CONTENTS
°
e
®
8
e
e
°
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
*
e
e
e
e
®
®
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
CHAPTER1 INTRODUCTION .
.
1,2 , Odjectives
°
®
1. é.Background
°
e
.
General
°
°
Field Layout °
CHAPTER 3
3e1
3. 2
CHAPTER 4
he 1
RESULTS
Shot 3
Shot 6
s
®
e
e
e
°
e
°
e
e
°
°
°
°
°
e
.
.
°
*.
e
«6
e
-
es
e
e
e
DISCUSSION
General
6
e
CHAPTER 2. EXPERIMENT DESICN.
2.1
2.2
.
‘
=.
.
se
6
e
.
e
e
e
°
°
°
°
°
«©
©
©
©
@«
e
°
e
°
e
°
e
e
°
°
°
°
°
e
e
e
e.
e
e
e
e
e
.
e
‘ee
402 Comparison of Danay>‘and Displacements of. Shot 4,
CASTLE with Shot 10
UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE ,
5
2
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS ANDRECOMMENDATIONS
.
.
REFERENCES
e
e
e
€
os
e
i
e
e
APPENDIX A EFFECT Cf FOSITIVE ‘bunar ty ON DAMACE
A.l
A.2
=.
6
6
APPENDIX C
.
»
«©
«: 8
2.1
Field Layout, Shot 3.
°
*
°
e
2.2
Field Layout, Shot 6
e
°
e
—~e@
3-1
3 2
4.1
PHOTOGRAPHY
.
|
e
|
ee
Pressuxry versus Distance, Shot3.
°rnssur) versus Distance, Shot 6.
8
«2.
«+
.
.
ee
8
8
°
°
-e-
@
:¢ e
.
Oanage somparison be wen Shot 10 ” (UPS:Lor“wiotHoL®)
Awl
Shot 6 (CASTLis) for |/4-Ton Trucks, Side-on .
Shock Wave Parametwrs Used in Calculations fer
B.1
B.2
°
2
General .
valculated Displacements for:Greraiion CASTLE,
APPENDIL B DAMAGE RESULTS
TABLES
o
Displacement for 1/4-Ton Trucks
Damage Results, Shot 3
«
«©
.
.«
©
«©
©
«
«
Damage Results, Shot 6
°
e
°
e
e
e
e
9
©
«©
e-