the ability of the design to survive a Zone 7 firing would best be

determined by progressive gun firings.

PROCEDURE

Walls

The stress analysis method employed was similar to the methods given in the

Engineering Design Handbook "Design For Projection" of the Ammunition Series,

92

-I..-- ,," I,,.,-- i!

~ ii [

S* A"'

.1 !, ! "•, • ,

.,,d ",c'

-- ~~ I..atoe ,

Bet va9a h Copy*

•3r

v, 9 ~ Ul ~ 2

~ ~ ___ ____ ___ ____ ____ ___ ____ ___Awl_

( .-94

¾

SAM.1AP 706-247 and "Projectile Design Notes" prepared by R.M. Schwartz at

ARRADCOM facilitated the analysis

Gun firing data for the M107 projectile published in U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving

Ground Report No. APG-MT-4503 (AD B000335) was used to establish the loads which

1 Uthe X1.804 projectile would encounter during gun firing tests. The following

tabulation lists the pertinent data necessary to begin the analysis.

CALCULATEDBASE MUZZLE LAND BASE XM804

CFARGE PRESSURE VELOCITY DIA. AREA ACCELERATIONZONE PSI FT./SEC. TWIST IN. IN 2 G's

1 7 34,560 1841 1/20 6.1 29.81 10,855

6 20,230 1519 1/20 6.1 29.81 6,354I 5 13,010 1240 1/20 6.1 29.81 4,086

N The list of symbols on the following page identifies the various symbols

~ used in the stress formulas.

IiStress locations were as follows:

(1) Section at minimum wall thickness of projectile (near ogive). - Location (A)(2) Section plane just forward of the projectile rotating band. - Location (B)

(3) Section plane at aft side (BASE) of rotating band. - Location (C)(4) Section plane through base at bottom of interior cavity. - Location (D)

! L

• • ,•, , _ . • • ~ ~ ~ .......... ................ • •. * • , %, ,, , ,

SiJ

STRESS IN SHELLLIST OF SYMBOLS [1

SYMBOL UNIT2 LS Flexural Stress-Center Lbs./In.

Sc Flexural Stress-Radial Lb2:/In.2S Flexural Stress-Tangential Lbs./In.A Area of bore of gun sq. in.A Area of assumed shear circle in base of shell in.2d Diameter of bore of gun (across lands) in. [d Inside diameter of projectile in. UD Diameter of assumed shear circle in base of shell in.F Maximum force on base of projectile closure lb. I"IG Total Acceleration of Systems G's LIn Twist of Rifling CalibeisNTurnP Base Propellant Pressure Lbs./In.H Depth of filler from nose end of cavity to section LI ,

under consideration in.P h Filler pressure due to setback lb. per sq. in.P0r Filler pressure due to rotation lb. per sq. in.,JR° Inside radius of projectile in.

R° Outside radius of projectile in. 2ST2 , Tangential Stresses (Component) Lbs./In.2

SR., SR2) Radial Stresses (Component) Lbs./In.-T Base Thickness in.S Shear Stress Lbs /In.o Density of Filler Charge Lbs./In. 3

V Muzzle velocity ft. per sec.W Total projectile weight lb.we Weight of metal parts forward of section considered lb.WB Weight of Base Closure

Von Misses Maximum Resultant Stressa Summation of Longitudinal Stress J

S, Summation of Radial StressS2 Summation of Tangential Stress

31LI

The following basic formulas were used to determine the two major dynamic stresses

on an empty '01804 Projectile and the resultant maximum stress was determined by

the Hencky-Von Hises Theory. The major stresses acting on an empty projectile

(without filler) are a longitudinal (axial) compressive stress caused by setback

of the metal parts forward of the stress location and a tangential (hoop) ten-

sile stress caused by rotation of the metal parts (wall) and a tangential compres-

sive stress caused by the base pressure where aDilicable.

S, Longitudinal stress - Setback of metal parts - Compressive

S, W'PAS •V(R - Ro)W

0

SS 3 Sum of tangential stress ST1 + ST2

SSTI Metal Parts rotation - Tensile

S - + 1. 04 (!I_+R7(3 )2

ST2 External pressure (locations aft of rotating band) - Compregsive

S -P 1__T2 2 2

SHencky-Von Mises Yield Function (Resolved Maximum Stress)

S2 2(S-S�)2 + (s 1-S 3 )) + (Sf-S3)SSX -. 2

11 Figure Nos. I through 6 identify the specific locations where the stresses

were determined and the values of the stresses at a particular charge zone.

CID 0% I

0-I4 "4 [1

"44~I0u % u

11 "4

P"4 (a44 "

V W 4 l-'.

,~0

a 4 0 0

"4"989.

HdNI

14

I'd

P. 41 , 440 44

Lo 0 I t

.OP4

41 44i05

V- 44

'.P444 ON

414

0 0 0 0I

99.1 4~

0 0

0a 41 ý

0 40

cvt C1 4 Ch L110104

44 Z1

0 0 xr

04 0 4 OO

to 3 5 .4 004ov go 4kO4 -44 44 4

04 00 5N 1 V r 0 (A0 0 04j 4I-' d

41

100r

4)04

'A

to 014) * 4)

01 0

%0 W4,H

t4 o 4H

U 1 0

N .0Um 0 )N0

4) . 4 4J 4.

-r 4 -' 4 -o0 %-I-

144 0144

0)04

1-4 44 44

02

00

%4 N 4- -140

IA 11

c0 U U904

0 04

0 0 .4%D I

tm 00 41

IIA

04 11

m- rw4 004J

N~ P4~ :30

0 CL a.

0 44 ,4 4 00$4, 0

___ -- ,4~ 00 i"i0 to 0000

r4 0

Aii44I

pi,

00@

Li4. 14) H

0 2 1 V4 @2

00

Q.1 44 P4.10 CL @2 I

0 0'

W 4. 04 .

) HP4 II.1441

41 $H14 $

I4i coH

4. 4 44 44 1.. 4

90 04 4 Hvi 0 too 40

* ~~0020 c

N 0 0

The M107 HE Projectile stresses were analyzed at the same location where the '

stresses on the MQ4804 were determined to be the greatest. This location was

directly behind the rotating band of the XIM804. (Refer to Figure 7.) One addi- .

tional major stress must be determined for the M107, which is caused by the HE

filler in the projectile. This radial stress is cauzed by the HE filler

assumed to be acting as a liquid during acceleration and producing a hydraulic

force on the interior wall of the projectile. The longitudinal stress S 1)

formula remains the same. The tangential stress (S3 ) was expanded to include Ithe additional tangential component caused by the HE filler. Radial stress is

determined as follows[

S uSum of Radial Stress caused by the additive force of filler[32 setback and filler rotation - Compressive

S2 S 1 + SR

hSR filler setback pressure on the projectile side wall (P 0 U .RlSR, P - pHiG

SR2 filler rotation pressure (Pot) Li;SR2 d 2

SR Pr * 1.84 (o ad)

The additional tangential component which must be added to S3 is ST3 therefore LS3 sum of ST1, + ST2S+ ST3

LI

ST3 - Hoop stress from filler pressure - Tensile

~T3 0 0<~ r2)___

Note that ST3 is a beneficial component of the tangential stress. Although the

External pressure tangential component (ST2) is greater than on the XM804, the

positive value of ST3 reduces the overall value of the summation, S Refer

to Figure 7 for the pertinent values of stresses. 1

-vy

043

n F-4403 V

W4 W

Q $4

41 "4 0 4(A 41 H *43

,-% 4)* " N4A3

"4 0 0 to"4 0

md 430

(134 0% 041

"4 41 0 4, 1

0 0 a

4j C4 (d r 4j 4 a P-

~j 0 44 P4 2 (A C$4 I 0 43 44 O

~ 4 40 (A a 41 41C~

0 00 0 (a O

0 %"4O4 0 " 9

kOS 4131 0 04443 3 (A P4

) -9 (A 0~ 41 14J "4 .0 v 4) r

(A (a 43 44 4

.r4"4"0041 P,4 r-4 0 0 0 C 0r4

94 t 0 jW . 4) 000410.44 V4 44 "4 C

V3,. 0~ 1 0 00 CIO:GA41 :3 4 "4 43 43 0 f0 41 0j Ad4 4J E ~ -4 "4E-4

00

IKII

Shear and flexural stresses at che base end of the projectile were determined

as though the location was a cylindrical "plug" rigidly attached to the "wall".

Area (E) on Figure 8 identifies the location and dimensions of the "plug". IStresses were calculated at a gun firing environment of Charge Zone 7.

Shear Stress was determined from the following formula:

SS WAF PA "WG USS S B

Standard "flat plate" formulas assuming rigid support were used to determine

flexural stress at the "edge" of the assumed cylindrical diameter and at the

center, jj

Flexural Stress at "EDGE" flS Flexural Stress Radial 3(PAB - WG)Br (Compressive Stress) r T- 4 v T7

St - Flexural Stress Tangential + F sPA WG

(Tensile Stress) 4T4

Flexural Stress at Center -

At the Center, S a St Sr t Center flexural stressFc PAB-WG I

sc - ,r - --7

:Il

114

to1 1%000

I 144

-41

LI C44 w 41

4w 41

41 4441 H ' 0

u1.4 EP~ coJ 4

V4 4.4 00 A

".4~r 0)+ Z

o k

cd c.)

D04 kV

- 414107

4~mr

0 C*4 NM 0 "

(n 2 - n a% - -%0

~04 I Co on ci 0 0

%0 [1cC4 C4 %0 4

0~ ~ t- ci C4 o c

LLI0% in C4

0 E

N~. RDOU,[

i CONCLUSIONS

The area of greatest stress on the XM804 "heavy wall" design, J8152-2, appears

to exist at the aft side (base) of the rotating band which is 20.235" (mean

dimension) from the nose. Stress calculations were based on the premise that

external propellant pressure would impinge directly on the 5.79" diameter or

1 undercut diameter for the rotating band of the projectile.

i 3At charge Zone 7 the steel in this area could, but not necessarily would,

begin plastic deformation if the material yield point was less than 90,600 PSI.

At Zone 6 the material yield point should be >52,600 PSI and at Zone 5 the

material yield point should be >33,800 PSI to avoid possible plastic deformation.

I At Zone 5 the XM804 projectile, fabricated from AISI 1340 steel (non-heat treated)

with an annealed yield point of approximately 63,000 PSI, should not experience

plastic deformation. A material yield of 63,000 PSI versus a calculated stress

of 33,800 PSI implies a safety factor of almost 2/1 before plastic deformation

i would occur on the XM804 projectile.

It was assumed that the greatest stress of the M107 HE round would also occur

at the aft side of the rotating band since the XM804 design is very similar to

the M107. The M107 Zone 7 stress (Von Mises Function) at this location was

calculated to be 61,000 PSI which correlates very well with a minimum material

yield requirement of 65,000 PSI for the M107 projectile.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The XM804 training projectile should be limited to the maximum stress of Charge

Zone 5 at the present time.IAfter extensive tests at Zone 5 with no evidence of metal parts integrity pro-

blems, incremental testing to achieve a higher charge Zone should be possible.

lpI

I

* �,. �. � ��fZ�%7 � �> � � -

-. KI> -,

zil:1

V

I [Ip '4,-

I- -N--! -'�

IAPPENDIX CI', PROJECTILE

XM804 COST

IIII

L

I ---C<C

II- -A

II I

Li

j3XM804 PRESSURE CASTING COST ESTIMATES

Summarized on the following page are estimated costs of producing a

Soepressure-cast XM804 Projectile as determined by Reynolds Engineering, Inc.,

the originator of the process, and by Chamberlain R&D. Reynolds' original

U• estimates were based on material and equipment costs which were approxi-

mately five years old while Chamberlain's estimates with the aid of

Reynolds Engineering were based on a study conducted during the perfor-

mance of the subject contract (DAAK10-78-C-0072). Chamberlain's estimate

SH is detailed by item number on Pages 112 through 120 and their labor rates

considered in their estimate were for personnel required to operate the

sample production line shown by the layout drawing on Page 121; however,

equipment costs were not considered. It will be noted that a normalizing

furnace was included in this layout assuming a heat-treating requirement.

Li The original cost analysis indicated a cost savings of approximately 2/3

for the pressure-cast shell over the forged shell but this predicted sav-

HJ ing later was revised to a potential 10% to 12% saving based on experience

during the program.

Li The following additional information is included in the remainder of

this Appendix:

Machining Cost Estimate, J8152-4 Casting

U {Scranton Production Cost Estimate, M107

Scranton Production Cost Estimate, XM804

New Bedford Production Cost Estimate, XM804

Lynchburg Foundry Cost Estimate, Sand-Cast M107

ARRADCOM Cost Analysis for Inert Loading

1i

I 110

V"

°( PRODUCTION COST ESTIMATE

XM804 CASTINGJ8152-4

(WITHOUT FINISH MACHINING COSTS)

ORIGINAL REVISED BY

ITEM NO. REYNOLDS ENG. INC. DESCRIPTION CMC R&D DIV.

1. $4.36 Casting Material $8.55

2. $ .53 Core Material $1.40

3. $3.07 Labor &OH $10.20

4. $1.10 Power $3.08

5. $ .45 Other $ .45

6.$ .40 Mold & Core Box $ .75

7. $ .92 Capital Equipment $ .0

8.( $ .50 Misc. (G&A, Takes, Ins. $2.08Etc.)

9. $ .57 Contingency $ .0 [j

10. $ .95 Profit $2.65

$12.85 TOTAL $29.16

LI

LI

- 7 17 7 - , • , ý " " ý I ý e , " ,

PRODUCTION COST ESTIMATE


ITEM NO. 1

II 123.4 Lbs. (Net Casting) x 1.1 (10% Melting Loss) - 135.7 lbs.Proj.

SCRAP:

$99/Ton In Chicago for Structural 2' Lengtl)x. Max.

or 50/Lb.

SHIPPING:

[I 0.7T/Lb. Rail Car from Chicago to Waterloo

1 ADDITIVES:

$12/Ton or 12-- .006 0.6¢/Lb2000

(See Note #1)

STOTAL COST: - 0.05 + .007 + .006 =0.063/Lb.

S135.7 x .063 8.549 or $8.55/troj.

B NOTE: Additive costs from Vulcan Foundry, San Francisco, Calif. - 19 July 1978

ferrous silicon $4k - 6/tonferro-manganese $4.20/toncalcium silicon $1.20/tonaluminum $1.20/ton

TOTAL $11.10-12.60/ton

H UII


ITEM NO..__2

ASSUMPTION: No Reclaim [1

SAND $150/Ton F.O.B. Florida + $30/Ton Shipping

for a Total of $180/ton or 9c/lb.

RESIN $40/Ton or 20/lb.

15.4 lb. Sand + .6 lbs. Resin -16 lb. core

15.4 x .09 - $1.39 for sand

( 0.6 x .02 - $ .01 for Resin

$1.40 L

1I

113 •[kA


XM804 CASTINGS~J8152-4

ITEM NO. 3

1 ASSUMPTIONS: 80 Hr. Vacations

12 Holidays for 96 Hrs.

Sl2080 - 176 - 1904 Hrs/Man Yr.

May 1978 Dollars, Cost of Money and Overheads at R&D

PLANT OPERATION

(EM) SUP 1 x 1904 x 15.13 $28,808

S(PE) FORFMAN 3 x 1904 x 8.47 $48,381

(PM) METALLURGIST 1 x 1904 x 12.42 $23,648

j (SE) LAB TECH 3 x 1904 x 7.62 $43,525

(SHOP) LABOR 31 x 1904 x 7.27 $429,104

"(INSP) INSPECTORS 4 x 1904 x 7.12 $54,226H]

PLANT DIRECT TOTAL $627,692

(Includes Cost of Money) 172% OH $I,079,630

TOTAL $1,707,322

U $1,707,322 $8.54/Proj.200,000 Proj.

PRODUCTION ENGINEERING

PM I x 1904 x 12.42 $23,648

SPE I x 1904 x 10.28 $19,573

PE 1 x 1904 x 8.47 $16,127

SET I x 1904 x 6.62 $12,604

$71,952

5t

L11

PRODUCTION COST ESTIMATEI


ITEM NO. 3 (Continued)

QUALITY CONTROL ENGINEERING

SPE 1 x 1904 x 10.28 $19,573

PE 1 x 1904 x 8.47 $16,127

SE 1 x 1904 x 7.62 $14,508 f$50,208

TOTAL DIRECT ENGINEERING $122,160 LI172% OH $210,115H

TOTAL $332,275

$332,275 $ 6200,000 Proj. $1.661Proj.

TOTAL LABOR: [IPlant Operation $8.54

Engineering $1.66 [1TOTAL $10.20 H

Ai


XM804 CATINGJ8152 -4

ITEM NO. 4

POWER

~fl 30 KW-HR. MELTING FURNACE (24.8 Min. to 38.5 Max.)

Mark's Handbook Data

B ~8.7 KW-HR. HOLDING FURNACE

11 200 K14 x 8736 HIRS.200,000 Proj.

0 NO SAND RECLAIM

jLl _ _ _ _

35.4 KW-HR. NORMALIZING FURNACE

121000 BTU @ Scranton x 2.928 x 1O-U PROJ.

74.1 KW-HR. x 4.157 .Ii KW-HR $3.08

KWiH

i!'• ~ ~PRODUCTION COST ESTIMATE i':


•, -

SAME AS REYNOLDS ENGRG., INC. $ 0.45 '

Cost Item No. 5, Operating Cost, Other ).'

•Relining of melting Furnaces: ($3,600. /Relining)/ (10 tons/ht)(80 hts)(18 Castings/ton) f

- $3,600/14,400 Castings per Lining

-2U•/casting

0 Supplies (Argon Gas, Cutoff Wheels, Abrasive Shot Makeup, etc.) -

S~Estimated at 20i/casting

tI

[1


XM804 CASTINGJ8152 -4

ITEM NO. 6

13 MOLDS.,

$700 Material13 $700 Machining

[I $1400 Current (Maybe)

UHalf Price in Production $700

LI Assume 1000 Castings/Mold

;;9 LI ~ ~~$700- $07/rj1000 07/rj

[1COREBOX: Same as RKR 5,ý

TOTAL =$. 75/Projectile



ITEM NO..8 8i

G&A @8½% L

(SUBTOTAL OF 1 THRU 7) LI

Ll

H

LI


XM804 CASTING

II ITM NO. 1

~I]Profit @10%

III$26.51 x .10 -$2.65

(SUBTOTAL OF 1 THRU 9)

½',~ gv§~ - 4

Fin Scrap alCi,

File-

oldl

TMachi Frnac

2 Each

PrMachbineCao I

Noratzin UMachine

MI is an InspectionStatiQto (M are one To Pr'ojectile

man Lor Stations Machine Line

Labor Stations to -itare not shown u~ are Backcupand cleanup personnel

SAM4PLE PRODUCTION LINE FOR XN804 PRESSURE CASTINGS

9 June 1978

MACHININGHl COST ESTIMATE

XM804 PROJECTILE MANUFACTURED FROM A CASTING, J8152-4

Chamberlain New Bedford Division Chamberlain Scranton Division

11Cost/Round $'June 78C oJA. August 76 M107 Production Cost

1. Casting GFM $42.82/Round

2. Rotating Band 1.93 B. Year 1977 M107 Forging andMaterial Cost = $31,55***.

3. Pallet 1.35 C. $42.82 - 31.55 = $11.274. Labor 1.40* Machining Cost Only

5. Burden at 200% 2.80 D. M107 TP Quote = $53.07 at6. Tooling and Startup 1.58,* 17,000 Each/Morith (1978 Price)7. G&A at 87. .72 E. $53.07 4 $42.82 - 1.239Escalation Factor (Aug 76 to Jun 78'

,4 8. Profit at 10% .98 F. $11.27 x 1.239 $13.97

9. Total Cost 10.76 G. Total Cost $13.9T/Round

Premise: Premise:

10. FOB at Division Same as New Bedford.

11.. Government-furnished grommets andlifting plug.

12. No heat treat of projectile.

13. Production rate of 200,000 each/I year/5 years

* Current estimate based on 180 *** The $31.55 includes the costI rounds at New Bedford for of heat treatment.

machining of round.

** (Too'ling at 2.25 + Startup at 5.67)(First 200,000 Rounds)1,000,000 Rounds

Li

(L

26 June 1978 I I,

CHAMBERLAIN SCRANTON DIVISION PRODUCTION COST ESTIMATE

STANDARD Mlo7 MODIFIED FOR TRAINING (INERT)

1. AISI 1046 steel.

2. Heat treated to 65,000 psi.

3. Same interior cavity (may use M107 rejects also).

4. Phosphate coated and pal-ited (red oxide on inside).

5. No base cover and without .nert fill.

6. Ballistic lot samples: 20 rounds/20,000 each ($0.045/round less ifsamples not wanted).

( 7. Government- furnished grommets and lifting plug. -

8. Covernment-furnished utilities (would be $4/round more if utilitieswere required).

9. FOB Scranton.

10. Premise: Training round must duplicate most of the M107 featuresbecause of possibility of mix-up with standard I107 HE on production Lllines.

11. Concurrent production of 50,000 each standard M107/month.

12. Price: $53.07 each at 17,000 each/month (204,000/year).$46.86 each at 20,000 to 22,000 each/month (most economical L

rate) (264,000/year).

+ 7 ./.QC7a r IL

123

26 June 1978

CHAMBERLAIN SCRANTON DIVISION PRODUCTION COST ESTIMATE

IFAVY WALL XM804, J8152-3

1. SAE 1064 or 1044 steel.

2. No heat treat... "

3. Cavity standard's loose.

4. Interior phosphatized but not painted.

5. INo base cover.

"6. Bllistic lot sample: 20 rounds/20,000 each ($0.045/round less if

samples not required).

7. Government-furnished grommets and lifting plugs.

(I8 . Covernment- furnished utilities ($4/round additional if utilities aredi req~uired).

H 9. Non-recurrina cost: $53,000 Tooling (Not included in

U27,000 Setup and Start prices)

$80,000 Total

L Note: $0.08/round/l,,000,000 rounds.

1 0. FOB Scranton.

11. Concurrent production with M107 (50,000/month).

S12. Price: $51.67 each at 17,000 each/month (204,000/year).$46.59 each at 20,000 to 22,000 each/month (Most Economical

Rate) (264,000/year)

Note: Training rounds to be produced on second shift only.

SPRIC .. Fo O 1,000o/000 Ab ...

i.•7 . - 04 0 8 rOOLI,., d sr.,,'r-"= 4.4'75/,Ac-- 1K/,toi.r'/

124

26 June 1978

CHAMBERLAIN NE14 BEDFORD DIVISION PRODUCTION COST ESTIMATE

HEAVY WALL XM804, J8152- 3

Cost Per Round: L

1. Body Fabrication $24.80 (1046 steel)

2. Rotating Band 1.*93

* 3. Pallet,. 1.35

4. Labor 2.00p

5. Burden 4.04

6. Tooling *2.25 (First 200,000 rounds only)jý

7. Startup *5.67 (First 200)000 rounds only)

8. G&A 3.36 -

9. Profit 4.54 L10. Total Cost $49.94 (at 25,000 each/month)

11. FOB New Bedford .L

12. Utilities included in prtce.

13. Government-furnished grommets and lifting plug.

14. Concurrent production with M1483 round (30;,000 each/month).

t') li- (.±5~')+ 1,59g4=$43-4 60 iL/A ~

NO 160 PAT

CASToNOS SALI.9 a,.IcCS DRAWER 411 PLNTS

CETROIT LYNCHBURG, VIRGINIA 24505 LYNCHBURO, VIRGINIX4

NE) W YORK 804/847-1900 'ARCHER CREEK. VIRGIN,"

RADFOR, VIRGINIA

April 14, 1977

SIn reply please referto our quotation

No. AC-53-77-L

SChamberlain M.S~. Corp.Pzsearch & Development Div.East 4th & Ester Sts.Waterloo, Iowa 50705 ..

Attention: Mr. Dennis D. Kaisand

H Gentlemen: In reply to your inquiry .••t.•, we are pleased to submit the following prices:

Drawing- No. Description Weight Minimum Lot Size. Price

K107 Practice Round 100# $36.00 ea.Per Sketch (400M/Yr. &1/Wk)

fl Require two (2) cast iron patterns mounted, gated, and ri-Sedon 24" x 32" cast iron plates with the following core equipment:

1 - 4-gang cast iron isocure core box.

U Price based on making with a 27 cored hole on the' blind end.

"Count: We will commit to a maximum of 5,000 tons per year at this time, until[I have produced this casting and evaluated our actual experiences. Any tonnagecocoitment over this would be at our option, at time of consideration.

Require 1/8" funish plus draft. - 1/16" general casting tolerances.

Samples in approximately 6 weeks after receiptTerms: See Reverse Side Projected Delivery of purchase order & drmaings (experimental pattern).F.O.B. Shipping Point Price Covers: Unmachined Castings (unless otherwise specified)

Please note the Terms and Conditions on the reverse side, and any addendum pages attached, which are a part of thisquotation.

continued.....,* Very truly yours,

LYNCHBURG FOUNDRY

CA. L. Perkins L

Chamberlain Mfg. Corp. Quotation No. AC-53-77-LWierloo, Iowa 5070Y April 14, 1977

Iron Specs Ductile Iron 60-40-18 with 143-187 BHN. Beat treat included.

tiWe have not secured pattern prices at this time, however, we will be glad to secure&=A, in the event you are ititerested in placing orders Vith..u,.

Our quoted prices are based on a steel scrap base of $85.00 per ton with a plus orminus $10.00 per ton adjustment factor before any surcharging woufd be implmented.

(The actual surcharging will be only that part that Is above or below the $10.00. [LYN~CHBURG FOUNDRY

ilF

* [1

I I

¶ i.

mOST ANALYStS FOR tNERT-LOADINGOF STANDARD 155-bt, MIN PROJECT1UEm (HY'DRO-CAL)

Estimated cost for iWert-loadiui machinaery is $82,000,00 withmachinery to be comipletely depreciated itt five (5) years.

M\TERIAL (INERT COMPOS IT tON)

14,6 + 101 losses - 16.061bs. 0 .06215/lb. '- $.998

DIRECT MANUFACTURING LABOR

1, Transfer pasined shell from productht conveyor to loadt gmachiiie, remove liftitig eye.

S 2. Operator to ~ot~ittor all loading cyle.,

3, Lubricate thread, add lifting eye and tratisfer shell, toproductioti conveyor,

4. Inert compositioti mixer.

5, Material hatidler-relief man.

6. Quality-hispectort

Six unskilled operators will be required to load 125 shellsper hour,

6 operators 0 $7.00/11r. - 42.00 125 sheolls. .34

Manufacturing overhead 0 200TO .68

Material-Compos it Woi 1,00I 2.02

Getieral administrative costs 5% ,I0l 2.12

Profit 12% .25

Total cost $2.37

COSTS COM•ARISON-CURRENT vs. PROPOSED SYSTU,

Current inert-loadhig 200,000 Shells 0 $24.00 $4,800,000.00

Proposed inert-Loading 200,000 Shells 0 2.37 474,000.00

Savings $4,326,000. 00

Collateral saviugs resulttig by eli0m1 ating double handling withdamago and added trabusportatioi uot inluded W thi aualysis,• •As provided to ChamberlaW• by ARRAD)COM

i

I FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT DISTRIBUTION

I CONTRACT DAAK10-78-C-0072

Copy No.

CommanderU.S. Army Armament Research & Development Command (ARRADCOM)Dover, New Jersey 07801

SATTENTION: Large Caliber Weapons SystemLaboratory DRDAR-LCU-T 1 & 2

Product Assurance DirectorateDRDAR-QAR 3& 4

Management Information Systems DirectorateDRDAR-MSG-T 5 through 9

Commanding OfficerU.S. Army Material Readiness Command5001 Eisenhower AvenueAlexandria, Virginia 22333

ATTENTION: DRCRD-WC 10

Defense Documentation CenterCameron StationAlexandria, Virginia 22314 11 through 22

Defense Contracts Administration Services OfficeSuite 1400, 200 First Avenue, S.E.Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401

ATTENTION: Mr. R. S. Figge, ACO 23 & 24

Chamberlain Manufacturing Corporation 25 & 26

1 129

$UPPLEMENTAF

IM

3'4

p

SI NFORM AIION


CONTRACT DAAKlO-78-C-0072 FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.1 On 9 February 1978 Chamberlain was awarded the subject contract todesign and develop a 155-mm Training Projectile, XM804, which would be 40%to 50% more economical to manufacture than the 155-mm, M107 HE Projectileand still meet the following requirements:

* Have the same exterior configuration as the M107 Projectile.

9 Match the M107 Projectile ballistically.

* Withstand the Charge, Zone 5 gun ti2ing environment.

1.2 An estimated quantity of more than 200,000 each inert M107 Projec-tiles per year is needed to train and maintain the proficiency of fieldartillery crews. The expense of using the standard HE M107 round for this

Ie purpose might restrict adequate training. The development of an inexpen-sive inert facsimile of the M107 round which had ballistic similitudewould assure the maintenance of fully trained artillery crews.

1.3 This initial phase of the program included estimates of initialcasting facility costs and rationale plus full scale forged and castunit production cost and rationale based on quantities of 200,000 unitsper year for five years.

K

Fr. . .


CONTRACT DAAKl0-78-C-0072 FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT

2. CONCLUSIONS

2.1 The objectives of the subject contract were met or exceeded by theaccomplishment of the following work:

* A design was developed for the forged 155-mm, XM804 "Heavy-Wall,"Empty, Projectile. NOTE: The "heavy wall" design simulates the

HE loaded projectile by utilizing a hea-ier steel wall to replace

the HE.

* Because post-heat treatment is not required to obtain the re-quired physicals, the XM804 heavy-wall projectile can be fabri-cated from AISI C1340 steel at lower cost than from theoriginally specified AISI C1046 steel.

* Dynamic firing of 155-mm, XM804 Projectiles and standard 155-mm,1M107 Projectiles showed that the XM804 round had the requiredballistic similitude.

* Metal Parts Security Tests showed that the XM804 Projectile"would withstand the environment imposed by firing at Charge,

Zone 7. (Charge, Zone 5 would be the normal maximum chargefor training purposes.)

* Production cost estimates showed that the forged training roundrepresents a 41% savings in manufacturing costs.

* The results of dynamic firings indicated that the inert "Hydro-Cal" load may be a substitute for the inert wax load in the

standard 155-mm, M107 Projectile.

* A method for manufacturing the XM804 Projectile by pressure

casting was demonstrated and appears feasible; however,

extensive development of the process would be required for

finalization of the manufacturing techniques involved.


CONTRACT DAAKIO-78-C-0072 FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT

3. RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 The follewing recommendations were based on the results of workaccoV.?lished during the performance of the subject contract.

. It is recommended that the forged 155-mm, XM804 "heavy-wall"projectile be type classified and placed in the inventory assoon as possible.

. It is recommended that the three cast XM804's now at Yuma ProvingGround be gun fired as soon as possible to verify their struc-tural integrity.

e Dynamic firings at Charge, Zone 7 should be conducted on the"Hydro-Cal" loaded MJ.07 Projectile to prove the suitabilityof this load.

A~

"CHAMBERLAIN MANUFACTURING CORPORATION

DAAKIO-78-C-0072 FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT

4. DESIGN APPROACHES

4.1 The program was initiated with cost studies for the purposp of select-ing one forged projectile concept and one cast projectile concept whichwere to be developed upon Government approval. The following types ofbody designs were investigated:

* A forged body with "heavy" walls

o An inert-filled M107 shell (forged type)

o A pressure-cast shell

* A sand-cast shell.

Of these four apprcaches, the sand casting approach was eliminated earlyin the program based on preliminary studies which indicated that it wouldnot be cost effective. The estimated cost of the rough casting, itself,was considerably higher than the estimated cost of the forging. The sandcast version of the pro'ictile could be completed only as a two-piece

assembly which would have generated additional coscs and poential pro-

duction problems.

4.2 The standard M107 Projectiles currently are made from AISI C1046heat treated steel; however, AISI C1064 heat treated steel is specifiedas an alternate material and is available at lower cost. Therefore, the

cheaper alternate 1064 steel was considered in the XM804 cost eztimates.

Because a porosity seal was not required for inert rounds, the Base Cover(Ordnance Drawing No. 10535928) was omitted from the XM804 and inspectionof the inside cavity for pits and subsequent reclaim operations were

eliminated. In addition, the loading nose plug (lifting eye) wasomitted and ttu nose threads were to be protected by a thin plastic

plug cover.

4.3 The following design parameters were established for both the castand the forged XM804 Projectile:

* Weight: 94.7 lbs. ± 1.3 lbs. (Weight Zones 4 and 5)

o Center of Gravity: 9.36 inches from base

* Moments of Inertia: Polar - 499.2 lbs.-in. 2

Transverse - 4,311 lbs.-in. 2

The nose fuze was included in all of the above calculations.

Documents

tb. - Defense Technical Information · PDF filetb. I• Dennis D. Kaisand Jerry M. Manross Chamberlain Manufacturing Corporation East 4th and Esther Streets ... Projectile Testing