Fort Knox. Ky Photo'no 5-13-4K

Home , Aberdeen Proving Ground, Fort Knox

DPG1.941213.004

Q iDR ~N~~~~lATi~NONLY, ACTION '98'1' HIGHER AUTHORITY PENDING RDT&E TASK NO lM624101D55102 USATECOM PROJECT NO 7-5-0574- 0 1 / 02 / 0 3 / 04 /O 7

ed9 INTEGRATED ENGINEERING/SERVICE TEST OF 6- ION EXCHANGE UNIT, MOBILE, 3,000 GPH FINAL REPORT ' BY 1ST LT THOMAS D. GILLESPIE J z 23 MAY 1966

US ARMY ARMOR & ENGINEER BOARD

FORT KNOX, KENTUCKY ..

I . ..

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY UNITED STATES ARMY ARMOR AND ENGINEER BOARD Fort Knox, Kentucky 40121

STEBB-ENG I 6 JUL is86

SUBJECT: Change No 1 Test Report: Integrated Engineering/Service Test of Ion Exchange Unit, Mobile, 3, 000 GPH RDT&E Project No lM624101D55102 USATECOM Project No 7-5-0574-01/02/03/04/07

TO: SEE DISTRIBUTION

The following change is made to sub.iect document: Add in the

FOR THE PRESIDENT:

CWO, W-3: USA Adjutant I'

DISTRIBUTION: 30 - CG, US Army Test and Evaluation Command, ATTN: AMSTE-GE, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21005 4 - CG, US Continental Army Command, ATTN: DCSIT-SCH-PD, Fort Monroe, Virginia 23351 3 - CG, US Army Mobility Equipment Center, ATTN: SMOME-MOX-n 4300 Goodfellow Blvd, St Louis, Missouri 63120 1 - CG, XVILI Airborne Corps, Fort Bragg, North Carolina 28307 2 - CG, US Army Medical Research and Development Command, Main Navy Bldg, Washington, D. C. 20315 S TEBB-ENG fj JUL 4966 SUBJECT: Change No 1, Test Report: Integrated EngineeringIService Test of Ion Exchange Unit, Mobile, 3000 GPH, RDT&E Project No lM624101D55102, USATECOM Project No 7-5-0574-01/02/03/04/07

1 - Chid of Engineers, ATTN: ENGTE-E, Bldg T-7, Washington, D. C. 20310 1 - Comdt, US Army Engineer School, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 27060 1 - Comdt, US Armylnfantry School, Fort Benning, Georgia 31905 1 - Comdt, US Army Armor School, Fort Knox, Kentucky 40121 1 - Comdt, US Marine Corps, Washington, D. C. 20380 Lp3." CO, Dugway Proving Ground, Dugway, Utah 84022 1 - CO, Aberdeen Proving Ground, ATTN: STEAP-DS, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21005 1 - CO, US Army Arctic Test Center, APO Seattle 98733 1 - CO, US Army Tropic Test Center, P. 0. Drawer 942, Fort Clayton, Canal Zone 4 - CO, US Army Engineer Research and Development Laboratories, ATTN: OMEFB-CO, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060 1 - CO, Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center, Bridgeport, California 93517 2 - CO, US Army Environmental Hygiene Agency, Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland 2 1040 1 - CO, US Army General Equipment Test Activity, Fort Lee, 'Virginia 23801 1 - Pres, US Army Airborne, Electronics and Special Warfare Board,, Fort Bragg, North Carolina 28307 1 - Director, Marine Corps Landing Force Development Center, Quantico, Virginia 22134 1 - US Marine Corps Liaison Officer, US Army Test and Evaluation Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21005 5 - British Liaison Ofricer, USATECOM, c/o Director of Munitions, British Embassy, 3100 Massachusetts Ave., N. W., Washington, D. C. 20008 5 - Canadian Liaison Officer, c/o Commanding General, US Army Materiel Command, Washington, D. C. 20315 5 - Military Attache, Australian Embassy, 1735 I Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20006 1 - Mr R. Englehart, Southwest Research Institute, 8500 Culebra Road, San Antonio, Texas 78206 20 - Commander, DeIense Documentation Center for Scientific and Technical Information, ATTN: Document Service Center, Cameron Station, Alexandria, Virginia 22313

2 .. .. .\ , \. . DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ,; ,' > ii > HEADQUARTERS. U. S. ARMY TEST AND EVALUATION COMMAND I . ,!?; I,>',!, ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND. MARYLAND 21005 .- :-; ..- I ,I . ~ .! ... ,, . . . .~_- -r. i L.,d,Yfi -GI3

Camandin;: General, U. S. Amy Yateriel Comccnd, ATTX: SXXD-DX-E, Washington, D. C. 20315 Corninding General, U. S. Army Combat Dcvelopnents Cormand, fCCX: USAWC Liaison Officer, USATZCOX, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Yfiryhnd NGTE -GE SUBJECT: Find Reprt, USAZCC:J: Project :To. 7-5-0571-01/02/03/32~/07, Intecratcd EnCinecrir.&crvice Test of Ion Excixmge Unit, Mobilc, 3000 Gill, r0TG Project 114&6241OlD~',lo2 a. The ability of the Ion Exchange Unit to mcet t!ie approved military and technical characteristics described or. tifie rD!P&E projcct cad, ana follow on revisions thereto.

b. The suitability of t'ne Ion Ikcxclmnge Unit ?or Army fi&d use under temperate clirmtic conditions, tempcrate w-inter cxccptccd. 3. a. Test vas conciucted accoreing to the approved tcst plcrii at reference IC with fallovina cxceptions: (1) Fzragraph 2.27 "ELCvcrse Soils Condition Mobility Tcsts" were not cocductcd. (2) Paragra3h 2.28 "Durability and Reliability Tests" were reduced in scope fmm SO00 miles over various Ground conditions to h300 rcilcs, crith approxi- nlntely 8Qt of the iuileagc over pavcd and secondary mads,

1,. These chances iaerf based on infoi-mtion received from U. 9. Army Combat Developnients ComLmnd tts to inteiiCcd uc and basis of issue of the Ion ExchanGe Unit which indicate2 zht thc unit is conoidered a special purpose rather tliiri T tacticc.1 vehicle.

4. Testing was conducted by folloviaG UStbECG14 test agencies as indicated :

PROJJXI NO. TEST TASK !-GiWC!! _I

7-5-0574-01 Gupay Pmvinc Grour.2 ET (hxpt htormtive)

7-5 -0574-02 Aberdeen Bovizg Grouid ET (AuJmwtive) 7-5 -057b -03 USA Ar,m:/E1:gimer Ud . ST (hecutiyf Test Agency)

7-5-0574-34 USA ilE3sW ;?o:trd ST (Air Trans- wrtability)

7 - 5 -0 5 711. -07 USA General Equipmnt Test SY (iogistics- Activity over-thc -Shore 1 5. lke folloving findings warrant special attention:

a. Requisites of the militxy c'nsracteristics 17c~emct except as roiiow~:

(1) Siqplies carrier?. on thc eqaipmnt wrc rLot aaequate Tor 60 hours of opcrstion at mximum capacity, he1cxccptcd.

2 8 JUN 3356 PJGTE-GI3 SUBJECT: Final Reprt, USK'ECUX Project No. 7-5-057$-Oi/OZ/Oj/~~/07, Integrated mgineerin&ervicc Test of Ion &change Unit, hiobile, 3000 GE4, RDTm Project No. I.I&?blOlD55lC2

(2) Test item is not air portable in Phsse I3 airborne operations.

b. Supslemcntary test criteria, contained in Appilndix 111 of ,the approved test plan, were met excep* as follows:

(1) Present KOS 5m does not require ]mowledge in operating equipment process radiologically contvnlnated water.

(2) F'rovisions for stadage of mterialc on the MLk5, 23 ton truck and accomp;ly;n& mO5, ton trailer are not adeqwtc.

(3) Minor but contiming leakages occurred in the plastic piping ana fi-xtu-es. This sitcation :s patentially dengemus in that operator personnel could mintentionally become expsed to radiolo - Sically contaminated inter when iealagcs occur.

(4) The van heater Secame iqopcrative and Nould not prsperly condition mn for operations &.ring cold wsathcr. (5) Phstic pi9j.33 an6 fixtures cannot be mintained readily vith t:x tools presently avaiiabie for operator/crew and oqznizatiorsl mintensnce e

(6) E~uip-nentIr;nml ?,I?? 5-1:6lC-2G6-?2, miiatea, is Iaaccurate an6 incoqlcte. EIYy-niEe cozrective actions were recommended ti, b%A!G3C by 3. S. Amy A-mr md &@-xeer Bosrd in tvo reports, &teed 11 Aupst ad22 December 1.965, respectively. (7) The confizmation of 2$ ton 3545 'ilxc~c nr,d L& ton :a05 trailer ns "Yransmrtcrs for the Ion 3xcICbwge Vzit and associatea equipment, are imdegmte for their intwaed use.

(a) ~hs~k5 truck is ovcr-daded by z2poximtely l,OOO lbs. above the mxirm pass wei&\t Glic%EZC* o? Kil Spec MILKC- 71211 for cross countiy o2eratLon. This overload swiously affects She vehicle psrfomnce ad. csp%bility to negtiztc miverse terrain. Tine truck inside rar tires muld rub against tke var. fram mils 6uring cross cowtry operations. 8 JUN 1966 fl.Ss"I%-GE SLi33ji?c1: Final Report, USATZCCM Project No. 7-5-0S74-01/~/03/04/07, Integrated Engineerin&emice Test of Ion Exchange Unit, Yobile, 3030 GZ& RDTa Pro:ect fTo. lM624iOID55102

(b) The M45 truck and MlOS trailer confipration cc~G.6 cot negotiate slopine beaches ami loose sand under truck power cilli-ing logistics-over-the-shore testing. The vehicle becaze wbi- ilzed ia all instances when exiting landing craft and attempting to mve across the beach beyond the hard sand line.

(6.) The service brakes vould not hold the M45 truck stationary when ascending the 60% slope test course.

(e) Tfle M45 truck ensine would not idle while braking tests were underway in an ascending altitude on the &$ s:.,:y.

(f) The real cross member of the truck chassis bent dw to forces exerted by the totred trziler.

(g) The van body vas I-igidly munted to tke longitudinal memembers trhen the vchicie arrived at Koei-deen Proving Ground for +&e autorrDtive phase of exginecrinz testing. Spring munts vere installed on the van by the test agency pior &to initiation of test. (h) Tine NlO5 trailcr 3aB no stotrage arrangements to permit supplies and equipnent +a be properly storcd and protected during transpoi%. In at least three instances acid carboys rupture8 and acid leaked out, saturatcng other sumlies carried in the trailer.

(i) The gor mechanical condition of the 1445 truck an2 van when submitted for %est warrants special coment. The au"U0- mtive test agency had to expend adttitioml unprogramed effort to .._.lGmir vehicle failures attrYoGted to worn out vehicle components vinich delayed test completion. In midition, the vehicle van body was rusted out in smts and door h

4 8 JUN 1966 f&3TX-GE SUBmCT: Flnal Ficp-JG, USP.’lZCC% Frojcct Bo. ?-5-0574-0~/~/03/04/07, Integrated Engineciiingficruicc Test of Ion Clschanze Ucit, hbbfie, 3000 GT;:, WTU Prnject No. D62kiOlD55I.02

6. conchxiom :

a. The Ion Exchanp Unit net all requisites of the prescribed military chzrzcteristiics except capability to :

(1) Operate 60 hours at lraxinum capacity (deficiency).

(2) Se transported by internal iift in Phase I1 airborne operations (deficiency).

b. All supplementary criteria were met except that:

(1) Cxrreiit. NIS jUJ training is not adequate for ogeration of the Ion Xxc’nange Unit (Ron-hardware deficiency).

(2) S’mrage pyovisiocs Tor sunljlies and equipaent on ~45 truck an6 1JL05 trailer are uriatisfnc5x-g (deficiency).

(3) kalmce in $.zstic ?icing an6 fix%uz^es, if occurring CurinC; procescinc of rcdiologically coctcninated water, would present a radiatioa ha-axl to opcrctisg pcrsonncl (deEciency) . (b) kabiility of -:he van heo-~;.r Am .?unction properly restricted vaA;ey pi-ocessing luring cox2 crea%her (dcftciency) . (5) Cui-rert oi-gmizrXomi mintenance ‘cools and eriuipmezt arc im6.eqw.te iloor minter.%r.ce zn& reiair 02 plastic piping (deficiency).

(5) %qt:pGr:,?nt !.:anal $P 5-45~1-235-12, urz~tcd,requires revir;ion to correct ix~ec;l;.;...cics an^ ctiizslons a=,$. +a >m-Jidc 3 safe procedure for rcgcnzrztion of +e cation colun (Ccficiency). (7) “he X45, 2+ tcn, 6x6 tiuck, is not suitable as a transporter for tile Ion Xxchange Unit, Xobil.e, 30CO GPH (cicficiency) . 7. ;-L is recomendcd %ht:

a. TIX ~$5,2.:- ,. ton truck car-icr for %:he Ioi1 ~xchangoUnit be replc-ed Sy ox oil thc ctacard 5-ton, 6x6 vehicles in tke Amy inventory. In view G? tne intennittent intended use of the eQuipment,

5 8 JUN 1966 .L?y~~-G~ SLT9J;iE: Find Rcwrt, US.'lTXC:.! P=oject KO. ~-~-0;~~t-01/02/0~/0~~/0~, Integrate2 ~ngceerin~/ScrviceTest of IC:~ E:ic.c:ixi;e Unit, Yabil?, 2000 GPi, RDTm Project No. E&1C!.Ol.B55i02

.'.Lto provide a ncre intczrai lficbgcd unit, consideration slmuiil d.co 'ce G;ven Iz the feasiiiility of nounttng fix :ten on a van-typ trailer of suitable size,

b. MeGuate stownge ?revisions be designed to pcrmit proper protection of sup2lies and ecriyneni. for trnspart and easy access cb.ri:ig operation. Kecessary space should Se provided to store sufficient supplies to permit 60 hours oacration at maximum cnpacity.

C. Requirement for nir transrflrt ir, Xiase I1 operations be ~c-evaluated.

d. I<~S5m (1.rater SU~P~+cialist) training in USCOXARC schools be revised to provide for icntruc?.ion in operation of the Ion Exchange Unit.

e. Egr;i>nen$ vanua1 X? j-h610-206-12 be revised b correct iraxurecies and mLssions rc:srteG in U. S. Army Il-rcor and Engineer EmrE lZquixer,t Manual Rcmrt :a1 znd 3~2,dsted 11 P.wdst and 22 December 190'5, res-oectivcly. QeclZic at-lerition should be devoted to ?rovidir,g safe procedmes for reccx:2tion of the cation column.

f. An iiqroved vac tcater 1;c- fcnishcd that trill insure tzoubie ikec opration ?or COXrri.?",:lsr -,roccssing or !rater.

e. Leak-fret pi2in:: aid fi:rtures be provided to elininate the Srcscnt 6ar.ccr of TadTation C~.~;;U:O operating 2erxmnel from contzvir.ated wster 1c2age. Tiif -.T-.;--JL.y-*.L, rrlid fixtures sliould be maintain- zblc r.rit11 the tools and ec:dipxii-: prezerX.y available to organizational ...-i..-. -1...,,cr,nnce personnel or cufflciz;-.t X-J 'iools and resir kit be provided -L: ,,.erc:or.

h. The deficienctes iL;':cC Ir. 2sragraph 6 a'Jovc be corrcctec.; os m.~yof the shor'xcc-in:;s Ln i..:j:;end:x III of the inclosed .1-cyai-t 1 ;ritkin tcckicll hac5LLity ulcc be ccrrected; and two 3000- GiT Mobiie ion Exchmgc Gntts -x ?.?:r:is?&. V&is comdnd for conduct of C'ncck Tests.

RDT&E TASK NO 1M624101D55102

USATECOM PROJECT NO 7-5-0574-01 /02/03/04/07

INTEGRATED ENGINEERING/SERVICE TEST OF ION EXCHA.NGE UNIT, MOBILE, 3,000 GPH

FINAL REPORT BY

1ST LT THOMAS D. GILLESPIE

23 MAY 1966

US ARMY A.RMOR AND ENGINEER BOARD Fort Knox, Kentucky

i Distribution Statement

This document may be further distributed by any holder only with specific prior approval of the US Army Mobility Command.

.. 11 TABLEOFCONTENTS

PA.GE

ABSTRACT...... vi

FOREWORD ...... vii

SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND ...... 1 1.2 DESCRIPTION OF MA.TERIEL ...... 2 1.3 TEST OBJECTIVES ...... 2 1.4 SUMMARY OF RESULTS ...... 3 1.5 CONCLUSIONS ...... 6 1. 6 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 9

SECTION 2. DETAILS OF TEST

2.1 INTRODUCTION...... 12 2.2 OPERATIONAL TEST ON NONCONTAMINATED WATER AT FT KNOX, KY (ENGINEERING TEST) ...... '-4 2.3 OPERATIONAL TEST ON NONCONTAMINATED WATERATABERDEENPROVINGGROUND, MD (ENGINEERING TEST) ...... 17 2.4 OPERATIONAL TEST ON REMOVAL OF NUCLEAR BOMB DEBRIS, STRONTIUM 90-YTTRIUM 90 AND CESIUM 137-BARIUM 137, FROM WATER (ENGINEERING TEST)...... 19 2.5 SAFETY (ENGINEERING TEST) ...... 27 2. 6 HUMAN ENGINEERING (ENGINEERING TEST). . , 26 2.7 PREOPERATIONAL INSPECTION (SERVICE TEST) ...... 27 2. 8 PERFORMANCE (SERVICE TEST) ...... 29 2.9 COMPATIBILITY WITH RELATED EQUIPMENT (SERVICE TEST)...... 2.10 HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING (SERVICE TEST) ...... 31 2.11 TRAINING (SERVICE TEST) ...... 3 i:

... 111 -PAGE 2.12 STOWAGE (SERVICE TEST)...... 33. 2. 13 INSTALLATION AND MARCH ORDER TIME (SERVICE TEST) ...... 34 2. 14 SECURITY (SERVICE TEST)...... 3S 2. 15 DURABILITY AND RELIABILITY (SERVICE TEST) ...... ?L 2. 16 MAINTENANCE (SERVICE TEST) ...... -?.I 2. 17 LOGISTICS- OVER- THE-SHORE (ENGINEERING TEST) ...... *..46 2. 18 MOVEMENT ADAPTABILITY (ENGINEERING TEST)...... 38 2. 19 ADAPTABILITY FOR INTERNAL AIR PORT- ABILITY IN PHASE I1 AIRBORNE OPERATIONS (SERVICE TEST) ...... 54 2.20 SUITABILITY FOR INTERNAL AIR PORTABILITY IN PHASE 11 AIRBORNE OPERATIONS (SERVICE TEST)...... 57 2.21 ADAPTABILITY FOR INTERNAL AIR PORT- ABILITY IN PHASE 111 AIRBORNE OPERATIONS (SERVICE TEST) ...... I . .57 2.22 INITIAL INSPECTION AND SERVICING (ENGINEERING TEST) ...... 59 2. 23 VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICS (ENGINEERING TEST)...... LO 2.24 PRELIMINARY OPERATION - SAFETY (ENGINEERING TEST) ...... 6.1 2. 25 STANDARD OBSTACLES (ENGINEERING TEST) ...... 64 2. 26 BRAKE TESTS (ENGINEERING TEST) ...... 66 2. 27 STEERING (ENGINEERING TEST)...... 68 2.28 GRADEABILITY (ENGINEERING TEST) ...... 69 2. 29 SIDE SLOPES (ENGINEERING TEST) ...... 71 2. 30 ADVERSE SOIL CONDITIONS MOBILITY TESTS (ENGINEERING TEST) ...... 72 2. 31 DURABILITY AND RELIABILITY (ENGINEERING TEST) ...... 72 2. 32 MAINTENANCE ENGINEERING (ENGINEERING TEST), ...... 76

iv PAGE

2.33 HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING (ENGINEERING TEST) ...... 77 2.34 RADIO INTERFERENCE SUPPRESSION (ENGINEERING TEST) ...... 73

SECTION 3. APPENDIXES

I. TEST DATA...... 1-1 11. FINDINGS ...... 11- 1 111. DEFICIENCIES AND SHORTCOMINGS ...... 111-1 IV. PHOTOGRAPHS ...... IV-1 V. REVIEW OF USAERDL PUBLICATION RELATED TO ION EXCHANGE UNIT FOR REMOVAL OF RADIOACTIVITY FROM WATER ...... V-1 VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... VI- 1 VI1. REFERENCES ...... VII- 1 VIII. DISTRIBUTION LIST ...... VI11 - I

V ABSTRACT The Integrated Engineering/Service Test of the Ion Exchange Unit, Mobile, 3,000 GPH, was conducted from March 1965 through March 1966. The tests were conducted by the US Army Armor and Engineer Board; Dugway Proving Ground; US Army General Equip- ment Test Activity; US Army Airborne, Electronics and Special Warfare Board; Development and Proof Services, APG. The US Army Armor and Engineer Board was the Executive Test Agency responsible for integrated test plan preparation, test scheduling, temperate climate service test execution, and final test report preparation. Each other agency was responsible for test plan preparation, test execution, and report preparation for inclusion in the final test report as applied to their phase of the test program. The test item satisfied technical and military characteristics expressed in RDT&E Task Card for Task No lM624101D55102 that were tested except with respect to supplies and accessories to permit 60 hours of operation at maximum capacity, and air transportability in Phase I1 of airborne operations. The item was potentially unsafe for operator to process radiologically contaminated water because of plastic pipe leakage. The prescribed regeneration procedure would permit possible personal injury from acid. Both truck and trailer were overloaded for cross-country operation. It was concluded that the item requires correction of deficiencies in order to be considered suitable for Army use, that the item is not suitable for LOTS operation or for air portability in Phase I1 airborne operations. It was recommended that support items be improved, deficiencies and as many shortcomings as practicable be corrected, 5-ton truck chassis be used in place of current truck carrier, equipment publication be revised, and modified item be provided for retest.

Vi FOREWORD

1. Testing was conducted under authorities contained in reference 1 through 4, appendix VII.

2. US Army Armor and Engineer Board was responsible for integrated test plan preparation, test scheduling, temperate climate service test execution, and final test report preparation.

3. Dugway Proving Ground was responsible for temperate climate engineering test plan preparation, test execution, and report preparation for inclusion in the final test report. Author of the input to the final report was Mr. E. C. Hoeman.

4. US Army Development and Proof Services, Aberdeen Proving Ground, was responsible for engineering cross-country mobility and radio suppression test plan preparation, test execution, and report preparation for inclusion in the final test report. Author of the input to the final report was Mr. L. Conner.

5 US Army Airborne, Electronics and Special Warfare Board was responsible for air transportability test plan preparation, test execution, and report preparation, for inclusion in the final test report. Author of the input to the final report was Robert G. Huf s chmid.

6. US Army General Equipment Test Activity was responsible for logistics-over-the-shore and movement adaptability test plan preparation, test execution, and report preparation for inclusion in the final test report.

vii SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION ,

1.1 BACKGROUND

1.1.1

There is an approved requirement for a Mobile Ion Exchange Unit capable of demineralizing brackish water and of removing radioactive contaminants from water. , The equipment will supplement mobile Erdlator water purification units when required (ref 5, appendix VIL) . The military characteristics extracted from Department of the Army RDT&E Task Card (pef 6, appendix VII.) are furnished in appendix 11. 1.1.2 Standard field water purification equipment with the use of additional supplies in the coagulation phases of the water purification process is effective in meeting minimum standards established for radioactive contamination tolerances in .drinking !, water (ref 7, appendix VII). , Subsequent investigation showed that the most effective method for removing dissolved radioisotopes from water is by a post ion exchange treatment, following coagulation and filtration. Tests of an experimenta1,ion exchange Unit at Nevada Test Site proved the feasibility of the ion exchange process for the removal of large amounts of dissolved radionuclides and mineral contaminants from water (ref 6, appendix VU). One prototype of the Ion Exchange Unit was procured for ET/ST.

,, ,, 1. 1.3 ,,

., I The experimental and prototype models of the Ion Ex- change Unit utilized an M45, 2-1/2-ton truck with an insulated van-type body. Frame bending problems were discovered with Erdlator units utilizing the same truck and body on arrival of the units overseas. Since the weight of the Ion Exchange Unit exceeds that of the Erdlator, cross-country and logistics-over-the-shore tests were deemed essential.

1.1.4

Arctic Engineering/Service Tests and Tropic Engineer- ing Tests are to be conducted under separate plans of test.

1 1.2 DESCRIPTION OF MATERIEL'

1.2.1

The test item consists of the Ion Exchange Unit as- sembled in an insulated and heated van-type body, mounted on a standard.M45, 2-1/2-ton truck chassis'.' It 'includes' a standard 10-kw, 60 cycle,' engine'generato'r set mounted on'a s'tandard M105: '1-1,/2-ton cargo.trailer, two 3, 000-and one 500-gall,on'collapsible fabric water storage tanks, two electric ccntrifugal pumps, the 'necessary hose-'assemblies, and chemical's for regeneration, ,, ,,. .! ,,J .~., : ,,I,. ,,. ' , 1.2.2

The Mobile Ion Exchange Unit is'a s'elf-contained water demineralizer used' primarily ,to'remove dissolved radioactive solids from watcr previously clarified by standard mobile water p,urification ,equipment." ' Demineralization of field water supplies becomes a requirement when it is necessary to remove radioactive or chemical substances'from water"or to reduce the min-' era1 or hardness .content of brackish waters'to make them more acceptable 'for drinkin'g purposes. 'The van body contains two pressure'filter,tanks;,,onewith 21 cubic feet of a cation resin, the other with'21 cubic feet of an' anion resin, the electrical control cabinet, conductivity meter, hypochlorinator, and the necessary piping, valves; and control equipment, During operation, the resins become chemically exhausted and are regenerated in the field for reuse. The cation resin is regenerated with 374 pounds of technical grade hydrochloric acid. ' The anion is i-egen- erated.with 126,pounds .of .t.echnical grade soda ash. The quantity of waJer. dTp,?jneralized,, . . , per regenerated cycle is inv'erselyI. pro- por,tional to.the .dissolved solids ,content of the^ applied water. ' ,, 1.13 .' 'TEST OBJECTIVES , .,, ,.

.I To determine:

1.3.1

The technical suitability of the Ion Exchange Unit for Army use under temperate climate conditions.

2 1.3.2

To what degree the test item meets the technical characteristics described in the applicable Department of the Army project card, including effectiveness of demineralization, removal of suspended and dissolved'radiological contaminants, regeneration process, and any safety considerations.

1.3.3

The degree to which the test item meets the military characteristics described in the applicable Department of the Army project card and suitability of the test item for Army use.

1.3.4

Safety characteristics and to develop objective com- parative data relating to cross-country mobility for use in further development of materiel.

1.4 SUMMARY OF RESULTS

1.4.1

The test item met the military characteristics expressed in Appendix LI, Findings, except as follows:

1.4. 1. 1 Supplies carried on the equipment were not adequate. for 60 hours of operation at maximum capacity. (DPG) (See para 2.2.3.and 2. 3. 3. ) I .'.

1.4. 1.2 The test item did not meet the requirement for air portability in Phase U: airborne operations. (USAAESWBD) (See para 2.19.3.)

1.4.2

The test item met: the supplementary test criteria listed in Appendix LI, Findings, except as follows:

3 1.4.2.1 Human Engineering Consideration (DPG). The van heater did not function adequately. (See para 2.6.3 and appendix V. ) ,, ,, 1.,4.2.2 Training (USAARENBD). MOS 51N (Water Supply Specialist) does not require the capability of operating equipment processing radiologically contaminated water. (See para 2. 11.3.)

1.4.2.3 Stowage (USAARENBD). Space and provisions for stowage of materials on the trailer were inadequate... . (See para 2. 12.3:) '',I .. ,, .,

1. 4.2. 4 Durability and Reliability (USAARENBD). ' Minor leaks occurred in water processing equipment plastic piping. (See para 2.15.3) Because of the hazard of such leakage if radiologically contaminated water were being processed, this characteristic is

a deficiency. , I..

1.4.2.5 ' Maintenance (USAARENBD)

a. Plastic piping of the water processing equipment cannot be maintained readily with the tools normally available for operator/crew and organizational maintenance. (See para 2. 16. 3. )

b, The draft equipment publication was inadequate and inatcurate: (See para 2.16. 3. ) : ,,'I , ,, . , .., .. .. 1.4.2. 6 Adaptability for Internal Air Portability in Phase I1 Airbgrne, Operations (USAAESWBD).. The item,did. not meet. the requi,rement.for air portability and was notmarked to indicate.tiedown points, tiedown point capacities, lift points,, lift point capacities, the location where forklifts may be applied, and disassembly procedures as required by current regulations. . ,, , ' (See para 2.'19. 3. ) ' ,. .i', ,. ' : .. , 1.4.2. 7 Standard Obstacles (DPS). The truck-trailer combination failed to negotiate a simulated ditch due to interference between the trailer "A" frame and the edge o€ the ditch. Contact between air line couplers and the ditch prevented negotiation of the truck when uncoupled. (See para 2.25.3. 3. ) .

.. ', 1.4.2.8 Brake Tests (DPS) i a. Maximum grade on which the parking brake held the vehicle stationary was 30 percent - 40 percent required. (See para 2. 26. 3. 3: ) 4

. b. The service brakes would not hold the truck stationary in the ascending attitude on a 60-percent slope. (See para 2.26.'3. 2. )

1. 4. 2.9 Steering (DPS). Turning radius in left,turn was 38. 5 feet - maximum of 38 feet desired. (See para 2.27. 3. 1. )

1.4.2. 10 Gradeability (DPS). The engine failed to. idle when situated in the ascending attitude on the 60-percent slope. (See para 2.28. 3. 4. )

,I 1. 4. 2. 11 Human Factors Engineering (DPS)

a. Numerous items stowed, in the 1 - 1 /Z-ton trailer were piled around the motor-generator set. (See para 2. 33. 3. 3. )

b. ' Nine 13-gallon carboys failed in 1, 760 miles of operation. (See para 2. 33. 3.4. )

1.4.3

The following summarizes additional results not associated with specific criteria.

1. 4. 3. 1 Safety Confirmation. When injecting acid into the cation column during the regeneration procedure, the possibility of flow reversal exists, representing a potential hazard to operating personnel. Improvement in the instructions contained in the equipment publication to cope with this characteristic is warranted. Leakage of water from the water processing equipment plastic piping also represents a hazard to operating personnel should radiological contamination be present. However, this is, primarily, an effect of a reliability characteristic: No other unsafe or potential hazards to personnel were encountered. (USAARENBD).

1. 4. 3. 2 No unsafe conditions were noted. (USAAESWBD).

1. 4. 3.3 There was no damage to the components of the purification unit (in the van) during the test. (DPS).

1. 4. 3. 4 Only organizational maintenance was required during the test. (DPS).

1.4. 3. 5 The rear cross member of the truck chassis bent due to the forces exerted by the towed trailer. (DPS).

5 1. 4. 3, 6 The van bo,dy was'rigidly mounted to the longitudinal frame members when the vehicle arrived for test. (DPS).

No cracks bends occurred in the ,longitudinal frame .1.4. 3. 7 ., or membiers? (Spring mounts had.. been installed prior to the test. ) I, ,. ,,, (DPS) ' '

1. 4; 3: 8'':Both the.truck'and the trailer were overloaded'for

cross -country operation: ' (DPS). .I 1. 4. 3. 9 Two plastic pails were broken ,during cross-country ,,. , operations. (DPS). !"' ' '

The 3,000 GPH Mobile Ion Exchange Unit is 'capable of removing dissolved solids, including significant concentration of radioactive salts from water. (RF'G)

). , .;. , ., 1. 5. 2' I, , ., ,.

The 3, 000 GPH Mobile Water Purification Unit in., conjunction with the Mobile' Ion Exchange Unit i-s.capable of removing'suspended.. solids including radioactive solids. (DPG) , , c,. 'I .. I .t ,: ,, 1.5.3 ' ''. "', ,, : 8, ' Support 'equipment for operating the Mobile Water ' Purification Unit 'and the' Mobile Ion Exchange Unit togetqer requires imprqvement to ,assure reliable operation fqr,periods (60 hours) of time. '(DPC) ,I ,, 1. 5.4 .... '.The Ion Exchange Unit is capable of safe operation when all safety recommendations, especially those relating to operation with radioactively contaminated., water, ,are,J'ollowed. (DPG) ,

1. 5. 5 ,.I The test item requires correction of deficiencies in order to be considered suitable for Army use. (USAARENBD) ,I " , I ,.. ,, ,, ~ 6 1. 5. 6 The equipment publication is not satisfactory. (USAARENBD)

1.5.7

The test item is suitable for movement over the highway, by seagoing vessels, and by rail. (USAGETA)

1. 5. 8

The tiedown system shown in fig 1, appendix I, should be tested to determine its adequacy for use during shipments within the restrictions of the AAR clearance diagram. (USAGETA)

1. 5. 9

A method of tiedown should be devised for use when the van is removed and shipped as a separate item in order to meet the restrictions of the Bernc International clearance diagram, (USAGE TA)

1. 5.10

The slight bending of the vehicle's frame which occurred during the six marine lifts is not considered to be excessive or to have a detrimental effect on the operation of the vehicle. (USAGETA)

1.5.11

The test item in its oresent confieurationL is not suitable as a self-propelled vehicle for-logistics -over -the-shore operations. (USAGETA)

1. 5. 12

The Ion Exchange Unit is unsuitable for air portability in Phase I1 airborne operations. (USAAESWBD)

1. 5. 13

The Ion Exchange Unit is adaptable for air portability in Phase I11 airborne operations in the USAF C-124 and C-133 aircraft. Suitable loading and restraining procedures for internal air portability in USAF C-124 aircraft have been developed and are on file at the USAAESWBD. (USAAESWBD)

7 1. 5. 14

. No unsafe performance characteristics are introduced into the standard 2-112-ton truck and 1-1/2-ton trailer as a result of the installation of the Ion Exchange Unit; however, loose stowage presents a hazardous condition in both units. (IPS) ,. 1. 5. 15 .'..

The overloaded condition with the Ion Exchange Unit installed adversely affects the road transportability of the standard 2-1/2-ton truck.and l-l/Z-ton trailer. (DPS) ,,, 1.5.16 ,'

Hill holding ability of the parking brake was unsatisfactory. (DPS)

1. 5. 17

Vehicle performance on longitudinal slopes was satisfactory. (DPS)

1. 5. 18

Vehicle stability, steering ability and engine performance,were satisfactory on a 20-percent side slope. (DPS) 1. 5. 19

Stowage methods for items carried in the 1-1/2-ton trailer are poor. (DPS)

1. 5.20

Radio interference suppression meets the requirements of MIL-E-55301 (EL). (DPS).

1. 5.21 The method of stowinn- the 13-gallon- carboys is unsatisfactory for carrying hydrochloric acid 'in the irailer.

(DPS) I

.. .. , 1. 5.22

The rear cross member of the truck frame is inadequate to withstand forces exerted on the pintle hook by the trailer during cross -country operations. (DPS)

1. 5. 23

The strength of the truck frame longitudinal members is adequate for the load carried, under the conditions tested, with the van body attached to the frame by spring loaded mounts. (DPS)

1. 5. 24

The service brakes are unsatisfactory on a 60-percent longitudinal slope in the ascending attitude. (DPS)

1. 5. 25

More space is required for stowage of the items carried in the trailer. (DPS)

1. 6 RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that:

1. 6. I Support items including pumps, motor -generator set, pipes, and connections be designed and fabricated to give constant trouble-free operation. (DPG)

1. 6.2

Spare pumps and other critical parts be furnished in duplicate to prevent prolongcd loss of operating time for maintenance and repair. (DPG)

1. 6. 3

After the recommended improvements, the Ion Exchange Unit be subjected to a 60-hour operational test to insure that all deficiencies have been corrected. (DPG)

9 1. 6. 4

Ion Exchange Unit, Mobile, 3,000 GPH, be modified to correct all ofsthe deficiencies and as many of the shortcorkngs listed in appendix 111 as may be practicable. (USAARENBD)

1. 6. 5

The'modified test item be provided for check test.

(USAARENBD) ' ' ' >,, ,; 1. 6. 6

The equipment publication be revised and furnished for evaluation during check test. (USAARENBD) ,, .I 'I ,. 1. 6. 7

The test item and trailer be equipped with suitable tires to permit operations in soit sand. (USAGETA).

I, 1. 6. 8

The modified test item be rdturned to USAGETA for further testing to determine adequate methods of tiedown for rail shipment within CONUS an& overseas, and suitability for logistics -over -the -shore operations. (USAGETA)

The Ion Exchange Unit be considered unsuitable for Army use in Phase I1 airborne operations. (USAAESWBD)

1. 6. 10

A 5-ton chassis be used for this installation in place of the 2-1/2-ton chassis in order to remedy the following (DPS): '. 1. 6.10.1 A 3,000-pound cross-country overload on the truck

1.6. IO. 2 A 300-pound cross-country overload on the trailer

1. 6. 10. 3 Inadequate service brakes for the 60-perccnt slope ,I 1. 6. 10.4 Bending of the rear frame cross member due to forces tansmitted to pintle hook.

10 1. 6. 10. 5 Inside rear tires scrubbing.the van frame rails during hilly cross -country operations.

1. 6.10. 6 Inadequate space for stowage of components.

1, 6. 10. 7 The probability that the overload condition would impair cross-country (soft terrain) mobility if the mission dictated, cross -country operations. 1. 6. 11 .. ,. A stowage fixture be designed to hold the commerical carboys of hydrochloric acid, and a bin be provided to hold the bags of soda ash. (DPS) ,..

1.. 6. 12 ,,

If the,Z-l/Z-ton chassis is to be used, it is recommended that (DPS): ..

1. 6. 12. 1 A stowage fixture be designed to hold the commercial carboys of hydrochloric acid, and a bin be provided to hold the , bags of soda ash. .

1. 6. 12.2 An improved stowage method be devised for the material carried in both the truck and trailer. ,, 1.'6. 12. 3 Redesign.the rear cross member. to withstand forces produced by the overloaded truck and, trailer combination when

operated over rough terrain. (DPS) , , , , ., ,, ,. ,. 1. 6. 12.4 The truci-trailer combination be limited in operation to exclude longitudinal slopes steeper than 40 percent. (DPS) 1. 6. 12. 5 Van bodies be attached (at the front) to the truck frames by spring loaded mounts. (DPS)

, I

ti 1'1 , SECTION 2. DETAILS OF TEST

2.1 INTRODUCTION

2.1.1

,, Engineering te'sts by Dugway Proving Ground were performed at Fort Knox, Kentucky, in June 1965, and at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, in February 1966, utilizing noncontaminated water. .. ,/ 2. 1.~1.1 'In order to 'satisfy the current engineering'test re.quirements for the Ion Exchange Unit, two operational 'tests utilizing noncontaminated water were performed. The first of them was performed at Fort Knox, Kentucky, the second was performed at Aber- deen Proving Ground, Maryland, because of failure at Fort Knox to achieve 60-hour operation at 3,000 gallons per hour (ref 9, appendix VU).

2. 1. 1.2 'Operational data relevant to performance of the test item with water contaminated with radioactive contaminants as reported by US Army Engineer .Research and Development Laboratories (USAERDL) were reviewed. Of the several tests conducted, the work originally reported in USAERDL Research Report 1673-RR, 23 May 61, was best designed to satisfy engineering test requirements in treatment of water contaminated by radioactive material; and data in that report were accepted in lieu of conducting a test of the Ion Exchange Unit with radioactive contaminated water. (See appendix V for list ,, , of reports which were reviewed. ) ,.

2. 1.2

Service test by the US Army Armor and Enginecr Board was conducted at Fort Knox, Kentucky, during the period 25 March to 3 AugusJ 1965. Additional operational tests of the Ion Exchange Unit were conducted at Fort Lee, Virginia, at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.

2. 1.2. 1 Test operations were continued regardless of adverse weather conditions. The test item was exposed to the wealher at all times throughout the test period except when in a shelter for maintenance.

12 2. 1. 2. 2 Throughout testing, operation and maintenance of the test item was conducted,in accordance'with the equipment publications.

2. 1. 2. 3 Prior to initiation of operational testing, test personnel were trained in operation and maintenance of the test item.

2. 1. 2.4 Throughout all service testing, the test materiel was evaluated against the military characteristics applicable to temperate climate conditions.

2. 1. 2. 5 Data pertinent to engineering test objective requirements of Dugway Proving Ground were accumulated throughout the course of service test at Fort Knox, Kentucky, to the maximum extent feasible. Additional testing necessitated by the Dugwv.r!.Proving Ground engineering test requirements was conducted at Aberdeen Proving Ground by US Army Armor and Engineer Board personnel.

2. 1.3

Logistics-Over-The-Shore and Movement Adaptability tests were conducted by the US Army General Equipment Test Activity during the period 16 August through 20 September 1965 at Fort Lee, Fort Story, and Fort Eustis, Virginia.

2. 1.4

I,. ,I The Air Portability Phase of the EngineeringIService Test of the Ion Exchange Unit was conducted.by the.US Army Aii- borne, Electronics and Special Warfare Board under field conditions at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, during the period 12 to 22 Octo- ber 1965.

2. 1.4. 1 Aircraft normally employed in'Phase I1 airborne operations, and considered in these tests, were the USAF C-119, C-123, and C-130; of these, the C-'130 has the largest cargo compartment.

2. 1. 4. 2 Aircraft normally employed in Phase I11 airborne operations, and considered in these tests, were the'USAF C-124, C-130, C-133, and C-141. ,.

13 2. 1. 4. 3 During the conduct of tests, it became evident that the test item would not,be suitable for air portability in the USAF,C-130, the largest aircraft available for Phase I1 airborne operations. , In order to obtain data to satisfy future operational requirements, air portability tests were conducted in the USAF C-124 aircraft. Due to aircraft maintenance difficulties, only static loading tests were ,, performed. '... ,

2. 1.5 , ,. .., %. The engineering cross -country mobility test and radio interference suppression test were conducted by the US Army Develop- ment and Proof Services, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland during the pe,riod ,10 January $0'1 April 1966.

2. 1. 5. 1 Initial insp,ection revealed that the, truck, van body, and trailer had had extensive, previous use and that the van body was rigidly attached to the truck chassis ,in an unconventional manner.

2. 1. 5. 2 Considering that the Engineering Cross-Country Mobility Test Plan was oriented toward late production test items, a letter was forwarded to USATEC,OM requesting that a determination be made concerning the fe,asibility,for continued engineering test at Aberdeen Pro,ving, Ground.

2. 1. 5.3 Subsequently a modification to the van body and vehicle frame attachment was completed, and the field performance portion of the test accomplished. The maintenance engineering phase was deleted, the adverse soil mobility phase, was cancelled, and the 5.000- mile durability pha,se was,\rnodified to 4, 300 miles (ref 8, appendix

VU). ,I ', . , ,. 2. 1'. 6

The test item wag, received with an obsolete liquid- cooled engine generator set. However, prior to operational testing, that generator, ,s,et was replaced with the currently,standard 10 ,KW, 60 cycle, air -cooled, engine generator set.

,, ; ,: 'I, , ~ I 2.2 .OPERATIONAL TEST ON NONCONTAMINATED WATER AT FORT KNOX, KY (ENGINEERING TEST) ..

2.2. 1 Objective

14 2. 2. 1. 1 The objective of this test was to determine to what extent the unit satisfied military characteristics 2 and 5, and supplementary test criterion 13 of appendix II.

2. 2. 1. 2 Criteria

a. Shall provide facilities for conditioning drinking water supplies with ion exchange mate'rials. (See item Za, appendix 11. )

b. Equipment and apparatus for operational control shall be designed for housing in an insulated and heated van-type body which will provide necessary protection from the weather to the equipment and operating personnel. (See item Zb, appendix 11. )

c. Shall be complete with all necessary supplies and accessories to permit 60 hours of operation at maximum capacity, fuel excepted. (See item 5, appendix 11. )

d. Shall be regenerated effectively. (DPG) (See item 13, appendix 11. )

2.2.2 Method

US Army Armor and Engineer Board operators at Fort Knox performed an operational test on water which contained about 140 parts per million (ppm) of total dissolved solids. US Army Dugway Proving Ground personnel directed the test.

2.2.2.1 Site. The Mobile Water Purification Unit (Erdlator) and the Mobile Ion Exchange Unit were placed in a Fort Knox test area adjacent to the source of raw water.

2. 2. 2. 2 Water Deionization Procedure. Deionized water was obtained by processing raw surface water through the Erdlator and then through the Ion Exchange Unit. Except for regeneration of ion exchange resin, which requires termination of processing water and use of deionized water, the quantity of processed water was recorded on an hourly basis. Operational characteristics and details of procedure were as specified in the Ion Exchange Unit Maintenance Pack- age, MP 5-4610-206-12.

15 2.2.2.3 Regeneration. Ion exchange resm regeneration was performed twice during the 60-hour operational, test. 'The need for regeneration was indicat,ed ,by a c,onductivity,cell that sounded an' audi- ble alarm when the conductivity of the deionized water exceeded 1 grain per gallon. Regeneration was performed as specified in MP 5 -46 10 -20 6 - 12.

2. 2. 2. 4 , Sampling and Analysis. Raw water and Erdlator efflucnt were sa,mpled,,and analyzed at, 4-hour intervals. The Mobile Ion Ex- change Unit effluent was sampled and analyzed at 1 -hour intervals while,the unit .was processing,wate,r. The deio,nized water was also . ,,. sampled and a'nalyzed wheneverI . the conduc,tivity: indicated the need for termination of processing,water and regencration of the,ion ex- I change medium. The, samples of water were analyzed for tu,rbidity, total dissolved solids, total hardness, and chlorine according to American Public Health Ass.ociation's Standard Methods for Exami- nation of Water and Sewage, ,llth Edition. I.

2.2. 3 Results

! ,. 2.2.3. 1 General. 'The test data from the Fort Knox test are ,.I presented in table 1, appendix I. The duration of test, including 5 hours for regeneration, was 65 hours. Wate? throughput during the operational test was 96,450 gallons, at a rate of approximately 1, 600 GPH. Hourly wa,ter flow rates varied from 1, 440 to 3, 300 ,, ,. gallons. Deionized water at a 3,,OOO-GPH,rate could be, sustained ,,,, ,. .. for, one 2-hour interva1,only: Excepting during regeneration, the quality of the deionized ,,water, as indicated by total dissolved solids (TDS)content, varied from 2 to 10 ppm': The concentration of dissolved solids in the raw water was less during the latter part of I i, ,, the test than at the beginning or .middle.

,, ., 2. 2. 3. 2 Erdlator Operation. Although the Erdlator was operated as prescribed, the output of processed water at a 3,000-GPH rate could not, .be, ,.achieved,bccause the diatomite filters became plu'gged, and shutd0w.n. was 'necessary while back washing these filters. As 1.' ,, shown in table 1; appendix I, usually 1,440 to 1, 500 iallons of water were deio'nized per hour.,, Water deionization in excess of 2, 000 GPH was achieved only during the fourth through thc ninlth hour on 29'June 1965 and from the forty-third through the forty-sixth hour on'30 June 1965.

16 2. 2. 3. 3 Regeneration.

a. Two regenerations were required during the operational test, and were performed as specified in MP 5-4610-206-12; each consumed 39 gallons (three carboys) of hydrochloric acid, 125 pounds of soda ash, and water as required by the operational pro- cedur es .

b. Regeneration served to restore the ion exchange capability of the resins. ,, 2.2.4 Analysis

Decrease in TDS (deionized wafer as compared with raw water) varied from 92. 2 percent to 98. 7 percent. The measured TDS of the raw water varied from 125 to 17.5 ppm during the test.

2.3 OPERATIONAL TEST ON NONCONTAMINATED WATER AT ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MD (ENGINEERING TEST) '.

2. 3. 1 Objective

2. 3. 1. 1 The objective of this test was to determine to what extent the unit satisfies military characteristics 2 and 5,' and supple- .mental test criterion 13 of appendix 11: " ..

2.3. 1.2 Criteria

a. Shall provide facilities for conditioning drinking water supplies with ion exchange materials. (See item 2a, appendix 11. ) ',

b. Equipment and apparatus for operational control shall be designecl for housing in an insulated and heated van-type body which will provide necessary protection from the weather to the equipment and operating personnel. '(See item 2b, appendix 11. )

c. Shall be complete with all necessary supplies and accessories to permit 60 hours of operation at maximum capacity, fuel excepted. (See item 5, appendix 11. )

17 d. Shall be regenerated effectively. (DPG) (See item 13, appendix 11.) ,.

2. 3.2 . . Method

,, The operational test (without the Mobile Water Purifica- tion Unit) was.performed at Aberdeen Proving Ground on water which contained about IO0 ppm of TDS.

2.3. 2. 1 Site of Test and Source of,Water. ,The Ion Exchange Unit was installed near the Munson Course, Aberdeen Proving Ground (APC). Water for the test was delivered initially from the APG water main system to a 3, 000-gallon collapsible tank and then pumped into the 1on.Exchange Unit. A procedural change during the test was re.- quired afper one of the water transfer pumps failed. The 3,000-gal- Ion tank and pump .were bypassed and water was furnished directly to the,system by the A,PG,water main system. ,I

2. 3,. 2. 2 , Regeneration.,. One ion exchange .resin regeneration was required when the ,conductivity of the deionized,water ,exceeded 1 grain per gallon of NaC1. The regeneration was performed as specified in MP 5 -4610 -20 6 - 12. I

2. 3. 2.3,, ..Sampling and .Analysis. Raw water was, sampled and, analyzed at 4-hour intervals ,and deionized water at 1-hour intervals as described in paragraph 2._2.,2.4. In addition, pH measurements were made.

2.3.3 Results

I, ,I I I , ,I 2.3.3. 1 General. The resultant data of the &-hour test ,at APG are presented in table 2. The total throughput of water. was 178,420 gallons. Flow rates varied from 3,000 GPH to 3, 240 GPH and the average flow rate was 3,000 .GPH.,The quality, of the water was acceptable except when ,appcsaching the time whe,n ,re.generation of the ion exchange iresin wa,s, reqqired. Serious problems affecting the operation of ,the.,unit were: . , . .

,,, , ,. a. ,Failure of ,one of the water supply transfer pumps during,the thirteenth hpur ,of test. In order to continue testing after failure of the water pump,: direct water pressure from the APG water main system was utilized.

18 b. Breakdown of the 10-KW motor-generator set during the thirty-seventh hour of test. The 10-KW motor-generator set failed because of a faulty magneto. Repair in the field could not be accomplished. An APG 30-KW motor-generator set was substi- tuted for the 10-KW motor-generator set and the test was continued.

2. 3. 3. 2 Regeneration

a. One regeneration was required and was performed as specified in MP 5-4610-206-12. Thirty-nine gallons (three carboys) of hydrochloric acid, 125 pounds of soda ash, and water as required by the operational procedures were consumed.

... b. Regeneration served to restore the ion exchange capability of the resins.

2.3.4 Analysis

In the operational test, the TDS of the raw water varied from 100 ppm to 123 ppm. Decrease of TDS was 74.5 percent to 92. 4 percent. (See table 2, appendix I, for the complete data. )

2.4 OPERATIONAL TEST ON REMOVAL OF NUCLEAR BOMB DEBRIS, STRONTIUM 90-YTTRIUM 90, AND CESIUM 137- BARIUM 137, FROM WATER (ENGINEERING TEST)

2.4. 1 Objective

2.4. 1.1 The objective of this test was to determine to what ex tent the Mobile 1on.Exchange Unit in conjunction with the Mobile Water Purification Unit satisfied supplementary test criteria 11 and 12, appendix 11.

2.4. 1. 2 Criteria

a. Shall be capable of demineralizing brackish water for drinking purposes (e. g., reduction of total dissolved solids to 1, 500 ppm by blending). (DPG) (See item lla, appendix 11. )

b. Shall be capable of softening water (e. g., reducing hardness from 450 ppm to 10 ppm). (DPG) (See item llb, appendix 11. )

1Y .. . ,

c. Shall be capable of removing dissolved radioactive-contaminants from water to 'a concentration that will not exce'ed 300.. picocuries per milliliter. (DPG) (See item 12, ap- peAdix 11. ) ,- 'I .: 2.4.2 Method_.

This test was made as a field study conducted by the Sanitary Sciences Branch, USAERDL, in cooperation with the Office 01 the Civil' Air 'Defense Mobilization, at the Atomic Energy Com- mission'Nevada test site. This 'work was originally reported in USAERDL 1673-RR;-',23May 1961. I ,: , , I,, . . , 2. '1. 2. 1 Bomb Debris. The radioactive bomb debris used in this test was approximately .I year old and was obtained from an underground nuclear detonation. The material. was'ground in a ball mill for 30 hours to produce a powder of 3 microns average particle diameter. The radiochemical analysis data of the powdered bomb debris used appear in table 3, appendix 1. For one test, the powdered bomb debris was fuzed'with sodium hydroxide to provide for greater 'solubility of radioactive contaminants when slurried with , , .I , . ;, , , . , 5' water. '' ', ,

2.4. 2. 2.:' Ra'dioisotopes. Strontium 90-yttrium 90, and cesium 137;Garium 137 were obtained from Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) as chloride 'in hydrochloric acid. The radioisotopes were diluted on site for use as contaminants.

2. 4. 2.3 Description of Tests. Six tests were performed. One test evaluated electrodialysis as an alternate method for removing radioisotopes from a brackish water and is not included in this report. The composition of the water used in the test is presented in table 4, appendix I. For each test, contaminated water was pre.- pared by adding the desired amount of bomb debris or soluble isotopes to well water in a 3,000-gallon nylon rubber tank. A canoe paddlt, was used to thoroughly mix the contaminated solution which then was recirculated with an electrically driven pump. Several tanks of water were prepared for each test.

2. 4. 2. 4 Duration of Test. The duration of each test was determined by the operating capacitics of the ion exchange resins ,(

20 or when the final effluent conductivity reading indicated a total dissolved solids (TDS) content of 1 grain per gallon (17. 1 ppm).

2. 4. 2. 5 Water Sampling. During the course of each test, water samples were taken at hourly intervals and analyzed for radioactivity.

2.4. 2. b Measurement of Radioactivity.' Radioactivity was measured with the aid of a membrane filter device to differentiate between soluble and particulate activity. The total activity was determined by pipetting l to 5 ml of water onto an aluminum planchet, drying under an infrared lamp, and counting in an end window Geiger- Muller beta counter. Soluble activity was determined by measuring the activity of the filtrate passing through a membrane filter of 0. 45 micron pore size.

2.4. 2. 7 Badges and Dosimeters. Film bahges and pocket'dosimeters were installed at strategic locations on the exterior walls of the equipment. All operators wore film badges' at all times. '

2.4. 2.8 Waste Disposal. Because of the proximity of the test site and the water well, the factor of area contamination was care- fully considered. A waste pit was excavated, and this pit 'received all process water from test operations plus sludge from the.Erdlator and the backwash from the diatomite filter. Ion exchange regeneration fluids from tests using strontium 90-yttrium 90, as well as the cation resin itself, upon completion of the program, were directed into a 1,500 gallon tank. The water was allowed to evaporate and the tank and its residue were transferred to a waste burial pit.

2.4.2. 9 Decontamination Procedures., The following procedures were used:

a. Mobile Water Purification Unit--This Unit was given the principal attention, An 0. 8-percent solution of hydrochloric acid was recirculated through the Unit for 2. 5 hours. The Unit was rinsed with fresh water and flushed a second time with a 1. 1-percent solution of hydrochloric acid for an additional 2. 5 hours. The Unit was rinsed again with water and sent to the AEC operated decontamination station where it was steam cleaned, flushed with detergent solution, and subjected to a final fresh water rinse.

21 b. Mobile Ion Exchange Unit--This Unit was, flushed with a 1. 6 percent solution of hydrochloric acid for 2.25,hours, rinsed with fresh water, flushed with an 0. 8-percent solution of hydroch1,oric acid for 1 hour, and subjected to a final fresh water rinse.

2.4. 2,lO , Assimilation of Data,from Prior Tests. In addition to the tests ,described, all other USAERDL published.data were reviewed to aid in evaluating the pe,rfo.rmance of the, Mobile lon Exchange Unit 8andauxili,ary-equipment for removal of dissolyed and suspended.radioactivity from water.

,,.,I 2.4.3 . Results

,, 2.4. 3. 1 Water Processing Data. The detailed results of tests are +own in USAERDL.Res,earch Report 1673-RR (para 8, appendix VI). .Data,from a typical test appear in ,table 5, appendix I, and a water decontamination summary is presented in table 6, appendix I.

2., 4.. 3. ,2 Test Number 1. Test Number 1 revealed a 99.9 percent removal of pulverized bomb debris from water by processes of coagulation and,filtration only. The bomb debris with respect to the radioactive components was .only 0.5 percent, soluble in water (as.measured by radioactivity). The Erd1ato.r eliminated turbidity and suspended insoluble bomb debris. ,i

I ., 2.4.3.3 Test Number 2. In Test Number 2, pulverized bomb debris was subjected to 25 -minute treatment with sodium hydroxide,neutral- ized with hydrochloric acid, and added to the feed water; 2. 8 percent of the contained radioactivity dissolved. ,The,fusion was accomplished in an iron pot over a gas burner, using 5 pounds of sodium hydroxide per pound of bomb debris. Coagulation and filtration operations removed the i-nsolube matter and 97.2 percent.of the total radioactivity. The removal of radioactivity was increased,to 99.9 percent by subsequent.passage of the wat,er thr,ough the Mobile.Ion Exchange Unit.

2.4. 3.4 Test Number,3.,, In Test Number 3, the influent,water was contarpinated,with soluble strontium 90-yttrium 90, the most dangerous radioactive contaminant available. The Erdlator effec - tively removed the yttrium 90 component (98.7 percent removal)

22 but did not effectively remove the strontium 90 component (13. 3 percent removal). Because yttrium 90 breeds rapidly into stron-, tium 90, effective removal was not accomplished by coagulation and filtration. However, the cation exchanger on the hydrogen cycle removed most of the soluble material which passed through the Erd- lator for an overall decrease in radioactivity greater than 99.9 percent. .. 2.4. 3. 5 Test Number 4. In Test Number 4, another dangerous fission product contaminant, soluble cesium 137-barium 137. was used. The Erdlator removed only 2. 4 percent of this material. The cation bed on the hydrogen cycle in the Mobile Ion Exchange Unit removed the great bulk remaining, however, for an overall removal of 99. 9 percent. Regeneration with sodium chloride at the end of the test removed 77 percent of the activity held by the resin.

2.4.3.6 Test Number 5. Test Number 5 was conducted to demon- strate the effectiveness of a cation excha'nge resin on the sodium cycle for removing cesium 137-barium 137 from water. The contaminated water, without prior coagulation or filtration, was fed directly to the cation exchanger. The process proved to be inferior to cation exchange on the hydrogen cycle with pretreatment of the influent water. The strontium 90 removal was 95.5 percent, whereas the yttrium 90 removal was only 76. 6 percent. The relatively low removal of yttrium 90 was probably due to the established tendency of yttrium' 90 to hydrolyze at pH values over 4.5 and to form radio- colloids by attachment to particles of dust, silica, or the like,. in- evitably present even in clear water, and thus become nonsuscpp- tible to removal by ion exchange.

2. 5 SAFETY (ENGINEERING TEST)

2. 5. 1 Objective ,. I 2. 5. 1. 1 The objective of this test was to assure safety in cun- ducting the overall test, as required by supplemental test, criterion 14 of appendix 11. '. 2. 5. 1. 2 Criterion. Shall fulfill all safety considerations. (DPG) (See item 14, appendix 11. )

.. . __" 2.5.2 Method

2. 5. 2. 1, ' '. Digest.of Safety Observations. All applicable safe operation ,practices were observed during conduct of this test. In accordance with USATECOM Regulation 385-06 (reference 4) a preliminary safety statement to serve as a safety release was furnished by DPG to USATECOM.

2. 5. 2. 2 Regeneration of Cation Column. During the regcnera- tion of the cation column, operating personnel took care to avoid contact with hydrochloric acid. When any spillage occurred, it was washed immediately with deionized water or other water as available. HC1 vapor is an irritant to the eyes and respiratory system, and operators avoided breathing HC1 vapors emanating from the carboys.

2. 5. 2.3 Preparation of Soda Ash Solution. During preparation of the soda ash solution, prolongcd skin contact with thc soda ash crystals was avoided. When contact occurred, the area of the body affected was rinsed with water.

2. 5. 2.4 ' Safety Apparel. Operators wore face shields, rubber aprons, and rubber gloves as needed to assure personal safety while working with acids and alkalies.

2. 5. 2. 5 Leaks and Spillage Inside Van. Any leaks in hose connections or piping (inside van), especially those containing hydrochloric acid or soda ash solution, were repaired immediately. Any spillage inside the van was washed or immediately diluted with water.

2. 5, 2. 6 Processing Water Containing Radioactive Materials. When processing water containing radioactive materials, the radioactivity conccntrates principally in the cation exchanger. During acid regeneration, the waste water contained most of this activity in concentrated form and was discharged away from the operating area. Under tactical field conditions, the acid concentrate (and other contaminated liquids) will be lagooned for burial or disposed downstream of the intakc to avoid further hazards.

2. 5. 3 Re SUIt s

2. 5. 3. 1 Digest of USAERDL Safety Observations.

a. Operator Hazard--The five subtests reported in paragraph 2. 3 were conducted without excessive radiation exposure

24 to operating personnel. The maximum exposure observed for ,the entire test period was 330 milliroentgen equivalent man.(mrem) for the person involved in grinding the highly active bomb debris and in diluting and aliquoting the radioisotope concentration used. as soluble contaminants. This dosage ,is well below the 3, 000 mrem permitted for any given 13-week period. The operator of the.Mobile Ion Exchange Unit received an accumulated radiation dose of only 30 mremover a period of 46 hours of operation. ,.

b: Equipment Contamination- -Cer tain sections , of the equipment in both the8Erdlator and Mobile Ion Exchange Unit became more radioactively "hot" than others. The condition was shown by film badges attached to key segments of the equipment ,to measure the cumulative radiation for each test. The highest radiation readings were obtained during a test with cesium 137-barium 137 as the contaminants. During the test, 50 to 60 mrem dose was accumulated on the outside surface of the Erdlator opposite the slurry pool and on the outside surface of the bottom section of the sludge concentrator. Because there is continuous withdrawal of slurry to waste in the Erdlator operation, radiation levels in the slurry pool area were found to reach a plateau and remain there until a change occurred in the concentration of radioactive materials in the water. When processing cesium 137-barium 137 contaminated water, the maximum specific activity in the Erdlator occurred on the outside surface (8. 3 mr/hr). In the Mobile Ion Exchange Unit. the highest cumulative reading (1, 800 mrem) was obtained on the outside surface of the cation exchange tank. A specific activity reading of 600 mr/hr at this same.point decreased to 5 mr/hr during regeneration.

C. Measurement of Radioactivity--The data obtained with the beta-gamma survey meter for monitoring contaminated water indicated that this method is satisfactory for one in the field. The U.S. Army Signal Corps "Radiac meter LMV141/PDR-27J" is a portable, watertight battery-operated, partly transistorized. radiation detector designed for field use. ., d. Allowable Contamination--Effectiveness of water decontamination procedures must be evaluated in terms of existing tolerance levels. The Office of the Surgeon General, 24 March 1965,

25 established 300 picocuries per milliliter as the permissible contamination level for potable water to be consumed over a period in excess of one week but less than one year. Significant concen- trations of radioactivity in waters tested by USmRDL (paragraph 2. 3) were (1) range of contaminated feed water tested, 667, 000 to 12, 700,000 picocuries; and (2) range of final effluents produced, 700 to 279, 000 picocuries.

2. 5. 3. 2 Observations of Safety Aspects from Tests on Non- contaminated Water. Leaks of process water from defective fittings, which would present hazards when operating with radioactive water, were noted and reported as Equipment Failure Reports and are shown in appendix 111. Minor spills were washed with water as they occurred. ,. 2. 6 HUMAN ENGINEERING (ENGINEERING TEST)

2. 6. 1 Objective

2. 6. 1. 1 The objective of this test was to deterrninc whether the unit is properly designed with respect to human engineering as required by supplemental test criterion 15 of appendix 11.

2. 6. 1. 2 Criterion. Shall fulfill human engineering considerations. (DPG) (See itcm 15, appendix II. )

2. 6. 2 Method

Data generated in.the operational tests, paragraphs 2. 2, 2.3, and 2.4,. and in other test areas, were evaluated with respect to human factors. Specifically, answers were obtained to the following questions :

2. 6. 2.1 Are controls and instruments properly placed and ar- ranged for best operating control ,of the unit?

2. 6.2.2 Are the operating instructions in MP 5-4610-206-12 adequate and satisfactory for normal operations?

2.6.2.3 Are arrangements, couplings, and other interconnections satisfactory for joint operation of the Ion Exchange Unit with the water purification unit (Erdlator)?

26 2. 6. 2.4 Is adequate provision made for operations in inclement weather (rain and snow)?

2. 6. 2. 5 Are any improvements possible in simplifying equipment and methods for installation and setting up?

2. 6. 3 Results

From a human engineering view, the Mobile Ion Ex- change Unit is adequate with the exception of the items so indicated below: ,,

2. 6. 3. 1 Controls and instruments are properly placed and ar- ranged for best operating control of the unit.

2.6. 3. 2 The operating instruction. (Maintenance Manual) is not adequate as determined in the Fort Knox operational tests. (See para 2. 16. 3. 5. ) Neither instruction nor necessary materials (epoxy resin) were provided for replacement of pipe fittings at organizational maintenance levels. ,a

2. 6. 3. 3 Arrangements, couplings, and other interconnections for joint operation of the Mobile Ion Exchange Unit with the Mobile Water Purification Unit were satisfactory from a human engineering view. Problems encountered with respect to operationa1,adequacy appear in appendix III.

I. , /I 2. 6. 3.4 Provisions made for operation in inclement weather (rain and snow) were adequate except for the lack of personnel com- fort when the van heater failed to function as reported in appendix tII.

2.7 PREOPERATIONAL INSPECTION (SERVICE TEST)

2.7. 1 Objectives

2. 7. 1. 1 To ensure that the test item was in proper condition for test operation,

2. 7. 1. 2 To determine pertinent characteristics of the test item.

27 2. 7. 1.3 Criterion. The test item.shal1 incorporate electrical drives for the powered components using standard Army engine- driven electrical generator sets for the power source. (See item 3, appendix 11. ) '

2. 7.2 Method

2.7.2.1 The test item was inspected and serviced in accordance with Maintenance Package MP 5-4610-206-12. ,, , 2. 7. 2. 2 Equipment faults noted during the initial inspection were rccorded.

2. 7. 2. 3 The test item.was measured, weighed, and photographed.

2. 7. 2.4 All parts and components of the test item were inventoried.

2. 7.3 Results ., 2. 7. 3. 1 After replacement of missing parts, general servicing, minor repair, and essential adjustment, the test item was in proper operating condition; .' '.

.,I 2. 7.3. 28 The:weight ofthe test item including basic issue items was as follows':

Truck with van body - 20, 900 lb 'Tra'iler (loaded), - 6,700 lb as reccivcd for tcst - 5, 908 lb with currently standard . ,, engine generator set

2. 7.3. 3 For descriptive photographs of the test itcm sec figures 1 through 3, appendix IV.

2. 7. 3.4 The test item utilized electrically-driven components powered by a standard Army engine-driven electrical generator set.

2.7.4 Analysis

The test item met the critcrion.

28 2.8 PERFORMANCE (SERVICE TEST)

2. 8. 1 Objective

2. 8. 1. 1 To determine performance characteristics of the test item.

2. 8. 1.2 Criteria

a. Shall be capable of treating clear water at a rat? of approximately 3, 000 GPH. (See item 1, appendix 11.)

b. Shall be designed for operation on a standard 2-1/2-ton truck chassis and standard 1-1/2-ton cargo trailer. (See item 4, appendix 11. )

2. 8. 2 Method

2. 8. 2. 1 The test item was placed in operation with the 3, 000- GPH water purification equipment set utilizing each of the accessories and attachments provided. The water was post treated utilizing the test item in accordance with the operational procedures outlined in the equipment publications. Test operations were conducted during daytime and at night under the most stringent blackout conditions utilizing not more than three men for assembly and not more than one man for operation of the test set.

2. 8. 2. 2 Throughout operations an Operation Log was maintained wherein water flow rates, chemicals usage, conductivity meter readings, and operational times were recorded.

2. 8. 2. 3 All testing was conducted with the ion exchange equipment operating in the van body installation on the standard 2-1/2- ton truck chassis. Required electric power was supplied by the engine-generator set operating in its installed position on the 1-l/2- ton trailer.

2.8.3 Results

2. 8. 3. 1 The test item was capable of deionizing water at a rate in excess of 3,000 GPH. ... .

2. 8. 3. 2 The Ion Exchange Unit was effectively regenerated using the chemical quantities specified in MP 5-4610-206-12.

2. 8. 3. 3 The test item was capable of demineralizing in excess of 100,000 gallons of water containing 100 ppm of hardness before regeneration was necessary.

2.8.3.4 The average time required for regenerating the Ion Ex- change Unit was 2.13 hours during daytime and 3.45 hours during nighttime.

2. 8. 3. 5 The hypochlorinator pump over-chlorinates the effluent water at water processing rates less than 23 gallons per minute. (See item 17, appendix 111.)

2.8.4 Analysis

The test item met the criteria.

2.9 COMPATIBILITY WITH RELATED EQUIPMENT (SERVICE TEST)

2. 9. 1 Objective

2. 9. 1. 1 To determine the compatibility of the test item with rc- lated'vehicles and equipment.

2.9.1.2 Criterion. The test item shall be capable of connection and operation with the 3,000-,1, 500-, and 600-GPH water purification sets. (See item 16, appendix 11.)

2. 9.2 Method

The test item was,placed in operation with the 3,000- GPH water purification set and configurations for interconnecting with the 1, 500-GPH and 600 GPH water purification sets were in- ves tiga ted.

2. 9.3 Results

2. 9. 3. 1 The test item was easily coupled to the 3, 000-GPH water purification set utilizing an intermediate tank between the two sets.

30 2.9. 3.2 The test item had water processing capacity in excess of that of the 3, 000-GPH water purification set.

2.9. 3.3 The test item was easily coupled to the 1, 500-GPH water purification set utilizing an intermediate tank between the two sets.

2. 9. 3.4 The test item can be coupled to the 600-GPH water purification set utilizing an intermediate tank.

2.9.4 Analysis

The test item met the criterion.

2. 10 HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING (SERVICE TEST)

2.10.1 Objective

2. 10. 1. 1 To determine whether the test item is suitable with respect to safety and compatible with the skills, aptitudes, and limitations of personnel who will operate and service it.

2. 10. 1. 2 Criteria

a. Will provide necessary protection from the weather to operating personnel. (See item Zb, appendix 11. )

,, b. Shall be designed to permit'operation by one man. (See item bb, appendix 11. )

c. The sheltered unit shall be designed to permit operation under full blackout conditions. (See item 8, appendix II. )

2.10.2 Method

2. 10.2. 1 Throughout all testing, observations were made with respect to, and operators were instructed to report difficulties es- periended in operation of the test item; discomforts suffered; safety hazards encountered; and areas where improvements might be made. Special attention was given to techniques and methods for handling the acid and caustic regenerate solutions. Data pertinent to the safety confirmation required by USATECOM Regulation No 385-7 were recorded.

31 2. 10. 2. 2 Weather protection provided the ,.operating personnel was noted.

2. 10.3 Res u1ts '. .. 2. 10.3. 1 When injecting acid into the cation column during the regeneration procedure according to instructions continued in the equipment publication: the possibility of flow rever'sal exists, creat- ing a hazard to the operator if acid is displaced'from the carboy.' (See para 2. 16. 3. 8e. )

2. 10.3. 2 The Lest item provided weather protection to the operating personnel by means'of an'insulated and heated van body which could be closed during operation. However, ,it was necessary that operating personnel leave the van 'periodically for' short periods of time to check the equipment outside of the van.

2. 10. 3. 3 The test item was operated satisfactorily by one man. ,, < ..,>,

, 2. 10. 3.4 The'test item was operated satisfactorily under full ., blackout conditions, using a shielded flashlight.

2. 10.4 Analysis

., , T'he' test 'item met the criteria. ' .,. , 2.11 TRAINING (SERVICE TEST) ,, ,. . . ., . .. ., ,I 2.11.1 Objective

2. l'l.'l. 1 To dete'rmine the adequacy of MOS.'51N, (Water Supply Specialis't) with respect to operation and maintenance of the test item. ,. ,, 2. 11. 1. 2 Criterion. The test item shall be within the operation I ,, and maintenance capabilities'of MOS 51N (Water, , .II, Supply Specialist). 3.

,, (See item,, 17, appendix'II..~-,, ) ./, ,

2.11.2 ' Method ' '

: Throughout all testing, operations and ma&tenance' procedures carried out by test personnel on'the'test item were evaluated

32 against the skills and knowledge required by MOS 5 1N. Additional skills and training requirenlents were noted.

2. 11.3 Results

2. 11. 3. 1 Operation and maintenance of the test item is within the skills and knowledge requirements o€ MOS 51N.

2.11, 3.2 Operation on radiologically conlaminated water requires knowledge of the use of radiation monitoring ,devices and radiological decontamination procedures, which are not within the purview o€ MOS 51N.

2. 11.4 Analysis

2.1'1.4. 1 The test item failed to meet the c'riterion.

2. 11.4.2 Operation of the test item on radiologically contaminated water would be hazardous or possibly fatal without additional training of MOS 51N for work around dangers of this type.

2.12 STOWAGE (SERVICE TEST)

2.12.1 Objective

2.12.1.1 To determine the adequacy of stowage provisions for all materiel carried in or on the test item.

2. 12.1.2 Criterion. Shall'have adequate provisions for stowage of crew equipment, on-vehicle-kquipment, and basic issue items. (See item 18, appendix 11.)

2.12.2 Method

A list of all materiel to be carried on the test item, including typical field equipment rations for three men for 3 days, was prepared, and the appropriate materiel was then stowed.

33 2.12.3 , Results ',

2. 12.3.1 The van body had adequate space for stowage of all materiel. The forward end of the van body had adequate space for crew equipment; rations, and the lifting kit; however, no tiedown points were provided.

2. 12. 3. 2 Space in the trailer for stowing the required equipment was marginal. It was necessary to place equipme,nt on top of other equipment ,thus complicating the stowage procedure and limiting acces?,t,o the generator. .,

2.12.3. 3 The soda ash chemical, which is bagged and carried in the trailer, had to be stored high and on a smooth surface in the trailer to minimize breakage and exposure to water. Even so, bags were torn from time to time during testing. (See item 18, appendix III. ) ' '. . ,, I, 2. .,12.4 Analysis

a. The test item did not meet the criterion.

2. 13 INSTALLATION AND MARCH ORDER TIME (SERVICE TEST)

2. 13.1 Objective

, ,,. 2. 13. 1. 1 To determine the time required for three men to place the test item in operation at the site, and th,e time neces- s+ry to,place the test item,in march order from an operation , status.

2. 13. 1. 2 Criterion. Shall be designed to permitsassembly by not more than three men. (See item ba, appendix LI; ) ., ., I. 2. 13.,2 'Method ,I

i., . The following ope'rations not involving radiological contamination were performed during wet and dry, daytime and nighttime conditions using a crew of three men.

, , ,. ... - ,.,, 2. 13.2. 1 The test item was driven to the test site. The time to set up the test item was recorded beginning with the instant the movement of the test item ceased. The setup was considered complete when the test item was placed in operation.

2. 13. 2. 2 The test item was taken out of operation and all components were stowed. The time required was recorded beginning. with a signal given while water was being processed.

2. 13. 3 --Results 2. 13. 3. 1 Three men were adequate to place the test item into and take it out of operation. However, it was necessary to be sure that the 3,000-gallon storage tanks were completely drained of water in order for three men to be capable of lifting the tanks into the trailer.

2. 13. 3. 2 The time required for three men to place the test item into operation was 1.65 hours during daylight and 1.73 hours during nighttime.

2. 13. 3. 3 The time required for three men to place 'the test item into march order was 1. 13 hours during daytime and 1.42 hours at night.

2. 13.4 Analysis

The test item met the criterion.

2. 14 SECURITY (SERVICE TEST)

2. 14. 1 Objective

2. 14. 1. 1 To determine the susceptibility of the test item to de- tec tion.

2. 14. 1. 2 Criterion. The sheltered unit shall be designed to permit operation under full blackout conditions: (See item 8, appendix 11. )

35 2.14.2 Method ,' ,. ., ,. The test item was operated.in an isolated area to determine visual and aural security during water processing , operation.

81, , ! ,. 2. 14. 3 Results . ,

., I 2. 14.3. 1 No light was visiblc around the test item when operating under blackout conditions. However, when the van door was open, the indicator lights could be detected within a small sector for a distance of'approximately 300 yards.

2. 14.3.2 There were two major sources. of sound - the electrical power generator.and the signal bell.' ,The sound of the electrical generator was predominant and could be detected for a distance of three-quarters of a mile. ., I j. , ,,, ,. 2. 14. 3. 3, The test item utilized no other visual or aural sources which would compromise its security. ,, ,, ,

2. 14.4 :Analysis.

,. I, ,, , The test item met the criterion.

2. 15 DURABILITY AND RELIABILITY (SERVICE TEST)

2. 15. 1 Objective

2.15.1.1 To determine whether the test item is durable and reliable.

2. 15. 1. 2 Criteria

a. The test item shall be capable of 200 hours of water processing operation, accomplished with intermittent movement for a travelled distance of 1, 800 miles, with no malfunctions or failures, (See item 46, appendix LI. )

b. The test item shall endure Logistics-Over-The- Shore operations, internal air transportation, and cross-country mobility operations with no failures or malfunctions of the water processing assemblage. (See item 47, appendix II. ) 36 2. 15.2 Method

2. 15. 2. 1 After completion of other"operationa1 tests conducted by the USAARENBD, the test item was continued in operation until 264 hours of water processing had been accum'ulated; and 7 regeneration cycles had been completed.

2. 15.2. 2 The test ,item,loadwas driven an accumulative distance of 1: 800 miles over paved and gravel roads and off road. At the completion of the travelled distance; 'the test item was placed in water processing operation. and .weakness attributable to the travelling was noted.

'? ,., , 2. 15. 2. 3 The test item was placed in water,processing op- ' eration at the completion of the Logistics-Over-The-Shore tests, prior to Internal Air Portability tests,, and prior to,' at ,the mid- ' point of, and at the completion of the Cross-Country,Mobility tests, and any weabnesses in the test item attributable to these operations were noted. , , ~ ,, .,, :,:/,, ' ,,

2. 15.2.4 Repair parts usage and man-hours of maintenance were analyzed. i ,f, .,

2. 15. 3 Results-

2. 15.3. 1 The following failures occurred at,the point in testing indicated:

FAILURE .. HOURS MILES I' Set screw on the telescoping support 100 tubes for the 3, 000-gallon water storage tank failed

Centrifugal pump power source cable. : ." 120 connector failed ,'

.,. ,, Rear ball end of upper rear torque rod failed 920

Number seven leaf of the right front spring failed 920

37 FAILURE HOURS MILES

Muriatic acid container leaked.. , 938

,. ,'i,>;4 < , I' Van was:te ,water outle,t,leaked 20 1 2, 09sa

,, ,I,:/ Pipe from the anion resin drain valve to' the 'tee on the waste water line leaked ,201 2, 09ga

.\', ,I..,, . Tee'connecting the gage vent line, cation 201 2, o9sa needle valve, and waste water line leaked

Weld joining the pump stowage bracket to the !van frame broke I ! 1 . 2, 384b ,. .(. 7 , 3: . ~ . . , , ', I, Connecti.on where!Nol, Conductivity Cell 203 2,864C joins to .piping system leaked

, , . . ,> . ,I' ,I ,, , ,,,;.'j ;, , Set screw on the truck body ground stud 204 3, 174d was inoperable

, . .,.I 3 ..1p.1. ,!,,I Raw water pumps failed to provide 204 3, 174d 3,000-CPHflow rate at APG.

,..I Plastic tubing between right hand block 204 3, 174d valve and flowmeter came loose at both ends.

The 10-KW engine generator magneto 228 3, 174d coil and condensor failed.

,/ I aCompletion of Logistics-Over-The-Shore tests hPrior to Internal Air Portability tests 'Prior to Cross-Country Mobility tests !' dMidpoint of Cross -Country Mobility tests

I 2. 15.,3. 2 Telescoping tubes used to support the sides of the 3., 000-gallon water storage tanks are fixed in'an'extended position through a set'screw and captive .riut'arrangement. after^ the third installation, the set screw sheared off at the nut before it had advanced sufficiently to secure the tubes in the extended position. This is a'military standard item which is used on similar water purification units. Failures'.such as these.may occur on any water purification unit and have no direct or indirect connection to peculiarities'of the Ion Exchange Unit. (See item ,,i ,, ,, I, " , 10, appendix Ill. ) ' ~ '

,',. f', 2. 15. 3.3 Failure of the 4-conductor electrical connector on the pump power source cable was due to'inadequate contact of the terminals because of dirt, ' corros'ion, 'and poor mechanical , fit. These power'source cables are' mili'tary standard items used on similar water purification units. Failures such as this occur on many water purification units and have no direct or indirect connection to peculiarities of'the Ion Exchange Unit. (See item ll, appendix 111. ) ' ,,, N,, I . ~, ,, ., I, 2. 15. 3:4 Failure of the'upper rkar torque rod and right'front spring occurred after 76 miles of cross-country operation, The upper rear torque. rod failed at the re2r ball end when the - vulcanized rubber bushing pulled loose from the torque rod. This allowed the rear-rea'r axle to travel'beyond the maximum extended length of the front-rear axle to rearirear axle propeller shaft, resulttng in damage'to the drive sha'ft splines. '(See item 2, apl pendix 111. ) The right front spring failed by fracture at its mia- point. (See item 3, appendix 111.) This'&ay,be due'to the fakt ' that the truck carries a load of 9,965'Ijounds'bu't is rated at 6,000 pounds for cross-country operation. However, upon receipt of the test item, the odometer'indicated 1,312 miles of ',I , .,,I , unknown history: ', , , .. , ' '% ,.; ' . ., 2. 15'. 3.'5 The"muriatic' acid is contained'in a plastic carboy surrounded by a molded plywood'sheath. This is a'reusable, commercial type of 'container, which is quite'rugged when new; but since it is reusable, it may be received in a weakened condition due to prior usage. (See item 12, appendix 111. ) ,, . ,, , ..

.m .. ,, :'.

39 2. 15.3.,b . The,leaks discovered at 2,,0,99 test.miles were found during an operational. I. check at the completion of 'Logistics-Over - The-Shore tests., .(See items 4a, b, and c,, appendix 111.) ,

,, .<:; , , .r, ,:, . ..._ a. Hiqtpry prior to the discovery.of these. leaks included&paved highway,,operation from ,Fqr,tKnox to ,Fort Story and .$ockside loading .te,sts by^ USAGETA. ,, I. , ,.I

, ,, , . ,, , ,.,. ,, " ,!,,~ b. , ,>,Ifop,erating with nonradipactive water, with which there is no radiation hazard, none of these leaks would be of such a magnitude as to be considered a deficiency.

,, ..: r, ,,I., -,\>I./. , , ,~'...I: I (,i , . '8 2. 15. 3. 7 .,The.weld,.,., failure on the pump stowage- bracket was discovered prior to,,the Internal Air Pirtability,tests., The failure in no way inhibite'd the operation, of the Ion Exchange Unit. (See item 13, appendix 111.') , , , , ,,, . , .. 'I' ' I 'I , ,,

,A,;; ~ ,../. ,, >..;~ , , .'., ')

2. 15. 3.8' ,The 1eak.atI.. Con+ctivify C.el1 No 1,wapdiscovered prior to the Cros'skountry Mobility Tests. .,(See item 4d, appendix 111. ) History prior to the discovery included the Internal Air Portability test and paved,,highway,opeyationfrom.Fort,Bragg to, Aber-deen Prov- ing Ground. At the. initiatipngf ,this:operational check during which the leak was ,discov,er,ed,,,,, . th,e piping system was plugged by ice. .,,.I, ,: ,.,, . '>. . : ,', , .).. ,; ,' ,I , 2.15. 3.9 ,!: The failure of ,the set screw on the truck body ground ,. ,, , stud,was ~no,t,ed,atthe $tart.of the 60-hour operational test.at Aber- deen Proving.. .C-rouncl..!,;The grounding,connecti,on is located on the tru.ck,frame ip such,,.I, a pps,itjon as to be subjected to the water and mud thrown'up 'by the.rear~,wh,eels,.Corrosion was the cause,of the I failure. ,(See item.14, appendix 111.1 L J .: ., :,,! :,,(,I I

... ., ./ ,/,.,, I. ,, 2. 15.3.'10 ,The cause of the failure of the,. two centrifugal water ,I . .II . ,,-.,.. I, I pumps,. series connected, 'to provide the 3, 000-GPH flow rate required for the 60-hour operational test at APG is unknown. These pumps, ,,however, are milityry,,standard. .: ,., items, ,,#( and ,are common to water purific'ation units. The fajlure does not appear to,be ,due to .,,, ,. ,,v: ). .,. . any peculiarities .of i them:, Ion'Exchange Unit. , (See i,tem Sb, appendix . ;,I, 111. ) , (:I ,,

,, i 2. 15.3. 11 The plastic tubing which'connects 'the right hand block valve and the flowmeter became disconnected at both ends prior to the 60-hour operational test at APG. (See item' 15, appendix 111. )

40 . .

The reduced flexibility of the tubing as the"resu1t' of winter temp- eratures combined with the vibrations caused by mobility testing was thought to have caused the failure. ' ' .,, 2.15.3.12 The 10-KW power source generator for the Ion Exchange Unit failed to restart after a maintenance check during the '60'-'hour operational test at APG. This was the result of failure of one coil and condensor in the' edgine magneto. (See item 19, appendix 111. ) The generator is a military standard'item, -and'the,failure is'in no way due to peculiarities, of.the Iofi Exchange Unit. .I , ,.,',' , ;,.:>, . i. ,I. .. 2. 15. 3. 13 At the completion of testing, unscheduled repair of ion exchange equipment plastic piping leaks (para 2. 15. 3. 1) was performed by USAERDL'. :However: the requirements for expendi- :ture'of time, parts,' and"material5"dre unxnown. 'One warning light lamp. replaced at O/C level, was the only part known to have been

expended. Other than for those repairs, no unscheduled maintenance' directly related to the ion exchange equipment was',required. "'

,,. ,, 2. 15.4 Analysis

2. 15.'4. 1 The test item met the criter'ion'stated in para 2. 15. 1. Za -but failed to meet the requirement stated in'pard 2.'15'.'1'. Zb.' ,,, ,, ,/> , ',,. !, . . . ,, s,, ..,. ., 2. 15.4. 2 While the ion exchange equipment piping'leakages'were so minor as to permit operation without repair under the test con- tlitions; leakzge of radioactive material'would'constitute a hazard to personnel - the-severity'of which dould dkpknd on the radioactive ,/ .

content of the water which escapes:' "' . ' ' ' ~ ' I .,,.' ~ ,, " I 4 ..: 2. 16 MAINTENANCE (SERVICE TEST) /., I, ... .

,, , I, :. . - 2:16. 1 Objectives '.I , , , i, , ... 2. 16. 1. 1 'To determine whether'maintenance'of the'test i'tem can I I' ,, ., be accomplished readily. I '

,2. 16; 1. 2 To .evaluate the adequacy of'tools'and test equipment. , , .. 2. 16. 1. 3 To accumulate data pertaining to man-hours expended in maintenance.

41 2. 16. 1.4>I ,. T9,aqcumulate repaiys parts,usage.data. . 8,

. . ,. i,,,. ., . .. 1 ,,I , . ,I,.# , ,. 2. 16. 1. 5 To evaluate the.equipment serviceability criteria and review the draft equipment publications.

, .,, ,. - .,,I,~,.:. ,. .,,

2. < 3. 16. 1. 6 ,Criteria' . . ',, ,I ..I 11 , I

I .; 1'. .I' I , ;, .

..., , ,, r, ,a. I ,,The test item shall be re,adily maintained with th,c.,,twls, r-. .. and skill~,qormqlly,,ay,ailablefor operator /crew and organizational majnteqa,nce, ,and the ,maintenance;.required shall be commensurate with that of similar items. (See item 27, ap- . ., pendix,!;Ii.),<. .. ,,. $:, ,. ~ ,.:i., ,, ,I .. , ',

/,I, I. ,t ,.,h :<',:', ,. ., , , ,I

,' , \?' l"1 b.,, ., , ,.The,draft,equipment, publications for the test item ,,shall,,b,eade.quqte f,or ,the purposes intended and reasonably accurate.

,(See item 28,, appendix.rI,.) . , ,

2. 16.2. 1 Organizational Maintenance Operations

,._, ,,,!a:,, ! ...t$ Army ,Mobility ,Command Maintenance Package,

MP 5klP-206-\2;.,I,, .. <.,- . for, the. Ion Exchange,Unit,: 4500 to,3,000 GPH, Van Body Mounted, was followed in performing organizational main-

fenance ,~~?exafi,otfs,.j:!:?, ,,:, , , .. ,)

,:,,)I , -' .,!,, ..,>:I, ./: r;,.;. lis',,;* (,. j I , ,. ... . i,',. b.:.., ,One preventive maintenance service ,(250 hours) w?s performed, an$ the; time r,equire,d to, accomplikh that operation was recorded. The time for maintenance evaluation .operation where disassembly could cause leakage or damage was estimated.

8, , /. I' ' .: ''..>:.' .', ., c. Observations were made during the preventive maintenance service and during maintenance. evaluation, and maintenance data were examined in an effort to determine whether any operation was unduly, difficult,,required excessive time, or revealed design deficiencies prejudicial to e,as,e,of maintenance.

, ,.,Themaiqt,eqance allocation chart w,as checked to ,, I,<'i d. determine whether any operation should be reassigned from one

echelcm.. to,.anothe,r,. , , !i : . , I 8, ,. , ..

, ,.

42 2. 16. 2. 2 Adequacy of on-vehicle tools and equipment for 1st echelon maintenance and organizationall tools and equipment for 2d echelon maintenance was noted. , , . ,!b,, ,>., . .,, .... 2.16. 2. 3 Man-hours expended iwmaintaining the test item were recorded. First echelon maintenance was performed by the soldier crew; second echelon maintenance was performed by soldier me- chanics with an MOS of that found in a typical using unit; third echelon

(I maintenance was not required. , , ',

2. 16. 2.,4 Repair parts utilized-were.recorded.

2. 16.2. 5 The equipment publication was reviewed with respect to adequacy of operating, lubrication, service,, and maintenance in- ,. structions and adequacy of the repair parts list.

, , , , .,,,, .~, 2.16, 3, 1 Maintenance operations were not considered unduly difficult or time consuming and revea1,ed no,des>gn features pre- ., ., judicial to ease of maintenance,' except for plastic pipe replace- 'ment which requires bonding with an epoxy resin.

2. 16.3.2 On-vehicle tools and equipment are 1not:adequate for operation and operator/crew maintenance .of the,Ion.'Exchange Unit. ,, , %,/. . .../ a. Additional tools are required for operatorlcrew maintenance of the test item. ' ', ' . ,, I ..

b. Connection oft the,power source cable in the control cabinet for operation is unduly difficult with the tools provided. ,'(See item 16, appendix 111:) I '' ' ' ' ,

c. ' Gauntlet-type rubber gloves and protective cloth- ing as required by the Interim Safety Re1eas.e for handling acid and soda ash were not included'as components of the test item. (See item 1, appendix IlI. ) ,, I,

2. 16. 3. 3 No special tools and equipment were required for organizational (2d echelon) maintenance except for those necessary for replacement of plastic piping.

43 2. 16. 3.4 .,The;m+intenance effort required on the 'test item was commensurate with.that.of! similar wqter purification equipment.

.i,.,,I I,,, '( 8,. ,,, :' . 2. 16. 3. 5 Man-hours expended in maintaining the ion exchange equipment containediin; the, van ,body were as follows: ., .. I.: ;!,,A,, ., :,<$. . , . j',I,,~..,i ''4, . :, , , ,.

,: I : . a.' '..Operator/crew (1st echelon) maintenance .. ', , ,I ,,. ., ,, .,,,,,,,,;, . !-,-I/, ,, , Routine daily maintenance, 5.2 man-hours

Unscheduled.maintenance.1 ,' -0. 5 man-hours Total 5.7 man-hours ,, ., ,, ;' , " ,,, ' (., '. ,,: ,, ,,/,,I ,

, , I ,:, . . Average.daily' maintenance time 0.9 man-hours ,),! ,., ,,, .,', .. 1, ,

b. Organizational (2d echelon) maintenance,,

Scheduled maintenance 1.2 man-hours /:: . ' , I(., , l..,1-, ., ,',< , , ,: ,, ',' , ,. I ,,I(:, I; Un'scheduled 'maintenance 0.0 man-hours , ,., ,.. (I. ,I. I: 1-,:, I I,

,,. , , ., ,_ ':,.II , , Total , 1.2 man-hours

2:16.3.6', Man-hours'expended in maintaining the 2-1/2-ton truck, 1-1 /2;ton trailer, -10 -KW generator, and.ancillary water processing equipment were as follows: ' , '.I, . L, i .;..;, , , , ,., I. ,.

a. Operator/crew (lst,echelon)maintenance ' ~

t i :'lr2-j . Routine daily maintenance " 5.6 man-hours

;._,!; ,_ .I ,, :',.!i . i ,, ' Unscheduled.maintenance ' -4.9:man-hours Total 10.5 man-hours 11, :.,I, , ir 6.1, ,; ,~ .,,. .

i.i' J'. 'b.,. Organizational 'maintenance' ' ,, ,;,.; !, ,' I) ,' ~~ ,,,,

, ., Scheduled maintenance ' 3: 6 man-hours

.'I, , .. ,'/ . , Unscheduled maintenanck 16.5 man-hours : -,I, , ,, ,!', , ', ,r,, ,?.,.j. i. ,,'- '

._ ' I . Total 20.1 man-hours

44 2. 16. 3. 7 The repair parts utilized in the unscheduled maintenance of the ion exchange equipment were as'follows:

a. Warning light lamp - 1st echelon ,,

b. Epoxy resin - repairs by USAXRDL

2. 16. 3. 8 Maintenance Publications. Review of the equipment publication revealed the following discrepancies. (See item 39, appendix 111. )

a. Instructions were not provided for bonding of the plastic pipe with epoxy resin.

b. Instructions were not provided for grounding the trailer -mounted generator.

C. Instructions for preparing the rinse water were inade qua te . ,,

d. , Instructions for flushing the resins were provided unnecessarily. ,, , ,/,

e. Instructions for regenerating the resins were in- correct. . ,.,,

f. Instructions for setting up the Ion Exchange Unit were inaccurate. ..

6. The tools listed in the Basic Issue Items List were insufficient for performing oper,ator/crew.maintenance.

2. 16.4 Analysis

,, 2. 16.4. 1 The criterion stated in para 2. 16. 1. 6a was not met due to lack of equipment required for plastic pipe replacement.

2. 16.4. 2 The criterion stated in para 2. 16. 1.6b was not met due to errors and omissions in the manual as indicated in paragraph 2. 16. 3. 8.

45 ......

2.'17 "' LOGISTICS-OVER-THE-SHORE (LOTS) (ENGINEERING ., . , .. TEST) ,.

2. 17. 1 Obj e'c tive .,

2. 17. 1. 1 To'determine' tkie.item's 'capab?lity.for logistics-over- the-shore operations. I/ .,.. , ., , , .. ,,, ,, , ' ' ,, ,, 2. 17: 1.'2 Criterion. Shall be designed for transportation on a" standard 2-1/2-ton truck chassis and standard l-l/Z-ton cargo trailer. (See item 4, appendix II. ) ,, .:,. -.a , . , ./ 2. 17. 2 Method ,, , ,,,

2.17.2: 1 " The test item was backed'over'a beach of hard dry sand, and over the ramp of an LCM-8 beached in salt water with the ramp down on hard dry sand. The item was then driven over the ramp of the LCM-8 and returned to the beach. The item was again backed from the beach and over the ramp into the LCM-8, and was towed from the LCM-8 over the ramp onto the beach by an M52 truck tractor. The LCM-'8 was repositione'd with the ramp down in the water 20 inches deep, and an attempt was made to back the test item through the water and over the ramp which was reeting on the sand bottom. ~! ,.. .,., , .. ,,~... .,!; , , ' ,i. , 2.17.2.2 The test item was backed over a beach of hard wet sand through water, and over the ramp of an LCU beached in salt water with tlie'ramp down &'water 20 inches deep. The item was then driven over the ramp into the water in an attempt to app'r'oach the beach.

, ,I,., .,: ., ,,,I ,' \ 2. 17. 2. 3 Operational'and'towing tests were conducted in'varying sand conditions and sand slopes.

2. 17. 2.4 During the entire test period, the item was exposed to sand and salt water and continuously checked for safety hazards. ,, ,

46 2. 17.3 Results

2. 17, 3. 1 The test item experienced no difficulty in.backing over a beach of hard dry sand with a down grade.of 12.percent and over the ramp of an LCM-8,beached in salt water,with the ramp down on hard dry sand at an angle. of 11 degrees below the horizontal. (See figure ,9,' appendix IV.,) Upon returning to, the beach, however, the test item could not ,negotiate' the 12 percent sand slope, and had to be towed by a TD 24 tractor. The test.item was.towed frommthe LCM-8 over the ramp and,to the beach by an'M52 truck tractor but could not be towed up the 12-percent,sand.slope and.was towed by a TD 24 crawler tractor. ,(See,figure 10, appendix IV. ) The test item was backed through water covering,a sand bottom with.a 10- percent slope to the ramp of the LCM-8 down,in water.20 inches deep and zit an\angle of 12 degrees'; however, the item.could not be backed over the ramp because of the trailer body making contact at the.back end. The test item then could not negotiate the IO-percent slope of the sand bottom to the beach and was towed by the TD 24 crawler tractor.

,I 2. 17. 3. 2 The test item with great difficulty and excessive ma- neuvering was backed over a beach of hard wet sand with a down- grade of 10 percent, through water and over the ramp of an LCU beached in salt water with the ramp down in,water 20 inches dbep, and at an angle of 12 degrees. (See figure, ll,, appendix IV.) The item was then driven over the ramp into the water, but could not negotiate the 10-percent slopeiof the 'sand,bottom and was towed to the beach by a TD 24 crawler tractor. (See,figure 12, appendix IV. )

2. 17.3. 3 The test item, was:capable dnegotiating hard dry sand with grades up to 6 percent; it was towed by and towed an M52 truck tractor on hard dry level sand, but c'ould not be towed, or tow, an M52 truck tractor in loose dry sand. It could not negotiate leve1,dry loose sand and was towed by a TD 24 crawler tractor. (See figures 13 and 14, appendix IV. )

,, , I _.I 2. 17.3.4 No adverse effects of exposure to sand or salt water or safety hazards'were noted. 4,

,. I ,. 'I.. II ,, 2. 17.'3.5 No deflec'tions of the.frame o'f the .test item were noted. I i, , , , I, I., I,,,,{,.,, , ,/' , ,, . , '., , , ' ,, , , .,.., ,, !.

'- 47

.... .,.-. - .... . -- I-.....~ - r...... __ ,, ._I_ ..,~_..-- .I_.__, ----*_ 2. 17.4 Analysis ..

. . . ' ~ Itis ,evident from the test results that the test vehicle with its trailer has only a marginal capability for over the beach it operations from landing, craft. It can become, immobolized when ,self-propelled unless,operations are confined to hard sand which is not always possible in ,a, beach landing. The M52'truck tractor did not have ,sufficient mobility to assiat the test item in loose sand which furth'er indicates that reliable movement of the test item and trailer over'rloping beaches ,and loose beachlsand can only be accomplished.,by.,towing'with 'a tracked vehicle such as the TD 24. Operations of'wheeled,vehicles in loose sand can be improved by the' installation oE increased size.tires. This has been demonstrated on othertests'by equipping the )M52/M12;1 truck, tractor semitrailer combinations withr'l4.50 X 2O'tires,inplace of.the 11.00 X 20. Under these conditions the.xehicle 'operated successfully in soft,soils and

sand as ,well as onhighways'. I A .similar type of modification may improve the mobility of, the test vehicle. . ,, 2. 18 MOVEMENT ADAPTABILITY (ENGINEERING TEST) ,, ,. .. . /I,,, , ). ,, , I, , :.

2. 18.'1 Objectives ' 'J'Y I I .~ ,. . 3: ,.,~L ,., ! 'l'i , ,' ,, 2.,18. l;+l To determine the item adaptability for movement by railcars; watercraft (ocean and inland waterways) and over highways. ,, 8,. , /. ! , , ,. 2. 18. 1. 2:,. To determine whether the.frame of the test item is damaged by bending during lifting operations.. " :

2. 18. 1. 3'. :.Criterion. Shall be designed for transportation on a standard 2-1/Z-ton truck chassis and standard 1-l/Z-ton cargo trailer. '(See item^ 4,.,appendix 11. ) I. . , , ., .,

,, I' , . .! 2. 18.2 Method

2. 18.2. 1 Highway

. .. ~ , ., a. As an initial phase the .movement from.Fort.Knox, Kentucky, was monitored. The test item was delivered to Fort Lee, Krginia;, by self-propelled.operationover ,the highways. Upon arrival, the test item was inspected for any damages incurred during this movement, and a determination was made as to whether any restrictions were involved.

48 b. The test item was operated over the highway from Fort Lee, Virginia, to Fort Eustis, Virginia, and from Fort Eustis to Fort Story, Virginia, and returned to Fort Lee. The test item was also operated over the r.oad networks of Fort Lee, Fort Eustis, and Fort Story. Any restrictions or adverse conditions imposed by this operation were observed and recorded. ,, '

2. 18.2.2 Marine

a. Prior to delivery of the test item to Fort Eustis, Virginia, for marine lifting operations,, the :frame of the vehicle was instrumented in 10 locations with strain gages (5 on each longitudinal frame member).

,, b. .At dockside, .Fort Eustis, the ion,truck was.positioned over a check bed and vertical dimensions .from the check bed to 10 reference points on the vehicle frame (5 on each longitudinal frame member) were measured with inside micrometers prior to lifting the vehicle. This same procedure, was followed after six I lifting operations were performed. The results were then compared to determine permanent deflections resulting from lifting the vehicle. A frame bending "fix kit, " provided by USAERDL, and a Marine Corps Standard 17-ton capacity.sling assembly were installed on the vehicle. The vehicle was then lifted six times, approximately 20 feet high, swung 20, degrees and returned to the dock by a 15-ton gantry crane to simulate ship's loading.. The gantry crane was used in lieu of ship's lifting gear as operating. crews were not available for the ship's gear. During and after each lift, strain gage readings were obtained on a Baldwin Lima Hamilton type 120 strain indicator. The time to install the frame bending fix kit and restrictions involved were observed and recorded. ,, ,.,, I. c. . A paper study was made to determine which ocean- going vessels and landing craft are adequate for movement of the

test item. ,, ,,

2. 18. 2. 3 Rail

a. At Fort Lee, the test item was instrumented with accelerometers to record shock in three directions (vertical, trans - verse, and horizontal). The vehicle.was driven up a concrete ramp

,. .,

49 onto a military. standard 40-ton domestic service flatcar and centrally located. The:vehicle 'was.then tied down, using the 'following procedure: ' , 1 ,',j !I ,. 5 ' '' ,, :, ,. .. I. 'I , , ') j/ :,,,,,,,-,,, ,, .: I ,,

,,,, ; ' a' '; (1) . .6 by 8 by 12-inch beveled wood chocks were positioned and nailed to the flatcar bed fore and aft of the front wheels, in front of the wheels on the No. 2 axle and vehicle the wheels of the No. 3 axle.

I .,' ., ,.I , , . '(2) 64-inch long side cleats made from two ' 2 by 6-inch: and one 2 by 4-inch pieces of wood were nailed to the flatcartbed omthe outsid,vof .the dual wheels, of'the rear,bogie. ,'

I \ ,I! (3) 30-inch long side cleats made from two , &by 6hinch,,and one''2 by'4-inch pieces of woodwere'nailed to the scflatcar' be.d owthe outside of each' front wheel of the vehicle.

,, .,.. ~ , ,.I ..: . ,I,. ,, Ir , (1' , >,,') ' 5 ,,I (. ,;;

,, L, .: '1,' I v (4)t . Six l-l/$-inch:wide stee1:bands were run over the axles, of the vehicle located as.shown in figure .1, appendix I, ' and each end of the'bandwsecured by 'anchor plates,,nailedto the cargo

.L deck.;,' .v .!-, , : ,: :! ,: I ~ /I .I,' , ' ,I, ,I

-:' .! : , <,I!,.,!, , :1: ' ' ,>' . I I. I ,

I ,, ,,, ,.I .'; ' (5) ' 'Four tiedown assemblies'~consisting'of~4' strands of No 8 gage wire were utilized:" Two of the assemblies were ,run from shackles on the vehicle,towing eyes on the front',. bumper to stake,pockets on the side of the flatcar. The othcr two assemblies were ruwfrom the vehicle'rear towing pintle to stake pockets on the'side'of the flatcar. The 'slack was taken up by twist- ., ing the,wire. ,. , ,,, :. ,, .I; ..i 'I I: ,,

...., . ,, , I,, ;: ~. , ., I. I :, b. The loaded flatcar wits then run over the Fort Lee rail network to the rail clearance device where the AAR and Berne Internationa1,Clearances,of, the load were checked. .

,I: ,' . ,,.,? ,,:.,:.,., .. ,I, , . c. A 15-"g" Impact-0-Graph was installed on the railcar deck under the center of the vehicle. Three humping tests, each at speeds of 2 and 4 mph, were performed in each direction of movement of the railcar. Testing at higher speeds was not conducted due to failure of theffour &ire 'assembly tiedowns, , ,. ! , ' , ,I, I >)I.,.::.3 ) " ,: I :,:I, ~ a,. , #.'.:. d. ' ,' ,The foupwire tiedown'assemblies were replaced with four single strand 5/8-inch diameter wire rope assemblies. Three humping tests were then performed in the forward direction at each speed of 2, 4, and 6 mph and one at 8 mph. Tests were then stopped due to failure of the rear wire rope assemblies.

e. All humping tests were performed by humping the railcar with the test item into three stationary railcars having a gross weight of over 169,000 pounds. A fifth wheel calibrated to 1/10 of a mile per hour was used to determine the speed of each humping test.

f. Time required to load, chock and tiedown the vehicle aboard the flatcar; "7';. force readings on the accelerometers md Impact-0-Graph; and resu iing from the humping-tests were observed and recorded. 2. 18.2.4 Lifting and Tiedown Devices. The location, size, and number of lifting and tiedown devices on the test item were measured and compared with the minimum requirements of MIL-STD-209B. Difficulties encountered during lifting and securing operations required for movement of the test item by all modes of surface trans - portation were observed and recorded.

2. 18. 3 Results .. 2. 18. 3: 1 Highway. No difficulty was experienced and special permits were not required during the self-propelled movement of the vehicle from Fort Knox, Kentucky, or during the 304 miles of movement over highways after,delivery to Fort Lee', Virginia.

2. 18. 3. 2 Marine

a. No actual.shipboard lifts using ship's lifting gear were conducted due to unavailability of operating crews for the , ship's gear. A two-man military crew was able to install the frame bending fix kit and attach the 17-ton Marine Corps sling in 20 minutes. (See figure 4, appendix IV. ) The 15-ton gantry crane had no difficulty in lifting, swinging, or lowering the Ion Exchange Unit. The forward legs of the 17-ton Marine Corps sling had to be lengthened by adding a 2-foot section of wire rope in order to more evenly distribute the load.

51 b. Figure 2, appendix I, shows the location of the strain gages installed on the longitudinal frame members of the vehicle. Tables 7 and 8, appendix I, show the strain gage reading obtained during and after the lifts'.:, During movement of the vehicle to Fort Eustis the insulation on the lead wires from the strain gages on the.right frame member was damaged by heat from .. the exhaust muffler. As.a result no readings were obtained from stations 8 and 9 during all the lifts, station 6 after the.3d lift, and station 7 during the final life.

c. Figure 3, appendix I, shows the reference points at which vertical micrometer readings were taken from the check bed to the'frame members'pefore and after the marine lifts. Table 9, appendix I, shows' a comparison of the'vertical readings before and after the lifts. Figure 4, appendix I, is a graphic presentation of the readings.

i d. Table 10, appendix I, shows the ability of the test item to'be transported by various classes of seagoing vessels. ,. .. 2. 18. 3. 3 Rail

a. The test item was transportable without section- alization within the limits of the AAR Clearance Diagram. The test item exceeded the limitations of the Berne International Clearance Diagram.' (See figure 5, appendix I and figure 5, appendix IV. ) In order to meet the restrictions. of the ,Berne International Clearance Diagram the van'would have to'be removed from the vehicle and shipped as a separate item. No tests were conducted with the van removed from the vehicle due to the limited time that the test item was available to USAGETA for testing. An investigation of the test item revealed that the van is provided'with lift'attachments for this operation; however,' adequacy of 'the'attachments,as lifting points and tiedown points for rail'shipment was not determined. ., ~ .. ,I ! ., ,, , 1,

' ' b." ' The lashing and chocking described in paragraph 2.18. 2: 3a was'accomplished by two military crewmen in 1 hour and 45 minutes. This method of tiedown failed after three 4 mph humps in each direction. ' The wire tiedowns had stretched to the point where they no longer had any restraining power. No data were obtained from the recording accelerometers during these tests.

52 c. The single strand 5/8-inch wire rope assemblies which were used to replace the 4 strand of No 8 gage wire tiedown assemblies failed after the three.humps in the forward direction at each speed of 2, 4, and 4 mph and one hump at.8 mph.. ,The right rear tiedown broke and the.]& tiedown stretched. (See figure 6, appendix IV.) The vehicle rode up owthe chocks in front of the center and front axles and pulled the anchor-plates, which secured the 1-114-inch steel bands used to hold down the axles, loose from the railcar bed. (See figures 7 and 8, appendix IV.) Table 11, appendix I, gives a summary of the maximum "g" forces recorded during these tests.

,, , 2. 18.3.4 Lifting and 'Eedown Devices. The location, number, and size of the lifting devices provided by the ,frame bending fix kit were in accordance with MIL-STD-209B.and were adequate for the marine lifts. The seven tiedown points on the Ion Exchange Unit also complied with MIL-STD-209B. .,

2. 18.4 , Analysis

2. 18.4. 1 Highway. No adverse conditions were noted for self- propelled movement of the test items over highways,

2. 18.4. 2 Marine

i a. A comparison of the strain gage readings taken during the six lifts shown in table 7, appendix I, indicate that during the first three lifts the strain was almost constant during each lift and fairly equally distributed over the frame. During the 5th and 6th lift it appeared that the left frame member was taking more of the load than the right frame member and was beginning to weaken. The after-lift strain gage readings shown in table 8,, appendix,I, indicate that there was no appreciable permanent deflection existing in the frame after the 6 lifts.

b. The curve shown in figure 4, appendix I, does not necessarily represent the true shape of the vehicle frame, but does represent the difference before and after the lifts as the vehicle was positioned in the same spot over the check bed for al1,readings. The curves indicate that there was a general raising of the rear of

53 .. ...

the vehicle. " Since the rear lift point of the frame bending fix kit was attached to the frame between the wheels of the rear bogie, this general'raising can be attributed to a.change in the deflection of the springs in the rear bogie. By comparing the amount of difference between the two'high points and the low point of the frame both before and after the lifts, there was an indication that.the left frame member bent,O. 050 inches and the right frame member bent 0.096 inches during the 6 lifts.

I, ,I, ,, 2. T8.4. 3 Rail.. Both tiedown,methods which'were tested failed due to insufficient restraint of the vehicle in the longitudinal and vertical directions. The rear of the vehicle had a tendency to rise up due to' the high center of gravity of the equipment in the van. The

, single strand 5/8-inch wire .rope agsemblies used should be replaced with double strand 5/8-inch wire rope assemblies made up as shown in sketch 2 of figure 1, appendix I, and a double strand 5/8-inch wire rope assembly should be run from each of the lifting eyes on the top of the van to stake pockets on the railcar as shown in figure 1, appendix I. These additional tiedown assemblies should provide' a satisfactory tiedown system for rail movement of the test item but cannot be fully recommended,until tests have proven the adequacy of the system. i ,,

2. 18.4. 4 The criterion is met for highway and marine movement; however, movement by rail requires further study. . ,, 2. 19 ADAPTAB'ILITY, FOR INTERNAL AIR PORTABILITY IN PHASE '11 AIRBORNE OPERATIONS (SERVICE TEST) . .., , ,' 2. 19. 1 Objective ,, ,. 2. 19. 1: 1 ,Determine adaptability of the test item for internal air portability'in' Phase I1 airborne operations.

2. 19. 1. 2 Criteria , .,, a. Materiel developed for air portability.in USAF aircraft must meet the limitations imposed by the characteristics of aircraft used in these types of operations. (See item 19, appendix II. )

54 b. Requirements for disassembly and assembly of materiel developed for air portability must comply with the criteria ' contained in AR 705-35. (See item 20, appendix II.)

c. Materiel developed for internal air portability shall be provided with tiedown provisions to comply with the requirements of AR 705-35 and Military Specification MIL-A-8421B. (See item 21, appendix.II.),

,!. . , .. . ,. d. hteriel.developed for.air portability will be marked in accordance with AR 705-35 and Military Specification,MIL-A-S421B. (See item 22, appendix 11. )

,, ,. e. The test item shall be capable of air portability in Phase I1 airborne operations without disassembly if possible. (See

item 9, appendix 11. ) , ,! " .: , ,

2. 19.2 Method ,, ,. 2. 19.2. 1 The test item was examined, measured, weighed, and photographed. Technical data were reviewed and longitudinal center - of gravity location was determined. i.

2. 19.2. 2 Physical characteristics of the test item were compared with load weight and dimensional limitations of C-119, C-123, and C-130 aircraft. .. 2. 19. 2. 3 The test item was inspected and studied with reference to adaptability for internal air portability with respect to the following:

a. Requirements for disassembly

b. Adequacy and accessibility of tiedown points ., c. Adaptability for use with standard air transport equipment ..

d. Test item markings

.I ! :. /,.. 2. 19.3 Results ,I .

',' - I,. ,' ,i ', ,I .,/. 2. 19. 3. 1 Weight,.smeasurernents, .and longitudinal center,of gravity location are contained in table 12, appendix I. For photo, see figures

15,through 18, appendix IV. , . ,. ,I ../ ,, , . I: ,. ,.,. I. 2.,19. 3. 2 The. test item, with or without disassembly, exceeds the weight and dimensional limitations of the:USAF C-119 and C-123 aircraft. The height of the test item without disassembly (124 inches) t exceeds the heights :of the cargo compartment of the USAF C-130 ,, $1 (109 inches):, ,. _! I,.'

; ;, ., , , " 2. 19. 3. 3 In order to place the test item into a C-130 aircraft, the van body, must be rempved.from the.truck chassis. This necessitates the use.of a 20-ton crane, an item which is, not air portable in Phase mi mi I1 airborne operations. ., , ,, ,/"

2. 19. 3.4 The test item van does not have tiedown points Ladequate to achieve the necessary 8 "g's" forward restraint for air portability in Ci130.aircraft:t. :,,,:.,, , , ,' ..' .'I ,'

,.' .,.. ,,, ,I 1. ' 1 . .. .> i '., 2. 19. 3. 5 The test item is adaptable for use with standard air,transport equipment.

,< 8): , ! ,' I, ,, ' , 2. I9.'3.6 The .test item is not marked.to indicate the following: ,.: ?I ,, a. Tiedown points

, ,. ,:. , , 8, , 1.

, ,. b: Tiedown point capacities ~ ',

c. Lift points ,. ., .ir. L , , $ ,I d. Lift point capacities

,I ., !. . /)I ,. ,,, e. The location where forklifts may be applied

'.: j .. f. Disassembly procedures

2. 19. 4 Analysis ,.

Criteria were met except as follows:

2. 19.4. 1 The test item is not adaptable for internal air portability in Phase I1 airborne operations. (Deficiency) 56 2.19.4.2 The test item is not marked as required by current regulations. (Shortcoming)

2.20 SUITABILITY FOR INTERNAL AIR PORTABILITY IN PHASE I1 AIRBORNE OPERATIONS (SERVICE TEST)

Since the test item was not adaptable for internal air portability in Phase 11 airborne operations, this test was not conducted.

2.21 ADAPTABILITY FOR INTERNAL AIR PORTABILITY IN PHASE 111 AIRBORNE OPERATIONS (SERVICE TEST)

2.21.1 Objective

2. 21. 1. 1 To determine adaptability of the test item for internal air portability in Phase 111 airborne operations.

2. 21. 1. 2 Criteria

a. Materiel developed for air portability in USAF aircraft must meet the limitations imposed by the characteristics of aircraft used in these types of operations. (See item 19, appendix 11. ) ,, b. Requirements for disassembly and assembly of materiel developed for air portability must comply with the criteria contained in AR 705-35. (See item 20, appendix 11.)

d. Angles of approach and departure of wheeled and tracked materiel must be sufficient to insure clearance at the juncture of the ramp and cargo compartment during loading and unloading, (See item 23, appendix 11. )

e. All load configurations, when rigged in the air- plane for air transport, must permit.crew access to the rear of the aircraft during flight. (See item 24, appendix LI. )

57 2. 21.2. 1 The test item was examined, measured, weighed, and photographed; 'Tec€inical,data were reviewed and longitudinal center of gravity location was determined.

2. 21. 2. 2 Physical characteristics of the test item were compared with load weight and dimensional limitations of C-124, C-133, and C - 14 1 .aircralt.

2. 21. 2.3' 'a The test item was inspected and studied with reference to adaptability' for internal air portability with respect to the following:

a. Requirements for disassembly ,. ' r, .*. ,, b. Adequacy and accessibility of tiedown points

c. Adaptability for use with standard air transport equipment .. ...?, . ,, 2. 21.2.4 The test item was loaded into, restrained, and unloaded from a USAF C-124 aircraft, an aircraft typical of those used in Phase I11 airborne operations. Time and personnel used for loading, restraining, and unloading the test item were recorded.

2. 21. 3 ' Results

2. 21. 3. 1 Weight, measurements, and longitudinal center of gravity location are contained in table, 12, appendix I. Photographs are contained in appendix IV.

2. 21.3.2 The test item height (124 inches) without disassembly exceeds the height of the cargo compartment of the USAF C-141 (109 inches). Physical characteristics of the test item do not exceed the load weight and dimensional limitation of the USAF C-124 and C-133 aircraft.

2. 21. 3. 3 For internal air portability in the G-124, the test item:

// a. Requires no disassembly.

b. Has adequate and accessible tiedown points. 58 c. Is adaptable for use with standard air transport equipment.

2.21. 3.4 Time and personnel used for loading, restraining, and unloading the test item for a C-124 are as follows: Operation No Men -Time Loading 6 35 minutes

Restraining 6 20 minutes

Unloading 6 15 minutes

2. 21. 3.5 Procedures for loading, restraining, and unloading the test item from C-124 aircraft have been developed and are on file at this board.

2.21.4 Analysis

Criteria were met.

2.22 INITIAL INSPECTION AND SERVICING (ENGINEERING TEST)

2.22.1 -S

2. 22. 1. 1 To assure that the vehicle was in good condition for testing, that pretest data were recorded, and all on-vehicle-equipment had been provided and could be adapted to the vehicle in either utility or stowed condition.

2.22. 1. 2 To establish requirements for fuel, lubricant,’ :coolant, and hydraulic fluids.

2, 22. 1. 3 Criterion. The test ite,m shall be in good condition, have suitable on-vehicle-equipment, and adequate lubrication as determined from appropriate equipment publications. (DPS) (See item 29, appendix [I.) 2.22.2 Method

Limited technical inspections were performed to defer- mine general condition of the vehicles. Major component serial numbers, electrical system output and other required dimensional data were recorded,

59 2.22.3 Results

2.22.3.1 The van body was manufactured in May 1958, and ac- commodated two previous water purification units. Exterior por- tions of the van body, door hinges and latches were rusted and de- teriorated.

2. 22. 3. 2 General condition of the M45 truck chassis was fair to poor. Date of manufacture was 1952. Odometer reading upon receipt at APG was 4J50 mil.es. No record of previous vehicle log- book was available. The front propeller shaft, engine exhaust tail- pipe, two taillight bulbs, and one 12-volt balldry were defective. One taillight wire was broken.

, 'I 2.22.3.3 The van body which was manufactured in May 1958 was rigidly bolted at four locations on each longitudinal frame member of the M45 chassis - a condition which impairs normal flexibility of the vehicle frame. Prior to comrncncement of performance and enduranceIreliability operations the vehicle was modified to allow frame flexibility by installing spring loaded fasteners between the frame longitudinal members and the forward end of the van body. ,.

2. 22. 3.4 Date of manufacture of the 112-ton trailer was Feb- ruary 1954. The hydraulic brake master cylinder vent, left wheel hydraulic ,brake cylinder, and,left hand brake cable were defective and,were replaced prior to test operations.

2. 22. 3. 5 In view of the condition of the vehicles, the necessary repairs were performed to assure that the vehicles were in service- able cpndition for the tests.

2. 22.4 Analysis

The criterion was met.

2, 23 VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICS' (ENGINEERING TEST)

2. 23. 1 Objective

2.23. 1. 1 To obtain basic data and characteristics of the truck and trailer vehicles with complete load of TOE, equipment to determine transportability requirements and for further engineering studies . 60 2. 23. 1. 2 Criterion. Appropriate dimensions and other physical data as established by AR 705 -8, Engineering for Transportability, and AR 705-35, Criteria for Air Portability and Air Drop of Material, shall be obtained. (DPS) (See item 30, appendix 11. )

2. 23. 2 Method

2. 23. 2. 1 Pertinent physical dimensions were determined for each vehicle individually and when coupled.

2. 23. 2. 2 Weight distributions were determined using loadometer scales.

2. 23. 2. 3 Contact area with rated payload was determined at tire pressures of 10, 30, and 50 psi and used in conjunction with weight distribution to calculate ground pressure.

2. 23. 2.4 Center of gravity of the truck and trailer with rated payloads was determined individually by the suspension method,

2. 23. 3 Results

2. 23. 3. 1 Pertinent physical dimensions were as follows:

-Truck Trailer Combination

Overall Length 281 in 158 in 436-1/2 in

Overall Width 99-318 in 83 in 99-3/8 in

Overall Height 124 in 97 in 124 in

Angle of Approich 37.5 deg - 37. 5 deg

Angle of Departure 38.0 deg 32. 5 deg 32. 5 deg

61 2. 23. 3. 2 Weight distributions with rated payload were as follows: I, .. ,. Truck Wt - Lb Left wt ,. - Front 3, 130 3,300

Intermediate 3,640 3,750

I ', Rear 3, 810 4,010 __ Total 10, 580 11,060

Trailer Wt - Lb

Left Wheel 2,910

Right Wheel 2,540 ,, ,, Landing Leg 490

Total 51 940

Combination Wt - Lb -Left Right Truck

Front 3,060 3,220

Intermediate 3,770 3,860

Re,ar 3,970 4,106

Trailer 2,940 2,560

Total 13,740 13, 800

62 2. 23. 3. 3 Center of gravity locations were as follows: -Truck Vertical 31-3/8 inches above front axle centerline ,. Transverse , 7/8 inch right of longitudinal centerline

,, , Longitudinal 106-3/8 inches rear.of front axle center- 1ine

Trailer

Vertical 19 inches above axle centerline

Transverse 1 -3/8 inches left of longitudinal center-

line I.

Longitudinal 6 inches forward of axle centerline

2. 23. 3.4 Average ground pressures (psi) were as follows:

Specific Nominal

Tire pressure (psi) 50 30 10 50 30 10

Front 7.7 6.65.1 4.9 4.0 2. 6

Int and rear 8.2 7.14.8 . 4.8 3. 9 2. b

Trailer 9. 7 9.2 4.7,, , 5.3 4.5 2.5

2. 23. 4 Analysis

2. 23.4. 1 The criterion was met.

2. 23.4. 2 The maximum net weight for the M45 truck chassis wlwinch is 11,600 lb (MIL-T-712A, 12 October 1953). Gross cross-country load allowance on this chassis is 7,400 lb. There- fore, per MIL Spec the vehicle gross cross-country weight should not exceed 19,000 lb. The truck as tested weighed 21,640 lb, which is 2, 640 lb greater than specified or approximately 3, 000 lb including crew. 63 2. 24 PRELIMINARY OPERATION - SAFETY (ENGINEERING TEST)

2. 24. 1

The preliminary operation and safety phases were omitted on the basis of the accumulated mileage prior to receipt at APG, the results of the slope tests, and the fact that this truck chassis and trailer have been in use by the Army for more than 15 years.

2. 24. 2

When delivered to Aberdeen Proving Ground, the vehicle had been operated at least 2,580 miles since the Ion Exchange Unit was installed - 395 miles of which were on cross-country and secondary road courses. The center of gravity was determined and the slope tests performed immediately after the vehicle arrived (para 2.23 and 2.28).

2.25 STANDARD OBSTACLES (ENGINEERING TEST)

2. 25. 1 Objective

To determine whether the vehicle has sufficient clearance, adaptability, flexibility, stability, and ruggedness to negotiate the obstacles listed below: (See item 32, appendix 11. )

a. Imbedded Rock

b. Corduroy Road - Diagonal

C. Two -Inch Washboard

d. Two- to Four-Inch Radial Washboard

' e. Spaced Bump Course , ,. f. Six -inch Washboard ,.

,I '' g. Frame Twister

64 h. Five- and Twelve-Inch Staggered Bumps

i. Eighteen-Inch Vertical Wall

j. Simulated Ditch,

2. 25.2 Method

The vehicle was operated with complete equipment and payload over the obstacles, estimating the apparent maximum safe speed for each.

2. 25. 3 Results

2. 25.3.1 The courses for which an apparent maximum safe speed was established were as shown below:

a. Imbedded Rock - 10 mph

b. Corduroy Road - Diagonal - 30 mph

c. Two-Inch Washboard - 10 mph

d. Two- to Four-Inch Radial Washboard - 12 mph

e. Spaced Bump Course - 20 mph

f. Six-Inch Washboard - 4 mphJ

2. 25. 3, 2 The following obstacles were satisfactorily negotiated; however, no attempt was made to determine a maximum safe speed.

a. Frame Twister

b. Five- and Twelve-Inch Staggered Bumps

c. Eighteen-Inch Vertical Wall

2.25.3. 3 The truck-trailer combination failed to negotiate the simulated ditch due to interference between the trailer “A’fframe and the edge of the ditch. Contact between the air line c-,uplers

65 and the ditch prevented negotiation by the truck when uncoupled. Under both operating conditions, contact occurred at the front bumper, but was not prohibitive.

2. 25.4 Analysis

2.25.4. 1 All obstacles, with the exception of the simulated ditch, were satisfactorily negotiated without apparent damage to the vehicle.

2. 25.4.2 The air line couplers are located on the underside of frame members; relocation of the couplers to the side of the members would eliminate their interference during negotiation of the simulated ditch. , .,

2.26 BRAKE TESTS (ENGINEERING TEST)

2. 26. 1 Objective 'I 2. 26. 1. 1 To determine the ability of the vehicle and trailer completely equipped to .comply with the following criteria.

2. 26. 1. 2 Criteria ,,

a. .The service brakes, shall permit the vehicle combination to be brought to a stop from a speed of 20 mph in not more than 30 feet, and the truck without the trailer to be controlled and held when ascending or descending a 60-percent, dry, hard-surfaced incline. (See item 33, appendix 11. )

b. The parking brake shall be capable of holding the truck without trailer ascending or descending on a dry, hard- surfaced incline of not less than 4,0-percent. (See item 34, appendix 11. )

2. 26. 2 Method

2.26.2. 1 Stopping distances were determined on a level paved surface using a calibrated fifth.whee1 and pousometer.

66 2. 26. 2. 2 Hill-holding ability of the brakes was determined on the Munson longitudinal slopes in both ascending and descending .. attitudes. .,

2. 26. 2. 3 Brakes were adjusted prior to testing.

2. 26. 3 Results ,

2. 26. 3. 1 Average stopping distances for maximum effort brake applications were as follows:

Road Speed - MPH Stopping Distance - Ft ,, 10 7.5 . ,. 20 22.5

25 33.0

30 48.5

2. 26. 3. 2 The service b akes failed to hold the truck st tionary in the ascending attitude on a 60-percent slope; however, the vehicle was held in both attitudes on the 50-percent slope.

2. 26. 3. 3 Maximum grade on which the parking'brake held the vehicle stationary was 3,O-percent; however, during ,final inspection it was found that the parking brake shoes were badly'worn.

2. 26. 4 Analysis

2.26. 4. 1 The criteria were not met. , I,

2. 26.4. 2 The service brakes stopped and held the vehicle when descending the 60-percent slope. Failure to hold in the ascending attitude was attributed to weight transfer which reduced the effectiveness of the front wheel brakes. The front wheels locked due to the decreased load on them, and braking capability of the inte.r,- mediate and rear brakes was not sufficient to hold the vehicle'under the existing conditions of overload and weight transfer. Weight transfer was greater than normally endountered with'a truck of this type due to the 'r'earward shift in center of 'gravity location caused .. . , ,' by installation of the Ion Exchange Unit 'payload.

67 2.26.4. 3 Hill-holding ability of the parking brake was unsatis- ,. ., factory. j,'. :,. .. 1,. ,, 2. 27 STEERING (ENGINEERING TEST)

2.27. 1 Objective

To determine the effect of the Ion Exchange Unit payload on thc steering characteristics as judged against items 35 ,. and 36, appendix II., , ,, I,,. >

2. 27.2 Method

I ,. ,, .,',I ,. . i ;, , ~ Wall-to-wall, curb-to-curb, and minimum width inter- secting roads turning clearances were determined and compared with availablc data for a standard M45 cargo vehicle.

2. 27.3 Results

2. 27. 3. 1 Wall-to-wall turning radii for the standard M45 and the Ion Exchange Unit are shown below:

,< // ,I i /j Wall-to-Wall Turning Radius

Ion Exchange Unit ft ,, 3.7 . ,, , 38.5 ,.: ,. '.I. a .,

'. .., , ,, , M45 Cargo' Vehicle 'ft 36 37, 5

2. 27. 3. 2 Curb-to-curb turning radii for the Ion Exchange Unit were 35. 0 and 37.0 feet for a right and left turn, respectively.

\: 2.27.3.3 Minimum width iAtersecting roads negotiable in one pass was 17.5 feet. ,a , 88 . I .. . , (I , 2.'27.'3.4 , Inter'views and,. discussidns with drivers indicated that no unusual ~ste,eringdifficulties existed., , ,, ,, ,, ,

,,, , ,, ~ ', 2.27.3',. ,I:: , I ' Analysis I :, <,,

,,i, ' , ..I 2. 27.4. i The first crIterion,item 35, appendix 11, was not met .;. I/ . , ,,), . , due'to the '38.5Lfoo't'left hand turning radius, although increase in turning radius'caused by installation ,of the Ion Exchange U,nit pay- ,I, ,,, , ,. , load was considered to be negligible.

68 2. 27.4. 2 The second criterion, item 36, appenaix 11, was met.

2. 28 GRADEABILITY (ENGINEERING TEST)

2. 26. 1 Objective

To determine maximum sustained speeds on the 5 thru 60-percent slopes without towed load and the ability of the vehicle to meet the following criteria.

a. Vehicle with rated payload must negotiate a 60- percent slope at not less than 2-112 mph and must be able to stop and start on the slope without difficulty. (See item 37a, appendix n.)

b. Vehicle with rated payload and specified towed load shall climb a 3-percent slope at a maximum speed of 30 mph. (See item 37b, appendix LI. ) ,,

'c. The engine shall start and perform satisfactorily throughout the speed range of engine for not less than 10 minutes in each direction on a 60-percent slope. All components shall operate without faulty lubrication, cooling, fuel supply, leakage, or other malfunction. (See item 38, appendix 11. ) .. 2. 28.2 Method

2. 28.2. 1 Maximum sustained road speeds were determined using a calibrated 5th wheel; corresponding engine speeds were indicated on a calibrated engine tachometer.

2. 28. 2. 2 Sustained speed on a 3-percent slope with towed load was calculated by interpolation of data obtained on a'ievel surface and a 5-percent longitudinal slope.

2. 26. 3 Results

69 2. 28.3,. 5, ,Maxi,mum sustained speeds, wi.th,.towed,. load were as follows: Slope. Road Speed , Engine Speed -Gear Mph RPm

0 (Level) H-5 45.0 2530

5 H-3 , . , 22.5 3 150

10 H-2 10.0 2400

,. .<:,

.I\ 7.4, 3190 , 15, H-1:, , 8, ., . , 2.28.3.2 Maximum sustained.speed with towed load on a 3- percent slope was calculated to be approximately 31.5 mph.

, ' ,I ,, .,., I, , ,, 2. 28. 3. 3, , Maximum sustained speeds on longitudinal slopes,

without towed 'load were as ~ ,, follows: , ., , ' , ',

, , , ,, Slope ., I ,Road ,Speed,, Engine Speed

, % ' , Gear , , Mph : 0. Rpm L- L- ,, - .,

3, ... ., , ,I I/ , , , .. 10 H-2 14. a 3450

15 L-3 11. 8 3330

. ,.

, 20 , ...,H- 1 7. 3440 ' , 'I !., 30 L -2 7.0 3380

50 L-1 3.3 3150

60 L-1 3.2 3030

2. 28. 3. 4 The engine failed to idle when situated in the ascending attitude on the 60-percent slope; other aspects of engine operation such as starting, oil pressure and leakage were satisfactory.

70 2.28.4 Analysis

2. 28.4. 1 The criteria were met except for the requirement stated in para 2. 28. lb. . ,, .. ., I \..

I' 2.28.4. 2 Vehicle performance on longitudinal slopes was satisfactory with the exception of engine idling ability when headed up the 60 -perc'ent slope.

2.29 SIDE SLOPES (ENGINEERING TEST)

2. 29. 1 Objective-

2. 29. 1. 1 To determine the vehicle capability of meeting the fol1owi:ng criteria: ,/

2. 29. 1. 2 Criteria

a. Vehicle shall operate in both dlrections on a side slope of not less than 20 percent with rated payload. (See item 39, appendix 11. )

b. ', ' The engine shall start and perform satisfactorily throughout the speed range of engine for not,less than.10 minutes in each airection on a 20-perc'ent slope. All components shall operate without'faulty lubrication, cooling, fuel' supply, ' leakage, or other malfunction. (See item 40, appendix 11: )

2. 29.2 Method

The vehicle with towed load was operated in both directions on the 20-percent side slope; ability of thc engine to start and operate throughout its speed range without malfunction was also checke'd.

2. 29'. 3 Results

'Vehicle stability, steering ability and engine performance'were 'satisfactory during operation on a 20-percent side slope.

71 2. 29.4 Analysis

The c,riteria were met. ,,,Ir .>..: ., ,I ,.' 2. 30 ADVERSE SOIL CONDITIONS MOBILITY TESTS

(ENGINEERING TEST) .,, , , , , ., tj. ,

/, ;.. , 'I , ..'' ,,. ,/ ' Tests deleted (ref 8, appendix VII).~.,,

2.31 DURABILITY AND RELIABILITY :(ENGINEERING TEST)

2. 31. 1 Objective ,',,. ,

2. 31:.l, 1, To determine, .. the ability of the v,ehicle .to function satis- facto'rily during'4,300 miles over various groun,d conditions.

2. 31. 1. 2 Criterion. The test item shall function satisfactorily for a total distance of 4, 300 miles over various ground conditions. (DPS)

(See item 42, appendix,. 11. ),,, /,. I,, ., .

I, .I I: ,(. 2.31. 2 Method

2. 31.2. 1, ,Of the,>I 4, 300 r,equiredI. test miles,,2, 580 acceptable test mi1es:hadt. ~ ,,,> ,been,ac,curnulated ., prior to the arrival,of the ,. , , vehicle at.'Aberdee,n'Proving,,, /t i Ground. The truck 'and trailer were.operated,./ the remaining 1,720 required miles at Aberdeen under the following conditions:

,. Type Area ,, Miles Course Location Description ..I _I .

. , I , ., I .. Primary Roads ,.! ,. , , ', 'i,

, ., I,

24 5 Paved Perryman, ' Three-mile, bituminous con- ?rete straightway with 1/4-mile turns and mis- cellaneous op- ,, .I erations over paved routes interconnecting the main test areas.

72 Type Area -Miles Course Location Description Secondary Roads

500 Improved Munson Two-mile closed Gravel loop of well-maintained gravel road with negligible grades but with both sharp and sweeping turns.

450 Unim- Perryman A 2. 5-mile closed proved loop of poorly Gravel maintained gravel road with moderate washboarding and ,i rutting and oc- casional potholes. This course is level with both 'sharp and sweepin$ curves.

75 Belgian Munson A 0. 75-milc course Block with negligible grades, a straightway, and two sweeping turns - typical of cobblestone roads in many parts of the world.

Cross Country

450 Hilly Church - 'Generally hilly terrain. ville Surface is composed of clay and stone. Pre- sent course consists of a 4-mile closed loop with many grades up to 30 percent with sharp and sweeping ,, turns. Surface conditions range from

73 ',I' ,

Type ~' Area -Miles Course Location Description Cross Country Cont

smooth to rough - the '_ ., ., roughness due to wash- ! boarding. Mud condi- ,, . , ,,. tions vary from light i, , ! to severe and is very ,. sticky, tough, and cohesive. Very little .. I. I,, , free water is present on this course. Dust ,, ,i conditions are severe , ..., during the dry season. , .I Maintenance is applied . .. , ... as required to hold , , %* , I, ,,. these general conditions. '>, .,

2. 31. 2'. 2 , Total Durability and Reliability Mileage ,I.- Other APG Acceptable Mileage Total .. I_

..I, Paved'Highway 24 5 ' 2,i85 2,430 i Improved Gravel 500 '500

Unimproved 'Gravei 450 450 I.

Belgian Block 75 . 7,5

Hilly Cross Country 450 450 ., ,, ,,I . I ., ,. Secondary Road's' '. ,. r (Ft Knox) 225 225

Cross .Country ' (Ft'aKr~ox) 170 620 ./,. , I .!, Total . ., 2, 580 4,300

, ;I 74 2. 31. 3 R e sults

2. 31. 3. 1 Only organizational maintenance was required throughout the test.

2. 31.3. 2 Repairs and alterations made on the vehicle prior to the commencement of testing are described in paragraph 2.22, Initial Inspection 'and Servicing.? Prior to starting Durability and Reliability Tcst the engine rear main bearing oil, seal and the clutch disc were replaced. ,I

2.31.3.3 Close observation was kept on the truck frame longitudinal members due to the overload ,condition of the vehicle; however, no' cracks or bends appeared. .,

2. 31. 3. 4 The following failures occurred~duringthe durability - reliability phase: ,I

,I a. All three carboys (containing hydrochloric acid) had to be replaced twice during the test (a ,total,of nine were tested) Tying the carboys to the side of the trailer did not prevent breakage

b. The left front shock absorber on the truck was ineffective in operation and was leaking. The front suspension "bottomed out'' frequently on the improved gravel (Perryman A) course. ,, c. The crossmember to which the pintle hook was attached became bent (bowed rearward) due to the forces exerted by the trailer as the vehicles were operated over the hilly cross- country course. The overload condition of the truck and trailer may have caused or contributed to bending. , ,,

d. The sidewalls of the inside tires on the for,ward rear axle rubbed the frame of the van on numerous occasions while operating on the hilly cross -country ,course. The overload the' vehicle'was'carrying intensified side sway over uneven terrain and therefore may have caused the interference.

2. 31. 3. 5 During the'last fifty miles of the tcst while operating on the hilly cross-country course the clutch slipped on numerous occasions. In the final inspection it was found that the clutch disc was saturated with oil from both the transmission and the engine. 75 2. 31. 3. 6 The following defects and failures were found in the final inspection.

,. ,/ I a. Br'ake. sgoes on the parking brake and forward axle hubs were badly worn at the end of the test. New shoes were installed. ,. /. !,,. , ,, ,,

b. Seals at all four rear wheels were worn and I leaking. Wheel hearings

C. Transmission breather was defective allowing pressure buildup in the transmission. Oil hadbeen forced ' out through the clutch shaft seal and had'saturated' the clutch.

a. Bgine rear main bearing oil 'seal which was installed at odometer 4,450 was leaking. Clearance in the rear main bearing was . 005 inch (maximum allowable .006 inch); :, - cranksliaft end play was .015 'inch (speciji'ed maximum allowable - .0145 'inch). A new ,thrust washer 'and rear'oil,peal,were/. , in- I ,I , stalled." "

.. e. .. Clufchdisc."was replaced due: to oil saturation from both engine and transmission oil. 'The, clutch had begun, to slip prior to completion of the test. . .,/

.. f. Universal joint at the rear of,the transmission- to-intermediate axle propeller shaft was replaced due to wear.

., ., 1 2.31:3.4 Analysis I, I , ,, ., I, ., The criterion was'meti the test item negotiated th'e specified 4,300 miles with only organizational level maintenance ,. ./' ,, r equi r e d. .. ,I , , ,. 2. 32 MAINTENANCE ENGINEER& , (~NGINEERING'TEST)

.,.. , A maintenance analysis was not performed. Of the 4, 300 test miles required for the durability and reliability phase, ,. ,I ,, I, ,, . , ,, ,. 2, 580 acceptable.miles .were accumulated prior to the test at ', Aberdeen Proving Ground. Maintenance data, therefore, were re,cprded for only 1,720 miles. Also, due to the early date of manufacture (1952), ,lack,of vehicle maintenance,logs,' and 4, 150 mile odometer reading upon receipt, maintenance engineering data would not reflect'a,reliable percentage factor in corn- , parison ,with current production vehicles.

2.33 HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING (ENGINEERING TEST)

2. 33. 1, , Objectives

2. 33. 1. 1 To determine the presence of problems which affect safety or reduce the effectiveness of human beings during operation and maintenance...... 2.33.1.2 To establish the magnitude of problem areas quanti- tatively ,orqualitatively. ,.

(I .I ,) 2. 33.,l. 3 Criterion. The Human Factors Engineering aspects of/. the design of the test:item shall be. compared against those' stated in Manual of Standard Practice for Human Factors in Military Vehicle Design (Technical Memorandum 21-62). (DPG) (See item 44, appendix 11. )

2.33.2 Method

,, ,,, 2.33.2. 1 The Manual of Standard Practice for Human Factors in Military .Vehicle Design (Technical Memorandum 21-62) was used as a guide for this test.

2. 33.2. 2 As the basic vehicle has been in use by the Army for more than 15 years, attention,was focused'primarily on the features that were unique to the vehicle when ,equipped with the Ion Exchange

Unit. ,. !

2. 33. 3 . , Results , ,, , .a, .. %

2. 33. 3. 1 Interior of the van body was painted white. TM 21-62 gives semigloss light green color No 24533 as desirable.

2. 33. 3. 2 No effort was made to evaluate the quantity or effect of dust, fumes, or heat inside the van body because of its generally poor condition due to 8 years of use. 77 2. 33.3.3 The l-112-ton trailer was not,equipped with brackets to hold the various accessory items that,were necessary for operation of the Ion,Exchange Unit. . Carboys of hydrochloric 'acid; bags of soda ash, rubber pails, two 500- and one 3,000Lgallon '

collapsible water^ reservoirs, reservoir covers, and long, ' ' metal braces for -the reservoirs were "piled" in th'e trailer around the engine-generator set which,. was mounted approximately in the center of the floor.

,, ~ , I, a. Also, electrical cables, flexible hoses, and

three portable pumps were lying on the floor in'the'rear of the. ' truck van body.

, .:. ,,, ~ b. Provision should be made for stowage of this material so that any individual component could be reached without unloading a number of other components.

, ,, ,,, , '\., I I .. , 2. 33.3.4 Nine 13-gallon carboys of hydrochloric acid were damaged during the test, On at least three occasions the inner plastic containers were ruptured allowing the &id to spill 'and saturate parts of the many components piled,in.the.trailer: This condition produces a hazard fo'r pers'O'&elBrequiredto handle'tlie ,, ~ 5 'liiI I . , ),. I, ,. . componedts. ' I. ,,/, , ,I 2.33.4 Analysis ,. .,,:i. , .. The criterion was not met.

, . ,Li ,. , ,. , ',,* I' 1, ./! 2.34 RADIO INTERFERENCE SUPPRESSION '(ENGINEERING ,. ,, TEST) ,I , *,

2. 34.'1. Objective . .. , , .. .,', ..! ,, ,. , ,. .I " .

2.34. 1. 1 1 To determine.whether the radio frequency interfer-' ence system applied to the Ion Exchange Unit, 3,000 GPH van body mounted USA Reg No 4-1112490 and associated components would meet the interference and suppression requirements.

,i ,', , ,, j,' '., .,? I. ' ,

, 8,~ 10, ,. ,, ' 2.34: 1.2 ' C'riteria

a. Shall be treated for the elimination of interference with radio communications with pertinent standards of the Signal'Corps.' (See item 10, appendix 11. )

b. All vehicle and water purification components shall be"designed to eliminate interference with radio communications in accordancc with the suppression requirements of Military

Specification MIL-E-5S301(EL). (DPS) ' (See itcm 45, appendix 11. )

2. 34.2 ' Method

I,)

2. 34. 2. 1 ' Tests for radiated interference were performed with the antenna of the test equipment located and oriented at a distance of 20 feet from the unit as specified by the govcrning specification for tactical-support equipment. Tests were made over the frequency range of 1.5 thru 1000 megacycles. Radiated measurements could not be made at 0.15 and 0.35 megacycles because of excessive ambient noise levels.

I, 2. 34. 2. 2 Orientation of the test equipment, condition of unit under test, test site, and permissible limits of interference are outlined in Military Specification MIL-E-55301(EL).

2. 34.2.'3 The following electrical components, which are potential source's 'of radio frequency interference, were in- vestigated'and tested to determine the degree of interference generated by each.

' a. Generator Set - Military Standard Model SF-IO-MD, '10 KW,'AC, 120/208 volts, 3 phase, ,60 cycle.

Gasoline Engine - Military Standard ' , 4A08411, 4 cylinder, air cooled, 'magneto ignition system. .,. .

b. ' Van Heater - Model UH-68, 115 volts, AC, 60,000 BTU. . ', _. "c. Chemical Pump Motor - Model 5KH3ZEGllbE, 115 volts,AC, 60 cycle, 1/2 HP, 1725 Rpm.

79 d. Water Pump Motor - Model 2D56717T63EW, 208-220/440 volts, 60 cycle, 3 phase, 1/2 HP, 1725 Rpm.

e. Water Pump Motor -, Motor Model No. 62530- NW, 208 volts, '60 cycle, 2 ,HP, 6. 5 amps., Frame KS, 184Cy, Rpm 3450, Class A, 3 phase.

I, 2. 34. 2.4 Radio interference measuring set ANIURM-85 was , used thr,oughout.. the test. ,Measurements presented in this ,, , ,report are in,decibels above one microqolt per megacycle of... 'bandwidth. Besides taking-radio .interference.measurement tests at predetermined frequencies, measurements.were made , .,. of interference between the predetermined frequencies by scan- ning for noise or peaks of interference. ,No interfer:ence of ,, greater magnitude than that recor'ded at.the predetermined ..

., , ,. ,I. frequencies WAS noted:' I: (.

,, .,,:I,,.. ,,a,., Radiation tests, indicated, no,. interference iq ,exce,ss, of the permissible limits 'of the governing specification. De-

tailed results are included in table 13, appendix,I. ~. ~ ,, ,. ..

2. 34.4. 1 , The original request for radio interference measurements specified Military Specification MIL-S-10.379A for the, Ion Exchange Unit 'and ,the ,truck engine and Military,,Specification MIL-I-11748B for the engine generator set: The test plan required that the engine generator set, the Ion Exchange Unit and the truck engine be run during interference measurement tests so the results,would be on a ,complete unit.,',.This.,method .: was impractical because the two specifications have a different passing limit and distance and positioning!of the antenna. In- stead, Military Specification MIL-E-55301(EL) was used in .,., ! place of the other two specifications. This specification super- sedes Military Specification MIL-I-11748B and may be used in lieu of Military Specification MIL-S-lO379A. Specification; , , MIL-B-55301(EL) was used for the radio interference measurements because it allowed all three units to be operated at once with one positioning of the antenna and one set of permissible : interference limits covering all three units.

2. 34.4. 2 The criteria were met.

80 ..._I_ ...... ~__".i__"., ..

- mu56 -'I rm .....tl .....tl ~~ - ea: 10.5 10.0 - 69: 10.0 18.0 0.25 is ;.a I* ;a9 98 .7 9Q: 9.2 18.0 0.n - - - - 98.7 93: 9.2 17.0 0.23 - - - ~ 98.7 90. - - - - 6.0 170 1% 89 , 9.0 17.0 0.S . - - 98.1 88 i 9.0 18.0 0.S - - - . 48.1 88 , 9.0 17.0 0.25 - - - ~ 98.7

W05 81 ~ - - - 5.5 170 U5 - X.0 19Q 17' 0.1 - - - at05 86 9.0 18.0 0.26 - - - ~ .-- - 0.1 1.0 1 2 08.6 0905 85 8.1 7.1 2.20 - - - - .-- - 0.1 1.0 4 31 izn - - - - 6.0 172 U5 - 6.0 166 115 0.L 8.0 16 19

1315 82 7.0 10.0 0.37 ~ . - - 98.0 UY) 81 10.2 1Q.D 0.X - - ~ - 98.6 i5n 81 10.5 22.0 0.12 ~ - - - 41.0 16W 81 9.5 19.0 0.W - 7.0 I64 I37 91.R

82 8.0 18.0 0.55 ------~ - 0.1 2.5 1 9 93.6 81 9.1 u.0 0.57 - - - ~ . - - - D.1 2.2 2 5 %.L 81 9.0 18.0 0.57 - - - - ~ - ~ - 0.1 2.1 I I 16.1 8L 10.0 10.0 0.56 - I.5 I62 137 - 38.5 1% 171 0.1 2.5 1 I 96.h e4 9,,la.00.57 - i - - - - ~ - 0.1 3.0 2 7 91.9 61 9.518.00.55 - - - - ~ - - - 11.1 2.5 2 7 94.9 8' 9.B la." 0.55 - - - - ~- --0.1 '.a 3 5 96.4

85 - 38.0 176 169 0.1 3.0 2 9 "3.6 05 - ~ ~ - 0.1 3.0 1 7 95.0

~ 8L - - ~ 0.1 3.5 2 7 91.0 8' ~ - - - 0.1 3.0 2 7 95." 84 - n.5 180 ni 0.1 3.5 2 3 W.0 81 ~ - . - 0.1 3.5 2 5 9a.' 82 - - - - D.1 3.D 2 5 9b.L 82 ~ - - - 0.1 3.0 2 3 W.0 80 8.0 16.0 0.93 - b.O 1M 131 - 6.5 162 135 0.1 3.0 2 I 96.1 80 8.0 16.0 0.n - . ------0.1 3.5 2 3 97.7 60 8.0 11.0 0.s - - - - ~ - - - 0.1 3.5 2 3 97.? $0 8.0 18.0 0.19 - - - - ~- -.0.1 2.5 1 3 97.1 79 8.0 1z.o 0.n - - - - ~ - ~ - 0.1 3.0 1 5 9b.Z 79 8.0 12.0 0.LI bs 6.0 160 135 ~ - - - 2 2.01 2 s.5 78 7.7 11.8 0.u ~ - - - 15 1.9 164 135 0.1 2.0 1 2 98.5 78 1.8 11.) 0.17 ------0.1 7.0 1 , 97.8 4 M.0 aO.0 0.17 - - - - ~- -.0.1 1.5 0 5 s.3 79 9.5 19." 0.15 - - - - - 6.0 162 la 0.1 2.5 1 5 s.3 a0 8.E 18.0 0.1, - - - ~ - - - - 0.1 3.0 1 5 %.3 M 9.0 19.0o.a ------0.1 3.0 1 5 96.3 81 8.9 18.0 0.u - - - - . - - - 0.1 2.0 1 5 96.3 s2 -- .--. 0.1 2.0 1 5 %.3 82 ~ -\I I:: 81 Ix.1 84 w.3 05 96.3 85 57.7 85

Jul 5233 81

$2 8.0 lb.0 0.65 52 6.0 1LB 12? 92.6 82 8.0 2b.Q 0.65 - - - - 92.6 82 8.0 16.0 0.65 - - - - 91.3 81 8.0 1b.O 0.65 - - - - 9L.3 e2 8.0 16.0 0.65 - 6.0 In 1P1 96.0 8182 8.0 16.0 0.61 - - - - 92.7 -- --0.1 J.5 1 9 91.7 81 - - - - 0.1 3.0 1 7 94.3 79 0.1 n.1 I& 1% 0.1 1.5 I 9 91.0 79 - - - - 0.1 3.5 1 10 91.1 4 ~- -.0.1 1.0 1 10 92.1 79 - - - - 0.1 L.0 1 IO 92.2 ?? - - . - - - - . I nou rot4 -

1-1 _o 10.) 0.1 D 4 d.7 ..o 10.5 0.1 - 5 5.3 1.9 11.0 0.1 - 5 5.0 1.9 ll.00.1 - 6 L.7 1.9 Il.00.1 0 6 4.9 1.9 11.0 0.1 - 6 4.a 1.9 n.0 0.1 - 5 L.9

- 7 5." 0 7 5.0 - a 4.8 - 8 1.9 -0 117 L.95.3 - 11 5.0

u 3mo 3.7 11.0 0.1 - 16 5.1 um 3.7 11.0 0.1 - 17 5.1 U Jm 3.8 ll.0 0.1 - I, 5.2 3.a LO 0.1 3.7 11.0 0.1 J.8 11.0 0.1 3.8 11.0 0.1 3.7 11.5 0.1 . ---- 3.7 I,." 0.1 1.0 - - 123 9.: 3.7 11.0 0.1 - L7 5.' 3.7 11.0 0.1 - 1s 5.: 3.1 11.0 8.1 - 12 5.: 3.6 l0.a 0.1 - 19 5.1 3.6 10.5 0.1: - 16 7.' 3.6 10.5 0.1 - 18 7.' 3.6 10.1 0.1 - 16 7.' 3.6 10.5 0.L - I6 7.'

3.6 10.5 0.1 0.1 - - 10 7.' 3.6 10.5 0.2 0.1 - - I6 7. 3.b 10.5 0.2 0.1 - - 15 7.1 3.6 10.5 0.z 0.1 - - La 7. J.7 10.5 0.3 n.1 0 12 16 7. 3.1 10.5 0.7 0.1 - - 18 7. par urr) ".I - - 5 1. LL 3lZO - 7 1. U 3Im - 8 I. U 318 - 9 b. 4 3120 - 9 L. wm 3.8 10.5 0.8' C.1 - I3 m 3.7 10.5 0.9 D.1 ~ 63 312l 3.7 10.5 0.9 0.1 - L3 )mJ 3.1 10.5 1.0 0.1 - 63 m 3.7 IO.1 1.1 0.1 - 3.7 10.2 1.2 0.1 - - 15 I., 3.7 10.5 1.1 0.1 - - 16 L. 3.7 10.5 1.2 0.1 - - 17 L. 3.6 10.1 1.2 0.3 - ~ 1* '_ 1.7 10.0 1.1 0.1 - - 19 L. 3.7 9.5 1.1 0.1 0 II m L. 3.7 8.0 1.' 0.1 ~ - 21 I.

3.7 7.) I.' 4.1 - - 26 L. 3.7 6.5 1.t 0.1 - - 3J L. 3.7 5.5 1.8 0.1 0 0 I2 '. 3.7 L.5 2.: 0.1 - - , L3 5. ID..,, ID..,, for "I.". 3.7 1o.oo.i 0.1 - - 7 '. J.6 10.0 0.1 0.1 0 0 7- 3.b 10.0 0.1 0.1 - .. .

1-2 Table 3. Radiochemical Analysis Data I.

I.I. . SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES

,i , " Radioactive Substance Picocuries 1 per gram of debris

Strontium 89 10,000

Strontium 90 55,000

Yttrium 90 55,000

Trivalent rare earths 10,200,'000'

Ruthenium 106-rhodium 106 470,000

Cesium 137-cesium 134 50,000

Zirconium 95-niobium 95 5,100,000

Unidentified (by difference) 3,100,000

Total beta emitters 19, 040,000

'Picocurie is equal to 10-l~curie.

Table 4. Water Analysis Data

CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATION^ (Average Value During Test Pesiod)'

PH 7. I

Color (units) 12.0

Turbidity '(units) 5.0

Total Alkalinity (ppm CaCO ) 85.0 3

1-3 ' ,! .,,. .. Table 4. Water Analysis Data (Cont) ' '

. .. .~..

CONSTITUENT ,)/ CONCENTRATION^ (Average Value During Test Period)l , , , ,, .I: .. >., .

Total Hardness (ppm CaCO ) . 252.0 ~ .. . . 3

,I ,. Magnesium (ppm CaCO ) 48.0 3

.:1. Calcium (ppm GaCO ) 204. 0'"' ' 3

Sodium (ppm Na) ,' 212.0 " I"

.. :,. , , , 1. Sulfate (ppm SO*) : 576.'0

,. .-. ,j. , , , .,, , ,g,9.,o' 1 I:,, L'; ~. . , ' Silica (ppm SiOz) "-.

I, !1'8.'0 I", ' Chloride (ppm) ' '

1:1, ., I, i'; Iron (ppm Fe),,i', "

, ... L, 7 In ppm, except for'pH, color, and turbidity whch are expressed in the appropriate units. '. \ ,:,#,(,~,, !''I1 :. I, , :I i .. . ..~, Table 5. Typical Water Test Data 'x ' ,,. >,,$,,..> ,' til .I .

ITEMS QUANTITIES

Total $operating timecfor cation 14.7 hour exchanger ,. ..

I /,I Total operating time for anion 11.5 hour exchanger , ,.' I Capacity of cation exchange resin 4.,57 lb CaCO,,J,cu ft 'I Capacity of anion exchange resin 4.50 lb,CaCO /cu ft , ,.*', 1,' , ,:/ ,,, ,ji:.:31;. Volume of water from which cations were removed by cation exchange 22,000 gal

1-4

. ,, --- . ~.~. ~~.~ --.--. .-,~ ___ , .I, ,. .. ,. , . ., .. ' ,.',. , ,. .,I...-.. Table 5., Typical Water Test Data (Cont)

ITEMS QUANTITIES

Volume of water from which anions 17,250 gal were removed by anion exchange

Volume of demineralized water used 2, 000 gal for regeneration

Total dissolved solids content of 1 gr/gal (17.1 ppm) demineralized water (as CaCO ) 3

Table 6. Summary of Water Decontamination Data

TEST CONTAMINANT PROCESS RAD1OAC TIVI TY

Picocuri e r milliliter Removal

1 Bomb debris, Coagulation 8 3 mincon filtration 667.0 5.4 99.2

2 Bomb debris, Coagulation.8 1, 550.0 fuzed with filtration NaOH cation exchange (H)

Strontium Coagulation 8 13 90-yttrium filtration 90 strontium 90 1,010.0 -yttrium 90 769.0 cation exchange (H) strontium 90 876.0 -yttrium 90 25.0 r 1-5 Table 6. Summary of Water Decon-ation Data (Cont)

TEST - ~ CONTAMINA~T PROCESS RADIOACTIVITY ' Picocuries per milliliter Removal ,. , .I (Influent) (Effluent) ' (70)

4 Cesium 137 Coagulation & 12. 700.0 12,400. 0 2.4 ,. ., ,,!, , ,,,, , '-barhm 137 filtration cation ,, exchange (H) 12,400.0 3.5 99.9 I, ,, ., . 5 Strontium 90 Cation, ,. -yttrium 90 exchange (na) Strontium 90 1, 107.0 . 50. 0 95.5 -yttrium 90 903.0 229.0 74.6 1 I I I I ., . , ..,

Table 7. Strain Gage Keadings During Marine Lifts ..

j . % *,

,. , ',,. ..\ (. Lift No. Readings at Stations (in Microinches) ,,, , '; I , ,8',

,I 1 2' 3- 4' 5 6 7 8. 9 10 ; 18, . ,.i ,'

i ,I i 1 23 30 31 31 32 31 33 - 30 - i !

2 ,' 24 ' 30 31', 31 '32 31 40 -. 23 :-'.'I ,#, ,, .. 3 ' 29 3b 30 30 130 31 33, -' 29 - ,I, . !

4 : 30 25 30 10 40 - 60 - 04 -'

5 ' 28 44 :: 56 ,60 - 20 -, 26 - ,, . 6 50 38 * 48 .54 - - - 24 -

%auld not balance (drifting) reason unknown .; .. ,I . ~.I-6 Table 8. Strain Gage Readillgs After Marine Liits .- . .I_

Lift No. Readings at Stations (in Microinches)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 87 10

1 02 00 02 05 04 01 02 - 01 -

? 02 00 02 01 03 01 06 - 04 -

3 00 01 05 04 04 02 01 - 03 -

1 00 00 00 00 00 - 06 - 00 -

3 00 08 :'F 00 04 - 00 - 00 -

3 08 00 * 00 00 - - - 00 -

*Could not balance (drifting) reason unknown

Table 9. Comparison of Vertical Micrometer .Reedings &foie 2nd After Marine Lifts Readings at Stations (in Inches)

Before 28.870 28.619 28.526 28.695 28.979 29.166 28.864

28.609 29.038 29.535

After 28.915 28.726 28.694 28.808 29.220 29.219 28.896

28.584 29. 022 29.528

1-7 ,.. , , ,.,I, ,. .~ Class Clearance Under Hatch Size Hatch Hatches Re-

Hatch Girders Adequate ' Boom qui ring

Adequate Com- Adequate Terminal I partmgnt Number Crane

I ,

Mariner 5, 6,.,8, 9, 11, 12 2, 3, 4, 5,' 4/6, '. 2, 3, 5, 7; 16, 18, 19, 21 6, 7, ,, Victory 3, 6, 9, 12 All 3,. 4 1, 2, 5 :

I,, ~

Liberty 1, 2, 6, 9, 11, 1, 2, :4, 5 2, ,4 i', 1, 5 13

Table 11. Maximum "G" Forces Recorded During Humping Tests - WH Imp :t -O-Granh In Railcar ccelerometers on : I Exchance Unit - 'ertical 'ransverse ,ongitudinal erticalll'ransversf .ongitudinal 2 3-6 1.4 h-4 6.0

4 3.2 0.8 8.8 '4.5 4.0 8.5

I.,. 6 5.2 2.4 14.4" 4.5 10.0 9.0 ,b -8 10.8 9.2 14.4a - a. Exceeded the limitations of the Impact-O-graph. b. Unable to analyze due to poor tape readings.

1-8 Table 12. Physical Charactekistics.,.

1. Complete Unit (van mounted on truck and trailer attached):

Length 427 in Kidth 97s in Height 124 in Weight 27,480 lb Longitudinal Center of Gravity Location L73 in . aft of truck front axle 2. Truck Unit (with van mounted):

Length 277 in Width 973 in Height 124 in Weight 21,530 lb Longitudinal Center of Gravity Location lo9 in aft of front axle

3. Trailer Unit:

Length 1654 in:I' Width ' 83 in , Height ,, 98 in ., Weight 5,950 lb Longitudinal 'Center of Gravity Location 7 in ' forward of axle RADIO INTERFERENCE TEST DATA tem: Ion Exchange Unit Report No.: 66-38 odel: Specification: MIL-E-55301, (EL) SA Reg. No.: 4111290 Engineer: Hizer , fr.: Test Date: 18 Jan 66 ocation: I Test Area: Perryman Bomb Loading Ramp I Test Receiver: AN/URM-85, Serial No. 29 RADIATION - DB+

- AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL Side Panel of Van Open. - PASSING LIMIT Antenna Located 20 feet from Unit.

Van Heater Not Opertaing During Test. +!-Decibels above one microvolt per Truck Engine, Ion Exchange Unit megacycle of bandwidth. and Engine Generator Set Operating. a - Interference noise level at or below ambient noise level.

TEAP-US Form 15;?a, 15 Oct 65 (Replaces STEAP-DS Form 152, 11 Feb 65 1-10 I---

- t 0 -zW X 0 3 m

- ui f W 0 I- t- a w -I X P u) - K Y 0 0 I 0 0 I z 0 4

a w

1-11 b 1311 MQ38 -s VIS

- bV1S x* In-

--G Q1S lNlOd * .I.dll

D Q, yr) 1

1-12, t

1-13 i

I i 1 I I 1 ! ! I 1 TIRE PRESSURE 50 PSI -" I:*

FIGURE 5.DIAGRAM DEPICTING TEST ITEM EXCEEDING LIMITATIONS OF THE BERNE IMTERNAPITiONAL CLEARANCE DIAGRAM, 1-15 1-11

X X z -11

d m P m VI C. 09 2 12.

r( 0

X x

cn m m E -11

r: 3 em v

VI m m V P 1 P N w Ip w

9 0 R , . '. Y 2 .' m a

x x

x 9 -11

'I ,

X L -11 8 -11

x 6 -11

koh 1

x a

,, x x ,-,,

, .. x I W ul I x

x .~ . . .

ZI -11

X X

W €1-11

d c, 0 1 a E: 1 0 % Y 0 P, a I r.a w os $ 5 .b

v w w w N

N N W N w W PI -11

,, x 01 01 m (D m m w 21 Pl P, 1 Y Pl w N N

N N -4 -4 w w 6

X X

rn (D m P PJ Y N PJ N w w N N .D Ip ? W W 81 -11

v, v, 0 0 (D ID n PJ ,Pl v ;;1 PJ N N W w P W rp W 6 1-11

W 1-111

3 5 m 2-111 1 2 P 2. a

* 0 r FJ z 2 9 m 0 m c3 m !-t n z0

W W N v I! * 0 5. a m P

W N c Q? C 5 -111

< P < In P m j' C. 3 ,a 2 +a 0 0 0 0 Y .O e Y 9 -111

, // rr. r 3 P, g w c :r. 2 2 ... 0 ? ZKR +d v! Y 8-111 APPENDIX IV. PHOTOGRAPHS

I.. :dp , ...... ^...... IT! .. %-+&

., .. ., ...... ~ ._.. , , ...... *. .._ .. ,. .. .

WARMY ARMOR AND ENGINEERBOARD USTECOM PROJ NO 7-5-0574 FORT KNOX KY PHOTO NO 5-13-4

ION EXCHANGE UNIT, MOBILE, 3,000 GPH

FIGURE 1

IV-1 IUS ARMY ARMOR AND ENGINEER BOARD USATECOM PROJ NO 7-5-0574 1 FORT KNOX KY PHOTO NO 5-13-4C

ION EXCHANGE UNIT, MOBILE, 3,000 GPH, WITH ORIGINAL LIQUID-COOLED ENGINE GENERATOR SET

FIGURE 2

IV-2 ,

US ARMY ARMOR AND ENGINEER BOARD USATECOM PROJ NO 7 - 5 -057 4 IFORT KNOX. KY PHOTO'NO 5-13-4K

ION EXCHANGE UNIT, MOBILE, 3,000 GPH

FIGURE 3

IV-3 ION EXCHANCE UNIT BEING LIFTED UTILIZING THE FRAME BENDING FIX KIT.

FIGURE 4

N-4 .

ION EXCHANGE UNIT BERNE CLEARANCE DEVICE, FIGURE 5

RIGHT REAR TIEDOWN BROKEN AND LEFT TIEDOWN LOOSE. FIGURE b IV-5 CENTER WHEELS RIDING UP ON CHOCKS AND RIGHT REAR CABLE BREAKING DURING 8 MPH HUMP.

FIGURE 7

ANCHORPLATESPULLEDUPAFTER 8 MPH HUMP. FIGURE 8 IV-6 . _- .

TEST ITEM IN WELL DECK.OF LCM-8 AFTER BEING LOADED OVER THE RAMP ON HARD DRY SAND. FIGURE 9

M-52 TRUCK TRACTOR ATTEMPTING TO TOW TEST ITEM FROM THE WELL DECK OF AN LCM-8 AND OVER THE BEACH.

FIGURE 10

IV-7 TEST ITEM BACKING OVER THE RAMP OF AN LCU WITH RAMP DOWN IN WATER 20 INCHES DEEP.

FIGURE 11

TEST ITEM BEING ASSLSTED UP THE BEACH GRADE OF 10 PERCENT AND THROUGH WATER 20 INCHES DEEP. FIGURE 12 IV-8 TEST ITEM IMMOBILIZED IN LEVEL DRY LOOSE SAND. FIGURE 13

......

TEST ITEM BEING ASSISTED OVER THE BEACHBYATRACTOR.

FIGURE 14

IV-9 FIGURE 15

FIGURE 16

ENGINEERING/SERVICE TEST OF ION UNITED STATLS ARMY EXCHANGE UNIT, MOBILE 3,000 GPH AIRBORNE. ELECTRONICS AN0 SPECIAL WARFbRE BOARD FIGURE 15: VAN PORTION OF TRUCK UNIT AFTER DISASSEMBLY.

FIGURE 16: TRUCK PORTION OF TRUCK UNIT AFTER DISASSEMBLY.

IV-10 FIGURE 17

FIGURE 18 ..

ENGINEERING/SERVICE TEST OF ION EXCHANGE UIJIT, MOBILE 3,000 GPH UNITED STATES ARMY

AIIRBORNE. ELECTRONICS FIGURE 17: ION EXCHANGE UNIT BEING ' PND SPECIAL WARFPRE 804.40 LOADED INTO USAJ? C-124 NRCRAFT.

ION EXCHANGE UNIT RESTRAINED FOR AIR PORTABILITY. IV-11 USAERDL 1275 Purification of Water Contaminated with Radioactive Material. “Wahoo,“ 24 December 1952.

Abstract. “Describes jar test studies at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory of powdered metals, clay, coagulants, and ion exchange resins for the rcmoval of reactor-produced fission products and selected radioisotopes from water. Also, evaluates Water Purification Set No. 2, an experimental Erdlator, and a mixed-bed ion exchange column for decontaminating contaminated water. ”

Conclusions: “Radioactively contaminted water can be effectively treated by ion cxchange and conventional water treatment processes (coagulation. adsorption, and filtration) provided equipment operators are adequately trained and observe necessary precautions in the operation. ”

“A mixed-bed ion exchange column is effective for decontaminating radioactively contaminated water. With mixed fission products, a 99. 9 percent removal can be obtained. “

USAERDL 1357 Removal of Radioactive Substances from Water by Ion Exchange Processes, 11 June ,1954.

Abstract: ‘,‘Thisreport covers the results of an investigation using ion exchange processes and clay slurrying for,removing radioactive materials from water, with the view towards adaptation to U.S. Army water purification equipment. Laboratory studies were made followed by pilot plant studies using typical granular ion exchange resins for removing fission product contamination from Oak Ridge tap water. ”

v- 1 Conclusion: "Granular ion exchange mate'rials' us'ed ,, , as a column are effective for the 'decontamination of radioactively contaminated water in-the equipment size and capacity commensurate with existing , military water supply equipment: 'Optimum results' can probably be obtained by employing the column after the conventional coagulation and diatomite ,. .,.. filtration steps. " ;, , :.,,

USAERDL R1396 Removal of Radiological Warfare Agents from Water (Salty Dog V), 22 April 1955'

Abstract: "Describes the removal of aged fission products and selected radioisotopes of radiological warfare significance from 'water by coagulation, by clay adsorption, and by ion exchange. Equipment evaluated includes'60 gph'thermo-compr'ession distil- lation unit, Water, Purification Set No. l', and a .. , .,. field expedient. " ,, ,,/, ,,, Conklusion:. "Mixed-bed ion exchatigk resins used as a column are' capable of removing protoactinium 233 and zirconium 95-niobium 95 in the range of 92 to

99. 9 percent. " " ., USAERDL ,1406 Removal of Radioactive Contaminants from Water with the Corps of Engineers Mobile Water Purification Unit ("Salty Dog IV. ") 27 May 1955 ,, Abstract: "This report covers tests co'nducted at the Sanitary Engineering Branch Test Station, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, on the 'removal of radioactive contaminants from ~ water with the Corps of Engine.erh.Motii1-eWater

Purification Unit. I' ,, ,, , Conclusions:

I' a. "The Mobile Water-Purification Unit is capable of removing 84 to 88 percent of Z-'mbnth:old fission products from water when operated according to the normal procedure of coagulation and diatomite filtration. "

v-2 b. "The Mobile Water-Purification Unit is capable of removing 93 percent of 2-month-old fission products from water when operated with clay treatment followed by the normal procedure of coagulation and diatomite filtration. "

c. "The Mobile-Water-,Purification Unit is capable of removing over 99. 9 percent of 2-month-old fission products from water when operated with a mixed- bed ion exchange post-treatment followed by normal procedure of coagulation and diatomite filtration. "

USAERDL 1451RR The Removal of Radioactive Material from Water by Serial Coagulation, by Ion Exchange,, and by Charcoal Adsorption (Salty Dog VII), 22 June 1956

Abstract: "This report covers experiments conducted at the ERDL Oak Ridge Test Station on the removal of radioactive material from water by serial coagulation, by ion exchange. 'I

Conclusion: "Ion exchange resins are effective ,materials for removing radioactive substances from water. The capacity of "Amberlite IR-120" for removing strontium 89 from water is essentially independent of flow rate, column length, tempera- ture, and pH.," us, ERDL 6 3RR Decontamination of Water Contaminated with Plutonium, 12 January 1960.

Abstract: "An investigation was conducted by the Sanitary Engineering Branch, USAERDL, in cooperation with the H-7 Group, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory (LASL) on the decontamination of water contaminated with plutonium. The investigation was conducted on the LASL reservation. Plutonium is a hazardous radioactive material that could occur as a water contaminant both as a result of accident or as a result of nuclear warfare. It is believed that most plutonium occurring in natural water courses would exist in' the particulate form either as a radiocolloid, as insoluble hydroxide, or as ions attached to natural turbidity. Data

v-3 were obtained as to its ease of removal by Corps of Engineers water supply equipment ,and.water treatment processes. "

. \. Conclusions: "Mixed-bed, ion-exchange .resins or high capacity, cation-exchange resin on the hydrogen cycle are both capable of removing over 99 percent

of soluble plutonium from contaminated water. 'I

,, .I, "A cation- exchange, water- softening unit on the conventional sodium cycle is isneffec- tive in removing plutonium from contaminated water, "

, .., , ,, ,I. , USAERDL 1673RR Removal of Nuclear Bomb Debris., Strontium 90- : 'Yttrium 90, and Cesium 137-Barium 137 from Water with Corps of Engineers Mobile Water Treating ,, , Equipment, 23 Mav 1961. . .. , I, . ,*; I '. Abstract: "A. field study on the removal .of radioactive substances from water was conducted by the Sanitary Sciences Branch, U. S. Army Engineer Research and Development Laboratories ,, in coopera- tiomwith the,Officeof Civil and Defense.Mobiliza- .tion, at the A.tomic Energy Commision's Nevada Test Site during 16 September through 5, November 1959. Three water-treating units were evaluated for radioactivity- removal efficiency: , The Army Mobile Water-Purification Unit (1, 500 gph); a prototype

Mobile Ion Exchange Unit (1, 500 gph); and an ~ ' ',t: electrodialysis demineralization unit (30 gph). The contaminants used were: (1) Aged nuclear bomb

debris from an.underground detonation, I powdered to 3 microns average particle size; (2) ,.Strontium 90- Yttrium 90; and (3) Cesium 137-Barium: 137. Well water of approximately 900 ppm total dissolved solids was deliberately contaminated ,with the,,radioactive materia1,of choice and then subjected to the decontamination procedures. " ,,

Conclusions: It is concluded that:, .

!I ' , ,. ,,, a. "Standard field water purification. equipment employing continuous coagulation and diatomite filtration followed by a water demineralization process is capable of removing over 99 percent of the insoluble and soluble radioactive contaminants from water. " v-4 b. “Standard water purification equiprncnt employing continuous coagulation and diatomite filtration followed by a water demincralization process is capable of removing over 99 percent of the insoluble and soluble radioactive contaminants for water. “

v- 5 I APPENDIX VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

- 1. USAERDL Report No. ‘1275, Purification of Water,Con- taminated with Radioactive Materiel, Dec 52.

2.. USAERDL Report No 1357, Removal of Radioactive Substance from Water by Ion Exchange Processes, 11 Jun 54.

3. USAERDL Report No. 1396, Removal of Radiological Warfare Agents from Water, 22 Apr 55.

4. USAERDL Report No. 1406, Removal of Radioactive Contaminants from Water with the Corps of Engineers Mobile Water Purification Unit, 27 May 55.

5. USAERDL Report No. 1451-RR, Thc Removal of Radio- active Material from Water by Serial Coagulation, by Ion Exchange, and by Charcoal Absorption, 22 Jun 56.

6. USAERDL Report No. 1492-RR, Ion Exchange for the Removal of Radionuclides from Water, 7 Aug 57.

7. USAERDL Report No. 1613-RR, Decontamination of Water Contaminated with Plutonium, 12 Jan 60.

8. USAERDL Report No. 1673-RR, Removal of Nuclear Bovb Debris, Strontium 90-Yttrium 90, and Cesium 137-Barium 137 from Water with Corps of Engineers Mobile Water-Treating Equipment, 23 May 61.

9. USAERDL Report No. 1702-RR, Removal of Chemical, Biological, and Radiblogical Contaminants irom Water with Corps of Engineers Field Water Supply Equipment, 12 Dec 61.

10. Ion Exchange Unit, Mobile 3000 GPH, Task No. 1M6241OlD55102, In-Process Review Data Package, 16 December 1964, U. S. Armv Mobilitv Eauiument-- Center, Engineer.. Research and Development Laboratories, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.

11. Lindsten, Don C., Schmitt, Leonard P., and Lac,y, William J., Removal of Radioactive Contaminants from Water, The Military Engineer, September -October 1961.

12. Lindstcn, Don.C., Pruett, Paul.B., Schmitt, Richard P., and Lacy, William J., Solubility of Radioactive Bomb Debris, Journal American Water Works Association, Volume 53, No. 3, March 1961.

VI-1 13. Lacy, William J., and Lindstk, Don C., Removal of Radioactive Contaminants from Water by Ion Exchange Slurry, Lndustrial and Engineering Chemistry, Volume 49, Page 1725, October 1957.

14. TM 5-700, Field Water Supply, Headquarters, Department of the Army, October 1961. ,,

15. American Public Health Association; Standard Methods of Examination of Water and Sewage, 1 Ith Edition.

16. First Indorsement, MEDPS-PE, Office of the Surgeon General, Washington, ,D. C. 20315, 24 March 1965 to letter STEDP-ET, 24 February 1965, subject: Tolerance for 'Removal of Impurities from Water, USATECOM Project Nos. 7-3-0311 and 7-5-0574. ,. 17. Letter, AMSTE-GE, Headquarters, US Army Test and Evaluation Command, 14 April 1965, subject: USATECOM Project No. 7 - 5 -0574-0 1/ 02 / 0 3 / 04/ 0 5 / 0 6 / 0 7, :Integrated'Engineering/ Service Test of 3000 CPH Ion Exchange ,Unit, Mobile, w/l'incl.

18. MP 5-4610-206-12, U. S. Army Mobility'Command Maintenance Package for Ion Exchange Unit, 1,500 to 3,000 GPH, Van Body Mounted. .~ , 19. Military Specific'ation, 'MIL-T-45362, 22 Mar 61,"T,rucks, 2-112 Ton, 6x6, M44 Series. ' ' 1.. ,.._ '' , ,./! ,I. ' 20. AR 705-8, Department of Defense, Engineering for Transportability Pr'ogram, December l959., ' , , ., .d.,

21. AR 705-35, Research and Developm'ent of Materiel,.' ' Criteria for Air Portability and Air Drop of Materiel, 15 June 64.

22. US Air Force Specification Bulletin 518A, Aircraft ' Cargo Compartment Dimensional Data, 28 Mar 63. I.. 23. Military Specification MIL-A-S421B, US Air Force, Air Transportability Requirements, General Specificati'on for, 5 May 60. ,, ',. 24. TM 38-250, Pakkaging and Handling of Dangerous' Materials for Transportation by Military Aircraft, 26 Dec 62. ,. .

., 1

VI-2 A.PPENDIX VU. REFERENCES

1. Ltr, AMSTE-GE, HQ USATECOM, 5 Jan 65, subject: Test Directive, USATECOM Project No. 7- 5-0574-0 1 /02/03/04/ 05/06, Engineering Service Test of Ion Exchange Unit, Mobile 3000 GPH, w 3 incl.

2. Ltr, AMSTE-GE, HQ USATECOM, 13 Feb 65, subject: USATECOM Project No. 7-5- 0574-01 / 02/03/ 04/05/06, Engineering/ Service Test of Ion Exchange Unit, Mobile, 3000 GPH.

3. Ltr, AMSTE-GE, HQ USATECOM, 24 Jun 65, subject: USATECOM Project No, 7-5-0574-Ol/O2/03/04/05/06/07, Inte- grated Engineering/Service Test of the 3000 GPH Mobile Ion Exchange Unit.

4. Ltr, AMSTE-GE, HQ USATECOM, 21 Jun 65, subject: USATECOM Project No. 7-5-0574-01/02/03/04/05/06/07, Inte- grated Engineering/Servicc Tcst of Ion Exchange Unit, Mobile, 3000 GPH.

5. Paragraph 1439c(Y), Department of the Army Combat Development Objectives Guide (U),15 Aug 64.

6. Department of the Army RDT&E Task Card for Task No lM624101D55102, Ion Exchange Unit, Mobile, 3000 GPH (U), 1 Jan 64.

7. USAERDL Report No 1357, Removal of Radioactive Substance from Water by Ion Exchange Processes, 11 Jun 54.

8. Ltr. AMSTE-GE, HQ USATECOM. 3 Mar 66. subject: USA.TECOM Projcct No. 7-5-0574-02, Engineering Test of Ion Exchange Unit, Mobile, 3000 GPH.

9. Ltr, STEM-DA-E, Headquarters, Dugway Proving Ground, 10 Dec 65, subject: Integrated Engineering/Service Test of Ion Exchange Unit, USA.TECOM Project No, 7-5-0574, with 1 ind.

VII- 1 APPENDIX VIII. DISTRIBUTION LIST

Distribution denoted by an astrisk (+) will be made from those copics f orwardcd to Headquarters ,' USA TECOM. PART 1 .- US AGENClES Agency Test Non - Final Final -Plan Reports Reports

Commanding General ' 30 3 30 US Army Test and Evd- uation Command ATTN AMSTE-GE Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21005

Commanding General ::5 5 :::5 US Army Materiel Command ATTN: AMCRD Washington, D. C. 20315

Commanding Gcncral US Army Materiel Command ATTN AMCPP Washington, D. C. 20315

Commanding General US Army Materiel Command ATTN: AMCMR Washington, D. C. 20315

Commanding General ::: 1 US Army Materiel Command ATTN: AMCQA Washington, D. C. 20315

Commanding General ::: 10 10 ::: 10 US Army Combat Develop- ment Command ATTN: USACDC Liaison Officer, USA,TECOM Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21005

VI11 - 1 Agency Test Non -Final Final -Plan Reports Reports Commanding General ::: 1 1 ::1 US Army Supply and ., Maintenance Command ATTN: AMSSM-MR Washington, D. C. 20315

Commanding General 4 US Continental Army Command AT TN: D CSI T - S CH- PD Fort Monroe, Virginia 23351

Commanding General *2 2 US Army Mobility Command ATTN AMSMO-RDS Warren, Michigan 48090 Commanding General 2 2 3 US Army Mobility Equipment Center ATTN: SMOME - MOX- B 4300 Goodfellow Blvd St. Louis, Missouri 63120

Commanding General 1 XVIII Airborne Corps Fort Bragg, North Carolina 28307 Commanding General 2 2 2 US Army Medical Research and Development Command Main Navy Bldg Washington, D. C. 20315

Chief of Engineers 1 ATTN: EMGTE-E Building T-7 Washington, D. C. 20310

VIII-2 Agency Test Non-Final Final -Plan Reports Reports

Commanding Officer 1 1 1 Dugway Proving Ground Dugway, Utah 84022

Commanding Officer 5 1 1 Aberdeen Proving Ground ATTN: STEAP-DS Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21005

Commanding Officer 1 US Army Arctic Test Center APO Seattle 98733

Commanding Officer 1 US Army Tropic Test Center P.O. Drawer 942 Fort Clayton, Canal Zone

Commanding Officer 2 2 4 US Army Engineer Research and Development Laboratories ATTN: OMEFB-CO Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060

Commanding Officer 1. Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center Bridgeport, California 93517

Commanding Officer 2 2 2 US Army Environmental Hygiene Agency Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland 21040

Commanding Officer 5 1 1 US Army General Equipment Test Activity Fort Lee, Virginia 23801

VIII- 3 Agency Test Non-Final Final -Plan Reports Reports Commandant 1 1 US Army Engineer School Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060 ,. Commandant 1 1 US Army Infantry School Fort Benning, Georgia 31905

Commandant 1 1 US Army Armor School Fort Knox, Kentucky 40121 Commandant 1

US Marine Corps ,I Washington, D. C. 20380

I President 5 1 1 US Army Airborne, Electronics , and Special Warfare Board

Fort Bragg, North Carolina ,: , 28307

President 1 US Army Maintenance Board Fort Knox, Keptucky 40121

Director 1 1 1 Marine Corps Landing Force Development Center Quantico, Virginia 22134 >

U.S. Marine Corps Liaison 1 1 1 Officer USATECOM Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21005

VI11 - 4 Agency Test Non-Final Final -Plan Reports Reports Commander 2,0 Defense Documentation Center for Scientific and Technical Information ATTN. Document Service Center Cameron Station Alexandria, Virginia 22313

Mr. R. Englehart 1 1 Southwest Research Institute 8500 Culebra Road San Antonio, Texas 78206

VI11 - 5 PART 2 - FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS

Agency Test Non-Final Final -P1 an Reports Reports British Liaison Officer, 5 USA TECOM c/o Director of Munitions British Embassy 3100 Massachusetts Ave., N. W. Washington, D. C. 20008

Canadian Liaison Officer 2 5 c I o Commanding General US Army Materiel Command Washington, D. C. 20315

Military Attache 5 Australian Embassy 1735 I Street, NW Washington, D. C. 20006

VIII-6 US Army Armor and Engineer Board UNCLASsIFlEQ. . . . - _.__ Zb .aeo>,m Fort Knox, . Kentucky 40121

3 'IEPORT TITLE ~ INTEGRATED ENGINIBRING/S&VICE. TEST OF ION EXCHANGE UNIT, MOBILE, 3,000 GPH

___~ 1 I SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES , 12 SPONSORING MILITARY ACTIVITY , ,.,,. I. ,,, , ', US Army Mobilfty Command Warren, Michigan' 48090 .I-_.- .I-_.- ~~~ 14 LINK A LINK B LINK c KEY WOROS 111 -~. .- . , ~~~~.~ ~ __ Ion Exchange Unit Mobile 3,000 GPH' Ion Exchange Resin Regeneration

INSTWCTION

ORIGINATING ACTIVITY Enlrr the name and address . 0. AVAlLAnlLlTY/I.IMlTATION NOTICES Enter mylim- contrs~l~r. ,f the subconlractoi. grantee. Drpertmenl of DP tations on further diaaemination of the report. other than thos ens^ actwily or other organization (corporate author) sssuing mposcd by security classification, usink standmrd statements he report. ,' /., ; uch as: '8. REPORT SECUml'Y CLASSIFICATION Enter Ihe over. (1) "Wlalified requesters may obtain copier 111 lh- mII security clo~rificallonof the mporl. Indicate whether ., report from DDC" 'Rrslncled Data" in included Marking is 10 be in accord nce w~16appropriele s~urityregulations, (2) "Fareip anno~n~ementand disseminallon of 11?$1

report DDC not authorized.',' ~ h. GROUP Automatic downgrading is specdied in DoD Di- by IS, eclive 5?00.10 and Armed Forces Industriel Manual. Enler (3) "U. S. Government agencies miy obtiin copie'r 01 he group number. Also. when epplxable. show that optional lhis report directly fmm DDC. Other qualified DDC markings havc been used far Gmvp 3 and Croup 4 as aulhoi- users shall request thiwgh red. I, , REPORT TITLE: the complete repod title in all Enter military agencies may obtain copies of this apiisl letlers. Tilles 8" all cases should unclaro~fied. (4) "U. S. be report directly from DDC Other qualified users f a meaningful title cannot be selected without claBsifica- shall request through \an, show title classrficstion ~n'allcapitals ~nparenthesis mmediately following the tille. .I . DESCRIPTIVE NOTES: If appropriate. enlei the type of (5) "All dlstribuuon of this report is aontrolltd. Chsl- ?port. e.$.. interim. progress. s~mmmy.annual. or final. ified DDC users shall request through :~vethe inclusive dates when a npecrfic .=porting period I. is , ., ., overed. If the repoll has been furnished to the Office of Technlcal AUTHOR(S): 'Enter ih? neme(s) anthw(d) as shown on . of Eervircs, Department of Commerce. for sale la the public, 2nd I in the report. Enter lest name, first name, middle initial. :ale this facl and cnta the prlce. if known. I mililory, shew rank and branch of SPIVIC~. ,The name of, he principal mlhor is'an absblule-minimum requirement. , 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES: Use for additional ex14ana- my notes. , , ~ .!a . REPORT DATE .Enter the dele of the repart BS day. ., ionthi yeor; or month. year. I If more then one,dale appe~rs 12. SPONSORING MILITARY,ACTIVITY: Enter the name of n the reporl. U~Pdate of pu,biicstnon. . , Ihe deparimenta1 project office or laboratory sponsoring (pay ing for) the resrarch and dcvelopmenl. Include address. a. TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES The IolsI page count hould follow norms1 pagination procedures. i:e.. enler the 3. ADSTRACT Enter an nhsimcl ~Ivan~a brief and fBctUBI umber of pages sontainin~,informatiorr iummsry of Ihr document ~ndi~alivcof Ihe reporl, even thougt 11may also appear elsewhere in th$ hody nf the lechnical re- b. NUMBER OF REFERENCES: Enter the total number of port, If additional spare 18 required: a continualion sheet eferencea cilcd in the rep~il. . ., shall hr attached. , , ,', . , ,, a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBEK: I( appropriate, .vA It LS highly degiriihlc lhiil Ihe ebslrac~of rlsssilied re- he applicable number of the contract or grant under which ports he onclassiftcd. Each para((rsph of the abstract shall lie repon was written end with an mdtcalion owhe miltlrry sreurily clnrsiflcallon of the informaticin in,the paragraph, represented as (TSI,(SI, b. &, & Ed. PROJECT NUMBER Enler the appropriate . ., ~il~tsrydepartment identifica1tc.n. such ar project number. 'CJ, or IU). ' uhproject number.' system numbers. task number. elc. There Is no liinitatidr'nn thb len*h'bi the sbslrakt. How. a. ORIGINATOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S): Enter lhe offi- ever. the su~~estedlenptl~is lrom \SO to 225 words. ial report number by Which the document will be identified 14. KEY WORDS: Kev,words arc fechnic~llymeaningful lerm nd c~ntmllrdby the origjnaling BCliVity. This number must or short phrasus, that charncterirc B report and may be used a e unique to this rcporl. index entries for cat aloe in^ the reh0.l. Key words mu51 be sel~cle(l that no aecurity clasgification required. Iden- b. OTHER REPORT NIIMBER(S): I1 the repart has hscn so >s ssrgned any other report numhers lenther by the originator riers. nurh as equipmen# inodcl deri~natidn.trade nome. 7111i tmy name. 85 t by the sponsor). also enler this numbrr(s). pmlerl code g:'opwphic location. may be used key words hut will be followed hy an Indtrstion of technical ~ I. eontexl. The sssi.nmrn1 01 Ihnks. rules, and welahls is "Dt,Ond.

_-___UNCLASSIFIID - Security classification