ECL® Propellant Demonstration

Consolidation of 105 mm Artillery M67/M200

into Single Charge System
Benefits for the Warfigther
Kelly Moran (ATK)
Nguyen Tran (ARDEC)
Dominik Antenen, Peter Zoss, Kurt Ryf (Nitrochemie)

NDIA Conference
44th Annual Gun & Missile System Conference
Kansas City, 8th April 2009

“Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited”

1
Main Goals of Improvement Program

ƒ Replace current charge system M67 (7 zones) and M200 (standalone long
range)
ƒ Create compact charge system with 5 – 6 zones with sufficient overlap
capacity
ƒ Facilitate handling for operation, improve reliability and shelf live for
operation in complex terrain under extreme loads
ƒ Optimize life cycle cost

U.S. Army photo/1st Lt. Jonathan J. Springer U.S. Army photo/1st Lt. Jonathan J. Springer

2
Current Situation – M67 and M200

M 67 M 200

Gun Goal
Goal Gun
■ M119A2 ■ M119A2
Zone 7
Propellant Propellant
■ M1 ■ M30
(DNT, DBP, Zone 6 (NG, NQN)
DPA)
Zone 5 Range
Logistic
Logistic Topchg
Range advantage ■ 14 km
advantage
■ 11,5 km Zone 4
Higherstow
Higher stow
capacity
capacity
Zone 3

Loweroverall
Lower overall
Zone 2
cost
cost
Zone 1

3
Single Charge System with 6 Zones

M 67 M 200
Conception
Conception
Gun Gun
■ M119A2 ■ M119A2
Zone 7
Propellant Propellant
■ M1 ■ M30
(DNT, DBP, Zone 6 (NG, NQN)
DPA)
Zone 5 Range
Topchg
Range ■ 14 km
■ 11,5 km Zone 4

Zone 3

Zone 2

Zone 1

4
 Nitrochemie’s Proposed 6 Zone Design Solution

El 1244A%o

El. 800A%o
Range max
Range min
General overlap situation in complex Terrain

+500m

+200m good
good
overlap
Relief Level

overlap
>10%
>10% 633m/s HORIZON
493m/s
350m/s
±0m 285m/s
240m/s
205m/s

-200m very
verygood
good
overlap
overlap
>>
>>10%
10%

-500m

5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Range [km]
ECL® - Advanced Charge System Concept

General Benefits over NG containing Propellants

Chemical
ChemicalCompatibility No
Compatibility NoMigration
Migrationof
ofNG
NG
Æ
Æbag
bagmaterials Æ
materials Æsafety
safety
Æ
Æigniter
ignitermaterials
materials Æ igniter
Æ igniter
Æ
Ævarnishes Æ
varnishes Æbags,
bags,containers
containers

p e r t ie s
IM Pro ssions!
L i fe a nd o m mi
f d
Shel al for free
s s enti
=e

Improved No
NoDiffusion
Diffusionof
ofDeterrents
Deterrents
ImprovedIM
IMProperties
Properties Æ
Æ Æconsistency
consistencyininballistic
ballistic
Æexternal
externalmechanical
mechanical performance
impacts performance
impacts Æ
Æ Æ no
nodetoriation
detoriationof
ofaccuracy
accuracy
Æcook-off
cook-offresistance
resistance
6
Improvement of Charge Compactness

Donut Bags Improve Loading and Handling of

Propellant Charges

Currentbag
Current bagdesign
design(M67
(M67and
andM200)
M200) Proposeddesign
Proposed designforforsingle
singleintegrated
integrated
chargesystem
charge system(XM350)
(XM350)includes
includesdonut-
donut-
poorloading
loadingcapacity
capacityof
ofM67
M67 stylebags
style bagsofof33different
differentsizes
sizesproviding:
providing:
poor
ƒƒoptimal
optimalloading
loadingcapacity!
capacity!
ƒƒeasy
easyhandling
handlingforfortroops
troops
7
The Propellant Charge Combination

Tailored ECL® Propellant Design for 6 Zone Concept

Generic Propellant
Formulation Incr Incr Low temperature
6 6 response

ECL®-Propellant Low pressure budget

Incr Incr
5 5 BOP limits
Coating Technology
= layered structure

Incr Incr Progressive shell

4 4 acceleration
ECL®-Propellant
Incr 3 Incr 3 Complete burning

Incr 2 Incr 2
Incr Incr
High burn rate
ECL®-Propellant no residues
1 1

8
Demonstration Firing (Yuma June 2008)

Results of Velocity Measurements

Temperature plot V0 Goals @ 70F

700.0
Zone 1 199m/s
600.0
Muzzle velocity in m/s

500.0 Zone 2 238m/s

400.0
Zone 3 285m/s
300.0
Zone 4 350m/s
200.0

100.0 Zone 5 501m/s

0.0 Zone 6 652m/s
-60 -20 20 60 100 140
Temperature in F Zone 6
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Limit nominal (MIL) 633m/s

Achieved: 634.5m/s @ Zone 6 and +21°C Velocities close to

Not fired: Intermediate Zone 3 targeted ranges
9
Demonstration Firing (Yuma June 2008)

Results of Pressure Measurements (Piezo)

Temperature Plot Pmax Pressure limit
4500
57500psi
4000
Breech pressure in bar

3500 3965bar
3000
2500
2000
1500
Pressure
1000
500
requirements
0 achievable by
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
correction of
Temperature in °C
propellant
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Limit
design (known
and reliable
Pressure at hot close to permissible limit!
ƒ Correction of temperature response for high zone! measures)
ƒ Modelling of propellant design (coating parameters)
ƒ Optimization of pressure budget (headroom in charge weight)
10
Demonstration Firing (Yuma June 2008)

Summary and Conclusions

ƒ 6 Zone conception with propellant design based on same generic
formulation (3 different grain types of ECL®)
ƒ Required and targeted velocities for individual charge increments
fulfilled
Æ Range and overlap requirements
ƒ Pressure budget for highest zone at hot (145°F) close to operational
pressure limit
Æ Temperature response of higher charge zones to optimize
(adaptation of burn rate profile)
ƒ Consistent pressure – time curves (no signs of pressure waves = safe
for firing at any condition)
ƒ Headroom for propellant charge for optimization of pressure budget

FinalRequirement
Final Requirementachievable
achievablewith
withslight
slightmodifications!
modifications!

11
Theoretical Assessments to Barrel Erosion

Two Major Influences on Barrel Wear

ƒ Barrel wear due to Thermal Erosion

ƒ Barrel wear due to Chemical Erosion

Thermal erosion Chemical erosion

Theoretical Assessments to Barrel Erosion

Comparison ECL Charge Design vs fielded Design

(results from YPG firing test June 2008)
M67 Zone 7
M1 propellant (flame temperature 2575K)
- Velocity 503.3m/s
- Pressure 39275psi

M200 (stand alone charge)

M30 propellant (flame temperature 3070K)
- Velocity 651.5m/s
- Pressure 46081psi

ECL (Zones 5 and 6)

ECL propellant (flame temperature 2850K)
- Velocity zone 5 509.6m/s
- Velocity zone 6 634.5m/s
- Pressure zone 5 28698psi
- Pressure zone 6 50812psi
Theoretical Assessments to Barrel Erosion

Calculation of Erosion (thermo-mechanical approach)

Semi-empirical formula
Erosion ∼∼ (m
Erosion
1.5 · (T )77 · (v )1.4
(mc))1.5 · (T ex) · (v )
0
1.4 · (p
· (p max))55 based on experience and
c ex 0 max
measured values
mc = Charge Mass
Tex = Flame Temperature
v0 = Muzzle Velocity
pmax = Peak Pressure

Barrelerosion
Barrel erosionhas
hasbeen
beenmeasured
measuredthrough
throughlifelife
assessmentand
assessment andproof
proofin
intank
tankand
andartillery
artilleryguns.
guns.

Measurementsin
Measurements inplain
plainsteel
steelbarrels
barrelswith
with
mechanicalmeasurement
mechanical measurementand andthin
thinlayer
layermethod
method
(activatedsteel).
(activated steel).
Theoretical Assessments to Barrel Erosion

Barrel Life Estimation Assessments

(Different comparisons)
Semi-empirical formula
shows the main drivers for
Erosion ∼∼ (m
Erosion
1.5 · (T )77 · (v )1.4
(mc))1.5 · (T ex) · (v )
0
1.4 · (p
· (p max))55 barrel erosion are flame
c ex 0 max
temperature and pressure
level

M200 vs ECL zone 6

Theoretical; only flame temperature changes - 41% less erosion
M200 vs ECL zone 6
Practical; ECL not optimized; YPG results - 7% less erosion
M67 zone 7 vs ECL zone 5
Practical; ECL not optimized; YPG results - 62% less erosion

M200 still slightly more erosive compared to ECL® Zone 6!

M67 Zone 7 significantly more erosive compared to ECL® Zone 5!

Theoretical Assessments to Barrel Erosion

Calculation of erosion
(thermo-chemical approach: Lawton)

Erosion==AA exp
exp(Tmax
(Tmax//Bo)
Bo) Theoretical approach with
Erosion respecting gas composition

ƒ A: Propellant erosion coefficient (depends on propellant gas

composition)
ƒ Bo: Hardness coefficient (105 for typical gun steel)
ƒ Tmax: Maximum bore temperature during firing (assumption 80% of flame
temperature)

ƒ A = exp(0.23f(CO2) + 0.27f(CO) + 0.28f(H2O) + 0.74f(H2) + 0.16f(N2) +

1.55f(R) – 31.36)

ƒ f: The volume fraction of each species in percent

ƒ f(R): Represents the dissociated products

Hydrogen as main cause for erosion (steel attack)

Theoretical Assessments to Barrel Erosion

Conclusions
ƒ Thermal Erosion and Chemical Erosion
have different aspects which have to be
observed separately!
ƒ Erosion calculated by thermo-mechanical
approach shows good-natured behaviour of
ECL propellant!
ƒ Erosion compared to M67 charge (M1
propellant) expected to be significantly
lower (pressure difference)
ƒ Erosion compared to M30 (stand alone
charge) at least comparable or slightly
better for ECL propellant (lower flame
temperature)!
ƒ The thermo-chemical approach by Lawton
results in comparable erosion due to
comparable Hydrogen contents (for same
pressure)!
Theoretical and Practical Simulation

Modelling of Propellant Design

Methodology for Simulation of Ballistic Data

Thermodynamic Gun Simulation

Data • 38mm firing tests
• Code

Burn Rate Date Data Analysis

• Closed vessel • Gun system Æ
• Pressure-time history simulation

Simulation of closed Result

vessel • Correlation factors
• Burn Rate Coefficient for V / P
• Coating Effects Temperatures

IB - Code Correlation Reliable prediction

• System data • Model Adaptation • Propellant design
• Prediction of ballistic modelling
performance data
Follow-on Work

Adaptation of Propellant Design

Analysis of firing results (2009)

Reproduction in larger quantities

US Qualification ?

19
Acknowledgments

ƒ ARDEC for supporting ECL technology for this program

ƒ Nguyen Tran from ARDEC for leading this project

ƒ Peter Zoss and Kurt Ryf from Nitrochemie as co-workers from Nitrochemie

ƒ Kelly Moran, Duncan Langlois and Steven Ritchie from ATK as our
strategic partner

Point of contact: kurt.ryf@nitrochemie.com

THANKS!
20