Police Body Armor Standards and Testing

119 Pages·1995·2.65 MB·English

V O .. ... M .. II APPIi N DI X I!!S
Police Body Armor Standards and Testing,
Police Body Armor
Vol. II—Appendixes
Standards and Testing
August 1992
OTA-ISC-535
NTIS order #PB92-101731
Recommended Citation:
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Police Body Armor Standards and Testing,
Volume II: Appendices, OTA-ISC-535 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,
September 1992).
For sale by the U.S.. Government Prlnting Office
Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328
ISBN O-1 6-038074-x
Foreword
For two decades, the number of police officers shot to death each year has been declining
while the number of officers shot has been increasing. The decrease in the lethality of
shootings is partly attributable to the increase in wearing of bullet-resistant body armor,
especially soft, inconspicuous armor designed to be worn full-time.
A prospective purchaser can see how much of the body an armor garment covers but
cannot see whether it will stop a particular kind of bullet at a particular velocity and protect
the wearer from the impact. To provide benchmarks for protection, the National Institute of
Justice issued NIJ Standard 0101.03 in 1987. It specifies standard procedures for testing
samples of armor. If samples of a model pass, the NIJ or the manfacturer may certify that the
model has the type of ballistic resistance for which it was tested.
The standard has been controversial since it was issued. This report describes the origin
of the standard, the rationale for particular provisions, and the main points of controversy,
which concern acceptable risks, the validity and discrimination of the test, and the
reproducibility of results. OTA finds that resolving these controversies will require specifying
acceptable risks quantitatively, performing additional research to test validity (the correspon-
dence of test results to performance in service), and implementing a quality-control program.
To date, all armor of NIJ-certified models has performed as rated in service-but
uncertified armor, including armor that would fail the test specified by the standard, has also
performed as advertised. This has provoked charges that the NIJ test is too stringent and fails
to discriminate some safe armor from unsafe armor. The validity and discrimination of the test
are technical issues that are susceptible to scientific analysis-if the NIJ specifies maximum
acceptable risks quantitatively. The report describes illustrative specifications of acceptable
risks and an experimental method for deciding whether the current test, or any proposed
alternative, limits the risks as required.
NIJ does not inspector test marketed units of certified models to see whether they are like
the samples that passed the model-certification test. Without a quality-control program, NIJ
has no basis for assuring police that the garments they buy and wear are like the samples NIJ
deemed adequate. Indeed, samples of some NIJ-certified models have failed retests and in
some cases differed from the samples originally tested for certification. This report describes
and compares several options for a quality-control program.
This assessment was requested by Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (Chairman), Senator
Strom Thurmond (Ranking Minority Member), Senator Dennis DeConcini, and Senator
Edward M. Kennedy of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary; Congressman John Joseph
Moakley, Chairman of the House Rules Committee; and Congressman Edward F. Feighan of
the House Committee on the Judiciary and of its Subcommittees on Crime and on Economic
and Commercial Law.
OTA’s findings and analysis of options were reported in Policy Body Armor Standards
and Testing: Volume Z in August 1992. This volume contains all appendices to the report.
u
JOHN H. GIBBONS
Director
.,.
Ill
Police Body Armor Standards and Testing Advisory Panel
Lester B. Lave, Panel Chair
James H. Higgins Professor of Economics
Graduate School of Industrial Administration
Carnegie-Mellon University
George N. Austin, Jr. David C. Hill
National Officer President
Fraternal Order of Police Fibers Division
Engineered Materials Sector
Lane Bishop
Allied-Signal, Inc.
Statistician
Center for Applied Mathematics Max Henrion
Allied-Signal, Inc. Member of the Technical Staff
Rockwell International Science Center
Alfred Blumstein
Dean and J. Erik Jonsson Professor of Urban Alexander Jason
Systems and Operations Research Ballistics Consultant
School of Urban and Public Affairs ANITE Group
Carnegie-Mellon University
Harlin R. McEwen
Michael Bowman Chief
Vice President and General Manager Ithaca Police Department
Fibers Department
Isaac Papier
E.I. duPont de Nemours Co., Inc.
Managing Engineer
Milton Brand Burglary Detection and Signaling Dept.
President Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.
The Brand Consulting Group
Richard Stone
James T. Curran President
Professor and Dean for Special Programs Point Blank Body Armor, Inc.
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
Dieter Wachter
City University of New York
Vice President of High-Performance Fabric
Donald R. Dunn Clark-Schwebel Fiberglass Corp.
President
Robert Wantz
H.P. White Laboratory, Inc.
President
Martin Fackler Personal Protective Armor Association
President
International Wound Ballistics Association
Michael A. Goldfarb
General Surgeon
Monmouth Medical Center
NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisory panel members. The panel does
not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this background paper. OTA assumes full responsibility for the background paper
and the accuracy of its contents.
iv
OTA Project Staff-Police Body Armor Standards and Testing
Lionel S. Johns, Assistant Director, OTA
Energy, Materials, and International Security Division
Akin Shaw, International Security and Commerce Program Manager
Michael B. Callaham, Project Director
Brian McCue, Senior Analyst
Jonathan Tucker, Analyst (through May 1991)
Administrative Staff
Jacqueline Robinson-Boykin
Office Administrator
Louise Staley
Administrative Secretary
Acknowledgements
OTA gratefully acknowledges the assistance of the following individuals and organizations for their
help in supplying information or in reviewing drafts of portions of this report. The individuals and
organizations listed do not necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report; OTA assumes full
responsibility for the report and the accuracy of its contents.
Allied-Signal, Inc. U.S. Department of Commerce
Kevin McCarter National Institute of Standards and Technology
Sam White Keith Eberhardt
Steven A. Young Lawrence K. Eliason
Daniel E. Frank
Aspen Systems, Inc.
John Whidden
Marc H. Caplan
Patent and Trademark Office
Wendy Howe
Deborah L. Kyle
Candace McIlhemy
U.S. Department of Defense
Canadian General Standards Board
Strategic Defense Initiative Organization
Marian L. Gaucher
Nicholas Montanarelli
E.I. duPont de Nemours and Co., Inc. Department of the Army
Thomas E. Bachner, Jr. Ballistics Research Laboratory
William Brierly Russell Prather
Louis H. Miner Chemical Research, Development,
Helen A. Slavin and Engineering Center
Larry Sturdivan
Elgin (IL) Police Department
Chief Charles A. Gruber U.S. Department of Justice
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
General Motors Research Laboratories
Daniel Hartnett
David C. Viano
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Hartford (VT) Police Department Bunny Morris
Chief Joseph G. Estey David Pisenti
Charles Barry Smith
Home Office Police Scientific Development Branch
National Institute of Justice
Eric Brown
Paul Cascarano
Jaba Associates (Ontario) Charles DeWitt
Alan Athey Paul Estaver
Point Blank Body Armor, Inc. University of Maryland
Gaetan (Tom) J. Dragone Prof. Girish Grover
Ann Beth Jenkins
Second Chance Body Armor, Inc.
Ian Twilley
Clinton Davis
Pamela Hinz Frederick Peter Watkins
Lester Shubin
vi
Contents
Appendix A. The Origin of and Rationale for the NIJ Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Appendix B. The Utility of Police Body Armor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Appendix C. Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Appendix D. Reenactments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Appendix E. Options for the Department of Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Appendix A
The Origin of and Rationale
for the NIJ Standard
Contents
Page
INTRODUCTION TO NIJ BODY ARMOR STANDARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Overview of the Current Standard and the Controversy Surrounding It . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
NILECJ STANDARD 0101.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Marking and Workmanship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Penetration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Deformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Types of Armor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Comments on Technology Specificity in the 0101.00 Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
NILECJ STANDARD 0101.01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Reasons for Replacing the 0101..00 Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Wet Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Marking and Workmanship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Penetration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
l
Deformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Origin and Rationale of the 44-mm BFS Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Types of Armor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...* 14
Results of Testing Under 0101.01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Comments on Technology Specificity in the 0101.01 Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Contents—Continued
Page
NIJ STANDARD 0101.02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Reasons for Replacing the 0101.01 Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Marking and Workmanship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Penetration ...., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Deformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Types of Armor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Results of Testing Under 0101.02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Comments on Technology Specificity in the 0101.02 Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
NIJ STANDARD 0101..03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Reasons for Replacing the 0101.02 Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Marking and Workmanship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Penetration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Deformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Types of Armor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Results of Testing Under 0101.03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Boxes
Box Page
A-1. Parametric Models for Estimating Probability of Blunt-Trauma Lethality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figures
Figure Page
A-l. Trauma to Goat Lung Caused by 158-Grain, .38-Caliber Bullet Stopped
by 5-Ply Kevlar Armor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
A-2. The .38-Caliber Deformation Envelope in 20 Percent Ballistic Gelatin Backing 7-Ply,
400/2-DenierKevlar 29 Armor Struck by 158-Grain, .38-Caliber Bullets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A-3. Correlation of Probability of Lethality With Deformation Depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Tables
Table Page
A-1. Summary of 0101.03 Armor Types According to the Ammunition Against
WhichTheyAreTested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
A-2. Summary of 0101.00Armor Types &cording to the Ammunition Against
Which They Pretested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
l
A-3. Backface Signature Parameters .38-Caliber, 158-Grain Projectile Versus
7-Ply Kevlar-29, 400/2 Denier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
A-4. Summary of 0101.01 Armor Types According to the Ammunition Against
Which They Were Tested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. 15
A-5. Summary of 0101.02Armor Types According to the Ammunition Against
Which They Were Tested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A-6. Summary of 0101.03 Armor Types According to the Ammunition Against
Which They Were Tested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
A-7. Results of 0101.03 Compliance Retests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A-8. Results of 0101.03 Certification Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Appendix A
The Origin of and Rationale for the NIJ Standard
INTRODUCTION TO NIJ BODY into the standards here and there. The most obvious
of these, introduced in the 0101.01 standard, is the
ARMOR STANDARDS
requirement that the vest be tested wet as well as dry.
This test was instituted in response to the finding
General
that a certain vest material could be penetrated more
Four standards for body armor, numbered 0101.00 readily when saturated with water than when dry.
through 0101.03, have been successively promul- Granting that police officers’ vests become wet and
gated by the U.S. Department of Justice’s National that wetness could make a difference to the ballistic
Institute of Justice (ND) and its predecessor, the performance of the vest,3 testing under wet condi-
National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal tions clearly makes sense. Yet why not test the vests
Justice (NILECJ). Compliance with these standards when they are cold, or hot, or covered with powdered
has been voluntary--companies perceiving that sugar? The answer that vests do not, in normal use,
benefit in the marketplace would accrue from their become sufficiently cold, hot, or covered with
products’ compliance with a Federal standard can powdered sugar to degrade their performance is at
submit their vests for certification according to the once a technology-specific consideration (some-
standard. Recognizing that different customers will body might someday come forward with a vest that
feel different needs for protection, the Justice proved highly sensitive to these conditions) and an
Department created standards that specify more than invitation to argue about the conditions arising in
one level of protection: 0101.00 set standards for normal use, including the level of wetness to which
three types of armor, expanded to six in later one can reasonably expect a vest to be subjected. We
standards. shall revisit the wetness issue in describing the
0101.01 standard-the purpose of raising it here is
The Justice Department recognized at the outset
merely to show how technology-specific considera-
that there is no such thing as 100-percent safety. In
tions can infiltrate a supposedly performance-
particular, it stated that the blunt trauma (bruising of
oriented standard.
internal organs) caused by the impact from a
nonpenetrating bullet on armor was to be survivable
in 90 percent of cases. As will be shown below, Overview of the Current Standard and the
implementors of the standard used conservative Controversy Surrounding It
judgment at a number of stages, leading to a
situation in which (as of this writing) nobody2 The National Institute of Justice 0101.03 Standard
wearing NIJ-certified armor has been killed by blunt for concealable body armor provides for the testing
trauma. of four types of soft body armor and two types of
rigid armor,4 collectively offering protection from
The question of technology-specific considerations- the full spectrum of small-arms threats. Compliance
those based on current vest construction, not desired with the standard is voluntary: some companies
vest performance-arises repeatedly in the formula- choose to comply and some do not, presumably
tion of standards for police body armor. To date, the reflecting different assessments of the benefits of
standards have specified performance, not construc- NIJ certification as compared to the costs of
tion: manufacturers are free to make a vest any way producing compliant vests. In a gray area, some
they want as long as it passes the test. However, companies assert that their vests comply with the
some technology-specific considerations have crept standard, but have not submitted them for official
1 Or, perhaps, in the courtroom.
2 k one probl~tic Cwe, avew heavy bullet fired from a rifle killed an offkerwithout penetrating his vest. Some therefore call M a dtiby blunt
trauma, while others point to the fact that the vest and the bullet both penetrated the officer, making the death more closely resemble a regular wound
and not blunt trauma.
3 Though itneednot-thematerial thatperformspoorly when wet can be waterproofed or encased in a waterproof cover and thereby retain its ballistic
efficacy.
4 A5 well ~ for a gen~c ~5t of “PM type” armor, whose d~kd kvel of b~tic Pfo
rmance is MI up to the user.
–3–