AD

AD-E403 025

Technical Report ARAEW-TR-04009

MODULAR ARTILLERY CHARGE SYSTEM (MACS) COMPATIBILITY

WITH THE 155-mm M114 TOWED HOWITZER

William Zepp
Richard Cirincione

20041025 004
October 2004

ARMAMENT RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND ENGINEERING CENTER

(BENET LABS)

Armaments Engineering & Technology Center

Picatinny, New Jersey

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

BEST AVAILABLE COPY

The views, opinions, and/or findings contained in this
report are those of the author{s) and should not be
construed as an official Department of the Army posi-
tion, policy, or decision, unless so designated by other
documentation.

The citation in this report of the names of commercial

firms or commercially available products or services does
not constitute official endorsement by or approval of
the U.S. Government.

Destroy this report when no longer needed by any method

that will prevent disclosure of its contents or reconstruction
of the document. Do not return to the originator.
 REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved
0MB No. 0704-01-0188
The public reporting burden for this colieotion of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, inciuding the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of infomiation, including suggestions for reducing the burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services Directorate for Information Operations and Reports
(0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Ariington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be
subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a cun-ently valid 0MB control number.
PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED {From - To)

October 2004
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

MODULAR ARTILLERY CHARGE SYSTEM (MACS) 5b. GRANT NUMBER

COMPATIBILITY WITH THE M114 155-mm TOWED HOWITZER
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHORS 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

William Zepp and Ricliard Cirincione 5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

ARDEC, ASIC (Benet Labs) REPORT NUMBER
Weapons Systems and Technology (AMSRD-AAR-AEW-S)
Picatinny, NJ 07806-5000

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

ARDEC, EM
Technical Research Center (AMSRD-AAR-EMK) 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT
NUMBER(S)
Picatinny, NJ 07806-5000
Technical Report ARAEW-TR-04009
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

The M114 155-mm towed howitzer has been obsolete and purged from the U.S. Army inventory, but is still
in use at Yuma Proving Ground for test purposes. The Modular Artillery Charge System (MACS) replaces the
bag M3 and M4 charges, which are being exhausted in the Army inventory. The MACS was not developed to
be compatible with the Ml 14 howitzer and was not tested. To support continued operations at the proving
ground after the M3 and M4 charge stocks are no longer available, compatibility of MACS wit the Ml 14
howitzer was evaluated. This report documents the analytical phase of the evaluation, to be followed by a
future text phase verifying the analytical evaluations prior to use by the proving ground.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

M114 MACS Propelling charge

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBE PERSON
ABSTRACT OF W. Zepp/R. Cirincione
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT 0. THIS PAGE PAGES 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area
U U U SAR 20 code) (973) 724-7076/7091
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. 739.18
 CONTENTS

Page

Introduction 1

Modeling 1

Interior Ballistic Modeling 1

M6 Recoil Mechanism Modeling 2

Conclusions 13

Recommendations 13

Safety of Use 13
Verification Test Outline 13

Distribution List 15

FIGURES

1 Report M4 simulation versus IBHVG2 simulation 4

2 Simulated recoil brake force, 0 deg QE, Report M4 versus IBHVG2 simulation 4

3 Simulated recoil brake force, 63 deg OE, Report M4 versus IBHVG2 simulation 5

4 Simulated recoil brake force, 0 deg QE, Report M4 versus adjusted IBHVG2 5
simulation

5 Simulated recoil brake force, 63 deg QE, Report M4 versus adjusted IBHVG2 6
simulation

6 Simulated recoil displacement summary, report and IBHVG2 M4 simulations 6

7 Breech force curves for MACS candidates 7

8 Simulated recoil displacement, MACS C1 option 7

9 Simulated recoil displacement, MACS C2 option 8

10 Simulated recoil displacement, MACS C3 option 8

11 Simulated recoil brake force, MACS C3 versus Report M4 9

12 Simulated recoil displacement, MACS C3Mx option 10

 FIGURES
(continued)
Page

13 Simulated recoil brake force, MACS C3Mx versus Report M4 10

14 Summary simulation recoil displacement for options - 0 deg QE 11

15 Summary simulation recoil displacement for options - 63 deg QE 11

16 Summary simulation recoil brake force for options - 0 deg QE 12

17 Summary simulation recoil brake force for options - 63 deg QE 12

 INTRODUCTION

The U.S Army counter-battery radar, AN/TPQ-36 and -37 FIREFINDER, was evaluated by
testing that uses 155-nnm M114 towed howitzers, firing specific IVI3 and l\/I4 propelling charge
zones, in scenarios varying from single weapon firings up to weapons fired simultaneously so
that as many as 10 projectiles are in the air and radar field of view at the same time. The
continental United States (CONUS) stocks of these charges will expire this fiscal year, FY04
and early FY05. The replacement for the M3 and M4 charges for the current 155-mm artillery
are the M231 and M232 Modular Artillery Charge System (MACS) increments. The MACS
increments have been Type Classified Standard and support the current active 155-mm artillery
systems (including the M198 towed, the M777 lightweight towed, and the M109A5 and M109A6
"Paladin" self-propelled). The M114 howitzer was designated obsolete for the U.S Army
inventory and MACS was not intended or evaluated to support that system.

To support continuance of FIREFINDER evaluation at proving grounds and the future

replacement radar (AN/TPQ-47 FIREFINDER under development), an evaluation to qualify the
use of MACS in the M114 howitzer in the proving ground environment was requested by the
Yuma Proving Ground Test Director. This evaluation was to consist of two parts. Part I was an
analytical evaluation of the M114 howitzer firing the MACS, the results being documented in this
technical report. Part II was to be a live fire verification of the results of part I, to be performed
at a later date, but prior to any usage of the MACS/M114 combination.

MODELING

The modeling effort consisted of two phases: First was the interior ballistic modeling to
generate predicted breech pressure versus time table and projectile velocity for each candidate
MACS combinations. This data was then used to generate the breech force curve that is the
primary input to the recoil mechanism model. Second was the recoil mechanism modeling of
the M6 recoil mechanism used on the Ml 14 howitzer to simulate its response to the breech
force curves generated from the interior ballistic modeling.

Interior Ballistic Modeling

The M4 "white bag" as well as the MACS M231 and M232 were modeled using the Interior
Ballistics of High Velocity Guns, version 2 (IBHVG2), a lumped-parameter interior ballistic
computer code. IBHVG2 is used primarily for calculating such properties as projectile velocity
and chamber pressure as a function of time. IBHVG2 compiles the data provided by input
decks that contain the basic information relating to the cannon, the projectile, the primer, and
the propelling charge. Specific input decks were generated for the M4 and MACS across all
155-mm weapons that they were intended to be fielded with; howeyer, MACS was only intended
to be fielded with weapons that are 39-caliber and larger (there were no plans to field or test
MACS in the Ml 14 howitzer). Therefore, a new set of input decks were required for MACS in
the Ml 14 in support of this effort. These were based upon the fairly robust decks that existed
for MACS as well as a comparison of firing data of the M4 and MACS in various weapon
systems.
 The M231 contains a fast-burning low-energy propellent similar to those contained in the
M3 "green-bag" and the M4 "white-bag." The M231 is fired either singly (charge-1) or in pairs
(charge-2) to engage short-range targets. From a muzzle velocity standpoint, M231 charge-1 is
equivalent to M3 or M4 charge-4, while M231 charge-2 is equivalent to M4 charge-6. The M232
contains a slow-burning high-energy propellant similar to that contained in the M203 "red-bag."
The M232 is fired in groups of three or more increments from charge-3 (three M232s) to charge-
5 (five M232S) to engage intermediate-range and long-range targets. The M114 howitzer would
be limited to charge-3, and from a muzzle velocity standpoint, M232 charge-3 is equivalent to
M4 charge-7.
A total of six IBHVG2 simulations were used. Report M4 was taken from a Technical
Note* from the interior ballistic work sheets used at the time. IB M4 was a simulation of the M4
charge-7 at 145°F to gauge the validity of the model's response to the IBHVG2 simulations by
comparison with the Report M4 simulation and results. MACS C1 corresponds to M231 charge-
1, MACS C2 corresponds to M231 charge-2, and MACS C3 corresponds to M232 charge-3.
One additional MACS simulation was performed because the slow-burning M232 at charge-3
exceeded weapon limitations discussed later in this report. MACS C3Mx corresponds to a
mixed charge-3 where one of the M232 increments was replaced by a fast-burning M231
increment (placed forward of the charge-stack towards the projectile) ~ please note that this
was not an approved combination for existing fielded 155-mm artillery weapons, it was only
recommended for remote firings from the M114 howitzer at proving grounds. The muzzle
velocity calculated by the simulated charge configurations are provided in table 1.

Table 1
Modeled charge muzzle velocity

Charge Simulation muzzle velocity (m/s)

Report M4 564
IBM4 561
MACS C1 301
MACS C2 450
MACS C3 547
MACS C3Mx 544

M6 Recoil Mechanism Modeling

Model Verification
The mathematical model of the M6 recoil mechanism presented in the technical
note was converted into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The simulation of the M6 recoil
mechanism was of the lumped parameter type using constant discharge coefficients for recoil
brake hydraulic flows and discounting gross weapon displacements or flexures. To verify the
spreadsheet based model to the original modeling, the breech force curve provided in the
technical note was used for both models and the simulated responses compared. The results
are provided in table 2.

*"Calculations of Resisting Constants for 155mm Howitzer, M6," Technical Note Report 28-63,
Research & Engineering Division, Rock Island Arsenal, Rock Island, Illinois, September 1963.
 Table 2
Model results - technical note versus spreadsheet

0 deg quadrant elevation (QE) 63 deg QE

Recoil velocity Recoil displacement Recoil velocity Recoil displacement
(ft/s) (in.) (ft/s) (in.)

Tech note 49.6 56.0 48.3 40.2

Spreadsheet 49.9 55.0 48.4 38.6

Seven charge configurations were simulated by interior ballistic modeling techniques. IB

M4 Adj. was a modification to the IB M4 simulation to adjust the breech pressure during the in-
bore period scaled to match the 70°F peak chamber pressure by applying the ratio of the two
peak pressures. This was done to avoid performing another simulation run. For all of the
simulated breech force curves evaluated, the weapon impulse was calculated. The results are
provided in table 3.

Table 3
Modeled breech force generated weapon impulse

Charge Weapon impulse (Ibf- sec)

Report M4 7376.2
IBM4 7484.8
IB M4 Adj. 7023.5
MACS C1 3227.6
MACS C2 5393.1
MACS C3 8040.4
MACS C3Mx 6954.2

To evaluate the difference in the interior ballistic modeling approach of that used in the
technical note and the IBHVG2 code used for all of the other simulations, the simulation Report
M4, IB M4, and IB M4 Adj. were compared against each other and their simulated weapon
performance. The two approaches exhibit a fundamental difference in rate of pressure rise with
the IBHVG2 code simulation shifted to the right. Also, the IBHVG2 code predicted a lower
muzzle velocity than that used in the technical note approach.
 M4A2 Z7 IB Simulation Vs. Report Simulation

-IBM4
- Report U4
- IB M4 Ad|.

0.02 0,025 0.03

Time (sec)

Figure 1
Report M4 simulation versus IBHVG2 simulation

The breech force curves for the technical note simulation and the IBHVG2 code simulation
were applied to the spreadsheet model with the results plotted in figures 2 and 3. The recoil
brake forces were higher, but the recoil displacements were similar. This raised the question to
the validity of using the simulations generated by the IBHVG2 code. The IBHVG2 code simula-
tion developed higher recoil brake force than the technical note for both long and short recoil
modes. Both simulations were modeled for the hot, 145°F, charge condition based on muzzle
velocity. Peak breech pressure for the IBHVG2 code simulation was similar to test data, the
technical note peak was similar to the 70°F.

Recoil Brake Force - 0 deg

Figure 2
Simulated recoil brake force, 0 deg QE, Report M4 versus IBHVG2 simulation
 Recoil Brake Force - 63 deg

0.08 0.1
Time (sec)

Figure 3
Simulated recoil brake force, 63 deg QE, Report M4 versus IBHVG2 simulation

Decreasing the IBHVG2 code M4 simulation by the breech pressure ratio of the
technical note peak and the IBHVG2 code peak, the simulated recoil brake forces are very
similar and are plotted in figures 4 and 5.
RECOIL FORCE-0 DEG

-Report M4
W 30000
- IM M4 Adj

0.1 0.15
TIME (sec)

Figure 4
Simulated recoil brake force, O^gleg QE, Report M4 versus adjusted IBHVG2 simulation
 RECOIL FORCE ■ 63 deg

70000

Figure 5
Simulated recoil brake force, 63 deg QE, Report M4 versus adjusted IBHVG2 simulation

The adjusted IBHVG2 code breech pressure simulation when applied to the
spreadsheet simulation matches the simulation provided in the technical note for both recoil
brake force and recoil displacement curves. This demonstrates that the M6 recoil mechanism
model and the interior ballistic simulations using the worksheet and the IBHVG2 code will
provide similar results regardless of the combination. In all cases, the simulation predicted
recoil displacement was similar for all M4 charge simulations used. For the evaluation of the
candidate MACS charge combinations, the maximum recoil brake force of the Report M4
interior ballistic simulation shall be used as the limit given the condition of the weapons at the
proving grounds. This limit is 69,200 Ibf. The three M4A2 charge simulations at both 0 and 63
deg gun elevation are plotted in figure 6.
Simulated Recoil Displacement

-♦- Report M4 0
-•- Report M4 -63
-*- BM4-0
—1<r- B M4 - 63

-»- B M4 Adj - 0
-*- B M4 Adj - 63

Figure 6
Simulated recoil displacement summary, report, and IBHVG2 M4 simulations

Based on the technical note evaluation criteria being the recoil displacement, the
spreadsheet was considered validated.
 Candidate MACS Solution Evaluation

The breech force curves for the four candidate MACS solutions are plotted in figure
7 with the technical note standard breech force curve provided for connparison.

- Report M4
-MACS 01
- MACS C2
- MACS C3
- MACS C3mx

Figure 7
Breech force curves for MACS candidates

The spreadsheet simulation of the M114 howitzer's M6 recoil mechanism was run
with each breech force curve to evaluate the weapon response.

The first MACS candidate was a single M231 increment. The breech force curve, MACS
C1, generated from the IBHVG2 code simulation was applied to the spreadsheet simulation at
both 0 and 63 deg QE corresponding to long and short recoil mechanism modes of operation.
In both cases, the predicted performance was well within the limit of the M4A2 performance as
seen in figure 8. This charge combination (one M231) was predicted safe for all elevations and
charge temperature conditions.
MACS Charge 1

-♦-MACS 01 63 Deg
Hi-MACS 01 ODeg
-*-Report M4 ODeg
-»*-Report M4 - 63 Deg

Figure 8
Simulated recoil displacement, MACS C1 option
 The second MACS candidate was made up of two M231 increments. Tine breech
force curve, MACS C2, generated from the IBHVG2 code simulation was applied to the
spreadsheet simulation at both 0 and 63 deg QE corresponding to long and short recoil
mechanism modes of operation. In both cases, the predicted performance was well within the
limit of the M4A2 performance as seen in figure 9. This charge combination (two M231s) was
predicted safe for ail elevations and charge temperature conditions.

-MACS C2-63 Dog

K-MACSC2-0Oeg
— R«pw1M4- ODBO
— Raport- 63 Dag

Figure 9
Simulated recoil displacement, MACS C2 option

The third MACS candidate was made up of three M232 increments. The breech
force curve, MACS C3, generated from the IBHVG2 code simulation was applied to the
spreadsheet simulation at both 0 and 63 deg QE corresponding to long and short recoil
mechanism modes of operation. In both cases, the predicted performance exceeded the limit of
the M4A2 performance as seen in figure 10. The predicted recoil brake force is plotted in figure
11. The recoil brake throttling groove ended while the weapon was still recoiling resulting in the
spike in long recoil mode and greatly elevated humps in short recoil mode. This charge
combination (three M232s) was predicted unsafe for all elevations and charge temperature
conditions and would result in catastrophic failure of the weapons recoil mechanism and can not
be used.
MACS Charge 3

-MACS C3-63 Dog

-MACS C3-0 Deg
- Report M4 0 Dog
- Report M*! 63 Deg

Figure 10
Simulated recoil displacement, MACS C3 option

8
 Recoil Brake Force

-♦—MACSC3-0
-■—MACS C3-63
-*— Report M4 - 0
-X— Report M4 - 63
■* Limit

0.1 0.15
Time (sec)

Figure 11
Simulated recoil brake force, MACS C3 versus Report M4

The fourth MACS candidate was a mixed charge-3 made up of two M232
increments and one M231 increment (with the M231 increment being the most forward of the
three near the projectile). The slow-burning propellant of the M232 exceeds weapon limitations
when three M232s are fired (as shown in the prior paragraph), and firing three M231s would
exceed pressure limitations. Therefore, one of the M232's was replaced by a fast-burning M231
increment to increase its pressurization rate ~ please note that this was not an approved
combination for existing fielded 155-mm artillery weapons, it was only recommended for remote
firings from the M114 howitzer at proving grounds. The breech force curve, MACS C3Mx,
generated from the IBHVG2 code simulation was applied to the spreadsheet simulation at both
0 and 63 deg QE corresponding to long and short recoil mechanism modes of operation. In
both cases, the predicted performance matched or was below the limit of the M4A2 perform-
ance as seen in figure 12. The predicted recoil brake force is plotted in figure 13. Though the
MACS C3mx at 63 deg QE slightly exceeds the limit of the M4A2 performance, peak force of
70,660 Ibf versus 69,200 Ibf, this charge combination (two M232s plus one M231) was predicted
safe for all elevations and at a maximum charge temperature condition of 70°F.
 -♦-MACS C3mx - 63 deg
-•- MACS C3mx - 0 deg
-*- Report M4 - 63 deg
—M— Report M4 - 0 deg

Figure 12
Simulated recoil displacement, MACS C3Mx option

Recoil Brake Force

-MACSC3nix-0
-MACSC3mx-63
-Report M4-0
- Report M4-63

0.1 0.15
Time (sec)

Figure 13
Simulated recoil brake force, MACS C3Mx versus Report M4

Candidate Performance Summary

To summarize the evaluation of the four MACS candidate solutions, the respective
performance of each is plotted against the Standard M4 for recoil displacement and recoil brake
force. In each instance, the MACS C3 case using three M232s exceeds the Standard M4 (figs.
14 through 17).

10
 Recoil Displacement - 0 deg QE

-Report M4
-MACSC1
-MACSC2
-MACSC3
- MACS C3mx

Figure 14
Summary simulation recoil displacement for options - 0 deg QE

Recoil Displacement - 63 deg QE

- Report M4
-MACSC1
-MACSC2
-MACSC3
- MACS C3mx

0.1 0.15
Time (sec)

Figure 15
Summary simulation recoil displacement for options - 63 deg QE

11
 Recoil Brake Force - 0 Deg

200000-

- Report M4
-MACSC1
-MACSC2
-X—MACSC3
-* 69200 Limit
-•—MACSC3mx

Figure 16
Summary simulation recoil brake force for options - 0 deg QE

Recoil Force - 63 Deg

-Report M4
-MACSC1
g- 50000
-MACSC2
-MACSC3
69200 Limit
- MACS C3mx

0.1 0.15
Time (sec)

Figure 17
Summary simulation recoil brake force for options - 63 deg QE

12
 CONCLUSIONS

For the purpose of firing MACS increments in 155-mm I\/I114 towed howitzers in the
unmanned proving ground environment, the following combinations are safe and allowable to be
fired given successful verification of their performance by instrumented live firing.

Allowable combinations and their restrictions

MACS combination QE Temperature

One M231 All -50°Fto+145°F
TwoM231s All -50°Fto+145°F
Two M232S and one M231 * All -50°F to +70°F maximum

*Please note that this is not an approved combination for existing fieided 155-mm artiliery
weapons, it is only recommended for remote firings from the M114 howitzer at proving grounds.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Safety of Use

Pending the verification of performance by actual test firing, the MACS combinations in
shown previously are safe to be fired in the 155-mm M114 towed howitzer under the specified
limiting conditions.

Verification Test Outline

Instrumentation

• Recoil displacement, maximum (in.)

• Recoil brake rod pull versus time by load cell (Ibf, sec)
• Chamber pressure, peak, copper crusher (psig)
• Muzzle velocity (m/s)

Materiel to Test

155-mm Ml 14 towed howitzer

M231 MACS Increments
M232 MACS Increments
Ml07 projectiles, inert
Fuze, dummy
Primer, M82

13
 Test Matrix

Simulation verification test matrix

Charge temperature QE
Test round numbers Increment combination (°F) (mils)
1-3 1 X M231 Discretion of Test Director 0 - 350 or
800-1150
4-6 2 X IVI231 Discretion of Test Director 0 - 350 or
800-1150
7-9 2 X IV1232 + 1 X M231 70 0-350
10-12 2 X M232 + 1 X M231 70 800-1150

Required Data

Data Taken For Each Round

• Muzzle velocity for each round

• Peak chamber pressure for each round
• Maximum recoil displacement for each round
• Recoil brake rod pull versus time for each round

Data Taken Prior to Test/As Needed

• Still photographs of test set-up and test instrumentation

• Still photographs of any test incidents

14
 DISTRIBUTION LIST

Commander
U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command
Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center
ATTN: AMSRD-AAR-EMK (2)
AMSRD-AAR-GC
AMSRD-AAR-AEW-S
AMSRD-AAR-AEE-W
Picatinny, NJ 07806-5000

Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC)

ATTN: Accessions Division
8725 John J. Kingman Road, Ste 0944
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6218

Director
U.S. Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity
ATTN: AMXSY-EI
392 Hopkins Road
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5071

Commander
Soldier and Biological/Chemical Command
ATTN: AMSSB-CII, Library
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5423

Director
U.S. Army Research Laboratory
ATTN: AMSRL-CI-LP, Technical Library
BIdg. 4600
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5066

Chief
Benet Weapons Laboratory, CCAC
U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command
Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center
ATTN: AMSRD-ARR-AEW(B)
Watervliet, NY 12189-5000

Director
U.S. Army TRADOC Analysis Center-WSMR
ATTN: ATRC-WSS-R
White Sands Missile Range, NM 88002

Chemical Propulsion Information Agency

ATTN: Accessions
10630 Little Patuxent Parkway, Suite 202
Columbia, MD 21044-3204

15
GIDEP Operations Center
P.O. Box 8000
Corona, CA 91718-8000

Commander
U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground
Munitions and Weapons Division
Yuma, AZ 85365-9110

16