IATG
07.20
INTERNATIONAL
AMMUNITION TECHNICAL
GUIDELINE
Second edition
2015-02-01
Surveillance and in-service proof
IATG 07.20:2015[E]
© UN ODA 2015
IATG 07.20:2015[E]
2nd Edition (2015-02-01)
Warning
The International Ammunition Technical Guidelines (IATG) are subject to regular review and
revision. This document is current with effect from the date shown on the cover page. To
verify its status, users should consult the UN SaferGuard IATG project through the United
Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) website at:
www.un.org/disarmament/un-saferguard.
Copyright notice
This document is an International Ammunition Technical Guideline and is copyright protected
by the United Nations. Neither this document, nor any extract from it, may be reproduced,
stored or transmitted in any form, or by any means, for any other purpose without prior
written permission from UNODA, acting on behalf of the United Nations.
This document is not to be sold.
United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA)
United Nations Headquarters, New York, NY 10017, USA
E-mail:
Tel:
Fax:
conventionalarms-unoda@un.org
+1 917 367 2904
+1 917 367 1757
 UN 2015 – All rights reserved
i
IATG 07.20:2015[E]
2nd Edition (2015-02-01)
Contents
Contents .................................................................................................................................................. ii
Foreword ................................................................................................................................................ iii
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ iv
Surveillance and in-service proof ............................................................................................................ 1
1
Scope ................................................................................................................................................ 1
2
Normative references ....................................................................................................................... 1
3
Terms and definitions ....................................................................................................................... 1
4
Rationale for surveillance and in-service proof ................................................................................ 2
5
Requirements for effective surveillance and in-service proof ........................................................... 3
6
Responsibilities for in-service proof and surveillance (LEVEL 2) ..................................................... 3
7
Ageing and degradation of ammunition ............................................................................................ 3
7.1
Design evaluation ................................................................................................................................... 4
7.2
Baseline data................................................................................................................................................ 4
7.3
Climatic impact on the degradation of explosives ......................................................................................... 5
8
Ammunition quality standards .......................................................................................................... 6
9
In-service proof ................................................................................................................................. 6
9.1
Background .................................................................................................................................................. 6
9.2
Proof schedule (LEVEL 3) ............................................................................................................................ 7
9.3
Recording proof results (LEVEL 3) ............................................................................................................... 8
10
Surveillance (LEVEL 2) .................................................................................................................. 8
11
Selection of munitions for in-service proof or surveillance ............................................................. 8
12
Environmental monitoring and recording (LEVEL 3) ...................................................................... 9
13
Chemical stability of propellant ..................................................................................................... 10
13.1
Chemistry of propellant ............................................................................................................................ 10
13.2
Propellant stability tests (LEVEL 2) .......................................................................................................... 11
14
Chemical stability of explosives .................................................................................................... 13
15
Stability surveillance system (LEVEL 2) ....................................................................................... 14
15.1
Information requirements ......................................................................................................................... 14
15.2
Stability test schedule............................................................................................................................... 14
Annex A (normative) References .......................................................................................................... 16
Annex B (informative) References ........................................................................................................ 18
Annex C (informative) Guidance on physical inspection of ammunition (LEVEL 2) ............................. 19
Annex D (informative) Example proof report (LEVEL 3) ....................................................................... 21
ii
IATG 07.20:2015[E]
2nd Edition (2015-02-01)
Foreword
In 2008, a United Nations group of governmental experts reported to the General Assembly on
1
problems arising from the accumulation of conventional ammunition stockpiles in surplus. The
group noted that cooperation with regard to effective stockpile management needs to endorse a
‘whole life management’ approach, ranging from categorisation and accounting systems – essential
for ensuring safe handling and storage and for identifying surplus – to physical security systems,
and including surveillance and testing procedures to assess the stability and reliability of
ammunition.
A central recommendation made by the group was for technical guidelines for the stockpile
management of ammunition to be developed within the United Nations.
Subsequently, the General Assembly welcomed the report of the group and strongly encouraged
2
States to implement its recommendations. This provided the mandate to the United Nations for
developing ‘technical guidelines for the stockpile management of conventional ammunition’, now
commonly known as International Ammunition Technical Guidelines (IATG).
The work of preparing, reviewing and revising these guidelines was conducted under the United
Nations SaferGuard Programme by a technical review panel consisting of experts from Member
States, with the support of international, governmental and non-governmental organisations.
3
In December 2011 the General Assembly adopted a resolution that welcomed the development of
IATG and continued to encourage States’ to implement the recommendations of the Group of
1
Government Experts; the GGE Report included a recommendation that States’ use the IATG on a
voluntary basis. The resolution also encouraged States’ to contact the United Nations SaferGuard
Programme with a view to developing cooperation and obtaining technical assistance.
These IATG will be regularly reviewed to reflect developing ammunition stockpile management
norms and practices, and to incorporate changes due to amendments to appropriate international
regulations and requirements. This document forms part of the Second Edition (2015) of IATG,
which has been subjected to the first five-yearly review by the UN ODA Ammunition Expert
Working Group. The latest version of each guideline, together with information on the work of the
technical review panel, can be found at www.un.org/disarmament/un-saferguard/.
1
UN General Assembly A/63/182, Problems arising from the accumulation of conventional ammunition stockpiles in surplus.
28 July 2008. (Report of the Group of Governmental Experts). The Group was mandated by A/RES/61/72, Problems arising
from the accumulation of conventional ammunition stockpiles in surplus. 6 December 2006.
2
UN General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution A/RES/63/61, Problems arising from the accumulation of conventional
ammunition stockpiles in surplus. 2 December 2008.
3
UN General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution A/RES/66/42, Problems arising from the accumulation of conventional
ammunition stockpiles in surplus. Adopted on 02 December 2011 and dated 12 January 2012.
iii
IATG 07.20:2015[E]
2nd Edition (2015-02-01)
Introduction
In-service proof and the surveillance of ammunition is undertaken to ensure that the ammunition
continues to meet the required quality standards throughout its life. Quality, from this perspective,
includes the performance of ammunition during use and its safety and stability during storage. The
chemical, electrical and mechanical properties of ammunition change and degrade with time,
leading to a finite serviceable life for each munition. The accurate assessment of munition life is of
paramount importance in terms of both safety and cost effectiveness.
All ammunition and explosives should be formally classified as to their condition, which requires a
surveillance and in-service proof system. The ammunition condition is then allocated a
classification code, which defines the degree of serviceability of the ammunition and any
constraints imposed on its use.
Surveillance is the systematic method of evaluating the properties, characteristics, and
performance capabilities of ammunition throughout its life cycle. It is used to assess the reliability,
safety, and operational effectiveness of stocks. Proof is the functional testing or firing of
ammunition and explosives to ensure safety and stability in storage and intended use.
Effective surveillance and proof of ammunition requires a systems approach that will optimise the
useful life of ammunition, whilst also significantly improving safety in storage and use towards the
end of the life of the ammunition. Such an approach will ensure that optimal return is gained for the
significant financial investment that the ammunition represents.
iv
IATG 07.20:2015[E]
2nd Edition (2015-02-01)
Surveillance and in-service proof
1
Scope
This IATG introduces and explains the concept and requirements for a technical surveillance and
in-service proof programme to support the safe, effective and efficient storage of conventional
ammunition.
2
Normative references
The following referenced documents are indispensable for the application of this document. For
dated references, only the edition cited applies. For undated references, the latest edition of the
referenced document (including any amendments) applies.
A list of normative references is given in Annex A. Normative references are important documents
to which reference is made in this guide and which form part of the provisions of this guide.
A further list of informative references is given at Annex B in the form of a bibliography, which lists
additional documents that contain other useful information on the technical surveillance and inservice proof of conventional ammunition.
3
Terms and definitions
For the purposes of this guideline the following terms and definitions, as well as the more
comprehensive list given in IATG 01.40:2015(E) Terms, definitions and abbreviations, shall apply.
The term ‘proof’ refers to the functional testing or firing of ammunition and explosives to ensure
4
safety and stability in storage and intended use.
The term ‘service life’ (or alternatively ‘shelf life’) refers to the period for which an explosive or
device can be stored or maintained under specific conditions before use or disposal without
becoming unsafe or failing to meet specified performance criteria.
The term ‘stability’ refers to the physical and chemical characteristics of ammunition and explosives
that impact on their safety in storage, transport and use.
The term ‘storage life’ refers to the time for which an explosive item in specified storage may be
expected to remain safe and serviceable within the envelope of service life.
The term ‘surveillance’ refers to a systematic method of evaluating the properties, characteristics
and performance capabilities of ammunition throughout its life cycle in order to assess the
reliability, safety and operational effectiveness of stocks and to provide data in support of life
reassessment.
In all modules of the International Ammunition Technical Guidelines, the words 'shall', 'should',
'may' and 'can' are used to express provisions in accordance with their usage in ISO standards.
a)
'shall' indicates a requirement: It is used to indicate requirements strictly to be followed in
order to conform to the document and from which no deviation is permitted.
4
In-service proof is really a particular type of surveillance, but it is usually referred to as a separate issue as it requires the
live firing of munitions rather than the other technical inspection and chemical analysis components of surveillance.
1
IATG 07.20:2015[E]
2nd Edition (2015-02-01)
b)
'should' indicates a recommendation: It is used to indicate that among several
possibilities one is recommended as particularly suitable, without mentioning or excluding
others, or that a certain course of action is preferred but not necessarily required, or that (in
the negative form, 'should not') a certain possibility or course of action is deprecated but not
prohibited.
c)
'may' indicates permission: It is used to indicate a course of action permissible within the
limits of the document.
d)
‘can’ indicates possibility and capability: It is used for statements of possibility and
capability, whether material, physical or casual.
4
Rationale for surveillance and in-service proof
The safety and stability of ammunition and explosives in storage can only be established by a
comprehensive ‘ammunition surveillance’ system that uses a methodology of both physical
inspection by trained personnel and chemical analysis.
The surveillance is carried out
systematically by evaluating the characteristics and properties the ammunition type possesses and
measuring how the ammunition performs throughout its entire life cycle. This will in turn allow
assessment of the safety, reliability and operational effectiveness of the ammunition. Only then
can safety in storage be properly assessed. The use of ‘ammunition surveillance’ can then be
used to extend ‘shelf life’ if appropriate. Shelf life extension if appropriate may provide significant
financial savings as there will no longer be a requirement to procure new ammunition.
The introduction of a surveillance and in-service proof system mid way through the service life of a
munition should always be considered, as results from such a system may enable an extension of
the initial in-service life. The life cycle costs of the munition would therefore be reduced with subsequential financial benefits as procurement of new stock could then be delayed.
Ammunition is subjected to technical surveillance and in-service proof for a wide range of reasons.
It is a vitally important component of responsible ammunition stockpile management, and is the
only way that the safety and stability of ammunition stockpiles can be properly addressed. Major
reasons include:
a)
to ensure the safety and stability of ammunition in storage;
b)
to ensure the safety, reliability and performance of ammunition during use;
c)
the requirement to predict and therefore prevent ammunition failures that are inherent in their
design or are the result of aging;
d)
to monitor the environmental conditions the ammunition has been stored in;
e)
ensuring that the first point of detection of catastrophic failures is not the user;
f)
to predict failure and degraded performance to support effective ammunition procurement
cycles;
g)
to predict future performance and service life and limitations;
h)
to extend the in-service life of ammunition beyond that which would be possible without such
a system; and
i)
to identify and monitor critical characteristics of the ammunition that change with age and
exposure to the environment.
States should therefore allocate the same level of priority to the development and implementation
of an effective surveillance and proof system and programme as they do, for example, to the
physical protection of ammunition stocks.
2
IATG 07.20:2015[E]
2nd Edition (2015-02-01)
5
Requirements for effective surveillance and in-service proof
An effective system of surveillance and in-service proof requires an integrated range of capabilities
and mechanisms to ensure overall system efficiency and effectiveness. These are:
a)
an effective ammunition management plan;
b)
trained and experienced technical staff;
c)
a capable explosives laboratory;
d)
effective sampling mechanisms; and
e)
an efficient ammunition accounting system.
Once these capabilities and mechanisms are combined with knowledge of the likely failure
mechanisms of an item of ammunition then decisions may be taken on the extension of the inservice life of a munition, or the need for demilitarization or destruction.
6
Responsibilities for in-service proof and surveillance (LEVEL 2)
The appropriate national technical authority should be responsible for:
a)
the development and promulgation of an in-service proof and surveillance plan for each
5
munition type in the national inventory;
b)
ensuring that the plan is carried out;
c)
the analysis of results and tests;
d)
that ammunition is allocated the appropriate condition code;
e)
the rapid identification of stocks that are unsafe to either use or store; and
f)
ensuring that the disposal of life-expired stocks takes place within an expedient time period
following in-service proof and surveillance.
7
6
Ageing and degradation of ammunition
For most munitions, one or two of the degradation mechanisms will limit its available life. Some of
the more common failure mechanisms are (but are not limited to):
a)
b)
energetic materials:

de-bonding between the material and inert surfaces;

stabiliser depletion within the energetic material, (see Clauses 7.3 and 12);

migration of compounds within the energetic material;

cracking of brittle materials; and/or

compatibility problems.
electronics:

component ageing; and/or
5
This could be included in the Ammunition Management Policy Statement (AMPS), or equivalent document. See IATG
03.10 Inventory management, Clause 6.2.4 and Annex C for further details of AMPS.
6
See IATG 03.10 Inventory management, Clause 18 for further details of Condition Codes.
3
IATG 07.20:2015[E]
2nd Edition (2015-02-01)

c)
component shock damage.
structure:

O-ring failure;

mechanical damage (impact, corrosion); and/or

vibration.
In addition to the physical damage caused by shocks and vibration, munitions also degrade
chemically. The energetic items that cause the explosive effect are invariably of organic chemical
composition and, in common with all other chemical compositions breakdown, migrate or change
over time. This change is normally accelerated with increased temperatures. Degradation will also
be hastened by:
a)
large variations in temperature (i.e. cycling from hot to cold);
b)
low temperatures;
c)
high or low humidity;
d)
vibration;
e)
shock; and/or
f)
pressure.
The conditions in that a munition is stored, maintained and transported during its normal in-service
life will eventually have an impact on the munition and a critical failure mode will be reached, which
will be the service-life limiting factor.
7.1
Design evaluation
Potential life-limiting features of a munition may be predicted during the design evaluation stage of
its development. Fatigue and corrosion of components parts can be predicted, and small-scale
laboratory testing of energetic materials should be used to determine baseline properties that will
affect the in-service life. This should usually be undertaken by the manufacturer, who should
provide this information to the appropriate national technical authority. This information should also
be supplied as a standard requirement to the national technical authority of a country to which
ammunition is exported.
7.2
Baseline data
Baseline data should be obtained from research, studies and tests to estimate potential failure
modes of a munition. This data is very useful for comparative purposes during a subsequent inservice proof and surveillance system. Data may be obtained from:
a)
manufacturer’s test results;
b)
manufacturer’s proof results;
c)
explosive safety assessment data;
d)
accelerated aging tests;
e)
component fatigue tests;
f)
measurement against known norms, such as propellant master standards;
g)
test results from other nations;
4
IATG 07.20:2015[E]
2nd Edition (2015-02-01)
h)
explosive hazard data sheets; and
i)
compatibility data.
Without access to much of this data subsequent in-service proof and surveillance cannot be
optimised, which may reduce the in-service life of the munition as safety during storage and use
can not be as efficiently assessed.
7.3
Climatic impact on the degradation of explosives7
The effects of weather, hot temperatures, direct solar radiation, daily temperature changes (diurnal
cycling) and high humidity may rapidly degrade the performance and safety of explosives.
Ammunition is designed for use under stated climatic conditions, and its service life will be
significantly reduced if it is stored under climatic conditions that it was not designed for. In some
cases the ammunition may rapidly become unserviceable and dangerous to use.
0
0
In the Middle East recorded temperatures have ranged from -1 C to +31 C in the winter months
0
0
and from +22 C to +51 C in the summer months. This means that the ammunition can be exposed
0
0
to daily diurnal cycles of up to +32 C in the winter months and +29 C in the summer months.
These are usually considered as extreme ranges for ammunition, and a reduction in service life
shall be expected. Yet, these temperatures are ambient air temperatures and do not take into
account the effects of direct solar radiation on ammunition or on packaged ammunition.
Tests have shown that when fully exposed to the sun that the temperature on the external surface
0
of the ammunition can be as much as 50 C higher than the ambient air temperature. This means
0
that ammunition could theoretically reach external surface temperatures of 101 C in the Middle
0
East. It should be noted that the melting point of TNT based explosives is approximately 80 C; the
very real danger of using TNT ammunition at this temperature cannot be over stated.
An example of the impact that such storage conditions have on ammunition is the chemical
deterioration of propellant. During prolonged periods of storage, the rate of chemical deterioration
of propellant is approximately doubled for every 10°C rise in temperature above 30°C. Most
propellants, dependent on design, have a shelf-life of at least 15 to 40 years when stored at a
constant 30°C, and will last much longer in temperate climates. In high heat environments the
stabiliser is depleted far quicker and the probability of spontaneous combustion due to autocatalytic ignition becomes much higher. There is evidence that suggests that the reduction in shelf
life versus temperature is as shown in Table 1.
0
Temperature ( C)
Projected Shelf Life (Years)
8
Remarks
20
15.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
 Initial In-Service Shelf Life.
30
15.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
 Significant degradation starts after 300C.
40
7.5
10.0
15.0
20.0

50
3.75
5.0
7.5
10.0

60
1.83
2.5
3.75
5.0

70
0.92
1.25
1.83
2.5
 This propellant is now approaching a dangerous
condition and should be destroyed as soon as
possible.
80
0.46
0.62
0.92
1.25

90
0.23
0.31
0.46
0.62

Table 1: Propellant degradation due to high temperature
7
Also contained within IATG 04.10 Field Storage and IATG 04.20 Temporary storage.
8
This is a read down table. For example, if the Projected Shelf Life starts at 20 years at 20 0C, then if the propellant is
stored at an ambient temperature of 500C the safe shelf life will reduce to 5 years.
5
IATG 07.20:2015[E]
2nd Edition (2015-02-01)
0
Ammunition could theoretically reach external surface temperatures of 101 C in the Middle East,
although internal temperatures would be substantially less. Propellant degradation and stabiliser
depletion is not linear, and the decay rate reduces during the night when the ammunition cools.
Yet it is clear that inappropriate storage conditions for propellant in these types of temperature
extremes would not be a particularly sensible idea and will require extensive surveillance to ensure
stability in storage. States with hot climates should therefore ensure that effective systems are in
place in explosive storehouses to keep ammunition within acceptable ‘temperate’ limits.
8
Ammunition quality standards
The national technical authority should determine the appropriate quality level required for the
national stockpile and ammunition that falls below this quality level should be destroyed on a
regular basis.
Table 2 contains example ammunition quality standard levels that the national technical authority
may wish to adopt.
a)
the Standard Acceptance Limited Quality (SALQ) is the minimum quality standard for
ammunition accepted into operational service;
b)
the Functional Limited Quality level (FLQ) is the minimum quality standard for ammunition
that may be used operationally. Any ammunition used operationally below this quality level
will have a significant impact on operational efficiency; and
c)
the Operational Limited Quality level (OLQ) is the minimum quality standard for ammunition
to remain in service for either operations or training. Any ammunition that falls below this
quality standard should be removed from service and destroyed.
Ammunition Type
SALQ
FLQ
99%
96%
92%
High Explosive (HE) Ammunition
97.5%
92%
85%
Ammunition for Training
92.5%
85%
75%
Small Arms Ammunition (SAA)
OLQ
Table 2: Suggested ammunition quality standards
9
In-service proof
9.1
Background
In-service proof is a technique that is applied to many weapon systems. For example:
a)
guns, mortars and small arms have their muzzle velocity, chamber pressure, firing interval,
range, target penetration and accuracy assessed;
b)
grenades and mines have their delay time and reaction to functioning stimulus assessed;
and
c)
pyrotechnics and rocket motors have their time of burning, chamber pressure and thrust
assessed.
The proof assessment of direct fire weapons should be based on the ability of the munition to hit
and function in a satisfactory manner against the agreed standard targets at the required ranges.
For indirect fire weapons the assessment should be based on the effectiveness of observed fire
measured against standard criteria. In both cases the munition will usually be conditioned to a
6
IATG 07.20:2015[E]
2nd Edition (2015-02-01)
standard temperature prior to firing to ensure consistency of results and to allow for cross
comparison of results.
In-Service proof should be used to provide an assurance of the continued satisfactory performance
of an ammunition type. It should also assist in predictions of how long it will be before the
performance falls below the level at which operational efficiency will be significantly impaired. This
can then be used to inform procurement decisions. The measured performance is plotted against
time and an estimate made of when the performance will no longer be acceptable. This may be
sooner than the design life would predict or, more usually, later (because the original estimates of
life are often conservative).
The national technical authority should have the authority to extend the service life of a munition
after analysis of test results has indicated that the munition still falls within acceptable performance
parameters.
9.2
Proof schedule (LEVEL 3)
A schedule should be developed and implemented for each generic type of munition in the national
inventory. Table 3 contains such a schedule with explanatory notes:
Schedule Requirement
Explanatory Notes
Safety
 Additional specific safety requirements that may be
necessary.
Sample size and selection
 The sample size shall be dependent on the lot or batch size.
It shall be selected to ensure statistical validity.
 The sample size should be as small as possible consistent
with the level of safety, performance and reliability
assurance required.
 Sampling shall be in accordance with the appropriate ISO
sampling standards contained within Annex A.9
 The proof sample shall be taken at random from the
selected lot or batch.
Sequence of testing (if appropriate)

Pre-proofing inspection
 Physical inspection requirements.
Preparation and conditioning of ammunition
prior to test
 Ammunition held at what temperature and for how long?
Proof procedure and parameters to be recorded
 Detailed operating procedures.
Post-proofing inspection
 Physical inspection requirements for the particular type of
ammunition. (See Annex C).
 This shall be clear and unambiguous. Where reproof is
allowed the exact authority for reproof shall be clearly
stated.
 As above.
Authority and criteria for acceptance, reproof or
rejection
Criteria for suspension of proof and retention of
defective components
List of proof equipment required

Proof equipment control
 Calibration requirements.
Tolerance on parameters and measurements

Evaluation of results

9
Sample selection is a complex issue, which requires a high level of expertise in statistical analysis. The level of detail
required for accuracy is beyond the scope of this IATG and professional statistical analysis advice shall be sought when
developing the sample size.
7
IATG 07.20:2015[E]
2nd Edition (2015-02-01)
Schedule Requirement
Disposal instructions for items remaining after
proof tests
Explanatory Notes

Table 3: Example in-service proof schedule
9.3
Recording proof results (LEVEL 3)
The results of in-service proof should be recorded on a standard form designed to contain all of the
information required by the proof schedule. The format should be included in the proof schedule,
and an example form is at Annex D.
Surveillance (LEVEL 2)10
10
Surveillance can be summarised as the process of conducting regular checks on the actual
condition of the munition inventory. It can then be used to confirm initial in-service life predictions
and enable extensions to the in-service life.
Surveillance requires the gathering of data, the physical inspection of munitions and sometimes the
chemical testing of energetic material properties. The testing can involve techniques such as x-ray
inspection or other non-destructive testing methods. Alternatively it may simply be a visual
inspection. Because failure to assure chemical stability can lead to disastrous consequences, it is
treated separately and guidance is given below. An effective surveillance system should be able to
confirm or assess:
a)
the environmental conditions to which munition systems have been exposed during their
storage and deployment to date. This information can be used to confirm either munition
stock records or data from environmental data loggers;
b)
any physical degradation of the condition of the munition;
c)
any degradation of munition and component performance, which is possible through:
d)

recording and monitoring reliability and defect reports concerning in-service usage of the
munition system;

carrying out functional proof (performance) firings; and/or

gathering performance data during training use.
changes in the physical and chemical characteristics of energetic materials and nonenergetic materials judged to affect the life of the munition.
The design of the surveillance programme should be determined by the complexity of the munition
and the likely failure mechanisms. Analysis of these factors should then determine the types and
frequency of inspections and tests that are required to make assessments of future in-service life.
11
Selection of munitions for in-service proof or surveillance
The selection mechanism for the surveillance of munitions should be included in the in-service
proof and surveillance plan, or equivalent document, for that particular type of munition. It should
be primarily based on the following criteria:
a)
age;
10
Surveillance should be initiated at Level 2 to determine whether any propellant in storage is in an unstable condition. Full
surveillance may be a Level 3 activity.
8
IATG 07.20:2015[E]
2nd Edition (2015-02-01)
b)
exposure to adverse climatic conditions;
c)
length of time held by units and not by specialist ammunition depots;
d)
ammunition that has displayed unusual performance during training;
e)
number of times handled or transported; and/or
f)
number of tests already conducted on the munition.
It should be normal to select ammunition from the stockpile that have been stored in the most
adverse climatic conditions and hence should be the worst case in terms of degradation and
ageing effects. Statistical analysis will be required to ensure that a representative and statistically
viable number of ammunition items are selected for surveillance.
Yet, in many developing countries, where records have either been lost or not kept, the condition of
the explosives can not be effectively assessed. There is then a high risk of undesirable explosive
events within ammunition storage areas. In such cases, where stability must be in doubt, then the
criteria for assessing such munitions shall be based on:
a)
munitions that have been exposed to high temperature during their previous life;
b)
age;
c)
munitions of unknown origin;
d)
munitions of unknown composition;
e)
munitions where there is suspected deterioration; and
f)
munitions that exhibit unusual characteristics such as discoloration or staining.
Consideration shall be given to the immediate destruction of such explosives. Alternatively, they
should be sampled and subjected to appropriate stability tests as soon as possible. However, until
the results of these tests are known, the explosives should be regarded as presenting an increased
risk of auto-ignition and as far as practicable should be segregated from other explosives or
flammable materials.
WARNING. In the final stages of decomposition some propellants can give off brown fumes
of nitrogen dioxide. This is an extreme situation and indicates that auto-ignition is imminent
and that a fire could occur at any time.
Ammunition recovered during post-conflict operations from abandoned stockpiles should be
destroyed and not considered for inclusion in a stockpile under any subsequent security sector
reform programmes. Unless an effective surveillance and in-service proof system has survived the
conflict, the time and costs of implementing one are unlikely to be a cost benefit when compared to
the procurement of new ammunition with known safety standards.
12
Environmental monitoring and recording (LEVEL 3)
Environmental monitoring should be conducted to accurately record the environmental conditions
that a munition is subjected to during its service life. The more accurate the monitoring, the more
accurate predictions can be made of safe in-service life, and hence the best value for money can
be gained for that particular ammunition type. Results from environmental monitoring can be used
to develop and update ageing algorithms as more data is obtained.
Effective environmental monitoring should be conducted using electronic data loggers in the
explosive storehouses, although time-temperature indicator strips may be used as a less expensive
option.
9
IATG 07.20:2015[E]
2nd Edition (2015-02-01)
The level and frequency of monitoring should be assessed as early as possible in the service life of
the munition and included in the Ammunition Management Policy Statement (AMPS). The type of
munition and likely failure mechanisms should influence the level and frequency of monitoring. For
simple and inexpensive ammunition held in large quantities with a high consumption rate, such as
small arms ammunition, the surveillance requirement may be considered to be low. In contrast, for
expensive and complex munitions with a low consumption rate, such as guided weapons, more
detailed surveillance could result in significant long-term cost benefits.
Environmental data should be stored in a central system within the appropriate national technical
authority as part of a Munitions Life Assessment Database (MLAD). This system should be made
available to all stakeholders in the surveillance and in-service proof system.
13
Chemical stability of propellant11
13.1
Chemistry of propellant
The most extreme example of chemical degradation of stability is that of nitrate ester based
explosives, which at the end of their safe lives, will auto-ignite; usually resulting in the loss of a
storehouse. Most gun and many rocket propellants contain nitrate esters such as nitrocellulose
and nitroglycerine. Whereas batch to batch differences can be blended out during manufacture to
give satisfactory proof results, this can not be done for chemical stability and the safe life shall be
determined by the stability of the least stable single grain of propellant in a charge. Chemical
stability is also critically dependent on the storage conditions seen by any particular munition.
Hence sampling for chemical stability testing shall be much more rigorous than for proof. Every lot
or batch should be sampled when it reaches its first test date.
Propellants in the ammunition of many developing countries are likely to be either Single Base
containing only nitrocellulose as the energetic component or Double Base containing both
nitrocellulose and nitro-glycerine as energetic components. Even if the propellant is kept in ideal
storage conditions, these components will begin to decompose over time to form oxides of
nitrogen, mainly dinitrogen tetroxide. If these oxides of nitrogen are not removed from the
propellant as they are formed they will catalyse further decomposition. This is an example of
autocatalytic decomposition since the impurity being formed accelerates the chemistry creating
more of the same impurity which, therefore, causes further decomposition and so on.
One factor that can increase the rate of chemical reaction is temperature. Thus any increase
o
above 20 C will have an adverse effect on the storage life of propellant. (See Clause 7.3).
This autocatalytic decomposition of propellants is a serious safety issue, as it is known to lead to
spontaneous ignition during storage, usually resulting in the loss of one or more explosive
storehouses. To prevent this occurrence, chemical additives are introduced into the propellant
formulation and are known as stabilisers. They do not stop the slow decomposition of the
nitrocellulose and nitro-glycerine but rather prevent the accelerated chemical decomposition by
removing the oxides of nitrogen, which would cause it to happen. The stabiliser reacts chemically
with these oxides removing them from the system. Of course, to do this, the stabiliser will slowly
be consumed.
Thus, the reduction in stabiliser content will lead to a point where it becomes insufficient to
guarantee safety and this should be a measure of the storage life of that propellant. Both chemical
analysis and instrumental methods can be employed to measure the stabiliser content, the latter
being a more recent advance in propellant analysis.
Two chemicals are used routinely as stabilisers, one is diphenylamine (DPA) used in Single Base
propellants from the early years to the present time. Chemically it behaves as a base reacting with
11
See Druet L and Asselin M. A Review of Stability Test Methods for Gun and Mortar Propellants; The Chemistry of
Propellant Ageing. DRE Valcartier, Quebec, Canada in Journal of Energetic Materials, 6: 1, 27-43. 1988.
10
IATG 07.20:2015[E]
2nd Edition (2015-02-01)
the initial decomposition products of nitrocellulose, initially to form nitrosodiphenylamine, which is
then converted into various nitro-derivatives of diphenylamine. This stabiliser is too basic to be
used if nitro-glycerine is present and therefore is not used in Double Base propellants. Instead the
stabiliser of choice is diphenyldiethylurea also known as carbamite or ethyl centralite. This acts as
a weak base reacting with the decomposition products again to form nitro- and nitroso-derivatives.
The overall chemistry of the action of stabilisers is extremely complex but the end result is to keep
the propellant chemically stable.
13.2
Propellant stability tests12 (LEVEL 2)
Traditional chemical methods of analysing for stabiliser content of propellants by accelerated
ageing are relatively slow requiring a day to carry out the test. Thus, the total number that can be
done will be completely dependent on the number of apparatus available and the size of laboratory
in which to house them. The apparatus will usually consist of laboratory glassware to carry out
reflux and distillations. Accelerated ageing is achieved by carrying out tests at elevated
temperature and this is can be done by several methods used in different countries, as
summarised in Table 4. These tests should be carried out by trained chemists in a properly
constituted laboratory. As some of these tests take many hours a back up power system should be
immediately be available to the explosives laboratory.
Test
Abel Heat
Requirements / Comments
 Assesses stabiliser content levels.
 Requires that samples of between 1 and 2 g are heated at temperatures in
o
the range 60-85 C (depending on the specific source of the test and which
propellant is being tested).
 The results are obtained in a matter of minutes, typically no longer than 15
minutes. Sentencing for retest is then obtained from tables, for example, if
the time for the test is over 10 minutes then retest in 3 years. The time is
the number of minutes from the start of the test until a colouration is seen
on a standard test paper.
 This may seem simple; however, to obtain reliable results requires a high
degree of skill at carrying out this particular test.
Bergmann-Junk
 Easily within the capabilities of chemical analysts and can be carried out in
one day.
o
 In this test the sample is heated at 132 C for 5 hours for Single Base
o
propellants or at 115 C for 8 or 16 hours for Double Base propellants. The
gases evolved are absorbed into a hydrogen peroxide solution and then
the acidity is titrated against a standard sodium hydroxide solution.
 Practically, this is a reasonably simple test to perform.
Colour
 Used to rely on visual inspection and assessment of the propellant against
standard colour solutions.
 Recently spectrophotometry techniques have been developed which have
improved effectiveness of this test.
German
 Propellant is heated at 134.5C (single base) or 120C (double base).
 The operator constantly observes the propellant to identify; 1) when
nitrogen oxides detected using detector paper; 2) nitrogen oxides visually
observed; and 3) deflagration of the sample.
 Tables are then used to determine results.
Methyl Violet
 The sample is heated under standardised conditions in a test tube until
nitrogen oxides above the sample are detected by means of a standard
methyl violet paper. The time elapsed from the start of heating until the
detection is then recorded as a chemical stability value.
12
See Annex B for background references on specific tests.
11
IATG 07.20:2015[E]
2nd Edition (2015-02-01)
Test
Requirements / Comments
0
 A primary tool for stability testing.
It is an accelerated aging process,
known as the ‘fume test’.
 It is designed to pre-empt the auto-ignition of propellant in storage by
forcing it to happen much earlier in a laboratory. When a tested propellant
lot’s ‘days to fume’ reaches a defined minimum level, all quantities of that
lot, wherever stored, should be immediately destroyed.
 The time for a sample, maintained at 80°C, under specified conditions to
produce brown fumes or to self-heat to give a 2°C rise in temperature is
recorded. This occurs when the effective stabiliser has been consumed
and autocatalytic reactions have commenced.
NATO 65.5 C
Silvered Vessel
 Assesses rate of decomposition. A very lengthy procedure in which a
Vielle
o
sample is heated at 110 C for 8 hours or until a standard tint is seen on a
litmus test paper. The sample is then left overnight on a tray in the open.
This is repeated day by day until it takes only one hour until the standard
tint is seen. At this point all the times from each day are added and the
total time recorded used to assess the period before retest from standard
tables.
 This test, therefore, can take weeks before a result is obtained. If at any
time during the elevated temperature phase of the test there is a loss of
heating such that the temperature falls more than a few degrees for a short
time then the whole test becomes invalid. This could happen after a long
period as the test duration is so long and thus much time would be wasted
in the test programme.
Table 4: Propellant stability chemical tests
A more efficient method to increase the analysis of stabiliser content should be to move to a
physical method, as summarised in Table 5. The High Performance Liquid Chromatography
(HPLC) tests should be carried out by trained chemists in a properly constituted laboratory, whilst
the Near Infra Red (NIR) and Thin Layer Chromatography (TLC) tests both have field expedient
equipment available that is capable of adequate testing.
Test
Requirements / Comments
High Performance Liquid
Chromatography (HPLC)
 A sample of the stabiliser is passed through a micro-bore column eluted by
13
Near Infra Red (NIR)
a solvent and the time taken by different materials to pass through the
column separates them at the exit. A detector can then measure
quantitatively the amount of stabiliser in that sample.
 To obtain the sample, a known weight of propellant under test has the
stabiliser extracted by solvent in an ultrasonic bath.
 The time for the HPLC to carry out an analysis is approximately 10
minutes and the sampling of the prepared solutions can be carried out by
an auto-sampler, thus, the throughput is 6 samples per hour. The
ultrasonic bath will easily keep pace with the HPLC. It is estimated that
one HPLC system would be capable of analysing 10,000 samples in a
year.
 Requires a comprehensive, effective and efficient means of taking
propellant samples from depot and unit storage and transporting to a
central propellant surveillance laboratory.
 A non-destructive system that can test approximately 10 samples an hour.
It consists of a spectrometer, a laptop computer and an uninterruptible
power supply.
 The operator loads propellant into a removable cell and places the cell into
the unit’s transport module. The optical window-side of the cell faces a
tungsten-halogen light source as the cell moves through the light. Any
13
US Ammunition Peculiar Equipment (APE) 1995. See Elena M Graves. Field-Portable Propellant Stability Test
Equipment. Army Logistician, PB-700-08-04, Volume 40, Issue 4. USA. July – August 2008.
12
IATG 07.20:2015[E]
2nd Edition (2015-02-01)
Test
Requirements / Comments
differences in the sample, such as colour, size, shape, or grain orientation,
are averaged. The light is reflected onto detector elements of silicon and
lead sulphide. Differences in the reflected light patterns (spectra) indicate
varying stabiliser levels. These spectra are compared to predictive
chemo-metric models of the same propellant type that are stored in the
computer.
 The results of these comparisons indicate if the sample’s stabiliser level is
at or below the cut-off level that requires more extensive analytical testing.
 The disadvantage of the system is that it requires the chemical
characteristics of the propellant to be pre-loaded into the system, and
therefore it currently covers only US manufactured propellants.
Thin Layer
14
Chromatography
 A miniaturised wet laboratory system with single-person portability. The
TLC test kit can be used to test for safe levels of stabiliser in solid
propellants that are stabilised with diphenylamine, 2-nitrodiphenylamine,
ethyl centralite, or Akardite II. The ability to analyse all four of the mostused stabilisers makes it a useful system.
 Unlike column chromatography approaches, such as HPLC, that can only
process single samples sequentially, a single TLC plate can accommodate
and analyse multiple samples and standards.
Samples are
chromatographed simultaneously in a solvent tank, separating the
stabiliser analytes from the sample matrix. Semi-quantitative assessments
with nanogram detection limits are readily obtained by inspection of the
plates. The kit is designed and equipped with sufficient supplies and
equipment for the analysis of up to 30 individual samples by a single
operator per day.
 Once the chromatography is completed, the resolved propellant stabiliser
components that appear as separated spots on the TLC plates are further
enhanced by colouring with a unique reagent if the samples are
diphenylamine or 2-nitrodiphenylamine stabilised propellant types. If
stabilised with ethyl centralite or Akardite II, the spots are viewed under the
ultraviolet light that is fitted to the camera box. Quantitative analysis is
performed using the digital imaging box, camera, and data acquisition
equipment.
 The major advantages of the TLC method are simultaneous
chromatography of multiple samples and standards, extremely low
detection limits, the ability to calculate within a given range, and simplicity
of operation.
Table 5: Propellant stability physical tests
14
Chemical stability of explosives
Most high explosive compositions have good chemical stability over long periods and give no
cause for concern, but satisfactory results of performance, e.g. proof testing of stores, are not
related to and give no indication of the stability of the explosives involved.
Nitrate ester based explosives are liable to decomposition (see Clause 13) but many other
explosives are extremely stable under normal storage conditions. Thus TNT, RDX, TATB, etc. and
many other pyrotechnics and primary explosives will remain stable for many years, particularly if
they have been manufactured to a high standard of purity and have been stored correctly in a
controlled environment. However, it is essential that all new unfamiliar explosives and explosive
compositions are assessed for chemical stability and changes in sensitiveness.
14
US TLC Propellant Stability Test Kit.
13
IATG 07.20:2015[E]
2nd Edition (2015-02-01)
15
Stability surveillance system (LEVEL 2)
15.1
Information requirements
Proper sampling techniques should be used so that representative samples of the explosive stocks
are obtained. For any system to operate successfully it is essential that the information on which it
is based is reliable. The following information should be recorded for each quantity of explosives in
order to maintain the necessary surveillance over the stability of the explosives concerned:
a)
date of manufacture of the explosive;
b)
batch or lot number, including manufacturer’s monogram;
c)
nomenclature of explosive composition;
d)
form in which the explosive is held;
e)
quantity held;
f)
date by which next stability test or destruction required;
g)
type of stability test required; and
h)
the current storage location of the explosive.
Explosives that have been subjected to high temperatures should also be clearly identified within
the recording system.
15.2
Stability test schedule
The test schedule should be determined by the type of explosive compositions present in the
national inventory. The test schedule shown in Table 6, although an example, is based on the best
current information available. It ensures that the tests are credible, whilst reducing the amount of
work required for effective stability testing to the minimum necessary for explosive safety.
First Test
Test Type
Retest
15
Interval
Nitroglycerine (NG) and other Liquid Nitrate Esters16
At manufacture
Abel Heat
3 months
Casting Liquid with Stabiliser
At manufacture
Abel Heat
12 months
Explosive / Propellant
Dry Nitrocellulose (NC) or Dry NC/NG Pastes17
Within 1 month of drying
Abel Heat and
Bergmann Junk
3 months
Wet Nitrocellulose
6 months
Abel Heat
6 months
Wet NC/NG Pastes
At manufacture
Abel Heat
3 months
12 months
Abel Heat on
extracted NG
12 months
As determined during
qualification18
Stabiliser
Depletion19
10 years
Dynamite and Blasting Gelatin
Triple Base Gun Propellants
15
Although this shall be determined by test results. The time shown is that expected, although this may be significantly
reduced for older explosive compositions.
16
NG should not be stored for any length of time in the pure form. If it fails the Abel Heat Test at manufacture (less than 10
minutes) it shall be immediately destroyed.
17
Dry NC should not be stored for any length of time. It should be wetted with water or alcohol to reduce the hazard. The
storage temperature is critical below 15 0C as the NG freezes below 130C and shock sensitivity then becomes a significant
issue.
18
Qualification is the process by which an explosive is tested after manufacture and prior to acceptance into service. It
involves a further range of sensitivity and stability testing that is usually a manufacturer’s responsibility.
14
IATG 07.20:2015[E]
2nd Edition (2015-02-01)
First Test
Test Type
Retest
15
Interval
Extruded Double Base Propellants
As determined during
qualification
Stabiliser
Depletion
10 years
Double Base Powders
As determined during
qualification
Stabiliser
Depletion
10 years
Single Base Powders
As determined during
qualification
Stabiliser
Depletion
10 years
Experimental and other Foreign Propellants
As determined during
qualification
Stabiliser
Depletion
10 years
Rocket Propellants
As determined during
qualification
Stabiliser
Depletion
10 years
At manufacture
Stabiliser
Depletion
10 years
Explosive / Propellant
Casting Powders
Table 6: Propellant stability test schedule (example)
19
Select appropriate test from Table 4 or 5.
15
IATG 07.20:2015[E]
2nd Edition (2015-02-01)
Annex A
(normative)
References
The following normative documents contain provisions, which, through reference in this text,
constitute provisions of this part of the guide. For dated references, subsequent amendments to,
or revisions of, any of these publications do not apply. However, parties to agreements based on
this part of the guide are encouraged to investigate the possibility of applying the most recent
editions of the normative documents indicated below. For undated references, the latest edition of
the normative document referred to applies. Members of ISO maintain registers of currently valid
ISO or EN:
a)
IATG 01.40:2015[E] Terms, glossary and definitions. UNODA. 2015;
b)
IATG 03.10:2015[E] Inventory Management. UNODA. 2015;
c)
IATG 06.40:2015[E] Packaging and marking. UNODA. 2015:
d)
ISO 2859 Series[E] Sampling procedures for inspection by attributes;
e)
ISO 3951 Series[E] Sampling procedures for inspection by variables;
f)
ISO 8422:2006[E] Sequential sampling plans for inspection by attributes;
g)
ISO 8423:2008[E] Sequential sampling plans for inspection by variables for percent
nonconforming (known standard deviation);
h)
ISO/TR 8550 Series[E] Guide for the selection of an acceptance sampling system, scheme
or plan for inspection of discrete items in lots;
i)
ISO/TR 10017:2003[E] Guidance on statistical techniques for ISO 9001:2000;
j)
ISO 11453:1996[E] Statistical interpretation of data - Tests and confidence intervals relating
to proportions;
k)
ISO 13448 Series[E] Acceptance sampling procedures based on the allocation-of-priorities
principle (APP);
l)
ISO 14560:2004[E] Assessment and acceptance sampling procedures for inspection by
attributes in number of nonconforming items per million items;
m)
ISO 16269 Series[E] Statistical interpretation of data;
n)
ISO 18414:2006[E] Accept-zero sampling schemes by attributes for the control of outgoing
quality;
o)
ISO/TR 18532:2009[E] A Guide to the application of statistical methods to quality and
standardization; and
p)
ISO 21247:2005[E] Quality plans for product acceptance - Combined accept-zero and
control procedures.
The latest version/edition of these references should be used. The UN Office for Disarmament
20
Affairs (UN ODA) holds copies of all references used in this guide. A register of the latest
version/edition of the International Ammunition Technical Guidelines is maintained by UN ODA,
and can be read on the IATG website: www.un.org/disarmament/un-saferguard/. National
20
Where copyright permits.
16
IATG 07.20:2015[E]
2nd Edition (2015-02-01)
authorities, employers and other interested bodies and organisations should obtain copies before
commencing conventional ammunition stockpile management programmes.
17
IATG 07.20:2015[E]
2nd Edition (2015-02-01)
Annex B
(informative)
References
The following informative documents contain provisions, which should also be consulted to provide
21
further background information to the contents of this guide:
a)
AOP 48. Explosives - Nitrocellulose Based Propellants, Stability Test Procedures and
Requirements Using Stabilizer Depletion. NATO Standardization Office (NSO);
b)
Conventional Ammunition in Surplus - A Reference Guide. Small Arms Survey. ISBN 28288-0092-X. Geneva. January 2008.
c)
Joint Service Publication 762, Through Life Munitions Management. MOD. UK. 2005;
d)
STANAG 4117 (Edition 3). Stability test procedures and requirements for propellants
stabilised with Diphenylamine, Ethyl Centralite or mixtures of both. NATO Standardization
Office (NSO);
e)
STANAG 4315, The Scientific Basis for the Whole Life Assessment of Munitions. NATO
Standardization Office (NSO);
f)
STANAG 4527 (Edition 1). Explosives - Chemical, Stability, Nitrocellulose based propellants,
procedure for assessment of chemical life and temperature dependence of stabiliser
consumption rates. NATO Standardization Office (NSO);
g)
STANAG 4541 (Edition 1). Explosives - Nitrocellulose Based Propellants Containing
Nitroglycerine and Stabilized with Diphenylamine, Stability Test Procedures and
Requirements. NATO Standardization Office (NSO);
h)
STANAG 4581. Explosives - Assessment of Ageing of Composite Propellants Containing an
Inert Binder. NATO Standardization Office (NSO);
i)
STANAG 4582. Explosives - NC Based Propellants Stabilised with DPA - Stability Test
Procedure and Requirements using HF – Calorimetry. NATO Standardization Office (NSO);
j)
STANAG 4620. Explosives - Nitrocellulose based Propellants - Stability Test Procedures and
Requirements Using Stabilizer Depletion. NATO Standardization Office (NSO);
k)
UK Defence Standard 05-101, Part 1, Proof of Ordnance, Munitions, Armour and Explosives:
Requirements. UK Defence Standardization. 24 November 2006;
l)
UK Defence Standard 05-101, Part 2, Proof of Ordnance, Munitions, Armour and Explosives:
Guidance. UK Defence Standardization.
m)
UK Defence Standard 05-101, Part 3, Proof of Ordnance, Munitions, Armour and Explosives:
Statistical Methods for Proof. UK Defence Standardization.
The latest version/edition of these references should be used. The UN Office for Disarmament
22
Affairs (UN ODA) holds copies of all references used in this guide. A register of the latest
version/edition of the International Ammunition Technical Guidelines is maintained by UN ODA,
and can be read on the IATG website: www.un.org/disarmament/un-saferguard/. National
authorities, employers and other interested bodies and organisations should obtain copies before
commencing conventional ammunition stockpile management programmes.
21
Data from many of these publications has been used to develop this IATG.
22
Where copyright permits.
18
IATG 07.20:2015[E]
2nd Edition (2015-02-01)
Annex C
(informative)
Guidance on physical inspection of ammunition (LEVEL 2)
C.1
Introduction
The physical (visual) inspection of ammunition is an important component in ensuring the overall
safety of the ammunition stockpile. It should be carried out by trained ammunition technical staff
who are conversant with the design principles of the ammunition and its modus operandi. This
Annex summarises Inspection Points that should be addressed during the physical inspection of
ammunition.
C.2
Inspection of ammunition packaging
It is important that the ammunition packaging is inspected as part of the in-service proof as the
packaging is a means of: 1) accurately identifying the ammunition; and 2) protecting the
ammunition during storage and transport. The following inspection points should be used:
a)
the packaging should be marked with the correct details of the ammunition;
b)
the metal fitments should be free from oxidation (rust);
c)
the package should be intact with minimal external damage; and
d)
the seals are intact.
C.3
23
Inspection of ammunition
Table C.1 contains inspection points to be checked for the main generic types of ammunition.
23
See IATG 06.40 Packaging and marking.
19
Artillery Ammunition (SL)
X
X
X
X
X
24
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Artillery Propelling Charges
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Grenades
X
X
X
X
X
X
Anti-Tank Mines
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pyrotechnics
X
X
Demolition Charges
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Rockets and Missiles
X
X
Fuzes
X
X
Base Cap Intact
X
X
Nose Cap Intact
X
X
Ignition System Undamaged
X
X
No Segment Rotation (Mechanical Time Fuzes)
Artillery Ammunition (Fixed)
X
Wax on Fuze Body (Pyrotechnic Time Fuzes)
X
Good Plasticity (If Applicable)
X
Explosive Charge Intact and Unbroken
X
Fuze Cavity Clear and Clean (If Unfuzed)
Mortar Ammunition
Safety Pin/Wire Secure (If Fuzed)
X
No Foreign Items In Charge Container
X
No Discolouration of Charge Container
Round/Shell/Munition Body Undamaged
X
Propellant Uncongealed and Well Distributed
Round/Shell Secure in Cartridge Case
X
No Exudation of Explosive/Pyrotechnic Filling
Undamaged Cartridge Case
X
Undamaged Fuze (If Fuzed)
Percussion Cap / Primer
X
Undamaged Fins
Correct Markings
Small Arms Ammunition
Generic Type
Undamaged Primary and Secondary Cartridges
Determine Rust Level
IATG 07.20:2015[E]
2nd Edition (2015-02-01)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Table C.1: Inspection points
Rust levels often represent a useful indicator of the overall condition of ammunition. Table C.2
provides an example system that may be used to compare ammunition serviceability against visible
rust.
Rust Level (RL)
Code
Summary
% of Rust
on Surface
Area
Serviceability
Assessment
RL = 1
Little visible rust levels
<5
Serviceable
None
RL = 2
Medium rust levels
>5
Serviceable
Expend at Training
Limited Serviceability
Repair
Request In-Service Proof
Unserviceable
Destroy
RL = 3
Heavy rust levels
>10
RL = 4
Very heavy rust levels
>40
Table C.2: Rust identification levels
24
Recommended
Action
See Table C.2.
20
IATG 07.20:2015[E]
2nd Edition (2015-02-01)
Annex D
(informative)
Example proof report (LEVEL 3)
In-Service Proof Reporting Form
Serial
1
IATG Form 07.20
Ammunition Details
1.1
ADAC
1.2
Description
1.3
Lot/Batch
34638-27A
Shell 155mm HE L15A2
GD 0897 020
1.4
Date of Manufacture or Filling
August 1997
1.5
Associated Products
Nil
2
Proof Details
Results of Pre-proof Inspection
Shell was clear of rust with no explosive exudation
apparent.
In good condition.
Details of Proof Apparatus
155mm Howitzer Self Propelled 35GA46
155mm Gun Serial Number 23877543
2.1
2.2
2.3
Climatic Conditions
2.4
Proof Results
2.5
3
3.1
Results of Post-proof Inspection
Ammunition conditioned at 150C for 8 hours
Temperature at time of firing 120C
Fine weather with no wind.
See Attachment 1 containing:
1.
Muzzle Velocities.
2.
Chamber Pressures.
3.
Projectile Range.
4. Projectile Accuracy.
Not Applicable as all Shells functioned as designed.
Certification
This form certifies that the in-service proof
has been carried out in accordance with
the proof schedule and instructions listed.
Proof Schedule 2009/10/A
3.2
Certifying Individual
Major A D Smith
3.3
Certifying Authority
Proof and Experimental Establishment 12
3.4
Signature
4
Distribution
4.1
Appropriate National Technical Authority
4.2
Contractor (where appropriate)
21
IATG 07.20:2015[E]
2nd Edition (2015-02-01)
Amendment record
Management of IATG amendments
The IATG guidelines are subject to formal review on a five-yearly basis, however this does not
preclude amendments being made within these five-year periods for reasons of operational safety
and efficiency or for editorial purposes.
As amendments are made to this IATG they will be given a number, and the date and general
details of the amendment shown in the table below. The amendment will also be shown on the
cover page of the IATG by the inclusion under the edition date of the phrase ‘incorporating
amendment number(s) 1 etc.’
As the formal reviews of each IATG are completed new editions may be issued. Amendments up
to the date of the new edition will be incorporated into the new edition and the amendment record
table cleared. Recording of amendments will then start again until a further review is carried out.
The most recently amended, and thus extant, IATG will be the versions that are posted on the UN
SaferGuard IATG website at www.un.org/disarmament/un-saferguard/.
Number
Date
0
01 Feb 15
Amendment Details
Release of Edition 2 of IATG.
22
Download PDF
Similar pages
OHIO
Rhode Island
Arizona
Michigan
897 kB3 Inch Target User Manual
Hawaii/Alaska/Virgin Island/Guam
Nevada
small caliber ammunition flex chutes
null 12955405
Washington D.C.